The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1000-122.-7-3.1 (3) i' JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK Town of Southold Southold. New York 11971 Phone: 516-765-1801 RECEIVED OF: ~~ C:.-. FOR: -<f,3:r.;. /PO.,. _ -# ~G:." _ o CASH ckffiECK ff 1"Z4 ~ BY: RECEIPT 047lJ78 DATE -r't- 19 ~ . $ ::;.s-: 01 13 ~'- - ~ '- 047486 JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK RECEIPT Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Phone: 516-765-1801 RECEIVED OF: ~",-f!",- FOR: o CASH Q.,C;I1'E'CK 1f 7 -07f () / JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Phone: 516-765-1801 RECEIVED OF: _11 - S B J< , FOR: ~ o CASH ~CK /:1(;07 BY: BY: l.l ..,1.,/0-- l. RECEIPT 048318 19 <t ;:3 $ 9uo.04 ~ , . w~ ~ o I o I: zl- o~ o ~ I- -<<: u o ~ -<~ rr:~ D~ ""'~ 1/')t><: --<<: ~;::> -<0 ,.JV"l P.. l'-l f-o - Jr, 1/') :I:: % f-o _ JtI..- ,/., /""'... ~ T . .~..,"'-......"...p. .. .. I SITE PLAN Presub mission conference (within 30 days of written request) Complete application received . (within 4 months of presub. conference) APPlication reviewed at work session (within 10 days of receipt) p:wtjr;;;;, ~t!!.J 1ii%:LI ~I Applicant advised of necessarv revisions. (within 30 days of review) -- Revised submission received p:wtj r;:l 1!!!2J t!!.J r.mJr::l --~~ Lead Agency Coordination SEQRA determination 1- J.J- f3 /1- Ji~-:' i1~ N' 0 L) REFERRED TO: Zon~ng Board of Appeals -j E s. ~ ~!~;"~.f/: (wntten c?mments within 60 days of request) Board of Trustees do GU[;a p:wtjr;.;:-] ~~J Building Department (certification) 4 - / - ]7 3 ~J 511"1 panf r;:-, C':J . Suffolk County Department of Planning rlo f'''''1 ~ ~ ~ r-wrrr::l Department of Transportation -State v<fi2 ~ ~ Department of Transportation - County /10 /;::LI ~] - Suffolk County Dept. of Health ~ ~':> /;j ~ Fire Commissioners t.---' - Sent., - 118" 1 1-1-"13 Received=-L..-;Z 1- 7..3 I<- if ,,- Silo..../)' O/'I p6>t/'f . RECEIVED: ot.(i$lI1lrreO #5y 0l3/t"J5 Draft Covenants and Restrictions Filed Covenants and Restrictions Landscape plan p:wtjr::l ~~ Lighting plan p:wtjr.::;;, e~~ r-~ IQK1 ~EJ ~H"II!COrl 'IS?- _ I~:/~ 0;< j-{,-7'1 ~~ oj(, )- f;l~11~~ ~r.::- ~t!!. Curb Cut approval Health approval ~ Drainage phm v-- s..Rrii !'" JIt"11 ~ j ~ 13 . ''1 Reviewed by Engineer- P"16L/ C Jfl/ttl/'iG 7 Approval of site plan -~('onrfitjnn~ 3// P-. hi { { Endorsement of site plan Certificate of Occupancy inspection /N:O'rIr:;:;, ~~ One year review =:L/ fOK1 . ~ r ..........~.....,-~...-- - ~. t r;. AUG 3 11993 I Prepared by Project Sponsor i! : I NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action pro~oseJ m<ij-:.:r{~,~~;iJ~i1.. mC:a'nt ekec on the environment Please complete the entire lorm. Parts A through E. Answers to! Ihese Olflf(j~.ll.e .~re' as parI ollhe applicalion lor approval and may be subject to lurther verilicalion and public review. Provide any additiona inlormation you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is e.pected thaI completion 01 the lull EAF will be dependent on inlormation currently available and will not involv- new studies. research or investigalion. If inlormation requiring such additional work is unavailable. so indicate and specif\ each instance. PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION NAME Of ACTION COFAM REALTY, owner of Property for Proposed Fast-Food Restaurant LOCATION OF ACTION (Ioclud. Sll,ol Addr'la, MunlclpillIly a.nd Count)') of Southold, Suffolk County Main Road (State Route 25) Mattituck, Town NAME Of APPLICANT/SPONSOR . I BUSINESS TELEPHONE COFAM REALTY, Owner (SIR 369-8200 ADDRESS c/o Charles R. Cuddy CITY/po I STATE I W~o81 180 Old CQIltry Road, Riverhead, NY NAME OF OWNER (., dllltlulIll. I BUSINESS TELEPfiONE I Same I I AOORESS CITY/PO I STATE I ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION Of ACTIOIl Site plan for proposed fast-food restaurant in accordance with appl icable zoning and other appl icable laws and regul ations. (See site plans submitted) Also see Conditioned Negati ve Declaration by Southold Town. Planning Board dated 2/5/91 for a restaurant at this sitE , Please Complele Each Queslion-Indicate N.A. ilnol applicable A. Site Description Physical selting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: DUrban Dlndustrial DCommercial DResidenlial (suburban] Dforest DAgriculture DOlher 3 gJRural (non.f arm) 2. T olal acreage of projecI area: APPROXIMATE ACRfACE Meadow or Ilrushland (Non-agricullural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards. cropland, pasture. elc.) Wetland (freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECl) Water Surface Area Unvegetaled (Rock. earlh or fill) Itoad.. buildings and other paved suriaces 0 Other (Indicate Iype] I anclscaped area 0 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Loa man d san d a. Soil drainage: lliaWell drained 100 % of >ile DModeralely well drained DPoody drained % of site b. If any agriculluralland is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS land Classificalion Sysleml __~ acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project sitel DYes DlNo a. Whdt is deplh to bedrock I (in feet) acres. PRESENTl Y 3 acres AFTER COfo,\PlETION o acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres .JCH:S aCres 1.1 1.9 acres acres acres acres % of site ? " .. H, .'\;JprOX:mdle p~rcenlil!:C 01 proJlosed project sire \vilh slopes: . C:.'O"IO% -_~_ % '::':.Illt;~.\) ::15% or gre.lld 2-1/~ % $ite, or district. listeu on the State or 2-1/2 .' .. 6. Is project subslantially contiguouS to. or contain a building. Registers 01 Historic Places I DYes 010 No 7. Is project substantially contiguouS to a site listed on the Register 01 National Natural Lanumark$? 8. Whal is Ihe deplh 01 the water tablel 50t (in leet) the N.llionJI ::;Yes lQlNo 9. Is site located over a primary. principal. or sole SOurce aqui/erl L'>IYes C1No 10. Do hunting. lishing or shell lishing Opportunities presently exist In the project areal 11. Does project site contain any species 01 plant or animal life that Is Identilied as DYes I8JNo According to Idenlily each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land lorms on the project sitel (i.e., clll/s. dunes. other geological formations) DYes Ii(] No Describe DYe$ DlNo threatened or endangeredl 13. 1$ the project $Ite presently u$ed by the communlly or neighborhood J$ an open space or recrealion areal DYes IiUNo II yes. explain 14. Doe$ the present $ite include scenic view$ known to be Imporlant to the communityl D~ ~o . 15. Streams within or contiguou$ to project area: non e a. Name of Stream and name 01 River 10 which it i$ tributary 16. Lake$. ponds. wetland areas within or conliguous 10 project area: a. Name none 17. 1$ Ihe $lte served by exi$ling public utilitle$1 OIYe$ DNo a) II Yes. docs sul/icient capacity exist to allow conneclionl Ii(]Yes DNo b) 1/ Ye$. will improvemenls be neCeHary to allow connectionl OIYe$ DNo 18. Is the $ite located in an agricultural di$trict certilied pur$uant to Agriculture and Market$ Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 3041 DYe$ JONo 19. Is the $lte located in or subslantlally contiguou$ to a Critical Environmental Area deSignated pursuant to Article 6 01 the ECl. and 6 NYCRll 6171 DYe$ IJINo b. Size (In acre$) 20. lias the $ite ever been u$ed lor the disposal 01 $olid or hazardoU$ wasle$1 DYe$ lpiNo B. Project Oeserl.ptlon 1. Physical dimensions and scale 01 project (WI in dimen$lons as appropriate) a. Total contiguoU$ acreage owned or controlled by project $ponsor b. Project acreage to be developed: 1 acres Initially; c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 acre$. d. Length of project. In mile$: (1/ appropriate) e. II Ihe project 1$ an expan$ion, indicate percent of expansion propo$ed f. Number 01 ofhtreet parking $pace$ exisling 0 ; propo$ed ~ ~ (& 1 ~ ). g. Maximum vehicular Irip$ generaled per hour 176 (upon complelion of project)! h. 1/ re$idential: Number and type of hOUSing units: One family Two family o 3 acres. acres u'limat;'y. %; Initially Ultimately i. Dimension$ (in feel) of large$t propo$ed structure 23' height; 42' j. linear feel of (rontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? Multiple family Condominium 75' length. width; 371 fl. 3 " . :. . 1. lIow lIIuch IIdlur,,1 millNial (i. I' ".Ick. earlh. etc.) will be removed from Ihe siteI8.400 3. Will di.turbed are... he reclaimed I lU:l'es DNo ON/A a. Ii yes. lor what intend ... purpose is the site being reclaimedl b. Will topsoil be slockpiled lor reclamalionl GIVes DNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled lor reclamationl DVes ~o 4. liow many acres 01 vegetation (trees, shrubs. ground covers) will be removed from sitel 1-1/2 acres. 5. Will any mature lorest (over 100 years old) or olher locally.lmportant vegetation be removed by this projectl DYes (jINo MXs/cubic YMds landscaped. parking. restaurant 10. 11. 6. II single phase project; Anticipated period 01 construction 7. 1/ multi.phased: a. Tolal number 01 phases anticipated b. Anticipated date 01 commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion dale of /inal phase d. Is phase 1 lunctionally dependent on subsequent phases I 8. Will blasting occur during constructionl DVes DNo 9. Number 01 jobs generated: during construction 35 Number 01 jobs eliminated by this projecl 0 Will project require relocallon 01 any projects or lacilltiesl 4 months, (including demolition). (number). monlh month DVes year. (including demolition). year. DNo ; alter project is complete 40 DVes KINo II yes. explain 12. Is surlace liquid waste disposal Involvedl DYes IONo a. II yes. indicate type 01 waste (sewage, industrial. etc.) and amount b. Name 01 water body Into which ellluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involvedl lD<Yes DNo Type Domestic sewaqe 14. Will surlace area 01 an exlsllng water body increase or decrease by proposall DYes f'(jNo Explain 15. Is project or any portion 01 projecllocated in a 100 year /lood plain I DVes jgJNo 16. Will the project generate solid wastel l29l\'es DNo a. 1/ yes. what Is the amounl per month 1 tons b. 1/ yes, will an existing solid wasle lacililY be usedl DVes lONo c. 1/ yes. give name ; locallon d. Will any'wasles nol go Into a Sewage disposa(system or into a sanitary landlllll IllIVes DNo e. II Ves, explain rot to be disoosed of in Sa.rtOOld Sanitary laOOfill 17. Will the project involve the disppsal 01 solid wastel DVes l1JNo a. II yes. what is Ihe anticipated rate 01 disposal I tons/month. b. II yes, what Is the anticipated site Iilel years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticidesl DVes OONo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per daYll DVes IONo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levelsl DYes. (jINo 21. Will project result in all increase in energy usc/ KJYes DNo II yes, indicate type(s) Electrical 22. II water .supply is Irom wells. indicate pumping capacity 20 gallons/minule. 23. Total anticipated water usa;,:e per day 2'im gallons/day. 24. Does project involve local, State or Federal funding I DVes KlNo II Ves, explain 4 c. Zoning and Planning Information 1, Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decisionl !:lYes ONo If Yes, indicate decision required: Ozoning amendment Ozonjng variance Ospeclal use permit Osubdivision I&Jsite plan Onew/revision of master plan Oresource management plan Oother 2, What is the zoning c1asslfication(sJof the sitel B aeneral business 3, What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoningl L t cavera e - 30% '. ~ " . . . ":)" App''to\ .Ils ReqlJ;.~d: , . City, Town, Vjjl.,~t' (;oarlJ City, Town, Villa!;e Planning BOil,d City, Town Zoning Board City, Countl' Health Department Other local Agencies Other Regional Agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies ~::Yes X1No lXi'/e' DNo !XYes DNo ~Yes ONo IXlYes ONo DYes IXINo (XJYes ONo DYes (XJNo 6 Type Submitlal Date Site Plan (Amended) 3/ /93 Soecial Exception Approved Commercial ~93 Zonina certification - Building3/ 93 Department NYS Dept. of Transportation / /93 4, What is the proposed zoning of the sitel S, What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoningl N/A i same 6, Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plansl Il!IYes ONo 7, What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a Yo mile radius of proposed actionl 10 R-80 A-C R-40 8, Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a Yo milel 9, It the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed I a, What is the minimum lot size proposed I N /-A 10, Will propos!!d action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districtsl DYes UNo 11, Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection}/ liiIYes ONo a, It yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demandl lOtYes ONo 12, Will the proposed action result 'in the generation of traffic Significantly above present levelsl a, If yes, Is the existing road network adequate to handle the additionaltrafticl DYes Il!IYes ONo DYes ONo IIDNo D. In/ormatlonal Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. It there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid tht'm, E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge, Applicant/Sponsor ~~;OFAM REAL TV Signature ~.::''''' ~ Title Owner / -- It Ihe ution is in Ihe Coastal Area, and you are a stale agency, complete Ihe Coaslal Assessment Form before prnceeding with this assessment, Date 8/ ~o /93 5 , TO ----- ------.~"""f - -----..,..--.--..-,---~ _____..,........- ..... _y . . South old , N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 A MEN D E D APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION Date O~lication 5/25/93 Filing Fee $525 New Use Change of Use Re-Use Extension Revision of an Approved Site Plan~ (Date of Other x Specify amended torerlect owner ****************** OF SITE PLAN Date Rec'd of Existing Use Approval as applicant Name of Business or Site COFAM REAL TV CO. Location of Site south side Main Road, Mattituck, New York Address of Site, if available Name of Applicant .GQfarn Realtv Co. Address of Applicant 4623A Sunrise Hiqhwav. Bohemia, New York 11/16 Telephone 567-4747 Person to be responsible for Construction Telephone Applicant's interest in site-check one: OWner of Land Under contract to purchase O...mer of Fee Title to Land Cofam Realty Co. Address 4623A Sunrise Hiqhway, BohemIa, NY Telephone Site Plans Prepared by Donald A. Denis License No. Address Mlin R:!., Pal 565, A:jue/xxJue, N:w York 11931 Telephone ********************* x 516-567-4747 007758 516-722-3511 Total Land Area of Site 2.9986 AC Sq.Ft. Zone District Existing Use of Site vacant Proposed Use of Site Gross Floor Area of Existing Structure(s) 0 sqft. Gross Floor Area of Proposed Structure(s) 3.000 sqft. Percent of Lot Coverage by Building(s) 3% Percent of Lot for Parking (where applicable) oer Town Code Percent of Lot for Landscaping(where applicable) oer Town Code Datum(Specify)u.s.G.s. Other survey Has applicant been granted a ~i~~x~x~ special exception by Board of Appeals yes Business B retaIl o sqft , sqft. If, '!. " ". " Case Number 3970-SE Name of Applicant COFAM REAL TV CO. Date of Decision 12/16/91 Expiration Date Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be stored or handled at the site? no If so, have proper permits been obtained? Number and Date of permit issued NO ACTION (EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION) MAY BE OF SITE PLAN BY THE PLANNING BOARD. UNDErr-;fFUW'IL1if]!'R~h il;y"-"-.- '1,: i . jU',) 2 1993 LSOU~'TOV;;ii......J PLANNING BaAl\!) .f' ~ "-- ... w:" .T------r.....- -~~_,__-~T~--, t , APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STANLEY COHEN being dUly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at 4f>?,A '>IInri se HiglH'ay 119 11 e'ti a NY 11718 in the State of New York, and that he 1S the owner of t e above property, or that he is the Partner of the Coram Realty Co. , (Title) (Specify whether Partnership a Partnership which is hereby making application; that the or Corporation) owner or his heirs, Successors or assigns will, at his own expense, install the required site improvements in accordance with Article XIII of the Code of the Town of Southold for the area stated herein and that there are no existing structures or improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that title to the entire parcel, including all rights-of-way, have been clearly established and are shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance with the plans submitted. Signed ~ /'1.. '" ~,- -R<1 ~ /STANLEY COHE , Partner Sworn to before me this (Owner) d-~ 19~ CHARLES R. CtJDOY "-Y Publici, ~ 01 Newltllt No. 11872226 0ueIIfIeci In SuffoIIc Countv Commll8lon Exp/rw "-""* 3', '"JI Signed d.,-<"'/7:/ ~. I"...7=:-. (Partner or~Corporat Officer ~nd Title) o U Z = "- ~ ~ o ~ y y z = f==1 d ~ C#j Z o U N f==1 = ~ o ~ d W ~ d <r:: ~ f==1 Z w kd :;;;::; w ~ ~ ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR PROPOSED BURGER KING MAIN ROAD, HAMLET OF MATl'lTlJCK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Prepared for: COFAM Realty Corp. clo Charles R. Cuddy Attorney at Law 180 Old Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Prepared by: Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. 368 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, New York 11725 Contact: Theresa Elkowitz, Principal (516) 499-2222 June, 1993 ~---"".~-" ~~ ~ ..-. ~ ~~, ~~~ '" rn)t:, [, ,; ~LU'~ 3 0 SOUT'~:_:: :) i PLiU:'lL~LjJ~<a.~_J INTRODUCTION Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. (hereinafter F&E) was contracted by COFAM Realty Corp. through its attorney, Charles R. Cuddy, to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of a Burger King of 3,000 square feet on the south side of Main Road, Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold. In addition, F&E was asked to compare these potential impacts to those identified with the prior proposal to construct a 4,100 square foot McDonald's on the same property. Finally, based upon review ofrelevant documentation, F&E was requested to render an opinion as to whether the development and occupancy by a Burger King, as opposed to a McDonald's, requires a separate review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order to complete this evaluation, F&E reviewed the following documents: I. Site Plan, SP-2, of proposed McDonald's prepared by Raymond F. Fellman, Architect, with survey information prepared by Teas, Barrett, Lanzisera & Frink dated April 6, 1990. 2. Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) listing McDonald's Corporation dated July 31, 1990. 3. Short EAF listing McDonald's Corporation dated August 14, 1990. 4. Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Town of Southold Planning Board dated February 5, 1991. 5. Action of the Board of Appeals for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for a fast-food restaurant (decision rendered December 16, 1991). 1 6. Site Plan of proposed Burger King prepared by Donald A. Denis, Registered Architect, dated March 26, 1993 with final revision date of May 14, 1993. 7. Correspondence from Town of Southold Board of Appeals confirming that the site plan prepared by Donald A. Denis is "primarily in conformance with the Special Exception permit issued to the owner (Cofam Realty) and original plan approved thereunder" dated March 30, 1993. 8. Site cross-section of proposed Burger King prepared by Donald A. Denis. All documents reviewed and relied upon, with the exception of the site plans (items I and 6, above), are included in Appendix A. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Methodolol!:Y For each potentially significant environmental issue relating to the development of the proposed Burger King, F&E reviewed the information provided (see Introduction) and compared said impacts with those identified as being associated with the previously proposed McDonald's. At the forefront, it should be understood that environmental impacts are related to the development and operation of a particular use, in this case, a fast food establishment. Thus, when viewing this matter, there are no differing environmental impacts between Burger King and McDonald's. Both these establishments are fast food restaurants; the name of the establishment has no environmental effect whatsoever. Therefore, the comparison of environmental impacts enumerated below relate to the development of a fast food restaurant. The narrative references to McDonald's and Burger King are used solely to distinguish between the original plan prepared by Raymond F. Fellman in 1990 and the revised plan prepared by Donald A. Denis in 1993. Site Location and Area The site originally proposed for development as a McDonald's is exactly the same as that currently proposed for development as a Burger King. The subject property is located on the south side of Main Road, Hamlet of Mattituck and is designated in the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000 - Section 122 - Block 7 - Lot 3.l. The site area consists of 2.9986 acres (130,621 square feet). 3 Buildinl!: Area and Coverage The McDonald's building was proposed to be 4,113 square feet in size with lot coverage calculated at 3.1 percent. Paved area was proposed at 40,358 square feet (31 percent), and landscaped/natural area was calculated at 86,150 square feet (66 percent). The Burger King site plan indicates building area as 3,000 square feet with lot coverage calculated at 2.3 percent. Thus, the proposed building is 27 percent smaller than the originally proposed fast food establishment. Paved area for the Burger King equals 43,508 square feet (33.3 percent), and landscaped/natural area is calculated at 64.4 percent. Thus, the magnitude of post-development impervious and pervious areas are substantively similar . Parkin~ The Town of Southold requires one parking space per two seats in a fast food restaurant or one parking space per 50 square feet, whichever is greater. The 4,113 square foot proposed McDonald's required 83 parking spaces. The McDonald's site plan included the paving of 55 parking spaces and the landbanking of 28 spaces. The 3,000 square foot proposed Burger King requires 60 parking spaces. This site plan indicates that 55 parking spaces will be paved and 15 spaces will be landbanked. Both plans conform with parking requirements. Additionally, both McDonald's and Burger King propose the initial development of 55 parking spaces. 