Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSiolos, John G-DeniedJUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD HELD ON JULY 26, 1994. A RESOLUTION WAS OFFERED AND SECONDED TO CHANGE THE ZONE, ON THE TOWN BOARD'S OWN MOTION, FROM HAMLET DENSITY (HD) DISTRICT TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-80 DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY OF JOHN G. SIOLAS AND CATHERINE TSOUNIS. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE, THIS RESOLUTION FAILED TO PASS. 00 IMPORTANT >> File Number: N1-473800-00902 Use the above number in all correspondence about this action{ To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described Negative Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The date and time in the second line show when this document was printed. Please check the infor~ation above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224, or write to: SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514 Albany, NY 12233 Town of SOUTHOLD Town Board 53095 Main Road-P.O. Southold, NY 11971 Box 1179 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE oF THE TOWN CLERK TowN OF SOUTHOLD SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determiaafion of De, tcrm~n~N, on of S{~o~mhq r'anc~ Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: July 12, 1994 This notice ia issued pursuant to Part 617, of thc implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental (~kudity Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. , .The.lead age. ncy has .determined that the proposed action described below will not have a algnmcant cttect on ~e envtronment aud that a Draft Environmental Impact Statemem need not be prepared. ~ltle of Actiom SEQR Status: Project Description: Change Of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-45-2-1 s/s CR ~8, 805 feet e/o Chapel Lane, Greenport Type I Action .Theproject which ia the subject of this Determination, revolves a the change of zone of 1~, acres from "Hamlet Density~ to ~Residence-80". The ~roject site contains freshwater wetlands associated w~th Moore's Woods (NYSDEC Freshwater Water Wetlands #SO-1). The prop.o?d project is one of six(6) c~h.~e of zones being consider .e.~i by the Town Board a~ this ~me in the same geographic area. SCTM Number:. 1000-42-2-1 Laeation: The site consiats of 1~2 acres and ia located on the south ' side of CR 48, 805' east of Chapel Iane in the *HI)* Ciumge of Zone. SEQR Determination Comments: nninCOrporated portion of Greenporc The T6Wn'B0ard is reviewing ~his project slmult~neously with the fottowing applications: Ch~n~C of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-40-3.-1 s/s CR48, more than 1~ e/o Greonport Propo~l COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-40-~1 s/s CR 48, 400 £eot w~o Moore's 1 ~n~, Greenport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-35-1-25 n/s CR 48, 1,139 feet e/o 5ound Road, Greenpo~t Propo~i COZ on Town Board's Own Motion S~FM# 1000-4.~2-10,. 5 e/s Chapel Lane, Greenpo~ Propo~d COZ on Town Board's Own Molion S~:rM# 1000-35-1-24 n/s CR 48, 564 fe~et c/o Sound Road, Greenpon Reasons Supportin~ TMs Determmafiom [ . This determin~on is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of Si~n]fiCallC~ contained in 6 NYC~R Part 617.11, the Long ~-nvironmental Assessment Form Parts I and H, and the following specific reasons: (1) The subje~ eha%oe of ~flning does not e.~ceed any of the criteria for ~ining ~ifi~ ~ ~ ~n tlmt woukl warrant the preparation of a Draft F. IS. Conversely, the actio~ will minlmi~, pOt~.ntlal en~mnental impact~ thereby pro~ling support fo~ ~,ano~ of a Neg'?five Declaration. TI~ propazed projec~ will reduce the potent;~l develop,~e~t de-~;~ on ihe subject site. As a resul~, dc.n~i~ derived impa~ inch,a;,,E warer use; s~nh.,y waste volume; disturbance of hud; Ixaffic gem~a~n; and solid wa~ generation will also be re. dm:ed. Aca~diagly, tha sul~e~ ~h~-? 0f zonlng is expected to reduce the impact of site development with regard to these impact areas, as compared to O) · !~ proposed zlmi,,g is comist~mt vAth land use and z~i.~ of surrou~di.~ lands, and ~ therefore not cause a significant impact. As a resulg Ihe propo~d ,-h~.~e of zo-i~g will have a beneficial impaci upon (~ I"nn, ide. ralion has been given to the review of the proposed zone ,-h,,,.oe conducted by a consultant to the Town Board, which concludes tha following with regard to the site in consideration of unklue ~ resonrce~ 'Yhese ~vai.~ sugg~t th.r any developme~ on this sim ~ have environme-tnl impacts. Our in;~,l impression is that reT, o~;~g to 'R-8~ res~l will p~ovide a significaot incre~_A measure of prot, c~ion for the onvironmeot thnn the, "HD" ZOnla~ IIDW pr0vide.~ Page 2 er3 "HD" Cl':m~m~ or Zom~ Consideration has ~ giv~n to a I'lnm'ip~ dooun¢nt prgpared by tl~ Soul,hold pl~rnnlnD Staff entltlcxl, "/~,Z~m, Of Ham/~ Dens/fy Zomhg/n SoU~:~/d TO~m - Repo~ to the To~n Boaram dated FeJ~ruary Lo94. This r~pnst com-h,,4~ ti~ followhig with regard to tl~ si~ in comlideraRon of unique site resources: (6) Tho subje~ ~ contaln~ unique resources, and is occupied by fr e.r. hwale~ v~lnnds over appro~imntely 40 l~arcr~t of tl~ 1.2 acre sit~. TI~ prOlX~d change of ?nning will minimiTe impact upon weAlands resources b~ r~a,elng the pote~fia! Innd use de, n,si~ adjacent this habitat. Ia addilioa, the lower land u~ ~ ~ p~ovid~ more flcm~Ic la~d u.~ options to ma~im;7~, set~acim ami cn~ur¢ ~ of u.i..ue habitat area~ For Further Information: Contact Person: Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Phone No.: Copies of this Notice Sent to: Town Hall; 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (_516) 765-1800 C_~mmissioner-Depatauant of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12231 R~gionnl Office-New York State the Depa~ I~uent of Environmental Conservation, SUNY Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY ' Suffolk County Planning Commission S~ffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of LonD Island Southold Town PlanninD Board · Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Buildin~ Department VillaDe of Greenport Southold Town Clerk"s Bulletin Board J~hn G. Siolas & Catherine Tsounis, 190 Central Drive, Mattituck, N.Y. P~e3 of 3 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box li79 $outhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-180 [ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 12, 199q: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has consistently noticed the SEQR status of this project as a Type I action, and due to a clerical error the notice of determination adopted May 31, 1994 erroneously stated that the SEQR status of this project was Unlisted when it should have stated Type I; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board resolution of May 31, 1994 is hereby rescinded and this notice is reissued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Town Board of the Town of Southold has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environemnt and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action: SEQR Status: Project Description-* SCTM Number:. Location-- Property of: John Siolas & Catherine Tsounis ._Change of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion ·:: $CTM# 1000-45-2-1 s/s CR 48, 805 feet e/o Chapel ! :ane, Greenpon Type I Action Theproject which is the subject of this Determinatio~ involves a the change of zone of 1.2 acres from ~Harn,et Density" to "Residence-80". The project site ~Ol~ta{n~ freshwater wetlands associated with Moore's Woods (NYSDEC Freshwater Water Wetlands #SO-l). The proposed project is one of six(6) change of zones being considered by the Town Board at thia ~rne in the same geographic area. 1000-42,2-1 The site consists of 1~, acres and is located on the south side of CR 48, 805' east of Chapel Lane in the unincorporated portion of Greenport. Supporting This Determinntion: This determinst~on is ~ssued in full cousidcr~tion of the criteria for determination of .$igl~fica~ce contnined ix16 NYCRR Part 61~:1!, thc Long Environmental Assessment Form Pm'ts I ~nd I/, and the following specific reaSOns:., (1) Thc subject ch~.g¢ of zo~i.g'docs not e. xc. ccd any of thc critcala for dctcrmini.g ~ig~ificance of an action that would warrant thc preparation of a Dra/t ElS. Conversely, thc action will ca'dronment.! impac~ thcrcby.prov~ai,g Suppozt for ~s-~-~ of a Ne~t~c Declaration. (2) The propo~d projcct will reduce thc' potc-fi~l dcv~opmcn~ dend .ty on thc subject r~c. As a rcsulL clcmiLy derived iml~cts incl-d;-C water us~; ~.;t~ry waste volun~; di~ancc of land; traffic gcneralioa; aucl salid waste g~noratian will also 10c,teducc& Accordingly, thc subject change of zo-;-g is e. xpccU~ to rr. ducc thc impac~ of si~ devrJopmcnt ~ regard to thc~e impact areas, as compared to . OJll~l~ Z~n;nE O) Th~ proposed ZOning is consi.~ccnt ~ land uso and zoning of surrotmd~ng lands, and will therefore no~ 0) Considcralion has been given to a p~..i.~ do~a~ent p~pa~ed by the So,~hold ph..i.~ St~ff c::fifl~l, ,Thi~ patcel could be deve. loped in a ~ not rex2uMng m~,,~.~ple de. n~ use. s. Rt~oning to a lower Thc subject site conr~,in.~ u.a~ resources, and is occupied by fxeshwalcr weth.ds ove~ apprm:imately 40 perceat of thc L2 aczo site. The proposed ~11Rn~e~ O~ z~nin~ wi~ mlnimi~e ~rnpac~ re..sollrce~ by re, ehwlnff the p0tentlnl Imld us~ dend~y adjaceRt this hablt~r Iff aclditioa, the lower pOrCh ti~I ]alia Ilse d~aalty WI~ providB more flaxible land uae opfiona to ma.~mive, se.,tbac~ and ensure prcscsvafioa Ofnni?,~ hahiiat ar~a~ ;--Judith T~ Tdrr~ f -' Southold Town Clerk July 13. 199q CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental & Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Suite 2 MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 (516) 331-1455 TO ....... R..o_~_n of So__~_~.?_.L_~ .......................................... ........ ~_:._(~. BO_X. 1179 Southold, NY 11971 July 6, 1994 Judith Terry, Town Clerk RECE!~D ~[D Change of Zone; SEQR Determination Town C!er~ WE ARE SENDING YOU [3 Attached [] Under separate cover vis the following items: [] Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Specifications [] Copy of letter [] Change order ~ [] Not i ce 1 7/12/94 SEQR Negative Declaration for parcels 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8. (corrected copy) THESE ARE TRANSMIT-rED as checked below: [] For approval ~For your use ~[~As requested [] For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections 19 [] Resubmit [] Submit [] Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US Any questions, please call. COPYTO SIGNED: Thomas W. Cramsr, ASLA SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance D~termi~rlon of Si~cance Town Board of the Town of Southold Town HalI~ 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dat~' July 12, 1994 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertainln~ to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. 'I~tle of Action-. SEQR Status: Project Description-' SCTM Numbe~. Location: Change of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion Parcel #7, SCYM# 1000-45-2-1 s/s CR 48, 805 feet e/o Chapel Lane, Greenport Type I Action Theproject which is the subject of this Determination, involves a the change of zone of 1.2 acres from "Hamlet Density" to 'Residence-80". The project site contains fxeshwater wetlands associated wlth Moore's Woods (NYSDEC Freshwater Water Wetlands #SO-1). The proposed project is one of six (6) change of zones being considered by the Town Board at this time in the same geographic area. 1000-42-2-1 The site consists of 1.2 acres and is located on the south side of CR 48, 805' east of Chapel Lane in the Pa~ 1 o~3 *HD* C~anse of Zone; Parcel ~ SEQR Determination nnincorporated portion of Greenport. The Town Board is reviewing ~hi~ project shnultaneously with the following applications: Change of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion P&rcel ~1, SCTM# 1000403-1 s/s CR 48, more th~. 1000' c/o Chapel Lane~ Greenport Propo~t COZ on Town Board's Own Motion Parcel #2, SCTM# 1000404=1 sis CR 48, 400 feet w/o Moore's Iane, Greenport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion Parcel #4, SCI'M# 1000-35-1-25 n/s CR 48, 1.139 [e. nt e/o Sound Road, GreonpoR Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion Parcel #5, SCTM# 1000-4.5-2-10.3 ¢/s Chapel Lane, Greenport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion Parcel #8, SCTM# 1000-35-1-24 n/s CR 48, 564 feet e/o Sound Road, Green[mR Reasons Supporfin~ This Determinnfion: Th/s determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of s~gnificance covtained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Envil'onmcnta] Assessment Form Parts I and H, and the following specific reasons: (1) The subject change of zoning does not e.~ceed any of the critmtia for determining li?;ficance of an action that would warrant the preparation of a Draft EIS. Conversely, the action will minimive potential environmental impacts tl~reby prov/ding support for issuance of a Negative Declaration. The proposed project will reduce the potential development dendty on the subject site. ~s a result, density derived impac~ indua;nc water es~; sanitary wa~to vohlffio; di,.~/orban~ og land; tra~c geaw. ration; and solid waste generation ~ also be reduced. Accordlugly, the subject ~h~n? of zoning is e. xpected to reduce the impact of site development with regard to these impact areas, a~ compared to current zoning The propo~l zoning is consistent with land use and ?nnlng of surrounding lands, and dill therefore not cause a ei~o~i6~ant impact As a result, the proposed change of zoning will have a beneficial impact upon Consideration has been given to ti~ review of the proposed zone change conducted by a consqfltant to the Town Board, which concludes tho following with regard to the site in c, onslde, ration of unique si~ re. sources: "These fivdlng~ suggest that any development on this site w~l ha~e environmental impacts. Our ~ impre_~r, iem is that rezonlng tn *R-Sff' residential dill provide a ~ignifleant incre, ar~l measure of protexfion for tbe euvironment than the 'I-ID' zoning now provides. Page2 of 3 · lID' Chang~ of Zon~ Parce~ ~/ SEQR Detm'mln~fion Cousid~.,r~lJ, on ~ been ~ve, n to a p~n,~{n~ d~u.m,~ui prepared,, by ~ Southold p{annin~ Staff cntitled. "Review of Haml. etDe. nsity Zoning in Southold Tosrn - Report to the Tos, n Board' dated February 1994. This report canc=lud~ the following with regard to tl~ si~ in con~l~ralton of uniqu~ site resources: The subject site co.t~i.~ ..ique resources, a~d is oc~xpied by fz~hwamr wetlan~ over approxima~ly 40 pe~.ot o~ ti~ 1.2 acr~ site. The proposed chan~ of zo-i-~ ~ ~ impact upon weth.ds re~urc~ by red, uq-g the pote-"~! land use dcn~ adjaco~ ~ l~t~- ~. Sa.ii,on. {l~ lower pore, tiM land usc ,l~,~i~y w~l provide mor~ i~e~nq~le land o.sc opliom to ~ setbacks and cmure pre~rwtion of unique habitat arez.s. For Further lnfomatiom Contact Person' Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Address: Phone No.: Town I-Ia]l, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1800 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commi~sioner-Depa~ t,-ent of Environmental Conservation, 50 Woff Road, Albany, NY 19.?.~1 Regional Office-New York State the Depa~h,,ent of Ellv~onmenta] Collservation, SUNY @ Stony Brook, Stony Brook, .NY Suffolk County pl~nninE Commission P~3 of 3 PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD JUNE 28,1994 9:58 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF A CHANGE OF ZONE ON THE TOWN MOTION FROM HAMLET DENSITY (HD) DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL. R-80 DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY AND CATHERINE TSOUNIS. BOARD'S OWN LOW DENSITY OF JOHN G. SIOLAS Present: Supervisor Thomas H. Wickham Councilman Joseph J. Lizewski Councilwoman Alice J. Hussie Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Councilwoman Ruth D. Oliva Justice Louisa P. Evans Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Laury L. Dowd SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: The next public hearing on the proposed change of zone on the Town Board's own motion on the property of John Siolas and Catherine Tsounis. JUSTICE EVANS: "Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law, and requirements of the Code of the Town of $outhold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be. held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, at 8:20 P.M., Tuesday, June 28, 1994, on the Change of Zone on the Town Board's Own Motion from Hamlet Density (HD) District to Low Density Residential R-80 District on the property of John G. Siolas and Catherine Txounis, located on the south side of Route 48, 805 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport, New York, containing 1.254 acres, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-45-2-1. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly line of middle Road (C.R. -48) at the northeasterly corner of land of San Simeon Retirement Community, Inc., and the northwesterly corner of the premises herein described, said point being 805.09 feet easterly from the easterly line of Chapel Lane; running thence along said line of Middle Road N.36°33'20"E.-124.20 feet to land of Village of Greenport; thence along said land two courses: (1) S.53°26'Lt0"E.L~19.85 feet; thence (2) 5.18°37'00"W.-130.54 feet to said land of San Simeon Retirement Community, Inc.; thence along said land N-53°26;40"W.-460.05 feet to the point of beginning. Dated: May 31, 1994. Judith T. Terry, Pg.2 - Change of zone Southold Town Clerk." This was published in The Suffolk Times, and The Traveler-Watchman, and up on the Bulletin Board. I have an affidavit here from the Town Clerk, that this was done, and we haye the same two pieces of correspondence, one from oqr own Planning Board. At it's June 2~th meeting, the Planning Board adopted the following report: The Planning Board endorses the townspeople's vision for their Town, which calls for individually distinct or discrete hamlets separated from each other by open or farmed countryside, and which calls for the equitable distribution of affordable housing density throughout the Town. The Planning Board also recognizes that achieving this vision will require the careful consideration of the land use with and adjacent to its hamlet centers; that the Town ZOning Map should reflect the intent of the community's vision; and that the Town must weigh the community's interest in its collective future against the private interest of individual property owners in the use of their land. The Planning Board recognizes that the proposed rezoning of these properties will not deny these property owners the right or capacity to develop their land; that the proposed zone of R-80 is the base zoning bf the Town and is by no means the most restrictive zoning c?egorJzation in Southold- The Planning Board endorses the report, Review of Hamlet Density Z6ning in ' Southold Town, Report to the Town Board", and its ~-ecommendation that the zones of these six properties be changed from Hamlet Density to a lower density such as R-80. Si~cereiy, Richard G. Wa'rd. We, also, have one from the Suffolk County Planner. PuTsaant to the ~equirements of Sections A 1~-1~ to 23 of the Suffolk C~unty Administrative .COde, the above referenced application which has been subrpitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local de~cerminatlon. A decision o7 local determi'nation should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Very truly yours, Stephen M. Jones, DirectOr of Planning. That is it. SUIPERVISOR WICKHAM: Thank you. Would anyone from the audience like to address the Board with regard to this proposed change of zone? Yes, sir? ANDREAS MARKAKIS: Good evening. I'm Andreas Markakis of Southold. I have been overseas for quite some time, and I'm not familiar wi~h all the details of the case, but I was asked by Mrs. Siolas and by members of our Association the Helenic American Taxpayers Association, and that's why I came in tonight. So many people spoke before me, eloquently, with sc[pporting facts, and I may not have too many things left, ho~vever, I have taken a few points, and I'd like to mention them to you. Out of 1,000 families for Helenic American origin we have a distinguished member of our community, this family, the Siolas family, whose constitutional property rights are being attacked by this Board with the proposal to change the HD zone to their 1.2 acre property to R-80. Now I have seen' through literature that I have reviewed, and all excuses are given by the Board for the proposal, but now'her, e, nowhere did I see mention being made of the real property rights afforded by the Constitutibn, all citi.zens, taxpayers- It leaves wide open the question of litigation of rezoning this parcel, and in the connection I'd like to refer to recent Supreme Court decision, I believe, it was last week, ruling on the rights of the taxpayer in his favor. You might like to keep a note on that. I've never seen, but this is a classic example, of damage to property rights by e,ver seeking political means. I will explain a little later what I mean. We have here some of my colleagues the voice with a position to the proposal Pg.3 - Change of zone- J- ~.~ Siolas and to add our voice to the many people, who have expressed their outrage, and dismay over this matter.' If this zoning proposal becomes effective it will in .essence give the Board the right to put back all small properties, all small property existing in this town. It is therefore, one very important and wide issue. An issue that taxes upon the very right of all Americans, citizens, taxpayers, who own small parcels of land, that are zoned for a specific purpose without the fear that the administration will change the zone- I don't like to be personal because I have many friends, but I~d like to mention a few things. I was here during the election campaign, and had a very nasty observation, a very criticism against a person of our community, Mr. Kontokosta. I'm not here to talk for Mr. .Kontokosta, but never it lear.es to remember what was said, that Mr. Kontokosta was a money making prize politician for his use. This is terrible- and if this happens in this land of ours, it's terrible. In this context, the events comes into the picture, and in the tide of the events it takes together the small parcel owner who come around. The very heart of the issue is the big one. The Small ones are the victims of the tide. We can not be blinded by the 'fact that in effort was made, especially, a special effort was made to take advantage against the political opponents, immedlate[y on installation of the new Board, and of course, the events are s~uppo~ted the actions. This matter was initiated personally. The proceedings were initiated on the Board, by the Board, for the Board, in a p!ate of food was serviced, nicely decorated with sauce and spice, but .iaside that plate there is poison. There's the poison that affects the very rights of the citizens, of the taxpayers, of those who carry 'burden of running this town. Ladies and gentlemen, we urge this Board to vote against the proposal of zone change, because suc~ action is unjust, it"s c~fair. Let's try to keep peace in the community, and avoid further financial legal implications, which certainly will be again a burden of the t~.xpayers. I have a tendency to state from sentimental ,position, because ~e years ago I stood before the Board, and I raised my ha~d to ask as an a~torney I put myself on this side for life. What ties me to America you put oh the other side of the scale. I'm still waiting an answer. The answer is a~ my business 175 Boiseau Avenue. Ten years have passed. I came here to pick up my pieces after losing my fortune, my good fbrtune, and my b~J~siness, to pick up my pieces, and support my family, and try to keep my t~a~mily together, not to lose it, to set up a new business to support my f~mily, and here is where I came. Thank God, I have to do overseas ~ssignments, and be able to collect money, to get money, to come and spend ih in Southold. The Town has sometimes given me the impression that there tS something, some entity, small entity, outside of these blessed United S~ates of America. It"s our town, our $outhold Town? Yes, but not in the ~ssessive sense. It belongs to each one, all the taxpayers, all the ~tizens of the township, and please, keep this in mind. Thank you. $!UPERVISOR WlCKHAM: Thank you, Mr. Markakis. Is there anyone else Who would like to address the Board in the matter of Siolas Tsounis I~roperty? (No response.) I'll close this hearing. Te r ~y~--~ Southold Town Clerk To: Re: ?ate Southold To~n Board ~. ~7. Flynn Remarks Concerning Proposed Rezoning I~ Parcels at W. June 28, 1994 Greenport Inasmuch as the public hearings this evening involve the proposed rezonin~ of six parcels, my- remarks, although applicable to this parcel, must also be broader in scope. Since the board, in regulating zoning, must consider the future of the town and the welfare of all its' reZidents, logical, ra. tionsl zoning decisions cannot be made without consideration of the concentrated and cumulative effects of the present H~ zoning on the welfare and future character of the greater Greenport ares.. The tov.~ board is well aware of it, but for the record end for those in the audience who may not be aware, all tovms in ?.~ew York State must, recuirement and in the New York in Sections 261, by law, have a comprehensive plan. This the precepts for its formulation are incorporated State Enabling Act for Town Zoning and recited 262, 263 and 265 of Town Law. Section 261 empowers the town board to regulate and restrict zoning for the general welfare of the community. Section 262 permits the town board to divide the town into districts best suited to carry out the purposes of the act. ~ection 263 states regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive DiSh.which promotes the general welfare. Such regulations shall be made considering the characteristics of ? the district and its peculia~a.~uitability for particular uses. Section 265. permits the town board to amend and repeal zoning by ordinance. Case law provides ample precedents that zoning decisions are not to be made on a piecemeal, or lot-by-lot, basis. Further, zoning.is to be based on appropriate land usage, not on o%~ership or occupancy. Based on the above considerations, it is obviously the duty of the board to arrive at zoning decisions on an objective basis, absent any emotional--or politic.al considerations. The present _H~ zoning of most of these parcels represents a carrying over of similar uses permitted by the previous zoning. A particularly egregious exception %~.s the rezoning of the Jems Commons parcel by the previous administration in December of 1993 as s derisive parting shot at the incoming board. With the exception of the Jems Commons parcel, the others were re~oned, upon the o~ers' applicatisns, fr~one-family residential use to more intensive uses, notably multi-family. These rezonings took place over the period 1958 - 1983. 