Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Kace LLC
09/10/200~ 1~:13 631-444-0~60 NVSD~G Ri P~MITS P~E 01/11 FAX'COVER. PAGE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS, REGION ONE SUNY ~ STONY BROOK.- 50 CIRCLE ROAD ~ .STONY BROOK, NY 11790-3409, PHONE: (63!) 44400365' FAX: (63.1) 444,0360 PAGES: / ~ :, INCLUDING COYER PAGE" COMMENTS: PLEASE DO NOT ItESITATE TO cONTACT MEAT (S3!) 4~14~~°~. IF YOU ~tAVE · .ANY QUESTIONS ' ' ' ' ' ' 0~/10/200~ ~3 $~-44~0360 N¥S~EC R1 PERMITS New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One SUNY @ Stony Brook, 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, NY 11790 - 3~09 Phone; (631) 444-0403 * .FAX: (631) 444-0360 Website: www.dec,s~ate, ny.us PAGE 02/1[ Alexander B. Grannts CommiSSiorter May ll, 2007 PaLdcia A. Fkmegan, Esq. Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Re: DEC # 1-4738-03637 / 00001 KACE LI,.LLC Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenp0rt of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Land (SCTM # 1000-40-3-1) in the Town of Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction ora Residential Project Known as Northwbld Village Dear Ms. Finnegan: The Department of Enykomental Conservation, as the State Emdr0nmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) lead agency,'has received a draft scope for an envkomental impact statement (EIS) for the above referenced pr6ject. .. Could you please review this docUment and provide us with any comments or concerns you have regar6ing this project and the draft scope? The SEQR Positive Declarat[on and Part III of the Full Envl.romental Assessment Form were sent to you in October of 2006. It is essential that the Town of Sonthold, as one of the involved agencies for thiS action, participate fully in the developmer~t of the scope for thc EIS and the rest of the environmental review process. Sect[on 617_8(d) reqUires ttmt involved agencies provide written comments on the draf~ scope reflecting their concerns, jurisdictions and information needs sufficient to ensure that the EIS will be adequate'to support their SEQR finding on the action. I apologize for the.short mm around time,.but could, you please provide your ~csponse by May 25, 2007? If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at (631) 444-0403. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, ~herd Aicher Environmental Analyst i 0~/~0/200~ 1~:1~ 6~-444-0~60 N¥SDE~ R~ PER~TS PAGE 03/11 New York State 1. Chesk All That Apply: NY$ Department of Environ- mental Conservation Excava~on and I=111 in Navigable Doc:~s~ Moolirlg5 or P~br~, ~ ~ ~m~ctums 401 Wa~r Quar~/Cer~ca'dan C-~=;M11Erc~on IVlana~:=-, =~nt. : . ,~lUatic Vegeta~on ~1 Aq~c I~ ~1 [] Na~omvide permit(~) - Identify Number(s): 5'~e Owned ~ Und~ ~0 JOINTAPPMCATION FORM For .Perrr~s/~ nations to undedake ac~ilJes affiadbg streams, Wa~s wat~[bo~i~=, wetlands, cz~etat a~s~s and eoLcc~s of water 3t ~pp[y. Separate Permits/Determinations must. be obtained from each Involved agency prior to proceeding with work. Please read all instructions, 2~ N~ma of Applicant (use full n~me) US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Ap.~cam mu~ b~ (~hec~ au m~ a~ ~ ~ U o~r ~ ~ ~I~ ~C~ ~o Co~ ~ ~o~oz~ T~er ID ~f~l~ j~ NOT ~n i~du~O~ Telephone (daytirn~) Erna]~ oorq:anyl~,.,,~ ~ Et~zc~zbg Sm~rb_~ Past O~ce Q'ty Slata;~p Code 4. Contact/Agent Name David Kezm~y 2150 Joshua's Patl~ ~t[te 3'00 post o~ce City S"~ate Zip Code Telephone (daytime) Emai~ H~t~a~e, , ~ York 117 5, Proje~ / FaoilJ~ Name ~o~ T~ ~p S~on /B~7 L~ Nu~ N~ V~a~ j 40~/I South side of Couaty Road 48 (Nofflx Road), 1,600 feet east of Ctm. p. pcl Laae ~d ~ro~ima~dy 1,500 f~,~t of Que~ ~t ~, ff o~ble C0~ Road 48 ~o~ Ro~) ~e~o~ ~ 11944 T~o/~l~e,lc~ . I~. · · . ~DEC ~e~ W~s S04 David Kennedy 09/~0/200~ 13:13 6~1-44~0~60 ~Y~EC R~ PErMItS PA~E 04/~1 pART.1 _PROJEcT iNFORMATiON Prepared. by Pmje~ sPOnsor. NOTICE: Th[~ document is designed ~ a~ls[ ~n dete~inlng ~e~er ~e a~lon ~p0sed may have*a'sign~nt envi~m~t. PleaSe ~mpJete ~e entire [o~, p~ A through ~ A~wem ~e que~en~ ~11 be ~o~Idered as pan of the appU~n [or ap~oval and may ~ au~ed ~ fu~er ~ed~ca~on and public t~lew.' Pm~lde any ad~lt[o~ J~rmat~n ~u wHibeneeded~mpJetePa~and3. · , ' . · · · Location o~'A~Torl (Include Street Address, Mun~p~i~. end Cou~) 62600 ~ ~ ~o~ Su~o~ Co~, New York Name'dApplJcanVS~n~r ~C~,~' Business Telephone .~,~77~00 ~.lp Code 11944 Name of owller (if d~mnt) _Same ~ alx~w : Address : c~tpoL · '" Bualnesa Teleph .o?e. ~ ' Page 2.0[ 2 I. 09~10/2009 13:13 6~-~44~0360 N¥$~C R1 ~ER~IT$ ~GE 05/11 L0 . EXECUTIVE SUNIMARY ' .Introduction This document is a Draft Environmen(al Lmpact statement "DEIS"). prepared in accordance wi.th the State En~i~0nme~tal Quality. Review Act ("SEQRA') a~d its impldm~nting regulations at 6 NYCRR P~ 617 ~d p~su~t to a Positive Declaration ~ssued by th~ New York State Depa~ent .of Envffohmenml Co~se~at.i0n ("~SDEC"), '~ Lead Agency for &e action action, which involves the' a~exation of a. 17.19~-acre parcel ..from ~e 'To~ of Sou.~old ("Town") to the Village of Greenpo~ ("Village") kez0n~g of ih~ subject prope~y ~om Town's Hamlet'Densky zon~g dBtdct into ~e Villag}'S R-2 One- ~d Two-Family Residence District ~d (upOn site pl~ approval) ~e ~cons~fion of a 128-~it, miXed-income residential workforce ho~ing development consisting of one, two,. ~d t~e bedroom homeownership uni~, of which 64~units'witl be "affordable" as defined by Suffolk County_ The. 17.19~-acre s~bject property is situated on'~e south side o{ County RoUte 48 (No~ Road) in ~e Town of Southold. B~ed upon ~e Positiv.e Decimation issued by ~e ~SDEC, a fg~ scoping process w~ conducted By ~e .Le~ Agency to iden~y. ~pacr issues to be evaluat~ in ~is DEIS. These ~pact' issues were outlined in ~e Final Scope, have been 'inco~orated. ~to v~ious sections of this DEIS, ~d ~e' as'follows: ~oP0sed Action; 'Geology, Soils, ~d Topography; Water Resources; 'Ecology;. L.~d Use ~d .~ning: Co--unity Ch~ac[er; Co~unky. So, ices;' Trmspo~atlon$ Cultural' Reso~ces CumuLative .'.Impacm; Use ~d Con~e~ation of ~ergy; '~odu~fion and Disposal of ~olid W~te; Consistency wi~ ~e Towff of SouthoId's comprehensive plying studies.; ~d Consistency with the Local' Wate~tont Revitalization Pro~s ("L~'s;') of bo~ &e Town of Sou~old ~d ~illage of Greenpo~. This ~ecutive summaU is designed solely ~O provide an ove~iew;, of ~e proposed action, a brief summ~y of the potential adverse'impacts idefltifie¢ ~d.mitigation me~ures proposed, as Well as fltematives considered. Review 0f the Executige Summa~ is not a subs[~tute for ~e ~11 evaluation of the proposed a~tion peffo~d ~ SeciionS 2.0 ~ou~ 11 'BRIE~ SITE ,~D. PROjECT HISTORY ~e subject property has been Z0n~. Hmlet D~ngity ("~'~)' since ~e'creation of desi~atioa in 1989. Prior to 1989, the subject prope~7 had been zoned .Multiple Residence. ("M"). Which allowed seve~ unt[s per acr~. ~ JULY, .198~, &e Town of Sou~?ld' Plying Bo~d' (herein~ter "Town Pla~ing .Board") approved' a site plan proposed by ~CE LI,:.LLC's (the cu~ent p~ope~y owner) predecessor in intere~t~ ~CE Realty Co,, ~low~g [t'tO build a 108-unit condom~lum development o~.the subject property, to be ~own as "Nonhwind VUlage." According to. the Phase I Archaeological lnvesrlgation fo~ the proposed Kontokosta Subdivision. Greenport, Town' of Soulhol&.Suffolk Count, New York. [he.~s[re has never been developed. 09/10/2009 ~3:13 6~-444~0360 NYSDEC R1 PERMITS PAGE 06/11 In July, 2005, KACE LI, LLC (hereinafter sometimes [eferred tO as "KACE") filed' a petition with both the Town and the Viilag~ to annex the subject'property into the Village; Annexation is the alteration or changing of b'oundar~ies of a county, city, [own or'village that has the effect o~: adding territory. Moreover, ar~exation is the process by which a mtmicipali[y such 'as the Village of Greenport, incorporates contiguous land into its boundarie~ The basic prerequisite to the atlnexation of ~erritory from one local government to another' is the consent of tile governing .board o1[ each local, guvernmer~t. Prior to adopting a resolution, each governing board must, on the basis of ¢onsideratinns including, but not limited to, (a) those relating to ,the effects upon the territory proposed to be annexed, (b) the local government or governments to which the territory J,s propo.sed to be annexed, .(c) the. remaining area of the local government or governments in which the territory is situated, and (d) any school district, fire district or other district corporation, public benefit corporation, fire protection district, fire alarm district or town Or county improvement district situated wholly or partly in such territory, find the proposed annexation to be in the overall·public interest, . . There~ have been various court decisions that ha~e assessed when a pr6posed annexation is in the public interest. For example, some cases ha~e-weighed the potential benefi~ and detriment~ to the municipalities involved in the a.rmexati0n~ Such ber~efits and detrimet~ts ca~ be defined in terms of municipal, services,' including (but nor limited to) police protection, fire protection, public education, and sewer'and water utilities. The applicant respectfully submits that, ir~ the extant case, 'the ·improved,' expeditious and cost-effective colm~ction .to the. annexing government's sewage system should be weighed heavily m determine if an ar~exation proposal is in the overall public interest: This would assist the appllcant in building, wi.thour tax·payer contribution or public subsidy, 128 mixed-income residential units, .of which 64 w6uld be w0rkforce units. .. On ~ugust 16, 2005, the TOwn of S0uthold. Town BOard '(hereinafter the "Town-Board") determined that the. proposed annexation'was an Unlisted Actign under SEQP~ and pro, posed that the Town of Southold serve as lead agency.in the matter. On Augu~st 23, 20~)5, the applicant submitted a Full Enviror~meatal Assessment Form ("Full EAF") and. information supporting the proposed. ~rmexation at a. public hearing of the Towh B0ard~ The Village challenged this de'termination by. requesting lead agency"status, and the lead agency questior~ was submitt&d to the. Commissioner of the.NYSDEC for resoluti0n. The Commissi0ner 'then submitted the riaatter to the NYSDEC Region 1 office for input·due to the existeflce .o~ freshwater wetlands on the subject site. The Region 1 .office Ultimately indicated 1) its ·desire to be lead agency; 2) that the project mmay have .significant environmental impact~'; and 3) that an environ~.e~tal .impact statement must be prepared. Thereafter; ' the NYSDEC assumed 'lead agency stares for this matter. 09/10/2009 631-444-0360 NYSDEC Ri PERMITS PAGE 07/11 In No'vember, 2005. the Town Board adopted.ResolUtion No. 709 of 2005, which found that the petition for annexation filed by the applicant complied with the. procedural filing requirements of. · Article 17 of the New York 'State Gene~Fat Municipal· Law, Howe~er, the Town ·Board resolved · that the petition was not in the overali pnblic interest, based'on 'the considerations identified in · fhe Order and Determination dated: November 16, 2005, Upon Southold's denial of the petition 'for .annexation, the·Village of C-reenport filed 'a lawsuit seeking a judgment pursuant to Section 7'12 and .Article 17 'of the New York State General Municipal Law and A?ticle 78 ahd Section 300i of the CiVil Practice Law and Rules 'against the Southold, in opposition Jo the Verified Petition of the applicant, was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New Yo~k .Appellate DiviMoni' Second Dep~rtment on Febm0xy 9, 2006. A decision on this matter is still pending: · , . ~ : The Village of Greenport has continued to :express ks ~uppqrt for the proposed mmexation, In addition, the Suffolk County Department of Economic Deyelopment and Workf0rce Housi~ag has given !ts snppo~ to the propo§ed project. In correspondence dated November 25, 2008, the. · Department indicated that since the proposed projed.t would "promote ·energy efficient and. envkoraiaemally res~o~asible smart growth principles" and that 60; of the units "are proposed to .be built as affordable units within the parameters pf the Suffolk' Couuty Workforce Housing Program," it "support[s] ),our · effoTts and. encourage[s] the'. approyal of your proposed development." .' " ' BRmF DESCRIPTION OF PRoP,OSED ACTION The proposed action involves three components,.as follows:. · the annexation of the 17.19±-acre subjec[ property from the Town into th~ Village; · the proposed rez0ning of.the ~ubjgct property from. the Torch's HD. District into the ' Village's R-2 District; and ... · the .development of the subject 'property with 128 multi-family:'dwe!ling, unks, .6~ of' which would be' workforce housiiig 'units. Annexation'of the proper~y into the Village would be necessary in order 'to allow the development of 64 workforce h0u~ing units w!thout g°vemment subsidy or use 6f taxpayer funding,. Skould such. ann~x~ti°n occur, the' property would requir~/oning in GreenporL The applicant is requesting that the subject p!operry (consisting. of the ~urrent tax parEel designated as District 1000 - section ~o,- Block 3 ~ Lot 1) be classified in the R:2 District within the Village. Upon such annexfition, the tax parcel .number would, also .require reassignment to reflect its new · 10cation.in the Village. · . 09/10/200~ 13:13 631-444-0360 NYSDEC Ri PER~ITS PAGE The proposed development consists of the'construe/ion of. a.residential community to be known as Northwknd Village that. would be composed of'. 128, mixed-income ownership units.··There would be a mix of one-, [wo-' and three-bedroom unitE, of which 64 (50 percent)· would be · market-rate units and 64' (50 percent)would·be workforce unitS, based upon current income gmdelines of Suffolk County. These units would be subject to price, sale, re-sale and ownership ' ~* ' ' 'ct' ~' controls, collectively known as. affordablhty restn 10ns. The restrictions would ensure that the units axe sold·to qualified households; based on a number, of priority and qualification requirements. The applicant is proposing that the affordability re~tdctinns have a .30-year duration. Howe~er, the duration ultimately will be determined By the Village of.Greenport in its Given the configura[ion of the.subject property, the proposed development has been designed to maximize p~escrvatinn of vegetation' and open space With the dwelling traits generally located along the outsid~ .of thfi' proposed driveway and parking, areas landward of the NYSDEC regulated wetland. . ' The 128 uaits would be Situated in 20 buildings, which would be 'situated around the proposed interior roadway. The proposed dwelling Units would· consist of 38 one-bedroom units of approximately 850 square feet, 20 two-bedroOm units of approximately 1,200 square feet, and ?0 three-bedroom tm.its ranging .from i,350 to 1,500 square feet The workforce units would be distributed amongst the different unit types and sizes agd be indistinguishable from the market- rate units in terms of exterior .fagade and.materials, Specifically, ail .of the one- and two- bedroom unit~' would be workforce units mad six of the three-bedroom units· would be workforce urdts_ The re~aining 64 three-bedroom units would be marke~;-ra~. The proposed development would continue to be sex:veal by the'yillage of Greenport. Fire Department, the Town of Sourhold ·Police Deparmxent and the Greenport. UFSD: In add[tinn, solid waste would be collected, by a 'private.carter under contract with. the'Village of Greenport.. As indicated in the table below, the proposed development would disturb approximately 6.65 acres, with no regulated we~l~nd or adjacent a~ea being disturbed.. Existing a~d Proposed·Site Data . . Buildings . . 0 .'. 1.87~ ~c~s (10.88%) O~er Paved Surfaces" 0 2.27~ acres (13.21%) Wetl~ds 3.93~ acres (22.86%) . 3:93~ acres (22.86%) Forest ..... 13.26~'aeres (77A4%) 6.6i~ acres'(38.45%) Lfiw~ and Laadsca¢i~ 0 · 2.51~ acres (14.60%) TOT~ ' ' l~:,[~,a~r~ (1~%).. .17.19~ acres (1~.~%), 88/11 .iv The sales· prices of the p~:Oposed' workfo~ce* ~nits will be dete,rrnined at time of listing using the 09/11 · guidelines established by Suffolk CountT. Us~g the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") figure for the median income for a family 'of four in .the .Countj of Sitffolk as the Area Median hcome ("AMI"), price ranges will be de[ermir~ed using stand~d 'c~lculations (i.e., 2',5 times the AMi, as described below),' The target AMI .levels will be adjusted I*or household ~ize. As of 2008, .the HUD AMI fbr Suffolk County is $97,1;00.. Half (32) Of'the proposed workfor~e units wilt be for households ear~ing less thart 80 percent of the AMI ($77,700) and half (32) of the workforce ~mits Will'be.for households.earning l~ss than 120 percent of the AM! ($116,500), This 'distribUtion is consiste~3t with current Suffolk: County and. Town of S0uthold workfo~ce housing ~,uidelines and'policies, The anticipated sales prices, for the workforce units are based on 2.5 times the. HUD income limits. For 2008, 'the alloWable sales prices for Workforce unitY, are as follows '-up..to $194,250 (for households, earning 80 p~ment Of [he AMI) and up to $291,250. (for households earning 120 percent of the AMI)_ Prices will als'o' depend.0n ~he size of. th~ il .m.'.ts. ~ne applicant has had preliminary'discussions with the Long Isiar~d Hous!ng Partnership regarding admini~tEation of the workforceh0using .program. However, should armexatiun occur, the Village of Greenport Would have control over individual eligibility and .overall administration .of the program. Access to the proposed development would'be from C.R. 48 by a single, two;way access· drive located at the northwestern port,on of the. lsuhjeet :property, Parking:for 'th~ p~0posed multi- fam~ly.devel0pment would be prim, arily provided in the.front 'of each dw¢!Ibig unit. A' proposed emergency access entrance.'fmm C.R; 48 would'be c0nstmcted ai the nbrtheasiem comer of the 'site ~tt the end of the parking a~ea .... ': According to the Village of Greenport Village code'(cllapter 150 Zoning), the pmpos'ed development would require'192 parking spaces, bgsed upon 1:5 parking spages per unit. As such~ the proposed d~velopment provides 192 parking spaces, which comp'l~es with the Off-street parking requirements.. . . The proposed 'site plan incorpora{es sidewalks .through0ut..the.' ske to provide safe pedestrian access. The sidewalk would loop from North Road into the site along the outside of the access drive and parking areas.baqk to .No~rh Road along the access driveway. As the site'is undeveloped, potable water, Sarlitary disposal, and electricity are .not Currently supplied to the subject p[ope~y. As pm. of the proposed' action, potable water, sarfitary disposal. and .electricity would b.e snpplied by the Vitlage Of Greenpoit utilities. The Suffolk:Cour~ty Wgter Authority ("SCWA'~) would provide' potable ~vat~r' to the prop0~ed development, which would utilize a total of 34 050 gallons per day ("gpd"), nat including ir/-igatli0rl, .as no irrigation system is proposed .at thig time. The. 'Vilklge of 'Gr~enport Municipal Sewer 'System would provide sanitary, sewage disposal service ..to 'the propos~.d development; The to~/l projected. sanitary flow is approximately .34,050 gpd.. The' Village's'sewage treatment plant is currently permitted tO accept.up to.650,000.gpd 'and &e current fl0w is 325,000 gpd. Iherefore, the existing Sewage treatment plant has th~ capacity..to: serve the ptoposed development, as .'confirmed by Came/on Engineering. 0~10/~009 ~3:13 631-~4~-0360 NYSDEO R1 PER~IT$ PAGE As the subjectproperty is vadaBt, 'theie is no stormwate3 management system on the site, ~p6n development, 'stormwater runoff wOUld be controlled and recharged omsite via new drywells installed throughout the developed portion of ~he subject.site. St0kmwater would be. COllected in a series of interconnected catch basins and area diains, then transported through subsurface piping to the drywell system. The proposed action has been designed io contain the runoff.from a .10, year storm event (two inches'). The two-inch storage ~equkemen/ imposed by the Town (the current jurisdictional entity) would a!so satisfy the various provisions of the federal and state Phase'II Storrnwater regu[ati0ns wi~ reipeet to volume and water qu'ality controls. Smart Growth principies, as presented'.by the Suffolk County pianning Comanission~ would guide many aspects of the proposed development including site layout a~d design.' The proposed project has been designed and planned in consideration.of several of the aforesaid adopted Smar~ GroWth principles, including: .. · Direct development to strengthen existing c~mraunJ, ties; · Ta~ke advantage of compact buildhag sizes ane[ creaie a raJage of housing opportuniti~; · * Create pleasan.t'env~ronments and att~acfiye commUnities~ and · Preservelopen space and natural resources. . . Special attention' would be 'devoted the layout of the site, including the positioning Of the structures,'the design and size of roads, the inclusion of sidewalks the design of landscap!ng, the . preserqation of mature vegetations, and the consideration of open .space..Several sustainable. design elements will be integral to the overall development Of the proposed pi:oject to encourage . energy congervati0n, alternati'~e'.forms of .tra~sportatidn. (including' public bus mutes), and community interaction. It is expected the project sponsor will apply for LEED-Homes and/or ' ' LEED-Neighborhood Development certification from the United States Green Building Council. ' Furthermore,: the residence~ are proposed tO meet Energy Star for Home requirements. The identification of the 'need for workforce housing in'fire Town dates as far back to the 1985 Sourhold Town Master Plan Update_ The $ou~hold Cornpreher~iv¢ £mplem~ntation Strq. regy' 2003 Drqit Generic Environmental Impact Statement alio idegtifies a critical need for (and lack of) affordable housing in nearly.every geographiq location within .the Town.' High housing costs forced out younger residents of the Southold community... As a result, the portion of thepopulatiun un~r the age of 35 ~s impacted more 'than any other age group. Between the years 1990 and 2000, the'Southold population between'the ages o'f 20 m~d 35 decreased by. almost 30 percent, ttiree 'time§ ffister [han. !he r/~tional average. The people most affected bY this problem are the working individuals who 'hold core positions 'in the.Southol'd community ~ nurses, police officers; teachers, mun[c.ipal ~vorkers, etc. ar)d their~families who are unable to afford.the tyl~ical Sour-hold home, Which sold fok over:SSt0,000 in 2007 according Suffolk Research Sfirvice, Inc. 10/11 0971072009 ~3~13 63~-~4-0360 ~YSD~ ~1PER~IT$ 11/11 in order to provide 64 affordable workforce homes without taxpayer contribution or government subsidy, the proposal requires additional densities above what is currently allowable ha the TOwn of Southold..Greenport has the neeessazy z0nkig classifications and most importantly, the infrastructure in the form of sewer, water and electric'systems to make the-proposal, at the necessary density financially feasible without using tax dollars to pay for the w0rkforee housing. ' Presently, tax parce'l 1000-40:3-1,' totaling approximately 17.2 acres, has assessed value of $4,300 generat!ng $3,816 .annually in real p~0perty taxes; A. property tax analysJ, s was undertaken by the ·applicant in order to assess the difference in potential proper~y taxes generated between the a~-of-right development (50 units) and.the proposed .action (!28 units)~ The anal~,sis was prepared by Robert Scott, Town Qf Southold Assessor. This analysis presents the. potential tax revenues, to the Town 0f Southold for the proposed project and 'the as-of-right alternative in. Sou~old: Projected tax revenues would be anticipated to be slightly higher at the time of de.velopme~tt than indicated in the analysis, The first scenario is based uport: the premise that the property is annexed into the ¥illage of Greenport. The current (2007-2008) tax rate (Town portion) in the 'Village. of Greertport is $809.356 per $1,1300 of Assessed Value ("AV"). Therefore, based upon the total adjusted AV}' the proposed project would generate approximately $3.95 775 for the Town, upon annexation. In addition, the Village of G'reeapofr, based on the current Village tax rate Of 170-200 per $1,000 of Assessed Value, would receive $83,228 annually in property tax revenue .from the proposed development', should the sit~ be located Within the Village of Gmenport. The second scenario assumes that the ii~bject property remains unde~ the jurisdiction of the · TOwn of Southold and 50 condominium units would be built. The Current (2007-2008) t~x rat~ in the Town of S0uthold is $.909.267/$1,1300.AV; Therefore, the total property tax revenue to the town generated by. the as-of~rlight-development, based Upor~'the. adjusted AV Would be $264,824. This represents .$130,951 less .than the proposed aetio~a. Therefore, the proposed action would generate more taxes .for the Town of Southold thar~ developmeni under.the existing HD zoning, and would thus be a..property tax benefit for the'Town of $outhold. . . ...... Althottgh the Town of Southold .will continue to receive 'significant tax revenue from the proposed project, it' would no longer have responsibility to' provide municipal seroices, which Would now be provided by the V!llage of Greenpisrt. However, these services are expected to. be minimal, as the proposed project will be stmctuxed as a condominium operated by a hom~owners association, that would be responsible for all maintenance, muds. soligt waste collection and landscaping within the proposed, development. .... ELIZABETH NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone: (631) 765-1800 southoldtown,northfork.net RESOLUTION # 2005-508 Meeting: 08/16/05 04:30 PM Resolution ID: 1075 Department: Town Attorney Category: Seqra THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-508 OF 2005 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON August 16, 2005: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has received a Petition for Annexation (the "Petition") submitted by KACE LI, LLC; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport has proposed that it serve as lead agency for the environmental review of the Petition pursuant to SEQRA; BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold preliminarily classifies the Petition as an Unlisted Action; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold proposes that the Town of Southold serve as lead agency for the SEQRA review of the Petition~ and hereby directs that the Town Clerk mail a copy of this proposal to the Village of Greenport and all other interested ageneiesl and be it further RESOLVED, that, in the event the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold are unable to agree upon the lead agency determination with respect to the petition, that the Town of Southold shall submit the issue to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmentfil Conservation for resolution pursuant to §617.6(b)(5) of the SEQRA Rules and Regulations. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Vote ReC°rd - Re~OlUfl~n 2005-~08 ........... Ye__s/Aye N._o/Nay Abstain Absent [] Adopted William P. Edwnrd_s ....... Seconder [] r~ f3 [] [] Adopted as Amended Dnniel C. Ross Initiator ~ I~ [] [] [] Defeated Thomas H, Wickhnm .................. Voter 9- ...... "---~- [] --"--~ [] Tabled ~el~l~ ................... _V.o.~_e_r ................ E] [] [] [] E3 Withdrawn Louisa P. Evans Voter ......... ~ ......... ---~'- [] El Joshua Y. Horton '- Vo~ ................... ~ ..... [] UI [] · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can r~urn the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: LI LLC [] Agent [] Addressee If YES, enter delivery address below: [] NO 3. Service Type ~ertlfled Mail [] Express Mail [] Registered [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra F~e) [] Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811, February 2004 7003 3110 0001 8547 3845 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 ,~Agent []Addressee · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the meilpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: nature D. Is delivery address different from item 1 ? [] Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: [] No [] Express Mail [] Registered [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7003 3110 0001 8547 3791 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595~)2-M-1540 · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Aisc complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. ArticJe Addressed to: E~Agent [~Addmssee Yes [] NO 3 Mail Registered F'I Return Receipt for Merchandise Insured Mail [] C.O.D. Restricted Delive~r7 (Extra Fee) [] Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7003 3110 0001 8547 3869 · Complete i~ems 1, 2, and 3. Aisc complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Pdnt your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. ltomas Isles, Dh :ctor ~uffoik ( ounty Dept, ol I)lan], Box 61 O0 Hauppauge, NY 11785 0099 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) i PS Form 3811, February 2004 Signature ~ ~] Agent ' [] Addressee B. Receivedby(PrintedName) AU~C. ~at~o~ry ~ different from item 17 [~ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: [] No ii Service Type [~] Certified Mail ~ Express Mail [~ Registered [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [1 Insured Mail Fl C.O.D. · Restricted Delivery? (Extra F~e) ~] Yes 7003 3110 0001 8547 3852 Domestic Return Receipt t~2.595-02-M-154d · Complete items 1, 2;and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you~ · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: by(PfintedNarn~ D. Is delivery address different from item 1 ? If YES, enter delivery address below: O No 3. Service Type ~'~ertEied Mail r'l Express Mall ~] Registered r'l Return Receipt for Merchandise r-I Insured Mail i-I C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra F~se) [] Yes 2. Artfcle Number ffrans~r f~m service label) PS Form 3811, February 2004 item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse I so that we can return the card to you. ~ · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, ~__ or on the front if space permits. [~ 1. Article AddreSsed to: PS Form 381 1, August 2001 7003 3110 0001 8547 3821 __~ Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 Jl~ ~- l/ ---- [] ^g;nt If ' [] ^adr~se. Il B.R~eivedby(printedName)~ivery D. Is delivery address different flon a item 1 ? J~ Yes If YES, enter delivery address b~ow: [] No 3. Service ~Mail [] Expv~s MaJI [] Registered [] Return Receipt f~ Memhandise [] insured Mail ~ C.O.D. 4. Restrict~l Deliver'? (Extra Fee) [] ~ 7003 3110 0001 8547 3876 Domestic Return Receipt 1e25950~1~o Cedified Fee D 0 RetUrn Reciepl Fee (Entitlement Required} O Re cted Delivery Fee · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Pdnt your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) D. Is delivery address different f~om item If YES, enter delivery address below: [] Addressee Date of Delivery [] No 3. Service Type [[;~"~r rifled Mail [] Registered [] Insured Mail [] Express Mail [] Return Receipt for Memhandise [] C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes 7003 3110 0001 8547 3807 PS Form 381 1, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 m To~vn of Southold, New York - Payment Voucher Vendor [ ax ID Number or Social Securit~ Number Vendor Address 23372 Vendor Namc Florence Wiles Vendor Tclcphone Number Vendor Contact ;Vendor No. , 23372 Mill Pond Lane East Moriches, NY 11940 8;2312005: Payee Certification The undersigned (Claimant) (Acting on behalf of thc above named clalxnant) does hereb5 ce~[i$ that the foregoing claim is true and correcb that no pa~t has been paid, except as therein stated, that the balance therein stated is actually duc and ox~iI~, and thatt~t I?om which thc Town is exempt are excluded Department Certification [ hereby ceni~ that the materials above specified have been received by me in good condition without substitution, the services properly performed and that the quantities thereof have been verified with the exceptions or discrepancies noted, and pa~rment is approved Florence V. Wiles, Court Reporter 48 Mill Pond Lane Post Office Box 213 East Moriches, NY 11940 631/878-8047 October 26, 2005 Southold Town Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York, 11971 Atto: Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk: INVOICE FOR COURT REPORTING SERVICES RE: GREENPORT/SOUTHOLD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING 8~3~5 Public Meeting transcription of minutes 96 Pages ~ $650/page Appearance Balance due $624.00 50.00 $674.00 Tlmnkyou! IF WEO,ESOA¥,August 3~, 2005 Annexation Proposal Considered For llage By Jim Intravia AbProposal to annex 17.2 acres owned y the town of Southold to the village of Greenport is being considered by the Southold Town Board and the Greenport Village Board. A public hearing on this matter was held in the Greenport High School auditorium at 7 p.m. on August 23. The hearing consisted of a presentation by KACE LI, LLC, fol- lowed by comments from the public to the village and town boards. KACE is presenting a proposal to build an affordable housing program at property located on Route 48, between Chapel Lane and Moore's Lane. The pro- posal includes a 128-unit affordable work- force housing development. The develop- ment is to include 12 one-bedroom condo- mininms, 12 two-bedroom condominiums, 40 two-family units and 64 one-family units. The range of purchase prices is to be l~etween $175,000 and $266,500. KACE's presentation stated that this housing is designed specifically for local people and workers. The housing would be available only to those who work and/ar res~e in the town of Southald. Residents would be chosen on a lottery basis after meetink those requirements. The Greenport sewer system, water system, fire district and school district are capable of hanelling the ~population of this development, according to KACE. Con- stantine Kontekosta, the spokesman for KACE, displayed slides explaining the needs and reasons for the project, as well as the public benefits and the estimated impacts of the housing on Greenport and Southald. One of these was a chart describing the effect on the police, fire dis- trict and school district. The chart indi- cated an impact of "no change," which brought a vocal reaction from a portion of the 150-200 people in attendance of the meeting. At one point, Southold Supervi- sar Joshua Horton asked for cooperation from the audience, requesting them to act "in a civilized and prefessionai manner. Please refrain from booing," he said. Kontokosta stated that the increase in students to the school district would have little or no impact on school taxes. With 680 students in a school designed for a maximum capacity of about 1,100, the school is at 61.8% capacity now, KACE said. The pending housing project is expected to add 45-69 children to the dis- trict. "School taxes should not be affected by this proposal," Kontokosta said. Traffic presently consists of about 15,000 cars per day, according to Kon- tokasta. The increase he anticipates is about 1.7%, with car pooling and bicycle use expected. One of the reasons for the need for this housing, as stated in the out- line handed out, is that "40.6% of all peo- pie who work in Southold commute from outside of the town." The Department of Environmental Conservation would continue to monitor and protect the 2.7 acres of this parcel ~that are wetlands, according to Kontokos- ta. After the 30-minute presentation, members of the audience spoke to the board members and community. The majority of those ~vho spoke were against the proposal. The first to speak was Riverhead attorney Anthony Tohill, who said he rep- resented 13 residents who are opposed the plan and stated that there "cannot be a referendum on housing. It is outside the four corners oT the annexation process ... The only reason for it is to avoid the town's regulatory p~ocess.' , Greenport School District Superin- tendent Dr. Charles Kozora presented his figures on the tax impact to the school dis- trict. He described the KACE calculations for student increase, which used national averages, as '~cotally flawed." Kozora later explained that the national average does not refiect specific circumstances since it may include senior housing and other appUcations that do not contribute stu- dents. In an interview, he cited local examples of developments such as this, During the meeting, he stated that a local development, Cedarfields, contributes 33 students from 39 units and that this pro- ject would contribute at least 115 stu- dents, not the 45-69 that KACE put for- ward. Using the 115 students and the t~x revenue received from the new homes, Kozora concluded that the net impact would be an additional $1.16 million to the district, for an increase of $7.69 per hundred dollars of assessed evalua~on, resulting in a 14% tax increase. Criticism of the proposal took various forms. One individual, who said he is a 33- year Greenport resident, said, "Mortgage costs are prohibitive. I tb;nk this might be transitional housing. I would like to see more rentals. This project doesn't have viability as affordable." SEE Page 10 Proposal.'. FROM Page 3 Gwyrme Schroeder, executive direc- tor of the North Fork Environmental Council, had concerns about the wetlands and about the resale of the homes later on. "House pricing will be market driven," Schroeder said. 'q~his project is so over the top. Another resident said he questioned the accuracy of the 40% of workers com- ing from out of town. Mary McCabe, who said her family has been here since the Irish potato famine of 175 years ago, said, ~You guys want to bulldoze everything. Save this place. It's gorgeous. You're try- ing to line your pockets." Another described the proposal as "Levittown on the Sound." Several speakers were in favor of the plan. The mother of a two-year-old who has lived in Greenport all her life said, "I need affordable housing. We need a home. Somebody needs to help. We need your help." Another woman, who said she is a 15-year resident with an eight-year-old daughter, said, "It would be great if you would build this for us and give me the opportunity to buy one." During the initial presentation, KACE said the population of Sputhold's young people, defined as those between the ages of 20 and 35, has "decreased by almost 30%, three times faster than the national average." Greenport Village Mayor David Kapell supports the proposal, saying that the 64 family residences will be beneficial to Greenport. "The seasonal swing is unhealthy," he said. In response to a pub- ]ic comment about developers making a profit, Kapell replied, "For~ God's sake, how do you promote business or growth in the United States of America unless you provide for a profit? There is no taxpayer subsidy whatsoever. It is time to fish or cut bait. You might as well tell young fam- ilies to leave now." Kapell also noted that he has no busi- ness relationships with the developers. The August 23 hearing was the third step in a five-step annexation process. The boards of Greenport and Southold each haye.90 days to vot~ an. the i~sue.. P.O BOX 54 P.O. BOX 960 MATTITUCK, NY 11952 SHELTER ISLAND, NY 11964 PHONE: (631) 298 4700 PHONE: (631) 749-0484. FAX: (631)298 3850 FAX: (631)749-0489 AN EMPLOYEE OWNED COMPANY August 25, 2005 Insured: Town Of Southold Company: American Alternative Insurance Co. Policy#: 01-A2-RL-0000022-00 Policy Period: JAN 1 05 To: JAN I 06 Town Of'Southold c/o Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 Re: Poi# 01-A2-RL-0000022-00 - Endt adds Greenport UFSD Please be advised that the enclosed endorsement adds Greenport UFSD as additional insured for the town meeting on 8/23/05. There is no premium charge. If you have any questions please call Thank you. Sincerely, Barbara J. Dammers Commercial Lines CSR ext. 14 RECEIVED AL~ 2 6 200~ ~d Town C~erk AAIC Americas Alternative Insurance Corporation ADDITIONAL INSURED, SPECIFIED INamed Insured Town of Southold Policy Number 01-A2-RL-0000022-00 / THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY PLEASE above Person or Organization (Addm{~r~a! insured Description of Activity0esi o~ C)pe~a{~. A whichever occurs firs C NOT apply to any Bodily Injury Property Damage RL 2066 06/03 ELIZABETH NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGIS'FRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS IvlARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Fax (631 ) 765-6145 Telephone: (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net RESOLUTION # 2005-508 Resolution ID: 1075 Meeting: 08/16/(15 04:30 PM Department: Town Attorney Category: Seqra THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-508 OF 2005 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON August 16, 2005: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Somhold has received a Petition for Annexation (the "Petition") submitted by KACE LI, LLC; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport has proposed that it serve as lead agency for the environmental review of the Petition pursuaut to SEQRA; BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold preliminarily classifies the Petition as m~ Unlisted Action; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold proposes that the Town of Southold serve as lead agency for the SEQRA review of the Petition~ and hereby directs that the Town Clerk mail a copy of this proposal to the Village of Greenport and all other interested agencies~ and be it further RESOLVED, that, in the event the Village of Greenport and the, Town of Southold are unable to agree upon thc lead agency determination with respect to the Petition, that the ~own of Southold shall submit the issue to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmeutai Conservation for resolution pursuant to §617.6(b}{5} of the SEQRA Rules and Regulations. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk ELIZABETH NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICF, R RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Fax (631 ) 765:-6145 Telephone: (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net RESOLUTION # 2005-508 Resolution ID: 1075 Meeting: 08/16/05 04:30 PM Department: Town Attorney Category: Seqra THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-508 OF 2005 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUI'HOLD TOWN BOARD ON August 16, 2005: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town o1' Soul hold has received a Petition for Annexation (the "Petition") submitted by KACE LL LLC; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport has proposed that it serve as lead agency for the environmental review of the Petition pursum~t to SEQRA; BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold preliminarily classifies the Petition as an Unlisted Action; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold proposes that the Town of Southold serve as lead agency fl}r the SEQRA review of the Petition~ and hereby directs that the Town Clerk mail a copy of this proposal to the Village of Greenport and all other interested agencies~ and be it further RESOLVED, that, in the event the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold are unable to agrcc upon the lead agcncy determination with respect to the Petition, that the Town ot' Southold shall submit the issue to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation for resolution pursuant to §617.6(b}(5) of the SEQRA Rules and Regulations. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk ELIZABETH NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENY OFF1CER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone: (631) 765-I800 southoldtown.northfork.net RESOLUTION # 2005-705 Resolution ID: 1286 Meeting: 11/10/05 07:00 PM Department: Town Attorney Category: Seqra THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-705 OF 2005 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON NOVEMBER 10, 2005: WHEREAS, a Petition for A~mexation has been submitted to the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport by KACE LI, LLC; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport have each asserted an intent to assume lead agency status for the environmental review of the Petition under SEQRA rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, the lead agency dispute has been submitted to the New York State DEC for resolution; now there for IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold requests that the N¥SDEC~ assume lead agency status with respect to the Petition, in accordance with the governing DEC rules and regulations promulgated to determine lead agency dispute, and that if the DEC chooses not act as lead agency, the Town continues its request to be designated lead agency. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk [~ ( ndorsement Required) I · 75 ere ~ [So.trr, D~ai~e~~ Sheehan 6z5 Broadway Page 1 of 1 Bohn, Lynda From: Krauza, Lynne Sent: Tuesday, November *l 5, 2005 3:57 PM To: Bohn, Lynda Cc: Finnegan, Patricia Subject: Addresses Pat asked me to send you the following addresses: Denise M. Sheehan, Acting Commissioner NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1011 Peter A. Scully, Regional Director NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Bldg. 40, SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 11/16/2005 · ELI2'~ABETH NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAI~, OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone: (631 ) 765-1800 southoldtown.north fork.net RESOLUTION # 2005-508 Resolutioa ID: 1075 Meeting: 08/16/05 04:30 PM Department: Town Attorney Category: Scqra THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-508 OF 2005 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON August 16, 2005: WHEREAS, thc Toxvn Board of the Town of Southold has received a Petition for Annexation (the "Petition") submitted by KACE LI, LLC; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport has proposed that it serve as lead agency for the environmental review of the Petition pursuant to SEQRA; BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold preliminarily classifies the Petition as an Unlisted Action; and be it fnrther RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold proposes that the Town of Southold serve as lead agency fi}r the SEQRA review of the Petition~ and hereby directs that the Town Clerk mail a copy of this proposal to the Village of Greenport and all other interested agencies; and be it further RESOLVED, that, in tbe event the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold are unable to agree upon the lead agency determination with respect to the Petition, that the Town of Southold shall submit the issue to the Commissioner of the Department of Envirnnmental Conservation for resolution pursuant to §617.6{b)(5) of the SEQRA Rules and Regulations. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Page 2 ELIZABETH NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Fax (631 ) 765-6145 Telephone: (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.uorthfork.net RESOLUTION # 2005-508 Meeting: 08/16/05 04:30 PM Resolution ID: 1075 Department: Town Attorney Category: Seqra THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-508 OF 2005 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON August 16, 2005: WHEREAS, the Toxvn Board of the Town of Southold has received a Petition for Annexation (the "Petition") submitted by iCa_CE LI, LLC; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport has proposed that it serve as lead agency tbr the environmental review of the Petition pursmtnt to SEQRA; BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold preliminarily classifies the Petitkm as an Unlisted Action; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board o[' the Toxvn of Soathold proposes that the Town of Sonthold serve as lead agency for the SEQRA review of the Petition~ and hereby directs that the Town Clerk mail a copy of this proposal to the Village of Greenport and all other interested agencies[ and be it further RESOLVED, that, in the event the Village of Greenporl and the Town of Southold are unable to agree upon the lead agency determination with respect to the Petition, that the Town of Southold shall submit the issue to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation for resolution pursuant to §617.6(b)(5) of the SEQRA Rules and Regulations. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Vote Record - Resolution 2005-508 Yes/Aye Abstain [] Adopted William P Edwards Seconder [] [] [] [] Adopled as Amended Daniel C Ross Initiator [] [] [] [] Delbated Thomas H. Wickham [] Voter [] [] [2 Tabled John M Romanclli [] Voter [] [] D Withdra~n Louisa P Evans Voter Joshua Y Hortoh Q~[&~ RECEIVED ,.~ .'.~,,~/~ JUL 2 2 2005 SouthoW Town Clad facsimile TRAN SMJTTAL II 1_ ' .... TO: DATE: PAGES: FROM TIlE DESK OF :FAX HO, 631-477-1877 VOICE NO. 631-477-2385, 0248 ~s.ESSAGE: CONFIDENTIALITY' NOT~, INCORPORATEQ VILLAGE OF SREENPORT BOARD OF TRUSTEES RESOLUTION NO. 18 OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND TYPING ACTION AS AN UNLISTED ACTION AND OTHER ACTION PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION LAW OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WHEREAS KACE LI, LLC,. filed a Petition for the Annexation of certain territory to be included in the Village of Greenport which is presently in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold on July 14, 2005, with the Town of Southold and the village of Greenport, said property being I7.1 acres located on County Road 48, Greenport, and designated as Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-40.00-03.00-001.000, end ; WHEREAS the Village of Greenport is an involved agency in zhat it is required to take certain action regarding the ?etition pursuant 'to the Municipal Annexation Law of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, and for that reason and other good cause is therefore proposing to assume lead agency status for purposes of SEQRA review in this matter, and; WHEREAS the Village of Greenport has preliminarily determined that the annexation is an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQRA; and; and and; WHEREAS an Environmental Assessment Form Long Form Parts I are being prepared by the Village of Greenport for review, WHEREAS the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold are required by the Municipal Annexation Law and the General Municipal Law of the State of New York to conduct a joint hearing on the Petition for Annexation, it is therefore; RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport hereby proposes that the Board of Trustees adepts lead agency status for purposes of SEQRA review of this action, and that all other involve~ agencies are hereby provided 30 days to assert lead agency status in this matter, and it is further; RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport hereby preliminarily determines that the action of ~he annexation is an Unlisted Action for SEQRA purposes, and it is further; RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Graenport hereby proposes that the joint public hearing of the Town Board and the Board of Trustees on the Petition for Annexation be held at the auditorium of the Greenport Public School, Greenport, New York, at a date to'be mutually determined and it is further; RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of hhe Village of Greenport hereby proposes that the joint public hearing be chaired by the Southold Town Supervisor, Joshua Herren, and it is further; RESOLVED that the Village Clerk is hereby directed to forward a copy of this resolution as follows: Town of Southold KACE LI, LLC NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Suffolk Cousty Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Village of Greenport Agencies and Boards Dated: July 21, 2005 Motion to Approve: Seconded: ........ In Favor: Against: .z :/. ,:¢ "tM SOL)THOLD StJPERV/SORS INCORPORATED VILLAGE: OF GREENPORT BOAi~D OP TRUSTEES RESOLUTION NO. 1E OF 21 KE$OLUTIONADOPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND TYPING ACTION AS AN UNLISTED ACTION AND OTHER ACTION PURSUANT TO THE MUNICZPA~ ANNEXATION LAW OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WHE~AS ~ACE LI, LLC, filed a Petition for ~he Annexation of certain territory to be included in the Village of Greenpo~rt Which is presently in the unincorporated ~ortion of the Town Of Southold on July 14, 2005, with the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenpo=t, said property being 17.1 acres located on County Road 48, Greenport, and designated as Suffolk county Tax Map No. i000-40.00-03.00-00t.000, mn~ ~ WHEPdKAS the village of Graanport is an involved agency in that it is required to take certain action regarding the Petition pursuant to the Municipal Arinexation Law of the General Municipal Law of the Stats of New York, and for that reason and other good cause is therefore proposing to assume lead agency status for purposes of SEQRA review in this matter, and; WHEP. EAS the Village of Greenport has preliminarily ~etera%ined than the annexation is an Unlisted A~ti~n'pursuant to SEQRA; and; and II and; WHEREAS an Environmental Assessment Fonm Long Forr~ Parts I ar~ being prepared by the Village of Greenport for review, WHEREAS ~he Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold are required by the Municipal Annexation Law and the General Municipal La~ of the Stats of New York to conduc~ a joint hearing on the Petition for Annexation, it is therefore; RESOLVED that =he Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport hereby proposes that the Board of Trustees adopts lead agency status for purposes of SEQRA review of this action, and that all other involved agencies mre hereby provided 30 days =o ~ssert lead agency sEa%us in this ~atter, and it is further~ RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport hereby preliminarily determines ~hat the action of the annexation is an unlisted Action for SEQRA purposes, mhd it is further? RE. SOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport hereby proposes the5 5he joint pdblic hearing of the Town Board ~nd the Board of Trustees on the P~ticion for Annexation be held at the auditoriu~ of the Greenpo~t Public School, Greenpor~, New York, at a dete to be mutually determined and it is further; RESOLVED ~hat the Board of T~'ustees of the Village of G~eenport hereby propose~ that the joint public hearing be chaired by the Southold Town Supervisor, Joshua Horton, and it is further; RESOLVED the: the Village clerk is heseby directed to forward a copy of this resolution as follows: Town of Southold KACE LI, L~C NYS Department of Envlronm~ntal Conservation Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Depar~ent of Health Services village of Greenport Agencies and Boards Dated: July 21, 2005 Motion to Approve: Seconded: In Favor: 5 Against: 0 _Trustee Mills ~rusta~ P~bbar~ Michael E. Kontokosta ~so Jnly 14, 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mrs. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk 53095 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 KAC E GROUP RECEIVED JUL 14 Soethohl Town Clerl~ KACE LI, LLC - Annexation Petition (SCTM: 1000-40-3 Dear Mrs. Neville: Attached for the consideration of the Southold Town Board please find (i) a preliminary workforce housing proposal and (ii) the Petition of KACE L1, LLC pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York to annex a 17 acre parcel of property to the Village of Greenport. We look forward to highlighting the public benefits of this exciting transaction at the joint public meeting of the Southold Town Board and the Greenport Village Trustees. S incer~y, C.E. Kontokosta (w/Encl.) Village Trustees of the Village of Greenport (w/Encl.) THf KACE GROUP 43 WEST 54TH STRE6T / NEW YORK, Nh' lO0]g / TEL: 212 58~! 6100 EAX: 212 582 6047 ;'55 'qORTH ROAD, PO. BOX 67 / GR[ENPORT, NY 11944 / TEL: 63] 4770600 FAX: 6~1 4770800 TO: FROM: Date: MEMORANDUM Southold Town Board Village Trustees of the Village of Greenport KACE L1, LLC, Petitioner/KACE Development, LLC July 14, 2005 Re: WORKFORCE/AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL There is a critical shortage of workfome and affordable housing in the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. This shortage has reached crisis proportions as regulatory barriers and NIMBYism sentiments have created an environment inimical to providing the necessary housing for the workforce of the Town and the Village. The Supervisor of the Town and the Mayor of the Village have both spoken of the importance of workforce and affordable housing, but there is a wide chasm between words and actions. KACE Development LLC ("KACE") is proposing a workforce/affordable mixed-income housing project of at least 128 units on 17 acres. Approximately 20% of the project (24 units) will be multifamily condominium housing that will be affordable to the workforce population of the Village and the Town, approximately 30% of the project (36 units) will be semi-detached single-family homes that will be affordable for the workforce of the Village and the Town, and the remainder (68 units) will be detached single-family homes intended for the general market. To maintain the affordable sales price of these units, special attention will be paid to the size of the units and the associated parcels. By limiting unit square footage and lot size, sales prices will be restricted to appropriate levels for the intended market. Overall design of the project and the units will be of a high quality, in context with the surrounding residential architecture of the Village and Town. The feasibility of this project depends on the annexation of the property from the jurisdiction of the Town to that of the Village. This property is ideally suited for tlfis action for several reasons. First, the property is contiguous to the Village on three sides. Second, it is currently within the Greenport school and fire districts. Third, the property has a stipulated connection to the Greenport sewer system, a critical factor in allowing for increased densities. Fourth, the property has access to the Suffolk County water system. Last, and possibly most important, the Village has the appropriate existing zoning density provisions and sewer capacity needed to make the project feasible and enable the village and town to take a meaningful and significant step in addressing the most critical needs of its residents. KACE is ready, willing, and able to act to meet the needs of the communities of Greenport and Southold. This project presents a unique opportunity for a private developer, working in cooperation with two motivated municipalities, to provide the necessary housing for the workforce of both the Village of Greenport and the Tovm of Southold. In the Matter of the Application of KACE LI, LLC, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co. Pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law to annex a parcel of property to the territory of the Village of Greenport ORIGINAL Petitioner, TO: TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD VILLAGE TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT The petition of KACE LI, LLC respectfully shows as follows: 1. This is a petition pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York to annex to the lerritory of th,e Village of Greenport, Suffolk County, New York, that certain parcel of property owned by the Petitioner which is currently situated with the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, as more particularly bound and described upon Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof(also knowu as SCTM: 1000-40-3-1, hereinalSter, the "Subject Parcel"). 2. Petitioner, KACE L1, LI,C, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co., has an address at P.O. Box 67, 755 North Road, Greenport, New York 11944. 3. This Petition is submitted to the Town Board of the Town of Southold (hereinafter, the "Southold Board") and to the Trustees of the Village of Greenport (hereinafter, the "Village Trustees") for the purposes of receiving the consent of each of the Southold Board and the Village Board to the annexation of the Subject Parcel to the Village of Greenport. 4. There are no "inhabitants" of the Sul/ject Parcel as defined in Sec. 703 of the General Muuicipal Law. 5. Petitioner is the owner of a majority in assessed valuation of the Subject Parcel, as shown upon the last preceding assessment roll of the Town of Southold. 6. Attached hereto as Schedule B is the certificate of the Assessor of the Town of Southold pursuant to Sec. 703 of the General Municipal Law. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the Sonthold Board and the Village Trustees, pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, consider this Petition. Dated: July~, 2005 KACE LI, LLC,J~e~ioner.~ Member STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) On the/.7 "~day of July in the year 2005 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared C. E. KONTOKOSTA, in his capacity as a Member ofKACE LI, LLC, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and ackmowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalf of ' 'ndiv'du 1 te& exffeu the ~l~__v_ ~e~e~dj.. ex_~te~ instrument.__ (signat~e~rrd office of individual taking acknowledgment) EMILY HAMILL Notary Pubhc State or New Yor~4 ~o, tJ1 HA5059984 Ouahfleo ~n Suholk Cou~.~ ~,~ Commission Expires May 06 - - - SCHEDULE A to the Petitimt of KACE L][, LLC PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (SCTM: 1000-40-3-1) BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of the North Road, at the northeasterly comer of the land of the Village o[ff.~vr,.~ ,n.~ort and being the northwesterly comer of the land of Stephen Sledjeski; thence~/Ibfl~-~e southerly side of the North ~,'~ Road as the same curves, 43.85 feet; thence along t]he southerly side of the North Road North 61 degrees 23 minutes 20. fieconds East, 393.50 feet; thence continuing along the,~ southerly side of the North Ro~[t 58 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds East, 352.38 feet to~ the land now or formally of F.L.R. Francisco Estate;. thence southerly along said last mentioned land South 23 degrees 34 minutes 20 seconds East, 427.38 feet; thence continuing along said last mentioned land South 21 ,degrees 23 minutes 30 seconds East, 106.0 feet to the land of the Village of Greenport; thence along the land of the Village of Gmenport the following 6 courses and distances: - (1) SOUTH 23 degrees 4{.} minates West 241.26 feet; (2) SOUTH 5 degrees 08 minu~es 30 seconds West 671.42 feet; (3) NORTH 68 degrees 42 minutes 10 seconds West 432.43 feet; (4) NORTH 22 degrees 18 minutes West 564.52 feet; (5) SOUTH 72 degrees 4~ minutes 10 seconds West 119.9 feet; (6) NORTH 0 degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds West 1343.58 feet to the southerly side of the North iRoad at the point or place of BEGINNING. SCHEDULE B to the PETITION OF KACE LI, LLC CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSESSOR OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) l,'-O~ok,&4,_ -U.~, SoQc3~¢., in my capacity as a duly elected Assessor of the Town of Southold, Suf~oolk County, New York, do hereby certify as follows: 1. I am a duly elected Assessor of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and was one of the persons responsible tbr the preparation of the assessment bill for the year 2004/2005. 2. The real property described in Paragraph 1 of the Petition to which this certificate is attached (also known as SCTM: 1000-40 -3-1, hereinafter, the "Subject Parcel") is situated in the Town of Somhold, Count)' of Suffolk, New York, and is assessed on the tax roll of the said Town of Southold for the year 2004/2005, which is the last preceding assessment roll of the said Town of Southold. 3. The total assessed valuation of the Subject Parcel as shown on the assessment roll of the said Town of Southold for the 2004/2005 tax year is $ 4:3c~.or~ 4. According to the records of the Assessor's ()ffice, KACE LI, LLC, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co., is the owner of the Subject Parcel and is the owner ora majority in assessed valuation of the Subject Parcel assessed upon the last preceding assessment roll ot; or utilized by, the Town of Southold, Dated: Julyt~, 2005 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) On the I ~"¢r~aypf July in the year 20.05 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared /~Ok~ ('k --~. S ~ O }~/5 I~ personally known to ,ne or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or tbe person up? b, ehalf of which the individual(s) acted, execute..d~, il2~rument. ~ .~:..~/'/'~/.~, } (signature an~t office of individU~ledgment) Claire L. Glew Notary Public, State of New York No. 01GL4879505 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires Dec. 8, 2 facsimile TRANSMITTAL DATE: ~,~/j,_/a~~- PAGES: . ~ ~ROM T~ DESK OF ~~ F~ NO. 631-477-1877 VOICE NO. 631-477-2555, 0248 MESSAGE: I 00 I ~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE TaU$~g~ February 3, 2004 Joshua Y. Horton, Supoprisor Members of thc Southold Town Board. Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Via telefax: (631) 765-1823 Dear Supervisor Horton and Members of the Town Board: The Village Board of Trustees has asked me to fo~,ard to you the enclosed resolution, tmanimously adopted by the board at a ~ecial mee6~g held on February 2, 2004. The resolution is intended to initiate a conversation with the town board on the subject of expanding the village to address the town-wide affordable housing crisis, Also enclosed is a memorandum I prepared to brief ~he village board in the matter. The Village Board and I look forward to working with you on this initiative that we believe holds enormous opportunity for mutual benefit for our respectiye oonstituencies. I will be in touch with Super~sor Horton to schedule a joint meeting of our boards to begin deliberation. Da¼d E. Kapell Mayor To: Village ]Board of Trustees From: Mayor Dave Kapefl Subject: Expanding the village to promote affordable housing Date: February 2, 2004 I offer this memo tts a bttstsfor discussion at our 2/2/04 z'peclal meeting: There exists an affordable housing crisis in the Town of Southold, including the Village of Crreanport. This crisis is arguably the most important public policy challenge facing the eommtlaity. If the problem is not addr~sed forcefully and mediately, the human face of the town will be irreparably damaged, as families are forced to relocate to communities where reasonable homing opportunity exists. The established developmen~ pattern of the village is of one-and-two-family homes on small lots. This pattern leadz Rselfnaturally to affordability, both for owners and renters, as compared to the larg~, lot, single-family, rural-agricultural pattern that characterizes the town. Within the current boundary of the village',, established in the nineteenth century on what was then a farm, there presently exists no vacant land on which to meaningfully expand the housing supply. Adjacent to, but outside the boundary flaere are vacant lands Milch, if annexed to the wllage, would be subject to village zoning that permits orte-and- two-family homes on small lots. This is not permitted under town zoning. ~00 ~ LLS[ LL~ gtg:l~.L 1 Key Points: · A siomaificaat expansion of thc village could have a meaningful impact on the town-wide housing crisis. · Linking the present and future values of the housillg produced to an income standard can insure permanent affordability. · Public water and sewer systems exist that could serve new developmem, thereby mitigating damage to the physical e~tvironment. · The Oreanport Public School facility is underutilized; designed to house twice its current e~rollment of 600 students. · The existing village boundary is obsolet* and an obstacle to meeting the contemporary nee~ of the town. · An infusion ofn~w families would contribute to the general health and welfare of the village, its economy, th~: school system, volunteer-based organizations, and the local democracy. · A vibrant, prosperous and c~iverse village contributes to the general health and welfare of its town. I recommend that: 1. I be authorized to initiate c/iseussioll of the expansion by malo~g contact with the supervisor and town board, and organizing the necessary joint meet'hags o£the villagc and to~n ba. ards to advance the proposal. 2. I be authorized to contact elected representatives at the county, state md federal levels to request teclmical and ~maacial support for an analysis of 2 the impacts of expansion on thc commun/ty and for i~s implementation,/f approved by the village and town boards and affected property owners a~d/or residents. 3. For the purpose of open{ng a conversation, thc area for consideration of expansion should be generally defined as begi~nlng at Chapel Lane on the west and extending to Manhassett Avenue on the east, with other parameters to be defineA through a deliberative process. Conclusion: The intent of this proposal i.s to foster the development of affordable housing, a/ong with a mechanism for insuring its permanent affordabiUty that links the pr~ent and futura values of the housing produced to an income standard that fa/fly reflects the oft. he average familyresiding in Sou*hold Town. The solution to the crisis lies in striking a balance between the physical and human environmen~ that recognizes [he importance of the average family to the health of our society and respects that family's right to affordable housing. The village is a uniquely appropriate vehicle for the town to address the crisis in a manner that cnlumces the hummx environment without damaging the physical environment, or the character of the town, while also streng~ening thc village as an independem jurisdiction. 900 'd 3 &~Od~3~D dO ~OVqqlA gl:60 (~i)~0,£0-'83$ APPENDIX A Village: Town: County: State: Federal: Public Sector Partners political and financial support for impact analysis and implementation Political and tSnzncial support for impact analysis and implementation Technical and financial support for impact analysis Extension of public water supply (SCWA) Implementation funding Technical and finsncial assistance for impact analysis Special legislation, if needed Implementation funding Implementat/on funding 4 l~]O~Fl~9 ~0 :]9VlllA Draft resolution for action Resolved that the mayor is hereby authorized and directed to take the following steps to initiate thc expansion of thc Village of Orcenport: 1) Make contact with the supervisor and town board to op~'l a conversation in th~ matter and to orffsni×e the necessary joint meetings of the village and town boards to advance thc proposal. 2) Contact elected representatives at the county, state and federal levels to request technical and financial support for an analysis of the impa~ts of expansion on the commurdty and for its impleracntation, if approved by thc village and town boards and affec~d property owners and/or residents. Foz the purpose of opening the conversation, the area for consideration of eapsn-~ion should bc generally defined as begi~ni,~E at Chapel Lane on the west and extending to Mar~hims~tl Avenue on thc cf~, with other parameters to be defined through a deliberative process ~NN 'J 5 ,LHOdN~H© :10 HOYq~IA 9I:60 (~fl&)PO,£O-'~ PATRICIA A. FINNIgGAN TOWN ATTORN E'~ LORI ItlJLSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori montefuscoCt town,southold.ny.us JOSHUA Y. HORTON Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 S~:ut}~okl, New Yo':'k 11971-0959 Telephone t631) 765-1939 Facsimile t631) 765-1823 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Members of the Town Board Patricia A. Finne.qan Town Attorney February 10,200,4 Municipal Annexation Law The process referred to by Greenport'~ Mayor with reierence to expanding the Village boundaries is known as Muni,.ipal Annexation. There are basic prerequisites to the annexation ef [e~itory from one local government to another, including (1)the consent of the peaple within the territory to be annexed, and (2) the consent of the governing board ol each local gow~rnment, after the determination that the annexation is in the overall public interest. (If consent is riot given, the determination may be made by lhe Supreme Court, based on the law and facts presented, on the qt;estion of whether it is in the overall public interest) Municipal Annexation Law Article 17 covers the procedure. The process involves the presentation of a petition describing the territory, stating the approximate number of inhabitants, and signed by (1) at least 20% of the qualified voters residing in the district to be annexed, or (2) the owners of a majority in assessed valuation of the real property in such territory. Following the presentation of the petition, a hearing will be held on the question of whether the annexation is in the overall public interest, which will be presided over by a representative from each affected territory (Village and Town). Within nirlety (90) days after the approval of annexation (by resolution or court order) a special election shall be held to determine whether the annexation shall be approved. Alt voters residing in the territory proposed to be annexed shall be entitled to vote. Following approval by the voters, the annexation shall be formalized. The procedure is clearly spelled out in A~licle 17 but these am the r'na~n requirements. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. PAF/Ik cc: Town Clerk ,'MmcxaI oi'~ I ]earil*g Page ] o',' i Neville, Elizabeth From: Anne Taylor Da¥is [ataylordavis@davidchudesign.com] Sent: Tuesday August 23, 2005 1:08 PM To Neville, Eiiza~eth Subject: ,Annexation Hearing I'o Ihe Board I am rot ahlc to atlcnd the hearing this eVCllillg, but I ~x :rated to COIt/ml]lliC~lte [ll~ poJllt of'vic~ about tile proposal to aEilex over I 7 acres of cnvirt,mncntall5 sensilive space fYI' a high density development project RECEIVED /:i.:(;, ~ 2005 %uthol4 Town I respcctlully proposc that thc Town and the Village sta~]d united against this Noposal which is against sound planning, long teml planning and thc good of d/,.: community. [t pits thc tbrces of greed against thc proponents of smmt grox~th. Please make your decisions in the best interests of our 1OWl1 arid d~) not approxe a~Bexatioll. Si]lcetel5. Anne Taylor [)avis 3940 Orchard Street Orienl, New York II 957-0480 8/3 1/2005 August 22, 2005 65300 Route 48 Greenport, NY 11944 $oufhold Town Clerl~ Southold Town Board Southold, NY 11971 R[i: Petition for Annexation, Dear Sirs: SCTM# 1000-40-3- I Once again, the Village of Greenport's annexation plans rear their ugly head in the proposed development of 128 units on 17 acres. TI-tis comes only sixteen months after heard a village official state "1 have no agenda." Dc, 1 hear the ring of real estate commissions? The subject parcel, bounded on three sides by village park land (Moore's Woods) and a mile distant from lhe nearest village resident, was apparently deliberately left out of the Village's past land gobbles by our forebears who, in their wisdom, wished to remain separate from the Village. Can we blame them? In the past, the Village attempted to pave over the very same parkland. Now, with no consideration tbr its proximity to the Town of Southold's Pipe Neck Preserve, they wish to develop it in the name of affordable housing. This kind of speculative real estate development coupled with the desire to seek maximum profit on every square inch of land is what has created the affordable housing problem in the first place: feeding the frenzy will not help. This is not to mention the impact such high-density development will have on our school taxes and the increased cost s for other services. In the interests of the residents of the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport, this land must be rezoned as planning calls for: '~2 acre zoning." With Regards, $' ey . ymlSas y August 28, 2005 Thomas Thorp and Patricia Lauth 1705 Kerwin Blvd. Greenport, NY 11944 631/477-8234 RECEIVED Southold Town Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Town Re: Annexation of Land to Greenport Village Dear Sirs/Madams: We are writing to express our opinion regarding the annexation of property fi.om Southold Town to the Village of Greenport on the North Road just east of Chapel Lane. We attended the joint meeting held last Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at Greenport High School and listened to the KACE presentation and comraents by citizens and by Mayor KapelL Although we are not against development of the 17 acre parcel, we are against annexation so that the rules can be bent when it comes to high density housing. The nature of the area that we live in will forever be changed if the number of housing units is built on that parcel as proposed by KACE we believe the Southold Town regulations regarding density are good for the community, and we purchased our home outside of the Village of Greenport because of that density. We appreciate this opportunity, as voting citizens, to express our views regarding this matter and hope that you will vote accordingly on our behalf. Sincerely, Patricia Lauth Sincerely, Thomas Thorp August 27, 2005 Board of Trustees Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, NY 11944 Subject: Case Property Annexation RECE~¥[iD Southold Town Board Main Road Southoild, NY :' : SoutE~I~ Tc,w,~ Clerk Ladies and Gentlemen: Please excuse me ibr missing your joint public hearing on the above referenced matter. 1 thought there would be a fair and balanced presentation at the public hearing. When 1 read the account in The Suffolk Times I found I was wrong. The economics of the proposed project must be examined careihlly beibre the parcel in question is annexed to the Village of Greenport. Since the Code of thc Village of Greenport has no specifications lbr subdivisions, drainage or road construction the first question must be the road construction. 1 will make the asstm~ption that the village could end up constructing the roads and if the village does not construct the roads will end up having to maintain substandard road surfaces. The village will have to incur the cost of constructing sewer and water mains in thc project. It should also be borne in mind that the sewer pipe running from the nursing home to the sewerage treatment plant is cement asbestos which is know to deteriorate over time from the acid nature of sewerage. An increased load will hasten the day when the pipe has to be replaced. A conservative cost estimate, on the low side, fbr water and sewer pipes in the project is $1,500,000. There are also fees that will be associate, d with a meter, pit and check valves from the SCWA water main on CR 48, assuming the SCWA will let the village tap their main on CR 48. That also assumes the SCWA has the water for the subdivision. To supply electricity the village will have to run a pole line from Moores Lane, through Moores Woods (parkland) to the Case parcel. Considering the wooded swampy nature of the area this cost can be conservatively estimated at $1,000,000. There is at least a $2,500,000 cost to provide water, sewer and electricity to the parcel that lhe village must bear. Annexation August 27, 2005 Page 2 There has been no quantity put on the electric demand for the project. If is reasonable to assume that given the attractive electrk': rate village residenls now enjoy the developer will install heat pumps with resistance ~ow temperature heating, the cheapest way to go. That will produce a demand larger than the all electric heat that Driftwood Cove now requires. 'Faking 127 units (no sure minimum number) it is reasonable to assume that the project will increase the village's electric demand by 15%. The village electric system just had a peak summertime demand day of 7 megawatts. The present allocation for the village from NYPA is somewhere around 5 megawatts. Every kilowatt over 5 megawatts must be purchased on the open market for electricity at the going rate. This will mean a substantial cost increase to all village electric users to satisfy the demand for electricity the project would represent. The Zoning chapter of the village code allows 10,00,O square foot lots with a two family dwelling in the densest present use, the R-2 use. What is to stop the village board from chm~ging the Zoning Chapter to allow more dense use? What is to stop the developer from designating at least part of the parcel as commercial? The village is currently at or near its statutory borrowing limit at a debt of around $14,000,000. The infrastructure of the project will cost the village at least $2,500,000. The village cannot increase its bonding presently because of'the debt ceiling. The village also has a $5,000,000 cost to make improvements to the electric plant, just to stay even with present demand. Another cost that nmst be considered is the inevitable lawsuits the village will be dragged into. Case has already threatened lawsuits. Finally this project will produce no guarantee of"low income" housing units. The augment has been made that because some of the units are "small" they will remain aflbrdable. "Small" housing units in the present Village of Greenport boundaries are going for $450,000 and up. Very truly yours, David S. Corwin I N CORPOPJ~TE D Resolution "A" RECEIVED VILLAGE OF GREENPORT RESOLUI!ON NO. 14 BOARD OF =:RusTmBS' ....... ~,,, ~ . :~ OF 15 RESOLUTION ADOPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND TYPING ACTICN AS AN UNLISTED ACTION AND OT}tER ACTION PURSUANT TO !'HE MUNICIPAL ANNE_~L~_T ! ON LAW Clerk OF THE GENERP-i, MUNICIPAL LAW WHER~Aa F~LCE L!, L'~,~, filed ~ Petition for '~he ~ n~ ~ ' ~-~ of certain territory ~o be included in the Village of a~r~npc~=~ which is presently in the ~ '~ ~ ~ _~wn cf ~n~corp~==ted portion of the ~ Southo!d on July 14, 2005, with the Town of Southe!d and Village cf Greenport, said property }sei_ng 1~.! acres a~d cn Csun~v R~d ~Rt Q_e~Lp~r~, anc designated ~ Suffolk ~- ~,!aL No. 1000-40.00-03.00-00!.COQ, and ;' WHEREAS the Village of Greenport is ~.n involved agency in that it is required tc %aka certain action regardin? the -~etitieL curs~ant to the ~,iunicipa! Ann~xaiion Lew of %he General ~unicipal La',., cf the Slate of New York, and far %ha~ -'eascn and other gee! cause is Eherefore proposing to ~ss,_~e lead agent5 st~.tus J_or purposes of SEQP~-L review in this maEter, al!; WHEREAS WHEREAS an Envirsnmenta! Assess;lent Form_l.c~-,n~_~ ~=~-=_m Parns i .... e=~g prepared · are required }3v= ,-R~_~.~ 2{unici~a!. Axnex~lian _~ ~ _~r-,s_~, +},= .... Scherzi ........ ~ the R~ ~. ~ ......... - .... t n6c. rlnc on e!~,~ Peuitisn for ~ ...... ~' -- ~ RES3,1_YED that t're Bcar:i cf u?, ..... ~ees -¢._ the_. ~hls cecermination inciuces }s~l is not i~xi.:ef ~o !. Ihat the crcr;erl,; if bo~lndaries and jurisdiction ef the Village of Greenport, and will be subject to the zoning, construction and other local ordinances of the Village Code of the Vil.!age of Greenpcrt, and; 2. That the property if annexsd will be serviced by the Village of Greenport Municipal. Electric Utility, and that the Village as part of the ana!ys:.s of the Petition for Annexation and the SEQ~ review to be done w:.!l prepare and[ review a feasibility an~!ysis for the Greenport Municipal Eiectric Utility, and; 3. That the property if annexed will be serviced by the Village of Greenport Municipal[_ Sewer System, and that the Village as Dart ef the analysis of the Petition for Annexation and the SEQRA review to be dsne will p'repare and review a feasibility analysis for the Greanpor5 Municipal Sewer System, and; 4. -that the property if annexed will be serviced ky the Village of Greenpor5 Hunicipa]_ Water System, and that the Village as part of nhe analysis of the Petition for Annexation and the SBQYS. review ~o be dena will prepare and review a feasibility analysis for ihs Greenpert Hunicipa' W~ter Syslem, and; _That pursuant tc '-~e ~' .... ~ ~ forth 617.6(h) {5)(V) the agency that is most appropriate to serve as lead s ~'-.s~ ~: the Village of ~'~ ..... r~ ___ -g~-- ~ ~ ..... s~-~ i~ that: The project after annexation -~ ~] be entirely ~ithin ~,=~,~ sounC, az-_es' ' end jurisdic~io.n of the V~ ..... ] ~=~ of ,~e~np,~.=~,~' ..... that; ~. =nat: the imeacts ~¼~ -.4~i -' ~__~t ,___ generaEet h:y the ozo-~ect, if~!,~ wi!-___ ~4~-~],~~___~ ~_~s^n~ eR~ .... ...... ~nt~, ~ a~!p_o~_~?~ ~re,- owners of tbs ',lilacs ~ Greenesra' ' sac .... e~ Vi!!ase~ e~_ 'q~n~~~ .... D~e itself. 7ke Villa.se si: GrsenDerz has the broades~ gcvernmenlal power for i~,l;~seig~eili~ the imDsn-= cf the annexation because it ~=f=-; resu!aticns and Dowers, and the site will he serviced m-~ ....... ~-' ~ ~ =' Un!istei Boe~? ~,- cN,%?u~ purposss, a~_2i it is fY rlker; RESOLVED that the Village Clerk is hereby directei to forward a copy of this resolution as follows: Town of Southold ~ACE LI, LLC NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Village of Greenpor-z Agencies and Beards And it is further; RESOLVE[} that due to the adoption of lead agency status in this matter by both the Vii!age of Greenpozt and tine Town of Seuthold the determination of lead agency in this matter shall be referred by tile Village of Greenpert tc the New York State CeR~missioner ef the Department of Environmental Conservemion pursuant ~o 6 NYCRR 617 . 6 (b) (5) ef the SEQPum~ Rules and Regulations. Datei: August 18, 2005 Hoticn la: ANprove:Trustee ~ills S e ~; c Rie !: Trustee Shelby iF: Fevor: 5 Agaixs~:: 0 PATRICIA A. FINNEGA~ TOWN ATTORNEY patricia.fi nncgan (L~t own .southeld.ny.us KIERAN M. CORCORAN ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY kieran.corcoran(~/town.southold.ny,us LORI ItULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.montet\~sco(~town.southold.ny.us JOSHUA Y. HORTON Supervisor Town I{all Annex, 54375 Route 25 1'.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Te. lephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLI) August17,2005 RECEIVED Joseph Prokop, Esq. Prokop & Prokop 175 Route 25A East Setauket, NY 11733 Re: Annexation Petition of KACE LI, LLC Dear Joe: Please be advised that the Town of Southold does not agree to the Village of Greenport assuming Lead Agency status regarding the above-referenced matter. I am enclosing a copy of a resolution adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Southold at their regular meeting last night. With respect to consultants to conduct the SEQRA review, the Town would consider the retention of Cleary Consulting or McLean Associates and would be open to consideration of other appropriate firms. Please advise me of the Village's position on the Town Board's intentions to seek Lead Agency status. If Lead Agent cannot be agreed upon, pursuant to SEQRA §617.6(b)(5), we will submit the question to the Commissioner of the DEC for designation of Lead Agency. Thank you for your attention. PAF/Ik Enclosure cc: Members of the Town Board ~.~- Ms. Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk ~_..~ ELIZABETH TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS M ARILLAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone: (631) 765 - 1800 southoldtown.northfork.net RESOI,UTION # 2005-508 Resolution II): 1075 Meeting: 08/16/05 04:30 PM Department: Town Attorney Category: Seqra THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLI,OWING RESOI,UTION NO. 2005-508 OF 2005 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON August 16, 2005: WHEREAS, thc Town Board of the Town of Southold has received a Petition for Annexation (the "Petition") submitted by KACE LI, LLC; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Grccnport has proposed that it serve as lead agency for thc environmental review of the Petition pursuant to SEQRA; BE IT HEREBY RESOI~VED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold preliminarily classifies the Petition as an Unlisted Action; and be it fhrther RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town c,f Southold proposes that the Town of Southold serve as lead agency for the SEQRA review of the Petition~ and hereby directs that the Town Clerk mail a cop,/of this proposal to the Village of Greenport and all other interested agencies; and be it fnrther RESOLVEI), that, in the cvcnt the Village of Gmenport and the Town of Southold are unable to agree upon the lead agency determination with respect to the Petition, that thc Town of Southold shall submit the issue to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conse~wation for resolution pursuant to 1}617.6(b){5) of the SEQRA Rules and Regulations. Elizabeth A. Neville Souflmld Town Clerk Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Actie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 TO: BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Supervisor Joshua Horton Town Board R£C;EI~ED FROM: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Board of Trustees DATE: August 18, 2005 Annexation of Town Land by Greenport Village KACE Development LLC/Dino and Michael Kontokosta SCTM# 40-3-1 Please be advised that the Board of Trustees is concerned about the above referenced application as it contains fi'esh water wetlands that are under our jurisdiction. Before consideration is given to the annexation of Town land to a municipality such as Greenport we would like to see all fresh water wetlands defined and flagged on a survey of the project and then verified by the Board of Trus'tees and this Office of the Town of Southold. We understand there is a hearing on Augu_st 23, 2005 regardirig3his matter. office with the time and place. ~w-A_~U7 5ja,~~~'~~ ,- c~7/(~ el~.~etg/[,~notify our 18:58 FAX 631 765 6145 SOITTIIOLD TOWN CLERK ~]001 *** TX REPOI¥1" TR4NSM|SSION OK T×/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PCS, SENT RESULT 1740 17/08 !3:57 ~0 ' 53 2 94771~77 ELIZABETH A, lgRV~.LIg TOl~rN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS I~rARRIAGE Orrlc~.~ ~CORDS ~AG~E~ OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFO~TION OFFICEE Town Hall, 53095MaiaRoad P,O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fa,-~(631) 765-6145 Telephone (631)765-1800 u~uthold~owa,northfork-net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD F A X To-' Re: Date: Pages: Christine Hallock, Village Clerk Fax # 477~1877 Lynda M Bohn Resolution # 2005-508 August 17, 21105 2 including cover ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK ~FOWN OF SOUTIqiOLD F A X To: From: Re: Date: Pages: Christine Hallock, Village Clerk Fax # 477-1877 Lynda M Bohn Resolution # 2005-508 August 17, 2005 2 including cover ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF' THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 16, 2005 Thc Southold Town Board will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on Tuesda¥~ August 23~ 2005 at 7:00 P.M. at the Greenport High School, 75955 Route 25~ Greenport~ New York, at which time am] place the Southold Town Board and thc Greenport Board of Trustees will hear testimony and consider evidence and information concerning the ANNEXATION PETITION filed by KACE L1 LLC. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Town Board Town Attorney Chief of Police Supt. of Highways Departments Newspapers Radio News 12 ACORDrM CERTIFICA. OF LIABILITY INSURAN6 PRODUCER F'ho~e (62.1)298~700 Fax 621 2983850 ROY H REEVE AGENCY, iNC. PO BOX 54 MATTITUCK NY 11952 INSURED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CIO SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971 I DATE (MM/DO/YYYY) 08/01/2005 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE I NAIC # hNSURER A American Alternative I~surance Co. ' ,INSURER B: ;INSURER D~ I INSURER E COVERAGES I'HE POLICIES [)F INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INS!JRED NAMED ABOYE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED NOTWITFISTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THiS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED MAY PERTAIN rile INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES AGGREOAYE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CI AIMS I TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER LIMITS ' GENERAL LIABILITY 01-A2-RL-0000022-00 01/01105 01/01/06 EACH OCCURRENCE I$ 1,000,000 i XJ OCBUR (Any one person) ,$ 5,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 3,000,000 (Per person/ i $ i I (Pet accident) I IAuqo oNLY AGG $ $ RETENTION $ I$ WORKERS EMPLOYERs'COMPENSATION LIABILI~ AND !: J tORY LIMI~ L% OTHER ! DESCRIPTION OF OPE~TIONS/LOCATIONS~EHICLES/EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT/SPECIAL PROVISIONS USE OF GREENPORT HS, 720 FRONT STREET, GREENPORT, NY ~1944, FOR PUBLIC HEARING, JOINT MEETING OF THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT & THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, ON 8123105. CERTIFICATE HOLDER IS LISTED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED WITH RESPECT TO THIS USE UNDER FORM RL 2066. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION GREENPORT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 FRONT STREET GREENPORT NY 11944 Attention: SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF THE iSSUING iNSURER WiLL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 OAYS WRI%IEN NOTICE TO rile CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT BUT FAILURE TO DO SO BHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OE ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER IT'S AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ~h~~~ ACORD 25 (2001/08) Certificate Cf 6241 © ACORD CORPORATION 1988 IMPORTANT If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must be endorsed. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s) If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). DISCLAIMER The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon. RECEIVED ACORD 25-S (2001/08) Certificate #6241 8/(17 '05 Till 15:~9 F:\)~ [531 765 6145 S0[TTIIOLD T(IWN CLI:RK l~00! TI REPORT TRANS~I [SSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TItlE USAGE T PCS. SENT RESULT 1681 28/07 15:18 01'07 3 OK 9591519{I ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK RF~GIST~xfl~ OF VITAL STATISTICS MAC4XiAG E OFFICER KECOP. DS ,~AOEM ENT OFFICER F[~,EEDOM OF INFORiVIA'f[ON OFFICER Towa Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O, Box 1179 Southolcl, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH:OLD FAX TILi, xNSMITTAL To: From: Dated: Stephen - Suffolk Life Fax # 591-5190 Linda J..Cooper, Deputy Town. Clerk July 28, 2005 Resolution from 7/26 Number of Pages (including cover): 3 If total transmittal is not reeeivcd, please call 631-765-1800. COMMENTS: As requested ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VI'[AL S I'ATISI'ICS MARRIAGI OFFICIdR RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFOP. MATION OFFICI!R Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax 1631) 765-6145 Telephone 1631) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FAX TRANSMITTAL To: From: Dated: Re: Stephen - Suffolk Life Fax # 591-5190 iLinda J. Cooper, Deputy Town Clerk July 28, 2005 Resolution from 7/26 Number of Pages (including cover): 3 If total transmittal is not received, please call 631-765-1800. COMMENTS: As requested · ,4~ ~ ool 27/07. '05 ¥'ED 10. 2 I;'AX 1331 765 6145 SOUTHOLD TqWN CLI]RK { TRANS~IISS I ON OK TX/RX NO CONNECF ION TEL CONNECTION ID ST, TIME [[SAGE T I'GS. SENT RESULT 1669 27/07 ]0:41 01'08 OK 94771877 ELIZA.BETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK R EGIST[~2Lf'~, OF VI~/~L STATISTICS N~RRIAGE OFFICER RECOIkD$ MANAGEMENT OFFICER FR F~EDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main goad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765 6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FAX TRANSMITTAL Dated: Re: Christine Hallock, Village Clerk Fax # 477-1877 Linda J. Cooper, Deputy Town Clerk July 27, 2005 Resolution of 2/26/06 Number of Pages (including cover): 3 If total transmittal is not received, please call 631-765-1800. COMMENTS; Here is a copy of the resolution/'rom yesterday's meeting. As I had stated, the meeting consisted ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISq RAR (11: VIIAL S fAIlS IICS MAP. RIAG[~ OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OEF[CER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OEFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FAX TRANSMITTAL To: From: Dated: Re: Christine Hallock, Village Clerk Fax # 477-1877 Linda J. Cooper, Deputy Town ,Clerk July 27, 2005 Resolution of 2/26/06 Number of Pages (including cover): 3 If total transmittal is not received, please call 631-765;-1800. COMMENTS: Here is a copy of the resolution from yesterday's meeting. As I had stated, the meeting consisted solely of this one resolution. I have already placed a certified copy of the resolution in the mail for your board. ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOVqN CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765 6145 Telephone 1631) 765 1800 southoldtown.northfklrk.nct OFFICE OF' THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTIqlOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOI,LOWING RESOLUTION NO. 465 OF 2005 WAS ADOPTED AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JULY 26, 2005: RESOLVED that thc Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a joint public hearing, together with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport, to consider the Petition for A~mexation filed by KACE LI, LLC, requesting the annexation of the territory encompassed by SCTM # 1000-40-3-1 t¥om the Town of Southold to the Village of Greenport, such hearing to be held at the Greenport High School, 75955 Route 25, Greenport, New York, on the 23rd of August, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard; and the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish and post a notice of such hearing, no less than 20 days prior the date of this hearing, and to cause a copy of such notice to be mailed to each person or corporation owning real property in the territory encompassed by SCTM #1000-40-3-1 and known as 62600 County Route 48 as shown by the last preceding assessment roll and to any and all persons residing in such territory qualified to vote for officers of' the Town; and the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a copy of such notice to be mailed not less than 10 days prior to the date of such hearing to the school authorities of the Greenport School District and the board of commissioners each fire district, district corporation, public benefit corporation and town improvement district situated in the texitory proposed to be annexed. The notice of such ]hearing shall appear in substantially the tbllowing form: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING July 26, 2005 Notice is hereby given that the Town o[' Southold l'tas received a Petition for Annexation proposing the annexation of the territory encompassing approximately 17 acres of vacant, residential land identified by SCTM #1000-40-3-1 and known as 62600 County Route 48, from the Town of Southold to the Village of Greenport. The Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a joint public hearing, together with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. on the 23rd day of August, 2005, at the Greenport High School, 75955 Route 25, Greenport, New York, at which time and place the Town Board and the Board of Trustees will hear testimony and consider evidence and information concerning the Petition. All persons interested in this project will be heard at said hearing and all written communications will be considered. Dated: July 26, 2005 Town of Southold, New York Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Linda J. Cooper Deputy Town Clerk Greenport UFSD 75955 Route 25 Greenport, NY 11944 Board of Trustees Greenport Village Hall 236 Third Street Greenport, NY 11944 Greenport Fire Department PO Box 58 Greenport, NY 11944 Kace LI, LLC 43 West 54th Street New York, NY 10019 Kace LI, LLC PO Box 67 Greenport, NY 11944 L .a.,.~d~, . a ~'.~ ' ' i . ' , i~' ,,.,~ ~.,~ ~,..? r,~ 7003 3110 0001 8547 5108 5~5 ~hS~ S~OS Lh~ '[ODD D~E EI]O~L ~L,L OE'~ ~LO~ LhS~ q:DDD n~:q:E EFIDL 'a'o'o rq II~/Pc~nsul I-1 [ ~ppv rn X h~'6t t AN 'ldodueat:lD' SZ elnot~ SS6S/- as=Ill 1Joduaa.~O · s~.u. uod eoeds p, ~,u ozt eq~. uo Jo 'eoe!dl~eU~ e41. ~.o 4oeq eLq ol m~ · no,~ o~ pueo eql Wl'~.aJ ueo ea.. ~,eq:l. os e~de^e~ eq$ uo sSa~ppe puc etueu .JnoX eleldtUOO OSlV 'g pue '~ '1. ~ eleldmOo Bohn, Lynda From: Corcoran, Kieran Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 2:34 PM To: Bohn, Lynda Subject: the statute calls for notice to be mailed to th, .... ry as reflected on the last assessment roll and to all voters on the register from the F~'T'13~1t~raT :~T~!'i~tTO-h. can you just make sure we check those two official lists? i expect there will be no voters and it will still be one owner, but we have to check. kc HJ.~3(3 C]¥O~J NO 39'v'J. NO~J-~ ~3£¥MNO ~9¥1NO~J i~,l.o/ ~.Old esnoH I~uOI4SmE] pueldwOMS puolpooN~ E: alqOllLL ~: elqoll!/ enlOA '-!: 9NIQ'IlN8 :JO 3d)d. J.O1 'tINS 39'v'-KIIA allvD alioD~lll A.I. tl;ldOtld S alOHJ, flOS :lO ~3NMO NMO.L / - £- ?A - e .o ~/ J~-I =de V~ev~ ~ro~tbar Help ~2GO0 ER 48 ~ TotalAV: 4.~0 Ow~e~ Toh~l: 1 Taxable VaI~ M~e~an~u~ A~ A~d~ U~ 4~300 P~: 433 Sheet: 43 ~est 54 SI Sch~[ 4,300 M~tg ~,Box Ba~: C~. New Ymk. NY Zip: 10019~ S, chf a~er ~er: 4~300 Acct N~ 17 ~ale To~ 0 Site I ~ 1 Land 0 of 0 Bo~ Page Sale Date S~ P~i~ owner P~pc s: Res vac I~d N~d 6d: 0 Sewe~ Utif~ie~ 'Exem~i~ Total: '0 Tefra 0~ 8uil&ng T~e 0 ~e A~nt Yea~ P~ Special Di~t~ict Total 3 V~e/ ~ Improvement Total: 0 Co~ Unit~ Pc~ T~pe Move T~ T~pe Na~ Dim1 D~2 SQFT Y Built FO031 E-W Pmteclio .00 .00 .00 S~011 Sol~ ~aste J .00 O0 .00 -~ NEWSDAY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971-0959 STATE OF NEW YORK) :SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Kathy Sullivan Legal 13911002 of Newsday, Inc., Suffolk County, N.Y., being duly sworn, says that such person is, and at the time of publication of the annexed Notice was a duly authorized custodian of records of Newsday, Inc., the publisher of NEWSDAY, a newspaper published in the County of Suffolk, County of Nassau, County of Queens, and elsewhere in the State of New York and other places, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a tree copy, was published in the following editions/ counties of said newspaper on the following dates: THURSDAY JULY 28 2005 Nassau Sworn To Before Me This 28 day of July Notary Public LegaKNotice 13911002 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING July 26, 2005 Notice is hereby iven that the Town of Sonthold~hes receNed a Petition for Annexation NIWSDAY PROOF 2005 Guy P. Wasser Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 WA6045924 Commission Expires 08/07/2006 Qualified in Suffolk County ILl Z " ,, 0 0 >- Ill l-- Z 0 Page 1 of 1 Cooper, Linda From: Cooper, Linda Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:00 PM To: Newsday Legals (legaladv@newsday.com) Subject: Legal Notice for 7/28 if possible Attachments: Annexation PH.doc I would like to have the attached legal notice published once on July 28 (if possible), otherwise, July 29, in the Suffolk County edition of Newsday. Please bill: Town of Southold P O Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 We have published notices with you in the past. Please confirm receipt and publish date. If you have any questions, you can email me or call me at 63'i-765-1800 Thank you. Linda J. Cooper Deputy Town Clerk Town of Southold 7/27/2005 Message Page 1 of l Cooper, Linda From: Jean Burgon [iburgon@timesreview.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:13 PM To: Cooper, Linda Subject: RE: Legal Notice for 7/28/05 edition Got it! Jean Burgon ..... Original Message ..... From: Cooper, Linda [mailto:Linda.Cooper@town.southold.ny.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:02 PH To: j bu rgon@timesreview.com Subject: Legal Notice for 7/28/05 edition Please confirm receipt of this legal notice. Thank you!!! Linda Cooper Deputy Town Clerk 7/26/2005 Page 1 of I Cooper, Linda From: Dina Kontokosta [dkontokosta@travelerwatchman.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:36 PM To: Cooper, Linda Subject: P,e: Legal Notice for 7/28/05 edition Hi, Linda. Got it. ..... Original Message ..... From: Cooper, Linda To: editodal~,,travelerwatch man.corn Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:55 AM Subject: Legal Notice for 7/28/05 edition Please confirm receipt of this notice. Thank you, Linda Cooper Deputy Town Clerk 7/26/2005 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING July 26, 2005 Notice is hereby given that the Town of Southold has received a Petition for Annexation proposing the am~exation of the territory encompassing approximately 17 acres of vacant, residential land identified by SCTM #1000-40- 3-1 and known as 62600 County Route 48, from the Town of Southold to the Village of Greenport. The Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a joint public hearing, together with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. on the 23rd day of August, 2005, at the Greenport High School, 75955 Route 25, Greenport, New York, at which time and place the Town Board and the Board of Trustees Mil hear testimony and consider evidence and information concerning the Petition. All persons interested in this project will be heard at said heating and all written communications will be considered. Dated: July 26, 2005 Town of Southold, New York Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, CLERK, TOWN HALL, PO BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971. Copies to the following: ON JULY 28~ 2005~ AND FORWARD TWO (2) TOWN Traveler-Watchman Suffolk Times Newsday Town Board Members Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Affidavit of Posting on Town Clerk's Bulletin Board STATE OF NEW YORK) SS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Linda J. Cooper, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York being duly sworn, says that on the 02~ >~'day of ..7~¥' ,2005, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial mariner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, Southold, New York, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. Annexation Petition Public Hearing August 23, 2005 Linda J'. Cboper ! Deputy Town Clerk Sworn to before, me this ~ day of ~ ,2005 BONNIEJ. DOflOSm Neta~ Public, State Of New No. 01D06095328, Suffolk ~uflty Term Expires July 7, ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK RE(HSTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 465 OF 2005 WAS ADOPTED AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JULY 26, 2005: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a joint public hearing, together with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport, to consider the Petition for Annexation filed by KACE LI, LLC, requesting the a~mexation of the territory encompassed by SCTM # 1000-40-3-1 from the Town of Southold to the Village of Greenport, such hearing to be held at the Greenport High School, 75955 Route 25, Greenport, New York, on the 23rd of August, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at which time all interested persons will bc given an opportunity to be heard; and the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish and post a notice of such hearing, no less than 20 days prior the date of this hearing, and to cause a copy of such notice to be mailed to each person or corporation owning real property in the territory encompassed by SCTM #1000-40-3-1 and known as 62600 County Route 48 as shown by the last preceding assessment roll and to any and all persons residing in such territory qualified to vote for officers of the Town; and the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a copy of such notice to be mailed not less than 10 days prior to the date of such hearing to the school authorities of the Greenport School District and the board of commissioners each fire district, district corporation, public benefit corporation and town improvement district situated in the territory proposed to be annexed. The notice of such hearing shall appear in substantially the following form: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING July 26, 2005 Notice is hereby given that the Town of Southold has received a Petition for Annexation proposing the annexation of the terhtory encompassing approximately 17 acres of vacant, residential land identified by SCTM #1000-40-3-1 and known as 62600 County Route 48, from the Town of Southold to the Village of Greenport. The Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a joint public hearing, together with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. on the 23rd day of August, 2005, at the Greenport High School, 75955 Route 25, Greenport, New York, at which time and place the Town Board and the Board of Trustees will hear testimony and consider evidence and information concerning the Petition. All persons interested in this project will be heard at said heating and all written communications will be considered. Dated: July 26, 2005 Town of Southold, New York Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Linda J. Cooper Deputy Town Clerk o~o INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF GREENPORT BOARD OF TRUSTEES RESOLUTION NO. 18 OF 21 RESOLUTION ADOPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND TYPING ACTION AS AN UNLISTED ACTION AND OTHER ACTION PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION LAW OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WHEREAS KACE LI, LLC, filed a Petition for the Annexation of certain territory to be included in the Village of Greenport which is presently in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold on July 14, 2005, with the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport, said property being 17.1 acres located on County Road 48, Greenport, and designated as Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-40.00-03.00-001.000, and ; WHEREAS the Village of Greenport is an involved agency in that it is required to take certain action regarding the Petition pursuant to the Municipal Annexation Law of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, and for that reason and other good cause is therefore proposing to assume lead agency status for purposes of SEQRA review in this matter, and; WHEREAS the Village of Greenport has preliminarily determined that the annexation is an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQRA; and; and and; WHEREAS an Environmental Assessment Form Long Form Parts I II are being prepared by the Village of Greenport for review, WHEREAS the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold are required by the Municipal Annexation Law and the General Municipal Law of the State of New York to conduct a joint hearing on the Petition for Annexation, it is therefore; RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport hereby proposes that the Board of Trustees adopts lead agency status for purposes of SEQRA review of this action, and that all other involved agencies are hereby provided 30 days to assert lead agency status in this matter, and it is further; RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport hereby preliminarily determines that the action of the annexation is an Unlisted Action for SEQRA purposes, and it is further; RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport hereby proposes that the joint public hearing of the Town Board and the Board of Trustees on the Petition for Annexation be held at the auditorium of the Greenport Public School, Greenport, New York, at a date to be mutually determined and it is further; RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport hereby proposes that the joint public hearing be chaired by the Southold Town Supervisor, Joshua Horton, and it is further; RESOLVED that the Village Clerk is hereby directed to forward a copy of this resolution as follows: Town of Southold KACE LI, LLC NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Village of Greenport Agencies and Boards Dated: July 21, 2005 Motion to Approve: Seconded: In Favor: Against: Trustee Mills Trustee Hubbard 5 0 PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY patricia, finnegan@town.southold.ny.us KIERAN M. CORCORAN ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY kieran.corcoran(q)town.southold, ny.us LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.montefusco@town.southold.ny.us JOSHUA Y. HORTON Supervisor Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 20, 2005 Joseph W. Prokop, Esq. Prokop & Prokop, Attorneys at Law 175 Route 25A East Setauket, New York 11733 Re: Petition for Annexation of KACE LI, LLC Dear Mr. Prokop: With respect to the above-referenced Petition for Annexation, and compliance with the provisions of General Municipal Law Article 17, the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby extends an invitation to the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport to attend a work session of the Town Board of the Town of Southold to be held at 10:45 a.m. on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at the Southold Town Hall. At that time, the Town and Village could discuss compliance with the relevant procedure requirements invoked by the filing of the Petition. By copy of this letter, the Town Board also extends that invitation to petitioner KACE LI, LLC. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter. CC: Greenport Village Board Greenport Village Clerk Southold Town Board// Southold Town Clerk ~ ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: Southold Town Board Southold Town Attorney From: Linda Cooper, Deputy Town Clerk Dated: July 14, 2005 Re: Annexation Petition by KACE LI, LLC Attached hereto is a copy of the Annexation Petition filed by KACE LI, LLC. Michael E. Kontokosta ES~ July 14, 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mrs. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk 53095 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 KACE GROUP RECEIVED dUL 14 200 So,thold Town Clerk Re: KACE Li, LLC - Annexation Petition (SCTM: 1000-40-3-1) Dear Mrs. Neville: Attached for the consideration of the Southold To~vn Board please find (i) a prelinfinary workforce housing proposal and (ii) the Petition of KACE LI, LLC pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York to annex a 17 acre parcel of property to the Village of Greenport. We look forward to highlighting the public benefits of this exciting transaction at the joint public meeting of the Southold Town Board and the Greenport Village Trustees. C.E. Kontokosta (w/Encl.) Village Trustees of the Village of Greenport (w/Encl.) THE KACE GROUP 43 WEST S4TH STREET / NEW YORK, NY 10019 / TEL 212 582 6100 FAX: 212 582 5047 755 NORTH ROAD, P.O BOX 67 / GREENPOET, NY 11944 ,' TEL: 631 477 0600 FAX 631477 0800 TO: FROM: Date: MEMORANDUM Southold Town Board Village Trustees of the Village of Greenport KACE LI, LLC, Petitioner/KACE Development, LLC July 14, 2005 Re: WORKFORCE/AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL There is a critical shortage of workforce and affordable housing in the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. This shortage has reached crisis proportions as regulatory barriers and NIMBYism sentiments have created an environment inimical to providing the necessary housing for the workforce of the Town and the Village. The Supervisor of the Town and the Mayor of the Village have both spoken of the importance of workforce and affordable housing, but there is a wide chasm between words and actions. KACE Development LLC ("KACE") is proposing a workfome/affordable mixed-income housing project of at least 128 units on 17 acres. Approximately 20% of the project (24 units) will be multifamily condominium housing that will be affordable to the workfome population of the Village and the Town, approximately 30% of the project (36 units) will be semi-detached single-family homes that will be affordable for the workforce of the Village and the Town, and the remainder (68 units) will be detached single-family homes intended for the general market. To maintain the affordable sales price of these units, special attention will be paid to the size of the units and the associated parcels. By limiting unit square footage and lot size, sales prices will be restricted to appropriate levels for the intended market. Overall design of the project and the units will be of a high quality, in context with the surrounding residential architecture of the Village and Town. The feasibility of this project depends on the annexation of the property from the jurisdiction of the Town to that of the Village. This property is ideally suited for this action for several reasons. First, the property is contiguous to the Village on three sides. Second, it is currently within the Greenport school and fire districts. Third, the property has a stipulated connection to the Greenport sewer system, a critical factor in allowing for increased densities. Fourth, the property has access to the Suffolk County water system. Last, and possibly most important, the Village has the appropriate existing zoning density provisions and sewer capacity needed to make the project feasible and enable the village and town to take a meaningful and significant step in addressing the most critical needs of its residents. KACE is ready, willing, and able to act to meet the needs of the communities of Greenport and Southold. This project presents a unique opportunity for a private developer, working in cooperation with two motivated municipalities, to provide the necessary housing for the workforce of both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold. In the Matter of the Application of KACE LI, LLC, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co. Pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law to annex a parcel of property to the territory of the Village of Greenport ORIGINAL Petitioner, TO: TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD VILLAGE TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT The petition ofKACE LI, LLC respectfully shows as follows: 1. This is a petition pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York to annex to the territory of the Village of Greenport, Suffolk County, New York, that certain parcel of property owned by the Petitioner which is currently situated with the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, as more particularly bound and described upon Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof(also known as SCTM: 1000-40-3-1, hereinafter, the "Subject Parcel"). 2. Petitioner, KACE LI, LLC, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co., has an address at P.O, Box 67, 755 North Road, Greenport, New York 11944. 3. This Petition is submitted to the Town Board of the Town of Southold (hereinafter, the "Southold Board") and to the Trustees of the Village of Greenport (hereinafter, the "Village Trustees") for the purposes of receiving the consent of each of the Southold Board and the Village Board to the annexation of the Subject Parcel to the Village of Greenport. 4. There are no "inhabitants" of the Subject Parcel as defined in Sec. 703 of the General Municipal Law. 5. Petitioner is the owner of a majority in assessed valuation of the Subject Parcel, as shown upon the last preceding assessment roll of the Town of Southold. 6. Attached hereto as Schedule B is the certificate of the Assessor of the Town of Southold pursuant to Sec. 703 of the General Municipal Law. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the Southold Board and the Village Trustees, pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law', consider this Petition. Dated: JulyU2005 KACE LI, LLC, laet~ioner~ C. E. Konto~o~a ¢ Member STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) On the/.,~ ~"~day of July in the year 2005 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared C. E. KONTOKOSTA, in his capacity as a Member ofKACE LI, LLC, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalf of~hic _~l.l~4ndigidu l~ted, exffeU3ed the instrument. (signature and office of individual taking acknowledgment) EMILY HAMILL Notary Pubhc State or New Yo~4 NO. 01 H'~5059984 Ouahfleo m Suffolk Cou,nt¥, Corem ssion Expires May 06 , ...2~ ¢ _ SCHEDULE A to the Petition ofKACE LI, LLC PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (SCTM: 1000-40-3-1) BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of the North Road, at the northeasterly comer of the land of the Village of~ r~,n.~ort and being the northwesterly( f~ comer of the land of Stephen Sledjeski; thenco(aI6fi~"~e southerly side of the North Road as the same curves, 43.85 feet; thence along the southerly side of the North Road North 61 degrees 23 minutes 2(~fieconds East, 393.50 feet; thence continuing along the/'"'/) southerly side of the North Roa'~l 58 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds East, 352.38 feet to~ the land now or formally of F.L.R. Francisco Estate; thence southerly along said last mentioned land South 23 degrees 34 minutes 20 seconds East, 427.38 feet; thence continuing along said last mentioned land South 21 degrees 23 minutes 30 seconds East, 106.0 feet to the land of the Village of Greenport; thence along the land of the Village of Greenport the following 6 courses and distances: - (1) SOUTH 23 degrees 49 minutes West 241.26 feet; (2) SOUTH 5 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds West 671.42 feet; (3) NORTH 68 degrees 42 minutes 10 seconds West 432.43 feet; (4) NORTH 22 degrees 18 minutes West 564.52 feet; (5) SOUTH 72 degrees 41 mimites 10 seconds West 119.9 feet; (6) NORTH 0 degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds West 343.58 feet to the southerly side of the North Road at the point or place of BEGiNNING. SCHEDULE B to the PETITION OF KACE LI, LLC CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSESSOR OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) I,'~oh,~4, -~.~, ~.~,-c~Q%~ ,, in my capacity as a duly elected Assessor of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, do hereby certify as follows: 1. I am a duly elected Assessor of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and was one of the persons responsible for the preparation of the assessment bill for the year 2004/2005. 2. The real property described in Paragraph 1 of the Petition to which this certificate is attached (also known as SCTM: 1000-40 -3-1, hereinafter, the "Subject Parcel") is situated in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, and is assessed on the tax roll of the said Town of Southold for the year 2004/2005, which is the last preceding assessment roll of the said Town of Southold. 3. The total assessed valuation of the Subject Parcel as shown on the assessment roll of the said Town of Southold for the 2004/2005 tax year is 4. According to the records of the Assessor's Office, KACE LI, LLC, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co., is the owner of the Subject Parcel and is the owner of a majority in assessed valuation of the Subject Parcel assessed upon the last preceding assessment roll of, or utilized by, the Town of Southold. Dated: Julyt~, 2005 Suffolk County, New ¥6rk STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SSZ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) On the { D '~la_? of July in the year 2005 before me, the understgned, personally appeared_~c.D [;~ (- ~ --~. ~ ~ 0 ~- 1 5 f' personally known to me or proved to me! on the ba~s of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon ltehalf of which the individual(s) acted, executeOAhe u~amanent. --4'~r( ,,.--/~ '~ (stgnature and office of ~nd~vldual taE~ng acknowledgment) Claire L. Glew Notary Pubtic, State of New York No. 0'1GL4879505 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires Dec. 8, 2 PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY patricia.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us KIERAN M. CORCOH. AN ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY kier an.corcoran@town.southold.ny.us LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori,montefusco@town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JOSHUA Y. HORTON Supervisor Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT RECEIVED To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM Members of the Town Board Kieran M. Corcoran, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney July 20, 2005 Annexation Petition of Kace LI, bbC. JUL 2_ 1 2005 $0uthoH T0~n aer~ As you are aware, The Town Clerk has been served with a Petition for Annexation pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law. On ils face, the Petition appears to be in sufficient form to require processing. The following sets forth the sequence of events that must be followed in compliance with the statute: The Town and the Village must each notice a public hearing on the petition within 20 days of receipt of the Petition. Since the Town Clerk received the Petition on July 14, 2004, notice must be published by Wednesday, August 2, 2005. Practically speaking, the notice must be published in the prior Thursday's paper, or on July 28, 2005. (Notice must also be mailed to all owners of real property in the territory proposed to be annexed.) The Town and Village must hold a joint public hearing on the Petition between 20 and 40 days from the date of publication and mailing. The date and place of such hearing shall be stated in the notice. Notice shall be given to the pertinent school and fire districts 10 days in advance of the hearing by mail. The Town and Village shall designate a member to preside over the hearing. (it is unclear from the face of the statute whether each board selects a respective member who jointly preside, or whether the boards together select one member. The Village has already requested that the Mayor chair the hearing. See attached letter from counsel for the Village.) Evidence and testimony shall be taken regarding the sufficiency of the Petition and the overall public interest of the proposed annexation. Regarding the latter, the interest of the territory proposed to be annexed, the respective interests of Village and the Town, as well as the interests of the relevant school, fire or other districts, shall be considered. The hearing may be adjourned but must be concluded within 10 days of the noticed date. Within 90 days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Town and Village must each determine by majority vote whether the proposed annexation is within the overall public interest, and shall adopt findings and file those findings along with the transcribed record of the hearing with the clerks of all respective governing boards. Failure to do so will be deemed to have consented to the Petition. If it is determined by the Town that it is not in the overall public interest, the Town must also file with the County Clerk. If both the Town and Village find against annexation, the matter is closed. If, however, for example, the Town disapproves but the Village approves, the Village may bring a special proceeding in the Appellate Division within 30 days. The Appellate Division will appoint three referees to hold a bench trial on the matter. The referees will then report to the Appellate Division on the proposed annexation, The Appellate Division will hold oral argument on the matter and issue a final judgment. (The Petitioner could also file an Adicle 78 proceeding, but if the Village challenged the Town's determination, the App. Div. would likely stay the Article 78 proceeding pending its decision.) Normally, in the event the Appellate Division were to approve the proposed annexation, the Town and/or Village would then be required to hold a special election within 90 days of the judgment on the annexation, and the residents of the proposed territory would be entitled to vote. However, since this seems to be an uninhabited area owned by the corporate entity filing the Petition, it is likely that such an election would not be required. We will be providing you with further information regarding the facts and history of this property in the very near future. KMC cc: Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq., Towr:~,Attorney Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk 2 PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY patricia.finnegan@town.sout hold.ny.us KIERAN M. CORCORAN ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY kieran,corcoran@town.southold.ny.us LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.montefusco(~town.southold.ny.us JOSHUA Y. HORTON Supervisor Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT RECEIVED To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM Members of the Town Board Kieran M. Corcoran, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney July 22, 2005 Annexation Petition of Kace LI, LL¢./Prior Actions Regarding Subject Property JUL 2 5 D05 $o¢~chl Town In connection with the Petition for Annexation filed with the Town by Kace LI, LLC, we have reviewed some of the files pertaining to the subject properly. The following sets forth a brief history of some of the salient proceedings and facts relating to this parcel, found at SCTM # 1000-40-3-1. On January 13, 1983, David Kapell submitted an application for site plan approval to the Town on behalf of his client Emmanuel Kontokosta for a plan to be known as "Nodhwind Village Condominiums". In connection with that application, Mr. Kapell submitted an Environmental Assessment Form, which showed no environmentally sensitive areas. On July 11, 1983, the Town of Southold Planning Board by resolution approved the site plan subject to parking and adequate drainage being shown on the final plans submitted to the Buildin9 Department, and review and approval by the Suffolk County Planning Commission. According to correspondence, SCPC has no record of ever receiving or reviewing the plan. In 1987, Emmanuel Kontokosta, Kace Realty Co. and Kace Construction Corp. instituted an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to compel the Village to provide water and sewer services to the proposed Northwind Village development and challenging the Village's imposition of"backbone" fees. In 1996, the parties to that lawsuit executed a lengthy stipulation settling the action. Among other things, the parties stipulated that the Village will provide water and that it would make all efforts to obtain DEC approval to meet Kace's sewer requirements within 4 years. Kace would then have the option to enter into sewer and water contracts and pay "backbone" fees for such services. A copy of that stipulation is attached. In February 1994, the Town Planner submitted a Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in Southold Town Report to the Town Board, which discussed the subject parcel. A copy is included for your review. Among other things, that report noted that "although the subject parcel is adjacent to land owned by the Incorporated Village of Greenport, it lies 4,500 feet or more ... from the developed portions of the Village ... It is surrounded by vacant woodland, which is zoned PD or Park District." Of additional concern was the presence of freshwater wetlands. The 1999 report relating to the Route 48 rezonings raised additional support for rezoning the parcel in order to remain consistent with hamlet-centered growth. A memo from Valerie Scopaz to the Town Board in 2002 summarizing these reports is attached, along with the quoted HD report. In 1999, in connection with its Route 48 rezoning initiative, the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted a local law rezoning the subject properly from HD to R-80. Kace LI, LLC, the new corporate owner of the property, thereafter brought an Article 78 proceeding challenging this rezoning. On December 4, 2000, the Supreme Court for the State of New York, Suffolk County entered an order overturning the zoning change, based upon its ruling that the rezoning local law had been improperly enacted inasmuch as it required a super majority vote due to the protest of the property owner, which super majority was not achieved. A copy of the ruling is attached. The Town filed a Notice of Appeal from this decision, which it later decided not to pursue. Following this decision, the property owner applied for a building permit to erect numerous two-family dwellings on this single, 17-acre lot. In August 2001, the Building Inspector issued a Notice of Disapproval on the grounds that the HD zoning district only allows one two family dwelling per lot. The Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals upheld this determination on June 6, 2002. In early 2004, the property owner repeatedly inquired of the Building Department of its position whether the 1983-approved site plan was still valid. The applicant was informed that numerous deficiencies remained with respect to the plan. On several occasions, the owner threatened legal action but none was commenced prior to the filing of the instant Petition for Annexation. We will be providing you with fudher information regarding the facts and history of this property as it becomes available in the near future. KMC cc: Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EMANUEL KONTOKOSTA, KACE REALTY CO., and KACE CONSTRUCTION CORP., Plaintiffs, - against - THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT, GEORGE HUBB/tRD, individually and as F~ayor of the Village of Greenport; JEANNE M. COOPER, GAIL F. HORTON, DAVID KAPELL and WILLIAM LEIBLIEN, individually and as Members of the Village of Greenport Board of Trustees, Defendants. STIPULA_TIONANDORDER DISCONTINuING ACTION 87 CIV. 3432 (SAS) WHEREAS, plaintiffs are the owners of seventeen (17) acres of land in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, upon which they plan to build a 108 unit development to be know~' as Northwind Village; and WHEREAS, defendants provide water and sewer services for a territory which includes the Northwind Village development; and W/~EREAS, plaintiffs submitted applications for water and sewer services for the Northwind Village development in or about Januar~ 1983 and February 1987; and WHEREAS, plaintiffs commenced this action on or about May 20, 1987, and filed an amended complaint on or about March 8, 1988 alleging, inter alia, that defendants' denial of plaintiffs' applications for water and sewer services for the Northwind Village development and defendants' imposition of "backbone" fees upon the Northwind Village development violated the Equal Protection and Due Prccess Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United Sgates Constitution, 42 U.S.C. S 1983 and other applicable provisions of law; and WHEREAS, defendants have denied the allegations in the amended complaint charging them with unlawful treatment of plaintiffs and/or any other wrongdoing; WHEREAS, the decision of the Hon. John Cannella dated September 27, 1991, expressly upheld the imposition of backbone fees as constitutional, and dismissed each of the plaintiffs' causes of action except for its equal protection claim stemming from the 1983 application; and WHEREAS, the parties now seek to resolve the issues raised in this action without further proceedings; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties in the above-captioned action, by their attorneys, as follows: 1. Defendants acknowledge that, as of the date of th~s Stipulation and Order, there is sufficient water capacity to service the 108 unit Northwind Village Development in accordance with the site plan approved by the Town of Southold planning board on July 11, 1983; and in accordance with plaintiffs' 1985 request (made with respect to the 1983 application) for 10,800 gallons per day ("gpd"), annexed hereto as Exhibit "A", 28,350 gpd, annexed hereto as Exhibit "B." been represented by plaintiffs that the 108 10,800 gpd of average water demand or an estimated average water ~gmand. However, as set forth below, and 1987 request for Specifically, it has units will generate 28,350 gpd of there is not 2 sufficient sewer capacity to accommodate either of these requests as of the date of the execution of this stipulation. Accordingly, subject to the terms and conditions of this Stipulation and Order, defendants hereby approve plaintiffs' 1985 and 1987 requests for water services for the Northwind Village Development. It is expressly understood that once sufficient sewer capacity of 8,640 gpd becomes available, the Village hereby agrees to provide 10,800 gpd of water to the Northwind Village Development, if plaintiffs choose to elect to execute water and sewer contracts as set forth in paragraph 5 below and pay "backbone" fees as set forth in paragraph 6 below. The Village will provide the remaining capacity of plaintiffs' 1987 requests for water services if (i) the plaintiffs apply for additional sewer capacity pursuant to paragraph 3 below, and (ii) said application is granted. 2. That the parties acknowledge that (i) there is not sufficient sewer capacity available to service plaintiffs' project due to restrictions placed upon the Village by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) pursuant to the consent order, State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES") permit and related DEC correspondence (hereinafter referred to as "DEC Requirements"), attached hereto as Exhibit "C"; and (ii) the Village must comply with various conditions to attempt to obtain the DEC's approval to accommodate sewer capacity of 8,640 gpd. 3. Defendants agree to comply with the conditions set forth in the DEC Requirements, attached hereto as Exhibit "C." In this 3 manner, defendants will provide sufficient sewer capacity, subject to the aforesaid DEC Requirements (annexed hereto as Exhibit "C"), and any extension thereof, to satisfy the capacity of 8,640 gpd within four years of the date the stipulation is so ordered by the Court. Plaintiffs need not make any further application for sewer service, as its current application for 8,640 gpd will be deemed approved as of the date sewer capacity is available. It being expressly understood that plaintiff's application for both water and sewer must comply~with the requirements set forth in paragraphs 3-7 of the December 23, 1987 H2M group report, annexed hereto as Exhibit "D," with respect to engineering details. It also is expressly understood that plaintiff shall have the right to apply for additional sewer capacity up to 14,000 gallons per day, after the Village advises the plaintiffs that there is sufficient sewer \ capacity to satisfy the 8,640 gpd request. not affect plaintiffs' prior approval for 4. Defendants agree to apply for, Said application will 8,640 gpd. and to use their best efforts to obtain the approvals from the DEC which are required pursuant to the express terms of the aforesaid DEC Requirements so as to connect the Northwind Village Development to the Village of Greenport sewer system, including, but not limited to, approval for this new connection and approval for any increase in allocable sewer capacity as required by the aforesaid DEC Requirements (annexed hereto as Exhibit "C"). Plaintiffs agree to provide any information requested by the DEC, or to otherwise make reasonable efforts to assist the defendants in any manner requested by the DEC. 5. When sufficient water and sewer capacity are available to satisfy the requirements of the Northwind Village development in accordance with paragraph 1, defendants shall notify plaintiffs in writing, by United States certified or registered mail, at 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York 10019. After plaintiffs' receipt of such notice, plaintiffs will then have three (3) years to elect to execute contracts for water and sewer services with the Village of Greenport, by notifying the Office of the Mayor of the Village of Greenport in writing, by United States certified or registered mail. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order shall require plaintiffs to enter into contracts for water and sewer services. Should plaintiffs choose not to execute such contracts, they will not be obligated to pay the "backbone" fees provided for in paragraph 6 of this Stipulation and Order. If plaintiffs do not elect to enter into contracts for water and sewer services with the Village of Greenport within three (3) years of plaintiffs' receipt of the aforesaid notice, the approvals of plaintiffs' applications for water and sewer services pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 herein shall expire, and defendants will have no obligation to provide plaintiffs with water and sewer pursuant to this Stipulation. 6. When all required approvals from the DEC are obtained, if and~oply if..plaintiffs elect to enter into contracts with the Village of G~eenport as provided for in paragraph 5 of this 5 and Order, and subject to all the other terms and conditions set forth herein, plaintiffs shall pay to the Village of Greenport "backbone" fees for the Northwind village development of $2,570 per dwelling unit for water services and $2,585 per dwelling unit for sewer services for the 108 units at hand at the time of executing contracts for both water and sewer. If plaintiffs do not elect to execute contracts for water and sewer services within three (3) years pursuant to paragraph 5 above, their right to pay the backbone fees at the rates set forth above will also expire. 7. Defendants agree to pay plaintiffs the sum of eighty-five thousand ($85,000) dollars in full and final settlement of any claims that plaintiffs may have in this action against any and all of the defendants. Such payment shall be made within 30 days of the execution of this agreement by both parties, said 30 days to commence running upon the presentation of the stipulation to the Court to be so-ordered, and shall be by check made payable to "Emanuel M. Kontokosta, Kace Realty Co. and Kace Construction Corp." and shall be delivered to and received by plaintiffs' attorneys, Gordon & Gordon, P.C., at their offices at 437 Madison Avenue (40th Floor), New York, New York 10022. Upon receipt of said funds, plaintiffs will cause to be immediately filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice with the Court. 8. Plaintiffs, by entering into this Stipulation, accept the benefits provided herein in full and complete satisfaction of any and all injurigs and/or damages of any kind or description relating to any of the matters or claims alleged in the complaint herein. 6 9. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be deemed an admission by defendants of any wrongdoing. 10. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be deemed to constitute a regular practice or procedure by defendants, or shall apply to any project or development other than Northwind Village. 11. This Stipulation shall inure to the benefit and detriment of the parties hereto and their respective successors, executors, administrators and assigns to the extent that these successors seek to construct the Northwind Village development. 12. If the Village sells its water and sewer franchise to an entity which does not require backbone fees before such fees are due and owing to the Village, plaintiffs shall be relieved of the duty to pay backbone ~fees pursuant to paragraph 6 of this stipulation. 13. This Stipulation shall not be used by any of the parties for any purpose whatsoever other than in an action or proceeding to enforce its terms. 14. Any party to this action may submit this Stipulation to this Court to have this Stipulation "SO ORDERED" upon its execution by the parties' counsel. This Stipulation will take effect only upon being so-ordered by the Court. VAI2ERIE SCOPAZ TOWN PLANNER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765~3136 Telephone (51(i) 765-1938 OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Memorandum To: From: Re: Date: Joshua Horton, Supervisor and Members of the Town Board Valerie Scopaz, AICP, Town Planner KACE property located on South side of CR 48, approximately 2300 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport, NY SCTM # 1000-040-3-1 May 6, 2002 This memorandum is in response to your request for an updated report and recommendation on the proposed change of zone (on the Town Board's own motion) from Hamlet Density (HD) to R-80, Low Density Residential for this 17.1 acre parcel. This parcel was first recommended for a change of zone from HD to R-80 in 1994. In my report to the Town Board, titled Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in Southold Town, February 1994, all the vacant HD zoned parcels in Southold Town were evaluated. The report included an assessment whether that designation is in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive or Master Plan for the Hamlet Density (HD) zoning district. In 1994, the zoning of the subject parcel was examined and found to be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code for Hamlet Density districts. Specifically, the site lies more than a half-mile from the Village's boundary, and it is not within direct walking distance of the commercial center of Greenport. Of additional concern were the presence of freshwater wetlands on the site and its location adjacent to about 192 acres of highly sensitive properties within the Village of Greenpod that are zoned Park District (under the Village Code) and known as Moore's Woods. A copy of the relevant sections of that report are attached and highlighted for your convenience In 1999, the consultant who reviewed this same parcel as part of the County Route ,48 rezoning also recommended that it be rezoned (along with an nearby parcel of 1 2 acres) to R-80. As noted in the Findings Statement, the rezoning to a less intensive use would serve multiple purposes. The following quote from that report is particularly applicable. "The hamlet centers currently act as the commercial centers of the Town and provide a sense of place. In contrast, areas outside of the hamlet centers generally portray a more open and agricultural character, with small areas of commercial activity. The contrasting characteristics of these areas are highly prized by the residents of the Town. Southold is one of the only towns on Long Island where hamlet centers still exist for the most part. The re-zoning of certain parcels within the corridor to more appropriate uses will have the effect of enhancing the basic characteristics of the hamlet centers and areas along the corridor" (County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study, Findings Statement, August 1999, p.5, Cramer Consulting Group, Inc.) It is recommended that the Town Board rezone this parcel from HD to R-80. JOSHUA Y. HORTON SUPERVISOR OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTItOLD Town Hall, 53095 Route 25 P.O, Box 1179 Southold, New' York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-1823 Telephone (63I) 765-1889 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM VALERIE SCOPAZ, TOWN PLANNER TOWN BOARD MARCH 29, 2002 KACE PARCEL (SCTM#1000-40-3-1) On behalf of the Town Board, a request is made to evaluate the above referenced parcel in terms of the "Route 48" change of zone proposal. Specifically, please prepare a report and recommendation as to the previously proposed zoning district change (from Hamlet Density to Low-Density Residential R-80) and whether said proposal continues to be in accordance with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant considerations. By way of history, this parcel was part of the large "Route 48" rezoning of 1999. The vote to change the zoning district of this parcel was overturned by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Board would like an updated report and recommendation on the proposed change of zone from the current Hamlet Density district to R-80 Low Density Residential. REV!E%~ OF HAMLET DENSITY ZONING IN SOUTHOLD TOWN Report to the Town Board February 1994 RWV!EW OF HAMLET DENSITY ZONING IN SOUTHOLD TOWN Report to the Town Board February [994 iNTRODUCTION: The purpose of this ~evi. ew is ::o study the current s{atus of each vacant property that presently is zoned fer Hamlet ~ensi~z. The study includes an assessment whether thee designation is in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive or Master Plan for the Hamlet Density (HD) zening 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 affecting the Hamlet Denslhty zoning and the history of the zoning that preceded it. Next, the report includes an analysis of the properties in a uniform manner. Each property is described as to its current physical location, including zoning. Each property is reviewed in terms of any current approvals and development. Each is anakyzed as to its conformity with the Comprehensive or Master Plan and other public policies. Lastly, a recommendation is made as to the appropriateness of the zoning. NEED FOR THE REVIEW: Phc need ~or this review evidenced Itself In dlfferen~ wa,,,:. Fit-_t. with <:)ne exception, tile parcels to be reviewed have b~;n zoned H£) for long periods ef %~ne ranging from 5 to 3,~ years. Second, these properties are either undeveloped et' under-developed. Third, seven of the eight parcels are located adjacent tc er within close proximity to,the Incorporated Village ef Greenport. The fact that these properties remained nndeveloped over such long periods of time raised several questions: which ranged from why the properties were rezoned in the first place to why the properties remained undeveloped. The clustering of these properties adjacent to and around the Village of Greenport also raised questions as to the consistency of the Town's actions in context with its own Comprehensive or Master Plan. With one exception, the HD zoning designation was assigned to each parcel in response to a petition by the property's owner. The rezonings occurred periodically, starsing in 1958. The potential availability of public water and, in some cases, sewer, services from the Village of Greenport evidently wes a factor considered by prevlous Town Boards in granting these parcels the }tO zone. All bu~ one of the ur]developed Hi> parcels either are adlacent or within close proxim~ny to Greenport Village. The resukting pattern has had a significant negative impact on the Village of Greenpert. The Mayor of the Village had a general discussion with the Town Board on January 4, 1994, in which he indicased 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 Greenpors's already disproportionate share of the Town's affordable housing units; a situation that was documented in Suffolk County'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 pareels that are zoned HD an~d that are undeveloped. This is i.n keeping with the Town Board's commitment to implement the Town's Comprehenslve or Master Plan. Charged in 1992 with suggesting ways to [mp[ement this vision, the Town's Stewardship Task Force recommended to the Town 8oa~;d, in September of ~993, that it "Revise the Zoning Code and Map to better comply with goals of the Master Plan". In conjunction willh this recommendation, the Task For,:e als{} suggested to the Pown Board that it "Review Zoning Map and revise to eliminate zoned districts which are Incompatiieie with their present use and physical 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 te carry out the study. METHODOLOGY USED IN ANALYSIS: CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: The methodology used here reflects the purpose of this review which is to examiae 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 Comprehensive or Master Plan, the 1991 Report of the US/UK Countryside Stewardship ~change and the ongoing work of the Town's Stewardship Task Force. Each of the eight pFcperties were reviewed systematically using the folkowing 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 T~x Map Nur0ber, its location and its acreage. Information about the zoning and ownership history of this parcel will be pzesented here also. The section on Notable Physical Features and Limitations will review the relevant~ available environmenEal data and its significance or potential hnpact on the parcel's develcpment potential. The Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning section will descrhoe the land uses and zoning of the surrounding puopert~es, and will discuss nhe significance of those uses and des~gnau~ons for the subject parcel. 'Ph<: fcilewNlc section, S_tatus of Development: Approvals ~tpZlCal±ons and app:-svais for the sumject parcel. T}w PabIls Pollo., s~otior: will examine the appropriateness o£ the Hamlet Oenslty designation relative to} the v1s!o[l set forth hy the Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan Update in 1!984, the i99] US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Report and the Stewardship Task Force's traft recommendations of 19!93. The last section, Reoommendation, 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 {:he Public Policy sections of each case study presume an understanding <Df the Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan and of the Town's ongoing efforts to implement its vision, as well as an historical knowledge of elements of the Zoning Code itself, the following section has been included here. Its purpose is to provide a detailed analysis of the public policies that were considered in this evaluation of the pastern of Hamlet Density zcning in Southold Town. The Comurehensive Plan Southold Town has been engaged in an ongoing effort to implemen[ ~he Goals and Policies of the 1984 Comprehensive or Master Plan Update as evidenced by the work of the Stewardship Task Force (STF). Appointed by the Town Board, the STF has been charged since its inception in 1992, with the "study and exploration of umelioratory recommendations of the Southold Town Zoning Map and Ordinances, fn order to foster and implement the ideals and goals of the existing Master Plan, incorporating the recommendations of the US/UK Stewardship Exchange." The recommendations of the US/UK Stewardship E~xchange reflect the collective thinking of a team of eight professional planners who met with government officials and a w~de range of community representatives about planning issues during July of i99]. They found slx areas of agreement with the Comprehensive or Master Plan. These included: "Concentration of new residential and commercial developmen~ in and around existing hamlets and villages .... ~' alcng with the 2) "Preservation of the ilistoric character of the villages and hamlets, carefully controlling design of !/aw dove]opmenll to reals!aim lompatlbility." and 3) ~'Naintenance and hnprovement of the enviroru, ent through provision ,}f an apprcprlate infraszruchure to protect water ~lallt¥ and to manage natural resources properly, and to guide devekopment to appropriate locations." (A Report b[ the 1991US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team To The People of the Town of Sou~hoid, North Fork. Long Island. November 1991. p.8.) The aforementioned issues had been derived from the Goals and Policies of Seuthoid Town's 1984 Master Plan Update. That document set forth a number of (Seals and subsequent Policies which have a bearing on this study, and which are stated in AppendLx A of this study. In Septenfoer of 1993, the Stewardship Task Force published an interim report in whic~ it made a ser~es of draft recommendations to implement the Goals and Policies set forth by the 1984 Master Plan Update. The preface to ~ts recommenda%~ons on the Character of Hamlets and !~ural Setting states: The hamlets are the historic focus for residential and business activity in Sout~old Town. We consider th~s 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 fecilitate this growth, careful planning should undertaken by the Town, so that a rural, pedestrian orien£ed vlttage quality, consistent w~th our history and kradLtional pattern of development, is fostered. The long history of Southold has given rise to a tremendous richness and diversity of buildings and working landscapes. ~igorous steps should be taken to assure the preservation of these stm~ctures and landscapes, without infringing on the rights of their individual owners. Ail residents benefit from ute prese~zation of our historic and scenic heritage, not only for our "~ality of life", but for the econcmic potential it offers the Town. Purpose of the Hamlet Density Zoning Distr~ct: ?!:1 ; policy of concentrallng resident!al development 3~,ning (}ode, wh2ch states that the purpose of the lid Zorllng [)ISLrlct iS: "to permit a mix of housing tlpes and level of ~esidential denskty appropriate to the areas in and around the major ham~iet centers, particularly Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southeld, Orient and the Village of Gre~npert.'~ The Zoning Code specifies that the HD district may be designated by the Town Board upon its own motion, as well as by petition of the property owner on parcels located within one-half mile of a Hamlet Business district of the hamlets of Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold; and within one-quarter mile of the Hamlet Business district of Orient and within one-half mile of the boundary of Greenport Village. In the Master Plan Summarv of 1985, three criteria were set forth for ~ne establisbmlent of a Hamlet Density dis~rict~ location relative to the hamlet business area, the availability of utilities and the provision of moderate cosz housing. The report suggested Greenport be considered as a hamlen. It also suggested that the max3um3m~ HD development be permitted "only where necessary utilities are in place or can be assured and where there is the provision of moderate cost housing." (p.9). Finally, it states the "The Hamlet Density category is also designed to support nhe establis~nent of innovative techniques for getting the optimum use out of existing housing." (~nphasis supplied.) Uses Allowed in the Hamlet Density Zoning District: The Zoning Code allows within the HD district only two uses by right: 1. one-family detached dwellings, and 2. two-family dwellings. A Special F~xception from the Zoning Board of Appeals is required for other uses such as: 1. multiple dwellings, townhouses, row or attached houses~ 2. accessory apartments in singLe-family residences, (as requia£ed elsewhere in the Zoning Code); 2. hod and breakfast establishmen%s, (as regulated elsewhere in the Zonlng Code); 4. wineries, (as regulated elsewhere in the Zoning Code). The Zonimg (fade provides guidelines or parameters within which the ZoFilng Board of Appeals r~ay g~-anE the SpecLal E?~nepElotls only for accessory apartments and for bed and breakfast establishment.~. Ne guidance ss prevsded to the Zoning Board for the institution of multiple dwel~lings, townhouses or row-houses, and wineries. The Zoning Code: Historical Background: Throughout this report, it is important to fomenter that while the "A" Residential-Agricultural zoning district always permitted residential and agricultural l~d uses, the recruited miniraull acreage for a lot in this zone changed through the years. The following list shows how the minim]um acreage changed {by the year the amendment was made to the Zoning Code), 1957 12,500 sq~]are feet 1971 - 40,000 sguare feet 1983 - 80,000 square feet ]989 - 80,000 square feet in A-C and R-80 zones (40,000 square feet for areas zoned R-48 only. Other residential zones provide for three, five and lien 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 tha~ eno zoning designation ia their history, mostly because the Town changed its zoning oode and map several times since the first Code and Hap were adopted in 1957. A brief synopsis of the changes that have been made to specific zoning districts is prewided in Appendix B. The Impact of Public Water and Sewer Services on Density in BD: The minimum required lot area within the MD district ~s 20,000 soD:are feet per one-family detached dwelling. Suffolk County's Health 9egulations require the provision of public water where lots are smaller than 40,000 square feet in area. Howew~r, where both Community (Public) water and Sewe~ services are availa~ble, and a Special Exception is granted, the density may be increased to one unit every ~0,000 square feet. Thus, the development potential of a parcel zoned HD is ~nextricably tied to the availability of publ_c water: and for the higher densLt[es, the availability of sewer. In other words, for the ND zoned property ~o be developed in accordance with tile [etent of the Code, Lr~ i;equ~res access to public water and, sonleEimes, sewers. Nmnber and Location of Properz!es Zoned Hamlet Densit,~: There are thirteen properties in mainland Southold Town that are zoned ~{amlen Density (HD), only five of which are developed. Three are located in Greenport: one is the Driftwood Cove Apartment Complex, another is the Seven-Eleven store, and the third is a large historic house adjacent to Brecknock Hall. The fourth is the Founders Village Condominium complex in Southold. The fifth is a large house in Orient on the north side of SR 25, about 87 feet west of Young's Avenue. On Fishers Island, there are fifteen developed properties that are zoned HD. All these parcezs, save one, are located within the boundaries of the abandoned Army base; and appear to have been developed either as base offices er officer's quarters. Of the eight vacant ND-zoned parcels, seven are located aroused 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 [imitatlor on the Village of Greenport's ability to be the focus of all HD zoning given the current dem~ld on its already straineo water and sewer ~aciiities. Cutchogue has the only other vacant HD-zoned property. The remaining hamlets in Southoid Town have no vacant HD-zoned properties. ANALYSIS OF HAMLET DENSITY PROPERTIES: PARCEL BY PARCEL Oni¥ those properties zoned H~nJ. et Density that Nero vacant as of January 1994, were selected for review. '['tie individu- al parcels are listed below in the order they were rezoned startlng with the first, in 1958. This is also the order in which they will be reviewed. Throughout the remainder ef this report, the parcels will be referred te by the identi- fying Parcel and Tax Map numbers (SCTM#) noted nero. SCTM# H~let Location Acreagq #1 040-3-1 Greenport, unin. 17.1 #2 040-4-1 Greenport, unin. 10.55 #3 046-1-2.1 Greenport, unin. 3.5 #4 035-1-25 Greenport, unin. 132.08 #5 045-2-10.3 Greenport, unin. 20.07 #6 102-1-33.3 Cutchogue 46.16 #7 045-2-1 Greenport, u~in, 1.2 #8 035-i-24 Greenport, u~in. 62.3 The format used in the analysis of each parcel is: PARCEL # and TAX MAP HUMBER SITE DATA: Location: Acreage: Zoning Histo~f:~ Ownership History:** NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS: SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: PUBLIC POLIOf: RECOMMENDATION: One or more m~ps showing ~he subject parcel may accompany the written text: they wiJl be found at the end of the analysis of that parcel. Zoning History was culled from '_'he Town Clerk's Change o[ Zone files. Ownership History was traced from Property Car-{s ~n the office of the Town Tax Assessor. PARCEL i~i - SCTM ~ 40-3-i !~ITE DATA: Location: South Side County Route 48, more :than 1000~ east of Chapel Lane, Greenport Acreage: 17.1 acres Zoning History : Year Rezoned: 6.13.58. The original peLition was to change the zone from "A" Residental and Agricultural to "B" Business. Between January and May of 1958, the applican5 changed his re,lest to "M" Multiple Residence, which was subsequently granted. The file does not indicate why tha property owner asked for the change of zone, nor why the Town Board granted the request. Ownershiu His%ory / Year Accuired / Miscellany *Race Realty Ce 3-10-e2 Kontakos%a 3-10-82 Sanzone (Smi%n 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 FEAILi?~ES AND LIMITATICNS: There is little environmental informaclon in the si~e plan file. A review of the aerial photograph reveals this to be a heavily wooded parcel which appeai-s to drain in a seuEher!y direction. The topography drop~ off to the sou:h ~rem 35 feet {~bcve sea-level near Counzy Route 48, 5o about 10 feen at its sou%herruncs:: point. The prc~erTy may have freshwater wooded we~ The ~roperty is currently bounded on the north ny CR 48; ne west_ a~d south borders by land owned and zoneo by the Village ef Greenport as PD OF Parkland, an{] zhe east border hy land zoned R-S0. North of CR 48, !les an R-80 district, which contains residential wa~ off rent homes. Within 500 feet of the perimeter of this parcel (but not contiguous) there are properties zoned RR and HD. The RR properties to the northwest, diagonall~ across CR 45, contain motel] and resort condominium uses, along with one residential use and an unfinished mo- tel. San Simeon Nursing Home, which is zoned HD, is abouz 800 feet to tile west. The remainder of the HD proper~y to the west is mostly undeveloped, and is one of the parcels under review (Parcel ~7). The KOA Kampground lies due east at a distance of about 500 feet. STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AN~) INFRASTRUCTURE: On .iu_y 11, 1983, the Planning Board granted site plan approval to construct 108 dwelling units in 27 huild~ ings. Yhe property owner has yet to obtain governmen- tal =~orovels for water, sewer and curb cuts. No buLicing 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 eqmals 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 ~rom 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 reserw:~d for recreational and firematic use by the citizens of the Village of Greenport as regulated by the Park Local Law, and in which Village uti[iti~!s and othec public uses may be maintained and ex~anded." The only uses pemnitted w~th:n ibis dis{rlct are: '~ Nature trails ii Spor~s playing fields 3) Firematic ~!vents 4) Utility facilities including necessar~ appurtance~ but not Lhnited to: 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 concentrate its highest density residential use on the subject parcel. Further, this parcel is not within walking distance of the Village hamlet, and the necessary utilities do not seem to be assured at this ti~e. For these reasons, intense development of the site does not seem to meet with the Goals and P~>licy objectives of the Comprehen- sive or Master Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The site could be developed in a manner not re~airing multiple density uses. Rezoning to a lower density is recommended. ~? / / ( \ \ Town of Southold Long Environmental Assessment Form for Greenport IA Proposed Change of Zone on Town Board's Own Motion ltD to R80 North Road & Chapel Lane Greenport Project Sponsor: Town Board of the Town of Southold Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 Contact Person: Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Southold Town Hail 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 Project Description: The action is the proposed rezoning of approximately 18.75 acres of land in the Town of Southold. The existing zoning is HD ,and the proposed zoning is RS0. The action has frontage along North Road & Chapel Lane, in the hamlet of Greenport. Specific Suffolk County 'Fax Map Nmnbers (SCTM#) can be found on the next page of this EAF. The action is a change of zone on the Town Board's own motion based on the County Route 48 Land Use Study, thc Generic Environmental hnpact Statement and the }:indings related to that study. (;reenport lA - EA}: I I Property Owners: SCTM#, 040-3-1 045-2-1 Owner's name and address. Kate Realty Co., 43 West 54th St., New York, NY, 10019 t-t-~ .,~a ,q ~.el°~ex John Siolas & Catherine Tsounis, 190 Cenlral Drive, Mattituck, NY, 11952 A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. I. Present land use: [-~ Urban 1~ Industrial 77 Commercial I~ Forest ~ Agrictilture L~ R,~ral (no,vfarm} [4 Residentia} (suborbao) ~ Other Vacant Total acreage of project area: 18.75 acres APPROXIMATE ACREAGE: Meadow or Brushland (Non-Agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland., pasture, crc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Landscaping and/or Residential Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces/Urban Other (indicate type) _. PRESEN I'LY AFTER COMPLETION 11.27 acres 11.27 acres 7.48 acres 7.48 acres What is predominant soil type(s) on prcdect site? Canadice Silt Loam and Montauk Fine _ Sandy Loam [3-8% slopes] a. Soil drainage: 22.02% Poorly Drained (Canadice Silt Loam) & 77.98% Moderately Drained (Montauk Fine Sandy Loam [3-8% slopes]). Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a. What is depth to bedrock? NO NA Approximate percentage of proposed project with slopes: 0-10% 100.00 % 10-15% % 15% or greater % ls project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site or district, listed on tile State or tile National Registers of Historic Places? NO Is project snbstantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Eandmarks? What is thc depth of the water table'? 20' - 40' Is site located oxcra prmmry, principal or solq source aquilk, r'> NO Source? SCDttS 1998 Groundwater Maps and USGS Quadangle sheets YES NO Greenporl IA - EAr 2 II. NO 12. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is identified as threatened or endangered? According to: Cramer Consulting Group and Town of Southold Planning Staff. ldent[fy each species: Are there any unique natural land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological fom~ations) NO Describe: 13. 15. 20. I. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? If yes, explain: NO Does fire present site include scenic views know to be important to the comtnunity'* However general character of the area has been identified as scenic. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to wbich it is tributary: NO Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name: Moore's Woods (Wetlands) YES Size (In acres) +/- 192 acres Is the site served by existing public utilities? a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow counectkm? b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? YES YES NO ls the site located in mi agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Uaw, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? NO Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area desiguated pursnmlt to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617'? NO ]las the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? NO Project Description: Physical dimensions and scale of project Note: As tile proposed action is for a change of zone on the I'own of Southold Town Board's own motkm there is no physical alteration of any property. Therefore these questions are not applicable in this section. More relevant information can be found in Section C of this klAF. Also please refer to the Generic Environmental hnpact Statemenl and Findings Statement fbr the County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study prepared by thc Pown of Southold). Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: NA Project acreage to be developed; initially: NA Ultimately: NA Project acreage to remain undeveloped: NA l.ength of project, in miles (if appropriate): INA lfthe project is an expansion, indicale percent of expansion propused: NA Nmnbcr of ofl%trect parkiug spaccs; Existing: NA Proposed: NA Greenport IA - EAF 3 Initially Ultimately ()ne Family [ Two Fami{y Multiple Family Con&>minium Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure? Height: Width: Length: l,inear feet of fi.ontage along a public thoroughfare project will occopy is? 914' 9. 10. II. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16 I Iow much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will he removed fi.om the site? NA Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? a. If yes. fnr what intended puq0ose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? c. Will upper subs oil be stockpiled for reclamation? NA NA NA NA How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? NA Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally important vegetation be removed by this prnject? NA If single phase project; Anticipated period of construction in months, (including demolition). If multi-phased; d Will blasting occur during construction? Number of lobs generated; during construction: NA; Number of jobs eliminated by this project Will project require relocation of any projects o~ lhcilities? Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? b. I'otal number of phases anticipated (number): Anticipated date of commencement phase, (including demolition). Approximate completion date of final phase Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? NA Month: Year: Month: Year: Yes: NO After project is complete: NA NA NO NO If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage. industrial, etc.) and amount: Name of water body into which effiucnt will be discharged: Is subsurface liquid wasle disposal involved? a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial etc.) and amount: b. If yes, indicate method of disposal: NO Will surthce area of an existing water body increase or decrease hy proposal2 F. xplain: NO Is project or any portion of prr~iect located in a 100 year flnod plain? NO Will thc pro.leer generate solid wa.ste? Il'yes will an existing snlid ,aaste facility be used'? c II 5cs, explain: NO NO (]recnpol~. IA- EAF 4 17¸ 18. 19. 20. 21. 22~ 23. 24 Will thc project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal (tons/month)? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? Will project use herbicides or pesticides'? NO Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day ~'? NO Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise NO Will project result in an increase in energy ose If yes, indicate type(s): NO If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity (gallons~minute): NO Total anticipated water usage per day (gallons/day): NA Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? Yes, explain: 25 Approvals Required.' NO City, Town, Village Board (ity, ]own, Village Planning Board City, Town Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other 1.ocal Agencies Other Regional Ageocics State Agencies Federal Agencies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No X Nox× No No No No No C. Zoning and Planning Information I Docs proposed action involve a planning or zorfing decision? I f Yes. indicate decision required? Change of Zone __~Type Submittal Date __X) zoning amendment ~ zoning variance site plan new/revision of master plan 2 YES special use permit [~ subdivision rcsoulce management plan~ other x,k'hat ix thc zoniag classification(s) of thc site~ HD (]rcenpnrt I,,\ - EAF 5 What is the maximum potential development of the site if deYeloped as permitted by the present zoning? 81 multi-family units. Estimate does not figure roads, drainage, parking, etc. Computation is based on a straight arithmetic computation based on percent of lot coverage as allowed in the code. Actual yield under a detailed site plan may be less. Estimate represents maximum potential yield. This estimate does include any wetland area that is found on site, actual development would exclude that area. What is the proposed zoning of the site'? R80 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning'? 11 single family units, Estimate does not figure roads, drainage, parking, etc. Computation is based on a straight arithmetic computation based on percent of lot coverage as allowed in the code. Actual yield under a detailed site plan may be less. Estimate represents maximum potential yield. This estimate does include any wetland area that is found on site, actual development would exclude that area. 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? YES What are the predominant Imld use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1/4 tnile radius of proposed action'? Land uses include: single-family residence, motel, nursing home, attached homes, parkland ~reenp~0_q~ vacant. Zoning includes RS0, HD, RR, Park District (G_reenp_ort). _____ 8, Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a I/4 nfile? YES 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 authorization(:9 fbr the tbrmation of sewer or x~ater districts? NO II. Will the proposed action create a demand for rely community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? NO a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? NA 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? NO a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional lraffic? D. Informational Details Please refer to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Findiugs Statement for the County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study prepared by the Town of Southold). Verification I certify that the information provided above is truc to the best of my knowledge. Name of Preparer: Cramer Consulting Group Signature: I certify that tl~e information provided above is true to tile best of my knowledge ApplicanCSponsor Name: Date: l'itl¢: ( onsullants to tile Town Board Greenporl IA- EAF 6 SUP~ COUI~T ON THE STATE OF NEW YORK CO~ OF SU~OI.K, TRIAL ~ PART 20 rACE LL LLC, X Plaintiff-Petitioner, Index No. 2000/10760 Mot No. I-MG Mot No. 2-MD Mot, No..3-MG Orig. Date, $/26/OO ~inal Date, 9/18/00 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Suffolk County, New York, end Supervisor. [EA_,N W. CO(X-IRAN, Councilwoman LOUISA P. EVANS, Counclt~n WILLIAM D. MOOKE, Counclh~n BRIAN G. .,-~, . MURPHY, Councilman JOEN G. ROMANELLI, ~...~aacilWoman ALICE HUSSIE, m their capacity and constituting thc TOWN BOARD OF SOUTHOLD. PACHMAN & PACIIMAN, F. SQS. Attorneys for Plaintiff 366 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, N.Y. 11725 KENNETH L. ROBn~ON, ESQ, . .. AlIomey for Defcadant 532 Broadhollow Road, Suit~ I$5A Melville, N.Y. 11747 . ._~. Dcfcndant-R~pondcnt. X · ,. Upon r~ling and 5ling flmf~llowing p~pers's~bmitt~. On ~i~ ~6o~ ~vol~ a ~ ~,:'78 pm~eed~, ~ ~t:.~o~ df P~69n ~ s~i,~ Pap~ (11~ ~6on to Di~ss ~ s~pp0~g pap~ (8~!2), CmSs:~oGon ~ ~Uppo~g p~ (13-23).~d ~ply ~fion~ppo~gp~'~(2~-26),itis ': 'f ': ' - . .-' · · '. ... O~E~, ~at ~s me,on fora jud~t ~g, ~vers~g ~d se~g ~idc a c~n resolution ofr~ond~ ~ ~ ~ s~d ~olufi~ is ~ revised ~ set ~i~; ~d it is ~ ORDEEED, that thc motion for an c~ior distain,sing action is dcaied; and it is fmthcr ORDERED, that the crass-motion for au order granting m~mms~ry jucl~mant is grautexi. Plaiatiffis thc owner ora s~vcntc~n 07) azrc paxccl of vacaut land ("subject parcel") located within the town of Southold, New Yor~. On or about July 11, 1983, the Southold Pla~ Board approved a site plan for Kace to build a 10g:unit condominium development ax the subject parcel to be lmown a~ Noxth Wind Village (The "project"). Purs~apt to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code Chapt~ 760, no parcel of real estate c~ be -xmP~°V.~duntil the Suffolk County Deparlraunt of Health has approved thc proposed water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Pursnsnt t~ Town Zoning Code Sec. 45-8(G), before a building permit could bc issued, K~cc had to obtain approval for.thc p!'oposcd water supply and sewage disposal system fi.om ~he SuffoLk County Depa~haen~ of Health. SUCh approval is obtained fi.om the Village of Orecnport which is geOgraphiCally enCOmpassed witliin thc Town of Southold. For some i~xeiplicable'r~a~on, the Utilities CommiUcc of thc Village of G-rccaport, after being told by thc Town filat the Proposed project had been approved, thc Greenport Trustees refused to ~:t on Kace's application and K~,'e rema/ned unable to obta/n water and sewer so.ices for ~hc pmjc~. Withou~ figs precondition, I~ce w~s u~ble to obtain a buil/ing pequot Litigation in the Federal court e~'ued and, accordin/to a ~pulafi~ of ~Ulcme~t, G~eenport proposed to provide sufliciant sewer c~aclty w~*h~u four ye~r~ ofth~ execu~/on of the ~ipulafion, to wit: on or before l~cbn~'y 6, 2000. On or about October ?, 1999, by order of the Town Board thc $outhold Town Cleflt publ/shed a notice th~ a public besting would be held on a proposed local law proposing to ~'-zone the subject p~ucel fi-om a (HD) Hamlet-Dem'ity Resider/al District m au (R-80) Res/dantlal Law D~n~ity District. Pursuant to Town L~w Sec, 2~5, on behalf of petitioner, one B~ucl M. ~ntokos~ ~cd a petition ~ ~ ~ of~ p~ ~ ~ ~ ch~O of~ be ~pt~ o~y p~l W a "s~ ~jofi~' ~f ~e To~ Bo~d m~s. Sdd ~. K~s~ howev~, ~y ~ ~e R~W Co. ~t~ of~ LI LLC ~ ~ si~ on ~c Pm~ Pcfi~n. A ~vc 1~ of~o~t w~ s~t w ~c Bo~ onO~b~ 14, 1999 wMch -*'~~y ~f~ ~e o~ of ~e p~cel ~ ~ H LLC". No~~ ~c ~ave, at ~e Oc~ber 19, 1999 mee~, o~y fo~ of~e six m~be~ of ~c To~ Bo~ vo~ ~ hvor of~c ~c~ ~w re-~g ~ p~l ~c~ ~w ~ of 19~). ~c~ ~w ~3 of 1999 was ~ ~ ~ S~ of S~c on ~b~ 27, 1999. P~ W Scc~ of Sm~, W ~t: Dec~b~ 27, 1999, ~ore, ~ ~s ~on ~ ~ on Ap~ 26, 2000, it w~ ~cly ~ not b~ by ~c S~tc of Limi~fio~. ~so, ~ p~ogcd c~t w~ ~t p~ by a hvor~lc yom of ~-fo~ 0/~) of~e ~s of ~fe~t-Re~ent To~ Bo~ ~ ~efo~, ~d ~t b~ome off, five ~ wo~ded by To~ Law Sec. 295. A~i~on~y, it ~pc~ ~at ~. Kontokos~ ~ ~ co~five [e~er of pwtcst prior ~ ~ vo~e of~e Bo~d w~ w~ aw~ of~c ~o~Mc~ ~r ~ ~e prior lc~cr ~ ~orc, hc ~ ~dln5 ~ lodge ~e pmt~. A~gly, ~ mo~n ~ ~ss h d~ With regard w thc m'ticle 78 pwceeding, now d~ the motion u~ d/.~mi.~s has been re~olved, the court holds fha/the super-m~jofi~y prov/sions of Town law $cc. 265 were not complied with despite ~he clear mauda~e thercof~ and, accordin~y, petitioner's position/s sustained in all "r~P~-rts mid relspondont's resoIuii6n is mmullexl'fdira'/'eXt/nd'iet aSide.' ........ Settle judgment. Dated: November 15, 2000 ,u. ,-,,,,-- ---r--. .~uty Town Clerk Fr: Phillip Bell=, Special Projects Coordinator Re: FOIL REQUEST OF KACE LI, LLC RECEIVED Sm:thold Tow, n Clerk Pursuant to Michael Kontokosta's FOIL request on behalf of KACE LI, LLC, I submit the following: 1. A list of names and addresses of households requesting affordable housing assistance with the Town of Southold's Housing Registry. 2. A list of names and addresses of households who attended the Housing Summit on November 3, 2004. Note these are names of households who completed information cards at the event for no "attendance/sign-in sheets" were available. AFFORDABLE HOUSItNG SUMMIT INFORMATION CARD tNFO Name First Name Mailin~ Address 1 Acosta Nazareth P.O. Box 781 2 Alfero Kamn Cedar Ddve 3 Anderson Deirdre & Rich P.O. Box 29 4 Beier Joan 5 Bajek Sharon P.O. Box 792 6 Bednoski Jayne P.O.Box 229 7 Bialeski Timothy P.O, Box 678 8 Bialeski Steven P.O. Box 676 9 Blake Janet 1530 Boisseau Ave. 10 Beringer Craig P.O. BOx 668 11 Bokina Kim P.O.Box 364 12 0ossen Jane & Derek P.O. BOx 128 13 Boyle Michael 10205 N. Bayview Road 14 Brautigam Kendall P.O. Box 55 15 Bruen-Goditus Cynthia 1305 Pequash Ave. 16 Cebral Douglas P.O. BOX 96 17 Camm John 270 Gagens Landing R d 18 Cannac Lisa 260 Huckleberry Hill Road 19 Carry Willa Mae H. 220 Center Street 20 Charlip Debby P.O. Box 1171 21 Chilton Robert W. P.O. box 565 22 Chute Cindy 9 Middfeton Road 23 Clar~, Jr. Jeffrey 525 Second S, Rear Apt 24 Combs Gail 182 Sterling St. 25 Conrad Marc 590 Seaweed Dr. 26 Coraz~ni Kim 1375 McCann Lane 27 Cruz Roxanna 1220 Yoangs Ave 28 Cusati Cynthia P.O. BOx 355 29 Dav~ds Melissa 3715 Herren Lane 30 Dayton Vanessa 1530 Boissaau Ave. 31 deReeder John P.Q Box 1322 32 Oeslaurier Patty P.O. BOx 633 33 De'~rgilio Louis P.O. BOx269 34 Dmskoski Christine P.O. Box 2t3 35 Dunn Amanda 2325 Brigantine Dr POB 21 36 Dwyer Mauraen P.O. box 565 37 Edstrom John PO. Box 1151 38 Edwards Charlene P.O. Box2118 39 Edwards Joan 200 Broad St. 2nd FI rear 40 Elmore Robert & Trac~ P, O. Box 158 41 Fabry Stacey Ann 3700 Deephole Drive 42 Fingerte Linda P.O. Box 1812 43 Finne Lisa P.O. Box 581 44 Ford Kevin &~k~thia 9~0 CooXlin Road 45 Gabrielsan Amanda P.O, BOx 317 46 Gary La(ney Consandra Bil~ 5350 Bergen Ave. 47 Go!densa Anthony P.O. Box 1230 48 Gokfsmith Craig P.O. box 1092 49 Gok:lsmith G~enn P.Q BOx 1092 50 Grattan Tammy J. 5040 Main Bayview Rd. 51 Grattan Tim & Tammi P.O. Box622 52 GFzegorczyk Danielle P.O. Box 1171 53 Haas Jason 275 Sigsbee Road 54 Hagen William R, 1115 Main Street 55 Hagen*nan Sarah 4115 Soundview Ave. 56 Hansen Jonathan C P.O, Box 131 57 Hansen Fred 805 Donna Drive 58 Harrington Barbara P.O. Box 1650 59 Harvey John P.O. Box 551 TO, Nh Graenport Southold Southotd Cutchogue Southo~d Mattituck Mattituck $outhold Graenport Peconic Peconic Southoid Southold Cutchogue Cutchogae Southok~ East Madon Greenport Mattituck Peconic Greenport Graenpor~ Graenpo~ $outhold Gmenport Southold Graenport Boutho~d Southo~ Matt~uck MattJtuck New Suffolk Orient Southo~d Mattituck MattitucK Greenport Greenport Southold Mattituck $outhold Greenport Mattituck Jamesport Mattituck Cutchague Southo~d Southo~d Soathold Gmenport Mattituck Mattituck Graenport Southold Southold Mattituck Southold Orient State NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY 11944 11978 11971 11935 11971 11952 11952 11971 11944 11958 11958 11971 11971 11935 11935 11971 11939 11944 11952 11958 11944 119~4 11944 11971 11971 11944 11971 11971 11952 11952 11956 11957 11971 11952 11952 11944 11971 11952 11971 11944 11952 11947 11952 11935 11971 11971 11971 11944 11952 11952 11944 11971 11971 11952 11971 11957 Informational Cards Info] I 8F3J2005 50 Heiinski William P.O. Box 1328 61 Hespos Kirsten P.O. Box 193 62 Heyse Denise 955 Albe Drive 63 Hill Kamela 423 Main St. Apt. 4A 64 Hluboky Bryan 1780 Founders Path 65 Huber Frank Robert P.O. Box 545 66 Hughes Mary Jane & J 8110 N. Bayview Rd 67 Hulse Courteey 214 Sixth Street 68 Hu~se Amber 214 Sixth Street 69 Jackson Julie Second St. 70 JeffreyBoyte Jennie Vo[insk155 Bonnett Road 71 Jemmott Kelli P.O. Box 61 72 Jester Allison 314 Champlin Place 73 Jimenez Carmen P.O, Box 536 74 Johnson Laude P.O. Box 1810 75 Kellogg Dorothy P.O. Box 757 76 K~ibisz PJotr P.O. Box 263 77 Klibisz Wlodzimierz P.O. Box 263 78 Kohl Angela & Step 1000 9th St, Apt L101 79 Kruszeski Tracy P. (3. Sox 423 80 Lane Jeanne P.O. Box 213 81 Lasda Denise 850 Manatooka Lane 82 Lawrence Latdcia 430 Second St. 83 Lawson Dina P.O. Box 1102 84 Letavec Nbert P.O. BOX 171 85 Libbey Nancy 308 F Main St. 86 Linker Charles 1215 Main Street 87 Litchhult Matthew B. P.O. Box 1242 88 Lugo Virginia P.O. Box 1851 89 Lyburt III Frank P, O. Box 400 90 Markopou{es Phyllis 605 Sound Beach Dri. 91 Mazzafero Robert P.O. Box 454 92 McCaffery Robert 1235 Westphalia Rd, 93 McC!eery Brian P.Q Box 1713 94 McGreevy Jennh~er & Jan P. O. Box 1651 95 McKinney Juanita P.O. Box 571 96 McMoore Sarah 220 Center Street 97 McNeil Karen P.O. BOx 781 98 Medina Mr. 410 Second St. 99 Merioger Amos Box 315 100 Michaelis Gil 5980 Sound Ave. 101 Milden Calvin P.O. Box 170 102 Molodyolo Mariya 10475 Main Road 103 Mott Charlene 42205 Route 48 104 Murphy Ada 211 Center St. 105 Myers Robert W. P.O. Box 436 106 Mysiiboraki Gabrielle P.O. BOx 1521 107 Neese James 875 Jasmine Lane 108 Norkelun Jeffrey P.O. Box 1810 109 O'Brien Christopher 212 Fifth Ave, 110 Orlowski Jacy P. O Box 885 111 O'Shaughnes~ Joy 4250 Sound Ave. 112 Parker Yolanda P.O. Box 826 113 Parker Sonia P,O. BOx 229 114 Pils Doug & Harry 390 Mechanic St, 115 Pressfer Ed 650 Grove Dr. 116 PressJer Joan & Ed 56025 Main Road 117 Prindle Michael P.O. Box 137 118 Priogle Ronnie &Thet 617 Second Street 119 Pdngle Kerstan 617 Second Street 120 Pring~e Rone[I 617 Second Street 121 Quarry Donald P.O.Box 1615 122 Raymond Jan 172 Sterling St. Southold Mattituck Laurel Greenport Southold Southold Greenport Greenport Greenport Greenport Greenport Southold Cutchogue Cutchogue Graenport Greenport Mattituck Mattituck Greenport Mattituck Graenport Greenport Ma~tuck Southold Cutchogue Mattituck Southold Mattituck Mattiteck Matfituck Mattituck Greenpo~t Graenport Mattituck Mattituck East Marion Southold Greenport Peconic Southold Southold Southold Greenport Mattituck Matfituck Mattituck Mattituck Southo~d Southold Southold Cutchogue Graenport Southold Gmenpo~ NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY 11971 11952 11948 11944 11971 11958 11971 11944 11944 11944 11944 11939 11944 11971 11971 11935 11935 11944 11944 11952 11952 11944 11952 11944 11944 11944 11952 11971 11935 11952 11971 11952 11952 11952 11952 11944 11944 11944 119~4 11952 11958 11938 11971 11944 11958 11971 11971 11971 11944 11952 11952 11952 11952 11971 11971 11971 11935 11944 11944 11944 11971 11944 Informational Cards info] 2 8/3/2005 123 Reece Jackie P. O, Box 15 124 Reeve Paula P.O. Box 145 125 Rehm Kelleigh 665 Broadwaters Rd. 126 Reiter Alyson 55 Birch Lane 127 Remini Kathleen 230 Pequash Ave. 128 Repnitsyha Svetlana 221 4th Ave 129 Richards Cynthia P.O. Box 460 130 Riggios Selena 528 Fimt Street 131 Romond Scott P.O. Box 293 132 Rose Dina 355 Windjammer Dr. 133 Ross, Sr. Clyde P.O. Box 770 t34 Ryan Dale R. P,O. box 1795 135 Sanders Shameka 525 Second St. Rear Apt 136 Santillo Bath P.O, Box 444 137 Sayre, Jr. Donald R. 919 Main Street 138 Schutt Karen P.O. Box 764 139 Sepenoski James P.O. Box 1542 140 Sidor Krisfina 730 Sigsbee Road 141 Sledzieski Robin P.O. Box 615 142 Smith, Jr. Russell P.O. Box 248 143 Solo Barbara P.O. BOx 259 144 Spellman Anteinette P,O, Box 1341 145 Stanevtch Robert B. 37295 Main Road 146 Stewart Kathleen P. O, box 521 147 Stewart John P.O. box 521 148 Stoner Kelly P.O. Box 1797 149 S~ttmutten Joseph P.O. box 316 150 Strong Ryan 1095 Westvlew Dr. 151 Sudhalter Richard P.Q box 757 152 Suoledile Madye P.O. Box 251 153 Sweet Jeanne P.O. Box 323 154 Tadeton Elizabeth 3850 Alvahs Lane 155 Taylor Tracy Danielle P.O, Box 462 156 Ted Hughes Klm Hallock 905 Ninth Street 157 Tehan Michael P.O. Box 283 158 Themas Marta 37295 Main Road 159 Thompson Katherine P.O. Box 544 160 Thompson Annmarie P,O. Box 709 161 Tim Blesko Regina DeSpi~ P. O. Box 507 162 Tomes Froylan P,O. Box 673 163 Uhlinga Darby P.O. Box 1025 164 Van Etten George P.O. Box 1812 165 Volinski Deborah 165 Bannett Road 166 Wadlington Kendra P.O. Box 826 167 Wahl Jason P.O. BoX 825 168 Walker Terry P.O. Box 72 169 Watson Lanna P.O. Box 865 170 Wilson Jesse & Isabel P.O. Box 278 171 Zebrowski, Jr. Stefan P.O. Box 34 172 Zemanek Sheryi P.O. Box 69 173 Zursk Donna P.Q Box 1230 Laurel NY Cutchogue NY Cutchcgue NY Cutchogue NY Cutchogue NY Greenport NY Cutchogue NY Greenport NY New Suffolk NY Southold NY Mattituck NY Southotd NY Greenport NY Cutchogue NY Greenport NY Maffituck NY Southold NY Mat~tuck NY New Suffolk NY Grsenport NY New Suffolk NY Cutchogue NY Peconic NY Ma~r{uck NY MattJtuck NY Southold NY Southold NY MattJtuck NY Southold NY Peconic NY Peconic NY Cutchogue NY Cutchogue NY Greenport NY Shelter Island NY Peconic NY Peconic NY Cutchogue NY Peconic NY Greenport NY Cutchogue NY Southold NY Greenport NY Mattituck NY Mattituck NY Southold NY Southold NY Peconic NY East Medon NY Peconic NY Cutchogue NY 11948 11935 11935 11935 11935 11944 11935 11944 11956 11971 11952 11971 11944 11935 11944 11952 11971 11952 11956 11944 11956 11935 11958 11935 11952 11971 11971 11952 11971 11958 11958 11935 11935 11944 11964 11958 11958 11935 11958 11944 11935 11971 11944 11952 11952 11971 11971 11958 11939 11958 11935 Inforrnational Cards Info] 3 8/3/2005 APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 8/3/05 Number Last Name First Name Address I ALLEN LAVERNE 618 2ND ST 2 BEDNOSKI JAYME 53247 MAIN RD. 3 BLAKE JANET 1530 BO1SSEAU AVE. 4 BRAUTIGAM KENDALL P.O. BOX 55 5 BRUENGLq}ITUS CYNTHIA 1305 PEQUASH AVE. 6 CHARLIP DEBBY ANN 710 CEDAR DR. BOX 1171 7 CHENAL ESTU,MLDO 100 CLARK RD BOX 514 8 COLEMAN EMMETT 301 NORTH ST. 9 COMBS GAlL 182 STERL1NGST. 10 COUGHLIN DAVD P.O. BOX 792 I1 CRUZ ROXANA 1220 YOUNGS AVE. 12 DAYTON VANE SSA 1530 BOISSEAU AVE. 13 DEVIRGILIO LOUIS 685 ORCHARDST. 