Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-122.-5-4 (3) /b 2- �` l ';NGINE':PING P.FPORT AND SE?,TERAGE SYSTEMS i0?? .I`3 DEVELOPMENT AT MATTITUCK DECEMBER 1973 SCOPE This report: has been prepared to appraise the needs for and effects of providing central water and sewerage systems to supply the proposed Norris developments south of New Suffolk Avenue , between Marratooka Lake and Peconic Bay. The overall. Town of Southold water resources are also reviewed and refer- enced. SUMMARY The affect of the proposed development can be summarized as follows: 1. The consumptive water use for the proposed development is estimated at 7 ,900 ,000 gallons per year or 21 ,600 gallons per day. This compares to 14 ,800 gallons per day for 49 single family, one-acre plots and 25 ,400 gallons per day if 75 per cent of the area were used as irrigated farms. 2 . The calculated permissive sustained water yield for 57 . 6 gross acres is 31, 500 gallons per day, which is greater than the calculated consumptive use. 1. 3 . If re^har;'e of renovated water, were not done, the entire pumpage would ",e consumptive use and would approximate 47 ,400 gallon=_ per day , or about 50 per cent more than the permissive su-_`ained yield . 4 . The pounds of contaminants returned to the ground will be less with the proposed development than with one-acre development plots . Comparing septic tank effluent with the proposed tert- ar:y treatment plant effluent would show that , even though pcpulation is doubled , the following comparative estimates favor the development plan: (a) Nitrogen (ammonia, nitrates , etc . ) would be less than one-half. (b) Bacteria would be a small fraction. (c) Oxygen demand would be about one-third. (d) Suspended solids would be less . 5 . The recommended water plan is the creation of a Water District , with the plant costs segregated from the distribution system, assuming extensions in the future where all present and future properties pay for district-wide facilities , including supply, storage and transmission systems. Each section or ex- tension would pay for its own distribution systems. The wells should be located as near Lake Marratooka as is feasible to take maximum benefit of its low nitrate water influence . 6 . The recommended sewerage plan is a central collection system, an enclosed tertiary treatment plant and return of the 2 . renovated water to the F*,ro,ind water supply through open re.- charge basins . 7 . The preliminary cost of the proposed systems and ap- purtenances is approxiriately x250 ,000 . for water and $400 ,C00 . for sewage . 8 . Though not a part of this report , we recommend that rainfall runoff ;from all roof and paved surfaces be diverted to underground or open recharge facilities as far north in the development as is practical . AREA CHARACTERISTICS The proposed site is south of New Suffolk Avenue , east of Reeve Road, in the southeast sector of the community of Matti- tuck, which is in the west section of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, flew York. Southold Town is a long peninsula with creeks lining the shoreline, providing a long shoreline exposure in relation to total land area. Southold has, for many years, been an agricultural area, but has enjoyed a tremendous increase in popularity in recent years with its wonderful tourist attractions , especially its fine waterfront properties and water activities which are en- joyed by thousands of tourists and summer residents . Most of the development in the Town has occurred along the main arteries and along the shore fronts. The 1966 land use tabulation shows a total land area of 34 ,600 acres , of which 2 ,570 are on Fisher' s 3 . Island , 1 , 331 cn t;r,e smaller islands ( Plum, Robins and Gull) , and 700 acres are un_ er c,•ater , leaving a net mainland area of 2 ° , 999 acres . Most of this is unoccupied potential residential prop- erty with agric..lt'ara= property accounting for 11 , 920 acres of this . Other land zoning and uses are as follows: Industrial - 10' acres occupied , 170 acres vacant Commercial - 160 acres occupied, 720 acres vacant Institutional - 120 acres Railroads , airports, utilities - 160 acres Roads and parkways - 1,470 acres Recreation and open space - 1 ,709 acres In June of 1973 , a report was submitted to the Town recom- mending the creation of a Cutchogue - Mattituck Water District, which if created, would have included the northerly edge of the Norris development , and would have been in a position to extend its facilities to include the Norris development and other areas' s which need public water supplies . WATER RESOURCES Various government agencies and consultants have prepared reports covering the Town of Southold water resources and in- formation. Reference is directed to the Cutchogue - Mattituck Water District Report for a list of the more pertinent ones . The predominant topographical features of the mainland portion of the Town of Southold are the Harbor Hill moraine 4. which follows the s`.cre of Long Island Sound and a glacial outwash plain: exten�ing from the moraine to the Bays . The peninsula is divides into several components by salt water ponds and inlets , a'n_ost creating islands. The fresh ground water is exucsed to salt water interfaces on the sides as well as underneat „ with the salt water generally closer to the surface as yod extend eastward. In some areas , the salty ground water and fresh water are in dynamic balance and ap- proximate conformity with the Ghyben-Herzberg principle . In much of the westerly portion of the Town, fresh water extends below an existing and confining clay, but any appreciable pumpage disturbs this equilibrium and causes salt water to extend upward. The long shoreline exposure in the Southold peninsula in relation to its total area causes low ground water levels and a low amount of long term available water storage . During the 1965 drought, the water levels were reduced even in the high level areas to about 3 feet above mean sea level. The water budget area used to calculate the amount of recharge or avail- able water resources was selected as the 2-foot contour as it existed in July 1959 , for the western portion of the Town and the 1-foot ground water contour for the eastern portion of the Town, with Hashamomuck Pond being the dividing line between the two portions . 5 . As reporter in, .he various data, there is a conrtdera? le rand, o:` rain`a 11 the "own of Southold , with the av?c - age precipitation a. '.atchogu,) of about 45 inches . The aver- age for the Tow,. is *—ween 43 inches and 44 inches . Previous estimates ranging frc-m. 1. 4 per cent to 10 per cent of the rain- fall has been calculated to be lost as surface runoff in the Town of Southold . The latest figures incladed in CPWS-24 indi- cate 5 to 7 per cent loss by surface runoff. Table 3-14 in C=WS-24 shows a water budget area west of Hashamomuck Pond of 21 square miles , with a mean annual pre- cipitation of 43 million gallons per day, a loss by evapo- transpiration. of 22 million gallons per day and a direct run- off of 3 million gallons per day, providing a mean annual recharge of 18 million gallons per day. Approximately 25 per cent of these amounts are west of Mattituck Creek and 75 per cent east of Mattituck Creek. In the balance of the Town area east of Hashamomuck Pond, the water budget area is 6 square miles , with a mean precipitation of 12 million gallons per day, an evapotranspiration of 6 million gallons per day and a direct runoff of about 1 million gallons per day, providing a mean an- nual recharge of 5 million gallons per day. These estimations show a recharge rate per square mile of water budget area of nine-tenths of a million gallons per day over the 27 square miles . Based on the total Town area of 47 square miles , the average recharge per square mile is 0 . 5 M.G.D. 6 . With regard to recharge basins , they should be encouraged for the accuru'_ aticr: of surface runoff and its return to the water table . _ :is `. e^_omes increasingly important as the area may develop, causing -:ore widespread areas of impervious mate- rial subject to a hither percentage of runoff than now exists . Recharge basins are also more economical than major drainage systems. The County test wells installed in conjunction with CPWS-24 disclosed the location of the salt water interface in Aquebogue , Cutchogue and Southold. Salty water was found in the Southold well at depths below the clay at 180 feet . Between Cutchogue and Mattituck on Alvah' s Lane, the salt water was encountered at 320 feet below grade , but pumping tests indicated that it is not feasible to withdraw any appreciable quantity of water from below the clay which extends from 120 to 220 feet below grade . In Aquebogue , on Tuthill Road, the well is drilled to a depth of 700 feet , with salt water encountered at a depth of 520 feet. A permanent observation well was placed at 460 feet so that future monitoring of the movement of salt water upward can be observed at this location. CPWS-24 projects that all future pumpage in the Town of Southold will be from the Glacial formation, with projected amounts of about 10 million gallons per day by 1985 and about 20 million gallons per day by the year 2010 . The State Department of Environmental Conservation has issued a decree or policy that all waste water treatment plants 7. must he prep,.,_ ,_ i '�iture date to reehal,ae at lc.�>t E,0 per cent of the t-eate9 waste water. There are numerous re- search and derc..stra`_on proF-ams of waste water renovation and recharge `eine conducted throughout the country and the world , and ob. :o sly the fast developing technology will make it much more feasible in the near future to consider the re- charge and/or reuse of renovated waste water. CONSUMPTIVE ?WATER USE As indica.ed in most reports , the major consumptive water usage in the Southold area is that used for irrigation . Most agricultural irrigation is consumptive water use unless irri- gation is practiced beyond what is needed. The consumptive water usage as a percentage of total water use was estimated in CPWS-24 , reference Page 201, as ranging from 82 . 3 per cent in 1967 to as high as 99 .1 per cent in 1960. The significance of agriculture in consumptve water use is also indicated in CPWS-24 , reference Page 205 , for the period 1960-67 . These estimates of consumptive water use of 71 to 473 gallons per capita per day include agricultural usage , but not private domestic well usage . When water recharge exceeds consumptive water use , under- flow takes place . The consumptive water use in the Town of Southold is estimated at 7 million gallons per day in 1980 , 8 million gallons per day in the year 2000 and 10 million gal- lons per day in the year 2020 , all without a major future sani- tary sewer system. 8 . WATER LEVELS -.:;D SAL- :dATER INTRUSION As noted ir. CF4?5-24 , the Southold area in the ;Torth For' is one of the areas in Suffolk County most susceptible to salt water intrusicn , since the peninsula is narrow, :is indented with many sal` water inlets, and has salt water underneath at varying depths. The thick clay layer which was found in the County test wells, S-32390 in Cutchogue and 5-33775 in Southold , forms a restrictive barrier against vertical intrusion of salt water, but it also forms a barrier for recharge of the water bearing formation below the clay. It has been indicated that ground water levels of 3 feet above sea level are sufficient to prevent the salt water contamination of the coarse Glacial deposits which overlie the clay. During the drought of the 1960 ' s, decreased recharge and increased consumptive use lowered the ground water levels to a point near the minimum recommended. CPWS-24 indicates in Volume II , Table 3-37 , Page 362 , the following data related to permissive sustained yield and shows its comparison to the average net yield. Since water will not be needed and not be usable at average conditions in the Town of Southold because of the lack of sufficient underground stor- age , the most pertinent appraisal of the Town ' s water resources is permissive sustained yield compared with dry year consumptive use. 9. TAB'._T I PERMTS Iv amu:-`i I'tIEI? YI` LI) AND AVF.RA�F: ri ;'I' YIELD PERMISSTVE PERMISSIVE SUSTAINED YIELD SUSTAINED PER. SQ. MI . CE YIELD WATER BUDGET (M. G.D. ) AREA Southold - W/O Mattituck Creek 2 0 .40 Southold - Between Mattituck Creek & Hashamomuck Pond 5 . 5 0 .35 Southold - Between Hashamomuck Pond & Orient Harbor 1 0 . 25 Southold - East of Orient Harbor 0. 5 0 . 25 Total 9 . 0 These data indicate the permissive sustained yield in, the dry year from a 57. 6 acre area, would be 31 ,500 gallons per day. WATER QUALITY Most of the discussions heretofore have centered on water quantity. It is obvious that equally as important as quantity is the quality of the available water supply. Water quality is generally segregated into three general areas, bacteriologi- cal, physical and chemical. The physical and some of the chemi- cal constituents generally relate more to the appearance or es- thetics of the water, whereas the bacteriological and the major- ity of the chemical constituents relate to safety of the water 10. quality. Water quality is measured in terms of concentration of numerous constituents. Standards of quality may vary with the intended use of `he water. The most widely known and ac- cepted standards of crater quality are those developed by the United States Public Health Service for drinking water , which have been in effect for many years and updated from time to time . New York State has also more recently adopted drinking water standards which closely relate to the U. S. Public Health Service Standards. As the presence and knowledge of contaminants in- creases , there will be further revisions in water quality stand- ards to reflect additional requirements. Major changes are now being considered . The bacteriological standards use the coliform bacteria group as indicators of bacteriological pollution. This is a very convenient and simple method, and provides a factor of safety since , generally speaking, coliform bacteria would be present in significant to large numbers whenever harmful or pathogenic organisms were present. The exception to this is that viruses, about which we need to learn much more and for which there is a severe need for practical detection methods. The physical characteristics of water include turbidity, color and odor. Obviously, some of these are further related to chemical constituents which may cause the undesirable ap- pearance . The physical characteristics may not relate to con- tamination , but are usually related by most people to indices of pollution. The presence of the objectionable physical 11. cTiara cteristirs c. TR , of -nurse , indicate the presence of pol- lutants . Chemical constituents and their presence related to toxi- city, pollution and safety of the drinking water supply must he reviewed with respect to the local surroundings , such as , whether the constituent: are naturally present in the natural supply or whether the source of the constituents is from a known or sus- pected local artificial source . For many years , the nitrogen group of constituents and chlorides have served as a pollution indicator since they were related to human excretion. Gener- ally speaking, the less advanced the oxidation of the nitrogen group, the more recent the indicated pollution , i .e. , the higher the ammonia in relation to the nitrates , the more recent the pollution. This type of interpretation would not be valid. for much of the Town of Southold wherein both ammonia and nitrates , and apparently nitrates in particular, have been introduced into the water supply by fertilization of the farmlands in the Town. More recently, detergents have been used as an indicator of pol- lution although :in the future , under the detergent ban in Suffolk County, the use of this indicator will become less and less valid. Existing drinking water standards contain a limit of 10 mg/1 for nitrates as nitrogen. Since all of the nitrogens are poten- tial nitrates , future standards are expected to contain a mini- mum of 10 mg/l for all of the nitrogen group, including ammonia, nitrites and nitrates. The toxic significance of nitrates is 12 . related to the "_.iue 'baby" condition in infants , if nitrate content is toc h. Based on information and studies , ith livestock , it a_re_rs that nitrites are much more toxic than nitrates , but _`or--nately are unstable and have not been found in any appreciable amounts in Long Island' s drinking water sup- ply. Much of the water in the Town of Southold has a nitrate content which ap-rcaches , and in some cases exceeds , the recom- mended nitrate limit of 10 mg/l. Though not related to toxicity or safety, the presence of iron or manganese in water supplies may impart an unpalatable taste and cause complaints due to stained plumbing fixtures , laundry, etc. In the Town of Southold , the most likely loca- tions for iron and manganese to occur are in the shallow wells along and near the southerly shore . Iron and manganese are frequently associated with organic matter, decaying vegetation and sulfate reduction , yielding hydrogen sulfide. Some of the wells south of the proposed development have reported high iron content. The major potential sources of ground water pollution in the Town of Southold include ammonia and nitrogen from fertili- zers, primarily on farms, the use of pesticides and fungicides, primarily from agricultural use , salt water intrusion in local areas from potential overpumpage , recharge or untreated sewage via cesspools and other chemical pollution from rain water leach- ing through sanitary landfill . 13 . In the i--e�iate area of the proposed development , it is expected that _ron content may be a problem, increasing in the southerly portico , that nitrate will be acceptable at less than the recommende ' limit of 10 , and that chlorides should be no problem under expected pumpage rates . It is proposed to locate the water supp_y as close to Marratooka Lake as feasible and to recharge to the ground water reservoir with renovated waste water in the southerly part of the property. The lowest nitrate water in the area is within the Lake, and it is expected that its influence on an adjacent well field will be obvious. A complete analysis of a water sample from a fire well on the north side of Lake Marratooka is shown as Appendix A of this report. Similar quality is expected on the south side of the Lake with a possibility of increasing iron. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Norris development project consists of two ( 2 ) basic elements: (a) A 132-unit condominium, plus 6 single family homes to be built with accessory uses on 38. 6 acres situated on the east side of Camp Mineola Avenue , south of New Suffolk Avenue . (b) Fifteen (15) individual lots varying in lot size from 30,000 to 72 , 000 square feet on 19 acres located adjacent to and east of (a) and west of the Mattituck Airport . It is proposed to construct a central water supply and distribution system and a central sewage collection , treatment 14. and disposal syste::i. The preliminary plans indicate the water plant in the ncr-!�erly section of the property approximately in the existing ,,esterly Norris driveway. If final plans per- mit , the proposed water plant would be located further north and nearer Lake Marratooka. The sewage treatment plant and disposal system is proposed to be located in the southwest corner of the proposed develop- ment, between the Norris estate on Peconic Bay and the proposed one family portion. of (a) development . The property generally slopes from north to south , but with the lowest point in the south central sector. Elevations shown on preliminary plans range from approximately 12 to 27 feet ex- cept near the shore of Lake Marratooka, which approximates ele- vation 3 . The proposed condominium would be served by a system of private roads which would extend on the west from New Suffolk Avenue by the widening and improvement of Camp Mineola (Reeve) Avenue and on the east by a new roadway extending from a new road to be constructed, from New Suffolk Avenue , as a part of the single family subdivision. The development is proposed to be contained with on-site park, recreational and activity areas, including club house , swimming pool, etc. 15 . POPULATION 7'D 61ASTE WATER RFQUTRFMFNTS 6 The 132 c- ::�minium units , as proposed , consist of 33 two (2 ) bedrocr_ :.its and 99 one (1 ) bedroom units . We 'have rz.S IGS estimated the avera ,e population of these units at 3 . 0 and '2 '2 7 I,9-- respectively, for a sub-total of 287 people . For the single family hones , we have estimated an average of 3 . 75 per home for a suh-total of 79 .1 The total project population is '17b estimated for u-- timate development at As a sidel_ght, if the entire property were developed on 40 ,000 square foot lots, the number of units would approximate 49 with an estimated population of 184. With less than 40 ,000 square foot plots , public water and sewers are required. Since there are no existing systems near- by, separate systems are required for this project . In estimating water use , considerations were given to nor- mal data with judgment adjustments to allow for larger than normal or average plot sizes and for irrigation based on irri- gation of sizeable portions of the property. With the increase in lot size , especially in non-wooded areas, water usage will increase sharply in early years of development due to irriga- tion. Based on estimated irrigation of 8 inches of water dur- ing the dry season, the annual use for irrigation is estimated from 25 ,000 gallons to 125 ,000 gallons for plots ranging in size from one quarter to one acre . There would also be some expected increase in per capita use with the larger plots , 16 . which has been estimated at 20 gallons per acre per day (60 to 80) . The total estimated use then, using 3 . 75 people per house or plot , would ra-fe from 80 to 170 gallons per person per day on the average . For 32 , 000 square foot lots , the estimated annual use would be 190 , 000 gallons with one-half of this ear- marked for irritation. (For 40 ,000 square foot lots , the amount would approximate 220 ,000) . The total water use for 21 homes would be 4 ,000 , 000 gallons per year. For the condominiums, the estimated water use for domestic purposes is 70 gallons per day per person , plus irrigation . The non-irrigation use approximates 20 ,000 gallons per day or 7 ,300 ,000 gallons per year. For irrigation , it is assumed that 65 per cent of the area is irrigated with 8 inches of water during the dry season, with an annual use of 5 ,900 ,000 gallons, or an average of 16 ,200 gallons per day. The total water use is estimated at 17 ,200 , 000 gallons per year or 47 ,400 gallons per day, or an average per capita use of 130 gallons per day. Of this total , only about 46 per cent is consumed or lost by irrigation. The balance will be returned to the ground as renovated waste water. The net con- sumption use is therefore 46 per cent of 17 ,200 ,000 or 7 ,900 ,000 gallons . This compares with a calculated permissive sustained yield of 31,500 gallons per day, based on 0 . 35 million gallons per day per square mile, or 547 gallons per day per acre . This equates to 11,500 ,000 gallons per year or 45 per cent more than the consumptive use . 17. Sewage fl: ws are estimated at the non-irrigation water use plus an al-c:;ance for infiltration . A reasonable estimate based on water ':se estimates is 9 ,300 , 000 gallons plus 1 ,700 ,000 for infiltrati:r and miscellaneous for a total of 11 ,000 ,000 gallons per year , or 30 , 000 gallons per day. It is unlikely, however , that aoroval can be obtained for a design flow of less than 100 gallcns per person per day, and th@refore we suggest a preliminary design capacity of not less than 36 ,600 gallons per day, and recom::end submittal for a 40 , 000 gallons per day plant capacity. This could allow for a change in estimated population served, either within or outside the development . It is noted that Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control flow estimates , as calculated for condominium or resi- dential developments, would provide a flow of 31 ,350 gallons per day, assuming the stated condominium bedroom arrangement and three (3 ) bedrooms per single family plot. RECOMMENDED WATER SYSTEM The water system may be organized as a private company, a water district , or a cooperatively managed water utility. Since the proposed Cutchogue - Mattituck Water District may be nearing a reality, and since it may be very desirable to serve nearby areas, we recommend as a first choice , that the system serve as a beginning of or an addition to a water district . Whichever came first could be the original district and the other would then become an extension . 18. The system should be developed with mains and plant sized to give at least the minimum required fire protection. As the system grows , the fire flows may be readily increased. Plant - In order to provide moderate rates of pumpage at reasonable depths and yet to provide standby service, we recom- mend the construction of three (3 ) eight-inch diameter wells with six-inch diameter screen with a length-of 10 to 15 feet and with the bottom set at approximately minus 50 foot elevation . Each well would be equipped with an electrically operated deep well pump of about 20 H. P. Either one pump would be connected via a combination drive to an auxiliary engine, or an engine generator would be provided with transfer switching for more operational flexibility. If, when the first well is drilled and test pumped, it is found that treatment such as iron removal is required, the second smaller well would be drilled, but the third would be replaced with a storage tank and booster pumps to permit a smaller treatment plant design and construction. The plant would also contain a 5 , 000 gallon hydropneu- matic pressure - storage tank, automatic pump pressure and motor controls, and standby chlorination equipment , all housed in a small one-story masonry and frame building. The second and third wells are planned to be submersible units, requiring no additional above ground structures. 19. ;t Distrib. ion "ystem - Tho distribution system is planned for a mixture of 8 inch and 6 inch mains with appropriate valve spacing, hydrant spacing; (to be approved by the Mattituck Fire Department ) , ar.d with pipe material to be either cast iron , asbestos cement , or polyvinyl chloride . Hydrants would be equipped with 2 hose and 1 steamer nozzles and are anticipated at approximately 600-foot spacing. It is recommended that an individual service line and meter be installed to each dwelling unit with the meter located inside with an exterior remote read- out. Service lines are recommended to be 160 psi rated poly- ehtylene. The system design pressure and water main sizes would be based on the ultimate hydraulic gradient planned for the North Fork to permit integration of this system with the Master Plan , and to assist in supply to adjoining areas. Interim operating pressures would probably be reduced somewhat to a range of 45 to 60 psi to permit more efficient use of the hydropneumatic tanks and to reduce pumping costs. The entire system, or the phases as constructed, would be checked , tested and sterilized before placing in service. The preliminary cost of the water system is $250 ,000 . RECOMMENDED SEWERAGE SYSTEM The sewerage system would be designed as a central system, as required by the County, and would consist of house connections, lateral sewers, pumping station, treatment plant and effluent 20. disposal system for recharge . Present County policy requires the plant to be turned over to them when they wish , after one year of operation . The Federal Environmental Protection Agency, in Part 133 , Subchapter D, Chatter 1 , Title 40 , of their Rules and Regula- tions , which were promulgated pursuant to Section 304 (d) (1 ) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 , has established requirements for discharge permits and effluent quality. Effective August 17 , 1973 , E.P.A. requires secondary treatment in terms of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) , suspended solids (SS) , fecal coliform bacteria and pH. For biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids , the arithmetic mean during a 30 or 7 consecutive day period shall not exceed 30 and 45 milligrams per liter , respectively. The average effluent concentration during the 30 days shall not ex- ceed 15 per cent of the average influent concentration . For fecal coliform bacteria, the geometric mean of the ef- fluent during a 30 or 7 consecutive day period shall not exceed 200 and 400 per 1.00 milliliters, respectively. For pH, the effluent value shall remain within the limits of 6 . 0 to 9 . 0. In addition , the County of Suffolk Department of Environ- mental Control promulgated requirements for nutrient removal which requires that total nitrogen content in effluents dis- charging to the ground be limited to 10 milligrams per liter. 21. Sewage Ccllection System - Each condominium or cluster will be serviced by a 5-inch or 6-inch house connection to a wye connection , on an 6-inch gravity sewer. Preliminary plans indicate two ( 2 ) north - south collectors extending through the unpaved areas tc service the condominium and a third collector along the road in the lot subdivision . A single pumping station will be needed either at the low point in the south central area, or adjacent to the treatment plant, depending on final detail plans and cost estimates . Manholes will be installed at 250 to 300 foot spacing and at changes in sewer direction . Sewers will be either asbestos cement , vitrified clay tile or polyvinyl chloride . The collection system will be checked for exfiltration and alignment before placing into service. Final design will be subject to field verification of existing topo , as well as any proposed changes in final grades. Sewage Pumping Station - The sewage pumping station will probably be located at the sewage treatment plant , but may be located at the low point in the development , and will consist of two (2 ) pumps , each capable of the peak load , estimated at 100 gallons per minute. Standby power will be provided. Sewage Treatment Plant - Details of the sewage treatment plant (Water Pollution Control Plant) will be subject to appro- val by Suffolk County and New York State environmental regula- tory agencies. :Preliminary plans include a biological oxidation system, either a rotating biological disc or an extended aera- tion activated sludge system for carbonaceous removal and 22 . nitrification , followed by a clarifier , a denitrification sys- tem using a deep tied filter, and disinfection by chlorination. If rotating disc system is selected , it would be preceded by primary settling and an aerated equalizing tank. Final disposal would be by meaner of open recharge basins of about 5 , 000 square feet each, or precast subgrade leaching pools . The open basins would be more economical and would be easier maintained . Aero- bic digestion of sludge would be included with stabilized waste sludge trucked periodically to approved disposal sites. The proposed site will be a level area south of the pro- posed single family subdivision and adjacent to the remaining portion of the Norris estate. In order to control the air environment and prevent freezing problems during cold winters, it is proposed to house the plant in a dual level building with much of the facilities in the low profile portion of the build- ing. RECHARGE LOCATION EFFECT The recharge of renovated waste water at the proposed dis- posal site will supplement the water supply in the entire penin- sula between Deep Hole Creek and 7Jones5 Creek, but will obviously affect more noticeably a wedge which would extend from the easter- ly inlets off Jones Creek to the shore line southeast of the air- port . The centroid of untreated waste water recharge , if the area were developed with individual single family plots , would 23 . be about twice as far from the bay shorefront, but would be about the same distance from the creek inlets as the proposed centroid of renovated waste water recharge. The renovated waste water, after undergoing further purification by travel through the sandy soils, will be available for two functions; (a) provide supplemental supply for wells located in the south- erly portion of the peninsula, and (b) provide additional supply for all areas of the peninsula by replacing normal underflow with the renovated water underflow. This would, in effect , create a partial water dam in the area. A more efficient method of ground water stabilization might include two features which have not been included in the plans . If direct reuse of the renovated water were used to provide a substantial portion of the irrigation, it would correspondingly reduce the quantity of fresh water consumptive use. Likewise , if the recharge basins were constructed within the condominium area near the pool and recreation area, the recharge would be more beneficial to a larger portion of the peninsula. It could also add to the esthetics of the area, if constructed as a scenic pond. Regardless of the differential effects of quality, quan- tity, and location of r—harge , the deterio-at4 of 1,T r quality along the shore , especially where mars::%, or hop areas exist , emphasize the desirability of a public :a-er system. 24 . A community system with proper monitoring and treatment cap- ability is the cn'_y safe way for the future . The proposed development offers a start to obtain such a system. Respectfully submitted , HOUNACHER, MCLENDOI & MURRELL , P. C. S . C. McLendon , P. E. Executive Vice President 25. a ' APPENDIX "A" HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P. C. / Consulting Engineers �.. a LABORATORY REPORT LAB, NO, 72-1468 CLIENT Hol zmacher ,McLendon & Murrell P.C. for Firewell south side Rt .25 Town of Southold SO 71-1 TAPE WATER opp. Mattituck High ADDRESS SOURCE Well . _ SAMPLING PT. DATE: COLLECTED 3/30/72 RECEIVED 3/30/72 ,REPORTED 4/17/72 _._ .... . . BACTERIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL d PHYSICAL Aper Plue Count par ml. Color _.._4 5..... P.P.M. Carbon Dioxide _.—__ �O m. HeHardnessvPs .._._13&.—. CeCO 35'C. 24 hn. _._..._...___.._._ m. Turbidity ._._.... _to.._- 502 Calcium .......__0.6..._..___.cacp Phenol Alk. ......... _.. COLIFORM TESTS 3 Lactose Confvm Odor (cold) .�__._..._ pa P-m. Total Alk. MI. 24 AS 2A ae Magnesium ___4�____--CaCO 3 n I OO Odor (hot) _._..9 . Porn. Ammonia (Free) _012- P'P'M' 10 Sodium ..__.._I.B.e�._.._._ Na N �a pP.P.M. ..._- Lab. TemPeratTemperature '_7 ._.._ F Chlorides ..._T.7.a.N.._......' PP'm• Ammonia 0.1 I Total Iron P--m. Chromium (-ii �.:005CP'.- Nitrites ___ Manganese P.P.m. Nitrate• _8- 8 " -- '-'-' Mn Total Solids .._2..80_•.0... P.P.m. Mott Probable Number p.p.m. DN -- p.C.m. Per 100 ML ___...__ __._.._... .4 ._._..._... Acidity ..._.... ..n. ......"'--CeCO COPDef ...........__._....__. Cu Coliform 3 Sulfate 50.......... P.P.M. ��t _... S0a Detergents 0y _ P.P.m. .._..n]!.3_..__. ._-._--------_..._. p.P.m. M.B.A.S. Specific micro Conductivity P.P.M. ._..._._............._ P.P. --�- m. 400.._.. mho• REMARKS: Samples collected by: lab personnel Water is moderately hard, high but acceptable nitrates, sulfates and total solids; iron & manganese are excellent. Water is typically North Fork Well Supply. With regards to the Tests) performed this water is of a _.........as...nat.ed,_above.. ._ .. ..... ... quality. j We Fitteres l'( CHEMIST .. _. .__._._. .. S C. McLENDON, Director Sanitary Engineer P, A3YN (► D T fit`,;, �S(l LD TY Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 December 16, 1986 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Norris Estates Condominium project Dear Mr. Raynor: In response to your correspondence of November 18 , 1986, please be advised that the Planning Board is not in a position to schedule a pre-submission conference until the SEQRA has been completed. Also, it will be necessary to comply with those items indicated by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services to obtain their approval pursuant to the State ' s Water Supply Applications procedures prior to any action by the Planning Board on the proposal. If you have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, C) JA k � o+ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary PELLETREAU & PELLETREAU PETER V.SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT S. PELLETREAU JOHN J.HART 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX 110 0091-1943) JOHN J.ROE,III RICHARD A.SCHOENFELD FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE.NEW YORK 11772 (1950-1980) J.TIMOTHY RHEA TEL.516 475-6656 BRUCE T. WALLACE r ('� "ems jj RT H. PELLETREAU R +� KEVIN A.SEAMAN F.� !`..� {1 I i r ("3` COUNSEL B NJAMI M.3HEZWEIG ,��tL•/Cr,' BENJAMIN L.HERZW EIO .ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA i NOV I J -0 November 18, 1986 70UUN OF SOUTH,O Honorable Francis G. Murphy, Supervisor Town of Southold, Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: CARR - NORRIS PROPERTY Dear Supervisor Murphy: Thank you again for giving us the opportunity on Thursday. November 6, 1986, to respond to the opposition to the Norris project . As I told you at that time, we would also respond in writing. The opposition' s legitimate concerns have already been addressed by the Town Board, the Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Health among other agencies of the Town and County. The developer must provide -a satisfactory answer to questions raised concerning traffic, water supply and quality. The developer with his engineers and other experts are addressing these questions. All other legitimate concerns will be answered and resolved. The Town Board has provided for this. It is not our intention to obscure the real issues with hyperbole. The property was originally zoned for one-acre use. It was rezoned to its present use over thirteen (13) years ago. This rezoning was tested in the Courts. Mr. Carr purchased the property with the zoning in place, has spent and' continues to spend enormous sums of money to meet the requirements of the Town of Southold. He intends to improve the property in accordance with its zoning and to be a good neighbor. PELLETREAU & PELLETREAU November 18, 1986 Hon. Francis G. Murphy, Supervisor Page 2 . We thank you for your attention and your interest and will be pleased to furnish you with any additional information which you require. Very truly yours, E TRE & PELLETREAU oh J . ar JJH:hmm cc: Members of the Town Board Honorable Jean W. Cochran Honorable Raymond W. Edwards Honorable George L. Penny, IV Ho-norable James A. Schondebare Honorable Paul Stoutenburgh Mr . Richard Carr lc/2-3 Nov " X986 P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 November 15, 1986 Bennett Orlowski , Jr. , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski : Enclosed please find recommendations from the Mattituck Fire District Commissioners and a copy of the enclosed preliminary site plan locatins for those appurtances that they are requesting . If you have any questions with regard to the enclosed, please don ' t hesitate to call me. Sincerel enr �E. RVynor, Jr. HER:ml Encs. CC : Richard Carr John J. Hart, Esq. Jean A. Celender Sol Niego Walter Dunn Sam McLendon ��� ©vim✓ 1 • • Phone 298-8893 MATTITUCK FIRE DISTRICT MATTITUCK. LONG ISLAND. N. Y. 11952 1U;, .: November 12, 1986 Mr. Richard Carr c/o Shamrock Properties Corp. 350 Fifth Ave. - Room 1826 New York, N.Y. 10118 Dear Sir: After reviewing the proposed Norris Estates condominium project with Mr. Henry Raynor the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Mattituck Fire District have only the recommendations put forth to Mr. Raynor regarding the five fire wells, as noted on the map Mr. Raynor retains, and the full paving to the West access and rough grading to the intersection of Kraus Road, to finalize this project's fire protection. With these recommendations the Board considers this project well protected with the equipment on band and the water access provided by the project. It would be appreciated if a revised copy of the joint project map be sent to the Board as soon as it is completed. Cordially, 4ttu ssard ark re Dist. P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 November 12, 1986 Bennett Orlowski , Jr. , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski : Pursuant to the request of the Southold Town Planning Board for Suffolk County Department of Health Service ' s preliminary evaluation and approval, the enclosed is submitted. As we have been awaiting a presubmission conference since June 1986 and the condition for this meeting has been fulfilled by the enclosed, I respectfully request the next available appointment for this site plan. At this appointment, we endeavor to fulifj_11 all criteria of Section 100-134 as requested by the Board. Very truly yo r , Henry E. Raynor, r. HER:ml CC: Richard Carr John J. Hart, Esq. Jean A. Celender Sam McLendon Walter Dunn Sol Niego COUNTY OF SUFFOLK �i�l°✓ 1J8 Prr=R F.COHAu/a surra x COUNTY 6X[cuTlva D"ARTWOCr OF WEALTH SKIRV C[e DAVID HARRIS.M.D..M.P.M. GOYAIINWNLR October 29, 1986 S.C. McLendon H2M Corporation 1 125 Baylis Road 1 Melville, NY 11747 RE: Proposed Community Water Supply Site Plan For Norris Condominium Dear Mr. McLendon; This letter will confirm receipt of your information dated 9/16/86 presenting a layout for the referenced proposal. From a siting standpoint, your proposal for 4 well locations is acceptable, provided an adequate sanitary radius is maintained around all 4 wells. Additional water quality data is necessary to determine the potential for movement vertically and laterally of the fresh-water/salt-water interface. To obtain the necessary data the applicant will have to develop well #4 as a test well and perform representative pump tests. The protocol for testing should be submitted for approval and notification of the test dates provided so that our office can collect samples during the pumping period. When submitting the formal Water Supply Application the detailed engineering report for the project should also address the following issues: o Established Departmental policy for implementation of Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code requests that any new community water supplies be dedicated to the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) or a town district , Southold Town has authorized the active involvement of the SCWA, therefore the project should be coordinated with the Authority. o Evaluation of the impact of the proposed water supply pumpage on the quantity and quality of neighboring private wells. 12 RAND DRIN [AR &V ►AwGLN.Y. 117" I Q 24&"I T 1 . Ar. McLendon October 29, 1986 Page 2 o Evaluation of pump test data to determine effects of ` pumpage on the movement of the fresh-water/salt-water interface. o Evaluation of the proposed sewage treatment groundwater discharge on downgradient private wells. o Discussion of remedial measures that may be required to mitigate potential impacts upon adjacent water resources. Please note the foregoing comments reflect a review of the basic conceptual proposal only, and that the project design approval is subject to the full evaluation and review process of the State' s water Supply Application procedures. Should you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, " `W.4w . Dennis Moran, P.E. Principal Engineer Bureau of Drinking Water DM/co r NOV HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. a CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 125 BAYLIS ROAD, SUITE 140, MELVILLE, N.V. 11747 a 516-752-9080 November 11 , 1986 Mr . Dennis Moran , P. E. Suffolk County Department of Health Services 225 Rabro Drive, East Hauppauge , New York 11787 Re : Norris Estates Dear Mr . Moran : Thank you for your letter of October 29 , 1986 , and your acceptance of the proposed location of the four wells for the Norris Estate Condominium project . This will further advise you that we will recommend that the community water system entity enact watershed rules and regulations to further reinforce the importance of providing adequate protection of the water supply . As noted in our October 24th letter to Mr . Ponturo , which apparently crossed in the mail with yours , we have conducted an extended test at Well No . 4 , the easterly well in the pro- posed complex . We have also performed a full scale, extended pumping test at the 6" well No . 3 in the center of the com- plex . The full scale pumping test confirms our opinion of the adequacy of the supply . This data , as well as the other complete information required , will be included in our com- plete Engineering Report when we apply top NYSDEC for approval of the water system. Some weeks and months ago we contacted the Suffolk County Water Authority to learn of their procedures for approval of small water systems in Southold Town. We do not antici- pate problems in obtaining their approval , but as yet do not have their requirements . With regard to water quality and quantity effect on nearby private wells, this will be fully addressed in the Engineer- ing Report , including potential remedial measures to offset impacts whether or not , due to this project . 6falvl w Naw York•Farminaa4,Naw York,River ad,Now York Mr . Dennis Moran , P. E. November 11 , 1986 SCDHS Page 2 With specific regard to the proposed sewage treatment plant , we will propose some location changes to the plans submitted to you . Even though the locations shown are more normal and practical , we will recommend (a) recharge of the treated wastewater along the east line of the condo site (27 acres) ; and (b) the recharge of as much as feasible of the storm water at a location just west of (a) . We expect this arrangement will provide more of a southeasterly component to the groundwater flow and away from the closest private wells . This will also provide the recharge water as the primary source of water for the pasture irrigation well . We will assist the owner/developer in making further appli- cation to the Town for site plan approval , anticipating safe and adequate water supply for the project . Thank you for your cooperation . Very truly yours , HOLZ CHER , McLENDON & MURRELL , P. C. S. McLendon , P.E. SCM/jj cc : Richard Carr Henry Raynor Southold Planning Board U2/4 HOLZMACHER, MOLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS 125 BAYLIS ROAD, SUITE 140, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747 • 516752.9080 November 11 , 1986 Mr . Dennis Moran , P. E. Suffolk County Department of Health Services 225 Rabro Drive, East Hauppauge , New York 11787 Re : Norris Estates Dear Mr . Moran : Thank you for your letter of October 29 , 1986 , and your acceptance of the proposed location of the four wells for the Norris Estate Condominium project . This will further advise you that we will recommend that the community water system entity enact watershed rules and regulations to further reinforce the importance of providing adequate protection of the water supply . As noted in our October 24th letter to Mr . Ponturo , which apparently crossed in the mail with yours , we have conducted an extended test at Well No . 4 , the easterly well in the pro- posed complex . We have also performed a full scale, extended pumping test at the 6" well No . 3 in the center of the com- plex . The full scale pumping test confirms our opinion of the adequacy of the supply . This data , as well as the other complete information required , will be included in our com- plete Engineering Report when we apply top NYSDEC for approval of the water system. Some weeks and months ago we contacted the Suffolk County Water Authority to learn of their procedures for approval of small water systems in Southold Town. We do not antici- pate problems in obtaining their approval , but as yet do not have their requirements . With regard to water quality and quantity effect on nearby private wells , this will be fully addressed in the Engineer- ing Report , including potential remedial measures to offset impacts whether or not , due to this project . McNiflo,Now Yak a ForminVaW,Now Yak a RlvMwod,Now Yak Mr . Dennis Moran , P. E. November 11 , 1986 SCDHS Page 2 With specific regard to the proposed sewage treatment plant , we will propose some location changes to the plans submitted to you . Even though the locations shown are more normal and practical , we will recommend (a) recharge of the treated wastewater along the east line of the condo site (27 acres) ; and (b) the recharge of as much as feasible of the storm water at a location just west of (a) . We expect this arrangement will provide more of a southeasterly component to the groundwater flow and away from the closest private wells . This will also provide the recharge water as the primary source of water for the pasture irrigation well . We will assist the owner/developer in making further appli- cation to the Town for site plan approval , anticipating safe and adequate water supply for the project . Thank you for your cooperation . Very truly yours , H0 CHER , McLENDON & MURRELL , P.C. S . C. McLendon , P.E. SCM/jj cc : Richard Carr Henry Raynor Southold Planning Board R P. 0. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 August 1, 1986 Mattituck Fire Commissioners Pike Street Mattituck, NY 11952 Dear Sirs: As the agent for the proposed Norris Estates project on New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, New York, I hereby request your comments and input for additional fire protection that you would recommed for this site. I would be free to attend an_v commission meeting at your convenience. Sincerely, Henry E. Raynor, $. HER:ml CC: Richard T. Carr John J. Hart, Esq. Jean Celender Sol Niego Walter. Dunn Southold Town Planning Boar NORRIS ESTATES (to follow 25 March 1986 Part I) EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II Project Impacts and Their Magnitude General Infhrmation 'RP-td Carefully) - In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. - Identifying that an effect will be Potentially large (colon 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Ry identifying an er ect in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. - The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever Possible the thresholc of magpime- that would trigger a response in colo h 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. - Each project, an each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each huestion. - The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be ae effect. b. Mavbe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate boxr(colunn 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. if impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check cclunm 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check Colum 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of Ue impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large magnitude, place a Yes in calum 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. i 2. 3. SMALL TO POTENTIAL - UN IMPACT BE MODERATE URGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT ON LAND NO YES L WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO O Q PROJECT SITE? Examples that Hollis Avoly to Column 2 Any constructioi on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise nor 100 foot of lengti), or ,.here the general slopes in the project area exceed IOt. Construction on Lana wnere the depth to the water taple is less than 3 feet. Possible in lagoon area N construction of naved oarkina are* Pnr 1,^I^ or more vehicles. _- Construction on land where bedrock is exaased or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. — Y Construct," tna, will continue for mare clan I year or invo ive X X more than are ,mase or stage. N Excavation for m+ nq aurposes Gnat -ouid -•grove more than t,3C0 tons :f r.a to rai ^xte-i al (i.e. rock or sail) per veer. N ronstr ction o- am new ;arta-v landfill. .5. ------------- asL! 'n 7n7E.4T:Al CAN f'"AC' BE CERATE RE]UCE] 3r r w Pa T .unaCT :emir,. r'Js qg; Construction in a designated floodway. Y Other impacts: Construction of man -made lake aiapnaifinn of material X X S'3 r2s 2. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LANG FnRMX�g��7 FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cuffs, dunes, oeologici forma- V\J tions. etc.) Snecific land forms: IMPACT CN WATER MYi YES 3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER BODY DESIGNATED AS ..........0 PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envir- onesental Conservation Law, E.C.L.) Exameles that Would Aoply to Colum) 2 N Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream, N Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. yr Otherimeacts: MaU affprt Marratooka Lake = 3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NCN:PROTECTED Ek15TIM OR NFE NO YES �— X BCOY OF HATER? ... .....0 Exdmoles that Would Apply to Column 2 P A 70- increase or decrease in the surface area of any body X X of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. N 'instruction of a Body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other Imnact$: VS YES 5. 'g:LL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR SROIINOWATER M11ALITY? O Examoles that !would Apply to Column 2 X V Pnject will renuire a discharge permit. 7rd7ect recur ns ase of a source of water that does not nave 3ocroval to serve crodosed project. V P-o,ett retu•.res water sucoly from wells cairn nreater than 15 gdi'ons per minute numcing ca Dd City. p -� C.•rstr'JCC do or Oce,Ation raising any Contamination y oY a eae++e wa:er sucDly Systems. private -Y 1—:ect hill acversely affect groundwater. �+ X on Y :u'd ,ert .rel :L :DnveYed 7" ne site +,_ X X '3C"l'itees +niC1 :reSeltly :d 30t ex1St Jr !ravei ^3cec.ate -aiac'J� Y __ ecu-,'ng 3 aC'":y '.'at moult JSe w{row X X a,cass _r' ^r4 g3dnS '.ere .3.- 1 N , _a,se i"t3 C'Jn :t'a• :'SC'3 r�> �� I .� •are , ..ate, :] ±xt•r: ^3• _ 1 PALL TO POTENTIAL CA7 DIPACT SE OERATE LARGE REOUCEU CY I,NPACT I"PACT PROJECT CHANGE OLhfr InEiCL3' � ������ 6. WILL PROJECT ALTER ORAIWAGE Fldi, PATTERNS OR SURFACE !AID NO YES ftMJFFr' ...................................................00 Examl• that Mould Anply to Colurn 2 Project wnuld ienede fl000 water flows. Y ProieCt is likely to Cause substantial erosion. X X Y Project is incoevatible with existing drainage patterns. X, X Other Impacts: _prohahlp alteration in grpUnd. X ,X water flows IPAACT ON AIR W YES 7. WILL PROJECT AFFECT AIA OUALITY?...........................0 0 Fxsmoles that Would Apply to Colum 2 JL Project will Induce 1,900 or more V"Icle trips In any given hour. Project will result In the Incineration of more Nan 1 ton I-# refuse per hour. .N Project emission rate of all eontmniMn nant3 will exCS lbs. per hour or a neat source Producing mer* Nan 10 million BTU's per hour. Other imeatts: construction impacts _X_ X twPACT ON PLANTS ANO ANiM11c 40 YES 8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENOANRERED SPECIES? © O Exameles that Would Apoly to Column 2 N Reduction of one or mere soeties listed on the INnr York .� or Federal fist, using the sits, over or near sits or found on the site. I. Removal of any Dartion of a critical or sianifiant wild- I'III hmb,UL Aoalication of Pesticide or 4orbicidu over more than , tvics a year other t}vn for agwemtural purpoee3. Other iroacts: 9. WILL PROJECT SUSSTANTIALLY AFFECT HON-THREATENED OR NO TES -- —_ EYOANAERED SPECIES? .......................................© O Esamle that 'dould Apply to Colum W Project mould substantially interfere wit., any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Pruiett rmauires the rer*val of sore than 11 acres of matYre fCrest layer Ion "ars n ane) it o-ner lacally important vegetation. s MALL Tn °CTEPTIAL C.L't 0 ACT RE OERATE LARGE REDUCED nY I"PACi I ?CT PAOJECT CG. 1""ACT C'; ':ISNAL QTS�:'RCE 10.. DILL THE PonJfr APrr VIEPS. vISTAS 03 TIE VTSPAL Wl YES CHARACTER OF THE OFIGNBORWIOD OP. CO' MM? .............. 00 Esamles that Vauld Apply to Colum 2 Y An incompatible visual Affect caused by the introwuction X_ of new materials. colors and/or fomes in contrast to the surroundine landscape. A Project easily visible. not easily scmned,tnat is X X obviously different from nthdrs around it. Project will result in the eliwination or major screening of scenic views or vistas known to be In artant to the aria. Other impacts. IMPACT ON NItTOR[C RESOURCES 11. WILL PROJECT IR9ACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, 1,40 YES PRE-HI.CTnOIC nR PALEONTOCICAL ICMPTANCE? .................00/w` samples that Hduld Acol, to Cal" 2 (0 v _ Pre.iatt Occurina whbll;or martially within Or Contiguous to any facility or site listed On the National Redlster of historic plates. My imoact to an areheological site or fossil tied located �. within the project site. P Other impacts: rannntt affirm -irhn„�, — X X i IMPACT ON OM SPACE S RECREATION 12. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING NO YF.S OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPMRTU'IITIES?...... O Esamoles that Would Acply to Colum O 2 X N The perranent foreclosure Of a future recreational oocartunity. �• N A major reduction of an open spaco imoortant to the community. �. Other fiwactt: luoACT nN TOANSRnPTAT TOM 13. VILL THERE 3E AN EFFECT TO EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NO YES SYSTEM? ............................................... O EAamales that 'Aculd Annlv to Column 2 Y Alteration of present patterns of moverent of people $ X and/or goods. Y Protect will result in severe traffic arpolems. �— X X .the, lcpacts A SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT CE MODERATE LAPGE REDUCED BY IMPACT 111PACT PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT ON ENERGY 14. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR NO YES ENERGYSUPPLY? ...........................................0 Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Y Project causing greater than 5% increase in any form of X energy used in municipality. Y Project requiring the creation or extension of an energy X X transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences. Other impacts: _ IMPACT ON NOISE 15. WiLL THERE BE 08JECTIONABLE ODORS. NOISE. GLARE. VIORATIOM MO YES or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? ••.. O Examples that Would Apply to Caton 2 N Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. N Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). # Project will oroduce operating noise exceedinn the local'amoient noise levels for noise outside of structures. N Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise Screen. Y Other impacts: construction impacts X X IMPACT ON HEALTH 6 W ROS NO YES 16. HILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? .............0 0 Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 _ Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous _ substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, Chemicals. radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or uoset conditions, or there will be a chronic low level discharge or mission. Project that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc. , includinn wastes that aro solid, semi-s011d. liquid or contain gases.) _ Starane facilities for one million or more aallnns of liquified natural gas or other liouids. Other imoacts: x % LL i. ;O7.E:17IAL C�h .MPAC7 6E CE.RP.TE LARGE REDUCED BY 1 IMPACT rITPeC PROJ;R CP�NGE IMPACT O!: '444 1N0 CHARACTER OF C^'4e!NT7 OR 'IErCuq" corn a 1' 17, Will PROJECT AFFECT THE ......... MF THE EXISTING .400 YES I COMMUNITY? ........................................... Example that Would Apply to Column 2 Y The population of the City, Town or village in which the X X project is located is likely to prow by more than 5- of resident human population. _y The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or Opera- X X ting services will increase by more than 5' per year as a - result of this project. Y Will involve any oermanent facility of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district Or remove nrime agricultural lands from cultivation. N The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the Cxanunity. N Oeveiopment will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. N Project will set an important precedent for future protects. Project will relocate 15 or mm emeloyees in one or more businesses. Other impacts: NO YES 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT'. ... ...0 Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 .. 11 N_ Either government or citizens of adjacent camnunities nave expressed opposition or rejected the proiect or gave not peen Contacted. Y Objections to the me ject from within the conmunity. X X IF ANY ACTION IN PART 2 IS ICE!RIF,EO AS A POTENTIAL LARGE 17-PACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE MACINMOE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. PORTIONS OF W CCNPLETED FOR THIS PACJECT: DETERMINATION PART I X PART 11 X PART 3 X 'Joon review of the information recorded on tnis EAF (Parts 1, 2 and 3) and cons Iderinp ooth the riaonitude and Imnortance of each Impact, it is reasonaoly determined that: PREPARE A vE"ATIVE ;ECLA.GATICN A. The project will result in no major impacts and, tnerefore, 0 is one ,nrh may not cause significant pamace to :.^.e environrent. 3. ..lthpucn the project could '+ave a sicnificant effect cn t.^,e environment, there .ill not se d significant zffec; in ;lis case ° Z1Z;E : 'IE9A7"IE 'EC:ARATICTI y tecause tre mitigation measures descrioed in 1,'7 3 nave peen O inclueed as part pe the orocosed project. D. The project n 1' result 1n One or lore aa:or adverse impdr.p5 T^R EP tPr xn c: :'/E n,..,'1 %..� ,:—.1 Ei5 flat tan ACL to re d'J Cep dq mdy C use x11,11 Icart cdrace ;a •ate _02" 1 le 7 .raft aiorefs" EAF EUVIROIINENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III JVAUffI01 OF THE 1Mr1RTA4CE f F IMPACT 14FORRAT10n - Part 3 is prepared if one or more impact or effect is Considered to be potentially large. - The amount of writing necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the question: In briefly completing the instructions below have I placed in this record sufficient information to indicate trio reasonableness of . decisions? INSTRUCTIONS Complete the followinq for each impact or effect identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than large impact by a pro- ject change. 3. Used an the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this imnapt is imwrtant to the minicipality (city, torr or village) in which the project is located. To answer the question of importance, consider: - The probability of the impact or effect occurring - The duration of the impact or effect - Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources or values - Whether the impact or effect can be controlled - The regional consequence of the impact or effect Its potential divergence from local needs and goals - Whether known objections to the project apply to this impact or effect. OETERYINATION OF SIGIIFICAMCE An action is considered to b•. significant h l — One (or more) impact is determined to both lame and its (Chea r) conswuence, based an the review above, is important. PAPT III STATEMENTS (Continue on Attachments, as needed) NORRIS ESTATES Part III (to follow 25 March 1986 Part I) 1. Construction will occur for at least 3 construction seasons. Construction impacts including noise, air, dust, stockpiled material (visual impact) , erodable materials (soil erosion) will occur but can be mitigated. Construction of a man-made lake will alter natural drainage and ground water recharge. Unless properly maintained it will act as a breeding ground for insects. It may intercept groundwater table. 2. The size of the project and potential groundwater usage may impact Marratooka Lake. An intense use and wastewater discharge will affect groundwater dynamics. Adjacent properties may be adversely affected. 3. Incompatible visual impacts are likely from a multi-family development on currently agriculturally-used land. The open nature of the land makes screening difficult. 4. Access to the site is poor and cannot support the project as proposed. 5. Impacts on community facilities, and services, including schools, fire, police and Qmer ency services may be felt. Community benefits are unknown at this tyme. 6. Energy use may be significant. 7. The project has raised significant community objections. r < ITN OF SOUTHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART I PROJECT INFORMATION 3pT:CE: Ibis docament is designed to assist in deternining whet.`.er : e action proposed may have a significant offer: Jn the envircnment. Please camoleta t.`.e entire rata ;heec. Answers :o t`ese westions .ill be cansiaered as part of the aopl4cation far approval and may be subject to further verr'icatian and public review. Provide any aadiciortai information you believe will he neeced :a ccmolece PARTS 2 and 3. is expected tnan amatetion of the W will be depeneent on information currently available and will not Involve new studies, rasaar_n or investigation. L` infor:etien r=_auiring such aadi:ianal .ark is_unavaidble,- so indicate and saecify eaei instance. 1A1E ?F PROJECT: - NAME AND ACCRESS OF .nWNER iIf Di f'arentl . . Mame) . . -•ADDRESS a7D 'IAIIE OF APC!ICMIT: at.^^et. - Bruce A. Norris . p,y, Scaca). Dial - .._. . N,B.W:..Suff.Q1k.,Avertue,_._ ,..___._ _ . _ 3UV,4M 7RGNE. . t2eti - ' Mturk , NV • .i l a&,2 j acal laip) ... Oc MOTMy OF oaOJEC-: (griefly describe type of project ar action) cluster Subdivision and condominium Project --- (ptcASc CGMPLETE• EACH QUESTION - Indicate 7.A. if not 10011C2010 A. SI-T .ESCBIPTI07 (Fhysical sac-in3 of overall project. bath develacec and u'ndevelcoed areas) 1. General cnarac:ar pf the land: Generaily uniform slave X_ aaneraily uneven and roiling or._irregular :. Pr_SEnt 'and use: Urban , Industrial _, Copmercial _, Suourian lural For2st Agriculture _. Ovier 3. Tocal acreage a' project area: 7 2 acres. Approximate acreage: Presently After Completion Presently Aftar Cempietian • Meadow or 3rusnland _acres _acres Hatar Surface Arts _acres acres 'arts:: _oras _ eras Unve^.etacad 'ro ear:n or rill; _aeras _aeras Agricultural 7 1 acres 0 r_. �- ;Cads Jgildinns '.•.etl_rc i-r-snwatar or - - ar.a ::ger Javea ria as ter art .as sure:cgs1 es _acres .. !a, 15 pr -. ... ) icres .cr.< it . ar.er (:naita:a type) _fres _ares a, ::ha: is preccm:nanc soilty7e(s) on Jro ly't top soil, sand, bank run ii:a: i. a. .ire ::':_r? Jedr^.c% autcr aiags :n project Sitar vas X '10 b. ghat is caotc :a ':ed'pcx? iln 'at t) . .. • � , . .. —_ _-'.',th'3.'r� �.. df:fit. 6. Approximate percentace of proposed project site with slopes: 0-105 100!; 10-153 2. 'i53 or greater 7. Is project contiguous to. or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? Yes X No 8. What is the depth to the water table? + 2 0 feet 9. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes _-Z-20 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endancered - Yes according to - Identify each species 11. Are there any unique or unusual land foes on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - Yes (Describe 12. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - _Yes y_Yo. 13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to .the community? Yes X Ila 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: - a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary N/A 15. Lakes, Ponds, 'Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: .-.. _.. a. Name N/A ; b. Size (in acres) 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential, R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story). . _ - A—R 80 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 72 acres. ' • b. Project acreage developed: 4_0 acres initially; 72 acres ultimately. e. Project acreage to remain undeveloped Ct ' d. Length of project, in miles: 3/4 if appropriate) e. If project is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot age developed acreage f. Number of off-stmt parking spaces existing 0 proposed 200+ g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour (upon completion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: •• One'Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial + 132 Ultimate + 16_ - I. If: Orientation Neighborhood-City-Regional Estimated Employment - Co7rereial Industrial �. Total height of tallest proposed structure 2 Storlfeet. tea.. How much natural material (i.e. rack, earth, etc.) will be rexov=_d from the site - 0 tons Cubic yard 3. Now many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site - _ JLacres. 4. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation he removed by this project? Yes __Y No S. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? _Yes _Ho 6.. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 4 8 months, (including demolition). 7. I.f multi-phasgd project: a. Total number of phases anticipated -2-_No. ~ -- b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 3 month 8 6 year (including - demolition) C. Approximate completion date final phase 3 month9 0 ear. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes X Nr S. Will blasting occur during construction? _Yes X No 9. Humber of jobs generated: during construction 7 55; after project is complete 15 . 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project �. 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes X No. If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial , etc.) se3yerage - C. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged n�a 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes No. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? _Yes --X­WO 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes X No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? ^Yes NO C. If yes, give name: ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? __Yes X 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes X No 17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X No 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? Yes __Z_Wo 19. Will project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes No. If yes, indicate type(s) domestic electricity 20. If water supply is from wells indicate pumping capacity gals/minute. 21. Total anticipated water usage per day 21,6 0 0 gals/day. M Zoning: a. What is dcminant 'zoning classification of site? _ M - A/R b. Current specific zoning classification of site M e. Is proposed use consistant with ,present zoning? _ yes d. If no, indicate desired zoning - 4- 26. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes _KYo b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes X No c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required Submittal Approval (Yes, No) (Type) (Date) (Date) City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board ye ss s 1 eP an City, Town. Zoning Board City, County Health Oepartment dye ., ter & sewer Other local agencies vpq ,scp(- Other regional agencies State Agenciesyes a tvgen Federal Agencies C. INFOR7+ATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid h PREPARER'S SIGNATURE TITLE: _ - Acknt REPRESENTING: Rrnce A. Morris DATE: 8/14/85 • 5�FF0(,��, P D ti � T LD og S 1*Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 August 8, 1986 Mr. John J. Hart, Jr. Pelletreau and Pelletreau Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 110 Patchogue, NY 11772 RE: Norris Estate SEQRA review Dear Mr. Hart: The initial payment of the $2, 000 review fee, pursuant to Section 44-20 of the Southold Town Code, is necessary to complete the submission of the DEIS. The staff of Szepatowski Associates will be reviewing the DEIS under my direct supervision. Our hourly charge rate is $50 for Principal Planner and $40 for Environmental and Technical Analysists. Please don' t hesitate to contact our office if you have any further questions. ry Utrulyours ca kz, avid Emilita, Planning Consultant DE:dms PELLETREAU & PELLETREAU PETER V. SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT S. PELLETREAU JOHN J. HART 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX 110 (1891-1943) JOHN J. ROE,III RICHARD A.SCHOENFELD FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11772 (1950-1980) J.TIMOTHY SHEA BRUCE T. WALLACE TEL. 516 475-5656 KEVIN A.SEAMAN ROBERT H. PELLETREAU VANESSA M. SHEEHAN. OF COUNSEL BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG *ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA July 23, 1986 Mr . Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. RE : NORRIS ESTATE Dear Mr. Orlowski: I am writing on behalf of our client, Richard Carr . In connection with the Scoping Sessions , DEIS and EEIS Reviews we would appreciate your advising us as to the cost of these Reviews, by whom they will be made and the rate to be charged by each person participating in the Reveiws . Thank you. Very truly yours, PE LETREAU A PELLETREAU JO N J . IIT JR. JJH:mw ccs : Richard Carr Henry Raynor July 21 . 1986 To the Town of Southold Planning Board: This December past Anne and I purchased our first home at 1530 Camp Mineola Road. Our home is north of Krause Road which puts us directly across from the proposed condominium site. We left the last meeting which dealt with the Norris property with great concern about the future of our community. The elation which accompanied this most maior step for my family' s future was beginning to turn sour. The serenity and that beautiful view of the sunrise over the Norris property would soon be gone, and in it' s place would be nearly one hundred condominiums an entrance to which would be placed directly in front of our home. One need to do little more than ' walk around this community on a sunny, summer afternoon to be made aware of the neg— ative impact the building of such a huge number of houses will have on this area. Even at present Anne and I find ourselves dodging traffic as we attempt to take our daily walk. Cars speed around that blind turn on New Suffolk Avenue between Ole Jule and Reeve as if it were a major bend at Indy. We have already limited riding our bikes. It was like taking our lives into our hands. What about our children? What about our neighbors children? And what about your children? A trip to the A&P becomes a major outing. It begins to remind me of the 10 years I lived in Brookhaven County. A left onto 25 can take up to five minutes. I hope to give my children so very much more than TRAFFIC, NOISE, and LITTER. Yet I fear that is what it is com ing to. The quality of our water is already poor. I heard the offer extended you. Come to our houses; taste the water; note itis color. Then add another five hundred people to our area. Can you do this in good conscience? If so how? Have experts do their Environmental Impact Study. Let it be done with professional, objective thoroughness. Can I believe in the concern of these developers who would place an entrarceway to their condominiums directly in front of the entrance to our home] There are only three homes on our street. Is this the considerate planning we are told we can expect? I fear that we cannot believe in the motivations, foresight, and insight of these developers; but pray we can believe; and trust in you, our neighbors. Couple the traffic which already exists with that which the condominiums would bring; add also the boats drawn by cars which would surely be using this new straighter access to Strong' s Marina; throw in some more traffic the other development in the area will bring; now make it a summer afternoon. or for that matter any season at all, Can ,you picture it? I know I can, What a nightmare! Anne and I chose to invest our time, money, and energy here in Matt tuck. We plan to raise our children here; have them grow and be educated here. We hope and pray, like most parents or future parents hope and pray, that our children will grow safe and strong in a community united by caring and concerned citizens. Anne and I had hoped to attend all meetings involving this project, but heard about this most important meeting only Saturday when we encountered our neighbor, Tire Peters. Anne and I are both teachers presently involved in teaching summer school. It was at that late timeA o find substitutes for our classes. I would hope that future neetings will take this into consideration and be scheduled, like the 'Vorld Series, at a time when we can all actively make our contributions. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. �Sincerely. F'�.p-'�CP (d '/)�' Ronald A, Smith Y ...•.