1~ ~ ~,'~:,'"'"~'~'~'-~'~zl~ It is obvious that there ~ ~_ ~- a. comprehensive plan for the area., but that these rezonings took place on a piecemeal,lo-by-lot basis and for the benefit of individual owners. The present HD zonings, a.s a. continuation of theses precedents, is the very antitheses of planned zoning. The present zoning pattern in the West Greenport area is the result of a form of internecine warfare conducted against the greater Greenport area by previous town administrations. The town pursued a pattern of locating.every type of intensive use, unwanted elsewhere, on the perimeter of the Village of Greenport. The bias of the town against the village is further illustrated by the fact that in the case of the hamlets, HD zoning is restricted to radii of from,one-quarter to one-half mile from the hamlet centers, in the case of Greenport it is permitted within~de-ha, lf mile of the village's borders. The ?The result is to permit construction one and one-half miles from the village center and far beyond reasonable walking distance. (2) All of this clearly violates the hamlet concept on which the Master Plan is based. Ostensibly. but speciously, the previous boards justified their zoning decisions based upon the purported availability of potable water and sanitary sewer capacity.Obviously, no consid- eration was given to the fact--that the development of these parcels would overwhelm the village's capacity to provide such services, let alone to also serve the strip - zoned commercial and industrial zoning lining both sides of ~ain Road in the area. S~ch intensive development would also place'additional demands on the East-West Fire District and the Police Department and require additional capital expenditure for infrastructure. Greenport's school taxes are already the highest in the town; for example, they are over twice those in the abutting East Marion-Orient School District. The prospect of increased school taxes would prove disastrous to the already overburdened Greenport district. Analysis of available data results in some shocking conclusions as to the malignant effects of the current HD zoning on the future of the greater areenport area and gives the lie to any pretense of the 9quitable distribution of hamlet zoning. The total HE zoning in Southold is approximately 356 acres. Southold has ten hamlets mud one incorporated village. West Greenport fits neither description, yet an incredible 81% of ~.11 of Southold's HD zoning is located there. · //Southold has approzimately 315 acres of vacant HD zoning of which 269 acres, or 85%, is in the unincorporated area a.t Greenport. Basing yield projections upon the Zoning Code and prior approvals by the Planning Board, development of the vacant HD parcels in the Greenport area,alone?would produce approximately 770 dwelling units. Calculated on a conservative average occupancy of three persons per unit, the'increase in the e.rea's population would be 2310 persons. The impact of such an aggregate increase in population can best be visualized by comparison with 1990 population statistics. The estimated population of West Greenport was 1614 and that of the incorporated village 2070. The increase in West Oreenport's population would be 143%, or approximately two and one-half times. The projected increase in population would also be the equivalent of more than doublin~ the then population of the Incorporated Village of Greenport. Despite the ~aster Plan's purported adoption of hamlet zoning, and despite the aforementioned fact that the To%~ of Southold encompasses 10 hamlets and an incorporated village, this inequitable distribution .of hamlet zoning results in some 30%, or appro×imstely one-third, of the town's future population being concentrated in the Greenport area. Has this board given any consideration to the effect this localized densification of population in an area. already having a surfeit of affordable sale and rental properties would have · on real estate values in the area? It is generally accepted that residences occupied on a year-round basis demand more in the way of services than the real estate tax revenues they generate will support. This gives rise to a discussion of school taxes, The school taxes in the Greenport School District have reached critical proportions.and have already had a depressing effect on real estate values in the area., The development of these HD parcels in the Greenport area would result in a population increase of approximately 63%, The present (4) Greenport school enrollment is 570. A prop~rtionate increase in students would result in an enrollment of 930 students, or an increse of 360 .students. However. it must be factored in that the present population of the school district is of a relatively mature age. If, as might reasonably be expected, the o%~ers or tenants of these HU. parcels were of a younger age bracket, the school enrollment could well double in size. I question whether the previous boards, responsible for this unwarranted population density', ever considered the probable effects on the school district. It is my understanding that a previous poll of the board indicated four members favoring the rezoning of these parcels, one member adamantly and obdurately opposed, and one member J_ndicating at least a partial'ambivalence tov~ard the proposed rezonings by endorsing the rezoning of 63 acres of the total. I submit this would have a minor, ED zonings on the Greenport area. even miniscule impact of the The overall effects would be: Of the then total 293 acres of HD zoning in the or 764, would be concentrated at Greenport. 82% of the total remainin%.HD, acFeage in Southold would still be in the Greenport area. town 22~ acres, The projected number of dwelling units would be reduced to 662. The projected population increse would be reduced to 1986 , or a decrease of 14%. However. ~his would still represent an increase of one and one-quarter times the 1990 population of West Greenport and would be the equivalent of almost twice the village's 1990 population. In closing, I would urge the two members of the board to reconsider their expressed opposistion to the rezoniugs in light of the (5) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L_ Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (51'6) 765-1938 June 27, 1994 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town Hall Southold, NY .11971 Dear Mrs. Terry: jLJt,i 27 So~thold Town Clerk Re: Change SCTM ~ SCTM 9 SCTM ~ SCTM ~ SCT~ ~ SCTM ~ of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion: 1000-40-4-1 - J. Geier 1000-35-1-25 - LBV Properties 1000-45-2-10.3 - Richard Mob_ring (a.k.a. San Simeon Retirement Community Inc.) 1000-45-2-1 - Siolas & Tsunis 1000-35-1-24 - Jem Realty 1000-40-3-1 - KACE Realty At its June 24th meeting, the Planning Board adopted the following report: The Planning Board endorses the townspeopte's vision for their Town, which calls for individually distinct or discrete 'hamlets separated from each other by open or farmed countryside, and which calls for the equitable distribution of affordRhle housing density throughout the Town. The Planning Board also recognizes that achieving this vision will require the careful consideration of t~e land use. within and adjacent to its hamlet centers; that the Town's Zoning Map should reflect the intent of the communityts vision; and that the Town must weiqh the community's interest in its collective future against the private interest of individual property owners in the use of their land. The Planning Board recognizas that the proposed rezoning of these properties will not deny these property owners the right or capacity to develop their land; that the proposed zone of R-80 is the base zoning of the Town and is by no means the most restrictive zoning categorization in Southold. The Planning Board endorses the report: "Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in Southold Town: Repert to the Town Board", its recommendation that the zones of these six properties be changed from Hamlet Density to a lower.density such as R-80. and Richard G.//War Chairman STATE OF NEW Y(~)' ) NOTICE OF lie ~,R lNG '. AMEND ZONIT~rG · ~., , Coos A~ ~ ~,-. pursuant to.Scciip~'2~5 or the~ '. -Town Law, and rcquiremc~ Of thc '.Coun y. Nc~ Yo& a pu~ · h~riag ~.. Nc~ York, a~ ~20 P-$~. Tuesdat, l~ ~ .t~e To~ ~r~s O~ Mo,on f'~ ~ml~n~t~l OL~mc~ to Ipcat~ Chap~ L~e. ~n..~ York. coni~gmg 1.254 ~cre~ Suffolk ~ ~e pro~d ~dmgm ~hpuld ap- ~p~ificd . ~ ~d pmpc~ ~ ~ ~o~o~c B~g ~ If a poinl'on the ~u{6e~ly hne of ;g'Mid~e Ro~d iC.R ~fat ~ ea~ierl) ~m~ of land ofS~ Sim~ Vil~ge of Gr&enpod; thence_along ' S i8~007W -II0 54 lee[ to ~aid ~ land of ~.S~mgn Reliremem . . ~intof~ ]~ T ~RRY , ~ . '~A~O~ CLE~ ~u16' ' - - ' ' OF SUFFOLK) of Mattituck. in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she · is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TYM~, a Weekly NewspaIngr, published at Mattittmk, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk a~td State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regular- ly published in said Newspaper once eac2x w~ek I for '. weeks S. ll~lessively,.~.ornm~o~'ing on Sworn to before me thru a~/9 day of ~ 19 ~z~ ~.i NOTICE OF HEARING' f ON PROPOSAL ~ . TO AM-END ~ONING C~OOE AND MAP '- .': Pursuant to Section 265 6£ ~he. Town La~:, rind ~uir~enrs of rh~0de of the ~ ot Somh~d~ ~oumy, N~v York~ a'~ublic h~ring .~ 'he held-by the ~own Board'oF the Tm~m of ~Town Hall, Main Ro~d, ~ S~mhold, N~w York, at 8:20 ~P~.~ 'Tuesdn~; June 2B~ ~994. ~on thc ~h'~e~ ot Zone on ,~Town Board's ~.vn Motion ~.~ro~ _ . ~HD~ H~ml~t ~den~ml-.R-~O Di~nct on ~h~ propcrt~ o- John G. Siol~s  a~d C~therine Y~ounis. ~cat~d on th~ somb sih~ 'Chapel Lane, GteenP0rt. New ~.~brk, containing 1.254:acres, Suffolk County %~ Mgp No.: .~ O~<~-A~-2-[. ~ Any person desiring to be ~ heard on the p~po$~ ~.d-  ment ~hou[d. app~r 'at The leeal d¢<rtpfio~of the ~al'oresm~ propeYt'v ~( ~ fo[lous: Be~inntn~ at a ~ 'on the southerlyqme, of;Mld:, ~ die Road~CtR:.gS) a~he n~- ~heasterlY $~Sgn, Simeon :' ~Cotnma~t3; ~., ~d~¢. nor- [[Ix~ester[V corner o~ lhe ~rem~ het'em descnbe~ L, poim being fi05.Q9 ~ from tSe, eas~edy.~ of Chapel Lane; ~xb'rhence ~along sod line. qf klid~e 'Road N. 36': 33 20 E. 12420 :' eet to [~ of-Xilla~e ~ laFM tuo co~rseg th S- 53: 20 ~40 E. 219.85 feet; thence {2~ ',' ReU rement 'C'off~m a nM hat.: ~thence ~on~ ~fii,% lind N- 53= ,~ ?6 40' XV. ~60.05 feet to'. ~,~omr of:beginning. 4~ated: MaS. 3i. '1994 ' JL~ITH T. TERRY .5'~OL~OLD IOVN CLE~ IX-6. 16,94L141 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK ss: Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of the TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Traveler-Watchman once each week for / .............................. weeks co=enc no on the day of ....... ~ ....... ' S o this . ~],,T,C ~.~.ff ?'..~. to before me on .. .day of .............................~ . 19 Notary Public BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER NOTARY PU BUC, State of.Niw Yolk No. 4806846 , ~ua[ified in Suffolk COmT~ Commission F. xpi~ STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, being duly sworn, says that on the 9th day of June , 1994, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, Southold To~vn Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Legal Notice, Notice of Hearing on Proposal to Amend Zoning Code and Map, 8:20 P.M., Tuesday, June 28, 1994, Southold Town Hall, on the change of zone on the Town Board's own motion from HD to R-80 on the property of John G. Siolas and Catherine Tsounis. Sworn to before me this 9th day of June , 1994. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk I LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE AND MAP Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law, and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, at 8:20 P.M., Tuesday, June 28, 1994, on the Change of Zone on the Town Board's Own Motion from Hamlet Density (HD) District to Low Density Residential R-80 District on the property of John G. Siolas and Catherine Tsounis, located on the south side of Route 48, 805 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport, New York, containing 1.254 acres, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-45-2-1. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly line of Middle Road (C.R. 48) at the northeasterly corner of land of San Simeon Retirement Community, Inc., and the northwesterly corner of the premises herein described, said point being 805.09 feet easterly from the easterly line of Chapel Lane; running thence along said line of Middle Road N.36°33'20"E.-124.20 feet to land of Village of Greenpor t; thence along said land two courses: ( 1 ) S.53°26~40"E.-419.85 feet; thence (2) S.18°37'00"W.-130.54 feet ~to said land of San Simeon Retirement Community, Inc.; thence along Said land N.53°26'40"W.-460.05 feet to the point of beginning. Dated: May 31, 1994. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON JUNE 16, 1994, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board John G. Siolas & Catherine Tsounis NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE AND MAP Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law, and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, at 8:20 P.M., Tuesday, June 28, 199~, on the Change of Zone on the Town Board's Own Motion from Hamlet Density (HD) District to Low Density Residential R-80 District on the property of John G. Siolas and Catherine Tsounis, located on the south side of Route 48, 805 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport, New York, containing 1.254 acres, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-45-2-I. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly line of Middle Road (C.R. 48) at the northeaster~l¥ corner of land of San Simeon Retirement Community, Inc., and the nortl~westerly corner of the premises herein described, said point being 805.09 feet easterly from the easterly line of Chapel Lane; running thence along said line of Middle Road N.36°33'20"E.-124.20 feet to land of Village of Greenport; thence along said land two courses: (1) S.53°26'40"E.-419.85 feet; thence (2) S.18°37'00"W.-130.54 feet to said land of San Simeon Retirement Community, Inc.; thence along said land N.53°26'40"W.-460.05 feet to the point of beginning. Dated: May 31, 1994. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON JUNE 16, 199~I, AND FORWARD ONE OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board John G. Siolas ~, Catherine Tsounis (1) AFFIDAVIT CLERK, TOWN NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING CODE AND MAP Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law, and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, at 8:20 P.M., Tuesday, Jun~ 28, 199~, on the Change of Zone on the Town Board's Own Motion from Hamlet Density (HD) District to Low Density Residential R-80 District on the property of John G. Siolas and Catherine Tsounis, located on the south side of Route 48, 805 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport, New York, containing 1.254 acres, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-45-2-1. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly line of Middle Road (C.R. 48) at the northeasterly corner of land of San Simeon Retirement Community, Inc., and the northwesterly corner of the premises herein described, said point being 805.09 feet easterly from the easterly line of Chapel Lane; running thence along said line of Middle Road N.36°33'20"E.-124.20 feet to land of Village of Greenport; thence along said land two courses: (1) S.53°26'40"E.-419.85 feet; thence (2) S.18~37'00"W.-130.54 feet ~to said land of San Simeon Retirement Community, Inc.; thence along said land N.53°26'40"W.-460.05 feet to the point of beginning. Dated: May 31, 1994. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON JUNE 16, 199~I, AND FORWARD ONE OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board John G. Siolas & Catherine Tsounis (1) AFFIDAVIT CLERK, TOWN JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197I Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determln~Vlon of Non-Significanc~ Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: May 31, 1994 This nofic~ h issued pursnum to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (Smt~ Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Actiom SEQR Status: Project Descriptiom Change of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-45-2-1 s/s CR 48, 805 feet e/o Chapel Lane, Greenport Unl[qted Action Theproject which is the subject of ~hi~ Determination, involves a the change of zone of i.2 acres from "Hamlet Density" to "Residence-80". The project site contains freshwater wetlands associated w~th Moore's Woods l~ge 1 e~3 'HI)" Change of Zone SEQR [}et~'mlnnfion (NYSDEC Freshwater Water Wetlands #SO-l). The proposed Project is one of six(6) change of zones being considered by the Town Board at this time in the same geographic area. 1000-42-2-1 Location: The site consists of 1.2 acres and is located on the south side of CR 48, 805' east of Chapel Lane in the unincorporated portion of Greenport. The Town Board is reviewing this project simultaneonsly with the following applications: ChanE¢ of Zone on Tow~ Board's Own Motion SCTM# 100040-3-1 s/s CR ~, more'than 1000' e/o Chapel ! ~,ne, Greenport ,Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCFM# 1000-404-1 s/s CR 48, ~ feet w/o Moore's 1~.% Greenport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCI'M# 1000-35-1-25 n/s CR 48. 1.139 feet e/o Sound Road, Greenport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion $CTM# 1000-45-2-10~3 e/s Chapel Lane, Greenport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SC'TM# 1000-35-1-24 n/s CR ~8, 564 feet e/o Sound Road, Greenport Reasons Supporting This Determiualion: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determlnntjon of signlfic,~.uce contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and H, and the following specific reasons: (1) Tho subjea:t change of zoning does no~ exceed any of Ibc criteria for deter~;n;ng ~ig~;ficance of an action that would warrant the preparation of a Draft EIS. Conversely, the action will minlmi?~, potgnt~l environmental impacts thareby pro~Jdlng support for i&suanc~ of a Negative Declarafiom (2) The proposeat projecl will reduce the potential &velopment dexmity on the subject site. As a r~sull, density derived impacts ~uduflinw wal~ u~; ~ wa~¢ volume; disEurbanc~, of land; I~affic generation; and solid waste generation will ~ b~ reduced. Accordingly, the subjec~ change O[ zoning expected to reduc~ the impact of site develoPment with regard to these impaet areas, as compared to current zoning Pnge2 of 3 *HD' Ck~g~ of SF.~R Det~'~fion The propoaed zo~i.g is consistent with land uae and zo.h,g of surmundi.g lands, and will therefore not cause a ~i~i~r~m impact. As a result, the proposal change of zon;ng will have a beneficial impact upon land nsc in th~ a~ca of the site. (4) Consideration ~ I:w. cn ~ivcn to th~ r~view of the proposed zone cbs.ge conducted by a gon.nnltnnt to th~ Town Board, which concludes ihe following ~ regard to tha ske in consideration of unique rite resources: 'Thc~ 6ndlnE~ suggcs~ that any clcvclopmeat on this site w;J] have cnviromcnfal im.nactS. Our initial impre, aaion is thai re. zoning to 'R-80~ reaid~ntlal will provid~ a ~i~oniflt'~nt incre.,a.~ measure of protection for tha environment tha~ the ~ID' zo-l-g now provides. C. onsldmation, has been given to a plamd.g duemnent prepared by tim $outhold pl~..i.~ Staff entitled, '"Revigw of Hamlet De. nsi~ Zoning in $outhold Town - Re. port to the Town Board* dated February 1994. This ropr~t concludes the following with rcgard m thc site in considoralton of u~que site resources: ~Ids p,~ could be d~veloped in a manner not requiting rnultiple d~_tadty use~. Rezoning to a lower The subject sito contal-~ unique resources, and is occupied by frcahwat~r wetlands over approximately 40 perce~ Qf thg 1.2 acre ~ite. The proposed ~'hange of ZOning will mini~;?~ impact upon wetlands resom:c~ I~y reducing the potential land use density adjac, e~ ~ habitat. Ia addison, the lower potential land uae d~nsity will provid~ more flexible land use options to mnx'ir~iv~., s~tbacks and ensure preservation of unique habitat areas. For Further ~nformatiom Contact Person: Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Address: Phone No.: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (51~) 7~5-1800 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12231 Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation, SUNY @ Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY Suffolk County Pl~nnln§ Commission Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Legislative'Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Village of Greenport Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board John G. Siolas and Catherine Tsounis, 190 Central Drive, Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 Page3 o[3 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Sou/hold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MAY 31. 1994: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has proposed a change of zone on their own motion from Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District to Low Density Residential R-80 District on the property of John G. Siolas & Catherine Tsounis, located on the south side of Route 48, 805 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport, N.Y., containing 1.2 acres, SCTM #1000-45-2-1; and WHEREAS, the proposal has been referred to the Southold Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Planning for their recommendations and reports, all in accordance with the Southold Town Code and the Suffolk County Charter; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby sets 8:20 P.M., Tuesday, June 28, 1994, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, as time and place for a public hearing on the aforesaid change of zone; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be .and she hereby is authorized and directed to cause notice of said hearing to be published in the official newspapers pursuant to the requirements of law. Southold Town Clerk June 1. 1994 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATIS~CS MANiglAG E OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF [NFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone 1516) 765-1801. OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MAY 31. 199q: RESOLVED that this notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Town Board of the Town of Southold has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Property of: JohnG. Siolas g Catherine Tsounis Title of Actiom Ch:rage of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 1000-45-2-1 s/s CR 48, 805 feet e/o Chapel Lane, Greenport SEQR Status: Unlisted Action Project Description: The,project which is the subject of thin Determination, invotves a the change of zone of 1.2 acres from "Hamlet Density" to "Residence40". The project site contains freshwater wetlands associated vnth Moore's Woods (NYSDEC Freshwater Water Wetlands #SO-l). The proposed project is one of six(6) change of zones being considered by the Town Board at this time in the same geographic area_ 1000-42-2-1 Location: The site consists of 12 acres and is located on the south side of CR 48, 805' east of Chapel Lane in the unincorporated portion of GreenporL Reasons Supportin~ This Determination: This determlnntion is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determinntion of si~ificance contnined in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and H, and the following specific reasons: (1) The subject change of zoning does not exceed any of the criteria for determi,lng nlg~lfieance of an action that would warrant the preparation of a DrafI ElS. Coaverse. Jy, the action will m{nimi?v. environmental impacts thereby providi.g sugport for i~q,,a.~ of a Negative Declaration. (2) (3) (4) (6) Th~ proposed project will reduce I]m po~n6nl dgvelopmen~ d~mlty on ~ subj~ ~. ~ a r~ gc~r~o~ ~d ~Hd w~ gengr~on ~ ~ ~ r~u~ A~rdingly, ~8 subj~ ehnngg of ~nhg h ~ tO r~ ~e ~pa~ of ~e ~v~opm~ ~ re~d to ~ ~pa~ ~ ~ ~mp~ to Tim proposmt Zoning is consistent ~ lnnd use and 7~ning of surrounding lands, and will therefore not caus~ a .i~i~.~t hnpa~L A~ a result, ~ proposal change of zon{ng will havg a beneficial impact upon hnd us~ in ~he area oDhe- slt¢. Cnn~;d~radon Ires bggn given '~o the review of ~h~ proposed zoim oh~.g¢ conducted by a wnsnlt~nt to tim Town Board, which concludes ~ following with regard to the 'si~ in consideration of unique site re~ourc, g.~ "I~ne.s~ ~d;~o~ s~g~s~ that any dovglopmcnt on tiffs s~tg will hav~ cn~/romnental OBr inlt{~l impre.~/0n is that £e..ZOn;nE tO "R-Sff' re~d~nti~l ~ provide a si?i~/eant increased measure of protection f~r the cn. vironme~t than th~ "I-ID' Zoning now provides. Comld~afion hns been given to a phn.i%o documca~ prepared by tl~ Southold ph..~.~ Staff 'Revie~ Of Han~e~ DensiO~ Zonin~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ To~ B~d~ ~ Feb~ ~ p~ ~ ~ ~e~d ~ a ~ ~ ~g ~p~ ~ ~ ~g ~ a ~ Tim subject ai~ contains unique rcs6arc, e,a, ~ud is occupicxl by frcahw~ter wetlands over approximately 40 tmrceat of tim 1.2 acre sil~. The. proposed eh~n?, of ZOni,~g will minlmiT~ impact upon w~tl~nds rcsourc~ by redu~i-g the potential land usc d~n,~/adja~ {chis habi~aL In adcliNnu, thc lov~ potential hnd usc d~n,lty will provid~ mor~ ne~l~ L~d u~ options to ma.lrnir~. ~a~ and ~nsur~ pres~rvahon Of unique habitat areas. ~3udith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk June 1. 199~ JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MAY 31, 1994: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby accepts the proposal of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc., in the amount of $80.00 per declaration, for the preparation of SEQRA Declarations for the proposed Hamlet Density Zoning on the Town Board's own motion on the following parcels: Kace Realty Co., John Geier & Ano., LBV Properties, San Simeon Retirement Community Inc., John G. Siolas & Catherine Tsounis, and Jern Realty Co. Judith T. Terry L/ -- Southold Town Clerk June 1. 1994 C RAM ER, VO~RH[~ &~:?~.~,SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~..f/~};~G CONSULTANTS May20,1994 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town'Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road · P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Proposed I-ID Rezonlngs on Town Board's Own Motion $CTM # 100-40-3-1, 40-4-1, 3~-1-2S, 4~2-10.3, 4&2-1 and 3~-1-24 Dear Judy: Attacbed please find copies of the draft SEQRA determinations for each of the above referenced parceis. They have been formatted so they can be xeroxed directly onto the Town's stationary without retyping, should you find them acceptable. If there are any questions with regard to them, please feel free to give me a call · Enclosed you will find a bill for services with regard to the preparation of the Long EAF's on the above referenced parceL~ ~ is consistent with the resolution adopted at the March 8th Town Board meeting which authorized us to undertake the work. Also enclosed is a proposal for services in completing the atttached SEORA determinations and the bill for same. As we discussed this morning, oar proposal of March 8th and the Town Board resolution of that same date only authorized the preparations of the Long ~a~,F's. The attached proposal is seN-explanatory. ? · Thmak you for your attention to this rotter. Again; ffwe canine of'any~xther enclosures , 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of DeJ~rmln~6on of Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall: 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dat~' May 31, 1994 This notice is issued parsuant to Part 617, of the implementing remJlations pertainino to Article 8 (State Environmental Qnahty Rewew) of the Environmen~l°~ervaUon Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action descn'bed below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action'- SEQR Status: Project Description-' Change of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion S CWIVI# 1000-45-2ol s/s CR 48, 805 feet e/o Chapel Lane, Greenport UnlixtedAction The project which is the subject of this Determination, involves a the clasnge of zone of 1.2 acres from "Hamlet Densitf to "Residence-80". The project site contains freshwater wetlands associated wxth Moore's Woods *liD* Chang~ of Zone SEQR Dcterminefion (NYSDEC Freshwater Water Wetlands ~SO-1). The proposed project is one of s/x (6) change of zones being cousiflered by the Town Board at th{s time in the same geographic area. 1000~2-2-1 Location: The site cousists of 12, acres and is located on the south · side of CR 48, 805' east of Chapel 1 ~ne in the ,mincorporated portion of Greenport. The Town Board is reviewing this project simultaneously with the following applications: Chang* Of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion Si;I'M# 1000-40-~-1 s/s CR 48, mom rh~n 1000' c/o Chapel I~,~o, Greenport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCl'M# 1(100-404-1 s/s CR 48, 400 feet w/o Moore's Lane, Greonport Proposod COZ on Town Board's Own Motion ' SC'TM# 1000-35-1-2.6 n/s CR 48, 1,139 feet e/o Sound Road, Greeaport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SCTM# 100(O5-2-103 e/s Chapel Lane, Greenport Proposed COZ on Town Board's Own Motion SC'I'M# 1000-35-1-24 n/s CR 48, ~4 feet e/o Sound Road, Greenport Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determ{nation of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and H, and the following specific reasons: O) The subject change of zoning do~s not e. xceed a~y of the criteria for d~terminin~ ~i?;ficunce of an arfion that would warrant the preparation of a Draft EIS. Conversely, the action will m;~;m;:,~=, potential ~nviromen~al impacts thereby providing support for issua~c~ of a Negative Declaration. The proposed project will reduce the potential developmem density on the subject site. As a result, de. nell/derived impacts inclnain~ water use; ~anitary waste volume; disturbance of land; traffic generation; and solid waste generation will also be reduced. Accordingly, the subject eha.ge of zo-ing iS oataecte~l to reduc* tho impact of site development with regard to these impact areas, as compared to l~e2 of 3 "ltD" Cha.