The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGeier, John & Ano.JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Far. 1516~ 765-1823 Telephone (516~ 765 1801 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD HELD ON JULY 26, 199a,, A RESOLUTION WAS OFFERED AND SECONDED TO CHANGE THE ZONE, ON THE TOWN BOARD'S OWN MOTION, FROM HAMLET DENSITY (HD) DISTRICT TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-80 DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY OF JOHN GEIER & ANOTHER. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE, THIS RESOLUTION FAILED TO PASS. FILE NUMBER: N1473800-00899 LEAD AGENCY: 473800 OFFICE or BOARD: Town Board TITLE: COZ-SCTM# 1000-40-4-1 DESCRIPTION: Town of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK County Town of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK County /94 CLASS: T Unlisted Type 1 Zone chg. of 10.55 ac from Hamlet Density to Res.-80 loc. 48, 400~ W/O Moore's Lane. DATE RECEIVED: Negative Declaration 07/19/94 s/s CR STATUS: N Normal Void Conditioned Rescinded 11 00 IMPORTANT >> File Number: N1-473800-00899 Use the above number in all correspondence about this action! To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described Negative Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The date and time in the second line show when this document was printed. Please check the information above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224, or write to: SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514 Albany, NY 12233 Town of SOUTHOLD Town Board 53095 Main Road-P.O. Southold, NY 11971 Box 1179 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Somhold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION No6~ of De. le. rmina~u ~ Noa-Signi~..anc~ ~inatiOn ~ Si~ificance Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: July 1994 This notice is issued puts-ant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pe '_rta~fing to Article 8 (State Environmental O-allty Rev/ew) of the Environmental Conservation Law. .The lead agency has determined that the proposed action descn"oed below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Dr~ Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action: SEQR Status: Project Desa-ipflom Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-40 4 1 ~rs CR 48, 400 feet w/o Moore's Iane, Unincorporated eenpor~ Type I Action The project which is the subject of thi! Determination, involves a the change of zone of 10.55 acres from "Hamlet Density" to 'Residence-80~. The project site contaim freshwater wetlands associated wi'th Moore's Woods (NYSDEC Freshwater Water Wetlands ~SO-1). The site is surrounded by Village of Greenport parkland. The proposed project is one of six (6) change of zones being considered by the Town Boardat this time in the same geographic area and will involve common and potentially significant impacts. ~HI~ Ch~n~o~, O/Zone SEQR Determination 1000-40 ~ 1 Location: The site consists of 10.55 acres and is located on the south side of CR 48, 400 feet west of Moore's I ant, Unincorporated Greenport. Comments: The Town Board is reviewing this project simultaneously with the following applications: Chsnge Of' Zone on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# s/s CR 48, more shah l(]i]ff ¢/o Chapel l~n¢, Ore~nport Proposed COZ on Towa Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-35-1-2S n/s CR 48, 1,139 fe.~ e/o Sound Road, Gre~nport Propi~.d COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-4.5-2-10.5 c/s Chapel I a,,-., Greenport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-4.5-2-1 s/s CR 48, 805 feet c/o Chapel L~,,~.. Greenport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Ovm Motion SCTM# 1000-3~.1-24 n/s CR 4~, ~ feet c/o Sound Road, Greenpmi Reasons SuppoFting This Determination: This dctermin:~tion is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of sigllificallc~ coBtnined in 6 NYCRR Part 61'/.11. the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, and the following specific reasons: The sabject change of ~nning does not -w"~d any og the crite~a for determinin~ ~i?i~cance of an action that would warrant the preparalion of a Draft EIS. Convezse~, the a~ion will minimir~ potential enviroamemal impacti thereby providing support for iss,,ance of a Ne?tire Declaration. The proix~.l project will reduce tl~ potenaat d~elopmea~t d,-n~i~,. ~ ~ ~j~ ~. ~ a ~ ~ ~ M~ ~c g~r~on ~ ~ ~ ~ ~rdlngly, ~ ~j~ ehan~ of ~ing ~ ~a m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~opme~ ~ re~d to ~ ~ ~ m ~m~ to The p~oposed ~nnin~ is conslst~t with land u~c and zoning of surroimaing laad~ and will therefore not cause a r.i~m~ifi,~nt impact. AS a result, ~ proposed t'h~nge of zonin~o will have a bol~ficial impact upoll land use in the are. a of the site. l~ge 2 or3 'HD' Chan~ of Zone SEOR Ddm'mlmmon (4) Considm'ation ha~ been given to th~ review of the. prolw~=d ,rrna e. hang~ condmzt~d by a cons~dtan* to t h~ Town Board, which conclude, s t h,'- following with regard to th,~ si~ in conr, id,-rafion of unique rite FCSOIIA*C~ "T]iP.~ ~nd~n~ ~ that any d~velopillP, l~ ~ ~ Ki~ ~ haV~ ~nvi~cmmontal irnpact~. 01~ initial impr~ ii ~hat r~Trming to 'R'~O' r~nrial ~ pro~ a llgnifirnnt hlerear~l measure ofpr~ for thc envir,~nment *hah tl~ 'ltD' zoning nOW provid~ Conr, ide. ratlon lure ~ given to a planning d _~"-mcnt prepared by t~ Soutl~d planning St~f entitled, *~fHam~De.~.rilyZaninginSoutholdTo~m -~.porttothe To~n l~'d* &~zl Fe. brm~y 1994. This r~port comq,,d,-~ th~ following with regard to tim site in consideraiton of unique site resources: Th~ r, ubje~t ~ contain~ unique resources, Bad ii occupied by freshwater wetlands over approximately 3:3 ~[ ~ [ 1015 [ ~gl ~ ~ ~n~ ~ rrlning dill minimiTe, im~liCt upon W~l'lanl~t re. soorc~ by re~u~in~ tl~ pot~nl~l land use d~nsity adjacant tl~ habitat In adaition, t~ lower potential de.a wm provide mor Oemq rand usc oi on to ma~miT~ ~ and cn~ur¢ pre rwatlna of unlqu I abitat areas. For Further Information: Contaa Person: Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Phone No.: Town Hall, 53095 M~tn Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1800 Copies of thi~ Notice ~ent to: Commlssioner-Depa~ tment of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, ?dbany, NY Reg/onal Office-New York State the Department of Env/ronmentnl Col~ervation, SUN~ @ Swny Brook, Stony Brook, NY Suffolk CoRnty PlnnnlnE Commission Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Lon9 Island Southold Town P[annincj Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Buildin9 Department Village of Greenport Southold Town ClerkSs Bulletin Board John Geier i. Ano.. c/o Marion Geier, Atlantic Mobil Park. P.O. Box 30. Newport, N.C. 28570 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971 Fax 15161 765-1823 Telephone 1516) 765 1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OFSOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 12, 1994: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has consistently noticed the SEQR status of this project as a Type I action, and due to a clerical error the notice of determination adopted May 31, 1994 erroneously stated that the SEQR status of this project was Unlisted when it should have stated Type I; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board resolution of May 31, 1994 is hereby rescinded and this notice is reissued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Town Board of the Town of Southold has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environemnt and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action: SEQR Status: Project Description: Property of: John Geier & Ano. Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion $CTM# 100040 4 1 ~rs CR 48, 400 feet w/o Moore's lane, Unincorporate~ eenport Type I Act/on The project which is the subject of thi.~ De~ermlnntioil. involves a the change of zone of 10.55 acres from -- ~-I~mlet Dendt~f' to "Residence-8ff'. The project s/te contnirm freshwater wetlands associated with Moore's Woods (NYSDEC Freshwater Water Wetlands #50-1). TT~he site is sm-founded by V/llage of Greenport parkland. e proposecl project is one of six (6) change of zones being considered by the Town Boardat this time. in the same geographic area and will involve COmmon and potevtially s~LYniflt'ant/mpact& 1000-40-4-1 Location: The site consists of 10.55 acres and is located on the south side of CR 48, 400 feet west of Moore's ! ~ne, Unincoroorated GreenporL Reasons Supportin~ This Determination: This deterwlnation is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, and the following specific reasons: Thc proposed proje~ will reAuce thc pnte-fi~! dcve. lopment dcnshy on the subject arc. As a rcsuk, dcmlty derivcd impacts includln~ water nse; sanitary wastc volume; disturbance of land; tra/~c generation; and solid wa~e generation will ~ be reduce& Accor,~;ngly. the subject ~U~-~e of zoai~ is ~ to reduce thc impact of site development with regard to the. se impac~ areax, a~ compared to OIITe4~ T/az proposed .,nning ia con~i~¢nt with land taw and zoning of sutroundin~ land~, and will thcrefore not cause a significant impact. A~ a rcauk, thc proposed eh~n~c of zoninE will have a I~ncfi~al impact upon Cnnr. idcrafon has boon givon to the review of th~ pro~ _nord ,n~ &an~e ~ ~ a ~nltant m ~ To~ ~ ~ ~ndu~ ~ fo~ ~ ~d to ~ ~c ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~din~ s~ ~ ~y ~opmm ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~om~ ~ O~ ~ ~pr~oa h that r~nln~ to "R~ ~.n~i~l ~ pro~ a ~ ~ m~e of pr~n for ~e cn~o~em than ~ '~' ~nin~ nOW pro~d~. Comlderation has be~n given to a plannln~o d,'~,,ment prepared by tl~ Sonthold plannlnE 5t~ff entitle~ 'l~,view of Ham~ Den~L'y ZongRg in ~ Tov;n - Report to the Tovm BoanP' dated February 1994. This report concJ-d¢~ th~ following with regard to the site in considcraiton of unique site resources: (6) Thc subject site cont*in, uaiquc resources, and is occupied by h'edawatcr wcflands over appro.~fimntcly 33 percent of thc 10_55 acre site. Thc proposed change of zonin~ will minimi~',~ hnpact upon wetlands resources by reducing the potential land u.~ demity adjacent this habitat In addition, fl~e lower potential land u~ densit7 will provide more flax~le land use options to ma.n~mize setbacks and ensure preservation of unique habitat Southold Town Clerk July 13. 199q CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental & Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Suite 2 MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 (516) 331-1455 TO Town of Southold P.0- Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 July 6, 1994 Judith Terry, Town Clerk HD Chat~ge of Zone; SEQR Determination I" Southold [own Clerk WE ARE SENDING YOU [] Attached [] Under separate cover via the lollowing items: [] Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Specifications Copy of letter [] Change order Notice DATE 7/12/94 NO SEQR Negative Declaration (corrected copy) for parcels 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8. THESE ARE TRANSMITTED ss checked below: [] For approval ~C~For your use :~:As requested L~ For review and comment ~ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS [] Approved as submitted [] Resubmit [] Approved as noted [] Submit [] Returned for corrections [] Return 19 copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US Any questions, please call. COPY TO SIGNED: Thomas W. Cramer, ASLA SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Dctcrmlna~ion of Non-Significance Deseamlnation of Significance Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: July 12, 1994 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Q~allty Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant: effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action-. SEQR Status: Project Description: Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion Parcel #2, SCrM# 1000-40-4-1 ~rs CR 48, 400 feet w/o Moore's 1 ~ne, Unincorporated eenport Type I Action The project which is the subject of thi~ Determination, involves a the change of zone of 10.55 acres from "H~mlet Density~ to 'Residence-80#. The project site co~ta~n~ freshwater wetlands associated with Moore's Woods (NYSDEC Freshwater Water Wetlands #SO-l). The site is surrounded by Village of Greenportparkland. The proposed project is one of six (6) change of zones bein~ considered by the Town Boardat this time in the same geographic area and will involve common ~ potentially s~nifi _t~nt impacts. II, ge 1 o1'3 1000-40~1 l.~cntion: The site consists of 10.55 acres and is located on the south side of CR 48, 400 feet west of Moore's ! ane, Unincorporated Greenport. ~omm~nts: The Town Board is reviewing th/s project simultaneously with the following applications: Change of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion Parcel #1~ SCTM# 1000-40-3-1 s/s CR 48, more than 1000' e/o Chapel l.ane, Oreenport l~'olx~ed COZ on T~ ~d's ~ Motion P~cel #4, SCTM# 100~35-1-25 n/s CR 4~ L139 fe.~t e/o Sold R~d, Grnen~rt Propos~ COZ on Town Board's Own Motion Parcel #5, SCTM# 1000-45-2-10.3 c/s Chapel Lane, Grnenport Proposal COZ on Town Board's Own Motion Parcel #7, SCTM# 1000-45-2-1 s/s CR 48~ 805 feet c/o Chapel Lane~ Grnenport l%opo~d COZ ~ Town ~d's ~ Motion P~cel #8, SCTM# 100~35-1-24 n/s CR 4~, 564 feet ¢/o ,~und R~d, Gr~n~rt Reasons Supporting This Determinntiom This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of s,gufficance cootained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and H, and the following specific reasons: O) The proposmt ,nning is con~ir4cnt with land use and zoning of surroimding lands, and will therefore not cause a sigui~aat impaa. ~ a result, tl~ proposeal eh~ng~ of zoning will havc a beneficial impact upon land us~ in tha area of the site. Png~ 2 of 3 · HD~ C'h-n~e Of Zone; IMrcel #2 SEQR Det~'mlnn~lon (~) Consideral~n has be~n given to tl~ review of thc propoc~.xl zone change condueted by a consuhant to thc Town Board, which concludes the following with regard to the site in conskle, rntion of uniqu~ site resources: 'The. se findings suggest that any development on this site will bavc environmental impact. Out initial impre.~on ig that re.~oninff to 'R-Sff' resiA~ntia[ will provide a ni~nifirant increase~l meaaure of protection for the enviroment than the 'I-ID' ~oBillg now provides. Consideration has be~n given m a pla..i.g do~,mcnt prepared by the Southold Planning Staff entitled, "Revi~ o~ Handet Do~ily goning in Southold To~n - Report m tl~ Town Board" dated February L994. ~ report clancindgg tl~ followin~ with regard to tl~ site in elmsideraiton of unique site re.~outcea: The subjcc~ site conrnln-q unique resources, and is occupied by fi'cshwater we~land~ over approximately 33 p~rcent of th~ 10.55 acre site. The propoc~d ehang~ Of zonin~ will minimiTe irnpa~t U. pO~l ~ reaoutcea by re~ucin~ the potential land use denaity adjacent thin habitat In addition, thc lower potential land uae demsity will provide more fle. m'b[e land uae optiona to ma~dmiTe setbacks and eoaure preaervation of unique habitat area& For Further Information: Contact Person: Judith Ten3,, Town Clerk Town of Southold Address: Phone No.: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1800 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12231 Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation, SUNY @ Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY Suffolk County planning Commi~;ion Pag~ 3 of 3 PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF A MOTION FROM HAMLET RESIDENTIAL R-80 ANOTHER. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD JUNE 28,1994 8:45 P.M. CHANGE OF ZONE DENSITY (HD) DISTRICT ON THE ON THE TOWN BOARD'S OWN DISTRICT TO LOW DENSITY PROPERTY OF JOHN GEIER Present: Supervisor Thomas H- Wickham Councilman Joseph J. Lizewski Councilwoman Alice J. Hussie Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Councilwoman Ruth D. Oliva Justice Louisa P. Evans Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Laury L. Dowd SUPERVISOR WlCKHAM: Weql proceed to the second public hearing of the evening, and I think, Alice, you'll help with this one. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: "Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law, and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, at 8:05 P.M., Tuesday, June 28, 19911, on the Change of Zone on the Town Board's Own Motion from Hamlet Density (HD) District to Low Density Residential R-80 District on the property of John Geier ~, Another, located on the south side of Route 48, 400 feet west of Moores Lane, Greenport, New York, containing 10.557 acres, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-40-4-1. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly line of North Road (C.R. 48) at the northwesterly corner of land of the Village of Greenport and the northeasterly corner of the premises herein described, said point being 350.68 feet westerly from the westerly line of Moore's Lane; running thence along said land of the Village of Greenport three courses: (1) S.4 01'10"E.-1106.0 feet; thence (2) S. 84 53'30"W.-474.24 feet; thence (3) N.4 06'10"W.-830.50 feet to the North Road; thence along North Road N.55 01'10"E.-554.24 feet to the point of beginning. Dated: May 31, 1994. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." There are affidavits that this has been published in The Suffolk Times, and The Traveler-Watchman. We have correspondence from the Pg.2 - Change of zone- Geier property- Southold Planning Board. At its June 2Ltth meeting, the Planning Board adopted the following report: The Planning Board endorses the townspeople~s vision for their Town, which calls for individually distinct or discrete hamlets separated from each other by open or farmed countryside, and which calls for the equitable distribution of affordable housing density throughout the Town. The Planning Board also recognizes that achieving this vision will require the careful consideration of the land use within and adjacent to its hamlet centers; that the Town's Zoning Map should reflect the intent of the community's vision; and that the Town must weigh the community's interest in its collective future against the private interest of individual property owners in the use of their land. The Planning Board recognizes that the proposed rezoning of these properties will not deny these property owners the right or capacity to develop their land; that the proposed zone of R-80 is the base zoning of the Town and is by no means the most restrictive zoning categorization in Southold. The Planning Board endorses the report: "Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in Southold Town: Report to the Town Board:, and its recommendation that the zones of these six properties be changed from Hamlet Density to a lower density such as R-80. Richard G. Ward, Chairman. We also have correspondence from the Suffolk County Planning. Town Clerk, Town of Southold, Pursuant to the requirements of Section A 1~-1L[ to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. There is no further correspondence_ SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: You've heard the public notice. Is there anyone in the audience, who would like to address the Board on this public hearing regarding the proposed rezoning of property of John Geier and Others. CRAIG GEIER: My name is Craig Geier. First of all, I'd like to say that I went to school in the early 70's in Greenport. There is not too much afford cheap housing in town, that anybody can buy. Since you started this zoning change, you have put our entire family in state of constant worry, and depression. It has affected our mother, Mary Geier, who will be seventy years old in a few days, much more. The stress you are putting on her should not be put on anyone, especially a seventy year old woman. We have already talked about the devastating threat of the zoning change mentally and physically, and we have told about the change would mean financially. The property would be worth much less, than my Mom owns, and she would have to walk away from the property with nothing. This property has been in our family for thirty years. It's thirty years of paying taxes, going to school, church, shopping and everything else, that goes along with being a resident of Southold Town. One more thing, and I will say no more. A short time before my Dad died he was in the hospital. The day he was released, I took him home, and we were talking. One of the things he said to me was, Craig, you and your brothers and sisters have to take care of your mother when I'm gone, and he went on to talk about the property, and for us to develop it. Affordable housing, or motel, would be great. If only we could keep it in the family. Now, what you're trying to do will never happen, because there will be no property. So, next time I go to Calverton National Cemetery to say, hi, where he is Pg.3 - Change of zone- Geier property. resting along with his Purple Heart from World War II, I have to say, sorry, Dad, there's no property left. Thank you. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: the Board on this? is there anyone else who would Ike to address JOYCE CEIER HARROUN: My name is Joyce Geier Harroun, and I'm here representing my family. I'd like to thank Mr. Proud for the comments that he made, and certainly some of what I will say will relate to that as well. I'd like to read from a prepared statement here. I will read the statement which will be submitted to the file on this proposed rezoning which we continue to. This written statement shall be considered in its entirety regardless of any points I may fail to make this evening. We are here before you tonight at this public hearing scheduled by you, the Board, to defend our property rights against a proposed rezoning effort initiated by this Town Board upon its own motion. On January 4, 1994 this Town Board authorized and directed the staff of the Planning Department to carry out a study regarding the appropriateness of the HD District in Southold Town as it relates to those properties designated as such. In the February 10th issue of the Suffolk Times a page four story regarding the Towns' proposal reads, talk about fast work. In less than one month, Town Planner Valerie Scopaz and Town Attorney Laurie Dowd conducted a survey of all Hamlet Density zones within the Town, compiled a 50-page report and presented their conclusions to the Town Board on Tuesday. I would agree. That is very fast work, indeed. In 1989, when the Town Board adopted our Master Plan they did so after years of gathering information, compiling statistics, studying and analyzing documentation, balancing certain needs with desires and I would guess compromising. All this was done with the benefit of a comprehensive study prepared by independent professional planners along with numbers of community leaders, business persons and civic minded individuals. The question needs to be asked, what is different today to from when these zones were put in place? This property, our property, has been zoned for multi-family use since 1968. This property had functioned a a multi-family residence for years prior to my family taking title. My father applied for and was granted a change of zone in 1968, which more accurately reflected the use and nature of that property. My father worked hard. He invested time and he invested money into this property. It's current state of disrepair in no way diminishes his efforts to provide for the future. As heir to his estate, my mother who is nearing 70 years of age, is relying on their investment in this real property in Southold Town to provide for her retirement. My mother is currently living on Social Security benefits and looks forward to the day when their investment can provide her with some small measure of financial security. I return to my question. What change has taken place that warrants this rezoning? What is different now from the 1989 when the Town Board reaffirmed the zoning designation of this property as multi-family, and included it in it's adoption of the Master Plan. With little more that a month of tenure in office this Board apparently felt it has prepared adequately to defend such an arbitrary and capricious action. Councilwoman Hussie questioned the legality and rationality of such a drastic removal of nearly an entire zoning designation. Councilman Lizewski has voiced concerns regarding property rights issues and fairness, both of these Councilpersons appear to have serious concerns regarding the legal consequences involved here for the pg.l~ - Change of zone- Geier property. Town. Surely the Town Board does not expect property owners to donate the equity in their land to the Town. Attorney Dowd has advised the Board that the Courts generalJy uphold such moves by local government as they relate to public safety, health and welfare issues. I~m not so sure you've done you homework. I have talked with planners from other municipalities and they tell me based on the information I related, they personally would have prepared themselves better. This Town Board has declared itself lead agency in the SEQRA Process. They declared a negative declaration status to their findings which allows them to avoid completing an Environmental Impact Statement. Valuable and necessary information is derived from the completion of the Impact Statement. We know they are demanded from the private sector as a matter of routine. It is a function of government to plan for our future growth; for the Town to deny that any growth other than that commensurate with their restrictive 2 acre zoning is surely a bad case of tunnel vision. Removing all of these zones from the area is clearly an irresponsible act- What group of people would you expect to be most affected by this upzoning to 2 acre parcels? Might it be the younger generation, or generations yet to come? Your report suggests that this town's population is an aging one and the trend is expected to continue. With more and more affluent retirees settling here after years of earning substantial incomes outside this area, they can well afford the costs associated with larger minimum lot sizes. Without a youthful, vigorous, population, where will you get the work force needed to serve this aging population. We would expect more balance, more fairness. Perhaps we are too naive. No, as to the unfairness of this rezoning as it relates to our family. Although we are here tonight without the benefit of legal counsel as we lack those financial means, we gave certainly incurred expenses we can ill afford. We have had an appraisal prepared by a local certified licensed appraiser at the cost of $500.00. I along with my brother have attended numerous meetings which caused us to lose time from our employment. I personally have found it necessary to set aside one business day a week to attend to this financially threatening rezoning. Over the course of the last five months that amount to nearly one month's wages for me. I'll not ([st all the incidental expenses that when totaled constitutes a substantial sum of money. I will submit to you a copy of the cover letter prepared by the appraiser which outlines the financial impact that your proposed rezoning will have on this property. It will reduce the value by a full 50%. That is more than the amount of equity my mother holds in this land. You will cast us into a negative worth situation. We will have no other recourse than to give up the that, that has been in our family for more than 30 years, land that we have paid taxes on at a rate set for multi-family use. The mortgage on this land is due this July, as I have told you on several occasions. This action has hurt us terribly, as we are not even free to market this property with this zoning question. As I understand it our filing of a formal protest in accordance with Section 265 of New York State Town Law, gives us some measure of protection against arbitrary and capricious actions such as these. It causes your board to obtain a 3/u, majority vote or 5 votes instead of the usual ~_ To Councilwoman Hussie and Councilman Lizewski I ask you to be guided by the same sense of reason and good judgement that you have exhibited as this affects not only our family but the whole concept of planning, and meeting the needs of the community as a whole. Ton the four remaining Board members I urge you to reconsider your positions. Ask yourself if you have truly put the type of work into this study that it deserves. Thank you. I have a petition here Pg.5 - Change of zone- Geier property. with 268 signatures. (Tape change) Regarding Creenport School. I, like my brothers, went to Greenport School. Right now Greenport is under-enrolled. I have had conversations with Dr. Pizzora with the Board members. Teachers are currently working at 16 and 17 pupils per classroom- I don't think that that"s a very wise use of tax dollars in our community. If you say that Greenport is the highest taxed school district in the area, perhaps we can do something about that. Maybe we need to fill our classrooms a little bit more. Maybe we don't have the luxury of 15, 16 children per classroom. Secondly, there"s been no attempt by this Board to even consider a relocation of these housing units. You say Creenport is unfairly burdened by the density around Greenport? Where would you have them go? This town has no inclination to provide sewer services, that are needed, in order to support a HD Zone. It's not going to happen anywhere else. We know this. Regarding TDR's, they're going to be there for somebody, right? Just like Farmland Preservation is there. Farmland Preservation is the only farmland you can sell your development rights, because there is a recognized value assigned to that right to develop it. That's not extended to other, obviously, to other designations. Farmland Preservation laws can be viewed as a good thing also affectively removes more housing opportunities in this town. We have a Farmland Preservation Program in Southold Town. Suffolk County supports it. This Board is going to ask the voting public here to approve nearly $2,000,000.00 in bond money to purchase even more development rights, and what that"s going to do is, that's going to further remove the availability of housing to meet future needs of our population. I think there are some things here that really have been overlooked, and haven't been considered seriously. This is a broad rush treatment of this situation. It's a baby with the bath water. We've got a problem, so let"s get rid of it all. Let's not work on it. Again, I urge you to reconsider your position. SUPERVISOR WlCKHAM: Is there anyone else, who would like to address the Board on the Geier property hearing. SUSAN LONG: My name is Susan Long. I reside in East Marion. I~m here on behalf of the Geier family, and also stand here in fond memory of John Geier. I would like to read an article that was published in the June 16th issue this year of The Suffolk Times. It is a letter of appreciation. It's written by Colin Van Tuyl, who is the President of the Class of 1969 Greenport High School. Twenty-five years ago, June 20, 1969, letter of appreciation. As our final year of Greenport High School grows quickly to a close, we look back on it with joy, and sad sentiment. When we think of all the activities, we recall Saturday afternoon football games, the baseball games on those fresh Spring afternoons, and the golf and bowling matches. We remember Eugene Mazzaferro and John Geier, who efforts made possible our entire sports program. If they hadn't spent day and night procuring signatures for a petition to raise money for athletic activities Greenport High School would have had a less exciting year. These two benevolent men collected enough funds to reinstate a full inter-scholastic athletic program, which would otherwise have been left out due to our austerity budget. Nothing can function without support, and we are grateful to the many of you who did back us with contributions. Sincerely, Colin Van Tuyl, President Class of 1969. I am here this evening in opposition to this proposal for the change of zone for the Geier property. I've been following the reports in the local papers, and I will Pg.6 - Change of zone- Ceier property. ask Councilman Lizewski, and Councilwoman Hussie, to continue to support their stand, and vote no when the issue comes to a vote. I will ask the remaining Board to reconsider, and vote, no, on this issue- Thank you. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Are there any other comments? GERALD WALZ: I think the Geier property, some of the personal comments aside, is an interesting case on the danger, and what the problems are here for the town. First of all, a high percentage of it is wetlands. I spoke before. My name is Gerald Walz. It doesn't fit the definition of being in a hamlet center by any stretch of the imagination. It's outside the hamlet density, and obv.iously violates the Master Plan. I think if these properties weren't before you, and instead what was before you a Master Plan to decide where public water and sewage were to go to be developed properly, you think any of you would say, yeah, let's put public water in that area. It probably wouldn't be developed in the first place, not in terms of hamlet density, it is surrounded by parkland, which is another indication of how sensitive it is, almost surrounded. I would like to point' out that this property designation was done in 1968. As far as I know there is no plans now before the Town Board, or the Planning Board, to develop it. We were told that this is for the financial good of the parent, the mother, who is now on Social Security, but it hasn't been developed all these years. There are no plans right now. This is being warehoused to the determent of the town in general, and for all of us. People own individual property, I own individual property, probably everyone here owns property. We, also, own property in a collective sense, so it's not just one particular family, or one particular person, who has a financial stake here. We all do in different ways, and this simply violates the Master Plan, and goes to the heart of what you mean, what the Town means, what all of you mean for hamlet density. Either way you have to make up your mind, and you've already spoken, many of you, on this issue- Thank you. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Is there anyone else, who would like to address the Board on this matter of the Geier property? Yes, sir? RICHARD ISRAEL: My name is Richard Israel, and as most of the people on this Board know, I was one of the developers of one of the affordable housing developments in Southold. I object to what the Board is doing, or intending to do here only because you're putting the cart before the horse. In a sense of, yes, you're saying, gee, by Greenport there's a lot of hamlet density zone. The reason for that was, because that was the only place that public water and sewer existed, and therefore any zoning that could happen, did happen. As you know in the Town of Southold, and in the County of Suffolk without the availability of public water and sewer. You will have no affordable housing, or any high density, what you call high density, being four units to the acre. High density, as you go back into Western Suffolk,and the like, is much higher. Before you destroy all these zones see if you can create the plan of where to put the need of the people, who would normally go into these zones. We talk about creating these zones in Cutchogue, and Mattituck, and spreading them evenly in the hamlet densities, or hamlet zones, excuse me, that exist, and this is the general trend of all your new studies after the Master Plan studies of the 80's. Okay? If you have no intention of creating public water, or public sewer, in your hamlet densities, you will never be able to replace the housing Pg.7 - Change of zone- Geier property. lots, that you're about to lose. Okay? I think it's important that this Board recognize that before they go off, and rezone an entire unit out of hamlet density. It's a very important issue, because as much as everyone wants to save Southold as it is, and everybody, I think, in this room does, you have to remember that we still have to make it so that the average person can live here. Taxes have become a tremendous burden- Okay? The people who own hamlet density land today pay a higher tax than those of a person who own a ten acre vacant land scenario, that isn't even farmland. Most of the farmland that is currently farmed are under agricultural exemptions. They pay very little taxes. Okay? What you're going to do here is reduce your tax assessments, which will raise your taxes in a moderate way. Okay? What you're also going to be doing is creating a situation, where the taxes will rise, because of degrading values. Okay? One of the other things that you have to look for also in reference to, is where are your normal people going to live? The people who do mow the lawns for the retirees, who come here, who have good incomes behind them. Solve the problem first, and then change around your town. If you don't have a place to go to, then by destroying everything that was in the past is going to begin to destroy Southold Town. We went through a long process in the eighties to bring some affordable housing to this town. It is now at a point where you can't give up on it, you can't say we've had our three or four developments, we've brought a hundred units to market, it's seems to have satisfied the local need today. What you're doing is exactly what happened in the seventies, you closed the doors on development on small lots, and things like that, which now you're going to do again. Open the doors, figure out how you're going to create it in your other hamlets. This is what your UK Study, and all your other studies have determined. Finish the study before you destroy everything that was created by a Master Plan that took years to put in place. Okay? Again, the Hamlet Density is very important. I think the other thing that you have to consider, the taxpayers, you have the Geier property, it's owned by a small family. The don't even have the availability of a lawyer to them. The other ones that you're going against are larger developers. They're going to have attorneys. They're going to fight you in court no matter what you do. It's going to cost the taxpayers tens, if not hundreds of dollars, to defend the position that you're about to take if you do change these properties. What's going to happen in the long run is somehow they will win, they will get through, and ten years from now we will either be subject to a lawsuit, or a fine, or whatever, which the taxpayers will pay, and a person like the Geiers will of course no longer even live in Southold anymore. They will have lost everything, and they'll basically be gone, because they don't have the legal means. The other question that I just bring up is if the Town wants to reduce density by rezoning, it's my understanding that the Town two weeks ago decided to put a resolution to the voters about farmland preservation. If you have the zoning rights to do it, take your farmland that you feel is the most important, and upzone it to be farm only. If this is what is important to the Town, and to it's people, zone out the development rights just like you're doing to the hamlet density. Why take out taxpayers' money to pay for development rights if you truly have the right to just rezone a map, and save us all a lot of money. We all can use it, so if you can do it to the farmers, and pay them, if you want to start rezoning things for things that have been zoned for decades compensate them, and it's done very cleanly. It would be cheaper in the end. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Pg.8 - Change of zone- Geier property. SUPERVISOR WlCKHAM: Yes, sir? HARVEY ARNOFF: Mr. Wickham, Harvey Arnoff, again. I just have a few brief comments, which is unusual for me to be brief, but I will attempt to be brief tonight. I think Mr. Israel hit on a very interesting point. I think someone's agenda here, the agenda of the proponents of this particular change of zone including the Geiers. They never had any intention to have these lots replaced, ever, because if in fact no sewer will accommodate hamlet density zoning can be placed...will realistically be placed, they can always be placed, but realistically placed in the other hamlet, then you're never going to have the construction. You can not build without certain prerequisites, sewer treatment facilities, and things like that, on a private basis just are no longer viable from an economic point of view for developers. But the real point of my standing up here is not just that. It's just that this town historically has been anti-youth. There has been very little emphasis on the youth in our town, and I for one have always been a proponent of the youth, and I'm tired of people saying, let's not provide for youth, and we're not by getting rid of hamlet density of these particular parcels, because the possibility of coming in with affordable housing in these areas, and then what's really going to happen essentially is for some other project to come on line we're five to ten years away. No matter what you people do by the time you take another piece of property in another part of our town, rezone it, make it available for hamlet density, and somebody go over that thing, start from square one, you're seven or ten years probably away from somebody's house being built, and it seems to me that that is an anomalous situation. It doesn't help our young people. It doesn't do anything for them, except do what we've done all along, and that's just drive them out of the town, and I don't think that's what this Board wants. Historically young people don't vote. I hope more them listen to these meetings, and read more in the paper, and get out and vote, and maybe we will have peoplewho are concerned about the youth in this town. Thank you. HAZEL JEFFCOAT: Hazel Jeffcoat. I came to additional response due to something that the gentleman, Mr- Israel, said, when I came to this neighborhood, and started to be involved with my community, because that's the only way to be a community, and be a real neighbor, I found out that there were a lot of conflicts over the school budget, and a lot of the senior citizens that I met, preferable, through church, and TaxPac told me that they didn't want new families moving into this neighborhood because of the impact on the school taxes, that they couldn't do anything about their Town taxes, or the State taxes, or their Federal taxes, but maybe somebody would let them do something about their school taxes, so if the Legislature decides with the whip of the pen dezone things, or upzone things, so that the people can't afford to live here, and you don't allow for the growth that is going to take place, and force families out. You're forcing us into areas that are going to take away from you, take away from the growth, take away taxable incomes. If we continue to buy up lands that are taxable, and we conserve parks, and lands, that are again not taxable, where are we going to continue to get the money from, the working families that you're forcing out, the families that can not afford to improve their homes, or build a addition because they have a baby, because the taxes are going to double, which I know from experience? So, I really do consider that we the people need a place to live that we can afford without having to Pg.9 - Change of zone- Ceier property. live on top of each other, like some of the people do in Greenport, and I think that if you let families develop their own property, and you let people husbandry their own land, it will happen at a rate that everyone can afford, and we won't need these additional costs of new laws, that end up costing people like me more money, that I don~t want to give you anymore, because the government already getting almost $.53 to my dollar, if you look at the whole picture. So, we little Johns, we unprofessionals, we don~t want the taxes, we don~t want the rezoning, we don~t want the tourist picture that doesn't allow us to make a choice of what kind of aromatic air we want. Some of us can't afford bags like the business people in town, that I~ve spoken to, that are ready to close up, and look at Feather Hill, that's another story in itself, but had the lady in the florist shop telling me she can't even afford to stay in business if things keep going, and hear Mullens is going to take you to court, because you want him to take his lights out. I mean I know that there are thieves in the neighborhood. My car has been hit twice, and it was parked in town, and parked in front of my house. We've got a prowler in our neighborhood, and our Police are getting the highest paid salaries, as far as I know, anywhere, and we in the neighborhood no long have guards. I~m not saying I want to tote a weapon, but I am saying look what you're permits have done. I have to go to town, and get a permit to build a dog house, that includes a foundation with running water, which, thank God, I have people that don~t come around and take pictures, and re-enforce them. You might now, but I hope not. This is what's going on. The world has gotten so much across the country that we, the people, are being strangled out, and if you don't think that we could take it, it's true, we can't. We're really losing out to the highly paid professional, and legislature, that is paid as much as they are, and we can't afford you anymore. So, please, try to remember that those of us that by some gift of Cod~s grace have property rights, and property, cause I understand it's very hard to get that anymore, let them make use of it, because they're going to protect their community a lot better than some conservatory that wants to come in without paying for it, take up our lands. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Thank you. on the Geier property? (No response.) Any other comments on this hearing If not, I'll close this hearing. ~--Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Petition Cover Sheet To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that ldo hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport. Total Number of Volumes in Petition Total Number First Page Last Page Total of Pages in Petition Number of this Petition Number of this Petition Number of Signatures in Petition / /& / /¢ To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport. Name of Signer Date {signature required) Residence Address To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family proper~ in Greenport. Name of Signer Date (si.onature required) i . 16 '..) Residence Address '~r~ ,..~L-,~~ //~ N~ ~~ ~_~)_~ ,.; .NY . NY Sheet To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport. Name of Signer Date 9 20 Residence Address · NY , NY · NY ,NY , NY Sheet No. -~ To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the To~vn of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport. Date Name of Signer / /(signature re~ ulred) 14 1994 15 1994 16 1994 17 1994 18 1994 19 1994 20 1994 Residence Address Sheet No. ¢ To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the aeier Family property in Greenport. Name of Signer Date (signature required) ,~/~/.,~ _ >~ 4~ , 1994 ¢ 20 ,1994 Residence Address · NY · NY , N'~ ,NY Sheet No_ ~9 To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport. Date Name of Signer Residence Address (signature required) 6 ,1994 7 .1994 8 ,1994 9 .1994 12 , 1994 13 ,1994 [6 ,1994 19 ,1994 20 , 1994 Sheet No. 7 To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport. Date Name of Signer ,,~o.,~, ~ ~ ,~ - Residence Address Sheet No. , NY , NY , NY To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, ami that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport. Date Name of Signer (slgnanlre reqllifed) 20 (f /0~0 1994 Residence Address ~izo ,O'/be,,/-~,o ,-, ~ ~,~'~ c ~ ~o ~ .~¥ To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposea zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport. Date Name of Signer (siRn:lnlre I'eqtdretl) ,NY , NY To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport. Name of Signer (si~nalure required) Residence Address ~ ~'1:- ~c' ~ ~' "\' ' '. \~ ', ~. \,:' . I i,-~ \ ~'~ Sh~tNo. // ,NY ,NY · NY , NY , Nh' .NY · NY ,NY To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that l do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport. Name of Signer (sl~onature required) /// Residence Address To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport Name of Signer Residence Address , Nh · NY , Nh' ,NY c,~, i_m Oer-^._Nt,l' ' g . To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport. Date Name of Signer Residence Address (signature required) 17 4 Sheet No. To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport. Date ~/~] , 1994 ~[ ~ .l~ Name of Signer ($1~nahlre required) Residence Address 994 . NY · Nh , NJ · Nh To: The Town Board, Town of Southold, NY I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a resident of the Town of Southold, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes for the Geier Family property in Greenport. Date ~ :3 . t994 6,/.)_,-/.,994 46~/~994~ / Name of Signer (sh~namre requlred) 12 .1994 13 1994 14 1994 16 1994 17 1994 1994 19 1994 20 1994 Residence Address Sheet No. J~) J~y~e A. $outhold Town Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. Geier-Harroun 24 Maple Lane East Marion, N.Y. 477-8475 To: Supervisor Wickham and Members of the Town Board I will read from this prepared statement which will be submitted to the file on this proposed rezoning which we continue to object to. This written statement shall be considered in its entirety regardless of any points I may fail to make this evening. We are here before you tonight at this Public Hearing scheduled by you/the Board~to defend our property rights against a proposed rezoning effort initiated by this Town Board upon its own Motion. On January 4, 1994 this Town Board authorized and directed the staff of the Planning Department to carry out a study regarding the appropriateness of the HD District in Southold Town as it relates to those properties designated as such. In the February 10th issue of the Suffolk Times a page 4 story regarding the Town'proposal reads ...Talk about fast work. In less than one month, Town planner Valerie Scopaz and Town attorney Laurie Dowd conducted a survey of all Hamlet Density zones within the Town, compiled a 50-page report and presented their conclusions to the Town Board on Tuesday... I would agree;that is very fast work,indeed! In 1989 when the Town Board adopted our Master Plan they did so after years of gathering information, compiling statistics, studying and analyzing documentation, balancing certain needs with desires and I would guess compromising; all this was done with the benefit of a comprehensive study prepared by independent professional planners along with numbers of conununity leaders, business persons and civic minded individuals. The question needs to be asked, What is different today to from when these zones were put in place? This property --C~--),~ has been zoned for multifamily use since 1968. This property had functioned as a multifamily residence for years prior to my family taking title. My father applied for and was granted a change off,one in 1968 which more accurately reflected the nat~of the property. My father worked hard and invested time and money into this property, its current state of disrepair in no way diminishes his efforts to provide for the~ future. As heir to his Estate, my mother who is nearing 70 years of age, is relying on their investment in this real property to provide for her retirement years. My mother is currently living on Social Security benefits and looks forward to the day when their investment can provide her with some small measure of financial security. I return to my question. What change has taken place that warrants this rezoning. What is different now from the year 1989 when the Town Board reaffirmed the zoning designation of this property as mult~f~ily~%~ in its adoption of the Master Plan. ok ~u With little more~than a month of tenure in office this Board apparently l~s it has prepared adequately to defend such an arbitrary and capricious action. provide a mix of housing choices. Councilwoman Hu~sie questioned the legality and rationality of such a drastic removal of nearly an entire zoning designation. Councilman Lezewski has voiced concerns regarding property rights issues and fairness, both of these Councilpersons appear to have serious concerns regarding the legal consequences involved here for the Town. Surely the Town Board does not expect property owners to donate the equity in their land to the Town. Attorney Dowd has advised the Board that the Courts generally uphold such moves by local government as they relate to public safety, health and welfare issues. I'm not so sure you've done you homework. I have talked with planners from other municipalities and they tell me based on the information I related, they personally would have prepared themselves better. This Town Board has declared ~¢kL~ thc~nsclves lead agency in the SEQRA Process. They negative declaration status to their findings which allows them to avoid completing an Environmental Impact Statement. Valuable and necessary information is derived from the completion of the '__ L Impact Statement, ~ __mr they are demanded from the private sector as a matter of routine. It is a function of government to plan for our future growth; ~; for the Town to deny that any growth other than that commensurate with their restrictive 2 acre czoning is surely a bad case of tunnel vision ~ ~moving all"~chese zones from the area is clearly an irresponsible act. What group of people would you expect to be most affected by this upzoning to 2 acre parcels. Might it be the younger generation, or generations yet to come. Your ~ report suggests that this Towns population is an aging one and the trend is expected to continue. With more and more affluent retirees settling here after years of earning substantial incomes outside this area, they can well afford the costs associated with larger minimum lot sizes. Without a youthful, vigorous population where will you get the work force needed to service this aging population, y ~ __ - -m~ _ ~ .... ~. ~would expect more balance, more fairness. Perhaps.~ too naive. Now, as to the unfairness of this rezone as it relates to our family: Although we are here tonight without the benefit of legal counsel as we lack those financial means, we have certainly incurred expenses we can ill afford. We have had an appraisal prepared by a local certified licensed appraiser at ~he cost of $500.00. I along with my brother have attend~ m~e~ings which caused us to lose time from our employment. I personally, have found it necessary to set aside 1 business day a week to attend to this financially threatening rezoning. Over the course of the last 5 months that amounts to nearly 1 months wages. I'll not list all the incidental expenses that when,totaledc~r~stitut. .... _. I will submit to you a copy of the cover letter prepared by the appraiser which outlines the financial impact that your proposed rezoning will have on this property. It will reduce the value by 50% of today~ market Value. That is more than the amount of equity my mother holds in this land. You will cast us into a negative worth situation. We will have no other recourse than to give up the that has been in our family for 30 years, land that we have paid taxes on at a rate set for multifamily use. The mortgage on this land is due this July, as I have told you on several occasions. This action has hurt us terribly as we are not even free to market this property with the zoning in question. As I understand it our filing of a formal protest in accordance with section 265 of New York State Town Law, gives us some measure of protection against arbitrary and capricious actions such as these. It causes your board to obtain a 3/4 majority vote or 5 votes instead of the usual 4. To Councilwoman Hussie and Councilman Lewzeski I ask you to be guided by theAsense of reason and good judgment that you have exhibited as this affects not only our family but the whole concept of planning and ~ ~ ~ '' ~ ~ meeting the needs of the community as a whole. To the four remaining Board Members I urge you to I'econsider your positions. Ask yourself if you have truly put the type of work into this study that it deserves. Thank You Joyce Geier-Harroun Stype Brothers Real Estate, Inc. MAIN ROAD, MATTITUCK, NEW YORK 11952 (516) 298-8760 FAX (516) 298-5779 ,llldIF 4/8/94 Ms. Joyce Harroun Box 219 Gree~port, New York 11944 RE:SCTM 1000-40-4-1 10.4 acres Rte. 48, Greenport, NY Dear Ms. Harroun: In accordance with your request I have prepared a real estate appraisal concerning the above referenced property. The subject is a 10.4 acre parcel, zoned residential hamlet density or 20,000 sq.' per homesite. There are various buildings on the property in poor condition and considered to be of no value. This appraisal will concern the property as if vacant. The appraisal instructions are to: 1) indicate value "as 2) indicate value with 80,000 sq,' per homesite zoning. 3) difference in value if Greenport Village Water included the subject in its district. The enclosed appraisal concerns the subject property "as is" zoning and vacant. The comparables were difficult to find due the limited number of hamlet density zoned parcels and few sales. Two comparables were similar zoning and the third comp is zoned 80,000 sq.' per homesite and considered inferior to the subject. The comparables were adjusted accordingly and indicated a value per acre of $ 30,000. for the subject. $ 30,000 x 10.4 acres = $ 312,000 round off to 300,000 Market Value for Hamlet Density Zoning 20,000 sq.' per homesite Harroun - page 2 The second instruction was to indicate market value as vacant with zoning of 80,000 sq.' per home~ite. The following comparables were used to indicate market value for the subject: if 1)1000-59-9-28.2, Rte. 48 Southold, sold 9/29/93 price $ 80,000 for 8.6 acres, per acre value ....... $ 9,300 2)1000-18-2-33, Rte. 25, Orient, sold 6/21/93 price $ 110,000 for 7.9 acres, per acre value ....... 14,100 ~)1000-97-2-23, Rte.. 25, Cutchogue, sold 12/28/92 price $ 200,000 for 17.5 acres, per acre value ...... 11,400 The value indicated for the subject would approximately 12,000 per acre zoning of 80,000 sq.' per homesite. 12,000 per acre x 10.4 acres = $ 124,800 round off to $ 125,000. Market Value for 80,000 sq.' per homesite zoning The third instruction was to indicate market value with hamlet density zoning (20,000 sq.' per homesite) and if the subject property hooked up to Greenport Village Water system. If the subject was granted approval to receive public water hook-ups from Greenport Village the subject's residential density would increase from 20,000 sq.' per homesite to 10,000 sq.' per homesite or double the number of residential lots. The increase in value would be estimated as follows: 10.4 acres x.80 (allowance for roads, etc.) = $ acres subdividable. 8 acres x 2 (20,000 sq.' per homesite) = 16 lots 16 lots x $ 30,000 per lot = $ 480,000. 8 acres x 4 (10,000 sq.' per homeslte) = 32 lots 32 lots x $ 20,000 per lot ~ $ 640,000. Harroun - page 3 $640,000/$480,000 = .33% increase in value $ 300,000 Market Value Hamlet Density x 1.33% = $ 399,000 Market Value round off to $ 400,000 Market Value 20,000 sq.'per homesite with community water The following is a recapitulation of the instructions: 1)Market Value with 20,000 sq.' 2)Market Value with 80,000 sq.' 3)Market Value with 20,000 sq.' per homesite --- $ 300,000. per homesite --- 125,000. & public water --- 400,000. Thank you, please let me know assistance. if I can be of further '.~ype SRA Parcels at W. CreenFort ~nasmuch as the public hearings this evening involve the proposed rezoning of six parcels, my remarks, although applicable to this parcel, must also be broader in scope. Since the board, in re~ulatimg zoning, must consider the future of the town and the welfare of all its residents, logical, rational zoning decisions cannot be made without consideration of the concentrated and cumulative effects of the present ET zoning on the welfare and future character of the greater Greenport area. The totem board is well aware of it, but for the record and for those in the audience who may not be aware, all torres in York State must, by law, have a comprehensive plan, This renuirement and the precepts for its formulation are incorporated in the New York State Enabling Act for To~ Zoning and recited in Sections 261, 262, 26~ and 26~ of Town Law. ~ection 26__1 empowers the town board to regulate and restrict zonin~ for the general welfare of the community. Section 262 permits the town board to divide the town into districts best suited to carry out the purposes of the act. Section 263 states regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan~which promotes the general welfare. Such regulstions shall be made considering the characteristics of the district and its peculiars, suitability for particular uses. Section 265 permits the town board to amend and repeal zoning by ordinance. Case law provides ample precedents that zoning decisions are not to be made on a piecemeal, or lot-by-lot, basis. Further. zoning is to be based on appropriate land usage, not on ownership or occupancy. Based on the above considerations, it is obviously the duty o£ the board to arrive at zoning decisions on an objective basis, absent any emotional or political considerations, ~'he presert ~[[ zoning of most of these parcels represents a carrying over of similar uses permitted by the previous zoning. A particularly egregious exception was the rezoning of the Jems Commons parcel by the previous administration in [ecember of 1997 as a derisive parting shot at the incoming board. ~'ith the exception of the ,rems Commons parcel, the others were re~oned, upon the o%~ers' applications, fr~..one-family residential use to more intensive uses, notably multi-family. These rezonings took place over the period 1958 - 1983. It is obvious that there''I' /' 'L """ '" :' '' ~ '-' a comprehensive plan for the ares, but that these rezonings took place on a piecemeal,lo-by-lot basis and for the benefit of individual o~nners. The present ~ zonings, as a continuation of theses precedents, is the very antitheses of planned zoning. by the fact that in restricted to radii the hamlet centers, withinOne-ha, lf mile The present zoning pattern in the West Greenport area is the result of a. form of internecine warfare conducted against the greater Greenport area by previous town administrations. The town pursued a pattern of locating every type of intensive use, unwanted elsewhere, on the perimeter of the Village of Greenport. The bias of the town against the village is further illustrated the case of the hamlets, HD zoning is of from one-quarter to one-half mile from in the case of Greenport it is permitted of the village's borders. The ~,The result is to permit construction one and one-half miles from the village center and far beyond reasonable walking distance. (2) All of this clearly violates the hamlet concept on which the ~aster Plan is based. Ostensibly, but speciously, the previous boards justified their zonin~ decisions based upon the purported availability of potable water and sanitary sewer capacity.Obviously, no consid- eration was given to the fact that the development of these parcels would overwhelm the village's capacity to provide such services, let alone to also serve the strip - zoned commercial and industrial zonin~ lining both sides of blain Road in the area. S~ch intensive development would also place additional demands on the East-West Fire District and the Police Department and re&uire additional capital expenditure for infrastructure. Oreenport's school taxes are already the highest in the town; for example, they are over twice those in the abutting East ~=arion-Crient School District. The prospect of incre@.sed school taxes would prove disastrous to the already overburdened Greenport district. Analysis of available data results in some shocking conclusions as to the malignant effects of the current HD zoning on the future of the greater Greenport area and gives the lie to any pretense of the equitable distribution of hamlet zoning. The total KD zoning in Southold is approxima, tely 356 acres. Southold has ten hamlets and one incorporated village. West Creenport fits neither description, yet an incredible 81% of >ll of Southold's MD zoning is located there. outhold has approzimately 315 acres of va. cant HD zoning of which 269 acres, or 85%, is in the unincorpora, ted area at Greenport. (3) Basin~ yield projections upon The Zoning Code and prior approvals by the Planning Board, development of the vacant HD parcels in t%e Greenport area,alon%would produce approximately ??0 dwelline units. Calculated on a conservative average occupancy of three persons per unit, the increase in the srea's Dopul@tion would be 2310 persons. The impact of such an aggregate increase in population can best be visualized by comparison with 1990 population statistics. The estimated population of West Greenport was 1614 and that of the incorporated village 20?0. The increase in West Greenport's population would be 143~. or approximately two and one-half times. The projected increase in population would also be the equivalent of more than doubling the then poyulstion of the ]'ncorporated VSllsfe of Creenport. mesp]te the and despite encompasses inequitable ~.~aster Flan's purported adoption of hamlet zoning, the aforementioned fact that the Town of Southold 10 hamlets and an incorporated village, this distribution of hamlet zoning results in some or approximately one-third, of the town's future population being concentrated in the Greenport area. Has this board given shy consideration to the effect this localized densification of population in an area already having a surfeit of affordable sale and rental properties would have on real estate values in the area.? It is generally accepted that residences occupied on a year-round basis demand more in the way of services than the real estate tax revenues they generate will support. This gives rise to a discussion of school taxes. The school taxes in the Greenport School District have reached critical proportions and have already hsd a depressing effect on real estate values in the area. The development of these HD parcels in the Greenport area would result in a population increase of approximately 63~. The present (a) Greenport school enrollment is 570. A propo,rtionate increase in students would result in an enrollment of 930 students, or am increse of 360 students. However, it must be factored in that the present population of the school district is of a relatively mature age. If, as might reasonably be expected, the o~mers or tenants of these Hr parcels were of a younger a.~e bracket, the school enrollment could well double in size. I question whether the previous boards, responsible for this unwa.rrented population density, ever considered the probable effects on the school district. It is my understanding that a previous ooll of the board indicated four members favoring the rezoninK of these parcels, one member adamantly and obdurately opposed, and one member indicating st least a partial ambivalence toward the proposed rezonings bl; endorsin~ the rezoning of 63 acres of the total. I submit this would have a minor, even miniscule impact of the MD zonings on the Greenport area. The overall effects would be: Of the then total 293 acres of HR zoning in or 76~(, would be concentrated at Greenport. 82% of the total remaining }{D. acreage / be in the Greenport area. the town 229 acres, in Southold would still The projected number of dwelling units would be reduced to 662. The projected population increse would be reduced to 1986, or a decrease of 144. However, ~his would still represent an increase of one and one-quarter times the 1990 population of West Greenport and would be the equivalent of almost twice the village's 1990 population. In closing, I would urge the two members of the board to reconsider their expressed opposistion to the rezonings in light of the (5) foregoing analysis. Either of you can prevent the devastating impact ~ the continuation of the present zoning will have on the future of Greenport area. and the welfare of its residents. The decision - and the responsibility - rest with you. (6) DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE STEPHEN M. JONES, A.I.C.P. May 10, 199~ Honorable Thomas Wickham, Supervisor Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 blain Road $outhold, N. Y. 11971 RE: Hamlet Density Rezonings Dear Supervisor Wickham: RECEIVED JUN ? Southold Town CJe~ In an effort to assist you iB the public discourse regarding rezoning of parcels zoned hamlet density to the two acre residential classification, we have preparBd yield maps of five of the parcBls. I found in my experience as a town planner, that a graphic repre- sentation of development potential is always helpful prior to reaching a conclusion as to whether a rezoning on the town's own motion is reason- able or not. A rezoning need only meet the test of providing a reason- able return on property development and I think our site studies show that. We have not dealt with natural features on these sites to any great extent. Part of a town's prerogative, if you wish, is to permit yield to be taken on environmentally sensitive areas as an incentive to cluster and preserve these features, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation flags wetland areas in their jurisdiction, which is another resource to determine the scope and extent of environ- mentally sensitive areas. 0bviousiy, clustering is also a means by which net monetary return can be increased by reducing infrastructure, road and site development costs. Again, this is strictly a local prerogative as to how and when to use the clusteriBg techniques. I hope this information will be helpful to you. We have spoken with your planning staff on these and other matters and will coBtinue to stay in contact with them. Honorable Thomas Wickham -2- May 10, 1994 Thank you for the opportunity to render this planning assistance. Yours truly, Direct6r SMJ:pd Encls. 2 sets/parcels 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 Robert Gaffney, SC Executive George Gatta, Dpty Cty Exec/Econ Dev & Planning Donald Eversoll, Chairman SC Planning Commission PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennetl Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kennelh L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1936 June 27, t994 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mrs. Terry: RECEIVED Southold Town Cl~rk Re: Change SCTM # SCTM # SCTM # SCTM 9 SCTM 9 SCTM # of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion: 1000-40-4-1 - J. Geier 1000-35-1-25 - LBV Properties 1000-45-2-10.3 - Richard Mohring (a.k.a. San Simeon Retirement Community Inc.) 1000-45-2-1 - Siolas & Tsunis 1000-35-1-24 - Jem Realty 1000-40-3-1 - KACE Realty At its June 24th meeting, the Planning Board adopted the following report: The Planning Board endorses the townspeople's vision for their Town, which calls for individually distinct or discrete hamlets separated from each other by open or farmed countryside, and which calls for the equitable distribution of affordable housing density throughout the Town. The Planning Board also recognizes that achieving this vision will require the careful consideration of the land use within and adjacent to its hamlet centers; that the Town's Zoning Map should reflect the intent of the community's vision; and that the Town must weigh the community's interest in its collective future against the private interest of individual property owners in the use of their land. The Planning Board recognizes that the proposed rezoning of these properties will not deny these property owners the right or capacity to develop their land; that the proposed zone of R-80 is the base zoning of the Town and is by no means the most restrictive zoning categorization in Southold. The Planning Board endorses the report: "Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in Southold Town: Report to the Town Board", and its recommendation that the zones of these six properties be changed from Hamlet Density to a lower density such as R-80. Chairman Pursuant Io SccfJon Town Law, and Code ~)f dsc Town of So~n, will he held by the Town 9enlg of lilt Town of Somhold, al the ~lkathold Town Hall, Main Road. g,~lahold, New Yo~, at I:M P.M., ~y, Jm~ I~ on the Town Bo~'s ~ Minion ~ ~ty R~ on the p~fly or Roule 48, ~ ~, O~ New Y~, ~pNo. I~1. ' . ., ., Any ~ Ibc p~ ~ ~ ~ of~ a~- al a poJnl on Ibc s0uJhc~y ~ ef N~ R~ (C.R.~) ~ ~ ~- cfly cw of I~ of the Vi~e of ~im ~n8 350,~ STATE OF NEw YO~ ) SS: . TTN'I'Y OF SUFFOLK) I"~-,~'h~... ~e or Mattltuck. in smd County, being duly sworn, says that he/she lo Principal Clerk of THE S~JtcicOLK TIMES, Weekly Newspaper, published at MattJtuck. 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 keen regular- ly published in said Newspaper once each week weeks successively, c~mnenci~ on the ~__day of~ 19s~'. LEGAl., NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE AND MAP Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law, and re- quirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public he, ring will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, IVtain Road, Southold, New York, at 8:05 P.M., Tneaday, June ,~, 1994, on the Change of Zone on the Town Bqard's Own Motion from Hamlet Density (HD) District to Low Density Residential R-80 District on the property of Jokp {7,el~r & Another, located on the south side of Route 48, 400 feet west of Moorea Lane,.Greenl~ort, New York, conlaining 10.557 acres, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-40~.-I. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amend- ment should appear at the time and 'piace above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly line of North Road (C.R. 48) at the nor- thwesterly corner of land of the Village of Greenport and the northeasterly corner of the premises herein described, said point being 350.68 feet wester- ly from the westerly line of Moore's Lane; running thence along said land of the Village of Gi'eenport thee courses: (1) S. 4° 01' 10' E. 1106.0 feet; thence (2) S. 84° .5~' 30~ W. 474.24 feet; thence (3) N. 4° 06' I0" W, 830.50 feet to North Road; thence along North Road N. 33 ~ 01' 10" E. $54.24 feet to the point of beginning. Dated: May 31, 1994 JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD '[OWN CLERK 1~/94(t 1) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of the 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 Traveler-Watchman once each week for ................. /. ........... weeks su~s~.~ively, commencing on the S3~o r~D~ to before me on this - · · *~-~. · .day of ......................... Notary Public BARBARA k SCHNEIDER NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New Ygdl No, 480~o84~ Qual{i'ied in Suffolk C~ Commission Expirel STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, being duly sworn, says that on the 9th day of June 1994, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy· in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Legal Notice, Notice of Hearing on Proposal to Amend Zoning Code and Map, 8:05 P.M., Tuesday, June 28, 1994, Southold Town Hall, on the change of zone on the Town Board's own motion from HD to R-80 on the property of John Geier & Ano. Sworn to before me this 9th day of June · 1994. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Nota ry~)ublic LINDA .,I. COOPER Notary Public, State of N~ York No 4822583. Suffolk County~c/ l~rm ~pi~es Doc:~ml~r 31, 19--~~ LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE AND MAP Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law, and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, at 8:05 P.M., Tuesday, June 28, 1994, on the Change of Zone on the Town Board's Own Motion from Hamlet Density (HD) District to Low Density Residential R-80 District on the property of John Geier f, Another, located on the south side of Route 48, 400 feet west of Moores Lane, Greenport, New York, containing 10.557 acres, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-40-4-1. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly line of North Road (C.R. 48) at the northwesterly corner of land of the Village of Greenport and the northeasterly corner of the premises herein described, said point being 350.68 feet westerly from the westerly line of Moore's Lane; running thence along said land of the Village of Greenport three courses: (1) S.4°01'10"E.-1106.0 feet; thence (2) S.84°53'30"W.-474.24 feet; thence (3) N.4°06'10"W.-830.50 feet to North Road; thence along North Road N.55°01'10"E.-554.24 feet to the point of beginning. Dated: May 31, 1994. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON JUNE 16, 19911, AND FORWARD ONE (I) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board John Geier & Another, c/o Marion Geier JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall. 53095Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York ll971 Fax (516~ 765-1823 Telephone (516~ 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION No~ce of De. Wo-m~n~r:on of DeW. a'mi,mtion o~ Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: May 31, 1994 · This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Qmmlity Review) of the EnvironmentalConservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a siLgnificant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action: SEQR Status: Project Description: Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 100040-4-1 ~s CR 48, 400 feet w/o Moore's Lane, Unincorporated reenport Unlisted Action Theproject which is the subject of this Determination, ~nvo,ves a the change of zone of 10.55 acres from "Hamlet Density' to "Residence-80". The project site P~e 1 or3 'HD' Changt of Zone SEQR Determhmflon contains freshwater wetlands associated with Moore's Woods (NYSDEC Freshwater Water Wetlands #SO-l). The site is surrounded by Village of Greenportparkland. The proposed project is one of six (6) change of zones being considered by the Town Boardat this tlm¢ in the same geographic area and will involve common and potentially significant impacts. Sc-tM Numben. 1000-40-4-1 Locution: The site consists of 10..55 acres and is located on the south side of CR 48, 400 feet west of Moore's Lane, Unincorporated GreeuporL Comments: The Town Board is reviewing this project simultaneomly with the following applications: Chnnge of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion SCTIv[# 100040-3-1 s/s CR ~ more *h~n l(]0ff e/o Chapel lane, Greenport Proposexi COZ on Town Board's Own Motion $CTIV[# 1000-35-1-25 n/s CR 4~, 1,139 feeA ¢/o Sound Road, Greenpott Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-45-2-10.3 e/s Chapel I aec, Greenport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SC'I2vI# 1000-45-2-1 s/s CR 48, 805 feet c/o Chapel ! ~-c, Greenport Proposal COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SC'TM# 1000-35-1-24 n/s CR 48, 564 feet e/o Sound Road, Greenpor~ Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of siLmificance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and IL and the following specific reasons: (1) The subje~ change of ZOnln~ doe~ no~ exceed any of the criteria for dcterminlng ~;~m~;15cance of an action that would warrant the preparahon of a Dra~. ElS. Conversely, the action will minimize, potential environmental impacts thereby provlal-g support for iss,,~n~c of a Negative Declaration. (2) The proposed project will red~w~ the potentiM development den~ty on the subject site. ~s a result, d~nsity dgrivcd impacts inclOdln~ water us~; sani~'y waste vo!um¢; disturbance of land; traffic generation; and solid waste generation will also bc reduced. Accordingly, thc subject ehnn~o, O[ ZOnln~ i~ Page2 of 3 Change of Zone SEQR Del~rmlnaflon e..xpe~ted to reduce the impact of site developmc~ with regard to these impact areas, as compared to c~r~en~ z~nin~ O) Thr~ propof~..d zon;ng is con~igtcnt with land Ms~ and z~ninff c~ surrounding land~ and will thcreforc not cause a ~i~m~iFie~m impact. As a result, the proposed eha,,ge of zoning will have a beneficial impact upon land uae in the area of tha site. (4) Con~iderntlon has been given to the review of th~ proposed zone change conducted by a cO~,deam to the Town Bourd, which concludes tl~ following with regard to the site in consideration of unique site resources: 'These ~ndln~mc SU~P..