HomeMy WebLinkAboutCedarfields DEISDRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RELATING TO
THE CEDARFIELDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AND THE MOORESLAND TOWN
HOUSES PROJECT, LOCATED WITHIN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY,
NEW YORK, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE VIII OF THE EN-
VIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW; PART 617 OF TITLE 6 OF THE NEW YORK
STATE CODES, RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND CHAPTER 44 OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN CODE.
LOCATION:
48.718 acres located within the Town of Southold
at the southeast corner of the intersection of Moore's
Lane and Middle Road (County Road 48)
APPLICANT:
John A. Costello and
206 Wiggins Lane
Greenport, New York 11944
(516) 477-1393
Diane Carrol
and
Donald Bracken
30 Wheeler Road
Old Field, NY 11733
(516) 751-8711
LEAD AGENCY:
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
(516) 765-1938
PREPARER:
Peconic Associates, Inc.
One Bootleg Allev
Greenport, New York 11944
(516) 477-0030
DATE OF PREPARATION:
OF DRAFT:
DATE OF SUPPLEMENT:
DATE OF REVISION TO
SUPPLEMENT:
DATE OF SECOND REVISION
TO SUPPLEMENT:
April1987
June 1987
October
December
1988
1988
April 27, 1989
Mr.
Southold Town Planning
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, L. I.
New York 11971
Bennett Orlowski, Jr. - Chairman
Board
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
Re: Cedarfields/Mooresland
Draft Environmental ImpaCt Statement.
Based on verbal approval received this date, and making
reference to letter of January loth, 1989 from David Emi!ira,
we are pleased to submit an additional ten (10) copies o~ the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, together with the
Supplement to the Draft dated June 25, 1987, and the
Revisions to the Supplement dated October 13, ~988 and
December 30, 1988.
As requested in the letter of January lOth, 1989, the
following is a brief documented history of the D.E.I.S.:
1. April 24, i987 D.E.I'.S. submitted.
2. June 25, 1987
3. July 16, 1987
4. August 10, 1987
Submittal of Supplement to the
D.E.I.S. containinggKoundwater
impact (nitrates), drginage
calculations, and p'eak hour traffic
study.
Resolution by the S:~UlthOld Town
Planning Board accep~i'ng both the
D.E.I.S. and the. SupPlement,
complete and accurate for Kev!ew.
Public Hearing on ~.E.I.S.~ No
written comments received. At %h:e
public hearing, comment waSPKOVided
by David Emilita, "There is still ~no
calculated evidence~that the well
will work, and I would likei%he
record to so state that the subject
is still not sufficiently treated
for the purpose of SEQRA. we'ha, ve
not taken a hard look as' to wh~ t'his
well will work."
Mr. Bennett Orlowski,
April 27, 1989
Page 2
Jr. Chairman
5. July 13, 1988
6. July 21, 1988
7. October 13, 1988
8. December 29, 1988
9. January 10, 1989
In response to the above the report
by H2M on the proposed well, dated
June 1987, was submitted to David
EmilJta and the Town Planning Board.
This Study contained the
recommendation that the well be
installed with the rated capacity of
250 GPM.
Action by the Southold Town Planning
Board to have David Emilita review
the Supplement to the D.E.I.S. dated
June 25, 1987.
Note:
This had
accepted
16, 1987.
previously been
as complete on July
Comments received from the second
review of the June 25, 1987
Supplement requested a larger zone
map for the Zone of Influence to
include all surrounding residential
areas.
Groundwater Impact Evaluation
revised to reflect potential impact
from all surrounding residential
areas.
Revision to the Supplement of June
25, 1987 and October 13, 1988 to
include the alternate Zone of
Influence Nitrate impacts on one
hundred (lO0) units as compared to
the original planned one hundred
sixty-eight (168) units.
Original D.E.I.S. and Supplement
with all revisions considered
complete as per letter from David
EmiIita.
Mr. Bennett Orlowski,
April 27, 1989
Page 3
Jr. - Chairman
10. April 27, 1989
Verbal authority received from the
Planning Board to bind the original
D.E.I.S., Supplements, and all
Revisions together in a single
document and submit same to Planning
Boar/~
[ ,~es~ectfully ~bm~qtted,
~-/ Donald Bracken
SZEPATOWSK! ASSOCIATf$ INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
I J 'i_ _ _ ' ..... I. I III
~t. Bennett O=lo~ski Jr.', Chairman
TOwn of ~outbold Ptannin9 Bo~d
Town Hall
Sou~hold, Ng 12971
Se: Cedarfields/~oo~esland
Dear Hz. O:loWski,
recharged w~hin ~he ~one of uoncen=cation o~ :be well proposed
£ot the above captioned aaveZopmene. ~e have reviewed same and
opinion, for the DEX$ for thi~ pro, etC.
supplement to ~he OilS', dated J~ne 2S, 19~?, ~nd this
#uppleme~t da:ed Decembe: 3~, S~88, the three
cons:itute, again in our opinion, a draft oils acceptable
docuaenta be bound aa one document wi:h a new cover and contain
PLease advi=e if ~ou agree with this COUrSe of action. We ~re
a~ail~ble ~f you or youc &~aff have an~ quea~ioas,
Sincerely,
S~EPATOWSK~ $~SOCIATES, INC.
Principal' Planner
DJS~/mt
TOTAL P. e2 ........
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RELATING TO
THE CEDARFIELDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AND THE MOORESLAND TOWN
HOUSES PROJECT, LOCATED WITHIN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY,
NEW YORK, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE VIII OF THE EN-
VIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW; PART 617 OF TITLE 6 OF THE NEW YORK
STATE CODES, RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND CHAPTER 44 OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN CODE.
LOCATION:
48,718 acres located within the Town of Southold
at the southeast corner of the intersection of Moore's
Lane and Middle Road (County Road 48)
APPLICANT:
John A, Cos~ello and
206 WiGgins Lane
Greenport, New York 11944
(516) 477-1393
Diane Carrol
and
Donald Bracken
30 Wheeler Road
Old Field, NY 11733.
(516) 751-8711
LEAD AGENCY:
Sq. uthold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
(516) 765-1938
PREPARER:
Paconic Associates, Inc.
One Bootleg Alley
Greanpor~, New York 11944
(516) 477-0030
DATE OF PREPARATION: April 1987
April 24, 1987
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, L. I.
New York - 11971
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
In response to the Southold Town Planning Board's request
for a Draft Environmental Impact Statement addressing the
impacts of the proposed housing projects, i.e. Cedarfields
and Mooresland, located on Moores Lane and County Road 48 at
Greenport, we are pleased to submit 15 copies of the same
for your perusal.
Sincerely /
Donald Bracken
D
LD
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
April 2, 1987
Mr. Merlon Wiggin
President
Peconic Associates
One Bootleg Alley
Greenport, NY 11944
Re: Cedarfields
Affordable Housing Project
Dear Mr. Wiggin:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning
Board, Monday, March 30, 1987.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve
the sketch plan for the affordable housing proposal to be
known as Cedarfields located at Moore's Lane and County Route
48, Greenport for 84 lots on 26 acres, survey dated November
24, 1986.
Upon receipt of a preliminary application pursuant to
Sections A106-23 and A106-42, we will schedule a public hearing
on this matter.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact
our office.
Very truly yours,
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary
Letter
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
of Transmittal ....................
Page
SECTION I - SUMMARY
(CEDARDIELDS AND MOORESLAND) ........ 1
SECTION II DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
(CEDARFIELDS) ................
4
2.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ............ ~ -
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
4
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ............. 4
PUBLIC NEED FOR PROJECT ............ 9
- OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT SPONSOR ....... 11
2.2 - PROJECT LOCATION .................. 12
2.3 - DESIGN AND LAYOUT ................. 15
2.4 - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION .............. 16
2.5 - APPROVALS ..................... 17
SECTION III DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
MOORESLAND ................. 18
3.1 - PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ................ 18
3.1.1 - BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ............. 18
3.1.2 - PUBLIC NEED FOR PROJECT ............. 21
3.1.3 - OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT SPONSOR ....... 21
3.2 - PROJECT LOCATION .................. 22
3.3 - DESIGN AND LAYOUT .................. 24
3.4 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION .............. 25
3.5 - APPROVALS ...................... 25
SECTION IV - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
(CEDARFIELDS AND MOORESLAND) .........
4.1 - THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ..............
4.1.1 - GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER ............
4,1.2 - WATER RESOURCES .................
4.1~3 - TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY ...............
4.2 - HUMAN RESOURCES ...................
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
TRANSPORTATION .................
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING ...........
COMMUNITY SERVICES .............
DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS .............
CULTURAL RESOURCES
26
26
26
29
31.
33
33
36
42
53
SECTION V - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(CEDARFIELDS AND MOORESLAND) ............ 56
SECTION VI - MITIGATION MEASURES OF MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT (CEDARFIELDS) ............... 58
6.1 - NATURAL RESOURCES .............. 58
6.1.1 - GEOLOGY .................. 58
6.1.2 - WATER RESOURCES .................. 59
6.1.3 - AIR RESOURCES ................ 6l
6.1.4 - TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY .............. 62
6.2 - HUMAN RESOURCES ................... 63
6.2.1
6.2 2 - LAND USE ................ 64
6.2.3 - COMMUNITY SERVICES ............ 65
6.2.4 - CULTURAL RESOURCES .............. 71
6.2.5 - NOISE ....................... 72
- TRANSPORTATION ............... 63
SECTION VII MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT (MOORESLAND) .............. 73
7.1 - NATURAL RESOURCES ................... 73
7.1.1 - GEOLOGY ...................... 73
7.1.2 - WATER RESOURCES ................. 74
7.1.3 - AIR RESOURCES .................. 76
7.1.4 - TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY ................ 77
7.2 - HUMAN RESOURCES ................... 78
7.2.1 - TRANSPORTATION .................. 78
7.2.2 - LAND USE ...................... 79
7.2.3 - COMMUNITY SERVICES .................
7.2.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................. 85
7.2.5 NOISE ..................... 86
SECTION VIII
- ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT
BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
(CEDARFIELDS AND MOORESLAND .........
87
SECTION IX - ALTERNATIVES
(CEDARFIELDS) .................
9.0 - ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES ..........
9.0.1 - SITE LAYOUT ...................
9.0.2 - ORIENTATION ....................
9.1 - ALTERNATIVE
9.2 - ALTERNATIVE
9.3 - ALTERNATIVE
9.4 - NO ACTION .................
SITES ...................
SIZE .................
LAND USE ...............
88
88
88
88
89
90
9]
92
SECTION X ALTERNATIVES
(MOORESLAND) ................. 94
10.0 - ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES ........ 94
10.0.1 - SITE LAYOUT ................. 94
10.0.2 - ORIENTATION ................. 94
10.1 - ALTERNATIVE SITES ................. 95
10.2, - ALTERNATIVE SIZE ................. 95
10.3 - ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ............... 96
10.4 NO ACTION .................... 98
SECTION XI - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT
OF RESOURCES (CEDARFIELDS AND MOORESLAND) - - '99
SECTION XII - GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS
(MOORESLAND) ................
12.1 - POPULATION ................... 101
SECTION XIII - EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF
ENERGY RESOURCES
(CEDARFIELDS AND MOORESLAND) .......
13.1 - PROPOSED ENERGY SOURCES, CONsuMPTION AND
ALTERNATIVES ..................
13.2 - ENERGY CONSERVATIONS MEASURES ...........
102
102
102
INDEX OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX NO. 1
- CEDARFIELDS AND MOORESLAND DECLARATION
OF LEAD AGENCY AND NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT
EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT .....
APPENDIX NO. 2 TOWN OR SOUTHOLD RESOLUTION TO
ADDRESS MATTER OF CONCERN ......
APPENDIX NO, 3
CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "A" (RESIDENTIAL
AND AGRICULTURAL) TO "M" (LIGHT
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE ..........
A-3
APPENDIX NO.
4 - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RESOLUTION CHANGING
A PORTION OF THE SITE FROM "M" (LIGHT
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE) TO "AHD"
(AFFORDABLE HOUSING DISTRICT) .....
A-4
APPENDIX NO, 5 - SITE PLAN SK-1 .............
APPENDIX NO. 6 - TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN & ELEVATION OF THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ........ A-6
APPENDIX NO, 7 - E.I.S. SCORING CHECKLIST ......... A-7
APPENDIX NO, 8 - TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN & ELEVATION OF THE
TOWN HOUSE BUILDING UNITS ....... A-8
APPENDIX NO, 9 - TEST HOLE DATA SHEETS ......... A-9
APPENDIX NO. 1M - LISTING OF '"OMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES A-10
APPENDIX NO.
11 - GREENPORT WATER DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS
FOR SYSTEM SUSTAINED AND SELF-SUSTAINED
WATER SUPPLY CATEGORIES ........
A-II
APPENDIX NO~ 12 -
LETTER FROM SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH SERVICES ON GROUNDWATER
RECHARGE ...............
A-12
APPENDIX NO. 13 - INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION DATA
A-L3
APPENDIX NO.
14 - AUTHORIZATION BY THE VILLAGE OF
GREENPORT BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO PREPARE
NATER AND SEWER AGREEMENTS ......
A-14
APPENDIX NO. 15 - TEST NELL DATA ............. A-15
APPENDIX NO. 16 - DOCUMENTATION REGARDING SCHOOLS AND
EDUCATION ............... A-16
APPENDIX NO.
17 - SOUTBOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD SKETCH
PLAN APPROVAL (CEDARFIELDS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING) ...............
A-17
SECTION I: SUI~fARY - (C;DAR~IELDS AND HOOR;SLAND)
This Draft Environmental Impact
one hundred sixty-eight (168)
housing units (Cedarfields) and
Statement examines the proposed
eighty-four (84) affordable
eighty-four (84) town house
units (Mooresland) - on some 48.718 acres situated on the
east side of Moore's Lane at its intersection with County
Road 48. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement is in
accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law; Part 617 of Title 6 of the
New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations; and Chapter 44
of the Southold Town Code. The Southold Town Planning
8oard, who is acting as Lead Agency, determined on March 9,
1987 and March 3~, 1987 respectively, that the actions
proposed are Type I and is likely to have a significant
effect on the environment. (See Appendix No.
The DEIS reviews the natural and built environment of the
parcel proposed for these projects, and concludes that the
parcel is physically capable, properly-located, and with the
potentfal for a full complement of municipal services --
water, electrical, sewer, schools, fire and police
protection, etc. -- to undergo residential development of
the type and density forecast without significant impact or
detriment to natural or man-made systems, or the surrounding
development and land uses. In particular, the demands for
1
municipal water and sewer service vital to achieve the
development objective of creating a quality environment for
both moderate income housing and mid-cost town houses while
protecting the natural environment are available and
deliverable, subject to approval by the Greenport Village
Board whose Village Utility Systems have the capability to
service both projects with water and sewer.
The DEIS. further examines alternatives to both the proposed
projects on the subject parcel, and its subsequent maximum
development of 168 dwelling units (84 affordable dwelling
units and 84 town houses) including the following:
Consideration of alternative sites, alternative size or
scale of development; alternative land use, and impacts of
the "no action" alternative. The D.E.I.S. concludes that
there are no significant environmental impacts pertaining to
the proposed action or subsequent intended development that
would necessitate the pursuit of any of these alternatives.
The proposed action and subsequent development of 168 dwelling
units upon the receipt of the required approvals, will
result in:
2
1. An increase in affordable housing and town house type of
units.
No increase in protective service staff and equipment.
3. No loss of farmland.
4. No significant pollution of Groundwater.
5. A connection to Village supplied utility services - water,
and sewage - within existing plant capabilities.
6. An increase in tax revenues without a significant increase
demand for taxpayer provided services.
o
in
An increase
significant
An increase
existing
in school population without a corresponding
increase in facilities and operating costs.
in traffic volume that can be accommodated by the
road and street networks.
Potential
potable water that would
water supply.
for developing a significant on-site source of
augment the Village's municipal
SEC?ION II~ DESCRIP?ION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
(CEDARFIELDS)
The proposed project involves the major sub-division of
26.45 Acres of the approximate total of 48.718 Acres, and
the construction of eighty-four (84) affordable housing
units complete with streets and support utilities of water,
sewer, electrical, telephone, and cable television.
2.1 - pROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
2.1.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
This particular piece of property has considerable past
history of being recommended for use for affordable type
housing. The previous owner, East End Associates, submitted
a petition on November 7, 1984 to the Southold Town Board in
accordance Nith Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code,
requesting the annexation of approximately 48.718 Acres from
the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the
Incorporated Village of Creenport.
Upon such annexation, and in accordance with the zoning
ordinance of the Village of Greenport, this parcel ~ould be
zoned as R-I Residential District, with the minimum lot size
of ten thousand (1~,~) square feet or approximately one-
quarter Acre.
February 15,
East
John Costello acquired the subject parcel on
1985 and became the Successor In Interest of
End Associates.
The Southold Town Board and the Village of Greenport
conducted a public hearing on the annexation petition on
December 6, 1984 and on January 8, 1985. The Southold Town
Board determined, in its role as Lead Agency, that the
proposed annexation is a Type I action and was
have a significant impact on the environment.
pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law~ Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State
Codes, Rules and Regulations the Southold Town Board advised
the petitioner that the preparation and filing of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement would be necessary prior to
further consideration of the annexation petition. A Draft
Environmental Impact Statement was submitted in March of
1985. a copy of which is available at Southold Town Hall.
likely to
According and
5
A public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
relative to the annexation was held on May 16, 1985. After
completion of the public hearing and review by Southold Town
Board, the Town Board in its role as Lead Agency determined
that the applicant, John A. Costello be requested to prepare
a Final Environmental Impact Statement that would address
nine (9) "matters of concern" specifically identified within
said resolution. (See Appendix No. 2.)
Consistent with the Town Board's request a Final
Environmental Impact Statement was prepared that contained
response to all of the particular comments on the Draft
Environmental Statement received either
the comment period of March 14 to April
the public hearing conducted on May 16,
stated in the Town Board's June 4, 1985
in writing during
14, 1985, or during
1985, or as further
resolution. The
Final Environmental Impact Statement was submitted as an
addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on June
17, 1985. On July 30, 1985 the Town Board voted to deny the
applicant's request for annexation to the Village of
Greenport.
6
Subsequent to the denial of the applicant's request
annexation,
15, 1985 to
Chapter 1~
for
John A. Costello submitted a petition on August
the Southold Town Board in accordance with
of the Southold Town Code. This petition
requested the zoning from "A" (Residential and Agricultural)
to "M" (Light Multiple-Residence) of approximately 48.718
acres situated on the east side of Moore's Lane at its
intersection with County Road.48, or otherwise identified as
the same parcel listed for the presently proposed action.
Mr. Costello's purpose in requesting the rezoning of subject
property from "A" (Residential) to "M" (Light Multiple
Residential) in his petition of August 1985 is quoted, as
follows:
"This petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of
the property changed so as to allow the property to be
developed from multiple residenc'e use. With such a zoning
status this petitioner can undertake the construction and
marketing of multiple residence units at a price to the
public that will assist in helping fill the existing
residential demand for "moderate income" housing. In this
manner the Town Hill be better able to attract and retain
workers of a more modest income than that of the 'second'
homeowners who are able to afford houses on two acre sites~"
On September 24, 1985, the $outhold Town Board determined, in its
role as Lead Agency, that the proposed action is a Type 1 action
that is "likely to have a significant effect on the
environment", and that the filing of a Draft Environmental
would be necessary prior to the Town Board's final
consideration of the petition for a rezoning. Such Draft
Environmental Impact Statement relating to said rezoning was
prepared in October 1985.
Said petition for a change of zone was duly referred to the
Planning Board, recommendations, and report, and after its
report had been with the Town 8oard, and thereafter a public
hearing in relation to said petition being held by the Town
Board on October 29, 1985, it was resolved by resolution
that the granting of the petition for said parcel to be
changed from "A" (Residential and Agricultural) to "M"'
(Light Multiple Residential) as of December 3, 1985. (See
Appendi~ No
During this same period the Town was in the preparation of
developing a new Master Plan with one of its goals, among
many others, to make provisions for affordable housing for
moderate income families. Subsequently, Local Law No. 6 was
enacted by the Town Board of Southold that amended Section
1~-2~ of Chapter l~g of the Code of the Town of Southold by
adding the following new district designation of
(Affordable Housing District).
the Southold Town Board, as a result
Costello
48.718
On February 27, 1987,
of a petition filed with the Town Board by John A.
by resolution granted a change of a portion of the
Acres from "M" (Light Multiple Residence) to "AHD"
(Affordable Housing) on January 2g, 1987. (See Appendix No. 4).
2.1.2 - PUBLIC NEED FOR P~OJECT
The need for affordable housing, especially for the working
class of the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport,
has been frequently and continually expressed, both by
elected officials, the public, and the press. This need for'
affordable housing was especially made known during the
public hearing of May 16, 1985 in regard to the proposed
annexation. Pages 41 and 42 of the F.E.I.$. that summarized
this need is quoted as follows:
"3.7S Public Hearing
The main point emphasized at the public hearing was the
expressed need for adequate and moderate income housing
in the Town of Southold. Speakers correctly envisioned
the annexation as a means to make possible affordable
housing for the working class residents of the Village
of Greenport and the Town of Southold. The following
businesses and residents expressed their individual
concern about the lack of affordable housing and
commented in support of the annexation:
Greenport-Southold
Greenport Mayor)
David Mudd
Shirley Crocker
George Wetmore
Whitey Skrezek
William J. Mills
George Penney IV
Norma Miller (representing the
Chamber of Commerce)
James Dinizio, Jr.
Dennis Coyle
Glenn Moeller
Arthur Levine (former Village of
Chuck Stabile
Bob Mills
Louis Sacks
Bill Mueller
Gene Canswick
Dan Blaisley
Fred Schoenstein
Erik Heins
8ill Golder
Ruth Oliva (President of the North Fork Environmental
Council - with some qualifications.)"
The need also has been specifically recognized by the
Southold Town Board by its own act in creating a Town of
Southold Zone Designation of Affordable Housing District.
2.1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT SPONSOR
The project sponsor, John A. Costello,
Diane Carrol and Donald
objective to create a
conveniently-located,
Village of Greenport.
owner, and developers
Bracken, have as an overall
well-planned, properly-seviced,
and affordable housing units near the
These proposed housing units provide
an opportunity for a younger family to find an affordable,
municipally-serviced house so that they and their family
could remain on the North Fork, and as a secondary result
help stabilize and potentially increase both the labor force
and the buying population for businesses in the Town of
Southold.
2.2 - PROJECT LOCATION
The subject Affordable Housing Zone occupies the Eastern and
Southern portion of the previously described 48.718 Acre
parcel which, in its entirely~ lies at the corner formed by
the intersection of the southerly side of County Road 48
and the easterly side of Moore's Lane and as shown on
proposed site plan, SE-I, Parcel B, prepared by Charles E.
Egosi, Architect, Main Street. Sag Harbor, New York,dated
November 24, 1986 (see Appendix No. 5). The Affordable
Housing Project site is within the Town of $outhold, County
of Suffolk, State of New York, and is more particularly
described as follows:
BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of
the Southerly side of North Road, also known as Middle
Road or County Road 48, with the Westerly side of the
property of Arthur Nichols and
Henry Fleet and Clarence Fleet,
as Fleetfield;
land now or formerly of
now and formerly known
RUNNING THENCE South 16 degrees 01 mimutes 50 seconds
East along said direction for a distance 1451.06 feet~
12
RUNNING THENCE South 58 degrees
West along Northern boundary of
Greenport, 713.30 feet;
15 minutes B~ seconds
the Village of
RUNNING THENCE South 74 degrees 45 minutes ~ seconds
West along land of the Village of Greenport to monument
at the intersection of property of the Village of
Greenport and Moores Lane;
RUNNING THENCE North 17 degrees 15 minutes B~ seconds
West to a new monument separating the new Affordable
Housing District from the remaining"M" Zone parcel;
THENCE North 74 degrees 45 minutes ~ seconds East
along said boundary between the Affordable Housing
District and "M" Zone for 635.03 feet;
THENCE North 58 degrees 15 minutes ~ degrees seconds
East along said boundary between' the Affordable Housing
District and "M" Zone for 132.97 feet;
THENCE North 16 degrees B1 minutes 50 seconds West
along said boundary between the Affordable Housing
District and "M" Zone for 1,254.09 feet to South side
of North Road oF County Road 48;
13
THENCE running North 69 degrees ~ minutes 2~ seconds
East along Southern boundary of County Road 48;
THENCE North ?1 degrees 28 minutes 20 seconds East
along Southern boundary of County Road 48, 312.65 feet
to point or place of BEGINNING.
The access to this Affordable Housing Site is as shown on
the previously described site plan and includes street
access from the West at Moores Lane, from the East at
Washington Avenue, and from Bennett Road, both extensions
off Middleton Road.
14
2.3 ,DESIGN AND LAYOUT
The total site area for this Affordable Housing Project is
one million one hundred fifty-two thousand two hundred
seventy-one (1,152,271) square feet, or approximately 26.4
Acres. The site will be sub-divided into eighty-four (84)
individual house lots, each comprising of approximately ten
thousand (1~,~) square feet. Also included in this site
is a potable water well site which is proposed to be deeded
to the Village of Greenport to supplement their existing
Municipal water supply.
Clearing is to be limited to the actual housing site
locations with provisions made for natural growth, to be
supplemented with additional plantings to provide buffer
areas between the Affordable HOusing Site and the "M" Zone
town house sites (Cedarfields and Mooresland), as well as
also a buffer between the site and County Road 48.
Streets are
constructed
Specifications, and to include continuous recharge swales
either side as well as leaching pools in each iow section
the street, both of which are designed to take full
advantage of the recharge capability of the well drained
soil on this particular site.
proposed to be twenty-eight (28) feet wide
in accordance with the Town of Southold Highway
on
of
15
Individual housing units, comprising of approximately eight
hundred fifty (85~) square feet, are to be constructed in
accordance with designs submitted to, and recommended by the
Town of Southold. Floor plan and typical elevation of units
are depicted as Appendix No. 6. Each housing unit is to be
serviced by Greenport Village (water and sewer), Long Island
Lighting Company (electrical), New York Telephone, and
Dimension Cable (TV). To preserve and enhance the asthetic
appearance of the site, all utility services are to be
placed underground. Paved driveways will be constructed to
each individual housing unit of size and length to
accommodate two (2) vehicles each.
2.4 - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
Construction of the eighty-four (84) housing units will
complete the available yield of this Affordable Housing
site. It is anticipated that the construction period will
be completed within eighteen (18) months after commencement,
with the goal to initiate the construction of the first
units in the summer or fall of this calendar year.
16
2.5 APPROVALS
In addition to the acceptance of this Draft Environmental
Impact Statement as meeting the total requirements of the
$coping Checklist (see Appendix No. ?), other approvals that
are required include the following:
Planning Board - Town of Southold, to include both
preliminary and final plat.
o Sub-Division Approval - Suffolk County.
O
Completion of contract negotiations with the Village of'
Greenport to provide water and sewer service.
O
Agreement with Long Island Lighting Company to provide
the electrical service.
O
Agreement with New York Telephone to provide
underground telephone service.
o Agreement with Dimension Cable to provide TV service.
Approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health
Service of the water and sewer services layout and design.
o Building Permit from the Town of Southold.
17
SECTION III: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
(MOORESLAND)
The proposed project involves the development of
approximately 22 Acres of the approximate total of 48.718
Acres, and the construction of eighty-four (84) town houses
in the mid-cost range complete with access streets and
support utilities of water, sewer, electrical, telephone,
and cable television.
3.1 - PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
3.1.1 - BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
Particular reference is made to Section 2.1.1, which
describes and delineates the background and history of the
total project site, ending in a portion thereof being
rezoned to an Affordable Housing District (AHD).
In August 1985, Mr. Costello, owner of this property,
petitioned Southold Town requesting the rezoning of the
total property from "A" (Residential) to "M" (Light Multiple
Residential). The resolution granting this change of zone
was made on December 3, 1985. Reference is made to Appendix
No. 3.
18
On February 27, 1987, the Southold Town Board, by
Resolution, granted a change of a portion of the total site
from the "M" (Light Multiple Residence) to "AHD" (Affordable
Housing). Section 100-55.7, General Regulation Requirements
of the Affordable Housing District, contains the following
provision:
I'c .
Provision For Moderate Income Family Dwelling
Units And Unimproved Lots.
(1)
On land within an AHD District containing ten
(10) acres or less of land, not less than for.
(40~) percent,of the dwelling units and/or
unimproved lots located therein shall be
reserved for sale or lease to moderate income
lam]lies.
(2)
On land within an AHD District containing
more than ten (10) acres of land, the number
of dwelling units and unimproved lots
therein, to be reserved for sale or lease to
moderate income families shall be as follows:
(a)
Not less than ten (10%) percent of the
dwelling units shall be reserved foz
lease to moderate income families.
19
(b)
Not less
dwelling
dwelling
moderate
than ten (1~%) percent of the
units shall be attached
units reserved for sale to
income families.
(c)
Not less than twenty (2~%) percent of
the dwelling units shall be one-family
detached dwelling units reserved for
sale to moderate income families,
(d)
Not less than ten (1~{) percent of the
unimproved lots therein shall be
reserved for sale to moderate income
families."
This revision summary on land with AHD Districts that
contain more than ten (1~) Acres requires that fifty percent
(5~%) of
families.
division
the dwelling units be reserved
The expressed intent of this
is that a larger percentage of
for moderate income
fifty/fifty (5~/5~)
the overall site
developement costs can be borne by the other Residential
District, making the development of Moderate Income family
dwelling units more of an economic reality.
2~
3.1.2 - PUBLIC NEED FOR PROJECT
The need for mid-cost range type town houses is best shown
by the rapid sale of similar type units at other locations
within the Town of Southold. Since the public has been
aware of the plans to construct such a housing facility, the
owner and developer have already received a long list of
prospective applicants and purchasers.
OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT SPONSOR
The developers, Diane Carrol and Donald Bracken, have as an
overall objective to create a well planned, properly
serviced, conveniently located, mid-cost range town house
type development near the Village of Greenport. These
proposed housing units will provide an opportunity for a
middle income family to realize a goal of a municipal
serviced housing units within the Town of Southold. These
units are expected to fulfill a particular need of the
middle income families that, because of income, could not
qualify for the Affordable Housing units, and at the other
end of the scale not be able to afford a two (2) to three
(3) Acre lot and residence.
A second result would be the stabilization and the potential
increase in the labor force population for businesses in the
Town of Southold.
