Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeadow Farms Associates-W/drawn '~~~'~~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 JUDITIIT TFRRY ~FLEPHONE ~msr~ o~ WT~L STates,ms OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 28, 1986 Meadow Farms Associates P. O. Box 616 $outhold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 14, 1986 withdrawing your application (No. 268) for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District on certain property on the westerly side of Route 25, Southold. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry c/ Southold Town Clerk MEADOW FARMS ASSOCIATES P. O. BOX 616 Southold, New York 11971 Southold Town Board Town Hall Main Poad Southold, New York 11971 Re: Meadow Farms Zoning Application Dear Supervisor Murphy and Board Members: We hereby request withdrawal of our application for rezoninq to the "M-l" zone for affordable housing for the project known as "Meadow Farms". Our original goal in applying for rezoning was to try and supply moderate housing as soon as practicable to the Southold community. In the summer of 1984, we correctly realized that the Master Plan was not imminent, and that the only way we knew to gain approval for affordable housing within the existing ordinance was to ask for a rezoning to "M-l" and use the existing preliminary guidelines for afford- able h~u~ing ~s described in the Master Plan. Our original goal is no longer a viable alternative in that we are more than a year and a half from original submission and still at "ground zero." The failure of the Town Board to expeditiously review our Draft Environmental Impact State- ment, as required by the regulations, has placed us many months behind schedule. Our original submission of the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement to the Town, with a separate copy to the Town's consultant, Mr. David Emilita, took place on December 20, 1985. It appears, however, that it was not reviewed until this month, almost four and one-half months after the original submission, and now the Town finds the Draft inadequate. Southold Town Board April 14, 1986 Page 2 While we still feel willing and capable of producing a moderately-priced housing project on our site, we are forced to await the completion of the Town's requirements on affordable housing so as not to waste additional time and money needlessly. If those guidelines and regulations are completed within a responsible time frame, we may, at that time, submit an application. We hope that the Town, in completing the guidelines, will not place affordable/moderate projects in the bureaucratic quagmire we have just been through because our young people may be old by the time affordable housing is available to them. Very truly yours, MEADOW FARMS ASSOCIATES By: Jo~U~ft~ni" : mdh  l-ow~. Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 JLIDIT[IT '[[RRY [bLEPHONE FI£GiSTR^r OF VITAL 5TATISTIC'$ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TO,tN OF SOUIHOLD April 10, 1986 Meadow Farms Associates Main Road, NYS Route 25 Post Office Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemeo: Enclosed herewith is a resolution of the Southold Town Board, adopted at their regular meeting held on April 8, 1986, requesting you to resubmit an entirely new Oraft Environmental Impact State- ment with respect to your petition No. 268 for a change of zone from "A" to "M" on 18 acres of land located on the westerly side of Main Road, Southold. I believe the resolution is self-explanatory, but should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am also enclosing a copy of the memorandum from Szepatowski Associates, Inc., dated March 28, 1986, relative to the DEIS. Very truly yours, .._7.-'~'.k ~7~-~ ~_. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures cc: D. Emilita Planning Board  q~' cq ' .~oad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 JUDITIIT TFRRY TELFPHONF ~EGIST~AR OF VIRAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF TilE 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 8, 1986: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold, by not having caused to be filed a notice of completion with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact State- ment of Meadow Farms Associates, is still in the stage of review under Section 617.8(b) of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Rules and Regulations, for determining whether to accept the draft as satisfactory with respect to scope, content and adequacy of the submission, and WHEREAS, opening the public comment period and holding a public hearing on the submission, while premature, does not damage the process or preclude reinstituting a more conforming procedure, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the applicant, Meadow Farms Associates, be advised to resubmit an entirely new Draft Environmental Impact Statement, complying with the Scoping Session product, public hearing comments, and on the review of Szepatowski Associates, Inc., and be it further RESOLVED that at the time a new submission is made, it should be reviewed as to scope, content and adequacy, before a subsequent review period and public hearing is scheduled. Judith T. Terry ~ Southold Town Clerk April 10, 1986 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS APR 4 1986 TO: Southold Town Board Town CI~ ~oul~:gd FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc. RE: Meadow Farms Change-of-Zone DEIS DATE: March 28, 1986 Pursuant to your Resolution dated March 25, 1986, we have completed our review of the above mentioned DEIS. Before we begin our comments, a few prefacing remarks should be made. In order to shorten the overall SEQR Process, it is recommended that as soon as an EIS is received by a local lead agency, the EIS be referred to whomever will be doing the EIS review to determine its completeness and adequacy for review before issuing a notice of completion and before opening the public comment period. It serves no practical purpose to begin reviewing an incomplete EIS, starts a protracted review process of an inadequate document, requires supplements and addenda which in many cases confuse the public and adds to the expense of both the applicant and lead agency. Further, there can be only one lead agency on a given action, although there may be many involved agencies. The agencies involved in issuing permits for a project should, prior to any declaration of lead agency, determine who among themselves should be the lead agency under SEQR. This allows for early discussion of the project and provides an informal framework for the formal SEQR procedure to follow. Finally, there can be no final determination and findings until all SEQR requirements have been met, all mitigation measures included, or the project modified sufficiently to minimize significant impacts. There can be no agency approval until the findings are made by each involved agency. Thus in the Meadow Farms case, the Town Board must make SEQR findings relative to the change-of-zone and the Planning Board must make SEQR fundings relative to the subdivision approval, all based on fulfilling the SEQR requirements. The DEIS has serious deficiencies to the point that no intelligent decision can be made as to whether the development is technically feasible, let alone what its environmental impac:s may be. Several serious omissions exist in the DEIS. A discussion of demography and cultural resources is absent. Significant impacts are possible in these areas. Schools and community services, discussed in the Scoping Session, are not mentioned. No alternatives to the proposed action are discussed 23 ~rr~u~nserr ~...e. !.~me,[o'.~n. ~ 0£525 40~,423 0430 in any meaningful way. Growth inducing aspects do not consider the effect of expanding public water or providing additional access along the parcel's northern boundary (mentioned on Page 3 only). In short we find the DEIS grossly inadequate and incomplete. Our specific comments are as follows: Page 1 - The New York State Department of Transportation, the Suffolk County Planning Commission, and perhaps the Village of Greenport and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation should be added to the approving authorities. Page 2-3 - There are no illustrations to locate the parcel or describe the qualities mentioned. "Map #l"is not included. Page 4 - Mention is made of conceptual design layout and how this shows the characteristics of the improvements and how they relate to the site, the ~4aster Plan, and Proposed Zoning Ordinance, but it is not included. It should be or the reader cannot verity the points being raised. Page 5 On the matter of maintenance by the Homeowners Association, it is not demonstrated how this will result in "lo%~er operating costs to the individual homeowner" since cash dollars must be outlayed for labor otherwise provided by each homeowner himself. If the applicant is trying to foster affordable housing this appears to be contradictory. It also infringes on a homeowner's property right to maintain his own lot as he sees fit. How this might make a dwelling unit more saleable is not demonstrated, since on page 6, the sales program is to be slanted to purchasers with basic carpentry skills. Why a purchaser who could only afford an unfurnished dwelling would want to pay a maintenance fee for lawn mowing is not clear. Page 6-7 - It is stated that the one-bedroom units (without stairs) are stated for elderly occupants. Why then do these units have basements? Elderly housing units more typically have all space needs provided for on one floor. Page 7 - The prices stated would appear to be regarded as "affordable". However, a firmer description and understanding of the applicant's commitment to a pre-determined pricing schedule is needed. It must be binding and enforceaDle by the Town of Southold. Indexing for increasing costs must be agreed to in advance. The mention of six months is confusing. Does it mean a fixed price for si:( months or an indexed price for six months? Ho mention is made about to whom the units would be offered or resale of the units. These are of prime concern since the reason for changing the Zone in the firs~ place is affordable housing for local people. SZ~PATOW~IASSOCIATESI~C. EN%II~ONMENI~LCON%LJLTANIS The paragraph describing water fees is confusing. Is it $2,700 per unit? How does this equate to reductions in water fees? The rental offer is worthy of consideration, but like the sales proposition, eligible renters, lease conditions, sub-leasing and other matters of concern need to be detailed and made enforce- able by the Town. Page 8-9 Careful consideration must be given to the pavement widths suggested. Drainage should in no way be compromised as the pavement will soon deteriorate if drainage is inadequate. On-street parking should be prohibited as well as off-street parking in the minimum front yard requirement. Under the heading of storm water drainage, water supply, sewage treatment and landscaping are all discussed in a very superficial way. Compliance with SCDHS standards would be expected of any development, this one is no different. No technical studies are offered to substantiate whether any of the systems proposed are even feasible on this site, let alone what their environmental impact might be. This entire development may not be feasible without the approvals of each of the municipal agencies cited. Page 10 - The discussion on construction and operation is too general and vague to be of any use in discussing the project, its impacts or mitigation measures. The list of approvals is incomplete as previously mentioned. Page 10-11 - Soils are described per SCS studies, but are not mapped, nor are borings shown° Page 11-12 - No topography is shown. Page 11 - Groundwater resources are described in general but no attempt has been made to relate this to the proposed development. Page 18 - Public water supply system expansion is assumed without documentation. There will be a decrease in wildlife food sources as well as a loss wildlife due to being permanently dislocated from their present sites. Groundwater impacts are not quantitied nor is their effect on private wells discussed. ~o municipal or community impacts are discussed. Page 23-24 - Open space and wildlife impacts are discussed and vague mitigation measures proposed but no locations, types, quantities of effectiveness is estimated. SZEP~TO%¥SKI ASSOCIATES lINC. E'~x. IRO~',¥~ENI&I CO~SUL¥.'~Ntg -'~ The remainder of the non-traffic elements of the DEIS are inadequate due to their dependance on the superficiality of the previous sections. To summarize, we find that no decision can be made relative to SEQR based on the DEIS. The Scoping Product has not been followed. Virtually a complete new DEIS would be needed to satisfy the concerns we have raised. A severely inadequate environmental review is not recommended to begin the Town's implementation of an affordable housing policy. It sets a bad precedent and may be intenable in judicial review setting all parties back at least a year. We recommend a new draft environmental impact statement. SZEPATO~.%'SK 4SSOCIATFS INC. SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENvIRONMEN~L CONSULTANTS APR 4 TO: Southold Town Board FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc. T~q~ RE: Meadow Farms Change-of-Zone DEIS DATE: March 28, 1986 Pursuant to your Resolution dated March 25, 1986, we have completed our review of the above mentioned DEIS. Before we begin our comments, a few prefacing remarks should be made. In order to shorten the overall SEQR Process, it is recommended that as soon as an EIS is received by a local lead agency, the EIS be referred to whomever will be doing the EIS review to determine its completeness and adequacy for review before issuing a notice of completion and before opening the public comment period. It serves no practical purpose to begin reviewing an incomplete EIS, starts a protracted review process of an inadequate document, requires supplements and addenda which in many cases confuse the public and adds to the expense of both the applicant and lead agency. Further, there can be only one lead agency on a given action, although there may be many involved agencies. The agencies involved in issuing permits for a project should, prior to any declaration of lead agency, determine who among themselves should be the lead agency under SEQR. This allows for early discussion of the project and provides an informal framework for the formal SEQR procedure to follow. Finally, there can be no final determination and findings until all SEQR requirements have been met, all mitigation measures included, or the project modified sufficiently to minimize significant impacts. There can be no agency approval until the findings are made by each involved agency. Thus in the Meadow Farms case, the Town Board must make SEQR findings relative to the change-of-zone and the Planning Board must make SEQR fundings relative to the subdivision approval, all based on fulfilling the SEQR requirements. The DEIS has serious deficiencies to the point that no intelligent decision can be made as to whether the development is technically feasible, let alone what its environmental impacts may be. Several serious omissions exist in the DEIS. A discussion of demography and cultural resources is absent. Significant impacts are possible in these areas. Schools and community services, discussed in the Scoping Session, are not mentioned. No alternatives to the proposed action are discussed in any meaningful way. Growth inducing aspects do not consider the effect of expanding public water or providing additional access along the parcel's northern boundary (mentioned on Page 3 only). In short we find the DEIS grossly inadequate and incomplete. Our specific comments are as follows: Page 1 - The New York State Department of Transportation, the Suffolk County Planning Commission, and perhaps the Village of Greenport and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation should be added to the approving authorities. Page 2-3 - There are no illustrations to locate the parcel or describe the qualities mentioned. "Map #l"is not included. Page 4 - Mention is made of conceptual design layout and how this shows the characteristics of the improvements and how they relate to the site, the Master Plan, and Proposed Zoning Ordinance, but it is not included. It should be or the reader cannot verity the points being raised. Page 5 - On the matter of maintenance by the Homeowners Association, it is not demonstrated how this will result in "lower operating costs to the individual homeowner" since cash dollars must be outlayed for labor otherwise provided by each homeowner himself. If the applicant is trying to foster affordable housing this appears to be contradictory. It also infringes on a homeowner's property right to maintain his own lot as he sees fit. How this might make a dwelling unit more saleable is not demonstrated, since on page 6, the sales program is to be slanted to purchasers with basic carpentry skills. Why a purchaser who could only afford an unfurnished dwelling would want to pay a maintenance fee for lawn mowing is not clear. Page 6-7 - It is stated that the one-bedroom units (without stairs) are stated for elderly occupants. Why then do these units have basements? Elderly housing units more typically have all space needs provided for on one floor. Page 7 - The prices stated would appear to be regarded as "affordable". However, a firmer description and understanding of the applicant's commitment to a pre-determined pricing schedule is needed. It must be binding and enforceable by the Town of Southold. Indexing for increasing costs must be agreed to in advance. The mention of six months is confusing. Does it mean a fixed price for six months or an indexed price for six months? No mention is made about to whom the units would be offered or resale of the units. These are of prime concern since the reason for changing the Zone in the first place is affordable housing for local people. S~E~ATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRON~ENI~L CONSLIL~N~$ The paragraph describing water fees is confusing. Is it $2,700 per unit? How does this equate to reductions in water fees? The rental offer is worthy of consideration, but like the sales proposition, eligible renters, lease conditions, sub-leasing and other matters of concern need to be detailed and made enforce- able by the Town. Page 8-9 - Careful consideration must be given to the pavement widths suggested. Drainage should in no way be compromised as the pavement will soon deteriorate if drainage is inadequate. On-street parking should be prohibited as well as off-street parking in the minimum front yard requirement. Under the heading of storm water drainage, water supply, sewage treatment and landscaping are all discussed in a very superficial way. Compliance with SCDHS standards would be expected of any development, this one is no different. No technical studies are offered to substantiate whether any of the systems proposed are even feasible on this site, let alone what their environmental impact might be. This entire development may not be feasible without the approvals of each of the municipal agencies cited. Page 10 - The discussion on consLruction and operation is too general and vague to be of any use in discussing the project, its impacts or mitigation measures. The list of approvals is incomplete as previously mentioned. Page 10-11 - Soils are described per SCS studies, but are not mapped, nor are borings shown. Page 11-12 - No topography is shown. Page 11 - Groundwater resources are described in general but no attempt has been made to relate this to the proposed development. Page 18 Public water supply system expansion is assumed without documentation. There will be a decrease in wildlife food sources as well as a loss wildlife due to being permanently dislocated from their present sites. Groundwater impacts are not quantified nor is their effect on private wells discussed. No municipal or community impacts are discussed. Page 23-24 - Open space and wildlife impacts are discussed and vague mitigation measures proposed but no locations, types, quantities of effectiveness is estimated. SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIf~-ONMEN]AL CC)NSUL)'AN TS The remainder of the non-traffic elements of the DEIS are inadequate due to their dependance on the superficiality of the previous sections. To summarize, we find that no decision can be made relative to SEQR based on the DEIS. The Scoping Product has not been followed. Virtually a complete new DEIS would be needed to satisfy the concerns we have raised. A severely inadequate environmental review is not recommended to begin the Town's implementation of an affordable housing policy. It sets a bad precedent and may be intenable in judicial review setting all parties back at least a year. We recommend a new draft environmental impact statement. SZEPATOwSKI ASSOCIATES INC. E~VIfLOF, IF.~ENI&L CONSULts\NTb P.O. Box 728  Southold. New York 11971 JUDITIIT TERRY TELFPHONE ,~EGISTRfiR Or VITAL S1FATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD March 26, 1986 Meadow Farms Associates Main Road, NYS Route 25 Post Office Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: This is to advise you that the Southold Town Board, at their regular meeting held on March 25, 1986, adopted a resolution direct- ing Town Planner David Emilita to review the comments with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding your change of zone petition. The resolution further states that the actual expense to the Town for this review shall be paid to the Town by Meadow Farms Associates prior to the issuance of a building permit. Very truly yours, Judith T, Terry Southold Town Clerk cc: David Emilita Planning Board PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD March 11, 1986 8:00 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEADOW FARMS WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE. Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilman George L. Penny IV Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR MURPHY: It's now 8:00 P.M. and we'd like to hold a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Meadow Farms Associates. Jay Schondebare will do the official reading. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: "Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, March 11, 1986 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by Meadow Farms Associates, with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 268, on certain property located on the westerly side of Main (NYS Route 25) Road, south of Tuckers Lane, Southold, New York, consisting of 18 acres. Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of an affordable housing program with a density of four units per acre. SEQR lead agency is the Southold Town Board. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. Dated: February 4, 1986. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I have an affidavit from The Long Island Traveler-Watchman indicating that that was published by their paper. I have an affidavit of publication by The Suffolk Times indicating that the notice was published in their paper. I have an affidavit by the Town Clerk that she posted said notice on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Jay. You've heard the official reading of the notice of this public hearing. Is there anybody here representing the petitioner who would like to address the Board? WILBUR KLATSKY: Ladies and gentlemen of the Town Board, Supervisor Murphy, my name is Wilbur Klatsky, I'm a City Planner and represent Meadow Farms Associates. We are here this evening only to make brief comment and basically to monitor and listen to the public comment concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page 2 - Meadow Farm_ OEIS prepared for Meadow Farms by the Land Use Company. I would like to just for the record indicate that we have had a rather lengthy period to study the land and meet as early as February of 85. I had numerous meetings with the Planning Board, and from those meetings, and also to address the affordable housing needs that were out- line in the Master Plan we submitted an application to the Town Board for this subject change of zone in February of 1985. After that the application was referred back to the Planning Board for their comments. The Planning Board made a positive recommenda- tion in July of 1985 to approve the subject application. The Town Board which accepted lead agency status requested we have a scoping meeting for the development of the environmental impact statement. We had that meeting on 9/24/85, and the environmental impact statement was submitted to the Town Clerk December 20th,1985 and we are here tonight to make a few brief comments, but basically we'll listen. The Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement and the proposed zoning change is basically in conformance with the standards established within the Master Plan and the proposed Zoning Ordinance now being considered by the Town Board. It falls within the Hamlet District. It falls within the proposed Hamlet Densities, and accordingly is completely consistent with that plan and we think admirably it addressed the problems in relation to the making avail- able of affordable house. The environmental impact statement as we know the process, is submitted to permit an ample time for public comment as well as agency comment from the various agencies, and tonight represents in some respects the culmination of that process in the establishment of a public hearing to hear the public at large in relation to the statement. It is our understanding that following this meeting the Town Board, which is the lead agency, will develop a list of any additional questions the feel they want the applicant to respond to and the applicant will, of course, respond immediately to its application and try to secure a final statement from the Town Board in order to permit the applicant to proceed with this application for a zoning change and to permit at that point to seek site plan approval from the Planning Board. Again, we're not here tonight to answer questions. We're simply here to listen and we thank the Board for their time and their effort on our behalf. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MUI~PHY~ Thank you, sir. Okay, is there anyone e~se would like to address the Town Board who's in favor of this proposed application, or would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? Sir? DAVID AVERETTE~ I was a resident of Southold for 30 years. I work for my parents. SUPERVISOR MIJRPHY~ What's your name? DAVID AVERETTE~ David Averette. They're talking about condos here that are probably the density- I don't know what it is, but it's quite a bit. It's iust that they're all next to each other. That doesn't look like the kind of place I grew up in, because I grew up in Southwood Estates, which was one acre zoning, I think. It's quite a lot. Didn't help the pollution with the underground water system, because the more property people keep taking down for one acre, two acres, they keep planting more grass, put more nitrates into with their underground irrigation systems, they're defeating your own purpose. It doesn't make any difference. Theirs is a big dance, I would say. Seventy-two units is quite a bit. They're not going to get 72 young people moving out from I don't know where to live out here, because there's no place to work. We can't find workers in our store. Where they going to live? This accessory apartment thing is ridiculous. I don't think--how many people applied for it so far? It's not going to work. There's apartments out there for $600 a month, Nobody's taken them because they can't afford it because we can only pay a certain amount of wages out here with the income we get in. My parents can only pay a certain amount. We can't pay somebody $40, 000--$50, 000 a year they Page 3 Meadow Farms DEIS need to buy a house out here. Now, forcing people to buy two acres is almost like me saying, Okay, I want you to buy this luxury Cadillac that's made in the United States whether you can afford it. It's not right. You know? No one's making $40,000. That's my point. It takes almost $50,000 a year to buy a house and land out here. Where do you expect these people to get it from? There was a good article in Newsday the other day what we're competing with. People in rent controlled apartments in the city making $60,000 a year, putting $40,000 down on houses out here competing with us. We can't do it. And they want people to come and mow their lands. They want developments here, but what are they going to do about the young people? Where do they want us to live? They want people to mow their lawn to be brought in on buses or what? It's just totally ridiculous and I'm sick of the whole thing. They can pump all the water they want out of this damn ground that I've lived on for 30 years. Came out of the service and found out I couldn't live here any more, so I live in Riverhead, and they can pump it out in their underground irrigation systems and water their damn green lawns, and I can't have a quarter acre of my own and wash my family with it. Screw the whole Town. And the Farmland Preservation Act. The farmers can't afford to farm. What are you going to do with it? Look at their land? Come on. That's an economic problem. Housing isn't crunching out the farmer, the farmers would never sell their land if they could afford to make a living. And I've lived out here all my life and I'd like to know where the "our" people are. "Our" this and "our" that. I've lived out here all my life. My grandparents lived out here all their lives, They came from Poland and ran farms out here. And they clustered before any of you people thought about it in Polish Town. They build their houses next to each other and left all the space open. You people came out and wanted one and two acres, three acres, and use it all up. Why didn't you stay in one little spot? No. Now there's no land left as far as I'm concerned and it doesn't make any difference with the develop- ments I seen. Or~ development wants curbing. They want it to look rural. What is rural? When I grew up the same things that are here now were here then. When my grandparents grew up. You just want to stifle the whole thing. I don't know what it is. Where do you expect these people to get the money? And the fact is most of you can't buy your own houses back. You're rubbing your equity in our faces like some kind of joke. I just can't take it any more. I'm probably the youngest one here. None of my friends live in this Town any more. They can't afford it. They' re not going to mow your lawns for nothing and if they do they're going to charge you outrageous prices; they can live here and then you're going to complain about the price they're charging you. So it's just going to come right back to you. That's all it's going to do. Eventually you're going to be just like some of the places I worked down in Florida, with a bunch of old people sitting around and throwing the dice. You know? So whatever you guys decide there's got to be some housing out here. Not just apartments. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to address the Town Board in favor of this proposal? (No response.) Is there anyone would like to speak in opposition to this Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed zone change? In the back. RUSSELL MANN: My name is Mann, Russell Mann. First I want to say that I am not opposed to affordable housing. I think there are better ways of getting afford- able housing than down-grading from two acre to quarter acre zoning. And 72 houses on 18 acres, after you take out what you need for the streets, isn't even going to be quarter acre. You're going to be on less than a quarter of an acre. We've heard that we want to preserve our rural environment. Over and over again. Open space. And we have water problems. We have sewer problems. If you put 72 units on 18 acres you're not going to help these problems. I have here--this is Suffolk County Department of Health Services--this is a Realty Subdivision and Development Environ- Page 4 Meadow Farm_ DEIS mental Assessment Questionnaire. These are the questions that they ask. Will the project result in a large physical change to the project site - physically alter more than 10 acres of land? I'm not going to answer these. You can answer them yourselves. Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing body of water? I have had it speculated that the cesspools might drain into Jockey Creek. I don't know that they will. Will the project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? I can't answer that either, but it certainly seems that it might. Will the project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? Well I don't know whether 72 oilburners and 72 automobiles going in and out are going to have a major adverse effect, but it could have some. Will the project have a major effect on the visual character of the community? I don't think there's any question about that. Will the project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect on existing trans- portation systems? You have 72 dwellings, all of which would probably have at least one vehicle entering and leaving the Main Road on one single 100 foot access. That seems to be a problem. I could go on and read the rest of these, but I don't want to bore you to death. I am very seriously opposed to this and I think I've made my reasons clear and I hope the Board will take my thoughts into consideration and I thank you for listening to me for this length of time. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else over here? Jim? JAMES BITSES: Granting this "M" zone in this particular case would be tantamount to creating a future slum. The so-called Iow cost housing that's going to be produced is merely a gimmick, just as Founders Village had a gimmick that they were building houses for the elderly. They will promise Iow prices, but they will charge high prices because we have seen what happened in Founders Village. The construction will be as cheap as possible, because that's how builders make a profit - by cheating the person who buys the building from them. Once the siding is on the building and once the wallboard is up you don't know what you're buying, but I have built houses in this Town, not too many, but I have built a few and I know what I'm talking about. Any- thing that a builder can swindle on he will, because it goes into his pocket and nobody is the wiser for at least three or five years. Now besides cheap construction, particle board and hemlock- George, you know what hemlock is. They used to call it screw pine. Besides that there are no fire stops because there's no fire stop statute in this Town. And worst of all, there are no garages. I commend you gentlemen to go over to Founders Village and take a look at which I call auto pollution. Cars parked all over the place and Founders Village is not yet fully occupied. When it is it will look like a parking lot and it will not look like Southold. This is guaranteed, as Founders Village, to destroy any kind of small town ambiance that we have at the present time. It will increase taxes, because it is well known that developers of this type use up more of the Town facilities then they contribute in taxes. They use more roads, more police, more fire services, and most important of all more water use. They will contaminate the groundwater in perpetuity with human feces. And when I say human feces, I include the bacteria in human feces and the parisites in human feces. And when you have water rings, ladies and gentlemen, what you are doing is stealing water from one part of the Town to deliver it to another part of the Town that is not supplying its own water. You have the spectacle of pump fields throughout the Town, water being shipped to Greenport to support quarter acre lots in Greenport, or quarter acre lots in this "M" zone and other "M" zones like it. You have the further spectacle of a carcinogenous chemical called chlorine being dumped into the water and this water with the dead contaminants, the dead ecoli bacteria, the dead parasites, and the traces of human feces are pumped back to the rest of the Town and drunk by the people who drink piped water in this Town. Now, there are certain primal rules that are followed in Bermuda, because Bermuda is a small island surrounded by salt water, and these cardinal rules also affect this Town, because we, in effect, are a small island. In Bermuda, as in this Town, each house must provide one or two acres of water shed Page 5 - Meadow Farm_ OEIS or at least provide a surface on its roof so that it can fill its own cistern. Why? Because the water in Bermuda, as in this Town, comes from the sky. It falls from the sky. It's filtered by the ground. It's pure. Our reservoirs are beneath our feet. And it is pure while it is there, until we start to contaminate it. Now, when you have a density of this type, you have a tremendous contaminate load that cannot be cleared by the natural filtering action of the sand and gravel beneath our feet. So consequently if there was any logical policy in this Town, it would require that each house could provide its own watershed area, one to two acres. Each house must provide one to two acres of filtration. There must be a distance between the well and the cesspool. The law says a hundred feet, I say a hundred and fifty feet, because traces of contaminates are found in wells, but they are within tolerable limits. In other words, you can drink sewage, my friends, as long as they're within tolerable limits. The simple solution is to extend this to a hundred and fifty feet, but nobody wants to do that for economic reasons. So we hang on to that one hundred foot. In this case there's no such thing as one hundred foot. The water comes in in pipes stolen from other parts of the Town and the contaminates go straight into the groundwater to contaminate everything to the south. The water dome flow is from the north to the south in that area and it may possibly reach Jockey Creek-- it will probably reach Jockey Creek. Three, the water mains steal water from one part of Town and deliver water to high density areas. I have told you about the distance of the wells. Now, if you grant--I'm not against "M" zones per se. But when you grant a density of this sort, and when you allow houses to be built close to town, in this density, you are merely following a formula that made sense in the 1800's and 1900's when people had to walk to various places. We don't travel that way any longer. In fact, you are creating a focus--a traffic focus as well, as Russ pointed out before. You are creating a traffic focus and you are creating incipient traffic jams. You must have garages for every house° because by their nature cars drip oil on the road and the rain washes it into the ground and we drink it five years down the line. All these reasons, very good and logical reasons, militate against the granting of this particular "M" zone in this particular location. Gentlemen, I beseech you to stop destroying the Town. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Jim. Is there anyone else would like to speak in opposition to this? Sir. ROBERT PRITCHARD, Main Road, $outhold: Now I've lived on Main Road for the past over 20 years at Tuckers Lane, on the turn down there. I don't know if you are familiar with the situation there with the traffic coming around there at all hours of the night. The accidents that have taken place down there, and what the traffic is now and getting to be even worse during the summer. You cannot pour traffic from 72 homes into Main Road on a Saturday and Sunday without causing havoc. It's going to be murder. Not only that, I would like to expound also on the other con- ditions where it's located. It's not feasible, as far as I'm concerned, as they said, did you ever drink Greenport water? Any of you people have Greenport water? What does it taste like, Greenport water? I have Greenport water. You like rusty clothes when it comes out of the laundry. We all know this, right? Now you're going to tell me you're going to supply them with water down there when Greenport can't even supply decent water now? Forget it. The whole thing. Not only that, ta×es. What's going to happen to the taxes? Are the ta×es going to stay the same as they are now? No way. The taxes are going to go up. I'm not against Iow housing, but not in this area. Not only that, but I think the people who's going to move into there are not going to be able to afford to pay the rent that they're going to have to pay there. The mortgages. They can't pay it in Shirley. They can't pay it in Mastic. How are they going to pay it here with the taxes rising the way they are? That's about all I have to say. I do not go along with it one iota. Thank you very much. Page 6 Meadow Farmo OEIS SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak? Ruth. RUTH OLIVA, North Fork Environmental Council: We're not here to comment pro or con on this proposal at this time, because that would come before a change of zone. This is primarily for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We've read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and found it to be rather sloppy. There's just not enough information in it, I do not believe, to determine whether this will have an affect on the environment or not. First of all I would not even consider this that they mentioned the thing of affordable housing. This is getting, I know, into a planning stage, and yet I feel that the Town Board, in their need to determine where to put affordable housing, may have to kind of take some of this planning into their considerations. But for two bedroom at $73,500, and a one bedroom at $61,000 I do not consider that moderate income, Iow moderate income. It's certainly on a higher level. And they would just reduce 10% of the homes--in other words, seven of them, $10,000. And this price will only hold for six months. I think they should have listed the alternatives as to two acre zoning, what the affect of that would be and also they are planning on having four units per acre, with water and sewer. Now they do not have the water available even to feed into the Greenport system, because I have a letter here from the Department of Health saying that analysis indicate nitrate and pesticides levels consistently in excess of State standards and guidelines. So, therefore, it would cost quite a bit of money for them to treat the water and then feed that into the Greenport system. And as you know, Greenport is really having problems with their own system. They are going to have to spend a great deal of money just to upgrade what they have, let alone to expand it. And from the figures that were presented last night to the Utilities Committee, starting a new well will cost Brecknock, I believe it is $249,000 and for Costello perhaps maybe $349,000. And there's no assurity even in there that you will be able to retain a high production. So they're going to have to rely on Greenport for water. Sewage. What are they going to do for the sewage? I do not believe that this has been discussed fully. ~'d like to see some sort of a letter from the Department of Health stating what type of sewage that they would recommend or they would require. Is it going to be denitrification, which I believe Bob Villa, before the Housing Committee, had some questions about. Or cesspools or what? There was no mention of storm runoff or control from impervious surfaces. I believe soil testing should be made. This is at the head of Jockey Creek. This was not mentioned. Also, of course, there would be a decrease in groundwater quality due to a sewage system if it was there. I think that should be mentioned, even though it is contaminated at this point. Also, to contain this storm runoff, as to how many inches of rain would be the requirement. Didn't see that. Is there going to be an underground irrigation system needed? The traffic. There is to be one ingress and one egress for 72 homes. He stated there would be an emergency exit to the north and yet I believe the developer--Mr. Mann says there is not going to be any emergency exit to the north. So these are just some of the things that I think should be answered. And just one little funny one I thought was that they said there would be an increase in wildlife food sources if this thing was developed, which I question. So, thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: The racoons like garbage cans. Anyone else? Sir. CHRIS BAIZ: My family lives in the east end of Southold, however, I happen to be one of the contiguous owners to this proposed development site. I have several points I'd like to make. First of all, in the overall application I consider that there is a lack of full disclosure of all the principals involved in Meadow Farms Associates. No where in the document on file here with the Planning Board is the individual who Page 7 Meadow Farm~ OEIS lives at 1~15 Schooner Road here in Southold, and I don't know how many other principals or partners there are in this, so l'm concerned about the lack of disclosure there. The second thing that I am concerned about is that in February of last year when the efforts were made to notify the various people in the area, either contiguous or within the 500 foot radius, or what have you, of the property, first of all I, as a new owner there, but prior to the filing of this plan and prior to even the ownership of this land by Meadow Farms Associates, was a landowner there. I also know that the property to the south of the proposed development site, the landowner there, during this time, had been John Wickham and he was certainly not one of the principals notified. I've checked with his family this afternoon. He has now passed that property on to a third party and I know they're not here tonight to be able to represent their own interests. I spoke also to another individual who happens to own the farm right across the railroad tracks from the development site, on the north side of the railroad tracks there. I notice that the notice was sent out to Clem Booth who is deceased by several years now. In fact that property has changed hands twice since his death and is currently owned by Dave Mudd. Dave was only aware of the proposed develop ment. He was not aware of the meeting tonight, because I spoke with him about 5:30 this evening. He had another meeting and he could not be here. So in terms of getting to the people, especially the contiguous landowners, I don't think they have been properly notified with regard to this meeting tonight or with regard to any of the proposed zone change here. I've only had about forty-five minutes this afternoon driving out from New York, to which I could sit down and read the files on this proposal. The other issues I've got specifically with the development. I think that affordable housing is a valid argument. I'm not sure that this site would be affordable housing for the next generation as time goes on. Certainly we have to meet current issues as they develop. Some of my concerns simply revolve around land values around this development site. If we in turn, as contiguous owners, are restricted to future restrictions on our ability to subdivide parcels down to something equivalent to an "M" rating. That's all I have to say. If there's anybody who can address some of these questions at a future date I'd be glad to write the Board or what have you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else? In the back. JOEY VU£N: I've just recently bought a home here. I live in New York City, and I live right in the middle of New York City and if you people think it's nice, it's not. It's horrible. But I also want to tell you that I'm now sorry that I came and bought a I~ouse on the Main Road, because what you are planning to do is just where I'm living now in the city. You're starting and you have a time bomb. I don't know much about this area, but I do know that common sense tells you that 72 houses on 18 acres is absolutely suicidal. You people must have your heads examined. I mean, I don't know if you fell asleep and then yo.~ woke up and said, these young people have no where to live, but this isn't it. And so close to town. I cannot back out of my driveway now. It's totally impossible for me to believe that you want to put that much housing in such a small area, and then you want to preserve water, you want to preserve animals, you want to preserve the beach, you want to preserve the land. This is certainly no way to do it, and I'm sorry, but you people will ask yourselves in ten and fifteen years, what did I do? Thank you. KATHERINE MITCHELI-~ I come from a two generation family in the same house on the Main Road. We are totally disappointed with what is happening. We are concerned because our children can't even cross the road anymore. They can't go out to meet their friends anymore. This will bring in more and more traffic causing endangerment to our children. We are living in a house now that we hear traffic going up and down 24 hours a day now as it is. I don't think we can tolerate much more traffic. Especially at night when you're trying to get some sleep also. But we are concerned as a two generation family living at the same house. We'd like to stay there for a little while longer, Thank you very much. Page 8 Meadow Farms OEIS SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to address the Board ? JOHN SKAI3RY, Peconic: Mrs. Mitchell and Cliff are very good friends of mine and I couldn't believe it when I found out that they were going to attempt to build a 72 house development with the entrance right across the street from them. Maybe--I hope I can give you some information that would be helpful. In 72 I was the Post Commander at the Legion and we had a number of accidents on the front lawn, just a couple hundred feet from the entrance, and we investigated it down there and we got the State to make some changes on the signs on the highway, but the Commissioner of Transportation--New York State road it is--said the only way to eliminate the problem--believe it or not--George- -believe it or not in Southold Town this was the 13th--number 13 as far as auto accidents in the whole County. This intersection of Tuckers and the Main Road where you're talking about having a 72 home development was the 13th in number of auto accidents in this County. It's no place for the entrance for 72 cars to try to get on the road. That's all I have to say. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to address the 13oard? Jean? JEAN TIEDKE: At the risk of losing a couple of friends in the audience I would like to say that I think that this is a plausable area for development of moderate--I'm not saying affordable, but moderate housing. I do think there are a number of problems that should be settled before that happens, and certainly one of them is the traffic. Egress and ingress on Route 25 would be, I think, terrible. It would be very dangerous. If there is any way he can get some kind of a right-of-way over to Tuckers Lane where traffic could go. Nonetheless, we do need some affordable or moderate housing in Town. I think that the idea of modular duplexes is a novel one for this Town, but I think it's one that we should not throw down the drain. I also think that they should be duplexes, not houses. I think that they should be some of them larger than what appears to be recommended. I do think that the Land Use Company did a pretty sloppy job, including grammatical errors, spelling errors, omissions and typos all over the place. If their information is as sloppy as their report looks, they better do it over. I would oppose what appears to be extensive regrading of that property, and I'm very familiar with the property, because my aunt was Mrs. Young and the owner of that house is here tonight, and I can remember spending five minutes many, many times trying to get out on to the Main Road and never, never backing out on to the Main Road. You drive out head first. I would certainly recommend the density be reduced. I think that 72 units on 18 acres is indeed too much. I think that the proposal of the Land Use Company to regrade the whole thing--I may have misread--but my impression was that they wanted to make it look like a little fancy park outside of New York City, which is not what we want. But I do think that the proposal should be reconsidered and perhaps go forward. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Russ? RUSSELL MANN: I hate to take the stage twice. I really don't hate to take it twice. I hear this business about access from Tuckers Lane. Well I guess by now everybody knows that I have several acres immediately north of the land from Meadow Farms Associates. Now when I bought the land the Planning Board asked me if I would accept two acre zoning, which I really wasn't ready to do but I did. So now I have two acre zoning. I'm not about to have a road going through the middle of it that's Page 9 - Meadow Farm~ OEIS going to cut the value of the land down tremendously. If somebody wants to buy the whole thing for my price then they can build a road. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone else want to comment to the Town Board? COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Mr. Mann, can we establish that the property between the Terry Court and the proposal that we have before us is owned by you, as I look at the map? MR. MANN: Yes. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Terry Court and the proposal, you own that land? MR. MANN: Yes. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: And you're not about to give an easement over that land for this project? MR. MANN: No, it's going to make a tremendous impact on the value of the land. I hope to retire on what I can sell off there and I'm going to need it. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: We'll see you later on. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, anyone else? Jean? JEAN TIEDKE: I misspoke. I meant Ackerly Pond Road, not Tuckers Lane. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Any other comments? (No response.) Okay, at this time we'll close the hearing, COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE; I have a question, Frank. To the applicant. On the road itself. Is it the proposal for a right turn lane and a left hand turn lane on Route 25? MR. KLATSKY: I'm sorry, what's the question? COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: On Route 25, is it the proposal a left hand turn lane and a right hand turn lane to be in existence? MR. KLATSKY: That would be required by DOT I believe. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Okay. And have you received any communications from the DOT with regards to that? MR. KLATSKY: We have and we have responded and gotten further information on having to deal with that intersection. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Is that road wide enough to allow for two turning lanes, left hand turning lane and a right hand turning lane and the thru lane? MR. KLATSKY: By DOT standards, yes, and with some provision to eliminate some parking at the access. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Any other Town Board member have any questions? COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: I'd like to ask with reference to the water quality. Page 10 - Meadow Farf,., DEIS You've had a test well rig up there I believe, haven't you on the farm? MR. KLATSKY: We were required to do a test well on the property and the results have been made public. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: They're not in your statement though are they? MR. KLATSKY: They weren't required because we had made application to Greenport for water hook-up to the property. We have taken the precaution of doing that test well to determine whether or not we could supply water to the community itself, or to supply water to Greenport. And I'd like to make a further comment that it's still within the range of feasibility to clean up the water in relation to the test results, still make it available to the community and probably even have an overage available to the Village of Greenport for their water supply. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: You think you can get that volume of water out of that? MR. KLATSKY: The volume is no question according to the results of our study. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Could you make that available to us? That test well, what it was? MR. KLATSKY: In answer to your question, definitely we will make the test results of that well available, which will demonstrate both volume and other contents with the water, and we are also studying at this point in time the engineering feasibility and cost to actually clean up that water supply. But it's ample--it's more than ample to serve the program and have an excess. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: And when do you expect to have that engineering material so that you can determine whether it's feasible or not? Financially. MR. KLATSKY: We can probably have those results, if the question is asked by the lead agency, we can probably have those results and be incorporated in the report. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: I think that should be part of it. MR. KLATSKY: Fine. We would like to just make a comment that whatever the summation of the questions are we will respond to the lead agency list of questions and we'll note that one right now. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay. Any other Town Board member have any other concerns or questions? (Nothing at this time.) Okay. Anyone else in the audience? MR. PRITCHARD: I would like to ask the gentleman one question. If he has such a volume of water there, what will happen after taking it out over a period of time so close to Jockey Creek without having salt water intrusion and affecting the wells all around the area? MR. KLATSKY: If the Board requests I'll respond. The engineering study said- that we will provide you--established that there will be an ample water supply and it will not affect groundwater conditions. That's part of the nature of doing a test well. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone else? Ruth. Page 11 - Meadow Farr,.~ DEIS RUTH OLIVA: Could he possibly do some soil borings so that we know what the thickness is too of the clay underneath that water supply that you have an adequate layer of clay so that you don't have salt water up-coning as they do down there in well #8 in the Pebble Beach cluster subdivision, and that's what happens. If you have too think a layer underneath that water, then you have up-coning of salt. The other way is if you draw too much and then it comes horizontally, the salt into it. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay. Any other concerns? COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: I'd like to say that's not irrelevant, because what she's saying here is that you're not just supplying the homes there, what you're saying you're going to do is supply water to Greenport also. MR. KLATSKY: Could I comment on that? COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Yes, surely. MR. KLATSKY: My answer, to be a little bit more specific, was that there's more from the test results we gotten at this point there's more than enough water. Whether or not it's the decision to supply the excess water to Greenport has not been made yet. But I'm saying that right now there's more than enough water from the test results. We have not concluded any agreements with any other agencies as to where there's excess water and if in fact we would pump excess water. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: But one of the philosophies of Greenport is now that they're going to ask to have water off areas outside of the Village and as one of the requirements to get water from. MR. KI-^TSKY: As I understand it, and I haven't seen the policy statement by the Village, as I understand it there are two statements being made: one is that they certainly would prefer that all potential well sources would have an amount in excess to assist the Greenport Water Authority. And a second category, and a lesser priority, would be those that would satisfy and sustain its own needs. Those are the two categories as I understand that the Village has promulgated. COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Well, from my understanding the first one is the one they're concerned with, because .... MR. KLATSKY: They certainly would prefer the first one. No doubt about that. COUNCILMAN STOLITENBURGH: That's why I say the question is not unreasonable. MR. KLATSKY: Right. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, any other comments? (No response.) Town Board members? (No response.) Anyone? (No response.) Okay, if not, we'll close this hearing. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk ~6 ~(ain Stree~ ~-~esth~.ton ~each. ~Y [1978 ~o~,t~ 25, Yo~.! _F~a rx _l_qn qaseA n. ~r f~ilarir~ ~th the So. thold area, it wo.l~ seem that this 72 unit ,teveloo~nt ~q desired ~or a rotire~nt community. If thi~ Is the case. an ~astb~nd left turn storaqe lane qh~ld be install, c-d o. qout~ 25. Pro. er lmtormectioa control (Yiel~ or Stop) must also be orovt, deq. "~ ~'~1 rm~uir~ 10 cop~es of a site .lan Includi.g the ~otlowi n~ i~o~at~on: A. Lncatinn and dimensions ~ existing highway nave~ent, c.rh, qt~cwalk-. ~,~ian, -e~ian openings, g. ide rail, ,ttJ lit~es, traffic rJ~l,t-of-wav limes and property lines. [. ~Tidt~., .avememt tv~ and thickn~ss of ~rivew.avq. Pnnn ['n~,tneerlrtp, F.C. I.'estbarrpton "cai:F:, ?'5' 1197,° t.¥ado~z Farms, Traffic Irpacr Ftud,, Poute 25, Southold Your February lO, 1OP~, Submission Ti:i, review.' of the subject material will be coordinated ky ~'r. Francis b;arcellaro o~ r,y staff. I'e can be contacted at (516) 360-gDPa should any qnes tinns ari sc.. m~:apl' Yon for your cooperation concerning thi~ ~atter. Very truly yours, Pe:tional Traffic FnFineer T('U: ,~ r: jg cc: To~m of $outbold~ Dunn Engineerin~ P.C. February 2l, 19E6 pa~e 2 4. An~le of driveways relative to the roadway center line. 5. Dimensions of roadside control islands and driveway medians. 6. Dimensions and elevations of curb and sidewalk relative to the edge of pavement. 7. Location of authorized traffic siKns and promosed advertisement s~ns. 8. Existin~ and proposed pavement ~arkin~s. E~istin~ and proposed dralna~e features: Size, type and ~rade of driveway culverts. 2.Highway drainage structures. 3.Oirectlom of surplus water f~ow on applicant's property. E. Distance from each e×ist~n~ and proposed driveway on the site to: 1. The nearest side road in each dtrectlo, if ~thia I~D0 feet. 2. The nearest driveway on adlacent properties. 3. Streets, roads, or driveways opposite the site. 4. Adjacent property lines. F. North directional arrow. G. Details of internal traffic circn!ation, parking, traffic control devices, actual or estimated traffic volumes, and any proposed additional pavement lanes or widening. This informatioe and the plans submitted must be prepared by a licensed professional enRlneer or architect. These must be sent to Mr. H. P. Thvber~, regional permit enMieeer, at the above address. Thank you for your coo, eratloe concernln~ this matter. Very truly yours,~ / T. C. HOFF~[ ~ ReMional Traffic Engineer cc: Town of Soutbold.~ TCH:JH:BT COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK · . Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the N(~Ij~IC~ OF . ,I-!~ff~I~._NG Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; iS-Hi~R~I~c~t~ii~:--: ~liat ...._-.and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, N~CE EN th~ ~e ~ ~ of the Town ~.~ ~ld a has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman publi~ ~ P.~ once each week for .................. ~ ....... weeks ~ ~l,~ , Southold ~: ~ successively, commencing on the ~ad, ~, ~ ~k, on Sta~m~t ~ .by day :--~ .... ~.. ~q. ...... M~ F~ ~ ~th ~t to ~heir p~ition for a Ch~ ~,_.~,~ '~" - ~ ..... ~.-~ ..... Dist~ m "M" L~t ~t~ple ~sid~ ~ken No. 268. ~ ~ ~y ~ted on the ~ side ~ M~n ~worn to before mc this ..................... day (N~ ~d; ~h of Yo~k, c~si~[ ~ ac~ ................./~:~ ~ ....... 1 9 ..... ho~.~:~i- . ................ ty of f~ ~fts ~ a~ ~QF~ '~:~' the Notary Public Sou~ BARBARA FOTEES of~'~~ Ira- Notary k't,b,;.-. Stab, or Ne,.~ York ~h~ the Nm ffi;~ ~11, ~oad. GCn,r~i.~c,n ExFi,.ea March S~.~ York, and is a~ r~: buiiness ~m~ ' DA~D:~ebru~y ~,~: soomo~o ~ IT-2/l~/8~T) LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS I:}~REBY GIVEN chat the Town l~mrd of the Town of Southold wi~ hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M, Tue~l~y. STATE OF NEW YORK ) March 11, 1986, at the Southold Town Hall. Main Ro~d. Southold. ) New York, on the Dral~ Environ- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) mental Impact Statement sub- mitted by Meadow Farms As- sociates, with respect to their Mary K. Degnan of Graenpor~, In petition [*or a Change o£ Zone from "A" Residential and Ag- said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Multiple Residence District, P~t- Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, · Weekly itionNo. 268. oncertainproperty Newspaper, published et Greenpor~, in the Town Main (NYS Route 25) Road, Pt Southold. County of Suffolk end State of New ~auth ok`Tuckers Lane, Southo[d, York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is New York, consisting o[* 18 acres. Petitioner is desirocm pt' having a printed copy, has been regularly published in program ~rith a density of four Feb r~la ri,' 19 8 6 unite per acre. day of SEQR lead agency is the Southold Town Board. A copy ok' ,, /'~ Sta~me~ is o~ ~le in the Office ~ . TowuHall, MaJnRoad. Southold, / P~l~clpalClerk ~ New York. and is available [*or iPJpection during regular bu~i- ~ AI4N M.?BATE ne~ hours. Sworn to befor_p ma thle go~:~¥ pti~LtC 3ate 0I New pATED: Februm-y 4, 19~6. ~'~..,~ ~'p ~,_---- ~r~ ~pJ.kJ~o~rd~ No SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK / r~,f //. ~/~ ' ...... 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 she is over the age of twenty-one years; that on the 6th day of February 1986 she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Notice of Public Hearing - 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, March 11, 1986 Meadow Farms Associates Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Southold Town Hall. Southold Town Clerk Sworn to before me this 6th day of February 19 86 ,. . , , ,/Q,. ~ Notary Public .,, · ~lT~H ~N NE~LL~ T~rm E~r~ ~[,'n " LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southoldl will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, March 11, 1986, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by Meadow Farms Associates, with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 268, on certain property located on the westerly side of Main (NYS Route 25) Road, south of Tuckers Lane, Southold, New Yorl~, consisting of 18 acres. Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of an affordable housing program with a density of four units per acre. SEQR lead agency is the Southold Town Board. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, York, New and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: February 4, 1986. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, FEBRUARY 13, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Planning Board Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Meadow Farms Associates LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, March 11, 1986, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by Meadow Farms Associates, with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 268, on certain property located on the westerly side of Main (NYS Route 25) Road, south of Tuckers Lane, Southold, New York, consisting of 18 acres. Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of an affordable housing program with a density of four units per acre. SEQR lead agency is the Southold Town Board. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: February 4, 1986. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, FEBRUARY 13, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAO, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Planning Board Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Meadow Farms Associates LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, March 11, 1986, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by Meadow Farms Associates, with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 268, on certain property located on the westerly side of Main (NYS Route 25) Road, south of Tuckers Lane, Southold, New York, consisting of 18 acres. Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of an affordable housing program with a density of four units per acre. SEQR lead agency is the Southold Town Board. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: February 4, 1986. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, FEBRUARY 13, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Planning Board Town Clerk!s Bulletin Board Meadow Farms Associates - · ,,ttb~d February 1, 1986 SoutH,)ld 'F,),?n Clerk Judi~ q l SoutF~)id T,:~,~n Hall Main ,~i. SoutP~)ld '~,_ Y. 11971 Dear M~s Terry: r ,dSh to express my opposition to the change of zoning re- questel I,)r qeadow Farms Southold. [h~$ d]wn zonin9 would change the character of the entire area. I anl )pposed for the following reasons: t Would devalue my property which is immediately north of Meadow Farms proposed site. I'ut~:in~ 72 housing units on acreage now zoned 2 acre would multiply the sewage problem 8 times. It ~,/ou' d increase water demand 8 times, /=ut~, traffic for 72 housing units leaving and entering by one 100 foct ~cc~ss on the Main Rd. would create a definite traffic pro bl en lhe eight fold increase in auto traffic and home heating units mil! add to air pollution. I s~y again that I am opposed to this re-zoning. Very truly yours, Russell E. Mann 51435 Main Rd. Southold, N. Y. 11971 Februaryl ,1 986 Southold Town Clerk Judith Terry Southold Town Hall Main Rd. Southold, N. Y. 11971 Dear Mrs. Terry: The undersighned wish to express their opposition to the change of zoning requestd for Meadow Farms Southold, This down zoning would change the character of the entire area. We are opposed for the following reasons: 1. Putting 72 housing units on acreage now zoned two acre would multiply the sewage problem 8 times, 2. It would increase water demand 8 times.Everyone knows how serious our water problem is. 3. Auto traffic for 72 housing units leaving and entering by one 100 foot access on the Main Rd. would create a definite traffic problem. 4. The eight fold increase in auto traffic and home heating units will add to air pollution. 5. All of the above will result in dev~luing our property which is locayed in the immediate area, We sa~ again that we are opposed to this re-zoning, ~~~" '4~ ~ ~'~':'~P~ }~,~q, Very truly yours, j ~ /t February1,1986 Southold Town Clerk 'Judith Terry .. Southold Town Hall ., Math Rd. $outhold, It, Y. 11971 Dear ~4rs. Terry: The understghned ~lsh to express thetr op~stt~on to the change of zoning requestd foe ~eadow Farms Southold. This do~.zontng ~dld c~nge th~ character of th'e entire area. ~e ate op~sed for the following reasons: 1. Putting 7~ ~uslng'unttS on acreage no~ zoned t~o acre Would multiply the se~ge problm 8 t~mes, 2.' ~ ~uld Increase water d~and 8 times.Ever~n'e.knows ~ serious our water problem is. 3. Auto traffic for 7~ housing unl:s leaving and entering by one 100 foot access 'on the Hath Rd. ~ould create a def~ntte traffic problem. ~;,The et~ht fold Increase tn auto traffic and home heating units WI1'1 add to air ~11Utlon, He say again th~:~e a~e. opposed to th~:s.re-zon~ng. Ver~ truly yours, Februaryl ~1986 Southold Town Clerk Judith Terry Southbld Town ~all Main Rd. Southold, )1. Y. 11971 Dear Mrs. Terry: The u~derslghned Wish to expres, s their opposition to the change ot' zoning requestd for )4eado~ Farms Southold. This down.'zonlng wou'ld change th.e character of th'e entire are~. Wa are opposed fo'r the following reasons: 1. Put~lng 72 )iousing'units o'n acreage now zoned two acre would.m,~lttply the se~ge problem '8 times, 2.' It would increase wat.e~ clenand 8 times.Everyone .knows how serious our water p~oblem is. 3. Auto traffic for 72 housing units.leaving and entering by one 100 foot access 'on the Main Rd. Would create a definite traffic problem. ' ' 4..The eight fold increase in auto traffic and home heating units will add to air pollution. .' We say again that.we are opposed to thins-re-zoning. · . i!. Very truly yours, Februaryl ,1986 $outhold Town Clerk · dudtth Terry Southold Town Hall ,, Main Rd. Southold, N. Y. 11971 Dear Mrs. Terry: The under$1ghned Wish to express their opposition to the change of zoning requestd for Meadow Farms $outhold. This down.zoning wou'ld, change the character of th~ entire area. We are opposed for the following reasons: 1. Putting 72 housing units o'n acreage now zoned two acre would.multiply the sewage problem 8 times, 2.' It would increase water demand 8 times.Everyon'e knows how serious our water problem is. 3. Auto traffic for 72 housing units leaving and entering by one 100 foot access 'on the Main Rd. would create a definite traffic problem. 4..The eight fold increase in auto traffic and home heating units will add to air pollution. We say again that-we are opposed to thins.re-zoning. : '~ Very truly yours, Februaryl ,1986 $outhold Town Clerk Judith Terry South~ld Town Hall 14atn Rd. Southold, N. Y. llgT1 ))ear Mrs. Terry: The undersighned Wish to express their opposition to the change of zoning requestd for Meadow F~rms ~outhold. This down.zoning ~ldmchange th~ character of th'e entire area. We are opposed for the' following re,sons: 1. Putting 7~ ~using'units o'n acreage now zoned two acre would.multiply the sewage probl~ '6 times, ~.' It would increase water d~and 8 times.Eve~yon'e knows how serious our water problem is. 3. Auto traffic for 7~ housing units.leaving and entering by one 100 foot access 'on the Hain Rd. Would create a definite traffic prowl em. ' 4;.The eight fold increase in auto traffic and home heating units ~ll'l add to air ~llutton. We say again th~t,we ~e. opposed to thi..s.re-zoning. : .. . '.