� •n�u_ _� RII/LY X010 19 I Y it �� I /! %i�'' •r %`w y� y �� •� +00 �, 0.X •YXyy \ti / QCIY�wCh W�Mn 0 Cover Sheet Introduction All EIS's(Draft or Final)shall begin with a cover The following checklist of topics is intended sheet that indicates: as a starting point for developing a detailed scope A. Whether it is a draft or final statement for a project-specific Draft Environmental Impact B. Name or other descriptive title of the project Statement. Typically, no one project will require a C. Location(county and town, village or city)of discussion of all the topic areas contained in this the project document. Through the scoping process, this list of D. Name and address of the lead agency which topics should be refined to reflect issues unique to required preparation of the statement and the proposed project. Topic areas may be deleted, the name and telephone number of a person added, or elaborated upon, to arrive at the final at the agency to be contacted for further in- formation scoping document. E. Name and address of the preparers of any The purpose of the checklist format is identify the basic topic areas for the Draft EIS. Thisis portion of the statement and a contact name ephone number and tel is accomplished by reviewing the list and placing a F. Date l acceptance of the Draft EIS check in the box located to the left of those topics which should be discussed. The model scoping G. In the case of a Draft EIS, the deadline date checklist can also be used as a worksheet, including by which comments are due should be in- comments, suggestions and identification of the dicated particular example(s) that are relevant to a detailed able of Contents and Summary discussion of the topic or issue that has been check- A table of contents and a brief summary are re- ed. Conversely, those topics which are not checked, quired for Draft and Final EIS's exceeding summary pages are issues not associated with the project, and may in length. However, one should include these Minimum requirements for any eliminated from discussion y the Draft EIS.Draft EIS are features in any size EIS to provide the review agency Mwith easy reference to EIS topics. already checked for convenience. The summary should include: The next step is to expand the list to include A. Brief description of the action or elaborate on those topics unique to the proposed B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, project. A blank sheet is included at the end of the (issues of controversy must be specified) checklist for such additional information. C. Mitigation measures proposed The scoping process involves several steps in D. Alternatives considered addition to compiling a list of topics. Scoping also E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, includes discussiors on the quantity and quality of funding) information required and the methods for obtaining that data. escription of the Proposed Action NOTE: This checklist was designed to bePlace a check in the box to the left of those used in conjunction with the section on scoping con- topics to be included in the draft EIS. tained in the SEQR Guideline-Draft and Final EIS's. P—A. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED It is also important to emphasize that this checklist -''l. Background and history t` should serve only as a model to assist in the scoping ✓2. Public need for the project, and of a Draft EIS. It should not be used as a substitute municipality objectives based on adopted for actively scoping a Draft EIS for a specific pro- community development plans ject. ✓3. Objectives of the project sponsor C-1 C �B. LOCATION Natural Resources ✓1. Establish geographic boundaries of the RJ-_A. GEOLOGY project (use of regional and local scale ❑ 1. Subsurface maps is recommended) a.)composition and thickness of ✓2. Description of access to site subsurface material ✓3. Description of existing zoning of propos- examples: ed site —depth to, and nature of, bed- 4. Other: rock formations and imperme- able layers Ht. DESIGN AND LAYOUT —occurrence of an extractive r-1. Total site area mineral resource a.)proposed impervious surface area —usefulness as construction (roofs, parking lots, roads) material b.)amount of land to be cleared b.)earthquake potential c.)open space �'�. Surface woo 2. Structures a.) list of soil types a.)gross leaseable area (GLA), if ap- b.)discussion of soil characteristics plicable examples: b.)layout of buildings (attached, enclos- —physical properties (indication ed, separate) of soils hydrological (infiltra- c.)site plans and profile views tion) capabilities) ✓3. Parking —engineering properties (soil a.)pavement area bearing capacity) b.)numper of spaces a d layout ✓4. Other: c.)distribution of soil types at pro- SC�S'e ject site D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION d.)suitability for use examples: 6--1. Construction —agriculture a.)total construction period anticipated —recreation b.)schedule of construction —construction c.)future potential development, on site —mining or on adjoining properties e.) other: d.)other: / A,- 2. Operation �3. Topography a.)type of operation a.)description of topography at pro- b.)schedule of operation ject site c.)other: examples: —slopes ❑ E. CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE PLANS —prominent or unique features (for projects of planned limited life such as b.)description of topography of sur- landfills) rounding area WATER RESOURCES El-T. APPROVALS 1. Groundwater 1. Required changes or variances to the zon- a.) location and description of ing regulations aquifers and recharge areas 2. Other permit approval or funding re- examples: quirements —depth to water table —seasonal variation Environmental Setting —quality Place a check in the box to the left of those —quantity topics to be included in the Draft EIS. —flow C-2 4 b.)identification of present uses and c.) identification of any sensitive level of use of groundwater receptors in project area examples: examples: —location of existing wells —hospitals, schools, nursing —public/private water supply homes, parks —industrial uses d.)description of existing monitor- -agricultural uses ing ing program (if applicable) 2. Surface water 104%(MfMa illy[. a.) location and description of sur- D. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY_ face waters located on project ❑ 1• Vegetation site or those that may be in- a.) list vegetation types on the pro- fluenced by the project ject site and within the surround- examples: ing area —seasonal variation b.)discussion of site vegetation —quality characteristics examples: —classification according to New York State Department of —species present and abundance Health —age b.)identification of uses and level of —size use of all surface waters —distribution —dominance examples: —community types ! —public/private water supply —industrial uses —unique, rare and endangered < —agricultural uses species —recreation —value as habitat for wildlife c.)description of existing drainage —productivity areas, patterns and channels ❑ 2. Fish and Wildlife d.)discussion of potential for a.) list of fish and wildlife species on flooding, siltation, erosion and the project site and within sur- eutrophication of water sources rounding area, including � "", migratory and resident species ❑ C. AIR RESOURCES rJ 1' r b.)discussion of fish and wildlife El 1. Climate population characteristics examples: a.)discussion of seasonal variations —species present and abundance and extremes examples: —distribution —dominance —temperature —humidity —unique, rare and endangered —precipitation species —wind —productivity ❑ 3. Wetlands ❑ 2. Air quality a.) list wetland areas within or Ion- a.)description of existing air quality tiguous to the project site levels b.)discuss wetland characteristics examples: examples: —list the National and State Air —acreage Quality Standards for the pro- —vegetative cover ject area and the compliance —classification status for each standard —benefits of wetland such as b.)identification of existing sources flood and erosion control, or pollutants-fixed or mobile recreation C-3 Human Resources . C. COMMUNITY SERVICES(for this section in- A. TRANSPORTATION clude a list of existing facilities and a discus- 1. Transportation services sion of existing levels of usage and pro- a.)description of the size, capacity jected future needs) and condition of services 0' 1. Educational facilities examples: 2. Police protection —roads, canals, railroads, bridges 3. Fire protection —parking facilities 4. Health care facilities —traffic control d' 5. Social services b.)description of current level of use Iii-6. Recreational facilities of services examples: 7. Utilities —a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic ❑ 8. Other: flow —vehicle mix —sources of existing traffic g D. DEMOGRAPHY volume � 1. Population characteristics ❑ 2. Public transportation a.)discussion of the existing popula- a.)description of the current tion parameters availability of service examples: b.)description of present level of —distribution C use —density ❑ 3. Pedestrian environment —household size and composi- ❑ 4. Other: tion b.)discussion of projections for Er B. LAND USE AND ZONING population growth (aa"1. Existing land use and zoning El 2. Other: a.)description of the existing land use of the project site and the &'E. CULTURAL RESOURCES surrounding area B'l. Visual resources examples: a.)description of the physical —commercial character of the community —residential example: —agricultural —urban vs. rural —business b.)description of natural areas of —retail significant scenic value —industrial c.) identification of structures of —vacant significant architectural design b.)description of the existing zoning of site and surrounding area Q"2. Historic and archaeological resources Land use plans a.) location and description of a.)description of any land use plans historic areas or structures listed or master plans which include on State or National Register or project site and surrounding area designated by the community b.)discussion of future development b.)identification of sites having trends or pressures potential significant ar- ❑ 3. Other: chaeological value C-4 C, ❑ 3. Noise g(i� ❑ B. WATER RESOURCES a.) identificati n of existing level of 1. Groundwater noise in the community a.)design adequate system of treat- b. identification of major sources of ment for stormwater runoff prior noise to recharge of groundwater examples: b.)maintain permeable areas on the —airports site —major highways c.) institute a program for monitor- -industrial/commercial facili- ing water quality in adjacent ties wells ❑ 4. Other: d.)other: 2. Surface water a.)ensure use of soil erosion control Significant Environmental Impacts techniques during construction Identify those aspects of the environmental set- and operation to avoid siltation ting in Section IV that may be adversely or examples: beneficially affected by the proposed action and re- —hay bales quire discussion. —temporary restoration of Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmen- vegetation to disturbed areas tal Impact —landscaping Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential b.)design adequate stormwater con- C adverse impacts identified in Section V. The follow- trol system ing is a brief listing of typical measures used for c.) restrict use of salt or sand for so�DQf the�majs areas of impact. road and parking area snow S gb�st..t:T removal Natural Resources �' d.)avoid direct discharges to surface El A. GEOLOGY water resources e.)other. 1. Subsurface a.)use excavated material for land reclamation b.)use facility wastes (ash, sludge) for land reclamation ❑ C. AIR RESOURCES c.)other: 1. Air quality 2. Surface a.)assure proper construction prac- a.)use topsoil stockpiled during tices construction for restoration and examples: landscaping —fugitive dust control b.)minimize disturbance of non- —proper operation and construction sites maintenance of construction c.)design and implement soil ero- equipment sion control plan b.)design traffic improvements to d.)other: reduce congestion and vehicle 3. Topography delay a.)avoid construction on areas of c.) install and ensure the proper steep slope operation of emission control b.)design adequate soil erosion devices devices to protect areas of steep d.)initiate a program for monitoring (` slope of air quality c.)other: e.)other: C-5 C ❑ D. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY ❑ B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Vegetation 1. Existing land use and zoning a.) restrict clearing to only those a.)design project to comply with ex- areas necessary isting land use plans b.)preserve part of site as a natural b.)design functional and visually ap- area pealing facility to set standard c.)after construction, landscape site and precedent for future with naturally occurring vegeta- surrounding land use tion c.)other: d.)purchase open space at another [] C. COMMUNITY SERVICES location and dedicate to local 1. Police protection government or conservation a.)minimize local police protection organization responsibilities by providing e.)other: private security force 2. Fish and Wildlife b.)provide security systems, alarms a.)provide adequate habitat(shelter for facility and food) for remaining wildlife c.)provide equipment, funds or ser- species vices directly to the community b.)schedule construction to avoid d.)other: sensitive periods of fish and 2. Fire protection wildlife life cycles a.)use construction materials that c.)other: minimize fire hazards b.)incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design c.)provide equipment, funds or ser- Human Resources vices directly to the community d.)other: ❑ A. TRANSPORTATION 3. Utilities 1. Transportation services a.) install utility services a.)design adequate and safe access underground to project site to handle pro- b.)incorporate water saving fixtures jected traffic flow into facility design b.)install adequate traffic control c.)incorporate energy-saving devices measures into facility design c.)optimize use of parking areas d.)other: d.)encourage car pooling and opera- ❑ D. CULTURAL RESOURCES tion of facility during non-peak 1. Visual resources traffic times a.)design exterior of structure to e.)design special routing and physically blend with existing restricted hours for delivery truck surroundings traffic f.) other: b.)minimize visual impact through Public transportation thoughtful and innovative design 2. P aaictradjust public transportation of lighting and signs (consider: routes and schedules to service height, size, intensity, glare and hours of lighting operation) the facility b.)encourage use of public transpor- c.)design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer talion by using incentive pro- between surrounding land uses, grams for employees or by sell- ing tickets in facility parking areas, operational equip- ment and facilities c.)other: d.)other: C-6 2. Historic and archaeologic resources P-A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND a.)allow historical and ar- TECHNOLOGIES chaeological officials access to .-�1. Site layout the project site during excavation a.)density and location of structures b.)devote space within project site b.)location of access routes, park- to a display of historical and ar- ing and utility routes chaeological artifacts of local in- w-2. Orientation terest a.)compatibility with slope and c.)preserve architecturally signifi. drainage patterns cant structures and make a b.)site size and setback re- photographic and statistical quirements record of those that must be 3. Technology destroyed a.)pollution control equipment d.)other: b.)innovative vs. proven 3. Noise technologies a.)schedule construction/operation 4. Mix of activities to occur during "normal a.)addition of businesses which business" hours minimizing would affect the operational noise impact during sensitive nature of the facility times (early morning, night) b.)assure adherence to construction noise standards ❑ B. ALTERNATIVE SITES C c.)design berms and landscaping to 1. Limiting factors block and absorb noise a.)availability of land d.)other: b.)suitability of alternate site to ac- comodate design requirements c.)availability of utilities d.)suitable market area e.)compatibility with local zoning 11. Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot and master plan be Avoided if the Project is Implemented f.) compatibility with regional ob- Identify those adverse environmental effects in jectives Section V that can be expected to occur regardless g•)accessibility of site to transporta- of the mitigation measures considered in Section tion routes and the service VI population Q-�. ALTERNATIVE SIZE 1. Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts 2. Increase or decrease project size to 111. Alternatives correspond to market and com- This section contains categories of alternatives munity needs with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a com- parative assessment of costs, benefits and en- E--D. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/OPERA- ' vironmental risks for each alternative. It is not ac- TION SCHEDULING ceptable to make simple assertions that a particular 1. Commence construction at a dif- alternative is or is not feasible. Identify those ferent time categories of alternatives which should be included 2. Phase construction/operation in the EIS by placing a check in the box located to 3. Restrict construction/operation the left of the topic. work schedule C-7 c E. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE X1. Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy 1. Suitability of site for other uses Resources a.) other types of commercial uses Identify the energy sources to be used, an- b.)other types of industry ticipated levels of consumption and ways to reduce •.-c)different types of housing energy consumption. The examples listed below are d.)other: typical issues to be considered when addressing this 2. Public vs. private use topic. E'F. NO ACTION ❑ A. PROPOSED ENERGY SOURCES AND 1. Impacts of no action ALTERNATIVES a.)effect on public need b.)effect on private developers'need ❑ B. ANTICIPATED SHORT-TERM/LONG-TERM c.)beneficial or adverse en- LEVELS OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION vironmental impacts ❑ C. INDIRECT EFFECTS ON ENERGY CON. SUMPTION ❑ G. OTHER: 1. Increased dependence on automobile use X. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of 2. Increased levels of traffic due to pro- Resources posed project Identify those natural and human resources listed ❑ D. ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. 1. Design methods to reduce fuel use for heating, cooling, and lighting X. Growth Inducing Aspects a.)conventional technology Describe in this section the potential growth examples: aspects the proposed project may have, Listed —insulation below are examples of topics that are typically af- —thermopane windows fected by the growth induced by a project. —use of low wattage lights ►� A. POPULATION b.)innovative technology 1. Increases in business and resident examples: population due to the creation or —heat pumps relocation of business —solar panels 2. Increases in resident population due —wind energy to the construction of housing —use of waste heat from an in- dustrial plant 0' B, SUPPORT FACILITIES c.)efficient layout 1. Businesses created to serve the in- examples: creased population —orientation of structures in 2. Service industries created to supply relation to summer and winter new facility sunlight —clustering of structures to Rr C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL maximize common walls 1. Introduction or improvement of in- —shortening of utility runs frastructure (roads, waste disposal, —shared insulation and heating sewers, water) to service proposed 2. Indirect energy benefits project a.) location and design of facility to 2. Creation of further growth potential accomodate mass transit by construction of improved in- b.)use of shuttle buses frastructure c.) location of facility to minimize travel distance ❑ D. OTHER: ❑ E. OTHER: C-8 C X11. Appendices Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. 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 (if any) at a legible scale D. Relevant correspondence regarding the pro- jects may be included (required in the Final EIS) Additional Draft EIS Scoping Topics Indicate any additional topics for discussion in the Draft EIS. Attach additional sheets if necessary. C C-9 ZI � 1�,arrts o�����ect # 0 A'Tr;=NDAN&r, UST �o22IS 1�1s s�ING �sslay 2) Tul e)JG 14� AFF) U Am bly 'PAVIC) r.Mpp ILITA Towh b k�IJ 7��- X935 sL W o C) e S CL�LN .� �i7uC � �� g - � bZ C( /If C(C ctit zt �u�itG� �G�LtI �G�L�cc�z�Gt Z �/2r Gu a l G - Z 9?P - Se! 3 /J-UG--e 5"l6, -6Z7 - 76-Z9H cGu.c/cuc2� �. r !I /©�3iJ�z� -7-1 -Z, 66f — Y-7 �'30 YW{►�TC(Z �V d ��l_- 11 66 MAI SgT.J (w�sTt�0.MP+T/J QeR�J A1.Y, l z88 Z $00 351 Ogg Opvrr?�� � ✓, �'/y Le/ �� —1-7 ,v lam, d(� 3�'� >�ij7-Z �� , P c�FFO(k D ti T LD S Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NORRIS ESTATES SCOPING SESSION A scoping session was held on Monday,July 21, 1986 at 10: 30 a.m. with the Town Planner for the condominium proposal for the Norris Estates located at Mattituck for 95 units on 27 acres in an "M" zone. Present were: David Emilita, Consultanting Planner to the Town of Southold Sol Niego, Architect Jean Cielender, JAC Planning Corp. John Hart, esq. Pelletreau and Pelletreau - Attorney for applicant Bob Anderson, resident of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck Joseph Onufroh, esq. resident of Camp Mineola Road, East, Mattituck Joe Peters, resident of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck Chuck Bowman, Land Use Company Henry E. Raynor, agent for Mr. Richard Carr Walter Dunn, Dunn Engineering Floyd Vail, resident Mr, and Mrs. Lawrence Reeve, property owner Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck Henry Drum, Mattituck Paul Grosser, Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrel, P.C. Edward Siegmann, property owner South of the property adjacent to the applicant' s property. Mary Malone, property owner of property adjacent the applican' ts property. Thorton E. Smith, civil and registered engineer - resident of Camp Mineola Road John Wood, resident of Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck Amelia Wood, resident of Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck Diane M. Schultze, Stenographer Richard Carr, applicant (11: 20 a.m. ) Mr. Emilita: Good morning. Let me just for the record read to you why we are here. There' s a letter to Henry Raynor regarding Norris Estates. Dear Mr. Raynor: Please let this confimr the following action taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, July 14, 1986. WHEREAS, Richard Carr, has heretofore applied to the Southold Town Planning Board for a multiple dwelling complex of 27 acres with 95 dwelling units located at Camp Mineola Blve. , Mattituck, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the provision 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 Board, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. 2 . That the Planning Board shall file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and codes. 3. That the Planning Board immediately notify the applicant, Richard Carr, of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Draft ENvironmental Impact Statement, in accordance with the scope and contents required be the Planning Board and Town Planner allin accordance with said law, rules and code. The as yet untyped second page sets today as the date of the meeting of the scoping session to determine the contents of the impact statement. So that brings us up to date, and thats why we are all here. I will use in the conduct of this session Appendix A from the SEQRA handbook which is the model EIS scoping checklist, what is basically on a standard outline. I have briefly gone through the parts 2 and parts 3 mentioned in the letter here which gave us the positive declaration and we will also use that for guidance. Feel free at any time if anyone has a question or needs a point of clarification to interupt the discussion and air your concerns and we' ll have that also for the record. Okay, I guess the best way to handle this is to go down the relevant items and what we will be doing is starting with the front page of the proposed impact statements and outlining its contents right through to the appendices. So starting with the cover sheet, naturally there will be a cover sheet. Table of contents and a brief summary of the impact statement for those who don' t wish to read the whole document. Okay a very important part of the impact statement is contained in number III, description of the proposal Scoping Session Page 3 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Emilita: action. The first major subsection under that is the purpose of the project and the need. Included in that shall be the background and history not only of this particular project but of any previous projects proposed, zoning changes proposed that may shed some light and have some bearing on why this project is proposed in such a manner as it is now. I found that it does help the review process that everyone have an understanding of why we are where we are and, rather than start from today forward it helps in the review. Two, the public need for the project and the municiple objectives that this project may achieve based on the established master plan for the Town. In other words how does this project comply with or advance or implement the plan. The third item, what are the objectives of the projects sponser by the completion of this project. What does he wish, why is he doing this. What does he wish to do with it. B. Location - establish the geographic boundaries of the project and it appears to be already defined, the survey appears to have been done. Description of access to the site - that needs to be handled in some detail as we do have access problems. Description of existing zoning - and how this project complies with it or doesn' t comply, if it doesn' t. C. Design and Layout - a verbal description, although we do have a plan here, of the total site area, the number of units, the amount of land that is to be paved and covered withimpervious surface, describe the creation of the lagoons, how that will be done and any other non residential facilites that may or may not show on this particular plan such as the club house, pool and recreation area, pumping station, sewage treatment plant, that is all I see. Mr. Raynor: Dave. Mr. Emilita: Yes. Mr. Raynor: The site plan that you are working from, because of the concern with the make up water in these lagoons, I . . . Mr. Niego: We have amended the site plan to eliminate the lagoons. Mr. Raynor: They have been taken out. Mr. Emilita: I see, do we have that in the file? We don' t. Mr. Raynor: There you go ( presented a rendering of the amended site plan) Mr. Emilita: Has any thing else changed? Mr. Niego: No, the number of units is the same. Mr. Raynor: No density changes or any thing like that, just more planting. Mr. Niego: More planting rather than lagoons. Scoping Session Page 4 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Emilita: Okay, Mr. Niego: I will get you sufficient number of copies. Whatever number you need. Mr. Emilita: It doesn' t present the problem. We will just address that as the proposed action rather than what is in the file. So, what we are looking for is a full and complete description of what is happening on the site. And, any proposed architectural renderings, I think as part of the description of th plan will help us addressing a point farther down in the impact statement. And, any other special aesthitics that the applicant would like to bring out. Construction and Operation and Maintanence - there will be obviously some disruption on the site as a result of the construction activity. We like to see, how the project is intended to be constructed. Is it to be constructed by phases, constructed all in one construction year, or if it is to be partially done in each year, we willneed a complete plan for each phase if that is the case. In other words, each plan will have to stand on its own if it is to be done part one year and part another year. Operation maintanence - I guess we are mostly concerned with here of the water treatment and sewage treatment maintenance, the plan of operation for maintenance for those facilities. And the last item under the description of the project is a listing of all the required approvals may need as the applicant sees it and what permits have been obtained, what permits are pending, what permits have not yet been applied for. All that item pertains to the project itself. The next major item is evironmental setting - the natural and community setting around the project site. The first major subject is entitled geology it consists of three major subsections. The first dealing with subsurface geolgy need only be touched on briefly because we are not anticipating any disturbance to bedrock or any extraction such as a mining activity. That need only be touched on as it relates to the second sufficial description of soils immediate subsurface, borings will be necessary to determine the suitablity of the sufficial geology this is what is proposed. Third subheading under geology is topography. You show here five foot contours, the ultimate site plan will have to show two foot contours in order to do an adequate job for drainage. This contour interval will not be sufficient to evaluate any drainage. I think we are looking at a two foot contour. Any questions so far. (none) . Okay, the next major heading is water resources and two subheadings. First is groundwater - this will probably be one of the major descriptive elements since we do anticipate a significant impact on the goundwater of this site and of the immediate community. Because of the denisty involved, and we do need as complete a description as possible of the existing resource; depth to groundwater, seasonal variation, quality, quantity, directional flow. Cek 1 Mr. Anderson: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Emilita: Yes. 1 Scoping Session Page 5 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Anderson: How wide ranging would the expectation be from the Town as to impact, that is what would be the geographical boundaries. Not just the properties, but the adjacent properties that would have to be explored? Mr. Emilita: Well, we don' t know until we see a description of for instance groundwater flow. If groundwter flows in this direction we would expect potentional impact there. We would also expect maybe some lateral impact but probably not as significant. At this point, I can' t really tell you. You don' t have to go from Mattituck to Greenport to see a community description. If we find that the information contained in the Draft submitted is not adequate we can always ask for additional information. I will leave this up to the professionals involved to do the appropriate job. Mr. Wood: How would they check the ground flow? Would they do test borings? Mr. Emilita: Through wells , yes. Mr. Wood: In the neighborhood? Mr. Emilita: Probably. At least on the site, yes. Mr. Wood: On the site is one thing, but I mean where on the fringe of the project, would they be testing on our property? Mr. Emilita: If you would not permit them, no. Mr. Wood: I would let them test it. Mr. Emilita: Again, I will leave that kind of a detail up to the applicant whether. . . Mr. Wood: Is there a minimum number of test wells that the applicant has to make? Mr. Emilita: No, simply enough to establish, if we are talking in terms of flow, of exactly where, what direction and what rate if possible ground water is flowing. Mr. Wood: Would there be any way to rebut his findings, if he says I made one test and it flows in that direction. Mr. Emilita: If you have documented . . . . Mr. Wood: I would have to do my own test wells? Mr. Emilita: Yes. Mr. Raynor: We have four test sites underway already on the property. Mr Wood: That would be quite a burden on the neighborhood, wouldn' t it to require our own test holes. Scoping Session Page 6 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Emilita: If physical, hard-data evidence. . . . Mr. Wood: If we have no minimum number of wells to drill. . . . Mr. Anderson: You have historical evidence. Historical evidence is there becuase the water table as they build in the back part has already changed several of the homes south of this and they have already had to redo their wells. Speaker from the audience: How many wells would you suggest that he drill to come in with a reasonable idea of which way the flow of water is. Mr. Emilita: Well, I would say a minimum would be two. Mr. Wood: Two. Mr. Emilia: But how many more we would need, I can' t forsee. Mr. Seigman: If you can show wells that exist down there already that let' s say were drilled two and a half years ago and there was a test made a that time in reference to how much salt was in that well. A present test made shows that there has been an increase since the time that welll ws put in, is this sufficient evidence to show that the water is coming from the direction of the Bay up towards this property? Mr. Emilita: On a basis of a rise in cholorides from one point in time to another, no that is not sufficient evidence in and of itself, no. Mr. Seigman: If it is happening in all of the wells around that from the Bay up to this property that there has been an increase in the amount of salt that is in these wells, wouldn' t that be an indication? Mr Emilta: It might. Mr. Seigman: WEll, could it be used as an indication? Mr. Emilita: If you have information that you would like to submit for the record for us to review in conjuncition with this application, please submit it. If you wish to prepare a report to try to draw some conclusions out of it, please submit that too. Speaker from the audience: What is strange is that builder can put two wells and decide if there is water and yet we can all have tests on everyone of our wells and it would not be sufficient. Mr. Emilita: Wait, we are mixing things here. I was simply talking about direction now you are talking about quanityt and quality, particularly quality. I was just addressing the directional point of view. If you folks obviously have individual Scoping Session Page 7 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Emilita: house and individual wells, maybe you each have individual tests, but you probably only have one well on each property. Mr. Wood: Yes. What I am saying if 100 of us submit testf for all our wells would that be sufficient evidence. Mr. Emilita: That will be evidence, yes. Sure. We will take a look at it. Okay, anybody else. Mr.Smith: I think the parties are prejudging a little bit what the water engineer is going to do in the way of preparing a report. I am sure the water engineer has got to prepare a report on the groundwter and has got to consider not only directional flow but also quantity of water available. Mr. Emilita: I have outlined that. Mr. Seigman: I think what most of the people are worried about in that area usually is that the person who pays to have that stuff done usually gets a report the way that person wants to hear it. Because, I think in most cases where you go out to investigate it can be written in several different ways and people feel up there that this is going to be written in the way showing that it would not have an effect on the wter. I am not saying that this is what is going to happen, but this is what the fear is of the people down there because if Norris is paying, or Mr. Carr is paying for it he' s going to get a judgement made that sounds good to him. We can;t quite see where someone who is collecting money to do something for your would come along and say that there is something bad for you. I think this is the fear of most of the people around here. Mr. Emilita: Okay, and it is justified. But, I will say to you that you will have a chance to review the applicant; s report as will the relevant health and water supply regulators. They will also review the applicant' s report. I think the applicant is aware of that, that a slanted report will probably be found out. So, I think we are all aware of that. You are justified in your concern. Mr. Smith: I also think the parties here in the room have the opportunities here if they want to, to engage one of the other water firms inthe County. Mr. Emilita: You certainly do. Mr. Smith'.' And, have that water firm submit it' s own report. It costs money, but if you are looking for professional services, you have to pay them. Mr. Emilita: Okay, continuing on the groundwater discussion. Sub item B we have touched on just now. Identification of present uses and level of ground wate inthe area. And these should include the locateion of existing wells both private and public. Any agricultural uses of water here, past, present Scoping Session Page 8 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Emilita: and those that are to continue. The second major subheading under water resources is surface water. We are primarily concerned with Maratooka Lake. It is possible, I can' t say yes or no, no one can at this point, that this project may have some impact on the level in Maratooka Lake. And, I believe that that needs to be addressed. Does anyone have any other comment on the groundwater? Mr. Seigmann: I would like to make one more comment on the ground water. I don' t know if it is appropriate at this time or not, but apparantley there were covenants signed between Norris and Carr when the property changed hands and in those covenants they protect themselves for what can happen in the future in reference to the water that they are going to use for their project and I 'm pointing this out now because if they are protecting themselves, they must anticipate that there is going to be a water problem. Becuase why sign a covenant saying that you can not put wells on the adjacent piece of property in such a fashion that would affect their wells. Now, if they can do this ahead of time with a covenant I would like to know what our process would be of haiving the same type of protection. Have you read those? Mr. Emilita: I have no knowledge of what it is your speaking to. Mr. Seigmann: Here are copies of them. Mr. Carr: The purpose of the covenants have nothing to do with the water. Mr. Seigmann: That is not what the second covenants says there. The second covenant says there that if the adjacent could not put wells in in any fashion that would affect your wellls. This is what that second one says unless my reading of it is incorrect and if it is incorrect I wish you would point it out to me. Mr. Carr: Well, the interpretation is incorrect. As I said it wasn' tmeant to restrict or prepare for a problem we are going to have with the water. Mr. Hart: Mr. Emilita, is the declaration the one of 18 February, 1986. Mr. Emilita: The only signed, and it is a copy, so I will have to accept it as that is dated 18 February 1986. Mr. Hart: Yes, that is made by Roger Trombino and Louis Risi. Mr. Emilita: Okay, yes. I am not going to examine it right now. There is another unsigned covenant dated the 21 of February 1986 but I don' t know about that one. Mr. Hart: The only one I have is 18 February. Speaker from the audience: Could you point out your interpretation of the one that is in effect. Scoping Session Page 9 7/21/96 Norris Estates Mr. Hart: Well, basically, what happened was when the original zoning change was made Norris covenanted that on the entire parcel there would only be 132 units. So that on the 70 some acres there would only be 132 units. So that what we are talking about now is theeffect of any other building upon the parcel