Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDalchet Corp. - DeniedTHE FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD WAS ARRIVED AT BY UNANIMOUS VOTE AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 1984: WHEREAS, a petition was heretofore filed with the Town Board of the Dalchet Corporation, James R, Foclarty, Town of Southold by ..G....e~...r.~t~9..n.p..a..~gg.9..r.~Y.,...J...o.h~). Pungx Irwin S... Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Litt~l'l~'":"6~] '~'~'6~"~J~ver yel~$'s~l~g a change, modification and amendment of the Building Zone Ordinance including the Building Zone Maps made a part thereof by chang- "A" Residential and lng from ......... Agricultu~r. aJ ............ District to '.'.l~.zJ.'~....L. jg}~..B..~.s.J.0.~.s.~.. District the property described in said petition, and WHEREAS said petition was duly referred to the P'lanning 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 ....~l.~..h. ........ day of .......... .F..e...b..r.g.a...r.~ .................... , 19.~..4...., and due deliberation having been had thereon NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the relief demanded in said petition be, and it hereby is DENIED, for the following reasons: (1) The requested change of zone is not consistent with the present Southold Town Master Plan. (2) It has not been demonstrated to the Town Board that there is a need for additional "B-l" General Business District in said location. Dated: April 24, 1984. By Order of the Southold Town Board Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk RECEIVED ,., 1984 GUY w. GERMANO Attorney At Law 474 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BRIGHTWATERS, NEW YORK 11718 (516) 666-7988 April 24, 1984 Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York ~971 Re: Environmental Review of the Dalchek application for a change of zone from "A" resi- dential to "B-[" Main Road, Cutehogue Dear Ms. Terry: Enclosed please find four (4) petitions containing the signatures of 32 Southold residents submitted in opposition to the Dalchek change of zone application on the basis of the adverse environmental injury that this proposal will have on the community. Please include these petitions in the record of the environment review of this application. Thank you. Very truly yours, ce: Supervisor Frank Murphy The Honorable Francis Murphy Supervisor Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Supervisor Murphy: We the undersigned do strenuously oppose the Dalchek application for strip commercial use along Main Road in Cutchogue on the following environ- mental grounds: That the increased commercial activity will bring forth increased vehicular traffic impairing the safety in local travel. The increased activity will produce noise, glare, and other en- vironmental effects as to undermine the quality of life for resi- dents in the area. The environmental effects of increased activities will contribute to the decline of air quality. The proposed change of zone will undermine the visual quality of our neighborhood environment. We respectfully urge the Town Board to deny the Dalchek application on the grounds that it will benefit only the applicants by creating a commer- cial windfall to the detriment of the health, safety, and environment of we the citizens of the immediate area. / · The ! nora ±~ Francia Murphy SuDervisor Town ~f Southold 53095 Main ~< $ounho!d, N York 11971 Dear Super,- .ur Murphy: We th~ undersigned do strenuously oppose the Dalchek app]icatio- for That the ''~ teased ccmmercial ncti,,itv v=hiculer traffic impairing the salety in local travel. vir)nmentel effects as to und~,rr.:ii~e the quali~y of life f~r resi- e. nviron:~enta! effects of increase: activities wJi! c,::tribute the decline of air quality. proposed change of zone ~ ~i! undermine the visual 6uaiitx, cf neighborhood environment. ~,e resla'~tfully urge the Town Boasd to deny the Daichek appiJe&~tion the grounds ..... ~ it ~,.~ !i benefit only, c}:~~ a~plicants by creating ~ .... ( ..... to the detriment of the h~aith~ safety, and environn~ u of w Th: L oaor¢ . Frcnci~ Murphy St~pervi sgr 53095 }{sin ' ~.c, Sout~h:~d, }2', York 11971 Dear Superx ~ .ir Murphy: le th2 u:~dersigned do strenuousl} ei pose tho Dalchek applicarCn for the i: teased commercial ~-ctivity will bring forth ~.~,icular traffic impairing the safety in local travel. · increased activity will produce noise, glare, and + - ~ ..... ' affects as to undc~nine the quality of life ~' ' rest- %, ,~roposed change of zone w~i± under~ine tNe ,.isual quality cf ~ .' r~eigi~ _hood en'.~ronment. .e re zfully .rse the lown Bo~ .: ,~o deny Lhe Daichek app!5,~tion tNe j ound~ that it '~iii benezit only ~ ~ appiica~ts by creating ~ ciai ~inOf ~ to the dezrimcnt of the he-lth, salcny, and environm~ ~ of we The !onorab~, Francis Murphy Tc~r: ef Sou i.old :,'3095 }{air $outhoid, Na York ~1971 Dear Supervi:or Hurph:: 5. e th~ u:.dersigned do strenuously e~pose the Dalchek application for .~-tr~l eommer !al use along Main Road i.~ ,"utchcg=e on d~e following environ- me~iua] grou' ds: lbat the increased commercial ~ eti~ity will bring forth :~creased v~hicuiar tratfic impairing ~ie safety in lo,al travel. T .~ increa~.i acti¥ity will iroduce noise, glare, and otha: ~.:- ~'::onnenta! effects as to unce~z~ine the qualit, of life for res- The en~ironmental effects of inereas=:i ~ :'~tiviz:e~, ~.,~ill c:ntrlhute ts aha decline of ai~ quality. fha proposed change of zone will uncermine l],~ visual qt~l~ty of ~uT neighborhood environment. Le respec:~fui!y urge the Town Board to deny the Dalchek applzast!on :u-: mho [irounds rkau it ~'ill benefit only ~ applicants by cresting a co.~aner- cial t~indfai_ to the detriment of the l~=~:~th, sa}cry, and environment of n'= the?~c2Jtiieas et the~_immediate~_ ~ ~area' JUI)ITHT FI-RRY TOWNCI,]RK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-180/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated: April 24, 1984 Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review and 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that the Southold Town Board, as lead agency for the action described below, has determined that the project, which is unlisted will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Petition of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgianna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, Willim A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-I" General Business District on certain property located east of Stillwater Avenue and west of Harbor Lane, on Route 25, Cutchogue, New York. The project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: An environmental assessment has been submitted which indicated that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. Because there has been no response in the allotted time from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, it is assumed that there is no objection nor comments by that agency. Further information can be obtained by contacting Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Copies to: David DeRidder, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Richard F. Lark, Esq., on behalf of Dalchet Corp., et.al. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD APRIL 10, 1984 8:00 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY DALCHET CORPORATION, JAMES R. FOGARTY, GEORGIANNA FOGARTY, JOHN PUNG, IRWIN S. KRUGER, REYNOLD F. BLUM, WILLIAM A. LITTELL, AND NANCY GLOVER VICTORIA, IN RESPECT TO THEIR PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "A" RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "B-l" BUSINESS DISTRICT ON CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHER SIDE OF ROUTE 25, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK. Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR MURPHY: At this time I would like to open the public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Dalchet Corporation in connction with their petition for a Change of Zone request on Main Road in Cutchogue. I would like to ask Councilman Townsend to read the official notice. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: "Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 10, 1984, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgianna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria, in connection with their petition for a Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-I" General Business District on certain property owned by them, located on the southerly side of Route 25, east of Stillwater Avenue and west of Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, New York. Applicants are requesting a Change of Zone on this property so it might be properly utilized to provde an area for the growth of general type business. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. Dated: February 29, 1984, Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." We have affidavits from The Suffolk Times and The Traveler that the notice was advertised and an affidavit from Judith Terry that it was placed on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. Since this is one of the SEQR hearings, which we must hold, I won't bother to read to you the various recommendations on the Change of Zone that we've already been through. That's all. Page 2 - Draft ElS Hep. .g - Dalchet SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Joseph. At this time is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the Dalchet Corporation on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement? RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ., Main Road, Cutchogue, New York: On behalf of the applicants Dalchet. The Town Board, back on June 7th, 1983 adopted a resolution requesting the applicants to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Enconsultants of 64 North Main Street, Southampton, was retained by your applicants to assist them in preparation of such a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which they have done, and it is on file with the Town Clerk in this matter. The draft statement does provide you, as members of the Town Board with detailed information about the effect of the proposed Change of Zone and its effect on the environment. It deals with all the specifics which can be reasonably anticipated, and any conclusions generally that would be attributed to the granting of the proposed Change of Zone, and will be in keeping, the summary of it, as a summary that it 'was concluded that the present residential zoning is no longer viable, given the type and the extent of commercial develop- ment in the area. The change to general business, under the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance, will allow development which is in keeping with the surroundings without having any significant adverse impact on the environment. I have here tonight with me, two gentlemen who will talk about their respective portions of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Roy Haje and Mr. Richard Strang, and these gentlemen will be available to you, as members of the Town Board, to answer any questions. I believe that all the requirements of the Environmental Quality Review Law have been complied with and the application for the Change of Zone is in keeping with these requirements, and what the applicant is asking is that you accept the findings in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, declare a Negative Declaration, so that you will then be in a position to vote yea or nay on the Change of Zone application under the SEQR law as I understand it. So at this time I would like to present Mr. Roy Haje. Some of you know him, but just by way of background, Roy has a BA degree in Biology from Queens College. He's got a Masters of Science degree in Marine Sciences from Long Island University, a Master of Science degree also in Marine and Environmental Studies from SUNY at Stony Brook. Roy, as some of you know him, worked for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as a Permit Agent for over eleven years, and he started Enconsultants, Inc. in 1980, and he has been involved in extensive preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Statements, as well as Final Impact Statements, permit applications, land evaluations, and etcetera, and he comes highly qualified to talk about his subject matter. So I'd like to present him to you now, if I might, Mr. Murphy. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. MR. ROY L. HAJE, President, Enconsultants, Inc.: We were asked to prepare an Impact Statement for the Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agri- cultural to "B-I", and in doing that we reviewed the usual list of concerns whict~ may arise in such a project. These include potential effects upon resources, air, water, etc. For the first, the land itself is comprised, prim- arily of Haven soils. These are typical Long Island soils. They are rich, fertile, and provide much of the area which is used for farming in Suffolk County for the routine crops, such as potatoes, cauliflower, etcetera. The slopes on this parcel are all either flat to gradually rolling. There is a small Page 3- Draft ElS Hea~..~g - Dalchet potential for erosion, due to the relatively flat nature of the property. The hydrology of the area, there are no surface bodies of water which would be directly or indirectly involved. Regarding the groundwater, we requested information from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater in the area and were provided with information on recent wells which were dug in that area. These indicate that the groundwater in that area is of sufficient quality and quantity to supply not only those activities which they were requested, but are most likely to be sufficient for what we are requesting here, a Change of Zone to this type of development. The ecology of the area. The vegetation is not natural, since this area has been lived upon, farmed and otherwise utilized for many years. It is not a "natural habitat", it is an area which contains ornamentals which had in the past contained farming, which also supports a nearby vineyard. Again, these are good quality soils. The wildlife in the area is typical of species which would be expected to be found in and around an area which is developed with homes, businesses, which has traffic and constitute the normal range of birds, small mammals, and animals of that sort. There will be a change in the visual character, assuming that the zone change is granted and subsequent construction occurs. At the present time there are a few residences. The Change of Zone will allow commercial development. This would be a change in the visual character, but it would be in keeping with the nearby development directly across the street, for example, and to the east and also to the west. The adverse effect, which could not be avoided, asssuming the project is to go forward primarily revolves about the loss for farming purposes of the Have soils. This is a rather small, localized area. Extrapilating, we would not anticipate that this would be a significant impact. The irreversible, and again irretrievable commitments of resources again revolve about the loss of the soils. The growth inducing aspects of the project. This is always a difficult one to predict. If this would induce others to develop in a similar manner, or if this is more the result of the nearby development, I would suspect that it is the latter, since the immediate vicinity is developed in commercial-type establish- ments. It no longer seems viable to have residences in this immediate area, given the amount of commercial traffic, lighting, noise, etcetera. At this time if there are any questions, I would be happy to try to answer them. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Any Board members have any questions? (No response.) Thank you, Roy. MR. HAJE: Okay, I would like to introduce Mr. Richard Strang. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in New York and has Masters degree in Civil Engineering and Transportation Planning. He has 27 years of professional experience in municipal government and private practice as a Traffic Engineer. He was involved in the preparation of the traffic report, and will give you a brief summary of the results. MR. RICHARD STRANG: I represent Vincent P. Donnelly who is also a licensed Professional Engineer, and was unable to attend the meeting tonight. However, I was intimately involved in the preparation of this report and traffic study and intimately familiar with the findings and its recommendations. Mr. Donnelly is a Traffic Engineer with 20 years of professional experience, both State municipal levels of government, and also in private practice. The report which is included in the Environmental--Draft Environmentla Impact Statement that we did, was to analyze the impact that alternative commercial uses would have on the adjacent Page 4- Draft ElS Hea, .,g - Dalchet street system. The report itself reviews the existing roadway, the traffic conditions in the area. It estimates the volume and pattern of traffic that would be generated by uses which would be consistent with the "B-I" zoning, and it also analyzes the effect of this additional traffic on the adjacent street system. The traffic data that was used for the report was obtained on the basis of field surveys, which were conducted during the fall of 1983, and also traffic volume information which was available from the files of the New York State Department of Transportation and the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. These data were analyzed in detail and a determination was made on the current level of traffic service in the area. The volume of traffic generated by alternative uses consistent with the "B-I" zoning, were also done as part of this investigation. We looked at several different worst case scenarios. In other words, the worst possible traffic intensive use. A shopping center, an office building, or a combination office building-shopping center. The traffic generated by each of these alternate uses was then added to the existing traffic in the area and based on standard traffic engineering procedures, a determination was made as to the project level of traffic service and safety in the area. Direct access to the site will be provided by Route 25, t~ain Road. Route 25 is a two-lane State highway, which provides local traffic service to the various hamlets along the North Fork. In the vicinity of the site, it consists of two 12 foot wide travel lanes, with 8 foot wide shoulder areas. The traffic volume data available from the New York state Department of Transportation indicates that the average daily two-way traffic volume on Main Road is 8,000 vehicles per day. This traffic volume is an adjusted value, which has been averaged out seasonal traffic fluxuations along the road. A review of seasonal traffic volumes indicates the volumes along the road do vary as much as 70%, which a Iow volume during the January and February period, and peak volumes occurring during the summer months. Daily traffic volumes also vary along Route 25. During the summer Fridays and Saturdays are peak travel days, while during non-summer periods, Thursdays and Fridays are peak days. The hourly week- day traffic volume along Route 25 reflect the importance of this roadway for both journey to work trips and also shopping trips. Peak traffic flow on weekdays occurs between 4 and 5 P.M. Traffic surveys conducted during October 1983 indicated the two-way traffic volume of 890 vehicles per hour during the 4 to 5 P.M. period. Traffic control in the area consists of a 40 mile an hour speed limit in the immediate vicinity of the site, and a two phase traffic signal at the Route 25 and New Suffolk Road intersection. As part of our investigation we also reviewed the reported traffic accident experience along the road as determined from the record files of the New York State Department of Trans- portation. During the four period 1979 to 1982 there were an average of approx- imately three reported traffic accidents a year in the immediate vicinity of the site. The intersection of New Suffolk Road and Main Road averaged approximately the same, three accidents per year. As part of our investigation we were not able to identify any unusual traffic safety problems in the area. In terms of future traffic generation, as I had indicated earlier, analysis was made of three alternative uses of the site. An 80,000 square foot shopping center, a 90,000 square foot office park, and a combination shopping center-office complex. It's extremely important when reading the document to recognize that the figures presented in the report represent the worst case scenario. In other words, the traffic volumes are the maximum potential traffic volumes that could be generated by this particular site under commercial zoning. The summary of our investigation indicated that traffic volumes can vary appreciably, depending on the specific use of the commercial site. Daily trip generation at the site can range from 1100 vehicles per day for an office park, to over 8600 vehicles per day for a community shopping center. Peak hour traffic flow would similarly vary from 200 vehicles per hour to over 1000 vehicles per hour. Based on Page 5 - Draft ElS Hea.~.~g - Dalchet this investigation it has been determined that the existing Route 25 presently operates at a relatively good level of service throughout the year. Although some minor restrictions to traffic flow exists in commercial areas, and at the Route 25 and New Suffolk Road intersection, the overall existing level of service of Route 25 is presently very good. Route 25 is currently operating at only 50% of the traffic level where major traffic congestion would occur. An analysis of the projected traffic conditions based on the various "B-I" zoning uses demon- strates that at Iow peak hour traffic volumes would increase in the area, Route 25 would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service, even under the most traffic intensive use, an 80,000 square foot community shopping center. The worst case traffic conditions on a Saturday in the summer to such a shopping center would still result in over 30% roadway capacity available on Route 25 before major congestion would occur. Based on this investigation, and with the adequate provisions of traffic control measures and the access drive to the site, it is our professional opinion that the traffic generated by development of the site to "B-I" zoning can be safety and adequately accomodated by Route 25 at an acceptable level of traffic service. There will be no major adverse impact in traffic conditions in this area by developing the site to the permitted "B-l" uses. Thank you, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Do any members of the Board have any questions? Jay? Joe? Paul? Ray? Thank you sir. Okay, is there anyone else here would like to speak in favor of the Dalchet Corporation's Draft Environmental Impact Statement? (No response.) Anyone would like to speak in opposition to it? Mrs. Ruth Oliva. MRS. RUTH OLIVA, President, North Fork Environmental Council: We go back to what we were talking about today, Jay, or I've said it before, that there is no impartial way of really dealing with these things. You have a developer who has the money to go forth and he has to prepare the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and has the experts come to testify and then the other side gets up, who does not have any money, but just from a gut reaction, and observing what goes on down at that area, that we feel that the traffic problem is underestimated and would cause even greater havoc than it is now. You know the line of sight there is just unbelievable. We have stated before that we feel that piece is just bad planning to put another shopping center across from the existing one. That the whole idea of good planning was to provide open space between the hamlets, and we feel it would set a precedent to continue this on even further east. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak in opposition? (No response.) Is there anyone would like to make any comments at all? Jean Tiedke. MRS. JEAN TIEDKE, Southold: Yes, I would like to talk neither for nor against but with possibly some new ideas, I don't know. Dalchet claims that residential zoning on this site is no longer viable. The claim is that general business development is more in keeping with the present development across the road. This rational is similar to that used by both the Town Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals in extending strip development contrary to the earlier Master Plan and to the proposed Master Plan. Although Dalchet indicates that there are no immediate plans to develop the property, they state that the most likely Page 5 - Draft ElS Hea..g - Dalchet use is "for general business, similar in type and scale to that which exists nearby." Which obviously is Key Food and the rest of those that are there. The Town Board must consider just how much more of such general business we really need, where it should be located, and this may or may not be the most logical site for more general business. The DEIS recognizes that this farm soil is valuable. We question whether covering afl of that good farm soil with buildings and roadways is indeed the highest and best use of this property. The DEIS also notes the 1969 Raymond and May Master Plan for the Town shows this property as low density residential, as did the earlier development map of Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, just last fall. The DEIS also says there would be no visual impact from their rezoning. This is a rather odd statement. The fact is that stores and shops would replace what is a consider- able amount of open space right now. Since the proposed Master Plan is under consideration, we suggest that the Town Board withhold a rezoning decision at this time. There does not seem to be any real haste. With no immediate plans for development, further exploration of alternatives for this property is possible. Might a PUD, a Planned Unit Development, be appropriate, with some residential development and some office space? Or perhaps maintaining some of the farmland might be advantageous. With a little imagination and perhaps with the Industrial Development Bond, which you mentioned earlier this evening, that other possibilities might even show up. We do not believe that a rezoning decision on this tract must be made immediately. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Jean. Is there anyone else would like to comment? Mr. Lark. MR. LARK: A couple of comments to Mrs. Tiedke. It is true that when Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner did the plan for the Town in the lat~60's that they did recommend Iow density. There were five businesses in the area there. As I pointed out to you before, there are now over 20 active business in this immediate vicinity. There has been a significant change in the last 13 to 14 years in the surrounding properties, and it is interesting to note, although we're not here to discuss the Change of Zone, but only for you to consider the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared, that is before you, I just wanted to comment on that, and it is interesting to note that your planners, both professional, Raymond, Parish and Pine again, have recommended this for general commercial area, because they recognized that the hamlet of Cutchogue has extended beyond its traditional environs, centering around New Suffolk Lane and the traffic light, the library and the church area, it has spread out just by virtue of the law of economics in the last 13, 14 years. Furthermore, the Planning Board has recommended it. The Suffolk County Planning Commission left it for local determination, so I don't--although that's not the issue here for you people to decide and discuss as a result of this hearing, I think it is relevant to comment on those comments. That there's been an awful lot of expenditure in time and effort from both your side, meaning Southold Town's side, the Planning Board, your professional planners, and the County, as well as Enconsultants and the applicant here, to try to find a viable use for this property, because, if you'll recall, at the last public hearing on February 14th, I just ask you to go to the property, walk it at various times during the day and in the evening and you iudge for yourself and I think that's ultimately what the issue will be. Because whether some of the opposition likes it or not, you, the Town Board, are the ultimate determination, and actually are the ultimate planners for the destiny of the Town, and that's why I invited you very candidly, to go to the property at various times, and you've got to keep in mind that it's not just one property, there are several landowners there, and they've all banded together in the joint application, rather than just one, and it is interested, because I experienced that phenomena last Page 6- Draft ElS Hea..~g - Dalchet summer and you have to experience it yourself to see how that area has changed over the last ten to twelve years. Thank you very much for your time. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Sir? MR. ROBERT 13ENNFTT, 2375 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue: In the immediate vicinity of the site that is proposed for upzoning. I speak to you this evening and ask you to support this application and to grant the upzoning. I have occasion, several times a day, to exit from Harbor Lane immediately adjacent to this particular property. I'm raising two small children here in Southold. I came out here for a better style of life, and I hope that they will stay out here. I realize that in order for them to do that there must be jobs and I think a limited amount at the acquiesence of the Town Board, of development along 25, is in fact in the best interest of the hamlet of Cutchogue. And when I say a limited amount I mean from the existing hamlet at New Suffolk--the existing intersection at New Suffolk Avenue all the way east to Harbor Lane, the street where I live. All you have to do is look across the street at the new legal office building that's being constructed, or look at the clock shop to see that there can in fact be business development that lends to the character of the community and I would ask you to accept this Environmental Impact State- ment that's offered tonight and support the application for the upzoning. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone have any questions? (No response.) Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak? Yes? MRS. NANCY VICTORIA DERMODY: I again just want to reiterate and clarify. People seem to think that we as individuals who have applied for this zone change are a corporation. We're not a corporation. We are each individuals. There's no big money deal behind this. There's no plans for sure, as far as I'm concerned, of building any sort of shopping center, besides which my little square wouldn't lend itself to and on that order. That's all I have to say in regard to this particular application. I have something else to say, and I'm sure it's totally out of order, but I don't know where else to put it. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Go ahead and say it. MRS. DERMODY: As a lot of you know, I drive a school bus, and I drove that school bus during this last storm that we had, which you spoke of before. I want to extend my thanks and commend the Town Highway Department for their efforts during that storm. I happened to drive Nassau Point, and as fast as the trees were coming down, and they were coming down very quickly in all directions, the men from the Highway Department were there and they were cutting them up and clearing them to the sides of the road. As I said, I'm sure this is out of order, but I just want to say, thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you very much. All right, is there anyone else would like to make any comments? Jean? MRS. TIEDKE: Frank, I'd like to suggest that maybe you hold this public hearing open for another ten days or two weeks. We know the problems we get into when they close them off, boom. Because there may be people here who would like to add something to what they've already said, or who are unwilling to get up and speak at a public meeting, but do have something to offer, and even if it's not professional, it is public opinion, and I think it's valuable. Page 7 - Draft ElS He~. ,~g - Dalchet SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Mr. Tasker, would you like to comment on that? I'm sorry. Is this proper? TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: The question, I guess, is whether or not to keep the hearing open? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Should we recess it? TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: This is a matter in the discretion of the Town Board, but to keep a hearing open is the exception to the rule, rather than the rule, and I would suppose that there should be a real good reason why a hearing should be continued. That's the only comment I have. The question is really a question for the Town Board. It's not normal and there has to be a valid reason, I would think, to convince the Board to take the unusual step of continuing a hearing. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Any Town Board member like to comment? Joe? COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: I was just wondering--I know that in every environ- mental impact assessment you usually deal with how it's going to affect the overall quality of life, which is part of the environment, and I was wondering if--I'm not familiar, you say that in the worst scenario, and we have to go by the worst scenario, because whether you intend to put a shopping center on that or not, it is irrelevant, it has to be based on what you can put on a piece of property. A Change of Zone cannot be considered in the terms of what probably will be put on, but what can be put on. One of the things that concerns me about a project such as this is what happens in Mt. Sinai and Port Jefferson and that which is an analogous situation where you have a two-lane highway and I'm sure that if you would do an analysis of the road you'd find that it was probably 70% utilized or 80% utilized, but there has been an impact in the way of life in those areas from farmland to this kind of thing. Has any of the applicants--would they care to comment on impact of that nature? Has that been discussed? MR. STRANG: I'm quite familiar with the Mt. Sinai-Miller Place area. Route 25A in that area has a volume of around 25,000 vehicles per day, an average daily traffic volume. Main Road has an average daily traffic volume of 8,000 here. During the summer months it goes up to ten to eleven thousand. think you are talking about change of dramatically different scales. When we say full development to commercial or shopping center and the traffic volumes that will be generated would provide an acceptable level of service, the statement we would give on Route 25A in Miller Place, it would be an intolerable level of service, it would be major congestion and delay. There is a significant difference. The volumes--the additional traffic certainly will result as a result of commercial development, but you're not talking about having major congestion. You're talking about having traffic conditions which are somewhat restricted in that it is a two-lane road and opportunities to pass may not be as extensive as they were, but you're not talking about having extensive ques of traffic and traffic signals and things that nature. It would be a level of service that is generally analogous to eastern Brookhaven-Riverhead area, where generally it's a higher traffic intensity, but certainly nothing which approaches anything in the western part of the county. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Let me see if I can maintain a little dialogue here. Is there a probability or possibility at this site that the road could be widened? Page 8 - Draft ElS He~ ng- Dalchet For instance, in Riverhead they have a situation like that and recently spent a lot of money widening those roads so they would create a little more flow-- I'm talking about Route 58. If that is going to be an analogous situation, do we have the same potential in this site to widen the roads? MR. STRANG: Well, Route 25 is a State highway. It's existing right-of-way is 66 foot. The pavement that's out there is approximately 40 feet, and within that 40 feet certainly any turning lanes that would be required could be developed. I would not see, as a result of this development, the need to widen the two- lane road. It certainly would be desirable to add turning lanes in the vicinity of any shopping that is developed, if it could be developed that way. It would be desirable today to have probably turning lanes in the vicinity of the Key Food Shopping Center, but it all would be done within the existing pavement. Again, Route 58 is somewhat different in that you're talking about extensive strip of four miles long of commercial development, which again interms of traffic volumes Route 58 has a daily traffic volume of around 15,000 vehicles per day and has extensive undeveloped property along it and has tremendous potential for increased traffic volumes along the whole road. It's not an analogous situation. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Thank you. COUNCILAMN STOUTENBURGH: Could I ask a question there.~ Someone has brought the point up to me that you just said that we're going to have between ten and eleven thousand. Was that the figure you just said? MR. STRANG: That's what you now have during peak summer months. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: And that's at our present population, and as you know the planners of this Town have predicted doubling the population. Would you then assume that the traffic would then be doubled in bringing it up to the figure that would be somewhat a problem in that area? MR. STRANG: Well, certainly as part of our investigation we have not done that type of analysis. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: And I think that's a rather important. MR. STRANG: What they see as the route of Route 25 in the future, is a two lane road or as a wider road, but I certainly don't think the scale of the development of the project we're talking about here has any impact on that decision, whatever it might be. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: That was my point. I'd like to speak to Roy Haje. Roy, what alternatives have you suggested for this? As part of SEQR you're supposed to have some alternatives. MR. HAJE: Well, the one alternative, which COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Do nothing. MR. HAJE: Do nothing alternative. That would allow the present residences to remain, the present farmland to remain. This is obviously the least intrusive on the environment. Since the situation now would be perpetuated. The other alternatives are within the range of possible development of the parcel within the requested zoning to "B-I"o Page 9 - Draft ElS Hea..ng - Dalchet COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Did you put those in your Impact Statement? MR. HAJE: I believe we have discussed them and also the traffic review has discussed them. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH. I don't recall reading that. MR. HAJE: I believe we did discuss them. Within the "B-I" there is any number of possible alternatives to development. Commercial office, etcetera, or combination thereof. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: This is supposed to be presented though. MR. HAJE: Well, it's difficult to predict what's going to occur within that zoning. I think the effect upon the environment of any of them would be similar in that you have restrictions on what can be done as far as, for example, use of your water. There can't be any high development, high industrial use, for example, which would be allowed in there, which would be a heavy water user, for example. That would be not possible. Office zoning or commercial zoning would have a similar use or demand upon the water. So in that respect that would be similar, depending no matter which type development would be selected. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: I'm sorry, but these are supposed to be spelled out. Alternatives are part of the environmental impact statement. MR. HAJE: Well, again, I believe that we have discussed the possible alternatives in there and they would be similar. COUNCILMAN STOUTENI3URGH: Okay. That's all my question was. SL~PERVISOR MURPHY: Dick, could you clear up one point I think that was made. Mrs. Victoria mentioned that it's not one parcel, that there are a lot of parcels involved. How many parcels are there? MR. LARK: Seven. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Are all these parcels so you could have seven different businesses? MR. LARK: Yes. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Are all these parcels presently--would they conform to the zoning code of I believe 30,000 square feet, 150 foot frontage? MR. LARK: I believe so, with the exception of possibly Mrs. Dermody's-- Nancy Victoria Dermody. How big is yours, Nancy? MRS. DERMODY: 110 by 160. MR. LARK: No, that wouldn't. That would be the only one. The rest of them would, yes. The rest of them exceed the 30,000 square feet. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, thank you. Is there any Board members have any questions? · Page 10- Draft ElS Hearing - Dalchet COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Yes, Frank. What is Dalchet Corporation? I mean is that a corporation? MR. LARK: I can answer that, Mr. Schondebare. It could have very well been that if we'd made the first name in the application John Pung, this would have been the Pung application. As it turned out, we named the property owners starting at the east and moving to the west, and they own on the corner of Harbor Lane and the Main Road, and we started with that one and then worked our way west. If we started at Homan's, at the Braun Oyster Company, we would have started with the last name, the name would have been Nancy Glover Victoria. That would have been the application. It just so happened, that was just accidental the way it worked out. We just took the names off the survey and went from the corner up to Braun Oyster Company. We could have gone in reverse. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Yes, but you are a corporation. MR. LARK: No. Dalchet Corporation is a corporation which owns the corner piece. They're an individual landowner. Just one name. They own one piece of property, and right next door to them it's owned by James and Georgianna Fogarty. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Should have gone the other way. MR. LARK: Right. Just happened that way. Then it would have been known as the Victoria application. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: That would have been easier. MR. LARK: It had to start logically one way or the other. That's just the way it worked out. I hope that answers the question. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Dick. Any other questions of any Board members? Anyone in the audience? Any comments? Jean? MRS. TIEDKE: Mr. Tasker kind of left me hanging in mid-air with no answer. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: It's the Board's decision I think he said. MRS. TIEDKE: Yes, but he said it isn't usual. Why is it so unusual? TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: Well, I guess the answer is that the law provides for a hearing on a certain day at a certain time to hear all people. It doesn't say six hearings or continuing hearings. It says a hearing. At a time and place. MRS. TIEDKE: But many hearings are held--- TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: They would be the exception I would say. It is very rare that we continue a hearing and there has to be, usually, a good reason given for the continuation. MRS. TIEDKE: Would you like a reason? Page 11 - Draft ElS He~.ing - Dalchet TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: Well, you just asked me the question and as I said, this is a matter that's within the discretion of the Board, but usually it would seem that if you're asking for an exceptional thing that there would have to be a reason to explain why it should be done different than the normal case. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, is there any other comments? (No response.) If not, I would like to poll the Board. Jay, would you like to recess or close the hearing? COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Close the hearing. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Joe? Well, unless anybody has any significant piece of information that they feel will come up and they would like to have a chance to respond to something that they have not been able to respond to, or they're not prepared. Is there anybody--may I address this to the-- SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Is there anyone that feels that there is significant information that has not been addressed that should be addressed that would necessitate the recessing of this hearing at this point? (No response.) If there is no significant information, then I would vote to close the hearing. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Paul? COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE' I could only say what happened in the application on Nassau Point. That I'm not quite sure, without some technical background, I could interpret some of these figures that have been given to us. They have expertise giving material and somehow we should have expertise answering that material, and I do not feel that I am an expertee in traffic control, or if these are correct, or of this Environmental Impact Statement is complete, and therefore, again, we are hiring a planner whose job is going to be to oversee these things and come up with a suggestion of ideas that we could then act on and I'd feel much more comfortable with that then just off the top of my head saying yes or no on something like this. So I would like to hold it until our planner could look at it. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Ray, you got any comments? JUSTICE EDWARDS: I'd like to see it closed. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, I agree with Paul, myself and hopefully we're going to hire this planner tonight and I would like to set up a set of procedures and so that the Town Board does not get locked into a situation where we have to act, maybe in a way that the Town Board really would not want to act and I would--I'd like to recess this for one week until we could talk-- COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Why don't we recess it until the next Board meeting? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, we'll recess it until the next regular scheduled Board meeting and we'll open the hearing at that time we would close it. And hopefully we are going to hire this planning consultant and this is one of the first things that I will ask him to address, is the procedures for this very thing that we're going tonight. Page 12 - Draft ElS He~.ing - Dalchet TOWN CLERK TERRY: You will have to set a time that you're recessing it to. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I'll recess it to 3:30--- TOWN CLERK TERRY: Wait a minute. I have twelve public hearings that day, so it will have to be the thirteenth one. 4:05 P.M. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: 1984. I'd like to recess this until 4:05 P.M. on April 24th As a result of further discussion, which took place during the regular meeting which followed this public hearing, the I~oard made the following decision to close this public hearing: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby closes the public hearing held this date, April 10, 1984, at 8:00 P.M., on the matter of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Dalchet Corporation, et. al., on certain property under consideration for a change of zone, located on the southerly side of Route 25, Cutchogue, New York. ,,/ ~:lith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEILEBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, Ai~il 10, 1984, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fngarty, Georgianna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger', Reynold F. Blum, William A. LitteH, and Nancy Glover Victoria, in connection with their petition for a Change of Zone from"A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-I" General Business District on certain ~ocarOperty owned by them, ted on the southerly side -' of Route 25, east of Stillwater Avenue and West of Harbor Lane, Cutchague, New York. Applicants are requesting the Change of Zone on this property so it might be properly utilized to provide an area for the growth of general type business. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft F~nvi~'nnrnentnl STATEOF NEWYORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) SUSAN W. ALLAN of Greenport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for one weeks successively, commencing on the ~232~h_ dayof March 19 84 Principal Clark Sworn to before me this 29th dayof March 19 84 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SS: STATE OF NI:-'VV YORK FoS~, ~~, John Pm~_~J, ~ S. Kroger, Rey~old F; Bl~, Wb A. ~e~, ~ N~ g~e~ Vic- ~ · ~e ~ne ~ "A" ~ ~nd ~ ~ ~ "B-I" ~, ht~ ~ ~e ~ly S~W~ ~e nd W~ Of Y~. A~ m ~. so~~ C'LER~ 1T-3/29/84(58) Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in, Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- man once each week for ....................... (. ............... weeks day o ................ : ................................... Swam to before me this ~)~ ~ ................................ day of ....... .................... , STATE OF NEW YORK: SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: ,JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of ~outhold, New York, being duly sworn, says that she is over the age of twenty-one years; that on the ~h day of March 1984 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 Bulletin Board, Town Clerk Office, Main Road, Southold, New York I1971 Legal Notice - Notice of Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgianna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria - 8:00 P.M., April 10, 1984, Southold Town Hall. Judith T, Terry Southold Town Clerk Sworn to be before me this 5th day of March , 1984 - '7 Notary Public ~eI ~ , W ~ount~ Ti~ ~xIM~ M~ch ~0, 1.~ ~'~ LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 10, 1984, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgianna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria, in connection with their petition for a Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-l" General Business District on certain property owned by them, located on the southerly side of Route 25, east of Stillwater Avenue and West of Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, New York. Applicants are requesting the Change of Zone on this property so it might be properly utilized to provide an area for the growth of general type business. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: February 29, 1984. JUDITH T. TERRY $OUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, MARCH 29, 1984, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Richard F. Lark, Esq., for Dalchet, et al LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8;00 P.M., Tuesday, April 10, 1984, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgianna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria, in connection with their petition for a Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-I' General Business District on certain property owned by them, located on the southerly side of Route 25, east of Stillwater Avenue and West of Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, New York. Applicants are requesting the Change of Zone on this property so it might be properly utilized to provide an area for the growth of general type business. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours, DATED: February 29, 1984. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, MARCH 29, 1984, AND FORWARD ONE (1} AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY. TOWN CLERK. TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Richard F. Lark, Esq., for Dalchet, et al LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 10, 1984, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgianna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy GIover Victoria, in connection with their petition for a Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural Oistrict to "B-l" General Business District on certain property owned by them, located on the southerly side of Route 25, east of Stillwater Avenue and West of Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, New York. Applicants are requesting the Change of Zone on this property so it might be properly utilized to provide an area for the growth of general type business. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, business hours. DATED: February 29, 1984. and is available for inspection during regular JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, MARCH 29, 198z;, AND FORWARD ONE {1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Richard F. Lark, Esq., for Dalchet, et al RECEIVED MAR 5 '1984 Town Clerk Southold GUY W, GERMANO Attorney At Law 474 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BRIGHTWATERS, NEW YORK 11718 (516) 666-7988 March 2, 1984 Ms. Judy Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application by Dalchet Corp., Fogarty, et al., for a ehanKe of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-I" General Business. of approximately ~1.9 acres located on the southerly side of Main Road, Cutchogue. Dear Ms. Terry: Enclosed please find a petition submitted in accordance with Section 265 of the Town Law of the State of New York. The petition is signed by a minimum of 20 percent of the property owners within 100 feet of the above mentioned property opposed to the proposed change of zone and therefore pursuant to Section 265 a majority of 3/4 of the Town Board is required to adopt the proposed change. Please include this petition in the Record of Proceeding. Thank you. CC: Supervisor Frank Murphy Councilman Paul Stoutenberg Councilman Joseph Townsend Councilman Edwards Very truly yours, RECEIVED TO: DATE: THE HONORABLE FRANK MURPHY, Supervisor, Town of Southold MA.~ 5 0~84 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD MEMBERS February 14, 1984 In accordance with Section 265, Article 16, Chapter 62 of Town Law of New York State, we the undersigned are opposed to the change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-I" General Business District of those properties owned by Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty and Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy D. Victoria, and located generally along the southerly side of Main Road (N.Y. State Route 25), Cutchogue, to a depth of approximately 330 feet and a length along Main Road of approximately 1197 feet, and more specifically described by the Southold Town Clerk public notice for same to be heard on February 14, 1984, at Southold Town Hall. Further, we the undersigned hereby designate attorney Guy W. Germano to present this petition and other reasons for our opposition to the change of zone at the Town Board public hearing on this matter. Name Address f£8 1. ~ lg84 Clerk S~ F£B ! ~ lg84 STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: SS. : I, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, FEB ! 6 1984 Tram Cle~ South~ld JR., being duly sworn, depose and say: I am a member of the Southold Town Planning Board and make this disclosure affidavit pursuant to the provisions of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York. I have read and am familiar with the Petition of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell and Nancy Glover Victoria for a change of zone for property located on the south side of the Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, from a "A" Residential and Agricultural District" to a "B-1 General Business District". I have an interest in the aforesaid Petition in that I hold a second mortgage on one of the petitioner's property, to wit: Irwin A. Kruger. I make this affidavit under penalties of perjury and swear to the truth thereof. Sworn to before me this /{/~a, of ~/` /~98~ Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~ PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD February 14, 1984 8:00 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF DALCHET CORPORATION, JAMES R. FOGARTY, GEORGIANNA FOGARTY, JOHN PUNG, IRWIN S. KRUGER, REYNOLD F. B/UM, WILLIAM A. LITTEI_L, AND NANCY GLOVER VICTORIA FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "A" RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "B-I" GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ON CERTAIN PROPERTY AT CUTCHOGUE, N.Y. Present: Absent: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Atto~n~ey, Robert W. Tasker Councilman James A. Schondebare SUPERVISOR MURPHY: This is the hearing on the application of Dalchet Corp- oration to amend the Zoning Code. Councilman Stoutenburgh will read the legal notice. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: "Legal Notice, Notice of Hearing on Proposal to Amend Zoning Code. Pursuant to section 265 of the Town Law and require- ments of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 14, 1984, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the proposal of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-l" General Business District all that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being near Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the corner formed by the inter- section of the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road and the westerly side of Harbor Lane the following two courses and distances: (1) South 42° 19' 10" East 226.37 feet; and (2) South 33° 45' 10" East 48.63 feet to land now or formerly of Bakowski; thence along land of Bakowski and other land of Dalchet Corp. South 56° 14' 50" West 310.85 feet to the westerly side of land of Dalchet Corp.; thence South 34° 18' 50" East 113.12 feet; thence along land of John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, and William A. Littell South 49° 31' West 1197.89 feet to land now or formerly of Homart; thence along land of Homan the following three courses and distances: (1) North 31° 22' 40" West 172.20 feet; (2) South 51° 22' 20" West 110.0 feet; and (3) North 31° 22' 40" West 165.0 feet to the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road; thence along the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road the following four courses Page 2 - Public Heari~.~l Dalchet & others and distances: (1) North 51° 22' 20" East 272.0 feet; (2) North 49° 31' East 720.40 feet; (3) North 48° 46' 20" East 294.83 feet; and (4) North 45° 44' Eas 287.32 feet to the westerly side of Harbor Lane and the point of begin- ning. The above described premises contain 11. 084 acres. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. Dated: December 20, 1983. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I have here before me notice from Pat Wood that this has been published, and I have a notice also from The Suffolk Times, Susan Allan, that the notice has been published. I have a notice from Judy Terry, saying that it has been on the Bulletin Board right outside our door here, a notice it has been published. I have a letter from the Planning Board, Town of Southold, which I will read: "May 19, 1983. Resolved that the Southold Town Planning Board recommends approval of the change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-I" General Business District on certain property located at Cutchogue in regard to the petition of Dalchet Corporation, et al for the following reasons: (1) Character of the area has changed over the last 5 - 10 years. (2) Would not change the present character of the area. (3) Property is located in a mixed neighborhood, predominantly "B-l" Zone. (4) Traffic intensity is already established. (5) Cemetery to the east would be a natural buffer. (5) Zoning changes have been granted in this area. (7) Two new antique sales shops have been constructed just north of the property in question." I have also a letter from Suffolk County Department of Planning dated May 24, 1983. "Gentlemen: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter of local determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval." SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Paul. Is there someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the Dalchet Corporation? RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ., Main Road, Cutchogue: I represent the applicants. Good evening. In the summer of 1982, by the way of background, I was requested by some of the owners in the area as to what could be done to allow business to be conducted from their property, as they claimed it was no longer suitable for residences. The Board is aware of where the property is, it's right across from the Key Food Shopping Center on the Main Road in Cutchogue. I've depicted before the Board, which you can pass along and look at, a little sketch, actually based on a survey from Van Tuyl. You have the survey in your file, wherein I depicted in green the area surrounding the property zoned "A" Residential and Agricultural and a light orange, that's zoned "B-l" Business District, and in a red or lavender what is zoned Commercial-Industrial District, and then the applicant's property which I've highlighted in yellow with the orange hash-marks. Before answering their ques- tion I decided to go to visit the property on foot, rather than as the many times that I've done, gone by in the automobile, and the first time I went there was in the early part of July, it was on a Friday afternoon, and I pulled into the Harvest-Time Farms, which is the Orlowski homestead there where there is an existing farmstand, and the first thing that struck me was the tremendous amount of noise that was being generated, not only from the Main Road traffic, but from the Key Food Shopping Center traffic, not only their trucks and cars, but the general noise of a commercial activity from right across the road. Page 3 Public Heari~.