21
3~2 - PROJECT LOICATION
The town house portion of the project occupies the Western
portion of the previously described 48.718 Acre parcel, as
shown on the proposed Site Plan, SK-1, prepared by Charles
E. Egosi, Architect, Main Street, Sag Harbor, New York,
dated November 24, 1986. (See Appendix No. 5.) The town
house project site is within the Town of $outhold, County of
Suffolk, State of New York, is more particularly described
as follows:
"BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of
the southerly side of North Road, also known as Middle
Road or County Route 48, with the Easterly side of
Moores Lane:
RUNNING THENCE North 66 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds
East, slong said southerly side of North Road, 96.61
feet;
RUNNING THENCE Norty 69 degrees
East still along said southerly
645.97 feet;
02 minutes 10 seconds
side of North Road,
22
HUNNING THENCE South 16 degrees ~1 minutes 3~ seconds
East along said last mentioned land and along land now
designated as the new Affordable Housing District,
12,254 feet~
RUNNING THENCE South 58 degrees 15 minutes ~0 seconds
West along said mentiond land, 13,297 feet~
RUNNING THENCE South ?4 degrees 45 minutes ~ seconds
West still along said last mentioned land 635.~ feet
to the easterly side of Moores Lane~
RUNNING THENCE North 17 degrees 15 minutes ~ seconds
West along said easterly side of Moores Lane 18~8.~3
feet to the corner, the point or place of BEGINNING."
The subject parcel was
East End Associates by
recorded in the Office
February 28,
acquired by John A. Costello from
deed dated January 28, 1985 and
of the SuffolR County Clerk on
1985, in Liber 9?44 at Page ll?.
23
3.3 - DESIGN AND LAYOUT
The total site area for this mid-income range town house
project is nine hundred sixty-nine thousand four hundred
twenty-five (969,425) square feet, or approximately twenty-
two (22) Acres. Reference is made to proposed Site Plan,
SK-1, Parcel - A. (See Appendix No. 5.) The site will
contain a total of twenty-one (21) buildings with each
building containing four (4) residential units of
approximately twelve hundred fifty (125~) square feet each.
Also included in this site, for the use
will be two (2) tennis courts, swimming
combination bath and club house.
of its occupants,
pool, and
Clearing is to be limited to actual building sites with
provisions to be made for preserving and adding to the
natural growth, so as to result in significant sized buffer
areas between the affordable housing site and along County
Road 48 and Moores Lane.
Access streets in the development are proposed to be twenty
(20) feet wide, complete with curbs and designated parking
areas. Storm and surface drainage will be collected and
piped to three (3) naturalistic collection and recharge
basins.
24
The twenty-one (21) town house buildings are to be
constructed in accordance with the typical floor and
elevation, as depicted in Appendix No. 8. Each building is
to be serviced by Greenport Village (water and sewer), Long
Island Light Company (electrical), New York Telephone, and
Dimension Cable (TV). To preserve and enhance the asthetic
appearance of the town house site, all utility services are
to be placed underground.
3.4 - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
It is anticipated that the construction of the twenty-one
(21) buildings (84 town house units) will be commenced at
approximately the same time as the eighty-four (84)
individual Affordable Housing Units. It is further
anticipated that the construction period will be completed
within approximately two (2) years after commencement.
3.5 - APPROVALS
Reference is made to Section 2.5, Approvals for the Affordable
Housing. In addition to the acceptance to this Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, which is prepared as a combined requirement
for both projects, reference is made to Scoping Check List (see
Appendix No. 7). The other approvals required are expected to be
the same number and type as those for the Affordable Housing Project.
25
SECTION IV: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
CEDARFIELDS AND, MOORESLANp
4.1 - THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The principal natural resources which contribute to the
environmental setting or context of a particular site are
GeoloGy, water resources, and terrestrial ecology.
its
4.1.1 - GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER
The Geology of the parcel proposed for this development is
considered typical of the geology found throughout Southold
Township. Upper Pleistocene deposits form the overall land
mass of the North Fork, consisting of stratified sands and
Gravels with some thin beds of clay encountered. These
Upper Pleistocene deposits range to approximately 2~0 feet
below sea level.
The soil for this site is classified as Riverhead Series
RvA, whose characteristics include Good Granular material
below a depth of twenty-seven (2?) inches, with rapid
permeabili! in Gravel at a depth of twenty-two (22) to
thirty-six (36) inches. The soil characteristics of the
Riverhead Series makes it ideal for water recharge below the
topsoil level. These soils also are characterized by yielding
very little run-off during precipitation periods. Reference
is made to soils test hole data sheets. (See Appencix No. 9.)
26
The United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Soil Survey of Suffolk County, Ne~ York has
following information on the ~iverhead Series of soils:
the
"Riverhead Series which consists of deep, ~ell drained,
moderately course, textured soils that formed in a
mantle of sandy loam, or fine sandy loam over thick
layers of course sand and gravel. Native vegetation
consists of black oak, red oak, white oak, and scrub
oak. Riverhead soils have moderate to high available
moisture capacity, and internal drainage is good.
Permeability is rapid in the surface layer and sub-
soil, and very rapid is the sub-strata. Natural
fertility is low. This soil is well suited to all
crops commonly grown in the County and is also used
extensively for housing development and industrial
parks."
The upper levels of these Pleistocene deposits contain fresh
water and are the primary source of Groundwater within the
Town of Southold. Water table elevations within these
deposits generally lie in the Greenport vicinity at 2 to 3
feet above mean sea level. Based upon a topographic
analysis of the parcel proposed for rezoning, it can be
assumed that the water table generally lies some 5 to 2~
2?
feet beneath this 48.718 acre tract, with an average depth
to the water table of approximately 15 feet. A test well
installed on June 13, 1985 on the southern end of th~ site
showed depth to ground water if eleven (11) feet.
The parcel proposed for this development is characterized as
gently rolling, with slopes of 0 to 3% and with elevations
generally ranging from 8 feet above mean sea level at
isolated
boundary
quadrant.
site.
an
low point along its western, or Moore's Lane,
to some 22 feet in elevation in its northeast
Positive drainage occurs naturally throughout the
See Appendix No. 5 - Site Plan SK-1.
28
4.1.2 - WATE~ RESOURCES
Groundwater, as previously discussed, is the principal water
resource of concern in an area such as Long Island that has
been classified by the EPA as being fully dependent upon a
sole, or single, source for its potable water supply. This
designation reinforces the in-place planning criteria and
monitoring activities that are utilized to ensure that the
groundwater not be contaminated by either point- or non-
point sources of pollution. The concern is even more
critical in the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport
for, unlike many other areas of Long Island, potable water
supply
Magothy
Magothy
is not available here from both the Glacial and
aquifers. Water underlying Southold within the
formation is generally too saline for potable use~
Surface water resources within the vicinity of the proposed
project, though not contained within the parcel, are Moore's
Drain and Silver Lake, located approximately i~BB feet to
the southeast. Water quality classification for these
surface waters has been established by NYS DEC as follows~
Moore's Drain (tidal portion) SC
Moore's Drain (non-tidal portion) D
Silver Lake D
29
Under the DEC water quality classification system, SC waters
are described as "suitable for fishing and all other uses
except for primary contact recreation and for the taking of
shellfish for market purposes". Class D waters are termed
"suitable for secondary recreation, but due to such natural
conditions as intermittency of flow, water conditions not
conducive to the propagation of game fishery, or stream bed
conditions, the waters will not support the propagation of fish".
While substantial areas of the Town of Southold Village of
Greenport are designated as flood hazard areas by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the elevations present
on the parcel proposed for development cause it to be
located fully outside the flood hazard area. In addition,
there are no designated wetlands on or immediately adjacent
to the subject parcel, though several wetland areas have
been identified by the NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation within the vicinity. These wetland areas,
subject to the permit authority of DEC, are as
Silver Lake located to the southeast of
much of the Moore's Woods/Moore's Drain
VillaGe of Greenport; and
the site,
area owned by the
an area approximately .5 miles east of the parcel at the
southwest corner of State Route 25 and County Road 48,
just north of the VillaGe of Greenport.
4.1.3 TERreSTRIAL ECOLOGY
The parcel proposed for development is characterized by
secondary vegetation that has begun to reclaim an area of
earlier agricultural crop and/or pasture use. The tree
growth is young and sparse throughout most of the site, with
some denser vegetation noted in its north, particularly
along County Road 48.
following:
- locust
- maple
- red cedar
- grey birch
- white birch
- oak
- poplar
- pine
The maple, poplar and
Species encountered include the
Robinia pseudoacacia
Acer sp.
Juniperus virginia
8etula populifdia
Betula populifdia
Quercus velutina
Populus
PinUs
second growth locust are predominant.
White pine is found along the parcel's southern edge, and begins
to screen limited portions of the site from the McCann Trailer
Park. Native grasses provide groundcover throughout the parcel,
except where disturbed by an informal vehicular accessway and
various dirt bike trails.
Adjacent residential properties are as typically experienced,
i.e. landscaped lawns, planted shrubbery, and a variety of common
trees such as maple and oaks.
31
Animal life occupying the site are largely those small species
associated with near-residential and open field conditions.
Representative species either observed on-site or recorded in the
literature include the following~
Eastern cottontail
Eastern gray squirrel
Meadow vole
Sylvilagus floridanus
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Various birdlife
subject parcel. These
blackbirds, chickadees,
birdlife.
is also commonly found on and adjacent to the
include sparrows, robins, flickers,
starlings, as well as other similar
No rare, threatened or endangered species of plant, animal or
birdlife are known to occur on the parcel.
4.2 HUMAN R~SOURCES
The principal human or built resources which contribute to the
environmental setting or context of a particular site are its
transportation accessibility, existing land use and zoning
controls which guide its future development, the community
services and facilities available at the location, its
demographic context and cultural resources that may be present.
4.2.1 - TRANSPORTATION
The principal transportation arteries servicing the North
Fork of Long Island are Middle or North Road (County Road
48) and Main Road (New York State Route 25). Route 25, an
east-west roadway, is a two-lane improved roadway passing
through the hamlet centers of the North Fork, including
Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold within the Town of
Southold, and the Village of Greenport.
Road (County Road 48), also an east-west
the northern section of the North Fork.
Middle or North
artery, runs along
County Road 48 is a
four-lane roadway from Mattituck to Southold and a two-lane
roadway from Southold to Greenport. Moores Lane, designated
by the New York State Department of Transportation as Truck
Route 25, serves as a north-south connector between State
33
Route 25 and County Road 48, and allows traffic proceeding
to or f~om the East Marion and Orient Point hamlets east of
Greenport to bypass the narrow streets and congestion that
may be encountered during seasonal peaks within the Village
of Greenport's downtown business district.
Traffic counts undertaken by the Nee York State Department
of Transportation indicate that average annual daily traffic
(AAOT) on Route 25 west of Greenport is ?,~5~ vehicles, with
the AADT of Middle Road (County Road 48) just northwest of
Greenport being 6,~ vehicles, based on 1981 data compiled
by Suffolk County. More current New York State Department
of Transportation traffic data gives a 1984 traffic count of
seven thousand four hundred fifty (?,45~) vehicles per day
between Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, and Route 114 in
Greenport. The latest Route 25 traffic count between Route
114 and Manhasset Avenue was five thousand fifty (5,~5~).
As this count was accomplished in 1979, an update is
scheduled for this year, according to New York State
Department of Transportation planners. According to the
Suffolk County Departm~',t of Traffic Safety and acceptable
engineering standards, an improved two-lane roadway can
readily accommodate an AADT of 1~,~ vehicles; both State
25 and County Road 48 have AADTs well below this level.
Other modes of transportation to the North Fork include
ferry, train, bus and air service. Direct access to the
South Fork of Long Island by way of Shelter Island is
available on a regular basis from Greenport via the North
Ferry, Inc. and the South Ferry. In addition, the Cross
Sound Ferry, located some 8 miles east of Greenport,
provides a direct route to New England for automobiles,
trucks and walk-on passengers.
Passenger rail service to Greenport is limited to two (2)
trains eastbound and two (2) trains westbound per day, with
more frequent bus-train service. Sunrise Coach Lines, Inc.
provides direct bus service from Greenport to New York City
three round-trips per day. Kennedy International Airport
is located 9~ miles west of Greenport, while Long Island's
MacArthur Airport and Suffolk County's Airport at
Westhampton are, respectively, 48 and 30 miles distant.
The parcel proposed for development has 1523.22 feet of
frontage on Moore's Lane, 1394.35 feet of frontage on County
Road 48, and has access on its east from the stub ends of
Washington Street and Bennett Road, located within the Town
of Southold.
35
4.2.2 - EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING
The 48.718 acre parcel proposed for development is a tract
of vacant land, once reputedly farmed, that supports no
improvements and that has become overgrown in recent years
since the cessation of agricultural use. The tract borders
on its south and west lands owned by the Village of
Greenport, including the Moore's Lane right-of-way.
Immediately to the east and across County Road 48 to the
north lie privately-owned and improved residential lots
within the Town of Southold.
Immediately to the West, and owned by the Village of
Greenport, is a portion of a 24~ acre parcel commonly
referred to as "Moore's Woods"° an extensive woodland area
acquired for watershed protection, recreational use, and
municipal utility functions. Moore's Woods includes a
acre section designated as the "Greenport Nature Study
Area", a shallow creek (Moore's Drain) that was developed
the 186~'s to drain the mosquito swamps surrounding the
Village, and facilities for the Village's water supply,
sewage disposal and electric utilities.
in
36
Immediately to the south of the parcel proposed for
development is the Village-operated McCann Trailer Park, a
facility first developed in 1974 to provide seasonal trailer
and recreational vehicle sites for visitors to the Greenport/
Southold vicinity. 55 existing sites are provided, with
expansion contemplated to provide 2~ additional sites, thus
ful'ly occupying the available land area between the subject
parcel on its north and Moore's Drain on its south. Across
Moore's Lane from the subject parcel lie Village water plant
No. 3 at the southeast corner of North Road and Moore's
Lane, the Village's sewage treatment plant, and its recently
constructed scavenger waste treatment facility. Also sited
on the Village's lands along the .8 mile length of Moore's
Lane are water plant No. 2 (not in use) and the Village's
electric generating plant.
The residential development immediately east of the parcel
proposed for development is discussed in the February 1981
Section 2~1 Wastewater Facility Plan for the Village of
Greenport and Town of Southold as an area with potential
need for sewers. Some 16~ dwelling units occupy 45 acres of
land in this North Greenport area at a density of
approximately 3.5 dwelling units per acre, serviced only by
municipal water with sewage disposal accommodated on-site.
37
A similar, or perhaps slightly higher, density is
experienced on Middletown and Madison Streets which are
developed with single-family detached homes on individual
lots and located nearest the subject parcel. Residential
development to the north of County Road 48 (Eastern Shores)
extends for approximately 2,gg~ to 2,4g~ feet to the shore
of Long Island Sound. Average density of this development
is three (3) dwelling units per acre.
The subject parcel is currently zoned a combination of "M"
(Light Multiple Residence) and "AHD" (Affordable Housing).
The recently established Affordable Housing District is a
result of the amendment of Chapter 1~ (Zoning) of the Code
of the Town of Southold to provide a new Article VA, to
provide the following:
ARTICLE VA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DISTRICT
Section 1~-55.1 - Purpose.
The purpose of the Affordable Housing District is to
the opportunity within certain areas of the Town
development of high density housing for families
income.
provide
for the
of moderate
38
Section 11~-55o3 - Appli¢.abilit¥.
AHD Districts shall be established by application to the
Town Board pursuant to the procedures hereinafter specified,
on parcels of land located within the following areas:
Ao
Land within a one-half (1/2) mile radius
offices located in the hamlets of Mattituck,
Peconic and Southold.
the post
Cutchogue,
B o
Land within one-quarter (1/4) mile radius of the post
offices located in the hamlets of East Marion and
Orient.
Land within one-quarter (1/4) mile of the boundaries of
the Incorporated Village of Greenport.
Land in such other areas as shall be designated by Town
Board resolution after a public hearing thereon, upon
ten (1~) days notice thereof by publication in the
official Town newspapers.
39
Section 1~-55.4 - Use Regulations.
In the AHD District, no building or premises shall be used,
and no building or part of a building shall be erected or
altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used,
in whole or in part, for any use except the following:
Permitted uses:
One-family detached dwelling
Two-family dwelling.
Multiple dwellings.
B. Accessory uses.
Accessory uses as set forth in and regulated by Section
1~-30C (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) of this
Chapter."
That portion of the site, approximately twenty-two (22)
acres, which is zoned "M" (Light Multiple Residence)
District, permits the following types and densities of
residential developments:
4~
Permitted uses, subject to site plan approval of the
Planning Board in accordance with Article XIII hereof.
(1) Any permitted use set forth in, and as regulated
by, Section l~-3~A of this chapter.
(2) Multiple dwellings not exceeding one hundred
twenty-five (125) feet in length designed for and
occupied by not more than four (4) families.
(3) Boarding- and tourist houses.
Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of
Appeals. The following uses are permitted as a special
exception by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter
provded, and subject to site plan approval by the
Planning Board in accordance with Article XIII hereof:
(1) Any special exception use set forth in, and as
regulated by, Section 1~0-308 of this chapter."
The references Section 1MM-3MA permits "one family detached
dwellings, not to exceed one (1) dwelling on each lot" while the
referenced Section 1MM-3MB authorized by special permit "Two-
family dwellings, conversion of existing dwellings and new
construction, not to exceed one (1) such dwelling on each lot".
Minimum lot size within the "M" District, as stated in the "Bulk
and Parking Schedule" is 40,000 square feet.
41
4.2.3 - COMMUNITY SERVICES
Educational Facilities. The proposed development lies
within Greenport Union Free School Oistrict No. 10. The
District operates an elementary and high school, both
located in a single building on Route 25 (Front Street),
just outside the Village limits within the Town of
Southold, and approximately .6 miles from the subject
parcel. Total 1986-1987 enrollment in grades K-12 Nas
573, according to data provided bF the Superintendent of
Schools (see Appendi~ No. 16), far short of the stated
capacity of 1,191 students indicated in a 1984 report by
the New York State Oepartment of Education.
An annual decline in pupil enrollment has been recorded in
each of the past 10 school years, with the following
enrollment figures reported by the District:
YEAR PUPIL ENROLLMENT
1975-76 896
1976-77 881
1977-78 849
1978-79 817
1979-8~ 783
1980-81 715
1981-82 687
1982-83 670
1983-84 660
1984-85 621
1985-86 610
1986-87 573
42
The School District has, thus, experienced an enrollment
decline of about 3~% during the past decade, with school
district officials contemplating that further decline will
continue for the next several years.
The 1986-1987 taxable assessed valuation within District No.
1~ for school purposes was $12,784,476.~. A tax rate of
$27~.3~/$1,~.~ assessed valuation was applied in order to
raise $3,456,257.~ in revenues. The total cost per
pupil, including building, maintenance, and
administrative costs, much of which is fixed and beyond
direct pupil costs, was $5,611.~ during 1986-1987.
Direct educational cost per pupil was, of course, lower,
but exact figures are not available.
Police Protection. Police protection to the proposed
development is a responsibility of the Southold Town Police,
though Moore's Lane, on which the parcel fronts, is a
Village thoroughfare. In any event, the Town of Southold
maintains a full-time police department, as does the
Village of Greenport. State Police protection is available
from the nearest substation of Troop L in Islip Terrace.
43
Co
Fire Protection. The proposed development is located
within the Town-Outside-Village area of the Greenport
East-West Fire Protection District. This District is an
extension of the Village Fire Department, which
maintains two fire stations, a principal, modern
facility on Third Street in Greenport and a secondary
location on Flint Street. Each station is conveniently
located to the proposed development site, and a full
range of equipment and rescue squad personnel are available
Health Care Facilities. The Eastern Long Island Regional
Hospital is located on Manor Place within the Village of.
Greenport, providing both scheduled and emergency medical
services on a 24-hour per day basis. In addition to a full
complement of local medical, dental and related personnel,
Greenport area residents are also served by the Central
Suffolk Hospital some 28 miles distant in Riverhead, and the
Riverhead Health and Mental Health Centers.
Social Services. There are an abundance of Social
Service Organizations available in the local area that
range from animal shelters, consumer services, legal
facilities, employment agencies, housing, human rights,
public assistance, tax information, veterans, and voter
service organizations. A complete list of each of these,
by locale and phone numbers is listed as Appendix No. 19.
44
Recreational Facilities. The Town of Southold and
Village of Greenport offer a variety of recreational
opportunities for its permanent residents and seasonal
visitors. Representative of the more than 9~ acres of
parkland and preserve available for passive and active
recreation are the following facilities:
NAME AND LOCATION APPROX. ACREAGE
Orient Beach State Park at Orient 35?
Goldsmith's Inlet Park at Southold 34
Inlet Point Pond Park at Greenport 36
Great Pond (Peconic) at Southold 37
Moore's Woods Nature Study Area 1~1
Greenport Village Parks (Third Street,
Fifth Street and Curt Breeze Field) 24
Many of these facilities, including Moore's Woods and the
Village's community recreational facilities at both Curt
Breeze Memorial Field and the District No. 10 school
complex are within easy walking distance of the proposed
development.
Water Supply. The Village of Greenport maintains a 15
square mile franchise area which extends from the east
side of Shipyard Lane in East Marion to Peconic Lane in
Peconic, including the Bayview peninsula in Southold.
45
The proposed development lies ~ithin this franchise
area. Water is provided by six (6) operating well
fields, with a population of approximately 8,1~
service connections) presently serviced.
The total
3.92 mgd per day. Allowing a reserve of 1,3~g,~g
for maintenance and fire.flow and deducting the
2,165,~g gpd (peak demand) of present, under
construction and approved usage, leaves an estimated
4~,gg~ gallons/day available for future requirements.
There is also a degree of quality problems (nitrates
and chlorides) in certain wells. (The preceding data
was provided by the Village of Greenport.)
Village water plant capacity is calculated at
gpd
Specific reference is also made to the North Fork Water
Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York, dated April
1983. (Page 1.3 of this document is contained herein.)
Ground water supply conditions in Zone 4, Greenport-
Southold are critical, but there is some extra supply
available (~.9 m.g.d, available vs. ~.63 m.g.d.
required by year 2~ as depicted in Table 1-1.) For
identification purposes, Zones 1 through 5 are depicted
in 4-1 from subject report, contained herein. Table 8-
27 of this report makes a comparison of alternatives
for the Greenport-Southold demand center. The
46
recommended alternative is Level III, which is a
municipal type distribution system. Implementation of
the Level III is recommended, with the report statinG~
" .... adequate supply exists in Zones 3 and 4 to meet
Greenport's needs."
The VillaGe of Greenport Water Department regulations
were recently amended to-provide preferential
considerations for water hook-up outside of the
Incorporated VillaGe to major sub-divisions which are
categorized as "Self Sustained", and which are defined
as "any sub-division, development, or facility which
provides water equal to or in excess of projected
demand". (See Appendix No. 11.)
As later discussed, this project site meets this
requirement. Also, for projects outside the Village,
an up-front key money charge is levied in the amount of
two thousand five hundred seventy dollars ($2,570.~0).
Hook up fees are over and above the "up-front" monies.
47
In order to estimate the to:al quantity of groundwater :hat may be
withdrawn from larger capacity public supply wells from each ~ater
supply zone. water budget areas were del ineated. Substantial amounts
of groundwater are availdbte outside of the budge: areas but. to
avoid saltwate~ intrusion, can only be withdrawn by small, ;.domestic
capacity well s.
In zones ! and 2. the bud~Jet areds were defined as those loca.~ions
where the groundwater level is $ feet or more above sea level. In
zones 3. 4 and 5. the dvdildbiliCy Of groundwater is more limited, SO
the budget area boundary w,~s clufined as the 2-foot cjroundwater con-
tour. A total of approximately 4/.2 mod of fresh groundwater
available from the budgot areds. An additional !0 to 20 mgd is
available for dQitestJc w~.lls uutSide the bud,jet areas. The results
of the water budqet d.dl¥~i',, by ZUIIU. are sl~own below in Table
wllicll also includes cup, sump:lye use prujectiuns for the year 2000.
Conclusion. 5ufflcic~lt frL.~l cjroumlwdter is available to satisfy the
h-~,~fs of-t~e ov~'all pla,nih9 tired. UOWeV~. critical water supply
conditions exist in Zone 5 IUri~lt} wn~'e pro~ected requirenents are
approximately equal tO available Supply. Groundwate~ supply condi-
tions in Zone 4 .(Gre¢~por t/-~,outhold) are al so cfi :ica1 al though there
i s some ex :rd dVdi 1 dbl e Supply { U. g IlICJd dVd i I dbl e versus 0.63 mgd re-
quired).
IAULE 1-!
~ArI'R UUUU[15 Alli) CUNbUdPilVE USE PROJ£CTION$
~dter Susr. uifl~l fsi-id, Consumptive Use,
Supply Uudg~.t A~,d Year 2000
Zo~le __ (lUgd) ................. (lllgd)
I 29.4 2,25
2 5.b 0.9/
3 4.9 [.18
4 0.9 0.59
5 0.4 O.ll
101ALS ql .2 5.10
Agricul rural
Constanptive Use,
Year 2000
_ (mc. Id)
3.06
3.06
2.80
0.04
0.35
9.31
Sewage Treatment. As noted in Section 3.22, the Village
of Greenport operates a sewage treatment plant on
Moore's Lane near the western edge of the Village and
within a few hundred feet of the subject parcel. The
treatment plant is a modern secondary treatment
facility, handling primarily domestic waste with little
or no industrial waste treated. The effluent from the
treatment plant is chlorinated and discharged into Long
Island Sound to the north of the treatment facility.
The treatment plant serves 869 customers within the
Village and 45 outside its incorporated boundaries,
according to data provided from the Village
Superintendent of Utilities. Average daily wastewater
flow is approximately 4~,~ gallons, or 8~ of the
plant's 5~,~ gpd capacity. This average daily flow
represents a thirty percent (3~%) increase within the
last year primarily because of increased commercial
flow, including the influent from the newly constructed
scavenger waste treatment plant. Plans are expected to
be initiated shortly for doubling the plants capacity.
Similar to the Hater Policy, Greenport levies an "up-
front" key money charge of two thousand seven hundred
dollars ($2,7~.~) per unit, the collection of which is
to be used towards upgrading and increasing the sewer
plant's capacity.
5~
Municipal Electric. The Village's public-owned electric
utility services approximately 1,7~ accounts, with a
service population of approximately 3,5~ persons within
and adjacent to the Village of Greenport. Electricity
is currently purchased from the Power Authority of the
State of New York (PASNY) which currently results in
rates to users approximately 45 percent lower than those
serve by LILCO.
The Village electric utility may serve areas, such as
the subject parcel, located outisde the Village limits
which are within the Greenport Electric Franchise (P$C
ruling - April 26, 1977). However, the Village Board
has indicated that they do not wish to supply municipal
electricity to either project. Consequently, Long
Island Lighting Company has agreed to supply electric
utility services to both projects.
51
Sanitary Landfill. The Town of Southold operates a
landfill site on a 32 acre parcel north of Route 48 and
west of Cox Lane. This site has been used since the
193~'s, with approximately 5 years of useful life
remaining. The Town has acquired a 19 acre contiguous
tract for landfill expansion, and is currently working
with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation on
specific landfill design and the conditions of a Part
36~ permit.
The Town is also initiating planning action to comply
with the Long Island Landfill Act
limits the operation of landfills
Counties by the year 199~.
which prohibibs and/or.
in Suffolk and Nassau
Other Utility Services. A LILCO gas main runs along
County Road 48 adjacent to the north side of the subject
property. LILCO has, and they continue to have, a
policy of permitting no new hook-ups, and the
of gas being available at this site has been
highly unlikely. Other services adjacent to
development include the New York
Cable services.
likelihood
indicated
the
Telephone and Dimension
52
4.2.4 - DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS
According to the United States Bureau of the Census, the
Town of Southold experienced growth of 2,368 persons, or
14.1 percent, during the 197~-198~ decade. Areas of the
Town nearest the subject project, however, experienced
actual population declines during this same period.
Specifically, the Village of Greenport experienced an 8.4
percent decline in population during the 197~'s, while the
surrounding "Census Designated Place", which emcompasses the'
subject parcel, lost 5.? percent of its population during
this same period.
This loss of permanent population in the Village of
Greenport and the surrounding ~'Census Designated Place" by
the same name coincides with the declining pattern of school
enrollment within District No. 1~ discussed earlier.
More complete population count data for the Town of Southold
is presented below:
53
INCORPORATED VILLAGE
Village of Greenport
CENSUS DESIGNATED PLACES
197~ 198~
Census Census
2.481 2,273
Cutchogue - New Suffolk 2,718 2,788
East Marion 531 648
Fishers Island 462 318
Greenport (unincorporated area) 1,682 1,587
Laurel 598 962
Mattituck 3,~69 3.923
Orient 7~9 847
Peconic 835 1,~56
Southold 3.749 4,77~
Total Census Designated Places 14,323
16,899
Total - Town of Southold 16,8~4 19,172
Among other factors, the loss of population within the
Village can be attributed to a lack of available
opportunities for residential development within its
boundaries, other than scattered site infill development.
Accordingly. in its Master Plan and Proposed Zoning
Regulations. the Town of Southold has identified and begun
to respond to the need to encourage higher density
residential development, with a full complement of public
services, in and around the Village of Greenport and
adjacent to the several other hamlet centers within the
Township.
54
4.2.5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES
The visual resources of this particular project site include
the over one hundred acres of Moores Woods and Nature Study
area ~hich is immediately to the West of the proposed
development across Moores Lane. The on-site visual
resources and natural areas include the established natural
ground cover and small trees and shrubs, particularly along
the peripheral of the project site. Maintenance of this
natural groundcover growth is planned as buffer areas around
both of the project sites. (See Site Plan No. SK-1,
Appendix No. 5.)
55
SBCTION V - SIGNIFICANT ENVIROI~EN?AL IHPACTS
CEDAttFI~LDS AND HOORESLAND
The aspects of the environmental setting that may be
adversely impacted by the proposed action specifically
include transportation and water resources.
Developments of any kind, including residential development.
cannot help but, and will generate increased vehicle trips.
The Institute for Transportation Engineering and Trip
Generating Data indicate that this project development would
Generate average weekday one-way trips of eight hundred
forty (84~) for the Cedarfields Affordable Housing, and four
hundred twenty-eight (428) weekday vehicle trips for the
town houses (Mooresland).
It is only natural and understandable that a local and
adjacent residents who are used to, like, and enjoy the
combined low population density urban and rural area fee]
that any increase in vehicle traffic is an adverse impact,
even though the traffic study has indicated that the
surrounding streets and roads have adequate capacity for
the projected increased vehicle trips.