as they sold it and what we have proposed and what we have also done, and this will be part of the submission made by the developer, there is an area which was set aside on the parcel that was not sold for wells that would be available to the developed site and the sole site. Mr. Smith Is that area still in effect now, or not in effect? Mr. Hart: It is still in effect. Mr. Smith: Let me give that back to you. THerefore, there is a parcel on twhat we ' ll call the current Norris property as opposed to the Carr property. There is a parcel on the current Norris parcel that is available for the drilling of wells for the Carr property. Mr. Hart: That is correct. Mr. Smith: Is it you intent that the Norris property will be used immediately or is it merely a possible future use in your present thinking. Mr. Hart: This is going to depend upon what the water engineer shows us as to where the best water is, where the largest source of water is and all those technical things that you engineers know about. Mr. Smith: Since the NOrris property itself is subject itself to a future subdivision. Mr. Hart: But it is limited. Mr. Smith: Limited by the number of units which are left. And, do you know the approximate number of that. Mr. Hart: The maximum number of units, as I said, on the enire 70 some acres is 132 units. Mr. Smith: So putting on the Carr property. . . . Mr. Hart: How many are there now, Henry, on the. . . . Mr. Raynor: There is only 46 acres remaining of which 7§ acres is coveted for a water reserve on the Norris site, not on the 27 acres. Mr. Smith: So, on the Norris site, how many, by your mathematics, how many homes might eventually be built on the Norris site. Mr. Hart: Without zoning. Scoping Session Page 10 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Smith: On the current covenant that you have. Mr. Hart: It would be a maximum, the difference of what is there now. How many are there now, Henry? Mr. Henry: About five existing houses. They have room for about 17 more. Mr. Smith: Is it your understanding that those homes would. . . . Mr. Hart: We have agreed to let those homes, if necessary to let them tap in if it is available and if we can provide it for them. Mr. Smith: I think the point that Mr. Seigmann is making which we have finally gotten to is since those homes, you just said that you either would, I think you just said that you might possibly make available to those 17 homes the ability to tap into your system and I think that is what you just said. And I think that is the point Mr. Siegmann is after is that his position is that that implies some concern on the part of the Norris owners with regard to the water availablity with regard to those 17 homes and Mr. Siegmann has assummed the concern with regard to his own home. I think you are going to find, Mr. Emilita, that one of the key items that everybody around the table is going to be concerned about is the water problem. And you get substantial evidence that the water to the South and the West of this site is deteriorating in the current situation as oppossed to even maintaining its current level of salinaty and quantity. That is going to be one of the major concerns of everyone around the table. Mr. Emilita: I am a little confused, I have to admit. Are we saying that all of the land owned by the applicant is not in the application? Mr. Hart: No, not at all. Mr. Emilita: I am confused, what is this reference I keep hearing to 17 other homes or another parcel or what is left over. I don' t understand. Mr. Hart: Historically, and you' ll see this when you see the report, because that is why this is important. Mr. Emilita: That is why I want to know the background. Mr. Hart: Right. When Norris had it rezoned, he covenanted with respect to the entire parcel that he owned, not only the parcel which was rezoned. And, he said on the entire parcel we agree that there shall be a maximum . . . . Mr. Emilita: That covenant can in no way be enforcable by the Town. Mr. Hart: It was a part of the zoning. It was a conditional zone change. Scoping Session Page 11 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Emilita: It was a conditional zone change. Mr. Hart: It was a condition of the zoning. . . Mr. Emilita: Would you produce for us the actual minutes or resolution, not now but in the report. Mr. Hart: There is as part of the submission, there will be a copy of that covenant. Mr. Emilita: From the Town Clerk' s records. Mr. Raynor: That is also on file in the County Clerk' s office. Mr. Hart: Right. Mr. Emilita: But, I also want to see it as part of the submission. Mr. Hart: So basically what happended then was that Norris agreed that on the entire 70 some acres there would only be 132 units. Mr. Emilita: We will need a plan of the entire holding that has this restriction on it. We may have to get into and I can' t say at this point, because I am still not comprehending this situation but we may have to get into some examination of the development of that other piece of land. I really am having a hard time understanding what is going on here. Mr. Hart: I think if we can talk about what is there now and what could be built under the existing zoning subject to that covenants. Mr. Siegmann: This may help you in some fashion. This is the original survey with the other property. Mr. Emilita: Okay, I remember seeing this, right. Okay. Mr. Hart: Of course, what has happened is that the parcel which is the parcel inquestion has been reduced in size and in density a great deal. What is going to happen on the remaining parcel which is now owned by the estate of Norris is limited by two factors , one, your zoning and two, the covenants. Mr. Emilita: Okay, I would like to see as part of the initial description and history of the project, I would like to see this explained so that everyone knows where we are. Mr. Smith: Henry, is this still the 7 acres that is dedicated if that is the word for water a water source. Mr. Raynor: No, that is all multiple. Mr. Niego: It shows on the map as a water easement area. Scoping Session Page 12 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Emilita: What is the meaning of that? Mr. Hart: Henry or Sol, you could probably show better than I where that 800 ' is. Mr. Raynor: The water easement area is 100 feet south of the barn for an extension of 800 ' . This we have rights on in here for any addtional water. In other words what we tried to do is locate the best water on the property and they were willing to allow us to go in and explore, the highest topography of the property. I think you have in the files Dave, a section showing this already. Mr. Smith: I think the implications, Dave, of Mr. Siegmann' s point should be obvious to you now. Mr. Niego: If you take a look at my property it shows the 800 ' area across the adjacent piece. Mr. Smith: Is it your understanding that if there is an easement which you may use that there may still be houses on this property. Mr. Hart: No. Mr. Smith: Okay, this property is now going to be sort of forever green. Mr. Hart: Yes. Mr. Raynor: The remainder of that would have to be clustered in. Mr. Hart: On each end. Mr. Raynor: However, under Article 6, they are going to have to go in for community water anyway. To try to take into consideration and limit the consideration of the density on the entire 72 acres that is the reasoning for it. Mr. Smith: This property might go in for community water. Mr. Raynor: And, so might the other in order to be developed properly. Mr. SMith: Why couldn' t the remaining 17 homes on this property sink their own wells , if the water quantity and table would allow? Mr. Raynor: I think with an adjacent community system it will be incumbant on behalf of the Department of Health Services and will be probably be mandated by them to comply with Article 6. Mr. Smith: And what does Article 6 say? Scopiong Session Page 13 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Raynor: It says if it is available, you have to hook up to it. That is what most subdivisions are doing today. Mr. Smith: Would that be for sewage also? Mr. Hart: Yes. Mr Smith: In other words it is your position Henry that the 17 homes on the NOrris property would probably have to hook up to this sewer and water system. And, current Town Law or State Law would almost mandate that. Mr. Raynor: I would say that the Department of Health Services would probably require that. But that of course is subject to their review. Mr. Emilita: Anyone else on groundwater? (none) okay, the next section in the description of environmental setting is entitled Air resources. Because we don' t anticipate any major impact on air resources , the discussion on this can be rather brief. The next major section is terrestrial and aquatic ecology. Is this all this site under cultivation at this time? Mr. Raynor: Yes. In alfalfa. Mr. Emilita: Okay, then if everyone is in agreement a brief statement to that effect would be sufficient for our review. Because I don' t believe there would be any endangered species or wetlands or any other vegetation on the site that we need to be concerned about, from an impact point of view. Everyone is in agreement to that? Human resources is the next majro subheading. A. Transportation - and here we are primarily concerned with the road network, abuting the site,and the road network connecting it out to Route 25 . WE will need some idea of existing traffic counts and capacities of these roadways with an eye, of course, to determining what the impact of this project will be on adjacent streets and on the major route linking this development to the Main Road. Mr. Smith: Is this the place to talk about adjacent street improvements and ownership of the adjacent street. In this discussion? Mr. Emilita: Sure, go ahead. Mr Smith: Camp Mineola Road is a private right-of-way and the fee is in someone ' s name, I am not sure who it is. It is only 25 ' wide, I believe. Mr. Anderson: It might be under Howell ' s name, Judge Howell. Mr. Smith: Yes. It is only 25 ' wide. What is the probable position of th eTown with regard to the improvement of that. I believe that Town roads are normally 28 ' wide and the rights of way are normally 50 ' wide. There is a Town raod at New Scoping Session Page 14 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Smith: Suffolk Avenue and there is a Town road at Kraus what is the probable position of the Town with regard to how that should be developed its width and wether the fee would remain with the current holder or wether it would pass to the Town. Mr Emilita: At this point, I have not spoken to the Superintendent of Highways so I can only speculate, but I would say that a 25 ' pavement width would be minimal and I am not saying that tht would be acceptable. I 'm saying that that appears to be not even acceptable. Eighteen feet on the other side is probably not accepatble either but I, this is no official bearing, I am just giving you my opinion. Mr. Smith: Well, speaking first with just Camp Mineola Road, does the developer, I don' t think the developer has the fee of that road and what is the current developers position with regard to what the developer thinks he is going to do with that road. Mr. Emilita: Does the applicant care to address that. Mr. Carr: We have not examined all the possiblities of that. Mr. Emilita: That will be addressed. Mr. Smith: And, that includes the question of where the final ownership for that right-of-way would be. OVer on this side which in on the current Norris property, there is a plan for I see a 50 ' right-of-way just to a point. That property is owned by either the Norris ' or the Carr' s. It looks to me that it is owned by the Norris ' if this map is correct. What is the developer' s position with regard to that 50 ' right-of-way to access to that development is that going to be a Town road, are you going to dedicate that to the Town. Mr Carr: We have not really determined that either. The whole question of ingress and egress has not been examined at this point. Mr. Wood: You are making a big plan for a development of this size and you have plans on water disposal and so forth and you have not given any thought to the road. Maybe you have given it a thought, but you haven' t done anything about it. By the way, that Camp Mineola happens to be on my deed also, I have a right-of-way from New Suffolk Avenue to the Bay on Camp Mineola. All of us have that on our deeds, so you have to address that. I can' t see how you can get this far and not even given that a thought. Mr. Carr: Well, like you said I have given it some thought, I haven' t come up with any kind of conclusions yet. This stuff is an evolving kind of process and answers don' t surface at one meeting so the traffic engineers will have to come up with an acceptable plan. Scoping Session Page 15 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Wood: The impact on that you may go for 50 ' and move in on people' s front yard and what not and after you get to develop the site then you are going to develop the road. Mr. Carr: We have the easment on the Noris property now. Mr. Wood: 50 ' ? Mr. Smith: Yes, 50 ' which is just this piece from here to here. Mr. Carr: For granting ingress and egress. Mr. Smith: I am just intreged with the developer, I have not had a chance to do all the research it would have been nice to do, I don' t think the developer has the fee in this right-of-way and I ;m not at all sure that the developer can acquire the fee in the right-of-way. Let me raise another adjacent problem. I understand a gentlemen by the name of Henry Appel, is that the proper name, has a preliminary plan before the Planning Board to develop this piece of property here. He would have access from Ole Jules ' Lane which is a public road and could probably develop that without any need to make use of Camp Mineola Road, but my question today would be if in fact there is an application with regard to Henry Appel here what action if any is involving that person. If you say that the minimum width here would be, of a paved road, would be what? Mr. Emilita: In myown recommendation would be 30 ' of pavement. 50 ' right-of-wy with 30 ' pavement. Mr. Smith: Well than I guessed I asked a question to which there is not an answer. Which is, where is the extra, assumming the developer can get the fee to this 25 ' which I have some serious doubts about where is the extra 25 ' to come from? Is it to come from Mr. Appel in connection with his application or is it to come from the developer or from both? And as a matter of fact when you get down here, this house on the corner. I would think the developer might have trouble getting additional land from this house, the developer can' t get it from Appel and can' t get it from this house, what is the name of this owner. Mr. Emilita: Cichanowicz . Mr. Smith: Cichanowicz . My question, I ahve more questions, that answers, even if you can get a 50 ' right-of-way there how are you going to get a 50 ' right-of-way here. Mr. Emilita: Okay, you see the problems. Mr. Hart: We are aware of the problems. Mr. Onufroh: Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Mr. Carr' s plan is preliminary, never-the-less, the community is in a sense by this meeting implicitly being asked to comment and have some Scopping Session Page 16 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Onufroh: and to have some impact on the shaping of an Environmental IMpact Statemtent and yet one of the single most critical components is that said to be influx and one problem I thin k the community is going to have here is we have seeen this plan and in a sense our comments are shaped by this plan. This is a piece of evidence put before us on which we are asked to react and there is a decided inference that there are easement right necessarily which impact on, and I have a self-interest here since I hold this property, several properties up this way. I think the Chair will want to keep in mind this community is going to have to come back on a regular basis and at the earliest possible level to have impact, and to have some input on the Environmental Impact Statment when we have some specific idea from Mr. Carr as to what he has in mind. It is very difficult for a community to sit here and raise questions and say you have had input on a plan which we are now told is in pencil not in pen and is going to go through yet more changes because the though process is so diffused. Mr. Emilita: Okay, when the product of the scoping session is submitted as a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, we the Town as lead agency, the Planning Board as lead agency, will evaluate it and come up with wether it acceptable addresses the points raised here today if we find that it does we will then make it available for public comment so at that time you will have the project as proposed and the entire impact statement relating to that project between two covers. You will then have the opportunity to come back and provide additional imput, critique or what have you on that document. So what you are seeing here today is exactly what I am seeing here today with an amendment already, so we are all in the same position. Mr. Smith: Dave, if I could, just to outline more problems. You have Appel on this side up to about here, but then you have three or four owners of here whom Joe is one on the corner, I strongly suspect that the developers not going to be able to et that 25 ' or 121 there it' s all got to come out of the East side, out of this site and you are going to have a problem right here getting adequate distance at the intersection of Camp Mineola Road and Kraus Road. Mr. EMilita: That is something that will be addressed. Mr Smith: I wanted to mention it. Mr. Emilita: That will be addressed. Okay, anybody else on traffic and circulation in general. Mr. R. Smith: I would like to submit a letter from one of the adjacent neighbors who cold not be here today. I won' t go into reading it. (Submitted correspondence ) . Mr. Emilita: We will make that part of the record, Diane. Scoping Session Page 17 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Smith: On traffic, I would like to raise the issue of traffic South of Kraus Road on Camp Mineola Road, the right, perhaps the attorneys can verify my suspision which is that all of this property under discussion has in the deed a right of passage over this 25 ' right of way South of Kraus Road by passage over this 25 ' right-of-way and this one, South of Kraus Road to a 25 ' opening on Great Peconic Bay. My statement is I believe that this property has this right. I am not sure of that and I wonder if any of the attorneys know that. Maybe representing Carr. Mr. Hart: At the moment, Mr. Smith, I can' t address that because the only thing which we were concerned with was the access over Camp Mineola Road, North. Mr. Smith: Well, if my suspesion is correct and this property has a right-of- passage for wagon, other things over Camp Mineola Road, tothe South to a 25 ' end at the South end of Camp Mineola Road, to the water, I can assure you that all of the people from that part down are going to be very concerned. Or, in my opinion should be very concerned about the impact of that right-of-way on their entire environment. From the audience: From what standpoint, people walking down there? Mr. Anderson: Driving down there and parking on the road as they do now from outside the community as far away as Queens. Mr. Smith: If we put 100 families there and those families make use of that right-of-way the environemntal impact on a 25 ' wide beach, is beyond my area of discipline, but I believe if those people have a right to the beach and get below the high water mark they can walk along in front of our houses, some of which are bulkheaded now, but the impact on the 30-40 houses at the end on Great Peconic Bay at the end of Camp Mineola Bay can be absolutly disastrious. Mr. Emilita: For the record I would like that discussion handled. Mr. Dunn: Can I clarify that again? Primary point is with residents walking from the condominiums. Mr. Anderson: No walking, traffic in general. Mr. Emilita: Walking or riding. Mr. Smith: My understanding is that it is a right of passage and attorneys have to tell me what that means . Mr. Dunn: And there is also a concern with the existing situation of having community vehicles park in that area. , is that what you area saying. Mr. Anderson: What I 'm saying is once people see others there it becomes an attractive area to, oh boy, and others come and • Scoping Session Page 18 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Anderson: as I say they've come from as far away as Queens because somebody has told tham about it. Now, if you put 96, 95 homes there and only 10 of them park their vehicles in an area, you won' t even be able to get to the West end of Camp Mineola Road, that area that is South and it runs along the rear of the property, you won' t even be able to get there. It will be clogged up and they park the cars there now. Mr. Smith: By that you mean, Bob, the people who have residences down there. Mr. Anderson: To the West, won' t even be able to get to their homes. And if you had a fire, forget it, you would watch it burn. Mr. Smith: That portion of Camp Mineola Road from Kraus Road, South is a private road as is this right-of-way here. When I was a kid, Kraus Road wasn' t here it was swamp land and the entire access to this area was from New Suffolk Avenue and the people in that community maintained the entire right-of-way since the introduction of Kraus Road perhaps 30 years ago, that is a Town Road and people have switched OleJule Lane and the community down at the Bay have let this right-of-way go into disrepair to the point where you can hardly get over it with an automobile. But the community is still maintaining with its own expense the road from Kraus Road South. Mr. Emilta: Okay, anyone else on traffic and circulation? None. Fine. The next major topic is land use and zoning and in that we would need a description of the land use patterns adjacent to the site, and the existing zoning as it applies to the site and adjacent to the site. If it ha not come out by this point, then any covenants or restrictions on land use activiity should be brought out as well. Parallel discussion will involve a description of the communities master plan, the Town master plan and proposed zoning as it may be relevant to this development or the adjacent piece. The next topic is community services, we need a brief description of the community facilites and services that are available and expected to be used by this development. I ' ll just briefly list them. Educational, police, fire, health care, social services, recreational facilities, and any other utilities. Okay, the next topic of discussion and this will relate to impacts with, in the actual impact section. We need some brief description of the population characteristics of the area and we can limit that to the hamlet, not the Town as a whole. We need to know the general standard description of socio-economic characteristics, in other words, household size, population, age, income, other types of characteristics that are typical in this discussion. Also, we may want to address population projections for the hamlet of Mattituck. The next topic is cultural resources. Ms. Cielender: Are those available? Mr. Emilita: Projections? Scoping Session Page 19 7/21/86 Norris Estates Ms. Cielender: On a hamlet size? Mr Emilita: You may want to check with , in fact you would want to check with Roy Fedlum. Mr. Cielender: I doubt if they have on the hamlet size and as a matter of fact they are pretty much doing projections on a Town wide basis only. Mr. Emilita: I don' t know how. . . Mr. Cielender : If we could just apply that ratio. Whatever the Town ration may be we will use the same projected growth. Mr. Emilita: Fine Mr. Emilita: The next topic under environmental setting is cultural resources and three subtopics, the first visual resoursces, again the surrounding community and adjacent properties a description of their physical charachter characterizing the neighborhood. A description of natural areas of any particular scenic areas or view. And the obvious relevance of this to this statement is that you will be introducing a whole new visual element on this site and the measure of expected impact needs to be addressed in terms of what is there now. Historic and Archealogical Resources, I have no knowledge of any , but that need to be spelled out. Mr. Siegmann: Joe, do you want to make your claim now for Indian burial grounds? Mr. Peters: You all laugh at me, but there is an Indian burial ground there. Mr. Siegmann: Well, you have the forms to fill out if you want to. Mr. Peters : I ' ll pass, thank you. Mr. Emilita: Okay, I guess we need to look at that. The third subtopic is entitled Noise and since this project does not involve any particular noise generating use. The possible exception of the water treatment station or sewage treatment plant, that description can be a brief one. We come to what is probably what is the most important section of the impact staement and that is entitled Significant Environmental Impacts. We have discussed many of them, for the applicant' s direction I would also refer them to the Part II and Part III which we prepared and I wll just quickly examine these two forms and highlight anything we haven' t already discussed. There is nothing here that merits any particular notice now, but anyway the applicant will use this also as additional guidance. Okay, the next subject of the impact statement will be mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts and I won' t go through anyof them on the list now because we don' t really know what they will be but we expect all necessary or all reasonbale measures to be taken, and be described. Likewise, adverse Scoping Session Page 20 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Emilita: environmental impacts that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. We will need a description of that. The next section is entitled alternatives. There are several topics here that will need to be addressed. One the first, is entitled alternative design and technicnology. Under alternative design, I have no other particular alternative that comes to my mind as yet, except we do have a past alternative, which obviously has been withdrawn. I think, this is always a hard section on an impact statement to address each particular development seems to lend itself to a different way of handling the alternative section here I can think of only three. Three major types, one is the project as it is proposed, one is obviously doing nothing with the plan at all and continuing to farm it, and the third is a totally single-family, either conventional subdivision or single family cluster alternative. Other ways of treating the alternatives are different ways of access in case we do have a impossible situation with the existing access. It may be that another one or two access points needs to be addressed and of course this would change the road layout and the dwelling layout. That may come as a natural force rather than us having to ask for it. In so far as construction in phases may have an effect on size of design of the project, that may be a subject for discussion. In other words are we talking about all 95 units being built in one construction period, the impact of that wold be different than having a fraction being built in any one construction year and the rest of the site being essentailly vacant. Okay, also under alternatives, I think the last major topic would be other possible, no I shouldn' t say that, all possible, for other types of uses that may be permitted under the existing zoning and it basically a residential zone and I think you would be speaking primarily of other types of residential layout. Okay, the next section Irreversible and Irretrevable commitment of resources, since we are not talking about a major construction facility or use of a scarce commodity on the site, that can be simply briefly addressed. The next section, growth inducing aspects, may have some bearing here. We are talking about a significant increase in population in the local area, this may stimulate development on adjacent or nearby properties . We are introducing water treatment and sewage treatment this may have growth on adjacent properties in other words there is the possible tie in or linkage of adjacent properties into the system. The final substantive section of the impact statement is the effect on the use and conservation of energy resources. Mr. Siegmann: Before you leave that last one, Dave, can I ask you something? Mr. Emilita: Sure. Mr. Siegmann: There is another concern of the people in that area that should the developer put up 95 condominiums and they don' t move, and he finds it necessary to start renting them instead of selling them it would create a problem in that area wherein you don' t have anything that exists like that now. Scoping Session Page 21 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Siegmann: And, I think you know better than I do what a renting situation creates in alot of those areas and I think we want to stay away from becoming another South Fork where alot of these places are rented out, you smile because you are from Southampton, but what I 'm saying is the following where a group can get together and start renting these places in the summertime and you have 10-12-14 people living in a small apartment over a period of time like this and you know what the weekends and everything become and the reason I raise this is that there is nothing that exists like that in the area now and that definitely would change the type of area that we would be living in . Mr. Emilita: I think that is fair to say and perhaps that could be addressed. Alright that brings me to the conclusion. The only other thing you might need is any appendixes, technical studies, support doccumentation should also be included, not paraphrased, but included as an actual appendix. Anyone else have anything. Mr. Anderson: I have a question , which maybe I missed, I might have been sleeping. In relationship to a discussion on the sewage treatment plant, we talked about ground water in many ways, what is there sewage treatment plant in its effluent that they are going to dump. Is it really going to be as pure as water, if not, why don' t they put it back in the water tank and therefore take less groundwater. What is the sewage treatment plant capacity. I know that may come out in other palces but I haven' t heard anything here so that we have some knowledge as residents what is going on just North of us. Mr. Emilita: That was incorporated by reference and I did not specifically address it because in the Town' s papers that determine that there might be a significant impact. That will be part of the impact statement and I simply referred to it rather than go into a big discussin of it. Mr. Anderson: But it will still be discussed someplace. Mr. Emilta: Yes , indeed. Mr. Anderson: Okay. Mr. Hart: Not like the groundwater. Speaker from audience: Dave, could you give us some idea of what time the applicant expects will be spent on this and when the report might be prepared and will it be a preliminary report that wil be subject to change. Mr. Emilita: Okay, let me give you a rundown onthat . You are not in any time frame, the applicant has as long as they need to prepare the draft. What will happen is the draft Scoping Session page 22 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Emilita: will be submitted as lead agency in this process. The Planning Board will evaluate the submission and determine wether or not it does address all the items it was expected to address. If not, we will point out to the applicant what needs to be added, if so we will determine the impact statement complete and sufficient for review. And, at that point the public comment period starts. The draft document is also curculated to the other agencies having jurisdicition, Town agencies, county health, State DEC, whoever has jurisdiction or who ever is called "involved agency" in this process. That is where you folks should expected to become involved again. Mr. Smith: So would we not see this document prior to the time when and if it is signed off by you and these other agencies as being complete, or would we be able to see it prior to that time. Mr. Emilita: I suppose you could if you wish, sure. Mr. Smith: From your experience. . . Mr. Emilita: The review in that specific segment is just to determine whether the statemnt addressed the topic, it is not a critic ofwhat is there, simply states is there a discussion, Yes there is, okay we can begin then to review it. What we are looking for are missing elements totally missing. Mr. Smith: But, we might be allowed to see it. Mr. Emilita: I don' t have any objecttion to it. Mr. Smith: What is the time frame from the experience of the people here, let say the draft is completely prepared and reviewed by these agencies who have to have to pass judgement on it, ayear, six months? Ms. Cielender: A couple of months. Mr. Niego: Now, again that is only to certify it as being complete in context. Mr. Emilita: There are certain time periods envolved but I would suspect that we would also have a public hearing, on the impact statement which may or may not coincide with the other public hearings on this proposals, but I would say sometime in the fall. Mr. smith: My understanding that another key agency in addition to you is the County Department of Health Services. They will be one of the agencies that look at this. They will make an independent determination on the water problem after this environmental impact statement is accepted as complete, they will then be passing judgement on the water portion of the project. Scoping Session Page 23 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Emilita: They are an invloved agency, in other words, they have a segment statement which is their baliwick. Mr. Smith: Is it your perception that they would or would not run any studies of their own? Would Holzmacher going to have to run some kind of a water study in the next two months and that data would be in that draft report, is it your perception that the county will run any other tests or woud you expect that the county will make a determination from the data supplied by Holzmacher? Mr. Emilita: I am not the County Health department so I can not answer that question. Mr. Smith: You must of had some other situations where the County has gone on and made separate studies. Mr. Emilita: Yes. In Southampton, in a major subdivision the County did put in moniter wells with its own equipment and it ' s own studies. Mr. Seigmann: When they discussed the new zoning, or the Master Plan, didn' t the Town have some outfit that went into certian areas and make tests to determine what the area was like which is why they came up withsaying that some areas would be two acre zoning and other areas should be zoned a different way. Mr. Emilita: There was a water study done for the North Fork, but it ws not part of the Master Plan study. It did take place roughly during the same time period, not strictly a part of it. Mr. Siegmann: Can' t you get information from their in reference to this area. Mr. Emilita: Sure. Mr. Siegmann: And make a comparison to what they found and what is there now. Mr. Emilita: We will use the ERM Study to evaluate this Draft Statement. Anybody else. Mr. Wood: Yes, I would like to help you out with this feeling. We are not a lunatic fringe hoping that you find out that the property will be found the way the settler' s found it. We are not against progress and we are not chicken little worried about some imaginary thing falling from the sky. To us is not a fear this is a fact, he can put any kind of house he wants but what I am concerned about is my water. Without that I can' t live there. And, this is our biggest fear, we are not against houses or what he does, but that has an impact on how much he draws from the water and I said it before if you look at the map, we are a neck, except for Maratooka, we would be completely surrounded by water. We have Deep Hole Scoping Session Pge 24 7/21/86 Norris Estate Mr. Wood: Hole Creek on the East, we have Peconic Bay on the South and James Creek on the West, completly surrounded. And, you start, and he is right smack in the middle. Now, I am sur that he is going to get perfect water there but when he sucks that up what is going to happen to us on the fringe, not the lunatic fringe. It is not our fear it is something that sould be addressed. And the people who have been living out there all the time, like Henry Raynor, he knows these problems and I think he should think. Mr. Anderson: Some of those areas have already had to move their wells. Mr. Emilita: I am sure that the impact on the freshwater salt water interface will be addressed. Mr. Smith: The important fact is not that that interface is stable, there is going to be substantial testimoney here that the interface is retreated water. And give . . . . Mr. Wood: I think it is reversible once you have gone beyond a certain point, you just don' t force the sea back. It is nice to have them put in this well, but then a year later, well we are awfully sorry but you can come up and use my tap if you bring bottles. Mr. Smith: If we are close to the end here I don' t like to volunteer for a job but I can see some merit in the people in the area, only a few of whom area here wanting to engage another firm and Holzmacher is a fine firm and I have personally engaged them myself for some work , but I am familiar with the other firms in the area and I think there might be some merit to engaging in the water area another firm to represent the community in the preparation of a water section. I would be willing to attempt to do that although I don' t need the duty. I can tell you that the main problem would be taht I think it might be difficult to raise from the community because the amount of money that would be necessary to allow us to engage another professional engineering firm to oversee the work done by Holzmacher but I would be will ing to if I have the names of the people who are here and I might like to see a show of hands as to whether the people think that would be a good idea. I would suggest to you that we would have to have at least 50 names on the list and I think that something in the vicinity of $500 or $1000 per house would be necessary to have us properly represented over the next couple of years. It, the main problem would be raising the money to get the professional services. Mr. Siegmann: I think if you want to raise that with the people it would be a good idea if either we separate ourselves and talk, you know what I mean. I think it is a healther discussion that way. Scoping Session page 25 7/21/86 Norris Estates Mr. Siegmann: I don' t know if you have a copy of this or not, but I would like to leave it with you. It is something that some of us have read up there and feel it has a lot of merit to it. It is the judges decision 13 years ago when they gave this M zone to Mr. Norris and he has a very interesting statement in there of how a zone should exist and what right it has to continue to exist and I think it is very interesting for yourself and the Planning Board to get his thinking of when he made the M zone in that area. Mr. Emilita: Okay, anyone else. (none) Okay, thank you for coming. The meeting was adjourned at 12 : 00 noon. Respectfully submitted Diane M Schultze, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board 5�FF0(,� P D T LD S Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 July 18 , 1986 Mr. Henry E. Raynor,Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Norris Estates Dear Mr. Raynor: Please let this confirm the following action taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, Julyl4, 1986. WHEREAS, Richard Carr, has heretofore applied to the Southold Town Planning Board for a multiple dwelling complex of 27 acres with 95 dwelling units located at Camp Mineola Blvd. , Mattituck, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the provision 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 Board, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. 