~ Dalchet & others Although myself I've lived in Cutchogue now for some period of time and as I indicated I drive by this property approximately three times a week, I never really stood on the property, or walked it, and I never realized that this neigh- borhood had changed this much in the last fifteen to twenty years. From-- the old timers remember, and when I first moved to Cutchogue--remember there was basically there, some of you will remember, the Sterling Nursery on the north side of the road, the George Braun Oyster Company, which is depicted in red on that chart, Felix Doroski's Cutchogue Auto Sales on the north portion of the road, and on the two corners of Cox's Lane was the gas station and across the street going down the other side, Nassau Point Road, was another gas station. There were five businesses there, and in this period of time this area has grown to twenty active business today, that are functioning there right at this minute. It is quite a phenomenal growth, I think, and in a relatively short period of time in our history, some~-Iast fifteen to twenty years, but I was somewhat surprised. All those existing businesses that are there are in the light orange area, and of course, the Industrial property which houses the George Braun Oyster Company. In fact, I was kind of amazed. I went back to the property that night and again I received surprise, because not only did it have sufficient amounts of noise, and this was around ten o'clock in the evening, as | recall it, but it had a tremendous amount of artificial light that was being emanated from the Key Food Shopping Center, and I made sub- sequent trips back to the property that summer, and even after Labor Day, when everything was supposed to slow down from the hectic pace of the summer, and found basically the same thing. So, after meeting with the property owners I agreed with them that something should be done, as it was no longer suitable, and I agreed with them that it was no longer suitable for residential use any more, and I asked myself the basic question at that time, which is really the question that you people, as members of the Town Board, are going to have to ask yourself, what is the best use of this property today, and in the future. Is it Industrial, such as the George Braun Oyster Company has their property-- portions of their property zoned? Is it Business, such as the property is zoned across tl~e street, or is it residential, as it is presently zoned? Consider- ing what has happened in the area in the recent years, because it is clear from a land use point of view, that a bus|ness use was clearly suited for this property. Why? The permitted uses of an Industrial District would not be in character with the neighborhood, its growth, and its proximity to the Main Road, which is the main artery in the Town of Southold. The residential use were not viable, due to the commercial development of the property on the northerly side of the Main Road, and in fact, I don't believe a new residence has been constructed within a half to three quarters of a mile of this property in over twenty years. The only practical solution, from a zoning point of view, was a general business district. |t was decided by the owners to make the deptl~ of the property for the business use to a depth which would match the George Braun property on the west, whoich is depicted in red, and carry that line generally across in an easterly direction. The Main Road at that particular point is not exactly straight, so the depth varies from along the red portion there about 337 feet to approximately 330 feet depth in the middle, and then 226 feet on Harbor Lane. Petition then was prepared and filed with the Town I~oard on February 22nd, 1983, just about a year ago, and as per the require- ments of the Zoning Ordinance, it was referred out to the various agencies for recommendation. As Mr. Stoutenburgh read, the Southold Town Planning Board on May 16th, 1983, recommended the change of zone from "A" Residential Page 4- Public Hearing Da|chet & others, to "B-l" General Business. He read the reasons that they gave. The Suffolk County Planning Commission on May 24th, 1983 recommended the matter be left for local determination, with no recommendations that are comments ar all. During this time, while the application was wending its way through the various agencies, the Town Board authorized the Master Plan Update, and hired the firm of Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner as the Town's consultant. The preliminary plan use map that's being currently subject to hearings put on by the Town Board, the one I believe that's dated, I think December 15th, 1983, has recommended that the area, which is the subject of the petition here tonight, be utilized what they call a General Commercial District. Back in June of 1983--back on June 7th, the Town Board requested that a draft environmental impact statement be done on what the impact would be to the environment if the Board granted the change. The petition~ hired Roy Haje of Enconsultants of Southampton to prepare a draft impact statement. Mr. Haje will speak to you in a moment. But on page 3--and that was all filed with the Town Board, so you all have copies--but on page 3 of that report he concluded that the present residential zoning is no longer viable given the type and extent of commercial development of the area. He goes on to say that the change to General Business will allow development which is in keeping with the surroundings without having any significant adverse impact upon the environment. As part of that draft environmental impact statement, there is also a traffic analysis, which the Board also has, by Vincent Vincent Donnelly, P.E., and he summed up on page 17 of his report, "Based on this investigation it is our professional opinion that the traffic generated by the development of the site to "B-l" zoning can be safely accomodated by Route 25, as it is at the acceptable level of traffic service." As I said previously, the only real question before you is what is the best use of this property in 1984, and in the future. I invite each and every member of the Town Board, if you haven't already gone to the property, you should do so. Not by automobile, but to pull in on various phases of it, just actually stand there and see what goes on both in terms of various times during the day and the night, so you can judge for ~zourself how this area has changed so dramatically in recent years, thereby, I believe, warranting the relief that is requested in the petition before you. At this time I'd like to have Mr. Haje address the four of you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Fine. MR. ROY I_. HAJE, President, Enconsultants, Inc., 64 North Main Street, Southampton: My firm is involved in the preparation of environmental impact statements, environmental permit applications and analysis of property. I was requested by the applicants to prepare an environmental impact statement for the lead agency, which is the Southold Town Board, and have done so. The environmental impact statement draft before you was filed, I believe in October or November. The contents of that environmental impact statement included the normal range of interests. I will summarize these briefly for you. Again they are all contained in that statement. The property on which the change of zone is located is generally quite flat to very gently undulated. The soil, which is contained thereon, is Haven Loams. Haven Loams have little restriction as to building, th erosion is hazard is slight. They are generally suitable for construction. They are also one of the most common agricultural types found in Suffolk County and are heavily used for such common Long Island crops as potatoes, cauliflower and the like. The next area that we investigated Page 5- Public Heari..g Dalchet & others was the ground water to determine what the ground water potential and resources were, I went to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, the environ- mental branch, and spoke with the various engineers there. There are two quite recent wells in the immediate proximity, that is on the north side of Route 25A. These were done for the Peconic Clock Shop and another antique store owned by Eugene Mott. The wells which were installed were 70 feet for the Peconic Clock Shop. The water in the well was found to be 60 feet deep, static water encountered at 10 feet. For the other antique store the well was 50 feet deep with 40 feet of water. Analysis of the water on both of those wells yielded satisfactory results. The pipes of wells are in the upper-glacial strata. There are quite Iow levels of pesticides in the area, well within acceptable ranges. The natural flora and fauna found on the parcel are quite limited due to the nature of development and usage over the past many years. There are residences, there are other buildings, barns, it has been farmed. There is presently a large garden. The wildlife which is found there now is typical of that found in association with this type of human activity. We found no endangered species, and in fact would not expect to find any. As far as vegetation goes, there are no endangered species. Again the area has been either landscaped or farmed. The environmental constraints affecting the action, again there are no significant environmental constraints that we were able to determine, and the other areas in the report are available for your review. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them at this point. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Roy. Any Board member have a question? Joe? COUNCILMAN '~OWI~ISEND: Just--are you familiar with the traffic study that was done? Are you conversant with the traffic study that was done? MR. HAJE: I did not prepare it personally. It was done by Vincent Donnelly. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: What I want to know is, did they try to determine in that study how much increased traffic would be created by this? I know they say that it will not overtax the roads, but I just haven't--I want an opinion on the record. MR. HAJE: There is quite an indepth study of existing usage and what the potential usage would be. Given the various types of development within the one change of zone, that is there and it is quite extensive. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Roy. in favor of this proposed zone change? Anyone else would like to speak MR. CHESTER ORLOWSKI, 235 Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue: I'm a building contractor of about 600 homes and additions in Southold Town in thirty years. I'm 65 years old, born in Cutchogue, lived in Cutchogue all my life. I'm president of the Dalchet Corporation, which is one of the applicants proposing the change of zone of eleven acres of land along the south side of Route 25 in Cutchogue from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "B-I" General Business District. Our application was submitted on July 22nd, 1982. In 1961 we bought 24 acres of farmland on Harbor Lane, which I developed into a very desirable community of homes. We saved the Route 25 and Harbor Lane corner lot, figuring that some day we could develop that area into a business area. Since spot zoning was not logical, we combined with other property owners to zone the area of eleven acres on the south side of Route 25, opposite the very populated Page 6- Public Hear..~g Dalchet & others business area on the north side of Route 25. Living in Cutchogue for 65 years I never opposed business or residence to move into our area. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MtJRPHY: Thank you, Chet. DARLENE DUFFY: I'm associated with A. W. Albertson Real Estate in Southold. I just wanted to indicate to the Board that we had a parcel that's included in this section, for sale for over a year. It's a large farm house directly across from Key Food. We showed it kind of on a regular basis and the major objection to this parcel was its proximity to the commercial area and in our opinion we feel that the house is unsaleable as it is presently zoned, which literally condemns the family that lives there now to stay there, because they can't sell it and all that stuff, so that's just our opinion from a real estate point of view. Okay? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else care to comment? MRS. GEORGIANNA FOGARTY, Cutchogue: I'm here tonight to represent my- self and my husband Jim. We are homeowners presently residing on Route 25 in the area that calls for the zoning change. We have lived at this area for over fifteen years and many changes have taken place in this time. In approximately 1970 we saw the Hill Supermarket start, and the shopping center and over the years we've slowly seen all the businesses blossom there and we have heard that fairly soon the last building there will be rented. Suffolk County National Bank has presently put a branch there. There is the Clock Shop and the antique shop, which was mentioned before, have iust recently established themselves in the area, and nearing completion, diagonally opposite our house is a new office complex which will soon be renting office space. The area supports three gas stations and two real estate. In the time we have lived there the traffic has greatly increased. The noise level intensified, and the business growth has blossomed. Jim works shift work and we find it really difficult for him to get any kind of sleep during the day, because the noise level is really high and prohibits any kind of normal life style. This area clearly ha outgrown its residential classification. It seems only common sense that the south side would be zoned business the same as the north side, so we firmly support the zone change. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else care to speak in favor of this proposed change of zone? MRS. JOSEPHINE OR~.OWSKI, Cutchogue: I reside on the south side of Route 25 in Cutchogue, opposite the Key Food Shopping Center. I've lived there twelve years, I have four sons, ages two to ten. I feel very strongly that this can no longer be classified as "A" Residential and Agriculture and should therefore be rezoned to business to conform to the surrounding area. The amount of traffic on Route 25 generated by the shopping center has increased greatly. To exit my driveway has become increasingly difficult. Not only must I look to the east and to the west, I must look to the three exits that are leaving the Key Food Shopping Center, I must check out the telephone company exit, I must look to the east to the Cutchogue Auto Sales to check the traffic leaving the gas pumps. Considering the number of times the family leaves their driveway, this poses quite a risk for myself and my family, and friends who happen to visit me. There is also a noise level I would consider much above your average residential area. The traffic alone generates quite a bit. In the evenings and the early mornings there are truck deliveries, with the newspaper being an early morning delivery, telephone trucks come and go throughout the night on occasion. Tractor-trailers have on occasion 'Page 7- Public Heari~.g Dalchet & others sat, with their diesel vehicles idling. Most chartered buses stop and pick up and drop off passengers in the shopping center. Persons waiting for the eastbound bus, heading to Greenport, often stand in my driveway, or sit on my lawn under the tree. Lighting is another problem. The parking lot lights shine right into the house. I have room-darkening shades in one child's bed- room, and I have covers over the windows in the other. Any vehicle leaving the east exist of Key Food or the telephone building at night, shines it head- lights directly into my house. Being picked up by the school bus in the area is also a risk that I feel my children take every day. A couple of years ago the bus stopped, a car passed another car who was heading into the Key Food Shopping Center, the car behind him, rather than wait for the person to turn, pulled to the shoulder and pulled onto the shoulder side of the school bus where my kids were standing waiting for the school bus. Luckily no one was hurt, but it is a threat. My kindergartener child, this year, is picked up in the farm stand vicinity. As for the children, I am very concerned for their safety. Many times I have had to retrieve a soccer ball from the street for them, people are drawn to shopping centers all over, not only by car, but on foot, bike, motorcycle. I do not like having my children subiected to all these people and I become very apprehensive when leaving them with a sitter. People come on to the property to ask directions or just walk along the property line for their walks. Needless to say, the summers are much worse with people walking in the evenings. These are some of the reasons that I do not feel that this is any longer a residential area. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Are there any other comments to speak in favor? Yes, sir? MR. RAY B/UM, Cutchogue: I own and operate Peconic Bay Vineyards. I've done so for the last five years and prior to that we were over in Mattituck. I'm one of the largest wholesale growers of wine grapes on Long Island. I'm active in the community. I'm on the Suffolk County Cooperative Extension Agricultural Advisory Board. I am also a member of the Long Island Grape Grower's Associsation. As such I'm very interested in preserving agriculture on Long Island. It was my intention to petition the Town Board for a zone change so that I may, in the future, establish and operate a legitimate winery and possibly retail sales at the same establishment, with direct sales to the public. This is a natural progression of my business, from the wholesale into the retail. In wine, it's just getting started, grape growing is just getting started on Long Island. We've haven't done so because we had no grapes to sell up until the last year or so. It's my belief, under the present zoning, that I can build a winery in this location, however, the legitimate retail sales is questionable. It's also my definite fee!lng that this area in question on Route 25 is really isolated from the residential homes on the other blocks, with the exception of the farmhouse next to me, and the one that's in the middle of the Industrial zone over there. I would like to see the property rezoned so that in the future we can have the opportunity, or the option, of possibly putting a restaurant in the area, or even a couple of boutique shops, like a wine and cheese shop, or a glass boutique, or something to that effect. There are no plans at the present time, but I would always like to have that opportunity. Lastly, I would much prefer to see this in strip zoning, as some of the people have voiced their opinion against, rather than spot zoning. As it is now it's almost spot zoning with Industrial. Are we better off going for Page 8- Public Heari.~l Dalchet & others a whole group of area, across the street with the telephone company and all, or are we better off saying we're going to rezone one place this way, another place something else. I think the logical progression would be to do the whole strip and do the whole area together. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else like to comment? MRS. MARII_YN I-ANG, Cutchogue: My husband and I own and operate a real estate office on the Main Road in Cutchogue. I wish to talk about the business district where we are located. Within a two block radius we have one post office, two schools, one church, one library, one restaurant, one diner, one bank, Cutchogue Fire Department, a proposed new restaurant, three real estate offices, two grocery stores, one open twenty-four hours, Wickham's Fruit Farm, two lab offices, and one gas station and a liquor store, plus several other small businesses. Plus we have all the traffic to and from New Suffolk. We have mostly on-street parking. During busy times we wait five minutes or more to walk across the street. We feel that any more businesses here would create a grid-lock situation as far as traffic goes. We are in favor of the property opposite Key Food being rezoned "B-I", which would provide off-street parking and help relieve the congestion in downtown Cutchogue. Thank you. MRS. NANCY VICTORIA DERMODY, Cutchogue: Ladies and gentlemen, I am Nancy Victoria Dermody, one of the petitions for this zoning change, and 1 might clarify one thing, I am not a member of Dalchet Corporation. My 110 by 160 foot piece of property is bounded on the south and west by Braun Oyster Company, on the east by Blum's Peconic Bay Vineyard, and on the north by Kings Highway, better known as New York State Route 25. To begin with I am not an orator, nor a politician. Public speaking is not my forte, so please bear with me and my notes. In August of 1966 we purchased the parcel of land and house aforementioned as our family residence, from Mr. Edmund Orlowski. It was, we hoped, to be our residence for good. At that time it virtually marked, as did Pinewood Nursery, formerly Sterling Nursery, on the north side of Route 25, the end of the not so thriving, consolidated metropolis of Cutchogue, with the exception of three gas stations located further east. l,ife was slow, peace- ful and uncomplicated from Labor Day until the following 4th of July. We could actually count the cars on one hand traveling the road from ten at night until six in the morning, and most of those were patrol cars. You could sit out side of an evening, count stars and listen to night sounds, the taxes were reasonable, though we all still complained. In the summer, of course, there was considerable hustle and bustle. Then things began to change drastically. Around 1971 the now Key Food Shopping complex was built, as well as the telephone company building. Traffic and taxes climbed at a remarkable rate. On several occasions we had uninvited vehicular guests in the middle of our front law. My children were no longer allowed to pay in their own yard. The shopping plaza lighting was so bright we could virtually sit in our living room and read a newspaper without supporting no LII-CO. Between the lights and the perpetual traffic rumbling up the grade of Route 25, shaking the bedrooms, sleep became increasingly more difficult. I might interject at this point, there was part of the environmental impact statement, a section on erosion. This does not pertain to my particular parcel, but when it rains hard the water does run down a hill there and leaves ruts in the land. It terminates the other side of the Orlowski homestead by the Fogarty residence, in what we term the ice skating rink in the wintertime, and floods out the produce that is grown there in the summertime. When the Pub opened nights, we were filled with the addition of unending sounds of squea~ing tires, drunken brawls, calls to the Southold Town Police Department, and disoriented bodies and beer bottles Page 9- Public Heari~.~ Dalchet & others sprawled across the front yard. This replaced the stars, Kaytidids and back- yard camp-outs for the children. We were no longer on the fringe, but rather in the middle of the village. It often took fifteen to twenty minutes to get out of our driveway safely. In 1979 we chose to move as the environment was no longer one in which I wished to raise my children. Since then, on the north side of Route 25 a clock shop, an antique store have opened, now being followed by the law offices under construction. So you see that due to circum- stances beyond my control, I have been forced to face facts. No one wants to see the loss of open lands more than I do. My family has brought life out of this soil for generations, but whether I like it or not, this tract of land is no longer suitable for residential use. I, therefore, feel that action on this petition should not be emotionally, nor politically motivated, but rather looked at in a logical context considering the topography and location of the land it- self. Progress is not always what we would prefer it to be, and the past is precisely that, the past. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to comment further in behalf of this zone change? MR. LARK: I iust, have one thing, Mr. Murphy. To answer Mr. Townsend's question, that analysis that you seek is in Appendix D of that traffic study, where he does it both in the non-summer, peak and non-peak hours and the summer peak and non-peak hours, and I think the answers to your ~luestions are there. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Richard. Anyone else would like to speak in favor? (No response.) Is there anyone would like to speak in opposition to this proposed zone change? Anyone like to speak at all? Dick, go ahead. RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ., Cutchogue: If it pleases the Board I am here to speak in opposition to the zone change, and like every argument one can make, you can always look for some merit in each of the arguments that was made by each of the people who spOke in favor of the application. I don't dispute the argument, for example, of Mr. Blum. I agree to some extent, but there should be some room for expansion of the grape industry in the Town of Southold. However, I don't feel that it's absolutely essential that it ought to be done through a change of zone through which a business zone might be created. I think it's appropriate that such amenities, or additions are to be granted to that industry, it ought to be on a more town-wide basis for all of the grape growers, regardless of whether they are in a business zone or an agricultural zone. If that is what will promote that particular industry, and that is what the Town desires, then it ought to be looked upon on a broader basis. In other words, I don't think a business change of zone in a limited situation would do any good for the grape industry as a whole, it would un- doubtedly do a great deal of good for the individual who would have it. So in that argument there is some merit. As for all the other arguments, there is some merit, but what we don't recognize here is that all of these residences, and there are only three on that property on the south side of the street, they all existed before 1970 and 1971. These are not new residences that sprung up over night, these people watched this grow from this period of time of 1970 to the present date. And as far as the noise, the lights, this is something that's going on since that period of time and it's not just particularly germane Page 10 -Public Heari..g Dalchet & others to those particular residents, all of which, incidentally, are not immediately opposite the Key Food Shopping Plaza. So, while you can find some merit, it doesn't warrent the relief that is being requested. I found it interesting to find the observation that the values have so depreciated in terms of finding buyers for residential dwellings, when it's pretty obvious that Planning Board member Benny Orlowski was not in that particular situation. He was able to find a buyer, Mr. Kruger, who is one of the petitions for this zone change, at what appears to be a suggested price of $250,000.00 for his residence. I think it's difficult to make that kind of an argument that the values of the residential dwellings are minimal, because Mr. Kruger bought it while zoned residential. I have other comments that I would like to make, so I am going to need some degree of time to read it, but I thought I would like to comment on at least some of the observations that were made by the people who wanted to speak in favor of this application. As I say, I don't deny that there may be some merit in each of the cases, but likewise there's an answer and rebuttal to each case. As I indicated, I did address you and you know who I am, and I did indicate to you that I am definitely opposed to the granting of this applica- tion. I would like to advise the Board that this zone change has nothing to do with a sound master plan. To the contrary it is totally and absolutely ludicrous to even suggest that this proposed zone change has any merit what- soever. This will become highly evident to you as I bring to your attention some of the facts that are most evident in this case. While these are the facts that are documented by the record, as it now exists, be assured that the~e are other facts having substantial bearing on this application. The disclosure which might be better left for other agencies. By way of historical and chron- ological background, I should like to inform you as to how this proposed commercial strip zone worked its way into the proposed master plan. In order to appreciate the occurance you have to first understand something of the existing commercial area in the hamlet of Cutchogue. It has always been the goal of the Southold Town Planning Board and that of the Suffolk County Planning Commission that any further commercial development in the hamlet of Cutchogue would progress along the existing commercial zone, north of Route 25 and along Griffing Street to School I~ouse Extension Road. Such extension of the commercial area clearly fits in with the hamlet concept proposed by the master plan. The Southold Town Planning Board and the master planners, RPP&W, in order to make the proposed commercial strip zone outside the hamlet of Cutchogue acceptable, completely eliminated all of the commercial zoned area along Griffing Street in the hamlet of Cutchogue. The result of this non-judicious planning completely wipes out the possibility of any further commercial development in the hamlet of Cutchogue, and in effect creates an entirely undesirable and unacceptable corridor of strip zoning outside of the hamlet. What possibly could be the motives of the planners and Planning Board in creating such an undesirable result for the citizens of the Town of Southold? Is there, in the future, a contemplated use beyond the business zone strip that is contemplated for another zone? Is any of the land proposed for change under contract or under option? How did all of this develop? First of all, we are all aware of the proposed strip zone change by virtue of the fact that a petition for same had been executed on January 27, 1983. It first reared its head in the proposed master plan when at a workshop meeting with the Planning Board Mr. Stu Turner of RPP&W, having had individual hamlet maps prepared for each of the hamlet areas of the Town of Southold, showed that with respect to the Cutchogue hamlet this proposed strip zone change. It was at this meeting that I immediately opposed the proposed strip zone change on the ground that it was destructive of the · Page 11 - Public Dalchet & others hamlet concept. Mr. Turner agreed with that observation, but it was his understanding the Town was quote "committed" unquote, to this change. Others on the workship committee, such as Ruth Oliva and Jean Tiedke like- wise opposed the strip zone change. At a subsequent meeting of the Town Board, at a work session, in the A.M. on July 19, 1983, the Planning Board and Mr. Stu Turner of RPP&W, upon inquiry by Supervisor Pell, indicated ' the removal of the proposed strip zone commercial area, outside the hamlet of Cutchogue, from the proposed master plan, as displayed on a map of the area at that time. Subsequently at the next meeting of the Planning Board and the workshop committee, in September of 1983:, the proposed commercial strip zone was again reinserted on the proposed master plan and has remained there for the present date. The difference in the proposal, however, at this time, is that in a memorandum of RPP&W, dated December 15, 1983, containing a summary of preliminary master plan land use proposals, a new commercial area has been created outside the hamlet commercial area, be known as a general commercial area. I might indicate to this Board that at no time during any of the workshop meetings was this new type of general commercial area ever proposed to the workshop. It reared its head after our last meet- ing September. RPP&W indicates that these two types of commercial areas, to wit, the hamlet commercial area and the general commercial area, are to compliment each other and will tend to avoid dilution of the hamlets center commercial uses. Of course, it is difficult to understand that statement, when at the same time the Planning Board and RPP&W recommended the elimination of all existing commercial zoned areas on Grilling Street, which might be the only source of further expansion for the commercial area of Cutchogue. Is there a motive for this action, and if so, should not tt~e Eoard make full and complete inquiry? Why did this recommendation arise only after the application for the proposed business strip zone was filed with the Planning Board? Let us, carefully examine this area that is proposed for zone change. What is it we see? At this time we see three residences, a couple of barns, and all vacant land. Beyond the proposed zone is prime farmland and presently and vineyard, while the opposite side of the street is zoned business, and a strip along Route 25, are we to now compound this mistake, so its to create another strip zone on the opposite side of the street, and in doing so create another Montauk Highway or Sunrise Highway type of atmosphere, as we all know which exists in western Suffolk and Nassau County. The residences that exist in the proposed strip zone are not new residences. They have existed there as long as the business zone existed on the opposite side of the street. Vineyards and farmlands are unaffected by the business atmosphere on the north side of Route 25. The traffic conditions that would be created by the additional strip zoning would be unbearable and unacceptable. Let us now look at some of the facts as they are documented in the record. Firstly, the proposed zone change was first mapped July 22, 1982. It was amended on October 29, 1982, and again amended on December 23, 1982. The survey shows Planning Board member Bennett Orlowski, Jr., the owner of one of the six parcels requested to be rezoned. On January 21, 1983, thirty-five days after the survey was last amended, the Orlowski premises was sold to one of the applicants for the zone change, Irwin S. Kruger. On January 27, 1983, six days after the Orlowski conveyance, a petition for zone change was executed by the owners of the six parcels, one of which is the Orlowski to Kruger parcel. The deed from Orlowski to Kruger contains a notation that New York State Documentary Stamps, in the sum of $275.00 was paid, which as I indicated · Page 12 - Public Heari,.