56
The second aspect of the environmental setting may be
adversely impacted by the project development would be its
water resources. The potential adverse impact to these
resources would be in the nature of lawn fertilizer and
introduction of any other contaminates into the recharged
groundwater. It is planned to.avoid any adverse impact by
having strict covenents on the use of lawn and garden
fertilizers, and having the design of the units to allow no
buried oil fuel tanks. With the adoption of these two (2)
measures, it is anticipated that the potential contamination
of recharged groundwater can be almost completely avoided
or eliminated.
57
SECTION VI - MITICATION MEASURES TO MINIHIZE ENVIRONIiENTAL
IHPACT (CEDARP~E~DS AFFORDABLE HOUSING)
6.1 NATURAL RESOURCES
The natural resources items addressed and for which
mitigation measures are to be accomplished~ include geology,
water resources, air resources, and terrestrial and equatic
ecology.
6.1.1 - GEOLOGY~
All topsoil material is to be stockpiled during the
construction and used for the restoration and landscaping
around the new housing units. In addition, every reasonable
effort will be made to preserve in place the natural growth
in the designated buffer areas. The development plan also
calls for additional plantings in these areas to strengthen
and improve the growth of trees and shrubs in the buffer
58
6.1.2 - WATER RESOURCES
Since the proposed development of the Cedarfields Affordable
Housing site would of necessity use the public water supply,
no substantial impact of either ground water or geological
ground water resources are anticipated as a result of this
proposed development.
A sound estimate of water usage in the year round
residential development is one hundred (1~) gallons per
capita per day. Based upon a persons per dwelling ratio of
3.3 within the family type residential units proposed, a
year round water use of three hundred thirty (330) gallons
per dwelling unit per day is reasonable, or for a total of
eighty-four (84) units of twenty-seven thousand seven
hundred twenty (27,720) gallons per day. This usage
represents approximately twenty-three percent (23~) of the
estimated production capability of one hundred twenty
thousand (12~,~0) gallons per day of the new well site that
is included within this parcel.
As the production source from this well is from rainfall
induced recharged groundwater, it is of utmost importance
that an adequate system of protection be provided for the
treatment of storm water prior to recharge into the
groundwater aquifer.
59
Mitigation measures are included, or are
the project development to provide this,
following:
to be included in
and include the
A site construction restriction that allows no in-
ground oil fuel storage tanks. This action has been
supported and publicly agreed to both by the Village of
Greenport Board of Trustees and the Southold Town
Planning Board.
Historically it has been proven that the indiscriminate
application of lawn fertilizers can, and will, result
in the contamination of groundwater, particularly by
increased nitrogen levels. It is therefore important
that mitigation measures in the form of restrictions to
limit the application of such lawn fertilizers in
accordance with practices that will insure the use of
these nutrients by plant growth and not allow them to
be applied to the extent that they will percolate into
the groundwater recharge zone. Covenants and
restrictions have been prepared that each owner and
occupant of the housing units will be required to sign
and comply with. In addition to this, continual
monitoring of the nitrate levels of the new well site
will be performed by the Village of Greenport Utilities
Department.
6~
To preclude any potentia! contamination of the
groundwater recharge zone from road and street run-off,
the storm drain design has incorporated into it
continuous sand recharge swales on either side of all
streets. This design will provide an increased ability
to filter and distribute, and as a result enhance the
quality of the Groundwater percolating into the
recharge zone, as compared to a major storm drain
collection system with point recharge.
Parallel concerns with similar recommendations are contained
a letter from Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Chief Engineer. (See Appendix No. 12.)
6.1.3 - AIR RESOURCES
No significant impact on air resources will occur as a
result of the proposed development, and therefore no
significant mitigation measures are deemed necessary.
During construction, however, the contractor will be
required to use adequate dust control measures, such as
sprinkling, to prevent transfer of dust to adjacent
residential areas.
61
6.1.4 - TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
While the maximum potential development of eighty-four (84)
dwelling units will cause the removal of existing vegetation
in areas where roadways and utilities are to be installed
and homes located, and, as a consequence, local wildlife
will be temporarily disrupted, this will impose no threat to
any endangered species of animal, plant or birdlife. The
flora and fauna present on the subject parcel is typical of
residential areas and their immediate periphery. It is
expected that similar populations will be returned, by man
and nature, to the development parcel as it matures as a
residential community. A significant mitigation measure to
the terrestrial ecology of the site will be the preservation
and addition of extensive buffer areas between the
Affordable Housing Site and the Town House Site, as well as
along County Road 48 and Moores Lane.
62
6.2 HUMAN RESOURCES
6.2.1 TRANSPORTATION
The proposed project will not create significant adverse
impact on traffic conditions within and along the major
routes serving the Greenport area, specifically State Route
25, County Road 48, and the Moore's Lane connector roadway
(truck by-pass route) between NYS 25 and County 48. As
discussed in Section 4.2.1, Route 25 and County Road 48 have
residual capacities of 3,~ to 4,~ AADT and can readily
accommodate the additional traffic flow (estimated average
of 84~ vehicle trips per day) based upon standards developed
by the Institute for Transportation Engineering (see
Appendix No. 13) that would be generated by 84 new units.
Several
attention during
so that potential
mitigated in the
number of
efficient
highway, including
downtown Greenport;
project-specific design considerations were given
the engineering phases of this project
impacts related to transportation can be
following areas: (1) a restriction on the
access points along Moore's Lane to ensure
continuing use of this roadway as a connecto[
its function as a truck bypass of
and (2) elimination of all access points
63
along County Road 48~ and (3) the effective reduction
through road layout/project orientation of the amount of
additional traffic that would occur on residential streets,
such as Washington Avenue, Bennett Road, and Middleton Road
to the east of the subject parcel.
6.2.2 - LAND USE
The development of the subject parcel for residential use
would generally be consistent with the residential character
of properties to the north and east in regard to density.
The proposed density of 4 d~elling units per gross acre will
permit the installation of suitable residential
infrastructure -- municipal water, municipal sewer, and
properly-developed local streets -- that will provide a
well-planned and serviced residential environment.
As discussed in Section 6.1.4, natural buffer areas will be
maintained and enhanced through additional planting and
removal of dead or diseased vegetation along existing
residences on Middleton Road. In the interest of both the
proposed development and the adjacent McCann Trailer Park, a
landscaped screen will be developed along the southern
boundary of the parcel.
64
As previously discussed, the proposed development would
also be totally consistent with the Town's current
Affordable Housing District (AHD) zoning of this parcel.
6.2.3 COMMUNITY SERVICES
The maximum potential development of the subject parcel for
84 dwelling units would Generate significant increased tan
revenues for the Greenport Union Free School District No.
1~, the Town of Southold, and Suffolk County. The
development will not have a significant adverse impact on
public facilities. Final type agreements regarding the
provision of water supply, sewage disposal and electric
service to accommodate the intended development remain to be
completed and negotiated with the VillaGe of Greenport and
LILCO.
FIRE PROTECTION. The proposed development of
eighty-four (84) residential units will have no adverse
impact on the ability of the local fire department to
continue to serve and protect the entire Greenport East-
West Fire Protection District. The dwellings to be
constructed must be designed and constructed to meet or
exceed all applicable building codes designed for fire
safety. In the event of a fire incident, municipal
water service will be available within the residential
65
development. As previously discussed, the Greenport
Fire District maintains two fire stations -- Third
Street and Flint Street -- that are well-located to
provide effective coverage and suitable equipment
throughout the Village of
East-West Fire Protection
Village area.
Greenport and the surrounding
District in the Town-outside-
UTILITIES. The primary mitigation measure to minimize
the environmental impact in regard to utility
installation will be the requirement to have all utility
service installed underground. In addition to the
normally constructed underground water and sewer
facilities, electrical primary distribution, secondary
service to houses, along with all telephone and cable
TV, will be installed underground.
Because of the nature and concern of water usage and the
availability of water supplies, the residential unit
designed will have incorporated into it water saving
fixtures wherever applicable or practical.
66
Ail residential construction will have incorporated into
its design all applicable requirements of the new New
York State Energy Conservation Construction Code,
effective April 1, 1987. This revised Code with its
increased R factors and other energy conservation
requirements will provide a significant reduction to the
energy usage of the proposed residential construction.
The increased water demand from the development of 84
dwelling units on the subject parcel will. under a worst
case scenario, will require an approximate ~.~ percent
increase in gallons per year'supplied by the Greenport
Water Department. With this increase in pumpage total
consumption will, however, remain well below the
permissive yield in the company service area, especially
with the added production provided by the site's new
well, The new well has had test pumping accomplished,
and water tests taken. The test well data, including
water tests, prepared both by EcoT~st Laboratories, Inc.
and the Suffolk County Department of Health, are enclosed
as Appendix No. 14. The test well was installed to a
depth of fifty-seven (57) feet. The static water level
measured to be eleven (ll) feet from surface. The well
~as pumped at a rate of two hundred and fifty (250)
gallons per minute for a period of six (6) hours on May
9. 1985, before having the water test taken. The test
67
results were excellent,
a pH of 6.4, nitrates of less
evidence of organic chemicals.
with a chloride of 12 mg/L, and
than ~.5 mg/L, and no
The well, on April 17,
1986, was pumped for twenty-four (24)
(48) hours respectively, with equally
(See Appendix No. 14.) The test well
selected by Peconic Associates, based
and forty-eight
good test results.
location was
on previously
developed geological and groundwater data, plus an'on-
site analysis that a well in this location could very
possibly be used to take advantage of the ground
filtered recharge water collected in Silver Lake. It
has been determined that the water requirements of the
proposed development can be supplied by the Village of
Greenport without adversely impacting existing customers
or preventing service to other developments within the
franchise area for which service has been committed.
As further clarification of the Village of Greenport's
capability to provide water and sewer services for sub-
development, on June 18, 1986, the Village of Greenport
Board of Trustees authorized the Village Attorney to
prepare water and sewer agreements for this both of
these proposed projects. (See Appendix No~ 14.)
68
~EWAOE.TREATHENT. Suffolk County Department of Health
Services have. as a required design flow, 3~V gallons per day
for a single family residence. For eighty-four (84) units
this calculates to 25,2~ gallons per day average flow.
The Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant experiences an
average daily wastewater flow of approximately 4~,~
gpd, approximately 8~t of its 5~,~ capacity. The
present average daily waste flow of 4~,~ gallons per
day represents a thirty percent (3~t) increase over last
years, primarily from commerical sources including the
Town of Southold's-new scavenger waste plant. This
significant and sudden increase in wastewater flow has
prompted concern on the part of the Village of Greenport
as to its ability to handle new customers.
Greenport Utility Department has determined that the
projected daily use of 2~,2~ gallons per day for this
project can be accommodated, but is making immediate
plans to increase the capacity of its present treatment
plant to approximately double its present 5~,~
Gallons per day capacity. It is also projected by the
Village of Greenport Utility Department that the
increased plant capacity ~ill be available prior to the
completion of the construction of the housing units
projected in this development.
69
The parcel proposed for development is proximate to the
sewage treatment facility, providing for easy physical
access to the treatment facility. No substantial impact
on sewage will be caused by the proposed development,
except to significantly reduce the remaining residual
capacity of the plant and make the Village plans for
plant expansion one that needs to be expeditiously moved
forward. There is presently a dual pump lift station
located adjacent to the southwest boundary of the
subject parcel. The Village Utilities Superintendent
has reported that each lift pump is rated at 15~ gpm
and, therefore, station capacity would be adequate for
the above calculated sewage loads. Pumping station
redesign, however, is expected to be required so as to
lower the stations operable invert elevation.
6.2.4 CULTURAL RESOUMCES
VISUAL RESOURCES. The architectural design of the
housing units took into specific consideration the
nature and type of the local architecture, and it is the
intent of the new housing units to physically blend with
the existing surroundings, including the adjacent
residential areas. Specific reference is made to the
typical housing unit elevation contained in Appendix
No. 6.
To minimize visual impact to the project development,
there is no planned street lighting and the signs will
be restricted to one (1) located at the entrance to
Cedarfields, where the main street joins Moores Lane.
The landscaping, as depicted on SK-1, will compliment
the buffer areas and act as a separation between
surrounding land uses and existing streets and highway.
6.2.5 NOISE
The only unusual noise is e~pected to occur during the
construction operation, and the impact of this noise Nill be
mitigated by only scheduling the construction during normal
business hours and minimizing noise impact during the more
sensitive times of early morning and late afternoon. Also,
every attempt Nlll be made to limit any disruption to the
natural buffer areas during the period of construction.
SECTION VII - MITIGATION ~URBS TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONHENTAL
IMPACT {MOORgSLAND TOt4N AOUSE~)
7.1 ~ATU~AL RESOURCES
The natural resources items addressed and for which
mitigation measures are to be accomplished, include geology,
water resources, air resources, and terrestrial and equatic
ecology.
7.1.1 - GEOLOGY:
All topsoil material is to be
construction and used for the
around the new housing units.
stockpiled during the
restoration and landscaping
In addition, every reasonable
effort will be made to preserve
in the designated buffer areas.
calls for additional plantings in these areas
and improve the growth of trees and shrubs in
areas.
in place the natural growth
The development Dian also
to strengthen
the buffer
73
7.1.2 - ~T~R REsouRceS
Since the proposed development of the Hooresland Town Houses
site would of necessity use the public water supply,
no substantial impact of either ground water or geological
ground water resources are anticipated as a result of this
proposed development.
A sound estimate of water usage in the year round
Town House development is one ~undred (188) gallons per
capita per day. Based upon a persons per dwelling ratio of
3.3 within the family type residential units proposed, a
year round water Use of three hundred thirty (33~) gallons
per dwelling unit per day is reasonable, or for a total of
.eighty-four (84) units of twenty-seven thousand seven
hundred twenty (27,728) gallons per day. This usage
represents approximately twenty-three percent (23%) of the
estimated production capability of one hundred twenty
thousand (12V,~V) gallons per day of the new well site that
is included within this parcel.
As the production source from this well is from rainfall
induced recharged groundwater, it is of utmost importance
that an adequate system of protection be provided for the
trea.tment of storm water prior to recharge into the
groundwater'aquifer:
74
Mitigation measures are included, or are to be included in
tl~e project development to provide this, and include the
following:
A site construction restriction that allows no in-
ground oil fuel storage tanks. This action has been
supported and publicly agreed to both by the Village of
Gre~nport Board of Trustees and the Southold Town
Planning Board.
Historically it has been proven that the indiscriminate
application of lawn fertilizers can, and will, result
in the contamination of groundwater, particularly by
increased nitrogen levels. Covenant restrictions are
being prepared to be incorporated part of the
management arrangement of the town house development
site to limit the application of lawn fertilizers and
other chemicals to insure that neither the nutrients
nor harmful chemicals will be applied to the extent
that they would percolate into the groundwater rehcarge
zone. It has been additionally suggested that a small
two (2) inch test well be placed in the bottom of each
of the three (3) recharge basins, and that once each
year a water sample be taken from these small test
wells and submitted for analysis to act as an early
indication of any potential increase in groundwater
nutrients or other chemicals. In addition to the
above, continual monitoring of nitrate levels at the
new wel! site ~ill be performed by the Village of
Greenport Utilities Department.
Parallel concerns with similar recommendations are contained
a letter from Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Chief Engineer. (See Appendix~No. 12.)
7.1.3 AIR RESOURCES
No significant impact on air
resources will occur as a
result of the proposed development, and therefore no
significant mitigation measures are deemed necessary.
During construction, however, the contractor will be
required to use adequate dust control .measures, such as
sprinkling, to prevent transfer of dust to adjacent
residential areas.
7.1.4 - TERRESTRIAL BCOLOGY
It is recognized that the construction of roadways and town
houses will require the removal of existing vegetation, and
as a consequence local wildlife will be temporarily
disrupted, but this will pose no threat to any endangered
species of any animal, plant, or bird life. The grouping of
the town house units allows for preservation of a large
amount of existing vegetation type growth. The developer
plans to limit, as much as practical, any destruction to
this growth so as to enhance and preserve the natural beauty
of the site, as well as its local wildlife. The flora and
fauna present on subject parcel is typical of residential
areas and their invaediate periphery. It is expected that
similar populations will be returned, by man or nature, to
the development parcel as it matures as a residential
community. A significant mitigation measure to the
terrestrial ecology of the site will be the preservation and
addition of extensive buffer areas between the Affordable
Housing Site and the Town House Site, as well as along
County Road 48 and Moores Lane.
7.2 H~H~N RESOURCES
7.2.1 TRANSPORTATION
The proposed project will not create significant adverse
impact on traffic conditions within and along the major
routes serving the Greenport area, specifically State Route
25, County Road 48, and the Moore's Lane connector roadway
(truck by-pass route) between NYS 25 and County 48. As
discussed in Section 4.2.1, RoUte 25 and County Road 48 have
residual capacities of 3,~ to 4,~ AADT and can readily
accommodate the additional traffic flow (estimated average
of 428 vehicle trips per day for 84 new town house units)
based upon standards developed by the Institute for
Transportation Engineering (see Appendix No. 13) that would
be generated by 84 new residential, apartment, or
condominimum units.
Several project-specific design considerations were given
attention during the engineering phases of this project
so that potential impacts related to transportation can be
mitigated in the following areas~ (1) a restriction on the
number of access points along Moore's Lane to ensure
efficient continuing use of this roadway as a connector
highway, including its function as a truck bypass of
downtown Greenport; and (2) elimination of all access points
78
along County Road 48~ and (3) the ef£ective reduction
through road layout/project orientation o£ the amount
additional traffic that would occur on residential streets.
7.2.2 LAND USE
The development of this parcel for town house residential
use would not be in conflict with the residential character
of properties to the north and east in regard to density.
The layout of the proposed development ~ill permit the
installation of suitable residential infrastructure --
municipal water, municipal sewer, and properly-developed
local streets -- that will provide a ~ell-planned and
serviced town house residential type environment. As
discussed in Section 7.1.4, natural buffer areas ~ill be
maintained and enhanced through additional planting,
especially along Hoores Land and County Road 48.
As previously discussed, the proposed town house development
~ould be totally consistent with the Town's current "M"
(Light Hulttple Residence).
79
7.2.3 COI~UNIT¥ SERVICES
The development of the subject parcel with eighty-four (84)
town house type units would generate significant increased
tax revenues for the Creenport Union Free School District
No. 1~, the Town of Southold, and Suffolk County. The
development will not have
public facilities. Final
provision of water supply,
a significant adverse impact on
type agreements regarding the
sewage disposal and electric
service to accommodate the. intended development remain to be
completed and negotiated with the Village of Creenport and
LILCO.
FIRE PROTECTION. The proposed development of
eighty-four (84) town house units will have no adverse
impact on the ability of the local fire department to
continue to serve and protect the entire Greenport East-
West Fire Protection District. The town house units to
be constructed must be designed and constructed to meet
or e~ceed all applicable building codes designed for
fire safety. In the event of a fire incident, municipal
water service will be available within the residential
development. As previously discussed, the Greenport
Fire District maintains two fire stations -- Third
8~
Street and Flint Street -- that are well-located to
provide effective coverage and suitable equipment
throughout the Village of Creenport and the surrounding
East-West Fire Protection District in the Town-outside-
Village area.
UTILITIES. The primary mitigation measure to minimize
the environmental impact in regard to utility
installation will the requirement to have all utility
service installed underground. In addition to the
normally constructed underground water and sewer
facilities, electrical primary distribution, secondary
service to houses, along with all telephone and cable
TV, will be installed underground.
Because of the nature and concern of water usage and the
availability of water supplies, the town house unit
designed will have incorporated into it water saving
fixtures wherever applicable or practical.
All town house type construction will have incorporated
into its design all applicable requirements of the new
New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code,
effective April 1, 1967. This revised Code with its
increased R factors and other energy conservation
requirements will provide a significant reduction to the
energy usage of the proposed residential construction.
Reference is made to Section 6.2.3 (B) - Utilities in
regard to water for the projected town house
development. This site, like the Affordable Housing
Development, will require an approximate three percent
(3t) increase in the gallons per year supplied by the
Greenport Mater Department. The new well site is
expected to have a production capacity of twice that
required by both the Mooresland and the Cedarfields
developments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT. Suffolk County Department of Health
Services have, as a required design flow, 225 gallons
per day for a two bedroom apartment/condominimum, and
3~ gallons per day for a three bedroom unit. For 42
units of each this calculates to 25,~5~ gallons per day
average flow.
The Creenport ~sstewater Treatment Plant experiences an
average daily wastewater flow of approximately 4~,~aa
gpd, approximately 5at of its 5~,~ capacity. The
present average daily waste flow of 4~a,~ gallons per
day represents a thirty percent (3~t) increase over last
years, primarily from commerical sources including the
Town of Southold's new scavenger waste plant. This
signi[icant and sudden increase in ~astewater flow has
prompted concern on the part of the Village o[ Greenport
as to its ability to handl~ ne~ customers.
Greenport Utility Department has determined that the
projected daily use of 2~,2~ gallons per day for this
project can be accommodated, but is making immediate
plans to increase the capacity of its present treatment
plan~ to approximately double its present 5~,~
gallons per day capacitT. It is also projected by the
Village of Creenport Utility Department that the
increased plant capacity will be available prior to the
completion of the construction of the hoursing units
projected in this development.
The parcel proposed for development is prozimate to the
sewage treatment facility, providing for easy physical
access to the treatment facility. No substantial impact
on seNage wil! be caused by the proposed development,
except to significantly reduce the remaining residual
capacity of the plant and make the Villages plans for
plant expansion one that needs to be expeditiously moved
forward. There is presently a dual pump lift station
located adjacent to the southwest boundary of the
subject parcel. The Village Utilities Superintendent
has reported that each lift pump is rated at 15~ gpm
and, therefore° station capacity Nould be adequate for
the above calculated sewage loads. Pumping station
redesign, hoNever, is expected to be required so as to
loner the stations operable invert elevation.
7.2.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
vISUAL RESOURCES. The architectural design of the
town houses took into specific consideration the natural
characteristics of the area so as to physically blend
with its existing surroundings, including the adjacent
residential areas.
typical town house
No. 8.
Specific reference is made to the
unit elevation contained in Appendix
To minimize visual impact to the project development,
a small, relaively inconspicuous sign is expected to be.
located only at the entrance to the Hooresland
development where the entrance joins Hoores Lane.
The landscaping and buffer area are depicted on SK-1,
especially that portion along Moores Lane, will act as
visual separation between the development and the
existing streets and highway.
85
7.2.5 NOISE
The only unusual noise is expected to occur during the
construction operation, and the impact o[ this noise will be
mitigated by only scheduling the construction during normal
business hours and minimizing noise impact during the more
sensitive times of early morning and late afternoon. Also,
every attempt will be made to limit any disruption to the
natural buffer areas during the period of construction.
86
SECTION VIII - ADVERSE ENVIROIOIENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNO? UE
AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT I~ IHPL~EHTED
CEDARFIELDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
HOORESLAND TOMN HOUSES
Based on a comprehensive review of Sections VI and VII, the
only adverse environmental effect that will occur regardless
of mitigation measures, ~ould be the increased vehicle
trips. Based on the standards developed by the Institute of
Transportation Engineering (se~ Appendix No. 13), the total
new vehicle trips for both projects is estimated at twelve
hundred sixty-eight (1268). While this total ~ill be
considerably less than the residual capacities of both Route
24 and County Road 48, it is an impact that cannot be
totally mitigated.
As previously discussed and stated, the layout of the
development to limit access to Moores Lane, and to have no
access on County Road 48, is planned to reduce impact of
through traffic on both of these roads. In the Affordable
Housing area, the street layout provides three (3) means of
access with the majority of the vehicle movement anticipated
to be on Hoores Lane, and a much smaller number on the
Washingto Avenue and Bennett Road extensions.
87
SECTION IX - AL?~RNATIVES
CEDARFIELDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
9.~ - ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES
9.~.1 SITE ~AYOUT
The present affordable site layout (see Appendix No. 5) is
one that has had fairly extensive review with the Southold
Town Planning Board, the result of which, the Southold Town
Planning Board issued sketch plan approval (see Appendix No.
17) on April 2, 1987. Based on the past review and this
decision, it is felt that the alternative site layouts have
already been considered, and that no further review of the
basic layout is required.
9.~.2 - ORIENTATION
So as to prevent a degree of sameness, and to promote
individual characterization of the individual residences,
the developer plans to position and locate individual houses
on their respective lots with varying degrees of differences
in position and set-hack requirements.
9.1 - ALTERNATIVE SIT~S
The discussion of alternative sites is not germaine to the
applicant's request for the development of an "AHD"
(Affordable Housing) District at the subject location. The
applicant has title to this 26.2 acre tract, and plans to
develop this particular property in accordance with a
sensitive land planning approach, consistent with local,
state and other applicable regulations, including site
zoning. This is the only site~in the Town zoned "AHD", and
at present the only development being planned to satisfy the
market demand for moderate income housing conveniently
located with respect to community services and facilities.
It was determined that six (6) other parcels ranging in size
from 37.6 acres to 56.7 acres were potentially available
within the Town. Presently, they are all zoned "A"
(Residential and Agricultural), one of which is to be zoned
R-4~ in the Proposed Master Plan. Municipal water is, or
could be made, available to at least four (4) of the
parcels. Municipal sewer is not available to any of the six
(6) parcels. In essence, none of the other six (6) parcels
are as suited for the proposed residential density as the
Costello one on Moores Lane.
9.2 - ~TERNATIVE SI~E
There is no reasonable alternative to increasing or
decreasing the proposed development of this site for the
proposed used of affordable housing. Increasing the lot
size would increase the cost of such lots, and immediately
result in a price increase above the affordable housing
maximum cost as set by the Town of Southold.
Decreasing the lot size would ultimately result in increased
crowding, and would not be in accordance with the approved
density for this particular type of zoning, and would
require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, neither
of which is considered a reasonable alternative to project
size.
It has already be established by the number of applicants
that wish to be considered for the residential units in this
Affordable Housing District,
market demand, and community
proposed.
that there already exists a
needs in excess of what is
9~
9.3 - ALTERNATIVE LAND USE
The proposed site of the Affordable Housing Development is
suitable for a variety of uses to include the following~
0
0
0
Agriculture
Commerical or industrial facilities
Other types of housing with varying degrees of density.
This site was formerly farmland, and with clearing could be
returned to this use. An informal check of local residents
has indicated that this area has not been farmed for over
twenty-five (25) years. It has been previously established
that this site has on it a potentially productive well, and
based on the tests conducted, the water quality is one of
the best on the North Fork of Long Island. Returning this
to agricultural production, with the increased use of
fertilizer, etc., has a potential of contaminating the
groundwater with nutrients such as nitrogen, possibly
rendering this well site unusable.
The use of the site for commerical or industrial activities
was considered prior to this, and met both local resistance
from the the surrounding residential areas, as well as not
being favorably received by the Town Planning Board.
Therefore, this is now not considered an alternative land use.
91
This site was previously zoned as "A" (Residential
Agriculture) with a two (2) acre density, but subsequently
rezoned to "H" (Light Hultiple Residence), and this portion
was later rezoned again to "AHD" (Affordable Housing
District). The alternative of keeping this site in either
the "A" or the "H" zone has been thoroughly reviewed, been
the subject of public hearings, draft environmental impact
statements, and reviewed by both the Town Board and the Town
Planning Board. As a result, no further examination of land
use alternatives is considered necessary as part of this
D.E.I.S.
9.4 - NO ACTION
The no action alternative examined in this instance would be
the Town Planning Board's failure to approve this site for
affordable housing units. It is believed that such a
failure to approve the project would frustrate the efforts
of the owner, Mr. Costello, and the developers, Diane Carrol
and Donald Bracken, to undertake the development and
construction of these individual residences at a price that
will assist in helping fill the existing demand for moderate
income housing. The end result to this no action
alternative is expected to be a petition by the applicant to
again rezone the property back to either "M" or "A", so that
it could continue to be a marketable entity.
92
This would mean that the plans for ai£ordable housing would
be discontinued [or this particular site. As pre~iously
discussed there are no significant environmental impacts
pertaining to this proposed action, that ~ould be avoided ii
the Town Planning Board were to pursue the no action
alternative.
SECTION X - ALTERNATIVES - [MOORE~I~ND TOt,{N HOUSES)
1~.~ - ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES
l~,~.l - SITE LAYOUT
The present town house site layout is the result of a
comprehensive planning effort that included the development
of several alternative layouts, and the one depicted has
been selected as the best one ~hat most closely relates to
the surrounding terrain and area.
1~.~.2 - ORIENTATION
A comprehensive attempt was made during the planning effort
to locate each of the individual town house structures that
would take advantage of the existing terrain, as well as
being efficiently located as far as street access and
utility layout. Other orientation schemes were considered
in addition to the one presently shown on the Site Plan, and
after a comprehensive review and evaluation, the one
depicted was felt to be the most compatible and efficient
orientation of each of the structures. Additional
orientation schemes could be considered, of specifically
requested during the review of the Site Plan.
94
18.1 - ALTERNATIVE SITES
The discussion of alternative sites is not considered
germaine ~ith the applicant's request for the construction
of a to~n house type development at the subject location.
The applicant has title of this portion of the 48.718 Acre
tract, and ~ishes to develop it in accordance ~ith a
sensitive land planning approach, consistent ~ith local,
State, and other applicable regulations, and satisfying the
demand for mid-cost range to~n house type development
conveniently located ~ith respect to community services and
facilities.
1~.2 - ALTERNATIVE SIZE
The alternative to size of this to.n house development .ould
be to either increase or decrease the number of units on
this particular parcel. There is no question that the
alternative of reducing the number of units .ould result in
more open space, reduced use of utilities, traffic, and so
forth. However, it .ould on the other hand increase the
purchase cost of these units and eliminate the overall
purpose of development, which is to provide a mid-cost range
to~n house type unit that .ould be attractive to middle
income families ~ho ~ould not qualify for the Affordable
Housing unit, and are not effluent to the point .here they
can afford a two (2) to five (5) acre lot and the price of
construction of a house on same.
Increasing the number of units would be contrary to the
density required by its current zoning, and would also crowd
the site and make it a less attractive area, and would
definitely not be compatible with the surrounding
residential development.
The consideration of
practical one.
either alternative is not considered a
1~.3 - ALTERNATIVE LAND USE
The proposed site of the Affordable Housing Development is
suitable for a variety of uses to include the
0
0
0
Agriculture
Commerical or industrial facilities
Other types of housing with varying degrees of density.
This site was formerly farmland, and with clearing could be
returned to this use. An informal check of local residents
has indicated that this area has not been farmed for over
twenty-five (25) years. It has been previously established
that this site has on it a potentially productive well, and
96
based on the tests conducted, the water quality is one of
the best on the North Fork of Long Island. Returning this
to agricultural production, with the increased use of
fertilizer, etc., has a potential of contaminating the
groundwater with nutrients such as nitrogen, possibly
rendering this well site unusable.