14 DtCKERSON JAMES 10612 BAYVIEW RD 15 DROSKOSKI CHRISTINE P.O. BOX 213 16 FABRY STACEY ANN 3700 DEEPHOLE DR. 17 GABRiELSEN AMANDA 152 CHURCH LANE 18 GOLDENSE ANTHONY P.O, BOX 1230 19 GONZALES VALER1E 350 SKUNK LANE city GREENPORT SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD CUTCHOGUE MATTITUCK SOUTHOLD GREENPORT GREENPORT CUTCHOGUE SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD NEW SUFFOLK SOUTHOLD ORIENT MATTITUCK AQUEBOGUE CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE State NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY Zipcode 11944- 11971- 11971- 11971- 11935- 11952- 11971- 11944- 11944- 11935- 11971- 11971- 11956- 11971- 11957- 11952- 11931- 11935- 11935- Wednesday, August 03, 2005 Page l of 6 Number Last Name First Name TAMMY JONATHAN IOHN KIRSTEN DENISE BRYAN FRANK AMBER MARVIN DANIELLE DENISE DEBI RASIqAD NANCY PHYLLiS ROBERT BRLAN JAMES GILBERT PAUL Address 5040 M~MN BAYVIEW RD 445 ORIOLE DR. 1075 NAVY ST. 367 MEETING HOUSE CREEK KD 955 ALBO DR. 1780 FOUNDERS PATH 5700 ALVAHS LANE 214 SIXTH ST. 227 PRICILLA AVE 102 LAMPLIGHT CIRCLE 850 MARRATOOKA LANE P.O. BOX 832 1070 FAC [ORY AVE. 308F MAIN ST. P.O. BOX 1851 605 SOUND BEACH DR. 1235 WESTPHALIA ROAD P.O. BOX 1713 360 W. SOUNDVIEW AVE, 5980 S OI3~ND AVE. PO. BOX 1521 Cit~, SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD ORIENT AQUEBOGUE LAUREL SOUTHOLD CUTCHOGUE GREENPORT RIVERHEAD HAMPTON BAYS MATTITUCK MATTlTUCK MA I~FITUCK GREENPORT SOUTHOLD MATTITUCK MAT~ITUCK MATTITUCK PECON1C MATFITUCK $OUTHOLD State NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY Zipcode 11971- 11971- 11957- 11931- 11948- 11971- 11935- 11944- 11901- 11946- 11952- 11952- 11952- 11944- 11971- 11952- 11952- 11952- 11958- 11952- 11971- Wednesday, August 03, 2005 Page 2 of 6 Number Last Name 41 NEESE 42 NEESE, E 43 PARKER 44 PARKER, Y 45 REEVE First Name KAREN ELIZABETH SONIA YOLANDA PAULA SELENA SCOTT CLYDE TRACY BETH ALLISON JONATHAN DOROt HY RONALD JOHN GARY MARTA FROYLAN DARBY KENDRA JENNIFER Address 950 SILVERMERE RD. 875 JASMINE LANE 15535 ROUTE 48 490 HILL ST. 28850 MAIN RD 528 FIRST ST. 575 OLD HARBOR RD P.O. BOX 770 cit GREENPORT SOUTHOLD CUTCHOGUE MATHTUCK CUTCHOGUE GREENPORT NEW SUFFOLK MATTITUCK HAMPTON BAYS MATTITUCK SOUTHOLD PECON1C State NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NW NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY Zipcode 11944- 11935- 11952- 11935- 11956- 11952- 11946- 11952- 11958- 11944- 11952- 11944- 11935- 11944- Wednesday. August 03, 2005 Page 3 of 6 Number Last Name 62 WATSON 63 WILSON 64 ~EGAN 65 STRONG 66 ELMORE 67 BOFINGER 68 DISPIRITO 69 MURPHY 70 DESLAURIER 71 KLIBISZ 72 EDSTROM 73 JONES 74 HAGEN 75 JOHNSON 76 NORKELUN 77 O'BRIEN 78 MILLER 79 BLASKO 80 MEDINA 81 LUKE 82 CARRAGHER First Name LISA JESSE THOMAS RYAN ROBERT CRAIG REGINA ADA PATRICIA WLODZIMIERZ JOHN MESSINA Address P.o. BOX 8 143 BRIDGE LANE 915 OAK AVE 1095 WESTV]EW DR. P.O. BOX 158 515 CIRCLE DR. 420 LITTLE NECK RD 211 CENTER ST. P.O. BOX 633 2300 DEPOT LANE 1400 DEEPHOLE DR 474 AMERICAN BLVD 1 i15 MAIN ST. 37320 ROUTE 48 37320 ROUTE 48 212 FIFYH AVE. P.O. BOX 337 420 LITYLE NECK ROAD 410 2ND ST, 215 5TH ST. 1795 OSBORNE AVE. cit SOUTHOLD CUTCHOGUE SOUTHOLD MATTITUCK SOUTHOLD EAST MARION CUTCHOGUE GRPENPORT MATT/TUCK CUTCHOGUE State NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY Zipcode 11935- 11939- 11935- tl952- 11944- 11944- 11935- 11944- Wednesday, August 03, 2005 Page 4 of 6 Number Last Name First Name KATHLEEN DONALD RICHARD GLENN KELLI BRYCE TRACy JOHN JEANNE KIMBERLY DOUGLAS SUZANNE FRANK IRENE ANNETTE CLAUDETrE JEAN DEON DANIELE DINA Address P~o. BOX 521 1945 NAKOMIS ROAD PO. BOX 757 P.O. BOX 1092 1295 OLD ORCHARD LANE 148-09 NORTHERN BLVD APT 2G 750 HIGhWqOOD P.D. 21755 NORTH RD 8110 N. BAYV1EW RD. 1000 9TH ST. UN1T A9 30 PENINSULA DP.. 405 LILAC LANE 405 LiLAC LANE PO BOX 535 490 RILEY AVE. P,O. BOX 328 412 3RD ST. 605 YOUqNGS AVE. 200 BROAD ST. 1550 BRIGANTINE DR. 355 WINDJAMMER DR. ci : MATTffUCK SOUTHOt,D SOUTHOLD SOUTFIOLD EAST MARION FLUSHING SOUTHOLD CUTCHOGUE SOUTHOLD GREENPORT SAG HARBOR CUTCHOGUE CU~'CHOGUE CUTCHOGUE MATTITUCK NEW SUFFOLK GREENPORT SOUTHOLD GREENPORT SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD State NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY Zipcode 11952- 11354- 11935- 11944- 11963- 11935- 11935- 11952- 11956- 11944- Wednesday, August 03, 2005 Page 5 of 6 Number Last Name 104 MASON 105 W1LC£NSKi 106 DISILVIO 107 ZABELINE 108 ROSCOE 109 WOOD 110 NABRDALIK 111 DORFMAN 112 OMAN 113 YOUSIK 114 ANAYA 115 WIGLEY 116 SENDLENSKI 117 RUGGLES I18 BALAREZO 119 VCEBB First Name CARMEN ANN MICHAEL MARGARETROSE EVELYN PATRICIA ALICE KAREN CARROLL CHRISTOPHER CARMEN TANYA JOANNE Address 517 BROWN ST. 1000 9TH ST. 411 MAIN ST. APT lB P.O. BOX 163 P.O. BOX 485 430 FIRST ST. P.O, BOX 45 302 WILLOW POND DR, 1380 B~E LANE 400 BETTS ST, 10530 SOUND AVE. 2235 GRAND AVE 485 RACCOOM ROAD 1150 NAKOMIS ROAD 1220 YOUNGS AVE APT 1 315 5TH AVE. Cit~' GREENI~RT GREENPORT GREENPORT NESCONSET PECONIC GREENPORT PECON1C RIVERHEAD CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE MATT1TUCK MATITFUCK MATT II~t3CK SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD GREENPORT State NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY Zipcode 11944- 11944- 11944- 11767-0163 11958- 11958- 11935- 11935- 11952- 11952- 11944- Wednesday, August 03, 2005 Page 6 of 6 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Philip Beltz, Housing Director Linda J. Cooper, Deputy Town Clerk August 1, 2005 Foil Request of Michael Kontokosta Transmitted herewith is a FOIL request of Michael Kontokosta. Please respond to this office within five (5) business days. Thank you. KACE GROUP Michael E. Kontokosta Em August 1, 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mrs. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk 53095 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 Re: KACE LI, LLC - FOIL Request R~CEIV~D $out~okt l~,~,n ¢ledt Dear Mrs. Neville: Attached please find a completed form of Application for Public Access to Records. Specifically, we are requesting from the Philip Beltz, Housing Director, the names and mailing addresses of those persons currently listed on Southold's affordable "Housing Registry" or any other similar lists for the for the purpose of inviting said persons to participate at the August 23rd joint public hearing of the Town and Village Boards and to forward directly to said persons more specific information about KACE LI's pending annexation proposal as it becomes available. Please note that we are specifically not requesting any personal information or other confidential information relating to said persons that may be contained in such records. Also, we are requesting a copy of the "attendance sheet", "sign-in sheet" or other similar document listing the persons in attendance at the "Housing Summit" at the Southold High School Auditorium on or about November 3, 2004. Thank;~ in advance for~our prompt attention ~l~llclq-ael L. K~l~tok,~st~, Esq. ~ to this matter. CC: C.E. Kontokosta (w/o Encl.) TH~ KACE GROU? 43 WEST 54TH STREET / NEW YORK, NY 10019 / TEL: 212 582 6100 FAX: 212 582 0047 755 NORTH ROAD, P.O BOX 67 / GREENPORT, NY 11944 / TEL 631 477.0600 FAX 831 4770880 Town Hall, 5~095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 76~-1800 southoldtown.no~thfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I. the~n~fo~mation~ you ar~-reque~:t'ing~.) {Department or OffiCer, if known, that hag RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record Sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.) Address: "'-~' 0 , ~-~0'~- ~-)'~- Mailing Address (if different from above): Telephone Number: ~'~/-L~/72-C~C)(~) Date: [ ] APPROVED [ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY* [ ] DENIED* Elizabeth A. Neville Freedom of Information Officer RECEIVED 2005 * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. ATTACHMENT A-1 FOIL REQUEST OF KACE LI, LLC KACE LI, LLC seeks the following records: (1) The names and mailing addresses of those persons currently listed on Southold's aftbrdable "Housing Registry" or any other similar lists for the for the purpose of inviting said persons to participate at the August 23'd joint public hearing of the Town and Village Boards and to forward directly to said persons more specific information about KACE LI's pending annexation proposal as it becomes available. Please note that we are specifically not requesting any personal information or other confidential information relating to said persons that may be contained in such records. (2) A copy of the "attendance sheet", "signdn sheet" or other similar document listing the persons in attendance at the "Housing Summit" at the Southold High School Auditorium on or about November 3, 2004. Cooper, Linda From: Sent: To: Subject: Beltz, Phillip Wednesday, August 03, 2005 9:21 AM Finnegan, Patricia; Cooper, Linda KACE FOIL REQUEST Importance: High Pat, Unless I am directed otherwise, I will prepare requested documentation of names and mailing addresses of persons on housing registry as well as names of persons who completed "information cards" at housing summit (note, we did not have a "sign-in sheet"). I am off Friday and request will need to be in to Linda Cooper by Thursday (tomorrow) to comply with deadline. Phillip PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY patricia.finnegan(W~ town.southold.ny.us KIERAN M. CORCORAN ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY kieran.corcoran@town.southold.ny.us LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.montefusco@town.southold.ny.us JOSHUA Y. HORTON Supervisor Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August29,2005 Ms. Denise M. Sheehan, Acting Commissioner NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1011 Re: Annexation Petition of KACE LI, LLC Dear Ms. Sheehan: Pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, the Town of Southold is requesting your assistance in determining lead agency status in relation to the following unlisted action. The petitioner, KACE LI, LLC (hereinafter "KACE"), has filed a petition for annexation of a 17.1 acre parcel of property owned by KACE from the Town of Southold to the Village of Greenport. The parcel fronts on County Route 48, one of the two East- West thoroughfares through the Town of Southold. The petitioner proposes to create 128 dwelling units on this property, the most intense development of this kind in the Town of Southold. I am attaching, for your information, resolutions adopted by the Town and Village Boards, each declaring their intent to assume lead agency status in the SEQRA review of the annexation proposal. The anticipated impacts of the annexation are primarily local in nature. The impacts are expected to have a significant and direct impact on the Town in that the traffic generated by this development will flow onto Route 48 only, which is located within the Town. The residents along Route 48 in this location most significantly affected by this increased traffic are outside of the Village and are residents of the Town. Further, the additional residents generated by this development will utilize Town services including police and solid waste. It should be noted that this property, whether it is developed as part of the Town or Village, will be serviced by the Village municipal sewer system, the Town Police Department, and the Greenport School District (which includes residents/taxpayers of both the Village and the Town). As you can see from the attached map, the nearest Village residential property is located almost a mile from the KACE property. The subject property lies squarely within Ms. Denise M. Sheehan August29,2005 Page 2 the midst of Town of Southold developed propedies. On the attached map you can see that the developed portion of the Village lies to the east of the area known as "Moore's Woods", which is a Village-owned vacant parcel, much of which is wetlands. The parcel in question lies at the western end of Moore's Woods, surrounded by Town property. Inasmuch as the area most significantly impacted by the proposal lies within the Town, the Town has ~he broadest governmental powers for investigation of the impacts. As pointed out by many at the public hearing on the annexation, the Town has the greatest capability for providing the most thorough environmental assessment of the proposed action. The Town maintains a Planning Department and Planning Board, and has conducted several planning studies involving land use in this specific location. The Town also has a highly qualified Board of Trustees that maintains jurisdiction over wetlands and is charged with protection of the environment in wetland areas. This properly may contain as many as 9 acres of freshwater we[lands (as shown on the DEC freshwater wetlands map), despite the claim that there were none on an EAF submitted by the petitioner to the Town Planning Board in 1983, and the current representation by the petitioner that the parcel contains less than three acres of freshwater wetlands. Although the Village possesses the ability to hire consultants, clearly the Town is in a better position to provide a thorough and objective environmental review of this proposal. Moreover, the Town's regulatory framework will deduct any and all wetlands from the developmental yield calculation, reducing density in environmentally-sensitive areas. The Village laws contain no such protections. Accordingly, the Town of Southold respectfully requests that they be designated as Lead Agent for the purposes of conducting a SEQRA review of the proposed annexation of the property in question. I remain available to provide additional information that may be required by your office. PAF/Ik E~nclosures cc: Members of the Town Board (w/encls.) ~ Ms. Elizabeth Neville, ~Town Clerk (w/enbls.)z'''- Joseph Prokop, Esq. (w/encls.) Ms. Christie Hallock, Clerk of the Village of Greenport (w/encls.) (via certified mail, return receipt requested) ELIZABETH NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone: (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net RESOLUTION # 2005-508 Resolution ID: 1075 Meeting: 08/16/05 04:30 PM Department: Town Attorney Category: Seqra THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-508 OF 2005 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON August 16, 2005: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has received a Petition for Annexation (the "Petition") submitted by KACE LI, LLC; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport has proposed that it serve as lead agency for the environmental review of the Petition pursuant to SEQRA; BE IT ItEREBY RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold preliminarily classifies the Petition as an Unlisted Action; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold proposes that the Town of Southold serve as lead agency for the SEQRA review of the Petition~ and hereby directs that the Town Clerk mail a copy of this proposal to the Village of Greenport and all other interested agencies; and be it further RESOLVED, that, in the event the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold are unable to agree upon the lead agency determination with respect to the Petition, that the Town of Southold shall submit the issue to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation for resolution pursuant to §617.6(b)(5) of the SEQRA Rules and Regulations. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk [] Adopted Adopted as Amended [] Defeated [] Tabled [] Withdrawn Willimn P. Edwards Seconder Dahi~i'~. Ross Louisa P. Evans Voter AtJG ~ ~ : P~solution "A" 2 2 2005 ~"' ~' ':b" VILLAGE RECEIVED. ~; R?Ot'tATED O~ G~gg~POA~ , .;.,,~ ~ BOARD OF TRUSTEES A06 2 2 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 14 OF 15 RESOLUTION ADOPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND TYPING ACTION AS AN UNLISTED ACTION AND OTHER ACTION PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION LAW OF THE Southold Town Clerk GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WHEREAS }(ACE LI, LLC, filed a Petition for the Annexation of certain territory to be included in the Village of Greenport which is presently in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold on July 14/ 2005, with the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport, said property being 17.1 acres located on County Road 48, Greenport, and designated as Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-40.00-03.00-001.000, and WHEREAS the Village of Greenport is an involved agency'in that~iit is required to take certain action regarding the Petition pursuant to the Municipal Annexation Law of the General Musicipal Law of the State of New York, and for that reason and other good cause is therefore proposing to assume lead agency status for purposes of SEQRA review in this matter, and; WHEREAS the Village of Greenport has preliminarily determined that the annexation is an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQRA; and; WHEREAS an Environmental Assessment Form Long Form Parts and II are being prepared by the Village of Greenport for ~eview, and; WHEREAS the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold are required by the Municipal Annexation Law and the General Municipal Law of the State of New York to conduct a joint hearing on the Petition for Annexation, it is therefore; RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport hereby proposes that the Board of Trustees adopts lead agency status for purposes of SEQRA review of this action, and that all other involved agencies are hereby provided 30 days to assert lead agency status in this matter, and that the basis of this determinatiom includes but: is not limited to the following: 1. That the property J f annexed will be within the boundaries and jurisdiction Qf .the Village of Greenport, and will be subject to the zoning, construction and other local ordinances of the Village Code of the Village of Greenport, and; 2. That the property if annexed will be serviced by the Village of Greenport Municipal Electric Utility, and that the Village as part of the analysis of the Petition for Annexation and the SEQRA review to be done will prepare and review a feasibility analysis for the Greenport Municipal Electric Utility, and; 3. That the property if annexed will be serviced by the Village of Greenport Municipal Sewer System, and that the Village as part of the analysis of the Petition for Annexation and the SEQRA review to be done will prepare and review a feasibility analysis for the Greenport Municipal Sewer System, and; 4. That the property if annexed will be serviced by the Village of Greenport Municipal Water System, and that the Village as part of the analysis of the Petition for Annexation and the SEQRA review to be done will prepare and review a feasibility analysis for the Greenport Municipal Water System, and; 5. That pursuant to the criteria set forth in 6 NYCRR 617.6(b) (5) (V) the agency that is most appropriate to serve as 'lead agency is the Village of Greenport in that: A. The project after annexation will be entirely within the boundaries and jurisdiction of the Village of Greenport, that; B. That the impacts that will generated by the project, if any, will primarily effect the residents and property owners the Village of Greenport and the Village of Greenport itself. of C. The Village of Greenport has the broadest governmental power for investigating the impacts of the annexation because i~ is the government that will exercise zoning, police and health and safety regulations and powers, and the site will be serviced by the utilities and government of the Village of Greenport; IT IS THEREFORE; RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport hereby preliminarily determines that the action of the annexation is an Unlisted Action for SEQRA purposes, and it is further; RESOLVED that the Village Clerk is hereby directed to forward a copy of this resolution as follows: Town of Southold KACE LI, LLC N¥S Department of Environmental Conservation Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Village of Greenport Agencies and Boards And it is further; RESOLVED that due to the adoption of lead agency status in this matter by both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold the determination of lead agency in this matter'shall be referred by the Village of Greenport to the New York State Commissioner of the Departmeht of Environmental Conservation pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.6(b) (5) of the SEQRA Rules and Regulations. Dated: August 18, 2005 Motion to Approve:TrusteeMills Seconded: Trustee Shelby In Favor 5 Against: 0 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD VILLAGE OF GREENPORT X ..................... X : In the Matter of the Application : : of : : KACE LI, LLC : : for : : ANNEXATION OF 17 ACRES : X ..................... X MEMORANDUM AND APPENDIX ANTHONY B. TOHILL, P.C. ATTORNEY AT /AW 12 FIRST STREET PO. BOX 1330 TABLE OF CONTENTS RECEIVED AUG 2 3 2005 Sou~old To,va Clerl~ Page Table of Contents ............................................. i II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. XII. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1 A FACTUAL HISTORY OF KACE LI, LLC PARCEL ............ 1 THE ANNEXATION PROCESS .............................. 4 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT .............. 7 THE TOWN REGULATORY SETTING ......................... 7 THE VILLAGE REGULATORY SETTING ...................... 10 THE STATED REASONS FOR THE ANNEXATION PETITION ...... 11 THE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR REACHING A DETERMINATION .... 12 PIECEMEAL ANNEXATION BENEFITING ONE PROPERTY OWNER SEEKING TO AVOID THE TOWN REGULATORY PROCESS SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED ...................... 13 ANNEXATION WOULD ALLOW DETRIMENT TO THE A/qNEXED TERRITORY ................................... 17 ANNEXATION PROVIDES NO BENEFIT EXCEPT TO KACE LI, LLC ..................................... 21 CONCLUSION: THE CERTAIN AND OBVIOUS ................ 24 i I. I~TRODUCTION This memorandum and appendix of references are submitted in opposition to annexation of SCTM 1000-40-3-1 to the Village of Greenport. This memorandum is submitted on behalf of the following property owners who oppose annexation and whose respective residences are shown on annexed Exhibit 1: Samir, Grzeski, Retzos, Suprenant, Young, Foley, Berardino, Mannix, Stern, Gordon (NoFo Properties), Campbell, Walsh and Cohen. II. A. A FACTUAL HISTORY OF THE FACE LI, LLC PARCEL On January 13, 1983 while then zoned in M Light Multiple Residence District, a site plan and EAF were submitted by David E. Kapell as agent for Emanual Kontokosta for development of 108 dwelling units in 27 buildings on 5 4. On July 11, (Exhibit 5) acres. Exhibits 2, 3, 1983, the site plan was approved even though no drainage plans were submitted or approved, the Planning Board did not conduct scoping or issue any declaration under SEQRA, no approval for public water or public - 1 - Co Do Eo sewer hookups existed, there was no required referral to the County Plannin9 Commission and there was no Health Department approval. On May 20, 1987 Emanuel Kontokosta, Kace Realty Co. and Kace Construction Corp., described as the owners of the premises, sued The village of Greenport to compel water and sewer hookups. Exhibit 6. On January 10, 1989, while enacting a substantial recodification of the Zoning Ordinance, the Town Board repealed the M Light Multiple Residence District and rezoned the premises to Hamlet Density (HD). Exhibit 7. On February 6, 1996 the suit against the Village was settled by a stipulation under which it was agreed the Village did not have sufficient sewer capacity to serve the 108 unit development at the premises, the Village was given four (4) years to work out capacity problems, it was agreed there was sufficient capacity to supply water and the Kontokosta parties were given three (3) years to - 2 - Fo elect to sign contracts for sewer and water services when both are available. Exhibit 6. In October 1999 the Town Board changed the zoning classification to R-80 but on December 4, 2000 the Supreme Court Suffolk County invalidated the change of zone by reason of a failure of a sufficient majority to override a Town Law § 265 protest. Exhibit 8. On November 16, 2000 Kace Development Corp. submitted four (4) building permit applications, each for four (4) dwelling units referencing Buildings 24, 25, 26 and 27 on the 1983 site plan (Exhibit 9), but each was denied by Building Inspector Edward Forrester since both ZBA special exception approval and site plan approval were necessary. (Exhibit 10). On August 13, 2001 Kace LI, LLC applied to ZBA to challenge denial of building permit applications. Exhibit 11. On June 6, 2002 the ZBA denied the appeal. Exhibit 12. - 3 On July 14, 2005 Kace LI, LLC filed an annexation petition with the Town Clerk, outlining a 128 residential unit project of which "approximately 20%" would be a condominium "workforce/affordable mixed income housing project," "approximately 30%" will be semi-detached homes "affordable for the workforce" and the remaining 64 units (the memo said 68) will be detached single family residences. Exhibit 13. III. THE ANNEXATION PROCESS Annexation, the alteration of municipal boundaries, is governed by Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, enacted in 1963. The process begins with a petition a) describing the territory, b) stating the number of inhabitants, c) signed by either at least 20% of the residents eligible to vote in the territory or by the majority of the owners of the assessed valuation in the territory, d) filed with each municipality, e) accompanied by an assessor's certificate, and f) authenticated - 4 - by inscription of the following statutory (GML § 703(2) language: STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF (name of witness) being duly sworn, says: I reside at in the of (fill in residence) in the state of New York; I know each of the persons whose names are subscribed to the above sheet having (fill in number) signatures; and each of them subscribed the same in my presence. Sworn to before me this __ day of , 19 (Signature of witness (Official title of officer) A hearing must be noticed by each municipality within twenty (20) days after the petition is filed. A hearing must be held within not less than twenty (20) days nor more than forty (40) days after the notice. Evidence at the hearing may include challenges to the qualifications of the petition signers or that the petition does not comply with the formal requirements outlined above. Objections may be heard that the proposed annexation is not "in the over-all public interest (1) of the territory proposed to be annexed, or (2) of the municipality to which the territory would be annexed [Village] or (3) of the municipality from which the territory would be annexed [To~n] or (4) any district (fire, school, or other) in the territory to be annexed." The hearing must conclude within ten (10) days after the date fixed in the notice. Each municipality must adopt a resolution or order consisting of findings and a determination within ninety (90) days after the hearing. The determination and the record of proceedings must be filed within the ninety (90) days in the Office of the Clerk of each municipality (a failure to follow this requirement is a default approval). If one municipality is in favor and one against, then certified copies of the determinations of each municipality must also be filed in the County Clerk's Office within the same ninety (90) days. Any municipal board member with a pecuniary interest in the annexation outcome should recuse himself. Exhibit 15. - 6 - IV. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT An annexation of 100 or more contiguous acres is a Type I action under 6 NYCRR § 617.4(b) (4). Exhibit 14. In Cross- Westchester Development Corp. v. Town Board of Tourn of Greer~bur~h, 141 A.D.2d 796, 599 N.Y.S.2d 870 (2d Dept. 1988), the Court held that an annexation involving less than 100 acres is an unlisted action. The Court further held that a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is appropriate if the annexation includes "a specific project plan," but a DEIS is not required if the use following annexation is "a speculative possibility." Exhibit 16. At the least, of course, the record must at this point contain an Environmental Assessment Form prepared by the petitioner, Kace LI, LLC. V. THE TOWN REGULATORY SETTING Although neither Kace LI, LLC nor any other Kontokosta affiliate has made any application to develop the premises consistent with any applicable zoning classification since 1983 -- at which time the 108 unit application was granted site approval in less than six (6) months -- the premises as now zoned for the last sixteen (16) years allows all of the uses outlined in the project description accompanying the annexation petition. Exhibit 17. In the HD district, one family residences, two family residences, multiple dwellings, townhouses and row or attached houses are allowed as either permitted or special exception uses. Exhibit 16. Site plan approval requires allocation of a percentage of affordable units. Density since the enactment of Local Laws 7 and 16 of 1985 and the codification of the then §100-116 has allowed one unit per 10,000 square feet if public water and sewer are available. § 100-116, now codified since 1989 as part of the Zoning Ordinance Bulk Schedule, appeared in 1985 as follows: § 100-116. Dwelling unit density. [Amended 4-9-85 by L.L. No. 7-1985; 7-16-85 by L.L. No. 11- 1985] Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, each dwelling unit in a multiple dwelling shall have twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of land for each dwelling unit in the building where public water and public sewer are not provided and shall have ten thousand (10,000) square feet of land for each dwelling unit in the building where public water and public sewer are provided. The premises appear within the HALO map for Greenport West in the Town of Southold Hamlet Study dated July 5, 2005. - 8 - Exhibit 18. At page G-9 of that Study, density increases for affordable housing are discussed at a yield of up to one unit per 1/8 acre, or one per 5,000 square feet. Exhibit 19. Such an increased density as currently under discussion would be "density neutral," that is, the floating HALO overlay zone would be an incentive zone available on a transfer of development rights known as preservation credits in number equal to the density increase. Exhibit 20. To the extent Kace LI, LLC has an interest in affordable or workforce housing the Town has enacted Article V of the Zoning Ordinance to further as § 100-50 of the Town Code states "the Town's goals of providing quality workforce housing." Exhibit 21. Affordable Housing districts (AHD) may be located within hamlet locus (HALO) zones pursuant to § 100-52. Density is allowed at one unit per 10,000 square feet. Dwelling units would be subject to resale price controls. The Town would maintain a Housing Advisory Commission to oversee these controls. In addition the Town's Special Projects Coordinator would administer the program. - 9 - VI. THE VILLAGE REGULATORY SETTING The Village of Greenport has two (2) residential districts, R-1 for one family dwellings and R-2 for one (1) and two (2) family dwellings. (Exhibit 22). Multiple dwellings are prohibited under § 150-8(B) {2) in each district excepting on the "conversion of an existing dwelling to a multifamily dwelling." Density is one residential unit per 10,000 square feet in R-1 and one unit per 7,500 square feet in R-2 excepting two family units which allow two (2) units per 7,500 square feet. Exhibit 23. The Village of Greenport does not maintain any affordable housing legislation. Site plan approval in the Village does not require a percentage of affordable units. Under no provision of the Greenport Code as now enacted would an owner be able to build 128 residential units on a 17 acre site except at a maximum yield that ignores all of the mapped wetlands on the site. Under no provision of the Greenport would an owner be obliged to sell any unit as at least not in the sense there is any legislated restriction on the sale or resale. Code as now enacted affordable housing, - 10- Under no provision of the Greenport Village Code as now enacted would a developer be able to build at a yield as generous as now under discussion in the HALO Study. VII. THE STATED REASONS FOR THE ANNEXATION PETITION The Memorandum of Kace LI, LLC accompanying the annexation petition states five reasons supporting its petition: 1. The property is contiguous the Village on three sides; 2. The property is within the Greenport school and fire districts; 3. The property "has a stipulated connection to the Greenport sewer system"; 4. The property has access to Suffolk County Water Authority public water; and 5. The "Village has the appropriate existing zoning density provisions." - 11 - VIII. THE LEGAL STANDAI~DS FOR REACHIN~ A DETEI~MINATION "In determining whether a proposed annexation is in the over-all public interest, the focus is on such matters as the benefit and detriment to the annexing municipality, to the territory to be annexed and to the municipality from which the annexed territory would be taken.,, Town of Lansing v. Village of Lansing, 80 A.D.2d 942, 438 N.Y.S.2d 29, at 31 (3rd Dept. 1981). Exhibit 24. "Benefit and detriment are customarily defined in terms of municipal services such as police and fire protection, health regulations, sewer and water service, public utilities and public education." Town of Lansing, supra. The burden of proof is on the municipality seeking annexation. A factor to be considered in addition to the benefit/detriment municipal services analysis is whether the territory to be annexed and the annexing municipality have a unity of purpose sufficient to constitute a community, for example, an adopted master plan which allows for the proposed development of the annexed territory. - 12 - IX. PIECEMEAL ANNEXATION BENEFITING ONE PROPERTY OWNER SEEKING TO AVOID THE TOWN REGULATORY PROCESS SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED In Village of Warwick v. Town of Warwick, 56 A.D.2d 928, 393 N.Y.S.2d 47, at 48 (2d Dept. 1977) (Exhibit 25), the Court held: [A] cautionary note must be added. Annexation of territories pose important issues, being on the proper geographic and economic division of the bulk of land lying outside of centers presently served by the facilities necessary for land development. Piecemeal annexation, benefiting one property owner alone, may well result ultimately in municipal boundaries not in accordance with proper planning criteria. Hence, wherever possible, annexation should not follow the fortuitous boundary lines of the land of a single owner who seeks immediate advantage to himself, but the broader lines of divisions based on the planning aspects of the annexation. (emphasis added) Reference to the Town Zoning District Map or Exhibit 7 in the Appendix submitted herewith shows two (2) HD parcels and one (1) AHD parcel each on the south side of Route 48, each bounded by the Village of Greenport, each within a distance of about one mile. Picking out only the parcel one owns is not a municipal planning outcome. Annexation is not intended to serve the personal economic interests of one property owner. Instead the governing statute, Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, speaks of the over-all public interest or as the Second Department Appellate - 13 - Division said in Marcus v. Baron, 84 A.D.2d 118, 445 N.Y.S.2d 587, at 596 (2d Dept. 1981): "In determining whether annexation is just and equitable, it must be considered broadly, having in view the highest interests of all concerned. Using annexation "as a device to avoid the duly-enacted and constitutionally-valid zoning ordinance of the Town" is an impermissible use of Article 17. Village of Spring Valley v. Town of Ramapo, 264 A.D.2d 519, 694 N.Y.S.2d 712, at 714 (2d Dept. 1999) (Exhibit 26). In Village of Skaneateles v. Town of Skaneateles, 115 A.D.2d 282, 496 N.Y.S.2d 185, at 185-186 (4th Dept. 1985), the Court held: For the reasons stated in the report of the dissenting referee, Honorable John F. Lawton, J.S.C., we find that the annexation would not be in the overall public interest. As noted in the dissent, the sole reason that the village and the intervening property owner seek annexation is to avoid the restrictive effect of the Town Zoning Ordinance on the 2.852 acres of intervenor's property situated in the town by removing the 2.852 acres from the town and adding it to the territory of the village where the zoning ordinance is favorable. The town ordinance was duly enacted, and no question is raised as to its validity or constitutionality. We have found no precedent approving the use of annexation as a device by which the owner of land in one municipality may escape the effect of that municipality's local legislation by having the land transferred to an adjoining municipality. (emphasis added) - 14 - As in both the cases cited in the two preceding paragraphs, there is no evidence that the premises cannot be developed as currently zoned. There is evidence however of the following: 1. A yield of 128 units is not permitted under either the Town HD or any Town HALO classification; 2. The Village Zoning Code may permit 128 units: assuming development of 64 detached units at 7,500 square feet each and assuming lot area with freshwater wetlands is included for yield analysis as lot area, the yield would be 64 detached units on 11 acres (7,500 x 64 = 480,000 + 43,560 = 11) and 64 additional attached units on 5.5 acres (64 units + 2 (2-family units) = 34 x 7,500 = 255,000 + 43,560 = 5.8); 3. The Village has no affordable/workforce housing code at all; 4. To develop a project as outlined on the memorandum attached to the annexation petition (Exhibit 13) would require new affordable housing legislation - 15- that does not now exist in the Village of Greenport; 5. No planning study exists supporting a 128 unit project at this site; 6. Any annexation approval outcome obviously invites repetitive annexation applications (there are two (2) other similar parcels within one mile); even though 7. Neither the petitioner Kace LI, LLC nor anyone else has applied to develop any HD or AHD parcel under the current Tow~ regulations. The five (5) reasons offered by Kace LI, LLC to justify its annexation petition actually lead only to denial of its petition. This 17 acre parcel is not unique in having Village boundaries. All of the Village is surrounded by the Town. Other HD and AHD parcels similarly situated are nearby. That the property is in the Greenport school district is also not helpful. The School District reportedly is against this petition. Exhibit 28. The premises are not in the Greenport Fire District but instead in the E-W Fire Protection District. Exhibit 29. That fire protection district serves all the residences across Route 48 on the north side. That the property can be served by the - 16 - public sewer system has been known since February 6, 1996. (Exhibit 6). Changing the municipal boundary has no effect on that stipulation. Similarly that the Suffolk County Water Authority can supply water is so whether the property is in the Town or Village. The only fact that is attention grabbing is the statement that the "village has the appropriate zoning density provisions." The record shows the Village could only allow such density by including freshwater wetlands to calculate yield, hardly a planning approach in the over-all public interest. X. ANNEXATION WOULD ALLOW DETRIMENT TO THE ANNEXED TERRITORY The premises consist of 17.1 acres. Exhibit 30. Approximately one-half - all of the southerly part of the premises - is mapped freshwater wetlands appearing on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Freshwater Wetlands Map. Exhibit 31. The legislated policy of the State of New York is to protect freshwater wetlands. Exhibit 32. The extent of the freshwater wetlands is so great and so limiting that Town planning study after Town planning study has recommended that the premises be changed from HD to an R-80 - 17- classification or acquired. By way of illustration, the July 1999 County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study showed the freshwater wetlands line bisectinG the premises on an east-west irregular line and recommended R-80. Exhibit 33. The planninG study recommended R-80 "to preserve wetlands, woodlands and other ecologically important habitats." Exhibits 34 and 35. The premises were studied earlier in February 1994 in the Review of Hamlet Density ZoninG in Southold Town. That study also recommended a lower density since "intense development of the site does not seem to meet with the Goals and Policy Objectives of the Comprehensive or Master Plan." Exhibit 36. The April 1985 Master Plan Update study cautioned that HD density at four (4) units per acre would only be appropriate "where there is the provision of moderate cost housinG." Exhibit 37. The May 2003 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement recommended that moderate income housinG must be continuously affordable, i.e., the Town should avoid allowinG merely "a tentative supply of mid-cost housinG that can be bought and later sold on the open market for whatever the market will bear" (Exhibit 38), exactly - 18- what any developer in the Village of Greenport outside the reach of the Town's affordable housing code is permitted to do. The April 2001 Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan shows the premises as an included parcel under the Community Preservation Fund acquisition list managed by the Town's Land Preservation Committee and Coordinator. The May 28, 2002 Map B-27 contained in the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy shows the approximate easterly half of the premises as archaeologically sensitive, including about one-half of all the upland. Exhibit 39. The November 2004 Local Waterfront Revitalization Program notes the recommended preservation of this area because of the extensive marsh. Exhibit 40. Since 1992, pursuant to Tow/~ Law § 272-a(11) the Board is statutorily required to act in accordance with its enacted comprehensive plans. Exhibit 41. If the Village is not prohibited from ultimately allowing 128 residential units at these premises - and nothing in New York law prohibits such a legislated allowance, putting aside its lack of wisdom -- and if the petitioner is allowed such a build out, one is allowed to consider whether such an outcome is a benefit or detriment. -19- In Towl/ of Lansin~ Exhibit 24) the Court held as determinative: The territory proposed to be annexed would also suffer detriment in the form of high development density, unplanned mixed use development and increased traffic congestion, all because of the town's less restrictive zoning ordinance. Under § A106-3 of the Town of Southold Code, land encumbered by freshwater wetlands is excluded from lot area and therefore the wetland area does not count toward a yield analysis. This type of restrictive definition of lot area is good planning. The Village of,Greenport however does not so define lot area. Freshwater wetlands are the same as upland for yield calculation purposes. In Village of Pomona v. Town of Ramapo, 171 A.D.2d 861, 561 N.Y.S.2d 791, at 793 (2d Dept. 1991) (Exhibit 42), Finally, the Village may not use annexation to subvert the development of an adjoinin~ municipality's property pursuant to a lawfully enacted zonin~ ordinance. In City of Middletown v. Town of Wallkill, 143 A.D.2d 215, 532 N.Y.S.2d 17, at 19 (Second Dept. 1988), the Court held that annexation to permit the development of land encumbered by wetlands is not in the overall public interest. Exhibit 43. This factor was noted in that case together with the arbitrary selection of the area to be annexed which, the Court observed -20- disapprovingly, occurred "without the benefit of a single planning study" (532 N.Y.S.2d at 19 -- see Exhibit 43). The New York Court of Appeals approved a holding in City Council v. Town Board, 27 N.Y.2d 369, 318 N.Y.S.2d 307, at 311 (1971) (Exhibit 44) as follows: Annexation cannot be considered as being in the over- all public interest where the only benefit to be derived is expansion room for the municipality seeking annexation while the annexed area and the area out of which it is to be carved, will be adversely affected. Here the burden was on the City of Mechanicville to establish that annexation would be in the over-all public interest and in our opinion the city has not met that burden. XI. ANNEXATION PROVIDES NO BENEFIT EXCEPT TO KACE LI, LLC Police protection is provided by the Town, not the Village. Fire protection is available from the protection district, whether the property is in the Village or not. Water is supplied by Suffolk County Water Authority. Sewer service is supplied by the Village pursuant to a 1996 agreement which is on its face not dependent on annexation. The school system reportedly does not want the student increase generated by 128 -21 - residential units. Electric is supplied by LIPA whether the premises is in the VillaGe or not. The Town has a professional planninG department consistinG of a Town Planner, Senior Environmental Planner, Senior Planner, Senior Site Plan Reviewer, a Site Plan Reviewer and a clerical staff. The VillaGe has no comparable professional staff and has no planninG department at all. The Town has conducted at least the followinG studies which bear on the use and development of this 17 acre property: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) Tow~ Master Plan Update (1985) US/UK Countryside Stewardship ExchanGe Team Report (1991) LonG Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) Tow~ Affordable HousinG policies and program (1993) Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) Review of Hamlet Density ZoninG in Southold Town (1994) Community Preservation Project Plan (1998) Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives (1999) County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) Tow~ Water Supply ManaGement & Watershed Protection StrateGy (2000) Scenic Southold Corridor ManaGement Plan (2001) Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (2002) Southold Comprehensive Implementation StrateGy (2003) Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization ProGram (2003-2005). -22 - The Village would be unable to provide any study supporting development of this property with 128 residential units, as if all of the preceding studies were incorrect. The premises is encumbered by wetlands. Development at the suggested 128 unit yield adjacent wetlands is inconsistent with state law and every above-referenced Town planning study. HOW anyone could even file a petition with such a yield plan for this constrained site speaks volumes about the developer's economic intentions here. The Town has an affordable housing local law. The village has none. Affordable housing with integrity means restricted resale prices. No part of the Kace LI, LLC plan includes such a restriction. The Kace LI, LLC plan is to avoid the restrictions. For there to be "unity of purpose" as that term is used in Article 17 matters, the Village should now have zoning regulations, which are the product of prior planning studies, which support 128 residential units here as a well-planned use of the land. No such studies exist. Absent a current Code framework within which the Village of Greenport can describe how 128 residences could in the name of good planning be approved at these premises there are no facts on hand on which a municipality -23 - can find annexation is in the public interest. existing studies public interest. Ail of the state such a density is not in the overall As the Court said in City of Port Jervis v. Town of Deer Park, 169 A.D.2d 764, 565 N.Y.S.2d 131, at 132 (2d Dept. 1991) (Exhibit 45): Here, the evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the parcel in question is vacant, wooded and undeveloped land. As no evidence was presented of any specific plans for development of the subject property, the land is clearly without any current need for the water or sewer services which the petitioner city could supply, and the petitioner has failed to carry its burden of proving that annexation is in the public interest. There obviously cannot be "specific plans" if there is no village planning study supporting the plans, and all the Town studies show such a density to be a bad result. Not to be ignored is that the nearby area is largely R- 80. One hundred twenty-eight residential units on 17 acres half of which is encumbered by wetlands is not a density consistent with the surrounding area. Article XII. CONCLUSION: THE CERTAIN AND OBVIOUS In terms of an analysis of benefit and detriment under 17 of the General Municipal Law, nothing is occurring - 24 - here at all in terms of municipal services. The territory to be annexed does not benefit at all from annexation. The only certain and obvious benefit is the economic windfall to a developer of 128 residences on a parcel so constrained by freshwater wetlands. No local government with a responsible planning program would allow such a density. Such an outcome however is not within the meaning of benefit as that term is used in Article 17. There is a certain and obvious detriment here, too. The proposed development is inconsistent with every Town planning study on the subject. The proposed development is completely at odds with all modern land use restrictions, all enacted in the overall public interest and therefore not to be ignored. And this brings this analysis to the most certain and most obvious of conclusions. This annexation petition has one goal: to engineer an end run around the land use regulations of the Town of Southold to increase economic gain. -25 - Dated: Article 17 does not permit such an outcome. Riverhead, New York August 23, 2005 Respectfully submitted, Anthony B. Tohill D~NTHONY B. TOHILL, P.C. Attorney for the Samir, Grzeski, Retzos, Suprenant, Young, Foley, Berardino, Mannix, Stern, Gordon, Campbell, Walsh and Cohen Families 12 First Street P.O. Box 1330 Riverhead, New York 11901 631-727-8383 -26 - 04'x)O,s, S.D. Y~Y~D DAVID E. KAPELL 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 516477-9403 REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES CONSULTING SERVICES January 13, 1983 Mr. Henry Raynor, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Henry: Enclosed please find three (3) copies of the proposed site plan for condominium development of a property owned by my client~ Emanuel Kontokosta, to be known as Northwind Village. The parcel is located on the south side of the North Road in Greenport adjacent to san Simeon Nursing Home. Would you please process this plan for approval and advise me of its progress? t regards, avid E. Kapell, as agent DEK/a Enclosures EXHIBIT 2 -- ,, ~.-'. ?~-'~ /~:~- ,~o -A ---- EXHIBIT 3 DAVID E. KAPELL 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 516~,77-9403 REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES CONSULTING SERVICES AY'g REC'D Mr. Henry Raynor, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 April 26, 1983 Dear Henry: Enclosed herewith please find the Long Form Environmental Assessment requested in your letter of April 20, 1983 concerning the application of my client, Emmanuel Kontokosta, for the Northwind Condominium project. The board will also receive correspondence directly from Mr. Kontokosta concerning the issue of any surface water on site. Should the Board require any additional information please don't hesitate to contact me. Best Regards, ~pell t as agent TO, , OF SOUTHOLD ENViKONM.ENTAL ASSESSNLENT PART I PROJECT I hqF O]?J~LAT ION 43 West 54 Street David E. Kapell, as a~en: Greenport ~ N.Y. 11944 N.Y.C., N.Y. 10019 ~U~E~S ~HONE: 912 - 582- 6100 zoned M- Light Multiple Residencg ~istrict ., , , Agriculture .'q~,~r Vacant 17 17 ~cres l~cr!s ., : ~ ' ~- ..at.~ ~ur-a.. acres Landscaped Sandy loam 0 acres 12 6. A::roxi~te percentage of proposed project site with slopes: O-lO% .i0,0. ,%; lO-1S: .__._~.'.; 1S: or groa Car . '.. 7. Is p~ject contiguous to, or c~ntain a building or site listed on the Nation~) Register of Historic Places? Yes ~ No 8. ~at is ~e dapt~ to :he water table)lO-3~feet 9. ~ hun:lng or fishing appo~unities presently exist in the project ar~? ,Yes ,,X fie 10, ~es project site contain mny species of plant ar animal llfe that ts identified as threatened or end,neared - , Yes ,X ~)o, acceding to - Identify each species - ll. Are e_here any unique Or unusual land forms on the project site? (~.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - Yes X___._,No. (Describe IZ. Is the project site presently used by the community' or neigh.borhood es an open spe~e or r~cr~a'~ion area- ,Yes X No. 13. Does the present si'te offer or include scenic views or vistas lo~own to be impenitent to .the co~emunlty? 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: ~'= ~ ~'= .' .... .' s,re~m and name of river to which it is tributar~ ~.A. 15. Lakes, ~onds, We:lan~ areas within or conti~uous to project ara. a: . .. a. Nam~ N.A, ; b. SiZe (in acres) 16. What is t~e dominant lanJ use and zoning classification within · 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g~ single family residenCial, R-2] and the scale of development (e.g, ~,story). Single~family residential, nursing ~Ome, con~ercial d~mPgroGnd PROJECT DESCRIPTION = ' ~ =' ' ' ~ - -- I. Physical dimensions and scala of project (fill in dimensions as apprQpriate} a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 17 acres. b, Project acreage developed: ..~5~acres initially; ~_ acres ultimately. e. Project acreage to remain undeveloped ,,, ~2 d. tength of project, in miles: ~(if appropriate) e. If project is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: age . N.A. ; developed acreage _ f. )km'~er of off-st."~t parking spaces existing ,, ~ Maxi~ vehicular trips generated per hour 50 h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: building squar~e fcc , ; proposed 108 ~upo~ completion of project) J- Total height of t~Ilest proposed structure 25 feet. r.~m'~aroial Industrial '- One'Family Two Family Multiple Family 108Condominium Initial ...... 108 Ultimate LO~ :f: Orientation Neignbornooq-Ci ty-Regional E~:imated Eynoloyment 4. S. 6. 7. g. lO. 11. How much natural material (t.e. reck, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site - 0 tons 0 cubic yet HOW many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site - 1~7 acres. Will any mature forest (over IOO years old) or other locally-Important vegetation be re~ved by this project? _ .Yes X .No Are ~.here any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X_____Yes _ No If single phase prOject: Anticipated period of construction 12 months, {including demolition). If multi-phased project:- a~~ ?oral n~nber of phases anticipated . No. b. A~ticioated date of commencement phase 1 month ~ear {including . demolition) c. Approximate completion date final phase . m~nth year. d. Is phase 1 financially dependant on subsequent phases? Yes Will blasting occur during construction? Yes ~, No Number of jobs generated: during construction 100; after project is complete 5 Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 ... Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? _- Yes X No. If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste di's~csal involved? Yes X b. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) c. If surface disposal n~me of stream into which effluent will be disoha~ed 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, strew-ms, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by ;re~osaI? .Yes X 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the lO0 year ~ood plain? Yes X No 15. a. Does p~jeqt involYe disposal of solid -:r . b. If yes, will an ~xisting solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes c. If yes, give n~me: ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ~ Yes X 16. Will project use herbicides or pes:icides? Yes X 17. Will project routinely produce odors (~r~ than one hour per day)? Yes 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ~bience noise levels? . Yes X No 19. Will project result in an increase in ener?J use? X Yes .Mo. If yes. indicate type(s) electsic£ty and ~uel oll ~2. If water supply is from wells indicate pumping capacity Total anticipated water usage ;er day _]~J~O00 gals/day. Zoning: a. What is dominant ':oning classificaticn of sit~? d. If no, indicace desire~ toning gals/minute. M Light Multiple Residence yes -3- 2fi. Approvals: a. Is any Federal per. it required? Yes ~ No b. Does project (n¥olve State or Federal funding Or financing? __ Yes X ¢. total and Regional approvals: Approval Required Submittal (Yes,)1o) (Type) (Date) ' No Approval (Date) City, To,m, village Board City, Town, Village Planning 5oard City, Town. Zoning Board City, County Health Oepartl~,ent Other local agenc&es Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies IR FO P~%~T I G~G~L DETAILS Attach any additional information as mzy be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with ~e' pmposal, pl~se discuss such impac~ and ~e measures which can be ~ken to ~iti~ate or av~. ~ ~ ~ _ PREPARE~'S SI~qA~JRE: ~ ~ REP~E~E,4TI~G: E~anuel Kontokos Ca DATE: TO, _, OF SOUTHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSb~NT - PART II PROJECT IMPACTS AND T~EIR ~AGNITUDE Gegeral Inforn.,~.ien (Read Carefully) In completing the form the reviewer should be guided ~? the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. )dentifying :nat an effect will be potentially large Fcc umn 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large effect must be evaluated in ~ART 3 to determine s~gnificance. 8yjdentifying an ~¥fec: in column 2 simjly asks that it be looked at further. of magn~tuoe teac would trigger a ~sponse in ¢ol~n 2. The ex'.mples are generally applicable throughout the may be mare appropriate for a Potential Large ImPact racing. Each project, on each site, in eachqocality, will vary. ~erefore, the examples have been offered as guider l'hey do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. - The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each questlo~. INSTRUCTIO~(£ (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of ~he 18 questions in PART ~. Ans'~er Yes if there will be ?'y effect. bo Ma,ybe answer~ should be considered as Ye.__~s answers. tf answering Yes to a euestion the~ check the a~or~or~ate box (column I or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact ~hreshold equals ~r = o~ any example provided, check column 2. Ir impac: will occur but threshold is lo~':er than o ,m io _x,..o _, checX column I. d. If reviewer has doubt aoout ~e size of the impact ~.consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. If a potentially large impact or effect can be re~uced by a change in the project to a less ~an large magnitude, place a Yes in column 3. A ~Io response indicates ,h~ such a reduction is not possible. tjNPACq' ON LA~O NO YES WILL PROJECT SITE? VV Examoles that Would Apply to Column Any construction on slopes of 1S: or greater, (15 fooC rise Der 1OO foot of length), or wher~ the general slopes in t~e project than 3 feet. Construction of moved parking area ~or 1,~G: or ~c~e. vehicles. ... C~nsCructicn on land ~here bedrock is exposed er ~ner~lly within 3 feet of existing ~round surface. Construction c~at will continue for ~ore C~an 1 jye~r or involve ~ Excavation fpr mining ~urposes that ~euld tons of natural material {i.e. rock or so(l) ~e~ year. ~ Construction of any new sanitary landfill. S)'ALL TO POTEnTiALI CAN I~PAC7 SE iMODEP~,TE LARGE REDUCED 5Y IMPACT ~).(PACT PROJECT ru Construction in a designated floodway. WILL THERE ~E AN EFFECT TO ANY U,NIqUE OR 'U~;USUAL LA, NO F~PJ~S FOUN~O~ THE SITE7 (i.e. cliffs, dunes, geological fore- runs, etc.) Specific land forms: !I!PACT ON,..WATER NO YES PROTECTED? {Under Articles 1S, ~, 25 of the Envir- onmental Conservation Law, ExamQles that Would Apply to Column 2 0redoing more than 100 cubic yards of ~aterial From channel of a protected stream. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. O~er impact~: E~amoles that Would Apply t~ Column 2 Other impacts: WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER QUALITT? Examples that ':lould Apply t~ Colunm 2 Project will require a discharge permit. YES Project requires use Of a source of water that does not have approval tu ier'~e proposed project. Project requires water suoply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or ooer~tion causing any contamination of a pu~)ic water supply system. Project will adversely 'affect groundwater. Liquid effluent ~ill be cmnveyed off the site to facili~'o Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,OOO gallons per day. ..__Preject will likely cause Siltation or other discharge ~DEkATE I~IPACT RE. guc~D ~'( . PROJEC'~ II. I:'?ACT Or; VISUAL RESOURCE HILL THE P~gjECT AFFECT VIE,K~, VISTAS OP, T'H,E VISUAL NO YES Examoles that ~ould Apply to ~l~n ~ An incompatible visual affect caused by the introduction of new materials, colors and/or fonrJ in contrast to the Surrounding landscape. A project easily visible, not easily screened, that is obviously different fKam o~gers a~'ound it. Project will result in the elimination or major screening of scenic views or vistas known to be important to the area. Other impacts: I_)ztP. ACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES, WILL PROJECT IMPACT ANY SIT~ OR STRUCTURE OF H~STORIC, NO YES E~am~les that Hould Apply to Col um~ ~ P~ject occurinq wholly or partially within or contiguous t~ any f~cilit¥ or site listed on the National ~egister historic places. Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Ot~er impacts: ~.~HP~C-i' ON OPEN SPACE & REC~E~TTOY ' lZ. WILL liHE PROJECT AFFECT il-IE OUA)tTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING ~)0 YE.c OR FUTURE OPE?I SPACES OR RECREATIOn)AL OPPORi~j?IITIES? ...... ~ ~ Examples that ~;ould Apply to C~lun~ 2 T~e penn~nent Foreclosure Of a future rec~eetional appor~ouni ry. _, A major r~.duction of an open space important to the corn'nunity. Other im~act~: l.p~c'l' r,;! TI~.ANc. PORT~TtC,~I lJ. WILL T'4EP. E ~E ~,l EFFECT TO ~[STI~G T~XSPCRTAT:O:I SYST~.IS? ............................................... Exanm es t~a~ t~ould A~pty to Column ~ ~ A)teration of present a~Ct~rns of ~vemenC of people and/ar goads. ~ Project wil) result in severe traffic problems. NO ;;.'ALL TO POTE;ITIAL CA:i Il!PACT .Bi :OOERATE lARGE RED'JCEI:~ I~Y ' I~CT I~IPa'CT ~ROJEC~ S ) I '' PR~. ~FF~CT TH~ CCZt:4UN[T[ES SOURCES OF FJ~L ~gE~SY SUPPLY? ........................................... GO ~xamol~s thet Would ~pply to Column 2 ~ Project causing greater then 5: increase in any Form Of energy used in municipality. Project recuiring the creation or extension of an ~ner~y Other impacts: IMP~CT OH NOISE 15. WILL ~ERE BE O~JECTIO~IA~L~ O00RS. ~IOISE, GLARE, Examoles that ~euId Apoty to Column Z Blasting within l,SCO feet o? a hospital, school or e~her sensitive Facility. Odors ~ill occur ~ti~ely ~more then one hour ~er day). Project will or, duse operating noise exceedino the Project will re~ve natural barriers that would acs as a noise screen. Other i~pacts: YE~ Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 P~ject that will ~sult in the burial of" {i.e. t~xic, ~oiso~cus, highly reactive, radioactive. liquid or contain Storace facilicies for cxe million or more gallons tf l(quified WILL PP. OJECT AFFECT THE CHAIqACTER mF THE EXIST[rIG ~:0 YES CO:i~'!U,XIi'Y? ................................................ GO Example that Would Apoly to (Column 2 The copulation of the City, Town or Village in which the project is located is likely to grow by m:re than 5~ of resident human population. The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or opera- ting services will increase by more than S: per year as a result of this project. Will involve any :ermanent facility afa non-agricultural use in an agricultural district ~r remove prime agricultural lands from cultivation. The project will replace ar eliminate existing facilities, strictures or areas of historic importance to the comm..unity. DeYel~pment will induce an influx of a pa~icular age group with special needs. Project will set an important precedent for future projecta. Project will relocate 15 or ~ore employees in one or businesses. Other impacts: 18. NO ' YE IS ~NERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCE~i!NG ~E PROJECT? ....... ~ ~ Ex,-moles that Would Apply to CoIu.~ 2 Either government or citizens of adjacent corrmunities have expressed opposition or rejected the pro jecc or have not been contacted. Objections to the project from within the con=:..unity. IF ,t:;Y ACTIO,~I :M PART 2 IS [DE.~IFiED AS A I POTENTIAL LAP, GE IMPACT OR IF YOU C~:;:;OT 0ETEI~'.II~IE THE MAG, ~-FUD~ OF I~.,PAu~, PROCEED TO PART 3. PORTIONS OF FAF CObIPL:-I'ED FOR T~r!IS PROJECT DETE.~HI,qATION ..... PART [ , PART Il PART 3 , Uocn review of the information recorded on this K_AF {Parts l, 2 and 3) and Considerinq both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonaol7 determined that: A. The oroject will resul~ in no major impacts and, therefore, is une which may not cause significant damage to the invironment. B. Although the oroject could have a significant effect on the environment, th~re will not be a significant effect in this case recluse the mitigation ~asumes descri~eo !n PART 3 have been 4/26/83 PREPARE A P, EGATIVE OECLARATICN PREPARE A NEC, ATIVE OEC~RATIC:; PR£P~RE ?OSiTIVE gE2LARATIO:i C) Signature of Respons~mle Official Agency TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PAKT III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS P~rt 3 is prepared if one or more impact or effe:t is considered to be ~otentielly large. The a~ount of writing necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the ouestion: In ?i.e?l~ completing the inatructions below have I placed in t:is record sufficient iDiot-.arian to indicate the reasonableness of my decisions? INSTRUCTIO~IS Complete the following far each impact or effect identified in'Column 2 of Part 2: I. Briery describe the impact. 2. Describe {if apblicable) how the immact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than iarge impact by a pro- Ject change. 3. Based on the infor~.ation available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is impotent to the ~inici~ality {city, town or village} in which the project is located. To answer the auestion of impor~tance, consider: - ,"he p~ba~ility of the impact or effect occurring The duration of ~e i~spact or effect Its irreversi~ilit¥, i~cluding permanently lost resources or values ~hether the impact c? effect can be controlled The regic~al consequence of the i~pact or effect Its potential divergence from local needs and ~oel$ Whether kno~vn objections to ~he project a~oty to ~qis impact or effect. DETErminaTiON OF SI~;IFiCA~ICE An action is considered to be significant if: One (Or more) impact above, is imoortant. is deter~..ined to both lar-~e and its (their) conseouenc~, based on the review PART Iii ~ATE~IE)ITS (Continue on Attachments, as needed) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHEP~N DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EMANUEL KONTOKOSTA, KACE R~ALTY CO., and KACE CONSTRUCTION CORP., Plaintiffs, against - THE VIr.?.AGE OF GREENPORT, GEORGE individually and as Mayor of the Village of Greenport; JEANNE M. COOPER, GAIL F. HORTON, DAVID KAPELL and WILLIAM LEIBLIEN, individually and as Members of the Village of Greenport Board of Trustees, Defendants. 87 CIV. 3432 (SAS) W~L~K~AS, plaintiffs are the owners of seventeen (17) acres of land in the Town of $outhold, Suffolk County, New York, u~n which they plan to build a 108 unit development to be known as No~hwind Village; and W~ERRAS, defendants provide water and sewer services for a %erritory which includes the Northwind Village development; ~d WHE~AS, plaintiffs submitted applications for water and sewer se~ices for the Northwind Village development in or about Janua~ 1983 and February 1987; and W~E~AS, plaintiffs conunenced this action on or about ~lay 20, 1987, and filed an amended complaint on or ~out March 8, 1988 alleging, inter alia, that defendants' denial of plaintiffs' applications for water and sewer seL-vices for the Northwind Village development and defendants' ~po~ition of "backbone" fees upon the Northwind Village development violated the E~al Pro~ection ~d Due -- EXHIBIT 6 -- Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. S 1983 and other applicable provisions of law; and %~{ERY_Jk~, defendants have denied the allegations in the amended complaint charging them with unlawful treatment of plaintiffs and/or any other wrongdoing; WHEREAS, the decision of the Hon. John Cannella dated September 27, t991, expressly upheld the imposicion of backbone fees as constitutional, and dismissed each of the plaintiffs' causes of action except for its equal protection claim stemming from the 1983 application; and WH~Pd~AS, the parties now seek to resolve the issues raised in this action without further proceedings; IT IS HEPd~BY STIPULATED AND AGP~ED by and between the parties in the above-captioned action, by their attorneys, as follows: 1. Defendants acknowledge that, as of the date of this Stipulation and Order, there is sufficient water capacity to service the 108 unit Northwind Village Development in accordance with the site plan approved by ~he Town of $outhold planning board on July ll, 1983; and in accordance with plaintiffs' 1985 request (made with respect to the 1983 application) for 10,800 gallons per day ("gpd"), annexed hereto as Exhibit 28,350 gpd, annexed hereto as Exhibit been represented by plaintiffs that the 108 10,800 gpd of average water demand or an estimated average water demand. However, as set forth below, and 1987 recfuest for Specifically, it has units will generate 28,350 gpd of there is not sufficient sewer capacity to accommodate either of these requests as of the date of the execution of this stipulation. Accordingly, subject to the ter~s and conditions of this Stipulation and Order, defendants hereby approve plaintiffs' 1985 and 1987 requests for water services for the Northwind Village Development. It is expressly understood that once sufficient sewer capacity of 8,640 gpd becomes available, the Village hereby agrees to provide 10,800 glDd of water to the Norl~hwind Village Development, if plaintiffs choose to elect to execute water and sewer contracts as set forth in paragraph 5 below and pay "backbone" fees as set forth in paragraph 6 below. The village will provide the remaining capacity of plaintiffs' 1987 requests for water services if (i) the plaintiffs apply for additional sewer capacity pursuant to paragraph 3 below, and (ii) said application is granted. 2. That the parties acknowledge that (i) there is not sufficient sewer capacity available to service plaintiffs' project due to restrictions placed upon the Village by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) pursuant to the consent order, State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES") permit and related DEC correspondence (hereinafter referred to as "DEC Requirements"), attached hereto as Exhibit "C"; and (ii) the Village must comply with various conditions to attempt go obtain =he DEC's approval to accommodate sewer capacity of 8,640 gpd. 3. Defendants agree to comply with the conditions set forth in the DEC Requirements, attached hereto as Exhibit 'Co" In this 3 manner, defendants will provide sufficient sewer capacity, subject to the aforesaid DEC Requirements (annexed hereto as Exhibit and any extension thereof, to satisfy the capacity of 8,640 gpd within four years of the date the stipulation is so ordered by the Court. Plaintiffs ne~d not make any further application for sewer service, as its current application for 8,640 gpd will be deemed approved as of the date sewer capacity is available. It being expressly understood that plaintiff's application for both water and sewer must comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs 3-7 of the December 23, 1987 H2M group report, annexed hereto as Exhibit "D," with respect to engineering details. It also is expressly understood that plaintiff shall have the right to apply for additional sewer capacity up to 14,000 gallons per day, after the Village advises the plaintiffs that there is sufficient sewer capacity to satisfy the 8,640 gpd request. Said application will not affect plaintiffs' prior approval for 8,640 g%Dd. 4. Defendants agree to apply for, and to use their best efforts to obtain the approvals from the DEC which are required pursuant to the express terms of the aforesaid DEC Require/nent~ so as to connect the Northwind Village Development to the Village Greenport sewer system, including, but not limited to, approval for this new connection and approval for any increase in allocable sewer capacity as required by (annexed hereto as Exhibit "C"). information requested by the DEC, the aforesaid DEC Req~irements Plaintiffs agree to provide any or to otherwise make reasonable FROM efforts DEC. 5. satisfy to assist the defendants in any manner requested by the When sufficient water and sewer capacity are available to the requirements of the Northwind Village development in accordance with paragraph 1, defendants shall notify plaintiffs in %rriting, by United States certified or registered mail, at 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York 10019. After plaintiffs' receipt of such notice, plaintiffs will then have three (3) years to elect to execute contracts for water and sewer services with the Village of Greenport, by notifying the Office of the Mayor of the Village of Greenport in writing, by United States certified or registered mail. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order shall require plaintiffs to enter into contracts for water and sewer services. Should plaintiffs choose not to execute such contracts, they will not be obligated to pay the "backbone" fees provided for in paragraph 6 of this Stipulation and Order. If plaintiffs do not elect to enter into contracts for water and sewer services with the Village of Greenport within three (3) years of plaintiffs' receip~ of the aforesaid notice, the approvals of plaintiffs' applications for water and sewer services pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 herein shall expire, and defendants will have no obligation to provide plaintiffs with water and sewer pursuant to this Stipulation. 6. When all required approvals from the DEC are obtained, if and only if plaintiffs elect to enter into contracts with the Village of Greenport as provided for in paragraph 5 of this Stipulation and Order, and subject to all the other terms and conditions set forth herein, plaintiffs shall pay to the Village of Greenport "backbone" fees for the Northwind Village development of $2,570 per dwelling unit for water services and $2,585 per dwelling unit for sewer servicps for the 108 units at hand at the time of executing contracts for both water and sewer. If plaintiffs do not elect to execute contracts for water and sewer services within three (3) years pursuant to paragraph 5 above, their right to pay the backbone fees at the rates set forth above will al~o expire. 7. Defendants agree to pay plaintiffs the sum o~ eighty-five thousand ($85,000) dollars in full and final settlement of any claims that plaintiffs may have in this action against any and all of the defendants. Such payment shall be made within 30 days of the execution of this agreement by both parties, said 30 days to commence running upon the presentation of the stipulation to the Court to be so-ordered, and shall be by check made payable to "E manuel M. Kontokosta, Kace Realty Co. and Kate Construction Corp." and attorneys, Avenue (40th Floor), New York, New York 10022. Upon receipt said funds, plaintiffs will cause to be immediately filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice with the Court. 8. Plaintiffs, by entering into this Stipulation, accept the benefits provided herein in full and complete satisfaction of any and all injuries and/or damages of any kind or description relating to any of the matters or claLms alleged in the complaint herein. shall be delivered to and received by plaintiffs' Gordon & Gordon, P.C., at their offices at 437 ~adison of 9. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be deemed an admission by defendants of any wrongdoing. 10. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be deemed to constitute a regular practice or procedure by defendants, or shall apply to any project or development other than Northwind Village. 11. This Stipulation shall inure to the benefit and detrLment of =he parties hereto and their respective successors, executors, ad~L%nistrators and assigns to the extent that these successors ~eek to construct the Northwind Village development. 12. If the Village sells its water and sewer franchise to an entity which does not require backbone fees before such fees are due and owing to the Village, plaintiffs shall be relieved of the duty to pay backbone fees pursuant to paragraph 6 of this stipulation. 13. This Stipulation shall not be used by any of the parties for any purpose whatsoever other than in an action or proceeding to enforce its terms. 14. Any party to this action may submit this Stipulation to this Court to have this Stipulation "SO ORDERED" upon its execution by the parties' counsel. This Stipulation will take effect only upon being so-ordered by the Court. 7 X Z 0 (:IH OH OIq' PAGE 4 - SEPTEMBER 20. 2001 ZBA PL~BLIC ttEARING TRANSCRIPT TOV~'~ OF SOUTHOLD MATT PACHMAN: Well then, Mr Chairman and Members of the Board, my name is Matt Pachman, Pachman and Pachman, 366 Veteran's Memorial Highway in Commack, New York. This application is an appeal requesting an interpretation reversing the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated August 13, 2001, which denied the application for a Building Permit for two-family houses under Article 4, Section 142.A of the Town Zoning Code. KACE LI INC is the owner of a 70-acre parcel of land located on the south side of Route 48, near the juncture of Chapel Lane. The property has been owned by KACE or it's predecessors since March 10, 1982, which is approximately 19 ½ years. On July 11, 1983, the ~3outhold Planning Board approved a Site Plan for Kace to build a condominium development at the subject property known as "Northwind Village". Mr. Chairman, I would like to hand up to the Board copies of the Site Plan, signed by Henry Raynor, as Chairman of the Planning Board on that date. CHAIRMAN: I just want you to know Mr. Pachman, that counsel may resort to return those; I have no idea at this point. We'll accept them at this point, temporarily. MATT PACHMAN: Very good Mr. Chairman CHAIRMAN: 1 don't like to toad anybody up here, I'm telling you straightforward MATT PACHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman you mentioned something that I really don't understand it, because the very essence of our application here is that, as a matter of law, the building Inspector could not deny this Building Permit because of the approved Site Plan. So when there is a statement that it be on a Site Plan, which is the basis of the application that you've heard or that the court is not going to entertain any questions about the Site Plan CHAIRMAN: Well, actually there's a little more. We weren't even going to accept any testimony about Site Plans. I'm just telling you what council told me MATT PACI-IMAN: Okay, very good. Pursuant to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Chapters 760, no parcel of real estate can be commenced or to be developed until /he Suffolk County Department of Health, has approved the proposed water supply and sewage disposal facilities and pursuant to the Town's Zoning Code 85.8 Subdivision G, before a Building Permit can be issued to commence construction of the property. Kace had to obtain the approval for the proposed water supply and sewage disposal system from the Suffolk County Department of Health. In 1983, and Mr. Chairman, I'm going into the chronology because it's very important to understand why we say that the Building Inspector, as a matter of law, improperly turned down this Building Permit Application CHAIRMAN: You're talking about the current August 13th. MATT PACIqMAN: Absolutely. You can't understand the nature of our belief that the Building Permit Application denial is improper without understanding the history. In 1983 the Trustees of the Village of Greenport acting in their capacity as the Board of EXHIBIT PAGE 5 SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 ZI]A PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 'roww or' SOt~OLD Water Commissioners, administered an exclusive franchise for the services of Water and Sewer for this territory beyond the limits of the Village of Greenport, which include the subject parcel. This satisfied the requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health that I just mentioned to obtain the required approval. All proposed building projects where construction, housing, or sewer development, in this area such as the Northwind Village project, had to obtain the approval from Greenport for water and sewer services at that time. On January 10, 1983, Kace applied to Greenport for water and sewer approval for the project. The Utilities Committee of the Villa, which assisted the Village Board in administering this franchise accrued Kace's project for water and sewer services and referred the matter to the Building Board, and the Trustees of the Village denied Kace's application on July 18t~, 1985. By letter dated December 30, 1986, Kace was informed by the Town of Southold Building Inspector that a Building Permit is ready to be issued for this project and the only thing it needed was water and sewer approval from Greenport and I have a copy of that December 30, 1986 letter from the Town Building Inspector confirming this. I'm handing this up to the Board and I ask that this be made a part of the record. On February 24, 1987, Kace again applied to Greenport for water and sewer services ibr the project. Again, on March 23, 1987 the Utilities Committee of the Village approved Kace's application and sent it on to the Village Board of Trustees. On December 7, 1987, Kace again submitted the application to the Village of Greenport Trustees for approval. The Greenport Trustees, at that time, failed to rule on Kace's application for water and sewer services. As a result, Kace remained unable to obtain water and sewer services for the project. Without that pre- condition, Kace was unable to obtain a Building Permit. On or about May 20, 1987, Kace commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Greenport due to its refusal to rule on Kace's application. Now on July 1994~ while that Federal Court action was continuing, the Southold Town Board re-zoned the parcel from multiple residence, MI~ to fiD. On Februar2,, 6, 1996, a stipulation and order was entered in the Federal Court action and it was so lawyered by U. S. District Court, Shira Shindler and thus made an order of the court. I hand up a copy of that Order of the Federal Court again ask it be made part of the record. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, the importance of this Federal Order was that Greenport was ordered to provide sufficient sewer capacity within four years of the execution of the stipulation, in other words, on or before February 6, 2000. The stipulation also said that Greenport acknowledges that it had water capacity at that time, and thus the project had the water approval necessary. Thus the only thing that was keeping this project from getting a Building Permit was the sewer approval from the Village at that time, and the Village had four years until February 6, 2000 to provide sewer services. There was no other pre- condition, no other requirement, no other hurdle as determined by the Southold Building Inspector to return the Building Permit. Prior to the expiration of this February 6, 2000 deadline, as ordered by the Federal Court in that stipulation, in October 1999 the Southold Town Board voted to re-zone this parcel from fid to R80. By judgment dated December 4, 2000 Justice Berler of the Supreme Court Suffolk County overturned the re- zoning and stated it was volatile of the New York State Town Law. The Court said that the purported re-zone was illegal, void and of no effect. I have a copy of that order by judgment from the Supreme Court Suffolk County, which 1 am handing and I ask that that may be part of the record ROARD OF HEAl. TIt 3 S~T$ OF PLAtI$ ............... SURLY ........................ INSTRUCTIONS This Permit Application ~or nrlTT,D]['NG NO _ in Nor thwind Village Northwind Vlllage : Approved Site Plan · North Road Greeapor t EXHIBIT 9 4 Eltimted Co,, .~.~.9.q;.qO.q ............. ~,~ .............................................. lf~lli~ ~rof~lli~mlts .f.OU.r..(.4.)~rof~llingmits~e~ fl~r t~O---- - 8nd 1/2 of ............................... ~ ........................... il. ~ or ~ district in ~{i~ p~i~n a~ si~t~ ..~...{J~.~.~.t~..~.~.93.~S~P.~? ....................... ........................... ~-. ...... = ....................... ~ m.~o~%. SEE NORTHdlND VILLACEAPPROVED SITE PLAN July ~, ~98} .o 9,.¢05?4 ., 5?/ (S q~natm of 't, pp I ie~at// Pres November 16 D&~e ................ , 2C This ~ermit Application is ~sertp~te.) 5gE NORfHd]ND V]LL~GEAPPROVED SI~E,PLA~ Duly 11, 1983 ....... I TO~f RALL BOARO OF HEALTH ............. 3 SETS OF PLANS ............. SURVEY ...................... INSTRUCTIONS November 16 20 (N~e and title of: em-porate offlce~) Other Tr~d~'s IAc~e t~ ..................... Village 15. PLOT DTAGRAH SEE NORrHa.UND VIELAGEAPPROVED S~TE PLAN 3uly I1, 1983 (SiSnntuw of ~plict{nt) Pres 15. PLOT DI^GRAH TO Kace L.I. LLC C/o Kontokosta 43W. 54m S~eet New York N.Y. 10019 FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. AMENDED NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE; July 30, 2001[_ Please take notice that your application dated November 16, 2000 For permit for Multiple dwellings Location of property North Road (CR48) Greenport County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 40 Subdivision Filed Map # Block 3 Lot Lot # ls returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds proposed multiple dwellings not permitted pursuant to Article 1V Section 100-42B.1 which states; at Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals. The followine uses are permitted as a special exception by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, and subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board: (1) Multiple dwellings, townhouses, row or attached houses. Proposed proiect does not have valid special exception fi.om the Zoning Board of Appeals. Proposed proiect does not have a valid site plan approval fi.om the Planning Board. Notei Above determination based on limited documentation submitted, may require other approvals pendin~ further review. ~' Autht°"~- ~~ EXHIBIT 10 I Fo~ Office Use Only: Fee S ~(Z?. '~ ~r z~-~ //:*~oa.~,~ , TOWN OiF SOUIHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR O ~HE ZONING BOARD OF APP[AL$. I (We) ..................... Z....v ................................ HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECT( WHEREBY ~HE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION g~ (~ Permit ia BuBd ( ) PermlJ for Occupancy ( ) Permit fo Use ( ) Permit lot As-Built ~g~ 2 9 2001 DJsffJcJ 1000 Secflon...~._BJock,.~..LoJ(s)...,,( .................. C" Owner 2. Provision oJ th~ Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (IndicaJe Adi~ . Section, Subsecllon and paragraph of Zoning Ordnance by numbers. Do not quote h,e 3. Typeof Appeal. Appeallsmode herewith Ion ~-~ ~ ~,~ ( ) Reversal or Other: prope~ or w fh respect fo this decision of fh~ Bullahl~ mspecfor (Appeal ~Year~/ REASgN~ FOR APPEAL (Additional sheets may be used.wit~.applicanf's s ~nature~: AREA VARIANCE REASONS; (1) An undesirable change will not be produced In the CHARACTER of ~e neighborhood (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions In the neighborhood or district because: (5) Has the alleged dlfficulty been self-created? ( ) Yes, or ( '~ No. This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, sciteX',/, and welfare of the communlfy. ( ) Check thIs box I/ USE VARIANCE STANDARDS o~/~~ Sworn to~ befo. re.~.e this ~----~.-,~-'/ . (Slg~n~[u~uJho~Jz~-d Agent/ '~;;~L'c~':'?~x,-20__~'/_-~/ (Agent musf submU Au~orlzation Eom Own;r) ZBA A-~ ~/nn EXHIBIT 11 APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSUR[~ FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and. employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of lntsrest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOUR NAME: (Last namg, first n&me, middle initial, unless you are applying in the ~lame of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person's ou company's name. ) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Variance Change of zone Approval of plat Exemption from plat or official map Other (If "Other," name the activity.)~-~,~i~o~ Do you personally (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) ha~e a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? 'Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. i~terest' means a business, including a partnership, in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee o,ns morn than 5% of the shares. YES NO If you a~swered 'YES,' complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that pereon Describe the relationship between yourself (the applicant) and th~ town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space provided. The town parent, ~) officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, or child is (check all that apply) = the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a noncorporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation}; an officer, director, partner, or employee of the applicant; or the actual applicant, DESCRIPTION OF p~T.ATT ~klc.,v m APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard I~ Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Horning Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando Soothold Town Hall 53(195 Main Road I~O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2002 Appl. No. 4927 - KACE LI, INC. Property Location: South Side of C.R. 48 (North Road), Greenport 1000-40,-3-1 Date of Public Hearing(s): 9/20/01; 10/4/01, 11/15/01; 1/24/02; 2/28/02. In the Matter of KACE L.I. LLC to reverse the Building Inspector's determination rendered in the August 13, 2001 Notice of Disapproval and for an interpretation of the Code of the Town of Southold, Ch. 100, Article IV, Section 100-42 A.2, pertaining to "Use Regulations" in the Hamlet Density District. FINDINGS OF FACT BASIS OF APPEAL: Appellant Kace LI1 Inc. is appealing the Building Inspector's August 13, 2001, Notice of Disapproval, which denied an application for a building permit to construct "Multiple, two-family dwellings." The August 13, 2001 Disapproval recites the following: Proposed dwellings not permitted pursuant to Article IV Section 100-42A.2 which states, In the HD District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shaft be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any use except the following: A. Permitted uses. (2) Two-family dwelling. Proposed project indicates several (exact amount unknown) two-family dwellings on a single pamel. Cede allows only one such structure per lot as a permitted use. RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant maintains that the building inspector erred in interpreting 100-42A.2 to limit the number of two-family dwellings to one per lot. Applicant maintains that 100-42A does not limit the number of two-family dwellings to one per lot, and requests the Board of Appeals to reverse the inspectors determination based on this interpretation. WHEREAS, The Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on this application on 9/20/01; 10/4/01, 11/15/01; 1/24/02; 2/28/02, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a 17 acre parcel located on the south side of North Road CR. 48, approximately 500 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport. SCTM EXHIBIT 12 -- Page 2- June 6, 2002 Appl No. 4927 - Kace LI Inc. 40.~3-1 at Greenpod 1000-40-3-1, now or formerly referred to as "Northwind Village" site. The property is zoned Hamlet Density (HD). WHEREAS, the following sections of the code are pertinent to this request: 1. Article IV Section 100-42A. In the HD District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any use except the following: A. Permitted uses. (1) One-family detached dwelling (2) Two-family dwelling (3) Continuing care facility and life care community 2. Bulk Schedule - Density and Minimum Lot Size for Residential Districts Minimum lot size 2-family dwelling with community water and sewer ........ Hamlet Density 20,000 sq. ft. 3. Section 100-13 Definitions of the Zoning Code: Dwelling, Two-family - A detached building containing two (2) dwelling units only. WHEREAS, the board has further carefully considered the following evidence and testimony: 1, In the case in question the applicant has a 17-acre lot. The applicant wants to construct more than one "two-family dwelling" on the 17-acre lot. The property has access to both community water and sewer. The minimum lot size for one two-family dwelling in the HD zoning district is 20,000 square feet with both community water and sewer. 2. The question presented to the board is under this fact pattern, can the applicant construct more than one "two-family dwelling" on the 17-acre lot in the HD District pursuant to section 100-42A 2. The applicant maintains the answer is yes. 3. The applicant's reasons are set forth in both oral and written argument in the record. The applicant's basic argument is one of "area" versus "lot." Applicant maintains that the Town Code's bulk schedule states that a two-family dwelling with community water and sewer requires 20,000 square feet. Since 20,000 can be divided many times into a 17-acre lot, applicant contends that there is more than enough "area" to construct more than one two- family dwelling. Page 3- June 6, 2002 Appl No. 4927 - Kace LI Inc. 40.-3-1 at Greenport 4. Applicant further contends that in the Town Code's other residential districts, there is limiting language which states, "one-family dwelling, not to exceed one dwelling per lot." In contrast, applicant argues that there is no such limiting language in the 100-42A.2 of the Hamlet Density District that restricts the number of two-family dwellings that can be built on one lot. 5. The board disagrees. The fatal flaw in the applicant's "area" argument is that the Bulk Schedule speaks of a minimum lot size, not of a minimum area. It is undisputed that the 17- acre lot satisfies the minimum lot size for a two-family dwelling under the bulk schedule. But in order to construct more than one two-family dwelling on this land, the applicant would first have to subdivide the 17-acre lot into many lots, each lot with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and then obtain site plan approval pursuant to section 100-250 for each lot in order to place a two-family dwelling on each of the newly created Iot. 6. The board also discounts the applicant's argument that 100-42A.2 contains no limiting language as to the number of two-family dwellings per lot. The board notes that one of the other permitted uses in the HD Zoning District under 100-42A1 is "one-family detached dwelling." Assuming the applicant's argument of substituting the word "area" for lot and "no limiting language", many one-family dwellings could be built on the 17 area lot. This is simply not the law or the long standing practice pursuant to the Southold Town Code. More than one- family dwelling per lot is not permitted. Again, to build many one-family dwellings on the 17- acre lot, the applicant would first have to subdivide the land into smaller lots. Once the subdivision has been completed the applicant could then build a one-family dwelling on each one of the newly created lots pursuant to section 100-42A. 1. Based on the above clear language of the Town Code sections, the board finds that the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval was properly issued. NOW, on motion by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Orlando, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Appeal Interprets Article IV, Section 100-42A(2) to mean that only one two-family dwelling is permitted per lot; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to Deny the applicant's request to reverse the Building Department's determination, which is hereby upheld and confirmed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Go.c~n), ~~,_and Orlando. (Member Horning of Fishers Island wa.s/el~sent.) _Th~io~was duly~..~e¢~4-0). ~d P. ~hringer, ~airma* / Moope L~ O~ice S31 4~43 Michael E. Kontokosta ~,c,, July I4, 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mrs, El~zaYeth A. Neville ' Southold Town Clerk 53095 Route 25 Southotd, New York 11971 KiA!C E GROUP RECEIVED JUL 1 4 tO05 $outhold Town Cle KACE LI, LLC - Annexation Petition (SCTM: 1000-40-3-1) Dear Mrs. Neville: A~ched for the consideration of the Southold Town Board please find (i) a preliminary workforce housing proposal and (ii) the Petition ofKACE LI, LLC pursuant to Article 17 of the Gencn'al Municipal Law of the Statc of New York to annex a 17 acre parcel of property to the Village of Gre~nport. We took forward to highlighting the public benefits of this exciting transaction at the joint public meeting o£the Southold Town Board and the Greenport Village Trustees. Cci C.E. Kontokosta (w/Encl.) Village Trustees of the Village of Greenport (w/Enci.) THE KACE GROU~ 43 WEST 54TH STREET / NEW YORK, NY 10019 I TEL: 212.582.6100 ;:AX: 212.582.6047 755 NORTH ROAD, P.O,mmBO-'~7 / GREENPORTi NY 11944 [ TEL: 631.477.0600 FAX: 63K477.0800 EXHIBIT 13 :.S C~,,_ .'~3:23t° 7~5 4B43 TO: DXRO M: Date: MEMORANDUM Southold Town Board Village Trustees of the Village of Greenport KACE LI, LLC, Petitioner/KACE Development, LLC July 14, 2005 Re: WORKFORCE/AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAl. There is a critical shortage of workforee and affordable housing in the Town of Southold and the Village of Oreenport. This shortage has reached crisis proportions as regulatory barriers and NTMBYism sent~aents have created an environment inimical to providing the necessary housing ~%r ~J~e workforee of the Town and the Village. The Supervisor of the Town and the Mayor of the Village have both spoken of the importance of workforce and affordable housing, but there is a wide chasm between words and actions. K.ACE Development LLC ("KACE') is proposing a workforce/affordable mixed-income housing prc~ect of at least 128 units on 17 acres. Approximately 20% of the project (24 units) will be multifamily condominium housing that will be affordable to the workforce population of the Village and the Town, approximately 30% of the project (36 units) will be semi-detached single-family homes that will be affordable for the workforce of the Village and the Town, and the remainder (68 units) will be detached single-family homes intended for the general market. To maintain the affordable sales price of these units, special attention will be paid to the size of the units and the associated parcels. By limiting unit square footage and lot size, sales prices will be restricted to appropriate levels for the intended market. Overall design of the project and the units will be of a high quality, in context with the surrounding residential architecture of the Village and Town. The feasibility of this project depends on the annexation of the property from the jurisdiction of the Town to that of the Village. This property is ideally suited for this action for several masons. First, the property is contiguous to the Village on three sides. Second, it is currently within the Greenport school and fire districts. Third, the property has a stipulated connection to the C~emaport sewer system, a critical factor in allowing for increased densities. Found% the property has access m the Suffolk County water system. Last, and possibly most important, the Village has the appropriate existing zoning density provisions and sewer capacity needed to make the project feasible and enable the village and town to take a meaningful and significant step in addressing the most critical needs of its residents. KACE is ready, willing, and able to act to meet the needs of the communities of Crreenport and Southold. This project presents a unique opportunity for a private developer, working in cooperation with two motivated municipalities, to provide the necessary housing for the workforee of both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold. ~ 05 03:24p In the Matte~ of the Application of 5(~CE LI, LLC, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co. Pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law to annex a parcel of property to the territory of the Village of Greenport 765 4643 p.? ORI$1NAL Petitioner, TO: TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD VZLLAGE TRUSTEES OF TItE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT The petition ofKACE LI, LLC respectfully shows as follows: I. Th'ts is a petition pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York to annex to the territory of the Village of Grecnport, Suffolk County, New York, that certain parcel of property owned by the Petitioner which is currently situated with the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, as more pafiJtcutarly bound and described upon Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof (also known as SCTM: 1000-40-3-t, hereinafter, the "Subject Parcel"). 2. Petitioner, KACE LI, LLC, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co., has an address at P.O. Box 67, 755 North Road, Greenport, New York 11944. 3. This Petition is submitted to the Town Board of the Town of Southold (here'mailer, the "Southold Board") and to the Trustees of thc Village of Greenport (hereinafter, the "Village Trustees") for the purposes of receiving the consent of each of the Southold Board and the Village Board to the annexation of the Subject Parcel to the Village of Grecmport. 4. There are no "inhabitants" of the Subject Parcel as defined in Sec. 703 of the General Municipal Law. 5. Petitioner is the owner of a majority in assessed valuation of the Subjeel Parcel, as shown upon the last preceding assessment roll of the Town of Southold. 6. Attached hereto as Schedule B is the certificate of the Assessor of the Town of Southold pursuant to Sec. 703 of the General Municipal Law. i~ 05 03:25p Moore La~ O??ioe 631 7~5 ~643 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the Southold Board and the Village Trustees, pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, consider this Petition. Dated: July ~,~2005 ~. E. Konto{co~a V ' Member STATIC. OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUI, k'OLK ) On thc/.~ '~-day of July in the year 2005 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared C. E. KONTOKOSTA, in his capacity as a Member of KACE LI, LLC, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence, to be the indix, idual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalf off_~'l~~~ ~2'.--,'l~'d'i ' Ied, ex~u the instmmem. (signature'alrd office of individual taking acknowledgment) EMILY HAMILL N;~ry Publ~: Stale at New ~ No. O1 ~599~ ' O.ahfl~ m Suffolk ~u~ / ~m~sion Expires May ~ - ~ O~ Jul 1S 05 03:25p Moore Las O?£ice 631 7SS 4B43 p.9 SCHEDULE A to the Petition of KACE LI, LLC .P, ROPERTY DESCRIPTION (SCTM: 1000-40-3-1) BEG.INNING at a point on the southerly side of the North Road, at the /~ northeasterly comer of the land of the Village o;[~p~,ort and being the northwesterly / corner of the land_of Stephen Sledjeski; thenca~a~e southerly side oft he North ~ Road as the same curves, 43.85 feet; thence along the southerly side of the North Road North 61 degrees 23 minutes 2O~econds East, 393.50 feet; thence continuing along the/~ · southerly side of the North Road 58. degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds East. 352.38 feet to~x. the land now or formally of F.L.R. Francisco Estate; thence southerly along said last mentioned land South 23 degrees 34 minutes 20 seconds East, 427.38 feet; thence continuing along said last mentioned land South 21 degrees 23 minutes 30 seconds East, 106.0 feet to the land of the Village of Greenport; thence along the land of the Village of Greenport the following 6 comes and distances: - (I) SOUTH 23 degrees 49 minutes West 241.26 feet; (2) SOUTH 5 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds West 671.42 feet; (3) NORTH 68 degrees 42 minutes 10 seconds West 432.43 feet; (4) NORTH 22 degrees 18 minutes West 564.52 feet; (5) SOUTH 72 degrees 41 minutes 10 seconds West 119.9 feet; (6) NORTH 0 degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds West 343.58 feet to the southerly side of the North Road at the point or place of BEGD,INING. 3ul 19 05 03:2Gp Law OFFice 631 76S 4643 p. lO SCHEDULE B to the PETITION OF KACE LI, LLC CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSESSOR OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOI,D STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) I~-~ W~_~ ~.~oxoc~r, in my capacity as a duly elected Assessor of the Town of 8outhold, Suffolk County, New York, do hereby certify as follows: I. I am a duly elected Assessor of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New Yvrk, and was one of the persons responsible for the preparation of the assessment bill for the yeax 2004/2005. 2. The real property described inPamgraph 1 of the Petition to which this certificate is attached (also known as SCTM: 100040 -3-1, hereinafter, the "Subject Parcel") is situated in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, and is assessed on the tax roll of the said Town of Southold for the year 2004/2005, which is the last preceding assessraent roll of the said Town of Southold. 3. The total assessed valuation of the Subject Parcel as shown on the assessment roll of the said Town of Southold for the 2004/2005 tax year is $ Moore Las O??ice 631 765 4643 p.11 4. Accordihg to the records of the Assessor's Office, KACE LI, LLC, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co., is the owner of the Subject Parcel and is the owner of a majority in asseased valuation of the Subject Parcel assessed upon the last preceding assessment roll of, or utilized by, the Town of Southold. Dated: July~__,~ 2005 Astor Sou~~ Suffolk County, STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) On the { ~%y.,of-- July in the y~ear 20~5 b~efore me, the undersilmed, personally i appeared ~.(~;~ C't- _..L. ~ d.O~C]~ ( personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose nme(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hisPaer/thek capacity0ea), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the insmmaent, the individual(s), or the person upon ltehalf of which the individual(s) acted, executest-t~ i~)ruraent. ~-~.~'/'~ ~ (signature and office-If individual ta~ng acknowledgment) Claire L Clew Notary PubUc, Siale of New York No. 01GL48795~5 Ouallflel:l in ~uffo k County ~ ,- Corem salon Expires Dec. 8, ~ 2 6 NYCRR PART 617 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW Statutory authority: Environmental Conservation Law Sections 3-0301(1)(b), 3-0301(2)(m) and 8-0113 (Applicable to all state and local agencies within New York State including all political subdivisions, districts, departments, authorities, boards, commissions and public benefit corporations) Page 1 1 5 7 9 12 16 19 21 26 27 28 30 31 33 34 34 34 34 34 Section 617.1 617.2 617.3 617.4 617.5 617.6 617.7 617.8 617.9 617.10 617.11 617.12 617.13 617.14 617.15 617.16 617.17 617.18 617.19 617.20 Authority, intent and purpose Definitions General rules Type I actions Type Il actions Initial review of actions and establishing lead agency Determining significance Scoping Preparation and content of environmental impact statements Generic environmental impact statements Decision-making and findings requirements Document preparation, filing, publication and distribution Fees and costs Individual agency procedures to implement SEQR Actions involving a federal agency Confidentiality Referenced material Severabitity Effective date Appendices A - Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) B - Visual Addendum for the EAF C - Short Environmental Assessment Form ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: September 20, 1995 January 1, 1996 NOTE: To guide you in using this reorganized regulation you will find a single page "roadmap" on the front inside cover, The roadmap lists the new section numbers and titles with brief notes regarding where the 1987 regulation sections are now located. -- EXHIBIT 14 ~ 617 ~,~ 617.4 TYPE IACTIONS. (a) The purpose of the list of Type I actions in this section is to identify, for agencies, project sponsors and the public, those actions and projects that are more likely to require the preparation of an ElS than Unlisted actions. All agencies are subject to this Type I list. (1) This Type I list is not exhaustive of those actions that an agency determines may have a significant adverse impact on the environment and require the preparation of an ElS. However, the fact that an action or project has been listed as a Type I action carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and may require an ElS. For all individual actions which are Type I or Unlisted, the determination of significance must be made by comparing the impacts which may be reasonably expected to result from the proposed action with the criteria listed in subdivision 617.7(c) of this Part. (2) Agencies may adopt their own lists of additional Type I actions, may adjust the thresholds to make them more inclusive, and may continue to use previously adopted lists of Type I actions to complement those contained in this section. Designation of a Type I action by one involved agency requires coordinated review by all involved agencies.~'~'n agency may not designate as Type l any action identified as Type II in section 617.5 of this Part~. (b) The following actions are Type I if they are to be directly undertaken, funded or approved by an agency: (1) the adoption of a municipality's land use plan, the adoption by any agency of a comprehensive resource management plan or the initial adoption of a municipality's comprehensive zoning regulations; (2) the adoption of changes in the allowable uses within any zoning district, affecting 25 or more acres of the district; (3) the granting of a zoning change, at the request of an applicant, for an action that meets or exceeds one or more of the thresholds given elsewhere in this list; (4) the acquisition, sale, lease, annexation or other transfer of 100 or more contiguous acres of land by a state or local agency; (5) construction of new residential units that meet or exceed the following thresholds: (i) 10 units in municipalities that have not adopted zoning or subdivision regulations; (ii) 50 units not to be connected (at the commencement of habitation) to existing community or public water and sewerage systems including sewage treatment works; (iii) in a city, town or village having a population of less than 150,000,250 units to be connected (at the commencement of habitation) to existing I 91-63 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL substantial conflict of interests for a person serving as an assistant county attorney and deputy town attorney. 1988 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 109; 1982 Op AttyGen (Infl 154; 1981OpAttyGen (Inf) 112; 1964 Op Atty Gen (Infl 90. It is conceivable that the county and the town may become engaged in litigation or there may be contracts be- tween the two municipalities. Of course, in these situations it would be improper for the same person to represent both munici- palities. These matters can be handled by another assistant county attorney or deputy town attorney, or outside counsel can be ob- tained. In the event of other actual or apparent conflicts, the appropriate remedy is recusal. Further indication that duties of the two positions are not inherently inconsistent is found in subdivision 4 of section 501 of the County Law, which authorizes the county board of supervisors to direct the county attorney to provide legal services and advice to town boards and town officers, ~vhen it is not in conflict with the interests of the county. County La~v §501(4). The offices of assistant county attorney and deputy town attor- ney are compatible. An individual holding both positions, however, would have to recuse himself from participating in auy matter which involved conflicting county and town duties. The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments of the State government. This perforce is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office. Requestor: Written by: Issued on: Ban S. Scboenberger, Esq., County Attorney County of Rockland Allison-Parris County Office Bldg. New City, New York 10956 Patrick Barnett-Mulligan, Assistant Attorney General September 5, 1991 Opn. No. 1 91-63 GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW ART 17, §711. A member of a village board of trustees should recuse himself from participating in annexation and other matgers where his private pe- cuniary interests would be directly affected. 1122 AG 10-31-91 EXHIBIT 15 "' OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL I 91-63 You have inforined us that there is a proposal for annexation of a parcel of real property by your village and/or for service of this property by the village's sewer and water systems. One member of the village board of trnstees owns another parcel that shares a common boundary ~vith the subject property. You further informed us that a large commercial development is planned on the subject property and that it is commonly assumed that this development would enhance the value of the trustee's property. Additionally, the family of this trustee operates a business which includes among its primary customers a local market~ which would be a major competitor of the development planned fnr the subject property. Your question is whether the trustee should vote on either matter in connection with this development. In opinions of the Attorney General, we have emphasized that public officials must perform their duties solely in the public interest. 1984 Op AtW Gen (Inf) 86, 160. Public'. officials should avoid circumstances which compromise their ability to make im- partial judgments solely in the public interest. Ibid. Even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided in order to maintain public confidence in government. The procedure for municipal annexation is found in article 17 of the General Municipal La~v. As part of that procedure, the govern- ing body of the local government containing the territory to be annexed and the governing body of the annexing local government are empowered to approve the proposed annexation. General Mw nicipal Law §711. Alternatively, it would be necessary for the village to enter into a contract to provide sewer and water hookups to the parcel ~n question. The village bnard of trustees would be responsible for approving that contract. In our view, the trustee should recuse himself from participating in either of these determinations. He has personal financial inter- ests which would be affected by annexation or water/sewer hookup. At least, an appearance of impropriety would result should the trustee participate in these matters. We conclude that a member of a village board of trustees should recuse himself from participating in annexation and other matters where his private pecuniary interests would be directly affected. The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments of the State 'government. This perforce is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office. 1123 AG 12~31-91 870 529 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT. 2d SERIES defendants Mobil and 150 East 42mt Street Corporation cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same re- settled interlocutory judgment as, upon a jury verdict against 150 East 42nd Street Corporation, and upon setting aside a jury verdict in favor of Mobil, and upon award- ing the plaintiffs judgment as a matter of law against Mobil, finds them 60% at fault in the happening of the accident, and (3) the plaintiffs Frank and Marianne Baxter cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, (a) from so much of the interlocutory judg- ment as, upon a jury verdict, finds the plaintiff Frank Baxter 40% at fault in the happening of the accident, and (b) from so much of the resettled interlocutory judg- ment as finds the plaintiff Frank Baxter 40% at fault in the happening of the acc[- dent. ORDERED that the appeal and the cross appeal from the interlocutory judgment are dismissed, since the interlocutory judgment was superseded by the resettled interlocu- tory judgment; and it is further, ORDERED that the resettled judgment is reversed insofar as appealed and cross- appealed from, on the law and the facts, the interlocutory judgment is vacated, and a new trial is granted to the plaintiffs against Otis, Mobil, and 150 East 42nd Street Corporation, to Otis on irs third-par- ty complaint, and to Otis, Mobil and 150 East 42nd Street Corporation on any cross claims they have against each other; and it is further, ORDERED that costs are awarded to abide the event of the new trial. Our review of the record reveals that the jury's verdict finding the defendant I50 East 42nd Street Corp. 60% at fault in the happening of the accident, and the plaintiff Frank Baxter 40% at fault in the happening of the accident was against the weight of the evidence (see, Nicastro r. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184). In addition, the verdict was inconsistent in that 150 East 42nd Street Corporation was found to be at fault, while the defendants Otis and Mobil were found not be at fault (see, Bar- ry v. Manglass, 55 N.Y.2d 803, 447 N.Y.S. 2d 423, 432 N.E.2d 125, rearg, denied 55 ..... EXHIBIT 16 N.Y.2d 1039, 449 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 434 N.E. 2d 1081). Accordingly we find that the trial court erred in awarding judgment as a matter of law against Mobil and Otis while at the same time upholding the jury's de- termination as to the plaintiff Frank Bax- ter and 150 East 4grid Street Corporation, rather than setting aside the jury verdict and ordering a new trial. We note that the trial court erred in dismissing the third-party complaint brought by Otis against Galbraith-Ruffin Corporation. The relevant question under CPLR 1401 and Dole v. Dow Chem. Co., 30 N.Y.2d 143, 381 N.Y.S.2d :t82, 282 N.E.gd 288, is not whether Galbraith-Ruffin Cor- poration owed a duty to Otis but whether Galbraith-Ruffin Corporation and Otis owed a duty to the plaintiff Frank Baxter, and by breaching their respective duties contributed to Mr. Baxter's ultimate inju- ries (see, Schauer v. Joyce, 54 N.Y.2d 1, 5, 444 N.Y.S.2d 564, 42P N.E.2d 83). 141 A.D.2d 796 CROSS WESTCHESTER DEYELOP- MENT CORP., et al.. Respondents-Appellants. The TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURGH, AppellanV-Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. June 27, 1988. Town board appealed from judgment of the Supreme Court, Westches~er Coun- ty, Walsh, J., annulling board's determina- tion that draft environmental impact state- ment was required before town could an- nex adjoining property. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that draft environmental impact statement was not CROSS WESTCHESTER DEV. v. GREENBURGH required prior to town's annexation of 23 Affirmed. Health and Environment ~=~25.10(2) Draft environmental impact statement was not required prior to town's annexa- tion of 23 adjoining acres, absent evidence that property's owners had any specific plans for development or use of the parcel. McKinney's ECL § 8~)107. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine, New York City (Frank S. Ioppolo, Stephen D. Houck and Vincent P. Ravaschiere, of counsel/, for appellant-respondent. Shamberg Marwell Cherneff & Hocher- man. P.C., Mount Kisco (Stuart R. Sham- berg and Kenneth J. Frank, of counsel), for respondente-appellants. Before RUBIN, d.P., and KOOPER, SULLIVAN and BALLET~rA, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, (1) to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Green- burgh (hereafter town board), dated Febru- ary 10, 1988, which made a determination of environmental significance pursuant to ECL article 8, and (2) to prohibit the town board from challenging any determination made by the Village of Elmsford regarding the petitioners' annexation petition in the event the to~m board fails or refuses to join with the Village of Elmsford in a joint public hearing pursuant to General Munici- pal Law §§ 70~, and 705(3), the town board appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westehester County (Walsh, J.), entered April ii, 1988, as granted so much of the petition as sought review of its determina- tion of significance, and the petitioners have filed a notice of cross appeal from that judgment. ORDERED that the cross appeal is dis- missed as abandoned; and it is further, 871 ORDERED that the judgment is af- firmed insofar as appealed from by the town board; and it is further, ORDERED that the petitioners are awarded one bill of costs. The petitioners applied to the town board to have annexed to the Village of Elmsford 23 acres of land owned by them which were contiguous to the village. The town board, purporting to act pursuant to ECL article 8 and 6 NYCRR part 617, made a determina- tion that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter DEIS) was re- quired. The petitioners brought this pro- ceeding, inter alia, to have the determina- tion annulled on the ground that annexa- tion, in and of itself, was not an "action" because no specific projec,~ or proposal had been submitted and, therefore, a DEIS was not required. The Supreme Court annulled the determination. We now affirm the judgment insofar as appealed from. We note that subsequent to Matter of Connell v. Town Bd. of the Town of Wil- mington, 113 A.D.2d 359, 496 N.Y.S.2d 106, affd. 67 N.Y.2d 896, 501 N.Y.S.2d 813, 492 N.E.2d 1229, which held that annexa- tion, in and of itself, was not an "action" such as to require the preparation of a DEIS, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (hereafter DEC) amended its regulations to make an- nexation of 100 or more contiguous acres "Type I' actions (6 NYCRR 617.12['o][4]). We also note that the DEC intended, by so doing, to make annexations involving less than 100 acres "Unlisted" actions (DEC Draft Generic Environmental Impact State- ment for Revisions to Statewide Regula- tions Implementing SEQRA~ January 15, 1986, at 14). Thus, while we agree with the town board that the annexation in the present case is an unlisted action, we dis- agree that a DEIS is required. The record does not establish that the petitioners have any specific plans for the development or use of the parcel. In the absence of a specific project plan, which has been actual- ly formulated and proposed, a DEIS is not required (Matter of Programming & Sys- tems v. New York State Urban Dev. Cor- poration, 61 N.Y.2d 738,472 N.Y.S.2d 912, 872 529 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT. 2d SERIES 460 N.E.2d i347). The town 5oard may not require a DEIS based on a speculative pcs- sibility of use of the property (Seavitw Assn. of Fire Is. v. Department of E~lv~l. Conservation of State of N.Y., 123 A.D.2d 619, 506 N.Y.S.2d 775). In any event, should the petitioners seek to develop the property after the annexa- tion, it would be the responsibility of the Village of Elmsford to request the submis- sion of a DEIS (see, Matter of Connell v. Tawn Bd. of Town of Wilmington, su- pra). To require a DEIS at thia stage, when the Village of Elmsford would also require a DEIS if development of the prop- erty is proposed after the annexation, would amount to a duplication in reporting (see, ECL 8-0107; 6 NYCRR 617.3). Accordingly, the iudgment of the Su- preme Court is affirmed insofar as appeal- ed from. Ernesto Jolio Francisco GUZMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, SAKS FIFTH AVENUE CORP., et al., Defendants, Otis Elevator Company, Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant; Denham Food Service, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. June 27, 1988~ Action was brought against elevator company for personal injuries sustained when hoistway doors allegedly opened in the absence of elevator cab, and elevator company asserted third-party complaint against person who had instructed plaintiff to pull rather than push cart into elevator. Motioo of third-party defendant to dismiss was granted and jury in the Supreme Court~ Westchester County, Nastasi, J., found elevator company 50% at fault. Ele- vator company appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that: fi) evidence supported verdict finding elevator company at fault; (2) there was no abuse of discretion in permitting licensed engi- neer to testify as expert; and (3) foreseea- ble risk of third party's instruction that plaintiff pul1 rather than push cart did not include risk that plaintiff would fall down elevator shaft because cab was not present when doors opened. Affirmed~ 1. Negligence ~:~121.1(7) Jury could infer negligent inspection and repair in the maintenance of an eleva- tor from evidence that hoistway doors auto- maticalIy opened in the absence of elevator cab and that interlock system, which was designed to prevent such an occurrence, contained a worn and bent latch which re- quired replacement. 2. Negligence ~142 Jury's verdict finding that elevator company was negligent in inspection an(] repair of elevator was not inconsistent with verdict on res ipsa Ioquitur where jury. could have found that elevator company failed to exercise reasonable care under circumstances but did not have exclusive control of the instrumenmlky. 3. Evidence ~539 Trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting licensed engineer to testify as an expert with respect to alleged negli- gence in inspection and repair of elevator, based on his education as a mechanical and structural engineer and his experience as an inspector of buildings, including eleva- tors. though he was not an elevator expert per se. 4. Negligence Third party's instruction to plaintiff that he pull rather than push a cart did net include risk that plaintiff would fall CODE L;F THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10.2005 PART It GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE IV, Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District [Added 1-10-1989 by L.L, No. 1-1989 ARTICLE IV, Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District [Added 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989 § 100-40. Purpose. The purpose of thc Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District is to permit a mix of housing types 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. § 100-41. Applicability. The Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District may be designated on the Zoning Map by the Town Board upon its own motion or by petition on parcels within one-half (1/2) mile of a Hamlet Business (HB) District of Mattituck, Cutchogne and Southold Hamlet and within one-fourth (1/4) mile of the Hamlet Business (HB) District of Orient and within one-half (1/2) mile of the boundary of the Village of Greenpon. § 100-42. Use regulations. In the HD District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part ora building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any use except the following: A. Permitted uses. (1)One-thmily detached dwelling. (2)Two-family dwelling. (3)Continuing care fhcility and lifb care community. [Added 11-12-1996 by L.L. No. 20-1996] B. Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals. The tbllowing uses are permitted as a special exception by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, and subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board: (1) Multiple dwellings, townhouses, row or attached houses. (2) Accessory apartments in single-family residences as set tbrth in and regulated by § 100-3 lB(13) of the Agricultural-Conservation District. (3) Bed-and-breakfast uses as set forth in and regulated by § 100-3 lB(14), without site plan approval.Es EXHIBIT 17 -- · ~;OD~ OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100. ZONING ARTICLE IV, Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District [Added 1-11)-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989 § 100-42. Use regulations. (4) Health care thcilities. [Added 11-12-1996 by L.L. No. 20-1996] Accessory uses, limited to the lbllowing: (1) Accessory uses as set tbrth in and regulated by § 100-31 C( 1 ) through (7), (9) and ( 1 I) of the Agricultural-Conservation District, and subject to conditions set forth in § 100-33 thereof. [Amended 11-29- 1994 by L.L. No. 25-1994; 11-12-1996 by L.L. No. 20-1996] (2) SNAccessory buildings, structures and other required facilities and equipment necessary to provide community sewers, water, heat, utilities and other community services to alt buildings and structures on the premises; provided, however, that the plans for and the location of the same shall be approved by the Planning Board. § 100-43. Bulk, area and parking regulations. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking Schedule incorporated into this chapter, with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full? ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 16-1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-'10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989~-n; 5-8-'1990 by L.L. No. 9-1990; 12-22- 1992 by L.L. No. 34-1992; 3-23-'1993 by L.L. No. 3-'1993; 4-4-1995 by L.L. No. 5-1995; 6-29-2004 by L.L. No. '13-2004~N] § 100-50. Purpose; applicability of amendments. The purpose ot'the Aftbrdable Housing (AHD) District is to provide the opportunity within certain areas of the Town for the development of high-density housing for families of moderate income; and further, to do so with sensitivity to the historic and aesthetic character of the Town's existing neighborhoods. Towards that end, the Planning Board shall have the authority to amend certain setback and other specifications in order to ensure cost efficiencies and design that furthers the Town's goals of providing quality workforce housing. Homes located within the Affordable Housing District are intended to be affordable in perpetuity. The amendments set forth in Local Law #13 of 2004 apply only to development in an AHD District after June 1, 2004. § 100-51. Definitions. For the purpose of thJ. s article, the tbllowing terms, phrases and words shall have the thllowing meanings: CONSUMER PRICE INDEX -- The consumer price index as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the New York Metropolitan area. CONVEYANCE -- The transt~r or transtkrs of any interest in real property by any method, including but not limited to sale, exchange, assigmnent, surrender, mortgage foreclosure, transfer in lieu of foreclosure, option, trust indenture, taking by eminent domain, conveyance upon liquidation or by a receiver, or transfer or acquisition of a controlling interest in any entity with an interest in real property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, conveyance of real property shall not include a conveyance made pursuant to devise, bequest or inheritance; the creation, modification, extension, spreading, severance, consolidation, assignment, transfer, release or satisfaction of a mortgage; a mortgage subordination agreement, a mortgage severance agreement or an instrument given to perfect or correct a recorded mortgage; or a release of lien of tax pursuant to this article or the Internal Revenue Code. I I I I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD t-IAMLET S~FUDY HALO MAP LEGEND: G-~ 12/04 To~ o[So~thold fJ*mlet Study H,u~gt o£Gtve~art Wot The HALO zone shall permit an increase in density above that which is permitted under the existing zoning up to 1/4 acre (1 dwelling unit per 10,000 square feet of lot area.) To promote affordable housing, densities of up to ~./8 acre within the HALO zone are acceptable when infrastructure is available. The burden of providing affordable housing should be shared among the Hamlets throughout the Town. Facilitate affordable housing through legal, code-conforming accessory apartments. An accessory apartment amnesty program, for apartments brought up to code, is recommended. Those partidpating in the program would benefit from a streamlined legalization process. Those not participating in the program would be subject to increased enforcement activities, penalties and fines. One specific site has been identified for workforce housing in the Greenport West HALO zone as of this point in time. The property is located on the southeast corner of Route 48 and Hain Street and is 4.7 acres in size (other areas can/should be discussed). In addition, two other sites were identified as possible sites in the future: housing development at the campground (former KOA) site, should it occur, should consider including a public swimming pool amenity. Increased density would be warranted for the property south of the railroad tracks towards the bay (currently Silver Sands Motel). 14. Open Space Preservation: The major purpose of the Hamlet and HALO definition is to promote the preservation of open space by concentrating commercial and residential growth within the Hamlet Center/HALO boundaries. Preservation of open spaces is a pdority as it is this open space that defines the character of the Greenport West Hamlet. Accelerate the Purchase of Development Rights Program and Open Space Preservation Program in the area outside of the Hamlet Center and HALO zone. The hamlet's sensitive wetland resources must be protected and preserved. 15. The Working Landscape: Preserve and support the Hamlet's traditional industries, including the maritime industry, agriculture, and tourism. Achieving these goals requires not only preserving agricultural lands or fishing piers for example, but also requires the provision of the full range or ancillary and support facilities necessary to maintain these industries, including providing a trained work force that is able to reside within the Town. EXHIBIT 19 -- A. The HALO Zone. The HALO zone is a floating overlay incentive zone established pursuant to NYS Town Law §26I-b. B. HALO Zone Purpose: In conformance with the planning goals and policies of the Town of gouthold, the purposes of the HALO zone are as follows: 1. To preserve the unique rural and agricultural character of the Town of Southold by directing new development toward the Hamlet Center thereby reinfoming the traditional hamlet pattern of development while preserving the agricuhural and open space areas. 2. To encourage a more efficient use of land and public services by promoting compact smart growth development in appropriate locations. 3. To reduce traffic congestion and promote security and social interaction by providing compact, pedestrian-oriented residential development in close proximity to commercial and civic uses. 4. To encourage diversity in housing styles, types and sizes to accommodate households of all ages, sizes and incomes. 5. To provide a mix of uses, including residential use, within HAL() zone and Hamlet Center. To incorporate a system of appropriately scaled interconnected streets with sidewalks and bikeways that offer multiple routes for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists and to provide for the logical integration of these facilities into existing and proposed developments. 7. To ensure that new development will be compatible with the historic hamlet character, to create a strong sense of community identity and neighborhood experience. 8. To promote development where the physical, visual and spatial characteristics are established and reinforced t~ough the consistent use of' compatible neighborhood design and architectural design elements. This will result in a coherent overall development pattern and streetscape. 9. To retain existing buildings with historical and/or architectnral features which enhance the visual character of the community. I0. 'Fo enhance the function of the HALO zone, and the hamlet centers as the locus of commercial and civic activity within the surrounding neighborhood, and as a desired alternative to conventional, use-segregated development, such as large lot suburban subdivisions and strip con'nnercial developments. 11. Create receiving areas in the Town where development rights can bc t~'ansfcrred Ii om the outlying agn icuhural and open space areas. C. HALO Staodards: In order for a parcel of land to be eligible for inclusion within the HA[.O zone, it must mecl the following conditions: Parcel Location: A port/on of the parcel of land applying for inclusion within the IIAl.() znne omst be h)caled ;vithtn perimeter of the l lALO Zone EXHIBIT 20 ~ unit count can be increased in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Development Rights section below, or if affordable housing units are created. In no instance shall the increased density exceed 1 unit per 10,000 square feet of lot area, or 1 unit per 5,000 square feet if served by a community sewage disposal system. Note: These density parameters vary throughout the hamlets 3. Transfer of Development Right (TDR) Receiving Zones: The HALO zone is hereby designated as a receiving district for the purposes of transferring development rights, in accordance with the provisions of this section. E. HALO Zone Designation Procedures. Pursuant to Section 265 of Town Law and Section I00-290 of the Town of Southold Zoning Ordinance, the following procedures shall apply when application is made to include a parcel of land within the HALO zone: I. The Town Board upon its own motion, or by petition, may consider the application of the HALO floating zone designation for a given parcel of land. 2. Application and fees. An application for HALO zone designation shall be filed with the Town Clerk, in a form approved by the Town Board and available in the office of the Town Clerk. Fees applicable to the HALO zone application shall be set by resolution of the Town Board. (application must include plan showing density that is available under current zoning and what they are looking to get with HALO zone) 3. Application procedure. The procedure for approval of designation of a HALO zone property shall involve a three-stage review process as follows: iA) Approval by the Town Board of a preliminary development concept plan. (B) Approval of the final, detailed subdivision plat or site plan by the Planning Board.* (C) The zoning reclassification by the Town Board ora specific parcel or parcels of land for development in accordance with that plan.* *NOTE: Thc town shall, in all instances, process Subsection 3iA) and (B) above concurrently so as to enable the municipality to utilize a single SEQKA process and conduct a coordinated review of the entire application. The Town Board shall refer the rezoning petitmn to the Planning Board and thc Suffolk Count)' Planning Commission for review and recommendatmn Planning Board report, The Planning Board, in ~ts report to the Town Board, may recommend either approval of the application for the establishment of the AItD District, with or without modifications, or disapproval of said application. In the event that the Planning Board recommends disapproval of said applicatmn, ~t shall state in its report the reasons for such disapproval. In prepanng ~ts report and recommendations, the Planning Board shall give consideration to the Town Comprehensive Plan, the existing and permitted land uses in the area. the relationship of the proposed design and location of buildings on the site, traffic circulation, both on and off the site, the adequacy and availability ol'community l~clhties and utilities. 13. "/-he recexvmg district shall be l:mds designated as ttALO zones on th~z TDR/ilALO map of the Town of Southold(areas identified as HALO zones on map), and approved for inclusion in the IqALO zone by the Town Board. 3. Designation of Development Rights A development right for the purposes of this section shall be designated as a preservation credit, 4. Procedure for severing development rights from property, PreserYation credit certificate. A property owner may request a preservation credit certificate from the Planning Board (or Land Preservation Dept?) by submission of the following: (1) A completed preservation credit certificate application form to be supplied by the Planning Board; (2) Property survey showing existing conditions including wetlands, bluffs, etc. certified to the Town of Southold and showing the area to be preserved (this requirement may be waived at the discretion of the Planning Board); (3) Current title commitment prepared by a company licensed to do business in the County of Suffolk and noting the Town of Southold as a proposed insured; (4) Copy of deed; (5) Legal description of the area from which rights are to be severed; (6) Copy of tax bill; (7) Fee of__(Riverhead is 500). B. Upon the recording of a conserYation easement in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney and the Planning Board in the office of the County Clerk, or submission of the conservation easement to the Planning Board in recordable form, encumbering all or part of a sending parcel and the provision of evidence of same to the Planning Board together with a current title insurance policy showing title insurance acceptable to the Planning Board in an amount equal to the value of the conservation easement and naming the Town of Southold as an insured, the Planning Board shall issue a preservation credit certificate ce~lifying that the holder is entitled to a specific number of preservation credits. Fractional credits may be issued, rounded to the nearest tenth. 5. Allocation of Preservation Credits A. When an application l'or the allocation of preservation credits is made to the t'lanntng Board, such board shall calculate the total number of credits available for transfer fi'om the real property within a designated sending area usmg a development yield factor. Development yield is established by multiplying the gross (bnildable) area of the parcel by the relevant development yield factor t~.r the zoning district in the sending district The development yield factors are as follows: Riverhead is one right per 43,560 sq. feet.(one per acre, does not account for unbuihlable land, wetlands, etc.) Mark is working on a multiplier.....the idea beiug that applicant provides a survey showing wetlands, blult~, etc.....and buildable land is determined. Then the applicant has the option of preparing a yield map, or using multiplier which would represent subtraction of roads/drainao~e. SO, Gross acreage- wetlands/bluffs, otc = Buildable laud residential lot yield within the HALO Orient district, however, in no event shall the yield exceed one lot per 20,000 square feet of buildable land as defined in Chapter A 106. 7. Administration The Planning Board (LPC??) shall be the sole administrator of the procedures and :'unctions associated with this article. The Planning Board shall: (A) Issue preservation credit certificates. (B) Keep records ol', retain, and catalogue both issued and redeemed preserYation credit certificates in a Town database. {C) Prepare and distribute an annual report providing statistics on TDR program. (D) CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chnpter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V. Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L, No. 6-1986; amended 1t-16- 1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; %10-1 ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11- 16-1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989 EN; 5-8-1990 by L.L. NO. 9-1990; 12-22- 1992 by L.L. NO. 34-1992; 3-23-1993 by L.L. NO. 3-1993; 4-4-1995 by L.L. NO. 5-1995; 6-29-2004 by L.L. NO. 13-2004E"] § 100-50. Purpose; applicability of amendments. The purpose of the Aftbrdable Housing (AHD) District is to provide the opportunity within certain areas of the Town for the development of kigh-density housing for families of moderate income; and further, to do so with sensitivity to the historic and aesthetic character of the Town's existing neighborhoods. Towards that end, the Planning Board shall have the authority to amend certain setback and other specifications in order to ensure cost efficiencies and design that furthers the Town's goals of providing quality workforce housing. Homes located within the Affordable Housing District are intended to be affordable in perpetuity. The amendments set forth in Local Law fil 3 of 2004 apply only to development in an AHD District after June I, 2004. § 100-51. Definitions. For the purpose of this article, the tbllowing terms, phrases and words shall have the tbllowing meanings: CONSUMER PRICE INDEX -- The consumer price index as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the New York Metropolitan area. CONVEYANCE -- The transtbr or transfers of any interest in real property by any method, including but not limited to sale, exchange, assignment, surrender, mortgage foreclosure, transfer in lieu of foreclosure, option, trust indenture, taking by eminent domain, conveyance upon liquidation or by a receiver, or transfer or acquisition of a controlling interest in any entity with an interest in real property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, conveyance of real property shall not include a conveyance made pursuant to devise, bequest or inheritance; the creation, modification, extension, spreading, severance, consolidation, assignment, transfer, release or satisfaction of a mortgage; a mortgage subordination agreement, a mortgage severance agreement or an instrument given to perfect or correct a recorded mortgage; or a release of lien of tax pursuant to this article or the Internal Revenue Code. MODERATE-INCOME FAMILY -- A family registered with the Town of Southold Housing Registry whose aggregate annual income, including the total of all current annual income of all family members (excluding the earnings of working family members under age 18) fi`om any source whatsoever at the time of application for the purchase or lease of an affordable housing unit or the purchase of an unimproved affordable lot, does not exceed 120% of the HUD median income for the County of Suffolk. MODERATE-INCOME FAMILY DWELLING UNIT -- A dwelling unit reserved tbr rent or sale to a moderate- income family and for which the maximum monthly rent (excluding utilities) or the maximum initial sales price does not exceed the maximum rent or maximum sales price set forth in § 100-56D hereo5 MODERATE-INCOME FAMILY UNIMPROVED LOT -- An unimproved lot reserved tbr sale to a moderate- income family and for which the maximum initial sales price does not exceed the maximum sales price set forth in § 100-56D hereof. Said "unimproved lot" shall mean a vacant parcel of real property designated as a lot on a filed map, inclusive of all utilities brought to the property line. PERMANENT FIXED IMPROVEMENT -- An improvement to a lot or a moderate-income family dwelling unit which cannot he removed and which provides value to the property above and beyond repairs done to maintain the property in good condition. A permanent fixed improvement must be approved in advance of construction or installation in writing by the Special Projects Coordinator. -- EXHIBIT 21 -- SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR -- The employee of the Town who is responsible lbr the development. implememation and coordination of the Housing Regist~ and affordable housing initiatives tbr the Town of Southold. § 100-52. Applicability. AHD Districts shall be established by the Town Board on parcels of land that have been identified through the accepted principles of Smart Growth planning as being appropriate and desirable locations for affordable housing. Such locations include, but are not limited to: land within Hamlet Locus Zones, as may be determined by the Town Board; land within walking distance of services, shops, schools, and public transportation; land that adjoins existing centers of business and residential development (as opposed to land adjoining farm and open fields); and other locations where the project has been shown to meet a demonstrable need. AHD Districts shall be designated by Town Board resolution after a public hearing thereon, upon 10 days' notice thereof by publication in the official Town newspapers. § 100-53. Use regulations. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06.10-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD} District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11-16- 1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1 § I00~53. Use regulations, In the AHD District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part ora building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any use except the following: A. Permitted uses. (1) One~thmily detached dwelling which shall be occupied by the owner o~t'the dwelling, or may be leased one time by the owner for a period not greater than two years with written approval of the Special Projects Coordinator, (2) Two-lhmily dwellings which shall be occupied by the owner of the dwelling, or may be leased one time by the owner for a period not greater than two years with written approval of the Special Projects Coordinator. (3) Multiple dwellings. (4) Row or attached dwellings, (5) Apartments are permitted within the principal building only, subject to the fbllowing requirements: (a) The accessory apartment shall be located in the principal building. (b) The owner of the existing dwelling shall occupy one of the dwelling units as the owner's principal residence. The other dwelling unit shall be leased for year round occupancy to an eligible person as defined by this legislation and as evidenced by a written lease for a term of one or more years. (c) The apartment shall contain not less than 350 square tbet and shall not exceed a square tbotage equal to one half the total enclosed square footage of the principal dwelling and shall not contain more than one bathroom. (d) A minimum of one off~street parking space shall be provided. (e) Not more than one accessory apartment shall be provided per single-family dwelling, (I) Not more than 50% of homes in an approved AHD shall have accessory apmmaents. B. Accessory uses. Accessory uses as set ]tbrth in and regulated by § 100-31 C(1), (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) of this chapter. § 100-54. Bulk, area and parking regulations. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART ~t GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No~ 6-1986; amended 11-16- 1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1 § 100-54. Bulk, area and parking regulations. A. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the AHD District unless the same conforms to the following Bulk, Area and Parking Schedule: Minimum Requirements Total lot area (square ti:et) Lot width (t~et) Lot depth (t~et) Front yard (tbet) BULK, AREA AND PARKING SCHEDULE Single-Family Two-Family Multiple Dwellings Dwellings Dwellings 10,000 20,000 40,000 80 100 150 100 140 200 35 35 45 CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10.2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11.16- 1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1 § 100-54. Bulk, area and parking regulations. 1 side yard (fEet) 15 15 20 Both side yards (fEet) 25 30 40 Rear yard (feet) 35 35 45 Livable floor area 850 600 600 (square feet per dwelling) Ott~street parking 2 2 2 spaces (per dwelling) Land area (square tket) I0,000 10,000 10,000 per dwelling unit) CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART Il GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11-16- 1986 by L.L. No~ 14-1986; 1-10-1 § 100-54. Bulk, area and parking regulations. Lot coverage (percent) 20% 25% 25% Building height 35 35 35 Number of stories 21/2 21/2 21/2 B. The Planning Board shall have the authority to reduce or amend yard setback requirements, lot dimension requirements and highway specifications. In making this decision, the Planning Board shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In making such determination, the Planning Board shall also consider: (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the amendment; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the sought variance; (3) whether the variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which shall be relevant to the decision but shall not necessarily preclude the proposed amendment or variance. This provision supersedes and amends New York State Town Law §§ 267, 267-a, -b and -c insofar as these sections give such authority to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any amendment to highway specifications shall meet with the approval of the Highway Superintendent. § 100-55. Application procedure. A. Application and fkes. The application tier rezoning shall be filed with the Town Clerk, in a tbrm approved by the Town Board and available in thc office of the Town Clerk. Fees applicable to the AHD zoning application shall be set by resolution of the Town Board. B. Application procedure. The procedure fbr approval of any furore development in a proposed AHD District shall involve a three-stage review process as follows: (1) Approval by the Town Board of a preliminary development concept plan. (2) Approval of the final, detailed subdivision plat by the Planning Board.* (3) The zoning reclassification by the Town Board of a specific parcel or parcels of land ±i>r development in accordance with that plan.* *NOTE: The town shall, in all instances, process Subsection B(2) and (3) above concurrently so as to enable the municipality to utilize a single SEQRA process and conduct a coordinated review of the entire applicador~. (1) No earthwork, site work, land clearing, construction or developmem activities shall take place on any property within an AHD District except in accordance with a site plan approved by the Planning Board in accordance with the provisions of this article and in accordance with the procedures and standards for site plan approval as set forth in Article XXV of this chapter. (2) Where a proposed development involves the subdivision or resubdivision of land, no development shall proceed until the Planning Board has granted final subdivision plat approval in accordance with the provisions of Chapter Al06, Subdivision of Land, of the Town Code. § 100-56. General regulations and requirements. A. The Town Board shall require the recording of covenants and restrictions that shall apply to all real property within the AHD District. The covenants and restrictions shall contain terms and conditions as the Town Board and Planning Board deem necessary to insure the property is used for purposes consistent with the purposes for which the Al-ID zoning classification was created, and they shall be subject to the approval of the Town Attorney. The covenants and restrictions shall include the following: (1) An owner of an improved or unimproved parcel of property within the AHD District shall, at least 30 days prior to entering into an agreement or contract to convey the parcel, provide a copy of the proposed contract to the Town Clerk with a written notice of the owner's intent to enter into the contract. The Town Clerk shall forward a copy of the owner's notice of intent and the proposed contract to the Town Board and Special Projects Coordinator. Within 20 days of receipt of the owner's notice of intention, the Town shall notify the owner in writing as to whether or not the terms of the sale comply with the provisions of this chapter relating to the resale of AHD parcels. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART 11 GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-'1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11-16- 1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1 § 100-56. General regulations and requirements. (2) That an improved or unimproved parcel of'property within the AHD District shall not be conveyed without written approval of the Southold Town Board. (3) The leasing of an improved or unimproved parcel of property or portion thereof shall be by written lease. (4) An owner of an improved or unimproved parcel of property within the AHD District shall, at least 14 days prior to entering into a lease with regard to said parcel, provide a copy of the proposed lease to the Town Clerk with a written notice of the owner's intent to enter into the lease. The Town Clerk shall forward a copy of the owner's notice of intent and the proposed lease to the Town Board and to the Special Projects Coordinator. Within seven days of receipt of the owner's notice of intention, the Town shall notify the owner in writing as to whether or not the terms of the lease comply with the provisions of this chapter relating to the leasing of AHD parcels. (5) An owner of an improved or unimproved parcel of property within the AHD District shall not lease the property without obtaining the written approval from the Town of Southold. B. Provision tbr moderate-income thmily dwelling units and unimproved lots. (1) On land within an AHD District each dwelling unit and/or unimproved lot located therein shall be reserved for sale or lease to moderate-income families registered with the Town of Southold Housing Registry. At least 50% of available homes shall be offered for sale or lease to eligible applicants whose income does not exceed 80% of the HUD median income for the County of Suffolk. C. Eligibility. In each AHD, the sale or lease of dwelling units and unimproved lots shall be reserved tbr moderate-income families who do not have any ownership interest in any other residence or vacant lot. The net worth of an applicant (individual or family) shall not exceed 25% of the pumhase price of a home sold pursuant to this section. The eligible applicants shall be grouped on a priority basis, and a lottery system will be administered by the Special Projects Coordinator within each group in a formula acceptable to the Town Board. The priority groups are as follows: (1) Income eligible individuals or families who have lived and worked in the Town of Southold fbr a period of at least one year prior to the submission of their application. (2) Income eligible individuals or f~'nilies who have lived in the Town of Southold tbr a period of at least one year prior to the submission of their application. (3) Income eligible individuals/fhmilies who have been employed in the Town of' Southold tbr a period of at least one year prior to the submission of their application. (4) Income eligible individuals/Ibanilies who previously lived fbr a minimum of one year in the Town of Southold and wish to return. (5) To ali other eligible applicants. D. The initial maximum sales price and maximum allowable monthly rent shall be set by resolution of the Town Board, as amended from time to time. 15. Resale price of dwelling units and unimproved lots. ~& CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-%1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11-16- 1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1 § 100-56. General regulations and requirements. (2) Unimproved lots in an AHD District reserved ~tbr registered moderate-income ~thrnilies must be resold to moderate-income families. The maximum resale price shall not exceed the purchase price of such lot adjusted for the change in the consumer price index for the period during which such lot was owned by the resale seller, plus reasonable and necessary resale expenses. (~'i Where an unimproved lot in an AHD District reserved tbr moderate-income fhmilies is improved with a dwelling unit, the maximum resale price shall be determined in the manner specified in § 100-56E(1) hereof. F. The pricing structure lbr rental properties must not exceed the rent limits as established by the Sutlblk County Affordable Housing Opportunities Program. The Town Board may, at its discretion, impose restrictions regarding rentals. § 100-57. Administration. A. General duties of Special Projects Coordinator. (1) The Special Projects Coordinator shall be responsible tbr the administration of dwelling units and unimproved lots reserved for moderate-income families in all AHD Districts pursuant to the provisions of this article. (2) The Special Projects Coordinator shall promulgate and maintain intbrmation and documentation of all dwelling units and unimproved lots reserved for moderate-income families in all AHD Districts; the number thereof available for sale or lease at all times; the sales prices and monthly rent for such dwelling un/ts and lots; and the names and addresses of eligible families desiring to pumhase or lease the same, together with a priority list of such families. The Special Projects Coordinator shall maintain such other records and documents as shall be required to properly administer the provisions of this article. B. Interagency cooperation. (1) Whenever the Town Board approves the establishment of an AHD District, a copy of such determination shall be filed with the Building Inspector and the Special Projects Coordinator, together with a copy of any agreements and/or covenants relating thereto. (2) Whenever the Planning Board approves a subdivision plat and/or a site plan allbcting land within an AHD District, a copy thereof shall be filed with the Building Inspector and the Special Projects Coordinator, together with copies of any agreements and/or covenants relating thereto. (3) Whenever the Building Inspector shall issue a building permit, a certificate of occupancy or any other permit or authorization affecting dwelling units and/or unimproved lots located in an AHD District and reserved for sale or lease to moderate-income families, a copy thereof shall be filed with the Special Projects Coordinator. C. Procedure. (1) Whenever the Building Inspector receives an application fbr a building permit or a certificate of occupancy for a dwelling unit or unimproved lot located in an AHD District and reserved for sale or lease to moderate-income families, the Building Inspector shall file a copy thereof with the Special Projects Coordinator, who shall inform the owner and/or person filing such application of the maximum sales price or monthly rent for such dwelling unit or lot as well as eligibility requirements for families seeking to purchase or lease such dwelling units or lots. (2) No building permit or certificate of occupancy may be issued by the Building Inspector until the Special Projects Coordinator has supplied the Building Inspector with the information provided for in the preceding subsection and the Building Inspector determines that the issuance of the building permit or certificate of occupancy will not permit a use, occupancy, sale or lease of a dwelling unit or unimproved lot in violation of the provisions of this article. (3) The Special Projects Coordinator shall certifij the eligibility of all applicants tbr lease or purchase of dwelling units and unimproved lots reserved for moderate-income families. An owner of dwelling units and unimproved lots in an AHD District which are reserved for sale or lease to moderate-income families shall not sell or lease the same to any person who does not possess a certificate of eligibility issued by the Special Projects Coordinator. A violation of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute grounds for the revocation of a certificate of occupancy. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v'147 Updated 06-I0-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11-16~ 1986 by L.L. No, 14-1986; 1-~10-1 § 100-57, Administration. (4) On or befbre March 31 of each year, the Special Projects Coordinator shall notil~ the owner or manager of dwelling units and unimproved lots reserved for moderate-income families of the monthly rent, sales price and income eligibility requirements for such units and lots based upon data derived fi.om the preceding year. (5) The owner or manager of dwelling units and unimproved lots reserved fbr moderate-income thrnilies shall certify in writing to the Special Projects Coordinator on or before May 31 of each year, that the sale and/or lease of such dwelling units and lots comply with the provisions of this article and Chapter 100 of the Town Code. (6) When a dwelling unit reserved fbr lease to moderate-income fhmilies is to be rented, the lease Ibr such unit shall not exceed a term of two years. (7) An applicant fbr a certificate of eligibility aggrieved by any determination of the Special Projects Coordinator shall have the right to appeal such determination to the Town Board at its next regularly scheduled work session or to any standing committee of the Town Board designated by resolution to hear such appeals. (8) The only covenants and restrictions which may even be placed upon any lot or dwelling unit in an AHD District must be first approved by action of the Town Board. § 100-58. Applicability of other Code provisions. All of the provisions of the Code of the Town of Southold not inconsistent or in conflict with thc provisions of'this article shall be applicable in the AHD District. § 100-59. Penalties for offenses. Any violation of any provision of this article shall be punishable in the lbllowing manner: A. First oll~nse: by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000. B. Second oflbnse and tbr any ot:lbnse therealter: by a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000 fbr each offense. C. Any o/lbnse under this article may be punishable by revocation of an existing certificate of occupancy. D. Any individual who has violated covenants and resolutions imposed pursuant to this article shall be prohibited from further participation in ownership opportunities and benefits within an approved AHD District. ARTICLE VI, Resort Residential (RR) District [Added 1.10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989 EN] § 100-60. Purpose. 8 150-6 ZONING 8 150-7 A building permit shall have been duly issued and construction shall have been started before the date of first publication of notice of the public hearing on this chapter. (2) The ground story framework, including the second tier of beams, shall have been completed within six months of the date of the building permit. (3) The entire building shall have been completed in accordance with such plans as have been filed with the Building Inspector within one year from the effective date of this chapter. E. Areas annexed after the effective date of this chapter shall be in the R-1 Zoning District unless and until the Board of Trustees adopts other zoning provisions3 ARTICLE IV District Use Regulations 8 150-7. R-1 One-Family Residence District. In an R-1 One-Family Residence District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, fur any uses except the following: A. Permitted uses. (1) One-farn/ly detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot. (2) Buildings, structures and uses owned or operated by the Village of Greenport. Conditional uses. The following conditional uses are permitted, subject to approval by the Planning Board in accordance with 88 150-29 and 150-30 hereof, and subject to the regulations specified below and elsewhere in this chapter: (1) Places of worship, including parish houses, but excluding a rectory or parsonage, which shall conform to the requirements for a one-family dwelling. Special conditions include the following: (a) No building or part thereof shall be erected nearer than 50 feet to any street or property line. (b) The sum of all areas covered by all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed 20% of the area of the lot. (2) Schools. Special conditions include the following: Editor's Note: Former Subsection F, which immediately followed this subsection, ~as deleted at tinge of adoption of Code; see Ch. 1, General Provisions, AfL I. 150:11 EXHIBIT 22 ~ 12 - 15 - 2002 § 150-7 GREENPORT CODE § 150-7 (al Same as Subsection B(l)ta) and lb) abo~e. Any such school shall be a nonprofit organization within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Act and shall be registered effectively as such thereunder. (c) Any such school shall occupy a lot with an area of not less than one acre plus one acre for each 1130 pupils for which the building is designed. (3) Philanthropic or eleemosynary institutions, hospitals or sanatoriums for general medical care. Special conditions include the following: (a) Same as Subsection B(1)(a) and (b) above. (b) Each such use shall occupy a lot which shall have an area containing not less than one acre. (4) Annual membership clubs providing outdoor recreational facilities, such as private play~ounds, swimming pools and tennis courts. Special conditions include the following: Same as Subsection B(1)(a) and (b), above. (b) Any such club shall be incorporated pursuant to the provisions of the Not-for-Profit Corporation, Membership Corporation*or the Benevolent Orders Law of the State of New York and cater exclusively to members and their guests, or shall be an unincorporated association approved by the Village Board and catering exclusively to members and their guests. (c) Any such use shall not be conducted as a business enterprise. (d) Such use shall occupy a lot with an area of not less than one acre. (e) The use of outdoor public-address systems for any purpose shall be only by special permit. (f) Exterior lighting, other than that essential for the safety and convenience of the users of the premises, shall be only by special permit. (5) Railroad, public utility and television towers, rights-of-way and related structures necessary, to serve areas within the Village, subject to such conditions as the Planning Board may impose in order to protect and promote the health and safety and general welfare of the community and the character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to be constructed. (6) Cemeteries. (7) Bed-and-breakfast facilities, subject to the following conditions: [Added 11-16-1989 by L.L. No. 9-1989] 9. Editor's Note: See Art. 3, of Ihe Cooperative Corporations Law. 150:12 12 ~ IS - 2~02 § 150-7 ZONING § 150-8 (7) (8) (a) One nonilluminated nameplate or professional sign with an area of not over two square feet. (b) One temporary nonilluminated sign advertising the sale or rental of the premises on which such sign is situated, with an area of not over four square feet, provided that such sign is located on the front wall of a building or, if freestanding, then not nearer than 15 feet to any street line and to any property line. One indirectly illuminated bulletin board or other announcement sign for educational or religious institutions permitted in Subsection B above, with an area of not over 10 square feet, provided that such sign is located not nearer than 15 feet to any street or property line or is attached to the building if closer. Boats. Not more than four boats may be stored, docked, moored or anchored for more than 48 hours on any waters or adjoining waterways. [Amended 5-16-1996 by L.L. No. 3-1996] Yard sales, attic sales, garage sales, auction sales, porch sales or similar type of sales of personal property owned by the occupant of the premises and located thereon, subject to the following restrictions: [Added 12-10-1979 by L.L. No. 5-1979] (a) Not more than two such sales shall be conducted on any lot in any one calendar year. [Amended 8-15-2002 by L.L. No. 3-2002] (b) Adequate supervised parking facilities shall be provided. (c) No signs, except one on-premises sign not larger than three by four (3 x 4) feet in size, displayed for a period of no longer than one week immediately prior to the day of such sale, shall be pemfitted. (d) A permit is obtained therefor from the Building Inspector upon the payment of a fee of $5. § 150-8. R-2 One- and Two-Family Residence District. In an R-2 One- and Two-Family Residence District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose except for the following: A. Permitted uses. (1) Any use permitted In an R-I One-Family Residence District as provided in § 150-7A. (2) Two-family dwelling. (. 150:15 t2.15 - § 150-8 GREENPORT CODE § 150-9 Conditional uses. The following conditional uses are permitted, subject to approval by the Planning Board in accordance with §§ 150-29 and 150-30 hereof, and subject to the regulations specified below and elsewhere in this chapter: (1) Any use conditionally permitted in the R-I Residence District as provided in § 150-7B, except cemeteries. (2) n Conversion of an existing dwelling to a multifamily dwelling, as provided in Art. VII of this chapter, subject to the following conditions: (a) Said structure shall have contained on the effective date of this chapter not less than 1,000 square feet of livable floor area for each dwelling unit created. (b) The lot on which such structure is located shall contain a minimum of 15,000 square feet of lot area and shall contain at least 5,000 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit. (c) One and one-half (11/2) parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. C. Permitted accessory uses. Any accessory use permitted in the R-1 One-Family District as provided in § 150-7C. § 150-9. CR Retail Commercial District. In a CR Retail Commercial District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or desig'ned to be used, in whole or in part, for any use except as listed below, and all such uses will be subject to site plan approval in accordance with Article XI, § 150-30, hereof: A. Permitted uses: [Amended 3-1-1990 by L.L. No, 1-1990] (1) Retail stores and banks. (2) Personal service stores, such as but not limited to barbershops, beauty parlors and tailors. (3) Eating and drirfldng places. (4) Business, professional or governmental offices. (5) Service establishments furnishing services other than of a personal nature22 (6) Theaters, hotels and motels. (7) Outlets and pickup stations for laundries and cleaning establishments, excluding a commercial laundry as such. Cleaning of wearing apparel or household efforts on 11. Editor's Note: Amended at time of adoption of Codel see Ch. 1, General Provisions, Art. [. 12. Editor's Note: Amended at time of adoption of Codel see Ch. 1, General Provisions, Art. l. 150:16 12.1s.2002 § 150-12 GREENPORT CODE § 150-12 ARTICLE V District Bulk and Parking Regulations § 150-12. Schedule of regulations. The following schedules of regulations apply to the area of lots, the heights of buildings, the yards and other open spaces to be provided, off-street parking spaces, minimum floor areas and all other matters contained therein as indicated for the various districts established by this chapter. Additional bulk requirements are specified in § 150-13, and off-street loading and parking requirements are specified in § 150-16. A. Bulk and parking regulations for uses pernfitted in R-I and R-2. [Amended 5-16-1996 by L.L. No. 3-1996; 7-19-2002 by L.L. No. 2-2002] R-2 DistricP One-Family Two-Family R-1 District Dwelling Dwelling Minimum required: Lot area I square feet) 10,000 7,500 7,500 Lot width (feet) 80 60 60 Lot depth {feet) 100 100 100 Front yard (feet) 30 30 30 One side yard (feet) 12 10 10 Both side yards (feet) 30 25 25 Rear yard (feet) 30 30 30 Livable floor area L000 1,000 Per NYS Code per dwelling unit ~ square feet3 Off-street parking ~ 2 i 1/2 per dwelling unit Maximum permitted: Lot coverage (percent) 30 30 35 Building height: Number of stories 21/2 21/2 _ l/_ Feet per building 35 35 35 NOTES: Any given lot shall exceed either the minimum lot width or depth sufficiently to meet the minimum lot area. ~lf the owner of an existing one-family dwelling in the R-2 District which is legally nonconforming with respect to any of these bulk requirements seeks to convert the existing dwelling to a two-family dwelling, then. in that event, the area requirements set forth herein, except for the requirement entitled "Off-street parking per dwelling unit," shall not apply to the newly added dwelling unit. 150:26 EXHIBIT 23 -- 12- 15-2002 TOWN OF LANSING v. VILLAGE OF LANSING ments to $35 per week. This was error. Where the reversal in a spouse's financial condition is brought about by the spouse's own actions or inactions, the court should not grant a downward modification (Hick- land v. Hickland, 39 N.Y.2d i, 5, 382 N.Y. S.2d 475, 346 N.E.2d 243, cert. den. 429 U.S. 941, 97 S.Ct. 357, 50 L.Ed.2d 310). [2,3] Here, the evidence indicated that the drastic reduction in earnings is attribut- able to petitioner's own behavior. At the time of the divorce he earned in the neigh- borhood of $25,00~ per year. At the time of the hearing he allegedly earned $7,800 per year operating a clothing store for his mother. Petitioner admitted that there were other jobs that he could have had but they were not at the $25,000 level The proper amount of support payable is not determined by a spouse's current economic situation but by a spouse's ability to provide (Kay v. Ka3', 37 N.Y.2d 632, 637, 376 N.Y. S.2d 443, 339 N.E.2d 14~). The record indi- cates that petitioner is capable of earning more than $7,300 a year. Moreover, a fami- ly business is involved here and it appears that petitioner had some input in fixing his own salary. Family Court, in reducing the alimony and support payments so drastical- ly in these circumstances, abused its discre- tion. The order reducing alimony and sup- port payments should be reversed and the original order directing such payments rein- stated. [4] Family Court failed to grant respen- dent's application to reduce the arrearages, noneeded in open court to be in the sum of $6,000, to judgment. This was improper under the facts and circumstances of this case (Domestic Relations Law, § 244; see Lebo~- v. Lebow, 58 A.D.2d 537, 395 N.Y. S.2d 653). Respondent should, therefore, have judgment for arrearages in the sum of $6,000. No purpose would be served in requiring respondent to initiate a new cause of action for arrearages in such circum- stances. Order reversed, on the law and the fac~s, with rests; original order directing alimony and support payments reinstated, and judg- ment for arrearages directed to be entered in the amount of $6,000. 29 KANE, J. P., and MAIN, MIKOLL and HERLIHY, JJ., concur. YESAWlCH, J., dissents and votes to af- firm in the following memorandum. YESAWICH, Justice (dissenting). I dissent and vote to affirm for the rea- sons set forth in the decision of the Sullivan County Family Court. 80 A.D.2d 942 In the Matter of TOWN OF LANSING, New York, Petitioner, VIIJ,&GE OF LANSING, New York, Respondent, et al., Intervenors. (And Two Related Proceedings.) Supreme Gourt, Appellate Division, Third Department. March 12, 1981. Town applied to have report of referees rejected and for judgment that proposed annexation of part of village territory was, contrary to report, in the overall public interest. Village cross-applied to confirm report~ The Supreme Court, Appellate Di- vision, held that proposed annexation was not in the overall public interest. Application denied; cross application granted. 1. Municipal Corporations ~=~29(3) Annexation of municipal territory is to be approved only if found to be in overall public interest. EXHIBIT 24 -- 3O 438 NEW YORK SUPPI,EMENT, 2d SERIES 2. Municipal Corporations In determining whet. her proposed an- nexation of municipal territory is in overall public interest, focus is on such matters as benefit and detriment to annexing munici- pality, to territory to be annexed, and to municipality from which annexed territory would be taken. 3. Municipal Corporations ~=~29(3) "Benefit and detriment," in determina- tion whether proposed annexation of munic- ipal territory is in overall public interest, are customarily defined in terms of munici- pal services such as police and fire protec- tion, health regulations, sewer and water service, public utilities and public education. See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions. 4. Municipal Corporations o=~33(6) Municipality seeking annexation carries burden of proving that annexation is in overall public interest. 5. Towns Finding by town board that it was in overall public interest to annex village ter- ritory contained in one annexation petition, which included territory contained in sepa- rate annexation petition, that village agreed to but that town specifically reject- ed, did not constitute a finding by town that it was in overall public interest to annex only the territory covered by sepa- rate petition. 6. Towus ~=~4 Town's proposed annexation of certain territory in village was not in overall public interest, where evidence offered on behalf of town to justify the annexation consisted primarily of citizens' support in area pro- posed to be annexed and in the fact that lands to be annexed are rural in character and, thus, compatible in purpose with town's adjacent property, but where, on the other hand, village offered considerable evi- dence that annexation would confer no ben- efit on either party and that detriment would accrue to both village and territory to be annexed if court were to rule favor- ably on annexation petitions. Mama, Williamson & Clune, Ithaca (Rob- ert I. Williamson. ithaca, of counsel), for petitioner, Town of Lansing in Proceedings Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent in Proceeding No. 3. Kerrigan & Dubew, Ithaca (Dav/d A. Du- bow, Ithaca, of counsel), for the Village of Lansing, respondent in Proceedings Nos. 1 and 2 and petitioner in Proceeding No. 3. Richard L. Greenburg, Ithaca, for Jay Orear et al., intervenors in Proceeding No. 1. Before MAHONEY, P. J., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and WEISS, JJ. MEMORANDUM DECISION. Application by the Town of Lansing, pur- suant to section 712 of the Municipal An- nexation Law (General Municipal Law, art. 17), to reject the Report of Referees and for judgment that the proposed annexation to the Town of Lansing of certain territory in the Village of Lansing is in the over-all public interest; cross application by the Vil- lage of Lansing for confirmation of the Report of Referees and for judgment that the proposed annexation is not in the over- all public interest. This controversy arose out of the pro posed annexation of certain lands presently part of the Village of Lansing in Tompkins County', by the Town of Lansing. The vil- lage was incorporated in 1974 out of territo~ ry coterminous with the former Town of Lansing Water District Number 1. The primary reason for incorporating the village was to prevent continued haphazard eom- mereial and residential development which had been plaguing certain sections of the town. The vilIage enacted strict zoning ordinances to regulate future commercial and residential grewth within its geographi- cal limits. In 1977, the town commenced two sepa- rate annexation proceeding% Petition 1 and Petition 2, seeking to reaequire various por- tions of the village's land. In an apparent compromise attempt, the village eom- TOWN OF LANSING v. VILLAGE OF LANSING menced its own proceeding, Petition 3, whereby it proposed to have the tewn an- nex a portion of the land described in Peti- tion 1. Following public hearing~, the town approved Petitions I and 2, bat rejected Petition 3, ~nd the village approved Peti- tion 3, but rejected the other two. This ceurt, pursuant to section 712 of the General Municipal Law, designated three referees to preside over a trial of the pro- posed annexations. The referees, in a com- prehensive report, unanimously concluded that the proposed annexations were not in the over-all public interest. By the instant application, the town seeks to have the Referees' Report rejected whereas the village, by cross application, seeks to have it confirmed. We hold that the Report should be confirmed in its en- tireW. [1-3] Annexation of municipal territory is to be approved only if found to be in the over-all public interest. In determining whether a proposed annexation is in the over-ail public interest, the focus is on such matters as the benefit and detriment to the annexing municipality, to the territoW to be annexed and to the municipality from which the annexed territory would be taken (Matter o£ City o£ Saratoga Springs Town o£ Green£ield, 34 A.D.2d 364, 312 N.Y.S.2d 4, mot. for Iv. to app. den. 28 N.Y.2d 482, 319 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 267 N.E.2d 891; Matter of City Council of City of Mechanicville v. Town Bd. of Town of Half- moon, 32 A.D.2d 152, 300 N.Y.S.2d 398, affd. 27 N.Y.2d 369, 318 N.Y.S.2d 307, 267 N.E.2d 96). Benefit and detriment are cus- tomarily defined in terms of municipal serv- ices such as police and fire protection, health regulations, sewer and water service, public utilities and public education. [4] The municipality seeking annexation carries the burden of proving that annexa- tion is in the over-all public interest (Matter of City o£ Ogdensburg v. Town o£ Oswegat- chic, 76 A.D.2d 1012, 429 N.Y.S.2d 488, mot. for Iv. to app. den. 51 N.Y.2d 706, 433 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 413 N.E.2d 369). Evidence offered on behalf of the town to justify 31 annexation consists primarily of citizens' ~upport in the area proposed to be annexed and in the fact that the lands to be annexed are rural in character and, therefore, com- patible in purpose with the town's adjacent property. On the other hand, the village offers con- siderable evidence that annexation would confer no benefit on either party, aside /'rom the town's geographical aggrandize- ment. It also appears that detriment would accrue to both the village and the territory to be annexed if the court were to rule favorably on the subject petitions. With respect to the lack of any benefit stemming from the proposed annexations, it is noteworthy that the parties entered into a stipulation on the record that the pro- posed annexations are not necessary to pro- vide any municipal services within any of the territories to be annexed. And with regard to whether detriment will be in- curred if annexation is approved, there is evidence the village will suffer a setback in the financing of a sewer project which it has undertaken with adjacent towns and villages. Moreover, as the territory to be annexed is primarily comprised of undevel- oped land, future village growth would be severely hampered by annexation. The territory proposed to be annexed would also suffer detriment in the form of high development density, unplanned mixed use development and increased traffic con- gestion, all because of the town's less re- strictive zoning ordinance. [5] Several townspeople favoring the annexation proposed in Petition 1 urge that the village's institution of Petition 3 and its consent to annexation of the territory scribed therein, combined with the town's eonsent to annex territory described in Peri~ tion 1 which includes the very same territe- ry described in Petition 3, but as part of a much larger tract, constitute a conclusive mutual agreement to annex the territory in Petition 3. However, that position is con- trary to the position which was adopted and actually litigated by the parties. The Town Board specifically rejected the proposed an- nexation contained in Petition 3 and the 32 438 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Village Board specifically rejected the pro- posed annexation contained in Petitions 1 and 2. For whatever reason, procedural strategy or otherwise, the town never de- termined that it was in its best interest to accept only' the territory included in Peti- tion 3. The finding by the town that it was in the over-all public interest to annex the territory contained in Petition 1, which eluded the territory contained in Petition 3, did not constitute a finding by the town that it was in the over-all public interest to annex only' the territory covered by Petition 3, a finding which the town specifically rejected. Since none of the petitions were found by the referees to be in the over-all public interest, it matters not that the village, which earlier found Petition 3 to be in the over-all public interest, now adopts the con- trary view reached by the referees. [ii] Application denied and cross applica- tion granted; it is adjudged that the pro- posed annexation is not in the over-all pub- lie interest, without costs. 80 A.D.2d 943 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, Alexander HENTSCHEL, Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. March 12, 1981. Defendant was convicted in the County Court, Broome County, Smyk, J., of crimi- nal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and he appealed. The Supreme Court, Appel- late Division, held that instruction on con- spiracy, which wtks gdven by court in at- tempt to explain distinct and independent concept of criminal liability for aiding and abetting criminal conduct of another, may have caused ultimate guilty verdict upon jury's finding that defendant, who was not charged with censpiracy, was guilty as a eonspirater in planning the illegal marijua- na transaction and therefore defendant was entitled to a new trial. Reversed. Kane, J. P., filed dissenting opinion. 1. Criminal Law <~=*1172.1(2) Instruction on conspiracy, which was given by court in an attempt to exptain distinct and independent concept of crimi- nal liability for aiding and abetting criminal conduct of another, may have caused ulti- mate guilty verdict upon jury's finding that defendant, who was not charged with con- spiracy, was guilty as a conspirator in plan- ning the illegal marijuana transaction and therefore defendant was entitled to a new trial. 2. Criminal Law ~741(5) In prosecution on drug charges, ques- tion of sufficiency of evidence corroborat- ing accomplice testimony was properly left fol' jury to determine~ 3. Drugs and Narcotics ~11l In prosecution for marijuana-related offenses, existence of marijuana was ade- quately established by chemist's testimony by fact that the drug it.self had been inad- vertently destroyed. Scott C. Gottlieb, Binghamton, for appel- lant. Patrick D. Monserrate, Broome County Dist. Atty., Binghamton, for respendenL Before KANE, J. P. and MIKOLL, MAIN, YESAWICH and HERLIHY, JJ. MEMORANDUM DECISION. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County, rendered April 1, 1976, upon a verdict convicting defendant BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. v. TOWN BD., ETC. Cite as 393 N.Y,S~2d 47 56 A.D.2d 928 In the Matter of BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF WARWICK, ORANGE COUNTY, Peti- tioner, ToWN BOARD OF the TOWN OF WARV, qCK, ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. March 28, 1977. In proceeding to determine whether proposed annexation by incorporated village was in the overal] public interest, petitioner moved to confirm and respondent cross- moved to reject report of referees favorable to annexation. The Supreme Court, Appel- late Division, determined that the proposed annexation was in the overall public inter- est though the sole physical connection of the 144-acre tract in question to the village was a contiguous boundary of 200 feet along a village park. Motion granted and cross motion de- nied. Municipal Corporations ~=29(4) Proposed annexation of 144 acres to village to obtain access to water supply and sewer system for condominium develop- ment, with benefit of increased assessments to village, was in the overall public interest though the sole physical connection of the property to the village was a contiguous boundary of 200 feet along the village park, under standard of whether parcel and mu- nicipality had requisite unity of purpose and facilities to constitute a community; however, whenever possible, annexation should not follow the fortuitous boundary lines of the land of a single owner who seeks immediate advantage to himself, but the broader lines of divisions based on the planning aspects of the annexation. Gener- al Municipal Law §§ 703, 712. 