~ Dalchet & others before, would suggest a purchase price of $250,000.00. This would be the acquisition cost for a residential dwelling, with related barn structures, situate on Route 25, opposite the existing business zone shopping area, a parcel of land zoned "A" Residential-Agricultural, having a frontage of 370 feet, with other dimensions in the rear and the sides of 327.70 feet. The record indicates that a purchase money second mortgage, as part payment of the purchase price in the sum of $100,000.00 was given by the purchaser to Mr. Orlowski. With respect to the application for change of zone, the only discloser statement found to be executed, is that of Dalchet Corporation. Based on the nature of this application, it would seem appropriate to have other disclosure statements filed from tt~e other applicants, as well as members of the Planning Board. Specifically, why is there not a disclosure statement from the Planning Board member l~enny Orlowski, who himself holds a purchase money mortgage from the purchaser Kruger? Mr. Kruger, of course, being one of the applicants for the zone change. Also, should not the applicant Kruger file a disclosure statement since he owes money to Planning Board member Bennett Orlowski? The Planning Board, by resolution dated May 19, 1983, approved the change of zone proposed. Mr. Orlowski abstaining from the vote ont he ground indicated to be that of his family relationship with the principals of Dalchet Corporation. The Southold Town Planning Board, and the Department of Planning of the County of Suffolk, have always strongly opposed the extension of strip business zoning along the corridors of New York State Route 25. As recently as early 1982, with respect to a business zone change proposed on Route 25 in Cutchogue by Joseph J. I-izewski, the recommenda- tions of both the Southold Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County Planning Board vigorously oppose~ the proposed zone change. The Southold Town Plan- ning Board, at its meeting on January 18, 1982, passed the following resolution recommending a denial to the Town Board of the proposed zone change, giving the following reasons for their recommendation: The proposed change of zone would constitute strip zoning. There was insufficient evidence in the correspond- ance to justify a change of zone. That the change of zone was not in conformity with the zoning ordinance. The Suffolk County Planning Board, by its letter of February 4, 1982, addressed to the Southold Town Clerk, likewise recommended disapproval of the application on the ground that it was not consistent with the To~n of Southold's Development Plan. The recommendation of disapproval further stated that it constituted the unwarranted further perpetuation of strip business development along Main Road, New York State Route Number 25. It further stated that it would tend to establish a precident for further down-zonings along Main Road, adversely affecting the safety and traffic carrying capacity of the facility. Finally, and most importantly, it states that there appears to be ample available business zoned land in the surrounding area. Now, this application of Mr. Lizewski's was, and is, minor and innocuous compared to the present proposed strip zone change. The Town Board granted that change of zone with the reasoning that was not appropriate to the granting of the apl~lication. The Board was correct ~'hen it stated that the change requested was a logical extension of the existing business district. The Board was correct in stating that the neighborhood in and round that area is comprised of mixed non-residential uses, and the Board was further correct in finally stating that it would not be out of character with the existing uses in the neighborhood. Keep in mind that the proposed change of zone to business involved only a small strip on Route 25. Compare that to the present proposed zone change, which requests almost 1600 feet of strip zoning, and let us examine the recommendations of both planning departments with respect to that proposed change. As concerns the Southold Town Planning Board, let's look at their · Page 13 - Public Hear~ Dalchet & others reasoning in approving this 1600 feet, approximately, of strip zone change. First the Board says, in recommending the approval, that the character of the area has changed over the last five to ten years. Is that so? As long as I can remember, certainly back to around 1971, the area on the north side and the area of the proposed strip zone change, has always been of a business tenor. By the same token, the area on the south side, and in particular reference to the proposed zone change area, has always been of a residential and agri- cultural nature. How about their second reason, that the present character of the area would not change. When you look at the south side of Route 25, which is proposed for the zone change, and see nothing but agricultural land, vineyards and residences, how could one possibly say by making that a strip business zone, that the character of the area would not change? The third reasons recited by the Planning Board for approval is that the property as presently located, a mixed neighborhood, predominently "B-I" zone. Of course, predominently mixed neighborhood of "BI-" zone is all on the north side of Route 25. As concerns the next recommendatation, being that the traffic intensity is already established, that is totally ludicrous. Is the Board saying that there will be no further compounding of the traffic density by the estab- lishment of a 1600 foot business zone strip? The traffic situation would become unbearable in the area. The Board certainly reached for a reason for recommenda- tion when they indicated that a cemetery to the east would be a natural buffer. How they determined that to be the case, when immediately adjacent to that to the east is a gasoline service station zoned business. The Board further indicates that zoning changes have been granted in this area. That's true, but they were made many many years ago. As concerns the fact that two new antique sales shops have been constructed, that too is true, but again, that is on the property on the north side of Route 25, which has been for some time already zoned business. As concerns the Suffolk County Planning Commission, when it comes to a consideration of a strip zone, almost 1600 feet in length for a proposed business zone change on Route 25, what is their recommendation? They feel in those circumstances it might be left best for local determination. The strong reasons advanced to disapprove the Lizewski application apparently do not exist when you increase the length of the strip zone. Gentlemen, I can only say to you you are elected officials of the Town, it is your responsibility to the citizens of this Town to carry out your duties and trust that they have imposed upon you in approving or denying zone changes. I'm sure you will conduct a proper and thorough investigation into the applica- tion and you will reach the only unescapable conclusion, and that is to deny the application. Thank you. StJPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Counselor. Is there anyone else? GUY GERMANO, Attorney, Brightwaters, 74 Brooklyn Boulevard: I've been asked by a number of individuals residing in the Town of Southold, to come and speak on their behalf in opposition to the application. Those people would include the Supervisor of the Town of Islip, Michael LoGrande, who has a house out here. In addition, Mr. John Meisner and ~lellie Doroski, and John Chituk. I also have a petition that was circulated in opposition to the application, and I would like to submit that to the Board at this time (petition in opposition containing 14 signatures.) I'd also like to mention that I'm here on behalf of myself and my family, five children and my wife, who vacation here and have been vacationing here every year for the last ten years with our inlaws on Nassau Point Road. We also spend a good part of every winter and fall Page 14 - Public Hearing Dalchet & others and spring season out here as well, and we've watched the slow development of strip commercial zone in this particular area in Cutchogue with some dismay. i'd like to point out at first--I prepared a rather lengthy presentation, some of which was already given by Mr. Cron, and so I'm going to skip through some of it and get to the point which I think will supplement the comments that have already been made. I'd like to point out for the Board that the firm of Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, which had prepared the draft master plan also prepared for the County of Suffolk the Bi-County Regional Plan, and in that plan--I have a copy of the map with me--they recommend for this area of Southold that the commercial centers of Mattituck, Southold and Greenport be developed--and you can see those areas here in these circles--circled areas-- they also recommended that strip zoning not be encouraged and not be permitted. In fact, I'll read what that firm prepared for the Suffolk County Planning Board with regards to the development of commercial property in Suffolk County. "Commercial uses should be concentrated in accessible activity centers, either in older central business districts, which already have utilities and transportation, and where proposed apartment development will provide customers or new planned activity centers. No shopping complexes should be built except in activity centers. Concentration of retail office and service uses in centers should off- set demands for additional strip uses. Noted here a series of schools and small shopping centers and narrow strip along highways, and for new shopping centers. This is of particular importance in Suffolk County with a large amount of vacant land fosters undesirable development. In Nassau County many of the marginal strip commercial areas should eventially be terminated through conversion to other uses. This is the very same firm that is now recommending the expansion of the strip commercial zoning in Cutchogue. I'd like to turn to one other matter which has been touched on briefly, that's regarding traffic impact. Now, I've heard that there's a traffic study that's been prepared which says that the road has reached its development level. I don't know what that means exactly, I suspect it means it's reached basically the maximum for which it's been developed. Well, we have prepared a short study, based upon the New York standard forms and a standard test that was prepared in Cutchogue in 1979, and we've applied a growth factor of--traffic growth factor of 2.5 per cent to that, from ~79 to the current time, and we've come out with a traffic impact on that stretch of highway in Cutchogue, which indicates that in the winter the average daily rate of traffic across that section of Cutchogue, Route 25 is 6,688 trips per day. In August, which is the maximum peak for daily number of trips, it rises to 10,883. Now this is conservative. It's averaged out. On any given day, on a Sunday they may be more vehicles trafficing that road. Now, I'd like to turn to what will happen as a result of 1600 feet of commercial strip, comprising almost 12 acres on the opposite side of Key Food Shopping Center. Based upon the standard rule of thumb for planners and traffic study engineers, that kind of commercial zone would produce approx- imately a net total of approximately twenty per cent of the development in usable commercial space, or approximately 90,000 square feet. It could even go as high as 110,000 square feet. Again applying the standard formula to that number you will generate approximately 70 trips a day for each thousand sqare feet. That will give us a very conservative number for the average daily winter trip across that section of Cutchogue, to 13, 048 vehicles. That's an increase of almost a hundred percent from the present average daily. Now, this is full development of that strip. It will give us an average peak in the summer of almost 18,000 vehicles. Now, if the road is already at its maximum, then I suggest that this would increase it beyond its maximum. In fact, the Suffolk County Department of Transportation has indicated to me that a road such Page 15- Public Heari~.~ Dalchet & others as Route 25, two lanes, no passing lane, is designed for maximum usage of between 10,000 and 14,000 trips per day, and that when you approach the 14,000 trip per day limit you begin to see congestion, backup on local streets, you're going to impede the movement of emergency vehicles, interfere with school bus movement and increase traffic accidents and fatalities. You will require the expenditure of public funds for making road improvements, including turning lanes, signals and various intersection improvements. I'd like to illustrate one point with regard to the traffic impact. We've secured from the New York State Department of Transportation, the Traffic Safety Division, the accident reports for this area of Cutchogue for 1979 to present. In '79 there were fifteen accidents, in 1980 there were fifteen accidents, in '81 seventeen, and in '82 twenty-three. In the first half of '83 there were eleven. Now, during that time we~ve applied a traffic increase factor of 2.5, but we've seen over- all almost twenty-five to thirty per cent increase in the number of traffic accidents, and that's at a level projected of around a peak of 10,000 trips per day. We're talking about increasing the traffic load significantly by more than fifty per cent and in some cases a hundred per cent on this road. We're going to have an increased number of traffic accidents. I'd like to submit to the Board a copy of the traffic study that was done for this area of Cutchogue in '79, and our synopsis of the State DOT Traffic Safety Report. (Submitted this report to Supervisor Murphy.) Likewise we cannot disagree with many of the comments that were made on behalf or by the applicants, the individual property owners. In fact, I'd like to suggest they make a case study for not increasing the strip zoning in this area. We've heard about the increased traffic noise; we've heard about the increased fear from traffic accidents; we've heard about general noise increases; we've heard about light increases. I'd like to present here that there are residents all the way from Jamesport to Orient Point who live on the Main Road. In fact, we all pass them all the time; they've been there for many many years; generations in many cases, that every time we cause an increase--and especially in this case--a substantial increase in the traffic that's going to be generated, we're going to adversely impact not merely on the three residences that are currently feeling some adverse impact of prior, maybe unfortunate, zoning changes, but adversely impact on all of those residential properties that face on Main Road, and I think the Board has to consider the impact on all of Southold, not just the impact to this one small community, in making their decision. I have to say, on behalf of myself, that I think the Town Board has generally done an excellent job in limiting strip zoning, it's a beautiful community, and it's a tranquil community, and that's why an awful lot of people from Western Suffolk come out here. I'd like to say not only look at Sunrise Highway to see what strip zoning is like, but more importantly look at Jericho Turnpike. Jericho I~urnpike was a farm road seventy-five years ago. Today it's a disaster, and the reason it's a clisaster are the same reasons--the reasons given to those people for change of zone-- in that the area is changing, it's no longer suitable for my residence, are the same reasons that were given by the people here. We can sympathize with them, we can empathize with them, but should we impact all of Southold for those three people? Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Ruth? · Page 16 - Public Hear,.,g Dalchet & others MRS. RUTH OLIVA, President, North Fork Environmental Council: We very strongly oppose this application for a change of zone. We do not understand why RPP&W maintained that we should keep our hamlets in tact, and keep any expanding business areas in these hamlet areas, and yet here they moved out- side the area to this particular spot while there is available land up Griffing Avenue. There is a street there, there could be a light there, you could control the traffic. There is definitely going to be a terrible impact problem by Key Food. There is one there now, and even if, I think as it was suggested in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement by Mr. Donnelly, that a light be put right at the entrance and exit for Key Food and directly opposite have another entrance and exit for this proposed shopping area. There is a very difficult line of sight as you're coming east, because you're coming up that slight rise and then you just start down into that and you would have the light right there and I could just see people zooming along and all of a sudden they come to the top of that thing and their cars are blocked up and you're going to have to slam on the brake. We just do not approve of the strip zoning. Again RPP&W said that the whole thing of keeping the hamlet areas in tact was that here you have them here and yet when you drive from hamlet to hamlet you would be able to look out on broad horizons, and yet they came up with this plan for this commercial stripping, which we think is absolutely incongruous, and we totally disapprove of it, Thank you, SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Ruth. Is there someone else here who would like to speak in opposition? Yes, Ronnie? MRS. RONNIE WACKER, Cutchogue: I have a few thoughts on this proceeding tonight. I want to object to looks to me like a serious case of higgley piggley junk zone changing. We already have our business area in the central part of the hamlet, where the Master Plan says it should be. I see no reason to set up another commercial strip down the road to compete with the merchants already well established in the present business area. Mr. Haje says in his report that the soil is good agricultural soil. Well, why not leave it in agri- culture. As for traffic increases of 18,000 vehicles a day, if there's no zone change there would be no increase in traffic, or traffic noises. Only the sounds of potatoes or cabbages growing. I think this ought to be disapproved. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak in opposition? Frank Bear? MR. FRANK BEAR, Southold: All the good reasons for turning this down have been given except for one thing, in my opinion, and that is that we have now, in the process, an updating of the Town Master Plan. Why do we start changing zoning why this Master Plan is being updated? That should not be done. It's been done in a few cases already and that means that the Town Plan is being outdated even before it's completed. Let's wait, let's find out what the master planners finally agree upon after the input from the residents of this Town and then we won't have to do the kind of spot zoning that this would be. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone further would like to speak in opposition? (No response.) Anyone like to speak at all? Jean? Page 17 - Public Hear~.~ Dalchet & others MRS. JEAN TIEDKE, Southold: I can't add very much to what's been said. I'm Jean Tiedke, and I was a member of the work shop with RPP&W, and I was definitely appalled, because of the preliminary plan which they put out-- map--last August. The area under discussion tonight is marked Light Residential, the lowest grade of residential, or highest, if you wish, the least dense. All of a sudden in the December version of the preliminary map, there's a huge zone marked Business. I do not feel that we have heard a goo~l enough reason yet why it should I~e changed that way, but this situation does point up the problems that you are having, as Frank just said. Strip zoning, spot zoning, has been going on for a long time in this Town. Back in 1969 when Raymon~l and May did their first plan for the Town they said absolutely no strip zoning, no spot zoning. Anti what's happened? We I~ave strip zoning and we have spot zoning, not as much as we might have, not as much as there is down further west, but more than we need. I would suggest, also, that Mr. Haje's, I believe it was quoted, acceptable level of traffic services, is a lot of gobblede- gook. I don't know what it means. I do know that it's a very dangerous traffic situation there right now. I do not think that an acceptable leve~ of traffic service means anything, and I have not read that traffic report. I suggest you read it very carefully. I would also suggest that you consider a moratorium on all zoning changes until you establish just what we are going to be doing in this Town. SUPERVISOR MURPHY; Thank you. Is there anyone further? comments at all on this proposed zone change? (No response.) like to close this hearing. Any other If not, I would Judith T. Terry ~ Southold Town Clerk TO: The Honorable Frank Murphy, Supervisor, and the Southold Town Board Date: February 14, 1984 We, the undersigned, are opposed to the application of Dalchet Corporation, et al, for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "B-I" General Business, of an approximately 11 acre parcel on the southerly side of Main Road (N.Y. State Route 25), Cutchogue, N. Y. as described specifically in the Town Clerk Notice of Public Hearing on same for Town Board public hearing dated February 14, 1984. Name Address TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 25, CUTCHOGUE (From CR 26 to Eugene's Road) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Year Total Personal Property Accidents Fatalities Injury Damase 1979 15 0 11 4 1980 15 1 8 6 1981 17 0 12 5 1982 23 0 15 8 1983 (one-half 11 0 7 4 year) During the above period there were no major land use changes. In fact, there were no significant land use changes compared with the subject change of zone. The change of zone will cause a doubling of traffic off peak to nearly a tripling during peaks. The above chart shows a steady increase in accidents in excess of the increase in traffic. This means that accidents grow faster than traffic. Suffolk Traffic Engineers agree that as traffic increases, accidents generally increase faster to a point where capital invest- ments will have to be made to try to improve safety. Accidents increased by 50% while traffic volumes increased by a conser- vative 10%. What is the accident probability if the traffic increases nearly 100% which it will if this property is commercially developed? RECEIVED TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 25, CUTCHOGUE (From CR 26 to Eugene's Road) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Year Total Personal Property Accidents Fatalities Injury Damage 1979 15 0 11 4 1980 15 1 8 6 1981 17 0 12 5 1982 23 0 15 8 1983 (one-half 11 0 7 4 year) During the above period there were no major land use changes. In fact, there were no significant land use changes compared with the subject change of zone. The change of zone will cause a doubling of traffic off peak to nearly a tripling during peaks. The above chart shows a steady increase in accidents in excess of the increase in traffic. This means that accidents grow faster than traffic. Suffolk Traffic Engineers agree that as traffic increases, accidents generally increase faster to a point where capital invest- ments will have to be made to try to improve safety. o Accidents increased by 50% while traffic volumes increased by a conser- vative 10%. What is the accident probability if the traffic increases nearly 100% which it will if this property is commercially developed? RECEIVED FEB 1 4 ' RECEIVED EB 1 4 toil4 .~_ -2- Pactor Group 1 3 4 6 applied to ;'~dDl to c,uapuc¢ ~esign hour traffic. Tnble 2 FACTORS USED FO COMPUTE ANNIJAL AVERAGE D~ILY TRAFFIC Jan, Feb. Mar. Apr. May. June July ~ug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec, .81 .83 .84 ,95 1.07 1.10 1.22 1.25 1,06 1.03 .92 .84 ,96 Table 3 FACTORS APPLIED TO AADT TO COMPUTE DESIGN HOUR TRAFFIC 1980 Factor Group 1-way D.H. (30 th highest hour) as % of AADT 1 7.4 3 6.0 4 8.3 6 11.8 In or4er to initiate this new factoring procedure, we are asking the Regional Planning Officer to indicate new factor group assignments for each highway control section on the copiesof the header file included with this memo. This information will then be used for processing 1982 coverage counts. Detailed instructions for assigning proper factor groups follow: We will continue to use a two-digit factor group number. The first digit is the factor group assignmen~ 1, 3, 4 or 6 taken from Table 1. The second digit is a unique number (0, 1, 2, or 3) assigned for use in the field scheduling process, telling us when a particular section should be coun[ed. This enables control sections to be scheduled directly from [he assigned fac[or group code. The following examples demonstrate the method for assigning factor groups. Example I: Higkway Characteristics: Urban/Rural Nature - Small Urban Access - Con~rolled Seasenality - ? Moderate or Highly From Table ! for Small Urban, Controlled access highway the possibilities of factor group assignmmnt are 4 or 6. If the sea$onability of the highway were kno~ the assignment ~ould be factor group 4 for moderately seasonal amd factor group 6 for highly seasonal. Whenever the seasonality is unknown, the Normal group la chosen and the coun[ should be taken during specific months s~own under the Unknow~ column in ~h~a insta~,',~ Sept, , Feb., Jun,. a?.d ©c~., in ok~ar or minimize ~he error in TRAFFIC ?~CC1DENTS NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 25, CUTCHOGUE (From CR 26 to Eugene's Road) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Year Total Personal Property Accidents Fatalities Injury__ Damage 1979 15 0 11 4 1980 15 ! 8 6 1981 17 0 12 5 1982 23 0 I5 8 1983 (one-half 11 0 7 4 year) During the above period there were no major land use changes. In fact, there were no significant land use changes compared with the subject change of zone. The change of zone will cause a doubling of traffic off peak to nearly a tripling during peaks. The above chart shows a steady increase in accidents in excess of the increase in traffic. This means that accidents grow faster than traffic. Suffolk Traffic Engineers agree that as traffic increases, accidents generally increase faster to a point where capital invest- ments will have to be made to try to improve safety. Accidents increased by 50% while traffic volumes increased by s conser- vative 10%. What is the accident probability if the traffic increases nearly 100% which it will if this property is commercially developed? FEB ! 4 ~ RR~i Box 26H Cutchogue, NY 11935 February 8, 1984 Southold Town Board Town Hall / Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RECEIVED FEB 1 0 lg84 Te~n ¢1~ ~d To Whom it May Concern: Aa homeowners in Cutchogue~ we are writing to express our concern over the recent proposal to change the zoning of the corner property bounded by Harbor Lane and Rte. 25 in Cutchogue from Agricultural/Residential to General Commercial. This change is being proposed in the preliminary Master Plan~ and will be formally requested by the Dalchet Corporation at the Town Hall on February 14. We feel that as long as there is existing general commercial space avail- able for development nearby (the abandoned "Great Eastern" mall in Mattituck comes to mind) it is unwise to risk the potential haphazard commercial blight that so often replaces once-rural sites which have received "General Commercial" status. If a specific proposal for development of the site is forthcoming, let the zoning change be addressed at that time. Until a market for commercial use is clearly demonstrated we think the Town would be wise in restricting gen- eral development. Very truly yours~ Mary Ann Carcich Fred J. Carcich CC: The Suffolk Times Main Street Greenport, NY 11944 OUTP. HOI~UE-NEW SUFFOLK E:HAMBER OF E:OMMERE:E P-LITCHrl[~IJE, NEW YI~i~K 11935 [ '' ............ ~anuary 19, Mr. Frank Murphy, Supervisor Town Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York ~1971 Dear Mr. Murphy, At our regular monthly meeting, 3anuary 11, 1954, with twelve mem- bers present, a resolution favoring the extension of the business district in Cutchogue was approved by supporting the request of Dalchet Corp. and others to rezone their property from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "B-I" Business District. The property in question runs along the south side of Route 25 in Cutchogue from Braun's Oyster Company on the westerly side to Old Harbor Lane on the easterly side. Sincerely, 3oseph E. Nolan, Corresponding Secretary 3EN:bp cc: Larry Murdock, President LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and require- ments of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. a public hearing will be held at 8:00 P.M.. Tuesday. February 14, 1984 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the propoaal of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, lrwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glarer Victoria to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Maps) of the Town of South- old. Suffolk County, New York, by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-I" General Business District all that cer- tain, plot, piece or parcel of land. situate, lying and being near Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the comer formed by the intersection of the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road and the westerly side of Harbor Lane the following two courses and distances: (1) South 42° 19' 10" East 226.37 feet; ant (2) South 33° 45' 10" East 48.03 feet to land now or formerly of Bakowski; thence along land of Bakowski and other land of Dalchet Corp. South 56° 14' 50" West 310.85 feet to thc westerly side of land of Dalchet Corp.; thence South 34° 18' SO" East 113.12 feet; thence ahmg land of John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Rey- hold F. Blum. and William A. Littell South 49° 31' West 1197.89 feet to land now or formerly of Haman; thence along land of Haman the following hree courses and distance Il) Nocth 31° 22' 40" West 172.20 feet; (2) South >1° 22' 20" West I10.0 feet; and {3) North 31° 22' 40" West 165.0 feet to the souther- ly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road: thence along the soulhcrly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road the following four courses and dis- tances: (1) North 51° 22' 20" East 272.0 feet; (2) North 49° 31' East 720.40 feet; (3) North 48° 46' 20" East 294.83 feet; and (4) North 45° 44' East 287.32 feet to the westerly side COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NE'M/ YORK Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in, Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- man once each week for .........................-/.. ............ weeks successively, commencing on the ................. ~ .................. ~,,~, ~ 19...Z.':.7'.. day of ............................... / .................... , Swam to before me this ~ day of , LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and require- ments of the Zoning Cede of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 14, 1984 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, Now York, on ~he propesal of Dalchet COrporat:on, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria to amend the Zoning.Code (including the Zoning MAPS) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-I" General Business District all that certain plot, piece or porcel of land, situate, lying and being near Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New YOrk, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the corner formed by the i~tersection of the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road and the westerly side of Harbor Lane the following two courses and distances: {1) South 42' 19' 10" East 226.37 feet; and (2) South 33° 45' 10" East 48.63 feet to land now or formerly of Bakowski; thence along land of Bakowski and other land of Dalchet Corp. South 56' 14' 50" West 310.85 feet to the westerly side of land of Dalchet Corp.; thence South 34' 18' 50" Eas~ t13.12 feet; thence along land of John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, and William A. Littell South 49° 31' West 1197.89 feet to land now or formerly of Homart; thence along land of Homan the following three courses and distances: (1) North31° 22' 40" West 172.20 feet; (2) South 51° 22' 20, West 110.0 feet; and (3) North 31' 22' 40" West 165.0 feet to the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road~-thence along the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road the following four courses and distances: (1) North 51' 22' 20" East 272.0 feet; (2) North 49° 31' East 720.40 feet; (3) North 48' 46' 20" East 294.83 feet; and (4) North 45° 44' East 287.32 feet to the westerly side of Harbor Lane and the point of BEGINNING. The above described premises contain 11.0~4 acres. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified, DATED: Denember 10,1~. JUDITH T; TERRY ' SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK JUDITH A. CHIEN NOTARY PUBLIC, Stale of New York No 4796131, Suffolk County Term £xpire~ March 30 19~- STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) SUSAN W. ALLAN of Greenport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for ona weeks successively, commencing on the 2nd dayof February 19 84 Prin¢ipul Clerk Sworn to before me this 2nd dayof February 1984 STATE OF NEW YOPK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: SS: JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, being duly sworn, says that she is over the age of twenty-one years; that on the 22nd day of December 1983 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 Bulletin Board, Town Clerk Office, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 Notice of Public Hearing on petition for change of zone by Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria - 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 14, 1984, Southold Town Hall. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Sworn to be before me this 22ndday of December 19 83 tary Public T~ ~pires Marc~ 30. 1~ LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMENO ZONING CODE Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 14, 1984 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the proposal of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-l" General Business District all that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being near Cutchogue~ Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road and the westerly side of Harbor Lane the following two courses and distances: (1) South 42° 19' 10" East 226.37 feet; and (2) South 33° 45' 10" East 48.63 feet to land now or formerly of 13, akowski; thence along land of Bakowski and other land of Dalchet corp. South 56° 14' 50" West 310.85 feet to the westerly side of land of Dalchet Corp.; thence South 34° 18' 50" East 113.12 feet; thence along land of John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, and William A. Littell South 49° 31~ West 1197.89 feet to land now or formerly of Homan; thence along land of Homan the following three courses and distances: (1) North 31° 22' 40" West 172.20 feet; (2) South 51° 22' 20" West 110.0 feet; and (3) North 31° 22' 40" West 165.0 feet to the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road; thence along the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road the following four courses and distances: {1) North 51° 22' 20" East 272.0 feet; (2) North 49° 31' East 720.40 feet; (3) North 48° 46' 20" East 294.83 feet; and (4) North 45° 44' East 287.32 feet to the westerly side of Harbor Lane and the point of BEGINNING. The above described presmises contain 11.084 acres. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 14, 1984 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the proposal of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littel], and Nancy Glover Victoria to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-I" General Business District all that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being nearCutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road and the westerly side of Harbor Lane the following two courses and distances: (1) South 42° 19' 10" East 226.37 feet; and (2) South 33° 45' 10" East 48,63 feet to land now or formerly of Bakowski; thence along land of Bakowski and other land of Dalchet corp. South 56° 14' 50" West 310,85 feet to the westerly side of land of Dalchet Corp.; thence South 34° 18' 50" East 113.12 feet; thence along land of John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, and William A. Littell South 49° 31' West 1197.89 feet to land now or formerly of Homan; thence along land of Homan the following three courses and distances: (1) North 31° 22' 40" West 172.20 feet; (2) South 51° 22' 20" West 110.0 feet; and (3) North 31° 22' 40" West 165.0 feet to the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Round; thence along the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road the following four courses and distances: (1) North 51° 22' 20" East 272.0 feet; (2) North 49° 31' East 720.40 feet; (3) North 48° 46' 20" Esat 294.83 feet; and (4) North 45° 44' East 287.32 feet to the westerly side of Harbor Lane and the point of BEGINNING. The above described presmises contain 11. 084 acres. STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: SS: JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, being duly sworn, says that she is over the age of twenty-one years; that on the 22nd _day of D~emb~r 1983 _, 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 Bulletin Board, Town Clerk Office, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 Notice of Public Hearing on petition for change of zone by Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria - 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 14, 1984, $outhold Town Hall. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Sworn to be before me this 22nd day of December ,, 1983 ~ Notary Public/ - NO. 52-8125850, Suffolk Cou~'/ T~ E~p~es M~rch 30. 19~ LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 14, 1984 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the proposal of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-l" General Business District all that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being near Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of Main [N.Y. State Route 25) Road and the westerly side of Harbor Lane the following two courses and distances: (1) South 42° 19' 10" East 226.37 feet; and (2) South 33° 45' 10" East 48.63 feet to land now or formerly of Bakowski; thence along land of Bakowski and ether land of Dalchet corp. South 56° 14' 50" West 310.85 feet to the westerly side of land of Dalchet Corp.; thence South 34° 18' 50" East 113.12 feet; thence along land of John Pung, Irwin S, Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, and William A. Littell South 49° 31' West 1197.89 feet to land now or formerly of Homan; thence along land of Homan the following three courses and distances: (1) North 31° 22' 40" West 172.20 feet; (2) South 51° 22' 20" West 110.0 feet; and (3) North 31° 22' 40" West 165.0 feet to the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road; thence along the southerly side of Main (N.Y, State Route 25) Road the following four courses and distances: (1) North 51° 22' 20" East 272.0 feet; (2) North 49° 31' East 720.40 feet; (3) North 48° 46' 20" East 294.83 feet; and {4) North 45° 44' East 287.32 feet to the westerly side of Harbor Lane and the point of BEGINNING. The above described presmises contain 11,084 acres. Page 2 - gal Notice Public Hearing - Dalchet et al. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. DATED: December 20, 1983. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, FEBRIJARY 2, 1984, ANO FORWARD ONE (1) AI~FID^VIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTBOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Richard F. Lark, Esq., on behalf of Dalchet et al. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 14, 1984 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the proposal of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy GIover Victoria to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, by cl~anging from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "13-1" General 13usiness District all that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being nearCutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described as follows: 13EGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road and the westerly side of Harbor Lane the following two courses and distances: (1) South 42° 19' 10" East 226.37 feet; and (2) South 33° 45' 10" East 48.63 feet to land now or formerly of Bakowski; thence along land of 13akowski and other land of Dalchet corp. South 56° 14' 50" West 310.85 feet to the westerly side of land of Dalchet Corp.; thence South 34° 18' 50" East 113,12 feet; thence along land of John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. 131urn, and William A. Littell South 49° 31' West 1197.89 feet to land now or formerly of Homan; thence along land of Homan the following three courses and distances: (1) North 31° 22' 40" West 172.20 feet; (2) South 51° 22' 20" West 110.0 feet; and (3) North 31° 22' 40" West 165.0 feet to the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Ro~d; thence along the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road the following four courses and distances: (I) North 51° 22' 20" East 272.0 feet; (2) North 49° 31' East 720.40 feet; (3) North 48° 46' 20" Esat 294.83 feet; and (4) North 45° /~4' East 287.32 feet to the westerly side of Harbor Lane and the point ofl3EGINNING. The above described presmises contain 11.084 acres. Page 2 - Legal Notice Public Hearing - Dalchet et al. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. DATED: December 20, 1983. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLE~ASE PUBLISH ONCE, FEBRUARY 2, 1984, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICA'i!OI'~ TO JUDI'IH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Richard F. Lark, Esq., on behalf of Dalchet et al. LEGAL ICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 14, 1984 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the proposal of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "13-I" General Business District all that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being nearCutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road and the westerly side of Harbor Lane the following two courses and distances: (I) South 42° 19' 10" East 226,37 feet; and (2) South 33° 45' 10" East 48.63 feet to land now or formerly of Bakowski; thence along land of Bakowski and other land of Dalchet corp. South 56° 14' 50" West 310.85 feet to the westerly side of land of Dalchet Corp.; thence South 34° 18' 50" East 113.12 feet; thence along land of John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, and William A. Littell South 49° 31' West 1197.89 feet to land now or formerly of Homan; thence along land of Homart the following three courses and distances: (I) North 31° 22' 40" West 172.20 feet; (2) South 51° 22' 20" West 110.0 feet; and (3) North 31° 22' 40" Nest 165.0 feet to the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road; thence along the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road the following four courses and distances: (1) North 51° 22' 20" East 272.0 feet; (2) North 49° 31' East 720.40 feet; (3) North 48° 46' 20" Esat 294.83 feet; and (4) North 45° 44' East 287.32 feet to the westerly side of Harbor Lane and the point of BEGINNING. The above described presmises contain 11.084 acres. Page 2 - Legal Notice Public Hearing - Dalchet et al. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. DATED: December 20, 1983. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, FEBRUARY 2, 1984, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFiDAViT OF PUBLICA]iON ro JuDiTH Y. '~'ERRY, TO~VN CLERi<, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Richard Fo Lark, Esq., on behalf of Dalchet et al. JUDITH T TERRY OFFICE OF TIlE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-180l December 22, 1983 Richard F. Lark, Esq. Main Road Cutchogue, New York 11935 Dear Dick: The $outhold Town Board at their regular meeting held on December 13th scheduled a public hearing on the change of zone petition of Oalchet, et al, for 8:05 P.M., Tuesday, January 3, 1984. Subsequently, at your request, this public hearing was rescheduled to 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 14, 1984. A copy of the lega! notice is enclosed herewith. With respect to Dalchet, the Town Board, at their December 20th meeting adopted a resolution not to accept the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement until it has held a public hearing on the change of zone petition. I am enclosing herewith a copy of said resolution for your files. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures (2) JUDITII T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OFVrIALSIAllSII('S OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 1197I TELEPHONE (516) 765-180l THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 20, 1983: WHEREAS, Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgianna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria heretofore filed a petition with this Board requesting a change of zone on property owned by them at Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, and WHEREAS, this Board, as lead agency, requested said petitioners to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) with this Board, with respect to said petition, and WHEREAS, said DEIS has been filed with the Town Clerk, and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held by this Board before it may take action on said petition for a change of zone, pursuant to the provisions of the Town Law, and WHEREAS, Section 8-109, subdivision 5 of the Environmental Conservation Law provides that notwithstanding the specified time periods established by Article 8 of said law, an agency shall have the right to vary the times so established therein for the preparation, review and public hearings in order to coordinate the environmental review proces with other procedures required in the consideration of an action, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the DEIS of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria shall not be deemed accepted by this Board until it has held a public hearing on the said petition for a change of zone of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin $. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria, and it is FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law and Rules, promulgated thereunder, after said hearing is held and said DEIS is accepted by this Board, the environmental review process shall be considered by this Board concurrently with its consideration of the petition for a change of zone. Southoid Town Clerk RECEIVED Town Clerk RICHARD F. LARK December 16, 1983 Hon. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk 53096 Main Road - Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 RE: In the Matter of the Petition of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria for a Chanqe of Zone Dear Mrs. Terry: In connection with the above-captioned matter, I have received notice a public hearing for the change of zone application has been scheduled for 8:05 P.M. on January 3, 1984. Due to personal commitments I have that am requesting another date convenient to the to hold the public hearing. evening, Town Board Awaiting your reply, I am Very truly yo~,, ~ichard 1~.' Lark RFL:bc NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: November 22, 1983 APPLICANT: Dalchet Corpor- ation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. LiRell, and Nancy Glover Victoria, BY Richard F. Lark, Attorney. ADD~: Riehard F. Lark, Attorney: biain Road, Cut- thegns, New York. PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND APPLICATION NUM- BER: Change of Zone from "A' Residential and Agri- cultural District to "B-i" General Business District, Petition No. 2M. PROJECT LOCATION: Cut- chogue, Town of Southold, CoUnty of SuffOlk, New York, on the southerly side of RotRe 25, east of Stillr water Avenue and west of Harbor Lane. SEQR DE.TERMINATION: A draft environmental impact statement has been pre- pa~d on this project and is on file. SEQR LEAD AGENCY: Town Board of the Town of South. old. AVAILABILITY FOR PUB- LIC Th~ draft ~stat~ at~ JUAN N. MAG£E NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK NO. 52,.4,,~)5~5~ NTY OUALtFI~ IN ~J~FFOLK (](~_N1 ^J STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK } JUDITH A CHIEN ofGreenport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Greenport, In the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed ia a printed copy, has boon regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for one (1) weeks successively, commencing on the 1 s t dayof December 19 83 Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this 1 s t da~o~ D~c em b ~ ~-~ Ii) below no inter than Daces- CONTACT P~IRSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall New York 11971 / 516) ITD1-4415 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: STATE OF NEW YORK NOTICE OF i~CEIPT OF DRAFT S~ATqM!~ ~ "i~e: 1~2~;; 1983 County o~ ~ yer~, Southold, : ~ ~ LIC ~~ dr~ Patricia Woad, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Sauthold, in, Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- man once each week. for ................... ./. ................... weeks successively, commencing on the ............. /..Z.. .............. day of ............ ,~..~.~. ~..-;. ~.,'~. .................. , '19....,:.. -'--'"'"-'" ...................... ....... Swam to before me this ........... ../ ................... day of .......... ~.,~ .......... , 19.....~. ? JUDITH T TERRY TOWN CLIRK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765 1801 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: November 22, 1983 APPLICANT: Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria, BY Richard F. Lark, Attorney. ADDRESS: Richard F. Lark, Attorney: Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND APPLICATION NUMBER: Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-I" General Business District, Petition No. 256. PROJECT LOCATION: Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, on the southerly side of Route 25, east of Still- water Avenue and west of Harbor Lane. SEQR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. SEQR LEAD AGENCY: Town Board of the Town of Southold. AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than December 22, 1983. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801. JUDITII T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISIRAROI VII,\L SI \IISIICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 PLEASE PUBLISH THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON DECEMBER 1, 1983, AND FORWARD ONE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board David DeRidder, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany RECEIVED 2 2 To'q~n Cle~ Soufhold RICHARD F. LARK ATTORNEY AT LAW November 18, 1983 Hon. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk 53095 Main Road - Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 RE: In the Matter of the Petition of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria for a Change of Zone Dear Mrs. Terry: In connection with the above-captioned matter, I am enclosing twelve (12) copies of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Change of Zone for Dalchet Corporation, et al. prepared by En-Consultants, Inc. Would you please advise me of the date of the hearing on this matter. RFL:bc Enclosures Very truly yours chard F. Lark DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for CHANGE of ZONE DALCHET CORPORATION, et al. ~n-Consoltants, Inc. 64 North Main Street Southampton, NY 11968 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell and Nancy Glover Victoria for Change of Zone from "A Residential and Agricultural" to "B-1 General Business District" on premises along the southerly side of Main (State Route 25) from land of Homan to the westerly side of South Harbor Road, Cutchogue, New York for a distance of 1,574.70 ft. LEAD AGENCY: CONTACT PERSON: PREPARED BY: Town of Southold Town Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 WILLIAM PELL, Supervisor ROY L. HAJE, President En-Consultants, Inc. 64 North Main Street Southampton, New York 11968 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF ACTION DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GEOLOGY AND SOILS SLOPES AND TOPOGRAPHY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION POTENTIAL MINERAL RESOURCES LAND FORMS HYDROLOGY GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER ECOLOGY VEGETATION WILDLIFE LAND USE DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS HISTORIC OR ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES RELATION TO LAND USE PLANS VISUAL CHARACTER NOISE ODOR EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AFFECTING ACTION STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS (POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE) SHORT TERM LONG TERM CUMULATIVE IDENTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE EFFECTS IDENTIFICATION OF ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES DESCRIPTION OF ANY GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS OF ACTION IMPACT OF THE ACTION ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2 3 4 5 5 8 $ 8 $ 8 9 10 10 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 LIST OF APPENDICES Map to accompany application for change of zone from "A" to "Bi" for Dalchet Corporation and others by Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C. mapped 7/22/82, amended 10/29/82 and 12/23/82 .................... Section of zoning map of the Town of Southold showing subject premises ..................... Traffic impact study by Vincent G. Donnelly, P.E ........ Photographs of site ..................... APP. I APP. II APP. !II APP. IV -2- SU~RY The'applicants request a change of zone for an lit acre parcel from ~A Residential and Agricultural" to "B-1 General Business District.~' The property is located on the south side of Main Road (NYS Route 25), Cutchogue, Town of Southold. The change is requested so that the property might better con- form to the nature of the g~neral business development tn the vicinity. Potential impacts discussed include water supply, traffic, geol- ogy and soils, etc. The change of zone must be approved by the Town Board of the Town of Southold. It is concluded that the present residential zoning is no longer viable given the type and extent of commercial development of the area. The change to general business will allow development which is in keeping with the surroundings without having any significant adverse impact upon the environment. -3- STUDIES, REPORTS AND LITERATURE USED IN PREPARATION OF DEIS BURT, William H. et al. A Field Guide to the Mammals, 1964 Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY. 1981. Current population Estimates for Nassau and Suffolk Counties. NASSAU-SUFFOLK REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD. 1978. "208" Water Study. Hauppauge. PETERSON, R. T., et al. 1947. A Field Guide to the Birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. SUFFOLK COMPANY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES. 1982. Contour Map of the Water Table and Location of Observation Wells in Suffolk County, N.Y., March 1982. SOUTHOLD, TOWN OF ZONING ORDINANCE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 1972. Soil Survey of Suffolk County. Riverhead. -18- APPENDIX III TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Proposed Site Development Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25) Vicinity of Harbor Lane at Cutchogue Town of Southold, New York Vincent G. Donnelly, P.E. October 1983 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Purpose of Report ............... 1 Study Methodology ................... 2 Existing Conditions Land Use ..................... 3 Main Road (Route 25) ............ 3 Proposed Site Development Trip Generation . Trip Distribution . Trip Assignment . Traffic Ir~oactAnalysis. Append~ x A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D _Appendix E Description of Level of Service Existing Traffic Volumes Alternate Site Uses Trip Generation Trip Distribution Trip Assignment Existing Traffic Volume Analysis Projected Traffic Volumes Capacity Analyses Levels of Traffic Service 8oo8o8oo o oooooo~ O0 000000000 O0 00000 000000 0 0 00000000 0000000000000 0 DO000000 0000000000000 00~00000000000000000000000000000000~00 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The'applicants requesting this change of zone are: DALCHET CORPORATION, a domestic corporation of the State of New York with office and principal place of business at Cutchogue, New York; JAMES R. FOGARTY and GEORGEANNA FOGARTY, both residing at Main Road, Cutchogue, New York; JOHN PUNG, residing at 8 South Tyson Avenue, Floral Park, New York; IRWIN S. I(RUGER, residing at 146 Central Park West, New York, New York; REYNOLD F. BLUM, residing at 122 Cross Road, Oakdale, New York; WILLIAM A. LITTELL, residing at 705 Blue Ridge Drive, Medford, New York; and NANCY GLOVER VICTORIA, residing at Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, New York. The action requested consists of a change of zone from "A resi- dential and Agricultural" to "B-1 General Business." The six involved parcels have been owned by the individuals no- ted above for varying lengths of time ranging from 22 years to (about) 3 The parcel cbntains 1575.05 feet of road frontage on the south- erly side of Main Road. Its depth varies from 165' on the west side an average depth of 330' at the center to 274' on the east. A map prepared by Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C. entitled "Map to accompany application for change of zone from "A" to "B-l" for Dalchet Corp. and others at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, N.Y." dated July 22, 1982 with amendments of October 299 1982 and December 23~ 1982 is included in the appendices. The need, as perceived by the proponent of the action, is to make the subject premises more compatible with its surroundings. The pres- ent residential zoning has become outdated as the area has been developed with businesses and traffic increases. The most likely use of the property -4- is for general business similar in type and scale to that which exists nearby. The range of permitted uses in a B-1 zone is described in sec- tion 100-70 (A) of the Town Code. Special exception uses are described in subsection B. The applicants hope to achieve the change of zone as soon as all regulatory requirements are met. velop the property. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING There are no immediate plans to de- previous The precise location has been given in a~section and shown on a map in the appendices. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES GEOLOGY AND SOILS The Soil Survey of Suffolk County (USDA, I975), sheet 17, iden- tifies the soils aa Haven loams. A general description of these follows: "The Haven series consists of deep, well-drained~ medium-tex- tured soils that formed in a loamy or silty mantle over stratified coarse sand and gravel. These soils are present throughout the county, but most areas are on outwash plains between the two terminal moraines. Slopes range from 0 to 12 percent~ but they generally are 1 to 6 percent. Na- tive vegetation consists of black oak, white oak, red oak, scrub oaks, and pitch pine. In a representative profile a thin layer of leaf litter and de- composed organic matter is on the surface in wooded areas. Belo~ this is the surface layer of dark grayish-brown loam about 3 inches thick. In cultivated areas the surface layer is mixed with the material formerly in the upper part of the subsoil, and a plow layer of brown or dark-brown loam about 10 inches thick, is present. The subsoil is dark-brown to -5- strong-brown, friable loam to a depth of about 19 inches. The lower part, to a depth of 28 inches, is yellowish-brown, friable gravelly loam. The substratum, to a depth of 55 inches, is yellowish-brown to brownish-yellow loose sand and gravel. Haven soils have high to moderate available moisture capacity. Reaction is strongly acid to very strongly acid throughout. Natural fer- tility is low. The response of crops to lime and fertilizer is good. In- ternal drainage is good. Permeability is moderate in the surface layer and subsoil and rapid or very rapid in the substratum. The root zone is 25 to 35 inches thick..." The bulk of the property is Haven loam, 0-2 percent slopes (Ua A). "--This soil has the profile descrihed as representative of the series. It is mostly nearly level and generally is on outwash plains. Some areas of this soil are on moraines and generally are on the top of low-lying hills Some of these areas are slightly undulating. Most areas of this soil are large, but on moraines the areas are smaller and are irregular in shape. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Scio soils and some crescent-shaped, gravelly areas. Also included are soils that hsve a moderately coarse textured surface layer and a medium-textured subsoil. In many areas of this soil that are mapped in association with Bridgehampton soils, the soil is deeper and siltier than that described as representative of the series. Bridgehampton soils generally are inclu- ded in mapping in these areas. Also included, on moraines are areas of Montauk soils formed in loose, sandy till. The hazard of erosion is slight on this Haven soil. Primary -6- management concerns are keeping the soil from crusting after rsin, main- taining tilth," and reducing the plowpan. This soil is used extensively for crops, and it is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the county. Potatoes are the main crop~ but cauliflower, cabbage, corn, onion, and sod crops are also grown. Be- cause of the nearly level slope and ease of excavation, most areas of this soil in the western part of the county are being used for housing developments and industrial parks." The remainder is Haven loam, 2-6 percent slopes (Ha B). "--This soil is on outwash plains and moraines, commonly alon~ shallow, intermittent drainage channels. Slopes are short. In larger areas this soil is mostly undulating. Most areas of this soil are smal- ler than the areas of Haven loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. In cultivated areas this soil is 2 or 3 inches shallower to sand and gravel than the soil described as representative of the series, and it contains a larger amount of gravel. Otherwise the two profiles are similar. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Riverhead and Bridgehampton soils, some of which are in a complex pattern with the dominant Haven soil~ These included soils generally are in the larger areas of this soil. Also included are Montauk silt loams that have a very weak fragipan. In places areas of this soil that are mapped near Montauk soils have layers of till deep in the substratum. Also included are areas along the bottom of narrow drainage channels that have a silty surface layer that is thicker than that in the profile described. The hazard of erosion is moderate to slight on this Haven soil. Management concerns are controlling runoff and erosion and keeping the -7- surface loose and free from crusting. %his soil is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the county. It generally is farmed the same as adjoining areas of nearly level soils. Crops commonly grown are potatoes, cauliflower, cabbage, and corn. Most areas in the western part of the county are used for housing developments." SLOPES AND TOPAGRAPHY These are described in the previous section as ranging from flat to gently undulating, 0 to 6 percent. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION POTENTIAL The hazard of erosion on Haven soils is moderate to slight. Prevention of crusting is the most important management concern. MINERAL RESOURCES None known. LAND FORMS The land has historically been primarily used for agriculture. No unique land forms a~e found within the boundaries of this parcel. HYDROLOGY GROUNDWATER Data from recent wells in the immediate vicinity supplied to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services was obtained to deter- mine groundwater conditions. All Of Southold Township lies within hydrogeologic zone IV as described by the "208 Study" (Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1977). This area has unique groundwater conditions and special management alternatives apply to it. Agriculture has impacted the groundwater qua- lity most. In many areas, water underlying agricultural areas shows nitro- -8- gen-related contamination resulting from the long-term application of fer- tilizers. Re'sidential areas, however, generally still have good quality water. Statistical examination of over 300 analyses from North Fork do- mestic wells indicates that almost all have nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of less than 3 milligrams per liter. High chloride concentrations (more than 250 mg/l~ are found in certain areas near tidal waters but are not a factor here. Specific information is available from a new well directly ac- cross Main Road at the Pe¢onic Clock Shop (Albert Bodenstein). According to Suffolk County Department of Health Services records, the depth of this well is 70', water in the well is 60', and static water was encountered at 10'. Analysis of a water sample collected 5/5/83 yielded satisfactory con- centration~ of all normally tested constituents (Temik, aldicarb, coliform, iron*~ managanese, detergents, chlorides, nitrates). It is interesting to note the absence and low level respectively of Temik and Aldicarb, two common widespread agricoltwral pesticides. Ni- trates, the most comm6n agricultural pollutant and the one of most concern in the ~208 Study", is also at an acceptable level. Another well at an antique store owned by Eugene Mott directly north of Main Road indicated a 50' deep well with ~0' of water. A sample collected 2/1/83 also yielded satisfactory results for all constituents. These wells and others £n this v£cin£ty are in the upper glacial aquifer. SURFACE WATER None. Initial test for iron yielded .57 mg/1, an unusually high reading in- dicating testing error. A re-test found 0.03 mg/1, a more usual and accept- able result. -9- ECOLOGY VEGETATION The use of this property for residences and agriculture for a long period of time has eliminated any traces of the original indigenous vegetation (probably an oak woods association). The fields have yielded such standard Long Island crops as cauliflower, potatoes, and cabbage. A flower garden now grows toward the easterly end. A vineyard is located toward the westerly end. Ornamental trees (primarily maples) are found near the residence and road. WILDLIFE Those species typically found associated with human activity may be found here. Small mammal representatives include: eastern gray squir- rel, cottontail rabbit, meadow mole, vole, ~ouse~ and rat~ Common Long Island upland birds including the sparrows, finches, robin, grackle, bluejay, red-winged blackbird, blackbird, and cardinal will be found here on occasion. The herring gull may rest in the open fields and frequently passes overhead. Likely reptilian inhabitants or transients sre the Fowler's toad and garter snake. No rare or endangered species of flora or fauna were noted on the property nor are they expected based on the history of use and proxim- ity to existing human activity. No unique or critical ecosystems, habitats, or food sources are found here. -10- LAND USE The property on the easterly portion of the ?rem£ses requested to be rezoned is owned by Dalchet Corporation and is presently vacant land with the exception of a barn; the land owned by James R. and Georgeanna Fogarty contains a one family residence; the land owned b~ John Pung is vacant with the exception of a small accessory structure on the northeast corner; Irwin S. Kruger's property contains a residence, barn and farm stand doing business under the name of "Harvest Time Farms"; the land owned by Reynold F. Blum and William A. Littell contains a large barn and storage area for use by Peconic Vineyards; Nancy Glover Victoria's property contains a one family residence and garage· The property to the west and south of Nancy Glover Victoria is owned by James Homan and located thereon is seafood business. Portions of these premises immediately adjacent to Nancy Glover Victoria and Reynold F. Blum and William A. Littell parcels are zoned "C Light Industrial District." The property of Nancy Glover Victoria and Reynold F. Blum and William A. Littell is land owned by H. Rienecker and S. Friemann and located thereon is a business by the name of Pinewood Nursery which is a wholesale/retail business dealing in the sale of shrubs, landscaping and home beautifica- tion supplies. Immediately adjacent thereto in an easterly direction is probably owned, by S. & E. Realty Co~ upon which is the Key Food Shopping Center. Located in this retail shopping center is the Key Food Supermar- ket, Peconic Liquor Store, Cameo Cards and Gifts, The Quartermaster Army & Navy Store, Dolomite Restaurant & Pizzeria, and the Cutchogue Pub bar. Further easterly is a large parcel of land owned by the New York Telephone Company used as a telephone exchange. Immediately adjacent to the New York Telephone property are smaller parcels of land on which stores are -11 - currently being built. Next door thereto is a gasoline station and auto repair shop k~own as Cutchogue Auto Sales owned by George Mostupanick. Continuing in an easterly direction are three residences owned by Nellie Doroski, A. Imbriano and Theodore Doroski. Immediately adjacent to the Doroski property is a large parcel of land owned by John Miesner~ Jr. on which there is a building. Immediately next to the Miesner parcel is the Gulf Service Station owned by Daniel Kaelin. Across Cox's Lane to the east is located the real estate office of Butt G. Lewis, Jr. On the south- easterly corner of Main Road is the Mobil Service Station owned by Allan Ovsianik. To the west of Eugene's Road on the southerly side of the Main Road (N.Y. State Route 25) is the Old Burying Ground Cemetery DEMOGP~APHIC FACTORS The population of the Cutchogue-New Suffolk area has remained virtually static between the census years of 1970 and 1980 at 2718 and 2788 respectively. While the present 1983 figure may be slightly higher, there has been no dramatic influx into this area in recent years. HISTORIC OR ARCHEOLOGiCAL RESOURCES Although some of the existing buildings are quite old, they do not possess any known historical significance The "Old Burying Ground Cemetery" which does possess historical significance to the Town of South- old, is located east of Harbor Lane beyond the area subject to this change of zone. REI~kTION TO I~%ND USE PIANS The Development Plan for the Town of Southold (Raymond, May, Psrr~sh and Pine, 1969) includes the subject area as part of a "low-den- sity residence" zone. A new town-side plan is presently being developed but it is unknown what the recommended use for this parcel will be. -12- VISUAL C~h~RACTER The~rezoning action will have no impact upon the visual charac- ter of the area. The uses to which the land would be put assuming the change of zone were approved would depend upon the form subsequent devel- opment takes. The most likely development, retail stores, would change the present sparsely developed rural character to a series of one and/or two story buildings with paved parking areas, landscaping, etc~ similar to that on the north side of Main Road. NOISE Generation of noise at the present ime is primarily due to traf- fic on Main Road. To the extent that the proposed allowable uses will affect traffic, the level of noise will increase slightly. ODOR Vehicle emissions produce the most discernible odors at present. At times, agricultural fertilizers and pesticides produce odors. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTR~INTS AFFECTING ACTION No natural hazards (i.e., unstable soils, flood plains) ent. are pres- No wetlands, wildlife refuges, parks or critical zones are pres- ent. Good quality agricultural land as described in the section on geology is present. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS (POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE) SHORT TERM Land development following a zone change will result in the usual effects associated with construction. Temporary elevations of noise levels from construction equipment, vehicles, and workers; dust from excavations; -13- odors from paving materials are potential physical effects. Job~ for workers will be provided aiding the local economy on primary and secondary levels (income and purchases in local stores, etc). LONG TERM In the long term, the economic impact of commercial development versus residential impact should be considered. The $outhold Master Plan describes this type of commercial land use as a "neighborhood center." As such, it will feature primarily convenience goods and personal services. The target market would be local residents within "5 to 6 minutes driving time~" Another potential market lies in the seasonal tourist trade which either vacations in Southold, day trips, or passes through to or from the Orient Point Ferry. By increasing the capability of the locality to m~et the needs of its residents, those residents are less likely to travel elsewhere. This is especially true in an area where retired persons make up a (rela- tively) large proportion of the population. Existing fire and police protection will be adequate to service the scale of development which would be possible with the proposed change of zone. There is not expected to be any significant impact upon the school district. Conm~ercial development must conform to the same parameters as residential for water supply and sewage disposal. Private individual wells and sewage disposal systems are most likely (Robert Jewell, (SCDH), per- sonal communication). As industry is not permitted by either existing or proposed zoning, there will be no industrial effluents. Effluent is not to exceed 300 gallons per day per acre which effectively excludes heavy -14- water users. '£hus the demand upon groundwater resources is not expected to exceed the'supply. The effects upon traffic are discussed in the engineer's report in the appendices. CUMULATIVE This request for change of zone to allow commercial development is a manifestation of the cumulative nature of other prior development. The unsuitability of the present residential zoning stems from the commer- cial nature of nearby development. The Route 25 corridor is a heavily-travelled roadway through Riverhead and Southold Townships. Business development has centered along it, and to a lesser extent, Middle Road (formerly NYS Route 27). By concentrating commercial development in this location, those areas more suited to agriculture and residences are more likely to retained to per- petuate the rural character of the Town. More commercial development should be expected along the Route 25 corridor with or without this proposal. Owners of parcels of similar status elsewhere may consider the fate of the instant proposal and the ul- timate success of subsequent development when and if similar circumstances arise. IDENTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED Following development of the land, either under present or pro- posed zoning, a loss of open space would occur. The usage of the land for agriculture would also be precluded. A modification to traffic volume would result as described in the engineer's report. -15- DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE EFFECTS The standards of the various involved regulatory agencies have inherent mitigation factors. For example, the $CDH will require no more than 1 unit per 40,000 sq ft in order to protect groundwater resources. Other requirements regarding drainage, setbacks, height restric- tions all serve to mitigate impact. As the proposed action is a change of zone at this time without any specific construction proposals, it is not possible to detail mitiga- tion measures. At the appropriate time, actual development will consider any reasonable mitigation measures. IDENTIFICATION OF ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRMTRIEVABLE COMMITF[ENTS OF RESOURCES The commitment of agricultural land to development is essen- tially irreversible and irretrievable. At the time of actual construction, the usage of fossil fuels to power construction equipment and workers vehicles is irreversible aa ia the consumption of el'eetrical power by tools. The commitment of wood and other material used in construction is essentially irreversible. DESCRIPTION OF ANY GROWTH INDUCING ASFECTS OF ACTION See discussion on cumulative impacts. IMPACT OF THE ACTION ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY At the t~me of actual construction, energy in the form of fos- sil fuels and electricity will be consumed. Structures will be heated by oil burning or other state-of-the-art equipment. Ail proposed structures will be adequately insulated to minimize energy consumption. Existing sources of electrical energy supplied by LILCO are ade- quate to service the proposed facilities. -16- DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES The "no action" alternative would restrict development to res[- dences and/or agriculture. The proximity to Main Road and other commer- cial development are not well suited to residential development. Action at a different time would prevent potential sale of the property to commercial interests who will prepare appropriate zoning in place. -17- T Z J ,3. A PURPOSE OF REPORT It has been proposed to change the zoning of an 11.084 acre parcel of land on the south side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25) in Cutchogue from "A" (Residence and Agricultural) to "B-t" (General Business). The General Business District zoning would permit the development of the site for such commercial uses as a retail shopping center or business and professional offices. No specific construction proposal has been prepared for the site as of the date of this report. This report summarizes the results of a detailed investigation of the traffic impact of various developmental alternatives for the site under the proposed "B-l" zoning change. The report reviews existing roadway and traffic conditions in the area, estimates the volume and pattern of traffic which will be generated by alternate uses, analyzes the affect of the additional traffic on the surrounding access roads and presents an overall assessment of the traffic impact of the site development on the adjacent area. -1- 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 and patterns in the area were de- termined from field surveys and the record files of the New York State Department of Transportation and the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. These data were analyzed in de- tail and, in conjunction with field investigations, the current 1 level of traffic service in the area was established. The volume of traffic expected to be generated by various alternate uses of the site was estimated. These uses included a shopping center, office buildings and a combination shopping center-office development. The traffic generated by each of these developments was then assigned to the adjacent street system on the basis of an analysis of the geographical distribution of the existing population in the surrounding area. The additional traffic from each of the alternate uses was added to existing traffic volumes on the roadways in the area and a capacity analysis performed to determine the anticipated level of traffic service. cluded a review of non-summer and summer, Saturday traffic conditions. The analysis in- and weekday and The projected traffic conditions for each alternative were reviewed to identify any potential problem areas and an overall assessment made of the traffic impact of development of the site to "B-I" General Business District zoning. 1See Appendix A for description of level of service. -2- EXISTING CONDITIONS Land Use The proposed site is located on the south side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25) immediately to the west of Harbor Lane at Cutchogue in the Town of Southold (See Location Map, Figure 1). The marcel consists of 11.084 acres with approxi- mately 1575 feet of frontage along Route 25 (See Site Map, Figure 2). The site is currently occupied by a farm and several individual residences. Development immediately to the west of the site consists of residences and the George Braun Oyster Company (located in a "C" Zone). To the east of the site on the east side of Harbor Lane is a cemetery. On the north side of Route 25 immediately opposite the site is the Key Food ShopDing Plaza. The Plaza is a 40,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center featuring a Key Food Supermarket and parking provisions for approximately 300 vehicles. Other existing development on the north side of Main Road includes commercial uses to the east of the shopping center and residential, farm and nursery uses to the west. The Cutchogue commercial area extends approximately 0.5 miles to the west of the site and is centered at the New Suffolk Road intersection with Route 25. Main Road (Route 25) Direct access to the proposed site will be provided by Route 25. Route 25 is a two lane State highway which provides local traffic service to the various hamlets along the North Fork of Suffolk County. -3- Route 25 in this area consists of two 12 foot wide travel lanes with 8 foot wide shoulder areas. Traffic counts2 takeh by the New York State Department of Transportation in- dicate a 1979 average daily traffic volume of 6,050 vehicles per day east of the site and a 1980 daily volume of 8,050 vehicles per day west of the site. These traffic volumes have been adjusted to average the seasonal traffic fluctuations that occur in this area. A review of seasonal traffic volume variations in the area reveals that volumes vary by as much as 70 per cent during the year with peak periods occurring during the summer months and lowest volumes occurring during January and February (See Appendix B-7). Daily traffic volumes on Route 25 also vary con- siderably. During the summer, Fridays and Saturdays are peak travel days, while during non-summer periods, Thursdays and Fridays are peak days. Hourly weekday traffic volumes on Route 25 reflect the importance of the roadway for both journey to work and shopping trips. Peak traffic flow on weekdays occurs between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Traffic surveys conducted for this study during October 1983 revealed a two-way traffic volume of 890 vehicles per hour during the 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. time period with 470 vehicles in the peak eastbound direction of flow (See Appendix B). Saturday traffic volumes generally approach the same volume levels as weekday traffic. However, they peak during the midday period (10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) and generally consist predominantly of shopping and recreational traffic. Traffic control in the area consists of a 40 mph speed limit in the immediate vicinity of the site and a two-phase traffic signal at the Route 25 and New Suffolk Road intersection. 2Source: 1982 Traffic volume Report New York State Department of Transportation -4- Route 25 in this area during peak traffic periods operates at an excellent level of traffic service (level of service A) during the non-summer months and a good level of service (level of service B) during the summer months.3 Ob- servations conducted for this investigation revealed generally free-flow unimpeded movement of traffic on Route 25 in the study area. Minor restrictions to traffic flow were observed at the Key Food access drive intersection with Route 25 and the Route 25 at New Suffolk Road intersection. Traffic operations at the Route 25 and New Suffolk Road signalized intersection, although generally at a high level of service, are adversely impacted by the lack of an adequate separate left turning area on Route 25 for westbound left turning vehicles. These vehicles, while stopped waiting for an adequate gap in the eastbound traffic stream, tend to block and delay westbound through traffic if vehicles are parked at the curb in this area. Table 1 summarizes the reported traffic accident experience along Route 25 in this area. 3See Capacity Analyses - Level of Service Determinations in Appendix E -5- TABLE 1 Reported Traffic Accidents4 Route 25 New Suffolk Road to Harbor Lane Town of Southold Aver./Yr. 1979 1980 1981 1982 1979-82 New Suffolk Road 4 2 2 2 2.5 0 0 0 0 0.0 Depot Lane 0 2 1 5 2.0 0 0 1 3 1.0 stillwater Avenue 2 1 1 1 1.3 Sterling Lane 3 0 3 1 1.8 * 0 1 1 0 0.5 Harbor Lane * 1 2 2 4 2.3 10 8 11 16 *Site Area During the 1979-82 time period, there has been an average of approximately three reported traffic accidents a year on Route 25 within the general limits of the site. A review of the historical accident experience does not reveal any unusual traffic safety problem areas. This was confirmed with field observations on Route 25 in this area during various time periods on weekdays and weekends. 4Source: Traffic Accident Files New York State Department of Transportation -6- L D FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT Trip Generation As previously mentioned, no specific construction proposal has been prepared for the site as of the date of this report. For the purposes of this investigation, however, the traffic generation potential of several alternative de- velopment proposals were examined. Three specific alternate use proposals consistent These with "B-l" General Business District were reviewed. uses included: A Shopping Center (80,000 SF) A Shopping Center-Office Complex (90,000 SF - 45,000 SF Shopping Center 45,000 SF Office) An Office Park (90,000 SF) All three alternate use proposals have assumed that the maximum development permitted by the "B-l" zoning code would be advanced. Therefore, each of these proposals would represent the maximum potential volume of traffic which would be generated by such a use. Traffic generation estimates were based on the average trip generation rates for the various uses presented in the 1979 "Traffic Generation Report" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Enqineers. These are nationally accepted rates and generally correlate closely with traffic generation rates in Suffolk County. Table 2 summarizes the results of the trip generation analysis for each of the alternate site uses. -7- TABLE 2 Site Trip Generation Alternate Site Use ("B-l" Zoning) Shopping Center (80,000 SF) Shopping Center- Office Complex (90,000 SF) Office Park (90,000 Average Weekday 6,328 5,765 1,107 (trips/day) Weekday - A.M. (trips/hr.) Enter 116 174 176 Exit 116 88 33 Total 232 262 209 Weekday - P.M. (trips/hr.) Enter 308 347 33 Exit 348 414 165 Total 656* 761' 198' Saturday 8,608 7,184 301 (trips/day) Saturday - Peak Hour (trips/hr.) Enter 432 365 24 Exit 576 481 21 Total 1,008' 846 45 *Conditions selected for detailed traffic analysis (See Appendix C for additional details) A review of Table 2 indicates that peak site traffic generation would occur with the development of an 80,000 square foot shopping center. Such a shopping center would generate over 8,600 trips (4,300 vehicles in and 4,300 vehicles out) on a typical Saturday with over 1,000 trips per hour being generated during the peak midday period. -8- By comparison, surveys conducted for this study revealed the Key Food Shopping Plaza generates nearly 500 trips per hour between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. on a typical Friday afternoon. A shopping center-office complex would generate approximately 15 per cent less traffic on a Saturday, while such a complex would generate comparable volumes as a shopping center on weekdays. Peak weekday afternoon volumes for both a shopping center-office complex and a shopping center would average approximately 30 per cent less than peak Saturday volumes of a shopping center. An office park would generate substantially lower peak volumes than the other uses, averaging less than 30 per cent of the various shopping center proposals. Trip Distribution The next step of the investigation consisted of a detailed analysis of the geographical distribution of trips to and from the site. For both the shopping center and office development proposals, the geographical distribution of the population in the surrounding area was used as the basis for trip distribution. For the shopping center, a 15 minute travel time was considered to be the outside limit of the trade area. This area extended from the Riverhead Town line on the west to the hamlet of Southold on the east. Based on an analysis of the current population in this area, it was determined that approxi- mately 50 per cent of the shopping center traffic would be destined to or originate from the east and 50 per cent would be to or from the west. This distribution correlated very closely with existing traffic patterns at the Key Food Shopping Plaza. -9- With respect to the office park, the trade area was considered to be a 30 minute travel time from the site. This area extended from Riverhead on the west to Orient Point to the east. Approximately 60 per cent of the office trips are estimated to or from the west, while 40 per cent are estimated to or from the east. The shopping center-office complex traffic patterns are heavily influenced by shopping trips. It was therefore estimated that for this use, half the trips would be to or from the west and half to or from the east. Appendix C includes additional information concerning the trip distribution procedure. Trip Assignment The vast majority of vehicular trips generated by the proposed development at the site will use Route 25. Based on an analysis of Table 2 and the trips generated by the alternate uses during various time periods, it was determined that the following would represent the most critical traffic conditions: Shopping Center (Weekday - 4:00-5:00 p.m. Saturday - Midday) Shopping Center-Office (Weekday - 4:00-5:00 p.m.) Office Park (Weekday - 4:00-5:00 p.m.) These conditions were analyzed in detail as part of this investigation. Table 3 summarizes the site generated trip assignment based on the trip generation (Table 2) and distribu- tion for each of the alternate uses. -10- TABLE 3 Site Trip Assignment Alternate Site Use ("B-I" Zoning) Route 25 at Site Access Drive Weekday - (4:00-5:00 p.m.) Enter (EB--Rt. (WB--Lt. Exit (WB--Lt. (E~--Rt. Saturday- (Midday) Enter (EB--Rt. (~--Lt. Exit (WB--Lt. (EB--Rt. Shopping Center (Veh./hr. ) 154 154 174 122 216 216 288 202 Shopping_ Center- Office C~kolex (Veh./hr. ) 173 173 207 145 Office Park (Veh./hr. ) 20 13 99 50 Route 25 at New Suffolk Road Weekday - (4:00-5:00 p.m.) Route 25 (WB) (WB--Lt.) (E~) New Suffolk Road (EB--Rt.) Saturday- (Midday) Boute 25 (WB) (WB--Lt.) (E~) New Suffolk Road (EB--Rt.) 122 17 108 15 202 29 151 22 145 21 121 17 99 20 (See Appendix C-10 and C-Ii for additional details). -11- The additional site generated traffic volumes (Table 3) were then added to existing traffic volumes5 on Route 25 to determine the total projected traffic volume on the adjacent roadway system (See Appendix D). 