~ thai ally development on this site will have environmental impacU,. O~' initial impression is that re. zoning to 'R-80' residential will provide a significant incrca~A measure of prote~:fion for the environment than the 'HD' zoning now provides. Con~deratlon has been given to a planning document prepared by thc Southold planning Staff enfitleA, "Review of Harn~ Density Zoning in $oulhold Town - Report to the To~ Board" dated February L994. This report c~ncludes thc following with regard to thc site in con~iderakon of tmiqu~ site resources: 'Th~s parcel cotdd be developed in a manner not requ~ing nu~le dens~y usez. P. ezoni~g to a l~wer (~) Thc subject site covtain: unique resources, and is occupied by freshwater we. tl~nd~ over approwimately 33 percent of the 10.55 acre site. Th~ proposed change of z~ning will minimiT~ impact upon wetlands resources by redu,'ing the potential land use density adjacent this habitat, la addition, the lower potential land use density will provide more flexible land u~ options to ma~imir,~ setbacks and ensure pres~rvatlon of unique habitat arcns. For Further Informntion: Contac~ Person: Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Address: Phone No.: Town Ha/l, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1800 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12231 Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Comervation, SL~ @ Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY Suffolk County PlaJ~ning Commission Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Le§islative Commission on Water Resource Needs of l_on§ Island Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Villa§e of Greenport Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board John Geier & Ano., c/o Marion Geier, Atlantic Mobil Park, P.O. Box 30, Newport, N.C. 28570 Page 3 or3 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTt/AR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax 1516} 765-1823 TeLephone (516~ 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MAY 31, 199JI: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has proposed a change of zone on their own motion from Hamlet Density (HD) Residential R-80 District on the property of John south side of Route 48, 400 feet west of Moores 10.55 acres, SCTM #1000-40-4-1; and Residential District to Low Density Geier & Another, located on the Lane, Greenport, N.Y., containing WHEREAS, the proposal has been referred to the Southold Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Planning for their recommendations and reports, all in accordance with the Southold Town Code and the Suffolk County Charter; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby sets 8:05 P.M., Tuesday, June 28, 1994, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, as time and place for a public hearing on the aforesaid change of zone; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is authorized and directed to cause notice of said hearing to be published in the official newspapers pursuant to the requirements of law. Southold Town Clerk~ June 1, 199q JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53095Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone 15161 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OFSOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MAY 31, 199q: Title of Action-. RESOLVED that this notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Town Board of the Town of Southold has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Property of John Geier & Another Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-40 4 1 ~rs CF, 48, 400 feet w/o Moore's l-~ne, Unincorporated eenport SEQR Status: Unliated Action Project Description: Theproject which is the subject of this Determination, involves a the change of zone of 10.55 acres fi.om 'Hamlet Density' to 'Rasidence-80". The project site contains freshwater wetlands associated with Moore's Woods (NYSDEC Freshwater Water Wetlands #SO-I). ~Th e site is smyotmded by Village of Greenportparldand. e proposea project is one of six (6) change of zones being considered by the Town Boardat this time in the same geographic area and will involve common and potentially Sl~maificant impacts. 1000-40-~1 Location: The site consists of 10.55 acres and is located on the south side of CR 48, 400 feet west of Moore's Iane, Unincorporated Greenport. Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and IL and the following specific reasons: O) O) The subje, a:t ,-h~n~¢ of zoning does aot e~,'-c,~ any of tlu: criteria for dete. rmh~-g ~ignltqcanc~ of aa action that would warrant thg preparation of a D~aft EIS. Conversely, thc action will minimize potential environmental impacts thereby provid~g support fo~ issuance of a Negative Declaration. TI~ proposed project will reduc~ thc potcnt~l development dcn.s/ty on thc subject site. As a result, de, nsity d~ived impac~ includin~ wate~ u~; saakary wa.~t~ volume; disturbance of land; tral~c gcncration; and solid waste generation will also bc rcduccd. A~T~Olrdin~ly, ~ r, ubjcA~t ~hnn~y~ O~ zonln~ ~ e,~ecteat to re, duce thc impact of*it-, d~velopment with regard to the,,s~ impact a~ear~ ~ ~mpared to I[~ATCJ3Jt 7nnin~ TI~ prOper, erl zonin~ iS con~tcnt ~ land ur~ and ZOnln~ Of surrouvding lands, and will thereforo not cau.~ a significant impact. A~ a r~ult, thc propo~ eh*n.oc or zoning will have a benefidal impact upon land u.~ in the area of tl~ site. Consideration has be, ch given to [~ r~vicw or t~ proposal zou~ ,'h~ngc conducted by a consultant to the Town Board, which c~ncJudts tht following with regard to the site in con~idt, ration of uuiqu~ site TeK)urce.,&: ~l'hc,,~ ~ndln~D~ ~ i'hnt any d~velopmcnt on this .itc will have cuvlroD, ment~l impacts. Out initial impre.~ion ii that re. zoning tO 'R-80* rcsidtnti~l will provide a significant increased measure of protc, ction for tl~ environment th2n ~ 'HD' zpning now provides. Gon~id~ration has been ~ivcn to a plannin~ document prepared by the Sou~hold pl~nnin5 Stall t-.nt;tled, 'Review of Ham~ Density Zoning in Southold To~ - l~eport to the Town i~ua-d" dated February 1994. This report conclud~ thc followi~ with regard to thc site in amaid~raJton of unJqu~ ~itc resource: *77~ pa~l couM b¢ ~el~z~l in a manner t~ requfz~ng mul~ple d~r~f~y v.v~. i~,'rr,,~g Zo a lower TI~ subject site covtain~ unique resources, and is occupiea:l by freshwater wetlands over appro~mntciy 33 percent of tl~ 10.55 acre site. TI~ pro~ ~'hang¢ of zonin~ will mlnim;~,~ impact upon w~tlands resources by reducing thc potential land u,~ d~nslty adjacent this habitat, h addition, the lower potential ~ ~ ~ will prov~d~ moro fl~a~bl*, land u.~ options to m~imi7p SP*tb~c~ ~ C41SIII'O priori of u~qut habitat a~c~. u i h T. _///'~ Southold Town Clerk June 1, 199q JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARI~AG E OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Somhold. New York 11971 Fax 1516~ 765 1823 Telephone 15161 765 181)1 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MAY 31, 199t1: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby accepts the proposal of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc., in the amount of $80.00 per declaration, for the preparation of SEQRA Declarations for the proposed Hamlet Density Zoning on the Town Board's own motion on the following parcels: Kace Realty Co., John Geier & Ano., LBV Properties, San Simeon Retirement Community Inc., John G. $iolas & Catherine Tsounis, and Jem Realty Co. Southold Town Clerk June 1, 199q · ..-:.;~\~\ ,...~, CRAMER, VOORHIS &.~AS.SOCIATES ENVlRONMENT~ P _L~ i~lG CONSULTANTS May 20, 1994 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Proposed HD P~ezonings on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM # 100-40-3-1, 40-4-1, 35-1-2~, 4S-2.10.3, 45-2-1 and 3~-1.24 Dear Judy: Attached please find copies of the draft SEQRA determinations for each of the above referenced parcels. They have been formatted so they can be xeroxed directly onto the Town's stationary without retyping, should you find them acceptable. If there are any questions with regard to them, please feel free to give me a call. Enclosed you will find a bill for services with regard to the preparation of the Long F_.AF's on the above referenced parcels. This is consistent with the resolution adopted at the March 8th Town Board meeting which authorized us to undertake the work. Also enclosed is a proposal for services in completing the atttached SEQRA determinations and the bill for s~me. As we discussed thi~ morning, our proposal of March 8th and the Town Board resolution of that same date only authorized the preparations of the Long ,F.~AF's. The attached proposal is serf-explanatory. Thank you for your attention to thi~ matter. Again; if we call,b'e of any.__fu_,-ther assistance, please feel free to give us a call. / ./../-' ' ve~l~ours~ f///~Fhomas W. Cramcr, ASIA TWC:cc enclosures 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Detea'min~,tion of Non-Si~m~ificancx Determina6on of Silpxi~an~ Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: May 31, 1994 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulatiom pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action-' SEQR Status: Project Description: Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 100040-4-1 ~s CR 48, 400 feet w/o Moore's Iane, Unincorporated reenport Unlisted Action Theproject which is the subject of this Determination, involves a the change of zone of 10.55 acres from 'Hamlet Density~ to "Residence-80". The project site 'HD' Change of Zone SEQR Detvxmlnatton contains freshwater wetlands associated with Moore's Woods (NYSDEC Freshwater Water Wetlands #SO-l). The site is surrounded by Village o£ Greenportparklmad. The proposed project is one of six (6) change of zones being considered by the Town Boardat ~ time in the same geographic area and will involve common and potentially s~ific, ant impacts. 100/)-40-4-1 Location: The site consists of 10.~5 acres and is located on the south side of CR 48, 400 feet west of Moore's I-~ne, Unincorporated GreenporL Commqnt$: The Town Board is reviewing this project simultaneously with the following applications: C'hanE¢ of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000=40-3=1 6/s CR 48, more than 1000' c/o Chapel l-~ne, Greenport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-35-1-2~ n/s CR 48, 1,139 feei e/o Sound Road, Greenport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Molion SC'I'M# 1000-45-2-103 c/s Chapel I ~ne~ Greenport Proposexl COZ on Town Board's Owu Motion SCTM# 100045-2-1 s/s CR 48, 805 feet ¢/o Chapel Lane, Greenport Propo~A COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-35-1-24 n/s CR 48, 564 feet c/o Sound Road, Greenport Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of sj~m~ificance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and 1], and the following specific reasons: (1) (2) TI~ S~j~x'~ ehan~ of zoning does uot ~ any of the criteria for determining ~ignificanee oE an action ~ wou]d wan'ant the preparation of a Draft ElS. Conversely, the action will m;nimi~e potanti~l environmem~! impac~ Ihereby providing support for is.m~ne~ of a Negative De.~'Juration. The proposed project will reduce the potentia! development density on the subject dte. A~ a r~u~, density de.,dved impact~ including: water use; r, anltary waste volume; disturbance of land; traffic generation; and solid waste gcncration will aho be reduced. Aceordi%aly, fl~C subject change or zoning Page2 or3 *HDC Chan~me or Zone SEQR Determtnf~tion exper, ted to reducz thc impact of slt~ d~vclopmcnt with r~gard to thcsz impact arca~ as compared to CkLITP.,Z~ Zk'~n i n~ O) Thc pro[M:F~.~l zo-;-_o is con~Cnt~ ~ land u~ and zon~n~ o~ surrotmdl-~ hnd~ and will Lhcrefore not can.~ a significant impact. Aa a reaulL, thc propoaed ~han_.o~. of zoning will have a beneficial impact upon land nsf in the area of tla: site. (4) Consideration ha~ been given to thc review of the proposed zone ,'h~n~c conducted by a consultant to the Town Board, which concludes tl~ following with regard M th~ ~¢ in conskl'~rafion of unique ~ rcsource~ ~ fiodin~ su~scst that afly development on ~ ~ will have environmental impacts. Our ~ impre-~ion is that rezonJng to 'R-Eft residential will provi~ a ~i~ificant increased mga~ure of protextlon for the environment than ti~ 'I-ID' zoning now provides. Conilderation has been given to & plannln~ document prepared by tl~ Southotd planning Staff entitled, "P, eview of Haml~ ~ Zoning in Southold ToM't - Report to the To~n Board" dated February L~94. This rcport concludes ~hc following ~ regard to thc si~c in considcrai~on of unique si~ rcsourcc~ "Tlgz pa,'c~ could be developed in a matmer not requiring multiple density uzez. l~zoning to a lo~er de. nziO, i~ recommended." (6) Thc subject ,:irc cootain~ unique resources, and is oampied by freshwater we. tl~n~ over approximately 33 percent o~thc 10-~$ acre site. The proposed change O£ zonin~a will mlnlmiTA impact upon wetlands rc.source~s by reducing thc potential land asc dco~ity adjaccaU this habkat. In addkion, thc hiwcr potcntlal land uae denaity will provide more flexible land u.~ options to ma.~'imiT~ setbacks and ensure pre. ze. rvafion of ualqt~ habitat are. aa. For Further Information: Conmc~ Person: Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Address: Phone No.: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1800 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commi~ioncr-Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12231 Regional Office-New York State the Depa.rt. ment of Environmental Conservation, SUNY @ Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY Suffolk County Planning Commission Pa~3 of 3 CRAMER, VO~RH[,~ &;,';~,~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTal I?~G CONSULTANTS ,.,....~ ~;;~)/ ,~ May 20, 1994 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of $outhold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Preparation of Declarations for Pruposed Hamlet Density Zoning on the Town Board's Own Motion SCTM # 100-40-3-1, 40-4.1, 3S-I*ZS, 45-2,-10.3, 45-2-I, 35-1-24 Dear Judy: As per.your request the following will serve as a proposal for sevAces with regard to the above. It rs our understanding that the Town Board wishes to consider the rezonings of the above six (6) parcels from Hamlet Density to Residence 80. We have previously prepared the long EAF's for each parcel which the Town has circulated in accordance with the rules and regulations of SEQRA. Prior to making a final determination declarations of sj~cnificance must be made. In our proposal of March 8th and thc subsequent Town Board resolution of that same date, CVA proposed to prepare the Long F_,AF's. This proposal did not, however, include preparation of the above referenced declarations on each parcel. CVA proposes to prepare thc nccessa~ SEQRA declarations for the Town Board's review at a cost of $80 per declaration for a total of $480. I hope that the Board will find the above proposal acceptable. I~.~;re are any questions, please feel free to contact me. It should be noted that we have taken the liberty of complctizig/ 'thc dcclar~ons, anticipating thc Town Board's approval. /~ ~'homas W. Cramer, ASLA TWC:cc ( ! 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1§23 Telephone (516) 765-1801 Pursuant to Sections 1323 and 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby refers the following proposed zoning action to the Suffolk County Department of Planning: New Zoning Ordinance Amendment of Zoning Cod~ Amendment of Zoning Map (Change of Zone} Location of affected land: South side of Route 48, q00 feet west of Moore's Iane. Greenport, N.Y. Suffolk County Tax Map No.: 1000-tl0-tl-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. X 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 of any stream or drainage channel owned by the County or for which the County has established channel lines. The existing or proposed boundary of any other county, state or federally owned land. X The Long Island Sound, any bay in Suffolk County or estuary of any of the foregoing bodies of water. Or within one mile of: Nuclear power plant. Airport COMMENTS: Chanqe of zone on the Town Board's own mntion frnm 14amlot Density (HD) Residential District to Low Density Renidential R-afl Dintricf on property of John Geier & AnD. Date: May 20, 1994 Judith 'I-. Terry~ Southold Town Clerk JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tov,.n Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone (516') 765-1801 May 20, 1994 $outhold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith map of of a proposed change of zone on the Town Board's own motion from Hamlet Density {HD) Residential District to Low Density Residential R-80 District on the property of John Geier and Another, located on the south side of Route 48, 400 feet west of Moore's Lane, Greenport, N.Y. Please prepare an official report with respect to the proposed change of zone, and transmit same to me. Thank you. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Attachment JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (5161 765-1823 Telephone (5161 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 199q: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has proposed a change of zone on their own motion from Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District to Low Density Residential R-80 District on the property of John Geier & An- other, located on the south side of Route 48, 400 feet west of Moores Lane, Greenport, N.Y., containing 10.55 Acres, SCTM #1000-40-4-1; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to transmit this petition to the Southold Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Planning, all in accordance with the Southold Town Code and the Suffolk County Charter. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk May 17, 199a, DE:PA~TMENT OI~ lIE. AL.TH COUNTY OF SUFFOLK IVey 13, 1~94 J'udilb T, Ton*y, Town Ocrk Town of $oulhold Town Hall - 5309~ Main Road P.O, Box 1179 $oulhold, ~;uw ¥o~ 119'/1 $ohn Gei~ & Anolber, $CTM; I(YJ0-40-04-01 Kace ReaCt'/Co., $CTJv[: 1000-40-03-0X S;~ Simeon RcLi~.mcnt Comnlul~ity linc., SCT]~: 100045-01- Scm Realr/Co, SCTM: 1000-40-035-01-24 Yn¥ ProFaneS' $CTM: 1000-40-035-01-25 MAY ,% 19% Soulholc~ T*wn cl~k Dear ]vis. Tcn',/: The Su ri'olio Counr/Dcparlmcnl of Hc,'dth $crvi¢cs ($CDtI$) has received your lo[mr; da~ed April I l, eollccmil]8 Ib~ alaov~-Rl'e;~nce(l Chan~e OfZOl~ applicalions, and has no objection [o ~bc Town's desi~naQon as lead a~oncy. This co~s'pondonce is intcndcd p~imp, rJly to cxj'~]i~c the procedural ~quir~menu of $EQRA pettaldnS to thc ~tabli.~bmont or'load agency, The $CDHS fully ;uppon~ ~I elTom to i~l,'utindzc protection of natur.'d resources which may bo impacted upun by construction and dcvel(,pmont acUvJtics. It iv the posilion of Ibc dcpamttonl Ihal Ihe SEQRA review pro~e.~s provides the gteate.~l oppo.,lunlr/for comp~dv.:nsive co~sider, tdon of Ihese t~source.v, :md that all IDr~cllcabl¢ planning measmes should be employed to help enstuc Ihcir protection, O£p:micular concem to depa~mcnt is ~he adequate protecQon of wetlands, surface watca, natur, x! ¢onmm~dtics, contiguous norm"al bablta~s, ma/ram, tbs'attuned mid endangered spcdc~. In addition, ef£om to prolect sensitive physical x'esonmes ~ch Smuodwatcm, dunes, bluff, v, shorelines, nalur'al drainage c 'hauncls, gwundwtum rccharge age~S, n~d steep siolYes a~ fully supponcd a~d encoug.'n~ed by IIx¢ $CDHS. AddltloOal i=formal]on may bc provided prim to ~e clo$e of the established cmmnem period. Should you h;tve any qtmstions or mqulze additional iormmadon, pica.se feel. ~ to c~ntact thc Office of Ecology 3[ 852-Z078. iVUR,qa cc: 'vim ~in~J, P.E. S~epbcn Co~[u, P.I~. Frank DowUo$, SC To: Supervisor Wickham Grant From: Lauren t~. Date: April 28, 1994 Regarding: Phone Calls on Rezoning of Geier Property Please be advised that phone calls from the following people have been received in opposition to the rezordng of the Geier Propert: John Hefley Steve Cretell Susan Bondarchuck Dan Berstein Mark Perone Marion Geier Dorothy Victoria Steven Rieter Lynn Carlson Mrs. Woodhull Kate Wolff Cheryl Victoria Don Wachtell Tom Mulligan Gerry Bondarchuck There were several other calls received from people who did not want to leave their names, but were also in opposition to the rezoning of the Geier property. We did not record any of these anonymous phone calls. CC: Members of the Town Board Town Attorney Town Clerk Joyce A. Harroun PO Box 219 Greenport, N.Y. 11944 477-8475 Southold Town Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RECEIVED APR 2 lgg.4 5ourhold Town CI.rX Dear Members of the Town Board: I am writing to you about the proposed change of zoning concerning the property owned by my mother on the south side of County Road 4:3 near the Village of Greenport. The property consists of about 10.5 acres and is improved by a dilapidated dwelking. I appreciate the opportunity that I have had to meet personally with Supervisor Wickham and the members of the Bgard. This letter is to reinforce my position with you and to help you remember me and my family. We are a poor family. My father died and the only thing that he owned was the property. It is the asset that was supposed to be used to support my mother. My father, before he died, entered into a contract to sell the property but it fell apart. There is litigation going on and if this proposed change of zone is adopted we will never realize any money from this property and my mother's retirement income will never come to exist. The proposed change is to upzone from HD to "R-80". I have had an appIaisal done which estimates the market value of the 10.5 acres to be $125,000.00 if this change is effectuated. I~ the property were to have the hamlet density designation and certain approvals from the Town and Village of Greenport, the market value is estimated at $300,000.00 However, it rea].ly is not that simple. As you are all aware it takes time and money to get the approvals. Additionally, there are more reasons than money for this change not to be pursued and adopted. While it is my family's ox that is being gored and it will hurt us terribly if you do adopt the changes, please consider the following rationale far not changing the zoning of our property: When my father owned the property during the year of 1968, he applie.~ for and was granted a change of zone to permit multi-f~nily development. Obviously, the town fathers at that time coi~sidered this location proper for that type of development (and obviously times change but bear with me). Thereafter, until 1987 my father actually established and maintained up to ten apartments at the property· In other words, there were times when up to ten families of this community resided on the property and utilized the existing utilities. In respect to the actual zoning it should be noted that during the most recent changes to the Master Plan, it was recom~ended, by the experts hired by the town and ultimately adopted, by the town, that this property was appropriate for high density development. I believe that the reasons for the previous zoning and recor~uendations still exist today and this new proposal fails to consider salient points. This property is within the Greenport Water and Sewer District. Therefore, the site would not tap additionally into the water table and would not discharge waste into cesspools. (Of course, it would be necessary to utilize the Village services but that is an issue separate and apart from planning and zoning under these circumstances) The property does not lend itself to a major development because of its size. The property is surrounded by property owned by the Village of Greenport and, therefore, would not be the start of more and more developments in that area. 4. Such a development is in keeping with the historical growth patterns of the area. ~y developing this property at this location it allows for open space preservation in much more desirable areas. In reference to my first point, it would be wrong for the Town Board to say that we cannot develop this property because the Villa.~e System is over-utilized. Whether the system is or is not over-utilized, if this Board changes the zoning all possibility of appropriately developing the property will be gone. If the Village System cannot provide the necessary services, that lack of capacity will stop our utilization of th,~ property. Furthermore, the appearance of any construction at that location would be tightly regulated by the Planning Board and other regulatory authorities. Appropriate screening and architecture can be used to make any development non- intrusive to the ';isual aspects of the area, which we all know would be an improvement over the current appearance. While the wo~ck of the Stewardship Committee is commendable, in the case of my mother's property its recommendation is ill-concieved. The committee's broad brush approach to the g~eater Greenport area has failed to take into account the unique aspects of this property. It is adaptable to a small, affordable development. is adaptable to a small, retirement development. It is adaptable to any small development. As an aside, a small development would give more tax dollars to the school district and not ~3verly tax the system. It It would not be right to take this away from my mother. If the Town Board changes the zone of my mother's property it is taking the property away fr~m her. Without going into details, the reduction of the market value that would occur would, in fact, make its continued ownership economically impossible for my family. We have paid the taxes cn this property for many years in the realistic hope that it would provide the financial security that my mother deserves. She has used all of her savings to pay the taxes on this property and the only thing that she has left is her social security. If you change the zone, you will take my mother's retirement income from her. There are no absolute reasons to change the zoning, there are absolute reasons to not change the zoning. You were elected as our representatives. The stewardship corm~ittee was not voted on by me, the planning board was not voted on by me. You were elected by me and others like me to do what is right. You cannot think that changing the zoning of my mother's property, that will in reality cause her to lose her retirement income, is right! This property is well suited to serve the co,,.Gnity as a location for the HD designation. · Uery Tr. uly Yours, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK [~OBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE 5TEI=HEN M. JONES, A.I.C.P. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING April 19, 1994 Town Clerk Town of Southold Applicant: Zoning Action: Location: Town of Southold (John Geier and Another) Change of zone from RD to R-80 SCTM #1000-40-4-1 S.C.P.D. File No.: SD-94-5 Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Co~ission is considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determination should not he construed as either an approval or disapproval. Very truly yours, Stephen M. Jones Director of Planning GGN:mb S/s Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the matter of the proposed change of zone of property owned by the ESTATE OF JOHN GEIER Objectant I FCF VI:n APR 1 _2.1994 NOTICE OF OBJECTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Estate of John Geier, hereby objects to the proposed change of zone of property owned by the aforesaid Estate and located at North Road, Southold, New York and further described as Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-040.00-04.00-001.000. Pursuant to Article 16, Section 265 of the New York State Town Law. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Estate would suffer great economic harm if the current zone designation of Hamlet Density (HD) is changed. Please forward all correspondence, documents and other relative information in connection with this matter to the undersigned at the address stated below. Dated: To~ Southold, New York March 14, 1994 Yours etc, ESTATE OF JOHN GEIER P.O. Box 46 East Marion, New York 11939 Members of the Southold Town Board and Clerk of the Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 To: Supervisor Wickham From: Craig Geier Just a reminder. If the proposed zoning change from HD to R-80 goes into effect, I and mY family will lose our property because more is owed on the property than the property would be worth zoned R-80. Sincerely, Craig' GeiCe~and Family RODERICK VAN TUYL (L.S.) COLIN VAN TUYL RODE:RICK VAN TUYL, Licensed Land Surveyors 218FRONTSTREET GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 (516i 47743170 April 14, 1994 Description: Property of John Geier & Another North Road, Greenport. Beginning at a point on the southerly line of North Road (C.R. 48) at the northwesterly corner of land of Village of Greenport and the northeasterly corner of the premises herein described, said point being 350.68 feet westerly from the westerly line of Moore's Lane; running thence along said land of Village of Greenport three courses: 1) S.4°01'10"E.-1106.0 feet; thence 2) S.84°53'30"W.-474.24 feet; thence 3) N.4°O6'lO"W.-830.50 feet to North Road; thence along North Road N.55°Ol'lO"E.-554.24 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 10.557 acres. Roderick Van Tuyl To: Southold Town Clerk i t 474. Z~ ~TO0 ,. THOMAS H. WICKHAM SUPERVISOR April 12, 199v, OFFICE OF TI-IE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 SouLhold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765 - 1800 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 Stephen Jones, Director Suffolk County Planning Department 12th Floor Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Dear Steve: In January the Town of Southold asked its planning staff to conduct a review of eight vacant properties that were zoned Hamlet Density (HD) in order to determine whether they should so remain. The HD zone permits four dwelling units per acre and represents our most intensive residential zone. A report was issued in February, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Earlier this month, the Town Board began a coordinated environmental review on six of these properties in anticipation of conducting a public hearing on rezoning them from HD to R-80, which is our two acre residential zone. With this letter, I am requesting the assistance of your planning staff in the preparation of information related to the HD rezonings; specifically an analysis of the potential yield and return for each of the subject properties under the R-80 zoning district. In addition, it would be helpful if your staff could provide a comparative analysis with the potential yield and return under the HD zone. I have enclosed a map and the environmental report for each property. The Town has not received the surveys yet, which is why. the enclosed maps are copies of site plans and other maps in our files. If you would prefer to work with the surveys, perhaps copies could be sent when they are completed in a few weeks. Should your//~taff need any additiona~ information, please do not hesitate to let me knorr./ Thanking you in advance for your assistance, please know that I am most ~p/preciative of your offer. Thomas Wickham Supervisor TW:mls Enclosures JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone 1516} 765- 18(11 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 11, 1994 Lead Agency Coordination Request The purpose of this request is Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) and 6NYCRR Part 617 the following: to determine under Article 8 (State of the Environmental Conservation Law 1. your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed you will find the Southold Town Board's findings and a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: John Geier & Another, c/o Marion Geier, Atlantic Mobil Park, PoO. Box 30, Newport, N.C. 28570, SCTM #1000-40-4-1, property located on the south side of Route 48, 400 feet west of Moores Lane, Greenport, N.Y., containing 10.55 acres. Requested Action: Change of Zone on the Town Board's own motion from Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District to Low Density Residential R-80 District. SEQRA Classification: Type I Contact Person: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, Town of $outhold The lead agency will determine the need for a environmental impact statement (ELS) on this project. If you have an interest in being lead agency, please contact this office immediately. If no response is received from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, it will be assumed that your agency has no interest in bein9 lead agency. Page 2 Agency Position: [ ] This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. IX] This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. [ ] Other. (See comments below) Comments: Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures Copies of this request and all attachments to the following: Commissioner Langdon Marsh, NYS-DEC, Albany Robert Greene, NYS-DEC, Stony Brook NYS .Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board (without attachments) John Geier & Ano., c/o Marion Geier, Atlantic Mobil Park, P.O. Box 30, Newport, N.C. 28570 JIJDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53(195 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-182~ Telephone (516} 765 1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 5. 199q: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby commences the lead agency coordination process in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act on the Type I action of proposed rezoning of the following described property on the Town Board's own motion from Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District to Low Density Residential R-80 District: Tax Map #1000-040-4-1, owned by John Geier & Another, containing 10.55 acres, and located on the south side of Route 48, 400 feet east of Moore's Lane, Greenport, New York. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk April 6, 199q JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box I Southold, New York Il971 Fax ~516) 765-1823 Telephone t516~ 765-180! THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 5, 199o,: OWNER PARCEL # iO00-qO-q-1 PROPERTY LOCATION JOHN CEIER & ANO., c/o Marion Geier Atlantic Mobil Park P.O. Box 30 Newport, NC 28570 South Side Route [~00 Feet West of Moores Lane Greenport. New York WHEREAS, the Master Plan of the Town of Southold and the recommendations of the Town's advisory Stewardship Task Force have increasingly emphasized the promotion of growth in and around the hamlet centers, to strengthen their business prospects while keeping open space and farmland undeveloped; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has examined and extensively discussed a report entitled "Review of Hamlet Density .Zoning in the Town of Southold' dated February 199/~ which assessed the appropriateness of the zoning of all undeveloped HD zoned properties in the Town of Southold; NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. that the Town Board of the Town of Southold concludes that HD zoning of this property is not appropriate for the following reasons: The property has not been developed pursuant to the HD zoning and the building(s) existing when the property was so zoned have fallen into disrepair and appear to be irreparable; The HD zoning of this site is not consistent with the Town's comprehensive plan because it er~courages high density residential growth at a significant distance from the nearest hamlet center of Greenport and encourages suburban sprawl; = The HD zoning is not consistent with the environmentally sensitive parkland which borders this property on the east, west and south. and the Iow density R-tO and R-80 zoning to the north; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. that the Town Board of the Town of Southold finds that rezoning this property from HD to R-80 is appropriate for the following reasons: R-80 is the base zoning of the Town because it retains the open rural environment so highly valued by year-round residents and those people who support the Town's economy; R-80 zoning is most consistent with the zoning on immediately adjacent properties; R-80 zoning will best suit the property because it will permit development to be sited so as to avoid any adverse impacts on the wetlands on this parcel; The poorly drained soils on the site present moderate to severe limitations on the construction of homesites, streets, pipelines and landscaping for intense development. R-80 zoning will better enable these constraints to be overcome. Southold Town Clerk April 6, 199q JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGIST[~R OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER HECOP, DS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFOIUVlAT]ON OFFICER Town Hall. 53095Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax ~5161 765-1823 Telephone 1516~ 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 5, 199t1: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C., Land Surveyors, to prepare an accurate description of the following properties by metes and bounds, and three copies of a map of each parcel showing the zoning classification of the surrounding area within 500 feet of the pa reel: 1. 1000-040-3-1 Kace Realty Co., 43 West 54 Street, New York, N.Y. 10019 1000-040-4-1 John Geier & Ano., c/o Marion Geier, Atlantic Mobile Park, Box 30, Newport, N.C. 28570 1000-035-1-25 LBV Properties, Suite 210, 898 Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787 1000-045-2-10.3 San Simeon Retirement Community Inc., Main Road, Greenport, N.Y. 11944 1000-045-2-I John G. Siolas & Catherine Tsounis, 190 Central Drive, Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 1000-035-1-24 Jem Realty Co., c/o Kontokosta, 43 West 54 Street, New York, N.Y. 10019 Judith T. Terry ~_/ Southold Town Clerk April 6. 