The use of the site for commerical or industrial activities
was considered prior to this, and met both local resistance
from the the surrounding residential areas, as well as not
being favorably received by the Town Planning Board.
Therefore, this is now not considered an alternative land use.
This site was previously zoned as "A" (Residential
Agriculture) with a two (2) acre density, but subsequently
rezoned to "M" (Light Multiple Residence). The sketch plan
phase of this entire site thoroughly reviewed with the
Planning Board, and the zoning has been the subject of
public hearings and Draft Environmental Impact Statements.
As a result, the present zoned "M" (Light Hutiple Residence)
is considered the only one for consideration, and therefore
no further examination of land use alternatives will be
considered necessary as part of this D.E.I.S.
97
1~.4 - NO,,ACTION
The no action alternative e~amined in this instance would be
the Town Planning Board's failure to approve this site for
town house type development. It is believed that such a
failure to approve the project would frustrate the efforts
of the owner, Mr. Costello, and the developers, Diane Carrol
and Donald Bracken, to undertake the construction of these
town houses to meet the local demand of a mid-cost
residence, and it would further mean that the construction
of such units would be discontinued for this particular
site.
As previously discussed, there are no significant
environmental impact pertaining to this proposed action that
would be avoided is the Town Planning Board was to pursue
the no action alternative.
98
SECTION XI - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COI~f~fENT OF
RESOURCES - (CEDARPIELDS AFPORDABLE ROUSING
UNITS AND HOORESLAND TONN HOUSES
The proposed development of the parcel will irreversibly and
irretrievably commit the following resources to the intended
pro~ect: (1) a 48.718 acre tract of non-productive and
unused land will bear developments (2) money will be
committed for infrastructure installation and maintenance
and individual capital investments will be made in
residential premises; and (3) energy resources will be
committed to construction activity and to long-term uses for
heating, cooling and related functions.
As previously discussed in this DEIS, (1) the water provided
by the Village of Greenport will result in increased annual
pumpage, thus lessening the surplus available for other
development~ (2) existing vegetation on portions of the site
will be removed, though likely to be replaced with
comparable, or improved, native, non-endangered species~ (3)
loss of residual capacity .ill be e~perienced in existing
streets and highways~ (4) and the sewage service to be
provided the by Village of Greenport will result in
increased sewage flow. and thereby utilizing a major portion
of the very smalI remaining plant capacity available for other
development and, accordingly, emphasizing the need for capacity
improvements/expansion of the Village sewage treatment plant.
99
There is, however, no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of
resources identified that would suggest that the proposed project
be reexamined or that the proposed action should not occur.
The most significant irreversible or irretrievable commitment
would be the construction of town house type or moderate
income housing units that would negate the future
availability of the Mooresland portion of the property for
one-quarter acre lots for detached housing.
SECTION XII - GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS - (HOORESLAND TO~4N
12.1 - POPULATION
This development o£ town houses is expected to result in a
population increase of tho hundred (2~) to two hundred
fifty (25~). Most often the concerns of a development that
results in increased population is because of the impact on
the local schools. In this particular case, increase in
school age population is a plus because of the steady
decline in the school population. Reference is made to
Appendis No. 16.
would result in
exists.
Any increase in the school population
a better ratio of expense per pupil than now
SECTION XlII - EFFECTS ON THE USE ANp CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
RESOURCES - ¢CEDARFIELDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND MOORESLAND TO~N HOUSES
13.1 - PROPOSED ENERGY SOURCES, CONSUMPTION. AND ALTERNATIVES
The proposed energy use for both projects will be totally
electrical. The approximate heat energy for Cedarfields
Affordable Housing will be 6,471 k.w. per hour. The heat
energy load for the town houses was not yet available from
the Architect.
Both the Affordable Housing Units and the town house units
will use heat pumps for heating and cooling of their
respective type of unit.
It would have been highly desirable to have used gas as a
municipal heating source. Meetings were held with LILCO
engineers to explore this possibilityl and after their
review of this specific project, we were notified that gas
would not be available for either the affordable units or
for the town houses.
Oil hot air heat was an alternative consideration for the
affordable housing units, but because the design includes
only a slab on grade, and buried fuel tanks are not
permitted, this is not a viable alternative for these units.
13.2 - ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES
Both the affordable housing units and the town houses will
be constructed in strict accordance with the new New York
State Energy Conservation Construction Code, effective April
1, 1987.
1El3
APPENDIX NO.
CEDARFIELDS AND MOORESLAND
DECLARATION OF LEAD AGENCY AND
NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE EN¥IRONMENT
MARCH 12, 1987
A - 1
T
D
LD
¥
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
March 12, 1987
Mr. Merlon E. Wiggin
PResident
Peconic Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 672
Greenport, NY 11944
Re: Costello Affordable HOusing Project
Dear Mr. Wiggin:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning
Board, Monday, March 9, 1987.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare
themselves lead agency under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act for the major subdivision of Costello for 84 lots
on 26.4 acres in the affordable housing district located at
Greenport.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact
our office.
Very truly yours,
BENNETT ORLOWfiKI, JR., CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
March 9, 1987
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State
Codes, the Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, does
hereby dtermine that the action descriped below is Type I
and is likely to ~ave a significant effect on the environment.
· DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Proposal is for a subdivision of 26.4 acres into 84 residential
lots in the affordable housing district located at County
Route 48 ~nd Moore's Lane, Greenport to be referred to as
"Costello Affordable Housing Project", tax map no 1000-40-5-p/ol.
Copies mailed to :
Henry Williams, DEC Commissioner
NYS DEC at Stony Brook
Sufoflk County Department of Health S~rvices
Suffo.l~unty Planning Conunission
, F~a~_cis J~ Murphy, Supervisor
~Merlon Wiggin, agent
D
LD
Y
Southold, N.Y, 11971
(516) 765-1938
March 12, 1987
Mr. Merlon E. Wiggin
PResident
Peconic Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 672
Greenport, NY 11944
Re: Costello Affordable Housing Project
Dear Mr. Wiggin:
The following'action was taken by the Southold Town Planning
Board, Monday, March 9, 1987.
WHEREAS, John Costello, has applied to the Southold Town
Planning Board for a subdivision for 84 lots on 26.4 acres
in the affordable housing district located at County Route
48 and Moore's Lane, Greenport,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.AS FOLLOWS:
1. That pursuant to the provision of Article 8 of the
Environemntal conservation Law; Part 617.of Title 6 of the
New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44
of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Planning Board,
as lead agency, does hereby de~ermine that the action proposed
is Type I and is likely to have a significant effect on the
environment.
2. That the Planning Board shall file and circulate
such determination as required by!the aforementioned law,
rules, and code.
3. That the Planning Bord immediately notify the applicant's
agent, Merlon E. Wiggin, of this determination, and further
request said applicant's agent to prepare a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement in accordance with the scope and contents
required by the Planning Board and Town Planner, all in accordance
with said~.law, rules, and code.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact
our office.
Merlon Wiggin Page 2 3/12/87
Very truly yours,
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary
D
LD
¥
Southold. N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
April 2, 1987
Mr. Merlon Wiggin
President
Peconic Associates
One Bootleg Alley
Greenport, NY 11944
Re: Site Plan for Mooresland
located at Greenport
Dear Mr. Wiggin:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning
Board, Monday, March 30, 1987.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare
themselves lead agency under the State Environmental QUality
Review Act for the site plan for 84 townhouses located at
Moore's Lane, Greenport to be known as "Sooresland".
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact
our office.
Very truly yours,
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary
enc.
D
T(
~ ¥
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
April 2, 1987
Mr. Merlon Wiggin
President
Peconic Associates
One Bootleg Alley
Greenport, NY 11944
Re: Mooresland at Greenport
Dear Mr. Wiggin:
The following action was
Board, Monday, March 30, 1987.
taken by
the Southold Town Planning
WHEREAS, John Costello, Diane Carroll and Donald Bracken
have applied to the Southold Town Planning Board for a site
plan for 84 townhouses on 22 acres located at County Route
48 and Moores's Lane, Greenport,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That pursuatn tothelprovision of ARticle 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law,~Part 617 o~ Title 6 of the
New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44
of the Southold Twon Code,~the Southold Town Planning Board
as lead agency, does here~y determine that the action proposed
is Type I and is likely to have a significant effect on the
environment.
2. That the Planning Board shall file and ciriculate
such determination as required by the aforementioned law,
rules, and code.
3. That the Planning Board immediately notify the applicant's
agent, Merlon E. Wiggin, of this determination, and further
request said applicant's agent to prepare a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement in accordance with the scope and contents
required by the Planning Board and Town Planner, all in accordance
with said law, rules, and code.
Mr. Wiggin Page 2 4/2/87
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact
our office.
Very truly yours,
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary
T LD
¥
Southold. N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
March 30, 1987
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the environmental
Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State
Codes, the Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency does
hereby determine that the action described below is Type I
and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Proposal is for a site plan for 84 townhouses on 22 acres
located at Moore's Lane and County Route 48, Greenport to
be referred to as "Mooresland", tax map no. 1000-40-5-p/o 1.
Copies mailed to :
Henry Williams,DEC Commissiner
NY~ DEC at Stonybrook
S~ffolk County Department of Health SErvices
S~ffolk County Planning Commissin
~rancis J. Murphy, Superivsor
~Merlon Wiggin, Agent
APPENDIX NO. 2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RESOLUTION TO ADDRESS MATTER OF CONCERN
JUNE 7, 1985
A - 2
JUDITII T. TERRY
TOWN CL~:~ I~
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
T~LF~HONE
(516) 765-1801
June 7, 1985
John A. Costello
206 Wiggins Lane
Greenport, New York 119qq
Dear John:
Enclosed herewith is a "Notice of Significant Effect on the
Environment" in respect to your petition for annexation of approx-
'imately q8.7 acres of land in the unincorporated poriion of the
Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport,
which determination was the subject of a Town Board resolution
on June 4, 1985, copy enclosed herewith.
You are hereby requested to prepare a Final Environmental
Impact State, for submission by July 1, 1985, addressing those
matters of concern as outlined in the resolution, as well as those
issues raised at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement public'
hearing held on May 16, 1985.
Very truly yours,
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
cc: Peconic Associates, Inc.~-"
William W. Esseks, Esq.
JUDITII T. TERRY
TOMe CLERK
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
.NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Date: June q, 1985
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations,
and Chapter q~l of the Southold Town Code~ the Southold Town Board, as lead
· agency, upon receipt of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and public'
hearing on same, does hereby determine that the action described below is a
Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment and
has requested the filing of a Final Environmental Impact Statement.
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Petition of John A. Costello (formerly East End Associates) for the
annexation of approximately q8.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion
of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, said'property
being located at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of
North Road (CR ~8) and the easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport, New York.
Further information may be obtained by contacting Mrs. Judith T. Terry,
Southold Town Clerk, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971.
Copies to:
Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook
Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany
Southold Town Building Department
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Clerk's Bulletin Board
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Village of Greenport
John A. Costello
William W. Esseks, Esq.
Howard E. Pachman, Esq.
Peconic Associates, Inc.,
JUDITIt T. TEKKY
TOWN
Itf~GLSTIIAR OF ¥IT&~. STATISTICS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 76~-1801
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JUNE q, 1985:
WHEREAS, John A. Costello (f9rmerly East End Associates) has heretofore filed
a petition with the Town Clerk for annexation of approximately #8.7 acres of land
in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village
of Greenport, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and
Chpater qq of the Southold Town Code, the Town Board, as lead agency, determined
that the action propqsed is a Type I action'and is likely to have a significant effect
on the environment, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk did' file and circulate such determination as required by
the aforementioned law, rules and code, and
WHEREAS, John A. Costello did, upon request of the Town Board, cause to be
prepared and filed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, all in accordance with
said law, rules and code, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southo!d held a public'hearing on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by John A. Costello at the Southold
Town hall on May 16~ 1985, at which time all interested persons were given an
opportunity to speak, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby determine
that the action proposed is likely to have a significant effect on the environment,
and be it further
RESOLVED that the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, John A. Costello,
of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code, by July 1,
1985, and address the following matters of concern:
I. Address all of those issues raised at the Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment public hearing held on May 16, 1985, that were not sufficiently covered in the
DEIS.
2. At the hearing on May 16, 1985 the economic issue was addressed by more
people than any other environmental issue. In order to properly evaluate the economic
benefit vs. potential negative environmental impact, an analysis of the cost of housing
lots that would result from annexation is requested~ as well as the strategy by which
these lots will be relayed to Iow and moderate income people in need of housing, as
opposed to investors seeking to benefit from lots priced below market value.
3. Address DEIS claims made on page ~, F. Water Supply .... "This increase
in pumpage will keep total consumption well below the permissive yield in the company
service area. The water requirements of the proposed development can be supplied
by the company without impacting existing customers or preventing service to other
developments within the franchise area for which service for has been agreed to."
q. Yield of existing well. Affect of road runoff to that well. Will pumpage
pull runoff into it?
5. Alternatives: A special public improvement district (remaining in Southold .~
Town).
Page 2 - Resolution - Southold Town Board - 61~/85
Re: Request for Final ElS - Costello Annexation Petition
6. Connection to sewer = consumptive use and ocean outfall. What will
be the groundwater impact?
7. Guarantee from Greenport Village that water and sewer will be provided
if annexation takes place.
8. Guarantee from John A. Costello that on-site well will be made available
to Greenport Village.
9. Submission of appraiser's report: Page 38 .... "A professional appraiser
has advised that the annexation and calculated development would not impact the
value of adjacent homes."
~Judith T. Terry~ -
$outhold Town Clerk
APPENDIX NO. 3
CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "A" (RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL)
TO "M" (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENCE)
DECEMBER 3, 1985
A - 3
THIS IS TO' CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS
ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR
MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 3, 1985:
WHEREAS, o petition was heretofore filed with the Town Board of the
Town of Southold by ........... .J..o..h..n....A..:....C..o..s..t..e.!!~ ..........................................
requesting a change, modification and amendment of the Building Zone
Ordinance including the Building Zone Maps mode a port thereof by chang-
~An Residential and nM~r Light Multiple
ing from ......... 6g.ri...c..u.!.t..u...r..a.!.i ......... District to .............. .R...e..s.i..d..e..n...c~e. ...........
District the property described in said petition, and
WHEREAS said petition was duly referred to the Planning Board for its
investigation, recommendation and repo~, and its report having been filed
with the Town Board, and thereafter, a public hearing in relation to said
petition having been duly held by the Town Board on the ....2~1t~1 ........ day
October
of ................................................ , 19...8..5..., and due deliberation having been
had thereon
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the relief demanded in said
petition be, and it hereby is GRANTED.
DATED: December 3, lg85
~'")-JUDITH T. TERR~::;r
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
APPENDIX NO. 4
TOWN OF SOUTBOLD RESOLUTION
CHANGING A PORTION OF THE SITE FROM
"M" (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENCE) TO
"AHD" (AFFORDABLE BOUSING DISTRICT)
FEBRUARY 27, 1987
A - 4
~UDITH T. TERRY
OFFICE OF TIlE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTItOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box I 179
Southold, New York 11971
February 27, 1987
Lee E. Koppelman, Director "
Suffolk County Department of Planning
H. Lee Dennison Building - 12th Floor
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppaug~, New York 11788
Dear Dr. Koppelffan:
In accordance with the Suffolk County Charter, notice is 'hereby
given that the Southold Town Board, at their'regular meeting' held on
February 2q, 1987, granted a change of zone from "M" Light Multiple
Residence District to "AHD" Affordable Housing District to John A.
Costello, on certain property located at the intersection of Moores
Lane and County Route ~8, Greenport, Town of Southold, a copy of
which Froposal and map was transmitted {o your office on I~ecember
9, 1986..
I shall be awaitihg notifi~:ation from your Planning Commission
with respect to the effective date of this change of zone.
Very truly yours,
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
cc: John A. Costello/
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS
ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR
MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 2q, 1987:
WHEREAS, a petition was heretofore filed with the Town Board of lhe
Town of Southold by ....J. eh~.~,...C.oJ.teLIo. .................................................
requesting o change, modification and amendment of the Building Zone
Ordinance including the Building Zone hAaps made a part thereof by chang-
"Me Light Multiple nAHDe Affordable
lng from .......... Residence ............... District to ........... ~-IOdUSiI~g ................ ,
D/strict the property described in said petition, and
WHEREAS said petition was duly referred to the Planning Board for its
investigation, recommendation and report, and its report having been filed
with the Town Board, and thereafter, a public hearing in relation to said
petition having been duly held by the Town Board on the ..... ~).t,.~ ....... day
of ......... .J..a..n..~a.r.Y. ........................ , 19...8..7..., and due deliberation having been
had thereon
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the relief demanded in said
petit.ion be, and it hereby is GRANTED.
Dated: February 2q, 1987.
By Order of the Southold Town Board.*
Juditl5 1. lerry ..~r
Southold lo~n Cle~"~
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT
SOUTHOLD TOWN CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 121
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that at a meeting of the Town Board
of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, held on the 3rd day
of December, 1985, the Town Board enacted the following amendment to the
Town Code entitled, "Code of the Town of Southold", together with the
Building Zone Map forming a part thereof as follows, to wit:
Amendment No. 121 amends the Code of the Town of Southold by changing
from "A" Residential and Agricultural~ District to "M" Light Multiple Residence
District the property of' John A. Costello situated at Greenport, Town of
$outhold, and more particularly bounded and described as follows:
BEGINNING at the point of Intersection of the easterly line of Moore's
Lane with the southerly line of Middle Road .(County Road 48), said point
being the northwesterly corner of the premises herein described; running
thence along said southerly line of Middle Road three courses: (1) North 66
degrees, 09 minutes, 10 seconds East 96.61 feet; thence (2} North 69 degrees,,
02 minutes, 10 seconds East 985.10 feet; thence (3) North 71 degrees 28
minutes ;Z0 seconds East 312.64 feet to the westerly line of a subdivision known
as "Fleetfield"; thence along said westerly line of "Rleetfield", South 16 degrees
01 minutes 50 seconds East 1450.11 feet to land of Village of Greenport; thence
APPENDIX NO. 5
SITE PLAN SK-1
NOT ENCLOSED
SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL DRAFT
A - 5
APFENDIX NO. 6
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN & ELEVATION OF THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
NOT ENCLOSED
SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL DRAFT
A - 6
E,I.S.
APP~.NDIX NO. 7
SCOPlNG CHECKLIST
A - 7
D
LD
Y
8outhold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
March 17, 1987
Merlon Wiggin, President
Peconic Associates
One Bootleg Alley
Greenport, NY 11944
Re: EIS Process for "Mooresland"
and Costello Affordable Housing
Dear Mr. Wiggin:
Upon consultation with David Emilita, the Board feels
that:a dombined EIS process is the most comprehensive and
expedient method to evaluate the two projects. Consequently,
one EIS should be prepared containig text sections pertinent
to either one or the other development or a combined section
when addresslng undifferentiated impacts. We have prepared
a single scoping checklist based on your two checklists and
on input from the Town Board, that contains a suggested treatment
of each section. Please review'it and if agreeable use it
as your outline for the EIS.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact
the Planning Board office or David Emilita.
dms
enc.
CC'
o
Town Board
John.Costello
Donald Bracken
Diane Carroll
Very truly yours,
~ri~Jr~., J C h~a~
Southold Town Planning Board
Introduction
The following checklist of topics is intended
as a starting point for developing a detailed scope
for a project-specific Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Typi.cally, no one project will require a
discussion of all the topic areas contained in this
document. Through the scoping process, this list of
topics should be refined to reflect issues unique to
the proposed project. Topic areas may be delete~,
added, or elaborated upon, to arrive at the final
scoping document.
The purpose of the checklist format is to
identify the basic topic areas for the Draft ElS. This
is accomplished by reviewing the iisi and placing a
check in the box located to the lelt of those topics
which should be discussed. The model scoping
checklist can also be used as a worksheet, including
comments, suggestions and identification of the
>articular example(s) that are relevant to a detailed
discussion of the topic or issue that has been check-
ed. ConverseLy, those topics which are not checked,
are issues not associated with the pr6ject, and may
be eliminated from discussion in the Dr,~ft ElS.
Minimum requirements for any Draft ElS are
already checked for convenience. .
The next step is to expand ~he list to include
or elaborate on those topics unique to the proposed
project. A blank sheet is included at the end of the
checklist for such additional information.
The scoping process involves several steps in
addition to compiling a list of topics. Scoping also
includes discussior's on the quantity and quality of
information required and the methods for obtaining
that data.
HOTE: This checklist was designed to be
used in conjunction with the section on scoping con-
tained in the SEQR Guideline-Dralt and Final EIS's.
It is also important to emphasize that this checklist
should serve only as a model to assist in the scoping
of a Draft FI$. It should not be used as a substitute
for actively soaping a Draft ElS for a specific pro-
act.
~.~ I. Cover Sheet ~ ,
All ElS's (Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover
sheet that Indicates:
A. Whether it is a draft or final statement
B. Hame or other descriptive title of the project
C. Location (county and town, village or city) of
the project
D. Hame and address of the lead agency which
required preparation of the statement and
the name and telephone number of a person
at the agency to be contacted for .further
formation
E. Hame and address of the preparers of any
portion of the statement and a contact name
and telephone number
F. Dar& of acceptance of the Draft ElS
G. In the case of a Draft ElS, the deadline date
by which comments are due should be in..
dicated
~ II. Table of Contents and Summary ,.
A table of contents and a brief summa~ are re-
quired for Draft and Fined E[$'s exceeding ]0 pages
in length. However, one should Include there
features in any size ElS to provide the review agency
with easy reference to ElS topics.
The summary should include:
A. Brief description of the action
B. Significant, beneficial and adverse Impact~
(issues of controversy must be specified)
C. h~itigation measures proposed
D. Alternatives considered
E. Matters to be decided (.permits, approvals,
funding)
III. Description of the Proposed Action :
Place a check in the box' to-tTi~left of those
topics to be included in the draft ElS.
~) ~, PROJECT PURPOSE AHD HEED
I~,,-I. Background and history
· .j(~_.2. Public need for the project, and
municipality objectives based on
community development plans
(~L~3. Objectives of the project sponsor : ~ -
[] B. LOCATIOH
· ,'1. Establish geographic boundaries of the
project (use of regional and local scale
maps is recommended)
I,~E. Description of access to site
1#,.~3~. Description of existing zoning of propos.
ed site '
4. Other:
J~J C. DESIGH AHD LAYOUT
t,~!. Total site area
a.)proposed impervious surface area
(roofs, parking lots, roads)
b.) amount of land to be cleared
c.) open space
{..,"2. Structures
a.)gross leaseable area ((]LA), if ap-
plicable
b.)layout of buildings (attached. enclos-
ed, separate)
c.) site plans and profile views
~ Parking
a.) pavement area
b.) number of spaces and la..y~)ut
~ 4. Other:
J~' D. COHSTRUCTIOH AHD OPERATIOH
L..,"~. Construction
a.) total construction period anticipated
b.)schedule of construction '
c.) future potential development, on site
or on adjoining properties
cl.)other:
2. Operation
a.) type of operation
b.) schedule of operation
c.) other:
[] E. CLOSURE AHD POST CLOSURE PLAHS
(for projects of planned limited life such as
~ ~,"'~and fills)
~F. APPROVALS
I. Required changes or variances to the zon-
ing regulations
2. Other permit approval or funding re-
quirements
IV. Environmental Setting
Place a check in the box to the left of those
topics to be included in the Drait ElS.
Hatural Resources
~ A. GEOLOGY
r"J ]. Subsurface
a.)composition and thickness of
subsurface material
examples:
--depth to. and nature of. bed-
rock formations and imperme-
able layers
--occurrence of an extractive
mineral resource
--usefulness as construction
material
b.) earthquake potential
~' 2. Surface
t..,~.) list of soil types
,1~1:~.) discussion of soil characteristics
,r examples:
--physical properties (indication
of sous hydrological (Infiltra-
tion) capabilities)
--eng!neering properties '(soil
bearing capacity)
c.) distribution of soil types at pro-
ject site
~,~1.) suitability Ior use
examples:
--agriculture
--recreation
--construction
--mining
e.) other: "
~3. Topography
~.a.) description of topography at pro-
ject site ......
examples:
--slopes
--prominent or unique features
b.) description of topography of sur-
rounding area
J~ B. WATER RESOURCES
~ I. Groundwater
I,,,~.)location and description of
aquifers and recharge areas
examples:
--depth to water table
--seasonal variation
--quality
--quantity
--flow
C-2
.C
/ b.) identification of present uses an~l
level of use of groundwater
examples:
--location of existing wells
--public/private water supply
--industrial uses
--agricultural uses
[] 2. Surface water
a.) location and description of sur-
face waters located on project
site or those that may be in-
fluenced by the project
examples:
--seasonal variation
--quality
--classification according to
Hew York State Department of
Health .-
b.) identification o1' uses and level of
use of all surface waters
examples:
--public/private water supply
--industrial uses
--agricultural uses
--recreation
c.) description of existing drainage
areas, patterns and channels
d.)discussion of potential for
flooding, siltation, erosion and
eutrophication of water sources
-1 C. AIR RESOURCES
[] I. Climate
a.) discussion of seasonal variations
and extremes
examples:
--temperature
--humidity
--precipitation
--wind
2~ Air quality
a.) description of existing air quality
levels
examples:
--list the Hational and State Air
Quality Standards lot the pro-
ject area and the compliance
status for each standard
b.) identilication st existing sources
or pollutants-fixed or mobile
c.)identlflcation of any sensitive
receptors in project area
examples:
--hospitals, schools, nursing
homes, parks
d.)description of existing monitor.
lng program (If applicable)
~D. TERRESTRIAL AHD AQUATIC
ECOLOGY.
~' !. Vegetation '
~-e.) list vegetation types on the pro.
ject site and within the surround-
lng area
*.~b.)discussion of site vegetation
characteristics
examples:
--species present and abundance
--age
--size
--distribution
mdominance
--community types
--unique. rare and endangered
species
--vstue as habitat for wildlife
--productivity
D 2. Fish and Wildlife
a.) list of fish and wildlife species on
the project site and within aur.
rounding area, including
migrat?.ry and resident species
b.)discussion of fish and wildlife
population characteristics
examples:
· --species present and abundance
--distribution
--dominance
--unique, rare and
species
--productivity
[] ,3. Wetlands
a.) list wetland areas within or con-
tiguous to the project site
b.) discuss wetland characteristics ,
examples:
--acreage
--vegetative cover
--classification
--benefits of wetland such as
flood and erosion control,
~' A. TRAHSPORTATIOH
J-~° 1. Transportation services
,.,,a.) description of the size. capacity
and condition of services
examples:
~roads, canals, railroads,
bridges
~parklng facilities
~traffic control
t.,'~.) description of current level ~f use
of services
examples:
~a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic
flow
--vehicle mix
~sources of existing traffic
volume
[] 2. Public transportation
a.)description of the current
availability of service
b.)description alr present level of
[-1 3. Pedestrian environment
[] 4. Other:
'~-~B. LAHD USE AHD ZOHIHG
~"1. Existing land use and zoning
~description of the existing land
use of the project site and the
surrounding area
. examples:
~commercial
--residential
--agricultural
--business
--retail
--industrial
~vacant
L..b.) description of the existing zoning
of site and surrounding area
[] 2. Land use plans
a.) description of any land use plans
or master plans which include
project site and surrounding area
b.) discussion of future development
trends or pressures
[] 3. Other:
£-4
COMMUHITY SERVICES (for this section in-
clude a list of existing facilities and a discus-
sion of existing levels of usage and pro-
Jected future needs)
[~'1. Educational facilities
~2. Police protection
~'"3. Fire protection
~"4. Health care facilities
~ 5. Social services
~6. Recreational facilities
[~'~. Utilities
[] 8. Other:
[~ D. DF_J6OGRAPHY
[~"~. Population characteristics
~e~'discussion of the existing popula-
tion parameters
examples:
--distribution
~density
--household size and composi-
tion
b.)discussion of projections for
population growth
[] 2. Other:
[~E. CU,~vTURAL RESOURCES
I~J I. Visual resources
~'~.)description of the physical
character of the community
example:
--urban vs, rural
~:~description of natural areas of
significant scenic value
c.)identification Of structures of
significant architectural design
[] 2. Historic and archaeological
resources
a.)location and description of
historic areas or structures listed
on State or PlatlonaJ Register or
designated by the community
b.)identilication of sites having
potential significant ar-
chaeological value
A
3. Hoise
a.) identification of existing level of
noise in the community
b. identification of major sources of
noise
examples:
--airports
--major highways
-- industrial/commercial facili-
ties
[] 4. Other:
~ 0~ ~.~ V. Significant Environmental Impacts
'~ ~;~ ~ Identify those aspects of the environmental set-
. - /ting in Section !V that may be adversely or
f~'~/~ ]beneficially affected by the proposed action and re.
~(2~ ] quire discussion. '~
~l~l VI. Mitigation h~easures to t41nimlze Envlronmen-
~ tal impact
Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential
adverse impacts identified in Section V. The follow-
ing is a brief listing of typical measures used for
some of the major areas of impact.
Hatural Resources
t~ [] A. GEOLOGY
I. Subsurface
a.) use excavated material for land
reclamation
b.)use facility wastes (ash. sludge)
for land reclamation
c.) other:
~,,'~. Surface
a.)use topsoil stockpiled during
construction for restoration and
· landscaping
b.)minimize disturbance of non.
construction sites
c.I design and implement soil era-
sion control plan
d.) other:
3. Topography
a.) a¥oid construction on areas o1'
steep slope
b.)design adequate soil erosion
devices to protect areas o1' steep
slope
c.) other:
[~ B. WATER RESOURCES
I. Groundwater
t.,,,~'a.) design adequate s~,stem of treat.
ment for stormwater runoff prior
to recharge of groundwater
t.....b.) maintain permeable areas on the
site
c.) institute a program for monitor.
lng water quality in adjacent
wells
d,) other:
2. Surface water
a,) ensure use of soil erosion control
techniques during construction
and operation to avoid siltation
examples:
~hay bales
~temporary restoration of
vegetation to disturbed areas
~landscaping
· ~ design adequate stormwater con.
trol system
c.) restrict use of salt or sand for
road and parking area snow
removal
d,) avoid direct discharges to surface
water resources
e.) other:
[~C. AIR RESOURCES
I. Air quality
b,.a.) assure proper construction prac-
tices
examples: ~
--fugitive dust control
--proper_ operation and
maintenance of construction
equipment
b.)design tra[fic improvements to
reduce congestion and vehicle
delay
c.)install and ensure the proper
operation of emission control
devices
d.) initiate f~ program lot monitoring
of air quality -
e.) other:
C-5
TERRESTRIAL Al'ID AQ(JATIC ECOLOGY'S/.'