~ of Zone SEQR Determination (~) T'ne proposed zo-i~g is co~i~t~nt with land use and zoning of surrounding lands, and will therefore not · caus~ a sign~ impact. As a result, thg propoz~d ehan~ of 7truing will have a beneficial impact upon land usc in thc area of tl~ s~. (4) Con~deratien h,u been given to th~ review of th~ proposed ~ To~ B~ w~ ~d~ ~ foH~ r~ ~ ~in~ ~ that ~y ~pm~ on ~ ~e ~ ~vc ~o~ ~pa~ ~ pr~n f~ ~ ~o~e~ than ~ Condavratlon l~s been given to a planning document prepareai by tho Southold plan~ing Staff enlitleat, *Rev~v o~ Haml~ Dens~ Zon~g ~n ~uthoid Town - Retort to th~ To~n Board* aated February 1994. Thlszepo~ oa~cind~s the following with regard to the site in cou~ideraitou of uuiqu~ site resources: Thc s ,ubject slt .~, contain~ unique resources, and is occupied by freshwater wctlands_ov~ appro~mately 40 l~rc~nt ofth~ 1'.2 acre.rite. The proposed change of zoning will minimiTe impac~ upon wetlands re~ur:ces by redt,~'ng the potcn~al land use density adjacent this habit~ In addition, tl~ lower potently! ~ use ~ wm vroviae more flexibl~ ]and u~ opfion~ to ma~mlre s~tbacl~ and e=ure preservation of lmlque habitat =cas. For Further/nformation: Cont;tct Person: Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Address: Phone No.: Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1800 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commiasioner-Depa~ tment of Environmental Conservation, 50 Woff Road, Albany, NY 12231 Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation, SUNY @ Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY Suffolk County Plnnn~n$ Commlr. sion I've3 of 3 _ . CRAMER, V~RH{~ ~!J~-~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT-";~?. ~;"..?' ' [',IG CONSULTANTS May 20, 1994 Ms. Judith T. Tert~, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 M~in Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Proposal for Services Preparation o~ Declarations for Proposed Hamlet Density Zoning on the Town Board's Owu Motion SCTM # 100-40-3-1, 40-4-1, 35-1-:/~ 45-2-10.3, 45-2-1, 3~-1-24 Dear Judy: As per your request thc following will serve as a proposal for services with regard to the above. It is our understanding that thc Town Board wishes to consider thc rezoninH of the above six (6) parcels from Hamlet Density to Residence 80. We have previously prepared the long EAF's for each parcel which thc Town has circulated in accordance with the rules and regulations of SEQRA. Prior to making a ~nal determination declaxations of ai,gxfiFiaance must be made. In our proposal of March 8th and the subsequent Town Board resolution of that same date, CVA proposed to prepare the Long EAF's. This proposal did not, however, include preparation of the above referenced declarations on each parceL CVA proposes to prepare the necessary SEQRA declaraQous for the Town Board's review at a cost of $80 per declaration for a total of $480. I hope that the Board will find the above proposal acceptable. If~'ere are any questions, please feel free to contact me. //' It should be noted that. we have taken thc h"oerty of comple',ti~ gbe'dec ~l~afions, anticipating thc Town Board s approval. Uga yours, TWC:¢¢ 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Sbuthold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK - TOWN 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 ac{ion to the Suffolk County .Departmen~ of Planning: X New Zoning ·Ordinance Amendment Of Zoning Cod~ Amendment of Zoning Map (Change of Zone) Location of affected land: South side of Route 48. 805 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport, N.Y. Suffolk County Tax Map No.: 1000-45-2-1 With. in'500 feet of: X The boundary of any. village or town The boundary of any existing or proposed county, state or federal park. X The right-of-way of any existing or proposed county or state parkway, thruway, expressway, road or highway. .. The existing or proposed right-of-way of any stream or drainage channel owned by the County or for which the County has established channel lines. The existing or proposed boundary of any other couhty, state or fedeFally owned land. The Long Island Sound, any bay in Suffolk County or estuary of any of the foregoing bodies of water. Or within one mile of: Nuclear power plant. ^irport COMMENTS:Change of zone on the Town Board's own motion from Hamlet Density (HD} Residential District to Low Density Residential R-80 District on the property of John G. Siolas & Catherine Tsounis. Date; May 20, 1994 Judith T. Terry~-- Southold Town Clerk JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 1197 I Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 20, 1994 $outhold 'Eown Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith map of of a proposed change of zone on the Town Board's own motion from Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District to Low Density Residential R-80 District on the property of John G. Siolas and Catherine Tsounis, located on the south side of Route 48, 805 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport, N.Y. Please prepare an official report with respect to the proposed change of zone, and transmit same to me. Thank you. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Attachment JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 · OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 199q: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has proposed a change of zone on their own motion from Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District to Low Density Residential R-80 District on. the property of John G. Siolas & Catherine Tsounis, located on the south side of Route 48, 805 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport, N.Y., containing 1.2 acres, SCTM #1000-45- 2-1; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to transmit this petition to the Southold Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Planning, all in accordance with the Southold Town Code and the Suffolk County Charter. Southold Town Clerk May 17. 1994 Catherine Tsounls Siolas 825 Da~ Road Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 May 16, 19cj4 Aim: ':we oppose the upzoning of John G. Siolas and Catherine Tsounis property, $CTM ~:~1000~,5-2~1 ,:10cated on the south side of route 48, 805 feet east of Chape! Lane, ~'.' :~ii '... "'" GreenP°'tt,'N.Y: containing 1.2 acres. Since the April 19th Town Board Meeting where I voiced my objection to the PropOsed upzoning three excellent articles were published from the Island-Traveler, Suffolk Life and Suffotk Times newspapers. These articles d° an excattent job of presenting my point of view. These press tel ,eases were circulated all over the ~st~and through photocopies and ~am~'a t0~3ic of ~;0nveraation all over New York City, with persons total support of ou~pmbiem. The following peti~on was circulated with over thirty-five signatures supporting our right tokeep our property as Hamlet Density. The Suffolk Life, April 27th issue best descri~ the petitioner's sentiment when it quotes Councilman Lizewski as saying "if the town board is:-sdcdess~ul in changing the zone of these people, they can change the ZOne'~f~ ~,nybodY' and do whatever they want." These petitions were sent to the Southold Towni:'i~oard, Governor Marlo Cuomo, Kenneth P. LaValle, Assemblywoman Patricia L. ACam~dra and COunty Legislator Gregory Blass. Andreas Markakis, president of the Hellenic American Taxpayers of Southold Town (HATCAS'r) has p!e(:fged his support of our cause. He represents 1,000 taxpayers in Southold.' His organization intends to expand our petition drive. We believe that if this zoning law is enacted, it will be a financial hardship to our ~amily..]f-marks the: end of the middle class landowner on the East end of Long Island. Sincerely, Thomas H. Wickha~ Supervisor losegh I. r i~ewaki, Councflm~t Alice J. ~n~ie, ~c~w~ ~os~h L. T~ ~r., Ru~ D. O~ Co~c~w~ Ca6herine Tsounis Siolas 1S ~-~,~5,- . SC[mH:S-m'mkIMGT COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ~ERVICg=: Mai, 13, 1994 Suditb T. Tony, Town Clon~ Town o£$outhold Town HaH - 33093 Main Road P.O, Box 1179 SouthoH, New Yo~ 11971 .Iohn Guiger & Another, SC'TM: 1000-40-04-01 Kace Realty Co., $CTM: 1000-40-03-01 San Simeon Rcdmmcnt Commu,lty Inc., SCTM: 1000-45-02-10.3 ]em Realty Co, $CTM: 1000-40-035-01=24 LBV Propc~cs, SC'gM: I000-40-035-01-25 Dear lvl~. Terry: The Suffolk County Dopanmcn( of Hc;dth ~crvice.$ ($CDI'IS) has r~ceived your Iclte~.datod April 1 i, 1994,~ coocemh)g the above-re.t'emn~d Change ofZot~ applicat/om, and h~ no objection to the Town's designation as lead agency. This corre.~ondenc~ is intended prim,'u-iIy to cxpedlte thc ptocedu~ ~qu/~menu of SEQRA pert.-&dng to dm establishnten! of lca~ agency. The $CDH$ fully supports ,'dl effo~s to m;vtimizc protection of natural msource~ which may be impacmd upon by construct/on and dcveh,pmcnt activities. It is the posilion of thc tL~a~uet~t Ihal the SEQRA rcvicw proce.'~s provides the g~.atest oppotluaity for comprehensive consideration of these tesour~-% and that a/I p~cticahlc p~atmlng moasu~.S should I~ employed to help ensure their protection, Of Farficular contra to depa~mcnt ~ th~ adequate prote~on of wetlands, suffa~ water, natural commutddcs, contiguous natural habi~0~s, and rare, threatca~ed ;atd e~ulanger~d spec. ie~. Itt addition, efforts to protect physical resource~ soch Smm~dwatets, dunes, bluffs, ;hotcUnes, n:ttural ~atnagc chaonc[s, groundwater recharge mas, ami steep slopes n.,'e t'ully supponcd ~ cncourage~l by the Addillot~.~l information may bc provided prior to d~e close of the eslabllshcd comment period. Should you have ~my qucstiol~ or ~quke addldOtl;d in~ormatlon, plea.se &ul ftue to contact thc Oflicc of Ecology at IriS/ts cc: Vito Miaei, P.E.. Smpbcn Costa, p.n.. Frank Dowling, SC Shmce~ly, Ivl',-~k .L Rcuscb]c Envkonment al Pl.'um~r Office of Ecology Catherflae Tsou~Js Siolas ...... 825 D~3~y Road i , N.Y. 11952 May 4, 1994 D~ar Supervisor Wickman , Enclosed are three excellent articles from the is!and-Traveler, Suffolk Life and Suffolk Times newspapers. These ar'dcles do an excel!ent job of presenting my point of view. We ~ieve, as Americans we have the right to own small parcels of ~and that are zoned for a specific purpose without the fear that new admini~ations will change the zoning. We ~e.eve ~h,~, ,, ,~.~ ---~- "- · ~v,,. ,g ,.w is enacted, it w~il be a financial hardship to our family. It marks the end of the middle class landowner on the East end of Long island. Sincerely, Catherine Tsounis Siolas April27, 1994 I )ear Supervisor Wickman , We oppose the ptoposod change of zoning from Hamlet Density to R-g0 residential on the 1.2 pmcel of land Lq Crr~port o~ed by John Stoles and Catherine Tsou~s S/olas that is under Soulhold Town jurisdiction. Th~ R-80 classification limils ¢onslru¢fion lo no more than orle house lbr every ~vo acres. The Siolas family owns tiffs Iol sinoe 1985 when it Was degignal0d as Hamlel Density trader the Maslcr Plan of Soulhold Plan_If lifts is passed, zoning for all parcels of land in ' Soulhold under two acres will not be safe. It will set the stage for new laws res~'icling further the use o[ small parcels of land in Southold Town. Wt~ b~l/~s~, as Am~ricar~s we hav~ the fight to own small parcels of land thai are zoned fur a spcci,ic purpi~se without the fear that new administration,~ will change thc zones. We believe Ihal il' this 7xming law is enacted, it will mean thc ond of thc middle class landowner in the Easl ~nd o£ · l.ong lsla,d. SLqcerely, Address critiCism. :continUes...· from ~a~e 3 ' ':- ':. Sout~otd.~s bound ~ ~ ~hc ~v~lopm~n~ and her husband are paying a '15~ m0fl- of ~ ~F ~ il is c~endy ~n~.~ If thc ~age of $20,000 on ~ pro.ay, adding thai: .~ propeay we~ w~ed, Broken wrote, the interest ~ amounmd to $80,~0. "~e ~ ~.t0~'ould ~ liable for vi01at~g his client's zoning ~11 d~ease the ~ue of:my prO~y[~ ~mfituti0n~ fi~ts. ' hy 50% and cause a ~jor loss 0f $100,000 ~' A~0~ :How~d Pa~hman, who to ~y prop~y. We believe that a pro~ay's . ~ts'Konloko~t's'~e Re~ty, ~ote to zoning ~o~d not be ch~d ~er a lovg ~- Wick, "If any ~zoning of ~is pro~y find of time. ~c Ha~ct ~nsi~ of't~, t~c~ w~h~o~ c~nt d~:adv~ 80s._.By ~ng away thc v~ue 0f~y pro~ ~iy of its l~_,~t to ~en~ s~ e~y, you ~c taking away-my pm~y ~ .~ state or ~ actio~ whi~ ~e ne~s~ m ~ Amefi~ citiz~_ :~e~i~ts of thc mi~ ~;. prat~ its int~sts~~ ~ to~...such &e cl~ prope~y o~er must b~ prot~t~ i~ ~io~.w~d.~ ~m~n~to~ at~d punitive llUc~ phflo~phlcs or a~m~ratm~. ~ ~ off the ~er pro~y have ~ Siolas said unite ~er pm~y o~e~ ~de.~i~fifn td b~.away from South- ~e ~ot afford ~o suc, adding !hat her life ol~.To~ and ~me p~ of thc ~vin~ are inv~md in the land. *'I~tead of ~t~-~dage:oF~n~ ~c vil~ ~s its havi~ my money in ~ b~ 1 ~w it i~ o~ mt of'~ ~fi~.' and ~c viflage ~u~ld l~d b~u~ I believe.in Souffiold.'- ~d ~d ~ne.~ pro~ as it s~ fi~ if s~ said' while she bcli~v~ her "fm~ is ~c ~fiQn ff'~t~. Thc.vifl~ ~d ~ed" bc~u~ the z~e ch~ "has b~n to~: ~ds 'are ex~cd xo m~ 6n i~t. predete~incd by ~e to~ ~unci[," she ~id ma~er.. ,: ~e ~ fi~dng "m p~vent ~c ~ctimi~tion :-, ~- ~ ~z~i~d it h "'m~ly ~ong to t~c of other s~, mid&e c~ pro~.'~r a~y-p~ple'~ fi~. If (~c to~ baard) is ~." .Sio~ ~id she h~ gnl~tcd ~e ~d of ' su~ m c~ng t~ zo~ of th~ p~ ~. M~,~ p~ident of HeH~uic:: p~c ~ ~'e~e ~e zone of anyb~y and ~ T~paye~ ~tion of~a~old 'Z'do ~tev~ ~e~ wahl I ho~ o~ ~tit~ T0~,~which wpresents ~ 1,000 G~ek- uno ~ not ~ ow ~s ~nd o' gove~m~nt~ .mave~nt- · ' he ~ ~e to~ is defeated in ~ua :~,:Su~r ~om~ Wic~am iold Siol~ ' ~ C~an J~ph To.send mid th~ the bo~d wo~d be happy to m~t ~lih her z~ ~'rgvi~w ~ n~ ~a~ ~e~d but ~l~cd to add~ s~cifi~, w~ ~n~ed that if ~ the properties were in' ~ ,leter to Wic~' a~tomey ~J~ de~lo~ ~rc wo~d be '~si~icant and Bra~e~, ~prc~ming thc o~cr of B~h-' :~o~ting ~ffcc~'~ on ~e. vi0age, including o~k H~I ~d his client, ~old Wolqwitz-;.t~w and subu~an sprawl. a~ .LBV.p~openi~, ~ made 's~stanti~ '~' ~'Hu~e'~d ~e ~rd has only bc~a thc ~p~dit~" based on. th~ ~rcnt ~ni~, . ~vffonmn~ ~vicw pro.ss and has ma~ ~::F~ s~t~ law ~ ~ develo~r to" no ~ d~ision on ~y of the vro~d ..~m~t~ proj~t if a mor~ r~tfi~jve g0~ ~ ~z:She ~d she ~. nat yet decided mg ~ ~. "We believe ~t ~he To~ of * h~e ~H vom. ,~ Hall?NoteS i ~. And.site t~i~l board[ m~mbcrs *.hat she and hex husband ~ill sBffer ,'a il- l flaneial hardship'~' ii' th~.,sit~. 5n the south s[d~ of' RoUt,~ ~48 nea~' Chapel. Lane is mzonod. ~'ThJs ~re, zoning will : decrcnso th~ value'of iny propexty' 5y ,:-50 percent a~;cauSe~ .~ajo~ loss ~tf ' · $100 000. Io' my:: p~op~dy,~ .ac~opiq ' · · Tile OWA¢£.O~' B i.~..aex~ .psrcel .At~ ..'~og~ sre"~kmg :awl~y .my ,properLy ." , zoAir~g from hamle.t~denslt)' *.o ~W~- ..: :..; SuPexvi~ ~ ckbJm dectined m re-.....,: acr~ Te.~ideni[pJ "~ ..8p~red' befoce i~ ,~. sl~nd to' Mrs:~ Si~las idu~q:th¢ pul~]ic . .. ': the-Tow~k 8oald ~m TocS~lay Id. ~egi~-: .~ meeting~.:but in~i~b~l' he~' In meeL"wilh · ni.~'$io]-~'maintams ~aL she and'h? .... '- ' ~ "' : husband, p~rchased Lite properly m 19~5 pr madly.becsu.~ iL ~,ss.'zon~d for qua_,~e[-acro developmenL,.' .. · erLy ~ bwner,s'~z~ni~z'. ~lmuld. no~: b~ chan~ed aru~r 8 long period.. of ..Lim~,': ..... .'';......:....::.. .. VALERIE SCOPAZ TO~;N PLANNER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1 1971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 _-'~EMORANDUM APR 2 ~cu~hoid Town C~r~ FROF~ RE: DATE Southold Town Board Valerie Scopaz, To~n Planner ~fi/ Siolas Property - Hamlet Density Zone April 22., 1994 With regard to Mrs. $iolas' statements at the Town Board meeting of April t9th, to.the effect that the property was zoned Hamlet Density when she and her ~usba~ purchaseclit in i985: please. note that the Town did not zone this parcel HD until 1989. Prior to 1989, the zoning Map shows this parcel to be zoned "Au Residential- Agricultural. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE STEPHEN M. JONES, A.I.C.P. DIRECTOR OF pLANNING April 19, 1994 Town Clerk Town of Southold DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING "~OUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE STEPHEN M. JONES, A.I.C P. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING April 19, 1994 Towm Clerk Town of Sonthold Applicant: Town of Southold (John G. Siolas & Catherine Tsonnis) Zoning Action: Change of zone from HD to R-80 Location: SCTM #1000-45-2-1 S.C.P.D. File No.: SD-94-8 Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Very truly yours, Stephen M. Jones Director of Planning GGN:mb S/s Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner ~' ./, We oppos~ tho ~ chang~ of z~[nE from H~ot ~, So.old ~ o~c~.~ R-g0 ~s~;~ ~ c~ f~ ~ ~o a~.~Bi~ ~ o~ ~ 1~ ~co 1985 wh~ D~ ~d~ ~- ~.~ of So.old ~ff ~ ~ p~' Sou~old ~ ~a~.~ nm ~ s~c, ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ for n~ ~ws ~s~c~ ~o '~.~ me of sm~ p~ :~f~ ~ ~ld To~' ',..' ~ We ~, ~.'~ We ~ &~ ~t ~'o~ ~ p~ of~d ~ ~ ~Oh~ ~t a ~.~' ~g~.. ' ' , Sinoorob,, April 27, 1994 l.)car Supervisor Wickman , We oppose tho proposed change of zoning from ltamlet Density to R-~t) residential on the 1.2 parce/of land in G-reenpor~ oared by John Siolas and Catherine Tsour~/s Sio~as that ~ under Southold Tomn jm~dicfion. The R-80 classification limits construction to no more than one house for eveL-y two acres. 2'he Siolas famib_, o~s this lot since 1985 when it was des/gnated as Hamlet Density under the Master Plan of Southold Plan.ff th. is is p~ssed, zoning for all parcels of [and in Southold under two acres will not be safe. It will set the stage for new laws restricfing.finther the Use o[ small parcels of iand ~n Southold Town. We bel~e'¥'e, as _~mericans we have the right to own .~mall pm'cels of land that are zoned fbr a specific purpvse without the fear that new administrafiom will change the zoning. We beli~,e that ;£~i* mrd,-~g law ~s ~actc~, i~ wi~ mean thc end ofu~e freddie class landowner ~n the East end ~£ · Long Island. Sincere.h,, Address A_~il 27~ 1994 Dear Supervisor Wickman , We opposo the proposed chaste of zoning from Hamlet Density to R-gO residential on tim 1.2 parcel of/and in Grcenport owned by John Sic/as and Catherknc Tsounis Sic/as that is under Sonthold Town jm-isdicfion. Thc R=80 classification lin-~ts construction to no more than one house for every:two acres. The Siolas family owns this lot since 1985 when it was desi~mted as Hamlet Density render thc Master Plm'~ of Southold Plan. Il-this is passed, zoning for all parcels of l;md in Southold usuier two a~res will not be safe. It will set the stage for new laws restricting ft~h~r amc use of ,qmall parceAs of land in Sou~old Towm Wc believe, as Americans wo have thc ~ght to oau small parccis oflmad that m'e zoned for a specific purpose wSthout the fear that ~ administrations will change thc zoning. We b~liove that if this zoning law is enacted, i~ wffi mcan the md of the middle c/ass landowner in thc East md of Long island. April 27,11994 Dear Supe~AsorWickman ~: ~ :';'~°~c~ We op~se ~e ~oposed c~e of zo~ ~om ~et D~i~ to R-g0 r~id~l on ~e 1.2 ~arcol of~d ~ ~poa o~ed by Jo~ Siol~ ~d C~e~e T~ Sid~ ~at k ~d~ Sou~old Town j~&cfion. ~e R-g0 c~ca~n ~m co~cfion to no more ~ ~e home for eve~ ~o acres. ~e Sio~ f~ o~ ~ lot s~ce 1985 wh~ ~ w~ des~ed ~ ~et D~ ~d~ ~e ~t~ P~ o~ Sou~old P~ ~ p~se~ zo~ for ~ p~c~ of~d ~ So~olfl und~ ~o a~s ~ not be ~e. It w~ ~t ~e ~e for new laws resMc~g ~ ~e ~e of s~ p~ of~d ~ Sou~old To~. We belin'e, as .Americans we have the rL_~ht to own small parcels of land lfiat ~re zoned for a specific purpose without the fear that new administrations will cha~e the zoning. We believe that if ~koning law is enacted, it will mean the end of the middle class landowner in the East end of Lon~g Island. Sincerely, N~TIC Address 1994 Dear Sup~r~dsor Wichn~ , We oppose the proposed ohange of zordng from Hamlet Densi~' to R-gO rcsidenfia! on thc 1.2 parcel of land in C-reenl~rt owned by Jolm Slobs und C~thcrine Tsoun/s Sinlas that ~s under Southold Tovm jurisdiction. T_rte R-g0 classif~afiun limits constmcfien to no more thxn one house for every two acres. ~ Siolas farr~ly owr~ this lot ~ince 1985 when it was designated as Hamlet Density ~ the Master Plan of Southold Plma. If tl~ is passed, zoning for all parcels of land in Southold und~r m~o a~res will not be safe. It will set the stage for new laws restricting further uso of small parcels ofhnd ~ Southoid To~a. We believe, a~ Americmas we have the ~:ght to o~*_ small parcels of hind that are zoned for a spedfic pu~ose without the fear fiaat new administrations will ctmn~ the zon~n~ We b¢lieve th,at ff this zon/ng law/s enacted' it will mean the end of the middle class landowner ha the East end of Long island. April27, 1994 Dear Supervisor Wickman , We oppose the proposed change of zoning from Hamlet Density to R-gO residential on the 1.2 parcel of land in Greenport owned by John Siolas and Catherine Tsounis Siolas that is under Southold To~a jurisdiction. The R-gO classification limits construction to no more than one house for eve~ two acres. The Siolas family o~ts this lot since 1985 when it was designated as Hamlet Densily under the Master Plan of Southold Plan. If this is passe& zoning for all parcels of land in Southold under two acres will not be safe. It will set the stage for new laws restricting further the use of small parcels of iand in Sbuthoid Town. We believe, as Americans we have the fight to own small parcels of land that are zoned for a specific purpose without the fear that new administrations will change thc zoning We believe that if this zoning law is enacted,, it will mean the end of the middle class landowner in the East end of Long Island. 27, 1994 Dear Supervisor ~Sckman , We oppose the proposed change of zon/ng from Hamlet Density to R-gO residential on the 1.2 parcel of land in Greenport owned by John Siotas and Catherine Tsounis S/etas that is under Southold Town jurisdiction. The R-80 classificatiun limits construction to no more ffrum one house for evea3~ two acres. The Siolas family owns tl~ lot since 1985 when it was desiEnated as Hamlet Densi~- under the Master Plan of Southold Plan. It-this is passed,, zoning for all l~rcels of land in Southold under two acres will not be safe. It w~ll set the stage for new laws restricting further the use of small parcels of land in Southoid To~. We believe, as Americans we have the right to o~n small parcels of land ttmt are zoned for a specific purpose ~ithout the fear that new administrations will change the zoning We believe that ffthis zomg law is unactedb it will mean the end of the middle class landowner in the East end of Long I~land. APRi919 4 u Cahherine Tsounis Siolas $25 DMsy Re. ad Matfituck, N.Y. 11952 FiLE NOTICE OF OBSECTION PROJECT N ~MV[E': JOI~4 Matlitnck, N.Y, 11952. SCTivl #1000-45-2-1, property lo;areal on the south side of Route 48, 805 feet ~ast of Ch~. ol Lan*, Greorrport, N.Y. ~ontainiug 1.2 acres. OBJECTiON: Tho Town Board's motion to change the zonir~ of Hamlet Dmas/~' (I-ID) should not be pass~d. I strongly disagree wifh the planned upzoning of my property to a Low Dens~~ Resideniial R-gO District. We purc~hased this propeay in 1925, when it ~,~s being zoned for H~mlei Dmsity. We are paying a 10 year mortgage of S20,000 on this property. Thc interest I ~,e paid on the 10 3-ear land mc-~,~ ~ amounts m Sg0,000. This rezoning ~ decrease the value of m3~ .m'oper~., by 50% and eaise a rrajor lo~ of $100,000 to my pro~e~rty. ii/% be!iev¢ strong~' that a propcr0~s zoning should not be changed after a/ong period of thne. Thc Hamlet Dcn~ty o£this property was in the Master Plan of Southold plan since the g0~. The npzonlng of my property will put me into a fi,-mncial hardship, t ,Mll lose 1/2 of the -value of ray ~operty in on~ shot. By. taking s~'ay the value of my property.: you are taldng away my prope~- righ~ aa an Amc~.-:an 0i!izen. The righ~ of tho midge cl,_~s pmp~..,:ty o?m~ m,,.~ bc prote~tcd in Southold To~n, regardless of changes in political philosoph/es or administrations. C.C.: Thomas I-L Wickham, Supervisor $oseph J. Lizcwsk~ Councilman Alice J. Hassle, Counc-~oman Joseph L To~mscend~ Jr., Counc'~rmm_ Ruth D. O~wa, Councflwo~r~m Loui_m P. Evans, Justice Laurie Dowd, To~-n of Southold _a~om~; Governor Made Cuomo KenncthP. LaVallc Cong. George 7. Hockbruckner County. Executive Robert Gaffney .~semblywoman Patrkia L. Acampora Cou~ Le~sLator C~cgory J. Blass Ca~e~e Tsmmis Siolas RODERICK VAN TUYL (L.S.) COLIN VAN TUYL RODERInK VAN TUYL, P.C. Licensed I_and Surveyors 218 FRONT STREET GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 (516) 477-017O April 14, 1994 Description: Property of Siolas & Tsounis Middle Road, Greenport. Beginning at a point on the southerly line of ~Rddle Road (C.R. 48) at the northeasterly corner of land of San Simeon Retirement Comunity, Inc., and the northwesterly corner of the premises herein described, said point being 805.09 feet easterly from the easterly line of Chapel Lane; running thence along said line of ~Rddle Road N.36°33'20"E.-124.20 feet to land of Village of Greenport; thence along said land two courses: 1) S.53°26'40"E.-419.85 feet; thence 2) S.18°37'00"W.-130.54 feet to said land of San Simeon Retirement Community, Inc.; thence along said land N. 53°26'40"W.