5Existing Volumes - Non-summer volumes based on October volumes. Summer volumes 25% higher than October volumes (See Appendix B-7) -12- TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The final step of the study procedure involved a detailed analysis of the total projected traffic volumes to assess the overall impact of site development on the adjacent roadways and to identify any potential traffic operational or safety problems. Intersection capacity analyses were performed using methods outlined in "Circular 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacity," 1980, by the Transportation Research Board. Link roadway capacity analyses were done using the methodology of the "Highway Capacity Manual," 1965, by the Highway Research Board. Capacity analyses and level of traffic service determinations were performed on the following roadway elements: Route 25 at New Suffolk Road Route 25 at Site Access Drive Route 25, East of Site Route 25, West of Site The analyses were done for each of the three alternative site uses for the critical traffic periods pre- viously identified. Table 4 summarizes the results of this analysis. -13- TABLE 4 Level of Traffic Service Alternate Site Use ("B-I" Zoning) Condition Existing ( non-sun, her ) Existing ( su~er ) Shopping Center P.M. (~day/non- sur~ner ) Saturday (non-sun~r) P.M. (Wkday/sun~er ) Saturday (s~m~r) Shopping Center-Office PoSo P.M. Office P.M. P.M. (Wkday/non- sum/~r ) (Wkday/SUmT~r ) (~day/non-~) (~kday/surfer ) Intersection RDute 25 at New Suffolk Intersection Rmadw~y ~Dadway Route 25 at Route 25 Route 25 Site ~ce ss (East) (West) A A B B B A C C B A C C B A C C C A C C C A D C Estimated Route 25 Overall Level of Service A (Excellent) B (Good) B (Good) B (Good) C (Fa/r) C (Fa/r) B A C C B (Good) C A C C C (Fair) A A B B B A C C A (Excellent) B (Good) -14- The development of an 80,000 square foot shopping center would result in level of service C (fair service) traffic conditions on Route 25 during peak weekday afternoon and Saturday midday traffic periods in the summer. During non-summer periods, this alternative would result in level of service B (good service) traffic conditions. A combination of 45,000 square feet of shopping center and 45,000 square feet of office development would result in level of service C (fair service) traffic conditions on Route 25 during peak weekday afternoon periods in the summer. Level of service B (good service) traffic conditions would pre- vail during non-summer weekday afternoon peak periods. A 90,000 square foot office park development would result in level of service B (good service) traffic conditions on Route 25 during peak weekday afternoon periods in the summer. During non-summer periods, this alternative would result in level of service A conditions (excellent service). The capacity analyses and level of traffic service determinations were based on several assumptions. First and foremost, it was assumed that adequate traffic control measures for access to the site would be provided as part of the final site development plan. This is essential to the safe and ef- ficient movement of traffic in the area. The actual details of these measures will have to be developed in conjunction with the Route 25 permit requirements of the New York State Department of Transportation once a specific construction proposal is advanced for the site. How- ever, the following are key elements to be considered: Major access to the site should be provided on Route 25 directly opposite the main access drive to the Key Foods Shopping Plaza. A separate left turning lane should be provided on Route 25 for westbound left turns into the site. -15- Depending on the scale of development, traffic signalization of the major access drive at Route 25 should be considered. Access should be provided to the site from Harbor Lane to allow for local traffic service and to allow for an additional access point to the site. A separate eastbound right turn lane into the site at the main access drive or a separate eastbound entrance drive on the westerly end of the site should be considered. Secondly, the analysis assumed that roadway and parking conditions on Route 25 at the New Suffolk Road intersection would remain as they presently exist. The additional traffic generated from the development of the subject site can be expected to re- sult in increasing the westbound left turning activity at this intersection. Although the analysis of projected traffic condi- tions revealed it will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service, the intersection would operate better today, and in the future, if minor parking restrictions were established at the intersection. Such restrictions would assure a westbound roadway at the intersectional area which would be wide enough to accommodate both a left turning vehicle and a through-west- bound vehicle. -16- SUMJ'~IRY A detailed analysis of various alternate site uses has shown that there is a wide range of vehicular traffic generation potential that could result from the development of the subject site to "B-l" General Business zoning. Daily trip generation at the site can range from 1,100 vehicles per day for an office park to over 8,600 vehicles per day for a community shopping center. Peak hour traffic flow would similarly vary from 200 vehicles per hour to over 1,000 vehicles per hour. Based on this investigation, it has been determined that the existing Route 25 presently operates at a relatively good level of service throughout the year. Although some minor restric- tions to traffic flow exist in commercial areas and at the Route 25 and New Suffolk Road intersection, the overall existing level of service and safety on Route 25 is good. Route 25 is currently operating at only 50 per cent of the traffic level where major traffic congestion would occur. An analysis of projected traffic conditions based on various "B-l" zoning uses demonstrates that, although peak hour traffic volumes would increase in the area, Route 25 would con- tinue to operate at an acceptable level of service even under the most traffic-intensive use, an 80,000 square foot community shopping center. The "worst case" traffic conditions on a Saturday in the summer for such a shopping center would still result in an over 30 per cent excess roadway capacity available on Route 25 before major congestion would occur. Based on this investigation, and with the adequate provision of traffic control measures at the access drive to the site, it is our professional opinion that the traffic generated by development of the site to "B-l" zoning can be safely and adequately accommodated by Route 25 at an acceptable level of -17- traffic service. There will be no major adverse impact on traffic conditions in this area by developing the site to permitted uses. -18- APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE A-1 Level of Service Description Level of traffic service is a measure of the quality of traffic service being provided along a road 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 and delay (Levels of Service E & F). The following provides a capsule description of the various levels of traffic service: Level A - Excellent traffic service. Relatively free flow. High vehicular operating speeds. Passing maneuvers made with little or no delay. Traffic signal approach roadways never fully loaded. 2-Lane roadway - 20% capacity. Signalized intersections - less 60% capacity. Level B - Good traffic service. Slight delays to traffic. Stable flow. Passing maneuvers~somewhat restricted by opposing traffic, but not unreasonably. Traffic signal approach roadways fully loaded less than 10% of the time. 2-Lane roadway - 45% capacity. Signalized intersections 60%-70% capacity. Level C - Fair traffic service. Acceptable delays to traffic. Stable flow. Vehicle operating speeds affected by traffic conditions. Traffic signal approach roadways fully loaded 10%-30% of time. 2-Lane roadway 70% capacity. Signalized intersections 70%-80% capacity. A-2 Level D Level E - Fair-poor traffic service. Tolerable delays to traffic. High probability of vehicular breakdown and stoppages in areas of side friction. Operating speeds in open areas reduced to 35 mph. Traffic signal approach roadways fully loaded 80%-90% of time. 2-Lane roadway - 85% capacity. Signalized intersections - 80%-90% capacity. - Poor traffic service. Intolerable delay to traffic. Congestion. Operating speed in open areas reduced to 30 mph. Traffic signal approach roadways nearly always fully loaded. 2-Lane road at capacity. Signalized intersections at capacity. Standard traffic engineering analysis and observation techniques are used to establish existing and projected levels of service on a road. APPENDIX B EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 0 0 0 0000 0 00000 0 0 00 0 0000 0 00000 0 0 00000000~00~ O0 O0 0 O0 O0 000800800 0000 00000000000~ 0000000 O0 0 ~oo~o gg oooo9~9~ii~i oo 000000000000 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ~ VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS NORTH ARROW TIMF ,.d. - .5 WEATHER ........... ~. .... SURFACE CO N D I T I0 N__-'~--~-~'___ TRAFFIC CONTROL .......... *,,,., / ;$./,.~! ~., METHOD OF COU NT__-/-~/-'4-'~?'-~_ . co,..:,~.~D ,,','____~_'"'~_' ...... TOTAL VOLUME .............. TIME PERIOD. VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT ' INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS dy~/v,?/-/,e2 LOCATION__ ./~...4~.,?~ ~.~ ~ ,/~:/ _/~_ooZ:>~ .,:y,.",:.z:,..~.~ DATE /~//~/~'-'~ NORTH ARROW WEATHER SURFACE COND TRAFFIC CONTROL ..... ~ .... METHOD OF ~/~ _ 6OMPILED BY_ .... ......... TOTAL VOLUME ..... _~_ ....... TIME PERIOD___ ' - //¢. 0 APPENDIX C ALTERNATE SITE USES TRIP GENERATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION TRIP ASSIGNMENT .,¢,5'~./Y*/'yd'F" x . ~'¢ = 46- 3?% 7,, : 4, ~ t94- z,) ~'f-^/, rz/- .--/$ -.,-- APPENDIX D EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES /) (SSS - tS'~)= 4~P-. ..-...,....--- 544 ~ I10 -'.--- ( sql, - z~~) (. 7~ - B o~) 4.~J 4- Go ..... - (?~7 - APPENDIX E CAPACITY ANALYSES LEVELS OF TRAFFIC SERVICE CA,- 544::> +-q'o= VP~I 172_ (,,?¢ A 1!9 b 91 14-9 ,4 G I ,5-.5-1 ~ $- ~ z~ ?11 G" ' I ?~[ o_ / o4~ Ho < 't... ~o°O + /,3D = J"/O 76-o A 9.) /, Z¥ :. /,19 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLtRK REGISTRAR Ol VIFALSIXlISIICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 10, 1983 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Richard F. Lark, Esq. Main Road Cutchogue, New York 11935 Dear Dick: Enclosed herewith is a certified copy of the resolution adopted by the Southold Town Board at a regular meeting held on June 7, 1983, requesting Dalchet Corp., et al to prepare a draft environmental impact statement in accordance with the Environmental Conservation Law. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated: June 7, 1983 Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 o~ the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 o~ the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action described below is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Petition of Dalchet Corp.~ et al for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-I" General Business District on certain property located east of Stillwater Avenue and west of Harbor Lane, on the south side of Route 25, Cutchogue, New York. Further information can be obtained by contacting Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold~ New York 11971. Copies to: David DeRidder, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Planning Board Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Richard F. Lark, Attorney for Dalchet Corp., et al J UDITII T TI: RRY TO~¥~ ('lARK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELF, PItONE (516) 765 1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE $OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JUNE 7~ 1983: WHEREAS~ Dalchet Corporation, et al has heretofore applied to the Southold Town Board, pursuant to Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, for permission to change the zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-i" General Business District on certain property located east of Stillwater Avenue and west of Harbor Lane~ on Route 25, Cutchogue, New York, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law; Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations., and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code~ the Southold Town Board~ as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. That the Town Clerk shall file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and code. 3. That the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant~ Dalchet Corporation, of this determination, and further re- quest said applicant to prepare a draft environmental impact statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code. ISTATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Office of the Clerk of the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD (SEAL) SS: This is to certify that l, Judith T. Terry, Clerk of the Town of Southold, in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy of resolution with the original resolution now on file in this office, and which was passed by the Town Board of the town of Southold in said County of Suffolk, on the ....... .7...¢.~.. day of ......... ..8..u...n..e. ................. 19...8...3.., and that the same is o correct and true transcript of such original resolution and the whole thereof. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Town this .......1...0..t...h. day of ......... .~..u...n..e. ...................... 19...8...3.. ~;~Tt~.~.... :...~. ~..~. :..~. Clerk of the Town Board, Town of Southold, County of Suffotk, N. ¥ JUI)ITII T TERRY TOWN CLIRK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 May 25, 1983 To: From: Re: Southold Town Board Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk SEQR process - Dalchet change of zone pet±tiQn. I am in receipt of the action of the Southold Town Planning Board and Suffolk County Department of Planning with respect to Dalchet petition for a change of zone at Cutchogue. The next step would be to schedule this for a public hearing.- .... However, you have not made a determination as to whether this would nor would not have a significant effect on the environment. Please consider this subject, and I will have a resolution prepared for the June 7th meeting. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING (516) 360-5513 LEE E. KOPPELMAN Town of Southold Town Clerk May 24, 1983 Applicant: Zoning Action: 'Mun. File No.: S.C.P.D. File No.: Dalchet Corporation C/Z "A" Res. & Agriculture to "B-i" General Bus. 256 SD-83-5 Gentlemen: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for lodal determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Comments: GGN:Jk Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner 11788 JUDITH T. TERRY TELEPHONE TOWN CLERK (516) 765-1801 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971 Pursuant to Sections 1323 to 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 Planning Commission: X New zoning Ordinance Amendment of zoning ordinance Amendment of zoning map (change of zone) Location of affected land: east of Stillwater Avenue and west of Harbor Lane, on Route 25, Cutchogue, New York. Suffolk County Tax Map No.: 1000-103-1-1, p/o 19, p/o 20.1 within 500 feet of: X The boundary of any village or town The boundary of any existing or proposed county, state or federal park. The right-of-way of any existing or proposed county or state parkway, thruway, expressway, road or highway. The existing or proposed right-of-way or 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 ~ih Suffolk County or estuary of any of the foregoing bodies of water. or within one mile of : Nuclear power plant. Airport COM2~ENTS: The recommendation of the Southold Town Planning Board~ dated May 19, 1983, is attached hereto for your information. Date May 20, 1983 Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk MAY 51 3 RICHARD F. LARK ATTORNEY AT LAW MAIN ROAD - P. O, BOX ~973 CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK I193~ May 3, 1983 Mrs. 3udith Terry Southold Town Clerk Main Road - Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 RE: In the Matter of the Petition of Dalchet Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell, and Nancy Glover Victoria for a Chanqe of Zone Dear Mrs. Terry: It is my understanding since one of the Petitioners in the above-captioned matter is a corporation a Disclosure Affidavit is required listing the officers, directors and shareholders. Although I can find no requirement in the Code of the Town of Southold requiring this, I am more than happy to furnish it; and accordingly, I am enclosing same for your records. Very truly yours, Richard F. Lark RFL:bc Enclosure STATE OW NEW YORK: : SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: ALBERT ORLOWSKI, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is Vice-President of Dalchet Corporation, a domestic corporation of the State of New York, with offices at (No. ~) Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, New York. That the premises which is a portion of the property under consideration for a change of zone by the Town of Southold is held by Dalchet Corporation by deed dated March 22, 1961 and recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office in Liber 4964 at page 363. That the officers, directors and shareholders of this corporation are as follows: President: Vice-President: Secretary: Sworn to before me this 3rd day of May ~ 1983. ~, 62-I~ ~elk Chester Orlowski Pequash Avenue Cutchogue, New York 11935 Albert Orlowski Main Road Cutchogue, New York 11935 Dorothy Orlowski Pequash Avenue Cutchogue, New York 11935 Vice-President RECEIVED MAY 01983 Town Clerk Soutk~L] HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., Chairman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr. WILLIAM E. MULLEN, Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 May 19, 1983 TELEPHONE 765-]938 Mrs. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Dalchet Corp. Change of Zone Dear Mrs. Terry: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Plan- ning Board, Monday, May 16, 1983. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend approval for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricul- tural District to "B-i" General Business District on certain property located at Cutchogue in regard to the petition of Dalchet Corporation, et al for the following reasons: 1. Character of the area has changed over the last 5-10 years. 2. Would not change the present character of the area. 3. Property is located in a mixed neighborhood, predominantly "B-i" Zone. 4. Traffic intensity is already established. 5. Cemetary to the east would be a natural buffer. 6. Zoning changes have been granted in this area. Two new antique sales shops have been con- structed just north of the property in question. Judith T. Te pg. (2) 5/19/83 Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham, Mullen Abstained: Orlowski (relative) If you require additional information please contact our of- fice. cc: Town Supervisor Town Board Town Attorney Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susa~ E. Long, Secretary JUDITII T TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 April 6, 1983 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Dear Henry: The Town Board discussed your letters of March 29th in which you requested disclosure statements from the applicants of Dalchet Corp. and Marine Associates, Inc. It was the decision of the Town Board that such a request should come from the Planning Board. With relation to the "Town Board's reassessment of the Environmental Assessment Form for accurate compliance", on Marine Associates, Inc., the Town Board, as lead agency, will study this further. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., Chairman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr. WILLIAM F. MULLEN, Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 March 29, 1983 TELEPHONE 765-1938 Mrs. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Dalchet Corp. Chanqe of Zone Dear Mrs. Terry: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Plan- ning Board, Monday, March 28, 1983. RESOLVED that prior to the Planning Board preparing an official report defining the conditions on the petition of Dalchet Corporation, et al for a change of zone from "A" Res- idential and Agricultural District to "B-l" General Business District on certain property located at Cutchogue, that a disclosure statement listing all principles of the Corporation be submitted to the Planninq Board. Upon receipt of the above, this matter will be placed on the next available Planning Board agenda. cc: Town Supervisor Town Councilmen Town Attorney Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan[)E. Long, SeCretary an open letter l~arch 21 TOWN OF $0 to Southold Town Board, . Dear Town Board ~embers, I am writing this letter in regard to the petition submitted to the town calling for the rezoning of 11 acres across from the Key Food Shopping Center in Cutchogue from agricultural/residential to general business dictrict. (I note, according to an article in the ~arch 17th issue of the Suffolk Times that this proposed chan~e of zone was i~ part i~itiated by ~lanning Board member Bennett Orlowski Jr.) As far as this rezoning request is concerned, I think the town should ¢efer action until the Southold master plan update is completed. Hopefully some careful study of business zonin~ will be done. I feel strongly that too much business zoning along ~outhold's main highways is a mistake. These sprawling strips of business zones, which are so character- istic of western Suffolk, are eyesores (as.is the strip on Route 25 just west of ~attituck) as well as being a hindrance if not a hazzard to the flow of traffic. As oouthold grows and the cross ~ound ferry service expands, the traffic will only get heavier along our roads. There is also the ques- tion of how these roadside business zones affect the esta- blished business districts within the villages themselves. If, after study, ~outhold feels it has a need for more business zones, I would like to recommend that the town consider zoning these areas so that they extend back from the main roads rather than along them. In that way there could be a single side road or entrance to a business zone rather than every business having its own access to the main road. Thankyou for your attention. Adg. Da~e File Respectfully yours, Orient proper~y owner Box 596 Bridgehampton, h.Y. 11932 JUDITI! T TERRY TOWN ('[ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 March 9, 1983 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Dear Henry: Transmitted herewith is petition of Dalchet Corporation, et al. requesting a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-i" General Business District on certain property located east of Stillwater Avenue and west of Harbor Lane, on Route 25, Cutchogue, New York. The Planning Board is hereby instructed to prepare an official report defining the conditions described in said petition and determine the area so affected with your rec- ommenation. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Attachment JUDITH T TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road . P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 March 9, 1983 Mr. David DeRidder Environmental Analysis Unit N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Building 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 Conservation Dear Mr. DeRidder: Enclosed is application of Dalchet Corporation, et al for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-I" General Business District on certain property located east of Stillwater Avenue and west of Harbor Lane, on Route 25, Cutchogue, New York. This project is unlisted and our initial determination of non-signi£icance has been made and we wish to coordinate this action to conform our initial determination in our role as lead agency. May we have your views on this matter. Written comments on this project will be received at this office until March 28, 1983 We shall interpret your lack of response to mean there is no objection by your agency. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Enclosures cc: Commissioner Flacke Southold Town Buildin~ Department TOWN OF SOUTHO~D EAF ENVIRO;IHENTAL ASSESSMENT PART I Project Information NOTICE: This document ~, designed to asstst in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the e.vlrcr.~ent. Please coml~lete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to these questions w~ll be considered as bart of the a~plication for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional ~nformation you believe will be needed to comblet~ PARTS 2 and 3. It is expecteo that comoipti~n of the FAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involwe new studies, research or investiaation. If information requiring such additional work is unavai~ble, so Indicate end s~ecify each instance. NANE OF PROJECT: Matter of the Petition of Dalchet Co ~rporatiop, James R. Fogarty, Georqeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin S. KruGer, Revnold F. Blum, Willia~ Ap T,~ t-t-~l 1 ~n~ ~s/lcy Glover V~ctorza zor a ChanGe of Zone ADDRESS AND NA~IE OF APPLICANT: NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different) (Name) (Street) c/o Richard F. Lark, Esq. (Name) Main Road - P.O. Box 973 (Street) Cutchogue, New York 11935 (P.O.) (State) (Zip) BUS~NCSS PHONE: (State) (Zip) DESCRIPTI0~ OF PqOJECT: (Briefly describe type of project or action) Chanqe of Zone from "A Residential and Aq~_zcultural" to "B-1 General Business District" on premises along the southerlv side Of Main (State Route 25) from land of Homart to the westerly side of South HarbSr Road, Cutchogue, New York for a distance of 1,574.70 feet. (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - Indicate N.A. if not applicable) SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both develoned and undeveloped areas) 1. General character of the land: K. enerally uniform slope X Generally uneven and rollinq or irregular g. Present land use: Urban __, Industrial , Con~nercial ..... , Suburban , Rural , Forest . Agriculture X . Other Residen~-i-~l 3. Total acreage of project aroall.084cres. Approximate acreage: Presently After Completion Meadow or Brushland N/A acres acres Forested N/A acres acres AQricu) tural 11 · 0 8 4 .acres 11 · 08Z~acres ';etland (Freshwater or Tidal as net ATtic)es 24, ?~ or '4hat ~s -redominant soil type(s) on nfo)eot site? 11.084 acres Presently After Completion llater Surface Area N/Aacres ac~es Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) _N~aacres .... acres Roads. buildinas and other paved surfaces N/Aacres acres Other (indicate tyne) N/Aacres acres !. unat is demth tO bedrock? .___N_~.A__ .......... ('n ~eet) 6. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0-10~ N/Ac: ln-l~N/A%; 15: or greater N/A%. 7. Is project contiguous to, or contain a buildinq or site listed on the National ~egister of Historic Places? Yes X No 8. What is the depth to the water table?N/A feet 9. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes X No 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal )ire that is identified as threatened or endangered - Yes X ;to, according to - Identify each species 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. B. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? formations - Yes ~ No. (Describe (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - Yes ~ NO. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the con*nooity? Yes X No Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name N/A ; b. Size (in acres) What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential, R-g) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story), sincrle family resident±al farming, retail shopping center. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor N/A acres. ll. 084 11. 084 b. Project acreage}tbLqleJ~a[e~X acres initially; -- acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped. N/A d. Length of project, in miles: 1/4 (if appropriate) e. If project is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot- age N/A ; developed acreage N/A f. Number of off-stre~t parking spaces existino N/A g. Maximum vehicular trios generated per hour N/A h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: Dne Family Two Family Initial ~ - 0- Ultimate ~ -0- i. If: Orientation ~!eighborhood-City-Regional Commercial N/A Industrial N/A j. Tota) height of tallest nrohosed structure _N_/~__._feet. ; proposed _N/A . (upon completion of project) Multiple Family Condominium -0- -0- Estimated Employment -2- 2. Hew much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site - None tons None cubic yards. ~)w many acres of veqetati0n (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site None acres. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by th~s project? __Yes X No Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? __~es X rio Anticipated period of constructionN/A months, (inc)udin§ demo)ition). a. Total number of phases anticipated N/AND. b. Anticipated date of commencement phase IN/A month demolition) c. Approximate completion date final phase N/A month . year. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subseouent ohases?N/A Yes If single nhase project: If multi-phased nroject: year (including If yes, explain: 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes X No 9. N~er of jobs generated: during construction N/A; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project N/A. 1l. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? N/A Yes No. NO 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved?N/A Yes No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) N/A c. If surface disposal namo of stream into which effluent will be discharged N/A 13. Will surface area of exis[ing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? N/A Yes No. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 1D0 year flood plain? __Yes X No 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? __Yes X No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? N/A Yes No c. If yes, give name: N/A : location N/A d. :1i11 any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Yes 16. Will prnject use herbicides or pesticides? Yes X No 17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour Der day)? Yes X NO 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? Yes ~ NO lg. Will project result in an increase in energy use? Yes X No. If yes, indicate type(s) __ gl. 22. If water suooly is from wells indicate pumping capacity N/A gals/minute. Total anticinated water usage per day _N~_A gals/day. Zoning: a. )~hat is dominant zoning classification of site?A Res±dent±al b. Current specific zoning classification of site ~ELrae a~ 6LbO'v'e d. If no, indicate desired zonlnq N~/A__ .................... 26. Approvals: a. is any Federal permit required? Yes X NO b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financin§? c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required (Yes, No) (Type) Yes X Submittal (Date) No Approval (Date) City, Town, Village Board No City, Town, Village Planntflg Board '~ City. Town, Zoning Board N~ City. County Health Department ~0 Other )Dca) agencies ..