47 Frank J. Mack, Huntingten, for petition- er. John J. Lee, Jr., Warwick, for respondent. Before HOPKINS, Acting P. J., and LA- THAM, DAMIANI and RABIN, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. In a proceeding pursuant to section 712 of the General Municipal Law to determine whether the proposed annexation of certain territory in the Town of Warwick by the Incorporated Village of Warwick is in the over-all public interest, wherein this court, by order dated September 29, 1975, desig- nated Justices DONOHOE, TRAINOR and SIRIGNANO as Referees to hear and re- port their findings of fact and conclusions of law, petitioner moves inter alia to con- firm the report of the Referees that the proposed annexation is in the over-all public interest, and respondent cross-moves inter alia to reject the said report. Motion granted and cross motion denied, without costs or disbursements, and it is determined that the proposed annexation is in the over-all public interest. This proceeding for the annexation of the "Card Farm", a parcel of approximately 144 acres in the Town of Warwick, to the Incor- porated Village of Warwick, follows a fa- miliar pattern. The owner desires to devel- op the property--here as a multi-family condominium--and pleads that the develop- ment will be difficult because of the lack of a municipal water supply and sewer system in the town. The village possesses both and desires the benefit which would be derived from increased tax assessments. The prop- erty has no inhabitants. However, here the sole physical connec- tion of the property to the village is a contiguous boundary of 200 feet along a village park. A parcel known as the "McFarland Farm" separates the remaining land under consideration from the viIlage. The report of the Referees justly describes the village boundary lines, reflecting previ- ous annexations as well as the present an- nexation, as resembling "a pane of glass EXHIBIT 25 48 393 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES that has been shattered by a hammer." We have noted on a prior occasion our belief that baroque annexations should be avoided (Matter of Common Council of City of Mid- dletown v. Town Bd. of Town of Wallkill, 29 A.D.2d 561, 286 N,Y.S.2d 369; cf. People ex rel. Cherry Val. Fire Protection Dist. v. City of Rockford, 120 Ill. App.2d 275, 256 N.E.2d 653; Township of Owosso v. City of Owosse, 385 Mich. 587, 189 N.W.2d 421; Town of Mt. Pleasan~ v. City of Racine, 24 Wis.2d 41, 127 N.W2d 757; Reafsnyder v. City of Warsaw, 155 Ind.App. 455, 293 N.E.2d 540). The statute provides that the territory to be annexed must be adjoining the munici- pality seeking annexation (General Munici- pal Law, § 703; Matter o£ Common Council of Cit.;' o£ Gloversville v. Town Bd. of Town of Johnstown, 32 N.Y.2d 1, 4, 342 N.Y.S2d 841, 843, 205 N.E.2d 644, 645). The Court of Appeals has said that one of the ele- ments to be considered in an annexation proceeding is "whether or not the annexing local government and the territory to be annexed have the requisite unity of purpose and facilities to constitute a community" (Ma[ten of Common Council of City o£ Glo- versviile v. Town Bd. of Town of Johnstown, 32 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 342 N.Y.S.2d 841, 844, 295 N.E.2d 644, 646, supra). Judged by this standard, the report of the Referees recommending annexation has merit. Nevertheless, a cautionsW note must be added. Annexations of territories pose im- portant issues, bearing on the proper geo- graphic and economic division of the bulk of land lying outside of centers presently served by the facilities necessary for land development. Piecemeal annexation, bene- fiting one property owner alone, may well result ultimately in municipal boundaries not in accordance with proper planning cfi- teria. Hence, wherever possible, annexa- tion should not follow the fortuitous bound- ary lines of the land of a single owner who seeks immediate advantage to himself, but the broader lines of divisions based on the planning aspects of the annexation. 56 A.D.2d 930 In the Matter of Robert W. DAMINO, Appellant, COUNTY OF NASSAU, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. March 28, 1977. Proceeding was brought pursuant to Article 78, inter alia, to prohibit county from hiring physician aa medical director of county department of mental health. The Supreme Court, Nassau County', dismissed proceeding, and petitioner appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that county did not act unlawfully in em- ploying physician as medical director of county department of mental health pursu- ant to personal services contract, rather than filling position by appointment accord- ing to merit and fitness after competitive examination. Affirmed. 1. Officers ~=~11.1 County did not act unlawfully in em~ ploying physician as medical director of county department of mental health pursu- ant to personal services contract; rather than filling position by appointment accord- ing to merit and fitness after competitive examination. Const. art. 5, § 6: Civil Ser- vice Law § 50; Laws 1936, e. 879. 2. Officers ¢:~11.1 Although appointment according to standard civil service procedures is the rule, neither constitutional mandate nor statuto- ry enactment requires that all services fur- nished or all labor performed for govern- mental agency be supplied by persons di- rectly employed. 3, Injunction ~=~114(3) Injunctive relief would not be proper in proceeding to prohibit respondent county from hiri its depar personal er failed 7802(e). Willia~ pellant. Willis: (William Mineola. Befor~ and COt MEM~ In a [ 78 inte~ hiring Direcrol Nassau dismiss* Judff disburs, of ape spende claims Reichn poin~m York Civil S Altho~ dard , "neith furnis win ; 135. 1: also i) ty 712 691 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 199~, which dismissed the proceeding and, b~ter aiiu, declared thut it is not endtled to a mining permit fl0r that portion of its property which is situated in the Town of Pawling, Dutchess County. ORDERED that the jud~nent is al'- firmed, ~th costs. As noted ~n the prior appeal in this matmr, the central issue in this litigation is "whether the respondent New York State Depa~ment of En~onmentai Conse~'a- tion (hereinafter the DEC), pre~ously ~anted a mining permit encompassing all or par~ of the petitioner's 370-acre p~cel located in the Tox~ of Pawling, Du~chess County" (Matter of Pattersm~ Materials Co*T. v. Zagat~ 237 A.D.2d 366, 367, 655 N.Y.S.2d 7I). Upon our re~%w of the record now before us, we a~'ee ~fith the Supreme Court tha~ no such pemit was ever issued by ~he DEC. Rather, the record establishes that dmSng the perti- nent period. 1980 through ~981, the DEC merely renewed the petitioner's mining permk x~h respect to an adjacent 3~acre p~cel in the Tox~m of Patterson, Putnam CounW. This conclusion is supposed hy the ske-plan map submitted ~ pm't of the May 5, 1981, application to renew the per- mit on the Putnam County site, the cover- ~g letter for the pm~it issued on May 13, 1981, as well as by the permi~ itself, which states ~hat "~here ~s no m'atexSal change in pemk conditions or scope of pemnk actM- ties" (~ee, ECL 70-011512]; Matter of Fletcher Gravel Co. e. Jorling, 179 A.D.2d 286, 583 N.Y.S.2d 329; Matter of G~ptill Holding Corp. v. Williams, 140 A.D.2d 12, 531 N.Y.S.2d 648; Matter of Atlantic Ce- ment Co. v. Williams, 129 A.D.2d M, 516 N.Y.S.2d 523). ~ applicadon to e~end mining to the 37~acre pm'cd in Dutchess CourtW, dated July 10, 1980, had been refe~ed ~o the Planning Board of the To~m of Pawling (hereinafter the Planning Bo~d). With DEC approval, the Planning Bo~d had been declared the lead agency for the purpose of review under the State En~5- ronmen~l Quality Review Ac~ (see, ECL article S). The petitimu,' reiies on thi~ application as proof ~t' the is>~aecc of a permit thc the 3T0-aere site. However, the application before the Phemin~ Bo~ was never ~'anted and was ulLima~ly abandoned by the petitioner. Theref~ the petitioner's reliance on tl~e application dated July 10, 1980. is misplaced. The petitioner's remaining eomenfiom are ~(thout merit (see, ECL 70-0109[41}. 2a4 A.D.2d 519 In the Matter of BOARD OF TRUST. EES, VILLAGE OF SPRING VALLEY, petitioner, TOWN OF RAMAPO, et al., respondents; Yeshivath Kehilath Yakov of Monsey, Inc., intervenor. Supreme Cmn't, Appellate Division. Second Depm~ment. Aug. 30. 1!)99. Village sought approval ,of ik~ posed annexation of a i2-acre portion 18-acre island of town ten'itory whici~ entirely surrotmded by village te~tJt~ Referees were designated to hear ter, and after they issued a m~ recommending approval and a port recommending disapproval, lage moved to con£u'm the rnajoti~ and the town cross-moved to majority report. The Supreme pellate Division, held that would allow the village to zoning designation, it was all public interest. Motion denied, cross-mottoa and minority report confu'med-' ~ *! EXHIBIT 26 BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. TOWN OF RAMAPO 713 filed dissenting memoran- uet, N.Y. I Joel L Scheinert] of counsel), for petitioner. /dan M. Simon, Tox~m Attorney, Suffern N.Y. (Janiee G/ttelman and Michael L. l Corporations ~::~33(~) Klein of counsel), for respondents. establishing that an annex~ the overall public interest is on WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, &P., seeking the annexation. MYRIA_M J. AL.~MAN, SANDRA J. ~renera Municipal Law § 712. FEUERSTEIN and NANCY E. SMITH, orations ¢:~29(3) dc~ ~ -mine whether a proposed an~ MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. :...n the eYre'all public interest, Proceeding pursuant to General Munici- e~a~ ..,..st weigh the benefit or det~- pal Law § 712 for annexation of certain l,...:.~ annexing municipality, to the territory in the To,xna of Ramapo by the ~,r posed to be annexed, and to Village of Spring Valley and to determine I gm,ernmental unit from which the mr- whether the annexation is in the overall , would be taken. MeKinney's Gener- public interest. Th~s court, by order dated Municipal Law § 712. March 28, 1997, designated the Honorable Municipal Corporations ~29(3) Isaac Rubin, the Honorable Harold Wood, and the Honorable Guy Parisi, as Referees V llage's proposed annexation of a to hear and report their findings of fact portion of a 18~aere island of totem and conclusions of law. The Referees which was entfl-ely surrounded have complied with this comb's order, issu- · village ten'itory was not in the overall ins a majority report, dated September 18, interest where it would have al- 1998 (Referees Rubin and Parisi), finding the ~41lage to avoid the town's zen- that the annexation is in the overall public of the island for detached semi-detached residences, particularly interest and recommending approving the considering that there was no evidence annexation, and a minority report dated 9 that the land could not be developed as it September 30, L98 ~,Referee Wood), find- w~ cum-curly zoned, that ~e totem would ins that the annexation is not in the overall likely lose revenue from annexation, that public interest and recommending disap~ the sun'ounding area contained detached printing the annexation. The petitioner moves to confirm the majority report and residences, and that not including tbe re- the respondent cross-moves to disaffirm maining six acres imdted further repetitive the majority' report. annexation litigation. McKinne?s General Municipal Law§ 712. ORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further, 4. lumc~pal Corporat~ons¢:~29(3) ORDERED that the cross motion is Annexation may not be used as a ga'anted; audit is further, means by which the o~mer of land in one municipality may escape the effect of that ADJUDoED that the minority report of ume~paht3 s local legislation by haxing Referee Wood is confirmed, without costs the land transferred to an adjoining munic- or disbursements, and it is adjudged that ipality MeKinney's General Municipal the proposed annexation is not in the over- Law ,~ 712. all public interest. The petitioner Board of Trustees of the Village of Spring Valley (hereinafter the h~sn~z Dement, Village Attorney Village), commenced annexation proeeed~ (Schwa~'tz, t4t~bb & Scbeinert, PLLC, Nan- ings seeking to annex approximately 1:2 714 acres ot' hind which lie within the Town of t-lamapo /hereinafter the Town~. The property soug'ht~ to be annexed was a pnr- lion of an lS-aere "island" of territory belon~ng to the Totem which is entirely surrounded by tendtoW belon~ng to the Village. The owner of the remaining slx- acre parcel did not join in this proceeding. The subject propemy is presently zoned R-IS by ~he Town, which allows, ivter alia. for single-family, detached residences on lots of 15,000 square feet amd single- family, semi-detached residences on lots of 10,000 squane Ibet. The intem'enor, Yeshi- vath Kehilath Yakov of Monsey, Inc., the o~mer of the subject property, wants to develop eight acres of the 12-aero parcel by constructing appro~mately 110 at- tached, five-bedroom residences, which would not currently be permitted in the Town's R-15 zone. The intmwenor never applied to the Tox~m for re-zoning of ~he parcel or a vaNanee to accommodate the use k intends. The Village, in anticipation of annexation, has enacted an R-5 zone which would pemit ~he development of the t>~e of housing the inte~'enor seeks. The Village has never before had such a zoning desi~ation, which is not eonsisten~ ~th the land use of those portions of either the Village or the Tox~m that adjoin the subject pareeh Moreover, as of the date of this proceeding, no application had been made for development under that zone [1,2] The burden of establishing that an annexation is in the overall public inter- est is on the munidpality seeking the an- nexation (see, Matter of Board (:f T~stees of Vii. of }?~m~iek ~. Tower Bal. qf Tow~ of Wamcick, 244 A.D.2d 332, 663 N.Y.S.2d 29% To detemine whether a proposed annexation is in the overall public in~erest, the eoum must weigh the benefit or detri- ment to the anne~ng municipality, to the temtory proposed to be annexed, and to the governmental unit from which the ter- 2tory would be taken (see, Board of Trust- ees of Vii. oJ' Pommm v. To~ of Ramapo, 171 A.D,2d 861,567 N.Y.S.2d 791). [3,41 Applying those principles to the ease at bar, the annexation is not in the overall public interest. AZmexati~m may not be used aa a means by which the owner of land in one municipality malt escape the effect of that municipality's esl legislation by haxdng the land trails. ferred to an adjoining municipality of Vii. of Skanea~eles r. Town of Skane~. te&~, 115 A.D.2d 282, 496 N.Y.S.2d Here, no evidence was presented indic~t. lng that the land cannot be developed ~ currently zoned. Additionally, the T~ Assessor testified that the Tox~m wool benefit financially if the property w~ veloped ~4thout annexation, but woald l~ revenue if it is developed under jmdsdietion follo~4ng the proposed at]on. Moreover, the m'ea surrounding t~ subject parcel contains single-family ~ two*famSy detached residences would comqict ~5th the intended R~ The Village may not use annexation a* dex4ce to avoid the duly-enacted and ~ stitutionally-valid zoning ordinance of ~ T{mm. Finally. the proposed annexa~ does not include the remaining six atws the entire parcel, thus ~5ting further ~ petitive annexation litigation. The Village's remaining contentions without mefiL THOMPSON. J.P.. FEUERSTEIN. ~ SMITH. JJ.. concur. ALTM.~LN, J.. dissents and v,~w* ~ grant the motion, deny the cross mOl~z', and confirm the majority repor~ mending annexation, with the memorandum: ~7 I conclude ~hat the petitioner burden of proving that the prol~J nexation is in the overall public and therefore would eonfi~ report of the Referees. The benefits to the Village of Valley (hereinafter the Village). of Ramapo (hereinafter th 12-acre pm-eel proposed to be outweigh any detriment. Both and the Village, as well as the ~ School [ Iago, an~! under Vi wouhl ob 213, 5:12 N Y 5.2, KENNEDY v. CITY OF YONKERS School District (hereinafter the would benefit economical- annexation. At present, the ow:Wd by a not-for-profit reli- ~la;:'a:. ' and used for educational ts ',., exempt. Although sewer urn': ..' paid, the Tax, m, the Vii- , ~ thc z-,c:,ool District receive no tax Development of the property Village zoning would maximize the tax revenue for the Tow'n, Vii- and the School District (see, Matter of T,il~tecs qf Vil. of YVamc~ck v. , Bi qfTmto~ qfWar~eick. 244 A. D2d 663 N.Y.S.2d 297). While the Tox~-n woukl receix e gq'eater tax revenues if were deYeloped under its znn- laws, ti~e School District would receive less revenue and the Village '~ tax revenues. The proxq- of municipal se~Mces u411 be essential- unaffected hy the proposed annexation. The annexation of the parcel would also ~.e"(substannally chromate the e~stenee of an · l,md of Tox,q~ pt ope~v eompleteN- sur- =unded by 5 filage prope~y. Such mqoe" boundaries ~re not fa¥ored (Co,i- mo~t Co~oic;~~ Q/ d it~! oF MiddIetoo,~i v. tow,~ Ed. q/' Tolt,i of WaI[kill. 143 A.D.2d 215, 532 N.Y.S.2d 17: Matter qf Board q/ Tn~,s~ee,~ r. To/c~ Bal.. 5~ A.D.2d 928, N.Y.S.2d 47: Matter qf Commo~i Coio*cil v. Toa'}i Bal.. 29 A.D.2d 561, 286 N.Y.S.2d 369). Akhough an additional s/x-acre par- eel of Town prepe~xy woald still remain, it appem.s likely that an application to annex that propel%- would be made. The fact that annexauon might occur in a piecemeal f~hi~n doe~ not. under the circumstances, suggest that annexation is not in the public lute.est The remaining similarly-situated parcel is much smaller in size and its exfstenef in no way minimizes the advan- ~ges to am~exadon of the parcel herein. In an;. .x<. u successive applications for prop q'L arc n<,t precluded tsee, General Tit, ?:o-etd which is proposed to he an next,,i mM ibc Village also have the requi- 715 site unity of purpnse [o constitute a com- munity (see, Matter of Crewman Cottncil q£ City of G~oversrille v. Town Bck qf Town of Johnstowlt. 32 N.Y.gd 1, 6, 342 N.Y.S.2d 841, g~5 N.E.gd 344; Matter of V~lta~e of Elm~ford e. Tolert of Greenburgk 164 A.D.2d 914, 916 559 N.Y.S.2d 750). As indicated, annexation would join the prop- erty to die surrounding Village. Further, residential development of the paxcel ~s consistent 'aqth ;he surrounding area (see, Matter of Board qf Tv~stees qf Vil. of Wamdck v. Tow, Rd. of Town of Warwick, sizpr~ '244 A.D.2d, at 333~q34, 663 N.Y.S.2d 297). In addition, the opportuni- ty afforded by ~he proposed annexation to develop the property xdth multibedroom homes would satisfy the needs of a grow- ing segnnent of the population in the eom- munity. V/Zile the property could be de- veloped residentially under existing To,am zoning laws, the permissible construction would not meet such community needs. Unquestionabl.,:, annexation woulil permit the property ox~mer to take advantage of the VfIlage's less restrictive zoning laws. However, the numerous additional bene- fits--mmximum aggregate tax revenues. the eventual elimination of an unnatural boundary, and the creation of housing fro' a grox~4ng segn-nent of the communitY--dis- tinguish this case from Matter q£ 15"lIage qf Ska~eatelcs r. Town of Ska~catclea. 115 A.D.2d 282. 496 N.Y.S.2d 185, relied upon by my colleagues in the majority. 204 A.D 2d 507 · lames Wayne KENNEDY, etc., respondent, CITY OF YONKERS, appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate DMsion, Second Department. Aug. 30, 1999. in action to recover damages for per- sonal in]urles, the Sapreme (Mart. Vi st- VILLAGE OF SKANEATELES v. TOWN OF SKANEATELES ~o~er's proof did not conclusively rule out ~ by other black males. Furthermore, tl~ HLA test here is inconclusive and of no ~iztance in helping to establish paternity. We should give great weight and deference W the fact-finder's determination as to the a~dibility of witnesses (see Matter offer- ~on v. Gonyou, 110 A.D.2d 1084, 489 · N.Y.S.2d 30; Matter ofKaren K. v, Chris- topher D., 89 A.D.2d 955, 956, 454 N.Y. SAki 99; Matter of Susan W. v. Arnhad Q., · $5 A.D.2d 594, 409 N.Y.S.2d 262, lv. denied 4~ N.Y.2d 1037, 416 N.Y.S.2d 587, 389 N.E.2d 1107). In his decision, the judge recognized the permissible inference that he was entitled te draw against respondent based upon her failure to testify. The court chose not to draw such a negative inference reasoning that "In order to defend herself, [respon- dent] would have to show access by other men. There is the likelihood that such a · defense would require the respondent to admit to prostitution. Since petitioner has · already testified on this issue, against his interest, there is no reason why the respon- dent should be required to put in any more of a defense." Since the inference is clear- ]y a permissible one which Family Court was aware of but chose not to apply, we should do likewise. Thus, in my view, the record supports Family Court's conclusion that petitioner did not carry his burden of proving paterni- ~ by a preponderance of the evidence. Order reversed on the law and facts ~qthout costs and petition granted. 185 115 A.D.2d 282 Matter of VILLAGE OF SKANEA- TELES, New York, Petitioner, and Francis E. Sheehan, Intervenor, TOWN OF SKANEATELES, New York, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Nov. 15, 1985. Original proceeding for annexation was brought. The Supreme Court, Appel- late Division, held that annexation by v~l- lage of property located in town to avoid restrictive effect of town's zoning ordi- nance would not be in overall public inter- est. Judgment for town. Doerr, J., filed a dissenting memoran- dum. Municipal Corporations ~=29(3) Annexation by village of Iandov~er's property in town would not be in overall public interest where sole reason for an- nexation was to avoid restrictive effect of town zoning ordinance. Edward W. Lavery, Skaneateles, for peti- tioner. Bryant, O'Dell & Basso, by John Bryant, Syracuse, for respondent, John M. Shannon, Skaneateles, for inter- venor. Before DILLON, PJ., and HANCOCK, DOERR, GREEN and SCHNEPP, JJ. MEMORANDUM: For the reasons stated in the report of the dissenting referee, Honorable John F. Lawton, J.S.C., we find that the annexation would not be in the overall public interest. As noted in the dissent, the sole reason that the village and the intervening proper- ty owner seek annexation is to avoid the EXHIBIT 27 186 496 NEW YORK SUPPI.EMENT, 2d SERIES restrictive effect of the Town Zoning Ordi- nance on the 2.852 acres of intervenor's property situated in the town by removing the 2.852 acres from the town and adding it to the territory of the village where the znning ordinance is favorable. The town ordinance was duly enacted, and no ques- tion is raised as to its validity or constitu- tionality. We have found no precedent ap- proving the use of annexation as a device by which the owner of land in one munici- pality may escape the effect of that munici- pality's local legfislation by having the land transferred to an adjoining municipality. All concur, except Doerr, J., who dissents and votes to confirm the report, in the following Memorandum: I respectfully disagree. It is well settled that the burden of proof that annexation is in the overall public interest (General Mu- nicipal Law § 705, subd. 1, par. e) is on the municipality seeking the annexation (Mat- ter of Town of Lansing v. Village of Lan- sing, 80 A.D.2d 942, 438 N.Y.S.2d 29; Mat- ter of City of Ogden.sburg v. To~m of Oswegatchie, 76 A.D.2d 1012, 1013, 429 N.Y.S.2d 488, lv. denied 51 N.Y.2d 706, 433 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 413 N.E.2d 369). Testimo- ny adduced at trial supportsd the conclu- sion that the Village and the parcel to be annexed have sufficiently similar qualities to be considered inter-related, which sup- ports the finding that they have the requi- site unity of purpose and facilities to consti- tute a community (Matter of Common Council of City of Glove~ville v. Town Bd~ of Town of Johnstow~ 32 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 342 N.Y.S.2d 841, 295 N.E.2d 644). The record further demonstrates that the por- tion of the Town where this two-plus-acre parcel of land is located does not fit the rural ideal that the Town envisions, but is already commercially developed with gas stations, an automobile dealership and a boat yard. In my view, in support of the majority report of the referees, the trial testimony disclosed that in 1983 the Village construct- ed a waste water treatment plant that cost approximately $1.5 million, of which it bore approximately 10% of the cost. Obviously, annexation of the Town parcel would ex- pand the Village tax base and help pay for the waste water treatment plant. While the net increase of tax revenues on the subject parcel might not be great, it is a benefit and should be considered (Town Bd. of Town of Brighton v. City Council of City of Rochester, 59 A.D.2d 1041, 1042, 399 N.¥.S.2d 793). To this issue the Town argues that an- nexation is not necessary for water and sewers to be provided to the To~m parcel by the Village because the Town could create a sewer district to provide for these services utilizing the Village waste water treatment plant. However, the Town Su- pervisor testified that no new districts had been created since the Village treatment plant commenced operation, and, feasibility studies concerning the creation of sewer districts were just beginning. Clearly, the Town has not reached the stage where these services could be provided immediate- ly (see City of Batavia v. To~*m of Batavia, 45 A.D.2d 203, 357 N.Y.S.2d 277 lv. denied 35 N.Y.2d 644, 364 N.Y.S.2d i025, 324 N.E.2d 370), nor was it indicated that such services would be available by the Town within the reasonably foreseeable future. The evidence further developed that if a Town sewer ~tistrict was, in fact, formed at some future date to service the subject property, the Town would be required to reimburse the Village for a pro rata share of the capital cost of the water treatment plant, but under annexation the Village would not recover capital costs. The bene- fit to the Town is apparent, especially since increased tax revenues on the subject proP- erty would not enure only to the Village, as above mentioned, but also to the Town. I agree w~th the majority finding of the referees that the Village has exercised a high degree of responsib~]ity in construct- ing a new sewage treatment plant and pr~ viding the service to the Town. The Town has a concomitant obligation to encoUrag~ development, to help pay for these servie~, By adopting a low-density ~oning requi~- ment the Town discourage~ development ~!1 the subject area. Only one residence could To~ the insi der: whi R tion tion allo owr proI rio n inet pay pier spec peti~ R~ of b ~ld *ay for While ,n the ~uncil · 1042, ir and parcel could - these water sibility where e. diate- 2ravia, 'lenied 5, 324 .t such Town future. ~t if a :ned at ~ubject red to ~'illage : prop- , ~g'e, as Town. of the ised a urage could PEOPLE v. WHITE Cite as ~96 N,Y.S.2d 187 (A.D. 4 Dept. 198~) be built on the subject property under the Town zoning plan and it is questionable whether any building would take place thereon since the plot is landlocked. I fail to see how the annexation of this relatively insignificant parcel of land would work as a detriment to the overall Town zoning plan, which covers an area of almost 40 square miles. Reviewing this record as a whole, it be- comes readily apparent that a major objec- tion of the Town in opposing this annexa- tion is the concern that, if annexation is allowed here, it will encourage others who own land similarly situated to intervenor's properS' to file petitions seel(mg annexa- tion and that the Village, greedy for the increased tax revenues which would help pay for its expensive sewage treatment plant, would be inclined to grant such appli- cations. This argument rests solely on speculation and has nothing to do with the overall public interest. Each annexation petition must be considered on its own mer- its. Report of referees annulled w/thout costs and judgment granted in favor of respondent adjudging that the annexation is not in the overall public interest. 115 A.D.2d 313 PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, Vernon WHITE, Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Nov. 15, 1985. Defendant was convicted in the County Court, Onondaga County, Cunningham, J., of bail jumping in first degree, and he appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate 187 Division, held that: (i) trial court correctly refused to admit evidence concerning fendant's culpable mental state; (2) evi- dence was sufficient to support finding of defendant's awareness of scheduled sen- tencing date; and (3) trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order new presentence investigation. Affirmed. 1. Bail ~=~97(1) Crime of first-degree bail jumping does not require proof of any culpable mental state. McKinney's Penal Law § 215.57. 2. Bail ~'97(3) Evidence was sufficient to support finding that defendant convicted of first<le- gree bail jumping, McKinney's Penal Law § 215.57 was aware of scheduled sentenc- ing date, where it was uncontradicted that defendant's counsel had knowledge of sen- tencing date set for defendant. 3. Criminal Law q:=730(7), 1171.3 Trial court's failure to strike argument of assistant district attorney that defend- ant had appeared in court on each occasion but date for sentencing was error, where there was no evidence in record supporting such argument, but under all circumstanc- es and in light of strong evidence of guilt error was harmless. 4. Criminal Law ~:=986.4(2) Trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order new presentence investi- gation under McKinney's CPL § 390.20, subd. 1, in prosecution for first<legree bail jumping, McKinney's Penal Law § 215.57, where trial court had presentence investi- gation which it had used two months be- fore in sentencing defendant on burglary charge, in interim defendant had been con- tinuously confined, and court could be as- sured on sentencing for bail jumping that there was no new relevant inforraation. McKinney's CPL § 390.20, subd. 1. Gerald T. Barth, Syracuse, for appellant. Richard Hennessy, Jr., by John Cirando, Syracuse, for respondent. Figure B-4 Town of Southold Fire Districts Legend ~ Tax Parcel [-----] Fire District Scale: I inch equals 9000 feet Map Created: May 2003 Map Prepared by Town of Southold Geographic Information System May 27, 2003 {~ ~ COI~I~IGHT 2002, C~ of Suffo~, N.y. EXHIBIT 29 F~ nport FD Fishers Island !1% 4,9 S0-2 .so-2o .S__O_-~.~ S0-21 Beixedon EXHIBIT 31 § 24-0101 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Art. 24 Practice Commentaries by Philip Weinberg The Freshwater Wetlands Act, requiring a permit to alter or place fill in the state's freshwater wetland areas, should be considered in conjunction with its slightly eider sibling, the Tidal Wetlands Act, A~-ticle 25. Many provisions are parallel. The practitioner should note one major difference: the freshwater act may be enforced by localities. The state steps in only after local authorities fail to enact an ordinance protecting their wetlands. See § 24-0501 and the Commentaries thereto. In contrast, the Tidal Wetlands Act is administered wholly by the Department. As the strong legislative declaration of policy (§ 24-0103) and statement of findings (§ 24-0 i05} make clear, the Act constitutes a recognition by the Legislature o[ the vital importance of con- serving New York's remaining wetland areas, needed for storm and flood control, habitat propagation, selvage disposal and re- creation. Cross References Tidal Wetlands Act, shor~ title of, see ECL 25-0101. Law Review and Journal Commentaries Global warming and property interests: ?resetwing coastal wetlands as ws~ rise Fischman. 19 Ho[stra L.Rev 565 (199D. Construction I Notes of Decisions favor of the landowner, people v 1980, IO4 Misc.2d 627, Construction This article is in derogation of ~he cora- raon law and is to be strictly construed in § 24-0103. Declaration of policy It is declared to be the public policy of the state to protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the therefrom, to prevent the despoliation and destru wedands, and to regulate use and development of such secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetlands, the general welfare and beneficial economic, social and development of the state. (Added L.1975, c. 614, § 1.) 336 EXHIBIT 32 .._ l Greenpon 1 A & ~ e Proposed Zoning Changes ~l HD to R80 LB to R80 Scale: 1 inch = 525 feet ~ DEC Wetland Areas Long Island Sound PlO 045-2-10,5 Thomas W. Cromer, Frincipal 476-6955 gox 5595 ~i{~'-- Pice, Ne~, York 11764 Telephone (5 l 6) 476-0954 - ~ (516) August 1l, 1999 Honorable Jean W. Cochraa, Supervisor Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Sou~hold. NY 11971 'Rc: County Route 48 Corridor Land Us~ Study SEQR Findings Statement Dear Supervisor Cochvan: Please find the attacJ~d draR of the SEQR Findings St~*~-~ent for the County Route 48 Corridor Laud Use Study. One bound copy and one original copy has be~n included for your review. The Findings Stntemer~ has been prepared pursuam to the requirements of Part 617.l I of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulatiom which state that no agency shall rnak~ a decision on an aation which has been the subject ora Final GEIS until a written findings statement has been prepared ia regard to the fac~s and conelusians in the Draft and Final GEIS relied upon to support its decision. It is impor~.,~t to note th~, the Findings Statement is in a drait form and, therefore, the eatire do¢.rn~x qhnuld be reviewed in detail and amended as tbe Town Board deems appropriate. Two ._~c3£,ons of the Findings Statemm~ are worthy of particular review. These sections are the reataterr~nt of Recommendations and Opportunities (pages 4 through 9) anti the Review and Implementcalon of Future Specific and Site-~peclfic Actions Related to the Land Use Study (pages 14 through 16). Recommendations and O~pom~nltle~ ~ c~ ~ th;~ ~ ~.~-~-'iom ~t ~ ~ subj~ of~Hc co~ents ~clude ~ e~t~n ~ ~r the Fill GElS ~or F~ Supplemen~l GELS. It ~ su~e~ ~t ~ To~ Bo~d ~w ~ ~t~u ~ derail ~ pmvMe ~t~ ~a or c~inn ~ ~ ~ ~e~. Review and Implementation of Future Specific and Site-Specific Actions Related to the SEQRA regulations 617.10(b) and (c) ~ thai GEISs and their finainss should ~ forth specific conditions or crit~a~ ,,,~,-~ which future a~ions will be undertaken or approved, including requlxem~ntm for any mubr~iuent SEQR ~omplianee, Impae~ of individual actions proposed to be eaixied out in coulbrmance with the Land Use Study EXHIBIT 34 -- The Town Code should be amended with respect to non-conforming uses. Im certain axeas, parcels can be found where the existing use does not conform with the existing zoning. In cases where the use became nonconforming due to a zone change, provisions can be made to allow for limited expansion of that use or pemzit a change of use to a less intensive non-conforming use. Applicants requestng expansion or change of use could make si~e improvements as mitigation for the request. Thcs~ site improvements are anticipated to improve the visual character of thc area as wctl as improve traffic flow and other undesirable effects of the non-conforming usc. As stated on pages 4-13 and 4-14 of the Final GELS, this recommendation allows for non-conformiag businesses to change, grow a~d remain viabte by permitting expansion and change beyond that vd'ich is commonly pcnnitte, xi. Thc recommendation is not limited to parcels located within the County Route 48 corridor, but instead is intended to be applied to patters throughout thc Town. Re-zone appropriate parcels adjacent to Mattituck Creek to MI and/or zoning eattgary. The 1985 Master Plan Update (RPPW), as well as other past Town of Southold plans and studies, recommends the m~ac~nnent of water-related recreational a~d commercial activities. Opportunities exist ia the vicinity of Maffituck Creek to ~dumce marine recreational and marine bus,ess usage. Re- zoning of certain parcels would allow for viable commercial businesse~ to thxive while taking advantage of the Tovnx's proximity to the water. Mattituck Creek is the only portion of the County Route 48 corridor that may be appropriate for such Pages 2 and 3 of the Supplemental Final GEIS acknowledg~ that thc southern end of Ma~ilLuck Creek co~tai~ environmental resources that are sensitive to developlzlenL It La important to note that the recommendation for a chanEe of zone does not commit, the Town to a course of action that will r~sult in adverse environmental ixnpacls. Prior to tl~ re-zoning of parcels consistent with the County Route 48 Corridor Land Usc Stud), and thc Master Plafl Update, the recommendation to re-zone should u~iergo SEQK review to detem~ue that sutti¢icnt d~v¢lopabl¢ IA,~d exists on the sit~ for reasombl¢ development with appwpria~ mitigation measures. The ultimate development plan for the site should undergo additional SEQR r~'view and must take into account site-specific characteristics incluaino..; but not limited to, site size, configuration, drainage, surrounding land ~ noise, traffic and proximity to we'daads. Sl~'cific mitigation measures including site design constraints and limited penniu~ uses would b~ appropriat~ at that time. · lYeserv¢ thc Integrity of the Town's vegetative habitats, includingfre#hwatee The recommendations to promote incentive zonlnE and clustering may be used to continue to pre~:rv¢ fr~shwatm w~-tlands, woodlands and other ecologically important habiuits. It may be appropriate to re-zone parccis contah:dng or adjacent to these habitaxs to altow for lower impact uses. Proposals to implcmant inccntive zoning and non-comiguous clustering should undergo SEQK review and public comment period to identify potzntial adverse environmental impacts prior to irnplemen~ation. Modify the Town Code to allow other uses in vineyards under spectal Addltloual uses including restaurants and bed & b.reakfaats may be allowed under special exemption/special permit as long as yield is provided from other parcels. This recommendation is i~tended to draw consumers into the Town of Southold by promoting thc Town as an agricultural and winemaking region. The recommendation does not suggest the sale of non-agricultural products th~ would otherwise be more appropfiaely sold in other zoning districts or the sale of take- out food. ModOCy the Town Code to Itmit curb cuts to one per slt~ unless unusual clrcumstance.~ An i~c~ease in thc number of curb cuts typically has a negative impact on trafftc flow. By limiting the numbe~ of cu/o cuts, particularly along County Route 4g and Sound Avenue, impacts to traffic flow a~e anticipated to be limited. Requlre links between the parking areas of commercial operations to allow for vehicle movement between adjacent establishments. This recommendation can be applied at the time of site plan review for appmprlate ~ites. The requl~u~ent will have the effect of m'dueing the number of vehicles entering and exiting County Route 48 and Sound Avenue. · Require that subdivided residential lots acces~ side ~oatis and not directly W County Route 4~, where approprla~ A_~ noted earlier, an increme in the number of curb cuts generally has a negative impact on the flOW of traffic. This recumm~a~tlon in effect to. duces the number of curb cuts on County Route 48 and Sound Avenue. Where appropriate, comider the use of flag lots with common drives for reside~tial development. Silnilar to ~ tecommctadation above, the use of common driv~ effectively reduces the number of curb cuts on County Route 48 and Sound Avenue. 9 Summary of Changes in Land Use Characteristics As a Result of Proposed Re-Zonings NOTE; Estimates do not figure roads, drainage, parking, etc. Computations are based on a straight arithmetic computation based on percent of lot coverage for the commercial zonings and minimum lot size for residential zonings, as allowed in the code. Actual yield under a detailed site pian and/or subdivision may be less. When several uses are allowed in a zoning district the uses allowing the greatest coverage was chosen. When yield]density is based on having certain site improvements, utilities, etc. available on site it was assumed these requirements were · - falfilled. Estimated quantities represent maximum potential-yield. This estimate does include any wetland areas that may be found on site, actual development would exclude those area. Mattituck lA LB RS0 23.41 70.45 15 39 203.947 613,761 1.46 19.079 4.41 56,322 3.47 45,346 3.35 59,982 1.11 /4,506 5 22 11,76 t 1.42 Mattituck lB LIe RS0 Mattituck 2A LI HB 25,440 LI Re 37,549 Manituck 2C LI LB 30,230 Matlituck 2D L1 R40 6 Matlituck 2E B Re 9,67 I Mattimck 2F B & R40 i Mil 78,016 6 Mattituck 2G R40 Re 12,371 3 Peconic 1A B Re 1.36 17.772 11,849 .................... Pecenic IB B LB 3.18 41,556 27,704 Peconic 2A R40 Re 4.3 37,462 6 P 959 nj c _2_B__ R40 HB 3.21 : 55,931 5 Peconic 2D R80 HB 0.25 4,356 1 Peconic 2E RS0 . RO I 8,712 Southold I LB Re 2.11 18,383 : 18.383 Southold 2A AC Re :3.75 32,670~ ............ _3_ oumold 2B LB Re ~-' ---~-0~98~---- 60,984 Southold 2C L1 AC 4 52.272 3 Southold 3 ~ LB AC , I 8,712 Southold 4A LB ; Re : 06 96,355 .; 96,355 Southold 4B B LB , 0.92 12 023 · 8015 Southold 4C B RO 5.96 77,886 51,925 Southold5A B ' LB 13.31 173,936 ~ 115,957 Southold 5B B RO ~ 2.12 27,703 ~ 18,470 Southold 6 B RO . _ 4.6~2~6J3,374 [ 40,249 G_reen~p_o_rt__lA., ..~ ~80. ! 18.75 ~ 81 ** I 1. G. r£ e_n pp_ r t~2_A__ ._. _R.~ _0_ ........ ; _38~0 '3'[9 : ........ L ...... 6 6 ~rcjn_p_~n_2~B ,_.H_D. ...... :_R_89_ ....... Ii.5_ _, ................ ! 59'5 6. Greenport3A ] LB : RS0 11.6 101,059 I 6 Greenporl 3B HD RS0 2.61 ! I I** 2 TOTALS i 272.74 17952,969 ,, 813~488 264 120 * - Includes Industrial, Office, and Business Uses. ** - Multi-Family Units. F TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY ROUTE 48 CORRIDOR LAN~ USE STUDY Prepared £or: The Town Board of the Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Jean W. Cochran William D,Moore Supervisor Deputy Supervisor Lousia P. Evans Alice J Hussie William D.Moore Brian C. Murphy John M, Romanelli Councilwoman Councilwoman Councilman Councilman Councilman Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Prepared by: Cramer Consulting Group, Inc. P.O. Box 5535 Miller Place, New York 11764 Pr/ncipal Authors: Thomas W. Cramer, ASLA Kenneth Weiner APRIL 1999 EXHIBIT 35 most of County Route 48 go through a transition in this area to more residential, with large trees lining the roadway. Greenport Hamlet Parcels to the north of County Route 48 between Albertson Drive and Moore Lane are primarily developed for residential use. Many of these parcels front directly on Long Island Sound. Within this same area, two hotels and one condominium complex take advantage of the views of Long Island Sound. Some of the parcels within 1,000 feet to the south of County Route 48 are within the jurisdiction of the Village of Greenport. These parcels are not within the scope of this study. Of the parcels to the south of County Route 48 between Albertson Drive and Moore Lane that are not within the Village of Greenport, most are vacant or in residential use. San Simeon nursing home and Eastern Long Island Kampgrounds are also located in this area. It is important to note that many of the parcels south of County Route 48 and west of Moore Lane are zoned HI) and contain freshwater wetlands vegetation. Due to the proximity to the wetlands, these parcels may be more appropriately zoned to lower density. residential uses. East of Moore Lane to the end of the study corridor at Manhasset Avenue, land use involves a mix of low, medium and high-density residential housing. Pheasant Run is a multi-family development located at the southeast comer of County Route 48 and Moore Lane. Four small commemial uses are located within the corridor, fronting on either Champlain Place or County Route 48. Vacant parcels zoned LB and RO have the potential to change the existing character of the area from haznlet residential to a more unplanned mix of commercial and residential. The LB parcel contains a large mansion that would be more appropriately zoned R~80. 33 R~fv_EW OF HAMLET DENSITY ZONING IN SOUTHOLD TOWN Report to the Town Board February 1994 · ' EXHIBIT 36 I 40-3-1 Location: South Side County Route 48, more than 1000' east of Chapel Lane, Greenport Acre_~: 17.1 acres Zonin9 History : Year Rezoned: 6.13.58. The original petition was to change the zone from "A" Residental and Agricultural to "B" Business. Between January and May of 1958, the applicant changed his request to "M" Multiple Residence, which was subsequently granted. The file does ~ot indicate why the property owner asked for the change of zone, nor why the Town Board granted the request. Ownership Histqry. / Year Acquired *Kace Realty Co 3-10-82 Kontakosta 3-10-82 Sanzone (Smith Est) o Brereton ?-?-79 H. Smith & Ano Sledjecki / Miscellany 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 ~EATURES AND L!MITAT%ONS: There is little environmental information in the site plan file. A review of the aerial photograph reveals this to be a heavily wooded parcel which appears to drain in a southerly direction. The topography drops off to the south from 35 feet above sea-level near County Route 48, to about 10 feet at its southernmost point. The property may have freshwater wooded wet- lands on or within close proximity. 1 ~G LAND USES AND ZONING: The property is currently bounded on the north by CR 48; the west and south borders by land owned and zoned by the ViLlage of Greenport as PD or Parkland, and the east border by land zoned R~80. North of CR 48, lies an R-80 district, which contains residential waterfront homes. Within 500 feet of the perimeter of this parcel (but not contiguous) there are properties zoned RR and HD. The RR properties to the northwest, diagonally across CR 48, contain motel and resort condominium uses, along with one residential use and an unfinished mo- tel. San Simeon Nursing Home, which is zoned HD, is about 800 feet to the west. The remainder of the ~ID property to the west is mostly undeveloped, and is one of the parcels under review (Parcel ~7). The KOA Kampground lies due east at a distance of about 500 feet. STA~SS OF DEVELOP,W=~NT: APPROVALS ~ IbVERASTRUCTL~: On July 11, 1983, the Planning Board granted sise plan approval to construc~ 108 dwelling units in 27 build- ings. The property owner has yet to obtain governmen- tal approvals for wa~er, sewer and curb cuts. No building perm/ts are known to have been issued. PUBLIC POLICf: Although ~he subject parcel is adjacent to land owned by the incorporated Village of Greenporu, it lies 4,500 feet or more ( one r~i!e 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 ~he 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 Conse~zat±on. The PD district is defined as follows: "An area reserved for recreational and firematic use by the citizens of the Village of Greenport as regulated by the Park Local Law, and in which Village utilities and other public uses may be maintained and expanded." The only uses permitted within this disurict are: 1) Nature trails 2) Sports playing fields 3) Fire, tic events 4) Utility facilities including necessary appurtances but not limited to: a) wate~ towers b) sewage treatment plants c) electrical pl,%ts 5) Municipally operated camp sites 6) MunicipalLy operated trailer park 7) Watershed maintenance Much of the PD zoned land is environmentally sensitive, freshwater wooded wetland. Given the restrictive nature of the Parkland District, it se~ms inconsistent for the Town to concentrate its highest density residentiak use on the subject parcel. Further, this parcel is not within walking distance of the Village hamlet, and the necessary utilities do not seem to be assu~ed at this time. For these reasons, intense development of the site does not seem to meet with the Goals and Policy Objectives of the Comprehen- sive or Master Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The site could be developed in a manner not requiring multiple density uses. Rezoning to a lower density is recommended. Il ® .j Master Plan Update Summary Town of Sonthold, Suffolk County, New York Town of Southold Planning Board Raymond, Paxish, Pine, & Weiner, Inc. Planning Consultants Tarrytown, New York April 1985 EXHIBIT 37 dunes, mandatory clustering is recommended to assure of these features. ,er, since most of this area is dependent on ground water ~dividual wells, very careful consideration has to be given ~ impact of any proposed development on the ground water ~ity and quantity. ~$ in these areas would be primarily residences with a contin- .~ion of agricultural activities wherever feasible. ~amlet Density Residential The Plan proposes that the major hamlet centers continue to be the residential-business-service centers of the Town. These are also the areas where the Plan reflects the primary effort to provide lower cost housing. Fer purposes of the Plan, the major hamlet centers are Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold and Orient. New Suffolk, Laurel, Peconic and East Marion and Fishers Island are also included as hamlet centers. Each of the hamlet centers, particularly the major hamlet cen- ters, can be characterized as a small residential community comprising a variety of uses and activities, the density of which is dependent primarily upon the level of utility services, characteristics of existing development and the ability to provide moderate cost housing. Greenport, which of course is a separate village, can also be thought of as functioning as a hamlet center. The residential portions of these hamlets (non-residential areas are defined below) can offer opportunities for more intensive and varied housing than in most of the remaining residential areas of the Town. The Hamlet Density ar~as are not shown on the Town-wide plan map, since in the future, sites will become eligible for these higher densities on the basis of three criteria: location relative to the hamlet business area, availability of utilities and provision of moderate cost housing. There are areas shown in the hamlet density residential category cn individual hamlet maps indicating locations where multiple dwellings have already been constructed and/or parcels for which M-Zone approval has been given that are contiguous to the hamlet central business area. Each of the major hamlets has a business center. Generally, the one acre density for residential uses will be retained as the base in the hamlet center areas and within the radius of approxi- mately one-quarter mile from the hamlet business district of Orient and one-half mile from the hamlet business districts of Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold hamlet areas, and one-half mile from the Village of Greenport boundary, a higher density can be 8 applied for only if the criteria outlined here are met. This provides for a reasonable size hamlet community for purposes of planning, for provision of service, interaction among residents and access to various activities· In order to develop properties for residential uses within this area at a density greater than the base density, an approved central water supply is required, and a sewage treatment facility or connection to a sewer system would be needed. Thus, if public water service and sewage treatment were not available, the maximum density permitted would be two units per acre or 20,000 square foot lots for conventional subdivision. If public water and sewage treatment were available, then areas designated as Hamlet. Density could be developed at densities up to four units per acre. To reach maximum indicated densities around the hamlet centers some expansion of the Greenport water and/or sewage treatment systems may be required or the creation of new water supply and distribution systems and sewage treatment systems will be neces- sary. However, the maximum Hamlet bensity development (four units per acre) would be permitted only where necessary utilities are in place or can be assured and where there is the provision of moderate cost housing. The Hamlet Density category is also designed to support the establishment of innovative techniques for getting the optimum use out of existing housing. This could include approaches such as the creation of accessory apartments in homes where owners occupy the premises, appropriate utilities are available and sites are of sufficient size. Lower cost housing can also be achieved by permitting residences on upper floors of commercial buildings in the business areas. Residential/Office Areas in the category of Residential/Office have been designated in the hamlets of Mattituck, Seuthold and Cutchogue. This designation has been used primarily for areas that are currently in mixed use along major roads, but which are not appropriate for commercial or exclusively residential use. These areas serve as a transition between more intensive and less intensive uses. The parcels are generally smaller than those in the office-industrial park category. Residential use will be permitted in these areas at a density, of one unit per acre. Nonresidential uses such as business and professional offices, insurance sales and real estate offices are accommodated in these areas. 9 Draft Generic Environmental Impad~ Statement SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TOWN BO.adtD Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southoid, New York 11971 Volume I of II MAY 2003 EXHIBIT 38 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS Single family and multiple dwellings previously required Special Exception approval by the ZBA. Thc amendments to the General Business (B) District code also added the following to the list of pertained uses and will not require site plan approval by the Planning Board for these uses: one-family detached dwelling not to exceed one dwelling on each lot; and, two-family dwelling not to exceed one dwelling on each lot (which must be occupied by the owner of the property). In addmon, the density and minimum lot size requirements were amended to require larger minimum lot size for residential use. The code previously required Special Exception approval by the ZBA for one-family detached dwellings and did not explicitly permit two-family dwellings. These code amendments indirectly may also allow the addition of apartments as accessory uses in the RO District, which currently allows apartments over businesses and professional offices by Special Exception. As a resuh, the legislation would make such apartments a permitted use in the specified zoning districts, presumably providing an incentive for their construction. Such apartments would still have to meet Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) density requirements for combined commercial and residential uses, which may limit the number of potential units. This measure has been adopted as a part of the Town's overall commitment to addressing affordable housing issues, an important Town goal and part of the Town's comprehensive plan. The adoption of these changes did recognize that improvements can be considered in the future in connection with transfer of development rights under a regional TDR plan reviewed by the Town under SEQRA (see Tool #12), and possible provisions to ensure that apartments are affordable. AHD District Review - The Affordable Housing District (AHD) does not create a permanent supply of affordable dwelling units. Rather, it creates a tentative supply of mid-cost housing that can be bought and later sold on the open market for whatever the market will bear. As a result, the Town is constantly faced with the need to find developers willing to use funds from Federal, State and other programs to offset the rising cost of new land. Incentives for the rehabilitation of eximng housing and the creation of rentals must be provided, as well as for new construction. The target population for AHD must be more carefully defined because currently it does not provide housing for low income residents. Further, the ordinance needs to incorporate alternative approaches such as Community Land Trusts. Finally, the affordability parameters and scale must be amended to reflect changing economic conditions and relate to an appropriate sliding index. B~d-and-Breakfast Establishments - Bed-and-Breakfast's, or B&B's, are popular for overnight accommodations. B&B's typically involve the conversion or construction of up to five bedrooms W~thin a home for guest usage. Homes can be located in any setting, while larger, older homes in historic settings or with unique architectural features have been converted to B&B's. In recent years, several new B&B's have been constructed specifically for this purpose. As the name implies, a fee is paid to the proprietor for overnight lodging and breakfast the next morning. Distinctive B&B's provide an atlJ'active small town alternative to larger commercial motels. A B&B can also provide revenue and employment to the homeowner, thus offsetting high housing costs and real estate taxes. However, B&B's increase the level of activity on a site above that of a Page 1-26 Archaeologically Sensitive Areas Legend E iArchaeologicaily Sensitive 'Areas ~Tax Parcel Scale: 1 inch equals 9000 feet Map Updated: 2002 Map Prepared by Town of Southold Geographic Information System May 28, 2002 Suffolk County Real Property Tax Service Agency GIS Basemap COPYRIGHT 2002, County of Suffolk. N.Y. EXHIBIT 39 SUBJECT PROPERTY'-) Fishers Island Town of Southold Long Tsland New FZNAL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LOCAL WATERFRONT REVTTALZZATZON PROGRAM November 2004 Benefits of an LWRP Synopsis Table of Contents [ntroduction and Acknowledgements Table of Maps Section ! Waterfront Revitalization Area Boundary Section T! Tnventory and Analysis A. Tntroduction 3. Reach B. Planning Framework C. Land Use and Development D. Public Access and Recreation E. Natural Resources F. Historic Resources G. Archaeological Resources H. Scenic Resources T. Development Constraints Readers Guide Analysis - ]:ntroduction Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5 Reach 6 Reach 7 Reach 8 Reach 9 Reach Summary and Conclusions Section tzx Waterfront RevitalizaUon Policies Section TV Harbor Management Section V TmplementaUon Section VZ State and Federal Actions and Programs Section VZ! Consultants Glossary of Acronyms Section VZTT Local Commitment References LWRP Consistency Assessment Form Most of the LWRP ;]~7~ument;s_arejn a pdt flle_fo~rm~t Printed copies, CD's and related maps are available at the South01d Town Community Libraries. and the Town of Southold Clerk's Office Return toTop Web Site Hosted courtesy of N_O_~_ Fork Web Site Designed and Maintained by the Southold Town Data Processin~g_ ~D~_p~._r~nent This is the official wedsite of the Southold Town Hall EXHIBIT 40 -- Town of Southold Local Waterpon~ Revilali~ttion Program Reach 6 Source: Town of Southold Geological Information System, August 2002 There is relatively little protected open space within this Reach. The largest block of protected land lies on the southeast comer of Hashomomuck Pond. Known as the Peconic Land Trust Cassidy Preserve, this 56+ acre property runs from the Pond to Albertson's Lane. The marsh and upland immediately adjacent to the Pond is about 23.24 acres in size. In 1997, this portion of the property was given to the Peconic Land Trust to be kept as a preserve. That same year, the Town purchased the development rights to the remaining 32.98 acres of farmland, which runs from the preserve to Albertson's Lane. Most of the rema'mder of the open space within this Reach can be found in small clustered open spaces or parks connected with residential subdivisions. The County owns a 1.8-acre parcel on CR 48 that appears to be reserved for road drainage purposes. It should be noted here that the Village of Greenport owns land within Reach 6 that is a designated park. Known as Moores Woods, this park land eencompasses 192.3 acres of woods and wooded wetlands, which drain to the southeast into Pipes Cove. The Town's Community Preservation Project Plan (CPPP), which was adopted in July of 1998, aims to protect the open, agricultural and scenic qualities of Southold Town. It targets all A-C zoned lands larger than 10 acres in size. Most of this acreageland, some 277 acres, is in agricultural production. Additional details are provided in Section II.B. Planning Framework, 13. The Community Preservation Program Plan. To be more specific to Reach 6, while there is little agricultural land left in this reach, much of it has been designated for preservation. The largest blocks of land targeted for acquisition lie on either sides of Hashomomuck Pond. Much of the property on the west side of the Pond up to the subdivision of Long Pond Estates is still in agricultural production. Of the 307 acres in agricultural production, only 29 (9%) is protected. On the east side of the Pond, the CPPP has targeted for preservation all the undeveloped land within the Reach that lies between the Pond and the eastern border. While some of this property is still being farmed, much of itost has reverted to meadows, old fields and emergent woods. A significant portion of the land lying between Albertson Lane and Chapel Lane contains is woods and freshwater wetlands. Known as the Arshamomaque Wetland Preserve, this particular area is the largest expanse of freshwater wetlands and wooded wetlands in the Town. In 1997, the Supervisor of the townCochran launched a major initiative to remove XX 241 acres from the threat of development. With the backing and support of The Nature Conservancy, the Town persuaded a private foundation to launch the preservation initiative by contracting to purchase an eight acre piece at the southeast comer of the Preserve. Since that time, an additional 126.6 acres have been purchased using Town and County funds. South of SR 25, the CPPP recommends the preservation of the extensive marsh that drains Moores Woods and Pipes Neck. Preservation of the lands around Hashomomuck and eastward to the Village boundary will achieve two ends: protection of rare and threatened habitat and species that are unique to this area, and much needed recreation and open space between the still Section H - Inventory & Analysis J. Reach 6 - 23 § 272-a ZONING AND PLANNIN(~ 8. Environmental review. A town comprchcnsixe plan, and am amendment thereto, is snbject to the provisions of the state envitx:m mental quality review act under article eight of the enxironmem~ conservation law and its implementing regulations. A to~n coml~t hensive plan may be designed to also set-ce as, or be accompanied a generic environmental impact statement pursuant to the environmental quality revie`*v act statute and regulations. No [urlb, e: compliance `*vith such law is required [or subsequent site slxx-u~, actions that are in confurmance with the conditions and threshoki, established for such actions in the generic environmental impa,.~ statement and its findings. 9. Agriculturai review and coordination. A town comprchen~tw plan and any amendments thereto, for a town containing all or of an agricultural district or lands receiving agricultural asscssmcm~ within its jttrisdiction, shall continue to be subject to the prm isio~ article twenty-five-AA of the agriculture and markets la~ the enactment and administration of local laws, ordinances. regulations. A newly adopted or amended town comprehensive shall take ioto consideration applicable county agricuhural and farm land protection plans as created under article twent:x-[ixc-AAA ui agriculture and markets law. ~0, Periodic review. The town board shall provide, as a nent of such proposed comprehensive plan, the maximum at which the adopted plan shall be reviexved. 11. Effect of adoption of the town comprehensive plan. town land use regulations must be in accordance with a compr~ sive plan adopted pursuant to this section. (b) Ali p!ans for capital projects of another governmental on land included in the to`*vn comprehensive plan adoplcd to this section shall take such plan into consideration. 12. Filing of town comprehensive plan. The adopted prehensive plan and an',' amendments thereto shall be filc~I I~ office of the town clerk ~nd a copy thereof shall be fi[ed itt of the county planning agency. (Added L.19~3. c. 209, § 1; an~ended L.1995, c. 418, § 4: LI997. c § 22, elf. July t, 1998.) Historical and Statutory. Notes Derivation Former§ 272-a, added L. I938, c 264, § l; amended L1990, c 260, § 5; re- pealed L. 1993, c 209,§ t. 424 EXHIBIT 41 BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. TOWN OF RAMAPO 791 tricts and county, while village could not 171 A.D.2d 861 In the Matter of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES, VILLAGE OF POMONA, Petitioner, The TOWN OF RAMAPO, et al., Respondents (Proceeding No. 1). In the Matter of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES, VILLAGE OF POMONA, Petitioner, The TOWN OF HAVERSTRAW, et al., Respondents (Proceeding No. 2), Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. March 25, 1991. Village initiated proceeding to annex territoW in two towns. On motion to disaf- firm referees' report and cross motion to confirm referees' report recommending de- nial of annexation, the Supreme Court, Al> pellate Division, held that proposed annexa- tion was not in public interest. Report confirmed. 1. Municipal Corporations ~:~29(3) To determine whether proposed annex- ation is in overall public interest, court must weigh benefit or detriment to annex- ing municipality, to territory proposed to be annexed and to remaining governmental units from which territory would be taken. McKinney's General Municipal Law § 712. 2. Municipal Corporations ~=~33(6) Burden of establishing that annexation is in overall public interest is on municipali- ty seeking annexation. MeKinney's Gener- al Municipal Law § 712. 3. Municipal Corporations ~29(3) Proposed annexation by village of land lying within two towns was not in the public interest, where development pro- pO~ed by towns would significantly in- crease land's assessed value and would generate substantial real estate and sales tax revenues for towns, local school dis- specify what, if anything, it intended to do with the parcels. McKinney's General Mu- nicipal Law § 712. Reuben Ortenberg, Pomona Village Arty., Suffern, and Cooper, Erving, Sav- age, Nolan & Heller, Albany (Thomas W. Peterson, of counsel), for petitioner (one brief filed). Granik, Silverman, Sandberg, Campbell, Nowicki & Resnik, New City, (Ricki H. Berger, of counsel), and Alan Simon, Rams- po Town Atty., Suffern (Michael L. Klein, of counsel), for respondents (one brief filed). Before THOMPSON, J.P., and ROSENBLATT. MILLER and RITTER, JJ. MEMORA.N'DUM BY THE COURT. Two proceedings pursuant to General Municipal Law § 712 for annexation of cer- tain territory in the Tox~ms of Haverstraw and Ramapo by the Village of Pomona and to determine whether the annexations are in the over-all public interest. This court, by orders dated December 14, 1987, and February ]6, 1988, respectively, designated John R. King, Howard Miller, and Frank Bowers, as Referees to hear and report their findings of fact and conclusions of law. Upon r. he consent of the parties Aar- on Klein was substituted for Howard Mil- ler. The referees have complied with this court's orders, issuing a unanimous report, dated May 3, 1990, finding that the annexa- tions are not in the over-all public interest and recommending the denial of annexa- tion. Thc petitioner moves in both proceed- ings, inter alia, to disaffirm the referees' report. The respondents in both proceed- ings cross-move to confirm the referees' report. ORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further, ORDERED that the cross motion is granted; and it is further, ADJUDGED that the report of the ref- erees is confirmed, without costs or dis- EXHIBIT 42 ~ 792 567 NEV~ YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIE, bursements, and it is adjudged that the proposed annexations are not in the over-all public interest. The petitioner, Village of Pomona, com- menced two separate annexation proceed- ings seeking to annex approximately 166.8 acres of land, 87.5 of which lie within the Town of Haverstraw and 79.3 of which lie within the Town of Ramapo. Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 712 this court designated three referees to hear and re- port upon the issue of whether the pro- posed annexations are in the over-all public interest. After a hearing, the referees unanimously concluded that the proposed annexation was not in the public interest. We concur with that finding. [1,2] To determine whether a proposed annexation is in the over-all public interest, the court must weigh the benefit or detri- ment to the annexing municipality, to the territory proposed to be annexed, and to the remaining governmental units from which the territory would be taken (see Matter of City of Saratoga Springs v. Town of Greenfield, 34 A.D.2d 364, 312 N.Y.S.2d 4; Matter of City Council of City of Mechanicville v. Town Bd. of Town of Halfmoon, 32 A.D.2d 152, 300 N.Y.S.2d 398; affd, 27 N.Y.2d 369, 318 N.Y.S.2d 307, 267 N.E.2d 96). The burden of establishing that the annexation is in the over-all public interest is on the municipali- ty seeking annexation (Matter of City of Ogde~burg v. Town of Oswegatchie, 76 A.D.2d 1012, 429 N.Y.S.2d 488). In addi- tion, under General Municipal Law § 712, this court has a duty to make its own adjudication and determination, after viewing the referees' report and the record, and after hearing oral argument. "While the report of the Referees is not binding on this court * ' · their recommendations are entitled to great weight" (Common Coun- cil of City of Glens Falls v. Town Bd. of Town of Queensbury, 30 A.D.2d 577, 578, 289 N.Y.S.2d 471). [3] Most of the evidence adduced at the hearing concerned a 52-acre plot within the proposed annexation territory, straddling the Towns of Haverstraw and Ramapo, which is partially a disused sand and gravel mine and partially wetlands. The Tow~a presented evidence that they would Permit development of this parcel as a 250,009_ square foot community shopping center, which would significantly increase the land's assessed value and would generate substantial real estate and sales tax rev~ nues for the Towns, the local school tricts, and the Gounty. It would also crease local employment opportunities. In contrast, the Village could not specify what, if anything, it intended to do with this or any of the other parcels it is seeking to annex, with the result that it has not carried its burden of establishing that pr~- posed annexation would be in the overall public interest (cf., City of' Auburn Town of Sennett, 79 A.D.2d 1105, 435 N.Y. S.2d 855). We note that there are other considera- tions which do not favor annexation. For example, the Towns produced evidence that commercial development was consistent with the character of the area as it had evolved, and for which it is currently zoned, while the Village, which permits only residential development, would ac- quire a parcel of land which is concededly unsuitable for residential development. In- deed, the Village's master plan expressly disavows the need for, as well as the desir- ability of, any commercial facilities within its boundaries, with the result that there ia no "unity of purpose" between the Village and the territeW it wishes to annex (Com- mon Council of City of Gloverst,ille v. Town Bd. of Town of Johnstown. 32 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 342 N.Y.S.2d 841, 295 N.E.2d 644). In addition, the annexation would result in an unnatural boundaw, in that approximately a 68-acre portion of the Town of Haverstraw would be completely encircled by the Village of Pomona (Matter of Common Council of City of Middle- town v. Town Bd. of Town qf Wallkill, 29 A.D.2d 56L 286 N.Y.S.2d 369). Annexation would not benefit the subject parcels with regard to municipal services, as the Town~ currently supply these to both the Villag~ and the annexation territory, and would continue to do so were annexation to (cf, Matter of Town of Lansiny v. Villa~ DORODF, A AND S. BLDG. CO., INC. v. STATE of lansing, 80 A.D.2d 942, 438 N.Y.S.2d 29). Finally, the Village may not use an- nexation to subvert the development of an adjoining municipality's property pursuant to a lawfully enacted zoning ordinance (cf., Matter of Village of Skaneateles v. Town of Skaneateles, 115 A.D.2d 282, 496 N.Y. $.2d 185). We have examined the Village's remain- lng contentions and find them to be without merit. 171 A.D.2d 866 In the Matter of DORODEA AND S. BUILDING CO., INC., Appellant, STATE of New York, Respondent; Marine Midland Bank, Respondent-respondent. Supreme Court, Appellato Division, Second Department. March 25, 1991. In proceeding to distribute funds on deposit for State's appropriation of real property formerly owned by mortgagor, the Court of Claims, Lengyel, J., ordered the State to release a certain sum to mort- gagee, and mortgagor appealed. The Su- preme Court, Appellate Division, held that mortgagee's recovery would not be reduced by the amount that the monthly rental of the mortgaged premises exceeded the amount due each month under the mort- gage. Affirmed. Eminent Domain Under mortgage agreement whereby rental payments from mortgaged premises were deposited into savings account and mortgagee was authorized to deduct re- quired monthly mortgage payments from 793 savings account, mortgagee was not autho- rized to use full monthly rental payments received for payments of mortgage indebt- edness, and thus, upon State's acquisition of premises, amount due mortgagee was not reduced by amount that monthly rental exceeded amount due each month under mortgage. Dominick Sorrentino, Valhalla, for appel- lant. McCarthy, Fingar, Donovan, Drazen & Smith, White Plains (William F. Macreery and Robert M. Redis, of counsel), for re- spondent-respondent. Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KUNZEMAN. KOOPER and HARWOOD, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. In a proceeding pursuant to EDPL 304 to distribute funds on deposit for the State's appropriation of real property formerly owned by the claimant, the claimant ap- peals from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), entered April 1~, 1989, as, after a hearing, directed that the New York State Comptroller release the sum of $52,851.16 with interest, and attorneys' fees and related costs in the sum of $5,056.16 with interest, to the mortgagee Marine Midland Bank. ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The instant proceeding arose as a result of the New York State's acquisition of real property belonging to the claimant. The title to this real property vested in the State on May 31, 1988, pursuant to an Agreement of Adjustment which also pro- vided that the compensation to be paid by the State for the real property would be $340,000. At the time of the State's acquisition, the real property was encumbered by a mort- gage dated May 10, 1979. For some time prior to that date, the claimant had leased the subject real property and, in fact, the mortgage had been granted to the claimant contingent upon the assignment of the MIr*DLETOWN COM. COUN. v. WALLKILL TOWN BD. 17 143 A.D.2d 215 The COMMON COUNCIL OF the CITY OF MIDDLETOWN, Orange County, New York, Petitioner, The TOWN BOARD OF the TOWN OF WALLKILL, Orange County, New York, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Aug. 22, 1988. Statutory proceeding was instituted to determine whether proposed annexation of town's land by city was in overall public interest. After remand to referees desig- nated to report findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, 121 A.D.2d 426, 503 N.Y.S.2d 125, the Supreme C~urt, Appellate Divi- sion, held that city had failed to meet its burden of proving that proposed annexa- tion would be in overall public interest. Ordered accordingly. 1. Municipal Corporations ~33(8) Although referees' report on proposed annexation is entitled to great weight, it is advisory only w~th Appellate Division re- taining exclusive responsibility to judge proposed annexation by sole relevant crite- ria of overall public interest. McKinney's General Municipal Law § 712. 2. Municipal Corporations ~=~29(3) Determination of whether proposed an- nexation by city is in overall public interest entails focusing upon and weighing benefit or detriment to annexing municipality, to territory proposed to be annexed, and to remaining governmental unit from which territory would be taken; benefit and detri- ment are customarily defined in terms of municipal services such as police and fire protection, health regulations, sewer and water service, public utilities and public education. McKinney's General Municipal Law § 712. EXHIBIT 43 18 3. Municipal Corporations ~=~33(6) Burden of establishing that annexation is in overall public interest is with munici- pality seeking it. 4. Municipal Corporations ~=29(3) City failed to meet its burden of prov- ing that proposed annexation of township land would be in overall public interest; proposed annexation area was wooded and agricultural area without current need for water and sewer service, much of area consisted of wetlands, flood plains and steep slopes incapable of further develop- ment, town already had plans in place to provide area with water and sewer service upon demand, where as city was already exceeding safe rate of removal of water from its reservoirs, annexation would re- sult in loss of tax revenues to town in amount of over $10,000,000, and annexa- tion would divide township into two sepa- rate noncontiguous parcels with certain residents completely surrounded by city. McKinney's General Municipal Law § 712. Cooper, Erring, Savage, NoIan & Heller, Albany (Richard H. Weiner, of counsel), for petitioner. Monte J. Rosenstein, Middletewn, for spondent. Before KOOPER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. Proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Gen- eral Municipal Law § 712 to determine whether the proposed annexation of certain territory in the Town of Wallkill by the City of Middletown is in the overall public interest. This court, by order dated June 3, 1986 (Common Council of the City of Middletown v. Town Bd. of the Tou~n of Wallkill, 121 A.D.2d 426, 503 N.Y.S.2d 125, appeal dismissed, 69 N.Y.2d 898, 515 N.Y. S.2d 232, 507 N.E.2d 1088), remitted the matter to the Referees previously designat- ed in an order of this court dated April 26, 1985, for a trial on the merits, and, follow- ing its conclusion, directed those Referees 532 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES to file a report as to whether the proposed annexation would be in the overall public interest. The Referees have now complied with this court's directive and the respon- dent moves, pursuant to CPLR 4403, to confirm the Referees' report dated March 15, 1988, which concluded that the pro- posed petition for annexation was not in the overall public interest and recom- mended that the petition for annexation be denied, and to dismiss the annexation pro- eeeding, and the petitioner cross-moves to disaffirm the Referees' report and for a judgment that the proposed annexation is in the overall public interest. ORDERED that the motion is granted, and the cross motion is denied, without costs or disbursements; and it is further, ADJUDGED that the report of the Ref- erees is confirmed, without costs or dis- bursements, judgment is granted in favor of the respondent, and it is adjudged that the proposed annexation is not in the over- all public interest, and the annexation pro- ceeding is dismissed. The petitioner City of Middletown has filed a petition seeking to annex 2,049 acres of land currently located in the respondent To~m of Wallkill, which would nearly dou- ble its size. This court, by order of refer- ence dated April 26, 1985, pursuant to Gen- eral Municipal Law § 712, designated Jus- tices Jiudiee, Ruskin and Walsh as Ref- erees to hear and report thereon. Follow- ing an extensive trial, the Referees found that the proposed annexation was not in the over-ali public interest. We concur with that finding. [11 Although [he Referees' report is en- titled to great weight, it is advisory, only, with this court retaining exclusive responsi- bility m judge the proposed annexation by the sole relevant criteria of "over-all public interest" (General Municipal Law § 712110]; Matter of City of Aubur*~ v. Toum of Aurelius, 122 A.D.2d 585, 504 N.Y.S.2d 929, appeal denied, 68 N.Y.2d 610. 508 N.Y.S.2d 102'7, 501 N.E.2d 600; ,'flatter of City of Auburn v. Town of Fleming, 79 A.D.gd 1104, 435 N.Y~S.2d 853. appeal dismissed, 53 N.Y.2d 937, 440 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 423 N.E.2d 416; Matter of MIDDLETOWN COM. COUN. Common Council of the City of Glens FailS v. Town Bd. of Town of Queensbury, 30 A.D.2d 577, 289 N.Y.S.2d 471, appeal after remand, 32 A.D.2d 855, 301 N.Y.S.2d 297). [2, 3] A determination of whether a pre- posed annexation is in the overall public interest "entails focusing upon and weigh- lng the benefit or detriment to the annex- lng municipality, to the territory proposed to be annexed, and to the remaining gov- ernmental unit from which the territory would be taken (see, Matter of City of Saratoga Springs v. Town of Greenfield, 34 A.D.2d 364 [312 N.Y.S.2d 4]; Matter of City Council of City of Mechanicville v. Tow~ Bd. of Town of Halfmoon, 32 A.D.2d 152 [300 N.Y.S.2d 398], affd, 27 N.Y.2d 369 [318 N.Y.S.2d 307, 267 N.E.2d 96])" (Mat- ter of City of Ogdensburg v. Town of Oswegatchie, 76 A.D.2d 1012, 1013, 429 N.Y.S.2d 488, appeal denied, 51 N.Y.2d 706, 433 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 413 N.E.2d 369). "Benefit and detriment are customarily de- fined in terms of municipal services such as police and fire protection, health regula- tions, sewer and water service, public utili- ties and public education" (Matter of Town of Lansing v. Village of Lansing, 80 A.D. 2d 942, 438 N.Y.S.2d 29). "The burden of establishing that the annexation is in the over-all public interest is with the munici.. pality seeking it" (Matter of City of Og- densburg v. Town of Oswegatchie, supra, 76 A.D.2d at 1013, 429 N.Y.S.2d 488). It has also been stated that "Iai court should consider, as par~ of the over-all public inter- est test, the issue of whether or not the annexing local government and the territc- ry to be annexed have the requisite unity. of purpose and facilities to constitute a community" (Matter of Common Council of the City of Gloversville v. Town Bal. of the Town of Johnstown, 32 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 342 N.Y.S.2d 841, 295 N.E.2d 644). [4] The petitioner has failed to meet its burden of proving that the proposed annex- ation would be in the overall public inter- est. The evidence adduced at trial indi- cates that the proposed annexation area is a wooded and agricultural area without V. WALLKILL TOWN BD. 19 (A.D. 2 Dept. 19P~) and that much of the area consists of wet- lands, flood plains and steep slopes incapa- ble of further development. Although both the city and the town have the capability to supply water and sewer services to the proposed annexation area, the town already has plans in place to provide that area with water and sewer service upon demand. The record reveals that the city, on the other hand, is already exceeding the safe rate of removal of water from its reser- voirs and an infiltration flow problem in its antiquated water system makes it a less efficient system than that maintained by the town. After suffering a water short- age in 1979 and 1980, the petitioner was directed by the Department of En~q.ronmen- tal Conservation to find additional water sources but failed to comply with this di- rective. A comparison of additional servic- es indicates that the town currently pre- rides more than adequate police and fire protection to the proposed annexation area. The petitioner pays taxes in the amount of $15,060.24 on the property it ow-as within the proposed annexation area. Annexation would result in a loss of revenue to the town in the amount of $10,994.04 in gener- al and highway tax revenue. The town's fire districts would also lose money in tax revenue should annexation be approved. The record further reveals that the mas- ter plans of Orange County and the Town of Wallkill are in conformity with each other while the city has no comprehensive master plan. Nor did the city perform planning studies prior to initiating this an- nexation proceeding. Rather, the petition- er concededly selected the boundaries of the proposed annexation area by omitting residents it believed would vote against annexation in a referendum. These bound- aries were chosen arbitrarily, without the benefit of a single planning study, and would result in dividing the Town of Wall- kill into two, separate, noncontiguous par- cels which would leave certain town resi- dents completely surrounded by the City of Middletown. This court has previously condemned such "baroque" annexations which result in "irregular and jagged in- dentations of the boundaries between the municipalities" (Matter of Common Court- 2O 532 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES cil of City of Middletown v. Town Bd. of the Town of Wallkill, 29 A.D.2d 561, 562, 286 N.Y.S.2d 369; see also, Matter of Board of Trustees of Inc. Vii. of Warwick v. Town Bd. of Town of Warwick, Orange County, 56 A.D.2d 928, 393 N.Y.S.2d 47). Considering all the factors, we conclude that the public interest would not be served by the annexation. In light of our holding, we do not reach the respondent's remaining contention. of transfer, notwithstanding debtor's con- clusory and unsupported allegations that he had sufficient business assets to meet loan prior to conveyance. Schwartz, Kobb, Scheinert & Hamerman, Nanuet (Joel L. Scheine~ of counsel), for appellants. Raucher & Ehrlich, P.C., New York City (David N. Raucher, of counsel), for respon- dent. Before KOOPER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ. 143 A.D.2d 221 SMALL & LANDESMAN, etc., Respondent Harry BARONICK, et al., Appellants. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Aug. 22, 1988. Creditor sued debtor seeking to set aside conveyance of debtor's interest in marital residence to wife. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, Weiner, J., grant- ed creditor's motion for partial summary judgment, and debtor appealed. The Su- preme Court, Appellate Division, held that evidence supported finding that conveyance of debtor's interest in marital residence to wife was fraudulent. Affirmed. Fraudulent Conveyances ~:.299(12) Evidence supported finding that debt- or's conveyance of his interest in marital residence to wife was fraudulent; creditor produced evidence that debtor had default- ed immediately prior to conveyance and that deed of conveyance contained no stamp taxes nor any other indication that fair consideration was paid as consequence MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. In an action by a judgment creditor put- suant to Debtor and Creditor Law article 10, inter alia, to set aside as fraudulent a conveyance of real property, the defen- dante appeal from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated February 10, 1987, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's mo- tion which was for partial summary judg- ment declaring the conveyance fraudulent and granted its motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a cause of action for an accounting, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, dated November 18, 1987, as denied stated portions of their motion for reargument. ORDERED that the order dated Febru- ary 10, 1987, is affirmed inserat as appeal- ed from; and it is further, ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated November 18, 1987, is dismissed, and it is further, ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs. In September 1983 shortly after MHB Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter MHB) faulted on a loan made by the plaintiff partnership, the defendant Harry Barenick who was an officer of MHB and guarantor of the loan, conveyed his interest in his marital residence--held by him and his wife as tenants by the entireties--to his wife's sole name, allegedly in consequence of an antecedent debt he owed her arising :'~: CITY COUNCIL v. TOWN BOARD 307 Cite as 318 N.Y.S.2d 307 LD, C. J., and BERGAN, and BREITEL, JJ., dissent and vote I on the opinion at the Appellate Division. reversed, with costs, and case remitted to Special Term for proceedings in accordance with the opinion herein. Question answered in the negative. 27 N.Y.2d 369 ,I~ ~he Matter of CITY COUNCIL OF the CITY OF MBCHANIC~'ILL~,, Appel- lant~ v. TOWN BOARD OF the TOWN OF HALFMOOI~', l~espondent, and Alfred J. Jennkngs et al., Intervenors-Respondents. Court of Appeals of ~ew York. Jan. 7, 1971. Proceeding on application by city council for a judgment that pro- posed annexation to city of certain territory was in overall public inter- est. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Staley, J:, 32 A.D.2d 152, 300 N.Y.S.2d 398, denied the petition, and tile city appealed. The Court of Appeals, Breitel, J., held that determination that proposed an- nexation to city, having population of about 6,000 and occupying an area of nine-tenths of a square mile, of adjoining, largely unpopulated 1,220-acre area of town was not in overall pubIic interest was in accord with requirements of Constitution and applicable statutes and was not arbitrary or in violation of any rule of law or procedure. Affirmed. Gibson, J., took no part. 1. Municipal 0orpor&tions ~='29(2) Power to effect an annexation is largely a matter controlled by · statute and constitutional provisions, when there are constitutional pro- visions. g. Mtmicipal Corporgtions So long as the Appellate Division acted pursuant to law its judg- ment that proposed annexation was not itl overall public interest could not be ox'erturned; any issues resolved ky it remained invulnerable if there was any rational basis for its findings and conclusions. Const. art. 9, ~1 id): General Municipal Law § 712, sums. 1, 6, 10. .,, EXHIBIT 44 3O8 318 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 27 N.Y.2d 3§9 3, Municipal Corporations ¢=~29(3) Consideration of regional or state benefit or effect from proposed annexation to city of certain territory in town was not mandated, nor should it have been in view of fact that parties offered only barest con- clusions on this aspect of annexation. General Municipal Law § 712; Const. art. 9, ~ l(d). 4. Municipal Corporations ~:~29(3) Determination that proposed annexation to city, baying population of about 6,000 and occupying an area of nine-tenths of a square mile, of adjoining, largely unpopnlated 1,220-acre area of town was not in Over- all public interest was in accord with requirements of Constitution and applicable statutes and was not arbitrary or in violation of any rule of law or procedure. General Municipal Law § 712; Const. art. 9, I l(d). _kW. Donald Carola, Mechanicville, and Peter John Enzien, Troy, for appellant. _t- John P' \Veatherwax, Troy, for respondents. BREITEL, Judge. Involved is a disputed proposed annexation between a city and a town. As is all but inevitably the situation, the city wonld expand by taking in a small part of the town. The town resists the annexation, seeking to preserve its area and retain its taxable enterprises. The pop- ulation of the affected area may or may not welcome the annexation, this being a disputed fact. The City of Mechanicville has been declin- ing both in population and economic health. A significant, if not a suf- ficient, cause for this condition is the constraint of limited bonndaries. It seeks to annex from the Town of Halfmoon an adjoining, largely-un- populated area of 1,220 acres including a railroad segment and contain- ing a large power plant and a small paper mill. Halfmoon consists of 17,495 acres, and has a population of 6,307. The city has today a popu- lation of about 6,000, down frmn 8,514 in 1925, and occupies an area of nine tenths of a square mile. The city hopes that the sparsely popu- -Itel luted rural area it wishes to annex will provide room forlhousing, despite uncontradicted evidence that the best use would be industrial. The appeal by the city is from the judgment of the Appellate Division unanimously rejecting 'the proposed annexation as not in the over-all public interest, the only standard referred to in the applicable statute and constitutional provision (32 A.D.2d 152, 300 N.Y.S.2d 398; N.Y. Const., art. IX, § 1, subd. [d]; General Municipal Law, ConsoI.Law~, c. 24, ~ 712). In doing so, the court overruled the reports of its thr.~ Referees designated by it under the statute to hold hearings, take em- I 373 CITY COUNCIL v. TOWN BOAi~D 309 and report. Two of the Referees lu],d reported in favor of the and one had reported in its favor only conditionally. The as required by statnte, were Justices of the Supreme Court. threshold qnestion is tile scope of review in this co~.lrt. It would 3 be narrow indeed, and confined to errors of law. [1] The power to effect al/anuexation il; largely a matter controlled statute and constitutional provisions, when there are constitutional isions. (E.g., City of New York v. Village of Lawrence, 250 N.Y. 429, 437, 440, 444, 165 N.E. 836, 838, 839, 840; cf. Ann., Municipal Boundaries--Power to Extend, 64 A.L.R. 1336, 1341-1344, 1346-1350, 1352-1355, 1373-1380.) The Constitution provides: "No local government or any part of the territory thereof shall be annexed to another until the people, if an)', of the territory proposed to be annexed shall lmve consented thereto b), ma- jority vote on a referendum and until the governing hoard of each local government, the area of which is affected, shall have consented thereto upon the basis of a determination that the annexation is in tile over-all public interest. The consent of tile governing board of a county shall be required only xvhere a bonndarv of the county is affected. On or be- fore July first, nineteen hundred sixty-four, the legislature shall pro- vide, where such consent of a governing board is not granted, for adju- dication and determination, on the law and the facts, in a proceeding in- itiated in tile supreme court, of the issue of whether the'. annexation is in the over-ali public interest." (N.Y.Const., art. IX, § 1, subd. [d].) Tile scheme, it will be noted, for judicial intervention arises only in the event tl~e affected nmnicipalities cannot agree and then tile de(ermina- tion is to be made in the Supreme Court on the law and tile facts. _l..Tbe Legislature, in implementing the constitutional direction, enacted article 17 of tile General Municipal Law. Indeed, both tile statute and the constitutional provision, added as an amendment, were adopted at the same time in 196.3, tile statute's operaticm being conditioned on pop- ular approval of tile constitutional amendment. Pursuant to the Consti- tution, section 712 of article 17 reposes in tile appropriate Appellate Di- visiou the responsibility for adjndication and determination on tile law and facts, of the issue of whether the proposed annexation is in tile Over-all public interest (sub& 1). The court is required to designate three Referees who shall be Justices or retired Justices of tile Supreme Court to hear and report to tile court (subd. 6). Upon receipt of the report, tile Appellate Division shall: "after bearing oral argument on the report of the referees, make its own adjudication and determination. on the Iaxx and the facts, on all qnestions presented to the referees and snbstitute its jndgmem for tlmt of any of the governing boards of the 310 318 NEW YOI~K SUPPLEMENT, 2d SEI~IES 27 N.Y.2d 373 local governments as made in their respective determinations and enter its judgment on the issue of x~betber tbe annexation is in tbe over-all public interest" (subd. 10). Tbe operative language is that the Appellate Division is to make its own adjudication and determination, on the law and the facts, and sub- stitute its judgment for that of the several local governing boards. Such plain language unequivocally places the responsibility of determi~ nation on the Appellate Divisiou. The locus of responsibility is all the clearer when it is recognized that the Appellate Division is not engaged in reviewing a judicial or quasi-judicial dispute but exercising an origi- nal responsibility in a governmental policy determination between con- tending local governments. On this view the ordinary tests applicable to review of judicial or quasi-judicial determinations are not relevant. Much closer are categories of review in this court which bring up only questions of law and also test, therefore, the arbitrariness and capri- ciousness of the determinations to be reviewed (cf. Matter of Lakeland Water Dist. v. Onondaga County \Vater Auth., 24 N.Y.2d 400, 408, 301 N.Y.S.2d I, 6-7, 248 N.E.2d 855, 858-859; Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 108, pp. 452-453; 1 N.Y. Jut., Administrative Law, § 176, [at p. 589], §§ 183-184). [2] Consequently, so long as the Appellate Division acted pursuant ..1.~ to law its judgment may not be overturned. Any issues_i.[esolved by it remain invulnerable if there was any rational basis for its findings and conclusions. Passing from the threshold question to the merits, an affirmance is indicated. The city does not raise any substantial issue of law. It dis- putes certain facts, disagrees with various predictions of fact, and em- phatically quarrels with the evaluation of the over-all public interest. At the bearings before the Referees the city presented evidence that annexation would cause its property tax rate to increase by 9 cents on every $1,000 of assessed valuation, that Halfmoon's tax rate would in- crease by $1.02, and that the annexed area's rate would increase by $70. The citv's Mayor testified, based on the history of two areas adjacent to Mechanicville, that the extension of city water and sewerage lines to th~ area to be annexed would be likely to cause rapid residential develo[~ merit. This conclusion was disputed by an expert for the town whO stated that builders of residential subdivisions would find the area unat- tractive and that the area's highest use was industrial. Tbere waS testimony that residents of the area used some city services and ties. There was conflicting testimony on the present and future ad~ cy of water, sewerage, fire, and police services in the area. The reports of the Referees and the opinion in the Appellate plainly considered all of tbe above factors, albeit they came to differS8 $7§ CITY COUNOIL v. TOWN BOARD 311 In,ions in assessing the desirability of the proposed annexation. financial impacts and the provision of services in the city, the town, the annexed area, as they would be after annexation, were carefully and weigbed (see 32 A.D.2d 152, esp. 154-156, 300 N.Y.S.2d esp. 399-402, supra). Little was said, if at all, it is true, about r~gional or State benefit which might accrue beyond the immediate- fected nmnicipalities; and although the point is barely made by the dry in this court, there was neither below nor here anv significant ef- fort at showing such regional or State benefit or effect. The Appellate Division in reaching its conclusions stated: "Considering all of the factors involved, it can hardly be said that any appreciable benefits will inure to the area sought to be annexed by annexation thereof to the city. It thus appears that if an), benefit is to be derived by annexation, it will inure only to the City of Mecbanicville, and the only benefit to belderived is an area for expansion and an in- crease iu its tax base. "The report of the majority of the Referees indicates that survival of tile city is an overriding consideration in their determination. Certainly annexation is intended as a means for a cirv to react to changing condi- tions, but not to aid a city at the expense of another area. Here, the petitioner did not even indicate why it needed an area twice its size in order to survive. Perhaps annexatiou should be approved xvhen it is in the interest of the petitioner and neither of the other areas involved will be significantly injured. However, where there will be injury to one, and substantial tax cost to the other~ benefit to the city should not be permitted at their expense. "Annexation cannot be considered as being in the over-all public in- terest where the only benefit to be derived is expansion room for the municipality seeking annexation while the annexed area and the area out of which it is to be carved, will be adversely affected. Here the burden was on the City of Mecbanicville to establish that annexation would be in the over-all public interest and in our opinion the city has not met that burden." (32 A.D.2d, at p. 156, 300 N.Y.S.2d, at pp. 401-402.) The factors considered and the evaluation made were not unreasona- ble by any test of rationality. (For interesting collections of cases in New York and elsewhere in which the large variety of considerations and limitations influencing a determination as to the rightness of a pro- posed annexation, see Ann., Municipal Boundaries--Alteration-- Grounds, 62 A.L.R. 1011, esp. subtitle Prosperity of City, pp. 1023- 1024; 64 A.L.R. 1336, 1355-1384, supra.) [3] Since it was the Appellate Division's province ro assess the sev- eral factors no reriewable error is snggested merely because the city be- 312 318 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SEI~I]~S 27 lieves that the facts would support a contrary judgment. Vv'bile the statote does not appear to preclude a consideration of regional or State benefit or effect, no such consideration is mandated, nor should it xvhen the parties have offered only the barest conclusions on this aspect of the annexation. Indeed, most annexation cases thus far bare not in- volved larger reg.ional or State issues (cf. Matter of City of Saratoga Springs v. Town of Greenfield, 34 A.D.2d 364, 312 N.Y.S.2d 4; Mat- ter of Common Council of City of Middletown v. Town Bal. of Town of Wallkill, 29 A.D.2d 561, 286 N.Y.S.2d 369; Matter of Common Council of City of Albany v. Town Bd. o~'own of Bethlehem, 26 A. D.2d 230, 272 N.Y.S.2d 307, affd. 19 N.Y.2d 646, 278 N.Y.S.2d 618, 225 N.E.2d 211, remittitur amd. 19 N.Y.2d 835,280 N.Y.S.2d 399, 227 N.E.2d 314). Occasionally, somewhat larger issues have been in- volved, but still tied for the most part to the immediate localities affect- ed or to local governments superimposed in part on the same territories, such as counties (City of Middletown v. Town of Wallkill, supra; Mat- ter of Common Council of City of Glens Falls v. Town Bd. of Town of Queensbury, 30 A.D.2d 577,289 N.Y.S.2d 471). [4] It thus appears that the determination by the Appellate Division was in accord with the requirements of the Constitution, tile applicable statutes, and such precedents as have arisen. Its action was not arbi- trary or in violation of any rule of law or procedure laid down, and its findings and conclusions are not further reviewable in this court. In so viewing the matter it is not necessary to conclude and it is not concluded that the over-all public interest as that term is used in tile Constitution and tbe statute is confined to the financial impacts upon and public services rendered in the affected municipalities. Undoubted- ly, in a proper case, the effect on the larger region or even the State mav be relevant, including, perhaps, considerations which go beyond the economic and financial. In this case, however, no such effects were de- veloped or even argued. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division should be firmed. FULD, C. J., and BURKE, SCILEPFI, BERGAN and JASEN, JJ., GIBSON, J., taking no part. Judgment affirmed, without costs. CITY OF PORT JERVIS v. TOWN OF DEER PARK Morris & Duffy, New York City (Patricia and Kevin J. O'Neill, of counsel), Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KOOPER, and O'BRIEN, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. In a proceeding pursuant ~ General Mu- nicipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to file a late notice of claim, the New York City Hous- ing Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cohen, J.), dated December 6, 1988, which granted the application. ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the application is denied. [1] As no previously-commenced action was pending against the New York City Housing Authority, the application for leave to file a late notice of claim was improperly brought as a motion (see, Mat- ter of Eso v. County of Westchester, 141 A.D~2d 542, 529 N.Y.S.2d 155; Matter of Lannon v. Town of Henrietta, $7 A.D.2d 980, 450 N.Y.S.2d 108; see also, Farber v. County of Hamilton, 158 A.D.2d 902, 551 N.Y.S.2d 699; City of New York Dept. of Fi~. v. Reznick, 113 A.D.2d 914, 493 N.Y. S.2d 817). [2,3] Further, even if we were to con- c]ude that the instant application had been properly commenced, reversal would never- theless be required, since the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in permitting the prospective infant plain* tiff and her mother to file a late notice of claim. It is well settled that in deciding applications for leave to serve a late notice of claim, courts are not required to grant extensions in every case involving infants (see, Cohen v. Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist., 5I N.Y.2d 256, 434 N.Y.S.2d 138, 414 N.E.2d 639; Matter of Groshans v. Town of Babylon, 143 A.D.2d 666, 533 N.Y.S.2d 18; Montana v. City of New York, 96 A.D.2d 1031, 466 N.Y.S.2d 436). In the case at bar, the disability of infancy is outweighed by other factors. No ade- quate explanation was given for the 31/2 year delay in bringing the application for 131 leave to serve the late notice. Nor did tbe papers submitted in support of the applica- tion allege facts sufficient to establish that the New York City Housing Authority had any knowledge of the circumstances under- lying the claim of negligence made. In addition, the delay which ensued was un- related to the infancy of the prospective infant plaintiff (see, Matter of Groshans v. Town of Babylon, supra ). Under these circumstances, the application ~o file a late notice of claim should have been denied. 169 A.D.2d 764 In the Matter of CITY OF PORT JERVIS, Petitioner, TOWN OF DEER PARK, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellat~ Division, Second Department. Jan. 22, 1991. City commenced proceeding to deter- mine whether annexation of property would be in the public interest. After a referee conducted a hear/ng and recom- mended that the petition for annexation be granted, the Supreme Court, Appellate Di* vision, held that the city failed to show that annexation of vacant, wooded, and undevel- oped land would be in the public interest. Petition dismissed. Municipal Corporations ~=29(3) City failed to demonstrate that annexa- tion of vacant, wooded, and undeveloped land would be in public interest; city had no specific plans for development of prop- erty and there was no current need for water and sewer services that city could have supplied. McKinney's General Munic- ipa] Law § 712. I EXHIBIT 45 132 William A. Glass, Port Jervis, for peti- tioner. Henry J. Holley, Port Jervis, for respon- dent. 565 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Before MANGANO, P.J, and THOMPSON, EIBER and ROSENBLATT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. Proceeding pursuant to General Munici- pal Law § 712 to determine whether the proposed annexation of certain territory in the Town of Deer Park by the City of Port Jervis is in the over-all public interest. By order dated July 26, 1987, this court remit- ted the matter to designated referees for a trial on the merits, and following its conclu- sion directed those referees to file a report as to whether or not the proposed annexa- tion would be in the over-all public interest. The referees have now complied with the court's directions. The petitioner moves to confirm their report, dated July 27, 1990, which recommended that the petition for annexation be granted, and the respondent cross-moves to reject the report and dis- miss the petition. ORDERED that the motion is denied and the cross motion is granted, without costs or disbursements, and it is further, ADJUDGED that the report of the ref- erees is rejected, without costs or disburse- ments, it is declared that annexation is not in the over-all public interest, and the an- nexation proceeding is dismissed. "Although the Referees' report is enti- tled to great weight, it is advisory only, with this court retaining exclusive re- sponsibility to judge the proposed annex- ation by the sole relevant criteria of 'over-all public interest' (General Munici- pal Law § 712110]; Matter o/ City of Auburn v Town o/Aurelius, 122 AD2d 585, [504 N.Y.S.2d 929] lv denied 68 NY2d 610 [508 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 501 N.E.2d 600]; Matter of City of Auburn v Town o/Fleming, 79 AD2d 1104 [435 N.Y.S.2d 853], appeal dismissed 53 NY2d 937 [440 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 423 N.E.2d 416]; Matter of Common Coun- cil v Town Bal., 30 AD2d 577 [289 N.Y. S.2d 471], appeal a./?er remand 32 AD2d 855 [301 N.Y.S.2d 297])" (City Council of Middletown v. Town Board of Town of Wallkill, 143 A.D.2d 215, 216, 532 N.Y.S.2d 17). Accordingly, the report will and should be overriden when, in the view of the Appel- late Division, the facts and circumstances do not justify the result recommended by the referees (Town Bd. of Town of Brigh- ton v. City Council of City of Rochester, 59 A.D.2d 1041, 399 N.Y.S.2d 793). Here, the evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the parcel in question is vacant, wood- ed and undeveloped land. As no evidence was presented of any specific plans for development of the subject property, the land is clearly without any current need for the water or sewer services which the peti- tioner city could supply, and the petitioner has failed to carry its burden of proving that annexation is in the public interest (see, e.g., Matter of City Council of Mid- dletown v. Town Board of Town of Wall- kill, supra; cf., Matter of Board of Trust- ees of Inc. Village of Warwick v. Town Board of Town of Warwick, Orange County, 56 A.D.2d 928, 393 N.Y.S.2d 47). The petition is therefore dismissed. 169 A.D.2d 765 In the Matter of COKERTOWN/SPRING LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Appellants, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF MILAN, et al.. Respondents. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Jan. 22, 1991. Neighboring landowners appealed from order of the Supreme Court, Dutehes~ ,! MAYOR RECEIVED JUL 2 2 200§ facsimile TRANSMITTAL ~outhold 1'own Cleric TO: DATE: PAGES: FROM TI:I~ DESK OF iFAX NO. 631-47%1877 VOICE NO. 631-477-2385, 0248 MESSAGE: ...... .CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE b-'$',~ G~9 sgl ~E9:°± ii8~ Lib ~£9 ±~OdNBB~ INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF ~REENPORT BOARD OF TRUSTEES RESOLUTION NO.. ....... 18 OF 21 RESOLUTION ADOPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND TYPING ACTION AS AN UNLISTED ACTION AND OTH~R ACTION PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION LAW OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WHEREAS R3%CE LI, LLC, filed a Petition for the Annexation of certain territory to be included in 'the village of Greenport which ia presently in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold on July 14, 2005, with the Town of Southold and the village of Greenpoxt, said property being 17.1 acres located on County Road 48, Greenpo~t, and designated as Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-~0.00-03.00-00~.000, and ; WHEREAS the village of Greenport is an involved agency in that it is required to take certain action regarding the Petition pursuant 'to the Municipal Annexation Law of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, and for that reason and other good cause is therefore proposing to assume lead agency status for purposes of SEQP~ review in this matter, and; WNEREAS the Village of Greenport has preliminarily determined that the annexation is an Unlisted Action pursuant 'to SEQRA; and; WHEREAS an Environmental Assessment Form Long Form Parts I and II are being prepared by the Village of Greenpor~ for review, and; WHEREAS the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold are required by 'the Municipal Annexation Law and the General Municipal Law of the state of New York to conduct a joint hearing on the Petition for Annexation, it is therefore; RESOLVED that the Board of T~ustees of the Village of G~eenport hereby proposes that the Board of Trustees adopts lead agency status for purposes of SEQKA review of this action, and that all other involved agencies are hereby provided 30 days to assert lead agency status in this matter, and it is further; RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the village of Greenport hereby preliminarily determines that the action of the annexation is an Unlisted Action for SEQRA purposes, and it is further; RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport hereby proposes that the joint public hearing of the Town Board and the Board of Trustees on the getition for Annexation be held a~ the auditorium of the Greenport Public School, Sreenpcrt, New York, at a date to'be mutually determined and it is further; RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport hereby proposes that the Joint public hearing be chaired by the Southold Town Supervisor, Joshua Horton, and it is further; RESOLVED that the Village Clerk is hereby directed to forward a copy of this resolution as follows: Town of Southold KACE LI, LLC NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health ServiCes village of Greenport Agencies and Boards Dated: July 21, 2005 Motion to Approve: .~rustee Mills Seconded: Truste~ Hubbaz~, In Favor: 5 Against: G RECEIVED ,JUL 2 2 2005 Southold Tovta Cled~ Joint Meeting of the Village Board of Trustees & Southold Town Board Greenport School /luditorium, May 12, 2004, 7:00pm PRESENT: Greenport Mayor David E. Kapell Village Administrator David Abatelli Trustee William J. Mills, III Trustee Gail F. Horton Trustee George W. Hubbard Trustee Bradley B. Bums Village Attorney Matthew Pachman Utilities/Deputy Treasurer Steven Brautigam Village Attorney, Matthew Pachman Southold Town Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Councilman William P. Edwards Councilman John M. Romanelli Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Councilman Daniel C. Ross PRESS: Suffolk Times TV [Tape 1[ Mayor David E. Kapell called the meeting to order at 7:00pm and led the Pledge of Allegiance. [The tape recording of this meeting was poor and parts will be summarized.[ REVIEW OF TOW2q PLANNING/AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES Mayor Kapell: On behalf of the Village Board, I'd like to welcome the Town Board, Supervisor Horton, our counterparts in Southold Town, for this important joint meeting on a question of major significance to our community. I also want to thank the Greenport School for providing this auditorium this evening, we appreciate it very much as a comfortable venue for this meeting. I also warn to point out that we're meeting outside the incorporated village -- I don't want that 2 Jotnr Mee~ng o/the V~llage Bo~rd of Trustees & SouthoM Tom Board Greenport $chool Audltormm, Ma), 12, 2004, 7:00pm to be taken the wrong way -- we're not trying to annex the school. (Laughter). I have a brief opening statement I'd like to make: The issue before us tonight is a housing emergency -- not annexation. In Greenport, according to the United States census, between 1980 and 2000, 230 housing units representing 23% of the village housing stock has been converted to seasonal homes and lost to the needs of local families. This trend is accelerating and is compounded by (inaud) price inflation. Left unaddressed, in a few short years, Greenport will be lost forever to the people who make it the great place that it is. Due to the lack of vacant land within the incorporated village, we must look to lands outside the village boundaries for a solution. Three months ago the Village Board initiated a conversation with the Town Board to seek its help in cooperative (inaud) the housing needs for our mutual Greenport constituents. To succeed, we need the Town Board's help, including keeping an open mind to the possibility nf allowing the village to grow if this helps address the problem. Unfortunately, our conversation got offto a rocky start last month, due to the mistaken impression of some that our intentions are territorial. This could not be further from the truth. This rocky start arises out of a 50-year history of tension and failed relations between the village and town -- a history for which the current boards are not responsible. However, we are responsible for the profound challenge of overcoming the system and leading our constituents through a thoughtful and deliberative process that forges popular public consensus behind a ( inaud ). Annexation is merely one suggestion of how the problem might be addressed. Clearly, there are other options that should be considered. Responsible evaluation of the options demands a thorough analysis and exploration informed by public input and facilitated by outside expertise that can provide answers to the numerous questions people have and for which we do not have answers at the local level. To be effective and credible, this expert support -- such as an academic institution could provide -- must be free of local bias and have a comprehensive understanding of how other communities in the United States and elsewhere have dealt successfully with similar problems. In February, Supervisor Herren and I jointly filed applications with the state and federal governments for $450,000.00 ora projected $500,000.00 cost ora housing study. These applications are now (inaud.). I propose that we use this money jointly to study the housing problem within the boundary of the Greenport School District -- and I referenced the Greenport School District only in order to adopt their geographic boundary. The planning process will be difficult, emotional and painful, and it will require extensive public input. It will require time for this work to be done -- quick fixes Page 3 is missing from these minutes. I called it to Christie Hallock's attention. Ms. Hallock searched her records but did not find it. She also contacted the person who transcribed them, but this page could not be found. 4 Jotnt Meetmg of the Village Board of Trustees & Southold Town Board Greenport SchoolAud~tonurn, May 12, 2004, 7:00pm [John Romanelli said that in the past couple of months the code on apartments had been re- written and a plan for perpetuity of affordable housing had commenced. First most important thing on the agenda is to insure permanent affordability; placement is the next most important thing; transfer of development fights; and he recommended a variety of approaches in different places: rentals, family homes, different things in different places. One should be started in the Greenport area, and he prefers moving ahead now, since the town cannot possibly solve all the housing problems.] [Thomas Wickham responded to Mayor Kapell's statement that that this meeting would not be about affordable housing and annexation; that the demographics of both the communities are changing and are a challenge to the town.] Supervisor Horton: The one major item on my mind over the last decade has been the lack of some provision for housing -- the most important item is to insure permanent affordability; and the second is the placement; and inclusionary zoning for subdivisions; coordinating water and sewer facilities. [Supervisor Horton said there was a coming meeting on May 18th at 8:00pm] Councilman Ross: Trustee Mills: Josh, would you hold up for a second? I think we need to get something clear fight now. This meeting is not about annexation -- the meeting last month was not about annexation. This meeting is about housing, solving the housing issue. We never came before the Town Board to discuss annexation. You guys are way off base. We came to discuss with you last month the concept of doing stuffto see whether annexation or some other solution to the housing problem -- whether the board is interested in even coming up with a solution -- it's not about annexation. You guys are pushing the annexation issue over and over again, and that's not the issue. (Applause) Annexation is potentially one possible tool to use to help solve the problem around the Village of Greenport. It was a proposal that was thrown up -- it is a hot proposal: it involves race, it involves zoning, it involves traffic -- it involves all the hot buttons that push everybody emotionally. And that is not the reason why we're here. And if you guys think we're here to discuss annexation, you're barking up the wrong tree. Supervisor Horton: Let's discuss some proposals -- let's discuss some real projects, then. ( Inaud. ) Trustee Mills: The point of being here was to find out from the town board whether you 5 Joint Meetmg of the ~llage Board of Trustees & SouthoM Town Board Greenport School ~ludl tortum, May 12, 2004, 7:00pm guys were imerested in studying or in coming up with some solutions to the housing problem. Supervisor Horton: My answer is "yes!" Trustee Mills: And the discussion, at least from my understanidng -- or the Town Board (inaud) was that we wanted to consider having the Town Board and the Village jointly study the issue. Now you're saying that you're starting to study the issue and you're doing it -- so far what we're heating is you guys are doing the study on a town-wide basis and Tom is saying that our study is going to be the Greenport School District and the Greenport area is going to be considered one area as part of that study -- that's fine, I have no problem with that. But how could you propose a project up on the coruer of Main Street and North Road when the study hasn't even been completed? (Applause) Supervisor Horton: I got the impression that the original purpose of the joint meeting was to discuss that vision. But I was (inaud.) newspaper coverage and the request for funding that went out that the mayor and I wrote -- I wrote a letter of support for that funding request -- was specifically about annexation. (Inaud.) at the last joint board meeting there was a request from a Town Board member and an acknowledgment from the Village Board that the map should be produced, and I can tell you, (inaud.) increased the liability and had an open mind on the subject. (Inau&) responsible direction -- annexation for 300 homes. That disturbed me, because I thought that affordable housing would be the responsibility of the entire town -- not simply Gceenport, and (inaud.) and I think it's time to break that ~sto~. Trustee Mills: I needed to clear the air because I think you guys were under the impression that our whole purpose here was to propose annexation, and it's absolutely not. The purpose here is to solve the housing problem in Greenport -- there's one in the entire town, but there is an acute problem in Greenport. And my concern is I'm a representative of Greenport, to solve the Greenport housing problem. Mayor Kapell: The proposal (inaud) was that the Town Board and the Village Board should get together and consider the question -- declare the housing emergency. That housing emergency has already cost the village 230 housing units: 230 housing units have already been lost, so when you talk about (inaud.), you're talking about Utopia. We're not talking about Utopia -- we're just talking about stabilization of the existing society. We're no[ trying to create some Nirvana. We're talking about people who, right now, are being pushed out the door because of our inaction, and our lack of political will and the foresight to do what's necessary to increase the density of the zoning that will allow the problem to be addressed. Our proposal in February was that annexation, as a possible tool to address the problem, could have a profound beneficial impact. l) It would allow the extension of sewer services beyond the existing boundaries of the village to possible sites at no charge. This would save potential buyers of.the properties involved $15,000.00 a unit. That's not small change when you're trying to build a house that's affordable for the typical Greenport family, where median family income is $36,333.00. It's not a hundred thousand dollars. Fifteen thousand bucks is big money. 2) We have zoning infi-astructure in Greenport that is vastly superior to the town's with respect to its ability to respond to the crisis: our zoning permits five lots to the acre and one or two-family houses on those lots. This means that you can have density up to ten units for the acre on the land. That is the type of density that's required, whether we like it or not, if we're serious about addressing the problem -- that is the type of density that's required to lower the cost of land to the point where a family earning $36,333.00 can start to dream of owning a home. Since we're not willing to talk about that, we're sitting here whistling Dixie, and the proposal was that annexation might be a way -- we never said that it should be done and we never said that it should be advanced to the stage that the Town Board is seeking to advance it -- and I concur with Trustee Mills -- prior to the exercise ora thorough analysis of the pros and cons of that and any other tool that could possibly be brought to bear, including other forms of cooperation between the Town and Village that do not involve annexation -- that those should be thoroughly evaluated and all options exhausted and considered before any movement's made on any site. Supervisor Horton: (Inaud) And what we're talking about -- what we are interested and (maud.) to you is to work together and, if you feel you weren't consulted, we're consulting you and inviting the Village Board (inaud) to participate in a town- wise initiative to provide affordable housing. The $100,000.00 -- I don't know where that comes from -- but I also know also that you have (inaud) and you also have people who work for a minimum salary -- in the village and in the town -- two parents working, combined income of $70,OOO.OO.(Inaud.) They earn too much money for the affordable housing program. And that's a tragedy. (lnaud.) I don't think we've done our job. 7 Mayor Kapell: Josh, with all respect -- none of us at this table have the required expertise to analyze this problem. And speaking for myself, I bring 25 years of experience in hous'mg on both the public and private side and I don't know what the answer is, and I'm the first to admit it. We need help -- the V'fllage needs help -- the Town needs help -- we need help to generate that. You can't just go offwilly-nilly and start building houses without knowing what you're doing! Speaking for myself, I'm not interested in proceeding one step before a comprehensive planning study is completed that satisfies our requirement that a meaningful solution is arrived at and is (inaud.). Fourteen units doesn't begin to touch the problem, it's just not significant. And I submit that it's doomed and dead on arrival, because the people that surround that site are going to say: What are you doing this to me for? -- without being able to explain to me: What else are you going to do? I'd also like to respond to this issue here on hour fact sheet about affordable housing must be "evenly" distributed throughout the town. Affordable hous'mg should be equitably distributed throughout the town, that honestly reflects the needs of an individual hamlet. Now let's talk turkey for a moment: CJreenport, throughout the history of Southold Town, going back to its founding in 1838, has been the oasis of affordable housing in the town. There's no question about that, that's a matter of fact and of history. Consequently, the need within the village, given the current predicament, is arguably going to be the greatest need within the town. Any responsible analysis is going to produce that finding. So to dismiss the 200 units, or whatever the number is, is unrealistic and unacceptable before you even have the information at your fingertips with which to make such a judgment, I submit is premature and not responsible. And I'll go back to -- Torch you were right -- I am touching on the identity of the town, that's exactly what's at stake here -~ it's our culture that's at risk. And our culture that's at risk because we can't afford to house ourselves. And as Trustee Mills was saying, this issue merges every hot button problem in the town: open space preservation, envirormaental protection, tax burden, race, diversity, economic activity, all of those merge in this issue -- you couldn't ask for a hotter issue. If you think you're going to come up with a solution in six months and roll it out and it's going to solve the problem, forget it -- it's just not realistic. I, for one, will not take one step in an affirmative direction on any specific proposal for action until it's backed up by a signed document that I have confidence in, that I participated in, that I was involved and consulted around the development of the process itself I mean, here you're coming to us and say "Look, we've rolled this out --join us." No consultation whatsoever! That's not partnership, that's paternalism. 8 Joint Meeting of the V~llage Board of Trustees & $outhoId Town Board Greenport School Aud~tor~urn, May 12, 2004, 7:00pm Tell me the name of your consultant. Supervisor Horton: (Inaud) Mayor Kapell: And that was told to the Village Board? No way. There's been no consultation whatsoever. Tom Wickham: First of all, that the village and the town are both (inaud) moving in aggressively to deal with the historical housing need of the town and the village. The very first project that the town is trying to get offthe ground is right in the (inctud.). We recognize, as the mayor just said, that the Village of Greenport has provided a base for affordable homes -- there is probably a greater need in this area than there is in Cutchogue, Mattituck and some others. But (inaud.) we would like to do this in a comprehensive fashion My own view -- we would like to move ahead quickly -- we do not want to wait for some photo-integrated study that's going to take a long time and a lot of dollars -- we think we can start right away. And the Village of Greenport really was consulted about this proposed site at the intersection of Route 48 and the Main Road. The very first time that that was presented was at the Joint Meeting about a month ago. The village was consulted. That was the first that the board heard about it and I guess was the first that the village heard about it. The village has been given an opportunity to be involved in this, and (inaud) to engage with us and not to say: "We're not prepared to do anything about it until some thorough assessment is done." We believe that we could move ahead quickly and we could put some houses and some buildings out there for the benefit of the village -- the people that live in the village, and the town. Now, can we go beyond that? Can we look beyond that to have more esoteric and more (inaud) ways to deal with our problems? Fine. We can look at them then. But meanwhile, let's get started on an important problem. Trustee Gall Horton: ([naud) about affordable housing -- I don't know about equal or equitable, but I think it's about choice, too. I think people in the town should choose if they want to live in Mattituck or Greenport. You know, if you have something to do where you commute to work -- god knows, I know about that -- those are part of the choices that we need. A person who (inaud.) by affordable housing should not be in just one place, it should should be choices throughout the town, is my belie£ (Applause). Mayor Kapetl: It appears to me as if we do not agree on the basis of the means of 9 approach -- and consequently, it's my feeling that the board would be best advised to withdraw our suggestion of a joint approach to the problem. (Inaud.) -- if you dumped our analysis, we'll see what we can do on our own. Supervisor Horton: (Inaud.) and a major step on a major initiative (inaud.). on two points: are you in a further (inaud.) in the near future; and are you also interested in participating in a collaborative study of the incorporated Village of Greenport as well as the but we can do what's within our reach Mayor Kapell: Let me understand what you're propos'mg. What I suggested in my opening remarks the village and the town board embark on a discreet study to find a geographic area confined by the and that that study be conducted facilitated by a support expertise if that's what you're suggesting, I'm all for it. If to that, I say no. So what are you asking? Supervisor Horton: I'm asking if Route 48 and Main Street -- we would like to do the Town Board would like to move forward with that. if necessary, Greenport would move ahead on new housing without the help of $outhold Town -- that he had wanted a partnership -- [Side 2, Tape 1] Audience Voice: ( Inaud ) Supervisor: Trustee Horton: I hope, with the town, if we want to invite you to planning and fine-tune it within the plan that the town has for a planning study, that would be possible. If we could take the mayor's suggestions and -- I don't know much about it, but if we could do it, I'm sure it would (inaud.) I really feel that -- it would be fine tuning, maybe different from what Cutchogue or Southold or Orient or Mattituck -- we need to fine-tune the planning (inaud.). I'm interested in that. And as I understand it, this thing on the Main Road, (inaud.) without a study. I see projects going on all the time that aren't studied and as I understand it, these would be (inaud) accessory apartments -- is that true? So that's thirty-two units, and then that that's thirty-two rentals. But as far as the study, and I notice we have cooperation here now', and (Applause) Trustee Hubbard: (Inaud) it's kind of late -- it seems that -- I did a study on my own, finding lots, different areas where we can build our own affordable housing -- say the helI with it! 10 Jomt Meeang of thc Village Board of Trustees & Southold Town Board Or eenport School Aud~tor~um, May 12, 2004, 7:00pm I think it's about time we cooperated with each other, and let's hear from them! Mayor Kapell: (Introduced next speaker) Voice-Man: I'd just like to say the subject is too important for wrangling. The fact that people on one board don't know what people on the other board are doing does not excuse either board. Number one priority in town -- and I have to say with respect to planning, we have, obviously, commissioned a plan, in addition to which we have thought about doing a needs assessment (maud) everybody in Southold who wants to be considered for affordable housing. But more to the point, we know where a lot of these boundaries are going to end up. You don't need a weather man to tell you the wind is blowing. There are areas where projects may come up where it's questionable. I don't think it's questionable whether the property on 48 (inaud.) is going to be appropriate. There are areas in several of the major hamlets (maud) affordable housing is an appropriate place and so that's why I defend what we're doing as a town board which is to move foreward get some projects going even as the study is being done. I don't want to wait until any project's done with respect to planning: we have, obviously number one priority [Recording the meeting were local press and TV who covered its entirety.] JOSHUA Y. HORTON SUPERVISOR Town Hall, 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-1823 ,. Telephone (631) 765-1889 OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 19, 2004 Mayor David Kapell and Greenport Village Trustees 236 Third Street Greenport, NY 11944 Dear Mayor Kapell and Trustees: At our joint meeting on May 12, 2004 it was recommended by the Village Board that a working group representing both boards be convened to explore ways in whic/a the two municipalities could work together in addressing affordable housing. The Town Board discussed this suggestion at our May 18 work session and agreed that this would be a productive approach to effectively deal with this issue and other matters of mutual concern. Toward this end, we have identified three Town Board members to participate in the working group: Bill Edwards, John Romanelli and Dan Ross. Please contact me with your thoughts on this approach. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, sor /rbw GREENPOR- UTILITIES Fax:631-z??-l?07 Mas 12 'Od 15:59 P.61 Agenda May 12, 2004 Joint Meeting-of the Village Board of Trustees and the Southold Town Board 1) ~) Z) Review of Town planning/affordable housing initiatives Presentation by Village Board Public Input ($) 009'6 [ [ O0 L [ ~ 8 E ~ Pa!dnaao-~au~o ~Hm~J'al~U!S %0'6 %8'~E (%9'~E) %Z'99 (%9'9L) EL~ (%Z'~) gE? s:]ufl 3u~snoH paidnaao-aauao %0'I6 ~SE [ gLO I suu~ au~snoH I~;O~ 'S'~ SDI&SIH~LLDV}tVHD DNISFIOH :LZIOdN3[3~ID :SDIHdV/IDOIAI~t{I O00Z 7'I ~9 ~'II 099'~7 g07 ~' E 6L0'7 OOL i;~9' I 9' ~OL'I 9gg'l 6' gI6'g E' ~99'6 6~L'L 9' [69'[ I~6'9 I§I 9' 6Ig'g 5'I 970'9 E' 999 7'0~ I6E LE6 g~ 6[ 9g l I 9 6 9 E 0I g g ~I 6 ~7 9I 6 6 gI I II 6 E 9 L I 9 Og gI gE II L ~ I I 7 V L~ El ~7I ~EI ~ 079'I L[ Eg9'I I 990'E g'I ~ ~[ 9g 0I E66 0'I 0I E L L9g 0'I 9 g 99g~I L' II 6 'A ~uloa sgu!M · a~D 'qvXsa M~Pa sgu!M 'A uo~$u!$uoM 3aodsom~£ ooPaa~% dIIsI dIIsI 'A M~P~ puwlsI · ouluR MaPa PUPISI pooauI uolTP~S uo~gu}~unR 'A ~ uo~gul~unH uo~gul~unH MooaqlOH 'A Moon 'A aoqa~H 'A MaPR X~R 33oi~H 'A P~o~sdmoH 'A =oqamH oq~ ~o pPoH o~nPddnmH MaP~ uo~dmwH sJw~ uo~dmPH 2soM ~aoduooao ~o o$fl IPuo!s~oo0 osfl '090 Xao~wag!H ao~ PlOH pup ao~ PiOH -IOUOSWoS 'A ~aoduooaD · ou!ufl MOON 'A PzPIH MOON 3PoaD 'A so~P~sM Moon 2Poao s~q~!oH uopaoD P~R u~ID 096I 's~!~!unm~noo 'I'% uI ~u!snoH osR IPuo!soooO pup IPUOSWoS (P,3UOD) ~ oIq~I x!puoddv I , )(%L!i© O6i S~,~$bos/q~IeOH/np~ :sa!-usnvul doj- %6'9I :a~]MoS (%6'81) EP[ %L'9E :oo~O/SO[eg (%vgz) 86[ :oa~O/SOlrS %9' gE :Pm~lO~OJdg~ (%L'gg) 16Z :pom[o~Oadg~ (%L'gZ) g~E :oo~O/SOleS :suo{;~dna~O do~ (~) 96 (~L 60 69~ io~al ~a~dd ~olaq Signp,~tpUI 966~9 : g90~P :SLg'IE ($) om0aui ploqasn0q umpa~ (%6~8~) Z08 ;{ (%L76~) LL6 (+9I aau) aaaoa ~oqua Ul 'g'fl dOD &S~ &HO~D ~DVq~IA ~HOflN~D SDIZSDt~I3LDV'ttVHD DII~ONOD:t , ,LltOdN~t~ID :SDIHdVEIDOI~t(I O00Z (%6'0Z) ~%l~urv mJ¢~I '(%9' I ~;) g!sv '(%g'Lg) odo.m~{ :al(ID ls*/fi 'moq-L~[O.md SDI&SIH~I&DVltVHD qVIDOS 3LIlOdN~I~ID :SDIltdV}IDOIAI~O 00015 DAY (o'c"~ C-' (%5'0) 8 ' (%1 'l'i I!. (%~'t) I'L I".,~ '0' O:'l °,,l"9) lt'l ] Sll~ ..I t ol ()1 gl i (%u'ti t'.'. (?,oO'g) f'R V',~,)~ (%ff~) 69 (%L'gg) 668 ~'~8~g)~[Ob ' (%STg) ~I l I (%fi[g) ~60I ~qvma~ qv&o& (%g'pp) glL ~ (?(~JZ~9~)~LL ' (%~'9~) Lg6 (%9'9P) Pg6 ~qv~ qvzog Pl9I -.- · :.:6L91 OLO~ 8~0~ ~o~vqaaoa qv~o~ 0661 dUD ~ laodu~oaO itDVlt / NOLLVqfldOd J~HOdNZI~78D :SDIHdVHDOIAVJtI 2004 South©Id Town Board Affordable Housing Overview To effectively address South©Id Town's housing needs, a well-crafted legislative and planning foundation must be established. The South©Id Town Board has three guiding principles in addressing affordable housing: · Affordable housing must be evenly distributed throughout Town. · Affordable housing that is created must remain affordable in perpetuity. · A broad range of housing opportunities must be attained. Listed below are several steps the Town Board has taken since January of 2004 to create the framework for comprehensively planned affordable housing: o Hired a tull-time Director of Housing, Ptfilip Beltz. Conducting a Town-wide affordable housing needs assessment. This will provide accurate data on how many local people need housing and what types of housing are in demand. Undertaking a Town-wide affordable housing and hamlet planning process. This plannhag function will include extensive public input, create a comprehensive affordable housing plan and explore snkart growth zonh~g techniques to foster thriving hamlet business centers. o Identified affordable housing sites in each hmnlet throughout Town. Modifying the ~1 own Affordable Housing Zoning D~stnct. This hamlet-based zoning will create permanently affordable housing for local people. Public Hearing at Town Hall: June 1st, 5 p. II)~ Created legislation to establish the Southold Town Community Housing Fund. This is intended to support affordable housing initiatives. Public Hearing at Town Hall: May 18th at 8 p.tr~ Inclusionary Zouing: This legislation will require that 25% of all new major subdivisions will be affordable. O Coordinating processes with the Suflblk County Board of Health'to achieve water and sewage requirements wlfile attaining sufficient density to make dwellings constructed affordable. Inspired by The Greenport Village Board's request to work together, proposed a cooperative Town/Village effort that could swiftly yield permanently affordable homes in the Greenport area wtfile broader planning processes are underway. 5/12/2004 ,4* PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY patricia.finnegan(a~town.southold.ny.us LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.montefusco@town.southold.ny.us JOSHUA Y. HORTON Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-1.823 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Members of the Town Board Patricia A. Finnegan Town Attorney February 10, 2004 Municipal Annexation Law The process refe'rred to by Greenport's Mayor with reference to expanding the Village boundaries is known as Municipal Annexation. There are basic prerequisites to the annexation of territory from one local government to another, including (1) the consent of the people within the territory to be annexed, and (2) the consent of the governing board of each local government, after the determination that the annexation is in the overall public interest. (If consent is not given, the determination may be made by the Supreme Court, based on the law and facts presented, on the question of whether it is in the overall public interest.) Municipal Annexation Law Article 17 covers the procedure. The process involves the presentation of a petition describing the territory, stating the approximate number of inhabitants, and signed by (1) at least 20% of the qualified voters residing in the district to be annexed, or (2) the owners of a maiority in assessed valuation of the real property in such. territory. Following the presentation of the petition, a hearing will be held on the question of whether the annexation is in the overall public interest, which will be presided over by a representative from each affected territory (Village and Town). Within ninety (90) days after the approval of annexation (by resolution or court order) a special election shall be held to determine whether the annexation shall be approved. All voters residing in the territory proposed to be annexed shall be entitled to vote. Following approval by the voters, the annexation shall be formalized. The procedure is clearly spelled out in Article 17, but these are the main requirements. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. PAF/Ik cc: Town Clerk 2 JOINT INITIATIVE TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING Proposal for Town of Southold Village of Greenport April 14, 2004 Reasons For Affordable Housing · Local people need housing'. · The community needs to sustain self-sufficiency by ensuring housing for workforce, volunteers (fire fighters, EMS, etc.), teachers, nurses, etc. · Socio-economic diversity will maintain our rural and working class, character. Site · Comer of County Road 48 and Main Street,, Greenport · 4.7 Acres · Residential Office Zone (Commercial) Town of $outhold I"-IE-W Fire District ~Tax Parcel ~ Freshwater Wetlands mMarine Wetlands [~Village Boundary [~Anne ,xation 4.74 Reasons for Site Selection · Located in Southold Town · Should be rezoned to protect the Village Business ~' District · Walking distance to Village Business District · Abuts a densely developed residential community · Adheres to Smart Growth Planning Principles Basic Necessities in Creating Affordable Housing · Zoning: Small lot zoning · Infrastructure: Public water and sewer Tools Available through Joint Initiative · AHD Zoning Overlay: A Town zoning district specifically designed to promote affordable housing Possible creation of 1/4 acre owner occupied single family homes with accessory studio apartments · TDR: The Town can transfer development rights. However, this process can be time consuming, cumbersome and expensive. Tools Available through Joint Initiative · Public Sewers: The Village of Greenport has public sewers that could be extended to serwce the property. Funding could be acquired to cover extension/hook up costs. · Public Water: Water is available through the SCWA. Tools Available through Joint Imt anve · Community Development: Village/Town CD experts: Mayor Kapell, Trustee Horton., Villag. e ' Administrator Abatelli and Town Special ProJects Coordinator Beltz. · Legal Staff: Southold Town has an expert house legal staff versed in all aspects of land use and municipal law. · Planning Staff: The Southold Town planning staff is versed in the subdivision of land, zoning implementation and design of safe communities. Tools Available through Joint Initiative · N. F. Housing Alliance: Professional affordable housing orgamzation · Community Land Trust: Mission of providing long-term affordable housing Possible Funding Sources · Community Development Block Grants · Suffolk County Affordable Housing Fund: Land Acqms~t~on and infrastructure ~mprovements · NYS Affordable Housing Corporation: Land Acquisition and Site Development · NYS Environmental Facilities :Corporation: 0% and low interest loans Project Results · Affordable Housing for local residents created within one year window · Collaborative effort can be used as a model for furore ~mtianves ~REENPORT UTILITIES Fax:BSl-4??-l?O? ~a~ 12 '0~ 1~:$~ P. O1 Agenda May 12, 2004 Joint Meeting of the Village Board of Trustees and the Southold Town Board 1) 2) 3) Review of Town planning/affordable housing initiatives Presentation by Village Board Public Input 10/05 '04 M0N 14:06 FAX 631 765 6145 SO[WHOLD TOWN CLERK ~001 TX/RX NO INCOMPLETE TX/RX TRANSACTION OK ERROR MULTI TX/RX REPORT *** ******************************* 0475 [* 04]7651662 [* 0012983287 [* 0113895930 [* 02]7651756 [* 03]7270095 [* 06]7661750 [* 0917652715 [* 1017887646 [* 1112984427 [* 1212981355 [* 1317346454 [* 1417651744 [* 25]2984649 [* 26]4769016 WBAZ Suffolk Times Suffolk Life Traveler Newsday Highway Dept Po]ice Dept Louisa Evans Dan Ross W Edwards Tom Wlckham J Romane111 N F Enviromental WALK FM MAY,-10' 04(MON) 12:2g VILLAGE OF GAE£NPORT TEL:6~i 477 1877 P, 002 PUBLIC NOTICE RECEIVED 2004 %uthold Town There will be a joint public meeting of the Village of Oreenpart Board of Trustees mad the Southold Tom Board regarding affordable housing and annexation issues as follows: WHEN: Wedr~esday, May 12, 2004 TI~: 7:00pf, l WHEI~: Crreenport Public School Auditorium Front Street G'reenport, New York 11944 MAY 10'04(~I0~} I2:23 VILLAGE OF GREENPORT TEL:631 477 18',," P, O02 TRUSTEES RECEIVED PUBLIC NOTICE Southold Town Cle~ There will be a joint public meeting of the Village of Grecnport Board of Trustees mad the Southold Town Board regarding affordable housing and annexation issues as follows: WHEN: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 TIME: 7:00pm WHERE: Crreenport Public School Auditorium Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 I JOINT MEETING GREENPORT VILLAGE BOARD SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD April 14, 2004 4:30 P.M. JOINT MEETING REGARDING ANNEXATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVE Present: Southold Town Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton, Southold Town Councilman Daniel C. Ross, Southold Town Councilman John M. Romanelli, Southold Town Councilman Williarn P. Edwards, Southold Town Councilman Thomas H. Wickham, Southold Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Attorney Patricia A. Finnegan, Southold Assistant Town Attorney Kieran Corcoran. Greenport Mayor David Kapell, Greenport Village Trustee George Hubbard, Greenport Village Trustee Ben Bums, Greenport Village Trustee Gail Horton, Greenport Village Trustee Jamie Mills, Greenport Village Attorney Matt Pachman and Greenport Village Acting Clerk Steve Brautigan. Absent: Southold Town Justice Louisa P. Evans. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Good afternoon, I want to welcome everyone to Town Hall for the joint work session of the Town Board and the Village of Greenport Board. This is actually a momentous occasion, it is the first time in probably five or six years that the two Boards have met to discuss business that is of mutual interest. So I want to welcome everybody who is here to attend and observe, I also want to welcome the Village Board to Southold Town Hall. I think it is also important to recognize that over the past 2 ½ years, the Town Board and the Village Board have forged a much better working relationship and I thank the Village Board for your accessibility to that. With that being said, this is a work session of the two Boards, the Village of Greenport has a, this is a work session style meeting and it is an opportunity for the two Boards to discuss ideas and interact with each other. Southold Town work sessions as well as Greenport work sessions and local government work sessions in general are reserved for the Board members to converse with each other. At the appropriate time, not at this meeting but if things were to progress, there certainly will be the forum for public input. This specific meeting is a work session that I hope is limited to an hour, an hour and a half at most, for the two Boards to discuss various Village and Town business. So with that being said, I would like to welcome Mayor Kapell, the Village Board and the first item on our agenda is a presentation by the Greenport Village Board, so I will turn this over to the Mayor. MAYOR DAViD KAPELL: Supervisor Horton, members of the Town Board, I want to first of all thank you for your hospitality in hosting this meeting. I concur in the Supervisor's observation that this is an important development. Frankly, we don't meet often enough like this. I think that it would be fruitful for us to consider regular meetings going forward so that we can address issues on a regular basis, rather than waiting for things to build up. Also, it might produce ideas and spontaneous thoughts that would otherwise not surface if we didn't have the opportunity for this sort of exchange. Before I proceed with the presentation that I am going to make and when I am finished, I am going to ask my Board to contribute as well, I want to address, I want to respond one issue that was raised in the April 14, 2004 Joint Work Session 2 Suffolk Times editorial several weeks ago and clear the air on this issue once and for all. In that editorial, there was a reference made to the fact that I happen to be a real estate broker, engaged in the sale of property in and around Greenport. This, needless to say, is true and has been true for 25 years. I have also been a public official for 25 years. I have no interest and will have no interest in any property whatsoever that is affected by the proposal that I have made and that the Village Board is here to present for the possible expansion of the village and or the development of affordable housing in and around Greenport. And by this, I mean I will have no interest as an owner, no interest as a real estate broker or any other private interest whatsoever. I have prided myself for 25 years on my ability to keep my priorities straight. Anytime there has been a question of whether or not my :interest or the public's interest should be served, I have always sacrificed my own interest in favor of the public interest and will do so as long as I remain a public official. In addition, I want ~Io present an observation to you from my side of the equation and that is because of the fact that 1 don't cross that line, in making a proposal such as the one that I have made, I effectively eliminate from my sphere of opportunity in private life, any transaction that could possibly transpire in the affected area, so there not only is no personal benefit for me, this comes at significant personal cost to me. But I feel that this is a critical issue and it is my privilege to bring it forward. There is a housing emergency in Southold Town, including the Village of Greenport. Like dinosaurs marooned on a Hollywood movie set, we are turning our community into a Jurassic park of working families in which the vast majority cannot afford decent housing. And like dinosaurs, we too are facing extinction here on the North Fork. The cruel irony is that this condition is caused by the operation of land preservation policies that drive up the cost of vacant land and exclusionary zoning laws that make no provision for the rental housing or small lot subdivision required to ensure housing affordability for diverse society. We have total control over these tools, yet we don't make use of them. A perfect illustration of the problem is the recently announced county purchase of development rights in Southold, under this deal the property owners receive $2,000,000 in taxpayer money for the preservation of 50 acres, a worthy goal, But they also reserve 30 acres to be divided into six five acre lots. Estate lots. Why wasn't our $2,000,000 used as leverage to create small lots that local families can afford? We are using our precious tax resources and land use regulatory authority to serve the wealthy, instead of using these same resources to meet the needs of our own people. Where the problem previously affected low-income families, the new reality of $500,000 starter home has extended the problem to virtually every family in town. I wonder how many in this room today can afford a $500,000 home or $250,000 building lot? The process is displacing people across the community and the impacts will be profound if no action is taken. These impacts break down into practical impacts and social impacts. Among the practical impacts are going to be a rising costs of services in as much as local people, people that provide services are not going to able to reside within our own community, they will be forced to commute from elsewhere, from places like western Suffolk county, Nassau county, even as far west as the city of New York. This is already occurring on the south fork, we only need to look to our neighbors to see the example. In addition, there will be practical impacts in terms of human resources, there will be declining human resources for service clubs, to fill out congregations in churches, to populate our schools, to man our fire departments and to participate in our local democracy. In terms of social impacts, we will suffer a loss of diversity, we will sacrifice our identity and we will be exporting our kids-we are exporting our kids- we are educating our kids just to export them to other places. If we were in business, we would be out of work. I mean, what kind of madness is it to train people only to send them to your competition to perform their jobs. This is exactly what we are doing, we are spending enormous amounts of money to educate our children, just to send them out of town, so that they can produce and become productive citizens in other communities. Most profoundly, the process causes a division of families, and I April 14, 2004 Joint Work Session 3 maintain that the fundamental building block of any healthy society is the family unit and to the extent that you have a set of rules, governmental rules that operate in a manner that divides families and undermine that critical basic element, like the atom of a family, it undermines the society as a whole. Children are forced to leave, parents and grandparents are left separated from their kids and their grandchildren, eventually they will leave, they will follow the kids, this is very common, this is typical, predictable; that the parents and grandparents will follow the children. So you are going to have this mass exodus over a brief period of time that will result in the vacating of Southold Town by the very people that make up its soul. What is causing the problem? Obviously we know it is rising real estate prices, but what drives that reality? The reality is that our real estate market is driven by the economy of Wall Street. Wall Street pays big salaries, big bonuses and provides people with enormous resources to come out here and pay virtually any price they want or that they can justify for a home. We are competing on a Main Street economy. It is a fundamentally weak economy. People out here make small livings. How can we possibly be expected to compete with the awesome power of a Wall Street economy, especially if our zoning doesn't provide the opportunity for the type of small lot subdivision and other forms of housing opportunity that could possibly be competitive and priced according to our own needs? The Board is here today in the spirit of cooperation and I want to emphasis this in the most, in the best of faith. We are here because we are part of the Town, we see ourselves as an important part of the Town and I would assume that the Town Board concurs that the Village is an important part of the Town and we think that because of the very fact that we are an incorporated village, which I know is problematic in terms of a discussion like this and it is the very nature of the problem that we are going to be talking about but the fact that we are an incorporated village gives us certain distinct advantages, flexibility, efficiency and in our case, small lot zoning and the availability of utilities that position us uniquely in Southold Town. There is no other place in Southold Town other than the incorporated village where these two critically important :realities exist that could be used to address what I think everybody recognizes is in fact a town wide problem. The housing emergency is not limited to Greenport or Mattituck or Southold, it is from one of the town to the other. For that matter it is from one end of Long Island to the other. It is not even unique to Southold Town but we are not here to solve everybody's problem, we are just looking at our o~vn. So we are here again, in the spirit of cooperation and in friendliness to suggest that maybe t]here is a way for the village to help the town, at least in part, we are not suggesting that we are going to offer a complete solution, a comprehensive solution to what the town is facing. But we believe that we are uniquely positioned to offer a partial solution to the problem and to do it quickly and cost effectively. And what we are proposing, as by now you well know, is the possibility of expanding the boundaries of the Village in a manner that brings, that annexes certain vacant parcels that exist just outside our boundary, in many cases, contiguous to our boundary. In some cases, even surrounded by our boundary. To annex those vacant lands such that our zoning can come into force on them and such that we then have the authority to extend sewer services at no hook-up fee, so that the type of development that I have just referred to as being essential to addressing the problem effectively is allowed to occur and allowed to occur quickly. And by quickly, you know I mean in a year or two, as opposed to 10 years down the road. Again, ! maintain that five or ten years from now, there will be no point having this conversation, the horse will be totally out of the barn, it will be too late to go back. This conversation will be dead. In addition to the zoning and sewer resources that we bring to the table, we also have school that is substantially underutilized. We have a village that many of you may not be aware, was populated by as many as two times the number that currently live there. We have a school that was built to house between 1,100 and 1,200 students, there are 680 students in the school today. Now, I am not saying that there aren't going to be impacts on the school, clearly there will be. April 14, 2004 Joint Work Session 4 Clearly there will be and there will be needs for the school to respond in the event that this proposal advances. But what I am saying is unlike every other school district in the Town, Greenport is the only school district that can look you in the face and say that our building was built for more students than we have got in it. That is a simple statement of fact. What we envision is a process that would result in the provision of permanently affordable housing. A permanently affordable stock. Not one of these one time shots as had occurred in the past and we are guilty of it even in Greenport, you know we built eight houses in the last couple of years that went to income eligible families and they deserve the housing but we didn't put the types of protections on that would guarantee that when those houses turn over, that the next owners would also be people that meet the same test. What we envision in this proposal is a mechanism that would guarantee that no matter when the house was resold, that the buyer would be somebody that met the definition of eligibility for affordable housing. In addition, we envision a program that would meet the needs of local families, so local residency or local affiliation by virtue of employment or some other legitimate measure would be a prerequisite. We are not talking about building housing that would serve the needs of other places. We are looking to meet our own needs. There are many people in this room today that can't find a house. Those are the people we want to serve. Some of them live in Greenport, some of them don't. From our perspective, you may say why would you want to do this? Why would the Village want to do this? Well, we think that there might be something in it for us. We actually believe that this could be good for us, that it would be good for the Village, to have a new population of nurses, teachers, firemen, police officers, construction workers across the gamut. Living, voting and doing business in the Incorporated Village of Greenport. Our business district as well as we have done in the last few years, is overly dependent on tourism. Tourism is a good thing and I am not saying that it doesn't play a very important role in our new economy in Southold Town but if anybody thinks that you can make a business tick on a, a year-round business tick on a three month season, I am telling you it doesn't work that way. It is a long winter in Greenport if you are a merchant, I have been in business in Greenport for 25 years, I speak from experience. What could be better? What could be better for the health of the Greenport business district than to have new stock of families residing and transacting with our local merchants? Stores like the Arcade, if we ever lost the Arcade it would be an extraordinary negative development for Greenport, the Arcade is almost, you know it symbolizes the eclectic diversity of the Village. But the Arcade needs year-round trade. There is not enough. The Arcade, the IGA, White's Hardware, bread and butter stores, that need year-round business would benefit if the Village had more people living in it. So this is a principal reason why we think that this might be good for Greenport. And I say might because we don't know yet, and this is a very important point to dwell on for a moment because I submit that this is an idea that has at least enough merit for thorough investigation but in the end, it could very well be that after an investigation is conducted and the information is in with which to answer the millions of questions that people are going to bring to the table, it may be that it doesn't make sense. I really can't judge that at this point and I submit that nobody can because we don't have the information at our disposal with which to make a rational and informed decision. In terms of the process, what we envision hopefully, is that we can have a series of these meetings, we are having one today, we hope to have another one maybe next month and continue this discussion in a manner that leads us down a path where we say, alright maybe this site and that site, maybe it might make sense and if we can reach such a consensus at that point and I envision that taking several months, if we can reach that consensus informally as we are doing right now, no pressure, no specific proposals, no action, no motion for action on the table, just a discussion. And if we can reach such a consensus at that point, we would stop and conduct an exhaustive analysis on what the impact would be if that idea were implemented. So again, you are talking about absolutely no commitment in terms of real change April 14, 2004 Joint Work Session 5 until a thorough study is conducted but you need a specific model in order to conduct that study, you can't conduct a study on some generic idea, you know, maybe this would make sense, maybe that would make sense. We need to get far enough down this conversation were we could say alright, we agree between us that these two or three or one property, whatever it is, might make sense to look at. At that point, now you have got something tangible and well-defined, specifically defined to analyze in detail so that you can bring forward information to answer the questions, the reasonable questions that people are going to have about how this thing would shake out. That process, the study process, I also envision taking six months or so. So we are talking about a year, six months at least to a year, before anything concrete would come before our two Boards for real action. So there is really nothing at risk at this particular moment than the risk of talking to each other, to see whether we can find between us some common ground to address a problem that I maintain, affects us all and I also maintain that maybe if we work together, we could come up with solutions that would not develop if we weren't working together. Greenport is an advantage for the Town, a significant advantage, we always have been an advantage for the Town and this history goes back 170 years. Take advantage of us. Take advantage of us but do it in a way that also benefits us. This is what we are suggesting, that maybe we can help each other. The challenges to this process and what I am suggesting are enormous. NIMBYism is an extraordinary reality in our time. And it tends to break down any conversation like this right out of the bat because people don't, they can't even fathom the idea of an activity like this taking place in their neighborhood. It is happening to us. You look around and see what is happening, people are getting forced out of our community, every day people are moving out. I mean, this is an organic reality. It is happening, we have got to do something about it if we really want to address the problem. In addition, environmental protection is a major obstacle. There will be some environmental issues that arise out of this, legitimate environmental issues. There will also be some issues that I think are not as important, okay? And I suggest that many of the sites that could be considered for this initiative are disturbed sites. Some of them are abandoned development sites; that abut the Village. Others are cleared sites, so I think that environmental protectionism is a major obstacle but not insurmountable. I think and I say this honestly, if you will, because we all suffer it but there is a political protectionism that characterizes the relationships between villages and towns, and it is not unique to Southold and Greenport, this is a reality, if you go to any other township and talk to a Supervisor or go to any Village, Dan you are from Patchogue, you know, I am sure Patchogue has an arms-length relationship and at times adversarial relationship with the Town of Brookhaven, this is a natural reality, but it doesn't have to be that way all the time, okay? And what I think is c, ritical to any success in this discussion is that we start out by saying, look, that problem doesn't exist. Let's pretend that there is no village line for a moment, let's pretend that there is no boundary between the Incorporated Village and the rest of Greenport and Southold town, that would kind of liberate us in a way. Liberate us from baggage and I say, damaging baggage, handicapping baggage, for the purpose of a conversation like this. To allow us to get, to explore areas haven't been possible before. But in order to do that, we have got to drop our guard on both sides of the table. ! am not putting this to the Town Board side. I am saying that we suffer from the same thing, it is a natural reality, we both have to acknowledge it and we both have to rise above it. In summary, I want to state that this is not an 'us against them' proposal. The people that can afford to pay the prices that the market, the open market is bearing right now in Southold Town make an important contribution to our Town, they have brought enormous economic and cultural resources, human resources into the community that have resulted in a huge improvement in the way that Southold Town functions. But unfortunately, the way it is working is excluding everybody else and that is not a good situation. We need a balance. We need inclusion. Supervisor Horton, to your credit you have used the word inclusion and the Town Board, I April 14, 2004 Joint Work Session 6 gather has endorsed the word inclusion as characterizing an approach to this problem. That you can't have a set of rules that only operates for one small segment of the economy and of the society. I submit that the solution will help to keep families together. That it will help us maintain the traditional identity of Southold Town and the North Fork as a working town, I mean, this is a real place. I think the reason Greenport enjoys such enormous success in tourism is the fact that Greenport is one of the only places of its kind; seaport, beautiful architecture, you know, surrounded by farms, where you can go and there is still real people living there and that is true of Southold Town at large, that is really at risk right now. Greenport would benefit from having more families, what could be better than having young children populate our streets and our schools, having their families patronize their businesses, participate in our local government? And I submit that a thriving Village of Greenport is absolutely essential to the health of the Town as a whole. I think we have proven this is a large part in the last few years. The revitalization that the Village has had enormous impact on the entire Town, it is not only the Village that has benefited because Greenport it, needless to say, certainly the shopping center for the entire east end of the Town. I mean, if you live in Orient, you live in East Marion, where do you shop? You come to Greenport. So the condition of the Greenport business district and the condition of the Village as a whole has a lot to do with the quality of life and the value of real estate, frankly, in these other communities. It has also benefited places, communities to the west. I hear all the time from people in business in Cutchogue and Southold as far away as Riverhead; that they do business with people that are on their way to Greenport. So, a thriving village is a major advantage to the Town. So if we can come up with a solution that bolsters Greenport, that builds Greenport; that is good for the Town. That is my proposition. That is good for the Town. It is not a threat to the Town; it is good for the Town. In closing, I submit that the time has come to fish or cut bait on the question of whether or not you are going to step up to the plate and put action behind our promises to promote affordable housing for our own people or in the alternative, if we are not going to do it, we have responsibility to tell them that we can't help them, that they should plan to live their lives and raise their families elsewhere, in communities that want them and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to accommodate them. In other words, we would be saying 'goodbye and good luck' to the next generation and its future in Southold Town. I thank you very much, I am going to pass the mike to my colleagues on the Village Board and ask them to comment. GREENPORT VILLAGE TRUSTEE GEORGE HUBBARD: I thank you for having us here today, I have been on the Village Board for 37 years and this is the third time, I think, that the Town and the Village Board have met together and so I think that is history being made today. One thing I want to say about the annexation is about the fire department. We all know that Greenport protects a lot of the town's area as well as our own. Well, when I joined the fire department, 53 years ago, there was a waiting list. There is my company, the relief hose company had a membership of 45 men. Now it is down to around 22 and a few of the members are like myself, can't pull hose any longer and so we go when they have a feed and meet some friends, but we are getting scarce in our firemen and because it takes a lot of training to be a fireman today, when I joined the fire department, if you could pull a hose, drive the truck, you were a fireman. And while that isn't any longer so, it means a lot of training, and especially for the rescue squad and that is getting low on membership because there is a tremendous amount of training. There has been thought maybe in time, that we will have to hire a few' men to man it. To have volunteer and paid. But now when you hear an alarm going for a fire and a few minutes later, you hear another one go off right after it, that means that they do not have enough help to answer the call. As I understand, what was brought up that Orient, a while back, had a rescue and they didn't have enough men to answer the truck, so they called East Marion and so, the men from East Marion April 14, 2004 7 Joint Work Session didn't have enough men to man, so they called Greenport. I never did hear the outcome of that, Dave did you ever hear the outcome? MAYOR KAPELL: I assume that the outcome is good because I didn't hear the outcome. GREENPORT ViLLAGE TRUSTEE HUBBARD: But you can imagine how long that took in the process and the person could have died in that process, so, having annexation and another group of people coming into the Village I think would be a benefit. Thank you. GREENPORT VILLAGE TRUSTEE BEN BURNS: ! don't have a lot to say, that is, it won't take long. I hope I have a lot to say but maybe on another occasion we can spend some time and that is really my appeal. We came to Southold over 40 years ago and I got involved with Greenport shortly after that, so 1 have been involved deeply with Greenport for close to 40 years. We bought the house in Greenport, I say, we bought the house, actually my wife bought the house in Greenport because she told me, we need a home. Pastors live in a home that belongs to the church and I said, on a pastor's salary? So she went out and got a job and bought the house, so I have a house, have a roof over my head thanks to her. Central Avenue was a quiet little Avenue in those days and it is become very busy place with ancillary apartments, including one in my own home. There are a lot of people living there, it is a mixed group and we moved to Greenport primarily because it is a conglomerate of a variety of peoples and thoughts and dreams and hopes and so forth. I consider myself middle class. I am not sure what that means or whether that is accurate or not. But it seems to me and one of the people that I was talking with last night said, you know what is happening? The middle class is getting left out. We are losing our middle class and I am thinking, I am likely to get lost. People who live like I do are likely not to be there in the future. Anyway, when this proposition was first flown, I am thinking there are two possibilities, two ways it might go. One is to say, look I got mine, thanks to my wife and it is worth ten times what it was when I bought it 20 years ago, so I am really sitting well. I could say that and say, I like Greenport like it is. I don't want it to change, even though I observe that il: has changed and I have been a part of making some of those changes. I could say, you know, go find a house someplace else. Well, actually I know a couple of people who did and I mention this not just because they are middle class, but because they are upper middle class. One of them had a very important job in government, locally, and looked in our area for a home that was appropriate and affordable, so he went to Connecticut. The other one is an operations officer, chief of operation ora major corporation on Long Island and several months ago he and I were talking and he said he was looking tbr a place on the east end of the Island and I said, come to Greenport. So he did and he wanted the place in Greenport. Just recently I saw Ed and I asked him how he made out and he said, well, he couldn't find anything affordable in our area. This is a man who makes lots of money. And I said, where did you go? And he said he went to the south fork and bought a house. Now, that is what is happening to us and we, people like us, myself, are getting squeezed out. That is one attitude. I could take, you know, go someplace, go to Shirley and buy a house, go to Westbury, go to South Carolina but we don't need anymore people. The second attitude I could take and the one I chose and the one I hope everyone will consider is that we really need to be able to provide a place for our children and for our grandchildren and for those who serve us as carpenters and plumbers and nurses and so forth. I am hoping that when I need a nurse, she isn't going to have to come from Shirley; she will be living locally. Both the hospital and the Peconic Landing are having terrible time finding staff and that is not just because there is no housing, there is a national problem. And there are child care problems and there are also a whole bunch of other things but housing becomes an important thing for anybody who is going to be a April 14, 2004 Joint Work Session 8 part of the service group for those of us who are, who love to live out here and who enjoy the care that we get from people who do live here. All we are asking is that we continue to talk and see what we can do. I don't know, I am with the Mayor, it is quite possible as we go along here, at some point, I am going to say, I can't do that because it is going to interfere with what I consider my standard of living, the way I like it. It could come to that and I would have to vote no but we won't know until we begin to move along and do something about finding just exactly what all this means. I am excited about the prospect, I don't know why anybody would want to undertake the kind of task that it is going to be for this Board, for this combined Board but we will move on and I pray that that is the case. GREENPORT VILLAGE TRUSTEE GAIL HORTON: Well, Josh can tell you I can yell pretty loud but I will try to talk into this mike. My name is Gail Horton, I am from Greenport. I have been a longtime housing, affordable housing advocate. Dan Ross has some great quotes from me, from one instance with a single-occupancy place in Greenport where I testified, when in the late '70's early '80's when our homes in the poorer section of Greenport started to be sold, not to the local community but to the outside community, I worked with Bessie Swann and Ed Reale to form the Greenport Housing Alliance and I see some colleagues back there who now work for the same agency which is the North Fork Housing Alliance. I have worked on affordable housing over the years and I truly believe in providing it to the community, I have always believed in providing it to thc community. And I am excited that we are all here together today. As we have all said, we don't know what the outcome of it will be but I hope that one of the outcomes is that we work together tbr affordable housing in a form. And I do agree as Dave has said and we have done many affordable home oxvnerships, that they haven't always been effective because then when the owner wants to sell they go outside, they appreciate and they become so much more valuable and they don't get sold to aftbrdable housing. The last houses that we built in Greenport have 10 years, the last eight that we did. We made them so that there is a penalty if you sell them before eight years but then after eight years, they do go outside the community and I hope that sometime the Community Land Trust, whose meetings that I have been very pleased to be a part of are a part of our affordable housing solution, as is. the Housing Alliance. What I would like to say because I am not going to say any more about it because our proposal is still vague, but I would like you to keep in mind, it is something that I keep in my date book because I always seem to work in occupations that work in helping other people and it is a reminder to those of us who serve others and I want to read it because of its strong emphasis on the community and on the need for community spirit, not just on our Boards but the need for community spirit amongst all citizens of Southold Town and this quote is from Lyla Watson, who is a Aboriginal educator activist, and it says here "If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time, if you have come here because your liberation is bound up with mine, then stay and we can work together" Thank you very much. GREENPORT VILLAGE TRUSTEE JAMIE MILLS: For those of you who may not know me, I think everybody on the Town Board knows me, Jamie Mills, aka William J. IH. You also are probably well aware that I am a lifelong Southold resident. My brother and I also employ over 3 dozen Southold Town residents. That live between Cutchogue and Orient and I can tell you, some of them are having a difficult time finding housing and I am not going to sit here and repeat Dave's message to the Board. If I could, I would underline every word that he said and repeat it to you because I have to agree with what he said wholeheartedly, the important point here at this point is we need to further investigate this issue. The Town has a problem. It is a town wide problem. I think we all recognize it is a town wide problem; it is an Island wide problem. I do a lot of business on the south shore; I have April 14, 2004 Joint Work Session 9 watched for years what Dave and I have jokingly referred to as the trade parade. The majority of people who work on the south shore now come from points west. They come all the from, as Dave said, the city, to work on the south shore because there are people that can afford to live on the south shore and do the jobs that are available. I don't want to see that happen in Southold Town. Is there any easy answers? No, there are no easy answers. Is it going to have negative impacts? Is it going to mean more cars on the roads? Is it going to have a negative impact on the school? Very well possibly. Without taking a look at the issues and having it studied and tested, we are not going to ~know for sure. I think that there is going to be benefits to a study, I have always been opposed to studies. Dave will tell you in my tenure on the Board, I am not a fan of consultants. When Dave, John and I first got on the Board, we fired every consultant that the Village had and started over and we have used consultants very sparingly and saved the taxpayers in the Village of Greenport a lot of money because we consulted each other and as elected officials made our own decisions. We didn't bring in people to make decisions for us. I think in this particular case, we are going to need to go to some expertise to bring together all the information that needs to brought together and see where it takes us. I have one further note on here and I have got to put my glasses on to see it; Peconic Landing, I can't resist bringing up Peconic Landing and comparing this event, if you will, with Peconic Landing. The inception, the planning, the creation, construction and finally the movement of people into Peconic Landing all occurred with virtually no activity on the part of the public. It was very mini~nal. Here we are bringing in 250 housing units, all upper income, all everybody did was go 'glory be to god we are going to increase taxes' the tax revenues are going to go up and it was going to be our savior but there was no question about the impact on roads, no impact on any other issues. So I just find it a little bit ironic that here we are trying to help solve what I personally feel and I think a lot of other people do, is a problem for working class people in the Town of Southold and I keep hearing, not to be negative, but I keep hearing negative. And I am sorry to hear that. MAYOR KAPELL: Just in closing, 1 would like to extend an invitation to extend this process to the Town Board to a meeting in Greenport, next month. Okay? Whatever works for everybody else, let's meet again, let's continue this discussion, let's meet next time in Greenport. I would like to offer a tour of the village, we will take you and show you what we have got. I mean, I know all of it, it may sound silly but you do it every year on Fishers Island, right? Every year. Every year the Town Board travels to Fishers Island to go over there and familiarize themselves with life on Fishers Island. Now, I know you all come to Greenport individually on a regular basis because 1 see you there but that is different from coming in your official capacity as a group with us to go around and take a look and have, gain an understanding of what the village is from an operational standpoint. We will take you for a tour park, see our various facilities, the power plant, the sewer plant and also to look at some of the possible sites that might be appropriate for this discussion. And I extend this invitation in the warmest of terms. SUPERVISOR HORTON: If you need a hand giving that tour, let me know. Happen to live on the comer of Front and Main and I am happy about that. This is what I would like to do, this is a work session and it is an opportunity for the two Boards to have some discussion and I think I will turn the floor over to, not to just the Southold Town Board but to both Boards in case there are questions for back and forth, so I am opening the floor now to the Southold Town Board. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would just like to commend the Mayor for a very useful presentation. I am grateful to hear it first hand and there was a great deal there that I can agree with and find, would April 14, 2O04 Joint Work Session 10 strongly support. First of all, there is the spirit of working together. We have often talked on this Board about the need to have joint meetings and have them on a regular basis. And I think that is an important function of our two municipalities. I like the idea of dropping the division between the Town and the Village. It really is an arbitrary division and we face that with the East-West fire district and with other forms of cooperation and I tend to think in those terms. The last time that I met with the Village Board was when you came to us, Dave, if we could take on the responsibility of policing Greenport and at that time you came to us early on in the process, in fact, I recall meeting here in Town Hall and from that came a form of cooperation that I still think was in the interests of the Town and of the Village. And it was one that, actually, in looking back on it happened relatively painlessly and relatively well. I think it turned out fairly well. So there is precedent and there is willingness on the part of the Town and the Village to extend and work together to solve problems. It is not as if we are venturing in to terra incognito. Really, you have proposed two initiatives today. One of them is an inclusionary housing initiative, which we feel is very important. The second one is an annexation initiative, which is an adjunct to it and is perhaps a pre-requisite. At least the way you have presented it to the Village, doing it the way you wanted it. Let's talk first about the inclusionary housing initiative and I just want to apprise the Village Board in case you are not aware of it, of considerable interest and activity that this Board is taking in exactly the same area. It has really been led by our Supervisor but the whole Board, I think, is signed on to it. We have taken a much more serious interest in the area of affordable housing than the Town of Southold has ever taken in the past. In part, it is at the instigation of the Village and of the comments and what we have seen in the Village hut it is much more than that and in fact, one of the hallmarks of our affordable housing program is a distribution of the housing across the whole town and not in any one location. That doesn't mean, you know some years ago when we talked about this, there was concern about that too much affordable housing was being focused in Greenport and there was an effort on the part of the Town to distribute it in various parts in the Town. We now have a study going on, I share Jamie's concern about hiring consultants and even I might mention, Josh's concern, but we have hired a consultant specifically to help us develop the various hamlet centers that would form a locus for various affordable housing projects. There are, as Dave mentioned, we also are committed to the idea of permanent affordability, not something that would just, after a few years, work itself up into the full-scale market, which is frankly the way that the former projects of the Town have been carried out. 1 did not hear yet an idea of how many housing units you have in mind or what you think you are going to try to work towards, you identified the fhct that you are not going to be able to solve the whole town's problem nor all of Long Island's problem. It will be interesting as we develop the dialogue to know roughly what part of the problem is the Village interested in trying to work with. Turning now to the annexation part, there are two or three questions. The first question I have is how much of that land is really buildable? It is my understanding that a lot of it is wetland and even the area that isn't wetland, it is my understanding that some of it at least, has, is supposed to be reserved for well-head protection for the public water wells in Greenport. In other words, that there are covenants and restrictions on it, on developing in those areas in order to protect the aquifer around those wells. I don't have the facts with me today but I have understood that that may be a restriction on some of the land. Whether or not the annexation is essential for the affordable housing initiative that you have very eloquently proposed and which I might add, the Town of Southold fully supports and intends to go further in our area of jurisdiction, whether or not the annexation is essential to that initiative is the key question that I am going to be exploring as we continue this dialogue. April 14, 2004 Joint Work Session 11 COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Dave, you made a great presentation and I think if we all sat around here and tried to discuss that the affordable housing problem didn't exist, we would be kidding ourselves. It is a serious problem amongst the Town. What I would propose is that these two Boards, and we have a great GIS system and aerial maps of this Town, I would propose that our next meeting, we have our Planning Department develop these maps, show the areas that we have in mind. You stated in your conversation that maybe it will be all one piece, two pieces but if we had these aerial maps in front of us as a working Board and we are all familiar with the area, that we could sort of point to these parcels and say, maybe this is an annexation piece, maybe it isn't. But it would give us a little more concrete figures to work with, to continue on with this discussion and explore the possibilities, without that, we are all just talking arbitrarily. So that would be my suggestion for our next meeting. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Dave, I echo what John said, I think you are call for affordable housing is very appropriate. Them is unanimity on this Town Board on this issue. There is nobody who has any concerns that this is not essential. I had the challenge last year of knocking on as many doors in Southold Town as I could and I calculated that by at the end of the campaign, I had knocked on about 10% of them and the single issue that everybody brought up, it wasn't five acre zoning, oh there were a few people said down on Hogg Neck, can't you get rid of the deer as the first priority? But it was affordable housing. It was phrased in different terms. People who are upper middle class or middle class are saying, well I want my kids to be able to buy a house. People who are working: class, I want my kids to be able to rent a one bedroom apartment but it was the same issue for everybody and we need affordable housing in both areas. John Romanelli and I have been working with Josh as an affordable housing kind of sub-committee or working group on this very issue. I feel very strongly much as I certainly appreciate Gmenport being willing to shoulder this burden, that it is a burden that the whole town needs to shoulder together and that I live in Mattituck and Mattituck, all the hamlets should have affordable housing for two reasons; number one, it is not fair that one school district should bear the burden but secondly, these people are our neighbors. These people live with us. These are our friends, our family and so forth. And we want them to live throughout the Town and have the opportunity to live throughout the Town. Now affordable housing, all housing is supply and demand and you as a real estate broker know that, right now the demand exceeds the supply and not just at the top of the price range but throughout the price range. We need to get the situation where a one- bedroom apartment doesn't cost $l,300-$1,400 which no one working in a store or a restaurant can afford to pay. So I endorse the same principals, I don't, like Tom, obviously the issue of whether annexation is an appropriate strategy to help achieve this, I remain open to persuasion obviously, but it must be affordable, we must have eligibility standards, you must live or work in the Town, we must keep it affordable, which means in effect that the Town or some agency has to keep ultimately the control of the land that the property sits on because really the appreciation in value is all in the appreciation and the value of the land, not the structure that sits on and obviously density is part of the issue, of the cost of land and Josh and I have met on two or three occasions with Vito Minei of the Suffolk County Department of Health and we feel we are making progress, that can be used throughout the hamlets in terms of achieving greater density and thereby making affordable housing more realistic. So, I am all for it, let's go for it and whether or not annexation is ultimately part of the picture, let's do it and let's do it throughout the Town. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Thank you, Mayor Kapell for the opportunity of this cooperative effort and I for one, I think I am somewhat unique in having worked for the Village with the Town, I am now working with the Town with the Village and there are times, as you mentioned where you get an April 14, 2004 Joint Work Session 12 adversarial feeling and that has always seemed absurd to me because like your Board, the Village residents are our charges and we serve at their pleasure, just as you do. Speaking with respect to affordable housing, I think the histories of the Town and Village are good, I think it shows a tremendous effort in this area. Maybe not of late but the Village's successes in the small cities grants through the 80's and the Town's projects probably not a good term, but that is what they were, they were efforts by the Town that have turned into neighborhoods and when you walk the neighborhoods of this town, those are the best neighborhoods, in my mind, presently. Maybe not the most expensive but the projects, the affordable housing neighborhoods that were developed by the Town and by the Village are numerous and if you do the research, as I did, you would be surprised. And one comes to the conclusion, it is a shame that they weren't made permanently affordable. But you can't look back. I have spoken to people who were involved in those efforts and they said, that is not what we were doing at the time. Well, we know now and we can make the adjustments at this time and this is a project, this is an effort that we should undertake seriously and as seriously as Peconic Landing and the efforts that were made along those lines and your comments, Jamie, hit home. I am looking forward to cooperation with the Village and working with you. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: I think it is important to recognize some of the affordable housing initiatives that have taken place in the past 15-20 years. I have seen it in the papers, well, nothing has been done in the past 15-20 years and it really doesn't matter what side of the political aisle or what side of the town one stands on, it is important to look back and recognize what past administrations and past governments have done. North Fork Housing Alliance actually happens to own 53 houses, is that correct Tony? 53 houses throughout the entire Town of Southold and many of them are two family homes and they provide shelter for people who are income eligible. And that is 53, that is an enormous amount by one agency and I understand that there are 7 more units, rental units that are coming on line over the course of the next year and that is something that Southold Town worked closely with North Fork Housing Alliance on through our Community Development program. Southold Town has also developed, over 150 single family homes in the past 15 years. Mattituck, Southold and other parts of the town. Fishers Island has a community land trust style affordable housing initiative, Walsh Park, which maintains affordability. So to say that our governments are taking hands off approach to affordable housing is a myth. It is false and I think that has to be dispelled. And 1 hope not to hear any more mention of that from elected officials on the east end. Southold Town is moving ahead with some initiatives that I think are going to have broad far-reaching implications fi~r the, for a bright future for working families in Southold Town and Mayor, you mentioned, Southold Town is actually working on legislation that will incorporate into legislation that in any major subdivision created in Southold Town, 25% of those lots are going to have to be made available to an affordable market. That is 25% of any major subdivision. However, the Mayor has hit it on the head, them is no silver bullet. There is not one answer when you are talking about a real estate market that it sky rocketing on a daily basis. But that I think, that one initiative that the Town Board is going to move ahead with, I think is going to have tremendous impact for working families in Southold Town forever, moving forward. And to speak to the issue of guidelines, absolutely, in our legislation them will be guidelines as far as the terms of affordability and the longevity of those homes being affordable. We have also put on the table legislation where a community housing re-investment fund, that I think is also going to provide a financial conduit, a financial mechanism for the creation of not just single family homes but also participate, if a property owner or if somebody who owns a building would like to put an apartment in their house, we would actually have financing available through this fund that can also speak to the issue of affordable housing because we don't just need single family April 14, 2004 Joint Work Session 13 homes, we need apartments. You know, the Village has taken great steps in that direction, the Town has recently, in the past year and a half, taken major steps in that direction. The Mayor also hit it on the head though, the Town is limited in ways that the village is not. Not necessarily in zoning, because the Town has the same authority to zone that any other municipality would but in way of infrastructure, through public sewer, public water is becoming increasingly more available so that is something that we can make use of but out of the 65 square miles of Southold Town, only one square mile has public sewers. So that is, when it comes to a project coming before the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, that means a lot. Not to bore you with any more government language, I want to bring something to the table and that is John mentioned having a map and I have a map prepared that kind of shows the area that we are discussing. I would like to, I am going to put it up for visual presentation because we have lot of people hem and I think it would be helpful for the Village and the Town Boards to have a sense of that, moving forward. I had a map prepared and I am going to put it up. This right here is produced by the Town's GIS, geographic information system, and I just chose a framework, a frame of reference to zoom in on. And the area that I chose is the East-West fire district, so we can look within it. Not basically an arbitrary boundary but as a boundary that is true and it is existing. So the black outline is the East-West fire district, the green boundary is the Gmenport Village boundaries. Everything within that green outline is the Village of Greenport. The red boundary and this, again, was to the best of my knowledge, was the area that I thought was sort of 'on the table' as far as discussions pertaining to affordable housing and annexation. Which is Manhasset as the eastern boundary and Chapel Lane being the western boundary. The letter on the top and I think this speaks directly to what you were talking about, Mayor, the letter at the top notates that fresh-water wetlands are in that sort of powder baby blue, light blue color. Everything on the map there and marine wetlands, tidal or salt-water wetlands are indicated in purple and you will see, you probably can't see this, it is kind of faint, we also over-laid a tax map on that. So it really shows the division of parcels as they currently exist and those lines for, if you are in the audience and even members of the Board, may be slightly difficult to see but it shows the development pattern of the Village of Greenport and it also shows the vacant pamels. So most of those white parcels are vacant parcels. Exactly. No, Peconic Landing you can just barely see on this, off on the very, way off on the side, Jamie. It is sort of the western boundary of Peconic Landing. You have Sterling Creek, Sterling Harbor there and Gull Pond as well, you can see. So that gives you a sense of what we are talking about and I don't have the exact acreage on me but I think the acreage outside of the Village that is in this, I am just going to for lack of a better word, in the annexation discussion is 400 some odd acres. 236 or let's say 240 of those acres are in a protective status and the remaining 150 acres that are not in protective status that are vacant, close to 60% of them are wetlands. And when I say wetlands, this is Town maps that are integrated with the Department of Environmental Conservation map, so it is information that we have gotten from our two agencies over-laid on there. So which brings the amount of acreage that is actually on the table for discussion that could even possibly be developable even given Town laws aside, given Department of Environmental Conservation laws, somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 acres, all told at the end of the day, if environmental barriers were overcome. One thing: that I found interesting and actually quite hopeful, because I want to work with the Village on an affordable housing initiative not only from the prospective of an elected official but also from many of the perspectives that you mentioned and there is a piece of property, the only piece of property in the whole area that is, that doesn't have wetlands on it is actually on the corner of Route 48 and Main Street, Greenport, that abuts, I will call it the Pete Harris neighborhood for lack of a better word, abuts in that place. That is 4.7 acres. That is the only piece of property in that whole area that doesn't have a considerable amount of wetlands. Just to put it in perspective for both Boards to sort of have a visual April 14, 2004 Joint Work Session 14 of what we are actually talking about here. The 4.7 acres is actually, I think, an immediate subject for discussion because the, for a number of reasons and I actually have a power point that I would like to just walk through to put another idea on the table, that I think will parallel that exact direction that you are taking and I would like to put it forward for the two Boards, if you don't mind. So, if you could pass these out to the Board members. Alright, essentially, I put this forward as an idea really in the same spirit that the Village Board is putting forward and one thing that I am really sensitive to is the length of time that a study could take, you know the one to two year length of time because I can tell you that two years ago, I was looking for a home, today I am still looking. I am probably, not to speak too personally, but I am probably at a much higher salary than many of my peers who are,' also looking for homes, who I think many of us want to see stay in this community. With that aside, I chose to focus in on that one piece of property because when I looked at the map, it was the only piece of property in that whole area that wasn't environmentally sensitive and when I say environmentally sensitive, I mean tremendously sensitive. Very soft, very boggy, a lot of it is active swamp, so I chose this one piece of property. So this is a joint initiative to create affordable housing between the Town and the Village, which I am committed to. I am committed to every source of discussion that we could have. Reasons for affordable housing? I really don't need to articulate this anymore. Every member of the Board has done so more eloquently than I think I possibly could. The site that I chose to focus in on, this is for a source of discussion is that 4.7 acre site on the comer of CR 48 and Main Street, Greenport. There is the map that I had up earlier and if you look at the dense population of the Village and the surrounding areas, this is all the Village, this is the shopping district here, the business district, the piece of property that I am talking about is right here. It is the only non-wet piece. I believe that the Pollart parcel here has wetlands on it and this whole area around here is also tremendously wet. You will see that this piece of property is completely underwater for most days of the year and I mention that because the amount of enviroiunental review and the length of time environmental review takes when it comes to properties of that nature, no matter where you sit on the issue, it is lengthy, it is costly and it is burdensome beyond belief. No matter what agency or government is iinvolved and rightfully so. The reasons for this site selection because I picked one in Southold Town, so Southold Town could be a partner. ! didn't want to pick a section, you know a piece of property in the Village and say, let's do this as a joint project, I picked one in Southold Town so that Southold could be a 100% partner. And I look at this as a 100% and 100% partnership. Also, that piece of property, no matter what happens at the end of the day in our discussion, I think it has got to be re-zoned to a residential zoning. It is currently zoned residential office, it is currently zoned residential office, which is a commercial zoning, not looking back but in my mind, that was a mistake. I think it is important that we take the commercial zone off that property so we don't see the creation of commercial development there, which would draw business out of downtown Greenport. None of us; want to see that. It is walking distance to the Village business district and when we talk about smart growth and an urban renewal, we want to develop communities that are in walking distance to the Village. It abuts a densely developed residential community, and the community that it abuts, in my mind,, is the ideal community. It is the type of community I would want to live in. 1 spent, many of my childhood days in that neighborhood playing street hockey, playing catch football, on the lot next to Rause's Deli, which is no longer Rause's Deli, it is a wonderful neighborhood. I can't say enough for it. And I think if done properly, an addition to that neighborhood would be a real win for everybody involved. And as i said, it adheres to smart growth planning principals, something that is yet to be defined, I think. It is great planning talk. The Mayor hit it on the head. What are the basic necessities, when you are talking about raw land in the real estate market in which we currently reside and exist? What are just the basic necessities? It is zoning that will permit small lot development and it is infrastructure. That it has April 14, 2004 Joint Work Session 15 public water and public sewer. Without those three components and those three components have to be there together, you cannot create the type of affordable housing or the type of housing that many of us in this room live in and you would not be able to create housing that I think is essentially affordable. And this I think is probably the most important component of this humble presentation because it really highlights what both of these Boards and both of these municipalities can bring to the table and there is a good chance that I may have left something out that many of you have tremendous amount of experience could also point out. The Town does have zoning that permits small lot zoning, it is an overlay district, it is currently in our zoning code. It is called AHD, affordable housing density, it is a zoning district specifically designed to promote affordable housing, the possible creation. I am not saying this is the end-all, be-all. Iarn saying what it allows for. It allows for ¼ acre development with the addition of an accessory apartment to that home and what is the infinite wisdom in that, you have promoted it through the Village, and it has been successful. It is people who can get into a home and have an apartment that they can further contribute toward their mortgage. It provides an apartment for somebody who needs it and it also helps ease the burden of a mortgage. The next tool is the transfer of development right, the Town has the legal authority and the ability to take development rights off of property, move it to another piece of property and increase the density on that piece of property. However, that tool in Suffolk County and specifically in Southold Town is in its infancy and at this point in time, it is tremendously cumbersome, it can be very expensive, it can drive up the cost of your affordable housing, it is a tool that we are going to work toward perfecting through our hamlet by hamlet study when we are moving forward with that, as we are at this point. Other tools that are brought to the table, the Village of Greenport, our Village forefathers had the wisdom to create village sewers and we who live in the Village are thankful for that. Sewers could be extended to service the property, I don't know what the delineation is; where the sewer or how close it comes to that area but it could service the property and I think it is important to recognize that when we are in parO~ership you know, we can't go to the Village and say, 'well, extend the sewers, provide affordable housing'. No, sewers cost money, they come at a tremendous cost to the Village and we can't ask the Village to go bust to provide that service. Funding is available through several agencies to be acquired to cover the cost of the extension of the infrastructure and also to deal with the hook-up costs. I was in a meeting with the County Executive today and he told me that in his capital budget that he is announcing tomorrow, he is earmarking $15 million specifically for infrastructure improvements that are related to affordable housing and I think that is going to be a key component in any initiative that we move forward. Public water is currently available through the Water Authority. Other tools that are available are some of our knowledge base. Community development, there is not a village on Long Island that has the wealth of community development savvy and expertise that the Village has. Mayor Kapell, Trustee Horton, Village Administrator Abatelli, you are all Island wide and state renowned for your community development capacity and your abilities there. We have recently brought on special projects coordinator Philip Belz, who came to us with a tremendous amount of affordable housing, community development experience. So those, that is there and that is important when we are going afier funding for initiatives to provide affordable. The Town also has in-house legal staff that is completely versed in the subdivision of land, it is completely versed in all aspects of municipal law and when we move forward with an initiative, that is going to be key and I don't want to downplay the legal staff that the Village also employs, Mr. Pachman, you are known for your expertise.. The Town has in-house planning staff. Aside from a Planning Board, we also have planning staff that has access to an enormous amount of information and it also has a wealth of experience in developing any type of property or any type land use initiative. The Town planning staff, I think, is going to be key in a joint initiative. Some other tools that are available right here in Town, Tonya Palmore is with us from the April 14, 2004 Joint Work Session 16 North Fork Housing Alliance, what they bring to the table can't be stated enough. The Community Land Trust is an organization that was recently created and they are really picking up steam as far as their organization and their mission is providing long term affordable housing and as both Boards have acknowledged, in our laws as far as creating affordable housing, we are going to be putting in measures that ensure long-term affordability. The Community Land Trust is designed to provide that in and of itself. Public funding sources that could be made available if we were to take action on a joint initiative, community development block grants, I don't know how you do it, the Mayor, I think, gets more money in block grants than we have in our entire budget. But we also tap into a certain amount of community development block grants and we commit them to a joint prqiect. Suffolk County affordable housing fund, again, money available for land acquisition and infrastructure improvements. The New York State affordable housing corporation is also available for land acquisition and site development. And then in the instance that we may need a little extra help, there is the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation that provides 0% and low interest loans for infrastructure improvements that are designed to mitigate environmental issues. And I put this forward as something else that we can walk away from here with as a base for discussion because I think a project of this nature, it is not huge, it is 4.7 acres but it is something we know we can do and we can accomplish it within a year and within a year have people in homes. And I submit the sense of urgency that the Mayor has addressed, that we don't have many years to put this off, so I think this is something that if we put our resources together, we could do in a years time. And that is the end. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We are going to, in the close of business here between the Village and Town Boards we are going to come to consensus on a date for another meeting. Let's say the third Wednesday in May? Okay, the second Wednesday in May. It will be another work session style meeting in the Village of Greenport. MAYOR KAPELL: I would like to build time into that meeting to do what 1 suggested we do, which is to spend some time together just looking at the Village. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We can provide a Town bus. Before everybody clears out, I want to thank everybody for attending the meeting. We are looking at, I don't know the exact date but the next time the two Boards are going to get together is the second Wednesday in May, which is May 12. And it is going to be in the Village of Greenport. The two Boards are going to get together at 4:30, so I would say 5:30 is safe to say for the commencement of the work session at the Greenport firehouse. Southold Town Clerk AGENDA JOINT MEETING OF GREENPORT VILLAGE and SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARDS April 14, 2004 Work Session 4:30 P. M. The purpose of this joint work session is to provide an opportunity for the Village Board to present an affordable housing initiative 1. Presentation by Greenport Village Board 2. Discussion 3. Next steps - follow up meeting JOINT INITIATIVE TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUS1NG Proposal for Town of Southold Village of Greenport April 14, 2004 Reasons For Affordable Housing · Local people need housing. · The community needs to sustain self-sufficiency by ensuring housing for workforce, volunteers (fire fighters, EMS, etc.), teachers, nurses, etc. · Socio-economic diversity will maintain our rural and working class character. Site · Comer of County Road 48 and Main Street, Greenport · 4.7 Acres · Residential Office Zone (Commercial) Town of Southold I,"IE.w Fire District ~---~Tax ParCel ~Freshwater Wetlands ~Marine Wetlands ~Village Bouncla~ r"lAnnexatlon 4.74 Reasons for Site Selection · Located in Southold Town · Should be rezoned to protect the Village Business District · Walking distance to Village Business District · Abuts a densely developed residential community · Adheres to Smart Growth Planning Principles Basic Necessities in Creating Affordable Housing · Zoning: Small lot zoning · Infrastructure: Public water and sewer Tools Available through Joint Initiative · AHD Zoning Overlay: A Town zoning district specifically designed to promote affordable housing. Possible creation of 1/4 acre owner occupied single family homes with accessory studio apartments · TDR: The Town can transfer development rights. However, this process can be time consuming, cumbersome and expensive. Tools Available through Joint Initiative · Public Sewers: The Village of Greenport has public sewers that could be extended to service the property. Funding could be acquired to cover extension/hook up costs. · Public Water: Water is available through the SCWA. Tools Available through Joint Initiative · Community Development: Village/Town CD expe.rts! Mayor Kapel!, Trustee Horton., Villag. e Adm~mstrator Abatelh and Town Special Projects Coordinator Beltz. · Legal Staff: Southold Town has an expert ~n- house legal staff versed ~n all aspects of land use and mumc~pal law. · Planning Staff: The Southold Town planning staff ~s versed in the subdivision of land, zo .m.ng implementation and design of safe commumt~es. Tools Available through Joint Initiative · N. F. Housing Alliance: Professional affordable housing organization · Community Land Trust: Mission of providing long-term affordable housing Possible Funding Sources · Community Development Block Grants · Suffolk County Affordable Housing Fund: Land Acquisition and infrastructure ~mprovements · NYS Affordable Housing Corporation: Land Acqms~tion and Site Development · NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation: 0% and low interest loans Project Results · Affordable Housing for local residents created within one year window · Collaborative effort can be used as a model for future initiatives To: Supervisor Horton, Members of Southold Town Board From: Informed Citizens Against Annexation (ICAA) Re: Annexation of Land by Incorporated Village of Greenport Date: April 9, 2004 We would like an opportunity to be included on the agenda for your April 14ta.joint board meeting with the Village of Greenport Board of Trustees. Please let us state clearly our mission and position on the issue of annexation. Our mission is to make the public aware of the issues and impact of annexation for the purpose of municipal growth and prevent population growth beyond the carrying capacity of our communities. Informed Citizens Against Annexation (ICAA) was organized for members of the community to speak with one voice. We represent full time and seasonal residents, Ikmilles with children attending local schools, and retired citizens who have chosen the North Fork as their permanent home. ICAA is not opposed to creating affordable housing opportunities tbr those in our con~tnunity. We understand the importance ofhomeownership as a tbundation for personal success and improving the quality oflifb in our conununities. ICAA is opposed to annexation as a resolution to the problem of aftbrdable housing. Aflbrdable housing is a widespread problem shared by the communities that comprise the ~lbwn of Southold. Annexation as the solution should be the last possibility to be considered by our policy makers. We request the Southold Town Board speak on our behalf to raise the following questions: 1) What are the ramifications of annexation? 2) What are the long-term effects ofrezoning? 3) What is the definition of the term "affordable housing" for our community? Who will qualil~? Who will benefit? 4) What other allematives h~as the Town of Southold explored in resolving housing issues? APR - 9 These are questions that should be answered before considering a comprehensive plan. Village policy leaders have asked us to accept annexation and make a "leap of faith" in the outcome. We are not opposed to creative alternatives but this arbitrary and capricious thinking is an insult to the democratic process. As concerned citizens we have the right to ask questions and utilize resources to make decisions based on analysis. To rely upon ~'leap of faith" public policy in officials we did not elect is lunacy. From our discussions with members of the community, the issues surrounding this plan are too many to mention. ICAA would like to bring attention to only a few of the important issues when considering annexation for the purpose of municipal growth. · Taxes · Zoning · Education · Employment · Infrastructure · Environment · Services ICAA will help to bring attention to the issues as more information becomes available to the public. We require our policy makers to release clearly stated goals and objectives before the annexation discussion goes any further. The comprehensive plan needs to: 1) ldentit~ those in our local community who will benefit from aftbrdable housing. 2) Determine a long-term solution that provides for the economic benefits of homeownership. 3) Conduct a thorough independent study of the potential impact of high density housing on the community and local economy. 4) Communicate a clear strategy for improving the quality of life for all residents. 5) Allow citizen involvement in even stage of the process, from planning through to implementation. We appreciate your time and attention to this most pressing issue. ICAA supports the Southold Town Board in this endeavor. Please make sure our message is heard. Resgxectfi~lly sub~a)t~ed, Danielle Golden ICAA Director April5,2004 Mr. Joshua Horton Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Rd Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Horton: We are residents of Greenport who reside in and outside the area that is being considered for annexation. Please be advised that we are diametrically opposed to this annexation concept. Our reason for this position follows: a) We have the poorest school district on the North Fork. We are the 5th highest in Suffolk County with students on free and reduced lunch. b) Over 53% of our elementary students are on free or reduced lunch. c) We have a large bilingual and special education population requiring special services, which raises the cost of pupil education well beyond the standard $15,500 that supports regular educational students. This figure can easily double or triple based on the severity of the disability. A cost of BOCES placement must also be considered in this formula. d) We currently have 110 transfer students attending Greenport School from Oysterponds. They pay tuition and none are on free lunch. e) Currently, our class size range from 18 to 24 students per class. We also have an inclusion program where special education students are placed in regular classrooms during the instructional program. These students have special needs and require a great deal of attention and support by the classroom teacher, special education teacher and teacher aid. Currently we have 15 special education teachers assigned to the Greenport School. f) Our school population and facilities were reviewed by the State Education Department back in 1972. Since then a great deal of change has taken place as to how and where we instruct our students. Computer rooms, academic intervention service areas, and bilingual classes to mention a few, have taken up space in our building therefore reducing the number of classrooms available for regular instruction. Six rooms are set aside for special education. The teacher's contract has a soft cap of 27 students per class. If an increase in student population occurs then additional staff may be required. -2- g) Our teachers have performed admirably in educating our you,n~sters, but they are struggling with meeting today's educational standards. Our 4 grade classes were tested by the State Education Department in reading and writing. The results were concerning with approximately 40% of the students falling below grade level. There were other state tests with similar concerning results. These youngsters are our future community leaders. Let's not fail them. h) Greenport has the largest concentration of Section 8 people in the town of Southold. On March 14, 2004, our group had an opportunity to meet and discuss with Mayor Kapell his ideas on affordable housing. After a len~hy dissertation we had an opportunity to alert the Mayor of our succinct concerns: a) The number of students from affordable housing would dramatically increase class size and eventually lead to a need for a school building expansion. (Review what is happening in other school districts in the Town of Southold) Increase in class size will reduce teaching/learning efficiency in the instructional environment. h) With this population expansion the number of children with special needs will increase proportionally. Youngsters with physical, mental, emotional needs along with bilingual students and remedial students will need specialized services. This aspect will drive up the cost of educating our students well beyond the $15,500 currently supporting each student per year. c) Taxes received from affordable housing units will not offset these educational costs. The remaining citizenry of the Greenport school district will have to make up the difference with a sizable school tax increase. d) Utilities, water, sewage, electric costs must be also factored into this equation. To invite more people into an area with the promise of employment and advancement opportunities is folly. We have no corporations or industries. People in our own humble hamlet either have a skill to offer, own a business or are professionals, which can support their lifestyles. The shifting ora population is a natural phenomenon and is nothing new to our society especially with a 5% to 6% unemployment rate. Higher taxes will drive existing people from our community and make existing house sales less affordable. We are not opposed to helping our fellow man, but we are opposed to a concept where a few special interests will prosper and the majority will suffer. Increased taxation will take cash out of the hands of the people. Businesses to offset this increase in taxes will raise prices for goods and services. A depressing cycle will ensue. This is not what our community needs. A "leap of faith", as suggested by Mayor Kapell could be a leap into an abyss. -3- If annexation were to transpire: a) b) c) d) It will be an unprecedented occasion. Giving township property away along with its profound current and future effects will have taken place on your watch. You will have increased the property tax burden on all Southold town residents. At the meeting on March 14, 2004, Mr. Kapell indicated that he would like to expand the sewage system from the Village to Manhasset Ave. This would allow two boat yards and two seasonal restaurants to become part of this disposal system. The group felt it would be a tremendous cost and again a local tax burden. Questions were asked of the Mayor inviting a response as to why this was necessary, especially in light of the fact that most of the boat owners are not Greenport residents and do not pay school or property taxes. They simply live on their boats as summer homes. The two seasonal restaurants are privately owned, as are both boat yards. Why should our local residents be taxed for their convenience? Stirling Creek would now fall under the control of Greenport Village and out of the capable hands of our Trustees. Would our waterway remain pristine as it has in the past? We are deeply concerned over this ecosystem and its management. Greenport is a wonderful town, diversified in population and in the process of recovery. Please don't toy with the homeostasis of this community. As one can envision, we have some major concerns. We hope that the Town Board, under the able leadership of Mr. Horton, will exercise their wisdom in coping with this complex and alarming dilemma. Respectfully submitted by The Informed Citizens Against Annexation ICAAhome@msbx.net JAMES A. RICHTER, R.A. · $15 Seventh Street · Greenport, NY 11944 . 516-477-0998 April 12, 2004 Joshua Y. Horton, Supervisor Southold Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Proposed Annexation of Town Property Surrounding the Greenport Area Dear Mr. Hodon: I am a resident of Southold Town and live at 701 Front Street, which is located just outside of the limits of the Incorporated Village of Greenport. I have been informed that the proposed annexation of land, as offered by the Village of Greenport, would include my property. For the Record, I am totally, 100%, against any proposal for incorporation in to the Village. I have discussed this matter with many of my neighbors and I did not find anyone who may be even remotely in favor of this proposal. I realize that one major issue or justification for the proposed annexation of land would be to create areas of affordable housing. I. do understand the need for housing but I firmly believe that the Town Board has made a major commitment to resolve the affordable housing issue. I truly believe that the entire Town, as a whole, would be better served to have an affordable housing program that is town wide rather than one that is shoehorned into the Village. I also cannot understand why or how the annexation of seventh, eighth and ninth streets could be considered a necessity for a successful affordable program. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any vacant lots left in that area. I have no desire to be included in a plan where the sole purpose appears to be the creation of an additional Tax Base for the Village of Greenport. As a resident of Southold Town, I urgently request that the Town Board deny any attempt to annex my home into the Incorporated Village. I look forward to the continuing success of the Southold Town Board and a speedy resolve to this matter. / ./James A. Richter, R.A. __ ..... / / Res,dent, Soutl RECEIV SGuthold Tov.,n Clerk facsimile TRANSMITTAL ¢~T~T~E HALLOCE TO: COMPANY' DATE: PAGES: _ , FROM THE DESK FAX NO. 631-477-1877 VOICE NO. 631-477-2385, 0248 MESSAGE: CONFIDENTIALITy NOT~ i~0d~33~9 ~0 3OV~ql^ W]t,L,IAM J. Wfl{.J~ III F~bruary 3, 2004 Joshua Y. Horton, Supervisor Members of the $outhold Town Board, $outhold Town Hall Mare Road Southold, NY 11971 Via telefax: (631) 765-1823 Dear Supervisor Horton and Members of the Town Board: The Village Board of Trastees has asked me to fca'ward to you the enclosed resolution, unanimously adopted by the board at a special meeting held on February 2, 2004. The resolution is intended to initiate a conversation with the town board on the subject of expanding the village to address the town-wide affordable housing crisis. Also enclosed is a memorandum I prepared to brief the village board in the matter. The Village Board and I look forward to working with you on this initiative that we believe holds enormous opportunity for mutual benefit for our respeetiye constituencies. I will be in touch with Supervisor Horton to schedule a joint meeting of our boards to begin deliberation. David E. Kapell Mayor ~O0'd iLSI ilk 9I~:qHi LHOHN33HO AO ~9vqql,i kl:60 To: Village Board of Trustees From: Mayor Dave Kape, ll Subject: Expanding the village to promote affordable homing Date: February 2, 2004 offer this mono as a bast~ for dt~cusxlon at our ~/~/04 zpecial meeting: There exists an affordable housing crisis in thc Town of Southold, including thc Village of G-reenport. This crisis is arguably the most imponam public policy challenge facing the community. If the problem is not addressed forcefully and immediately, the human t'acc of the town will be irreparably damaged, as families are £orced to relocate to communities where reasonable housing opportunity exists. The established development pattern of the village is of one-and-two-family homes on small lots. TEds pattern lends itself naturally to affordability, both for owners and renters, as compared to the large lot, single-family, rural-agricultural pattern that characterizes the town, With.in the current boundary of the vi~lagc, established in the nineteenth century on what was then a farm, ff~ere presently exists no vacant land on which to meaningfully expand the housing supply. Adjacent to, but outside the boundar~ there are vacant lands wl~ich, Lf anncxec] to the village, would be subject to village zoning that permits one-and- two-family homes on small lots. This is not permitted under town zoning. ~00 1 LLS[ LL~ 9I~:q],L ,I,gOd~t9 ,qO ~9¥qql^ Key Points: A si~it%ant expansion of the vill~e could have a metmlnlp~ul impact on the town-w/d~ housin~ crisis. · Linking the present and future values of the housin$ produced to an income standard can insure permanent affordability. · Public water and sewer systen~ exist that could serve new development, thereby mitigaling damage to the physical environment. · The Oreenport Public School facility is -~derutilized; designed to house t~ce its current enroUmeitt of 600 students. · The existing village boundary is obsolete and an obstacle to meeting the contemporaxy need~ of the tnwn. · An infusion of new families would contribute to the general health and welfare of thc village, its economy, the school system, volunteer-based organizations, and the local democracy. · A vibrant, prosperous ,nd diverse village contr/butes to the general health end welfare of its town. I recommend that; 1. I be authorized to in/tiatc discussion of the expansion by making contact with the supervisor and tow~ board, and or§an/zing the necessary joint meetings of thc village and to-,n beads to advance the proposal. 2. I be authorized to contact elected representatives at the county, state and federal levels co request technical and financial support l~or an analysis of the impacts of expansion on the community and for ira implementation, if approwd by the village and town boards and affected prop~-Tty owners and/or residents. 3. For the purpose of opening a conversation, the area for consideration of expansion should be generally defined as be_~nnlng at Chapel Lane on thc west and ~tlendillg to Mankassett Avenue on the east, with other parameters to be defined through a deliberative process. Conclusion: The intent of this proposal is to foster the developrnellt of affordable housing, along ~vith a mechanism for insuring its permanent affordability thai links the present and future values of the housing produced to an income standard that fairly reflects the profile of the average family, residing in $outhold Towa. The solution to the crisis lies iu striking a balance between the physical and human enviml~ment.s that recognizes the importallce of the average family to the health of our society and respects that family's right :o affordable housing. Thc village i~ a u~iquely appropriate vehicle for thc town to address the crisis in a mariner that enhances the human environment without dalnaging the physical enviromllent, or the cheractcr of the towa, while also strengthening thc village as an independent jurisdiction. 900 'd 3 £~0dN33~0 dO 39vq~IA APPEND]IX A Village: Town: Count~: State: Federal: Public Sector Partners PoEtical and financial support for impa~t analysis and implementation Political and financial support for impact analysis and implcmcatation Technical and financial support for impact analysis Extension of public water supply (SCWA) Implementation funding Technical and ~ns~cial assistance for impact analysis Special legislation, if needed Implementation ~undlng Implementation funding L£8I LiP 9IS:q3£ 4 Draft re~olution for action Resolved that the mayor is hereby anthorizcd and directed to take the following steps to initiate thc ~-xp~usion of thc Village of Ore~nport: 1) Make contact with the supervisor and town board to open a conversation in the matter and to orgs~ize the necessary joint meetings of the village and town boards to advance thc proposal. 2) Contact elected representatives at the cotmty, state and federal levelz to request technical and fi.ancial support for an analysis of the impacts of exp~usion on the community ~nd for its/mplement~tion, if approved by the village and town boards ~nd affected property owners and/or residents. For the purpose of opening the conversation, the area for consideration of expansion should be generally defined as beg~,~-i-g at Chapel Lane on the west and extending to ManJm~sett Avenue on thc e~. with other parameters to be defined through a deliberative process 5 J,~lOaN33~[9 ~I0 9l :60 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE · TOWN CLEHK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sout hotdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 5, 2004 Danielle Golden 1985 August Ln Greenport NY 11944 Dear Ms. Golden: This office is iri receipt ora response to your FOIL request dated March 31, 2004. The response contains a faxed transmittal from Mayor Kapell; an excerpt from Town Board minutes; and a copy of the Town Board meeting notice for a joint meeting of the Southold Town Board and Greenport Village Board. There are a total of 12 pages. The pages may be obtained at a cost of $.25 each; total cost $3.00. The copies are available at this office during regular business hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. or may be by mail. Very truly yours, Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Eric. RECEI~ APR 5- 2004 Scuthold Town Clerk facsimile TRANSMITTAL ~{~TI~ F~, {§3 D TO: COMPANY' DATE: --/ '- =:',"/_,"lays' PAGES: - , ~ FROM TI~ DESK OF FAX NO, 631-47%1877 VOICE 1VO. 631-477-2385, 0248 MES SAGE: lDO '~ CONlr/OESrrLaJ.,ITY NOTE, £L8[ LL~ 9l$:I3~ ~A¥O~ C~ I T~iI~ T~I: (~$) 4'/'7.4r~,sf131~ February 3, 2004 Joshua Y. Horton, Supervisor Members of thc Southold Town Board. Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Via telefax: (631) 765-1823 Dear Supervisor Horton and Members of thc Town Board: The Village Board of Trustees has asked me to forward to you the enclosed resolution, unanimously adopted by the board at a special meeting held on February 2, 2004. The resolution is intended to initiate a conversation with the town board on the subject of expanding the village to address the town-wide affordable housing crisis. Also enclosed is a memorandum I prepared to brieft~e village board in t~e matter. The Village Board and I look forward to working with you on this initiative that we believe holds enormous opportanity for mutual benefit for our respeetiye constituencies. I will be in touch with Supervhor Horton to schedule a joint meeting of our boards to begin deliberation. David E. Kapell Mayor To: Village Board of Trustees From: ~Vlayor Dave K~tpell Subject: Expanding the village to promote affordable housing Date: ~ebruar~, 2, 2004 offer this memo as a basts for d~cusslon at our 2/2/04 xt~ecial meeting: There exists an affordable housing crisis in the Town of Southold, including the ViLlage of Greenport. This crisis is arguably the most important public policy ehallange facing the community. If the problem is not addressed forcefully and imraediately, the human face of the town will be irreparably damaged, as families are forced to relocate to communities where reasonable housing opportunity exists. The established development pattern of the village is of one-and-two-family homes on small lots. This pattern lends itself naturally to affordability, both for owners and renters, as compared to the large lot, single-family, rural-agricultural pattern that characterizes the to~. Within the currant boundat~ of the v//iage, established in the nineteen/h cer~tury on what was then a farm, there presently exists no vacant land on wh/ch to meaningfully expand the housing supply. Adjacent to, but ou~ide the boundary there are vacant lands ~ich,/f annexed to the village, would be/rabject to v/llage zon/n$ that permits one-and- two-fataLly homes on sinE1 lots. This is not per~/tted under town zoning. Key l'oint~: · A ai~ificant expansion of the v/lla/e could haze a mearfingful/mpact on the town-wide housln! crisis. Link/rig the present and future valit~ of the housing produced to an income standard can insure perm~,~ent aff~dability. · Public water and sewer systems exist that could s~rve new development, thereby l~litigafng cinmnge to thc physical envLronmcllt. · The Oreenport Public School facility is underutilized; designed to house twice its current emollment of 600 students. · The existing village boundary is obsolete and an obstacle to meeting the contemporary neec~ of thc town. · An infusion of new families would contribute to the general health and welfarc of thc village, its economy, thc school system, voluntcer-based organiTations, and tl~ local democracy. · A vibrant, prosperous and diverse village ¢ontributas to thc general health and welfare of its town. I recommend that: 1. I be authorized to initiate ~$cussion of the expansion by makfi~g contact with the supervisor and town board, and orga~?i~g the necessary joint meetiug~ of thc village and to-~u boards to advance the proposal. 2. I be authorized to contact elected representatives at thc county, state arid federal levels to request technical and financial support for an analysis of cnn 'A LLI~! LL~ the impacts of expa~on on the community anti for its implementation, Lf approwd by the village and town boards and affected property owners and/or residents. 3. For the purpose of openln~ a convc~sat/on, thc area for conddetation of expansion should be generally defined as be~nnlng at Chapel Lane on thc west and oxtencliog to Manhassett Avenue on the east, with other parameters to be defined through a deliberative process. Concleaion: The intent of this proposal is to foster the development of afforclabl¢ homsing, along with a mechan/sm for insuring ils pen~nent affordabiLity that [inks the present and futu:e values of the hou~/ng produced to an income stancta~d that fairly reflects the profile of the average fam/ly, residing in Southold Town. The solution to the crisis 1/cs in siriking a balance between the physical and human cnvLronment~ that rocognizes thc importance of the average family to the health, of our society and respects that fam/ly's fight to affordable housing. Thc village i~ a un/quely appropriate veh/cl¢ for the town to address the crisis in a manner that enhances the human environment without damaging the physical envil-onment, or the character of the town, while also st~¢ngthen~g the village as an /ndependent juds diction. 900'd 3 J2JOdN~32D ~0 ~OVqqlA Village: Town: County: State: Federal: Public Sector Partners Political and financial support for impact analysis and implementation Political aud ~...cial support for impact analysis and implcmcamtion Tech-ical and fina.ucial support for impact analysis Extension of public water supply (SCWA) Implementation funding Technical and financial assistance for impact analysis Special legislation, if needed Implementation fuadlng Implementation funding 4 £20dNa~2g ,qO ~OVlqlA Draft resolution for action Resolved that the mayor is hereby authorized and directed to ~ake the following stel~e to init/ate thc CXl~_n?~on of thc Village of C, rcenport: 1) Make contact with the supervisor and town board to open a conversation in thc matter and to orEa-i~o the necessary joint meetings of the village and town boards to advance thc proposal. 2) Contact elected representativcs at the county, state and federal levels to roqueSt technical and finar~cial support for an analysis of the impacts of expansion on the community and for its implementation, if approved by the village and town boards and ~C-fected property owners and/or residents, For the purpose of opening the conversation, the area for consideration of expsnsion should be generally defined as beginning st Chapel Lane on the west and extending to Manhassett Avenue on the east, with other parameters to be defined through a deliberative process l>tO~N~t~l~9 :lO 39Vrlq February 24, 2004 Southold Town Board meeting 54 COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: I might add here that I certainly endorse Mr. Sullivan's or anybody's right to write to the Town Board or the Town Supervisor on any matter, including personnel matters. However, that is a matter that a person does as a citizen, not as an official of the Town and the fact that this letter was copied to the individual in question and copied to the individuals union makes it clear that it was essentially a public letter, which would seem, if I were in the union or I were the individual; to represent some sort of a Town opinion on the matter, which it is not. I think it is confusing the public. Vote of the Town Board: Aye: Councilman Edwards, Councilman Ross, Councilman Wickham, Councilman Romanelli, Supervisor Horton. This resolution was duly ADOPTED. SUPERVISOR HORTON: That concludes our resolutions. At this point, we do turn the floor again over to the public to address the Board on town related issues. Mrs. Wolf. MRS. WOLF: I know you are tired and I know I was very flattering before and I don't take anything back. On the issue of the new shelter, could you please give us some kind of a timetable, I mean, where are we'? SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is very reasonable question. MRS. WOLF: Just run it through for us. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Actually, I will look to Councilman Wickham, who has put a lot of time and energy into this. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We have developed a time frame that involves a whole series of steps that will result in construction starting within this year. We had said, earlier, late fall or early winter of this year. We have every expectation of having construction starting then. Laying out all of the time frames to do all of the steps preparatory to that. And the first step, at this stage is to engage an architect with experience in animal shelters to review the plans that we have, preliminary plans, which can then be the basis of going out to hire an architect to prepare the design dra~vings. SUPERVISOR HORTON: And there is an entire, in that process, obviously we would have to set public hearing on bonding portions of this or ali of this project. We would also have to send out an RFP, request for proposals, for interested parties that would want to engage or have the Town engage their services to construct it, which is, it can be a time constaning process. Which is something that we really have to stay on top of to make sure that it moves along. MRS. WOLF: It sounds good and promising and I will just leave a copy of the letter (inaudible). SUPERVISOR HORTON: I have it. Thank you very much, Mrs. Wolf. Would anybody else care to address the Town Board? WALTER BLUM: I am Walter Blum from Greenport. The issue that I would like to bring to the Town Board is the Greenport Village boundaries. I want to say right off the bat that I am not against affordable housing, I am against cluster building and from what I am reading and what I am hearing, · February 24, 2004 Southold Town Board meeting 55 this is what Mayor Kapell wants to do. I understand being a Southold resident, a Southold Town resident, that we are not inside the boundaries of the Greenport Village and we chose that on purpose, because we felt that we did want room and space, as do I think ali the Board members here. They also suggested they wanted two acre zoning. Some people here have even suggested five acre zoning. And then to have someone like Mayor Kapell come and want to switch the boundaries so that he can expand, that on one acre, he can put 10 families, is.just totally against everything that I believe. I don't know what you feel, I would like to hear your opinions, I think also we haven't really gotten any real specific information, it has been very vague, I don't know whether that is on purpose, I don't know why we are not looking into it a lot deeper. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Actually, perhaps to address that. You know, I reserve my opinion at this point because I, too, don't have specifics, nor does this Board. This Board hasn't formally seen a proposal from the Village and the next step for the Board to do is actually have a joint meeting of the two Boards, so we can know what the Village Board is discussing. And at that point, impacts that I think, impacts would have to be evaluated and many of those impacts, I think, are ones we are probably not even thinking of right now. You know, aside from taxes and so forth. There are many impacts that have to be evaluated and done so professionally, if the Board's agree to move forward. MR. BLUM: I agree 100 percent. I just think that there has been too much promoting it in the newspaper and I think that if he wants to promote it in the newspaper, then he ought to at least get your permission, too, to see what you feel-what your position is. SUPERVISOR HORTON: If the newspapers choose to report on something, they don't need my permission. MR. BLUM: But he is writing letters to the newspaper, tot). SUPERVISOR HORTON: Well, you would have to take that up with the Village Board. MR. BLUM: Right. And of course, you did mention that there would be taxes that would be drastically changed in the community because it would mean an upsurge, just in the one zone, in the one by my house, there is 17.6 acres and if they built on say, 14 of those acres because you probably have to leave a certain amount of land for roads or whatever... SUPERVISOR HORTON: And there is plenty of wetland in there, too. MR. BLUM: And there is a little bit of wetlands in there, too. If you used maybe 13 or 14 acres, you are talking about 140 families in there and the impact of maybe 200 cars or 150 cars because most people have at least one car, I don't think that we are ready for that. I don't think the Board should, you know, if this was a builder coming up here and suggesting this, he would be thrown out. He wouldn't stand a chance. SUPERVISOR HORTON: I think that... MR. BLUM: i don't understand why we are even, you know, it should be addressed. · February 24, 2004 56 Southold Town Board meeting SUPERVISOR HORTON: Well, and the only way for the Town Board to address it is to meet with the Village Board. Because we have about as much information as you have. MR. BLUM: I mean, lie is even throwing it out that it doesn't need a referendum, which I find appalling. He said that... SUPERVISOR HORTON: I don't know what you are referring to when you say, he said. MR. BLUM: Well, I am talking about... SUPERVISOR HORTON: You should take that up with Mayor Kappell but there is a process by which a referendum, a legal process by which a referendum is mandatory. MR. BLUM: Well, the point I am bringing to you is because you represent me and I am the one that voted you in. So because of that, that is why I am coming to you. I am not a Board carrying member of the Village of Greenport, I don't have anything to say with the Village and I so believe that that is the problem. SUPERVISOR HORTON: One thing that I can tell you is that this Board will evaluate all aspects of any plan extremely carefully and we will make sure that there is professional input so those impacts are evaluated objectively and thoroughly. MR. BLUM: Okay. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Are there other comments from the floor? Benja. MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. I have some information involving the Troxel, the will of Patricia Toner Troxel and .... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Before you continue, one moment, please. Please continue. MR. SCHWARTZ: I am sorry, I didn't hear you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: I was just making sure that we can legally speak about this. MR. SCHWARTZ: I believe that the Town has made application to the court .... SUPERVISOR HORTON: I am just making sure that was filed and any discussion on our part wouldn't be premature. MR. SCHWARTZ: From what I have heard, three of these Board members were present, that are present here tonight, were present at a meeting with the League and agreed to support the League to try and secure this bequest... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Are you here on behalf of the League? ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK HEGISTKAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 5, 2004 A JOINT MEETING of the Southold Town Board and the Greenport Village Board will be held at 4:30 P.M. W~dnesday~ April 14~ 2004 in the Meeting Hall at Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Southold Town Clerk Town Board Town Attorney Chief of Police Supt. of Highways Departments Newspapers Radio News 12 OLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair RICtL~RD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J, CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED APR 1 2004 MEMORANDUM $outhold Town CleFi TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Valerie Scopaz, AICP, Town Planning Director April 1, 2004 FOIL Request of Danielle Golden Re: Information Related to Annexation by Greenport Village Please be advised that this office has no records pertaining to the above- referenced matter. VS:ck ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRL~GE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Town Board Assessor's Office Planning Board FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk DATE: March 31, 2004 Foil Request of Danielle Golden Transmitted herewith is a FOIL request of Danielle Golden. Please respond to this office within five (5) business days. Thank you. ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTP,.AR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southo]dtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PUILIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I. (Department Or Officer, 'if kn°wn, thatZhas the info~'mation you are requesting.) ' RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information, Signature of Ap.lplicant~.,._~/~.~ '~/.-~_~~ . Mailing Address (if different from above): APPROVED RECEIVED APPROVED WITH DELAY* I ] DENIED* r : ..... MAR 31 2004 Eq'izabeth A. Neville Date Fre~;:lom of Information Officer $oslhold Town Clerk * If delayed or denied see reverse side ~or e~plenetion. PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY patricia.fin negan(it t own .southold.ny.us KIERAN M. CORCORAN ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY kieran.corcoran(~z town .southold.ny.us LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY [ori. rn ontefusco(, town. southold .ny .us JOSHUA Y. HORTON Supervisor Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED November 18, 2005 NOV 1 8 2005 $outhold Town Clerk BY HAND Mr. Edward P. Romaine, County Clerk County of Suffolk 310 Center Drive Riverhead, NY 11901-3392 Ms. Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971-0959 Ms. Christie Hallock, Village Clerk Village of Greenport Village Hall, 236 Third Street Greenport, NY 11944 RE: KACE LI, LLC Annexation Petition Dear Mr. Romaine, Ms. Neville and Ms. Hallock: In accordance with Municipal Annexation Law §711, we are enclosing the following documents for filing with your respective offices in connection with the referenced matter: 2. 3. 4. 5. Original certified Order and Determination, including exhibits thereto; Copy of the Annexation Petition of KACE LI, LLC; Copy of Notice of Public Hearing; Copies of written objections submitted; Copy of Transcript of Public Hearing. Mr. Edward P. Romaine Ms. Elizabeth Neville Ms, Christie Hallock Page 2 November 18, 2005 If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please do not hesitate to contact me. P'etricia A. Finn~¢an./) Town Attorney PAF/Ik Enclosures cc: Members of the Town Board (w/o encls.) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sout holdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ORDER AND DETERMINATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 709 OF 2005 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON November 16, 2005: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby determines that the petition for annexation filed on July 14, 2005 by applicant KACE LI, LLC complies with the procedural filing requirements of Article 17; and it is fhrther RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, based on the considerations set forth below, that it is not in the over-all public interest to approve such petition for annexation; and it is therefore RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold DENIES the petition for annexation submitted by KACE LIT LLC based on the following: The territory proposed to be annexed is a vacant seventeen acre parcel of property (SCTM#1000-40-3-1) located on Rte 48 in Greenport, Town of Southold. The applicant seeks to annex the property from the Town of Southold to the Village of Greenport to avail itself of the Village sewer system, water system, electric system and high density zoning laws. However, the property, if developed as part of the Town, is eligible for Suffolk County Water Authority service and electric service through LIPA. The property is eligible for connection to the Village sewer system by virtue of a written agreement/stipulation of settlement between the Village and the applicant. Further, the property is currently zoned Hamlet Density (HD) which allows four units to the acre. It is well-settled that "annexation may not be used as a means by which the owner of land in one municipality may escape the effect of that municipality's local legislation by having the land transferred to an adjoining municipality." Board of Trustees, Village of Spring Valley v. Town of Ramapo 264 A.D.2d 519, 694 N.Y.S.2d 712, at 714 (2d Dept. 1999). in this case, the services are all awdlable without annexation. No evidence has been presented by the applicant that the land cannot be developed as currently zoned. It thus appears that applicant seeks annexation merely to avoid the Town's limitations on density and to avail itself of the greater density allowance permitted by the Village. Municipal annexations are discretionary decisions of the governing body that require SEQRA review. (See "SEQR Handbook: SEQR and Local Govemement" attached hereto as Exhibit "A".) This Town Board, on August 16, 2005, determined that the proposed annexation is an Unlisted action, and proposed that the Town of Southold serve as Lead Agency. (See copy of resolution #508 of 2005 attached hereto as Exhibit "B".) The Village of Greenport challenged that determination. The Lead Agency question has been submitted to the Commissioner of the DEC pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.6(b)(5) for resolution. The Commissioner, in turn, submitted the matter to the Region One (local) DEC office for input because there are several acres of freshwater wetlands on the property. The Region One office replied on October 28, 2005 to the Commissioner's office indicating that insufficient specific information has been provided by the applicant to allow them to provide meaningfi~l comments. Specifically, they noted the lack of a plan, rendering or drawing of the proposed project and the lack ora survey with the freshwater wetland boundary depicted thereon. (See letter from John Pavacic, Regional Permit Administrator, DEC, to Betty Ann Hughes, Chief, SEQRA and Training, DEC dated October 28, 2005 attached hereto as Exhibit "C".) Importantly, they also noted flaxvs in the SEQRA process to date, including the fact that the SEQRA process should have been commenced prior to the public hearing on August 23, 2005. (In fact, the applicant did not submit the EAF until the public hearing on August 23, 2005). The Region One office indicated that they may wish to assume Lead Agency status, and that the project may result in a significant impact to the environment and an environmental impact statement ~vould need to be prepared. The To~vn Board would be agreeable to the DEC assuming Lead Agency status in the SEQRA review. The Town Board concurs that, based on thc information available to date, the project may result in a significant environmental impact requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement. At any rate, the Town Board is unable to approve the annexation at this juncture because the SEQRA reviexv has not been completed. (It should be noted that the municipality has only ninety days from the close of the hearing to adopt findings, or the municipality will be deemed to have approved the annexation. There appears to be a conflict between the time frame dictated in Article 17 of General Municipal Law and the time in which it takes to perform a SEQRA review on the annexation. ]?he proposed development of the parcel must be considered in conjunction with the annexation petition under SEQRA {see Exhibit "A" at D.3.} and a "hard look" at a project of this magnitude would be very difficult, if not impossible, under the required time limits.) The applicant claims that a significant benefit of the annexation would be an "as-of-right" connection to the Village sewer system. This is no benefit to the Village residents. There is already an agreement in place to allow the applicant to hook in for a charge. The Village has previously charged significant hook-up fees for properties outside the Village boundaries. The applicant has proposed to construct 128 dwelling units on the property, which, as pointed out at the public hearing (see hearing transcript attached hereto as Exhibit "D") would provide a significant income to the Village if the applicant is required to pay a hook-up fee. Here, if annexation ~vere approved, the applicant would not have to pay a hook-up fee. Sewer rents as income to the Village would be charged in either event, and are not a factor. There is no apparent public benefit to the Village. The overwhelming sentiment at the joint public hearing was against the annexation. Although the applicant has stated that half of the units would be classified as "affordable", there is no proposal for keeping them affordable in perpetuity. Many at the public hearing expressed a need for affordable housing in the Village, but few saw this proposal as a real solution. Comments at the public hearing included "quick-fix", "no benefit to the residents of Greenport" and "appalling". See Exhibit "D". The To~vn of Southold has enacted legislation that mandates twenty-five percent (25%) of ali homes constructed in a subdivision or as part of a residential site plan be classified as "affordable" or "work force" housing. It is required that these homes be covenanted and the future sales price be restricted such that they will remain affordable in perpetuity. The homes must be sold to qualified buyers selected from a lottery of the Town's housing registry. There is NO requirement in the Village laws that the future sales price be restricted, thereby mandating perpetual affordability. The applicant has indicated that the units will initially be sold at the prices mandated by the Southold affbrdable housing program, and will remain affordable because they will be small. The Town Board finds that the real estate market on the East End of Long Island has shown otherwise. A "small" unit in a desirable community is likely to be priced far above what the average working family in Southold Town can afford. The proposed "quick-fix" to the affordable housing crisis has no long-term benefit to the public. The Town created three affordable housing districts in the Town in the past, without perpetual affordability controls, and these homes are currently half-million dollar homes that are unaffordable to the average family. Once again, the applicant is seeking to escape the laws of Southold Town by annexing the property to Greenport. where he will not be required to mandate perpetual affordability on the resale. As set forth above, annexation to avoid the laws ora municipality is improper and a misuse of the annexation process. An annexation should not be piecemeal, benefiting one property owner alone. Rather, it should tbllow sound planning principles. See Village of Warwick v. Town of Warwick, 56 A.D. 2d 928, 393 N.Y.S.2d 47. The Town of Southold has long engaged in comprehensive planning for development and land use decisions throughout the Town. The Town recently completed a hamlet study planning process whereby stakeholders selected from each hamlet prepared recommendations for the vision and future of their hamlets. Although this parcel is located within the HALO, or hamlet locus area surrounding the hamlet center, this proposed high-density development is against "smart- growth" planning principles. The development is located on a heavily traveled roadway, and is not within walking distance of the Village center, post office, or stores. This property is surrounded on three sides by Village property. The surrounding Village property is parkland, zoned PD (Parkland) by the Village. The property to the north of the parcel is zoned by the Town as R-80, which is two acre residential zoning. Although the subject parcel is adjacent to land owned by the Village, it is approximately 4,500 feet (close to a mile) from the nearest developed portion of the Village, and even farther from the business center. The Village changed the surrounding land from residential zoning to PD in 1987 in response to directives from the Department of Environmental Conservation. (See portion of"Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in Southold Town" report to the Town Board dated February 1994, attached hereto as Exhibit "E"which recommended rezoning of the parcel to a less intensive residential district. The Town Board rezoned the subject parcel, which was overturned by the court following a challenge by Kace LI, LLC on the basis that the rezoning required a supermajority of the Town Board because the owner had filed a protest petition, and such supermajority was not achieved,) An updated report on the zoning of this parcel prepared by the Town Planner in 2002 reiterates the reconzmendation that high density development of this parcel is contrary to the comprehensive planning and smart growth planning principles utilized in the Town of Southold. It is estimated that as many as nine of the seventeen acres are freshwater wetlands, and not buildable. To achieve a density of 128 units, the wetlands would have to be included in the yield, which is an approach that is clearly not in the over-all public interest. To put 128 dwelling units on the remaining land runs afoul of the sound planning principles the Town has implemented over the past 20 years. The density controls in place in the Town are designed to impose a minimal impact on the environment and the community. The remaining area in the direct vicinity of the subject property receives no benefit from the annexation, and in fact, is likely to be negatively impacted. Despite the fact that the Town has not had the opportunity to evaluate the traffic impact, such high density development in that location is more likely than not going to have a significant impact on the existing residential properties in the area. The annexation is not in the over-ail public interest of the school district. Dr. Charles Kozora, Superintendant of Greenport Public Schools, appeared at the public hearing and spoke of the effect of the proposal on the school district. Dr. Kozora projected that, after income from the development is deducted, there would be a net increase of $1.16 million on the school budget. This increase would result in a 14% school tax increase at the completion of the project. (See Exhibit "D" at p.66) The annexation is inconsistent with the policies contained in the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and as such the Town may not approve of the annexation pursuant to Chapter 95 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold. The Town Board hereby adopts the recommendation of the LWRP Consistency Coordinator dated November 16, 2005 in this regard. 10. The Town Board finds that the proposal for annexation submitted by the applicant KACE LI, LLC is not in the over-all public interest. In fact, the sentiment at the public hearing that the proposal does not benefit anybody but the developer appears true. The proposal does not benefit the Town, the Village, or the school district. 1 l. There are no agreements as referred to in Section 707 or 708 of General Municipal Law between the municipalities, and if there is property or indebtedness it shall be payable in the manner set forth in those sections. TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN QF SOUTHOLD DATED: November 16, 2005 dZ_/ [,! ~ --/' Joshua Y. Horton, Supervisor (~ Absent ' ("q2'Jo'~ /¢~Romanptli, ( ~' ~,~ Dd~ Thc~ nas H. VC~c~ham, C'~u/ncilperson (SEAL) Absent Daniel C. Ross, Councilperson Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk EXHIBIT "A" SEQR Handbook: SEQR and Local Government ~ D. SEQR and Municipal Annexations Page 1 of 3 SEQR Handbook: SEQR and Local Government D. SEQR and Municipal Annexations - Draft Section for Public Comments More information from this division: _Divi$io_~_ Of ~yi_ronn~e__nta[ Permits ~EQR Hapdbpok I Other Links of_~n~erest-. Click to return to the Listino of Draft Sections Quick Search: Select a question below to go directly to that topic. 1, Are mun!dpa! annexations subj~ to S~Qg? 2. At what point in th~ annexatj_on process ~_h_ould SEQ_.R. be applied? 3.~a~ aDnexation~ a~oc!ated ~i~h development prQposa!s b~ reviewed ~ep~rate!y from such deve[oj~ment? 4, What !f d~ta!l~ ~f future dey~!opme0t are not known? 5, Wha~ factors shgu!d be considered !n estab!!shing !ead ageg~Y for aB annexat!oB? D. SEQR and Municipal Annexations 1. Are municipal annexations subject to SEQR? Yes. The determinations of public interest that must be made by municipalities pursuant to Article 7 of the General Municipal Law, prior to granting or denying an annexation petition, involves the weighing and balancing of social, economic and environmental factors. Municipal annexation decisions are, therefore, discretionary decisions requiring SEQR review. Annexations of 100 or more contiguous acres are classified as Type ! actions; annexations involving less than 100 acres are classified as http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dcs/seqr/handbook/seqrlocald.html 11/3/2005 SEQR Handbook: SEQR and Local Government - D. SEQR and Municipal Annexations Page 2 of 3 Unlisted actions, unless some other aspect of the action triggers Type I review. Annexation is typically associated with potential changes in land use or need for public services that may be more readily available from one municipality than another. Municipal decisions on annexation are similar in their consequences to rezoning decisions; both decisions have the potential to change land use patterns and require a hard look at the consequences of the whole action. In the case of an annexation, only after examination of these SEQR concerns, among other factors, can the question of public interest be fully addressed. Back ~t~ Qu!~k Search 2. At what point in the annexation process should SEQR be applied? $EQR should be applied at the time the initial petitions for annexation are presented to the involved municipalities, and prior to the joint municipal public hearing required under General Municipal Law. If an EIS is required, it should be made available as a draft for public review prior to the joint public hearing. The joint hearing can also serve as a SEQR hearing. Back to Quick Search 3.Can annexations associated with development proposals be reviewed separately from such development? No. Although annexation petitions often will be the first elements of an overall action presented, annexation considerations cannot be segmented from the SEQR analysis necessary for the whole action. Moreover, an annexation approved without considering the environmental impacts of the associated development may be unwise, if it turns out that the development is not feasible. Back tO Quick Search 4. What if details of future development are not known? If the annexation petitioners are not committed to a specific development proposal, or if several parts of the area have undefined development potential, a generic EIS may be appropriate. A generic EI$ would allow both the petitioners and reviewers to evaluate potential impacts of a variety of project proposals. Back tO Qu!ck ~earch 5. What factors should be considered in establishing lead agency for an annexation? Although state and county agencies occasionally have involvement with some aspect of specific projects associated with annexations, the most http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dcs/seqr/handbook/seqrlocald.html 11/3/2005 SEQR Handbook: SEQR and Local Government - D. SEQR and Municipal Annexations Page 3 of 3 appropriate lead agency is likely to be from one of the involved municipalities. Major considerations are the agency's: jurisdiction over activities in the proposed annexation; jurisdiction over environmental impacts which may occur outside the proposed annexation due to activities within it (e.g., traffic congestion and waste generation); and the municipal ability to assess and mitigate anticipated environmental impacts. If no development activities requiring discretionary decisions by other agencies are anticipated within the proposed annexation, only the municipal legislative boards would be involved agencies and eligible to serve as lead. All other considerations being equal, the most logical choice for lead agency is the agency which has had the longest standing jurisdiction within the area. This is normally an agency of the municipality from which the annexed parcel may be taken. Back to Quick Search Draft Section for Public Comments E-mail us if you wish to submit comments. Please be sure to indicate which section or item you are commenting on, and include your name. Deadline for submission of comments on this section on SEI~R and Local Government - D. SE(~R and I~lunicipal Annexations is .August 31, 2003. Thank you for your help in making this handbook the most accurate and useful tool it can be. This page last modified on Nay 1, 2003 Other Links of Interest SEQRP, egulatiQns - PaX6!7of 6 N~CRR NYS Department of State Division of Local Governm_ent Services (leavfn8 Back to top o~ page http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dcs/seqr/handbook/seqrlocald.html 11/3/2005 EXHIBIT "B" ELIZABETH NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone: (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net RESOLUTION # 2005-508 Resolution ID: 1075 Meeting: 08/16/05 04:30 PM Department: Town Attorney Category: Seqra THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-508 OF 2005 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON August 16, 2005: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has received a Petition for Annexation (the "Petition") submitted by KACE LI, LLC; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport has proposed that it serve as lead agency for the environmental review of the Petition pursuant to SEQRA; BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold preliminarily classifies the Petition as an Unlisted Action; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold proposes that the Town of Southold serve as lead agency for the SEQRA review of the Petition~ and hereby directs that the Town Clerk mail a copy of this proposal to the Village of Greenport and all other interested agenciesl and be it further RESOLVED, that, in the event the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold are unable to agree upon the lead agency determination with respect to the Petition, that the Town of Southold shall submit the issue to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation for resolution pursuant to §617.6(b)(5) of the SEQRA Rules and Regulations. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk [] Adopted William P. Edwards [ Seconder [] Adopted as Amended Daniel C. Ross Imt~ator [] Defeated Thomas H. Wmkham Voter [] Tabled John M. Romanelli , Voter EXHIBIT "C" New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Phone: (631) 444-0403 FAX: (631) 444-0360 Denise M. Sheehan Acing Commissioner October 28, 2005 Betty Ann Hughes, Chief SEQR and Training New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1750 NOV - 2 2005 RE: Lead Agency Dispute, Town of Southold v. Village of Gmenport KACE LI, LLC, proposal for annexation and residential development Dear Ms. Hughes: We are in receipt of your October 17, 2005 letter and attachments which were sent to counsel for the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport and to the Department of Environmental Conservation's Region 1 office in Stony Brook. Based on the information provided, Region One staff is unable to determine the extent of the Department's regulatory authority in regard to this matter and therefore, whether or not it will pursue Lead Agency status. The potential for Department involvement is based primarily on the presence of a state- regulated freshwater wetland on the site, and the likelihood that some or all of the proposed KACE development is to be located in or adjacent to this freshwater wetland. However, none of the information received to date provides sufficient information to enable the Department to determine the extent of its jurisdiction in regard to this matter. None of the materials forwarded to the regional office include a representation of the location of the wetland boundary on the property or a specific plan, rendering, or drawing of the proposed development. This information is essential for the Department to determine whether or not it is an involved agency. The Department may have other regulatory and resource management authority in regard to this matter including stormwater, water resources, fauna and flora. However, as noted previously, the dearth of project-specific and site-specific information presented thus far does not allow the Department to provide a more definitive response in this regard. In order to do so, the Department would require the following: · A plan, rendering, or drawing of the proposed project including all buildings, structures, and areas of clearing, grading, or ground disturbance. · A survey of the site with the freshwater wetland boundary depicted thereon. Please also be advised that in addition to the issues identified above, the Department is concerned with the timing of the SEQR review of this project. The Department's review of the materials received to date indicate a considerable conflict between the time frame for processing a petition for annexation (as provided in Article 17 of the General Municipal Law) and the guidance for applying SEQR to municipal annexations found in the State Environmental Quality Review Handbook. Article 17 indicates that a joint public hearing must be held by the involved municipalities 20 to 60 days after receipt of the petition for annexation. However, the SEQR Handbook states, under "SEQR and Local Government -D. SEQR and Municipal Annexations" (last revised May 1,2003): "SEQRA should be applied at the time the initial petitions for annexation are presented to the Involved municipalities, and prior to the joint municipal public hearing required under General Municipal Law. If an ElS is required, it should be made available as a draft for public review prior to the joint public hearing." In addition, this guidance also responds to the question, "Can annexations associated with development proposals be reviewed separately from such development?" by stating: "Although annexation petitions often will be the first elements of an overall action presented, annexation consideration cannot be segmented from the SEQRA analysis necessary for the whole action." Thus, the SEQR process should have begun when the petition for annexation was first submitted to the Town and Village on July 13, 2005, and both the annexation and subsequent development must be considered as one action for the purposes of the SEQR review. While it is unlikely that the 20 to 60 days established by General Municipal Law Article 17 would have provided adequate time for the "hard look" required by SEQR for a project of this magnitude, the Department observes that the joint public hearing was conducted by the Town and Village on August 23, 2005 prior to the commencement of any appropriate SEQR review. As noted, the hearing should not have been conducted until after the SEQR review was commenced. Another obvious flaw in the SEQRA review conducted thus far is the fact that the Department was not identified as a potential lead agency nor contacted for its SEQRA input until well after the Town and the Village had begun the annexation process. Given the current uncertainty regarding the deadline for response, the Department, if pressed to provide a more definitive answer without the benefit of the specific additional information it has outlined above, would assume the following: Page 2. a) The project is in DEC jurisdiction and the Department would be an involved agency. b) The Department may wish to assume Lead Agency status. c) Based on the limited information available to the Department at present i.e., the State wetland maps and the written description of the project, it appears that the project may result in a significant impact to the environment and that an environmental impact statement would need to be prepared. Thank you for advising the Department's Region 1 office of the existence of this project and for soliciting the Region's comments. Regional staff will be available for further discussion of this matter and to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, John Pavacic Regional Permit Administrator JWP/sla/gwh cc: Peter A. Scully, Regional Director, NYSDEC Region 1 Sherri Aicher, Environmental Analyst I, NYSDEC Region 1 George Hammarth, Deputy Regional Permit Administrator, NYSDEC Region 1 Rob Marsh, Acting Regional Manager, Bureau of Habitat, NYSDEC Region 1 Craig Elgut, Acting Regional Attorney, NYSDEC Region1 Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney, Town of Southold Joseph W. Prokop, Esq., for the Village of Greenport Page 3. EXHIBIT "D" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF TOWN BOARD OP THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT In the Matter of, Petition for Annexation proposing the annexation of the territory identified by SCTM 1000-40-3-1 Greenport High School 75955 Route 25 Greenport, New York August 23, 2005 7:00 p.m. Southold Board Members Present : JOSHUA Y. HORTON, Supervisor THOMAS H. WICKHAM, Councilman JOHN M. ROMANELLI, Councilman DANIEL C. ROSS, Councilman WILLIAM P. EDWARDS, Councilman PATRICIA FINNEGAN, Town Attorney Village of Greenport Board of Trustees : DAVID E. KAPELL, Mayor COPY BRADLEY B. BURNS, Trustee GAIL F. HORTON, Trustee GEORGE W. HUBBARD, Jr., Trustee WILLIAM J. MILLS, III, Trustee JOSEPH PROKOP, Village Attorney COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Southold Town Board and Greenport Village Board in the matter of the annexation petition proposed by KASE, LLC. Public input that's before us this evening. Moving forward, we will have a presentation, put forth by KASE LLC and we will move into that at the very outset of this meeting. Opening this public hearing I ask that Councilman Wickham read the official notice of this meeting. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Notice is hereby given that the Town of Southold has received a Petition for Annexation proposing the annexation of the territory encompassing approximately 17 acres of vacant, residential land identified by SCTM #1000-40-3-1 and known as 62600 County Road 48, from the Town of Southold to the Village of Greenport. The Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a joint public hearing together with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport, at 7:00 p.m. on the 23rd day of August, 2005, at the Greenport High School, 75955 Route 25, Greenport, New York, at which time and place the Town Board and Village Board will hear testimony and consider evidence and information concerning the Petition. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Ail persons interested in this project will be heard at said hearing and all written communications will be considered. Dated: July 26, 2005, Town of Southold, New York, Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk. I have in this file certifications that this notice has appeared on the Town Clerk's bulletin board in Town Hall legal and Traveler's-Watchman newspaper. It has appeared as a legal in Newsday, it has appeared as a legal in the Suffolk Times and we have mailed certified copies to the following affected districts, namely, the Greenport United School District, United Free School District of Greenport. We have sent this notice about this public hearing tonight to the school district in Greenport; we have sent it to the Board of Trustees in the Village. We have sent it to Greenport Fire Department, to KASE L.I., LLC and located in New York City and also the KASE L.I., LLC in Greenport. I have one written communication so far on this subject and I will read it quickly. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Tom, instead of reading it, make sure it's entered into the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 record. BOARD MEMBER WICKHAM: I don't think I need to read it into the record if it's here. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Councilman Wickham, and thank you to the Mayor and Village Board Trustees of Greenport. For this meeting we will ask people to keep their comments to three minutes, we'll provide three minutes to each individual, if you have comments, and to address the two Boards on a second round after everybody's had their opportunity to share in the first instance. Moving forward, no further questions, I will turn the floor over to KASE, LLC, who is going to put forth a presentation for all of us here in the auditorium tonight. Included in that presentation the Village Board and the Town Board will return to the dais. Without further adieu I offer the floor to KASE, LLC. MR. KONTOKOSTA: Good evening. I would like to welcome you all to discuss our annexation petition and workforce housing proposal. Also, would like te thank each ef the members of the Town and Village Beards for scheduling and attending this meeting, and a special thanks te I COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 Superintendent Kozora for providing this auditorium. I have a short presentation I would like to present and respectfully request that you hold your comments to the end. First, a bit of housekeeping, I would like to introduce our Memorandum in Support of the Annexation into the records of both Boards and submit the long form Environmental Assessment Form with schedules into each record as well. I would like to start by introducing my brother and myself. My brother, Michael, has a duel degree in economics and philosophy from Colgate University and has been a practicing attorney for eight years specializing in the areas of corporate finance, private equity mergers and acquisitions, real estate and land use law. Michael and his wife have lived in Cutchogue for the past four years. My name is Constantine, but some of you may know me as Dino. I am a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York and my area of expertise is architectural engineering. I have a master's degree in real estate finance from NYU and recently completed a master's degree in Urban Planning at Columbia University, where I COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 am now working on my ph.D. in the subject. I commute between New York City and Greenport. My brother and I are the two managing partners of KACE LI, LLC, the company that has submitted the annexation petition. In addition, Michael and I are KASE Development, LLC, the company responsible for developing and building the Harborfront Inn in Greenport and the Galleria at 15 Front Street -- a mixed-use retail/residential building currently under construction. We have also planted a new vineyard on the North Road. The legal purpose of our meeting together tonight is to introduce into the record evidence that the annexation of a 17 acre parcel is in the "overall public interest." Simply put, we will show that the public and the Village of Greenport derive a significant benefit from the annexation while the Town of Southold will suffer no detriment. But there is also a practical purpose for our meetlng tonight, one for which I suspect most of you are here to explore and discuss, the proposed 128 unit mixed-income workforce housing COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 proposal. Some of you are probably here because you received our letter to you in the mail or you saw our ad in the newspapers and you want to know more about how you, your family or your children or your friends can purchase a quality, reasonably-priced home in this town for between $175,000 and $266,500. Some of you are probably here for a very different reason. You already own a home in Southold and you are concerned that this project may raise your taxes, cause more traffic, or negatively affect the environment. Nevertheless, there are several important issues I would like to discuss with you tonight, and I have distributed an outline with the topics that will be addressed. Need for affordable housing. "Affordable housing is today regarded as one of the most important issues facing Southold." That was taken from the Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment, May 2003, page 4. Over the last 20 years, affordable housing has been consistently identified as one of the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 most important issues facing the Town of Southold. Currently, there are over 150 names of working individuals and families on a waiting list for affordable homes in the Town and Village, but it is generally accepted that this number is just a small percentage of the actual need. People affected most by this problem are the working individuals who hold core positions in our community, nurses, police officers, teachers, municipal workers, just to name a few, and their families who are unable to afford the average Southold home -- a four-bedroom detached house on an acre or more of land selling for $400,000. The lack of affordable housing options has resulted in approximately one-third of Southold residents having difficulty meeting their housing costs every month. Despite a record of Southold Town recommendations for the creation of affordable workforce housing stretching back to 1985, little has been done to address this need. In fact, between 1990 and 2000, 68 percent of all houses built in the town of Southold were purchased for t/se as seasonal or second homes. This COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878--8047 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2{ 25 supply/demand imbalance perpetuated by difference in incomes between second-home buyers and Southold residents is one of the leading causes of the affordable housing crisis in this Town. And one particular demographic has suffered the most, that's young individuals under the age of 35. The high cost of housing has forced these young families out of Southold and away from their community. For example, in 2000 the population of Southold under the age of 35 accounted for only 35.5 percent of the total, compared to 47.2 percent for Suffolk County. And between 1990 and 2000, the Southold population between the ages of 20 and 35 decreased by almost 30 percent, this is three times faster than the national average. Many of you have witnessed this exodus firsthand as you and your friends, family or neighbors were forced to look for a home outside of Southold. Therefore, it is in the interest of working individuals and families and the young members of this community that we are proposing to build 64 affordable homes as part of a true mixed income development without government subsidies or COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 taxpayer contributions. In 2003, the Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment asked these two rhetorical questions: family home Where can one turn, if a large single on an acre or more of land is not their housing preference? can one medel? And importantly, where turn to find an affordable option to this Our answer is a 128 unit affordable workforce housing development that we are proposing in connection with our annexation petition. The site of the proposal is 17.2 acres located in Southold on the south side of the North Road, right there, about a quarter mile east of Chapel Lane, 64 homes, 50 percent of the total, will be affordable based on current income guidelines of Southold and Suffolk County. The units will be divided among one and two bedroom condominiums of approximately 700 to 900 square feet and are expected to sell for between $175,000 and $215,000. Semi-detached, two family units of approximately 1,300 square sell for $266,500, and the be detached single family hemes intended for feet are expected to remaining 64 homes will the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 general market. Construction will occur in phases over three years and, if both boards vote in favor of the annexation, construction could begin as soon as the SEQRA process and formal planning review are completed. The home sale prices were determined by guidelines set forth by the Town and Suffolk County. Initial sale of the units will be held by lottery, with priority given to people who live and/or work in the Town or Village. Resale of the units will be restricted to Southold residents in perpetuity. This mechanism will keep the unit affordable and will guarantee that the home will be made available to Southold residents and the village for many years to come but will not place an artificial limit on potential equity appreciation. To maintain the affordable sales price of these units, special attention will be paid to the size of the units in the associated parcels. By limiting square footage and the lot size, sales prices will be restricted to appropriate levels for the intended market. The overall design of the project and the units will be of high quality, CO[IRT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 in context with the surrounding residential architecture of the village and Town, and we intend to work in cooperation with the Village, as we did so successfully with the Harborfront Inn. And here are a few images of the possible design elements incorporated into this project. As you can see, landscaping and preservation of mature vegetation, integration of walkways and bike paths, front porches close to the road, and the vegetation and trees as well as integration of housing types and a variety of design. With regard to infrastructure and zoning, there is a Greenport sewer main and water main adjacent to the property. The site is currently zoned HD, Hamlet Density, which allows for four units per acre and has been zoned the highest residential density allowed by the Town for over 25 years. In 1983 the Town of Southold approved a site plan for 108 multi-family units on the property, here surrounded by similar high density uses (indicating). The subject property is also located within the recently adopted Greenport HALO Zone, which is recommended to support densities of up to COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 631) 878 8047 13 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 eight units per acre with sufficient infrastructure in place. The HALO Zone has been created as part of the recent Southold Hamlet Study to facilitate the development of affordable workforce housing types. Southold Town Hamlet Study is an excellent example of community involvement in the planning process. Recently, there has been much discussion of the role and importance of sound planning in guiding the future development of the Town. Using my background in urban planning, the proposed project has been developed to be consistent with both Smart Growth guidelines as established by Suffolk County and Southold planning initiatives and recommendations from such studies as the 1985 Master Plan Update by the Southold Planning Board, 2003 Housing Needs Assessment, DGEIS 2004, Hamlet Study 2005. The question we're here to discuss is how can we make this affordable project a reality? The key to the proposal is the annexation of the property from the Town of Southold into the Village of' Greenport. Annexation simply means that the jurisdiction of the property would be COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 14 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 moved from the Town to the Village. The annexation process involves five steps. Step 1 is the filing of the annexation petition. Step 2 is the "overall public interest" joint public hearing, which you are attending tonight. Step 3 is both Boards have 90 days from the date of this hearing to vote on and produce findings as to whether or not the annexation is in the "overall public inEerest." Step 4, in the event one of the boards votes against annexation, the other board can file to have the matter adjudicated by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. Step 5 is the resolution of the annexation. Determining whether or not the annexation is in the "Overall public interest" is the central question in any annexation proceeding. The burden of proving that the annexation is in the "overall public interest" is on the municipality seeking annexation, in this case, the Village of Greenport. The determination is made by each of COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Greenport and Southold as they make their findings and decisions, as well as the Supreme Court if necessary. Thankfully, the overall public interest question has been addressed in detail under New York State case law. The determination of whether the annexation is in the overall public interest is predicated upon the weighing of the benefit or detriment to Greenport, Southold and the property to be annexed. Thus, together with Greenport, we must show you that, one, the benefit to Greenport outweighs any detriment to Southold; and, two, that the annexation will not significantly injure Southold. Specifically, "benefit" and "detriment" have consistently been defined in the case law in terms of municipal services, most notably these include, sewer and water service, police and fire protection, health regulations, public utilities and public education. The most significant factor to determine wllether an annexation is in the overall public interest is an improved, expeditious and cost effective connection to the annexing 15 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 government's sewage or water systems. We believe this annexation is a logical step which will provide numerous benefits to beth the Village and the Town, and wi%heut any detriments to Seutheld. The benefits of the annexation and the reasons why it is necessary are based on several factors. The first key benefit involves sewers. Greenpert has a sewer system with immediate capacity te accommodate the project. The residents of the Village are entitled to a ne cost, as-of-right connection te the system. Thus, prospective residents of our development would derive clear monetary and environmental public benefits from being in the village. Horeever, Greenpert's sewer system allows Greenport to provide additional units ever what would be allowable by Suffolk County if the property were net annexed and remained in Seuthold. It is precisely this increase in density that allows us te provide 64 hemes at prices between $175,000 and $266,500. Like the sewer system, if this property's annexed te Greenport, it will be entitled te an COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2% 25 as-of-right connection to Greenport water system. In terms of tax revenues, both Greenport and Southold stand to receive significant tax benefits from the annexation and project. Because of Southold's "all-town" tax, Southold will continue to receive tax revenues to support the services it provides the village, including police and court services. However, Southold will no longer need to provide Building Department, Public Works and Zoning and Planning Board services to the property. More importantly, after annexation and the completion of the project, the Village will receive significant new tax revenues to be used to offset the cost of any services supplied by the Village, in the amount of 12.95 percent of the total assessed value. The issue of community services is very simple. This annexation will cause no detriment to Southold as the property is already situated in the Greenport Fire District and the Greenport .School District, and is already protected by the Southold Police Department. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 18 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 And another major factor in the annexation and our ability to create 64 affordable homes would be that Greenport has lower subdivision and application fees and has a less bureaucratic application process than does Southold. These fees, in connection with utility fees if the property remained in Southold, could total as much as $25,000 per unit, a cost that would normally be passed onto the home buyer. SUPERVISOR HORTON: If I may, everybody's going to have the opportunity to express their view on this proposal here this evening, I just ask you allow this gentleman and his organization to get through this. I ask everybody maintain a sense of civility. This is a matter of public importance. Whether you are for this or against this, we're here to express an opinion in a civilized and professional manner. So please refrain from booing people off the stage or public comments that will be disruptive. For this, I think you. I speak on behalf of both Boards. Thank MR. KONTOKOSTA: Continuing on. In addition, we have already had the support of COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 Greenport officials who believe this project is integral to addressing the needs of the Town and Village. All of these benefits a feasible project, which allows us affordable hemes without government taxpayer contribution. Once again, combine to make this to provide 64 subsidies or these significant public benefits to the Village and Town come with no detriment te Southeld. The proposed project, as with any development project, may have some potential impacts. It is important to note that the project will be subject te planning review after annexation by both the Village of Greenpert and, because ef its proximity te the village border, the Suffolk County Planning Commission. However, we have taken a preemptive step te identify these potential impacts and several mitigation strategies. We have compiled a substantial document that examines these issues in great detail, tonight the Town or Village. following key issues: which has been submitted into the record and is available for public review through I will briefly discuss the Schools, traffic and the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2O 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 environment. As mentioned previously, the subject property falls within the Greenport School District. Therefore, School to accommodate concerns. However, based on the current enrollment of 680 students, the school is operating at only 61.8 percent of capacity. As such, Greenport School has room for 432 more students to reach its full capacity. Although there has been some question as to the functional capacity of the school due to current New York State Education Department standards, even if the the ability of the Greenport the students is one of our actual capacity is 20 percent less than the stated capacity of 1,100, the school still has enough room for 212 additional students. Total enrollment in the school has increased by only 8.6 percent over the last seven years, which equals an increase in enrollment of only 1.2 percent per year, or approximately seven students per year. As an example of recent enrollment trends, between 1998 and 1999 and 2003/2004, enrollment in grades K through 3 has decreased by 35 students, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 representing a 20 percent decline. That's shown on the red line you see there. The black line is the forecast and prediction if these trends continue, and it's lower than one-sixth for the four grades combined. Census data can help us estimate the number of school aged children that could be generated by our project. This graph shows the actual number of school aged children associated with different housing types based on 2000 New York State and U.S. data. As you can clearly see, the impact of single-family homes is much greater than other housing types, .64 students per home. It should also be noted that the number of school aged children increases with the number of bedrooms and size of units. Using this data, from the District, along with actual figures Town of Southold and Greenport School as the basis for our analysis, the estimated number of school aged children generated by this proposal is between 45 and 69 for an average of 58. Compare this to an average of 54 children that would be generated by current as-of-right project under its current ND zoning. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 It district, as part of a budgeting program, has should be expected that the school responsible planning and accounted for a high density residentially zoned parcel, in its boundaries. It is our belief that given the current enrollment in our school, the relatively few students generated by the project and the phased construction process, which will gradually introduce new students, our school tax should not be substantially affected by this project alone. Some people may tell you if you live in this school district your taxes will rise even as much as 15 to 30 percent. I ask you to question carefully how they arrived at those numbers, and don't let them compare this project to one dominated by large, four bedroom, single-family homes. Although these figures shew ne adverse impact, additional mitigation will he provided by several factors. As I mentioned, limiting unit size and including a variety ef housing types will minimize the number of children the school. By the time the project introduced into is complete and COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 23 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 introducing children into the school, assume three years, there will be a significant capacity in grades K-6, given limited, if any, new residential construction in the school district and shifting demographics of the Town and school district. In addition, the phase of construction of process will allow for gradual introduction of new students into the school. Assuming a total increase of 58 students over three years, this amounts to less than 20 students per year, and if divided among the 13 grades, less than two students per grade. Since the project is intended for current Southold residents and will give priority to Southold residents, many of whom will have children already in the Greenport school system, the impact of new children should be lessened. As with any residential, a certain increase in vehicle traffic can be expected. However, this project will not substantially increase traffic within the town. This graph shows trips the the current number of average daily vehicle on County Road 48 and the possible impact of proposed development as well as the impact of COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 although we are several this issue. what could be built on the site as-of-right under HD Zoning, the difference is only 1.7 percent of the current number of trips on Route 48. find minimal potential impact, factors that Again, there will further mitigate The small size of the residential units will limit the household size and number of vehicles associated with the project. In addition, a remarkable statistics. Is that 40.6 percent of all people who work in Southold commute from outside town, most significantly from Riverhead, Brookhaven and Islip towns. By allowing a portion of this overwhelming percentage of the workforce of Southold and Greenport to live within the town and village, vehicle trips from workers commuting into Southold from further west will be reduced. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, workers who are forced to live far away from their jobs commute long distances by car. This clogs roads and highways, contributes to air pollution, increases fuel use, increases the number of automobile COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 accidents, adds additional costs for workers, and results in significant loss of productivity. Given the intended market, it's expected that many opportunities for carpooling and bicycle use will be created within the proposed development. And finally, as part of the proposal, we will recommend that Suffolk County re-route its S-92 bus line to accommodate the project. The environment and our natural resources are an issue about which we are all concerned. There are approximately 2.7 acres of freshwater wetlands on the proposed project site as determined by Charles Bowman of Land Use Ecological Services in July of 2005. Mr. Bowman was a DEC employee for eight years and has over 20 years of experience in environmental resource management. These wetlands are regulated by the New York State DEC, whether the property is under the jurisdiction of Southold or Greenport and will be protected in accordance with DEC and Village regulations both during and after construction. The preservation of pristine lands and open spaces is the focal issue of the Town of COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 @ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Southold. Growth and Southold Town property, which has, one, residential for 25 years; By meeting the recommendations of Smart Planning studies, this been zoned high density two, is located near the hamlet of Greenport; three, is within the HALO Zone; four, has existing infrastructure in place; aad £fL~e, ~ s~prseunded by Nigh density uscs~ it is an ideal location for this type of residential development and will allow mere pristine open lands to be preserved, rather than be consumed by suburban sprawl. Recently there has been much discussion in the Village ef the future of Greenport in 2005. We believe that the future ef Greenport and Seutheld rests with the working individuals and families and residents ef our community. It is the responsibility ef both governing beards here tonight te ensure that these residents can have a place te live in Seutheld. Southold Town's 2003 Housing Needs Assessment concluded that it will require forethought, vision and conviction te break the traditional housing paradigm bearing down on the Town's remaining housing opportunities and provide COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 & 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 for a range of housing opportunities for all segments of the Town's population. This site is currently zoned Hamlet Density in Southold. It is within the Greenport HALO Zone, has access to necessary infrastructure. The potential impacts have been identified and wilL_he mitiga~ae~Tand the project ~a~ been developed in accordance with Smart Growth and Southold Town Planning initiatives. This is a true mixed-income development, incorporating a variety e~ housing types for Southold residents with various incomes, ages and lifestyles. This will be the first project of its kind en the north fork. The development will be 100 percent privately funded with no taxpayer contribution or government subsidy. Working in cooperation with two motivated and committed municipalities, we are ready, willing and able te begin this project as seen as possible in order te address the affordable housing needs ef our community by helping 64 working individuals and families to own a home in Seuthold and live their share ef the American dream. Thank you for listening. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 28 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 I SUPERVISOR HORTON: At open the floor to public input. wishes te address the two Beards, te the microphone located at the invite the Boards back to the dais now. this point, we'i1 Anybody who please step up front of the room. I'll identify you by a show of hands and again, ask you for input c~f three minetesi a~KL right around three minutes, I'll ask you to provide a summary. And if you need to share more than that, we'll just wait, make sure everybody's had the opportunity provide their input, and then we'i1 go from there. Yes, sir? MR. TOHILL: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Supervisor and Members of each of the Boards, and to all of the audience and to the Kontokosta family. My name is Anthony Tohill, I'm an attorney. I practice in Riverhead, and I represent the 13 residential neighbors who are closest to this property, across and north of Route 48 on the Long Island Sound. At the end of my presentation, which I will like legal analysis attempt to limit to three minutes, I would to hand up to each of you a memorandum of that I have prepared together with COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 29 1 2 a number of exhibits, some 45 exhibits, which 3 support the legal analysis with respect to what is 4 proposed here this evening. 5 What is proposed here this evening is a 6 petition under Article 17 of the General Municipal 7 Law. It's the annexation chapter, but if you read 8 all s~eur cornems from ~age to pa~e~ you ~/~t not 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 find that Article 17 can be a referendum on housing in a community, so therefore, almost all of the presentation that everyone has already heard this evening, which was an introduction on the referendum on housing, is absolutely outside the four corners of the annexation process. (Applause) Nobody in this room tonight has ever seen an annexation occur. Isn't that an interesting broad statement at the beginning of my remarks? If I took the collective years of municipal experience of all the people up on the dais tonight, and none of you can say that we have ever been involved in this before, we ought to stop and think about that for a second. The reason you haven't been involved in this before is that it doesn't work, it doesn't make any sense, and this COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 application, this petition is a gross misuse of the Article 17 proceedings. Let me try and lay it out. Imagine if we're in upstate New York, we're in a township; we have a boundary with another township; we're 20 miles from the town center; we have no electric ~er~ice~mm~a~e~iirt~meads ~e ha~no fire protection service; we have no police service; we have no ambulance service; we have no school buildings for any children, assuming they live there, could attend. And assume too, that that township centrally located 20 miles away has expressed any interest in ever supplying any of the village services to that particular area, and assume too, that another community five miles away but a different township or a different village says we would like to extend our boundaries, we would like to supply those services. Now we're talking annexation; that's annexation. So it starts with a benefit/detriment analysis and that's not art or taste or when your eldest daughter brings her fiance home and says, daddy, I'm going to marry this mug, at which time anyone who understands the words detriment and benefit COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 gets to understand that it's quite personal, what is detriment and what is benefit. That's not what it's about at all. The first thing to do is something that nobody did so far tonight, you look at the territory, the territory is 17 acres, and you do a b.enefit/de~rimen-t~%nalys£~ there. That benefit/detriment analysis is net personal, it's net the kind of thing you saw up en the screen tonight, it is the municipality in which those 17 acres, the territory, are located, does that municipality have the capacity, the interest, the ability to supply municipal service, that's the issue. And so, you ask first the territory, second the town from which the property would be annexed, third the village te which the property would be annexed and fourth the districts, the fire district, the school district and se forth. When that analysis is done, then you can complete it. So let's take a look SUPERVISOR HORTON: been three minutes. Please your comments tonight if you have comments. at what's been done. Mr. Tohill, it has submit the rest of additional COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 MR. TOHILL: It's the fastest three minutes, I've ever seen. AUDIENCE MEMBER: five minutes, three minutes isn't very long. is a big project. (Applause) SUPERVISOR HORTON: We'll take that Can I make a suggestion, This into ....... £ _ cens£deraLien ............... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TOHILL: Thank you. Let's do quickly an analysis as if you were right to annex 17. Police prgtection, electric, water, sewer system, school system, fire protection and let's just for the sake of this evening, better than normal density, not R80, than normal density. That's a whole we're here, housing with but better series of municipal fair if there an annexation. services. Let's see how those 17 acres is an annexation or if there isn't Because that's what you're looking on, that's the overall public interest that's on the table here tonight, nothing else. If those services are already there, an annexation makes no sense at all. That, by the way, is why none of us has ever seen one ever before, we're all from eastern Long Island, Suffolk County, Nassau County, and there's no need 32 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 for it here. So here we go, police protection, the Town already provides it, it's there. Electric, LIPA provides it, it's there. Water, Suffolk County Water Authority provides it, it's there. Sewer, the village provides it, it's a court order, the Kontokostas have told you that i~--s been in effec~ smS~e ~--~ Schec~ ~s-~ already in the district, the district I've heard isn't pleased to have all these new students, se I'm sure that's a benefit, but the school is there, that's for sure. Fire, the fire protection district is already there, we don't need new fire protection services. Housing, higher density, this is HD use, highest density in the town. The HALO study is talking eight per acre, that's twice the number right new, you don't need te add te that which you already had in effect on that property for a long, long time. So, everything I just to what's being proposed here words, whether or not there's said is indifferent tonight; in other an annexation all of those services, all of those services are already there. Se anybody that's voting for annexation is voting for something that's net in the overall 33 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 public interest, that interest is a private interest. KASE owns 10 percent of that property. A yield analysis is critical. Under no local municipality could one exclude freshwater wetlands from the analysis, that's exactly how 128 is arrived at. SIAP~R~R HORTON~ Mr_ Te~ill~ i~'=smere -- than five minuets. MR. TOHILL: Ail right, I'll summarize. If it's R-2 zoning ydu can get to 128, but that's not the function of annexation, that's not the function of government. The function of government is to provide services, not to provide an economic opportunity; that's out of hand under any circumstances. The only thing that's happening here is that there's an annexation to Town regulatory process, and that's a avoid the misuse. I'm going to hand up my memorandum. I'll give one to each of you and one to the Village clerk, kindly live one to the Town clerk. I ask if you will read it. I thank you very much. MR. CICCARO: My name is Chick Ciccaro, I in the Greenport area. I've lived here COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 practically all my life. Mr. Supervisor, Mr. Mayor, Trustees, Councilmen, thank you giving me this opportunity to speak. for This is the first public meeting I have attended. I'm against this project. Let me tell you why I'm against it. As this man has just .sai~i~ you're t~mlking abont putting over 13 u~£~s on one acre of property. Who is benefiting from that? That's the American way. Make as much money as you can. I can't hold these gentlemen against that, but it's not good for this community. No one in this room is against affordable housing. They are against any individual who comes in here and thinks he can make as much money as he wants to make on as little property that he owns. This is an expensive place te live, there's ne question about it, and we do need more affordable housing, but this is not the project for it. we already have affordable there's a large tract of There is an additional I forget what it is, Shady Lady. This of course will In addition, housing in Greenport, land behind the school. project of 24, 27 units, across from the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 put stress on the taxpayers in the Greenport School District. I don't think Greenport should be the only one on that bears the brunt. I look at the cost of these units. I only looked at, I couldn't see them all, I didn't have time but apartments are 900 square feet. They're $125~000, Lhmr's $12~ a_squar~feot ~an build a house today for less than that. There are ne guarantees what the cost on these units will be. It said in the paper supply in demand. Well, I went to college but I didn't graduate from an Ivy League school, but "supply and demand" tells you there's a big demand for a $300,000 er a $350,000 house, that's what it's going te sell for. New, I'm getting a little emotional because that's my Italian style, new, I'm not going to get personal, but you know many years ago, I was around here and a gentleman owned Hitchell's property. He wanted te build a hotel, a conference room, a restaurant, shops and they busted his chops, and he went bankrupt, but yet today, we have a hotel in Greenport. One of the qualms was how high this hotel was going to be for the man I mentioned. I think this one is probably 36 COURT REPORTING AiqD TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37 the same size. So it seems to me it's different strokes for different folks. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Anybody else care to address Village the Board? MS. WAGNER: Board, Miss Wagner? Members of the Town Board and I've been a participant in numerous cormaittess f~D~ ~e~ser~eti~ -- SUPERVISOR HORTON: State your name and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 place of residence. MS. WAGNER: I'm sorry, Ronnie Wagner, and I've been involved in the preservation of Southold Town, I don't know how many committees for preservation of this and God knows what, this proposal to add 17 acres of dense housing to Greenport and Southold town is appalling. The most appalling thing about it in my mind is the ultimate plan to build 128 homes in this modest space. This moratoriums, is what we feared when the end of the the three moratoriums finally ended, that some money-hungry developers would try to turn the farms, community and open space into a tenement ghetto, 128 housing units on 17 acres. Ail in the name of "affordable housing." COUNT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Greenport itself doesn't like the idea according to the newspapers. They have questions. Number one, why should the village alone carry the responsibility of providing low cost housing for the entire town? What about the other hamlets? Number two, there's the problem of sehnols, ~u~erin~endent Ko,ora has keen saying the school district can't handle the hundreds of youngsters that will be added to its rolls. Three, what about the sewer capacity? The Village just took on Peconic Landing and the Harborview Hotel. Will the plant now have to expand even more to accommodate this new development? Does that mean more treated effluent going into Long Island Sound? And finally, there's the concern the Town Supervisor has thrown~ in the hopper, that nine of the acres, one third of the total, are wetlands and can never be built on. Altogether this annexation idea is a preposterous notion that should be voted down, as Mr. Romanelli said last week, tonight. Thank you. MR. EDELSON: My name is Michael Edelson, 38¸ COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 I'm a resident of Greenport. favor of affordable housing, and I want to certain local Greenport issues about this. I am certainly in address Now Mayor Kapell may disagree on many issues, but affordable housing binds us together, in person, on the street, on the phone and elsewhere, we both agree fhatsemving~hhe~ntire pepulatL~n~f village and beyond is essential, is vital to our future. However, Mayor Kapell, it's reported you said, quote, small units won't appreciate in value; is this correct? MAYOR KAPELL: No. MR. NELSON: You did not say this? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Edelson, please -- MR. EDELSON: I'm saying he did say it, as reported in the Suffolk Times, and, in fact, the Mayor cited to the Tudor City as an example, and I researched the small properties there I decided, and what I decided is always it being $250,000, for a studio apartment at $250,000. I began a month ago to research this and since then, the averages have risen to $280,000, I even found one for $325,000. And that is with a total of 330 square feet. That, by the way, consists of a COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 4O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 bathroom, kitchenette and one closet; a room measuring about 16 by 17.5 feet. there is also a monthly maintenance fee that leaves Mind you, about $650. units won't appreciate in value. that's nonsense, utter nonsense. Anyhow, you quoted also that I'm sorry, Greenport small doesn't have a wall around it protecting it from the awful force of increasing property values. For example, a house very comparable to my own on my block is now on sale for over $100,000 more than what I paid for mine. I bought mine less than two years ago. My God, Gentlemen, and Mayor, who is a licensed real estate agent, you should know this because that's the way you make your living. And I bring this to issue because this is a Greenport issue, and we all have to consider the realities and not the fanciful presentation that was given tonight. I am also a professor emeritus. I spent 25 years as a professor at Stony Brook University, and I say this because I know what this sort of presentation means. It's comparable to a man drowning in a pond with the statistical depth of six inches. Thank you. COUNT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 828-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2% 25 MS. WADE: Hi, my name is Randi Wade and Greenport has had my heart since 1983 because it is a wonderful village with all different incomes and types of people and architecture and it's surrounded by beauty, water and Moore's Woods, and Moore's Woods actually surrounds this development site. The charts that showed the benefit to Greenport and Southold, I just wanted to make a little correction, since outside the Village there would be hook-up fees, the benefit to Greenport would actually be a loss if to come to Greenport. The school issue, I years, 13, by the number of this development were divided the number of students in the school and the average is 26, that's two classes of 26. So, if only two children per household came per this new development were to arrive in this school there might be say four in one class of first or second graders, which would bring it up to 30, which would mean we would have to actually add an entire class. So even though other people might say there's excess capacity, almost 40 percent excess capacity, the parents of Greenport I think have decided that they want their children to have 41 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 small class sizes, as every other school district on the north fork. I find it you go to Southold Town, which indeed does have a Planning Board appropriate to review site plan approval for a subdivision which Greenport lacks, it would cost $25,000 extra per household in development fees, that's just sounded funny. I am primarily a transportation planner, and I notice that state DOT on Route 48 recently condemned property to straighten out the terrible curve at Chape~ Lane. Because of the high speeds on 48 that intersection of considered quite dangerous, access to this development, a little hard to believe that if Chapel and 48 is and the development, would be just east of there. The developer said that this is not a pristine area, it's surrounded by development, it's actually surrounded by Moore's Woods, and I am so glad that this property is brought to but everybody's attention because I can't think of any more important critical piece of property to try to bank into the preservation program than this property. (Applause) Thank you. One last thing, it also looked like spo[ COUNT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 zoning; it's not walking distance It's up there surrounded by other designations. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Sir? to the village. zoning MR. CAPON: Southold Town Board, Village Board. George Capon living in Southold town for 74 years. I would like to make a statement that hasn't been brought up tonight by Ken. Mr. Harrington brought up tonight about understanding that there's going to be a development on Alison Lane and 48 in the future. SUPERVISOR NORTON: Mr. Capon, this evening's hearing is solely about the 17 acres. Make your comments to that specifically. MR. CAPON: All right. One other thing is I read in the Suffolk Times, oh, probably a year, year and a half ago about the piece of property which the Town is Again, Mr. Capon, this across from the Shady Lady, trying to develop. SUPERVISOR HORTON: about a very specific item, LLC. that evening's hearing is the annexation brought before us by KASE, Please keep our comments to this matter, would be appreciated. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 this tOWN, te the Town of Seuthold. here piece of property. of department I'm sorry, MR. CAPON: I'm very sorry. But I thought issue would be something to do with the whole with this piece of property going to happen I'll go back to this Talk about the piece of property just east the nursing home, I belong to the fire now for 65 years, excuse me, 66 years, very sorry for that. I belong to the search and rescue squad and on calls like that, I'm telling you, I thing is Greenport Greenport am very disappointed that one Fire Department not the fire department Fire Department never had to go on - I'm speaking -- that Signal 3 to get help. Now we say, I'll say every five out of 10 calls we have, we have go on a Signal 3. I'm afraid this piece of property new that they talked about is going the school, and more traffic on Village of Greenport, which, to raise taxes for 48, 25 and in the when we do have a fire call, you try to get to the fire house or try to get to the scene, like I said, we cannot even get there as a fireman, we have to take the back road to go around up to 48 or up to the Shady COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 8'78 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Lady. Greenport to get Seventh Street, down to get down there, and hope Lane. Thank you very much. MS. MCCABE: We can't go through the Village of to the scene. Myself, I live on I have to about Broad Street and I get to Moore's Good evening everybody, I have laryngitis, I apologize. My name is Mary Martha McCabe, everybody calls me Misty. I was born on eastern Long Island in 1959. My family on both sides came over 150 years ago because of the Irish potato famine. My mother was a McBride from Cutchogue. I love it here. I could never leave. My sisters left, my brothers left. It seems like you guys want to come out here from the city and bulldoze everything down, and that's not right. I bought my own house because I worked and worked and worked. I'm lucky I own it. No one afforded me a house. eight year old son, a nurse in for 28 years. I'm retired now. I'm single, I live with my the emergency room I just want to say save this place. come out here and you're that you're altruistic. us affordable I~'s gorge6us. You guys painting this picture Oh, you're going to give housing. Well, guess what, you're 45 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 46 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 trying to line your pockets, line. And this place that's the bottom I'm mad because I don't want to see look like Nassau County. I received my nursing degree from Suffolk County Community College in 1978; after that I graduated from State University of New York Stony Brook -- hello professor -- with a bachelor's and I just want to say, city. Hasalaka, let's keep it the way it is, go back to the Thank you. MR. MASALAKA: ~ Hello my name is John I've been a resident of Southold for a very long time. Southold so much, Manhattan for reason why we I always wondered why I liked and as I've been working in so many years I noticed that the have been coming out here every weekend is because it's different, different meaning there's less people, less traffic, and the quality of the air is different. It just seems that the idea of annexation is wrong, only because if we allow this annexation to go through, what other perimeters of Southold will also be annexed to Greenport because of the (inaudible) zoning laws that are in Greenport. It just scares me to go forward with the annexation, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 - 22 23 24 25 that's why I'm opposed to it. Some things that haven't been mentioned tonight is according to your hand-out, 32 percent are year-round residents and 68 percent are seasonal. The question is, why did we wait until the end of the summer to hold the first public hearing? It seems as if the timing of the hearing which is tonight, which is on a Tuesday, prevents ~he 68 percent of the people to be in this room. So really you only have a representation of the 32 percent. The public hearings really should have been held over the weekend, on a Saturday here or on a Monday or a Thursday to allow the seasonal residents that make up 68 percent of Southold to be heard. Now it seems as if the public hearing which has started tonight which will end, 90 days and you'i1 have a vote, the middle of November, Thanksgiving, those 68 that puts it already in which is around percent of the people don't come here during the winter months. It just seems as if by next summer, when the summer people come, it's going to be a done deal and that scares me. My parents always told me that timing was COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 everything. the right time. development that this first proposal hearing is at at the right time to get approved. You had to be in the right place at It just seems that this started in the late summer with the right place It should have been discussed during the summer between June, July and August so you would get a true representation of Southold and if opposed to it. Thank you. MS. ORZO: Good evening. Janette Orzo. My husband and I fell Greenport about 20 years ago. ago we started talking about the people are My name is in love with About five years retiring and relocation, which was financial roof, but there was only one place we thought of Greenport. Unfortunately, timing of the market for housing was going through the we didN't care, we were going to end up in Greenport, because Greenport was, as I quoted to people, why are you going to live out there, I'm going to live where people go on vacation. So we found o~rs~Ives ~ h0us~ r~centIy, we bought a home two years ago in town and now this is going to change why we're coining out We're coming out proposal here. here for a beautiful small town COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 community There's a enough to smart enough. small town is I addressed, I worked now work feeling and that's being eliminated. quote that says may God make you smart live in a small town. We feel we were We made a home purchase but the leaving us. do have one question which hasn't been and I'm very concerned. I am a nurse. in the operating room for 25 years. I as a certified health care compliance consultant. will have on the answer to that? Everyone was talking about emergency, but hospitalization, physicians, emergency room wasn't mentioned. SUPERVISOR HORTON: All of those things will be No one has mentioned the impact this hospital. Does anyone have an fire, considered in the process. MS. ORZO: Thank you, please save our MR. Gabrowski, GABROWSKI: Hi, my name is Kirk I live on Second Street in Greenport. I OKm~ tonight ~6 g~% ~o~ ~n~rmat[~N o~ WHat now appears to me to be Levittown on the Sound. I find the presentation tonight fundamentally disingenuous I am afraid to say. At Columbia, the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 5O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. Gent lemon, Council. School of Urban Planning had a reputation for recognizing complexity in the affordable housing issue. This is not a complex approach. This is a quick-fix with no long term planning for what's going to happen to these properties after people buy in and sell out as fast as they can. This is not about affordable housing, it might be about a couple of other things, it might be about the implicit threat to build a house any way that works, which I find also a little upsetting, but it should be very clear that this is not about affordable housing. Thank you. SCHRODER: Good evening, Ladies and Lynn Schroder, North Fork Environmental project do that. As hard as it is to separate the proposed from the annexation, I'm going to try to The attorney made a good point. Southold Town has the ability, it has zoning, it has the capability of processing its applications, it has a planning board. I Want fo reiterate what Miss Wade said, you have a Planning Department, you have a Board of Trustees. There seems to be some argument about what percentage of the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 property is covered with freshwater wetlands, and I just think that the Town of Southold is in a better position to do a more thorough environmental that parcel. project back to review for any future development on I think once I kind of married the the annexation, I just have to say, when I heard Mr. Kontokosta talk about Smart Growth, I couldn't disagree more. You can't walk to a store, you can't walk to a school and it's very well nice they're going to recommend that the county use their bus service, but that's not necessarily what's going to happen. This may be in the Greenport HALO Zone, but those aren't adopted zones yet. You haven't had hearings in Greenport to into that your hat Zone. see if the community is going to buy that, and there's going to be more said on down the road. So I don't think you can hang on this is part of the Greenport HALO The other thing I just wanted to talk about was the proximity of this property to Moore's Woods. This is an environmentally sensitive piece of property, and you need to it carefully. study And in Southold you can factor out, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you determine your yield on a property, out those wetlands study after study, of our membership, the most important things to people out here, the town has the ability to protect them the because do that. I of trustees, department, and I better position. really consider denying both townships. And I have to say too, when you think about Southold already has affordable housing district code. new subdivision law allows for 25 percent of affordable housing units. You did that in the you factor and that's important. I mean, when we do, just sort of polls wetlands protection is one of and most they have the infrastructure in place to don't believe the Village has a board I don't believe they have a planning just think that Southold is in a So I would just ask you to The context of bigger planning studies, and I say this to people all the time, my best friend in Brooklyn just sold her house, 70 units to a block, you put your hand like this, you could touch the other ~I1, $330,000. SO yo~ know, Unless you have an affordable housing program in place to insure that small units stay affordable in perpetuity, they're going to be market driven and that's why I'm COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 53 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 confused because I'm trying to separate the annexation from the project, but as Mr. Kontokosta said that there's going to be covenants and We just impacts, Thanks. restrictions, do we have any way of guaranteeing that these are really going to follow your code? have his word at this point. The traffic this project is just so over the top. MR. HILDEBRAND: Good evening, my name is John Hildebrand, I'm a 35 year resident of Greenport Village. I believe Mr. Hevesi mentioned that these hearings should be held in the summer, well, it feels like February in this room, we're freezing our asses off. I have a question for the Kontokosta family, which is that it also means that you should thoroughly look at the presentation, I very much question the 40.6 percent of the all workers in Greenport who come from out of town; did everyone see that statistic? How did they arrive at ~MaE num~oe~? If that n~mb~r fs truel then Greenport is building for 40.6 percent of people out of town, affordable housing, there's something wrong with the equation, gentlemen and ladies, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 think about it. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Let me introduce myself, I came to this country about two, three years ago. I enjoy living here for many years and this relates in many ways to the way I see my future here. There's one thing missing from this discussion is this economy and the future of the real estate. So far the last 20 years that I've been here, these 15 years I've spent closely watching economics and politics. It's not popular and won't be popular what I am going to say to you, but I think real estate is going too far especially in this area, 68 percent of second houses are built on speculation. This is a classic sign of a bubble and when the bubble comes, second houses, when the bubble breaks second houses are going to be sold first. But what happens is nobody will buy, there will be no buyers when the interest rates go up, there's no buyers because there will be nobody with any money ko buy~ S~rom-an e~nomic p©~n~ of view. I gee ' - the whole project as a big failure. I ask people who know something of the economic world, what the mortgage rates will be five years from now. Who's COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 going to buy it? Who? We were talking here 30 percent of the people living here, and I think the bigger problem is work for those people. It's not because they cannot stay here, they leave from here because they have to work. This is one of the reasons they don't stay here, one of the reasons, I won't say the main one. But this is secondary to the whole issue. We should look at this from the economic point of view, believe the houses will cost down the road as the same as Thank you. MR. QUAYLE: and I do not the same five years they will cost today. Tyler Quayle from Southold. The building of this new project, isn't it? no need for an annexation unless there's project? SUPERVISOR HORTON: annexation meeting is based off of the There's a housing The annexation is a process within itself. That a group of residents close to another municipality have a right to invoke ici ' MR. QUAYLE: the housing project. done But it's arising because of There's no need for it to be unless the development is put in place. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 56 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is your opinion. MR. QUAYLE: I'm completely for affordable housing and the Kontokostas did a great job on their presentation, but being the annexation is completely based off the housing project being accepted and housing project is completely based on a full environmental being done, so we have a lot of people who are completely emotional, a lot of hours put into work here, I myself had to run out from work, sorry for the dress, because I did want to be part of it. But aren't we putting the cart before the horse? We've got a lot of people upset here. Shouldn't it be done in reverse order, save us a lot of time? That's my comment. MR. RUSSO: Peter Russo, Greenport. I served eight months on the west Greenport hamlet committee, this was not our intention. This hodgepodge development to skip across the HALO Zone was not our intention. We wanted development adjacent to residential that is where peo~e Gan Walk inY~ town, problem with traffic. Also, I have government nurturing the profits of enterprise. already in place, not crea[e a a problem with a private If this project was to go threugh, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what I can't understand is why is annexation such an important part of it? Why couldn't the Village of Greenport simply contract their services for sewer and water? Why is it necessary that it would actually have to be annexed? None of this makes much sense to me, and I'm not sure where it all comes from. That HALO Zone that we all see was a zone that was really brought to us at the very end of our committee meeting and one that I did not sign off on, and I'll testify to that. And I don't like the threat of court either. In fact, that the two Boards cannot get together, because if it does go to court I will be glad to testify that that was not our intentions at any time in these committee meetings. Thank you. MS. MURPHY: Hello my name is Laurie Murphy. I want the annexation and I am all for it. We need affordable housing here. How come all the other places, counties can build them for their people that's been living in their counties for ages? Now Gree~por~ We ~ave-to mov~ out of town because we have no place to live. I think we need it. We need to bring our people back home. We have people from Greenport that lived here all COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 their life and were forced to move out of town, and if all the other counties can have some place for their people, they build up their communities with all these little gated communities and whatnot, how come we can't do that, and I'm all for it and I hope we do get it. MR. SCHWARTZ: Ben Schwartz, and I came all the way from Cutchogue to join you tonight. Thank you for welcoming us here. I missed the first two minutes. I was hoping to hear more from the Boards what their thoughts were before we try to enlighten them on our thoughts as the public. One thing about the annexation, that has to come first before the application because otherwise you don't know who to apply to, and you cannot annex or zone for any particular landowner; so this annexation should not be judged in light of this particular project. If this project is being promoted as affordable housing, I have a sign here that says quote, affordable housing is neY. Whht I meah ~ that is a[fo~dab[e housing doesn't normally mean housing with a low purchase price. For housing to be truly affordable, it has to be part of a sustainable community. Affordable COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 59 housing is, I believe, quality homes, not cheaper units. I believe affordable housing should be built in a well-regulated free market. I agree with the gentleman who spoke earlier, we're in a low priced houses, nobody can afford. kind of bubble right now, housing prices are going to go down. But I urge anything that's being done should consider the entire market not just the low price. One of the problems is not just not enough it's too many mega houses that This project as it was presented to us, I tried to add up the numbers and when I get te half a billion dollars I quit, but the sales prices of these units you add them all up, it's well over a billion dollars that this developer wants te sell them for. Of course, it's going to cost him something te make them, but when people buy them they're not going to ask just purchase price, they need to think about what they call the lifestyle costs, the finances, hew that hopefully these houses will be around as long as my house, wKich ~s eno ef the ~rst houses in Cutchogue. And I see the new construction, I'm not attracted te it these days but lifestyle costs and external costs te the community have to be COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 considered. I think for housing to be truly affordable, the design should include solar and geothermal components to reduce the cost of the living there. I'm not going to go into detail but I'm hoping that all the Board members know what the term of our tiny houses means; does anybody know what a "tiny house" is? It's a term of art in regards of affordable housing? Well, I can't go into details tonight, but tiny houses are little single-family houses, but some of them don't even have kitchens, they share communal I don't know how that would work in a housing meeting if you look up into. anything Eo be I think we need Mayor Kapell has ~tt~ ~bo~ ou~ ~hron~ally ~ak lo~l e~6~om~ kitchens. Southold, but at least to be affordable, project should include community gardens, rooms and open spaces. Anyway, tiny houses, it's worth looking Finally with regards to done to make affordable housing, to look at the entire economy. on the north fork, and I just would ask both Boards, what are they going to do to enhance, help build up our local economy? I have some ideas if COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anybody wants to contact me. Lastly, recently we had an experience where a quote/unquote national security issue was used to ram rod parking down and increase the -- SUPERVISOR HORTON: Stick to the subject matter, please. MR. SCHWARTZ: -- the business out in Orient. I don't like to see the affordable housing issue used in the same way. Thank you. Do you have any questions? MS. SCHROEDER: My name is Allison Schroeder, I live in Greenport. I don't believe Greenport can handle the annexation of 17 acres. They have an inability to even handle Clark's Beach. And it's -- SUPERVISOR HORTON: Address the Board, please. MS. SCHROEDER: -- not even able to handle Clark's Beach where there's garbage problems and our beaches are chained up, and you need this? You caH't hahdIe it, thahZ you. MR. LUSTBERG: My name is John Lustberg, I'm very new to this area. I've been in Greenport for four months, and I'm here to say something COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 62 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 iO 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 because I think there's a similarity to the place I used to come from. What I see here is nothing but urban sprawl. I'm from Pendleton, California, actually, '80s like cost core. and Pendelton, California between the and '90s they had a series of projects just this one. There was an urban core and low housing development outside of that urban After 15 years of that, the city had a basic revolt because they were so repulsed by what was going on, in fact, that had totally destroyed their downtown core area. I am sitting here looking at this project, and nothing else, this Board now has the possibility to preserve what is a beautiful area. Urban development and smart development has nothing to do with a 17 acre parcel that no one can walk downtown to. The development should be downtown. That plan, the smart growth plan has been lauded in the press and in umpteenth magazines now because 1Y~?~as chhngedPendI~ton ~n~ c~ties and brought life back into the area. I think people need to take a look at smart growth plan, you can find it all over the web, and realistically to COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 63 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 address the issues of low cost housing, one here's saying we housing. SUPERVISOR HORTON: the Board. MR. LUSTBERG: be in the urban core I think no shouldn't have low cost Focus your comments to Affordable housing should to support the downtown area, and subsequently make the affordable living situation where people can contribute to the community they live in, not living out on Highway 48. It's beautiful farmland. MR. KOZORA: Good evening, I'm Charles Kozora, Superintendent of the Greenport School District. And I'd like to talk to you tonight about the financial impact of this project on the school district and the Greenport taxpayers. I have to disagree that there would be no change in the school district. I am also perplexed that when Mr. enrollment trends, it ~s ~ru~ ENVY Ge in enrollment in K through 3. through 3 school district. We 3 building. Kontokosta talked about he focused on K through 3, and have had a 2g ~erdent-dedlin~e But we are not a K are in a K through We are K through 12 district, and in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 25 the last five years we have had 10 percent increase in enrollment K through 12. According to Michael and Dino Kontokosta, this 128 unit project will be collectively assessed at between $400,000 and $500,000. If I were to use the highest estimate of $500,000, that would generate $275,000 in new revenues. One ef the projections that was used was the enrollment in the school district, and there was a use of a national average of the number of students per household to project the number of students who would come from this development. I suggest to you that this is totally flawed at best. If we were to use that magical national average number, project the number of students coming from Peconic Landing, we would have gotten hundreds; we have none. If we would have used that magical national average to project the number of students coming from Pheasant Run, we would have had 50 more; we have none. I think this illustrates this flaw in this method ofs tudent project,on. A More - realistic model would be used of a number of students a housing project would generate. When I met with the Kontokostas on Monday, they agreed 64 CONRT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 =22 23 24 25 that the Cedar Fields project that was developed in the late '80s was similar. project has 39 units that come development. as many units The Cedar Fields from this This proposed project has 3.3 times as the Cedar Fields project. If we use the same ratio, we'd have an additional 115 and a half students, but we won't count half bodies, so let's go with 115. Our building has a capacity, as we mentioned, to house these students without expanding, but we don't have the staff to provide the services; we would have to expand the staff. We don't have the adequate bus runs; we would have to add at least a couple more. It would also be BOCES Occupational Educational tuition. There would be special education tuition at BOCES. We would anticipate that 14 of these students, if we used the current ratio, would require special education services that would average $30,000 a year. Not all the anticipated costs wonld be anticipated. ~oweve~, a si~I~ p~ ~ii calculation can give us an estimate. A simple per pupil cost if you divide the number of students into our total budget is $17,800. However, a more 65 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 accurate and actual cost for additional students would be $14,000 per student because we have fixed costs that remain the same, such as bonding indebtedness or the heating of the building. So the initial students approve the economies of scale and they actually reduce our per pupil cost while raising the overall cost. Now the question arises, what is the financial impact to the district and te the taxpayers? The increase of our student population by 17 percent will increase our state aid as an additional revenue of $175,000; that, combined with the $275,000 ef additional revenue from the taxes, would come up to $450,000 in additional revenues from this project. However, the expenses ef the 115 students that will reduce per pupil costs to $14,000 generates an expenditure of $1.61 million. We deduct the revenue ef $450,000, and we have a net increase of $1~16 million in the amount of money that needs to be raised by taxes. This in itself would result in a 14 percent tax increase when the project is complete. It would raise the tax rate in Greenport School District by $17.16 per hundred. Thank you. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. DINIZIO: James Dinizio, Greenport. I'm 52 years old. I've lived here all my life. I see my boy's name written up there and probably I had my name written there at one time. I went to school. I grew up in this place. I also attended two other annexation meetings, I believe they were both here. One involved Cedar Fields, and quite honestly, I was dead against it. Made some enemies. Certainly, it turned out pretty good. I walk through here every morning. I see a chief's car there. I see dock builders. I see a lot of people who are in the Fire Department. It seems that it turned out okay. I understand they got some subsidies. I don't believe the people that are living there now got subsidies. I guess what I'm trying to say to you is we're going to need that even more. Mr. Capon was up here,'I know that man all my life, and I know one things when the fire bell rings, he runs. But guess what, he can't continue to run. We need people in this community that are going to join those things. They can't afford what's available now. I understand market. I understand that probably another 128 units inside my district will devalue COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2% 25 my home. I'm willing to forego that. I think it's necessary that this happen. Now affordability notwithstanding, this is aN annexation hearing. A quick look at the map that Mr. Kontokosta showed you, will show you that majority, probably 90 percent of the high density zoning in Southold town was on that map. This town, Southold Town, planned for that. And there's a reason for it. Because there's sewer and there's water available. And that's why you have a high density as you have it now, as proposed. I understand this is twice as much. I believe that the Village of Greenport will do just as good a job planning this as Southold Town because most of it is its consultants. I don't think the Town actually makes the decision on what is wetlands and what isn't. Now, I am a member of the Zoning Board of Southold Town. I walked that property. I know what it looks like. I'm going to tell you, I don't know wetlands from shinola. I only know that at one point in time that had approved subdivision on it, that particular piece of property, and for whatever reason, it was never COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 built. Now if Josh has his way, nine of those acres are going to be gone, and they're never going to be developed. And I don't know how the Village works that out, but certainly it has to be worked out by some method. whole district, high density. Southold planned this our whole school district, for It's been that way for quite some time. I fought against it for many years thinking it was not fair to Greenport School District to put all the density in my school district. I don't feel that way anymore. With all due respect to Dr. Kozora, we take in students from East Marion and Orient. Now, they might have to go somewhere else if we have too many students. They might have to pay to put the addition on. I don't know, but it isn't just students from Greenport that attend this school and fill up the seats. And you know, for whatever it's going to cost, I think we're going to lose - or we're going to benefit from the fact that we've got guys who are willing to get in a car and at 2:00 at night, run down and put a fire out, and go to Peconic Landing, San Simeon. We're not talking one call a day, we're talking two, three calls a COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 7O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 day. here. happen. These people are run ragged. We need people I think this is encouraging this might I am hoping that you understand how you folks zoned this place. I'm not talking about you in particular, but for 20 years it's been zoned that way, that's planning, it was proper planning. There's sewer available, there's water available, none of that is available anywhere else in the town. Now someone bought that land 20 years ago. They planned on developing that as that. Now every time it seems that Southold Town, someone wants to do something, everybody just jumps up and says you can't do exactly that, you can't de exactly what the code said, traffic, yada yada. Well, guess what, planning is planning for traffic. It's all been done already. You guys have looked at it. It's a main read. It's meant for traffic. It's meant for that much traffic. New, I didn't hear any human cry when 400 units went up not 500 yards away from me in Southeld town, and I'm talking about Pecenic Landings, net a single cry of boo about traffic. hotel on the corner of where I live, it's eight units. We have a Shady Lady, It used to just be a COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 restaurant. So the Town has done its planning. If you're unwilling to allow this person to develop it, will you own it? Let the village. They have to do everything by the law. If it's a certain amount of density, they have the sewer, they have the water, come on, Thank you very much. MS. HUTHBRIDGE: My name is Ingrid Huthbridge, I live in Greenport. My first question is actually a fellow-up to the last let them do it. affordable housing meeting that was held in this very auditorium. At that time Mayor Kapell said that he wonld like to do an independent study to make sure that we have a cohesive plan and not just do a Band Aid. I'd like to know if that study has been done, and, if so, how can we the public find out what was said? My second question relates to some of the accusations that have been made here about people wanting to line their pockets. In my job, every year I had to fill out numerous forms saying who I was, who my family was, what possible conflicts of {nterest they could have in influencing my COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decisions; would each member of both Boards consider filing something similar there is no conflict of interest? AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name (inaudible). I'm a 1996 graduate to show that Thank you. is Cynthia of Greenport High School and I've lived in Greenport all my life. I am right here evidence of somebody who needs affordable housing. have a two year-old son. my son at 11:00 at night. I have a family. I I work two jobs. I see He knows me by my name. As many of other people that I today, we don't need a one bedroom unit, need a two bedroom unit, we need a home. see in this room we do not We need an affordable home. Putting units -- it's not the answer, people live in a unit for three or four years. We want to establish homes here, we've grown up here. this Board, our answer. I mean, We need the help. We're asking both Boards, for help. Units are not We need homes. the traffic is not the issue, because these are people who live in Southold town already. The students will be going to Greenport and Southold, whatever school no matter what, they're going to be going to these schools whether COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we're living in an apartment, our parents, we will have our these schools. I don't think the issue. I don't think the traffic we're living with children going to school is the is the issue. I think people need to put their heads together whether it be Greenport, Southold, Mattituck, Cutchogue, somebody needs to do something. Somebody needs to help us, and, I mean, as I said, I'm your local banker. I'm an assistant manager of a bank; that should just tell you right there, my salary isn't that great, but I am reaching out for all those people who are out here who need affordable housing. We need your help. Units are not the answer, homes are our answer. Thank you. MR. LEWIN: Greenport. I guess procedural question, Good evening, Ken Lewin from I just have a really boring that is I'm having a tough time understanding the basis for regarding the annexation as a separate and distinct event from the proposed development of the annexed property. I was wondering if you could clear that up for me. Like, what is the basis for regarding that is two distinct events? SUPERVISOR HORTON: I didn't understand COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 your question, sir. MR. LEWIN: I read a couple of times that there seems to be a big emphasis on regarding the annexation as separate and distinct from the proposed development on the annexed property, I've heard that a couple times tonight. I was just wondering what the basis for that separation is. SUPERVISOR HORTON: The annexation, mechanism of annexation provides something that exists between municipalities and property owners, that's a process in and of itself, If this property was annexed to the Village, the village would then go through its zoning process for this piece of property. It's a planning process for this piece of property with review, its planning review, procedures that would be in place of that piece of property. within its environmental all the legal for the planning MR. LEWIN: Am I correct in thinking that the annexation, considering the annexation it seems to me under SEQRA that the lead agency would have to consider it in relation to the development proposed on the annexed property? Am I ~nisreading SEQRA? That seems pretty clear to COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 me. SUPERVISOR HORTON: SEQRA process the project I think within the that's been proposed should be looked at within that, MR. LEWIN: Okay. That question. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes, MS. MULLER: Hi, my name yes. answers my ma'am? is Tracy Muller. I am also a resident of Greenport. I am single. i lived here for about 15 years. I have an eight year old daughter who also is attending Greenport school. I would like to say I do rent my home, and I would really like the opportunity to own my own home. Unfortunately, the prices are too high for me right now and I think it's great that I have an opportunity te buy a home, if you would give them the opportunity te build these hemes for us, that's it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes? MR. ARM: Craig Arm of Seutheld. I'm here for Seutheld Business Alliance. We just want to urge both Beards to somehow work together te try and provide affordable housing for all of our employees, all ef our werkferce, basically all of COUNT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2% 25 our residents who are currenEly here or ex-residents who hopefully some day would like to come back. Once again, no matter what happens with this particular piece of property it will have to go through all the environmental reviews, we're all aware of that, and whichever way it goes we just hope whoever's in charge can, with this and other pieces, get it rolling, get it going quickly. This and others, whatever it is available for everybody. MS. W~ARTON: Hi, Melanie Wharton, Greenport. I think one of the problems with a lot of this public dialogue is it's just sound bites. We've heard from the Kontokostas tonight, who tell us it will be no problem, no impact in any possible way on our school, our taxes, our roads, maybe one percent here, one percent there, but we all know that development has a real cost and never pays for itself. So we're entering into a dialogue like this, we need real information. We Need the kind of information that the superintendent provided us. Telling us that our taxes at a very minimum will be raised 14 percent, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 875-8047 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and it's very likely that when we throw in the fire and all of the other health related and police related you're talking 20, 25 percent maybe more. If, for example, just for a benchmark, there are only 115 children in Orient, in the Orient school, and look at their school budget. So to tell me 115 children are going to cost a mere fraction or more in our school because we have the building anyway is absolutely ludicrous. The only way we can accomplish this kind of dialogue and have it meaningful is for people to exchange information. Now, if the Kontokosta brothers came to me with the presentation they made tonight, and I would say, I would ask them to leave after a couple minutes because there's no solid specificity; there's no way for the public to know just what the cost of this project will be. And we in Greenport have a very peculiar and unfortunate circumstance insofar as at least half of us live in the area that's known as the unincorporated Village of Greenport. We don't even get to elect these guys. vote for Mayor Kapell or the get to even cast We don't get to Trustees. We don't our vote for all the people that COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will be shaping our future. So in many ways we consider this to be annexation without representation, which more importantly, translates to taxation without representation. Now I'm going to ask the Board the following: Since we're annexing, maybe we can de-annex and ~nincorporate the village of Greenport, which actually means 50 percent or between 2,000 and 4,000 people in the 2000 year Census, maybe we should just all leave and leave you in the Village with this in fact, are not represented; we Town ef Seuthold and if you want issue. Because we, are part of the to annex maybe we should de annex. And in the New York Times, may seem like a facetious notion, but the New York Times had an article this weekend about Long Island seceding from the State of New York, both Nassau and Suffolk counties going their separate ways and becoming the 51st state. My point is that all of us need representation, and in Greenport we must rely on the Town BOard because half of us are not at all represented by the Village Board. So when the Town Board considers this, we want you to consider that half of the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 residents who live in Greenport do not vote for this Greenport Board, and we would like you to take particular concern in representing our interests because no one else is. Thank you. MR. SANDERS: Charles Sanders, I live in Greenport. I have nothing against the Kontokostas. If I owned that piece of land, I would look at any possible way for me to make money. I think there's nothing wrong with that at all. But if I were given the chance of having all the money in the bank for Greenport, all the money in the bank for Southold, is this going to benefit is this going to benefit and I have to ask myself me as a greenport person; me as a Southold person? When I look down the list, it doesn't seem like it's really going to benefit Greenport .Village because it will be a burden on the schools, the superintendent said that. It may be a benefit on the sewers. I guess I have one question on the sewers, are you going to be receiving a charge from the sewers from the Kontokostas? MAYOR KAPELL: MR. SANDERS: actually hook up, Sewer rate. But for each unit to is there going to be a charge COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 for that? MAYOR KAPELL: MR. SANDERS: you're avoiding that. Outside of that? Outside the Village, so It would have seemed to be a benefit for the Village of Greenport if they were going to make the money they made on Peconic Landings, there were I think $5,000 or $10,000 per hook-up. So when you take that away I guess I have to go back again to the Village of Greenport, it's a burden on the schools, it's a burden on the sewer, and it's a burden on the electric. So as I go to Southold, it's a burden on the police, and it's a burden in terms of taxes, now you've just lost part of your tax roll. So I guess when I just look at it logically, if I were in your shoes, and I were representing all of these people and their money and their taxes, I would logically say it's not beneficial for the Village; it's not going to be beneficial for Southold. With regard to affordable housing, I have said each time I have ever stood up here, I am not against affordable housing per affordable housing is. one of these units, it se; we have to define what And when you look at each doesn't seem very 8O COUNT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 affordable if I'm only getting 800 square feet, and I'm paying $175,000. Even though the average house may be $300,000 or $400,000, that is huge. It's very expensive to live out here. There's no way for me to circle around that. But in terms of affordability for the future, if I were smart, and I could afford to get into a $175,000 unit, I'd wait for one year to sell that puppy for $200,000 and make money. Unless you are able to cap that affordable unit, then it would make sense for me. You've heard from us, and everybody has a motive in terms of why they're against and why they're for certain things. I'm against this because another project, and I'm only speaking to this because it's a similar unit, there's another proposal that may affect me negatively, but I'm also looking at this unit in a logical way separate from my self-interest and where I live, and it just doesn't seem to benefit anybody. So you've heard from us. I ~uess the next question is you've all been very silent. raise of hands from the Village from Southold who supports this this? Can I have a and raise of hands and who's against COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 82 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPERVISOR HORTON: This is a public hearing. We're going to take input from each and every one of you as it pertains to this matter. We're not here to hold a vote tonight. It's a process we go through to weigh the public input and the process for each Board to go through to determine the benefits and detriments, however they may lie. MR. SANDERS: I respect that my comments in terms of going back again, what I need to hear, I think everybody in the audience needs to hear from the village and from the Town of Southold, how is it going to benefit us? Because we're the taxpayers. The only reason why I'm asking this is because we're the ones who put you into office, and we need to hear from you why you think this is something that's going to and just take benefit each and every one of us. And again, regarding the affordable housing, I don't know if this is really the approach because most of the people that have come up here have said] we're not necessarily against affordable housing, or we're not against affordable housing, but each time you present something regarding affordable housing, it COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 doesn't seem to be affordable or logical. got to be other ways to enact affordable There's housing. One other thing, then I'm going te split. I came here in 1996, I came with a pick-up truck and a 100 bucks, that's all I had. I don't want for money; I've worked very hard to earn what I've earned. There's also the responsibility ef each person in terms ef how they work and hew they used their strengths and their abilities to create financial stability for themselves. And I think that's another issue that we don't hear very often because the majority ef people who do own.homes, they have done something to make sure their FICO score is geed, their credit score is good, and hhey've taken the steps te purchase when they did. i've only been out here since 1996. Thanks. MS. Savastinovich, East about the sewer. I Greenport, SAVASTINOVICH: Marion. can smell it when and I was wondering why is Good evening, Nancy I have a concern I'm in it by the school, the treatment plant? It's very unhealthy and I think anymore impact on our treatment plant for sewage is really a problem, and I can smell it when I am in Greenport. So I think that should be COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 addressed. I have heard a lot of input pro and con, mostly con, I think it's a no-brainer, and I agree with Councilman Romanelli, I think you ought to vote on voters here from. MS. and I live this annexation tonight. You have enough tonight to see where you're coming MURRAY: Hi, everyone, I'm Ann Murray in East Marion. I'm from the north smart fork community. It doesn't seem to me it's growth and I didn't like the fact that the proposal contains something about a lawsuit en that presentation; did everybody notice that? It kind of felt te me well, if you don't like it we're going te take you to court, and it's going to cost every taxpayer in this room. It's going te cost the Town a lot of money te file a lawsuit, that's something I objected to right elf the bat. The other thing, consideration that has te closely be looked at, I don't know who did the survey for the KASE people, but I've looked at some maps myself and call the DEC and ask them what they think, but it seems to me that there's an awful lot of wetlands there and it's too dense COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 85 1 3 6 7 8 10 11 13 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 ~2 ~3 of a project. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Sir? MR. MOORE: My name is John Moore, and I'm a resident of Greenport, and a 33 year resident of the north fork. I have some concerns about the affordability concept as being promoted here as a selling point for this project. Even the iow end, when you look at the mortgage cost, I think might be prohibitive for a young worker, young married couple. These units are very small, and I think they would be considered transitional housing. The folks would have to move on to a larger accommodation. They don't need an apartment, they need a house. I would like to see more rental property considered in these developments. I'm not against this development per se, but I don't see it meeting the needs of young workers of the community, young married couples and young families. I think the absence of some kind of assistance program to get first homeowners into housing, this project really doesn't have viability as affordable. development of the real going to rise with the market iet's really just estate program and is and will not satisfy COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 86 1 2 3 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 the need. Thank you SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes, sir? MR. KRUPSKI: My name is A1 Krupski, good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen from the Southold Town Board and the Greenport Village Board. I'm Albert Krupski, President of the Board of Trustees in Southold, which is different than the Board of Trustees in the Village of Greenport. There's been a number of people tonight who have mentioned the wetlands on the site, and just to clear that up, Southold Town Trustees have jurisdiction over all freshwater and tidal wetlands in Southold town. This would be a standard review for the Southold Town Board of Trustees; we review a lot of different projects like this. The applicant would submit a plan, we would go out in the field, we would either meet with the DEC if they have jurisdiction or not, and with the applicant to determine where the wetlands are, they would be flagged and put on a survey, and then whatever boards, whether it's a Village Board of Trustees or the Southold Town Board would make that decision. So we're available to give input on this as soon as you ask. I think you COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 have our letter, letter? SUPERVISOR HORTON: AUDIENCE MEMBER: annexed to the Village, jurisdiction; is that correct? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Trustees? AUDIENCE MEMBER: also, correct, you have our Yes. If this land were then he wouldn't have any You mean the Board of Correct. If you agree with the annexation, and the Village gets this, then we won't have to go through that review any more, it's only a matter of Village jurisdiction? The Village would SUPERVISOR HORTON: provide reviews. MAYOR KAPELL: annexation. I support I'm in favor of this this annexation proposal. Southold town. permits eight units to the acre, current density provided on the There are a number of advantages that the Village has in terms of the effort to provide housing to address the emergency that we all know exists in We have existing zoning that double the site, and we have the only sewage treatment capacity in the town and we have significant under utilized capacity in our COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 existing plan. We also have water and electric utilities that can serve the property. The property is surrounded now on three sides by the Incorporated Village of Greenport. It's actually no less than a missing tooth. We have an efficient regulatory system, which is known regionally as effective as moving projects through our system, so that they actually are realized. We have a school that no matter how you look at it is under utilized and it would benefit from having the children of 64 working families educated herein. We have a fire department with a demonstrated capacity to be able to protect this property. And very importantly, the Village has a long and proud record of producing housing that's affordable to workers. If the application is approved, we will effectively address what is arguably the most important issue facing our town. There's been a lot of talk here tonight about preservation, but what we're not talking about is preserving the human face of the young people that place that town. Seeing to it that the make this place the special it is can continue to stay here. And COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that 62 percent, 68 percent that was quoted as being second homeowners does not become 100 percent, te work. with everyone else If the project is village and the town will in the town commuting approved, both the benefit from a tax standpoint. The negligible amount of taxes that this property presently pays to the town and park town tax will be eclipsed by the tax that will be levied on the whole town tax on an improved property. The project if it's approved will support the Greenport businesses. The business district, with all of our success over the last few years, remains a tough place to make a living. And the reason for that is the seasonal swing of our economy which is unhealthy, in the most fundamental terms, in the terms of being able to capitalize on business over a 12 month period. Having 64 families residing year round in Greenport will be good for Greenport. This project is asking for no public subsidy whatsoever. A lot has been made tonight about the fact that somebody's going to make a profit For COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631 878 8047 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 God's sake, how do you promote business for growth in the United States of America unless you provide for a profit? This is a fundamental and it's something to be credited not diminished. There is no way, there is no way that we can subsidize ourselves out of housing purchasing. There's not enough tax money there. If we were to propose a project that provided for that kind of tax revenue, you'd all be here tonight opposing it. For this to happen, it's important for the Town Board to be able to recognize Greenport as a vehicle through which the town-wide emergency can be addressed effectively and efficiently. Ail that has to then happen is for 64 homes to be made available to local families with no taxpayer subsidies whatsoever is for the village and Town Boards to say yes. It's as simple as that It's time to put our money where our mouths are It's time to fish or cut bait. If we're not going to do it, let's get up and say it, and tell all these young families that are looking for other places to live, you. I think it's time leave now. Because there's no place for don't happen te be from that school. I te do something and I'm thoroughly COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 committed to supporting this project in the process of actually providing affordable housing in Southold Town and specifically in the Incorporated Village of Greenport. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There's been no show of hands for further input of this public hearing. We'll close this hearing. MR. DAWSON: I have one question, is this going to be like a lottery drawing? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Please just come to the mike and state your name. MR. DAWSON: Rashad Dawson. My question is is there going to be a lottery for these houses? And how would these houses be distributed to these 64 families? SUPERVISOR HORTON: I think there would be a lottery, but I think that's something for Mr. Kontokosta. MR. KONTOKOSTA: Thank you. I would like to respond to that issue and another couple of clarifications of fact. First, with regards to the wetlands, they are under New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulation, whether in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Southold or Greenport. Those have been visually inspected, flagged and surveyed to be approximately 2.7 acres on the property. With regards to Dr. Kozora's arguments, I respect his position. First he asked why anyone looked at the K through 3 trends; I looked at that actually because it's representative of the young families that are leaving this town. These young children just aren't coming into the school system. Also, during our conversation on Monday, he admitted that the secondary school, he has several classrooms sitting vacant because he has so much capacity he cannot use them. Furthermore, he refers to Cedar Fields, producing 33 kids out of 39 units. First I'll say that Cedar Fields has seven detached hemes. They're large single-family four bedroom homes, which by my statistics, which are based en the United States Census and official data sources, produce many mere kids than the type of housing variety we're talking about in our project. But let's just say that number applies to the whole district, 33 kids and 39 is still less than eno. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There are 1,600 housing units, or 1,600 homes I should say, in the Greenport School District, applying that ratio, he should have about 1,400 kids in the Greenport school. The current enrollment is 680, which is actually about .44 kids per home, which is a number that I used to arrive at my conclusions. Also, I would like to talk about the affordable housing a bit more. We are proposing 128 units, only 50 percent of these units, 64 homes, this is double what the regulations in the Southold Town Board are. Sixty four homes would be affordable at the prices set by the Town of Southold all regulations and the County of Suffolk. These prices will be between $175,000 which is the upper limit or the affordable homes, housing presented and $266,500, limit of the by the Town. We expect that this will be handled, the homes will be offered by lottery, priority basis, and the resale will be ~o Southold residents, people who live the town and village in perpetuity. very much. based on a restricted and work in Thank you COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Appreciate your comments. MAYOR KAPELL: I have one more statement I'd like to make into the record. There were some veiled implications I have a business relationship with the applicant. I will state for the record that I have no business relationship whatsoever, have had ne business relationship with the petitioner for ever 25 years, and will have no relationship with this project in my private capacity as a real estate broker. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Sir? MR. BLUM: My name is Homer Blum, I'm from Greenport. I want to address the issue with Mr. Kapell about how many units there are; there's not 64 units there's a total ef 128; is that correct? MAYOR KAPELL: I was looking at the affordable. MR. BLUM: You have to take the whole issue because there are 128 units in this group. The question that came across Mr. Kontokosta was that the 33 units in Cedar Fields, but there were 39 children, se a little bit mere than one per COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 family. SUPERVISOR HORTON: opposite. MR. cleared up, Actually, it's the BLUM: I just wanted to get that because I question the numbers here. Also a point was brought up about why would it benefit the Greenport Village? The Greenport Village, as we all know, has an excessive amount of debt in the range of around, I heard 14 million dollars. I don't know how true that is; that's a heck of a lot of debt. I can understand Mayor Kapell looking to try to see how he could afford to pay for this amount expenditure coming up because he has bond issues, he has different kinds of money matters, and things to do and as we progress through the years and the burden is going to be on a small group of people because the Village is relatively small there's only, what 2,300 residents in the Village? So I can understand his point, but the problem is, what is it going to effect the rest of the people who are surrounding it, the non-village residents that aren't in the Village but still have to pay the taxes. I think that's really a question here COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tonight. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: If there are no other comments from the floor, we will close this hearing. I make a motion to adjourn the hearing. BOARD MEMBER WICKHAM: Second. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Ail in favor? (ALL AYES) (Time ended: 9:30 p.m.) COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATION I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the State of New York, do hereby certify: THAT the within transcript is a true record of the testimony given. I further certify that I am not related by blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this action; and THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of August, 2005. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 EXHIBIT "E" REVIEW OF HAMLET DENSITY ZONING IN SOUT~qOLD TOWN Report to the Town Board February 1994 REVIEW OF HAMLET DENSITY ZONING IN SOUTHOLD TOWN Report to the Town Board February 1994 iNTRODUCTION: The purpose of this review is to study the current szatus of each vacant property that presently is zoned for ~tmlet Density. The study includes an assessment whether thaE designation is in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive or Master Plan for the Hamlet Density (HD) zoning district. Initially, this report will descrfbe the reasons for the review. It then provides a detailed analysis of the pertinent policies of the Comprehensive or Master Plan affecting the Hamlet Density zoning and the history of the zoning that preceded it. Next, the report includes an analysis of the properties in a uniform manner. Each property is described as to its current physical location, including zoning. Each property is reviewed in terms of any current approvals and development. Each is analyzed as to its conformity with the Comprehensive or Master Plan and other public policies. Lastly, a recon~mendation is made as to the appropriateness of the zoning. NEED FOR THE REVIEW: The need for this review evidenced itself zn 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 years. Second, these properties are either undeveloped or under-developed. Third, seven of the eight parcels are located adjacent to or within close proximity to.the Incorporated Village of Greenport. The fact that these properties remained undeveloped over such long periods of time raised several questions: which ranged from why the properties were rezoned in the first place to why the properties remained undeveloped. The clustering of these properties adjacent to and around the Village of Greenport also raised questions as to the consistency of the Town's actions in context with its own Comprehensive or Master Plan. With one exception, the HD zoning 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 HID zone. All but one of the undeveloped HD parcels either are adjacent or within close proximity to Greenport Village. The resulting pattern has had a significant negative impact on the Village of Greenport. The Mayor of ~%e Village had a general discussion with the Town Board on January 4, 1994, in which he indica%ed that the cumulative impact of the added density would not only strain the present infrastructure capability of the Village's public water and sewer systems, it would increase Greenport's already disproportionate share of the Town's affordable housing units; a situation that was documented in Suffolk County's Equitable 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 reuiew 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 Plan. Charged in 1992 with suggesting ways to implement this vision, the Town's Stewardship Task Force reco~nended to the Town Board, in September of 1993, that it "Revise the Zoning Code and Map to better compky 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 physical context." This review is in response to those recommendations. AUTHORIZATION FOR REVIEW: The Town Board Resolution of January 4, 1994 states the reasons for this review, the Board's intent in authorizing it, and directs staff to carry out the study. METHODOLOGY USED IN ANALYSIS: CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: The methodology used here reflects the purpose of this review which is to examine the eight vacant parcels currently zoned Hamlet Density and to determine whether they are appropriately zoned in relationship to the goals and 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 Map Number, its location and its acreage. Information about the zoning and ownership history of this parcel will be presented here also. The section on Notable Physical Features and Limitations will review the relevant, available environmental data and its significance or potential impact on the parcel's develcpment potential, The Surrounding Land Uses and Zoninq section will describe the land uses and zoning of the surrounding properties, and will discuss the significance of those uses and designa%ions for the subject parcel. The foliowlng section, Status of Development: Approvals ~nd lnfrasnFacnure, will review the current snatus of any ~?llcal!ons and approvals for the subject parcel. The Public Policy section will examine the appropriateness of the Hamlet Density designation relative to the vision set forth by the Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan Update in 1984, the 1991US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Report and the Stewardship Task Force's draft recommendations of 1993. The last section, Reco~nendatioq, will list a recommendation for either leaving the Hamlet Density designation or changing it. Public Policy in the Context of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code: Because the Public Policy sections of each case study presume an understanding of the Town's Comprehensive or Master Plan and of the Town's ongoing efforts to implement its vision, as well as an historical knowledge of elements of the Zoning Code itself, the following section has been included here. Its purpose is to provide a detailed analysis of the public policies that were considered in this evaluation of the pattern of Hamlet Density zoning in Southold Town. The Comprehensive Plan Southold Town has been engaged in an ongoing effort to implement the Goals and Policies of the 1984 Comprehensive or Master Plan Update as evidenced by the work of the Stewardship Task Force (STP). Appointed by the Town Board, the STP has been charged since its inception in 1992, with the "study and exploration of amelioratory recommendations of the Southold Town Zoning Map and Ordinances, in order to foster and implement the ideals and goals of the existing Master Plan, incorporating the recommendations of the US/UK Stewardship Exchange." The recommendations of the US/UK Stewardship Exchange reflect the collective thinking of a team of eight professional planners who met with government officials and a wide range of community representatives about planning issues during July of 1991. They found six areas of agreement with the Comprehensive or Master Plan. These included: 1) "Concentration of new residential and commercial development in and around existing hamlets and villages .... " along with the 2) ~'Preservation of the historic cha~racter of the villages and hsm~lets, carefully controlling design new development to maintain compatibility." and "Maintenance and improvement of the environment through provision of an appropriate infrastructure to protect water quality and to manage natural resources properly, and to guide development to appropriate locations." (A Report by the 1991US/UK Countryside S%ewardship Exchange Teafa To The People of the Town of Southold, North Fork~ Long Island. November 1991. p.8.) The aforementioned issues had been derived from the Goals and Policies of Southold Town's 1984 Master Plan Update. That document set forth a number of Goals and subsequent Policies which have a bearing on this study, and which are stated in Appendix A of this study. In September of 1993, the Stewardship Task Force published an interim report in which it made a series of draft recommendations to implement the Goals and Policies set forth by the 1984 Master Plan Update. The preface to its reco~endations on the Character of Hamlets and Rural Setting states: The hamlets are the historic focus for residential and business activity in Southoid 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, canzeful 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. ~igorous 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 prese~zation of our historic and scenic heritage, not only for our "quality of life", but for the economic potential it offers the Town. Pg.rpose of the Hamlet Density Zoning District: policy of concentrating residential development througneu~ ~he Town's hamie~s is reiteraued tn the Town's Zoning Code, which states that the purpose of the HD Zoning Disnrict is: "to permit a mix of housing types 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 Gre~nport." The Zoning Code specifies that the }iD district may be designated by the Town Board upon its own motion, as well as by petition of the property owner on parcels located within one-half mile of a Hamlet Business district of the hamlets of Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold; and within one-quarter mile of the Hamlet Business district of Orient and within one-half mile of the boundary of Greenport Village. In the Master Plan Summary of 1985, three criteria were set forth for the establishment of a Hamlet Density district: location relative to the hamlet business area, the availability of utilities and the provision of moderate cost housing. The report suggested Greenport be considered as a hamlet. It also suggested that the maximum HD development be permitted "only where necessary utilities are in place or can be assured and where there is the provision of moderate cost housing." (p.9). Finally, it states the "The Hamlet Density category is also designed to support the establishment of innovative techniques for getting the optimum use out of existinq housing." (Emphasis supplied.) Uses Allowed in the Hamlet Density Zoning District: The Zoning Code allows within the HD district only two uses by right: 1. one-family detached dwellings, and 2. two-family dwellings. A Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals is required for other uses such as: 1. multiple dwellings, townhouses, row or attached houses; 2. accessory apartments in single-family residences, {as regulated elsewhere in the Zoning Code)~ 3. bed and breakfast estaJplish~ents, (as regulated elsewhere in the Zoning Code}; 4. wineries, (as regulated elsewhere in the Zoning Code)~ The Zoning Code provides guidelines or parameters within which the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant the Special Exceptions only for accessory apartments and for bed and breakfast establishments. No guidance is provided to the Zoning Board for the institution of multiple dwe%lings, townhouses or row-houses, and wineries. The Zoning Code: Historical Background: Throughout this report, it is i~ortant to remember that while the "A" Residential-Agricultural zoning district always permitted residential and agricultural land uses, the required min~mmun acreage for a lot in this zone changed through the years. The following list shows how the minin~3/~ acreage changed (by the year the amendment was made to the Zoning Code). Year Minimum Acreage in "A" or "R" zones 1957 - 12,500 square feet 1971 - 40,000 square feet 1983 - 80,000 square feet 1989 - 80,000 square feet in A-C and R-80 zones (40,000 square feet for areas zoned R-40 only. Other residential zones provide for three, five and ten acre minimum acreages.) As will be seen, the in-depth analysis of each property will show that each parcel originally had been zoned for residential use. Some of the parcels have had more than one zoning designation in their history, mostly because the Town changed its zoning code and map several tim~s 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 min~um required lot area withln the HD district is 20,000 square feet per one-family detached dwelling. Suffolk County's Health Regulations require the provision of public water where lots are smaller than 40,000 square feet in area. However[ where both Community (Pllblic) water and Sewer services are available, and a Special Exception is granted, the density may be increased to one unit for every 10,000 squal-e feet. Thus, the development potential of a parcel zoned HD is inextricably tied to the availability of p~zblic water: and for the higher densities, the availability of sewer. In other words, for the HD zoned property to be developed in accordance with the intent of the Code, it requires access to public water and, sometimes, sewers. Number and Location of Properties Zoned Hamlet Density: There are thirteen properties in mainland Southold Town that are zoned Hamlet Density (HD), only five of which are developed. Three are Located in Greenport: one is the Driftwood Cove Apartment Complex, another is the Seven-Eleven store, and the third is a large historic house adjacent to Brecknock Hall. The fourth is the Founders Village Condominium comple~ in Southold. The fifth is a large house in Orient on the north side of SR 25, about 87 feet west of Young's Avenue, On Fishers Island, there are fifteen developed properties that are zoned HD. All these parceis, save one, are located within the boundaries of the abandoned Army base; and appear to have been developed either as base offices or officer's quarters. Of the eight vacant HD-zoned parcels, seven are located around Greenport Village, which for a long time was the only source of both public water and sewer services within the Town. There appears now to be some limitation on the Village of Greenport's ability to be the focus of all HD zoning given the current demand on its already strained water and sewer facilities. Cutchogue has the only other vacant HD-zoned property~ The remaining hamlets in Southo±d Town have no vacant HD-zoned properties. ANALYSIS OF HAMLET 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 wer~ rezoned starting with the first, in 1958. This is also the order in which they will be reviewed. Throughout the remainder of this report, the parcels will be referred to by the identi- fying Parcel and Tax Map numbers (SCTM#) noted here. SCTM~ Hamlet Location Acreage #1 040-3-1 Greenport, unin. 17.1 #2 040-4-1 Greenport, unin. 10.55 #3 046-1-2.1 Greenport, unin. 3.5 #4 035-1-25 Greenport, unin. 132.08 #5 045-2-10.3 Greenport, unin. 20.07 #6 102-1-33.3 Cutchogue 46.16 #7 045-2-1 Greenport, unin. 1.2 #8 035-i-24 Greenport, unin. 62.3 The format used in the analysis of each parcel is: PARCEL # and TAX MAP NUMBER SITE DATA: Location: Acreage: Zoning History:* Ownership History:** NOTABLE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS: SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT: APPROVALS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: PUBLIC POLICY: RECO~4ENDATION: One or more maps showing the subject parcel may accompany the written text: they will be found at the end of the analysis of that parcel. Zoning History was culled from the Town Clerk's Change of Zone files. Ownership History was traced from Property Cards in the office of the Town T~x Assessor. PARCEL ~1 - SCTM # 40-3-1 ~ITE DATA: Location: South Side County Route 48, more 7than 1000' east of Chapel Lane, Greenport Acreage: 17.1 acres Zoning History : Year Rezoned: 6.13.58. The original petition was to change the zone from "A" Residental and Agricultural to "B" Business. Between January and May of 1958, the applicant changed his request to "M" Multiple Residence, which was subsequently granted. The file does not indicate why the property owner asked for the change of zone, nor why the Town Board granted the request. Ownership History / Year Acquired *Kace Realty Co 3-10-82 Kontakosta 3-10-82 Sanzone (Sminh Est) o Brereton ?-?-79 H. Smith & Ano Sledjecki / Miscellany 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 FEATLiRES AND LIMITATIONS: There is little environmental infor~asion 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 sou£h from 35 feet above sea-level near County Route 48, lo about 10 feet at its southernmost point. The property may have freshwater wooded wet- lands on or wllhlR close proximity. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: The property is currently bounded on the north Dy CR 48; lhe west and south borders by land owned and zoned by the Village of Greenport as PD or Parkland, and nhe east border by land zoned R-80. No~th 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 ~R properties to the northwest, diagonally across CR 48, contain motel and resort condorainium uses, along with one residential use and an unfinished mo- tel. San Simeon Ntursing Home, which is zoned HD, is about 800 feet to the west. The remainder of the HD property to the west is mostly undeveloped, and is one of the parcels under review (Parcel #7). The KOA Kampground lies due east at a distance of about 500 feet. STATUS OF DEVELOPMP~NT: APPROVALS AND IN~TRUCTIIRE: On July 11, 1983, the Planning Board granted site plan approval to construct 108 dwelling units in 27 build- ings. The property owner has yet to obtain governmen- tal approvals for water, sewer and curb cuts. No building permits are known to have been issued. PUBLIC POLICY: Although the subject parcel is adjacent to land owned by the Incorporated Village of Greenpo[t, it~ lies 4,500 feet or more ( one mile equals 5,280 feet) from the developed portions of the Village, and is even further from the business center. It is surrounded by vacant woodland, which is zoned PD or Park District. The Village changed the zone of the surrounding woodland from R-1 (Residential) to PD in 1987, in response to directives from the State of New York's Department of Environmental Conservation. The PD district is defined as follows: "An area reserved for recreational and firematic use by the citizens of the Village of Greenport as regulated by the Park Local Law, and in which Village utilities and other public uses may be maintained and expanded." The only uses permitted within this distrlct ~nre: -} Nature trails !) Sports playing fields 3) Firematic events 4) Utility facilities including necessary appurtances but not limited to: a) water towers b) sewage treatment plants c) electrical plants ~ 5) Municipally operated ~amp sites 6) Municipally operated trailer park 7) Watershed maintenance Much of the PD zoned land is environmentally sensitive, freshwater wooded wetland. Given the restrictive nature of the Parkland District, it seems inconsistent for the Town to concentrate its highest density residential use on the subject parcel. Further, this parcel is not within walking distance of the Village ham]et, and the necessary utilities do not seem to be assu~red at this time. For these reasons, intense development of the site does not seem to meet with the Goals and Policy Objectives of the Comprehen- sive or Master Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The site could be developed in a manner not requiring multiple density uses. Rezoning to a lower density is reco~ended. RR HD LIO IR. -80 R -40 AHD "R -80 4 '. :. i'x:Z- KACE LI, LLC Annexation Petition In the Matter of the Application of KACE LI, LLC, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co. Pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law to annex a parcel of property to the territory of the Village of Greenport ORIGINAL Petitioner, TO: TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD VILLAGE TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT The petition ofKACE LI, LLC respectfully shows as follows: 1. This is a petition pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York to annex to the territory of the Village of Greenport, Suffolk County, New York, that certain parcel of property owned by the Petitioner which is currently situated with the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, as more particularly bound and described upon Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof(also known as SCTM: 1000-40-3-1, hereinafter, the "Subject Parcel"). 2. Petitioner, KACE L1, LI,C, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co., has an address at P.O. Box 67, 755 North Road, Greenport, New York 11944. 3. This Petition is submitted to the Towu Board of the Town of Southold (hereinafter, the "Southold Board") and to the Trustees of the Village of Greenport (hereinafter, the "Village Trustees") for the purposes of receiving the consent of each of the Southold Board and the Village Board to the annexation of the Subject Parcel to the Village of Greenport. 4. There are no "inhabitants" of the Subject Parcel as defined in Sec. 703 of the General Municipal Law. 5. Petitioner is the owner of a majority in assessed valuation of the Subject Parcel, as shown upon the last preceding assessment roll of the Town of Southold. 6. Attached hereto as Schedule B is the certificate of the Assessor of the Town of Southold pursuant to Sec. 703 of the General Municipal Law. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the Southold Board and the Village Trustees, pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, consider this Petition. Dated: July~, 2005 C. E. Kohto'~o~a Member STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) On the/.~ '~tay of July in the year 2005 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared C. E. KONTOKOSTA, in his capacity as a Member ofKACE LI, LLC, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and' acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalf of~vhicta~'~n, div/jdu 10~ted, ex~u~/9 the instrument. (signatt~eq~Ird office o f~naividual taking~tcknowledgment) EMILY HAMILL Notary Pubhc State or New ¥ort~ 0to. ~J1 HA5059984 Chlahfleo in Suffolk COLm..~t~, O~ Commission Expires May 06 ...... _ SCHEDULE A to the Petition ofKACE LI, LLC PROPERTY DESCRIPTION {SCTM: 1000-40-3-1} BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of the North Road, at the northeasterly comer of the land of the Village o~.~re~en~ort and being the northwesterly comer of the land of Stephen Sledjeski; thenc~a~g ~e southerly side of the North Road as the same curves, 43.85 feet; thence along the southerly side of the North Road North 61 degrees 23 minutes 20.~econds East, 393.50 feet; thence continuing along the/,~ southerly side of the North Roa'tl 58 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds East, 352.38 feet the land now or formally of F.L.R. Francisco Estate; thence southerly along said last mentioned land South 23 degrees 34 minutes 20 seconds East, 427.38 feet; thence continuing along said last mentioned land South 21 degrees 23 minutes 30 seconds East, 106.0 feet to the land of the Village of Greenport; thence along the land of the Village of Greenport the following 6 courses and distances: - (1) SOUTH 23 degrees 49 minutes West 241.26 feet; (2) SOUTH 5 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds West 671.42 feet; (3) NORTH 68 degrees 42 minutes 10 seconds West 432.43 feet; (4) NORTH 22 degrees 18 minutes West 564.52 feet; (5) SOUTH 72 degrees 41 minutes 10 seconds West 119.9 feet; (6) NORTH 0 degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds West 343.58 feet to the southerly side of the North Road at the point or place of BEGiNNING. SCHEDULE B to the PETITION OF KACE LI, LLC CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSESSOR OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) I, _~A -U._~ ~roQ%..~t., in my capacity as a duly elected Assessor of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, do hereby certify as follows: 1. I am a duly elected Assessor of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and was one of the persons responsible for the preparation of the assessment bill for the year 2004/2005. 2. The real property described in Paragraph 1 of the Petition to which this certificate is attached (also known as SCTM: 1000-40 -3-1, hereinafter, the "Snbject Parcel") is situated in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, and is assessed on the tax roll of the said Town of Southold for the year 2004/2005, which is the last preceding assessment roll of the said Town of Southold. 3. The total assessed valuation of the Subject Parcel as shown on the assessment roll of the said Town of Southold for the 2004/2005 tax year is 4. According to the records of the Assessor's Office, KACE LI, LLC, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co., is the owner of the Subject Parcel and is the owner of a majority in assessed valuation of the Subject Parcel assessed upon the last preceding assessment roll of, or utilized by, the Town of Southold. Dated: Julyt~, 2005 Suffolk County, N~6rk STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) On the ~ ~-e',~ay.of July in the year 2Q05,, .~bef°re me, the undersigned, personally appeared~(~ [a~ ~- S _~:~_~ ( personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory~ t~-b~ndividual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person up? l~ehalf of which the individual(s) acted, executesl~.i~ent. ~ ~-~'/'~ ~ (signa~re/~dc~ee ~f indi'//v'~dua~ledgnlent) Claire L. Glew Notary Public, State of New York No. 01GL4879505 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires Dec. 8. ~--~,,/,, 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Notice of Public HearIng ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 sou~holdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Augustl6,2005 The Southold Town Board will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on Tuesday, August 23~ 2005 at 7:00 P.M. at the Greenport High School, 75955 Route 25~ Greenport, New York, at which time and place the Southold Town Board and the Greenport Board of Trustees will hear testimony and consider evidence and information concerning the ANNEXATION PETITION filed by KACE LI LLC. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Town Board Town Attorney Chief of Police Supt. of Highways Departments Newspapers Radio News 12 NEWSDAY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD NY 11971-0959 STATE OF NEW YORK) :SS.: - - COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Kathy Sullivan Legal _ 13911002 of Newsday, Inc., Suffolk County, N.Y., being duly sworn, says that such person is, and at the time of publication of the annexed Notice was a duly authorized custodian of records of Newsday, Inc., the publisher of NEWSDAY, a newspaper published in the County of Suffolk, County of Nassau, County of Queens, and elsewhere in the State of New York and other places, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a true copy, was published in the following editions/ counties of said newspaper on the following dates: THURSDAY JULY 28 2005 Nassau Sworn To Before Me This 28 day of July Notary Public Lega;~otice 13911002 TOWN OFSOUTHOLD NOT~CE OF PUBLIC HEARING Juty 26, 2005 Noiice is herebyglven that the Town of Southol<f has received al 7:00 o'clock p m or* the 23rd ~IWSDAY PROOF 2005 Guy P. Wasser Notary Public, State of New York No. 0l WA6045924 Commission Expires 08/07/2006 Qualified in Suffolk County #7522 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Jean Bur.qon of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 weeks, succ_essively, ~com~encing on the 28th day of . July ,2005 Sworn to before me this 2005 CHRISTINA VOLtNSKI NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. 01-VO61050,50 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires February 28, 2008 day of ~ ~'f~c p~al Clerk COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK ss: Nancy M. Mclaughlin, being duly sworn, says that she is the Legal Advertising Coordinator, 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 ..... [. ..... week(s) successively, commencing on the...c>~ .~.. ...... day of ~>' .-~.. i;,.2oo5. - Sworn to before me this...'~....~..day of ..... ~....~... ...... ,2005. Emily namill NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 01HA5059984 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission expires May 06, 2006 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Written Objections August 22, 2005 65300 Route 48 Greenport, NY 11944 RECEIVED AUG 2 2 2005 $oulhold Town Clerl~ Southold Town Board $outhold, NY 11971 RE: Petition for Annexation, SCTM# 1000-40-3-1 Dear Sirs: Once again, the Village of Greenport's annexation plans rear their ugly head in the proposed development of 128 units on 17 acres. This comes only sixteen months after I heard a village official state "I have no agenda." Do I hear the ring of real estate commissions? The subject parcel, bounded on three sides by village park land (Moore's Woods) and a mile distant from the nearest village resident, was apparently deliberately left out of the Village's past land gobbles by our forebears who, in their wisdom, wished to remain separate from the Village. Can we blame them? In the past, the Village attempted to pave over the very same parkland. Now, with no consideration for its proximity to the Town of Southold's Pipe Neck Preserve, they wish to develop it in the name of affordable housing. This kind of speculative real estate development coupled with the desire to seek maximum profit on every square inch of land is what has created the affordable housing problem in the first place; feeding the frenzy will not help. This is not to mention the impact such high-density development will have on our school taxes and the increased costs for other services. In the interests ofthe residents of the Town of Southold and the Village of Crreenport, tNs land must be rezoned as planning calls for: "2 acre zoning." With Regards, Sidney D. Cym'6alsky AUG 2 2 2005 Annexation llearing Page 1 of 1 Neville, Elizabeth From: Anne Taylor Davis [ataylordavis@davidchudesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 1:08 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: Annexation Hearing To the Bom'd, I am not able to attend the hearing this evening, but I w~mted to communicate my point of view about the proposal to annex over 17 acres of environmentally sensitive space for a high density development project. RECEIVED AUG 31 2005 Southoid Town Cler I respectfully propose that the Town and the Village stand united against this proposal which is against sound planning, long term planning and the good of the community. It pits the forces of greed against the proponents of smart growth. Please make your decisions in the best interests of our town and do oot approve annexation. Sincerely, Anne Taylor Davis 3940 Orchard Street Orienl, New York 11957-0480 8/31/2005 63%47%0184 David S. Corwin 639 Main Street Greenport, NY 11944~1431 corwin@optonline.net August 27, 2005 Board of Trustees Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, NY 11944 Subject: Case Property Annexation Southold Town Board Main Road Southold, NY RECEIVED AUG 31 2005 SoutJ~ola Town Clerk Ladies and Gentlemen: Please excuse me for missing your joint public heating on the above referenced matter. I thought there would be a fair and balanced presentation at the public hearing. When I read the account in The Suffolk Times I found I was wrong. The economics of the proposed project must be examined carefully before the pamel in question is annexed to the Village of Greenport. Since the Code of the Village of Greenport has no specifications for subdivisions, drainage or road construction the first question must be the road construction. I will make the assumption that the village could end up constructing the roads and if the village does not construct the roads will end up having to maintain substandard road surfaces. The village will have to incur the cost of constructing sewer and water mains in the project. It should also be borne in mind that the sewer pipe nmning from the nursing home to the sewerage treatment plant is cement asbestos which is know to deteriorate over time from the acid nature of sewerage. An increased load will hasten the day when the pipe has to be replaced. A conservative cost estimate, on the low side, for water and sewer pipes in the project is $1,500,000. There are also fees that will be associated with a meter, pit and check valves from the SCWA water main on CR 48, assuming the SCWA will let the village tap their main on CR 48. That also assumes the SCWA has the water for the subdivision. To supply electricity the village will have to run a pole line from Mooms Lane, through Mooms Woods (parkland) to the Case parcel. Considering the wooded swampy nature of the area this cost can be conservatively estimated at $1,000,000. Ihere is at least a $2,500,000 cost to provide water, sewer and electricity to the parcel that the village must bear. AUG 3 1 2005 Annexation August 27, 2005 Page 2 There has been no quantity put on the electric demand for the project. If is reasonable to assume that given the attractive electric rate village residents now enjoy the developer will install heat pumps with resistance low temperature heating, the cheapest way to go. That will produce a demand larger than the all electric heat that Driftwood Cove now requires. Taking 127 units (no sure minimum number) it is reasonable to assume that the project will increase the village's electric demand by 15%. The village electric system just had a peak summertime demand day of 7 megaxvatts. The present allocation for the village from NYPA is somewhere around 5 megawatts. Every kilowatt over 5 megawatts must be purchased on the open market for electricity at the going rate. This will mean a substantial cost increase to all village electric users to satisfy the demand for electricity the project would represent. The Zoning chapter of the village code allows l 0,000 square foot lots with a two family dwelling in the densest present use, the R-2 use. What is to stop the village board from changing the Zoning Chapter to allow more dense use? What is to stop the developer from designating at least part of the parcel as commercial? The village is currently at or near its statutory borrowing limit at a debt of around $14,000,000. The infrastructure of the project will cost the village at least $2,500,000. The village cannot increase its bonding presently because of the debt ceiling. The village also has a $5,000,000 cost to make improvements to the electric plant, just to stay even with present demand. Another cost that must be considered is the inevitable lawsuits the village will be dragged into. Case has already threatened lawsuits. Finally this project will produce no guarantee of "low income" housing units. The augment has been made that because some of the units are "small" they will remain affordable. "Small" housing units in the present Village of Greenport boundaries are going for $450,000 and up. Very truly yours, David S. Corwin August 28, 2005 Thomas Thorp and Patricia Lauth 1705~I~anv~n Bl~gd~ Greeu4mrt; ~ 1,~L94~ 631/477-823ig RECEIVED 8EP 7 2005 Southold Town Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Southold Town Clerk Re: Annexation of Land to Greenport Village Dear Sirs/Madams: We are writing to express our opinion regarding the annexation of property from S outhold Town to the Village of Greenport on the North Road just east of Chapel Lane. We attended the joint meeting held last Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at Greenpurt High School and listened to the KACE presentation and comments by citizens and by Mayor Kapell. Although we are not against development of the 17 acre parcel, we are against annexation so that the rules can be bent when it comes to high density housing. The nature of the area that we live in will forever be changed if the number of housing units is built on that parcel as proposed by KACE. We believe the Soothold Town regulations regarding density are good for the community, and we purchased our home outside of the Village of Greenport because of that density. We appreciate this opportunity, as voting citizens, to express our views regarding this matter and hope that you will vote accordingly on our behalf. Sincerely, Patricia Lauth Sincerely, SEP - 9 2005 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD VILLAGE OF GREENPORT x '~ - 7 -: ................ x In the Matter of the Application of : KACE LI, LLC : for : ANNEXATION OF 17 ACRES : ................ X MEMORANDUM AND APPENDIX ANTHONY B TOHILL. P,G, ATTORNEY AT LAW la FIRST STREET BOX 1330 R ~i~W YORK 1190~1 Table I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. Xo XI. XII . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page of Contents ............................................. i INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1 A FACTUAL HISTORY OF KACE LI, LLC PARCEL ............ 1 THE .ANNEXATION PROCESS .............................. 4 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT .............. 7 THE TOWN REGUIm~TORY SETTING ......................... 7 THE VILLAGE REGULATORYSETTING ...................... 10 THE STATED REASONS FOR THE ANNEXATION PETITION ...... 11 THE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR REACHING A DETERMINATION .... 12 PIECEMEAL ANNEXATION BENEFITING ONE PROPERTY OWNER SEEKING TO AVOID THE TOWN REGULATORY PROCESS SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED ...................... 13 ANNEXATION WOULD ALLOW DETRIMENT TO THE ANNEXED TERRITORY ................................... 17 ANNEXATION PROVIDES NO BENEFIT EXCEPT TO KACE LI, ~LLC ..................................... 21 CONCLUSION: THE CERTAIN AND OBVIOUS ................ 24 i I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum and appendix of references are submitted in opposition to annexation of SCTM 1000-40-3-1 to the Village of Greenport. This memorandum is submitted on behalf of the following property owners who oppose annexation and whose respective residences are shown on annexed Exhibit 1: Samir, Grzeski, Retzos, Suprenant, Young, Foley, Berardino, Mannix, Stern, Gordon (NoFo Properties), Campbell, Walsh and Cohen. II. A FACTUAL HISTORY OF THE KACE LI, LLC PARCEL A. On January 13, 1983 while then zoned in M Light Multiple Residence District, a site plan and EAF were submitted by David E. Kapell as agent for Emanual Kontokosta for development of 108 dwelling units in 27 buildings on 5 acres. Exhibits 2, 3, 4. B. On July 11, 1983, the site plan wasapproved (Exhibit 5) even though no drainage plans were submitted or approved, the Planning Board did not conduct scoping or issue any declaration under SEQRA, no approval for public water or public - 1 - Do Eo sewer hookups existed, there was no required referral to the County Planning Commission and there was no Health Department approval. On May 20, 1987 Emanuel Kontokosta, Kace Realty Co. and Kace Construction Corp., described as the owners of the premises, sued The Village of Greenport to compel water and sewer hookups. Exhibit 6. On January 10, 1989, while enacting a substantial recodification of the Zoning Ordinance, the Town Board repealed the M Light Multiple Residence District and rezoned the premises to Hamlet Density (HD). Exhibit 7. On February 6, 1996 the suit against the Village was settled by a stipulation under which it was agreed the Village did not have sufficient sewer capacity to serve the 108 unit development at the premises, the Village was given four (4) years to work out capacity problems, it was agreed there was sufficient capacity to supply water and the Kontokosta parties were given three (3) years to elect to sign contracts for sewer and water services when both are available. Exhibit 6. In October 1999 the Town Board changed the zoning classification to R-80 but on December 4, 2000 the Supreme Court Suffolk County invalidated the change of zone by reason of a failure of a sufficient majority to override a Town Law ~ 265 protest. Exhibit 8. On November 16, 2000 Kace Development Corp. submitted four (4) bu±lding permit applications, each for four (4 dwelling units referencing Buildings 24, 25 26 and 27 on the 1983 site plan (Exhibit 9), but each was denied by Building Inspector Edward Forrester since both ZBA special exception approval and site plan approval were necessary. (Exhibit 10) o On August 13, 2001 Kace LI, LLC applied to ZBA to challenge denial of building permit applications. Exhibit 11. On June 6, 2002 the ZBA denied the appeal. Exhibit 12. - 3 - On July 14, 2005 Kace LI, LLC filed an annexation petition with the Town Clerk, outlining a 128 residential unit project of which "approximately 20%" would be a condominium "workforce/affordable mixed income housing project," "approximately 30%" will be semi-detached homes "affordable for the workforce" and the remaining 64 units (the memo said 68) will be detached single family residences. Exhibit 13. III. THE ANNEXATION PROCESS Annexation, the alteration of municipal boundaries, is governed by Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, enacted in 1963. The process begins with a petition a) territory, either at describing the b) stating the number of inhabitants, c) signed by least 20% of the residents eligible to vote in the territory or by the majority of the owners of the assessed valuation in the territory, d) filed with each municipality, e) accompanied by an assessor's certificate, and f) authenticated by inscription of the following statutory (GML ~ 703(2)) language: STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF (name of witness) being duly sworn, says: I reside at in the of (fill in residence) in the state of New York; I know each of the persons whose names are subscribed to the above sheet having (fill in number) signatures; and each of them subscribed the same in my presence. Sworn to before me this __ day of 19 (Signature of witness) (Official title of officer) A hearing must be noticed by each municipality within twenty (20) days after the petition is filed. A hearing must be held within not less than twenty (20) days nor more than forty (40) days after the notice. Evidence at the hearing may include challenges to the qualifications of the petition signers or that the petition does not comply with the formal requirements outlined above. Objections may be heard that the proposed annexation is not "in the over-all public interest (1) of the territory - 5 - proposed to be annexed, or (2) of the municipality to which the territory would be annexed [Village] or (3) of the municipality from which the territory would be annexed [Town] or (4) any district (fire, school, or other) in the territory to be annexed." The hearing must conclude within ten (10) days after the date fixed in the notice. Each municipality must adopt a resolution or order consisting of findings and a determination within ninety (90) days after the hearing. The determination and the record of proceedings must be filed within the ninety (90) days in the Office of the Clerk of each municipality (a failure to follow this requirement is a default approval). If one municipality is in favor and one against, then certified copies of the determinations of each municipality must also be filed in the County Clerk's Office within the same ninety (90) days. Any municipal board member with a pecuniary interest in the annexation outcome should recuse himself. Exhibit 15. iV. A_n annexation of 100 or more I action under 6 NYCRR § 617.4(b) (4). Westchester Development Corp. v. Town Board of Town of ~reenburg~, 141 A.D.2d 796, 599 N.Y.S.2d 870 (2d Dept. 1988), the Court held that an annexation involving less than 100 acres is an unlisted action. The Court further held that a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is appropriate if the annexation includes "a specific project plan," but a DEIS is not required if the use following annexation is "a speculative possibility." Exhibit 16. At the least, of course, the record must at this point contain an Environmental Assessment Form prepared by the petitioner, Kace LI, LLC. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT contiguous acres is a Type Exhibit 14. In Cross- V. THE TOWN REaULATORY SETTINa Although neither Kace LI, LLC nor any other Kontokosta affiliate has made any application to develop the premises consistent with any applicable zoning classification since 1983 -- at which time the 108 unit application was granted site approval in less than six (6) months - the premises as now zoned for the - 7 - last sixteen (16) years allows all of the uses outlined in the project description accompanying the annexation petition. Exhibit 17. In the HD district, one family residences, two family residences, multiple dwellings, townhouses and row or attached houses are allowed as either permitted or special exception uses. Exhibit 16. Site plan approval requires allocation of a percentage of affordable units. Density since the enactment of Local Laws 7 and 16 of 1985 and the codification of the then §100-116 has allowed one unit per 10,000 square feet if public water and sewer are available. § 100-116, now codified since 1989 as part of the Zoning Ordinance Bulk Schedule, appeared in 1985 as follows: § 100-116. Dwelling unit density. [Amended 4-9-85 by L.L. No. 7-1985; 7-16-85 by L.L. No. 11- 1985] Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, each dwelling unit in a multiple dwelling shall have twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of land for each dwelling unit in the building where public water and public sewer are not provided and shall have ten thousand (10,000) square feet of land for each dwelling unit in the building where public water and public sewer are provided. The premises appear within the HALO map for Greenport West in the Town of Southold Hamlet Study dated July 5, 2005. - 8 - Exhibit 18. At page G-9 of that Study, density increases for affordable housing are discussed at a yield of up to one unit per 1/8 acre, or one per 5,000 square feet. Exhibit 19. Such an increased density as currently under discussion would be "density neutral," that is, the floating HALO overlay zone would be an incentive zone available on a transfer of development rights known as preservation credits in number equal to the density increase. Exhibit 20. To the extent Kace LI, LLC has an interest in affordable or workforce housing the Town has enacted Article V of the Zoning Ordinance to further as § 100-50 of the Town Code states "the Town's goals of providing quality workforce housing." Exhibit 21. Affordable Housing districts (AHD) may be located within hamlet locus (HALO) zones pursuant to § 100-52. Density is allowed at one unit per 10,000 square feet. Dwelling units would be subject to resale price controls. The Town would maintain a Housing Advisory Commission to oversee these controls. In addition the Town's Special Projects Coordinator would administer the program. - 9 - VI. THE VILLAGE REGULATORY SETTING The Village of Greenport has two (2) residential districts, R-1 for one family dwellings and R-2 for one (1) and two (2) family dwellings. (Exhibit 22}. Multiple dwellings are prohibited under § 150-8(B) (2) in each district excepting on the "conversion of an existing dwelling to a multifamily dwelling." Density is one residential unit per 10,000 square feet in R-1 and one unit per 7,500 square feet in R-2 excepting two family units which allow two (2) units per 7,500 square feet. Exhibit 23. The Village of Greenport does not maintain any affordable housing legislation. Site plan approval in the Village does not require a percentage of affordable units. Under no provision of the Greenport Code as now enacted would an owner be able to build 128 residential units on a 17 acre site except at a maximum yield that ignores all of the mapped wetlands on the site. Under no provision of the Greenport Code as now enacted would an owner be obliged to sell any unit as affordable housing, at least not in the sense there is any legislated restriction on the sale or resale. - 10- Under no provision of the Greenport Village Code as now enacted would a developer be able to build at a yield as generous as now under discussion in the HALO Study. VII. THE STATED REASONS FOR THE ANNEXATION PETITION The Memorandum of Kace LI, LLC accompanying the annexation petition states five reasons supporting its petition: 1. The property is contiguous the Village on three sides; 2. The property is within the Greenport school and fire districts; 3. The property "has a stipulated connection to the Greenport sewer system"; 4. The property has access to Suffolk County Water Authority public water; and 5. The "Village has the appropriate existing zoning density provisions." - 11 - VIII. THE LEGAL STANDAP. DS FOR REACHING A DETERMINATION "In determining whether a proposed annexation is in the over-all public interest, the focus is on such matters as the benefit and detriment to the annexing municipality, to the territory to be annexed and to the municipality from which the annexed territory would be taken." Town of Lansing v. Village of Lansing, 80 A.D.2d 942, 438 N.Y.S.2d 29, at 31 (3rd Dept. 1981). Exhibit 24. "Benefit and detriment are customarily defined in terms of municipal services such as police and fire protection, health regulations, sewer and water service, public utilities and public education." Town of Lansinq, supra. The burden of proof is on the municipality seeking annexation. A factor to be considered in addition to the benefit/detriment municipal services analysis is whether the territory to be annexed and the annexing municipality have a unity of purpose sufficient to constitute a community, for example, an adopted master plan which allows for the proposed development of the annexed territory. - 12 - IX. PIECEMEAL ANNEXATION BENEFITINH ONE PROPERTY OWNER SEEKINH TO AVOID THE TOWN REHULATORY PROCESS SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED In Village of Warwick v. Town of Warwick, 56 A.D.2d 928, 393 N.Y.S.2d 47, at 48 (2d Dept. 1977) (Exhibit 25), the Court held: [A] cautionary note must be added. Annexation of territories pose important issues, being on the proper geographic and economic division of the bulk of land lying outside of centers presently served by the facilities necessary for land development. Piecemeal annexation, benefiting one property owner alone, may well result ultimately in municipal boundaries not in accordance with proper planning criteria. Hence, wherever possible, annexation should not follow the fortuitous boundary lines of the land of a single owner who seeks immediate advantage to himself, but the broader lines of divisions based on the planning aspects of the annexation. (emphasis added) Reference to the Town Zoning District Map or Exhibit 7 in the Appendix submitted herewith shows two (2) HD parcels and one (1) AHD parcel each on the south side of Route 48, each bounded by the Village of Greenport, each within a distance of about one mile. Picking out only the parcel one owns is not a municipal planning outcome. Annexation is not intended to serve the personal economic interests of one property owner. Instead the governing statute, Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, speaks of the over-all public interest or as the Second Department Appellate - 13 - Division said in Marcus v. Baron, 84 A.D.2d 118, 445 N.Y.S.2d 587, at 596 (2d Dept. 1981): "In determining whether annexation is just and equitable, it must be considered broadly, having in view the highest interests of all concerned .... " Using annexation "as a device to avoid the duly-enacted and constitutionally-valid zoning ordinance of the Town" is an impermissible use of Article 17. Towll of Ramapq, 264 A.D.2d 519, Dept. 1999) (Exhibit 26). Village of Spring Valley v. 694 N.Y.S.2d 712, at 714 (2d In Villaqe of Skaneateles v. Tow~ of Skaneateles, A.D.2d 282, 496 N.Y.S.2d 185, at 185-186 (4th Dept. 1985), Court held: 115 the For the reasons stated in the report of the dissenting referee, Honorable John F. Lawton, J.S.C., we find that the annexation would not be in the overall public interest. As noted in the dissent, the sole reason that the village and the intervening property owner seek annexation is to avoid the restrictive effect of the Town Zoning Ordinance on the 2.852 acres of intervenor's property situated in the town by removing the 2.852 acres from the town and adding it to the territory of the village where the zoning ordinance is favorable. The town ordinance was duly enacted, and no question is raised as to its validity or constitutionality. We have found no precedent approving the use of annexation as a device by which the owner of land in one municipality may escape the effect of that municipality's local legislation b~ having the land transferred to an adjoining municipality. (emphasis added) - 14 - As in both the cases cited in the two preceding paragraphs, there is no evidence that the premises cannot be developed as currently zoned. There is evidence however of the following: 1. A yield of 128 units is not permitted under either the Town HD or any Town HALO classification; 2. The Village Zoning Code may permit 128 units: assuming development of 64 detached units at 7,500 square feet each and assuming lot area with freshwater wetlands is included for yield analysis as lot area, the yield would be 64 detached units on 11 acres (7,500 x 64 = 480,000 + 43,560 = 11) and 64 additional attached units on 5.5 acres (64 units + 2 (2-family units) = 34 x 7,500 = 255,000 + 43,560 = 5.8); The Village has no affordable/workforce housing code at all; To develop a project as outlined on the memorandum attached to the annexation petition (Exhibit 13) would require new affordable housing legislation - 15 - that does not now exist in the Village of Greenport; 5. No planning study exists supporting a 128 unit project at this site; 6. Any annexation approval outcome obviously invites repetitive annexation applications (there are two (2) other similar parcels within one mile); even though 7. Neither the petitioner Kace LI, LLC nor anyone else has applied to develop any HD or AHD parcel under the current Town regulations. The five (5) reasons offered by Kace LI, LLC to justify its annexation petition actually lead only to denial of its petition. This 17 acre parcel is not unique in having Village boundaries. All of the Village is surrounded by the Town. Other HD and AHD parcels similarly situated are nearby. That the property is in the Greenport school district is also not helpful. The School District reportedly is against this petition. Exhibit 28. The premises are not in the Greenport Fire District but instead in the E-W Fire Protection District. Exhibit 29. That fire protection district serves all the residences across Route 48 on the north side. That the property can be served by the - 16 - public sewer system has been known since February 6, 1996. (Exhibit 6). Changing the municipal boundary has no effect on that stipulation. Similarly that the Suffolk County Water Authority can supply water is so whether the property is in the Town or Village. The only fact that is attention grabbing is the statement that'the "Village has the appropriate zoning density provisions." The record shows the village could only allow such density by including freshwater wetlands to calculate yield, hardly a planning approach in the over-all public interest. X. ANNEXATION WOULD ALLOW DETRIMENT TO THE ANNEXED TERRITORY The premises consist of 17.1 acres. Exhibit 30. Approximately one-half -- all of the southerly part of the premises -- is mapped freshwater wetlands appearing on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Freshwater Wetlands Map. Exhibit 31. The legislated policy of the State of New York is to protect freshwater wetlands. Exhibit 32. The extent of the freshwater wetlands is so great and so limiting that Town planning study after Town planning study has recommended that the premises be changed from HD to an R-80 - 17- classification or acquired. By way of illustration, the July 1999 County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study showed the freshwater wetlands line bisecting the premises on an east-west irregular line and recommended R-80. Exhibit 33. The planning study recommended R-80 "to preserve wetlands, woodlands and other ecologically important habitats." Exhibits 34 and 35. The premises were studied earlier in February 1994 in the Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in Southold Town. That study also recommended a lower density since "intense development of the site does not seem to meet with the Goals and Policy Objectives of the Comprehensive or Master Plan." Exhibit 36. The April 1985 Master Plan Update study cautioned that HD density at four (4) units per acre would only be appropriate the provision of moderate cost housing." Exhibit "where there is 37. The May 2003 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement recommended that moderate income housing must be continuously affordable, i.e., the Town should avoid allowing merely "a tentative supply of mid-cost housing that can be bought and later sold on the open market for whatever the market will bear" (Exhibit 38), exactly - 18 - what any developer in the Village of Greenport outside the reach of the Town's affordable housing code is permitted to do. The April 2001 Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan shows the premises as an included parcel under the Community Preservation Fund acquisition list managed by the Town's Land Preservation Committee and Coordinator. The May 28, 2002 Map B-27 contained in the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy shows the approximate easterly half of the premises as archaeologically sensitive, including about one-half of all the upland. Exhibit 39. The November 2004 Local Waterfront Revitalization Program notes the recommended preservation of this area because of the extensive marsh. Exhibit 40. Since 1992, pursuant to Town Law § 272-a(11) the Board is statutorily required to act in accordance with its enacted comprehensive plans. Exhibit 41. If the Village is not prohibited from ultimately allowing 128 residential units at these premises -- and nothing in New York law prohibits such a legislated allowance, putting aside its lack of wisdom -- and if the petitioner is allowed such a build out, one is allowed to consider whether such an outcome is a benefit or detriment. - 19 - In Town of Lansing (Exhibit 24) the Court held as determinative: The territory proposed to be annexed would also suffer detriment in the form of high development density, unplanned mixed use development and increased traffic congestion, all because of the town's less restrictive zoning ordinance. Under § A106-3 of the Town of Southold Code, land encun~bered by freshwater wetlands is excluded from lot area and therefore the wetland area does not count toward a yield analysis. This type of restrictive definition of lot area is good planning. The Village of ~Greenport however does not so define lot area. Freshwater wetlands are the same as upland for - yield calculation purposes. In Village of Pomona v. Town of Ramapo, 171 A.D.2d 861, 561 N.Y.S.2d 791, at 793 (2d Dept. 1991) (Exhibit 42), Finally, the Village may not use annexation to subvert the development of an adjoining municipality's property pursuant to a lawfully enacted zoning ordinance. In City of Middletown v. Town of Wallkill, 143 A.D.2d 215, 532 N.Y.S.2d 17, at 19 (Second Dept. 1988), the Court held that annexation to permit the development of land encumbered by wetlands is not in the overall public interest. Exhibit 43. This factor was noted in that case together with the arbitrary selection of the area to be annexed which, the Court observed -20 - disappro¥ingly, occurred "without the benefit of a single planning study" (532 N.Y.S.2d at 19 -- see Exhibit 43). The New York Court of Appeals approved a holding in City Council v. Towil Board, 27 N.Y.2d 369, 318 N.Y.S.2d 307, at 311 (1971) (Exhibit 44) as follows: Annexation cannot be considered as being in the over- all public interest where the only benefit to be derived is expansion room for the municipality seeking annexation while the annexed area and the area out of which it is to be carved, will be adversely affected. Here the burden was on the City of Mechanicville to establish that annexation would be in the over-all public interest and in our opinion the city has not met that burden. Village. district, XI. ANNEXATION PROVIDES NO BENEFIT EXCEPT TO KACE LI, LLC Police protection is provided by the Town, not the Fire protection is available from the protection whether the property is in the Village or not. Water is supplied by Suffolk County Water Authority. Sewer service is supplied by the Village pursuant to a 1996 agreement which is on its face not dependent on annexation. The school system reportedly does not want the student increase generated by 128 -21- residential units. Electric is supplied by LIPA whether the premises is in the Village or not. The Town has a professional planning department consisting of a Town Planner, Senior Environmental Planner, Senior Planner, Senior Site Plan Reviewer, a Site Plan Reviewer and a clerical staff. The Village has no comparable professional staff and has no planning department at all. The Town has conducted at least the following studies which bear on the use and development of this 17 acre property: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) Town Master Plan Update (1985) US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Team Report (1991) Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) Review of Hamlet Density Zoning in Southold Town (1994) Community Preservation Project Plan (1998) Southold Tow~nship: 2000 Planning Initiatives (1999) County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (2002) Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (2003) Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2003-2005). - 22 - The Village would be unable to provide any study supporting development of this property with 128 residential units, as if all of the preceding studies were incorrect. The premises is encumbered by wetlands. Development at the suggested 128 unit yield adjacent wetlands is inconsistent with state law and every above-referenced Town planning study. How anyone could even file a petition with such a yield plan for this constrained site speaks volumes about the developer's economic intentions here. The Town has an affordable housing local law. The Village has none. Affordable housing with integrity means restricted resale prices. No part of the Kace LI, LLC plan includes such a restriction. The Kace LI, LLC plan is to avoid the restrictions. For there to be "unity of purpose" as that term is used in Article 17 matters, the Village should now have zoning regulations, which are the product of prior planning studies, which support 128 residential units here as a well-planned use of the land. No such studies exist. Absent a current Code framework within which the Village of Greenport can describe how 128 residences could in the name of good planning be approved at these premises there are no facts on hand on which a municipality -23 - can find annexation is in the public interest. existing studies public interest. Ail of the state such a density is not in the overall As the Court said in City of Port Jervis v. Town of Deer Park, 169 A.D.2d 764, 565 N.Y.S.2d 131, at 132 (2d Dept. 1991) (Exhibit 45): Here, the evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the parcel in question is vacant, wooded and undeveloped land. As no evidence was presented of any specific plans for development of the subject property, the land is clearly without any current need for the water or sewer services which the petitioner city could supply, and the petitioner has failed to carry its burden of proving that annexation is in the public interest. There obviously cannot be "specific plans" if there is no Village planning study supporting the plans, and all the Town studies show such a density to be a bad result. Not to be ignored is that the nearby area is largely R- 80. One hundred twenty-eight residential units on 17 acres half of which is encumbered by wetlands is not a density consistent with the surrounding area. XII. CONCLUSION: THE CERTAIN AND OBVIOUS In terms of an analysis of benefit and detriment under Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, nothing is occurring - 24 - here at all in terms of municipal services. The territory to be annexed does not benefit at all from annexation. The only certain and obvious benefit is the economic windfall to a developer of 128 residences on a parcel so constrained by freshwater wetlands. No local government with a responsible planning program would allow such a density. Such an outcome however is not within the meaning of benefit as that term is used in Article 17. There is a certain and obvious detriment here, too. The proposed development is inconsistent with every Town planning study on the subject. The proposed development is completely at odds with all modern land use restrictions, all enacted in the overall public interest and therefore not to be ignored. And this brings this analysis to the most certain and most obvious of conclusions. This annexation petition has one goal: to engineer an end run around the land use regulations of the Town of Southold to increase economic gain. - 25 - Dated: Article 17 does not permit such an outcome. Riverhead, New York August 23, 2005 Respectfully submitted, Anthony B. Tohill ANTHONY B. TOHILL, P.C. Attorney for the Samir, Grzeski, Retzos, Suprenant, Young, Foley, Berardino, Mannix, Stern, Gordon, Campbell, Walsh and Cohen Families 12 First Street P.O. Box 1330 Riverhead, New York 11901 631-727-8382 - 26 - S.D, W~I3 > ~ DAVID E. KAPELL 400 Front STreet Greenport, New York 11944 516-477-9403 REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES CONSULTING SERVICES January 13, 1983 Mr. Henry Raynor, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board ~Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Henry: Enclosed please find three (3) copies of the proposed site plan for condominium development of a property owned by my client~ Emanuel Kontokosta, to be known as Northwind Village. The parcel is located on the south side of the North Road in Greenport adjacent to san Simeon Nursing Home. Would you please process this plan for approval and advise me of its progress? ~regards, as agent DEK/a Enclosures EXHIBIT 2 DAVID E. KAPELL 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 516477-9403 REALESTATE ENTERPRISES CONSULTING SERVICES Mr. Henry Raynor, Chairman $outhold Town Planning Board Maln Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 April 26, 1983 Dear Henry: Enclosed herewith please find the Long Form Environmental Assessment requested in your letter of April 20, 1983 concerning the application of my client, Emmanuel Kontokosta, for the Northwind Condominium project. The board will also receive correspondence directly from Mr. Kontokosta concerning the issue of any surface water on site. Should the Board require any additional information please don't hesitate to contact me. Best Regards, ~pell as agent TO, , OF SOUTHOLD EI~VIRONFLENTAL ASSESS!tENT - PART PROO-ECT IN-F ORe,AT ION ---Nnrth,-,{ 9d Vi!l~ge Cende-ini'_'mr David E. Kapell, as a~ent 400 Frnnt ~rr~e Greenport~ N.Y. 11944 N.Y.C., N.Y. 10019 ~U~£SS ~-~;IE~ ~]2 - 5_~2 6100 Project involves construction of log ?n.~nm{n{~,~ ,,n~t= == 17 acroc ~f-land zoned M- Light Multiple'Residencg ~istrict , . ~gr'cultur~e , O%u'~r Vacant bru---~land Landscaped Sandy loam O ~cr~s 12 6. Approximate percsntage greater 7. Is ~ject contiguous to, or contain a building or site listed on t~e National Register of Historic Places? Yes _ X No 8. ~at is ~e dept.9 to the water table)kO-30.?eet 9. ~ hunting or fishing oppo~untties presently exist in the project area? ~es ~ ~0 lO. ~es project site contain any species o? plant endancered - Yes ll. Are r. gere any unique or unusual land for~s on tho project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations- Yes ,. X No. (Describe 12. Is the p~oject site presently Used by the corrmunit7 or neigh.borhood as an open spa~e or recre-a~ton area - .., Yes )C No. 13. O~es the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be impof'tant to the co~unity? Yes . )~ 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: of river to which it is tributary 1S. 16. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous t~ project a~-ea: , .. a. Ra,r~ N,,~, ; b. Size (in acres) What is the dominant lanJ use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g, single family residential, R-Z) and the scale of development (e.g. ~. story). Single'family residential, nursing ~Ome, commercial C'~mpgro~md PROJECT DESC2IPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor __ 17 acres, b. Project acreage developed: ..._5~acres initially; ~__ acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to rzmain undeveloped 12 d. Length ofpro.lac.,' ' in miles: N.A (if appropriate) e. If project is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: age .. N.A. ; developed acreage f. Hu~'~Jer of off-st~t parking spaces existing 0 g, Maxi~Jm vehicular trips generated per' hour If residential: N~,~ber and type of housing uni:s: · - One 'Family T~o F~_mi ly Ultimate Corrr~,erciaI Industrial Neignbornood-City-Regmna) building square fcc ; proposed 108 .(upon completion of project) Multiple Famlily 108Condominium 108 108 £scimated ~npl o~ment Total height of tallest proposed structure 25 feet. ~. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed From the site - 0 .tons 0 cubic yar, 3~ How many acres of vegeCation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site - 1.._7 acres. 4. Will any ma:ure forest (over)OO years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? . . Yes X .No 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? _X Yes - ~o 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 12 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased project: a~ Total n:mber of phases anticipated NO. - b. Amticipated date of commencement phase 1 month 7ear (including . demolition) c. Approximate completion data final phase m~nth year. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? . Yes .. N~ 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes ~ NO 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 100; after project is complete S 10. Nu~Jer of jobs eliminated by this project 0 ..... ll. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes X No. If yes, explain: 13. 14. 15. a. is surface or subsurface liquid waste di'sGosal involved? Yes X b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, ets.) c. If surface disposal n~e of stream into which effluent will be discharged Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, str?_m,s, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by ero~osal? Yes X No. Yes X No Is project or any portion of project located in the t00 year ~oad plain? __ a. Does p~jeqt involve disposal of solid waste? Yes × No b. If yes, will an ~xisting solid waste disposal facility be used? c. If yes, give name: ~ location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes ~ No 17. Will project routinely produce odors (mcr~ than one hour per day}? Yes ~ NO 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ~bienca noise levels? lg. Will project result in an increase in enero~y usa? ~ Yes __ electsic£t7 and ~uel otl Yes X Yes X No ~o. If yes, indicate type(s) ~ IF waCer supply is from wells indicate pumbing capeoity To,al anticipated water usage per d~y _),.~,gO0 gals/day- Zoning: a. Whac is dominant zoning classification of site? d. If no, indicace desira~ ~oning gals/minute. M ~£§bt Multiple ~e$~de~ce $ ama yea Appmvals: a. Is any Federal per. it required? Yes ~ No b. Does pmject involve State or Federal fundinG or financing? ¢. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required {Yes, Ilo) {Type) ..__~Yes X · No Submittal Approval (Date) City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning 8oard City, Town, Zoning Board City, County Heal r. h Departmment Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies IR FO~HATI O:UtL DETAILS Attach any additional information as mzy be ~eeded to clarify your project. If there a~ or ~y be any adve~e impacts associated with ~e' p~posal, pl~se discuss such impac~ and ~e measures which can be ~ken to mitigat~ or avo~. ~ [ ~ PREPARER' S S I ~IAUJRE: REP~ESE~TIHG: E~anuel Kontokos Ca DATE: TO OF S OUTHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL ASS ESSbLENT PART II PROJECT IMPAQT$ AND THEIR 55 GNITUD~] General Information (Read Carefully) - In completing the for~ the reviewer should be guided by %he question: Identifying that an effect will be potentia]ly large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily sionificant. Any large effect must be evaluated in ~ART 3 to determine significance. ~y.identifying an effect ~n column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. of magnitude thac would trigger a :esDonse in ool~n ~. The ex'~r, ples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any s:eciFic project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. Each project, on each site, in eachflocality, will vary. ~erefore, the examples have been offered as guidon They do hoc constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. INSTRUCTIO~(S (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Ye~s if there will be .~n'y effect. b. Ma.FCa answer~ should be considered as Ye.._~s answers. If answering Yes to a cuestion then check toe e:orcoriate ~ox (columm I or 2] to indicate the potent!al size of the impact. If impact ~hreshold equals or = o~ .xc_.~s any example provided, check column 2. If impac: will occur but threshold iS lot:er than examoie, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact ~lQu=~onsider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be r.-u--d by a change in the project to a less t~San large m~gnitude, place a Yes in column 3. A No response indicates .h.~ such a reduction is not possible. !?ACT ON L~ND NO YE~ WILL THERE ~E ~l EFFECT AS A nESULT of A PHYSICAL ¢?~XG£ TO (~ ~ PROJECT SZTE? V Exammles that Uould Apply to Column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15= or greater, (15 foot rise Der 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in t~e project a~a exceed Construction on Land where the depth to the water tzble is less than 3 feet. · . Conscructicn of oared parking are~ for 1,3GO or ~or-e vehicles. tons of ri&Lure1 material {i.e. rock or soil) per year. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Construction in a desionated floodway. Other NO YES WILL THERE BE AN., F_CT TO AtlY UNIQUE OR Ut;USUAL g. NO F~PJ-,S FOUN~YO~I THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, geological forma- =ionS, etc.) Specific land for~: ~t!PACT ON WATER N'O YES WILL PROJECT ARFECT ~Y WATER BODY DESi~{ATED AS .......... PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15, 2¢, 25 of the En,iir- onr~ntal Conservation Law, Examules that Would Apply to ¢ol~:n 2 Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a pro:et:ed strea£n. Construction in a designate~ freshwater or tidal wetland. Or_her impac:s: WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY f;O;;-PROTECTED EXISTIIIG OR HEW NO YES E.xamoles that Would Apply to Column 2 ~ A 10% increase or ~ecrease in the surface area of any body Construction of a body of w~ter that exceeds lQ acres of Other impacts: ~EP~4TE PZCT 5. WILL PROJECT ARFECT SURFAC~ OR GROUNDWATER OUALII~F? Examoles that Would A~ply to Column 2 _ Project will require a discharge permit. ,90 YES than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacicy. excess o? 20,000 gallons per day. ~Pr:ject will likely cause siltation or other discha L~R.SE Tf?,~ CT - RE~UCE'~ ~'F , P~OJECT CR.~UG? m m :~'?AC-F 0~ VISUAL RESOURCE lO.. ~liLL THE PPOJE£T APFECT V[E!~, VISTAS gA THE VISUAL NO YE! Examples that t~ould Apply to Column An incompatible visual affect caused by the introduction of new materials, colors and/or fermi in contrast to the surrounding landscape. A project easily visible, not easily screened, that is obviously ~ifferent fr~m o~hers al'ound it. Project will result in the elimination or major screening of scenic views or vistas known to be important to the area. Other impact~: II. I__~PACT ON HIS'~QR!C RESOURCES WILL PROJECT IMPACT ANY SITE, OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, PRE-HISTORiC OR PAL£O~ITOGIr-AL I~.POPTANCE? ................ Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 NO YE.~ Project eccurinq wholly or partially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed ~n the National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the '~ ' proJ.c~ site. 12. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT ~E GOANTITY OR QUAL!W OF EXISTING HO YES OR ~TURE OPE~) SPACES OR RECR~TIO~)AL OPPQR~J)(ITIES? ...... ~ ~ Examples that ~ould Apply tQ Co'I~ 2 ~e pe~nent foreclosure of a future rec~ational appo~unity. ~ A major ~duction of an open space i~ortant to the co,unity. Other impacts: I3. i~PaC~F m.p) TP~ANSPO;~TITIO!I 'WILL THE?.S 5E A:I EFFECT TO EXISTING TP. ApSpCP.?AT10)( NO YES SYST~,S? ............................................... O0 Examoles ,.bat ~ould Amply to Column 2 Project will result in severe traffic ~roblems. qOOZRATE IMPacT PgTE~qTIAL ~ARG~ I~PaCT ~ROJrCT C.GA~E, -- Other t~acts: ........... I m~ 14. 15. !~P~CT ON E~!ERSY ~ILL PROJECT ~FFECT THE CC~!~.IUNITIES SOURCES OF ~£L C~ ~SY SUPPLY? ........................................... GO ~zamoles :hat Would ~pDly to Column 2 P~ject pausing greater ~hen S~ increase in ~ny fo~ af ener~ used in municipality, Other impacts: ~MP~CT OH NOI5~ WILL ~ERE BE 03JECTI~A~LE OOORE. NOISE. G~RE, Vi?ATIgR NO YES or cu:.,RI~L DISTURSA;ICE AS A RESULT OF THIS PRC~ECT? ~xamoles that ~culd Apoly to Col uT~n 2 Blasting within l.~OO fe~t oF a hosait~l, school or ether sensitive facility. Odo~ will ocsur m~tine~y [~re th~n one hour per day). Project will or. duce operating noise exceedino the local ~mbient noise levels f~r noise outside of stFJc~ures. SMALL TO PO.~.:tTI.,,. C~;i !::PACT'"ci ~OO£RATE L~.Rr~E REDuceD BY IMPACT ' [~P.~CT PROJECT CHA~:C ) NO YES NO YE! Project will remove natural barriers that would ac: as e noise screen. Other impacts: 16. WILL PROJECT !MP~CT C,'! HF.~LTH & uazsDDs Examples that Would Ap~iy to Column 2 Pr~jec: will c~use ~ r~sk of explosion or release of h'ae~rdous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, rediatlsn, etc.) in the even: of acc~cent or upset conditions, or there will be e chronic Iow level discharge or emission. Project that will result in the burial of "hazardsus wastes" (i.e. toxic. ;oisoncus, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, $~ora:e Facilities For cna million or more gallons :f llquifiad WILL PRQJECT AF~CT nE CHARACTER qP THE EX{ST[rIG NO YES ~,~.I~ ................................................. Exam=la that Would Apol¥ to Column 2 The copulation of the City, Town or ¥illage in which the project is lace:ed is likely to grow by ~re :nan 5~ o~ resident human po~ula:ion. The municipal budgets for capital exoenditures or opera- :ing services will increase by more than $~ per ~ear aS ~ result of this project. Will involve any =ermanent ~a¢ility of a non-agricultural use in an ~griculturel ~istrict ~r remove prime agricultural lands from cultiva:ion. The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, st~Jctures or areas of historic importanc~ to the co~..unity. Oevelopmen~ will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. Project will set an impor*,~nt precedent for future p~jects. P~jec~ will relocat~ 15 or ~ore employees in one or ~ businesses. Other imoacts: NO · YE! IS ~HERE PUBLIC CON~..OV=RSY CO~CEt~iI~IG ~H~ PROJECT? ....... ~ ~ ~x'-moles that Would Apply to ColumJ~ 2 Either government or citizens of adjacent core, unities have e~pressed epposi:ion er rejected the project or have Objections to the project from within the comFa, unity. IF A:;Y ACTIO?I D: PART 2 IS [DE,"glFiED AS A I POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CA:i:,'OT DETER~.II~IE t ~E MAG~!~DE OF [~iPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. ~RTIONS OF ~F CDHPL~ED F0~ ~IS PROJECT D~E~I~ATION ..... PA~T I ~ PART I1 .. PART 3~ Uocn review of the information r~carded on this K_AF (Parts l, 2 and 3) anJ considerinq both the magnitude and im:ortance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: A. TSe oroject will resul~ in no major im=acts and, therefore, is one which may not cause si§nific&nc damage to the environment. Although the oroject could have a significant effect on the environment, there ~ill not be a signlfic~n: effect in this case recluse ~e mitigation measures describe= in PART 3 have been 4/26/83 / PREPARE A ~;EGATIVE OECL.~,p~ATiG~( PRE~ARE A NE&~TPlE © 7R[P,%RE POSITIVE OECLARATIO:; P~OC~E2 © Signature of R~sponsi~le official TOWN OF $OUTHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Part 3 i~ prepared if one or more impact or effect is considered tO be potentially large. The amount of,,writino necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the Question: In briefly coapleting the instr6ctions be)ow have [ placed in this record sufficient information to indicate ~ - reasonab)eness of ~¥ decisions? I~ST~UCTiO~IS Complete the following for each impact or effect identified (n'Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Brie,'qy describe ~he impact. 2. Describe (if aoolicable) how the imDact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than iar~e impact by a pro- Ject change. 3. Based an the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that :his impact is imeo~ant to the minici2ality (city, t~wn ~r village) in which the project is located. Its ~orential divergence from loca) needs and ~oals DETE2~TiC~i OF SI~;IFiC.~[C~ · An action is considered to be significant if: One (or more) imoaot is determined to both la r-oe and its (their) consequence, based on the review PART III STAT~!E~ITS (Continue on Attachments, as needed) pg. (4) 7/11/83 John Simicich - Mr. Philip O'Frias, Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Dolomite was present as the Board reviewed Inspector Davis' report #308 regard- ing access to the lots within this subdivision. Mr. O'Frias stated the cost for the recommended improvements would be very costly to the present landowners and requested that another contractor submit differ- ent road specifications for the area that would reduce the estimated cost from $4,000 to $1,500. Question was raised as to who has the responsibility of cost for such improvements; the present landowner or the developer. It was agreed by the Board members that the Town Attorney advise the Board who is responsible. The Board did not take action on Inspector John W. Davis' report %308. Sullivan/Preston Site Plan - An inspection of this property was made prior to the meeting. The Board noted there was ample parking (public) in the rear of the building and reco~nended that the applicants con- tact the Southold Town Board for permission for a "walk through" access from this parking area. Mr. Preston and Mr. Sullivan stated they would propose to use red brick walkway. On motion made by Mr. Orlowski, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the site plan of Sullivan/Preston to the Building Department for certification. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Orlowski Northwind Village - Mr. Kontokosta was present as the Board reviewed certification from the Building Inspector's Office. It was noted that no drainage plans have been placed on the proposed plan and parking relative to the dwellings are not shown. Mr. Kontokosta stated there will be garages for the dwelling units; the size of the units encompass the garages. Mr. Konto~osta stated this would be done when plans are submitted to the Building Inspector's Office. Mr. Lessard stated no objection to this and stated no objection to determining adequate drainage for the area with possible assistance from Inspector John Davis. Mr. Raynor advised Mr. Kontokosta that the Suffolk County Planning Commission would have to review the pro- posed site plan. On motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan "Northwind Village" dated May 11, 1982, and certified by the Build- ing Inspector June 17, 1983. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Orlowski EXHIBIT 5 -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHER~ DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EMANUEL KONTOKOSTA, FJ%CE P~EALTY CO., and KACE CONSTRUCTION CORP., Plaintiffs, - against - T~E VIT.?.AGE OF G~ENPORT, GEORGE ~IUBB2%RD, individually and as M~yor of the Village of Greenpor~; JEANNE M. COOPER, GAIL F. HORTON, DAVID KAPELL and WILLIAM LEIBLIEN, individually and as M~mbers of the Village of Greenport Board of Trustees, Defendants. - X 87 CIV. 3432 (SAS) W/4_E~E/~S, plaintiffs are the owners of seventeen (17) acres of land in the Tow~ of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, upon which they plan to build a 108 unit development to be kno~rn as Northwind village; and Wq4EREAS, defendants provide water and sewer sel-vices for a %erritory which includes the Northwind Village development; and WHEREAS, plaintiffs submitted applications for water and sewer services for the Northwind Village development in or about January 1983 and February 1987; and W~EREAS, plaintiffs conunenced this action on or about May 20, 1987, and filed an amended complaint on or ~bou= March 8, 1988 alleging, inter alia, that defendants' denial of plaintiffs' applications for water and sewer services for the Nor~hwind Village development and defendants' imposition of "backbone" fees upon the Northwind village development violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution, 42 U.S.C. law; and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States ~ 1983 and other applicable provisions of WHEP~EAS, defendants have denied the allegations in the amended complaint charging them with unlawful trearnnent of plaintiffs and/or any other wrongdoing; WHEREAS, the decision of the Hon. John Carunella dated September 27, 1991, expressly upheld the imposition of backbone fees as constitutional, and dismissed each of =he plaintiffs' causes of action except for its equal protection claim stemming from the 1983 application; and WHEP~EAS, the parties now seek to resolve the issues raised in this aotion without further proceedings; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AIND AGP~EED by and between the parties in the above-captioned action, by their attorneys, as follows: 1. Defendants acknowledge that, as of the date of this Stipulation and Order, there is sufficient water capacity to service the 108 unit Northwind Village DevelopInent in accordance with the site plan approved by the Town of $outhold plan31ing board on July 11, 1983; and in accordance with plaintiffs' 1985 request (made with respect to the 1983 application) for 10,800 gallons per day ("gpd"), annexed hereto as Exhibit "A", and 1987 request for 28,350 gpd, annexed hereto as Exhibit "B." Specifically, it has been represented by plaintiffs that the 108 units will generate 10,800 gpd of average water demand or an estimated 28,350 gpd of average water demand. However, as set forth below, there is not 2 sufficient sewer capacity to accommodate either of these requests as of the date of the execution of this stipulation. Accordingly, sub3ect to the ter~s and conditions of this Stipulation and Order, defendants hereby approve plaintiffs' 1985 and 1987 requests for water services for the Northwind Village Development. It is expressly understood that once sufficient sewer capacity of 8,640 gpd becomes available, the Village hereby agrees to provide 10,800 gpd of water to the Northwind Village Develo~ent, if plaintiffs choose to elect to execute water and sewer contracts as set for~th in paragraph 5 below and pay "backbone" fees as set forth in paragraph 6 below. The Village will provide the remaining capacity of plaintiffs' 1987 requests for water services if (i) the plaintiffs apply for additional sewer capacity pursuant to paragraph 3 below, and (ii) said application is granted. 2. That the parties acknowledge that (i) there is not sufficient sewer capacity available to service plaintiffs' project due to restrictions placed upon the Village by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) pursuant to the consent order, State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES") permi% and related DEC correspondence (hereinafter referred to as "DEC Requirements"), attached hereto as Exhibit "C"; and (ii) the Village must comply with various conditions to attempt to obtain the DEC's approval to accommodate sewer capacity of 8,640 qpd. 3. Defendants agree to comply with the conditions set forth in the DEC Requirements, attached hereto as Exhibit "C." In this manner, defendants will provide sufficient sewe~ capacity, subject to the aforesaid DEC Requirements (annexed hereto as Exhibit "C"), and any extension thereof, to satisfy the capacity of 8,640 gpd within four years of the date the stipulation is so ordered by the Court. Plaintiffs need not make any further application for sewer service, as its current application for 8,640 gpd will be deemed approved as of the date sewer capacity is available. It being expressly understood that plaintiff's application for both water and sewer must comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs 3-7 of the December 23, 1987 H2M group report, annexed hereto as Exhibit "D," with respect to engineering details. It also is expressly understood that plaintiff shall have the right to apply for additional sewer capacity up to 14,000 gallons per day, after the village advises the plaintiffs that there is sufficient sewer capacity to satisfy the 8,640 gpd request. Said application will not affect plaintiffs' prior approval for 8,640 gpd. 4. Defendants agree to apply for, and to use their best efforts to obtain the approvals from the DEC which are required pursuant to the express terms of the aforesaid DEC Requirements so as to connect the Northwind Village Development to the Village of Greenport sewer system, including, but not limited to, approval for this new connection and approval for any increase in allocable sewer capacity as required by the aforesaid DEC Require~ents (annexed hereto as Exhibit "C"). Plaintiffs agree to provide any information requested by the DEC, or to otherwise make reasonable 4 FROM : FAX NO. : Apr. DJ ~D00 08:27AM P3 efforts DEC. 5. satisfy to assist the defendants in any manner requested by the When sufficient water and sewer capacity are available to the requirements of the Northwind Village development in accordance with paragraph 1, defendants shall notify plaintiffs in writing, by United States certified or registered mail, at 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York 10019. After plain%iris' receipt of such notice, plaintiffs will then have three (3) years to elect to execute contracts for water and sewer services with the Village of Greenport, by notifying the Office of the Mayor of the village of Greenport in writing, by United States certified or registered mail. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order shall require plaintiffs to enter into contracts for water and sewer services. Should plaintiffs choose not to execute such contracts, they will not be obligated to pay the "backbone" fees provided for in paragraph 6 of this Stipulation and Order. If plaintiffs do not elect to ente~ into contracts for water and sewer services with the Village of Greenport within three (3) years of plaintiffs' receipt of the aforesaid notice, the approvals of plaintiffs' applications for water and sewer services pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 herein shall expire, and defendants will have no obligation to provide plaintiffs with water and sewer pursuant to this Stipulation. 6. When all required approvals from the DEC are obtained, if and only if plaintiffs elec~ ~o enter into contracts with the Village of Greenport as provided for in paragraph 5 of this Stipulation and Order, and subject to all the other terms and conditions set forth herein, plaintiffs shall pay to the Village of Greenport 'backbone" fees for the Northwind village development of $2,570 per dwelling unit for water seI-vices and $2,585 per dwelling unit for sewer services for the 108 units at hand at the ti~e of executing contracts for both water and sewer. If plaintiffs do not elect to execute contracts for water and sewer services within three (3) years pursuant to paragraph 5 above, their right to pay the backbone fees at the rates set forth above will also expire. 7. Defendants agree to pay plaintiffs the sum of eighty-five thousand ($85,000) dollars in full and final settlement of any claims that plaintiffs may have in this action against any and all of the defendants. Such payment shall be made within 30 days of the execution of this agreement by both parties, said 30 days to co~ence running upon the presentation of the stipulation to the Court to be so-ordered, and shall be by check made payable to "E manuel M. Kontokosta, Kace Realty Co. and Kace Construction Corp." and shall be delivered to and received by plaintiffs' attorneys, Gordon & Gordon, P.C., at their offices at 437 ~adison Avenue (40th Floor), New York, New York 10022. Upon receipt of said funds, plaintiffs will cause to be i~mediately filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice with the Court. 8. Plaintiffs, by entering into this Stipulation, accept the benefits provided herein in full and complete satisfaction of any and all injuries and/or damages of any kind or description relating to any of the matters or claims alleged in the complaint herein. 9. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be dee~ed an admission by defendants of any wrongdoing. 10. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be deemed to constitute a regular practice or procedure by defendants, or zhall apply to any project or development other than Northwind Village. 11. This Stipulation shall inure to the benefit and detriment of the parties hereto and their respective successors, executors, a~m~nistrators and assigns to the extent that these successors seek to construct the Northwind Village development. 12. If the Village sells its water and sewer franchise to an entity which does not require backbone fees before such fees are due and owing to the Village, plaintiffs shall be relieved of the backbone fees pursuant to paragraph 6 of this duty to pay stipulation. 13. This Stipulation shall not be used by any of the parties for any purpose whatsoever other than in an action or proceeding to enforce its terms. 14. Any party to this action may submit this Stipulation to this Court to have this Stipulation "SO ORDERED" upon its execution by the parties' counsel. This Stipulation will take effect only upon being so-ordered by the Court. 7 New York, New York February 5, 1996 GORDON & GORDON, A~orneys for Pla£ntiffs 437 Madison Avenue - 40th Fl. New York, New York 10022 (212) 355-3200 / STEVEN J. SALTIEL (SS:8907) THURM & HELL]ER Attorneys for Defend&nts 261 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 (212) 682-7000 MIRANDA (M/(: 6413) $0 O E D: 8 9d W~gI :60 008E E0 '~d~ : 'ON x~3 : W0~_- CiH PAGE 4 - SEPTEMBER 20.20OI EBA PUBLIC HEARING TP.~3gSCRIPT TOWN OF SOLYYHOLD MATT PACHMAN: Well then, Mr Chairman and Members of the Board, my name is Matt Pachman, Pachman and Pachman, 366 Veteran's Memorial Highway in Commack, New York. This application is an appeal requesting an interpretation reversing the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated August 13, 2001, which denied the application for a Building Permit for two-family houses under Article 4, Section 142.A of the Town Zoning Code. KACE LI INC is the owner of a 70-acre parcel of land located on the south side of Route 48, near the juncture of Chapel Lane. The property has been owned by KACE or it's predecessors since March t0, 1982, which is approximately 19 'A years. On July 11, 1983, the ~3outhold Planning Board approved a Site Plan for Kace to build a condominium development at the subject property known as "Northwind Village". Mr. Chairman, I would like to hand up to the Board copies of the Site Plan, signed by Henry Ra.,mor, as Chairman of the Planning Board on that date. CHAIRMAN: I just want you to know Mr. Pachman, that counsel may resort to return those; I have no idea at this point We'll accept them at this point, temporarily. MATT PACHMAN: Very good Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMANt I don't like to load anybody up here, I'm telling you straightforward MATT PACHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman you mentioned something that I really don't understand it, because the very essence of our application here is that, as a matter of law, the building Inspector could not deny this Building Permit because of the approved Site Plan. So when there is a statement that it be on a Site Plan, which is the basis of the application that you've heard or that the court is not going to entertain any questions about the Site Plan CHAIRMAN: Well, actually there's a little more We weren't even going to accept any testimony about Site Plans I'm just telling you what council told me MATT PACHMAN: Okay, very good. Pursuant to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Chapters 760, no parcel of real estate can be commenced or to be developed until the Suffolk County Department of Health, has approved the proposed water supply and sewage disposal facilities and pursuant to the Town's Zoning Code 85.8 Subdivision G, before a Building Permit can be issued to commence construction of the property Kace had to obtain the approval for the proposed water supply and sewage disposal system from the Suffolk County Department of Health In 1983, and Mr. Chairman, I'm going into the chronology because it's very important to understand why we say that the Building Inspector, as a matter of law, improperly turned down this Building Permit Application CHAIRMAN: You're talking about the current August 13th. MATT PACHMAN: Absolutely You can't understand the nature of our belief that the Building Permit Application denial is improper without understanding the history. In 1983 the Trustees of the Village of Greenport acting in their capacity as the Board of EXHIBIT 8 -- PAGE 5 - SEPTEMBER 20. 20~31 ZBA pUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF So[rrHOLD Water Commissioners, administered an exclusive franchise for the services of Water and Sewer for this territory beyond the limits of the Village of Greenport, which include the subject parcel. This satisfied the requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health that I just mentioned to obtain the required approval. All proposed building projects where construction, housing, or sewer development, in this area such as the Northwind Village project, had to obtain the approval from Greenport for water and sewer services at that time. On January 10, 1983, Kace applied to Greenport for water and sewer approval for the project. The Utilities Committee of the Villa, which assisted the Village Board in administering this franchise accrued Kace's project for water and sewer services and referred the matter to the Building Board, and the Trustees of the Village denied Kace's application on July 18~, 1985. By letter dated December 30, 1986, Kace was informed by the Town of Southold Building Inspector that a Building Permit is ready to be issued for this project and the only thing it needed was water and sewer approvgl from Crreenport and I have a copy of that December 30, 1986 letter from the Town Building Inspector confirming this. I'm banding this up to the Board and 1 ask that this be made a part of the record On February 24. 1987, Kace again applied to Greenport for water and sewer services for the project. Again, on March 23, 1987 the Utilities Committee of the Village approved Kace's application and sent it on to the Village Board of Trustees. On December 7, 1987, Kace again submitted the application to the Village of Greenport Trustees for approval. The Greenport Trustees, at that time, failed to rule on Kace's application for water and sewer services. As a result, Kace remained unable to obtain water and sewer services for the project. Without that pre- condition, Kace was unable to obtain a Building Permit. On or about May 20, 1987, Kace commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Greenport due to its refusal to rule on Kace's application. Now on July 1994, while that Federal Court action was continuing, the Southold Town Board re-zoned the parcel from multiple residence, MI, to HD On February' 6, 1996, a stipulation and order was entered in the Federal Court action and it was so la',xs:ered by U. S. District Court, Shira Shindler and thus made an order of the court. I hand up a copy of that Order of the Federal Court again ask it be made: part of the record. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, the importance of this Federal Order was that Greenport was ordered to provide sufficient sewer capacity within four years of the execution of the stipulation, in other words, on or before February 6, 2000. The stipulation also said that Greenport acknowledges that it had water capacity at that time, and thus the project had the water approval necessary. Thus the only thing that was keeping this project from getting a Building Permit was the sewer approval from the Village at that time, and the Village had four years until February 6, 2000 to provide sewer services. There ,,vas no other pre- condition, no other requirement, no other hurdle as determined by the Southold Building Inspector to return the Building Permit Prior to the expiration of this February 6, 2000 deadline, as ordered by the Federal Court in that stipulation, in October 1999 the Southold Town Board voted to re-zone this parcel from HD to R80 By judgment dated December 4, 2000 Justice Berler of the Supreme Court Suffolk County overturned the re- zoning and stated it was volatile of the New York State Town Law. The Court said that the purported re-zone was illegal, void and of no effect. 1 have a copy of that order by judgment from the Supreme Court Suffolk County, which I am handing and I ask that that may be part of the record BOARD OF BEALTB .............. ~ SgTS OP PLANS ............... SURVEy ........................ AFPLIGATION FOR BUILDING PEP~HIT NovemUer 16 Date ................ Other ~'~ Llc~e ~b ..................... This Permit Application is Nor thwind Village North Road Greefipor t ~) .... EXHIBIT 9 ,., ........... ~lBUILDING... .......... I~ol it ion ............ Od~ I~rk .................................. ~ ~,ti~,~a c,~t ~2~.%.~9.~ ............. ~ .............................................. 5 If ~llit~ ~r of ~lli~ mitre .~.~.~..~O.)~r o~ ~lling mits ~ e~ ~r two anti 1/2 of 8. Di~i~ of ~tire ~t~ti~: ~t ..?~.'.7.~'. ..... ~ar 92'-B" ~m 55'-6" I~i~t ..~.~.'5 .............. ~r of Scorie, ...]~.95.~.5.'..~.J?.ttie II. ~ or ~ district in ~,i~ p~i~..~ si=t~ ..~...{.~.(.~9~..~2E?32E{E~) ...................... ~o~to~ K~gg ~EyE],,~.eg.% .... ~,,PO Box 67. areenmort SEE NORTHNIND VILLAG(:APPROVED SITE PLAN July 11, i983 Development Pres BOARD OF HE~TH ............... 3 SETS OF PLANS ............... SURVEY ........................ I, l.oentl~ of larsd ~ ~iei~ progos~t ~rk viii be do~ ........................................................... Ccsmty Tuxl,~p t~. I{XIO ~'~ttcm ..Q~.~ .......... Bl~k ..... ~ ......... Lot .,.1... .......... four garages 80ARO OF J SETS OF PLANS SURVEY ...................... INSTRUCTIONS (N~ ~ title of corporate officer) I. l~:~attc~ of l~d c~ ~.~tch proposed ~.ork will be do~ ..................................................... ¢EE NORrH~D ¥]ELA(;EAPPROVED S[TE PLAN 3uly 11, 1983 3 SI~TS OF PL^HS ............. SURVey ..................... INSTRUCTIONS .... ¢/. o.. ~... K o~ C t2~n $.~ o .................. Nor thwJ nd Village 15. PLOT DIAGRAM SEE NORYHdIND VILLAO~APPROV£D S, ITE PLAN Juls,' 11, 1983 TO Kace L.I. LLC C/o Kontokosta 43 W. 54th Street New York N.Y. 10019 FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BU1LDING DEPARTMENT SO1JTHOLD, N.Y. AMENDED NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE; Ju!¥ 30, .2001 Please take notice that your application dated November 16, 2000 For permit for Multiple dwellings at Location of property North Road (CR48) Gree~12ort County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 4_0 Block_}_ Lot __1 Subdivision Filed Map # Lot # Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds proposed multiple dwellines not permitted pursuant to Article 1V Section t00-42B.1 which states; Uses permitted by special exception_by the Bo~trd of Appeals. The followinR uses are permitted as a _special exception bD,' the Board~of Appeals, as hereinaller provided, and sub~t to sit~lan_ approval_~y the Planniug Board: (1) Multiple dwellings, townhouses, row or attached houses. · Proposed project does not have valid special exception t?om the Zoning Board of Appeals. · Proposed_p_rroiect does not have a valid site~[an approval from the Planning Board. Note; Above detem]ination based on limited documentation submitted,~ma~¥ require other approvals pending further review. EXHIBIT 10 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR ~,~./,, ~ ~- /~y'y~,, ,~ ~x),~./ .... DATE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION APpeALED: [O THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: I (We) ..................... Z.--7 .................... ~ ....... HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECT~ ~TED .~J(~./~,,~/~ / ~ WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR D~NI~D AN APPLICATION g~ %~g~.~: ' (~ Permit to Build ~ E c ~ I v E D ) Permit for Occupancy ) Permll to Use ~Ug ~ ~ ~00J } Permit for As-Built ) Ofhen - ' ~ulno,~ ,ow~ Cle~ 2. Provlslonotthe Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Adh .,Sectlon, Subsectlon and paragraph oJZonlng Ordnance by numbers. Do nofquote h,eJ' w.) A ,cle ........ S.¢on 100 ........... Sub-Sec.on .......... 3. Type of App[eal. Appeal is mode herewith for: ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ) A Variance due to lack of access as required by New York Town La',', Chap. 62. Cons. Laws Art. 16, Section 280-A, ) Interpretation of Article .......... Section 100- . ........ ) Reversal or Other: ......................................................................................... 4. Previous Appeal. A previous appeal~ has not'~ been made with respect to this properly or with respect fo this decision of the Bulidh~ inspector (Appeal REAS~N~ FOR APPEAL (Additional sheets may_be, used wHh applicant's sip!nature): AREA VARIANCE REAS©IVS: (1) An undesirable change wll[ not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if granted, because: (2) The beneflt sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an oreo variance, because: (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or Impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: (5) Has the allegeddltflculiybeenself-created? ( )Yes. or ( INa. This Is the MINIMUM Ihat is necessary and adequate, 'Jnd at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare al the communlh/. ()CheckthlsboxI!USEVARIANCESTANDARDS Sworn to before.-, .. --me this .~-~/ . ~i~-n~[ur~of ~ppp~m"14~uthorlzed ~genf) ' ~ EXHIBIT 11 APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and employees, The purpose of this form is to provide information which can alert the 'town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same, YOUR NAME: (Last name, first name, middle initial, you are applying in the name Of someone other entity, such as a company. If so, the other person's or company's name. ) indicate NATGRE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance . Variance Change of zone. Approval of plat Exemption from plat or official map Other (If "Other," name the activity.)~--~_~,~_~o~ ~fJ],'&L parent, or child) have a relationship witl~ any o~ficer or employee of ~he Town of Southold? 'Relationship' includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. 'Business interest' means a busfness, including a partnership. which ~he town officer or employee has even a partial o~ership of (or employment by) a corporatio~ in which the town officer or e~ployee owns more than 5% of the If yeu answered 'YES,' complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); ~) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a noncorporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, partner, or employee of the applicant; or , , D) the actual applicant. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Horning Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southotd Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.north fork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2002 Appl. No. 4927- KACE LI, INC. Property Location: South Side of C.R. 48 (North Road), Greenport 1000-40.-3-1 Date of Public Hearing(s): 9/20/01; 10/4/01, 11/15/01; 1/24/02; 2/28/02. In the Matter of KACE L.I. LLC to reverse the Building Inspector's determination rendered in the August 13, 2001 Notice of Disapproval and for an interpretation of the Code of the Town of Southold, Ch. 100, Article IV, Section 100-42 A2, pertaining to "Use Regulations" in the Hamlet Density District. FINDINGS OF FACT BASIS OF APPEAL: Appellant Kace LI, Inc. is appealing the Building Inspector's August 13, 2001, Notice of Disapproval, which denied an application for a building permit to construct "Multiple, two-family dwellings." The August 13, 2001 Disapproval recites the following: Proposed dwellings not permitted pursuar~t to Article IV Section ?00-42A.2 which states, In the HD District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or parr of a building shaft be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any use except the following: A. Permitted uses. (2) Two-family dwelling. Proposed project indicates several (exact amount unknown) two-family dwellings on a single parcel. Code allows only one such structure per lot as a permitted use. RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant maintains that the building inspector erred in interpreting 100-42A.2 to limit the number of two-family dwellings to one per lot. Applicant maintains that 100-42A does not limit the number of two-family dwellings to one per lot, and requests the Board of Appeals to reverse the inspectors determination based on this interpretation. WHEREAS, Tf~e Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on this application on 9/20/01; 10/4/01, 11/15/01; 1/24/02; 2/28/02, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a 17 acre parcel located on the south side of North Road CR 48, approximately 500 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport. SCTM EXHIBIT 12 -- Page 2- June 6,2002 Appl No. 4927- Kace LIInc. 40.-3-1 at Greenpod 1000-40-3-1, now or formerly referred to as "Northwind Village" site. The property is zoned Hamlet Density (HD). WHEREAS, the following sections of the code are pertinent to this request: 1. Article IV Section 100-42A. In the HD District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any use except the following: A. Permitted uses. (1) One-family detached dwelling (2) Two-family dwelling (3) Continuing care facility and life care community 2. Bulk Schedule - Density and Minimum Lot Size for Residential Districts Minimum lot size 2-family dwelling with community water and sewer ........ Hamlet Density 20,000 sq. ft. 3. Section 100-13 Definitions of the Zoning Code: Dwelling, Two-family - A detached building containing two (2) dwelling units only. WHEREAS, the board has further carefully considered the following evidence and testimony: 1. In the case in question the applicant has a 17-acre lot. The applicant wants to construct more than one "two-family dwelling" on the 17-acre lot. The property has access to both community water and sewer. The minimum lot size for one two-family dwelling in the HD zoning district is 20,000 square feet with both community water and sewer. 2. The question presented to the board is under this fact pattern, can the applicant construct more than one "two-family dwelling" on the 17-acre lot in the HD District pursuant to section 100-42A 2. The applicant maintains the answer is yes. 3. The applicant's reasons are set forth in both oral and written argument in the record. The applicant's basic argument is one of "area" versus "lot." Applicant maintains that the Town Code's bulk schedule states that a two-family dwelling with community water and sewer requires 20,000 square feet Since 20,000 can be divided many times into a 17-acre lot, applicant contends that there is more than enough "area" to construct more than one two- family dwelling. Page 3- June 6, 2002 Appl No. 4927 -Kace LI Inc. 40.-3-1 at Greenport 4. Applicant further contends that in the Town Code's other residential districts, there is limiting language which states, "one-family dwelling, not to exceed one dwelling per lot." In contrast, applicant argues that there is no such limiting language in the 100-42A.2 of the Hamlet E)ensity District that restricts the number of two-family dwellings that can be built on one lot. 5. The board disagrees. The fatal flaw in the applicant's "area" argument is that the Bulk Schedule speaks of a minimum lot size, not of a minimum area. It is undisputed that the 17- acre lot satisfies the minimum lot size for a two-family dwelling under the bulk schedule. But in order to construct more than one two-family dwelling on this land, the applicant would first have to subdivide the 17-acre lot into many lots, each lot with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and then obtain site plan approval pursuant to section 100-250 for each lot in order to place a two-family dwelling on each of the newly created lot. 6. The board also discounts the applicant's argument that 100-42A.2 contains no limiting language as to the number of two-family dwellings per lot. The board notes that one of the other permitted uses in the HE) Zoning District under 100-42A.1 is "one-family detached dwelling." Assuming the applicant's argument of substituting the word "area" for lot and "no limiting language", many one-family dwellings could be built on the 17 area lot. This is simply not the law or the long standing practice pursuant to the Southold Town Code. More than one- family dwelling per lot is not permitted. Again, to build many one-family dwellings on the 17- acre lot, the applicant would first have to subdivide the land into smaller lots. Once the subdivision has been completed the applicant could then build a one-family dwelling on each one of the newly created lots pursuant to section 100-42A.1. Based on the above clear language of the Town Code sections, the board finds that the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval was properly issued. NOW, on motion by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Orlando, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Appeal Interprets Article IV, Section 100~42A(2) to mean that only one two-family dwelling is permitted per lot; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to Deny the applicant's request to reverse the Building Department's determination, which is hereby upheld and confirmed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Go_,.ebrid'~(Chairm~'Cn), ~'~,"~, and Orlando. (Member Horning of Fishers Island was/a6sent.) This Re~'utio/.N'was dut~e.¢/~4-O). 831 785 ~3 p .,5 Michael E, Kontokosta ~o. July 14, 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mrs, Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk 53095 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 KiAiC E' GROUP RECEIVED 4UL 14 005 $o.thoH Tow~ Cler~ KACE L~ LLC - Annexation Petition {SCTM: 1000-40-3-1) Dear Mrs, Neville: Atlached fo? the consideration of the Southold Town Board please find (i) a preliminary workforce housing proposal and (ii) the Petition ofKACE L1, LLC pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York to annex a 17 acre parcel of property to the Village of GreenporL We look forward to highlighting the public benefits of this exciting transaction at the joint public meeting of the Southold Town Board and the Greenport Village Trustees. C.E. Kontokosta (w/Enct.) Village Trustees of the Village of Greenport (w/Encl.) THE KACE GROtJP ~3 WEST 54TH STREET / NEW YORK, t~y 1003g ! TEL; 212.582.6100 FAX: 212.582.6047 755 NORTH ROAD. P.O. Ba~iiE7 / GRi~ENPORTi NY 31944 / TEL: 631.477.0600 FAX: 63K477.0800 ,, -- EXHIBIT 13 -- Mo~e L~ Offic~ TO: FROM: Date: MEMORANDUM Southold Town Board Village Trustees of the Village of Greenport KACE LI, LLC, Petitioner/KACE Development, LLC July 14, 2005 765 4G43 Re: WORKFORCEJAFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL There is a critical shortage of workforce and affordable housing in the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. This shortage has reached crisis proportions as regulatory barriers and .~,~MBYism sentiments have created an environment inimical to providing the necessary housing ~¥: ~;e workforce of the Town and the Village. The Supervisor of the Town and the Mayor of the Village have both spoken of the importance of worlcfome and affordable housing, but them is a wide ctmsm between words and actions. KACE Development LLC ("KACE') is proposing a workforce/affordable mixed-income heusing prq:ect of at least 128 units on 17 acres. Approximately 20% of the project (24 units) will be multlfamily condominium housing that will be affordable to the work, force population of the Village and the Town, approximately 30% of the project (36 units) will be semi-detached single-family homes that will be affordable for the workforce of the Village and the Town, and the remainder (68 units) will be detached single-family homes imended for the general market. To mah;tain the affordable sales price of these units, special attention will be paid to the size of the units and the associated parcels. By limiting unit square footage and lot size, sales prices will be restricted to appropriate levels for the intended market. Overall design of the project and the units will be of a high quality, in contex't with the surrounding residential architecture of the Village and Town. The feasibility of this project depends on the annexation of the property from the jurisdiction of the Town to that of the Village. This property is ideally suited for this action for several reasons. First, the property is contiguous to the Village on three .sides. Second, it is currently within the Greenport school and tim districts. Third, the property has a stipulated connection to the Greenport sewer system, a critical factor in allowing for increased densities. Fourth, the property has access ;o the Suffolk County water system. Lash and possibly most important, the Village has the appropriate existing zoning density provisions and sewer capacity needed to make the project feasible and enable the village and town to take a meaningful and significant step in addressing the most critical needs of its residents. KACE is ready, willing, and able to act to meet the needs of the communities of Greenport and Southold. This project presents a unique opportunity for a private developer, working in cooperation with two motivated municipalities, to provide the necessary housing for the workforce of both the Village of Gre~nport and the Town of Southold. ~' .~ OS ~3:~4p Mo L~m OPfice ~31 S 4G43 p.? In the Matter of the Application of lo, CE ZI, LLC, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co. Pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law to tmnex a parcel of property to the territory of the Village o f Greenport ORIGINAL Petitioner, TO: TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD VILLAGE TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT Hie petition ofKACE LI, LLC respectfully sho~vs as follows: t. This is a petition pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York to annex to the territory of the Village of Greenport, Suffolk County, New York, that certain parcel of property owned by the Petitioner which is currently situated with the Town of Soutlmld, Suffolk County, New York, as more particularly bound and described upon Schedule A attached hereto and made a part here~of (also known as SCTM: 1000-40-3-I, hereinafter, the "Subject Parcel"). 2. Petitioner, KACE LI, LLC, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co., has an addr~s at P.O. Box 67, 755 North Road Greenport, New York 11944. 3. This Petition is submitted to the Town Board of the Town of Southold (hereinafter, the "Soufiaold Board") and to the Trustees of the Village of Greenport (hereinafter, the "Village Trustees") for the purposes of receiving the consent of each of the Southuld Board and the Village Board to the ~nnexation of the Subject Parcel to the Village o f Greenport. There are no "i~thabimnts" of the Subject Parcel as defined in Sec~ 703 of the General Municipal Law. 5. Petitioner is the owner of a majority in assessed valuation of the Subject Parcel, as shown upon the last preceding assessment roll of the Town of Southold. 6. Attached hereto as Schedule B is the certificate of the Assessor of the Town of Southold pursuant to Sec. 703 of the General Municipal Law. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the Southold Board and the Village Trustees, pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, consider this Petition. Dated: ;tuly U 2005 KACE LI, LL.C., / io er BY: -C~. E~. Ko~n/d~',~ ~ Member STATI} OF NEV~ YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) On the/J ~ay of July in the year 2005 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared C. E. KONTOKOSTA, in his capacity as a Member ofKACE LI, LLC, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidenc~ to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instniment and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(leS), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon beh~f, of~~ ~~/~2 ____'~ri~d'iv'du I ed, ex the instrument. (slgnati~retaml office of~ntiividual taking~cknowledgment) EMILY HAMILL -- N~tart~ Pubhc Stale or New Yot'¢ No. 01HA5059984 Ouahfie~ In Suffolk COU~ ~m~sion E~res May ~ ,., o~, Jul 19 OS 03:25? Mo~e Lam OFfice 631 SCHEDULE A to the Petition of KA. CELI, LLC PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (SCTM: 1000-40-3-I) BEG.'a'4N'ING at a point on the southerly side of the North Road, at the //' northeasterly comer of the land of the Village o,( Qre ~en~ort a. nd being the northwesterly ! comer of the land of Stephen Sledjeski; thence~a~o-~gg ~e southerly side of the North k'~ Road as the same curves, 43.85 feet; thenco along the southerly side of the North Road "~ North 61 degrees 23 minutes 2~fieconds East, 393.50 feet; thence continuing along the/,.'~ southerly side of the North Roa~l 58 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds East, 352.38 feet to~.(,~ the land now or formally ofF.L.R. Frmlciaco Estate; thence southerly along said last ~ mentioned land South 23 degrees 34 minutes 20 seconds East, 427.38 feet; thence continuing along said last mentioned land South 21 degrees 23 minutes 30 seconds East, 106.0 feet to the land of the Village of Greenport; thence along the land of the Village of G-reenport the following 6 courses and distances: - (l) SOUTH 23 degrees 49 minutes West 241.26 feet; (2) SOUTH 5 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds West 671.42 feet; (3) NORTH 68 degrees 42 minutes 10 seconds West 432.43 feet; (4) NORTH 22 degrees 18 minutes West 564.52 feet; (5) SOUTH 72 degrees 41 minutes 10 seconds West 119.9 feet; (6) NORTH 0 degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds West 343.58 feet to the southerly side of the North Road at the point or place of BEGINNING. J~l 1~ 05 o3:2sp Mo~e La~ O~'~ice ~31~5 p.lO SCHEDULE B to the PETITION OF KACE LI, LLC CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSESSOR OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) If~!~,,~-~ ~.~ro~c~t, in my capacity as a duly elected Assessor of the Town of 8outhold, Suffolk Corinth, New York, do hereby certify as follows: I. I ara a duly elected AsseSsor of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New Y~k, and was one of the persons responsible for the preparation of the assessment bill for the year 2004/2005. 2. The real property described inParagraph l of the Petition to wi'rich th/s . certificate is attached (also known as SCTM: 1000-40 -3-1, hereinafter, the "Subject Parcel") is situated hi the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, and is assessed on the trax roll of the said Town of Southold for the year 2004/2005, which is th&' last preceding assessment roll of the said Town of Southold. [ 3. The total assessed valuation of the Subject Parcel as shown on the assessment roll of the said Town of Southold for the 2004/2005 tax year is Moc 631 '65 4643 .... iS 05 ~3:2Sp: o~o La~ O£Fiee p,11 4. Accordiflg to the records of the Assessor's Office, KACE LI, LLC, as successor in interest to KACE Realty Co., is the owner of the Subject Parcel and is the owner ora majority in assessed valuation of the Subject Parcel assessed upon the last preceding assessment roll of, or utilized by, the Town of Southold. Dated: July ~t~, 2005 ~ of $outhpt~ Suffolk County, N~rk STATE OF NEW YORK ) : ) SS.2 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) Onthe ~y,of July in the y_ear 20,Q5 b~efore me, the undemigned, peTsonally appeared ~ C{- --~. S ~ O ~y~ f- personally known to me or proved to me on ~e basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on thc instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon l~ehalf of which the individual(s) acted, executcst-thE ipayrumcnt. (sign~'~re a~d o~lc~'~)f in(iividual t~ing acknowledgment) Claire L Glaw Notary Public, Slate of' New YOrk No. 01GL4879505 QIJalll'ied in ~uffo k Counly _ Commlastofl Expir~ Dec. 8 ~ 2 6 NYCRR PART 617 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW Statutory authority: Environmental Conservation Law Sections 3-0301 (1)(b), 3-0301(2)(m) and 8-0113 (Applicable to all state and local agencies within New York State including all political subdivisions, districts, departments, authorities, boards, commissions and public benefit corporations) Page 1 1 5 7 9 12 16 19 21 26 27 28 30 31 33 34 34 34 34 34 Section 617.1 617.2 617.3 617.4 617.5 617.6 617.7 617.8 617.9 617.10 617.11 617.12 617.13 617,14 617.15 617.16 617.17 617,18 617.19 617.20 Authority, intent and purpose Definitions General rules Type t actions Type II actions Initial review of actions and establishing lead agency Determining significance Scoping Preparation and content of environmental impact statements Generic environmental impact statements Decision-making and findings requirements Document preparation, filing, publication and distribution Fees and costs Individual agency procedures to implement SEQR Actions involving a federal agency Confidentiality Referenced material Severability Effective date Appendices A - Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) B - Visual Addendum for the EAF C - Short Environmental Assessment Form ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: September 20, 1995 January 1, 1996 NOTE: To guide you in using this reorganized regulation you will find a single page "roadmap" on the front inside cover. The roadmap lists the new section numbers and titles with brief notes regarding where the 1987 regulation sections are now located, 617.4 TYPE I ACTIONS. The purpose of the list of Type I actions ir, this section is to identify, for agencies, project sponsors and the public, those actions and projects that are more likely to require the preparation of an ElS than Unlisted actions. All agencies are subject to this Type I list. (1) This Type I list is not exhaustive of those actions that an agency determines may have a significant adverse impact on the environment and require the preparation of an ElS. However, the fact that an action or project has been listed as a Type I action carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and may require an ElS. For all individual actions which are Type I or Unlisted, the determination of significance must be made by comparing the impacts which may be reasonably expected to result from the proposed action with the criteria listed in subdivision 617.7(c) of this Part. (2) Agencies may adopt their own lists of additional Type I actions, may adjust the thresholds to make them more inclusive, and may continue to use previously adopted lists of Type I actions to complement those contained in this section. Designation of a Type I action by one involved agency requires coordinated review by all involved agencies.~'n agency may not designate as Type l any action identified as Type II in section 617.5 of this Part~. (b) The following actions are Type I if they are to be directly undertaken, funded or approved by an agency: (1) the adoption of a municipality's land use plan, the adoption by any agency of a comprehensive resource management plan or the initial adoption of a municipality's comprehensive zoning regulations; (2) the adoption of changes in the allowable uses within any zoning district, affecting 25 or more acres of the district; (3) the granting of a zoning change, at the request of an applicant, for an action that meets or exceeds one or more of the thresholds given elsewhere in this list; (4) the acquisition, sale, lease, annexation or other transfer of 100 or more contiguous acres of land by a state or local agency; (5) construction of new residential units that meet or exceed the following thresholds: (i) 10 units in municipalities that have not adopted zoning or subdivision regulations; (ii) 50 units not to be connected (at the commencement of habitation) to existing community or public water and sewerage systems including sewage treatment works; in a city, town or village having a population of less than 150,000,250 units to be connected (at the commencement of habitation) to existing 91-63 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL substantial conflict of interests for a person serving as an assistant county attorney and deputy town attorney. 1988 Op Atty Gen 109; 1982 Op AttyGen (Inf) 154; 1981Op Arty Gen (Inf) 112; 1964 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 90. It is conceivable that the county and the town may become engaged in litigation or there may be contracts be- tween the two municipalities. Of course, in these situations it would be improper for the same persoa to represent both munici- palities. These matters can be handled by another assistant county attorney or deputy town attorney, or outside counsel can be ob- tained. In the event of other actual or apparent conflicts, the appropriate remedy is recusal. Further indication that duties of the two positions are not inherently inconsistent is foand in subdivision 4 of section 501 of the County Law, which authorizes the county board of supervisors to direct the county attorney to provide legal services ami advice to town boards and town officers, when it is not in conflict with the interests of the county. County Law §501(4). The offices of assistant county attorney and deputy town attor~ ney are compatible. An individual holding beth positions, bowever, ~vould have to recuse himself from participating in any matter which involved conflicting county and town duties. The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments nf the State government, This perfurce is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office. Requestor: Written by: Issued on: Ilan S. Schoenberger, Esq., County Attorney County of Rockland Allison-Parris County Office Bldg New City, New York 10956 Patrick Barnett-Mulligan, Assistant Attorney General September 5, 1991 Opn. No. I 91-63 GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW ART 17, §711. A member of a village board of trustees should recuse himself from participating in annexation and other mat{ers where his private pe- cuniary interests would be directly affected. 1122 AG 10-31 91 EXHIBIT 15 -- OPINIONS OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL I 91-63 You have ip~formed us that there is a proposal for annexation of a parcel of real property by your village and/or for service of this property by the village's sewer and water systems. One member of the village board eftrustees owns another parcel that shares a common boundary ~vith the subject property. You further informed us that a large commercial development is planned on the subject property and that it is commonly assmned that this development would enhance the value of the trustee's property. Additionally, the family of this trustee operates a business which includes among its primary customers a local market which would be a major competitor of the development planned for the subject property. Your question is whether the trustee should vote on either matter in connection with this development. In opinions of the Attorney General, we have emphasized that public officials must perform their duties solely in the public interest. 1984 Op Atty Gen tInf) 86, 160. Public officials shouhl avoid circumstances which compromise their ability to make im- partial judgments solely in the public interest. Ibid. Even the appearance of impropriety should bc avoided in order to maintain public confidence in governInent. The procedure for inunicipal annexation is found in article 17 of the General Municipal Law. As part of that procedure, the govern- ing body of the local government containing the territory to he annexed and the governing body of the annexing local government are empowered to approve the proposed annexation. General nicipal Law §711. Alternatively, it would be necessary for the village to enter into a contract to provide sewer and water hookups to the parcel ,n question. The village board of trustees would be responsible for approving that contract. In our view, the trustee should recase hilnself from participating in either of these determinations. He has personal tinanci~ inter- ests which would be affected by annexation or water/sewer hookup. At least, an appearance of impropriety would result should the trustee participate in these matters. We conclude that a member of a village board of trustees should reeuse himself from participating in annexation and other matters where his private pecuniary interests would be directly affected. The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments of the State 'government. This perforce is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office. 1123 AG 12-31-91 870 I!;29 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES defendants Mobil and 150 East 42nd Street Corporation cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same re- settled interlocutory judgment as, upon a jury verdict against 150 East 42nd Street Corporation, and upon setting aside a juw verdict in favor of Mobil, and upon award- ing the plaintiffs judgment as a matter of law against Mobil, finds them 60% at fault in the happening of the accident, and (3) the plaintiffs Frank: and Matianne Baxter cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, (a) from so much of the interlocutory judg- ment as, upon a jury verdict, finds the plaintiff Frank Baxter 40% at fault in the happening of the accident, and (b) from so much of the resettled interlocutery judg- ment as finds the plaintiff Frank Baxter 40% at fault in the happening of the acci- dent. ORDERED that the appeal and the cross appeal from the inierlocutory judgment are dismissed, since the interlocutory judgment was superseded by' the resettled interlocu- tory judgment; and it is further, ORDERED that the resettled judgment is reversed insofar as appealed :and cross- appealed from, on the law and the facts, the interlocutory judgment is vacated, and a new trial is granted to the plaintiffs against Otis, Mobil, and 150 least 42nd Street Corporation, to Otis on its third-par~ ty complaint, and to Otis, Mobil and 150 East 42nd Street Corporation on any cross claims they have against each other; and it is further, ORDERED that costs are awarded te abide the event of the new trial. Our review of the record reveals that the jury's verdict finding the defendant 150 East 42nd Street Corp. 60% at fault in the happening of the accident, and the plaintiff Frank Baxter 40% at fault in the happening of the accident was against the weight of the evidence (see, Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184). In addition, the verdict was inconsistent in that 150 East 42nd Street Corporation was found to be at fault, while the defendant~ Otis and Mobil were found not be at fault (see, Bar- ry v. Manglass, 55 N.Y.2d 803, 447 N.Y.S. 2d 423, 432 N.E.2d 125, rearg, denied 55 N.Y.2d 1039, 449 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 434 N.E. 2d 1081). Accordingly we find that the trial court erred in awarding judgment as a matter of law against Mobil and Otis while at the same time upholding the jury's de- termination as to the plaintiff Frank Bax- ter and 150 East 42nd Street Corporation, rather than setting aside the jury verdict and ordering a new trial. We note that the trial court erred in dismissing the third-party complaint brought by Otis against Galbraith-Ruffin Corporation. The relevant question under CPLR 1401 and Dole v. Dow Chem. Co., 30 N.Y.2d 143, 331 N.Y.S.2d 382, 282 N.E.2d 288, is not whether Galbraith-Ruffin Cor- poration owed a duty to Otis but whether Galbraith-Ruffin Corporation and Otis owed a duty to the plaintiff Frank Baxter, and by breaching their respective duties contributed to Mr. Baxter's ultimate inju- ries (see, Schauer v../eyre, 54 N.Y.2d 1, 5, 444 N.Y.S.2d 564, 429 N.E.2d 8'3h 141 A.D.2d 79(> CROSS WESTCHESTER DEVELOP- MENT CORP., et al., Respondents-Appellants. The TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURGH, Appellant-Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. June 2T 1988. Town board appealed from judgment of the Supreme Court, Westehester Coun- ty, Walsh, J., annulling board's determina- tion that draft environmental impact state- ment was required before town could an- nex adjoining property. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that draft environmental impact statement was not EXHIBIT 16 CROSS WESTCHESTER DEV. v. GREENBURGH required prior to town's annexation of 23 Affirmed. Health and Environment ~=~25.10(2) Draft environmental impact statement was not required prior to town's annexa- tion of 23 adjoining acres, absent evidence that property's owners had any specific plans for development or use of the parcel. MeKinney's ECL § 8-0107. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine, New York City (Frank S. Ioppolo, Stephen D. Houck and Vincent P. Ravaschiere, of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Shamberg Marwell Cherneff & Hocher- man, P.C., Mount Kisco (Stuart R. Sham- berg and Kenneth J. Frank, of counsel), for respondents-appellants. Before RUBIN, J.P., and KOOPER, SULLIVAN and BALLETTA, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, (1) to review a determination of the Town Board of ~he Tnwn of Green- burgh (hereafter town board), dated Febru- ary 10, 1988, which made a determination of environmental significance pursuant to ECL article 8, and (2) to prohibit the town board from challenging any determination made by the Village of Elmsford regarding the petitioners' annexation petition in the event the te,~m board fails or refuses to join with the Village of Elmsford in a joint public hearing pursuant to General Munici- pal Law §§ 704 and 705(a), the town board appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westohestor County (Walsh, ,I.), entered April 11, 1988, as granted so much of the petition as sought review of its determina- tion of significance, and the petitioners have filed a notice of cross appeal from that judgment. ORDERED that the cross appeal is dis- missed as abandoned; and it is further, 871 ORDERI~D that the judgment is af- firmed insofar as appealed from by the town board; and it is further, ORDERED that the petitioners are awarded cne bill of costs. The petitioners applied to the town board to have annexed to the Village of Elmsford 23 acres of land owned by them which were contiguous to the village. The town board, purporting to act pursuant to ECL article 8 and 6 NYCRR part 617. made a determina- tion that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter DEIS) was re- quired. The petitioners brought this pro~ ceeding, inter alia, to have the determina- tion annulled on the ground that annexa- tion, in and of itself, was not an "action" because no specific projec~ or proposal had been submitted and, therefore, a DEIS was not required. The Supreme Court annulled the determination. We now affirm the judgment insofar as appealed from. We note that subsequent to Matter of Connell v. Town Bd. of the Town of Wil- mington, 113 A.D.2d 2159, 496 N.Y.S.2d 106, affd. 67 N.Y.2d 896, 501 N.Y.S.2d 813, 492 N.E.2d 1229, which held that annexa- tion, in and of itself, was not an "action" such as I~o require the preparation of a DEIS, the New York Stato Department of Emdronmental Conservation (hereafter DEC) amended its regulations to make an- nexation of 100 or more contiguous acres "Type I" actions (6 NYCRR 617.12[b][4]). We also note that the DEC intended, by so doing, to make annexations involving less than 100 acres "Unlisted" actions (DEC Draft Generic Environmental Impact Stat+ ment for Revisions to Statowide Regula- tions Implementing SEQRA, January 15, 1986, at 14). Thus, while we agree with the town board that the annexation in the present case is an unlisted action, we dis- agree that a DEIS is required. The record does not establish that the petitioners have any specific plans for the development or use of the parcel. In the absence of a specific project plan, which has been actual- ly formulated and proposed, a DEIS is not required (Matter of Programming & Sys- tems v. PVew Fork State Urban Dev. Cor- poration, 61 N.Y.2d 738, 4?2 N.Y.S.2d 912, 872 529 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 460 N.E.2d I347). The town board may not require a DEIS based on a speculative pos- sibility of use of the property (Seaview Assn. of Fire La. v. Department of .!~nvtl. Conservation of State of 3A JA, 123 A.D.2d 619, 506 N.¥.S.2d 775). In any event, should the petitioner.~ seek to develop the property after the ar~nexa- tion, it would be the responsibility of the Village of Elmsford to request the submis- sion of a DEIS (see, Matter of Connell v. Town Bd. of Town of Wilraingto*~, su- pra). To require a DEIS at this ~';tage, when the Village of Elmsford would also require a DEIS if development of the prop- erty is proposed after the annexation, would amount to a duplication in reporting (see, ECL 8-0107; 6 NYCRR 617.3). Accordingly, the judgment of the Su- preme Court is affirmed insofar as appeal- ed from. 141 A.D.2d 80i Ernesto Julio Francisco GUZMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE CORP., et al., Defendants, Otis Elevator Company, Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant; Denham Food Service, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Second Department. June 27, 1988. Action was brought against elevator company for personal injuries sustained when hoistway doors allegedly opened in the absence of elevator cab, and elevator company asserted third-party complaint against person who had instructed plaintiff to pull rather than push cart into elevator. Motion of third-party defendant to dismiss was granted and jury in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, Nastasi, d., found elevator company 50% at fault. Ele- vator company appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that: (I} evider.ce supported verdict finding elevator company at fault; (2) there was no abuse of discretion in permitting licensed engi- neer to testify as expert; and (3) foreseea- ble risk of third party's instruction that plaintiff pull rather than push cart did not include risk that plaintiff would fall down elevator shaft because cab was not present when doers opened. Affirmed. 1. Negligence ~:~121,1(7) Jury could infer negligent inspection and repair in the maintenance of an eleva- tor from evidence that hoistway doors auto- maritally opened in the absence of elevator cab anti that interlock system, which was designed to prevent such an occurrence, contained a worn and bent latch which re- quired replacement. 2. Negligence ~=142 Jury's verdict finding that elevator company was negligent in inspection and repair ef elevator was not inconsistent wir. h verdict on res ipsa loquitur where jury could have found that elevator company failed tx) exercise reasonable care under the circumstances but did not have exclusive control of the instrumentality. 3. Evidence ~:~539 Triul court did not abuse its discretion in permitting licensed engineer to testify as an expert with respect to alleged negli- gence in inspection and repair of elevator, based on his education as a mechanical and structural engineer and his experience as an inspector of buildings, including eleva- tors, though he was not an elevator expert per se. 4. Negligence ~:~45 Third party's instruction to plainlSff that he pull rather than push a cart did not include risk that plaintiff would fall down CODE tJF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06.10-2005 PART It GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE IV, Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District [Added 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989 ARTICLE IV, Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District [Added 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989 § 100-40. Purpose, The purpose of the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District is to permit a mix of housing types 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. § 100-41. Applicability. The Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District may be designated on the Zoning Map by the Town Board upon its own motion or by petition on parcels within one-half (1/2) mile of a Hamlet Business (HB) District of Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold Hamlet and within one-fourth (1/4) mile of the Hamlet Business (HB) District of Orient and within one-half (1/2) mile of the boundary of the Village of Greenport. § 100-42. Use regulations. In the HD District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any use except the following: A. Permitted uses. (1)One-thmily detached dwelling. (2)Two4hmily dwelling. (3)Continuing care ~b. cility and 1i1~ care community. [Added 11-12-1996 by L.L. No. 20-1996] B. Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals. The tbllowing uses are permitted as a special exception by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, and subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board: (1) Multiple dwellings, townhouses, row or attached houses, (2) Accessory apartments in single-tb, rnily residences as set fbrth in and regulated by § 100-31B(I 3) of the Agricultural-Conservation District. (3) Bed-and-breakfast uses as set forth in and regulated by § 100-31B(14), without site plan approval? EXHIBIT 17 -- · SOD~- OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE tV, Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District [Added 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. %1989 § 100-42. Use regulations. (4) Health care thcilities. [Added 11-12-1996 by L.L. No. 20-1996] Accessory uses, limited to the tbllowing: (l) Accessory uses as set tbrth in and regulated by § 100-31C(1) through (7), (9) and (11) of the Agricultural-Conservation District, and subject to conditions set forth in § 100-33 thereo£ [Amended 11-29- 1994 by L.L. No. 25-1994; 11-12-1996 by L.L. No. 20-1996] (2) ENAccessory buildings, structures and other required facilities and equipment necessary to provide community sewers, water, heat, utilities and other community services to all buildings and structures on the premises; provided, however, that the plans for ~md the location of the same shall be approved by the Planning Board. § 100-43. Bulk, area and parking regulations. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking Schedule incorporated into this chapter, with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full? ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11- 16-1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989~N; 5-8-1990 by L.L. NO. 9-1990; 12-22- 1992 by L.L. NO. 34-1992; 3-23'1993 by L.L. NO. 3-1993; 4-4-1995 by L.L. NO. 5-1995; 6-29-2004 by L.L. NO. 13-2004EN] 100-50. Purpose; applicability of amendments. The purpose ot'the Aftbrdable Housing (AHD) District is to provide the opportunity within certain areas of the Town fbr the development of high-density housing t'or families of moderate income; and further, to do so with sensitivity to the historic and aesthetic character of the Town's existing neighborhoods. Towards that end, the Planning Board shall have the authority to amend certain setback and other specifications in order to ensure cost efficiencies and design that furthers the Town's goals of providing quality workforce housing. Homes located within the Affordable Housing District are intended to be affordable in perpetuity. T~ae amendments set forth in Local Law # 13 of 2004 apply only to development in an AHD District after June 1, 2004. § 100-51. Defmitions. For the purpose of this article, the ibllowing terms, phrases and words shall have the fbllowing meanings: CONSUMER PRICE INDEX -- The consumer price index as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the New York Metropolitan area. CONVEYANCE -- The trans,:hr or transfers of any interest in real property by any method, including but not limited to sale, exchange, assignment, surrender, mortgage foreclosure, transfer in lieu of foreclosure, option, trust indenture, taking by eminent domain, conveyance upon liquidation or by a receiver, or transfer or acquisition of a controlling interest in any entity with an interest in real property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, conveyance of real property shall not include a conveyance made pursuant to devise, bequest or inheritance; the creation, modification, extension, spreading, severance, consolidation, assignment, transfer, release or satisfaction of a mortgage; a mortgage subordination agreement, a mortgage severance agreement or an instrument given to perfect or correct a recorded mortgage; or a release of lien of tax pursuant to this arficle or the Internal Revenue Code. I I I ! · ~o~t~ OF SOUT{-IOLD tlA~LET STUDY HALO MAP G-1 12/04 II To~ aK Southold H~Het Stud~ ~ o£G~po~t Wmt The HALO zone shall permit an increase in density above that which is permitted under the existing zoning up to 1/4 acre (1 dwelling unit per 10,000 square feet of lot area.) To promote affordable housing, densities of up to 1/8 acre within the HALO zone are acceptable when infrastructure is available. The burden of providing affordable housing should be shared among the Hamlets throughout the Town. Facilitate affordable housing through legal, code-conforming accessory apartments. An accessory apartment amnesty program, for apartments brought up to code, is recommended. Those participating in the program would benefit from a streamlined legalization process. Those not participating in the program would be subject to increased enforcement activities, penalties and fines. One specific site has been identified for workforce housing in the Greenport West HALO zone as of thi__~s point in time. The property is located on the southeast corner of Route 48 and Main Street and is 4.7 acres in size (other areas can/should be discussed). In addition, two other sites were identified as possible sites in the future: housing development at the campground (former KOA) site, should it occur, should consider including a public swimming pool amenity. ]Increased density would be warranted for the property south of the railroad tracks towards the bay (currently Silver Sands Motel). 14. Open Space Preservation: The major purpose of the Hamlet and HALO definition is to promote the preservation of open space by concentrating commercial and residential growth within the Hamlet Center/HALO boundaries. Preservation of open spaces is a pdority as it is this open space that defines the character of the Greenport West Hamlet. Accelerate the Purchase of Development Rights Program and Open Space Preservation Program in the area outside of the Hamlet Center and HALO zone. The hamlet's sensitive wetlan, d resources must be protected and preserved. 15. The Working Landscape: Preserve and support the Hamlet's tradiidonal industries, including the maribme industry, agriculture, and toudsm. Achieving these goals requires not only preserving agricultural lands or fishing piers for example, but also requires the provision of the full range or ancillary and support facili~es necessary to maintain these industries, including providing a trained work force that is able to reside within the Town. EXHIBIT 19 ~ A. The HALO Zone. The HALO zone is a floating overlay incentive zone established pursuant to NYS Town Law {}261-.b. B, Ii&LO Zone Purpose: In conformance with the plmming goals and policies of the Tmvn of Southold, the purposes of the HAL() zone are as lbllows: I. To preserve the unique rural and agricultural character of the Town of Southold by directing new development toward the Hamlet Center thereby reinlbrcing the traditional hamlet pattern of development while preserving the agricultural and open space areas. To encourage a more efficient use of land and public setwices by promoting compact smart growth development in appropriate locations. 3. To reduce traffic congestion and promote security and social interaction by providing compact, pedestrian-oriented residential development in close proximity to commercial and civic uses. 4. To encourage diversity in housing styles, types and sizes to accommodate households of all ages, sizes and incomes. 5. To provide a mix of uses, including residential usc, within }IAi.() zone and tlamlet Center. 6. To incorporate a system of appropriately scaled interconnected streets with sidewalks and bikeways that offer multiple routes for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists and to provide for the logical integration of these facilities into existing and proposed developments. 7. To ensure that new development will be compatible with the historic hamlet character, to create a strong sense of community identity, and neighborhood experience. 8. To promote development where the physical, visual and spatial characteristics arc established arid reinforced through the consistent use ol' compatible neighborhood design and architectural design elements. This will result m a coherent overall development pattern and streetscape. 9 To retain existing buildings with historical an&/or archdectnral r~atures which enhance the visual character of the community 10. To enhance the function of the HALO zone, and the hamlet centers as the tk)cus commercial and civic activity within the surrounding neighborhood, and as a desired alternative to conventional, use-segregated development, such as large lot suburban subdivisions ancl slrip commercial developments. 11 Create receiving areas in the Town where development rights cao be the outlying abn icuhural and open space areas C. HALO Staudards: In order fi)r a parcel of laml to be eligible Ibr inclusion within the ItA[A) z<mc. tt nnt~sl mecl thc fbllowmg conditions: Parcel Location: A portion of the parcel of'land applying tbr inchlsion within thc IlAIX)/.one Inusl be localed witbin perimeter of tl~e HALO Zone EXHIBIT 20 -- umt count can be increased in accordance with the provismns of the Transfer of Development Rights section below, or if affordable housing units are created. In no instance shall the increased density exceed I unit per I0,000 square feet of lot area, or 1 unit per 5,000 square feet if served by a commumty sewage disposal system Note: These density parameters vary throughout the hamlets 3. Transfer of Development Right (TDR) Receiving Zones: The HALO zone is hereby designated as a receiving district for the purposes of transferring development rights, in accordance with the provisions of this section. E. HALO Zone Designation Procedures. Pursuant to Section 265 pi Town Law and Section 100 290 of the Town of Southold Zoning Ordinance, the following procedures shall apply when application is made to include a parcel of land within the HAL(3 zone: 1. The Town Board upon its own motion, or by petition, may consider the application of the HALO floating zone designation for a given parcel of land. 2. Application and fees. An appli(;ation for HALO zone designation shall be filed with the Town Clerk, in a form approved by the Town Board and available in the office of the Town Clerk. Fees applicable to the HALO zone application shall be set by resolution of the To'~ Board. (application must include plan showing density that is available under current zoning and what they are looking to get with ItALO zone) 3. Application procedure. The procedure fbr approval of designation of a HALO zone property shall involve a three-stage review process as follows: (A) Approval by the Town Board ora preliminary development concept plan (B) Approval of the final, detailed subdivision plat or site plan by the Planning Board.* (C) The zoning reclass~tication by the ri'ow~ Board of a specific parcel or parcels of land for development in accordance with that plan.* *NOTE: The town shall, in all instances, process Subsection 3(A) and (B) above concurrently so as to enable the municipality to utilize a single SEQIL~. process and conduct a coordinated review of thc entire application, The Town Board shall roi'er lhe rezoning petition to the Planning Board and thc Suffolk Count5 Planning Commission for revie~v and recommendation Planning Board report. The Plannit~g Board, in Its report to the I'o~Tt Board, may recommend either approval of thc application for the establishmem of the AiID District, with or without modifications, or disapproval of said application. In the event that the Planning Board recommends disapproval of said application, it shall state in its report the reasons for such disapproval. In preparing ~ts report and recommendations, the Planning Board shall give consideration to the q'ow~ Comprehensive Plan, the existing and permiued land uses in the area. the relationship of' the proposed design and location of' buildings on the >rite, traffic circulation, both on and off the site the adequac~ and availability of commun~t~ facihties and ti es, 13. The receiving district shall be lands designated as HAI.O zones on the TDRJtlALO map of the Town of Southold(areas identified as ttALO zones on map), and approved for inclusion in the HA[~O zone by the Town Board. 3. Designation of Development Rights A development right for the purposes of this section shall be designated as a preservation credit. 4. Procedure for severing development rights from property. Preservation credit certificate. A property owner may request a preservation aredit certificate fi.om the Planning Board (or Land Preservation Dept?) by submission of the following: (1) A completed preservation credit certificate applicatinn t't~un to be supplied by the Planning Board; (2) Property survey showing existing conditions including wetlands, bluffs, etc. certified to the Town of Southold and showing the area to be preserved (this requirement may be waived at lhe discretion of the Planning Board); (3) Current title commitment prepared by a company licensed to do business in the County of Suffolk and noting tbe Town of Southold as a proposed insured; (4) Copy of deed; (5) Legal description of the area from which rights are to be severed; (6) Copy oftaxbill; (7) Fee of _(Riverhead is 500). B. Upon the recording of a conservation easement in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney and the Planning Board in the office of the County Clerk, or submission of the conservation easement to the Planning Board in recordable form, encumbering all or part of a sending parcel and the provision of evidence of same to tbe Planning Board together with a current title insurance policy showing title insurance acceptable to the Planning Board in an amount equal to the value of the conservation easement and naming the Town of Southotd as an insured, the Planning Board shall issue a preservation credit certificate certifying that the holder is entitled to a specific number nf preservation credits. Fractional credits may be issued, rounded to the nearest tenth. 5. Allocation of Preservation Credits A. When an application for the allocation of preservation crcdds is made lo the Planning Board, such board shall calculate the total number of credits available for translYr fi-om the real property within a designated sending area using a development yield ih. clot Development yield is established by multiplying the gross (buildable) area of the parcel by the relevant development yield ~:actor fbr the zoning district in the sending district. Thc development yield factors are as follows: Riverhead is one right per 43,560 sq. feet.(one per acre, does not account for unbuildahle land, wetlands, etc.) Mark is working on a multiplier.....the idea beiog that applicant provides a survey showing wetlands, blufl~, etc.....and buildable land is determined. Then the applicant has the option of preparing a yield map, or using multiplier which would represent subtraction of roads/drainage. SO, Gross acreage- wetlands/bluffs, etc = Buildable land residential lot yield within the HALO Orient district, however, in no event shall the yield exceed one lot per 20,000 square feet o~'buildable land as defined in Chapter A 106. 7. Administration 7he l'lanning Board (LP(2??) shalt be the sole administrator of the procedures and £unctions associated with this article. The Planning Board shall: (A) Issue preservation credit certificates. (B) Keep records ol; retain, and catalogue both issued and redeemed preservation credit certificates in a Town database. (C) Prepare and disnibute an annual report providing statistics on TDR pro.am. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10.2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11-16- 1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1 ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11- 16-1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-t0-1989 by L.L. No. 1-t989 ~N; 5-8-1990 by L.L No. 9-1990; 12-22- 1992 by L.L. NO. 34-1992; 3-23-1993 by L.L. NO. 3-1993; 4'4-1995 by L.L. NO. 5-1995; 6-29-2004 by L.L NO. 13-2004s~"] § 100-50. Purpose; applicability of amendments. The purpose of the Attbrdable Housing (AHD) District is to provide the opportunity within certain areas of the Town for the development of high-density housing for families of moderate income; and further, to do so with sensitivity to the historic and aesthetic character of the Town's existing neighborhoods. Towards that end, the Planning Board shall have the authority to amend certain setback and other specifications in order to ensure cost efficiencies and design that furthers the Town's goals of providing quality workforce housing. Homes located within the Affordable Housing District are intended to be affordable in perpetuity. The amendments set forth in Local Law #13 of 2004 apply only to development in an AHD District after June 1, 2004. § 100-5l. Definitions. For the purpose of this article, the tbllowing terms, phrases and words shall have the tbllowing meanings: CONSUMER PRICE INDEX -- The consumer price index as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the New York Metropolitan area. CONVEYANCE -- The transfer or transfers of any interest in real property by any method, including but not limited to sale, exchange, assignment, surrender, mortgage foreclosure, transfer in lieu of foreclosure, option, trust indenture, taking by eminent domain, conveyance upon liquidation or by a receiver, or transfer or acquisition of a controlling interest in any entity with an interest in real property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, conveyance of real property shall not include a conveyance made pursuant to devise, bequest or inheritance; the creation, modification, extension, spreading, severance, consolidation, assignment, transfer, release or satisfaction ora mortgage; a mortgage subordination agreement, a mortgage severance agreement or an instrument given to perfect or correct a recorded mortgage; or a release of lien of tax pursuant to this article or the Internal Revenue Code. MODERATE-iNCOME FAMILY -- A thmily registered with the Town of Southold Housing Registry whose aggregate annual income, including the total of ail current annual income of all family members (excluding the earnings of working family members under age 18) from any source whatsoever at the time of application for the purchase or lease of an affbrdable housing unit or the purchase of an unimproved affordable lot, does not exceed 120% of the HUD median income for the County of Suffolk. MODERATE-INCOME FAMILY DWELLING UNIT -- A dwelling unit reserved/hr rent or sale to a moderate- income family and for which the maximum monthly rent (excluding utilities) or the maximum initial sales price does not exceed the maximum rent or maximum sales price set forth in § 100-56D hereof. MODERATE-INCOME FAMILY UNIMPROVED LOT -- An unimproved lot reserved/hr sale to a moderate- income family and for which the maximum initial sales price does not exceed the maximum sales price set forth in § 100-56D hereof. Said "unimproved lot" shall mean a vacant parcel of real property designated as a lot on a filed map, inclusive of all utilities brought to the property line. PERMANENT FIXED IMPROVEMENT -- An improvement to a)ot or a moderate-income tkmily dwelling unit which cannot he removed and which provides value to the propert3 above and beyond repairs done to maintain the property in good condition. A permanent fixed improvement must be approved in advance of construction or installation in writing by the Special Projects Coordinator. ~ EXHIBIT 21 -- SPhCIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR -- The employee or'the Town ,,,,,ho ~s responsible tbr the development, implementation and coordination of the Housing Registry and aflbrdable housing initiatives for the Town of Southold. § 100-52. Applicabilit)'. AHD Districts shall be established by the Town Board on parcels of land that have been identified through the accepted pnnciples of Smart Growth planning as being appropriate and desirable locations for affordable housing. Such locations include, but are not limited to: land within Hamlet Locus Zones, as may be determined by the Town Board; land within walking distance of services, shops, schools, and public transportation; land that adjoins existing centers of business and residential development (as opposed to land adjoining farm and open fields); and other locations where the project has been shown to meet a demonstrable need. AHD Districts shall be designated by Town Board resolution after a public hearing thereon, upon 10 days' notice thereof by publication in the official Town newspapers. § 100-53. Use regulations. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11-16- 1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-'10-1 § 100~53. Use regulations, in the AHD District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part ora building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any use except the following: A. Permitted uses. (1) One-fhmily detached dwelling which shall be occupied by the owner of the dwelling, or may be leased one time by the owner for a period not greater than two years with written approval of the Special Projects Coordinator. (2) Two-thmily dwellings which shall be occupied by the owner of'the dwelling, or may be leased one time by the owner for a period not greater than two years with written approval of the Special Projects Coordinator. (3) Multiple dwellings. (4) Row or attached dwellings. (5) Apartments are permitted within the principal building only, subject to the lbllowing requirements: (a) The accessory apartment shall be located in the principal building. (b) The owner of thc existing dwelling shall occupy one or' the dwelling units as the owner's principal residence. The other dwelling unit shall be leased for year round occupancy to an eligible person as defined by this legislation and as evidenced by a written lease for a term of one or more years. (c) The apartment shall contain not less than 350 square I~et and shall not exceed a square l:botage equal to one half the total enclosed square footage of the principal dwelling and shall not contain more than one bathroom. (d) A minimum of one oI~tTstreet parking space shall be provided. (e) Not more than one accessory apartment shall be provided per single-f~rnily dwelling. (f) Not more than 50% of homes in an approved AHD shall have accessory apartments. B. Accessory uses. Accessory uses as set Ibrth in and regulated by § 100-31 C(I), (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) of this chapter. § 100-54. Bulk, area and parking regulations. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11-16- t986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1 § t00-54. Bulk, area and parking regulations. A. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the AHD District unless the same conforms to the following Bulk, Area and Parking Schedule: Minimum Requirements Total lot area (square t~et) Lot width (tket) Lot depth (tket) Front yard (thet) BULK, AREA AND PARKING SCHEDULE Single-Family Two-Family Multiple Dwellings Dwellings Dwellings 10,000 20,000 40,000 80 100 150 100 140 200 35 35 45 CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11-16- 1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1 § 100-54. Bulk, area and parking regulations. 1 side yard (feet) 15 15 20 Both side yards (ti:et) 25 30 40 Rear yard (~:'eet) 35 35 45 Livable floor area 850 600 600 (square ti:et per dwelling) Ot't~street parking 2 2 2 spaces (per dwelling) Lau~d area (square/bet) 10,000 10,000 10,000 per dwelling unit) CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11-16- 1986 by L.L, No. 14-1986; 1-10-1 § 100-54. Bulk, area and parking regulations. Lot coverage (percent) 20% 25% 25% Building height 35 35 35 Number of stories 21./2 21/2 21/2 B. The Planning Board shall have the authority to reduce or amend yard setback requirements, lot dimension requirements and highway specifications. In making this decision, the Planning Board shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In making such determination, the Planning Board shall also consider: (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting oft.he amendment; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the sought variance; (3) whether the variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which shall be relevant to the decision but shall not necessarily preclude the proposed amendment or variance, q~is provision supersedes and amends New York State Town Law §§ 267, 267-a, -b and -c insofar as these sections give such authority to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any amendment to highway specifications shall meet with the approval of the Highway Superintendent. § 100-55. Application procedure. A. Application and fees. The application 5i~r rezoning shall be filed with the Town Clerk, in a 5i0rm approved by the Town Board and available in the office of the Town Clerk. Fees applicable to the AHD zoning application shall be set by resolution of the Town Board. B. Application procedure. The procedure 5hr approval oS'any future development in a proposed AHD District shall involve a three-stage review process as follows: ( 1 ) Approval by the Town Board 05' a preliminary development concept plax~. (2) Approval of the final, detailed subdivision plat by the Planning Board.* (3) The zoning reclassification by the Town Board ora specific parcel or parcels oS'land fur development in accordance with that plan.* *NOTE: The town shall, in all instances, process Subsection B(2) and (3) above concurrently so as to enable the municipality to utilize a single SEQRA process and conduct a coordinated review of the entire application. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1~19~6 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11 1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1 § 100-55. Application procedure. C. Referral to Planning Board. Upon the receipt ora properly completed application/:hr the establishment of a new AHD District, one copy of the application shall be referred to the Planning Board for its review and report, and one copy shall be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for its review and recommendation, if required by the provisions of the Suffolk County Charter. Within 60 days from the date of the Planning Board meeting at which such referral is received, the Plarming Board shall report its recommendations to the Town Board. No action shall be taken by the Town Board until receipt of the Planning Board report or the expiration of the Planning Board review period, whichever first occurs. Said review period may be extended by mutual consent of the Planning Board and the applicant. D. Planning Board report. The Planning Board, in its report to the Town Board, may recommend either approval of the application for the establishment of the AHD District, with or without modifications, or disapproval of said application. In the event that the Planning Board recommends disapproval of said application, it shall state in its report the reasons for such disapproval. In preparing its report and recommendations, the Planning Board shall give consideration to the Town Comprehensive Plan, the existing and permitted land uses in the area, the relationship of the proposed design and location of buildings on the site, traffic circulation, both on and offthe site, the adequacy and availability of community facilities and utilities, including public water and public sewer systems, to service the proposed development, compliance of the proposed development with the standards and requirements of this article, the then-current need for such housing and such other factors as may be related to the purposes of this article. E. Town Board public hearing. Within 45 days from the date of the Town Board's receipt of the Planning Board's report and recommendation or the expiration of the Planning Board review period, whichever first occurs, the Town Board shall hold a public hearing on the matter of establishing an AHD District on the property described in the application. Such hearing shall be held upon the same notice as required by law for amendments to the Town Zoning Map and/or Zoning Code. F. Town Board action. (1) Within 45 days after the date of the close of the public hearing, the Town Board shall act either to approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the preliminary development concept plan and the approval or disapproval of the establishment of the AHD District applied for. Approval or approval with modifications shall be deemed as authority for the applicant to proceed with the detailed design of the proposed development in accordance with such concept plan and the procedures and requirements of this article. A copy of the Town Board's determination shall be filed with the Planning Board and a copy mailed to the applicant. A copy shall also be filed in the Town Clerk's office. If such determination approves the establishment of a new AHD District, the Town Clerk shall cause the Official Zoning Map to be amended accordingly. (2) Revocation; extension. (a) Upon request to the Town Board on notice to the applicant and ]tbr good cause shown, the establishment of an AHD District may be revoked 18 months after said Town Board approval thereof if work on the site has not commenced or the same is not being prosecuted to conclusion with reasonable diligence. (b) The Town Board, upon request of the applicant and upon good cause being shown, may, in the exercise of its discretion, extend the above time period. In the event of the revocation of approval as herein provided, the AHD District shall he deemed revoked, and the zoning classification of the property affected thereby shall revert to the zoning classification that existed on the property immediately prior to the establishment of the AHD District thereon, and the Town Clerk shall cause the Official Zoning Map to be amended accordingly. G. Subdivision plat approval by the Planning Board. (1) No earthwork, site work, land clearing, construction or development activities shall take place on any property within an AHD District except in accordance with a site plan approved by the Planning Board in accordance with the provisions of this article and in accordance with the procedures and standards for site plan approval as set forth in Article XXV of this chapter. (2) Where a proposed development involves the subdivision or resubdivision of land, no development shall proceed until the Planning Board has granted final subdivision plat approval in accordance with the provisions of Chapter Al06, Subdivision of Land, of the Town Code. § 100-56. General regulations and requirements. A. The Town Board shall require the recording of covenants and restrictions that shall apply to all real property within the AHD District. The covenants and restrictions shall contain terms and conditions as the Town Board and Planning Board deem necessary to insure the property is used for purposes consistent with the purposes for which the AHD zoning classification was created, and they shall be subject to the approval of the Town Attorney. The covenants and restrictions shall include the following: (1) An owner of an improved or unimproved parcel of property within the AHD District shall, at least 30 days prior to entering into an agreement or contract to convey the parcel, provide a copy of the proposed contract to the Town Clerk with a written notice of the owner's intent to enter into the contract. The Town Clerk shall forward a copy of the owner's notice of intent and the proposed contract to the Town Board and Special Projects Coordinator. Within 20 days of receipt of the owner's notice of intention, the Town shall notify the owner in writing as to whether or not the terms of the sale comply with the provisions of this chapter relating to the resale of AHD parcels. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11-16~ 1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1 § f00-56. General regulations and requirements. (2) That an improved or unimproved parcel of property within the AHD District shall not be conveyed without written approval of the Southold Town Board. (3) The leasing of an improved or unimproved parcel of property or portion thereof shall be by written lease. (4) An owner of an improved or unimproved parcel of property within the AHD District shall, at least 14 days prior to entering into a lease with regard to said parcel, provide a copy of the proposed lease to the Town Clerk with a written notice of the owner's intent to enter into the lease. The Town Clerk shall forward a copy of' the owners notice of intent and the proposed lease to the Town Board and to the Special Projects Coordinator. Within seven days of receipt of the owner's notice of intention, the Town shall notify the owner in writing as to whether or not the terms of the lease comply with the provisions of this chapter relating to the leasing of AHD parcels. (5) An owner of an improved or unimproved parcel of property within the AHD District shall not lease the property without obtaining the written approval from the Town of Southold. Provision fbr moderate-income family dwelling units and unimproved lots. ( 1 ) On land within an AHD District each dwelling unit and/or unimproved lot located therein shall be reserved for sale or lease to moderate-income families registered with the Town of Southold Housing Registry. At least 50% of available homes shall be offered for sale or lease to eligible applicants whose income does not exceed 80% of the HUD median income for the County of Suffolk. C. Eligibility. In each AHD, the sale or lease of dwelling units and unimproved lots shall be reserved tbr moderate-income families who do not have any ownership interest in any other residence or vacant lot. The net worth of an applicant (individual or family) shall not exceed 25% of the purchase price of a home sold pursuant to this section. The eligible applicants shall be grouped on a priority basis, and a lottery system will be administered by the Special Projects Coordinator within each group in a formula acceptable to the Town Board. The priority groups are as follows: ( 1 ) Income eligible individuals or families who have lived and worked in the Town of Southold tbr a period of at least one year prior to the submission of` their application. (2) Income eligible individuals or thrnilies who have lived in the Town of Southold/hr a period of at least one year prior to the submission of their application. (3) Income eligible individuals/families who have been employed in the Town of Southold Ibr a period of` at least one year prior to the submission of their application. (4) Income eligible individuals/thmilies who previously lived fbr a minimum of one year in the Town of Southold and wish to return. (5) To all other eligible applicants. D. The initial maximum sales price and maximum allowable monthly rent shall be set by resolution of the Town Board, as amended from time to time. E. Resale price of dwelling units and unimproved lots. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter 100, ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L. No. 6-1986; amended 11-16. 