Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental Assessment FormPARTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PROPOSED EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING FOR A PORTION OF 260 HORTONS LANE PROPERTY AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN HALL COMPLEX NORTH SIDE OF MAIN ROAD, EAST SIDE OF HORTONS LANE AND SOUTH SIDE OF TRAVELER STREET TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY Prepared for: Town of Southold Town Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Prepared by: Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. 368 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, New York 11725 (631) 499-2222 March 2005 ORIGINAL ORIGINAL PARTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PROPOSED EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING FOR A PORTION OF 260 HORTONS LANE PROPERTY AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN HALL COMPLEX NORTH SIDE OF MAIN ROAD, EAST SIDE OF HORTONS LANE AND SOUTH SIDE OF TRAVELER STREET TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY PROJECT LOCATION: APPLICANT: LEAD AGENCY: PREPARER & CONTACT: North side of Main Road, East side of Hortons Lane South side of Traveler Street Hamlet of Southold, Town of Southold Town of Southold Town Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Contact: Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq. Town Attorney Town of Southold Town Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Contact: Honorable Joshua Y. Horton Town Supervisor (631) 765-1939 This Environmental Assessment Form was prepared by: Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. 368 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, New York 11725 Contact: Theresa Elkowitz, Principal Kim Gennaro, AICP, Project Manager (631) 499-2222 With technical input from: L.K. McLean Associates, P.C. 437 South Country Road Brookhaven, New York 11719 (Preliminary Site Plan and Traffic) V. Baras Architects 186 Decker Road Glen Spey, New York 12737 (Architectural Renderings) DATE OF PREPARATION: March 2005 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM ORIGINAL Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer, Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine 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 determination process has been orderly, 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 parts: 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: ir 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 FAF completed for this project: rL~J Part1 ~,x,I Part2 I','. IPart 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 not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not 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 Eminent Domain Proceeding for a portion of 260 Hortons Lane Property and Redevelopment of the Town Hall Complex Name of Action Town Board of the Town of Southold Name of Lead Agency Joshua Y. Herren Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agenry Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency website March 29, 2005 Supervisor Title of Resl~onsible Officer SigrT~ture~J~t'/l~reparer (if different from responsible officer) t/' ' ~t'UI~I~AL& ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Pate 368 VETERANS MEMORIAL ~I~HWAY COMMACK, NEWYORK 117;'5 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 pert 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 unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action Eminent Domain Proceeding for a portion of 260 Hortons Lane Property and Redevelopment of the Town Hall Complex Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) North side of Main Road, east side of Hortons Lane, and south side of Traveler Street, Town of Southold, Suffolk County Name of Applicant/Sponsor Town of Southold Address P.O. Box 1179 City ! PO Southold State New York Zip Code 1 1971 BusinessTelephone (631) 765-1939 At,n: Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq., (Town Attorney) O Name of Owner (if different) See Attached Address City / PO State Zip Code Business Telephone Description of Action: Sce Attached. 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 ~ Residential (suburban) ~ Forest "]Rural (non-farm) Agriculture []Other Municipal - existine Town Hall (Lots 2.2 and 9.3) 2, Total acreage of project area: 2.53 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 Ama Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) Lawn/landscaping PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION 0 acres 0 acres 0.08 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 1.02 acres 1.83 acres ] .43 0.70 acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Riverhead and Haven soils, graded 0-8% slopes (RhB) and Haven Loam, 0-2% slopes (HaA) a, Soil drainage: ~Well drained .100 % of site [] Moderately well drained % of site. r~Poorly drained % of site b, If any agricultural land isinvolved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? N/A acres (see I NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ~ Yes [] No a. What is depth to bedrock 835± (in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ~:~J0-10% 100 % N10- 15% % r~ 15% or greater % 6. Is project substantiall~ontiguous to or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? ! ',x'l Yes ~ NO ........ ~ · ' Site ~s w~th:n the Southold Historic District Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? r~ Yes [~No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 36± ,(in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? r~Yes 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? r~No ~Yes r'~No Page 3 of 21 1 1. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? According to: Isite inspection Identify each species: r~Yes []No 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on th~ project site? (i,e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? E]Yes []No Describe; 1 3, Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? r~Yes F'~No If yes, explain: 14. Does the pre~ent site include scenic views known to be important to the community? Yes 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: None a. ~ame of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary ~1No 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: None 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? r~Yes b, If YES, will improvementS be necessar~ to allow connection? ]No []Yes C~N° (on-site) 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and MarketS Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? E~]Yos []No 19. Is the site located in or substantiall,/contiguous to a CdticaJ Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 6177 r"JYes ~3No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or con~rolled by project sponsor: 2.06 b. Project acreage to be developed: 2.53 acres initially; 2.53 acres ultimately. c. Pro~ect acreage to remain undeveloped: 0 acres, d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. * f~ Number of off-street parking spaces existing ,70 ; proposed I ] ? g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: ! 75± (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: N/A One Family Two Family Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: 34 ft. height; 124.8 ft. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 645± 2. How much natural material (i.e, reck, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 2,466± 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed nYes DNo a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? Yes [] No *An additional 0.47 acre is proposed to be acres, acquired by powers of eminent domain. % *see Description of Proposed Action included as part of the EAF attachment. Multiple Family b. Will topsoil be stockpiled 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? 0.81 Condominium width; ,145.3 ft. length. fl; (Main Road, Horions Lane · and Traveler Street) -- ~/cubic yards. * *According to the baffic en[,~necr, L K McLea~ Associates, P.C., the maximum vehicular trips generated per hour at the existing Town Hall Complex is approximately 141 trips. Page 5 of 21 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? I--iVes 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: months, (including demolition) 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated 3 (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: Sept. month 2005 year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase: Sept. month~2006 year. d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ~ Yes ~ No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ~ Yes ~J No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction $0± ; after project is complete 0~* 10. Number ofjobs eliminated by this project 0 1 1, Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? NYes [] No If yes, explain: However, the existing offices in the Southold Towo Hall Annex (within the North Fork Bank building) would be relocated back to the Town Hall property. 12, Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ~ Yes *All Town employees and Village Court employees to be relocated from off-site offices to this prope~y. a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? [] Yes r~ No Type Sanitary waste ( L890~ gallons per day) 14, Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? [] Yes r~ No If yes, explain: 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 1OO year flood plain? ~ Yes ~No 16, Will the project generate solid waste? ~ Yes r~ No * Based on a factor of I lb./100 square feet/day and a total proposed building area a. If yes, what is tho amount per month? 4.79 tons of 31,491 square feet. b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [] Yes r~ No c. If yes, give name Town of Southold Transfer Station ; location Cutchogue, New York d, Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? []Yes [] No Page 6 of 21 e. If yes, explain; Recyclables to be handled in accordance with Town policy. 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ~Yes I~lNo a. If 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? NYes ~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? r~ Yes [] No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? [] Yes r~ No If yes, indicate type(s) Overall building area would increase from 11,391 square feet to 31,491 square feet. Therefore, there would be an increased demand for electricity and natural gas. Should fuel oil be used for heating, there would be an increased demand for same. 22, If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day. 1,890± Based on a design flow factor of 0.06 gallons per day per square gallons/day ~ ' foot, and the proposed 31 ~491 square feet of building area. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? [x~] Yes [] No If yes, explain: The proposed redevelopment would be financed by the Town of Southold. Page 7 of 21 25. Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board r~Yes [~ No Type Submittal Date Adoption of Findings and Determination pursuant to Article 2 2. Approval of Funding and construction of new Town Hall City, Town, Village Planning Board ~Yes ~ No City, Town Zoning Board r~Yes r~l No City, County Health Department [~ Yes ~No SCDHS - Sanitary Disposal, Water Supply and Tank Installation (it necessary) Other Local Agencies ~Yes ~ No Other Regional Agencies ~Yes ~ No State Agencies ~ Yes [] No NYSDEC - Phaqe '~ Stnrmwater Re~nlatinnq/Notice of Intent OPRHP - Clearance Letter Federal Agencies ~ Yes [] No Zoning and Planning Information Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? []Yes r~ No (Eminent Domain Proceeding) if Yes, indicate decision required: r"'l zoning amendment [] Zoning variance [] New/revision of master plan r~ Subdivision ~ site plan r'~ special use permit [] Resource management plan ~ Other Page 8 of 21 What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? Hamlet Business (HB). However, the property is not subject to local zoning. 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? N/A - lhe Town is not subject to local zoning. However, if privately held, based on a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, an 88,165±-square-foot. two-story, building could be developed. 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? 5. What is the maximum potential development of [he site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? N/A Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~ Yes [] No I What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ~ mile radius of proposed action? Commercial, residential, and cemetery: Hamlet Business (HB), Residential Office (Re), Light Industrial (LI), Hamlet Density Residential (HD) and Residential Low Density AA (R-40). Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a Ya mile? If' the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? Yes [] No Page 9 of 21 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? [] Yes ~l No 1 1. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? ~Yes I~No (Town Hall already exists at this site) yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? [] Yes [] No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traff~c significantly above present levels? [] Yes [] No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. DYes [] No I O. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project, If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them, E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Revised Mm'ch 22, 2005 ApplicantJSponsor Name Town of Southold c/o Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. Date March 3~ 2005 Kim~A C~ Signature . Title Project Manager If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this Page 10 of 21 Town of Southold Eminent Domain Proceeding for a Portion of 260 Hortons Lane Property and Redevelopment of the Town Hall Complex North side of Main Road, West side of Hortons Lane and South side of Traveler Street Town of Southold, Suffolk County Attachment - Part 1 Environmental Assessment Form Names of Owners The subject property involves three tax map parcels, as follows: District 1000 - Section 061 - Block 01 - Lots 2.2 and 9.3 Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (631) 765-1800 District 1000 - Section 061 - Block 01 - P/O Lot 3 (0.47± acre) George C. and Margaret A. Stankevich c/o George Cochrain Stankevich & Associates 74 Montauk Highway Suite 22 - The Red Horse East Hampton, New York 11937 (631) 329-0396 Descriotion of the Prooosed Action The Town of Southold Town Board has initiated an eminent domain proceeding, which would result in the acquisition of 0.47 acre of an overall 1.0~=-acre, partially-improved property (hereinafter the "260 Hortons Lane property"), which adjoins the existing Town of Southold Town Hall property. The existing Town Hall properly, which consists of 2.06 acres, is situated on the north side of Main Road, east of Hortons Lane. Upon completion of the proposed eminent domain proceeding, the Town Board proposes to redevelop the existing Town Hall property. Each property, and the proposed Town Hall redevelopment, are more fully described below. 260 Hortons Lane Property As indicated above, the 260 Hortons Lane property, is approximately 1.0 acre in size, and is improved with a two-story dwelling that is used by the North Fork Parish Outreach (an ecumenical program which assists families within the local area), detached garage and shed (bm). The Town Board of the Town of Southold, through eminent domain, is proposing to acquire 0.47 acre of this property, which is predominantly unimproved. This 0.47-acre area would be developed with parking areas and a portion of the proposed new Town Hall building (see discussion below). As part of the proposed action, the shed (barn) would be relocated on to the portion of the property not proposed for acquisition by the Town. Existina Town Hall Property The Town Hall properly consists of 2.06 acres, and it is improved with the existing Town Hall. The existing Town Hall contains various Town offices, however, due to space constraints, various Town departments are housed in other off-site buildings. Parking is also provided at the rear (north) of the Town Hall. Proposed Action The proposed action includes the acquisition of the above-described 0.47-acre property, and the development of a new Town Hall on the overall 2.53-acre properly, as shown on the annexed site plan. The new, 24,901±-square-foot Town Hall building would be developed at the northern portion of the property. Also, as part of the proposed action, a portion of the existing 11,391- square-foot Town Hail building would be demolished (approximately 4,801 square feet), and the remaining area (6,590 square feet) would be renovated to acconunodate the Justice Corm. Associated parking, sanitary facilities, etc. would also be constructed. Upon implementation of the proposed action, the overall building area on the site would increase from 11,391 square feet to 31,491 square feet. Integral to the proposed action is the increase in on-site parking. Currently, there are 70 on-site stalls available to the employees and visitors of Town Hall and the Justice Court. The proposed plan includes parking areas between the two buildings to provide a total of 117 stalls. Thus, an additional 47 parking spaces would be available. Also integral to the proposed action is the consolidation of all Southold Town offices on one site. Currently, the Town of Southold leases space in an existing commercial building (North Fork Bank) to house a portion of its offices that cannot be accommodated in the existing Town Hall building. The proposed action would increase the available space needed to accommodate all of the services of the Town in one central complex. PART 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency Information (Read Carefully) In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an exper[ environmental analyst. The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Par[ 3. The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They 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 question. In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box(column I or 2)to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. identifying that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance, identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Par[ 3. I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Impact on Land 1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles, Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. O O OYes ~INo [] [] OYes •No [] [] OYes ON• [] [] OYes ON• [] [] OYes D"o Page 11 of 2'l Construction or expansion of a santary landfill. Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts: Paved and landscaped areas wild be altered. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) Specific land forms: Impaet on Water 3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under ^rticles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) [~NO E~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: 4. Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? I~¥ES £xamples that would apply to column 2 A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts: Page 12 of 21 1 Small to Moderate Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 2 Potential Large Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change r'~ Yes []No r-]Yes []No r~Yes r~No I r-"JYes r"lJ N o []Yes r~No r'~ Yes []No r"lYes r~No ]']Yes r~No DYes []No E]Yes [] No 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Se Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? [] No [] YES £xamplea that would apply to column 2 (SPDES) Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services, Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. Other impacts: [] DTM DNo [] []Yes •No [] DTM •No [] IqYee [].o [] •Yea I'--I.o [] DYes •No [] DYes [] I--lYes ~,o [] []Yes [=-~ No [] []Yes []No [] []Yes []No [] •Yea ~,o The proposed development ora new Town Hall building would require the installation of a new sanitary system, The project is therefore subject to review and approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, See attached Part 3 - EAF. Page 13 of 21 I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? [3.o []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would change flood water flows Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway, Other impacts: O OYes ONo O OYes [] I']Yes ONo O OYes r']No O [-]Yes ONo The proposed action includes the disturbance of an area greater than one acre and is, therefore, subject to the NYSDEC Phase 2 Stormwater Regulations. See attached Part 3 - EAF. IMPACT ON A~R Will Proposed Action affect air quality? Epo OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour, Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than I ton of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. Other impacts: I IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS OYes C]No OYea ONo I']Yes [--]No O I'] [-]Yes [] [] OYes ONo [] O OYes Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? Examples that would apply to column 2 Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near the site, or found on the site. O O OYes l']No Page 14 of 21 Removal of any pot[ion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. Other impacts: I IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? Examples that would apply to column 2 The Proposed Action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc,) Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change E]Yes r-]No r'~ Yes C~No r-]Yes E]No r'~ Yes r~No C~Yes r,.,,~ N o []Yes r~No r~Yes [] No r~Yea []'] No E~Yes r-'l No Page 15 of 21 The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHE'RC RESOURCES 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Large Mitigated by Impact Project Change [] []~es []No ]Yes 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) Fxamplee that would apply to column 2 Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. [] [] [] [] [] es I--l.o [] DYes []No [] DYes I--I.o Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be impodant to the area. Other impacts: [] [] []Yes r-]No Town Hall building on the site. See attached Part 3 -EAF. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed action was reviewed by the NYS Office of t 2. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, Parks, Recreation and Historical Preservation (OPRHP) prehistoric or paleontological importance? ~ NO ~ YES and a No Impact determination was made. See Attached Part 3 -EAF. Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or U substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within [] the project site. Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive [] for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. [] DYes r-]No [] D es [] DYes •No Page 16 of 21 Other impacts: 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Large Mitigated by Impact Project Change [] E~Yes E~No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREA'I1ON 13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: [] [] [] [] El*ce r-INo [] []Yes []No [] []Yes []No IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area {CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)? List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation ef the CEA. Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource? Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource? Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource? Other impacts: [] []Yes []No [] []Yes E]No [] ~Yes []No [] []Yes []No [] []Yes []No Page 17 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON 'I~/~NSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? [] No [] YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or U L-J goods. Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. [] [] Other impacts: [] [] The proposed action would consolidate the existing Town Hall and Annex offices onto one site. IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? []NO F~Es Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT []Yes [] No r'lYes E3.o [] [] [~Yes •No [] [] []Yes DM• [] [] OYes •No 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? []NO F--~YEB Examples that would apply to column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: I [] [] •~es [] [] r']Yes •No [] [] []Yes r--lNo [] [] []Yes •No [] [] DYes tiN• Page 18 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Se Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON PUBUC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, ets.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids. Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Other impacts: I~PACT ON GROV~'H AND Ci"I~d~CTE R OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? F--]No i~Es Examples that would apply to column 2 The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project, Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc) [] [] E~]Yes ~No [] [] F'~Yes E~No [] [] C)~es EINo [] [] ~"~ Yes [~No [] [] I--]Vas [-]No Page 19 of 21 Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. Other impacts: 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change [] [] ~Yes ~No [] [] r~Yes r~lNo [] [] ~"~ Yes r~No If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Page 20 of 21 Part 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. instructions (If you need more space, attach additional sheets) Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence of the impact · Its potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. See Attached. Page 21 of 21 ~ 6 ] 7.20. SEQR Appendix B State Environmental Quality Review Visual EAF Addendum This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part 2 of the Full EAF, (To be completed by Lead Agency) Distance Between Visibility 1.. Would the project be visible from: · A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities'~ · An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man.made scenic qualities? · A site or structure listed on the Hationa] or State Registers of Historic PlacesP (Whitaker House) · State Parks? · The State Forest Preserve~ · Hational Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges? · HationaJ Hatural Landmarks and other outstanding natural features~ · I"lational Park Service lands? · Rivers designated as Hationai or State Wild, Scenic or Recreational? · Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such as part of the Interstate System, or ^mtrak~(L1RR) · ^ governmentally established or designated interstate or inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? · ^ site, area, lake, reservoir or highway desigrlated as scenlc.3 · hlunicipa] park, or designated open space? · County road~ = State? (Main Road) · Local road? (Hortons Lane and Traveler Street) Project and Resource (in ~liles) 0.1/4 ¥~.1/2 i/2.3 3-5 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (i.e., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) I~Yes I~Ho 3. Are any of the resources checked in question 1 used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible? I-IVes ~l'io 1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTIHG VISUAL ENVIROH/VlENT 4. From each item checked in question ]., check those which generally describe the environment. surrounding Within *1/4 mile * 1 mile Essentially undeveloped [] [] Forested [] [] Agricultural [] [] Suburban residential [] [] Industrial [] [] Commercial [] [] Urban [] [] River, Lake, Pond [] [] Cliffs; Overlooks [] [] Designated Open Space [] [] Flat [] [] Hilly [] [] /Vtountainous [] [] Other [] [] I"IOTE: add attachments as needed 5. Are there visually similar projects within: *V2 mile [~Yes [~No *1 miles []Yes []No *2 miles ['-]Yes []No *3 miles l-lYes * Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate. *Per Traffic Impact Assessment for $outhold Town Hall Expansion, 2005. EXPOSURE 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is 3,102,500' NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate. COIXTEXT 7. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is Activity Travel to and from work Involved In recreational activities Routine travel by residents At a residence At workslte Other FREQUENCY Holidays/ Daily Weekly Weekends Seasonally [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 2 ATTACHMENT TO PART 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 2 Ill. IMPACT ON LAND .............................................................................................................. 8 IV. IMPACT ON WATER ......................................................................................................... 20 V. IMPACT ON AESTHETICS ................................................................................................ 43 VI. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................. 47 VII. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................... 50 vm. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD ............................................................................. 60 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 67 List of Aooendices Appendix A - E.A.F. Preliminary Site Plan Appendix B - Photographs of the Site and Surrounding Properties Appendix C - Architectural Renderings Appendix D - Correspondence from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Appendix E - Traffic Impact Assessment List of Figures Figure 1 - Site Location Map ............................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 - Excerpt of the Soil Survey Map .......................................................................................... 9 Figure 3 -Excerpt of the USGS Topographic Map ........................................................................... 14 Figure 4 - Excerpt of the Water Contour Map ................................................................................... 15 Figure 5 -Excerpt of the Hydrogeologic Zone Map .......................................................................... 22 Figure 6 - Map of the Southold Historic District ............................................................................... 48 Figure 7 - LWRP/Reach 7 Map ......................................................................................................... 62 Figure 8 - Excerpt of the Zoning Map ............................................................................................... 65 List of Tables Table 1 - Description of the Proposed Action (Site Data) ................................................................... 6 Table 2 - Soil Engineering and Planning Limitations ........................................................................ 13 Table 3 - Parking Observations at the Existing Southold Town Hall Property .................................. 52 Table 4 - Projected Future Maximum Parking Demand .................................................................... 56 I. INTRODUCTION This document is a Part 3 - Environmental Assessment Form ("Part 3 - EAF") for the proposed eminent domain proceeding for a portion of property located at 260 Hortons Lane, and the rede3elopment of the Town Hall Complex. This Part 3 - EAF has been prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. The following specific issues are addressed in this Part 3 - EAF: · Impact on Land; · Impact on Water; · Impact on Aesthetic Resources; · Impact on Historic and Cultural Resoumes; · Impact on Transportation; and · Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood. The following sections of this Part 3-EAF address each of the above topics. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Descril~tion of the Proposed Action This Part 3 - EAF has been prepared to evaluate the potential significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed eminent domain proceeding for a portion of property located at 260 Hortons Lane, and the redevelopment of the Town Hall Complex located on the north side of Main Road (State Route 25), east of Hortons Lane, in the Town of Southold (see Figure 1 - Site Location Map). The subject property involves three tax map parcels, as follows: District 1000 - Section 061 - Block 01 - Lots 2.2 and 9.3, currently owned by the Town of Southold and District 1000 - Section 061 - Block 01 - P/O Lot 3 (0.47_+ acre), currently owned by George C. and Margaret A. Stankevich. The Town of Southold Town Board has initiated an eminent domain proceeding, which would result in the acquisition of 0.47 acre of an overall 1.0+-acre, partially-improved property (hereinafter the "260 Hortons Lane property"), which adjoins the existing Town of Southold Town Hall property. The existing Town Hall property, which consists of 2.06 acres, is situated on the north side of Main Road, east of Hortons Lane. Upon completion of the proposed eminent domain proceeding, the Town Board proposes to redevelop the existing Town Hall property. Each property, and the proposed Town Hall redevelopment, are more fully described below. 2 260 Hortons Lane Property As indicated above, the 260 Hortons Lane property, is approximately 1.0 acre in size, and is improved with a two-story dwelling that is used by the North Fork Parish Outreach (an ecumenical program that assists families within the local area), detached garage and shed (barn). The Town Board of the Town of Southold, through eminent domain, is proposing to acquire 0.47 acre of this property, which is predominantly unimproved. This 0.47-acre area would be developed with parking areas and a portion of the proposed new Town Hall building (see discussion below). As part of the proposed action, the shed (barn) would be relocated on to the portion of the property not proposed for acquisition by the Town. 3 Site Location Map Southold Town Hall Street Atlas USA~ 2005 LONg_~SE~m~R~' ~, JOCKEYCREEKDR Data use subject to license. © 2004 DeLorme. Street Atlas USA® 2005. www.delorme.com Scale 1: 14,400 ,200.0 fl Data Zoom 13-7 Figure I Existing Town Hall Property The Town Hall property consists of 2.06 acres, and it is improved with the existing Town Hall. The existing Town Hall contains various Town offices, however, due to space constraints, several Town departments are housed in other off-site buildings. Parking is also provided at the mar (north) of the Town Hall. Proposed Action The proposed action includes the acquisition of the above-described 0.47-acre property, and the development of a new Town Hall on the overall 2.53-acre property, as shown on the annexed site plan. The new, 24,90 l+-square-foot Town Hall building would be developed at the northern portion of the property. Also, as part of the proposed action and as depicted on the E.A.F. Preliminary Site Plan prepared by L.K. McLean Associates, P.C. (see Appendix A), a portion of the existing 11,391- square-foot Town Hail building would be demolished (approximately 4,801 square feet), and the remaining area (6,590 square feet) would be renovated to accommodate the Justice Court. Associated parking, sanitary facilities, etc. would also be constructed. Integral to the proposed action is the increase in on-site parking. Currently, there are 70 on-site stalls available to the employees and visitors of Town Hall and the Justice Court. The proposed plan includes parking areas between the two buildings to provide a total of 117 stalls. Thus, an additional 47 parking spaces would be available. Also integral to the proposed action is the consolidation of all Town of Southold offices on one site. Currently, the Town of Southold leases space in an existing commercial building (North Fork Bank) to house those offices that cannot be accommodated in the existing Town Hall building. The proposed action would increase the available space needed to accommodate ail of the services of the Town in one central complex. 