~O-- Other regional agencies No State Agencies Federal Agencies '~o Suffolk County Planning Commission INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Yes Reco~nendation Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify ~our project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the~rojposal, please dtscuss~,Y~c~ impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid them.// ~ ~/ ~ ~ // TITLE: R~chard F. Lark, Esq. REPRESENTING: Dalchet Corporation, et al. BATE: February 25, 1983 -4- EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN~ - PART II Project Impacts and Their Magnitude G~neral Infr,,-~atil),-. ~-~d C.4refully) - In completing tn~ form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environ~ntal analyst. Identifying that at effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily si9nificant. A~:y large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an effect in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. - The ~ provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible the threshol~ of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But. for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidance They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each nuestion. - The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Ca.fully) b. Co Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any effect. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. If answering Yes to a Question then check the appropriate box {column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the in,Pact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the inmact ~en consider the impact as ~otentially large and proceeo to PART 3. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large magnitude, place a )es in column 3. A NO response indicates, that such a reduction is not Possible. IMPACT ON LAND NO YES SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODEPATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO ~XJ~ ~ PROJECT Si?E? Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per lO0 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10~. Construction than 3 feet. on Land where the depth to the water table is less ronstruction of paved oarkinq area Far 1,~QQ or mare vehicles. C~nstruction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction chat will continue for more than 1 year or involve Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,O00 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per vear. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. S!~ALL TB POTENTIAL CAN IrIPACT BE ~gERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IHPACT ZMPACT PgOJECT CHANGE Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts: __ WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LANfl FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cliff~, dunes, aeelogical t~s, etc.) Snecific land fo~s: ~!PACT ON WATER 3, WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER BODY DESIGNATED AS .... PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15, ~¢, 25 of the [nvir- onmental Conservation Law, E.C.L,) Oredgtne more than lOg cubic yards of material fram ~ channel of a protected stream. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: Nfl YES Examples that Would Apply to Column A 10% increase or decrease in the Surface area of any body of water or more than a lO acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other i mnacts: NO YES WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNOWATER nllALITY? ~ Example__s that Hou)d Apply to Coluee 2 -- Prn~ect will require a discharge Project requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve ~roposed project. Project requires water supply from wells with greater than ~5 gallons per minute ~umping capacity. Project will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off :he site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. excess of 20,000 gal)ohs per day. SPL~ LL T~ ttDDE~TE IMPACT POTENTIAL LARGE I~PRCT CAd IIiPACT BE REDUCED BY PROJECT CHAUGE 6. i¢ILL PROJECT ALTER DRAINAGE FLO~, PATTERNS OR SURFAr, E !LATER NO YES RU~P]FF? ................................................... QO Examnle that '!ould Anply to Colunn 2 Pro)eot wnuld impede flood water flows. Pro inet is likely to cause substantial erosion. Project is incompatible with existin9 drainage patterns. Other imoacts: I~PACT ON AIR )~[LL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY? ......................... Fxamples that Would Apply to Column YES "GO Project will induce 1.~00 or mnre vehicle trips in any given hour. Project will result in the incineration of mnr~ than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed S lbs. Der hour or a heat source nroductng more than 10 million BTU's per hour. IHPACT ON PLA~TS AND ANIPALS 8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? Examples that Would Apoly to Column 2 __ Reduction of one or mnrm s~ectes listed on the New York or Federal list. using the site. over or near site or found on the site, Removal of any oortion of a critical or siQniftcant wild- - life __ Apnlicatinn of Pesticide or ~e~bicidu over ~re than .510 YES GO Examole that Would Apply to Column 2 -7- CH.~RACTER OF THE ;IFIGHBr~R~a'JD rip, COaM,,,iITV? .............. /,'."~ /.'~'.~ Examnles that J~ould Apply to Column 2 An incomoatible visual affect caused by the intromucti~n of new materials, colors and/or forms in contrast to t~e surrounding landscaee. A oroject easily visible, not easily screened, that is obviously different from others around it. Project will result in the elimination or major screening of scenic views or vistas known to be important to the area. Other impacts: SHALL Tq MODERATE OOTEI!T IAL LARGE I'q'ACT CAN I,'tPACT BE REDUCED ny PRAJECT C)!ANGE IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES )l. WILL PROJECT IfIPACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, NO YES PRE-HISTA~IC fir PALEONTOGICAL I~POPTANCE? ................. Examoles that Hould Aoolv to Colur~q 2 Prelect occurinQ wholly or nartially within or contiguous to any Cacilitv or site listed on the National Nemtster of historic places. __ Any impact to an archeoIogical site or fossil bed located within the project site, IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREAT[Ofl 12. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING NO YES OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU~IITIES? ...... ~ Examples that Would Amply to Column 2 -- The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational ooQortunity. -- A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other imoacts: IMPACT nN TRANSPORTATION 13. ?ILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS? ............................................... Examples that Would Annl¥ to Column 2 -- Alteration of present patterns of movement of neople and/or goods. Proiect will result in severe traffic ~rob)ems. NO YES ©0 Other impacts: IMPACT ON EHERGY 14. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL QR ENERGY SUPPLY? ........................................ Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 ~ Project causing qreeter then 5% increase in eny form of energy used in municipality. Project requiring the creation or extension of an energy ~ transmission or Supply system to serve more then 50 sinqle or two family residences. Other impacts: NO YES 1 SMALL TO ~40DER~TE IMPACT PQTENT[AL LA~GE I'IPACT CAi( IPIPACT CE REDUCEO BY PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT ON NOISE 15. WILL THERE 8E OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBP~ATIQN NO YES or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? .... Examples that I~ould Aooly to Colunm 2 __ Blasting within 1,50~ feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more then one hour per day). ~ Project will oroduce ooerating noise exceedinn the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. ~ Project will remove natural barriers that would act as e noise screen. Other impacts: I~PACT O" HEALTH & HAZARDS 16. !'IILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC iIEALTH AND SAFETY? ............. Examples that I¢ould Apply to Column 2 ~ YFS Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticidns, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or uOset conditions, ot there will he a chronic lo~ level discharge or enission. Project that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., includinn wastes that are so)id, semi-sol id, liquid or contain gases.) Storaoe facilities for one million or more qallnns of liouified natural gas or other liouids. Qther imoacts: ~L TO POTErJTIAL CAN IHPA~T BE MuOERATE LARGE REDUCED BY II!PACT IUPACT PROJECT C~UkN~E IMPACT Oil GROWTH AND EHAP~qCTER OF COMt~NITY OR UEIGHRORHOOO 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHAPACTER nF THE EXISTING CO)~IJNITY7 ............................................... Example that Would Apoly to Column 2 The population of the City. Town or Village in which the -- project is located ts likely to grow hymore than 5% o~ resident hUnCh population. __ The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or opera- result of this project. WIll Involve any oermenent facility of a non-agricultural -- use in an agricultural district or remove nrime agricu)tural The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, -- structures or areas of historic importance to the co~unity. Development will induce an influx of a particular age -- group with special needs. Project will set an tn~oortant precedent for future protects. Project will relocate 15 or more emnloyees in one or more businesses. NO YES NO YES IS T,ERE PUBLIC COHTROVE~S, COb~ERMINO T.E PRqJEC~? ....... ~'~ Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Either government or citizens of adjacent con~unities have expressed ooposition or rejected the project or have not been contacted, Objections to the nroject fKom within the community. IF ANY ACTION IN PART ~ IS IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETEI~41NE THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. D£TERHINATION PQRTIOMS OF EAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT: PART I __ PART II PART 3 Upon review of the tnfo~ation recorded on this EAF (Parts A. The project wi)l result in no major impacts and, therefore. is one which may not cause significant damape to the environment. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been included as part of the nroposed project. The project will result in one or more major adverse impacts that cannot be reduced and may cause significant damage to PREPARE A HEAATIVE DECLARATION PREPARE A NE('U~TIVE )IECLARATION PREPARE POSITIVE DECLARATIOI4 PROCEED WITH EIS --O Signature of Responsible 0fficia) in Lead Agency )~F~nt or tyoe name of responsible official in Lead Agency JtSl~lTll T TERI4.¥ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ]own Ihlll. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New Yolk 11971 February 25, 1983 To Whom It May Concern: Attached hereto is Long Environmental Assessment Form filed by Dalchet Corporation, et al for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-i" General Business District on certain property located east of Stillwater Avenue and west of Harbor Lane, on Route 25, Cutchogue, New York. d~'}~dith T. Terry ~ Soufhold Town Clerk Posted on Town Clerk's Bulletin Board on February 25, 1983. STATE OF NEW YORK pETITION TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE MA'I'r~R OF T~E PETITION OF DALCHET CORPORATION, JAMES R. FOGARTY and GEORGEANNA FOGARTY, JOHN PUNG, IRWIN S. KRUg, REYNOLD F. BLU~4, WILLIAM A. LITI'~:,.T. and NANCY GLOVER VIC~fORIA FOR A C~ANGE, MODIFICA- TION OR AMSlX~DM~T OF THE BU]TDING ZONE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: 1. WE, DAICHET CORPORATION, a dc~estic corporation of the State of New York with office and principal place of business at Cutchogue, New York; JAMES R. ~DC4%RTY and GEORGEANNA FOGARTY, both residing at Main Road, Cutchoque, New York; JOHN PUNG, residing at 8 South Tyson Avenue, Floral Park, New York: IRWIN S. KRUGER, residing at 146 Central Park West, New York, New York; REYNOLD F. BLUM, residing at 122 Cross Road, Oakdale, New York, WILLIAM A. Ll'i']'v:~.I., residing at 705 Blue Ridge Drive, Medford, New York; and NANCY GLOVER VICTOR/A, residing at Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,New York, are the owners of certain real property situated at Cutchogue, New York, which is more particularly bounded and described as foll~ws: ALL those Certain plots, pieces or parcels of land with the buildings and prov~aents thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Co%ulty of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: B~GINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road and the westerly side of Harbor Lane the following two courses and distances: (1) South 42© 19' 10" East 226.37 feet; and (2) South 33© 45' 10" East 48.63 feet to land now or formerly of Bakowski; thence along land of Bakewski and other land of Dalchet Corp. South 56° 14' 50" West 310.85 feet to the westerly side of land of Dalchet Corp; thence South 34° 18' 50" East 113.12 feet; thence along land of John Pung, Irwin S. Kruger, Beynold F. Blum, and William A. Littell South 49© 31' West 1197.89 feet to land now or formerly of Hcman; thence along land of Homart the following three coarses and distances: (1) North 31© 22' 40" West 172.20 feet; (2) South 51© 22' 20" West 110.0 feet; and (3) North 31© 22' 40" West 165.0 feet to the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road; thence along the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road the following four courses and distances: (1) North 51© 22' 20" East 272.0 feet; (2) North 49© 31' East 720.40 feet; (3) North 48© 46' 20" East 294.83 feet; and (4) North 45° 44' East 287.32 feet to the wgsterly side of Harbor Lane and the point of BEGINNING. The above descrLbed premzses contain 11. 084 acres. 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the 'Fow. of Southold to change, mod/fy and amend the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, including ~he Building Zone Maps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: Frc~ "A Residential and Agricultural District to "B-i" General Business District. 3. Such request is made for the following reasons: As shown on Exhibit 1 which is attached hereto your Petitioners together own 11.084 acres on the southerly side of Main Road (N.Y. State Route 25), Cutchogue, New York. The property for which your Petitioners request this change of zone contains 1,575.05 feet of road frontage on the Main Road and has a varying depth of 165 feet on the west with an average depth of 330 feet in the middle and a depth of 274 feet on the easterly boundary. The topography of your Petitioners' property is generally flat terrain. The property on the easterly portion of the premises requested to be rezoned is owned by Dalchet Corporation and is presently vacant land with the exception of a barn; the land owned by James R. and Georgeanna Fogarty contains a one family residence; the land owned by John Pung is vacant with the exception of a small accessory structure on the northeast corner; Irwin S. Kruger's property con- tains a residence, barn and farm stand doing business under the name of "Harvest Time Farms"; the land owned by Reynold F. Blum and William A. Littell contains a large barn and storage area for use by Peconic Vineyards; Nancy Glover Victoria's property contains a one family residence and garage. Your Petitioners are requesting a change of zone on this property so it might be properly utilized to provide an area for the growth of general type business. Due to the development of this area your Petitioners' property is not desirable for residential use and is well suited for development as commercial property. The property to the west and south of Nancy Glover Victoria is owned by James Homan and located thereon is the George Braun Oyster Company, a wholesale and retail seafood business. Portions of these premises immediately adjacent to Nancy Glover Victoria and Reynold F. Blum and William A. Littell parcels are zoned "C Light Industrial District. The property on the northerly side of the Main Road across from your Petitioners' property is presently zoned "B-1 General Business District". Immediately across the Main Road from the property of Nancy Glover Victoria and Reynold F. Blum and William A. Littell is land owned by H. Rienecker and S. Friemann and located thereon is a busi- ness by the name of Pinewood Nursery which is a wholesale/ retail business dealing in the sale of shrubs, landscaping and home beautification supplies. Immediately adjacent thereto in an easterly direction is property owned by S. & E. Realty Co. upon which is the Key Food Shopping Center. Located in this retail shopping center is the Key Food Super- market, Peconic Liquor Store, Cameo Cards and Gifts, The Quartermaster Army & Navy Store, Dolomite Restaurant & Pizzeria, and the Cutchogue Pub bar. Further easterly is a large parcel of land owned by the New York Telephone Com- pany used as a telephone exchange. Immediately adjacent to the New York Telephone property are smaller parcels of land on which stores are currently being built. Next door thereto is a gasoline station and auto repair shop known as Cutchogue Auto Sales owned by George Mostupanick. Con- tinuing in an easterly direction are three residences owned by Nellie Doroski, A. Imbriano and Theodore Doroski. Immedi- ately adjacent to the Doroski property is a large parcel of land owned by John Miesner, Jr. on which there is a building. Immediately next to the Miesner parcel is the Gulf Service Station owned by Daniel Kaelin. Across Cox's Lane to the east is located the real estate office of Burt G. Lewis, Jr. On the southeasterly corner of Main Road (N.Y. State Route 25) and Eugene's Road is the Mobil Service Station owned by Allan Ovsianik. To the west of Eugene's Road on the southerly side of the Main Road (N.Y. State Route 25) is the Old Burying Ground Cemetery. This part of Cutchogue which once was a relaxed, bucolic neighborhood is now a bustling shopping and commercial area. With the exception of the Old Burying Ground Cemetery and your Petitioners' property all the land in this neighbor- hood is zoned for commercial purposes. An inspection of this neighborhood reveals that due to the artificial lighting in the shopping center, the noise level generated by the traffic and general commercial activities of this area, your Petitioners' property which is the subject of the Petition is no long appropriate or desirable for residential uses. This is particularly true considering this business district is utilized by hundreds of people on a daily basis. Contrariwise, your Petitioners' property is ideally situated for business uses and would be in conformity with the present growth of the properties along this portion of the Main Road in Cutchogue, New York. A change of zone will permit Peti- tioners' property to provide additional shopping and office facilities to serve the growing community of Cutchogue. The property for which the zone change is requested would encourage and be primarily for the development of business and will be in conformity with the development of the Town of Southold. EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 1 - Map to Accompany Application for Change of Zone at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, New York, pre- pared by Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C. amended December 23, 1982. 2 - Excerpt of Zoning Map of the Town of Southold showing surrounding areas. DALCHET CORPORATION James R. Fog~rtl~} / ~Gd~br ge~nna Foga~y ~ er ~Reynold F. Blume. William A. Littell Glover Victoria STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss.: ALBERT ORLOWSKI being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the Vice President of DALCHET CORPORATION, one of the Petitioners in the within action; that he has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he be- lieves it to be true. Sworn to before me this2$~h day of ~ , 1983. Notary Public BARBARA DIACHUN Notar~ Public, State of New York No, 52-4635190 Suffolk Count~ Commission Expires March 30, 19 ~( STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss.: JAMES R. FOGARTY and GEORGEANNA FOGARTY, each being duly sworn, depose and say that they are two of the Petitioners in the within action; that they have read the foregoing Petition and know the con- tents thereof; that the same is true to their own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, Sworn to before me this2/-th day of ~ , 19B3. Notary Public, State of New York Notary Public No. 52-4635190 Suffolk County Commission Expires March 30, 19~q and that as to those matters ~they believe them to be true. %~ames R. Fogar~ ~ / ~eorge0nna Fogarty~ (/ STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss.: JOHN PUNG, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is one of the Petitioners in the within action; that he has read the fore- going Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and~a?s/~t° those matters he believes it to be true. Sworn to~efore me this/0'/~ d%y o~ , 1983. Notary Publlc STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss.: IRWIN S. KRUGER, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is one of the Petitioners in the within action; that he has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alledged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be tru~~~ Irwin S. KrugeE Sworn to before me this /0 day of ~-~ , 198 .~/7 Notary//l~lblic .~ /F!',~;~,o~L,,~~ /~ STATE OF NEW YORK C~i, ~9*~ "~)F SUFFOLK ss.: REYNOLD F. BLUM, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is one of the Petitioners in the within action; that he has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. Sworn to before me this2&+h day of ~ , 1983. Notary Public No. 524635190 Suffoll< County., ~,~mmission Exptre~ ~arch 30, ~.9~ff STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss.: WILLIAM A. LITTELL, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is one of the Petitioners in the within action; that he has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. ~--~/~ ~.' ~/ William A. Littell Sworn to before me thisP~ day of ~ , 1983. Notary Public Notary Public, State of New York No. 52-4635190 Suffolk County Commission Expires March 30, STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SS.: NANCY GLOVER VICTORIA, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is one of the Petitioners in the within action; that she has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to her own knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters she believes it to be true. Sworn to before me this day of ~ , 1983. Notary Public y ~over Victoria BARBARA DIACHUN Notary Public, State of New York No. 52-4635190 Suffolk County Commission Expires March 30, 19~' q TO%~N BOARD, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Petition of DALCHET CORPORATION, et al., to the Town Board of the Town of Southold. : NOTICE TO: James Homan Cutchogue New York 11935 Marilyn Kaelin 425 Stillwater Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 Herbert Robohm Stillwater Avenue, Box 23F Cutchogue, NY 11935 Adolph H. Haus & ux Box 23N Cutchogue, NY 11935 Edward Machnowski 755 Stillwater Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 Josephine T. Bakowski Cutchogue New York 11935 Elbert V. Austin 26F RFD, Harbor Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 Sudhir Sahu 499 Main Street Greenport, NY 11944 W. Orlowski & ux 218 Carlton Road Millington, NJ 07946 John Lademann & ux Harbor Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 Everett B. Glover & ux Stillwater Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 Frank T. Klos Stillwater Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 Frederick J. Charnews & ux Stillwater Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 Emily Kosciuszko Stillwater Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 Edward Brush Stillwater Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 George Pontino Stillwater Avenue Cutchogue, NY 11935 Jon Chituk & ux Stillwater Avenue Cutehogue, NY 11935 Anton Dobek Harbor Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 William Januick & ux Harbor Lane Cutchogue,. NY 11935 Richard K. Linblad & ux Harbor Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 Manuel M. Cabral & ux 26P Harbor Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 Frank Martin Harbor Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 Robert Co White Box 62, Harbor Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 Irene Varelas 26 Harbor Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 Barbara Sowinski 215 Oakwood Road Huntington, NY 11743 John G. Madzelan & ux c/o Victor Makis 30 Summit Boulevard Westhampton, NY 11977 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1o It is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to request a change of zone for a depth of approximately 330 feet from the westerly side of Harbor Lane to land of Hgman for premises located on the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Roa~, Cutchogue, New York, owned by Dalchet Corporation, James R. Foqarty and Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung, Irwin'S.~ R~uge~ R~ynold F. Blum, William Ao Littell and Nancy D. Victoria. 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: %ALL those certain plots, pieces or parcels of land with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the corner formed by the inter- section of the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road and the westerly side of Harbor Lane; running thence alon~ the westerly side of Harbor Lane the following two courses and dis- tances: (1) South 42° 19' 10" East 226.37 feet; (2) South 33° 45' 10" East 48.63 feet to land now or formerly of Bakowski; thence along land of Bakowski and other land of Dalchet Corp. South 56° 14' 50" West 310.85 feet to the westerly side of land of Dalchet; thence South 34° 18' 50" East 113.12 feet; thence along land of John Pung, Irwin ~Kruge~ Reynold F. Blum and William A. Littell South 49°31' West 1197.89 feet to land now or formerly of Homan; thence along land of Homan the following three courses and distances: (1) North 31° 22' 40" West 172.20 feet; (2) South 51~ 22' 20" West 110.0 feet; (3) North 31~ 22' 40" West 165.0 feet to the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road; thence along the southerly side of Main (N.Y. State Route 25) Road the following four courses and distances: (1) North 51~ 22' 20" East 272.0 feet; (2) North 49o 31' East 720.40 feet; (3) North 48° 46' 20" East 294.83 feet; and (4) North 45° 44' East 287.82 feet to the westerly side of Harbor Lane and the point and place of BEGINNING. THE above described premises contain 11.084 acres. 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zone district: "A" Residential and Agricultural District. 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request that the above-described property be placed in the following zone classification: "B-i" General Business District. 5. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold 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 before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter 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-Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: January 26, 1983 Petitioner, Dalchet Corporation i Cutchogue, NY 11935 Petitioner ,~..a~e s Fo~ P~rgean~~rtyl ~aln~oad, Cuthoguei~35 Main Road Petitioner, ~ohn Pung~ ~ South Tyson Avenue petitioner, Irwin~S'. Kruger 146 Central Park West Ne~w York, NY 10023 Petitioner, Reynold F. Blum 122 Cross Road :Oakdalo~, N~ ~117~9 705 Blue Ridge Drive Medford, NY 11763 Peti~ione~ Nancy Glover Victoria Alvah's Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ~ifame James Homan Marilyn Kaelin Herbert Robohm Adolph H. Haus & ux Edward Machnowski Everett B. Glover & ux Frank T. Klos Frederick J. Charnews & ux Emily Kosciuszko Edward Brush George Pontino Jon Chituk & ux Josephine T. Bakowski E!bert V. Austin Sudhir Sahu W. Orlowski & ux John Lademann & ux Anton Dobek William Januick & ux Richard K. Linblad & ux Manuel M. Cabral & ux Address Cutchogue, New York 11935 425 Stillwater Avenue Cutchogue, New York 11935 Stillwater Avenue, Box 23F Cutchogue, New York 11935 Box 23 N Cutchogue New York 11935 755 Stillwater Avenue Cutchogue New York 11.935 Stillwater Cutchogue Stillwater Cutchogue Avenue New York 1]_935 Avenue New York 11935 Stillwater Cutchogue Stillwater Cutchogue Avenue New York 11935 Avenue New York 11935 Stillwater Avenue Cutchogue, New York 11935 Sti!lwater Cutchogue, Stillwater Cutchogue, Avenue New York 11935 Avenue New York 11935 Cutchogue, New York 11935 26F RFD, Harbor Lane Cutchogue, New York 11935 499 Main Street Greenport, New York ].1944 218 Carlton Road Millington, NJ 07946 Harbor Lane Cutchogue, New York 11935 Harbor Lane Cutchogue, New York 11935 Harbor Lane Cutchogue, New York 11935 Harbor Lane Cutchogue, New York 11935 26P Harbor Lane Cutchogue, New York 11935 Frank Martin Harbor Lane Cutchoque, New York 11935 Robert C. White Irene Varelas Barbara Sowinski John G. Madzelan & UX Address Box 62, Harbor Lane Cutchogue, New York 26 Harbor Lane Cutchogue, New York 215 Oakwood Road Huntington, New York c/o Victor Makis 30 Summit Boulevard Westhampton, New York 11935 11935 11743 11977 STATE OF NEW YORK: : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: SS.: BABETTE CORNINE, residing at 335 Sunset Avenue, Mattituck, New York, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 22nd of February, 1983, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth above, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Cutchogue, New York; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by certified mai]. Babette Cornine Sworn to before me this 22nd day of February, 1983. I, JLT POSTMASTER ~ OPTIONAL SER¥1C[$ CONiULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES OPTIONAL SERVICES e ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CONSOrt POSt~ST~ ~0~ ~ts 8 uJ ~ ~h %0 ~ PS Form 3800, Apr. 1976 ~ , ~ . . CONSUU POSTMASTER 'OR Fees ' 0 0 OPTIONAL SERVICES -- - ~ m < ~ S]91AB3S IVNOIIiO ~ Form 3800, Apr. .J ~ , ~ [ ~ q ~ ~ S11~ a0t a3lS~lSOd LT POSTMASTER FOR FEES ~L T pOSTMAS~R FOR FEES iNRECEIPTSERViCE ~ ~ ~ S301A~gS lYNOIldO ~ ROd N]tSV~dlSOd lqflSN03 ~ ~ .j ~l,C' I ~ILT POSTMASTER FOR FEES OPTIONAL S[RVIC~S .... ~ ~ ~5.~ '/ ~= ~ = 33]Aa3S Zd1333a Nanl3a ~ = S331AH3S qVNOIldO ~ = - t,r POSTMASTER FOR FEES~ ~ ~ n ~ ,. RiChARD F. LArk February 22, 1983 Southold Town Board 53095 Main Road - Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 ATT: Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk RE: Change of Zone Application - Petition of Dalchet, et al - Cutchogue, New York Dear Mrs. Terry: In connection with the above-captioned matter, I am enclosing the following: 1. Three (3) copies of the Petition with Exhibits 1 and 2. 2. Long Environmental kssessment Form. 3. Three (3) additional copies of Map to Accompany Application for Change of Zone. 4. Three (3) additional copies of Excerpt of Zoning Map of the Town of Southold. Notice to Adjoining Property Owners with Affidavit of Service and certified mail receipts. My check payable to the Town of Southold in the amount of $100.00 which represents the filing fee. If all is in order, would you please process this Petition with the appropriate municipal agencies. If you have any questions regarding the application, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, RFL:bc Enclosures