-460.05 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 1.254 acres. Roderick Van Tuqyl To: Southold Tow~ Clerk THOMAS H. WlCEHAM SUPERVISOR April 12, 1994 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Sou/hold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765 - 1800 F~x {516} 765 - 1823 Stephen Jones, Director Suffolk County Planning Department · 12th Floor Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge. NY 11788 Dear Steve: In January the Town of Southold asked its planning staff to conduct a review of eight vacant properties that were zoned Hamlet Density (HD) in order to determine whether they should so remain. The HD zone permits four dwelling units per acre and represents our most intensive residential zone. A report was issued in February, a copy of whi.ch is enclosed for your information. Earlier this month, the Town Board began a coordinated environmental review on six of these properties in anticipation of conducting a public hearing on rezoning them from HD to R-80, which is our two acre residential zone. With this letter, I am requesting the assistance of your planning staff Jn the preparation of information related to the HD rezonings; specifically an analysis of the potential yield and return for each of the subject properties under the R-80 zoning district. In addition, it would be helpful if your 'staff could provide a comparative analysis with the potential yield and return under the HD zone. I have 'enclosed a map and the environmental report for each property. The Tqwn has not received the surveys yet, which is why_ the enclosed maps are copies of site plans and other maps in our files. If you would prefer to work with the surveys, perhaps copies could be sent when they are completed in a few weeks. Should 'your//~taff need any additional information, .please do not hesitate to let me knov~./ Thanking you in advance for your assistance, please know that I am most ~p~preciative of your offer. Thomas Wickham Supervisor TW:mIs Enclosures JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971 F~x/516) 765-1823 Telephone (516~ 765-180[ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 11, 1994 Lead Agency Coordination Request The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed you will find the Southold Town Board's findings and a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form lEAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: John'-G. Siolas and Catherine Tsounis, 190 Central Drive, Mattituck, N.Y. 11952, SCTM #1000-45-2-1, property located on the south side of Route 48, 805 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport, N.Y., containing 1.2 acres. Requested Action: Change of Zone on the Town Board's own motion from Hamlet Density (HD) Resideniial District to Low Density Residential R-80 District. SEQRA Classification: Type I Contact 'Person: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold The lead agency .will determine the need for a environmental impact statement (ELS) on this project. If you have an interest in being lead agency, please contact this office immediately. If no response is received from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, it will be assumed that your agency has no interest in being lead agency. Page 2 Agency Position: [ ] This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. [X] This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. [ ] Other. (See comments below) Comments: Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures Copies of this request and all attachments to the following: Commissioner Langdon Marsh, NYS-DEC, Albany Robert Greene, NYS-DEC, Stony Brook NYS L~gislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department· Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board (without attachments) John G. Siolas and Catherine Tsounis, 190 Central Drive, Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box' 1179 Southold. New~York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 5/ 1994: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby commences the lead agency coordination process in regard to the StateiEnvironmental Quality Review Act on the Type I action of proposed rezoning of the following described property on the Town Board's own motion from Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District to Low Density Residential R-80 District: Tax Map #1000-045-2-1, owned by John G. Siolas and Catherine Tsounis, containing 1.2 acres, and located on the south side of Route 48, 805 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport, New York. Judith T. Terry ~ Southold Town Clerk April 6, 1994 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK £ OFFICE OF THE 'TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Bo~:'1179 Southold. New'York 11971 Fax (516) 76521823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 5, 199a,: OWNER PARCEL # 1000-~5-2-1 JOHN G. SIOLAS & CATHERINE TSOUNIS 190 Ceotral Drive Mattituck, NY 11952 PROPERTY LOCATION South Side Route .48 805 Feet East of Chapel Lane Greenport. New York 1194u. WHEREAS,. the Master Plan of the Town of Southold and the recommendations of the Town's advisory Stewardship Task Force have increasingly emphasized the promotion of growth in and around the hamlet centers, to strengthen their business prospects wh|le keeping open space and farmland undeveloped; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has examined and extensively discussed a report entitled "Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in the Town of Southold" dated February 1994 which assessed the appropriateness of the zoning of all undeveloped HD zoned properties in the Town of Southold; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Town Boardl of the Town 'of Southold concludes that HD zoning of this property is not appropriate for the following reasons: The parcel is only 1.2 acres, which size does not lend itself to HD zoning; The HD zoning of this site is not consistent with the Town's comprehensive plan because it encourages high density residential growth at a significant distance from the nearest hamlet center of Greenport and encourages suburban sprawl; 3. The HD zoning is not consistent with the 3arkland lying to the east 'and south; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southo'ld finds that rezoning this property from HD to R-80 is appropriate for the following reasons: R-80 is the b~se zoning of the Town because it retains the open rural environment so highly valued by year-round residents and those people' who support the Town's economy; R-80 zoning is most consistent with the zoning on immediately adjacent- properties; R-80 zoning can best protect those areas with sensitive environmental features, including wetlands, far better than. intense HD development; R-80 zoning will best suit the property because it allows sufficient land in a parcel to handle the drainage problems which are associated with the heavy clay geology found on the site; Because of the small size of the site and the wetlands, both on the site and immediately to the east, only very limited development could take place on the site; Rezoning to the proposed "R-80" density will provide significantly more protection for the environment than the "HD" zoning now provides. Judith T. Terry y Southold Town Clerk April 6, 199~ dUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1g0[ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 5, 199tt: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C., Land Surveyors, to prepare an accurate description of the following properties by metes and bounds, and three copies of a map of each parcel showing the zoning classification of the surrounding area within 500 feet of the pa reel: 1. 1000-0,40-3-1 Kace Realty Co., 43 West 54 Street, New York, N.Y. 10019 1000-040-4-1 John Geier & Ano., c/o Marion Geier, Atlantic Mobile Park, Box 30, Newport, N.C. 28570 1000-035-I-25 LBV Properties, Suite 210, 898 Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787 1000-045-2-10.3 San Simeon 'Retirement Community Inc., Main Road, Greenport, N.Y. 11944 1000-045-2-1 John G. Siolas & Catherine Tsounis, 190 Central Drive, Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 1000-035-1-24 Jem Realty Co., c/o Kontokosta, 43 West 54 Street, New York, N.Y. 10019 ~Judith T. Terry ~ Southold Town Clerk April 6. 1994 PA'~CEL # 7 - 1000-q-5-2-1 OWNER PROPERTY LOCATION JOHN G- SlOLAS £ CATHERINE TSOUNIS 190 Central Drive Mattituck, NY 11952 South Side Route 48 805 Feet East of Chapel Lane Greenport, New York 119~ WHEREAS, the Master Plan of the Town of Southold and the recommendations of the Town's advisory Stewardship Task Force have increasingly emphasized the promotion of growth in and around the hamlet centers, to strengthen their business prospects while keeping open space and farmland undeveloped; and WHEREAS. the Town Board has examined and extensively discussed a report entitled "Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in the Town of Southold" dated February 199~ which assessed the appropriateness of the zoning of all undeveloped HD zoned properties in the Town of Southold; NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold concludes that HD zoning of this property is not appropriate for the following reasons: The parcel is only 1-2 acres, which size does not lend itself to HD zoning; The HD zoning of this site is not consistent with the Town's comprehensive plan because it encourages high density residential growth at a significant distance from the nearest hamlet center of Greenport and encourages suburban sprawl; The HD zoning is not consistent with the parkland lying to the east and south; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold finds that rezoning this property from HD to R-80 is appropriate for the following · reasons: R-80 is the base zoning of the Town because it retains the open rural environment so highly valued by year-round residents and those people who support the Town's economy; R-80 zoning is most consistent with the zoning on immediately adjacent properties; R-80 zoning can best protect those areas with sensitive environmental features, including wetlands, far better than intense HD development; R-80 zoning will best suit the property because it allows sufficient land in a parcel to handle the drainage problems which are associated with the heavy clay geology found on the site; Because of the small size of the site and the wetlands, both on the site and immediately to the east. only very limited development could take place on the site; Rezoning to the proposed "R-80" density will provide significantly more protection for the environment than the "HD" zoning now provides. March 18, 1994 Ms. Valerie Scopaz Senior Planner Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Proposed Clmnge of Zane on Town Board's Own Motion s/s 48,18eS feet e/o Chapd Lane, lO(a)-4S-2-1/l)arcel #7 Dear Valerie: As requested by the Town Board, EAF Parts I and H have been prepared for the 1.2 acre site located on the south side of CR 48, 805 feet east of .Chapel Lane in Greenport. The site has a nm-xlng home on the west side and the remainder ~s surrounded by park land of the Village of Greenport. As part of our preparation of the EAF Part I, we carried out a field inspection of the site on March 14, 1994. In our analysis of the site we also utiHTnd a diversity of resources (topograph/c maps, recent aerial photography, natural resource maps' soft survey, etc.). The following are the findings of our review. Slightly less than half of the site observed was to be freshwater wetlands, specifically red maple swamp, with wetlands (again red maple swamp) immediately to the east on the Greanport park lands. The remaining parts of the site contnlned upland forest. Observed species included black locust, black cherry, red maple, and Norway maple as well as typical understory. The various wetlands maps that where consulted in this review identify the boundaries of the freshwater wetlands on the site. However, the boundaries indicated on NYSDEC Tentative Freshwater Wetlands Maps do not reflect the extent of the wetlands found on site. NYSDEC has not completed the review of their maps in the area. Our investigation indicaies that more of the site is freshwater wetlands than shown on the maps. It is also assumed that the NYSDEC would identify a larger portion of the site as freshwater wetlands. The NYSDEC wetlands maps were developed prindpafiy using aerial phoWgraphs, the boundary of the wetland area could have been easily mis-identified where dense vegetation is present on the site. According to the Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York, compiled by the US Department of Agriculture Soil ConservatiOn Service in cooperation with Corneli Agricultural Experimental Station, the soil on this site is almost entirely Candice silt loam_ Th/s particular soil is identified in the Survey as having extremely poor dra/nage qualities. This soil drainage condition has, no doubt resulted in the format/on of the wetlands and the standing water on the rear part of the site and on the adjoining park laud. Furthermore, accordlnoo to the survey, the limitations for homesites' sewage disposal fields, pipeline locations are severe. There is an acute potential for flooding, AIso present is Montauk fine san.dy loam at si.opes varying from 3-15%, thi.~ is found along the northern part of the site and ~s contained m the area discussed above as upland forest. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Pa~l 'liD" COZ Town's Own Motion Parcel 7 These findings suggest that any development on this site wiil have environmental impacts. Because of the ~ size of the site and the wetlands, both on the site and immerlintely to the east, ~nly very limited development could take. on the site. Our impression is that rezonibg:to the proposed 'R-80" density will provide s/?ificanfly more protection for the envirc~ment than the '~ID" zoning now provides. Furthermore, we have reviewed the document prepared by the sta~ '~O._evie~v of Hamlet Deasi~ Zoning in 5outhold Town - ~ to the Town Board" dated February 1994. We conair with the recommendations made m that document. I'h.op~. the above and the attached EAF Patti and li are helpful. ~_e/'~an provide ~UvYesmg~g~etiOns of tbinf°nna~'~°~te,V~rdcotn°~eusa~°. Ye or ff you wish ns co~ Enclosed: EAF Part I & H L/ //,j CRAMER VOORHfS,, ~:~,~SOC ATES E N VI R O N M E N Tg;t~/~I~D~:,P,[C~-~[N G OONSULTANTS 6-2 (2j8~-- 7c 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review .FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR Pl~rpose: The full E^F is desi~gned to hell~ applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question-of whether an action may be significant is not ahvays easy to answer, Frequent- ly. there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full E~,F is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet fIexib]e to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The fu]l EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given proiect and i13 site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action, it provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed [or this project: ~ ~ Part I _ - Part 2 f-IPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Par:~ 1 and 2 and 3' iF appropriate), and any other supporting information· and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: A. The proiect will not result in any large and important impact(s] and, therefore, is one which will not have a signi[icant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required. therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' C. The project may result in one or more large and important impact5 that may have a significant impact on the environment, theretore a positive declaration will be prepared. ' A Conditioned Negative DecJara[ion ~s only va]id for Unlisted Actions Change of zone for SCTM~1000-45-2-1 Name of Action Town o~ Southold Town Board Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Respo.ns~ble Officer in Lead Agenc,/ SignatureoiPreparer(Ifddferentfromresponsib[eofficer) PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor 'NOTICE: This document is desifned to assist in determining whether the action p~oposed may ha:.' a significant effec~ on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considere/ as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additim~. 'information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full gAF will be dep~ndent'on information currently available and wil! not involv~ *new studies, research or investigation_ If information requiring such additional work is unavaiTabl~, so indicate and specify each instance. NAMEOFA~N Change of zone for SCTM~1000-45-2-1 s/o CR48, 805' e/o Chapel Lane, Greenport Town of Southold Town Board 53095 Main Road Southold NAMEOFOWNER(I[dI[feren[) John G. Siolas & Catherine Tsounis 190 Central Drive Mattituck DESCRI~IONOFA~ION Change of zone on Town Board's own motion. located on County Route 48, 805' east zoned HD. Proposed change is to R-80 approximately 1/2 acre of wetlands. ~USINE~ TELEPHONE ~16 ) 765-1891 STATE. ZIP CODE NY 11971 BUSJNES$ TELEPHONE STATE ZIP CODE NY 11952 This is a 1.2 acre parcel of Chapel Lane and is presentlv residential. Parcel contains Please Complete Each Question-In,4icate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall proiect, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ~Urban ~4ndustrial ~Forest ~Agriculture ~.2 2. Total acreage of project area: acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION ,Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested .7 2 acres .7 2 acres Agricultural (includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) .48 acres .48 acres Water Surface Area acres ac[es Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other (Indicate typel acres acres Ca, MfB, & MfC 3_ What is predominant soil. type(s) on project site? a. Soil drainage: ~o % of site ~Moderately well drained 10 % of site 80 % of site [qWell drained L-] Poorly drained I~Commercial ~Other I-1Residential (suburban) Vacant IqRural (non-farm b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of theN' Land Classification System~ NA acres. (See I NYCRR 370). 5. Approximate percentage of proi:~roject site with slopes: I-I0-10% "~-~ % i-110-15% D15% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or con~aln a building site, or districL listed on the State or the National ' Registers of Historic Places? nYes ~No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks.; I-lYes J~No 8.~What is the depth of the water table? 8- 38 ' (in feet) (perched water on s ire at 0+ feet) . 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~Yes nNo 10_ Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? I-lYes 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? I-Wes {~No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual [and forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) I-lyes ~No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? [~Yes []No If yes, explain 14. ' Does the prqsent site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ~Yes ~No N~ 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name oi: River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes. ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name DEC Wetlands # SO-1 b~ Size lin acres] 180-+ acres 17. ls the site served by existing public utilities? []Yes f-INo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~Yes ~No For I-~D zoning b) If Yes. will improvements he necessary to allow connection? [gYes "q, No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA. Section 303 and 304? ~Yes .,~.No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 '~Yes ~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? __.Yes '~,No Unknown Site contains past dumping of apparent house-hold trash. B. Project Description Proposed project is a rezoning. ]. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fiji in dimensions as appropriate) a. TolJal conLi~uous acreage owned or controlle~ by project sponsor 1.2 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: NA . acres initially; acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped NA acres· d. Length of project, in miles: t:[A (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion· indicate percent of expansion proposed NA f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing NA : proposed g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour NA (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately ~ Dimensions (in ieet! ol largest proposed structure NA height, w,dth, length , 2. How mu'ch natural material (i.e.. rock. earth, etc.) will be removed from the sitei' tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? nYes ["]No ~NIA a. If yes. for what intend . purpose is the site beinB reclaimed~ b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? nyes nNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? i-lYes i-lNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, 'shrubs. ground covers) will be removed from site? 0 acres. 5.' Will any mature forest (over 100 ye;~rs old} or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? I-lYes i~No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction ~¢~ months. (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: ' a_ Total number of phases anticipated (number). b, Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase '1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? F-lYes i-11,4o 8. Will blasting occur during construction? I-lyes I~No 9. Number of iobs generated: during construction t',I~k ; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? I-lYes (]No If yes, explain - 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? I-lYes ~No a. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage. industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes (]No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain 1.5. ls project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? 16. Will the proiect generate solid waste? [~Yes a. If yes. what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? L-lYes R-iNo c. If yes, give name ; location d. C]Yes [~Yes I~lNo Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? If Yes, explain I~No E/Yes E/No 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b_ If yes. what is the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? I-lYes [qYes t/No tons/month. years. E~No 19. Will 20_ Will 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? i-lYes [~No If yes , indicate type(s) 22. if water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23. Total anticipated water usage I:~r day ~T~. gallons/day 24 Ooes pro!ec~ ~nvo!,.,~ Loca!. State or Federal iunding~ ~'fes (No project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? OYes project produce operating noise e~ceeding the local ambient noise levels? ~No I~Yes ~No gallons/minute. ' 25~ ~i. ppec~ats Required: City. Town. Village Board EaYes r-lNo City, Town, Village Planning Board E3Yes E3No C!ty, Town Zoning Board i-Wes I-]No City. County Health Department I-Wes DNo Other Local Agencies DYes f-INo Other Regional Agencies DYes i-INo · State Agencies I-iYes i-INo Federal Agencies I-lYes ~3No .... Submittal · TI'i~ Date Change of Zone C. Zoning and Planning Intormatlon 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? []Yes [~No If Yes. indicate decision required: CZ]zoning amendment f-lzoning variance [-1special use permit I~subdivision [-Isite plan [~new/revision of master plan I-Iresource management plan [~other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? ND 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 1 unit ,without public sewer service/3 :units with ~ublic sewer service R-80 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 1 unit 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? W1Yes I~No 7. What are the predominant Iand use{s) and zoning classifications within a % mile radius of proposed.action? Parkland/PD, Nursing home/HD. 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adioining]surrounding [and uses within a % mile? ~]¥es r~No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? NA a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorizationCs) for the formation of sewer or water districts? l-lYes Ik-INo '11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services [recreation, education, police. fire protection)? ['-IY es [~No a. if yes. is existing capacity sufficient [o handle proiected demand? ~Yes r-lNo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic signiiicandy above present levels? I~Yes ~No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to hand]e ihe additiona] traffic? I-lYes l-]No D. Informational Details Attach any additionaJ information as may be needed to clarify your proiecL If there are or may ~ any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the informal, ion provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. .-- ~/ ' Applicant/Sponsor bJ~/~/~~ ~<'' C~F~/~/~,; -~4 Date ~/~ if :h~ ~c{~o~ I~oas[aJ &rea, and you ~re ~ st~[e ~genc~ compJete the Coasla~ As~smenl form beiore proceed Part 2~ROJECT IMPACTS AND THE=~MAGNITUDE Re.~.pon~bllit~ of L~ Ge~al Info~mll~ (Read Ca,full) Iff completini t~ form ~ revi~er ~[d ~ iui~ by t~ Westin: Ha~ my tes~s a~ ~te~minati~s rea~blel The rev~e'r is ~ ex~ct~ to ~ an ~ envi~men~l 'ldentifyini that an impact will ~ ~tentialiy large [column 2) ~s ~t ~an t~t il is al~ necessarily Any larEe impact must ~ evaluat~ in PART 3 to determine significance. Identi~ini an im~ct in column 2 simply asks that it ~ I~k~ at furor. T~ E~mples provid~ are to assist t~ reviewer by sh~in~ ~s of impacb a~ w~rever ~ssible t~ ~res~ld of m~nitude ~at w~ld ~i~er a res~n~ in column 2. T~ examples am ~ally a~li~ble ~ouE~t ~ 5~te for most sit,ti•ns. BuL for any s~cific proje~ or site ot~ ~m~ a~ ~r ~ms~Ids may ~ appr~te f~ a Potential L~rie,lmpact r~. ~us ~ui~ni ~aluat~ in PaR 3_ T~ impac~ of eich ~oj~ on each site, in each I~ali~, will va~. T~mf~, ~ examples am illustrat~e and ~ ~n off~ as guidance. T~ ~ ~[ c~stitute an e~aus~ list ~ im~ a~ ~lds to an~ each The numar of'examples ~r questi~ d~s not indicate the im~Kance of each q~ti~. In identifyini.impac~, consider Ion8 te~. sho~ term and cumlative eff~. I~ru~lom [Read carefully) a. Answ~ each ~ the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Y~ if t~e will ~ a~ b_ Maybe answe~ should ~ consider~ as Y~ answers_ c. If answerini Y~ ~o a question then c~ck the appropriate ~z (column I m 2) to i~icate ~ ~tential size of the impacb If impact ~res~ld ~uals or execs any example pro~. c~k column Z If impact will ~cur but thres~ld is I~r ~an example, c~ck column 1. d. If myer has d~bt a~t size of ~ impact ~en conside~ ~ im~ct as ~t~lly larie and p~ to P~T 3. e_ If a ~ntially large im~ct c~ck~ in column 2 can ~ miti~t~ ~ c~nl~s) ~ ~ Fo~ to a small ~ ~rate im~ al~ c~ ~ Y~ ~x in column 3. A No r~ i~i~t~ ~t ~ i ~u~n Is ~t ~le. This _.must ~ ~p13i~.in PaR 3. IMPACT ON LAND ....... 1. Will the proposed actio~ result in n ph~k:al chan~e to I~e I~OjeCt siL~ I%'1 N O OYES Ezamples that would apply to column 2 · Any co~struction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area excc:~d 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than [] 3 fe~t- · Construction of paved parking area for 1,(X~O or more vehicles. L-J · Construction on land where bedrc~:k is exposed or generally w~thin [] 3 fe~t of existin~ ground surface. e_ Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involv~ more [] than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,GDO [] tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil] per year_ · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. [] · Construction in a designated floodway. [] · Other impacts Action is a change of zone. No [] alteration of site will take place. I 2 3 ,S,mall to - Potential C~n Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By - ' E~nL-t-' impact project Change [] []Yes ON• [] []Yes I-IN• [] OYes []No FI I-lYes [-]No [] OYes •No [] []Yes []No [] []Yes [] []Yes •No [] []Yes eno 2. Will there be the sitei' (i.e., · Specific land an effect ti. _,.y un.que or unusual land forms found on cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc )~NO OYES forms: [] OYes •No IMPACT ON ~ATER Will proposed action affect any wat~ Ixx~y designated as protected? (Under ^rticles 15, 24.25 of the Environmental Conservation law, ECL) nNo ~YES Examples that would apply to column :2 · Developable area of site cont&ins'a protected water body. · Dredgina more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of protected stream. · Extensic~ of utility distributio~ facilities ~hrough a prot~t~d water body. · Construction in a ~esianated freshwaler or tidal weUand. Portion o£ the s±te conta±n$ · Other impacts: 4 Will proposed action affect an'/ non-protected existing or new bocly of wated E3NO []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water OF more ~han a 10 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body o[ water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. WeLlands e×tend beyond NYSDEC Other impacts: Sm~ll to Moderate Impact [] [] [] [] [] 2 Potential Large Impact O [] 3 Can Impact Be Mltlg&ted By Project C~ange Byes mN• OYes []No [']Yes []No [-]Yes ['-1 No []Yes ON• i-lyes i--tN• ['-lYes ["]Yes ON• 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater qu_ality or quantity? ~NO [~YES E~amptes that would apply t~ column 2 · Proposecl Action will require a discharge permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that dc~s not have approval to. serve prol:x:~-~L(pmj~ct) action. · Propc~ Action requires wale[ supply ~rom wells with greater than 45 ~allons per minute pumpin~ ~.apacity. · Construction o~ operaticm causing ~ny contamination of a water supply system.' · Propo~ed Action will adversely affec~ groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conv~yed off the site to fadHties wh;ch presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action would use water in excess ol 20.000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will likel" ca,_,se siltation or other discharge into an existing body of wat¢~ ;~, the cxtcnt that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1.100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. · Proposed Action locate5 commercial end,or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. · Other impact: Change of zone action will not ct~an~a condition. Development of proposed zone will reduce impact threats ~. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface '---'~ water runoff? [=]NO ~YE5 E,~3.:T, Dle~ that wou[d apply to column 2 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] OYes ON• []Yes •No [-]Yes []No []Yes []No []]Yes []No OYes []No OYes ~No OYes •No OYes •No OYes I--IN• OYes ONe · Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. e Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. · Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodwa~;_ Poor soils are found o~ site e. Oth~r impacts: , 4I Small to Moderate Impact [] 2 P0tantial Large Impact 'ID [] O [] Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change []Y,s nNo []Yes []No r-lYes []No I-lYes I-~Ho IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality~ [~NO l-lYES Eumple~ that would apply to column 2 · PropOsed Action will induce 1,009 or more vehicle trips in any given · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 [on of refuse per hour. · Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source p~o. ducing more than 10 million BTU's per hour_ · Proposed action will allow an increase in [he amount ot land committed to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of im:lustrial c~velopment within existing indusb'ial areas. · •tier impact.