4 Sanitary Sewa~e The subject property lies in Groundwater Management Zone IV which permits a maximum flow of 300 gallons per day (gpd) per acre. Thus, the maximum permitted sanitary flow is calculated as: 2.9986 acres x 300 gpd/acre = 899.58 gpd The Conditioned Negative Declaration issued by the Town of Southold indicated that, with regard to sanitary sewage, the McDonald's would not exceed maximum permitted daily flow. As excerpted from said Conditioned Negative Declaration, "The proposed project has been reviewed by Suffolk County Department of Health Services, which has determined that the project will not discharge more than 300 gallons per day per acre, which is the sanitary discharge limitation in Groundwater Management Zone IV." Information contained on the site plan for Burger King calculates the daily sanitary flow at 860 gpd. Thus, the Burger King will conform with the regulations of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for sites situated within Groundwater Management Zone IV. Trans.POrtation Issues The original projection of peak hour vehicular trips for McDonald's included a drive-through window. This projection was 250 vehicles in the peak hour. However, the Town of Southold denied the request for a drive-through window. The projection of peak hour trips for the proposed Burger King is estimated at 160 vehicles per hour. 5 McDonald's agreed to provide roadway improvements as required by the New York State Department of Transportation. Burger King has also agreed to provide improvements as required by the Department of Transportation. Aesthetics In order to mitigate aesthetic impacts, the McDonald's building was to be set 140 feet back from the road and was to have landscaped buffers along property boundaries. Further, the building was designed as in a cape cod style in order to conform with the general architectural character of the area. The Burger King site plan indicates a building setback of 140 feet from Main Road with landscaped buffers along property boundaries. In addition, the Burger King building is also being designed in a cape cod style to blend with area architecture. It should also be noted that the grade has been changed to comply with the Town Code and to reduce the incline at the entrance. 6 CONCLUSION Based upon review of available information and documentation, it has been determined that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Burger King do not substantially differ from those associated with the original proposal for a McDonald's. Further, the Burger King plan is in conformance with the reasons supporting the Conditioned Negative Declaration issued for the McDonald's application by the Town of SouthoId Planning Board on February 5, 1991. In conclusion, the environmental review has been completed in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act and no further environmental study is necessary. 7 APPENDIX A FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chainnan Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTH OLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765.1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 March 30, 1993 Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Stanley Cohen, Cofam Realty (Owner) Proposed Fast Food Restaurant at Mattituck 1000-122-7.3.1 (2.99 acres) Dear Mr. Cuddy: This will confirm that the footprint for the proposed fast-food restaurant, without drive-thru facilities, as shown on the latest plan (prepared by Donald A. Denis received March 29, 1993) is acceptable and the plan is found to be primarily (90-95%) in conformance with the Special Exception permit issued to the owner (Cofaro Realty) and original plan approved thereunder. Based on this map, a new Special Exception permit will not be required. The property owner will, of course, be required to proceed in obtaining final site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board, as well as obtaining approvals from the County Health Department, N.Y.S. Department of Transportation, and Town Building Department. Very tr/ yours, /-" ../ . . ~./~:?/ //'"1/- v /?y/(t0/'- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN v ," ( ( nl P. Goehringcr. 01<linnan Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen. Jr. .---::--.... .- : :;'! " ..., ~?" :~.i_:L~.......:..::~\ :: :\' "..,..:J.' ~\1 -': ";... r-, l.1 ~.J _,' i ~,,.-:" ::::('1 -,'.,<, ....~'.c:;J' ;;:.'_',/ . '.', ,., '. ',' "~" . ..6,y "< 'It "1" .,'" ., "i,r -~>""~77i1.:.:;.)-' SCUrf L. HARRIS Supervisor EALS BOARD MEMBERS J:m1CS Dini7.io. Jr. Robert ^. Vi 11 a hone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN 0'1' SO'UTIIOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road r.o. nox 1179 SOIl.hohl, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765,1823 Telerhone (516) 765-1800 ACTION OF THE BOI\RD OF APPEALS Upon Application No. 3970 dated November 19, 1991 made by COFAM REALTY COMPANY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, for a fast-food restaurant and a drive-through restaurant window facility. Provisions of the Zoning Code under which this application has been made is Article X, Section 100-101B. WHEREAS, after due notice, public hearings were held on March 8, 1991, April 5, 1991, and November 21, 1991, at which time all persons, corporations, organizations and the like, who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and . WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding arp.as; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: SITE INFORMATION 1. The premises in question is located along the south side of the Main Road (State Route 25) in the Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southo1d, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 122, Block 7, Lot 3.1. 2. The subject premises is vacant land and consists of a total area of 130,621 sq. ft. (2.9986 acres), with 371.37 ft. frontage along the Main Road and 317.14 ft. along Old Main Road. 3. Architectural renditions have been furnished for reliance by the board members in making this determination which shows the building to be of cape cod design. It should be noted that the architectural renditions are also before the Town Planning Board. Architectural reviews will also be required by the Town Planning Board when processing the site plan application under the site plan regulations of the zoning code. Also in considering this application, site plan elements, egress, ingress, accessory parking, etc. as proposed by the applicant are more particularly shown on the maps prepared by Raymond F. Fellman, A.I.A. (sitp. plan maps lastly dated June 7, 1991; Water and Sewer Plan SP-3 dated 9-23-91; etc.). ( ( Page 2 - Appl. No. 3970-SE Matter of COFAM REALTY Decision Rendered December 16, 1991 IMPROPER PARTY STATUS 4. During the initial stage of this project, an application was filed with the Southold Town Planning Board for site plan approval (which has not been decided as of this date and is pending site plan reviews) and with the Southold Town Board of Appeals, both filed by McDonald's Corporation through its agents and/or attorneys for the proposed: (a) establishment of a fast-food restaurant, and (b) establishment of a drive-thru window restaurant. 5. After the first and second hearings, the following factors became apparent: (a) The applicant, McDonald's Corporation, did not appear to be a proper party to this application since McDonald's Corporation, although claiming on the written documentation to be a Contract Vendee, was neither a Contract Vendee or the owner. The application therefore was not properly before the Board of Appeals up until the date of the final hearing in November 1991. (b) Rather than conclude the hearing process and continue with a defective application, the applicant and parties involved were advised of this defect, by written notice, and were provided with an opportunity to amend their application to make same procedurally correct. (c) On November 19, 1991, two days prior to the final hearing under Application No. 3970, CoFam Realty, the landowner, made application to this Board as a proper party for a "Special Exception for a proposed restaurant under Article X, Section 100-101B, subsection 9 ...." It is their application which is being addressed, although the board is aware that the ultimate intent is to erect a McDonalds restaurant. 6. Therefore, this Board is pursuing the application process for the applicant-owner, CoFam Realty with the owner's intent to establish a restaurant pursuant to those standards and conditions for such a Special Exception set forth in the Southold Town Zoning Code. RESTAURANTS BY CODE DEFINITIONS 7. A "restaurant" is defined in the Southold Town Zoning Code under Section 100-13 as follows: " Any premises where food is commercially sold for on-premises consumption to patrons II , ' ( ( Page 3 - Appl. No. 3970-SE Matter of COFAM REALTY Decision Rendered December 16, 1991 seated at tables or counters. Any facility making use of a carhop or parkIng lot service to cars or for the consumption of food to be eaten in said cars or outdoors shall not be considered a "restaurant" for the purpose of this (zoning) chapter and shall be deemed to be a "drive-in or fast-food restaurant." 8. Such a "restaurant" which is only for patrons seated at tables or counters is permitted subject to site plan approval by the Town Planning Board in the following Zone Districts: (a) per Section 100-91A(7) - Hamlet Business (b) per Section 100-101A(2) - General B Business (c) per Section lOO-BIA(2d) - Light Business. 9. A "fast-food restaurant" is defined in the Southold Town Zoning Code under Section 100-13 as follows: RESTAURANT, DRIVE-IN OR FAST-FOOD - Any establishment whose principal business is the sale of foods, frozen desserts, or beverages to the customer in a ready to consume state, usually served in paper, plastic or other disposal containers, for consumption within the restaurant building, elsewhere on the premises or for carryout for consumption off the premises. 10. A "drive-thru or drive-up" (the latter being a term utilized by the applicant) restaurant is a use other than a carhop or drive-in facility as defIned in our zoning code. The inside counter service which is the norm available for patrons to purchase foods for consumption off the premises is not accessible, and instead motor vehicles are used for accessibility between the building and Off-premIses consumption instead of passengers leaving parked cars. There is no provision in the Southold Town Zoning code for a drive-thru or drive-up restaurant, especially by special exceptions (special permit) application. 11. A minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. of land is required for each restaurant use, regardless of whether it is a table-service restaurant, a fast-food restaurant, or a car-hop restaurant use. By reason of the fact that there is no public water or sewer facilities available to the site the Suffolk County Department of Health Services recommended that any fast food restaurant such as the one specified herein be placed upon a lot having an area of not less than one hundred twenty thousand . square feet. By this application it was clearly demonstrated to the Board that, in fact, what was contemplated represented not ~, but two principal restaurant uses-the first being a "Fast- Food " Restaurant and the second being a "drive-thru/drive-up" - " :, ( ( Page 4 - Appl. No. 3970-SE Matter of COFAM REALTY Decision Rendered November 21, 1991 restaurant. The site in question as set forth above is one-hundred thirty thousand six hundred twenty one square feet. APPLICANT'S TWO PROPOSED RESTAURANT FACILITIES 12. The applicant has requested a Special Exception for both a fast-food restaurant and a drive-thru restaurant. From testimony during the hearings, it is evident that the fast-food corporation intending to enter into a Contract of Sale with the current owner is proposing not only a fast-food restaurant with a food counter for removal to on-site tables or Off-premises consumption, but also a separate restaurant area for access from an area other than a parking lot and solely by motor vehicles. The applicant has also indicated that such a secondary restaurant use will provide 40% or more of the business. 13. Such a "drive-thru restaurant" is clearly not a carhop facility defined in our zoning code, and it is clearly in this Board's determination a secondary restaurant use able to operate independently and separate from a fast-foOd table/counter restaurant use. 14. The area to be utilized for the "drive-thru restaurant" is also not in an area utilized as a parking lot, and instead utilizes that area used by all other vehicles entering and exiting the subject premises, which also has an increase of vehicular traffic congestion within the site, which in turn causes increased risk and danger to pedestrians entering the building from the parking lot(s). CODE STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 15. Article XXVI, Section 100-263, Sub-paragraphs A through F of the Zoning Code provides several standards, which standards the Board Members have considered concerning the use of the fast-food restaurant only in this Special Exception application. 16. Other considerations by the Board were also given, among other things, to sub-paragraphs A through P of Section 100-264. 17. Another area also considered at length by the Board is the issue of the removal of solid waste and its effects upon town facilities. The applicant has agreed to covenant ship the solid waste resulting from this proposed fast-food restaurant and related uses out of town and not to utilize the Southold Town landfill during operation of this new business. (The Town has a court action pending at this time and consideration of the effects of such new restaurant uses and their effects, cumulatively or otherwise upon the town landfill, if permitted by the State to remain open, must be further evaluated.) il ( ( Page 5 - Appl. No. 3970-SE Matter of COFAM REALTY Decision Rendered December 16, 1991 NOW, TIIEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception UI,tar Article X, Section 100-101B(9), for the establishment of a fast-food restaurant only as defined and described in paragraph #9, supra, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. An emergency exit must be made available off of Old Main Road for fire and emergency purposes; 2. Sufficient on-site parking areas must be made available for numerous transient buses as recommended by the Southold Town Planning Board; 3. No directional, advertising or other Off-premises signs shall be permitted. 4. No other separate business or restaurant use shall be permitted other than a fast-food restaurant use. ,5. This Special Exception approval is limited to that applied for and shown for consideration as per the plans and drawings submitted to this Board, and any change in the footprint of the building requires re-application for re-consideration, after proper notice and public hearing. An original final site plan print shall be furnished to the Board of Appeals for review prior to Planning Board Chairman's signing of the final maps for updating purposes, acquiescence, and permanent record-keeping purposes (without the need for further hearing, etc. for such review). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that portion of the subject application as it pertains to "drive-thru or drive-up restaurant" is and the same is hereby Denied for the following reason: 1. The use intended is not permitted by Special Exception under the Zoning Code of,the Town Southold either by definition or within the respective zone. 2. There is insufficient square footage on site to support approval of a second primary restaurant use. 3. The increase traffic flow resulting from drive- thru/drive-up restaurant would adversely impact upon the existing two lane highway which provides access to the site furthermore, the preexisting nonconforming reSidential use to the west and the hundred acre residential (AR-40) zone directly to the south and east of the premises renders this particular location not suitable for this particular use (section 100-264A). ( ( Page 6 - Appl. No. 3970-SE Matter of COFAM REALTY Decision Rendered December 16, 1991 4. The approval of a second restaurant use would put unnecessary strain upon the private water and sewer facilities available to the site(lOO-264D). 5. The site has insufficient square footage per the recommendation of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (lOO-264K). 6. Access to the site is by means of State Road SR25 (two-lane east-west highway) which provides access to and from the hamlet of Mattituck and is not suitable to the use intended (lOO-264M) 7. Although the applicant agreed to covenant not to deposit solid waste in the landfill of the Town of Southold, it refused to covenant to not deposit any of its waste in any transfer station in the event the landfill would ultimateiy close. Considering the amount of solid waste generated by the applicant same will provide an undue strain upon such transfer station(lOO-2640). VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Messrs. Goehringer, Dinizio and Doyen. NAYES: Members Villa and Grigonis. (Members Villa and Grigonis felt the application should be denied in its entirety for several reasons: out of character with the area, there is a better profitable use to which this property may be used, excessive burdens on governmental facilities, etc.). This resolution was duly adopted with a 3-to-2 margin. lk ~ .--" ;..~ ...-------/ / ~// /' /~'1'-C// 4.v/:Yt- /' GERARD P. GOEHRINGERyCHAIHMAN . -~<~~ ~-;;>~~ ,. ~.>' \ ..~,.,; ;:',..~ . ',' ,. l -~<-s ,,- .::: Jl" '-~?'.-1 .j .':":; j" '~.,. :::. 'V '. ._- ,..-.. , :.::;",." =') --\ -. -'" " ... "'1 I . ....":... --.,.;. ~"'... . ., "'-- ~-:;/ ......,/.. ~......\. ... ", ,- . '...v.\ .~~. -'11/ . 't ~.v..,; ''''--~ .,,- . . ~~ . , . PLANNING BOARD !\IE~llJERS Bennclt Orlowski. Jr.. Chairm:m George Rilchie Lalham. Jr. Richard G. Word Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edw<!rds SCOTT L. HARRIS SlIpt,'n.'i"or Telephone (516) 765.19JR PLANNING nOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD Town I Fall. 53095 ~lain Road 1'.0. no.' 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fa. 15161 765-IH2J State Environmental Quality Review CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance February 5, 1991 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Law. The Southo1d Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Corporation SCTI-l# : 1000-122-7-3.2 Location: South side of Main Road, east of Bray Avenue, Mattituck SEQR Status: Type I Unlisted ( ) ( X) Description of Action: Proposed restaurant on 2.98 acres for McDonald's Corporation. Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes (X No ( (. (. / Page 2 McDonald's Corporation Conditions for McDonalds Restaurant 1. The impacts that will result from the present lack of turning lanes shall be addressed by the installation of roadway modifications to State Route 25 to ensure that traffic safety is not compromised, and that road capacity does not fall below 1990 service levels. Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, and the following specific reasons: 1. Subject property is zoned B (Business). The proposed use is consistent with this zoning district. The project has been compared to the bulk and dimensional requirements of the zoning district and is found to be in conformance with these requirements. 2. The proposed project has been reviewed by Suffolk County Department of Health Services, which has determined that the project will not discharge more than 300 gallons per day per acre, which is the sanitary discharge limitation in Groundwater Management Zone IV, when public water is not available. The scope of the project is consistent with groundwater management guidelines as outlined in the 208 Study, and Suffolk County's Sanitary Code (Article 6). 3. The site is mostly devoid of native vegetation. It is being recolonized by herbaceous weed. The site was not found to contain any unique species of vegetation or wildlife. 4. The applicant has supplied architectural elevations in order to identify the "style" of the structure. Review of these elevations finds that the project is in conformance with the general architectural style of the area. ., (,e ( c Page 3 McDonalds 5. The applicant has completed a Traffic Impact Study which demonstrates that the project is not likely to have an undue burden on the road transportation system of the immediate area. The quantified traffic impacts can be mitigated by the installation of roadway modifications such as, but not limited to, turning lanes, strengthened shoulders, and a deceleration lane. 6. The building has been set back 140 feet from the road. Further, the site design provides for "landbanking" of parking stalls in order to'maintain natural areas. Landscaping has been proposed around the perimeter of the site in order to impr.ove visual aesthetics, and provide a buffer for neighboring residentially zoned properties. For Further Information: Contact Person: Robert G. Kassner Address: Planning Board Telephone Number: (516) 765-1938 cc: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission David Morrell, DEC Judith Terry, Town Clerk Building Department Board of Trustees Applicant NY State Department of Transportation ) '.c' .'__ -.. ~r,J.- . - .-- --() l' j 617.21 '- Appendix C State Environmental Duality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only SEaR I ! i j I I .' t / P T' C. INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) , AR PRO \1 . . ! "- ~~ - --- 1. ~""'Hf .~P{).,~':R .1 2. PROJECT NAMe !!eOonalci., (:~C Qor:at ion site plan , a. "'OoIICT Lt:CUrcm: Suffolk - . "IiINCJO~ln., 'Iatt i tuck eo.,ntv .. "'I~f LC::.; TIO.'J (SUM! address and road Inlersec:tlon3. prominent landmaril.'IJ. 81(:_. or provide mal3l .:lOut" 31de ~lain Road, east of Bray Avenue, Mattituck , I. IS PROPOS Eo ACTION: o ModlficationJalteratlon mN~w o expansIon I. tJEscmOE PROJECT BRIEFLY: . r.