5 Relevant site data for the proposed project, as provided by L.K. McLean Associates, P.C., are as follows: Table 1 - Description of the Proposed Action (Site Data) Land Cover Type Existing (acres) Total acreage of project site 2.53 ac Forested Area 0.08 ac Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 1.02 ac Mowed Lawn/Landscaping 1.43 ac Post-development (acres) 2.53 ac 0 1.83 ac 0.70 ac As indicated above, implementation of the proposed action would include the removal of the limited area of naturally-forested area, which consists of the total area of individual trees scattered at the site. The area of impervious surfaces (i.e., roads, buildings and other paved surfaces) would increase from 1.02 acres to 1.83 acres. Finally, the area comprised of lawn and landscaping would decrease from 1.43 acres to 0.70 acre. Potable water is currently supplied by the Suffolk County Water Authority. Upon implementation of the proposed action, potable water use would increase from 684± gpd to 1,890+ gpd. Sanitary waste is and would continue to be accommodated with individual on-site sanitary systems. Upon implementation of the proposed action, sanitary discharge would increase from 684+ gpd to 1,890_+ gpd. As the proposed action would increase the area of impervious surfaces on the overall property, the volume of stormwater runoff generated would also increase on the site. To accommodate stormwater, the proposed action includes the installation of leaching pools. Permits/Aoorovals Required The following permits and approvals are required for the proposed action: Agency Town Board Suffolk County Department of Health Services New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Permit/Approval 1. Adoption of Findings and Determination pursuant to Article 2 of the Eminent Domain Proceeding Law 2. Approval of Funding and construction of new Town Hall complex Sanitary Disposal, Water Supply and Tank Installation (if necessary) SPDES General Permit (Phase 2 Stormwater Regulations) Clearance Letter (Site is Within a State-Registered Historic District) 7 III. IMPACT ON LAND Existin~ Conditions Soils According to the Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York (USDA, 1975), soils are classified according to distinct characteristics and placed (according to these characteristics) into "series" and "mapping units." A "series" is a group of mapping units formed from particular disintegrated and partly weathered rocks which lie approximately parallel to the surface and which are similar in arrangement and differentiating characteristics such as color, structure, reaction, consistency, mineralogical composition and chemical composition. "Mapping units" differ from each other according to slope and may differ according to characteristics such as texture. According to the Soil Survey of Suffolk County, the majority of the subject property is comprised of Haven loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes ("HaA") and Riverhead and Haven soils, graded, 0 to 8 percent slopes ("RhB"). AcopyoftherelevantmapexcerptoftheSoilSurveyofSuffolkCountyisincluded herein as Figure 2. The relevant excerpts from the Soil Survey of Suffolk County relating to soil series and mapping units are presented below: 8 Soils TypeMap IA Source: USDA Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York, Sheet No. 9, 1975. Scale: 1:20,000 FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWlTZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. II Figure 2 9 Haven Series The Haven series consists of deep, well-drained, medium-textured soils that formed in a loamy or silty mantle over stratified coarse sand and gravel. These soils are present throughout the county, but most areas are on outwash plains between the two terminal moraines. Slopes range from 0 to 12 percent, but they generally are one to six percent. Native vegetation consists of black oak, white oak, red oak, scrub oak, and pitch pine. In a representative profile, a thin layer of leaf litter and decomposed organic matter is on the surface in wooded areas. Below this is the surface layer of dark grayish-brown loam about three inches thick. In cultivated areas, the surface layer is mixed with the material formerly in the upper part of the subsoil, and a plow layer of brown or dark-brown loam, about 10 inches thick, is present. The subsoil is dark-brown to strong-brown, friable loam to a depth of about 19 inches. The lower part, to a depth of 28 inches, is yellowish-brown, friable gravelly loam. The substratum, to a depth of 55 inches, is yellowish-brown to brownish~yellow loose sand and gravel. Haven soils have high-to-moderate available moisture capacity. Reaction is strongly acid to very strongly acid throughout. Natural fertility is low. The response of crops to time and fertilizer is good. Internal drainage is good. Permeability is moderate in the surface layer and subsoil and rapid or very rapid in the substratum. The root zone is 25 to 35 inches thick. Haven loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes ("HaA") - This soil has the profile described as representative of the series. It is nearly level and generally on outwash plains. Some areas of this soil are on moraines and generally are on the top of low-lying hills. Some of these areas am slightly undulating. Most areas of this soil are large, but on moraines, the areas are smaller and irregular in shape. 10 Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Scio soils and some crescent-shaped, gravelly areas. Also included are soils that have a moderately-coarse-textured surface layer and a medium- textured subsoil. In many areas of this soil that are mapped in association with Bridgehampton soils, the soil is deeper and siltier than that described as representative of the series. Bridgehampton soils generally are include in mapping in these areas. Also included, on moraines, are areas of Montauk soils that have a very weak fragipan. The hazard of erosion is slight on this Haven soil. Primary management concerns are keeping the soil from crusting after rain, maintaining tilth, and reducing the plowpan. The soil is used extensively for crops, and it is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the county. Potatoes are the main crop, but cauliflower, cabbage, corn, onion, and sod crops are also grown. Because of the nearly level slope and ease of excavation, most areas of this soil in the western part of the county are being used for housing developments and industrial parks. Riverhead Series The Riverhead series consists of deep, well-drained, moderately-coarse-textured soils that formed in a mantle of sandy loam or fine sandy loam over thick layers of coarse sand and gravel. These soils occur throughout the county in rolling to steep areas on moraines and in level to gently sloping areas on outwash plains. These soils range from nearly level to steep; however, they are generally nearly level to gently sloping. Native vegetation consists of black oak, white oak, red oak and scrub oak. In a representative profile, the surface layer is brown to dark brown sandy loam about 12 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil, to a depth of about 27 inches, is strong-brown, friable sandy loam. The lower part of the subsoil is yellowish-brown, very friable loamy sand to a depth of about 32 inches. Below is yellowish-brown, friable gravelly loamy sand to a depth of about 35 inches. The substratum is very pale brown and brown loose sand and gravel or sand to a depth of 65 inches. 11 Riverhead soils have moderate-to-high available moisture capacity. Internal drainage is good. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and the subsoil and very rapid in the substratum. Riverhead and Haven soils, graded, zero to eight percent slopes ("RhB") ~ This mapping unit consists of areas of Riverhead sandy loam, of Haven loam or of both. The areas have been altered by grading operations for housing developments, shopping centers, industrial parks and similar non- farm uses. In the western part of the County, the areas of this mapping unit are very large, and large acreages are used as sites for housing developments. Originally, the Riverhead and Haven soils in this unit each had the profile described as representative of the respective series, but grading operations have left a man-made profile that is significantly different. These soils are suited to most grasses and shrubs commonly used for lawns and landscaping. The practice generally is to build on the soils immediately after grading. Table 2 shows the soil engineering and planning limitations of each soil found on the site. These engineering and planning limitations as they relate to the proposed action are discussed in the "Potential Impacts" sub-section to follow. 12 Table 2 - Soil Engineering and Planning Limitations HaA RhB Homesites* SL SL Streets and Parking Lots Lawns, Landscaping and Golf Fairways Sewage Disposal Fields Play Areas SL M(A) SL SL SL SL SL SL Source: Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1975). *The Soil Survey of Suffolk County evaluates the engineering and planning limitations of soils for the development of homesites. However, as the Soil Survey does not include ratings for other types of buildings, the homesites evaluation is used to determine potential limitations for the development of the proposed buildings. Engineering and Planning Limitation Ratin~: SL = Slight - Few or no limitations or lirrfitations can be overcome at little cost. M = Moderate - Limitations is harder to correct or not possible to correct entirely. SE = Severe - Use severely limited by some characteristics difficult or costly to overcome. Reasons for Limitations: (A) Slope Topography According to the USGS Topographic Map, Southold Quadrangle (see Figure 3), the general site elevation is 35_+ to 37_+ feet above mean sea level ("amsl"). The topography is relatively flat. Depth to Groundwater According to the United States Geological Survey Map of the Water Table of the Upper Glacial Aquifer on Eastern Long Island (2002), the water table lies at approximately 3 feet amsl (see Figure 4). As indicated above, the general site elevation is 35-+ to 37-+ feet amsl. Thus, published data indicate that depth to groundwater is 32_+ to 34_+ feet below grade surface ("bgs"). 13 W~fltow. H ill Name: SOUTHOLD Date: 2/14/105 Scale: I inch equals 800 feet Location: 041° 03' 50,0"" N 072° 25' 51.2" W Caption: Topographic Map t4 Figure 3 Copyright (C) 1996, Earthvisions, Inc. Water Table Contour Map % S16780 2.87 2.76 0 S53324 5.700 S~ 5. I I S58958 [ 27.48 ., \ / S465'29 015.16 0 02z4o j x -,L- S ., S46b~[ ~)1 ! 16.32 ". ' 19.99(D"~, · ' °t, S62393 - 3.49 \ ~""!''~ Source: USGS Water Table of the Upper Glacial Aquifer on Eastern Long Island, New York, in March - April 2000, 2002. Scale: 1:125,000 IF FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWlTZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Figure 4 15 Potential Iml~acts of the Prol~osed Action Construction that Will Continue for More than One Year or Involve More Than One Phase or Stage, Construction Activities will Include Demolition Disturbance to soils would occur as a result of excavation and grading for the proposed development. As noted in the "Existing Conditions" sub-section above, the site is comprised Haven loam, 0 to 2 pement slopes CHaA") and Riverhead and Haven soils, graded, 0 to 8 percent slopes ("RhB"). As outlined in Table 2, the HaA soils have few or no limitations for development. The RrB soils are indicated as having moderate limitations only for the construction of streets and parking lots due to slopes. However, as described earlier, the topography at the subject property is generally flat, with little to no slope present across the subject property. Therefore, the engineering limitation associated with slope is not applicable to the subject site. Also, groundwater beneath the site ranges from approximately 32 to 34 feet bgs, which is mom than adequate for building foundations, installation of leaching pools and sanitary systems. As indicated on the Part 2 - EAF, the proposed action will involve three phases, but the duration of the construction will be approximately one year. According to the project engineer, phase one would occur over four months and would include site mobilization, clearing and grubbing, demolition of a portion of the existing Town Hall building, grading and drainage, building excavations and footings and foundations. Phase two would also occur over four months and would include building construction, exterior site electric and plumbing, installation of sanitary systems, curbing, sidewalks and base course of pavement. Finally, phase three would occur over the final four months and would include interior electric and plumbing, landscaping and plantings, and the installation of finished pavement and concrete. The impacts associated with this construction, and the projected duration thereof, relate to actual demolition and redevelopment activities. There will be several, temporary demolition and construction-related impacts that would be expected to result. These impacts are associated with actual demolition, site preparation and development. It is anticipated that these impacts will cease upon completion of the construction phase of the project. Specific impacts are identified below: 16 It is expected that the 2.38+-acres would be disturbed to facilitate demolition and construction. However, as previously indicated, the site is almost entirely disturbed, with the exception of a limited 0.08 acre of trees. According to the Soil Survey of Suffolk County, soils on the site are classified as HaA and RhB. The HaA soils have few or no limitations for development and the RhB soils are indicated as having moderate limitations only for the construction of streets and parking lots due to slopes. However, as described earlier, the topography at the subject property is generally flat, and thus, the potential impacts associated with slope are not applicable to this site. Any demolition and construction activities cause the potential for erosion and sedimentation during periods of heavy precipitation. In order to minimize such potential, construction fencing and straw bales would be placed, as necessary, to help mitigate the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Moreover, upon completion of demolition, exposed soils will be paved or planted as soon as practicable to minimize impacts associated with erosion. Additional vegetative and structural controls would be implemented to manage stormwater runoff and to stabilize soils during construction. These mitigation measures would include minimizing the amount of exposed soils and utilizing impervious pavement surfaces and concrete curbing to control stormwater runoff and to direct same into below grade drainage systems. Also, runoff would be diverted away from exposed soils so as to minimize the amount of sedimentation. As indicated on the E.A.F. Preliminary Site Plan (see Appendix A), cut and fill for the proposed project would result in a net cut of 2,466 cubic feet. All excess material would be transported off-site and disposed of by a licensed hauler. 17 To ensure that there would be no potential impacts associated with asbestos or lead-based paint, inspections will be undertaken, and, as necessary, abatement will be performed prior to demolition. · To ensure that there would be no potential impacts associated with vermin, a rodent inspection will be undertaken prior to building demolition. During any demolition or construction activity wherein soils are exposed, there is a potential for fugitive dust. If dry periods occur, a water track will be brought to the site to ensure that dust is properly controlled. Increases in noise would result during demolition and construction activities. However, to mitigate potential impacts, construction activities will only be undertaken during normal business hours, and no construction will be performed on Sundays. Given that the above-identified impacts are associated with demolition and construction activities, they will be of relatively short duration, as they will cease upon project completion. Based on the foregoing, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design to minimize potential adverse impacts to land. Accordingly, no significant adverse impacts to land would result from implementation of the proposed action. Prooosed Mitigation Measures Construction that Will Continue for More than One Year or Involve More Than One Phase or Stage, Construction Activities will Include Demolition As indicated above, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed plan in order to minimize the potential adverse impacts associated with construction, demolition and site redevelopment, as follows: 18 · During construction, runoff would be diverted away from exposed soils so as to minimize the amount of sedimentation. All below-grade drainage structures would be designed with adequate capacity to handle suspended sedimentation associated with paved surfaces and shall be accessible for routine maintenance. · Construction fencing and straw bales would be placed, as necessary, to help mitigate the potential for erosion and sedimentation. · Exposed soils will be paved or planted as soon as practicable, upon completion of demolition, to minimize impacts associated with erosion. · If dry periods occur during construction, a water truck will be brought to the site for dust control. · To mitigate potential noise impacts, construction activities will only be undertaken during normal business hours, and no construction will be performed on Sundays. 19 IV. IMPACT ON WATER Existing Conditions Groundwater Long Island is considered a sole source aquifer region, which means that the groundwater is the single water supply source. Thus, land uses have the potential to impact the quality of the water supply. There are three major aquifers under Long Island: the Upper Glacial, the Magothy and the Lloyd. The Upper Glacial and Magothy are the significant water supply sources for most of Long Island. In recent years, suburbanization has caused contamination in areas of the Upper Glacial aquifer, since it is closest to the surface. According to the United States Geological Survey Map of the Water Table of the Upper Glacial Aquifer on Eastern Long Island (2002), the water table lies at approximately 3 feet amsl (see Figure 4). As explained in Section III, the general site elevation is 35_+ to 37+_ feet amsl (see Figure 3). Thus, published data would indicate that depth to groundwater is 32_+ to 34_+ feet bgs. 20 The Lon~ Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Study) In 1978, Long Island was divided into eight hydrogeologic zones in The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Study). The subject site is located in Hydrogeologic Zone IV (see Figure 5). Zone IV encompasses the North Fork, Shelter Island, and the northern and eastern portion of the South Fork. The groundwater underlying the recently identified deep recharge areas on the South Fork is generally of excellent quality. Zone IV is characterized by shallow flow systems that discharge to streams and marine waters. A large portion of Zone 1V on the North Fork has been contaminated as a result of agricultural activities. Fertilizers are a significant source of nitrates to the groundwater in the North Fork and the eastem South Fork. Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan Special Groundwater Protection Areas ("SGPAs") are significant, largely undeveloped or sparsely developed geographic areas of Long Island that provide recharge to portions of the deep flow aquifer system. They represent a unique final opportunity for comprehensive, preventative management to preclude or minimize land use activities that can have a deleterious impact on groundwater. Nine SGPAs are located on Long Island: North Hills; Oyster Bay; West Hills/Melville; Oak Brush Plains; South Setauket Woods; Central Suffolk; Southold; South Fork; and Hither Hills. The subject property is not situated within an SGPA. 21 II MILL LA* & OREGON RD. OREGON RD. & BRIDGE LA. BRIDGE LA. & CR 27 CR 27 & PECONIC LA* PECONIC LA. & SOUND VIEW AVE. SOUND VIEW AVE7 & LIGHTHOUSE RD. LIGHTHOUSE RD. & NORTH RD, NORTH RD. & CR 27 CR 27 & BOISSEAG AVE. BOISSEAU AVE. & RTE, 25 RTE. 2E & NEW SUFFOLK RD~ NEW SUFFOLK RD. & SUFFOLK AVE. SUFFOLK AVE. & NYE 25 NYE 25 & WICKHAM AVE. WICKHAM AVE. & TGTHJLL LA. TUTHILL LA. & MILL LA. Hydrogeologic Zone Map Excerpt 2,) CR 27 & McCANN LA 3.) McCAN'N L.~, & SOUND DR, 4.) SOUND DR. & SOUTHERN BLVD. 5.)'SOUTHERN BLVD. & CEDAR DR 6.) CEDAR DR, & STARE RD. 7.) STARS RD, & NYE 25 8.) NYE 25 & MANHASSET AVE. 9.i MANHASSET AVE. & CHAMPLIN PL, 10.) CHAMPLIN PL. ~ MAIN ST 12) NYE 25 & LIRR 13.) LIRR & NYE 25 14) NYE 25 & GASSIDY LA LITTLE PECONIC BAY / Source: SCDHS Suffolk County Sanitary Code - Article 7 Groundwater Management Zones and Water Supply Sensitive Areas, 1993. Scale: 1 inch = 2 miles FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Figure 5 22 Suffolk County Sanitary Code In order to protect the groundwater quality in Suffolk County, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services adopted Articles 6, 7, and 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Article 6, Realty Subdivisions, Developments and Other Construction Projects, contains several provisions relevant to this project, as summarized below. Section 760-607 notes the sewage facility requirement for construction projects other than conventional single-family developments. This section states that an individual or subsurface sewerage system may be approved by the SCDHS as the method of sewage disposal provided that all of the following conditions are met: the construction project is located within Groundwater Management Zones III, V or VI, and the population density equivalent is equal to or less than that of a realty subdivision or development of single-family residences in which all parcels consist of an area of at least 40,000 square feet; the construction project is located outside Groundwater Management Zones 11I, V or VI, and the population density equivalent is equal to or less than that of a realty subdivision or development of single-family residences in which all parcels consist of an area of at least 20,000 square feet; the construction project, or any portion thereof, is not located within an existing sewer district and is located in an area where subsoil and groundwater conditions are conducive to the proper functioning of individual or subsurface sewerage systems; and the individual sewerage or subsurface systems comply with the Department's current Standards and the minimum State requirements as set forth in 10 NYCRR Part 75 to the extent applicable to Suffolk County. 