1986 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1 § 100-56. General regulations and requirements. (2) Unimproved lots in an AHD District reserved Ibr reg/stered moderate-income t~tmilies must be resold to moderate-income families. The maximum resale price shall not exceed the purchase price of such lot adjusted for the change in the consumer price index for the period during which such lot was owned by the resale seller, plus reasonable and necessary resale expenses. (3) Where an unimproved lot in an AHD District reserved tbr moderate-income families is improved with a dwelling unit, the maximum resale price shall be determined in the manner specified in § 100-56E(1) hereof. F. The pricing structure tbr rental properties must not exceed the rent limits as established by the Suffolk County Affordable Housing Opportunities Program. The Town Board may, at its discretion, impose restrictions regarding rentals. § 100-57. Administration. A. General duties of Special Projects Coordinator. (l) The Special Projects Coordinator shall be responsible tbr the administration of dwelling units and unimproved lots reserved for moderate-income families in all AHD Districts pursuant to the provisions of this article. (2) The Special Projects Coordinator shall promulgate and maintain infbrmation and documentation of all dwelling units and unimproved lots reserved for moderate-income families in all AHD Districts; the number thereof available for sale or lease at all times; the sales prices and monthly rent for such dwelling units and lots; and the names and addresses of eligible families desiring to purchase or lease the same, together with a priority list of such families. The Special Projects Coordinator shall maintain such other records and documents as shall be required to properly administer the provisions of this article. lnteragency cooperation. (1) Whenever the Town Board approves the establishment of an AHD District, a copy of such determination shall be filed with the Building Inspector and the Special Projects Coordinator, together with a copy of any agreements and/or covenants relating thereto. (2) Whenever the Planning Board approves a subdivision plat and/or a site plan alt~cting land within an AHD District, a copy thereof shall be filed with the Building Inspector and the Special Projects Coordinator, together with copies of any agreements and/or covenants relating thereto. (3) Whenever the Building Inspector shall issue a building permit, a certificate of occupancy or any other permit or authorization affecting dwelling units and/or unimproved lots located in an AHD District and reserved for sale or lease to moderate-income families, a copy thereof shall be filed with the Special Projects Coordinator. Procedure. (1) Whenever the Building Inspector receives an application tbr a building permit or a certificate of occupancy for a dwelling unit or unimprove&lot located in an AHD District and reserved for sale or lease to moderate-income families, the Building Inspector shall file a copy thereof with the Special Projects Coordinator, who shall inform the owner and/or person filing such application of the maximum sales price or monthly rent for such dwelling unit or lot as well as eligibility requirements for families seeking to purchase or lease such dwelling units or lots. (2) No building permit or certificate of occupancy may be issued by the Building Inspector until the Special Projects Coordinator has supplied the Building Inspector with the information provided for in the preceding subsection and the Building Inspector detcmnines that the issuance of the building permit or certificate of occupancy will not permit a use, occupancy, sale or lease of a dwelling unit or unimproved lot in violation of the provisions of this article. (3) The Special Projects Coordinator shall cerfi~ the eligibility of all applicants $rbr lease or purchase of dwelling units and unimproved lots reserved for moderate-income families. An owner of dwelling units and unimproved lots in an AHD District which are reserved for sale or lease to moderate-income families shall not sell or lease the same to any person who does not possess a certificate of eligibility issued by the Special Projects Coordinator. A violation of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute grounds for the revocation of a certificate of occupancy. CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK, v147 Updated 06-10-2005 PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION Chapter t00~ ZONING ARTICLE V, Affordable Housing (AHD) District [Added 7-1-1986 by L.L, No. 6-1986; amended 11-16- 19~6 by L.L. No. 14-1986; 1-10-1 § 100-57. Administration~ (4) On or betbre March 31 of each year, the Special Projects Coordinator shall notify the owner or manager of dwelling units and unimproved lots reserved for moderate-income families of the monthly rent, sales price and income eligibility requirements for such units and lots based upon data derived fi.om the preceding year. (5) The owner or manager of dwelling units and unimproved lots reserved lbr moderate-income lhmilies shall certify in writing to the Special Projects Coordinator on or before May 31 of each year, that the sale and/or lease of such dwelling units and lots comply with the provisions of this article and Chapter 100 of the Town Code. (6) When a dwelling unit reserved fbr lease to moderate-income fhmilies is to be rented, the lease fbr such unit shall not exceed a term of two years. (7) An applicant lbr a certificate of' eligibility aggrieved by any determination of the Special Projects Coordinator shall have the right to appeal such determination to the Town Board at its next regularly scheduled work session or to any standing committee of the Town Board designated by resolution to hear such appeals. (8) T~ne only covenants and restrictions which may even be placed upon any lot or dwelling unit in an AHD District must be first approved by action of the Town Board. § 100-58. Applicability of other Code provisions. All of the provisions of the Code of the Town of Southold not inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this article shall be applicable in the AHD District. § 100-59. Penalties for offenses. Any violation ot'any provision of this article shall be punishable in the lbllowing manner: A. First oft:~nse: by a tine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000. B. Second olt~nse and tbr any o~:l~nse thc'reaRer: by a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000 each offense. C. Any ofl~nse under this article may be punishable by revocation of an existing certificate of occupancy. D. Any individual who has violated covenants and resolutions imposed pursuant to this article shall be prohibited from further participation in ownership opportunities and benefits within an approved AHD District. ARTICLE VI, Resort Residential (RR) District [Added 1-10-'1989 by L.L No. 1-1989 E,] § 100-60. Purpose. § 150-6 (I) ZONING § 150-7 A building permit shall have been duly issued and construction shall have been started before the date of first publication of notice of the public hearing on this chapter. (2) The ground story framework, including the second tier of bearm, shall have been completed within six months of the date of the building permit. (3) The entire building shall have been completed in accordance with such plans as have been filed with the Building Inspector within one year from the effective date of this chapter. Areas annexed after the effective date of this chapter shall be in the R-I Zoning District unless and until the Board of Trustees adopts other zoning provisions3 ARTICLE IV District Use Regulations § 150-7. R-1 One-Family Residence District. In an R-10ne-Fan'dly Residence District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any uses except the following: A. Permitted uses. (1) One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot. (2) Buildings, structures and uses owned or operated by the Village of Greenport. B. Conditional uses. The following conditional uses are permitted, subject to approval by the Planning Board in accordance with §§ 150-29 and 150-30 hereof, and subject to the regulations specified below and elsewhere in this chapter: (1) Places of worship, including parish houses, but excluding a rectory or parsonage, which shall conform to the requirements for a one-family dwelling. Special conditions include the following: (a) No building or part thereof shall be erected nearer than 50 feet to any street or property line. (b) The sum of all areas covered by all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed 20% of the area of the lot. (2) Schools. Special conditions include the following: 8. Editor's Note: Former Subsection F, which immediately followed this subsection. *sas deleted at time of adoption of Code; see Ch. 1, General Provisions, Art. L 150:11 EXHIBIT 22 m § 150~7 GREENPORT CODE § 150-7 (al Same as Subsection B(ll(a) and lbl abo*~e. lb) Any such school shall be a nonprofit organization within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Act and shall be registered effectively as such thereunder. (c) Any such school shall occupy a lot with an area of not less than one acre plus one acre for each 100 pupils for which the building is designed. (3) Philanthropic or eleemosynary institutions, hospitals or sanatoriums for general medical care. Special conditions include the following: (al Same as Subsection B(l)(a) and (b) above. (b) Each such use shall occupy a lot which shall have an area containing not less than one acre. (4) Annual membership clubs providing outdoor recreational facilities, such as private playgrounds, swimming pools and tennis courts. Special conditions include the following: Same as Subsection B(l)(a) and (b), above. (b) An>' such club shall be incorporated pursuant to the provisions of the Not-for-Profit Corporation, Membership Corporation*or the Benevolent Orders Law of the State of New York and cater exclusively to members and their guests, or shall be an unincorporated association approved by the Village Board and catering exclusively to members and their guests. (c) /Xmy such use shall not be conducted as a business enterprise. Id) Such use shall occupy a lot with an ~ea of not less than one acre. (el The use of outdoor public-address systems for any purpose shall be only by special perm/t. (Fl Exterior lighting, other than that essential for the safety and convenience of the users of the premises, shall be only by special permit. (5) Railroad, public utility and television towers, rights-of-way and related structures necessary to serve areas within the Village, subject to such conditions as the Planning Board may impose in order to protect and promote the health and safety and general welfare of the community and the character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to be constructed. (6) Cemeteries. (7) Bed-and-breakfast facilities, subject to the following conditions: [Added 11-16~1989 by L.L. No. 9-1989] 9. Editor's Note: See Art. 3, of the Coop~ratlve Corporations Law. 150:12 lz. is. zoo2 § 150-7 ZONING § 150-8 (al One nonilluminated nameplate or professional sign with an area of not over two square feet. (b) One temporary nonilluminated sign advertising the sale or rental of the premises on which such sign is situated, with an area of not over four square feet, provided that such sign is located on the front wall of a building or, if freestanding, then not nearer than 15 feet to any street line and to any property line. (c) One indirectly illuminated bulletin board or other announcement sign for educational or religious institutions permitted in Subsection B above, with an area of not over 10 square feet, provided that such sign is located not nearer than I5 feet to any street or property line or is attached to the building if closer. (7) Boats. Not more than font boats may be stored, docked, moored or anchored for more than 48 hours on auy waters or adjoining waterways. [Amended 5-16-1996 by L.L. No. 3-1996] (8) Yard sales, attic sales, garage sales, auction sales, porch sales or similar type of sales of personal proper~y owned by the occupant of the premises and located thereon, subject to the following restrictions: [Added 12-10-1979 by L.L. No. 5-1979] (al Not more than two such sales shall be conducted on any lot in any one calendar year. [Amended 8-15-2002 by L.L. No. 3-2002] (b) Adequate supervised parking facilities shall be provided. (c) No signs, except one on-premises sign not larger than three by four (3 x 4) feet in size, displased for a period of no longer than one week immediately prior to the day of such sale, shall be pemfitted. (d) A permit is obtained therefor from the Building Inspector upon the payment of a fee of $5. § 150-8. R-2 One- and Two-Family Residence District. In an R-2 One- and Two-Family Residence District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose except for the following: A. Permitted uses. (1) Any use permitted in an R-I One-Family Residence District as provided in § 150-7A. (2) Two-family dwelling. (, 150:15 t2. ts. 2oo2 § 150-8 GREENPORT CODE § 150-9 Conditional uses. The following conditional uses are permitted, subject to approval by the Planning Board in accordance with §§ 150-29 and 150-30 hereof, and subject to the regulations specified below and elsewhere in this chapter: (D Any use conditionally permitted in the R-I Residence District as provided in § 150-7B, except cemeteries. (2) u Conversion of an existing dwelling to a multifamily dwelling, as provided in Art. VII of this chapter, subject to the following conditions: (a) Said structure shall have contained on the effective date of this chapter not less than 1,000 square feet of livable floor area for each dwelling unit created. (b) (c) The lot on which such structure is located shall contain a minimum of 15,000 square feet of lot area and shall contain at least 5,000 square feet of Itt area for each dwelling unit. One and one-half (i 1/2) parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. C. Permitted accessory uses. Any accessory use permitted in the R-I One-Family District as provided in § 150~7C. § 150-9. CR Retail Conunercial District. In a CR Retail Commercial District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any use except as listed below, and all such uses will be subject to site plan approval in accordance with Article XI, § 150-30, hereof: A. Permitted uses: [Amended 3-1-1990 by L,L. No. 1-1990] (1) Retail stores and banks. (2) Personal service stores, such as but not limited to barbershops, beauty parlors and tailors. (3) Eating and drinking places. (4) Business, professional or governmental offices. (5) Service establishments furnishing services other than of a personal nature? (6) Theaters, hotels and motels. (7) Outlets and pickup stations for laundries and cleaning establishments, excluding a commercial laundry as such. Cleaning of wearing apparel or household efforts on 11. Editor's Note: Amended at time of adoption of Code; se~ Ch. 1, General Provisions, Art~ I. 12. Editor's Note; Amended at time of edopOon of Codel see Ch. 1, General Provisions, Art. 1. 150:16 12.ts.2ooz § t50-12 § 150-12 GREENPORT CODE ARTICLE V District Bulk and Parking Regulations § 150-12. Schedule of regulations. The following schedules of regulations apply to the area of lots, the heights of buildings, the yards and other open spaces to be provided, off-street parking spaces, minimum floor areas and all other matters contained therein as indicated for the various districts established by this chapter. Additional bulk requirements are specified in § 150-13, and off-street loading and parking requirements are specified in § 150-16. A. Bulk and parking regulations for uses permitted in R-I and R-2. [Amended 5-16-1996 by L.L. No. 3-1996; 7-19-2002 by L.L. No. 2-2002] R-2 District~ One-Family Two-Family R-1 District Dwelling Dwelling Minimum required: Lot area Isqaare feet) 10,000 Lot width (feet) 80 Lot depth tfeet) 100 Front yard (feet) 30 One side yard (feet) 12 Both side yards (feet) 30 Rear yard (feet) 30 Livable floor area 1,000 per dwelling unit t square feetl Off-street parking 2 per dwelling unit Maximum permitted: Lot coverage (percent) 30 Building height: Number of stories 21/2 Feet per building 35 NOTES: 7.500 7,500 60 60 100 100 30 30 10 10 25 25 30 30 1,000 Per NYS Code 1/2 3O 35 21/2 21/2 35 35 Any given lot shall exceed either the minimum lot width or depth sufficiently to meet the minimum lot area. ~If the owner of an existing one-family dwelling in the R-2 District which is legally nonconforming with respect to any of these bulk requirements seeks to convert the existing dwelling to a two-family dwelling, then, in that event, the area requirements set forth herein, except for the requirement entitled "Off-street parking per dwelling unit." shall not apply to the newly added dwelling unit. 150:26 ..~ EXHIBIT 23 ~ 12-15-2002 TOWN OF LANSING v. VILLAGE OF LANSING ments to $35 per week. This was error. Where the reversal in a spouse's financial condition is brought about by the spouse's own actions or inactions, the court should not grant a downward modification (Hick- land v. Hickland, 39 N.Y.2d 1, 5, 382 N.Y. S.2d 475, 346 N.E.2d 243, cert. den. 429 U.S. 941, 97 S.Ct. 357, 50 L.Ed.2d 310). [2, 3] Here, the evidence indicated that the drastic reduction in earnings is attribut- able to petitioner's own behavior. At the time of the divorce he earned in the neigh- borhood of $25,1300 per year. At the time of the hearing he allegedly earned $7,800 per year operating a clothing store for his mother. Petitioner admitted that there were other jobs that he could have had hut they were not at the $25,000 level. The proper amount of support payable is not determined by a spouse's current economic situation but by a spouse's ability to provide (Kay v. Kay, 37 N.Y.2d 632, 637, 376 N.Y. S.2d 443, 339 N.E. gd 143). The record indi- cates that petitioner is capable of carn[ng more than $7,809 a year. Moreover, a fami- ly business is involved here and it appears that petitioner had some input in fixing his own salary. Family Court, in reducing the alimony and support payments so drastioal- /y in these circumstances, abused its discre- tion. The order reducing alimony and sup- port payments should be reversed and the original order directing such payments rein- stated. [4] Family Court failed to grant respon- dent's application to reduco the arrearages, conceded in open court to be in the sum of $6,000, to judgment. This was improper under the facts and circumstances of this case (Domestic Relations Law, § 244; see Lebow v. Lebow, 58 A.D.2d 537, 395 N.Y. S.2d 658). Respondent should, therefore, have judgment for arrearages in the sum of $6,000. No purpose would be served in requiring respondent to initiate a new cause of action for arrearages in such circum- stances. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs; original order directing alimony and support payments reinstated, and judg- ment for arrearages directed to be entered in the amount of $6,09~. 29 KANE, J. P., and MAIN, MIKOLL and HERLIHY, JJ., concur. YESAWICH, J., dissents and votes to af- firm in the following memorandum. YESAWICH, Justice (dissenting). I dissent and vote to affirm for the rea- sons set forth in the decision of the Sullivan County Family Court. 80 A.D.2d 942 In the Matter of TOWN OF LANSING, New York, Petitioner, VILLAGE OF LANSING, New York, Respondent, et al., Intervenors. (And Two Related Proceedings.) Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. March 12, 1981. Town applied to have report of referees rejected and for judgment that proposed annexation of part of village territory was, contrary to report, in the overall public interest. Village cross-applied to confirm report. The Supreme Court, Appellate Di- vision, held that proposed annexation was not in the overall public interest. Application denied; cross application granted, 1. Municipal Corporations ~=~29(3) Annexation of municipal territory is to be approved only if found to be in overall public interest. EXHIBIT 24 3O 438 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 2. Municipal Corporations ~=~29(3) In determining whether proposed an- nexation of municipal territory is in overall public interest, focus is on such matters as benefit and detriment to annexing munici- pality, to territory to be anne. xed, and to municipality from which annexed territory would be taken. 3. Municipal Corporations ~,29(3) "Benefit and detriment," [n determina- tion whether proposed annexation of munic- ipal tem~tory is in overall public interest, are customarily defined in terms of munici- pal services such as police and fire protec- tion, health regulations, sewer and water service, public utilities and public education. See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions. 4. Municipal Corporations ¢733(6) Municipality seeking annexation carries burden of proving that annexation is in overall public interest~ 5. Towns ~:~4 Finding by town board that it was in overall public interest to annex village ter- ritery contained in one annexation petition, which included territory contained in sepa- rate annexation petition, that village agreed to but that town specifically reject- ed, did not constitute a finding by town that it was in overall public interest to annex only the territory covered by sepa- rate petition, 6. Towns e~4 Town's proposed annexation of certain territory in village was not in overall public interest, where evidence offered on behalf of town to justify the annexation consisted primaxily of citizens' support in area pro- pesed to be annexed and in the fact that lands to be annexed are rural in character and, thus, compatible in purpose with town's adjacent property, but where, on the other hand, village offered considerable evi- dence that annexation would confer no ben- efit on either party and that detriment would accrue to both village and territory to be annexed if court were to rule favor- ably on annexation petitions. Mazza, Williamson & Clune, Ithaca (Rob- ert I. Wiliiamson, Ithaca, of counsel), for petitioner, Town of Lansing in Proceedings Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent in Proceeding No. 3. Kerrigan & Dubow, Ithaca (David A. Du- bow, Ithaca, of counsel), for the Village of Lansing, respondent in Proceedings Nos. 1 and 2 and petitioner in Proceeding No. 3. Richard L. Greenburg, Ithaca, for Jay Omar et al., intervenom in Proceeding No. 1. Before MAHONEY, P. J., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and WEISS, JJ. MEMORANDUM DECISION. Application by the Town of Lansing, pur- suant to section 712 of the Municipal An- nexation Law (General Municipal Law, art. 17), to reject the Report of Referees and for judgment that the proposed annexation to the Town of Lansing of certain territory in the Village of Lansing is in the over-all public interest; cross application by the Vil- lage of Lansing for confirmation of the Report of Referees and for judgment that the proposed annexation is not in the over- all public interest. This controversy arose out of the pro- posed annexation of certain lands presently part of the Village of Lansing in Tompkins County, by the Town of Lansing. The vil- lage was incorperated in 1974 out of territo~ ry coterminous with the former Town of Lansing Water District Number 1. The primary reason for incorporating the village was to prevent continued haphazard eom- mereial and residential development which had been plaguing certain sections of the town. The village enacted strict zoning ordinances to reguiate future commercial and residential growth within its geographi- cal limits. In 1977, the town commenced two sepa- rate annexation proceedings, Petition 1 and Petition 2, seeking to reacquire various por- tions of the village's land. In an apparent compromise attempt, the village corn- TOWN OF LANSING v. VILLAGE OF LANSING menced its own proceeding, Petition 3, whereby it proposed to have the town an- nex a portion of the land described in Peti- tion 1. Following public hearin.gs, the town approved Petitions i and 2, but rejected Petition 3, and the village approved Peti- tion 3, but rejected the other two. This court, pursuant to section 712 of the General Municipal Law, designated three referees to preside over a trial of the pro- posed annexations. The referees, in a com- prehensive report, unanimously concluded that the proposed annexations were not in the over-all public interest. By the instant application, thc town seeks to have the Referees' Report rejected whereas the village, by cross application, seeks t~ have it confirmed. We hold that the Report should be confirmed in its en- tirety. [1-3] Annexation of municipal territory is to be approved only if found to be in thc over-ali public interest. In determining whether a proposed annexation is in the over-all public interest, the focus is on such matters as the benefit and detriment to the annexing municipality, to the territory to be annexed and to the municipality from which the annexed territory would be taken (Matter of City of Saratoga SprinR's v. Town of Greenfield, 34 A.D.2d 364, 312 N.Y.S.2d 4, mot. for Iv. to app. den. 28 N.Y.2d 482, 319 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 267 N.E.~t 891; Matter of Cit.}' Council of City of MechanicvHie v. Town Bd. of Town of HaIL moon, 32 A.D.2d 152, 300 N.Y.S.2d 398, affd. 27 N.Y.2d 369~ 318 N.Y.S.2d 307, 267 N.E.2d 96). Benefit and detriment are cus- tomarily defined in terms of municipal serv- ices such as police and fire protection, health regulations, sewer and water service, public utilities and public education. [4] The municipality seeking annexation carries the burden of proving that annexa- tion is in the over-all public interest (Matter of City of Ogdensburg v. Town of Oswegat- chic, 76 A.D.2d 1012, 429 N.Y.S.2d 488, mot. for Iv. to app. den. 51 N.Y.2k] 706, 433 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 413 N.E.2d 369) Evidence offered on behalf of the town to justify 31 annexation consists primarily of citizens' support in the area proposed to be annexed and in the fact that the lands to be annexed are rural in character and, therefore, com- patible in purpose with the town's adjacent property. On the other hand, the village offers con- siderable evidence that annexation would confer no benefit on either party, aside from the town's geographical aggrandize- ment. It also appears that detriment would accrue to both the village and the territory to be annexed if the court were to rule favorably on the subject petitions. With respect to the lack of any benefit stemming from the proposed annexations, it is noteworthy that the parties entered into a stipulation on the record that the pro- posed annexations are not necessary to pro- vide any municipal services within any of the territories to be annexed. And with regard to whether detriment will be in- curred if annexation is approved, there is evidence the village will suffer a setback in the financing of a sewer project which it has undertaken with adjacent towns and villages. Moreover, as the territory to be annexed is primarily comprised of undeveI- oped land, future village growth would be severely hampered by annexation. The territory proposed to be annexed would also suffer detriment in the form of high development density, unplanned mixed use development and increa~ed traffic con- gestion, all because of the town's less re- strictive zoning ordinance. [5] Several townspeople favoring the annexation proposed in Petition 1 urge that the village's institution of Petition 3 and its consent to annexation of the territory dm scribed therein, combined with the town's consent to annex territor~ described in Peti- tion 1 which includes the ver.v same territo- ry described in Petition 3, but as part of a much larger tract, constitute a conclusive mutual agreement to annex the territory in Petition 3. However, that position is con- trary to the position which was adopted and actually litigated by the parties. The Town Board specifically rejected the proposed an- nexation contained in Petition 3 and the 32 438 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Village Board specifically rejected ~:hc pro- posed annexation contained [n Petitions 1 and 2. For whatever reason, prucedural strategy or otherwise, the town never de- termined that it was in its best interest to accept only the territory included in Peti- tion 8. The finding by the town that it was in the over-all public interest to annex the territory contained in Petition 1, which in- eluded the territory contained in Petition 8, did not constitute a finding by the town that it was in the over-all public interest to annex only' the territory covered by Petition 8, a finding which the town specifically rejected. Since none of the petitions were found by the referees to be in the over-alt public interest, it matters not that the village, which earlier found Petition 3 to be in the over-all public interest, now adopt.~; the eon- trary view reached by the referees. [6] Application denied and cross applica- tion granted; it is adjudged that. the pro- posed annexation is not in the over-all pub- lie interest, without costs. 80 A.D.2d 943 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, Alexander }IENTSCHEL, Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. March 12, 1981. Defendant was convicted in the County Court, Broome County, Smyk, J., of crimi- nal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and he appealed. The Supreme Court, Appel- late Division, held that instruction on con- spiracy, which w:ks given b5 court in teml)t to explain distinct and inde[mndent concept of criminal liability for aiding anti abetting criminal conduct of another, may have caused ultimate guilty verdict upon jury's finding that defendant, who was not charged with conspiracy, was guilty az a conspirator in planning the illegal marijua- na transaction and therefore defendant was entitled to a new trial. Reversed. Kane, J. P., filed dissenting opinion. L Criminal Law ~=1172.1(2) Instruction on conspiracy, which was given by court in an attempt t~) explain distinct anti independent concept of ct/mi- hal liability for aiding and abetting criminal conduct of another, may have caused ulti- mate guilty verdict upon jury's finding that defendant, who was not charged with con- spirucy, was guilty as a conspirator in plan- ning the illegal marijuana transaction and therefore defendant was entitled to a new trial. 2. Criminal Law ~=~741(5) In prosecution on drug charges, ques- tion of sufficiency of evidence corroborat- ing accomplice testimony was properly left for jury t(~ determine. 3. Drugs and Narcotics ~111 In prosecution for marijuana-related offenses, existence of marijuana was ade- quately established by chemist's testimony by fact that the drug itself had been inad- vertently destroyed. Scott C. Gottiieb, Binghamton, for appel- lant. Patrick D. Monserrate, Broome County Dist. Atty., Binghamton, for respondent. Before KANE, J. P., and M1KOLL, MAIN, YESAWICH and HERLIHY, JJ. MEMORANDUM DECISION. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County, rendered April 1, 1976. upon a verdict convicting defendant BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. v. TOWN BD., ETC. 56 A.D.2d 928 the Matter of BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF WARWICK, ORANGE COUNTY, Peti- tioner, TOW"N BOARD OF the TOWN OF WARWICK, ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate DMsien, Second Department. March 28, 1977. In proceeding to determine whether proposed annexation by incorporated village was in the overall public interest, petitioner moved to confirm and respondent cross- moved to reject report of referees favorable to annexation. The Supreme Court, Appel- late Division, determined that the proposed annexation was in the overall public inter- est though the sole physical connection of the ld4-acre tract in question to the village was a contiguous boundary of 200 feet along a village park. Motion granted and cross motion de- nied. Municipal Corporations ~=29(4) Proposed annexation of 144 acres to village to obtain access to water supply and sewer system for condominium develop- ment, with benefit of increased assessments to village, was in the overall public interest though the sole physical connection of the property to the village was a contiguous boundary of 200 feet along the village park, under standard of whether parcel and mu- nicipality had requisite unity of purpose and facilities to constitute a community; however, whenever possible, annexation should not follow the fortuitous boundary lines of the land of a single owner who seeks immediate advantage to himself, but the broader lines of divisions based on the planning aspects of the annexation. Gener- al Municipal Law §§ 703, 712, 47 Frank J. Mack, Huntington. for petition- er. John J. Lee, Jr., Warwick, for respondent. Before HOPKINS, Acting P. J., and LA- THAM, DAMIANI and RABIN, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. In a proceeding pursuant to section 712 of the General Municipal Law to determine whether the proposed annexation of certain territory in the Town of Warwick by the Incorporated Village of Warwick is in the over-all public interest, wherein this court, by order dated September 29, 1975, desig- nated Justices DONOHOE, TRAINOR and SIRIGNANO as Referees to hear and re- port their findings of fact and conclusions of law, petitioner moves inter ali~ to con- firm the report of the Referees that the proposed annexation is in the over-all public interest, and respondent cross-moves inter alia to reject the said report. Motion granted and cross motion denied, without costs or disbursements, and it is determined that the proposed annexation is in the over-all public interest. This proceeding for the annexation of the "Card Farm", a parcel of approximately 144 acres in the Town of Warwick, to the Incor- porated Village of Warwick, follows a fa- miliar pattern. The owner desires to devel- op the property--here as a multi-family condominium--and pleads that the develop- ment will be difficult because of the lack of a municipal water supply and sewer system in the town. The village possesses both and desires the benefit which would be derived from increased tax assessments. The prop- erty has no inhabitants. However, here the sole physical connec- tion of the property to the village is a contiguous boundary of 200 feet along a village park. A parcel known as the "MeFarland Farm" separates the remaining land under consideration from the village. The report of the Referees justly describes the village boundary lines, reflecting previ- ous annexations as well as the present an- nexation, as resembling "a pane of glass EXHIBIT 25 48 1193 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2,d SERIES that has been shattered by a hammer." We have noted on a prior occasion our belief that baroque annexations should be avoided (Matter of Common Council of City of Mid- dletown v. Town Bd. of Town oi' Wallkill, 29 A.D.2d 561,286 N.Y.S.2d :369; el. People ex fei. Cherry VaI. Fire Protection Dist. v. City of Rockford, 120 Ill.App.2d 2/5, 256 N.E.2d ~53; Township of Owosso v. City of Owosso, 385 Mich. 587, 189 N.W.2d 421; Town of Mt. Pleasant v. City of Racine, 24 Wis.2d 41, 127 N.W.2d 757; Rea£snyder v. City of Warsaw, 155 Iud.App. 455, 293 N.E.2d 540). The statute provides that the territory to be annexed must be adjoining the munici- pality seeking annexation (General Munici- pal Law, § 7(]3; Matter of Common Council o£ C)'[) of Gioversville v. Town Bal. of Town of Johnstown, 32 N.Y.2d 1, 4, 342 N.Y.S.2d 84L 843, 295 N.E.2d 644, 645). The Court of Appeals has said that one of the ele- ments to be considered in an annexation proceeding is "whether or not the annexing local government and the territory to be annexed have the requisite unity of purpose and facilities to constitute a community" (Matter of Common Council of City of Glo- versville v. Town Bd. of Town of Johnstown, :32 N.Y.2d 1, ~, 342 N.Y.S.2d 841, 844, 2~5 N.E.fifl 644, 646, supra). Judged by this standard, the report of the Referees recommending annexation has merit. Nevertheless, a cautionary note must be added. Annexations of territories pose im- portant issues, beating on the proper geo- graphic and economic division of the bulk of land lying outside of centers presently served by the facilities necessary for land development. Piecemeal annexation, bene- fiting one property owner alone, may well result ultimately in municipal boundaries not in accordance with proper planning cri* teria. Hence, wherever possible, annexa- tion should not follow the fortuitous bound- ary lines of the land of a single owner who seeks immediate advantage to himself, but the broader lines of divisions based on the planning aspects of the annexation. 56 A.D.2d 9,'tO In the Matter of Robert W. DAMINO, Appellant, COUNTY OF NASSAU, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. March 28, 1977. Proceeding was brought pursuant to Article 78, inter alia, to prohibit county from hiring physician as medical director of county department of mental health. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed proceeding, and petitioner appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that county did not act unlawfully in em- ploying physician as medical director of county department of mental health pursu- ant to personal services contract, rather than filling position b7 appointment accord- ing to merit and fitness after competitive examination. Affirmed. 1. Officers ~=~11.1 Cnunty did not act unlawfully in em~ ploying physician as medical director of county department of mental health pursu- ant to personal sero/ecs contract, rather than filling position by appointment accord- ing to merit and fitness after competitive examination. Const. art. 5, § 6; Civil Ser- vice Law § 50; Laws 1936, c. 879. 2. Officers ~=~11.1 Although appointment according to standard civil service procedures is the rule, neither constitutional mandate nor statuto- ry enactment requires that all services fur- nished or all labor performed for govern- mental agency be supplied by persons di- rectly employed. 3. Injunction Injunctive relief would not be proper in proceeding to prohibit respondent county from hiri its depar persona', er failed 7802(c). pellant. (William and CO1 MEM, 78 inte~ dismiss~ Jud~ disburs~ of ape sponde claims Reich~r pointm York Civil S unla;; kith,~ dard, "neith tory furnis also p ty Go 712 1998, which dismissed the proceeding an:l. inter eli(,, declared that it isnot entitled ;o a mining permit for that portion of its property which is situated in the Town Pawling, Dutehess County. ORDERED that the judgment is timed, with costs. ,~kq noted in the prior appeal in this matter, the central issue in this litigation is "whether the respondent New York State Department of Em~ronmental Consem'a- tion (hereinafter the DEC), previously granted a mining permit oneompassing all or pm*t of the petitioner's 370-acre pm*eel located in the Town of Pawling, Dutchess County" (Matter of Patlers(m MaterioL~ Corp. v. Zagata, 237 A.D.2d 366, 367, 655 N.¥.S.2d 71). Upon our review of the record now before us, we ag2'ee with the Supreme Court that no such permit was ever issued by the DEC. Rather, record establishes that dm4ng the perti- nent pm%d, 1980 through 1981, the DEC merely renewed the petitioner's mining permit xvith respect to an adjacent :~acre pm*eel in the Town of Patterson, Putnam County. This conclusion is supported by the site~plan map submitted as part of the May 5, 1981, application to renew the per- mit on the Pumam County site, the cover- lng letter for the pmq'ait issued on May 1981, as well as by the permit itself, which states that "there is no mate14al change in permit conditions or scope of pe~m~it aetM- ties" (.see. ECL 70-011512]; ~,fntter of Fletcher G~vel Co. v. do,'lit~g, 179 A.D.2d 286, 583 N.Y.S.2d 329; Matter of GuptiIt Holding Corp. v. V~qlIiams, 140 A.D.2d [2, 531 N.Y.S2d 648; Matter of Atlantic Ce- ment Co. v. Williams, 129 A.D.2d 84, 516 N.Y.S.2d 523). An application to e~end mining to the 370-acre pm*cel in Dutehess County, dated July I0, 1980, had been referred to the Planning Board of the Town of Pawling (hereinafter the Planning Board). With DEC approval, the Planning Board kind been declared the lead agency for /:he purpose of review under the State ronmental Quality Review Act (see, ECL 694 NEW YORK Skil PLEMEN'I. 2d SERIES article ,% The petitioncv ri'lies on this application as proof of the issuance of a permit thc the 370-acre sit,. However, the application before the Plannin~ Bo~ was never ~'anted and was ~fldma~l~. abandoned by the petitioner. Therefor~ the petitioner's reliance on the application dated July 10, 1980, is misplaced. The petitioner's remaining eontenfiom m*e ~dthout me~t (see, ECL 70-0109141~. 204 A.D.2d 519 In the Matter of BOARD OF TRUST. EES, VILLAGE OF SPRING VALLEY, petitionen v. TOWN OF RAMAPO, et al., respondents; Yeshivath Kehilath Yakov of .Monsey, Inc., intervenor. Supreme Cmu't, Appellate Division, Second Department Aug. 30. 1999. Village sought approval of posed annexation of a 12-acre portion 18-acre island of town temdtory whicJ~ entirely smcrotmded by village Refm'ees were designated to hea~ the ter, and after they issued a recommending approval and a port recommending disapproval, lage moved to confirm the and the toxvn cross-moved t majority report. The pellate Division, held that since would allow the ~dllage to zoning designation, it wa~ not in all public interest. Motion denied, and minority report col EXHIBIT 26 Corporations of establishing that an annex- e overall public interest is on seeking the annexation. General Municipal Law § 712. )al Corporations determine whether a proposed is in the overall public interest, must weigh the benefit or detri- to the annexing municipality, to the to be annexed, and to I~ gox, ernmental unit from which the ter- ~ would be taken. McKinney's Goner* Mtmicipal Law § 712. Municipal Corporations Village's proposed annexation of a of a IS-acre island of which was entirely surrounded ;qlage territory was not in the overall interest where it would have aL the ;dllage to avoid the town's zon- ~itng designation of the island for detached BOARD OF TRUSTEES ~. TOWN OF RAMAPO 713 J., filed dissenting inamorata uet, N.Y. [Joel L. $chemert] of counsel), for petitioner. )dan M. Simon, To~m Attorney, Suffern, N.Y. (Janiee Gittelman and Michael L. Klein of eounseB, for respondents. WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, SANDRA $. FEUERSTEIN and NANCY E. SMITH. dj. and semi-detached residences, particularly ¢~nsiflering that there was no evidence that the land could not be developed as it was eum'ently zooed, that the to~m would likely lose revenue from annexation, that the sun'otmding area contained detached residences, and that not including the re~ maining six acres invited fmther repetitive annexation litigation. McKinney's General Municipal Law § 712. 4. 2qunieipal Corporations ¢='29(3) Annexation ma5' not be used as a means by which the owner of land in one municipality may escape the effect of that municipality's local legislation by having the land transferred to an adjoining munic- ipality. McKinnefes General Municipal Lay 5 lnfog Damast, Village Attorney (Seh\vamz, l,h~bb & Scheinert, PLLC, Nan- MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. Proceeding pursuant to General Munici- pal La;;- § 712 for annexation of certain territory in th,-= To,am of Ramapo by the Village of Spring Valley and to determine whether the annexation is in the overall public interest. This court, by order dated March 28, 1997, designated the Honorable Isaac Rubin, the Honorable Harold Wood, and the Honorable Guy Parisi, as Referees to hear and repurt their findings of facto and conclusions of law. The Referees have complied with this court's order, issu- ~ng a majority report, dated September 18, 1998 (Referees Ruble and Purisi), finding that the annexation is in the overall pubhc interest and recommending approving the annexation, and a mhmrity report dated September $0, 1998 (Referee Woad), find~ ing that the annexation is not in the overall public interest and recommending disap- proving the annexation. The petitioner moves to ccnfirm the magarity report and the respondent cross-moves to disaffirm the majority report. ORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is fro%her, ORDERED that the cross motion is granted; and it is further, ADJUDGED that the minerity report of Referee Wood is canfirmed, without eosk~ or disbursements, and it is adjudged that the proposed annexation is not in the over- all public interest. The pe:itioner Board of Trustees of the Village of Spring Valley (hereinafter the Village), commenced annexation proceed- ings seeMng to annex approximately 12 714 694 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES acres of land which lie within the Towm of Ramapo (hereinaRer the Town). The property sought to be annexed wis a por- tion of an R~-aere "island" of territory belonging to the Town which is entirely sm'rounded by territory belonging to the Village. The owner of the remaining slx- acre parcel did not join in this proceeding. The subject property is presently zoned R-15 by the Town, which allows, ir~ter alia, for single-family, detached residences on lots of 15.000 square feet and single- family, semi-detached residences on lots of 10,000 squm'e foot. The intervenor, Yeshi- vath Kehilath Yakov of Monsey, Inc., the owner of the subject property, wants to develop eight acres of the 12-acre parcel by constructing approximately 110 at- tached, five-bedroom residences, which would not currently be permitted in the Tox~m's R-15 zone. The intmwenor never applied to the Town for re-zoning of the pal'eel or a variance to accommodate the use it intends. The Village, in anticipation of annexation, has enacted an I{-5 zone which would permit the development of the t>~e of housing the intervenor seeks. The Village has never before had such a zoning designation, which is not consistent with the land use of those porLions of either the Village or the Toxxm that adjoin the subject parcel. Moreover, as of the date of this proceeding, no application had been made for developmen; under that zone. [1, 2] The burden of establishing that an annexation is in the overall public inter- est is on the municipality seeking the an- nexation (see, Matter of Board of Trustees of Vii. of YVar~,ick v. Town Bd. qf Tow% of Wameick, 244 A.D.2d 332, 663 N.Y.S.2d 297h To determine whether a proposed annexation is in the overall public interest, the court must weigh the benefit or alert/- merit to the annexing municipality, to the territow proposed to be annexed, and to the governmental unit from which the ret- r/tory would be taken (see, Board of Trust ees of Vii. of Pomona v. Towel of Ramapo, 171 A.D.2d 861,567 N.Y.S.2d 791). [:1,4} Appbing those prnciple~ tc the case at bar, the aneexation is not in the overall public interest. Annexation may not be used ~ a means by which owner of land in one municipality ~y eseape the effect of that mumcipalit~s cai le~slation by haxSng the [and tc~ ferred to an adjoining municipaliw (Ma ¢' Vil. of Skaneateles v. Town o~' Ska,~ roles, 115 A.D.2d 282, 496 N.Y.S.2d 1~). Here, no e~Sdence was presented indi~. lng that the land cannot be develo~d currently zoned. Additionally, the T~ ~,sessor ~stified that the Tmxm benefit financially if the property wa~ veloped Mthout annexation, bnt would revenue ~ it is developed under Vflla~ jurisdiction folloMng the proposed ation. Moreover, the m'ea surrounding subject parcel contains single-famib.~ twe-family detached residences wh~ woukl conflict x~Sth the intended R4 a~, The Village may not ase annexation de,See to avoid the duly-enacted and stitutionally-val~d zoning ordinance of T~wn. Finally. the proposed unnexa~ does not include ~he remaining slx arms the entire parcel, thus ~ting further petidve annexation litigation. The Village's remaining contentions x~Sthout merit. THOMPSON. J.P.. FEUERSTEIN~ SMITH, JJ.. concur. ALTMAN, fl., dissent~ and grant the motion, deny the eros* and eonfm the majo~ty repmX mending annexa~iom x~Sth the ~ conclude tha the petitioner burden of pro~(ng ~hat the nexation is in the overall publiC and therefore would eon~m the report of ~he Referee~. The benefim to the Village o~ Valley (hereinafter the af Ramapo (herein~er the To~ I 12-acre p~cel proposed m ~ ou~eigh any de~ment, ~nd the ViSage, ~ well ~ ~e ~ School D !y fl'O nl Iago. and onder x/il 1',.,'. 3;12. rile prop~ big hm s, ly The a', 2]3. 532 ~u',, i KENNEDY v. CITY OF YONKERS School District (hereinafter the ~ould benefit economical- i~e annexation. At present, the uwned by a not4or-profit reli- ant used for educational is mx-exempt. Akbough sewer ~xes are paid, the To~m, the V[b d the School District receive no t~ Devek>pment of the propm%, ~ Village zoning would ma~m~e the mx revenue for the To~m, Vil- and the School DisuSct (see, Matter of Trz~stc~ qf ~'it. of ~2neick v. of Towr~ qf Wa~nNck. 244 A.D.2d NY.S.2d 297). ~ile the Tn~xm would cec(ixe greater tax revenues if )roperU x~ ere developed under ks zen- laws. the Seh~,o~ D~suSet wou~d receive l(is revenue and the Village municipal scm-ices ~ql be essenti~- unaffected b:, the proposed annexation. The annexation of the pared would also k~bstantially eliminate the e~stence of an ~land of Toxtn property completely sur- rounded b3 \ illage property. Such "ha- mo, C,!4,c.i ot Cit? qf Middletowa Tou~i ~d. Qt ~cv~c~ qfWa[?kilL 143 A.D.2d 215, 532 N.Y.S.2d 17; Matter Qf Boacd Qf Trt.~tce. p. 7'()~{'~ Bd.. 5~ A.D.2d 928. 393 N.Y~S.2d 47: .~fc~tter qf Commo*~ Cou*~cil v ?'o~r~ Bd.. 29 A.D.2d 561, 286 N.Y.S.gd 369). Akhough an additional sA-acre par- cel ,)f Town prope~2y would still remain, it appsm's lik,qy that an application to annex that property would he made. The fact 5mhi(m doe~ not. under the circumstances, suggest ~hat anncxation is not in the public inu~rest. The remaining similarly-situated parcel is nmch smaller in size and its c~stcnce in no way minimizes the advan- maes t(, anaexation of the parcel herein. Municip~d l.ax~ ~ 712112] ). Th* i,a]'cei which is proposed to be an- nexed am/ the Village also have the requi- 715 site uniW of purt)ose to constitute a eom- munity (see, Matter of Comtaon Counc Cil~y of Gloversville e. Town Ed. qf of Johnstmm~. 32 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 342 N.Y.S.2d 841, 295 N.E.2d 644; Matter of Village of Etmsford v. Town of Greenburgt~ 164 AD.2d 914, 916, 559 N.Y.S.2d 750). As indicated, annexation would join the prop- mW to the surrounding Village. Further, residential development of the pared ts consistent ~4th ~be sm'rounding area (see, Matter of Board of Trustees of Vd` of Wa~vick v. Town Bd. of Town of Wameick, s~zpra, 244 A.D.2d, at 333-334, 663 N.Y.S.2d 297), In addition, the opportuni- ty afforded by ~he proposed annexation to develop tim properW ~4th multibedroom her(ms would satisfy the needs of a grow- ng segnnent of the population in the eom- munity, x2qfile the property could be de- veloped residentially under existing Toum zoning laws. the permissible constmmtion would not meet such community needs. Unquestionably, annexation woukt permit the property ox~mer to take advantage of the Village's less restrictive zoning laws, HoweYer, the numerous additional bene- fits--ma.xSmura aggregate tax revenues. the eventual elimination of an unnatural boundary, and the creation of housing for a groMng segnnent of the eommuniw--dis- tinguish this ease from Matter qfI'illage of Ska~eatelcs c. T~wn of Ska~eateles, 115 A.D.2d 282, 496 N.Y.S.2d 185, relied upon b;/my colleagues in the majority. 264 A.D.2d 507 James Wayne KENNEDY, etc., respondent, CITY OF YONKERS, appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Aug. 30, 1999. In action to recover damages fro' per- sonal injuries, the Supreme Court. West- VILLAGE OF SKANEATELES v. TOWN OF SKANEATELES 185 ~Fs proof did not conclusively rule out ~ by other black males. Furthermore, ~ HLA test here is inconclusive and of no ~ai~tance in helping to establish paternity. ]ge should give great weight and deference ~ the fact-finder's determination as to the e~hq~ility of witnesses (see Matter of Fer- ~.~on v. Gonyou, 110 A.D.2d 1084, 489 N.Y.S.2d 30; Matter of Karen K. v. Chri~- t~rpher D., 89 A.D.2d 955, 956, 454 N.Y. S3A 99; Matter of Su~an W. v. Amhad Q., (~ A.D.2d 594, 409 N.Y.S.2d 262, lv. denied 4~ N.Y.2d 1037, 416 N.Y.S.2d 587, 389 N.E.2d 1107). In his decision, the judge recognized the permissible inference that he was entitled t~ draw against respondent based upon her failure to testify. The court chose not to draw such a negative inference reasoning that: "In order to defend herself, [respon- dent] would have to show access by other men. There is the likelihood that such a defense would require the respondent to admit to prostitution. Since petitioner has already testified on this issue, against his interest, there is no reason why the respon- dent should be required to put in any more of a defense." Since the inference is clear- ly a permissible one which Family Court was aware of but chose not to apply, we should do likewise. Thus, in my view, the record supports Family Court's conclusion that petitioner did not carry his burden of pre;ving paterni- ty by a preponderance of the evidence. Order reversed on the law and facts without costs and petition granted. 115 A.D.2d 282 Matter of VILLAGE OF SKANEA~ TELES, New York, Petitioner, and Francis E. Sheehan, Intervenor, TOWN OF SKANEATELES, New York, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Nov. 15, 1985. Original proceeding for annexation was brought. The Supreme Court, Appel- late Division, held that annexation by vil- lage of property located in town to avoid restrictive effect of town's zoning ordi- nance would not be in overall public inter- est. Judgment for town. Doerr, J., fi]ed a dissenting memoran- dum. Municipal Corporations ~=~29(3) Annexation by village of landowner's property in te,wn would not be in overall public interest where sole reason for an- nexation was to avoid restrictive effect of town zoning ordinance. Edward W. Lavery, Skaneateles, for peti- tioner. Bryant, O'Dell & Basso, by John Bryant, Syracuse, for respondent. John M. Shannon, Skaneatoles, for inter- Before DILLON, PJ., and HANCOCK, DOERR, GREEN and SCHNEPP, JJ. MEMORANDUM: For the reasons stated in the report of the dissenting referee, Honorable John F. Lawton, J.S.C, we find that the annexation would not be in the overall public interest A~ noted in the dissent, the sole reason that the village and the intervening proper- ty owner seek annexation is to avoid the EXHIBIT 27 186 496 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d .~;ERIES restrictive effect of the Town Zoning Ordi- nance on the 2.852 acres of intervenor's proper~y situated in the town by removing the 2.852 acres from the town and adding it to the teraqtory of the village where the zoning ordinance is favorable. The town ordinance was duly enacted, and no ques- tion is raised as to its validity or constitu- tionality. We have found no precedent al> provhqg the use of annexation as a device by which the owner of land hq one munlci- pality may escape the effect of that munici- pality's local legislation by having the land transferred to an adjoining municipality. All concur, except Doom J, who dissents and votes to confirm the report, in the following Memorandum: I respectfully disagree. It is well settled that the burden of proof that annexation is in the overall public interest (General Mu- nicipal Law § 705, subd. 1, par. e) is on the municipality seeking the annexation (Mat- ter of Town2 of Lansing v. Village of Lan- sing, 80 A.D.2d 942, 438 N.Y.S.2d 29; Mat- ter of City of Ogden~burg v. Town of Oswegatchie, 76 A.D.2d 1012, 1013, 429 N.Y.S.2d 488, lv. denied 51 N.Y.2d 706, 433 N~Y.S.2d 1026, 413 N.E.2d 369). Testimo- ny adduced at trial supported the conclu- sion that the Village and the parcel to be annexed have sufficiently similar qualities to be considered inter-related, which sup- ports the finding that they have the requi- site unity of purpose and facilities to consti- tute a community (Matter of Common Council of City of Gloversville v. Town Bd. of Town of Johnstow~ 32 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 342 N.Y.S.2d 841, 295 N.E.2d 644). The record further demonstrates that the por- tion of the Town where this two-plus-acre parcel of land is located does not fit the ~aral ideal that the Town envisions, but is already commercially developed with gas stations, an automobile dealership and a beat yard. In my view, in support of the majority report of the referees, the trial testimony disehqsed that hq 1983 the Village construct- ed a waste water treatment plant that cost approximately $1.5 million, of which it bore approximately 10% of the cost. Obviously, annexation of the Town parcel would ex- pand the Village tax base and help pay for the waste wa~er tzeatment plant. While the net increase of tax revenues on the subject parcel might not be great, it is a benefit and should be considered (Town Bd. of Town of Brighton v. Cit~ Council of City of Rochester, 59 A.D.2d 1041, 1042, 399 N.Y.S.2d 793). To this issue the Term argues that an- nexation is not necessary for water and sewers to be provided to the Town parcel by the Village because the Town could create a sewer district to provide for these services utilizing the Village waste water treatment plant. However, the Town Su- pervisor testified that no new districts had been created since the Village treatment plant commenced operation, and, feasibility studies concerning the creation of sewer districts were just beg/nning. Clearly, the Town has net reached the stage where these services could be provided immediate- ly (see City of'Batavia v. Toum of Batavia, 45 A.D.2d 203, 357 N.Y~S.2d 277 fy. denied 35 N.Y.2d 644, 364 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 324 N.E.2d 370), nor was it indicated that such serwices would be available by the Town within the reasonably foreseeable future. The evidence further developed that if a Town sewer district was, hq fact, formed at some future date to serv/ce the subject property, the Town would be required to reimburse the Village for a pro rata share of the capital cost of the water treatment plant, but under annexation the Village would not recover capital costs. The bene- fit to the Town is apparent, especially since increased tax revenues on the subject proP- erty would not enure only to the Village, as above mentioned, but also to the Town. I agree with the majority finding of the referees that the Village has exemised a high degree of responsibility in const~uc%- lng a new sewage treatment plant and pro- viding the service to the Town. The Town has a concomitant obligation to encourag~ development to help pay for these se~v~ By adopting a low-density ~oning reqaiX~ ment the Town discourages development t~ the subject ~rea. Only one residence c~u]d wh, : '. ;: the ~'f insi }Il '-.[ dot: whi, ~,. mil ~.'~.:' tion a]lo ~ incr pa>' plat carl( res? tour of b id ay for While ~n the ~isa ,uztcii 1042, at an- r and parcel could these water m Su- ts had .tment ;ibility ~sewer iy, the where ~diate- tar/a, tenied 5, 324 t such Town 'uture. .t if a ned at ubject red to share :tment /illage ~ 'bene- .' since t prop- Town. of the 'ised a struct- ~d pro- Town ~urage trices. quire- ~ent in · could PEOPLE v. WHITE be built on the subject property under the Town zoning plan and it is questionable whether any building would toke place thereon since the plot is landlocked. I fail to see how the annexation of this relatively insignificant parcel of land would work as a detriment to the overall Town zoning plan, which covers an area of almost 40 square miles. Reviewing this record as a whole, it comes readily apparent that a major objec- tion of the Town in opposing this annexa- tion is the concern that, if annexation is allowed here, it will encourage others who own land similarly situated to intervenor's property to file petitions seeking annexa- tion and that the Village, greedy for the increased tax revenues which would help pay for its expensive sewage treatment plant, would be inclined to grant such appli- cations. This argument rests solely on speculation and has nothing to do with the overall public interest~ Each annexation petition must be considered on its own mer- its. Report of referees annulled without costs and judgment granted in favor of respondent adjudging that the annexation is not in the overall public interest. 115 A.D.2d 313 PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, Vernon WH. ITE, Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Nov. 15, 1985· Defendant was convicted in the County Court, Onondaga Count% Cunningham, J., of bail jumping in first degree, and he appealed. The Supreme Court., Appellate 187 Division, held that: (1) trial court correctly refused to admit evidence concerning de- fendant's culpable mental state; (2) evi- dence was sufficient to support finding of defendant's awareness of scheduled sen- tencing date; and (3) trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order new presentence investigation. Affirmed. 1. Bail ~97(1) Crime of first-degree bail jumping does not require proof of any culpable mental state. McKinney's Penal Law § 215.57. 2. Bail ~=~97(3) Evidence was sufficient to support finding that defendant convicted of first<le- gree bail jumping, McKinney's Penal Law § 215.57 was aware of scheduled sentenc- ing date, where it was uncontradisted that defendant's counsel had knowledge of sen- tencing date set for defendant. 3. Criminal Law ~:~730(7), 1171.3 Trial court's failure to strike argument of assistont district attorney that defend- ant had appeared in court on each occasion but date for sentencing was error, where there was no evidence in record supporting such argument, but under all circumstanc- es and in light of strong evidence of guilt error was harmless. 4. Criminal Law ~:~986.4(2) Trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order new presentonce investi- gation under McKinney's CPL § 390.20, subd. 1, in prosecution for first-degree bail jumping, McKinney's Penal Law § 215.57, where trial court had presentence investi- gation which it had used two months be- fore in sentencing defendant on burglary charge, in interim defendant had been con- tinuously confined, and court could be as- sured on sentencing for bail jumping that there was no new relevant information. McKinney's CPL § 390.20, subd. 1. Gerald T. Barth, Syracuse, for appellant. Richard Hennessy, Jr., by John Cirando, Syracuse, for respondent. o cD Figure B-4 Town of Southold Fire Districts Legend i~ Tax Parcel ~ Fire District Scale: I inch equals 9000 feet Map Created: May 2003 Map Prepared by Town of $outhold Geo~mphic Information System May 27, 2003 ---- EXHIBIT 29 ~: FD nport FD Fishers Island PROPERTY'~ ,, r So-2 S0-19 S0-2~ S0-22 SO EXHIBIT 31 § 24-0101 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATI0~ Art. Practice Commentaries by Philip Weinberg The Freshwater Wetlands Act, requiring a permit to alter or place fill in the state's freshwater wetland areas, should be considered in conjunction with its slightly eider sibling, the Tidal Wetlands Act, Article 25. Many provisions are parallel, The practitioner should note one major difference: the freshwater act may be enforced by localities. The state steps in only after local authorities fail to enact an ordinance protecting their wetlands, See § 24-0501 and the Commentaries thereto. In contrast, the Tidal Wetlands Act is administered wholly by the Department. As the strong legislative declaration of policy (§ 24-0103) and statement of fintlings (§ 24-0105) make clear, the Act constitutes a recognition by the Legislature of the vital importance of con- serving New York's remaining wetland areas, needed for storm and flood control, habitat propagation, se'wage disposal and re- creation. Cross References Tidal Wetlands Act. short title of, see ECL 25-0101. Law Review and Journal Commentaries GloBal warming and proper~y interests: Preserving coastal wetlands as ~ ~ rise Fi~chman. 19 Ho[srra LRe~ 565 (199[), Constnsction 1 Notes of Decisions favor of the landowner, people 1980, 104 Misc,2d 627, 1, Construction This article is in derogation of the corn- mon law and is to be strlctly censtraed in § 24--0103. Declaration of policy It is declared to be the public policy of the state to protect and conserve fresh, water wetlands and the therefrom, to prevent the despoliation and wetlands, and to regulate use and development secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetlands, the general welfare and beneficial economic, social and development of the state. (Added L.1975, c, 614, § l.) 336 EXHIBIT 32 Proposed ,Zoning Changes ~l HD to RSO LB to R80 Scale: I inch = 525 feet ~ DEC Wetland Areas Long Island Sound ~ P/O 045~2-10.5 ~' T~orr~s W. Crumcr, tYmcipal 476-6955 P,O. Box $995 l~ill~-_ p~,w,-, ~ Ym"k 11764 Telephone (516) 476 -0984 - ~ (516) August 11, 1999 Honorable Jean W. Cochnm, Supervisor Som~"qd Town ~ 53095 M~in Road Southnld, NY 11971 Re: County Route 4~ Corridor L~nd Us* Study SEQR Findings Statement Dzar Supervisor Cochran: Pleas~ find the attached draft of the SEQR Findings StalLm~nt for the County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study. One houmt copy and one original copy has been included for your review. The Findings Stateme~ has been prepare.~l puts, rant to the requirements of Part 617.11 of the State Environmental Quality Pa:view Act (SEQRA) regulations which state that no agency shall rnak~ a decision on an action which has been the subject of a Final GElS mil a written findings statemem has been prepared in regard to the facts and conclusions in the Draft. and Final GElS relied upon to support its decision_ It is important to note ,hat the Findings Statemem is in a dr~t form and, therefore, thc entire document should be reviewed in derail ~ m~endcxl as the Town Board deems appropriate. Two sections of the Findings Statement are ~nhy of particular review. These sections are the t'estatcrr~m of Recommendations and Opportunities (pages 4 through 9) and the Review and Implementation of Future Specific and Slte.,.~eclfic Actions Related to the Land Use Study (pages 14 thxough 16). Recommendations and Opportunities Th~ ze~omm~nel~t~,m from ~ ~ ~me 48 ~or ~ U~ S~y ~e ~t~ ~ C~ ~ th~q ~m ~~a*iOm ~1 ~ ~ subj~ of~blic co--cuts ~lud~ ~ e~t~n ~ ~r the Final GEIS ~or F~I Supplemental GELS. h ~ su~ ~t ~ To~ Bo~d ~w ~ ~t~n ~ derail ~ provue ~aait~ ~n or c~n ~ k ~ ~e~. Review and Implementation of Future Speci. fic and Site-Specific Actions Related to the land Use Study SEQRA rcgulalions 617.10(b) and (c) state that GEISs and their findings should set forth specific coudixious or crimria uu~r which future actions will b~ uudemiakeu or approved, is~iuding requlr~ments for any *ube~xluent SEQR compliant, lmpams of individual actions proposed to be carried out in conlbrmance with the Land Use Study The Town Code should be amended with respect to non-conforming uses. In certain areas, parcels can be found where the existing use does not conform with the existing zoning. In ce.scs where the usc became non-conforming due to a zone change, provisions can bc made to allow for limited expansion of llmt use or permit a change of use to a less intensive non-conforming use. Applicants requesting expansion or change of use could make site improvements aa rrdtigation for the request. These site improvements arc anticipated to improve the visual character of thc arc, aa well aa improve traffic flow and other undesirable effects of the non-conforming usc. As stated on pages 4-13 and 4-14 of the Final GELS, this recommendation allows for non-conforming businesses to change, grow and remain viable by permitting expansion and change beyond that which is commonly permitted. The recommendation is not limited to parcels located within the County Route 48 corridor, but instead is intended to be applied to parcels throughout the Town. Re-zone appropriate parcels adjacent to Mattituck Creek to MI and/or MI1 zoning category. The 1985 Master Plan Update (RPPW~, as well as other past Town of Southold plans and studies, recommends the cnlumccment of water-related recreational and commercial activities. Opportunities exist in the vicinity of Matfituck Creek to enhance marine recreational and marine business usage. Re- zoning of certain parcels would allow for viable commercial businesses to thrive while taking advantage of the Town's proximity to the water. Mattituck Creek is the only portion of the County Route 48 corridor that may be appropriate for such Pages 2 and 3 of the Supplemental Final GEIS acknowledged that the southern cad of Matfituck Creek cor~tainn ~¥~ro~llllcatal msolll'c~ that arc sc:usitive to developmenL It ia im,rmrtant to note that the recommendation for a change of zone does not commit the Town to a course of action ~t will result in adverse environmental impacts. Prior to the re-zoning of parcels consiztent with the Cotmty Route 48 Corridor Land Use Stud~ and the Maater Plah lJpdat~ the recommelldation to re-Zone should taadergo ~F.~R, review to detezl~l.Be that sufficient developable land exists on the site for reasonable development with appropriate mitigaIion measures. The ultimate development plan for thc site should undergo additio~l SEQR r~i~w and must take into account site-specific charac~risttcs inclurlin[~ but not limited to, site size, configuration, dralnsge, surrounding land use, noise, tr~ffi¢ and proximit~ to wetlands. Specific mitigation m~stu~ includln5 site desi~ constraints and limited permitted uses would bc appropriate at that time. Preserve the Integrity of the Town's vegetative habltat~, Including freshwater The recommendations to promote incentive zoning and clust.~ring may be ns~d to continue to pre. serve fr~hwu~r w,:tlands, woodlands and other ecologically impomant habitats. It may be appropriate to re-zone parcels containing or adjacent to these habitats to allow for lower impact uses. PmlX)sals to implement inccntive zoning and non-contiguous clustering should undergo SEQR review and public comment period to identify potential advcrse environmcntal impacts prior to implementation. Modify the Town Code to allow other uses in vineyards under special ~xemptlon/$pecial permit. Additional uses including restaurants and bcd & b[eakfasts may be allowed under special exemption/special permit as long as yield is provided from other paxcels. Tiffs recommendation is intended to draw consumers into the Town of Southold by promoting thc Town as an agricultural and winemaking region. The recommendation does not sugge~ the sale of non-agricultural products that would otherwise be more appropriately sold in other zoning &stricts or the sale of ~ake- out food. ModO~y the Town Code to limit curb cuts to one per stte unless unusual circumstances exist. An increase in thc number of curb cuts typically ha~ a negative impact on traffic flow. By limiting the number of curb cuts, particularly along County Route 48 and Sound Avenue, impacts to traffic flow arc anticipated to be limited. Require links between the parking areas of commercial operations to allow for vehicle movement between adjacent estahlishmtnts. This recommendation can be applied at the time of site plan review for appropriate sites. The rexlulrement will have the effect of reducing thc number of vehicles entering and exiting County Route 48 and Sound Avenue. Require that s~bdh~2ed residential lots access slde roads and not directly to County Route 48, where approprb~_;: As hotel earlier, an incma.~ int~e number of crab cuts geutnally has a negative impact on the flow of traffic. This recommendation in effect reduces thc number of curb cuts on County Route 48 and Sound Avenue. Where appropriate, consider the use of. flag lots wllh common drives for resldtn~ial development. Similar to the recommendation above, the use of common drives effectively rcduc~s the number of cttrb cuts on County Route 48 and Sound Avenue. Summary of Changes in Land Use Characteristics As a Result of Proposed Re-Zonings NOTE: Estimates do not figure roads, drainage, parking, etc. Computations arc based on a straight arithmetic computation based on percent of lot coverage for the commercial zonings and minimum lot size for residential zonings, as allowed in the code. Actual yield under a detailed site plan and~or subdivision may be less, When several uses are allowed in a zoning dish-ici the uses allowing the greatest coverage was chosen. When yield/density is based on having certain site improvements, utilities, etc. available on site it was assumed these requirements were fulfilled. Estimated quantities represent maximum potential yield. This estimate does include any wetland areas that may be found on site, actual development would exclude those area. Manituck IA LB RS0 23.41 203,947 70.45 613,761 1.46 19,079 25,440 4 41 56,322 37,549 3 47 45,346 30,230 335 59,982 15 39 Mattituck lB LIO R80 Mattituck 2A LI HB Manituck 2B LI RO Mattituck 2C LI LB Matfituck 2D Ll R40 6 Mattituck 2E B RO [ I 11 14,506 9.67 I Mattimck 2F g & R40 Mil i-- ~:}~ i !),75! 78,016 6 Mattituck 2G R40 RO 1.42 12,371 3 Peconic IA B RO i 1.36 17,772 11,849 Peconic lB B LB :~ 3.18 41,556 27,704 Peconic 2A R40 RO i 4.3 37,462 6 Peconic 2B R40 HB i 3.21 55,931 5 Peconic 2C LI HB 1.79 23,392 31,189 Peconic 2D R80 HB Peconic 2E R80 RO Southold I LB RO Southold 2A AC RO _L~B .............. 5c ...... 1 8,712 I 2 11 t 8,383 18,383 1t.75 ' 32,670 3 7 60,984 ~ 60,984 Seuthold 2B LB RO Southold 2C LI AC 4 52.272 ' 3 Southold 3 Southold 3 LB Southold 4A LB Southold 4B B Southold 4C B 8 Southold 6 Southold 5A B LB t 13.31 173,936 i 115,957 Southold 5B B RO I 2.12 27,703 18,470 B RO 11.06 96.355 i 96,355 LB I 0.92 · 12,023 : 8015 RO ~ 5.96 ' 77,886 51,925 ' 4 RO ~_ ,62 ~- HD RS0 ~ LB&ED RS0 I 3096 R40 : RS0 419 HD , RS0 11.5 LB : RS0 11.6 HD RS0 ~ 2.61 lA 60,374 : 40,249 ~ 81'* 9?* 6 6 ! 50** 6 101,059 I 6 ! I1'* 2 17952~969 813t488 264 120 TOTALS I [ 27.2.74 * - Includes Industrial, Office, and Business Uses. ** - Multi-Family Units. F TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY ROUTE 48 CORmDOR LAND USE STUDY Prepared for: The Town Board of the Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southotd, New York 11971 Jean W. Cochran William D,Moore Supervisor Deputy Supervisor Lousia P, Evans Alice J Hussie William D.Moore Brian C. Murphy John M. Romanelli Councilwoman Councilwoman Councilman Councilman Councilman Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Prepared by: Cramer Consulting Group, Inc. P.O. Box 5535 Miller Place. New York 11764 Principal Authors: Thomas W, Cramer. ASLA Kenneth Weiner APRIL 1999 EXHIBIT 35 -- most of County Route 48 go through a transition in this area to more residential, with large trees lining the roadway. Greenport Hamlet Parcels to the north of County Route 48 between Albertson Drive and Moore Lane are primarily developed for residential use. Many of these parcels front directly on Long Island Sound. Within this same area, two hotels and one condominium complex take advantage of the views of Long Island Sound. Some of the parcels within 1,000 feet to the south of County Route 48 are within the jurisdiction of the Village of GreenporL These parcels are not within the scope of this study. Of the parcels to the south of County Route 48 between Albertson Drive and Moore Lane that are not within the Village of Greenport, most are vacant or in residential use. San Simeon nursing home and Eastern Long Island Kampgrounds are also located in this area. It is important to note that many of the parcels south of County Route 48 and west of Moore Lane are zoned HD and contain freshwater wetlands vegetation. Due to the proximity to the wetlands, these parcels may be more appropriately zoned to lower density. residential uses. East of Moore Lane to the end of the study corridor at Manhasset Avenue, land use involves a mix of low, medium and high-density residential housing. Pheasant Run is a multi-family development located at the southeast comer of County Route 48 and Moore Lane. Four small commemial uses are located within the corridor, fronting on either Champlain Place or County Route 48. Vacant parcels zoned LB and RO have the potential to change the existing character of the area from hmnlet residential to a more unplanned mix of commercial and residential. The LB parcel contains a large mansion that would be more appropriately zoned R-80. 33 R~/!EW OF HAMLET DENSITY ZONING IN SOUTHOLD TOWN Report to the Town Board February 1994 EXHIBIT 36 #40-3~1 Lo_~cation: South Side County Route 48, more than 1000' east of Chapel Lane, Greenport Acr_~: 17.1 acres Zoning Histor~ : Year Rezoned: 6.13.58. The original petition was to change the zone from "A" Residental and Agricultural to "B" Business. Between Januar~ and May of 1958, the applicant changed his request to "M" Multiple Residence, which was subsequently granted. The file does Rot indicate why the property owner asked for the change of zone, nor why the Town Board granted the recfuest. Ownership History / Year Acquired / Miscellany *Kace Realty Co 3-10-82 Transfer sub- ject to $184,000 mort- gage Kontakosta 3-10-82 Sanzone (Smith Est) ? Brereton ?-?-79 H. Smith & Ano Sledjecki 1/4 interest (which was sold to Sanzone in 1982 for ?-?-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 ~EATURES AND LIMITATIONS: There is little environmental information in the site plan file. A review of the aerial photograph reveals this to be a heavily wooded parcel which appears to drain in a southerly direction. The topography drops off to the south from 35 feet above sea-level near County Route 48, to about 10 feet at its southernmost point. The property may have freshwater wooded wet- lands on or within close pro×~m~ty0 ~~ LAND USES AND ZONING: The property is currently bounded on the north by CR 48; the west and south borders by Land owned and zoned by the Village of Greenport as PD or Parkland, and the east border by land zoned R-80. North of CR 48, lies an R-80 district, which contains residential waterfront homes. Within 500 feet of the perimeter of this parcel (but not contiguous) there are properties zoned RR and BI). The RR properties to the northwest, diagonally across CR 48, contain motel and resort condominium uses, along with one residential use and an unfinished mo- tel. San Simeon Nursing Home, which is zoned HD, is about 800 feet to the west. The remainder of the HD property to the west is mostly undeveloped, and is one of the parcels under review (Parcel ~7). The KOA Kampground lies due east at a distance of about 500 feet. STA~3S OF DEVELOP~_~NT: APPROVALS .ai~D INFRASTRUCTURE: On July 11, 1983, the Planning Board granted size plan approval to construct 108 dwelling units in 27 build- ings. The property owner has yet to obtain goverumen- tal approvals for water, sewer and curb cuts. No building permits are known to have been issued. PUBLIC POLICf: .~ithough the subject parcel is adjacent to land owned by the Zncorporated Village of Greenporc, 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 P9 in 1987, in response to directives from the State of New York's Department of Environmental Conse~;ation. The PD district is defined as follows: "An area reserved for recreational and firea%atic use by the citizens of the Village of Greenport as regulated by the Park Local Law, and in which Village utilities and other p~blic uses may be maintained and expanded." The only uses permitted within this disnrict are: 1) Nature trails 2) Sports playing fields 3) Firematic events 4) Utility facilities including necessary appurtances but not limited to: 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 concentrate its highest density residentiaL use on the subject parceL. Further, this parcel is not within walking distance of the Village hamlet, and the necessary utilities do not seem to be assured at this time. For these reasons, intense development of the site does not seem to meet with the Goals and Policy objectives of the Comprehen- sive or Master Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The site could be developed in a manner not requiring multiple density uses. Rezoning to a lower density is reco~ended. -i Master Plan Update Summary Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York Town of Sour. hold Planning Board Raymond, Parish, P~ne, & Weiner, Inc. Planning Consultants Tarrytown, New York April 1985 EXHIBIT 37 Ill dunes, mandatory clustering is recommended to assure n of these features. ~r, since most of this area is dependent on ground water ~ividual wells, very careful consideration has to be given ~ impact of any proposed development on the ground water ty and quantity. s in these areas would be primarily residences with a contin- ~ion of agricultural activities wherevgr feasible. Residential The Plan proposes that the major hamlet centers continue to be the residential-business-service centers of the Town. These are also the areas where the Plan reflects the primary effort to provide lower cost housing. For purposes of the Plan, the major hamlet centers are Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold and Orient. New Suffolk, Laurel, Peconic and East Marion and Fishers Island are also included as hamlet centers. Each of the hamlet centers, particularly the major hamlet cen- ters, can be characterized as a small residential community comprising a variety of uses and activities, the density of which is dependent primarily upon the level of utility services, characteristics of existing developmenm and the ability to provide moderate cost housing. Greenport, which of course is a separate village, can also be thought of as functioning as a hamlet center. The residential portions of these hamlets (non-residential areas are defined below) can offer opportunities for more intensive and varied housing than in most of the remaining residential areas of the Town. The Hamlet Density ar~as are not shown on the Town-wide plan map, since in the future, sites will[ become eligible for these higher densities on the basis of three criteria: location relative to the hamlet business area, availability of utilities and provision of moderate cost housing. There are areas shown in the hamlet density residential category on individual hamlet maps indicating locations where multiple dwellings have already been constructed and/or parcels for which M-Zone approval has been given that are contiguous to the hamlet central business area. Each of the major hamlets has a business center. Generally, the one acre density for residential uses will be retained as the base in the hamlet center areas and within the radius of approxi- mately one-quarter mile from the hamlet business district of Orient and one-half mile from the hamlet business districts of Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold hamlet areas, and one-half mile from the Village of Greenport boundary, a higher density can be applied for only if the criteria outlined here are met. This pro. rides for a reasonable size hamlet community for purposes of planning, for provision of service, interaction among residents and access to various activities. In order to develop properties for residential uses within this area at a density greater than the base density, an approved central water supply is required, and a sewage treatment facility or connection to a sewer system would be needed. Thus, if public water service and sewage treatment were not available, the maximum density permitted would be two units per acre or 20,000 square foot lots for conventional subdivision. If public water and sewage treatment were available, then areas designated as Hamlet Density could be developed at densities up to four units per acre. To reach maximum indicated densities around the hamlet centers some expansion of the Greenport water and/or sewage treatment systems may be required or the creation of new water supply and distribution systems and sewage treatment systems will be neces- sary. However, the maximum Hamlet ~ensity development (four units per acre) would be permitted only where necessary utilities are in place or can be assured and where there is the provision of moderate cost housing. The Hamlet Density category is also designed to support the establishment of innovative techniques for getting the optimum use out of existing housing. This could include approaches such as the creation of accessory apartments in homes where owners occupy the premises, appropriate utilities are available and sites are of sufficient size. Lower cost housing can also be achieved by permitting residences on upper floors of commercial buildings in the business areas. Residential/Office Areas in the category of Residential/Office have been designated in the hamlets of Mattituck, Southold and Cutchogue. This designation has been used primarily for areas that are currently in mixed use along major roads, but which are not aDpropriate for commercial or exclusively residential use. These areas serve as a transition between more intensive and less intensive uses. The parcels are generally smaller than those in the office-industrial park category. Residential use will be permitted in these areas at a density~ of one unit per acre. Nonresidential uses such as business and professional offices, insurance sales and real estate offices are accommodated in these areas. Impa~~ Draft Generic Environmental Statement SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO~VN BOARD Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Volume I of II MAY 2003 ! ! EXHIBIT 38 Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS Single family and multiple dwellings previously required Special Exception approval by the ZBA. Thc amendments to the General Business (B) District code also added the following to the list of permitted uses and will not require site plan approval by the Planning Board for these uses: one-family detached dwelling not to exceed one dwelling on each lot; and, two-family dwelling not to exceed one dwelling on each lot (which must be occupied by the owner of the property). In addition, the density and minimum lot size requirements were amended to require larger mimmum lot size for residential use. The code previously required Special Exception approval by the ZBA for one-family detached dwellings and did not explicitly permit two-family dwellings. These code amendments indirectly may also allow the addition of apartments as accessory uses in the RO District, which currently allows apartments over businesses and professional offices by Special Exception. As a result, the legislation would make such apartments a permitted use in the specified zoning districts, presumably providing an incentive for their construction. Such apartments would still have to meet Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) density requirements for combined commercial and residential uses, which may limit the number of potential units. This measure has been adopted as a part of the Town's overall commitment to addressing affordable housing issues, an important Town goal and part of the Town's comprehensive plan. The adoption of these changes did recognize that improvements can be considered in the future in connection with transfer of development rights under a regional TDR plan reviewed by the Town under S EQRA (see Tool # 12), and possible provisions to ensure that apartments are affordable. AHD District Review - The Affordable Housing District (Al-ID) does not create a permanent supply of affordable dwelling units. Rather, it creates a tentative supply of mid-cost housing that can be bought and later sold on the open market for whatever the market will bear. As a result, the Town Is constantly faced with the need to find developers willing to use funds from Federal, State and other programs to offset the rising cost of new land. Incentives for the rehabilitation of existing housing and the creation of rentals must be provided, as well as for new construction. The target population for AHD must be more carefully defined because currently it does not provide housing for low income residents. Further, the ordinance needs to incorporate alternative approaches such as Community Land Trusts. Finally, the affordability parameters and scale must be amended to reflect changing economic conditions and relate to an appropriate sliding index. B~-and-Breakfast Establishments - Bed-and-Breakfast's, or B&B's, are popular for overnight accommodations. B&B's typically involve the conversion or construction of up to five bedrooms w~thin a home for guest usage. Homes can be located in any setting, while larger, older homes in historic settings or with unique architectural features have been converted to B&B's. In recent years, several new B&B's have been constructed specifically for this purpose. As the name implies, a fee is paid to the proprietor for overnight lodging and break2'ast the next morning. Distinctive B&B's provide an attt'active small town alternative to larger commercial motels. A B&B can also provide revenue and employment to the homeowner, thus offsetting high housing costs and real estate taxes. However, B&B's increase the level of activity on a site above that ora Page 1-26 Archaeologically Sensitive Areas Legend Archaeologically Sensitive Areas ~Tax Parcel Scale: 1 inch equals 9000 feet Map Updated: 2002 Map Prepared by Town of Southold Geographic Information System May 28, 2002 Suffolk County Real Propert7 Tax Service Agency GIS Basernap COPYRIGHT 2002~ County of Suffolk, N,Y. EXHIBIT 39 SUBJECT pROPERTY-~ Fishers Island Town of Southold Long Zsland New York FINAL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LOCAL WATERFRONT REVZTALIZATION PROGRAM November 2004 Benefits of an LWRP Synopsis Table of Contents Introduction and Acknowledgements Table of Maps Section ! Waterfront Revitalization Area Boundary Readers Guide Section !! Inventory and Analysis A. !ntroduction B. Planning Framework C. Land Use and Development D. Public Access and Recreation E. Natural Resources F, Historic Resources G. Archaeological Resources H. Scenic Resources !. Development Constraints 3. Reach Analysis - !ntroduction Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5 Reach 6 Reach 7 Reach 8 Reach 9 Reach 10 Summary and Conclusions Section !!! Waterfront Revitalization Policies Section !V Harbor Management Section V !mplementation Section V/State and Federal Actions and Programs section V/! Consultants Glossary of Acronyms section V/Z! Local Commitment References LWRP Consistency Assessment Form H_ost of the~ LWRP documents_aJ~n~ a ~df file format Printed copies, CD's and related maps are available at the South01d Town Community Libraries. and the Town of Southold Clerk's Off";ce Return to Top Web Site Hosted courtesy of ~1/3;)~ Fork ~'/~ti~lz~ Web Site Designed and Maintained by the Southold Town Data Processing D~_partment This is the official webslte of the Southold Town Hall EXHIBIT 40 '--- Town of Southold Local Wate~Revitalization Program Reach 6 Source: Town of Southold Geological Information System, August 2002 There is relatively little protected open space within this Reach. The largest block of protected land lies on the southeast comer of Hashomomuck Pond. Known as the Peconic Land Trust Cassidy Preserve, this 56+ acre property runs from the Pond to Albertson's Lane. The marsh and upland immediately adjacent to the Pond is about 23.24 acres in size. In 1997, this portion of the property was given to the Peconic Land Trust to be kept as a preserve. That same year, the Town purchased the development rights to the remaining 32.98 acres of farmland, which runs from the preserve to Albertson's Lane. Most of the remainder of the open space within this Reach can be found in small clustered open spaces or parks connected with residential subdivisions~ The County owns a 1.8-acre parcel on CR 48 that appears to be reserved for road drainage purposes. It should be noted here that the Village of Greenport owns land within Reach 6 that is a designated park. Known as Moores Woods, this park land eencompasses 192.3 acres of woods and wooded wetlands, which drain to the southeast into Pipes Cove. The Town's Community Preservation Project Plan (CPPP), which was adopted in July of 1998, aims to protect the open, agricultural and scenic qualities of Southold Town. It targets all A-C zoned lands larger than 10 acres in size. Most of this acreageland, some 277 acres, is in agricultural production. Additional details are provided in Section II.B. Planning Framework, 13. The Community Preservation Program Plan. To be more specific to Reach 6, while there is little agricultural land left in this reach, much of it has been designated for preservation. The largest blocks of land targeted for acquisition lie on either sides of Hashomomuck Pond. Much of the property on the west side of the Pond up to the subdivision of Long Pond Estates is still in agricultural production. Of the 307 acres in agricultural production, only 29 (9%) is protected. On the east side of the Pond, the CPPP has targeted for preservation all the undeveloped land within the Reach that lies between the Pond and the eastern border. While some of this property is still being farmed, much of itost has reverted to meadows, old fields and emergent woods. A significant portion of the land lying between Albertson Lane and Chapel Lane contains is woods and freshwater wetlands. Known as the Arshamornaque Wetland Preserve, this particular area is the largest expanse of freshwater wetlands and wooded wetlands in the Town. In 1997, the Supervisor of the townCochran launched a major initiative to remove XX 241 acres from the threat of development. With the backing and support of The Nature Conservancy, the Town persuaded a private foundation to launch the preservation initiative by contracting to purchase an eight acre piece at the southeast comer of the Preserve. Since that time, an additional 126.6 acres have been purchased using Town and Cmmty funds. South of SR 25, the CPPP recommends the preservation of the extensive marsh that drains Moores Woods and Pipes Neck. Preservation of the lands around Hashomomuck and eastward to the Village boundary will achieve two ends: protection of rare and threatened habitat and species that are unique to this area, and much needed recreation and open space between the still Section H - Inventory & Analysis J. Reach 6 - 23 § 272-a ZONING AND PLANNIN(; 8. Envir,:mmcntal reviews. A town comprehensive plan, and amendment thereto, is snbject to the provisions of the state cnvim~ mental quality review act under article eight of the en;ironmcm~ conservation]aw and its implementing regulations. A to~tncom~ hensive plan may be designed to also se~we as, or be accompanied a generic environmental impact statement pnrsuant to the environmental quality review act statute aod regulations. No compliance with such law is required for subsequent Site s~h, actions that are in conformance with the conditions and thrcsho~ estab{ished for snch actions in the generic environmental impm~ statement and its findings. 9. Agricultural review and coordination. A town comprc[ p/an and any amendments thereto, for a town containimz all or of an agricnltural district or lands receiving agricultural within its jurisdiction, shall continue to be subject to thc pr(n isiom article twenty-five-AA of the agricuhure and markets hm rc[atin~ the enaclment and admiuistration of local laws, ordinances. regulations A newly adopted or amended towncomprchcnsi~e shall ~akc into consideration applicable county agricultm al and land protection plans as created under article twentx lixc-AAA tff agriculture and markets taw. 10. Periodic review. The town board shall provide, as a nent nf such proposed comprehensixe plan, the maximum intem~ at which the adopted plan shall be reviewed. 11. Effect of adoption of the town comprehensive phm. toxin land ~se regulations must be in accordance with a comp~ sive plan adopted pursuant to this section. (b~ Ali plans for capital projects of another governmental on land included in the town comprehensive plan adopted pu~ to this section shall take such plan into consideration. 12. Filing of town comprehensive plan. The adopted tow~ ~'~ prehensive plan and any amendments thereto shall be filtd ~ office of the town clerk and a copy thereof shall bc filed m t~ of the county planning agency. (Added L.1~;93, c. 209, ~ l; amended L.1995, c 418. ~ 4: L.1997. t' ~ 22. eff Julx I, [998.) Historical and Statutory Notes Derivation Former§ 272-a, added L.1938, c 264, § I; amended L 1990~ c. 260, § 5: re- pealed LI993 c 209.§ I. 424 [ EXHIBIT 41 BOARD OF TRUSTEES v, TOWN OF RAMAPO 791 tricts and county, while village could not la the Matter of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES, VILLAGE OF POMONA, Petitioner, The ToWN OF RAMAPO, et al., Respondents (Proceeding No, l/. In the Matter of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES, VILLAGE OF POMONA. Petitioner, The TOWN OF HAVERSTRAW, et al., Respondents (Proceeding No. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. March 25, 199I. Village initiated proceeding to annex territoW in two towns. On motion to disaf- fi~ referees' report and cross motSon to confirm referees' report recommending de- nial of annexation, the Supreme Court, At> pellate Division, held that proposed annexa- tion was not in public interest. Report confirmed. 1. Municipal Corporations ~29(3) To determine whether proposed annex- ation is in overall public interest, court must weigh benefit or detriment to annex- ing municipality, to territory proposed to be annexed and to remaining governmental units from which territory would be taken. MeKinney's General Municipal Law § 712. 2. Municipal Corporations ~:~33(6) Burden of establishing that annexation is in overall public interest is on municipali- ty seeking annexation. McKinney's Gener- al Municipal Law rx 712. a. Municipal Corporations ~29(3) Proposed annexation by village of land l~ing within two towns was not in the public interest, where development pro~ posed by towns would significantly in- crease land's assessed value and would generate substantial real estate and sales tax revenues for towns, local school dis- specify what, if anything, it intended to do with the parcels. McKinney's General Mu- nicipal Law § 712. Reuben Ortenberg, Pmnona Village Atty., Suffem, and Cooper, Erring, Sav- age, Nolan & Holler, Albany (Thomas W. Peterson, of counsel), for petitioner (one brief filed). Granik, Silverman, Sandberg, Campbell, Nowieki & Resnik, New City, (Rieki H. Berger, of counsel), and Alan Simon, Rama- po Town Atty., Sufforn (Michael L. Klein, of counsel), for respondents lone brief filed). Before THOMPSON, J.P, and ROSENBLATr. MILLER and RITTER, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. Two proeeedings pursuant to General Municipal Law § 712 for annexation of eer- tain territory in the To,~ms of Haverstraw and Ramapo by the Village of Pomona and to determine whether the annexations are in the over-aB public interest. This court, by orders dated Deeember 14, 1987, and February 16, 1988, respectively, designated John R. King, Howard Miller, and Frank Bowers, as Referees to hear and report their findings of fact and conclusions of law. Upon the consent of the parties Aar- on Klein was substituted for Howard Mil- ler. The referees have complied with this court's orders, issuing a unanimous report, dated May 3, 1990, finding that the annexa- tions are not in the over-all public interest and recommending the denial of annexa- tion. The petitioner moves in both proceed- ings, inter alia, to disaffirm the referees' report. The respondents in both proceed- ings cross-move to confirm the referees' report. ORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further, ORDERED that the cross motion is granted; and it is further, ADJUDGED that the report of the ref- erees is confirmed, without costs or dis- 792 bursements, and it is adjudged that the proposed annexations are not in the over-all public interest. The petitioner, Village of Pomona, com- menced two separate annexation proceed- ings seeking to annex approximately 166.8 acres of land, 8?.5 of which lie within the Town of Haverstraw and 79.3 of which lie within the Town of Ramapo. Pursuant to General Manicipal Law § 712 this court designated three referees to hear and re- port upon the issue of whether the pro- posed annexations are in the over-all public interest. After a hearing, the referees unanimously concluded that the proposed annexation was not in the public interest. We concur with that finding. [1, 2] To determine whether a proposed annexation is in the over-all public interest, the court must weigh the benefit or detri- ment to the annexing municipality, to the territory proposed to be annexed, and to the remaining governmental units from which the territory would be taken (see Matter of City of Saratoga Springs v. Town of GreenyTeld, 34 A.D.2d 364, 312 N.Y.S.2d 4; Matter of City Council of City of Mechanicville v. Town Bd. of Town of Halfmoon, 32 A.D.2d 152, 300 N.Y.S.2d 398; affld, 27 N.Y.2d 369, 318 N.Y.S.2d 307, 267 N.E.2d 96). The burden of establishing that the annexation is in the over-all public interest is on the municipali- ty seeking annexation (Matter of City o/ Ogdensburg v. Town of Oswegatchie, 76 A.D.2d 1012, 429 N~Y.S.2d 488). In addi- tion, under General Municipal Law § 712, this court has a duty to make its own adjudication and determination, after re- viewing the referees' report and the record, and after hearing oral argument. "While the report of the Referees is not binding on this court * * * their recommendations are entitled to great weight" (Common Coun~ cil of City of Glens Falls v. Town Bd. of Town of Queensbury, 30 A.D.2d 577, 578, 289 N.Y.S.2d 471). [31 Most of the evidence adduced at the hearing concerned a 52-acre plot within the proposed annexation territory, straddling the Towns of Haverstraw and Ramapo, which is partially a disused sand and gravel 367 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, OSERIES mine and partially wetlands. presented evidence that they would permit development of this parcel as a 250,009_ square foot community shopping center, which would significantly increase the land's assessed value and would generate substantial real estate and sales tax reve- nues for the Towns, the local school dis. triers, and the County. It would also crease local employment opportunities. In contrast, the Village could not specify what, if anything, it intended to do w~th this or any of the other parcels it is seeking to annex, with the result that it has not carried its burden of establishing that pro- posed annexation would be in the overall public interest (cf, City of Auburn Town of Sennett, 79 A.D.2d 1105, 435 N.Y. S.2d 855). We note that there are other considera- tions which do not favor annexation. For example, the Towns produced evidence that commercial development was consistent with the character of the area as it had evolved, and for which it is currently zoned, while the Village, which permits only residential development, would ac- quire a parcel of land which is concededly unsuitable for residential development. In- deed, the Village's master plan expressly disavows the need for, as well as the desir- ability of, any commercial facilities within its boundaries, with the result that there is no "unity of purpose" between the Village and the territory ir wishes to annex (Com- mon Council of City of Gloversville v. Town Bd. of Town of Johnstown, 32 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 342 N.Y.S.2d 841, 295 N.E.2d 644). In addition, the annexation would result in an unnatural boundar3', in that approximately a 68-acre portion of the Town of Haverstraw would be completely encircled by the Village of Pomona (,}fatter of Common Council of City of Middte- town v. Town Bd. of Town of Wallkili 29 A.D.2d 561,286 N.Y.S.2d 369). Annexatioa would not benefit the subject parcels with regard to municipal services, as the Town~ currently supply these to both the Villas~ and the annexahon territory, and weald continue to do so were annexation to oee~x (cf, Matter of Town of Lansing v. Villa~ DORODEA AND S. BLDG. CO., INC. v. STATE of Lansing, 80 A.D.2d 942, 438 N.Y.S.2d 29). Finally, the Village may not use nexation to subvert the development of an ~ljoining municipality's property pursuant to a lawfully enacted zoning ordinance (cf, Matter of Village of Skaneateles v. Town of Skaneateles, 115 A.D.2d 282, 496 N.Y. $.2d 185). We have examined the Village's remain- ing contentions and find them to be without merit, 793 savings account, mortgagee was not autho- rized to use full monthly rental payments received for payments of mortgage indebt- ,~dness, and thus, upon State's acquisition of premises, amount due mortgagee was not reduced by amount that monthly rental exceeded amount due each month under mot[gage. Dominick Sorrentino, Valhalla, for appel- lant. McCarthy, Fingar, Donovan, Drazen & Smith, White Plains (William F. Maereery and Robert M. Redis, of counsel), for re- spondent-respondent. 171 A.D.2d 866 In the Matter of DORODEA AND S. BUILDING CO., INC., Appellant, STATE of New York, Respondent; Marine Midland Bank, Respondent-respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. March 25, 1991. In proceeding to distribute funds on deposit for State's appropriation of real property formerly owned by mortgagor, the Court of Claims, Lengyel, J., ordered the State to release a certain sum to mort- gagee, and mortgagor appealed. The Su- preme Court, Appellate Division, held that mortgagee's recovery would not be reduced by the amount that the monthly rental of the mortgaged premises exceeded the amount due each month under the mort- gage. Affirmed. Eminent Domain ~154 Under mortgage agreement whereby rental payments from mortgaged premises were deposited into savings account and mortgagee was authorized to deduct re- quired monthly mortgage payments from Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KUNZEMAN~ KOOPER and HARWOOD, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. In a proceeding pursuant to EDPL 304 to distribute funds on deposit for the State's appropriation of real property formerly owned by the claimant, the claimant ap- peals from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), entered April 18, 1989, as, after a hearing, directed that the New York State Comptroller release the sum of $52,851.16 with interest, and attorneys' fees and related costs in the sam of $5,056.16 with interest, to the mortgagee Marine Midland Bank. ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The instant proceeding arose as a result of the New York State's acquisition of real property belonging to the claimant. The title to this real property vested in the State on May 31, 1988, pursuant to an Agreement of Adjustment which also pro- vided that the compensation to be paid by the State for the real property would be $340,000. At the time of the State's acquisition, the real property was encumbered by a mort- gage dated May 10, 1979. For some time prior te that date, the claimant had leased the subject real property and, in fact, the mortgage had been granted to the claimant contingent upon the assignment of the MIDDLETOWN COM. COUN. v. WALLKILL TOWN BD. 17 143 A~D.2d 215 The COMMON COUNCIL OF the CITY OF MIDDLETOWN, Orange County, New York, Petitioner, The TOWN BOARD OF the TOWN OF WALLKILL, Orange County, New York, Responden~ Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Aug. 22, 1988. Statutory proceeding was instituted to determine whether proposed annexation of town's land by city was in overall public interest. After remand to referees desig- nated to report findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, 121 A.D.2d 426, 503 N.Y.S.2d 125, the Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- sion, held that city had failed to meet its burden of proving that proposed annexa- tion would be in overall public interest. Ordered accordingly. 1. Municipal Corporations ~=33(8) Although referees' report on proposed annexation is entitled to great weight, it is advisory only with Appellate Division re- taining exclusive responsibility to judge proposed annexation by sole relevant crite- ria of overall public interest. McKinney's General Municipal Law § 712. 2. Municipal Corporations ~29(3) Determination of whether proposed an- nexation by city is in overall public interest entails focusing upon and weighing benefit or detriment to annexing municipality, to territory proposed to be annexed, and to remaining goven~rnental unit from which territory would be taken; benefit and detri- ment are customarily defined in terms of municipal services such as police and fire protection, health regulations, sewer and water sera'ice, public utilities and public education. McKinney's General Municipal Law § 712. EXHIBIT 43 18 532 NEW YOI~K SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 3. Municipal Corporations ~33(6~ Burden of establishing that am~exation is in overall public interest is with munici- pality seeking it. 4. Municipal Corporations City failed to meet its burden of prov- ing that proposed annexation of township land would be in overall public interest; proposed annexation arsa was wooded and agricultural area without current need for water and sewer service, much of area consisted of wetlands, flood plains and steep slopes incapable of further develop- ment, town already had plans in place to provide area with water and sewer service upon demand, where as city was already exceeding safe rate of removal of water from its reservoirs, annexation would re- sult in loss of tax revenues to totem in amount of over $10,000,000, and annexa- tion would divide township into two sepa- rate noncontiguous parcels with certain residents completely surrounded by city. McKinney's General Municipal Law § 712. Cooper, Erving, Savage, Nolan & Holler, Albany (Richard H. Weiner~ of counsel), for petitioner. Monte d. Rosenstein, Middletown. for re- spondent. Before KeePER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. Proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Gen- eral Municipal Law § 712 to determine whether the proposed annexation of certain territory in the Town of Wallkill by the City of Middletown is in the ow.~rall public interest. This court, by order dated June 3, 1986 (Common Council of the City of Middletown v. Tow.r~ Bd. of the Tom of WallkilI, 121 A.D.2d 426, 503 N.Y.S.2d 125, appeal dismissed, 69 N.Y.2d 898, 515 N.Y. S.2d 232, 507 N.E.2d 1088), remitted the matter to the Referees previously designat- ed in an order of this court dated April 26, 1985, for a trial on the merits, and, follow- ing its conclusion, directed those Referees to file a report as to whether the proposed annexation would be in the overall public interest. The Referees have now complied w/th this court's directive and the respon* dent moves, pursuant to CPLR 4403, to eonfhan the Referees' report dated March 15, 1988, which concluded that the pre- posed petition for annexation was not in the overall public interest and recom- mended that the petition for annexation be denied, and to dismiss the annexation pro- eeeding, and the petitioner cross-moves to disaffirm the Referees' report and for a judgment that the proposed annexation is in the overall public interest. ORDERED that the motion is granted, and the cross motion is denied, without costs or disbursements; and it is further, ADJUDGED that the report of the Ref- erees is confirmed, without costs or dis- bursements, judgment is granted in favor of the respondent, and it is adjudged that the proposed annexation is not in the over- all public interest, and the annexation pro- ceeding is dismissed. The petitioner City of Middletown has filed a petition seeking to annex 2,049 acres of land currently located in the respondent Tow.-n of Wallkill, which would nearly dou- ble irs size. This court, by order of refer- ence dated April 26, 1985, pursuant to Gen- eral Municipal Law § 712, designated dus- tices Jiudice, Ruskin and Walsh as Ref- erees to hear and report thereon. Follow- ing an extensive trial, the Referees found that the proposed annexation was net in the over-all public interest. We concur with that finding. [1] Although the Referees' report is en- titled to great weight, it is advisory only, with ~his court retaining exclusive responsi- biliw to judge the proposed annexation by the sole relevant criteria of "over-all public interest" (General Municipal Law § 712110]; Matter of City of Auburn v. Toum of Aurelius, 122 A.D.2d 585, 504 N.Y.S.2d 929, appeal denied, 68 N.Y.2d 610, 508 N.Y.S.2d 102~/, 50~ Iq.E.2d 600; Matter of City of Auburn v. Town of Fleming, ?9 A.D.2d 1104, 435 N~¥.S.2d 853, appeal dismissed, 53 N.Y.2d 93~, 440 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 423 N.E.2d 416; Matter of MIDDLETOWN COM. COUN. v. WALLKILL TOWN BD. cat az 532 N.Y.S.2d 17 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1988) Common Council of the City of Gle~s Falls v. Tou,n Bd. of Town of Queensbury, SO A.D.2d 577, 289 N.Y.S.2d 471, appeal after remand, 32 A.D.2d 855, 301 N.Y.S.2d 297). [2, 3] A determination of whether a pro- posed annexation is in the overall public interest "entails focusing upon and weigh- ing the benefit or detriment to the annex. lng municipality, to the territory proposed to be annexed, and to the remaining gov- ernmental unit from which the torrito~' would be taken (see, Matter of City of Saratoga Springs v. Town of Greenfield, 34 A.D.2d 364 [312 N.Y.S.2d 4]; Matter of City Council of City of Mechanic~dlle v Town Bd. of Town of Half moon, 32 A.D.2d 152 [300 N.Y.S.2d 398], affd, 27 N.Y.2d 369 [318 N.Y.S.2d 307, 267 N.E.2d 96] )" (Mat- ter of City of Ogdensburg v. Town of Oswegatchie, 76 A.D.2d 1012, 103,3, 42!) N.Y.S.2d 488, appeal denied, 51 N.¥.2d 706, 433 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 413 N.E.2d 3691. "Benefit and detriment are customarily d~ fined in reruns of municipal services such as police and fire protection, health regula- tions, sewer and water service, public utili- ties and public education" (Matter qf Towa of Lansing v. Village of Lansing, 80 A.~. 2d 942, 438 N.Y.S.2d 29). "The burden cf establishing that the annexation is in the over-all public interest is with the munici- pality seeking it" (Matter of City of Og- densburg v. Tou,a of Oswegatchie, supS'a, 76 A.D.2d at 1013, 429 N.Y.S.2d 488). It has also been stated that "Iai court should consider, as part of the over-all public inter- est test, the issue of whether or not the annexing local government and the territo- ry to be annexed have the requisite unity of purpose and facilities to constitute a community" (Matter of Common Council of the City of GIoversville v. Tow~ Bd. of the Town of Johr~town, 32 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 342 N.Y.S.2d 841, 295 N.E.2d 644). [4] The petitioner has failed to meet its burden of proving that the proposed annex- ation would be in the overall public intor- est. The evidence adduced at trial indi- cates that the proposed annexation area is a wooded and agricultural area without current need for water and sewer services, 19 and that much of the area consists of wet- lands, flood plains and steep slopes incapa- ble of further development. Although both the city and the town have the capability to supply water and sewer services to the proposed annexation area, the town already has plans in place to provide that area with water and sewer service upon demand. The record reveals that the city, on the other hand, is already exceeding the safe rate of removal of water from its reser- voirs and an infiltration flow probtem in its antiquated water system makes it a less efficient system than that maintained by the town. After suffering a water short- age in 1979 and 1980, the petitioner was directed by the Department of En~Sronmen- tal Conservation to find additional water sources but failed to cemply with this di- rective~ A comparison of additional servic- es indicates that the town currently pro- vides more than adequate police and fire protection to the proposed annexation area. The petitioner pays taxes in the amount of $15,060.24 on the property it owns within the proposed annexation area. Annexation would result in a loss of revenue to the town in the amount of $10,994.04 in gener- al and highway tax revenue. The town's fire districts would also lose money in tax revenue should annexation be approved. The record further reveals that the mas- tar plans of Orange County and the Town of Wallkill are in conformity with each other while the city has no comprehensive master plan. Nor did the city perform planning studies prior to initiating this an- nexation proceeding. Rather, the petition- er concededly selected the boundaries of the proposed annexation area by omitting residents it believed would vote against annexation in a referendum. These bound- aries were chosen arbitrarily, without the benefit of a single planning study, and would result in dividing the Town of Wall- kill into two, separate, nonconti~uous par- cels which would leave certain town resi- dents completely surrounded by the City of Middletown. This court has previously condemned such "baroque" annexations which result in "irregular and jagged in- dentations of the boundaries between the municipalities" (Matter of Common Couu- 2O cil of City of Middletown v. Town Bd. of the Town of Wallkill, 29 A.D.2d 561, 562, 286 N.Y.S.2d 369; see also, Matter of Board of Trustees of Inc. Vik of Warwick v. Town Bd. of Town of Warwick, Orange County, 56 A.D.2d 928, 393 N.Y.S.2d 47). Considering all the factors,, we conclude that the public interest would not be served by the annexation. In light of our holding, we do not reach the respondent's remaining contention. 532 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES of transfer, notwithstanding debtor's con- clusory and unsupported allegations that he had sufficient business assets to meet loan prior to conveyance. Schwartz, Kobb, Scheinert & Hamerman, Nanuet (Joel L. Scheinert, of counsel), for appellants. Rancher & Ehrlich, P.C., New York City (David N. Rancher, of counsel), for respon- dent. Before KOOPER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ. 143 A.D.2d 22! SMALL & LANDESMAN, etc., Respondent Harry BARONICK, et al., Appellants. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Aug. 22, 1988. Creditor sued debtor seeking to set aside conveyance of debtor's interest in marital residence to wife. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, Weiner, J., grant- ed creditor's motion for partial summary judgment, and debtor appealed. The Su- preme Court, Appellate Division, held that evidence supported finding that conveyance of debtor's interest in marital residence to wife was fraudulent. Affirmed. Fraudulent Conveyances ~:~299(12) Evidence supported finding that debt- or's conveyance of his interest in marital residence to wife was fraudulent; creditor produced evidence that debtor had default- ed immediately prior to conveyance and that deed of conveyance contained no stamp taxes nor any other indication that fair consideration was paid as consequence MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. In an action by a judgment creditor pur- suant to Debtor and Creditor Law article 10, inter alia, to set aside as fraudulent a conveyance of real property, the defen- dants appeal from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated February 10, 1987, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's mo- tion which was for partial summary judg- ment declaring the conveyance fraudulent and granted its motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a cause of action for an accounting, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, dated November 18, 1987, as denied stated portions of their motion for reargument. ORDERED that the order dated Febru- ary 10, 1987, is affirmed insofar as appeal- ed from; and it is further, ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated November 18, 1987, is dismissed, and it is further, ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs. In September 1983 shortly after MHB Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter MHB) de- faulted on a loan made by the plaintiff partnership, the defendant Harry Baronick who was an officer of MHB and guarantor of the loan, conveyed his interest in his marital residence--held by him and his wife as tenants by the entireties--to his wife's sole name, allegedly in consequence of an antecedent debt he owed her arising ~ 0ITY CO~CIL *. TOWN BOARD 307 C~te as 318 N.Y.S.2d 3~? C. J., and BERGAN, and BREITEL, JJ., dissent and vote ~ on the opinion at the Appellate Division. reversed, witb costs, and case remitted to Special Term for proceedings in accordance with the opinion berein. Question answered in the negative. 27 N.Y.2d 369 ,h t~e Matter of CITY OOUNOIL OF the CITY OF M~ECHANICVILLt~, Appel- lan~ v. TO~q~ BOARD OF the TO~ OF HALFMOON, Respondent, and Alfred J. Jen~gs et al., Interveners-P~spondents. Court of Appeals of New York. Jarl. 7, 1971. Proceeding on application by city council for a judgment that pro- posed annexation to city of certain territory was iu .overall public inter- est. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Staley, J:, 32 A.D.2d 152, 30(I N.Y.S.2d 398, denied the petition, and the city appealed. The Court of Appeals, Breitel, J., held that determination that proposed an- nexation to city, baying population of about ~,000 and occupying an area of nine-tenths of a sqnare mile, of adjoining, largely unpopulated h220-acre area of town was not in orerall public interest was in accord with requirements of Constitution and applicable statntes and was not arbitrary or in violation of any rule of law or procedure. Affirmed. Gibson, J., took no part. 1. Ifftmicipal Corporations ¢=29(2) Power to effect an annexation is largely a matter controlled by statute and constitutional provisions, when there are constitutional pro- visions. 2. lllu.a~cip~l 0orporations ~='33(8) So long as the Appellate Division acted pursuant to law its judg- ment that proposed annexation was not in overall public interest could not be overturned; any issnes resolved Izy il remained invulnerable if there was any rational basis for its findings and conclusions. Const. art. 9, ~l(d); General Municipal Law § 712, subds. 1, 6, 10. --- EXHIBIT 44 __ 308 318 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 27 N,Y,2d 3. Municipal Oorporations 6:=29 (3) Consideration of regional or state benefit or effect from proposed annexation to city of certain territory in town was not mandated, nor should it have been in view of fact that parties of[ered only barest con- clusions on this aspect of annexation. General Municipal Law § 712; Const. art. 9, ~ 1 (d). 4. Municipal Oorporations Determinatiou that proposed annexation to city, having population of about 6,000 and occupying an area of nine-tenths of a square mile, of adjoining, largely unpopnlated 1,220-acre area of town was not in Over- all public interest was in accord with requirements of Constitution and applicable statutes and was not arbitrary or in violation of any rule of law or procedure. General Municipal Law § 712; Const. art. 9, § 1 (d). ...~,70 _i}V. Donald Carola, Mechanicville, and Peter Jolm Enzien, Troy, for appellant. iJobn P. Weatherwax, Troy, for respondents. BREITEL, Judge. Involved is a disputed proposed annexation between a city and a town As is all but inevitably the situation, tile city' would expand by taking iu a small part of the town. The town resists the annexation, seeking to preserve its area and retain its taxable enterprises. The pop- ulation of the affected area may or may not welcome the annexation, this being a disputed fact. The City of Mechanicville has been declin- ing both in population and econoniic health. A significant, if not a suf- ficient, cause for this condition is the constraint of limited bonndaries. It seeks to annex from the Town of Halfmoon an adjoining, largely-un- populated :area of 1,220 acres including a railroad segment and contain- lng a large power plant and a small paper mill. Halfmoon consists of 17,493 acres, and has a population of 6,307. The city bas today a popu- lation of about 6,000, down from 8,514 in 1925, and occupies all area of nine tenths of a square mile. The city hopes that the sparsely popu- ..IAT* lated rural area it wishes to annex will provide room for~ousing, despite uncontradicted evidence that the best use would be industrial. The appeal by the city is from the judgment of the Appellate Division unanimonsly rejecting-tile proposed annexation as not in tim over-all public interest, the only standard referred to in the applicable statute and constitutional provision (32 A.D.2d 1.52, 300 N.Y.S.2d 398; N.Y. Const., art. IX, § 1, subd. [d]; General Municipal Law, Consol. Law~, c. 24, § 712). In doing so, the court overruled the reports o1 its thr~ Referees designated by it under the statute to hold hearings, take d 3?3 CITY COUNCIL v. TOWN BOAi~D 309 and report. Two of tile Referees had reported in favor of the and one had reported in its favor only conditionally. The as required by statute, were Justices of the Supreme Court. threshold questiou is the scope of review in this court. It would · to be narrow indeed, and confined to errors of law. [1] Tbe power to effect an annexation is largely a matter controlled ~, statute aud constitutional provisions, when there are constitutional visions. (E.g., City of New York v. Village of Lawrence, 250 N.Y. 437, 440, 444, 165 N.E. 836, 838, 839, 840; cf. Ann., Municipal Boundaries--Power to Extend, 64 A.L.R. 1336, 1341-1344, 1346-1350, 1352-1355, 1373-1380.) The Coustitution provides: "No local government or any part of tbe territory thereof shall be annexed to another until the people, if an)', of the territory proposed to be annexed shall bare consented tbereto by ma- jorlty vote on a refereudum and until the governing board of eacb local government, the area of which is affected, shall have consented thereto upon the basis of a determination that tbe annexation is in the over-all public interest. The consent of the governing board of a county shall be required only where a bonndary of the count3 is affected. On or be- fore July first, nineteen lmndred sixty-four, the legislature shall pro- vide, where such consent of a governing board is not granted, for adju- dication and determination, on the law and the facts, in a proceeding in- itiated in the supreme court, of tile issue (ff whether the annexation is m the over-all public interest." (N.Y.Const., art. IX, § I, subd. [dj.) The scheme, it will be noted, for judicial intervention arises only in tile event the affected municipalities cannot agree and then the determina- tion is to be made in the Supreme Court on the law and the facts. _LThe Legislature, in implementing the constitutional direction, enacted 1~?~ article 17 of the General Municipal Law. Indeed, both the statute and tile constitutional provision, added as an amendment, were adopted at the same time in 1963, the statute's operation being conditioned on pop- ular approval of the constitutional amendment. Pursuant to tbe Consti- tution, section 712 of article 17 reposes in the appropriate Appellate Df- vision tl~e responsibility for adjudication and determination on the law and facts, of the issue of whether the proposed annexation is in the Over-all public interest (subd. 1). The court is required to designate three Referees who shall be Justices or retired Justices of tile Supreme COurt to t~ear and report to the court (subd. 6). Upon receipt of the report, the Appellate Division shall: "after hearing oral argument on the report of the referees, make its own adjudication and determination. on tl~e la~x and the facts, on all questions presented to the referees and substitute its judgmenl for tlmt of any of the governing boards of the 310 318 N~.W Y01~K SUPPL~.MENT, 2d SERIES 27 local governments as made in their respective determinations and enter its judgment on the issue of xxllether the annexation is in the over-all public interest" (subd. 10). The operative language is that the Appellate Division is to make its own adjudication and determination, on the law and the facts, and sub- stitute its jndgment for that of the several local governing boards. Such plain language unequivocally places the responsibility of determi- nation on tbe Appellate Division. The locus of responsibility is alt the clearer when it is recognized that the Appellate Division is not engaged in reviewing a judicial or quasi-judicial dispute but exercising an origi- nal responsibility in a governmental policy determination between con- tending local governments. On this view the ordinary tests applicable to review of judicial or quasl-jndicial determinations are not relevaut. Much closer are categories of review in this court which bring up only qnestions of law and also test, therefore, the arbitrariness and capri- ciousness of the determlnatious to be reviewed (cf. Matter of Lakeland \Vater Dist. v. Onondaga County Water Anth., 24 N.Y.2d 400, 408, 301 N.Y.S.2d 1, (~-7, 248 N.E.2d 855, 858-859; Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 108, pp. 45~53; ] N.Y. Jut., Administrative Law, § 176, [at p. 589], §§ 183-184). [2] Consequently, so loug as the Appellate Division acted pursuant 1~4 to law its judgment may not be overturned. Any issueslresolved by it remain invulnerable if there xvas anv rational basis for its findings and conclusions. Passing from the thresl~old question to the rnerits, an affirmance is indicated. The city does not raise any substantial issue of law. It dis- putes certain facts, disagrees with various predictions of fact, and em- phatically quarrels with tbe eraluation of the over-all public interest. At the hearings before the Referees the city presented evidence that annexation would cause its property tax rate to increase by 9 cents on every $13300 of assessed valuation, that Halfmoon's tax rate would i~- crease by $1.02, and tbat the annexed area's rate would increase by $70. The city's Mayor testified, based on the history of two areas adjacent to Mechanic'cille, that the extension of city water and sewerage lines to th*' area to be annexed would be likely to cause rapid residential develop' ment. This conclusiou was disputed By an expert for the town who stated that builders of residential snbdivisions would find the area unat- tractive and that the area's highest use was industrial. There waS al~ testimony that residents of the area used some city services and fa¢i[° ties. There was conflicting testimony on the present and future ad~ cy of water, sewerage, fire, and police services in the area. The reports of the Referees and the opinion in the Appellate plainly, considered all of the abore factors, albeit thev. came to diff~ CITY COUNCIL v. TO~N BOARD 311 ;ions in assessing tile desirability of the proposed annexation. financial impacts and tile provision of services in the city, the town, the annexed area, as they would be alter annexation, were carefully and weighed (see 32 A.D.2d 152, esi). 154-156, 300 N.Y.S.2~I esp. 399-402, supra). Little xvas said, if at all, it is true, about regional or State benefit which might accrue beyond the immediate- ~affected mnnlcipalitles; and although the point is barely made by the dry in this court, there was neither below nor here any significant ef- fort at showing such regional or State benefit or effect. The Appellate Division in reaching its conclusions stated: ~ "Considering all of tile factors involved, it can hardly be said that any appreciable benefits will inure to the area sought to be annexed by annexation thereof to the city. It thus appears that if an), benefit is to be derived by annexation, it wilt inure only to tile City of Mecbanicville, and the oulv benefit to be~derived is an ;area for expansion and an in- _1~? crease in its tax base. "The report of the majority of the Referees indicates that survival of the city is an overriding consideration in d~eir determination. Certainly annexation is intended as a means for a city to react to changing condi- tions, but not to aid a city at the expense of another area. Here, the petitioner did not even indicate why it needed an area twice its size in order to survive. Perhaps annexation should be approved xvben it is in the interest of the petitioner and neither of the other areas involved will be significantly injured. However, xvhere there will be injury to one, and substantial tax cost to the other, benefit to the city should not be permitted at their expense. "Annexation cannot be considered as being in the over-ali pnblic in- terest where tbe only benefit to be derixed is expansion room for the municipality seeking annexation while the annexed area and the area out of which it is to be carved, will be adversely affected. Here the burden was on the City of Meclmnicville to establish that annexation would be in the over-all public interest and ii1 our opinion the city has not met that burden." (32 A.D.2d, at p. 156, 300 N.Y.S.2d, at pp. 401-402.) The factors considered and the evaluation made were not unreasona- ble by any test of rationality. (For interesting collections of cases in New York and elsewhere in which the large variety of considerations and limitations influencing a determinatkm as to the rightness of a pro- posed annexation, see Ann., Municipal Boundaries--Alteration-- Grounds, 62 A.L.R. 1011, esp. subtitle Prosperity of City, pp. 1023- 1024; 64 A.L.R. 1336, 1353-1384, supra ) [3] Since it was tile Appellate Division's province to assess the sev- eral factors no reviewable error is suggested merely because tile city be- 312 als NEW YOP~K SUPPLEMENT, 2d SlIP, IllS 27 N.¥.2d 375 lieves that the facts would support a contrary judgment. '~Vhile the statnte does not appear to preclude a consideration of regional or State benefit or effect, no such consideration is mandated, nor should it be when the parties have offered only the barest conclusions on this aspect of the annexation. Indeed, most annexation cases thus far have not in- volved larger reg.ional or State issues (cf. Matter of City of Saratoga Springs v. Town of Greenfield, 34 A.D.2d 364, 312 N.Y.S.2d 4; Mat- ter of Common Council of City of Middletown v. Town Bd. of Town of Wallkill, 29 A.D.2d 561, 286 N.Y.S.2d 369; Matter of Common Council of City of Albany v. To~vn Bd. oflTown of Bethlehem, 26 A. D.2d 230, 272 N.Y.S.2d 307, affd. 19 N.Y.2d 646, 278 N.Y.S.2d 618, 225 N.E.2d 211, remittitur amd. 19 N.Y.2d 835,280 N.Y.S.2d 399, 227 N.E.2d 314). Occasionally, somewhat larger issues have been in- volved, but still tied for the most part to the immediate localities affect- ed or to local governments superimposed in part on the same territories, such as counties (City of Middletown v. Town of Wallkill, supra; Mat- ter of Common Council of City of Glens Fails v. Town Bd. of Town of Qu~ensbury, 30 A.D.2d 577,289 N.Y.S.2d 471 ). [4] It thus appears that the determinatiou by the Appellate Division was in accord with the requirements of the Constitution, the applicable statutes, and such precedents as have arisen. Its action was not arbi- trary or in violation of any rule of law or procedure laid down, and its findings and conclusions are not further reviewable in this court. In so viewing the matter it is not necessary to conclude and it is not concluded that the over-all public interest as that term is used in the Constitution and the statute is confined to the financial impacts upon and public services rendered in the affected municipalities. Undonbted- ly, in a proper case, the effect on the larger region or even the State may be relevaut, inciudiug, perhaps, considerations which go beyond the economic and financial. In this case, howeve, r, no such effects were de- veloped or even argued. Accordingly, the judgment of the :\ppellate Division should be af- firmed. FULD, C. J., and BURKE, SCILEPPI. BERGAN and JASEN, J J-, concur. GIBSON, J., taking no part. Judgment affirmed, without costs. CITY OF PORT JERVIS v. TOWN OF DEER PARK Morris & Duffy, New York City (Patricia )'Alvia and Kevin J. O'Neill, of counsel), for appellant. Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KOOPER, SULLIYAN and O'BRIEN, J3. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. In a proceeding pursuant ~o General Mu- nicipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to file a late notice of claim, the New York City Hous- ing Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cohen, J.), dated December 6, 1988, which granted the application. ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the application is denied. Ill As no previously-commenced action was pending against the New York City Housing Authority, the application for leave te file a late notice of claim was improperly brought as a motion (see, Mat- ter of £'so v. County of Westchester, 141 A.D.2d 542, 529 N.Y.S.2d 155; Matter of Lannon v. Town of Henrietta, 87 A.D.2d 980, 450 N.Y.S.2d 108; see also, Farber v. County of Hamilton, 158 A.D.2d 902, 551 N.Y.S.2d 699; City of New York Dept. of Fin. v. t?eznick, 113 A.D.2d 914, 493 N.Y. S.2d 817). [2, 3] Further, even if we were to con- clude that the instant application had been properly commenced, reversal would never- theless be required, since the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in permitting the prospective infant plain- tiff and her mother to file a late notice of claim. It is well settled that in deciding applications for leave to serve a late notice of claim, courks are not required to grant extensions in every case involving infants (see, Cohen v. .Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist., 51 N.Y.2d 256, 434 N.Y.S.2d 138, 414 N.E.2d 639; Matter of Groshans v. Town of Babylon, 143 A.D.2d 666, 533 N.Y.S.2d 18; Montana v. City of New York, 96 A.D.2d 1031, 466 N.Y.S.2d 436). In the case at bar, the disability of infancy is outweighed by other factors. No ade- quate explanation was given for the year delay in bringing the application for 131 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1991) leave to serve the late notice. Nor did the papers submitted in support of the applica- tion allege facts sufficient to establish that the New York City Housing Authority bad any knowledge of the circumstances under- lying the claim of negligence made. In addition, the delay which ensued was un- related to the infancy of the prospective infant plaintiff (see, Matter of Groshans v. Town of Babylon, supra ). Under these ciccumstances, the application to file a late n,tice of claim should have been denied. 169 A.D.2d 764 In the Matter of CITY OF PORT JERVIS, Petitioner, TOWN OF DEER PARK, RespondenL Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Jan. 22, 1991. CiW commenced proceeding to deter- mine whether annexation of property would be in the public interest. After a referee conducted a hearing and recom- mended that the petition for annexation be granted, the Supreme Court, Appellate Di- vision, held that the city failed to show that annexation of vacant, wooded, and undevel- oped land would be in the public interest. Petition dismissed. Municipal Corporations a:~29(3) City failed to demonstrate that annexa- tion of vacant, wooded, and undeveloped land would be in public interest; city had no specific plans for development of prop- erty and there was no current need for water and sewer services that city could have supplied. McKinney's General Munic- ipal Law § 712. EXHIBIT 45 132 William A. Glass, Port Jervis, for peti- tioner. Henry J. Holley, Port Jervis, for respon- dent. 565 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Before MANGANO, P.J., and THOMPSON, EIBER and ROSENBLATT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. Proceeding pursuant to General Munici- pal Law § 712 to determine whether the proposed annexation of certain territory in the Town of Deer Park by the City of Port Jervis is in the over-all public interest. By order dated July 26, 1987, this court remit- ted the matter to designated referees for a trial on the merits, and following its conclu- sion directed those referees to file a report as to whether or not the proposed annexa- tion would be in the over-all public interest. The referees have now complied with the court's directions. The petitioner moves to confirm their report, dated July 27, 1990, which recommended that the petition for annexation be granted, and the respondent cross-moves to reject the report and dis- miss the petition. ORDERED that the motion is denied and the cross motion is granted, without costs or disbursements, and it is further, ADJUDGED that the report of the ref~ crees is rejected, without costs or disburse- ments, it is declared that annexation is not in the over-all public interest, and the an- nexation proceeding is dismissed. "Although the Referees' report is enti- tled to great weight, it is advisory only, with this court retaining exclusive re- sponsibility to judge the proposed annex- ation by the sole relevant criteria of 'over-all public interest' (General Munici- pal Law § 712110]; Matter of City of Auburn v Town of Aurelius, 122 AD2d 585, [504 N.Y.S.2d 929] lv denied 68 NY2d 610 [508 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 501 N.E.2d 600]; Matter of City of Auburn v Town o/Fleming, 79 AD2d 1104 [435 N.Y.S.2d 853], appeal d£gmissed 53 NY2d 937 [440 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 423 N.E.2d 416]; Matter o/Common Coun- cil v Town Bd., 30 AD2d 577 [289 N~Y. S.2d 471], appeal ay~er remand 32 AD2d 855 [30I N.Y.S.2d 297])" (City Council of Middletown v. Town Board of Town of Wallkill, 143 A.D.2d 215, 216, 532 N.Y.S.2d 17). Accordingly, the report will and should be overriden when, in the view of the Appel- late Division, the facts and circumstances do not justify the result recommended by the referees (Town Bd. of Town of Brigh- ton v. City Council of City of Rochester, 59 A.D.2d 1041, 399 N.Y.S.2d 793). Here, the evidmme at the hearing demonstrated that the parcel in question is vacant, wood- ed and undeveloped land. As no evidence was presented of any specific plans for development of the subject property, the land is clearly without any current need for the water or sewer services which the peti- tioner city could supply, and the petitioner has failed to carry its burden of proving that annexation is in the public interest (see, e.g., Matter of City Council of Mid- dletown v. Town Board of Town of Wall- kill, supra; cf., Matter of Board o/Trust- ees of [~c. Village of Warwick v. Town Board of Town of Warwick, Orange County, 56 A.D.2d 928, 393 N.Y.S.2d 47). The petition is therefore dismissed. 169 A.D.2d 765 In the Matter of COKERTOWN/SPRING LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Appellants, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF MILAN, et al., Respondents. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Jan. 22, 1991. Neighboring landowners appealed from order of the Supreme Court, Dutehes~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Transcript of Public Hearing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2!} TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK ................ X JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF TOWN BOARD DP THE TOWN OF SONTHOLD and BOARD OF TRUSTBES OF THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT In the Matter o{, Petition for Annexation proposing the annexatior~ of the territory identified by SCTM 1000 40 3 1 Greenport High School 75955 Route 25 Greenport, New York August i 3, 2005 7: 00 p. m. Southold Board Members Present : JOSHUA Y. HORTON, Supervisor THOMAS H. WICKHAM, Councilman JOHN M. ROMANELLI, Councilman DANIEL C. ROSS, Ceuncilman WILLIAM P. EDWARDS, Councilman PATRICIA FINNEG~q, Town Atteuney '-'il]age of Greenport 8oa~d o~ Txustees DAVID E. KAPELL, Mayor,, ~ , ee COPY BRADLEY B. BURNS, Izust GAlL F. HORTON, TrusL~e GEORGE W. HUBBARD, J~., Trust6e WILLIAM J. MILLS, IIi, T~ust{6 JOSEPH PROKOP, Villaqc Attorney COUIRT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 1¥ 2O 21 22 23 24 25 SUPERVISO9 HORTON: and Greenport Village Board annexatierl petitic, n proposed by KASE, {nput that's before z~s this evening. Seuthold Tow~ Board in the matter ef the LLC. Public Mc}vi ng forward, we will have a presentation, put forth by KASE LLC and w~ will move into that at the very outset ef this meeting. Opening this public hearing I ask that Councilman Wickham read the {}fficial notice of this meeting. CO.GILMAN WICKHAM: Notice is hereby given that the Town of Seuthold has received a Petition for Annexation proposing the annexation of the territory encompassing approximately 17 acres of vaca~lt, residential land identified hy SCTH ~1000-40-3 1 and known as 62600 Con~ty Road 48, from the Town o~ Seuthold t~ the Village of Greenport. The Town Board ef the Town o~ Sontheld will hold a joint public hearinq toge{her with the 13card of Trustees of the Villag, of Greenpert, at '/:00 p.m. on the 23rd day sf Auqust, 2005, a{ the G~eenpert High School, 75955 Ronte 25, Greenport, New York, at which time and place the Town Board M~d Village Board will hear testimony and {onsider ~vidence and inio~mation concerning the P~tition. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 1 2 5 6 ? 8 ]0 11 13 ]5 16 17 18 20 21 2~ ~3 2~ All persons interested in this project will be heard at said hearing and all written communications will be considered. Dated: July 26, 2005, Town ef Seutheld~ New York, Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk. I have in this file certifications that this notice has appeared el1 the Town Clerk's bulletin board in Town Hall[ legal and Traveler's Watchman newspaper. It has appeared as a legal in Newsday, it has appeared as a legal in the Suffolk Times and we have mailed certified copies to the following affected distriets, namely, the Gree~lpert United School Dis~rict, United Free School District of Greenpo~t. W6 have sent this notice about this pnblic heari~lg tonight to the school district in Greenpert; we have sent it to the Board of Trustees in tile Village. We have sent it to Greenport Fire Department, te KASE L.i., LLC and located in New Yo~k City and also ~be KASE L.I., LLC in Greenpert. I have one w~.itten communicai~ion so wi] ! read it quickly. SUPERVISOR HORTON: ~cading J.t, make 3ure J t' s f~r on this snbject and To/~l, inst{si of entered in'.lo the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631} 878 8047 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 ] 0 11 1 l ] 5 ] ? 18 1 } 2. 0 21 22 2 } 24 25 record. EOARD MEMBER WICKHS~: I don't think I need to read it into the record if it's here. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Councilman Wi~kham, and thank you to the Mayor and Villaqe hk~ard Trustees of Greenport. For this meeting we wi ] ~ ask people to keep their comments to three provide three minutes to each minutes, we'll individual, if you have comments, and to address ~he two Boards ena second round after everybody's h~l their opportunity to share in the first instance. Moving forward, no further qnestions, I wi [1 turn the floor over to KASE, LLC, who is F'i:~g to put forth a presentation for all of us h*~e in ~he auditorium tonight. Includsd in that ~esentatien the Village Board and the Town Board will zeturn to the dais. offer the floor to KASE, HR. KONTOKOSTA: li}{c te welcome you all Without further adieu I LhC. Good evening. I wouhi to discuss o~lI dnllexat ~orl ~,?tltion and workforce housing proposal. A]so, w ,u]d like to thank each of the members of tNe T,l,wn aud Village Boards for scheduling and =nltondJilg this meeting, and a special thanks to REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 5 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20 21 22 24 2 · Superintendent Kozora for providing this auditorium. I have a short presentation I would like to present and ~espectfully request that you hold your comments t~ the end. First, a bit of housekeeping, I would like to introduce {}ur Memorandum in Support of the Annexation into the records of both Boards and submit the long form Environmental Assessment Norm with schedules into each record as welll . I would like to start b!, introducing my } ~othe~ arid myself. My brother, Hichae], has a duel degree in ee¢.nolnics arid philosophy from r.!~]gate Universitt~ and has been a practicing attorney tor eight years specializing in the ,~f corporate fina~ ce, p~ivate equity mergers acquisitions, ~ea] estate and land use law. and Hiehael and his wi fe have lived ~ he past four yea~s. My name is in Cutchogue for Constantine, but i am a licensed professional enginee~ in {lie State of Ncw Yo~k and my ~}ea oi expert~se is archi~ec{ural eugineering. ] i~ave a master's degr6e il~ rea] i t om NYU and ~ecently {omp].eted ~ Nrban Planning at estate finance a mastel ' s degree Columbia /]niversity, whe!e I COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 11 ~2 13 16, 17 19 2 {} 22 23 24 2 !, aim now working on my ph.D. in the subject. I commute between New York City and Greenport. My brother and I are the two managing partners of KACE LI, LLC, the company tha{ has submitted the annexation petitien. In addition, Michael and I are KASE Development, LLC, the company responsible for developing and building the Harborfront Inn in Greenport and the G,~llezin nl 15 Front Street ~ a ~nixed use retail/residential buildlng currently under ~onstruction. We have alse planted a new vineyard en the North Road. The legal purpose of our meeting together touight is to introd~nze into th6 resold evilenc~ that the annexatien of a 17 acre paxce] tis in ~h,i "overall publis interest.TM Simply put. we wfi [] sh ~w that the public and the Village oi Greenpo~t dorive a significant benefit from the annexation w~Jle the Town ef Southold will suffex no de~ ~iment. But there is also a practical ptl~poso ~or ,tlr meet lng tonight, one for which I s~spe{ :~ RlOSE { f yoll axe here to exploxe and discuss, the [i~oposed 128 kHli[ mixed income wofkfeIqe housing CO[IRT REPORTING AND 'I'RANSCRIPTION SERVICE (63~) 8'?8-8047 i 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 ] 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 <[ 25 proposal. Some of you are probably here because you received our letter to you in khe mail or you saw our ad in the newspapers and you wan~ te know more about how you, your family or your children er yo~:~ friends can purchase a quality, ~easenably-priced home i~ this town fe~ between $175,000 and $266,500. Some ef you are probably here for a very different reason. You already own a home in Seuthold and you are concerned ~hat this may ~aise you~ taxes, negatively affect the Nevertheless, cause more traffic, environment. there a~e several import ar~t tonight issnes I wonld like to discuss with yon and I have distxibuted an outline with khe topiss that will be addressed. Need fe~ ~ffordable housing. '~Affordable l~ousing is today [-egarded as olle of [he most [mpoxtant issues fa{lng Southold." Tha~ w~s taken {~ Ne the Tew~ o~ Sonthold Housing Heeds Assessment, May 2003, page 4. Over the last 20 years~ affordak>]e housing has been consistently identified as eno }f the REPORTING AND IPRANSCRIPPION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 21 22 2 most important issues facing the Towel of Southeld. {1,rrently, there are over i[50 names of workinq individuals and families ena waiting llst for afto, rdable homes in the Town and Village, but it ~:; qenerally accepted that this number is just a small percentage of the actual need. People af~[ected most hy this problem are the worki~lg individuals who hold core positions in chr community, nurses, police officers, teachers, municipal workers, just te name a few, and their !amilies who are nnable te afford the averag{ Southold home a four-bedroom detached house on art acre er more of land selling for $400,000. The 1 ~{k of affordable housing options has ~esulted approximately one third of Seuthold residents l~aving difficulty meeting hhei~ housir~q tests every month. Despite a record of Seutheld Town ~e :ommendatiens for the creation of affordable workferce housing stretching back to 1985, little has been done to address this need. In fa~ , between 1990 and 2000, 68 percent of a~ ] h}uses b~:i t in the town e~ Seuthold were p~lrch~sed ~3~ ~}s~ as seasonal o~~ second homes. This COUN']' NNPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631} 8'78 8047 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 ik 2 13 iL 4 k 6 18 2 {} 21 22 24 25 supply/demand imbalance perpetuated by difference in incomes between second-home buyers and Seutheld residents is one of the leading causes of tNe affordable housing crisis in this Town. And eno psrticular demographic has s~fered {he lllost, Vhat's young individuals under the age ef 35. The high cost of housing has forced these young families out of Southeld and away frola their community. For example, in 2000 t h~ population of Southold under the age of 35 ac x}unt~d for only 135.5 percent of the total, ~lm~pared to 4'7.2 Fercent for Suffolk County. Arid between 1990 and 2:(000, the Southold population }:etween Lhe ages cf 20 and 35 decreased by almost 30 percent, this Js three times faster than the nat iohal average. Many of you have witnessed this ~xodus lfirsthand as you and your friends, family ~ r neighbors wexe forced te look for a home outside of Southo]d. 'Fherefoxe, it is in the interest ef w{ ikinq individuals arid families and tile yc/ung build 6,t ~ffordable hemes as part aze pzoposJng to of a true mixed without government sl~bsidi es or COUNT R~iPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION' SERVICE (63L) 878 8047 10 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 i1 13 14 iL 5 16 1 R? il 9 2 1 ~ 3 ~4 ~ 5 taxpayer contributions. In 20013, the Town ef Needs Assessment asked these l:amily home on an acze or more Southold Nousinq two rheto~ ical if a large single ~.)f ]and is not mode 1 ? honsing prefere~lce? And important]y, where turn te find an atferdable option te this Our answeI is a 128 unit affordable we~rkforce housing development that we are pelition. The site of the propos~tl Js 17.2 ~c~es located in Southold on the south side ol the Nortt~ ]4oad, right there, about a quarter mil< east Chape~ I,~ne, 64 he:roes, 50 percent of the total, guidelines of Sonthold and Suffolk County. Th6 units will be divided among one and two bedroo~n ~ondominiums of approximately 700 to 900 sqna~e feet and are expccted to sell for betwc-n $175,000 in~ $215,000. Semi detached, tw{ family ~niiks dpp~eximately 1,3{0 squaYe feeE are exp 2{ed te : ~ Il ~o] $266,500, and the ren~ainJNg 64 ]~i:nes [ detached sing]~ family Nomes intend~ ;{ tDr AND TRANSCRIPTION .q~RV!CE (31) 8'/8-8047 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1V 18 20 22 23 24 2 ! general market. {onstruction will occur in phases o'ver three yea~s and, if beth beards w~}te i~ favor of the annexation, construction could begin as seon as the SEQRA process and fermal plant, lng review are completed. The home sale prices were determined by guidelines set ferth by the Tewn and S~ffolk County. Initial sale e~ the units will] be held by lottery, with priority given te people who live n~d/er werk in th{ Town er Village. Resale of the nnits will be restricted te Southold residents perpetuits~. This mechanism will keep the unit affordable and will guarantee that the heine will be made available to Southold ~{sidents a~d the Village fer many years to come but will ~ot pla{e an artifficial limit on polentia] eq~ity app~eciati on. T{ maintain ~he af~ordable sa]es p~ico of these units, special attentien will be paid to the size of ~he units in tNe associated parcels. By limiting square footage and th{ lot size, ~]es prices will be r6st}icted ~:o appropriat ~ levels ~::~: the intended market. The c~,erall [ siqn of ~he pro}eot and the un~ts will be of high q~al ~ty, CO!IRT REPORTING AND TRA~]SCRIPTION SERVICE ( }1] 878 8047 12 1 2 3 5 7 8 9 ] 0 i 3 16 } 6 ] ? 20 21 2~ in context with the surrounding residential architecture of the Village and Town, and we intend to work in cooperation with the Village, we design elements AS yO~ call see, mature vegetation, bike paths, front a S did se successfully with the Ha~bor~ront Inn. And here are a few imag~s of thm possible incorporated into this project. landscapinq and preservation oi integration ef walkways and porches close to the load, and there is ad] acent zoned HD, integration of the vegetation and trees as well as housing types and a variety of design. With regard to infrastructnre and zoning, a Greenpcrt sewer ~ain and water main to th,= p~operty. The site is c~rrently Hamlet Density, which allows fo~ fou~ t~nits per acre and has been zoned the highest residential density allowed by the Town for over 25 years. In 1983 the Town ef Southo]d approved a sit~. plan for 108 multi fanily nnits en the property, here surrounded by similar hiqh n{=n~t> %~ses (indicating) . The subject property is als~ ]o< ~ ed within the secent]y adopted Greenport ]~ALO Z>ne, which is recommended to support densi~i~-s ef ~p te REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 13 1 2 ? 9 ]0 12 14 · 5 1 ~ 17 ] 9 2 5 eight units per acre with sufficient infrastructure in place. The HALO Zone has been created as part of the recent Seuthold Hamlet study to facilitate the development of nfferdable w~ ?kforce housing types. S{~uthold Town Hamlet Study is an excellent example of community involvement in the planning process. Recently, tNere has been much discussion f fhe role asd importance ef sound planning iu ,s~iding the future development of ~he Town. Using ~ny ]~ackground in urban planning, the proposed p~ ~ect has been developed to be consistent with ~lh Smart Growth guidelines as established by .~ ~ ~ ~lolk County and ~'outNolt planning initiatives ,~] d ~e¢ommendations from SHall 'studies as the il 985 [last~er Pian Update by the Southold Planning Board, i:00~ Nousing Need~ Assessment, DGEIS 2004, Namlet }51 ~/dy 2005. The quest ion we're here to discuss is how ~ wa make this ~ffordable project a reali{yP [I~{ key ~o the proposal is the annexation of the p~{jpe~ty l~em the Town of Southold into tim V~ ~ ~ ~qe of G~eenport . Annexation simply means tJ~ar the juzisdictien of the property wo~tld be C(i[N T REPOI~TiNG AND TRANSCRIPTION ~ERVICE ?,7E 8047 14 2 5 6 8 9 14 1 5 1 17 2 ~ ~5 moved from the Town to ~he Village. The anrle×ation process involves five steps. Step 1 is the filing of the annexation pet it ion. Step 2 is the "overall public h~terest" ]oint public hearing, which you are attending k onight . Step 3 is both Boards have 90 days from ~he date of this hearing to vote en and produce findings as to whethei ol not the annexatio~l is in ~ he r~overall pub]J c interest." Step ~, in the event one ef the boards votes against ~nnexation, khe other beard can file to have the mattel adjudicated by the Appellate Division of the Sl~p~eme {2oNrt . Step 5 is the ~esolutinn of the Determining whethe~ o~- not the annexatien is in the "Overall ~ublic intel-est" is the central question in any annexation pioc~ eding. The bnrden ~f proving ~hat the aiinexaiion is in the '~ovela]] l/lb] ~P interestTM s eli the municipality s~eking {~}eei]po~k . The determina~ion J:i made by each Df (:(lINT NEPORi'ING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (63!} 878 8047 15 2 3 6 8 9 ~ 0 1 · iL 2 13 1 5 1 6 Greenport and Southold as they make their findings and decisions, as well as the Snpreme (i;cu}t if necessary. Thankf'Llllt', the overall publi{ interest question has been addressed iii detail u]~de~ New York State case law. The determinatie]~ ef whether the annexatien is in the overall publi~! inteIest is predicated upon the weighing of the benefit or detriment to Greenport, Southold and ti{K: property te be annexed. Th. us, tegether with Greenport, we must show you that, erie, the benefit to G~eenport ounweJghs any detriment te Sou[hold; and, two, i h~t the annexation will not significantly inllnre Seuthold. Specifically, "benefit" and 'detrNt!enk have consistently been defiLned in the :~as~ law in kerms of municipal services, most netably i nol ude, sewer and wate~ s( trice, po] i ce }~zoteetien, health regulat:[ens, public utilities ~nd publi: education. 'I'l~e those signifi0ant facto]- to d tertlti~le whe~he~ aN annexation is in the overall ] Ntis(st J s an improved, expedi t ions and CO,JRT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 8'/8 8047 16 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 17 18 20 22 2 2% 25 government's sewage or water systems. We believe this annexation is a logica_ step which will p~ovide numerous benefits to beth the Village and the 'Fewn, dekriments te Southeld. annexation and the reasons why based en several factors. The first key benefit involves sewers. Greenport has a sewer system with immediate capacity to accommodate the project. {Fhe ~esidents ef the Village are entitled {est, as of right connection to the sys{em. prospective residents ef onr develep~nent would derive clear monetary and environmental pnh]ic benefits from being in the village. Ho~eove~ , Greenport's sewer system allows Greenpe~t pro~'ide additional units over what would be allowable by Suffolk County if the property were not annexed and remained in SoR~ihold. Ik is · ecisely this increase in density that allows ~s o p~ovide 64 hollies at: prices between $17~ ,000 $266, 500 . Like the sewer sys~ em, [f this }il ip~tV' S &~nllexed to Greenport, it will [~ entiti+d and wi thout any The benefits ef ~he it is necessary are and REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ,(( 3] i, 878 804'? 17 as of-right connection to Greenport wauer system. In terl~ls of tax revenues, both Greenpo~t ~nd So~thold stand te receive significant tax ~euefits from the annexation and project. B{cause ot Southeld's ~all town'~ tax, Seutheld will continue to receive tax revenues to support the sea-vices it provides the Village, including police and court services. However, Southeld will ne l~nger need to provide Building Department, ~ublic Works and Zoning and Planning Beard services to ~ he p~eperty. More importantly, after annexation and ~.~ ~pl~ tJon ef the project, the Village wi]] r{ ~eive significant new tax revenues te be used te ~f~set the cost o~ any services supplied by vii~iage, in the amount of 12.95 percent of the ~ {~ta] assessed value. The issue of commnni~y services is v0~y ~imple. This annexation will canse ne {N trimsnt ~ c So~he]d as the property is ~lready situated ~ h6 Gleenport Fire Distri{~ and the GreenpoEt ~] ~o! Dist{-ict, rind is a] [-eady protect~d hy :~ ~hold Iolioe Department. C(~UNT REPOP. TING AND I'RANSCRIP?ION SERVICE ('6~' ', ±, 878 8047 18 i 2 4 5 7 8 10 1 i[ iL 2 12 2 [ And another major factor an,.'] ou~ ~bility to create 64 would be that " in the annexation affordable homes lower subdivision and ~pplication fees and has a less bureaucyatic applicatiorl process than does Southold. These fees, in connection wLth u~ility fees if the 8zopezty xemained in Southold, could total as much ds $25,000 per unit, a cost passed onto the home tsuyer. SNPERVISOR HORTON: qo i n q ask yo~ that would normally be If I may, everybody's have the opportun:/ty to) express theix hhis proposal here this eveninq, I just allow this gentleman and his ocganization t:3 cot t h~:Pu~:th this. I ask everybody maintaiN_ a Ih~o is a matter ef public: importance. Whethe~ you are fei tNis ,)z against / hit:, we're here to ex,)less an opinion in a .:ivilized andpr()/~Rqiolla] man~le~. So please ]el:~in from booillq p{ople off the stage o~ public t hink ~T khat will t,e disruptive. For this, I s/ea}c on behalf (:)~ both Boards. Thank M1;. 1< NF)kOoTR. (!ontinuing on In addJtlion, w~ }lave alz~a']'- . 5 ~ad t[~ support of ('~r}I,"F ~E~.R] NG AND ~NAN, CRIP I N SERVICE ,',~ ~1) 8~8 8047 19 2 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 ] ~ 15 1 ] ] 8 2O 21 22 24 Greenpo~t officials who belLieve this p~ejeet: is integral te addressinq the needs of the T{wl~ and Village. All of these benefits cembine ~ ma]<~ this a feasible preject, which al]ews us tc ~iovide 64 afferdable homes without government subsidies er taxpayer centributien. ONce again, these significant public benefits to the Village and Town come with no detriment to Seutholt. The proposed pr{ ject, as witln any develop~nent project, may have some pot~ Ntia] impacts. It is important J o l!c~ e that ]~6~ p~ <} }ect wi ~] he subject te planning review annexation by both ~he Village ~,{ Gre~ n~i~l'~ because of its proximity to tNe Vi [lag ~he Snffelk Ccunty [lanning Commission. w~ h~ve t~ken a preemptive step to iden~ ify p{.t{ntial impacts and seveNal mitigatie~ stoat< gics. We have sempiled a subs~an[ {etail, which has been subnitted J~lte t]~ ~l:e T~>wn o~ Village. I will briefly di :c ~ss ~i~l] }wi:og key iss ~es: Scheols, trafii ' COIJNT REPOR'FING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (6-',1 ) 878 8047 2O environment. As melltioned previously, property falls within District. Therefore, School to accommodate the subject the Greenport School {he ability of the G~eenport concerns. However, based on the cnrrent~ enrolhnent of 680 students~ the schoel is operating at only 61.8 percent of capacity. As such, Greenport School has room for 432 mere students {e reach its full capacity. Although there has been some question as to the functional capacity of the sd~eol due te current New York State Education Department standards, even J f the dctual capacity is 20 percent less their the s~:ated capacity of I ,100, the school still] lids enouqh ~oom for 212 additienal students. Total enre]lment in the schoel has i lKlreased by only 8.6 percent over the last sever yea~s, which equals an increase in enroJlmen{ o~ only ! . 2 percent pel year, or approxirna~ql y S6Vell s~udents per year. As an example of E~:~ceNt enrollmen~i t~ends, b{tween 1998 and J999 and R003/iP004, eNro]huent ill glades K through 3 has decEeasei by }e stndolR~-', COURT £{EPORT!NG AND TRANSCNIP~ION SERVICE ({ 3i) 878-8047 21 9 ] 0 iL 3 14 ] '? 1 8 2 2 representing a 20 percent decline. on the red line yc:u see there. The black line the forecast and prediction if these trends That's shown is continue, and it's', lower than one sixth fe~- t:he tour grades combined. Census data can heJp us estimate the numbsr of school aged childre~ that could be generated by our project. This g~aph shows the actual number of school aged ohild~en associated with different housing types based on 2000 New York State and U.S. data. As yowl carl clearly see, the impact ef sing]e-family ~]omes is mucN greater than o~he~ housing types, .64 stndents pez home. It sh hid also be noted that t~e number e~ schook ag~ d ~ h~ ldren ir~creases with the number of size o~ units. Using this data, [rom the Town of Southo]d and G~'eenport School District, as ~he basis fe~ enr ~nalysis, tN~ along with actual figt~res est imated number ef school aged c}lJ ldren generated ly this proposal Js between 45 and 69 {hr an ay)rage ef 58. Compare this to all average ('hJldren that wou]d be generabe~t by as o~ ]~ight project ]ruder its c~]rrent COUNT REPORTING AND I'RANSCRIPTION SENVICE (6sl} 8'/8 8047 22 1 '7 8 9 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 ~ 5 ~ 6 ~ 9 2 ~ ~8 It should be expected that district, as part ]mldgeting program, the school of a responsible planning and has accounted for a high d{ usity ~esidentially zoned parcel in its ~ nNda~ies, iet i~ our belxef that given the r:ur~ent: ::n~rollment in our school, the relatively few students generated by the projeot and the ~}hased construction process, which will gradually introduce new students, our school tax should not l~ subst-~ntially affected by this project alone. S}me people may tell you if you live in ~ his ~:choel district your taxes will rise even as mu2N as 15 to 30 perce~lt. I ask you to question ~! ef ~lly how they a~rived a~ these numbers, lind don't let them compare this project to one {h minaLed by large, four bedrooln, single {!amily ::Jze and including a variety of housinc Although these figures show no adverse addiLiona] mitigation will he provided by f ~ckors. As I mentioned, limiEing unit type.~ will t lle sd hi)o!. By the title the project is complete hid COURT REEORT[iNG AND URANSCRIPTION SERVICE ((l 1) 2'78 8047 23 8 1 0 L ~ :L 5 introducing children into the school, yemrs, there will be a significar~t grades K 6, given limited, if any, assume three capacity in new ~{esidential demographics of the ~ddiEion, [he phase scho()l district and shifting Town and school dj stlict. In <Df (ions{ixu.'~ i©ri of process wJ 11 allow for gradual introduction of new stndents into the school. Assuming a ~ ©tal increase of 58 studerKts over thlee yea~s, this aim)tiNts to less tilden 20 S{tl{ierlts pe~ year, and if divided among the 13 g~ades, students per grade. SiNce tire projec! its So /t hold ~esidents &< ~:thol t residents, ]nt ended f or cus 1-ent ani will[ giv{ prio~iby to many o1{ whom will have As with any resident kal, a {ncyease in vehicle traffi(:: :an be in ~ }ase traffic wikhin childlen already Jn tN{ G~(eF, pe}i scNoo] system, impact: of new childzen should be 1~ ::sened. certain exp,}< ted. this p~ol{ect will nZ substanhialiy hewn. This qrap} Rveiage daily versicle Fl ips on County Noad 48 hid th possib]{ imp~ot o~ [ b pYopo~ed dove] c)ptt/ellt as wel ] as the J }ltpac~ of REPORTING AND TRANSCRIP~'ION SEll%VICE (631) 878 8047 1 2 3 5 '7 10 11 12 13 1 ,t 15 18 19 20 2 ] 22 23 2 ! what could be built on the site as of light HD Zening, the difference is enly 1.7 percent of [h{i cllrrellt number of tr~ps on Route 48. Again, a~ltheugh we find minimal potential impact, ~ several factors khat will further mitJqat~ Ilhis issue. The small size of the residential units wJ [] limit the household size and number of vehicles associated with the project. ~dditien, a remarkable statistics. Is that 40.6 peucent of all people who work in Southc,~o c{mm~te trom outside town, most significantly NJve~head, Breokhaven and Islip towns. By ~!owinq a pertion of this overwhelminq pe~(: ntaqe ot the workterce of Southo]d and Greenl~er~ t ~ live within the Eewn and village, w~hicle t~ips workers commuting into Sou{held from furthe~ west will be ~ duced. According to tNe U S. E)ep~rtment Non,sing and Urban Development, workers who to a[~ polh~tion, increases COURT REPORTING AN[) TRANSCNIPTION SERVICE {631} 878 804'7 25 1 2 6 '7 8 9 i 0 2 2 ~ 5 16 1'7 22 accidents, adds additional casts far workers, and results in significant less ef productivity. Given the intended market, it's expected that many opportunities for carpeoling and bicycle nse will be created within the proposed development . ~d fiscally, as pa~rt ef the proposal, we will recommend that Suffolk County re-route its S 92 bus line to accommodate the project. The environment and our natural ~esources are an issue abou~ which w~ are all concerned. There are approximately 2.7 ac~es of freshwate] wetlands en the proposed project site as determined by Charles ~owman of A, and Us~ Ecologica] Services in July of 2005. M~. Bowman was a DEC employee for eight- years and has nv6r 20 years of experience in environmental Feso~lree management. These_ wet]ands are regulated by i~Ne New York State D~C, whether- the prope~hy is under {he j[lrisdiction of Southo]d or Greenpo}t and will be protected in accordance with DEC a}~d Vii I ~ge regulations both du~iug ant afteE '['he preservation of pristine ln}d~ )N)61i spaces is the ~oca] i ss!la o~ the TlWli COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ! 5i]) 878 26 1 0 L4 2 2 2 Southold. By meeting the recommendations of Smart Growth and Southold Town Planning studies, this property, which has, one, been zoned high density ~esidential for 25 years; two, is located nea~ the hamlet of Greenpelt; three, is within the NALO Zo'.]{ ; four, has existing infrastructure iN place; a. nd ~ive, is susse~nded by h~a ~%~ey u~es; ~t Js an ideal location for this type of residential development and will allow more pristine open l~nds to be preserved, rather than be consumed by Recently there has been much discussion in hhc Village ef the futnre of Greenpert in 2005. We believe that tNe future of Greenport and S ~thold rests with the wol-ki~lg individuals and ~ami 1 i es and residents of our comm~ni~y, i k s ~h6 responsibility of both governing boards here ~enJght to ensure that these residents can have a ~i] ~{}{ to iive in Southold. Southold S2own's 2003 Housing Ne6ds A&sessmen{~ concluded that it will req~ire ~ ~aditional heusi~g paradigm bearing down on ~ be 'i.wn's ~emai~ing housing opportunities and p~ovide ~!{i)UI.~T NEPORTING AND IRANSCRIP I{N ,~ENVICE ({ ~1) 878 8047 27 7 8 _ ] 0 1 iL 24 for a range of housing opportunities fo~ all segme~lts o/. the Town's pepulation. 'Phis site is currently zoned Hamlet I)ensity i'~ Southe]d. HALO Zone, }las access The poteutial impacts It is within the Greenport to, necessary infrastructure. h~'~e been identified and will be /l/itiga~ed, arid tile project has been developed in accordance with Smart Growth and Seuthold Town Planning initiatives. This is a true mixed interne develepment, incorpo~at ing a variety of housing types foz Southold r( sidents with varieus incemes, ages and lifestyles. This will be the first project o~ its kited on the North fo~k. l'he development will be i00 perclent privately fnnd d with no taxpaye~ cent,{}but}on or government subsidy. Working in coopcratien with two mehivated a~ld committed [/~LllncipaJikies, w( are roady, willing and abl{ to begi~i ~ his }project as soon as possibh in order to address the affordable ho'l&ing needs of euz ~o~mnunitF by helping 64 w~ zking i~dividua}s and familie~ te ow~ a home in S ntho]d and live their share {i ~ tile All~erica}] {ile:lm. l']iank you for list~2ning. REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION ~ ~NVI{.N~ (o ,l } 878 8047 28 ] 8 1 2 2 3 I invite the Boards back to th,-, dais now. SUPERVISOF HORTON: At this point , we' [[ open the floor te public inpnt. AnybodT who wishes te address tile 2wo Boalds, please s[e~, up to the microphone located at the front tit{ ro,'}rn. I' L1 identify yon by a show e~ h ~nds again, ask ~eu fo: input o] thsee minutes, and right azound three minutes, I'll ask y~ n provide a summary. And if you need to slip, re more than that, we'll just wait 12ake sure ,=v< ryb dy's had the epportunity provide their ~npu~ , ~nd ~hen we'll go from there. Yes, sir? HR. TOHILL: Good evening, Hr. Chai~ Hz. Supervisor and Members of each c>f and to ali of t~lo audience and ~lo tile family. Hy name :s Anthony Tohi] [, I' attorney. I practice in Rive~head, and I ~epresent the 13 ]esid{ntial neighbors wh c kosest to this property, across and ns~rt h PoRte 48 on the Long Island Sonnd. A[ the end of my p~esentakion, whiTh i~-<lai ,*nalvsis that I h~ve three mJnuFes prepared ( UpT REPORTING AND ~RAN, (RIP,ION SERVICE ~6~,1, 8~8 8047 29 a number of exhibits, some 45 exhibits, which support the legal analysis with respect to wha2 is preposed here this evening. What is p~eposed here this evening is ~ petition under Article ]7 of the General [~quni :~ipal Law. It's the anrexation {hapter, but if you }~ead all f~orner~ ~i~-em ~age to page~ yo~ wil~ find that Article 17 can be a referendum on heusing in a communisy, so therefore, allmost all of the presentation that everyone has already heard ~his evening, which was an introductlen on the referendum on housing, is absolutely outside the four terriers of the annexatJen pzo~cess. {Applause) Nobody in this room tonight has ever seel] afl annexekion occult. ] sn' ti that a~l in2e] esting bxoad statement at the beginning o~ my ~cma~ks? If I took the collective y(a~s of muni,~ip~l experience of all the people up on the dais to,light, and none of yo~l earn sav that we have been involved in this befo2e, we eaghk t o stop and think abo~lk that ~o~ a secolld. The ~e n q~l haven't beer] involved in this ~ P%ore i n t hnh ~t7 dc{sn'~ work, it doesn't m~k( u]y sense, and this C(XIRT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION rERVICE (63!) 878~8047 3O 1 2 4 6 '7 S ] ~ o 2 [ applicati on, the Article Let this petition is a gross misuse of 17 proceedings. me try and lay it out. Imagine if we're in upstate New York, we're in a township; we h~ve a boundary with another township; we' re 20 miles from the town center; we have no elestric service; ~e ha~ dirt roads; ~a ~ ne fire p~otection service; we hay6 no police service; we }lave no ambulance service; we have no school buildings for any children, assuming they there, cou].d attend. And assume toe, that that township centrally located 20 miles away has expressed any interest in ever supplying any tlr village services te that particular a~ea, ~}at a different township or a different village says we would like to extend our boundaries, wo~ld like to supply those services. N~w we' t alkJng annexation; that's annexation. So it starts with a benefit/detriment analysis and [hat's not art or taste or when your e] {~cst daughter brings her fiance home I'm going te marry this mug, at who understands the words detriment and says whi ch ~ J and COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPi?ION SERVICE (63]) 8'?8 8047 31 ] 2 1 ] 12 1 5 1'7 1 2 0 2 1 2 x gets to understand that it's quite personal, what is detriment a~d what is benefit. That's net what it's abe~t at all. The first thing to do is something that nobody did se far tenight, you ]eok at the territory, the territory is 17 acres, and you do a benefit/~ietriment analysis there. Taat benefit/detriment analysis is ilot persenal, it's not the kind of thing you saw up on the screen tonight, it is the municipality in which these 17 ~cses, the territory, are __ocated, does that ~unie~i~alJ. ty have the capacity, the interest, the doJ lity t~i supply municipa! service, that's the ~ .... ~. ANd se, you ask first the territory, ~;e~c>nd the town frem which the property we~lld be ~nn{xed, khild tile village to which the propezty woeld be annexed and fourth the districts, ~ ire district, the scheel district and so Wh~n klnat ~nalysis is done. then you can complete i 11 . So let ' s t ak~ a ]ook ak what' s been done . SUPERVISOR HORTON: Hr. Tohill, it has CIURT NE~i(i)RI'ING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 8'78 8047 32 10 11 13 1 ! 1'7 18 20 21 22 2, 2d five is MR. TOHILN: It I ' ve ever seen AUDIENCE bIEHBER t:he fastest three a })icj project. (Applause) SUPERVISOR HORTON: We' ] 1 take that _ c~rzsidez at ion. MR. TOHILL: Thank you. an analysis as if yeu were riqht ~elice pretec~ion, electric, the sake ef this evening, we'~e he~e, ])ether { h~n norma] density than nozmal density. nun2icipal services. Can 1 make a suggestion, This into LeE's dc quickly let's lust for heusino with Tlnat'~ a whole se~ ~e~; ,f faiz if tNere is an annexat ion o} ii L}mre isn't on, khat;'~ the overall public intel;est %]~.~t the table here tonight, nothinq else. Ny the w~ 'ze all fzc)[n e~,~,q!l]ehu ],cng Island, (,!;RT REPON iIN~ AND IRANoCRIP/ION ~ERVICE I~tl) / ,6 8047 33 2 4 '7 9 ~ 0 ] 5 ~ 6 1 9 ~ 2 2 ~ fox it here. So here we go, police protection, the Town already provides it, it's there. Elec. tric, LIPA provides it, it's there. Water, Suffolk County Water Authority provides it, i l's t here. Sewer, the Village provides it, it's a couzt order, the Kontokestas have told you that ik~ ~en ill efie~]It since L9~6. SO~©lS~ i~'~ already in the district, tile district I've heard isn't pleased to have ali these new students, so I'm sure ttNat's a benefit, lut the school is the~e, that's for sure. Fire, the fire pre,ecl ion distzict is already there, we don't need new protection services. Housing, higher densfiES., this is HD use, highest density in the town. The st~dy is talking eight per acre, [hat's !wice the numbe~ right now, you don't need t{ add to that which you already had in effect on tNat property for a long, long ~ ime. So, everything I just s~id is indiff6leut to what's being pxopesed hose t~migh2; ~n o~h~ wo Fds, whether o~ ilot Il here ' s []-] allilexa% i on n][ of COURT REPORTING AND TNANSCRIPU'ION SERVICE {631 } 878 8047 34 2 4 7 9 I 0 1 1 i1 2 ] 4 1 8 2 ~ 2,t public interest, that interest is a private interest. KASE owns 10 percent of that propezty. A yield analysis Js critical. Under no loea! municipality could one exclkude ~treshwater wetlands from the analysis, that's exactly how 128 is arrived at. than five minuets. HR. TOHIhL: Ail right, I'll summarize. I~ it's R 2 zoning yeu can get te 128, h~t thaL's nob the f~lnctien of annexa~ ion, that's nok the f~lnchioN of government. The function c ~ government is te provide services, not to provkde an economic opportunity; t':hat's out of ~and n~der any circnmstances. The only thing thak's happenirlg here is that thes~e's an annexation avoid the Town regulatory precess, and that's a misnse . i'm going he hand ~p my memerandnm. 1~11 give one to each of yotl and one te the Vil]aq6 ,~zlerk, one to the Town clerk. [ ask if you will kindly ~ead J t. I thank yeu very mt~ch. HR. CICCARO: My n~lne i~ Chick (?icca~o, I fiYe iz~_ tile Greenpert azea. l'',e livelt hr ~e COUN~ REPONTING AND TRANSCNIPTION oERVICE :1631) 878 8047 35 iL !i ~L 6 2 0 p~actical]y alii my life. Mr. Supervisor, Mr. Mayor, Trustees, Councilmen, thank you for giving me this opportunity te speak. This is the first public meeting I Nave a~ended. I'm against this project. Le{ me tell you why L'm aqainst it. As this man has just on eno acre of property. Who is benefiting fl-em ~[{nt? That's the American way. Hake as much money as you can. I can't hold these gentlemen ~gainst that, but it's not geed fe~ this community. No one in this room is against Rf~ordabl~ heusing. They are against any i~ dividual who comes in here and thinks h~ can ~ ii t]e pzopert y that he owns. This is an , xpensiwe place te live, there's no question about t t, and we do need more affordable housing, hut this is not the p~eject ~er it. Ill addition, ]~sing in Greenport, land ?)~hind the school. we already have afiordable there's a large t z~t~ ~ ef There is an adr~itional I forge t what ik is, Shady Lady. Thks of o)ntse will I C'r'I~ '~ ~ '631 ) 878 804? ,~ r,~ NEPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION oERVICE ,, 36 ] 2 3 4 9 ] (; 1 8 School District. be the only one the taxpayers in the Greenport I don't think Greenpcrt should en that bears the brunt. i look at: the cost of these uniks. I only looked at:, I couldn't se~:~ them all, I didn't have time but apartments are 900 square feet:. The,' ~y re 31125,000, that's $125 a square fo&~%~ ] ca4s build a ho~se today for less than that. There are no quarantees what the cost on these units will be. it said :h-~ the paper suppiF in demand. Well, 1 wen2 to college but I didn't qraduate irom aln ivy heague school, but "supply and ckmand tel is you th~ re's a big demand foz a $300,000 or a $350,000 hoqse, that's what it's going t',, sell for. Now, I'm getting a litt~le emotional be~ ause that's my ]ltRlian style, now, I'm ~lot going to get persona~, but you know many years Mitchell's property. He wanted to build lusted his chops, and he w{nt bankrupt, but yet: t ~,]ty, we have a hotel in Gr~enNort. One { f the n~]ms was how hiqh ~hJs hotel was geit~g to bi roi h~ ~uan I mentioned. I think ~his one is p~obably CONRT REP /P. ilNG AND TRANSCRIPTION .gERVICE (631) 878 8047 37 2 5 6 7 8 ~ 2 ~4 55 22 2 ~ 25 the same size. So it seems to me it's different strekes fer different folks. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Anybedy else care to address the Boardl Hiss Wagner? MS. WAGNER: Members o~ the TowF~ village Board, cemmit_tees for ~prese~-ve~ion ~ SUPERVISOR HORTON: State your Name alxt place of residence. MS. WAGNER: I'm sorly, I've been inwDlved in the presexvation Town, I don't know how many committees preservation of this and God knows wha[, t~ proposal to add 17 acres o~~ den '.e housiN~ Gresnpert and Se~thold tewn is ~ppalling. most appalling t~nng abo~t it in my mind ~]timate plan te build 128 hemes in thi& space. ~Fh i s I ' Ye been a part icipant i n nUmeE(}T~S is what we feared when thc end cf tNe the three mor~tori~x~s finally endued, that some money llungry dewah~p¢! s would k~? t Ail in the name oi! "af£c ~d~ble housing." COUNT REPORTING ANI} TRANSCRI-P?ION SERVICE (6}i) 878 8047 38 ] 2 3 4 6 9 10 1 iL 13 ~6 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2h Greenport itself doesn't like the idea according to the newspapers. They have questions. Number one, why should the vii]age alone carry the responsibility ef pre,siding iow cost hensin~ ~he entire town? What about the other hair, lets? Nnmber two, there's the problem of schnols, S~intende~ Ke~ora has be~ <~ehed as saying the school district can't handle the hnndreds ef youngsters that will be added ~o its ~olls. Three, what about the sewer c.a~acity? The Village just reek on Pecenic Landing and the Harborview Hotel. Will th~ plant new ~ave exparld even more to 8cco[~l[l/odate this new development? Does that ~meaR me~e treated e~lXluent going into Long Island Sound? And final]y, there's the concern the Town Supervisor has thrown in t}le hopper, that nih{ of ~he acres, eno thkrd of the total, are wetlands and can never be built on. A]tegethex this annexation idea is a pfeposte~ons notion that should be rot{ d dewl~, ~s Ph . Romanelli said last week, t:c~nic~Nt. Thank MN. EDELSON: My name ~s Michael C{NIRT NEPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION ~ERVICE {6}].) ~78 8047 39 2 L 0 1 [ ~ 9 2~ 2 5 l'm a resident of Greenport. I am certainly ih [avor ef affordable housing, and I want to address certain local Greenport issues about this. New Hayor Kapell may disagree on many issues, but ~ffordable housing binds us together, in perso~[, the street, on the phone and elsewhere, w{ bouh agree th~L mervir~g $_]%e entise village and beyond is essential, future. However, Mayor Kapell, population% ©f t~e is vital to ouz it's repoyted you said, quote, small units won't appreciate in value; is this cozrect? MAYOR KAPELL: Ne. HR. NELSON: You did net say this? SUPERVISO~i HORTON: Hr. Edelson, pleas~ HR. EDELSON: I'm saying he did say it, ~s reported in the Suffolk Tines, and, in ~act, Hayo~ cited te th6 Tudor CLty as an example, and I ~esearched the smsll properties there I decided, ind wi}at ~ decided is always it being $250, tor ~ s~udio apartment at $250, 000. ] began month age to research this and since th6n, averages have risen to $280,000, . ~z ~, 000. And that is with ~q~are feet. That, by the way, a total of l() REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (( }li 878 8047 4O 2 3 4 % ? 8 9 i0 12 13 I ! Id ! 8 I 9 2 1 2 2 2 F bathroom, kitchenette and one closet; that leaves a loom measurinq about 16 by 17.5 feet. Mind you, is also a monthly maintenance fee about t he r e $6~;0. Anyhow, you quot.ed also that small in:its won't appreciate in value. I'm sorry, that ' s flonsense, llht£~I nonsense. Greenport doesn't have a wall around it protecting it from the awful force of increasing property values. For example, a house very comparable to lily OWI1 Oi1 my block is now cn sale for over .~]00,0,)0 mor6 tlhan what I paid for mine. I bought mine ~ess than two years ago. My Ged, Gentlemen, ~nd Mayor, who is a licensed zeal estate agent, yon should know this because that's the way yon make yon] living. And I b~;ing khis to issue be{:a~:se this 4s a Greenpert issue, ko consider the realities snd not the pr~ sentatieN that was given tonight. I am also a professor emeritus. I spen2 25 years ~s a professo~ at Stony Brook University, and I say this because I know what this sort of six inches. Thtnk and we all h~ve fanciful It's comparable Eo a man with the statistical depth COURT REPOR'rlNG AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {(31) 878 8047 41 1 2 6 ,? 9 ] 0 1] 1 ~ 1 ~ 2 2 HS. WADE: Hi, my name is Randi Wade and Greenport has had my heart since 1983 because itl is a wonderful village with all different incomes and types of people and architecture and it's s~]~rounded by beauty, wa~er and Moore's Woods, a~ld Moore's Woods actually sursounds this deve]op~nent site. The charts that shewed the benefit to Greet:pert and Seutheld, I just wanted to make a little correction, since outside the Village [here w~>uld be hook-up fees, the benefit to ~heenport w?uld actuall}z be a loss [ O COllie tic) GL~eenpcrt. The school issue, if this development w~.re I di'rided the numbN~ o[ years, 1~, by 'aha number of st/~d~nts in th(: school and tile lverage is 26, that's two {?lasses of 2n. So, if only two children pez he~sehold came } 6~ ~his new development were ~o a~ive in this s~hool lhere ~night be sap fenr in one { lass of fi~s~ or second graders, which would bring it np t 30, w~iic]i would ~R{}-ill we would have Ye actual ly add ail ntJre class. So even though other people miqht capacity, the parents h~v~ ee~ it<~d that they want tN{ im childfen t~ hax'e COI!RT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE .{6~1 ) 878 8047 42 1 2 3 4 7 $ 10 12 13 19 20 2i 22 24 25 small class sizes, on tile north fork. I find it as every other scheol district a little hard te believe that if you go to Seutheld Town, which indeed does have a ~lanning Board apprep~iate to ~eview site plan approval for a subdivisiou which Greenport lacks, it weuld cost $25,000 extra pe~ heusehold in develepment fees, that's just sounded furlny. I am primarily a t~ansportation planner, and I notice that state DOT on Route 48 recently cendemned preperty te straighten cut the terribl~ on 48 that Chapel Lane. Because of the high speeds intersecti©n of Chapel and 48 quJle dangerous, and hbo dew. i!opmen~ , this development, weu/d be jnst east t here. The developer said that this is net a pi J stine area, i~ ' s s~rrounded x)y develepment , but it's actually surrounded by Hoore's Weods, n~d I am so glad tha~ this property is brought to everybody's attention b~cause I can't think ~if any more important critical piece of p~operky to bank in~o t h( p~eservat~ on p~ogram property. {Applause) Thank you. One lasE thing, i{ also lc>eked like sp~t C(}NFF REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {(31) 8 '8 8047 43 '7 8 10 1 1 1 2 ] 5 1'7 1 !) 2O 2 2 zoning; it's not walking distance to the village. It's up there surrounded by other zoning designations. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Sir? MR. CAPON: Southo!d Town Board, Vi}]age Board. George Capon living in Southeld town for 74 years. I would like to make a statemenE that hasn't been brought up tonight by Ken. Hr. Harrington brought up tonight about understanding that there's goin~ to be development on Alison Lane and 48 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Capon, thi s evening's hearing is solely about the !v acres. Hake your comments te that spe ~ifically. HR. CAPON: Ail right. One ethe~ thing is I read in the Suf~!olk Times, oh, probably a pear, year and a half aqe about the pkece of property across from the Shady Lady, trying te develop. SUPERVISOR HORTON: whish the Town Again, }~. Capon, this evening's hearing is about a very specific il m, the annexation brought before /~: by KASL, hh'. Pl~'~se keep our ~'omments to thi: matte~, kh,~t would be appreciated. C }URT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE .{%3 k) 878 8047 44 2 3 5 6 8 9 } 6 ~ 8 22 HR. CAPON: I'm very sorry. But I thought this issue would be something to do with the whole town, with this piece ef property going to happeu he the Town ef Southeld. I'll go back to this ~ere piece ef property. Talk about the piece of property just east the nursing home, I belong te the fire department now for 65 years, excuse me, 66 yea~s, ]'in sorry, very sorry for that. I belong to the search and reseue squad and on calls like I'/n telling you, I thing is Greenport G~ eenpo~ L that , am very disappointed that one Pire Departl~ent I'm speaking not the fire department - that Fire De~:artment never had to go on a .,~.~n~l 3 to ~et help. five {out of 10 calls we have, we Signal 3. I'In aflaid this piece Now we say, I'll say evezy have go on a of property now tha~ they talked sbout is qoing to raise taxes for ~he school, arid more traffic on 48, 25 and in the village of G~e_ripcrt, which, when we do have t lilt {alii, you try to get to the fire house oz try get te the scene, like I said, we cannot ewn there as n firel~an, we have to take the ba :k ~ iid to gc around up to} 48 ox up to the Shady COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION · ~,RVICE (631[, 878 804'7 45 1 0 1 2 L ~ 1 6 ] '/ 4 9 2 0 2, 2 ~ 5 Lady. We can't go through the Village of Greenport to get to the scene. Myself, I live on Sever~th Street, I have to about Broad Street arid clown te get down there, and hop~ I get to Moore's you ~ery much. Good eveni]~{~ everybody, apologize. My name is HS. HC,~ABR have laryngitis, Martha HcCabe, ev£rybedy calls me Misty. born o~1 eastern Long Island ill both sides came o~'er 150 years i Hary I was 1959. Hy family on ago because of the Irish pohato fami~,e. Cutchogue. I love it here. Ply sisters left, my brethe~s My mothez was a HcP, ride J!rom ]el:t. lit ~ .elno~'e o like guys want to come out llere iii'om the city and l~ulldoze everythi~:g down, and khak's no~ right. I bought my own hcu,~ "-~ b(~ca~se E worked and worked and worked. I'm lu(ky 1 own it. No one ~ffcrded me a house. I'n/ sing]e, I liv~: witN my eight year old son, a nurs~ in the eme]-gency room fo~ 28 years. I'm retired ]low. I just wan1 to say save this place. It's gorgee~s. You guys t)m{ o~it here and you' ro palhlting this pictil~: t hat yell're alt ruistJo. Oh, y~l'~e going to give ns affordable ho~lsing. We~l, g~]ess what, yon're REPORTING ANI) IiRANSCNIP'FION .C~ERVICE"~ 1 (631) 828 8047 46 1 2 9 10 11 iL 2 13 14 ] '? 