~staurant construction , 'f. AMOUNT OF LANO AFFECTED: 'nill:lllv 2.9886 acres UltimatelY 2.9886 .1erts e. WILl. PFlOPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHeR EXISTmG LAND use REStRICTIONS? :0 v.. 0",. If NO, desc/lbe brieflY , 9. ,^HAT IS PFtESEN"t LAND Use IN VICINITY OF PROJECT"! , :J Aesi(l(lnlial o lndu,sUial :rE Commerf;ial o Aglic::ullute o ParkJForesuOpen SDace OO'"e. OeScrloe: . - 10. tOEs ACTION INVOlve A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING. NOW OFf ULTIMAiELY FROM ANY OlHER GOVERNMENTAl.. AGENCY IFEO!:RAL. ~iT A TE OR LOCAL)? :[J v.. (',"'. II ye$, list ageney(s) 3l'1G ~ermlUapprovals Services, Sc.uthold Town Plaming Board, Suffolk County Department of Health New York State Departmen t of Transportation 11. Does ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE; A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? o y~, f[J No I! 'Jf!.~, liat :Igen~y name ..nd perml1JapprQv,1 12. AS A RESULT OF PFlOPQSEO ACTION WILL e.XISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? _~] Yes Ii0 No ' . I CERTIFY THAT THe 'NFORMATION PAOVloeo ABove IS TRue TO THe BEST OF MY KNOWLEDce , ' ' ., , !-/ G .;J, _ .-- . . /')P' ) ""'r r:.... 'I' }~ ~/< ". (' " , (/ - /-~~,~ '.J:I.:-' -, .,- - I J\'.'4>nN"O:~9lam., .~ ,I;F-.- '_,I i'f:--':'" !::f.Z ~ , r~'-";/" ' I ,- D~ 8: -,.') -.. . -/ /.~ , ( /- Slqtl;llufe~" '~'-----/ ? r ,- :S:::z:: - . . '..... "~'-:":-'---'''-'~ / f' " the action is in the Coastal Area. and you are a state agency. complete the Coastal Assessment Form belore proceeding with this assessment 'of ~t L ~ ;,. ~:'. .r OVER 1 (Cont~nued on reverse s~de) ~c:"' ~:,:,~ ~> .. ,_ L(JW~ ~Jc 0~U~rtVWU ... .. PART.-PROJECT INFORMAT,.WN o Prepared by Project sponsor. OTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action propos"d may have a significant elf"ct on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers to th"se questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and publ c review Provide anv additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information current,y available and will not in_olve new 5tudi~s, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is un;:,vailable, so indica.te and 5P,~dfv each instance. <;!II O. NAME OF ACTION McDonald .s Corporation site plan lOCATtON OF ACTION (h'lclu(J8 Street Addre9s. MunIcipality And County) s/s Main Road, Mattituck, New York NAME OF APPLlCANTfSPONSOR McDonald ,s Corporation, c/o Benr AOORESS 320 Love Lane -J Count of Suffclk BUSINESS TELEPHONE 616)298-4 67 C~TY/PO Mattituck NAME OF QWNEPI (If dllferMt) Cofam Realty 4QORE$S ~ CITY/PO ~ ZIP CODE I I ----, \ I OESCRrprrON OF ACTION construction of restaurant Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project. both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: DUrban Dlndustrial DCommercial DResidential (suburban) DForest DAgriculture OOther 2.9986 lURural (non.farm) 2. Total acreage of project area: APPROXIMATE ACREACE Meadow or Brushland (Non.agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards. cropland. pasture. etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 2S of ECl) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock. earth or fill) Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces. Other (Indicate tvpe) acres. PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION , QqRI'> aCres 0 acres acres acres acres a<:res acres ac;res acres .)cres acr~s acres acres acres acres a..:res 3. What is predominant soil tvpe(s) on project sitel loam a. $oil drainage: [iiiWell drained 100 % of !.ite o Poorly drained % of site b. Ir any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NVS Land ClasSIfication Systeml 0 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcropping. on project sitel DVe. 8JNo a. What is depth to bedrockl (in feet) and sand DModerately well drained % of site 2 n'd n:!.0 06, to ~ntl \ .- ate p~rcenta~e or propi prole.e with ,lopes: ro;ect substantial Iv contiguous to. or contain a building, egisters of I~istaric Places? DYes KlNa Is project substantially contiguous to a sit~ listed on t.he Register of National Naturallcndmarks? What is the depth af the water table? + 50 (in feet) . 9. I, site lacated aver a primary. principal. ar sale saurce aquifer? DYes tJNp 10. 01' hunting. fishing pr shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the praject area? 11. Does praject site cantain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened ar endangered? DYes 19Na Accarding to Identify .iich "pecles 12. Are there any unique or unusual land farms on the project site? (i.e.. cliffs. dunes. other geological fprmations) DYes iZlNo Describe ... 130.10% 98 _.... E10-15% 015~{' or _ter ____ 0/0 site. or di5trict, listed .:m the Stat~ or the Natlol"l::ll 2 ." .0 DYes DlNo DYes ~Na 13. Is the project site presently used by the cammunity or neighborhoad as an open space or recreation area? DYes IKlNa It yes. explain 14. Does th~ present site Include scenic views known ta be important to the community? DYes G(lNo 15. Str~ams within or contiguous t.o project area: a. Name at Stream and name ot River to which it is tributary NONE 16. Lakes. ponds. wetland areas within or CQntigupus tQ project area: a. Name NONE 1 i. Is the site served by existing public utilities? \ijYes DNo a) If Yes. does sufficient capacity exist tQ allpw cannection? b) If Y~!" will improvements be necessary to allow connection? b. Size (In acres) f1gYes &:lYes DNo . DNo 18. Is th" site located in an agricultural district c"rtified pursuant ta Agriculture and Markets Law. Article 25./I.A. Secllan 303 and 304? DYes XJNo 19. Is the site lacated In or substantially ~ontiguaus to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECl. and" NYCRR 61;? DYes [JNo 20. Has the site ever be eo used tor the disposal of solid or hazardQus wastes? DYes . KlNo B. Project Description 1. Physical dim"nsions and scale at project (till in dimensiQns as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreag" owned or controlled by praject sponsor b. Project acreage ta be develQped: 2.9986 acres initially; c. Praject acreage to remain und"ve!aped 0 acres. d. length of project. in miles: (It apprapriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicatf: percent of expansion proposed %; f. Number af Qft.street parking spaces existing 0 ; prapos"d . per code g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hQur 250 (upQn completion ot project)? (125 ingress) & . . 125 egress h. If reSidential: Number and type ot housing units: One Family Twa Family o 2.9986 acres. acres ultimately. Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately i. DimensiQns (in feet) of largest prQPosed structure 18 height; 52 width: j. linear feet of frontage along a public thoraughtare project will occupy is' 171 10o,"n~th. per COde ft. nls & 371 f:; ,,/ :1 ....'.. 0't . d 01:L005. 10 ~n~' ". VII ,web natural matertal fi.j.) . rock, ,.h. etc.) will be rem6v~d from Ji: site? 0 I disturbed .areas be rccla.d? ~:J'I'~s ONo ON/A . ~. If yes, for what intend.~"': purpose is the site being mclaimed? ,....ot-;r,~ 1 kl1~; n':;'Q'7 Co [':::tY"t,..i'f"'l~ b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~Yes ONo as needed c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? lolYes ONo as needed 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees. shrubs. ground covers) will be removed from SIte? +] acres. 5. Will anv mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally.important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes [][No tons/cubic vMd:; 8. 9. 10. 11. 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. 15 phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? Will blasting occur during construction? DYes GNo Number of jobs generated: during construction 50 Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? " months. (including demolition). (number). month month DYes year, (induding demolition}. year. ONo ; after project is complete + 100 DYes IilNo If yes. explain 12 Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes rnNo a. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage. industrial. etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effiuent will be discharged 13 Is subsurface liqUid waste disposal involved? [XYes ONo Type domestic !'1pwpr"9" 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal' DYes DNa Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? DYes fJNo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? KJYes DNa. a. If yes. what is the amount per month 11>: tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? DYes IDNo . c. If yes. give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes. explain DYes til-No 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes IDNo a. If yes. what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes. what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. WiI' project lIse herbicide, or pesticides' DYes g]No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes ltINo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient. noise levels? DYes GlNo 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? exYes DNo If yes. indicate type(s) electricity 22. If water supply is from wells. indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute. per SCDOllS code 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 2120 gallons/day. 24. Doe, project involve local. State or Federal funding? DYes I!9No If Yes: explain 4 6'd eH :<'0 06, Hl Olnl:l .ovals R.eqUlred: ~ '- / < .. DYes ,yo Town. Village 6oard. City, Town, Village Planning Board City. Town Zoning Board City. County Health Department Other Local Agencies Other Regional Agencies State Agencws UlYes IitiYes ~Yes DYes roYes i!9Yes DYes Federal Agencies " DNo DNo DNo DNo DNo DNQ ONo DNo .......... ,,' .,.....-.... 'r:~-. ' r-" :-)llhmitl.11 D.,te .Y?I .si te plan ~~~~;~1 ~y~~nn wato~ ~ ~ow~~~~~ SCPC NYS Dept of TransP9rtation C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? !iJYes DNo If Yes. indicate decision required: Ozoning amendment Ozoning varianc;e Dspecial use permit C1subdivision Rlsite- plan Onew(revision of master plan Oresoun:e management plan Qother ~@g~i ~l Qxcgpt.isn-----=-"--' 2. What is the zoning c1assification(s)ol the site? R 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? per ~outhold Town ~nnina Cnd~ 4. What is the proo05ed zoning of the site? R 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site If developed as permitted by the proposed zOning? per Southold Town Zoning Code 6. Is the proDosed aclion consistent with the recommended uses in adOPted local land use piansl []lYes ON 7. What are the predominant land users) and zoning classifications within a '4 mile radius of proposed action? S, LIO, R-80, A-C 10. 11. 12. iZ!Yes DNo 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 'I. milel 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the/ormation of sewer or water districts? Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreatIon. fire protection)? J<JYes DNo a. If yes. is existing capacity sufficient to handle proiected demand? !;lYes DNo Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levelsl a. 'If yes. is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traHid DYes DYes \(j~!o educ3tion. I:;olke, DYes GONo DNo D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts as<oci,lted with your proposal. please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitil':at~ or avoid them. _ E. Verification J certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. ApplicantlSP.orsor Name y-"Q "DI'r-JALr)'<:" COt:: lo~)ep. "'10r./ Date S. ~.,~ ,,- /C" ~ ' .gnature :'; .----'---; 7 f'~ C"~;r- ~. . - Title f.4;.~ "~'''--,-...._,-=,____jJ__.L. J';:1-,._;r-- If.the a~tion is in the doasta' Area, .:d you are i state agency, complete the Coulal A..essmenl Form belore proc"eding w,th thiS assessment. . S'd 7, , 9' .,), I .~ I 5 60:LO 06. to ~nti' '; ~ , . I ,~;,: ' I I . ( I I I I I 1 I. I I~ I I J I , I I I I 1 'I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I ~ . I 3 I.. I I I I \ I ' 1 " It' . \~, -~'. i:': b; j "i . "." .i,lj -::~~.. {? . ,-;). . ;' ~\. I'. I ;. 1 ',' :, I ":\. ,r ::' I ...! ,~: . I ~'., If ~,.,.:: I~ \( I, ~ ,P I,}':,' I; , I' I:" Ii;;' J 'f I ..', j :. I ".... \ ,I; I " . . I ~ 'f ; I ~ .', I I . I I , I ' I :i..... ",',-' .' .' ...;, I' , 'i', ,;i: I :~ I:: I a " Ii t '. I, I ;', ' I W:,', .,' ' -'-I ';:,~.., I " . I ~, I ,:,'.', ji", ", I...: . .' Ii I. I.,' \. ,,;., I I \. : 1" I ;. . ~I '(.,!" ~ . "I, e!" If, ~ ~. ,'f~".' 1,.' . "1 I . .W..' ., ~_. I', .,', " I .' I, I' ~-{ 41: Iz. . I' , ~ ,. F. -...' I ., . ,:: '< I" "' I .j' '..'1 I". .' 'I. . I ' I.;' . IH. Ii'" r l' I .' I ~i~~ H tN ~8~r;j!! c! '9 J~~ ~ ~ ~:9 ~.... ~1' , jg<~~ ~ . '" ~~J "~~,Jll ~ ~~;~ \ JI ~~ ~, .tr! ,i oz ,fI, ;;B r _ ll' ~~ f if j ~ ['l l ~j. l~ ' ~~. , I I I I.. , I" "j 1 . I I I:'; 1'-: I ,,' ,',' J I ',' 1 "I I. .' , , I /; ~ ': ~ ,\ " I ,- " . . NOV I 8 1993 } 1 MORTH FORK EMVIROMWEMTAL COUMCIL j~. t',., pr:, ,...,.,.,.-.....,.,.\ ,',;J";'l,'-,;,';:'j , ~,..............",~ ...,...-."'-..,....!' Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 ~1=)t..E 7>6 ~ November 15, 1993 Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Re: Burger King application Dear Chairman Ward and Members of the Planning Board, The North Fork Environmental Council requests that the Planning Board issue a Positive Declaration on the proposed Burger King application. As we have stated previously, we believe that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required on this project, under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), due to its particularly sensitive and controversial nature. The controversy generated by the building of a Burger King in Mattituck cannot be unexpe~ted either by the Planning Board or the developer. It was only two years ago that public outcry against a proposed McDonald's on the same site was so extensive that our Town Supervisor announced his intention to change the Town Code to prevent the development of fast food restaurants in the town of Southold. There are two particular issues which we would like to raise at this time. The first is the issue of trash and garbage. While the documents provided thus far state that garbage from the Burger King will be trucked out of town, this refers only to the garbage at the facility itself -~ it does not address the added trash generated by the customers of the Burger King. In light of the new garbage fees and requirements in Southold, this impact must be assessed. Illegal dumping of garbage is already a concern under the new laws. Take-out customers of the Burger King would have to hold onto their trash until it can be disposed of in an official yellow plastic bag -- they cannot even throw it away in a garbage can. This new law presents an unusual situation1 the environmental impact of trash generated by the customers of this establishment must be looked at in a new light. Secondly, the US/UK Stewardship Task Force -- an official Committee of the Southold Town Board -- has recommended that the code be changed to allow these enterprises only in hamlet business zones. This recommendation is part of a consistent a non-prOfit organization for the preservation Of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper .- - , . . long-range plan to focus business and high density residential units in our hamlet centers. This concept has been endorsed by our elected officials, the people of our town, and, we believe, the Planning Board itself. The proposed development of a Burger King on this site flies in the face of this recommendation and the overall long-range planning goals of the Town. The impact of this unplanned use on our community character must be assessed under SEQR. I direct your attention once again to NYCRR Part 617.11 (a) (5). Criteria used to indicate the significance of an unlisted action include "the impairment of the character or quality of existing community or neighborhood character". Nowhere in the applicant's LE~F or your consultant's analysis is this assessed. If you do not issue a Positive Declaration on this project, you are stating that there is no impact on the existing character of the Town, despite the fact that this will be the very first "fast food" type of establishment in the 350+ year history of our rural community. ~ hard look at this issue has not yet been taken, in fact you have not even attempted to address it. We believe that failure to issue a Positive Declaration at this time is in violation of SEQR. You must take a hard look at these issues -- there will be trash on the streets, our community character will be affected. We request that as required by SEQR you "make every reasonable effort to involve applicants, other agencies, and the public in the SEQR process". (NYCRR 617.3 (g)) In this case, that mandate can only be carried out by issuing a Positive Declaration. Sincerely, Linda Levy Southold Coordinator North Fork Environmental Council . ~ , "'S1.l~nu P-f'-> ~. CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAw 180 OLD CoUNTRY ROAD (RTE. 58) P. o. BOX 11547 RrvlmHEAD, NY U901 ADJACENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT TEL: U5t.61 369-Sl'iKX> FAX: uua) 369-9080 November 12, 1993 > Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Re: Burger King In response to your letter of October 3, 1993~ please find enclosed the following: (1) Confirmation letter from me as the applicant's attorney regarding handling of the solid waste. (2) Letter from the office of Donald Denis regarding steps to be taken to minimize erosion of slope area. (3) Response from Dunn Engineering with regard to traffic analysis (items 3, 4 and 5 in your letter). Also attached are revised plans, elevations, and sign drawings as requested at your meeting of November 8. If any additional information or documentation is required, please advise. CRC:jme Enclosures Very truly yours, (?4l.1? CJJy. Charles R. Cuddy *actual date: November 3, 1993 NOV I 5 1993 . . DO:\ALD A. DE.\lR ARC HIT E C T S Aquebogue Square Route 25/ P.O. Box 555 AquetJogue. New York 11931 (516) 722<3511 FAX, 516-722-3859 Donald A. Denis. AlA Frederick R. Weber. R.A Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York, 1197I RE: Proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck, NY Planning Board, We have reviewed the site plan in reference to the concerns of site erosion on steep pitches and offer the following remarks: The existing site contains a steep embankment along Main Road (NYS Rt25). This embankment is being eliminated and a more gradual site prolile is being established to provide safe vehicular access to and from the site. Where this revised site profile joins the existing topography on the adjacent property to the west a natural steep pitch exists as the adjacent property cannot be modified. The existing situation poses no visible erosion problems and new grass/sod will be planted to prevent any future erosion. During constructiou hay bales and/or matting will be used along Main Road to eliminate sediment transport. The only other location where steep slopes occur is along the west side of the entry drive where the property line cuts back eastward into the site. The revised site plan indicates ground cover in this area. If you have auy questions or require further information, please contact this office. fUR.~ Frederick R Weber, RA. NOV I 51~ ,...,..~",.,' . . CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAw 180 OLD CoUNTRY ROAD liTE. 58) P. O. BOX 1347 R1vEHHEAD, NY 11901 ADJACENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT TEL: (lUB) 369-6200 FAX: (l~16) 369-9060 November 10, 1993 Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.1 Gentlemen: I reviewed the consultant's report in connection with the above site plan and in particular I have noted the recommendation as to the handling of solid waste. This is to confirm that the condition of approval with respect to solid waste being transported out of the Town of Southold will be adhered to by the applicant. said waste will not be delivered to the Town collection center. This is in accordance with representations previously made that solid waste will not be disposed of in the Southold sanitary land fill. Very truly yours, fu<<~ Charles R. Cuddy 0 CRC/pc <" NOV I 5 /993 l , L. ,...,."........,.,..._-' sounidLD i(r,:r~ . Plt}i\;!;'~G IlO:.\;':D ;' ~,_....'