I. Vegetation
,I
i,,,.a.) restrict clearing to only those
areas necessary
k,~*b.) preserve part of site as a natural
i,,~c.) after construction, landscape site
with naturally occurring vegeta-
tion
d.)purchase open space at another~
location and dedicate to Iocal~
government or conservation
organization
e.) other:
2. Fish and Wildlife
a.) provide adequate habitat (shelter
and food) for remaining wildlife
species
b.)schedule construction to avoid
sensitive periods of fish and
wildlife life cycles
c.) other:
Human Resources
TRAPISPORTATIOH
!. Transportation services
t,.,-e.) design adequate and safe access
to project site to handle pro.
jected traffic flow
b.)install adequate traffic control
devices
t~"c.) optimize use of parking areas ·
d.) encourage car pooling and opera.
tion of facility during non-peak
traffic times
e.)design special routing and
restricted hours for delivery truck
tralfic
L) other:
2. Public transportation
a.)adjust public transportation
routes and schedules to service
the facility
b.) encourage use of public transpor-
tation by using incentive pro-
grams for employees or by sell.
lng tickets in facility
c.) other:
LAHD QSE AND ZOHIH(~
I. Existing land use and zoning
~ a.) design project to comply with ex.
Istlng land use plans
~,~b.) design functional and visually ap.
pealing faculty to set standard
and precedent for future
surrounding land use
c.) other:
CO/~/~UHITY SERVICES
1. Police protection
a.) minimize local police protection
responsibilities by providing
private security force
b.) provide security systems, alarms
for facility
c.) provide equipment, funds or sar.
vices directly to the community
d.) other:
l,,~'2. Fire protection
i,,,--a.) use construction material,: the
minimize fire hazards
~ b.)lnco, rporate sprinkler and alarm
systems into building design
c.) provide equipment, funds or aer-
~,ices directly to the community
d.) other:
t..,,,'-3. Utilities
~,--,'a.) inst all utility services
undergrorJnd
t..,.,'b.) incorporate-water saving fLxtures
into facility design
l--"c.) incorporate energy-saving
measures_ into .facility' design
. ~"~'d.) at her:
CULTURAL 'RESOURCES
~. Visual resources
.,,,~a.) design exterior of structure to
physically blend with existing
surroundings
~...-b.) minimize- visual impact through
thoughtful and innovative design
of lighting and signs (consider:
height, size. intensity, glare and
hours of lighting operation)
*~"~'c.) design landscaping to be visually
pleasing and to serve as a buffer
between surrounding land uses,
parking areas, operational equip-
ment and facilities
d.) other:
C-6
2. Historic and archaeologic resources
a.)allow historical and ar-
chaeological officials access to
the project site during excavation
b.)devote space within project site
to a display of historical and ar-
chaeological artifacts of local in.
rarest
c.)preserve architecturally algnifi.
cant structures and make a
photographic and statistical
record of those that must be
destroyed
d.)other:
u~J?'~. Hoise
~,..,.-o:) schedule construction/operation
to occur during "normal
business" hours minimizingz
noise impact during .sensitive
times (early morning, night)
~'"'b.) assure adherence to construction
noise standards
c.) design berms and landscaping to
block and absorb noise
d.) other:
VII. Adverse Environmental Effects that Canno!
be Avoided if the Project is Implemented
Identify those adverse environmental effects in
Section V that can be expected to occur regardless
of the mitigation measures considered in Section
VI.
VIII. Alternatives
This section contains categories of alternatives
with examples. Discussion of each alternative
should be at a level sufficient to permit a com-
parative assessment of costs, benefits and en-
vironmental risks for each alternative- It is not ac-
ceptable to make simple assertions that a particular
alternative is or is not feasible. Identify those
categories of alternatives which should be included
in the ElS by placing a check in the box located to
the left of the topic.
t
~"A. ALTERHATIVE DESIGH AHD;
TECHIIOLOGIES
I~"'1'. Site layout
a.) density and location of structures
b.) location of access routes, park,
lng and utility routes
~,,,~2. Orientation
a.)compatlbllity with slope and
drainage patterns - ' ~
b.)site size and setback re;I
qulrements
3. Technology -.
a.) pollution control equlp, ment
b.)innovatlve vs. proven
technologies
4. J~ix of activities .-'-
a.)addition of business, es which
would affect the operational
nature of the facility
[~'~3'. ALTERHATIVE SITES
b,-.'-i. Limiting factors
a.) av.ailability of ·land
b.) suitability of alternate site to ac.
comodate design requirements
c.) availability of utilitiea
d.) suitable market area
e.) compatibility with local zoning
and master plan
f.) compat, i. bill~y with regional ob-
jectives
g.) accessibility of site to transporta-
tion routes and the service
· population
ALTERHATIVE SIZE
Increase or decrease project size to
minimize possible impacts
Increase or decrease project size to
correspond to market and com.
munity needs
[] D. ALTERHATiVE COHSTRUCTIOH/OPERA-.'
TIOH SCHEDULIHG
I. Commence construction at a dif-
ferent time
2. Phase construction/operation
3. Restrict construction/operation
work schedule
A
^LTER,^TIYE LAHD USE lu,
~..f~SUitabillty of site for other uses
a.) other types of commercial uses
b.)other types of industry
~ different types of housing
d.) other:.
2. Public vs. private use
riO ACTIOn
~ Impacts of no action
a.) effect on public need C
b.) effect on private developers' need-
c.)beneficial or adverse en-
vironmental impacts
[] {3. OTHER:
IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of
Resources
Identify those natural and human resources listec~
in Section IV that will be consumed, converted at
made unavailable for future use.
X. Growth Inducing Aspects
Describe in this section the potential growth
aspects the proposed project may have. Listed
below are examples of topics that are typically aL
fected by the growth induced by a project.
E~A. POPULATIOH
I. Increases in business and resident
population due to the creation or
relocation of business
~,,'2. Increases in resident population due
to the construction of housing
[] B. SUPPORT FACILITIES
!. Businesses created to serve the in-
creased population
2. Service industries created to supply
new facility
C. DEVELOPMEHT POTEHTIAL
I. Introduction or improvement o1' in-
frastructure (roads. waste disposal.
sewers, water) lo service proposed
project
2. Creation o! further growth potential
by construction of improved in-
J'rastructur e
[] D. OTHER:
Xl. Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy
Resources
Identify the energy sources to be used, an._
tlclpated levels of consumption and ways to reduce
energy consumption. The examples listed below are
typical issues to be considered when addressing this
topic.
J~A. PROPOSED EHERGY SOURCES ^fiD
ALTERHATIVES
C-8
~1~. AHTICIPATED SHORT-TER/~/LOUG-TER/~I
LEVELS OF EUERGY COHSU/VtPTIOH
[] C. IHDIRECT EFFECTS OH EHERGY COl~l.
SU~PTIOH
t. Increased dependence on
automobile use
~' 2. Increased levels of traffic du~e to pro. :-
posed project · ,~,
[~'1~. EHERGY COHSERVATIOH ME~SQRE~
~ Design methods to reduce fuel use .: .~.
for heating, cooling, and lighting
i,.--~.) conventional technology
examples:
--insulation
--thermopane windows
--use of Iow wattage lights
~,,,b.) innovative technology
examples:
--heat pumps
--solar panels
--wind energy
--use of waste heat from an in- '
dustrial plant
~.-~ryefficient layout
examples: -~.,~.
--orientation of structures tn -
relation to. summer and winter "
sunlight
t,,.,,--clustering of structures to
maximize common walls
b,,-~shortening of utility runs
~,,--shared insulation and heating
2. Indirect energy benefits
a.) Iocalion and design of facilily to
accomodate mass transit
b.) use of shuttle buses '
location of facility to minimize
c.)
travel distance
[] E. OTHER:
.:
XII. Appendices
Following is a list of materials typically used in
support of the F-IS,
A. List of underlying studies, reports and infor-
mation considered and relied on in preparing state.
ment
B. List all federal, state, regional, or local agen-
cies, organizations, consultants and private persons
consulted in preparing the statement
C. Technical exhibits (ii: &ny) at a legible scale
D. Relevant correspondence regarding the pro-
jects may be included (required in the Final F-IS)
Additional Draft ElS Scoping Topics
Indicate any additional topics for discussion in th~'
Draft £1S. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
~EPAT~OWSKI
ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
............. iii ii i
TO:
RE:
FROM=
DATE=
Southold Planning Board
Costello Rezoning DEIS
David Emilita
11/25/85
The Planning Board should go on 'record with regard to the Costello
Rezoning DEIS. The DEIS is basically very similar to the one
prepared for the former annexation effort and so much of its
content has been reviewed and commented on previously. This
project, however, has potentially significant and different
impacts from the annexation and these need to be addressed. These
are as follows: ~
1) =M' Zone vs 'HD' District
The #H' Zone will not entirely accomplish the applicants stated
desire, that is to produce affordable single family lots. Nor
will it in itself accomplish affordable housing of any kind. It
is thus recommended that the 'HD' District be applied to this site
as soon as feasible. In the interim, covenants and restrictions
should be utilized or a rezoning conditioned on the provision of
affordable housing as,defined by the Town.
2) Impact on on-site-well
It has not been clearly demonstrated what effect that 180
dwellings on 48 acres will have on an on-site well in terms of
recharge quality. Input from the V~llage water system and the
County Health Department would seem necessary in this regard.
Existing water quality in the test well is acceptablew but there
will be a loss of recharge due to consumptive use and wastewater.
collection, and there will be an introduction of lawn fertilizers
and other household contaminants into the recharged g{oundwater.
The impact on groundwater, (and the on-site well} has not been
stated.
Input from the Village of Greenport's water system and from the
Suffolk County Department of Bealth would also seem necessary in
the event that one or both public utilities would prove to be
unavailable. ( A letter from the Health Department on the
annexation alternative is included in this DEIS. We don't feel
this is acceptable as a review of this project under SEQR.)
In conclusion, we agree with the stated merits of the rezoning
proposed, but some conditions need to be placed on it to assure
the Town that the stated purpose will be achi~¥ed.
DE/jmb
APPENDIX NO. 8
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN & ELEVATION OF THE
TONN HOUSE BUILDING UNITS
NOT ENCEOSED
SUBMITTED WITH ORIGINAL DRAFT
A - H
APPENDIX NO. 9
TEST HOLE DATA SHEETS
A - 9
Name:
SU~yOr!
Location:
Tax Map Number:
Project Description:
Date:
Comments:
Costello
Gre~nport
Drainage
4/22/87
M r.n
Box 1000 · Southokl. ~ Yodt 11g'}'1 · (518J 7~5-36T/
TEST HOLE DATA SHEET
Peconic Assoc. Boring
Dark brown loam
1.4'
14'
Brown coarse and very coarse sands with 20-4fP~' gravel
Water in brown coarse ~nd very coarse sand
I_omtion:
T~u~ M~p ~uml~r:
Dato:
Costeilo
Greenport
Drainage
4/22/87
........... 3.5'
........... 7.5'
......... 12'
.......... 13.5'
18'
Comments:
Box 1(3(]0 · ~outhold. ~I~/Yot~ 11971 · (S16)
TEST HOLE DATA ~HEET
Broom coarse sand with 3~gravel
Brownish grey sandy silt with 15% gravel
Greyish brown silty sand
Water in pale brown coarse sand
Surveyor:
Location:
Tax Map Number:
ProjeCt Description:
Date:
BOX 1000 · Southotd. New YO¢¢ 11971 s (516) 765-3677
TEST HOLE DATA SHEET
Costello Peconic Assoc. Boring
Greenport
Drainage
4/22/87
Dark brown sandy loam
Brown coarse and very coarse sand %~ith 15% .gravel
{some layers 507~I oravel)
10'
Comments: Borin~ st~?~ed by heav}' .3ravel
NBme:
Surveyor:
Location:
Tax Map Number:
Project Description:
Date:
BOx 1000 · SouthoIcl, ,1~/YO~ 11971 · (516) 765-3677
TEST HOLE DATA SHEET
Cos~ello Peconic Assoc. Boring ~f~
Greenport
Drainage
4/22/87
Bro~ sandy silt
Brown coarses sand with greater than 50% gravel
Water in bro~t coarse sand ~[1] ~reater than 50~ ~ravel
.......... ~ 8.5'
Water in bro~ coarse and very coarse sand ~ith 20~ Gravel
13'
Comments:
APPENDIX NO. 1~
LISTING OF COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES
648
Services
ANIMAL SHELTERS & POUNDS
Babylon ........................................... 643-9270
Brookhevon ...................................... 288-4940
Huntington ...................................... 757-8180
I~llp ................................................. 224-5660
am)thrown ....................................... 360-7675
~outhamptan ...................................653-5900
~octhold .......................................... 765-1911
Bide-A-Wee Hmne Aiioolaton. In~.
O~d Counuy Rd.. Weathampton .......... 325-0200
Hunthlgtan Dog Club, Inc.
I. Jt tin Sheher, 33 Wat~er Rd ............... 368-8770
Kent Animal Shelter
Calvmton ........................................ 727-5731
Ninth Shore Animal League
Port Washington .............................. 883-7575
The G~eteful Pew Cat Shelter
104 Deposit Road
East ~ ................................. 757-4517
BLOOD DONATIONS
MelvIHe: 155 Dufyse Road .................. 752-7300
Petchogue: 7799 South Strset ............ 289-1414
CIVIL SERVICE
Suffolk County ................................. ~48-5400
New Yo~ State ....................... I212I 488-4248
Federal Job Irdom~ton Center.(212) 264-0422
CONSUMER SERVICES
Acta Repair Compblnte ........... (800) 342-3823
Better OuMne~ Bureau of Long Island
Advises on pre-pu¢chase inquide$
and recmds complaima on long Island
companies ...................................... 420-0500
Federal Communication
CommisSion ................. (212) 620-3438/3437
~uffolk Comity Office of Consumer Affairs
Hauppauge .....................................360-4600
Riven~eed ....................................... 548-3456
Energy Complaints ........................... 548-3459
Weights & Measures Division ............. 548-3459
To check on whether a home
improvement contractor is licensed .....360-4588
New Yo~k State Office of the
Attorney General .............................. 360-6196
New York State Public Sewlce Commission
Complaints call ....................... (212} 21 g-3550
Communications ..................... (212) 488-5330
Electric .................................. (212) 219-3550
Gas ....................................... (212) 219-3550
Water (non-municipal) .............. (212I 219-4390
COURTS
New York Supreme Court
Rive~head ...................................... 548-3785
Nouppauge ................................... 360- 5462
Central Jury Department ................ 360-4503
Small Claims Court
See closes! District Co~rt
Suffolk Co~nty Court ........................ 548-3185
8u.ogate Court ............................... 548-3666
Family Court (Goal Info. I ................... 360-4274
D~stricts Courts:
Central Traffic ................................ 360-4556
First District:
Civil ............................................... 360-5400
Criminal ......................................... 360-5355
Tralfic ............................................ 360-4556
COURTS (cont.)
8M:~,ld Dtatdnt - Babylon ................. 669-6100
Third DiMrlnt - Huntington Station .....423-3200
Fourth Dictrict- Hanppaugo ........... 360- S406/7
Fifth District - Bay Shore .................. 666-2600
Sixth District - Patchogue .................289-3600
EMPLOYMENT & UNEMPLOYMENT
NYS Dept. of Labor, J~b 5ewlce DMeion
Boy Shore ........................................ 668-O206
Houppauge ...................................... 360-6~00
Huntington Station ........................... 673-1500
Petchogue ....................................... 758-7700
RivMheed ........................................ 727-4340
Unemployment:
Bay Shoql ........................................ 666-7480
Heuppeugo ...................................... 360-6501
Huntington Station.. ........................... 673-1530
Pctchoguo ....................................... 758-'/777
Riverheed ........................................ 727-4340
FEDERAL JO5 INFO ................ (212) 264-0422
Federal Wage & Hour Division ........... 727-4340
WMk~'a Compensation Board
Hompataad .................................... 486-4300
~ New YMk State ..................... {718) 802-6600
HOUSING
HouMnB & Heat Complalnte ...360-3000 Ext. 40
Suffolk Community
Development Carp ......................... 698-8201
Suffolk Housing Service .................... 724-6820
Mortgage Default Counseling Service
Rent Control, Nev~ York State ............ 481-9494
HUMAN RIGHTS
Suffolk Cncnty Human RIgbta Commia~lon
65 Jetson lane, Central Isllp .............. 348-6380
New Ymk State Corem)se)on
Hampstsed ..................................... 538-1360
Now York State Civil Ubort]oa Union
Do)ends individual ))bert)ns guaranteed
by the Bill o! Rights. Suffolk Chapter:'
1600 Isfip Ava, Bremwood ................ 234-9403
LAW ENFORCEMENT
(local Police are liated on Page 1 )
Suffolk County:
H{H)is~ct 360 4161
Attorney
auppange ..................................... -
Riverhead'. ...................................... 548-3500
Jail ................................................ 548-3200
Police Department ......................... 286-6000
Probation Depertmonta
Bay Shore ....................................... 666-2600
Hauppauge ..................... 360-5337, 360-5250
Rive~heacl ....................................... 548-3800
Yaphank ......................................... 924-4300
Sherlff'a Office
Rivarhaad ....................................... 548-3200
Wssthampton ................................. 288-3700
FBI
Hauppauge ..................................... 234-1166
For 24-hour service .................. {212)553-2700
New York State Police ...................... 277-6190
New '~'ork State Park Police
Babylon .......................................... 669-2500
N.Y. State Division of Parole
Nassau-Suffol~
Hempstead ..................................... 48B-2660
LEGAL SERVICES
4~ou need an attorney, look ~n the
~ified section under 'Lawyers'
m the elphebmical eection (white pages)
...... 548-3782
e Co~p.....560.6934
d Aid Society of Suffolk County
~kml Division:
~fhead .......................................548-3366
~uppauge .....................................360-5212
~ommittce, Inc. IN&s~eu-Suffolkl
Shore ....................................... 666-1225
~npatead ..................................... 292-6100
41,,en~ead ....................................... 369-1112
MOTOR VEHICLES
' Motor Vehicle Infmmetlon Bureau
Permits, Registrations
k~tam & Western Suffolk
~merel Info~metlon .......................... 369-0500
, II~ Shota- 1700 Union BIvd·
emppauge-Veterans Memorial Hwy
~twfhead-Routa 58
Dept. of Motor Vehicles
Office Bldg., Hauppauge 11787
~.~,,~era-Auta Schools ....... ; ............... 360-6316
~t ............................ 360-6321,24
.360-6315.19
360-6316
I(ATURALIZATION & IMMIGRATION
Sewtce
Justice
,4Federal Plaza. N.Y. 10278....(212) 206-6500
PASSPORTS
Center ! 1901 ....................... 548-3432
~ :,~afied copy of birth certificate raised
~,vers license or identifying witness with
photos 2x2 - head and shoulders -
colored, non-glossy
check o~ money order
18 $42.00 new passport. $35.00 renewal
Io certain foreign countries
show p~oof of immunization.
call ............................. 548-3432
U.S. COAST GUARD
...261-6868
661-9100
:?~dEnd ......................................... 728-1171
Services
LICENSE~" ' '
RECORDS,
CERTIFICATES "'
6abylon ............................ ;:....;......957,3005 !!
Brookhevcn .................................... 654-7600
Eeet Hampton ......... '...~ ......... o:..324-4142
Huntington ........................~LL...,.,.361-3206
lellp ........................................... ;. 224-6490.
Rlverheed ' .... '~27
Shelter Island ....................... ;.;...;...749,1166,,
Smtthtown .................... ;~.~ ........ ;,.360-7620 .
,Southampton ..................... , .... 263-6000
Southold ...................: .............. -,..765-1801
Suffolk County Clerk ....................... 54~:3432.
Mmtgage info~mation, documents and.
records on file or to be fi~ed
SOCIAL SERVICES '
Public Alaietlnc ' ° '
· Imormatlon ......... ;.348-4000
Food Stampe Infomtatlon.....:....,......348.40¢~.. ;'
TAX INFORMATION' ;,~..
4;LS. Government: .... ' ' .
Internal Revenu# Service : ,:,..
Federal income tax information. .
forms & assistance ........................... 724-5000:
444 Rome 111, Smithtown 1,i787
518 E. Main St., Riverhead
New Yon~-State of:. ' ·
Department of Taxation & Finance ~ ~ ~
State Office Building, Veterans' .~:. '
Memodal Highway, HmJppauge 11787 ,' '., ?""*,
Income Tax A~elatance ....,.....1800) 342-3536.
Estate Tax ................................ 360-6280 .'~
Income Tax forms .................. ~800} 462-8100 ,
~alen Tax .............................. (800) 342-3536
Tax Compliance .................. : ......... :360-6744
Allother matters .................. , ......... 360-6700 '
,
VETERANS -
SuffOlk County Veterans Service Agency; ....
Centras p. · ....... 348-5490
.,v.,he.d ......... : .......... :::::::::::::::::::::::::
V.A. Hospital & Drug Unit · "
Brooklyn ................................ (718) 636-6600
Northport ....................... ;.:.....: ....... 261-4400
Veterans Administration
Regional Office ............. ,.....:....(212) 620-6901
su- VOTER INFORMATION
nolk County Board of Elections
For info;marion on registration, enrollment -
primary elections, general elections,
;~
General information .. 924-4300
Sufolk County League of ::,
Won~en Voters ................................. 761-Q868 '
· ,...,-
APPENDIX NO. 11
GREENPORT WATER DEPARTMENT
REGULATIONS FOR SYSTEM SUSTAINED AND SELF-SUSTAINED
WATER SUPPLY CATEGORIES
A- 11
BE IT RESOLVED that the requlstions of the Greenport Hater
Department are hereby ammended as follows;
All applications for water hook up to the Greenport Water
System which lie outs£de the village boundaries and which sro nob
in sub-divisions of four lots or less, shall be either one of two-
cataqories~ 1) Catasory A - System Sustained, or 2) Catasory E -
sell-sustained.
APPLICANT -- any person or firm makinq
application for connection to the Greenport Hater System.
CATAGOR¥ A - S¥STBH SUSTAINED - any sub-
division, development or facility which is dependent on the
Greenport Water System to provide water to the subdivision, deve-
lopment or facility without contributinq at least the same amount
of water as the projected demand to be used by the subdivision,
development or ~ac~[~ky.
.CATAGORY B - SELF-SUSTAINED - Any sub-
division, development or facility ~hich provides water equal to or
in excess of pro~ected demand, whether on-site or off-site.
NAJOR SUBDIVlSlOM - Any subdivision of land
resultinq in more than four (4) buitdinq lots.
MINOR SUBDIVISION - Any subdivision of land
resultinq in [our (4) or less buitdinq tots.
OFF-SIT~ SYSTEN - any water production
system which is not on the site of the applicant.
OH SITB SYSTBI4 -- any water production
system which is on the site of the applicant.
PRO~ECTBD DBHAND - that water demand which
is anticipated to be used by the subdivision, development 0r faci-
lity as determined by the superintendent of the village water
department.
WA?Be QURLI?~ .~ ~at water which is
suitable for human consumption by compliance with the para=eters
eetabLlshed by the U.S., the State of New York, the County of
SuffoLk and the Suprintendan~ of Utilities.
CRTRGORY ~ -- SYSTEM SUS?A~NSD &PPLIC&?IONS
I. ~ppLicant-shaLL me~t with Superintendent of Utilities
reqarding rules, requLations and spec£~ications.
.. Rppiicant shaI! submit apolieation to :he Superintendent
o[ UtiLAties Ln complete detail sho~ing all proposed piping and
specifications.
.. If application complies with rules~ requlations, and
spec/ficatione, the Superintendent'of Utilities shall refer the
application to the Utility Committee for action.
.. the applicant shaLL appear beEore the UtiLity Committee at
which time ptane, detalLn~ and speei~icationa shall be ap@toyed et
disapproved by said committee. If the plans the plans, details
and specifications are disapproved by said the Utility Committee,
the applicant shall resubmit a corrected application complying
wLth th~ requirements of the UtLLLty Committee,
.. if the application complies with the rules, regulations,
and specifications, the Utility Committee shall place the appli-
cation on a list which list shall be maintained in chronological
order of approval for service to be.supplied when potable water is
available for that application.
.. However in the cas.e of minor subdivisions, the Village
Board of Trustees may authorize a contract for the supply of waker
to be entered into immediately.
CATAGORY B -- SELF ~USTAIHED APPLIC&?IONS
1. Applicant shall meet with Superintendent of Water
Ut{litles ra~arding projected amount and quality of the potable
water supply, rules, regulations and specifications.
.. .Applicant must than submit application together with water
test data as to amount and quality of the on-site or off-site
water supply to the Superintendent ~f Water Utilities.
.. A test well is then to be ~rilled, the water supply
'drawn down', and water quality must meet th~ requirements of the
Suffolk County, State of New York or United States, and the water
quantity must be sufficient to supply all water requirements for
the application in the opinion of the Superintendent of Utilities.
.. If the Superintendent finds that the test data as to
a. quality of water meets the strictest of the health
~ ~:~': standards'required of Village of Greenport, Suffolk County,
~'- o~ ~v '~o~k or the United States govermn~ for potable w~er,
l/fy II detem/ned by the Superln~enden~ vith the assistance o~..,.
. ~ ".. ~a/d c~itbee, If the quality end/or quanb/b~ o~ ~eabte
~.. , supply, p[~nSbyth~ plans, deta/ls and spec/~/catlonsappltcan~.,, are
disapproved said the Utility C~lttea, .the shatt
I ~., Utility C~lttee shall forward the application to the Village
POLICY DECLARATION REGARDING THE EXTENSION OR REPLAC~4ENT
OF HAINS BO?H INSIDE ~ND OUTSIDE THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE DE GREEHPORT
outs[de the Incorporated ViILage o: GreenporL shall be under such
terms and conditions at the ViLLaqe Board o£ Trustees (hereina:Cer
referred to as BOARD) ~rom time to time may determine.
The following policy declaration is made as a guide:
The BOARD lavers the replacement pi old mains and the
extension of existing mains throughout the areas where it'suppLie~
water. It does not propose to extend its distribution sgs~em so
that normaI demand ~iL! tax its [acilities for suop[ying water.
It has prime responsibititity to Ch~ reqidenLs pi the ViLlaqe. It
regards its operations both insid,~ a,d outside the ViLLaqe as
effected with the public incorest a~d purposes to conduct th~se
operations with the high s~a~dard~ expected of public service
corporations.
As a general rule the BOARD will agree to s~ply water
through any main of proper size a~d condition for the location,
the cost of. removing and/or La¥inq of said mains wit[ be paid by
the persons requestinq to be supplied'therefrom.
In a proper case, where it appears reasonable to expect
that the demand for water will require the e~t~f~ll and/or'rep[a-
cement ~arrant it, the BOARD may contract with the persons wishing
to extend and/or replace mains, a~td.~ma¥ asa,~mq.~a.~;.~]~o~ the
cost Of..Constru¢[ion where [he extension and/or replacement
~hen a subs[an[rs! par~ o[ [he cos[ or [he exLension
and/or replacement or mains is paid for by poten[ia~ users, the
BOARD may contract to supply water for a period ~
wi:hour charge or by remanding the usual rents~ such ~emand to be
limited, however, :o :he amount paid for the construction o~ a
proportionate share thereof.
The BOARD inclines to favor such replacement and/or
extensions aa wil! enable It-to tie in with other replacem&nts
and/~ extensions with new ~eil supp~ies~ and to ~oop the
[ranchise area so as to take ~n and inCer-connect with the North
Fork Area System.
APPENDIX NO. 12
LETTER FROM SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
ON GROUNDNATER RECHARGE
A- 12
COUNTY OF SUFFOL. K
February l&, 1985
Herlon E. Niggln, Ph.D., H.E.
President
Pecontc Associates. lac,
One Bootleg Alley
P. O. Box 672
Greenport, New York 11944
Dear Hr. Wiggtn:
BJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IHPACT STATEHENT - AIINEXATIOH PROPOSAL -
VILLAGE OF GREENPORT (~OHN COSTELLO)
Your letter of February 6, 1985 and the attached sketch plan for the proposed
development of the 48.718 acre parcel bordering the Village of Greenport has
been reviewed in light of the questions you set forth.
You must keep in mind that the comments set forth are based on the "very preliminary
planning stage" of your project. Each of your questions will be addressed tn the
same order as they are listed in your letter.
Surface run-off and impact to groundwater recharge sCormwater run-off
and recharRe is not normally a function of the Department'of Health
Services unless it is proposed co diacharg~ the.water directly into
a surface water system. If such a proposal is made. ~he Department
would hOC consider this a satisfactory method of disposal unless the
receiving waters had been classified as "~' or "'SD" which denotes that
the best useage for that body of surface water was for drainage purposes.
If a surface water discharge is not permissable then all stormwater must
be disposed of on site to either a recharge basin or s£ormwater leaching
pools.
This is generally a function of the Town or Village Planning Board.
If all on site scormwater is disposed of on site, there should hoc be
any adverse impact on groundwater recharge, in fact, an argument can be
made that since the scormwacer is directed to recharge facilities that
the amount of recharge is actually increased.
~rlon E. Wiggin, Ph.D., M.E.
~ge 2
February 14, 1985
P~V/J s
o
On site sanitary disposal vs. hook-up to village sewer
(assuming no discharge of toxic wastes)
If the Department had its choice, we would prefer to see the project
connected to the village sewer system. If this were accomplished, the
project could be developed based on the zoning then in place, and the
density requirements of Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code
would not be applicable. If on the other hand the village sewers were
not available, then Article 6 would limit the residential development
to two homes per acre and the commercial portion would be limited to
a sewage flow not to exceed 600 gallons/acre. As long as the residential
and commercial densities are not exceeded, clustering would be allowable
to preserve some open space or buffer zones.
Impact on aquifer, Caking into account ~resent status of adjacent village
wells, and their present nitrate problems.
Any development of the parcel will have some impact on the aquifer.
If village sewers are installed then all waste waters will be discharged
through the system to LonE Island Sound. Since theiHoore'e Lane well
field is not one of the major sources of the villag~ wate~ supply, even
the connection to the village sewers should not lower the water table
in the area.
If on site sanitary disposal systems are installed, these discharges would
in effect augment the groundwater in the area since most times the village
water supply utilizes the East Marion or Southold well fields. Nitrates
are not now a problem at the Moore's Lane well field and if the allowable
densities of Article 6 are adhered to, the amount of nitrates discharged
to the groundwater will be minimized.
Comments, Recommendations, etc. on other ~pplicable items.
Prior co any approval of a subdivision, either residential, commercial or
some mix, covenants would have to b~ executed that would place restrictions
on the use or storage of toxic and hazardous ~aterials.
The Lead Agent, be if Southold Town or Greenport Village, will most likely
require an Environmental Impact Statement and as an involved agency we will
have co respond to Health related and environmental issues. Our position
should be basically as set forth, therefore, your ultimate design should
reflect these concerfls.