~: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] OYes []No []Yes ON• []Yes [~No I-lyes ['-}Yes •No OYes ON• IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8,. Will Proposed Action affect any fl'u'eatened or endangered species? OJNO [~YES Eumplem that Would apply to column 2 ' · Reduc-tk~ of one or more species listed on the New Yo~k o~ Federal list, using the site, over or r~ar site or found on the site. · Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habit, aL · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year. other than for agricultural purposes. · Other impact5: [] [] [] [] E] [] [] [] 'I--IN• OYes []No []Yes •No [-]Yes []No 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect r, on-d~reatened or non-endangered species1 (]NO OYES Ezamples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially intedere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.. · Proposed ACtion requires the removal of more than 10 acres of rnatu[e forest (over 100 years of alze) or other locally important vegetation~ IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ~NO OYES Example~ that would apply to column 2 · Th~ proposed action would sever, crc-ss or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture. ¥ine~'ard, orchard, etc ) [] [] [] [] OYes []No OYes ON• OYm ON• · Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. · The proposed action would irreversi~)ly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or. if located in an A~ricultuta] District, more · than 2.5 acres of airicultural land. · The propo~ed action would diuupt o~ pre, eat insfallat~q of agricuEural land management systems (e.g., subsud'ace drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping.l; ~r create a need for such me~ures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) · Other impacts: Small to Potential Can Implcl-Be Moderate Large Mitigated Impact Impact Project Change O I--I OYes nNo J--J O OYes I-1No [] I-I []Yes ON• [] [] ["]Yes f-IN• IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? I~NO OYES Jif necessary, use the Visual EAF. Addendum in Section 617.21. Appendix B.) ' Eumples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from o~ in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whet~r' man-made or natural. .. · Propo-~<l land uses. or project compone~ts visible' to u~en of aesthetic resource~ which wile eliminate or siamificantly reduce their · enjoyment of t~ aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project cor~ponent~ that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. · Other impacts: [] [] OYes ON• [] [] DYes r-IN• [] [] OYes •No O O OYes [:]No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure ot historic, pre historic or paleontological importance? I~NO DY£S Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeolc~ical site or fossil bed located within ~ project site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area desisnated as sens~tK'e i~or archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impact~: [] [] []Yes I-iN• . [] [] EWes FIN• [] O []Yes FIN• [] O nyes []No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or qualiL7 of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Example~ that would apply to column 2 []NO aYES )The p~rmanent foreclosure of a futura recreational oplx)rtuni~. '"'~"A major reduction of an o~en space import, ant to t~e community. · Other impact~: Site ' immediately adjacent to park open space [] [] []:]Yes•No [] [] OYes O~ [] [] OYes ON• 1 2 IMPACT ON TRANSI~. RTATION S~nall t0 Potential 14. Will there be an effect to existin8 transportation systems? Moderate Large I-xlNO OYES Impact Impact E~amples that would apply to column 2 · Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or go~ls. [-] [-] · Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. [] .. [] · Other impact~: [] [] 3 Can Impact Mitigated By Project Change []Yes []No []Yes OHo •Yes •No IMPACT ON ENERGY ' 15. Will proposed action affect the co~nmunity's sources of fuel or energy supply? R-IN• OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a g~'eater than 5% increase in the use of [] any form of energy in the municipality, · Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy [] transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commerclal or industrial u~e. · Other impacts: [] [] O []Yes [-]No OYes I-IN• i-lYes ONo NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Actk~? ~3NO ' ["lYESr "~ ' Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1,5OO feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive [] facility. · Odors will Occur routinely (more than on~ hour per day}. [] · Proposed Acfio~ will produce operating noise exceeding the local _. O .. ambient noise levels for noise out~e of structures. · Proposal Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a [] noise screen_ · Otber impacts: [] [] OYes I'-[ OYes 0 OYes [] OYes [] OYe [-]No •No •No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Act. ion affect public health and safety? L~NO OYES Ezamples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk oi' explosion or release of hazardous [] substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation,· etc.) in th~ event of accident or upset conditions, or there may b~ a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action'may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any [] form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.) · Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural [] gas or other flammable liquids. · Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance [] within 2,003 I~e~t of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. · Other impact~: ['-], []Yes [] OYes [] BYes [] []Yes []Nc ON, I-1N, IMPACT ON GROW'TH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed ·ction affect the ch·racier of the existin8 communityi' F21NO OYES Ezampie~ that would apply to column 2 · The p~rmanent population of the-city, town or village in which the [] project is located is likely to Brow by more than 5%. · · The municipal budset for capital expenditures or operatine services [] will increase by more titan 596 per ye·r ·sa result of this project. · Propcrsed action will conflict with officially adopted pi·ns or goals. I-I · Proposed action will cause · chan~e in the density of land use. [] · Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures [] or areas of historic importance to the community. · Development will create a demand for additional community services [] (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future project~. [] · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. [] · Other impacts: [] Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potenllal Large Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change OYes DNo [3Yes CINO [--]Yes []No [--]Yes t-]No []Yes DNo [--]Yes []No f-lYes []No [--]Yes [-']No l-lYes []No 19. Is there, or is there likely to be. public contrBversy related to potential adveme environmental impactsi' I~NO i-lYES If Any Action In Part 2 18 Identified aa a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Oetermlne the Magnitude o! Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Respor~ibility oi Lead Alency Part 3 mu~t be prepared il one or more impact(s) b considered to be potentially larle, even if the impact(i] may be mltllAted. Instrudion~ Discuss the fo]lowing tor each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 _ Briefly describe the impacL 2- Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitieated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project chan~e[s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that [his impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider:. · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The reeJonal consequence of the impact · Its potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whe~er known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachment~) JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLEI~K OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town H~I, 53095Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax(516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 March 10, 1994 Thomas W. Cramer, ASLA Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54 North Country Road, Suite 2 Mille~ Place, New York 11764 Dear Tom: This is to confirm that the Southold Town Board, at their regular meeting held on March 8, 1994, adopted a resolution accepting your proposal to prepare Long Environmental Assessment Forms for six proposed rezonings to be undertaken on the Town Board's own motion. A certified copy of the resolution is enclosed. Enclosu re Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk cc: V. Scopaz, Senior Planner JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECOPADS MANAOEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax i516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MARCH 8. 199a,: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of $outhold hereby accepts the proposal of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, dated March 8, 1994, at a total sum not to exceed $1,200.00, for trae preparation of Long Environmental Assessment Forms for six (6) proposed rezonings to be undertaken on the Town Board's own motion. Judith T. TerryC/ Southold Town Clerk March 9, 199~1 March 8, 1994 Ms. Valerie S¢opaz Planner Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971. RE: Proposal for Services Preparation of Long Environmental Assessment Forms (EAF) for Proposed Hamlet Density Zoning in the Town of $outhold Dear Valerie: Pursuant to your request, th.e following will serve as a proposal for services with regard to the abo?:e referenced. It is our understanding that the Town Board ~?ishes to consider theposslble rezomng for six undeve, loped parcels from Hamlet Density (HD) to Residenc. e-$O(R-8.0). This proposed .action ~.s a result of the study prepared by you and the staff, entaled "~evtew of Hamlet Denz~ty Zomng in the Town of $outhoId'; dated February 1994. The following are the six parcels that will be considered in the public hearings; SCTM~ Hamlet Location Acreage 100-40-3-1 Greenport, unincorp. 17.1 100-40-4-1 Oreenport, unincorp. 10.55 100-35-1-25 Greenport, unincorp. 132.08 100-45-2-10.3 Greenport, tmincorp. 20.07 100-45-2-1 Greenport, unincorp. 1.2 100-35-1-24 (3reenport, unincorp. 62.3 CVA proposes to complete the.Long EAF neces, sary fo.r coordination with other involved agencies under the State EnvLronmental Quahty Review (SEQR) Act. We will also carry out field mspecUons on each of.the subject parcels to ass!st m the preparauon on the documents. It is also our understandm, g that youhave certain reformation that will be made available m us to assist in the preparatmn of the Long.EAF's. In consldemtlon of the above we estimate that the preparau%n of each LOng I~AF will cost between $150,00 to $200.00, · with a total sum of not to exceed $1,200.00. %.. I hop. e you and the Board find the above proposal acceptable. If there ale a.n:y questions with the above please feel free to c.ontact me. If the Board authorizes this- prop?sal, please let me know and we will begin work immediately as I u. nderstand that the public hearing x~411 be set for March 22. Thank you for your considerauon of CVA and I hope to hear from you shortly .... Very ~. Cramer, ASIA 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr_ Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L_ Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 9, 1994 Thomas W. Cramer Cramer~ Voorhis Associates 54 North Country Road, Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: ~reparation of Long Environmental Assessment Forms for Proposed Hamlet Density Rezoning in the Town of Southold Dear Tom: The Town Board voted to retain your services as set forth in your March 8th Proposal for Services. Let my secretary, Martha, know when you will be here for the field inspection so that all the technical information can be assembled and ready when you arrive. You will find the enclosed copy of the Hamlet Density Report useful in providing some of the background information and the planning context of the review. When the LEAFs are completed, please send them to Judith T. Terry:, To%~n Clerk, since all rezoning petitions and billing for same are handled by her office on behalf of the Towh Board. The LEAFs are needed for Tuesday, March 22nd, when ~he Town Board. will begin the lead agency coordination process. 'Since the Town Board's work session starts Tuesday morning, the_LEAFs should be in Mrs. Terry's office no later than Monday. Th~ public hearing probably will not be set until the environmental review is completed. I look forward to hearing from you shortly. S/~cere.ly, Senior Planner cc: Judith T. Terry, Town ~lerk F. PI. Flynn P. O. Box 144 Southold, t:. Y. 11971 - 0144 (516) 477 - 0698 ,SUPERVISORS TOWN OF March 6, 1994 Supervisor Thomas H. Wickham Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N. Y. 11971 Dear [dr. Wickham: Re: Resort Residential as Alternative to Hamlet Density ZOning at West Greenport For what my opinion may be worth, changing the zoning of the Geier parcel, or any of the HD parcels on the perimeter of the Village of Greenport, to an RR district would be a calamitous mistake. If the Town Board's intention is really to reduce the intensity of use in the area , with its concomitant increase in the demand for utilities and services, the result of such a change could very well have the opposite effect. Among the glaring weaknesses of the Southold Code is the number and diversity ef Special Exception uses and the discretionary powers delegated to the Board of Appeals. The curr2~t ZB~ represents ~be last v~utige of the old regime. :nese 3peola± mxceptmons, comB!nec wzth the con:emp±a:eo change of zone, would.permit the ZBA to continue exerting the power to thwart or subvert the intent of the Town Board. Both HD and RR zoning districts permit residential use as a matter of right. The density for one - family use in both districts is similar. The HD districts also permit two family dwellings on plots twice the area of those required for one family use. Analysis of the Special Exceptions provided for in the respective districtsreveals their degree of diversity. Whmle these exceptmons in HD districts provide for multiple dwelings, town houses, row or attached nouses, the density for each such unit is the same as for one - family use- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Review of Hamlet Density Zoning In Southold Town Report to the Town Board February 1994 This study was authorized by the TOwn Board ~n January of 1994. Its purpose was to assess whether undeveloped properties in Town that are zoned Hamlet Density (HD) are appropriately zoned. This study was undertaken as part of the Town Board's ongoing commitment to implement the Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan. Part of this.process includes evaluating whether the current pattern or location of HD-zoned properties is furthering the Goals.and Policy Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Ail vacant-HD-zoned properties in the Town are reviewed in the report. They are listed below in the same manner that they are identified and reviewed in the report: SCTM% Hamlet Location .... ~..Acreage #1 040-3-1 Greenport, unin. 17.1 %2 040-4-1 Greenport, unin. 1Ur55 #3 046-1-2.1 Greenport, unin. 3.5 #4 035-1-25 Greenport, unin. 132.08 #5 045-2-10.3 Greenport, unin. 20.07 #6 102-1-33.3 Cutchogue 46.16 %7 045-2-1 ~reenport, unin. 1.2 #8 035-1-24 Greenport, unin. 62.3 The report provides a planning policy framework within which to evaluate the available data about each parcel. The recommendations in this report indicate whether the current HD zone needs to be.changed or left untouched; based on whether the zoning is in conformance with public planning policy, but without recommending specific zone changes. T T ........ ....................................... REVIEW OF HAMLET DENSITY ZONING IN SOUTHOLD TOWN Report to the Town Board 'February 1994 REVIEW OF HA~LET DENSITY ZONING IN SOUTHOLD TOWN Report to the Town Board February 1994, INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this review is to study the current status of each vacant property that presently is zoned for Hamlet Density. The study includes an assessment whether that designation is in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive or Master Plan for the Hamlet Density (HD) zoning district. Initially, this report will describe the reasons for the review. It then provides a detailed analysis of the pertinent policies of the Comprehensive or Master Plan. aff.ecting the Hamlet Density zoning and the history o~ the zoning that preceded it. -~, Next, the report includes an analysis, of the properties in a uniform manner. Each property is described as to its current physical location, including zoning. Each property is reviewed in terms of any current approvals amd development. Each is analyzed as to its conformity with the Comprehensive or Master Plan and other public policies. Lastly, a reco~maendation is made as to the appropriateness of the zoniKg. NEED FOR THE PdZVIEW: The need for this review, evidenced itself in different ways. First~ with one exception, the parcels to be reviewed have been zoned HD for long periods of time ranging from 5 to 36 y~ars. Second, these properties are either undeveloped or under-developed. Third, seven of the eight parcels ~re located adjacent to or within close pro×imity to.the Incorporated Village of Greenport. The fact that these properties remained undeveloped over such long periods of time raised several questions: which ranged from why the properties were rezoned in the first place to why the properties remained undevelopedE The clustering of these properties adjacent to and around the Village of Greenport ~lso raised questions as tm the consistency of the Town's actions in context with its own Comprehensive or Master Plan. With one exception, the HD zoning designation was assigned to each parcel in response to a Petition by the property's owner. The rezonings occurred periodically, starting in 1958. The potential availability of public water and, in some cases, sewer, services from the Village of Greenport evidently was a factor considered by previous Town Boards in granting these parcels the FiD zone. ~a~[1 but one of the undeveloped HD parcels either are adjacent or within close proximity to Greenport Village. The resulting pattern has had a significant negative impact on the Village of Greenport. The Mayor of the Villaqe had a general discussion with the Town Board on January 4, 1994, in which he indicaned that the cumulative impact of the added density would not only strain the present infrastructure capability of the Village's public water and sewer systems, it would increase Greenport~s already disproportionate share of the Town's affordable housing units; a situation that was documented in Suffolk- Co%%nty's Equitable Housing Study of 1991. The Town has not undertaken a specific study of the ~' appropriateness of HD rezonings since the Master Plan Update was conducted during the early 1980s. This review ~:- will look at the appropriateness of the HD zoning designation for those parcels that are zoned HD and that are undeveloped. This is in keeping with the Town Board's commitment to implement the Town's Comprehensive or Master Planl Charged in 1992 with suggesting ways to implement 'this vision, the - Town's Stewardship Task Force reco~ended to the Town Board, in September of 1993, that it "Revise the Zoning Code and Map to better comply with goals of the Master Plan". In conjunction with this recommendation, the Task Force also suggested to the Town Board that it "Review Zoning Map and revise to. eliminate zoned districts which are incompatible with their present use and p~uslcal context." This review is in response to those recommendaLions. AUTHORIZATION FOR REVIEW: The Town Board Resolution of January 4, 1994 states the reasons for this review, the Board's intent in authorizing it, and directs staff to carry out the study. METHODOLOGY USED IN ANALYSIS: CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: The methodology used here reflects the pul-pose of this review which is to examine the eight vacant parcels currently zoned Hamlet Density and to determine whether they are appropriately zoned in relationship to the goals and objectives of. the Town's 1984 Update of its Comprehensive or Master Plan, the 1991 Report of the US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange and the ongoing work of the Town's Stewardship Task Force. Each of the eight properties were reviewed systematically using the following format: Site Data Notable Physical Features and Limitations Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Status of Development: Approvals and Infrastructure Public Policy Recommendation The Site Data section will identify the parcel by its Tax Map Nu~er, its location and its acreage. Information about the zoning and ownership history.of this parcel will be presented here also. The section on Notable Physical Features and Li~±tations will review the relevant, available environmental data and its significance or potential impact on the parcel's development potential. The Surrounding Land U~es and Zoning section will describe the land uses and zoning of the surrounding properties, and will discuss the significance of those uses and designations for the subject parcel. The following section, Status of Development: Approvals and Infrastructure, will review the current status of any applications and approvals for the subject parcel. The Public Policy section will exa/nine the appropriateness of the Hamlet Dsnsity designation relative to the vision set forth by the Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan Update in 1984, the 1991 US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Report and the Stewardship Cask Force's draft recommendations of 1993. - The last section, Recommendation, will list a recommendation for either leaving the Hamlet Density designation or changing it. Public Policy in the Context of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code: Because the Public Policy sections of each case study presume an undersnanding of the Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan and of the Town's ongoing efforts to implement its vision, as well as an hisLorical knowledge of elements of the Zoning Code itself, the following section has been included here. its purpose is to provide a detailed analysis of the public policies that were considered in this evaluation of the pattern of Hamlet Density zoning in Southo!d Town. The Comprehensive Plan Southold Town has been engaged in an ongoing effort to implement the Goals and Policies of the 1984 Comprehensive or Master Plan Updat@ as evidenced by the work of the Stewardship Task Force (STF). Appointed by the Town Board, the STF has been charged since its inception in 1992, with the "study and e~rploration of amelioratory reco~endations of the Southo/d Town Zoning Map and Ordinances, in order to foster and implement the ideals and goals of the existing Master Plan, incorporating the recommendations ef the US/UK Stewardship Exchange.". The recommendations of the US/UK Stewardship Exchange reflect the collective thinking of a team of eight professional planners who met with government officials and a wide range of community representatives about planning issues during July of 1991. They found six a~eas of agreement with the Comprehensive or Master Plan. These included: 1) "Concentration of new residential and commercial development in and around existing hamlets and villages~..." along with the 2) "Preservation of. the historic character of the villages and hamlets, carefully controlling design 4 3) of new development to maintain compasibilityi" and "~4aintenance and i~rovement of the environment through provision of an appropriate infrastructure to protect water qu-u3_i%y and to manage natural resources properly, and to~gui~e development to appropriate locations." (A Report by the 1991 US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchanqe Team To The People of the Town of Southold, North Fork~ Long Island. .Nove~er 1991. p.8.) The aforementioned issues had been derived from the Goals and Policies of Southold Town's 1984 Master Plan Update. That doctument set forth a number of Goals and subsequent. Policies which have a bearing on this study, and which are stated in Appendix A of this study. In September of 1993, the Stewardship Task Force published an interim report in which it made a series of draft i recommendations to implement the Goals and Po]4cies set forth by the'1984 Master Plan Update. The preface to.its recommenGations on the Character of Hamlets and Rural Setting states: The hamlets are the historic focus for residential and business activity in Southold Town. We consider, this to be a desirable pattern of development, which should be encouraged by allowing appropriate new residential and commercial development in the existing centers. In order to facilitate this growth, careful planning should undertaken by the Town, so that a rural, : pedestrian oriented village quality, consistent with our history and traditional pattern of development, is fostered. The long history of Southold has given rise to a' tremendous richness and diversity of buildings .and working landscapes. Vigorous steps should be taken to assure the preservation of these structures and landscapes, without infringing on the rights of their individual owners. All residents benefit from the preservation of our historic and scenic heritage, not only for our "quality of life", but for the economic potential it offers the Town. Purpose of the Hamlet Density Zoning District: This policy of concentrating residential development throughout the Town's hamlets is reiterated in the Town's 5 Zoning Code, which states that the purpose of the HD Zoning Dis[rict is: "to permit a m~ of housing t~es and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers. particularly Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold, Orient and the Village of Greenport.~ The Zoning Code specifies that the HD district may be designated by the Town Board upon its own motion, as well as by petition of tho property owner on parcels located within one-half mile of a Hamlet Susiness district of the hamlets of Mattituck~ Cutchogue and Southold; and within one-quarter milo of the Hanklot Business district of Orient and within one-half mile of the boundary of Greenport Village. In tho Master Plan Summary of 1985, three criteria were set forth for nhe estaDlisPnnont of a Hamlet Density district: location relative to the hamlet business area, the availability.of utilities and the provision of moderato cos~ housingu The report suggested Creenport be considered as a hamlet, tt also suggested that the maximum devolopment be permittod "only where necessary utilities are in place or can be assured and where there is the provision of moderate cost housing.~' (p.9). Finaily~ it states the "The Hamlet Densit~ categor~ is also designed to support the establishmont of innovatmve techniquos for getting the optirmnn ~so out of existin~ housing°" (~nphas~s supplied.) Uses Allowed in the Hamlet Density Zoninq District: Tho Zoning Code allows within the HD district only two uses by right: 1. one-family detached dwel~ings~ and 2. two-family dwollings. A Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals is required for other uses such as: 1. multiple dwellings, townhousos, row or attached houses; 2. accessory apaJtments in single-family residences, (as regulated elsewhere in the Zoning Code); 3. bed and break-fast establishments, (as regulated elsewhere in the Zoning Code); 4. wineries, (as regulated elsewhere in the Zoning Code). 