~ Very truly ~urs, le~ ~ ~ Februaryl .1986 Southold Town Clerk · Judith Terry Southold Town Hmll ,, Main Rd. Southald. N. Y'. llgT1 Dear Firs. Terry: The understghned Wish to express their op~sltton to the change of zoning reques~ for Meado~ Farms Southold. This down..zonlng ~u'ld.c~nge th~ char=cter of th'e entire area. We are opposed four'the following reasons: 1. Putting 72 ~ustng units o'n acreage now zoned two acre would.multiply the sewage p~obl~ 8 times. 2,m it would increase wet.eT dmand 8 times.Ever~ne knows how serious our w~ter problem ts. 3. Auto traffic for 7Z housing units leaving and entering by one lO0 foot ~ccess 'on the ~tn Ed. Would c~eate a definite traffic p~oblem. ' 4~ ..The eight fold incremse tn ~uto traffic and home heating units ~t!1 add to ~ir ~llut!on~ We say again that,we ape opposed to thi~s..re-zoning. : . ~) Very t~uly yours, : /' NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION R~I~ ON WATER RESOURCE NEEDS OF LONG ISLAND FEB 31986 danuary 31, 1986 Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: I am writing to voice the concerns of the New York State Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island rela- tive to the DEIS for Meadow Farms Associates. From the perspective of groundwater protection and preservation, the Commission believes that the DEIS is sorely lacking in infor- mation and impact analysis. The one page discussion does not supply such pertinent information as depth to groundwater, depth of the upper glacial and expected increase in water demand due to the pro- ject. The Town of Southold is an environmentally sensitive area, already experiencing major groundwater quality and quantity problems The applicant proposes to use a Village of Greenport well and/or drill a new community well. Location of the wells, the impact on the existing public water supply system, including whether it has the capability to meet the increased demand, is not discussed. Meeting peak summer demand is currently a problem, as is failing equipment, salt water intrusion and temik contamination. Increasing the permissible zoning density eightfold appears to be inconsistent with prevailing conditions and environmentally sound planning. The "safe yield" for the area should be determined according to the Department of Environmental Conservation Groundwater Management Program. The growth inducing aspects related to expanding a public water supply system should also be evaluated. The Commission requests that the applicant addresses the above mentioned concerns and the overall impact to groundwater. Based on such information, the Town could make an informed decision as to whether it can afford to further burden the sensitive water supply of the North Fork. Sincerely, RECEIVED 4390 Orchard Street JAb 2 Orient, New York 11957 January 23, 1986 TO~nC/e~ ~uthold Mrs. Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mrs. Terry: I would like to express my opposition to the change of zone requested for Meadow Farms in Soutbold. The developers have asked the town board to downzone the property from its current designation of two-acre minimum lot size to a density of four units per acre in order to provide "affordable housing." The density requested is eight times that currently allowed. No one disputes the need for the town's assistance in providing opportunities for young families to own their own homes. The questions become: How great is the need? How may the town best address this need? Published results of a recent survey claim a response of approximately 300 families in need of affordable housing in Southold. According to a study in Brookhaven Township, of 2,000 applicants screened, only 525 (26%) were found eligible for home ownership under the income guidelines of their affordable housing program. Applicants must be creditworthy and be able to meet monthly mortgage payments and other household expenses regardless of the type of housing proposed. If a similar percentage is applied to those identified in the Southold survey, it can be extrapolated that approximately 80 Southold families may be financially ready for "affordable" homeownership. Eighty families is a substantial number. However, the town board recently downzoned 48 acres in Greenport for the purpose of providing affordable housing. At the approved density of four units per acre, after subtracting the land required for roads, sumps, water supply, etc., the property should yield about 150 affordable homesites. An amount nearly double that currently needed for Southold residents. Of course, this assumes that the Greenport developer is sincere in his desire to build affordable housin~ and did not dupe the town board into the downzonin~. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: STATE OF NEW YORK Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, DRAFI~ENVI~ONMENI'AL a public newspaper printed at Southoid, in Suffolk County~ IMPACT STATEMENT and ichat the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, l~te: De~ember 20, i98S has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman APPLiC~,'N'r: M e a d o w once each week for / weeks Farms Associates. ADDRESS: Main Road, ~'7 ~'~ NYS Route 25 Post O~ce Box successively, commencing on the ....... .'~ ............. 616,11971.Southold, New York of.. ~'~'.'ay ./-~'~~ ~ d ~:~ ..... , 19..-.. PERMIT APPLIED FOR & PETITION NUMBER: Change ~ ,.~_... ~ 0~ ~.. ~,. "A" b~.~,-I .. ~ .............. r? .-. and Ap4tndturn] IMBII~q to. dence Pistils, .~ No. 268. .= . '~RO~ICT D~I~.RlPq~..ON: Sworn to before me this ~' day of PEtifio~es is a,-sin~ls'of hnvlng the z~nin8 si:Ams of the pFO- .~ ~'~ 1 9 pe~ty-~t~flged to pu~llt ~13e ..................... , ..... deve oFL~_.~P~ ~ .an n~nfxiable housing ~ro~l'mn with a den- sity of fofir units per'acre: PROJECT LOCA'FION: ~_,/ . West , .m, o, ................. ........ Bou~%.q~md, so~ltof Yi~ck- Notary Public ers lame, 'l[~outhbld,. Mew York, consisting of I~ acres. ~' }~A ...... A FORBES SEQR i~NATION: No,at'7 PuL:k. ~'.utte of New A d£afi e~viro~mental'tmpact Ac,. .statement J~Jis ~ l~repared (lu-':£i,:l i,~ = u:_"v~ ACt~iI~'Y: ·. UC :' ch'~fi environmental ~mp~.gt state- ment rd~ be reviewed at. the address listed below~ Com- men~s un ~e pm~'l~ust be submit'c~ m the Coqt~t Per- son indJelte~l below~o Inter than February 3. 1986. CONT.~L~r PI~SON: J'udith T. Terry, '~own Clerk. Town of Soathold, 'TOwn Hl~, Main 1T-1/2/86(13) LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF RECEI - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date. December 20, 198~: APPLICANT: Meadow Farms ADDRESS: Mom Road. STATE,OF NEW YORK Post Office Box 616 Southold, Ne~r York ti971 COUN~OFeUF~LK ) ', PETI~ON NUMBgR: Change o[Zone [rom 'A' ~s- ~ K. De~na~ of Greenpo~, In tfict to "M" Light Multiple ' .aid CounW, being duly ~worn, No, 26~, Prlnclp. I Clerk of ~E 8UF~LK TIMES, PROJECT DESCRI~ION: Peri- Newspaper, publi.hed a~ Greenpo~, In the Town zoning status of the pro~y of Southold, CounW of Suffolk and State of changed ~o permi[ [he develop- York, and that ~he Notice of which pro,am w th a densityof[our 8 printed copy, ha~ been reeul.rly publl.hed In pROJECT LOCATION: Wes~r- ~ald Newapaper once ly sideo[Main(NY~ Rou~ 25) w~ekB .ucce~Blvely, commencing on ~ad, south of Tuckers Southold. New York. consist- d.yof ~n~ar~ 19 statemen~ has ~en prepar~ ~~/~. on ~his projecl and m on file, ' / P~cIpB SEQR LEAD AGENCY: South- old Town Board. ~ ~NN M. COMMENT: The draft envir- S~rn toe,fore , ~ PUBLIC State e( New York onmental impact staLement ~Of'' --~'/~: me thla ~ C°unty ~_) ,.~ [~p,t.i h,;,r,;lle~48183g0, 19~7 project must be submittal ~ C/['~_.~ ~? CONTACT PE~ON: Town of Southo]d, Tawn Hall Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold. New York 11971 JUDI'[H T TERRY TELEPHONE TOWN CLERK (516) 765-1801 ~ttGISTI~AR O1~ ¥1TAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: December 20, 1985 APPLICANT: Meadow Farms Associates ADDRESS: Main Road, NYS Route 25 Post Office Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PETITION NUMBER: Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 268. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of an affordable housing program with a density of four units per acre. PROJECT LOCATION: Westerly side of Main (NYS Route 25) Road, south of Tuckers Lane, Southold, New York, consisting of 18 acres. SEQR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. SEQR LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Board. AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than February 3, 1986. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (518) 765-1801 -Page 2 - DEIS - Meadow .-arms Associates PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 2, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWI~I CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Meadow Farms Associates NYS Leg. Comm. on Water Resource Needs of L.I. ~ ' ,'~,.~ ~, ~.~,~,~..~ .~ ~ Town Hall, 53005 Main Road ~ '-~--~%~¢t~""<~ P.O. Box 728 '~~ Southold, New York 11971 jLrDITH T. TERRY ~ TELEPHO~ IO~ CLI. RK (516) 76~-1801 ~s*aaa o~' wwa[ sr~*~sr~cs OFFICE OF THE TO~ CLERK TO~ OF SO'HOLD NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: December 20, 1985 APPLICANT: Meadow Farms Associates ADDRESS: Main Road, NYS Route 25 Post Office Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PETITION NUMBER: Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 268. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of an affordable housing program with a density of four units per acre. PROJECT LOCATION: Westerly side of Main (NYS Route 25) Road, south of Tuckers Lane, $outhold, New York, consisting of 18 acres. SEQR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. SEQR LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Board. AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than February 3, 1986. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 Page 2 - DEIS - Meadow, Farms Associates PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 2, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLO, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Meadow Farms Associates ~ ~ ~ '~M Town Hall, 53095 Main Road ~"?' '~';~.~'x"' ,IY- P.O. Box 728 ~x~}~'6'_/~ ;'~ 't\~f>r;'.l~ 't\'~' Southold. New York 11971 JUDITH T. TERRY ~"~2X'/)'~ TELEPHONE I~EGISTRAR OF ¥ITAL STATIgT[CS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: December 20, 1985 APPLICANT: Meadow Farms Associates ADDRESS: Main Road, NYS Route 25 Post Office Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PETITION NUMBER: Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 268. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of an affordable housing program with a density of four units per acre. PROJECT LOCATION: Westerly side of Main (NYS Route 25) Road, south of Tuckers Lane, Southold, New York, consisting of 18 acres. 5EQR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. 5EQR LEAD AGENCY: 5outhold Town Board. AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than February 3, 1986. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 Page 2 - DEIS - Mead~,. Farms Associates PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 2, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIOAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Meadow Farms Associates 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 she is over the age of twenty-one years; that on the 20th day of December 19 85 , she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Receipt of Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Meadow Farms Associates. Comments no later than February 3, 1986. Jud th T, Terry~/ Southold Town Clerk Sworn to before me this 20th day of December 1985 ,, ,. Notary Publio' ~ ANN NEVILLE Term F..tpires March 30, .t9 MEADOW FARMS ASSOCIATES P. O. BOX 616 Southold, New York 11971 RECEIVED DEC P. 0 ]'ownCJe~lrSouflmld December 20, 1985 Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Re: Meadow Farms Associates, Application for Change of Zone from "A" Residential to "M" Multiple Residence District; Draft Fnviromental Impact Statement Dear Mrs. Terry: We are hereby transmitting 15 copies of the completed Draft Environmental Impact Statement for ~eadow Farms. The report has been prepared by The Land Use Company, of Wading River, New York, and is dated November 25, 1985. This document has been prepared in accordance with Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Environ- men~al CoDs~rv~tion I,aw, ~rticle R-D]09. We would appreciate the prompt review of this document and await your communication concerning the action contemplated by the Town in this matter. As always, thank you for your cooperation. Very t ru!y~ours , M~DOW ~ARMS~' ASSOCIATES osep Fis ' · hetty, J~.P.E. JF: med Encs. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR MEADOW FARMS SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK MEADOW FARMS ASSOCIATES 8OUTHOL0. NEW YORK BY LAND USE COMPANY WADING RIVER NEW YORK November 25 1985 N. COUN'T~Y RD. · BOX WADING BIVER N.Y. (5~6) 9:9 3575 DEI~ 2 0 DRAFT £ NVI P,£,NNE>~TAL I~iPACT STAYFNENT FOP, H£ADOV D£VELOPSIE!:T [,,ATE: I:,~) \'E ~'i g 1-i R '25, 1565 DRAFI OF ~fIR(I~t~qT_AL IMPACT STATIM~I~r FOR ~m~OW FARMS TOWIN OF SOUTHOLD STATE OF NEW YORK 2his doc~r~nt hms been prepared in accordance with Part 617, Th~ State f~viroL~ntal Quality Review Act; Enviromnental Conservation L~;, Article 8-0109. Tam scope and contents are in accordance with recommendations of lead agency, To~n of Southold and other involved agencies. Lmnd Use Co. North Country Road - Box 361 Wading River, Iff 11792 (516) 929-3575 Draft Envirom~ntal Impact Statpm~nt for Meadow Farms Main Road, NYS Route 25 Post Office Box 616 Southold, NY 11971 Trois action is to rezone approximately 18.0 acres from "A" Rosidentiml and Agricultural District to '~f' b~altiple Rmsidence District to permit the develop- mmnt of an affordable co~lex incorporating one bedroom duplexes with a total of 20 units and 52 detached 2 bedroom dwellings. I~ad Agency: To~n of Southold Town Ball b~in Road Southold, NY 11971 Contact: Judith Terry, Town Clerk Telephone: (516) 765-1892 Preparer: land Use Company I~orth Countz-yRoad Post Office Box 361 Wading River, NY 11792 Telephone: (516) 929-3575 D~te of ~ceptance of DEIS ~adline Dmte for Co~n~nts TABLE OF CONr~fS PAGE NO. S~ ~tARY 1 DES(IR_IPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 2 PUBLIC bIKED FOR PROJECT 2-3 LOCATION 3 ACCESS 3 EXISTING ZONING 4 DESI(~{ AND LAYDUT 4 5 HOUSING DESIGN AND DES(}tLPTION 5-6 HOUSING UNIT DETATLq 6-8 ROADS AND ADDITIONAL L~IPI{O%rfl~TS 8-9 STO~i %4AT~R DRAIiqAGE 9 CONSTKUCTION AND OPflKATION 9 10 APPROVALS 10 TOPO~ 11- 12 (F, OUI~4ATER 12 SURFACE W~I'~2~S 12- 13 V~GETATION 13- 14 WILDLL~ ~ 14 15 Ht~N RESOURCES 15 ZOI,qlNG AND I~%N~D USE 15-17 GD~-~.IUNITY SERVICES ~ND RESOURCES 17-18 SIGNIFCA~fr E~Ari/<O!.~-iENTAL I]~IPACTS 18- 19 TABLE OF CON%tN2~ (O3ntinued) PAGE NO. MITIGATION MEASURES TO M]]~MIZE ENVIROM'IENTAL I~PACTS 19- 25 ADVt~RSE ENVIROi'~'IEIVr_AL IMPACTS THAT CAItXOT BE AVOIDED z5-26 CO~fiTMENT OF RFSfR~CES 26-27 GROW~I'rl INDUC]iNG ASPECTS 27 ALTERNATE LAND USE 27-28 "E~RIBIT A" - TRA~'~'IC I~ACT STUDY FOR ~ff~ADOW FAP~S, SOUTHOLD, NY; Prepared by Dunn Engineering APPt~DLK SIlk,lAKY: The proposed action for which this Envirormental Impact Statement has been prepared to address tl~e rezoning of the property curTently classified as "A" Residence and Agricultural to '5]" Multiple Residence District. Said change of zone is required by the project sponsor for the construction of an affordable housing complex consisting of detached and multiple dwelling units. Said de- velopment will incorporate approx{.~tely 52 detached two bedroom single-family dwellings and 20 one bedroom units contained in a duplex configuration. Thru balance of thru site will be preserved as landscaped or open space azeas. Significant beneficial impacts to be expected are'. thru creation of am affordable housing complex for Southold residents, an expansion of th~ public water supply syst~n, an increase in local real property tax revenue and an implantation of Master Plan goals to provide affordable housing within hamlet districts. Concez-ms expressed for potential adverse ~mpacts are: additionml traffic, ground water qumlity, noise generation and public water supply. Mitigation m~asures have been incorporated into the conceptual design. Thmse items include: thm creation of an interior road system, water drainage control, construction of an advanced de-nitrification sanitary waste treatment system (STP) and installation of sufficient areas for ingress and egress- I,l~tters to be decided include: Southold Town Board Zoning (]nange Appli- cation, Southold Planning Board site plan approval and Suffolk County Depart- m~nt of Hmalth Services approval for Water Supply and Sanitary Waste Disposal. -1- DES(~IFTION OF PROPOSED ACTION: ~ojectives of Project: The objective of the proposed project is to seek a rezoning encompassing approx~,mtely 18.0 acres from "A" Residential to '~f' Multiple Residence Dis- trict. At present, the entire site c2a~ be characterized as brushy fields intermixed with old orchards. ~ project sponsor proposes to construct an affordable housing complex for residents of the Town of Southold. The need for this type of housing within the growing North Fork resort area is critical be- cause of the high residential values created by the growing second home market. The proposed project seeks to satisfy this d~nd and serw as a model for future housing developments in the Southold commmity. The site plan for the project will seek to preserve important natural features, create architectural styles compatible with local trends and protect natural resources through the use of public water supply systems and wastewater treatment. PUBLIC N~:~:~ FOR PROJECT: The proposed l'~adow Farms project has been designed to fill the critical need for affordable housing within the Town of Southold and the ex?anding need for the supporting emplo)~nent base. This need has been generated by the ex-pan- sion of the North Fork's resort/second home market. Th~ high values created by this type of residential market tends to exclude local residents, particularly blue collar and young, first time buyers. The result of the exclusion is an exodus of those residents to other comnunities where a home may be purc[msed within moderate incom~ standards. The severity of the affordable housing issue can clearly be deomonstrated by observing the conditions currently found on both the North and South Forks of I~ng Island. There, the resort/market has -2- already closed tho area to residents unable to compete with purchasing power of the second home buyer. The end result is a phonomenon whereby the children who grew up and work in those communities are now forced to cc~te from western "affordable housing areas" to their places of work in their '~ome towns." Meadow Farms seeks to reverse this trend by providing economical housing to these residents, thus allowing them to r~mmin a part of the Southold C~n~nunity. LOCATION: "Geographic Boundaries:" The proposed action is located in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. The site lies on the north side of NYS Route 25 (Main Road), south of Tucker lane, in the hamlet of Southold; see Map f/l, and encompasses an area of approximately 18.0 acres. ACC~S: (See "Exhibit A" attached in tho Traffic Impact Study for bk~adow Farms, Southold, IqY, prepared by Dunn Engineering.) A~cess to tho parcel is presently accomplished utilizing NYS Route 25 (Main Road). The subject parcel enjoys ap- proximately 100' of frontage on this major thoroughfare ~ld it is proposed that this frontage be developed into the primary access point for ingress and egress. It should be noted that any access plan will be subject to the approval of the Department of Transportation; said approval will he based on tim project's ability to provide safe and adequate traffic flow. A second m~mns of emergency access has been provided by Meadow Farms along the northerly boundary of the parosl and may tie into the adjacent subdivision currently being considered by the Town of Southold Planning Board. -3- EXISTING ZO~LNG: Tam current zoning of thru site is "A" Rasidential. Under this classifica- tion, building plots with a minimum lot area of 80,000 square feet may be created subject to Planning Board Approval. Permitted uses by churches, schools, single Fmm{ly residences and agricultural operation. Special exceptions by permit in- clude, among othmrs, churchms, schools, libraries, hospitals, rest homms, golf courses, recreational tromps and stables. Building b~ights are restricted to 35' with conformance to tbs "Bulk and Parking" Schedule required. DESIGN ~) LAYOUT: Site Ar~a: As discussed under "~ojectiv~s of thru Project," the intent of this action is to seek a rezoning of thru 18.0 acre subject parcel for thru developmmnt of an affordable housing complex. Tm~ site has n~rous chmracteristics which will be addressed in detail in subsequent sections. Since t~he action is for a rezoning classification, a detailed site plan was not prepared as a part of this ~inx~_ro~nental Impact Stater~nt. Instead, a conceptual design layout was proposed in order to show the characteristics of the improv~nts and how they relate to the site, said proposal is intended as one possible configuration. The olt~mmte design layout ma), v~ry to allow for other criteria in the final plan as may be required by the Tc~n of Southold Planning Board in their site plan approval process. Th~ design concept for [.