23 The regulations contained in Article 6 protect water resources by limiting the "population density equivalent''~ within specific Groundwater Management Zones. Since the subject site is situated within Groundwater Management Zone IV, pursuant to Article 6 of the SCSC, the maximum permitted sanitary discharge, if on-site sanitary systems are used, is 600 gallons per day per 40,000 square feet. Thus, the maximum permitted sanitary discharge for the subject site, if on-site sanitary systems are to be used, is projected at 1,653+ gpd.2 Article 7, Water Pollution Control, was adopted and added to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code in 1985 to protect the groundwater of Suffolk County, especially in the deep recharge areas of Zones I, 1I, 1II and V described in the 208 Study, from discharge of sewage, industrial wastes, toxic or other hazardous materials and stormwater runoff. Under Section 760-705 of this Article, permits are required for the construction of new or alteration to existing disposal systems. Section 760-706 provides additional restrictions for the deep recharge zones and water supply sensitive areas including stringent limitations on toxic and hazardous materials storage and discharge. Pursuant to {}760-706(B)(1), it is unlawful to use or store any restricted toxic or hazardous ~naterials3 on any premises except as follows: 77re intended use of the product stored is solely for on-site heating, or intermittent stationary power production such as stand-by electricity generation or irrigation pump power; and b. the facility for such storage is intended solely for the storage of kerosene, number 2fuel oil, number 4fuel oil, number 6fuel oil, diesel oil or lubricating oil; and ~ Population Density Equivalent is defined in Article 6 as "an expression of the quantity of domestic sewage in terms of the calculated population per unit area which would normally contribute the same amount of sewage." 2 (2.53 acres ! 40,000 square feet) x 600 gpd = 1,653 gpd. 3 As defined in §760-703(P) of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. 24 c. the facility for such storage is constructed in accordance with the requirements of Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code for new construction; and d. the materials so stored are not industrial wastes from processes containing restricted toxic or hazardous materials; and e. the materials stored are not intended for resale. As indicated earlier in this section, the subject property is not located in a deep recharge area. Thus, the storage of any restricted toxic or hazardous materials, as defined in the SCSC, would not be regulated by the SCDHS. There are no restricted toxic or hazardous materials stored on-site. Pursuant to §760-703(W) of the SCSC, Water Supply Sensitive Areas are defined as follows: "(1) a groundwater area separated from a larger regional groundwater system where salty groundwater may occur within the Upper Glacial aquifer, and where deepening of private wells and/or development of community water supplies may be limited; (2) areas in close proximity to existing or identified futura public water supply wellfields." In general, for the purposes of this Article, "close proximity" shall mean within 1,500 feet upgradient or 500 feet downgradient of public supply wells screened in the Upper Glacial aquifer. According to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code - Article 7 Groundwater Management Zones & Water Supply Sensitive Areas map, the subject property does not lie within a water supply sensitive area. 25 Article 12, Toxic and Hazardous Materials Storage and Handling Controls, addresses the storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials in order to safeguard water resourees from existing sourees of contamination and to prevent further pollution from new sourees. Relevant aspects of Section 760-1205 relate to the storage of fuel oil in underground/above ground storage tanks and the storage of pesticides and related materials. Pursuant to Section 760-1208, underground or above ground storage tanks (with a storage capacity of less than 1,100 gallons) that contain kerosene, number 2 fuel oil, number 4 fuel oil, number 6 fuel oil, diesel fuel, lubricating oil or gasoline in above ground tanks that are used solely for on-site heating or intermittent stationary power production are exempt from most provisions of Article 12. However, pursuant to Section 760-1210, new storage facilities to be used for the underground storage of toxic or hazardous materials shall be "designed and constructed in a manner which will, in the opinion of the Commissioner [of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services], provide the maximum reasonable protection available against leakage or spillage from the facility due to corrosion, breakage, structural failure, or other means. Double walled or equivalent facilities are required for all toxic and hazardous materials, except for tanks for the storage of on-pretrdses heating oil at residential homes." There are currently underground storage tanks on the subject property. Nonpoint Source Management Handbook The Nonpoint Source Management Handbook, which was prepared as part of the USEPA's 208 Plan Implementation Program, is divided into several elements: Land Use; Stormwater Runoff; On-site Systems; Highway Deicing; Fertilizer; Animal Waste; Wells-Water Supply; Boat Pollution; and Site Plan Review and Ordinances. The Handbook makes a variety of recommendations for counties, municipalities, engineers, etc., to use in controlling non-point sources of groundwater contamination. Relevant recommendations from this study along with a review of the project's consistency therewith are included in the impact analysis discussion, which is presented later in this section. 26 Water Supply and Usage The Suffolk County Water Authority ("SCWA") supplies potable water to the subject site. Currently, based on a factor of 0.06 gallons per day ("gpd"), the existing 11,391 square foot Town Hall utilizes 684+ gallons of potable water per day. There is no irrigation system on the subject site, and thus, this figure represents the total daily water use for the property. Surface Water Review of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Freshwater Wetlands Map No. 6 of 39, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map No. 822, indicate that there are no designated wetlands on or adjacent to the subject site. 27 Stormwater Management Stormwater runoff is generated by precipitation events and is divided into three components: surface runoff, interflow and base flow. Surface runoff is that portion of the stormwater that remains after a precipitation event and is not captured by depression storage or ponding, does not infiltrate the surface and is not evapotranspired from the earth's surface. Interflow is that portion of stormwater that infiltrates the surface into the soil zone and moves in a horizontal direction until reaching a surface water body. Finally, the base flow is that portion which infiltrates the surface and soil profile to reach groundwater.4 As discussed in the NYSDEC manual, Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff From New Development, the concept of stormwater management is such that there is qualitative control, as a system of vegetative and structural measures can be used "to control the increased volume and rate of surface runoff caused by man-made changes to the land" and "to control or treat pollutants carried by surface runoff~' (page 5). The goal of stormwater management is to prevent substantial alteration of the "quantity and quality of stormwater mn-off from any specific development...from predevelopment conditions" (page 6). Currently, stormwater is accommodated by drywells. 4 Reducing Impacts ofStormwater RunoffFrom New Development, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 28 Phase 11 Stormwater Regulations Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, stormwater discharges from certain construction activities to "Waters of the United States''5 are unlawful unless they are authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit ("NPDES") permit or by a state permit program. The New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES") Permit is an NPDES- approved program with permits issued in accordance with the Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL"). The SPDES program also extends permitting coverage to discharges of pollutants to all other "Waters of New York State," such as groundwater.6 5 Pursuant to Tire 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 328.3(a), waters of the United States are defined as (1) all waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) which are or could be used by interstate or foreign Traveler for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce; (4) all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; (5) tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (4) of this section; (6) the territorial seas; (7) wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (6) of this section (Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11 (m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States); (8) Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA. 6 As excerpted from the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (Permit No. GP-02-01 ). 29 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") stormwater program was promulgated in 1990 under the Clean Water Act ("CWA") and was recognized as the Phase I Rule. The Phase I Rule required a NPDES permit to control stormwater runoff from (1) "medium" or"large" municipal separate storm sewer systems ("MS4s") generally serving populations of 100,000 or greater, (2) construction activity disturbing five acres or greater, and (3) ten categories of industrial activity. On March 10, 2003, the USEPA expanded the scope of its stormwater management program to include smaller construction sites and the operators of MS4s in urbanized areas, and the expanded program is known as the Storm Water Phase II Final Rule. Specifically, the Storm Water Phase H Final Rule expanded permit coverage to "operators of small construction activities that disturb equal to or greater than one and less than five acres of land." For construction activities involving any size disturbance (less than one acre, one to five acres, or five acres or greater), a SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-02-01) ("SPDES General Permit") must be obtained, and requires that a Notice of Intent ("NOI") be filed with the NYSDEC, after completing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP"). The SWPPP includes two plan components: (1) Erosion and Sediment Control ("ESC") plan, and (2) Water Quality and Quantity Control ("WQQP") plan. The NYSDEC provides technical standards for each of the above plan components. For erosion and sediment control, the technical standards are included in the "New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control" published by the Empire State Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Society (March 2003). For the design of water quality and quantity controls (post- construction stormwater control practices), the technical standards are detailed in the "New York State Stormwater Design Manual." 30 New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control The standards and specifications within the New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control have been developed "to reduce the impacts of soil loss from construction sites to receiving water bodies and adjacent properties." This publication provides extensive guidance on computing runoff and standards for vegetative, bio-technical and structural measures for erosion and sediment control. A general discussion of vegetative and structural controls follows. As discussed on page 2.2 of the New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control, the preservation of existing groundcover is the most effective way to protect the soil surface and limit erosion. "Where land disturbance is necessary, temporary seeding or mulching must be used on areas which will be exposed for more than 14 days. Permanent stabilization should be performed as soon as possible after completion of grading. ESC plans must contain provisions for permanent stabilization of disturbed areas. Selection of permanent vegetation will include the following considerations for each plant series: 1) establishment requirements; 2) adaptability to site conditions; 3) aesthetic and natural resource values; 4) maintenance requirements." Structural controls "may be necessary when disturbed areas cannot be promptly stabilized with vegetation, [and] may be temporary or permanent." New York State Stormwater Design Manual The Water Quality and Quantity Control plan prepared as part of the SWPPP must be designed to meet required "sizing criteria and pollutant removal goals," which are set forth in Chapters 4 and 5 of the New York State Stormwater Design Manual. Chapter 4 outlines a unified approach for sizing stormwater management practices ("SMPs") "to meet pollutant removal goals, reduce channel erosion, prevent overbank flooding and help extreme floods." Water quality volume (denoted as WQv), is designed to improve water quality sizing to capture and treat 90 percent of the average annual stormwater runoff volume, and is directly related to the amount of impervious cover created at a site. 31 The following equation is used to determine the water quality storage volume WQv (in acm-feet of storage): [WQv = (P)(Rv)(A)/12].? By meeting the WQv requirements through employment of acceptable SMPs (see discussion below), the water quality objectives of capturing and treating 90 pement of stormwater will be met. Chapter 5 of the New York State Stormwater Design Manual outlines five main groups of acceptable SMPs, including stormwater ponds; stormwater wetlands; infiltration practices; filtering practices; and open channel practices. All of the acceptable SMPs are based on the following criteria: Capture and treatment of the full WQv; Capable of removal of 80 percent TSS8 and 40 percent TPg,' Acceptable longevity in the field; and Pretreatment mechanism. Lone Island Seffment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP Study) With regard to stormwater runoff, the Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program ("NURP Study") has made the following findings with regard to groundwater: Groundwater Most of the runoff into recharge basins is derived from rain that falls directly on impervious surfaces, except during storms of high intensity, high volume and/or long duration. Where WQv = water quality volume (in acre-feet), P = 90 percent Rainfall Event Number, Rv = 0.05 + 0.009(I), where is percent impervious cover and A: site area (acres). Total Suspended Solids (suspended inorganic and organic material) Total Phosphorus 32 In general, with the exception of lead and chloride, the concentrations of inorganic chemicals measured in stormwater runoff do not have the potential to adversely affect groundwater quality. Infiltration through the soil is generally an effective mechanism for reducing lead and probably chromium from runoff on Long Island. Although the NURP Study findings concerning chromium are not conclusive, data from a spill at Farmingdale indicate attenuation. Chloride is not attenuated. The effect of infiltration on nitrogen is undetermined. · Coliform and fecal streptococcal indicator bacteria are removed from stormwater as it infiltrates through soil. Potential Imoacts of the Prooosed Action Proposed Action Will Affect Surface or Groundwater Quality or Quantity Consistency with the Lon~ Island Comvrehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Study) In order to ensure the protection of groundwater, the proposed project will comply with the relevant "Highest Priohty Areawide Alternatives" for Hydrogeologic Zone IV set forth in the 208 Study, as described below: Reduce excessive use of irrigation water and require the permitting, regulation and monitoring of irrigation wells. The subject property will not be irrigated. Thus, this recommendation is not applicable to the proposed action. 33 Minimize population density by encouraging large lot development (one dwelling unit/one or more acres), where possible to protect the groundwater from future pollutant loadings. The proposed action consists largely of the redevelopment of an existing municipal property by incorporating a portion of an adjoining property. The proposed action would increase the number of persons that work and visit the site daily, and thus, sanitary discharge would increase. As indicated later in this section, the projected volume of sanitary discharge, based on the preliminary site plan, may exceed the maximum permitted sanitary density pursuant to Article 6. In this instance, if required, the Town would propose the transfer of sanitary density rights from other Town-owned property within the same Hydrogeologic Zone (i.e., IV). As the Town would comply with SCDHS requirements, there would be no significant adverse impacts associated with sanitary discharge. · Prohibit the use of certain chemical cleaners in on-lot systems. All sanitary systems would be maintained with appropriate cleaners, as required. Consistency with the Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6 As indicated earlier in this section, Suffolk County has promulgated various regulations and standards that are designed to protect the water resoumes of Long Island. Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code specifically governs sanitary wastewater discharges. The regulations contained in Article 6 protect water resources by limiting the "population density equivalent" within specific Groundwater Management Zones. Since the subject property is situated within Groundwater Management Zone IV, pursuant to Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, the maximum permitted sanitary discharge, if on-site sanitary systems are used, is 1,653+ gpd. 34 Based on the overall building area of 31,491 square feet and the general SCDHS sanitary flow factor of 0.06 gpd per square foot, the proposed action may generate 1,890_* gpd of sanitary waste,l° However, as the specific building floor plans have not yet been designed, it is not possible to determine the specific sanitary flow at this time. To permit a conservative, worst-case environmental analysis, it was assumed that all floor area would be considered "office," at a design floor factor of 0.06 gallons per day of sanitary flow per square foot of building area. This preliminary estimate would exceed the relevant population density equivalent described within Article 6. However, at the time of floor plan design, the precise sanitary flow will be recalculated and an application will be submitted to SCDHS for sanitary approval. The said application would be reviewed by the SCDHS, and if the sanitary flow exceeds Article 6 requirements, the Town would (a) seek Board of Review approval, or (b) transfer sanitary density rights from other Town-owned property within the same Hydrogeologic Zone (i.e., IV), or (c) modify the design to comply with Article 6. In any case, ultimate design approval will comply with conditions/restrictions imposed by SCDHS to ensure protection of water resources. Article 7 Section 760-706 of Article 7 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code provides additional restrictions for the deep recharge zones and water supply sensitive areas including stringent limitations on toxic and hazardous materials storage and discharge. The proposed action does not include the storage or handling of restricted toxic or hazardous materials on-site. Th s represents an approximately 1,206 gpd ~ncrease over the ex,sUng 684_ gallons of samtary waste generated daffy. 35 Article 12 Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code relates to the storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials. The proposed action includes only the possible installation of one storage tank, to be used in connection with emergency power generation. At the time final plans are prepared, an Article 12 permit would be secured and the tank to be employed would meet the necessary design requirements set forth by the relevant sections of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. As such, no related impacts are anticipated. Consistency with the Nonpoint Source Management Handbook The Nonpoint Source Management Handbook was reviewed as to recommendations. The proposed project's consistency with the relevant recommendations follows: Land Use Limit new development, particularly industrial uses, in the deep recharge and critical shallow recharge areas. The proposed action includes the expansion of the existing Town Hall Complex and the redevelopment of approximately 2.38+-acres. However, the subject site is not located in a deep recharge area or critical shallow recharge area. Thus, this recommendation is not applicable to the subject site. · Limit the removal of natural vegetation and the creation of lawn areas. As part of the proposed action, approximately 0.08 acre of natural vegetation and 0.73 acre of lawn and landscaping would be removed. Accordingly, the proposed project complies with this recommendation. 36 Stormwater Runoff Minimize grade changes and site clearing. Preserve swales in their natural state. Avoid disturbance of existing grades, vegetation or soils and the alteration of surface hydrology. As discussed below, the site is relatively fiat, and thus, no significant grade changes are proposed. There is also limited site clearing (0.08 acre of natural vegetation and 0.73 acre of lawn and landscaping) proposed. During the grading and construction processes, hay bales and silt fencing would be placed along the length of the site to mitigate potential runoff from the site. Post-construction drainage methods include the installation of leaching pools to contain and recharge 100 pement of stormwater on-site. Finally, there are no drainage swales on the subject property. Overall, therefore, the proposed project complies with this recommendation. Provide temporary on-site areas to receive stormwater runoff flows that are generated by construction and other site development activities. Do not allow increased sediment resulting from the construction or operation phase of site development to leave the site or to be discharged into stream corridors, marine or freshwater wetlands. Minimize the amount of soil area exposed to rainfall and the period of exposure. Cover or plant exposed soils as soon as possible. Prior to construction, a proper erosion and sedimentation control plan will be implemented. As indicated above, specific measures include the strategic placement of silt fences and hay bales to prevent overland runoff and to protect stockpiles and storm drains; installation of foundations, pavement and/or landscaping as soon as possible after soil disturbance which would effectively limit the extent of soil erosion; and the installation of leaching pools. Thus, the proposed project would comply with this recommendation. 37 Detain runoff and direct stormwater from road surfaces to sediment basins before discharge to a sump wherever topography limits or precludes on-site recharge. Stormwater runoff will be contained and recharged on-site via leaching pools, and thus, this recommendation is not applicable to the proposed action. Stabilize exposed slopes during and after construction by using temporary and/or permanent structural or nonstructural stabilization measures. The subject property is relatively flat, and thus, slope stabilization methods would not be required. Fertilizer Retain as much of the natural vegetation of the site as possible. Minimize grade changes and site clearing. As indicated above, there is only 0.08 acre of natural vegetation on the subject site and same would be removed to accommodate the proposed redevelopment. Also, the area of lawn and landscaping is proposed to decrease by 0.73 acre. Finally, no grade changes are proposed. Thus, the proposed project would comply with the intent of this recommendation. Use native plants for the planting of areas that have been disturbed by grading. Consider the use of alternative types of groundcover and other plant materials to avoid or reduce lawn area and the consequent need for fertilizer applications, extensive watering and maintenance. 38 There is minimal replanting proposed at the perimeters of buildings and parking areas. However, native species would be planted to the maximum extent practicable, to reduce the need for fertilizers, and other nutrient inputs. Thus, the proposed project would comply with this recommendation. Water Supply and Usage The SCWA supplies potable water to the subject site. Thus, no on-site wells will be installed. Based on a factor of 0.06 gpd, and the post-development building area of 31,491 gpd, the projected potable water usage would be 1,890 gpd. This represents an approximately 1,206-gpd increase over the existing 684_+ gallons of potable water used daily. No irrigation system is proposed. It is not expected that this additional potable water use would stress the public water supply. Surface Water As there are no wetlands or surface water bodies on or adjacent to the site, there would no adverse impacts to same associated with the proposed action. Proposed Action Will Alter Drainage Flow or Patters, or Surface Water Runoff Consistency with Phase II Stormwater Regulations Stormwater Runoff and Management During Construction Activities The proposed action would involve the disturbance of the 2.38_+ acres (i.e., the area of the property less the 0.15 acre or 6,590 square feet of the existing building to be retained), and thus, is subject to the new Phase II Stormwater Regulations and a SPDES General Permit is required. Accordingly, the applicant would secure a SPDES General Permit prior to the commencement of any construction activities on the site. 39 In accordance with the requirements for a SPDES General Permit, an ESC plan would be prepared by the project engineer. The proposed ESC plan would consist of both vegetative controls and structural controls to stabilize soils and reduce the potential impacts to soils during construction activities. Silt fencing and hay bales would be placed around the established perimeter of construction areas and where deemed necessary to prevent sedimentation due to wind erosion and stormwater runoff. All stormwater would be contained on site during construction by maintaining the existing drainage systems until the proposed systems can be installed. The areas of cut with slopes greater than 10 percent would be established as soon as possible with ground cover to prevent exposure to erosion. Furthermore, according to the project engineer, and as indicated on the E.A.F. Preliminary Site Plan (see Appendix A), approximately 15 leaching pools would be installed on the project site to control stormwater. Each of the proposed leaching pools would be 10-feet in diameter and 12-feet in depth and would be capable of containing a two-inch rainstorm. All such stormwater would be contained and recharged on-site. Post-Development Controls to Accommodate Stormwater Runoff Upon implementation of the proposed action, the area of impervious surface would increase by 0.81 + acre. Thus, the volume of stormwater runoff would slightly increase. To accommodate the additional stormwater, leaching pools would be installed in the site. However, the proposed action includes the regrading of approximately 2.38 acres, and thus, the existing drainage patterns may be altered. However, areas will be graded such that all stormwater is directed to on-site leaching pools. As all stormwater will be contained and recharged on-site, there would be no projected significant adverse impacts associated with stormwater migration (i.e., erosion and sedimentation). 40 Consistency with the Lone Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban RunoffProm:am (NURP Study) The Long Island NURP Study evaluated the impacts of runoff and the means to minimize pollution contributions from stormwater runoff. Based on the results of this study, the following general recommendations were made: Groundwater Continue to use recharge basins wherever feasible for the disposal of stormwater and the replenishment of the groundwater. As there are no recharge basins on-site, this recommendation is not applicable to the proposed project. However, as described above, stormwater would be collected and recharged on the subject property, via leaching pools, to ensure continued replenishment of groundwater. Consider the use of in-line storage leaching drainage systems, or components thereof, as a substitute for recharge basins in areas, other than parking lots, where maintenance will be assured and where the value of the land for development purposes is greater than the cost of installing and maintaining the underground system. Storage leaching drainage systems should also be considered for use where the installation of recharge basins is not feasible. According to the project engineer, the proposed drainage system includes leaching pools to accommodate stormwater runoff associated with a two-inch storm. No recharge basins are included in the drainage plan. Thus, the proposed project is in compliance with this recommendation. 41 Prevent illegal discharges to drainage systems or recharge basins. Such discharges, which often result from improper storage or deliberate dumping of chemicals, must be controlled at the source. The proposed action includes the installation of leaching pools to contain and recharge stormwater on-site. There would be no hazardous chemicals handled or stored on the site.~ l As such, there would be no illegal discharges or potential threats to surface waters associated with the improper storage of chem/cals. Prooosed Mitigation Measures Proposed Action Will Affect Surface or Groundwater Quality or Quantity The proposed project will comply with the relevant recommendations of the 208 Study, Nonpoint Source Management Handbook and other applicable studies to ensure adequate protection of groundwater. Also, the proposed project will adhere to the relevant segments of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. As such, no significant impacts to groundwater resources are expected. Thus, no additional mitigation measures are necessary. Proposed Action Will Alter Drainage Flow or Patters, or Surface Water Runoff The proposed action includes engineering and structural controls to appropriately accommodate stormwater runoff and to control the erosion and sedimentation of on-site soils. As such, no additional mitigation measures are necessary. With the possible exception of cleaning fluids and office-related materials. 42 V. IMPACT ON AESTHETICS Existim, Conditions The Southold Town Hall building is a one-story structure situated on the north side of Main Road and within the Southold Historic District, a nationally-registered historic district. A relatively narrow lawn area runs parallel to the building's frontage along Main Road and is landscaped with shrubs and trees (see Photograph Nos. 1 and 2 in Appendix B). The Town Hall property extends north to Traveler Street, and views of the property from same are largely of a lawn area and individual mature trees (see Photograph No. 3 in Appendix B). An internal east-west configured driveway also fronts Hortons Lane (see Photograph No. 4 in Appendix B). A densely vegetated buffer runs the length of the eastern property line of the Town Hall property, and thus, properties beyond are obscured (see Photograph Nos. 5 and 6 in Appendix B) To the east of the Town Hall building along Main Road are hamlet corrmnemial properties situated within converted residential buildings (see Photograph No. 7 in Appendix B). A larger commercial complex and the U.S. Post Office are also situated to the east (see Photograph No. 8 in Appendix B). Directly south of the Town Hall building, on the opposite side of Main Road, is the First Presbyterian Church and cemetery property behind a large iron fence (see Photograph No. 9 in Appendix B). Immediately west of the subject property on Main Road is the Whitaker House, a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places (see Photograph No. 10 in Appendix B). Residential properties are situated to the west thereof (see Photograph No. 11 in Appendix B). To the west and north of the existing Town Hall property is the 260 Hortons Lane Property, which is also situated to the west and north of the existing Town Hall property (see Photograph Nos. 12 and 13 in Appendix B). A commercial property occupied by Academy Printing is directly north of the 260 Hortons Lane Property and is west and north of the existing Town Hall property (see Photograph No. 14 in Appendix B). Directly north of the subject property are Traveler Street, the Long Island railroad tracks and a one-story self storage building (see Photograph No. 15 in Appendix B). 43 The visibility of the Town Hall property is primarily from those traveling on Main Road and on the secondary roadways of Hortons Lane and Traveler Street. The subject property is topographically level with the surrounding properties, and thus, it is no more visible than the other properties along Main Road. Those traveling on the Long Island Railroad can also view the Town Hall property. Potential Imoacts of the Prooosed Action The proposed action includes the partial demolition of the existing Town Hall building, retaining that portion of the building west of the circular sidewalk on the south side of the building. As such, views of the Town Hall building from the Whitaker House to the west would not be significantly altered. To the east of the building, and in the approximate location of the existing building footprint, a 13-space parking area would be developed. However, proposed plantings and lawn area at the south side of this parking area have been incorporated into the proposed plan to soften views of the parking area. Thus, the loss of a portion of the building would not result in significant adverse impacts to the setting along Main Road. As such, the existing setting of the Southold Historic District would not be significantly impacted. Also, as discussed in Section VI of this Part 3 - EAF, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation ("OPRHP") has evaluated the action and advised in correspondence dated March 2, 2005 that the "current proposal is a suitable alternative and new building is compatible in style, scale and materials with the adjacent Southold Historic District." 44 The views of the property from Traveler Street would be altered in that the areas that are characterized by lawn area and individual mature trees would be developed with the new two-story Town Hall building. As depicted in the architectural renderings of the proposed Town Hall building, which are annexed hereto as Appendix C, the architectural style is consistent with traditional municipal buildings and with the Southold Historic District. On the north and south elevations, the proposed two-story structure would be adorned with four large columns to define the staircase to the entryway to the building with the Town of Southold emblem at each entryway. Above the columns is a large gabled roof with roundel. Dormer windows have also been incorporated into the architecture at the north and south elevations, and decorated lintels are found on all other windows. The roof-line would exhibit detailed cornice on all sides of the building. It is important to note that the western elevation is a single-story with two gables to be more in character with the residential setting to the west. The eastern elevation exhibits the two-stories and is more characteristic of typical commercial architecture, which is found to the east. A short fence enclosing a lawn area to the building line is proposed at the eastern elevation. Overall, while the views of the Town Hall property and a portion of the 260 Hortons Lane property would be altered, no significant adverse aesthetic impacts are expected as the project has been designed to conform to the character of the area. Proposed Mitigation Measures To mitigate the potential visual impacts of the proposed action, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the plan: Plantings and lawn area are proposed at the south side of the parking area adjacent to the existing Town Hall building to soften views of the parking area and minimize the potential visual impacts of the proposed demolition of a portion of the Town Hall building. 45 The architectural style of the new Town Hall building is consistent with traditional municipal buildings and with the Southold Historic District. The western elevation is a single-story with two gables to be more in character with the residential setting to the west. The eastern elevation exhibits the two-stories and is more characteristic of typical commercial architecture, which is found to the east. A short fence enclosing a lawn area to the building line is proposed at this elevation. 46 VI. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Existin~ Conditions The OPRHP printout of the National and State Registers of Historic Places, as well as the National Park Service website, were examined. The subject property lies within the Southold Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as 96NR01062 (see Figure 6). Potential Impacts of the Prol~osed Action Consultations were undertaken with OPRHP to request that the proposed action be reviewed as to its potential to impact any cultural resources. Correspondence was received from OPRHP dated March 2, 2005, indicating that the proposed action would, "not have a significant impact on the character of the Southold Historic District or on the adjacent Abraham Lowerre House (Stankewich [sic] property)." After review of the proposed action, OPRHP further explained that the proposed building is, "compatible in style, scale and materials with the adjacent Southold Historic District." Additional correspondence was received on March 11, 2005 from Ms. Elisabeth A. Bakker Johnson, Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator, who advised that the "town hall property is a non- contributing component to that [Southold Historic] district." Copies of this correspondence are annexed hereto as Appendix D. 47 48 Figure 6 As OPRHP has issued a clearance for the proposed action, and the project has been designed to be in character with the Southold Historic District, implementation of the proposed action would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to historic or archaeological resources. Proposed MitiRation Measures As described above, the proposed structure has been designed such that the essential character of the surrounding Historic District would not be disturbed by the proposed action. Additionally, OPRItP has issued a clearance for the proposed action, and, thus, no further mitigation is necessary. 49 VII. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION A Traffic Impact Assessment ("TIA") was prepared by L.K. McLean Associates, P.C. for the proposed action. A summary of the TIA is included below and a copy of the report in its entirety is annexed hereto as Appendix E. Existin~ Conditions Surrounding Roadways Main Road (State Route 25) is located south of both the existing Town Hall. This east-west roadway is under the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Transportation. There is no vehicular access to the existing Town Hall site from Main Road. Hortons Lane is a north-south Town road that abuts the west side of the Town Hall site. Traveler Street is an east-west Town roadway that abuts the north side of the Town Hall site. Access to the existing Town Hall parking area is provided by driveways from both Hortons Lane and Traveler Street. Traveler Street provides a connection between Hortons Lane and Youngs Avenue, a Town road which borders the east side of the Town Hall Annex site. Both Hortons Lane and Youngs Avenue intersect with County Road 48, another main east-west route, about 1/2 mile to the north. Posted speed limits are 30 mph. 50 The intersection of Hortons Lane and Main Road is controlled by a stop sign for Hortons Lane traffic. The Main Road/Youngs Avenue intersection is controlled by a two-phase traffic signal. The Southold Elementary, Junior High and High Schools are located south of Main Road, on the west side of Oaklawn Avenue, which intersects Main Road about 225 feet west of Hortons Lane. During school opening and dismissal times, a police officer assists in traffic control at a marked school crosswalk on Main Road at the Main Road/Oaklawn Avenue intersection. The Annual Average Daily Traffic on Main Road in 2001 was approximately 8,500 vehicles. On-street parking is generally not prohibited along these roadways, with the exception of restrictions for sight distance (e.g. on the north side of Main Road for a short distance east of Hortons Lane). Traffic and Parking Data Collection On Friday, March 4, 2005, traffic observations at both the existing Town Hall and Annex sites were made, and traffic and parking data were collected. A Friday was chosen because this is the only weekday when court is in session at the Town Hall; therefore, this day represents the peak weekday for traffic generation at that site. Them is no such fluctuation in activity during the week at the Annex site. The following traffic data were recorded and are presented in the traffic count data included in the appendix of the TIA, annexed hereto as Appendix E: · Turning movement traffic counts at the Main Road/Hortons Lane intersection for two hours, 12:00-1:00 pm and 3:30-4:30 pm; · Turning movement counts at the Hortons Lane/Town Hall access driveway, for two 15-minute periods, beginning at 10:15 am and 1:15 pm; and · Turning movement counts at the Traveler Street/Town Hall access driveway, for two 15-minute periods, beginning at 10:30 am and 1:30 pm. 51 Also, the number of vehicles parked on Town Hall property, at seven different times, beginning at 9:00 am and ending at 3:00 pm were recorded. These data, which indicate a maximum number of 83 vehicles parked, is as follows. Table 3 - Parking Observations at the Existing Southold Town Hall Property NUMBER OF PARKED VEHICLES -- TIME FRIDAY MARCH 4, 2005 9:00 AM 76 10:00 AM 83* 10:45 AM 82 11:45 AM 66 1:00 PM 37 2:00 PM 41 3:00 PM 39 * MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKED VEHICLES Other observations include the following: Some delays were experienced by southbound motorists as they waited to turn onto Main Road. In the worst case, a queue of eight vehicles was observed; · On-street parking was practiced on both sides of Main Road in the vicinity of the existing Town Hall; · Vehicles generally did not park on Hortons Lane or Traveler Street; and · Some vehicles parked on the grass adjacent to the existing Town Hall parking area (these vehicles were included in the totals shown on Table 3 above). 52 Intersection Capacity Analysis The traffic count data obtained for this report were utilized to perform an unsignalized intersection capacity analysis at Main Road and Hortons Lane, using Highway Capacity Software distributed by the University of Florida, which follows the procedures of the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual. Field observations indicate that vehicles currently queue on Hortons Lane while awaiting a gap in traffic on Main Road to execute a left or right turn. The intersection capacity analysis was performed, for the noon to 1:00 pm time period, which had slightly more traffic volume than the late afternoon period. During this period, the Level of Service ("LOS")12 for southbound traffic is D (vehicles experienced an average of 26 seconds of delay). Left-turning vehicles experience longer delays than right-turning vehicles, because they must wait for simultaneous gaps in traffic in both directions before executing a left turn, whereas right-turning vehicles can wait for an acceptable gap in just one direction of travel. Since all of the vehicles are currently in one lane, a left-turning vehicle forces right-turning vehicles behind it to wait longer than they would if the left-turning vehicle was not in their path. To demonstrate this, we performed another capacity analysis, with the assumption that the left- and right-turning vehicles had their own lanes. The resulting LOS and average vehicle delay values under those conditions are LOS D/32.4 seconds for the left-turning vehicles and LOS B/14.8 seconds for right-turning vehicles. Summaries of these capacity analyses appear in the appendix of the Traffic Impact Assessment. ~2 (Level of Service is analogous to a "Report Card" of intersection operation, with a Level A being excellent, B being good, C being acceptable, D being barely acceptable, E indicating that the intersection is reaching its capacity, and F indicating failure, or long traffic queues.) 53 Potential Imoacts of the Prooosed Action Traffic Generation and Trip Assignment Since the proposed building will enable the Town to consolidate the existing Annex offices onto one site, no additional traffic is anticipated to be generated by the proposed project. An approximation of existing trip assignment (i.e. routes used by motorists to and from the site) can be made from traffic counts of vehicles exiting the Town Hall site onto Hortons Lane and Traveler Street. Destinations of these vehicles are estimated as follows: Vehicles Exiting Town Hall Lot Percentage Onto Hortons Lane, Turning Left 27% Onto Hortons Lane, Turning Right 18% Onto Traveler St., Turning Left 18% Onto Traveler St., Turning Right 37% Primary Destination Secondary Destination Westbound Main Rd. Eastbound Main Rd. Northbound Hortons La. Northbound Hortons La. Eastbound Main Rd. Northbound Youngs Ave. The above estimated percentages would be altered with the consolidation of the current Annex offices onto the Town Hall site. Destinations of motorists leaving the current Annex offices could not be readily obtained, since that site is shared with the bank. When the Annex offices are relocated to the Town Hall site, all "Annex-related" traffic destined for westbound Main Road would then turn ]eft onto Hortons Lane and then turn right onto Main Road. Some of the traffic destined for eastbound Main Road would probably use Hortons Lane as well; however, all traffic currently heading east from the Annex offices now uses Youngs Avenue, where the existing traffic signal stops Main Road traffic, to enable left tums to be made more safely. Since Annex employees and visitors are aware of this benefit, when they relocate to the Town Hall site, they will most likely use Traveler Street to Youngs Avenue to travel east. 54 Traffic destined for northbound Hortons Lane will have direct access to Hortons Lane. Traffic destined for Youngs Avenue will use Traveler Street to Youngs Avenue. In terms of vehicles entering the site, it can be expected that both left tums and right tums from Main Road to Hortons Lane would increase. Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic patterns leaving the site will shift somewhat, with additional tums occurring at the Main Road/Hortons Lane intersection. The primary change for traffic leaving the site will involve an increase in the right-turn movement from Hortons Lane to Main Road. Field observations indicate that vehicles currently queue on Hortons Lane while awaiting a gap in traffic on Main Road to execute a left or right turn. Upon implementation of the proposed action, left and right tums from Main Road to Hortons Lane will increase, based on a relocation of "Annex-related" traffic to the Town Hall site. These movements do not experience capacity problems; however, the current peak eastbound left turn volume on Main Road is on the order of 110 vehicles per hour. Although peak summer conditions could not be observed for this assessment, it can be expected that traffic volumes could be more than 30 percent higher than those in March, resulting in increased delays for left and right turning vehicles on Hortons Lane. 55 Parking Impacts Upon implementation of the proposed action, parking demands would increase. A total of 117 parking spaces are proposed on-site. As excerpted from the TIA prepared by L.K. McLean Associates, P.C., annexed hereto as Appendix E. Table 4 below indicates that on a typical summer weekday, it is projected that a maximum of I00 spaces would be required. Therefore, more spaces are provided than needed for four of the five weekdays. On summer Fridays, when court is in session, a maximum demand of 142 spaces is estimated, resulting in the need for a maximum of 25 motorists to find spaces on surrounding streets. However, it is anticipated that these vehicles can be legally accommodated along both sides of Main Road, and along the east side of Hortons Lane. Table 4 - Projected Future Maximum Parking Demand CURRENT MAX. 4/ OF OCCUPIED SPACES EMPLOYEE SPACES -- FROM RELOCATED ANNEX OFFICES VISITOR SPACES -- FROM RELOCATED ANNEX OFFICES ADJUSTMENT FOR SUMMER VISITORS TOTAL DEMAND NO. OF PROPOSED OFF-STREET SPACES DEFICIT -- VEI-[ICLES PARKED ON-STREET TYPICAL WEEKDAYS -- NO COURT SESSIONS 41 34 14 11 100 117 0 FRIDAYS -- COURT IN-SESSION 83 34 14 11 142 117 25 56 Proposed Traffic Imorovements The Main Road/Hortons Lane intersection is under the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Transportation ("NYSDOT"). While hourly traffic volumes on Hortons Lane may meet traffic volume warrants for traffic signal installation at this intersection, it is unlikely that NYSDOT would approve such an installation, unless the accident history indicates an unusually high number of right-angle type collisions (i.e., an average of five of more of these crashes per year). In any event, traffic signal installation would primarily benefit vehicles turning left from Hortons Lane onto eastbound Main Road, which experience longer traffic delays than right-turning vehicles. These left-turning vehicles already have access to the traffic signal at Youngs Avenue to more safely execute left tums onto Main Road with less delay during peak traffic periods. In order to reduce delays for vehicles leaving the Town Hall site and destined for both directions on Main Road, eastbound vehicles would be redirected to Youngs Avenue with appropriate signage in the following locations: 1. In the main parking area, directing traffic to Traveler Street; 2. Facing the Traveler Street exit from the parking area (with a right arrow); 3. On eastbound Traveler Street, approaching Youngs Avenue (with a right arrow); and 4. On southbound Hortons Lane, approaching Traveler Street (with a left arrow). An additional sign assembly, consisting of the Main Road (State Route 25) Route Marker above a double (left and right) arrow would also be placed on Youngs Avenue approaching Main Road. 57 Since the existing (March) peak eastbound left turn volume on Main Road at Hortons Lane is approximately 110 vehicles per hour, and this number would increase somewhat in the summer (perhaps on the order of 25 vehicles per hour) with the relocation of the Annex offices to the Town Hall site, the installation of a separate left turn lane would also be considered. This would involve the installation of pavement markings on Main Road and the NYSDOT would be contacted to discuss such improvements. Also, the implementation of a separate left turn lane would fome the restriction of parking on the south side of Main Road between Oaklawn Avenue and a point approximately 60 feet, or about 2.5 car lengths, east of Hortons Lane. Parking Recommendations It is estimated that the proposed number of off-street parking spaces will be adequate to accommodate the expected demand at the proposed Town Hall site, with the exception of Fridays, when court is in session. On summer Fridays, when demand is expected to be the highest, it is anticipated that a maximum of 25 vehicles will need to provide on-street spaces along either side of Main Road, or on the east side of Horton Lane. To facilitate parking demands, the east side of Hortons Lane would be mstriped for a 19-foot-wide northbound lane, resulting in a 15-foot-wide southbound lane. Parking would be prohibited on the west side of Hortons Lane. Prooosed Mitigation Measures To minimize the potential adverse traffic and parking impacts of the proposed action, the following mitigation measures would be implemented: Signs would be erected to guide motorists to eastbound Main Road (State Route 25) via the signalized intersection at Youngs Avenue. The installation of a separate left turn lane on Main Road at Hortons Lane would be considered and discussed with the NYSDOT. 58 To facilitate peak parking demands, the east side of Hortons Lane would be restriped for a 19-foot-wide northbound lane, resulting in a 15-foot-wide southbound lane. Also, parking would be prohibited on the west side of Hortons Lane. 59 VIII. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD This section will evaluate the potential impacts relating to a change in the density of land use at the site, and the consistency with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program ("LWRP") document, which, with the Town Zoning Code and zoning map, act as the Town's comprehensive plan. Existin~ Conditions Density The existing Town Hall property is 2.06 acres in size and contains an 11,391 square foot, one-story, structure. There are 70 existing on-site parking stalls in the rear of the.building. The total area of impervious surfaces is 1.02 acres. There is a lira/ted area of natural vegetation on the site (0.08 acre). The remaining 1.43 acres is covered with lawn or landscaped materials. Town of Southoid (Final) Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2003) The Town of Southold LWRP contains a complete inventory of the Town's resources, contains analyses of all existing land use conditions, and incorporates the goals of all existing planning studies and policies. Natural resources, historic resources, archaeological resources and scenic resoumes are each investigated individually within Section II- Inventory andAnalysis of the LWRP document. 60 The LWRP divides the Town into ten distinct "Reaches" and the subject property is within Reach 7 (see Figure 7). Within the Reach Analyses portion of the document, each Reach is examined with respect to land use and development, marine resources and other natural resources, historic and archaeological resources, and scenic resources, and summaries of opportunities for land use changes and key issues are presented as well. Relevant excerpts from Section II and the Reach 7 Analysis are described below. It is important to note that the bulk of the Southold LWRP focuses on marine-related issues, however, the subject property is outside of the New York State Coastal Management Program's Coastal Area boundary, and thus, the focus of the following discussions are directed at issues surrounding historic and scenic resources. According to Section H (F) - Historic Resources of the LWRP, the Town of Southold contains extensive historic resources including residential and commercial structures, accessory structures, lighthouses, sites, monuments, cemeteries, road mile markers and other landmarks. Within the Town, there are eight individual properties and two historic districts listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places, and several Town-recognized historic landmarks. The subject property lies within the Southold Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places as 96NR01062. Those properties and sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places have been determined to be significant in the history, architecture, archaeology and culture of New York and the nation. 