199q PARCEL# 2 - 1000-qO-~-1 OWNER PROPERTY LOCATION JOHN GEIER & ANO., c/o Marion Geier Atlantic Mobil Park P.O- Box 30 Newport, NC 28570 South Side Route ~8 ~00 Feet West of Moores Lane Greenport, New York WHEREAS, the Master Plan of the Town of Southold and the recommendations of the Town's advisory Stewardship Task Force have increasingly emphasized the promotion of growth in and around the hamlet centers, to strengthen their business prospects while keeping open space and farmland undeveloped; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has examined and extensively discussed a report entitled "Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in the Town of Southold" dated February 199q which assessed the appropriateness of the zoning of all undeveloped HD zoned properties in the Town of Southold; NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold concludes that HD zoning of this property is not appropriate for the following reasons: The property has not been developed pursuant to the HD zoning and the building(s) existing when the property was so zoned have fallen into disrepair and appear to be irreparable; The HD zoning of this site is not consistent with the Town"s comprehensive plan because it encourages high density residential growth at a significant distance from the nearest hamlet center of Greenport and encourages suburban sprawl; The HD zoning is not consistent with the environmentally sensitive parkland which borders this property on the east, west and south, and the Iow density R-~0 and R-80 zoning to the north; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. that the Town Board of the Town of Southold finds that rezoning this property from HD to R-80 is appropriate for the following reasons: R-80 is the base zoning of the Town because it retains the open rural environment so highly valued by year-round residents and those people who support the Town's economy; R-80 zoning is most consistent with the zoning on immediately adjacent properties; R-80 zoning will best suit the property because it will permit development to be sited so as to avoid any adverse impacts on the wetlands on this parcel; The poorly drained soils on the site present moderate to severe limitations on the construction of homesites, streets, pipelines and landscaping for intense development. R-80 zoning will better enable these constraints to be overcome. CRAMER, Vq~RH~ ~///A~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS March 18, 1994 Ms. Valerie Seopaz Senior plnnner Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 P~pused Clum~ of Zoae Da To~m Board's O~m Motion s/s CR 48, 400 ~et w/o Moore's Lane, G _~e~-port 1000-40-4-1~Paz~el #2 Dear Valerie: As requested by the Town Board, EAF Parts I and II have been pr,e. pared for the south side of CR 48, 10_~5 acre site located on the 400 feet west of Moore s Lane in Greenport. The site is surrounded by parklands of Greenport Village. As part of our preparation of the EAF Part I, we earned out a field inspection of the site on March 14, 1994. Our analysis also utilized a diversity of resources (topographical maps, recent aerial soil survey, etc.). photography, natural resource maps, site survey, sketch pJ~n; The significant information, regarding this parcel, found during our review are presented below. There are three abandoned buildings on the site. Exact dating of the structures were not carried out, however it is assumed that the site is cultural significant given the existence and architecture of the structures. The mnln building is in a serious state of disrepair. It is further assumed that other cultural resources could be found on the site. Therefore prior to any construction a Cultural Resource Assessment should be carried out, however for the purposes of a change of zone application it is only necessary to identify the future need for one. The various wetlands maps (NYSDEC & Dept. of Interior) that where consulted in this review identify freshwater wetlands on the site. However, the boundaries indicated on NYSDEC Tentative Freshwater Wetlands Maps do not reflect the true extent of the wetlands found on site. It is our understanding that the NYSDEC has not completed the review of their maps in the area. Initial investigation and a boundary shown on a site plan prepared by Fairweather and Brown Architects indicate that at least one-third of the site is ~reshwater wetlands. It is also assumed that the NYSDEC would identify a larger portion of the site as freshwater wetlands. It should be noted that the NYSDEC wetlands maps were the developed principally with the use of aerial photo~r, aphs. Through this method, boundmy of the wetland area could have been easily mis-idenfi~ed where dense vegetation is present on Ihi~ site. During the field inspection, the southern third of the site is considered freshwater wetlands. Water is ponding in numerous places and a stream flows from west to east about mid-way in the site. The wetlands are almost exclusively red maples, with high bush blueberries in open areas. Observed plants included the following: Red maple, high bush blueberry, multiflora ro~e, tupelo, sensitive ferns, blackberry, and birch. The area surrounding the house is fairly open and consists of landscape plants and turf areas reverting back to a natural state. Accordin~ to the Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York, compiled by the US 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 'HD' COZ Tmm'a Own Motion Piirct4 2 Depa~ tmcnt of Agriculture Soft Conservation Service in cooperation with Comell foA~n~wsafltural Experimental Station, the soil in this area in the order of appearance is az Riverhead .~ndy lo~m~ Candice silt loam and Sudbury sandy loa~ Accor~din~ to the survey, both Sudbury sandy loam and Candice silt loam have drainage problems. This soil drainage condition and perched groundwater has, no doubt resulted in the formation of the wetlands on the site. The survey also discloses that there are moderate to severe ]imitations ~resented by the presence of these two poorly drained soils for the construction of omesites, s~reets, installation of pipelines and sustenance of landscaping vegetation Therefore, the impacts of the installation of sewer service, ff it can be obtained, are potentially substantial. There has also been substantial dumpmi[ of debris around the northern portion of the site. While no t/~dc or h~-~rdons materials, or indication of same, were observed, the existence of the ~ooor housekeep/~' noted suggested that the potential might exist for such These findings surest that any development on this site az presently zoned will have environmental impacts. Our initial impression is that rezoulng to ~R-8~ residential will provide a signiticant increased measure of protection for the environment than the ~I-ID" zoning now provides. Furthermore, we have reviewed the document prepared by the staff, 'Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in Southold Tovm - Report to the Tourn Board" dated Feb~mry 1994. We concur with the recommendali~n~ m~le in that doo~ment, that ~Fh/s pawel co-I,t be developed in a nu~ner not ~lubing multiple dens~ use~. Rezoning to a lower den.~ix~ecommende~" iW. Cramer, ASLA Enclosed: EAF Pan I & H ~ CFIAMER, VQItZ~RHt~ ~/J~SOCIATES E NVI RO N M E N '1~%,/~/,~1~ G-~-- CONSULTANTS Pa~e2 1 ~16-2 (2/873--7c a17.21 Appendix A State Envlronment. I Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR Purpo~: The full EAF is desiBned to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question-of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly. there are aspects ol a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically exp~rt in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full gAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components; The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and iL~ site. By identifying basic project data. it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Pad 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur [rom a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of gAF completed for this project: ~r~ Part "i -- Part 2 [~Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this gAF (Part~ 1 and 2 and 3 if appropnate), and any other supporting iniormation, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impacL, if is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: Z A The project will not result in any large and ,mpor~ant impact, s) and. theretore, is one which will not have a s~§nfficant ~mpact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. --~ B Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required. therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' ~ C. The prolect may result in one or more large and important impact~ that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive dec[aralion will be prepared. · A Conditioned Negative Declaration ~s only valid for Unlisted Actions Change of zone for SCTM # 1000-40-4-1 Nameo[Action Town off Southold Town Board Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title or' Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Of[,cer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (if different from responsible olficer) )ART 1--PROJECT INFORMA )N Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This dm:ument is designed to assist in determining whether th~ action proposed may ha;: a significant effe~l on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Pard A through E. Answers to these questions will be considere,' as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additio~a. 'information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent'on information currently available and will not involw new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and speciff each instance. NAME OF ACTION Change of zone for SCTM ~ 1000-40-4-1 LOCA. TION OF ACTION (Includ~ SIr~I Addr~s, Munlclplllty and C~unty) s/o CR 48, 40'-+ w/o Moore's Lane, Greenport NAME OF APPLICANT/~PONSOR Town of Southold Town Board ADDRES~ CiTY~O 53095 Main Road Southold NAME OF OWNER (Ir dltlerenl) · John & Ano Ceier ADDRE~ Atlantic Mobil C~YI~ Newport DE$CRI~IONOFACTION Change of zone located on the of Moore's c/o MarionGeier Park - Box 30 aUSINE~ TELEPHONE 1516t 765-1891 STATE I ZIP CODE NYI 11971 BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) STATE ZIP CODE NC 28570 to R-80 residential from HD on a 10.55 acre parcel south side of County Route 48, more than 40 feet west Lane in Greenport. Subject parcel contains three abandoned buildings and approximately 1/3 of its area is designated wetlands. The change of zone is on Town Board's own motion_ Please Complele Each Question-indicate N.A, if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas 1. Present land use: r-]Urban ~lndustrial i-]Forest ~]Agriculture 2 Total acreage of project area: 10.55 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Nor,-agricultural) acres acres Forested 4 _ 16 8 acres 4,168 acres Agricultural (includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) 3 . 415 acres 3 . 415 acres Water Surface Area acres ac~es Unvegetated (Rock. earth or fill) acres acres Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces _ 249 acres _ 249 acres Other (Indicate type~Abandoned landscape 2. 718 acres 2.718 acres ~Commercial ~Residential (suburban) ['-IRural [non-farm] ~OtherAbandoned structures/Residential RdA-Riverhead sandy loam 0-3%slope~, 3. What is predominant soil type{s) on project site? Sudburv sanGv loam~, u&-Candmce sandy ~Uoam. a. Soil drainage: E)Well drained 60 % of sJte ~ModerateJy well drained 20 % of si[e ~P~riy drained 2o % of site b. Il any agricultural land ~s involved, how many acres ol sod are c[assil~d wi(bm soil group 1 through 4 ol the ~' Land Classilication System~~NA acre~ (See 1 NYCRR 370) 5. Approziznale percentage of propost ,rolect site with slopes: [~0-10% __ 3 % F110-15% % 1-115% or greate~ 6. h project substantially contiguous to. or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? I-lyes fVINo 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? OYes ~E~No 15'b- (in feet) Perched water at 0+ feet. 8. What is the depth of the water table? 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? [~Yes I-lNo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in th~ proiect area? OYes ~No' 11 Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is iden~fied as threatened or endangered? OYes I~No According to Identify each species 12 Are there any unique or unusual hand forms on the project site? (,.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) OYes [~No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? OYes FfflNo If yes. explain 14. ' Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? OYes 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16 Lakes. ponds, wetland areas w~thin or contiguous to project area: a Name NYSDEC ff SO-1 b Size (In acres) iS0+ acres 17 Is the site served by existing public ut,lit,es? I-lYes ~)No unknown a) If Yes. does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~Yes reno b) If Yes. will improvements be necessary to allow connection? I-:Yes --~No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Article 25-AA. Section 303 and 304? ~Yes ~.No 19. [s the s~te located in or substantially cont~§uous to a Cat,cai Enwronmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 617~ _--'Yes 20 Has the s~te ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes~ ~Yes '-No unknown B. Project Description Project is a proposed rezoning 1 Physical dimensions and scale of prolect (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by prolect sponsor 10.5 5 acres· b. Project acreage to be developed· NA acres initially; acres ultimately· c. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped NA acres. d. Length of project, in miles: NA (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of e:~pansion proposed NA f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing NA ; proposed g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour NA (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Famdy Condominium Initially LJItimate]y NA l.] A · ,' '.. " · . " ,- ' 554. 24' feet 2. How much natural material (i.e., r~ck, earth, etc.) will be removed from ~e site? 3- will disturbed areas be reclaimed? E3Yes ONo a If yes. for what intend . purpose is the site being reclaimed~ b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamationl' OYes I-INo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation~ OYes [:3No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees. 'shrubs. ground covets} will be removed from site[ 0 acres. 5. Will any mature Iorest (over 100 ye,~rs old} or other [ocally-importanL vegetation be removed by this project? [:]Yes R;1No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction ~'~ months. (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: NA a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I month c. Approximate completion date of final phase month d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? [:]Yes ONo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction bra 0 10. Number of jobs eEminated by this project '1'1. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? [-]Yes Iq .,/A I-INo 0 ' tons/cubic yards ; after proiect is complete year, (including demolitionl. year. OYes [~No Il yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [~Yes []No a. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage. industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? I-lYes ~[]No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? [~Yes ~No Explain 1.5. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ~Yes r~No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? r-lYes [~No a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b If yes. will an existing solid waste facility be used? OYes [~No c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? [:)Yes :C~No e. If Yes. explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal~ b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18,. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? [~Yes [DYes ~3No tons/month. years. ~No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? OYes 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use~ [~Yes [~No If yes . indicate type(s) 22. If' water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity NA 23 Total anticipated water usage per day t,~A gallons/day 24 Ool", :~',? ~'.t ,n'.~,b.~' L':::I q'.2t,.' c~ Fed~.ra! '.m,{,r,c' --'~'~ ~<c I~No OYes gallons/minute. lEINo 25- ~,ppeo~ab Ilequire~i: City. Town. Village Board DYes C]No City. Town. Village Plannin8 Board ~Yes ~'INo City, Town Zoning Board I-Wes fqNo City. County Health Department OYes i-lNo Other Local Agencies DYes nNo O~her Regional Agencies OYes I-1No State Agencies f-Wes F'INO Federal Agencies DYes [-INo C. 1. Ty~ Change of ZorLe SubmillJI Date Zoning and Planning Information Does proposed action involve a pLanning or zoning decision? ~Yes [~No If Yes, indicate decision required: ~]zoning amendment I-Izoning variance f-lspecial use permit ~subdivision ~site plan [~new/revision of master plan Dresource management plan Dother 2 What is the zoning classification(s}of the site? HD 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 15 units with out public sewer/31 units with public-sewer 4. What is the proposed zoning of the si[e? R-80 5 What is the maximum potential development o[ the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 3 'units 6 Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? f~Yes ENo 7 What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a % mile radius of proposed action? Village parkland/'PD, Undeveloped ]an~/~-4~nq.fl ~-80, Unfinished Subdivision/R-40 8 Is the proposed action compaLible with adioiningJsurrounding land uses within a '/4 mile? []Yes imNo 9. If the proposed acLion is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? NA a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10 Will proposed action require any authorization(s) ~or the formation of sewer or water district~? f-lYes I~No 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation. education, police. fire protection)? [~Yes ~}No a. It yes. is existmg capac~t~ sufi~clen[ to handle projected demand? ~mYes gNo 12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic sigmficandy above present leveJs~ ~lYes i~No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? I-lYes [~No D. Inlormational Details Attach any additional inlormation as may be needed to clarify your proiecL It there are or may b~ any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the inf.'nation provided above is true to the best o! my knowledge. Part2 ~ROJECT IMPACTS AND THEt'~ MAGNITUDE leq>0~l~Ut~ ol Le~l GeMral Informatlo~ (Read Carefully) · in completinI the form the reviewer should he iuided by the question: Ha~ my responses and ,I-.terminations be~n reasonable! The reviewer is nol expected to he an expert environmental angler. · Identifyinl that an impact will be potentially large [column 2] does eot mean that it is also necessarily dlnlficam. Any larle impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifyini an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at lurther. · The Eumplea provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would triuer a response in column 2. The examples are ~en~rally applicable throuihcmt the State and for most situations. But, for any specilic project or site other e~ample~ an~M k:~w~r thresholds may be appropriate fM a Potential Larle Impact r~lxmse, thus requirini evaluati~ in Part 3. · The Impacts of each proje~, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Themfo~. d~e examples are illustrath~e and hav~ been offered as guidance, They do not constitute an exhausth, e list of impact~ and thresholds to answer each quest$on. · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance o! each question. · in identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative efle~t~. In~lru~tlom (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if the~e will be an7 impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 o~ 2) to indicate th~ potential size of the impacL If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example prove·d, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt alx~t size of the impact then consider t~e impact as pote~l~ally large and prcx:e~l to PART 3. e. If a ix~tentially large impact checked in column 2 can be initiated by chanle[s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also cl'~J[ the Yes box in column 3. A No reslx~nse indicates that such a r~luction Is not I)O~S~l~le_ This · must be explained in Part 3. of reduction of density, 2. Will there be an ef ec~ {,. _.,y un,que or unusual land Iorms found on the site? (i.e.. cliffs, dun~. ieological lo,marlo, ns. etc )nNo nY[S · Specific land forms: IMPACT ON LAND .... I Will tbe propos~:l ac'Licm r~ult i~ a i:~cal cha n~e to the prok,~t site~ ~NO [:]YES Eaample~ that would apply to column 2 · A~y construction on slopes o! 15% or greater, (15 foot rise pes 100 ['-I foot of length), or where th~ general slopes in the project area exceed 10'~,. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ~ 3 fe~L · Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. L-] · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally wfthin [] 3 feet of existin~ ground surface. · . Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involYe more [] than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,O00 [] tons of natural material (Le.. rock or soil) per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. [:J · Construction in a designated floodway. 0 · Other impacts i Change of zone w~ 11 reduce the motentiJ~ a significant physical chan~e of ~h~ ]~n~ with the 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By - Ct~pa~" impact project Ct~ange I-lYes I-]No 0 []Yes UNo [] []Yes ONo [] ["lYes []No [3 [=]Yes ONo 0 [-}Yes I-]No [] []Yes I:]No 17] []Yes I-'lNo [] E]Yes i--INo IMPACT ON WATER 3 Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protectedl' (Under Arlicles 15, 24, 25 of ~e Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) ~NO aYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site contains'a protected water body. [-1 · •tar:lain8 more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a n protected stream. · E~temion of utiliw dis~b~ion facilities Ihrough a I~tected water body. [-] · Construction in · designater] freshwater or tidal wetlam:l. [] · Other impacts: Change of zone removes density away ~ from freshwater wetlands. Wetlands are a substantial portion of this site. 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of wated i~NO I-lYES Examples that would apply to column :2 · A 10% increase or decrease in th~ surface area of any body of water [] or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body o1' water that exceeds 10 acres of sudace area. [] · Other impacts: [] 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Polentlal Largo Impact Can Impac~ Be MIIIgated By Project C~ange 0 OYes ON• [] OYes I-INa [] OYes [] OYes ONo [] OYes 0 OYes []No [] I-'lYes []NO [] OYes [-~No 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantityi' [~NO F'IYES that would apply b~ colum~ 2 Eumplel · Proposed Action will require a discharg~ permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a ~rce o[ water that does not have ·pproval to serve propo~d. Loro~ct) action. · Propo~ed Action requires ware!' supply Irom wells with greater than 45 8allo~s per minute pump~n8 Capacity. · Constructiot~ of c~eratio~ causing a~, contamination of m water supply system. · Propo~ed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will 1:~ conveye~.; •If th~ site to facilities whlch presently do not exist or have inadequate cap~city. · Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons per day, · Proposed Action will likel" Eau3, silb~tion or other discharge into an existing body o! wal.¢~ [u th,:_ e,,lcnt tJ'l.at there wilt t~ an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require th~ storage at petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. · Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste t~eatment and/or storage facilities. · Other impacts:The reduction of density will reduce ootential impacts to the wetlands from future rmn-off Poo ~' Wi]ii propose~ act~rc~n ~r~er ~r~g~ ~]ow or pal:t~ems, or ~b~t~- g r sol. sand hi h ro dw a ong wi the e ' ' n .~ water ~noff? ~NO DYES E[]::~ple~ that woutd apply to column 2 O ' '~ OYes []No [3 [] OYes DINa [] 0 OYes ElNa [] [] OYes []No [] E3 OYes [] [] OYes ['-)No [] [] ~Yes ~No [] [] OYes []No [] [] OYes •No [] [] OYes ON• [] [] OYes dertsity could have significant impacts. Small to Moderate Impact · Prolx~ Action may cause substantial erosion. [] · Propo~ed Action is incompatible with esisting drainage patterns. O · Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. [] · . Otl~r impacl.s: Entire area is lowlying and poorly [] drained. Intensive development will cause impact~: . A change of zone would aliminate this potential. IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality~ [~NO [OYES Ezamples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle uips in any given [] hour. · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than I ton of [] refuse per hour. · Emission rate of total contaminan~ will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a [] heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per h<:~Jr · Proposed action will allow an increas~ in the amount of land committed [] to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of ir, dustrial [] development within existing industrial areas. · Other impact~: [] 2 Polantlal Large Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 0 0 [] 3 Can Impact Mitigated By Project Chang~ OYes •No I~Yes •No ~}Yes ON• OYes •No OYes ON• OYes ON• f-lyes []No []Yes []No ['-~ Ye.s[]No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered speciesi' ~NO OYES Ezampl~ that Would apply to column 2 ' · ReduC-t3on of one or more species listed on Lhe New Yor~ or Federal [] list, using the site. over or rear site or found on the site. · Removal o! any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitaL [] · Application o! pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other [] than for agricultural purposes. · Other impacts: [] [] [] [] O Y~"s 'ON• OYes ON• OYes ON• •No 9 Will Proposed Action substantially affect r~n-~reatened or non-endangered species~ lf~NO OYES Eaamples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or [] migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres [] of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or ether locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AQRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resourcesi' ~NO [OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural [] land (includes cropland, havf,elds, pasture, vineyard. ~ch~rd. etc ) [] [] []Yes ONo []Yes ONo OYes []No · Cor~struction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of a~ricultural land, · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of alricuhmal land or, if located in an Airicultutal District. more · Ihan 2.5 acres of airicuhural land. · The proposed actio~ would disrupt o¢ pm, vent installatio~ of agricultural land manaiement systems (e.i.. subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping1; or create a need for such measures (e.i. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) · Other impacLs: Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact n Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change []Yes [:]No []Yes eno []Yes []No [::]Yes []No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resourcesf ~NO DYES (if necessary, use the Visual FAF Addendum in Section 617,2'1. Appendix B.) ' Ezample~ that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from o~' in sharp contrast to current surroundine land use patterns, wh~l:l~r' man-made or natural. · Propo~,,d land uses. or project components ~sible* to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce Lh~ir . enjoyment of tJ~e aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screenin8 of scenic views known to be important to the area. · Othe~ impact.~: [] [] [] D n [] []Yes •No i--lYes []No I'-~Yes I--lNg BYes []No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RF.~,OURCE~ 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importancei' ~NO aYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or subsb~ndaIl¥ contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or Ne[tonal Relister of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed ~ocated wi['hin t~ project site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sens~ti~e for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impact: Site contains historic structure, other cultural resourses expected. Hiqh density could impact these resources. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunitiesf Examples that would apply to column 2 mN• ~)YE5 )The permanent foreclosurt of a futur~ re~:reational opportunity. "~'~' A major re~uction~o~ choen space important to the community. · Other impact: taen Ls surrounded by park ___.distr_ict~_~°ning, [] [] [] [] [] 0 [] [] [] [] 0 [] []Yes [--]No OYes OYes []No Q-]Yes []No []Yes CNg [DYes [DNo []Yes []No 1 2 IMPACT ON TRANSI~:). RTATION S~'nall lo Potential 14. Will there be an effect to existinl transportation systemH Moderato Large ~NO I-lYES Impact Impact E,amples that would apply to column 2 · Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. [] n · Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems, [] . [] · Other impacts: [] [] Can Iml:~Ct B~ Mitigated By ProJe¢l ¢~ange []Yes []No J-]Yes []No [-]Yes I-'INa IMPACT ON ENERGY ' 15. Will proposed action alfect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply! ~INO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of [] any form of energy in the municipality. · Proposed Action will require the creation or extension al an ener~, [] transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or indusb'ial use. · Other impacts: [] O []Yes ON• []Yes BNa []Yes ONo NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16, Will there be objecUonable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Pre'posed ActJoe! I~NO · r'IYES~ -'= ' E~amples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1,.5~) teat of a hospiLal, school or other sensitive [] facility. · Odors will occur routinely (more b~an one hour per day). [] · Proposed ActJcm will produce operatina ,,•isa exceeding the Jo,cai .. .0 ambient noise levels for noise o~tside of structures. · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a [] noi~e screen · Other impact~: [] [] [] 0 [] [] []Yes I-lYes []Yes []Yes []Yes I-]No I-INo []Nc IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. will Proposed Action affect public health and safetyl' I~NO [:]YES Example~ that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous [] substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event at accident or upset conditions, or there may b~ a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any [] form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, hightY reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.) · Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquilied natural [] gas or other flammable liquids. · Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance [] within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal al' solid or hazardo~ds · Other impact~: [] [] [] [] OYes OYes []Yes [:]Yes [-]yes ON i--IN IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEJGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action af(ect the character of the existinl community~ ~NO [:]YES Ezamplet that would apply to column 2 · The permanent population of the'city, town or village in which the project is located i$ likely to grow by more than 5%. · The municipal budlet fo~ capit~l expenditures M operating services will increase by more I~n 5% per year as a result el this project· * Proposed acLio~ will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. · Proposed action will cau~ a change in the density of land use. · Propos4.,<l Action will replace or eliminate existini facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. · Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.8. schools, police and fire, etc.) · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. · Proposed Action will create or eliminate emptoyment. · Other' impacts: Present development is an unoccupied residential building. Existing zoning is for multi- family. 1 2 Small lo Potential Mo(~erata Largo Impact Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change I-] [] OYes I-INa DYes I~lNo [] [] OYes K'I O []Yes ~K~ [] []Yes Ohlo [] [] []Yes E]No [] [] OYes O1'40 [] [] OYes ['-]No [] [] I'qyes ONe Change of zon~ would hake 19. Is there, or istnere li[~etoC~.P~u~i~n~¥s~U~oding potential adverse environmental impact? ~NO ~YES land use. If Any Acllon In Part 2 I~ Identified aa a Potential Large Impact or II You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Pad 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility el Lead Agency Part 3 mult be prepared II one or more impact(s) i~ considered Io be potentially larle, even il the impact(s) may be mltllAled. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (il applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change[s). 3. Based on the information available, decide il it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is importanl. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability ol the impact occurrini · The duration of the impact · ILs irreverslbility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence of the impact · Its potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) t JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York I1971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 March 10, 1994 Thomas W. Cramer, ASLA Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54 North Country Road, Suite 2 Miller Place, New York 11764 Dear Tom-' This is to confirm that the Southold Town Board, at their regular meeting held on March 8, 1994, adopted a resolution accepting your proposal to prepare Long Environmental Assessment Forms for six proposed rezonings to be undertaken on the Town Board's own motion. A certified copy of the resolution is enclosed. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry . Southold Town Clerk Enclosure cc: V. Scopaz, Senior Planner JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone 15161 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MARCH 8, 199t1: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby accepts the proposal of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, dated March 8, 1994, at a total sum not to exceed $1,200.00, for the preparation of Long Environmental Assessment Forms for six (6) proposed rezonings to be undertaken on the Town Board% own motion. Judith T. Terry(_/ Southold Town Clerk March 9. 199tl OR,~MER, V~i,~,'~SOCIATES E N VIR ON M EN'r' '.../~.=..~~G CONSULTANTS March 8, 1994 Ms. Valerie Seopaz Planner Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Proposal for Services Preparation of Long Environmental Assessment Forms (EAF) for Proposed Hamlet Density Zoning in the Town of Southold Dear Valerie: Pursuant to your request, the following will se?e as a proposal for services with regard to the above referenced. It is our underutandmg that the Town Board wishes to consider thepossible rezoning for six undeve, loped parcels from Hamlet Density (HD) to Residence-80(R-80). This proposed action is a.result of the study prepared by you and the staff, entitled "Review of Hamlet Density Zoning tn the To. wn of S. outhold'; dated F. ebruary 1994. The following are the six parcels that will be considered xn the public hearings: $CTM# 100-40-3-1 100-40-4-1 100-35-1-25 100-45-2-10.3 100-45-2-1 100-35-1-24 Hamlet Location Greenport, umncorp. Oreenport, unmeorp. Greenport, unmcorp. Greenport, umncorp. Greenport, umncorp. Greenpor~, umncorp. Acreage 17.1 10.55 132.08 20.07 1.2 62.3 CVA proposes to complete the Long EAF necessary fo.r coordination with other involved agencies under the State Environmental Quality Rev,ew (SEQR) Act. We will also caw/out field inspections on each of the subject parcels to ass!st in the preparation on the doc.u, ments. It is also our understanding that youhave certain ~nformation that will be made available to us to assist in the preparation of the Long EAF's. In consideration of the above we estimate that the preparatmn of each Long EAF will cost between $150.00 to $200.00, with a total sum of not. to exceed $1,200.00. I hop. e you and the Board find the above proposal acceptable. If there are a.ny questions w~th the above please feel free to contact me. If t.h.e Board authorizes th~s' proposal, p!ease let me know and we will begin work immediately, as I u. nderstand that the public hearing will be set for March 22. Thank you for your consideration of CVA and I hope to hear from you shortly. , /7_ Very tx y. u~rs, V ~. Cramer, ASIA 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Lalham, Jr, 8ennetl Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 SoulhoJd, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 9, 1994 Thomas W. Cra~er Cramer, Voorhis Associates 54 North Country Road, Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: Preparation of Long Environmental Assessment Forms for Proposed Hamlet Density Rezoning in the Town of Southold Dear Tom: The Town Board voted to retain your services as set forth in your March 8th Proposal for Services. Let my secretary, Martha, know when you will be here for the field inspection so that all the technical information can be assembled and ready when you arrive. You will find the enclosed copy of the Hamlet Density Report useful in providing some of the background information and the planning context of the review. When the LEAFs are completed, please send them to Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, since all rezoning petitions and billing for same are handled by her office on behalf of the Town Board. The LEAFs are needed for Tuesday, March 22nd, when the Town Board will begin the lead agency coordination process. Since the Town Board's work session starts Tuesday morning, the_LEAFs should be in Mrs. Terry's office no later than Monday. The public hearing probably will not be set until the environmental review is completed. I look forward to hearing from you shortly. Sincerely, Senior Planner cc: Judith T. Terry, To~.,, Clerk F. M. Flynn P. O. Box 144 Southold, ~.~. Y. 11971 (516) 477 - 0698 0144 TO~YN O~ March 6, 1994 Supervisor Thomas H. Wickham Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N. Y. 11971 Dear Mro Wickham: Re: Resort Residential as Alternative to Hamlet Density ZOning at West Greenport For what my opinion may be worth, changing the zoning of the Ge±er parcel, or any of the HD parcels on the perimeter of the Village of Greenport, to an RR district would be a calamitous mistake. If the Town Board's intention is really to reduce the intensity of use in the area , with its concomitant increase in the demand for utilities and services, the result of such a change could very well have the opposite effect. Among the glaring weaknesses of the Southold Code is the number and diversity of Special Exception uses and the discretionary powers delegated to the Board of Appeals. The curr~pt ZB~ repr~sRnts g~e last v~tige of the old .... regime, inese ~pecla± mxcepgions, como~neo wzth the congemp±acee change of zone, would.permit the ZBA to continue exerting the power to thwart or subvert the intent of the Town Board. Both HD and RR zoning districts permit residential use as a matter of right. The density for one family use in both districts is similar. Th~ HD districts also permit two - family dwellings on plots twice the area of those required for one - family use. Anaiysis of the Special Exceptio,s provided for in the respective districtsreveals their degree of diversity. While these exceptions in HD districts provide for multiple dwelings, town houses, row or attached hOUSeS, the density for each such unit is the same as for one - family use. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Review of Hamlet Density Zoning In Southold Town Report to the Town Board February 1994 This study was authorized by the TOwn Board in January of 19941 Its purpose was to assess whether undeveloped properties in Town that are zoned Hamlet Density (HD) are appropriately zoned. This study was undertaken as part of the Town Board's ongoing commitment to implement the Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan. Part of this process includes evaluating whether the current pattern or location of HD-zoned properties is furthering the Goals and Policy Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Ail vacant .HD-zoned properties in the Town are reviewed in the report. They are listed below in the same manner that they are identified and reviewed in the report: SCTM# Hamlet Location Acreaqe #1 040-3-1 Greenport, unin. 17.1 #2 040-4-1 Greenport, unin. 10.55 #3 046-1-2.1 Greenport, unin. 3.5 #4 035-1--25 Greenport, unin. 132.08 #5 045-2-10.3 Greenport, unin. 20.07 #6 102-1-33.3 Cutchogue 46.16 #7 045-2-1 Greenport, unin. 1.2 #8 035-1-24 Greenport, unin. 62.3 The report provides a planning policy framework within which to evaluate the available data about each parcel. The recommendations in this report indicate whether the current HD zone needs to be changed or left untouched; based on whether the zoning is in conformance with public planning policy, but without recommending specific zone changes. REVIEW OF HAMLET DENSITY ZONING IN SOUTHOLD TOWN Report to the Town Board F~bruary 1994 REVTEW OF HAMLET DENSITY ZONING IN SOUTHOLD TOWN Report to the Town Board February 1994 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this review is to study the current status of each vacant property that presently is zoned for Hamlet Density. The study includes an assessment whether that designation is in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive or Master Plan for the Hamlet Density (HD) zoning district. Initially, this report will describe the reasons for the review. It then provides a detailed analysis of the pertinent policies of the Comprehensive or Master Plan affecting the Hamlet Density zoning and the history of the zoning that preceded it. Next, the report includes an analysis of the properties in a uniform manner. Each property is described as to its current physical location, including zoning. Each property is reviewed in terms of any current approvals and development. Each is analyzed as to its conformity with the Comprehensive or Master Plan and other public policies. Lastly, a reco~endation is made as to the appropriateness of the zoning. NEED FOR THE REVIEW: The need for this review, evidenced itself in different ways. First, with one e×ception, the parcels to be reviewed have been zoned HD for long periods of time ranging from 5 to 36 ~ears. Second, these properties are either undeveloped or under-developed. Third, seven o~ the eight parcels are located adjacent to or within close proximity to,the Incorporated Village of Greenport. The fact that these properties remained undeveloped over such long periods of time raised several questions: which ranged from why the properties were rezoned in the first place to why the properties remained undeveloped. The clustering of these properties adjacent to and around the Village of Greenport also raised questions as to the consistency of the Town's actions in context with its own Comprehensive or Master Plan. With one exception, the HD zoning desiqnation was assigned to each parcel in response to a ~etition by the property's owner. The rezonings occurred periodically, starting in 1958. The potential availability of public water and, in some cases, sewer, services from the Village of Greenport evidently was a factor considered by previous Town Boards in granting these parcels the HD zone. All but one of the undeveloped HD parcels either are adjacent or within close proximity to Greenport Village. The resulting pattern has had a significant negative impact on the Village of Greenport. The Mayor of the Village had a general discussion with the Town Board on January 4, 1994, in which he indicated that the cumulative impact of the added density would not only strain the present infrastructure capability of the Village's public water and sewer systems, it would increase Greenport's already disproportionate share of the Town's affordable housing units; a situation that was documented in Suffolk County's Equitable Housinq Study of 1991. The Town has not undertaken a specific study of the appropriateness of HD rezonings since the Master Plan Update was conducted during the early 1980s. This review will look at the appropriateness of the HD zoning designation for those parcels that are zoned HD and that are undeveloped. This is in keeping with the Town Board's co~itment to implement the Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan. Charged in 1992 with suggesting ways to implement this vision, the Town's Stewardship Task Force reco~nended to the Town Board, in September of 1993, that it "Revise the Zoning Code and Map to better comply with goals of the Master Plan". In conjunction with this recorm~endation, the Task Force also suggested to the Town Board that it "Review Zoning Map and revise to. eliminate zoned districts which are iacompatible with their present use and ~hysical rontext." This $eview is in response to those recommendations. AUTHORIZATION FOR REVIEW: The Town Board Resolution of January 4, 1994 states the reasons for this review, the Board's intent in authorizing it, and directs staff to carry out the study. METHODOLOGY USED IN ANALYSIS: CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: The methodology used here reflects the purpose of this review which is to examine the eight vacant parcels currently zoned Hamlet Density and to determine whether they are appropriately zoned in relationship to the goals and ob3ectives of the Town's 1984 Update of its Comprehensive or Master Plan, the 1991 Report of the US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange and the ongoing work of the Town's StewardshAp Task Force. Each of the eight properties were reviewed systematically using the following format: Site Data Notable Physical Features and Limitations Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Status of Development: Approvals and Infrastructure Public Policy Reco~nendation The $ite Data section will identify the parcel by its Tax Map Number, its location and its acreage. Information about the zoning and ownership history of this parcel will be presented here also. The section on Notable Physical Features and Limitations will review the relevant, available environmental data and its ~ignificance or potential impact on the parcel's development potential. The Surrounding Land UJes and Zoninq section will describe the land uses and zoning of the surrounding properties, and will discuss the significance of those uses and designations for the subject parcel. The following section, Status of Development: Approvals and Infrastructure, will review the current status of any applications and approvals for the subject parcel. The Public Policv section will examine the appropriateness of the Hamlet Density designation relative to the vision set forth by the Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan Update in 1984, the 1991US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Report and the Stewardship Task Force's draft recon~endatlons of 1993. The last section, Recommendation, will list a recommendation for either leaving the Hamlet Density designation or changing it. Public Policy in the Context of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code: Because the Public Policy sections of each case study presume an understanding of the Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan and of the Town's ongoing efforts to implement its vision, as well as an historical knowledge of elements of the Zoning Code itself, the following section has been included here. Its purpose is to provide a detailed analysis of the public policies that were considered in this evaluation of the pattern of Hamlet Density zoning in Southold Town. The Comprehensive Plan Southold Town has been engaged in an ongoing effort to implement the Goals and Policies of the 1984 Comprehensive or Master Plan Update as evidenced by the work of the Stewardship Task Force (STF). Appointed by the Town Board, the STF has been charged since its inception in 1992, with the "study and exploration of amelioratory recommendations of the Southold Town Zoning Map and Ordinances, in order to foster and implement the ideals and goals of the existing Master Plan, incorporating the recommendations of the US/UK Stewardship Exchange." The recommendations of the US/UK Stewardship Exchange reflect the collective thinking of a team of eight professional planners who met with government officials and a wide range of community representatives about planning issues during July of 1991. They found six areas of agreement with the Comprehensive or Master Plan. These included: 1) "Concentration of new residential and commercial development in and around existing hamlets and villages,._." along with the 2) "Preservation of. the historic character of the villages and hamlets, carefully controlling design 4 of new'development to maintain compatibiliny." and "qa±ntenance and ir~provement of the environment through provision of an appropriate infrastructure to protect water quality and to manage n@tural resources properly, and to guide development to appropriate locations." (A Report by the 1991US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchance Team To The People of the Town of Southold, North Pork. Long Island. Noven~er 1991. p.8.) The aforementioned issues had been derived from the Goals and Policies of Southold Town's 1984 Master Plan Update. That document set forth a number of Goals and subsequent Policies which have a bearing on this study, and which are stated in Appendix A of this study. In September of 1993, the Stewardship Task Force published an interim report in which it made a series of draft recommendations to implement the Goals and Policies set forth by the 1984 Master Plan Update. The preface to its recommendations on the Character of Hamlets and Rural Setting states: The hamlets are the historic focus for residential and business activity in Soutnold Town. We consider this to be a desirable pattern of development, which should be encouraged by allowing appropriate new residential and commercial development in the existing centers. In order to facilitate this growth, careful planning should undertaken by the Town, so that a rural, pedestrian oriented village quality, consistent with our history and traditional pattern of development, is fostered. The long history of Southold has given rise to a tremendous richness and diversity of buildings and working landscapes. Vigorous steps should be taken to assure the preservation of these structures and landscapes, without infringing on the rights of their individual owners. All residents benefit from the preservation of our historic and scenic heritage, not only for our "quality of life", but for the economic potential it offers the Town. Purpose of the Hamlet Density Zoning District: this policy of concentrating residential development throughout the Town's hamlets is reiterated in the Town's Zoning Code, which states that the purpose of the HD Zoning District is: "to permit a mix of housing t!~pes and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers, particularly Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold, Orient and the Village of Greenport." The Zoning Code specifies that the HD district may be designated by the Town Board upon its own motion, as well as by petition of the property owner on parcels located within one-half mile of a Hamlet Business district of the hamlets of Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold; and within one-quarter mile of the Hamlet Business district of Orient and within one-half mile of the boundary of Greenport Village. In the Master Plan Sua~nary of 1985, three criteria were set forth for the establishment of a Hamlet Density district: location relative to the hamlet business area, the availability of utilities and the provision of moderate cost housing. The report suggested Greenport be considered as a hamlet. It also suggested that the maximum HD development be permitted "only where necessazy utilities are in place or can be assured and where there is the provision of moderate cost housing." (p.9). Finally, it states the "The Hamlet Density category is also designed to support the establishment of innovative techniques for getting the optimum use out of existing housing." (Emphasis supplied.) Uses Allowed in the Hamlet Density Zoning District: The Zoning Code allows within the HD district only two uses by right: 1. one-family detached dwellings, and 2. two-family dwellings. A Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals is required for other uses such as: 1. multiple dwellings, townhouses, row or attached houses; 2. accessory apartments in single-family residences, (as regulaned elsewhere in the Zoning code); 3. bed and breakfast establishments, (as regulated elsewhere in the Zoning Code); 4. wineries, (as regulated elsewhere in the Zoning Code)- The Zoning Code provides guidelines or parameters within which the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant the Special Exceptions only for accessory apartments and for bed and breakfast establishments. No guidance is provided to the Zoning Board for the institution of multiple dwellings, townhouses or row-houses, and wineries. The Zoning Code: Historical Background: Throughout this report, it is important to remember that while the "A" Residential-Agricultural zoning district always permitted residential and agricultural land uses, the required minimum acreage for a lot in this zone changed through the years. The following list shows how the minimum acreage changed (by the year the amendment was made to the Zoning Code). Year Minimum Acreage in "A" or "R" zones 1957 12,500 square feet 1971 40,000 square feet 1983 80,000 square feet 1989 80,000 square feet in A-C and R-80 zones (40,000 square feet for areas zoned R-40 only. Other residential zones provide for three, five and ten acre minimum acreages.) As will be seen, the in-depth analysis of each property will show that each parcel originally had been zoned for residential use. Some of the parcels have had more than one zoning designation in their history, mostly because the Town changed its zoning code and map several times since the first Code and Map were adopted in 1957. A brief synopsis of the changes that have been made to specific zoning districts is provided in Appendix B. The Impact of Public Water and Sewer Services on Density in HD: The minimum required lot area within the HD district is 20,000 square feet per one-family detached dwelling- Suffolk County's Health Regulations require the provision of public water where lots are smaller than 40,000 square feet in area. However, where both Community (Public) water and Sewer services are available, and a Special Exception is granted, the density may be increased to one unit for every 10,000 square feet. Thus, the development potential of a parcel zoned HD is inextricably tied to the availability of public water: and for the higher densities, the availability of sewer. In other words, for the HD zoned property to be developed in accordance with the intent of the Code, it requires access to public water and, sometimes, sewers. Number and Location of Properties Zoned Hamlet Density: There are thirteen properties in mainland Southold Town that are zoned Hamlet Density (HD), only five of which are developed. Three are located in Greenport: one is the Driftwood Cove Apartment Complex, another is the Seven-Eleven store, and the third is a large historic house adjacent to Brecknock Hall. The fourth is the Founders Village Condominium complex in Southold. The fifth is a large house in Orient on the north side of SR 25, about 87 feet west of Young's Avenue. On Fishers Island, there are fifteen developed properties that are zoned HD. Ail these parcels, save one, are located within the boundaries of the abandoned Army base; and appear to have been developed either as base offices or officer's quarters. Of the eight vacant HD-zoned parcels, seven are located around Greenport Village, which for a long time was the only source of both public water and sewer services within the Town. There appears now to be some limitation on the Village of Greenport's ability to be the focus of all HD zoning given the current demand on its already strained water and sewer facilities. Cutchogue has the only other vacant HD-zoned property. The remaining hamlets in Southold Town have no vacant HD-zoned properties. 8 ANALYSIS OF HAMLET DENSITY PROPERTIESz PARCEL BY PARCEL Only those properties zoned Hamlet Density that ~ere vacant as of January 1994, were selected for review. The individu- al parcels are listed below in the order they were rezoned starting with the first, in 1958. This is also the order in which they will be reviewed. Throughout the remainder of this report, the parcels will be referred to by the identi- fying Parcel and Tax Map numbers (SCTM#) noted here. SCTM# Hamlet Location Acreage ~1 040-3-1 Greenport, unin. 17.1 #2 040-4-1 Greenport, unin. 10.55 #3 046-1-2.1 Greenport, unin. 3.5 #4 035-1-25 Greenport, unin. 132.08 ~5 045-2-10.3 Oreenport, unin. 20.07 #6 102-1-33.3 Cutchogue 46.16 #7 045-2-1 Greenport, unin. 1.2 #8 035-1-24 Oreenport, unin. 62.3 The format used in the analysis of each pazcel is: PARCEL # and TAR MAP NUMBER SITE DATA: Location: Acreage: Zoning History:* Ownership History:** NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS: SURROUNDING LkND USES AND ZONING: STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: PUBLIC POLICY: RECOMMENDATION: One or more maps showing the subject parcel may accompany the written text: they will be found at the end of the analysis of that parcel. * Zoning History was culled from the Town Clerk's Change of Zone files. ** Ownership History was traced from Property Cards in the office of the Town Tax Assessor. 9 PARCEL ~1 - SCTM # 40-3-1 ~ITE DATA: Location: South Side County Route 48, more ~han 1000' east of Chapel Lane, Greenport Acreage: 17.1 acres Zoning History : Year Rezoned: 6.13.58. The original petition was to change the zone from "A" Residental and Agricultural to "B" Business. Between January and May of 1958, the applicant changed his request to "M" Multiple Residence, which was subsequently granted. The file does not indicate why the property owner asked for the change of zone, nor why the Town Board granted the request. Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany *Kace Realty Co 3-10-82 Kontakosta 3-10-82 Sanzone (Smith Est) ? Brereton ?-?-79 H. Smith & Ano Sledjecki Transfer sub- ject to $184,000 mort- gage 1/4 interest (which was sold to Sanzone in 1982 for $35,000.) ?-?-54 ?-?-49 or earlier** * Kontokosta is a principal in KACE Realty ** Property cards only note ownership as of 1949 when the records were started. NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS: There is little environmental information in the site plan file. A review of the aerial photograph reveals this to be a heavily wooded parcel which appears to drain in a southerly direction. The topography drops off to the south from 35 feet above sea-level near County Route 48, to about 10 feet at its southernmost point. The property may have freshwater wooded wet- lands on or within close proximity. 1 SURROUNDING 1,7kND USES AI~D ZONING: The property is currently bounded on the north Dy CR 48; the west and south borders by land owned and zoned by the Village of Greenport as PD or Parkland, and the east border by land zoned R-80. North of CR 48, lies an R-80 district, which contains residential waterfront homes. ~ Within 500 feet of the perimeter of this parcel (but not contiguous) there are properties zoned RR and HD. The RR properties to the northwest, diagonally across CR 48, contain motel and resort condominium uses, along with one residential use and an unfinished mo- tel. San Simeon Nursing Home, which is zoned HD, is about 800 feet to the west. The remainder of the HD property to the west is mostly undeveloped, and is one of the parcels under review (Parcel #7). The KOA Kampground lies due east at a distance of about 500 feet. STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: kPPROVALS AND IN~FRASTRUCTURE: On July 11, 1983, the Planning Board granted site plan approval to construct 108 dwelling units in 27 build- ings. The property owner has yet to obtain governmen- tal approvals for water, sewer and curb cuts. No building permits are known to have been issued. PUBLIC POLICY: Altnough the subject parcel is adjacent to land owned by the Incorporated Village of Greenport, it lies 4,500 feet or more ( one mile equals 5,280 feet) from the developed portions of the Village, and is even further from the business center. It is surrounded by vacant woodland, which is zoned PD or Park District. The Village changed the zone of the surrounding woodland from R-1 (Residential) to PD in 1987, in response to directives from the State of New York's Department of Environmental Conservation. The PD district is defined as follows: "An area reserved for recreational and firematic use by the citizens of the Village of Greenport as regulated by the Park Local Law, and in which Village utilities and other public uses may be maintained and expanded." The only uses permitted within this district are: 1) Nature trails 2) Sports playing fields 3) Firematic events 4) utility facilities including necessar7 appurtances but not limited to: a) water towers b) sewage treatment plants c) electrical pla~ts 5) Municipally operated camp sites 6) Municipally operated trailer park 7) Watershed maintenance Much of the PD zoned land is environmentally sensitive, freshwater wooded wetland. Given the restrictive nature of the Parkland District, it seems inconsistent for the Town to concentrate its highest density residential use on the subject parcel. Further, this parcel is not within walking distance of the village hamlet, and the necessary utilities do not seem to be assured at this time. For these reasons, intense development of the site does not seem to meet with the Goals and Policy Objectives of the Comprehen- sive or Master Plan. RECOM]4ENDATION: The site could be developed in a manner not requiring multiple density uses. Rezoning to a lower density is recommended. 3 R-80 RR HD :LB LIO R -40 iSLaND AHO 'HD mARCEL ~2 - SCTM ~ 40-4-1 SITE DATA: Location: South side of County Route 48, approxi- mately 400 feet west of Moore's Lane, Greenport Acreage: 10.55 acres Zoninq History: Year Rezoned: 11.7.68 The petitioner applied for the zone change bm- cause, in his own words, "The premises currently enjoy a non-conforming use status, as a rooming and boarding house; deponent wishes to enlarge that use." Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany Geier Estate or Heirs 1993 Marcucci ? J. Geier & Ano Langone 1966 19%9 or earlier Contract Vendee $37,000 NOTABLE PHYSICA~ FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS: In the absence of a definitive confirmation by the Town Trustees and the State Department of Environmen- tal Conservation, it is estimated that between one- quarter to one-third of the southern or lower portion of this parcel contain freshwater wetlands. These wetlands probably are part of the system of wetlands in the Village parkland to the south. There is no soil boring on file for this property. The wetlands are likely to pose severe constraints on the potential yield of this property due to the mini- mum siting distances that structures and septic sys- tems must maintain from wetlands: as required by vari- ous Town, County and State regulations. Wet soils also pose problems for siting septic systems unless sewer service can be obtained. The environmental impacts of sewering on this wetland ecosystem are not known at this time. SURROUNDI~G LAND USES AND DENSITY: The property is boun~d on the north by County Route aS. Its east, south and west borders are bounded by the Village's parklands. North and northeast of CR 48 lies undeveloped land zoned R-40, and a partially completed subdivision development, also zoned R-40. Just beyond the Village parkland, fifty feet to the west of this parcel, the land is zoned R-80. ' STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE There is a large house and two or three other build ings or barns on the property. The structures are visibly in need of repair. There are no site plan approvals for any proposed construction. And, there is no site plan application on file. PUBLIC POLICf: The limited environmental information available on this site suggests that this property is not suitable for the Hamlet Density intensity of use. The environ- mental sensitivity of this parcel is highlighted by the Park District zoning of the surrounding property by the Village of Greenport. The constraints are such that the availability of public water (and probably sewer) are absolute prerequisites for development at the HD density to occur. The presence of extensive wetlands is likely to compromise the potential yield. Further, it is inconsistent to place the highest resi- dential density in the midst of Park District zoning. The Town's Master Plan and the subsequent recommendations for its implementation argue for chan- neling new development towards the existing hamlets. This policy requires that new development be directed first to vacant land within the hamlets, then to va- cant land in close proximity thereto. It ~lso re- quires where rehabilitation or renovation of the exist- ing building stock can both preserve the character of the hamlet and provide alternative housing choices, that this be pursued first, before creating new resi- dential centers isolated from the hamlet. This site fails to meet the criteria for proximity and accessibility to a hamlet. It is not within walk- ing distance of the Village center. Further, the necessary utilities do not seem to be assured at this time. For these reasons, this parcel's zoning does not seem to meet with the Goals and Policy Objectives of the Master Plan. 5 RECOMMENDATION: This parcel cou±d De developed in a manner not requiring multiple density uses. Rezoning to a lower density is recommended. 6 ;;/ './ R-80 RR HD AHD R -,10 'R '~%~': :. _~ ,... .~ II ~-1 . . : . ~ . , ~ ~ ., '. . ~ ~,.:~ '~*t~':_.~ % '. .-.p~ . ;.. ' : ..-~.....-.. ; '..~ _,,\ . .... · ' ",", ' '~ ~ ' I . - '. . -.;' . -' :.'~' . ,---,-,-~\ . ~\~ · ,' ' ' · .~ ....x.,.~._, ~._....~ ;......; :. ,," "' "~;:.:;.'".: ~'~. _3_\ .' .' .~ ' .' .: -., ."~ x- ' 4 .'.'; ..' '.'.~:..'-;' ':.'..'~:::.-- .... \~ --q ...... --\'~. · ' . i · . · · -:, '.~.' .. X.,--.~'~'.·. ' .. ~' ~..' -- ~.,.-.~.~; ..... '.-..-- .... ::--~\ .- . '; -: .... .:..' :..~ ~, x,, ~,,x . · ".' '..:: o' '. . ,.. · ........-" ',% . ! . .., .. , - % ~\~ --~x .' . ,' . · . ./,~" '."x, ' . . i ..' . ..,¢ -- , ,~ .. .x · -' .' '.'. ' ' ..':'-'~ · '' x "' ' I~ "~'~ ~ ", .... · ':.\ '.'~.; ...... "',x .... - ~ ' ..... ~...- . .x, (,. · I . i\\..~ . . · · O' -'""'~ ' '. '. '~' · . .I ' :,. ,.- ,,,. .... ~.. .. ,.,~ .,. _.,z ./~,~ : " ; -'-" ~ ' '-. .' ;" ' ''x'x, " ! x . ~ · · ~." \ · ~--.... ~'......./ ..'. ; -~-~. .-':;-:...' ~ .~, .: ,-,~ ,/ ' "x\. , .. .: ..,..... .. /..~£ , .._ .. ~!,~.,:/.~."'"-~ . ~..:. ,..':\', . .,., - . /...-/ ...., ....-,.,:;;;,~¢~ '" . .., ..... -' :;;.:' N,, :- . · · '. ~ . , ...'., ,..:',~. .. ',, : ~x · PARCEL #3 - SCTM # 046-1-2.1 SITE DATA: Location: South side of State Route 25, about 577 feet east of 9th Street, Greenport Acreage: 3.5 acres Zoning History: Year Rezoned: 10.27.70 The original petition to rezone this property from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M-l" General Multiple Residence was changed to "B-2'' Business at the recommendation of the Planning Board. At th~s time, there also was a pending petition on [he adjacent property to the east, now the site of Driftwood Cove Apartments, for a change to the "B-2" Business zoning district, too. (The "B-2" district allowed for a more intensive multiple residence use than did the "M-i" zone.) The two properties were rezoned "B-2" in 1970, within two months of each other. In 1989, both parcels were rezoned Hamlet Density by the Town. ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany Aliano 1974 $73,500 Casola 1972 $55,000 A. Cassidy 1949 or earlier NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATUP~ES AND LIMITATIONS: There is little environmental information available for this parcel. It is covered with old-fleld vegeta- tion. The property does not appear to have any environ-- mental constraints. This is not a large site. Develop- ment of this site to its Hamlet Density potential will require the extension of both public water and sewer. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: The property is bounded on the north by State Route 25 and a 7-11 retail store, which is also zoned HD. To the east is the Driftwood Cove Apartment complex. To the south, the tracks and right-of-way of the Long Island Railroad. To the west is a lumber yard. The north side of SR 25 is zoned B Business and is devel- oped. STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The property was larger at the time it was rezoned. Slightly more than half an acre of it was developed into the 7-11 store in 1985. There are no other site plan approvals on this parcel. Nor are there any active applications for an HD use. PUBLIC POLICY: This site meets the criteria for the location of the Hamlet Density zone. It is within walking distance of the Village business center, schools, churches and other services. It lies adjacent to affordable hous- ing, and could be developed in a similiar manner. However, the small size of this parcel, which the current owner exacerbated by splitting off an addition- al .55 acres in 1977, is an obstacle. Development of this property will require the provision of both pub- lic water and sewer, the availability of which is not assured at this time. RECOS~4ENDATION: Since it meets all applicable criteria, except the availability of public water and sewer, this parcel could be left as zoned. However, the fact that Greenport Village and unincorporated west Greenport bear a disproportionate share of the affordable hous- ing within the Town must be factored in and dealt with. If the proportionate share of affordable housing is felt to be of primary importance, this parcel could be rezoned to LIO, in keeping with the LIO zoning to the west which borders this property. 8 R~80 RR HD : LB ' R 'B R-8o ( Ill PA~,CEL ~4 - SCTM ~ 035-1-25 SITE DATA: Location: North side of State Route 25, approximate- ly 1,139 feet northeast of Sound Road, Greenport Acreage: 132.08 acres Zoning History: Year Rezoned: 1971: 57.55 acres 1983: 74.53 acres The Change of Zone Petitzon files do not show why the rezoning was requested. The 1971 rezoning also created 12.43 acres of Business Zoning around an historic residence, known as Brecknock Hall. In 1983, the amount of land in the "M" Light zone was increased by 74.53 acres for a total of 132 acres. A filed Covenant and Restriction holds the total number of dwelling units to 350, and sets aside a reserved scenic area of 37.92 acres. This parcel was rezoned HD in 1989, when the Town eliminated the "M" Light Multiple Residence zon- ing classification from its Zoning Code and Map. Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany Wolowitz, A. 1993 LBV Properties 1992 Greenport Dev. Co. Brecknock Assoc. G. $chad Pollert & Wife $4,0O0,000 (foreclosure) 1984 $3,850,000 1980 $ 354,000 no consideration 1969 $ 800,000 1949 or earlier NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS: The property is about 1,500 feet from the Village boundary. It contains about 2,700 feet of prime water- front on Long Island Sound complete with bluffs and beaches. This property is listed by the State as being part of the Eastern Bluffs Complex which stretch- es from Orient Point west to Miller Place. The some- what rolling terrain contains mature old field vegeta- tion, woods, ponds ahd associated wetlands. In 1988 a large excavation was started where one of the ponds/stormwater drainage facilities was to be locat- ed_ The sand has been removed from the premises, but the pond was never completed. The excavated area remains ~pen to the weather without benefit of erosion controls. ~ The likely increase in traffic from the development of a parcel of this size are likely to require modifica- tions to State Route 25 and possibly the intersection of SR 25 and Sound Drive. SURROUNDING LAlqD USES AND ZONING: To the north lies Long Island Sound. To the east lies the Island End golf course, which is zoned R-80. To the south are State Route 25 and two historic residenc- es, one of which is Brecknock Hall. Brecknock Hall is located within the LB district. The other historic residence is located within the HD district. To the west lies vacant land that was just rezoned from R-80 to HD and R-40. South of SR 25 opposite this parcel there is a mix of zoning: a vacant R-80-zoned parcel, a vacant Residential Office-zoned parcel and an estab- lished residential cormnunity zoned R-40. STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: In 1987, a site plan for 350 condominium units was approved by the Planning Board. Since then, three building permits have been issued: one to construct the pumphouse for the public supply well; one to build a foundation for the recreation center, and one to build a foundation for one of the residential build- ings. Certificates of Occupancy were issued for the pumphouse and the residential foundation in 1991. The permit for the recreation center was voided in Decem- ber of 1990 without the foundation being built. To our knowledge, there has been no building activity since that time. There is a unresolved dispute over the cost of the water and sewer contracts. Curb cut approval and other permits from the NYS Department of Transporta- tion are not on file, and may not have been obtained. Landscaping and excavation bonds are still on file with the Town. PUBLIC POLICY: The zoning and the site plan on this parcel contra- dicts the Goals and Policy Objectives of the Comprehen- 10 sire Plan in several ways. First, although the west- ern edge of the property is within 1500 feet of the Village boundary, it is separated by a heavily-trav- elled State Road and it is not located within easy walking distance to the hamlet's business center, nearly a mile to the south. Second, the placement of high density residential zoning on prime and sensitive waterfront property contradicts our policies of encouraging the preserva- tion of environmentally sensitive areas, and of promot- ing development patterns that are responsive to or protective of sensitive coastal features and scenic vistas, as well being commensurate with available water supplies~ Third, the size of this HD-zoned parcel relative to the Village hamlet threatens to draw from the ham- let rather than work [o preserve and strengthen the hamleL cenier. Although the nearby Limited Business zones are, strictly speaking, not within the purview of this review, its sheer size (more than 16 acres in total) require that its combined impact with the HD parcel on the Village be considered. The net effect of 133.+ acres of HD-zoned land and 16+ acres of LB-zoned laf]d adjacent to one another on the north side of SR 25 creates enormous potentlal for the development of a satellite hamlet with its own busi- ness district just 1200 feet north of the Village boundary, and less than a mile from its business cen- ters. While the Comprehensive Plan calls for the creation of a new hamlet, creating one adjacent to an existing one that is in need of economic revitaliza- tion and has strained water and sewer facilities is not consistent with the other goals of preserving and strengthening existing hamlets. The Town would not profit from such a situation, and neither would the village. The economic stability of Greenport Village is important to the Town because of Greenport's position as a transportation hub, as a major deep-water port, as a tourist designation, and as provider of public water to significant portions of the Town. The two governmental entities cannot afford to work at cross purposes with the other. Finally, the draft Long Island Coastal Zone Management plan recommends that this entire site be preserved in conjunction with its recommendation that undeveloped, relatively undisturbed forested properties within the Eastern Bluffs Complex by acquired to protect wildlife habitat_ The Eastern Bluffs Complex encompasses the soundfront from Orient west to Miller Place. 11 RECO~tENDATION: Rezone the property to a lower density residential use that better protects coastal resources, and that pro- vides for a level of residential development that is more compatible with the existing infrastruqture and economic development of the hamlet of the Village. 12 AHD LB R-80 -- isLANO PARCEL ~5 - SCTM ~ 45-2-10.3 SITE DATA: Location: East side of Chapel Lane, south of County Rou[e 48 and north of State Route 25, Greenport Acrea~e~ Originally 26.57 acres: Now 20.07 acres. Zoninq History: Year Rezoned: 2.25.75. This property was rezoned by the Town at the request of St. Peter's Lutheran Church for the express purpose of constructing "multiple resi- dences for a senior citizen retirement community." OwnershiD History / Year Acquired / Miscellany Richard Mohring 1993 ~FB & Trust 1993 ? St. Peter's Church 1974 Chapel Lane Assocs. 1971 DeShrage 1968 King-Greenport Assocs. 1965 Judysteve Corp. 1965 King $175,000 $ 34,500 mr[ge. 1949 or earlier NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES A/qD LIMITATIONS: A full scale environmental review was never conducted oi~ this parcel so the information available is limit- ed. The site is presently wooded, with some old field around the disturbed portion of the site where the only four buildings of the proposed elderly housing complex were constructed. There are serious drainage problems that will add to the cost of development on this site due to the depth of the clay substrata. The depth of the clay also means that this site cannot be developed without public water and sewer. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: The property is currently bounded on its north the San Simeon Nursing Home. To the east lies another parcel being studied in this review, (Parcel # 7), and the Village Parklands; to the south, a garage building, St. Peter's Lutheran Church and the former Skyway Drive-In Movie Theatre. Chapel Lane borders the entire western edge of the. property. 13 The woodland to the east of this property is in the Village's Park Dis[rict. Parcel ~1 (in this study) lies approximately 1000 feet to the east of this prop- erty. The property's south border is zoned Limited Business. A church, a garage and a former drive-in theatre lie within this LB district. With the exception of strip of LB zoning north of SR 25, all the land west of Chapel Lane clear to Aibertson Lane is zoned R-80. A LILCO Substation lies within the LB district to the west of Chapel Lane, as does the Drossos Motel complex about a thousand feet or more from the intersection of Chapel Lane and SR 25. Much of the remainder of. the land west of Chapel Lane is vacant, probably due to the fact that towards Albertson Lane, much of the area is covered with fresh- water wetland. STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: In 1984, a site plan for the southwestern portion of this parcel was approved. Four buildings containing eight dwelling units were constructed. Public water and sewer service was connected and Certificates of Occupancy were issued in 1986. However, the units were never occupied. In 1990, the Planning Board qave approval to a condo minium unit designation map showing 36 dwelling units on 7.74 acres. This map included the eight dwelling units that were constructed in 1986. There is a site plan application pending for This condominium plan. No plans have been filed for the remainder of the property which includes 12.6 acres of HD zoning and about 10 acres of LB zoning (the drive-in and the garage.) PUBLIC POLICY: The limited environmental information available sug- gests that this property is not a suitable site for the Hamlet Density intensity of use. The constraints on the site are such that the availability of public water and sewer are absolute prerequisites for develop- ment. Furthermore, due to the depth of the clay sub- strata, the potential yield on this site is likely to be compromised because of the amount of land that will need to be set aside to handle stormwater drainage. The stormwater drainage is a matter of concern because 14 this property drains to the wetlands and the Bay to the south. The Town's Master Plan and the subsequent recommenda- tions for its implementation argue for chan~eling development towards the existing hamlets. This policy requires that new development be directed first to vacant land within the hamlets, then to vacant land in close proximity thereto. It also requires where reha- bilitation or renovation of the existing building stock can both preserve the character of the hamlet and provide alternative housing choices, that this be pursued first before creating new residential centers isolated from the hamlets. The site fails to meet the criteria for proximity and accessibility to a hamlet, especially for afford- able rental housing. It is not within walking dis- tance of the Village hamlet, and the necesary utili- ties do not seem to be assured at this time. For these reasons, the site does not seem to meet with the Goals and Policy Objectives of the Master Plan. RECOM)4ENDATION: The property should be zoned to a density level more compatible with its environmental constraints, and more consistent with the Comprehensive or Master Plan recommendations for a parcel remote from a hamlet center. 15 __/ RR -40 R-40 'H D LB L ; ....... ·.,. / ..... ~ · . - · '. '. ;', ' ; - ' ', .' - ':.' .' . t -2 ~ ' .', · .' ,~V' . · -,. · . \ · , .. · . .._,~*.,/,,,~.