We hope the above clarifies some of the issues you raised. If you have
other areas of concern, please forward them to us and we will respond.
Very truly yours,
Robert A. Villa, P.E.
Chief Engineer
INSTITUTE
APPENDIX NO. 13
FOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
TRIP GENERATION DATA
A- 13
200--Residential
'his section summarizes trip generation for ali
ypes of residential dwellings. Each category of
esidential housing, particularly single-family
letachad housing and apartments, used data
rom a wide range of units with varying sizes.
,rice ranges, locations and ages. Con-
.equentiy. there could be as wide a variation in
rips generated within each category as there is
,etween different categories. As expected,
lwelling units that were larger in size, more
:xpensive or farther away from the central
~usincss districts had a higher trip generation
'ate per unit than those smaller in size. less cx-
)cnsive or closer to the CBD. However. other
.actors such as geographic location in the
:ountry and type of adjacent and nearby dc-
/elopment also had an effect on the generation
e. Thus. only thc above general statement
teed of some linear relationship) concern-
ng size, cost and location of dwelling unit and
.he income of thc occupant could be made.
As expected, thc :single-family detached unit
has the highest generation rate per unit of all
residential uses. This is followed by apart.
ments, with retirement communities having
the lowest rate. The rate for planned unit de-
velopments, which has a mix of single-family.
detached units and apartments, is in between
th~se two types. Single-family detached units
have the highest rate because: 1) They are the
largest units in si~,. :..~ i have more people and
more vehicles per unit than any other types; 2)
they arc generally located ~rther away [rom
shopping centers, employment areas amd other
a~ractors than are other types; and 3) they
have fewer alternate modes available because
they are not as copcentr~ted M other type~ of
units.
Summary of Rate Tables of the Different Types of Dwelling Units.
':= ",' ,,f Dwelling Unit Average Weekday Vthiclt
Trip Ends pcr Unit
Average
210 Single-Family Detached Unit 10.0
220 Apartment. General 6.1
221 Low-R/se Apartment 5.4
222 High-Rise Apartment 3.7
230 Condominium 5.!
240 Mobile Home 5.4
250 Retirement Community 3.3
270 Planned Unit Development 7,9
Maximmn Minimmn
21.9 4,3
12.3 0,5
5-5 4.7
6.4 1.2
9.4 0.6
6.8 2.8
4.9 2.8
10,0 6.2
APPENDIX NO. 14
AUTHORIZATION BY THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
TO PREPARE ~ATER AND SEWE~ AGREEMENTS
SEPTEMBER 26, 1986
A - 14
O~ce~$
MAYOR
GEORGE W. IIUBBARD
TRUSTEES
JEANNE M. COOPER
GAlL F. IIORTON
DAVID E. KAPIe LL
WILLIAM H. LIEBLEIN
JAMES L MONSELL
2.t6 'I'IIIRD STRFEI'
GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY
NEW YORK 11944
UTILITY OFFICE TEL.
(516) 477-1748
POWER PLANT TEL.
(5 ~6) 477-0~72
September 25, 1986
Mr. John Costello
Wiggins Lane
Greenport, N. Y.
11944
Re: Proposed Major Subdivision - Moore's
Lane, Greenport
Oear Mr. Costello,
On May 28, 1986 the Utility Committee recommended that
the Village of Greenport enter into a sewer and water agreement
with you, so that you can proceed with your plans before the Town
of Southold.
On June 18, 1986 the Village Board of Trustees author-
ized the Village Attorney to prepare the water and sewer agree-
ments. These agreements are being prepared.
If I can be of further service, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
· · . Monsell
Superintendent of Public Utilities
JIM:lkm
CC: George Hubbard, Mayor
All Village Trustees
Utility Committee
Village Attorney
Sam McLendon, H2M
Southold Town Board
Southold Planning Board
APPENDIX NO. 15
TEST WELL DATA
A- 15
' ~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON · MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE i
COSTELLO TEST WELL
Parameter
lNr, Vl;,L~ O~ aPEENPORT
WATER QUALITY RESULTS
Sample Time Period
30 Min. 3 Hrs. 6 Hrs.
24
Rrs.
Iron 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04
Manganese <0.02 <0.02 <0.2 <0.02
Chloride . 7.0 7.0 10.0 11.0
qgmplete Water Quality Survey (Based on 6 Hr.
Parameter Result
Aldicarb
Nitrate
Nitrite
Ammonia
pH
Spec. Cond.
Calcium
Magnesium
Hardness
Sodium
Turbidity
Total Solids
Color
2.
0.5
0.1
0.2
6.2
160.
10 8
4 5
45 5
6 5
1 00
110
5 00
Sample)
Results for Pesticides Analysis
Compound ug/1
lindane < 0.03
heptachlor < 0.0~
aldrin < 0.03
heptachlor epoxide < 0.03
dieldrin < 0.04
endrin < 0.06
o,p'-DDT < 0.07
p,p'-DDT < 0.09
methoxychlor < 1.0
toxaphene < 2.5
chlordane < 0.5
ALL RESULTS REPORTED MEET NEW YORK STATE DRINKING WATER LIMITS.
LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING
377 SHEFFIELD AVE. · N. BABYLON. N.Y. 11703 · (516) 422-5777
LAB NO.C8&87~6/14
85/8&/8~
Mr. John W Hallman
PO Box 423
Shelter Island Heights NY 11~5
ATTNI
SOURCE OF SAMPLEI Costello-Greenport
COLLECTED BY: Client DATE COL'D:O4/21/8& RECEIVED:84/22/8~
SAMPL£1. Watep sample-24 hour
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Iron as Fe mg/L <0.85
Manganese as Mn mg/L <8.82
Free C~2 mg/L 13
Ammonia as N mg/L <8.85
Nitrite as N mg/L <8.882
MBAS as LAS mg/L <8.1
pH units
Nitrate as N mg/L 1.6
Chloride as C1 mg/L
Hardne~e ae CAC83 mg/L 52
Alkalinity tot CaCo3 mg/L 12
Tot Dissolved Solids mg/L 118
Spec. Cond. umho/cm mg/L 288
Sodium as Na mg/L 8.5
ANALYTICAL
PARAMETERS
REHARKS~
All values are within NY State and Federal
for patabe water.
limits
2283
~COTES/ LABORATORIES, INC.
ENWRONMENTAL TESTING
377 SHEFFIELD AVE. · N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 · (516) 422-5777
LAB NO. CB60796/15
05/06/86
Me. John W Hallman
PO Box 423
Shelter Island Heights NY
11965
ATTN:
SOURCE OF SAMPLEI Costelle-Greenport
COLLECTED BYI Client DATE COL'DIe4/21/86 RECEIVED:04/22/86
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Iron as Fe mg/L
Mafiganese as Mn mg/L
Free C02 mg/L
Ammonia as N mg/L
Niteite as N mg/L
MBAS as LAS mg/L
pH units
Niteate as N mg/L
Chloride as C1 mg/L
ardness as CaC03 mg/L
lkalinity tot CaCo3 mg/L
Tot Dissolved Solids mg/L
Spec. Cond. umho/cm mg/L
Sodium as Na mg/L
<0.05
<0.02
17
<0.05
<0. 002
<0.1
6.3
2.1
16
7.5
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
REMARKSI All
for
values are within NY State and Federal
potabe water.
limits
2284
APPENDIX NO, 16
DOCUMENTATION REGARDING SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION
A - 16
GREENPORT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944
516-477-1950
CARL J. NELSON Ed. D
S~Jperintendent of Schools
April 22, 1987
Mr. Merle Wiggin, President
Peconic Associates, Inc.
One Bootleg Alley - P.O. Box 672
Greenport, New York 11944
Dear Mr. Wiggin:
As per your request, I am pleased to provide you with the following in-
formation:
Expense per pupil 1986-87 - $5,611 - according to the New
York State Education Conference Board printed and dated
February 1987
2. Enrollment for 1970-71 through 1986-87 - see attachment #2
3. Enrollment for 1986-87 and projections for 1987-88 -
see attachment #3
4. Taxable Assessed Valuations for School. Purposes - $12,784,476 -
see attachment #4
Should you need additional information or further assistance, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Cordially,
Car/F J. Nelson
Sul~erintendent of Schools
CJN/maw
Enclosures
GREENPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Greenport, New York
ENROLLMENT FIGURES
YEAR
1970 - 71
197l - 72
1972 - 73
1973 - 74
1974 - 75
1975 - 76
lq76 - 77
1977 - 78
1978 - 79
1979 - 80
1980 - 81
1981 - 82
1982 - 83
1983 - 84
1984 - 85
1985 - 86
1986 - 87
PUPIL ENROLLMENT
936
896
867
856
871
896
881
849
817
783
715
687
670
660
621
573
GREENPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Greenport, New York
ENROLLMENT (as of September 1986)
Kindergarten 35
Grade 1 40
Grade 2 34
Grade 3 47
Grade 4 41
Grade 5 28
Grade 6 37
Grade 7 58
Grade 8 46
Grade 9 32
Grade 10 49
Grade ]! 42
Grade 12 44
Special Education 30
Combined Programs
BOCES Spec!a! lO
Education
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT (for September 1987)
Kindergarten 35
Grade 1 35
Grade 2 40
· Grade 3 34
Grade 4 47
Grade 5 41
Grade 6 28
Grade 7 55
Grade 8 58
Grade g 46
Grade IO 32
Grade !] 49
Grade 12 42
Special Education 30
Comb!ned Programs
BOCES Special
Education
573
582
IISTICS
APPENDIX NO. 17
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL
CEDARFIELDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
A - 17
SUPPLEMENT TO
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RELATING TO
THE CEDARFIELDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRI~JECT AND THE MOORESLAND TOWN
HOUSES PROJECT, LOCATED WITHIN THE TOWN~F SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY,
NEW YORK, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE VIII OF THE EN-
VIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW; PART 617 OF TITLE 6 OF THE NEW YORK
STATE CODES, RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND CHAPTER 44 OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN CODE.
LOCATION:
48.718 acres located within the Town of Southold
at the southeast corner of the intersection of Moore's
Lane and Middle Road (County Road 48)
APPLICANT:
John A. Costello and
206 Wiggins Lane
Greenport, New York 11944
(516) 477-1393
Diane Carrot
and
Donald Bracken
30 Wheeler Road
Old Field, NY 11733
(516) 751-8711
LEAD AGENCY:
Squthold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
(516) 765-1938
PREPARER:
Peconic Associates, Inc.
One Sootleg Alley
Greenport, New York 11944
(516) 477-0030
DATE OF PREPARATION:
April 1987
SUPPLEMENT PREPARATION: June 25, 1987
SUPPLEMENT TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
THE CEDARFIELDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
AND
THE MOORESLAND TOWN HOUSES PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
SECTION A
SECTION B
SECTION C
GROUNDWATER IMPACT (NITRATES)
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC STUDY
PEconic ASSOCIATES. Inc.
ENGINEERING & PLANNING CONSULTANTS One Bootie8 Alley P.O. Box 672 Gteenpozt, New York 11944
Telephone: (516) 477-0030
ASSOCIATES:
Fauweathcr/Brow,~
.4rchitcct$
Gannel Fleming
I:)tgitteers
RP. Mort'ow & Asso¢ialcs
Witter)' ~,sign
Wilhchn Allanlic ('o.
Oune 25, 1987
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Or. - Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, L. I.
New York - 11971
Re: DEIS Cedarfields/
Mooresland
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
In accordance with your letter of June 9, 1987 and
comments from Szepatowski Associates dated May 21,
1987, attached please find a Supplement to subject
DEIS.
The Supplement addresses the following items as
requested:
Groundwater Impact: The location of the
proposed well was shown on the Site Plan
contained as Appendix 5 in the submitted
DEIS. For further reference, the well site
is located between lots number 22 and 23 in
the Affordable Housing section.
The projected impact to the groundwater from
lawn fertilization is contained as Supplement
identified "Groundwater Impact". These
calculations are based on the modeling
accomplished by'Cornell University, entitled
"Land Use and Ground Water Quality in the
Pine Barrens of Southampton", as provided by
David Emilita as a guide in the preparation
for these calculations.
As stated in the DEIS, we feel that this
modeling should not eliminate the requirement
of a continuing monitoring of groundwater
quality, both in the new well and the
strategically placed monitoring wells.
Mr. Bennett Orlowski,
June 25, 1987
Page 2
Jr.
As approvals are already being obtained from the
Village to hook up to both the public water and
sanitary systems, and as the proposed density requires
both public water and sewer, the review of the
alternatives without public water and sewer as
suggested in the 1~/25/85 letter from Szepatowski
Associates would not be applicable. In other words, if
the availability of public water and public sewer were
withdrawn, then this would require a totally new
project submittal.
Drainage: The drainage calculations contained on the
Site Plan submittal have been extracted and are included
as a Supplement to the DEIS. Please note that drainage
swales have been used as a primary means of effecting
recharge of storm run-off.
Traffic: A complete peak hour traffic study has been
accomplished and is attached as a Supplement to the
DEIS.
You will note that the study indicates that the local
roadway network can readily accommodate the traffic
that will be generated by the proposed development.
Sincerely,
PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC.
President
MEW/iw
cc: Mrs. Diane Carroll
Mr. Donald Bracken
,D
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
June 9, 1987
Mr. Merlon Wiggin
President
Peconic Associates
One Bootleg Alley
Greenport, NY 11944
Re: Cedarfields/Mooresland
Dear Mr. Wiggin:
Please let this confirm the following action taken by
the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, June 1, 1987.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept
and request compliance with the memorandum of the Planning
Consultan, David Emilita, dated May 21, 1987, with regard
to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cedar-
field~ and Mooresland proposals located at Greenport.
Enclosed is a copy of the memorandum for your review.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to
contact our office.
Very truly yours,
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary
enc.
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
,S/I!
TO: Southold Planning Board
RE: DEIS Cedar Fields/Mooreslands
FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc./David Emilita ~
DATE: May 21, 1987
We have reviewed the above referenced DEIS for sufficiency and
completeness and find it inadequate for public review since
several important and pertinent items are not shown on the
attached site plan nor discussed in the text in enough detail to
fully assess the impacts stated.
The following areas need to be more fully addressed before the
DEIS can be rendered complete and sufficient for review:
gROUNDWATER IMPACT - NO documented assessment was made on
groundwater impact. No impact on the "on-site" well was stated.
The well is not even located on the site plan. No qualitative
analy~S W~S Sh°Wn'as to nitrate levels in the on-site recharge
and its effect on the supply well.
Reference was made on the Scoping Checklist to our memo of
11/25/85, but no text discussion was devoted to the points raised
in that memo.
DRAINAGE - No drainage calculation or drainage designs were
presented to substantiate the assessment of'no significant
drainage impact.
TRAFFIC - No peak hour traffic analysis was shown. Simply
refering to AADT residual capacity is not sufficient. Key
intersection analysis is necessary at Moore's Lane at Routes 48
and 25 and Middletown Road and Route 48.
It is recommended that a ~ to the DEIS be prepared and
submitted, addressing the points raised above. The Supplement
will then be assessed for completeness before public comment.
23 Narraganse[r Ave. James[own. RI 02835 (401) 423-0430
SECTION A
GROUNDWATER IMPACT
(NITRATES)
GROUNDWATER IMPACT
FROM FERTILIZER NITRATES
FOR
CEDARFIELDS AND MOORESLAND
PREPARED BY:
CHARLES R VELZY ASSOCIATES, INC.
ONE OLD COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 430
CARLE PLACE, NEW YORK 11514
JUNE 23, 1987 ~ ~7 ~ /?~
GROUNDWATER IMPACT
To access the impacts of fertilizer nitrates on groundwater
quality in the on-site well, estimates of the well's re-
charge zone and nitrate concentrations in recharge waters
are presented. Reference is made to reports previously
prepared as part of the area's water resource management
program.
The recharge zone for a production well is represented by a
circular area with the well at the center. The charge zone
(or capture zone) of t.he on-site well can be estimated by
the method of Todd (1964), as presented in the North Fork
Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York (ERM/Camp,
Dresser & McKee, 1983). The method allows for the
estimation of the radius of influence of a pumping well,
based on the expected pumping rate and natural recharge
rates from precipitation:
Q = r 2 x w
0
where, Q = effective well pumping rate
r = radius of influence
o
w : natural recharge rate
The est
120,000
average
McKee,
imated production capacity of the on-site well is
gallons per day (gpd). Using an annual, long-term
recharge value of 20 inches (ERM/Camp, Dresser &
1983), the radius of influence is tabulated as:
r
o
o
: y~20,O00 ~a!/da¥
~y/3.75 x lO-Z gal/day/square foot
= 1.79 x 103 ft 1800 feet
The radius of influence (~) defines the circular area
around the well from whiC~ infiltrating precipitation is
captured and discharged to the surface. A value of 1800
feet corresponds to an area of about 10,179,000 square feet,
or 234 acres.
Based on this analysis, the proposed development is found to
be entirely within the recharge zone Of the wet1. The
impact of nitrate fertilization of turfgrass in the
development can be assessed by determining what affect
development of 50 of these acres, or 21% of the recharge
area, would have on existing nitrate concentrations.
Nitrate concentrations (Nitrate as Nitrogen) in the well's
recharge water zone have been measured previously as 2.1
mg/L, as indicated in a letter from ECOTEST Laboratories,
dated May 5, 1986, attached hereto.
The average effect of lawn fertilizers, using data
reflecting average turf management practices in Eastern
Suffolk County follows:
Substance
Nitrogen and
Water Recharged From
Turf Other
Overall Nitrogen
Concentration in
Recharge (mg/L)
Water (in.) 13.5
Nitrogen (lb/Acre) 24.0
18.2
4.2' 3.94
Lahd use is based on residential with 2 to 4 dwelling units
per acre. Average turf management practices would estimate
the application rate of 2.5 pounds of fertilizer per 1,000
square feet per year (Hughes and Porter, 1983).
Resultant nitrate concentrations in pumped groundwater would
be expected to represent an average of the two concentrations
discussed above, and can be calculated from the equation:
/~ercent of'~/~itrat~ /~ercent o~/~itrat.~)~v~tal ~ater~k /f~esultant'~
/water from ~/concen-\l[water from~/concen-~::~volume lO0%\/nitrate
Inew devel- )ltration)'li remainingJltration)7 )l_concentra-)
~opment ]\ / \recharge J\ / k /~tion
x j rea j\ .
(21%) (3.94 mg/L) + (79%) (2~1 mg/L) = (100%) /~esultant nitrate~
~concentration
Resultant Nitrate Concentration = 2.49 m~/L
Based on a review of exlsting data, the impact of the
application of nitrate fertilizers would not result in
nitrate concentrations in excess of accepted water quality
criteria. A value of 2.49 mg/L represents an average value.
Concentrations below this would be expected as a result of
the proposed fertilization monitoring program recommending an
application rate of one pound of fertilizer per one thousand
square feet. As previously stated, continuing monitoring of
the water quality from the new well and that of strategically
placed monitoring wells will be the best indication of the
effectiveness of the proposed fertilizing covenented
restrictions.
REFERENCES
Hughes, Henry B.F. and Keith Porter, Land Use and Ground
Water Quality ~n the Pine Barrons of Southampton, Cornel1
University, 1983.
North Fork Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York,
ERM-Northeast/Camp, Dresser & McKee, lg83.
SECTION B
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS (CEDARFIELDS)
LAND AREA: 8370 S.F. PER LOT (AVERAGE).
PAVED AREAS (STREET AND DRIVE): 1600 S.F.
DRAINAGE VOLUME:
LAND 8370 X
PAVEMENT - 1600 X
.24 X .1 = 2~ CU. FT.
.24 X .9 = 345 CU. FT.
TOTAL = 545 CU. FT.
DRAINAGE SWALE PER LOT:
80' X 3' X 2' = 480 CU. FT.
ADDITIONAL ROAD DRAINAGE (S.F. X .17 X .9/68)
STA. S.F, V.F. OF 10' DIA.
PER LOT.
LPs EACH SIDE
0+25 6580 14 2 - 10 X 8
4+70 4970 11 3 - 10 X 8
12+80 7280 16 3 - 1~ X 8
22+05 8050 18 2 - 1~ X 1~
26+60 ?000 15 2 - 10 X 8
33+5~ 11900 26 4 - 10 X 8
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS (MOORESLAND)
BUFFER AREA - DRAINAGE VOLUME:
LAND - - - 159,550 X .24 X .1 = 1,130 CU. FT.
PAVEMENT - 30,450 X .24 X .9 = 6,580 CU. FT.
TOTAL = 7,710 CU. FT.
DRAINAGE SWALE BUFFER SIDE OF ROAD:
3,200 × 1' X 2.5 = 8,000 CU.
TOWNHOUSE AREA - DRAINAGE VOLUME:
FT.
LAND 484,400 X .24 X .1 = 11,630 CU. FT.
PAVEMENT 55,000 X .24 X .9 = 11,880 CU. FT.
TOTAL 23,510 CU. FT.
DRAINAGE SWALE - TOWNSHOUSES (SIDE OF ROAD):
4,200 X 3' X 2' 25,200 CU. FT.
ADDITIONAL ROAD DRAINAGE (S.F. X .17 X .9/68)
10' DIAMETER LEACHING POOLS LOCATED IN LOW AREAS
AS SHOWN ON SITE PLAN.
NOTE:
ALL ADDITIONAL ROAD DRAINAGE CATCH
BASINS TO BE LOCATED AT LOW POINTS IN
DRAINAGE SWALE. ACTUAL LOCATIONS TO BE
REVISED TO MEET FIELD CONDITIONS.
SECTION C
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC STUDY
Louis K. McLean Associates, P. C.
437 ~mth Counln.' R~ld · Brtx~khaven · New York · 11719
(516) 286.8668
LOtIIS K I~k'I.15MN, P.E., LS.
GF. ORGE J. KAIGtt, ID. IL, LS.
JOHN L JOHNSEN, P.E.
CONSULTING ENGINEF. PJ;
June 23, 1987
Mr. Merlon E. Wiggin, Ph.D., M.E.
Peconic Associates, Inc.
One Bootleg Alley
P.O. Box 672
Greenport, NY 11944
Re:
Cedarfields/Mooresland
Development Traffic Study
LKMA Project No. 100-40-01
Dear Mr. Wiggin:
We are pleased to submit herewith the
prepared in response to questions raised by the
the Town of Southold.
traffic study we
Planning Board of
Our study indicates that the local roadway network can
readily accommodate the traffic that will be generated by the
proposed developments.
If you have any questions or if we can be of additional
assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Eugene F. Daly, P.E.
EFD/dy
enc.
CEDARFIELDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
MOORESLAND TOWN HOUSES PROJECT
DEIS TRAFFIC SUPP?-R~ENT
INT~(ODUC~ION
This supplement has been prepared in response to comments
raised in the May 21, 1987, memorandtt~ by David E~ilita of
Szepatowski Associates, to the Southold Planning Board. This
report provides traffic'analysis of the proposed developments and
their impact on the surrounding roadway network during the peak
morning and evening commuter hours and for peak hour conditions on
a Saturday. As suggested in the above referenced memorandum, the
following key intersections were evaluated:
1. Moores Lane at Route 48
2. Moores Lane at Route 25
3. Middletown Road and Route 48
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed development consists of 84 affordable dwelling
units known as the Cedarfields project and 84 town houses known as
the Mooresland project. The proposed project is to be situated on
a 48 ~ acre site on the southeast corner of Moores Lane and County
Route 48 in the Town of Southold. A location map (See Figure 1)
is provided for reference.
As noted in the proposed site plan prepared by Charles E.
Egosi dated November 24, 1986, and furnished with the April 1987
DEIS, access to the Mooresland project would be provided solely on
Moores Lane while access to the Cedarfields project would be
provided on both Middletown Road and Moores Lane.
1
)N
FigURE No. I
Cedarfieids - Mooresland
Project
Location Map
LDUIS K. McLEAN ASSOCIATE, S, P.C.
Consu~flg En~n~E~s
437 Sau~ CounUy ~oael
BROOKHAVEN. N~ YO~K XX7~9
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC CO~TKOL
Within the environs of the proposed site, County Route 48 is
a two lane concrete highway with asphalt shoulders. Moores Lane
is a two lane asphalt highway which serves as a tr~¢k route
connecting Routes 25 and 48. State Route 25 is a two lane ~
highway^with shoulders. Middletown Road is a local residential
street situated to the immediate east of the Cedarfields project.
Right-of-way control at the three key intersections is as
follows:
1.
Moores Lane and Route 48 - stop sign on the southeast
corner controlling northbound traffic.
Moores Lane and Route 25 - yield sign on the northwest
corner controlling southbound traffic.
Middletown Road and Route 48 - stop sign on the
southeast corner controlling northbound traffic; stop
sign on the northwest corner controlling southbound
traffic on McCann Avenue.
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
To assess the impact the proposed development will have on
the adjacent roadway network, it is necessary to initially
establish existing or baseline conditions. To supplement the
automatic machine counts previously described on page 34 of the
DEIS, turning movement counts were conducted at the three key
intersections during the following hours:
Friday - p.m. peak commuter hour
Saturday - afternoon peak hour
Monday - a.m. peak commuter hour
2
These hours were chosen so that the "worst case" scenario
could be evaluated - that is, those hours during which existing
traffic volumes are highest and the traffic attributable to the
proposed developments are heaviest. The results of the turning
movement counts are provided in the Appendix as well as automatic
machine counts in the area that were obtained from the New York
State Department of Transportation and the Suffolk County
Department of Public Works.
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation rates from Institute of Transportation
Engineer's "ITE Trip Generation Manual" were used in this study
since they reflect typical conditions on Long Island for the
various types of residential development being proposed. These
rates are shown in Table 1. It should be recognized that the
rates for the Cedarfields Affordable Housing project are in our
opinion quite conservative (on the high side) because of the small
size of the units - 850 square feet. Note the generation rates
for the Mooresland Town Houses are approximately half the rates
for the affordable housing project and the town houses are
approximately 50% larger (1250 square feet per unit).
3
TABLE 1
CEDARFI ELDS/NOORESLAND PROJECT
TRIP GENERATION RATES
CEDARFIELDS MOORESLAND
(84 AFFORDABLE (84 TOWN HOUSE
HOUSING UNITS) UNITS) COMBINED
Average Daily 10 840 5.2 437 1277
Peak AM Highway
Hour
Enter 0.21 18 0.07 6 24
Exit 0.55 46 0.37 32 78
Total 0.76 64 0.44 38 102
Peak PM Highway
Hour
Enter 0.63 53 0.37 32 85
Exit 0.37 31 0.18 15 46
Total 1.00 84 0.55 47 131
Saturday Peak
Hour
Enter 0.51 43 0.26 22 65
Exit 0.45 38 0.22 19 57
Total 0.96 81 0.48 41 122
4
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
proposed development
conditions:
O
O
O
O
Figure 2 shows the
weekday a.m. and p.m.
The distribution and assignment of
was estimated
traffic attributed to the
basgd on the following
location of employment and population centers and
shopping areas.
the regional highway network within the environs of the
site.
the local roadway network serving the site.
turning movement activity at the key study
intersections.
projected traffic distribution for the
peak hours while Figure 3 shows the
estimated distribution for the Saturday afternon peak hour.
The projected traffic assignments for site generated traffic
for these time periods are shown on the turning movement counts
provided in the Appendix.
CAPACITY ANALYSES
Capacity analyses were performed at the three key study
intersections for the three key time periods previously identified
using the new Highway Capacity Manual, "Transportation Research
Board Special Report 209, 1985".
The analyses were initially done for existing or baseline
conditions (No Build). Next, the traffic attributable to the
5
MIDDLE COUNTY ROAD RT 48
FIGURE 2
ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
WEEKDAY AM & PM PEAK
NOT TO SCALE
MIDDLE COUNTY ROAD RT 48
'L
I~.VE.
~AIN ROAD
2,00o~' A~''~)---~ ~--~o T25 ~.0'~ °/P ce*c~P~' ~*~~cu~C,T
FIGURE:~
ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
SATURDAY AFTERNOON PEAK'
NOT TO SCALF ~
proposed developments was superimposed on the baseline conditions
and this composite traffic volume analyzed.
The results of the analyses are provided in Table 2. Level
of Service criteria for unsignalized intersections are provided in
Table 3.
As shown in Table 2, the predominate level of service
provided for both the build and the no build condition
"A". As noted by the double asterisk, there is
degradation of the level of service for three traffic
when the no build condition is compared to the build
These are summarized as follows:.
A. Saturday Afternoon Peak
(LOS)
is level
a slight
movements
condition.
At Route 48 and Middletown Road, the LOS for northbound
traffic changes from "A" to "B" with the reserve
capacity being reduced from 421 to 362 passenger cares
per hour (pcph).
At Route 25 and Moore's Lane, the LOS for southbound
traffic changes from "B" to "C" with the reserve
capacity being reduced from 309 to 283 pcph.
B. Friday P.M. Peak
1. At Route 48 and Moore's Lane, the LOS for northbound
traffic changes from "A" to "B" with the reserve
capacity being reduced from 410 to 364 pcph.
As can be seen, these differences are very minor, and the
overall level of service provided is excellent. It should be
recognized that in the design of new intersections, that the
nationally recognized American Association of State Highway and
Transportation officials (AASHTO) recommends that level of service
"C" be used as the design criteria.
INTERSECTION
TABLE 2
CEDARFIELDS MOORESLAND PROJECT
S,~mary of Intersection Capacity
Analyses Level of Service
EXISTING
CONDITION
(NO WI'.")
MINOR ST. *MAJOR ST.
NB SB EB WB
WITH PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENTS
(WILD)
MINOR ST. *MAJOR ST.
NB SB EB WB
Route 25 & Moores
Lane
AM Peak -- A A
PM Peak -- B A
Saturday Peak -- B A
-- A A --
-- B A --
-- **C A --
Route 48 & Moores
Lane
AM Peak A .... A A
PM Peak A .... A **B
Saturday Peak B .... A B
A
A
A
Route 48 &
Middletown Road
AM Peak A A A A A A
PM Peak B A A A B A
Saturday Peak A A A A **B A
A A
A A
A A
Indicates Level of Service for the left turn movement
Indicates change in Level of Service
TABLE 3
LE'VLE OF SERVICE CRITERIA
FOR UNS~GN~?~'ZED
RESERVE CAPACITY
(PCPH)
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
> 400 A
30~-399 B
200-299 C
100-199 D
0- 99 E
* F
EXPECTED DELAY TO
MINOR ST~T TRAFFIC
Little or no delay
Short traffic delays
Average traffic delays
Long traffic delays
Very long traffic delays
When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays
will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion
affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. This condition
usually warrants improvement to ~he intersection.