~adow Farms is to prox~ide economical homms that will result in dramatically reduced housing costs. Consultants were retained early in thru planning phases to assure t]~at various envirorm~ntal concerns were addressed. In addition, close attention has been paid to th~ P~ster Plan amd Proposed Zoning Ordinance being considered by the Town of Southold. Special focus was directed to the H~mlet District which was conceived to provide an opportunity to develop afo fordable housing. HOUSING DESIGN AND DESCRIPTION: It has been th~ applicant's perception, encouraged by thru Planning Board, that any housing program should reflect the local rural flavor of Southold. In this regard, tb~ applicant has attempted to create a "neighborhood," rather than a project. Accordingly, the applicant has designed a program which is single-f~m~ly detached in nmture and character. The applicant plans to develop mostly single-family homes with a sprinkling of one-bedroom duplex homes. These duplex one-bedroom homes will address the needs of younger couples and the elderly. While the single-f~m~ly detached approach is achieved, lower on- going maintenance expenses will be realized by reducing lot sizes and per- mitting all exterior maintenance, landscaping, snow removal, grass cutting, etc., to be th~ responsibility of the P~meowners Association. Clearly, this approach will permit lower operating costs to the individual homeov,ner and further, assure the municipality t[mt e~terior upl~eep and appearance of t~e neighborhood will be maintained and ongoing. The applicant t~ss explored innovative approaches for tt~ developmmnt of sound, pleasantly attractive homes that are economically produced and operated. Thru applicant hes narrowed tl~ approach, after detailed investigation, to a modular homm program. The applicant is withholding finml decision on using this approach whereby all homes, with the exception of the one-bedroom units, will be expandable by the purchaser at a later date to meet his needs wit~hin his financial ability. Thmse two-bedroom homes will contain approx{m~tely -5- 1,500 square feet, of w~zich the first floor, containing approximately 960 square feet, will be finished. All of th~se two-bedroom homes will be capable of being expanded by two additional bedrooms and one additional full bathroom within the unfinished second story. This will be accomplished by leaving the second story unfinished for future expansion. The stair system will be in- stalled in order to relieve th~ hommowner of ttmt expense at som~ later date. Under this program, many purchasers with basic skills could finish the second story at a substantial savings whmn the need arises. Appro×~m~tely 50 of the 72 homes will hav~ this expansion capability. Tam one-bedroom homes are scheduled as duplexes; i-e., side by side, and will contain approximately 700 square feet on one floor. Thmse one-story units without stairs are designed %~ith the elderly in mind. HOUS]iWG UNIT DETA~-q 1. Two-bedroom hc~r~, one full bat~room, full baserm~nt; 1,420 square feet total, 960 square feet finished first floor, 460 square feet unfinished exq~ansion; Oil hot water baseboard keat and dommstic hot water~ Hom~s will be fully carpeted and tiled~ All windows will he thermo-pane; Insulation~ R-19 in ceilings, R-il in walls; Electric range; Full Lmnds caping. -6- 2. One-bedroom home, one full bathroom, ~11 basemmnt; 700 square feet; (Features s~m~ as above.) ~hm sales program calls for two-bedroom homes with expandable second floor to sell for $73,500.00, while thru one-bedroom homes will sell for $61,000.00. As discussed earlier with the Board, th~ applicant has committed to reduce 10% of the homms (7 homms) by $10,000.00; thus reflecting a reduced price range on these homms of $63,500-00 for th~ two-bedroom homm and $51,000.00 for the one bedroom. It should be noted that this ct,,~,~tmmnt is based u~on the applicant's ability to proceed with construction during the spring and s,~pr of 1986 and that thru total price structure will be held for six months ~om t~m granting of thru building permits. Price changes beyond that point would be reflective of increased construction and financing costs. In addition, the applicant has allocated somm $2,700.00 for water faes to the Village of Greenport over and above the applicant's cost to install a com- munity wa~er system. The price of thru homes would be proportionately reduced by amy sax~gs realized in the reduction of water fees. At thru municipality's request, the applicant would, in addition, con- sider making somm 10 to 20 units available on a rental basis to interested p~rties who may wish to rent rather tl~n buy; t-hmreby retaking some small con- tribution to thru rental market. Furthmr~ thru Town of Southold may ~ish to actively lower these housing -7- costs by providing below market/interest rate mortgages, probably through a local bonding program. This, in effect, reduces thru operating costs of a homm- owner and would permit lower income f~m~ lies to be eligible as hon~owners. The Town, in addition, may wish to assist the applicant in contacting local banks to provide below interest rate mortgages on a given number of units, local banks may consider this a co~nunity responsibility. In order to prevent speculative purchases within this housing program, tbs applicant would require, through its offering plan, that the home must be the pr~mmry residence of its owner. In addition, the applicant has indicated that it would entertain a list of potential home buyers provided by th~ manicipality and that it would restrict the advertising for Meadow Farms for a given period of time to local publications. ROADS AND ADDITIONAL Wit~in the interior road system, roads will be {reproved to 22 feet and 24 feet and will be publicly dedicated. /here has been considerable discussion between the applicant, Planning Board and Superintendent of Highways on this matter. This is a very important step to achieving affordable housing since the road costs will be low~red by the reduced %idths of the roads and elimina- tion of curbing. In addition, t-he Town may consider taking back the principle internal road system through public dedication and assume the ongoing maintenance of the roads. This, in effect, would relieve the individual homeowner of road mainte- nance costs that would otherwise be borne by the homeowner through fees levied by the Homeowners Association. It should be noted that the road program will -8- be designed to satisfy all sound engineering criteria. Parking will be pro- vided within driveways adjacent to all homes and at other convenient off- street locations. Each hom~ will be provided with at least 2.25 parking spaces per unit. S/IRM WAT~ DRA/~: Storm water runoff will be gmnerated from impervious surfaces associated with site improvemmnts, including roof surfaces, parking and roadways. Ail runoff will be controlled by a co~m~n storm water management system designed to el{minate any possible impact to ground resources; said system will include catch basins and gravity flow piping. Tnm number and location will be deter- re{ned in the final site plan design; however, no drainage basin will be located within 20 feet of sewage effluant leaching pools. Th~ commnn sewage disposal system will be subject to the approval of th~ Suffolk Coumty Departmmnt of Hmalth Services. Preliminary discussions with said agency would indicate that a sanitary system of a de-nitrification type will be required. This system will be designed to adequately treat and recharge the est~,~te peak usage of approx~mmtely 15,000 gallons/day and will minimize any impact to the ground water resources. At present, public potable water is to be supplied by thm Village of Greenport and/or a community well and water supply system approved by th~ Suffolk County H~alth Depart,~nt, rummaged by the Village of Greenpert and owned by the Town of Southold. Mm~dow Farms has no objections to either approach. Depth and p,~ing capacity will depend on County requirements, water quality and anticipated, future demand. Ail construction of said water supply will be performed to Suffolk County standards. Lastly, the site will -9- be landscaped through th~ use of plant materials and earth forms. Canopy trees and other plants will be used to provide, define, accent and soften architectural elements and further define circulation syst~m~. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION: The major constr~ction of the entire complex is anticipated to tak~ a minimum of one year from the receipt of all necessary approvals. D~ring the construction phase, appro×~,mtely 30 jobs will be created. Care will be taken to reduce noise generattion impact by restricting work to normal business hours and utilize the proposed landscaped buffer open space areas to reduce fugitive noise. Installation of landscaped materials will depend on the season; how- ever, a cover crop will be planted as soon as possible to reduce erosion im- pacts. APP~0VALS: Approvals necessary for this proposed action are: 1. So~thold Tow~-~ Board change of zone from "A" Rmsidential to 1-~Jltiple P~sidence; 2. Town of Southold Planning Board site plan approval; 3. Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval of Sanitary waste disposal and public water supply system (Article 6). ~¥IRO1 ~.f~rfAL SETTP0G: ~atural R~sources Soils: A review of the "Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York," prepared by -10- the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, shows th~ majority of th~ property as havinv a '~a" soil classification (Haven loan) with a smaller section within the old orchmrd designated as "PI" (Plymouth loamy sand). Ha (Haven loam) is defined as follows: The Haven series consists of deep, well drained, medium textured soils. R~nese soils are present throughout the country, but most areas are on outwash plains between th~ two terminal m~rraines. Haven soils have high to moderate available moisture capacity. Normal fertility is low, but the response to lime m~d fertilizer is good. Permeability is moderate in the surface/subsoil layer and rapid in the sub- strata. The hmzard for erosion is slight. 2his soil is used extensively for crops and is well suited to all cor~nunity growth in the County. Limitations for hom~site, streets and parking is slight. Plymouth loamy sand: This series consists of deep excessively drained, coarse textured soils ~ith lo~, available moisture capacity. Natural fertility is lo~.; ~ith a response to li~e and fertilizer classified as fair. Perry_ability is moderate ~ith a slight hazard for erosion, l~imitations for homesites, streets and parking are slight to ~moderate on slopes. Although tJ~e soil survey discusses the soil types and l~m{tations in de- tail, each site has its o~a~ individual clmracteristics. For this reason, soil borings and/or test holes will be installed in order to ascertain design re- quirements. TOFf~Y~qPHY: The topography of the site is generally level with slight slopes rising -11- to the west. Average elevations range between 20' and 35' above mean sea level (USGS Datum). Visual inspection by staff revealed no areas of unusual or sensitive land forms. (~KOLrNIA~ATt~IR: Groundwater resources at rJ~e subject parcel are entirely derived from precipitation. In the Southold area, this quantity is est{m~ted to be approxi- mately 47 inchss per year by long term averages. For th_is quantity approxi- mately 22 inches per year is lost to the a~nosphere via evaporation-transpira- tion and 2 inches per year makes up the overland flow component of the hy- drologic cycle. The r~ining 23 inches/year percolates through unsaturated soil to a level below which all underlying soils are saturated, q/nm upper level of the groundwater system is described as the water table. Due to the h~vdrogeology of the acquifers underlying the subject site, the l~per ~lacial acquifer is the only grounck~,ater unit of concern relaing to this project. B_I1 upland areas of the project site fall %ithin the 208 G¥oundwater b~anafement Zone 1AL This hydrological zone covers all on IDng Island's l~3rth Fork and is ckaracteri~ed as h~_ng unique groundwater co~ditions result~]g from a ].imit~ depth of resh water and intensive agricultural activities. Fluctua- tions in depth to groundwater of up to several fee can be exq~ected due to precipitation ckanges. Groundwater beneath the subject parcel flows southward and as a result of the gradient caused the tidal waters of Peconic Bay. /his is to say that nearly all recharge from this site flows in a shallo~' ground- water system and is disclmrged into said surface water. -12- SURFACE WAT~: There are no surface water resources contained on the subject property. VEGETATIOi~: The existing vegetation found within the site is varied. ~bst areas have been disturbed and as a result, pioneer species predominate. ~ protected or endangered species were observed during our field investigations. A represen- tationml species list is as follows; CO~,XDN bl¥[E SCIE2~TIFIC NAME Honeysuckle fonicera sp- Bay Berry ~.b~rica pennsylvanica Black Cherry Prunus serotina Wild Grape Vitis sp- Apple 1,1~lus sp- Queen Ann ' s Imce Daucus cartoz l~isy fleabane Erigeron am~uus Pasture thistle Cirsiu~ pumliun Gn_icory Cichori~n intybus T~mhs quarter fhenopodi~T, alb~n Field mustard Brassica rapa False indigo Bapisia tinctoria Co.non milkweed ~clepias syriaoa Co~7~on ra~'eed Ambrosia artimisifolia Poke weed l~nytolacca americana -13- CEI-~ION IqA', ~E SCIEArFIFIC Goldenrod Solidago sp- Poverty grass Danthonia apicata Orclmrd grass Dactylis glomerata Timothy grass Pnleum pratense Greenbriar Similex sp. In addition to thmse species identified, numerous ottmr forbes and grasses were observed throughout thru site. Disturbance hms resulted in a limited vege- tative succession with thru predominate vegetativ~ t)q)e being hmrbacious road- side weed species. W-LLDLIFE: 7he significance of this parcel in regard to wildlife depends on the vege- tative associations present kd_thin tie site as well as those found on adjoining properties. As described in the previous section, the entire area can be classified as brushy fields and/or old orchards. Because of li~dted food sources and minimum diversity in habitats, the subject property is not con- sidered to be a valuable kildlife resource. A list of possible aniraals found on or frequenting tim site is bound below. This list is not me~_nt to be all inclusive, but merely a representation of those species cormnonly found in a particular setting. O0~OU l't,~'~E SCI~,TiFIC I~-~ Bob~Lite Quail Colinus virgLnianus Starling Sturnus vulgaris ~bckingbird M£mus polyglottos -14- O]'~ON iqA/,fF SCIENTIFIC Sparrows I.~lospiza geogiarm b~urning Doves Zenaidura macroura Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Crow Corvus brachyrhynchoa Wren Troglodytes a~don Field ~Muse Microtus pennsylvanicus Norway Rat Rattus norvegiaus Opossum Dide lphis mes~ricarm Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticue Hl~.~/q RESOURCES: Transportation: For transportation and traffic armlysis, see "Exhibit A," attached, on Traffic Impact Study for Meadow Far,ns, Souchold, NY, prepared by Durra Engi- neerinS . ZOi~l~S ~ LA~© USE: The proposed project site is cu~n:ently zoned "A" RasidentLal. 21~e potential land use was discussed previously in the text. A re',iew of existing land use patterns in th~ area h~ve revealed a mixture of both co~mrcial mhd residential properties- This mix of differing uses is especially evident along ~'S Route 25 (~t~in Road) ~,~ithin close proximity in the propose~ project entrance. In this area, old one and two-sto~g wood frame single-f=mmily dwellings predominate ~ith several ,having been converted to business uses such -15- as real estate and insurance offices and a funeral homm. Othmr uses within tJ~is area include churchms and an American Legion Hall. ~b th~ west of the subject parcel, n~st significant parcels appear to be vacant and residentially zoned while older, single-family dwellings on pre-existing, nonconforming lots adjoin the subject parcel on tb~ north in the vicinity of Griswald Street. It is anticipated that the continuing growth of the Hamlet of Southold ~ill in- crease the demand for conversion of th~ existing Route 25 residential structures to a commercial use. If such a use becomes dominate, the subject parcel will sea-ye to buffer the larger residentially zoned parcels through a transition from co~m=_rcial to low density residential projects. To the east of the subject property, on eithar side of Route 25, lies the co~rcial and industrial core of Southold Hamlet. Within this core area, and within walking distance of Meadow Farms, the service center of the hamlet contains a wide variety of co~nercial services including food, apparel, drug and stationer3, shopping opportunities as well as an array of professional ser- %~-ces a~ld of course, institutional uses such as the ~r~]icipal center ~nd 1 ib ra~-y. It is within this Hamlet District of Southold that ?~_adow Famns is lo- eated and which the b~ster Plan targets as "opportunity ior more intensive 1 and varied housing." -16- 1 To~n of Southold Master Plan Update; sun,nary prepared by Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, Plar~ning Consultants~ April, 1985~ In addition, b~adow Farms satisfies the three criteria for the higher density (4 units per acre); namely, location within or near a hamlet area, availability of public utilities and provision for modest cost housing. Fur- ther, the Proposed Zoni~lg Regulations, presently under consideration by th~ Town of Southold, are fully consistent with the b~adow Farms proposal in terms of density, location, public utilities and moderate incom~ housing. Cf~JIfiTY SSIiVICES AND RESOURCES: A sufficient discussion on the important public need for tl~is project can be found in the beginning of the Enviror~nental Impact Statmment; however, a re- cap of the significant points for tills section is relevant. Tam east end of Long Island, particularly the towns of Easthm?ton, South- h~pton and Southold, have experienced a severe shortage of affordable housing for those of moderate incomes who desire to live and work in the to~s ~4~ere, in many cases, t/~ey were raised. Ibis shortage is the direct result of the area's gro~ing popularity as a resort co~nunity. B~,ers of second bores have increased the dec-,and for dwellings to the point %~lere market values are now beyond tile reach of moderate income indixH_duals and/or family units. It is, tl~refore, ~mperative that affordable housing be proxrided so that the cu..=~unity is not restricted to only these v.~]o can afford tJ~e lux-ury home market. ~hrther, the dr.~=~tic impact of Southold becoming a major tourist and resort area has been forecast and encouraged by the recently adopted ~'~ster Plan for the To~n of Southold. Ironically, w%~ile these fast moving changes have been encouraged and ~mve caused housing costs to escalate. 71~ need for moderate cost housing is increasLng due to the required e-~ploy~ent work force -17- necessary to serve this newly expanding economy. A~cordingly, the Town of Southold, realizing th.is dichotomy, has created within the l.t~ster Plan and Proposed Zoning Regulations the Hmzlet District in order to afford the oppor- ttmity to produce moderate cost housing. SI@~FIC~F ~q~rIRONMtIN~AL D~PACTS: The following is an outline of significant enviromnmntal impacts which could be expected if the proposed action is carried out. -Loss of approximately 18 acres of unused farm- land located in desirable soil types. -Potential increase in traffic on NYS Route 25 due to vehicles entering and exiting project. -Potential increase in soil erosion during con- s truction phase. -Potential decrease in ground~'ater q~ality caused by storm water runoff generated by ~pervious surfaces. -Potential decrease in groundwater quality caused by discharge of sanitary waste effluent and use of fertilizers. -Expansion of public water supply system the local co~nunity. -Change in existing topography and drainage patterns due to proposed improver~nts. -Increase in wildlife food sources due to land- scaped buffer and open space areas. -18- -Temporary dislocation of wildlife populations currently utilizing thm site. -Permanent loss of existing vegetation currently found at site. -Permanent loss of open space currently associated with subject property as vacant. -Potential increase in noise generation over current levels by virtue of ongoing construction activities. -Increase in affordable housing available to Southold residents as a result of cost saving construction mmthods and increased density. -Potential conflict with cu~-~ent zoning classi- fications and co~m~nity land use plans. ~]~e proposed action has been conceptually designed in order to reduce r~mny adverse ~pacts as early as possible in the planming sequence. ~e t)?e of land use and the si~ecial areas of concern tmx~ been addressed amd incorporated into the design. Numerous mmetings trove takmn place ~ith the various involved agenices on the To~n, County amd State levels of government. The following is a description of the mitigation measures ~ich could be made a part of the proposed )-~adow Farms Developr~nt: I~pact: Loss of approxJ~rmtely 18 acres of farmland located in desirable soil types Mitigation b~asure: ~one available -19- Impact: Potential increase in NYS Route 25 traffic Mitigation b~asure: A cross driveway would be designed to afford separate right turn and separate left turn exit lanes so thmt congestion and delays along tbe exit roadway be re- duced to a minimum. In addition, sufficient avail- able t{m~ng gaps on Route 25 are available to provide safe ingress and egress of vehicles thmt will be generated by b~adow Farms. Impact: Potential increase in soil erosion during construction phrase Mitigation b~asure: Cot/fill areas will be regraded and topsoil installed in order to provide a proper planting base. Cover crop will be installed on disturbed areas as soon as regrading is accomplished; said installation ~ill coincide %ith seasorml planting windows. Impact~ Potential decrease in local grou~]dwater quality caused by storm water ~nanoff generated by i~pervious surfaces ~.~itigation b~asure: Th~ storm water mamagement system proposed in nhe project description includes rummy of the reco~nda- tions found in th~ Nationwide Urban Runoff t~ogr~n (NURP). Thru pr~?y contaminants associated with storm water are: Hydrocarbons, heavy metals, asbestos, chlorides, nutrients and bacteria. 7he store water manageramnt system will remove pollotm~ts via a simple physical process. Separation of sus- pended contaminants will occur in the catch basins -20- which will contain thru initial r~noff. Pollutant levels have been found to be highmst during tha first 30 minutes of a rain event. Therefore, the majority of the contamJ_nmnts will be filtered as leaching occurs. A~cumulated sedimmnts ~ill be re- moved from the catch basins as necessaz-y to assure effective operation. A percentage of the overall site will contain turf or landscaping which may require supplemental fertiliza- tion to enhance growth and appearance. Potential impacts may result from the possibility of excess nitrogen, phosphate or potassium leaching into ground or surface water. This possible £npact can be mitigated by applying fertilizer at a rate ~ich will insure that applied nutrients are utilized by grass and shrubs and do not become an envirot~nental pol- lutant. R]~e follo~d~g turf manageraemt program is to insure tJ~at no groundwater impacts Occdr: -I~w fertility requiring grass such as Kentucky Blue and Tall rescues shall be established on site. -Slow release forms of nitrogen fertilizer sl~ll be applied to promote bacterial nitrogen fixinG and maximum plant utilization of nitrogen. Fer- lizer application is reconr~nded during late -21- S,~nm~r and spring for maxiaum success. -Irrigation shall be used as a supplement to natural precipitation. Hma%~ irrigation slmll be avoided to ~ain{m~ze nutrient leaching. Impact: Potential decrease in local groundwater quality caused by dis- charge of sanitary waste effluent and use of fertilizers Mitigation M~asure: /ha intent of thm project is to adhere to thm Suffolk County Department of Health Services standards for disposal of sanitary effluent. /]~is central disposal system (maximum 15,000 gal./day) will include a de- nitrification component in order to reduce the ni- trate impact on groundwater resources. It should be noted that a standard subdivision would not include such a system nor wo'ald it be feasible to ixpl~m~nt turf manage~ment program outlined in the storm water ~npact analysis. Impact: Expansion of the public water supply system within the local conmmunity Mitigation [.~asure: None required Impact: (Inange in existing topography and drainage patterns due to proposed improvement s -22- blitigation b~asure: Present topography will be regraded to create a~sthmtical- ly pleasin~ land forms, to screen undesirable views and add interest and diversity to tbe present monotonous site. Create storm water control program to insure integrity of groundwater resource. Impact: Increase in wildlife food sources due to installation of land- scaped buffer and open space areas Mitigation Measure: ~mndscaped/open space areas will include various WHiP (Wildlife H~bitat Improv~,~nt Plantings) in order to provide food sources and cover areas as well as buffers for adjoining residential proper- ties. No mitigation is necessary. Impact'. Temporary dislocation of wildlife populations currently utilizing tb~ site blitigation ~-~asure: As thru open space/buffer areas will include the aforementioned WHIP associations, ~_ldlife resource potential of the site will improve over thmt which presently exists. Present wildlife resources will be disrupted during construction amd until WHIP in- stallations mature. Impact: Permanent loss of existing vegetation found on site Mitigation b}aasure: Rmplace existing vegetation ~ith open space/WHIP -23- associations previously described. Th~se in- stallations will be comprised of species valuable to wildlife resources, will be a~sthmtically pleasing and will screen adjoining properties from the visual impact create~ by th~ proposed project. Impact: Penngnent loss of open space values currently associated with subject parcel as vacant ~[itigation Mmasure: Utilize buffers and clustering of improvements to minimize open space loss. Create significant c~n areas for thru use of residents living within the project boundaries. Impact~ Potential increase in noise generation du~ to construction activities Mitigation ~asure: Operation of heavy machinery ~ill occur only during normal business ~urs. Interior constroction activi- ties ~.~-11 not genmrate fugitive noise and exterior ~rovem~nts will be completed in as short a time span as possible~ t~s reducing length of time sub- ject to increased noise levels. I~pact: Increase in affordable housing available to year round Southold res idents Mitigation ~asure: I~one required -24- Impact: Potential conflict with current zoning standards and land use plans Mitigation M~asure: Utilize ~adow Farms as a model for the development of an affordable housing project. Utilize increased densities, reduced road widths, etc., as a mmthod of lowering finishmd product cost. Mandate that ~hmse types of deviations from tbs current and future zoning programs be granted for ths express purpose of creating housing for year round moderate incomm individuals and families. In this manner, precedent will not be established for other projects unless ti]my conform to th~ s~m~ affordable housing goals and objectives. ADVSiSE IlfVIROI~R~TAL I~ACTS THAT C~/~NOT BE AVOIDED: As extensive mitigation ,~=~sures have been incorporated into thru project design, most potential negativ~ envirorma~ntal impacts have been reduced or eliminated. The primary adverse enviror~nental considerations that r~in are as follows: 1. A small increase in traffic on NYS Route 25 at the project entrance may be anticipated. This increase will be thru result of vehicles entering and exiting the project and will occur at peak hours during the s~m~nar season. -25- 2. Noise generated by building activity during th~ construc- tion phase will negatively impact adjoining properties. /~zis increase in noise will be temporary and will occur o~ly during normal business hours. 