~,-.. .. ,~ . ~ .,'/; ... . , ~\ . '.~ ,. ~,.,--.~.-~ .... -.. .. · . -. . ,... ~ - .,~\. - .:..~ ...- . ./,,~/~,~- . . · ..-...~ , · .....:.....~,. · . ,, ~. ~\ · ., ', ~-.. .. . . . .~ tl~..I '. .... .j '\ . .... . '% '.' , :.' ' ~ "' ' ~ ~,Q~,-t".. . r '" ' ~ t:'.. . a '~ °'. . . ' ,~. ..., ..-:_.~.~--- % . ,.'. ~ ,.~,---.., ~ ~ ~ ~.~ . · ~ .,\ .4,\~, ,..,, . . \ /--~ %..,...'_~ . , .~....~... :.. . · ~.\ ,-,-\,, . ,~;'.. . ,~,~"%.- T ..' · '-'. ,..~,-,-., .', · ........... ~- .... '",. '- ' .......... . \ .- .. -. , ., ~ ,..... ~- p.v ~,"'-.~.~.-~... ~ ,~ . - · "k. ~ · ',' , .'- ' ',\ ' ' · " · : "' ' ~""'>" ~' 'V ~t'.~'.."- ' ~ V., '" ~:. · ', .' ' ~\, ' -' ' ~'~ ' ·' "<, · ' ' 'i' '~,' v "-, 'Ch--, ..~-'" ' ~,,\· · ''.' % · ~... .. ... . ~ , . .~ ,. .. ~., ... ..... . \.~ . ., · .. ~.~." . .. ,';~' · 7- .' - . :t-~7 ~ ~L ...~..:- \~.~· . ..,..,./. ..'.. % ..,/':. -~.,~,- · ~ \, .. · , . . . . . ...Nx · .. ~.~ ,~£, · ~. ~.\ ~- . . · ,,.. , .... , ..... . ~\.. \\ . . .. ~ ,.... . ..... . I /,,X,\- .... ."' " :."' .. '' '~' ,." ' ,,~..,.,..~'~.-- ~'..,:.' / ' ~... '<....~ .N..--"~_~':..' % . ,.... ,..... · ·//'...-..,...,.., ;:',.:'.,'""'.'~. ~ ' ~ "%;. '~>:-' .... ,- :;i~ ',".'.".",..!.. ".1 ;I..'..','-":i:'."/::'.~ "~. '-. - I ~ ? · . :;"'/~'"- ., -., . . / .... ... ,.,....... .,~ ~_ .... PARCEL ~6 - SCTM ~ 102-1-33.3 SITE DATA: Location: Northernmost end of Grlffing Lane. a~out 1,Q76 feet north of State Route 25, Cutchoque acres Year =.e2oned: In 1982, thm ~rcr~ own~m pe~_itio~ for a c~ange fr~ ~" Residential mm~ Agricaltural to "M" Light ~ultip-ie Remi~%i~] for t~ purpose of constructing a r~iden~/~l n,~=,m~nity for senior citizens adjacent to the ~xisting business dis- trict of Cutchoque. Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany Nocro Ltd. 1986 Seacroft Ltd. 1986 Leisure Green 1983 Leisure to Leisure 1982 Leisure 1973 Mill Matt Agency Inc. Mandaro & Ano 1971 1949 or earlier $ 69,000 (31.5 acres) $101,500 NU~ABLE PHYSIU_~L F~7~'rgI{ESANDLI~IIT~kTIONS: The Dref~ ~g~nc~ l~a~ ~tement for this project ~t~m~ ~e~ila~ em~r~e~tal info~-~' The f~l ~IS for t~s pr~,j~ ha~ "-' a satis.facto~f me.ns o~ wast~ ~hi$ parcel is bordere~ to for a vineyard, and a wooded ~a of a new clustered residential which is zoned Agriculturai-Con~ the east, the parcei is bordered and other land in a~tive agricul of which is zoned R-80. To the 16 bordered by Griffing Street, School House Road, a building, vacant land, and the grounds of Sacred Heart Church. All of this land except the church is zoned Hamlet Business (HB). The church property %s zoned R-40. The properties that abut the western Border of this parcel are zoned R-40 also. STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: A site plan application for a 160 unit condominium complex for senior citizens was made in 1984. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was submitted in 1988. The applicant was asked to submit a Final EIS in 1989. There has been no further action on this appli- cation since that time. PUBLIC POLICY: The current zoning of this parcel is in keeping with the goals and objectives of the Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan. The property is within walking dis- tance of 5he traditional core of Cutchogue hamlet. The property contains good agricultural soils, but is not environmentally sensitive. Due to its location just norsh of the hamlet's traditional center, this parcel, when developed, is likely to strengthen the hamlet. This project has generated much opposition within the co~nunity. And while its large size will have an impact on traffic, and the functioning and character of the Cutchogue hamlet, it nevertheless meets the criteria for location within the hamlet center and the provision of alternative housing choices. '- RECOMMENDATION: This property is zoned appropriately at this time. 17 ,,~,. R--80 / PARCEL ~7 - SCTM # 45-2-1 SITE DATA: LocaTion: South side of County Route 48, 805 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport (Also approximately 1400 feet west of Parcel #1.) Acreage: 1.2 acres Zoning History: Year Rezoned: 1-10-89 This parcel was rezoned by the Town when the 1989 Zoning Map was adopted. Prior to this time, this lot was zoned "A" Residential-Agricultural. Re- search to date has not unearthed an explanation for this change: so we don't know if this rezon- ing was intentional or a drafting mistake. Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany John siolas & wife 1985 $38,500 Delandas 1974 $15,000 Pauli 1964 two parcels $ 3,000 King 1949 or earlier NOTABLE Ph~fSICAL FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS: There is little environmental information available on this property. The aerial photograph of this property shows it to be wooded. It slopes towards the south as does the San Simeon nursing home site 50 feet to its west. There is a 50 foot buffer between this parcel and San Simeon Nursing Home, which is an intensely developed site. The smali size of this property probably is its big gest physical limitation. It is likely to be ecnonomically inefficient to develop according to the HD potential. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: This property is bounded on the north by CR 48. To the east and south lie the Village Parklands. To the west lies San Simeon Nursing Home, which is zoned HD also. 18 This property was originally bounded by Parcel #5. In 1993, the owner of Parcel ~5 filed for a lot-line change. The norShern part of Parcel ~5 was given to · the nursing home to provide for its future expansion. As a result, the area of the nursing home s~te in- creased from 3.58 acres to about 10 acres. The lot area of the subject parcel decreased from 26.57 acres to about 20 acres. STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: There is no record of any attempt to develop this parcel in the Planning Board's files. PUBLIC POLICY: This parcel shares with Parcels #1 and 5, the same drawbacks and lack of compliance with the stated goals and intent of the HD district and the Master Plan as it pertains to preserving the hamlets. Using the criteria set forth by the Master Plan Update and subsequent recommendations, the HD zoning makes no sense unless this parcel were to be merged with the San Szmeon Nursing Home. However, it is under separate ownership at this time. The existence of the nursing home presents a dilemma. Southold is a retirement community as well as a resort co~unity. The average age of the population in Southold is 44 years, and the trend looks as if it will continue upward. There is in an insufficient supply of nursing facilities in Town, and this alone is an argument in favor for the build-out of the origi- nal proposal. RECOMMENDATION: The parcel's small size and close proxmmity to the intensely developed nursing home site will work to its disadvantage as a strictly residential lot, unless the 50 foot buffer between the parcel and the nursing home is preserved. If this buffer is maintained, the fact that the lot is 420 feet deep and is bordered on its east and south sides by parkland will work to its advantage as a residential lot for one residence. 19 =~ ' :, \~1 ......TOWN OF ~3UTHOLO ~ ,ne ./ RR R-80 FI-,IO '"' PARCEL ~ 8 - SCTM ~ 035-1-24 SITE DATA: Location: North side of State Route 25, 564 feet east of Sound Drive, Greenport Acreage: 62 acres Zoning History: Year Rezoned: 12.07.93 This property originally was zoned R-80 which is equivalent to two-acre residential density. 7he lower 42 acres of th~z parcel were ~ezoned H~et Density: and the northerly 20 acres on Long ms- land Sound were rezoned R-40 or one-acre residen- tial density. One of the stated reasons for this change of zone was to provide affordable ho'~£ing. Ownership History / Year Acquired / 'scell Jem Realty Co. 1979 $400,000 J. Rath 1977 TLme Structures Inc. 1963 $115,000 split from P. Sinuta NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS: This property is adjacent to Parcel #4 which was analyzed earlier. Detailed environmental information is available frc~; the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. The site contains prLme farm soils, but has not been used for agriculture for many years. It is covered with transitioual old field vegetation and young woods. The parcel's 1,441 feet of soundfront contain bluffs that range in height from 30 to 50 feet. The bkuff area is considered to be stable, but subject to erosion from human activity as well as northeasters. Behind the bluffs, the property slopes to the south, dropping to ~'~ feet above sea level at SR 25. There is about 57~ feet of road front- age. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: This parcel is bordered on its north by Long Island Sound; and on the east by more than 133 acres of most- ly undeveloped land which was studied earlier as Par- cel #4. Most of Parcel #4 is zoned HD, but the south- .20 ~estern corner of it is zoned Limited Business (LB) and it contains the historic residence known as Brecknock Hall. To the south lies Porky's Restau- rant and State Route 25. The area around Pgrky's Restaurant is zoned LB also. To the west, this parcel is bordered by residential homes fronting on Sound Drive, all of which are zoned R-40. STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: kPPROVALS ~ INFRASTRUCTUP~E: No applications for sumdivision or site plan have been made. PUBLIC POLICY: When this parcel is viewed in conjunction wiEh Parcel ~4, studied earlier, and the Ii5 zones (Porky's Res- taurant and Brecknock Hall), it becomes evident that the net effect of this zoning pattern is to create a very high density residential and business center lust outside the Village boundaries. This would appear to be contrary to the several of the goals of the Master Plan. First, the parcel is separated from the Village by a heavily travelled State road, and is no5 located with- in easy walking distance to the business center of Greenport Village, which is nearly a mile to the south. Second, the size of the HD parcel (42 acres), when considered with the 133+ acres of the adjoining HD- zoned property to the east (Parcel # 4) and the 16 acres of LB zoning abutting it, will work against attempts to strengthen and preserve the character and economic integrity of the Greenport Village hamlet and business center. Greenport's role as a transportation hub, deepwater port, tourist designation and provid- er of public water is inrportant to the Town as a whole; and this should be recognized by the Town in its public policies. Third, this parcel, together with Parcel #4 will have an impact on the volume of traffic at the Sound Drive, SR 25 and CR 48 intersection. The State has acknowl- edged this impact by requiring road and interqection modifications for development associated with Parcel ~4, and may well require additional modifications for this site. Fourth, the availability of public water or sewer to this site is not assured at this time. 21 Finally, the appropriateness of the R-40 designation must be addressed. The R-80 zoning designation that preceded this rezonlng was the base zoning in Southold Town since 1983 whet _he Town increased the minimum required lot area for its sole residential zone, "A", from one acre to two acre. In 1989, the Town reaf- firmed its 1983 decision by zoning the subject parcel R-80, which is equivalent to the two acre density. The recent rezoning to R-40 had the effect of placing twice the residential density on the most environmen- tally sensitive part of the property, which is con- trary to our policy of encouraging the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, and of promoting development patterns that are responsive to sensitive coastal features such as bluffs. The'sensitivity of this site's waterfront and bluffs can be judged by noting the New York Department of State's reco~nenda- tion that the adjoining parcel to the east (Parcel ~4) be preserved in its entirety because of its importance as wildlife habitat and as an example of the Eastern Bluffs ecological complex. Further, the trade-off of twenty acres of R-40 zoning on sensitive coastal properny for the provision of forty-two acres of afford~n, ie housing to the south has no basis or support in our public policies for land use planning. There no demonstrated need for new affordable single-family housing in a hamlet that already contains a disproportionate share of the Town's affordable units. In fact, the Town has not seen to it that opportunities for new affordable hous- ing are spread throughout the Town so that each hamlet is able to provide such opportunities for its resi- dents. RECOMMENDATION: Rezone the property to a lower density residential use that will pronect its senaitive coastal resources, and that will provide for a level of residential devel- opment that is rmDre compatible with the infrastructure and economic development of the Village hamlet. 22 ~,HD LB HD R-80 APPENDIX Goals and Policies for 1984 Master Plan Update (Underlining emphasis added.) GOAL: Overall Planning Provide a community of residential hamlets which are: comprised of a variety of housing opportunities and commercial, service, and cultural activities; serving to establish a sense of place; set in a open or r~ral atmosphere; supported by a diversified economic Dase (including agriculture, marine commercial and seasonal recreation activities) that maximizes the Town's natural assets, including its coastal location; and are striving for a compatibility between the natural environment and development. POLICY: Overall Planning Implement planning policies which provide for a number of housing types, promote agricultural preservation, encourage the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, protect groundwater, encourage water-dependent and water-enhanced uses of coastal lands, and support commercial and industrial activities in appropriate locations. GOALS: Housin~ / Residential Development Preserve the existinq housing stock and provide the opportunity for the development of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of people at various stages of the life cycles, various income and age levels and household compositions. POLICY: Housing / Residential Development Encourage housing development, of varying types and densities, in and around existing hamlets. GOALS: Environment Preserve and enhance the Town's natural envlroament. POLICIES: Environment 23 Restrict development in wetlands, tidal marshes, bluffs, dunes and beaches. Promote a development pattern that is responsive to sensitive areas exhibiting prime agricultural so~ls, poor drainage, high water table, high erosion hazard, flood hazard, sensitive coastal features, great scenic quality and woodlands. Promote development patterns that are at a scale that is commensurate with the available water supply. GOALS: Cultural Environment Prsserve and strenqthen the hamlets as cultural, residential and commercial centers of activity in the Town; as a means of creating viable uses for historic buildings and areas and encouraging a "sense of place." POLICY: Cultural Environment Plan for intensity and mix of development of hamlet centers that improve the viability, functioning and aesthetics of hamlet commercial centers without changing the scale of the centers. GOALS: Waterfront Maximize appropriate use of coastal areas in a manner that protects-sensitive coastal areas, maximizes access to the water and achieves economic benefit. POLICIES~ Waterfront Increase the number and quality of public beaches. Insure physical and/or visual access to scenic vistas and waterfront areas. GOALS: Transportation Insure adequate movement of people and goods within Southold, as well as into and out of Town, in a manner that maximizes safety and maintains the integrity of residential and agricultural areas. 24 GOALS: Co~nunity Facilities/Utilities Ensure the provision of an adequate range of community facilities, services and utilities to acco.~nodate existing and future Town needs in a convenient and cost effective manner. These Goals and Policies were drafted as a means of addressing the relevant planning issues. (Copies of the April and May 1983 memoranda from the Town's planning consultants which detail these issues follows.) 25 [ I I I I {. / l Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc. 555 I.Uh,[e Plains RoacL Tarry[own, NY 10591 914/63Z-9003 212/365-2666 Memorandum April 26, 1983 TO: Southold Planning Board FROM: RPPW, Inc. RE: PLANNI~;G ISSUES The Town Master Plan has to address various issues, many of which are interrelated and many of which require consideration of alternative responses. Based upon the preliminary analysis of the various factors affecting planning in Southold, the following are the issues to be addressed in the Plan: A. Overall Pattern of DeveloPment Protection of Town's Rural/Exurban Character reflected in a combination of hamlet centers, farmland, large expanses of undeveloped land accommodation of new development within this framework Suitability of Land for Development development or retention of farmland · proximity to/adequacy of community services · protection of environmental features - wetlands;' tidal marsh; dunes, beaches and bluffs; scenic vistas; waterways creeks and ponds; · physical constraints - high water table: steep slope; poor soil permeability; flood hazard areas; erosion hazard areas - siltation · drainage problems 3. AGriculture · economic viability; chan~ing structure; cost changing crops · availability of farm labor · impact on water quality and on water quantity · preservation of land for fai-ming or open space of L 26 - e Water SunDlv - Quantity and Quality protection of subsurface water from pollution emanating from development and agriculture; implications for development policy sufficiency of potable water to service future development, especially in Orient, East Marion and along coastline approach to supply of water - individual wells; small central systems; few larqer systems implications of importing water; desalinization of salt water Housing/Residential Develonment · distribution/density · lack of affordable housing for low, moderate and middle income segments of population · absence of small units - older and younger one and two person households · seasonal vs. year-round housing · conversion of seasonal to year-round Pomulation Mix · aging of population - decline of labor force; implications for volunteer services such as fire and rescue service; changing service needs · year-round/seasonal - implications for services Apmroved - Unbuilt Subdivisions · why unbuilt density; location; physical conditions · implications for water consumption; other services · ownership pattern - affect upon future planning/ zoning -~ Traffic and Transoortation · adequacy of existing major east-west roads to accommodate traffic; technical capacity - desired levels of traffic · safety at several key locations · private roads - emergency access implications for access to beaches · need for or appropriateness of improved south roads · need for and location of a Town airport · adequacy of service by buses and trains round/summer season/time of day · need to encourage expansion of expand markets in New England north- - year-- ferry service to 27 ~f f f I i i ! I l t L L L L I .B. Economy · seasonality of economy - need to expand and/or create year-round economy; increase jobs for young adults · stability of agriculture and fishing ~ need to protect resources (farmland, fish habitats) appropriateness of encouraging agriculture and fishing as elements of economy; mariculture · need for flexibility on part of farmers and farm workers - retraining · limited growth potential for commerce and industry including fishing and agriculture · expansion of seasonal/tourist economy 10. Historic and Cultural Resources · preservation as part of Town's quality; heritage · enhancement for economic purposes 11. Seasonal Development how much, where and what type (seasonal residences/transient tourist) - land consumption and potential damage to environment; importance to economy jobs and tax base; limited demand on many services 12. Hamlet Centers · preserve scale and character/concentration of housing and services · focus of Town's economy - commerce - limit strip commercial development · historic preservation program Community Facilities 13. Schools · potential consolidation - potential increase in shared services · extent to which existing physical plant can accommodate additional enrollment · school plant as resource for recreation/cultural and educational activities coordination of use and programming 14. Sewer · implications of expandin~ Greenport system limited capacity 28 · use of individual inground systems or small ~ central inground systems limitation on density; impact on subsurface water · new treatment systems cost; level of development necessary to support versus desired density of development 15. Water Supply · protection of quality of supply · continuation of individual wells versus central supply · treatment of individual and public/community systems wells; costs · import water or desalihization · establishment of Town supply and/or treatment district to serve all or part of Town · expansion of Greenport system 16. Public Safety · Fire - assurance that all areas of Town covered - need to improve accessibility to some areas; future availability of manpower; substandard private roads · Police adequacy of facilities for future development; seasonal expansion · Emercencv-Rescue - sufficient for emergencies; only one a~ulance service for general medical transportation; manpower 17. Recreation 18. · need to assure access to water for recreation including boat launch and mooring sites, beaches, and scenic vistas · need additional recreation areas and open space areas in scme parts of the Town · swimming pool; youth center(s) · access to school facilities assures availability of basic facilities to all areas of the-Town Landfill · life of present facility limited - expand or pursue alternative source of disposal · landfill on aquifer - threat to subsurface water · methane gas - use for energy or dissipate 2.9 I i I 1 ! I I I L L I_ I L L Coastal Issues 19. Access to Water · beaches swimming, bathing, walking, viewing scenic vistas · boat launching on north shore/launching and mooring on south shore for commercial and recreational fishermen · attractiveness for private residential/commercial development often precludes maintenance of.access · use for resort facilities 20. Quality of Coastal Waters · critical to fishing industry and recreational fishing · swimming/water sports · marine habitat · encouragement of mariculture development 21. Coastal Land Use Conflicts · availability of land for marine commercial uses a priority objective · need for additional boat slips - dredging · competition with water-enhanced uses such as restaurants, motels as 22. Protection of Sensitive Coastal Environment · tidal marshes · dunes, beaches, · scenic vistas · water quality bluffs 23. Salt Water Intrusion · need to protect ground water area development limit on coastal 24. Navigability of Waterways · siltation and dredging beds/spawning grounds disruption of shellfish The Master Plan will address these issues. The next step will be to establish a set of goals to serve as a mechanism to measure the response to the issues. The process for establishing a concensus on goals will be one of the initial steps in Phase II, the preparation of the Plan itself. 30 & Weiner, [nc, 555 ,.'lh~ie Plains Ro3d. Tarry[own. NY 10591 914/631 g~3 212/~65 2666 Raymond, Pine Memorandum June 20, 1983 TO: Southhold Planning Board FROM: RPPW, Inc. RE: PLANNING GOALS A clear statement of the Town's long range goals is an important element of the planning process in that it forms the basis for various long and short range objectives, policies, strategies, and programs. Such a statement will help to crystalize in the minds of residents, business people, and public and private decisionmakers the precise directions in which the Town should develop. Such a statement is useful in setting priorities as well. While the goals are general, if there is a consensus or general agreement on them and on their interpretation, they provide 'justification for more specific elements of the planning and development process. To achieve this consensus and a sense of priorities, a process for the initial statement needs to be carried out. This refining memorandum sets forth an initial statement of goals which can serve aa a basis for discussion. This initial statement is drawn from several sources including meetings of the Master Plan Workshop, discussions with various representatives of Town agencies, private business, institutions, and environmental and real estate groups. This initial statement does not necessarily reflect the order of priority. It may very well be that as discussions proceed, priorities will become evident and adjustments will be made. The main purpose of this memo is to stimulate thinking and discussion on this important topic as a basis for the Town Plan. 31 PROPOSED GOALS ~.~D POLICIES Overall Planninc Goal Provide a community of residential hamlets which are: comprised of a variety of housing opportunities and commer- cial, service, and cul5ural activities; serving to establish a sense of place; set in an open or rural atmosphere; supported by a diversified economic base (including agricul- ture, marine commercial and seasonal recreation activities) that maximizes the Town's natural assets, including its coastal location; and are striving for a compatibility between the natural environment and development. Policies Implement planning policies which provide for a number of housing types, promote agricultural preservation, encourage the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, protect groundwater, encourage water-depenCenu and water-enhanced uses of coastal lands, and support commercial and industrial activities in appropriate locations. Housino/R~sidential Develorrent Goals Preserve the existinq housing stock and provide the oppor- tunity for the development of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of people at various stages of the life cycle, various income and age levels and household composi- tions. Pol'~cies Encourage housing development, of varying types and den- sitias, in and around existing hamlets. ._ Using available assistance programs as well as land use, regulatory techniques and procedures to provide such assis- tance as may be needed to provide affordable housing, especially to ~,ounger and .oldcr segments of the community and to allow retired or moderate income homeowners to maintain their properties. Maintain the integrity of residential neiqhborhood~ by preventing through traffic movement ~nd by discouragin~ Uses tha~ are incompatible with a residennial environment. 32 l L L L L I L I L Acricult,~r~l Preservation Goals Preserve the Town's prime farmland and encourage its con- tinued use for agriculture. Policies Limit non-agricultural uses in designated prime agricultural areas through methods such as agricultural zoning and easements. Promote a Town agricultural preservation program, incor- porating purchase of development rights, transfer of devel- opment rights, public information training and financial assistance programs to enable farmers to diversify into more profitable crops. Environment Goals Preserve and enhance the Town's natural environment. Maintain and protect Southold's agricultural heritage and pastoral and open quality. Insure that there is adequate quantity of potable water to serve Southold's year-round and seasonal populations. Policies Restrict development in wetlands, tidal marshes, bluffs, dunes and beache~. Promote a development pattern that is responsive to sensi- tive areas exhibiting prime agricultural soils, poor drain- age, high water table, high erosion hazard, flocd hazard, sensitive coastal features, great scenic quality and wood- lands. Protect the Town's water supply from further coDtamination by encouraging the use of techniques that reduce pollution from fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides (agricultural and residential), requiring adequate watcr supply and septic system conditions for new development, and emplo~'ing minimal maintenance dredging of streams (to minimize salt water intrusion). Promote development patterns that are at a scale that is commensurate with the available water supply. 33 Maintain and improve sources of pollution techniques to reduce surface water quality by reducin? ~ and utilizing modern runoff control ~ stream siltation. Maintain finfishing and shellfishin~ habitats by reducing sources of pollution and by limiting dredging of streams and disturbance of wetlands. Cultural Environment Goals Preserve the historic, cultural, architectural and archae- ological resources of the Town. Preserve ~nd strengthen the hamlets as cultural, residential and commercial centers of activity in the Town; as a means of creating viable use~ for historic buildings and areas and encouraging a "sense of place." Policies Promote the inventorying of cultural resources and encourage the establishment of Town historic districts and preserva- tion of historic buildings and sites. Plan for intensity and mix of development of hamlet centers~ that improve the viability, functioning and aesthetics of hamlet commercial centers without changing the scale of the centers. Economic Development Goals Strengthen and diversify the Town's economic base as a means of stabilizing and expanding the tax base and year-round and seasonal employment opportunities. Policies Encourage diversification of agricultural crops and the marketing of Southold as a prime location for climate- sensitive fez-ms of agriculture. StJengthen the Town's important commercial fishing and agriculture industries. Promote vacation and seasonal uses with respect for the Town's year-round needs, environmental features and rural heritage. 34 I- f I i I ! i I l L l_ l I I the T~¢nrs existing commercial areas but do not encourage large scale expansion of current development. ~cour~qe t~"'.~ development of further~ public and private mariculture activities in the waters adjacent to the Town. Encourage tk~ development of land based support facilities for the ~wn's fishing industry. Provide opportunities to accommodate office and research development, liqht industry and industries related to other elements of the economy. Limit strip commercial areas and encourage the concentration of commercial uses in existing shoppinq areas. Waterfront Goals Maximize appropriate use of coastal areas in a manner that protects sensitive coastal aruas, maximiues access to the water and achieves economic benefit. Policies Promote water-dependent and water-related uses in waterfront areas which are not environmentally sensitive. Protect the quality of coastal waters. Increase the number and quality of public beaches. Insure physical and/or visual access to scenic vistas and -. waterfront areas~ Promote co~ercial and recreational fishing and boating opportunities where there are no conflicts with existing residential development or sensitive natural featupes. Promote maintenance of existing navigable wate~vays. Transportation Goals Insure adequate movement of people and goods within Southoid, as well as into and out of To~n, in a manner that maximizes safety and maintains the integrity of residential and agricultural areas. 35 Policies Encourage the use and/or development of public transpor'ta- tion. Encourage roadway and intersection improvements that will improve the flow of traffic and promote safety. Community Facilities/Utilities Goals Ensure the provision of an adc.quane range of community facilities, services and utilities to accommodate existin~r and future Town needs in a convenient and cost effective manner. Policies Improve, maintain and expand where appropriate to acconuno-- date present and future development of the water supply, sanitary sewer, storm drainage and solid waste disposal systems in order to support the desired level of developmert and to maintain and protect a healthful living environment, a viable economic base and the natural environment. Provide an open space and recreation system adequate in size%~ and location to serve the total (seasonal and year-round) population. Assure availability of and/or access to a full range of modern health services, including emergency services, for all citizens. Provide a full spectrum of accessible educational facilities 'and services to meet the needs of all segments of the community in the most efficient and effective manner. Promote the provision and availability of necessary social services, including appropriate neighborhood, senior citi- zen, and day care facilities. Provide a full range of public safuty services (police, fire, ambulance, rescue, etc.) necessary to create an environment of personal security and protection of property. 36 APPENDIX B Brief Synopsis of Changes Made to Specific ~oning Districts in the Southold Town Code 1957 - 1989 In 1957, there were only three zoning districts: "A" Residential and Agricultural, "B" Business and "C" Industrial. The "A" district permitted one-family dwellings and a number of other community facility-type uses, but not multiple dwellings. The "B" district, however, permitted two-family dwellings and multiple family dwellings, provided however that the lot area and other requirements of the "A" district were complied with. In 1958, the "M" Multiple Residence District was added to the Zoning Code. This district permitted all the uses allowed in the "A" district, plus multiple dwellings designed for and occupied by not more than four families. Hotels, motels, boarding and tourist houses and cottages were also permitted. The minimum lot area required in this district was 12,500 square feet. It is interesting to note that in 1958, the "B" district Fermi£ted multiple family dwellings as regulated by specific provisions of the "A" district. In fact, the "B" district allowed densities up to twenty families on one acre of land. By contrast, the "M" district only permitted a density of four families per 12,500 square feet or about fourteen units to the acre. In 1966, the Zoning Code was amended to provide two multiple residential districts: "M" and "M-i". The "M" Multiple Residence district allowed all the uses permitted in the "A" district plus dwellings designed for and occupied by not more than four families, boarding and tourist houses, motels and hotels, tourist cottages and camps, and non-commercial marinas. The "M-i" district was similar except that it did not allow hotels, motels, tourist cottages or camps, and non-co~ercial marinas. The minimum required lot area remained at 12,500 square feet per lot. The 1966 Code also had three business districts, of which only the "B-2" district is of interest to us here. That district allowed all the uses allowed in the "A", "M", and "M-i" districts along with multiple dwellings and bonafide commercial uses. The maximum allowable density was still twenty units to the acre. And, the allowable density in both multiple residence districts still limited to the equivalent of fourteen to the acre. 37 In 1971 the entire Zoning Code was revamped. The "M" District was renamed the "M" Light Multiple Residence District: and, the "M-i" Multiple Residence district was renamed the "M-i" General Multiple Residence District. In the "M" Light district, all "A" uses were permitted by right, along with multiple dwellings for up to four families and boarding and tourist houses. The "M-l" General district permitted all the uses allowed in "M" Light. But other uses that previously were permitted as of right (such as non-co~nercial marinas, multiple dwellings, motels and hotels and tourist camps) now required a Special Exception. In 1971, the required minL~lm lot areas increased, dramatically, to 40,000 square feet for "A" and "M" Light districts; and 80,000 square feet for "M-i" General districts. Also in 1971, the three business districts were consolidated back to two districts. One parcel under review in this study was changed from "B-2" to "B" Light Business. Ail uses that were permitted in the "M" and "M-i" districts were also permitted in the "B" Light district, exactly as provided for in the multiple residence districts. In keeping with other increases, the minirmnn lot area in the "B" Light district was increased to 20,000 square feet. In 1989, major changes were made to the Zoning Code, which is the one we use today. In this Code, both multiple residence districts were eliminated, and a new district, the Hamlet Density HD District, was created. The business districts were changed also. Today, the B General arid HB Hamlet Business districts closely parallel the business districts of the previous code, meaning that multiple dwellings are allowed by Special Exception within these zones. 38 Draft Notes from the Town Board Work Session on Hamlet Density review, 2/25/94 Boardmembers made a number of general comments about the review, including these: There is a substantial amount of inappropriately zoned property in the Town and it is now timely to deal with it. Of particular concern is the tendency towards suburban sprawl -- the natural form that development is likely to take in the absence of well thought-out planning, The Master Plan and the Stewardship Task Force both emphasize hamlet-center development as appropriate to Towns like Southold. Promoting most growth in and around the hamlet centers strengthens the business prospects of our "downtown" centers while keeping open space and farmland undeveloped. Greenport is a special planning case because the Incorporat~..d Village has its own planning and zoning framework, it has the largest developed business center in the Town, and because there is a preponderance of unbuilt HD parcels on the edge of the Incorporated Village. HD parcels, if developed to maximum density, require public water and public sewers. The Greenport Water Company has been called on to supply public water to some of the HD parcels but the utility has not been able to extend its system as requested in many cases. Property owners have options other than Greenport water, however, and at some future point SCWA water is a distinct possibility in the area. At present, all Greenport water comes from wells within the Town but outside the Incorporated Village. The ava/lability of public water and sewers may be a secondary concern but should not be a primary consideration in this review. It has been about ten years since RPPW began developing its master plan recommendations; it is therefore appropriate to consider now possible modifications to the Master Plan and refinements in its implementation. The HD review is only one of many possible changes that may be warrahted in our zoning map. The Town Board will want to look into the appropriateness of other zones and policies, and will want to consider some positive incentives, particularly in the hamlet center areas, not simply additional restrictions. There are arguments for proceeding ahead only when the Board has a package of changes that addresses all or many of these needs, but it is probably not feasible to attempt to hold up all changes until we have agreement to enact them all at one time. The proposed review raises questions of the property rights of the owners. It is not clear that all owners would be disadvantaged by an upzoning. In certain cases, in particular those in which owners have actually begun constructing pursuant to a building permit, they may have vested rights. 