8
CONCLUSIONS
Our study indicates that the traffic generated by the
proposed development can readily be absorbed by the adjoining
roadway network. In a~dition, the study is somewhat conservative
since the generation rates used for the Cedarfields project would
appear to be on the high side because of the small size of the
affordable dwelling units.
APPENDICES
NYSDOT & $CDPW
AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC COUNTS
)
)
}
NEW YORK STATE
DEPT OF TSANSPORTATION
AVERAGE WEEKDAY
HOURLY REPORT
AM WESTBOUND
12-1 40
1-2 50
2-5 10
5-4 10
4-5 20
5-6 50
6-7 80
7-8 180
8-9 210
9-10 250
10-11 280
11-12 280.
PM
12-1 500
1-2 290
2-5 550
5-4
4-5 590
5-6 550
6-'7 250
7-8 190
8-9 170
9-10 120
10-11 110
11-i2 70
TOTALS 4,290
EASTBOUND
50
20
10
10
10
50
80
150
190
210
28O
500
510 **
510
500
270
290
2~0
2OO
180
150
140
100
70
5,900
ROUTE 25
OAKLAWN AVENUE TO
ROUTE 114
dUNE 1984
FILE NAME
RT25 S05006~
DAILY TOT~
8,190
EST. AAD,
7,400
** DENO:
PEAK HOUB
uO
o o o
FILEs 048-.09
HOUR )l]le~Y e6 '~Y 27
EGINS E IJ E
J.~ J.9
2 & 15
4 & 14
7 249
~ 10 ~ 310
I 317
319 3~9
4 317 37~
7 ~9
10 71
I1 47 47
TOTALS 4150
19
3 11
4
§ 91
~ & 215
7 47;3
8 509
9 557
10 593
Ii 616
i;~ .%7
I 617
4 695
7
6
9
10 135
il 94
~0 12
6 6
10
& &
4 7
~. 33
113 90
295 ~
iF~IES~IY aA TMJlUmW 29 FIllMY 23
E id E ii E
0. · · · 463 40]
1037 86,3 0 0 0 0 3877
4~ · · ·
· * J 716
· t · 719
· · · ~7
E
E # E
32 ~3 ~ 47 9 7
~ 16 19 34 8 10
15 lO 15 15 7
13 13 14 10 5 11
~1 124 97 ~ 272
~ ~ 210 ~ ~ 310
4~ 310 218 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 371 ~
~4 ~ ~1 376 ~
~ ~ 219 376 ~
~4 376 1~ ~ ~
181 ~ 1~ 191 ~
151 1~ ~ ~ 1~1
~ 1~ ~ 61 I01
5647 4S04
133 123 3~
55 O] 16
~5 30 12
181 1~) 214
3~5 167
~ 474
~ ~ 616
7~ ~9
7~ 597 ~9
7~ ~7 781
7~ ~ 6~5
~9 4~
~ 313
~ ~ 316
314 i59
~ ~ i6i
TOTfli~q 8439 1900 0 0 6939 10~51 7~01 { 9~
TURNING MOVEM]~T ~O~TS
LOCATION,
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTER8ECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
l'"q I ~I~L E TON ~'l-'M
DATE ~,~'~ ~--~K.
NORTH ARROW
i PR.O F:'
I' AI:Ii;IITIONN. I~IOVEHP..
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS I(. McLEA~I ASSOCIATES. P,C.
LOCATION
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
bil~L~_T~ ~0~ t~'F ~1~ DATE
NORTH ARROW
; PRO P O~ED
i' ADDmONAL ~OVE~E NT$
o $
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS K. McLEAN ASSGCIATES. P.C.
LOCATION.
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
NORTH ARROW
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS K. '[JIcLEAH ASSGCIATES. P.C.
LOCATION
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTER8ECTION TURNING MOVEMENT8
DATE ~ ~'~
NORTH ARROW
I
F'F~O P
ADDI'I'IOI-IAL MOVP_.ME MT~ i
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS I(. McLEA~ ASSOCIATES. P.C.
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
LOCATION_
INTER8ECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
DATE ?I~ PL::AI~
NORTH ARROW ~'~
177-1i
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS K. McLF. AN ASSGCIATES. ?,C.
LOCATION_
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
DATE
NORTH ARROW
,A, DDITIOt. JAL MO .~ff_,M~
~'//~ p RO JP. uC~' P ROJE.¢'T'
PI -7 q
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS K. McLEAN ASSGCIATES. ,=.C.
LOCATION_
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT8
I
NON
DATE A,I~,I
HORTH ARROW
ADDrTIO/.J~I- ~ovP_..~fB I~T~
C'~ D,~RFI gt,.D5
P Ro,.J P-.CT
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS K. I',,IcLEAN ASSGCIATE-~. P.C.
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTERSECTION TURNINO MOVEMENTS
~.OC^TIO. hdO0~.',~ ~,h,~ ~-r'-~
DATE ~'b/I ~,~t~
NORTH ARROW
' NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS K. McLF~ ASSOCIATES. P.C.
LOCATION
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
.~::)~T
DATE .Pl'd ~'F--.~,K,
NORTH ARROW
· ,A, DDITIORAL I~OVE~E. I,.ITE~I
C-rlSI:~RFI ~.C)~) I
PRo~cT ,
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS I(. ~',lcLEAN ASSOCIATES. P.C.
CAPACITY ANALYSES
1~85 HCH: UN$1GNALIZED INTERSECTIONS P&ge-I
*********************************************************************
I DENT I FY I NG I NFORMAT I ON
~VERAGE RUNNING BPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 55
~EAK HOUR FACTOR ......................... -'..
iREA POPUL,4TI ON .............................
4AME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ................
JAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ..............
· lAME OF THE ANALYST .........................
_-:.ATE OF THE ANAL¥SI'~ <mm/dd/'yy) .............
TIME PE~IOD ANALYZED ........................
.... 150000
.... route 48
.... Moore's Lane
.... GD
.... ,5/'22/B7
.... Mon am peak
No Build
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
'>ITERSECTION 'r,~ =
. . ~P_: T-INTERSECTION
.~IAJOR STREET DiRECTiON: EAST. WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STCP SIGN
_EFT
TuRU
E _'-3, W ~ N B ::-; E
0 26 14 --
1:2.0 174 0
RIGHT 20 ;i i,: --
EE WE: r4E SB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AD JUSTIdE.hIT FACTORS Page-2
~ ~ .... ~ .... ~ I ~ I ~ II ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ I~ I I I .... ~ I II I I I ...... ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~~ ....
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0.00
NORTHBOUND 0.00
SOUTHBOUND .....
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
0.00 ?0 20
ACC-CLERATI ON LANE
I=OR RIGHT TURNS
N
~'0 :20 N
90 20 N
VEHICL'C COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0
NORTHSOUND 0
$0UTHBOUN? ---
SU TRU~2KS
AND RU~S
0
Y. C0MBINATION
VEH I CLES
0
Y, MOTOF~C'r'CLES
0
0 9
O 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES
(Table 10-2)
~DJUSTED
UALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRIT!CAL GAP
MINOR RIGHTS
6.50 S.50 0.00
MAJOR LEFTS
~;8 5,50 5,50 9,00 5,50
MINOR LEFTS
~.;E 3,00 ~ S,O0 0,00 S,O0
)
)
)
)
)
CAP~.CiT" Af,'[:, LEVEL-O=-SERVICE Page-3
=OTEN- ACTUAL
:%C~J- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
HCVEMENT v(ocph) ¢ (pcph) ¢ (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - u LOS
p M SH R SH
MIHOR STREET
NB LEFT 15 423 414
RIGHT 18 730 730 '
M~JOR STREET
~B LEFT 2~ 8~0 8~0
414 > 399 > B
539 > 50~ >A
780 > 712 > A
890 861 A
,.
:~,5 HCM: IJNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-!
DENT I F'K I NG I NFORMAT I ON
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ....................
AREA POPULATION .....................
~IAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ........
,.~ME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREE? ......
NAME OF THE ANALYST ................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/od/yy) .....
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. Mort
............ 150000
.,,, .... ,.,. route
........ .... Moore's Lane
............
am pe~k ~ui!d
)
-)
)
)
)
)
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
OTERSE--~ ON -'~"PE: T-!!,!TE~SE2Ti ON
;IA JOR '='~T RESTs- '~:, i RECT i ON '. ~ - c- .,_~,., WE'="r
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STJP SIGN
EE: LJB NB SB
LEFT n "~ '=, ~-
THRU I SO t 74 :~ --
~ I GHT _~ - ~. z4 .... --
LANES
=~ :J,. NE
)
)
)
)
)
ADJUST~EHT FACTORS Page-2
PERCENT RIGHT TURN
GRADE ANGLE
EAST~0UND 0.00 ?0
WESTBOUND 0.00 ?0
NORTHBOUND 0.00 ~0
SOUTHBOUND ........
CURS RADIUS (~t)
FOR RIGHT TURNS
20
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
20 N
20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBCLI'4D
WESTBOUND
xIORTHBCU;'4D
SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES' X MOTORCYCLES
3 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
£:RITICAL SAPS
~ABULAR VALUE3
(Tsoie 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIB~T DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRIT]CAL GAP
!IINOR RIGHTS
r,IB ~.50 ~.50 0.00 ~.50
MAJOR 2EFTS
.dB 5.50 5.50 3.00 5.50-
I!HCR ~SFTS
S.O0 S.30 :.J0 :~.00
rib
E:.O0 S.:]O G .00 S.O0
3A~ACiT'"," A~D LEMEL-0F-SERVI CE Page-3
MOL;--?!ENT
POTEN- ACTUAL
FL0~- TIAL HOV~MENT SHARED RE3~RU~
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
u(pc~h> c (pcph)' c (pcph) c (pcpn) c = c - v LOS
p H SH R SH
MINOR STREET
NE: LEFT
RIGHT
4! 418 410 > 410 > 367 > B
> 4~2 > 42& >A
25 727 727 > 727 > 701 > A
MAJOR STREET
LEFT 31 883 883 883 852 A
I785 HCH: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
*********************************************************************
I DENT I FY I NG I NFORMAT I ON
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................
AREA POPULATION .................................
NAME OF THE EAST?WEST STREET ....................
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ..................
NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mrr,/dd/>,y) .................
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................
55
I
150000
route 48
~ooPe'$
&/22/87
NB Fri pm pe~K
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION ~'FE: T-INTERSECTION
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
ES [,lB NB SB
LEFT 0 l S 3S --
THRU 207 200 0 --
RI GHT 2'P G ' ._.':'- :'~, --
,~[Ji'IE, E~ , :- :-ANES
ADJUSTIdENT FACTORS Page-~
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0.00
NORTHBOUND 0.00
SOUTHBOUND .....
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
0.00 ~0 20
90 20
90 20
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
N
N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
% SU TRUCKS
AND RV' S
0
COMBINATION
VEHICLES
0
MOTORCYCLES
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED
(Table 10-2) VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRITICAL GAF
HINOR R I C-HTS
NB o. 50 6.50 0.00 ~.50
hIAJOR LEFTS
~d8 5.50 5.5O 0.00 5.50
PII~iOR LEP~S
NB 3.30 8.00 0.0O S.00
CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-~ERVICE Page-3
MOVEMENT
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
, ,'pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = ¢ - v LOS
p M SH R SH
MINOR STREET
NB
LEFT
R I GHT
42 391 38~ > 356 > 344 >
> 488 > 410
35 702 702 > 702 > ~65 > A
MAJOR STREET
WB LEFT 20 854 854 854 894 A
1785 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
I DENT I FY I NG I NFORMAT I ON
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET..
PEAK HOUR FACTOR .....................
AREA POPULATION ......................
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET .........
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .......
NAME OF THE ANALYST ..................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/'Od/yy) ......
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED .................
55
i
150000
route 48
Moore's Lane
Fei-pm peak Buila
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION TYPE: ~-INTERSECTt0N
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SION
EB WB .N'B SB
° :':
THRU 207 £ 00 0 --
EIGHT : =:-~, 0 ~,.'- --
NbblBER '3F LAJ"-IES
EB WB NB
LANES i. ;. 1 --
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0.00
NORTHBOUND 0.00
SOUTHBOUND .....
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CUR8 RADIUS
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
0.00 90 20
90 20
90 20
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
N
N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
SU TRUCKS Y. COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES ;.; MOTORCYCLES
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR UALUES
(Table 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTME?~T
FINAL
CRITICAL 6AP
MIhIOR RIGHTS
6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50
MAJOR LEFTS
5.50 ~.50 0.00 5.50
ld Ii'40R LEFT:E' ~
i'4B 3 · O0 :~. O0 0 · 90 :3.00
CAPA2:iTY AND ~EUEL-OF-$ERVI CE Pmge-3
M OV Eh!ENT
PCTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
P!I~OR ST~EE-F
LE..--T
RIGHT
56 379 371 > 371 > 315 > B
> 4&l > 364 >B
41 &P2 692 > 692 > 651 > A
STREET
WB LEFT 2~ 830 830 830 801 A
i785 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED iNTERSECTIONS Pag~-I
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET ..............
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................. 1
AREA POPULATION .................................. 150000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... route 48
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Moore's Lane
NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. GD
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/~d/y¥) ..................
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. NB Sat pm peak
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSE2T~0N TYPE: T-INTER~ECTION
.~uR.=.~==~ ~IRECTiON: EAST/WEST
CS;dTR,DL -YPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFF;C <¢OLL!MES
EB WB NB SB
LEFT 0 28 28 --
THRU 277 280 0 --
EIGHT 48 0 S2 --
EE ~.,.IB NB SB
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION L~IE
GRADE ANOLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
E~STBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
WESTBOUND 0.00 ~0 20 N
NORTHBOUND 0.00 PO 20 N
SOUTHBOUND .....
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
% SU TRUCKS ~ COMBINATION
AND RU'S VEHICLES % MOTORC¥CLBS
EASTBOUND 0 0 0
WESTBOUND 0 0 0
NORTHBOLND 0 0 0
SOUTHBOUND
CRITICAL GAPS
TAEULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST, FINAL
(table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP
MINOR RIGHTS
6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50
>,~,In~
,1~C,, LEF-S
W8 5.~0 5.50 0.00 5.50
.... " " LEFTS :
.M OV EM El,IT
~OTEN- ACTUAL
FLC!.~- TIAL MOUEMENT SHARED RESERME
RATE CAPACITY CAP~CITY CAPACITY CAPACIT\'
· ~pcpn) c ~pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
~, M SH R SH
r,lI NOR STREET
f'...I B LEFT
R I GHT
3! 291 284 > 284 > 253 > C
> 403 > 237 >B
35 634 634 > 634 > 599 > A
PIA~OR STF. EET
WB LEFT 2. 768 768 768 737 A
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
IDS~TIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 40
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................. 1
AREA POPUL~ATION .................................. 150000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... route 48
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH ST~E'I' ................... Moore's Lane
NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. GD
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/do?yy)... ............... ~/18~87
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............... · .............. Sat pm peak Build
iNTERSECTiON TYPE AND CONTROL
INTE~SECTiON TYPE: T-INrTERS~CTION
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
EB W8 NB SB
LEFT O 37 ~S --
THRU 277 2S6 0 --
RI6HT ~ 0 40 --
r!UMBER 3F LANE{
ADJUST~ENT FACTORS Psge-2
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB-RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20
WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
SOUTH80UND ............
ACCELERC~TION LANE
FOR RIGH'r TURNS
N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
'/_
· .:.J TRUCKS
AND RV' $
0
COMBINATION
UEH I CLES
MOTORCYCLES
0
0 0 0
NORTHBOUND 0 0 0
SOUTHBOUN£ .... .---
CRITI ....
,~L 3APS
MINOR RIGHTS
NB
MAJOR LEFTS
WB
MINOR LEFTS
TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL
(Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP
5. '30 5.90 0 ·00 5.~0
520 = ~ '-'
'. ,~. ~.0 0.00 5.~0
7.10 ?.1'0 0.00 7.10
CAPACITY AND LEVE.-GF-SERVICE Page-S
MOVEMEh;T
P0tEN- ACTUAL
=LOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED
RATE CAP~CITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
v(pcph) c (pcph) c <pcpn) c (pcph)
p M SH
RESERUE
CAPACITY
c = .-- - ~ LOS
R SH
MINOR STREET
NB
LEFT
RIGHT
42 35~ 347 > 347
> 469
44 704 704 > 704
660
MAJOR STREET
LEFT
41 856 ~56 856
I?S5 HCM: UN$IGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS P~ge-!
IDENTI~/ING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREE'~ .............. 55
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................. I
AREA POPULATION .................................. 150000
NAME OF THE EAST~WEST STREET ..................... Middletown Ro~d
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH 'STREET ................... Route 48
NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. GD
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. Mort am pe~K No Build
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
iHTERSECT;ON TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR ~TRE~T DIRECTION: ~AS%'i~EST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN '
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC .O-JM
EB WB NB SB
LEFT 5 :3 ; '2
THRU 207 I':._,._, } 0
RIGHT 4 : 2 7
US.AGE LTF: LTF
PERCENT RIGHT TURN
GRADE ANGLE
CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGI4T TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
WESTBOUND 0.00 ?0 20 N
NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
-)
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
~ SU TRUCKS ~ COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES
EASTBOUND 0
WESTBOUND 0 0
e qORTHBOUND 0
SOUTHBOUND 0
MOTORCYCLES
0
TABULAR VALUES
(Table 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST·
ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRITICAL
HII-;OR RI ~SHT'---,
~.IB *£. ~'0 ¥ · 50 0. O0 .5 · 51'~
i '=": E, 6.50 ~. 50 0 · £,:] ,E,. 50
' ~'"' ..... LEFTS
_ ~:t ~. ' '- 5.5[:
EB ._,~. 50 5.50 :] .00 5.50
!1 ! ;.;OR
"~B . --,d 7.50 0 . O0 ?. 50
~.--, , . 50 '~ · 50 :], O0 7.50
,'1I NOR LEFTS
>i,S :3. O0 ._~,. 00, '"..00 ,.,-~ · ,..";-'-.
=-.E: S.0¢~ 9.00 0.00 S. O0
=, ~ .:,. 0 L~ =,. 0 0 u. 0 0 E,. 0 0
3APACiT', ~N[., '_EVEL-C:F-SERVICE
MOVEMENT
?OTEN- ACTUAL
F~OW- TIA~ ~OVEMEHT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACI.TY CAPACITY CAP~CITY CAPACITY
~;pcpn, c ~pcph) c (pcph) c ~pcph) c = ¢ - ~
p M SH R SH
MINOR ~TREET
L--.~r
THROUGH
10 40? 404 } 404 > 3¢4 > B
C 453 450 > 43? 450 > 42¢ 450 >A A
£ 712 712 > 712 > 710 > A
r.1INOR 3TREET
SB _EFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
41! 408 > 408 > 406 > A
452 450 > 624 450 > 614 450 )A A
7E~, 735 > 735 > 727 > A
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT
WB LEFT
?05 ~05 ~05 8~ A
87~ 879 879 876 A
1985 HCM: UNSiGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
*********************************************************************
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 55
PEAK HOUR FACTOR .......................
AREA POPULATION ........................
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...........
NAME OF THE N0~TH/80UTH 8~REET .........
NAME OF THE ANALYST ....................
D~TE OF THE ANALYSIS (rnm/dd/'yy) ........
TiME PERIOD ANALYZED ...................
......... 150000
......... Middletown Road
......... Route 48
......... GD
.........
......... Mon e~ peak Build
INTERSECTION T"PE AND CONTROL
:I4TERSECTiON '"'/PE: 4-LES
MAJOR STREET DIRECT!C;;:
C']>4TROL TYPE NORTHBOUND:
CONTROL TYPE :_=,OU'HBOUND:
EA ST/W E BT
STOP SIGN
STOP SiGN
TPAF=!C U0iUMES
LEF--
THRU
EE bOB r-JB SB
~ ~ io 2
207 185 0 9
NUMBER OF '-ANEE AND :_~NE US.~GE
_ANEE
EB ~ .,~ ;4E S8
I ! '., I
LTR
ADJUSTMENT
FACTORS
PERC~qT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 90 ~0
WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20
NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20
Page-
ACCELERATI ON LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
N
N
N
UEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOU:4D
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
SU TRUCKS
AND RV'S
0
0
0
0
~. COMBINATION
VEH I CLES
0
0
0
0
,." MOTORCYCLES
0
0
0
CRITICAL GAPS
t'41NOR Rt GHTS
~IB
C:E
MA~T OR LEF-rS
i,d B
:-I lhiOR THRCiI_IGH-~:
:-' B
LEFTS
TABULAR VALUES
(Taol e 10-2)
6.50
~ .50
7
7.50
:_=' . ZII'J
8 · CIO
ADJUSTED
VALUE
6.50
5.50
5.50
7,~0
7.50
8. O0
3.00
SIGHT D!ST.
A D J U STM ENT
0. O0
0. O0
0 ·
0 · O0
0.3 0
0. O0
0 . O0
F!NCL
CRITICAL
6.50
.~.CO
~. 50
~ 50
o O0
!'IINOR THROUGHS
~,IE . ]-. 7.50 0 . 00 .50
t.~: 7.50 7.50 0.0. 7.
LE~TE.
;'.18 :: . J'0 8. O0 0. O0 E,. 00
~.~ ~-,..-, ~. S.O0 0 .DO E:.O0
CAPACITY AND ~-EUEL-0F-EERVI CE Pmge-$
M OVEi'4 EN~'
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAb MOVEMENT SHARED RES~RUE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACZ;'TY
v(pcpn) c (pcph)- c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOt
p M SH R SH
MINOR '~TE EET
NB LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
408 402 > 402 > 385 > B
452 449 > 441 44~ > 41~ 44~ >A A
7il 711 > 711 > 707 > A
MINOR STREET
LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
408 403 > 403 > 401 > A
450 447 > &21 447 > 611 447 >A A
735 735 > 735 > 727 > A
MAJOR STREET
E8 LEFT & 905 905 905 89~ A
WB LEFT 4 876 87~ 87& 872 A
2985 HCM: UN$IGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-I
I DENT i FY I NG ! NFO~PIAT I ON
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................
AREA POPULATION .................................
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ....................
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ..................
NAME OF THE ANALYST .......... : ..................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/~x> .................
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................
55
1
150O00
Middletown Road
Route 48
GD
6/22/87
Fri pm peak No Build
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION TYFE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECT!ON: EAST/WEST
CONT~0L TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAF=!C UOLUMES
EB WB NS SB
LEFT :S 2 ? 8
THRU 257 207 O 2
RIGHT ~ ~ 2 14
blUr, lEER OF L~NES ~ND LANE USAGE
LAN E S
EE h B NB S;B
1 I I I
LTR LTR
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
~STBOUND 0o00 90 20 N
WESTBOUND 0o00 90 20 N
NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
SOUTHBOUND O.00 90 20 N
VEHICLE COMFOSITION
% SU TRUC~S ~ COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES }~ MOTORCYCLES
EASTBOUND 0 0 0
WESTBOUND 0 0 0
NORTHBOUND 0 0 0
SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
~II~ ..... I ...... ~II~IIiIllIIlIllII Ill I IlIIllIIlI~li~II~l~lllI~III~II
TABULAR. UALUES
(Table 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRITICAL ~AP
MINOR RIGHTS
.... ~ ~.50 0.00 6.50
~B ~.50 ~.50 0.00 ~.50
PIAJOR LE~TS
WE: 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50
~ EB 5,50 5.50 0.00 5.50
PIINOR THROIJGH S
NE: -. 50 ~ ~ -
.... 0 0. O 0 . . 50
=" 7.5 0 0 . 0 0 - ,='r.
!'llt.lOR LEFTS
NS :3.00 8.00 C,. 30 :3. O 0
SE' :3.00 '3.00 0.00 S. 0~'
..... ~. 7.50 0.00 7.50
!$II.10~ LE.--T S
~.= 8.00 S.O0 0.00 S.O0
SE: 8 ·00 8. O0 0 · OG 8. O0
CAPACITY AN[', 2EMEZ-OF-SERVICE Page-3
MOVEMENT
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOt*~- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY- CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
v,;pc:,n:, c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
MINOR STREET
NB LEFT
THROUGH
RI GHT
:3 348 338 > 338 ~ 328 > B
r. 396 390 > 371 390 > 359 390 >B B
2 669 669 > 669 > 667 > A
MINOR STREET
SB LEFT
THROL;GH
RIGHT
357 351 > 351 > 342 > B
396 390 > 503 390 > 477 387 >A B
710 710 > 710 > 694 > A
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT 20 875 875 875 855 A
WB LEFT 2 827 827 .827 825 A
HC;'I: UNoI O~4~LI ~ED INTERSECTIONS Paqe-1
*********************************************************************
AVERAGE RUNNING 'SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 55
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................. 1
AFEA POPULATION .................................. 150000
NAME OF THE EAST.?WEST STREET ..................... Middletown Road
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Route 48
NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. GD
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .................. 4/22/87
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED .......... ..... ' .............. Fpi pm peal( Build
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
iNTERSECTION ~/PE: 4-LE~
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SiGN
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SION
LEF-
THF'_
RIOH-
EB WB NB SB
~57 =U~ 0 2
i 4 .E. .i 14
;!L'~!E, ER OF L~hlE':-, Ar,;[, =AN--- 'J~'AGE
EB ~.aE, NB '---B
I i ! 1
L A hi E S
LTR
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20
WESTBOUND 0.00 ~0 20 N
NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT' TURNS
N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
% SU TRUCKS ~ COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES
EASTBOUND 0 0 0
WESTBOUND 0 0 0
NORTHBOUND 0 0 0
SOUTHBOUND 0 O O
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES
(Table 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
· ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRITICAL GAP
MINOR RIGHTS
NB 8.50 &.50 0.00 ~.50
SB ~.50 ~.50 O.O0 ~.50
MAJOR LEFTS
WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50
EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50
pIINOR THROUGHS
7.50 7.S0 0.O0
7.50 7.50
MINOR LEF=S
bib S.00 8.00 0.30
SB B.0O 8.00 0.90 8.00
,' -. -. ~: 7. ~ Ct 0 . 00 - . .J= ,J'
~E' -'.50 7.50 O.O0 , .50
~.i E '---;. 0 C: S, 00 0. ....J'"" 'E · 00
:-~E :E:.0C, S.00 0.00 8.00
CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3
HOUEMENT
~OTEN- ACTUAL.
FLOW- TIAL MOMEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY, CAPACITY CAPACIT~¢
u(pcpn) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = ¢ - v LOS
p M SH R SH
~!NOR STEEET
NB LEFT
THROUGH
RI GHT
333 > 333 > 317 > B
384 > 374 384 > 354 384 >B B
666 > 666 > 661 > A
MINOR STREET
SB LE~T
THROUGH
RIGHT
C, 349 342 > 342 > 333 > B
2 389 382 > 4¢6 382 > 470 380 >A B
15 710 710' > 710 > 6~4 > A
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT 20 875 875 875 855 A
W8 LEFT 6 819 819 .81~ 814 A
I785 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-I
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET..
PEAK HOUR FACTOR .....................
AREA POPULATION ......................
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET .........
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .......
NAME OF THE ANALYST ..................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ......
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED .................
........... 150000
........... Middletown Road
........... Route 48
........... ~718/87
........... Sat pm peak No Sui!O
INTERSECTION ~FPE AND CONTROL
iNTERSE~TION ~/PE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
CONTROL ~¢PE SOUTH80UND: STOP SI F~%I
LEFT
THRU
RIGHT
EB I..,~ B NB SB
lO I ? ~
2~7 3~:8 0 0
~'.IL~:'-'1BEP, OF LANES F4ND LANE USAGE
,HNES
FIB
1 .l
LTR LTR
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS page-2
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB I~ADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0,00 ~0 20
WESTBOUND 0.00 ~0 20
NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20
SOUTHBOUND 0,00 .90 20
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
N
N
N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
}~ SU TRUCKS ~ COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES
EASTBOUND 0 0 0
WESTBOUND 0 0 0
NORTHBOUND 0 0 0
SOUTHBOUND 3 O 0
TABULAR VALUES
(Tao!e 10-2)
ADJUSTEB
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUS399ENT
F I NAL
CRITI C~L GAP
MINOR RIGHTS
NB ~.50 &.50 0.O0 ¢...g"
SB ~.50 ~.50 0.~0
MAJOR LEFTS
5.50 5.50 C.00
5.50 5.50 O.00 5.50
7.50 7
~.50 ~.50 0 00 ~.5
_: c: O0 :~.00 0.00
CAP,~CiT. A~'~D L. EVEL-OF-SERV!CE
~0TE~'.- ACTUAL
F'-0b~;- TIAL HOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPAC iT'F CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v,.pcph) c (pcDh) c ~p_-ph) c (pcph) c = c - v L0~
p M SH , R SH
MINOR ~TREET
THF. 0LI~H 0 ~[. 317 > 427 317 > 421 317 >A 8
?I I ~'40R E:TREET
iEFT 3 284 281 > 281 ) 278 ,! C
THROUGH C: 220 317 > 437 317 ) 427 317 )A 8
RIGHT 7 &05 ~05 > &05 > 599 ? A
MAJOR ETREET
EB iEFT .,'~ 753 753 753 742 A
WE LEFT ~20 ~20 820 819 A
i
1985 HCM: UNSiGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, I~A~0R STREET .............. 55
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................ I
AREA POPULATION .................................. 150000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... Middletown Ro~d
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Route 48
NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. GD
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .................. ~/18/87
TIHE PERIOD ANALYZED .............................. Sa~ pm peak Duild
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION TYFE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SiGN
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
EB WB NB SB
LEFT 10 8 ~ 3
THRU 267 338 0 0
RIGHT i0 35 ? ~
LAN E S
E S (d 8 H B :--: B
! I I
LAHE USAGE LTR LTR
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20
WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20
NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
N
N
N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
SU TRUCKS X COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES ~ MOTORCYCLES
0 0 0
WESTBOUND 0 0 0
NORTHBOUND 0 0 0
SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0
CEITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES
<T~ble 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTM~4T
FINAL
CRITICAL GAF
MINOR RIGHTS
NB ~.50 ~.50 0.00
SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 6.50
MAJOR LEFTS
WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50
EO 5.50
MINOR THROUGHS
SB
7.50 7.50 0.00 7.50
7.50 7.50 0.00 7.50
HINOR LEFTS
NB 8.00 S,O0 0,00 S.OO
SB S.OO 8.00 0.00 S.OO
N E: :B · 00 ~., 00 C: . 00 8.00
SE: 8.00 8.00 0.06 cd.OC~
M OV EM ENT
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY5' CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
v(pcph> c (pcph) c (pcph) c <pcph> c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
MINOR STREET
NB LE~T
THROUGH
RIGHT
9 264 _.258 > 258 > 24~ ; C
0 300 295 > .:,8, 2~5 > 3~2 ~5 >B C
10 65~ ~5~ > ~59 > ~4~' > A
MINOR STREET
LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
3 268' 2~2 > 282 > 258 > C
0 30& 301 > 417 301 > 407 301 >A B
7 593 593 > 5~3 > 587 > A
MAJOE STREET
EB LEFT 11 724 724 724 713 A
WB LEFT 9 813 813 813 804 A
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-:
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AUERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................