2 . That the Planning Board shall file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and code. 3. That the Planning Board immediately notify the applicant, Richard Carr, of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in accordance with the scope and contents required by the Planning Board and Town Planner, all in accordance with said law, rules and code. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Pge 2 7/18/86 ----------------------------------------------------------- Please contact this office if you have any questions. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary to g�FF01Kc P D T LD S Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 M E M 0 R A N DU M TO: Building Department, Trustees, Supervisor's Office FROM: Southold Town Planning Board DATE: July 18, 1986 RE: Norris Estates Please be advised that there will be a scoping session with the Town Planner on the above mentioned proposal for 95 condominium units located at Mattituck at Monday, July 21, 1986 at 10: 30 a.m. in the Southold Town Hall. D T LD S P4Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated July 14, 1986 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 a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Proposal of Norris Estates is for 95 condominiums located at Camp Mineola Blvd. and New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. Further information may be obtained by contacting Diane M. Schultze, Secretary, Southold Town Planning Board, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, 11971 . Copies to: Robert Flack, DEC Commissioner NYS, DEC at Stony Brook Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Agent T �� LD Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated July 14 , 1986 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 a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Proposal of Norris Estates is for 95 condominiums located at Camp Mineola Blvd. and New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. Further information may be obtained by contacting Diane M. Schultze, Secretary, Southold Town Planning Board, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, 11971. Copies to: Robert Flack, DEC Commissioner NYS, DEC at Stony Brook Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Agent i • � P D TLD S ,� ', g y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated July 14, 1986 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 a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Proposal of Norris Estates is for 95 condominiums located at Camp Mineola Blvd. and New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. Further information may be obtained by contacting Diane M. Schultze, Secretary, Southold Town Planning Board, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, 11971 . Copies to: Robert Flack, DEC Commissioner NYS, DEC at Stony Brook Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor /Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Agent to May 29, 1986 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board Chairman Town of Southold, Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Norris Estates Condominium Proposal Dear Mr. Orlowski: I am confident that the Planning Board is considering this proposal with the utmost diligence. As a resident of Mattituck and president of the Wheatley House Condominium Association in East Williston, Nassau County, I am bringing the following points to your attention: 1) Parking Facilities - If adequate parking is not built, the public roads in the area will probably be congested with parked cars once all the units are inhabited. Ade- quate parking should be defined as two parking spaces per family plus one guest spot for every two families. Thus a parking lot to accommodate at least 238 cars is required, estimated at 54 , 621 square feet. Secondly, if the lot is to be adjacent to a property boarder, then high shubs should be planted between the lot and the property line to maintain the rural look of the area. 2) Water Supply - In addition to the water consumption an- ticipated by the 95 families (most probably with two bath/ toilet facilities) other water will be necessary for the maintenance of the common area such as : sprinkler system for landscaped area, washing down of walkways, janitorial uses, laundry washing machines, and swimming pool (if planned) . 3) Children' s Playground -- If this is not to be an adult community, then a play area for children should be built. Condo children should not have to play in the public streets for lack of adequate play facility. 1 - 4) Airport Beacons -- If, as, and when the Mattituck Airport should be modified for all-weather/night-time operations any planned obstructions in that area should have the electrical capability for the installation of airport beacons atop its structure in accordance with FAA regu- lations . I hope these points help the Planning Board with its investigation of this matter. Sincerely yours, (:::g, 0. �'7z � Audr y A. Merchant Post Office Box 71 Mattituck, NY 11952 AAM/AAM - 2 - M P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 May 28, 1986 Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised that as of this date, H2M Corporation will be performing the functions of a water and sewer study to determine specifications and quantitative information with regard to the Norris Estates project. With regard to your board' s request, we will furnish only those specifications which will be acceptable to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and will attempt to get a statement from them to that effect as rapidly as possible. Best regards, op/ t Henry E'. Ray r, �. HER:ml CC: Richard T. Carr Sol Niego John J. Hart, Esq. Paul Cromer NA C� Mr. Ed 5iegmann asked me to pass on to you that he would like to be notified of any meetings with the Town Board regarding the Norris site plan and zoning. If. the matter is resolved favorably he would like to know so that he can call off the engineer which they have hired. Diane cc,�, FFO(k PN: n D T LD Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 May 13, 1986 Mr. Ray Gurriere, Jr. 2200 Grand avenue Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: "The Norris Estates" Dear Mr. Gurriere: Thank you for your correspondence of May 6 , regarding the May 5 Planning Board meeting and the discussion on "The Norris Estates" . The Planning Board would appreciate receiving any pertinent inforamtion you may obtain through your research, so a proper review of the site plan can be made. Once again, thank you for your input and your interest in the Town of Southold. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAI N SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary T SOLD S ,�0! Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 May 13 , 1986 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: "Norris Estates" site plan at Mattituck Dear Mr. Raynor: Please let this confirm the consensus of the Board at the Monday, May 5, 1986 meeting with regard to the site plan proposal of Richard Carr to be known as "Norris Estates" . Prior to the Board making any determination on the layout, it is requested that preliminary test results on the water quality and quantity be submitted and preliminary approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for water and sewer be obtained. The Board feels that a decision cannot be made on the density and design of this project until this information is received. Please contact our office if you have any questions . Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary Ray Gurriere Jr. 22)0 Grand Avenue Mattituck, New York 11952 (516) 298-5616 Bennet Orlowski,Jr. 5/6/86 Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold , New York 11971 re : Meeting of 5/5/86 on "The Norris Estates" Dear Mr. Bennet, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and also the other members of the Planning Board for holding such a professional atmosphere intact at the meeting last evening. With such an emotional issue at hand, it was really impressive that you and your staff were able to keep the agenda moving and the parameters of proper business methods orderly. Truly a professional job; my compliments. As I am a new resident of Mattituck but a long time resident of Eastern Suffolk County , I am familiar with the general problems of the ecology of this micro-cosm. However, I am not versed on the more local issues regarding such a massive building project. Within the next few weeks , I will be researching all that I can so as to make a more judgemental approach to all the meetings which my wife & I will be attending. At this time, my guess (educated) is that a complex of this size is unwise. I hope you will continue to keep the upcoming meetings from degenerating into encounter groups worthy of coverage on mass media. It will do no— one any good whatsoever to have outbursts of emotion on an issue which is so important. Once again , thank you and the members of the Planning Board for your professional and expert handling of the discussion last night. I will be seeing you soon. Very Truly Yours , 5�� May 5 , 1986 RE: Carr Condominiums at Mattituck TO ALL PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS : We respectfully request that you make NO decisions on the Norris Condominium project as outlined by Mr . Richard Carr at this time. There are too many questions to be answered to make any proper decision until the area residents are heard from. Some of the questions raised with Mr . Carr at a meeting of neighbors held May 3, 1986 appear below. There were no answers to any of them. Mr . Carr did say he is taking note of them and will give them consideration: 1 ) How would this project effect the water supply/wells of the surrounding residents? What would be done to protect those wells when salt water intrusion ultimately becomes a pr6blem in this highly sensitive area? 2) What wi.11done about the influx of traffic problems? 3) What is going to be done to stop this project from turning into a rental housing problem? An owner occupied covenant should be insisted upon to prevent these units from being subletted. 4) How will the existing wells be protected from sewage disposal? 5) What will be done to protect the residents of Camp Mineola from abuse of usage of their private roads and beaches? 6) Why should this project be built at all when it will have an effect on the devaluation of all the surrounding properties? Is the town ready to lower the assessed valuation on these properties when a negative effect is felt by surrounding property owners? 7) Will traffic lights be installed at the intersections of New Suffolk Avenue , Reeve Avenue and Route 25? During the Summer it is almost impossible to enter the Main Road now. 8) Why can' t the density of this project belowered closer to a total number of 50 units with a possibility of single family dwellings situated amongst the condominiums? (con' t . ) Page 2 There are many other questions to be answered before this kind of extreme high density can be forced upon an area in which our town board has recommended a two acre zone in the master plan. Please respect our rights and concerns regarding developers who come to our area to make a quick profit and then leave without regard to what the future holds for us . Make sure this town grows into something we can all be proud of. Our questions must be answered before it ' s too late ! Thank you, CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF THE NORRIS PROPERTY AREA COUNTY OF SUFFOLK vi R APR z 31986 } PETER F.COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS.M.D..M.P.H. COMMISSIONER 7o-ovW e.A SeuTil�oca TO: PL/pr✓.✓/.r/� 'degl7 DATE: S309S /1l fig//2 v*Zt ,S0uno"047/ dl/!! //9?/ RE: 41oAA /5 ESTA/ES �rCoit/j�O�J///Y/uny /�i?03��T Dear �R. �epirs T 4r�ews.�i we are in receipt of your letter dated efAn l 9, 1zr-6 concerning the above referenced project. 1. This Department has no objection to your designation of lead agency status. 2 . Insufficient information is available for technical comments . ■ 3 . There is no record of an application to this Department. A more accurate project location is needed. (Suffolk County Tax Map No. ) 4. This Department has received an application and it is : [3 Complete incomplete Other: . 5. It appears that the project can be served by: Sewage Disposal System Sewer System and Treatment Works /?A0J &5JF > Subsurface Sewage Disposal System(s ) Other: WWM-067 COUNTY CENTER RIVLRNEAD.N.Y. 1 1901 (OVER) ( 516 ) 548-331'. 5. (cont 'd ) Water Supply System A Public Water Supply System Individual Water Supply System( s ) Other: 6 . Comments : The Health Department's primary environmental concern pertaining to development is that the applicant comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code especially Articles V and VI , and relevant construction standards for water supply and sanitary sewage disposal. These considerations are to be reviewed completely at the time of application. Full considera- tion in placement of water supply wells and disposal systems is given to State and Town wetland requirements. The Health Depart-' ment maintains jurisdiction over final location of disposal and well systems and the applicant should not undertake to construct any water supply or disposal system without Health Department approval. Other portions of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code also apply to commercial development such as Articles VII and XII. The Lead Agency is requested to forward a copy of this form to the applicant with its findings. �v�p�riA s✓iu/z scrvtca ya Ses✓e t�� �„T�,.T /.e.r J� as ��+��s��: Te � c,(' us2 wi /7, a /AJaTei /S�l,/� Sens�Tive I�ic«a . 7i�s vfc2 lecox•,rrt..c� 777 CC/?SCCCe/' �jfiZ P/dS$/b!C SC///'CSS OA' /♦E N/a �G/" S�l��� Q/ue_ To Further comment may be provided upon completion of the application review. Name e. Phone j 3375 APR 3 U 1986 1935 The ponorable Francis Furniy `up(�rvisor Southo l 1 Town Southold, I:el.• Yor'� rear P,ir . Fur-'-.y : 1,'ith regards to the development of th_ Norris property, we would litre '',o no on record as tr, 'Nein-i nnnosed to tha density a- )ronosec' for the condo*^iniuci ro,ject as we fear fer our ,cer sun %ly. Our home abuts t:iis property on the south side and +.,,e I eel that thedc'velonment will ruin our water sur-ly and we will have tc .ai<e other arrangements at our exnense . ; e also object to the -lacement of a sewer plant directly behinc our home as it will devaluate our property. Thank you very r,uch for your consideration of t' is matter . Yours very truly, Barry J-i^u�i—llard 4rlene F . J E^ d 475 41ois Lane Pattituck • �l �V FOL(e, OFFICE °"` RVISOR TO ,0 LD FRANCIS J. MURPHY TELEPHONE SUPERVISOR (516) 765-1600 MAIN ROAD (516) 765-1939 SOUTHOLD, L.1., N.Y. 11971 April 30, 1986 Mr. & Mrs. -Harry M. Jaquillard 475 Alois Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Norris Property Dear Mr. & Mrs. Jaquillard: I am in receipt of your letter, regarding the opposition to the development of the Norris Property. The Southold Town Board has no say in the matter of the development of this property. The Southold Planning Board and the Building Department will receive a copy of your letter, I hope that they will work out an equitable solution to this matter. Your concerns will be taken into consideration. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Very truly yours, Vpery J. Murphy or own of Southold FJM:cjh cc : Planning Board Building Department r APR 10 1y86 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS THIS DECLARATION, made and dated the 21St day of February, 1986 by RICHARD T. CARR, residing at 444 East 86th Street, New York, New York 10023 , hereinafter called the Declarant . W I T N E S S E T H : The Declarant is the owner of certain premises described as Parcels I and II on the attached Schedule " I " . WHEREAS, the Declarant acquired title to the aforedescribed two parcels which will be referred to herein as Parcel A on the 21st day of February, 1986 by a Bargain and Sale Deed with Covenant against Grantors Acts , which deed will be filed and recorded simultaneously with the filing and recording of this Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Estate of Bruce A. Norris has conveyed to Carr the premises referred to as Parcel A and who retains premises known as Parcel B described as follows : ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, at Mattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York being and intended to be the property lying to the east of and continguous to the property described herein as Parcel A. said Parcel B bounded on the north by New Suffolk Avenue, on the east by property now or formerly of Cedric H. Wickham, on the south by Peconic Bay; and WHEREAS, Seller will retain premises located on Marratooka 0hd pmmeses known as +k& S,rooks kausa_ dascriW as Schedules ' Lake, described as Schedule " II " annexed hereto:Aand anhCK44 � WHEREAS, pursuant to a contract of sale to sell as Parcel A. Carr has agreed to file a Covenant running with Parcel A; and r 0 WHEREAS, Carr intends to construct a water supply system and sewer plant for utilization of dwelling houses to be constructed on Parcel A. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises the Declarant declares that the aforedescribed premises known as Parcel A are held subject to the following covenant and restriction: 1 . In the event that a water supply system and sewer plant are constructed to service dwelling houses to be constructed upon premises known as Parcel A. said water supply system and sewer plant system may be utilized to the benefit of any dwelling or any structure now or hereafter located on premises of the seller , heirs or assigns known as Parcel B, which is contiguous to Parcel A as well as premises of seller omcl a-he. Brooks house, deso-yw rv. located on Marratooka Lake as described in Schedule.T.^ Seller , 5&eAuk3+ it heirs or assigns , may utilize the aforesaid water supply system and sewage plant for up to 25 dwelling units located on Parcel B, adjacent to existing premises referred to as Parcel A and 4%&-&cc ks house,. and as well as premises of seller on Marratooka Lake Said 25 units shall include the following existing dwelling units : main house, sawicki (care taker) and carriage house and Brooks house . 2 . The aforesaid covenant shall run with the land and may not be altered, amended or changed without the mutual consent of the Declarant, its successors, heirs or assigns, and the seller, its heirs, successors and assigns . 2 - 3 . Cost of hook-up of dwelling houses on Parcel B, and Schedules II and III shall be borne by those premises , and user costs shall be shared on a pro-rata and equitable basis with other dwelling units using said system. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this agreement the day and year first above written. RICHARD T. CARR Sworn to before me this 21st day of February, 1986 Notary Public 439J-1/3 DECLARATION OF COVENA`nS s RFSMCPICNS DECLARATION made this IN day of February, 1986, by ROGER ;?I-SI IA TROM IM and LOUIS J. R4iffi, JR., having an address at 12100 N.E. 16th Ave. , North Miami, Florida, as Ancillary Co-Executors of the Estate of Bruce A. Norris, deceased, hereinafter referred to as "DECLARANTS." WHEREAS, Bruce A. Norris executed a Contract for the sale of real property at Mattituck, New York described in Schedule A herein to Richard T. Carr by which he agreed to impose certain covenants and restrictions upon other property owned by him which property is more fully described in Schedule B herein; and WHEREAS, Declarants are simultaneously herewith transferring title to the premises under Contract of Sale and hereby impose such covenants in order to effectuate the terms of such Contract. NCW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Contract and other good and valuable consideration, DE3ARANPS, for themselves, their successors and assigns, hereby create and impose the following covenants and restrictions to run with the land on the premises described in Schedule B for the benefit of the premises described in Schedule A: 1. No well, water supply system, or sanitary system shall be installed and maintained on the premises described in Schedule B which would, in the opinion of the Suffolk County Department of Health, interfere with the water supply system installed by Richard T. Carr, his successors and assigns, on the premises described in Schedule A or on a portion of the property described in Schedule B. 2. DEZ ARANTS reaffirm that the Declaration of Protective Covenants made by BRUCE A. NORRIS dated May 1, 1984 and recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office in Liber 7654 cp 387 is in full force and effect and shall continue to run with the lard in favor of the premises I described in Schedule A and be a burden upon the premses described in the aforesaid Declaration in Liber 7654 cp 387. IN WPPNFSS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals on the day and year first above written. Q 1 ROGER TRCNBIND IONS J. , JR. STATE OF FLORIDA) ss. . COUNN OF DADE ) On the /P14 day o ,Y,, 1986, before me personally came ROGER TRC4BINO and LOUIS J. =,' JR:k,to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing instrment, and acknowledged that they executed the same. tary Public TOTM PUBLIC 3TATP OF p[ORID7f' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT 17 1987 BONDED JHRU CENRAL INSURANCE UND �i _ APR i U ;jab• DECLARATION OF COVENANTS THIS DECLARATION, made and dated the 21st day of February, 1986 by RICHARD T. CARR, residing at 444 East 86th Street, New York, New York 10023 , hereinafter called the Declarant . W I T N E S S E T H : The Declarant is the owner of certain premises described as Parcels I and II on the attached Schedule " I " . WHEREAS, the Declarant acquired title to the aforedescribed two parcels which will be referred to herein as Parcel A on the 21st day of February, 1986 by a Bargain and Sale Deed with Covenant against Grantors Acts , which deed will be filed and recorded simultaneously with the filing and recording of this Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Estate of Bruce A. Norris has conveyed to Carr the premises referred to as Parcel A and who retains premises known as Parcel B described as follows : ALL that certain plot , piece or parcel of land , with the buildings and improvements thereon, at Mattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York being and intended to be the property lying to the east of and continguous to the property described herein as Parcel A. said Parcel B bounded on the north by New Suffolk Avenue, on the east by property now or formerly of Cedric H. Wickham, on the south by Peconic Bay; and WHEREAS, Seller will retain premises located on Marratooka 4nd prV*nisec KnaLo" as +iu $rooks house. Aksvi6eA as Schodulc1 ' Lake, described as Schedule " II " annexed hereto ;Aand annexea � WHEREAS, pursuant to a contract of sale to sell as Parcel A. Carr has agreed to file a Covenant running with Parcel A; and WHEREAS , Carr intends to construct a water supply system and sewer plant for utilization of dwelling houses to be constructed on Parcel A. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises the Declarant declares that the aforedescribed premises known as Parcel A are held subject to the following covenant and restriction: 1 . Ir. the event that a water supply system and sewer plant are constructed to service dwelling houses to be constructed upon premises known as Parcel A. said water supply system and sewer plant system may be utilized to the benefit of any dwelling or any structure now or hereafter located on premises of the seller , heirs or assigns known as Parcel B, which is contiguous to Parcel A as well as premises of seller omC4 a-he. Broe(ts house, JQscrtb4A L4k located on Marratooka Lake as described in Schedulejr.^ Seller , '56eav6e. it heirs or assigns , may utilize the aforesaid water supply system and sewage plant for up to 25 dwelling units located on Parcel B. adjacent to existing premises referred to as Parcel A a..d +hQ.-&-0e ks hn-usa.. and as well as premises of seller on Marratooka Lake, Said 25 units shall include the following existing dwelling units : main house, sawicki (care taker) and carriage house and Brooks house . 2 . The aforesaid covenant shall run with the land and may not be altered, amended or changed without the mutual consent of the Declarant, its successors , heirs or assigns , and the seller , its heirs , successors and assigns . 2 - 3 . Cost of hook-up of dwelling houses on Parcel B, and Schedules II and III shall be borne by those premises , and user costs shall be shared on a pro-rata and equitable basis with other dwelling units using said system. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this agreement the day and year first above written. RICHARD T. CARR Sworn to before me this 21st day of February, 1986 :rotary Public 439J-1/3 I 41 �FFO(gr P D T LD S Y Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765.1938 April 9 , 1986 Environmental Analysis Unit DEC, Building 40 , Room 219 SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11794 Gentlemen: Enclosed find a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form and a copy of the map of the site plan of "Norris Estates" a proposal for 95 condominium units located at Mattituck. Tax map no. 1000-122-5-4. This project is a Type I and an initial determination that this project may have a significant impact has been made. We wish to coordinate this action to confirm our intitial determination. May we have your views on this matter. Written comments on this project will be received at this office until april 23, 1986 . We shall interpret lack of response to mean there is no objection by your agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and our agency will assume the status of lead agency. Very truly yours, erZAL,V&" BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. ,CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. cc: Department of Health Services ev, a-rd-0 APR 10 7986 P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 April 8, 1986 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: I am forwarding to vou, under separate cover, six conies of a preliminary site plan drawn by Niego Associates for Norris Estates. Also, under separate cover, vou will be receiving the existing Covenants and Restrictions from Pelletreau and Pelletreau with regard to this parcel. I would like to obtain an appointment, either formally or informally, to discuss an_v additional information you would request for a presubmission conference. Best regards, enry F.� Rar, r. HER:ml CC: Richard Carr John J. Hart, Esq. Benjamin Herzweig, Esq. Sol Niego MAR 2 8 190c P. 0. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 171947 March 26, 1986 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: This is to advise you that by the 31st of March, we will be on site at Norris Estates to begin the initial phases of well drilling and water testing in an ongoing effort to gain as much initial insight as possible for our proposed site plan. Sincerely, irt . aror, Jr. HER:ml CC: Richard Carr John H. Hart, Esq. Ben Herzweig, .Esq. Sol Niego MAR 2 ? 1986 PELLETREAU a PELLETREAU PETER V. SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT s. PELLETREAU JOHN J. HART 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX 110 (1691-1943) JOHN J.ROE,III RICHARD A.SCHOENFELD FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE. NEW YORK 11772 ((960-1960) J.TIMOTHY SHEA BRUCE T. WALLACE TEL. 516 475-5656 ROBERT H. PELLETREAU KEVIN A.SEAMAN OF COUNSEL VANESSA M. SHEEHAN- BENJAMIN L.HERZWEIG March 25, 1986 -ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan Submission of Richard T. Carr Dear Mr. Orlowski: We are the attorneys for Richard T. Carr who is the owner of a large parcel of property located in Mattituck, New York. Within the last two months, a site plan was submitted before the Planning Board of the Town of Southold in regard to this property which calls for the construction of 95 dwelling units. This site plan which calls for the construction of 95 dwelling units is the only plan which our client, Richard Carr, has submitted and no other site plan should be considered by the Planning Board. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call upon me or my partner, John J. Hart. Very truly yours, PELLE U & LETREAU Ben min L. rz ig BLH:gm + OWN OF SOUTHOLD 1%AK z 5- 1986 . .. �, .' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT — PART I " PROJECT INFORMATION HOT:CC anis document is desiened to assist in dete^ainl-,g whether :-e action proposed may ilave a significant effect an the env(renment. Please comoleca the entire lata Sheet. Answers to theseluestions .+ill bco e nsidered is cart of -the adplicatian for aparoval and may be sudjec: to further vertficatlon and public review. Provide any additional information you beiieve will be needed to =malate PALM 2 and 3. is exsected thai ::mdfetian of the EAF will be depenoent in information Currently available and will not 'nvolve new studies, researh or investigation. T` tnfor...atidn reauiring such additional work is-unavaiable, 30 indicate and svecify ager instance. -- VANE AMCAOCA"cSS OF ^:MEd frr- • w1Fc -IF PaOJEC': � - - , Oif=...nt1 .. - . Norris Fgf;g1-ems • - 7ame1 _ . A001E5S 1140 '[A.'-,E OF APC!ICMIT: Street, Richard Carr �,G„ (State). �.;pj rase: _ .._r•:...:_. ._._<__..._.._. 3USTME:S PHG11E: treats . •• •i t Ca cal lcrpl ... . gcrZrprmg AF 000jEC (Briefly describe type of project ar action) construction of 95 -townhouse 'living units (PLEASE COMPLETE' EACH QUES i08 - indicate A.A. if not acolicacle) .. A. St-Z ..3C71PTi0;4 "!a __ - .. ... _-�;.++ r �:• ';` + Fa.&tx, (physical .acting of overall project, both develocec and undeveicoed areas) 1. General character of the land: Generally unifama slope X Generaily uneven and roiling ar irregular 2. Present 'and ase: Urban IndustrialCommercial Suauraan (ural Forest _:� .:�:;•.,..•. `-. Agriculture —�_. OLher -- 3. Total acreage of croject area: 27 acres. Aoproximace acrese: Presently After Comaiatian - •- , ' Presently After Cemoletion ' Yeadcw or 3rusnland _—acres __.ares Slater Sur.'ace Area __ac:•_s (ares ar_stad moires _•tris Unve^.ecatad a Aar-cdi:_ral 27 acres 0 ± earn or fill; cres —acres ;Cads, �— ;Cads, 5ciid?nns - ','.etl:nc !Snwat!r or — ant !:7:er Gave, rf,?ai as Y_r 3r:-::es surricos .cres _acres :?her ;:naita:a tyre) ,acres wares a. ,that is oretcm-nant sail types) do iroject siva: topsoil, sand (bankrun) i. a. -Are :.._.e bedr^ck cutcracp4n93 :n 3rdjec- si'e? _ Y as _ x ,lo -•• 0. ;'hat is deet- :a :edr:Cc' NSA ;ren ,a•t) 3/:173 !metc% •a$ �L r ,. 6. Approximate percentace of proposed project site with slopes: 0-103 1 0 nS: 10-15: =; 151 or greater _ 7. Is project contiguous to, or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? Yes X No 8. What is the depth to the water table? 35 feet 9. 0o hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes X_No 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endancered - Yes _X___lo, according to - Identify each species ' 11. Are there any unique or unusual land forms an the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - Yes X No. (Describe 12. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - Yes :Yo. 13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to.the coamunity? Yes X No 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: - a. Mame of stream and name of river to which it is tributary N/A /, 15. Lakes, ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: .... a. Name N/A b. Size (in acres) 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential, R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story). AR80 C — M, S. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 27 1/2 acres. b. Project acreage developed: 2 7 acres initially; 2 7 acres ultimately. e. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 d. Length of project, in miles: if appropriate) _____. e• If project is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot age ; developed acreage f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 proposed ter ShLd Town .'zoninq ord g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour (upon completion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One'Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial 95 Ultimate 9S i. If: Orientation Neighborhood-City-Regional Estimated Employment Commercial Industrial j. Total height of tallest proposed structure feet. per -90*thold Town Zoning Ordinance 4s` d. , 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed fran the site - 0 tons �• . cubic yarn 3. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, grounz covers) will be removed from site - 0 acres. 4. Will any mature 'crest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Yes X No S. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes no 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 3 6 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phas$d project: a. Total number of phases anticipated No. b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year (including _ demolition) — c. Approximate completion date final phase month _year. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent an subsequent phases? Yes N1 8. Will blasting occur during construction? _Yes X No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 6p; after project is complete 5 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project n_. 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes X No. If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (savage, industrial, etc.) sewerage (domes-tic) e. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes X No. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? _Yes _X_No 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes _.-4_No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? _Yes NO e. If yes, give name: location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? r Yes _ 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes _gNo 17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X No 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? Yes _ X_No 19. Will project result in an increase in energy use? _Yes No. If yes, Indicate type(s) electricity 20. If water supply is from wells indicate pumping capacity gals/minute. per Depart of Health Services specs 21. Total anticipated water usage per day gals/day. per H2M study - 22. Zoning: a. :That is dcninant 'zoning classificaticn of site? M b. Current specific zoning classification of site an C. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? yes d. If no, indicate desired zoning ��fft'— `�'y • 26. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes X No b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes X No c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required Submittal Approval (Yes, lip) (Type) (Date) (Date) City, Town, Village Board NO City, Town, Villace Planning Board e5 s1�e Alan City, Town, Zoning Board NO- City, County Health Department ' +arlan s sewer S _ Other local agencies y .omm Other regional agencies no State Agencies yestv hen Federal Agencies no _ C. INFOMATIGNAL DETAILS Attach any additional informaticn.as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid t em. Q _ PREPARER'S SI NATURE: - 1 1 _ TITLE: REPRESENTING: ll� ca>A DATE: MAR P. 0. Drawer A Jamesnort, NY 11947 March 22, 1986 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Sirs: Please find enclosed the revised Environmental Assessment form for Norris Estates in Mattituck, New York, as per your request. Sincerely, � y�y�,, �/ Penry bvndY, JT. HER:ml Enc. _ k�e aia* h Q wGe e w� ,ccta� awe .L Ca. t"Ji"I 64", 9 e,,#_Putea LIAR . 1 P. 0. Drawer A Jamesnort, NY 11947 March 22, 1986 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Sirs: Please find enclosed the revised Environmental Assessment form for Norris Estates in Mattituck, New York, as per your request. Siincerely, Henry �?Lavn�, Tdl HER:ml Enc. �1;.• • Ol'N OF SOUTIiOI,D : 1336 , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART I W - PROJECT INFORMATION NOT:cE: .,..is doc=ent is designed to assist in deterefni,g whetn..er : e action proposed may have a r anificant affect an the envircnment. Please comoleta t.`.e entire ]ata Seeec. Answers :o thesa uestiOnS dill be consiaered as Par. or :he aooitcat•.on for aparoval and may be subject to further verification and Public review. Provide any dddirlortal information you believe will be needed :a Ccmolete PARTS 2 and 1. _ • �: is excec:ed tnat cc=letion of the ZAF will be dependent an information currently available and will not - Involve new ;Coates, rasaar--s or investigation. tf tnfara:ien r-ouiring Such aaditidnal �,oric ts_unavai�Cle, -to indicate and specify acct instance. .u- ;,At•e -IF daOJECT: TAME 380 ACCRESS OF 11,44ER 11f Off=erentl Norris Estates. Name) ''AOOR£:S =70 :IAP:£-OF APoi MINT: - it•=et: _ - . Richard Carr P.-a., 15 C', lZipl sane: 3USSNESS PHGY'c: 9E R!?TTOtt OF ooOJE:-: (Briefly describe type of project ar action) construction of 95 -townhouse living units (PLZ;SE CCMPIEia EACH QUESMN - !ndicate Y.A. if not aoolicaate) .. A. Sl-T_ .ESCR(PT!0!i a —. . .. ... :^+.:.+ < .. •'r '.. ^ra + troa� ,- (Physical set^h; of overali project. both deveiaced and o:ndevelcoed areas) 1. Gane..-al c:•mrac:ar of the land: Generaily unifar.