61 'L~/ ~lllll 62 Figure 7 Within Section II (H) - Scenic Resources of the LWRP, the Main Road (State Route 25) corridor is identified as having both historic and scenic significance, as the route largely follows the original dirt-trodden path created during the early 1700s. Concern is expressed for the future scenic quality of the corridor where the LWRP states that, "While the residential landscape and much of the business centers are well-maintained, some of the scenic qualities of the hamlet and the Main Road (State Route 25) corridor are threatened by inappropriate signage, poor or excessive site and sign lighting, lack of street-side landscaping, deteriorated structures and increased traffic congestion." Under the sub-heading Problems and Opportunities, the LWRP states the continuing objective to "balance new growth and development with the desire to maintain the integrity of the rural landscape and the architectural character of the Town." To that end, the Town guides new development on a case-by-case basis through site plan and architectural reviews. A problem exists where these tools have been "unsuccessful in preventing the neglect and destruction of older historic structures that are integral to the character of the Town." Also within Section 1I (H) - Scenic Resources, the LWRP explains that the Town, in partnership with the New York State Department of State and the New York State Department of Transportation, and pursuant to the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, has developed the Scenic Byways Corridor Management Plan for the Town, adopted in 2001. State Routes 25 and 48, the Long Island Railroad ("LIRR") track, as well as select local roads, have been considered for nomination as Scenic Byways. Included within the Scenic Byways Corridor Management Plan, an assessment is made of the, "degree to which the local economy is dependent on the high scenic qualities found within the Town," as these qualities are a main source of the community's attraction. 63 The Reach 7 Analysis discusses the existing historic and scenic resources with a greater focus than that presented in Section 11 of the LWRP. The Southold Historic District, listed in the State and National Registers of Historic Places, is described here as roughly bounded by Jockey Creek Drive to the south, Griswold Street to the west, the LIRR to the north and Wells road to the east, and consisting of 86 buildings, 2 objects and 1 site. The vacant Whitaker House, also known as "The Anchorage," which lies adjacent to the existing Southold Town Hall, is mentioned, and some of its history given. The structure had served as the Miss Jennings Dame School, then as home to Dr. Epher Whitaker, the Town's first historian. The property had been purchased by the Town in September of 1998. With respect to scenic resources, the Reach 7 Analysis explains that though much of the Reach is developed with residential uses, mature vegetation minimizes the impact of such development on the scenic qualities of the Reach. Potential Impacts of the Prol~osed Action Proposed Action Will Cause a Change in the Density of Land Use Upon implementation of the proposed action, the area of the property would increase from 2.06 acres to 2.53 acres. The overall building area would increase from 11,391 square feet to 31,491 square feet, which represents a 176 percent increase in building area. To evaluate whether the post- development changes in land use density would result in adverse impacts, the Town of Southold Zoning Code is referenced (although the proposed action is not subject to local zoning). The subject property is zoned Hamlet Business ("I-IB") (see Figure 8). 64 Zoning Map Excerpt '/ A--C L A-£ Source: Zoning Map, Town of Southold, Adopted 1989, Last Amended November 12, 1996. Scale: 1 inch = 1,600 feet SOU THO FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, 1NC. 65 Figure 8 Pursuant to the Bulk Schedule for Business, Office and Industrial Districts, the lot coverage for HB- zoned properties is 40 percent. The lot coverage for the proposed action is 23,999 square feet (new Town Hall building footprint: 17,409 square feet, and existing Town Hall building: 6,590 square feet) or 21.8 percent. As such, the proposed development is well below the maximum permitted density set forth in the Town Zoning Code. Consistency with the LWRP The LWRP does not include many recommendations for the subject property. As indicated above, the Main Road (State Route 25) corridor is identified as having both historic and scenic significance. Through consultations with OPRHP, it has been determined that the proposed project is in character with the surrounding properties and would not impact the Southold Historic District. With respect to scenic resources, the evaluation of aesthetics in Section V of this Part 3 -EAF, demonstrates that the proposed action would not have significant adverse visual impacts. Overall, the proposed action would be consistent with the LWRP and its intent to protect historic and scenic resources within the Town. Prooosed Miti~,ation Measures As the proposed action would have no projected significant adverse impacts to the growth or character of the community associated with density or consistency with the Town's LWRP, no further mitigation measures are proposed. 66 BIBLIOGRAPHY Center for Watershed Protection. New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2001. Dvirka and Bartilucci, and Malcolm Pimie, Inc. 1987. Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Hauppauge, New York. Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB). 1992. The Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan. LIRPB. Hauppauge, New York. Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIPB). 1982. LonglslandSegmentoftheNationwide Urban Runoff Program. Hauppauge, New York. Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB). 1978. Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan. Vols. I & II. Hauppauge, New York. National Solid Waste Management Association, Technical Bulletin #85-6, Basic Data: Solid Waste Amounts, Composition and Management Systems. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. Soil and Water Conservation Society (Empire State Chapter). New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control, October 1991 (Third Printing) and April 1997 (Fourth Printing). Southold, Town of. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. April 2003. Southold, Town of. Zoning Code. United States Department of the Interior, National Wetlands Inventory. 1980-1994. Map No. 822. United States Department of Transportation, New York State Freshwater Wetland Maps. 1975. Map No. 6 of 39. United States Geologic Survey. 1979. Southold Quadrangle, New York - Suffolk County, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) Photomvised, USGS Department of the Interior United States Geological Survey, Water Table of the Upper Glacial Aquifer on Eastern Long Island, 2002. 67 BIBLIOGRAPHY Warner, J.W., Jr., W.E. Hanna, R.J. Landry, J.P. Wulforst, J.A. Neely, R.L. Holmes & C.E. Rice. 1975. Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York. United States Department of Agriculture and Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station. 68 II APPENDIX A F1LEUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, 1NC. II APPENDIX B FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. _Photograoh No. 1: View of the Existing Town Hall Building from Main Road. Photograph No. 2: View of the rear of the existing Town Hall building. Photograph No. 3: Looking southwest at the existing Town Hall property and the Stankevich property. Photograoh No. 4: Looking west down the internal east.west driveway on the subject property, which intersects at Hortons Lane. Photo~raphNo. 5: View from the internal north-south driveway at properties to the east. Photo~raohNo. 6: Another view of the properties to the east from the internal north south driveway .Photograph No. 7:View of the east end of the existing Town Hall building and the adjoining properties along Main Road. ~i~, " ~ , .,. .... ,& Photogranh No. 8: View of the U.S. Post Office and commercial buildings, which are situated to the east of the subject property. Photograph No. 9: View of the First Presbyterian Church directly opposite the Town Hall building, on the south side of Main Road. Photograph No. 10: View of the west end of the existing Town Hall building from Main Road. The Whitaker House is visible to the west. PhotoeraphNo. ll: View of the residential properties on the south side of Main Road, west of Hortons Lane. Photograoh No. 12: Looking west from the north-south driveway on the subject property at the Stankevich property. Photograph No. 13: Looking northwest at the Stankevich property. Photograph No. 14: View from Traveler Street, at the Stankevich property and the commercial property occupied by Academy Printing. Photo~raoh No. 15: Looking north from the internal north-south driveway at Traveler Street, at the railroad tracks and the self storage building on the opposite side. APPENDIX C FKEUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 121 b APPENDIX D Ii FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, 1NC. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 March 2, 2005 518-237-8643 Klm A. Gennaro, AICP Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. 368 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, New York 11725 Re: Town Hall Redevelopment Main Street (NY 25) T/Southotd, Suffolk Co. 05PR01032 Dear Ms. Gennaro: Thank you for requesting the comments of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) regarding redevelopment of the Southold Town Complex. As the state agency charged with the identification and protection of New York State's historic resources, we offer the following comment. It is the OPRHP opinion that construction of a new Town Hall fronting Traveler Street, north of the existing town buildings, together with the development of associated parking areas will not have a significant impact on the character of the Southoid Historic District or on the adjacent Abraham Lowerre House (Stankewich property). We note that the need for expanded town facilities was raised several years ago with the proposal to demolish the adjacent and National Register listed Whitaker House. Our office spoke against that proposal and urged the Town to explore alternatives. The current proposal is a suitable alternative and new building is compatible in style, scale and materials with the adjacent Southold Historic District. If you have any questions regarding this review, please call me at (518) 237-8643, extension 3283 or email me at james.warren@oprhp.state.ny, us. Sin?/ely, ,~ "¢¢nesFlfstoricWpt;rse~rvation Program Analyst An Equal Opportunity/Affirmatwe Action Agency ¢ prtnted on recycled paper New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 11 March 2005 Klm A, Gennam Project Manager Freudenthal & Elkowitz 368 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 Dear Ms. Gennaro: Re: SEQRA Eminent Domain/Stankevich Proper~y Southold, Suffolk'County 05PR01185 Thank you for requesting the comments of the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). The submitted information for the subdivision of the Knox School property was reviewed in accordance with Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Act of 1980. The Stankevich property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Southold Historic District; however the adjacent town hall property is a non-contributing component to that district. It is the SHPO's opinion that the project will have No Adverse Impact upon properties in or eligible for inclusion in the State and National Registers of Historic El aces. If anyone has any questions, please call me at (518) 237-8643, ext. 3284. Please refer to the SFIPO Project Review (PR) number in any future correspondences regarding this project. S,~n ,~cerely' Elisabeth A. Bakker Johnson Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator (elisabeth.johnson @oprhp.state.ny.us) An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency · ,,,~ printed on recycled paper APPENDIX E FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, 1NC. TRAFFIC IMPA CT ASSESSMENT foF SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL EXPANSION MARCH 2005 L.K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C. Consulting Engineers 437 South Country Road, Brookhaven, NY 11719 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL EXPANSION Introduction The Town of Southold has proposed construction of a new Town Hall building of approximately 17,400 square feet, with additional parking spaces, adjacent to the site of the existing Town Hall on Main Road (NY Route 25) in Southold. With construction of this building, existing Town offices located in an Annex at a North Fork Bank building, approximately ~,~ mile east of the existing Town Hall, will be relocated to the Town Hall site. The purpose of this assessment is to identify the potential traffic impacts of the proposed Town Hall building. Existina Conditions The aerial photo on the foflowing page depicts existing conditions in the vicinity of the existing Town Hall. Indicated on the photo are the proposed Town Hall site and the location of the existing Town Hall Annex offices. Main Road (NY 25) is located south of both the existing Town Hall and the Annex offices. This east-west roadway is under the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Transportation. There is no vehicular access to the existing Town Hall site from Main Road. Hortons Lane is a north-south Town road which abuts the west side of the Town Hall site. Traveler Street is an east-west Town roadway which abuts the north side of the Town Hall site. Access to the existing Town Hall parking area is provided by driveways from both Hortons Lane and Traveler Street. Travelers Street provides a connection between Hortons Lane and Youngs Avenue, a Town road which borders the east side of the Town Hall Annex site. Both Hortons Lane and Youngs Avenue intersect with County Road 48, another main east-west route, about 1/2 mile to the north. Posted speed limits are 30 mph. The intersection of Hortons Lane and Main Road is controlled by a Stop sign for Hortons Lane traffic. The Main Road/Youngs Avenue intersection is controlled by a 2- phase traffic signal. The Southold Elementary, Junior High and High Schools are located south of Main Road, on the west side of Oaklawn Avenue, which intersects Main Road about 225 feet west of Hortons Lane. During school opening and dismissal times, a police officer assists in traffic control at a marked school crosswalk on Main Road at the Main Road/Oaklawn Avenue intersection. The Annual Average Daily Traffic on Main Road in 2001 was approximately 8,500 vehicles. On-street parking is generally not prohibited along these roadways, with the exception of restrictions for sight distance (e.g. on the north side of Main Road for a short distance east of Hortons Lane). Traffic and Parkinc~. Data Collection On Friday, March 4, 2005, traffic observations at both the existing Town Hall and Annex sites were made, and traffic and parking data were collected. A Friday was chosen because this is the only weekday when court is in session at the Town hall; therefore, this day represents the peak weekday for traffic generation at that site. There is no such fluctuation in activity during the week at the Annex site. The following traffic data was recorded: Turning movement traffic counts at the Main Road/Hortons Lane intersection for two hours, 12-1 pm and 3:30-4:30 pm · Turning movement counts at the Hortons Lane/Town Hall access driveway, for two 15-minute periods, beginning at 10:15 am and 1:15 pm · Turning movement counts at the Traveler Street/Town Hall access driveway, for two 15-minute periods, beginning at 10:30 am and 1:30 pm The following parking data was recorded: · Number of vehicles parked on Town Hall property, at seven different times, beginning at 9 am and ending at 3 pm. This data, which indicates a maximum number of 83 vehicles, appears on Table 1, which follows. Traffic data summaries appear in the Appendix. Other observations include the following: · Some delays were experienced by southbound motorists as they waited to turn onto Main Road. In the worstcase, a queue of eight vehicles was observed. · On-street parking was practiced on both sides of Main Road in the vicinity of the existing Town Hall. · Vehicles generally did not park on Hortons Lane or Traveler Street. 2 TABLE 1 PARKING OBSERVATIONS EXISTING SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL PROPERTY NUMBER OF PARKED VEHICLES-- TIME FRIDAY MARCH 4, 2005 9:00 AM 76 10:00 AM 83* 10:45 AM 82 11:45 AM 66 1:00 PM 37 2:00 PM 41 3:00 PM 39 * MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKED VEHICLES Some vehicles parked on the grass adjacent to the existing Town Hall parking area (these vehicles were included in the totals shown on Table 1). Traffic Generation and Trip Assiqnment Since the proposed building will enable the Town to consolidate the existing Annex offices onto one site, no additional traffic is anticipated to be generated by the proposed project. An approximation of existing trip assignment (i.e. routes used by motorists to and from the site) can be made from traffic counts of vehicles exiting the Town Hall site onto Hortons Lane and Traveler Street. Destinations of these vehicles can be estimated as follows: Estimated Vehicles Exitinq Town Hall Lot Percentaqe Onto Hortons Lane, Turning Left 27% Onto Hortons Lane, Turning Right 18% Onto Traveler St., Turning Left 18% Onto Traveler St., Turning Right 37% Primary Destination Secondary Destination Westbound Main Rd. Eastbound Main Rd. Northbound Hortons La. Northbound Hortons La. Eastbound Main Rd. Northbound Youngs Ave. These percentages would be altered with the consolidation of the current Annex offices onto the Town Hall site. Destinations of motorists leaving the current Annex offices could not be readily obtained, since that site is shared with the bank. When the Annex offices are relocated to the Town Hall site, all "Annex-related" traffic destined for westbound Main Road would then turn left onto Hortons Lane and then turn right onto Main Road. Some traffic destined for eastbound Main Road would probably use Hortons Lane as well; however, all traffic currently heading east from the Annex offices now uses Youngs Avenue, where the existing traffic signal stops Main Road traffic, to enable left turns to be made more safely. Since Annex employees and visitors are aware of this benefit, when they relocate to the Town Hall site they will most likely use Traveler Street to Youngs Avenue to travel east. Traffic destined for northbound Hortons Lane will have direct access to Hortons Lane. Traffic destined for Youngs Avenue will use Traveler Street to Youngs Avenue. In terms of vehicles entering the site, it can be expected that both left turns and right turns from Main Road to Hortons Lane would increase. Traffic Safety Traffic accident data along Main Road for the latest-available three-year period has been requested from the New York State Department of Transportation. This request falls under the Freedom of Information Law, and will take several weeks to be processed. Upon receipt of this data, it will be analyzed to determine if any accident trends exist on Main Road. Similarly, accident data for Town roads will be obtained and analyzed. The results of this analysis will be submitted as an Addendum to this report. Traffic Flow Impacts As previously stated, this project will not cause an overall increase in traffic on roadways which provide access to the Town Hall site. As also noted, traffic patterns leaving the site will shift somewhat, with additional turns occurring at the Main Road/Hortons Lane intersection. The primary change for traffic leaving the site will involve an increase in the right-turn movement from Hortons Lane to Main Road. Field observations indicate that vehicles currently queue on Hortons Lane while awaiting a gap in traffic on Main Road to execute a left or right turn. The traffic count data obtained for this report was utilized to perform an unsignalized intersection capacity analysis, using Highway Capacity Software distributed by the University of Florida, which follows the procedures of the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual. This analysis, for the 12-1 pm time period (which had slightly more traffic volume than the late afternoon period), indicates that the "Level of Service" for southbound traffic is D, and that vehicles experience an average of 26 seconds of delay. (Level of Service is analogous to a "Report Card" of intersection operation, with a Level A being excellent, B being good, C being acceptable, D being barely acceptable, E indicating that the intersection is reaching its capacity, and F indicating failure, or long traffic queues.) Left turning vehicles experience longer delays than right turners, because they must wait for simultaneous gaps in traffic in both directions before executing a left turn, whereas right turning vehicles can wait for an acceptable gap in just one direction of travel. Since all of the vehicles are currently in one lane, a left turning vehicle forces right turners behind it to wait longer than they would if the left turner was not in their path. To demonstrate this, we pedormed another capacity analysis, with the assumption that the left and right- turning vehicles had their own lanes. The resulting Level of Service (LOS) and average vehicle delay values under those conditions are LOS D/32.4 seconds for the left turning vehicles and LOS B/14.8 seconds for right turners. 