2 The "public good" is the ultimate criterion for Boardmembers to use in considering possible zone changes, i.e., posed as a question, is the proposed action (or inaction) likely to benefit the community as a whole? Boardmembers made these snecific conunents regarding the eight parcels reviewed: Parcels 1, 5 and 7 are relatively close together, have received almost no development activity (except for part of parcel 7), are almost completely wooded, and are farthest from the Greenport line. The arguments for rezoning may be strongest for these three. Parcel 2 has been used in the past for a boarding house. It has some wetlands at one end of the property and is surrounded on three sides by the Incorporated Village's park zone. Questions of hardship on the owners were raised in the event of a rezoning. An RR designation may be warranted for this parcel. Parcel 3 is close enough to the Village center that it could remain HD. Alternatively, it could be rezoned to match neighboring parcels (LIO, General Business). Parcels 4 and 8 are by far the most important of those under review because, among others, of their size (almost 500 units planned), location relative to the Village center, potential for traffic generation near a strategic road crossing, and frontage on the Sound. Because they have much in common and are adjacent, most of the arguments for one apply to the other. There is strong rationale for rezoning both parcels but there is also concern about possible vested rights of the owners. The I-ID designation of parcel 6 in Cutchogue was generally acknowledged to be appropriate in view of its proximity to Cutchogue village. The Supervisor said he would like to put this matter on as a for-discussion item at the next Town Board meeting (Mar 8) and would reserve an hour for the discussion. T. Wickham 2 Mar 94 Proposed Outline of the Review 1. Introduction and Background Purpose of HD Zone HD uses by right and by spec exception Current extent of HD parcels Newly-created HD parcels through zone change How HD zones were treated in Master Plan Special impact of public water, sewers on HD zones, and vv. 2. Need for the Review Concern about Greenport Disproportionate concentration of density Disproportionate concentration of affordable housing Burden of providing public water, sewers Few HD parcels actually built out Question of consistency of HD zones with: Master Plan goals and objectives US/UK Stewardship Report Stewardship Task Force recommendations (draft) Other . . 3. Town Board Resolution of Jan. 4 Test of resolution Board's intent Asked staff to' carry out the review 4. Criteria of the review Public Policy Physical limitations Surrounding land uses Status of Infrastructure Current state of development Other . . Panel-by-Parcel Review Conclusions and Recommendations. I i i 1 I i I_ I 1 Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc. 555 While Plains Road. Tarrytown, r'JY 1059~ 9]a/63]-go03 212/365-2666 s.mcmndurn June 20, 1983 TO: Southhold Planning Board FROM: RPPW, Inc. RE: PLANNING GOA/~S A clear statement of the Town's long range goals is an important element of the planning process in that it forms the basis for various long and short range objectives, policies, strategies, and programs. Such a statement will help to crystalize in the minds of residents, business people, and public and private decisionmakers the precise directions in which the Town should develop. Such a statement is useful in setting priorities as well. While the goals are general, if there is a consensus or general agreement on them and on their interpretation, they provide 'justification for more specific elements of the planning and development process. To achieve this consensus and a sense of priorities, a process for refining the initial statement needs to be carried out. This memorandum sets forth an initial statement of goals which can serve as a basis for discussion. - This initial statement is drawn from several sources including meetings of the Master Plan Workshop, discussions with various representatives of Town agencies, private business, institutions, and environmental and real estate groups. This initial statement does not necessarily reflect the order of priority. It may very well be that as discussions proceed, priorities will become evident and adjustments will be made. The main purpose of this memo is to stimulate thinking and discussion on this important topic as a basis for the Town Plan. l L L L L I L I L A~ricultural Preservation Goals Preserve the Town's prime farmland and encourage its con- tinued use for.agriculture. Policies Limit non-agricultural uses in designated prime agricultural areas through methods such as agricultural zoning and easements. Promote a Town agricultural preservation program, incor- porating purchase of development rights, transfer of devel- opment rights, public information training and financial assistance programs to enable farmers to diversify into more profitable crops. Environment Goals Preserve and enhance the Town's natural environment. Maintain and protect Southold's agricultural heritage and pastoral and open quality. Insure that there is adequate quantity of potable water to serve Southold's year-round and seasonal populations. Policies Restrict development in wetlands, tidal marshes, bluffs, ,. dunes and beaches. Promote a development pattern that is responsive to sensi- tive areas exhibiting prime agricultural soils, poor drain- age, high water table, high erosion hazard, flood hazard, sensitive coastal features, great scenic quality and wood- lands. Protect the Town's water supply from further contamination by encouraging the use of techniques that reduce pollution from fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides (agricultural and residential), requiring adequate water supply and septic system conditions for new development, and employing minimal maintenance dredging of streams (to minimize salt water intrusion). Promote development patterns that are at a scale that is commensurate with the available water supply. 3 l l_ l. Improve the Town's existing commercial areas but do not encourage large scale expansion of current development. Encourage the development of further public and private mariculture activities in the waters adjacent to tha Town. Encourage the development of land based support facilities for the Town's fishing industry. Provide opportunities to accommodate office and research development, light industry and industries related to other elements of the economy. Limit strip commercial areas and encourage the concentration of commercial uses in existing shopping areas. Waterfront Goals Maximize appropriate use of coastal areas in a manner that protects sensitive coastal areas, maximizes access to the water and achieves economic benefit. Policies Promote water-dependent and water-related uses in waterfront areas which are not environmentally sensitive. Protect the quality of coastal waters. Increase the nunuber and quality of public beaches. Insure physical and/or visual access to scenic vistas and · . waterfront areas~ Promote commercial and recreational fishing and boating opportunities where there are no conflicts with existing residential development or sensitive natural features. Promote maintenance of existing navigable wate~qays. Transportation Goals Insure adequate movement of people and goods within Southold, as well as into and out of To%ch, in a manner that maximizes safety and maintains the integrity of residentia~ and agricultural areas. 5 I. l t l Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc. 555 White Plains RoaO Tarrwown NY 105 April 26, 1983 TO: Southold Planning Board FROM: RPPW, Inc. RE: PLANNING ISSUES The Town Master Plan has to address various issues, many of which are interrelated and many of which require consideration of alternative responses. Based upon the preliminary analysis of the various factor~ affecting planning in Southold, the following are the issues to be addressed in the Plan: A. Overall Pattern of Development Protection of Town's Rural/Exurban Character reflected in a combination of hamlet centers, farmland, large expanses of undeveloped land accommodation of new development,.within this framework Suitability of Land for Development . development or retention of farmland · proximity to/adequacy of community services protection of environmental features - wetlands;' tidal marsh; dunes, beaches and bluffs; scenic vistas; waterways creeks and ponds; · physical constraints - high water table; steep slope; poor soil permeability; flood hazard areas; erosion hazard areas - siltation · drainage problems 3. AGriculture · economic viability; chan~ing structure; cost changing crops · availability of farm labor · impact on water quality and on water quantity · preservation of land for farming ol open space of L _~1- i- i- ! i ! ! I !_ i_ L L L L I L L .B. 9, Economv · seasonality of economy need to expand and/or create year-round economy; increase jobs for young adults · stability of agriculture and fishinq - need to protect resources (farmland, fish habitats) appropriateness of encouraging agriculture and fishing as elements of economy; mariculture · need for flexibility on part of farmers and farm workers - retraining · limited growth potential for commerce and industry including ~ishing and agriculture · expansion of seasonal/tourist economy 10. Historic and Cultural Resources · preservation as part of Town's quality; heritage · enhancement for economic purposes 11. Seasonal Develonment how much, where and what type (seasonal residences/transient tourist) land consumption and potential damage to environment; importance to economy - jobs and tax base; limited demand on many services 12. Hamlet Centers · preserve scale and character/concentration of housing and services ~ focus of Town's economy - commerce - limit strip commercial development · historic preservation program Community/ Facilities 13. Schools · potential consolidation potential increase in shared services · extent to which existing physical plant can accom~odate additional enrollment · school plant as resource for recreation/cultural and educational activities coordination of use and programming 14. Sewer · implications of expandin~ Greenport system limited capacity 3 ! I I ! Coastal Issues 19. Access to Water · beaches - swimming, bathing, walking, viewing scenic vistas · boat launching on north shore/launching and mooring on south shore for commercial and recreational fishermen · attractiveness for private residential/commercial development often precludes maintenance of access · use for resort facilities 20. Quality of Coastal Waters · critical to fishing industry and recreational fishing · swimming/water sports · marine habitat · encouragement of mariculture development 21. Coastal Land Use Conflicts · availability of land for marine commercial uses a priority objective · need for additional boat slips -dredqinq · competition with water-enhanced uses such as restaurants, motels as 22° Protection of Sensitive Coastal Environment · tidal marshes · dunes, beaches, · scenic vistas · water quality bluffs 23. Salt Water Intrusion · need to protect ground water area development limit qn coastal 24. Navigability of Waterways · siltation and dredging disruption of she!!~ish beds/spawning grounds L The Master Plan will address these issues. The next step will be to establish a set of Goals to serve as a mechanism to measure the response to the issues. The process for establishing a concensus on goals will be one of the initial steps in Phase II, the preparation of the Plan itself. 5 L 80U'rdOLD T0-~N BOA]U) November 29, ].967 PRE S E NTt COUNCILMAN HO~AitD VALE~T~ COt~C~r~4AN LO~JXS DF~AIqSBT ~JST~E H~ItY CI2t~K TO~N &TTOP~Y P. OB~RT ~.~. TAXI. It '~.~t to Sect~ 265 of ~e ~n La~ ~d A~t~c~e ~ of ~e BulldOg Z~e Or~n~ce of ~e T~n of S~thold, Suffo~ C~nty. ~ York. ~ic heaz~ng, ~ill ~ held by ~e S~old ~ee, (~eludmg ~e Bulling Zone ~ps) of ~e ~n of S~old. Suffo~ C~ty. b Y~k. A~l ~nt ~rU~n zt~ pzo~r~y situated, ly~9 ~d ~ ~onlc. ~ ~ ~n of S~old. C~nty of Suf[olk. ind S~ o~ N~ York, ~d ~ze ~rtlcull~l~ ~d ~d ~gcz~d as ~o11~8~ BegXn~ et ~e ~Xnt ~ ~e .~ezly l~e of MX~e R~d, mm wZ~d, mt ~o nor~oast~ly corner of land o~ ~e ~ty of f~st ~t, said ~ o~ ~ln9 m ~9 ~ut 1400 ~t ~lnt o~ ~g~ln~ runnin~ ml~ l~d of Chiles H~d mud land of Seffo~ Co~ty, S. 23' 53' 30" E.- 437.10 ~ ~ence along land of the party o£ the ftrat pert, two c~raea as follo~am (1) S. 58' 30f 30' ~.- 100.29 feetl thence (2) u. 23 53' 30" 439.53 faet to said iouthtrly line of Mlddle R~ud (u wl~ened) thence northeasterly along said a~therl¥ l~ne ~ a ~e ~o ~e l~ft havl~ a ~adiu, of 5789.58 f~, a ~l~ o~ 100.0 ~ ~o ~e ~t of ~n9. C~n9 1. O0 acre. S~ISOR ALB~RTSO~t Thoro ms an &f£~dav~t o£ pu~l~cat~on · he ~lle, ~dlca~1n~ ~ltcatl~ ~as actually ~ of ~ls notre. "R~rt ~ot ~ou~old ~n Bo~d, 16 Sou~ S~roe~, ~reon~, H~ York, ~E 5, 1~7. ~e s~old T~n Pl~n~ B~d at a re~l~ mt~ held ~n ~e mt~z o~ ~e ~t~ of Hel~t ~8f o~ ~r~ Road ~z~n~rt, e~ York, relative to a ~ge of zoH fr~ "A" C~nty of Suf~o~ ~d S~te o~ Hew York, ~d ~e ~rt~culazly agar} '-~ waa R~O~ ~at ~e ~o~d W~n Piing ~o~d ~mm not fz~ 'A" Re~nt~l and Agzi~ltu~al D~txl~o 'B" Business Die.itt, ~ ~e ~ ~m~d pro~zty: ~e Placing B~rd ~ ~t ~llllng to zec~d a but~e~. ~icri~d in ~e ~tX~ion. It il ~e Pl~Xng Bond's feeling C~n=y R~d % 27 should ~ m~ta~ed ~ a hLgh-a~d ~tor~l w~out ~e ~te v~c~ty o~ ~ec~c ~ne, ~c~tc. ~ a Mtter of hct, ~. c~arke, who ~ves ~ ~e no~ a~ of Cowry n~d % 27, ~ut where ~i, ~o~rty la l~at~, p~aen~d a r~emt for a -4- a~tmn~n~ queat~, ~ a a~ ~ua~eae zone ~ ea~ahe~ area ad~a~n~ ~o ~s w~ ~o or ~ SU~VI~ ~~t At ~lf t~ %m ~e ~y~e ~eaent ~ho w~os ~o s~ An fair o~ ~e relief a~gh~ ~n ~lf at~e~ fez ~e a~li~nt and ~ two ~ c~. ~ ah~ld ~ ~ie one, ~a~ ~eM ~ vran~. X ~ ~a~ aXX of ~u are a~e ~a~ ~e situation ~a~ ~eaon~l~ ~im~ on ~e eou~ al~ o~ r~ci ~ one ~aC we ~o~a~e aa a non-~n~o~nv uae, and ~l~nt, or ~ac~nt~unce la ~q b~ught a~ut by r~s~ of ~e w~n~ o~ ~e ~d. ~e zeal~e ~at ~e ~ ~aica~ly a zonAng sl~ ~at c~ld ~ grated ~or ~e felling reasoner ~e ~ of bueLn~e ~at h~ ~ conducted ~ere ~a ~n no ~n~cLve ~o ~e c~s ~t ~e Pl~n~ B~d As a~pp~ o~f ~e F~d and cause a traffic prell. ~e c~c~on · e gong ~ ~a~uct a e~ ~ ~e eaa~ o~ ~e pr~fem ~at ~e a~g ~ be ~m~ed. od ~re ~eaeutly ~iats ~ ~e east ~e o~ra~l~ or ~. a~d whl~ hal ~d f~ ~y ~Em. -5- ~e Count]' la ordering h~m to remove. If :you have any ~ther questions would be glad to ~ to and~lz them. Xn conei4ering all ~he people at ,ull. There la no ~J~ion ~o u~ kn~e~e fr~ ~ of neA.~h~ra ~n ~e area. so~v~$on ~Ts~ ~ ~u ~. Co~n. ~o ~ere an~e e~ae preeen~ ,.~ho w~ahes ~o ~ heard ~ fav~ or ~, ~t~t~ (~ere w~ no zes~e.) s~n ~~. ~s ~ere an~e preeen~ who ~es to ~ heard ~ op~eA~i~ to ~e relie~ a~t ~ ~Xs ~on~ (~ere ~,ae no zee~nae.) or ~he (~ere ~as no ~e~ae. ) 8~XS~ ~RM. we wlX~ opm ~e n~t hearing at t~, and ~Ao la ~ pFO~E~ Of ~n "2. By ~ang~g fr~ "A" RomX~nt~ and Agrl~tur~ to ~S" Ous~neom Dlntr~ct ~e foll~ ~scr~d "A~ ~at cer~Ln r~ ~o~rty, situa~d, lY~9 and Groon~rt, ~n ~e ~n of $ou~old, C~nty of Suffolk, nd ne~ York, ~d more ~rt~ly ~n~d and ~ncr~d ~ ~g at a ~t ~ ~e s~ly a~ of X~e R~d (C.R, 27), (~or~ R~d), ~he~ ~e sm Xi ~ter/~d by ~e wem~rXy -6- ~e, ~d ~=~ sald ~lnt of be9fnn~G gunn~q ~ance alonq saAd lend m~th 4 ~1' 10" ~aat, 1106.60 f~t; runnY9 ~en~e still along i&Ad, land, sovth 64 53' 30" walt, 474.24 feet; running thence still alon9 s&ld land north 4 06' 10" welt 830.50 feet to the southerly aide of se~d M~ddle Reed; furman9 thence along the southerly side of saXd Middle Road, north 55 01' 10" east, 554. 24 feet to the ~oint of beginn Lng. "Any pezion desiring to be heard on any of the ~opesed Bo~d, Albez~ ~-~. R~=~nd, T~n clerk. ~bl~cltLon was ~ ~ of ~XB legal not,ce. · w~ll n~ read the re~n~t~on of ~e P~a~g Bomrd. ~Re~rt ~o~ &~old ~n B~rd, 16 S~th Street, Green~rt, New York, ~t~ez 5, M~7. "~tl~n: ~ll ~s ~o ~ertXfy ~at ~e felling action w~s t~en by ~e S~old T~n Plmnn~ng B~d mt a ~gul~ ~lng of ~e Sou~old ~.:n Plm~g Bo~d hekd on ~t~z 3, 1967. "In ~e ~ter of ~e ~tition o~ J~n ~Lez, NOZ~ R~d, G~en~rt, N~ York, relative to a ~ge of zone fr~ "A" Remi~nt~l ~ Agzicul~ur~l Dl~ric~ ~o "B" Business D~s~rict on cer~ real pro~erty eLtu&ted at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, County o£ Suffolk, end Irate O£ New York, and more particularly bounded and desolated al follows, (legal deecr~pt~o~ was notread again, ) "Xt wen it~SOLVBD that the Son,hold To~n Pl~nnAng Board does not £lworably racmlnd to the Southold Town Booxd the change of lone -7- fro~ "A" Reeidential and Agricultural D~strlct to "B" Dls~.rict on the ak.3ve (~escr~bed "~e Planing B~rd is unw~ll~g to fecund ~is ~caume ~e application is for ~e ~rong ~oning for ~e t~ of bul~ness ~nten~d. ~Li ~ange ~ould c~s~tute s ~t zoning, and ~e P1annl~ag B~rd feels ~e p~rcel ~ question Is ~ considered un~r ~ls application. "Res~ct~lly s~tted, /s/ John ~'~, Chaiz~n, T~ Planning Bo~d." S~E~SO~ ALB~TS~ ~s ~ere an~ne ~s~ ~,ho ~shes to be ~e~d ~n favor of ~e relief 8ought In ~8 ST~EY C~'~, ESQ.~ Su~sor. ~d ~ntl~n of my n~ Is S~nley Co~n and I ~ ~e attorney for of the Plann~ B~d. Ail In ~e I~ eentence . ~ey call e~t zoning on one hand, and s~te ~e ~rcel Is t~ l~ge foz ty~ of use lnten~d on ~e o~er h~d. ~at l~ l~sel~ ~ not a valid reason. ~ey also ~e ~e obse~a~ion ~at ~ls wrong ty~e of zoning for ~he ~ur~oze intended. I ~on't understand the significance of that statement. So far aa a ch~ge of zone as thlz Board Is concerned it hu to be aes~d t~a~ ~e anything t/~at could ~ ~L~altted o~ ~e "B" ~y~ z~g. h~ve ~en refer~ng to s~ ob~e~at~on ~ ~n the appll=atl~. woul.] l~ke to urge u~n ~u ~a= ~ere ~s ~ery valid reason why pro~rty Is ~que of ~11 ~e pro~rty In ~e To~n of southold. p~op~r~.y :l.s ao~ed k3~c,,,, se ~.~ was a~l~ld by ~a Vlllmg~ and ~y X~"# used for i wa~r shed nd ~nu~rt. ~os~X7 ~at cX~stuce ~tseXf ~on't reason fo~ ~e ~n to zone ~s pro~rt~. ~ac~ and one ~at ~u sbou~d ~3 ~tcres, w~ch ~as ~n used aa a sM~ ~ o~ ~p~e teen,nee ~or s~ ~X,~ ~d ~e ~A~onoE ~an p~ane for ~ton o~ ~at use. wht~ la ~e reas~ ~e n~ ~e ap~X~ed ~or Xs t~ ~aa~Xc, and ~,e have app~Xe4 ~oz "B~ BOS~OIS. You ~nnX~r on ~ur ~n ~t~ al~ ~o p~aent ~.,ner wou~d ~e to ha~, ~ut ~t ,,ould ~ an eecept~le a~ternat~ve ~o ~e "A*' zone ~het and secured n~a~uFes ~a~ h~ ~n r~k.. ~ere ~s no an4 be~n9 counted for. ~ls hazd '.~a7 and ~u ~.~ ~ders~n~ {~. ~Xer presented ~e ~ ~t{~Xon to the Dosed. ) ~n as ~E~ o~ ~e ~ecoEd. Tha £ollo~nq 4s t~a petXtion aubmXtted by Mr. Geiar. "John R. Go:Let, No~:h Road, G~oon~ozt, 'Charlau M. ~dmn, MOOEII Lane H. Gpt. 24 H~. A. ~3, c~mn M~. 24, ~oae~ ~. Oatem, ~r., ~range Road. $ou~old, ~. 24, ~a~Xeen a. ~te., ~range Rd., ~u~old, 11/24/67 Cha~. ~gh~t~, Nor~ Rd. ,s~old 11~4/67 Fred ~. Hullo, ~z., 514 Ba~2oy Ave., Gpt. Fred ~. Hulme, SE., R~o 2~, Gr~rt, N.Y. ~od P. HuLmo, ~ street, ~roen~t E~aEd M. S~ed, ~ Rd., Sou~old Austin C. B~t, 238 Hor~ Rd. ,~rJon~rt, N.Y. Angola J. ~. VBn ~Co~, Ba~ R~d, Sou~old, RetOrt F. ~&~n, VAl~age ~at~, A~rt hrt~a. 43 7~ Strut, ~r~aret A. KoE~, Sou~o~d Aloc ~r~k~, S~old, ~n&el G. Co~lin. Gz~n~rt, L. I. Fr~m h. ~r~, Green~rt, h. Z. Cor~tt T. ~es,~r., 57 S~nd Rd., Gr~, H. Y. A. Calv~ Potato,, 432 Firo~ st., ~ry M. ~e~l, 525 F~zo~ St., Ore~rt, ~a~t:or C. Jel~r, 253 5~ A~., Betty C~lAn, 528 St~lXn~ Place, opt. Vi~ ~E, 18 MX~m~n Rd., G~. ~'~Xll. Xn J~n c~n. 139 Ster~V A~., ~r~n~rt ~orge A. S~, 146 6~ H~.f ~n~rt, N.Y. fl~s~ s. ~lsoy, Morth Rd., oroon~rc. N.Y. ~orge H~ard, 176 Cen~a~ A~.f ~rt. N.Y. Arlene F. H~rd. L76 Cen~a~ Ave.. ~F~e Ar~.~ bi,g, Hor~ R~d, Ro~rtlna Braun, 6~ St., ~XI1A~ H. Braun, 6~ -~0~ ~iy are ~n ~ivo~ ~. S~V~8~ ~TS~ ~eee n~ee ~e ~o of ~p~e ~ ~d~a~ area ? ~. ~a~ Actually ~ ahou~d h~e ~ked ~ ~t. ~. GB~R~ I ~ou~ht ~a~ ~v ~ou~d. ~e ~y one Z ~'t get a~r for SUP~VX8~ ~~, ~ ~e~ ~ne else preeen~ who ~ s~ ~ favor of ~ ~t~on~ ~S~ ~SEY~ ~ X c~. ~ have ~o p~ecel of pro~z~ ~e ~rth R~d ~d X have ~ ~J~i~ ~o ~. ~ler ~tin9 ~n ~ of o~retX~ he pAa~ ~o ~t ~ere. J~ ~S, X w~ld l~e to o~ ~ ~avor of ~is ~t~t~on. ~e ver~ g~d reason, as Zar ~ ~ ~ c~cernod ~ ~ou~d ~e to see ~ pro~rty used ~n ~o ~r ~n .h~ton~ to uso l~, ra~er than s~ 20 or 25 oMI~ h~s put ~ ~n ~e. I ~ ~a ~ould ~ ~h to ~e ~nefit of ~e SU~XS~ ~nTS~z ~s ~ere anise present ~ho ~mheo to (~e wal no resents.) SVp~Xs~ ~TS~ ~s ~ore nyse preaen~ who wishes to ~ heard one ~ay or ~e o~er~ (~e~ ~aa no res~se. ) -11- "Ail ~mt cer~Xn real pro~rty situated, ly~, and ~lng at Gr~n~rt. ~ ~e T~n of Sou~old. County of Suffo~ a~d of ~ York. and ~re ~rt~cul~ly bo~d and ~scr~ed as "~g~nn~ng at a m~nt on ~e nor~e=ly 1~ of No=~ runn~g al~g said land of ~e Village o~ Green~rt. ~r~ ~u~m~ ~1) nor~ 33 47' 30' we~t, 373.~ ~t to m ~nt~ ~m~ce (2) n~ 4 23' 20' seat, 154.46 feet to a ~ntl ~ence (3) 5 46' ~0~ east, 114.80 f~ ~o a ~n~; ~e~e al~g l~d of H.J.S. ~d and ~elo~nt Cozp., ~zee c~zle~ (1) ~ 85 12' 50" east, 92.12 feet; ~ence ~ou~ 18' 51' 20" east, 356.15 feet~ ~ence (3) sou~ 37 59' 20" eut, 167.82 E~t ~ a on sa~d n~er~y line o~ No~ R~d~ th~ce al~g ~d l~ne, ~o c~.es~ (1) s~th 51 17' 40" west. 157.10 feet~ ~e (2) ,ou~ ~2 37' 20" ~eat, 5 ~t to ~e ~$nt oz pla~ ot ~n~g. C~ta~g 2.03 "Any ~m~ ~sXz~9 ~o ~ h~rd on any of ~m ~o~ed mmnts mh~ld ~ mt ~e t~ ~nd place ~ AX~zt ~. R~h~d, ~n Clmzk" · U~XS~ ~T-m~TS~: ~m~e ia mn mffl~v~t ~n ~m f~lm ~ting p~l~ca~Lon ~ ~ of ~l ~. X ~11 n~ read ~e ~ec~n~tl~ et ~e ~l~n~ ~d ~ camm. -12- "Relx~t to~ Southold Town Board, 16 South Street, Greenl~rt, New York, October 5, ~7 "~ls X. ~o a~lse ~ou ~at ~he foXX~X~ ac~lon ~e Sou~oXd ?~n PX~nlngBoa~d a~ a ~uX~ m~9 heXd on Oc~ 3, ~re~zt, New York. ~elatlve to I ch~9~ o~ ~nd Agrl~tur~l DistrAct to "B' lusln~ss D~trict ~scrt~d u toll~s~ (l~al ~scrlptlon ~u not read igatn. ) "It ~as ~SOLV~ ~at ~e aou~old T~n Pl~n~9 B~d not favo=~ly fecund to ~ s~o~d T~n Bo~d ~e ~n~ fz~ "A" Resi~nt~l and Aqz1~ltu~al District to "B" "~e Pl~n~g B~rd ts of ~e op~nl~ ~t ~d ~ to est~ltih a bua~es8 zone adjoinS9 ~e pro~rty of the Vlllaqe o~ ar~n~, ~d ~e rest~ntlally z~e pro~rty. ~la. ~ould be ~t zon~9. "~e Pla~ln9 Bo~d ales ~lnts ~t ~t ~o C~nty R~d pro~ly ~ s~ject to ~l~n~9 at s~ future ~te ~ "les~ct~lly s~tted, /s/ John ~tc~m, Cha~, 8ou~old ~o~n Plnn~ Board. who ~lshea to ~ he~d ~ f~or of ~e rollof 8~t ~titlon ~ Telsey of fr~ "A" Residential on certain -13- ~a~f. He ~8 ca~e and a~y a~ney ~d he can ~ a ~e d~oap~al of a zon~n~ applAcat~. ~e ~ng .~l~'t ~re ~an SO f~t and ~la As 500 ~ee~ ~ep . ~a~ lo har~y a val2d ~eason. ~e7 ~e ~e a~k~nk wl~ ~lng ~M real · eao~. Xf ~o ~ ~n ~e mi~e o~ a cur~nt resl~ntAal aru, I ~oul~'k ~ here In aup~t o~ ~e applica~ion. ~at la no~ ~e case. ~ls pzo~rty ~s ~dia~el~ ~d ~y pro~y ~ned by Village of Green~zt. ~e pro~rty 18 ~ a 1~ class i~age ~tlet for ~e V~:Llmge of Groen~rt. ~m Village his used ~terial here for ~e building of ra~. ~e ~ ~l uled as ~ ~l~c ~elng ~a~. But it is tersely not a resl~nt~al pl~e of pzo~r~y ~d certainly f~ ~e ~o~le future It ~ w~'t ~re ~an ~at, ~ls pro~rty il ~octly mcr~$ ~e strut fr~ Quoin Lane~ which lea~ ~n ~o ~e o~ the f~ l~r c~ ~n the T~n. ~d all of ~u roc~e ~at ~e~ ~o p~bl~ uoe. Pro~rt~ thst ~o o~-half m~le fr~ ~s l~r c~ ~ld ~re valu~le. ~-e, .aX the ~d ~ ~e ~ese fac~ into T~e ln~o c~lA~zation to~ we in plenn~g intelligently for T~n. we Just c~'C OaF stop to ~ery application for ~n-aon~g ~uee ~ere ia es ~ltt~e pro~rty zoned ~s~Ho. If ~e are eons,, co ~z off fr~ reai~nt~l z~ to ,~ng else. ~re xm an opportunity to do that in an area whats It won't do any harm. No harm on ~Jaa health, safety, wolf&re, or ~orals of the To~n. ~h~ Xs the re--on we have zontn~ in the favorable consideration. S UP~RVX$OR ~[.nERT~O~ m AqaLn wa ask Mour that property nG~ or foEm~Ely o£ ~he Vlllaqa o£ GraenLmort~' aes~n~ z~e. ~ we ,ere to cut up ~ane lo~ ~d ~ld ~s Xm not ~mXzablm ~ r~%~nti~ ~XvXn9 wi~ e m~m~e ~m~ adjacent to, and a l~r c~ acr~o, ~e otr~& ~8 pro~rtF ~n~c~ve ~o burn.emro. s~v~s~ ~rs~ ~ne elms -~mh ~o m~ &n favor ~. ~ ~ -~ld just l~e ~o may ~&m. ~ ~e B~ feels ~&m &m mult~le ~or h~m, ~ c~*t go al~ ~ ~at. 2~te~ Shores ~8 mn~gh to Met ~m ~em nH~ for ~t n~t ~e~'m. He w~d have to c~e ,&~ ~tem Shores . He have to cut bXo pE~Om, ~d ~Xi ~s ~t ~ha~ ~o c~uXty n~. ~ ~f he had ~ ~ AXe prXcem ~e vaZue w~Zd ~o ~n. ~P~VXS~ ~TS~m ~e else wXeh~ ~ heard ~ ~avor (The wu no (There ,as no response. ) SUPERVISOR other Y (There ~ae no response. ) Anyone wish to be hoard Ln opposXtXon to Anyone w~h to be beard one way o~ the ~L4~e propexty o/~ Thompson and Oartlatt, is -15- SU~EItvI-qOR ALBZRTS0~t We ~ZiX o~n ~e u~t he~q mt this t~me b~ readtu~ ~e legal not2ee of her "4. iJ~ ch~n~ rrm "A" ResA~ntAal and A~r~cultural D~strZct ko "c* In~strial DZstrZct ~e foll~g ~fc~d "All that ce~ain zeal pro~rty ~tuated, Xylng. mad ~ng at G~een~rt, ~ the T~n o~ S~old~ Cowry of Su~fo~ ~nd State of N~ York. and bounded and ~s~r~d as fo11~s~ '*Beginning ~t ~e ~ntereect~ of ~e ~llt ~n~ ~ne of ~e Village of Green~rt, where ~e sa~ lntezlects ~e n~erly line of these and othez premises of Sealshipt Corp. ~ ~ence S. 64 15' 30" ~-:. 18~.37 f~t~ thence sou~erly 15 f~t. ~zl or le~l, to ord~ary high wa~er ~rk 40 feet. ~re or lese~ ~ence along a bu~bead 79 ~eet. more or less~ ~ncl ml~g m 145 feat, ~re or lesl ~o ~e co.er of e~d ~head~ not.easterly 75 feet,~ze oz leos, ~o the a~ ~=y XXno ~e Village o~ Gr~n~rt~ ~en~ ~r~weltozly al~g ~e sa~d sou~ ~un~ry l~ne of ~e V~ll~ge o~ ~een~rt ~o ~e af~n~ed west boun~ry l~e of ~e V~llage of GF~ ~e~e ~erly ~e said ~elt b~n~ly l~e of ~e V~lago of Gr~rt,~ point or ~ =e of beg~n~." read the rec~n~tL~ of ~e Planing ~d. "Re~rt to~ S~old ~n B~rd, 16 Sou~ St~t, Sew York. ~to~r 5. "~ls ~s ~ certl~ ~at ~e foll~g ~tlon ~ t~en ~e Sou~old T~n Plann~g Bo~d at a z~ular ~t~g held on -16- Corp. fo~ a c~ge of z~e fr~ "A~ Real~n~ial and A~z~cul~ural DAatE~ct ~o "C" ~n~atr~a~ D~stz~ct, ~ certain rea~ pro~rty stt~d at Oreen~rt, ~n ~o ~n of Sou~o~d, County of Suffo~, and State of ~ Yozk; and mo~e ~t~cu~a~ly boun~d ~d ~scz~d foll~.= ~l~al ~ocz~tp~ ~a. no~ reed a~a~n.) "It was ~flOh~D ~at ~e S~old T~n Pl~ning Board ~avor~ly r~nd to ~e Sou~old T~n ~rd ~e ~nge of zone from "A" Resl~nt~al and A~ltu=al D~s~ct to 'C" D~0tr~ct on ~e ~e ~fcz~d pro~rty~ "~e Boerd agrees ~lth ~e reae~s for ~e ~ange of zone as presen~d ~n ~e ~t~tion. "RestfUlly su~Ltted, /s/ John w~, C~mn, Sou~old, T~n Planing B~rd." SUP~VXS~ ALB~TS~: At this t~e ~s ~ere anyone present ~ho w~shes to ~ heard ~n f~vor of the xel~ef sought in · ~V~G ~CE, ~. ~ Su~rv~eor and M~zs of ~e ~d, my of ~e ~t~t~on. ~t's rB~er d~ff~uult to present ~n w~. ~sult of an accL~nt or ~er-s~ght. ~o VAllage of Gr~n~rt 1~7 put ~ effect ~e zon~g Ore.ce and ~e Zon~g mmjor~ty of ~is pro~rty, wh~ we kn~ as El~o~ Oyster Pl~t, il in ~e V~llage and ~t wa~ z~d Xn~ltr~al. ~,~en S~old ~n ~e~r z~ng Ord~ce and zoning up ~ause a MJor~ty of -17- bu~ld~9 up ~n ~h~e~ ~ ~ ~ac~s. ~e r~n~ o~ ~ ~n ~e T~n o~ ~ou~o~d ~ used as a shell p~. ~e ~s 3/4 ~e bulldog and 1/2 of ~e p%o~rty zoned In.atrial and ~e ~s~cal character of ~e probity ~11 not ~e changed. Xt i~ reall~ a ~orrec~Aon of an ~er-s~gh~. ~ ~half of ~e ~tit~on X fully requee~ ~a= ~e Bo~d foll~ ~e r~n~Xon of ~e Planning Bo~d. ~U~VXS~ A~RRTS~: Is ~mrm ~y~m mime ~sen~ who (~eze was no res~sl) SUPERVL~OI~ Ar.~TSIN~ /i ~here anyone present who wishes to speak in oppositiontD this petition? ~ he~d ~e wly or the o~ez? {~ere was no rests. ) ~UP~V~OR fl~.m~: ~ing ~ne, ~e w~ll close · John R. ~eier --or th 'Road G-reenpor t ~ L.I. the undersigned~ are in approval of %he zoning change ,~e, ~he underaignad~ requea% of John H. Geler~ ai~ in approval of ~he zoning chw~e John H. Geier ~rth }{oad Greenpor % ~ L.I. ~e, the undersig~ed~ are in approval of the zornin~ chan~e request of John R. Geier~ widened, at the northeasterly cor- ner of land of the party of fhe f~rst part, ~ai~t point of beginning being about 1400 feet easterly along said 'southerly line lrorn Carroll Avenue; . from raid point of beginning running along said land of Charles Hubbard a~mi~ along land of Suffolk County, S. 23 53' 30" E.-43~.10 feet; thence along land oi the party of the first part, two courses as follows: (1) S. 58' 30' 30" W.-100.29 /eat thence (2) N. 23° 53' 30" W.-439.53 feet 1age of Greenport fhree courses: (1) Town Law and Article IX of the ment; thence (3) north §~ 46' 10"~ ~ SS; New York, public hearings will be Development Corp., three coursas:~...~d~.. ~:~ .... being duly Swo~n, in the O/rice of the Supervisor, 16 thence south 18~ 51' 20" east, 356.15 Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK in said Town on the 29th day of east, 167.82 feet to a monument on.~wspaper published ut Greenport, ill s"id the evening of said day on the fol- thence along ~aid northerly line, twolati¢~, ,of which the .annexed is ~ printed Bul/ding Zone Ora~nce (including 157.10 feet; thence (2) south 52' 3?'lhed in the s~td Suffolk Weekly Times the Buildi~ Zone Maps) of the 20" west, 5 feat to the point or place · ~own of Southold, S~ffolk County, of beginning. Containing 2.03 acres. It ....... ./~'~.~.~. week~ 1. By charting from "A' Resi-'dential ~nd Agricultural District to:in~ on file ..~-~-~ .9/~..,~w.~... "il" Business District the following lng described propery. ~.. All that certain re~l property sit-' u areal, lying, and being at Green-4--~.-'¥...k~..~.~;N..~. ........ moreSUff°lk'particularlyand State Ofboundedli'ew York,and. and,' foLlows:Y°rk' ami bounded and described as Begimling at a point oil the the west b~undary line of the ¥il-'~'7'' ....... * ..... /~';i'~-/'''''f½11~_~ southerly line of Middle Road, as lage of Greenprtrt where the same· ~ ..k~.. less; thence along a bulkhead 145 i feet, more or less to the corner of said bulkhead; thence northeasterly 75 feet, more or less to the south to ~ai:t southerly line of Middle boundary line Road (as wide~ted); thence aort*a- Greanport; thartce northwesterly! easterly along said southerly line on~ along the said boundary line of the' a curve to the left, having a radius, Village of Greenport to the aforo- of 5?89.58 feet, a distance of 100.0'mentioned west boundary line of feet to th~ point of beginning. Con-~' the Village of Greenport; thence raining 1.00 acre. ~, northerly along the said boundary 2. By char~ing from "A" Hesi- ', line of the Village of Greenport, to dent/al District and Agricultural ilhe point or place of beginning. District to "B" Business District the Any person desking lo be heard following deseribe~ property: on any of the proposed amendments All that certain real property sit- should appear at the tir~e and ptace uated, lying and being at Greanport, above specified. in the Town of Soutitold, County DATED: NOVEMBER 8, 1967, BY, of Suffolk, and State of New York, ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD' and more particularly bounded and TOW~ BOARD ,described as follows: A~BERT W. RICHMOND, Beginning at a point on the south- TOWN CLERK ltNl? erly s/de of Middle Road (C.R. 27) (North Road) where the same is in- tersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of Village of Greenport, which point is distant 330.68 feet westerly from the cor- ner forme~i by the intersection of the southerly side' of Middle Road[ with the westerly side of Moore's! Lane, and from said point of begin- ning, running thence along said land south 4° 01' 10" east, 110~.60 feet; ru~ning thence still along sai~ land, south 84: 53' 30" west, 474.24 feat; running thence still alone said land north g~ 06' 10" west, 830.50 feet to the southerly side of said Middle Road; running thence along the southerly side of said Middle Road, north 55° 01' 10" east, 354.24 feet fo the point or place of begirming. 3. By changing from "A" Hesi- dential and A~rtcnitural District to "B" Business District the follow- ing described property: All that certain real property situated, lying and bein~ at Green- port, in the Town of Southold, Coun- ty of Suffolk, an~ State of ~lew York and more particularly bound- ed and describecl as foLlows: lleginning at a monument on the northerly line of No'-th Road, joining Land of the Village of Green- - ,-' ffIwk, Im~ M,, JJJ 81%4 'ZqmiJ JJ tho 31Jth dJy of Ja~,J. Jml, m~ I ~..f-~l.a to limmd ~ lml,3,ding Sim. O,.,-"d-- 'm'-0 Jlr-Jf'JlJ"dl~l~ JJjjdj BJJJ'ildjJ, J~ J JJJlJllS) If J ~ I~ ~JJllllJtJ~kl, de Itmffolll ~omt%, gms D%~t~&~rt ~ 'mm- ~mm- DJ~I,(~ ,bo fsoLIJ~fag dsmer~bed b~Jml#~l md d~lbmd md ~ M M~m (%) 8. M' 30' 300 · 0' vamt, )?3.04 ~ tem ,_ - 33' ZO~ milt, 1~4.4& ~mmt tm m , - ti tblMi (~1) ~ 4° em, olse:Lflod. MBt ~,, tJ dmul, d 8ppeer mt ~bo ~bmO and pM . I, Southold Town Planmng Board SOUTHOLD, L. I., N.Y. llg?l PL. ANNING BOARD MEMBERS John Wiekham, Chairman Henry Moisa Alfred Grebe William Unkelbaeh REPORT TO: Southold Town Board 16 South Street Greenport, New York October 5, 1967 Gentlemen: This is to eertify that the following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting of the $outhold Town Planning Board held on October 3, 1967: In the matter of the petition of John Geier, North Road, Greenport, New York, relative to a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B'' Business District on certain rea~ property situated at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New ;York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Middle Road (C.R. 27) (North Road) where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of Village of Greenport, which point is distant 350.68 feet westerly from the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of said Middle Road with the westerly side of Moore's Lane, and from said point of beginning, running thence along said land south 4° 53' 30" West, 474.24 feet; running thence still along said land north 4° 06' 10" west, 830.50 feet to the southerly side of said Middle Road; running thence along the sout~ erly side of said Middle Road, north 55° 01' 10" east, 554.24 feet to the point or place ofbeginning. It was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board does not favorably recommend to the Southold Town Board the change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B" Business District on the above described property. Report to: So,,t~ Id Town Board -2- The Planning Board is unwilling to recommend this change of zone because the application is for the wrong zoning for the type of business intended. This change would constitute spot zoning, and the Planning Board feels the parcel in question is ~oo large to be considered under this application. Respectfully submitted, John Wickham, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board JW/ d cc; Town Clerk ALBERT W. ~IE:HMOND TOWN E~ gE ~ I~ SOUTHOLD, L, I., N. Y. September 13, 1967 Mr. John Wickham Chairman Planning Board Cutchogue, L.I.,N.Y. Dear M~. Wickham; The original petition of John Geier, North Road, Greenport, N.Y., relative to change of zone from "A" Res- idential and Agriculural District to "B" Business District on certain property situated in Greenport, N.Y. is in the files in the office of the Planning Board at Southold, N.Y. You are instructed to prepare an official report defining the conditions described in the petition and determine the area so effected with the recommendation of your Board. AWR/mr Very truly yours, Albert W. Richmond Town Clerk OFF =:OUTHOLD, L, I., N. Y. Beptem~r 13, 1967 Mr. John #lckham ~alr~an Planning ~oard Cutchogue, ~ar Nr. #tckl~m! The original petition of John Geler, North Ho~d, Greenport, N.Y., relative to change of sons from "&' Res- ldential and Agriculural District to "l" Business District on certain property situated in Qreenport, N.Y. is in the files in the off£ce of the Planning · o~rd at 8nuthold, N.Y. You are instruct~ to prepare an official report defining the conditions described in the petition and de~ermine the area so effaced with ~e rec~ndation of you= ~ard. Very truly yours, Albert W. Nlchmond Town Clerk M~-~ FROM= TC~. SUBJECT: CORWIN & GLICKMAN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW GREENPORT, N.Y. 11944 516 47?-0800 Town Board Town of Southold DATE; Southold, New York 11971 application for change of zone, John Geier 8/30/67 Gentlemen: Attached is an application for change of zone of premises on the south side of the 'Worth Road, together with our check to your order in the sum of $25. ck enclosures Very truly yours, by STATE OF NE\V YORK PETIT[ON TC)\VN OF SOUTHOLD IN TIlE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JOHN GEIEiR FORA CitANGE, 3,[ODIFIC.kT[ON OR AMENDMENT OF TIlE BUILDING ZONE ORDI- NANCE OF THE TO~.VN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. TO THE TOWN BOARD OF 2r'IIE TOX. VN OF SOUTHOLD: (insert name of petitioner) Suffolk County New York, the undersigned, am the owner of certain real property situated at .GF~¢P~O~c~ ............................ and more particularly bounded and described as followca: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Middle Road (C. R. 27)(North Road) where the same is intersected by the weslerly side of Land now or formerly of VilLage of Greenpo~t, which point is dist~t 350.68 feet westerly from the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of said Middle Road wilh the west- erly side of Moore's Lane, and from said point of beginning, running thence along said land south 4°01'10" east, 1106.60 feet; running thence still along said Land, south 84°53'30'' west, 474.24 feet; running thence still along said Land north 4°06'10'' west, 830.50 feet to the southerly side of said Middle Road; running thence along the southerly side of said Middle Road, norlh 55~01'10" east, 554.24 feet to the point or pLace of beginning. 