1'~ 20 22 2 ~ 2~ ~5 trying to line your pockets, line. And this place that's the bottom I'm mad because I don't want_ to see look like Nassau County. I ~eceived my nursing degree from Suffolk County Community CDllege in 1978; after that I graduated ~rom S~ate University of New York Stony B~oek professor with a bachelor's and say, let's keee it the way it is, city. Thank y,R:. HR. MASALAKA: Hello my name -- hello I jnst want to go back to the i s John ~asalaka, I've been a resident of Southeld very ]eng time. I always wondered why I liked Seutheld so much, and as I've been working in Manhattan for so many years I noticed that th~ weekend J~ because it's different, differenL meaning there's less people, less traffi{ , a~d the qna]ity o~ the air is different. It just s~ems that the idea of annexa~ is wrong, only because if we allow this annexation [~. Ge through, what other perim ters of Senth~ld wi ! ] also be annexed to GreenpoEt because or ~!le {inaudible; zoning laws thRt a~, in Gr~{nporl . it REPORTING AND ~?RANSCREPTION SERVICE {6Ri) 8'/8 8047 47 that's why I'm opposed to it. Seine things that haven't been mentioned tonight is according to your hand-ont, 32 perc6nt are year round residents and 68 percent are seasonal. The question is, why did we wait until the end of the stmlmer to held the first public hearing? It seems as if the t{ming of the }Raring which is tonight, which is on a Tuesday, prevents the 68 percent of the peop3e te be in this So really you only have a ~epresentation e{ the ~2 percent. The public hearinqs ~eally sNould hav~ the weekend, on a Saturday heie er a Thursday to allow the season~ ma~e up 68 percellt of Southo been held over on a Monday er residents that be heard. Now it seems which has and you' ] ] the middle of Thanksgiving, as if the public heari~]n started tonight which will end, 90 d~)~s have a vote, tha{ puts it already November, which is arennd those 68 percent ,.}f the p(:ep]e come here during ~he winter months. I[ just ~{ems My pa~ents always tolc~ me that timing w~s CC)I!RT REPONTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) RU,q 8047 48 18 20 22 2A 2d 2. 5 everything. You had to be in the right place at ~he right time. llt just seems that this ievelopment that &tarred in the late summer with this first propesal hearing is at the right Fi]ace at the right time to get approved. It sheu]d have been discussed during the summer between June, July and August so you weuid get a true ~cpresentatien ef Seutheld and if the peeple a~e oppesed to it. Thank yeu. HS. ORZO: Geod evening. Hy name is Sanette Orzo. My husband and I fell in leve with (';~eenpo]-t about 261, years ago. About f~ve yea~s ~go we started ta].king about retiring a~d ~ elocation, there was ollly one place we t}_len(Tht Of which was Greenport. Unfortuna{ely, timinq c£ tire financial t~arket ~!or housing was going through the loef, but we didn't care, we were geing to end up in Greenport, because Greenpe~t was, as I quo[ ed ~o people, why are you going to live out the~, I '~ going to live where people ~}o on vaea[ Je~}. So we found eurselves e heuse recently} we bought a home two years ago in town and now this [s qoing to change why we ' Ne ccmi ng COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION ~ERVICB {631) 8'/8 8047 49 ] 2 3 4 6 ? 8 9 10 12 13 15 Z 6 2~ 22 2~ 25 community feeling and that's being eliminated. There's a quote tkat says may God make you smart ill a small town. We feel we were We made a home pnrchase but the enough to liw~ smart enough. small town is heaving us. I de have one question which hasn't addressed, and I'm very concerned. I I worked in the operating teem for 25 years. I now work as a certified health care compliance consultant. No one has mentioned the impact this will have on the hospital. Does anyone have afl answer to khat? Everyone was talking about fire, emergency, but hospitalization, physicians, SUPERVISOi~ HORTON: AIl of those things will be cousidered ii1 the process. HS. ORZO: Thank you, please save e~r MR. GABROWSKI: Hi. my name is Kizk Gabzowski, I live en Second Stzeet in Greeuport. 1 came tonight te get some information on what new ~ppears to me to be Levi ttown oN the SouNd . iiJnd the presenta{ion tonight ~undamentally disingenuous ~ am afraid to say. At Columbia, the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION ~ER/ICE (631) 878 8047 5O 1 2 3 % 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 {~ ]'7 18 1 2 21 22 2{ 24 25 School of Urban Planning had a reputation for recognizing complexity in the affordable heusinq issue. This is not a complex approach. This is ~uick fix with no long term planning for what's going to happen to these p~eper~ies after pe{p]e buy in and sell out as fas~ as ~ hey can. Thi~ not about affordable housing, it might be abou~ couple ef other tNings, it might be about the implicit threat ~o build a house any way tha{ works, which I find also a little upsetting, but i~ should be very clear that this is no{ about affordable housing. Thank you. MS. SCHRODER: Good evening, Ladies ~nd <knt[emen, Lynn Schroder, North Fork Environm,:ntal (;ounc i 1. that. As hard as it is to from the annexation, The attorney separate tl~e propos{d i'm going to t]~y to Southold Town has the ability, it has zenzng, it ha~ the c~pability ef pzoc~_~ssing its applications, ik has a planning board. I want to reit:eraSe what Hi~ s Wade said, you have a P]anrip~g Departm{nt , v n htvo a Board o~ Trnste, s. 'Fhore seems t(> b( (;m~ argument about what pe~ceutage <:>f tlh~ REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 51 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 19 2O 21 22 24 25 property is covered with freshwater wetlands, and I just think that the Town of Seutheld is in a better position tc do a inore thorough environmental that parcel. project back to the annexation, I just have to say, when I heard Hr. Kentokosta talk about Smart Growth, I couldn't disagree mere. You can't walk to a stere, you can't walk to a school and it's very well nice they're going to recommend tha~ the county use their bus service, b~ that's not necessarily what's going to happen. This may be in the Greenport }ALO Zeno, but those azen't review for any future development on I think once I kind of married the adopted zones yet. You ha~en t had heszings i t~ ereenpozt te see if the community is q~ing ~o buy intc, that, and theze's going to be more said on that down the read. So i don'k think you can hang youz hat on this is part e] the Greenport HALO Zone. The othe~ thing I just wanted te talk about was the proximity of this property to Moo~e' s Woods. This is an envi ~onl~leil{ia] ] y sensitive piece oil pzoperty, and you need te st~dy it carefully. And in Setlthold you can facte~ ont, COURT REPONTING AND TRANSCNiPTION SERVICE~.631~ ) 8!8 8047 52 ] 2 3 6 7 8 I 0 1] 13 14 15 1 { 1V 19 20 21 22 23 25 do of department, and I just think that bettor position. Se I would really consider denying both you determine youz yield on a property, ot~h those wetlands', and that's important. I mean, study after study, when we do, just sort of polls ef o~tr membership, wetla~lds protection is one ef the lnest important things to people out he~e, and the town has the ability to protect them the most because they have the infrastructure in place to that. I don't believe the village has a board trustees, I don't believe they have a planning Southeld is in a just ask yeti to townshi ps . And I have to say too, when you think about Southeld already has affordable housing district cod~:. Th6 new subdivision law allows for 25 percent ~ffordable housing units. You did you factor that context of bigger planning studies, and I say hhis [e people all the time, my best friend in Broek]},n just sold her house, 70 units tea block, yok~ p/it your hand like this, you could touch the ot}le~ wall) $330j0001 So yeti kn~}w, unless you ilRve an dfferdable housi~lq program iii place to insure that sm~ll units stay affordable in perpet~ity, th~ y'r{ going to be market drive}l and that's why ['Ii/ COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631 ) 8'i8 8047 53 1 2 4 5 8 10 12 13 1 q 15 16 1 '7 18 19 20 21 22 2 ~, 24 coi:lfused because ] 'm trying to separate the annexation from the prefect, but as Mr. Kentokesta said that there's going te be covenants and restrictions, do we have any way of guaranteeing that these a~e really going te follow your cede? ~^~e just have his word at this point. The impacts, ibis prelect is Thanks. HR. HILDE~P~AND: just se over the Good evening, John Hildebrand, Greenpert Village. that these hearings well, it feels like traffic top. my name is I'm a 35 year resident of I believe Hr. Hevesi mentioned should be held in the summer, February in this room, we're freezing our asses off. I hawe a question for the Kentekesta l{:amily, which is that it also means that yet: sh}uld thoroughly look at the presentation, I very ~mxh question the 40.6 percent of the all workers in Greenport who come from out of town; did vexyone see that statistic? How did they axrive a~l ~hat n{m~ber? if tha~ number is true~ then {J~e~_~npo~t is building for 40.6 }percent of ~l~t of ~ own, affordable housing, there's wrying with the eqnation, people settle t 11 illg gentlemen and ladies, (iOURT REPOR'FING AND q'RANSCRIPTION SERVICE (63]) 878 8047 1 2 l d 1 (, 17 L 22 here. There' s one discussion is ~his ~eal estate. So been here, these { hink about it. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Let in{ introduce i came to this country about two, thres years ago. ~ enjoy living here for many years and this re[a~es in many ways to the way I see my fn{uze thing missinq f~om this econolny and the future o~ far the last 2{} years that I've 15 years I've spent cles{ ly watching ecenomics and politics. It's not popular and wen't be popular what 11 am going to say te you, but I think ~ea] estate i& going toe far specially in this area, 68 pc-~{ent of second hokLses are built on speculation. This is a classi c comes, second second houses what happens is buyers when the sign of a bubble and when the bubble honses, when the b':bble b~eaks are geing to be s~ld first. Bu~ nobody will buy, there will be no }~uyers because the~e will be n<]x,~x~y with any lloney ?:o bey. So from an economi[c point of view, I see th~ whole project as a big faiil~re. I ask pe<>p]e w}]~ know something cf the eton{mit world, wha[ the mortgage ~ates wi] 1 be five y{ ~:s from now. Who's COURI' REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 55 1 2 3 4 6 ? 8 9 10 1] 12 13 [ 4 1 { 20 21 23 21 25 going to buy it? Who? We were talking here 3[} percent of the people living he~e, and I think the bigger problem is werk fer those people. because they cannot stay here, they leave here because they have the reasons they den't reasons, I won ' t secendazy to the this from the economic point e~ view, and I do not It ' s not f rom to werk. This is one ef stay here, one of the say the main one. But this is whele issue. We should look ~t the same live years they will cost tod~y. l!elieve uhe houses will cost down the road as the same as Tharlk you. tl~is raw project, isn't it? There's a~l annexatioi1 nnless hhere ' s ~ hok/sing MN. QUAYL~:: Tyler Quay]e f~om Seutho]d. Th annexation me, ting is based off of the building of rio lleod for pz oj e{t ? SUPERVISOR HORTON: The annexation is ~ ~ ~ceo~ within itself. That a qronp of residents 2!ose to another municipality have a riqh[ to lnvoke i t . MR. QUAY!~[!3: the heusing project. iCi}il0 ~111 ] eSS thc development But itl's a Jsing because o{[ The}e' s N<i need f:o~ it to be is pnt in p]aqe COUNT NEPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631 8?8 8047 56 6 7 8 9 l 0 ] 5 l 6 ]7 2O 2,1 22 24 2 ~ SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is your opinion. MR. QUAYLE: I'm completely for affordable housing and the Kentokostas did a great job en their presentahieR, but being the annexation is completely based cfr the housing project being accepted and housing project is completely based on a full environmental being dena, so we have a lot of people who are completely emotional, a lot of hours put into work here, I myself had to run out from work, sorry for the dress, because I did want te be part ei it. But aren't we putting the cart before the horse? We've get a lot of people npset here. Shouldn't it be done in reverse order, save us a lot of time? That's my comm6nt. HR. RUSSO: Peter Russo, Greenport. I served eight months on the wesE Greenport haml~et committee, this was net our int~ ntion. This hodgepodge development to skip ~cross the HALO adjacent to residential that is already ~he~e people d~n ~.~lM into town, not c~nate problem with traf~!ic enterprise. Also}, 1 haw~ a pl:obiem with the pEofits of a ~rivat6 If this project was ~o c~} t }%roklGh, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (~)}1] 8'78 8047 57 1 2 3 ,? 8 9 1 0 11 12 1 4 16 1'7 18 1 2 2l 2~ 2, 5 what I can't undelstand is why is annexation such n~ important part ef it? Why couldn't the Vi] ia~e ~ f Greenpert simply contract their services for ~ewe~ and wat(~r: Why is it necessary that it would actually have te be annexed? None of this makes lllnch sense t O me, and I ' in not sure wheIe J t all comes from. That HALO Zone that we all see was a zone that wss really brought to us at the very end ef our committee meeting and one that I did not sign off on, and I'll testify ~ ~ ~-C that . And I don't like the threat of court either. I~ ~ :~ t , that the two Boards canno{ get together, because if it does go to court I will be glad I :st~i fy that that was not our intentions at in these committee meetings. Thank you. MS. HURPHY: Hello my name is I,aurie Murphy. I want the annexation and I am ail for We need affordable housing here. How come the other places, counlies can build them their people that's been living in their counties ~ ~: Sges? Now Gri~npo~[, we have to move cut ef t ~ wn because we have ilo plRce to live. ] think we n{ed it . We N~ed t o bring ou~ peep] e hick h{ }iRe . have peet le from Greenpsrt that lived here eli REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (6311} 8 r78 8047 S8 2 3 4 % 6 8 10 !1 ]2 13 14 15 k 9 20 2 i[ 22 2 2! their life and were forced to move out of town, and if all the other counties can have some place for their people, they build up tlheir communities with all these little gated cotnmur~ities and wh,.~tnet, hew come we can't de that, and I'm ail flor it and I hope we de ge~ it. HR. SCHWARTZ: Bell Schwartz, the and I came way from Cutchegue to join you tonight. all Thank you for welcoming tls here. I missed the ~first two minutes. I was hoping to hear more from the Boards what their thoughts were before we try to enlighten them on our thoughts as the public. One thing about the annexation, that has t :~ come first before the app] J cation because ~ thezwise you don't know who te apply lo, and you ddrlnot cLllnex or zone for atly particular landowner; be judged in light 11 {his pzcject housing, I have a affoldable housing is affordabl~ ~6~{s~nq so this annexation shonld not ~l this particula~ project. being promoted as affordable ~gn here that s~ys quote, net. WHat I mean by that Snesn't normally Tnean housing with a low purchase hzice. For housing to be { ruly affordable, it has !~) be par{ of a sustainable commnnity. Affordable REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 59 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 ] 5 16 18 19 2 ] 22 2 ~ 24 25 housing is, I believe, quality homes, not cheapei~ tn~its. I believe afferdable heusing should be built in a well regulated ~ree market. I agree wi{ h the gentleman who spoke earlier, we're in a kind of bubble right now, housing prices are g,)ing ~e ge down. Bnt I urge anything that's being done should consider the entire market net. just the Iow pr~.ce. One o~ the problems is net just not enough low priced heuses, it's too many mega heuses thak nobedy can afford. This p~eject as it was presented te us, I tried to add up the numbezs and wh n I got te half a billion doJ lars I quit, } u~ ~ he sales prices cf these units yon add them ~ ] ':N, it's weJi ove~ a billion dollars that thi~ developer wants to sell them for. Of course, ~'s going to cest him semething to make them, but when [eople buy them t[ey're not going to a~k jusk purchase price, riley need to thin]{ about wha~ they ~:a]l the lifestyle costs, 2he finances, how ~]~{zt h{}~eful]y thcs{ Nouses will[ be ~round as ]on~ ~s my house, which is one of (in{ chogue. And i see the ~nDt a~traeted to ~t these ~n ] {xt, rF~a] costs to tile the f L~st_ houses in days ]nt lifcstyIc cf>st s COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION f'ERVICE (631) 8'v8 8047 6O 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2l 23 2 ~ 25 considered. I think for housing to be truly a~fordable, the design should include solar and geothermal components to reduce the cost o~ tNe living there. I'~ net going to ge into detail but I'm hoping that ali. the Board members knew wha[ the term of our tiny houses', means; does anybody knew what a "tLny house" is? It's a term of art in regards of affc, rdable housinq? Well, I can't go into details to, night, but tiny houses a~e little single Eamily houses, but some ef them don' t kitchens . Southeld, even hawe kitchens, they share commu~ai I don't know how that would work but a~ least te be affoldable, d housing project should include cemmnni~y gardens, meeting ~ooms and open spaces. Anyway, if you look up tiny houses, it's worth looking into. Finally with regards t{ anything to i e done to make affordable housing, I think we n~ed te look at the entire economy. Mayor Kap{ I1 has Wri%~i©n about ,~>ur Chzenical ly we~k i0ca] ec~onemy on the north ~erk, and I jnst w}nld ask both [oards, what ~re they goi~lg to do to enhan(e, help ~)uild u~ ou~ local econo,ny~ I ~ave scm ideas i f COlIRT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SP~RVICE (631) 828 8047 61 2 3 7 8 9 10 l! [ 2 13 14 16 ] '7 18 20 21 22 2 2 ! 25 N~ybedy wants to contact me. Lastly, recently we had an experience where a quote/unquote national security issue was ~lsed to rain rod parking down and increase the SUPERVISOR HORTON: Stick to the subject matter, please. HR. SCHWARTZ: the business out in Orient. I don't like to see the affordable Rousing issue used in the same way. Thank you. Do you have any questions? HS. SCHROHiDER: My name is Allison S{ h~oeder, I live in Greenport. I don't believe Greenport can handle the annexation of 17 a~ zes. They have an inability to even Naudle {~lark's Beach. And it's SUPERVISOR HORTON: Address the Board, please. HS. SCHROF, DER: - net even abl6 to Clark's t~each where there's garbage problems and our beaches are chained up, and you need You can't handle lit, than~ y~)u. HR. I~USTBt]RG: Hy name is John lustbetg i 'm very new to this area. l'w been ~n {or four ~nonths, glrid l ' il/ here to say semeh h 2,OURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 8V8 80~7 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 iL i 12 ] 3 14 15 ] '? ] 8 1 2 2 22 R ~ 2~ 25 because I thirlk there's a similarity to the place I used to come frcm. What I see here is nothing but urban sprawl. I'm from Pendleten, California, actually, '80s like cost and Pendelton, California between the and '90s ~hey had a series of projects just this one. There was an urban core and low housing dcw~lopment outside of that urban After iL5 years ef that, the city had a basic revolt beca~se they were so repulsed by what was going on, in fact, that had totally destroyed t heir downtowll c(1)~ e area. I am sitting }~ere ieeking at this project, n~d nothing else, this Board now has the f ossibility to preserve what is a beautiful area. U~ban developnlent and smar{i development has n~thing tc do with a 17 ac]~e parcel that no one can walk downtown to. The development should be That ~lan~ the smart growth plan has been ;ancied hi Ebe p~ess and in umpteenth magazines new bpcause it })I onght £ind it has Chi{hoed P~[[dleton ~[d tit!les died life back i~:te the area. I think people take s look at smart growth plan, you can all ove~ _h6 web, and ~ealistically t~ (()UI.'T NEPORTING ANI) URANSCRIPTION SERVICE 631) 828 804V 63 1 2 3 5 6 7 c) 1 2 iL i/ 16 21 22 25 address the issues of low cost housing, I think no one here's saying we shouldn't have Iow cost ileusing. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Focus your {omments to t h{ Board. HR. LUSTBERG: Affordable housing shol:ld tx in the urban core to support the downtown area, ~nd subsequently make the affordable living situation where people can contribnte to the ~ ~.mmnnity they li~e in, not livinq out oN Hiqhway dS. It's beautiful farmland. MN. KOZORA: Good evening, I'm Charles [{ ~xora, Superintendent of the G~eenpo~t School D~strict . And I'd like to ta]k to yon tonight bok~t tile financial impact ef this project on the s<~hool district a~d the Greenpcnt taxpayers. I have to disagree that there would be no <'hange in the school district. I am also [ezplexed that when Mr. Kontokosta talked about enLollment trends, he focused on K through 3, and is ~rue that w{! have had a 20 percent decI]he ~ n~o1][l/ent iii I h~l)ugh 3 school k;uilding. K through 3. }~ut we aze not a K dist~ict . We a~e in a K thl(n.~h We a2e K through 12 district, and in CONRT NEPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 8V8 8047 64 2 6 ? 8 10 1] [2 · i[3 15 16 17 1 8 1 9 20 22 23 2% 25 the last five years we have. had 10 percent ~ncrease in enrollment K through 12. Accerding te Hichael and Dine Kontekesta, this 128 unit prejec~ will be cellectively ~ssessed at be-~ween $400,000 and $500,000. If I weze te use the highest estimate of $500,000, that would generate $2'75,000 in new revenues. O~le of the projections that was used was the enzollme;lt in the schoel district, and theze was ia use e{ a nalJona] avexa,~e c:f the number of stud~ nts pez honseheld te prejcct the numbe~ ef wo~]d cc>me f~om tNis develepmen~ . studertt s who i suggest te best. If wc irc)m Pheasant this method of you that this is totally flawed at ~H)ne, if we woulcL have used that magi ~al natJenal a,~elage te preject the nnmber of skk~den~s co~llinq think this illust ~ates this flaw in s~de~lt proj ec~ JtDN. A w()u]d be used ( [ d ]lumker .'i:{)URT NRPOIkTING ANI) TNANSCRIPI~ION SERVICE (6~1) 2V8 8047 65 1 2 that the Cedar Fields project that was developed in the late '80s was similar, l'he Cedar Fields project has 39 units that come from this development. This proposed project has 3.3 tim~s ~s many units as the Cedar Fields project, i/ we nse the same ratic, we'd have a}-~ additional 115 and a half students, but we won't count half bodies, so let's go with 115. Our building has a capacity, a,~ we meutioned, to house these students without expanding, but we don't have tbs staff [o provide tthe services; we would have to expand the staff. We don't have the adequate bus ~nns; w~ would ha,ze to add aE least a couple mot{ . it would als~ B.}. ES Occupational Educational t uition. weald be special education tuition at F?CES. We would anticipate that 14 oi ~hese students if we used the current ~atio, would ~{quire s}36cial education services that would average $30,00~i a ,?ea~. Net all the anticipated cos{ s w~h~d ~nt~c~paCed. However, a simp]{ per calculation can give us an estiPate. A ~ impl~ }}61 pupil cos~ if you divide the numk~r of into our total budget is $17,80{3. Now, vez, ~ mo~e COURT REPORTING AND 7RAN~CRIPIION a~ER%I(E (631) 8?8 8047 66 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 !0 12 13 ] 4 16 i7 20 2 k 22 2 ~ 25 ~ccurate and actual cost for additional, students would be $14,000 per student because we have fixed ~'osts that remain the same, such as bondinc indebtedness er the heating ef the building So the initial stude~ts app~eYe the economies of scale and they actually reduce our per pupil cosl while raising the overall cost. New the question a~ises, what is the ~J!~ancial impa~t to the district and te the ~ axpaye~s? The increase of our i y i2 percent will increase our ~dditional rewPnue of $175, 000; w~lh the $275,000 ef additional student population state aid as an that, combined revenue from the !:axes, would come up to $450,000 in additional ~ v~!nues from this project. However, the ex~e'ns~ ~:[ the 115 stutents that will r~duce per pupil l~osts to $14,000 generates an expenditnre of $] .61 J ~]Jon. We dednct the revenue of $450,000, and we have a net inclease of $1.16 million in the dm~}nn[ of money that needs to be raised by taxes. l?his in itself would result in a 14 poi'cent tax h~ tease when the project is complete. Ilk w~zhld ~aise the tax rate in Greenport School l}[shxict by ~]7.i6 pe~ hundred. Thank yen. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 818 8047 67 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 ]3 i5 ~6 1v 20 2L 22 2q MR. DINIZIO: James Dinizie, Gseenpork. i'm !52 years old. I've lived here all iny life. I s-e my bey's name written up there and probably I had my name written there at one time. i went to school. I grew up in this place. I aisc attended ~we other annexation meetings, I believe they were beth here. One involved Cedar Fields, and quite henestly, I was dead against it. Made some enemies. Certainly, it turned out p~etty geed. I walk through here every merning. I see a chief's a~ there. I see dock builders. I se~ a lot of p{~ple who are in the Fire Department. it seems ~ihRt it h.lrned out seine subsJ dies . I okay. ] understand they got don't believ~ the peeple that living the~e Now got subsidies. ] guess whah t~ying to say to you is we' ~e geing [e need Yhat even ~nore. Hr. kh~t man all my life, th~ fire bell rings, h~ Capon was np here, I know and ii know ene things when runs. l~ut guess what, he We need people ~n this ~ )mmunity thak are going te jeln {~hose hlings. They can't afferd wha~ 's available now. understand market. 1 understand that: ptebab~y ,~nether 128 units inside lny district will] devalue COURT NE[ORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE [6~1) 8'?8 8047 68 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 1 ~ 19 20 2! 22 2, 25 my holee. I'm willing te forege that. I think ~ 's necessary that this happen. New afferdability notwithstanding, tNis is ,~n a~nexation hea~ing. A quick look at the map that M~. Ko~tokesta showed you, will show yon that ~ha}ority, probably 90 percent of the high density xoning in So~thold tewn was on that map. This xown, Seutheld Town, planned for that. And ~:here's a reason for it. Because there's sewer Mild there's water available. And that's why y~)~ h~v{ a high density as yok~ have it new, as }~} ~posed. I undelstand this is twice as much. I J~ ir w that the Village ef Greenpert will do jush n~ good ~ job p]arLning this as Southold Town t hi~ k the Tewn actually makes the decision on what is wetlands and what isn't. New, I am a member of the Zoninq Board of .%~;n. theld Town. i walked that p~operty. I it h~eks iikc. i'm going ~o tell yoke, know wetlands from s~ino] ~. ] only kn}w t /1%~ at one pc, in[ in time hhat n~d appi~ red ~bdivisien or itt, that pal~ticn]ar pice.~ f }}lopeI'tS', and for whatever reason, ik w~ls N6ye[ REPORTING AND TRANSCPIPTION SERVICE (6 ~l) 878 8047 69 1 2 3 5 7 8 9 10 12 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 2/t 25 built. Now if Josh has his way, nine of those acres are going to, be gone, and they're nevey going to be develeped. And I don't know how the Village works that cut, but certainly it has to be worqced out by some [Tle~]llod. Seu{hold plsnned Ehis whole district, o~r whole scheo] distzict, for high density. It's been that way for quite some time. I fought against it for many years thinking it was net fair to Greenport School E)is~rict to put all the density in my school district. I don't feel that way anymore. With all due ~ spect to Dr. Kozera, we take h~ stndents fre[n East Harien and Orient~ New, they ~RLght have ~o oe ;night have to pay t_<~ put thc adtJtion { n. I don't that attend this scheo[ and fJ.] ] up th~ seats. And you k~ow, for whatever i{ 's geing to est, I think we' -e going ho lo'~e o~ we're geing to benefit from the ~act ti}at we've whe are willing te gel in ~ car and at 2:00 night, run down and pnE a fire cut, ~nd ~ P~ conic Landing, Sa~ Si~neon. We ' r not t a [ k ~ne call a day, we'~-e talking two, three ~all ~ glys COURT REPORTING AND I?RANSCRIPTION SERVICE (63]) 878 .8047 70 ] ;, 2 '0 21 24 day. These people are run ragged. We need people I t~hink this is encouraging this might I am heping that yeu understand hew yeu i ~lks zoned this place. n particular, but for 20 t h~t way, that's planning, I'm not talkinq about: you years it's been zoned it was proper planning. Th,lre's sewer available, there's water available, none of that is aYailable anywhere else ~n tile [0wn. Now semeone beught that land 20 years R[e. They planned on d~veloping that as that. Now ~'ve~y time it seems that Seutho]d Town, someone wants to do something, everybedy just j~nltps ~N' and st~s y{i)~l can' t do exactly that, yon carl' t do ~xa~tly what the cede said. traffic, yada yadR. W~:ll, guess what, planning is planning [or ~ra~fic. It's al~ been done already. Yo~ guys }~av{{ looked at it. It's a main road. It's m~ant [o} traffic. It's meant for that much ~iraffi{ . N~ w, [ didn't hear any human cry when 400 nnits w nt Lip not 500 yards away fsom me in Southo]d town, and I'm talking abouh Pecenic Landings, [lot ~ szngle cry of boo about traffic. h ~tel on the cozner of where I live, ~t's eight units, it used to jnst Sh tdy L~dy, be a COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (63] } 878 8047 71 1 2 3 6 ? 9 ~ 2 53 ~ 8 21 restaurant. So the Town has dene its planning. if you're unwillin~ ~e allcw this person te develop it, will you own it? They have te do everything by certain amount ef density, they have hhe water, ceme Thank you very much. Let the Village. the law. If it's a they have the sewer, on, let them do it. MS. HUTHBNIDGE: My name is ingrid ~h~thbridge, I live i:~ G~eenport. My first question is actually a fel]ew up te the last a~erdable housing m~eting that was held in this very auditorium. At that time Mayer Rapell said [hat he w~uld like to do an independent study to make sure that we have a cohesive plan and not just do a N~nd Aid. I'd like to know if that study has been done, and, if so, how can we the public find out what was said? My second question relates to seine of the ,nt ?usations that have been made here about peeple wantinq to line their pockehs, in my job, every wis, who nly family was, wh~t po~',sible in1 erest they ceuLd have sayinq who I conflic~ ~ of in inf luencinq REPORTING AND ~' o · , · ~RAN,,(NIE FION SERVICE ,631 ) 878 8047 72 1 2 4 6 7 12 ] 4 16 ]'7 19 22 2] decisions; would e~ch member of both Boards c~;nsider filing serrlething silk, ilar to show tha{ there_ is no conflict of interest? Tha~lk yon. AUDIENCE HEHBER: My nam~ is Cyn~ hi a ~inaudib]e) . High life. I'm a 1996 gzaduate of Gxeenport School and I've lived in Greenport all my I am right here evidence of somekedy wh~> needs affordable housing. !lave a two year old son. mv son at ll:0O at night. have a family. I work two jobs. I see As many of other ~eople that I ~ ~iy, we don't need a one bedroom unit, need a two bedroom ullit, we need a hom~. see ill t]liS FOC)m we do Not We need ~n affezdable home. nswer, people live years. We want gr©wn up here. ~ his Board, Putting units il's net tile in a unit for thre~ ol four to establish homes here, we've We need the help. We'r~ asking both Boaxds, for help. Uni~ s a~e not We ~leed holRes . I ~nean, the traffic is not ~he issue, ~ecause these are people whD live in $cnthokd tcwn a]r6ady. The students will be l~oing {~ Greenport ~/d Sour:hold, whateve~ school n:~ matter what, ~) ey'~e going to be going to these sch ~}ls whether COUNT NEPORTINO AND TRANSCRIPTION ~ ENVICE (631} 878 8047 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 ]1 L2 13 14 15 16 1 V iL P 20 2] 22 2 ~, 2,t 25 we're living in an apartment, we're living wikh eu~ parents, we will have cur children goinq te these schools. I don't think the school is the issue. I don't think the 2raffic is the issue. Lhink people need to put their heads togethe~ whether it be Greenpo~t, Southold, Hatt~ituck, Cu{chogue, somebody needs to do something. Somebody needs to help us, and, ~ mean, as I said, of a bank; tha[ should just tel i you right there, my salary isn'l that great, but I attl reaching out fret all those peoFle who are out here who need a~fordable housinc. We need yonr help. Units are ilo[ the Rllswer, hc:mes are MR. LEWIN Greenport. I ~lue&s prc)cednral quest Good e,~ening, Ken Lcwfin from I }ust have a reall'? boring that Js I'm havirlq a hough time understandinf the basis roi regarding the aNNexatioll as a separate and distinct ov{nt from the proposed development o~! the annexed property. was wo~_~dering i~ yon e:oulLd clear that up fo~ me. [,ike, wtnat is the basis fo- reqa~ding tb_~t is ~wo dist inet cronus? SUPERVISOR HORTON: I didn't undcrst and REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 74 ] 2 3 4 5 8 9 12 13 1 t 18 ) your question, sir. MR. LEWIN: I read a ceuple of times that uhere seems te be a big emphasis en regarding the ~nnexation as separate and distinct tr{m proposed developmsnt en the annexed preperty, heard that a ceuple times tonight. I was just wondering what the basis fer that senate{ ion is. SUPERVISOR HORTON: The annexatien, ~m~chanisn~ of annexation prevides so~nething that ~=xists betwee~ municipalities and prope}ty owners, that's a precess in and ef itself. If ~his ~}perty was annexed te the Village, th Village weuld then go through its zoninq pre{e,.'~s fe~ this piece ef property, it's a planning p~> ross 1his piece of property with its environPt~ntal review, its planning review, all the ]~gal t~rocedures that would be in place for [he planning ~ f that piece of property. HR. LEWIN: Am i correct in thinkin~ that within the annexation, censidering tNe dnnexatior~ i [ seems to me undeI SEONA that the lead agency wot:ld have to conside~ it in relation {~evelopment proposed en the aNn{xed pr,{~e~-ty? 1 misreading SEQRA? That seems prettly CO/JN'F REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631 } 8U8 8047 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 ] 1 12 13 14 17 20 21 22 2~ 2~ 2 % SUPERVISOR HORTON: SEORA process the project I think within the that's been proposed ~hx~ld be looked at; within that, yes. HR. LEWIN: ()kay. That answers my ion , SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yes, ma'am? MS. MULLE~: Hi, my name is Tracy Huller. ~m ,~lso a resident o~ Greenport. I am sinqle. lived here for about 15 years. I have afl eight "~i t} old daughter who also is attendinq~ Greenport school. I would ]ike to say I do rent my home, and F would ~eally like the opportunity to own my home. Unfortunately, the prices are to() high me right new and I think it's great thet I h~vr an opportunity to buy a ]lOIRe, if you would iive them the opp()rtunity to build thes( homes fe~ ~n;, kha~'s it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: YesP MR. ARM: Craig Arm of Seuthold. I'm here [c~ Sxlthold Nusi less Alliance. We jusl wahl u~ge both Boards to somehow work togeth(r to n~l provi~le a~foriable housing ]~c~r all ~ f mployees, ali of our werkferce, basically /] ~ COT!ET REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 ?6 9 1 0 1 2 1 ~ 1 9 2 ) ~ 2 2 our residents who are currently here o2 {~x residents who hopefully some day would like to ~©me back. Once again, no matter what happens with this particular piece ef p~operty it will have to g} through all the environmental reviews, we're il! aware of that, and whichever way i~. goes we just hope whoever's in charge ol her pieces, get it rolling, qui~kl}~. This and others, av~i ]able for evezybedy. MS. WHARTON: Hi, c~n, with this and get it goi~lg whatav{r it is keenpert. I think one of the pzoblems with a lot !~ khis pnblic dialogue is it's just s{xn~d bites. h'{ 'ye heard from ~he Kontokostas toniqht, whe Jell ns l~ wJ !1 be no problem, no im};act in a~ly possible way on onr school, ou~ t axes, ouzf roads, ~11 know khat dew~lepment ~as a real c~sk and l~'ver pays fos itself. Se we're enterilN! into ]ia]¢gne like this, we nee.t real information. need the kind of information that the ', 1L?6 ir Jill elldeI]~ provided us. qcl ling ns thdt COURT REPORTING AN~} 'I'RANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 8'78 8047 77 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] ] 2 I 3 14 ~ 5 16 18 19 2{} 2 i1 22 24 25 and it's very likely that when we threw in the fire a~ld all of the other health related and po]i,~e related you're talking 20, 25 percent maybe more. If, foz~ exampke, j~st fo~ a benchmark, Lb{r} a~{e only 115 children in Orient, in tNe {)~ient schoel, and look at their school budget. Se te tell me 115 children are going to cost a mere fractiOll or more in our school because we h~ve the building anyway is absolutely ]udicrons. ']'}]~ only way we can accomplish this kii~d o~ di lloqkle nnd have it meaningful is for people te ~ x{2hange informatien. Now, if the Kontokosta ~,} )th~s came to hie with the presei~tation tlley n lde ~o~light, and I would say, [ would ask them te ~olid specificity; there's no way fer tlie p~lb] [c t, know just what the cost of this prej~ct will he. And we iR Gzeenport have a very peculiar and n:~incorpoxated Village ef Greenport. W~ doll'{ a,Le ~ol Mayor Ka'0eil or {~he l'rnstees. We dnn't C()Ni.'T REPONTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ( 3] } 878 8047 78 1 2 3 6 7 8 10 iL ] 12 13 17 18 21 22 will be consider this to be annexatien without representatien, which more impostantly, ~e taxation without representation. Now I'm going to ask l~he Boa}.d the de ~annex and unincorporate the Village o£ shaping eur fukure. Se in many ways we Greenport, which actually means 50 per{ent or between 2,000 and 4,000 people in the 2{}00 year translates Census, maybe we sheuld jnst: all leave n~d leave yo~ iz'~ ~he Village witN this issue. Becal~se we, in fact, are not zepresented; w~ are part of the Town of should de annex. And in the seem like a facetious notion, Sot~thold dnd if yol~ want to annex maybe we New York Times, may but the New Yozh Times had an artic, le this weekend about ill s 1 an d Nassa~l tl Nat Long seceding from the S~ ate of New Yo~k, both and Suffolk ceunties going thei~ s, palate and beceming ~he 51st s~ate. Hy ~oint is ail of us need representat ien, an,i in hall! of ns are not ak a] A represented by the his, w~ want yon to consiler tlhat ha[~ ol th COURT REPORTING AND I?RANSCRIPTION ~-ERVICE (63~) ?s78 80%7 79 2 2,3 residents who live khis Greenport Board, and we would like take particular concern in representing i n~ erests because no one else is. Thank yOk~ · SANDERS: Char]es Sanders, I live in Greenport do not vote for yon to MR. :~r, enport:. I have nothing against the Knnt()kostas. If I owned that piece of land, wo//] d look at any possible way for me to make I think there's nothing wrong with that But if I were given the chance of havi~lg all tile money in the bank for Greenpert, all the money ~/i the bank for Southold, and I have tq ask myself is this going te benefit me as a Greenport pe]son; ~:', this going to benefit me as a S(x~thoid Whe~ i look down the list, it doesn't seem ] ~ 's ] eally going te beneflt Greenport Vi ]laqe ~ e< ~t~se it will be a burden on the schools, the n:p{~intendent said that. It may be a benefit t h( sewers. I guess I have one qllestion on t}le (we~s, a:~e you going to be receiving d eharg( i rom tho sewers from the Kontokostas? MAYOR KAP],~LL: ~ew,:.r rate. HR. SANDERS: But for e-~ch unit ti > ~:tttally' ho.ok up, is', 2here goinq to be ~ ch~rqe COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ~ 1',18 8047 8O 1 2 4 5 6 ? 8 9 E 0 12 L 3 2O 21 2~ 24 for that? MAYOR KAPELL: MR. SANDERS: .ou re avoiding that it d benefit for the Village Outside of that':' Outside the Village, so would have s{emed to be of Greenpert if they Landings, hook-up. going to make the money they made on Peconic there were I think $5,000 or $10,000 per So when you take that away I guess I sewer, and it's go 2o Southold, have to go back again to the Village of Greenport, ~t's a burden en the scheeis, it's a burden on the a burden on the electric. So as I it's a burden on the police, and it's a burden in terms of taxes, now you've just lo, st part of yeu~ tax roll. So I guess when I ]ust look at it logically, i~ i were iu your sh©es, and I were represe~l~ lng all of these people aud {heir meney and their haxes, I would logically sa~i~ it'~ not benel]iciaL far the Villaqe; it's not g~ing to be beneficial for Southold. With reqard ~< ~fford~ble housillq, I have said each time I h~w~ eves stood UlD he~e, I am not against ~ fordable housing pe'~ se; we have to define what ~ f->rdablq heusin,~ is. And when you lc :}k at ~ ~ch ONe C)~ these units, i t doesn't seem vezy COURT REPORTING AND 'FRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (63L) 878 8047 81 2 4 5 6 ,/ 8 9 10 ] i ] 3 1: 20 2 1 22 24 25 affordable if I'm only getting 800 square feet, and I'm paying $175,000. Even though tlhe average house Ina,/ be $300,000 or $400,000, tha~ ik's very expensive to live ont here. way ~ho} me to circle a~ound that. ~ut affozdability for the future, ,~ould afford to get into a $1V5,000 wait for one year te sell that puppy ani make money. Unless yen are able ~Pfc~dable unit, then it would make sense fo~ me. You've heard from us, and everybody ]~as a m tive in terms ei why they're against and why ~ , c~~ , ~hey're for certain things. I m aga~n.~ ~h~s NR~ rise another projeek, and I'm only sp{ ~ki~q [ his beca~se it's a similar unit, thor{~s } ~ ~posa] that may affeci me neq~tively, but ,u]so looking at this unit in a logical way sep~ra{,i from my se] f interest Rnd whe~ ~ I ] u~d it: just doesn't seem to ben ~fit anyfody. is huge. The~ e ' S no if 1 were smart, and foz $200,000 to cap ~hat J : y~n~'ve alii bee~ ~,.'r'y silent. Can I hRve R ~-aise of hands ~rom the vi[lag~ and rai:::o of: hands [~om Southeld who snppo~ts this and wl~ '~: al~Lnst thisl C(:URT P, EPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 82 1 2 8 1 C) 1i 12 L 3 14 15 ] 7 18 19 2O 21 22 2~ 24 SUPERVISOR HORTON: This is a public hearing. We're going to take input from each and every eno of you as it pertains Eo this matteE. We're not here to hold a vote tonight. It's a process we go thrcugh to w~igh the pnblic inp~t and the p~ocess fc.r each Board to go through determine the benefits and detriments, however they may lie. HR. SANDERS: I respect that anO just take my comments in te~ms ef going back again, what I need te hear, I tPink everybody in the audience needs to hear from the Viilage and from the Town et Seutheld, how is it going to benefit ns? Because we're the taxpayers. The only ~eason why I'm aski~lg this is becanse we' ie the on{s who put loll iIlto office, and we ileed to h{ar from yen why you think this is something that's going benefit each and every one of us. And · egaIding the affordable housinq, I don't know this is rea] 1y the approach b{c~nse mos{ o£ the ~_ieop]e that have collie np h{ re h~ve said. we'~e ~ot nccess~i]y against affordable ho~lsing, eY w~' re n ~ against a~e~dable housing, but {ach tim~ you plesent something ~6g~rding af~ordab!~ housing, it , ~ % ~ . ii ?8 8047 COURT P, EPORT[NG AND '2RANSCRIPTION SERVE(t', ~' } 83 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 iL 3 ] 6 19 20 21 22 2i 28 doesn't seem to be affordable or logical. There's qnt to be other ways te enact affordable housing. One other thing, then I'm goinq te split. [ <~ame here in 1996, I came with a pick up truck and a 100 bucks, that's all I had. i don't w~nt [or money; I've worked very hard to earn what l've eat-ned. There's also the responsibility of each ]~erson in terms of hew they work and how they used ~heit strengths and their abilities to create financial stability fo~ themselves. An{J I ~ hat's another issue that we don't hea~ very often because the majority of people who do own homes, they have done something to make sure ',0o~e is good, their credit score is g~> d, and they've taken the steps to purchase wh~}~ th~ y did. ] ' Ye only been out here since 1996 . Th ~]<s . MS. SAVAS~YlNOVICH: Good eveninq, N~n~cy Savastinovich, East Marion. I ]lave a coNcerN ~[ok~t the sewer. I can smell it when G~eenport, and I was wondering why is school, the t~eattaent plant? Ik's very ~tnhea~khy ~{,~ sewage is really a problem, 8/ld [ c~n sme~ [ it when 1 am in Greenpert. Se I ~ hink that should be COr, JI[T REPORTING AND "RANSCRIPTION SERVI(t: (631) 878 8047 84 1 2 6 '7 10 1 ] ] 2 1 / 15 lb 1 ? ]8 20 2] 22 2't 25 addressed. I have heard a lot of input pre and con, mostly con, I Lhink it's a ne-brainer, and I agree wi~h Councilman Romanelli, I think yeu ought to vote on this annexation {onight. You have eneugh voters here tonight f ~ om. MS. MURRAY: dnd I live in East see where you're coming Hi, everyone, I'm Ann Murray Marion. I'm from the nerth ~ork comlnunity. It doesn't seem to me it's smart q~owth and I didn't like the fact that the p~oposa] contains semething abeut a lawsuit on tNat presentation; did everybody notice that? It kind of felt te me well, i ~ yeu don't like i~ we're going tc take you to court, and it's going ~{, cost every taxpayer in hhis room. It's going ~{ cost the Town a lot of money to file a law~klit, {hat's something [' objected to right off the bat. The other thing, consideration { hat has to ~]o~ely be looked at, I don't know wNo did the survey t~ the KASE people, but I've looked at s(;me maps myself and call the DEC and ask th~xm what th(y think, but it seems to me that Ehere' s ,~1~ awful lot of wetlands there and it's tr).~ lense CONRT REPORTING AND 'FRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 85 ] 2 3 4 5 6 r7 8 9 ] 0 11 12 13 1 Zl 1 ' 2O 2 ! 2 l 2 2] 2[ Of a project. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Sir? HR. HOORE: Hy name is John Hoore, and I'm ,~ ~esident of Greenport, and a 33 year ~esldent of t}l{ north fork. I have some concerns dh'out the af£ordability concept as being ~remeted ]~ere RS a ~e]]ing point fer this pzoject. Even the iow end, when yeu look at the mortgage cost, I think mfig}at be prohibitive foz a yeuNg werker, young married ~ouple. These units are very small, and 1 think tl-~ y woLlld be oensidered transitienal hcusillq. The folks would have to move on to a la~qez F?ey don't need an apartment, ~Ney p lR~perty considered in tNese developments. I'm ]le~ against this development per se, bu~ ! don't see it meeting the needs of yc~ung workers of the £~mJlies. I think the absence of some kind o~ :~ssJstance program to get first homeowners into hokH3ing, [his pro}ect re~] ly do6sn' t ha-z{ viability as affordable. i w~lopment ~ i the zeal It's ~eally jnst estate progia/R hid ia; ]ise wi~h ihe market and will net sai:isfy REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 8'?8 8047 86 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 15 17 1 !} 20 21 22 25 the need. Thank you SUPERVISOR HOR?ON: Yes, sir? HR. KRUPSHI: Hy name is A1 Krnpski, geed eve~l~ng, Ladies ard Gentlemer~ frem the Seutho~d Town Board and th6 Greenpe~t V~] lage Board. Albert Kr~pski, P~esident of the Board of Trk~s{ees ~n Southo!d, whicN is different than the Boa~d of T~ustees in the Village o~ Greenport. There's b{en a number o~ people tonight who ]lave mentioned the wetlands on the site, and jnst t{ clear t~at up, Southeld Tewn Trustees have jnrJsdi2~ion over all freshwater and tidal wetlands in Southold town. This won]d be a st ~hdard review for ~he So~thold Town ~%oard T}nstees; we ~evi~w a lo~ ~}f different projects lik{ thLs. The applicant wo~ld submit a plan, we wc~l ] d g{ out in with the NEC if the field, we would either they have jurisdiction o~ not, and with the applican{i ~o determine where the wetlands a~, they would be flagged and p~t on a suzvey, ~GLd then whatsver boards, whethe~ it ' s a Villaq~ B<la}d ok T~ustees or the Southo]d Town ],ot~-d woNld ~ke tha~ decision. So we'l-e ~vaJleble ~ ~ gJv{ REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION S~]RVICE (6311) 8V8 804'? 87 2 3 4 7 8 9 ]2 13 14 2'? 20 21 2~ 2~ 24 have our letter, letter? SUPERVISOR HORTON: AUDIENCE MEHBER: annexed to the Village, also, correct, you have our Yes . If this land were hen he wotl] {-lTl' ~ h[Ave illly jurisdictien; SUPERVISOR HORTON: Trustees? AUDIENCE HEHBER: with the annexation, and then we won't have to go is that correct? Yo~ mean the Beard of Cerrect. If you agree the village gets this, through tNat ]eview any more, it's only a matter o~ Vii]age ju:tisdict ien? SUPERVISO~I HORTON: TNe Village' wen[d previ de reviews. MAYOR KAPF, LL: I'm in favor of {his annexation. I sNpport this annexation p~oposak. The~e are a nun~ber of advantages that the Vii ]age has in terms of the effect to p~evidc New,sin{{ to address the emergency tha~ we all Sc,~n:hold town. We have existing pvrmits eight units to {he acr( , zoning that double the ~:nr~ent density provided en the site, a]td we }t-~vs The only sewage treatment .sapaci ty w{ have signiiicant '~nldeI nti Lized capacity in o~r COUNT REPORTING AND ~'RANSCRIP'FION SERVICE (631} 878 8047 88 1 2 3 9 10 1] 12 ~ 5 19 ~o 22 existing plan. We also have water and electric uti] [ties that cai1 serve the property. The property is surrounded now on three sides by the Incorporated Village of Greenport. It's actually n{ less than a missing tooth. We have an e[iicient regulatory system, which is known regionally as effective as moving projects through >hr system, se that they actually are realized. We have a school that ne matter how you look at it is under utilized and it would benefit from having th, children ef 64 working families edncated h~ ~ein. We have a fire department with a ~{m{nst~ated capacity to be able to protect tNis })~i)p, rty. And very importantly, the Vi[lage )~s a ] :)~g and proud recoId of producing housing that:' s affordable to workers. I~ the application is approved, we will tffectively address what is arguably the 'host important issue faging o~r town. There's be<n a [ ~ of talk here tonight about preservation, w~at we're not talking about is preserving htman fa{e of the town. Seeing to it that nh~ y)ung people that make this pla<e the })]a<e that it is can contin[le to stay h~ IO. C(I}R'i' REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 89 1 2 5 6 8 i 0 i 3 1% 18 20 21 that 62 percent, 68 percent that was quoted as beilig second homeowners does not becom6 100 with everyone If the project vi ii lage standpoint. else in the town ~ommuting is approved, both the and the town will benefit from ~ tax The negligible amount of taxes that thais property presently pays to the town and park be eclipsed by the tax that will be whole town tax on an improved town tax will levied on the property. The project if it's approved will support th~ Greenport b~sinesses. The business district, with all of our s¥ccess ove~ the last few years, ~en~ains a tough place to makc a living. And ~easo~l ~o~ that is the seasonal swing ~}i ou~ conomy which is unhealthy, in the most fundamental terms, in the terms ef being able to capitalize on business over a 12 month period. Having 64 families residing year round in {~{enport will be good for Greenport. This p~o~ect is asking for no pnblic subsidy wl,ats~ever. A ]ot has been m~de tonight ~bou{_ the i~, t tha~ sc}mc, body's going to m~ke a p~efit. For COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 8'78-804'7 9O 10 iL 5 2~ 2 5 God's sake, iN t:he Unitedotat° ~:o_o Jor ~ profit? This how do you promote business for growth of America unless you provide is a fundamental and it's sor/e[ hinq to be credited net dJminishe [. Th{ re is is no way that we can subsidiz of housing purchasing. There's enough tax money there. If we were to propose a project that provided for 2hat kind of {ax ~evenue, you'd all be here tonight opposinq For this to happen, it's important: [c~ the '['own Board to be able to recognize Greenport as v{ [ticle through which the town-wide em~ rgency can b~- addressed effectively and efficiently. All ~ha2 h~s to then happen is for {4 home;: available to local families with no taxpayer subsidies whatsoever is for the Village and 'Fcwn Boards to say yes It's as simple as that. IL's t iHte to ~ish or cu2 bait. If w~'re not going ~c dc J t, let's get l~p youug families that y{ u. I don't happen ~o be from ~ hJnk i['s ~ime t , do s~)methiug and say it, and tel i ale I these are ix)king for other places that school. I and I'm thoroughly C()iJRT REPORTING AND TRAN,SCRIPrlON SF~RVICE (631) 878 8042 91 1 2 3 5 6 .? 9 10 II 12 13 ~ 5 i16 17 18 19 2 i1 22 2 24 25 committed t~e suppouting this project in the process of actua]l}, providing affordable ~ousing iN Southold Town and specifically in the Incorporated Village of Greenport. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, M~ . Mayor. There's been no show of haF~ds for further input of this public hearing. MR. DAY, SON: going to be like a We' 11 close this hearing. I have one question, is this let Ee~y drawing? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Please the mike and state your name. HR. DAWSON: Nashad Dawson. jllst corn{ to My question is is houses? And how wou3d these ~o these 64 families? SUPERVISOR HORTON: the~e going to be a llettery' for these houses be di'.',t~ibnted I think th¢rc wonld be a lottery, but i think thal~'s somethinq {or Hr. Kentokosta. HR. KC, NTOKOSTA: Tlank /o~. i wonl~d to ~espond ko that issne and another c(l~p~e clarificatio~ls of fact. Fi~sL , wikh ~eqa~ds ~ ~} tho wetlands, ~xe unde~ New Yoxk State Departmer~N of }~nwkronmental Conservation ~eg~Latien, whethe:~ COURT R]£PORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (6~1) i'78 8047 92 20 2 ~ Southeld or Greenport. These have been visually inspected, flagged and surveyed to be approximatellr 2.7 acres en the property. With regards to Dr. Kozora's a]-gumeN~,s, I ~espect his position. First he asked why anyone lo>ked at the K through 3 ~rends; I looked Rt that actually because it's representative o~ the young are leaving this town. Fhes~' lie,hug aren't cemin~S into the sehool families that children just sys t em. Also, duri ng our conversat J on {)il M )nday, h{ admitted that the secondary school, he has several classrooms sitting vacant becanse lie has s, much e~pacity he canno~l use theiR. Furthermore, he refers kc) Cedaz Fields, p~oducing 33 kids out of 39 units. Fir~t I'i1 say {hat Ceda~ Fields has seven detached hemes. They'ze large single family four bedroom honu ~', which bi, my statistics, which are based Nuited States Census and official data produce many mere kids than the type cf v~riety we're talking abo~]t in our I t's just say that number applie:'~ dlstrict, 33 kids and 39 is sti] i on th~: housing prej~!~:~- . Put: to the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE ( ;3] i72 8047 93 1 3 6 7 8 1 0 i] 12 ] 3 There are 1,600 ho~lsing units, or 1,600 homes I should say, in the Greenpert School District, applying that zatio, he should have about 1,400 kids in the Greenport school. The current enrollment is 680, which is actually about .44 kids pe~ home, which Js a number that ]i used to arrive at my conclusions. Also, I would like to talk about the We are proposing these units, 64 affordable housing a bit more. 128 units, only 5C percent o~ homes, this is double what the regulations in the So~zthold Town Board aze. Sixty four homes wot~]d be affordable at the prices set by the Town e~ ~:on h~)]d all regulations and the CouNt}, of Suffolk. These prices will be between $175,000 e/~{6, ~00, which ms the uppez limit or the of tile affordable homes, housiI~g presented that this will be handled, the based on a limit by the Town. W%~ expect homes will he offered by lottery, l)zJo~ it y basis, a:~d the zesale will be restricted ~o Senthold residents, people who live nnd wo] k t;Ne town and villRge in perpetuity. Thank yon COURi' ~EPORTING AND TRANSCRIPFION SERVICE (631) 8}8 8047 94 ._,UPERVISOR HORTON: Appreciate yeur · < nlments. HAYOR KAPE~L: I have ene more statement I'd like to make inte the record. There were some veiled implications I have a business relictions!rip with the applicant. I will state for the reeo~d that I have no business relationship whatsoever, have had no business relationship with the petitioner for over 25 yea~s, and will have ne ~ekatlenship with this p~o}ect ill my pl irate ~ apacity as a real estate broke~. S[IPERVISON HORTON: Sir? HR. BLUM: My name is ~eenpo~t. I want to address M~ . Kape]] about kow many units ne~ 64 unihs there's a total of { errect ? tile issu< with ]28; is tha~ MAYOR HAPELL: I was ]o~ king at aff erdaL, le . Mk. BLUM: You have {c ~ake th~ whcl issue h~<aus~~ there are 128 uni~-s in this greup. Thl questioI1 that call/e ac~[)ss Mi . KolltokosEa was ~ hat the ~3 units in Cedar Fields, but Nhere were !~ { hildren, so a little bit m~,re than ()n~ p~r REPORTING AND TRANSCRIP'FION SERVICE (631) 8'78 8047 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 2 ] 23 24 family. SUPERVISOR HORTON: opposite. HR. c]ea~-ed up, Actually, it's the BLUH: i just wanted to get: that because I question the numbers here. Also a point was b~eugh~- up about why would it benef[~ the Green~ert Village? The {~r~enpor Village, as we all know has an exeessiw~ amount of debt in the range {Df around, I heard 14 million dollars. I d~n't know how t~x~ that is; that's a hock efa lot ef debt . I can understand Mayor Kapell looking to try to see how he could afford to pay for this amount expenditure dif~:erent kinds o~! money m~tte~s, and thJnqs to do burden is qeing te be on a small group of people because the Village is ~elRtively small there's ~nlv, what 2,1}00 Iresidents in the Vill~e: h~, I ~an understand hi~ point, but [he problem is~ what ~s Jt going to effect Lhe rest ef the p~!eple who. ~} en't izi the Vi Llage but still have tel. pay ~ e.~l tnxes. I think that s ~ t~ CC)U}'[ REPONTiNG AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE .:6%1) 8'?8 8047 96 ] 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 ] 3 14 1, 18 20 21 2 2~ 2 Lt 2 h tonight. Thank yo'a. SUPERVISOR HORTON: If ti, ere a~e no other comments from the floor, we will close this hearing. I make a motion te adj ~urn the BOARD HEMBER WICKHAH: Second. SUPERVISON HORTON: Alii in favor? (ALL AYES) (Time ,ended: 9:30 p.m.) CO{IRT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (6}1) 878 8047 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 12 13 ] 6 18 I 9 20 21 22 2~ 25 C ~ N T I F I CAT I 0 N r, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the S{ ~t~~ ef New York, de hereby certify: THAT the within trar~script is a tr~e recerd of t he heshJmony given. I further certify tNat I am not related by bloed er marriage, te a~ly ef the parties to this ace ion; THAI' I am in no way interested in the outceme ~)f this matter. rN WITNESS WN~iREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of Aegust, 2005. C()~INT REPORTING AND FRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631} 8'?8 8047 RECEIVED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ANNEXATION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Annexation Discussion ........................................................ 1 II. Project Description .............................................................. 7 a. Location ...................................................................... 7 b. Proposal and Existing Conditions ........................................ 11 c. Affordable Housing ......................................................... 19 d. Permanent Affordability ................................................... 22 e. Marketability and Design .................................................. 28 III. Potential Impacts and Mitigation .............................................. 33 a. Traffic Impact Analysis ................................................... 33 b. School Impact Analysis .................................................... 40 c. Environmental Impact Analysis .......................................... 50 IV. Qualifications of the Principals ofKACE LI, LLC ........................ 53 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT I EXHIBIT J EXHIBIT K EXHIBIT L Letter of Sewer Availability Greenport School District Boundaries Preliminary Tax Analysis Site Location Map Zoning Map Site Plan Approval Documents Greenport HALO Zone Map Traffic Counts "Trip Generation", Institute of Transportation Engineers Suffolk County S-92 Bus Route Map School Enrollment Statistics Qualifications of Charles Bowman I. ANNEXATION DISCUSSION Petitioner, KACE LI, LLC ("KACE") has filed a petition with the Town of Southold ("Southold') seeking to annex a vacant, 17-acre property (the "Territory") owned by KACE into the Village of Greenport (the "Village"). The Territory is located on County Road 48, approximately 1000 feet east of Chapel Lane and contiguous to Greenport on three sides. The Territory is currently located in Southold and is zoned HD (Hamlet Density) or 4 units to the acre. KACE favors annexation to the Village because of, among other reasons, (i) the immediate no-cost availability of the Village's sewer system, (ii) the as-of-right connection to the Village water system, (iii) the Village's zoning allows for at least 7.5 units per acre (an increase of 3.5 units per acre over Southold's current allowable density), and (iv) the Village's significantly more efficient planning pipeline. KACE proposes to build, without taxpayer contribution or public subsidy, 128 mixed-income residences on the site with 64 of such residences dedicated as below-market price workforce housing designated for sale exclusively for the residents of the Village and Southold. In determining whether the proposed annexation is in the overall public interest, it is necessary to weigh the "benefit or detriment to the annexing municipality, to the territory proposed to be annexed, and to the remaining governmental units from which the territory would be taken" (Matter of Board of Trustees of Vil. of Pomona v Town of Ramapo, 171 AD2d 861,862; see Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Ilion v Town Bd. of KACE LI, LLC Page 1 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 Frankfort, 261 AD2d 952). "Benefit and detriment are customarily defined in terms of municipal services such as police and fire protection, health regulations, sewer and water service[s], public utilities and public education" (Matter of Town of Lansing v Village of Lansing, 80 AD2d 942,942; see Incorporated Vii. of Ilion, 261 AD2d at 952). Another factor to consider is whether the municipality seeking the annexation and the territory proposed to be annexed have "the requisite unity of purpose and facilities to constitute a community" (Matter of Common Council of City of Gloversville v Town Bd. of Town of Johnstown, 32 NY2d 1, 6; seelncorporated Vii. of Ilion, 261 AD2d at 952). "The burden of proving that the annexation is in the overall public interest is on the municipality seeking annexation" (Matter of Mayor of Vil. of Akron v Town Bd. of Town of Newstead, 238 AD2d 902, 903; see City of Jamestown v Town of Ellicott, 185 AD2d 627, 628). Moreover, in addition to proving that the annexation benefits the Village, when determining the overall public interest, the Village and KACE can show that the annexation will not significantly injure Southold. (See Matter of Village of Elms ford v Town of Greenburgh, 164 A.D.2d 914; 559 N.Y.S.2d 750). The improved, expeditious and cost-effective connection to the annexing government's sewage or water systems is weighed heavily to determine if an annexation proposal is in the overall public interest. (Matter of Common Council of City of Gloversville v Town Bd. of Town of Johnstown, 63 A.D.2d 1081; 406 N.Y.S.2d 579; Matter of City of Saratoga Springs et. al. v. Town of Greenfield, 34 A.D.2d 364; 312 N.Y.S.2d 4) KACE LI, LLC Page 2 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 Availability of Village Sewer and Water Services As the Village has a sewer system with immediate capacity to accommodate the project (See Exhibit A) and as residents of the Village are entitled to a no cost as-of-right connection to such system, residents of the project derive clear monetary and environmental public benefits from being in the Village. Moreover, the Village's sewer system allows the Village to provide additional density 7.4 units to the acre in Greenport versus 4 units to the acre in Southold -- over what would be allowable if the property were not annexed and remained in Southold. It is precisely this increase in density that allows KACE to provide 64 out of the 128 homes as affordable at prices between $175,000 to $266,500. In addition, the project will be entitled to an as-of-right connection to the Village water system. Fire Protection, Police Protection and Public Schools Fire Protection - The Territory is currently located in, and served by, the Village of Greenport Fire District. Post annexation, the Territory would continue to be served by the same fire district. As such, there would be no detriment to Southold. Police Protection - As the Village has no police force, the Southold Town Police Department currently serves the Village and the Territory and would continue to serve the Territory if annexed into the Village. Annexation of the Territory into the Village would have no effect on police protection. As such, there would be no detriment to Southold. KA CE L1, LL C Page 3 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 Public Schools - The Territory and the Village are currently located in the Greenport School District. Annexation of the Territory into the Village would have no effect on the school district boundaries and, post-annexation, the Territory would continue to be served by the Greenport School District. (See Exhibit B) Insofar as annexation is associated with a proposal that will increase density and add additional children into the district in excess of the children contemplated by Southold's current HD (four units per acre), an argument could be made that the district will be marginally effected. We believe this argument has no merit as, according to the calculations set forth in Section III.B. of this Memo School Impact Analysis, because of the housing sizes and types contemplated, only four additional children would be entering the school over a period of three (3) years. As such, there would be no detriment to Southold Town. Land Tax Benefits to both Village and Southold - no detriment to Southold Both the Village and Southold stand to receive significant tax benefits from the annexation and proposed project, in excess of what could potentially be generated in Southold. Because of Southold's "all-town" tax, Southold will receive increased tax revenues to support the services it provides to the Village, including police and court services. However, Southold will benefit insofar as it will no longer need to provide Building Department, Public Works, and Zoning and Planning Board services, among others, to the Territory. More importantly, after annexation and the completion of the project, the Village will receive si~ificant new tax revenues equal to 12.95% of the total assessed value of the KACE LI, LLC Page 4 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 units that comprise the Project. An analysis of the tax benefit to the Village and Southold is set forth in EXHIBIT C. Other public benefits - Affordable Housing Needs of the Village and Southold Although not a need which has been specifically contemplated by New York State case law with respect to annexation, in the case at hand, both the Village and Southold stand to benefit from the creation of 64 affordable residences, without taxpayer contribution or public subsidy, for the residents of both the Village and the Town. (See Matter of Village ofElmsford v Town of Greenburgh, 164 A.D.2d 914; 559 N.Y.S.2d 750) Over the last 20 years, affordable housing has been consistently identified as one of the most important issues facing the Town of Southold. Currently, there are over 150 names of working individuals and families on a waiting list for affordable homes in the Town and Village, but it is generally accepted that this number is just a small percentage of the actual need. People affected most by this problem are the working individuals who hold core positions in our community - nurses, police officers, teachers, municipal workers, to name just a few - and their families who are unable to afford the average Southold home a four- bedroom detached house on an acre or more of land selling for $400,000. Despite a record of Southold Town recommendations for the creation of affordable workforce housing stretching back to 1985, little has been done to address this need. In fact, between 1990 and 2000, 68% all houses built in the Town of Southold were purchased for use as seasonal or vacatk)n homes. This supply-demand imbalance, perpetuated by the difference in incomes between second-home buyers and Southold residents, is one of the primary causes of the affordable housing crisis in Southold. KACE L1, LLC Page 5 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 Annexation of the property into the Village for the purpose of providing 64 aflbrdable residences would be a significant first step toward addressing this problem. Requisite "unity and purpose and facilities" to constitute a community As the Territory is contiguous to the Village border on three (3) sides and currently has operational sewer and water mains which are adjacent to the property, the Territory possesses the requisite purpose and facilities to constitute a community. In addition, post annexation, the Territory will continue to be zoned for high density residential use - the same classification currently recognized by Southold (although at a higher density). Conclusion in conclusion, for the reasons stated above, the annexation would be beneficial to the Village and KACE, and would not significantly injure Southold. F~ CE LL LLC Page 6 A nnexation Memo August 23, 2005 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION II.A. Location KACE Li, LLC is the owner of a seventeen (17) acre parcel of vacant land (the "Subject Parcel") currently located with the Town of Southold, New York and identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as 1000-40-3-1. The Subject Parcel is approximately 95+/- miles east of New York City, 22+/- miles east of Riverhead and 1000 feet east of Chapel Lane on County Road 48 (a.k.a. North Road). The Subject Parcel is an irregularly shaped configuration contiguous to the lands of the Village of Greenport on the east, south and west sides. The Subject Parcel is bordered on the north side by County Road 48. (See Exhibit D) The Subject Parcel is, and has been for at least 25 years, zoned Hamlet Density (HD) pursuant to the Southold Town zoning iMap (See Exhibit E). Pursuant to the Southold Town Zoning Code, HD zoning allows for up to four (4) units to the acre, permitting a maximum allowable density of 68 units. The Subject Parcel is surrounded by a mix of uses and densities. Within on ½ mile of the Subject Parcel, the following uses and zoning classifications exist: Soundview Motel and Apartments - Resort/Residential (RR) Zoning · Sea Breeze Condominiums Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning · San Simeon Life Care Facility Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning KACE LI, LLC Page 7 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 · Sunset Motel - Resort/Residential (RR) Zoning · Breezy Sound Motel project - Resort/Residential (RR) Zoning · KOA Campgrounds - Resort/Residental (RR) Zoning · One-family residences - R40 Zoning (1 unit per acre) · Moore's Woods (Greenport) Parkland Zoning On or about July 11, 1983, the Southold Town Planning Board approved a site plan proposed by KACE's predecessor in interest, KACE Realty Co., allowing KACE to build a 108-unit condominium development at the Subject Parcel to be known as "Northwind Village" (See Exhibit F). As a precondition to the issuance of a building pemfit, the "Northwind Village" project needed water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Such facilities were available from the Village of Greenport. For some inexplicable reason, after application to the Village of Greenport Utilities Committee, the Village of Greenport refused to act on the application to provide such water and sewer services. Litigation in federal court ensued and, according to the stipulation of settlement, Greenport agreed to provide water and sewer services to the "Northwind Village" project for approximately $5,000 per unit when such services were available. On or about October 7, 1999, the Southold Town Board published a notice that a public meeting would be held on a proposed law to re-zone the Subject Parcel from (I-ID) Hamlet Density Residential to (R-80) Residential Low Density (two units per acre). Pursuant to Town Law Sec. 265, KACE filed a petition protesting the re-zoning of the property requiring that any change of zone be adopted pursuant to a "super majority" of KACE LIi LLC Page 8 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 the Town Board Members. The agent of KACE filing the petition, however, mistakenly typed KACE Realty Co. (the predecessor in interest to KACE LI, LLC) instead of KACE Li, LLC under the signature on the protest petition. A corrective letter of protest was sent to the Town Board and on October 14, 1999, correctly referencing the owner of the Subject Parcel as KACE LI, LLC. Notwithstanding the receipt of the revised protest letter, on October 19, 1999, four of the six members of the Town Board voted in favor of re-zoning the Subject Parcel and such re-zoning action was filed with the Secretary of State on December 27, 1999. On or about April, 26, 2000, KACE LI, LLC commenced an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York to annul, reverse and set aside the Town Board's resolution in favor of re-zoning the Subject Parcel on the grounds that the requisite "super majority" of the Town Board members was not achieved. In an order dated November 15, 2000, Supreme Court Judge Howard Berler decided that the Town Board's vote did not constitute the necessary "super majority" and the Subject Parcel remained (HD) Hamlet Density zoned as if the Town Board's vote never occurred. On or about November 21, 2000, KACE Development Corp., on behalf of KACE LI, LLC filed a building permit application with the Town of Southold's Building Department for Buildings 27, 26, 25, and 24 (Units A, B, C, and D in each building) of Northwind Village project. On or about Monday, December 3, limited site specific clearing commenced at the Subject Parcel. KA CE LI, LL C Page 9 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 On or about Tuesday, December 6, 2000, Southold Town issued a cease and desist order for the Northwind Village project to the company contracted to clear the site preventing them from continuing to selectively clear the property for road and building location. Said order was based on $outhold Town's assumption that construction had begun without permits. Later the same day, Southold Marine police officer (Bay Constable) Don Dzenkowski, at the request of the Town Attorney, visited the Subject Parcel. The reason for his visit was the Town Attorney's allegation that wetlands at the subject property were being destroyed. On inspection of the site by Officer Dzenkowski, there was no indication of any wetlands in the area being cleared and no further official town action was taken. At the instruction of the agent ofKACE LI, LLC, all work ceased on Thursday, December 7, 2000. On or about July, 14 2005, KACE LI, LLC filed a petition with the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport to annex the Subject Parcel into the Village of Greenport. KACE LI, LLC Page 10 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 ll.B. PROPOSAL AND EXISTING CONDITIONS Housing Type and Mix The proposed project is a 128-unit affordable workforce housing development in connection with the annexation petition (the "Project"). The site of the Project is 17.2 acres located in Southold on the south side of the North Road, approximately IA mile east of Chapel Lane (See Exhibit D). Of the 128 homes, 64, equivalent to 50% of the total units, will be affordable based on current income guidelines of Southold and Suffolk County. These units will be divided among one- and two-bedroom condominiums of approximately 700 to 900 square feet that are expected to sell for between $175,000 and $215,000 and semi-detached two- family units of approximately 1,300 square feet are expected to sell for $266,500. The remaining 64 homes will be detached single-family homes intended for the general market. Construction will occur in phases over three years and, if both boards vote in favor of the annexation, construction could begin as soon as the SEQRA process and formal planning review are completed. The home sales prices were determined using guidelines set forth by the Town and Suffolk County. Initial sale of the units will be handled by lottery, with priority given to people who live and/or work in the Town or Village. Resale of the units will be restricted to Southold residents in perpetuity; this mechanism will keep the unit affordable and will guarantee that the home remain available to the residents of Southold and the Village, but will not place an artificial limit on potential equity appreciation. KA CE LI, LLC Page 11 A nnexation Memo August 23, 2005 Infrastructure and Community Services With regard to infrastructure and community services, there is a water main and a Greenport sewer main adjacent to the property. The site is served by Long Island Power Authority for electric, Cablevision for cable television, and Verizon for telephone services. The parcel is located within the Greenport School District, the Greenport Fire District, and is protected by the Southo]d Police Department. Zoning The site is currently zoned HD - Hamlet Density in the Town of Southold, which allows for four units per acre, and has been zoned the highest residential density allowed by the Town for over 25 years. The Town of Southold zoning map for the relevant area is attached in EXHIBIT E. In 1983, the Town of Southold approved a siteplan for 108 multifamily units on the property. Planning and Smart Growth The subject property is also located within the recently adopted Greenport HALO Zone, which has been recommended to support densities of up to eight units per acre when sufficient infrastructure is in place. The HALO Zone has been created as part of the recent Southold Hamlet Study to facilitate the development of affordable workforce housing that incorporates a variety of housing types. The Greenport HALO Zone map, as adopted in the 2005 Southold Town Hamlet Study, is attached in EXHIBIT G. The Southold Town Hamlet Study is an excellent example of community involvement in the planning process. Recently, there has been much discussion of the role and KACE LI, LLC Page 12 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 importance of sound planning in guiding the future development of the Town. The proposed project has been developed to be consistent with both Smart Growth guidelines as established by Suffolk County~ and Southold planning initiatives and recommendations from such studies as: o The 1985 Master Plan Update o 2003 Southold Town Housing Needs Assessment o 2004 Draft and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement o 2005 Southold Town Hamlet Study Affordable housing has been identified as the Town's most important issue.2 The need for affordable housing in the Town has been expressed as far back as the 1985 Southold Town Master Plan Update3 and has consistently been reinforced, culminating in the 2005 Hamlet Study Plan.4 Summary of Southold Town Past Plannin~ Initiatives 1967- Town of Southold Comprehensive Development Plan o Prepared by Raymond and May Associates. o The Town Board adopted zoning amendments in subsequent years, and most portions of the plan were incorporated into a Development Plan prepared by the Town Board in 1978 (Details unavailable). 1985- Master Plan Update I Smart Communities Through Smart Growth: Applying Smart Growth Principles to Suffolk County Towns and Villages', Suffolk County Planning Commission, March, 2000. 2 Housing Needs' Assessment, Town of Southold, May 2003, p. 4. ~ Master Plan Update, Town of Southokl, 1985, p. 6. ~ Hamlet Study, Town of Southold [4.ACE L1, LLC Page 13 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 o Adopted by Planning Board but not the Town Board. o Housing goals included preserving the existing housing stocks and providing opportunities for the development of a variety of housing types to meet the need of people at various stages of the life cycle, various income and age levels and household compositions. o Encouraged residential development to locate in and around the existing hamlets "in order to preserve and enhance the historic and cultural centers of the community, to support existing commercial centers, to provide locations for moderately priced housing and to encourage efficient and effective provision of community facilities and services" and identified Southold as a major hamlet center (Town of Southold Planning Board 1985, p. 6). o For each Town hamlet, the plan was designed to provide for a range of housing for younger and older residents with a range of income levels within the hamlet areas, with higher densities near the center and lower density in outlying areas. The base density of one unit per acre is shown on the hamlet maps and the range of possible densities would be limited by the availability or provision of utilities and the provision of lower cost housing. 1991 - US/UK Stewardship Exchange Report o Recommendations related to: Farmland protection o Concentration of development within villages and hamlets o Provision of quality affordable housing Preservation of the community's historic and rural character KA CE LI, LLC Page 14 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 o Economic development based on the existing resources of the area o Maintenance and improvement of the area's environmental quality o No specific recommendations were adopted. 1994 - Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Report o Study relating to the 1991 US/UK Stewardship Exchange Report. o Recommendations related to: o Preservation of farmland and open space o Sustainable econonfic development o Water o Affordable housing o Character of hamlets and rural setting o Some recommendations were adopted. 1989, 1998 - Open Space Preservation Plan 2000 - Southold Township 2000 Planning Initiative o Upgraded Town's GIS capabilities o Developed capital programming and budgeting plans o Completed Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy, January 2000 o Completed Town Water Supply Management and Watershed Protection Strategy, June 2000 1983-2002- Farm and Farmland Preservation Program 2003 - Southold Town Housing Needs Assessment, as part of DGEIS 2004 o "Affordable housing is today regarded as one of the most important issues facing Southold.' (p.4) KACE LI, LLC Page 15 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 o Purpose to define the nature and characteristics of affordable housing problem within Southold o "Absent any significant modification to existing zoning or land use controls, and excluding the land protection variable, it can be projected that the housing demand in Southold will out pace the rate of new home construction until saturation is reached." (p.34) o "If the demand cannot bc met with new units, including rentals and smaller residence (e.g. townhouses) the cost of housing will increase correspondingly." (p.35) o "Beyond the simple calculus of supply and demand, the housing problem is complicated by the lack of housing diversity. Very few options are available to singles, couples, or the elderly. Where can one turn, ifa large single family home on acre or more of land is not their housing preference? Importantly, where can one turn to find an affordable option to this model?" (p.37) o It will require forethought, vision, and conviction to break the traditional housing paradigm bearing down on the Town's remaining housing opportunities and provide for a range of housing opportunities for all segments of the Town's population." (p.37) o "In addition, there are virtually no new multifamily unit opportunities in the Town and there is a greater demand for housing than supply." (DGEIS SECTION 3, p. 37) KACE LI, LLC Page 16 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 o "...identification of receiving site opportunities which include multi family housing, mixed housing, and smaller unit development, as well as a density incentive for the creation of new housing opportunities at receiving sites, significantly increases the potential for affordable housing in the Town of Southold." (DGEIS Section 3, p. 37) 2005 - Hamlet Study Plan o Adopted July 12, 2005 by the Southold Town Board as an official Town planning document. o The Southold Hamlet Center "should embrace a diversity of housing types, such as townhouses, attached single family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, etc., within the overall context of the existing character of the Hamlet." (Southold Hamlet Study, p. S-2) o "Opportunities for new residential development exist in Southold. The new HALO zone should be designed to accommodate a variety of housing types, at a density between 1/4 acre to 1/8 acre [four units per acre to eight units per acre] in certain limited locations - subject to addressing septic considerations (1 dwelling/10,000 square feet of lot area- 1/5,000 square feet). (Southold Hamlet Study, p. S-2) o Subject parcel located within new HALO zone (see Southold Hamlet Study, Figure S-2). o For housing recommendations, see p. S-10. · "The HALO zone should permit an increase in density above that which is permitted under existing zoning up to 1 dwelling unit per KACE LI, LLC Page 17 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 10,000 square feet of lot area [HD - Hamlet Density]." (Southold Hamlet Study, p. S-10) KA6'E LI, LLC Page 18 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 II.C. Affordable Housing The Project calls for the creation of 128 mixed-income residential units. Exactly one-half (50%) of the units will be market-rate detached single-family homes. The remaining 50% of the units will be affordable as defined by the Town of Southold and Suffolk County guidelines for moderate-income individuals and families. These 64 affordable homes will be divided among the following unit types: · Forty (40) Semi-detached two-family units, each approximately 1,300 square feet, with an expected purchase price of $266,500; · Twelve (12) Two-bedroom condominium units, each approximately 900 square feet, situated in multi-family structures, with an expected purchase price of $215,000; · Twelve (12) One-bedroom condominium units, each approximately 700 square feet, situated in multi-family structures, with an expected purchase price of $175,000. The expected sales prices of the affordable units have been determined using the guidelines established by Suffolk County and the Town of Southold. Using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) figure for the median income for a family of four in the County of Suffolk as the Area Median Income (AMI), price ranges were determined using standard guidelines. As of 2005, the HUD AMI for Suffolk County is $71,080. KACE LI, LLC Page 19 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 It should be noted that since the HUD AMI changes each year, it is expected that the actual sales price of the affordable units will be re-evaluated at the time of sale using the above-referenced standard guidelines to reflect current income levels. The Village of Greenport will determine the eligibility of individuals or families to purchase an affordable unit in the Project. Applications for the purchase of a home by eligible individuals or families will be selected by lottery. However, it the understanding of the project sponsor that priority may be determined based on the following or similar criteria at the discretion of the Village: 1. Live in the Greenport Union School District and work in the Town of Southold or the Village of Greenport, and provide volunteer emergency/life saving services for residents of the Town or Village or work as a uniformed police office in the Southold Police Department; 2. Live and work in the Town of Southold or the Village of Greenport and provide volunteer emergency/life saving services for residents of the Town or Village or work as a uniformed police office in the Southold Police Department; 3. Live and work in the Town of Southold or the Village of Greenport; 4. Live in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport; 5. Work in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport; 6. Flave previously lived in the Town of Southold or Village of Greenport. KACE LL LLC Page 20 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 Furthermore, it the understanding of the project sponsor that eligibility will be determined in accordance with the following or similar guidelines: ,, Meet income guidelines of less that 120% of the HUD AMI for the current year; · Able to secure a mortgage; · Agree to occupy the home as a principal residence; · Be a U.S. Citizen or Permanent U.S. Resident; · Agree to credit history and criminal background check. KACE LI, LLC Page 21 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 ll.D. Permanent Affordability The Town of Southold currently has regulations that require affordable units, created as part of the Town's subdivision inclusionary zoning law, remain permanently aftbrdable. Section 100-56.E (1) of the Code of the Town of Southold restricts resale of affordable units as follows: Dwelling units in an AHD District reserved for moderate-income families must be resold to moderate-income families who are registered with the Special Projects Coordinator as eligible and in need of housing. In an effort to ensure perpetual affordability, the maximum resale price shall not exceed the purchase price plus the cost of permanent fixed improvements, adjusted for the increase in the consumer price index during the period of ownership of such dwelling unit and such capital improvements plus reasonable and necessary resale expenses. All capital improvements require the approval of the Special Projects Coordinator who will submit such improvements to the Housing Advisory comrmssion for determination off (a) whether the capital improvement is warranted and (b) if warranted, the value of appreciation to the property at time of improvement and (c) the value (if any) upon resale. The Housing Advisory Commission will provide quarterly reports to the Town Board pertaining to AHD provisions (i.e., sales, resales, capital improvements, etc.). The above regulation restricts the resale price of dwelling units by limiting price appreciation to increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in addition to the cost of any approved capital improvements. This method for restricting sales prices for affordable traits could create two substantial burdens on the homeowner and the Town of Southold. First, the CPI does not accurately measure changes in income or house prices. To illustrate this point, Figure II.D(1) below shows the discrepancy between the increase in CPI (Northeast Urban), per capita income, and house prices between 1998 and 2003. KACE LI. LLC Page 22 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 7O.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% .-- CPI - Northeast Urban Per Capita Income OFHEO HPI Figure II.D(1): Percentage increases in CPI, Per Capita Income, and House Price Index, 1998-2003. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce; Bureau of Labor and Statistics; Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight As is clear from the chart, the resale price of an affordable home will be 2.3% less than the sales prices of new affordable units, based on the percentage increase in income. This shortfall, when propagated forward, will prevent an affordable home buyer from being able to afford an upgraded home, as they will not be allowed a sufficient amount of equity appreciation to support the increased housing expense. This situation could create a "second-class" of homeowners: those who first purchased an affordable, price-restricted home and are unable to generate significant home equity to meet their housing needs later in life. The second potential burden of the permanently affordable housing unit could rest squarely on the Town of Southold. Not only will the Town be responsible for maintaining a housing list and establishing affordable sales prices, but it will also be required to: · approve capital improvements to affordable homes; · verify cost estimates for the improvements; KACE LI, LLC Page 23 Annexation Memo ,4 ugust 23, 2005 determine if the improvements are warranted; · decide whether the improvement can be capitalized into the value of the house; and, · establish resale prices and monitor sales transactions. Given that the estimated number of affordable homes needed in the Town of Southold to meet the demand exceeds several hundred based on the current waitlist and conversion of year-round housing stock to seasonal use, there can be little doubt that such responsibilities will only further strain an already over-burdened municipality and could lead to a potentially significant amount of litigation. The Project, by incorporating compact housing design and densities of up to eight units per acre, will meet the needs of moderate-income individuals and families looking for attractive, quality homes in the Town o[' Southold. The proposal calls for the integration of four different housing types, designed to meet the requirements of Soutbold residents of various income levels, ages, and lifestyles. These housing types, specifically semi- detached two-family units and one- and two-bedroom multifamily condominiums, are expected to sell at prices between $175,000 and $266,500. Over the last 20 years, affordable housing has been consistently identified as one of the most important issue facing the Town of Southold. Currently, there are over 150 names of working individuals and families on a waiting list for affordable homes in the Town KACE LI, LLC Page 24 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 and Village, but it is generally accepted that this number is just a small percentage of the actual need. The Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, as part of the Final Generic Impact Statement, states "it is evident that there is a critical need for (and lack of) affordable housing in nearly every geographic location of the Town, and with nearly every sector of the Town's population with the obvious exception of high-income residents? People affected most by this problem are the working individuals who hold core positions in the Southold community - nurses, police officers, teachers, municipal workers, to name just a few - and their families who are unable to afford the average Southold home a four-bedroom detached house on an acre or more of land selling for $400,000. The lack of affordable housing options has resulted in approximately one-third of all Southold residents having difficulty meeting their housing costs every month. One particular demographic has suffered the most - young individuals under the age of 35. The high cost of housing has forced these young people and families out of Southold and away from their community. For example, in 2000 the population of Southold under the age of 35 accounted for only 35.5% of the total, compared to 47.2% for Suffolk County. And between 1990 and 2000, the Southold population between the ages of 20 6 and 35 has decreased by almost 30%, three times faster than the national average. Southold Comprehenxtve lmplementatton Strategy, P. 3-42. Source: 2000 U.S. Decennial Census FACE LI, LLC Page 25 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 One of the primary causes of the affordable housing crisis in the Town of Southold is a severe housing supply-demand imbalance. This imbalance is perpetuated by the continued strength of the second-home or seasonal home market. Evidence of the trend toward seasonal homes is presented in Figure II.D(2) below: New Housing Units, Southold, 1990-2000 Total = 790 Units [] Year-round Use 32% Seasonal Use 68% FIGURE II.D(2): Percentage of Housing Units by Use, 1990-2000 Source: 2000 U.S. Decennial Census As one can see, the vast majority of nexv housing units in the Town of Southold have been purchased for seasonal or second-home use. These second-home buyers, in most cases, have incomes supported by the economy of New York City and the surrounding metropolitan area. The second-home buyers are the wealthiest of this group. Southold residents, on the other hand, are earning incomes based on the local economy of Southold, and cannot compete with second-home buyers in the open market. To level the playing field in a way that still allows for free market operation and the KACE LI, LLC Page 26 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 opportunity for equity growth that underlies the desire for home ownership, sale of affordable units of the Project now and forever should be limited to people who reside and/or work in Greenport or Southold. This would take second-home buyers out of the market for these units and restrict their value to a true reflection of the local economy, thereby making them intrinsically affordable to local families. The Greenport Housing Authority (which is a governmental agency of the Village of Greenport) could regulate transfers according to a process incorporating requirements such as length of residency and immigration status. This method of permanent affordability will allo~v homebuyers to receive all of the benefits ofhomeownership including the opportunity for equity appreciation, tax benefits, and social benefits and still keep the unit available and affordable to those that live and/or work in Greenport or Southold in perpetuity. KAC'E LI, LLC Page 27 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 II.E. Marketability and Design Given that KACE is not requesting any government subsidies or taxpayer contributions and that the project will be entirely priw~tely funded, the marketability of the Project and all of the units, including the affordable homes, is critical to the financial feasibility of the Project. To enhance marketability, the quality design of both the units and the site will be a priority, in order to maintain continuity of the project and to create a community environment, the affordable units will likely be dispersed throughout the project. Smart Growth principles, as presented by the Suffolk County Planning Commission7, will guide many aspects of the proposed development, including design. Special attention will be devoted to the layout of the site, including the positioning of the structures, the design and size of roads, the inclusion of sidewalks, the design of landscaping, the preservation of mature vegetation, and the consideration of open and public space. Examples of potential design elements and architectnral characteristics are presented in Figures II.E(1) through II.E(4). 7 Smart Growth Through Smart Communities: Applying Smart Growth Principlex to Suffolk County 7bwns and Villages, Suffolk County Planning Commission, March, 2000. KACE LI, LLC Page 28 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 Figure II.E(2) K/tCE LI; LLC Page 30 ~4nnexation Memo August 23, 2005 Figure II.E(3) KACE LI, LLC Page 31 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 Figure II.E(4) The site will also feature a number of community facilities to be used and enjoyed by local residents. These are expected to include an activity center with swimming pool, picnic areas, and walking paths. The creation of a pleasing environment will inspire local residents to have a sense of pride in their community. KACE LI, LLC Page 32 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 III. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION III.A. Traffic Impact Analysis Existing Conditions The site of the proposed annexation is located at 62600 North Road in the Town of Southold, on the south side of the North Road, approximately one-quarter mile east of Chapel Lane. EXHIBIT D presents a Location Map of the site and surrounding area. The site is currently zoned Hamlet Density, which allows four residential units per acre. The site is contiguous to Village of Greenport property on three sides. The property is currently vacant. County Road 48, also known as the North Road and Middle Road, falls under the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. As part of an ongoing analysis of traffic conditions on the East End of Long Island, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) as well as the Suffolk County Department of Public Works has conducted a number of data collection studies. Most recently, the NYSDOT completed traffic counts along many of the Town of Southold major roadways, including County Road 48, in 2002. The Coverage and Special Count Hourly Report for the stretch of County Road 48 in front of the subject property is attached in EXHIBIT H. KACE LI, LLC Page 33 Annexation Memo Auguxt 23, 2005 Two recent studies have been conducted to comprehensively examine transportation issues on the East End of Long Island. First, the Long Island Transportation Plan for the Year 2000 (LITP 2000), prepared in conjunction with NYSDOT, was designed to address current and future transportation issues and alternatives for Long Island. Data specific to the North Fork was collected as part of the overall transportation plan. Second, the Sustainable East End Development Strategies (SEEDS) project is an ongoing effort by a joint group five towns and nine incorporated villages of the East End to develop strategies for preserving the region's unique character. The Inventory and Analysis document, completed in 2002 and revised in 2004, presents a detailed overview of the existing conditions relating to transportation issues. The SEEDS inventory, however, did not include any new data collection relevant to traffic or transportation analysis. Proposed Action Thc Project calls for the development of a 128-unit mixed-income residential development. The unit types will include detached single-family, semi-detached two- family, and multi family condominiums. In order to create projections of the volume of traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed action, an analysis was undertaken using the publication "Trip Generation" developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (See EXHIBIT I). This reference is widely used by traffic engineers and is considered to be the standard methodology for estimating traffic that may result from a proposed development project. The calculations for the 128-unit mixed-income residential project are presented below in Table III.A(1) for the average daily trip (ADT) generation for the proposed development. KA CE LI, LLC Page 34 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 Unit Type Entering Trips Exiting Trips Total Single-Family 303 303 606 Detached (64) Semi-detached 118 118 236 Two-Family (4O) Multifamily 69 69 138 Condominium (24) Total (128) 490 490 980 'Fable III.A(1): Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation for the Project Source: Trip Generation, 5tn Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers It is important to identify how the traffic levels of the proposed development compare to the traffic generated by what could be built on the site as-of-right. The site is currently zoned Hamlet Density (HD) in the Town of Southold, which allows for four residential units per acre. This equates to approximately 68 units that could be built as-of-right. However, there are approximately 2.7 acres of freshwater wetlands on the site. According to Southold zoning regulations, these wetlands would reduce the buildable area to 14.5 acres, which would allow for 58 units to be built. FIGURE III.A(2) shows a comparison between the current average vehicle trips on County Road 48 and the number of total trips on County Road 48 after the proposed project and after a HD as-of-right zoning project. KACE LI, LLC Page 35 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 Daily Average Traffic Volumes, Summer, County Road 48 Source: LITP2000 and Institute of Transportation Engineers 18000 F ............................ 17000 L ............................ ~6000 .... 15000 14000 13000 ~---e-'.: 12000 11000 10000 Current With As-of-Right HD Project With Proposed Project FIGURE III.A(2): Daily Average Traffic Volumes, County Road 48. current, after as-of-right HD project, and after Project. Source: Long Island Transportation Plan 2000, New York Metropolitan Transportation Council and New York State Department of Transportation; and Trip Generation, 5tn Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers It can be seen from the above table that the difference between what is allowed as-pr- right under current zoning on the site and the proposed project is minimal. The increase in vehicle trips on County 48 due to the proposed project is only 1.7% greater than the increase due to an as-of-right project under HD zoning. Mitigation As with any development, some increase in vehicular trips over the existing conditions must occur. However, traffic generated by the proposal will be minimized in several ways, primarily due to the design and allocation of unit types, the intended market of the units, and specific recommendations to be proposed by the project sponsor. KA CE LI, LLC Page 36 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 First, the relatively small size of the residential units (700 1,600 square feet) and lots will limit the household size and number of vehicles associated with the project. A study by the Federal Highway Administration in 1985 produced adjustment factors for residential land uses and their associated demographic characteristics. These adjustment factors decrease average daily trip generation figures by more than 30% for detached single-family dwellings when comparing a household of one or two persons to a household of three or more. According to the 1994 Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), one and two person households average 1.6 vehicles per household while households with throe or more persons average 2.2 vehicles per household, an increase of 37.5%. Second, the mix of housing types of the Project will minimize traffic generation compared to all detached single-family residences. According to the EIA (2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey), 70% of single-family homes in the United States own more than two vehicles. Comparatively, only 34% of households in two- to four-unit structures own two or more vehicles. As the number of units per structure increases to greater than five, only 22% of households own two or more vehicles. Third, the intended market for the Project are working individuals and families who and live and/or work in the Town of Southold. In 2000, over 40% of those who worked in the Town of Southold commuted from outside the Town. As KA CE LI, LLC Page 37 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 residents of the proposed project will be relocating within the Town or moving closer to their place of work, it can be expected that the number of vehicle trips generated by workers commuting into the Town or Village from further will west will be reduced. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development8, workers who are forced to live far away from their jobs commute long distances by car, which clogs roads and highways, contributes to air pollution, increases fuel use, increases the number of automobile accidents, adds additional costs for workers, and results in a significant loss of productivity. By providing housing options within the Town for the workforce of the Town of Southold, many will have an alternative to moving outside of the Town and having to commute to work. Fourth, given the expected market for the Project, it is anticipated that many opportunities for carpooling and bicycle use will be created within the proposed development, further minimizing reliance on vehicle trips by residents of the proposed project. Finally, as part of the proposed project, KACE will recommend that Suffolk County re-route its S-92 bus line to accommodate the Project. The current route map of the bus line is attached in EXHIBIT J. Since it is expected that a majority of the homeowners of the proposed project will work in the Town of Southold, ~ "Why Not in Our Community?" Removing Barriers to Affordable Houxing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2003. KACE LI, LLC Page 38 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 the potential for residents to conunute by bus to and from work and other activities is quite high. KACE LI, LLC Page 39 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 III.B. SchoolImpact Analysis The Project lies within the Greenport Union School District, outlined in EXHIBIT B. The District operates an elementary school (grades kindergarten through six) and secondary school (grades seven through twelve) located at 720 Front Street, in the Town of Southold. The school was constructed in 1932 and has a stated capacity of 1,100 students, according to the Superintendent of Schools. Total enrollment and enrollment per grade for the years 1998/99 through 2003/04 is provided in EXHIBIT J and is summarized in Table III.B(1) below: Diff. % Inc. GRADE 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-032003-0498/99-03/0498/99-03/04 Kindergarten 41 49 36 42 47 42 1 2.4% First 64 49 60 48 41 59 -5 -7.8% Second 61 48 39 45 41 33 -28 -45.9% Third 44 47 44 43 39 41 -3 -6.8% Fourth 36 43 51 43 42 41 5 13.9% :ifth 42 34 42 50 41 49 7 16.7°/ Sixth 39 38 35 41 50 46 7 17.9% ,Ungraded Elem. 12 15 14 16 13 12 0 0.0% .~eventh 50 55 70 67 74 79 29 58.0% Eighth 56 50 63 59 57 58 2 3.6% ~lineth 44 60 49 54 55 66 22 50.0% Yenth 51 43 64 47 54 54 3 5.9% Eleventh 48 44 43 53 43 53 5 10.4% twelfth 35 51 48 44 54 35 0 0.0% Jngraded .Secondary 3 2 0 0 0 0 -3 -100.0% 1-otal K-12 626 628 658 652 651 668 42 6.7% Table III.B(1): Greenport School District, enrollment, 1998/99-2003/04 Source: New York State Education Department, Elementary, Middle, Secondary, and Continued Education (NYSED EMSC) Total enrollment in year 2003-04 was 668, only 60.7% of the stated capacity of the school. Enrollment figures have been relatively stable of the six years between 1998-99 and 2003-04, with a total increase of 6.7%, or approximately 1.1% per year. This rate of' KACE LI. LLC Page 40 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 growth is equivalent to only six new students per year, on average. Table II1.B(1) above most notably illustrates a dramatic decrease in enrollment in grades K through three, where enrollment in those four grades has decreased by 37 students, or approximately 20%, over the course of the analysis period, as shown in Figure III.B(1). Total B~rollment and Four-Year Forecast Grades K- 3, Greenport School 220 210 200 ~9o ~oo 170 160 150 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Figure III.B(1): Enrollment, grades K-3, 1998/99 through 2003/04, and project enrollment through 2007/08 Source: New York State Education Department, Elementary, Middle, Secondary, and Continued Education (NYSED EMSC) Conversely, substantial growth in enrollment has occurred in only two grades, seven and nine, with a majority of this increase taking place in years 2000-01 and 1999-00, respectively. In fact, if the increase in enrollment of these two grades has accounted so much growth in total enrollment that the other ten grades combined have lost 7 students over the six-year period. KA CE LI, LLC Page 41 Annexation Memo Augu,st 23, 2005 Much of the variation in enrollment of the previous six years can be explained by changes in the demographics of the area, largely due to the lack of affordable workforce housing and the exodus of young families which has occurred as a result. Table III.B(2) below summarizes the changes in the population under 45 years of age in the Town of Southold between 1990 and 2000. Total Population Under 5 5to9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 Southold % of Southold % of Diff. 1990 Total 2000 Total 1990-2000 % Diff. 19,836 20,599 1,030 5.2% 1,051 1,074 5.4% 1,295 1,228 6.2%, 1,343 1,091 5.5%, 1,101 763 3.8% 5.1% 21 2.0% 6.3% 221 20.6% 6.5% 115 9.4% 5.3% 10 0.9% 3.4% -269 -27.8% 8.9% -777 -29.8% 14.9% 264 9.4% 969 4.9% 700 2,605 13.1%, 1,828 2,804 14.1% 3,068 Under 20 4,423 22.3% 4,790 23.3% 367 8.3% Under 35 7,997 40.3% 7,318 35.5% -679 -8.5% Under 45 10,801 54.5% 10,386 50.4% -415 -3.8% Table III.B(2): Southold demographics, 1990 and 2000 Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Decennial Census The table above highlights two trends that are relevant to the past, current, and future demands that will be placed on the school systems of the Town of Southold, including Greenport Union. First, in the ten years between 1990 and 2000, there has been a sharp decline in the Southold population between the ages of 20 and 34, decreasing by 29.3%. Comparatively, in New York State between 1990 and 2000, the same age cohort decreased in population by only 12.0%. This decrease in Southold's young population is quite astounding and points to a major exodus by this important segment of Southold's community. It also suggests that the slow rate of increase of the population of children under 5 is not an anomaly and is, in fact, a trend that will continue until the causes of the young population out-migration are addressed and corrected. K,4 CE L1, LL C Page 42 ~4nnexation Memo August 23, 2005 Second, there has been a pronounced spike in the population of 5 to 9 year-olds in the Town of Southold, with the age group growing by more than 20.6% between 1990 and 2000. Compared to New York State, the Southold population of persons between the ages of 5 and 9 grew by approximately 6.0% more. The increase can be attributed in part to the "Baby Boom Echo," the increase in births due to the Baby Boom population.9This growth could have directly contributed to the increase in enrollment in grades seven through nine in the Greenport School District. Capacity There has been some question as to the current functional capacity of the Greenport Union School District. Although the stated capacity is 1,100 students, current New York Stated Education Department (NYSED) regulations may have reduced the functional capacity of the school. However, given the stated capacity and 2003-04 total enrollment, the school is currently under-utilized as defined by NYSED. Based on these figures, the school could accommodate an additional 432 students. To begin to gauge the potential additional enrollment, Table III.B(3) presents several possible figures for the actual capacity of the school and room for additional enrollment: I;urrent Enrollment (03-04) 668 668 668 668 apacit¥ 1,100 990 880 770 Table III.B(3): Greenport School capacity vs. enrollment Source: NYSED EMSC 9 The Baby Boom Echo 1996 Report, U.S. Department of Education, 1996. K,~CE LI, LLC Page 43 ,~nnexation Memo /tugust 23, 2005 Examining Table III.B(3) above, the figures suggest that even if the actual capacity of the school were only 770 students, fully 30% less than the stated capacity of 1,100, the school would still be able to accommodate 102 new students. At the stated capacity, the school is able to accommodate 432 new' students before reaching overcrowded conditions. In a conversation with Greenport Superintendent of School Dr. Charles Kozora on August 22, 2005, Dr. Kozora acknowledged that Greenport School has physical capacity for the proposed project. In fact, he noted that several secondary school classrooms are unused due to insufficient enrollment. Estimated impact The Project calls for the creation of a 128-unit mixed-income residential development. Of the 128 units, 64 homes (50% of the total) will be affordable to the workforce population of the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport and the remaining 64 units will be market-rate. The proposed development includes a mix of housing types, integrating detached single-family homes, semi-detached two-family homes, and multi-family condominiums. The intended market of the Project is cnrrent residents of the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport, particularly working individuals and families who have been forced to move away or live in inadequate conditions due to rising house prices and insufficient supply and variety of units. The 50% affordable component of the proposed project will be restricted by certain eligibility requirements. It is expected that a number of the future KACE LI, LLC Page 44 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 residents of the proposed project will be young individuals or families looking for an entry-level home as there first home purchase. The limited size of the units and lots will restrict potential household size and limit prices to affordable levels. Given the composition of the unit types, sizes, intended market, and purchase restrictions, an estimate of the number of school-aged children generated by the project can be developed. Figure III.B(2) provides estimation guidelines for the number of school-aged children generated by the proposed project using statistics from New York State and the United States as a whole: 07 Average School Enrollment Per Unit by Housing Type, 2000 Figure III.B(2): Average school enrollment per unit by housing type, 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census, Public Use Microduta Sample. KACE LI, LLC Page 45 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 Using figures from the Town of Southold~°, the average school enrollment per housing unit is 0.27, and the average per year-round housing unit is 0.44. Within the Greenport School District~ ~, the average number of children enrolled in school per occupied housing unit is 0.43. To estimate the number of school-aged children generated from the Project, the above figures were applied to the specific housing type and mix of the Project. The total number of school-aged children generated by the Project is presented below: School-aged Children Generated by Proposed Project vs. As-of-Right HD Project 80 7O 6O 50, O -~ 30 E z 20 10 Southold Greenport NYS Statistics US Statistics As-of-Right HD Statistics School District Project Statistics Figure III.B(3): Estimate of school-aged children generated by Project and comparison to as-of-right HD project Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census, Public Use Microdata Sample. As is shown on the chart above, the potential number of school-aged children generated by the project using Town o£ Southold, Greenport School District, New York State, and Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Dece~mial Census Source: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Bureau of the Census KA CE LI, LL C Page 46 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 United States statistics is 45, 55, 69, and 62, respectively. Taking the average of these figures, the potential estimated school-aged children generated by the proposed project would be 58. It is important to compare the impact of the proposed project with what could be built on the site as-of-right under current zoning. The parcel is currently zoned Hamlet Density in the Town of Southold which allows a residential density of four units per acre. This density translates to an allowable yield as-of-right of 68 units. However, wetlands have been identified on the site, which, trader current Southold regulations, would reduce the buildable area of the parcel to 14.5 acres, for an allowable yield of 58 units. It can be assumed that the lower density of the as-of-right project would facilitate the development of large, four-bedroom detached single-family homes. Using the above analysis techniques, we find that the Hamlet Density as-of-right project could generate 54 school- aged children. A comparison of the as-of-right project and the proposed project reveals a possible increase of only four school-aged children generated by the proposed project. Mitigation Based on the 2003-04 enrollment figures, the 58 additional children estimated to be generated by this project would represent an increase, on average, of less than 9% per grade. However, this assumes that the proposed project will introduce these children all at the same time, which it will not. Any possible impact will be further mitigated by several factors. K~4 CE LI, LLC Page 47 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 First, as was previously discussed, by limiting unit sizes and incorporating a variety of unit types, the overall number of school-aged children generated by the Project will be much less than il! all large, four-bedroom detached single-family homes were built on the site. Second, given current trends in enrollment in the Greenport School district, it is expected that by the time the project is completed there will be excess capacity in grades kindergarten through six. This assumption is based on the enrollment in grades kindergarten through three over the past six years, the expectation of little residential construction in the school district, and shifting demographics, as presented above, of the Town of Southold and the Greenport School district. Third, construction of the Project will be a phased process, occurring over approximately three years. This timeframe will allow for a gradual introduction of new students into the school system. The 58 students that could be generated by the will be introduced over three years, which will result in less than 20 new students per year. Divided equally among the thirteen grades, this represents only 1.5 new students per grade per year. Fourth, these units will be sold to Southold and Greenport residents based on a priority list. Many of these homebuyers will already have children in the Greenport School district. As such, it may be assumed that several of the school- KACE LI, LLC Page 48 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 aged children generated by the project will already be in the Greenport School and will not create any additional burden. Finally, it should be expected that the Greenport School District, as part of a responsible planning and budgeting program, has accounted for this high-density residentially zoned subject parcel currently within its boundaries. It is our belief that, given the current enrollment in the school, the relatively few students generated by the Project, and the phased construction process, which will gradual introduce new students, that the school tax of residents within the Greenport School district should not be materially affected by this project alone. Furthermore, since 2001, the school tax rate has actually decreased. For the 2005- 2006 budget year, the Greenport Board of Education is estimating a 1.95% increase in school tax. However, the tax increases forecast by the Board of Education over the past five years have not materialized, and it is expected that no tax increase will be required for the 2005-2006 budget year. Ix~ACE LI, LLC Page 49 Annexation Memo Auguxt 23, 2005 III.C. Environmental Impact Analysis Overall, it is expected that environmental impact from the proposed project will be minimal, and that any potential impacts will be mitigated to the fullest extent possible. Three specific potential impacts and their mitigation are presented below. Wetlands Freshwater wetlands are lands and submerged lands, commonly called marshes, swamps, sloughs, bogs, and flats, supporting aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation. These ecological areas are valuable resources, necessary for flood control, surface and ground water protection, wildlife habitat, open space, and water resourcesfi2 There are approximately 2.7 acres of freshwater wetlands on the proposed project site as identified by Charles Bowman, President of Land Use Ecological Services Inc., in July 2005. Mr. Bowman was a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) employee for eight years and has over 20 years of experience in environmental resource management. Mr. Bowman's qualifications are provided in EXHIBIT L. These wetlands are regulated by the NYS DEC whether the property is under the jurisdiction of Southold or Greenport and will be protected in accordance with NYS DEC and Greenport Village regulations both during and after construction. Preservation The preservation of pristine lands and open spaces is a focal issue in the Town of Southold. By meeting the recommendations of Smart Growth and Southold Town ~2 NYS DEC Article 24, Environmental Conservation Law Implementing Regulations - 6NYCRR Part 663, Part 664, and Part 665. KA CE LI, LLC Page 50 Annexation Memo August 23, 200.5 Planning initiatives, this property, which has 1) been zoned high-density residential tbr over 25 years, 2) is located near the hamlet of Greenport, 3) is within the HALO zone, 4) has existing infrastructure in place, and 5) is surrounded by high-density uses, is an ideal location for this type of residential development and will allow more pristine open lands to be preserved, rather than be consumed by suburban sprawl. Air pollution and Fuel Consumption By creating housing opportunities close to residents' places of work, there will be a reduction in average commuting distances. This reduction results in reduced air pollution and fuel use. In addition, by providing housing near local employment centers, there may be greater potential for the use of alternative and public transportation methods, including walking, bicycling, and carpooling. As part of our proposed project, we will recommend that the Suffolk County S-92 bus line be re-routed to accommodate the project. The schedule and current route of the S-92 bus is attached in EXHIBIT J. Several "green" design elements will be integral to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage energy conservation, alternative forms of transport, and community interaction. The following are examples of guidelines that may be incorporated into the design of the site and houses of the proposed project as part of Green Building practices:13 · Use plant species that thrive in local climate with minimal irrigation; · Save existing mature trees on site; ~3 Af~brdable Green Guidelines, American Institute of Architects. KACE LI, LLC Page 51 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 · Where possible, provide useable areas where the community residents can meet and gather; · Use patios, front yards, pomhes, or balconies to encourage community interaction and provide eyes-on-the-street surveillance; · Provide for alternative transportation, e.g., bike paths and storage, pedestrian links, car shares; · Provide accessible routes of travel and avoid use of stairs wherever the terrain permits; · Prioritize pedestrian over vehicular traffic and use traffic calming devices; incorporate attractive well-lit pedestrian paths wherever possible; · Provide a well-insulated building that minimizes heat gain and loss; · Specify energy-efficient windows; · Ensure water meters are installed and there is owner/tenant accountability in water use; · Assure that electric and gas meters are installed and that there is accountability by owner or tenant for use; · Specify Energy Star appliances throughout. KA CE LI, LLC Page 52 Annexation Memo /~ugust 23, 2005 IV. QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPALS This document was prepared by Michael Kontokosta, Esq. and Constantine Kontokosta, P.E., principals of KACE LI, LLC. Biographies of the principals are provided below. Michael E. Kontokosta, Esq. Prior to his position at KACE L1, LLC, Mr. Kontokosta was a corporate finance attorney at the New York City-based law firm of O'Sullivan, Graev & Karabell. As an associate there, he worked directly with private equity investment firms engaged in leveraged buyout transactions. Mr. Kontokosta holds a Juris Doctor degree from New York Law School and a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Colgate University. He resides on the North Fork of Long Island with his wife. Constantine E. Kontokosta, P.E. Prior to his position at KACE LI, LLC, Mr. Kontokosta was a project manager at Tishman Construction Corporation, one of New York's largest construction management firms, and a financial analyst at Capital Trust, a real estate finance and investment company. Constantine Kontokosta holds a B.S.E. in Civil Engineering from the University of Pennsylvania, and a M.S. in Real Estate Finance and Development from New York University. In addition, he earned a M.S. in Urban Planning from Columbia University, where he is currently pursuing a PhD. Mr. Kontokosta is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of New York. KA CE LI, LLC Page 53 Annexation Memo August 23, 2005 MAYOR DAVID E KAPELL ({531 } 477 3000 CLERK / TREASURE R CHRISTIE HALLOCK Tel (631 ) 477-0248/2385 Fax: (6~1) 477-1877 August 22, 2005 KACE LI,LLC Attention: Michael Kontokosta, Esq. P O Box 67 Greenport, New York 11944 ae~ Sewer Connection to the Greenport Sewer Collection System SCTM # 1000-40-3-1 Proposed flow 38,400/gallons/day for 128 units Dear Mr. Kontokosta: The Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant has the capacity to serve a connection to the above referenced property located on County Road 48. Very truly yours, Steven Brautigam Utilities Director cc: Mayor Board of Trustees Figure B-3 Town of Southold School District Boundaries Legend ~ School District Boundary ~ Tax Parcel Scale: I inch equals 9000 feet Map Updated: 1997 Map Prepared by Town or' Southotd Geographic Information System May 27, 2003 Fishers Island EXHIBIT C: PRELIMINARY TAX ANALYSIS KACE LI, LLC Annexation Petition Greenport Village and Soutflold Town Tax Rates Iper $1,000), 200412005 Greenport Southold Tax Item Rate Rate Diff. NYSRPTL 2.364 2.364 0.000 NYS Mandate 19.724 19.724 01000 County 8773 8.773 0.000 Town 138.545 183.517 44.972 School 492.937 492.937 0.000 Library 23.598 23.598 0.000 Sp. Dist. 12.662 52.21~ 39.553 TOTAL 698.603 783.128 84.825 Greenport Villa~le Tax 129.500 Tax Analysis {Preliminary) KACE ElI LLC Proposal Market Value Assumptions i NO. of Units Per Unit Total Detached Single-Family 64 $355,000 $22,720,000 Two-Family 40 $265,000' Condominium Units 24 $20510001 Total Market Value 128 . $38,240,000. ASsessed Value (at 1.49% of Market) $569,776* Tax to Southold Town $78,940 Tax to Greenport Village $73,786 Total Greenport School District Tax $280,864 Total Property Tax (KACE LI, LLC ProPOsal) $47'1~6:3~ As-of-riqht HD Zonin,q Proiect Market Value Assumptions No. of Units Per Unit Total Detached Single-Family 58 $425,000 $24,650,000 Total Market Value $241650,000~ Assessed Value (at 1.49% of Market) $367,285' Tax io S0uthold Town , . $67,403 Tax to Greenport Village T0i~i ~reenport School District Tax $181,048 Total Property Tax (As-of-right HD Zoning Project) $287,631 Assumptions: 1. Sales pdce of units used as Market Value. 2. Assessed value ratio is 1.49% of Market Value (according to the Town of Southold). 3. Condominium Units taxed a~ individual ownerahip ~nits. ~ii The KAcE LI, LL~ proje~ ii b~s~d ~n ~28 ~nits in th~ Villa~ of Graenpo~t after annexation. 5. The As*of-dgh~ HD Zoning Project is based on four units per acre (as allowed by So~thold Town Zoning Code) times the number of buildable acres. The parcel is '17.2 acres, less approximately 2. 7 acres of freshwater wetlands as per Southold Town regulations, for a total buildable are~ Of 14.5 acres and a yield of 58 units. The project would be built in the Town of Southold. 2005 MapQuest.com, Inc. Silver Ln ©2005 N'AVTE~ Town of Southold Section 2 of 4 New Zoning Map Adopted by Southold Town Board on November 3, 2004 as Local Law No. 23 of 2004 Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet pg. (4) 7/11/83 'J~n Simicich - Mr. Philip O'Frias, Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Dolomite was p~ent as the Board reviewed Inspector Davis' report #308 regard. ing acces~'s'-~Q~the lots within this s~bdivision. Mr. O'Frias stated the cost for t~commended improvements would be very costly to the present landowners ~._requested that another contractor submit differ. ent road s e~ions~.~he area that would reduce the estimated cost from $4,000 to $1,500. ~.~ion was raised as to who has the respo~ of cost for such im~l~v.~ments; the present landowner or the d~s greed by the Bo~r~embers that the Town Atto~oard who is responsible.~'-.~he Board did not take action on Inspector John W. Davis' report #308. ~van/Preston Site Plan - An inspection of this property was made prior ~<~e meeting. The Board noted there was ample parking (public} in the rear~9~._the building and recommended that the applicants con- tact the SouthoI~wn Board for permission for a "walk~ through" access from thz~ par~i~ area. Mr. Preston and Mr. Sullivan stated ..~ they would pr~opose to us~ck walkway. On motion made by Mr. Or lowski, s~ Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED tha~ld Town Planning B~.~ refer the site Dian of Sul~~~ilding Department~'f~ certification. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham, Mulle~ ~~i~r. Kontokosta was present as the Board reviewed certification f~ ~e Building Inspector's Office. It was noted that no drainage plans have been placed on the proposed plan and parking relative to the dwellings are not shown. Mr. Kontokosta stated there will be garages for the dwelling units; the size of tho units encompass the garages. Mr. Kontokosta stated this would be done when plans are submitted to the Building Inspector's Office. Mr. Lessard stated no objection to this and stated no objection to determining adequate drainage for the area with possible assistance from Inspector John Davis. Mr. Raynor advised b[r. Kontokosta that the Suffolk County Planning Commission would have to review the pro- posed site plan. mp~ioi~ mad~ bM M~:. Latham, seeonded by. M~ MUllen, it Was'? ' ~'~S O~E~D~h~a,~': ~'h o~$~UZ~¢~Ld~ ~iO,w~¢~&a~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Orlowski TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL $OUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 December 30, 1986 TEL. 765q 802 Mr. E. Kontokosta 43 West 54th St. New York, N.Y. 10019 Dear Mr. Kontokosta: RE: Northwind Village North Road, Greenport Your application for a 4 Townhouso unit Unfortunat- ely, I can not give you same until I have written verification of water and sewerage from the proper a'gency. VGL:hdv Victor G. Lessard Exec. Admin. ~ANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOT¥ L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 May 3, 1990 Emanuel M. Kontokosta KACE Realty Co. 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 Re: Northwind Village Site Plan SCTM 9 1000-40-3-1 Dear Mr. Kontokosta: With regard to your correspondence of Apr~I 4, 1990, the Planning Board stands by its letter of March 29, 1990. The minutes of the July 11, 1983 meeting state clearly that "...no drainage plans have been placed on the proposed plan and parking relative to the dwellings are not shown..." Further, you stated that you would submit that information when ~you applied for building permits, which you hame not yet done. A copy of the minutes is enclosed for your convenience. 1983 site plan approval, as you imp. in your letter. It simply reminds you that certain conditions, as it were, of that approval have not been met. The drainage information is needed to ensure that stormwater generated on your property after construction is completed, does not flo~d or erode adjoining property, thereby creating a problem for which the Town, as well as you, would be liable. ~i~h regard to your legal action against the Village of Greenport, this,.Doard had no knowledge of said action until you brought it to our attention in your letter. ~?' The inquiry from the Village of Greenport was made by a /~ consultant t? the Village. The inquiry consisted of a telephone // call ~i;~f the s~t.~ p'~a~~~'~d a~: i~ that a~P~6~a~l'iii! // In order to answer ~ -,~/~.'~4.'~We~ . Dur.~n~.:~h~' ~eviaw,.i%~w~e~.:.d~to~mined ~hat ~ha...s~""?' ~ .~.=%W$:S>s~ib~ '..v~%~,. But, it was a~ ':~ot'ided =hat the conditions, as i't w~re, o~ approval that were noted in the meeting minutes remained u~dd~essed. Since it seemed probable that you were preparing to apply for your building permits in the near future, the decision was made to inform you of the Outstanding items now, so that your building permit application would not be denied for lack of comPli~ce. It is unfortunate that this extension Of courtesy has been misconstrued. I trust this letter will clear up the misunderstanding. Very Truly Yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman CO: Kenneth E. Gordon, Esq. Greg Blass, Village Attorney, Greenport Scott L. Harris, Supervisor TO~N OF $OUTHOLD HAMLET STUD~ (:RF:F, NP()I~T 'WEST I hunlcl Ccntc~ HALO LEGEND: Sc4Ahold GIS Daily Average Traffic Volumes Summer 1999 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Weekday Saturday 2_.000 Sunday '" CR 48 Summer ADT · Rt 25 Summer ADT [] CR 58 Summer ADT [3 Sound Ave Summer ADT !8t 25 and CR 48 vicinity Town line. CR vicinity traffic circle, Sound Ave icinity Osborne Ave STATI~071114 ROAD #: 0480 DIRECTION: Eastbound STATE DIR CODE: 1 DATE OF COUNT: 07/23/2004 NOTES LANE 1:000000111430 New York State De~bnent of Transportation Traffic Count Hourly Report ROAD NAME: CR 48 FACTOR GROUP: 40 WK OF YR 30 COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG COOE: DOT INITIALS 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO 1 2 3 4 5 $ 7 8 48 33 28 15 21 83 21 18 16 15 44 25 13 12 24 29 t6 t6 4 20 t6 14 7 6 17 28 19 11 12 21 43 24 12 11 29 89 44 25 18 23 DATE DAY 1 T Z F 3 S 4 S 5 M 6 T 7 W 8 T 9 F 10 S t2 M 13 T 14 W 15 T 16 F 47 S 18 S 49 M 2O T 21 W 22 T 23 F 24 S 25 S 26 M 27 T 28 W 29 T 80 F 31 S FROM:WIO COX RD REC SERIAL#: 1002 pLACEMENT: @ REF MARKER: ADDL DATA: COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS PROCESSED BY ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: 8 9 10 11 12 ? 2 3 4 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO 9 '~0 11 12 I 2_4 3 4 5 Page I of 2 TO: SR 25 COUNTY: Suffolk FUNC. CLASS: 02 TOWN: SOUTHOLO NHS: yes BIN: JURIS: Counly RR CROSSING: CC Sin: HPMS SAMPLE: BATCH ID: DOT-r10sw34b 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO DAILY DAILY 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 DAILY HIGH HIGH r,M TOTAL COUNT HOUR 527 709 691 062 691 718 8t0 762 625 540 393 307 247 118 74 245 340 404 537 596 697 793 746 786 753 670 595 449 355 255 200 136 67 ~ 793 12 54 171 201 285 332 454 537 718 705 7~1 635 607 437 347 241 214 172 84 41 7099 718 12 81 312 471 531 432 448 540 507 560 814 855 549 556 474 333 266 167 102 76 7592 560 13 76 341 494 525 446 429 485 533 487 472 585 636 578 447 286 221 141 104 45 7416 636 16 72 278 441 524 430 391 455 481 498 492 589 688 594 554 309 231 186 96 56 7393 658 16 82 318 490 601 527 581 6t0 647 625 635 630 666 710 494 385 357 216 144 89 8896 710 17 85 355 562 602 529 607 632 727 707 797 805 800 842 692 581 455 403 228 172 10700 842 17 86 243 413 511 631 681 876 1071 29 18 12 AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS {Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT ~ 22 78 317 486 550 467 491 565 535 535 821 582 619 602 486 324 266 176 ~11 65 7868 DAYS Counled HOURS Counted WEEKDAYS WEEKDAY AVE ~F~GE WEEKDAY Axle Adj. SeasonaVWeekday Cou~ted Hours High Hour % of day Factor Adiustment Factor 9 195 5 104 627 8% 0987 1 210 ESTIMATED (one way) AADT 6500 ROAD # 0480 ROAD NAME CR 48 FROM WIO COX RD TO: SR 25 COUNTY Suffolk STATION: 071114 STA~[E DIR CODE: ! PLACEMENT DATE OF COUNT 0712312004 r1114 ROAD It: 0480 DIRECTION: Westbound STATE DIR CODE: 2 DATE OF COUNT 07F23/2004 NOTES LANE 1:000000111470 COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE DOT INITIALS -- DATE DAY. 1 T 2 F 3 S 4 S 5 M 6 T 7 W 9 F 10 S 12 M 13 T 14 W 15 T 16 F 17 S 18 S ~9 M 20 T 2I W 22 T 23 F 24 S 25 S 26 M 27 T 28 W 29 T 30 F 31 S e20f2 New York State De Traffic Count Hourly Report ROAD NAME: CR48 FROM:WIO COX RD TO: SR 25 COUNTY Suffolk FACTOR GROUP: 40 REC SERIAL # 1002 FUNC CLASS: 02 TOWN SOUTHOLD W~ OF YR 3~ PLACEMENT NHS: yes BIN: (~ REF MARKER: JURIS: County RR CROSSING: ADDL DATA: CC Stn HPMS SAMPLE COUNT TYPE AXLE PAIRS ~tATCH rD: DOT-r10sw34b PROCESSED BY ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ii 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO DAILY DAILY 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 DAILY HIGH HIGH ~ P~ TOTAL COUNT HOUR of Transportation 566 613 5?6 523 584 691 665 623 511 357 331 217 241 104 17 46 160 194 313 499 609 631 602 664 636 742 598 56t 492 398 408 285 263 146 8399 742 15 14 49 74 120 251 374 514 669 727 77.1 932 1053 797 611 843 665 685 407 349 112 10138 1053 15 47 137 339 492 594 5'12 511 586 895 526 610 672 712 705 516 330 353 179 187 70 8777 712 16 25 107 298 479 629 548 563 509 553 591 562 879 760 611 453 254 240 131 95 43 809~ 760 16 25 71 262 445 561 478 526 547 521 530 553 589 640 612 443 257 270 131 141 61 7719 640 16 18 118 283 470 601 567 492 503 586 544 622 725 746 706 532 317 365 217 192 82 8746 746 16 32 115 288 430 548 490 566 563 598 605 601 775 775 648 628 359 ~46 235 265 138 9111 775 15 27 60 121 2.1.1 328 458 539 665 651 62 36 21 16 79 33 13 16 46 17 10 31 30 14 5 17 25 t5 4 15 23 13 7 17 39 27 24 16 73 85 31 AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mort 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT 29 17 10 16 25 102 290 457 579 511 530 547 557 541 579 633 705 649 480 286 303 162 152 63 8223 DAYS Counted HOURS W~EKDAYS WEEKDAY AVERAGE WEEKDAY Axle Adj Seasonal/Weekday Counted Counted Hours H~Jh Hour % of day Factor Adiustmenl Facto¢ 19.5 8 t04 714 9% 0987 1 210 ESTIMATED (one way} AADT 6796 ROAD # 0480 ROAD NAME CR 48 FROM:W/O COX RD TO: SR 25 COUNTY: Suffolk STATION 071114 STATE DIR CODE ~ PLACEMENT DATE OF COUNT 07/23/2004 ROAD #: 0480 DIRECTION Eastbound STATE DIR CODE 1 DATE OF COUNT 07/23/2004 NOTES LANE t: 000000111730 ROAD NAME CR 48 FACTOR GROUP: $0 WK OF YR: 30 COUNT TAKEN BY: ORO CODE DO] INITIALS: DATE DAY ~2 ! 2 3 4 5 6 ? TO TO TO TO TO TO ro TO I 2 3 4 5 6 7 53 37 14 19 18 25 15 6 6 12 20 14 10 5 5 25 16 12 8 4 21 19 6 7 25 32 20 10 10 30 $ T 2 E 3 S 4 S 5 M 6 T 7 W 8 T 9 E 10 S 14 W 15 T 17 S 18 S 19 M 20 T 21 W 22 T 23 F 24 S 25 S 25 M 27 T 28 W 29 T 3O F 31 S New York State Dep~ent of Transportation Traffic Count Hourly Report FROM PECONIC LANE REC SERIAL #: 1005 PLACEMENT: 000' W!O Youngs Ave ~ REF MARKER: ADDL DATA COUNT TYPE AXLE PAIRS PROCESSED BY ORG CODE DOT INITIALS 5 9 10 11 12 t 2 3 4 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO 9 10 11 12 ~ 2 3 4 5 TO YOUNGS AVENUE COUNTY Suffolk FUNC CLASS: 14 TOWN: SOUTHOLD NHS: yes BIN: JURIS County RR CROSSING CC Sin HPMS SAMPLE BATCH tD DOT-r10sw34b 5 6 7 8 9 10 It TO TO TO TO TO TO TO DAILY DAILY 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 DAILY HIGH HIGH PM TOTAL COUNT HOUR 655 653 635 627 649 692 61~9 594 487 387 310 283 130 71 256 400 444 548 630 675 652 616 603 616 551 508 416 369 286 212 158 89 824i 675 54 197 298 349 394 464 589 663 547 681 693 505 471 375 268 235 182 104 56 7255 693 15 64 341 541 552 530 558 605 561 522 524 514 513 506 416 303 250 167 100 57 7688 605 1 77 318 557 549 536 489 482 487 489 448 490 551 505 404 277 259 156 107 47 7282 557 7 62 282 479 519 481 413 496 465 494 485 483 548 531 439 292 240 181 110 49 7114 548 16 73 328 515 594 611 592 564 580 631 565 569 621 570 513 393 332 241 164 91 8625 63~ 13 66 382 557 6-01 591 651 627 676 627 704 693 759 684 612 531 423 391 251 179 10107 759 16 82 264 500 535 624 704 801 851 743 23 16 10 AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored. Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT 8 15 68 318 5tl 543 531 522 552 505 515 488 495 538 510 427 305 261 179 116 50 7516 DAYS HOURS Counted 195 WEEKDAYS WEEKDAY AVERAGE WEEKDAY Axle Adj Counted Hours High Hour % of day Factor 5 t 03 572 7% 0 965 Adjuslme!~! Factor 1059 ESTIMATED (one way) AADT 7097 ~OAD # 0480 ROAD NAME CR 48 FROM PECONIC LANE TO' YOUNGS AVENUE COUNTY Su[folk ~TATION 071117 STATE DIR CODE I PLACEMENT 8CO' wlo Youngs Ave CATE OF COUNT 07123/2004 071117 , Page 2 of 2 ROAD #; 0480 DIRECTION: Westbound STATE DIR CODE: 2 DATE OF COUNT: 07/23/2004 NOTES LANE 1:000000111770 ROAD NAME CR 48 FACTOR GROUP: 30 WK OF YR: 30 COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE; DOT INITIALS: -- New York State D?~?.. ent of Transportation Traffic Count Hourly Report FROM: PECONIC LANE REC. SERIAL #: 1005 PLACEMENT: 800 'w/o Youngs Ave @ REF MARKER: ADDL DATA COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: pA[~ OA~ ~ T 2 F 3 4 S 5 M 6 T 7 W 8 T 9 F ~0 S 12 M ~3 T 14 W 16 F 17 S 18 S 19 M 2O 21 W 22 T 23 F 24 S 25 S 26 M 27 T 28 W 29 T 30 F 3~ S 12 I 2 3 TO TO TO TO 1 2 3 4 TO: YOUNGS AVENUE COUNTY: Suffolk FUNC. CLASS: 14 TOWN; SOU:HOLD NHS: yes BIN: JURIS: County RR CROSSING: CC Stn: HPMS SAMPLE BATCH ID: DOT-r10sw34b 87 40 24 22 43 10 4 16 33 20 9 11 37 12 10 10 44 32 33 19 73 48 38 24 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO DAILY DAILY 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 $ 7 8 9 10 11 ~2 DAILY HIGH HIGH Au PM TOTAL COUNT HOUR 553 548 533 579 634 602 563 567 355 382 278 256 t57 18 53 134 203 336 429 467 631 568 589 528 585 498 448 495 369 357 301 286 158 7583 631 22 33 70 145 282 399 516 624 628 689 748 740 648 565 8t9 546 573 418 277 13g 9051 819 18 34 102 238 375 5t4 593 484 551 578 544 572 644 644 507 577 330 359 201 160 75 8058 644 15 19 59 207 381 504 480 492 487 543 519 490 578 650 801 436 302 281 t59 113 65 7339 650 18 18 50 206 341 452 436 483 473 493 491 548 577 559 549 439 288 274 158 113 80 7097 577 15 14 84 2t6 360 507 463 486 440 530 537 575 635 673 588 491 356 427 249 184 119 8017 673 15 33 89 207 36t 448 487 470 532 602 531 602 654 635 610 575 406 362 291 235 133 8371 654 15 27 43 t03 208 313 432 529 628 658 532 AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT 39 18 t5 13 20 64 207 351 468 457 466 488 517 505 527 887 610 517 469 308 322 185 137 82 7372 DAYS Counted ROAD # STATION 0711~7 HOURS WEEKDAYS WEEKDAY AVEPu~GE WEEKDAY Axle Adj SeasonalNVeekday ,Counted Cpunt~d Hours High Hour % of day Factor Adi~!rnent Factor 5 103 632 8% 0.965 195 0480 1059 ROAD NAME CR 48 FROM:PECONIC LANE TO: YOUNGS AVENUE STATE DIR CODE 2 PLACEMENT: 800' wto Youngs Ave ESTIMATED (one way) AADT 6961 COUNTY: Suffolk DATE OF COUNT: 07t23/2004 New York State Department of Transportation RC/STATION 071118 COVERAGE AND SPECIAL COUNT HOURLY REPORT LOCAL ROAD # 0480 ROAD NAME: CR 48 MILEPOINT 1421 NHS SECTION FROM: YOUNGS AVENUE TO: SR 25 FEDERAL DIR. 3 FACTOR GRP 40 FUNCTIONAL CLASS 02 HPMS NUMBER: 5 COUNT DATE: 08/08102 WEEK OF YR 32 RECORDER PLACEMENT: CR 48 500' elD Youngs Ave NOTES: EASTBOUND TUBE COUNT PGM. VERSION COUNTY: SUFFOLK TOWN: SOUTHOLD BIN NUMBER: REFERENCE MKR: NA RECORDER SERIAL#: 21B5 ADDITIONAL DATA: 35 / 4.0 12 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO DY D D I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1{) 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 DAY HJ HI MO W R AM PM TOTAL COUNT HOUR 8 4 I 505 489 549 493 467 372 284 242 t87 88 9 S I 31 17 13 7 12 69 340 469 546 652 585 645 677 686 622 648 583 696 627 534 443 309 265 152 9528 696 18 10 6 I 79 38 28 13 20 106 272 429 517 693 720 761 804 669 685 572 525 480 434 381 321 ~44 23`1 132 9177 804 13 11 7 I 78 36 25 12 21 65 239 315 343 498 555 7`12 701 626 676 528 297 281 380 321 255 177 93 66 7342 712 12 12 I 1 3'1 28 10 10 12 84 372 494 527 497 491 537 461 453 379 325 268 151 12'1 57 13 2 I 29 12 9 2 16 84 342 525 530 522 515 536 544 526 476 499 478 512 412 295 238 160 125 59 7417 536 12 14 3 I 22 11 12 6 10 84 351 475 521 539 485 550 5?2 488 443 488 442 506 4`11 334 252 167 135 62 7366 572 13 15 4 I 37 10 `15 5 16 84 369 498 518 556 450 536 532 536 560 545 543 570 459 342 316 219 166 84 8C06 570 18 '~6 5 1 37 20 12 6 18 78 352 403 549 570 580 636 564 576 706 634 628 637 576 513 380 305 226 154 9188 706 15 17 6 I 70 28 21 13 20 75 286 437 537 667 731 771 761 722 566 592 521 558 476 380 369 244 172 .127 9248 771 12 18 7 I 73 41 26 .18 22 64 251 262 361 472 567 698 598 581 469 475 557 426 370 319 235 201 108 63 7258 698 12 19 I 1 36 21 `17 7 11 73 357 498 541 466 468 495 564 503 507 457 479 473 395 299 241 160 111 69 7258 5~4 13 2o 2 i 29 10 12 3 13 66 343 469 468 458 426 469 546 489 38Ol 546 13 HRS COUNTED AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOUR (MON 6AM THRU FRI 12NOON) ADT 5 14 78 353 479 525 524 507 552 546 507 497 504 492 501 421 328 267 183 141 70 7550 AXLE - FACTORED (VEHICLES) AVG WEEKDAY HOUR (FACTOR USED =0.877 ) ADT 4 12 68 310 420 460 460 445 484 479 445 436 442 431 439 369 288 234 160 124 61 6620 DAYS AVG %AVG FACTORED % FACTORED SEASONAL COUNTED HI HR DAY HI HOUR DAY FACTOR 14 552 7.3% 484 7~3% 1.168 SEASONALLY FACTORED ESTIMATED AADT I-WAY COUNT 5668 LOCAL ROAD# 0480 ON CR 48 FROM YOUNGS AVENUE TO SR 25 STATION: 07t 11 8 COUNT DATE: 08108102 ST. DIR: 1 RECORDER PLACEMENT: CR 48 500' eld Youngs Ave New York State Department of Transportation RC/STATION 071118 COVERAGE AND SPECIAL COUNT HOURLY REPORT LOCAL ROAD # 0450 ROAD NAME: CR 48 MILEPOINT 1421 NHS SECTION FROM: YOUNGS AVENUE TO: SR 25 FEDERAL DIR. 7 FACTOR GRP 40 FUNCTIONAL CLASS 02 HPMS NUMBER: COUNT DATE: 08108102 WEEK OF YR 32 RECORDER PLACEMENT: CR 48 500' e/o Youngs Ave NOTES: WESTBOUND TUBE COUNT DY D MO W 8 4 9 5 13 2 14 3 15 4 16 5 17 6 18 7 20 2 21 3 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 AM 40 23 6 4 38 84 203 354 443 398 507 5t0 66 39 20 27 24 48 124 256 400 486 602 581 76 42 33 15 29 42 77 166 305 409 518 580 32 17 14 15 43 101 221 389 486 25 16 8 8 23 69 200 382 470 434 481 473 28 9 12 10 20 64 214 349 471 420 507 414 26 13 13 10 20 64 194 340 466 416 469 475 37 13 8 11 20 59 179 336 452 457 534 493 2 51 39 28 11 22 34 120 255 423 489 576 638 2 94 82 34 32 23 33 88 180 319 397 492 652 2 38 19 18 21 33 97 236 349 466 455 S20 815 2 34 15 16 14 17 60 199 364 445 424 444 469 2 PGM. VERSION COUNTY: SUFFOLK TOWN: SOUTHOLD BIN NUMBER: REFERENCE MKR: NA RECORDER SERIAL#: 2185 ADDITIONAL DATA: 3.5/ 4.0 12 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 DAY HI HI PM TOTAL COUNT HOUR 506 602 643 542 527 382 413 200 194 101 584 520 584 649 674 486 617 380 442 219 309 146 8187 674 17 572 536 576 640 588 501 539 802 507 352 301 165 8422 640 16 606 665 664 688 289 386 938 668 668 379 317 141 866~ 938 19 522 562 600 607 471 850 366 372 215 126 82 495 484 811 579 885 428 511 388 370 205 156 70 7341 585 17 512 472 505 858 540 492 380 487 389 177 140 85 7255 558 16 501 451 545 559 616 532 470 337 443 209 218 94 7481 616 17 588 544 576 588 891 522 403 399 423 184 297 129 7933 591 17 559 826 521 595 848 488 589 483 536 376 326 172 6375 638 12 649 578 617 694 629 578 849 583 686 420 303 122 9102 849 19 510 472 577 613 608 468 512 347 378 168 131 88 7625 613 16 28 13 18 HRS COUNTED 284 A V E R A G E WE E K D A Y H O U R (MON 6AM THRU FRI 12 NOON) ADT 10 23 62 206 388 462 429 495 478 500 474 534 585 899 489 492 375 393 196 161 87 7466 AXLE - FACTORED (VEHICLES) AVG WEEKDAY HOUR (FACTOR USED =0.877) ADT 9 20 84 181 314 405 376 434 419 439 416 468 513 525 429 431 329 345 172 141 76 6547 DAYS AVG % AVG FACTORED % FACTORED SEASONAL COUNTED HI HR DAY HI HOUR DAY FACTOR 14 599 8.0% 525 8.0% 1,168 SEASONALLY FACTORED ESTIMATED A~DT 1-WAY COUNT 5605 LOCAL ROAD # 0480 ON CR 48 FROM YOUNGS AVENUE TO SR 25 STATION: 071 118 COUNT DATE: 08108102 ST. DIR: 2 RECORDER pLACEMENT: CR 48 500' elD Youngs Ave LOCAL HIGHWAY VOLUME REPORT Suffolk County Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON CR 1 0010 BAB TL AMVL 0,02 93 CR I 0010 BAB TL SR 27 0.43 93 CR I 0010 BAB TL AMVL 0.15 01 CR I 0010 BAB TL N/O JOYCE AVE 0.07 01 CR 12 0120 BAS TL CR47 0.37 01 CR 12 0120 CR47 GARFIELD AVE 0.37 01 CR 12 0120 GARFIELD AVE LOHRSTVILL 0.22 01 CR 12 0120 BAB TL CR 96 0.63 01 CR 2 0020 AMVL CR47 0.49 01 CR 2 0020 CR 47 LDHRSTVL 0.78 01 CR 2 0020 LDHRSTVL CR 3 0.59 01 CR 2 0020 CR 3 SR 109 0.76 01 CR2 0020 SR 109 SOSTATE PKWY 0.93 01 CR 2 0020 SO STATE PKWY CR95 0.7 01 CR 2 0020 CR95 MOUNT AVE 0.79 01 CR 2 0020 MOUNT AVE ACORN ST 0.55 01 CR 2 0020 ACORN ST N 12TH ST 0.14 01 CR 2 0020 N 12TH ST HUNT TL 1.48 01 CR 28 0280 SR27 SR 109 2.22 01 CR 3 0030 PERRY ST SR 27 0.14 01 CR 3 0030 SR 27 CR 2 0.47 01 CR 3 0030 CR 2 SR 109 0.82 01 CR 3 0030 SR 109 SO STATE PKWY 0.42 01 CR 3 0030 SO STATE PKWY PATTON AVE 1.32 01 CR 3 0030 PATTON AVE URR 0.97 01 CR 3 0030 LIRR HUNTTL 0.47 01 CR 34 0340 VILLAGE LNE RD HENRYAVENUE 0.33 93 CR 34 0340 HENRYAVENUE LIBERTY AVENUE 0.13 01 CR 34 0340 LIBERTY AVENUE PELL AVE 0.81 93 CR 34 0340 PELL AVE SR 231 0.07 93 CR 4 0040 SR231 CR57 0,43 01 CR 4 0040 CR 57 CARTO CIR 0,75 95 CR4 0040 CARTO CIR NICHOLS RD 0,86 0t CR 4 0040 NICHOLS RD HUNT TL 0.64 01 CR47 0470 SR 27A CR 12 0.82 01 CR 47 0470 CR 12 CR 2 0.35 01 CR 47 0470 CR 2 SR 27 0.43 01 CR 47 0470 SR 27 SR 110 1.98 01 CR 47 0470 SR 110 GLENN CT 0.19 01 CR 57 0570 SR 231 CR 4 0.36 01 CR 96 0960 GREAT S BAY SR 27A 0,85 95 CR 96 0960 SR 27A CR t2 0.64 92 CR 96 0960 CR 12 SR 109 0.56 92 RAILROAD AVE AKS0 0.26 RAILROAD AVE AK50 0.31 Page 1 004900 007700 004787 004787 009809 009893 009893 009893 011184 016542 012293 014369 019397 026020 025934 025934 025934 025934 009775 035674 030578 028727 021504 020607 026607 026607 014200 018110 016500 016500 014904 010600 023947 023947 014583 020913 016513 012258 014583 016953 003000 010500 019600 005000 005000 8001 8002 8003 8O03 8051 8052 8052 8052 80O4 8005 80O6 8007 8008 8009 8010 8010 8010 8010 8108 8011 8012 8013 8014 8015 8015 8015 8111 8112 8113 8113 8021 8022 8O22 8134 8135 8136 8137 6138 8161 6243 8244 8245 LOCAL HIGHVVAY ' REPORT Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN ADIRONDACK DR AC30 MOONEY POND RD SR 25 0.64 CR 101 1010 CR 80 SP,27 SSR 1.78 CR 101 1010 SR27SSR SR27 NSR 0.23 CR 101 1010 SR27NSR CR 99 0.67 CR 101 1010 CR 16 1495S 1.37 CR 101 1010 1495S 1495N 0.15 CRlll 1110 SHTL SR27 NSR 0.09 CRlll 1110 SR27 NSR CR51 0.47 CR 111 1110 CR51 CR55 1.01 CR 111 1110 CR55 1495S 2.81 CR 111 1110 ~495S 1495N 0.21 CR 16 0160 SM TL WARNER 0.08 CR 16 0160 WARNER SHOREHAVEN 0.27 CR 16 0160 SHOREHAVEN CR 19 1.06 CR 16 0160 CR 19 BEECH ST 0.07 CR 16 0160 BEECH ST N MORRIS 1.92 CR 16 0160 N MORRIS CR 97 0.25 CR 16 0160 CR83 LANE CHANGE 0.08 CR 16 0160 LANE CHANGE SR 112 1.31 CR 16 0160 SR 112 H95N 1.03 CR 16 0160 1495N H95S 0.16 CR 16 0160 1495S PECONICAVE 1.23 CR 16 0180 PECONICAVE CR 101 0.77 CR 16 0160 CR 101 OLD DOCK RD 1.02 CR 16 0160 OLD DOCK RD CR 99 0.3 CR 16 0160 CR 99 LANDFILL 0.28 CR 19 0190 IBLIP TL SR27 0.14 CR 19 0190 SR 27 HAYV~)OD ST 0.53 CR 19 0190 HAYWOOD ST CR 61 0.25 CR 19 0190 CR61 ISLIPTL 0.1 CR 19 0190 ISLIPTL 1495S 0.43 CR 19 0190 1495S 1495N 0.14 CR 19 0190 1495N CR 16 1.29 CR 21 0210 CR 80 SR 27 SSR 0.34 CR21 0210 SR 27 NSR CR16 0.19 CR21 0210 CR 16 1495S 2.26 CR21 0210 1495S 1495N 0.11 CR 21 0210 1495N MAIN STREET 0.26 CR 21 0210 MAIN STREET MILL RD 1.09 CR 21 0210 MILL RD E BARTLETT RD 1.48 CR 21 0210 E BARTLETT RD LONGWOOD RD 0.18 CR 21 0210 LONGVVOOD RD ARTIST LAKE 1.22 CR21 0210 ARTIST LAKE SR25 0.17 CR 21 0210 SR 25 WHISKEY RD 1.83 CR 21 0210 VVHISKEY ROAD SCHOOL DWY t.98 CR 21 0210 SCHOOL DWY SR 25A 0.64 CR 36 0360 CR 80 (WEST) PATCH VL 2.51 CR 36 0350 BRKHN TL BROOKHAVEN AVE 1.06 01 001912 01 012370 01 014115 94 010800 95 9088O0 01 014654 01 O07884 01 014118 01 015850 01 014761 01 012262 01 021995 01 021995 01 021995 01 024003 01 024003 01 024003 01 O15195 01 015195 01 015906 01 019339 01 016438 01 011547 01 015238 01 O15238 01 014611 99 008732 01 024768 01 024768 92 016600 01 031229 92 025600 01 009887 01 002367 01 002353 01 006277 93 007700 93 094600 93 014100 93 014100 01 017451 93 014400 93 014400 93 006200 93 009200 93 009200 01 010812 01 010812 1015 8257 8258 8259 8261 8262 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 8071 8071 8071 8O72 8072 8072 8074 8074 8O75 8076 8077 8078 8079 8079 8080 8089 809O 809O 8091 8095 8096 8097 8098 8099 8100 8101 8102 8103 8103 8104 8105 8105 9106 8107 8107 8120 8120 Page 2 LOCAL HIGHWAY' REPORT Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town BROOKHAV~N BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN CR 36 CR 36 CR 36 CR 36 CR 46 CR 46 CR 46 CR 46 CR 46 CR 46 CR46 CR46 CR 46 CR46 CR 46 CR 46 CR 46 CR 51 CR 51 CR 51 CR 51 CR 51 CR 55 CR 55 CR 55 CR 55 CR 55 CR 61 CR 65 CR 65 CR 71 CR 75 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 8O CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 0360 BROOKHAVEN AVE ANDIRON AVE 0.23 01 010812 0360 ANDIRON AVE CHAPEL LA 0.t5 01 010812 0360 CHAPEL LA LIRR 0,32 01 010812 0360 LIRR CR 80(EAST) 0.13 01 010812 0460 CR 75 BRIDGE 0.8 01 025591 0460 BRIDGE SURRY ClR 3.73 01 025591 0460 SURRY ClR CR 80 0.31 01 025591 0460 CR 80 SR 27SSR 0.38 92 037100 0460 SR27SSR FLOWERHILL 2.08 01 043020 0460 FLOWERHILL 1495S 0.53 01 026486 0460 1495S 1495N 0.37 01 029935 0460 1495N LONGWOOD RD 1.43 01 025720 0460 LONGWOOD RD SR 25 S ACC RD 2.;~6 01 019709 0460 SR 25 S ACC RD SR 25 N ACC RD 0.28 01 018190 0460 SR 25 N ACC RD WHISKEY RD 0.97 92 009600 0460 WHISKEY RD SR 25A 0.64 92 009600 0460 SR 25A(V WSKY) 1.7 92 009600 0510 CR 80 PVMT CHANGE 0.66 01 005641 0510 PVMT CHANGE SR 27 SSR 0.52 01 005641 0510 SR27SSR CR 55 0.39 01 011006 0510 CR 55 CR 111 0.75 01 010061 0510 OR 111 SH TL 1.92 01 009543 0550 CR 80 CR 71 0.27 01 006543 0550 OR 71 DONALD ST 0.16 01 010906 0550 DONALD ST SR27 SSR 0.3 01 010906 0550 SR 27 SSR SR 27 NSR 0.15 01 006250 0550 SR 27 NSR CR 51 0,08 01 005363 0610 CR 19 ISLIP TL 0~07 01 005824 0650 ISLIP TL WEEKS ST 1.48 01 003644 0650 WEEKS ST PATCH VL 0.28 01 003644 0710 CRSO CR55 0.49 01 001455 0750 CR 46 TOLL BOOTH 0.5 01 004406 0800 BAY AVENUE CR 36 (WEST) 0.65 01 023920 0800 CR 36 0NEST) CR 101 0.37 92 017700 0800 OR 101 STATION RD 2.31 92 011200 0800 STATION RD CR 36 (EAST) 1,58 92 011200 0800 CR 36 (EAST) CR 21 0.2 92 011500 0800 CR21 OLD BARTOAVE 0.32 92 012700 0800 OLD BARTOAVE CR 16 0.34 92 012700 0800 CR t6 CR 46 2.26 01 016091 0800 CR46 HERKIMER 1.73 01 023471 0800 HERKIMER LOUIS 0.49 01 023471 0800 LOUIS CR 98 (WEST) 0,88 01 023471 0800 CR 98 (WEST) BROOKFIELD AVE 0.63 01 015660 0800 BROOKFIELD AVE LIRR 2.76 01 013850 0800 LIRR PVMT CHANGE 0.t2 01 013850 0800 PVMT CHANGE CR 98 (EAST) 0.07 01 013850 0800 CR 98 (EAST) CR 51 0.27 94 012200 Page 3 8120 8120 8120 8120 1105 1105 1105 1106 1017 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1112 1112 8149 8149 8150 8151 8152 8157 8158 8158 8159 8160 8171 8175 8175 8190 8194 8200 8201 82O2 82O2 8203 82O4 82O4 8205 8206 8206 8206 8207 8208 8208 8208 8209 LOCAL HIGHWAY Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town BROOKHAVEN CR 80 0800 CR 5t DIRT RD 0.19 01 007556 E~ROOKHAVEN CR 80 0800 DIRT RD CR 71 0.7 01 007556 BROOKHAVEN CR 80 0800 CR 71 SEATUCKAVE 0.37 01 007869 BROOKHAVEN CR 80 0800 SEATUCK AVE CR 55 0.11 01 007869 BROOKHAVEN CR 80 0800 CR 55 UNION ST 0.06 01 012421 BROOKHAVEN CR 80 0800 UNION ST TOWN LINE 0.23 01 012421 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 HOWARD AVENUE SR 27 0.06 01 012749 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 SR27 CR 99 1.01 01 021745 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 CR 99 PECONIC AVENUE 1.45 01 029144 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 PECONIC AVENUE 1495S 0.55 01 029698 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 1495S 1495N 0.t3 01 045064 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 1495N CR 16 0.41 01 061621 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 CR 16 GRANNY RD 0.33 01 048828 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 GRANNYRD MOONEY POND RD 1.96 01 048825 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 MOONEY POND RD SR 25 0.4 01 048825 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 SR25 SR 112 1.39 0t 040333 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 RTE 112 CANAL RD 2.17 0t 028221 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 CANAL RD RTE 25A 1.67 01 017710 BROOKHAVEN CR 85 0850 ISLIP TL KENNEDY AVE 0.46 92 016500 BROOKHAVEN CR 85 0850 KENNEDY AVE PATCH VL 0.35 01 014085 BROOKHAVEN CR 94 0940 1495N 1495S 0.11 01 016076 BROOKHAVEN CR 94 0940 1495 S RH TL 1.95 01 010727 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 ISLIP TL 1495S 0.37 95 037900 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 1495S 1495N 0.23 01 065335 BROOKNAVEN CR 97 0970 1495 NSR CR 16 0.97 01 077852 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 CR 16 HORSEBLOCK PL 0.13 01 061018 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 HORSEBLOCK PL S COLEMAN 1.03 01 061018 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 S COLEMAN SR 25 0.75 01 061018 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 SR25 HAWKINS AVE 1.45 01 031157 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 HAWKINS AVE LK GRV VIL LN 1.72 01 031157 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 SR347 SR25A 3.26 01 041714 BROOKHAVEN CR 98 0980 CR 80 (WEST) BROOKFIELD AVE 0.68 01 008658 BROOKHAVEN CR 98 0980 BROOKFIELD AVE CR 80 (EAST) 2.35 01 008446 BROOKHAVEN CR 99 0990 ISLIPTOWNLINE CR 83 1.45 01 008719 BROOKHAVEN CR 99 0990 CR 83 SR 112 0.53 94 016000 BROOKHAVEN CR 99 0990 SR 112 HOSPITAL RD 1.45 01 017792 8ROOKHAVEN CR 99 0990 HOSPITAL RD CR 101 1.04 01 017792 BROOKHAVEN CR 99 0990 CR 101 CR 16 1.68 01 004864 BROOKRAVEN CR16 0160 LANDFILL LANE CHANGE 0.55 01 014611 BROOKHAVEN CR16 0160 LANE CHANGE CR 21 0.11 01 014611 BROOKHAVEN CR16 0160 CR21 SR27 0.16 01 011253 BROOKHAVEN CR16 0160 SR27 CR 80 0.35 01 011253 BROOKHAVEN CR46 RAMPS MAIN 0460 RAMPS MAI SPUR 1.85 062500 BROOKHAVEN CRYSTAL BRK HO DY90 N COUNTRY RD OLD POST RD E 0,76 01 002566 BROOKHAVEN GRANNY RD GT60 HORSEBLOCK RD N OCEAN AVE 0.46 01 006442 BROOKNAVEN HAWKINS AVE H J70 CHURCH ST D~VISION ST 0.43 01 014564 BROOKHAVEN HAWKINS AVE HJT0 DIVISION ST PORTION RD 0.17 01 014564 BROOKHAVEN HOSPITAL RD ~ T ID00 SR 27 WOODSIDE AVE 0.78 01 006293 8210 8210 8211 8211 8212 8212 8222 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1127 1127 1128 1129 1t30 8226 8227 12 133 1135 1136 1137 1138 1138 1138 1139 1139 1140 8246 8247 8250 8251 8252 8252 8253 8080 8080 1007 1007 1113 1008 1022 1002 1002 1014 Page 4 LOCAL HIGHWAY' Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON MEDFORD AVE OLD TOWN RD OLD TOWN RD OLD TOWN RD POND PATH CR 40 CR 4O CR 40 CR 40 CR 41 CR 41 CR 41 CR 49 CR 49 CR 49 CR 49 CR 59 CR 77 CR 77 CR 11 CR11 CR11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 OR 11 CRll CR 11 OR 11 CR 11 CR tl CR 11 CR 11 CR11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 2 CR 3 CR 3 CR 3 KV80 HORSEBLOCK RD GRANNY RD MM00 MM00 MM00 LWR SHEEPPASRD SR 347 NR20 NICOLLS RD SR 347 0400 CEDAR STREET CR 41 0400 CR41 PVMTCHANGE 0400 PVMT CHANGE BOAT YARD RD 0400 BOAT YARD RD COPECES LANE 0410 CR40 JACKSONAVE 0410 JACKSON AVE ABRAHAM'S PATH 0410 ABRAHAM'S PATH V~3ODBINE DRIVE 0490 SR 27 PVMT CHANGE 0490 PVMT CHANGE LIRR 0490 LIRR ESSEX STREET 0490 ESSEX STREET CR 77 0590 EH VILL LINE S/O STEPHN HND 0770 SR27 CR49 0770 CR49 CR49(ARND LP) 0110 SR 108 W/OANONDALE 0110 W/O ANONDALE E/O ANONDALE 0110 E/OANONDALE CR 92 0110 CR 92 PVMT CHANGE 0110 PVMT CHANGE RAILROAD AVE 0110 RAILROAD AVE 5TH AVE 0110 5THAVE W/OSR 110 0110 W/O SR 110 SR 110 0110 SR 110 E/OSR 110 01t0 E/O SR 110 FAIRGROUND 0110 FAIRGROUND W/O LENOX 0110 W/O LENOX E/O LENOX 0110 E/O LENOX WlNOKA 0110 WINOKA FARMPATH 0110 FARMPATH CR35 0110 CR35 0110 LAKE AVE 0110 LAKE AVE BUTi'ERFIELD 0110 CUBAHILL RD CR 86 0110 CR 86 NORTHGATE 0110 NORTHGATE OSWEGO 0110 OSWEGO STONYHOLLOW 0110 STONYHOLLOW CR 10 0110 CR 10 DEPOSIT RD 0110 DEPOSIT RD TOWNLINE RD 0020 BAB TOWN LINE SR 231 0030 BAB TOWNLINE COLONIAL SPRNG 0030 COLONIAL SPRNG HALF HOLLOW RD 0030 HALF HOLLOW RD 1495S 0.57 01 0.04 01 0,93 01 0.39 01 0.38 01 0.24 01 0.07 01 1.84 01 0.36 01 0.33 01 1.29 01 1.44 01 0.14 01 0.98 01 0.16 01 1.82 01 0.99 01 2.61 93 0.44 93 0.42 93 0.91 93 0.12 93 0.08 93 0.47 93 0,17 93 0.3 93 0.02 93 0.03 93 0.14 93 0.26 93 0.17 93 0.33 93 0,11 93 0.2 93 0.08 01 0.14 01 0.99 01 0.22 93 0.31 93 0.83 93 0.17 93 0.28 93 2.28 01 0,42 93 0.83 0t 0,57 01 0.81 0t 0.27 0t 002947 019564 019564 019564 001529 019441 010014 010014 010014 007232 007232 008086 010016 010016 010016 008750 003018 004300 004300 011100 011100 011100 010000 010000 010000 010000 010000 016300 016300 016300 016300 016300 016300 016300 017059 017059 017059 014500 017700 017700 017700 017700 014658 011900 025934 026607 032340 031838 1012 1024 1024 1024 1010 8128 8129 8129 8129 8130 8130 8131 8139 8139 8139 8140 8169 8197 8t97 8039 8039 8039 8040 804O 8O40 8O40 804O 8041 8041 8041 8041 8041 8041 8041 8042 8042 8O42 8044 8045 8045 8045 8O45 8046 8047 8010 8015 8016 8017 Page 5 Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON lSLIP ISLIP ISLIP CR 3 CR 3 CR 3 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 66 CR 66 CR 66 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 86 CR 86 CR 86 CR 86 CR 86 CR 86 CR 86 CR 92 CR 92 CR10 CR10 CR10 CR10 CR10 CR10 CR10 CR 100 CR 100 CR 100 LOCAL HIGHWAY ~:lC VOLUME REPORT 0030 1495S 1495N 0.17 0030 1495N SR 110 0.66 0030 SR t10 VVt_TWHITMAN RD 0.09 0350 NO STATE PKVVY CR 66 0.09 0350 CR 66 ARISTA DR 0.48 0350 ARISTA DR SR 25 0.74 0350 SR25 CR86 0.5 0350 CR 86 LITTLE PLAINS 1.05 0350 LITTLE PLAINS LAKE ST 0.59 0350 LAKE ST CR 11 0.07 0350 CR 11 LIRR 0.33 0350 LIRR SR 25A 1.57 0350 SR 110 VVESTSHORE RD 0.37 0040 BAD TOWNLINE EUCLID AVE 0,39 0040 EUCLID AVE PARK ENT 0.16 0040 PARK ENT POLO ST 0.77 0040 POLO ST 1495S 0,58 0040 1495S 1495N 0,07 0040 1495N SM TOWN LINE 0.79 0040 SM TOWN LINE SR 25 1.13 0040 SR 25 NIO DOVECOTE 0.14 0660 CR 35 REGENCY 0.1 0660 REGENCY VILLANOVA 0.65 0660 VILLANOVA SR 25 0.17 0670 HALF HOLLOW RD PARK LOT ENT 0,77 0670 PARK LOT ENT S R 231 0.97 0670 SR 231 FARMVIEW 1,44 0670 FARMVIEW NO STATE PKWY 1.23 0670 NO STATE pKWY CR 4 0.t5 0860 SR25 CR 35 0.33 0860 CR35 LANTERN LA 0.44 0860 LANTERN LA LAWN RD 0.63 0860 LAVVN RD CUBA HILL 0.5 0860 CUBA HILL CR 11 0.23 0860 CR 11 VVYCKOFF 0.55 0860 VVYCKOFF SR25A 1.17 0920 SR 25 CR 1 t 1.25 0920 CR 11 SR 110 1.64 0100 SR 25 CUBA HILL RD 0.56 0100 CUBA HILL RD JAN PL 0.14 0100 JAN PL CLAY PI~TS 1.03 0100 CLAY PITrS CR 11 0.92 0100 CR 11 LIRR 0.26 0100 LIRR LAUREL HILL 0.33 0100 LAUREL HILL VILLAGE HILL 0.59 1000 CR 13 NIMITZ 0.49 1000 NIMITZ GRANT 0.55 1000 GRANT SR 111 1.11 Page 6 01 024959 01 018339 01 006930 93 O42700 01 025170 01 025170 93 022400 93 019600 93 019600 93 019600 01 027940 01 027940 01 004456 01 023947 01 023947 01 023947 01 023947 01 032032 01 026177 01 041870 01 020743 92 022100 92 022100 92 022100 01 005487 01 005487 01 006793 01 006793 01 006793 01 009601 01 011553 01 011553 01 011553 01 011097 92 006900 92 006900 01 016927 01 010697 01 021695 93 015100 93 015100 93 015100 93 007000 93 007000 93 007000 01 027867 01 027867 01 027867 8018 8019 8020 8114 8115 8115 8118 8117 8117 8117 8118 8t18 8119 8022 8022 8022 8022 8023 8024 8027 8028 8176 8176 8176 8177 8177 8178 8178 8178 8228 8229 8229 8229 8230 8231 8231 8233 8234 8036 8037 8037 8037 8038 8038 8038 8254 8254 8254 LOCAL HIGHWAY - Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISMP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLiP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLtP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP CR 100 CR 100 CR 106 CR t08 CR 112 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13A SB ONLY CR 13A SB ONLY CR 17 CR 17 CR 17 CR 19 CR 19 CR 19 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 61 CR 65 CR 65 1000 SR 111 CR 17 1000 CR 17 ISLANDIA VJLL 1060 CR 13 CR7 1080 CR 67 SM TOWN LINE 1120 SR27 SR454 0130 CR57 SR27 0130 SR27 BREWSTER ST 0130 BREWSTER ST SO STATE PKWY 0130 SO STATE PKWY SPUR DR N 0130 SPUR DR N CR 100 0130 CR 100 CR 7 0130 CRT CR 106 0130 CR 106 SAGTIKOS PKVVY 0130 SAGTIKOS PKWY L RD 0130 L ROAD 1495S 0130 1495S SM TOWN LINE 013A REILPL CR50 013A CR50 SR27A 0170 SMITH ST CR 100 0170 CR 100 CR67 0170 CR67 SRI11 0190 BRKHN TOWN LN CR 99 0190 CR99 CR 97 0190 CR 97 BROADWAY AVE 0500 SR231 CR82 0500 CR 82 KEITH LA 0500 KEITH LA ABERDEEN 0500 ABERDEEN BRGHTWTR V~LL 0500 ISLIP TOWNLINE CR 13A 0500 CR 13A CR 13 0500 CR13 CR57 0500 CR 57 BRENTWOOD RD 0500 BRENTWOOD RD PARDEE AVE 0500 PARDEE AVE SR 111 0500 SR 111 CR 17 0500 CR 17 SR27A 0570 HOWELL'S ROAD STOREY BLVD 0570 STOREY BLVD BRGHTWTR VILL 0570 iSLIP TOWNLINE RICHLAND 0570 RICHLAND LOMBARDY 0570 LOMBARDY CR13 0570 CR13 CENTRE AVE 0570 CENTRE AV~ WINIFRED 0570 WINIFRED HUBBARD 0570 HUBBARD CR 50 0610 BRKHN TOWNLINE CR 99 N ACC RD 0650 COLLINS AVE ESPLANADE 0650 ESPLANADE HOWELLS RD i.01 1.39 0.47 0.04 1.39 0.2 0.1 1.04 0,08 1.92 0.25 1.13 0.36 0.21 0.43 0.06 0.33 0.31 0.7 1.02 0,34 0.13 0.34 1.28 0.39 0.71 1.19 0.2 0,5 0,1 0.35 0.54 1 0.42 0.88 1 0.27 0.45 0.06 0.22 0.1 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.34 0.41 1.41 0.18 93 023300 93 030600 01 009210 01 013957 01 O12382 01 041199 95 022300 95 022300 92 023900 92 023900 01 038174 01 016198 01 017830 01 015231 01 015231 01 011812 01 011016 01 004540 01 021458 01 020651 01 015623 92 008900 01 O2396O 01 022182 01 014005 01 014282 01 014282 01 014282 01 014282 92 011200 01 012152 92 012200 92 012200 92 012200 01 008586 94 00~900 95 023800 94 023100 01 009806 01 009806 01 009806 01 013750 01 013750 01 013750 01 013750 01 005824 01 003644. 01 003644 8255 8256 8268 8269 827O 8056 8057 8057 8058 8058 8059 8060 8061 8062 8062 8063 8065 8066 8085 8086 8087 8091 8092 8093 8142 8143 8143 6143 8143 6144 8145 6146 8146 8146 8147 8148 8163 8164 8166 8166 8166 8167 8167 8167 8167 8171 8175 8175 Page 7 LOCAL HIGHWAY' Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP JSLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP CR 65 CR 65 EB ONLY CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 76 CR 76 CR 82 CR 82 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 90 CR 90 OR 93 CR 93 CR 93 CR 93 CR 93 CR 93 CR 93 CR 97 CR 97 CR 97 CR 97 CR 97 CR 99 CR17 CR17 CR17 CR17 CR17 0650 HOWELLS RD BRKHN TOWNLINE 0.46 0650 CR 85 (W) COLLINS AVE 0.09 0670 SM TOWN LINE CR 7 0.51 0670 CR 7 OLD LIE EXIT 0.14 0670 OLD LIE EXIT CR108 1.63 0670 CR 108 CALEB'S PATH 0.37 0670 CALEB'S PATH SR 111 0.73 0670 SR 111 CR 17 0.27 0670 CR 17 ROOSEVELT 0.53 0670 ROOSEVELT ISLANDIA VILL 0,37 0670 ISLIP TOWNLINE SR454 0,01 0670 SR 454 ISLANDIA VILL 0.99 0670 ISLIPTOWNLINE CR 93 1.51 0760 SR347 SRlll 0.4 0760 SR 111 SM TOWN LINE 1.05 0820 SR 27 A CR 50 0.64 0820 CR 50 SR27 0.98 0850 SR27 WEST AVE 3.1 0850 WESTAVE CR65 0.94 0850 CR 65 SMITH ST 0.03 0850 SMITH ST FOSTER AVE 0.14 0850 FOSTER AVE OVERTON 0.33 0850 OVERTON AMY DR 0.57 0850 AMY DR BROADWAY AVE 0.09 0850 BROADWAY AVE MCCONNELL 0.35 0850 MCCONNELL BARRETT AVE 0.55 0850 BARREtt AVE CR 97 0.47 0850 CR 97 BRKHN TOWNLINE 0.09 0090 CR 97 WACC RD CR 97 E ACC RD 0.14 0090 CR 97 E ACC RD WAVERLY AVENUE 0.47 0930 SR27 SR454 1.92 0930 SR 454 SMITHTOWN AVE 0.22 0930 SMITHTOWN AVE MARCUS 0.94 0930 MARCUS ERIE ST 0.6 0930 ERIE ST 1495S 0.14 0930 1495N CR 67 0.86 0930 CR67 SM TOWN LINE 0.51 0970 CR 85 CHURCH ST 0,82 0970 CHURCH ST SR 27 0.68 0970 SR27 CR 19 1.3t 0970 CR 19 CR 90 1.5 0970 CR 90 BRKHN TOWNLINE 0.04 0990 CR 19 CR61 0.25 0t70 SR27A CR 50 0.25 0170 CR 50 SR 27 0.55 0170 SR 27 SPUR DR S 0.89 0170 SPUR DRIVE S SPUR DR N 0.19 0170 SPUR DR N 0.03 01 003644 01 003644 92 012900 01 017993 01 017~13 01 020260 01 011102 01 013950 95 010000 95 010000 95 012500 92 009900 92 009900 92 006500 01 012391 92 009200 92 013800 01 017925 01 017925 01 014732 01 021210 01 021210 01 021210 01 014732 01 025123 01 025123 01 025123 92 016500 01 007481 95 003400 01 023149 01 036572 01 019716 01 019716 01 019716 95 019000 01 017713 01 O20133 01 028343 01 042936 01 049725 95 037900 01 005459 01 015053 01 019497 01 019638 01 019193 01 021458 8175 8175 8180 8181 8181 8182 8183 8184 8185 8185 8187 8188 8188 8195 8196 8220 8221 8223 6223 8224 1025 1025 1025 8224 8225 8225 8225 8226 8034 8035 8235 8236 8237 8237 8237 8239 8240 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 8248 8081 8082 8O83 8084 8085 Page 8 LOCAL Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD SHELTER ISLAND SHELTER ISLAND SHELTER ISLAND CR17 0170 SMITH ST 1.54 CR19 0190 BROADWAY AVE CR90 0.24 CR19 0190 CR 90 BRKHN TOWNLINE 0.35 CR6 0060 SM TOWN LINE SIMEON WOOD RD 0.42 CR6 0060 SIMEON WOOD RD SR 111 0.25 CR7 0070 CR 13 CR 106 1.07 CRT 0070 CR 106 1495S 0.55 CR7 0070 1495S CR 67 0.08 LONG ISLAND AVE GU40 0.18 MACARTHUR MEMOR GX60 1.07 PINE AIRE DR TH JEO0 0.65 CR 105 1050 SH TOWN LINE SR25 1,56 CR 105 1050 SR25 CR43 1,24 CR 105 1050 CR43 SOUNDAVE 1.08 CR 43 0430 CR 73 ELTON AVE 0.32 CR 43 0430 ELTON AVE CR 58 0.83 CR43 0430 CR 58 CR 105 0.23 CR 43 0430 CR 105 1.47 CR43 0430 CR 105 SOUND AVENUE 0.57 CR 54 0540 SOUND AVENUE WADING RVR RD 1.02 CR 58 0580 SR 25 (WEST) DOT YARD 0.74 CR 58 0580 DOT YARD OSBORNE AVENUE 1 CR 58 0580 OSBORNE AVENUE CR 73 0.63 CR 58 0580 CR 73 CR 43 0.86 CR 58 0580 CR 43 SR 25 (EAST) 0.57 CR 63 0630 TRAFFIC CIRCLE SR 25 0.08 CR 73 0730 SR 25 CR 43 0.26 CR 73 0730 CR 43 CR 58 1.01 CR 94A 094A BRKHN TOWNLINE SR 25 0.03 ELTON ST 0580 BEG SAMPLE CR43 0.19 ELTON ST 0580 CR43 SR25 0.64 FORGE RD 0710 RIVER RD SR25 0.39 HORTONAVE 0970 OSBORNEAVE MIDDLE RD 0.16 HUBBARDAVE 1010 SR 25 CR 105 0.25 HUBBARDAVE 1010 CR105 SHADE TREE LA 0.55 HUBBARD AVE 1010 SHADE TREE LA EDGAR AVE 0.94 MILLRD 1440 SR25 LIRR 0.16 MILL RD 1440 LIRR CR 58 0.59 MILL RD 1440 CR 58 MIDDLE RD 0.72 PECONIC BAY BLV 1760 MEETINGHOUSE R WASHINGTON AVE 2.24 PECONIC BAY BLV 1760 WASHINGTON AVE S JAMESPORTAV 0.19 PECONIC BAY BLV 1760 S JAMESPORT AV TUTS LA 0.22 SOUND AVE 2140 CR105 CR 43 0.23 SOUND AVE 2140 CR43 HERRICKS LN 3.1 SOUND AVE 2140 HERRICKS LA SOUTHOLD T/L 0.67 CR 115 1150 CR42 SR 114 0.56 CR 116 1160 MtDWY-MENANTIC MENANTIC 0.45 CR 117 1170 RAM ISLAND RD CR 69 0.45 01 021458 01 022361 01 020889 01 007555 01 006456 01 016180 95 018300 95 026000 005000 005000 005000 01 012350 01 002681 94 001200 01 004153 01 004153 0t 004949 0t 004949 0t 005292 01 003976 01 023106 01 023106 01 O26243 01 027624 01 020389 01 017367 01 011088 01 011556 01 O11562 01 005033 01 005033 01 001398 01 001116 01 003561 01 005172 01 005172 01 002444 01 002444 01 002444 01 001296 01 001296 01 001296 001250 007500 007500 01 003640 01 001770 01 002158 8O85 8094 1003 8029 8030 8031 8032 8033 1143 1144 1145 8133 8133 1102 1102 1103 8156 1119 1119 1120 112t 8168 8174 8192 8193 8242 1019 1019 1006 1018 1009 t 030 t030 1011 1011 1011 1020 1020 1020 1151 1151 1151 8271 8272 166 Page 9 Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town SHELTER ISLAND SHELTER ISLAND SHELTER ISLAND SHELTER ISLAND SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOVVN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON CR 42 CR 42 CR 42 CR 69 CR 108 CR 11 CR 11 CR 13 CR 13 CR 14 CR 14 OR 14 CR 14 CR 16 CR 16 CR 16 CR 16 CR 16 CR 16 CR 16 CR 16 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 6 CR 67 CR 67 CR 76 CR 76 CR 93 TOWN LINE RD TOWN LINE RD CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 105 CR 105 CRlll REPORT 0420 ROCKY POINT AV PROSPECT 0420 PROSPECT STEARNS PT 0420 STEARNS PT CR 115 0690 SR 114 HAM ISLAND RD 1080 ISUP TOWNLINE CR 6 0110 TOWNLINE ROAD SUNKN MDW PKWY 0110 SUNKNMDWPKWY SR25A 0130 ISUP TL 1495N 0130 1495N CR4 0140 SR 25 CARLDON 0140 CARLDON OLD NRTHPRT RD 0140 OLD NRTHPRT RD BRUCE LA 0140 BRUCE LA SR 25A 0160 VILL OF BHANCH SR 347 0160 SR347 RHONDAAVE 0160 RHONDA AVE MAYFAIR 0160 MAYFAIR NICHOLS RD 0160 NICHOLS RD CR 93 0160 CR93 SHORE RD 0160 SHORE RD SPECTACLE LK 0160 SPECTACLE LK BRKHN TOWNLINE 0040 BAB TOWN LINE CR 13 0040 CR 13 CR67 9040 CR 67 NO STATE PKWY 0040 NO STATE PKWY HUNT TOWN LINE 0060 CR 108 ISLIP TOWNLINE 0670 CR4 HARNED RD 0670 HARNED RD ISLIP TOWNLINE 0760 ISLIP TOWNLINE JACKSON ST 0760 JACKSON ST NICHOL'S ROAD 0930 ISLIP TOWNLINE CR 16 FA30 CLAY PITTS RD END OF SAMPLE FA30 PULASKI RD MIDDLEVILLE RD 1040 QUOGUEVILL WOODLEIGH 1040 WOODLEIGH OAKVILLE 1040 OAKVILLE SR27 1040 SR 27 PLEASURE DR 1040 PLEASURE DR CR 31 1040 CR 31 PVMTCHANGE 1040 PVMT CHANGE PVMT CHANGE 1040 PVMT CHANGE CR 105 1040 CR 105 LANE CHANGE 1040 LANE CHANGE 1040 LUDLAM 1040 LUDLAM CR63 1050 CR 104 SR 24 1050 SR24 RH TOWN LINE 1t10 SR 27SSR BRKHN TOWNLINE Page 10 0.25 0.8 0.15 1.43 0.2 0.81 0.82 0.04 0.85 1.6 0.47 0.53 0.61 0,51 0.11 0.72 0.89 0.62 0.15 0.32 0.27 0.07 0.1 0.11 0.57 0.19 0.37 0.78 0.88 0.88 0.14 0.68 1.2 0.56 1.29 0.3 0.66 0.64 0.12 1.08 0.37 0.2 0.11 0.06 0.99 0.94 0.48 0.18 01 001795 01 001795 01 001795 01 000626 01 013957 93 015000 93 015100 01 011812 93 004900 01 016517 01 016517 01 012013 01 012013 01 011402 01 012161 01 012161 01 012161 01 012161 01 O21995 01 021995 01 021995 01 026177 01 034120 01 040669 01 041870 01 007555 01 016981 92 012900 01 O12391 01 012391 01 017713 01 006237 01 007943 01 009132 01 009132 01 009132 01 005469 01 OO5469 01 012200 01 012200 01 012200 01 007912 01 007912 01 007912 01 007912 01 004874 01 012350 01 007884 8132 8t32 8132 8189 8269 8048 8049 8063 8064 8067 8O67 8068 8068 8069 8070 8070 8070 8070 8071 8071 8071 8024 8025 8026 8027 8029 8179 8180 8196 8196 8240 1001 1016 8265 8265 8265 8266 8266 1141 1141 1141 8267 8267 8267 8267 1142 1143 1146 Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON CR 31 CR 31 CR 31 CR 38 CR 38 Cr 38 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39A CR 39B CR 39B CR 51 CR 51 CR 51 CR 51 CR 51 CR 52 CR 62 CR 63 CR 63 CR 63 CR 63 CR 71 CR 79 CR 79 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 LOCAL HIGHWAY ~lC VOLUME REPORT 0316 0310 0310 0380 0380 0380 0390 0390 0390 0390 0390 0390 0390 0390 0390 0390 0390 0390 0390 0390 0390 0390 039A 039B 039B 0510 0510 0510 0510 0510 0520 0620 0630 0630 0630 0630 0710 0790 0790 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 0800 WHBCH VIL LINE SR27 EB RAMP SR 27 EB RAMP SR 27 W~ RAMP SR 27 VVB RAMP CR 104 CR 39 V~LTSHIRE WILTSHIRE CR 52 CR 52 MILLSTONE BRK CR 80 CR 39B (SOUTH) CR 39B (SOUTH) CR 39B (NORTH) CR 39B (NORTH) SR 27 SR 27 SHRUBLAND SHRUBLAND GREENFIELD GREENFIELD TUCKAHOE RD TUCKAHOE ROAD ST ANDREWS W END BRIDGE E END BRIDGE E END BRIDGE CR52 CR 52 HENRY RD HENRY RD 7-11 DWY 7-11 DWY CR 38 SH VILL LINE SH VILL LINE SH VILL LINE CR 39A CR39 SH VILL LINE CR 39 (WEST) CR 39 (EAS~ BRKHN TOWNLINE MEDIAN BREAK MEDIAN BREAK RVRHEAD SPK RD RVRHEAD SPK RD CR 63 CR 63 MEDIAN BREAK MEDIAN BREAK CR 94 CR 39 CR 38 CR 80 THE BREAKWATER CR 51 SWEEZY POND TR END OF SAMPLE TRFFFIC CIR CR80 ONECK LA SR 27 SCUTTLEHOLE RD SCUTTLEHOLE RD SAG HARBORVIL BRKHNTOWN LINE SOUTH RD SOUTH RD S PHILLIPS S PHILLIPS CR 71 SH TOWN LINE QUOQUE VILL SH TOWN LINE LEWIS RD LEWIS RD SR 24 SR 24 PONQUOGUE RD PONQUOGUE RD CR62 CR 62 CR 39 Page 11 2.16 01 0.71 01 0.43 01 0.11 01 1.08 01 1.34 01 0.29 01 0,45 01 1,13 01 0.88 01 0.17 01 0.61 01 0.17 01 0.07 01 0.29 01 0.1 01 1.14 01 0.5 01 0.13 01 0.09 01 0.13 01 0.4 01 0.25 01 0.05 01 0.68 01 0.53 01 0.86 01 1.39 01 0.53 01 1.13 01 0.93 01 0.85 01 0.69 01 0.12 01 0.88 01 0.14 01 0.53 01 1.93 01 1.52 93 1,06 01 0,31 01 2,59 01 0.99 01 0.48 01 3.66 01 0.65 01 1.18 01 0.15 01 014606 014606 007764 005750 005750 011785 007825 006149 005304 031051 028954 028954 028954 028954 028954 028954 028908 028908 028908 023492 023492 023492 028954 001216 001216 009543 009543 010939 006472 006472 008318 001859 006562 006562 004911 006562 005116 005806 007300 012421 012421 012421 009527 009446 009446 017446 017258 019973 8109 8109 8110 8122 8122 8123 8124 8125 8126 1101 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 8127 8127 8152 8152 8153 8154 8154 8155 8172 8173 8173 1021 8173 8191 8198 8199 8212 8212 8212 8214 8215 8215 8216 8217 8218 LOCAL HIGHVVAY ' Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD AMITYVILLE AMITYVILLE AMITYVILLE AMITYVILLE AMITYVILLE AMITYVILLE AMITYVILLE AMITYVILLE AMITYVILLE ASHAROKEN BABYLON BABYLON BABYLON BELLPORT BRIGHTWATERS BRIGHTWATERS BRIGHTWATERS BRtGH~NATERS EAST HAMPTON LINDENHURST LINDENHURST LINDENHURST LINDENHURST LLOYD HARBOR CR 80 CR 94 CR 94 CR 94 CR 94A CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 MAIN ST MAIN ST MA~N ST MAIN ST MAIN ST SOUND AVE SOUND AVE CR 1 CR 1 CR 1 CR 1 CR 1 CR 12 CR 12 CR 12 CR 2 ASHAROKEN AVE CR 50 CR 50 RAILROAD AVE S CR 36 CR 50 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 NEWTOWN LANE CR 12 CR 12 CR 2 CR 2 LLOYD HARBOR RD 0800 CR 39 0940 BRKHN TOWNLINE 0940 CR 94A 0940 CR 51 094A CR 94 0480 W/O COX RD O48O SR 25 0480 ELIJAHS LA 0480 DEPOT LANE 0480 .5MIWBRLN 0480 PECONIC LANE 0480 KENNYS RD 0480 TUCKERS RD 0480 HORTON AVE 0480 YOUNGS AVENUE 0480 PVMT CHANGE O48O UAB LINE 2560 2560 2560 2560 2560 3970 3970 0010 SR 27A 0010 AM VILL LINE 0010 CR 12 0010 SR 27 0010 AM VILL LINE 0120 CR 1 0120 0120 SR 110 0020 SR 110 0010 ViLLAGE LIMIT 0500 SR 109 0500 DEER PARK AVE 1260 CARLL AVE 0360 BELLPORT VILL 0500 BRGHTWTR LINE 0570 BRGHTWTR VIL L 0570 SR 27NSR 0570 SR27SSR 0620 L I RAILROAD 0120 LDHRST VIL LN 0120 PARK AVE 0020 LDHRST VIL LN 0020 SR 27 0030 WEST NECK RD KNOLL RD CR 94A CR 51 CR 63 RH TOWN LINE SR 25 ELIJAHS LA DEPOT LANE .5 MI W BR LN PECONIC LANE KENNYS RD TUCKERS RD HORTONS LN YOUNGS AVENUE PVMT CHANGE UAB LINE SR 25 CR 48 BAB TOWN LINE CR 12 BAB TOWN LINE BAB TOWN LINE BAB TOVVN LINE SR 110 BABYLON TL BAB TOWN LINE DUCK ISLAND DEER PARK AVE SR 231 DEER PARK AVE BRKHN TOWNLINE ISLIP TOWNLJNE SR 27 NSR SR 27 SSR ISLIP TOWNLINE LONG LANE PARK AVE BAB TOWN LINE SR 27 LDHRST VIL LN LLOYD LA 1.41 01 192 01 0.26 01 0.15 61 0.12 01 0.3 01 2.65 01 1.66 01 0.69 01 1.99 01 1.65 01 0.31 01 0.36 01 0.09 01 0.16 01 2.03 01 2.32 01 0.01 01 0.06 01 0.05 01 0.08 01 0.06 01 0.77 0,47 0.15 93 0.34 93 0.09 93 0,15 01 0,14 01 0.08 01 0.31 01 0,59 01 0.4 01 1.88 01 0.98 01 0.51 01 0.19 1.23 01 0.26 01 0.3 94 0.09 01 0.03 01 0.45 01 1.78 01 0.07 01 0.04 01 0.17 01 0.42 01 013296 010727 010727 010727 011562 010690 010797 010797 011770 011770 012263 012263 012263 012263 011216 011216 011216 007864 007864 007864 007864 007864 007500 007500 004900 004900 007700 004787 004787 008845 008845 009809 011184 004244 009158 009158 005000 013465 014282 023100 019546 009806 003018 009893 009893 016542 012293 002497 8219 133 133 133 8242 1114 1115 1115 1116 1116 1117 1117 1117 1117 1118 1118 1118 52 52 52 52 52 1151 1151 8001 8001 8002 8003 8003 8050 8050 8051 8004 1027 8141 8141 8121 8143 8164 8165 8166 8169 8052 8052 8005 8OO6 1026 Page 12 Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village ViJlage Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village LLOYD HARBOR LLOYD LA LLOYD HARBOR ~A~ST NECK RD LLOYD HARBOR WEST NECK RD LLOYD HARBOR WEST NECK RD NISSEQUOGUE RIVER RD NORTHPORT CR 10 PATCHOGUE CR 19 PATCHOGUE CR 19 PATCHOGUE CR 65 PATCHOGUE CR 65 PATCHOGUE CR 85 QUOQUE CR 104 QUOQUE CR 104 QUOQUE CR 80 QUOQUE CR 80 SAG HARBOR CR 79 SOUTHAMPTON CR 39 SOUTHAMPTON CR 39 SOUTHAMPTON CR 39 SOUTHAMPTON CR 39 SOUTHAMPTON CR 39A SOUTHAMPTON HAMPTON RD SOUTHAMPTON HILL ST SOUTHAMPTON HILL ST VILLAGE OF THE BRANCH CR 16 WESTHAMPTON BEACH CR 31 VVESTHAMPTON BEACH CR 31 WESTHAMPTON BEACH CR 80 VVESTHAMPTON BEACH CR 89 LAKE GROVE CR 97 ISLANDIA CR 100 ISLANDIA CR 67 ISLANDIA CR 67 0040 LLOYD HARBOR R 0110 WESTVlEW RD 0110 SEMINARY ETRAN 0110 BATH CLUB 0080 HARBOR LA 0100 HUNT TOWN LINE 0190 CR 65 0190 E MAIN ST 0650 PATCH VlLL LN 0650 DIVISION ST 0850 PATCH VILL LN 1040 CR80 1040 OLD COUNTRY RD 0800 QUOGUE VILL 0800 CR 104 0790 SAG HBRVILL 0390 CR 38 0390 LANE CHANGE 0390 0390 039A 0460 0540 0540 0160 0310 0310 0800 0890 0970 1000 0670 0670 SH rILL LINE SH VILL LINE MAIN ST TUCKAHOE LA MOSES LA SR 25 CR 80 LIRR CR 31 W/O JESSUP LN BRKHN TOWNLINE ISLANDIA VILL 1495S BEDFORD AVE MARSH CT SEMINARY ENTRA BATH CLUB LLOYD HARBOR R MORICHES RD SR 25A E MAIN ST BRKHN TOWN LN DIVISION ST CR 19 W/O CR 19 OLD COUNTRY RD SH TOWN LINE CR 104 SH TOWN LINE BRICKILN RD LANE CHANGE SH TOWN LINE SH TOWN LINE SR 27A FLYING POINT R MOSES LA FIRST NECK LA SM TOWN LINE LIRR SH TOVVN LINE SH TOWN LINE E/O JESSUP LN SR347 SR 454 ~495N NICHOLS RD 0,97 01 0.37 01 0,42 01 0.83 01 1.43 01 0,11 93 0.35 01 1.15 99 0.59 01 0.23 01 0.77 01 1.03 01 0.04 01 1.61 91 0.59 01 0.28 93 0.06 01 0.1 91 O.O7 01 0.09 01 0.38 01 1.22 01 0.88 01 0.7 01 0.08 01 0.61 01 0.1 01 0.48 01 1.18 01 0.12 01 0.25 93 0.07 92 0.82 92 001139 004481 004481 002497 001315 0127O0 004907 008732 003644 003644 014085 002051 009132 0O9527 009446 007300 023492 023492 023492 023492 023492 011448 014137 012247 011402 014606 014606 009527 005285 031157 030600 011700 009900 1004 1023 1023 1026 1028 8038 8088 8089 8175 8175 8227 8264 8265 8214 8215 8199 2 2 2 2 2 1029 1013 1005 8069 8109 8109 8214 8232 1139 8256 8186 8188 Page 13 TRIP GENERATION An Informational Report 5th Edition ite_- INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is a professional society of more than 11,000 transportation engineers and planners who are responsible for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods on streets, highways, and transit systems. Since 1930 the Institute has been providing transportation professionals with programs and resources to help them meet those responsibilities. Institute programs and resources include professional development seminars, technical reports, a monthly journal, local, regional, and international meetings, and other forums for the exchange of opinions, ideas, techniques, and research. INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 525 School St., S.W., Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20024-2729 USA Telephone: 202/554-8050 FAX: 202/863-5486 © 1991 Institute of Transportation Engineers. All rights reserved. l~blic~tion No. IR-016C Fou~h Printing III. DEFINITION OF TERMS Average Trip Rate A weighted average of the number of vehicle trips or trip ends per unit of independent vari- able (e.g., trip ends per occupied dwelling unit or employee) using a site's driveway(s). The weighted average rate is calculated by summing all trips or trip ends and all independent vari- able units where paired data are available, and then dividing the sum of the trip ends by the sum of the independent variable units. The weighted average rate is used rather than the av- erage of the individual rates because of the vari- ance within each data set or generating unit. Data sets with a large variance would over-in- fluence the average rate if they were un- weighted. Average Trip Rate for Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street Traffic The highest one-hour weighted average vehicle trip generation rate between 7 and 9 A.M. or between 4 and 6 P.M. when the adjacent street traffic is at its peak. This rate represents trips using a site's driveways. Average Trip Rate for Peak Hour of the Generator A weighted average vehicle trip generation rate during the hour of highest volume of traffic en- tering and exiting the site in the morning (A.M.) or the afternoon (P.M.) It may or may not coincide in time or volume with the trip rate for the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic; the trip rate for the peak hour of the generator will be equal to or greater than the trip rate for the peak hour between 7 and 9 A.M. or between 4 and 6 P.M. This rate repre- sents trips using a site's driveways. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends (AWDVTE) The average 24-hour total of all vehicle trips counted to and from a study site from Monday through Friday, Trip Generation, January 1991 Average Weekday Trip Rate The weighted average vehicle trip generation rate during a 24-hour period for a weekday (Monday through Friday). This represents trips using a site's driveways. Average Saturday Trip Rate The weighted average vehicle trip generation rate during a 24-hour period for a Saturday. This rate represents trips using a site's drive- ways. Average Trip Rate for Saturday Peak Hour of Generator The weighted average vehicle trip generation rate during the hour of highest volume of traffic entering and exiting a site on a Saturday. It may occur in the A.M. or P.M. This rate represents trips using a site's driveways. Average Sunday Trip Rate The weighted average vehicle trip generation rate during a 24-hour period for a Sunday. This rate represents trips using a site's driveways. Average Trip Rate for Sunday Peak Hour of Generator The weighted average vehicle trip generation rate during the hour of highest volume of traffic entering and exiting a site on a Sunday. It may occur in the A.M. or P.M. This rate represents trips using a site's driveways. Diverted Linked Trips Trips that are produced from the traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator and require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway with access to the site. These roadways could include streets or freeways adjacent to the generator but without access to the generator. I-5 Gross Floor Area (GFA) 1 The gross floor area of a building is the sum (in square feet) of the area at each floor level, in- cluding cellars, basements, mezzanines, pent- houses, corridors, lobbies, stores, and offices, that are included within the principal outside faces of exterior walls, not including architec- tural setbacks or projections. Included are all stories or areas that have floor surfaces with clear standing head room (6 feet, 6 inches, minimum) regardless of their use. Where a ground level area, or part thereof, within the principal outside faces of the exterior walls is left unenclosed, the gross floor area of the un- enclosed portion is said to be considered as a part of the overall square footage of the build- ing. All unroofed areas and unenclosed roofed- over spaces, except as defined above, are to be excluded from the area calculations. For purposes of the trip generation calcu- lation, the gross floor area of any parking garages within the building shall not be in- cluded within the gross floor area of the entire building. A majority of the land uses in this re- port express trip generation in terms of gross floor area. The unit ;of measurement for office buildings is currently gross floor area; however, it is desirable to also obtain data related to gross rentable area and net rentable area. Gross Leasable Area (GLA)2 Gross leasable area is the total floor area de- signed for tenant occupancy and exclusive use, including any basements, mezzanines, or upper floors, expressed in square feet and measured from the centerline of joint partitions and from outside wall faces. For purposes of the trip gen- eration calculation, the floor area of any park- ing garages within the building shall not be in- duded within the GLA of the entire building. Gross leasable area is the area for which tenants pay rent; it is the area that produces income. GLA lends itself readily to measurement and comparison; thus, it has been adopted by the 1 Institute of Real Estate Management of the National ~ociation of Realtors. Income/Expense Analysis, Office Buildings, Downtown and Suburban, 1985, p. 236. 