--------"".,,' or Dunn Engineetg Associates Consulting Engineers 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 516-288-2480 November 12, 1 993 Mr. Charles N. Cuddy, Attorney at Law, 180 Old County Road, P.O. Box 1547, Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed Burger King Route 25, Mattituck Dear Mr. Cuddy: We have received the review of the Traffic Impact Study for the above project performed for the Town of Southold by Cramer, Voorhis and Associates. Our responses to the Town's comments are as follows: Comment Recalculate trips based on an 86 seat facility. Response The trip generation analysis performed for the Traffic Impact Study was based on an average of the results of the rate per seat and the rate per 1,000 square feet of floor area found at the Southampton facility. While it may have been unclear, the analysis did utilize an 86 seat facility comprised of 3,000 square feet. Therefore no recalculation is required. Comment The analysis to determine directional distribution should be provided and reassignments made jf necessary. Response The analysis used to determine the directional distribution was performed by assuming that the westerly limit of the drawing area for the proposed Burger . , . . King is a line equidistant from the proposed facility and the nearest existing fast food restaurant (Le. the McDonald's in Riverhead) and that the easterly limit is the eastern Southhold "census designated place" border (see Figure 1). Thus, 80% of the population in the drawing area lies to the east of the site, and 20% to the west (See Table 1). Therefore, 80% of the primary trips will originate in the east and return to the east (right turn out of the site) and 20% will do so from and to the west (left turn out of site). Traffic on Route 25 travelling past the site was found to originate 54% from the west and 46% from the east during the peak hour of site generated traffic (weekday midday), based on the turning movement counts performed for the Traffic Impact Study. Therefore, it was assumed that 54% of the pass- by trips, or 38% of the total trips, would originate in the west and continue to the east, and 46% of the pass-by trips, or 32% of the total, would originate in the east and continue their trip to the west after leaving the Burger King. This information is presented in Figure 2. It should be noted that the analysis for the pass-by trip pattern assumes a 70% pass-by rate. Thus, the number of vehicle leaving the proposed site via a northbound to westbound left turn is maximized, an a conservative traffic analysis is presented, since these vehicles require a gap in both directions of traffic on Route 25 to leave the site. When the number of pass-by trips decreases, the number of primary trips will increase, thereby increasing the right turn movement out of the site. In fact, when a 40% pass-by credit, as used in the study, is applied instead of 70%, the right turn exiting component becomes 70%. Finally, preparation of this letter led to the discovery that an error in assigning the site generated traffic had occurred. This error has been corrected, and the capacity analyses at the site entering driveway recalculated. The results of the revised analyses are attached. The revised traffic assignment results in extremely minor changes at the outlying intersections even during the busiest period for the proposed restaurant. For example, during the midday peak hour at Factory Avenue, the revisions results in two fewer eastbound vehicles and eight additional westbound vehicles. These minor differences result in virtually no change in the results of the capacity analyses. Therefore, the analyses for the outlying inter- sections have not been recalculated. '. PROPOSED BURGER KING ,,----., "- .---------. ,,~ ~.~ 0..... '-- .----- r'-~-~~ '. .I , --c;.'/ '''''-..{ d / .." -~ ~'l '::r ~'" ~ ,~ ~:.'1..:r"-\,~ .:..... ~ ~ /'(1) J~-;;:--....,./..).. ~ - \, ~ ~SnNG McDONALD'S ~~ '- ~ ~. ~:.-::: ". '-. i ~. ~ '\, " ~"_",~_,,'" :? _.... ''f r. _____.'t:l-, ~ ...".- '.____ " .' /' ~ .i.... j .....~ .~-...._., ..\ ~}..:, ~ ! ...... '":::""-'...-.f"' d 0 ,~. ; . 'r.vSO'U' "t'h" 0' Id:~ . 2 ,-! .f .'1'-""'-- '. \" ':~.}.,'....' ~\,,'., . ~-~ \ ~ I ~ \ \ ~~ ---..... ..? ~ s..,...;-::: . , L..-".~-','" A\\ ,', ~~..., \, ,/' ~ ' _:'<-;""---; i "'---. \l;~--- " I;...~. }, ~ ~~ ~r ~.;; --=-' ~ " -/'; f \@410\\!.. { ~~; ~-r ,..~.-~~ I ...\.__....... -,~;~:~~. ~ ,,"'" ~ j " I( t' \ ~' _ _...-l----~ '_ ......... } ~ i i \ ()11 .() \ \.......~.:""'. ......j'-----.... ,~~\ / ! ,...... 'I Ie.,....,._ \ i f - ' './"-"'-'~; ~, ,.....::.y~W/ /~' Littie t \ -'\ t~. .....,~r-................r .. /:';:~/.'~, "~ "fY~ "7.;';' ',-- \ :,_ Peconic Bay/~~- __., ",' \...: / \,: -, , "5...._-~ ' '. .. -. _. - ,././ ,r:.5.' ~:l ~.............,.., \ ~./~.'" - F'~""="~'~'~'i.. ............ ,/ (,~ c': ::7 .).'........ \ Great ........ ,/",' \..' \ :----\.' // \....._.,-~.,-. \'t~~" .~" ~-'p;~~;j~-B~;' /~.l~~~,:. "'0 ..:i~t~'_<t. :"~': ". t r:....."'~ 1."'\..,..": i~ ~ ~. ~ ~. -"n'~.... ,.. - ;.t'" .--;::;..... -..~;/('-<'""J--lu' "'..n.....::_._ \ ,>:~ -~.......- __--,.!.------.f"S!"'Y---..-----___ 4 "'''l(::-'' i;.--.z .k.<- ""......._\. " ; . -.--- , "., . "',..-...~..~"_. . '2,." ..7"". , .~; , I J1 ,"if~ "'_ 0 ,,"-- ::-. -.; \.':1 I ~' ". "___ ; __... I".... i' ~'lo ... _ ..... -... . " "l\ l~ '_'" '. ;. "'" \.~ A'.... .-- :.j "-.... JI. ..... ;:. '-- I __.... ,',..,f'! i "'-7 ""- ~~-A' " '. ,.--(''--- -. """'I I JI. ...-:. "" -'''C'' /.1 """"f'.' ....J-.,........ - 1 ~ ,,~........., ... . i . )..... \--it--"-I r~ #J' fao",- "1 \.......... . "" ....~r,: '.. .~.i . ~<' ':; S;:J., '-...:; '(' /: r I j' ..-'.-I-~.-'\., J' )-'<0!> / '~,..,>"'_r-'----~;, . '.\t ;~' '..7 \. ~~~ -~ .J '".( ,1 / I "-, \ l " 1't.{r ~__L. '- -!! ~K... .t'"'-. .:..0-... \ "':': ~~~.... . .....#.l 'I..... ~ t; / ,..--. ""':\.../ '- ..' 'Sh' kB '-~j 5OIl',,:,","1OO (-- ..../1 '- . . Marches BaY- ~ ;;;-<..-1:/ \S' \,../ mnec.oc ay \. it/. ! '. \,.:._~'_. \ ~ '..../\c,.-n..~~...~~~-~~t.-~_~ ... i . i DRAWING AREA WESTERN UMIT DRAWlNQ AREA EASTERN UMIT - - --........~. ~- '. , . " --.;,; Gardiners Bay '. --. ~, .. _,1 I: -::--\".-: . ~: ,.~ .s\ " .....' ",.. '/ ~::.: \~ ~-... ... " r~-<;:' "\" ~- .::. /-"'l~ C;.~I " -.. ":l:_'~'-...r~~;... ____ ....._~ '.'~"~,I . ~- .' .-t;~1 Block Island Sound CENSUS DESIGNATED PLACES FIGURE 1 DRAWING AREA PROPOSED BURGER KING MATTITUCK 1. SOlTTHOLO 2. PECONIC 3. ClTTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK 4. M/OTITUCK 5. LAUREL 8. JAMESPORT 7. NORTHVILLE PRIMARY PATTERN PASS-BY PATTERN ..20~1l!.... _ _ _ _82!lo.!!!. % OUT 46% IN iQ'U'L" I . I t 80% OUT /--- ( I "54%IN- - - 54% 0i7'T . PRIMARY TRIPS=30% FROM EAST TO EAST .. 80.. .80x.30 = .24" 24.. FROM WEST TO WEST = 20'llt .20x.30 .. .08 = 08'1lt \ I ~ t \ I '... PASS-BY TRIPS =70% FROM EAST TO WEST = 46% .46x.70 = .322 = 32% FROM WEST TO EAST = 54% .54x.70 = .378 = 38% FINAL TRIP PATTERN ENTERING EXITING -. , I r . FROM WEST FROM EAST TO WEST TO EAST 8% 24% 8% 24% +38.. +32% +32.. +38% 44% 50% 38% 62% FIGURE 2 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS . . Comment Capacity analysis should be recalculated based on any changes in trip generation/seating capacity an directional distribution. Level of service should be arrayed for easy review. Response No changes were required due to trip generation or seating capacity. However, as stated, some of the capacity analyses were recalculated to account for a minor change in directional distribution. The results all analyses, presented in Table 2, indicate that no undue traffic impact will occur as a result of the construction of the proposed Burger King Restaurant. We trust that the foregoing successfully addresses any concerns regarding traffic engineering aspects of the project. If you have any questions or need any further information, please contact me. Vincent Corrado Engineer VC/jh L930553 . TO EAST Peconic Southold Cutchogue Mattituck (80%) Laurel (10%) 1309 5540 3082 3553 ...1.U 13,597 TABLE 1 DRAWING AREA POPULATION PROPOSED BURGER KING MA TTITUCK . TO WEST Mattituck (20%) Laurel (90%) Northville (20%) Jamesport (70%) 889 1015 686 837 3427 . . lOCATION TIME 1993 EXISTING 1994 NO-BUilD 1994 BUilD Route 25 at Factory A.M. A A A Avenue/Sigsbee Rd. MID e e D Northbound Approach P.M. D D D SAT. E E E Route 25 at A.M. e e e Bray Avenue MID D D D P.M. D B D SAT. D D D Route 25 at laurel A.M. B B B lake Drive MID D D D P.M. A A A SAT. D D E Route 25 at Western A.M. N/A N/A A Site Driveway (Enter MID N/A N/A A only) P.M. N/A N/A B SAT. N/A N/A e Route 25 at Eastern A.M. N/A N/A D Site Driveway (Exit MID N/A N/A E only) P.M. N/A N/A E SAT. N/A N/A E N/A = Not applicable levels of service are for combined sidestreet apparoaches, except where noted. TABLE 2 lEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY PROPOSED BURGER KING MATTITUCK i . . . . 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-l ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... .9 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... WESTERN SITE DRIVEWAY (ENTER) NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ...... 8-13-93 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................. WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILD BURGER KING MATTITUCK INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT o 12 1 THRU 466 504 o RIGHT 9 o 1 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 2 .. . . . ADJUSTMENT FACTORS --------------------------------------------------------------------- Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND ----- VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ------------- EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND o o o SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS NB 6.10 6.10 0.00 6.10 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.40 7.40 0.00 7.40 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... OTHER INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILD NYS ROUTE 25 WESTERN SITE DRIVEWAY (ENTER) 8-13-93; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM BURGER KING MATTITUCK . " ... . . CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ MINOR STREET NB LEFT 1 144 142 142 141 D RIGHT 1 523 523 523 521 A MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 15 640 640 640 626 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... OTHER INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILD NYS ROUTE 25 WESTERN SITE DRIVEWAY (ENTER) 8-13-93; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM BURGER KING MATTITUCK '~UI:I~NL SUBU BAN NIGHT-LIGHTER LUMINAIRE ' ~R(o~ k\V'S~ ltk\n~ \N,~, --..-.,- ~." ~-" j 'Ver.atilC? for pOlt-IOp appli- cations. Slip-fitter aecomo- dales a 3.inch diarMler post- lop tenon. 'Positive screw latching makes relamping and maintenance safe and simple. Luminaire interior is fully, instantly accessible. tlower maintenance Costs: replaceable acr)'lic ba nd refractor easily drops into lumina ire; and IOw-co.llem panels made of indestruc. tible Lexanlil' a((! (!a.ily ,replaced. · Prisms on refractor spread light evenly over a broad area, not just under the lamp post. 'No unwanted light in rlC?arby residential windows. ^ unique combination of radial and circular prim;s form a prismatic shield althe verti- cal angle. ncce,sdry 10 prevent light flOin enl/:lring window.. Night is brighter with the Sentry SUB...NL The Sentry SUB-Nl is a roadway po.t-top luminaire precisely tailored to the natural flux of toddY's mercury <lnd high-pressure sodium lamps. ^ pri.matic refractor completely enclose. a vertically posilioned lamp for effective light control. The four light-transmitting side panels are made of indestructible lexan~ for highly effective protection of the lamp and refractor assembly. Full vlsuill environment The prismatic refraClor of the SUB-Nt yields soft, uniform light thaI illuminates the nearby roadway, the sidewalk and the surrounding grounds. Yet il is expressly designee to prevent excess glare and flashing of unwanted light into nearby residential window., thereby respecting the privacy of nearby homes. Uniform distribution lh(' SU13-N L can be supplied with LE.S. Type III or V lighl distribution to satisfy all of your street, walkwa' and roildway l)C'eds. Further versatility can be built into this luminaire by selecting any of )('veral shades of color for the vandal-resistant lens panels, including blue, blue-green, and bronze. Further characleristics and specificatiom are to be found on the other side of this catalog sheet. " \. .' . No18~ O~E: f~ OF f\,A\l,^4:. , CAN: ~ . bld--lGi::O ~W\ljJ~ 'C4 ' "'-", . . .n:f"IiIl AT ~UD-I~l MODELS AVAI.lE . " WAITS MODEL WADS MODEl - MtllCUIlY HICH-I'RESSUIlE SOOlUM 100 SUB/Nl-1oo NPF TIlICCi~R Sf AIlT ~ SUB/Nl-50 HPS/ST SUB/Nl-loo CWA 70 - 5UB/Nl-70 HPS/ST 17, SUB/Nl-17, NPF 100 - SUB/Nl-1oo HPS/ST SUB/Nl-175 CWA 150 SUB/Nl.l~/S5 HPS/ST 250 SUBINl-250 NPf 1~ SUB/Nl.150/1oo HPS/ST SUB/NL.250 CWA HIG"'....aEssUIlE '<>OIUM -+ METAL HAUOE 'E/>{NjNCi STAIlT 175 SUB/Nl.175 MH l?A ,~: SUB/Nl-l50 HP5/SP 250 SUBlNl.2~ MH l?A 21,~ SI.JB/Nl-21S,HfS/SP Nult'): 1. Volt,lgf'~ .h"~il&ll:Jlr' 1 HI. )Utl. )40.17 7.ll! 48U. P1E-clH' ~pNHy voltage'. }. Add ~ulfix J{ 10 mod!'1 numbl'r fOI pho[(J (IInl:01 tf'(epl,}clf'. OthetwiH' linE-a! .....ill bE' suppJif'd. (PhOlorllt'lll( d,llrll) ,iIHl 6~'dil4hl(' It" iJllwl H.l.f).lamp~.l I --,-. ~ , . .,.,.-. o 1 2 3 ....oo . 'M\liI.R/ 4 s~ l -.... SS'N~10 Senlry Electric Corporiltion 185 Buffalo Avenue Freeport, New York 11520 Telephone (516) 379-4660 lUMIHAtRE ~:urllurban . :litr1i!cr 1'7~" . SSBN 175-J..20-.R .., T'" 111 'AM'H39-KlJ 1.75 Gloor lU'''.' 7.340 ;'/AT IS 17'> auAHiHQ ,.o~rIQlolV(>..rLi (:;J1 WOUHTIHO HEI~T COJtIHCTION FA-CrOIl5 TO OttAIN IllVWHU.TION VAlUU AT OTHER MOUHTIHQ HEIOHJl, ADlll~ Nt... IlA.hO .,Alva IAIOtoIC . "'''on 10 '''II II ''''UO Ok UlltllO MOlJHT~G H(IOHl ~-10 '''''I CO'Wll""O~ "O~11OfoI ON 'MUI . Cf:UJiIMH<< rOOlC"'MClll VAlvf ,WVLI"lY 10'4.. 'OOle"NOII v....\ur ., /,1,(:10<< fOA HI,* lK.oUNJlltG HIIGIj! 11101.1"111(1.0 "./fGtH '...."011 ro"p,". 2,25 U l.!.(, 1 L I ,15 15 I ,cn )r. . HH 1 P .1;'1 20 . ,C, OA" FRaN EJ~4.2"1 flG.n P.r',f', APPA.n ~:,.s ,\.:. OA TE r./7/77 ~ AHA-no DAJA aHHT~ SPECIFICATION The luminalre ,hall be Sentry Electr;, (modcl,I.LS. Type, and vollage) consisting of cast aluminum housing and hood; with hood hinged one sid and secured on opposl'e side with raptiye ,crew; integrally mounted prewired ballast and porcelain mogu sockct with lamp grip, and photo control receptacle; acrylic band refrarlor of appropriate I.E.S. Type; indestructible lexan4l> side panels; cast sliplitter suitablc for 3-inch o,d, lenon; and corrosion-resistant hard- ware. Dimensions are 211h-in. high, 16-in. wide, 16.in. deep, Maximum weight 24 pounds, depending on ballast. Wind load projected area 1,6 square feel. " UTlLlZA TlON .. .. ~- -I TT ~.- , , , y S rl'e" S'd. 1/ ,'. j 1/ I k - He . 51 . II /",' , .. .' , 0 V .. " L 7 . , ' l 0 I . . ? ; 40 ( > . , r .30 . v ,'0 ~~'~""~tNI; LLO!!!SS!!r.r;l.i.ti'i-~~if:'I~...ll!II!I.'J '/OJ> ~UIoo,"'IOI' 1;>&000( I-Ol AIl"...IolW....1 _1'.....J.;..'lIot.~II......~ ~ a;: ,~ c .2 ;; 8- e u .'t. i ~ to j . . , .. . NOV I 5 1993 ~.~ /~ /!/iMJo-; /775 SU8R ce- pe 1<itO-R.t:- ~~ ~ rft~7 ~)}: \f? .f"ut.JrA1:~..,.p ~ ~t; ~ ~a~~ 7'?k~",,- ~/V ~c::L ~ h ..~~<-ck.- 4..- r~~ f) ..~b 7;.14 ~ z:h.-L ~"'e~..~/c:L.~~ ~~~~4<-i' ~ ~ 6- r-..,.fJ r-~ad..~ ~~ M~ f:7fz:~~~~~~ ~ . . ~ )f(lJ~d~ t;-~Ljd ~.Zh ~ ~. ~ t7'~~7:~-;Y.(A~d) ~ ~ ~~~--d ~d ""L6'~~A r-~ ~~ .' -~ . . . /-TA~ ZkL.. ..--L.lL ":'4 - ~ ~ k ~/4t.t~.A-e..L9 ; .; - Tk ~ ;::--6 ./lo.... ~ <Zt.,a ~ k. :.: - J j,--. ,=1;"--- ~(:rt--~~ I-~'<!~ ~ ~ 5-F~ [;40'-~~~~. LJ - ~~f:':f ~ -~~~'~~~~(:5rd-f€- a-.-v, ~ ~ ~~...~. f. t:J../ . ~ ''1. {J ~ ~ N~~JRTr. ....7 k . "tH'-';-~ . ~~~~~~~~ht,<< ~~~'ed~~r~~~ . Af7~Jz;~~ tV~~~. a.o ~t:i /~ JA' d ~ .......~~1I~--r- ~ tIa. ~~ ~ . a.-~~ ~~IA.............<<t ~ l7d- " A~ll-J "7 ~ Itf~ F~ ~ " . . . 7k-~~~~*~ ~7 ':"(-<-7kI f'~' ~ da:~< "0 t-L.~7J t;;:- , ~~~ K~~ /li.V' Ilq~1 . :--,..,. f I :-: l ~-' .~/j'~ / S- /1/ MJ-: 1'1 'f '5 . ~j.~ fi:'~'~~-i ~~: '" .J-u1~ ~~ ~ ~t; ~ ~a~~ 7'Zlk~d... ~/~ ~e:L Md. 'Ht:~Lk ~rj~tJ'.L&7;..4' ~ dz.-L ~~'u..-&/~L.... ~ ~~-L-L~;::-" ~ ~ A- ~ r-~ad~ #--h. ~ M~ I:~Z~~~~~ ~. ~ h'(LJ1~d~ t;-~d ~.~ ~ ~, ~ t7''''..7~~~~A~ ~ ~ ~':--d ~d ~~A -;:-~ ~-~ " -~ , . . /-tkL ~L" ..~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ t:'t4t.l~~9 ; ,j-rk-~~ n/lO""'~ ~ ~ tk. ::. oJ d.... 0..1;'<<- ~-~~~~~ 5-F~ ~-~~tl~~. L) - 'P~r"- u. -4-<2 ~ ~Je- c<-..-vf~~d ~~~ {/.7 . ~. 7: 7::.- ~~.~k. J'u~ kr, u.-z-~~~~~~~~ a:t~f~'ed~~r~dkX~ ' 4~~..Jz;~~ ~~~~. ~ ~c:R.. I~IA' ~~"'''''~'''''f. t:-~~, ~-L 7 ' ~ ~~ ~ /1a.....-.-,....'1 ~ 1M. .. d~'2--.'7 ~ AY~F~ ~ .''':ik1 - .~ . ,~._:.......... .~- . . . ~ Tk~:Z~~2f~ ~f7 ':"t-<- u.r ;~' ~du.''''I~ ~ ~ .., ..... .... Su6Fit.E WARD ASSOCIATES,.- c. Ar-RANC""MITTAL Landscape Architects. Archllec nglneers FAXYi ,) 1500 Lakeland Avenue F~O::E~~.~E;6~~~~~16 r~~~:It:~ts.~ ~~-I~<>~N:'.~."=","==~=" (516) 563-4800 """""N TO ~ . t} ~ -...-.-.--d----.~~-)011zfi=--~~~. ~T6AA~ ............. ---.---.... U ~.- .--.... I ~,i+OA.)~TC::r~-----..--. 'ELffLtU1{dK.... ..... .... rfh C.-'=..: ----.-~_.-..-. ..:.--' ..=.~~.::===.=..:~ lc2t:l 1.........................__... NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING TRANSMITTAL ... WE ARE SENDING YOU 0 Attache<:! 0 Un"~r separate cover vi. ___.______.... > the follOWing items: o SMp drawings C Copy of letter Cl Prints o Chonse order [J Plans [) Samples LJ Specifications [J _____._. COP'l$ I ! OAn NO. OF-SCRIPTION ~- '~'_...".. ,.. ~,..-'...~,,"'.'..~,.^.. " ..,,-~,.... ._.'.,- ~._. L I ~.~_~7_~_-~~~_r.._..._~:.-_:_.__-..=~-=~..---... ..-- - ::"=:::'.u~._~= .!..~. . - ---..--..-... ---.-..-------1 -~_.~_....- ~,,-'..,..... '". .",'~,,,. .....-....., ---.-, ""..,'..,....,. ..... ,~",...,_......,_.~_.__~M__...'.,~. .. _... _ ..._ ... __.._.___._ u _._______..._._n .~... .,,,,.,... "...''''''~ ""''''''''''"'''''''''._'''~'__''''__~._''_~~.''_ =t [--------==~--.. --- THESE ARE TRANSMIITED as cnec~e<:! below' > :J For approv1.s1 o For your use o As requested CJ ror t(wi~w and comment o FOR SIDS DUE o A.pprovoo as submitted c: Approved as not.d o R.turned for corrections Li FleSubl11it_copies for approval r'J Submit _COpj~s for distribution I] Return_corrected prints o -_.,.......,,~..~.._".~.J..~,..._.___. ...._.__._._~..._..,.., __.. .._..._~_~ 19_._._....._ [) PHINTS RETlIRNED AF1'ER l.OAN TO US REMARKS -------~-~-_.- '-..,"",.. -,--_... ---.---.-............ .,,--~--.~._...... .--..-........-.".''',.. ..~..""....,. ._. .~. . ....---.-..-.-... "-.....-. '--""--_" _"W".'__,__",_,_.,,,.,,u._ . ...... .. -....-..-....-----. .-. ._.__.~-~... ----- ......~_."....._-_.._~_._-- ,,-.. ......... ".....--^ .-....-- -. ---.-. - .. .. _._.~....... .-........".,,-.--......-...... ......-... -_...... ----..,-.-....- ~....." . -.- ....,',.~,"" --...---. __,..Jlfo.~.' .5;"""i-.-. '.'.u "'~-_.._"'.~-",--_--._...-:-. -.... ---.. ----.--. --- ----~"- ---,---,,,-,.,,-,,,,,-,---,,-,- COPy TO_ ~i ----_._.~._._-- SIGNED: . ., , STO-" /61 A TT ITucK ~uR G~ Je- J<J AJ~ 1.... ...-- ~. A7TEdtVD -rUe- 't'LANIM;Nl9 ... ~a l\fEGTjAlG A'- - r;,~1u HALL ON. J'10i\1b/ty NO~E~""BEfIi. /$TH AT 7:3. ~J-.?H. - -. . .... " ..~.... 4~ . * . ~f:1tE' f>6 F.~ ..". .JAMES A. IWZLOSKI REGIONAL DIRECTOR STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL mGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788 .JOHN C. EGAN COMMISSIONER November 9, 1993 Mr. Vincent Corrado Dunn Engineering Associates 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, NY 11788 Dear Mr. Corrado: Our Case No. 90-393 Burqer Kinq Restaurant Route 25. Mattituck Your Auqust 25. 1993 Submission The Department's review of the subject Traffic Impact Study and site plan was coordinated by Mr. J. Lentini of my staff. Our comments are as follows: We do not agree with your assessment that a westbound left turn lane into this site is not needed. Although the projected left turn volumes into this site are lower than the projections of the previous applicant the existing 8 foot wide shoulder on the north side of Route 25 is insufficient to safely allow a westbound through vehicle to pass a standing vehicle waiting to turn into this site. A left turn lane must be installed as part of this project. Concerning observations presented on page 30 of your report regarding the lack of left turn standing lanes on Route 25 in this area, please be advised the installation of a continuous two-way left turn lane is currently in our work program for the section of Route 25 east of your site. This section begins west of Factory Avenue and continues easterly to east of Bay Avenue. This work is scheduled for our 1994 pavement marking program. The site plan prepared by Architect Donald A. Dennis must be revised as follows: NOV 128 1L#4 ..- Mr. Vincent page 2 November 9, corrad. 1993 . 1. Provide standard drop type curb cuts at both driveways. 2. Remove the existing drainage basin on the east side of the exit driveway. Install a new precast drainage basin on the existing pipe at the low point and a drainage basin east and west of the low point of the road. Show the grades along Route 25. 3. Attached is a marked plan sheet for your use. Also attached is a copy of our plan sheet showing the positive drainage system in the area. 4. Provide regulatory signing at the proposed curb cuts onto Route 25 ie: "Stop. "One Way" and "Do Not Enter" signs as necessary. All signs must be reflectorized and conform to the M.U.T.C.D. They must also be installed in accordance with the attached installation detail sheet. Show the installation details on the plans. 5. Roadway Improvement and pavement submitted for the construction of a and any necessary widening on Route striping plans must be westbound left turn lane 25. Kindly submit 10 sets of roadway improvement plans addressing the comments presented above. Send these plans to Mr. Vito Lena, our Regional Permit Engineer at the above address. Refer to our case number in all correspondence. Very truly ygu~s, Orlc1na1 Signed By JANES O. FREIll JAMES o. FREIN Regional Traffic Engineer cc: "'s. Valerie Scopaz JOF:JL:BT Attachment . . Richard G. Ward. Chalnnan George RUchie Latham. Jr. Bennett Orlowski. Jr. Mark S. MeDonald Kenneth L. Edward. SCOTf L. HARRIS SU pervtsor PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Town Hall. 53095 Main Rcx'l.d p. o. Box 1179 SouthoJd. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOurnOLD Fax (516) 765 - 1823 November 5, 1993 George T. Woodhull, Chairman Board of Fire Commissioners Mattituck Fire District P.O. Box 666, 1000 Pike Street Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM* 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Woodhull, The Planning Board has received your letter of October 19, 1993. The well site should be on the Property of Burger King. Please review this request and respond in writing with the findings of your review. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. r1i;J/LF~~ Chairman .- . . Richard G. Ward. Chainnan George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Bennett Orlowskt. Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards \ ..)IHJCr ,'~ " )'/ ft,,' ,.>, 't' ',),'r.%-~, ",,' , -:;;. , "::: . l.'" ;....::.. '''''A' ',' ;;" '. '-;: , "'" \~ _,: i ,', ~, , ""'1,,' 'f<~);~ SCOTIL,HARRlS Supervisor PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Town Hall. 53095 Main Road p, O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTI-lOLD Fax [516) 765 - 1823 October 3, 1993 Charles R. Cuddy Attorney at Law 180 Old Country Road (Rte. 58) P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The Planning Board has received its consultants report on the above referenced project, (copy enclosed). Please provide additional data as requested under section four of the EAF analysis and summary section of the traffic analysis as follows: 1. Additional detail on the handling of solid waste. 2. Means of minimizing potential erosion of steep slope areas in excess of 30 percent. 