^.. slaae X Ganeraily weven and roiling ar__irregular :. Pr-sent '.and use: 'Jrban , (ndustriai cennercial _. Suouroan _, Rural Forest Agriculture x . OLher 3. Total ac of Project area: 2 7 acral: - Aaproximace acreage: Presently After Comolation Presently Aftar Cemoletio • - Meadew or 3rusnland _aeras _:crus :lacer Sur-ace Aria '_acres aer_ -o r_sc2d _aeras _•r-as Unvedecacad (^cx, ear-..t or rill; _acres acre .Sar.cui:¢ril 27 acres 0 !Cres • iddd7. 7CildiMs Hetl_nC ;---snwat'- or ... and :-'er Pavel r1c as ter :r: .as - iurrlcas _!Cris —acr- . 't. 25 :r _...-. ! _oras _,r_-•! :'-er {. % .nate:a Pei acres ar.-_ a, ::ha: is oretcm:nanc sat; types) on iroie ;:tai topsoil, sand (bankrun) i. a. are t..-.a Secant cutCrcPptngs can projac: siva? _'es _oto S. ghat is daotn :a tedrecx' N/A ;r. 'Pet) 3/:11a - s . - 6. Approximate percentace of proposed project site with slopes: 0-10% 1 ()0:: 10-15' X; 15-' or greater 7. Is project contiguous to, or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? Yes X No S. What is the depth to the water table? _25 feet 9. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes X_Ito 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threat!ned or endancered - Yes _X__Ilo, according to - Identify each species ' 11. Are ttiere any unique or unusual land fors on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geologica formations - Yes X No. (Describe 12. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation _ area - Yes X No. 13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to .the community? Yes X No 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: - - a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary N/A 15. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name N/A b. Size (in acres) 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential, R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story). AR80 - c - M S. -PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage awned by project sponsor 2 7 1/2 acres b. Project acreage developed: 27 acres initially; 2 7 acres ultimately. C. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 \ d. length of project, in miles: if appropriate) \\ _-___. e• If project is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion oposed: building square fc age developed acreage f. Number of off-str--t parking spaces existing 0 proposed Per Shl-d Town •idnirig or g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour (upon completion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One'Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial 95 Ultimate 99 i. If: Orientation Heighborioad-City-Regional Estimated Employment _ CcTnarcial Industrial J. local height of tallest proposed structure feet. :Air. per $OlithOld Town Zoning Ordinance s 2. Now much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site - 0 tons ' cubicy ar 3. Now many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, grouro covers) will be removed from site - 0 acres, 4. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Yes X No 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes No 6., If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 36 months, (including demolition). - 7. I.f multi-phas=d project: a. Total number of phases anticipated No. - --- •-- -- b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month _,_year (includin demolition) C. Approximate completion date final phase month _year. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes X No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction after project is complete 5 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes X o. If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial , etc.) sewerage (domestic) e. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, strews, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes X No. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? _Yes -.)L—NO 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes --Y--NO b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? _Yes No e. If yes, give name: location d. 41111 any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? _ Yes 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes _g 90 17. Will project routinely produce odors (rAre than one hour per day)? Yes —Z--No 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? Yes __,L_No 19. Will project result in an increase in energy use? _Yes No. If yes, indicate type(s) electricity • 20. If water supply is from wells indicate pur,.oing capacity gals/minute. per Depart of 21. Total anticipated water usage per day als/day. Health Services specs per H2M study 22. Zoning: a. What is dcminant •zoning classificaticn of site? M b. Current specific zoning classification of site nn c. Is prrposad use consistent with presant zoning? yes d. if no, indicate desired zoning - a =. 26. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes X No b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes X No c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval Required Submittal Approval (Yes. Ifo) (Type) (Date) (Date) City, Town, Village Board NO City, Town, Villace Planning Board -7—e—s si e TDan City, Town, Zoning Board � City. County Health Deoartrent � watn _& SP_weY prml 5 Other local agencies C Pl an Gomm Other regional agencies no State Agencies yes A tv Gen _ Federal Agencies �no C. INFORNATIGNAL DETAILS Attach any additional information.as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid t em. PREPARER'S SIGAAME: TITLE: __ ----.--..-. REPF.ESEIMNG: DATE: - �: c�VFFO(,r� T LD S .�A01� � Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 March 19 , 1986 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Site Plan for Carr (formerly Norris) located at Mattituck Dear Mr. Raynor: Pursuant to the Board' s resolution of March 3 , whereby they declared lead agency for the above mentioned proposal, would you please submit a Long Environmental Assessment Form, Part I for the site plan dated 2/3/86. In order to begin the site plan and SEQRA reviews, we also requst an official withdrawal of all previous submissions. If you have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, •L AJU-4 V N t0U4 lu, )dW BENNETT ORLOWSKI , JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary 4 0 A�yc�FFOL( P , D T .V` LD Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 March 5, 1986 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Site Plan for Bruce Norris property Dear Mr. Raynor: Please let this confirm the following action taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday,March 3, 1986. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare themselves lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act for the site plan of the Bruce Norris property, now owned by Richard Carr located at Mattituck. This proposal for a condominium project is a Type I action and may have a significant impact on the environment. If you have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, &4A,tt or,l Dw� 1C, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIR d lfl1— SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary C_ FEB X4198 Agents,Cefic Estate celie Realtors Main Road and Marlene Lane, Post Office Box 786, Mattituck, New York 11952 (516)298-8000 Main Road,Post Office Box 640, Greenport, New York 11944 (516)477-9400 February 20 , 1986 John J. Hart , Esq. 20 Church Street RE : Norris Condominium Plan Patchogue , NY 11772 Dear Mr . Hart : My, my that was a strong letter you sent to the planning board I accusing me of falsehoods ! It ' s serious business indeed when one condemns another for standing up to defend what he , as a citizen, wants to protect and preserve and then has his legitimate objections publicly criticized. I am not a person accustomed to making statements which are neither unfounded nor unwarranted. Oh well , I ' ll forgive you anyway! Remember , the truths underlying situations such as ours are much better understood and more fully realized by local residents and local planners than by all the benevolent, "good neighbor" proponents who press in from afar . May a nice , high class high density housing developement move in across from your own house , soon! uth lly y ur•s ��� Concerned neighbor " /' P. S . Better make another market study - just to be sure . MEMBERS OF: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS SUFFOLK COUNTY REAL ESTATE BOARD NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS EASTERN SUFFOLK BOARD OF REALTORS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FARM 8 LAND BROKERS INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTATE FEDERATION NEW YORK STATE SOLE TY CEREAL ESTATE APPRAISERS A VdRICAN ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED APPRAISERS February _J , _, M in ?narls that led n; lo tM qr-3nnt ;Dn of 05 condos ;n Ols ;roperoy was , el_ ;Vye! Dun YO .._. ya.. .. _ - _ _n.. Ltud . by the deve J _3t .> J _.. " . To Vinpa .his 13 n . .. so nns mh-t2on Liderat i .:ill be ql7en to our probliEs ?a in esina3 of iv -, Oveloo_ _ if a _ __ a of ro rui 3 japecially since is property is in n a where our Tow .a..a wants a _ ^a'.. e Zona a nlar the master13n. 3'.... o -.?� .'.aveloper himself allows for the supply of water to others in: the area it is apparent that he anticipates a problem. There are 'Nays of cutting that possibility to a min- { .., i .^ a ",?.entad orw than tw u� �. cur re_ s,. �w�_ �es .. .=p this ._ _ ,_ .. r..ors �..an ..o units to an acr . .This would be more in .s_ with the build- ing that has taken place in that area inho last five or six years. We also feel that if the town really '.ranted to they would have ample reason to rezone the area back to residential as it was _prior to 1974. If you read the court decision rendered at that time you could use the •jud„es own reasoning to be thesame as the towns reasoning under the master Clan. :e states that a zone is not meant to last forever and, that if there is good reason it can be changed by a town. He is much more eloquent in his ,judgement but it means ,just that . Since they had the zone for thirteen years it is very apparent that they are try- ing to speed this through before the master plan is set in place. Ae '_^?ave not asked you to do that and we .. Court does not become necessary. We have tried to be reasonable people with our position, All we as-. is that you do nottinz in your decision that would ,jeopardize our roperty or wells. Certain- ly ev'.on if you do that and the density 13 held to a reasonable level the developer should have to to ho'l'd . ''3;' n3lbie for any 3ama,s done to '.yells in that area. Aa also _ aquest chat whoa any oaaci �a are held for the ;Q112 >..av ._ .have Adequate time to Set 7ur peolla t -'> .._ . to 02 _ _,,on . Swch us an environmental..al ._ , .... ._ ln; Mo . 00i, -o_ =r in a.>_ lawya= 10 Vfylnonople if ihli is V13 ;ar?tin, .o 03 . y . I On - - na 5o_ - - - ..a . 'dC2nt no WAS _ _ FE2 U fi February 18 , 1986 , TOWS J The Honorable Francis Murphy Supervisor Town Southold Southold, New York Dear Mr. Murphy, We would like to express our opinion on two matters, The master plan and The plan submitted by Mr. Carr on the Norris property. The Master Plan- We think the orderly development of the town ought to be directed by clearly established codes and regulations duly enacted by elected officials. Control over land by discretionary powers has serious liabilities. The Norris Plan- The water supply is already infested with salt water in Camp Mineola, which is only a few thousand feet from us. In the present plan submitted by Mr. Carr the the density would certainly effect our water supply. It is noTfair to lei the developer ruinour water supply then make us pay to rectify what he damaged. The developer should be responsible for any damage he causes, now or in the future. We have no objection to a uniform two acre subdivision which is recommended by both the master plan and The Planning Board. We Strongly object to the placement of a sewer treatment -Page two- plant directly behind our back yard. Surely it can be placed somewhere in the 28 acres where it would not be an eyesore. In small towns like ours, as much consideration should be given to the ordinary citizen as is shown for the developers who are trying to get rich at our expense. Thank you for your sincere consideration of these suggestions. Sincerely, Francis A. Maloney Mary E. Maloney 645 Alis Lane Mattituck, N.Y. DECS,ARATICN OF COVFNA;M S F=MCfICNS DDZLARATIGN made this /fN day of February, 1986, by ROGER TRCMBINO and LOUIS J. , JR. , having an address at 12100 N.E. 16th Ave. , North Miami, Florida, as Ancillary Co-Executors of the Estate of Bruce A. Norris, deceased, hereinafter referred to as "DECLARANTS." WHEREAS, Bruce A. Norris executed a Contract for the sale of real property at Mattituck, New York described in Schedule A herein to Richard T. Carr by which he agreed to impose certain covenants and restrictions upon other property owned by him which property is more fully described in Schedule B herein; and WHEREAS, Declarants are simultaneously herewith transferring title to the premises under Contract of Sale and hereby impose such covenants in order to effectuate the terms of such Contract. NCh, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Contract and other jgood and valuable consideration, DEZ ARANTS, for themselves, their successors and assigns, hereby create and impose the following covenants and restrictions to run with the land on the premises described in Schedule B for the benefit of the rremises described in Schedule A: 1. No well, water supply system, or sanitary system shall be installed and maintained on the premises described in Schedule B which would, in the opinion of the Suffolk County Department of Health, interfere with the water supply system installed by Richard T. Carr, his successors and assigns, on the premises described in Schedule A or on a portion of the property described in Schedule B. 2. DEC ARMnS reaffirm that the Declaration of Protective Covenants made by BRUCE A. NORRIS dated May 1, 1984 and recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office in Liber 7654 cp 387 is in full force and effect and shall continue to run with the land in favor of the premises described in Schedule A and be a burden upon the premises described in the aforesaid Declaration in Liber 7654 cp 387. IN WI'MSS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals on the day and year first above written. I i — ROGER TROMBIND 11 S J. +fft�9;, JR. J .a; STATE OF FLORIDA) ss. . COUNTY OF DADE ) On the 10"d da o r � 1986, before me personally came ROGER TROMBINO and LOUIS JY J"., to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing instnmlent, and acknowledged that they executed the same. N tart' Public ROTARY PUBLIC STATE Of P[ORIDA' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT 17 1987 BONDED JHRU CENRAL INSURANCE UND S � a � PELLETREAU & PELLETREAU FEB 1 d.- 11"IS PETER V. SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT S. PELLETREAU JOHN J. HART 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX 110 0111 19.3) JOHN J.ROE,111 RICHARD A.SCHOENFELD FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE. NEW YORK 11772 (.150-1110) J.TIMOTHY SHE. TEL. 516 475-5656 BRUCE T. WALLACE ROBERT H. PELLETREAU KEVIN A.SEAMAN OF COUNSEL VANESSA M. SHEEHAN- BENJAMIN L.HERZWEIG 'ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA February 13, 1986 Benjamin Orlowski , Jr . , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Chairman Orlowski and Members of the Board : I am writing this letter to you, with a copy to the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, to answer false statements made by Robert Celic in the February 6, 1986 edition of the newspaper concerning the proposed development of the Norris property in Mattituck. Mr . Celic, who is a real estate broker, should know better . The developer of the property, Richard Carr, is not a real estate neophyte . He is an experienced developer, and owner of investment real properties, both on Long Island and in other states . It is his intent to build on the Site, in accordance with its present zoning, a high class residential community. Mr . Celic, who deals in property on Suffolk ' s North Fork, knows very well that there is a market for such a project . Mr . Celic ' s intemperate characterization of the proposed development as a potential 11821 East Main Street" , can only result in an action being brought against Mr . Celic for slander . Mr . Carr carefully researched the project ' s marketability before committing the enormous sums of money which have been spent and which will be spent on the project . Mr . Carr is willing to face and answer legitimate concerns of the Planning Board and the community. Mr . Celic has, however, gone beyond what is reasonable and true and , for whatever reason, is resorting to untruths in his desparate attempt to prevent the property being built in accordance with its present zoning. a - 14 c � , PELLETREAU 4 PELLETREAU Benjamin Orlowski , Jr . , Chairman Page 2 February 13 , 1986 The developer is not now, nor has he considered, "pumping water out of Maratooka Lake for the project" . As a matter of fact , a local resident has advised us that Mr . Celic may be pumping water from Lake Maratooka for irrigation purposes. An engineering study has indicated that there is sufficient good water available on the site, not only for the proposed residential units , but also for those neighbors to the south and west who may need to tap into the water supply. Mr . Carr is a neighbor . He will be a good neighbor . It is his intention to build a residential development of which he and his neighbors will be proud . He intends to make money doing it . He is prepared to answer all legitimate questions and concerns of the Town and its residents . He will not, however , be slandered by irresponsible persons . A revised site plan is presently being prepared by Niego Associates and will be available for discussion at your earliest convenience . If there are any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours , P LLETRE & PELLETREAU Jo J . rt JJH:ma cc : Kenneth Edwards Richard Latham William Mullens , Jr . Richard Ward Supervisor Frank Murphy Richard Carr Henry Raynor L . I . Traveler-Watchman C. 9 &B 2 0 1986 PELLETREAU a PELLETREAU PETER V. SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT 5 PELLETREAU JOHN J. HART 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX 110 0591-19431 JOHN J. ROE,III RICHARD A.SCHOENFELD FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE. NEW YORK 11772 0950-1960) J.TIMOTHY SHEA BRUCE T- WALLACE TEL. 516 475-5656 ROBERT N. PELLETREAU KEVIN A.SEAMAN OF COUNSEL VANESSA M. SHEEHAN. BENJAMIN L. HERZWEIG 'ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA February 13 , 1986 Benjamin Orlowski , Jr . , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Chairman Orlowski and Members of the Board: I am writing this letter to you, with a copy to the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, to answer false statements made by Robert Celic in the February 6, 1986 edition of the newspaper concerning the proposed development of the Norris property in Mattituck. Mr . Celic, who is a real estate broker , should know better. The developer of the property, Richard Carr, is not a real estate neophyte. He is an experienced developer, and owner of investment real properties, both on Long Island and in other states . It is his intent to build on the Site, in accordance with its present zoning, a high class residential community. Mr . Celic, who deals in property on Suffolk ' s North Fork, knows very well that there is a market for such a project . Mr . Celic ' s intemperate characterization of the proposed development as a potential 11821 East Main Street" , can only result in an action being brought against Mr . Celic for slander . Mr . Carr carefully researched the project ' s marketability before committing the enormous sums of money which have been spent and which will be spent on the project . Mr . Carr is willing to face and answer legitimate concerns of the Planning Board and the community. Mr . Celic has , however, gone beyond what is reasonable and true and, for whatever reason, is resorting to untruths in his desparate attempt to prevent the property being built in accordance with its present zoning. 4 . PELLETREAU 8& PELLETREAU Benjamin Orlowski, Jr . , Chairman Page 2 February 13 , 1986 The developer is not now, nor has he considered, "pumping water out of Maratooka Lake for the project" . As a matter of fact, a local resident has advised us that Mr . Celic may be pumping water from Lake Maratooka for irrigation purposes. An engineering study has indicated that there is sufficient good water available on the site, not only for the proposed residential units, but also for those neighbors to the south and west who may need to tap into the water supply. Mr . Carr is a neighbor . He will be a good neighbor . It is his intention to build a residential development of which he and his neighbors will be proud. He intends to make money doing it . He is prepared to answer all legitimate questions and concerns of the Town and its residents . He will not , however , be slandered by irresponsible persons. A revised site plan is presently being prepared by Niego Associates and will be available for discussion at your earliest convenience. If there are any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, P LLETRE S PELLETREAU J J . rt JJH:ma cc: Kenneth Edwards Richard Latham William Mullens, Jr . Richard Ward Supervisor Frank Murphy Richard Carr Henry Raynor L. I . Traveler-Watchman FEB 2 U 1986 PELLETREAU & PELLETREAU PETER V- SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT S. PELLETREAU JOHN J- HART 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX 110 (1891-1943) JOHN J. ROE,111 RICHARD A.SCHOENFELD FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE. NEW YORK 11772 0950-1900) J.TIMOTHY SHEA BRUCE T. WALLACE TEL.516 475-5656 KEVIN A.SEAMAN ROBERT H. PELLETREAU VA NESSA M. SHEEHAN* OF COUNSEL BENJAMIN L.HERZWEIG .ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA February 13 , 1986 Benjamin Orlowski , Jr . , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Chairman Orlowski and Members of the Board: I am writing this letter to you, with a copy to the Long Island Traveler-Watchman, to answer false statements made by Robert Celic in the February 6, 1986 edition of the newspaper concerning the proposed development of the Norris property in Mattituck. Mr. Celic, who is a real estate broker, should know better . The developer of the property, Richard Carr, is not a real estate neophyte. He is an experienced developer, and owner of investment real properties, both on Long Island and in other states . It is his intent to build on the Site, in accordance with its present zoning, a high class residential community. Mr . Celic, who deals in property on Suffolk' s North Fork, knows very well that there is a market for such a project. Mr. Celic ' s intemperate characterization of the proposed development as a potential 11821 East Main Street" , can only result in an action being brought against Mr . Celic for slander . Mr. Carr carefully researched the project ' s marketability before committing the enormous sums of money which have been spent and which will be spent on the project . Mr. Carr is willing to face and answer legitimate concerns of the Planning Board and the community. Mr. Celic has, however, gone beyond what is reasonable and true and, for whatever reason, is resorting to untruths in his desparate attempt to prevent the property being built in accordance with its present zoning. • PELLETREAU 8c PELLETREAU Benjamin Orlowski , Jr . , Chairman Page 2 February 13 , 1986 The developer is not now, nor has he considered. "pumping water out of Maratooka Lake for the project" . As a matter of fact, a local resident has advised us that Mr . Celic may be pumping water from Lake Maratooka for irrigation purposes . An engineering study has indicated that there is sufficient good water available on the site, not only for the proposed residential units, but also for those neighbors to the south and west who may need to tap into the water supply. Mr . Carr is a neighbor . He will be a good neighbor. It is his intention to build a residential development of which he and his neighbors will be proud. He intends to make money doing it. He is prepared to answer all legitimate questions and concerns of the Town and its residents . He will not, however, be slandered by irresponsible persons . A revised site plan is presently being prepared by Niego Associates and will be available for discussion at your earliest convenience. If there are any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, P LLETRE & PELLETREAU J J . rt JJH:ma cc : Kenneth Edwards Richard Latham William Mullens, Jr . Richard Ward Supervisor Frank Murphy Richard Carr Henry Raynor L. I . Traveler-Watchman FEB 7 1986 January 25 , 1986 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD & SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD. WE, the undersigned, Co herein affix our signatures to oppose the high density housing/condominium plan submitted for the Norris Estate property in Mattituck as proposed by developer Richard Carr and further request that Marr.atooka Lake , as well as all Southold Town lakes and ponds , be offi-cially designated as "PROTECTED CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS" and shall be municipally regulated and restricted as such. RESPECTFULLY, NAME ADDRESS - 74--71 . ' l ►886 January 25 , 1986 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD & SOUTHOLD TOW14 PLANNING BOARD. WE, the undersigned, do herein affix our signatures to oppose the high density housing/condominium plan submitted for the Norris Estate property in Mattituck as proposed by developer Richard Carr and further request that Marratooka Lake , as well as all Southold Town lakes and ponds , be officially designated as "PROTECTED CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS" and shall be municipally regulated and restricted as such. RESPECTFULLY, NAME ADDRESS -5 hia--ec . %f--YC.s.,lY-.�,�l.r•5 �Ci�� a�/L-Call FEB 1986. January 25 , 1986 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD & SOUTHOLD TOW14 PLANNING BOARD. WE , the undersigned , do herein affix our signatures to oppose the high density housing/condominium plan submitted for the Norris Estate property in Mattituck as proposed by developer Richard Carr and further request that Marratooka Lake , as well as all Southold Town lakes and ponds , be officially designated as "PROTECTED CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS" and shall be municipally regulated and restricted as such. RESPECTFULLY, NAME ADDRESS �Ichsvd 54 . -�4-d/v c , 1��. G% �-�>�- � �2_ ;mow '� ,� ` • Le— EB January 25 , lgk TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD & SOUTHOLD TOW14 PLANNING BOARD. WE, the undersigned , do herein affix cup: signatures to oppose the high density housing/condominium plan submitted for the Norris Estate property in Mattituck as proposed by developer Richard Carr and further request that Marratooka Lake , as well as all Southold Town lakes and ponds , be officially designated as "PROTECTED CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS" and shall be municipally regulated and restricted as such. RESPECTFULLY, NAME ADDRESS i , 4/1 �i S 0q 4—ac,k FEB IS86 November 7 , 1985 TO MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD: It is with deep concern that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the proposed developmental use of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from Southold leaders over the past several years. It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork. It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access and safety of this beautiful area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any proceedings regarding this �developement. We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appropriately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter . RESPECTFULLY, NAME ADDRESS NOV P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 November 22, 1985 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Enclosed herewith, please find the third revision requested by the Planning Board on the preliminary site plan for Bruce Norris on the south side of New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. I trust this completes all the necessary paperwork to date of section 100-130 and section 100-134 and will await hearing from the Planning Board. Very truly yours, Henry E. Raynor Jr. HER:ml Enc. 6 C PELLETREAU & PELLETREAU PETER V.SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT S.PELLETREAU JOHN J. HART (1891-1843) JOHN J.ROE,III 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX 110 RICHARD A.SCHOENFELO FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11772 (1950-1980) BRUCE T.WALLACE KEVIN A.SEAMAN TEL. 516 475-5656 VANESSA M.SHEEHAN- ROBERT H.PELLETREAU, OF COUNSEL .ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA February 5 , 1986 Benjamin Orlowski, Jr . Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Chairman Orlowski: We have been advised by Henry Raynor that he has furnished you with a revised site plan. We again renew our request that you designate yourselves as the leading agency for SEQRA. Thank you. Very truly yours , FE TREA & PELLETREAU 0 N J. RT JJJH:mw cc: Kenneth Edwards Richard Latham William Mullens , Jr . Richard Ward Richard Carr Henry Raynor FEB 4 Ral January 25 , 1986 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD & SOUTHOLD TOWN P'i,ANNING BOARD. WE, the undersigned, do herein affix our signatures to oppose the high density housing/condomi_nium plan submitted for the Norris Estate property in Mattituck as proposed by developer Richard Carr and further request that Marratooka Lake , as well as all Southold Town lakes and ponds , be officially designated as "PROTECTED CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS" and shall be municipally regulated and restricted as such. RESPECTFULLY, NAME ADDRESS 74, 7 ��LO L���c k S �Z : /% r� GSA �s app. MATTMVCc < A (�5E KeAvS �2D. M�TTrTucX lie society for the preservation of Long Island antiquities 93 north country road Robert B. MacKay, Ph.D. Director setauket, L.L, Deborah Ducoff-Barone Curator New York 11733 Kathleen Kane ' telephone 516-941-9444 Ruth y Executive Se reiarj _ _ Barbara F. Van Liew Founded by February 3 , 1986 Editor of Preservation Notes Howard C.Sherwood Incorporated 1948 '" Officers Mr. James C. McMahon Patricia P.Sands Administrator - President Community Development Agency Richard GachotIli53095 Main Road ne- Southold L.I. 11 Rodney BB.. Berens � 971 Vire-President Anthony K. Baker vs Seererarr, Dear Mr. McMahon: ,'s',a. William S.Niven Treasurer In our field work in the Mattituck area for the i; Trustees Town of Southold Historic Structures Survey we Mimi W.Coleman found that the well-preserved waterfront mansion ; Mrs.William D.Denson Denise M. Dunne that belonged to the late Bruce Norris was of Mrs. Roger G.Gerry unusual significance. Brendan Gill C. Held GeorgeGorge!. Hossfeld.Jr. �In June when the forms for this year' s contract Nicholas L. Ihasz are turned over to you, the information that we Floyd A. Lyon have compiled will then be in your files. All I Larry son, mus M. can tell you now is that the Norris mansion RicharddT.T.NiNicode Nancy B. Pearsall appears to have been the Lupton mansion that was Mrs. Richardson Pratt.Jr. illustrated in Craven' s history of Mattituck in John T.Ricks J. Gregory Riley 1906. In addition, from another source we feel Seton Shanley that this is the Lupton "Cottage" designed by the Alexander J.Smith prominent architect, George H. Skidmore of James D.Taliaferro Riverhead, in 1886. Charles D. Webster Honorary Trustees Skidmore was the architect for the Southold Savings Preston R. Bassett Leighton H. Coleman Bank which is now the Southold Free Library. Elisha Dyer Oliver Edwards We thought you might be interested. Mrs.Charles C. Lawrence Mrs.Alfred L. Loomis,Jr. Miss Dorothy H. McGee Sincerely yours, Historic Houses Open 1986rho, Custom Huuse. Sag Hurhur 4rlf`„J olLin Manor, ren,lo Nerk Rorle ,vrenr Rk Hall. Loe Barbara Van Liew Sher.ood-✓acne House. Inventory Director East Semukei(Br Appr.) Thompson Howe, Serauker YZ'rnjctirual®. BVL/em Heritafrc Year NmY,,,k i PELLETREAU & PELLETREAU JAN 31 RECO PETER V. SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT S. PELLETREAU JOHN J.HART 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX 110 (1891-1943) JOHN J. ROE,III RICHARD A.SCHOENFELD FREDERIC L.ATWOOD RATCHOGUE.NEW YORK 11772 (1950-1980) J-TIMOTHY SHEA BRUCE T. WALLACE TEL. 516 475-5656 ROBERT H. PELLETREAU KEVIN A.SEAMAN OF COUNSEL VANESSA M. SHEEHAN- BENJAMIN L.HERZWEIG .ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA January 30, 1986 Benjamin Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Chairman Orlowski and Members of the Board: As you are aware, we are proceeding with the site plan for the Norris property. We would ask that you prepare and have passed a resolution designating the Planning Board of the Town of Southold as lead agency for SEQRA. Thank you again. We look forward to working with you. Very truly yours, RELLETREAU & PELLETREAU oh J . Ha t) t JJH:dd cc: Mr . Henry Raynor 394C-3 IJ,AN 3 l `?' January 25 , 1986 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD & SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD. WE, the undersigned, do herein affix our signatures to oppose the high density housing/condominium plan submitted for the Norris Estate property in Mattituck as proposed by developer Richard Carr and further request that Marratooka Lake , as well as all Southold Town lakes and ponds , be officially designated as "PROTECTED CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS" and shall be municipally regulated and restricted as such. RESPECTFULLY, NAME ADDRESS a7 5 v / 0-5- C-av-70 ✓leo /� p 1 a t oY Cam-p .3 ofi OLE 3u LF- Lmake, � Mai�6tuCJc� /�l fov�v L a /�j! PELLETREAU & PELLETREAU JAN 31 PiEn PETER V. SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT S. PELLETREAU JOHN J.HART 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX 110 (le91-1943) JOHN J.ROE,III RICHARD A.SCHOENFELD FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11772 (1950-1980) J.TIMOTHY SHEA BRUCE T. WALLACE TEL. SIE 475S6S6 ROBERT H. PELLETREAU KEVIN A.SEAMAN OF COUNSEL VANESSA M. SHEEHAN- BENJAMIN L.HERZWEIG .ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA January 30, 1986 Benjamin Orlowski , Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Chairman Orlowski and Members of the Board : As you are aware, we are proceeding with the site plan for the Norris property. We would ask that you prepare and have passed a resolution designating the Planning Board of the Town of Southold as lead agency for SEQRA. Thank you again. We look forward to working with you. Very truly yours , L ETREAU & PELLETREAU �j � oh J . Ha t JJH:dd cc : Mr . Henry Raynor 394C-3 JAN tat P. 0. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 January 23, 1986 Benjamin Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Benny and Members of the Board: Thank you for the opportunity of an appointment Monday, January 20, 1986. 1 hope you got as much constructive knowledge concerning the multiple zoned parcel of property known as the Norris property as we came away with. We will continue to explore other alternatives with regard to "affordable housing" that we raised and immediately contact the architect, Sol Niego of Niego Associates, to commence the amendments to the site plan sketch. Again, thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Best regards, 617 Henry F�Rav r, 4 HER:ml CC: John J. Hart, Esa. Ben Herxweig, Esq. Sol Niego Richard Carr CyStil 3(D -SIP JAN 29p f� PELLETREAU & PELLETREAU PETER V. SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT 5. PELLETREAU JOHN J. HART 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX 110 (1891-19.3) JOHN J.ROE,III RICHARD A.SCHOENFELD FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE. NEW YORK 11772 (1950-1980) J.TIMOTHY SHEA BRUCE T. WALLACE TEL. 516 475-5656 ROBERT H. PELLETREAU KEVIN A.SEAMAN OF COUNSEL VANESSA M. SHEEHAN- BENJAMIN L.HERZWEIG .ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA January 27, 1986 Mr . Bennett Orlowski , Jr . , Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold Southold Town Hall Main Street Southold, New York 11971 Re: Approval of Site Plan for Premises Zoned M-Multiple at: New Suffolk Avenue and Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, NY Dear Chairman Orlowski : Mr . Raynor and I appreciate having had the opportunity of meeting with the Board to discuss the proposal for the development of the 27 acres under contract to Richard Carr at New Suffolk Avenue and Camp Mineola Road in Mattituck. As you know, the preliminary site plan which we discussed with the Board included 95 units clustered in groups of 4 and 15 lots which were to be devoted to (,affordable" housing. As a result of discussions had concerning this proposal following our meeting, a suggestion was made that the developer make a voluntary contribution of $150, 000. 