4 Summaries of these capacity analyses appear in the Appendix. Left and right turns from Main Road to Hortons Lane will increase, based on a relocation of "Annex-related" traffic to the Town Hall site. These movements do not experience capacity problems; however, the current peak eastbound left turn volume on Main Road is on the order of 110 vehicles per hour. Although peak summer conditions could not be observed for this assessment, it can be expected that traffic volumes could be more than 30% higher than those in March, resulting in increased delays for left and right turning vehicles on Hortons Lane. Parkina Impacts Based on the parking space observations conducted for this study, and on employee and visitor data for the existing Annex offices, two estimates of the maximum parking space demand have been developed, and are shown on Table 2 which follows. On a typical summer weekday, it is estimated that a maximum of 100 spaces would be required. A total of 117 parking spaces are shown on the Site Plan for the proposed Town Hall site. Therefore, more spaces are provided than needed for four of the five weekdays. On summer Fridays, when court is in session, a maximum demand of 142 spaces is estimated, resulting in the need for a maximum of 25 motorists to find spaces on surrounding streets. On these Fridays, it is anticipated that these vehicles can be accommodated along beth sides of Main Road, and along the east side of Hortons Lane. Traffic Recommendations As noted previously, although there will be no additional net traffic generated on surrounding roadways by the proposed Town Hall improvements, it can be expected that the right turn traffic volume from southbound Hortons Lane onto westbound Main Road will increase. The primary factor in vehicular delays for Hortons Lane traffic is a result of left turning motorists, who must wait a longer amount of time, because they require acceptable gaps in Main Road traffic in both directions before they can safely execute their turn. As these motorists wait, they cause right turning motorists, who normally could make their turn sooner, to wait behind them, since there is only one southbound lane of traffic on Hortons Lane, Providing two lanes on Hortons Lane would improve right turn traffic flow; however, this is not recommended at a stop-controlled intersection. This is due to the fact that, as left and right turning motorists wait at the stop line, their 0 rn m 0 LU © <t..u Z Z ,< Z >- m ~ 7 © - ,..- 0 .< 0 ~mm ~ ~0~0 vehicles can restrict sight distance for drivers in the adjacent lane, by blocking their view along Main Road. The Main Road/Hortons Lane intersection is under the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Transportation. While hourly traffic volumes on Hortons Lane may meet traffic volume warrants for traffic signal installation there, it is unlikely that NYSDOT would approve such an installation, unless the accident history indicates an unusually high number of right-angle type collisions, i.e. an average of five of more of these crashes per year. In any event, traffic signal installation would primarily benefit vehicles turning left from Hortons Lane onto eastbound Main Road, which experience longer traffic delays than right turning vehicles. These left turning vehicles already have access to the traffic signal at Youngs Avenue to more safely execute left turns onto Main Road with less delay during peak traffic periods. In order to reduce delays for vehicles leaving the Town Hall site and destined for both directions on Main Road, it is recommended that eastbound vehicles be redirected to Youngs Avenue. This can be accomplished by installing standard black-and-white New York State route marker signs, in the following arrangement: TO EAST NY 25 (NY State Route Marker Symbol) ARROW (Left or Right Arrow, depending on sign placement) These signs should be placed as follows: · In the main parking area, directing traffic to Traveler Street · Facing the Traveler Street exit from the parking area (with a right arrow) · On eastbound Traveler Street, approaching Youngs Avenue (with a right arrow) · On southbound Hortons Lane, approaching Traveler Street (with a left arrow). (Prior to installing this sign, observations should be conducted at this location in the summer, to ensure that left turning vehicles waiting for gaps in traffic would not be waiting on the LIRR track. Installation at this location will help re-direct "non-Town Hall" traffic, destined for eastbound Main Road, to Youngs Avenue.) An additional sign assembly, consisting of the NY 25 Route Marker above a double (left and right) arrow should be placed on Youngs Avenue approaching Main Road. Since these improvements are meant to optimize safety and delay at a State- controlled intersection, NYSDOT should be contacted to determine if they can share in the cost of erecting these signs. Since the existing (March) peak eastbound left turn volume on Main Road at Hortons Lane is on the order of 110 vehicles per hour, and this number would increase somewhat in the summer (perhaps on the order of 25 vehicles per hour) with the relocation of the Annex offices to the Town Half site, installation of a separate left turn lane should be considered. This would involve the installation of pavement markings on Main Road. Again, since the State has jurisdiction, they should be contacted to see if they approve of this measure. This should be done after the traffic accident data is obtained and analyzed, since the occurrence of rear-end accidents in the eastbound direction could be an additional factor in providing a separate turn lane. If the lane is implemented, most likely parking would need to be restricted on the south side of Main Road between Oaklawn Avenue and a point approximately 60 feet, or about 2.5 car lengths, east of Hortons Lane. To summarize the traffic recommendations: · Erect signs to guide motorists to eastbound Main Road (NY 25) via the signalized intersection at Youngs Avenue · Evaluate traffic accident data for the latest-available three-year period, to ensure that there are no significant safety problems on the roadways near the site · Submit traffic volume and accident data to NYSDOT for review. Consider the installation of an eastbound left turn lane on Main Road at Hortons Lane. Parkina Reco~nmendations It is estimated that the proposed number of off-street parking spaces will be adequate to accommodate the expected demand at the proposed Town Hall site, with the exception of Fridays, when court is in session. On summer Fridays, when demand is expected to be the highest, it is anticipated that a maximum of 25 vehicles will need to provide on-street spaces along either side of Main Road, or on the east side of Horton Lane. To facilitate parking during this time period on the east side Hortons Lane, it is recommended that the Town restripe that roadway for a 19' wide northbound lane. This should result in a southbound lane width of about 15 feet. Parking should be prohibited on the west side of Hortons Lane. Even with the aforementioned removal of some on-street spaces on the south side Main Road if an eastbound left turn lane is provided at Hortons Lane, the maximum on-street parking demand should be able to be accommodated within reasonable walking distance of the Town Hall site. Additional Recommendation It would be prudent for the Town to perform "follow-up" observations, in the first summer season after occupancy of the proposed building, to determine the effectiveness of the recommended traffic and parking measures after they are implemented. APPENDIX Traffic Count Data Intersection Capacity Analysis--Main Road at Horton Lane .JIL 0 o HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: SWE LKMA 3/9/2005 EXISTING MID PEAK ROUTE 25 @ HORTONS LANE SCDPW Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2005 Project ID: EMINENT DOMAIN TRAFFIC - SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL East/West Street: MAIN ROAD (ROUTE 25) North/South Street: HORTONS LANE Intersection Orientation: EW~ Study period (hrs): Major Street: Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 4 L T R L Westbound 5 6 T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 0.25 109 365 426 55 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 119 401 448 57 Undivided / Minor Street: Approach Movement 0 1 1 0 LT TR No No Southbound 10 11 12 L T R Northbound 7 8 9 L T R 0 31 111 0.83 0.83 37 133 2 2 0 No / 0 0 LR Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes Configuration Delay, Approach EB Movement 1 Lane Config LT v (vph) 119 C (m) (vph) 907 v/c 0.13 95% queue length 0.45 Control Delay 9.6 ~LOS A Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length, and Level of Service WB Northbound Southbound 170 340 0.50 2.67 25,7 D 25.7 D 12 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY nalyst: RD ency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2005 Project ID: East/West Street: NY 25 North/South Street: HORTON LA Intersection Orientation: EW 3/14/2005 MID DAY EXIST w/2 SB lanes 25 HORTON LA Study period (hrs) : 0.25 Major Street: vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 4 L T R L Westbound S 6 T R Volume Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration stream Signal? 109 365 0.91 0.91 119 401 Undivided 0 1 LT No 426 55 0.95 0,95 448 57 1 0 TR NO Minor Street: Approach Movement Northbound 7 8 9 L T R Southbound 10 11 12 L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes Configuration 31 111 0.83 0.83 37 133 2 2 0 0 1 1 L R Delay, Approach EB Movement 1 Lane Config LT v (vph) 119 C(m) (vph) 928 v/c 0 · 13 95% queue length 0.44 Control Delay 9.4 )S A ~roach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length, and Level of Service WB Northbound Southbound 4 I 7 8 9 I 10 11 37 168 0.22 0.81 32.4 D 18.7 C 12 R 133 498 0.27 1.07 14 .8 B GENERAL NOTES: 1. EXISTING TOWN OWNED PROPERTY LINE AND FEATURES FROM 'SURVEY OF PROPERTY FOR THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD" OF ,JULY 16, 2001 AS PREPARED BY PECONIC SURVEYORS, P.C. 2. EXISTING PROPERTY AND FEATURES OWNED BY GEORGE C. & MARGARET A. STANKEVlCH FROM SURVEY OF ,Jan. 18, 2005 AS PREPARED BY LK.McLEAN ASSOC., P.O. 5. PROPOSED BUILDING AND FEATURES (AND PROPOSED REMOVALS) FROM SITE PLAN OF FEB. 2005 PREPARED BY V. BARAS ARCHITECTS. EXISTING KEY pROPOSED BUILDING PROPERTY LINE TAKING LINE ......... REMOVALS TREES AND LARGE SHRUBBERY LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS & LAWN CURB CONTOUR (5' C.I.) SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING SITE DATA EXISTING BUILDING AREAS= (11,541 S.F.) 0.26 ACRES EXISTING PAVED AREAS= (52,898 S.F.) 0.76 ACRES EXISTING NATURAL VEGETATION AREAS (MEADOW/BRUSH/FORESTED)= 0.08 ACRES EXISTING VEGETATED AREAS (LAWN/LANDSCAPED/TREES)= (45,452 S.F.) 0.96 ACRES EXISTING TOWN-OWNED PARCELS=(89,891 S.F.) 2.06 ACRES BUILDING AREAS TO BE REMOVED=(4,949 S,F.) 0,11 ACRES EXISTING PARKING = 70 STALLS PROPOSED STANKEVICH PROPERTY SITE DATA EXISTING BUILDING AREAS= (2,553 S.F.) 0.05 ACRES EXISTING PAVED (STONE OR BRICK) AREAS= (4,472 S.F.) 0.10 ACRES EXISTING NATURAL VEGETATION AREAS (MEADOW/BRUSH/FORESTED)= (400 S.F.) 0.01 ACRES EXISTING VEGETATED AREAS (LAWN/LANDSCAPED/TREES)= (54,799 S.F.) 0.79 ACRES EXISTING STANKEVICH PROPERTY= (41,204 S.F.) 0,95 ACRES STANKEVICH PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD (ALL VEGETATED)= (20,514 S.F.) 0.47 ACRES STANKEVICH PROPERIX TO REMAIN=(20,690 S.F.) 0.48 ACRES BUILDING AREAS TO Be RELOCATED=(560~ S.F.) 0.01 ACRES PROPOSED BUILDING AREA= (17,409 S,F.) 0.4 ACRES EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN= (6,590 S.F.) 0.15 ACRES PROPOSED PARKING & WALKS (IMPERVIOUS) AREAS= (54,509 S.F.) 1.25 ACRES EXISTING PARKING & WALKS (IMPERVIOUS) AREAS TO REMAIN= (1,414 S.F.) 0.03 ACRES PROPOSED IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE, LAWN & PLANTING AREAS= (24,177 S.F.) 0.55 ACRES EXISTING VEGETATED AREAS TO REMAIN= (6,525 S.F.) 0.15 ACRES TOTAL OF PROPOSEDZEXISTING TOWN-OWNED PARCELS = (128.405 S,F,) 2.53 ACRES TOTAL AREA OF LAND DISTURBANCE=(96.053 S.F.) 2.21 ~ PROPOSED PARKING = 117 STALLS SLOPE ANALYSIS: 0%-10% GRADIENT = 100~ OF EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT (117.-15% GRADIENT = 0%, GREATER THAN 15% GRADIENT = 0~.) DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS; PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (54,492 Sq.~.) + PROPOSED ROOF RUN-OFF (17,409 Sq.~.)= 71,901Sq.~. x 1.00 (RUN-OFF COOEFFIClENT x 0.17 ~. (2" RAin EVEN~= 12,225 Cu.~. ( ~.) OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE ~ N/F , N/F PROPOSEDD DRAINAGE STRUCI'URES; 10' DIA. STORM DRAIN BASIN (L.B.)(68.42 C.F./FT.) - Ii MARY GRACE N/F x, //,~u,~'~N£iNRAD & ,1,. VERTICAL DEPTH OF L[ACHlUe HINES : 178.6 FT. DDUGHERTY MARGERY ~ ~ ~., . '~' ,,~, PROPOSE. Fl~EEN (15) L.B. - 12 VERT. ~. EACH ~. - ...... , .... - ~- . ,~ ~ / ~ ~ ~v~ CUT AND FILL: . ~ ~ ~ ~L~ ~ ~c5 ~; . . BASEMENT EXCAVATION, 17,409 S.F. x 7 Ft.= 121,863 Gu. Ft. (4,513 Gu.Yds.) :;.... .... .?.........~..~ ~O~m~q'~-~.'~' :':""..- 'S'~8~ E~: ';-' :''c' 0:. ";" :. :~'~ ~'' ./ ~.~.'~;~:": ~'~ ;L/'}:'~'."";:': }~ ' X: Y'; '¥L ~:~:':":' D~INAGE EXCAVATION 12,223 Cu. Ft. (455 Cu.Yds.) OF UNDERGROUND ~O~GE ....... -~- '~, "'~:*~_~Z ~ .~ ~ '" "~T ~ ~ '" ~ ':' '"~'.t'.~.":': ~ ~ ~RGEST PROPOSED STRUCTURE (M~. DIMENSIONS): 34 Ft.(H) x 145.3 FLCL) . ,~.~ Ft. (W) L'-...~/~I q I I I q I J / I~ 'y~.'2)~ ,1~1,;~[,.,~,,. ~;'~. '.~:..,'.~;/~V' ~1 ~/~ 2~]". ~"~:~ Z ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE (12 MONTHS) '" " ..... '¢"" 'F I . . . ... ..:,. :.......,.. _, ,- , : · , , .: ...... .-- ~b~.~ ~..: x ~. · .-~.~ A~ .'" '. : . '. · . ~ ~/ ~ ? / ~ ~ 7' SITE MOBILIZATION ' ' -."~ ,.,-.'.'..?? ,. ,--. ;,:.; .;r': ~, CL~mN~ AND ~RUBB~N~ ." '{'.-F. ~"~-' I ~ ~ 2 ' L .. pmms~ ~P~T, ~ ,~.~'.'~~~ ~" ~;' / /'~';'tJ RELOCATIONS - ~': - ~' ' ~,~-~ "~ "t'""~ ' "" ;' '-~ P~e} a- ~9':, / '~c.~l.. -~ . ,,w ~. ' .~ ~, ~ ~ ~ / ~b?~ G~DING AND D~INAGE '~- " m~ . ~-~:~,' ~ '..:' ~ ,~.- , ......... ~ ~=~ ~ ~N~( ' . 8. ' ~ - -<,' 4 ~ ~ ~% -- ,~ ' ~ ~ .v. ,'~ ~ -- ' "" .... flit/ / II ~ ~ ~t..,~ BUILDING EXCAVATIONS :~" .' , '~.',: ,~?--~ PROPER~ ~0B. ~ ,~~~......~ ~, ~ ~.~.-x, ~oo,,.~s AND ~OU,~T,O.S EXTERIOR Sl~ ELECTriC AND PLUMBING ~ ~. ~ ~ BU ~lN~--,~?: ~?7~ '~ ~ ~c ~ . ../- v . .- :........ '- '.~ ' · '~ '- 7'~ "' i[ ~/4':: ~ ~ I ~n, v~, n~ ~ SITE SANITARY SYSTEM ~ ~l , *-- ~ N~ $&l~-%~ ~ ~ · I I I ] I [~l ~ ~) ~ ~.~:~'. BUI~INa) I I IUW~V Nr X CURBING AND SID~ALK BASE COURSE OF PAVEMENT . ~. ~. NXF ~"~4? ; 4 K ~ C, ~__ ,~: : ~~;:":;- ll~ / ~ ,..~" ~,, ~ ~NDSC~INGINTERIOR ELE~RIOAND P~NTINGAND PLUMBING ~ ~.'~ ;~ TO~N DF ~ ~;~;~' ~, ':~ MARGARET A~ ',~m~) ~ ~ ~~4'.: '::/:. ]~' ~ ~ ~ ~ z FINISHED PAVEMENT AND STRIPINO . .: .. ? ~ - ~3 DUTHOLD ,-~' ~ ~; '~ ~ CTAAl~mt/[~ ~ ~-- --":'~J':', "¢F- ~ ~ ~,~/7 ~- ~ ALL CONCR~E F~T WORK AROUND FINISHED BUILDING &ssuM[D BUILDING OCCUPANCY: ~" ?"~ I ~L/ /~'kd ~ ~; ~ .: .:'<::X I I I I I I I ~ ~, [.'. ?:-~ ..:. :v .... :F'; ~d~ I~l ~ ~ a~s ~ FULL TIME MUNICIPAL OCCUPANTS OF BUILDING = 78 I ?"-- I I I I I I = :, ">;. 1R I J PArt TIME MUNICIPAL OCCUPANTS OF BUILDING = 27 ~. ,. ......... · ......'.'...:. --~.... -, . , · .a . :..-' :.' - · ~' 'o ' ESTI~TED TOWN RESIDENTS OCCUPANCY = 25 (LOW), 100 (HIGH) .¢~:x '-'x'.':'"~.. ': ~'.,. .'.: :"'.' ' "-" ':'."U ~//;~'..': ':~ ' .':'~ ~i.~,,'~-~ ."., ..-"'.. -'~' ~ "' N/F h'~ ', ..:..:,.I , ~ ~:'x ~ ;-,/, -,' ~ - ' ~ .,-Nx . . '.. '- '' ' - ' · ' . ' '. ':' '~-'. :..'-.~ ....... ~ ~ ~ ~x ~o~c ,~ , ,- - ,- ~'. pROPOSED M~HOD OF AOOOM~ODATIN~ SANITARY DISCHARBE: ~ ~ I~/~ ~T~lN~ ~NE : ~~ ,R~- ~:l:.;~ ~, ., ,xJ ~/~.~ c%(~x ~-/~,_ / ~ OEPARTMENT OF H~LTH SERVICES STANDARDS. ~lJ~O~BER~O~ .. m qY= ~'-~ W 4~ L-~ [~< x~' ~?~ .~ ~ USiNGADAILYU~GE ~TEOFO.06 GAL. PER DAYx (PROPOSED FLOOR , ..r~ F ~ /[~ ~yt .~ ~ ~. C---/<~ % '~~ ~ ~' ~ 31,491SPACE=24'901Sq. R. =Sq'Ft'l,B90 + GAL~IS~NGpER DAyFLOOR(ToTALSPACE~NITARyTO REMAIN=6,590FLOW) Sq. Ft,) ~ N/F 1 ',~ ~ ~ GEOR6E C, ~ r -- ~ J'~/~-J ~' ~/'~ / ~ .~- '~-~i~- ~ ~ ~ ~ POPU~TIONToTAL COMBINEDDENSlI~ SITEEQU[VALENT= 2.55 ACRES ~ ACADENY ~ ~ ~ NARGARET A ~ I~?~ ~? ~-~/~-'" -~l ~ I ~ iL ~ ~ -- .. -[ ~ / ~ ~ ~ x 600 ~L./DAY/ACRE = 1,518 OAL. PER DAY (ALLOWABLE SANITARY FLOW) ~ ~ ~E~V~C~ , I ~_ i . ~'~ ~ I~ ~ au,~ ~ ~ UTILITIES: ASSUMING THE TOWN USES NATU~L GAS TO H~T ~E m ~ INC, , I ;~ ~ ~X ~_,_ ~ ~ ~ ~x co c ~ ~ PROPOSED BUILDING, A 500 GALLON ABOVE G~DE STOOGE TANK WOULD ~ ~ I ~" ~ ~---~.. "'~J ~ ~1~ ~) ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ BE(siMi~RREQUIREDTo THETO EXISTNGFUEL A PROPOSEDBuiLDiNG) EMERGENCY BACKUP GENE~TOR < · I '~ ~ ~ '" ~.'~ -- ,--- ~ -' , -- I ~ I / ~} - (~o~-- "~ 7 ~ 3-1-05 ~ B~G. HT. ~ ~NDCAPING ACRES I ~ / / i:'.. ~ ~l~) "' ~ ~ ~)~ -~, ~-25-05 ~ COMMENTS FROM F&E CONSULTING J ' ~ ~ ~ =" ' .:. [ ~ ~',~ _.~/' -/ TOWN 0F SOUTHOT,n ~ . :/i'.': ' ' ~ (ST~KE~CH PROPER~-EMI~NT D0~N PROCEEDING) / -~/: :....-:-; ..... ,.... _~ ~(.;, , - ........... L_~. ~ ~' w-- .. ., %~/ ~¢~ E.A.F. PRET,TMIN~Y SITE P~N ___ ,, ~ ~ ~. , ................ ~_~ L-/~-x~' L.K. Mc~ AE~OC~?EE, P.C. ~ " 437 SO. COUNTRY RO~, B~00~VEN, NEW YORK ~ ~ ~e~ewed By: CFD Scale: 1"=~0' Dwg. No. ........ " Drawn By: ~ Date: Feb. 24, 2005 ----~ / Approved By:R~F ~le No. 05010.000 ~ OF 1