3. Groundwater resources may be {mpacged if de-nitrification systems fail. Minimal impact is expected utilizing a functioning sya~em. 4- 18.0 acres of property is desirable soils will be utilized for residential use. Open space characteristics will be modified. IRREVS/iSIBLE AND ]IiRETREIVABLE C~,fI2MENT OF RESOURCES: If b~adow Far~ is constructed, the following natural resources will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use: Approximately 18.0 acres of land will be utilized for the construction of a moderate income, affordable housing project. The project will include detachmd single-f~m~ly hom~s as well as duplex units. As a result of its construction, said property will be made unavailable for a future alternate use. Addi- tionally, the majority of the existing vegetation found at the site will be converted to species tt~at are both aesthetically pleasing and provide wildlife values. Lastly, additional -26- energy resources will be cons,,r~d due to th~ heating, cooling and electrical demands made by thru project residents. ~<OWTH IIYOUC]IqG ASPECTS: If approved, thru Meadow Farms Development will serve to stabilize com- munity developmmnt rathmr thmn accelerate thru resort developmmnt th~me comnonly found in residential projects. This stabilization will be accomplished by allo%~_ng full time moderate income residents to remain of Southold Township. This residency tins become increasingly difficult for all age groups within this classification because of thru inflated housing costs created by a growing second hom~ demand. As a result, M~dow Farms will serve as a model project thmt will enable the present generation of individuals and f~m~ lies to remain in thru township rathmr than being forced to seek affordable housing in Brook- l~ven and Riverhead Towns. Southold needs its year round residents and projects s~m~lar to Mmadow Farms will m~d~ it possible. The proposed site is presently zoned for low density, single-f=~mily resi- dential developmmnt. Such a project could easily be installed on thru subject property. 'Economics, however, would force thru developer to construct dwellings for the luxury, second home markmt. This decision would be based on the lower densitites as well as higher per unit infrastructure costs. Therefore, if affordable housing is to be provided within tb~ Town by private enterprises, -27- variances to current zoning requirements must be granted. Commercial develop- m~nt would be undesirable given th~ residential character of adjoining proper- ties and a no action alternative would merely postpone the parcel's develop- m~nt until a future date. A~ditionally, any postponement of affordable housing projects will inevitably result in higher unit prices as both land costs and structural prices increase dr~.~tically over th~ foreseeable ~uture. -28- APPENDIX QUALIFICATIONS-CHARLF~ W. BOWMAN: EDUCATION New York State Ranger School and the NYS College of Enviror~ental Science and Forestry American Institute of Rmal Estate Appraisers, Course lA, "Basic Appraisal Principles, Mmthods and Techniqums" A.I.R.E.A. "Capitalization Thmory and Techniques I" A.I.R.E.A. "Capitalization Theory and Techniques II" A.I.R.E.A. '~{ural Valuation" S.C.C.C. '~{mal Estate Appraisal Principles and Practices" ~k~nerous spm{n~rs, conferences and lectures relating to real property development, appraisals and land use analysis EXP~IRI~]qCE - Eight years employed by t_ha NYS Depar~,~nt of Envirorm~ntal Conservation, Rmal Property Bureau. Worked closely with tbs State of New York Attorney General's Office on Court of Claims and Suprem~ Court Actions. Prepared appraisal and/or establisbmd values for the acquisition of wetland/upland property in the New York-I~ng Ireland area. Prepared Fmvirorm~ntal impact statements, coordinated SDQR R~views and mstablished potential land use policies for th~ I~ng Island Wild, Scenic and Rmcreational Rivers Program. Presently Rmal Estate Appraiser, Envirorm~ntal Consultant and principal of thru Land Use Company, which since 1981 has provided its clients with a full range of services including: feasibility, market and envirorm~ntal- development potential analysis of real property, S~QR completion and coordination of projects with affected gov~rnmmntal agencies, unconsolidated surface mine revegetation and reclaimation plans, bluff erosion and revegetation programs as well as th~ creation and/or restoration of tidal and freshwater wetland areas. Have been tested and qualified by State of New York as an approved independent fee appraiser and land use analyst. Have testified in the Supreme Court of New York (Suffolk Comity) on real property potential and vmlces as well as providing expert testimony on revegetation of erosion prone areas and/or thru the enviror~nental impacts associated with Long Island preservation and/or thru envirorm~ntal impacts associated with Long Island preservation and/or development projects. LICE~i~ES - Licensed Rmal Estate Broker, State of New York b~MIRSHIPS - Council b~mher, To~n of Brookhmven Conservation Advisory Coumcil, Natioual Association of Realtors, New York State Association of Rmaltors, F~stern Suffolk Board of R~altors, Board b~mber, long Island Coalition for Sensible Growth S~'~zukRY OF QUALIFICATIONS5 AND S~]{VICES LAND USE CO~ANY, INC. Land Use Company, Inc. was formmd in 1981 in order to provide its clients with a wide range of professional services relating to real property valuation, de- v~lopmmnt and enviromnmntal concerns. Thmse services include the preparation of enviromnental impact statemmnts, site developmmnt planning, restoration and/or creation of tidal and freshwater wetlands syst~m~, stream diversions, pond constructions, real property appraisals, f~asibility analysis, shoreline erosion control, mined land recla~m~tion plan and revegetation planning as ~11 as envirorm~n~al permit processing. Oarrent staff mambers include Land Use Analysts, Marine Biologist, Licensed Landscape Architects, as well as n,,~orous additionml personnel involved with all phases of the enviromnental and real property segn~nts of the company. LIST OF REPRESENTATIVE CLI~qTS: long Island Lighting Company, NYS Departmmnt of Transportation, Town of Brook- haven, Sid Farber Homms, Inc., Flower and Plotka, Esqs., Tookar and Smith, Esqs., b~adowrnmre Fealty, Inc., /he Public Land Tr~st, Booth, b~rcus and Pierce, Esqs., Group for th~ South Fork, Winer, Neuberger and Sive, Esqs., Costello b~rine Contracting, Shamrock Properties, Allision b~rine Contracting, Costanza [.~rine Contracting, Johansen Rmalty, Town of Riv~rhmad, Swan ~ Coif Corp., fharmmr Industries, D. Stone Industries, Wishbone Trading Corp., Wickham, Wickham and Bressler, Esqs., Riverhead Building Supply, ViaCom Cable- vision, Roanok~ Marbro, Inc., Metski Excavation: Inc., Hmartland Executive Plaza, North Hmmpstead Sand and Gravel, J.P. Stevens Company, Inc., Peconic Yacht Basin, Tne b~tro Group, as well as nummrous other corporations, law firms and many individuals. EXHIBIT A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR MEADOW FARMS SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK PREPARED FOR MEADOW FARMS ASSOCIATES SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK BY DUNN ENGINEERING. P.C. MAIN STREET WESTHAMPTON BEACH DECEMBER 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS Topic Page INTRODUCTION . . . 1 Purpose of Report 2 Location . . . 2 Area Map . . 3 Location Map . . 4 Site Map . , . 5 STUDY APPROACH ................... 6 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK ................. 9 Roadway Descriptions .............. 10 Major Intersections ............... 10 Grades and Sight Distances ............ 10 Accident Records .............. 11 EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOW CONDITIONS ........ 12 Traffic Volumes and Available Capacity ...... 13 Available Gaps ............ 13 EXISTING EMERGENCY SERVICES . . 16 SITE TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS 18 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS 20 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS 23 ROADWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS , . 26 ACCESS EXAMINATION .... 29 CONCLUSIONS ...... 31 APPENDIX ........ 33 Traffic Volume Counts Accident Records INTRODUCTION -1- PURPOSE OF REPORT This Traffic Impact Study contains the results of a traffic engineering ex- amination of the proposed development of Meadow Farms. This report has been prepared to assess the impact of the proposed development of 72 housing units. 52 of the homes will be one bedroom units, and 20 of the homes will be two bedroom units. This report appraises the traffic aspects of the proposed de- velopment with particular emphasis on its impact on the surrounding street and highway network. LOCATION Meadow Farms will be located on the west side of Main Road (New York State Route 25), approximately 750 feet north of the Intersection of New York State Route 25 at Jockey Creek Drive in the unincorporated hamlet of Southold within the Town of Southold in Suffolk County, New York. Figure 1, Area Map, indicates the location of the Town of Southold in the New York Metropolitan area. The project site is shown in Figure 2, Location Map, while Figure 3, Site Map, presents the boundaries of the property and the adjacent roadway network. At present, the property is undeveloped. -2- O~ ~0 ~Z 0 ro AVE m C: '~ | o ~o SITE - //~ PINE ~ FIGURE 3 SITE PLAN STUDY APPROACH As part of the preparation of this Traffic Impact Study, the following tasks were undertaken: 1. Several personal, on-site field observations were made to observe the traffic movements under various conditions. 2. A physical inventory was made of the adjacent street network. 3. An analysis was made of the traffic volume data obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation. 4. An examination was made of the traffic flow on State Route 25. Also. the available capacity of the surrounding street network was determined. 5. An evaluation was made of the safety factors by reviewing sight dis- tances and available safe gaps in the traffic flow. 6. The availability of police and fire protection services was examined. 7. A trip generation analysis was performed to determine the additional traffic attributable to the proposed development of Meadow Farms. 8. A directional distribution analysis was made to distribute the site- generated traffic onto the surrounding street network. 9. A trip assignment analysis was performed to examine the composite traf- fic volumes, that would result due to the addition of the site-generated traffic to the existing traffic volumes, in order to determine the traf- fic impacts on the surrounding roadways. 10. Capacity analyses were performed at the unsignalized intersection of Route 25 at the proposed access driveway to examine the ability to ac- commodate the addition of the site-generated traffic. -7- 11. A review of the access arran§ements was made. 12, Discussions were held with representatives of the New York State Depart- ment of Transportation and the Town of Southold to review the traffic aspects of this project. 13. Conclusions were made of the traffic impact of the development as a re- sult of the data and facts gathered in this study. -B- EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK ROADWAY DESCRIPTIONS The major highway facility that provides access to the proposed development is New York State Route 25. New York State Route 25 is essentially an east/west route that consists of an undivided highway with one travel lane in each direction and no separate turning lanes. In the vicinity of the site, New York State Route 25 runs in an approximate north/south direction with the pro- posed site being on the west side of Route 25. New York State Route 25 is the only highway facility in close proximity to the site that will be impacted by site-generated traffic. The lane configurations at the intersection approaches of Route 25 at the pro- posed access road to the site consist of the following: I. Southbound Approach on Route 25: One thru lane. 2. Northbound Approach on Route 25: One thru lane. MAJOR INTERSECTIONS There are no major intersections that are located in the vicinity of the site that this project will have a traffic impact on. GRADES AND SIGHT DISTANCES The grades on Route 25 in the vicinity of the site are essentially flat. Ap- proximately 2,000 feet north of the site there is a sharp horizontal curve to the right. This curve is located a more than sufficient distance from the proposed access site. Thus, excellent sight distance will be available for traffic exiting the site. -10- ACCIDENT RECORDS An accident history on New York State Route 25 for the period 1982 through 1984 was obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation, There were a total of four accidents during this period as follows: 1984 - 0 1983 2 1982 - 2 Of these, three resulted in sufficient damage to be classified as reportable. Therefore, the area between Jockey Creek Drive and Tuckers Lane on Route 25 averaged one accident per year over the three year period analyzed. This rate of accident occurrence is minimal and does not relfect any adverse driving conditions on New York State Route 25. -11- EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOW CONDITIONS TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND AVAILABLE CAPACITY Available traffic flow information was obtained from the New York State De- partment of Transportation. The available information consisted of machine traffic counts for a coverage count station on Route 25 ~n the vicinity of the site that contains hourly volumes. According to the information obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation, the average daily traffic volumes on the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed site are listed below: 1. On Route 25, the average daily traffic is 8,940 vehicles. 2. On Route 25, the average Saturday da~ly traffic is 10,200 vehicles, An examination of the traffic volume information reveals that the peak weekday traffic volumes occur between the hours of 5:00 to 6:00 PM., while the peak Saturday traffic volumes occur between the hours of 11:00 A.M. to 12:Q0 Noon. The available traffic volume information is contained in the section of the Appendix entitled "Traffic Volume Counts". AVAILABLE GAPS Since the proposed development is accessible from both the northbound and southbound lanes on Route 25, opportunities for safe ingress and egress at the site were examined on the basis of (1) opportunities available to make left turns in and right turns out of the site, and (2) opportunities to make left turns out of the site. It was determined that there are sufficient gaps for safe ingress from the north and safe ingress and egress to the south under varying traffic conditions for the majority of the year. Adequate gaps are available in the northbound and southbound flows of traffic due to the pre- dominantly free flow operation of Route 25 in this area. A critical gap study was conducted that examined the simultaneous gaps in both directions of travel on Route 25. Table I reflects the results of this study, which is based upon the new Highway Capacity Manual, "Transportation Research Board Special ~eport 209, 1985". Each of the numbers under the column "Poten- tial Capacity" reflects the number of vehicles that are expected to make the respective movement in an hour under these conditions. These volumes will be discussed in another section of this report entitled "Roadway Capacity An- alysis". -14- CRITICAL OPPOSING POTENTIAL MOVEMENT GAP REQUIRED VOLUME CAPACITY Eastbound to Northbound 8 Seconds 775 Veh./Hr. 220 Veh./Hr, Left Turn Out of Site Eastbound to Southbound 6.5 Seconds 349 Veh,/Hr, 590 Veh,/Hr, Right Turn Out of Site Northbound Left Turn 5.5 Seconds 426 Veh./Hr. 680 Veh./Hr. Into Site TABLE 1 CRITICAL GAP CAPACITY ANALYSIS -15- EXISTING EMERGENCY SERVICES The availability of police protection and fire protection services in the vicinity of the proposed site is excellent. The Southold Town Police De- partment covers the area of the site. At present, the immediate hamlet of Southold is a sector unto. itself patrolled by this Department. The closest firehouse of the Southold Fire Department is located on Main Road, less than two miles from the site. Due to the excellent patrol coverage of the police precinct and the close proximity of the firehouse, it should be recognized that excellent emergency services are available to service the site of Meadow Farms. -17- SITE TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS Information on trip generation rates for housing complexes are contained in the latest printing of the "ITE Trip Generation Manual" that ~s published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The information contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual is consistent with generation rates of similar developments in Suffolk County. Table 2, Site Generated Traffic, presents a breakdown of the anticipated entering and exiting traffic for the proposed de- velopment of Meadow Farms for the peak hours on a weekday and on a Saturday. On the average, Saturday volumes are 14% higher than the weekday average. 72 HOUSING UNITS Average Weekday Average Trip Ends Per Hour Average Trip Ends Per Hour Trip Ends A.M. Peak Hours (7-9 A.M.) P.M. Peak Hours (4-6 P.M.) Enter Exit Enter Exit 376 5 27 27 13 (188 Enter & 188 Exit) Average Saturday Average Peak Hour Trip Ends Average Peak Hour Trip Ends Trip Ends Saturday A.M. (11-12 A.M.) Saturday P.M. (2-3 P.M.) Enter Exit Enter Exit 425 14 20 16 15 Table 2 Site Generated Traffic -19- DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS -20- The directional distribution was estimated based on the anticipated location of work, shopping, and recreational destinations. Figure 4, Directional Distribution of Site Generated Traffic, indicates the percentage of the vehicles that will arrive at and exit from the proposed de- velopment via the e×isting roadways based on the provision of an access point on Route 25. -21- uJ uJ MAIN~~ ROAD M~ADOW FARM~ ACCESS{ ROAD 0 22 .TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS The site-generated traffic and the directional distribution were utilized to assign traffic volumes at the proposed access point and on the surround~n§ roadway network. Figure 5, Distribution of Site Generated Traffic, assigns the site-generated traffic during the peak weekday hour of 8:00 to 9:00 A.M.. the peak weekday evening hour of 5:00 to 6:00 P.M., and the peak Saturday hour of 11:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon. -24- MEADOW FARMS ACCESS ROAD 25 ROADWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS In order to assess the impact of the site-generated traffic on the adjacent roadway network, the traffic was compared to the previously conducted criti- cal gap analysis. Table 3 reflects this comparison. POTENTIAL ANTICIPATED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES * MOVEMENT CAPACITY 8-9 AM 4-5 PM SAT. 11-12 AM Eastbound to Northbound 220 VPH 15 ? 11 Left Turn Out of Site Eastbound to Southbound 590 VPH 12 6 9 Right Turn Out of Site Northbound Left Turn 680 VPH 2 12 6 Into Site * From Figure 5 Table 3 Site Traffic Versus Critical Gap Volumes In addition, a capacity analysis for the proposed intersection of the access driveway with Route 25 was performed using the "Critical Movement Analysis: Operation and Design, Calculation Form 2" as contained in the Transportation Research Board Circular 212 entitled "Interim Materials on Highway Capacity". Table 4 illustrates the results of this analysis. Level of Service A, which is shown for all approaches, is the optimum level of operation that is ob- tainable. It is obvious from both of these analyses that the volumes which are expected to be generated by this development will be easily accommodated and will only m~nimally impact the surrounding highway network. -27- DUNN ENGINEERING, P.C. i NEADOW FARMS O~5-MEADPO RT 25 RT 55 11-16-85 MEADOW FARMS SAT 11:00=12:00 1985 VOLUME ALLOCATION TO LANES TRAFFIC LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 LANE 4 FROM L S R L S R L S R L S R NORTH 0 426 SOUTN 6 349 0 0 0 0 0 ~'~ 0 0 0 0 WEST I 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNSIGNALIZED TRAFFIC FROM LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 5 LANE 4 NORTH RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE SOU]H RESERVE CAPACITY 750 LEVEL OF SERVICE A WEST RESERVE CAPACITY 506 758 LEVEL OF SERVICE A A TABLE 4 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS N.Y.S. RTE. 25 AT MEADOW FARMS ACCESS ROAD 28 ACCESS EXAMINATION In order to develop an access plan which will cause minimal interference to the flow of traffic on Route 25, the major access point to the site was de- signed to permit right turns in, right turns out, left turns in, and left turns out. In order to minimize future congestion and delays on the exit roadway from the Meadow Farms, a separate right turn lane and a separate left turn lane will be provided on the exit roadway. -30- CONCLUSIONS -31- Our study and analysis have concluded that the construction of the proposed development wil have minimal traffic impact on Route 25 and the adjacent roadways in the immediate area of the proposed development. Although the development of the homes will add traffic to the adjacent roadway network, the traffic impact will be minimal and the existing highway network will be able to easily accommodate this additional traffic. The following points should be recognized: 1. The location and design of the access point on Route 25 will provide the traffic service required with minimal disruption to traffic on Route 25. The access driveway has been designed with separate right turn and sepa- rate left turn exit lanes so that congestion and delays will be reduced along the exit roadway. 2. Due to the excellent patrol coverage of the police department and the close proximity of the fire house, it should be recognized that excellent emergency services are available to service the site of Meadow Farms. 3. There are sufficient available gaps on Route 25 to accommodate the safe ingress and egress of vehicles that will be generated by the proposed de- velopment. As a result, there is sufficient capacity on Route 25 to ac- commodate this additional site-generated traffic without creating a traf- fic operational problem. The traffic operational levels of service of the unsignalized intersection of the access driveway at Route 25 will have a Level of Service of "A". 4. The vehicular entrance/exit to the site is clearly visible to traffic on Route 25. Thus, the sight distance in the vicinity of this point is adequate. No nearby adjacent driveways exist on Route 25 that will in- terfere with the operation of the access driveway. As a result, it is recommended that the proposed develoment of the Meadow Farms be approved. -32- APPENDIX -33- · .'Traffic Volume Counts Accident Records o oooo o, oooo oooog ggooooooo3 ~ooo97oooooo9oo9~.~oo9o9oo0ooooo00o0oooo0o0oooooo I'~ o · '! ~t ~ ~- ~ ~ ~. z_ 1 ~ ooooo ooooooo oooogg Z · 00000000000000 O000000 ~00 O0 O000000000 O0 O00 ~0 O0 COPY FOR INFORMAtiON December 6, 1985 Dunn Eugiueering, P.e. ~-" - 66 Hain Street Westhampton Beach, ~ 11978 Deer ~r. Dunn: Heado~ Route 25, Southold ~r~ our discussions of Dec.bet 5, 1985, ~ understand that the subject d~elopment ~11 consist of 72 eond~tnlum units. To evaluate this 8tie, ~ ~111 requite three copies of a Traffic Impact Study containing the follo~ng tnfomtton: A. Turnl~ move~nt counts for each drive~ay Intersect/on ~th the state htgh~ay for the 8 highest hours of nn average day. Turnt~ ~vement counts for each adjacent intersection on the htgh~y s?stem for 8 highest hours of an average day. C. ~ree years of current accident data, lncludi~ accident type and description. D. De~ay sr~es ac each driveway ~n~ersecg~on where a requested. These delay Studies ~st be perfo~ed dur~ ~he morning peak hours, the mid-day peak hours, and the afternoon or eveni~ peak hours. E. Time-Space D~agrams if a proposed si~a~ will effect e~st~ng signals. ~e viii also require eigh~ copies of a s~te plan con~aintng ~he info~agion: A. Location and dimensions of existt~ htgh~ay pavemen~ curb~ s~dewalk, median, median openings, ~ide rail, utilities, ~rafftc si~s, right-of-~ay lines and property lines. B. Existing and proposed ~ildi~s and appurtenances. C. Design features to be incorporated in proposed const~ccion or reconstrucgion: 1. ~idth, pavement type and ~hic~ess of driveways. 2. Radii of drive~ay re~urns and other ~in~s of cu~acure. 3. Drive~y grades or profile vies of drive~ay. nunn Engineering, P.C. December 6, 19~5 PaGe 2 4. Angle of driveways relative to the roadway center line. 5. Dimensions of roadside control islands and driveway medians. 6. Dimensions and elevations of curb and sidewalP relative to the edge of pavement. 