2 Urban Land Institute. Dollars and Cent~ of Shopping Cenetrs, 1984. shopping center industry as its standard for sta- tistical comparison. Accordingly, GLA is used in this report for shopping centers and other re- tailers of goods and apparel. For strip centers, discount stores, and freestanding retail facilities, it is usually assumed that GLA equals GFA. Gross Rentable Area (GRA)3 Gross rentable area shall be computed in square feet by measuring the inside finish of perma- nent outer building walls, or from the glass line where at least 50% of the outer building wall is glass. Gross rentable area shall include all area within outside walls less stairs, elevator shafts, flues, pipe shafts, vertical ducts, and balconies. Net rentable area shall be computed in square feet by measuring inside the finish of permanent outer building walls or from glass line where at least 50% of the outer building wall is glass. Net rentable area shall include all area within outside walls excluding stairs, eleva- tor shafts, flues, pipe shafts, vertical ducts, bal- conies, air conditioning rooms, janitorial clos- ets, electrical dosets, washrooms, public corri- dors, and such other rooms not actually avail- able to the tenant for his furnishings and per- sonnel and their enclosing walls. No deductions shall be made for columns and projections nec- essary to the building. Independent Variable A physical, measurable, or predictable unit de- scribing the study site or generator (e.g. gross floor area, employees, seats, dwelling units): Multi-Use Development / Capture Rate A multi-use development is a single real estate project that consikts of two or more land uses. Because th~ nature of the land uses, the trip- making characteristics are interrelated. For ex- ample; it can be assumed that some of the trips attracted to a shopping center are generated by "on-site" residences constructed as part of a single project. Likewise, some of the shoppers are attracted from an "on-site" office complex 3 Institute of Real Fatate Management of the National A~ociation of Realtor~. Income/£xptme Analysis, Office Buildlng~, Downtown and Suburban, 1985, p. 236. I-6 Institu~te of Transportation Engineers constructed as part of the single project. Thus, while individual land uses generate or attract trips according to the statistics calculated in this report, trips at the perimeter (or imaginary cor- don line surrounding the development) are not simply a total of the trips from the individual land uses. A reduction is suggested to account for the internal trips or those "captured" within the single, overall development. This reduction in trips, expressed as a percentage, is referred to as a capture rate. Chapter VIII of this report provides additional information. Pass-By Trips Trip generation rates and equations are based on volume counts taken at the driveways to the site being studied. In the case of a new devel- opment, particularly retail establishments, cer- tain restaurants, banks, service stations, and convenience markets, trips are attracted from the passing traffic on adjacent streets--that is, traffic already ~passing by" the site. Thus, when forecasted trips based on the trip generation rates or equations are distributed to the adja- cent streets, some reduction is made to account for those trips already there that will be at- tracted to the proposed development. That is, impacts at the entrances and exits to the pro- posed sites should be based on trip generation rates or equations; impacts on adjacent streets can be based on a reduced forecast to account for pass-by trips. Chapter VII of this report provides further information. Trip A single or one-direction vehicle movement with either the origin or the destination (exiting or entering) inside a study site. Trip Ends One trip end is equal to one trip, as defined above. For trip generation purposes, total trip ends for a land use over a given period of time are the total of all trips entering plus all trips exiting a site during that designated time. Trip Generation, Janum'y 1991 I-7 IV. SAMPLE PAGE Level of Confidence The average trip generation rates displayed in this report are calculated on the basis of a weighted average trip rate. The weighted aver- age rate is used rather than the average of the individual rates because of the variance within each data set or generating unit. Data sets with a large variance would over-influence the aver- age rate if they were not weighted. The statisti- cally correct standard deviation as a measure of confidence cannot be used because it assumes the data to be normally distributed with no variance within each data set or generating unit and it is based on the mean or average rate, not the weighted average. A statistical measure of confidence of the weighted average trip rate is difficult to calculate because individual rates generally do not form a normal distribution. Therefore, the following tools are provided to give the user an approximation of the variance of the data: 1. A plot of the actual number of trips versus the size of the independent variable for each study with more than one observation. The numbers represented on the plots are not trip generation rates; they are the actual num- ber of trips, plotted against the size of the inde- pendent variable. 2. For land uses with three or more stud- ies, an approximate standard deviation for the weighted average trip rate. 3. Regression equations of trip ends re- lated to the appropriate independent variable and the R2 value. The software used to develop the trip generation equations used in the fifth edition of Trip Generation tested each land use, independent variable, and time period to de- termine which model (linear, logarithmic, in- verse, logarithmic-linear, and linear-logarith- mic) had the highest R2. This model was then selected by the software. Ifthe linear model was not the model with the highest R2, but its R2 was only slightly lower (no more than 0.05) than that of the highest model, the linear model I-8 was then chosen. Best fit curves are shown in this report only when each of the following three conditions are met: · The R2 is greater than or equal to 0.25. · The sample size is greater than or equal to4. · The number of trips increases as the size of the independent variable increases. When this equation did not produce a logical fit of the actual data, other equation types were examined. In some cases a curve was selected because it fit the distribution of data better even though its R2was slightly lower (no more than 0.05). The regression equations express the op- timal mathematical relationship between two or more related items (variables). The forms of re- gression equations used in this report are: T = aX+ b (linear) Ln(T) = a Ln(X) + b (logarithmic) T = [(dX)+ b]-1 (inverse) T = a Ln(X) + b (linear-logarithmic) Ln(T) = aX+ b (logarithmic-linear) The objective in developing the relationship be- tween X (independent variable) and T (dependent variable or number of trips) is to determine values of the parameters a and b so that the expected error involved in estimating the dependent variable (number of trips) given estimates of the independent variable will be minimized. The coefficient of determination (R2) is the percentage of the variance in the number of the trips associated with the variance in the size of the independent variable. If the R2 value is 0.75, then 75% of the variance in the number of trips is accounted for the variance in the size of the independent variable. As the R2 value approaches 1, the better the fit; as the R2value approaches 0, the worse the fit. R2 is calculated in this report using the standard procedure documented in statistics textbooks: Institute of Transportation Engineers k ITE · and Use I Waterport/Marine Terminal Land Usc (010)' Code I Sample ~ Average Vehicle Trip Endsvs: Ship Berths Size Weekday Average size of [ ~ ~ Independen' ~ Variable independent variable I~ ~ ' ""x Number of Studies: 7 Average Number of Ship Berths: 3 Percent of total trip ends and trip rate entering and exiting site during indicated time period. , Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Ship Berth f Average Rate Range of Rates 171.52 38.60 - 338.57 Standard Deviation 130.72 Weighted Trip Generation Rate--The weighted average number of trip ends per one unit of independent variable (in this example, per one dwelling unit). Minimum and maximum trip generation rates from the entire range of studies reported. The standard deviation estimates the difference among trip generation rates in all studies for a land use and independent variable. Dependent Variable -- Data Equation 3,000 Number of Ship Bedhs . / Best fit regression equation, expresses the optimal mathematical relationship between two or more related variables. If the variables are related linearly, the equation will be in the following format: T -= a + bX. In a nonlinear relationship, the equation will have a different format, usua y Ln(T) = a Ln(X) + b. R2 = 0,58 [ Variable lMeasure of correlation between 2 variables, expressed on a scale of -1 to +1, The close~ to +1 the R2 is, the better the correlation between the variables. Trip Generation, January 1991 aE T , bY_OCF- n ~ 2 = ZT2.n ~2 T= the number of trip ends, ~ = the mean number of trip ends, a, b = equation parameters (example, in the linear equation T= 16X+ 22, the value of a is 16 and the value of b is 22), and n = the number of studies. The plot of calculated trips shows the given re- gression equation plotted on the graph with a solid line to show how well it duplicates the actual data points. Likewise, a linear plot going through the origin and with a slope equal to the average rate is shown as a dashed line (when there are two or more data points) to indicate how the average rate duplicates the actual data points. Calculation of Standard Deviation The calculation of a standard deviation is more complex than examination of the accumnlative curve. Standard deviation is a measure of how widely dispersed the data points are around the calculated average; the less dispersion (the lower the number), the better. In this report, the av- erage is a "weighted average," and therefore the standard deviation is an approximation. The collection of aggregate travel data, such as is in- herent in the method used for trip generation, gives no information on the variation in travel between individual generating units. For ex- ample, the results of a hypothetical disaggregate survey of individual units within an apartment complex are shown in Table IV-1, where the number of trips varies from 1 to 15 per unit. There is a total of 250 units generating 1,625 daily trips for a mean trip rate of 6.50 trips per unit. Using this information on individual units with!n an apartment complex, it is possi- ble to generate the variance and standard de- viation (SDED. The calculation of the variance requires values of N, SUMX, and SUMX2, as used in the following formulas: AVG= (SUMX / N) = 1625/250 = 6.50 VAR = IS - (SUMX · SUMX)/NJI (N- 1 ) =[12,185 - (1625 · 1625)/250]/ (250 - 1) = 6.52 Table IV-1 Calculation of Standard Deviation TOTALS Frequency Trips Per Unit SUMX SUMX2 (f) (x) ~. x) (f . x~) 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 3 8 2 16 32 17 3 51 153 28 4 112 448 36 5 180 900 40 6 240 1440 36 7 252 1764 30 8 240 1920 21 9 189 1701 14 10 140 1400 9 11 99 1089 4 12 48 576 2 13 26 338 1 14 14 196 1 15 15 225 250 1625 12185 1-10 Institute of Transportation Engineers SDEV = SQRT (VAR) = SQRT (6.52) = 2.55 However, with the collection of aggregate data (as in the ITE trip generation database), the only variables available are the values for SUMX and N. The implication is that each unit makes 6.50 trips and that the variation is zero. This is an unreasonable assumption and a most un- likely result. A reasonable assumption may be made that the trips per unit are randomly dis- tributed and can be approximated by the Pois- son distribution. In addition to being a reason- able assumption, the Poisson distribution is useful because the variance (VAR) is equal to the mean. This allows a simple method for es- timating the unknown SUMX2 data required for calculating the variance and standard devia- tion. Since the variance is equal to the mean and the values ofNand SUMXare known, it is possible with simple algebra to develop the fol- lowing expression for calculating the value of S UM~: SUM(a= [(SUMX' SUMX)/A~ + SUMX- (SUMX/N) The calculation of SUMX2 for the hypothetical data of Table IV-1 is as follows: SUMX2 = [(1625 · 1625 )/250 ] + 1625 ~ (1625/250) = 10562.50 + 1625 - 6.50 = 12,181 (versus 12,185). (The difference [12,181 versus 12,185 ] exists because the variance was not exactly equal to the mean.) Therefore, it is possible to calculate a grand to- tal for N, SUllY, and SUII4X2 to then calculate a grand mean and a standard deviation based on the results of all the studies or data sets for each land use. The standard deviation will re- flect both the difference between studies and a reasonable estimate of the differences within each study. The standard deviation for the weighted average trip generation rate is pro- vided for each land use with three or more ob- servations. Miscellaneous Page Descriptions One Observation Tables If the database for a land use and independent variable/time of day combination only contains one study, then the statistics are presented in tabular form rather than as on the previously described sample page. Subset Plots of Clustered Points For some land uses (including single-family de- tached housing, general office building, and shopping center) and time periods, the data points are clustered too close to one another to easily read and compare to the plot of the aver- age rate or equation. In those cases, an addi- tional data plot is presented, which shows a subset of the entire database. This is noted on the plot and can be readily identified because the scale on the x-axis, y-axis, or both is differ- ent. The trip generation statistics are still based on the entire database, not the subset. Trip Generation, January 1991 V. INSTRUCTIONS Trip Generation provides the user community with three methods of estimating trips at pro- posed developments: 1. A plot of trip ends versus size of the in- dependent variable for each study, which can be used to graphically obtain a rough estimate of trips, 2; A regression equation based on this plot, and ~/3. The weighted trip generation rate (number of weighted trip ends per unit of the independent variable). Generally, every.l_a~n~d ~e, independe_nt variabl~e, and ti eo~!xT~r_igd combination in Trip Genera- tion has a weighted trip generation rate. The plot and regression equation are provided only if sufficient data and an acceptable R2 are avail- able. The first, second, and third editions of Trip Generation provided the weighted trip generation rate and a limited number of regres- sion equations. Accordingly, the most common and accepted methodology used to calculate forecasted trips ~vas based on the rate. However, since plots and regression equations can now be generated easily With the microcomputer, the fourth and fifth editions of Trip Generation were written to contain as much information as possible about the data. UnfortunatelY, the fact that engineering judgment is needed to select the appropriate method for estimating trips could create con- flict, and differences of opinion may arise. A thorough understanding of the three method- ologies and the application of certain guidelines may resolve many of these conflicts. Understanding the Methodologies Graphic Plot The most fundamental and elementary display of the available information is a plot of trip ends versus a related independent variable for each individual study (or observation). The graph is then entered with the value of the in- 1-12 dependent variable for the proposed develop- ment and the number of trip ends is estimated based simply on the existing data points. This method is reasonably accurate if there are suffi- cient data points within the range of the inde- pendent variable being used to define a rela- tionship between the two variables, especially in the area of the graph where the proposed devel- opment fits. Otherwise, the need for interpret- ing the data (e.g., discarding "erratic" data points) and for interpolating between data points results in a considerable chance for dif- ferences in opinion. Equation The next logical step is to assume that a specific mathematical relationship exists between trip ends and the related independent variable. Sta- tistically, regression analysis provides a tool for developing an equation that defines the line that "fits best" through the data points. Use of the equation allows a direct calcu- lation of forecasted trip ends based on the in- dependent variable of the proposed develop- ment, thus eliminating differences of opinion arising from interpolating a plot of individual data points. The correlation coefficient (R) is a mea- sure of the degree of association or closeness of the relation between variables. The coefficient of determination (R2) is the percent of the vari- ance in the number of the trips associated with the variance in the size of the independent vari- able. Thus, an R value of 0.8 results in an R2of 0.64, which is to say that 64 percent of the variance in the number of trips is accounted for by the variance in the size of the independent variable. Therefore, the closer the R2 value to 1.0, the better the relationship between the number of trips and size of the independent variable. %~ffeighted Average Rate The traditional method of calculating fore- Institute of Transportation Engineers casted trips has been to apply a weighted aver- age trip generation rate--i.e., multiply the number of trip ends per unit of independent variable by the number of units of the indepen- dent variable associated with the proposed de- velopment. The standard deviation, when given, is a measure of how widely dispersed the data points are around the calculated average; the less dispersion (lower the number) the bet- ter. The approximated standard deviations are provided for land uses, independent variables, and trip time periods with three or more data points. Graphically, use of the rate simply as- sumes a linear relationship between trip ends and the independent variable, with the straight line passing through the origin and having a slope equal to the rate. Selection of Methodology Based on the above discussion, it is apparent that the real question is which of the latter two methodologies should be used. Both offer ad- vantages over estimating trip ends from a scat- tergram type of graph, as described in the first methodologY- Furthermore, given a reasonable sample size and reasonable distribution of samples within a range of typical values of the independent variable, the regression equation describes a line that best fits the data points. The very basis of the forecasting procedure is the relationship found at existing sites. Finally, it is important to note that statis- tically there are confidence intervals associated with both the regression line and the rate line. The true data point lies within an interval or range of trip ends on both sides of the calcu- lated line; the size ,of the interval depends on the stated degree of confidence. Consideration of these intervals may result in a finding of no significant difference between the lines as the intervals may overlap. The difference is clearly lessened if intervals are considered. Guidelines for Determining Whether to Use Trip Generation Rates or Equations The following step~by-step procedure is sug- gested for determining whether the equation or the rate should be used. 1. Calculate and compare the forecasted trips using both the regression equation and the trip rate. If the difference is minor or, more important, does not change the conclusion of any analyses using the forecast, then the ques- tion of which to use is irrelevant. Therefore, use the method that most closely represents the data points in the range of the independent variable being used. It is suggested that a minor difference typically occurs when the forecasted trips calculated from the two methods are within 5% of each other (i.e., the difference divided by the average is less than or equal to 0.05). If the question of which to use is rele- vant, go to the second guideline. 2. Use the equation when there are at least 20 data points that are distributed over the range of values typically found for the indepen- dent variable, when there are few erratic data points (outliers), and when the )qntercept in the equation is zero or near zero (i.e., zero or dose to zero trips are calculated when the size of the independent variable is zero). If these conditions are not met, then go to the third guideline. 3. Compare the lines representing the equation and the rate to determine which best fits the data points at the size of the indepen- dent variable in question. Use the equation or the rate whose line best fits the data points at the size of the independent variable in question. If neither line fits the data points or both fit equally well, go to the fourth guideline. 4. Review the standard deviation of the rate and the R2 value of the equation. These measures provide information about how well the lines, in general, fit the data points. A low standard deviation of less than 110% of the av- er'age rate is good. A high R2 value of more than 0.75 for the equation is good. Use the equation or the rate, depending on how well its measure satisfies these standards. If a decision still cannot be made, go to the fifth guideline. 5. Since at this point, there is no logical and valid basis for choosing between the rate and the equation, the user must choose the Trip Generation, January 1991 1-13 method to use based only on one's best judg- ment, or collect an acceptable set of local data from which a local ra~e or equation can be de- rived. The sample should include a minimum of three similar sites. Sample Problems The method of calculating trip generation through use of either a regression equation or trip generation rate and the process suggested to choose between equation or rate is illustrated by the following sample problems. 1. For a high school (Land Use 530) with 700 students, calculate the average vehicle trip ends per student during the P.M. peak hour of the generator on a weekday. First, refer to the data and plot presented within the associated pages of this report. Both a rate and equation are provided as follows: Rate: T= 0.237 trip ends per student Equation: T= [(1.46/X) + 0.0024]'1 Calculate vehicle trip ends using the rate: T =0.237x700 = 166 vehicle trip ends. Then calculate vehicle trip ends using the equation: T [(1.46/700) + 0.0024]-1 [0.0021 + 0.0024]-1 [0.0045]4 1/O.OO45 222 vehicle trip ends. Referring to Step 1 of the Previously presented guideline, s, the question of whether to use the forecasted trips calculated from the rate (166 vehicle trip ends) or those calculated from the equation (222 vehicle trip ends) would be rele- vant. Since the difference between the two re- sults is nearly 30 percent, further steps should be folloWed to determine which is more appli- cable in this cas~: Proceeding to Step 2, there are an ade- quate number of data points for this example, but referring to the data pl0t, the points are widely distributed and there are a number of outlying points. A comparison of the lines representing trips calculated by the rate and the equation (Step 3) clearly shows a better/it by the equa- tion when independent variable size is 700 stu- dents. Therefore, in this case, if using the aforementioned guidelines for selection of methodology, the equation would be the pre- ferred methodology. 2. Assume now that the high school en- rollment is 1,600 students, and that the user still desires to calculate the average vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour of the generator on a weekday. In this case, the trip generation rate solu- tion would be: T = 0.237 x 1600 = 379 vehide trip ends. The equation solution would be as follows: T = [(1.46/1600) + 0.0024]4 = [0.0009 + 0.0024]-1 = [0.0033]-1 = 1/0.O033 = 303 vehide trip ends. Following the same process as described above for enrollment of 700 students, it is found that there is a 22 percent difference between the two solutions, and the scatter of data points would not, of itself, indicate use of the equation. Referring to Step 3 of the guidelines, it is apparent from the plot that the rate line more closely fits the data points at the independent variable size of 1,600 students than does the equation. Therefore, in this case, with a larger value of the independent variable, if using the aforementioned guidelines for selection of methodology, the average rate would be the preferred methodology. 3. Determine the number of v~hicle trip ends on a weekday for a general office building (Land Use 710) with 400,000 square feet gross floor area. Refer to the associated data and plot pre- sented in the body of this report. The average rate given in Table 4 and the equation shown on this page are as follows: Rate: T = 9.96 trip ends per 1,000 square feet gross floor area Equation: Ln(T) .= 0.756 Ln(X)+ 3.765 As explained in the discussion of trip generation 1-14 Institute of Transportation Engineers of general office buildings (Land Use 710), the trip generation rates given in Table 4 of that section were derived from the equation. There- fore, the equation should be applied at the in- dependent variable size of 800,000 square feet or less. Solution of the logarithmic equation is as follows: Ln(T) = [0.756 X Ln(400)] + 3.765 = (0.756 x 5.991) + 3.765 = 4.529 + 3.765 = 8.294 T = 4,002 vehicle trip ends. Choice of Day and Time Period The correct choice of rates or equations for a specific day and time period is directly related to the type of land use and the traffic character- istics on the adjacent street system. To determine the appropriate design re- quirements, the user is advised to examine the average rates or equations for the different day and time periods to determine when the site in question peaks in traffic flow and to define the relationship between its peak generation and peaking characteristics of the adjacent street system. For nearly all cases, the generation rates or equations for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of the adjacent street system (one hour between 7:00 and 9:00 A.M. and between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M.) would be utilized to test the impact on the normal peak hour traffic. Residential and general office developments, for example, have the same peak periods as the adjacent street, and maximum impact is determined by adding site traffic to peak hour street traffic. (Some land uses, however, do not peak at the same time as the adjacent streets. For ex- ample, shopping centers may peak later in the evening or may have their largest peak volumes on Saturday.STherefore, the user should test combinationl of generator volumes and street volumes at different times to determine a site's maximum impact. More detailed information than is in- cluded in this report may be required to de- termine the peak time and volumes needed for the analysis. Choice of Independent Variable Vehicle trip generation rates and eqUations for most land uses have been provided for more than one independent variable. The choice of independent variable can be one of the most important decisions in making the trip genera- tion calculation. Sometimes there is no choice because the only information known may be the size of the building. When the practitioner has a choice of independent variables, it is best to use the one that best fits or relates to the trip making data. The standard deviation (rate) and R2 (equation) values indicate which indepen- dent variable best fits the data. However, it is also important to check the sample size for each independent variable. In the case of two vari- ables with similar measures of "best fit," one should then select the variable with the larger sample size. However, it is also important to check the sample size for each given indepen- dent variable. In the case of two variables with similar correlation coefficients, one should then select the variable with the larger sample size. In the planning stage, some variables ate estimated on the basis of other variables. For example, the amount of employment and parking is generally estimated on the basis of gross floor area. Therefore, gross floor area would be the strongest variable. When little is known about the size of the generator except the size of the land parcel, the use of common land use densities could be used to obtain an estimate of the size of an independent variable with a better fit or a larger database. Densities for many land roes, which are based on the in- formation collected at the measured sites, are provided on the land use description pages, when available. Generally, the use of acres of land as the independent variable is the weakest because the database is usually the smallest and the correla- tion coefficient is usually the lowest. For indus- trial uses, one might start with employee densi- ties per acre of land and then the trip rates per employee. For office buildings or shopping cen- ters, the building size might be estimated from the size of the land parcel and then the trip generation derived from the equations for gross floor area or gross leasable area. Trip Generation, January 1991 1-15 Land Use: 210 Single-Family Detached Housing Description Any single family detached home on an individual lot is included in this land use category. A typical site surveyed is a suburban subdivision. Additional Data Information on transit trip ends is not available. Information on person tdp ends is not available. Information on truck trips is not available. Information on vehicle occupancy is not available. Peak hours of the generator typically coincide with the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic. Average development density: 3.5 dwelling units per acre 3.7 persons per dwelling unit Average automobile ownership: 1.6 vehicles per dwelling unit The studies were conducted at sites throughout the United States and Canada in the late 1960's through late 1980's, Independent variables: Although the number of vehicles and number of residents have high correlations with average weekday vehicle trip ends, these vadables have limited use. This is because the number of vehicles and residents is difficult to obtain, many studies did not contain these data, and these data are difficult to predict. The~number of dwellin~ un_i~ ha~ a h~ig~h_~?r~r~e!ati?_n_with average wee~k_day_vebicle~rip.ends, and is generally the independent variable of choice because it is contained in most studies, is easy to project, and convenient to use. Adjustment factors: This land use includes data from a wide variety of units with different sizes, price ranges, locations, and ages. Consequently, there is as wide a variation in trips generated within this category as there is between different residential land uses. As expected, dwelling units that were larger in size, more expensive, or farther away from the central business district (CBD) had a higher rate of trip generation per unit than those smaller in size, less expensive, or closer to the CBD. However, other factors, such as geographic location and type of adjacent and nearby development, also had an effect on the site trip generation. Trip Generation, January 1991 255 institute of Transportation Engineers Single-family detached units have the highest trip generation rate per dwelling unit of all residential uses because they are the largest units in size and have more residents and more vehicles per unit than other residential land uses; they are generally located further away from shopping centers, employment areas, and other trip attractors than are other residential land uses; and they have fewer alternate modes of transportation available because they are not as concentrated as other residential land uses. A study performed for the Federal Highway Administration~ developed adjustment factors for average weekday vehicle trip rates for residential land uses and their associated demographic characteristics. These characteristics included household size, vehicle ownership, and dwelling density. The adjustment factors shown below are to be added to or subtracted from the average weekday trip generation rates, using dwelling units as the independent variable. Any combination of adjustment factors may be applied to the trip generation rate. However, if residential characteristics are not available, then the average rate or equation would be utilized. Peak hour trip generation rates can be adjusted by the ratio of the average weekday adjusted trip rate to the average weekday trip rate. Characteristic: Household Size Adjustment Factor~ 1-2 -3.4 2-3 -1.8 >3 0.0 Characteristic: Vehicles Owned Adjustment Facto~ 0-1 -1.5 1-2 0.0 >2 +2.9 Characteristic: Density (D.U. per Acre) Adjustment Factor~ 0-3 0.0 3-5 0.0 >5 -0.1 Source Numbers 1,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21,26, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 71, 72, 84, 91,98, 100, 105, 108, 110, 114, 117, 119, 157, 167, 177, 187, 192,207, 211,246, 275, 283, 293, 300, 319, 320 ~U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Developmentand Application of Trip Generation Rates. Kellerco, January 1985. 2Adjustment factor to be added to (or subtracted from) the average weekday vehicle trip generation rate per dwelling unit. Tdp Generation, January 1991 256 Institute of :l'ransportation Engineers Single-Family Detached Housing (210) Average VehiCle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 348 2O6 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 9.55 4.31 - 21.85 3.66 Data Plot and Equation 30,000 1 x 0 o Actual Data Points 1000 X = Number of Dwelling Units -- Fitted Curve Fitted CurVe Equation: Ln(T) = 0.921 Ln(X) + 2.698 2000 -- Average Rate R2 = 0.96 3000 Trip Generation, January 1991 257 Institute of'Transportation Engineers Single-Family Detached Housing (< 300 Units) (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 348 2O6 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 9.55 4.31 - 21.85 3.66 Data Pint and Equation 5.0o0. (Subset of Data Plotted on Page 257) 4,000 _ 3,000 2,000 X X i x xi ix x xx ~ ' xx'~ x ' ' O 50 100 150 200 250 300 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.921 Ln(X) +2,698 .... Average Rate R2= 0.96 Trip Generation, January 1991 258 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single-Family Detached Housing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: Dwelling Units Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. 280 210 26% entering, 74% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit I Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.74 0.33 - 2.27 0.90 Data Plot and Equation 3,000 DJ 2,00O > > 1,000 1000 2000 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Fitted Curato Equation: Ln(T) = 0.867 Ln(X) + 0.398 ..... Average Rate R2 -- 0.88 3000 Trip Generation, January 1991 259 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single-Family Detached Housing (< 300 Units) (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: Dwelling Units Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. 28O 210 26% entering, 74% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.74 0.33 - 2.27 0.90 Data Plot and Equation 400 (Subset of Oata Plotted on Page 259) 300 2OO X X x x X x x : X : x x >4 × X Xx X ...--t' - X: X .......... 50 1 O0 150 200 250 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Average Rata Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.867 Ln(X) + 0.398 R2 = 0.89 300 Trip Generation, January 1991 260 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single-Family Detached Housing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: Dwelling Units Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. 301 222 65% entering, 35% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.01 0.42 - 2.98 1.05 Data Plot and Equation 3,000 'O LU 2,000 > X X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) -- 0.902 Ln(X) + 0,528 10o0 X = Number of Dwelling Units -- Fitted Curve 2000 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.92 3ooo Trip Generation, January 1991 261 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single-Family Detached Housing (< 300 Units) (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: Dwelling Units Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. 301 222 64% entering, 36% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.01 0.42 - 2.98 1.05 Data Plot and Equation 500. (Subset of Data Plotted on Page 261) 400 .t 300 ................................ 200 100 0 × X X x x ........ ~ ..........× .....~. :.~ ....... x Xxx: x >~ x .-X X XX 0 50 100 150 200 250 X X ' X ~ x x~ X X x~xx X x X 'x'x : .......... : ..... x --,: ........ ~, xx'<xx X = Number of Dwelling Units x Actual Data Polnta -- Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.902 Ln(X) + 0.528 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.92 300 Trip Generation, January 1 991 262 Institute of TransPortation Engineers Single-Family Detached Housing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Dwelling Units Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 339 190 26% entering, 74% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.76 0.33 - 2.27 0.91 Data Plot and Equation 3,000 UJ 2,0O0 > II 1 ooo 2000 3000 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Polnte -- Fitted Curve ...... Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.858 Ln(X) + 0.464 R2 -= 0.89 Trip Generation, January 1991 263 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single-Family Detached Housing (< 300 Units) (210) Average vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Dwelling Units Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 339 190 26% entering, 74% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.76 0.33 - 2.27 0.91 Data Plot and Equation 400 (Subset of Data Plotted on Page 263) 300 200 100 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.858 Ln(X) + 0.464 ...... Average Rate R2 -- 0.89 Trip Generation, January 1991 264 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single-Family Detached Housing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Dwelling Units Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 357 183 65% entering, 35% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.02 0.42 - 2.98 1.05 Data Plot and Equation 1.900 1,700 ./ . . . 1 1,400 .............................................. , ........ 1,000 ................... )<: 900 800 7OO 600 500 4OO 3O0 2OO 100 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Flttecl CUrve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.892 Ln(X) + 0.590 ...... Average Rata R2 = 0.91 Trip Generation, January 1991 265 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single-Family Detached Housing (< 300 Units) (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 357 183 64% entering, 36% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.02 0.42 - 2.98 1.05 Oata Plot and Equation 500. (Subset of Data Plotted on Page 265) 400 . 300 2O0 100 x × X X X X X X . '>~X × 50 100 150 200 250 300 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points --- Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.892 Ln(X) + 0.590 Average Rate = 0.91 Trip Generation, January 1991 266 InStitute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 230 Residential Condominium/Townhouse Description Residential condominiums are defined as single-family ownemhio units that have at least one other single-family owned unit within the same building structure. Both condominiums and townhouses are Included in this land use. Additional Data Average weekday transit trip ends: 0.54 per dWelling unit 0.20 per person (resident) Average weekday pemon trip ends: 10.71 per dwelling unit 9.51 per vehicle 3.48 per pemon (resident) Information on truck trips is not available. Information on vehicle occupancy is not available. Peak houm of the generator typically coincide with the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic. The studies were conducted at sites throughout the United States and Canada in the mid-1970's through late 1980's. Adjustment factom: This land use includes data from a wide variety of units with different sizes, price ranges, locations, and ages. Consequently, them is as wide a variation in trips generated within this category as there is between different residential land uses. As expected, dwelling units that were larger in size, more expensive, or farther away from the central business district (CBD) had a higher rate of trip generation per unit than those smaller in size, less expensive, or closer to the CBD. However, other factors, such as geographic location and type of adjacent and nearby development, also had an effect on the site trip generation. A study performed for the Federal Highway Administration~ developed adjustment factors for average weekday vehicle trip rates for residential land uses and their associated demographic characteristics. These characteristics included household size, vehicle ownership, and dwelling density. The adjustment factom shown below am to be added to or subtracted from the average weekday trip generation rotes, using dwelling units as the independent variable. Any combination of adjustment factom may be applied to the trip generation rate. However, if residential characteristics are not available, then the average rate or equation would be utilized. Peak hour trip generation rotes can be adjusted by the ratio of the average weekday adjusted trip rate to the average weekday trip rate. Trip Generation, January 1991 380 Institute of Transportation Engineers T Characteristic: Household Size 1-2 2-3 >3 Characteristic: Vehicles Owned 0-1 1-2 >2 Adjustment Factor -0.07 +0.04 +0.15 Adjustment Factor 0.0 +3.6 Source Numbers 4,92,94,95;97,100,105,106,114,168,186,204,237,253,293,319,320,321 ~U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Development and Application of Trip Generation Rates. Kellemo, January 1985. 2Adjustment factor to be added to (or subtracted from) the average weekday vehicle trip generation rate per dwelling unit. Trip Generation, January 1991 381 Institute of Transporta. tion Engineers Residential Condominium/'l'ownhouse (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 53 185 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 5.86 1.83 ~ 11.79 3.09 Data Plot and Equation 8,000 7,000 6,000 5.000 4,000 3,000 2.000 0 1 O0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 11 O0 1200 1300 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.850 Ln(X) + 2.565 Average Rate = 0.82 Trip Generation, January 1 991 382 Institute of Transportation Engineers Residential Condominium/'l'ownhouse (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 54 2OO 17% entering, 83% exiting T~rip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.44 0.15 ~ 1.61 0.69 Data Plot and Equation 600 500 400 300 200' 100 0 X = Number of DWelling Units Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Fitted CurVe Equation: Ln(T) = 0.787 Ln(X) + 0.314 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.74 13oo Trip Generation, January 1991 383 Institute of Transportation Engineers Residential Condominium/Townhouse (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: Dwelling Units Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. 54 2OO 66% entering, 34% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.55 0.18- 1.24 0.78 Data Plot and Equation 700 . 500 ........................................ · ...... .......... : . 400 .................. X 300 :. 200 . 100 0 o I O0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 11 O0 1200 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve ..... Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.818 Ln(X)+ 0.368 R2 = 0.78 1300 Trip Generation, January 1991 384 Institute of Transportation Engineers - I Residential Condominiumrrownhouse (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 49 187 18% entering, 82% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.44 0.15 - 0.97 0.69 Data Plot and Equation 600. 500 Iii 40o .C: 300 . > 200 . 100 . 0 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation:, Ln(T) = 0.808 Ln(X) + 0,209 R2 = 0.78 Trip Generation; January 1991 385 Institute of Transportation Engineers Residential Condominiumrrownhouse (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 45 196 65% entering, 35% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.54 0.18- 1.24 0.'76 Data Plot and Equation 700 . 600 500 400 . 300 . 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 X = Number of Dwelling Units 1200 1300 × Actual Data Polntss Fitted Cur~e Average Rate Fitted Curve Equatl0n: Ln(T) = 0.777 Eh(X) + 0.590 R2 = 0.80 Trip Generation, January 1991 386 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 231 Low-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse Description This land use includes condominiums and townhouses in buildings that have one or two levels (floors). Additional Data Information on transit trip ends is not available. Information on person trip ends is not available. Information on truck trips is not available. Information on vehicle occupancy is not available. Peak hours of the generator typically coincide with the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic. The studies were conducted at sites throughout the United States in the late 1970's through late 1980's. Source Numbers 187, 192,305, 306 Trip Generation, January 1991 409 Institute of Transportation Engineers Low-Rise Residential Condominium (231) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: Dwelling Units Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. 4 254 25% entering, 75% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit I Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0,66 0.33 - 0,82 0.82 Data Pict and Equation Caution - Use Carefully - Small Sample Size 300. ILl 200 . > 100 - 0 1 o0 200 300 X = Number of Dwelling Units 40o x Actual Data Polnta -- Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 1.834 Ln(X) - 5.118 ..... Average Rate R2 -- 0.98 Trip Generation, January 1991 410 Institute of Transportation Engineers Low-Rise Residential Condominium (231) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 4 Average Number of Dwelling Units: 254 Directional Distribution: 57% entering, 43% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit I Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.83 0.38 - 1.11 0.95 Data Plot and Equation Caution - Uae Carefully - Small Sample Size 500 400 30O 200 100 0 lO0 200 300 X = Number of Dwelling Units x Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = [(3.673/X) - 0,00801]'1 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.99 400 Trip Generat/on, January 1991 411 Institute of Transportation Engineers Low-Rise Residential Condominium (231) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Dwelling Units Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 6 155 24% entering, 76% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.62 0.34 - 3.82 1.01 Data Plot and Equation 30Q 0 100 200 X = Number of Dwelling Units 300 400 Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve ...... Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.487 Ln(X) + 2.076 R2 = 0.32 Trip Generation, January 1991 412 Institute of Transportation Engineers Low-Rise Residential Condominium (231) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: Average Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 5 149 53% entering, 47% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.66 0.37 - 3.36 1.01 Data Plot and Equation caution - use Carefully - Small Sample Size 300 . 'O 200 .O_ > 100 II F- o 100 200 X = Number of Dwelling Units 300 400 Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve ...... Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0'-228(X) + 63.932 R2 = 0.46 Trip Generation, January 1991 413 Institute of Transportation Engineers 6:40 7:10 7:30 8:10 9:10 10:10 11:10 t2:10 1:10 2:10 3:10 3:40 4:10 4:40 5:t0 7:35 8:10 8:40 9:10 9:40 10:40 11:40 12:40 1:40 2:40 3:40 4:40 5:10 5:40 6:10 7:40 8:15 8:45 9:15 9:45 10:45 11:45 12:4,5 1:45 2:45 3:,15 4:45 5:15 5:45 6:15 7:50 8:25 8:55 9:25 9:55 10:59 11:55 12:50 1:55 2:55 3:55 4:55 5:28 5:55 6:25 8:00 8:35 9:05 9:35 10:05 11:05 t2:05 1:08 2:05 3:05 4:05 5:05 5:38 6:05 6:38 8:05 8:40 9:10 9:40 10:10 11:10 t2:10 1:10 2:10 3:10 4:10 5:10 5:40 6:10 6:40 8:10 8:45 9:15 9:45 10:15 11:15 12:15 1:10 2:15 3:t5 4:15 5:15 5:45 6:15 0:45 8:17 8:50 9:20 9:50 10:20 11:20 12:20 1:26 2:20 3:20 4:20 5:20 5:50 6:28 8:50 8:22 8:55 9:25 9:55 10:25 11:25 t2:25 1:20 2:25 3:25 4:25 5:25 5:58 6:25 6:55 8:27 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:30 t2:30 1:34~ 2:30 3:38 4:30 5:30 8:08 8:30 7:C0 8:37 9:10 9:40 10:10 10:40 11:40 12:40 1:40 2:40 3:40 4:40 5:40 6:10 6:40 7:10 Where to Board 9:05 9:35 10:05 10:35 11:05 12:08 1:05 2:05 3:05 4:08 8:15 6:08 6:38 7:85 7:35 9:15 9:45 10:15 10:45 11:15 t2:t9 1:15 2:t8 3:15 4:t5 8:25 8:t5 6:45 7:15 7:45 9:20 9:50 10:20 10:50 11:20 12:20 1:20 2:20 3:29 4:20 5:30 6:20 6:50 7:90 7:50 New York State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report BEDS Code: Name: Superintendent: 58-10-10-02-0000 Greenport Union Free School District Charles Kozora Fall Enrollment Grade 2001-02 2002-03 200~04 Pre-K 0 0 0 Kindergarten 42 47 42 First 48 41 59 Second 45 41 33 Third 43 39 41 Fourth 43 42 41 Fifth 50 41 49 Sixth 41 50 46 Ungraded Elementary 16 13 12 Seventh 67 74 79 Eighth 59 57 58 Ninth 54 55 66 Tenth 47 54 54 Eleventh 53 43 53 Twelfth 44 54 35 Ungraded Secondat7 0 0 0 Total K-12 Enrollment 652 651 668 Student Racial/Ethnic Ori: 2001-02 2002--03 2003-04 Race/Ethnicity No. of % of Enroll No. of % of Enroll. No. of % of Enroll. Students Students Students American Indian, Alaskan, Asian, I 0.2% 1 0.2% I 0.1% or Pacific Islander Black (Not Hispanic) 116 17,8% 117 18.0% 122 18.3% Hispanic 100 15.3% 104 16.0% 106 15.9% White (Not Hispanic) 435 66,7% 429 65.9% 439 65.7% Average Class Size Grade Level 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Kindergarten 21 24 22 Common Branch 19 20 19 English Grade 8 20 _ 20 21 Mathematics Grade 8 22 24 23 Science Grade 8 21 14 21 Social Studies Grade 8 21 23 21 English Grade 10 23 19 21 Mathematics Grade 10 22 16 0 Science Grade 10 17 18 20 Social Studies Grade 10 21 17 21 (Form - A Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10-02-0000 03/03/05 District Need to Resource Capaeit~ Category . N/RC Category I Description 1This is a school district with average student needs in relation to 5 ldistrict resource capacity. Similar School Group and Description Similar SchOOlNA Group NA Description All schools within the same N/RC category are divided into three similar school groups defined by the percentage of students in the school who are eligible for the free-lunch program and/or who are limited English proficient (also known as English language learners). Student Demographics Used To Determine Similar Schools Group 2001-02 2002-03 Count Percent Count Percent Limited English Proficient 20 3.1% 43 6.6% Eligible for Free Lunch 227 34.8% 240 36.9% 2003-04 Count Percent 45 6.7% 244 36.5% Attendance and Suspension 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 No. of % of No. of % of No. of % of Students Enroll. Students Enroll. Students Enroll. Annual Attendance Rate 94.4% 94.5% 92.3% Student Suspensions 29 4.4% 45 6.9% 30 4.6% Student Socioeconomic and Stability Indicators Percent of Enrollment' 2001-02 Reduced Lunch 5.8% Public Assistance NA Student Stability NA 2002-03 2003-04 4.3% 4.5% NA NA NA NA Staff Counts Staff 2003--04 Total Teachers 69 Total Other Professional Staff 8 Total Paraprofessionals 16 Teaching Out of Certification* 2 *Teaching out of certification more than on an incidental basis. (Form - B) Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10-02-0000 03/03/05 High School Graduates and Noncompleters High School Graduates Earning Regents lipiomas* 20014}2" 2002--03 200~04 % % % Total Regents Regents Total Regents Regents Total Regents Regents Grads Diplomas Diplomas Grads Diplomas Diplomas Grads Diplomas Diplomas General 35 20 57% 44 22 50% 27 15 56% Education Students with 5 0 0% 3 l 33% 5 0 0% Disabilities All Students 40 20 50% 47 23 49% 32 15 47% *Only students awarded local diplomas (includin local diplomas with Regents endorsements) are counted as high school graduates. Because of a change in data collection ~rocedures for the 2001-02 school year, diploma counts for that year do not include counts from August 2001. Data for the 20024)3 school year include August 2002 and January and June 2003 graduates; data for the 20034)4 school year include August 2003 and January and June 2004 graduates. Distribution Number of 2003-04 Graduates (All Students) To 4-year College 16 50% To 2-year College 11 34% To Other Post- To Secondary To the Military Employment Other 1 2 2 0 3% 6% 6% 0% Number of High School Completers with Disabilities in 2003-04 Regents IEP Diplomas All 2003-04 Graduates* Diplomas or Certificates Completers (a) (b) (c) (a+c) 5 0 0 5 *Local Diplomas (including local diplomas with Regents endorsements) High School Noncompletion Rates 20014)2 20024)3 2003-04 No. of % of No. of % of No. of % of Students Enroll. Students Enroll. Students Enroll. General- DroppedOut 8 .'..';" ' '"' 9 '-'-'~':~;':.7."..';X.~ 1 0.5% Education Entered GED Progra_m__*. I . '.~ :c:.',-. 3 :ii . -: :'i~.'"' .v. ---'~ ] 1.5% Students Total Noncompleters 9 ~.,,.' 12 ?::~i .:' ~"i ?' . --'3~-- ! 2.0% Students Dropped Ou._[ ____~0__. ..".~ i~:: ', ... I '~ ' ~'... :" ~! O I 0.0% _. with Entered GEDP__rogram* __.~0 ..... I 0 ~' :' '%' ._/_ 3.6% Disabilities Total Noncompleters _ 0 "' I ' I 3.6% All Dropped Out 8 4.0% 10 4.9% 1 0.4% Students Entered GED Program* 1 0.5% 3 1.5% 4 1.8% Total Noncompleters 9 4.5% 13 6.3% 5 2.2% *The number and percentage of students who leR a program leading to a high school diploma and entered a program leading to a high school equivalency diploma. (Form - C) Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10-02-0000 03/03/05 Career Development and Occupational Studies (CDOS) Percentage of Students Documenting Self- and Career-Awareness Information and Career Exploration Activities, K-3 Grades 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 K-1 0% 0% 102% 2-3 0% 0% 95% Students Developing a Career Plan, 4-12 Grades 2001-02 I 2002-03 2003-04 Number of General-Education Students 0 0 80 Number of Students with Disabilities 0 0 10 4-5 Number of All Students 0 0 90 Percent of Enrollment 0% 0% 96% Number of General-Education Students 0 111 193 Number of Students with Disabilities 0 20 40 (~8 Number of All Students 0 131 233 Percent of Enrollment 0% 72% 126% Number of General-Education Students 42 184 191 Number of Students with Disabilities 29 22 19 9-12 Number of All Students 71 206 210 Percent of Enrollment 36% 100% 101% Career and Technical Education (CTE) Programs This District Statewide CTE Program Count Percentage Average All CTE Programs Completed the CTE Program Completed and Passed Regents Exams Completed and had Course Averase of 75% or More Completed and Attained a HS Diploma or Equivalent Completed and Whose Status is Known Completed and Were Successfully Placed Nontraditional Pro~rams ~'~:~¥~ ~z i~ ~. Underrepresented Gender Members Enrolled Underrepresented Gender Members Who Completed Enrollment data are for the 2003.2004 school year; completer data are as of June 2003. Note: Blank cells indicate that either the district did not have a CTE program or did not report data. This data is reported only at the district level. (Form - D) Greenport Union Free School District 58- ! 0-10-02-0000 03/03/05 Second Language Proficiency Examinations General-Education Students 20014}2 2002-03 200~04 Test No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing French 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% German 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Italian 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Latin 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Spanish 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Students with Disabilities 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Test No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing French 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% German 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Italian 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Latin 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Spanish 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Regents Competency Tests General-Education Students 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Test No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing Mathematics 1 # 2 # 0 0% Science 0 0% I # 2 # Reading 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Writing 1 # 0 0% 0 0% Global Studies 0 0% 0 0% 1 # U.S. Hist & Gov't 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Students with Di~ abilities 2001M12 2002-03 2003-04 Test No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing Mathematics 0 0% 2 # 3 # Science I # 4 # 4 # Reading 7 71% 5 80% 2 # Writing 4 # 0 0% 2 # Global Studies 2 # 5 40% 6 17% U.S. Hist & Gov't 3 # 2 # 0 0% (Form - E) Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10-02-0000 03/03/05 0 0 0 Regents Examinations All Students Students with Disabilities 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Sequential Mathematics, Course Ill (last administered January 20041 Number Tested 28 38 0 I 1 0 Number Scoring 55-100 22 25 0 # # 0 Number Scoring 65-100 21 21 0 # # 0 Number Scoring 85-100 7 9 0 # # 0 Percentage of Tested Scoring 55-100 79% 66% 0% # # 0% Percentage of Tested Scoring 65-100 75% 55% 0% # # 0% Percentage of Tested Scoring 85-100 25% 24% 0% # # 0% Introduction to Occupations Examination 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing General-Education Students 3 # 6 100% 10 100% Students with Disabilities 0 0% 4 # 3 # District reports contain data for all students with disabilities enrolled in the district for the 2001-02 school year. Elementary-Level Social Studies Number % at Level 1 % at Level 2 % at Level 3 % at Level 4 Tested General-Education Students 42 5% 5% 62% 29% Nov 2003 Students with Disabilities 7 29% 0% 71% 0% All Students 49 8% 4% 63% 24% Middle-Level Social Studies Number % at Level 1 % at Level 2 % at Level 3 % at Level 4 Tested General-Education Students 44 2% 61% 30% 7% June2004 Students with Disabilities 6 33% 67% 0% 0% All Students 50 6% 62% 26% 6% (Form - 1) Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10-02-0000 03/03/05 New York State Alternate Assessments (NYSAA) 2003-04 Count of Students Test Tested I NotTested I Levell ] Level2 Level3 I Level4 Elementary Level Social Studies I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Middle Level Social Studies [ 1 I 0 I ~ I ~ I # I ~ English Language Arts Social Studies 0 0 0 Secondary Level 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mathematics 0 0 0 0 0 Science 0 0 0 0 0 ~ooo conort reHormance on Ke genes ~xamlnatlons aI[er v our · ears General-Education Students Students with Disabilities All Students Global U.S. Global U.S. Global U.S. History History Science History History Science History History Science & Geo. & Gov't & Geo. & Gov't & Geo. & Gov't Cohort Enrollment 33 33 33 7 7 7 40 40 40 Number Scoring 5544 5 1 2 I 2 0 6 3 2 Number Scoring 65-84 17 6 17 I 2 I 18 8 18 Number Scoring 85-100 4 20 9 0 0 I 4 20 10 Approved Alternatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Form - J Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10-02-0000 03/03/05 New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Tests (NYSESLAT)* All Students Students with Disabilities ~i~ening and Speaking (Grade K-I~ Number Tested .i:. ...~:..: .,~: .... ,..~:., . ~ . .- ..._._zo ~.~,d.b_"L :.:.. · ~. ,.' ..~'.,~ · · 0 ............. . ~,.~, ........ ... ~ '?, .:!~:~ '~ - .:. Beginning (0. ! 8) ' .. ........ ,.. ~..... ;.,~:,~.~:,~' .r ~ "'""; ~'""'"'"'~ (;....~,~. · . 0 Proficient (37-39) ' :~¥ 9 c' '? ..... '.'.: '"~:~" 0 Reading and Writing (Grade K-1 , .'.. ' ; 6 .,,~...'.~.'.', .,. .. ... 0 Beginning (0-14) .,- '. .... ' &" · .... ., ~:~.!;~;'~;,~:. · ""';:' "' '~' 0 Intermediate ( 15-24) ~' ' ' ' Advanced (25 -32) ". · ;~¢;,..' ' :..' .~Z";' 6 .....; ...... . ....,/~*, .:..~. -. 0 (33 35) ............. " Proficient - '"'..'. .... :... .... 5 ;: ....... "~'~"". :"*' "'"- '' ' 0 Listening and Speakin~ (Grade 2-4 Beginning (0-1_8) '..i .... . , .. · .: ,,!~., . · ..... Intermediate(19--31) .i 2-:- ... .. I :~.c~:,:.,?~:'... :.';e.' .:...' . ..... 0__ Advanced (32- 36) ...... - . ,.: :'.. · . ~: ~. 4.. )~.. 2 ~..,:.~ ~-:;~,:: :'.;';.z:~.~': ~ 0 __. Proficient (37-39) ' ' ' ;";' ~:: ' .: ': ' ~ ' ";'" ..,;, :~.~. ,-~..:r.. .... Reading and Writing (Grail'S2-4 .:' :.';~?".'...:'5 '.'. -'!.." · ~ 72 ' " Number Teslred ...'.';, ?p.:-;?.-'.~;.~.' r:.. "...'. :,.: ;'., ;. 6 0 Begin_~ning (0-14) ,. '. ....,. ,~ ;';~'.'.. ,. ,',': ,* .:.'"."...-7..,. 0 ,'. ;a},~ ,.m.' .. .... .i....-' ~...'.' I ntennediale(15-24) ' ' ' · '.' ..'~ ' ' ...: · ~;~'. '.'. 0 Advanced (25-32) .......... "' ;': ..... · '.'~ .: : 2 ~. '2.~:. ":.(" ..'- .' .': ' 0 Proficient (33-35) ......... .:' 1 : : 0 Listening and Speaking (Grade Number Tested :~..-:: .~.Li ".'. iC i 6 ,i;g ' .2::' . ';. 1 Beginning(0--18) ""'.":; ..... " :'"' ;'" 0 lntermediate(lg_3l)___ ".'" ....... ..:. :. :..~. ~>..,,~,a.. .. .,~...., . 9 ' " .' d.;'~-?' ' Advanced (3..- .~6) ,....,..: ..... ....;,...:.. .~ v,.: ..?:., '... .' .~v .:; .:.. · ~ ~) '""; ' :.:q'.',.~: " '":":' :' Proficient (.~7-.~ : ."-" ' . a .... '....' . Reading and Writing (Grade ~6 Number Tested · "".'~';:' .~" ' '. 6 '.r~*..s" :(.::~..'27< 1 Beginning (0-14) '::" '~ }":"" :';""'"".':. ' ' :' 0 ' .' "i'.. .... .. ' , Intermedia__t_e_(15-24) .'~".:.. · .': : 3 '~':'".?:~'.: :X:~:'V-"' :"?: · '.'." '';: A.' '" c'- ' 3 · Advanced (25-32) ....... · ........................ ., :w-.- ...... . ..... · .~'~:"~'e'.'~." · . !': '?~ ...... Proficient (33-35) .... -?-.,..;....,.~."... ~r ':" *';. ~ "~"'"~. · '!"' ::., 0 ;.,-~ ;., ....... " *The NYSESLAT was first administered in the 2002~)3 school year, but complete data for all school districts were not available until 2003~)4. (Form - K) Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10-02-0000 03/03/05 Number Tested Beginning (0 - 18) Intermediate ( 19-31 ) Advanced (32-36) Proficient (37-39) Number Tested Beginningl0 14) Intermediate (15-24) Advanced(25-32) Proficient (33-35) New York State English All Students 2001-02 2002-03 Listening and Speak U..:.. ~ "3"::i ::.?";.'. :."~ as a Second Langua 2003-04 2001-02 2002-03 ng (Grade 74i ~ 4 .-~.,~.~,~. ,. · '3 · · ~:'~ - · I ~ '..::?~:~ii~.~'~,:.!!ii![.: ' ' :.~_f "' .,': · ' # .'::::':~?.,~?< . ~ ..~ ... :%.. e Achievement Tests (NYSESLATI Students with Disabilities 2003-04 Reading and Writing (Grade 7-4 '-"? :' ' .'.:-~' ':'7. · ~ f Number Tested Beginning (0-18) Intermediate ( 19-31 ) Advanced (32-36) Proficient (37-39) Number Tested Beginning (0-14) Intermediate (15-24) Advanced (25-32) Proficient (33-35) Listening and Speaki : i~ ~"3::-:'.:~; ~:!.. :'7 'x'.~d;.l~':=:~C. YI'.':,.;:.~'~.~ ':'-'~.i .... ....,..':,'::~:. !iv:' .'~ ". · , '.. %~.~' '.: ....... ..,..~ .., , ~e~di~and ~riti~ . ~.'::' .~d."'~ ?: '~:. :".( .' .. d:~:d'='~ ~ : :~,,..- ~...,, :....:':E .-~.3. 7 ".~.;.yc. ~::........,;': lg (Grade 9-12) ,. ';,~ ~!::,~.'.:~: ..' . ,..' ' ".~i~.~ ' ' I 81 ':~4. ~' ~';.'~!'.~'~ -"."~'~c~; .. '.. 3 (Grade ~12 ~ 2 .~ ~.~. ,. ~..-.:j,~ .,,,,. ,~..... ;~ 3 :",'*':'.',""~r "."."~ :' 0 .-7~&~ ,~E "T ~'.~' ZT.~-. .... I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ *The NYSESLAT was flint administered in the 2002-03 school year, but complete data for all school districts were not available until 2003-04. (Form - L) Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10-02-0000 03/03/05 New York State District School Report Card Comprehensive Information Report BEDS Code : 58-I0-10-02-0000 Grade Range: School Name: Greenport Union Free School District Superintendent: Dr. Charles Kozora Fall Enrollment Grade 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Pre-K 0 0 0 Kindergarten 41 49 36 First 64 49 60 Second 61 48 39 Third 44 47 44 Fourth 36 43 51 Fifth 42 34 42 Sixth 39 38 35 Ungraded Elementary 12 15 14 Seventh 50 55 70 Eighth 56 50 63 Ninth 44 60 49 Tenth 51 43 64 Eleventh 48 44 43 Twelfth 35 51 48 Ungraded Secondary, 3 2 0 Total K-12 Enrollment 626 628 658 Student Racial/Ethnic Origin 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 No. of No. of No. of Race/Ethnici ,ty Students % of Enroll Students % of Enroll Students % of Enroll American Indian, Alaskan, 2 0.3% 2 0.3% 0 0.0% Asian~ or Pacific Islander Black (Not Hispanic) 126 20.1% 120 19.1% 122 18.5% Hispanic 66 10.5% 69 11.0% 105 l 6.0% White (Not Hispanic) 432 69.0% 437 69.6% 431 65.5% English Language Learners (formerly known as limited English proficient students) 1998-99 1999~00 2000o01 No. of Students % of Enroll No. of Students % of Enroll I No. ofStudents I % of Enroll 13 2.1% 19 3.0% 38 5.8% Average Class Size Grade Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Kindergarten 2l 24 20 Common Branch 19 17 18 English Grade 8 16 12 19 Math Grade 8 13 12 22 Science Grade 8 31 12 22 Social Studies Grade 8 17 12 21 English Grade 10 20 18 28 Mathematics Grade 10 24 17 0 Science Grade I0 22 18 31 Social Studies Grade 10 26 21 20 (Form -A' Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10 03/30/02 District Need to Resource Ca pacity Category N/RC Category 5 Description This is a school district with average student needs in relation to district resource capacity. Similar School Group and Description Similar School Group NA NA Description All schools within the same N~RC category are divided into three similar groups defined by the percentage of students in the school who are eligible for the free lunch program and/or who are English Language Learners (formerly known as Limited English proficient). Attendance and Suspension 199%98 1998-99 199%00 No. of % of No. of % of No. of % of Students Enroll. Students Enroll. Students Enroll. Annual Attendance Rate 90.8% 94.3% 94.5% Student Suspensions 20 3.2% 13 2.1% 9 1.4% Student Socioeconomic and Stability Indicators Percent of Enrollment) 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Free Lunch 39.6% 32.0% 35.4% Reduced Lunch 0.5% 2.9% 4.0% Public Assistance N/A N/A N/A Student Stability NA NA NA Staff Counts Staff 2000-01 Total Teachers 65 Total Other Professional Staff 7 Total Paraprofessionals 14 Teaching out of Certification * 7 Teachers with Temporary Licenses 1 *Teaching out of certification more than on an incidental basis, (Form -B) Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10 03/30/02 High School Graduates and Dropouts High School Graduates* Earning Regents Diplomas (All Students) 1998-99 1999-00 % Total Regents Regents Total Regents Regents Graduates Diplomas Diplomas ~raduates Diplomas Diplomas Graduates 29 19 66% 40 22 55% 41 2000-01 Total Regents Diplomas 18 % Regents Diplomas 44% Distribution of 2000-01 Graduates To 4-year College 19 (All Students) To 2-year To Other Post- To College Secondary To the Military Employment 9 7 1 3 17% 2% Other Number 2 Percent 46% 22% 7% 5% 2000-01 High School Completers with Disabilities Regents IEP Diplomas All 2000-01 Graduates* Diplomas or Certificates completers (a) (b) (c) (a+c) 2 0 4 6 * Local Diplomas (including local diplomas with Regents endorsements) High School Noncompletion Rates 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 No. of % of No. of % of No. of % of Students Enroll. Students Enroll. Students Enroll. Dropped out 5 2.8% 2 1.0% 8 3.9% Entered GED program* 3 1.7% I 0.5% 0 0.0% * The number and percentage of studants who entered an alternative program leading to a high school equivalency diploma during each school year. (Form - C) Greenport Union Free School District 5 8-10-10 03/30/02 Regents Competency Tests General Education Students 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Test No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing Math 7 57% 3 # 0 0% Science 6 50% 2 # 0 0% Reading 3 # 0 0% 0 0% Writing 3 # 0 0% 0 0% Global Studies 7 29% 0 0% 0 0% US Hist & Gov't. 6 17% 0 0% 2 # Students with Disabilities Test 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing Math 7 57% 10 60% 4 # Science 6 50% 12 25% 7 14% Reading 3 # 0 0% 3 # Writing 3 # 2 # 4 # Global Studies 7 29% 9 22% 3 # US Hist & Gov't. 6 17% 7 43% I # School reports contain data for students with disabilities for the 1999-00 and 2000-01 school years only because of changes in data collection procedures; 1998-99 data do not appear. District reports contain data for all students with disabilities enrolled in the district for the 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2000-01 school years. (Form -E) Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10 03/30/02 Regents Examinations All Students I Students with Disabilities 199912000 I 2001 1999 I 2000 I 2001 U.S. History and Government Number Tested Number scoring 55 to 100 Number scoring 65 to 100 Number scoring 85 to 100 Percentage of Tested Scoring 55-100 Percentage of Tested Scoring 65-100 Percentage of Tested Scoring 85-100 34 31 3 (last administered January 2001) 4I i 4 40 # # 39 # # 20 # 98% # # 95% # # 49% # # U.S. Histor., Number Tested Number scoring 55 to 100 Number scoring 65 to 100 Number scoring 85 to 100 Percentage of Tested Scoring 55-100 Percentage of Tested Scoring 65-100 Percentage of Tested Scoring 85-100 30 # 0 17 # 0 91% # 0% 88% # 0% 50% and Government (first administered June 2001) · .L .:'~,. ~ ~,~ :..i.',' ': 36 , '. '.~.i./ :' * .. 0% (Form - H) Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10 03/30/02 Average Grade Enrollment All Students Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Year Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment AGE* (June) (June) (June) (June) 1999 51 55 58 44 52 2000 65 41 45 51 51 2001 47 58 40 47 48 * In schools with no grade 9 - 12 enrollment, AGE is the grade 8 enrollment Students with Disabilities Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Yea r Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment AGE * (June) (June) (June) (June) 1999 7 7 11 7 8 2000 11 6 4 10 g 2001 8 10 5 4 7 * In schools with no grade 9 ~ 12 enrollment, AGE is the grade 8 enrollment (Form - I) Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10 03/30/02 Occupational Education Proficiency Examinations General Education Students 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Test No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing Introduction to Occupations 10 90% 18 83% 7 86% Bus Analysis/Bus Computer App. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Health Occupations 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Clothing and Textiles 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Food and Nutrition 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Housing and Environment 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Human Development 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Students with Disabilities 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Test No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing No. Tested % Passing Introduction to Occupations 11 55% 8 75% 5 80% Bus Analysis/Bus Computer App. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Health Occupations 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Clothing and Textiles 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Food and Nutrition 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Housing and Environment 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Human Development 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% School reports contain data for students with disabilities receiving only resource room, consultant teacher, and/or related services for the 1998-99 school year; 1999-00 and 2000-01 data are for all students with disabilities enrolled in the school. District reports contain data for all students with disabilities enrolled in the district for the 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2000-01 school years. (Form - O) Greenport Union Free School District 58-10-10 03/30/02 S*6 ~ 6'£6 V*G6 9 8'G6 G'G6 i 6&6~ 0~0~ 9g~90&C ~&~6t, OOg 9~9909L Z9~9"99 9.Z. ! ZgO96999 .Vi'-" .099 I 99&6t 09~ OZO&E99 60~Z Z69 ~90&609~ 6& 09 69 ~9 O~ 6£ O9 9 9 o £8 L9 Of; 0~. 09 Og 69 z~ ZI t,g 69 ~ 9g 6 iL a§ed 0Z t9 19 69 6t 89 Og iz uol6u!lunH $11!H ~IIOH JleH saqopopI lse~] d!lSl lse~ uoldUmH lse~ ~ed Jeao lO!JlS!Q/~uno9 SDL: 5891 The New York State School Report Card Fiscal Accountability Supplement for GREENPORT UFSD LEA: 581010020000 New York State Education Law and the Commissioner's Regulations require the attachment of the NYS School Report Card to the public school district budget proposal. The regulations require that certain expenditure ratios for general education and special education students be reported and compared with ratios for similar districts and all public schools. The required ratios for this district are reported below, 2002-2003 School Year General Education Special Education This Instructional Expenditures $5,831,475 $2,445,163 School Pupils 661 85 District Expenditures Per Pupil $8,822 $28,767 Similar Instructional Expenditures $6,173,086,648 $1,983,303,359 District Pupils 868,117 116,374 Group Expenditures Per Pupil $7,111 $17,042 All Public Instructional Expenditures $21,462,962,765 $7,108,485,134 Schools in Pupils 2,826,042 398,960 NY State Expenditures Per Pupil $7,595 $17,818 Similar District Group Description: Average Need/Resource Capacity instructional Expenditures for General Education are K-12 expenditures for classroom instruction (excluding Special Education) plus a proration of building level administrative and instructional support expenditures. These expenditures include amounts for instruction of pupils with disabilities in a general education setting, The pupil count for General Education is K-12 average daily membership plus K-I 2 pupils for whom the district pays tuition to another school district. This number represents all pupils, including both those classified as having disabilities and those not so classified. For districts in which a county jail is located, this number includes incamerated youth to whom the district must provide an education program. Instructional Expenditures for Special Education are K-12 expenditures for students with disabilities (inctuding summer special education expenditures) plus a proration of building-level administrative and instructional support expenditures. The pupil count for Special Education is a count of K-12 students with disabilities as of December 1, 2002 plus students for whom the district receives tuition from another district, Expenditures Per Pupil is the simple arithmetic ratio of Instructional Expenditures to Pupils. The total cost of instruction for pupils with disabilities may include bath general and special education expenditures. Special education services provided in the general education classroom may benefit students not classified as having disabilities. District expenditures such as transportation, debt service, and district-wide administration are not included in these values. The numbers used to compute the statistics on this page were cetlected on the State Aid Form A, the State Aid Form F, and the School Distdct Annual Financial Report (ST-3). Similar District Groups are identified according to the Need~to-Resource-Capacity Index defined and used in the Annual Report to the Governor and Legislature on the Educational Status of the State's Schools. SDL: 5891 LEA: 581010020000 The New York State School Report Card Information about Students with Disabilities for GREENPORT UFSD New York State Education Law and the Commissioner's Regulations require the attachment of the NYS School Report Card to the public school district budget proposal. These regulations require that the pementage of students with disabilities receiving services outside of general classroom settings and the classification rate of students with disabilities for the district be reported and compared with percentages for similar districts and all public schools. The required percentages for this district are reported below. Student Counts as of This District Statewide December l, 2003 Student Placement -- Count of Percentage of Percentage of Time Outside a Students with Students with Students with Regular Classroom Disabilities Disabilities Disabilities ~20% or less 64 74.4% 53.7% 21% to 60% 9 10.5% 12.4% More than 60% 6 7.0% 27.3% Separate Settings 7 8.1% 6.6% The source data for the statistics in this table were reported on the Required Report of the Number of Students with Disabilities Provided Special Education in Regular School-based Programs and in Separate Settings (PD-4), The counts are numbers of students reported in the several placements for school-age programs (ages 6-21 ) on December 1, 2003. The PD-4 reports the proportions of time students are outside general education classrooms, regardless of the amount and cost of special education services they receive. Rounding of percentage values may cause them to sum to a number slightly different from 100%. School-age Students with Disabilities Classification Rate 2003-04 This District * Statewide * Resident Classification Rate 12.0% 11.9% This rate is the ratio of the count of school-age (6-21) residents in the district who are classified as having disabilities, divided by a computed measure of the total district-resident school-age population (including public school students, nonpublic school students, and students receiving home instruction). Source data are drawn fram the School District Report of the Number of Students with Disabilities (PD-1) and the Basic Education Data System (BEDS). Auk. lB. 2005 4:01PM LandUse No, 292~ P. 2 Land Use Ecological Services, Tnc. Summary of Operations Land Use Ecological Services, ]nc. was established in 1981 by it's President, Charles W. Bowman. The primary focus of the corporation includes environmental protection and planning, endangered species and critical habitat monitoring, natural resource inventories, wetland/habitat delineation, resource impact analysis and wetland/habitat restoration. Land Use Is a pioneer in the field of wetland restoration techniques and construction with successfl. II projects ranging in size from .1 acre to over 100 acres. Additional relative experience includes analysis and planning required for submission and issuance of regulatory approvals necessary for completion of' projects within environmentally sensitive areas. Permitting requirements have incorporated the preparation of environmental impact statements and assessments as well as a detailed knowledge of applicable environmental regulations at the Federal, State and local levels. Such regulatory programs have Included the following: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N.Y.S. Dept. of State - Coastal Zone Management Program N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act Article 24 (Freshwater Wetlands) Article 25 (Tidal WeUands), Ar[icle 15 (Protection of Water) and Article 34 (Coastal Erosion Hazard Regulations) Local Wetlands/Coastal Ordinances and zoning ordinances for all townships within Nassau and Suffolk Counties 209 West Main Street, 2nd Floor · P.O. Box 1060 · Riverhead, New York · 11901 631-727-2400 · FAX 631-727-2605 Aug. 18. 2005 4:01PM No, 2923 P, 3 Relevant major projects completed are as follows: Completed numerous Essential Fish Habitat Assessments for major dredging projects within Long [sland waters. Completed major environmental assessments inclusive of natural resource inventories for major beach renourishment projects having Jurisdiction within the Fire Island National Seashore. Completed Natural Resource Inventory and training guide of the western Peconic Estuary for Atlantis Marine World Tour Boat Staff ]nstructors. Provide environmental monitoring for endangered species with 16 Atlantic Coastal Beach communities on an on going basis, Developed, permitted Beach Planagement Program for reconstruction of eroded dune areas on an annual basis within 16 Atlantic communities. Developed, permitted and monitored major beach renourishment and off shore dredging projects within (8) Fire ~sland communities. Prepared and permitted major Zostera restoration plan for channel dredging within the Great South Bay. Completed Natural Resource inventory for Hempstead Lake State Park. Developed highly effective techniques for the salvaging and transplanting of wetlands cover types inclusive of upper soil horizons. Said technique has been utilized as a mitigation component in several major public projects with over 98% survival success. Completed Freshwater ~TJdal Wetland Impact analysis and miUgaUon plans for various projects ranging from single family dwellings to major regional malls. Add~Qonal waterfront development projects have included Harinas, Assisted Senior Housing projects, Retail Centers, Condominium Complexes, Residential subdivisions and waterfront revitalization project~. Completed over 100 succossful tidal and freshwater wetland restoration projects. Ranging in size from .1 acre Lo over 100 acres. Prepared Natural Resource [rnpac~ Assessments for major governmental and private sector development and/or restoration projects. Completed over 1500 USCOE and NYSDEC wetland deiineaUons for various development or restoration projects. Completed Phase ! Assessments for on going land acquisition projects administered by NYSDEC, County of Suffolk, Trust for Public Land, and The Nature Conservancy. Aug, 18. 2005 4:01PM No. 292~ P, 4 CHARLES W. BOWMAN President I~ducation New York State Ranger School N.Y.S. College of Environmental Science and Forestry B.S. Environmental Science Experience Eight years employed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Lands and Forests. While employed at this agency, completed Inventafles of environmentally sensitive lands for acquisition and prepared appraisals and/or established values of real property throughout New York State. Prepared Environmental l~mpact Statements for habitat restoration, regulatory actions, and acquisition protects; coordinated SEt~RA reviews; and established potential land use policies for the Long ]sland Wlld, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Program. Prepared Phase ! Environmental Assessments. Presently an Environmental Consultant/Analyst and President of Land Use Ecological Services, Znc. which provides its clients with a full range of environmental services throughout the United States. Experience includes 20 years in the field of environmental assessments, impact analysis, habitat Identification and restoration including the propagation of native plant species for use In creation/restoration projects. Certified Endangered Species Nonltor and member of the Board of Directors for the N.Y.S. Nadne Iflammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Program. Published articles relating to waterfront construction mitigation as well as shoreline and wetland restoration projects. Continues to participate in numerous speaking engagements relating to environmental issues and habitat restoration. Auk. lB, 2005 4:01PM No, 2923 P. 5 Hembershil)~ and Affiliation; . Vice President of Regulatory Affairs - Breakwaters International Corp., New Jersey (manufacturer of artificial reef habitats) · President - Riverhead FoundaUon for Marine Research and Education Member - Society of Wetland Sdentists Former Council Member - Town of Brookhaven Conservation Advisory Council Re~ent Publications REAL ESTATE TODAY. "Keep Your Waterfront Developments from Eroding," April 1990 LAND AND wATER, 'Bluff Restoration in the Northeast,' January/February 1994 LAND AND WATER, "Barrier Island Reconstruction," May/June 1994 POLLU'r~ON AND WATER RESOURCES. COLUMBZA UNWERSTrY SEMTNAR PROCEEDINGS, HA Novel Protocol for the Large Scale Salvage of Wetland Soils and Biota", 1998-1999 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM .AUG 2 3 2005 $oufho d To n Cler Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an ordedy manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureble. It is also understood that those who dmermine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not 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 EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the dmermination process has been ordedy, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three pans: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. 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. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: Part I J J Part 2 J...J Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: The project will net result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will net have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. 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.* The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Pdnt or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) website Date Page 1 of 21 PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavai[able, so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action Nortbwind Village Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) 62600 North Road, Oreenport, Suffolk County, New York Name of ApplicantJSponsor KACE LI LLC Address PO Box 67, 755 Main Road City / PO Greenport State NY Zip Code 11944 Business Telephone 631-477-0600 Name of Owner (if different) Same as above Address City / PO Business Telephone State Zip Code Description of Action: KACE L[, LLC, ("KACE") owner of the subject 17-acre hamlet-density-zoned property located on County Road 48 in Greenport (the "Subject Parcel"), by petition filed on July 14, 2005 with the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport, proposes to annex the Subject Parcel into the Village of Greenport, After the annexation is complete, KACE expects to propose to the Village of Greenport that KACE plans to build at least 128 mixed-income residences on 17 acres, 64 of which (50%) shall be moderate income workforce housing with no taxpayer contributions or overnment subsidies. Page 2 of 21 Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N,A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas, 1. Present Land Use: [] Urban [] Industrial [] Commercial ]Forest ]Residential (suburban) []Agriculture []Other Vacant Land Rural (non-farm) 2, Total acreage of project area: l?.2 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION 14.5 acres 14.5 acres acres acres 2.7 acres 2.7 acres 6. Is project substantiall~ontiguous to, or contain Histodc Places7 ~ I Yes ~ No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks7 8. What is the depth of the water table7 10-30 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? OYes ~ No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? [] Yes 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? a. Soil drainage: []Well drained 100 % of site [] Moderately well drained % of site. []Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? N/A acres (see 1 NYCRR 370), 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ~ Yes ~ No a. What is depth to bedrock ?~5+/- (in feet) 5, Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 100% ~10- 15% % [] 1§% or greater % a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of DYes []No ~ No Page 3 of 21 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? DYes [] No According to: Identify each species: 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? D ec Describe: 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? r~Yes []No If yes, explain: 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes 1 5. Streams within or contiguous to project area; 16. a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tdbutaP/ Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: Moore's Woods, including freshwater wetlands - See attached Schedule. b. Size (in acres): Page 4 of 21 1 7. Is the site served by existing public utilities? [] Yes [] No a. if YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? []Yes b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? D No OYes BNo 18. Is the site lecated in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? DYes []No 19. Is the site located in or substantiall~ 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 B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: !7.2 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 5 acres initially; 5 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 12.2 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: ?q/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. N/A % f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0; proposed ]28 g. Maximum vehicular tdps generated per hour: 1.01 (upon completion of project)? h, If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium initially 0 0 0 0 Ultimately 64 40 0 24 i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: 25 height; 40 width; 40 length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will eccupy is? 745 ft, 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 0 tons/cubic yards, 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed DYes DNo []WA a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be steckpiled for reclamation? [] Yes [] No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [] Yes [] No How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? +/-]4.5 acres. Page 5 of 21 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 yearn old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project7 OYes ~No 6. if single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: 36 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 I functionally dependent on subsequent phases7 [] Yes [] No 8. Will blasting occur dudng construction? ~ Yes ~ No 9. Number of jobs generated: dudng construction tOO; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ~ Yes ~ No If yes, explain: 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [] Yes ~ No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved7 [] Yes [] No Type Greenport Sewer System 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? D"lYes ~ No If yes, explain: 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 1 O0 year flood plain7 [] Yes 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~ Yes [] No ~No a. If yes, what is the amount per rnonth? TBD tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [] Yes [] No c. If yes, give name Southold Landfill ; location North Road~ Cutchogue~ New d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill7 []Yes [] No Page 6 of 21 e. If yes, explain: 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? [] Yes ~No a. [f yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? __ years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? OYes [] No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? [] Yes ~ No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ~ Yes ~ No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? [] Yes [] No If yes, indicate type(s) Electricity and Natural Gas 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 18.000 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ~ Yes [] No If yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 2 5. Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board ~Yes [] No Type Southold Town - Consent to Annexation; Greenport Village - Consent to Annex. Submittal Date 7/14/05 7/14/05 N/A N/A City, Town, Village Planning Board ~Yes ]No Post-Annexation Village Planning Board City, Town Zoning Board Yes [] No City, County Health Department ~ Yes ~ No Other Local Agencies E~Yes [] No Other Regional Agencies ~Yes ~ No State Agencies []Yes [] NO Post-Annexation Suffolk County Planning Department Federal Agencies [] Yes r~ No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? OYes ~ No ~f Yes, indicate decision required: ~ Zoning amendment [] Zoning variance [] New/revision of master plan ~ Site plan [] Special use permit ~ Resource management plan ]Subdivision ~ Other Page 8 of 21 2, What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? I Approx. 68 Units , ..... 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? 5. What is the nmximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? IAfter , ,, .............. , Annexation by Greenport 128 Units 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? [] Yes [] No I~ ~iiOI ~_HamletS ~.~.Y_.2°°5; S0 7EIS 200._4_;. _S.~ ~_the id i~ e~_P i ~n U 8__5 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a V4 mile radius of proposed action? RR - Resort Residential HD - Hamlet Density R-40 Residential (Parkland) - Owned by the Village o £ Greenport 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining~surrounding land uses with a V, mile7 ~ Yes [] No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed7 N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? Page 9 of 21 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s} for the formation of sewer or water districts? [] Yes [] No 1 1. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection7 Signature By: Title Member a, If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand7 ~ Yes U No 1 2. Will the pressed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ~ Yes ~ No a. If yes, is the existing mad netwo~ adequate to handle the additional traffic. ~Y~ ~ No D. Infomtional D~ails Attach any additional infomtion as may be needed to cladfy your project. If there am or ~y be any adveme im~cts associat~ with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Ve~ication I ce~ify that the infor~tion provided a~ve is tree to the b~t of ~ knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name ~CE LI, LLC Date 8/23/2005 If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are e state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Page 10 of 21 WETLANDS/ENVIRONMENTAL SCHEDULE To Environmental Assessment Form of KACE LI, LLC (SCTM: 1000-40-3-1) AUGUST 23, 2005 Wetlands Freshwater wetlands are lands and submerged lands, commonly called marshes, swamps, sloughs, bogs, and flats, supporting aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation. These ecological areas are valuable resources, necessary for flood control, surface and ground water protection, wildlife habitat, open space, and water resources. There are approximately 2.7+/- acres of freshwater wetlands on the proposed project site as identified by Charles Bowman, President of Land Use Ecological Services Inc., in July 2005. Mr. Bowman was a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) employee for eight years and has over 20 years of experience in environmental resource management. These wetlands are regulated by the NYS DEC whether the property is under the.jurisdiction of Southold or the Village of Greenport and will be protected in accordance with NYS DEC and Greenport Village regulations both during and after construction. Preservation The preservation of pristine lands and open spaces is a focal issue in the Town of Southold. By meeting the recommendations of Smart Growth and Southold Town ~ NYS DEC Article 24, Environmental Conservation Law Implementing Regulations 6NYCRR Part 663, Part 664, and Part 665. Planning initiatives, this property, which has 1) been zoned high-density residential for over 25 years, 2) is located near the hamlet of Greenport, 3) is within the HALO zone, 4) has existing infrastructure in place, and 5) is surrounded by high-density uses, is an ideal location for this type of residential development and will allow more pristine open lands to be preserved, rather than be consumed by suburban sprawl. Air pollution and Fuel Consumption By creating housing opportunities close to residents' places of work, there will be a reduction in average commuting distances. This reduction results in reduced air pollution and fuel use. In addition, by providing housing near local employment centers, there may be greater potential for the use of alternative and public transportation methods, including walking, bicycling, and carpooling. As part of our proposed project, we will recommend that the Suffolk County S-92 bus line be reqrouted to accommodate the project. In addition, several "green" design elements will be integral to the overall development of the proposed project to encourage energy conservation, alternative forms of transport, and community interaction. The following are examples of guidelines that may be incorporated into the design of the site and houses of the proposed project as part of Green Building practices:2 · Use plant species that thrive in local climate with minimal irrigation; · Save existing mature trees on site; z Affbrdable Green Guidelines, American Institute of Architects. · Where possible, provide useable areas where the community residents can meet and gather; · Use patios, front yards, porches, or balconies to encourage community interaction and provide eyes-on-the-street surveillance; · Provide for alternative transportation, e.g, bike paths and storage, pedestrian links, car shares; · Provide accessible routes of travel and avoid use of stairs wherever the terrain permits; · Prioritize pedestrian over vehicular traffic and use traffic calming devices; incorporate attractive well-lit pedestrian paths wherever possible; · Provide a well-insulated building that minimizes heat gain and loss; · Specify energy-efficient windows; · Ensure water meters are installed and there is owner/tenant accountability in water use; · Assure that electric and gas meters are installed and that there is accountability by owner or tenant for use; · Specify Energy Star appliances throughout. TRAFFIC IMPACT SCHEDULE To Environmental Assessment Form of KACE LI, LLC (SCTM: 1000-40-3-1) AUGUST 23, 2005 Existing Conditions The site of the proposed annexation is located at 62600 North Road in the Town of Southold, on the south side of the North Road (aka County Road 48), approximately one- quarter mile east of Chapel Lane and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as # 1000-40-3-1). The site is currently zoned Hamlet Density, which allows four residential units per acre. The site is contiguous to Village of Greenport property on three sides. The property is currently vacant. On or about July, 14 2005, KACE LI, LLC filed a petition with the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport to annex the site into the Village of Greenport. County Road 48, also known as the North Road and Middle Road, falls under the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. As part of an ongoing analysis of traffic conditions on the East End of Long Island, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) as well as the Suffolk County Department of Public Works has conducted a number of data collection studies. Most recently, the NYSDOT completed traffic counts along many of the Town of Southold major roadways, including County Road 48, in 2002. The Coverage and Special Count Hourly Report for the stretch of Cotmty Road 48 in front of the subject property is attached in EXItIBIT 1. Two recent studies have been conducted to comprehensively examine transportation issues on the East End of Long Island. First, the Long Island Transportation Plan for the Year 2000 (LITP 2000), prepared in conjunction with NYSDOT, was designed to address current and future transportation issues and alternatives for Long Island. Data specific to the North Fork was collected as part of the overall transportation plan. Second, the Sustainable East End Development Strategies (SEEDS) project is an ongoing effort by a joint group five towns and nine incorporated villages of the East End to develop strategies for preserving the region's unique character. The Inventory and Analysis document, completed in 2002 and revised in 2004, presents a detailed overview of the existing conditions relating to transportation issues. The SEEDS inventory, however, did not include any new data collection relevant to traffic or transportation analysis. Proposed Action Post annexation, the proposed project calls for the development of a 128-unit mixed- income residential development with 64 of the units being affordable to the residents of the Southold and the Village of Greenport. The unit types will include detached single- family, semi-detached two-family, and multifamily condominiums. In order to creale projections of the volume of traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed action, an analysis was undertaken using the publication "Trip Generation" developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This reference is widely used by traffic engineers and is considered to be the standard methodology for estimating traffic that may result from a proposed development project. The calculations for the 128-unit mixed-income residential project are presented below in Table III.A(1) for the average daily trip (ADT) generation for the proposed development. Unit T~e Entering Trips Exiting Trips Total Single-Family 303 303 606 Detached (64) Semi-detached 118 118 236 Two-Family (40) Multifamily 69 69 138 Condominium (24) Total (128) 490 490 980 Table III.A(1): Average Daily Trip (Al)T) generation for the Project Source: Trip Generation, 5t~ Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers It is important to identify how the traffic levels of the proposed development compare to the traffic generated by what could be built on the site as-of-right. The site is currently zoned Hamlet Density (HD) in the Town of Southold, which allows for four residential units per acre. This equates to approximately 68 units that could be built as-of-right However, there are approximately 2.7 acres of freshwater wetlands on the site. According to Southold zoning regulations, these wetlands would reduce the buildable area to 14.5 acres, which would allow for 58 units to be built. FIGURE III.A(2) shows a comparison between the current average vehicle trips on County Road 48 and the number of total trips on County Road 48 after the proposed project and at2er a HD as-of-right zoning project. 18000 17000 i.-. 16000 ~ 15000 m 14000 -G .E 13000 12000 11888 10000 Daily Average Traffic Volumes, Summer, County Road 48 Source: LITP2000 and Institute of Transportation Engineers Current With As-of-Right HD Project With Proposed Project FIGURE III.A(2): Daily Average Traffic Volumes, County Road 48, current, after as-of-right HD project, and after Project. Source: Long Island Transportation Plan 2000, New York Metropolitan Transportation Council and New York State Department of Transportation; and Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers It can be seen from the above table that the difference between what is allowed as-pr- right under current zoning on the site and the proposed project is minimal. The increase in vehicle trips on County 48 due to the proposed project is only 1.7% greater than the increase due to an as-of-right project under HD zoning. Mitigation As with any development, some increase in vehicular trips over the existing conditions will occur. However, traffic generated by the proposal will be minimized in several ways, primarily due to the design and allocation of unit types, the intended market of the units, and specific recommendations to be proposed by the project sponsor. First, the relatively small size of the residential units (700 - 1,600 square feet) and lots will limit the household size and number of vehicles associated with the project. A study by the Federal Highway Administration in 1985 produced adjustment factors for residential land uses and their associated demographic characteristics. These adjustment factors decrease average daily trip generation figures by more than 30% for detached single-family dwellings when comparing a household of one or two persons to a household of three or more. According to the 1994 Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), one and two person households average 1.6 vehicles per household while households with three or more persons average 2.2 vehicles per household, an increase of 37.5%. Second, the mix of housing types of the Project will minimize traffic generation compared to all detached single-family residences. According to the EIA (2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey), 70% of single-family homes in the United States own more than two vehicles. Comparatively, only 34% of households in two- to four-unit structures own two or more vehicles. As the number of units per structure increases to greater than five, only 22% of households own two or more vehicles. Third, the intended market for the Project are working individuals and families who and live and/or work in the Town of Southold. In 2000, over 40% of those who worked in the Town of Southold commuted from outside the Town. As residents of the proposed project will be relocating within the Town or moving closer to their place of work, it can be expected that the number of vehicle trips generated by workers commuting into the Town or Village from further will west will be reduced. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development3, workers who are forced to live far away from their jobs commute long distances by car, which clogs roads and highways, contributes to air pollution, increases fuel use, increases the number of automobile accidents, adds additional costs for workers, and results in a significant loss of productivity. By providing housing options within the Town for the workforce of the Town of Southold, many will have an alternative to moving outside of the Town and having to commute to work. Fourth, given the expected market for the Project, it is anticipated that many opportunities for carpooling and bicycle use will be created within the proposed development, further minimizing reliance on vehicle trips by residents of the proposed project. Finally, as part of the proposed project, KACE will recommend that Suffolk County re-route its S-92 bus line to accommodate the Project. Since it is expected that a majority of the homeowners of the proposed project will work in the Town of Southold, the potential for residents to commute by bus to and from work and other activities is quite high. 3 "Why Not in Our Community?" Removing Barriers to ,,{[fordable Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2003. Daily Average Traffic Volumes Summer 1999 30000 ~ ............................................. 25000 20000 .......... 15000 10000 5000 0 Weekday Saturday YMTc 50oT Sunday [] CR 48 Summer ADT · Rt 25 Summer ADT [] CR 58 Summer ADT [] Sound Ave Summer ADT 25 and CR 48 vicinity Town line. CR vicinity traffic circle, Sound Ave icinity Osborne Ave ......... u[1117 ROAD #: 0480 DIRECTION Eastbound STATE DIR CODE 1 DATE OF COUNT 07123/2004 NOTES LANE I 000000111730 New York State Department of Transportation ROAD NAME CR 48 FACTOR GROUP: 30 WK OF YR: 30 COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE: DO] INItiALS: --~ 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 AM 53 37 14 19 18 25 15 6 6 12 20 14 10 5 5 25 16 12 8 4 21 19 6 7 25 32 20 10 10 30 85 37 27 20 21 DATE DAY 2 F 3 S 4 S 5 M 6 T 7 W 8 T 9 F i0 S 12 M 13 T 15 T 18 S 19 M 20 T 21 W 22 T 23 F 24 S 25 S 26 M 27 T 28 W 29 T 3O F 31 S Traffic Count Hourly Report FROM PECONIC LANE REC SERIAL# 1005 PLACEMENT: 800 ' wfo Youngs Ave @REF MARKER: ADDL DATA COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS PROCESSED BY ORG CODE DOT INITIALS TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 Page 1 of 2 TO YOUNGS AVENUE COUNTY Suffolk FUNC CLASS: 14 TOWN: SOUTHOLD NHS: yes SIN: JURIS County RR CROSSING CC Stn: HPMS SAMPLE' BATCH ID DOT-r10sw34b 5 6 7 8 9 10 1! TO TO TO TO TO TO TO DAILY DALLY 8 7 8 § IQ 11 12 DAILY HIGH HIGH ~f~ TOTAL COUNT HOUR 655 653 635 627 649 692 689 594 487 387 310 283 130 71 256 400 444 548 630 675 652 616 603 616 551 508 418 369 286 212 158 89 8241 675 1~ 54 197 296 349 394 464 589 683 547 681 693 505 471 375 268 235 t82 104 56 7255 693 15 64 341 541 552 530 558 605 581 522 524 5t4 513 506 416 303 250 167 100 57 7588 605 11 77 318 557 549 536 489 482 487 489 448 490 551 505 404 277 259 156 107 47 7282 557 7 62 282 479 519 481 413 496 465 494 485 483 548 531 439 292 240 181 110 49 7t14 548 16 73 328 518 594 611 592 564 580 631 565 569 621 510 513 393 332 241 164 91 8625 63t 13 66 382 557 601 591 651 627 676 627 704 693 759 684 612 531 423 391 251 179 10107 759 16 82 264 508 535 624 704 801 851 743 23 16 10 AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mcr, 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT 8 15 68 :318 511 543 531 522 552 505 515 488 496 538 510 421 305 261 179 116 59 7516 DAYS Cc, un[ed HOURS Coun!e¢ 195 WEEKDAYS WEEKDAY AVEI:~AGE WEEKDAY Axle Ad} Seasona!ANeekday ESTIMATED (one way) Counted Hours H~gh Hour % of day Fac[or Adjustment Factor ~ lo3 5~2 z.~ 09~5 1.059 AADT 7097 ~OAD # 0480 ROAD NAME CR 48 FROM PECONIC LANE TO: YOUNGS AVENUE COUNTY Suffolk ~TATION 071117 STATE DIR CODE ! PbACEMENT 800 ' w!o Youngs Ave DAIE OF COUNT 07123/2004 STATION 071114 New York State Department of Transportation ROAD#: 0480 ROAD NAME; CR48 DIRECTION: Westbound FACTOR GROUP: 40 STATE DIR CODE: 2 W~ OF YR: 30 DATE OF COUNT: 07D3/2004 NOTES I~NE t: 0000001 ! 1470 COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE DUI iNI [IALS -- 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Page 2 of 2 DATE DAY 1 T 2 F 3 S 4 S 5 M 6 T 7 W 8 T g F 10 S 11 S 12 M 13 T 14 W 15 T 16 F 17 S 18 S 19 M 20 T 23 F 30 F TO TO TO TO TO t 2 3 4 5 62 36 79 33 46 17 30 14 25 t5 23 13 39 27 73 35 Traffic Count Hourly Report FROM:WIO COX RD REC SERIAL # IO02 PLACEMENT ~ REF MARKER: ADDL DATA: COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS PROCESSED BY ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: TO: SR 28 COUNTY' Suffolk FUNC CLASS: 02 TOWN: SOUTHOLD NHS: yes BIN: JURIS: County RR CROSSING: CC Stn HPMS SAMPLE: BATCH tD DOT-rlOsw34b 8 9 t0 11 12 t 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO DAILY DAILY 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 DAILY HIGH HIGH ~ PM TOTAL COUNT ~OUR 566 613 576 523 584 691 665 623 5tl 357 331 217 241 104 21 16 17 46 160 194 313 499 609 631 602 664 636 742 598 561 492 398 408 285 263 146 8399 742 15 13 16 14 49 74 t20 251 374 514 669 727 771 932 1053 797 611 843 665 665 407 349 112 10138 1053 15 10 31 47 137 339 492 594 512 511 586 595 526 610 672 712 705 516 330 353 179 187 70 8777 712 16 5 17 25 107 298 479 629 548 563 509 553 591 562 579 760 811 453 254 240 131 95 43 8096 760 16 4 15 25 71 262 445 561 475 528 547 521 530 553 589 640 612 443 257 270 131 141 61 7719 640 !6 7 17 18 118 283 470 601 567 492 503 586 544 622 7Z5 746 706 532 317 365 217 192 82 8746 746 16 24 16 32 115 288 430 548 490 566 563 598 605 601 775 775 648 628 359 346 235 265 138 9111 775 15 31 11 27 60 121 211 328 458 539 665 651 AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mort 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT 29 17 10 16 25 102 290 457 579 511 530 547 557 541 579 633 705 649 480 286 303 162 152 63 8223 DAYS Counled HOURS WEEKDAYS WEEKDAY AVERAGE WEEKDAY Axle Adj Seasonal/Weekday Cour~ted Cp~n ed Hours High Hour % of day Factor Adiu~tment Factor 9 195 5 104 714 9% 0987 1 210 ROAD # ,~, ~., ,...,,,, 071114 0480 ROAD NAME CR 48 FROM:W/O COX RD TO' SR 25 Suffolk STATE DiR CODE 2 PLACEMENT' 07123/2004 ESTIMATED (one way) AADT 6796 COUNTY* DATE OF COUNT STATION: 071114 ROAD # 0480 DIRECTION: Eastbound STATE DIR CODE: 1 DATE OF COUNT: 07/23/2004 NOTES LANE I 000000111430 ROAD NAME: CR 48 FACTOR GROUP: 40 WK OF YR: 30 COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE: L,'O[ INITIALS DATE DAY 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 48 33 25 15 21 83 21 t8 16 15 44 25 13 12 24 29 t6 16 4 20 16 14 7 6 17 28 19 11 12 21 43 24 12 11 29 89 44 25 18 23 New York State Department of Transportation Traffic Count Hourly Repod FROM:WIO COX RD TO: SR 25 REC SERIAL #: 1002 FUNC. CLASS: 02 PLACEMENT: NHS: yes @ REF MARKER: JURIS; County ADDL DATA: CC COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS BATCH ID: DOT-~10~w34b PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO 9 10 11 12 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 PM 1 T 2 F 3 S 4 S 5 M 6 T 7 W 8 T 9 P 10 S ~1 S 12 M 13 T 14 W 15 T ~6 F 17 S 18 S 19 M 2O T 21 W 22 T 23 F 24 S 25 S 26 M 27 T 28 W 29 T 30 E 31 S 527 709 69'1 662 591 715 810 762 625 540 393 307 247 74 245 340 404 537 596 697 793 746 786 753 670 595 449 355 255 200 136 54 171 201 285 332 454 537 718 705 711 635 607 437 347 241 214 172 84 81 312 43'1 531 432 448 540 507 560 5'14 555 549 556 474 333 266 167 102 76 341 494 525 446 429 485 533 487 472 585 636 578 447 286 221 141 '104 72 278 441 524 430 391 455 48'1 496 492 889 658 594 654 309 231 186 96 82 318 490 601 527 581 610 647 625 635 630 666 710 494 385 357 216 '144 85 355 562 602 529 607 632 727 707 797 805 800 842 692 581 455 403 228 86 243 4t3 511 631 681 876 1071 Page 1 ol 2 COUNTY: Suffolk TOVVN: SOUTHOLD BIN: RA CROSSING: HPMS SAMPLE: TO DAILY DAILY t2 DALLY HIGH HIGH TOTAL COUNT HOUR 115 87 886O 793 12 4'1 7099 718 12 76 7592 560 13 45 7416 636 16 56 7393 658 16 89 8898 710 17 172 1O700 842 17 2g DAYS Cour}ted 9 18 12 HOURS Counted 195 AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Ax~ Factored, Mort 6AMtoFri Noon) ADT 8 22 78 317 486 550 467 491 865 535 535 52t 582 619 602 486 324 266 176 tll 65 7865 WEEKDAYSWEEKDAY _ AVE__RAGE~ WE_ ~KDAY Axle Adi. SeasonalANeekday Counted Hours High Hour % of day Factgr Adjustment Factor 5 104 627 8% 0987 1 210 ESTIMATED (one way) AADT es00 · ROAD # 0480 ROAD NAME CR 48 FROM: WIO COX RD TO: ~;R 25 COUNTY: Suffolk - STATION: Ol1114- STATE D~R CODE: 1 PLACEMENT DATE OF COUNT: 07/23/2004 STAqON 071117 New York State Department of Transportation ROAD it; 0480 ROAD NAME: CR 48 DIRECTION: Westbound FACTOR GROUP: 30 STATE DIR CODE: 2 WK OF YR: 30 DATE OF COUNT 07/23/2004 NOTES LANE 1:000000111770 COUNTTAKEN BY: ORO CODE. DOT INITIALS: 12 1 2 3 a 5 6 7 DATE DAY I T 2 F 3 S 4 S 5 M 6 T 7 W 8 T 9 F 10 S tl S 12 M 13 1' 14 W 15 T 16 F 17 S 18 S 19 M 2O T 21 W 22 T 23 F 24 S 25 S 26 M 27 T 28 W 29 T 30 F 31 S TO TO TO TO I 2 3 4 85 35 24 18 87 40 24 22 43 10 4 18 33 20 9 11 31' 12 t0 10 45 13 14 1.1 44 32 33 t9 73 49 38 24 Page 2 of 2 Traffic Count Hourly Report FROM:PECONIC LANE TO YOUNGS AVENUE COUNTY: Suffolk REC. SERIAL #: 1005 FUNC CLASS: 14 TOWN: SOUTHOLD PLACEMENT: 800 ' wto Youngs Ave NHS: yes BIN: @ REF MARKER: JURIS: County RR CROSSING: ADDL DATA CC Stn: HPMS SAMPLE COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS BATCH ID: DOT-r10sw34b PROCESSED E~Y: ORG CODE: DOT tNITIALS: 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO DALLY {3Al[ Y 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 g 10 11 12 DA~LY HiGH HIGH A~ . PM TOTAL COUNT HOUR 553 548 533 579 634 602 563 567 365 382 278 256 t57 18 53 134 203 336 429 467 631 568 589 526 585 498 448 495 369 357 301 286 158 7583 631 11 22 33 70 145 282 399 5t6 624 625 689 748 740 648 585 819 546 573 4'18 277 139 9051 8t9 18 34 102 238 375 514 503 484 551 578 544 572 644 644 507 577 330 352 201 160 75 8058 644 15 .19 59 207 381 504 480 492 487 543 519 490 578 650 501 436 302 281 .159 113 65 7339 650 18 18 50 206 34t 452 438 483 473 493 491 548 577 559 S49 439 288 274 t68 113 80 7097 577 15 .14 84 2'16 360 507 463 486 440 530 537 575 635 673 588 491 356 427 248 184 119 8017 673 15 33 69 207 361 448 487 470 532 602 531 602 654 635 6.10 575 406 352 291 235 133 8371 654 15 27 43 .103 208 313 432 529 628 658 532 AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT 39 18 15 13 20 64 207 351 468 457 466 488 5t7 505 527 587 610 5t7 469 308 322 185 137 82 7372 DAYS Counted 9 ROAD # STAt,iON: 071117 HOURS Cqunted. 195 0480 WEEKDAYS WEEKDAY AVERAGE WEEKDAY Axle Adj SeasonalNVeekday Counted Hours High Hour % of day Factor Adiustrneni Factor 5 103 632 8% 0965 1 059 ROAD NAME; CR 48 FRCYJ:PECONIC LANE TO: YOUNGS AVENUE STATE DIR CODE: 2 pLACEMENT: 800' wto Youngs Ave ESTIM.~TED (one AADT 6961 COUNTY Suffolk DATE OF COUNT: 07/23/2004 RC/STATION LOCAL ROAD # SECTION FROM: FEDERAL DIR. COUNTDATE: NOTES: DY D MO W 8 4 9 5 10 6 14 3 15 4 16 5 17 E 18 7 New York State Department of Transportation 071118 COVERAGE AND SPECIAL COUNT HOURLY REPORT 0480 ROAD NAME: CR 48 MILEPOINT 1421 NHS YOUNGS AVENUE TO: SR 25 3 FACTOR GRP 40 FUNCTIONAL CLASS 02 HPMS NUMBER: 08108102 WEEK Of YR 32 EASTBOUND RECORDER PLACEMENT: CR 48 500' elD Youngs Ave TUBE COUNT PGMVERSION 3.51 4.0 COUNTY: SUFFOLK TOVVN: SOUTHOLD BIN NUMBER: REFERENCE MKR: NA RECORDER SERIAL#: 2185 ADDITIONAL DATA: 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 DAY HI HI R AM PM TOTAL COUNT HOUR I 606 489 540 493 467 372 284 242 187 88 I 31 17 13 7 12 69 340 469 546 662 685 645 677 686 622 648 683 696 627 634 443 309 266 152 9528 695 18 I 79 38 28 13 20 106 272 429 517 693 720 781 804 669 686 572 526 480 434 381 321 244 231 132 9177 804 13 1 78 36 25 12 21 65 239 316 343 498 595 712 701 626 678 528 297 281 380 321 265 177 93 66 7342 712 12 I 31 28 10 10 12 84 372 494 527 497 491 637 461 453 379 325 268 151 121 57 1 29 12 9 2 16 84 342 520 630 522 515 536 514 626 476 499 478 612 412 296 238 160 126 59 7417 536 12 1 22 11 12 6 10 84 361 475 521 539 486 550 672 488 443 488 442 506 411 334 252 167 135 62 7366 672 13 I 37 10 16 5 16 84 369 498 518 566 490 636 532 636 560 645 643 570 469 342 316 216 166 84 8006 570 18 i 37 20 12 6 18 78 352 403 549 578 580 636 684 676 706 634 628 637 576 613 380 305 226 154 9188 706 15 I 70 28 21 13 20 79 286 437 537 667 731 771 761 722 666 592 621 558 476 380 369 244 172 127 9246 771 12 1 73 41 26 18 22 64 251 262 361 472 567 698 598 68`1 465 476 607 426 370 319 235 201 108 63 7258 696 12 I 36 21 17 7 11 73 357 498 541 466 468 496 564 603 507 467 479 473 396 299 241 160 111 69 7258 564 13 I 29 10 12 3 13 66 343 469 468 458 426 469 546 489 3801 546 13 AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOUR (MON 6AM THRU FRI 12NOON) APT 31 5 t4 78 363 479 625 624 607 552 546 507 497 604 492 501 42'1 328 267 183 141 70 7550 AXLE - FACTORED (VEHICLES) AVG WEEKDAY HOUR (FACTOR USED :0.8?7 ) ADT 27 4 12 68 310 420 460 460 445 484 479 445 436 442 431 439 369 286 234 166 124 61 6620 13 '12 11 tl HRS COUNTED 204 DAYS AVG %AVG FACTORED % FACTORED SEASONAL COUNTED HI HR DAY HI HOUR DAY FACTOR 14 552 7.3% 484 7.3% t.168 SEASONALLY FACTORED ES~MATEOA.~DT I-WAY COUNT 5668 LOCAL ROAD # 0480 STATION: 071 1 10 ON CR48 FROM YOUNGS AVENUE TO COUNT DATE: 08/08]02 ST. DIR: I RECORDER PLACEMENT: SR 25 CR 48 500' elD Youngs Ave RC/STATION LOCAL ROAD # SECTION FROM: FEDERAL DIR, COUNT DATE: NOTES: MO W 15 13 2 14 3 16 5 17 2O 2 21 3 New York State Department of Transportation 071118 COVERAGE AND SPECIAL COUNT HOURLY REPORT 0486 ROAD NAME: CR ~ MILEPOINT 1421 NHS YOUNGS AVENUE TO: SR 25 7 FACTOR GRP 40 FUNCTIONAL CLASS 02 HPMS NUMBER: COUNTY: TOWN: BIN NUMBER: PGM.~RSION SUFFOLK SOUTHOLD 00108102 WEEK OF YR 32 WESTBOUND TO R 2 66 32 25 28 26 37 94 2 RECORDER PLACEMENT: CR 48 506' eld Youngs Ave TUBE COUNT I 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 9 10 11 12 I 2 3 4 5 6 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 AM PM 506 602 643 542 $27 23 6 4 38 54 203 354 443 398 507 510 584 520 584 649 674 486 617 39 20 27 24 48 i24 256 400 456 602 58t 572 536 876 640 588 501 839 42 33 15 29 42 77 t66 309 409 515 550 806 665 664 688 289 386 938 17 14 15 43 101 221 389 486 522 $62 16 8 8 23 69 200 382 470 434 481 473 495 484 511 9 12 10 20 64 214 349 471 420 807 414 512 472 505 13 13 10 20 64 194 340 466 416 469 475 501 451 945 13 8 11 20 99 179 336 452 457 834 493 588 544 576 39 28 11 22 34 120 255 423 489 576 938 559 526 521 52 34 32 23 33 88 180 319 397 492 652 649 578 617 19 15 21 33 97 236 349 466 495 820 5t5 510 472 577 15 16 14 t7 60 199 364 445 424 444 469 481 445 REFERENCE MKR: NA RECORDER SERIAL#: 2185 ADDITIONAL DATA: TO TO TO TO TO TOTAL COUNT HOUR 352 4t3 200 194 101 388 442 219 309 146 8157 574 17 502 507 362 301 165 8422 640 16 668 665 379 317 141 8685 935 19 9BO 607 471 550 366 372 215 126 82 579 885 428 511 358 370 208 156 70 7~41 585 17 858 $40 492 380 487 389 177 140 85 ?255 558 15 559 616 832 470 337 443 209 218 94 7481 616 588 991 522 493 399 423 IB4 297 129 7e33 591 17 895 548 485 589 453 536 376 326 172 8375 638 12 694 629 576 849 883 686 420 303 t22 9~02 849 19 613 605 468 512 347 370 t88 131 88 7625 613 16 3427 481 ~3 32 28 15 11 t3 10 HRS COUNTED 284 AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOUR (MON 6AM THRU FRI 12 NOON) ADT 10 23 62 206 358 462 429 495 478 500 474 834 585 599 489 492 375 393 186 161 87 7466 AXLE - FACTORED (VEHICLES) AVG WEEKDAY HOUR (FACTOR USED =0.877 ) APT 9 20 54 181 314 405 376 434 419 439 416 468 513 525 429 431 328 345 172 141 76 6547 DAYS AVG % AVG FACTORED % FACTORED SEASONAL COUNTED HI HR DAY HI HOUR DAY FACTOR 14 599 8.0% 525 8.0% t.168 SEASONALLY FACTORED 5605 LOCAL ROAD # 0480 STATION; 071118 ON CR 48 COUNT DATE: ~ROM YOUNGS AVENUE TO 08~08~02 ST. DIR: 2 RECORDER PLACEMENT: SR 25 CR 48 500' elD Youngs Ave LOCAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT Suffolk County Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON Town BABYLON CR 1 0010 BAB TL AMVL 0.02 93 CR 1 0010 BAB TL SR27 0.43 93 CR 1 0010 BAB TL AMVL 0.15 01 CR 1 0010 BAB TL N/O JOYCE AVE 0.07 01 CR 12 0120 BAB TL CR47 0.37 01 CR 12 0120 CR47 GARFIELD AVE 0.37 01 CR 12 0120 GARFIELD AVE LOHRSTVILL 0.22 01 CR 12 0120 BAB TL CR 96 0,63 01 CR2 0020 AMVL CR47 0,49 01 CR 2 0020 CR47 LDHRSTVL 0.78 01 CR 2 0020 LDHRSTVL CR 3 0.59 01 CR 2 0020 CR3 SR 109 0.76 01 CR 2 0020 SR 109 SO STATE PKWY 0.93 01 CR 2 0020 SO STATE PKVVY CR95 0.7 01 CR 2 0020 CR95 MOUNT AVE 0.79 01 CR 2 0020 MOUNT AVE ACORN ST 0.55 01 CR 2 0020 ACORN ST N 12TH ST 0.14 01 CR 2 0020 N 12TH ST HUNT TL 1.48 01 CR 28 0280 SR27 SR 109 2.22 01 CR 3 0030 PERRY ST SR 27 0.t4 01 CR 3 0030 SR 27 CR 2 0.47 01 CR 3 0030 CR 2 SR 109 0.82 01 CR 3 0030 SR 109 SO STATE PKVVY 0,42 01 CR 3 0030 SO STATE PKWY PA1TON AVE 1.32 01 CR 3 0030 PATTON AVE LIRR 0.97 01 CR 3 0030 LIRR HUNT TL 0.47 01 CR 34 0340 VILLAGE LNE RD HENRY AVENUE 0.33 93 CR34 0340 HENRY AVENUE LIBERTY AVENUE 0.13 01 CR 34 0340 LIBERTY AVENUE PELL AVE 0.81 93 CR 34 0340 PELL AVE SR 231 0.07 93 CR 4 0040 SR 231 CR 57 0.43 01 CR 4 0040 CR 57 CARTO ClR 0.75 95 CR 4 0040 CARTO ClR NICHOLS RD 0.86 01 CR 4 0040 NICHOLS RD HUNTTL 0.64 01 CR 47 0470 SR27A CR 12 0.82 0t CR47 0470 CR 12 CR2 0.35 01 CR 47 0470 CR 2 SR 27 0.43 0t CR 47 0470 SR 27 SR 110 1.99 01 CR47 0470 SR110 GLENN CT 0.19 01 CR 57 0570 SR 231 CR 4 0.36 01 CR 96 0960 GREAT S BAY SR 27A 0.85 95 CR O6 0960 SR 27A CR 12 0.64 92 CR 96 0960 CR 12 SR 109 0.56 92 RAILROAD AVE AK50 0.26 RAILROAD AVE AK50 0.31 Page 1 004900 007700 004787 004787 009809 009893 009893 009893 011184 016542 012293 014369 019397 026020 025934 025934 025934 025934 009775 035674 030578 028727 021504 026607 O266O7 026607 014200 918110 016500 016500 014904 010600 023947 023947 014583 020913 016513 O12258 014583 016953 003000 010500 019600 005000 005000 8001 8002 8003 8003 8051 8052 6052 8052 80O4 8005 80O6 8007 8008 8009 8010 8010 8010 8010 8108 8011 8012 8013 8014 8015 8015 8015 8111 8112 8113 8113 8021 8022 8022 8134 8135 8136 8137 8138 8161 8243 8244 8245 LOCAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN 6ROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN 6ROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN ADIRONDACK DR AC30 MOONEY POND RD SR 25 0~64 CR 101 1010 CR 80 SR27 SSR 1,78 CR 101 1010 SR27SSR BR27 NSR 0.23 CR 101 1010 SR27 NSR CR 99 0.67 CR 101 1010 CR 16 ~495S 1.37 CR 101 1010 1495S 1495N 0.15 CRlll 1110 SHTL SR27 NSR 0.09 CR 111 1110 SR27 NSR CR 51 0.47 CR 111 1110 CR51 CR55 1.01 CR 11t 1110 CR55 1495S 2.81 CR 11t 1110 1495S 1495N 0.21 CR 16 0160 SM TL WARNER 0.08 CR 16 0160 WARNER SHOREHAVEN 0.27 CR 16 0160 SHOREHAVEN CR 19 1.06 CR 16 0160 CR 19 BEECH ST 0.07 CR t6 0160 BEECHST N MORRIS 1.g2 CR 16 0160 N MORRIS CR 97 0.25 CR 16 0160 CR 83 LANE CHANGE 0.08 CR 16 0160 LANE CHANGE SR 112 1.31 CR 16 0160 SR 112 1495N 1.03 CR 16 0160 1495N 1495S 0.16 CR 16 0160 1495S PECONIC AVE 1.23 CR 16 0160 PECONIC AVE CR 101 0.77 CR 16 0160 CR 101 OLD DOCK RD 1.02 CR 16 0160 OLD DOCK RD CR 99 0.3 CR 16 0160 CR 99 LANDFILL 0.28 CR 19 0190 ISLIP TL SR27 0.14 CR 19 0190 SR 27 HAYWOOD ST 0.53 CR 19 0190 HAYWOOD ST CR 6t 0.25 CR 19 0190 CR61 ISLIPTL 0.1 CR 19 0190 ISLIPTL 1495S 0.43 CR 19 0190 1495S 1495N 0.14 CR 19 0190 1495N CR 16 1,29 CR 21 0210 CR 80 SR 27 SSR 0.34 CR21 0210 SR27 NSR CR 16 0.19 CR21 0210 CR 16 1495S 2.26 CR21 0210 1495S 1495N 0,11 CR21 0210 1495N MAIN STREET 0,26 CR 21 0210 MAIN STREET MILL RD 1.09 CR 21 0210 MILL RD E BARTLETT RD 1.48 CR 21 0210 E BARTLETI'RD LONGV~3OD RD 0.18 CR 21 0210 LONGWOOD RD ARTIST LAKE 1.22 CR 21 0210 ARTIST LAKE SR 25 0,17 CR 21 0210 SR25 WHISKEY RD 1.83 CR 21 0210 VVHISKEY ROAD SCHOOL DVVY 1.98 CR 21 0210 SCHOOL DWY SR 25A 0.64 CR 36 0360 CR 80 (WEST) PATCH VL 2.51 CR 36 0360 BRKHN TL BROOKHAVEN AVE 1.06 01 001912 01 012370 O1 014115 94 010800 95 008800 01 014654 01 007884 01 014118 01 015850 01 O14761 01 012262 01 021995 01 021995 01 021995 01 024003 01 024003 01 024003 01 015195 01 015195 01 015906 01 019339 01 016438 01 011547 01 015238 01 O15238 01 014611 99 008732 01 024768 01 O24768 02 016600 01 031228 92 025600 01 009887 01 002367 01 002353 01 006277 93 007700 93 004800 93 014100 93 014100 01 O17451 93 014400 93 014400 93 006200 93 009200 93 009200 01 010812 01 010812 1015 8257 8258 8259 8261 8262 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 8071 8071 8071 8072 8072 8072 8074 8074 8075 8076 8077 8078 8070 8079 8080 8089 8090 8090 8091 8095 8096 8097 8098 8099 8100 8101 8102 8103 8103 8104 8105 8105 8106 8107 8107 8120 8120 Page 2 LOCAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN 8ROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKI-~VEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKI-~a, VE N BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN CR 36 CR 38 CR 36 CR 38 CR 46 CR 46 CR46 CR 45 CR 46 CR 46 CR 46 CR46 CR 46 CR 46 CR 46 CR 46 CR 46 CR 51 CR 51 CR51 CR 51 CR 51 CR 55 CR 55 CR 55 CR 55 CR 55 CR 61 CR 65 CR 65 CR 71 CR 75 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 cr 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 0360 0360 ANDIRON AVE 0360 CHAPEL LA 0360 LIRR 0460 CR 75 0460 BRIDGE 0460 SURRY CIR 0460 CR 80 0460 SR27SSR 0460 FLOWERHILL 0460 1495S 0460 1495N 0460 LONGWOOD RD 0460 SR25SACCRD 0460 SR25NACCRD 0460 WHISKEY RD 0460 0510 CR 80 0510 PVMT CHANGE 0510 SR27SSR 0510 CR 55 0510 CR 111 0550 CR 80 0550 CR 71 0550 DONALD ST 0550 SR27SSR 0550 SR27NSR 0610 CR 19 0650 ISLIP TL 0650 WEEKS ST 0710 CR80 0750 CR 46 0800 BAY AVENUE 0800 CR 36 (WEST) 0800 CR 101 0800 STATION RD 0800 CR 36 (BAST) 0800 CR 21 0800 OLD BARTO AVE 0800 CR 16 08OO CR 46 0800 HERKIMER 0800 LOUIS 0800 CR 98 (WEST) 0800 BROOKFIELD AVE 0800 LIRR 0800 PVMT CHANGE 0800 CR 98 (EAST) BROOKHAVEN AVE ANDIRON AVE CHAPEL LA LIRR CR 80 (EAST) BRIDGE SURRY CIR CR 80 SR 27 SSR FLOWERHILL 1495S 1495N LONGWOOD RD SR 25 S ACC RD SR 25 N ACC RD WHISKEY RD SR 25A SR 25A(V WSKY) PVMT CHANGE SR 27 SSR CR 55 CR 111 SH TL CR 71 DONALD ST SR 27 SSR SR 27 NSR CR 51 ISLIP TL VVEEKS ST PATCH VL CR55 TOLL BOOTH CR 36 (WEST) CR 101 STATION RD CR 36 (EAST) CR 21 OLD BARTO AVE CR 16 CR 46 HERKIMER LOUIS CR 98 (WEST) BROOKFIELD AVE LIRR PVMT CHANGE CR 98 (EAST) CR 51 0.23 01 0.15 01 0.32 01 0.13 01 0.8 01 3,73 01 0,31 01 0.38 92 2.08 01 0.53 01 0,37 01 1.43 01 2.26 01 0,28 01 0.97 92 0.64 92 1.7 92 0.66 01 0.52 01 0.39 01 0.75 01 1.92 Ot 0.27 0I 0.16 0t 0.3 01 0.15 01 0.08 01 0.07 01 1.48 01 0,28 01 0,49 01 0.5 01 0.65 01 0.37 92 2.31 92 1.58 92 O.2 92 0.32 92 0,34 92 2.28 01 1.73 01 0.49 01 0,88 01 0.63 01 2.76 01 0.12 01 0.07 01 0.27 94 010812 010812 010812 010812 025591 025591 025591 037100 043020 026486 029935 025720 019709 018199 009600 009600 009600 005641 005641 011006 O10061 009543 006543 010906 010906 006250 005363 005824 003644 003644 001455 004406 023920 017700 011200 011200 011500 012700 012700 016091 023471 023471 023471 015660 013850 013850 013850 012200 8120 8120 8120 8120 1105 1105 1105 1106 1017 1187 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1112 1112 8149 8t49 8150 8151 8152 8157 8158 8158 8159 8160 8171 8175 8175 8190 8194 8200 8201 8202 8202 8203 8204 8204 8205 8206 82O6 82O6 8207 8208 8208 8208 8209 Page 3 LOCAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town BROOKHAVEN CR 80 0800 CR 51 DIRT RD 0,19 01 007556 BROOKHAVEN CR 80 0800 DIRT RD CR 71 0.7 01 007556 BROOKHAVEN CR 80 0800 CR 71 SEATUCK AVE 0.37 01 00786g BROOKHAVEN CR 80 0800 SEATUCK AVE CR 55 0.11 01 007869 BROOKHAVEN CR 80 0800 CR 55 UNION ST 0,06 01 012421 BROOKHAVEN CR 80 0800 UNION ST TOWN LINE 0.23 0i 012421 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 HOWARD AVENUE SR 27 0.08 01 012749 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 SR27 CR 99 1.01 01 021745 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 CR99 PECONICAVENUE 1.45 01 029144 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 PECONIC AVENUE 1495S 0,55 01 029698 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 1495S 1495N 0.13 01 045064 BROOKHAVEN CR83 0830 1495N CR 16 0.41 01 061621 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 CR 16 GRANNY RD 0.33 01 048825 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 GRANNY RD MOONEY POND RD 1.96 01 048825 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 MOONEY POND RD SR 25 0.4 01 048825 BROOKHAVEN CR83 0830 SR25 SR 112 1.39 01 040333 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 RTE 112 CANAL RD 2,17 01 028221 BROOKHAVEN CR 83 0830 CANAL RD RTE 25A 1.67 01 017710 BROOKHAVEN CR 85 0850 ISLIP TL KENNEDY AVE 0.46 92 016500 BROOKHAVEN CR 85 0850 KENNEDY AVE PATCH VL 0.35 01 014085 BROOKHAVEN CR94 0940 1495N 1495S 0.11 01 016076 BROOKHAVEN CR 94 0940 1495 S RH TL 1.95 01 010727 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 ISLIP TL 14955 0.37 95 037900 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 1495S 1495N 0.23 01 065335 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 1495 NSR CR 16 0.97 01 077852 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 CR 16 HORSEBLOCK PL 0.13 01 061018 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 HORSEBLOCK PL S COLEMAN 1.03 01 061018 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 S COLEMAN SR 25 0.75 01 061018 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 SR25 HAWKINS AVE 1.45 01 031157 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 HAWKINS AVE LK GRV VIL LN 1.72 01 031157 BROOKHAVEN CR 97 0970 SR347 SR25A 3.26 01 041714 BROOKHAVEN CR 98 0980 CR 80 (WEST) BROOKFIELD AVE 0.68 01 008658 BROOKHAVEN CR 98 0980 BROOKFIELD AVE CR 80 (EAST) 2.35 01 008446 BROOKHAVEN CR 99 0990 ISLIP TOWNLINE CR 83 1.45 01 008719 BROOKHAVEN CR 99 0990 CR 83 SR 112 0.53 94 016000 BROOKHAVEN CR 99 0990 SR 1t2 HOSPITAL RD 1.45 01 017792 BROOKHAVEN CR99 0990 HOSPITAL RD CR 101 1,04 01 017792 BROOKHAVEN CR 99 0990 CR 101 CR 16 1.68 01 004864 BROOKHAVEN CR16 0160 LANDFILL LANE CHANGE 0,55 01 014611 BROOKHAVEN CR16 0160 LANE CHANGE CR 2t 0.11 01 014611 BROOKHAVEN CR16 0160 CR21 SR27 0.16 01 011253 BROOKHAVEN CR16 0160 SR27 CR80 0.35 01 011253 BROOKHAVEN CR46 RAMPS MAIN 0460 RAMPS MAI SPUR 1.85 062500 BROOKHAVEN CRYSTAL BRK HO DY90 N COUNTRY RD OLD POST RD E 0.76 01 002566 BROOKHAVEN GRANNY RD GT60 HORSEBLOCK RD N OCEAN AVE 0.46 01 006442 BROOKHAVEN HAWKINS AVE H J70 CHURCH ST DIVISION ST 0.43 01 014564 BROOKHAVEN HAWKINS AVE HJT0 DIVISION ST PORTION RD 0.17 01 014564 BROOKHAVEN HOSPITAL RD - T ID00 SR 27 WOODSIDE AVE 0.78 01 006293 8210 8210 8211 8211 8212 8212 8222 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1127 1127 1128 1129 1130 8226 8227 12 133 1135 1136 1137 1138 1138 1138 1139 1139 1140 8246 8247 8250 8251 8252 8252 8253 8080 8080 1007 1007 1113 1008 1022 1002 1002 1014 Page 4 LOCAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN BROOKHAVEN EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON EAST HAMPTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON MEDFORD AVE OLD TOWN RD OLD TOWN RD OLD TOWN RD POND PATH CR 40 CR 40 CR 40 CR 40 CR 41 CR 41 CR 41 CR 49 CR 49 CR 49 CR 49 CR 59 CR 77 CR 77 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 1t CR 1t CR ii CR 11 CR 11 CR11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 11 CR 2 CR 3 CR 3 CR 3 KYSO HORSEBLOCK RD GRANNY RD MM00 MM00 MM00 LVVR SHEEPPASRD SR 347 NR20 NICOLLS RD SR 347 0400 CEDAR STREET CR 41 0400 CR 41 PVMT CHANGE 0400 PVMT CHANGE BOAT YARD RD 0400 BOAT YARD RD COPECES LANE 0410 CR40 JACKSONAVE 0410 JACKSON AVE ABRAHAM'S PATH 0410 ABRAHAM'S PATH WOODBINE DRIVE 0490 SR 27 PVMT CHANGE 0490 PVMT CHANGE LIRR 0490 LIRR ESSEX STREET 0490 ESSEX STREET CR 77 0590 EH VILL LINE S/O STEPHN HND 0770 SR27 CR49 0770 CR49 CR 49(ARND LP) 0110 SR 108 W/O ANONDALE 0110 W/O ANONDALE ElD ANONDALE 0110 E/O ANONDALE CR 92 0110 CR 92 PVMT CHANGE 0110 PVMT CHANGE RAILROAD AVE 0110 RAILROAD AVE 5TH AVE 0110 5TH AVE W/O SR 110 0110 W/OSR110 SRl10 0110 SR110 E/O SR 110 0110 E/O SR 110 FAIRGROUND 0110 FAIRGROUND W/O LENOX 0110 W/O LENOX E/O LENOX 0110 E/O LENOX W~NOKA 0110 WINOKA FARMPATH 0110 FARMPATH CR35 0110 CR35 0110 LAKE AVE 0110 LAKE AVE BUTTERFIELD 0110 CUBA HILL RD CR 86 0110 CR 86 NORTHGATE 0110 NORTHGATE OSWEGO 0110 OSWEGO STONYHOLLOW 0110 STONYHOLLOW CR 10 0110 CR 10 DEPOSIT RD 0110 DEPOSIT RD TOVVNLINE RD 0020 BAB TOWN LINE SR 231 0030 BAB TOWNLINE COLONIAL SPRNG 0030 COLONIALSPRNG HALFHOLLOWRD 0030 HALF HOLLOW RD 1495S 0,57 01 004 01 0.93 01 0.39 01 0.38 01 0.24 01 0.07 01 1.84 01 0.36 01 0.33 01 1.29 01 1.44 01 0.14 01 0.98 01 0.16 01 1.82 01 0.99 01 2.61 93 0.44 93 0,42 93 0,91 93 0.12 93 0.08 93 0.47 93 0.17 93 0.3 93 0.02 93 0.03 93 0.14 93 0.26 93 0.17 93 0.33 93 0.11 93 0.2 93 0.08 01 0.14 01 0.99 01 0.22 93 0.31 93 0.83 93 0.17 93 0.28 93 2.28 01 0.42 93 0.83 01 0.57 01 0.81 01 0.27 01 002947 019564 019564 019564 001529 019441 010014 010014 010014 007232 007232 008086 010016 010016 010016 008750 OO3018 004300 004300 011100 011100 011100 010000 010000 010000 010000 010000 016300 016300 016300 016300 016300 016300 016300 017059 017059 017059 014500 017700 017700 017700 017700 014658 011900 025934 026607 032340 031838 1012 1024 1024 1024 1010 8128 8129 8129 8129 8130 8130 8131 8139 8139 8139 8140 8169 8197 8197 8039 8039 8039 8O40 8O40 8040 8040 8040 8041 8041 8041 8041 8041 8041 8041 8042 8042 8042 8044 8045 8045 8045 8045 8046 8047 8010 8015 8016 8017 Page 5 Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP CR 3 CR 3 CR 3 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 35 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR4 CR 66 CR 66 CR 66 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 86 CR 86 CR 86 CR 86 CR 86 CR 86 CR 86 CR 92 CR 92 CR10 CR10 CR10 CR10 CR10 CR10 CR10 CR 100 CR 100 CR 100 LOCAL HIGHVVAY TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT 0030 1495S 1495N 0.17 0030 1495N SR 110 0.66 0030 SR 110 WLT WHITMAN RD 0.09 0350 NO STATE PKVVY CR 66 0.09 0350 CR 66 ARISTA DR 0.48 0350 ARISTA DR SR 25 0.74 0350 SR 25 CR 86 0.5 0350 CR 86 LIttLE PLAINS 1.05 0350 LII-FLE PLAINS LAKE ST 0,59 0350 LAKE ST CR 11 0,07 0350 CR 11 LIRR 0,33 0350 LIRR SR 25A 1.57 0350 SR 110 WESTSHORE RD 0,37 0040 BAB TOWNLINE EUCLID AVE 0.39 0040 EUCLIDAVE PARK ENT 0.16 0040 PARK ENT POLO ST 0.77 0040 POLO ST 1495S 0.58 0040 1495S 1495N 0.07 0040 1495N SM TOVVN LINE 0.79 0040 SM TOWN LINE SR 25 1.13 0040 SR 25 N/O DOVECOTE 0.14 0660 CR 35 REGENCY 0.1 0660 REGENCY VILLANOVA 0.65 0660 VILLANOVA SR 25 0.17 0670 HALF HOLLOW RD PARK LOT ENT 0.77 0670 PARK LOT ENT S R 231 0.97 0670 SR 231 FARMVIEW 1.44 0670 FARMVIEW NO STATE PKWY 1.23 0670 NO STATE PKWY CR4 0.15 0860 SR 25 CR 35 0.33 0860 CR35 LANTERN LA 0.44 0860 LANTERN LA LAWN RD 0.63 0860 LAWN RD CUBA HILL 0.5 0860 CUBA HILL CR 11 0.23 0860 CR 11 WYCKOFF 0.55 0860 VVYCKOFF SR 25A 1.17 0920 SR25 CR11 1.25 0920 CR 11 SR 110 1.64 0100 SR 25 CUBA HILL RD 0.56 0100 CUBA HILL RD JAN PL 0.14 0100 JAN PL CLAY PITTS 1.03 0100 CLAYPITTS CR 11 0.92 0100 CR 11 LIRR 0.26 0100 LIRR LAUREL HILL 0.33 0100 LAUREL HILL VILLAGE HILL 0.59 1000 CR 13 NIMITZ 0.49 1000 NIMITZ GRANT 0.55 1000 GRANT SR 111 1.11 Page 6 01 024959 01 018339 01 006930 93 042700 01 025170 01 025170 93 022400 93 019600 93 019600 93 019600 01 027940 01 027940 01 004456 01 023947 01 023947 01 023947 01 023947 01 032032 01 026177 01 041870 01 020743 92 022100 92 022100 92 022100 01 005487 01 005487 01 006793 01 006793 01 006793 01 009601 01 011553 01 011553 01 011553 01 011097 92 006900 92 006900 01 016927 01 010697 01 021695 93 015100 93 015100 93 015100 93 007000 93 007000 93 007000 01 027867 01 027867 01 027867 8018 6019 8020 8114 6115 8115 8116 8117 8117 8117 9118 8118 8119 8022 8022 8022 8022 8023 8024 8027 8028 8176 8176 8176 8177 8177 8178 8178 8178 8228 8229 8229 8229 8230 8231 8231 8233 8234 8036 8037 8037 8037 8038 8038 8038 8254 8254 8254 LOCAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISUP ISLIP tSUP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISUP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISMP ISLIP ISUP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP CR 100 CR 100 CR 106 CR 108 CR 112 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13 CR 13A SB ONLY CR 13A SB ONLY CR 17 CR 17 CR 17 CR 19 CR 19 CR 19 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 50 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 CR 61 CR 65 CR 65 1000 SR 111 CR 17 1000 CR 17 ISLANDIA VILL 1060 CR 13 CR7 1080 CR 67 SM TOWN LINE 1120 SR27 SR454 0130 CR 57 SR 27 0130 SR 27 BREWSTER ST 0130 BREWSTER ST SO STATE PKWY 0130 SO STATE PKWY SPUR DR N 0130 SPUR DR N CR 100 0130 CR 100 CR7 0130 CR 7 CR 106 0130 CR 106 SAGTIKOS PKWY 0130 SAGTIKOS PKWY L RD 0130 L ROAD 1495S 0130 1495S SM TOWN LINE 013A REIL PL CR50 013A CR50 SR27A 0170 SMITH ST CR 100 0170 CR 100 CR 67 0170 CR67 SRlll 0190 BRKHN TOWN LN CR 99 0190 CR99 CR97 0190 CR 97 BROADWAY AVE 0500 SR 231 CR 82 0500 CR 82 KEITH LA 0500 KEITH LA ABERDEEN 0500 ABERDEEN BRGHT WTR VILL 0500 ISLIP TOWNUNE CR 13A 0500 CR 13A CR 13 0500 CR 13 CR57 0500 CR 57 BRENTWOOD RD 0500 SREN3~VOOD RD PARDEE AVE 0500 PARDEE AVE SRlll 0500 SR 111 CR 17 0500 CR17 SR27A 0570 HOVVELL'S ROAD STOREY BLVD 0570 STOREY BLVD BRGHTWTR VILL 0570 ISLIP TOWNLINE RICHLAND 0570 RICHLAND LOMBARDY 0570 LOMBARDY CR13 0570 CR13 CENTREAVE 0570 CENTRE AVE WINIFRED 0570 WINIFRED HUBBARD 0570 HUBBARD CR 50 0610 BRKHNTOWNLINE CR99 NACC RD 0650 COLLINS AVE ESPLANADE 0650 ESPLANADE HOWELLS RD Page 7 1,01 93 1.39 93 0.47 01 0.04 01 1.39 01 0.2 01 0.1 95 1.04 95 0.08 92 1.92 92 0.25 01 1.13 01 0.36 01 0.21 01 0.43 01 0.06 01 0.33 01 0.31 01 0.7 01 1.02 01 0.34 01 0.13 92 0.34 01 1.28 01 0.39 01 0.71 01 1.19 01 0.2 01 0.5 01 0.1 92 0.35 01 0.54 92 1.31 92 0.42 92 0.88 01 1.61 94 0.27 95 0.45 94 0.06 01 0,22 01 0.1 01 0.08 01 0.09 01 0.08 01 0.34 01 0.41 01 1.41 01 0.18 01 023300 030600 009210 013957 012382 041199 022300 022300 023900 023900 038174 016198 017836 015231 015231 011812 011016 004540 021458 020651 015623 008900 023960 022182 014005 014282 014282 014282 014282 011200 012152 012200 012200 012200 008586 006900 023800 023100 009806 009806 009806 013750 013750 013750 013750 005824 003644 003644 8255 8256 8268 8269 8270 8056 8057 8057 8058 8058 8059 8060 8061 8062 8062 8063 8065 8066 8085 8086 8087 8091 8092 8093 8142 8143 8143 8143 8143 8144 8145 8146 8146 8146 8147 8148 8163 8164 8166 8166 8166 6167 8167 8167 6167 6171 8175 8175 LOCAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLtP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP tSLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP CR 65 CR 65 EB ONLY CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 67 CR 76 CR 76 CR 82 CR 82 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 85 CR 90 CR 90 CR 93 CR 93 CR 93 CR 93 CR 93 CR 93 CR 93 CR 97 CR 97 CR 97 CR 97 CR 97 CR 99 CR17 CR17 CR17 CR17 CR17 0650 HOWELLS RD BRKHN TOWNLINE 0.46 0650 CR 85 (VV} COLLINS AVE 0.09 0670 SM TOWN LINE CR 7 0.51 0670 CR 7 OLD LIE EXIT 0,14 0670 OLD LIE EXIT CR108 1.63 0670 CR 108 CALEB'S PATH 0.37 0670 CALEB'S PATH SR 111 0.73 0670 SRlll CR17 0.27 0670 CR 17 ROOSEVELT 0.53 0670 ROOSEVELT ISLANDIA VILL 0.37 0670 ISLIP TOWNLINE SR454 0.01 0670 SR 454 ISLANDIA VILL 0.99 0670 ISLIP TOWNLINE CR 93 1.5t 0760 SR 347 SR 111 0.4 0760 SR 111 SM TOWN LINE 1.05 0820 SR27A CR 50 0.64 0820 CR 50 SR27 0.96 0850 SR 27 WEST AVE 3,1 0850 WEST AVE CR 65 0.94 0850 CR 65 SMITH ST 0.03 0850 SMITH ST FOSTER AVE 0.14 0850 FOSTER AVE OVERTON 0.33 0850 OVERTON AMY DR 0.57 0850 AMY DR BROADWAY AVE 0.09 0850 BROADWAY AVE MCCONNELL 0.35 0850 MCCONNELL BARRETt AVE 0.55 0850 BARRETT AVE CR 97 0.47 0850 CR 97 BRKHN TOWNLINE 0.og 0090 CR 97 W ACC RD CR 97 E ACC RD 0.14 0090 CR 97 E ACC RD WAVERLY AVENUE 0.47 0930 SR27 SR454 1.92 0930 SR 454 SMtTHTOWN AVE 0.22 0930 SMITHTOWN AVE MARCUS 0.94 0930 MARCUS ERIE ST 0.6 0930 ERIE ST 1495S 0.14 0930 1495N CR 67 0.88 0930 CR67 SM TOWN LINE 0.51 0970 CR85 CHURCH ST 0.82 0970 CHURCH ST SR 27 0.68 0970 SR27 CR 19 1.31 0970 CR 19 CR90 1.5 0970 CR 90 BRKHN TOWNLINE 0.04 0990 CR 19 CR61 0.25 0170 SR 27A CR 50 0.25 0170 CR 50 SR 27 0.55 0170 SR27 SPUR DRS 0.89 0170 SPUR DRIVE S SPUR DR N 0.19 0170 SPUR DR N 0.03 01 01 92 01 01 01 01 01 95 95 95 92 92 92 01 92 92 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 92 01 95 01 01 01 01 01 95 01 01 01 01 01 95 01 01 01 01 01 01 003644 003644 012900 017993 017993 020260 011102 013950 010000 010000 012500 009900 009900 006500 012391 009200 013800 017925 017925 014732 021210 021210 021210 014732 025123 025123 025123 016500 007481 003400 023149 036572 019716 019716 019716 019000 017713 020133 028343 042936 049725 037900 005459 015053 019497 019638 019193 021458 8175 8175 8180 8181 8181 8182 8183 8184 8185 8185 8187 8188 8188 8195 8196 8220 822t 8223 8223 8224 1025 1025 1025 8224 8225 8225 8225 8226 8034 8035 8235 8236 8237 8237 8237 8239 8240 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 8248 8081 8082 8083 8084 8085 Page 8 LOCAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP ISLIP RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD RIVERHEAD SHELTER ISLAND SHELTER ISLAND SHELTER ISLAND CR17 CR19 CR19 CR6 CR6 CR7 CR7 CR7 LONG ISLAND AVE MACARTHUR MEMOR PINE AIRE DR TH CR 105 CR 105 CR 105 CR 43 CR 43 CR 43 CR 43 CR 43 CR 54 CR 58 CR 58 CR 58 CR 58 CR 58 CR 63 CR 73 CR 73 CR 94A ELTON ST ELTON ST FORGE RD HORTON AVE HUBBARD AVE HUBBARD AVE HUBBARD AVE MILL RD MILL RD MILL RD PECONIC BAY BLV PECONIC BAY BLV PECONIC BAY BLV SOUND AVE SOUND AVE SOUND AVE CR 115 CR 116 CR 117 0170 SMITH ST 0190 BROADWAY AVE CR90 0t90 CR 90 BRKHN TOVVNLINE 0060 SM TOWN LINE SIMEON WOOD RD 0060 SIMEON WOOD RD SRlll 0070 CR 13 CR 106 0070 CR 106 1495S 0070 1495S CR 67 GU40 GX60 JE00 1050 SH TOWN LINE SR,?.5 1050 SR25 CR43 1050 CR43 SOUND AVE 0430 CR 73 ELTON AVE 0430 ELTON AVE CR 58 0430 CR58 CR 105 0430 CR 105 0430 CR 105 SOUND AVENUE 0540 SOUND AVENUE WADING RVR RD 0580 SR 25 0A/EST) DOT YARD 0580 DOT YARD OSBORNE AVENUE 0580 OSBORNEAVENUE CR 73 0580 CR 73 CR 43 0580 CR43 SR25 (EAST) 0630 TRAFFIC CIRCLE SR 25 0730 SR25 CR43 0730 CR43 CR58 094A BRKHN TOWNLINE SR25 0580 BEG SAMPLE CR43 0580 CR43 SR25 0710 RIVER RD SR25 0970 OSBORNE AVE MIDDLE RD 1010 SR25 CR105 1010 CR105 SHADE TREE LA 10t0 SHADE TREE LA EDGAR AVE 1440 SR 25 LIRR 1440 LIRR CR58 1440 CR 58 MIDDLE RD 1760 MEETINGHOUSE R WASHINGTON AVE 1760 WASHINGTON AVE S JAMESPORTAV 1760 S JAMESPORTAV TUTS LA 2140 CR105 CR43 2140 CR43 HERRICKS LN 2140 HERRICKS LA SOUTHOLD T/L 1150 CR42 SRl14 1160 MIDWY-MENANTIC MENANTIC 1170 RAM ISLAND RD CR 69 Page 9 1.54 01 0.24 01 0.35 0t 0.42 01 0.25 01 1.07 0t 0.55 95 0.08 95 0.18 1.07 0.65 1.56 01 1.24 01 1.08 94 0.32 01 0.83 01 0.23 01 1.47 01 0.57 01 1.02 01 0.74 01 1.69 01 0.63 01 0,86 01 0.57 01 0.08 01 0.26 01 1.01 01 0.03 01 0.19 01 0.64 01 0.39 01 0.16 01 0.25 01 0.55 01 0.94 01 0.16 01 0.59 01 0.72 01 2.24 01 0.19 01 0.22 01 0.23 3.1 0.67 0.56 01 0.45 01 0.45 01 021458 022361 020889 007555 006456 016180 018300 026000 005000 005000 005000 012350 002681 001200 004153 004153 004949 004949 005292 003976 023106 023106 026243 027624 020389 017367 011088 011556 011562 005033 005033 001398 O01116 003561 005172 005172 002444 002444 002444 001296 001296 001296 001250 007500 OO750O 003640 O01770 002158 8085 8094 1003 8029 8030 8031 8032 8033 1143 1144 1145 8133 8133 1102 1102 1103 8156 1119 1119 1120 1121 8168 8174 8192 8193 8242 1019 1019 1006 1018 1009 1030 1030 1011 1011 1011 1020 1020 1020 1151 1151 1151 8271 8272 166 LOCAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town SHELTER ISLAND SHELTER ISLAND SHELTER ISLAND SHELTER ISLAND SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOVVN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOVVN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SMITHTOWN SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON CR 42 CR 42 CR 42 CR 69 CR 108 CR 11 CR 11 CR 13 CR 13 CR 14 CR 14 CR 14 CR 14 CR 16 CR 16 CR 16 CR 16 CR 16 CR 16 CR 16 CR 16 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 4 CR 6 CR 67 CR 67 CR 76 CR 76 CR 93 TOWN LINE RD TOWN LINE RD CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 104 CR 105 CR 105 CR 111 0420 ROCKY POINT AV PROSPECT 0420 PROSPECT STEARNS PT 0420 STEARNS PT CR 115 0690 SR 114 RAM ISLAND RD 1080 ISLIP TOWNLINE CR 6 0110 TOWNLINE ROAD SUNKN MDW PKWY 0110 SUNKNMDWPKWY SR25A 0130 ISLIP TL 1495N 0130 1495N CR4 0140 SR 25 CARLDON 0140 CARLDON OLD NRTHPRTRD 0140 OLD NRTHPRT RD BRUCE LA 0140 BRUCE LA SR 25A 0160 VILLOF BRANCH SR 347 0160 SR347 RHONDAAVE 0160 RHONDA AVE MAYFAIR 0160 MAYFAIR NICHOLS RD 0160 NICHOLS RD CR 93 0160 CR 93 SHORE RD 0160 SHORE RD SPECTACLE LK 0160 SPECTACLE LK BRKHN TOWNLINE 0040 BAB TOWN LINE CR 13 0040 CR 13 CR67 0040 CR 67 NO STATE PKWY 0040 NO STATE PKWY HUNT TOVVN LINE 0060 CR 108 ISLIP TOWNLINE 0670 CR 4 HARNED RD 0670 HARNED RD ISLIP TOWNLINE 0760 ISLIP TOWNLINE JACKSON ST 0760 JACKSON ST NICHOL'S RQAD 0930 ISLIP TOWNLINE CR 16 FA30 CLAY PITTS RD END OF SAMPLE FA30 PULASKI RD MIDDLEVlLLE RD 1040 QUOGUEVILL WOODLEIGH 1040 WOODLEIGH OAKVlLLE 1040 OAKVILLE SR27 1040 SR27 PLEASURE DR 1040 PLEASURE DR CR 31 1040 CR 31 PVMTCHANGE 1040 PVMT CHANGE PVMT CHANGE 1040 PVMT CHANGE CR 105 1040 CR 105 LANE CHANGE 1040 LANE CHANGE 1040 LUDLAM 1040 LUDLAM CR63 1050 CR104 SR24 1050 SR24 RH TOWN LINE 1110 SR 27SSR BRKHN TOWNLINE Page 10 0.25 01 0.8 01 0.15 01 1.43 01 0.2 01 0,81 93 0.82 93 0.04 01 0.85 93 1.6 01 0.47 01 0.53 01 0.61 01 0.51 01 0.11 01 0.72 01 0.89 01 0.62 01 0.15 01 0.32 01 0.27 01 0.07 01 0.1 01 0.11 01 0.57 01 0.19 01 0.37 01 0.78 92 0.88 01 0.88 01 0.14 01 0.68 01 1,2 01 0.56 01 1.29 01 0.3 01 0.66 01 0.64 01 0.12 01 1.08 01 0.37 01 0,2 01 0.11 01 0.06 01 0.99 01 0.94 01 0.48 01 0.18 01 001795 001795 001795 000626 013957 015000 015100 011812 004900 016517 016517 012013 012013 011402 012161 012161 012161 012161 021995 021995 021995 026177 034120 040669 041870 007555 016981 012900 012391 012391 017713 006237 007943 0O9132 009132 009132 005469 005469 012200 012200 012200 007912 007912 007912 007912 004874 012350 00788~ 8132 8132 8132 8189 8269 8048 8049 8063 8064 8067 8067 8068 8068 8069 8070 8070 8070 8070 8071 8071 8071 8024 8025 8026 8027 8029 8179 8180 8196 8196 8240 1001 1016 8265 8265 8265 8266 8266 1141 1141 1141 8267 8267 8267 8267 1142 1143 1146 Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON CR31 CR 31 CR 31 CR 38 CR 38 CR 38 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 38 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39 CR 39A CR 39B CR 39B CR 51 CR 51 CR 51 CR 51 CR51 CR 52 CR 62 CR 63 CR 63 CR 63 CR 63 CR 71 CR 79 CR 79 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 CE 80 CR 80 CR 80 CR 80 LOCAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT 0310 WHBCH VIL LINE 0310 SR 27 EB RAMP 0310 SR 27 WB RAMp 0380 CR 39 0380 WILTSHIRE 0380 CR 52 0390 CR 80 0390 CR 39B (SOUTH) 0390 CR 39B (NORTH) 0390 SR 27 0390 SHRUBLAND 0390 GREENFIELD 0390 0390 TUCKAHOE RD 0390 0390 W END BRIDGE 0390 E END BRIDGE 0390 CR 52 0390 HENRY RD 0390 7-11 DWY 0390 SH rILL LINE 0390 SH VILL LINE 039A CR39 039B CR 39 (WEST) 039B 0510 BRKHN TOWNLINE 0510 MEDIAN BREAK 0510 RVRHEAD SPK RD 0510 CR 63 0510 MEDIAN BREAK 0520 CR 39 0620 CR 80 0630 CR 51 0630 0630 SWEEZY POND TR 0630 0710 CR80 0790 SR 27 0790 SCUTTLEHOLE RD 0800 BRKHNTOWN LINE 0800 SOUTH RD 0800 S PHILLIPS 0800 SH TOVVN LINE 0800 SH TOWN LINE 0800 LEWIS RD 0800 SR 24 0800 PONQUOGUE RD 0800 CR 62 SR27 EB RAMP SR 27 VVB RAMP CR 104 WILTSHIRE CR 52 MILLSTONE BRK CR 39B (SOUTH) CR 39B (NORTH) SR 27 SHRUBLAND GREENFIELD TUCKAHOE ROAD ST ANDREWS E END BRIDGE CR52 HENRY RD 7-11 DVVY CR 38 SH VILL LINE CR 39A SH VILL LINE CR 39 (EAST) MEDIAN BREAK RVRHEAD SPK RD CR 63 MEDIAN BREAK CR 94 CR 38 THE BREAKVVATER END OF SAMPLE TRFFFIC CIR ONECK LA SCU'F'I'LEHOLE RD SAG HARBOR VIL SOUTH RD S PHILLIPS CR 71 QUOQUE rILL LEWIS RD SR 24 PONQUOGUE RD CR62 CR 39 Page 11 2.16 01 0,71 01 0.43 01 0.11 01 1.08 01 1,34 01 0.29 01 0.45 01 1.13 01 0.88 01 0,17 01 0.61 01 0,17 01 0.07 01 0.29 01 0.1 01 1.14 01 0.5 01 0.13 01 0.09 01 0.13 01 0.4 01 0.25 01 0.05 01 0.68 01 0.53 01 0.86 01 1.39 01 0.53 01 1.13 01 0.93 01 0.85 01 0.69 01 0.t2 01 0.88 01 0.14 01 0.53 01 1.93 01 1.52 93 1.06 01 0.31 01 2.59 01 0.99 01 0.48 01 3.66 01 0.65 01 1.18 01 0.15 01 014606 014606 007764 005750 005750 011785 007825 006149 005304 031051 O28954 028954 O28954 028954 028954 028954 028908 028908 028908 023492 023492 023492 028954 001216 001216 009543 009543 010939 006472 006472 008318 001859 006562 006562 004911 008582 005116 005806 007300 012421 012421 012421 009527 009446 009446 017446 017258 019973 8109 8109 8110 8122 8122 8123 8124 8125 8126 1101 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 8127 8127 8152 8152 8153 8154 8154 8155 8172 8173 8173 1021 8173 8191 8198 8199 8212 8212 8212 8214 8215 8215 8216 8217 8218 LOCAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Village Village Village Village village Village village village village village Village Village Vi,age village Village Village village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHAMPTON SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD $OUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD AMITYVlLLE AMITYVILLE AMITYVILLE AMITYVILLE AMITYVILLE AMITYVILLE AMITYVILLE AMITYVILL[ AMITYVILL[ ASHAROKEN BABYLON BABYLON BABYLON BELLPORT B RIGH'I~/VATE RS 8RIGHTVVATERS BRIGHTVVATERS BRIGHTWATERS EAST HAMPTON LINDENHURST LINDENHURST LINDENHURST LINDENHURST LLOYD HARBOR CR 8O CR 94 CR 94 CR 94 CR 94A CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 CR 48 MAIN ST MAIN ST MAIN ST MAIN ST MAIN ST SOUND AVE SOUND AVE CR 1 CR 1 CR 1 CR 1 CR 1 CR 12 CR 12 CR 12 CR 2 ASHAROKEN AVE CR 50 CR 50 RAILROAD AVE S CR 36 CR 50 CR 57 CR 57 CR 57 NEWTOWN LANE CR 12 CR 12 CR2 CR 2 LLOYD HARBOR RD 0800 CR 39 0940 BRKHN TOWNLINE 0940 CR 94A 0940 CR 51 094A CR 94 0480 W/O COX RD 0480 SR 25 0480 ELIJAHS LA 0480 DEPOT LANE 0480 .5 MI W BE LN 0480 PECONIC LANE 0480 KENNYS RD 0480 TUCKERS RD 0480 HORTON AVE 0480 YOUNGS AVENUE 0480 PVMT CHANGE 0480 UAB LINE 2560 2560 2560 2560 2560 3970 3970 0010 SR 27A 0010 AM VILL LINE 0010 CR 12 0010 SR 27 0010 AM VILL LINE 0120 CR 1 0120 0120 SR 110 0O20 SR 110 0010 VILLAGE LIMIT 0500 SR 109 0500 DEER PARK AVE 1260 CARLL AVE 0360 BELLPORT VILL 0500 BRGHTWTR LINE 0570 BRGHTWTR VIL L 0570 SR 27NSR 0570 SR275SR 0620 L I RAILROAD 0120 LDHRST VIL LN 0120 PARK AVE 0020 LDHRST VIL LN 0020 SR 27 0030 WEST NECK RD Page 12 KNOLL RD CR 94A CR 51 CR 63 RH TOWN LINE SR 25 ELIJAHS LA DEPOT LANE .5 MI W BR LN PECONIC LANE KENNYS RD TUCKERS RD HORTONS LN YOUNGS AVENUE PVMT CHANGE UAB LINE SR 25 CR 48 BAB TOWN LINE CR 12 BAB TOWN LINE BAB TOWN LINE BAB TOWN LINE SR 110 BABYLON TL BAB TOWN LINE DUCK ISLAND DEER PARK AVE SR 231 DEER PARK AVE BRKHN TOWNLINE ISLIP TOWNLINE SR 27 NSR SR 27 SSR ISLIP TOWNLINE LONG LANE PARK AVE BAB TOWN LINE SR 27 LDHRST VIL LN LLOYD LA 1.41 01 1.92 01 0.26 01 0.15 01 0.12 01 0.3 01 2.65 01 1.66 01 0.69 01 1.99 01 1.65 01 0.31 01 0.36 01 0.09 01 0.16 01 2.03 01 2.32 01 0.01 01 0.06 01 005 01 0.O6 01 0.06 01 0.77 0.47 0.15 93 0.34 93 0.09 93 0.15 01 0.14 01 0.08 01 0.31 01 0.59 01 0.4 01 1.88 01 0.98 01 0.51 01 0.19 1.23 01 0.26 01 0.3 94 0.09 01 0.03 01 0.45 01 1.78 01 0.07 01 0.04 01 0.17 01 0.42 01 013296 010727 010727 010727 011562 010690 010797 010797 011770 011770 012263 012263 012263 O12263 011216 011216 011216 007864 007864 007864 007864 007864 007500 007500 004900 004900 007700 004787 004787 008845 008845 009809 011184 004244 009158 009158 005000 013465 014282 023100 019546 009806 003018 009893 009893 016542 012293 002497 8219 133 133 133 8242 11t4 1115 1115 1116 1116 1117 1117 1117 1117 1118 1118 1118 52 52 52 52 52 1151 1151 8001 8001 8002 8003 8003 8050 8050 8051 8004 1027 8141 8141 8121 8143 8164 8165 8166 8169 8052 8052 8005 80O6 1026 LOCAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORT Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village village Village Village Village village Village village Village Village Village Village Village Village Village LLOYD HARBOR LLOYD LA LLOYD HARBOR WEST NECK RD LLOYD HARBOR WEST NECK RD LLOYD HARBOR WEST NECK RD NISSEQUOGUE RIVER RD NORTHPORT CR 10 PATCHOGUE CR 19 PATCHOGUE CR 19 PATCHOGUE CR 65 PATCHOGUE CR 65 PATCHOGUE CR 85 QUOQUE CR 104 QUOQUE CR 104 QUOQUE CR 80 QUOQUE CR 80 SAG HARBOR CR 79 SOUTHAMPTON CR 39 SOUTHAMPTON CR 39 SOUTHAMPTON CR 39 SOUTHAMPTON CR 39 SOUTHAMPTON CR 39A SOUTHAMPTON HAMPTON RD SOUTHAMPTON HILL BT SOUTHAMPTON HILL ST VILLAGE OF THE BRANCH CR 16 WESTHAMPTON BEACH CR 31 WESTHAMPTON BEACH CR 31 WESTHAMPTON BEACH CR 80 WESTHAMPTON BEACH CR 89 LAKE GROVE CR 97 ISLANDIA CR 100 ISLANDIA CR 67 ISLANDIA CR 67 0040 LLOYD HARBOR R 0110 WESTVIEW RD 0110 SEMINARY ETRAN 0110 BATH CLUB 0080 HARBOR LA 0100 HUNTTOWN UNE 0t 90 CR 65 0190 E MAIN ST 0650 PATCH VILL LN 0650 DIVISION ST 0850 PATCH VILL LN 1040 CR80 1040 OLD COUNTRY RD 0800 QUOGUE VILL 0800 CR 104 0790 SAG HBRVILL 0390 CR 38 0390 LANE CHANGE 0390 0390 SH VILL LINE 039A SH VILL LINE 0460 MAIN ST 0540 TUCKAHOE LA 054O MOSES LA 0160 SR 25 0310 CR 80 0310 LIRR 0800 CR31 0890 W/O JESSUP LN 0970 BRKHN TOWNLINE 1000 ISLANDIA VILL 0670 1495S 0670 BEDFORD AVE MARSH CT SEMINARY ENTRA BATH CLUB LLOYD HARBOR R MORICHES RD SR 25A E MAIN ST BRKHN TOWN LN DIVISION ST CR 19 W/O CR 19 OLD COUNTRY RD SH TOWN LINE CR 104 SH TOWN LINE BRICKILN RD LANE CHANGE SH TOWN LINE SH TOWN LINE SR 27A FLYING POINT R MOSES LA FIRST NECK LA SM TOWN L~NE LIRR SH TOWN LINE SH TOWN LINE E/O JESSUP LN SR347 SR 454 1495N NICHOLS RD 0.97 01 0.37 01 0.42 01 0.83 01 1.43 01 0.11 93 0.35 01 1.15 99 0.59 01 0.23 01 0.77 0t 1.03 0t 0.04 01 1.61 01 0.59 01 0.28 93 0.06 0t 0.1 01 0,07 01 0.09 0t 0.38 01 1.22 01 0.88 01 0.7 01 0.08 01 0,61 01 0.1 01 0.48 01 1.18 01 0.12 01 0.25 93 0.07 92 0.82 92 001139 004481 094481 002497 001315 012700 004907 008732 003644 003644 014085 002051 009132 009527 009446 007300 023492 023492 023492 023492 023492 011448 014137 012247 011402 014606 O146O6 009527 005285 031157 030600 011700 009900 1004 1023 1023 1026 1028 8038 8088 8089 8175 8175 8227 8264 8265 8214 8215 8199 2 2 2 2 2 1029 1013 1005 8069 8109 8109 8214 8232 1139 8256 8186 8188 Page 13 · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reveme so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: L?- LLC_ 2. Article ('Trar3$ PS Forrr A. Signature [] Agent X [] Addressee B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Dat of D 'very D. Is delive~/ address different from itern l ? [] Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ~1 No 3. Service Type ~'fl~'ertified Mail [] Express Mall [] Registered [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. 4. Restricted Deliver,/? (Extra Fee) [] Yes UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPSpermit No. G-10 · Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box · OFFICE OF TH]~] TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUI'HOLD I,,,11,,,111,1,,I,,,I,,,1111,,,I,I,,,I,1,1,1,,I,,,11,1,,,,I,II PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY patricia.i~nnegan @town.southold.ny.us KIEHAN M. CORCORAN ASSISTANT TOWN A~I~JPORNEY kieran.corcoran@town.southold.ny.us LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.montefusco@town.souLhold.ny.us JOSHUA Y. HORTON Supervisor Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1.1971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-5639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 7, 2005 RECE~/ED VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Denise M. Sheehan, Acting Commissioner NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1011 OCT 11 ;~005 $outhold Town (~lerl~ Re: Town of Southold Lead Agency Request Annexation Petition of KACE LI, LLC Dear Ms. Sheehan: I write in response to the Memorandum submitted by the Village of Greenport (the "Village") in support of its request for appointment as lead agency with regard to the Petition for Annexation submitted by KACE LI, LLC. As you are aware, the Town of Southold (the "Town") has previously requested that it, rather than the Village of Greenport, be appointed lead agency with respect to the environmental review associated with the proposed annexation of this parcel of property, which is currently situated entirely within the Town. In that regard, I refer you to my letter dated August 29, 2005, and stand by the points raised therein. However, the Village's Memorandum does warrant a brief response. Despite having taken over a month, and 24 pages, to construct its response to the Town's letter, the Village's Memorandum may be distilled down to two stark conclusions: (1) the Village has already pre-determined that the proposed annexation, and its intense housing development, will happen, even though no review, environmental or otherwise, has been conducted in order to support that conclusion, and (2) the Village has already pre-determined, prior to any lead agency appointment or any iota of environmental review, that there will be no significant environmental impact occasioned by the proposed annexation or the intense housing proposal. Examples of the Village's pre-ordainment of this annexation and housing project are its acceptance, prior to any environmental review, that the proposal will have no substantial impact on traffic (at p. 6) or the Greenport School District (at p. 20). Equally disturbing is the Village's concentration on the financial impacts of this project (at p. 9). In that regard, the Village posits the standard for making the annexation determination as one concerned merely with weighing the financial impacts on the Town and Village, Ms. Denise M Sheehan October 7, 2005 Page 2 respectively. The Village stands to gain substantial additional revenues from this project, that much has become crystal clear. What the Village seems conveniently to forget is that the effect on the public, and specifically the environment, must be considered; a mere analysis of how many dollars the Village stands to gain will not suffice. A final inescapable conclusion from the Village's Memorandum is that the Village views any impact on the Town or its residents as trivial. The Village takes this point of view despite the facts that the subject proper~y: is wholly within the Town; is serviced by Town police; shares a school district with Town and Village residents; directly abuts a major arterial roadway through the Town; appears to be a vital Town environmental resource in its wetlands network; and has been and is the subject of comprehensive and ongoing zoning and planning initiatives of the Town. For the reasons stated above, and in my letter dated August 29, 2005, the Town of Southold believes that it would be most appropriate, and hereby renews its request, that it be appointed lead agency in this matter. V/6~y truly yours, l(/aa~t'ricia A. Finnega~~ ¥own Attorney ~ ~,,~ PAF/Ik cc: Members of the Town Board Ms. Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk J Joseph Prokop, Esq. Ms. Christie Haliock, Cferk of the Village of Greenport (via certified mail, return receipt requested) PROKOP & PROKOP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 175 ROUTE 25A ~AST SETAUKET, NEW YORK 11733 TELEPHONE (631) 751-7508 F^CSIM~LE (631) 751-7123 October 4, 2005 Denise M. Sheehan, Coramissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 625 Broadway Albany, NY 11971 Re: Village of Greenport Request for Lead Agency Status Dear Commissioner Sheehan: The Village of Greenport is submitting the enclosed Memorandum in support of the request of the Village of Greenport for lead agency status and in response to the letter submission by the Town of Southold dated August 29, 2005. This matter involves a Petition for Annexation of a i~ii acre property which is entirely owned by one entity, KACE LI, LLC and which abuts a 198 Village Park called Moores Woods. KACE LI, LLC will ~evelop the property after the annexation with 128 housing units, of which 64 will be affordable housing for the local workforce of the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold. The Village will be responsible for all services to the property after annexation including roads and highways, water and sewer, electricity, fire and ambulance and general government. The Village should be appointed lead agency in this matter because this is a matter of primarily local impact and concern, the Village has the broadest governmental authority for investigating the impact of the propose~ action, and the Village has the greatest capability of reviewing the impacts of the annexation on the environment. Thank you for your consideration. dO~S'e-pn.' W. ~ro£op, Esq. cc: Hon. David E. Kapell Patricia E. Finnegan, Town Attorney DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION STATE OF NEW YORK Village of Greenport, Petitioner, In the Matter of the Application of the Village of Greenport for Lead Agency Status and the Resolution of the Dispute as to Lead Agency Status of the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold with Regard to the Petition of Kace LI, LLC for Annexation, MEMORANDUM OF THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST BY THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT TO BE APPOINTED LEAD AGENCY WITH REGARD TO THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF KACE LI, LLC Village Attorneys Village of Greenport 175 Route 25A East Setauket, NY 11733 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................. 1 STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER ........... 4 RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS, CASE LAW, STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ............... Point I Standards of all Discretionary Decisions ........ A. Decisions with Regard to the Annexation Petition B. Post-Annexation Decisions ........... Point II DEC Regulations Require that the Commissioner Appoint the Village of Greenport as Lead Agency in this Matter ............. A. The anticipated impacts of the action being considered are primarily of local significance and the Village as the local agency should be Appointed as Lead Agency for that reason ....... B. The Village of Greenport has the Broadest Governmental Power for Investigating the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Village Should be Appointed as Lead Agency ..... 7 8 9 11 13 14 16 C. The Village of Greenport Should be Lead Agency Because the Village has the Greatest Capability For Providing the most thorough Environmental Assessment of the Annexation ............ Point III The August 29, 2005 Letter From the Town of Southold Contains Incorrect And Irrelevant Factual Misstatements Regarding the Project ............... CONCLUSION ................. 18 20 24 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This Memorandum is submitted to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation "Commissioner' and the "DEC") in support of the Village of Greenport (hereinafter the "Village") (hereinafter the request by the for a resolution by the Town of Southold (hereinafter the "Town") as to whether the Village or the Town should be the lead agency with respect to Commissioner of the dispute between the Village and the KACE LI, LLC (hereinafter "KACE") 2005. 7 of the General Municipal Law the Village and the Town will Petition for Annexation of which was filed on July 14, Pursuant to Article "municipal Annexation Law"} the {the both have a part in the decision as to the annexation, however for the reasons stated below the Village alone has the ability to make the analysis in the decision on the Petition for annexation and the Village will have sole jurisdiction as to the decisions regarding zoning and planning subsequent to the annexation. The Village will also have the responsibility to provide all future services to the property such as roads and highway service, water, sewer, electric, fire and emergency services, general government and other services. The proposed project can only be developed under the zoning laws of the Village of Greenport and using the municipal sewer, water and electric services of the Village. The proposed submitted to and is not before any of the Town of Southold (other than the sucht impact statement regarding zoning annexation. as to the environmental impact of the decisions and planning that will be rendered after the The Village therefore should be appointed as the lead agency for the annexation to agencies and environmental impact and development of the property, the public and the environment. avoid having different lead statements for the annexation to the prejudice of the parties, Section letter from the Town to Conservation. the services community in submission exhibits several fundamental misunderstandings as essential facts regarding 3 of this Memorandum addresses the August 29, 2005 the Department of Environmental The Town has limited knowledge of the property, the property will receive after annexation, and the which the property is located. The Town's to the annexation and the property, which project has not been department or agency annexation petition submitted to the Town Board). As whether or not the annexation is successful, under no circumstance will the Town have any jurisdiction or authority with respect to the proposed project. KACE, as the owner of the property, has stated that it will develop the property if the annexation is approved. The Village will become lead agency and will prepare an environmental demonstrate that of lead agency in this matter. The suggestion by the Town that it is better suited than the the Town could not adequately undertake the role in the August 29, 2005 letter Village to review the impact on be which the environment of planning and zoning decisions that will made by the Village, and utility services that the Village will provide and that the Town is is not, is patronizing, offensive, proper planning and all villages in the State of The Village of Greenport should therefore lead agency in this matter. "objective" while the Village nonsensical, and an affront to New York. be appointed as STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER KACE is the owner of a 17.1 acre parcel of vacant real property which is on the western boundary of the Village of Greenport in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold identified by Suffolk County tax lot number 1000-40.00- 03.00-001.000 (hereinafter the "property"}. The property is located on Suffolk County Road 48, which for much of its length is a large new four lane highway. The property abuts a 198 acre property known as Moores Woods which is a Village of Greenport park that is owned by the Village of Greenport. Moores Woods has a significant wetlands network and any wetlands on the property are part of the Moores Woods wetlands system. KACE the Town on filed a Petition for Annexation with the Village and July 14, 2005. The Petition requests that the property becomes part of pursuant to Article 7 of Annexation Law. the incorporated Village of Greenport the General Municipal Law, the Municipal The Village of Greenport adopted a resolution on July 17, 2005, in which the Village initially typed the action as an unlisted action and in which the Village of Greenport adopted lead agency status with regard to the Petition for annexation. 4 Representatives of the Village attended a meeting of the Town Board on July 28, 2005, to discuss various matters regarding the Annexation including lead agency status and the date and time of the required joint meeting of the Boards. the Town were able to agree on the date and public hearing on the Petition but agency status. The Boards conducted a joint public hearing regarding the Annexation Petition on August 23, 2005. KACE submitted a long-form Environmental Assessment Form to the Town and the Village on August 23, 2005 (the "KACE EAF") at the joint public hearing which addresses in the detail each of the traffic concerns identified in the August 29, 2005 Southold letter. The KACE EAF contains a detailed traffic analysis of the impacts, and suggested mitigation measures of such impacts, of the proposed project prepared by a member of KACE LI, LLC, who is a licensed New York State Professional Engineer with a masters degree in urban planning from Columbia University. The Village and time of the joint were not able to agree on lead developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers using NYSDOT completed traffic counts along many of the Town's major roadways, including County Road 48, in 2002. The conclusion of the analysis reveals that increase in The traffic analysis contained in the KACE EAF was prepared in accordance with the publication "Trip Generation" vehicle trips on County Road 48 due to the proposed Workforce Project is only 1.7% grater than the increase due to an as of right project developed under the Town's current Hamlet Density (4 units per acre) zoning. The Village of Greenport subsequently reaffirmed its adoption of lead agency status and referred the matter to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter the "DEC") for resolution by the Coramissioner pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.6(b) (5) (v). The Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport and the Town Board of the Town of Southold are required to render decisions on the Petition for Annexation by November 21, 2005, days after the date of the public hearing on the which is 90 Petition. KACE construct property of which sixty-feur (64) units intended fer the local werk has declared that if the property is annexed it will one hundred and twenty-eight (128) homes on the will be affordable housing force. After the annexation the Village of Greenport will be making all decisions regarding the development of the property including'zoning, planning, permits, approvals and other decisions. The Town of Southold will have no jurisdiction whatsoever with regard to the development of the property. The subject parcel to be annexed is has been zoned as such for (residential - 4 units per intense currently zoned, over 25 years, Hamlet Density acre), which is residential zoning classification. and Southold's most In addition, the parcel is located within the recently adopted Greenport West ~'HALO" Zone, which has been recommended by the Southold Town Board to support densities of up to eight units per acre when sufficient sewer connections exist. The HALO created as part of the development of a variety of housing types. The Greenport HALO Zone Map was adopted as part of the 2005 Southold Town Hamlet Study. The property presently receives police protection Town of Southold Police only and receives virtually no other services from the Town of Southold. The Village of Greenport will provide road and highway services, emergency fire and ambulance protection, electric service, water and sewer service, and other services to the property after the annexation. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS, CASE LAW, STATUTES AND REGULATIONS Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL") provides that an involved agency shall adopt lead agency status for purposes of conducting SEQRA review for an action. Zone has been the recent Southold Hamlet Study to facilitate affordable workforce housing that incorporates from the Section 8-0111 of the ECL provides that where there is a dispute over lead agency status the Commissioner of the DEC must decide which agency should properly adopt lead agency status. Subsection 6 NYCRR 617.6(b) (5) (v) provides a procedure for the resolution of disputes regarding lead agency status where two or more agencies seek lead agency status whereby the dispute is referred to the Commissioner of the DEC for resolution. The dispute between the Village and the Town regarding lead agency status has been submitted to the Commissioner for resolution pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.6(b) (5) (v). Point I Standards of all Discretionary Decisions KACE petitioned the Village and the Town for the annexation of the property by the Village of Greenport. KACE has also advised the Village and the Town that if the annexation is approved it will be applying to the Village for the necessary approvals for the construction of approximately one hundred and twenty-eight (128) housing units, which will include sixty-four (64) workforce. There are two made with respect to the annexation and units of affordable housing for different sets of this action, the decisions the Village and Town decisions that will be the decision with respect to which will be made with respect to the development of the property. the decisions are interrelated and the Village appointed lead agency because the Village will For SEQRA purposes, should be have sole however, jurisdiction over all planning and zoning decisions that are made after the annexation. A. Decisions with Regard to the Annexation Petition The Village Board of the Village of Greenport and the Town Board of the Town of Southold are both involved in the determination regarding the annexation pursuant to Section 710 of the General Municipal Law. The standard of the decision of the Boards on the annexation detriment to the Town of as compared to any benefit from the annexation. Petition is to determine and weigh any Southold resulting from the annexation to the Village of Greenport resulting The application of this standard by the Village and the Town will involve a determination and analysis of the costs and revenues that are associated with the services that will be provided by the Village and will not be provided by the Town after the annexation. The services that will have to be provided by the Village include roads and highways, water, sewer, and electric service, emergency fire and ambulance service and general government services. The Village is the only agency that can make a proper analysis of the costs that will be incurred and revenues that will be generated by the Village providing road and highways, water, sewer and electric services and general government services to the property after the annexation. The Town does not have any data or information on which ~o base an analysis or decision as to the costs that will be incurred, revenues that will be generated or capital improvements that will be required by the Village providing road and highway, fire and ambulance, water, sewer, electric and general government services to the annexed territory. The extent to which these services will be required by the development after annexation will be determined by the application of the Greenport Village Code by the officials and boards of the Village about which the Town has no information and is not able to make a decision. The Village alone has the information to review these matters and to prepare a proper analysis, and the Village is best suited to determine for purposes of determining potential impacts on the environment for an environmental review, the extent and manner of the development of the property. The decisions which will be made with respect to the annexation are therefore virtually exclusively decisions that lO must be made by the Village as only the Village has the necessary information with respect to the services that are to be provided. The Town's decision on the Petition will be based on the limited information that is available to the Town. The Village will clearly have the more significant rote in the determination on the Petition for that reason, and these factors should result in the Village being appointed as (Long Island Pine Barrens Society lead agency in this matter , Inc. v. Planning Board of the Town of Brookhaven, 80 N.Y. 2d 500, 1992). The limited role of the Town Annexation 591 N.Y.S. 2d 982 (2nd, in the decision as to the is not sufficient for the Town to be the lead agency in this matter (River center, LLC v. Dormito'ry Authority of the State of New York, 275 A.D. 2d 683, 713 N.Y.S. 2d 527, leave to appeal denied, 96 N.Y. 2d 703, 722 N.Y.S. 2d 795 (lst, 2000)). The Village should be appointed lead agency so that a proper review and analysis of the information that is necessary in the decision on the Annexation and subsequent decisions regarding the development of the property including the impact on the environment of any changes or expansion of the roads, highways, water, sewer or electric systems that may be required can be properly conducted. B. Post-Annexation Decisions The property will become part of the Village and subject to the Village stated that its property will be developed if approved. The decisions that will be made after will consist of zoning and planning decisions Zoning Code and other regulations and KACE has the annexation is the incorporation and approvals which will be made pursuant to Article 7 and Sections 7-712(A), 7-712(B) (regarding Zoning Board of Appeals), 7-718 (regarding Planning Board) and 7-725 (site plan review) of the Village Law and Chapter 150 (building code) of the Greenport Zoning Code and the Greenport Village Code, as well as decisions regarding the structure and repairs that will be necessary for the Village to provide in order for the Village to provide services to the property. Because the Village of Greenport is already providing these services to other properties in the Village and the Village is already familiar with the regulations of the Village Code regarding the development, the Village of Greenport is uniquely qualified to analyze the impacts of those decisions on the environment. The only decision to be made by the Town in this matter is a minor role in the initial decision on the Annexation. Ail decisions after the Annexation will be decisions regarding the environment, services, planning and zoning that will be made by the Village without any involvement by the Town, and the Village 12 should be appointed be the lead agency in this matter for that reason. Point II DEC Regulations Require that the Commissioner Appoint the Village of Greenport as Lead Agency in this Matter The criteria which the Commissioner is to apply in determining which agency should be lead agency when two or more agencies are seeking lead agency status and cannot resolve the issue, are contained in Section 617.6{b) (5) (v) of Title 6 of the NYCRR and are as follows: 1. "Whether the anticipated impacts of the action being considered are primarily of statewide, regional or local significance (i.e. if such impacts are of primarily local significance, all other considerations being equal, trhe local agency involved will be lead agency)."(6 NYCRR 617.6(b) {5)(v)(a)). 2. "Which agency has the broadest governmental powers for investigation of the impacts of the proposed action." )."(6 NYCRR 617.6(b) (5) (v) (b)). 3. "Which agency has the greatest capability for providing the most thorough environmental assessment of the proposed action." (6 NYCRR 617.6(b) (5) {v) (c)). The application of the criteria in these s~ctions to the underlying facts of this matter should result in the Commissioner appointing the Village of Greenport as lead agency in this matter for the reasons stated below. A. The anticipated impacts of the action being considered are primarily of local significance and the Village as the local agency should be A~ointed as Lead Agency for that reason. The property abuts a large tract of land called Moores Woods which is a 198 acre Village Park which is owned and managed by the Village of Greenport. Any wetlands that are contained on the subject property are part of a significant wetlands system which is located in Moores Woods. The Village has an intimate knowledge of Moores Woods and its ecosystem, including the substantial wetlands systems, and is familiar with the property and its environmental concerns for that reason. The anticipated impacts of the project will only be incurred by the Village of Greenport and its residents due to the fact that the Village will be required to provide road and highway service, emergency fire and ambulance service, water and sewer, and electric utility services to the property after it is annexed into the Village and also due to the fact that the property abuts Moores Woods and other properties in the Village of Greenport. The impacts of the change in services will be incurred exclusively by the Village of Greenport and its property owners. twenty eight (128) the residents and one hundred and The creation of an additional households and their residents as customers of Village utility systems and users of the Village roads and 14 highways, the other Village and its residents. The Village and its utility departments will likely be required to make capital improvements and to obtain additional equipment for each of the services that are to be provided which will have an impact on the Village and the residents and businesses as customers of these utilities or users of the services. The impact on the environment, if any, such as noise, views, groundwater, or other impacts will be local and will only be the Village for these reasons. The impact on traffic, if any, which is mentioned by the Town in its August 29, 2005 submission, will impact not only the Town, but will have a more direct impact on the Village. The Village should be appointed lead agency because the impacts of the Annexation and the subsequent development will be local and on the Village and its residents only for the reasons stated. and the associated responsibility and demand on each of services that will be incurred will effect only the The Village of Greenport has the Broadest Governmental Power for Investigating the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Village Should be A~ointed as Lead A~enc~ The Petition for Annexation proposes that a 17.1 acre parcel of property be annexed by the Village of Greenport and that the property then be the site of the development of one hundred and twenty-eight {128) homes. The property and the homes that property will be serviced by the Village water and sewer systems, are constructed on the Village roads and highways, the Village municipal electric utility, and will also receive emergency protection from the Village fire and ambulance service. The Village has the broadest governmental power for investigating the impacts of the proposed action on the environment and because the Village already has a department for each of the services that are to be provided to the territory, as well as the appropriate board for each of the Planning decisions that will be rendered. The corresponding Village departments are 'uniquely and determine the impact of the project on the Village and its property owners and qualified to review the environment and residents. The Village will be able to determine the effects of the development on the environment and the revenues and costs of the systems under its operating Village the effect on the governmental powers, which include the departments in each of these areas, and also Village and its residents. The Town of Southold does not have any similar departments in the Town because it does not provide these services to its residents, and the Town is therefore not able to determine the effect of the annexation on the environment and the Village roads and highways, water and sewer systems, the Village municipal electric utility or the Village fire and ambulance services. The applications and approvals that are required for the development of the property will be by the Village officials and Boards pursuant to Sections 7-712(A), (B) and (C), 7-718 and 7-725 of the Village Law, and Section 150 of the Greenport Village Code, and the Village will have sole jurisdiction to review and either approve or deny any the applications. Chapter 150 of the Greenport Village Code, will be the law under which the applications for the approvals that are necessary for the development of the property are made. The decisions and reviews that are required for the development will be made by Village officials and Boards which will be interpreting and applying the Village Code in approving or disapproving the development thereby requiring that the Village be appointed lead agency in this matter (Tayntor v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 130 A.D. 2d 571, 515 N.Y.S. 2d 513 l? (2nd, 1987)), (Seaboard Contracting & Material, Inc. v. Town of Smithtown, 147 A.D. 2d 4, 541 M.Y.S.2d 216, appeal dismissed 74 N.Y. 2d 923, 547 N.Y.S. 2d 849, appeal denied 75 N.Y. 2d 707, 554 N.Y.S. 2d 984 (2n~, 1992), Plotnick v. City of New York, 148 A.D. 2d 721, 539 N.Y. N.Y.S. 2d 984 (2nd, The Village 2d 395, appeal denied, 74 N.Y. 2d 601, 541 1989)). of Greenport has the broadest governmental powers to investigate the impacts of the project because the Village of Greenport already has the departments which are necessary to analyze the project and because it is the Village of Greenport that will be rendering decisions with regard to the project which should result in lead to the Village (Tayntor v. New York State Environmental Conservation, id., 130 A.D. Schodack Concerned Citizens v. agency status being granted Department of 2d 571, (2nd, 1987), Town board of the Town of Schodack, 148 A.D. 2d 130, 544 N.Y. S. 2d 49, 75 N.Y. 2d 701, 551 N.Y.S. (3rd, 1994)). C. The Village of Greenport Should be Lead Agency Because the Village has the Greatest Capability For Providing the most thorough Environmental Assessment of the Annexation The Village of Greenport has the greatest capability for providing the most thorough environmental assessment with regard to the annexation. The required hard look of a thorough review of the potential impact on the environment includes a review of the source of services to the area that is the subject of the project before and after the project, which in this case is the annexation and development. The only service which is provided to the property by the Town is the Town Police, and the annexation will not have any effect on that service. The services that will be provided by the Village will begin to be provided by the Village when the annexation is completed. As stated above, the Village has utility departments which have the capability of determining the effects of the annexation and to take the hard look at the impact on the environment that is required by SEQRA. The Village also has the resources to retain the services of an environmental consultant, as the Town has stated that it intends to do. The Village has the greatest capability of conducting a thorough review of the impact on the environment and the Village should be appointed lead agency in this, matter. Point III The August 29, 2005 Letter From the Town of Southold Contains Incorrect And Irrelevant Factual Misstatements Regarding the Pro~ect The Town of Southold submitted a letter to the Commissioner dated August 29, 2005 in support of its position. The letter contains several inaccuracies regarding the property and the underlying circumstances. The Town's letter states that there will be an impact on traffic in the Town due to the fact that the project will be located on County Route 48, however the impact of the project will primarily be on the roads and highways of the Village and the impact on the Town portion of will be minimal. There is no reason why the traffic impacts inside the Village, appointed lead agency to review the any road or .highway, if any, Town should be reviewing and the Village should be impact of the project on traffic on the roads and in the Village. The Town the services to Village. has also made inaccurate statemehts related to be provided to the property by the Town and the The Greenport School District, in the Village will continue to serve the property and there be no change in school services. The Greenport schools are which is primarily located will presently under utilized which will acco~nodate any students that attend the schools from the homes on the property. The Town has failed to mention the services which will be provided by the Village after annexation including roads and highways, water and sewer, electricity, general government and zoning and planning, and fire and ambulance service. The Town similarly failed to mention that the property is adjacent to Moores Woods, which is a Village Park. The wetlands that are located on the property are part of the same system of wetlands which exists in Moores Woods and about which the Village is intimately familiar. The confusion that the Town is attempting to introduce regarding wetlands is only an attempt to mislead the reader and is contrary to the underlying facts. The Town states that it apparently previously accepted a report indicating that there were no wetlands on the property, and without any factual basis is speculating as to the existence and size of the wetlands so that the Town may establish some regulation, however limited, in this matter, which as was stated previously, is no basis for lead agency status (River Center, LLC v. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, id., 275 A.D. 2d 683 {lst, 2000)). The as part of review existence and location of wetlands will be determined the applications that are submitted to the Village for and the management of those wetlands will not change as a result of the Annexation, and the existence or nonexistence of wetlands is not relevant to the determination of lead agency. The involvement of the Town as lead agency is not required merely because there are wetlands on the property. The DEC has jurisdiction regarding wetlands and the final role in any decision involving wetlands and any disagreement will be submitted to that agency for tha~ reason. The Town's confusion as to what services will be provided to the property and the provider of the services, and regarding the location of the property with respect to the Village properties supports the Village's position that the Village should be appointed lead agency in this matter. The Town's representation that the Town is better suited to perform an environmental review of property that will be inside the Village and governed by the Village Boards and officials is unsupported and outlandish. The property will be in the territory and the jurisdiction of the Village of Greenport. Ail decisions regarding the development of the property will be made by Boards and to the Village Law The Village development occurs impact of the development on the environment. officials of the Village of Greenport pursuant and the Greenport Village Code. boards and officials will determine what on the property and will also review the The Village boards 22 and officials enforce and apply the Village Code in all other respects on all of the other properties in the Village as they will on this property, and are best suited to review and analyze the impact of the annexation and development on the environment for that reason. The Town has commented that the Village will merely retain a consultant however it should be noted that at a Town Board meeting on July 23, 2005, which Village officials also attended, the Town immediately and unilaterally stated that it was going to retain a consultant to handle the review, which neutralizes the offensive suggestion by the Town that it should be lead agency of a development in the Village because of a superior planning department. The Town's planning department and planning board have no knowledge or experience with the Village Code or Zoning, or any of the services which will be provided by the Village and must be analyzed as part of the review. There is also no basis for the Town's odious allegation that somehow the Town is objective and the Village is not, as this is unsupported and particularly since the Town has no experience and no basis determine the effect of utilities, for which to prepare an analysis and the annexation or the development on the services or their impact on the environment. The Village this matter. should therefore be appointed lead agency in The Village should be because this is a matter of CONCLUSION appointed lead agency in this matter primarily local impact and concern, the Village has the broadest governmental authority for investigating the impact of the proposed action, and the Village has the greatest capability of reviewing the impacts of the annexation, and for all of the other reasons that are stated in this Memorandum. Dated: East Setauket, New York October 5, 2005 Respectfully submitted, ~, Esq. Prokop & Prokop Village Attorneys Village of Greenport 175 Route 25A East Setauket, NY 11733 24