00 to the Town, to be used by the Town, for the development of affordable housing within the Town. This is a fresh, new approach to a very important problem, not only for the Town of Southold, but for all of Suffolk County. It could set a precedent and serve as a model for other municipalities in Suffolk County, the state and the nation. The offer of $150,000.00, in cash, is conditioned, of course, upon the approval by the Town of the 95 units on the 27 acres presently zoned multiple residential use . �1�µ � _✓CT "�P i PELLETREAU at PELLETREAU Mr. Bennett Orlowski , Jr . , Chairman Page 2 January 27, 1986 As we indicated, preliminary studies made by the H 2 M Engineering organization indicate that there is ample good water available to the site which would service not only the 95 dwelling units proposed, but would also serve as a source of good water for properties to the south and to the west of the premises . We feel that the Town is to be congratulated upon its imaginative approach to a very real problem, that is, providing affordable housing to those of its residents who want to continue to live in Southold, but who cannot afford present housing prices. There is also a real opportunity here to help those residents to the south and west of the premises who now, or in the future, will need a source of potable water. We thank you for the opportunity of discussing this project with you and look forward to its successful completion. Very truly yours, P REAU & PELLETREAU 3M^4 J hn J J . H JJH:ma cc : Members of Planning Board Kenneth Edwards Richard Latham William Mullens, Jr. Frank Murphy, Supervisor Town of Southold Richard Ward Richard Carr Henry Raynor OOO1C/16-17 1 PELLETREAU a PELLETREAU PETER V. SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW JAN 27,&&j S. PELLETREAU JOHN J. HART 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX 110 (1091-I943) JOHN J_ROE,III RICHARD A.SCHOENFELD FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11772 (1950-1950) J.TIMOTHY SHEA BRUCE T. WALLACE TEL. 516 475-5656 KEVIN A.SEAMAN ROBERT H. PELLETREAU OF COUNSEL VANESSA M. SMEEHAN. BENJAMIN L.HERZWEIG *ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA January 23, 1986 Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall Shouthold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Pursuant to your recent request, enclosed please find a photocopy of a contract between Bruce A. Norris and Richard T. Carr. Very truly yours, PELLETREA PELLETREAU B njam' er eig BLH/kms Enclsure CONSULT YOUR LAWYER BEFORE SIG6 THIS INSTRUMENT—THIS INSTRUMENT SH*21 USED MY LAWYERS ONLY. NOTE: FIRE LOSSES. This form of contract contains no express provision as to risk of loss by fire or other casualty before delivery of the deed. Unless express provision is made,the provisions of Section 5-1311 of the Central Obligations Law will apply. This section also places risk of loss upon purchaser if title or possession is transferred prior to closing. JAN 27hX0 -»— THIS AGREEMENT, made the day of T)Q•C.BiJ&% , nineteen hundred and BETWEEN BRUCE A. NORRIS, c/o Norris Grain Co. , 12100 No 'Q7�� Mth Ave. , North Miami, FL 33161, I 1 I hereinafter described as the seller, and i RICHARD T. CARR , 444 Fast 86 Street, New York, NY 10023p t hereinafter described as the purchaser. WITNESSETH, that the seller agrees to sell and convey, and the purchaser agrees to purchase, all that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and iniocivements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the SEE SCHEDULE A ATTACHED HERETO l Parcel I herein is also conveyed together with a non-exclusive right-of-way known as Reeve Avenue, said right-of-way being 25 feet wide and running from the southwest corner of said premises to New Suffolk Avenue. I. This sale includes all right, title and interest, if any, of the seller in and to any land lying in the bed of any street, road or avenue opened or proposed, in front of or adjoining said premises, to the center line thereof, and all right, title and interest of the seller in and to any award made or to he made in lieu thereof and in and to any unpaid award for damage to said premises by reason of Change of grade of soy street; and die seller will rxecute and deliver to the purchaser, on closing of title, or thereafter, on demand• all proiier instruments for the ronveydn't. of such title and the assignment and collection of any .uch award. T, . 2. The price u SIGHT HUNDRED N TY—FIVE THOUSAND and 00/ ---- t ��89�r ppQU00) _—••_--------___.._-----_--__--------7�r�b1�rs. P+yaTile es Follows: f 2 Dollars. -' reesr_1_2 THOUSAND. HUNDRED and 00/100 ( — mg s e uy 7e umen-Ar g ---- V��HUNDRED N4 `ZH USAND & 00/100 ( 79Srovo,00o) Dollars. in cash or good certified check to the order of the seller on the delivery of the deed as hereinafter provided; q, ask rate of per cent per annum, the principal being due and payable Dollars, by the purchaser or assigns executing, acknowledging and delivering to the seller a bond or, at the ton of the seller, A note secured by a purchase money mortgage on the above premises, in that amount, able ` s together with i erest at the rate of per cent per annum payable 3. Any bond or note and mortgage to be given reunder shall be drawn on the standard forms of New York Board of Title Underwriters for mortgages of like lien; a shall be drawn by the attorney for the seller at the expense of the purchaser, who shall also pay the moAthat tax and recording fees. •. 4. If such purchase moneto be a subordinate mortgagecon the premises it shall provide that it shall be subject and subordinate to the lieng mortgage of $ , any extensions thereof and to any mortgadated mortgage which may be placed on the premises in lieu thereof, and to any extensions thereof prov' interest rate thereof shall not be greater than per cent per annum and (b) that, if the princip amount thereof shall exceed the amount of principal owing and unpaid on said existing mortgage at the time of pl ng such new mortgage or consolidated mortgage, the excess be paid to the holder of such purchase money mortgage i eduction of the principal thereof. Such purchase money mortgage shall also provide that such payment to the holder ereof shall not alter or affect the regular installments, if any, of principal payable thereunder and shall further pro ' e that the holder thereof will, on demand and without charge therefor, execute, acknowledge and deliver any agree F r xecuted and acknowledged by the holder of such mortgage and in form for recording, certo t e amount id principal and interest thereon, date of maturity thereof and rate of interes , an the seller shall pay the ording such certificate. Should the mortgagee be a bank or t ution as defined in Section 274-a, Real aw, the mortgagee may, in lieu of the said ce , urnish a letter signed by a duly authorized officer, or em- ployee, or agent, containing the informati to be set forth in said certificate. Seller represents that such mortgage will not be in default at or o the delivery of the deed hereunder and that neither said mortgage, nor any modification thereof con rovision to accelerate payment, or to change any of the other terms or provisions thereof by reason of the 6 mai a. Zoning regulations and ordinances a city, town or village in which the premises lie which are not violated by ir existing structures. b. Consents by th er or any former owner of premises for the erection of any structure or structures on, under or above any at r streets on which said premises may abut. a��=ti'-'`-awts of sNapa ar-ar -^I{ar-s'ap•..drim ur.aur�:^_. a ,,,y ... ... 1.:86.. 7. menta of Housing and Buildings, Fire. Labor, Health, or other State or Municipal Department having jurisdicti ainst or affecting the premises at the date hereof, shall be complied with by the seller and the premises shall nveyed free of the same, and this provision of this contract shall survive delivery of the deed hereunder. The s er alta furnish the purchaser with an authorization to make the necessary searches therefor. o4ir 8. All obligations affecting the premises incurred under the Emer a pairs provisions of the Administrative Code of CrOMr[/it the p.are.rr the City of New York (Sections 564-18.0, etc.) prior tot very of the deed shall be paid and discharged by the seller i,.or.. -upon the delivery of the deed. This provision sha ave the deliver of the deed. $A,city of rY Y New York.0a 9. If, at the time of the deliver of t , the remises or an X .reoi. Y p Y part thereof shall be or shall have been affected by an assess, ...oUy ment or assessments which may become payable in annual installments, of which the first installment is then a charge i . oot1f1ed t or lien, or has t , then for the purposes of this contract all the unpaid installments of an such assessment, including rhe prorerey P Po P Y g ...ori. those are to become due and payable after the delivery of fftthte deed, shall be deemed to be due and payable and the New York. hereb�m.ry-and-an"r "ha4i-4�"-paid-v.."iwiiarged-h 112-dell: 10. The following are to be apportioned: h)�e�xxxeaofxvE>IoxovldxxotxNr)adxtrttst:xxtcwugogax�c)izRaaurxumxxmcvt>�cxamdmxbtetinwecaox�c�ati�da olcXddx�4kwki6x�[xipft�gtltatttxxdtecxltssiog (d) Taxeson the basis of the>fixxt•year for which assessed. 0) `lirasxf4arptxxatlix'bxd&1:,flbf^ akarlar:wyr ftl f n1i •af am i , RIDER 1 TO C(NPRACr CF SALE Dated: December 9, 1985 SELLER: BRUCE A. NORRIS PURCHASER: RICHARD T. CARR PREMISES: Mattituck, New York 28. Said premises are sold and are to be conveyed subject to: (a) Zoning regulations and ordinances of the city, town or village in which the premises lie. (b) Covenants and restrictions of record, if any, affecting said premises provided same do not prohibit the erection and use of no fewer than one hundred (100) single-family residences on the premises. (c) Any state of facts as shown by an accurate survey, provided same does not render title unmarketable. 29. The premises shall be conveyed together with an easement over Parcel "B" as described herein in favor of the premises described in Schedule A for the Purchaser, its heirs, successors and assigns, to drill, install and maintain a well and water supply system and to lay, maintain and replace underground pipes and pumps, arca to enter upon the Premises (Parcel "B") to do such otter things as may be necessary to install and maintain such system. Purchaser may construct and use four (4) well points within the easement herein granted in the area Shawn On the attached sketch as Parcel "B" being within an area bounded on the north by a line running in an east-west direction from the east line of the premises described in Schedule A and running in an easterly direction and along the south line of the carriage house to the east line of Parcel "B". Seller, for himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, agrees that no cesspools, septic tanks, or sewerage treatment facilities of any type shall be constructed or installed within a two hundred (200) foot radius of such wall points, except those that currently exist. in the event it beanies necessary for the Purchaser or his assigns to enter upon the premises described as Parcel "B" for the purpose of maintenance or repairing the well and water system, the Purchaser agrees to promptly restore the premises disturbed to their prior condition. Purchaser shall give five (5) days' notice of intent to enter the premises for the above purposes unless an emergency requiring earlier entry upon the premises is necessary. 30. Purchaser hereby agrees to file and record a covenant with the Suffolk County Clerk allowing Seller, his heirs, successors or assigns, to use the water supply system referred to in Paragraph 29 and the sewer plant to be constructed for the use of the dwelling houses on the premises conveyed herein, for the benefit of any dwellings or any structures now or hereafter located on premises of the Seller adjacent to the premises described in Schedule A and premises of Seller on Marratooka Lake. Purchaser hereby consents to the Seller's use of said well systems for up to twenty-five (25) dwelling units located on Seller's property adjacent to the premises described in Schedule A and premises of Seller on Marratooka Lake. Said twenty-five (25) units shall include the following existing dwelling units: main house, Sawicki (caretaker) and carriage house and Brooks house. 31. Seller hereby agrees to file and record a covenant running with the land with the Suffolk County Clerk prohibiting the drilrx , installation and maintenance of any well or water supply system Parcel B or on Seller's adjacent premises which would interfere with Purchaser's water supply system in the opinion of the Department of Health. 32. Seller agrees that the covenant recorded in Liber 7654 cp 387 burdening the premises described therein is in full force and effect, and the deed conveying,the premises herein will reconfirm such covenant ^� and that the same shall run with the land in favor of the premises being conveyed and be a burden upon the premises described in Liber 7654 cp 387. 33. The premises shall be conveyed subject to the right of the Seller, his heirs, successors and assigns, to use, maintain and replace the existing well located near the northeast corner of the premises described in Schedule A, and the pipes running from said well to the residence located north of the northeast corner of the premises described in Schedule A (SLIM #1000-115-9-3) until such tine as Purchaser, its successors and assigns, connects said residence to the water supply system described in the preceding paragraph. 34. Seller reserves a right-of-way, for ingress and egress and underground utilities, over the roads now existing or hereafter constructed on the premises described in Schedule A, and a right-of-way over Reeve Avenue, such right-of-way to extend to Seller, his heirs, successors and assigns, including any subdivision of the Seller's premises. Purchaser reserves the right to relocate any of the mads now existing or hereafter constructed on the premises described in Schedule A. 35. This conveyance is subject to affirmative insurance the Parcel I and Parcel II described in Schedule A are contiguous and that the property described in Schedule A is contiguous to Parcel "B". 36. The closing shall be on or before January 10, 1986. Purchaser agrees to pay the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per business day in addition to the purchase price for each day after January 10, 1986 that title does not, close, except for an act of God or Seller's willful default. 37. Purchaser agrees that the sum of One Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($100,000.00) of the downpayment may immediately be released to Seller. 'BRUCE A. NORRIS Seller RI T. CARR By r � / Aicliard T. Carr Purchaser ption of Premises) PARCM I: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected,situate, lying and being aPM at Mattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGIRUNG at a point on the easterly side of a twenty-five (25) foot right-of-way sometimes known as Reeve Avenue, distant thereon South 17° 41' 20" West 220.51 feet from the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of New Suffolk Avenue and the easterly side of said right-of-way; DISTRRLIVING TI EIM along the easterly side of said right-of-way the following 1000 ICT three (3) courses and distances: (1) South 160 7' 00" West 550.85 feet; (2) South 7° 32' 00" West, 519.57 feet and (3) South 7° 7' 00" ECTION West 667.65 feet to land now or formerly of Reeve; 122.00- T02M along said land, South 86° 47' 40" East 809.45 feet to other land now or formerly of Norris; BLACK THENCE along said land the following two (2) courses and distances: 5. 0 (1) North 7° 31' 10" West 423 feet; (2) North 70 30' 20" West 1195.61 feet more or less to other land of Bruce A. Norris; LOT 004.000 THENCE along said land the following four (4) courses and distances: (1) North 73° 38' 30" West 121.88 feet; (2) North 77° 53' 20" West 96.70 feet; (3) North 77° 45' 30" West 91.78 feet and (4) North 76° 27' 30" West 312.78 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. TOGEIti:R with a non-exclusive right-of-way 50 feet in width running from the southerly side of New Suffolk Avenue southerly along lands formerly of George Brooks and'along land being conveyed herein, a total distance of 400 feet for ingress and egress and installation of underground utilities. BEING AND II ILIV0 TO BE the same premises conveyed to the party of the first part herein by deed dated 9/23/83, recorded 9/30/83 in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office in Liber 9434, pg. 169. PARCEL II: ALLTiat certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and impravements threon erected, situate, lying and being at Mattituck, !,')IS'TRICT Tour of Southold, Ccvmty of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded i000 and described as follows: .4 �cC' v7 ' yo'Ens% °SECTION /BEGIRMC at the northwesterly come of the pr ses about to be described, 123.0 &/which point of beginning is distant 300.00 g a feet as measured along the nor therl ide of 0 foot right -of-way, 31-1CK from a monument located in the easterly si of a Private Road known )6.00 as "Caup Mineola Road" also known as "Reeve Avenue", which monument is located 1,958.58 feet southerly as measured along the easterly side DT of the Private Road known as PiCaup Mineola Road" from the southerly )02.000 side of New Suffolk Avenue; RUNNING TM24CE from said point or place of beginning, along land now or formerly of Peconic Corporation, the following two .(2) courses and distances: (1) South 86° 47' 40" East, 509.45 feet to a monumnet; and (2) South 7° 32' 10" East, 100.00 feet to a monument and land now or formerly of Joseph Peters; ' RUNNING THETICE along said last mentioned land and along land now or formerly of Appolonia Kirchgessner and along land now or formerly of Johanna M. Siegman, North 86° 34' 20" West, 509.00 feet to land now or formerly of laurence P. Reeve; ' RUVING VEYCE along said last mentioned land, North 8° 00' 20" West, 98.19 feet to land now or formerly of Norris at the point or place of BEGINNING. '1OGL:TI ER with a right of ingress and egress to the party of the senn:d part, his heirs and assigns, in, to and over a strip of land twenty (20) feet in width, extending from the northwesterly corner of the above described premises in a v;7_sterly direction along the southerly side of land now or formerly o` r A. .].orris to the easterly side of a Private Road, also known as Camp Plineola Road", also known as "Reeve Avenue". The northerly line of said right-of-way bea s North 86° 47' 40" West and has a length of 300.00 feet. BEING AND INTENDED TO BE the same premises conveyed to the party of the first part herein by deed dated 9/23/83, recorded 9/30/83 in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office in Liber 9434, page 169. � Z ti Jl+ � � �O.J� Ate'. N 69°S�•�0 E. s.77°0i 20-W. SuFFOLn 3 ,2,14 / ry New — N 77002 ZONE to yl a V) 14 O ,I I bids. 0 h enc 6"w h I — � A ' I 1 • 3' Y I t o� A � t Y� f I I i l / I 1 I I I I I ti 1 0 o i b zW � y '.. 1"" ,. 4W 11. un .,ppnn uunn,rN u] taxes sba1l IN upon the basis of li f tax rate for the next preceding year ap, I nl Io the last st assessed valuation. 12. If there be a water meter on the purses, the seller shall furnish a reading to a date more than thirty days prior to th time herein set for closing title, and the unfixed meter charge and the unfixed sewer rent, if any, based thereon for the intervenin time shall be apportioned on the basis of such last reading. 13. The deed shall be the usual bargain & Sale with Covenants Against Grantor's Act, deed in proper statutory short form for record and shall be duly executed and acknowledged so as to convey to the purchase] the fee simple of the said premises, free of all encumbrances, except as herein stated, and shall contain the covenant required b' 't subdivision 5 of Section 13 of the Lien Law. ;1 iIf the seller is a corporation, it will deliver to the purchaser at the time of the delivery of the deed hereunder a resolution o its Board of Directors authorizing the sale'and delivery of the deed, and a certificate by the Secretary or Assistant Secretar_ of the corporation certifying such resolution and setting forth facts showing that the conveyance is in conformity with th requirements of Section 909 of the Business Corporation Law. The deed in such case shall contain a recital sufficient tt establish compliance with said section, 14. At the closing of the title the seller shall deliver to the purchaser a certified check to the order of the recording officer c the county in which the deed is to be recorded for the amount of the documentary stamps to be affixed thereto in aceordane with Article 31 of the Tax Law, and a certified check to the order of the appropriate officer for any other taxpayable by reasoi of the delivery of the deed, and a return, if any be required, duly signed and sworn to by the seller; and the wrchaser alsl agrees to sign and swear to the return and to cause the check and the return to be delivered to the appropriate office promptly after the closing of title. Omit IS. Is additiot, tie seller shall a! the some tome jAver to the ph.-Opp a pri'lipa plippl, A Jmin ,Ati props ty istrator for the amount of the Real Property Transfer Tax imposed by Title I e ministretive Code Of Me Cri".� the City of New York and will also deliver to the urn required by the said statute and the is issued pursuant to the y Signe and sworn to by the seller; the purchaser agrees to sign and swear to the I- "isse A. ehP.A. RNA the rpwrn Is 6 rip'llpreel 'A 'he City Register Promptly after the Wqiimg qi�.46 0:01 16. The seller shall give and the purchaser shall accept a title such as any title company with office in Suffolk County , a Member of the New York Board of Title Underwriters, will approve and insure. 17. All sums paid on account of this contract, and the reasonable expenses of the examination of the title to said premises and of the survey, if any, made in connection therewith are hereby made liens on said premises, but such liens shall not continue after default by the purchaser under this contract. 18. All Wines and articles of personal prove tj anached o atipts ter at t to o used in eat eetie vo I! said pier seated to be owned by the seller, free from all liens and encumbrances except as herein stated to t is sale; without limiting the generality of the foregoing, such fixtures and a a property include plumbing, heating. lighting and cooking fixtures, air conditioh units, ranges, refrigerators, radio and television aerials, bathroom 4 and kitchen tali or mirrors venetian blinds, shades, screens, awnings, storm windows, window boxes, storm V A C A N T L A N D 19. The amount of any unpaid taxes, assessments,water charges and sewer rents which the seller is obligated to pay and dis- charge,with the interest and penalties thereon to a date not less than two business days after the date of closing title, may at the 3 option of the seller be allowed to the purchaser out of the balance of the purchase price, provided official bills therefor with interest and penalties thereon figured to said date are furnished by the seller at the closing. ° 20. If at the date of closing there may be any other liens or encumbrances which the seller is obligated to pay and discharge, the seller may use any portion of the balance of the purchase price to satisfy the same, provided the seller shall simultaneously either deliver to the purchaser at the closing of title instruments in recordable form and sufficient to satisfy such liens and en- cumbrances of record together with the cost of recording or filing said instruments; or, provided that the seller has made arrangements with the title company employed by the purchaser in advance of closing, seller will deposit with said company sufficient monies. acceptable to and required by it to insure obtainingand the recording of such satisfactions and the issuance of title insurance to the purchaser either free of any such liens and encumbrances, or with insurance against enforcement of same out of the insured premises. The purchaser, if request is made within a reasonable time prior to the date of closing of title, agrees to provide at the closing separate certified checks as requested, aggregating the amount of the balance of the purchase price, to facilitate the satisfaction of any such liens or encumbrances. The existence of any such taxes or other liens and encumbrances shall not be deemed objections to title if the seller shall comply with the foregoing requirements. 21. If a search of the title discloses judgments, bankruptcies or other returns against other persons having namesthe same as or similar to that of the seller, the seller will on request deliver to the purchaser an affidavit showing that such judgments, bank- ruptcies or other returns are not against the"seller. 22. In the event that the seller is unable to convey title in accordance with the terms of this contract, the sole liability of the seller will be to refund to the purchaser the amount paid on account of the purchase price and to pay the net cost of examining the title, which cost is not to exceed the charges fixed by the New York Board of Title Underwriters, and the net cost of any survey made in connection therewith incurred by the purchaser, and upon such refund and payment being made this contract shall be considered canceled. 23. The deed shall be delivered upon the receipt of said payments at the office of WICKHAM r LdICKHAM & DRESSLER, P.C. , Main Road, Mattituck, New York KK NAT49 on or before 24. The parties agree that SALAND RMNL ESTATE ii ii4 tha.broker who brought about this sale and the seller agrees to pay any commission earned thereby. 4t 25. It is understood and agreed that all understandings and agreements heretofore had between the parties hereto are merged in this contract, which alone fully and completely expresses their agreement, and that the same is entered into after full investi- gation, neither party relying upon any statement or representation, not embodied in this contract, made by the other. The purchaser has inspected the buildings standing on said premises and is thoroughly acquainted with their condition and agrees to take title "as is" and in their present condition and subject to reasonable use, wear, tear, and natural deterioration between the date thereof and the closing of title. 26. This agreement may not be changed or terminated orally. The stipulations aforesaid are to apply to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the respective parties. 27. If two or more persons constitute either the seller or the purchaser, the word "seller" or the word "purchaser" shall be construed as if it read "sellers" or "purchasers' whenever the sense of this agreement so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been duly executed by the parties hereto. In presence of: BRUCE A. NORRIS RIC T. CARR By STATE OFNEWN.JEEW YORK, COUNTY OF a: STATE OFAEW YORK, COUNTY OF On the 19 ,day of Djear,(Fs� 19f�be ore me On the day of het etnk 19 , before me personally came n- n • ' - /1 personally ame to me known to be the individual described in and who executed to me known to be the individual described i nd who executed the foregoing instrument, and ac wledged that 1 , the foregoin t t w9*1110pwledge t �,,,L ex n ed e . e a RIOORE V,NOW York �J MEIEry Nen6'fbtk IkAsv STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss: S _ s On the day of 19 before me On the L/� day of l�lU s. 19`< , bef me personally came personally came Cer/e2 to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say to me known and known to to be a partner in that he resides at No. I Clete ei�y a partnership, and known to me to be person described in and that he is the who executed the foregoing instill t in the partnership name, and s of said �ulvs 4 / . R duly the corporation described acknowledged that ecuted t e foregoing instrument for and in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows on behalf of s ' rtnership. the Real of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the board of directors of said corporation, and that he signed h name Pte' thereto by like order. _p Closing of title under the within contract is hereby adjourned to 19 at o'clock, at ; tiile to be closed and all adjustments to be made as of 19 Dated, 19 For value received,.the within contract and all the right, title and interest of the purchaser thereunder are hereby assigned, transferred and set over unto ` and said assignee hereby assumes all obligations of the purchaser thereunder. , Dated, 19 ......._............._........_......._..._....._..............._..._.............. ......... Purchaser Assignee of Purchaser Tan#rar# of #air PREMISES TITLE No. Section Block Lot County or Town TO Street Numbered Address Record(d:At Request of RETURN BY MAIL TO: STANDARD FORM OF NEW YORK BOARD OF TITLE UNDERWRITERS Distributed by L t CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY . I Zip No. _ THE OBSERVANCE OF THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTIONS WILL SAVE TIME AND TROUBLE AT THE CLOSING OF THIS TITLE t The SELLER should bring with him all insurance policies and duplicates, receipted bills for taxes, assessments an water rates, and any leases, deeds or agreements affecting the property. When there is a water meter on the premises, he should order it read, and bring bills therefor to the closing. If there are mortgages on the property, he should promptly arrange to obtain the evidence required under Paragraph 5 asf this contract. He should furnish to the purchaser a full list of tenants, giving the names, rent paid by each, and date to which the rent has been paid. The PURCHASER should be prepared with cash or certified check drawn to the order of the seller. The check may be certified for an approximate Amount mud cash may hr pmvidrd for thr• halaorr of the settlement. 50,, kji wx�ST�vv _ MAz-on/Ey f A,14/,V.7 Gvc vc� ql e 30 '. y I 1 I Acott. Nbw 1 vow ` T s Ni t C i..;�jbri 9�y WK e / /P13 N .� � t :.,� .•rads �, • . 1 t e ! 'L' 1 . l' I�I ./ n%y /• 5 k i NE . l .Ifs � N, . __ ��- ,4+ • y � i .t �a o j r f a ,1 4'a✓ P' � S v + 5 t y i r V REG' January 21, 1986 To the Members of the Southold Planning Board. We are neighbors boardering on the South side of the Norris property. It is therefore with great interest that we are keep- ing an eye on the proposals being made for twenty-seven acres of that property. Specifically the parcel zoned M boardering m Camp Mineola Road. We would like to request that before a decisign ismade on these proposals that you make your own environmental impact study and not gust accept what is being submitted by the developer. only then we feel an accurate decision can be made. I am sure you are aware that only four hundred feet from the southwest corner of that proposed development it was nec- essary for Strongs Marina to open new wells because of problems with wells in that area. We have our wells only 200 feet from the same area. We think it is necessary that you protect our interests as well as those of the developer. We would also request that you inform us how we can be heard by the planning board so that we may express our fears on the denisity of this proposed development. We believe unless otherwise convinced that this development will have many ram- ifications on our neighborhood. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and we will be patiently waiting to hear from you. We remain, ar500j.0 0 DA ins PELLtTREAU & PELLETREAU PETER V. SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT S. PELLETREAU JOHN J. HART 20 CHURCH STREET - BOX 110 (1891-1943) JOHN J.ROE,III RICHARD A.SCHOENFELD FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE,NEW YORK 11772 (1950-1980) J.TIMOTHY SHEA BRUCE T. WALLACE TEL. 516 475-5656 ROBERT H. PELLETREAU KEVIN A.SEAMAN OF COUNSEL VANESSA M. SHEEHAN+ BENJAMIN L.HERZWEIG .ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA December 30, 1985 Planning Board Town of Southold Southold Town Hall Main Street Southold, New York Re: Norris Property at Mattituck Gentlemen: We are the attorneys for Richard T. Carr who is under contract to purchase the property owned by Bruce Norris at Mattituck and zoned multiple residential . Please be advised that Henry Raynor, to whom a copy of this letter is being sent, is authorized to represent Mr. Carr in his dealings with you. Presently, an amended site plan is being prepared to conform with discussions previously had with the Planning Board . As soon as the preliminary plans are completed, we will request an informal meeting with the Board to discuss them. If there are any questions, please contact the undersigned . Very truly yours, P L TREAU & PELLETREAU �� �^ J . a JJH: fv cc: Richard T. Carr cc: Henry Raynor 1C/12 C�� IJAN November 7, 1985 TO MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD: Itis with deep concern that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the proposed developmental use of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from Southold leaders over the past several years. It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork. It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access and safety of this beautiful area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any proceedings regarding this developement. We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appropriately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter . RESPECTFULLY, NAME ADDRESS 17- 20 /7" CC . L)LGrc.jLT 7)c "c ' Le -moi ✓i �j / 9,l/ �Q�»c-meq November 1985 To Members of the PlanninflHoard fjAN ? �1 r It is with deep interest that we bring the following to your attention. we have heard and read about the possibilities with development of the Norris property . If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from our Southold leaders over the past several years. It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork.It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access of this area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any de- velopments-We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appro- priately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for Your cooperation in this matter. RESPECTFULLY ' NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS L7 -;04W4Z ✓ ' - - �` n NOV 15 November 7 , 1985 TO MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD: It is with deep concern that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the proposed developmental use of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 peoplt or more. This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from Southold leaders over the past several years . It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork. It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access and safety of this beautiful area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any proceedings regarding this developement. We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appropriately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter . RESPECTFULLY, (� \ � NAME ADDRESS C � ���� . Nov 15 November 7 , 1985 TO MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD: It is with deep concern that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the proposed developmen use of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being aske to put the &tamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of proper that will have a density of 400 people or more . This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from Southold leaders over past several years . It defies the master plan, the water proble the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what th way of life should be on the North Fork. It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it wo to the access and safety of this beautiful area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any proceedings regarding this developement. We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appropriately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter . RESPECTFULLY, NAME ADDRESS �f Oyu y w :S buI HD SOV ° q November 7 , 1985 TO MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD: It is with deep concern that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the proposed developmental use of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more . This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from Southold leaders over the past several years . It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork. It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access and safety of this beautiful area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any proceedings regarding this developement. We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appropriately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter . RESPECTFULLY, NAME ADDRESS -- uoV �Uh tkJ"'�"" November 7, 1985 To Members of the Flann* Board NOV 7090 It is with deep interest that we bring the following to your attention. we have heard and read about the possibilities with development of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. Thiswould be contrary to all we have been hearing from our Southold leaders over the past several years. It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork.It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that _present area and what it would do to the access of this area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any de- velopments.W e would also hope in your wisdom you will act appro- priately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. RESPECTFULLY NAME ADDRESS � NAC"E ADDRESS x66v 11�6A Pell November 7, 1985 To Members of the Planni99Board r1 It is with deep interest that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the possibilities with development of the Norris property . If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. Thiswould be contrary to all we have been hearing from our Southold leaders over the past several years . It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork.It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access of this area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any de- velopments-We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appro- priately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. RESPECTFULLY NAME ADDRESS NAME ADnRES3 , <Ice Aa <0 F�.� C .J. �l.l.�- •-•_ 7 Cd C J ,J 7tl'-I Ply✓� !1i.�<,-¢y�,//✓ ✓!?U'�`"i �.�'a';� �`iZ��s/.�c..R- .�,�/�7"✓`.� ol 7 , /7,3 S— _ � o i'�'7,�T7/��G Novemb4 7, 1985 To Members of the P1anng Board NOV 7 1985 It is with deep interest that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the possibilities with development of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. Thiswould be contrary to all we have been hearing from our Southold leaders over the past several years. It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork.It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access of this area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any de- velopments.We would also hope In your wisdom you will act appro- priately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. RESPECTFULLY MAPLE ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS Gdwn 0,'P""s'; Ct k � .; r'e' - C.