3. Recalculate trips based on an 86 seat facility. 4. The analysis to determine directional distribution should be provided and reassignments made if necessary. 5. Capacity analysis should be recalculated based on any Changes in trip generation/seating capacity and directional distribution. Levels of service should be arrayed for easy review. .- . . If you have any questions, or require further information, please c~act this office. ~nc refyj, / iA ~ ,// . ~d /J. ~/~ ~ i aid G. IWard Chairman Encl. cc: Thomas Fisher, Building Inspector In Charge Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals # ~. ';~~t;6~~E~~~~'~ ~ . FAX TRANSMITTAL Fax Number (516) 331-8046 Date: /0 -Zq -'13 To: 6r/R r~<;Nr-Y?. !2A-N'^/~N,/ . I CL" j/oMrn"\ . ~J?~G'R ;:: I'<./h From: Re: Number of Pages (including cover): /? If the total transmillal Is not recehed call (516) 331-1455 Comments: ~12&9? ~~ ;eC{,G)v d</.fr) CQ""'r' II\) ;tIrht. - Uu If:. c?~T7<0V5 . _." .,~\, , /~~\\" 4' ~" ,_,- ,\ 0_ 'r:~~~~'_zr;?!,-\ _. /' . \" . i",: " ,,," ~ -----.-"- ; 54-2 NORTH COUNiRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE. NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 iF ".- . .. . - -... -- ~ -........ .. - .... - . -... -...... -~ ':CRAMER, V~:VAOC'ATES ENVIRONMEN:~, _ \ 0 ~G CONSULTANTS . October 29, 1993 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chainnan Southold Ph.nning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Burl;\er King Restaurant ReVl':w of Long EAP and Traffic Study ScriM No. 1000.122.7.3.1 Dear Mr. Ward: Re: AsJ',~r tpe y?ur request, we ~ave completed ::J?reE..'11in~J review 9f th7 ~~ove reference pro~ect In accordance with your request. 1 ;1;;ks ~J1a completea actlVltles are identified a!: fOllows: 1. ReviEW Part I LEAF Toe parcdelhas been field inspect fed by C;V A, ar;,d dtbe LEAF has been reviewed and amende as necessary. A copy 0 same IS attac..e . 2. Prepare PartlJ LEAF . The :Pan IT LEAF checklist has been completed aIld is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. 3. Environmental and Planning Considerations The parcel has been inspected and environ.'11cntal references conceroing the site and area have been consulted. The site consists of 3 acres of overgf!:J","'U fieid that is currently vacant. The proposal involves site plan approval for a Burger King Restaurant. The :iite is zoned General Business (B). The use is permissible in accordance with a special exception previously approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals for a similar use on the sIte. The subject parcel is comprised of stee~ risij1g topogranhy from Main Road ~outh to a plateau. Some localized slopes attain ~Opercenj; however, the majority of this area ranges from 12 to 18 percent slope. The depth to groundwater is approXImately 19 feet and there are no wetlands or unique flora or fauna associated with the site. The ~;ite lies in Groundwater Management Zone IV but is not within the North Fork Water Budget Area. The area west of the site is identified as being subject to elevated nitrogen levels and the area south of and including the subject site is ide!.ltified as baving aldicarbcontamination as a rezult of fan:ning activities. A test well located on the subject site and sampled in 1990 indicated iIon and manganese in excess of drinking water limitations; however, oUlcr constituen~ were within an acceptable range. Water supply is proposed to be from an on site source, and on-site sanitary disposal is proposed. Water supply will f(~quire approval of the Suffoll< County Department of Health Services; however, if iron/manganese removal is 54 !'-IORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2. MillER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 ~A,-_ - _ _ _ . JT __ _.. . . _ _.... , . __ ... _ . _ _ _ _ _ ..... - _ "'.~._-,;'.. _ _J'__~ . . B'.rrger Kin.g @ Mattituck Long E..>"F Review prov:ided it appears as thou~h the source will be ac<:clJtable. The Long EAF Part I indicates a water use of 2,500 gallons per day. Article 6limirs on site aischar~e to 900 gallons per day, therefore, the dischar"e of nitrogen bear.1lg waste is assumea to be less than 900 gallons. This would invo~ve a split Dow segregating con-nitrogen kitchen (f/J'er water) waste from sanita...'Y waste. Regardless, the approva,1 of th~ Suffolk CoWlty Department of Health Services for water suppIII and sarutary dlposal should be dc:monstrated prior to signing of the si Ie plan. " The proposed site use ~"clude~ a drive-in wL"ldow that was included in the prior applicatIon for the site. This is consistent with the Board of Zoning ADpea1s decision. The project will generate significant traffic, and a traffic impact study bas been prep:ared and submitted in connection 'With the oroject. A separate review of the traffic study has been completed by CVA and is' included as Attachment A. The 'project will likely generate significant solid waste, a concern expressed by the BzA in review of the prior application. The Long EA.::I: indicates that such waste will "not 'be disposed of in SoutholCl Sanitary Landfi!l". 4. Recommendations It is recommended that the proposed use be comvared to the BZA decision to ensure compliance with the Special Exception. The appiicant should provide additional detaIl on the handling of solid waste in order to ensure that the solid waste handling capadty of the Town is not exacerbated. The :lflplicant should provide a means of IPinirnizi.11g potential erosion of steep slope area!; m excess of 30 percent. The pitch of the land and proximity to Main Road caus<: concern for sediment transport during construction activities. The site plan shou::d indicate a means of avoidlOg this situation. The traffic study provides information regardin~ existing traffic volumes, project trip gene:ration, traffic distribution and level of sernce. The traffic stu~ bas been reviewed in detail and included as Attachment A. It is recommended that the recommendations of the traffic impact study review be folJowed. SCDHS approval of water supply and sanitary waste diposal should be demonstrated prior to sigr>ing of the site plan. .,. .,. .,. .,. The project calls for a use that appears to be in cooJormance with the Board of Zoning Appeals Special Exception aIlo\V1ng the construction of a fast-food restaurant on the subject site. Several minor issues are in need of additional information or clarification These items are noted above in subsection 4 of this Jetter. If the Planning B"oard is in . agreement, 1be applicant should be directed to provide thi.; infonnation either dur.ng a hearing on tJ?C si.te.plan or I}S a .supplement prior to s~hed~ling of the site plan h~~..og. I believe that if this ii1formatlon IS addressed to the satlSfuctlOn of tbe Pbnnin,l( Boai'd a regative. Declaration will be appropriat~. We woulci be pJ~3Sed to review additionai informatlOo at your request. ~--~\. CRAMER, V 'Ri~ ~.& SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT ="~ '! ~ ~ G CONSULTANTS Page % }--.. ~ . - - . - . - ..... '-. _. -- . - .. .;. -,; - . ...~.'='-'-~ . . . Burger Kino @ Mattituck Loug EAF Review If you bave any questions or \vish any further inDut 'Nith regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. . CR ~-M~ ~ AMERo V . J. , SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT \ ~.. '~Z ~~G CONSULTANTS Page 3 -.t .... i- ~ ......... '. -=- "='" '-.: _ _-;I;"..... ..,. I " ,_ _ A ., . __ ........ '_ .- - .- ~ - -.,.-. .~_....._.-..".4IIiiIf . . . B1lIge: I<ia8 @ Mattitudc Long EAF Review ATTACHlVIENl A TRAFFIC Il""IPACI' STUDY llli-"i"irEvY CRAMER V~~~ ~ SOCIATES ENvIRoNr,lENT~~ ~'f ~ G CONSULTANTS Page 4 ~- -- .. ,. . - -- ~ .' . - - '. . . - ... .- . - .. .- - ..----.:........,.... ' . ._..,...---~:::- . October 29,1993 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Revi~w of Burger King @ Mattituck Trailic Impact Study Semi No. 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Ward: At YClur request, we have reviewed the Traffic Imoact Study for the above referenced project. A summary of the study is as follows: . S1JLd.y A!JDr08cll The report was prepared using soUlld traffic eogiJJcering practices and foUowed the analytical methedology detailed in the 1985 Hiahway Capacity Manual. Selected calcul"tlons were checked using HeM software and the results were consistent with the lepart. .Gi:J!..Ws & Sl~ht Dr'lane<! The NYS Route 2S rit;ht.of.way in the vicinity of the propc:.ed project ;.s generally flat with gentle horttcntall:ighwa, curves all Route 25. Tbu.~. no sight distan~ reslricti.)llS result, pro.,.jded adeqUllte turning lanes and radiU.\' are ;>rovided at the site i.wess/egre~. AtdJ1l:Jlt R<<Qrds New Yorl.: State Department of Transpartatioo. accidents rec.ords were re=ched for the most rec<ont three :Iear accident history tbat was available. Location and frequency of accidcr,.ts ad Dot reveal any high a:.cidellt locatioc.s. I2Jo:glonal Dlstrlhutlol1 In det.:rmining the origins and destinations for site senerate4 traffic, a directional dist:ibutioll Was performed ulilizing census informatioa from the publication 'Population Sm've1 aud from turning movet]ent counts at key intersections nearby. It would t>e helpful 10 see the ,;.t;tual ar.a!ysis and the components of the generaled and pass-by trips in 11Ie distribulion. The conclusion of 62% ailing tJ"{:fJic tuminr n'ght find 38% tumillg left is not apparenl and should be SUpporled. .Gmttlted Tram~ A sowld approach 10 determinwg trip geoeration was emplo;'cd by ec.nducting stuCies at existing Burger King's located in Rocky Point and Sc.ulb.unpton. Empirical data was eolle<;led to calculate worst cc.se gener< tioll rates using the larger of the obselved rate per l,OC\l SF 0; gross Door area or the observed rate pl'r restaurant seal. The Southamptoa Burger KipS generated lUsher traffic rates aod since votuJ:l;les on the roadway adjaC<lolto Ibe piopa~.ed site are lower Ih~llbo::e 31 the Southampton site, this is a conservative approach. . Howner, the trip volumes generated for the proposed Malliluck site using the Southcmplon IWU app.'1!1T to be bas.,d 011 78 seats, nolthe 86 seals slaled orlthe accompanying sile plQl1. ~r 85 seats is the i.,tellded plan, I ;' " S4 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MillER PLACE. NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 - ~ - . - - .. .- . - ... - .- .a-_.. _... ... ~... _.e.._-=..,.._...._.o..,:...: . . . . . . Burger King @ Mattituek rrmc Impact Study 1M ~:urzud /rip 1'Olume.s would inc~tlSe by 10%. bu:J:1Y Trnmc The rC'I,ort cites studies Oll the amount of traffic t.iverted to a t'J1,ical Surger Ki:lg facility frOel the e>isticg traffic stream. A 40% pass.by credit was $elected as all avo.rage v.llue from the range of values obsenw and is acceptable ~_s a reasonable assumption. ~,!I!f'onmeDC Trips I~nerated by the proposed facility ....ere assigned to the 10011 rOadway network in acccrdance v.ith the di:.ectional distribution previouslyaeterwincd. Net volumes were assigned Wer the pass-by credit was applied. Phase nole t1u1l p;oss volumes lI'e~ enlered onlo Figures 4 & S ai a fzw rum locations bUIIU/ l'OIum"l were ultimately used for Ihe capacity analyses so no errors WeT/! intrr><hJeed. ~]l)llud Intersec<Jnn Caoadt). Analysl~ The methodology employed to evaluate the inters<<1ions in the vicinity of the proposed facility is the aCC<lpted protedure for unsignalized mtersections detailed in the 1985 Highway Capac!y Manual. The anaJ)'Sis determwes the leogths of the gaps nCCCSS3r1 to safely execute given turning movements a.;::d how many :;uch gaps e.'ost in the traffic stream during the analysis period. The t\lrnl:!; movement demands are tb.:n compared to the availability of corre:;ponding gaps. Th~e analy<...es .lere performed for (1) 1993 existing conditions, (2) projected 1994 No-Build condjuoo.s. and (3) the 1,94 Build =ario. The results indicate sufficient gaps in t..affie 10 permit safe ingress and egress at the sile drive1,1,'lIYs and nearby InterRctjons. ..' Ills su'ilKesled Ihcl Ihe gap sufficiency and level of service resu/IS of Il'ese cnalyses be arrt::;j~d for casler ewuuotWn and C017T}boration of conc!usio/lS in /he text ~',;;;J .... Clere will be a ,,,jjideIll nu;-nber ojgaps in /he Ira/fie flow 10 allow for safe ingress I1lld egress cI the imcrseelions I1lld L~e sile driveways. ' It should be noted th.t these analyses were base<! on trailie counts taken dur:"'3 the S1''''''''~r l:loiJlhs of 1990. The tiree of yeBS for data Cl.lllectioo is appropriate fer a cooservat.:ve 3.llaJj',~S, but the C-O\l.Ots are tbsee l'enrs old. Although oot stated in the report, the counts were ndjust;d 3% per year for a tolal upward adjustment of 9%. More recent traffic tCuots nrc pr~fcrable. bullhis ",ethod of adjustment is acceptable. - ~. Clrcul~t1oD and Parldmr A=, is provided by separate ingl'ess 3J:ld egress dsh'ewa)'S with scp....,te left tuJ--Q and right turu exit lanes for the e>:it dsiveway. Geometries for a=ss, circulation and parking are suffideot for good now. Parking is provided in accordance with the ToWll of Southold CC'<lc, including land-banked stalls, with accept.ble layout <UJd dimensions suitable for r.omCortable ma;:leuverbg. * * * * In sununary, the traffic report exardned potential i.mpacts of the proposed project in sufficient detail utilizing sound traffic engineering princir)les. Based upon tlie analysis, it would appear that no adverse impacts would result from'unplementatlOo of !be project. The traffic impact study is found to be acceptable with the following recommendatioos: 1. TriRs generated by the proposed facility should be recalculated based on an 86 seat faCllifyas depicted on tile site plan (unless Ule applkant has revised l'1e 5eating proposal to the 76 seats used in the trip generatIOn analysis). ~~l. ~11 CRAMER. V '11\~ 'SOCrATES ENVIRONMENT _~ '\~' G CONSULTANTS Fa;e 2 -- ...... IC'lI ... ; -~_..., '=' -=- "II: "!II': _ ii ~ "'f!l:' t..J ." "'=' co ^ ' ... 0$1 '.'.1 "CJ ... ==- ~ ~ : ~ 1: "I: ~ ~ 'S: ...:. _ ..;'. :c!: _ ~ :""'t n ~ ~ . . .' . Burger KID,; @ M3ttit'~ck Tratl1c Impact Study 2. The analysis to determine the directional dlstributio:.l should be provided and reassignments made if necessary. . The capacity analysis should be recalculated if necessary based on any ch~es in trip generation/seating capacity and directional dist..-ibution. Levels of service should be arrayed for easy review. The Town of Southold, in conjunction with the NYSDOT. may ....ish to require the construcdon of a westbouod left turu lane on Route 25 for improved traffic saiety and in antidpation of higher traffic volumes in th3 future. . 3. 4. We appreciate the opportunity to pro.fide you with this review. Please call if you have any questions. Very trulv -?,9U!:$) ~~ CRAMER. vatffff.~ EtNIRONMENT-~= Page 3 -;. - . ~ _... .- ii '.. . - - . " ..- ... - ~ - "=' - .. ~,. --,..... ~ - - ....... - .,.. _.-. _--." ~. .. . CRAMER, V~ IA;oCIATES ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS . October 29, 1993 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 5309S"Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Burser King Restaurant Review of I:ong EAF and Traffic Study SCfM No. 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Ward: Re: , NOV 11993 s , I L #Lf:~,;:F'L')""' . .. _'.~."'a""~'~,~,~~,,;,~~~.., As per the your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project in accordance with your request. Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows: 1. Review Part I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by CV A, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. 2 Prepare Part II LEAF The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. 3. Environmental and Planning Considerations The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and areabave been consulted. The site consists of 3 acres of overgrown field that is currently vacant. The proposal involves site plan approval for a Burger King Restaurant. The site is zoned General Business (B). The use is permissible in accordance with a special exception previously approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals for a similar use on the Site. The subject parcel is comprised of steep rising topography from Main Road south to a plateau. Some localized slopes attain 30 percent; however, the majority of this area ranges from 12 to 18 percent slope. The depth to groundwater is approXimately 19 feet and there are no wetlands or unique flora or fauna associated with the site. The site lies in Groundwater Management Zone IV but is not within the North Fork Water Budget Area. The area west of the site is identified as being subject to elevated nitrogen levels and the area south of and including the subject site is identified as having aldicarb contamination as a result of farming activities. A test well located on the subject site and sampled in 1990 indicated iron and manganese in excess of drinking water limitations; however, other constituents were within an acceptable range. Water supply is proposed to be from an on site source, and on-site sanitary disposal is proposed. Water supply will require approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services; however, if iron/manganese removal is 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 " . . Burger King @ Mattituck Long EAF Review provided it appears as thou.ld1 the source will be acceptable. The Long EAF Part I mdicates a water use of 2,580 gallons per day. Article 6 limits on site discharge to 900 2lI1lons per day, therefore, the discharge of nitrogen bearing waste is assumed to be fess than 900 gallons. This would involve a split flow segregating non-nitrogen kitchen (lUey water) waste from sanitary waste. Regardless, the approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for water supply ana sanitary diposal should be demonstrated prior to signing of the site plan. The proposed site use excludes a drive-in window that was included in the prior application for the site. This is consistent with the Board of Zoning Appeals decision. The project will generate significant traffic, and a traffic impact study has been prepareil and submitted in connection with the project. A separate review of the traffic study has been completed by CV A and is included as Attachment A. The project will likely generate significant solid waste, a concern expressed by the BZA in review of the prior application. The Long EAF indicates that such waste will "not be disposed of in Southold Sanitary Landfill". 4. Recommendations It is reco=ended that the proposed use be compared to the BZA decision to ensure comeliance with the Special Exception. The applicant should provide additional detail on the handling of solid waste in order to ensure that the solid waste handling capacity of the Town is not exacerbated. The applicant should provide a means of minimi7:ing potential erosion of steep slope areas m excess of 30 percent. The pitch of the land and proximity to Main Road cause concern for sediment transport during construction activities. The site plan should indicate a means of avoidmg this situation. The traffic stua%provides information regar~ existing traffic volumes, project trip generation, tr c distribution and level of servIce. The traffic study has been reviewed in detail and included as Attachment A. It is reco=ended that the reco=endations of the traffic impact study review be followed. SCDHS approval of water supply and sanitary waste diposal should be demonstrated prior to signing of the site plan. * * * * The project calls for a use that appears to be in conformance with the Board of Zoning Appeals Special Exception allowmg the construction of a fast-food restaurant on the subject site. Several minor issues are in need of additional information or clarification. These items are noted above in subsection 4 of this letter. If the Planning Board is in agreement, the applicant should be directed to provide this information either during a hearing on the site plan or as a supplement prior to scheduling of the site plan hearing. I believe that if this fuformation is addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, a Negative Declaration will be appropriate. We would be pleased to review additional information at your request. CRAMER,V ENVIRONMENT OCIATES G CONSULTANTS Page 2 . . Burger King @ Mattituck LoDg EAF Review If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. CRAMER,V ENVIRONMENT OCIA TES G CONSULTANTS Page 3 . . Burger King @ Mattituck LoDg EAF Review ATIACHMENT A TRAFFIC IMPACf STUDY REVIEW CRAMER, V~ J..lsOCIATES ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS . - ... CRAMER, V~ A;OCIATES ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS ... October 29, 1993 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold P1anni~ Board Town Hall, 5309 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Review of Burger King @ Mattituck Traffic Impact Study SerM No. 1000-ln-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Ward: At your request, we have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for the above referenced project. A summary of the study is as follows: Study Annrnarh The report was prepared using sound traffic: engineering practices and followed the analytical methodology Wo.tailp-d in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual Selected ca1culatiODS were c:hecked using HCM software and the results were rnn<l<(ent with the report. Grades & SUzht Distance The NYS Route 15 right-of-way in the vicinity of the proposed project is generally flat with geDtIe horizontal highway cwvea on Route 15. Thus, DO sight distance restrictiODS result, provided adequate turning lanes and radius' are provided at the site ingress/egress. Meldent Records New York Slate Department of Transportation Kcide...ts records were researched for the most recent three year accident history that was available. Location and frequency of accidents did not reveal any high accident locations. Oin!dIonaI Distribution In determining the origins and destinations for site generated traffic, a diredion1" distribution was performed utilizing census information from the publkltlon 'Population Survey' and from turning movement counts at key intersections nearby. It would be helpful to ,ee the at:/uQ/1IIIIIlyIiI and the component.r of the generated and pas,-by trip, in the diltn1Jution. The COIICluIiOll of 62% exiting traffic turning right and 38% tuming left is not apparent and ,hould be mppotted. Genel'llted TraflIc A sound approach to determining trip generation was employed by conducting studies at existing Burger King's located in Rocky Point and Southampton.EmpiricaI data was collected to ca1cu1ate worst case generation rates using the larger of the observed rate per 1,000 SF of gross floor area or the observed rate per restaurant seat. The Southampton Burger King generated higher traffic rates and since volumes on the roadway adjacent to the proposed site are lower that those at the Southampton site, this is a conservative approach. However, the trip volumes generated for the proposed MaItiluck siIe using the SoutIuunpton rates appear to be based 011 78 seats, not the 86 seats Slated 011 the at:companying siIe plan. If 86,eats is the intended plan, 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 . . Burger King @ Mattituck Traffic Impact Study the gmetrIkd trip volumes would increase by 10%. Pan..Jw TtoAfI'Ir The report cites studies on the amount of traffic diverted to a typical Burger King facility from the .."'