7. Location of authorized traffic signs and proposed advertisement signs. g. Existing and proposed pavement markings. D. Existing amd proposed draimage features: 1. Size, type and grade of driveway culverts. 2. |~lghway drainage structures. 3. Direction of surplus water flow on applicant's property. E. Distance from each existing and proposed driveway on the site to: 1. The nearest side road in each direction if within 1000 feet. 2. The nearest driveway on adjacent properties. 3. Streets, roads, or driveways opposite the site. 4. Adjacent property lines. F. Morth directional arrow. C. Details of internal trafflc circulation, parking, traffic control devices, actual or estimated traffic volumes, and any proposed additional pavement lanes or widening. This information and the plans submitted must be prepared by a licensed professional engineer or architect. Please send this material to Mr. W. E. Thyherg, regional permit engineer, at the above address. Thank you for your cooperation concerning this matter. / Very~Jlruly yogrs, ,~,/ c. Regional TrayCic [ngineer T(~: .~{: JS cc: Town of Sonthold ~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box '728 Southold, New York 1197l JLIDITH T TERRY TELEPHONE EO~N CLERK (516) 765-1801 REGISTRAR O1~ ¥1T/~L STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 25, 1985 Southold Town Board: Attached is the Scoping Checklist prepared by David Emilita as a result of the Scoping Session - Meadow Farms, held on September 24, 1985~ Those items check on the Model ElS Scoping Checklist should be addressed in the DEIS. I 1. Cover Bheet ntroduction ^il ElS's <Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover i sheet that indicates: The following checklist of topics is intended as a starting point for developing a detailed scope A. Whether it is a draft or finnl statement B. Name or other descriptive title of the project for a project-specific Draft Environmental Impact Q. Location(county and town, village or city)of Statement. Typically, no one project will require a the project discussion of all the topic areas contained in this D. Name and address of the lead agency which document. Through the scoping process, this list of ~.opics should be refined to reflect issues unique to required preparation of the statement and the proposed project. Topic areas may be deleled, the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further added, or elaborated upon, to arrive at the final scoping document, formation The purpose of the checklist format is to E. Name and address of the preparers of any identify the basic topic areas for the Draft ElS. This portion of the statement and a contact name and telephone number is accomplished by reviewing the list and placing a F. Date of acceptance of the Draft ElS check in the box located to the left of those topics G. In the case of a Draft ElS, the deadline date which should be discussed. The model scoping by which comments are due should be in- checklist can also be used as a worksheet, including dicated comments, suggestions and identification of the particular example(s) that are relevant to a detailed I1. Table of Contents and Summary discussion of the topic or issue that has been check- ed. Conversely. those topics which are not checked. A table of contents and a brief summary are re- are issues not associated with the project, and may quiredfor Draft and Final ElS's exceeding fO pages be eliminated from discussion in the [3raft ElS. in length. However, one should include these features in any size ElS to provide the review agency Minimum requirements for any Draft ElS are with easy reference to EIStopics. already checked for convenience. The summary should include: The next step is to expand the list to include A. Brief description of the action or elaborate on those topics unique to the proposed B. Significant. beneficial and adverse impacts. project. A blank sheet is included at the end of the checklist for such additional information. <issues of contro~'ersy must be specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed The scoping process involves several steps in D. Alternatives considered addition to compiling a list of topics. Scoping also E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, includes discussiors on the quantity and quality of funding) information required and the methods for obtaining that data. Ill. Description of the Proposed Action NOTE: This checklist was designed to bel Place a check in the box to the left of those used in conjunction with the section on scoping con- topics to be included in the draft ElS. rained in the SEQR Gu de ne-Draft and Fna 'E S's I [] A. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED It is also important to emphasize that this checklist 1. Background and history should serve only as a model to assist in the scoping ' 2. Public need for the project, and of a Draft ElS. It should not be used as a substitute I municipality objectives based on adopted for actively s¢oping a Draft ElS for a specific pro- I community development plans ject. 3. Obiectives of the project sponsor C-I ~"'B. LOCATION Natural Resources ]. Establish geographic boundaries of the [] A. GEOLOGY project (use of regional and local scale [] ]. Subsurface maps is recommended) 2. Description of access to site a.) composition and thickness of 3,. Description of existing zoning of propos- subsurface material ed site examples: 4. Other: --depth to, and nature of, bed- rock formations and imperme- able layers ~"'C. DESIGM AMD LAYOUT --occurrence of an extractive 1 Total site area mineral resource a.)proposed impervious surface area --usefulness as construction (roofs, parking lots, roads) material b.)amount of land to be cleared b.)earthquake potential c.) open space 2. Structures ~ 2. Surface a.) list of soil types a.)gross leaseable area (GLA), if ap- plicable b.)discussion of soil characteristics b.)layout of buildings (attached, enclos- examples: ed, separate) --physical properties (indication of soils hydrological (infiltra- c.) site plans and profile views 3. Parking tion) capabilities) a.)pavement area --engineering properties (soil b.) number of spaces and layout bearing capacity) 4. Other: c.) distribution of soil types at pro- ject site ~ D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION d.) suitability for use examples: 1. Construction --agriculture a.) total construction period anticipated --recreation b.) schedule of construction --construction c.) future potential development, on site --mining or on adjoining properties e,) other: d.)other: 2. Operation [~] 3. Topography a.) type of operation a.) description of topography at pro- b.)schedule of operation ject site c.) other: examples: --slopes [] E. CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE PLANS --prominent or unique features (for projects of planned limited life such as b.) description of topography of sur- landfills) rounding area [] B. WATER RESOURCES ~F APPROVALS ~ 1. Groundwater 1. Required changes or variances to thezon a.)~ocation and description of lng regulations aquifers and recharge areas 2. Other permit approval or funding re- quirements e,~amples: I --depth to water table I --seasonal variation IV. Environmental Setting I --quality Place a check in the box to the [eft of those [ --quantity topics to be included in the Draft ElS. I --llow C-2 (- b.) identification of present uses and c.)identification of any sensitive level of use of groundwater receptors in project aree examples: examples: --location ofexistin~jwel~s --hospitals, schools, nursing --public/private water supply homes, parks --industrial uses cl.)description of existing monitor- --agricultural uses lng program (if applicable) [] 2. Surface water [] D. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOQY a.) location and description of sur- ~' ]. Vegetation face waters located on project a.)]ist vegetation types on the pro- site or those that may be in- fluenced by the project ject site and within the surround- ing area examples: b.)discussion of site vegetation --seasonal variation characteristics --quaJity examples: --classification according to Hew York State Department of --species present and abundance Health --age --size b.) identification of uses and level of --distribution use of all surface waters --dominance examples: --community types --public/private water supply --unique, rare and endangered --industrial uses --agricultural uses species --value as habitat for wildlife --recreation /c.) description of existing drainage --productivity areas, patterns and channels [] 2. Fish and Wildlife cl.)discussion of potential for a.) list o[ fish and wildli[e species on flooding, siltation, erosion and the project site and within sur- eutrophication of water sources rounding area, including migratory and resident species [] C. AIR RESOURCES b_)discussion of fish and wildlife [] 1. Climate population characteristics  discussion of seasonal variations examples: a.) --species present and abundance and extremes --distribution examples: --dominance --temperature --humidity --unique, rare and endangered --precipitation species --productivity --wind [] 3. Wetlands [] 2. Air quality a.) list wetland areas within or con- a.) description of existing air quality tiguous to the project site leve~s b.) discuss wetland characteristics examples: examples: --list the I~ational and State Air --acreage O_ua]ity Standards for the pro- --vegetative cover (.~ ject area and the compliance --classification status for each standard --benefits of wetland such as b.)identification of existing sources flood and erosion control, or pollutants-fixed or mobile recreation C-3 Human Resources . [] C. COMMUNITY SERVICES (for this section in- clude a list of existing facilities and a discus- [] A. TRAHSPORTATIOH sion of existing levels of usage and pro- ~ 1. Transportation services a.) description of the size, capacity jected future needs) and condition of services [~ 1. Educational facilities examples: [] 2. Police protection --roads, canals, railroads, [] 3. Fire protection bridges --parking facilities [~' 4. Health care facilities --traffic control [~' 5. Social services b.) description of current level of use [~' 6. Recreational facilities of services examples: [~ 7, Utilities --a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic [] 8. Other: flow --vehicle mix --sources of existing traffic [] D. DEMOGRAPHY volume ~/2. Public transportation [~1. Population characteristics a.) discussion of the existing popula- a.)description of the current tionparameters availability of service examples: b.)description of present level of ~distribution use ~density [] 3. Pedestrian environment --household size and cornposi- [] 4. Other: tion b.)discussion of projections for [] B. LAND USE AND ZOHIHG population growth [] 2. Other: ~ 1. Existing land use and zoning a.) description of the existing land use of the project site and the [] E. CULTURAL RESOURCES surrounding area [~ 1. Visual resources examples: a.)description of the physical --commercial character of the community --residential example: --agricultural --urban vs. rural --business b.)description of natural areas of --retail significant scenic value --industrial c.)identification of structures of --vacant significant architectural design b.) description of the existing zoning [~ 2. Historic and archaeological of site and surrounding area resources ~/2. Land use plans a.)location and description of a.) description of any land use plans historic areas or structures Hsted or master plans which include on State or Hational Register or project site and surrounding area designated by the community b.)discussionof future development b.)identification of s~tes having trends or pressures potential significant ar- [] 3. Other: chaeological value C-4 [~ 3. Noise [] B. WATER RESOCIRCES am) identification of existing level of 1. Groundwater noise in the community a.) design adequate s~,stem of treat- b. identification of major sources of meat for stormwater runoff prior noise to recharge of groundwater examples: b.) maintain permeable areas on the --airports site --major highways c.) institute a program for monitor- --industrial/commercial [acili- ing water quality in adjacent ties wells [] 4. Other: d.)other: 2. Surface water a.) ensure use of soil erosion control V. Significant Environmental Impacts techniques during construction Identify those aspects of the environmental set- and operation to avoid siltation ting in Section IV that may be adversely or examples: beneficially affected by the proposed action and re- --hay bales quire discussion. --temporary restoration of VI, Mitigation Measures to Minimize Envlronmen- vegetation to disturbed areas tal Impact --landscaping Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential b.)design adequate stormwater con- adverse impacts identified in Section V. The follow- trol system ing is a brief listing of typical measures used for c.) restrict use of salt or sand for some of the major areas of impact, road and parking area snow removal Natural Resources d.) avoid direct discharges to surface water resources [] A. GEOLOGY e.) other: 1. Subsurface a.) use excavated material for land reclamation b,)use facility wastes (ash, sludge) for [and reclamation [] C. AIR RESOURCES c.) other: f. Air quality 2. Surface a-) assure proper construction prac- a.) use topsoil stockpiled during tices construction for restoration and examples: landscaping --fugitive dust control b.)minimize disturbance of non- --proper operation and construction sites maintenance of construction c.) design and implement soil ero- equipment sion control plan b,)design traffic improvements to d.)other: reduce congestion and vehicle 3. Topography delay a.)avoid construction on areas of c,)install and ensure the proper steep slope operation of emission control b.)design adequate soil erosion devices devices to protect areas of steep d,) initiate a program for monitoring slope of air quality c.) other: e.) other: C-5 [] D. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY [] B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Vegetation 1. Existing land use and zoning a.) restrict clearing to only those a.) design project to comply with ex- areas necessary isting land use plans b.) preserve part of site as a natural b.) design functional and visually ap- area pealing facility to set standard c.) after construction, landscape site and precedent for future with naturally occurring vegeta- surrounding land use tion c.) other: d.) purchase open space at another [] C. COMMUNITY SERVICES location and dedicate to local ]. Police protection government or conservation a.)minimize local police protection organization responsibilities by providing e.) other: private security force 2. Fish and Wildlife b.) provide security systems, alarms a.) provide adequate habitat (shelter for facility and food) for remaining wildlife c.) provide equipment, funds or set- species vices directly to the community b.)schedule construction to avoid d_)other: sensitive periods of fish and 2. Fire protection wildlife life cycles a.) use construction materials that c.) other: minimize fire hazards b.)incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design c.) provide equipment, funds or set- Human Resources vices directly to the community d.) other: [] A. TRANSPORTATION 3. Utilities l. Transportation services a.)install utility services a-) design adequate and safe access undergroend to project site to handle pro- b-)incorporate water saving fixtures jected traffic flow into facility design b.)install adequate traffic control c.)incorporate energy-saving devices measures into facility design c.) optimize use of parking areas d.) other: d.)encouragecarpoolingandopera- [] D. CULTURAL RESOURCES tion of facility during non-peak traffic times ]. Visual resources e.)design special routing and a.)design exterior of structure to restricted hoursfordeliverytruck physically blend with existing traffic surroundings f.) other: b.) minimize- visual impact through 2. Public transportation thoughtful and innovative design a,)adjust public transportation of lighting and signs (consider: routes and schedules to service height, size, intensity, glare and the facility hours of lighting operation) b.) encourage use of public transpor- c.) design landscaping to be visually ration by using incentive pro- pleasing and to serve as a buffer grams for employees or by sell- between surrounding land uses, ing tickets in facility parking areas, operational equip- ment and facilities c.) other: d.) other: C.6 2. Historic and archaeologic resources [~ A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND a.)allow historical and ar- TECHNOLOGIES chaeological officials access to 1. Site layout the project site during excavation a.) density and location of structures b.) devote space within project site b.) location of access routes, park- to a display of historical and ar- lng and utility routes chaeological artifacts of local in- 2. Orientation rarest a.)compatibility with slope and c,) preserve architecturally signifi- drainage patterns cant structures and make a b.)site size and setback re- photographic and statistical quirements record of those that must be 3. Technology destroyed a.) pollution control equipment d.) other: b.)innovative vs. proven ~ Noise technologies a.) schedule construction/operation 4. Mix of activities to occur during "normal a.)addition of businesEes which business" hours minimizing would affect the operational noise impact during sensitive nature of the facility times (early morning, night) b.) assure adherence to construction noise standards ~' B. ALTERNATIVE SITES c.) design berms and landscaping to 1. Limiting factors block and absorb noise a.) availability of land d.) other: b.) suitability of alternate site to ac- comodate design requirements c.) availability of utilities d.) suitable market area e.)compatibility with local zoning Vll, Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot and master plan be Avoided if the Project is Implemented f.) compatibility with regional ob- Identify those adverse environmental effects in jectives Section V that can be expected to occur regardless g.)accessibility of site to transporta- of the mitigation measures considered in Section tion routes and the service VI. population [] C- ALTERNATIVE SIZE 1. Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts 2. Increase or decrease project size to Vllh Alternatives correspond to market and com- This section contains categories of alternatives munity needs with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a com- parative assessment of costs, benefits and eh- [~ D. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/OPERA.' vironmental risks for each alternative. It is not ac- TION SCHEDULING ceptable to make simple assertions that a particular 1. Commence construction at a dif- alternative is or is not feasible. Identify those ferent time categories of alternatives which should be included 2. Phase construction/operation in the E[S by placing a check in the box located to 3. Restrict construction/operation the left of the topic, work schedule C-7 [] E. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE XI. Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources 1. Suitability of site for other uses a.) other types of comnrnercial uses Identify the energy sources to be used, an- b.)other types of industry ticipated levels of consumption and ways to reduce c.) different types of housing energy consumption. The examples listed below are d.) other: typical issues to be considered when addressing this ~ 2. Public vs. private use topic. [] A. PROPOSED EHERGY SOURCES AND [] F. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES ]. Impacts of no action a.) effect on public need b.)effect on private developers'need [] B. ANTICIPATED SHORT-TERM/LONG-TERM c.)beneficial or adverse eh- LEVELS OF ENERGYCOHSUMPTION vironmental impacts [] C. IHDIRECT EFFECTS OH EHERGY COH- SUMPTION [] G. OTHER: 1. Increased dependence on automobile use IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of 2. Increased levels of traffic due to pro- Resources posed project Identify those natural and human resources listed ~ D. ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. l. Design methods to reduce fuel use #~ for heating, cooling, and lighting X. Growth Inducing Aspects a.) conventional technology examples: Describe in this section the potential growth --insulation aspects the proposed proiect may have. Listed below are examples of topics that are typically af- --thermopane windows --use of Iow wattage lights fected by the growth induced by a project, b.) innovative technology J~ A. POPULATION 1. Increases in business and resident examples: --heat pumps population due to the creation or relocation of business --solar panels --wind energy 2. Increases in resident population due --use of waste heat from an in- to the construction of housing dustria! plant ~ B. SUPPORT F^C[L[TIES c.) efficient layout I. Businesses created to serve the in- examples: creased population --orientation of structures in relation to summer and winter 2. Service industries created to supply sunlight new facility --clustering of structures to maximize common walls [] C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL --shortening of utility runs ], Introduction or improvement of in- Ishared insulation and heating frastructure (roads, waste disposal, 2. Indirect energy benefits sewers, water) to service proposed a.) location and design of facility to project accomodate mass transit 2. Creation of further growth potential b.)use of shuttle buses by construction improved c.)location of facility to minimize ~--- frastructure travel distance [] D. OTHER: [] E. OTHER: C-8 C Xll. Appendices Fo]lowing is a list of materials typically used in support of the ElS, A. List of underlying studies, reports and infor- marion considered and relied on in preparing state- ment IA. List al~ federal, state, regional, or local agen- cies, organizations, consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale D. Relevant correspondence regarding the pro- jects may be included (required in the Final ElS) Additional Draft ElS $coplng Topics Indicate any additional topics for discussion in the Draft ElS. Attach additional sheets if necessary. C9 MEADOW FARMS ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 August 20, 1985 Southold Town Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Att: Francis J. Murphy Re: Meadow Farms; Application for Change of Zone from "A" Residential District to "M" Multiple Residence District Dear Supervisor Murphy: As you know, Meadow Farms Associates submitted an appli- cation to the Town Board on February 28, 1985 for a change of zone from "A" Residential District to "M" Multiple Residence District. The above application has been re- viewed by the Planning Board at its meeting of July 29, 1985, with its recommendation that the Town Board consider the above change of zone request. The intent of the application is to address the Affordable Housing issue as outlined in the Master Plan regard, we have worked closely with the Planning Board and have studied the Namlet Density District in the Pro- posed Zoning Regulations now being considered by the Town Board. Our application and plan are fully consistent with the proposed Hamlet Density District criteria. A major consideration is that the subject program will be served by both public water and a central sewer system, relieving the subject development from many of the major environmental considerations. Southold Town Board August 20, 1985 Page 2 We are writing to you on this occasion to make ourselves available to the Town Board for whatever additional informa- tion may be required for the Board's deliberation of this request. In addition, for your information, I am enclosing a copy of the preliminary site plan which had been the basis for the applicant's discussicn with the Planning Board. Further, also enclosed are preliminary architectural layouts and elevations which we would hope would be of assistance in the Board's review of this application. We should note that these plans, architectural elevations and layouts are preliminary in nature. Further, it is our understanding that the Town Board has accepted the lead agency status concerning an Environmental Impact Statement for Meadow Farms. In this regard, we look forward to a scoping meeting to be scheduled sometime in September for your directions on our preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Again, we are available at the Town Board's convenience to pass on any additional information as it is requested. Very truly yours, /.; ~ · ~/ / Wilbur ~latsky WK:med Encs. cc.: Councilman Joseph Townsend Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James Schondebare Councilman Raymond Edwards Councilwoman Jean Cochran Town Clerk Judith T. Terry 4EAD O W FARMS ;ii~-[' '/ ,.' OUTHOLO, NEW YORK #E152B FEB, B 19B15 [ i GREEN STREET~ HUNTINGTON~NEWYORK 1174. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PETER f. COHALAN SUfFOLk( county EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Lee E. KOPPELMAN DIRECTOR Of PLANNING August 8, 1985 ~. Judith T. Terry, Clerk Town of Southold 53095 ~in Rd. - P.O. Box 728 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Application of "Meadow Farms Associates" (#268) for a change of zone "A" Agricultural and Residential to "M" Multiple ~sidence, Town of Southold (SD-85-10). Dear Ms. Terry, Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on August 7, 1985, reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation Resolved to approve it subject to the following: 1. Mi dwelling units should be owner occupied; and 2. A qualified purchaser clause shall be established with occupancy guaranteed for n minimum of five (5) years. If the housing unit is sold prior to the expiration of such time period, all profits shall be retained by the Town of Southold for affordable housing purposes. Very truly yours, Lee E. Koppelman Director c./~..~..~.~ Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner GGN:gcc '...'.- \ ? i z Town H. all, S309S M~n Road " ' P.O. Box 728 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONb~ (5161 7fi5- IaO1 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TO~ OF SOUTHOLD 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 Cede X Amendment of Zoning Map {Change of Zone) Location of affected land: westerly side of Main Road (bl.¥.S. Route 25), south of Tuckers Lane, Southold, New York. Suffolk County Tax Map No.: District 1000, Section 070, Block 01, Lot 006 Within 500 feet of: The boundary of any village or town 1'he boundary of any existing or proposed county, state or federal parki 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 federal owned land. The Long Island Sound, any bay in Suffolk County or estuary of any of the foregoing bodies of water. Or within one mile or: Nuclear power plant. Airport COMMENTS: Attached hereto is the recommendation of the Southold Town Planninq Board. -- Petition ef Meadow Farms Associates for a Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District. Date: July 31, 1985 ,k~,~(('L~_,'~,,;~z~/_.~',~ ~_j :-~c'.,f~....~ Judith T. Terry~ Southold Town Clerk D T( LD S~ Y JUL 3 So. hold. N,Y. 11971 '~'~ ~ ~ (516) 765-1938 July 30, 1985 Mrs. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re: Meadow Farms Dear Mrs. Terry: The following action was taken by the Planning Board, Monday, July 29, 1985. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer their recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed change of zone from A to M for Meadow Farms located at Southold. Please refer to the attached letter for the recommendation. (7/22) If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. ,CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. cc: Wilbur Klatsky T LD JUL 2 1985 Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 July 22, 1985 Southold Town Board Town of Southold Southold, NY 11971 Re: Meadow Farms at Southold Gentlemen: The Planning Board has held numerous meetings with the applicant which has submitted a plan for 72 units addressing the affordable housing issue in the Town of $outhold. The prices, incidentally, of these units are a low of $55,000 and a top of $85,000. The applicant is requesting a change of zone to'the M1 classification. It is the Planning Board's recommendation that the Town Board consider this change of zone based upon obtaining covenants and restrictions which would parallel the affordable housing, "Hamlet Density" conditions of the proposed zoning ordinance prepared by Raymond,Parish, Pine and Weiner. We are available to meet with the Board to discuss this project at your convenience. Thank you for your consideration. Very-~ruly yours~ ~ ~ / /. // //',/ Bennett Orlowski, Jr.,~hairman Southold Town Plannin~Board dms Cc: Town Clerk Town Attorney "/~ ·: '~ ~ ' ' Sourho[d, New York 11971 Rl~,~:qux~,.I \'Hxt ~,~ x,~',l~,, OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated: April 23, 1985 Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the $outhold Town Code, the 5outhold Town Board, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action described below is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Petition of Meadow Farms Associates for a Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District on certain property located on the westerly side of Main Road (N.Y.S} Route 25), South of Tucker Lane, $outhold, New York. Further information may be obtained by contacting Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. copies to: Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Planning Board Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Meadow Farms Associates '[own Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 JUDllHT ~ERRY TELEPHONE TOXIN £'LI Rk ($161765-t801 REGIS'rR.kR OI ¥{T~L h [ '~1 I~ I I~ S OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TO$¥N OF SOUTIIOLD April 26, 1985 Meadow Farms Associates 145 Schooner Drive Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is a "Notice of Significant Effect on the Environ- ment'' in respect to your petition for a Change of Zone, which determination was the subject of a Town Board resolution on April 23, 1985, a copy of which is also enclosed. You are hereby requested to prepare a draft environmental impact statement for submission to me upon completion. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 JUDITHT JERRY TELEPHONE TOWN £'t IRK (5161 765-1801 REGISTRAR OI VIT \1 g I x I I~ I1( 5 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTttOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 23, 1985: WHEREAS, Meadow Farms Associates has heretofore applied to the Southold Town Board for a Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District on certain property located on the westerly side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25), South of Tucker Lane, Southold, New York. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. That the Town Clerk shall file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and code. 3. That the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, Meadow Farms Associates, of this determination, and further request said applicant to pre- pare a draft environmental impact statement, all in accordance with said Paws, rules and code. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE We are in receipt of yOu~ letter dated~/~/~ /~concerning the above refe~ced pro~ect, ~]. This ~part~t has no objection to your designation of lead agency status. This Department is in agreement with 3our tn~tia] dete~ination, This Depart~nt does not agree with your In~tt~] determinatJo~. See Co~ents. 4. Insufficient tnfo~ation is awa1~ab]e for technical comments, There is no record of an application to thls Department. A more accurate pro~ect location is needed. ~Suffo]k Count3 Tax Map ~) 6. Ibis Oepart~nt has received an application and it Complete Incomp]ete Other~ 7. It appears that the pro3ect can be served by: Sewage Disposal System Sewer System and Trea~ent Works Subsurface Sewage Disposal System(s) Other: ~ Water Supply System A Public Water Supply System Individual Water Supply System(s) Other: ~8. Con~nents: The Health Department's primary environmental concern pertaining to development is that the applicant comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code especially Article ¥ and VI, and relevant construction standards for water supply and sanitary sewage disposal, These considerations are to be reviewed completely at the time of application. Pull consideration in placement of water supply wells and disposal systems is given to state and town wetland requirements. The Health Department maintains jurisdiction over final location of disposal and well systems and the applicant should not undertake to construct any water supply or disposal system without Health Department approval. Other portions of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code also apply to comznercial development such as Article XII, The Lead Agency is requested to forward a copy of this form to the applicant with its findings. Further co~ment may be provided upon cempletion of the application review. Phone ~--/-~-- ..~'.~ / ~ 5-012 B~STI~XCTIONS ~OR NON-I~ESZDENTIAL BUILDINGS when submitting sewage disposal plans foe a non-residential building, restrictive covenants pertaining to change in use, occupancy, storage of toxic or hazardous materials or the discharge of any waste must be filed.with the Suffolk County Clark. The Covenants will reflect the recommendations of the Federal 208 Study relating to the established hydrological ~ones. Town Ball, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 .Sotl~hold. New York 11971 R~;~SrR.~R O~ V~rxL S~ x~,~t's OFFICE OFTHE TOIVN CLERK IOtVN OF SOUIIIOLD March 13, 1985: Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman $outhold Town Planning Board Southold, New York 1197] Dear Bennie: Transmitted herewith is the petition of Meadow Farms Associates requesting a Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District on certain property located on the westerly side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25), south of Tucker Lane, $outhold, New York. Please prepare an official report defining the conditions described in said petition and determine the area so affected by your recommenda- tion and transmit the same to me. Very truly yours, ~.j .... Judith T. Terry $outhold Town Clerk Attachment Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold. New York 11971 I~.IGIt;qI~\P. el \tr~,l si xtl,llt S OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOS,'~N OF $OUTtlOLD March 12, 1985 Charles T. Hamilton Alternate Regional Permit Administrator N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation BUilidng 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony Brook, New York 11794 Dear Mr. Hamilton: Enclosed is application of Meadow Associates ~r a Change of Zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M"'Light Multiple Residence District on certain property located on the wester~ side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25), south of Tucker Lane, Southold, New York. This project is unlisted and our initial determination of non-significance has been made and we wish to coordinate this action to conform our initial determination in our role as lead agency. May we have your view on this matter. ~ritten comments on this project will be received at this office until April 1, We shall interpret your lack of response to mean there is no objection by your agency. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk cc: Commissioner Williams Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Soud~old, New York 11971 JUDITII T TERRY IELEPHONE TO~,N ('L[ RK (516) 765-1801 R~61STRXI~ t~l '~rxl Si ~ll,ll(s OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TO~,¥N OF SOUTHOLD March 1, 198=; To Whom It May Concern; Attached hereto is Long Environmental Assessment Form filed by Meadow Farms Associates in connection with their petition for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple Residence District on certain property located on the west side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25), south of Tuckers Lane, Southold, New York. / Judith T. Terry ~/ Southold Town Clerk Posted on Town Clerk's Bulletin Board of March I, 1985;. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEADOW FAP>IS (~,~e) MEADOW FARMS ASSOCIATES ~ (State) (~p~ (~a~) 145 Schooner Dr~ve income development composed of 20 one-bedroom units and 52 two-bedroom units ..................... 6. Rppro~ima:e percentage of proposed Project site with slopes: 0-10: lO0~: ln-lg~ t; 15: or 7. ls project contiguous to, or contain a buildinn or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? Yes X No B. What is the depth to the water table? feet More than 18 feet. g. 0o hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes X No 10. Opes project site contain any species of plant or animal )ifa that is identified as threatened or endaneered - -- .Yes X FID. according to - Identify each species Il. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i-e. cliffs, dunes, other geological fore, orions - __Yes X No. (Describe ) Is the project sit,presently used by the COnl~unity or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area o Yes ~ NO_ 13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the con~munity? Yes ~( Ho 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Nam of stream and name of river to which it is tributary ~J~ 15. Lakes. Ponds. ~et)and areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Hane Ixl/~k : b. Size (in acres) ~l/~ 16.What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential. R-g) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story). B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor ~8.0 acres. b. Project acreage developed; __ acres initia)lyl ~0 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped B__ d. Length of project, in miles: ~ (if appropriate) e- If project is an e~pansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot- age [Q~ ; developed acreage ~ . f_ flumber of off-street Parking spaces exist~no 0 ; proposed 144 g_ Maximum vehicular trios genera ted per hour ~6 (upon completion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housinq units: ~ne Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial 0 :'elgnbornood~City-Reglona) Estimated Employment [ndu~trial -Z- b. ifps, ~ndtclh t~ of v4~ Cs~lge, Indvtt~ll, i~.) Domestic sewer . c. [f ~s. gi,~ n~; ; 3aci~{~ Southold Domestic heatin~ and cool~n~ r~uirement~ "A" Residential '' ~. T~ -a. ,-al,cae, ~,,,,~ ::,'-G "A" Residentia3..~o.."~'2.- Multiple Residence District ZK. J~valt: 4. Il InI Federl! ~rml~ r~ufrld? Tis '~ ~ Ct~7, TM, Vl114~ ~ ' Yes Rezonin~ Cf~, T~, Vf111~ ffl~ntng ~ ~ Slte ~ Cftc, TM, Z~lng 0~r lwl 4g~c~es O~r ~Q~l 4gKclll' ~ County Review ~l~: · ' .L~D' ~SIGN/ASSQCIATES,-91 Green St., Huntington,.Ng ~: Febr~ar~ , 1985 EXHIBIT "A" Description of Property ALL that certain tract or parcel of land situate in the Village and Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a granite monument on the westerly line of Main Street and the southeasterly corner of land of Francis M, Gagen; running thence along said westerly line of Main Street, South 13° 00' West 100.0 feet to a concrete monument and land of Marguerite H. Young; thence along said land of Marguerite H. Young, two courses, as follows: 1. North 77° 00' West 120.0 feet to a concrete monument; thence; 2. South 21° 56' West 126.42 feet to a concrete monument and land of Baker; thence along said land of Baker and land of George H. Smith Estate, North 81" 12' 20" West 540.46 feet to a granite monument and land of Frank Bly Estate; thence along said land of Frank Bly Estate, two courses, as follows: 1. North 12° 50' 10" East 28.0 feet to a granite monument; thence 2. North 76° 43' 10" West 895.92 feet to a stone and post and land of Diller Brothers' thence along said land of Diller Brothers, North 31° 1' 60" East 709.83 feet to a granite monument and land of Arthur B. Gordon; thence along said land of Arthur B. Gordon, South 42° 49' 50" East 384.77 feet to a concrete monument; thence southeasterly and then easterly along other land of Jonathan H. Terry 774.6 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly corner of land now or formerly of Helen Virginia Cleveland; thence along said land now or for- merly of Helen Virginia Cleveland, South 65° 51' 20" East, 127.2 feet to a concrete monument on the southwesterly corner of said land of Francis M. Gagen; thence along said land of Francis M. Gagen, South 60° 56' East 182.6~ feet to the point or place of beginning. Together with all right, title and interest of the party of the first part in and to Main Street in front of and adjoining said premises. ALSO, ALL that tract or parcel of land situate in the Village and Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the south- westerly corner of land now or formerly of Helen Virginia Cleveland and running thence westerly and then northwesterly along other land of Jonathan H. Terry above described 774.5 feet, more or less, to a concrete monument and land of Arthur B. Gordon; thence along said land of Arthur B. Gordon, three courses, as follows: 1. North 30° 37' Fast 150.07 feet to a concrete monument; thence 2. South 72° 46' 10" East 474.11 feet to a concrete monument; thence 3. South 73° 12' East 238.03 feet to a concrete monument and land of Rose M. Smith; thence along said land of Rose M. Smith and said land now or formerly of Helen Virginia Cleveland, South 17° 20' 40" West 260.2 feet to the point of beginning. -2- cAs . r o: ....... 1 STATE OF NE%V YORI( 1'own C~ ~8 PE~TION TOIVN OF SOUTHOLD ~ T~ B~ATTE~ OF ~ PE~TION OF ME~DOW F~RMS ~ssocI~TES FOR A Ci~GE. B~OD~ICATION OR ~[ENDME~T OF T~ BU~D~G ZONE ORD~- ~CE OF ~ TO%VN OF SOUTHOLD, S~FOLk COUNTY, NE%V YO~- TO TI~E TOWN BOA_RD OF THE TO%VN OF SOUTHOLD: 145 Schooner Drive, Southold, 1. ~, MEADOW FARMS ASSOCIATES residing at ........................................................ (in~ert name of petitioner) Suffolk County, New York, the undersigned, am the owner of certain real property situated at W/S Route 25 Southold, New York and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Description attached as Exhibit "A" 2. I do hereby petition tl~e Town Board of the Towu of Southold to change, modify and amend the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, including the Building Zone l%faps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: We request a change of zone from "A" Residential to "M" ~ultiple Residence District. 3. Such request is made for the following reasons: TO permit the development of an Affordable Housing Program with a density of four (4) units per acre. MEADOW FARMS ASSOCIATES John Bertani STATE OF NE~,V YORK, SS:- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, JOHN BERTANI .............................................. , BEING DULY S\VORN, deposes and says that he is the petitioner in the within action; that be has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his (her) own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. (L. S.) .... ~.:..'-...:.'..~..C~.(£~.' .......... JOHN BERTAN I SwOrn to before me th~s ~..f../f.,,aay of _..%e.~..r.u. 9.r.Y_ ........... ~9..~_5. / f ---'~ ~ / ,'" ,/ ) ~ ' .-.'_/....,.&~..'~f..C ..... ~L,~..q.T.~.! ~ .... / Notary Public. TOWN BOARD. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD : In the Matter of the Petition of : MEADOW FARMS ASSOCIATES : NOTICE : to the Town Board of the Town of 5outhold. : TO: YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to requesta change of zone from "A-80" Single Vamily Dwelling to "M" Light Multiple Residence (four units per acre) 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: Bounded North by Franke, King, Lou~hlin, and ~ann; West by Diller and Hemblo: South by Bolenius, Burnett, Perricone and ¥~ung; East by Main Road (State Route 25). P~opert3 located West side Route 25. South of Tucker's Lane, Southold, New York. 3_ That [he property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: "A-80" Single ?ami ly Dwelling 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request that the above-described property be placed in the following zone district classification: "M" LiGht Multiple Residence (four units per acre) 5. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours_ 6. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Town Board; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least ten days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island TraYeler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to ap- pear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: February 27, 1985 MEADOW FARMS, ASSOCIATES By: ~ ~ ~ Petitioner John Bertani Post Office Address: 145 Schooner Drive Southold, New York 11971 PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ADDRESS NAME ~%ARION KING Main Road, Sou%hold, NY 11971 THOMAS FRA~KE Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 JA~PS LOUGHLIN Box 278, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 RUSSELL & J©AN MANN 660 Oakwood Drive, Southold, NY 11971 ANN DILLER & T}{OM3kS E. HE~_BLO Ackerly Pond Lane, Southold, ~y 11971 WILLIA/~ C. BOLENIUS Coz Lane, Cutchogue, NY 11935 A~?NA BURNETT Main Road, Southold, ~?Y 11971 STEPHEN PERRICONF 1930 Leeward Drive, Southold, ~Ty 11971 MARGUERITE YOUNG ~ain Poad, Southold, NY 11971 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: ss.: JOSEPH FISCHETTI, JR. ,residinga£ Hobart Road, Southold, New York , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 27 th day of Feb ruary ,19 85 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the reverse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opl~4~te thei~e~pective names; . that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the,~ddresses of sai~ persons a~ si%own on the cur. rent assessment roll of the Town of 5outhold; that said Notices %vefe mailed at the Ur~ited S~.ates..Post Office at Southold, New York ;that said Notices wer~ ~:ha~('~d to each of sa~d per~ons I~¥ (certified) day o~f ~ebruary ,19 85 . ,~/ Notary Public Term Expires March 30, ISL~ TOI~N OF SOUTHOLD ;IAME O? PROJECT: NAME ANO ADDRESS OF OWNER (If (lifferemt~ MEADOW FARMS " MEADOW FARMS ASSOCIATES ~ (Scare) (Zip} 145 Schooner Drive BU~NCSS PHONE: (St~ec] SoutholO, ~ew York 11971 (P.O.) (St~e) (Zip) income Oevelopment composed of ~O one-bedroom units 52 two-bedroom units (PLEASE COMPLEIE EACH QUESTION - In,lo,tm N.A. if not a~plicable) , ~gricu)ture. X , Other ?4, '5 or c.C.L.) acres acres LandscaDin~ ~ O[mer (indicate tfne) 0 acres 6 acr~ farm~ans - Yes ~ Fla. (Describe Yes X rlan~ N/~_ : b. S~ze (in acres) ~T/~_ age ~//.~ ~ develo~e~ acreage ~/.~ . lnft~al O Total height of Lal/esc ~ronosea structure _.~__~ .feet. Clt~, T~, ~t~ ~4~ ~ · O~r ~t~1 ignores ~ County Review ~ ~: .L~D ~SIGN/ASSQCIATES/,'91 ~reen St., Hunting~on NY ~: Febrqar~, 1985 12. 4. ii ~ur~lcl or Subsurface ~l~d ~4a~l dltHs&! shelved? ~ Yes 15. 4. ~as ;~Jlc~ tn~l.I dIs~Sl~ Of ~lld ~S~l? ~ TiS . C. Zf ~. g~ve n~: : lncitt~ Southold 17. ~111 ~Ject '~clnll7 I~dUCl Wrl {m~ t~in o~ ~ur ~er ~7}? ZZ. ~n,.~: I. :~n4:I1 a~,ninC z~.t c:lss~"ClC~Qn .0~ s~t~ "A" Pesidential · "A' Residential ~. [f ... I.~,c~c~ ~s,.e: ::..-~ Residen%ial to "M" ~ultiple Pesidence District MEADOW FARMS ASSOCIATES 145 Schooner Drive Southold, New York 11971 RECEIVED IvlAP, I 1S6,~i February ?8, 1985 Town Cler~ Southold Southold Town Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Re: Meadow Farms Associates, Application for Change of Zone from "A" Residential to "M" Multiple Residence District; Affordable Housing Dear Mrs. Terry: The Southold Town Planning Board, after having met with us to discuss the subject property with regards to an Affordable Housing Program, indicated they felt that this property meets the new Master Plan requirements for Affordable Housing. The Planning Board requested that we formally submit an application for rezoning of the 18+ acre parcel known as "Meadow Farms" for a zoning change--from "A" Residential to "M" Multiple Residence District having a maximum density of four units per acre. Accordingly, please find attached: 1. Three copies of the application and reason for the request of change. Said application has been duly signed and notarized. 2. Map of the subject property indicating adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcel and existing buildings within 200 feet of the subject parcel, as required for application. 3. An accurate boundary description is attached to the application as Exhibit "A". Judith T. Terry February 28, 1985 Page 2 4. Original Notice to Adjacent Property Owners, to which are attached the Receipts for Certified Mail showing service of same upon all adjacent property owners. 5. Application fee of $200.00 made payable to the Town of Southold is enclosed, Please note that since the subject property is located within 500 feet of State Route 25, the application must be submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for their review and comments. If there are any additional questions or materials required, please call us at your convenience. The applicant looks forward to securing these necessary approvals and meeting the present goals of producing af- fordable housing for local residents. Thank you again for your continued cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Wilbur Klatsky Consultant (516) 765-2954 WK:med Enc. cc.: Southold Town Planning Board Att: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman MAP TO ACCOMPANY -A~PLICATION FOR CHANGE MEADO~ FARMS ASSOC. FEB. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD II,