6 The Zoning Code provides guidelines or parameters within which the Zoning Board of Appeals may gr~nt the Special Exceptions only for accessory apartments and for bed ~nd breakfast establishments. No guidance is provided to the Zoning Board for the institution of multiple dwellings, townhouses or row-houses, and wineries. The Zoning Code: Historical Background: Throughout this report, it is important to remember that while'the "A" Residential-Agricultural zoning district always pernkitt~d residential and agricultural land uses, the requ~edr~inimum acreage for a lot in this zone changed through the years. The following list shows how the minimum acreage changed (by the year the amendmen~ was made to the Zoning Code). 1957 12,500 square feet 1971 40,000 square feet 1983 80,000 square feet 1989 80,000 square feet in A-C and R-80 zones (40,000 square feet for areas zoned R-40 only. Other residential zones provide for three, five and ten acre minimum acreages.) As will be seen, the in-depth analysis of each property will show that each parcel originally had been zoned for residential use. Some of the parcels have had more than one zoning designation in their history, mostly because the Town changed its zoning code and map several times since the first Code and Map were adopted in 1957. A brief synopsis of the changes that have been made to specific ~ zoning districts is provided in Appendix B. The Impact of Public Water and Sewer Services on Density in HD: .The minimum required lot area within the HD district is 20,000 square feet per one-family detached dwelling. Suffolk County's Health Regulations require the provision of public water where lots ~ire smaller than 40,000 square feet in area. However, where both Co~unity (Public) water and Sewer services are available, and a Special Exception is granted, the density may be increased to one unit for every 10,000 square feet. Thus, the development potential of a parcel zoned HD is inextricably tied to the availability of public water: and for the higher densities, the availability of sewer. In other words, for the HD zoned property to be developed in accordance with the 7 intent of the Code, it requires access to public water and, sometimes, sewers. Number and Location of Properties Zoned Hamlet Density: There are thirteen properties in mainland Southold Town 5hat are zoned Hamle£ Density (HD), only five of which are developed. Three are located in Greenport: one is the Driftwood Cove Apartment Complex, another is Seven-Eleven store, and the third ms a large historic house adjacent to Brecknock Hall. The fourth is the Founders Village Condominium complex in Sout~old. The fifth is a large house in Orient on the north side of SR 25, -=bout 87 feet west of Young's _Avenue. On Fishers Island, there are fifteen developed properties that are zoned 633. All these parcels, save one, are located within the boundaries of the abandoned D/~i?y base; and appear to have been developed either as base offices or officer's quarters. Of the eight vacant HD-zoned parcels, seven are located around Greenport Village. which for a long time was the only source of both public water and sewer services within the Town. There appears now to be some limitation on the Village of Greenport's ability to be the focus of all HD zoning given the current demand on its already strained water and sewer facilities. Cutchogue has the only other vacant HD-zoned property. The remaining hamlets in Southold Town have no vacant HD-zoned properties. 8 ANALYSIS OF HASILET DENSITY PROPERTIES: PARCEL BY PARCEL Only those properties zoned Hamlet Density that ~ere vacant as of January 1994, were selected for review. Th~ individu- al parcels are listed below in the order they were rezoned starting with the firsf, in 1958. This is also the order in which they will be reviewed. Throughout the remainder of this report, the pazcels will be referred to by the identi- fying Parcel and Tax Map numbers (SCTM#) no~ed here.. SCTM~ Hamle~ Location Acreaqe #1 040-3-1 Greenport, unin. 17.1 #2 040-4-1 Greenport, unin. 10.55 ~3 046-1-2.1 Greenport, un~n. 3.5 #4 035-1-25 Greenport, unin. 132.08 #5' 045-2-10.3 Greenport, unin. 20.07 #6 102-1-33.3 Cutchogue 46.16. #7 045-2-1 Greenport, unin. 1.2 #8 035-1-24 Greenport, unin. 62.3 The format used J_n the analysis of each parcel is: PARCEL ~ and TA~ ~L~P NUM]$ER SITE DATA: Location: Acreage: Zon-ing History:* Ownership History:** NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES AlqD LIMITATIONS: SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: STATUS OF DEVELOP}~NT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: PUBLIC POLICY: RECOMmeNDATION: One or more maps showihg the subject parcel may accompany the written text: they will be found at the end of the analysis of that parcel. * Zoning History was culled from the Town Clerk's Change of Zone files. ** Ownership History was traced from Property Cards in the office of the Town Tax Assessor. PARCEL #1 - SCTM ~ 40-3-1 SITE DATA: Location: South Side County Route 48,' more ~han 1000' east of Chape~ Lane, Greenpbrt Acreage: 17.1 acres Zoning History : Year Rezoned: 6.13.58. The original petition was to change the zone from "A" Residental and Agricultural to "B" Business. Between January and May of 1958, the applicant changed his request to "M". Multiple Residence, which was stlbsequentl¥ granted. The file does not indicate why ~he property owner asked for the change of zone, nor why the Town Board granted the request. Ownership Histor~ / Year Acquired / Miscellany *Kace Realty Co 3-10-82 Kontakosta 3-10-82 Sanzone (Smith Est) ? Brereton ?-?-79 H. Smith & Ano Sledjecki' Transfer sub- ject to $184,000 mort- gage 1/4 interest (which was sold to Sanzone in 1982 for $35,000.) ?-?-54 ?-?-49 or earlier** * Kontokosta is a principal in KACE Realty .. ** Property cards only note ownership as of 1949 when '~ the records were started. NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND L/LMITATIONS: There is little eny~ronmental information in the site plan file. A review of the aerial photograph reveals this to be a heavily wooded parcel which appears to drain in a southerly direction. The topography drops off to the south from 35 feet above sea-level near County Route 48, to ~bout 10 feet at its southernmost point. The property may have freshwater wooded wet- lands on or within close proximity. SURROUNDING LAND USES ~ ZONING: The property is currently bounded on the north Dy CR 48; the west and south borders'by la~d owned and zoned by the Village of Greenport as PD or Parkiand, and the east border by land zoned R-B0n North of CR 48, lies an R-80 district, which contains residential waterfront homes. ~ Within 500 feet of the perimeter of this parcel (but not contiguous) there are properties zoned RR and HD. The RRproperties to the northwest, diagonally across CR aB, contain motel and resort condominium uses, along with one residential use and an unfinished mo- tel. San Simeon Nursing Home, which is zoned ~iD~ is abou[ 800 feet to the west. The remainder of the HD 'property to the west is mostly undeveioped~ ~nd is one of the parcels under review (Parcel ~7)~ The KOA Kampground lies due east at a distance of about 500 feet. STATUS OF DEVELoP~IENT: A~PROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: On July 11, 1983, the Planning Board granted site pian approval to construct 108 dwelling units in 27 build- ings. The property owner has yet to obtain governmen- tal approvals for water, sewer and curb cuts. No building permits are known to have been issued. pUBLIC POLICY: Although the subject parcel is adjacent to land owned by the Incorporated Village of Greenport, it lies 4,500 feet or more ( one mile equals 5,280 feet) from the developed portions of the Village, and is even further from the business center. It is surrounded by vacant woodland, which is zoned PD or Park District. The Village changed the zone of the surrounding woodland from R-1 (Residential) to PD in 1987, in response to directives from the State of New York's Department of Environmental Conservation. The PD district is defined as follows: "An area rese~ed for recreational and firematic use by the citizens of the Village of Greenport as regulated by the Park Local Law, and in which Village utilities and other public uses may be maintained and expanded." The only uses permitted within this district are: 1) Nature trails 2) Sports playing fields 3) Firematic e~ents 4) Utility facilities including necessary appurtances but not limited t~: a) water towers b) sewage treatment plants c) electrical plants 5) Municipally operated camp sites 6) Municipally operated trailer park 7) Watershed maintenance Much of the PD zoned land is environmentally sensitive, freshwater wooded wetland. Given the restrictive nature of the Parkland District, it seems inconsistent for the Town to concentrmte its highest density residential use on the sUbject parcel. Further, this parcel is not within walking distance 'of the Village hamlet, and the necessal-y utilities do not seem to be assured at this time. For these reasons, intense development of the site does not seem to,meet with the Goals and Policy Objectives of the Comp{ehen- sire or Mas~er Plan. RECOS~ENDATION: The site could be developed in a manner not requiring multiple density uses. Rezoning to a lower density is reco~ended. 3 R.:-80 ' 'HD FiR ID AHD R-40 -/ PARCEL ~2 - SCTM # 40-4-1 SITE DATA:. Location: South side of County Route 48, approxi- mately 400 feet west of Moore's Lane, Greenport Acreage: 10.55 acres Zoninq History: Year Rezoned: 11.7.68 The petitioner applied for the zone change be- cause, in his own words, "The premises currently enjoy a non-confor/~ing use status, as a rooming and boarding house; deponent wishes to enlarge that use." Ownership History / Year Acquired Geier Estate or Heirs 1993 Marcucci ? J. Geier & Ano Langone 1966 1949 or earlier Miscellany Contract Vendee $37,000 NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES A~D LIMITATIONS: In the absence of a definitive confirmation by the Town Trustees and the State Department of Environmen- tal Conservation, it is estimated that between one- quarter to one-third of the southern or lower portion of this parcel contain freshwater wetlands. These. wetlands probably are part of the syste~ of wetlands in the Village parkland to the south. There is no Soil boring on file for this property. The wetlands are likely to pose severe constraints on the potential yield of this property due to the mini- mum siting distances that structures and septic sys- tems must maintain from wetlands: as required by vari- ous Town, County and State regulations. Wet soils also pose problems for siting septic systems unless sewer service can 'be obtained. The environmental impacts of sewering on this wetland ecosystem are not known at this time. SURROUNDING LAND USES ~ DENSITY: The property is bounded on the north by County Route 4 ~8: Its east, south and west borders are bounded by the Village's parklands. North and northeast of CR 48 lies undeveloped land zoned R-40, and a partially completed subdivision development, also zoned R-4O. Just beyond the Village parkland, fifty feet to the wes~ of this parcel, the land ia zoned R-80. ' STATUS OF DEVELOP~]~NT: APPROVALS ~ INFRASTRUCTURE There is a large house and two or three other build ings or barns on the property. The structures are visibly in need of repair. There are no site plan approvals for any proposed~construction. And~ there is no site plan application on file. PUBLIC POLI~f: The limited environmantal information available on this site suggests that this property is not suitable for the Hamlet Density intensity of use. The environ- mental sensitivity of this parcel is highlighted by the Park District zoning of Lhe surrounding property by the Village of Greenport. The constrainns are such that the availability of public water (and probably sewer) are absolute prerequisites for development at the HD density to occur. The presence of extensive wetlands is likely to compromise the potential yield. ~mrther, it is inconsistent to place the highest resi- dential density in the midst of Park District zoning. The Town's Master Plan and the subsequent reco~endations for its implementation argue for chan- neling new development towards the existing hamlets. This policy requires that new development be directed first to vacant land within the hamlets, then to va- cant land in close proximity thereto. It ~tso re- quires where rehabilitation or renovation of the exist--- lng building stock can both preserve the character of the hamlet and provide alternative housing choices, that this be pursued first~ before creating new resi- dential centers isolated from the hamlet~ This site fails to meet the criteria for proximmty and accessLbility'to a hamlet. It is not within walk- ing distance of the Village cenner. Further~ the necessa~f utilities do not seem to be assured at this time. Fcr these reasons, this parcel's zoning does not seem to meet with the Goals and Policy Objectives of the Master Plan. RECOM/~E~DATION: This parcel cou±d be developed in a manner not requiring multiple density uses. Rezoning to a lower density is reco~ended. 6 RR HD R,~80 ~ AHD R-40 ./ ' IB PARCEL #3 - SCTM # O46-1-2.1 SITE DATA: Location: South side of State Route 25, about 577 feet east ef 9th Street, Greenport Acreage: 3.5 acres Zoning History: Year Rezoned: 10.27.70 The original petition to rezone this property from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M-i" General Multiple Residence was changed to "B-2" Business at the recormmendation of the Planning Board. At this time, there also was a pending petition on the adjacent property to the east, now the site of Driftwood Cove Apartments; for a change to the "B-2" Business zoning distric{, too. (The ."B-2" district allowed for a more intensive multiple residence use than did the "M-l" zone.) The two properties were rezoned "B-2" in 1970, within two months of each other. In 1989, ~oth parcels were rezoned Hamlet Density by the Town. ~nership History / Year Acc~/ired / Miscellany Aliano 1974 $73,500 Casola 1972 $55,000 A. Cassidy 1949 or earlier NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS: .... There is little environmental information available for this parcel. It is covered.with old-fleld vegeta- tion. The property does not appear to have any environ-~ mental constraints. This is not a large site. Develop- ment of this site to its Hamlet Density potential will require the extension of both public water and sewer. SURROUNDING LAND USES ~2[D ZONING: The property is bounded on the north by State Route 25 and a 7-11 retail store, which is also zoned HD. To the east is the Driftwood Cove Apartment complex. Te the south, the tracks and right-of-way of the Long Island Railroad. To the west is a lumber yard. The north side of SR 25 is zoned B Business and is devel- oped~ STATUS OF DEVELOP~.~NT: AJ~PROVALS AND I~P~TRUCTURE: The property was larger at the time it was rezoned. Slightly more than half an acre of it was developed into the 7-11 store in 1985. There are no ~ther site plan approvals on this parcel. No~ are there any acSive applications for an HD use. PUBLIC POLI~f: This site meets the criteria for the location of the Hamlet Density zone. it is within walking distance of the Village business center~ schools, churches and other se~ices. It lies adjacent to affordable hous- ing, and could be developed in a similiar manner. However, the small size of this parcel, which the current owner exacerbated by splitting off an addition- al .55 acres in 1977, is an obstacle. Development of this property will require the provision of bothlpu~- lic water and sewer, the availability of which is not assured at this time. RECOI~4ENDATION: Since it meets all applicable criteria, excep~ the availability of public water and sewer, this parcel could be left as zoned. However, the fact that Greenport Village and unincorporated west Greenport bear a disproportionate share of the affordable hous- ing within the Town must be factored in and dealt with. If the proportionate share of affordable housing is felt to be of primar~ importance, this parcel could be rezoned to LIO, in keeping with the LIO zoning to the west which borders this property. 'H D ,n, HD OR 7-- P~RCEL #4 - SCTM ~ 035-1-25 SITE DATA: Location: North side of State Route 25, approximate- ly 1,139 feet northeast of Sound Road, Greenport Acreage: 132.08 acres Zoning History: Year Rezoned: 1971: 57.55 acres t983: 74..53 acres The Change of Zone Petition files do not show why the rezoning was requested. The 1971 rezoning also created 12.43 acres of Business Zoning around an historic residence, known as Brecknock Hall. In 1983, the amount of land in the "M" Light zone was increased by 74.53 acres for a total of 132 acres. A filed Covenant and Restriction holds the total number of dwelling units to 350, and sets aside a reserved scenic area of 37.92 acres. This parcel was rezoned HD in 1989, when the Town eliminated the "M" Light Multiple Residence zon- ing classification from its Zoning Code and Map. Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany Wolewitz, A. 1993 LBV Properties 1992 Greenport Dev. Co. · Brecknock Assoc. G. Schad Pollert & Wife $4,000,000 (foreclosure) 1984 $3,850,000' 1980 $ 354,000 no consideration 1969 $ 800,000 1949 or earlier NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATUP~ES AND LIMITATIONS: The property is about 1,500 feet from the Village boundary. It contains about 2,700 feet of prime water- front on Long Island Sound complete with bluffs and beaches. This property is listed by the State as being part of the Eastern Bluffs Complex which stretch- es from Orient Point west to Miller Place. The some- what rolling terrain contains mature old field vegeta- tion, woods, ponds and associated wetlands. In 1988 a large excavation was s~arted where one of the ponds/stormwater drainage facilities was to be locat- ed. The sand has been removed from the premises, but the pond was never completed. The oxcavatsd area remains ~pen to the weather without benefit'of erosion controls. ; The likoly increase in traffic from the development cf a parcel of this size are likely to require modifica- tions to State Route 25 and possibly the intersection of SR 25 and Sound Drive. SUP~ROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: To the north lies Long Island. Sound. To the east lies the Island End golf course, which is zoned R-80. To the south are State Route 25 and two historic residenc- es, one of which is Brecknock Hall. Brecknock Hall is located within the LB district, The other historic residence is located within the HD district. To the west li~s vacant land that was just rezoned f~om R-S0 to HD and R-40. South of SR 25 opposite this parcel there is a mix of zoning: 'a vacant R-80-zoned parcel, a vacant Residential Office-zoned parcel and an estab- lished residential cor~nunity zoned R-40. STATUS OF DEVELOP>lENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: In 1987, a site plan for 350 condominiual units was approved by the Planning Board. Since then, three building permits have been issued: one to construct ~_he pumphouse for the public supply well; one to build a foundation for the recreation center, and one to build a foundation for one of the residential build- ings. Certificates of Occupancy were issued for the pu/,phouse and the residential foundation in 1991.. The permit for the recreation center was voided in Decear~- her of 1990 without the foundation being built. To our knowledge, there has been no building activity since that time. There is a unresolved dispute over the cost of the water and sewer contracts. Curb cut approval and other permits from the NYS Dep~rtment of Transporta- tion are not on file, and may not have beon obtained. Landscaping and excavation k~nds are 'still on file with the Town. PUBLIC POLICY: The zoning and the site plan on this parcel contra- dicts the Goals and Policy Objectives of the Comprehen- stye Plan in several ways. First, although the west- ern edge of the property is within 1500 feet of the Village boundary, it is separated by a heavily-trav- elled State Road and it is not located within easy walking distance to the hamlet's business cgnter~ nearly a mile to the south. Second, the placement of high density residential zoning on prime and sensitive waterfront property contradicts our policies of encouraging the preserva- tion of environmentally sensitive areas, m_nd of promot- ing development patterns that are responsive to or protective of sensitive coastal features and scenic vistas, as well being co~ensurate with available water supplies. Third, the size of this HD-zoned parcel relative to the Village hamlet threatens to draw from the ham- 1pt rather than work to preserve and strengthen the hamlet center. Although the nearby Limited Business zones are, strictly speaking, not within the purview of this review, its sheer size (more than 16 acres in total) require that its combined impact with the HD parcel on the Village be considered. The net effect of 133.+ acres of HD-zoned land and 16+ acres of LB-zoned land adjacent to one another on the north side of SR 25 creates enormous potential for the development of a satellite hamlet with its own busi- ness district just 1200 feet north of the 9illage boundary, and less than a mile from its business cen- ters. While the Comprehensive Plan calls for the creatio~ of a new hamlet, creating one adjacent to an existing one that is in need of economic revitaliza- tion and has strained water and sewer facilities.is not consistent with the other goals of preserving and · strengthening existing hamlets. --~ The Town would not profit from such a situation, and neither would the Village. The economic stability of Greenport Village is important to the Town because of Greenport's position as a transportation hub, as a major deep-water port, as a tourist designation, and as provider of public water to significant portions of the Town. The two govgrnmental entities cannot afford to work at cross purposes with the other. Finally, the draft Long Island Coastal Zone Management plan recor~mends that this entire site be preserved in conjunction with its recommendation that undeveloped, relatively undisturbed forested properties within the Eastern Bluffs Complex by acquired to protect wildlife habitat. The Eastern Bluffs Complex encompasses the soundfront from Orient west to Miller Place. 11 PdECO?~NDATION: Rezone the property to a lower density residential uss that better protects coastal resources, 'and that pro- vides for a level of residential development that is more compatible with the existing infrastructure and economic development of the hamlet of the Villa~en 12 -80 ', f PARCEL ~5 - SC~4 ~ 45-2-10.3 SITE DATA: Location: East side of Chapel Lane, south of County Route 48 and north of State Route 25, Greenport Acreage: Originally 26.57 acres: Now 20.07 acres. Zoning History: Year Rezoned: 2.25.75. This property was rezoned by the Town at the request of St. Peter's Lutheran Church for the express purpose of constrtlcting "multiple resi- dences for a senior citizen retirement con~nunity." Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany Richard Mohring 1993 NFB & Trust 1993 ? St. Peter's Church 1974 Ch~eel Lane Assocs. 1971 DeShrage 1968 King-Greenport Assocs. 1965 Judysteve Corp. 1965 King foreclosure $175,000 $ 34,500 mrtge. 1949 or earlier NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS: A full scale environmental review was never conducted on this parcel so the information available is limit- ed. The site is presently wooded, with some old field around the disturbed portion of the site where the, only four buildings of the proposed elderly housing complex. were constructed. There are serious drainage problems that will add to the cost of development on this site due to the depth of the clay ~ubstrata. The depth of the clay also means that this site cannot be developed without public water and sewer. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: The property is currently bounded on its north the San Simeon Nursing Home. To the east lies another parcel being studied in this review, (Parcel ~ 7), and the Village Parklands; to the south, a garage building, St. Peter's Lutheran Church and the former Skyway Drive-In Movie Theatre. Chapel Lane borders the entire western edge of the. property. The woodland to the cast of this property is in the village's Park District. Parcel ~1 (in this study) lies approximately 1000 feet to the east of this prop- erty. Thc property's south border is zoned'L~ited Business. A churchr a garage and a former drive-in theatre lic within this LB district. With the exception of strip of LB zoning north of SR 25, all the land west of Chapel Lane clear to Albertson Lane is zoned R-80. A LILCO Substation lies within the LB distric~ to thc west of Chapel Lane, as does the Drosses Motel complex about a thousana ~ecn or more from the intersection of Chapel Lsme and SR 25. Much of the remainder of. the land west of Chapel Lane is vacant, probably due to the fact that towards Albertson Lane, much cf the area is covered with fresh- water wetland. STATUS OF DE\~LOPMENT: APPROVALS BJ~D I~[FRASTRUCTURE: In 19~4, a site plan for thc southwestern portion of this parcel was approved. Four buildings containing eight dwelling units were constr~cted. Public water and sewer service was connected and Cer'tificates of Occupancy were issued in 1986. However, the units were never occupied. In 1990, the Planning Board gave approval to a condo minium unit designation map showing 36 dwelling units on 7.74 acres. This map included the eight dwelling units that were constructed in 1986. There is a site plan application penning for this condominium pian. 'No plans have been filed for the remainder of the property which includes 12.6 acres of HD zoning and about 10 acres of LB zoning (the drive-in and the garage.) PUBLIC POLICY: The limited environmental information available sug- gests that this property is not a suitable site for the Hamlet Density intensity of use. The constraints on the site are such that the avaIlability of public water and sewer are absolute prerequisites for develop- ment. Furthermore, due to the depth of the clay sub- strata, thc potential yield on this site is likely to be compromlsed because of the amount of land that will need to be set aside to handle stormwater drainage. The stormwater drainage is a matter of concern because 14 this property drains to the wetlands and the Bay to the south. The Town's Master Plan and the subsequent r~cor~ende- tions for its implementation argue for channeling development towards the existing hamlets. T~is policy requires that new development be directed first to vacant land within the hamlets, then to vacant land in close proximity thereto. It al~o requires where reha- bilitation or renovation of the existing building stock can both preserve the character of the hamlet and provide alternative housing choices, that this be pursued first before creating new residential centers isolated from the hamlets. The site fails to meet the criteria for proximity and accessibility to a hamlet, especially for afford- able rental housing~ It is not within walking dis- tance of the Village hamlet, and the necesary utili- ties do not seem to be assured at this time. For these reasons, the site does not seem to meet with the Goals and Policy Objectives of the MastEr Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The property should be zoned to a density level more compatible with its environmental constraints, and more consistent with the Comprehensive or Master Plan recommendations for a parcel remote from a hamlet center. ./ : J PARCEL ~6 - SCTM $ 102-1-33.3 SITE DATA: Northermmost end of 1.~76 feet nmrth of S~ate RouTe Cukcho~ae In 1982. ~%e ~rc~ a~m~ pe~tio~ for a ~I" Light ~ulCipl~ Res~4~%~] for t~e purpose of construc~ting a r~iden~si :n,~,-ml~nity for senior citizens adjacent to the ~ing business dis- trict of Cutthogue. Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany Nocro Ltd. 1986 Seacroft Ltd. 1986 Leisure Green 1983 Leisure to Leisure 1982 Leisure 1973 Mill Matt Agency Inc. Mandaro & Ano 1971 1949 or earlier $ 69,000 (31.5 acres) $101,500 NU~kBLE PHYSI'CALF~Au~ES~LIMIT3~TIONS: The D~f~ ~mt~ ~a~ S~tsment for this ~roje~t ~ ~t~ ~~tal info.etlon. The f~l ElS fez t~s ~r~ ~ ~t been co~leted. ~er a vineyard, and a woode6 parcel that ia the site of a eew clustered resideetial su~d/visiom, al/ of which iD zoned Agricuiturai-Co~servation (A-C). To the east, the parcel is bordered by another vineyard and other land in active agricultural production, all of which is.zoned R-80. To the south, the parcel is 16' bordered by Griffing Street, School House Road, a building, vacant land, and the grounds of Sacred Hearn Church. All of this land except the church is zoned Hamlet Business (HB). The church properly is zoned R-40. The properties that abut the western border of this parcel are zoned R-40 also. STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTIIRE: A sine plan application for a 160 unit condominium complex for senior citizens was made in 1984n A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was submitted in 1988~ The applicant was asked to submit a Final EIS in 1989. There has been no furnher action on this appli- cation since that tL~e. PUBLIC POLI~f: The current zoning of this parcel is in keeping with the goals and objectives of hhe Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan. The property is within walking dis- tance of the traditional core of Cutchogue hamlel. The property contains good agricultural soils, but is no5 environmentally sensitive. Due to its location just north of the hamlet's traditional center, this parcel, when developed, is likely to strengthen the hamlet. This project has generated much opposition within the community. And while its la~ge size will have an impact on traffic, and the functioning and character of the Cutchogue hamlet, it nevertheless meets the criteria for location within the hamlet center and the provision of alternative housing choices. --~ RECOM~iENDATION: This property is zoned appropriately at this time. 17 r" PARCEL ~7 - SCTM # 45-2-1 SITE DATA: Location: South side of County Route 48, 805 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport (Also approximately 1400 feet west of Parcel ~1.) Acreage: 1.2 acres Zoning History: Year Rezoned: 1-10-89 This parcel was rezoned by.the Town when the 1989 Zoning Map was adopted. Prior to this time, this tot was zoned "A" Residential-Agricultural. Re- search to date has not unearthed an explanation for this change: so we don't know if Ehis rezon- lng was intentional or a drafting mistake. Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany John Siolas & wife 1985 $38,500 Delandas 1974 $15,000 Pauli 1964 two parcels $ 3,000 King 1949 or earlier NOTABLE PMYSICAL FEATURES AiYD LIMITATIONS: There is little environmental information available on this property. The aerial photograph of this property shows it to be wooded. It slopes towards the south.as does the San Simeon nursing home site 50 feet to its west. There is a 50 foot buffer between this parcel and San Simeon Nursing Home, which is an intensely developed site. The small size of this property probably is its big gest physical limitation. It is likely to be ecnonomically inefficient to develop according to the HD potential. SURROUNDING LAlqD USES AND ZONING; This property is bounded on the north by CR 48. To the east and south lie the Village Parklands. To the west lies San Simeon Nursing Home, which is zoned HD also. This property was originally bounUed by Parcel ~5~ In 1993; the owner of Parcel ~5 filed for a lot-line change. The northern part of Parcel ~5 was given ~o ' the nursing home to provide for its future expansion. As a result, the area of the nursing home s~te in- creased from 3.58 acres to about 10 acres. The lot area of the subject parcel decreased from 26.57 acres to about 20 acres. STATUS OF DEVF~OPMENT: A~PROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: There is no record of any attempt to develop this .parcel Ln the Planning Board's files. PUBLIC POLICY: This parcel shares with Parcels ~1 and 5, the same drawbacks and lack of compliance with the stated goals and intent Of the HD district and the Master Plan as it pertains to preserving the hamlets. Using the criteria set forth by the Master Plan Update and subsequent recommendations, the ~/D zoning makes no sense unless this parcel were to be merged with the San S~meon Nursing Home. However, it is under separate ownership at this time. The existence of the nursing home presents a dile~a. Southold is a retirement community as well as a resort community. The average age of the population in Southold is 44 years, and the trend looks as if it will continue upward. There is in an insufficient supply of nursing facilities in Town, and this alone is an argument in favor for the build-out of the origi- nal proposal. RECOMmeNDATION: The parcel's small size and close proximity to the intensely developed nursing home site will work to its disadvantage as a strictly residential lot, unless the 50 foot buffer between the parcel and the nursing home is preserved. If this buffer is maintained, the fact that the lot is 420 feet deep and is bordered on its east and south sides by parkland will work to its advantage as a residential lot for one residence. 19 R~-80 AHO PARCEL ~ S - SC%~ ~ 035-1-24 SITE DATA: Location: North side of State Route 25, 564 feet east of Sound Drive, Greenport Acreage: 62 acres Zoning History: Year Rezoned: 12.07.93 This property originally was zoned R-80 which is equivalent to two-acre residential density. The lower 42 acres of this parcel were rszoned Helmet Density: and the northerly 20 acres on Long ms- land Sound were rezoned R-40 or one-acre residen- tial density. One of the stated reasons for this change of zone was to provide affordable hc:~sing~ Ownership History / Year Acquired Jem Realty Co. 1979 $400,000 J. Rath 1977 TLme Structures Inc. 1963 $115,000 split from P. Sinuta NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATUP~ES A~ LIMITATIONS: This property is adjacent to Parcel #4 which was analyzed earlier. Detailed environmental information is available frcm the Draft and Final Environm. ental Impact Statements. The site contains prime farm ~ soils, but has not been used for agriculture for many years. It is covered with transitional old field vegetation and young woods. The parcel's 1,441 feet of soundfront contain bluffs that range in height from 30 to 50 feet. The bluff area is considered to be stable, but subject to erosion from human activity as well as northeasters. Behind the bluffs, the property slopes to the south, dropping to 12 feet above sea level at SR 25. age. There is about 576 feet of road front- SURROUNDING LAIRD USES AiqD ZONING:. This parcel is bordered on its north by Long island Sound; and on the east by more than 133 acres of most- ly undeveloped land which was studied earlier as Par- cel #4. Most of Parcel #4 is zoned HD, but the south- · 2 0 · western corner of it is zoned' Limited Business (LB) and it cor~tains the historic residence known as - Brecknock.Hall. To the sou~h lies Porky's Restau- rant and State Route 25. The area around P~rky's Restaurant is zoned LB also. To the west, this parcel · is bordered by residential homes fronting on Sound Drive, all of which are zoned R-40. STATUS OF DE%rELOPMENT: AJPPROVALS AiqD IlqFtlASTRUCTUtLE: No applications for subdivision or site plan have been made. PUBLIC POLICY: When this parcel is viewed in conjunction with Parcel #4, studied earlier, and the LB zones (Porky's ResT taurant and Brecknock Hall), it becomes evident ~hat the net effect of this zoning pattern is to create a very high density residential and business center just outside the Village boundaries. This would appear to be contrazs; to the several of the goals of the Master Plan. First, the parcel is separated from the Village by a heavily travelled State road, and is not located with- in easy wal31ing distance to the business center of Greenport Village, which is nearly a mile to the south. Second, the size of the HD parcel (42 acres), when considered with the 133+ acres of t~he adjoining HD- zoned property to the .east (Parcel # 4) and the 16 acres of LB zoning abutting it, will work against ... attempts to strengthen and preserve the character and economic integrity of the Greenport Village' hamlet and business center. Greenport's role as a transportation hub, deepwater port, tourist designation and provid- er of public water is important to the Town as a whole; and this should be recognized by the Town in its public policies. Third, this parcel, together with Parcel $4 will have an impact on the volume of traffic aG the Sound Drive, SR 25 and CR 48 intersection. The State has acknowl- edged this impact by requiring road and intersection modifications for development associated with Parcel $4, and may well require additional modifications for this site. Fourth, the availability of public water or sewer to this site is not assured at this time. Finally, the appropriateness of the R-40 designation must be addressed. The R-80 zoning designation that preceded this rezoni-g was the base zoning in Southeld Town since 1983 whe~ ~he Town increased the minimum required lot area for its sole residential zoner ~'A"~ from one acre to two acre. In 1~89~ the Town reaf- firmed its 1983 decision by zoning the subject parcel R-80, which is equivalent to the two acre density. The recent rezoning to R-40 had the effect cf placing twice the residential density on the most enviror~en- tally sensitive part of the property, which is con- tra~y to our policy of encouraging the preservation of enviroramentally sensitive areas~ and of promoting development patterns that are responsive tc sensitive coastal features such as bluffs. The sensitivity of this site's waterfront and bluffs can be judged by noting the New York Department of State:s recc~nenda- tion that the adjoining parcel to the east {Parcel i4) be preserved in its entirety because of its importance as wildlife habitat and as an ex~-,q~ie of the Eastern Bluffs ecological complex. Further, the trade-off of twenty acres of R-40 zoning on sensitive coastal prope-~y for the prevision of forty-two acres of affcrd~a:e housing to the south has no basis or support in our public policies for land use planning. There no demonstrated need for new affordable single-family housing in a hamlet that already contains a disproportionate share of the Town's affordable units. In fact, the Town hms not seen to it Lhat opportunities for new affordable hous- ing are spread throughout the Town so that each hamlet is able to provide such opportunities for its resm- dents. RECOS~ENDATION: Rezone the property to a lower density residential use that will prouact its sensitive coastal resources~ and that will provide for a level of residential devel- opment that is more compatible with the infrastructure and economic development of the Village hamlet. 22 .,RHD LB R~40 R--80 APPENDIX A Goals and Policies for 1984 Master Plan Update (Underlining emphasis added.) GOAL: Overall Planning Provide a co~m/nity of residential har~ets which are:'. comprised of a variety of housing opportunities and commercial, service, and cultural activities; serving to establish a sense of place; set in a open or rural atmosphere; supported by a diversified economic base (including agriculture, marine connnercial.and seasonal recreation activities) that maximizes the Town's natural assets, including its coastal location; and are striving for a co~atibil%ty between the natlkral environment and development. POLICY: Overall Planning Implement planning t~Dlicies which provide for a number of housing tlrpes, promote agricultural preservation, encourage the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, protect groundwater, encourage water-dependent and water-enhanced uses of coastal lands, and support co~ercial and industrial activities in appropriate locations. GOALS: Housing / Residential Development Preserve the existing housing stock and provide the opportunity for the development of a variety of housing · types to meet the needs of people at various stages of the life cycles, various income and age levels and househ01~ compositions. POLICY: Housing / Residential Development Encourage housing development, of varying types and densities, in and around existing hamlets. GOALS: Environment Preserve and enhance the Town's natural environment. POLICIES: Environmen5 23 Restrict development in wetlands, tidal marshes, bluffs, dunes and beaches. Promote a development pattern that is responsive to sensitive areas exhibiting prime agricultural so~!s, poor drainage, high water table, high erosio~ hazard, ~f!ood hazard, sensitive coastal features, great scenic quality and woodlands. Promote development patterns that are at a scale That is commensurate with the available water sumply. GOALS: Cultural Environment Preserve and strengthen the hamlets as cultural, residential and commercial centers of activity in the Town; as a means of creating viable uses for historic buildings and areas and encouraging a "sense of place." POLICf: Cultural Environment Plan for intensity and mix of development of hamlet centers that improve the viability, functioning and aesthetics of hamlet commercial centers without changing the scale of the centers. GOALS: Waterfront Maximize appropriate use of coastal areas in a manner that protects-sensitive coastal areas, maximizes access to the water and achieves economic benefit. POLICIES: Waterfront .. Increase the number and quality of public beach~s. Insure physical and/or visual access to scenic vistas and waterfront areas. GOALS: Transportation Insure adequate movement of people and goods within Southold, as well as into and out of Town, in a manner that maximizes safety and maintains the integrity of residential and agricultural areas. GOALS: Community Facilities/Utilities Ensure the provision of an adequate range of con~nunity facilities, services and utilities to accommodate existing and future Town needs in a convenient and cost effective manner. These Goals and Policies were drafted as a means of address~g' the relevant planning issues. (Copies of the April and May 1983 memoranda from the Town's planning consultants which detail these issues follows.) I. [ [ Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc. 555 ~A, hite Plains Road, Tarrytown, NY 10591 914/631-9003 212,'~65 2666 emerandum April 26~ 1983 TO: Southold Planning Board FROM: RPPW, Inc. RE: PLANNING ISSUES The Town Master Plan has to address various issues, many of which are interrelated and many of which require consideration of alternative responses. Based upon the preliminary analysis of the various factors affecting planning in Southold~ the following are the issues to be addressed in the Plan: A. Overall Pattern of Development Protection of Town's Rural/Exurban Character ref!e~ted in a combination of hamlet centerst farmland~ large expanses of undeveloped land - accommodation of new development within this framework Suitabilitv of Land for Develooment development or retention of farmland proximity to/adequacy of community services protection of environmental features 2-wetlands;- tidal marsh; dunes, beaches and bluffs; scenic vistas; waterways - creeks and ponds; · physical constraints high water table~ steep slope; poor soil pe~meability; flood hazard areas; erosion hazard areas - siltation · drainage problems 3. Agriculture · economic viability; chan~ing structure; cost changing crops · availability of farm labor · impact on water quality and on water quantity · preservation of land for farming or open space of 4.' Water SuPPlY - Quantity and Quality · protection of subsurface water from pollution emanating from development and agriculture; implications for development policy sufficiency of potable wat'er to service future development, especially in Orient, East Marion and along coastline · approach.to supply of water - individual wells; small central systems; few larger systems · implications of importing water; desalinization of salt water Housing/Residential Develomment · distribution/density · lack of affordable housing for low, moderate and middle income segments of population · absence of small.units - older and younger one and two person households · seasonal vs. year-round housing · conversion of seasonal to year-round Population Mix · aging of population - decline of labor force; implications for volunteer services such as fire and rescue seI-vice; changing service needs · year-round/seasonal implications for services Aporoved - Unbuilt Subdivisions · why unbuilt - density; location; physical conditions · implications for water consumption; other services · ownership pattern - affect upon'future planning/ zoning Traffic and Transporta'tion · adequacy of existing major east-west~oads to accommodate traffic; technical capacity - desired levels of traffic · safety at several key locations · private roads - emergency access - implications for access to beaches · need for or appropriateness of improved north- south roads · need for and location of a Town airport · adequacy of service by buses and trains - year-- round/summer season/time of day · need to encourage expansion of ferry service to markets in New England ~J expand !- I- I I i ! I I_ [ I_ !_ L L I L L 9. Economy seasonality of economy - need to expand and/or create year-round economy; increase jobs for young adults · stability of agriculture and fishing - need to protect resources (farmland, fish habitats) appropriateness of encouraging agriculture and fishing as elements of economy; maricul~ure · need for flexibility on part of farmers an~ farm workers - retraining · limited growth potential for comm. erce and industry including fishing and agriculture · expansion of seasonal/tourist economy 10. Historic and Cultural Resources · preservation as part of Town:s quality; heritage · enhancement for economic purposes 11. Seasonal Deve!oDment how much, where and what type (seasonal residences/transient tourist) land consumption and potential damage to environment; importance to economy jobs and tax base; limited demand on many services 12. Hamlet Centers · preserve scale and character/concentration of housinq and services · focus of Town's economy - commerce - limit strip commercial development · historic preservation program Community Facilities 13. . Schools · potential consolidation - potential increase in shared services · extent to which existing physical plant can accommodate additional enrollment · school plant as resource for recreation/cultural and educational activities coordination of use and programming 14. · implications of expandin~ Greenport system limited capacity 15. · use of individual inqround systems or s~all central inground systems limitation on density; impact on subsurface water. · new treatment systems - cost; level of development necessary to support versus desired density of development ~ Water Supply · protection of quality of supply · continuation of individual wells versus central supply · treatment of individual and public/community systems wells; costs · import water or desalihization · establishment of Town supply and/or treatment district to serve all or part of Town · expansion of Greenport system 16. Public Safetv · Fire - assurance that all areas of Town covered - n'eed to improve accessibility to some areas; future availability of manpower; substandard private roads · Police adequacy of facilities for future development; seasonal expansion · Emergency-Rescue - sufficient for emergencies; only one ambulance service for general medical transportation; manpower 17. Recreation 18. need to assure access to water for recreation including boat launch and mooring sites, beaches, and scenic vistas · need additional recreation areas End open s'pace areas in scme parts of the Town · swimming pool; youth center(s) ~ ~ · access to School facilities assures a~ailability of basic facilities to all areas of the Town Landfill · life of present facility limited - expand or pursue alternative source of disposal · landfill on aquifer - threat to subsurface water · methane gas - use for energy or dissipate ~9 Il I I l Coastal Issues 19. Access to Water · beaches - swimming, bathing, walking, viewing scenic vistas · boat launching on north shore/launching and mooring on south shore for commercial and recreational fishermen · attractiveness for private residential/commercial development often precludes maintenance or, access ® use for resort facilities 20. Quality of Coastal Waters · critical to fishing industry and recreationsi fishing · swimming/water sports · marine habitat · encouragement of marieulture development 21. Coastal Land Use Conflicts availability of land for marine commercial uses as a priority objective · need for additional boat slips - dredging · competition with water-enhanced uses such as restaurants, motels 22. Protection of Sensitive Coastal Environment · tidal marshes · dunes, beaches, · scenic vistas · water quality bluffs 23. Salt Water Intrusien · need to Protect ground wate'r area development limit on coastal 24. Navigability of Waterways · siltation and dredging beds/spawning grounds disruption of shellfish The Master Plan will'address these issues. The next step will be to establish a set of ~oals to serve as a mechanism to meafure. the response to the issues. The process for establishing a concensus on goals will be one of the initial steps in Phase the preparation of the Plan itself. 30 I L L L !_ I ~a¥~or~L, P~r(sh. P~ner & Weiner, Inc. 555 Whi~e Plains Road. TarrYtown, NY 10591 914/651.9OO3 2~21265-2666 Me.mcrsndum June 201, 1983 TO: FROM: RE: Southhold Planning Board RPPW, Inc. PLANNING GOALS A clear statement of the Town's long range goals is an important element of the planning process in that it forms the basis for various long and short range objectives, policies, strategies, and programs. Such.a statement will help to crystalize in the minds of residents, business people, and public and private decisionmakers the precise directions in which the Town should develop. Suck a statement is useful in setting priorities as well. ~ While the goals are general, if there is a consensus or general agreement on them and on their interpretation, they provide justification for more specific elements of the planning and development process. To achieve this consensus and a sense of priorities, a process for refining the initial statemen~ needs to. be carried =out. This memorandum sets forth an initial statement of goals which can serve as a basis for discussion. This initial statement is drawn from several sources including meetings of the Master Plan Workshop, discussions with various representatives of Town agencies, private business, institutions' and environmental and real.estate groups. This initial statement does not necessarily reflect the order of priority. It may very well be that as 'discussions proceed, priorities will become evident and adjustments will be made. The main purpose of this memo is to stimulate thinking and discussion on this important topic as a basis for the Town Plan. 31 PRC. POSED GOALS DJ{D POLICIES Overall Planninc Goal Provide a community of residenmial kamlets whick are: comprised of a variety of housing opportunities and commer- cial, service~ and cu!zural activities~ servinq to establish a sense of place; set in an open or rural atmosphere[ supported by a diversified economic base (includin~ £qricmi- ture, marine commercial and seasonal recreation acmivities) that maximizes the Town's natural asseta~ including its coastal location; and are striving for a ccmpatibiL£~y beo¢een the natural environmen~ and development. .Policies Implement plannit? policies which provide for a nnr~er of housing types, promote agricultural preservaticn£ encourage the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, protect groundwater, encourage water-dependent and water-enhanced uses of coastal lands, and support commercial and industrial activities in approprizze locations. Housin~/~aeidentia! Develomment Goals Preserve the existing housing stock and provide the oppor- tunity for the development of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of people at various stages of the life cycle, various income and age levels and household composi- tions. Policies Encourage housing development, of varying types and sities, in and around existi'ng hamlets. Using available assistance proqrams as well as land use, regulatory techniques and procedures to provide such assis- tance as may be needed to provide affordable housinq~ especially tc younger and alder segmenms of the community and to allow retired or moderate income homee%~ners to maintain their p{eperties. Maintain the integrity of residential neighborhoods by preventing through traffic movement and by discouraging Uses that are inccmpatib!e with a residential environment. 32 !- I .I ! I ( 'l L L L L I .L I .L Acricultnral Preservation ~a!s Preserve the Town's ~rime f~-mland tinued use for agriculture~ and encourage its con- Policies Limit non-agricultural uses in designated prime agricultural areas through methods such as agricu!t~ral zoning and easements. Promote a Town agricultural preservation program, incor- porating purchase of development rights, transfer of dave'l- opment rights, public information training and financial assistance programs to enable farmers to diversify into more profitable crops. Enviror~ent Goals Preserve and enhance the Town's natural environment. ~Iaintain and protect Southold's agricultural heritage and pastoral and open quality. -.' Insure that there is adequate quantity of potable water to serve $outhold's year-round and seasonal populations. Policies Restrict develop..ment in wetlands, tidal marshes, bluffs, dunes and beaches. Promote a development pattern that is responsive to sensi- tive areas exhibiting prime .agricultural soils, poor drain- age, high water table, high erosion hazard, flood hazard, sensitive coastal features, grea~ scenic quality and wood- lands. Protect the Town's water supply from further contamination by encouraging the use of techniques that reduce pollution from fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides (agricultural and residential), requiring adequate water supply and seotic system conditions for new development, and employinq minimal maintenance dredging of streams (to minimize salt wa~e'r intrusion). Promote development patterns that are at a scale that is commensurate with the available water supply. 33 Maintain and improve surface water qualit~f by red,acius ~ sources of pollution and utilizing modern runoff csntro! techniques to reduce stream siltation. Maintain finfishinq and shellfishin~ habitats by reducing sources of pollution and by limiting dredging cf streams and disturbance of wetlands. Cultural Environment Goals Preserve the historic, cultural, architectural and archae- ological resources of the Town. Preserve hud strengthen the hamlets as cultural, residential and commercial centers of activity in the Town; as a means of creating viable uses for historic buildings and areas and encouraging a "sense of place." Policies Promote the inventorying of cultural resources and encsurage the establishment of Town historic districts and preserva- tion of historic buildings and sites. Plan for intensity and mix of development of hamlet centers that improve the viability, functioning and aesthetics of hamlet commercial centers without changing the scale of the centers. Economic Develooment Goals Strengthen and diversify the Town's eccncmic base as a means 'of stabilizing and expanding the tax base and year-round and seasonal employmen~ opportunities. Policies Encourage diversification of agricultural crops and the marketing of Southcld as a prime location for climate- sensitive forms of agriculture. Strengthen the Town's important commercial fishing and agriculture industries. Promote Vacation Town's year-round heritage- and seasonal uses with respect for the needs, environmental features and rural I I 'l .1 I~prove the Tg:~n~s existing commercial areas but do not enc~u~_age large scale expansion of current development. t_km development of further7 public and privatD' activities' in the'waters adjacent to the Town. Encourage ~ development of land based qupport facilities for the T~wn's fishing indust~I. Provide opportunities to accommodate office and research · development, light industry and industries related to other elements of the economy. Limit strip commercial areas and encourage the concentration of commercial uses in existing shopping areas. Waterfront Goals Maximize appropriate use of coastal areas in a manner that protects sensitive coastal areas, maximizes access to the water and achieves economic benefit. Policies Promote water-dependent and water-related uses.in waterfront areas which are not environmentally sensitive. Protect the quality of coastal waters. Increase the number and quality of public beaches. Insure physical and/or visual access to scenic vistas and waterfront areas< Promote co~ercial and recreational fishinq and boating opportunities where there are no conflicts with~xisting residential development or sensitive natural features. Promote maintenance of existing navigable waterways. Transportation Goals Insure adequate movement of people and goods Southold, as well as into and out of Town, in a manner that maximizes safety and maintains the integrity of residentia~ and agricultural areas. 