AREA POPULATION .................................
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ....................
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ..................
NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .................
TiME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................
40
1
150000
Route 25
Moore's L~ne
GD
Mon tm peak No
INTERSECTION TVPE AND CONTROL-
INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHe.OUND: YIELD SIGN
LEFT
THRU
RIGHT
EB we. NB SB
40 0 -- 6d
0 SO -- ~2
/'-JUMEER OF L~NES
L~N r.: =,
EE' :..lB HE S~
...........................
I ! -- I
AD JUSTMF. NT FACTORS Page----
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0.00 90
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
0.00 90 20 N
20 N
20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTEOUND
NORTHBOOND
SOUTHBOUND
SU TRUCKS
AND RV'S
0
COMBINATION
VEHICLES
0
MOTORCYCLES
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST.
(TAD1 e 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRITICAL GAP
MINOR RIGHTS
5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20
,1AJOx LE.---TS
ES 5.20 5.20 0.00 '5.20
MI,~O~ i ='='r'-~
'-::B ~, · 40 ,5.40 O · O0 ~. 40
t. APM,.~.~ AND LEUE~-OF-SERVICE Pmge-3
MOVEMENT
POTEN- ACTUAL
PLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY 'CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph> c = c - u LOS
p M SH R SH
M I NO~.: STREET
RIGHT
73 477 .... '~
> 554 > 447 >~
35 983 9S$ > 933 > 8~ > A
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT 44 ~1~ ~i~ ~1~ 875 A
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZEO INTERSECTIONS Page-!
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MA~0R STREET .............. 40
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................. 1
AREA POPULATION .................................. 1~0000
~ME OF THE EAST?WEST STREET ..................... Route 25
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH~ STREET ................... MooPe~s
NAME OF THE ANALYST ..............................
DATE OF THE ANAl/SIS (mm?dd/yy) ..................
TIME PERIOD ANAMFZED ............................. Mon &m pe~K Build
iHTER~E~TiON T',~PE: T-INTERSECTION
;'!AJ0R STREET DIRECTION: EABTx14EST
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: YIELD SIGN
· TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EB WB NB SB
LEFT 44 0 -- 83
-H~U 228 240 -- 0
RIGHT 0 34 -- 43
' EB W8 NB SB
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0.00
NORTHBOUND .....
SOUTHBOUND 0,00
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELEEATION LANE
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
0.00 ~0 20 N
90 20 N
~0 20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTEOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
SU TRUCKS ;~. COMBINATION
AND RV~S VEHICLES Y. MOTORCYCLES
0 0 0
0 0 ;3
0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR ~..~ALUEB ADJUBTED SIGHT DIST. FINAl_
(Taole 10-2) UALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP
?!INOR RIGHTS
5.20 . 5.ZO O.O0
5.20
MAJOR L EF"r S
ES 5.20 5.20 " ""
u.;Ju 5 20
r-IlNOR LEFTE
~.40 ..5.40 0.00 6.40
.... ' 4C 4C r: ([ c,.40
CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-E,
MOVEMENT
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
~(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
MINOR STREET
LEFT
RIGHT
~1 473 458 > 458 >
> 554 >
47 931 931 > 931 >
367 >
415
884 > A
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT 48 915 915 915 8&& A
19S5 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-i
*********************************************************************
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 40
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................. 1
AREA POPULATION .................................. 150000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... Route 25
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Moore's Lane
NAME OF THE ANALYST GD
DATE OF THE AHALYSIS (mm/dd?~y) ~x'1~/'$7
TIME PERIOD ANALY~ED .............................
pm peak No Duilc
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTI.ON
MAJOR ~TREET DIrECTiON: SAST/WEST
E:ONT~OL TYPE SOUTHBO'~ND: YIELD SiGN
LEFT _.'~'? 0 -- 40
THRU -.. z -
:.7~ z85 -- 0
RIGHT p .z:~ __ -.~
,.IL,,!.,m~ :DF LANES
EB W'E' I-IE~ SB
I -- !
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0.00
NORTHBOUND .....
SOUTHBOUND 0.00
PERCENT RIGHT TURN
GRADE ANGLE
0.00 ~0
CURB RADIUS (ft)
FOR RIGHT TURNS
20
90 20 N
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
90 20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
SU TRUCKS
AND RV'S
EASTBOUND 0
WESTBOUND 0
NORTHBOUND ---
SOUTHBOUND 0
CDMBINATION
VEHICLES
0
MOTORCYCLES
0
0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR. VALUES
(TaOle 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
C~ITICAL GAF
MINOR' RIGHTS
SB 5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20
MAJOR LEFTS
EB 5.20 ~.20 0.00 5.20
MINOR :LEFTS
3B ~.40 ~.40 0.00 o.40
M Gt;EMEHT
POTEN- ACTUAL
fLO;;- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACI'P/ CAPACITY I CAPACITY
v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c -
p M SH R SH
LOS
MINOR STREET
LEFT
RIGHT
44 570 3~4 > 3&4 > 320
> 4~8 > S97
2~ 892 8~2 > 892 > 8~6
> B
>B
> A
MAJOR STREet,
ES iEr-T 24 880 880 880 855 A
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PAge-I
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 40
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................
AREA POPULATION .................
,NAME OF THE EAST/WEST.STREET ....
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET..
NAHE OF THE ANALYST .............
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy~.
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............
................ 150000
................ Route 25
... .... . ........ Moope~
~D
Fri pm peak Guild
INTEREECTION ~/FE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
MA~OR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL ?fPE 30UTHGOUND: YIELD SiGN
LEFT
.THt;:U
F, I GHT
E_~ WB NB $~
',3 0 -- 50
'3 4: -- 30
>IUi'IEER DF L.-~NES
EB
r,JG
LAN E E - -
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND .....
SOUTHBOUND 0.00
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
0.00 ~0 20
0.00 90
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
2O N
?0. 20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
~ SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES
EASTBOUND 0 0
WESTBOUND 0 0
NORTHBOUND ......
SOUTHBOUND 0 0
MOTORCYCLES
0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES
(Taole 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRITICAL GAP
NINOR RIGHTS
5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20
MAJOP LEFTS
5.20 5.20 , 0.00 5.20
MINOR LEFTS
SB o.zO ~,40 0.00 ,~.~0
CAPACITY AND ~EVEL-0~-SERVICE Page-~
MOVEMENT
POTEN-. ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY C~APACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v L0~
p M SH R SH
MINOR STREET,
RIGHT
55 358 34~ > 34~ > 2~4 >
> 452 > 3~4
33 883 883 > 883 > 850
MAJOR STREET
EB L~FT 3& 8~2 8~2 8~2 82~ A
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALI,"ED INTERSECTIONS Page-!
*********************************************************************
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AMERAGE RUNNING SPEED~ MAd0R STREET .........
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................
AREA POPULATIOM .............................
NAME OF THE EAST?WE~T ~TREET ................
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOU~R STREET ..............
NAME OF THE ANALYST .........................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/¥y) .............
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ........................
.... 150000
.... Route 25
.... Moope/s
....
.... &/18/87
.... Sat pm peak
INTERSECTiON TYPE AND CONTROL
iNTERSECTi~'~;.4 TYPE: T-iNTER, SECT: ON
MAJOR ST~:EET DIRECTI ON: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: YIELD SIGN
LEFT
THRU
RIGHT
EB WB NB SB
32 0 -- 54
-73c. - 344 --
0 35 -- ,3°2
4L?I .... AF L~NE3
EB WB ,.lB SB
LANES 0 ! -- I
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
PERCENT RIGHT TURN
GRADE ANGLE
EASTBOUND 0,00 90
WESTBOUND 0.00 90
NORTHBOUND ........
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90
CURB RADIUS (ft)
FOR RIGHT TURNS
20
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
20 N
20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
SU TRUCKS ~ COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
TABULAR VALUES
(Table 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMB4T
FINAL
CRITICAL GAP
MINOR RIGHTS
SS 5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20
MAJOR LEFTS
EB 5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20
MINOR LEFTS
GB 6.40 ~.40 0.00 ~.40
F.:APA]ITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERUI CE F'age-3
POTEN- AOTUAL
PL0~- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph> c Cpcp~) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
~. ~l SH R SH
fIINOR STREET
SB LEFT 57 318 ' 310
RIGHT 35 832 832
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT 55 8!~ 8i5
> 310 > ~50 > C
> 404 > 309 >B
> 832 > 7~ > A
815 780 A
1785 HCH: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Pmge-I
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET ............
PEAK HOU~ FACTOR ...............................
AREA POPU~ATION ................................
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...................
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET., .................
NAME OF THE ANALYST ............................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ................
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED.~ .........................
40
1
150000
Route 25
Moore's Lane
GD
6/18/87
S~t pm pea~ @uild
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
i NTERSECTi ON ~'~E: T- !NTERSECTI ON
~md0R STREET DIRECTION: ~AST/WEST
CONTR0~ TYP~ SOUTHSOUND: YiElD SIGN
THRU
RIGHT
EB [..JB NB SB
40 0 -- ~4
0 4¢ -- 40
L~NE--
EB WB ' NB
i 1 --
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
PERCENT RIGHT TUPJ~ CURB Ft~:~DIUS (ft)
GRADE ~GLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20
WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20
NORTHBOUND ...........
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 . 20
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
N
N
UEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
SU TRUCKS X COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES X MOTORCYCLES
0 0 0
WESTBOUND 0 0 0
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES
(Table 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINAl
CRITICAL GAP
MINOR RIGHTS
SB 5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20
MAJOR LEFTS
EB 5.20 5.20~ 0.0~ 5.20
MINOR LEFTS
SB 6.~0 6.40 0.00
HINOP LEFT'~
3E: &.40 6.40 0,00 !,.40
(
¢
(
CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE
Page
HOVEMENT
POT=N- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
v~pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v L
p M SH R SH
MINOR STREET
SB LEFT 70 ~10 300 > 300
> 397 >
RIGHT 44 826 82~ > 826 >
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT 44 805 805 805
22~ >
283 >C
782 >
REVISIONS TO SUPPLEMENT
AND
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
OCTOBER 13, 1988
DECEMBER 30, 1988
PEcomc ASSOCIATES, Inc.
~nvironmental Planners & Consultants
One Bootley Alley P.O. Box 672
Greenport, New York 11944
(516) 477-0030
Fax (516) 47%0198
December 30, 1988
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, L. I.
New York 11971
Re: D.E.I.S.
Cedarfields/Mooresland
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
In accordance with recent meetings and discussions with Dave
Emilita and Va!arie Scopaz, we have revised the Supplement
to subject Impact Statement to include maps of the Zone of
Influence both of the basic plan and the revised plan (100
units). We have also added another alternative (1OD units)
based on the latest information that it may be an extended
period of time before approval could be obtained for hook-up
of units to the Greenport Sewage T?eatment Plant.
Based on the above meetings and discussions, it is our
understanding that the enclosed documents will complete the
D.E,I.S. submittal.
Sincerely,
PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC.
Merlon E. Wiggin4X~Ph.D.,M.E.
President
Enclosure
cc: Mr. John Costello
Mr. Donald Bracken
SECTION A-1
GROUNDWATER IMPACT
FROM FERTILIZER NITRATES
FOR
CEDARFIELDS AND MOORESLAND
BASIC PLAN (168 UNITS)
PREPARED BY:
CHARLES R. VELZY ASSOCIATES, INC.
ONE DLD COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 430
CARLE PLAO~, NEW YORK - 11514
AND
PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC.
ONE BOOTLEG ALLEY
GREENPORT, NEW YORK - 11944
JUN~ 23, 1987
REVISED: OCTOBER 13, 1988
GROUNDWATER IMPACT
To access the impacts of fertilizer nitrates on groundwater
quality in the on-site well, estimates of the well's re-
charge zone and nitrate concentrations in recharge waters
are presented. Reference is made to reports previously
prepared as part of the area's water resource management
program.
The recharge zone for a production well is represented by a
circular area with the well at the center. The charge zone
(or capture zone) of %he on-site well can be estimated by
the method of Todd {1964), as presented in the North Fork
Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York {ERM/Camp,
Dresser & McKee, 1983). The method allows for the
estimation of the radius of influence of a pumping well,
based on the expected pumping rate and natural recharge
rates from precipitation:
Q = r' xw
0
where, Q : effective well pumping rate
radius of influence
natural recharge rate
The estimated production capacity of the on-site well is
120,000 gallons per day {gpd}. Using an annual, long-term
average recharge value of 20 inches {ERM/Camp, Dresser &
McKee, 1983), the radius of influence is tabulated as:
~ :/~120,000 ~al/da¥
x~/ 3.75 x 10-2 gal/day/square foot
1.79 x 10~ ft 1800 feet
The radius of influence (r) defines the circular area
around the well from which infiltrating precipitation is
captured and discharged to the surface. A value of 1800
feet corresponds to an area of about 10,179,000 square feet,
or 234 acres. (See attached drawing.)
Based on this analysis, the proposed development is found to
be entirely within the recharge zone of the well. The
impact of nitrate fertilization of turfgrass in the
development can be assessed by determining what affect
development of 50 of these acres, or 21% of the recharge
area, would have on existing nitrate concentrations.
Nitrate concentrations {Nitrate as Nitrogen) in the well's
recharge water zone have been measured previously as 2.1
mg/L, as indicated in a letter from ECOTEST Laboratories,
dated May 5, 1986, attached hereto.
The average effect of lawn fertilizers, using data
reflecting average turf management practices in Eastern
Suffolk County follows:
Substance
Nitrogen and
Water Recharged From
Turf Sewage Other
Overall Nitrogen
Concentration in
Recharge (mg/L)
Water (in.) 13.5 5.6 18.2 9.3 (On site septic
system)
Nitrogen (lb/Acre) 24.0 52.4 4.2 3.94 (public Sewer)
Land use is based on residential with 2 to 4 dwelling units
per acre. Average turf management practices would estimate
the application rate of 2.5 pounds of fertilizer per 1,O00
square feet per year (Hughes and Porter,'1983).
Resultant nitrate concentrations in pumped groundwater would
be expected to represent an average of the three concentrations
discussed above, and can be calculated from the equation:
ercent of~ /t~itrate~ /'percent of\ ~itrat~ /percent of~ /nitrate~
ater from~lconcen-)~lwater from\ ~oncen-~h~water from~(concen-)=:~
ew devel-/\tration/ k existing / ~ration/( remaining |~tration!
pment / ~ / ~development/ -- · ~undeveloped /
\ /
--natural are~
~otal Water~ /resultant~
Initrate
~olume-i 00~
~concentra-!
.x tion
Using a radius of influence (r) of 1800 feet, the total area
of influence equals 233.7 Acres.
The new development of 48.7 Acres represents 20.8% of total.
The existing development of 23.1 Acres represents 9.9% of total.
The remaining natura! area of 161.9 Acres represents 69.3% of total.
(20.8%) (3.94 mg/L) + (9.9%) (9.3 mg/L) + (69.3%) (2.1 mg/L) =
(lOO%) (resultant nitrate concentration)
Resultant Nitrate Concentration : 3.2 mg/L
Based on a review of existing data, the impact of the
application of nitrate.fertilizers would not result in
nitrate concentrations in excess of accepted water quality
criteria. A value of 3.2 mg/L represents an average value.
Concentrations below this would be expected as a result of
the proposed fertilization monitoring program recommending an
application rate of one pound of fertilizer per one thousand
square feet. As previously stated, continuing monitoring of
the water quality from the new well and that of strategically
placed monitoring wells will be the best indication of the
effectiveness of the proposed fertilizing covenented
restrictions.
REFERENCES
Hughes, Henry B.F. and Keith Porter, Land Use and Ground
Water Qualit~ in the Pine Barrons of Southampton, Cornel!
University, 1983.
County, New Yorkj
North Fork Water SuppZ¥ Plan, Suffolk
ERM-Northeast/Camp, Dresser & McKee, 1983.
SECTION A-2
GROUNDWATER IMPACT
FROM FERTILIZER NITRATES
FOR
CEDARFIELDS AND MOORESLAND
REVISED PLAN (100 UNITS)
PREPARED BY:
CHARLES R. VELZY ASSOCIATES, INC.
ONE OLD COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 430
CARLE PLACE, NEW YORK - 11514
AND
PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC.
ONE BOOTLEG ALLEY
GREENPORT, NEW YORK - 11944
DECEMBER 29, 1988
GROUNDWATER IMPACT
To access the impacts of fertilizer nitrates on groundwater
quality in the on-site well, estimates of the well's re-
charge zone and nitrate concentrations in recharge waters
are presented. Reference is made to reports previously
prepared as part of the area's water resource management
program.
The recharge zone for a production well is represented by a
circular area with the well at the center. The charge zone
(or capture zone} of the on-site well can be estimated by
the method of Todd (1964), as presented in the North Fork
Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York (ERM/Camp,
Dresser & McKee, 1983). The method allows for the
estimation of the radius of influence of a pumping well,
based on the expected pumping rate and natural recharge
rates from precipitation:
where,
Q : ro' x w
Q : effective well pumping rate
ro : radius of influence
w : natural recharge rate
The estimated production capacity of the on-site well is
120,000 gallons per day {gpd). Using an annual, long-term
average recharge value of 20 inches (ERM/Camp, Dresser &
McKee, 1983), the radius of influence is-tabulated as:
,ro =/120,000 ~)a 1/davy
~ 3.75 x 10-= gal/day/square foot
ro = 1.79 x 10~ ft 1800 feet
The radius of influence (r) defines the circular area
around the well from which infiltrating precipitation is
captured and discharged to the surface. A value of 1800
feet corresponds to an area of about I0,179,000 square feet,
or 23) acres. (See attached drawing.)
Based on this analysis, the proposed development is found to
be entirely within the recharge zone of the well. The
impact of nitrate fertilization of turfgrass in the
development can be assessed by determining what affect
development of 25.4 of these acres, or 10.9% of the recharge
area, would have on existing nitrate concentrations.
Nitrate concentrations {Nitrate as Nitrogen) in the well's
recharge water zone have been measured previously as 2,1
mg/L, and as previously indicated, that level which would be
expected from undeveloped or natural areas.
The average effect of .lawn fertilizers, using data
reflecting average turf management practices in Eastern
Suffolk County follows:
Substance
Nitrogen and
Water Recharged From
Turf Sewage Other
Overall Nitrogen
Concentration in
Recharge (mg/L)
Water (in.) 13.5 5.6 18.2 9.3 (On site septic
system)
Nitrogen (lb/Acre) 24.0 52.4 4.2 3.94 .{Public Sewer}
Land use is based on residential with 2 to 4 dwelling units
per acre. Average turf management practices would estimate
the application rate of 2.5 pounds of fertilizer per 1,O00
square feet per year (Hughes and Porter, 1983).
As the .revised plan will not be utilizing public sewer, then
the resultant nitrate concentrations in pumped groundwater
would be expected to represent an average in the two
concentrations of natural undeveloped area and residential
development with on-site septic system.
fwPercent of~/nitrate~ /percent of~/(litrate~ /~percent of ~/~itrate~
ater from l/concen-I Iwater from~lconcen-~[ water from Vconcen-~
~ ~ew devel-)~{ration~+~'existing )~tration~'~ remaining ~tration~
kopment
/\
/
\d t/
k J \ undeveloped /\
---- __evelopmen_ / X~natural are~/ \
wate
I nitrate ~
~olume- 100%~ /~esu ltant~
~ concentra-/
K tion
Using a radius of influence (r) of 1_800 feet, the total area
of influence equals 233.7 Acres.
The new development of 25.4 Acres (the remaining portion of
the 48.7 Acres would remain undeveloped} represents 10.9% of
total. The existing development of 23.1 Acres represents
9.9% of total. The remaining natural area of 185.2 Acres
represents 79.2% of total.
(10.9%) (9.3 mg/L) + (9.9%) (9.3 mg/L) + (79.2%) (2.1 mg/L) :
{100%) (resultant nitrate concentration)
Resultant Nitrate Concentration : 3.6 mg/L
Based on a review of existing data, the impact of the
application of nitrate fertilizers would not result in
nitrate concentrations in excess of accepted water quality
criteria. A value of 3.6 mg/L represents an average value.
Concentrations below this would be expected as a result of
the proposed fertilization monitoring program recommending an
application rate of one pound of fertilizer per one thousand
square feet. As previously stated, continuing monitoring of
the water quality from the new wel! and that of strategically
placed monitoring wells will be the best indication of the
effectiveness of the proposed fertilizing covenented
restrictions.
REFERENCES
Hughes, Henry B.F. and Keith Porter, Land Use and Ground
Water Quality in the Pine Barrons of Southampton, Cornell
University, 1983.
North Fork Water supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York',
ERM-Northeast/Camp, Dresser & McKee, 1983.
ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES
Because of the possibility that the Village of Greenport
would not have their sewer plant upgraded for several more
years, and without it it is not expected that the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services will allow hook-up of
the proposed units to the plant, then one of the
alternatives would be to reduce the number of units to a
half acre density yield and utilize in-ground sewer, septic
and leaching facilities. This alternative layout would
propose sixty (60) town house units and forty (40)
affordable housing units, in accordance with the enclosed
alternate site plan.
WELL DATA
J~ICHARD FANNING. P. £. Jlg~l Ig~4)
KEVlN J. PHILUPS, P. E.,Ph.D.
C, AI~.Y A, MOLN.~., P. E.
FANNING, PHILLIPS g MOLNAR
April 19, 1989
Mr. Donald Bracken
Ms. Diane Carroll
100-30 South Jersey Avenue
Setauket, New York 11733
Re:
Evaluation of Test Well #10
Dear Ms. Carroll & Mr. Bracken:
Enclosed herewith is
Should you have any
myself.
a copy of the above referenced report.
questions please contact Martin Klein or
Very truly yours, . .~ ,
Kevin J. Phillips, P.E., Ph.D.
Principal, Fanning, Phillips
and Molnar
KJP/ls
PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION
Fanning, Phillips and Molnar was retained by Mr. Donald
Bracken for the purpose of evaluating a test well (#10) located
on the south border of the proposed Cedarfields and Mooresland
project site in the village of Greenport, Town of Southold (see
figure 1 for location). The primary concer~ was chloride
contamination of the pumping well with time.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
1
Pump Test results - short duration (24 and 48 hr.) see
figure 2.
2. Pump Test results - long duration (16 days) see figure 3.
3. Geologic Log of pumping well - see figure 4.
4. Other Geologic Logs (USGS & SCDHS) see Appendix A.
REVIEW
Based upon the pump test results for well #10 in September
1987,the following parameters were calculated; transmissivity,
storativity, hydraulic conductivity, specific capacity of the
well (see Appendix B for calculations).
The results of our calculations indicate that the specific
capacity of well #10 is approximately 20 GPM/foot of drawdown.
This well is therefore highly productive, due to the favorable
hydraulic characteristics of the porous media.
The chloride concentrations, as shown in figure 1 and 2,
reveal that the quality of water in well #10 is presently
acceptable. However, chloride concentrations in the well will
increase, if excessive or careless pumping occurs as shown in'
Figure 2.
ANALYTIC ANALYSIS
The hydrogeologic conditions of the project site present a
number of variables that should be considered for the design of
the proposed groundwater supply well. The analysis of
operational and well design criteria has been sought through a
number of references. Appendix B presents the applied equations
and calculations for the well design and operation.
Due to the chloride concentrations detected in test well #10
during the short and long term pump tests (as shown in Figures 1
and 2) design and pump rate of this test well has proven to be
unfavorable. However, an alternate well design was investigated
and evaluated. The calculations were analyzed for a well set at
a depth of 10 feet below the hard pan strata. The resultant pump
rate or permissible pump rate was calculated to be approximately
140 gpm.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. WELLS
As the depth of the fresh water lense is not known, it is
recommended that the well depth be set at 10 feet'below the hard
pan strata. In addition, we recommend that two (2) wells be used
and spaced 100 feet on centers. The two wells should be pumped
at 100 gpm. The reason for this is that the effects of upconing
will be greatly reduced if the withdrawal is distributed over a
larger area.
2. FREQUENCY OF PUMPING
The frequency of pumping each well should be pumped for 24
hours on alternate days, with one day of rest between pumping.
3. CHLORIDE TESTS
Chloride tests should be performed on both wells on a weekly
basis for six months and then reviewed by FP&M.
FINAL NOTE
It is our opinion that the chloride concentration in
this or any other well cannot be predicted with sufficient
accuracy to guarantee the chloride concentration in time. For
example, severe drought or rain periods will drastically effect
the depth of the fresh water lense and the chloride
concentrations will vary accordingly. However, if our
recommendations are followed, the wells should produce high
quality water. Note that this study focuses on chlorides and
that no representation is made regarding nitrates, pesticides or
any other contaminants.
References
See Appendix C for the preparers qualifications.
s;AST
SCALE IN FEET (Approx.)
2000 4ooo
¥. , , , , , ~ , ','~
F,p&MI
FIGURE 1-SITE LOCATION
I
F,P&M FIGURE 4-GEOLOGIC LOG OF PUMP TEST WELL '~' 10
VILLA GE :., O F. ii:G R E E N P O RT
. · · . ~..:.'~..'~?.~..~..~
PROPO'SED!iPEANT NO. 10
-.HOLZMACHER,. McLENDON and' MURRELL, P.C...
Consulting Engineers, Environmental Scientists, Architects and Planners
Melville, N.Y. ' Riverhe, ed, N.Y." · Farmingdale, N.Y. · Fairfield, N.J.
.x. GROUP
Village Board · 5use 25, 1987
Inc. Vlllaae of Creenport Paae Eleven
Assuming the successful C0&~le~ion of well 9 at 200
gpm, the approval and implementation of ~he Costello well at
250 gpm; there is still the need for 2 more similar wells or
one larger well to restore reliable capacity to the needs of
the system.
The increase from 2.1 mgd .~asds in 1986 to the 2.? mgd
predicted for 1990 will not be in even increments.
Actually, the Village system should be. prepared co suppl7 a
maximum day of 2.34 mgd in 1987, dependent on weather
conditions.
WATER SUPPLY ALtERnATIVES
None si the above add,sasses ~he water needs for ~ire
protection~. Even though it is not expected that a fire v~tl
occur On the maximum domestic doy some reserves should be
planned for fire needs on thooe days. lC is more
appropriate in the CreenpOrt situation to provide this in
the 'storage tanks which should be planned soon.' Re~erence
is made to the ~aster. Plan and ~uality Report ~or status of
fire £lov conditions throughout the Grdenport system.
Re£ereflce iOTas made to prior reports for awes/fl supPly
alternatives, sources of good quality ere s~tt~ns
Zn the larse lakes or ponds. ~ater nitrate quality
elsewhere is naturally improvZng, but slowly, Zn many areas.
Recommendation
For an extended time we have recommended acquisition of
small capacity new well sites in the area of Greenport that
we d~d not previously believe had a good potential for
supply. The test veil performed for Coatello by others [or
example show that good quality water is available ac the
Village edge. This area is situated between 2 lakes or
ponds so shOuld have good recharge. Existing water sources
in most direct~nS have shown high concentrations of iron
and manganese but the H~Cann Park/CoStello area appears to
be an excepC~dn, It is of course possible.that .in time and
after extensive permanent well use6 the quality found in the
sources will begin to show uphers but t~e tests to date do
not indicate a problem.
Village Board
Inc. Village of Creenport
June 25, 1987
Page Twelve
It is recommended that approval be sought for a
capacity of 250 g.p.m, either from the existing Costello
veil or from a ney well constructed about 50'feet south of
the Costello veil. This plant would be designated Plan[ 10.
Plant l~.Recommendatiofls
As previously stated the proposed 250 8.p.m. capacity
approval would be obtained from either a new well CO be
constructed on the Village of Greenport property or from the
existing Coscello veil some 50 feet northerly. The new veil
would be constructed ¥1ch ~7 flOC of 8 1nth caning and 10
feeC of 6# stainless steel screen, la either case
proposed that a more teac effective pumping system be
installed Co Cake auction from the veil with a self priming
centrifugal pump driven by a 20 HP horizontal electric
motor. I fooC valve in the pump auction line and an
automatic water priming -connection would be provided.
Treatment would by hypochlorite with future provision for
caustic or soda aah added treatment for pR adjustment.
The well pump, electrical and treatment equipment would
be housed in a one story small prefab type metal or wooden
structure. The water from the.well would be metered rich a
propelled Cotallizing type meter in the piping within the
pump station.
Water would be delivered to the existing 10 inch main
on Moore's Lane which in turn le connected to the nearby
300,000 gallon storage tank.
The estimated cost of chis project ia $125~'000 as shown
on Exhibit A.
The plant could begin operation within 9 months.
Respectfully submitted,
HOLZMACHER~ NcLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
SCM:mo
? LE 1
C~STELLO_TES~.WELL
I.cL VILLAGE ,GREEW OR?
WATER 0UALITY RESULTS
,, Sample_Time .Period
parameter 36 Min. 3 HE,s. 6,Hrs.
Iron 0.04 0.05 0.04
Manganese (0.02 (0.02 (0.2
chloride 7.0. 7.0 10.0
24 Hrs.
0.04
(0.02
11.0
Complete Water Quality survey
Parameter Result
Aldicarb ( 2.
Nitrate 0.5
Nitrite ( 0.1
Ammonia ( 0.2
pH 6.2
Spec. Cond. 160.
Calcium 10.8
Magnesiu~ 4.5
~ardness 45.5
Sodium 6.5
Turbidity ( 1.00
Total solids 110.
Color ( S.00
(Based on ; ~r. Sample)
Results for Pesticides Analysis
Compound
l£ndane (0.03
heptac~lOr ( 0.03
aldrin ( 0.03
heptachlo~ epoxide < 0.03
dieldrin '( 0.04
endrin ( 0.06
o,p~-DDT ¢ 0.07
p,p~-DDT ( 0.09
methoxyChlor ¢ 1.0
toxaphene ( 2.5
chlordane ( 0.5
ALL RESULTS R~PORTED M~ET NEW YORK STATE DRINKING WATER LIMITS.
~LO
D
NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT -
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL
~£VELB~E~T -
_NDEVEL£PED NATURAL AREA - -
7.0
I0.5
ILO
8O
J
OTOWER
OF GREENPORT ~
12.5
13,~0
6¸5
/7
9.5
6.0
GREENPORT
BLEACHERS