....,g traffic stream. A 40% pass-by credit was selected as an average value from the range of values observed and is acceptable as a reasonable assumption. Trln A..lanllliPftt Trips generated by the proposed facility were o'.;ll"~.c1 to the local roadway network in accordance with the diredioDaJ distribution previously determined. Net volumes were o";lP"'.d after the pass-by credit was applied. PleIlse note that gross volumes were enle1Wl onto Fi&uns 4 cl 5 at a few tum locations but net volumes were uItinuItely used for the capacity IlIIIIIyses so 110 errors were inI1oduced. UnRI.....UWld Int2rsectlon CanA~tv A.nAlvsls The methodology employed to evaluate the intersections in the vic:inity of the proposed facility is the accepted procedure for nn<;ll"oli7ed intersections detailed in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The analysis determines the lengths of the gaps necessary to safely execute given turning movements and how many such gaps exist in the traffic stream during the analysis period. The turning movement demands are then compared to the availability of corresponding gaps. These analyses were performed for (1) 1993 e"''';ng conditions, (2) projected 1994 No-Build conditions, and (3) the 1994 Build scenario. The results indicate sufficient gaps in traffic to permit safe ingress and egress at the site driveways and nearby intersections. It is suggested that the gap sufJkiency and level of seTVia results of these anolyses be anrzyed for easier evaluotion and comJboration of conclusions in the text that.... there will be a sufficient number of gaps in the traffic flow to allow for safe ingress and egress at the inlersections and the site driveways. . It should be noted that these analyses were based on traffic counts taken during the summer months of 1990. The time of year for data collection is appropriate for a conservative analysis, but the counts are three years old Although not stated in the report, the counts were adjusted 3% per year for a total upward adjustment of 9%. More recent traffic counts are preferable, but this method of adjustment is acceptable. AftftII4iIl. CIreoladoD BDd Parklno Access is provided by separate ingress and egress driveways with separate left turn and right turn exit 1anes for the exit driveway. Geometries for access, cirMdorion and parking are sufficient for good flow. Parking is provided in accordance with the Town of Southold code, including land-banked stalls, with acceptable layout and dimensions suitable for comfortable maneuvering. * * * * In summary, the traffic report examined potential impacts of the propo~~~~roject in sufficient detail utilizing sound traffic engineering principles. Based upon the ysis, it would appear that no adverse impacts would resUlt from implementation of the project. The traffic impact study is found to be acceptable with the following recommendations: 1. Trips generated by the prol?osed facility should be recalculated based on an 86 seat facility as depicted on the stte plan (unless the applicant has revised the seating proposal to the 76 seats used in the trip generation analysis). CRAMER, V~ .I'A\sOCIATES ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Page 2 . . Burger King @ Mattituck Traffic Impact Study 4. The analysis to determine the directional distribution should be provided and reassignments made if necessary. The capacity analysis should be recalculated if necessary based on any clwules in trip generation/seating capacity and directional distribution. Levels of service sliould be arrayed for easy review. The Town of Southold, in conjunction with the NYSOOT, may wish to ~~uire the construction of a westbound left turn lane on Route 25 for improved tr c safety and in anticipation of higher traffic volumes in the future. 2. 3. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this review. Please call if you have any questions. CRAMER, v~ AsOCIATES ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Page 3 . . ATIACHMENT B LONG EAF PARTS I & n 8uraer KJaa @ Mattituck LOD& EAF Rmew (e . PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION , ."~..,_L,,.,.~ ! ''--''-,r, .') j ;.j';:..\J .,.). Prepared by Project Sponsor '. NOTICE: This document is designed to a"ist in determining whether the action proposed~maylla\iea-srgr1iflca'nt effect on Ihe env;ronmenL Please complete the e..tire lorm, Parts A through E. Answers to,Jhe.1.~.ru!esticinhriIUie considered as part 01 the application for approval and may be subject to further veriiication and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expecled that completion of the lull EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies. research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable. so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION COFAM REAL TV, owner of Property for Proposed Fast-Food Restaurant LOCATION OF ACTION (Iilclul.l.Slr.ol Add,.u. Munlclpllllty and County) of Southold, Suffolk COl:lnty M~in Road (State Route 25) Mattituck. Town NAME Of APPLICANT/SPONSOR I BUSINESS TELEPHONE COFAM REALTY, Owner ( ~ 1 A <hq-A?OO ADDRESS c/o Charles R. Cuddy CITY/po I STATE I ~P{~f81 IBO Old Cuntry Road, Riverhead. NY NAME OF OWNER (II dllltHunt) I BUSlf~ESS TELEPUONE Same I I ADDRESS CITY/PO I STATE I Zl~ CODE DESCRIPTION Of AC nON Site plan for proposed fast-food restaurant in accordance with appl icable zoning and other appl icable laws and regulations. (See site plans submitted) Also see Conditioned Negati ve Declaration by Southold Town Planning Board dated 2/5/91 for a restaurant at this sitE . Please (omplele hch Question-Imlicale N.A. IInol aJlplieaMe A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: DUrban Dlndustrial DCommercial DResidential (suburban) DForest DAgriculture oOther 2. Total acreage of project area: 3 acres. APPROXIMATE AClUAGE PRESEi-Hl Y AFTER Cm.IPlETION MeadolY or Urushland (Non-agricultural) 3 acres 0 acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland. pasture, elc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 2S of ECl) acres acres Water Surface Area acres aCleS Unveeetaled (flock. earth or fill) "cres acres Roau~. buildings and other pavcu surfaces 0 acres 1 - 1 acres Other (Indicate type) I andscap~d ar~a 0 acres 1.9 ~~~ 3. What is predominant soiltype(>) on project site! Loam and sand (].,.,zV~/JlYMOO~!> CLf>G) a. 5011 dra,nage: c;JWell dr.lined 100 % of site DModeralely well drained~% of >ite DPoorly drallled % of site b. If any agricoltoral'.lnd is involved. how many acres of soil are classified within soil era touch 4 of the NYS land Classification Systeml 0 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project sitel DYes DlNo a. What is depth to bedrockl -1::,00 + (in feet) gJRural (non.rarm) .6 ? ,;..6'. ", A:,;,ro',:mate l'erCe'll,ue oitpo,eJ project ,ite with ,lopes: . ,--'U,'IO'" 95 .' ,.. 'Ill r,r, 2-1/2 u. ,,, __._~ .0 _ .\) ::15% or gre.lIer -1:!!~ % site, or district, listeJ on tl", State or the N.ttionJI .' ,. D, Is project substantially contiguous to. or cont.in a building. Registers of lIistoric Places I DYes !:iI:No i. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Naturallandmarksl 8. What is the depth of the water table I ~ (in feet) Irq F&<:=r 7f7>f>KO)( /A/i) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquiferl 1'9 Yes C1No ~ 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist In the project areal DYes D!No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that Is identified as threatened or endangeredl DYes liONo According to {- VA- 5; r= h1.H..p,'='r77fJA/ Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project sitel (i.e., cliffs. dunes. other geological formations) DYes Ii(]No Describe ::;Yes ~No 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation areal DYes Ii(]No It yes.. explain H. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the communityl D~ ~o , 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: none a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area; a. Name none 17. Is the site served by existing public utilitiesl DlYes DNo aJ It Yes. does sufficient capacity exist to allow connectionl b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow Connectionl b. Size (In acres) 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets law, Article 25-AA. Section 303 and 3041 DYes JO:I-Io 19. Is the site located in or substantially COntiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article B of the ECl. and 6 NYCRII 617/ [JYes aNa Ii(] Yes Oil Yes DNo DNo 20. lias the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waslesl DYes ~o B. Project Descrl.pllon 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (till in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage oWlled or controlled by project Sponsor b. Project acreage to be developed: 1 acres jnilially; c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 acres. d. length of project, in miles: (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion. indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed ~ ~ (II. 1 5 l. g. Maxilnum vehicular trips generated per hour 176 (Upon completion of project)/ h. It residenti.l: Number and type of housing units: Olle Family Two Family o 3 acres. acres ultimat;'y. %; Initially Ultimately I. Dimensions (in feel) ot largest proposed structure 23' height; 42' j. linear feet of frolltage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy isl Multiple Family Condominium 75' length. width; 371 ft. 3 .--"-~~." '".-, "._~-".-$., J . 1. 1I0w lIluch IIdtur,II mith'lIdl (i... 'xk, eauh. etc.) will be removed from the siteI8.400 J. Will disturbed areilS he reclilirnedl l!1:l'es DNa ON/A a. Ii yes. for what intend... purpose is the site being reclaimedl b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation I GIVes DNa c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamationl DVes K1No 4. Iiow many acres of vegetation (trees. shrubs. groulld covers) will be removed from sitel 1-1/2 acres. 5. Will any mature lorest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this projectl DVes UilNo . l'0Xs/cubic y.,ds landscaped, parking, restaurant 6. If single phase projecl: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased; a. Total number of phases anticipated b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase 1 functionallV dependent on subsequent phases I 8. Will blasting occur during constructiolll DVes DNa 9. Number of jobs generated; during construction 35 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities I 4 months, (illcluding demolition). (number). month month DVes year, (including demolition). year. DNa ; after project is complete 40 DYes KINo If yes. explain 12. Is .surface liquid waste disposal involvedl DYes KlNo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.J and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged n. Is subsurtace liquid waste disposal involved I ~es DNa Type Domest i c sewaqe H. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposall DYes ~o Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain I DYes Ili:INo 16. Will the project generate solid wastel ~es DNa a. If yes, what Is the amount per month 1 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used I DYes lONo c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any'wastes nol go into a Sewage disposal'system or into a sanitary landlilll ~Yes DNa e. If Yes, explain mt to be dispose:J of in Soothold Sanitary landfill 17. Will the project involve the disppsal of solid wastel DYes fiNo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal I tons/month. b. If yes, what Is the anticipated site Iifel years. 18. Will proJect use herbicides or pesticidesl DYes OONo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)! DYes KlNo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels I DVes' 21. Will project result in all increase in ellergy usel KlYes DNa If yes, indica Ie type(s) Electrical , GINo 22. If water supply Is learn wells, indicate pumping capacity 20 gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usa~c per day 2'iM gallons/day. 24. Docs project involve local. State or Federal funding I DYes If Yes, explain IONo I 4 .....~ ..~f APQfO\ ,Ils Requ, '~d: . Cil\-', TOWIl, \'iHui:e uoafl': City. Town. Villa!;e Planning BOMd City, Town Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other local Agencies Other Regional Agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies ::'.Yes XlNo iXi'{e' DNo !IYes DNo iXiYes DNo IX! Yes oNo DYes IXINo OOYes oNo DYes OONo . Submillal Dale Type Site Plan (Amended) 3/ /93 Soecial Exception Approyed Commercial 8/ /93 Zonina certification - Building3/ 93 Department NYS Dept. of Transportation / /93 c. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning declsionl ~Yes oNo If Yes, indicate decision required: ozoning amendment ozoning variance Ospecial use permit osubdivision IXlsite plan onew/revision of master plan oresource management plan oother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the sitel B aeneral business 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning! Lot coyeraqe - 30% 4, What is the proposed zoning of the site! 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permilled by the proposed zoning! N/A . ~ same 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans! lllIYes oNo 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ~ mile radius of proposed action! B. L 10 R-80. A-C. R-40 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ~ mile! [l!IYes oNo 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed! a. What is the minimum lot size proposed! Ni'A 10. Will propos~d action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts! DYes UNo 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)/ QiYes oNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand! OYes oNo 12. Will the proposed action result.in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels! DYes IKJNo a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic! DYes oNo D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal. please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. - 7// 'R(;Vi~1SiJ 3Y, ~lIss7 thc1kllls c~ IIIef> ~ E. Verification CV""i ee.""S(uT7/-1'{r.,.b A-/l?VNINl, z?, 1'0-2<:1-93 I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge, Applicant/Sponsor e~~COFAM REALTY Signature ~_ Q...u....... Title Owner / If (he action is in the Coaslal Area, and you are a slale agency, complele the Coast.;1 Assessment Form before proceeding wilh Ihis assessment, ." Date 8/~o /93 5 ...~-_,,,,,,...ti,,, "'" ..... ,.. r- Part 2-_0JECT IMPACTS AND THEUeAGNITUDE lesponslblUty of lu4 AaetICY General InformatlOft (Rud C"efully) . In completin, the form the reviewer should be ,uided by the question: Have my responses and A"!terminations been reatofUlble! The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. . Identifyin, that an Impact will be potentially lar,e (column 2) does not mean t~t it is also necessarily "anlllcaat. Any lar,e impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine si,nilicance, Identifyin, an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further, . The Eumples provided are to assist the reviewer by 'showin, types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of maanitude that would triaer a response in column 2. The examples are aenerally applicable throuahout the State and for most situations. But. for any specific project or site other examples andlor lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential lar,e Impact response. thus requirina evaluation In Part 3. . The Impacts of each project. on uch site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been oHered as ,uidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question, . The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. . . In identifyin, impacts, consider lon, term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a, Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers, c. If answerin, Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of th, impact If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2, If impact will occur but threshoi, is lower than example, check column .1,' d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially lar,e and proceed to PART ~ e, If a potentially lar,e impact checked in column 2 can be mitiaated by c~n,e(s) in the project to a small to moderat impact. also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indiates ~t such a reduction is not possible. Thi _ must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical chanae to the pro~~.tef DNO YES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Any construction on slopes of 15% or ,reater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of len,th), or where the ,eneral slopes in the project area exceed 10%. . Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet o Construction of paved parkin, area for 1,000 or more vehicles, . Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or ,enerally within 3 feet of existin"round surface, . . Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or sta,e. . Excavation for minin, purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year, o Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. o Construction in a desi,nated f100dway. o Other impacts 2. will there be an effect t'.. _,'v URlque or unusualland~ms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, aeoloaical formations, etc~O DYE5 o Specific land forms: 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderal. Large MItigated By -liiiI*:f Impact Project Chan~ . . )( 0 DYes oNo . 0 0 Dyes oNo [l 0 Dyes oNo 0 0 DYes oNc 0 0 DYes ONe 0 0 DYes ONe 0 0 DYes ON, 0 0 DYes ON, 0 0 DYes ON, 0 0 Dyes ON ~. . . Proposed Action may Clluse substantial erosion. . Proposed Action is incompatible with existina drainaae pattems. . Proposed Action will allow development in a desianated f100dway. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON ~A ~O DYES 7. will proposed action affect air qualityl Eumples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action will induce 1.000 or more vehicle trips in any aiven hour. . Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. . Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed Sibs. per hour or a heat source producina more than 10 million BTU's per hour. . Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. . Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existina industrial areas. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or enda~ed species? . )5\NO DYES Eumples that would apply to column 2 ' . Reduction of one or more species listed on the New Yon: Of Federal list. usina the site. over or near site or found on the site. . Removal of any portion of a critical or sianificant wildlife habiUL . Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year. other than for aaricultural purposes. . Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threat\~ or non-endangered species? ~O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish. shellfish or wildlife species. . Proposed Action requires the removal of mon: than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land r~rcesl }'ltlO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . The proposed action would sever. cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland. hayfields. pasture. vineyard. orchard. etc.) 8 sa to 2 S Pot.ntlal Can Impact Be Mod,rat. Larg. MItigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 Dyes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 Dyes DNo 0 0 Dyes DNo 0 0 DYes oNo -. ...- ." '" 0 0 Dyes "DNo 0 0 Dyes DNo 0 0 Dyes DNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 Dyes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo , 0 0 Dyes oNo - - - r- . IMPACT ON WATER 3 Will proposed action affect any water body desi,nated as protected! (Under Articles 15.24,25 of the Environmental conse~n. law, ECl) ,lQ.tlO DYE S Examples that would apply to column 2 . Developable area of site contains a protected water body. . Dredaina more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. . Extension of utility distribution facilities throu,h a protected water body. . Construction in a desi,nated freshwater or tidal wetland. . Other impacts: ... Will proposed action affect any nOl)oprotected existi~r new body of water? J'lNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. . Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. . Other impacts: S. Will Proposed Action affect surface or Iroundwater\.L quality or Quantity!. ~O DYES Eumples that would apply ~ column 2 . Proposed Action will require. discharae permit. . Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to, serve proposed. (project) action. . Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with ,reater than 45 aallons per minute pumpin, tapacity. . Construction Of operation cawin, any contamination of a water supply system. . . Proposed Action will adversely affect ,roundwater. . liquid effluent will be conveyeO off the site to facilities whi.h presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. . Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 ,a lions per day. . Proposed Action will likl'l" c.,,;p siltation or other dischar,e into an existin, body of water tv tt." ~"l~nt that there will be an obviouS visual contrast to natural conditions. . Proposed Action will require the storale of petroleum or chemical products Ireater than 1,100 lallons. . Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas 'without water andlor sewer services. . Proposed Action locates commercial andlor industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment andlor storale facilities. . Other impacts: I J' Will proposed action alter drainaae flow or patte~, or . , water runoff? rz'O Eu.:nples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action would chanae flood water flows. surf ace DYES ~ 1 2 3 Small to Pot.nUal Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 Dyes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo .... 0 0 DYes ON, 0 - 0 DYes ON, 0 0 DYes ON, 0 0 Dyes ON. 0 0 Dyes ON 0 0 DVes O~ 0 0 DYes ON 0 0 DYes eN 0 . 0 DYes ON 0 0 Dyes o~ 0 0 DYes O~ 0 0 DYes O~ 0 0 DYes Oi . . Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of aaricultural land. . The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 ICres of aaricultufll land or, if located in an Aaricultutal District. more than 2.5 acres of a.ricultufll land. . The propOsed action would disrupt or prevent Insullation of a.ricultural land mana.ement systems (e.... subsurface drain lines. outlet ditches. strip croppina); or create a need for such measures (e... cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) . Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCE~ 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ~O DYES (If necessary. use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.) bamples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surroundin. land use patterns. whether man-made or natural. . Proposed land uses. or project components visible to u~ of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or si.nificantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or si.nificant screenin. of scenic views known to be important to the area. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. will Proposed Action impact any site or structure ~istoric. pre- historic or paleontoloaical importance? ~O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiauous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Reaister of historic places. . Any impact to an archaeoloaical site or fossil bed located within the project site. . Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existina or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? ~ _ Eumples that would apply to column 2 ~O DYES { IThe permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. '~. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. . Other impacts: -- g sA to 2 3 Pot.nUal Can Impact Ie Moderll. Llrg. MItigated By Implct Implct Project Change 0 0 DYes DNa 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo . 0 0 Dyes 01'10 0 0 DYes 01'10 0 0 DYes DNa 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes op.l(> 0 0 DYes 01'10 0 0 DYes oNo , 0 0 DYes 01'10 0 0 Dyes DNa 0 0 DYes oNo , . IMPACT ON TRANSppRTATION 14. will thl!rl! bl! an l!ffl!ct to existinl lransporution systl!msl \..(, DNO ~ES hampll!S that would apply to column 2 . Altl!"tion of prl!sl!nt palterns of movl!ml!nt of pl!opll! and/or loods. . Proposed Action will rl!sult.in major traffic probll!ms. /l . Othl!r impacts: TlZI1FF>c. S7VOY ReL"""""'-"'Yl' !:!?(}Jncr:r- , SHtJUUl OJAlf\l7RM 7'0 S7VVJY ANn tZ.{W/I'nA,) IMPACT ON ENERGY , S. Will proposl!d action affect the community's SOU~l! of fUl!l or l!nerlY supplyl 0 DYES lumpll!s that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action will cause a Ireater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. . Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an enerlY transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. . Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS , (,. will there bl! objectionable odors, noise, or vibra~ as a result of thl! Proposl!d ActIonl pIt-lO . DVES c lumpll!S that would apply to column 2 . Blasting within 1,500 fl!et of a hospital, school or other sensitivl! facility. . Odon will occur routinl!ly (morl! than one hour pl!r day~ - .' _... -- . Proposed Action will producl! Opl!"tinl 1I0ise l!Xcl!l!dinl thl! local ambil!nt noise Ievl!ls for noiS!! outside of structUI'l!S. . Proposl!d Action will rl!mOVl! natural barriers that would act as a noise screl!n. . Othl!r impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposl!d Action affect public health and safeC'J.. ~o DVES hampll!S that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substancl!s (i.e. oil, pl!sticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there mav be a chronic low level discharge or emission. . Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.) . Storale facilities for one million or more gallons of Iiquified natural las. or othl!r flammable liquids. . Proposl!d action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 fel!t of a site uSl!d for thl! disposal of solid or hazardous wastl!. . Other impacts: .ft 1 2 a Small to Potantlal Can Impact Moderat. large MItigated Impact Impact Project Chan 0 0 oVl!S 0 0 0 oVl!S 0 0 X ~l!S 0 0 0 oVes 0 0 0 oVl!S 0 0 0 oVes 0 - .or, . 0 0 oVl!S 0 0 0 oVl!S 0 - p 0 oVl!S 0 0 0 oVl!S 0 0 0 oVl!S 0 0 0 oVes o~ 0 0 oVes Dr 0 0 oVes OJ 0 0 oVes D. 0 0 oVl!S 0 Be By g~ No No No Nc Nc N( N, N N N N . , . IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD , II, will proposed action affect the character of the existinl comm~~! oNO )R.ES Examples that would apply to column 2 . The permanent population of the city, town or villaae in which the project is located is likely to Irow by more than 5%. . The municipal budlet for capital expenditures or operatina services will incruse by more INn 5% per year as a result of this project. . Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or loals. . Proposed action will cause a chanae in the density of land use. . Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existina facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. . Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.a. schools, police and fire, etc.) . Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. . Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ~ ' . Other impacts: SOU /) wA-;s,''Tl!c I.JAA/l) l./rVl, Mf':T7J"^-S: S"f.I.OUIA 13,00;:- 5PFGIF7l=D , 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Prolect Change 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes ONe J( 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo X 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo )( 0 DYes oNo 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts! ONO ~S If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 c Part 3-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of lead "Ieney Part 3 must be prepared If one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially Iarle, even if the impact(s) may be mltlpted. Instructions Discuss the followinl for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: ,. Briefly describe the impact 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitiaated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project chanae(s: 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is Important. To answer the question of importance, consider: . The probability of the impact occurrina . The duration of the impact . Its irreversibility, includina permanently lost resources of value . Whether the impact can or will be controlled . The reaional consequence of the impact . Its potential diverlence from local needs and aoals . Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) · MAmTUCK FIRE DISTRIC' P. O. Box 666,1000 Pike Street Mattltuck, New York 11952 ~rll.E" P8 RK.. FI e.,~ wv. Office 298-8831 Fax 298-8841 October 19, 1993 Planning Board Office Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: SCTM #1000-122-06-31 Stulil)~IdcQ Ventu((.s SCTM #1000-122-7-3.1 el.<.f'jel' Ki"~ Gentlemen: As to the above stated Site plans it is the reeommendation of this Board of Fire Commissioners that a Firewell be installed on the South side of Route 25 approximately halfway between these two sites, provided that the Suffolk County Water Authority has no plans to install a water main and hydrants in this area. Cordially, ), W~ LuJ4 e T. Woodhull, Chairman of Fire Commissioners uck Fire District ill" (if' ["" ~'~'1'-~:~7-r,:-~~:;:"1" i .'1::) \k;, : ;t',;ll ~ \'1 I~ 11" i hl.C=.'"" ", .'.,::......2......'2... .... .11.." Jf:,"" '" 'n. '(mer 2 21900 :) , , ,,"'~.' l , j . . .C.lLI'O" STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788 JAMES A. KUZLOSKI REGIONAL DIRECTOR October 12, 1993 R. G. Kassner Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 RE: BURGER KING SCTM 1000 122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Kassner: Su.-f,F/ r..E: f{/<. JOHN C. EGAN COMMISSIONER The State of New York Department of Transportation has no objection to you assuming lead agency status for the referenced proposal. Very truly yours, 7,_~" X-LS~'_ .~ GE'Q;G?L: BE I ERL I NG r C.E. I I .,....-~.-._., n i':l OCT I 4 1993 . ._.,:."-~~~q.,>-;--",,- ,,;_oJ,'IifFOl;( .-;c" .( "> ~ t'" '0. -j C\..V _ v/. 1~ ,-, ,..." . ,. \ """. '-I - -,,- t' 'y,- ,116...." 't ' '":2,\., I')' ~." -'li ',.'. ~ ~,~ "o;a- r~ '- ;;}. ::y- - - {_r~( ~ !~ \' <::> .....-,. ,., ,. 'v- ~ '\' 0~, 'Jj":'~./'. ,}.~o;Y . :t-UJ- - JZ:X~ . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G_ Ward Mark S_ McDonald Kenneth L Edwards SCOTI L HARRIS, Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P_O_ Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 )0- 7 , 19 73 John A. Keogh, Secretary Mattituck Fire District Pike Street Mattituck, New York 11952 Dear Mr. Keogh: Enclosed please find (2) surveys for r t? (j po S c: ]) SiTE qt<~G;< I.//HC Sc'TI'1#/ooo-f).;2,,-7-:l.j Please notify this office needed. Please specify whether will be needed. Please reply _by /0 _ .:2/ cooperation. as to whether any firewells are shallow wells or electric wells , 19~. Thank you for your '~7i IY~ Ie HII'~ D G ,ty"fItD Chairman enc. - P:J -~ 8 - 7 J O/lUj ~. , O/y ~iI;,,~ 61'10...-rj () ,<i G, ('.t INt. # - "..".C'Ilo r- . . Rlchard O. Ward. Chalnnan George Ritchie L..1.tham. Jr. Bennett Orlowski. Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards . ~~0 ;'fi\\rrol.( .~ -c> .' '.....). V. ~. " ~:,;~, _ v~ :::;, .' t'.",. -"'. ::"'."',\.~, ';.....~I ~_~.. .~ ~,\)~-'. ~ J: .;" . ~-..iP~;" -,' ~~~ " ~. ~'1 < . ,.~ "l,., -,. .:-,"'" ....! . ~S ',\) SCOTI'L.HARRlS Supervisor ; "'Vol. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTIIOW Fax (516) 765 - 1823 October 5, 1993 Cramer & Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Review of Traffic Study & Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) . SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) and Traffic Study, (previously sent), for review. The Planning Board has received the $950.00 review fee from the applicant. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. If you have any questions, please contact me at the planning office. rLJI ~ G. Kassner Plan Reviewer t cc: Charles R. Cuddy, Attorney for Applicant -~...........,.,.,-" -....., . MATT/TUCK FIRE DISTRICT. P. O. Box 666, 1000 Pike Street Mattltuck, New Vork 11952 ..:5Z4'3Ft u;:: fJb ~ FI,z-z- AtE Fax 298-8841 Office 298-8837 September 28, 1993 Planning Board Office Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Burger King Site Plan Gentlemen: The site plan of the Burger King Restaurant, dated 26 Mar 93 is acceptable, AS PRESENTED, by the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Mattituck Fire District. Cordially, ,- "-~","-'~""< :2 I L,SEP 3 0 ,---,..,,. . . Su/'FiU CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 180 OLD CoUNTRY ROAD lRTE. 58) P. O. BOX US47 R:rvEHHEAD. NY 11901 ADJACENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT TEL: C&16) 36~8200 FAX.: (&161369-9080 September 28, 1993 Mr. Robert Kassner southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Cofam Realty c...0..tt i f\ J.(WAJ!IV Dear Mr. Kassner: In accordance with your request, enclosed is a check in the amount of $950.00 as payment of the fee for the environmental consultants, Cramer & Voorhis. Please advise us as soon as you receive their report. Very truly yours, ~R~f!!o CRC/ec SEP 2 9 11m ~RAMER. v~ffi\. JA.StIATES ENVIRONMENi'~~G CONSULTANTS . s:<<i>F1tB i<'i- September 28, 1993 Mr. Robert Kassner Site Plan Re'newer Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Dunkin Donuts Traffic Impact Review Dear Bob: . I am in receipt of the information you sent regarding the traffic impacts of the Dunkin Donuts site as related to the Burger King Traffic Impact Study prepared by Dunn Engineering. It is my understanding that you require a cost estimate to review the adequacy of tbe traffic impact examination of the Dunkin Donuts project as referenced above. Pleasll be advised that tbe fee for this service will not exceed $200.00. Please advise if you wish us t:> proceed with this review. !fyou have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ~all. -c..._...... . SEP 2 9 "e,en f ~ vvV I l sll:d;;ii:,;;.,r'--- . PtI"~h:\~,J;()',~:D ~_.-'O=_-- ~ - , .... _..0.-........ ...-....... .-' '-' .. -:;;; : ,~ t Rlchard G. Ward. Chatnnan George RJtchie Latham. Jr. Bennett Orlowski. Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards l:i:Dl:- - 0-;":)~~'~ .... "';~~,_ .'':i...J'.r't' " ~~ ~", ',"J, :::> '. t.' ..::, :::.e. ~ ,..!....;,~:; ~ .~ -i'. I' _ ;..~~,,';" 1"..., "Jo\ r', "n,-';I"I ..~ ....... . "~ '. .J- - > . c'_,--:'./ ,,\- -:'n "';lllP""'",",) "'vI ~: ''0-'(:;>,,, . " . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTr L, HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765 - 1823 September 22, 1993 Cramer & Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Request for determination if traffic studies for Burger King and Bridgehampton Bank are adequate for Dunkin Donuts Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM# 1000-122-6-11 Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis: As discussed on September 21, 1993, enclosed are additional data from Dunn Engineering on traffic conditions at Dunkin Donuts. The applicant feels that the study made for The Bridgehampton Bank (Dunn Engineering September 1992) and the study for Burger King, together with the enclosed information, is sufficient for Dunkin Donuts and that a separate study for Dunkin Donuts is unnecessary. I would appreciate your review of this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at the planning office. Sincerely ~b,rp G: Kass~;I Ue~ 7/ I; a<XY?t-e-J te pi:: Reviewer Encls. cc: Charles R. Cuddy, Attorney for Applicant fi{ Dunn Engineiii;( L\ssociates Consulting Engineers. 66 Main Street Westhamplon Beach, N. Y. 11978 516-288-2480 August 25, 1993 Mr; Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1549 Riverhead, NY I ] 90 I Re: Proposed Burger King Route 25, Mallituck Southold, New York Dear Mr. Cuddy: As discussed, we have investigated the impact on traffic conditions in the vicinity of the above project of the Dunkin' Donuts lacility as you described it. As a result of this investigation, the .following can be concluded: I. The Dunkin' Donut facility can be expected to attract 38 vehicles during its peak hour of operation, 7:00-8:00 A.M. This is bascd on the assumption that each vehicle arriving at the facility will carry an average of 1.2 persons, a nationally accepted rate; 2. Some, if not most, of the traffic associated with the Dunkin' Donuts facility can be expected to be already on the road I{)r another purpose, such as traveling to work or to a recreational activity. Analyses pertormed in connection with this investigation have assumed that 50% of the traffic destined lor the Dunkin' Donuts facility will be pass-by trips; therefore only 19 new vehicles will be generated by this proposed facility during the A.M. peak hour; 3. The addition of this trallic to the roadway network results in barely perceivable impact, even if all 19 originated in and returncd to the west, so as to have the greatest impact on the Burger King site. This is evidenccd by the results of unsignalized capacity analyses pertormcd with thcse 19 vehicles addcd. Since it can be expected that some of the donut shop trallic would originate in the east, this analysis examines a worst case scenIJrio as it relatcs to the Ilurger King operat[on. A copy of these analysis is attached; As a result, it can be seen that the traffic generated by the proposed Ilurger King can be accommodated by the existing roadway network, even with the addition of traffic generated by the Dunkin' Donuts lacility. -'--iT!,)-'!: iJ7f ~ Ri j ;;'~-"~"'M_~''''---''--.-~i i Ii t! "". :;,,' :,!;:;1 , 2 -. "'0"" j U",j _j , ,\.i'J I .,.1......) I. I . L- · SOLiTHdLO TGWi~ PU'.i~NING 30AI?D -"-;;r ....~.-J . '.:-~....;:~ .<. .( Mr. Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. August 25, 1993 Page 2 We trust that the forgoing addresses any concern on the part of the Town of SOllthold with regard to this project. If you have any questions or need any further information, please call me. ~~ VINCENT CORRADO Engineer VC/lam L930421 P93063 Attachment ... .. ~..--......-. - ------ ........----......--... 1'.. ~ :-; ~ ""'- .~ ~.~ c: ..,..,.'~~- <1 i \4fRIENDLY'S DUNION' DONUTS ~ 7-11 ....:~N..! \_.t --._~l1:'_ : ".'\, >\j ) ". '" o"..:L...JJ:.:... BURGER KING ." '\ I : '. " ~ J._. ROY ROGERS -r . , . 08:43 I , i I I I 1985 ~CM' UNSIGNAL ZE~ INTERSECTIONS Page-1 .***.~.**.****..*** ***************...*******.*** *****..*..***...... I , IDENT~FYING INFORMA ION -----i------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- i AVERA1E RUNNING SPE O. MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK ~OUR FACTOR... ................. .9 AREA ~PULATION.... ................. 150000 NAME QF TUE EAST/WE T STREET......... NYS ROUTE 2 I , NAME ~F THE NORTH/S UTH STREET....... BRAY AVENUE I NAME qF THE ANALYST ................. DUNN ENGIllE RIIlG ASSOC. VJD DATE dF THE ANALYSI (mm/dd/yy)...... 8-23-93 TIME ~ERIOD ANALYZE ................. WEEKDAY 8-9 AN , OTHER!INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 INTER~ECTION TYPE -----1------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- .- . AUG 26 '93 , Er1GHIEERING 516 288 2544 I ,.~, -, ' :" DUNN BURGE IIlTER ECTION TYPE: -INTERSECTXOll MAJOR STREET DIRECT ON, EAST/WEST CONTR L TYPE NORTHB UNO, STOP SIGN .TRAFFl!c VOLUMES , P.2/16 KING MATTITUCK EB SB ------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- w NB LEFT o 4 28 THRU I RICHT 411 4 2 o 7 o 53 ~~:~-~~-~~~---- EB SD ----------------------------- ------------------- WB NB LANES I 1 1 1 .. 07~:~(:.)i'?1l \;1 ~ f',l I, ! 1..:-~L-:::..!LL._LL ! '! i i ;': 'j' i) 2 7 -'."'" -'.Ji: ....~...., ,; . -,'.; ~ ) . 'I I L.--..________.-i---I - ~:~':lr::.J....J r:-'.":,~ l pU,,"l,;li'!C D(1i~r:o ~. '~"'..' """'~-""'O :-.._....,_""~""",.~ AUG 26 '93 08'43 DUNN ENGHIEERHlG 516 288 2544 i A","'j.,., """" -----l------------- .t PERCEIlT GAADE i ; , EASTB9UND 0.00 WESTB1UND 0.00 NORTHjOUND 0.00 SOUTH~OUND ----- VEHICJE COMPOSITION -----,------------- l: SU AllD EASTnquND WEsTD~UND ; NORTHBOUND SOUTH~Ulm I CRITIo/'L GAPS -----1------------- I TABU (Ta MINORIRIGHTS I NB .1 MAJOR I LEFTS WB MIIIOR LEFTS MB e( P.3/16 ----------------------------- Page-2 ------------------- RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELEAATION LANE ANGLE FOR RIGIlT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ---~----~- ---------------- ----------------- 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N ::::---:-:::::::::::---------r------------------- V'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ------------- ------...------ o o o o o o ----------------------------- ------------------- VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT 1ST. 1e 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT FIlIAL CRITICAL GAP --------- -------- ------ ------------ 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 5;30 5.30 0.0 5.:JO 7.40 7.40 0.0 7.40 IDENT,FYING INFORMA ION ;;;;-J;-;~~-~~~;i;; ;-~;;;;;~~~~~~-;;;-;~~;;-;;-- ------------------- NAIre OF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET.... DM'l AVENUE DATE 4ND TIME OF TH. ANALySIS..... 8-23-93 : WEE AY 8-9 AM OTHER !INFOru~TIOII.... 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING IIAT1'ITUCR -:. ~.--,_.-_..,~ ~.....,~ et r( . AUG 26 '93 08:44 DUNN ENGINEER'ING 516 288 2544 i P.4/16 CAPAC~TY AND LEVEL- F-SERVrCE -----~------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- J I I J ! . MOVEMrlNT J J , , , I MINORISTREET NB ~EPT 34 170 166 > , > J08 1IGHT 65 566 566 > 5 6 > 501 > A '"::',:;:-" " .., .., .1, "" ;~;:~;;;;;;; ;:;;;;;;::::::-;;;-;;;;.--;;--1______------------- NAME qF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET.... BRlW AVENUE I DATE ~D TIME OF TH ANALySIS..... 8-23-93 ; WEEKbAY 8-9 AM OTUERIINFORHATION.... 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING.MATTITUCK I J i i I Paqe-J FLOW- RATE V (pcph POTEN- ACTUAL TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI Y CAPACITY c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c - c - V LOS P M SH R SH -------- --------- --------- -. ------------ ------ 1 11 > > 209 131> >-c D ~ _. .~~,..............__.,,. ~ ... II -( AUG 26 '9308:44 DUNN El'IGIIIEERHIG 516 288 2544 P.5/16 1985 eM: utlSIGNAL ZED INTERSECTIONS Page-l ***** ************* ***************.***..****.... .****************** IDENT~e~ING INFORMA -----1------------- ION ----------------------------- AVERAqE RUNNING SPE 0, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK OUR FACTOR..................... .9 EAST/WE T STREET......... NYS RTE 25 AREA OPULATION...................... 150000 NAME NAME THE NORTH/S UTH STREET....... THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FACTORY AVEYSIGSBEE ROAD DUNN ENGINEkRING ASSOC. VJO NAME i DATE IF THE AlIALYSr' (mm/dd/yy)...... 