�✓ �a �'' C�L� �iGL� -IQy �4 I >� -ice z � � ` lam- Novembe , 1985 To Members of the PlanniTig Board �011047 It is with deep interest that we bring t�h� ng to your attention. We have heard and read about the possibilities with development of the Norris property. If it correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. Th7swould be contrary to all we have been hearing from our Southold leaders over the past several years . It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork.It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access of this area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any de- velopments.W e would also hope in your wisdom you will act appro- priately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. RESPECTFULLY NAME 171 ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS tq C 2��L� �I� ��Qtn� �V-P I� If�Y�J'✓- �lr /1731 v X ^�� Novemb 7, 1985 To Members of the Plann% Board NOV 719 It is with deep interest that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the possibilities with development of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from our Southold leaders over the past several years. It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork.It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that oresent area and what it would do to the access of this area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any de- velopments.We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appro- priately to protect the present character of this area. M- Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. RESPECTFULLY NAME ADDRESS- NAME ADDRESS Vq L✓,��'Lzt�c- I:�" art fil C),. Gti �2 Novemb�7, 1985 To Members of the Plann Board ►��((�� tt��s�� It is with deep interest that we t7M�g AOQ4 llowing to your attention. We have heard and read about the possibilities with development of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. Thiswould be contrary to all we have been hearing from our Southold leaders over the past several years . It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork.It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access of this area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any de- velopments.We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appro- priately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. RESPECTFULLY NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS 7? 115771 �j SI/71r'/- De, /UoRj-17 SOv %yo LD �f /v a e-e"t fox /oma/ faar To Members of the Plano Board NOY ,/ Novemb�71 1985 It is with deep interest that we bringst8he followingto attention. We have heard and read about the a Your it2 development of the Norris property. If it ispcorrects with asked to put the stamp of approval on a e You are being p Property that will have a density of 400People ly or r acres of e. Thiswou be contrary to all we have been hearing from our Southold le derald over the past several years. It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork.It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access of this area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any de- velopments.We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appro- priately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. RESPECTFULLY RTA?l,E ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS ►aa� Au r►gsa ffcc- ff __•'II 7e, 42, 7r �ps�;,e y;��.�3�i4� Cf-e..�ctai �K. Q''RatE��.rk. 1145tii Sys _ „97 � ✓dJ��✓"�;ti�,��I �i`LCLQ-+ �1�i�,�cv;�ii-*,u'-r (�LI(� *-.�t� � k 01 '3y Le�� ,� t G. � LL.Y_ L�� ✓ L-( V J .124'U��. � Jy.Z?�C /'f � �`-� ""LZ G 1 / t f r 9 I Novemb�71 1985 To Members of the Plan Board 'NOV 7 198 . It is with deep interest that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the possibilities with development of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. Thiswould be contrary to all we have been hearing from our Southold leaders over the past several years. It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork.It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access of this area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any de- velopments.. e would also hope in your wisdom you will act appro- priately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. RESPECTFULLY NA1l,E ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS ►A �r.+� r� //97/ -1,�� God.--- �dpp%s��� ��• 'S�"`� I 9 � rr9�i • �Z-�'-�f- J/ U 1" a�--�- �'I az 1—�n-- d o-,-a� �o-,.-� °� �`� � � s 7� n Novemb � 7, 1985 To Members of the Planni'!fg Board NOV 7 It is with deep interest that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the possibilities with development of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from our Southold leaders over the past several years. It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork.It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that _present area and what it would do to the access of this area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any de- velopments.Ne would also hope In your wisdom you will act appro- priately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. RESPECTFULLY NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS 71y, 7y 74( q7 i1rs !9'J� /y r�O • � 1 Novemb*7, 1985 To Members of the Plann 6 Board Xjrr7 198` 5 It is with deep interest that we bring the following to your attention. we have heard and read about the possibilities with development of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more . This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from our Southold leaders over the past several years. It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork.It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that oresent area and what it would do to the access of this area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any de- velopments.We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appro- priately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. RESPECTFULLY pNAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS -79 C400 &4)IJ &Y k� it d Nover e 7, 1985 Members of the Planning Board 6 1985 It is with deep interest that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the possibilities with development of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density. of 400 people or more. This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from our Southold leaders over the past several years. It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork.It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access of this area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any de- velopments.We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appro- priately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. RESPECTFULLY NAME ADDRESS —D�MIe t � k) r P197777` r J&O'W��4A gt To Members of the Plann`ing Board Novem r 7, 1485 It is with deep interest that we bring the foll NOV attention. We have heard and read about the ngto development of the Norris propert asked to possibilities with property put the stamp of approval If it is correct you are be contrary wi7.1 have a den it oon4a proximately 27 acres oFeing over the y to all we have been hearing popple or more. Thyswould Problem past several years, g from our Southold leaders the Whe present g regulations ies the master plan water what zoning the of no considerationlfor ife Should be and many other aspects of on the North Fork.It certainly has would do to the 9:ccess Ofnthisearea. hat present area and w As area residentshat it velopments-We w alsoehopeliinhyourtwisdo�ept abreast of any de- velopments ould Protect the present character you will act of this area. you for your cooperation in this matter, RESPECTFULLY NAME ADDRESS 62 NAME ADDRESS � . Ph JQ4 65 4;.,,, 1 QA.. 63—ICAC4443 44 ` j Ir6 I Novembe7, 1985 -To Members of the Plannog Board DEC1 2 t � * It is with deep interest that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the possibilities with development of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from our Southold leaders over the past several years . It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork.It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access of this area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any de- velopments.'Se would also hope in your wisdom you will act appro- priately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. RESPECTFULLY NATLE ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS lit 1� a 6 o 0� i DEC November 7 , 1985 TO MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD: It is with deep concern that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the proposed developmental use of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more . This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from Southold leaders over the past several years . It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork. It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access and safety of this beautiful area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any proceedings regarding this developement . We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appropriately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter . RESPECTFULLY, NAME ADDRESS LIQ-Cly-U� ; PCS C � C �J C-- C <'1 c�----ewe-t�.��s� C%/i7� /�-�'UOL�{ ✓ 1j �A i/ � / � G�C O�nnC� � � n� �cck.�.,u C��e ►c Dr. Scuthe � �\, l� �/ 1 � S V\,mss DCL , vj k V"'", No4jeAel� 7, 5 TO MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD: It is with deep concern that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the proposed developmental use of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from Southold leaders over the past several years . It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork. It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would do to the access and safety of this beautiful area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any proceedings regarding this developement. We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appropriately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter . RESPECTFULLY, NAME ADDRESS �( L i wo 136T lno-w-rxor4 4( C � 5`t 3 vn A c7 NL i<', ,n y -> 0 ��_ �� �✓ M / 1-3 L L November 7 , 1985 TO MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD: ICt' is with deep concern that we bring the following to your attention. We have heard and read about the proposed developmental use of the Norris property. If it is correct you are being asked to put the stamp of approval on approximately 27 acres of property that will have a density of 400 people or more. This would be contrary to all we have been hearing from Southold leaders over the past several years. It defies the master plan, the water problem, the present zoning regulations and many other aspects of what the way of life should be on the North Fork. It certainly has no consideration for the nature of that present area and what it would 'do to the access and safety of this beautiful area. As area residents we would hope to be kept abreast of any proceedings regarding this developement. We would also hope in your wisdom you will act appropriately to protect the present character of this area. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter . RESPECTFULLY, 1 A NAME ADDRESS � ria a�G c��J % ,4'r� u LL,c9 - U TN O SOTJ LD S Li F?O Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 November 6 , 1985 Mr. Henry E. Raynor,Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Bruce Norris Site Plan Dear Mr. Raynor: It has been brought to our attention that the names of the adjoining property owners on the above mentioned site plan have been incorrectly listed. Would you please include, on the revised site plan, the correct names of the adjoining property owners. For your review, enclosed is a copy of the current owners of the properties to the south of the Norris property. If you have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, ET S� JI MAN � SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. Jam, NOV 7 1��5 November 5 , 1985 Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Gentlemen: With regard to the Norris condominium application presently before your board, I would like to submit the following points of interest : 1 ) The Norris property is actively on the market with an asking price of $6 ,000,000 "as is" or $7 ,000 ,000 with condominium approvals . If the owner of record is so "deeply" concerned about this area and it ' s proper developement , why sell to an outsider whose only goal is profit? 2) Even without any updated Master Plan this property under present zoning could legally yield no more than two condominium units per acre without public water or sewer . Accordingly, the 38 acres presently zoned for multifamily use can not yield more than 76 units providing water quantity/quality, sidelines , setbacks , scenic easements , traffic flow, common area regulations and, most importantly, environmental protections are conformed to. 3) In the event the long coming Master Plan is finally approved, this blighted multifamily zoned plot would revert to it ' s proper two acre zone use. As a result , the total area of approximately 72 acres could be appropriately subdivided into 34 or 35 two acre building lots which would conform with 100% of the use of the surrounding neighborhood. Because of the seemingly unanimous objections to this project expressed by area residents , the following compromise will hopefully be entertained in your final consideration of this project and perhaps satisfy most of the concerned parties : - The applicant should be made aware that the number of units being proposed are far in excess of current permissable yield. In light of the forthcoming Master Plan, the applicant has to realize that a density compromise must be made immediately! - IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT A PLAN FOR 50 CONDOMINIUM UNITS MIXED WITH 15 TWO ACRE HOMESITES WOULD APPEAR TO BE THE BEST, MOST EQUITABLE (and even profitable) SOLUTION FOR THIS APPLICANT whose door is about to be knocked on by "Mr . New Master Plan" ! (con' t) . . . . . . . . Page 2 Please note that numerous concerned residents are watching the results of this one very closely and are optimistic that each and every planning board member will react favorably to the "silent majority" . Yur Robert A. Celic Resident cc : Southold Town Board Robert Pike Esq. NOV 4 1985 P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 November 1, 1985 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Board Members: I am in receipt of both the planning considerations and site plan elements for the Bruce Norris project. First, my thanks for a very speedy response, and secondly, as I have discussed with Benny and Dick on the phone, I would just like to outline where we are proceeding at this point. In regard to the proposed density, we are setting up a meeting with the Department of Health Services on an informal basis to get information back to you indicating what restrictions their agency may put on the property. I should also mention that we are still continuing under the Multiple zone use under the present plan but have discussed at length with Bill some concepts for affordable housing, which I would like to get into greater detail with the Board. As the consideration of completion of the Department of Health Services review and approval leaves me between a rock and a hard place, I have taken the courses mentioned above for a meeting and an informal review.So that the site plan elements are not ignored, I will have our engineer process the 11 items that have been omitted. Again, my sincere thanks for your consideration in this project. Hoping we can set up a meeting to discuss the various aspects as soon as it is convenient for you. Best regards, H � Lnynr Henry HER:ml s s PL`.X ING BQ'A D TOWLO O SOU III D w � C SST EO,I Kg L�1V Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 October 30 , 1985 Mr. Henry E. Raynor Love lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Norris site plan Dear Mr. Raynor: As per our conversation, enclosed are the Board' s comments regarding the above mentioned site plan. If you have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN OUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD y Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. BRUCE NORRIS PROJECT: Planning Considerations- 1. Submission of site plan to provide density indicated must be substantiated by approval of water and sewer systems from Suffolk County Health Department. 2. Multiple zone use in proposed master plan was established to assist in providing affordable housing. Is this project proposed as affordable housing? 3. Proposed Master Plan indicates this property for consideration of two acres zoning. Consideration could be given to a cluster development retaining half the property as open space with one acre lots. 4. Upon completion of Health Department review and approval, the following site plan elements must be addressed. Site Plan elements - 1. Health Department approvalof water and sewer system prior to evaluation of density, 2 versus 4 units per acre. 2 . Topographical survey indicates one foot contour lines, but no reference is provided who prepared map. 3 . Property line does not have bearings and distances prepared by Licensed surveyor. 4 . Set back dimensions of all buildings has not been shown 5 . Street width, pavement section, curbs , et. al. is not indicated. 6 . Calculations for drainage collection system and proposed storm water recharge basin has not been provided. 7 . Parking on site, garage, and/or combination should be indicated with quantitives provided. 8 . Proposed water system has not been indicated. 9. Architectural plans of proposed units will be helpful to evaluate siting. 10. Interior circulation system for pedestrian use should be considered, ie. sidewalk, bicycle path. 11. Street tree planting would be requested. b �m �✓ �Y'LtCQ I�,brr���ro��" l, �c�vu i'�S roYin 513 e 4o emu jet'-s'}u �c gyOK— c�u��]lo� ";,qat„ u.< le +AkvS A y�o QS jC, V 4-1 a T�wCSL I Orr i s piroiej- * SITE PLAID( �o emacs ion o� d�Vlsi`�c'� ) 2 va, 4 cc-oi4s pe#- ctc--rte., 2 , 1e� �n deo�l �Cr ruea� /�,c�✓ci s nnoY�t �oo� �,+cur � vh.a..a� b Ylo rrPe+« i`s do fro r✓� c�vi o dome�u^e� 3 , prrofer{' \NLSno _ha S au cQ id s �c { L,kt, su rwea far . S A boe�- aJU bCA-�Ju vba s Ids MA Lwu", :�l ow vl Cn. l�.c�.lcQ,.Xa�nn"v`G•,S �lr ��1n(� ggG��O`C..Q�.�,�.-,pp Fri-Id��. a�x.�, n�(1 c�� S�w�. c�a.�eN ✓�Q,CXn�Q_ �S�h`}�' �0 8 v{dd' (�9�-� �tA)'cx�c- 8 �roeas�eu we Lmt^ "ca*eQ. I U&i<zos OCT 2219 N--77�7 LB 7 --EiFo/If-7 R43�c'r- =ZZ2) 5 6�61 �4 --WA 47U�tl/7� ---- ---- --- - ---- 3j�,26aGP-,x2=_739zb�Pl — 1d m v — �.bO n�N 2f lj3y y�y5.. i _ t> 'Z C F �© IZI V) 2 " 1985 =' tJP �' �.. �{ . (�i 3a UN X 13 �2. X 70 23 3ado G,•D,AY M4k D,c,�vJ� i �j 6- P.sY H ' x DA , cYDeMJLWo 7�/GoIyyo ✓ - /G u S f 14fNVr£ M h x orA 8 Co i Cr( M A• s, rf &- 1�1f,vrwvrf $t�ssu�c �4 � �4; NYp�Aw3 is y � S � of:--- f W R O --- -� ` F MAX,_ is:,AiJcr o� riR 1,p'-7=Ra _? 2— SJ1�P�y J`'v_vRcC�� SA ZED d -7- 41 ^sc n Zi /AJ 4;;�>/ Uli4T}s�J�'7AF1<<) g —_ (•�-!0 C����(A"y� )�t�/39 GOSs�/ o 0 0_�'?"-. ' --Z 3 �' C ----- — JhLUAT��_ L//tJ�-.lS__No � --e/�ST_��tl�✓__3uT--- ���5'T! _ASVD 7/__0 �--2 3,_8_Ps l_-X__�_�7/=L�_•q Vis! -. - -- - - - T;4E Yl?iN, OZz Asv ---- UP P OCT 221985 2 • s X 13 '4X 70r23 / oo _ 14 V -�-G c �I4 Y Jc ; � f3 7u 1> 2 3p, io o A,. zoo MA-x D,A)r-Yz (2 6,0 /3� D. err l — 7 zoo 6/pj�Y M4x Da ,LYPIC MAr4Ja - 7��Go� yya ✓ _ S V// JMINVTAL. ► S, h PPRar. & uQc dQ qArNYD.°AwT 1S PS LNE QEF 81104) ' -----'---1- F92 fa8, lt LUATEK L(N� - 1- r'L95T1 C. tJS�_�•G �_ J2� _A�v,D _�C�U/-J/r.. �.UT-- --- - -� - 1=,4c"rp,�-- -I-s-- 0�7-�--� R---2 3,_8_Ps►_-X�D_<7/._=1 C�-•_q�s t - -- - -- – T�� tN. PK6ASJ fZ57e) FS -- > 60 Q 7, \ c-"> ,-,�,�L 1.) � I-�- c -t 0 4 ;' = 5UPPOCT 221985 70 ff MAkDF,cvJ� sr z 00 + /3� a (s 1 — `7 �, G0o /D�y 1 >A )r. YPCt-llA-W0 e 7.?/Go� yy0 =\ S I G �MINV 7AL vi /h!(i V 7.5 A* S. ki 8 j?4 i " ,jN P Rc.% & up,t 6cL(V 4r NYD4eANss CD HO --; -- r --°� TiR— -- - - - 04c9���.54Y, 7-4lod_rr� ---- ��to �Pr��„w���'A9 L•dss'�/aoo_�'7"_--_Z3�T=�-3(s_�����lS �oee C4-5 0 uT- -- r�c./�Si - - --- 1^f�cTO�- -t-S -- 0�7_/ _.AfZ_ 23,_8_Ps ►_x' Q_,7/_=I(d. q?si - - - - _: - TJ4F M/N• t�m2GF�sJ2L �- !.clsT �C Svv2c�-�6,9t�S E1'.9 �l ----- AT SvdRc� S� 7() FS -- -- - • 9/Z�� P'"INopc MATT JT- U ,` • N. Y. 3t�hQ��/G- QST" 1V,,47Voe-)4l /Q, 000, cry . d DOp,Da ---- -A9 OS3o _0_,r "_r `�I!._.• , Ss �,i9� rJ �}t 7 _�-7.L�89Jr"5_�r,3�3ro6z�'✓�`l"-'8�/b5508563�.r,-31$572 3a96 z7rl - Ve "44- /j CS6 u/jCSQ7zJ-0 ! 1 . P.Q%SLS G_os�_ _/J 7 07 v_ c` _/�7,(� II 99.2_2g5�-✓ 17L 9-VJ /J_7-_32 °c E -53. (a 613 71 e_y�/ 3mSS✓---- �— .�� - - log' -57-7-467-24C- -9 I-,- B, z t Z=0-_355_x' �! s 977 7gx2-4o 3,13 _l.l � ' ✓ IS 959 Stye ' - -3 ,327✓- t_!_I �, 9q, ---�� 573-730--- .36 1 i — I ^'►7S2,05$' + b�3._7_SL, --- - -----=-----'------------------'�'�013 -----"�b ' � 0.2 G�oSJi2s� ----- -- -- -----'- of �Ao-->=T OF NEW y f�'OFEc S10yP� 1 i � t t i i I 1 � �1 's , •j .J 4p :_..= 7i S TAN GC .�LC Gr $ � '2-15� X0.90 3 –1 0 . 2 !7 - J� b,a _ 19.80 le SOS' 0120 11 , 00 33 a 0,30 ) S t7.oc �l t o l— --- r 3 -7 a . F' 150 yy��• ice- _ p/f'' 1I • � . Of Ne OC'TIt71985I _ s ;A C-S�_ f si-avi 5 , z9- 1,, 1-tea. 1 � 5 " 10.40 0 . 2 � 19.So- �! 0rg . Gq _ I 10 D . 20 36 is i ( goo o . $G 3 � Il. 00 ll : oc 33a D.30 2 � 1 .Op `J a o , Z5 1S 17.00 37 G . ► � 2. ► I �} D Il .� c .� P1 of NEt%i ' I ��• UV oFs tS IS�.6 OCT 17 198 � Of s ANc /y 5� 00� $ i 2!; },� V �2T S X10 O ,SS . I ', 19 .Gq iG,.�S / o P 0 - �6 3a �s.qo_ tS.gs 'Zo 36 1 505 0 . 20 30 1S. IS oU D , $G 3C� t1 . Do 11 ; 00 33 a 0.30 V JJ I . Di- 2 .? 7 37q G 1140 i ►I ,�le � ► .� t So o , 16 n , l � 11 . ► f. r 150 il . 00 _ aF NE kk KATTJ7" ucKy N. Y. o i u I V SO',1301GZ2 3 i2b;* 156 17. S o/9 35 z ! 7 3 - ✓ -- -G-99.a.2`IS -- ✓I 5 / 3t a?-°q $ C _ I s y 7 7 Z s 177 7q-z4oV '93,93 9Zo. --_SoB �` - t � ' ✓ 'S 95S1 qo • - ���3�7�t 1_f �, 9q. i ror�4_--47895 rT -- - i7>z,o4� =964,35� - - - -�-— �- �*7S2 05 - -- --- ---- �76e- ,-S '_a,0001252 ___i�PrPd/Z c -------I------ ---- -�- ZF NEW y - �+� w ------------- i P S�� RHO ------ - . --Oct� — -- — --- � � ---- ---- - -._.__. ._. - _ --- - ------------- - ------- I 2 H I i r, �.30 S6 z� %_L9_.3�z f 55. 35. ----- '! LoS_� A) 7° 07 v_� �' (�7,�s �9q-2_�gSg_✓ 5J 'f— '�� 5 / 3 t l 0 3 � ✓ + 515,O8- `'_ -!` [n� r !�- -I,1 _7a 32–a0 E5_��• � �_�ygi-��as✓- --- -- a 50,_$5 rQo_e9 �9 �, 5 7(oa 2"7. _�j� E ✓ � }_�,? dr � 47 ? l9 g `� � . -�3-�'�$ .-x'__304�D� 5 7 7 7 Zb 2U v 109 57_7 4. 5 30 _5►-,-78'�_z_r _a�55 -- ' s 977 7q-z4of - �zBE_ 93, 3 ---Bog z.✓ t � ' ms 's 959 s-► y a ' -3��3�7�t 1_! �, 99•- 10-1 ---5 73---3 --- ,,3(P t_-1 z t E$- 1752_,042 '`�j ! 'f^•�7 52.055. -fi 63� �S(� — — -- -----'— --L—`----- f i -- - C. 0.5 JA_' I NEW Y� _ --_.-'---0---- ' ----i --C�Q�, jk RHOU�s --- cU j, �OFcc'cIGyP' _ _ I f SEP 2 01985 September 19 , 1985 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road RE: NORRIS CONDOMINIUMS Southold , NY 11971 Dear Gentlemen: With regards to the recently "resubmitted" condominium plan of Mr . Bruce Norris situated at New Suffolk Avenue , Mattituck, and as a representative for a large group of concerned neighbors who reside immediately to or near the proposed condominium, I hereby indicate that we are VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to this project ! Our primary reasons for opposition are as follows : 1 ) Present water supply along New Suffolk Avenue , Ole Jule Lane , Mattituck Estates , Marratooka Road & Lane , Bungalow Lane , Park Avenue, Deep Hole Creek Estates and Bayview Ventures (as you know) is highly restricted and of very poor quality. To provide 165 additional families with adequate drinking water would ultimately endanger every well in the area. The sewage treatment system, as proposed on this plan, would further deteriorate the environmental stability of the existing groundwater table . 2) The traffic generated from this project would conjest the roadways even further . In particular , the speeding traffic along New Suffolk Avenue which has existed for years would likely cause additional destruction or even death when combined with the anticipated traffic created by this project. 3) The PROPOSED MASTER PLAN has this parcel classified as an R-80/two acre zone . The proposed condominium use directly conflicts with the views of the professional planners who Southold Town has employed as well as the recommendations of your own board. 4) This proposal places a "rotten apple" directly in the middle of a well-established SINGLE FAMILY HOME area - and we have yet to meet anyone who would agree that this can be called good planning. 5) The condominium units would considerably lessen the real estate values of the existing single family homes in the overall bayside area of Mattituck due to the factors outlined above . 6) The Norris plan appears very unmarketable . We see few buyers who would be interested in purchasing a costly "seasonal" unit with NO private beach area. Very little time appears to have been contributed to site planning or sales projections . (con' t. ) Page 2 Although this condominium plan and it ' s original (and rather suspicious ) rezoning approval was unsuccessfully contested in the mid 1970 ' s , current planning procedures have become much more sophisticated by taking into account the overall impact rather than the "no problem" policies of the past. Concerned residents are no longer willing to simply sit by and "let things go" . We have no objection to a uniform two acre sudivision for the site as set forth in the NEW MASTER PLAN but are collectively prepared to forcefully and legally oppose any and all "multi-family" uses for the subject site . We urge each and every planning board member to take a CLOSE look at the site , analyze the surrounding area, sample some of the area drinking water , visualize the anticipated traffic generated from this project especially during the summer season peak and then finally drive through the well-kept neighboring subdivisions which make up 100% of the entire surrounding areas . We are confident that once this site analysis is physically done you will agree that this project, if approved, would certainly destroy one of the loveliest residential areas in Southold Township - and we are not going to let this "absurdity" occur ! We look forward to a determination in favor of PUBLIC OPINION. Thank you for your sincere consideration. V r ruly yo Robert A. elic Resident cc : Southold Town Board Robert D. Pike Esq. Suffolk Times L. I . Traveler WA I J SEP IS 1985 P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 September 16, 1985 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Sirs : RE: Norris Site Plan In response to your letter of September 10, 1985, we would like to advise the Southold Town Planning Board that the following action has been taken. I have contacted the Suffolk County Deparment of Health Services for all pertinent forms and information necessary to obtain approval of both a water and sewerage system for the M-1 zoned site. As you are well aware, the application and review procedures are time consuming and we will make a continuing effort to expedite these as rapidly as possible. Concurrently, we have engaged a Professional Engineer and land surveyor to complete all itmes of Site Plan Elements as listed on your two page adendum (§100-134) . We would anticipate a completion date of approximately mid October; and request of your board a date for an appointment at which time we could discuss any questions you may have and hopefully, proceed for certification under the zoning ordinance. If you have any questions in the interim, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, in Wr - Rayn , Jr k HER:ml CC: Wickham, Wickham & Bressler Bruce Norris Peter Rhodes Howard Young L(V�All �FFD(k P D Z T LD to S Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 September 10, 1985 Abigail Wickham Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck,NY 11952 Re: Bruce Norris Site Plan Dear Ms. Wickham: The Planning Board has serious concerns regarding this site plan, but prior to reviewing it with you, we would request that you submit Health Department Approval on the water and sewer to guarantee the yield that is being proposed. The Board also requests that you address all the site plan elements on the survey, see the enclosed list. If you have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BMAC-'tt ©►'(Owl-� �z.�x�si BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. cc: Henry E. Raynor SITE PLAN ELEMENTS 3100-134 Town Code ( ) Lot, block, and section number, if any, or the property taken from tax records ( ) Name and address of the owner of record ( ) Name and address of the person preparing the map ( ) Date, North arrow and written and graphic scale ( ) Sufficient description or information to precisely define the boundaries of the property. All distances shall be in feet and tenths of a foot. All angles shall be given to the nearest ten seconds or closer. The error of closure shall not exceed one in ten thousand. ( ) The locations, name, and existing width of adjacent streets and curblines ( ) The location and owners of all adjoining lands, as shown on the latest tax records ( ) Location, width and purpose of all existing and proposed easements, setbac. reservations, and areas dedicated to public use withinor adjoining propert ( ) A complete outline of existing deed restrictions or covenants applying to theproperty ( ) Existing zoning ( ) Existing contours at intervals of five or less, referred to a datum satisfactory to the Board ( ) Approximate boundaries of any areas subject to flooding or stormwater over: ( ) Location of existing watercourses, marshes, wooded areas, rock outcrops isolated trees with a diameter of eight inches or measured three feet above the base of the trunk and other significant existing features. ( ) Location of uses and outlines of structures, drawn to scale on and within one hundred (100) feet of the lots. ( ) Paved areas, sidewalks, and wehicular access between the site and public streets ( ) Locations, dimensions, grades and flow direction of existing sewers, culve: and waterlines as well as other underground and above ground utilities within and adjacent to the property. ( ) -Other existing development, including fences, landscaping and screening ( ) The location of proposed buildings or structural improvement ( ) The location and design ofall uses not requiring structures such as off street parking and loading areas. ( ) The location, direction, power and time of use of any proposed outdoor lighting or public address systems. ( ) The location of, and plans for, any outdoor signs ( ) The location and arrangement of proposed means of access and egress, including sidewalks, driveways or other paved areas; profiles indicating grading and cross sections showing width of roadway, location and width of sidewalks and lcoation and size of water and sewer lines. OVER. . . Site plan elements cont. (4100-134) ( ) Any proposed grading, screening and other landscaping including types and locations of proposed street trees. ( ) The location of all proposed waterlines, valves and hydrants and of all sewer lines or alternate means of water supply and sewage disposal and treatment. ( ) An outline of any proposed deed retrictions and/or covenants. ( ) Any contemplted public improvements on or adjoining the property. ( ) If the site development plan indictes only a first stage, a supplementary plan shall indicate ultimate develoment. ( ) Any other information deemed by the Planning Board necessary to determine conformity of the site plan with the intent and regulations of this chapter. .AUG 19 W5 P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 August 16, 1985 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 ATTN: Diane Schultze Dear Diane: Please find enclosed the two additional prints for the Norris property in Mattituck, as per your request. Sincerely, bga re nrd" HR:ml LAW OFFICES „U AUU 6+ WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.c. v 1�p8� 7 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK LONG ISLAND WILLIAM WICKHAM NEW YORK 11952 ERIC J.BRESSLER ABIGAIL A.WICKHAM 516-298-8353 FRANKLYN A.FARRIS August 13 , 1985 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Bruce A. Norris - Site Plan Mattituck, New York Gentlemen: In connection with the above site plan application, we enclose a long form environmental assessment part one, and four (4) prints of the proposed site plan. We also enclose a check in the amount of $100 .00 , representing the filing fee. We look forward to discussing this plan with you at our presubmission conference. If you have any questions , please feel free to contact me or Mr. Henry Raynor. Sincerely yours , c Abigail A. Wickham AAW:ab Encs. pin MEMORANDUM SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY SPECIAL TERM LWO,NCI: RL:i?VP:, est al . , BY LIJ. S. C. hl'aliutiif9 2:1, vs. DATED October 19 75 AL3i:RT 'r.l. MAUTOCCHIA, et al . , ( Index No. 7d-16803 PvfQndants including those of the plaintirfs. In his opinion, condominiums upon the Norris property will cause no diminution in value of, any of the plaintiffs ' properties . Based upon his testimouy, this court cannot accept the opinion expressed by 9r. Glander, unsupported as it is by any proof of sales (see Samuelson v. Salamanaca Urban Runewal A e{ ncy, 34 A.D. 2d 369, 311 N.Y .S. 2d 538 ; kredenbur5h—�vl. State of N.Y. , 26 A.D. 2d 966, 274 N.Y.S. 26 708) . o Essentially, plaintiffs' objection to the re-zoning is bayed upon their desire that the status quo be maintained in the neighborhood. They prefer that its rural character be continued. However, as the Court of Appeals stated in Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, 302 N .Y. 115, supra , nt page 121 : ile :stability and regularity are undoubtedly essentl to the operation of zoning plans, zoning is by no r.,eans .static . Changed or changing conditions call for changed plans and persons uho own property in a > ' plans, l P � 4� y particular Tone or use diwtrict enjoy no eternally vested •T, �l . '� right to that cies S.Ficati.:;n It the public interest demands iir otherwise. Accordingly, the power of n (town) to amend its basic zoning ordinance in such a Way as reasonably to promote the general welfare cannot be questioned. Just as 2 " clearly , 6acision as to how a community shall be zoned or rezoned, as to how various propbrties shall be classified or reclassified, rests with the local legislative body; its judgment and determination will be conclusive, beyond inter- I () �d Terence from the courts, unless shown to be arbitrary, �J and the burden of establishing such arbitrariness is imposed,.'' upon him who asserts it . " -' The adoption of the amendment by the 'foam Board rezoning the subjoe premises was a legislative act . As such, it is presumed to be valid. (Levitt v. Inc. Village of Sands point, 6 N .Y. 2d 269, 185 N .Y .S. 2d 212; see also Anderton, N.Y . Zonin5 Law and Practico, Vol . 1 , §2.08) . And as the Court of Appeals declared in Ghepard v. Village of Skaneateles, 300 N .Y. 1150 at page 118 ; "Upon parties who nttnck an ordinance such as the present rests the burden of showing that tho rogulntion assailed is not justified under the polices power of th•� stato by any reasonable int"rnretntion of t.ho inct:; . ' LV the validity of tip.IngivIaiivo cla5suication .`or :ronin; z , LASER FICHE FORM SUBDIVISIONS Project Type: Major f Cv ��o.Coi r��LEC Status: Withdrawn SCTM # : 1000 - 122.-5-4 Proiect Name: Norris Estates Location: Camp Mineola Blvd. And New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck Hamlet: Mattituck Applicant Name: Richard Carr Owner Name: Bruce Norris Zone 1 : M- mu L7, ,'F ,(- Approval Date: �J�/ l -pplenve—D PLAT Signed Date: /\1c�)— OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A date indicates that we have received the related information Zone 2: Zone 3: Cand R's : Homeowners Association R and M Agreement: Address: Camp Mineola Blvd. And New Suffolk Ave.. Mattituck County Filing Date: FcSCANNED APR 1 3 2006 Records Management SCAN Date: �p o0 I b L )p o r♦ n _ P I T Y r fn D At z � rn= b u; Out I n Cn y �t I ; A wf,.3 kl- 044. `� O N Y J .'.($ '°,,�9.►i �' -1� ooc � -pw ooa°ol .n d .� � w m n R D' Y El rl AYn v\ 1 ' 1 x O W �C i• t o loa{ c C-12 Q) `:'" 'si,�i.�, "4,1 y� "' i •ul � =-o 'la o � m �� � I -A oo � � 3 O � �'rl �o m � „� � ! �.. o w -.o -ilk _ S•" r =` r � NF 0v._ (: _ . . .. IN _•._L` (,U N - 1 .._--•— n r, ;A . •_.. \ Fo J .p JT w •.o � � o` _ 03 � 1FZ, }1 C /V r� K ! `h w �N N h -�, � Z ,U Z l�v�i II _ 7"' •",\"•'</1 "1 oa 'r b N OI 00 O N i V o rt1 a - o to b l 1 'o o 'moo p _ _ 73 cq v a I N w 8 r+ Q n c L I - CiU1ifR r>\ Itcv �i dQ J _ oo n` ( °o i j a+ 1- 0 4 z a ti N I u 9U e j I I F.(1.Lit's- FT- --I--- � _ k z o � co v' 4w ,Ei.__j._._- -I-_w_ v o a o `al N A r < tl :O �5 0 '` N t \ m 4 fl r h1 S. (� u In y - I -C =� /o I'7T.�B. b o f h T i o e o do : r , f O 'f �C� SAS m O .-�_ � . �. �. ... �.._-�. -yam � -m �o ,n C � X730 I 1yNu ;4, r 0 'O (i V r.n ^•o N -+ w bo i. v _ w n Z a r ' [ �N t 8 t w _'n �{ "yv. N o >4 N yo P'i rn. >v " xi - �p '?7,5 d yoyn� p a o yoT iv o t* o a a u sCl Y f Z7, n 4\ A p r r bn f A h u7 P ° )r� ;. 6�` m -� Z\whcw� V ti ' N N u N �„ A 2G,8� G21 +pp � ... I �_ to _ ` w �� �\ h m r s ® / 5 J - � ,_ I�p70, dm' I r I 9 -00 0 al \ o tm 4 , ra 5 v l+ 0 a; D �� �" V ss 3'�� 28,12CFO a In x ; r p D ® Y r z i 3 _ �1 -c _ b U o 3 `` rl fi C/ nr 3 z r v o �J a a u ri �l FI s 5 F b U " R * x o N $ r I 1 M rJ \ n EXI�7W6 u b v^ 3 m s r' r m U A z cTv� o� ?78 �1Fm o ro \ w G w qr2 d° 3 c o o v (n o N i o r ' o° 7 o + 3 0 ' ✓ ® �o �� ?6,5 3 4+0o Z6,g lSu I ala ° , �$ s 29 10 r*� i tiff L a o r `C i oC 7 p �e CCa 15 ) �, ,7 1+00 =� I M ? W ib +pp Yin o a f1 Ql 3 pOa «, X4.9 �� E O ` � W. C3, O o � O ' , 1 \ `�.>> _ •"y - `� ,ti o �`.. � � 28r(l1 ��,� '1 ' X �' '^` (� Y '\\ h� �1 . -� -"�- `\ �".. • A. Q� ,_ ` J a «:.v L'�rU `• � 6. es 9 y fin � J �IDIJ 'Lp IaA / 1 _ 3. Lb 3 �� �3, '415 + r . z6,8 r ,la Co Z o C0 V In '9,9 24,,Z ?slo 2�d 8 G I j r, U G I y v 2 0 n I ,c Z3,7 a J ' z� }� ♦ia 3r1B r t v t o / �t y" WArP rn IQ N /pf 1c, / ' yo 0— 4 `Yo`' '�° v / N T PI o 7- (� C O tQ I" ro 7c w Y r / 0274PQQO (}1 s'L L �' n� r') z-?13 n 4 30 g ..C'� 6` b" /n-�-nl..Jrr� r , {• . V 7 ( , i-7 F'8,(} E v x ILA w u+ _ 1C1 _ D 2]3` 5 o _..29 j C) V CA 14 (q x It N r r A .r 3 43 41. � p ' -c7 V v O 2 \2 2L 7 2� ,� v n rz+a0 z B •� 4 �(o,p 23 U) \. X2,8 s '.-J m 1 , N � �, , ,-sr -�- /� � \� �/�-� (.r'°,) 25,3 �� rj 2513 J 25,3 3 .w l N \ Ia, - '�' g•: `' 2jn X9,0 c 61 B4( t EFF �J°` r' � � ti r w Y Li 6 �qiClt ° i' vn ..r.,n,- ry l41FrM4-80 2315 21,0 J - , 23,5 ,i r8 O , Ii1�� � r{5� .I>� �= � I r ay� 9f 5a i N 20 SO• M. - r I o f . I�Y r. fill v,-. ` M- J TYarAr_ /^ /,y r, ! L� �� o C V ) G c215 zo.as r J Y rte, W �' .� . ; r ._ --.. 8 ' � - - A K 16 �� - i � - � � ,/ N L.✓ � (�.IIS � / �r) l� J Ir Z 4 AN N \ fir, -M bl`,'. Ii8 7 lJ f I - i �� ,� _ - �IfIA - a• OF CID G G CSP -o, -.n �� ® .,� 1 EJ o> � $ - 6y, . .j8�x/ . nl i I0%a w. Ep -•-___" ->, %pT La � 19'Kj0 � , Ll ..� \ J 1 1" "'-�h - �+' $t FJ , -"=---^• s 14,7!1 J .. . �s•- � C'F A t7/1FNj ' r }'� / ti I_�RAUJ ll�i 80 9 .4s '_ — II_RD hl ZaNWb: '1J5E QISh - tt`N m° g, , � �- (a� 4•7 A,fJ�' ' ..°Om:�- � � � A , Z6AIM) : J5 j 1JIST — ° 2 rn 0 rq ,.- - - — 0 jc o 108 0 I P, -_ - - p s (" I r .� C _ I r �• 3 IG TA70C T N o ? rV i0 ' 3 1� < (� u Xt' CA X Z Ia n p m n o < z .k., � ri J ' _ 0 C7 g ]U o O I t7 fn b U -� {f Z -� - 0 o n Eo P in �N��' CJ o � 0 f m 3m rrminor ^ SG, ° J r 7�; 4M •(�1, L r u7 U u �` 1 • -V N OF CA 003 of, Ifni � n o a r r t {{ t` LM " 11� n n z -I � m `I T � � •m- v N r��1 A z z I O t Tl r u o P Po 'aX m e v �o C r fa U f� O C b, \7 3 N N W TA to ifr _ m r61 s pm VN \ w