35 Policies Encourage the use and/or development cf public transporta- .tion. Encourage roadway and intersection improvements =~a~ ~¢ili improve the flow of traffic and promote safe-ay= Com~,unitv Facilities/Utilities Goals Ensure the provision of an adequate range of community facilities, services and utiliuies to accommodate existing and future Town needs in a convenient and cosu effective manner. Improve, maintain and expand where appropriate to accommo- date present and future development of the water supply~ sanitary sewer, storm drainage and solid waste disposal systems in order to support the desired level of development and to maintain and protect a healthful living environment~ a viable economic base and the natural envirornnent. Provide an open space and recreation system adequate in size~ and location to serve the total (seasonal and year-round) ~ population. Assure availability of and/or access to a full range of modern health services, including emergency services~ fcr all citizens. Provide a full spectrum of accessible educational facilities 'and services to meet the needs of all segments of the community in the most efficient and effective manner. Promote the provision and availability Of necessary social services, including appropriate neighborhood~ sehior citi- zen, and day care facilities. Provide a full range of public safety services (police, fire, ambulance, rescue, etc.) necessary to create an environment of personal security and protection of property. APPENDIX B 'Brief Synopsis of Changes Made to Specific ~oning Districts in the Southold Town Code 1957 - ~1989 In 1957, there were only three zoning districts: "A" Residential and Agricultural, "B" Business and "C" Industrial. The "9' district permitted one-family dwellings and a number of other commtunity facility-type uses, but not multiple dwellings. The "B"-district, however, permitted two-famLly dwellings and.multiple family dwellings, provided however that the lot area and other requirements of the "A" district were complied with. In 1958, the "M" Multiple Residence District was added to the Zoning Code. This district permitted all the uses allowed in the "9' district, plus multiple dwellings designed for and occupied by not more than four families. Hotels, motels, boarding and touristhouses and cottages were also permitted. The minimum lot area required ih this district was 12,500 square feet. It is interesting to note tha5 in 1958, the i'B" district permitted multiple family dwellings as regulated by specific provisions of the "A" district. In fact, the "B" district allowed densities up to twenty families on one acre of land. By contrast, the "M" district only permitted a density of four families per 12,500 square feet or about fourteen units to the acre.' In 1966, the Zoning Code was amended to provide two multiple residential districts: "M" and "M-l". The "M" Multiple Residence district allowed all the uses permitted in the "A" district plus dwellings designed for and occupied by not more than four families, boarding and tourist houses, motels and hotels, tourist cottages and camps, and non-commercial marinas. The "M-I" district was similar except that it did not allow hotels, motels, tourist cottages or camps, and non-commercial marinas. The minimum required lot area remained at 12,500 square feet per lot. The 1966 Code also had three business districts, of which only the "B-2" district is of interest to Us here. That district allowed all the uses allowed in the "A", "M", and "M-I" districts along with multiple dwellings and bonafide commercial uses. The maximum allowable density was still twenty units to the acre. And, the allowable density in both multiple residence districts still limited to the equivalent of fourteen tD the acre. 37 In 1971 the entire Zoning Code was revamped. The '~M" District was renamed the "M" Light Multiple Residence District: and, the "M-i" Multiple Residence district was renamed the "M-1'' General Multiple Residence District. In the "M" Light district~ all "A" uses were permitted by right, along with multiple dwellings for up to four fa/~ilies and boarding and tourist houses. T~e "M-i~ General district permitted all the uses allowed in Light. But other uses that previously were permitted as of right (such as non-con~narcial marinas, multiple dweLlings~ motels and hotels and tourist camps) now required a Special ~xceptlon. In 1971, the requ~ed minimum ~ot areas increased, dramatically, to 40~D00 squ~re feet for "A'~ and "M" Light districts; and 80,000 square feet for ~'M-!" General districts. Also in 1971, the three business districts were consolidated back to two districts. One parcel under review in this study was changed from "B-2" to "B'~ Light Business. Ail uses that were permitted in the ~'M" and "M-i" districts ware also permitted in the "B" Light , district, exactly as provided for in the multiple residence districts. In keeping with other increases~ the minimum lot area in the "B'~ Light district was lncreasec to 20,000 square feet. In 1989, major changes were made to the Zoning Code, which is the one we use today. In this Code, both multiple residence districts were eliminated, and a new district, the Hamlet Density HD District, was created. The business districts were changed also. Today, the B General and H~ Hamlet Business districts closely parallel the business districts of the previous code, meaning that multiple dwellings are allowed by Special Exception within these zones. 38 Draft Notes from the Town Board Work Session on Hamlet Density review, 2125/94 Boardmembers made a number of general conunents about the review, including these: There is a substantial amount of inappropriately zoned property in the Town and . it is now timely to deal with it. Of particular concern is the tendency towards suburban sprawl -- the natural form that development is likely to take in the absence of well thought-out planning~ The Master Plan and the Stewardship Task Force both emphasize hamlet-center development as appropriate to Towns like Southold. Promoting most growth in and around the hamlet centers s~xengthens the business Prospects of our "downtown" centers while keeping open space and farmland undeveloped. Greenport is a special planning case because the Incorporated ~illage has its own planning and zoning framework, it has the largest developed b~siness center in the Town, and because there is a preponderance of unbuilt I-ID parcels on the edge of the Incorporated Village. HD parcels, if developed to maximum density, require public water and public sewers. The Greenport Water Company has been called on to supply public water to some of the I-ID parcels but the utility has not been able to extend its system as requested in many cases. Property owners have options other than Greenport water, however, and at some future point SCWA water is a distinct possibility in the area. At present, ali Greenport water comes from wells within the Town but outside the Incorporated Village. The availability of public water and sewers may be a geeonda/-y concern but should not be a prima~ consideration in this review. It has been about ten years since RPPW began developi6g _its master plan recommendations; it is therefore appropriate to consider now possible modifications to the Master Plan and refinements in its implementation. .: The HD reviexv is only one of many possible changes that may be warra3ted in our zoning map. The Town Board will want to look into the appropriateness of other zones and policies, and will want to consider some positive incentives, particularly in the ham/et center areas, not simply additional restrictions. There are arguments for proceeding ahead only when the Board has a package of changes that addresses all or many of these needs, but it is probably not feasible to attempt to hold up all changes until we have agreement to enact them all at one time. The proposed review raises questions of the property rights of the owners. It is not clear that all owners would be disadvantaged by an upzoning. In certain cases, in particular those in which owners have actually begun constructing pursuant to a building permit, they may have vested rights. The "public good" is the ultimate criterion for Boardmembers to use in considering possible zone changes, i.e., posed as a question, is the proposed action (or inaction) likely to benefit the community as ~ whole? :' Boardmembers made these specific conunents regarding the eight parcels reviewed: Parcels I, 5 and 7 are relatively close together, have received almost'~no development activity (except for part of parcel 7), are almost completely wooded, and are farthest from the Greenport 'line. The arguments for rezoning may be strongest for these tttree. Parcel 2 has been used in the past for a boarding house. It has some wetlands at one end of the property and is surrounded on three sides by the Incorporated Village's park zone. Questions of hardship on the owners were, raised in the event of a rezoning. An RR designation may be warranted for this parcel. Parcel 3 is close enough to the Village center that it could remain HD. Alternatively, .it could be rezoned to match neighboring parcels (LIO, General Business). Parcels 4 and 8 are by far the most important of those under review because, among others, of their size (almost 500 units planned), location relative to the Village center, potential for traffic generation near a strategic road crossing, and frontage on the Sound. Because they have much in common and are adjacent, most of the arguments for one apply to the other. There is strong rationale for rezoning both parcels but there is also concern about possible vested rights of the owners. ~- The I-ID designation of parcel 6 in Cutchogue was generally aclmow!edged to be appropriate in view of its proximity to Cutchogue village. ::: The Supervisor said he would like to put this matter on as a for-discussion item at the next Town Board meeting (Mar 8) and would reserve an hour for the discussion. T. Wickham 2 Mar 94 Proposed Outline of the Review 1. Introduction and Background Purpose of HD Zone HD Uses by right and by spec exception Current extent of I-ID parcels Newly-created HD parcels through zone change How HD zones were treated in Master Plan Special impact of public water, sewers on HD zones, and 'vv. Need for the Review Concern .about GreenPort - Disproportionate concentration of density - Disproportionate concentration of affordable housing - Burden of providing public water, sewers Few HD parcels actually built out question of consistency of HD zones with: - Master Plan goals and objectives - US/UK Stewardskip Report - Stewardship Task Force recommendations (draft) Other . 3. Town Board Resolution of Jan. 4 Test of resolution Board's intent Asked staff to' carry out the review Criteria of the review Public Policy Physical limitations Surrounding land uses Status of Infrastructure Current state of development Other . . . Panel-by-Parcel Review Conclusions and Recommendations. DISCUSSION OF HD ZONE REVIEW Should HD zones be spread evenly through the Town or just focused around one or two hamlets? How should the goals of Raymond, Parrish, Pine and Wiener's memorandum on planning issues be applied to the present HD zones? What is the current state of development in the HD zones? Are there physical limitations on these properties, i.e. wetlands, bluffs, waterfront access, etc.? What are the land uses surrounding these HD zones? What is the status of the infrastructure (water and sewer) to serve these properties ? I i I' I I L L L i_ J_. I Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc. 555 While Plains Road, Tarr,~own, NY 10591 91~/531-g0~33 212/265-2665 Memorandum June 20, 1983 TO: FROM: P~E: Sauthhol~ Planning Board RPPW, Inc. PLA~NNING GOALS A. claar statement of the Town's long range goals is an important element of the planning process in that it forms the basis for various long and short range objectives, policies, strategies, and programs. Such a statement will help to crystalize in the minds of residents, business people, and public and private decisionmakers the precise directions in which the Town should develop. Such a statement is useful in setting priorities as well. While the goals are general, if there is a consensus or general agreement on them and on their interpretation, they provide justification for more specific elements of the planning and development process. ~ To achieve this consensus and a sense of priorities, a process .for refining the initial statement needs to be carried out. This memorandum sets forth an initial statement of goals W~ich can serve as a basis for discussion. ~'~ This initial statement is drawn from several sources including meetings of the Master Plan Workshop, discussions with various representatives of Town agencies, private business, institutions, and environmental and real estate groups. This initial statement does not necessarily reflect the order of priority. It may very well be that as discussions proceed, priorities will become evident and adjustments will be made. The main purpose of this memo is to stimulate thinking and discussion on this important topic as a basis for the Town Plan. PROPOSED GOALS .~ND POLICIES Overall Planning Goal Provide a community of residential hamlets which are: comprised of a variety of housing opportunities and commer- cial, service, and cultural activities: serving to establish a sense of place; set in an open or rural atmosphere~ supported by a diversified economic base (including agricul- ture, marine commercial and seasonal recreation activities] that maximizes the Town's natural assets, including its coastal location; and are striving for a compa=ibl!ity between the natural environment and development~ Policies Implement planning policies Which provide for a number of housing types, promote agricultural preservation~ encourage the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, protec= groundwater, encourage water-dependent and water-enhanced uses of coastal lands, and support commercial and industrial activities in appropriate locations. Housinc/R~sidential Development Goals Preserve the existing housing stock and provide the oppor- tunity for the development of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of people at various stages of the life cycle, various income and age levels and household composi- tions. Policies Encourage housing development, of varying types and den- sities, in and around existing hamlets. Using available assistance programs as well as land Use~ regulatory techniques and procedures to provide such assis- tance as may be needed to provide affordable housing~ especially to younger and older segments of the co--unity and to allow retired or moderate income homeowners to maintain their properties. Maintain the integrity of residential neighborhoods by' preventing through traffic movement and by discouraging uses that are incompatible with a residential envircnment~ 2 l L L L L I L I L A~ricultural Preservation Goals Preserve the Town's p~ime farmland and encouraqe its.-c~n~ tinued use for agriculture. Policies Limit non-agricultural uses in designated!prime agricultural areas through methods such as agricultural zen±ng}and easement~. Promote a Town agricultural preservation program, incor- porating purchase of development rights, transfer of devel- opment rights, public information training and financial assistance programs to enable farmers to diversify into more profitable crops. Environment Goals Preserve and enhance the Town's natural environment. Maintain and protect $outhold's agricultural heritage and pastoral and open quality. Insure that there'is adequate quantity of potable water to serve Southold's year-round and seasonal populations. Policies · . Restrict development in wetlands, tidal marshes, bluffs, · ~ dunes and beaches. Promote a development pattern that is responsive to sensi- tive areas exhibiting prime agricultural soils, poor drain- age, high water table, high'erosion hazard, flood hazard, sensitive coastal features, great scenic qualit~and wood- lands. Protect the Town's water supply from further contamination by encouraging the use of techniques that reduce pollution from fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides (agricultural and residential}, requiring adequate water supply and septic system conditions for new development, and employing minimal maintenance dredging of streams (to minimize salt water intrusion). Promote development patterns that are at a scale that is commensurate with the available water supply. Maintain and improve ·surface water quality by reduclng sources of pollution and utilizing modern runoff control techniques to reduce stream siltation. Maintain finfishing and shellfishing habitats by reduc.in~ sources of pollution and by llmiting dredging of streams, and disturbance of wetlands. Cultural Environment Goals Preserve the historic, cultural, architectural and arckae- ological resources of the Town. Preserve ~nd strengthen the hamlets as cultural~ residential and commercial centers of activity in the Town; as a means of creating viable uses for historic buildings and areas and encouraging a "sense of place." Policies Promote the inventorying of cultural resources and encourage the establishment of Town historic districts and preserva- tion of historic buildings and sites. Plan for intensity and mix of development of hamlet cente~s~_'; that improve the viability, functioning and aesthetics os hamlet commercial centers without changing the scale of the centers. Economic Develooment Goals Strengthen and diversify the Town's economic base as a means of stabilizing and expanding the tax base and year-round and seasonal employment opportunities. · Policies Encouraqe diversification of agricultural crops and the marketing of Southold as a prime location for climate- sensitive forms of agriculture. Strengthen the Town's important commercial fishing and agriculture industries. Promote vacation and seasonal uses with respect for the Town's year-round needs, environmental features and rural heritage. 4 Improve the Town's existing commercial areas but do not encourage large scale expansion of current development. .Encourage the development of further public and private mariculture activities in tha~waters adjacent te the Town. Encourage the development of land based Support facilities for the Town's fishing industry. Provide opportunities to accommodate office and research development, light industry and industrie~ related t~ other elements of the economy. Limit strip commercial areas and encourage .the concentration -of commercial uses in existing shopping areas. Waterfront Goals Maximize appropriate use of coastal areas~ in a manner that protects sensitive coastal areas, maximizes access to the water and achieves economic benefit. Policies Promote water-dependent and water-related uses in waterfront areas which are not environmentally sensitive. Protect the quality of coastal waters. Increase the number and quality of public beaches. Insure physical and/or visual access to scenic vistas and · , waterfront areas~ I, Promote commercial and recreational fishing and boating opportunities where ther~ are no conflicts with existing residential development or ~ensitive n-atural features. P~omote maintenance of ex±£ting navigable wate~,ays. Transportation Goals Insure adequate movement of people and goods within Southold, as well as into and out of Town, in a manner that maximizes safety and maintains the integrity of residentia~ and agricultural areas. 5 Policies . Encourage the use and/or development of public transmorta- tion. Encourage roadway and intersection improvements that Will improve the flow of traffic and prcmote safety. Community Facilities/Utilities Goals Ensure the provision of an adequate range of community facilities, services and utilities to accommodate existing and future Town needs in a convenient and cost effective manner. Policies Improve, maintain and expand where appropriate to accommo- date present and future development of the water supply~ sanitary sewer, storm drainage and solid waste disposal systems in order to support the desired level of development and to maintain and protect a healthful living envircnment~ a viable economic base and the natural envircr~nento Provide an open space and recreation system ade~uate in sizet and location to serve the total (seasonal and year-rcnnd) population. Assure availability of and/or access to a full range of modern health servicest including emergency services~ for all citizens. Provide a full spectrum of accessible educational facilities 'and services to meet the needs of all segments of the community in the most efficient and effective manner. Promote the provision and availability of necessary social services, including appropriate neighborhocdr se~or citi- zen, and day care facilities. Provide a full range of public safety services (police~ fire, ambulance, rescue, etc.) necessary to create an environment of personal security and protection of property. 6 Raymond. Parish. Pine & Weiner. Inc. 555 White Plains Road. Tarry[own, NY 105 e,mo andum April 26, 1983 TO: FROM: ' Southold Planning Board R~PW, Inc. PLANNING ISSUES The Town Master Plan has to address various issues, many of which are interrelated and many of which require consideration of alternative responses. Based upon the'preliminary analysis of the various factors affecting planning in Southold, the following are the issues to be addressed in the Plan: A. Overall Pattern of Development Protection of Town's Rural/Exurban Character reflected in a combination of hamlet centers, farmland, large expanses of undeveloped land - accommodation of new development~lwithin this framework Suitability of Land for Development -~ development or retention of farmland ~ · proximity to/adequacy of community services protection of environmental features --Wetlands;- tidal marsh; dunes, beaches and bluffs; scenic vistas; waterways - creeks and ponds; · physical constraints - high water table; Steep slope; poor soil permeability; flood hazard areas; erosion hazard areas siltation · drainage problems 3. A~riculture · economic viability; chan~ing structure; cost changing crops · availability of farm labor · impact on water quality and on water quantity · preservation of land for farming ¢. open space of Water SuPPlY - Quantity and Quality · protection of subsurface water from pollution emanating from development and aqricult~re~ implications for development policy · ~ufficiency of potable water to service future development~ especially in ©riant. East ~arion and along coastline · approach.to supply of water - individual we!is~ small central svstems; few larger systems · implications of-importing water~ desalinlzat~on cf salt water Rousing/Residential Develooment · distribution/density · lack of affordable housin? for low, moderate and middle income segments of population · absence of small units - older and younger cue and two person households · seasonal rs· year-round housing · conversion of seasonal to year-round Population ~.Iix · aging of population decline of labor force; imolications for volunteer services such as fire - and rescue service; changing service needs · year-round/seasonal - implications for services Approved - Unbuilt Subdivisions · why unbuilt - density; location; physical conditions · implications for water consumption; other services · ownership pattern affect upon future planning/ zoning : Traffic and Transmorta'tion · adequacy of existing major east-west roads to accommodate traffic; technical capacity - desired levels of traffic · safety at several key locations · private roads - emergency access - implications for access to beaches · need for or appropriateness of improved north- south roads need for and location of a Town airport · adequacy of service by buses and trains - year-- round/summer season/time of day · need to encourage expansion of ferry service to expand markets in New England 2 ~conomv · seasonality of economy - need to expand and/or create year-round economy; increase jobs fo~ ~oung adults · stability of.agriculture and fishing - need ~o protect resources (farmland, fish habitats) appropriateness of encouraging agriculture and fishing as elements of economy;, mariculture · need for flexibility on part of.farmers a~d farm workers - retraining · limited growth potential for commerce and industry including fishing and agriculture · expansion of seasonal/tourist economy 10.. Histori~ and Cultural Resources · preservation es part of Town's quality; heritage · enhancement for economic purposes · 11. Seasonal Development I i_ l L I £ t_ t_ how much, where and what type (seasonal residences/transient tourist) - land consumption and potential damage to environment; importance to economy -- jobs and tax base; limited demand on many services '- 12. Hamlet Centers Community Facilities 13. Schools preserve scale and character/concentration of housing and services focus of Town's economy - commerce - limit strip commercial development historic preservation program · potential consolidation - potential shared services · extant to which existing physical accommodate additional enrollment increase in plant can school plant as resource for recreation/cultural and educational activities coordination of use and programming 14. Sewer · implications of expandin~ Greenport limited capacity system 3 · use of individual inqround systems or small (~ central inqround systems - limitation on dens~ty~ impact on subsurface water · new treatment systems - cost~ level of development necessary to support versus desired density ~f development 15. Water SuPPlY · protection of quality of supply. · continuation of individual wells versus centre! supply · treatment of individual and public/community systems wells; costs · import water or desalihization · establishment of Town supply and/or treatment district to serve all or part of Town · expansion of Greenport system '16. Public Safety · Fire - assurance that all areas of Town covered neeu to improve accessibility to scme areas~ future availability of manpower~ substandard private roads · Police - adequacy of facilities for future deveiopment~ seasonal expansion · Emergency-Rescue - sufficient for emergencies; oniy one ambuiance service for qenerai medical transportation; manpower 17. Recreation 18. · need to assure access to water ~for recreation including boat launch and mooring sites; beaches, and scenic vistas · need additional recreation areas and open space areas in some parts of the Town · swi~ing pool; youth center(s) · access to school facilities assures a~ai!ability of basic facilities to all areas of the Town Landfill · life of present facility limited expand or pursue alternative source of disposal · landfill on aquifer - threat, to subsurface water · methane gas - use for energy or dissipate 4 Coastal Issues 19. Access to Water · beaches - swimming, bathing, walking, viewing scenic vistas · boat launching on north shore~launching and mooring on south shore for commercial and recreational fishermen · attractiveness for private residential/commercial development often precludes maintenance of access · use for resort facilities 20. Quali~¥ of Coastal Waters · critical to fishing industry and recreational fishing · swim~inq/water sports · marine habitat · encouragement of mariculture development 21. Coastal Land Use Conflicts · ' availability of land for marine commercial uses a priority objective · need for additional boat slips - dredging · competition with water-enhanced uses such as restaurants, motels as 22. Protection of Sensitive Coastal Environment · tidal marshes · dunes, beaches, bluffs · scenic vistas · water ~uality 23. Salt Water Intrusion ~'-' · need to.protect.ground water - limit- qn area development -~ coastal 24. Navigability of Waterways siltation and dredging - disruption of shellfish beds/spawning grounds The Master Plan will address these issues. The next step will be to establish a set of, goal~ to serve as a mechanism to measure the response to the issues. The process for establishing a concensus on goals will be one of the initial steps in Phase II, the preparation of the Plan itself.