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Town r.f Southold to change, modify and amend the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Soutbold. Suffolk County, New York, including the Building Zone Maps beretofore made a part tbereoL as folIows: by changing the premises from "A" Residential and Agricultural Dislrict to ~'BTr Business District. GARY FLANNER OLSEN April 18, 1974 Re: Gilles-Change of Zone Application Dear Howard: Enclosed herewith please find a photO, static copy of the carbon copy of my leiler withdrawing the. application for change of zone "without prejudice". -' Very .truly yours, GA~Y l~A~f~lR 0L$¢,~'''~ ~ ....... -" GFO/mrc encl. Howard Terry Town Clerk'~ Office S.Juthold, New York 11971 Public Hearing held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold - 12/11/73 In the matter of the changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural Distrxct to "B-l" General Business District, the property of Edward Gilles situated at North side Middle Road, (County Road No. 27),Mattituck~ New York. Present were Supervisor Albert Martocchia, Justice Martin Surer, Justice Louis M. Demarest, Councilman James Homan and Councilman James Rich, Jr. Supervi=or declared the hearing open at 7:40 p.m. Councilman Rich read the Notice of Hearing, proof of publication in the official newspapers - Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman and Suffolk Weekly Times, a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Planning disapproving the application, and a letter from the Southold Town Planning Board citing resolution of September 18, 1973 recommending approval of the change of zoner and proof of posting by the Town Clerk. Mr. Martocchia: You have heard Councilman Rich read the call of the meeting, the public notice, the description of the property involved, the proof of posting by the Town Clerk~ the proof of publication in the legal papers, the recommendation of the suffolk County Planning Board which requests disapproval of the project, the recommendation of the Southold Town Planning Board which recommends approval. At this time I will entertain anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the change of zone. Gary Olsen, Esq.: I represent the applicant herein. I think perhaps the best walt to approach this matter and to initiate the discussion is to give you a little bit of the background and history as to what has taken place to date, The Town of Southold had a group named Raymond, May, Parrish and Pine study the future growth of this township and they submitted a master plan to the Town in 1969. It was after this that Mr. Gilles was aware of the fact that the master plan suggested that this property be utilized for industrial purposes. He, on his own, filed an application with the Planning Board and with the Town Board to have a change of zone from Agricultural Residential to conform with the master plan. He is a commercial pilot and was unable to make a meeting before the Planning Board this summer and asked to to appear on his behalf. I appeared at that meeting and after some discussion~ the Planning Board recommended that we withdraw the application to change it from Agricultural Residential to Industrial and instead put an application in for Business, which we have done. It was the feeling of the applicant as well as the planning board that this would be a good thing for the town in conformance with the master plan. There is no question that the town is growing and we are going to need new areas such as this in the future especially in the west end and this change of zone would be a change in conformance with the master plan. It is not a spot zoning. It would be in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Planning Board has recommended that this application for a change of zone be granted and I am here to concur with that result and argue for it. Mr. Gilles is away on another flight tonight and he has asked me to appear on his behalf. Mr. Martocchia: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in behalf, of granting the change to this applicant? Public }{earing - Change of Zone -2- December 11, 1073 There being no one else who wished to speak in favor, Mr. Martocchia then asked if there was anyone who wished to speak against the proposal. Mr. Willard D. Lawrence, Cutchogue: On the change of zoning, just what would evolve from this B-1 type? Mr. Olsen: It is set forth in the statute. It will not be multiple housing. We do not have any specific plans to present at this point. It was done in conformance with the suggestions of the Planning Board and also with the suggestions of Raymond~ May, Parrish and Pine. Mr. Car] A. Schmitt: It seems to me that we are going into something and we are letting ourselves wide open. This application is an opeh application. We are not sure what he is going to do. Maybe he is going to build a super- market. If we knew, perhaps we wouldn't have the objections we have now. I am sure we have here a group of people from Mattituck and vicinity that are against rezoning of any of the properties like the application applied for. We certainly do not need any more supermarkets in Mattituck. We have too many now. They may go broke this winter and we do not need any more liquor stores. Whatever it is we are going to get in there will be of no val~e to the people of Mattituck and the people that are coming there to enjoy the beautiful bay that we have. We have come out here from the city and Nassau County %o enjoy what you have given us and what the Lord has given us. Not what you have given us, but the Lord. You haven't given us a damn thing. We have a beautiful bay and nice property and everything else. We don't want to destroy that picture and all our people are in favor of leaving the situation the way it is. What are we going into as far as this property is concerned? More taxes? I am sure that the people that now own property have done a good job in paying their taxes. If we got anything in there like the application called for we might put up fifty houses in that development. How big is it? Answer: 30 acres. Mr. $chmitt~ And that means that if we stick to the original zoning that Southold has, that is one acre for each house. This could mean a whole lot of kids going to school and a whole lot of school taxes and a whole lot of things have to come into the picture. They can still make money on a farm. I am sure you will consider this before you go into rezoning this property. I really fed you should turn down this application. Mr. Martocchia: Anyone is entitled to apply for a change and for a hearing and that is why we are here tonight. The question, was asked if the meeting could adjourn to a larger room as the crowd was over£iowlng into the back room~ the hall~ the room across the hall and down the steps outside into the street. The Supervasor said it could not be done at that time. Peter Swarm: I have just purchased property which I think will join this proposed area and, if this goes through, I am sure if I look out of my dining room window I will look at whatever is there. I am sure it will degrade the value of my property. Publrc Hearing - Change of Zone -3- December 11, 1a73 The Supervisor then asked if there was anyone in the hail or on the steps who wished to speak in favor of granting change of zone. There being no one he continued on to anyone else who wished to speak in opposition. The following letter was presented by Virginia Moore of Southold: To the Southold Town Board From the League of Women Voters of Riverhead-Southold Hearing: Gilles Property, Mattituck Dec. 11, 7:30 p.m. It is our belief that a change to B-1 from AR for the two pieces of property on County Route 27 is not in the best interests of the Town of Southold. It is strip zoning, in our opinion; it is also agricultural land. We believe that business development should be contiguous with the business centers of our communities, not strung out all over the landscape. We also would like to see disclosure of all owners or interested parties when an5' property is considered at a public hearing. In addition, we think specific: details of location should appear in the public notice, as well. Since the Town's revised Building Zone Ordinance was designed to prevent strip zoning and the unsightly and undesirable type of development which plagues the Jericho Turnpike, for example, we urge that this applica- tion for a change from AR to B-1 be denied. Dated December 11, 1973 /s/ Jean H. Txedke V.P. for Community Affairs Ms. Moore: Mrs. Tiedke has in mind telling where the property is instead of a legal description which it takes Mr. VanTuyl to interpret. Mr. C. Edmund Allen: I don't think you can give them a blank check for this kind of development. Ms. Aline Dove presented the following letter to the Board: Box 763, Matt~tuck, N. Y. December 11, 1073 Supervisor, Town Board Greenport, N. Y. Dear Mr. Martocchla: In relation to the request of Edward Gilles for down-zoning of a tract of land situated on the north side of Middle Road, Mattituck, from "A" to'B-l", I wish to go on record as being strongly opposed. Certainly Mattituck does not need any more commercial str~p zoning. The westerly approach on Route 25 with its unplanned commercial jumble, plus two giant shopping centers one on top of the other, is eloquent testimony against any further such down-zoning. I therefore urge that this permit be denied. /s/ Aline Dove Public ttearing- Change of Zone -4- December 11, 1973 The following letter was presented from the North Fork Environmental Council, December 11, 1973 Southold Town Board South Street Greenport, New York Re: 7:30 p.m. Edward Gilles Changing from g to BI Gent lemen: In regard to the downzoning as applied for by Edward Gilles, location North Side Middle Road, gattituck, (County Rd. No. 27), the North Fork Environmental Council, Inc. feels that this applicatxon is in complete contradiction to the Southold Town growth and related Zoning Ordinances. It constitutes strxp zoning in our opinion and should be denied aa it is not in the best interests of the residents of Southold Town. /s/ Loraine S. Terry, Pres. Mr. Joe Debrava: The Suffolk Planning Board ruled against this and yet you people approved it. Supervisor: The recommendation came from the Town Planning Board. Mr. Debrava: What are their reasons for approving it? Mr. Rich read the letter from the Town Planning Board giving their reasons for granting approval. Mr. William Johnson: When they say they want to down-zone what type of business are included in a B-i down-zone? Mr. Tasker, the Town Attorney, cited the different uses the property could be put to under B-1 adding that all other uses in the higher use districts would also be permissable. Mr. Johnson: I would like to go on record as opposing it. I live in the general area and I feel the traffic will be unbearable. I came here to get away from all the jumble and mess we have in the west end. I would like to go on record as opposed. Mr. James Pzm: Could this also be used for a multiple residence as well as business? Could this be a down-zoning to a multiple residence as well as a commercial possibility? Supervisor: Yes. Mr. Pim: I would like to say that my wife and I firmly oppose this down- zoning. I think we should do everything we possibly can to maintain the atmosphere particularly the agricultural land which is e×tremely valuable even though it might not be reflected at the present moment. Some people feel that in the near future it will be needed as agricultural land above Public Hearing - Change of Zone -5- December 11, lq73 all else. This is agricultural land we are trying to pave over. Eugene Denaro: I would like to know if there is any kind of d~sclosure statement as who has any interest in this property besides Mr. G~lles. Is there a technicality that says there should be a disclosure? Why did he decide ¢,n Mattituck to industrialize? We are up to our armpits in super- markets and liquor stores. I think we are going in the wrong direction. We live out here for peace and quiet and I would hate to see what happened to Riverhead happen to gattituck. Mr. Lawrence: I asked the attorney before if there was any question of multiple dwelling. I would like to go on record as being against this application. Mr. Donald Grant: Under the circumstances where there are so many options available under the down-grading and there is no clear ~ndication os what the land would be used for, we think it would be a mistake to grant a blank check for th~s Mrs. Superdock: Where does Mr. Gilles live? Answer: In Mattituck. Mr. Fred Kettler: I have been there five years and when I moved there, there were no children. There are about ten houses built during the past two years. We have now twenty-nine children on the street and there are several more houses to be built by next summer. Are you going to build another school for them. In this multiple dwelling there will be more than one family per acre. If you put in five or six, where is the population going to explode to? Mr. Pim: We have a set of petitions which will have to do with a multiple down-zoning and now with the understanding this could be used for that too~ I am sure the persons who signed the petitions would be happy to expand · t to include this parcel as well. Mr. Kent: Who was the person or authority who was opposed to this down- zoning? Supervisor: The County Planning Board. Mr. rent: On the basis that there were enough undeveloped areas in Mattituck. It would seem to me that you people would deny this application for any down-zoning in the area. I have been coming out for the last ten years to get away from the hassle and traffic and the confusion that exists almost throughout Long Island. I will tell you that once you get east of Riverhead you still have a haven here. You are sitting in a position of great authority and I think you are charged with keeping this area rural for people to enjoy because I think that what is left of Long Island is east of Riverhead to Orient Point and I oppose this petition. Public Hearing - Change of Zone -6- December 11, lO73 Mr. Peter Warren: I was surprised to hear that the Planning Board approved this application. If there was some kind of a proposition we could discuss I could see coming in and talking about that but taking forty acres and leaving it under such a wide open development when there is really no need for it in Mattituck, that route 25 is beginning to look more and more like Centereach every day and I hope the To~n Board sees fit to deny this application and I am strongly opposed to it as a wide open application. Mr. Schmitt: Judge Kelly wanted to know if it would be a good idea to find out whose against this proposition. Would you like to put that to the floor. Ms. Kathryn Laselle; I saw Nassau County begin almost as beautiful a country as you have here and after a very few years how the damage was xrreversxble and we couldn't save it any more. I am very much opposed to this because this is the most valuable aspect of the whole north fork. Mr. Olsen (in rebuttal): I agree with what slot of people have said about the quality of life we have out here and I want to see this town grow in an orderly fashion and grow properly and the Town Board wants to see that happen, too and that is why they had the foresight in 1969 and before to develop an overall plan as to how this town is going to grow and where you are going to have your commercial and industrial and high residential areas will be and so on and the Planning Board has adopted that master plan so this town grows with some reasonable orderliness which areas in the west end haven't. I don't like the way the western end has grown either and this application is made to conform with the master plan that was recommended by Raymond, May, Parrish and Pine and which has been adopted by the town so that is the basis that the application is made to conform and make sure this town grows in an orderly fashion and not spot zoning. It is not spot zoning. It is not strip zoning but in the overall plan. Mr. Pim: The master plan is a good idea but it is supposed to be. It should change with the times. Because areas on the master plan are suggested for a certain type of zoning doesn't necessarily mean that all areas in that spot should be zoned according to the master plan. It says it is a place where you can make that zoning of a particular type. You don't down-zone everything because the master plan is there. You use it for consideration of an overall plan if the need exists for a down-zoning. I don't think it has been shown that a need exists. bk. Virginia Moore: One footnote to what Mr. Pim has just said is we have to look at things differently now because we won't any longer practice these far flung habits. I think we are going to have places where epople can walk. blot of activity in a short radius. To be approved now would be a step twenty years backward because it is pretty obvious that no matter if the gas situation is resolved this year it will be bad next year and if we get through next year, it will not be resolved the year following. We are still going t~ have to come to grips with the fact that we are burning too much energy. I think this is food for thought. Public Hearing - Change of Zone -7- December ll, lO73 Mr. Peter Gray: I am representing the people in the hall who are in opposition. I represent myself and two grown children and would like to be in opposition to the plan. Supervisor: If everyone has had the opportunity to be heard I will allow anyone who wishes to sign the register with the stenographer in opposition. There will be paper provided and they can come in and sign up that they are opposed, I now declare the hearing closed and the board will make a decision at a later date. Hearing closed at 8:45 p.m. To the Southold Town ~o~rd From the League of Women Voters of iverhe~d~Seutnold Hesriu~': Gilles Prcperty, i.{sttituck Dec. ll~ ?:30 p.m. It is our belief that ~ change to B-1 from AR for the t~o pieces cf orooerty on County ~ute ~ is not in the be~t interests of Zhs Term of ~outhold. It is strip ~oning', in our o~inion; it is ::lac ~gricultursl lsnd. k'e believe thet usiness d Ye~O ~len% S~Joul~ be contiFuous · 11 ov~r the l~nc. sc~pe. ~,e · lso v~ould like To see 'isc!osmre o1' .-].1 c?r~ers or intere:~te~ ,'~rtieE ¥,~ien en~, ro[~ert7 is ccn~;i.f~:red ~% ~. public Le~rl~':['. In ·dc[it o1~ !7e uhir~z s~'ecizic ~]e%~i]~. cf !oc~tion should ~pfe r in the .u' lic n~tic£, 5i~!c~ the ov.~'~ ~e¥ised huil~in Lcn~ C'r-ei~] nee wss de- ~i~n*d to ~revep% strip zor~ill~ ~nJ th~ unsi6htly snd ~rsble tyre of d%v, lo~men% vhi~-'h pl~ u~ t~ Jericho R to !-i he denied. C om ,iu_nity A ff=~irs Dec. 11, 1973 Box ?63, Mattltuck, N.Y. December ll, 2973 Supervisor. Town Board Greenport, N.YL Dear E.r. Martoccia, In. relation to the request of Edward Gilles for down-zonin& of a tract of land situated on the north side of Middle Road, Mattituc~ , from "A" to "B-l", I wish t~ go on record as being strongly opposed. Certaimly Mattituck does not need any more co:~mercial strip zoning. The wewterly approach on Route 25 with its u~plamned commercial Jumble, plus two &iant shopping centers one on top o~ the other, is elsquemt testlmomy against any further such down- zoming. I therefore urge that this permit be denied. Very sincerely, Aline Dove NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL. INC. BOX .~11 5OUTHOLD, NEW YOR[( 1197~ =~ '' ' ~C.~?t': EO amd South Street Greem~o r~, I'few York December 11,197~ re: 7:30pm Edward ~lll,=s Chmngin~ from A to B1 Gentlemen: Irt rezard to the do~.mz.3mi[-~¢ County Rd. I'To.27 ),i'he North Fo~k Co,mct~,Inc. feels ~h-~t thi~ ,.,c ' ':-. Tc~; · ~.. constitutes strip z.Dn~n? L~-~ t -' ?/ NOTI~ OF ~iEARING8 ON PROPO~A. I~ TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE Pursuant to ~ecflan ~s or th~ Town Law and Requirements of the Buildtn~ Zone Ordinance of the Town o/ Soutbold, ~tmdk County, New York, public Greml~t, N~ Tm on the llth Decmnb~, 1~, on ti~ ! propomds m amend the i B~ ~e ~) ~ ~ of ~d,. York. 7:30 p.m. (E.S.T. 1" Genial Bu~ness proPerty of situated at North Road,' (Comity Mattituck, New partfcularly Beginning at a onrfllerly.slde of ] the in~m'esction of ~e '8pldlcont with the Bofloek and from Parcel No. 1 - 13'30" W, 772,~5 51 de~rce~ ft.; 6-7N 1~.46 ft.; 7-8'S. 39 E, 8~.~6 ft.; 6-9 13'40" E. ~4~,00 ft.; now or Formerly of Stsadman; (19-20) North 35 degrees 16'00" West 41 ao feet along land of Long Island Lighting Company; (20- 15) North :t5 degrees 38'50" West 170.24 feet along land of Kousourous to the point of place of beginning, eentaining an area of 1 99 acres. 8:00 p.m. (E.S T.I., by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural Dish-let to "M Light Multiple Residential District, the property of Bruce Norris, Mattituek, New York, and more partieulerly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point formed by the intersection of the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue with the division line between the lands of George Brooks and of Bruce Norris and running thence from said point of beginning N. 77 degrees 02'20" E. 78 44 feet along the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue: thence southwesterly, southerly, westerly and again southerly through the land of Bruce Norris the following courses and distances: (1) on a curve to the left with a radius of 36.15 feet for a distance of 43.75 feet; (2) S. 7 degrees 42'00" W. 218.10 feet; S. 7 degrees 30'20" W. 1P19.92 feet; (4) N. 82 degrees 29'40" W. 50.00 feet; ~5) S. 7 degrees 30'20" W. 845.96 feet; (6i S. 7 degrees 31'10" E. 423.00 feet ' " northeast eerner of the ·. Frank $. Murphy, (the point of beginning of parcel number two hereinafter described); thence N. 86 degrees 47'46" W. along the lands of Frank J. M' ~ and of Laurence P. R~. · .45 feet to · the easterly line of "Reeve ', also known as "Camp ; thence northerly 'along the e~sterly line of "Reeve ~;OUN'r~ OF SUFFOLK, Avenue" the following courses STA'r~ OF NEW YORK. ~ ss: '.~ lind distances: (1) N. 7 degrees J 07'00" E. 667.65 feet; (2) N. 7 ?tuowt C. Dotmaa ~e~ 32'00" E. 519.57 feet; (3) ...................................... IN,big dilly Sworll, I. 16 de~rees 07'00" E. 550.85 feet the southwest corner of the Cichanowicz; thence f'alld northerly along the of Vera Ciehanowiez, of ~P~liee Doye, of W-lberta Reeve and i~f George Brocks the following · b~ourses lind diitanees: (1) S. 76 "E. 312.78 feet; (2) "W. 91.75 feet; E. 96.70 E N. 7 degrees It OF containing I acres. ~,. BIEGINNING at the northeast of ~e of Frank J thence from · and westerly Bruce Norris courses and N 7 degrees al't0" ~; (2l N. 82 degrees 45o.8ff feet; (3) S. o 106.56 feet: (4) E. 99,1.46 feet; .q. 3~ degrees 0t'46" E.-. Xl-I~ S. 45 de~'ees ~'~" Z. 198.10 f fl,; 12-13 S, 31 degr~m 5~'00" E. ~41 fi.; 1~4 hd. M.~ - ~e , W. 1~.18~. ~n~ at No~y ~t ~ ~x ~ N~y ~ ~d~t~ plaen of he~tl~iinf, eont~ an area of 3718~ aCFes. ~'at a point on the , soutberl~ at~e of Mide~e Read (CO,my Rona No. 27) at the in- tesm~fluu of the property of 'lq~lte.~nt ~th the property of Kot~auron$ I~d fi-om ~aid point of be~lmllng tinning thence 1~-15 Red. ~820.~ m'e lr~.~7 feet; 17) North ~ degrees 00%0" East , ~r/.aa feet; (17-18) South 19 degrees 34'~1" East 1~1.47 feet along other property of ap- plicant; (18-19) South 74 degrees 49'00" West ~.al rest along land says that ...h.e... is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK WEEKLY TIMES, a newspaper published at Greenport, in said county; and that the notice, of which the annexed is ~ printed copy, has been published in the said Suffolk Weeldy Times once in each week, for one (l) weeks successively commencing on the day of .... N. °..v~19.7. ~. ........................... Sworn to before me this . ?~nd I ] // _,., _, ........ to a point in the easterly line ' 0f the land of Thornton E. Smith; thence d. 7 degrees 32'10" W. along the lands of Thornton E. Smith, of Matilda S. Haberman, Appolonia Kirchgessner, of Joseph Peters, and of Frank J. Murphy 916.44 feet to the point or plane of beginning eantaining an area of 10.915 acres. Any person desiring lo be heard on the above proposed amend- ments should appear at the time and place se specified Dated: November 16, 1973 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ALBERT W. RICHMOND TOWN CLERK NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON PROPOSALS TO AMEND ZONI~IG ORDINANCE Pursuant to Sect/on 265 of~.l/e County, New York, ~blic ~ear- Town Board in the office'o[ the of Southold, Suffolk CO.W. York -.t. p~.,~..,,,~ruc~, ~¥r!s ~nd ng/qn ~ou[,herly through the land feet; ~t4~N'. g2~ 29' 40- W. 50.no 7:30 P. M. (EST), from "A" Resident/et and k~riv. .fbej~ t6~;1~. ~ 31' lo" E. 423.00 cultural District eral Business DI~,~ ~'~f ~ank J. Murphy, (Country R~d',,~~t__~__~ 'W; fh~e N. 86' 47 40" W. tuck, New Y~,~t " ~S t~. }~d~ of Prank J_ the in/er~ecQon of the pro~r~y ~ortherl~ along the east- al Bull~k ~nd from said ~ ~ [~win~ ~urses and dlstance~: Parcel No. 1 2~a N. 20~ ~' 20" ~ ~5.~ IL~ ~ ~he'~ou[hwesc corner ~f ~he ~ H ~-~'~ lan~ of Vita Clch~nowicz. of ~ N' ~~l~-~ ~ove} of E!~r/a Reeve and ~I~12 S. 45~ 25' 30" E' 1~1~ It .... M 20' E. 96.70 feet i4) 7~ 38' 12--13 S. 3~~ 55' ~" ~'..~e~ ~ ~24.34 feet to ~he poin- or ending a~ N~r[her]y ~in/ of 14L'~ ~ p~ ~ L Road to the poln~ or place of Peglr~g, confalrflng an area of 37.265 acres. Beginning at a poln~ on the southerly side of Middle l~o~d tCountry Road No. 27) a~ the intersection of the properP] oI applicant wi~h the properiy of Kousourous and from said POint of beginning running thence 15- 16 Had. 2620.79 arc 16g.2q feet; (16-17~ North 76' OO' 40" East 297.35 [eel; (17-18) South 19~ 54' 00" East 194.47 feet aloi~ property of applicant; South 74' t6' 00" West, 4~11 fee~ along land now or fm'merly said point at be§innlns northerly. thl~u~Jh the land of Bruce Norris I. feet: ,(2) N. 62 26' 50" E. 450.89 fee~'~l S. 7' 01' 50" E feef~bll~ S. 82~ 27' 50" ~. 42~[73 f~[ (b~ ~lnt in t~ easterly alop~e lands of Thominn E. S~[t~'~ Matilda S. Haberman. ,' 3o~ P~tera. and of F;'snk '.,~ 916.44 feet ~o the ~i~ ~ place of ~ginnina con- · . heard~ the above proposed ~ems ~uld appear at ', ~e'~me and place ~ lpacifle~.~ ~t~l November 16, 1973 ,' SCU~OLD TO~ ALBERT W. TOWN CL~K 'F SUFFOLK ~, ss: NEW YORK . Whitney Booth, Jr., being duly sworn, says s the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND - MA'I-I'ITUCK WATCHMAN, a public news- ...~d at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that F which the annexed is a printed copy, has been , said Long Island Zraveler-Mattituck Watch- ach week for ~/'~i~.)..'~.~ .~-/.ff. wee.k/s/ . commencing on the ................. ,~. ...... ..~..._~ .... .... ...... ~orn to before me thb ........ ~....~-. ....... doy of ...... , STATE OF [[E:'~ YORK: ~UNTz OF ~U~OLK: SS: Sou zho Ld, ~ge lc, is a hrue copy, public place York, to wit ALBERT 2,'. RICHMOND, of Sour:Roi {, '' New York, being duly swo:n, s~ys tbat ~e of ~wenti~-one years; that c,n the 27th dav or November 73 he affixed a notice of which the an:.exed prinlcd ;~ L tile Town of Sou~ho~d, Suffolko,Junc'- y., ~,~." LEGAL NOTICE Public Hearing - change of zone Norris & Gilles - December ~, ~973 Sworn to before me this 27t~£ day of November Town Clerk Bulletin Board. 7'~wn Clerk Office Main Road, Sou_~hold, L.I.,U.Y. ml])er(:~. Ricb,/onO, Te~,n 1.9 7.3 ~Nota :y Public JUDITH T. BOKEN NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON PROPOSALS TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and Requirements of the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County~ New York, public hearings will be held by the Southold Tow~ Board in the office of the Supervisor, 16 South Street, Greenport~ New York, in said Town on the llth day of December 1973, on the following proposals to amend the Building Zone Ordinance (including the Building Zone Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County~ New York. 7:30 P.M. (E.S.T.).~ by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-l" General Business District, the property of Edward Gilles~ situated at North side Middle Road~ (County Road ~ 27), Mattituck, New York~ and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northerly side of Middle Road at the intersection of the property of applicant with the property of Bullock and from said point of beginning running thence: Parcel ~l 1-2 N. 3~1]'30" W. 772.95 ft. N. 51'23'00" E. ~1~.50 ft. N. 62~53'00" E. ~29.19 ft. 5-6 N. 62~3'~0" E. 269.51 ft. 6-7 N. 55~25'40" E. 19~.~6 ft. 7-8 s. 38~3o,~0,, E. 85.96 ft. 8-9 S. 33~12'40'. E. 2~6.O0 ft. 9-10 S. 27~6,~0,, E. 213.OO ft. lO-11 S. 35~01'~0'' 158.00 ft. ll-12 S. ~5~25'30', E. 199.10 ft. ~52.~1 ft. 12-13 S. 31~5%'00" E. 13~l~ Rad. ~8.8~-arc 32.03 ft. 14 i S. 76.00'~0', W. 136~.18 ft. ending at Northerly point of l~-l along Northerly side of Middle Road to the point or place of beginning, containing an area of 37.285 acres. Legal Notice Parcel # 2 Page 2 Beginning at a point on the southerly side of Middle Road (County Road # 27) at the intersection of the property of applicant with the property of Kousourous and from said point of beginning running thence 15-16 Rad. 2820.79 arc 169.27 feet; (16-17) North 76~00'~0'' East 297.36 feet; (17-18) South 19~+' 00" East 19~.~7 feet along other property of applicant; (18-19) South 7~9'00" West ~08.81 feet along land now or formerly of Steadman ; (19-20) North ~5~16'00'' West ~1.30 feet along land of Long Island Lighting Company; (20-15) North 3~'38'~0" West 170.2~ feet along land of Kousou~ous to the point of place of begi~tng~ containing an area of 1.99 acres. 8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.).~ by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M Light Multiple Residential District~ the property of Bruce Norris~ Mattituck~ New York~ and more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point formed by the intersection of the southerly line of New Suffolk Avenue with the division line between the lands of George Brooks and of Bruce Norris and running thence from said point of beginning N. 77~02'20'' E. 78.1~ feet:alo~g,;the ~o~therly linm. of New Suffolk Avenue; thence southwesterly~ southerly~ westerly and again southerly through the land of Bruce Norris the following courses and distances: (1) on a curve to the left with a radius of 36.15 feet for a distance of ~3.7~ feet; (2) S. 7~30'20'' W. 3~9.92 feet; (~) N. 7~30'20'' W. 8~5.96 feet; (6) S. 7~2'00'' W. 218.10 feet; (3) S. 82~29'~0'' W. 50.00 feet; (5) S. 7~31'10'' E. ~23.00 feet to the northeast corner of the land of Frank J. Murphy~ (the point of beginning of parcel n~nber two hereinafter described); thence N. 86~7'~0'' W. along the lands of Frank J. Murphy and of Laurence P. Reeve 809.~ feet to the easterly line of "Reeve Avenue"~ also know~ as "Camp Mlneola Road"; thence northerly along the easterly line of "Reeve Avenue" the following courses and Legal Notice Page ~ Parcel t cont'd. distances: (1) N. 7~07'00'' E. 667.65 feet; (2) N. 7~32'00'' E.519.57 feet; (3) N. 16~07'00" E. 550.85 feet to the southwest corner of the land of Vera Cichanowicz; thence easterly and northerly along the lands of Vera Cichanowicz~ of Alice Dover of Elberta Reeve and of George Brooks the following courses and distances: 91.78 feet; 121.88 feet; of beginninE~ (1) S. 76~27'30" E. 312.78 feet; (2) S. 77~5'30'' E. (3) S. 77~53'20'' E. 96.70 feet; (~) S. 73~38'30" E. (5) N. 7~2'00'' E. 22~.3~ feet to the point or place containing an area of 27.683 acres. PARCEL 2 BEGINNING at the northeast corner of the land of Frank J. Murphy and running thence from said point of beginning northerly~ easterly~ southerly and westerly through the land of Bruce Norris the following courses and distances (2) N. 82~28'50" E. ~50.89 feet; (3) (~) S. 7~01'50'' E. 99~.~6 feet; (5) (1) N. 7~31'10'' W. 18~.56 feet; S. 0~7'~0'' W. 106.56 feet; S. 82~27'50" W. ~26.73 feet to a point in the easterly line of the land of Thornton E. Smith; thence N. 7~32'10'' W. along the lands of Thornton E. Smith~ of Matilda S. Haberman~ Appolonia Kirchgessner~ ef Joseph Peters~ and of Frank J. Murphy 916.~d+ feet to the point er place of beginning containing an area of 10.915 acres. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendments should appear at the time and place so specified. Dated: November 16, 1973 BM ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ALBERT W. RIC~0ND TOWN CLERK Legal Notice Page ~ PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE~ November 21~ 1973, AND FORWARD EIGHT (8) AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLE~ MAIN ROAD~ SOUTHOLD~ NEW YORK. Copies mailed to the following on November 16, 197~: The Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman The Suffolk Weekly Times Gary 01sen a/c Edward Gilles Wickham & Lark a/c~'Bruce Norris Supervisor Martocchia ~;ovember 1, 1973 Gary F. Olsen, Esq. Main ]~oad Ma=tituck. New York 11952 Dear ~Xr. Olsen: I am enclosing herewith original and copy of Petition of iJdward Gilles, !.lattituck, New York. Would you please have them notarize~ an.~ returned to this; office. Very truly yours, Enclosures (2) Marjorie McDe~nott, Secretary COMMISSION Seth A. Hubbard Cha/rman Lee E. Koppelman Suffolk County Department of Planning Veterans ),lemorial Highwaw Haup~ttge, L. 1., X }~ 72t-2500 October 4, 1973 Mr. John Wickham, Chairman Planning Board, Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11935 Re: Application of "Edward Gilles" for a proposed change from "A" residence to "B-i" Business District , Town of Southold (SD-73-17) of zone Dear Mr. Wickham, Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Suffolk County Planning Coa~ission on October 3, 1973 reviewed the above captioned zoning action and after due study and delibera- tion disapproved this change of zone because of the following: 1.It would result in the unwarranted further perpetuation of com- mercial development along the county roadway detrimental to the safety and traffic carrying capacity of said facility; 2. There appears to be ample vacant business zoned land and retail shopping facilities in the locale; 3.It would tend to establish a precedent for further downzonings in the locale; 4.It constitutes the unwarranted extensive encroachment of commercial development into a single famqly residence district. It is further noted that said rezoning is inconsistent with preliminary development policies of the New York State Department of Transportation rela- tive to the Long Island Expressway extension in this locale and would further necessitate future access to subject premises via local residential streets. Very truly yours, GGN:Jt CC: A.W. Richmond, Town Clerk Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning x-- by · , ( Geral'~ G. Newman Chief Plhnner Southold Town Planning Board SDUTHDLD, L. I., N. Y. 11971 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS John WIckham~ Chairman Henry Molsa Alfred Grebe Henry Raynor Frank Coyle September 20, 1973 Southold Town Board 16 South Street Greenport, New York 11944 Gentlemen: This is to advise you that the following resolution was passed by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on September 18, 1973: In the matter of the amended petition of Edward Gillis relative to a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-i" General Business District on certain property situated at Mattituck, New York. "IT WAS RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the change of zone from "A" Residential and-~6~tural District to "B-l" General Business District on the above described property." It is the opinion of the Planning Board that this proposed change of zone be approved because it is in compliance with the Town Development Plan. JW:mm Respectfully submitted, John W±ckham, Chairman $outhold Town Planning Board GARY FLANNEF~ OLSEN August 30, 1973 Re: Change of Zone Edward Gitlis Genltme n~ As I indicated to you in my letter of July 25th my client, Edward Gil/is, wishes to amend his Application for a change of zone, Accordingly, I am enclosing herewith an Amended Petition. Ple~ase advise when this matter will be beard. GFO/mc encls. Southold Town Planning Board Town Clerk's O~'fice Southol[i, N.Y. Very truly yours, / t! (,,.,_ ,' CASF. NO; .2..~..4. ............... STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOIJTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ~PETITION FOR A C~{ANGE, MODll~ICATION OR AMENDMENT OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDIN- ANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SD~'~'OLK COUiNTY, NEW YORK. TO THE TOWN BOARD OF TH~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: 1. I ..... E.,d...w...~..r..d.....~.'..~...e..~ .................................. residing at Box 393j Sound Avenue (IxJsert name of petitioner) l~attituck, N.Y. 11952 Suffolk County, New York, the undersigned, am the owner of certain real property situated at ................. ..M..a.~.t.i..t.u.q..k.,...~:_.Y.., ........... and more particularly bounded and described as follows: As pe4r survey: Parcel #1-37. 285 Acres 1-2 N. 34° 13' 30" W. 772.95 ft. 2-3 N. 20°48;20"W. 205.53 ft. 3-4 N. 51°23' 00" E. 414.50 ft 4-5 N. 62°53' 00" E. 429.19 ft. 5-6 N. 62°43' 30" E. 269.51 ft. 6-7 N. 55°251 40" E. 195.46ft 7-8 S. 38© 30' 50" E. 85.96 ft. 8-9 S. 33012' 40" E. 246.00 ft. 9-10 S. 27© 46' 40" E. 213.00 ft. 10-11 S. 35° 01' 40" 158.00 ft. 11-12 S. 45° 25' 30" E. 199.10 ft. 12-13 S. 31© 55' 00" E. 452.41 ft. 13-1.i Rad 48.85 -arc 32.03 ft. 14-1 S. 76° 00' 40" W. 1364.18 ft. Parcel # 2-1.99 acres 15-16 l%ad. 2820.79 arc 169.27 ft. 16-17 N. 76© 00' 40" E. 297.36 ft. 17-18 S. 19© 54' 00" E. 194.47 ft. 18-19 S. 74© 49' 00"W. 408.81 ft. 19-20 N. 35© 16' 00" W. 41.30 ft. 20=15 N. 35° 38' 50'rW~. 170.24 ft. 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to change, modify and amend the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, including the Building Zone Maps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: To change zone from: A Residential to B-1 Zone 3. Such request is made for the folloxving reasons: This parcel of land has been recommended for C. zone- light Industry- by Raymond, May, Parish and P~ne Planning Consultants in Development Plan, Town of ~outhold, Suffolk Count3', New York and is presently shown C. Zone Light Industry in Southold Town Master Plan. (L. s.) ........................ / / Attorney STATE OF NEW YORK, ) ) SS:- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ) ............... .G..a.~.y....~...~.t~..?~'. ~]-..8.e. r3q .~..s.qA , BEING DULV SWORN, deposes and says that he is the petitioner in the within action; that lie has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents tbereof; that the same is true to his (her) own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and Belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. tbis . 2,9.. day of . .~,u.g..u~..~. .............. 19~.~.. Sworn to before me SOUTHOLD, L. I, N. ¥- 11971 August 17, 1973 Mr. John Wickham, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Clerk's Office Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Wickham: The Southold Town Board has received notification from Gary Flanner Olsen on behalf of Edward Gillis, requesting that his application for a change of zone be ehanged from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B-l" General Business Zone, rather ~han "C" Industrial as indicated on the original application. You are instructed to prepare an official report defining the conditions described in the petition and determine the area so affected with the recommendation of your Board. Very truly yours, Albert W. Richmond Town Clerk (~ARY FLANNER OLSEN COLJNSELLOR AT LAW July 25, 1973 Re:Edward Gillis-Change of Zone Gentlemen: I have been advised by my client, Edward GLllis, that he wishes to amend his Application for a change of zone. Instead of applying for a C. Zone he wishes to apply for a B-1 Zone. I have been advised that the Planning Board will meet on June 30, 1973 and would hpe that this matter could be reviewed on tha('date. After this Application has been reviewed by the Planning Board an~ the Suffolk County Planning Commission please advise me as to the of the public hearing. Very ~ yours/// OFOtmc / // 2 copiesf(r Planning Board ?-!ay 31, 1~73 Mr. Edward Gilles Box 393 Sound Avenue ~attituck, ~[e~ York 11932 Dear Mr. Gilles: The Planning Board would like you to come to thQir next regular meeting, June 13th at 7:30 p.m., to discuss your application for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "C" Light Industrial on your premises at Mattituck. Very sincerely, JW: t.le John Wickham, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board OFFI t SFIUTHOLD, I, I, N, Y. 11~?1 February 14, 1973 Mr. John Wickham, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Cutchogue, New York 11935 Dear Mr. Wickham: The original petition of Edward Gilles requesting a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "C" Light Industrial District on certain property at Ma ttituck is in the files in the office of the Planning Board at Southold, New York. You are instructed to prepare an official report defining the conditions described in the petition and determine the area so affected with the recommendation of your Board. Very truly Fou~ Albert W. Richmond Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF FOR A CHAiWGE, MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDIN- ANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORI(. PETITION TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: (insert name of petitioner) Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 · t Suffolk Coun y, New York, the undersigned, am the owner of certain real property situated at ....... l~at t;zt uck ~...~,. X.. .............. and more As per survey: Parcel ~l - 57.285 Acres particularly bounded and described as follows; 1-2 N. 54° 15' 50" W. 772.95 2-5 N. 20~ 48' 20" W. 205.55 5-# N. S1° 25' 00" E. 414.50 ~-5 N. 62° 55' 00" E. ~29.19 5-6 N. 62~ 45' 50" E. 269.51 6-7 N. 55° 25' ~0" E. 195.#6 ft. 7-8 S.58" 50' 50" E. 85.96 ft. 8-9 S.55" 12' 40" E. 246.00 ft. 9-10 S.27~ z~5' ~0" E. 215.00 ft. 10-11 S.55~ Ol' ~0" E. 158.00 ft. ll-12 S.45" 25' ~0" E. 199.10 ft. 12-15 S.S1: 55' 00" E. 452.41 ft. 15-14 Rad. 48.85 - arc 52.05ft. 14-1 S.76° 00' 40" W. 1564.18 ft. Parcel #2 - 1.99 Acres ft. 15-16 Rad. 2820.79 arc 169.27 ft. ft. 16-17 N. 76~ 00' 40" E. 297.36 ft. ft. 17-18 S.19° 54' 00" E. 19~.~7 ft. ft. 18-19 S.74~ ~9' 00" W. 408.81 Ft. ft. 19-25 N. 55" 16' 00" W. 41.50 ft. 20-15 N. 55~ 58' 50" W. 170.24 ft. 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the 'rown of Southold to change, modify and amend the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, including the Building Zone Maps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: To change zone from: A Residential to C Ligh~ Industrial 3. Suchrequestis madeforthefollowingreasons: This parcel of land has been recommended for C Zone - Light Industry - by Raymond, May, Parish and. Pine Planning Consultants in Development Plan, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York and is presently shown C Zone Light Industry in Southold Town Master Plan. STATE OF NEW YORK, ) ) SS:- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ) EDWARD GILLES ............................................................................ , BEING DULY SWORN, deposes and says that he is the petitioner in the within action; that he has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his (her) own knowledge, except as to the mat- ters 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 this ~.. '~" '-~I~'~'~ ;'r 'y' 'i~'~ii~i No 5: ,.' ('o : 9 V .9 - ] ~-o vV,':;'mO G 2 L Z_ // z., ENb-i 7 k 24� 0 NEAP OF k_ ar.tp Surzve YEQ PCP- 0 JOHN GE ( ER ir { v G QE F--I-,, PO QT m TOWN OF SC;L)T +our , s p 6 y } Ave.(, = ICf_ 557� wcves i 0 a d Z i i Guavu.� died a i.�e: HeHie -Tule Div ^' i Titch %: . oyooc-c= Ca% uru io ttte So ui'I� olc,1 Scavir,<_j �t.trve: i•'::�t Octu'o —,;CN S.84°SS"3.0"W. Vi