8-23-93 ,- TIME lERIOO AlIALYZE ................. WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTlTUCK :~:~~~~:::~~_:::~-- ~_:~~:~~:_------------------- ------------------- , , , INTER~ECTION TYPE: -LEG MAJOR I STREET DIRECT ON: EAST/WEST CONTR1L TYPE NORTlIB UNO: STOP SIGN CONTRiL.TYPE SOUTHS UNO: STOP SIGN TRAFF~C VOLU!-IES ----- ------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- EB W NB SD LEFT 57 1 4 37 THRU 430 5 5 2 7 RIGHT 5 9 23 84 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE , -----:------------- ----------------------------- CD WB liB S8 Ll\!;ES , 1 1 2 2 == . ...-.......,- ~.....~".,~-..-. e{ AUG 26 '93 08: 45 DUNN ENGINEERIIIG 516 288 2544 e( P.6/16 , A",~L FA~, -----1------------- , , , , , I ----------------------------- ------------------- page-2 PERCENT GllADE i EASTB/UND 0.00 WESTBquUD 0.00 NORTH~OUND 0.00 SOUTH~UND 0.00 ~:~::~_:~~:~~:::~~ I ------- ---------- RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LlUlE ANCLE FOR RICHT TURNS FOR RIGH'r 'l'URNS ---------------- ----------------- 90 90 90 90 20 N 20 N 20 N 20 N ----------------------------- ------------------- , , i i , EASTBOUND WESTBl1UND NORTH OUND SOUTH OUND , I. CR.L'rIqAL GAPS -----~------------- i I , 't SU TUCKS AND V'S % COMBINM'ION VEHICLES t MOTORC'lCJ.ES ------ ---. ------------- o o o o o o o o ----------------------------- ~------------------ HInOR/RIGHTS NB I SB HAJORI~FTS E8 WD TABU eTa VALUES AIDUSTED SIGHT rST. FINAL .Le 10-2) VALUE ADJUST EN'!' CRI'rICAL GAP --------- -------- ------ -----------.... 5.10 5.10 0.0 5.10 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 g:gr MINOR THROUGHS I NB 6.90 6.90 0.0 I sa 5.90 5.90 oOOf MInOR/LEFTS I NB 7.40 7.40 0.0 7.40 :~:~~~:::~~_;;:~~~ :;~::_________~~::________:~:!b-~--------~~::----- IIAME OF TilE EMT/we T STRI:ET...... Il'lS RTE 25 NAME qF THE NORTH/S liTH STREET.... FACTORY AVE/SI SBEE ROAD DATE ~NO TIME OF THf NIALYSIS..... 9-23-93 ; weEK AV 9-9 AM OI'HER :~Nf'ORMA'l'~ON.... 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 nllRGI':RI KXNG MATTITUCK 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 6.90 6.90 ~ ._..;. "-..---..<--.. .;..~............. ~. 4J\' AUG 26 '93 08:4~ DUI II I EIIGIIIEERIIIG 516 288 2544 P.7/16 CAPAC .TY AND LEVEL- F-SERVrCE Pagg-J ------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- i POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE I RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEI-n:;NT v(poph 0 (poph) 0 (poph) 0 (poph) 0-0 - V LOS , [J M SH R 511 I I ------ -------- --------- --------- -- ------------ H1NORISTREET NB ~EFT 5 103 76 6 71 E fOUGIl 2 148 III " 1 1 " ll0 " D IGHT 28 552 552 > 441 552 > 410 52.1 >A A MINORiSTREET 1L , SD LEFT 45 120 103 58 E 'l,'HRQUGH 9 152 U7 ,. 137 > 129 > D RIGHT 103 466 466 > 394 466 > 282 363 >C B I I MAJOR ISTREET EB ~FT 70 568 568 568 496 A WB !(EFT 26 674 674 674 049 A : IDENT~FYING INFOP1~ ION -----,------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- NAME Olf 'L'HE EAS'L'/WE "l' S'L'Sl..E;El'...... NtS RTE :2 5 NAME ~.F THE NORTH/S UTH STREET.... FACTORY AVE/S1. SBEE ROAD DA'l'E 0 l'IIlE OF 'L'II AflALtSrs.. . .. 8-23-93 : WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILD W/o.D. 1 BURGER KIIlG t~TTITUCK i I I , , ~ '--.__."~ . AUG 26 '93 08: 46 DUNN ENG It lEER ItIG 516 288 2544 -- P.8/16 1965 Hpl: UNSIGNAL ZED INTERSECTIOllS page-l ~;~;;~~;~;~~~;~~;;; ~~;~~~~::~:::::::::::~:::::::l::::::::::::::::::: I AVERAGF RUlmING SPE 0, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HbUR FACTOR... ................. .9 I AREN._AJ!: ~FPUTH~T~~NST./.W.: ................. 150000 -, ~F ~ ~ ~ T STREET......... NYS ROUTE 2 i NAME 9F' THE NORTH/S UTH STREET....... lJ\UREL LAKE DRIVE NAME OF THE ANALYST ................. DUNN ENGINE .RIONG ASSOC. VJD DATE 1F THE ANALYSI' (mm/dd/yy) ...... 6-23-93 TIME ~ERIOD ANALYZE ................. WEEKDAY 8-9 AM I OTHER IINFORMA'J.'ION. . IlITERJECTION TYPE 0 CONTROL -----~------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- ~994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTITUCK INTER~ECTION TYPE, -INTERSECTION I MAJOR ISTREET DIRECT ON: EAST/WEST CONT1L TYPE SOUTHB UND: STOP SIGlf TRAFF~C VOLUMES -----l------------- ----------------------------- --I I I , LEFT I TIffiU I nIGUT I ; NUMBE~ OF LANES -----~------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- EB w NB S8 o o 1 445 4 3 o o 1 J ------------------- ED WB NB SB ------. LA}IES : I 1 ~ 1 = -_.-,,-,........ AUG 26 '93 08:46 DUNN A~EF:HIG 516 28:3 254-4 eC P.Ol/16 ADJUST,MENT FACTORS -----l------------- , i ; EASTBOUND ! WESTBOUND I tlORTH~OUND SOUTH OUND 0.00 VEHIC E COMPOSITION ----- ,------------- P"qe-2 ----------------------------- ------------------- PJ;:RCENT GRADE RIGHT TURN AllGLE CURB RADlUS (ft) FOR RIGHT TURNS ACCELERATION LANE FOR RIGHT TURIIS ---------- ---------------- ----------------- 0.00 90 0.00 90 20 20 N N 90 20 II ----------------------------- ------------------- EASTBiUND WESTBiUND NORTHBOUND I SOOTHljOUND i CRITlqAL GAPS -----~------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- o I % MOTORCYCI,ES ______1.______ () % SO TUCKS AND V'S % COMBIIIATIOII VEHICLES o o o o I I MINORIRICHTS I S13 . MAJOR [LEFTS I EB MINOR ,'LEFTS I SB 7.40 IDEIIT~Fl!'INC INFORMA ION -----,------------- ----------------------------- ---~--------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WE T STREET...... NYS ROOTE 25 NAME qF THE NORTR/S UTH STREET.... LAUREL LAKE DR'VE DATE l\ND TIHE OF TH ANALySIS..... 8-23-93 : WEEK AY 8-9 AM OTHER'INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTITUCK TlIBU R VlILUES (Ta .Lc 10-2) ADJUSTEO VALUE SIGHT 1ST. ADJ US'l' lEN'r FIliAL CRITICAL GAP ------------ 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 5.30 5.30 0.0 5.30 7.40 0.0 7.40 . _....-..---.~~~ AUG 26 '93 08:47 - ~( DUNN _NEERING 516 288 2544 .( P.10/16 CAPAC*Y AND LEVEL- F-SERVICE page-3 -----~------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- , , L MOVEMEjIlT . i I MInOR ISTREET sa IjEFT JIGHT i MAJOR ISTREET EB I.>EFT , POTEN- ACTUAL FLoW- TIAL MOVEMENT SllAREO RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI Y CAPACITY v (Pcph c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c - C - v LOS P M SH R SH --~...._- -------- --------- --------- -- -------~---- 1 4 159 159 > 1 9 > "329 " > 5 3 > 157 > D 324 >B 509 > A 513 513 o 633 633 6 3 - 633 A I IDENTJFYING rNYORMA rON -----~------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WE T STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME qF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET.... LAUREL LAKE DR VB DATE AND TIME OF TH A1IALYSIS..... 8-23-93 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER IINFORMATION.. . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTlTUCK , I ! . ~ .-I-_......-~;---::..- .'( e( Aur; 26 '93 08:47 DU~II'I El'IGIIIEERIIIG 516 28:3 2544 P.1l/16 "" L UNSIGIlAL ZED IllTERSECTIOIIS ...*.~....*.******. ***************************** Page-l ******************* IDENT~FYIllG INFORMA ION :~:::d:-::~~:::-::: ----------------------------- , D, Hl\JOR STREET.. 45 PEAK IfUR FACTOR... ................. . 9 AREA PpPULATION.... ................... 150000 NAME JpTHE EAST/WE NAME Jr THE NORTH/S UTH STREET....... NAME a,F THE ANALYST ................. DATE ~F THE ANALYSI , TIME PfRIOD ANALYZE OTHER ~NFORMATION.. INTERS~CTION TYPE -----~------------- : INTERSECTION TYPE: i Hl\JOR !STREET DIRECT CONTRiL TYPE NORTHD TllAFFI1C VOLilllES -----i------------- - I i EB W I LEFT I 0 1 THRU 485 5 5 RIGHT I 1. 0 , NUMBEJ OF LANES ------------------- T STREET......... NYS ROUTE 21 EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DUm: ENGINEiRING ASSOCH,TES, VJD (mm/dd/yy)...... 8-23-93 -.........--...... WEEKDAY 8-9 AM . 1.994 BUILDW/ 0.0. 1 BURGER KING MATTITUCK D CONTROL I ------------------------------------------------- -INTERSECTION ON: EAST/~rE3T UllD: STOP SIGlI ----------------------------- NB SB 8 o ~J ------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- LANES - EB WB NB sa 1 ~ 2 . '- ~~. '-.---"::...- AUG 26 '93 08:48 DUH~I ~'l E_IEERING 516 2E:8 2544 .( P. 12/16 I ADJllSTf'!"ENT FACTORS ------1------------ ----------------------------- I PERCENT RICHT TURN CURB MDIUS (ft) , GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS page-2 ACCELERATION LANE FOR RIGHT TUJlNS I --_____ __________ ________________ EASTBOpllD 0.00 90 20 WESTBOpND 0.00 90 20 II N i NORTHBpUND 0.00 j SOU~HBFUND ~:~::~_:~~:~~:::~~ , 90 20 II ----------------------------- t SU AND UCRS t COnDIlrATIO/( V'S VEHICLES % MOTa CYCLES --------....---- ------ ------ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! EAS'l'aO~mD , WESTBOUND . NORTHBbuND I I SOUTIlBpUND CRITICAL CAPS , ------1------------ ----------------------------- ------------_______ i I , MINOR !!lIGHTS I Me MAJOR I. -FTS r- WB MINOR lEFTS I NB 7.40 7.40 o,or IDENT~F'iING INFORMA 1011 :~~- ~-~~~-~~~,~~ ~:~;~~:~~~~~~~-~~:~~;~:~~~~l::~:-:::~::::------ DATE ~D TIME OF TII' ANhLYSXS..... 8-23-93 ; WEEK AY 8-9 AM OTHER !INFORMATION.. . 1994 DUILD WI 0.0. I BURGmR KIIIG ~~TTrTVCK TABU R VALUES (Tn Ie 10-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT 1ST. ADJUSTlrellT FINAl, CRITICAL GAP ------------ 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 5.30 5.30 0.0 5.30 7.40 ':': ..--..."::' AUG 26 '93 08: 48 DUliN ElI(~RIIIG 516 28B 2544 .{ P .13/16 ~:~::~:_~~-~~~:: F-SERVICE page-3. POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- 'rIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE I RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI Y CAPACITY I MOVEME~T v (pcph c (pcpllJ c (pcph) c (pcp ) C = C - V LOS , ; P M SH R SH , ------ -------- --------- --------- ------------ I MUIOR fTREET I NB r.EFT 10 138 137 J. 7 128 D RfGHT 16 511 511 511 495 A , MAJOR IiTREET WD il'T 1 631 631 6 1 630 A i I IDEllTIIl'YIIIG INFORMA ------r------------ NAME or THE EAST/WE NAME ~F I'HE t10Hl'It/S DATE MlD TIME OF TH OTHER IINFORMATION.. i ION ----------------------------- ------------------- T STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 I UTH STREET.... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY M{ALYSIS..... 8-23-93 WEEKDAY 8-9 AM . 1991 BUILD WI 0.0. 1 BURGER KING MATTITUC~ ." _..-_._.::-~ AUG 26 '93 08:4'3 DUIIH ..( EI'.IEERnlG 515 288 2544 . P.14/16 1985 H6M: UNSIGNAL ZED INTER5E~rlONS Page-1 *..***r*..***...*** *...**~....*.........w*..*.** *******.........*.. , IOENTI~YING INFORMA ION , ------r------------ ----------------------------- AVERAC~ RUNNING SPE 0, MAJOR S'l'flEET.. 45 , PEAK H;OUR FACTOR."" .."............"""............ .. 9 AREA ~PULATION.... ................. 150000 I NAUE 9F TilE EAST/WE T STREET......... NYS ROUTE :I 1 NAME QF THE MORTII/S UTH STREET....... WESTERN SIT DRIVEWAY (ENTER) I NN{E dF TIm ANALYST ................. DUNN ENGINE RING ASSOC!ATES, VJO , DATE qF TilE ANALYSI TIME ~ERIOO ~~ALYZE I OTHER iINFORMATION.. INTER~ECTION TYPE A ------------------- (mm/dd/yy)...... B-23-93 WEEKDAY 8- AM ................. . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KINO MATTITUCK D CONTROL INTER~ECTION TYPE: '-!N',[!t:RSEC'I'ION MAJOR ISTREET DIRECT ON: EAST/WEST CONTndL TYPE MORTHS UNO: STOP SIGN I , i TRAFF~C VOWMES -----l------------- ----------------------------- , ------------------- r- ED W liB SB LEFT i THRU I I RIGHT I I I ~~~~:1_~:_~~:____ o o 1 o 485 5 3 11 o 1 ------------------- ED WD MB SB LAllES , 1 1 2 - .....--~ - ~---...~- AUG.26 '9308:49 DUtItI ({ EtlG.RIIIG 516 288 2544 (af P. 15/16 AOJUS~ENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------- 'I PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) I GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS I'aqe-2 ACCELERATION LANE FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTOOpND ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- 0.00 90 90 20 II , WESTllOpND 0.00 20 N "NORTHBflUND SOUTUapUND I VEHICUE COMPOSITION , ------1-------_.---- I , ! i I 0.00 90 20 11 t 5U '.I' AND ;;;:---:-;;;;i;;i:::---~-~:::l::::::------------- ---__________ ______l______ , EASTBOUND I , WESTBCfIND I NORTHBOUND I , SOUTH'rUND CRITIclAL GAPS -----~------------- i I I I MItIOR IRIGHTS liB o o o o o o ----------------------------- ------------------- TABU VALUES (Ta 1.. 10-2) ADJUSTED VIILUE SIGHT ADJUS 1ST. FINAL ENT CRITICAL GAP ------------ 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 MAJOR LEFTS I , - lUNaR I'LEf"rS NB 7.40 7.40 0.0 :~:~:~:::~~_:~:~~ :~~-------------------------- ------------------- NAME QF TilE EAST/WE T STREET...... N'lS ROUTE 25 n~IE ~F THE lIORTH/S UTH STREET.... WESTERN SITE D IVEWAY (ENTER) DATE ND TIME OF Tn. ANALySIS..... 8-2J-93: WEE'OAY 8-9 11M OTHER .INFORMATION.. . 1994 BUILD Y/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTI TUCK \>IS !:I.JO 5.30 0.0 5.30 7.40 ..-.-...-........~ . ~.-..-.....::..-;- ~ <f :5uB1=1 Lt _ L>IlNt:J" '1>CWLa RK- -C<:of''1 pe, - ccJe-V CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAw 180 OLD CoUNTRY ROAD (RTE. 58) P. O. BOX 1&47 RrvERHEAD, NY 11901 AD.JAQENT TO MOTOH VEHICLE DEPARTMENT TEL: (~.161 369-8200 FAX.: UU61 369-9080 August 25, 1993 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Mr. Kassner Gentlemen: supplementing the traffic report delivered to the Planning Board, enclosed is a letter to me dated August 25, 1993, from Dunn Engineering Associates. This letter addresses the inquiry made at the Planning Board work session concerning consideration of the Dunkin' Donuts facility which is proposed for the location near the intersection of Factory Avenue and the Main Road. Please include this response with your file. CRC: jme Enclosure Very truly yours, ./l . /p // ()~ . l_//!v-t~ ~l. l-Ll '-.. Charles R. cuddy/' V ll"~ ' fi'? tin ~fE_~b IE U ,.1'""',- 'O- i! "i 'i :1' '. J '.' 2 ' ". 7 " w rg 1';)1 --n n !1 ";,'l , "j "'\) ",'j /;,". ,-; I . ':! ::;-':-;'J~'~'-".J 1 ;.~ ;.",;,J J .~---- - ! j , , '-- . . Southold Town Planning Board 24 September 13, 1993 Mr. Cuddy: And again, we encourage you to corne to us and to let us know what your concerns are. We'd be happy to address those concerns. Ken Abruzzo is available, Howard Young is availal:lle, Mr. Baxter's here, I'm here. We have other people that can provide answers if we don't have an answer, so thank you for the hearing. Mr. Ward: Is there anybody else this evening that would have any questions or would like to address the Board? Linda Levy: I'm Linda Levy, the Southold coordinator for the North Fork Ernvir-- onmental Council and I wanted to just speak with the Board l:lriefly tonight about the Burger Kin9 and the Dunkin Donuts applications. I note that you took lead agency tonight on both of tnose. We would like to take this opportunity to re-- quest once again that a full SEQRA review be initiated on the Burger King application. While we are aware that this is an unlisted action, and therefore doesn't require that you do a full SEQRA review, we believe that the potential impact to our community of a fast food restaurant demands an environmental im-- pact study. As we stated in our memo to you of August 5, we believe that there are many sections of the law that apply to the determination of significance of this action. These include substantial changes in noise and traffic levels, an increase in solid waste production, impairment of neighborhood character and cnange in intensity of use. In addition, tne consequential significance of tnis action needs to be assessed. We are fully aware tnat tne ZBA nas ruled this is the same application as that of the 1990 application for a McDonald's restaurant on the same site. However, that application was withdrawn before many of the issues raised were addressed by the Planning Board. We do not believe that these applications are the same and in any case, we believe that a hard 100'< must be taken before any determin-- ation on the current application is made. The New York State legislature has directed that SEQRA be administered to tne fullest extent possible. Given the overwhelming community response to the 1990 McDonald's application, a full SEQRA review must be applied to the new proposal so that the impact to our community may be completely understood. We are concerned about the DunkinDonuts application before you as well. We believe that many of the same issues, traffic impact, storm runoff, etc. apply to this proposal. Most important, however, is the change in intensity in use of the site. The burden of such increased intensity must be assessed. Regardless of rUlings by other agencies, and here I'm referring to the rUling by the Build-- ing Dept. that permits the second use on this site, we believe that the Planning Board must require that impacts on our community and environment "e mitigated. Recently we've been made aware that a building is being constructed witnout a site plan approval at the Mattitud< Airport. We all know that a used car lot has been allowed to operate despite the fact that it's not permitted under our zoning code and now we have tnese two applications, Burger King and Dun'cin Donuts, to be situated on the already dangerously congested Main Rd. in Mattituck. These are the types of actions that led to the destruction of the rural character of all the towns west of Southold. Tonight we request tnat the Southold Planning Board use its legal authority to fully review these two applications. The law states the lead agency shall make every reasonable effort to involve applicants, other agencies and the public in the SEQRA process. Only through a full review can this charge be met. Thank you. . . Southold Town Plannirig Board 25 September 13, 1993 Mr. Ward: Anybody else li'<:e to address the Board this evening? Ann Lowry: Good evening. I'm Ann Lowry, president of t"e North Forl~ Environ-- mental Council. I would like to really reiterate a couple of the things Linda spo'<:e about, particularly in as~ing for the environmental review for both Burger King and Dunkin Donuts. We have nothing against these husinesses and we do partake of both of them from time to time "ut ,..e believe that the t,m, as proposed, do not fit into the rural character of the town, the rural c~laracter that we're trying to protect. At least they will not fit in as proposed at present. We're especially concerned about the proposed Burger King. This is deja vu allover again. When McDonalds proposed its fast food husiness and then haclced out after the window was not permitted Joy the ?BA, t'lere was a promise to the people of Southold that the code would be changed so that this kind of fight would not be necessary again. ~lat was two years ago and it has not happened. We are, to put it mildly, very disappointed. There are many other ways we would use our energies if we did not have to fight the same fig'lt over again. Also at that time, again as Linda mentioned, there were questions posed by the ZBA about the project which were never answered and so the Planning Board is left to ma'<e decisions with no closure on some issues. This is inefficient at ~st and we hope that this process will get closure and settle this matter once and for all. Thank you. Mr. Warr': Anyone else li'<:e to address t'le Board? Debbie SicJlausl<as:. Hi, my name is Debbie Sidlauskus. I'm from Mattituc){ and I would also li'{e to spea', about the proposed Burger King anrJ the Dun'dn Donuts and please beg someone to do something a'xlut this. I )'llOW Mr. Arnoff 'las said t~lat it is illegal to ':lan them. I don't really 1mow that that's a fact because to my understanding there are some to,lnS in which they have disallower' fast food franc';.ise esta>'lishffients. If it's true that you can't >,an them then there are ways I'm sure that you can make it so difficult and costly for tl1em to come in that they ,{Cn't want to. I think it's unfortunate that nothing's been done. I have had a Board memher tell me, well hring me something. I don't have the time nor is it my joh to research other town's codes. I t".in'{ you 'lave more resour-- ces 'lere and more know how, I don't have the 'mow how to do that nut I wish that someone "~ulcJ initiate something and see what we can do so that we again don't have to go through this. I don't thi~< any of us '<ants to see Rt 25 turn into aRt. 58 in Riverhead. I don't 'mow how to stop it except to asle for your help in changing the zoning in this to,ln. Mr. Ward: Anybody else lil,e to address tne Board t'lis evenin~;? Mr. Cuddy? ~arles Cuddy: Since I represent those two applicants, Burger King and Du~<in Donuts and I'm 'lere I certainly wouldn't want to let this go >,y without saying a couple of t'lings. One, I don't thin~ that this is the appropriate forum for lobbying for a change in zoning, which is apparently what these people are doing. Two, I haven't heard a single factual allegation that changes anything from what 'las been presented to t~e Board either throug~ McDonalds, the Burger King application or Du~(in Donuts. I tnin': t'le factual concerns are being adcJressed environmentally, T t'lin~( you're being acdressed t~roug~ your consul-- tants, T t'1in'e that's tl,e right process. If there is going to be a time >1'1en further sl,ould be 11eard aeout tl,e environmental determination tnen I'll address . . Sout~old Town Planning Board 76 September 13, 1993 Mrs. LeV'J's concerns, I'll address the president's concerns of t~e Nort~ For)~ Environmental Counci 1, but I really don' t t~in)~ that this continuing, and it goes on at ,vor1<sessions and it goes on here, I guess this is a worl<session at t'lis point, but t"at it serves any purpose except to let everybody '<now that virtually these people do not like t11.ose applications. But t"ese are site plans and I don't '<now how to get t~ough to the people who are opposing them, but t"is is not a change of zone, it's simply a site plan. These people are entitled to use their property that way. And I would asl< that you continue the process tl-Jat you're going through, just as you have. Than', you. Mr. Ward: Any':lody else this evening that would lil<e to address the Board? Mr. McDonald: I'd li'<e to ma',e a comment. Someone said that the Town Attorney told you that it was illegal, I never heard that, but I do remem':>er that the Supervisor promised that he would c'1ange the code on tc,.is. Have you spo'<en to the Supervisor? Ms. Sidlaus'rus: Yes, welL.. Mr. McDonald: I would suggest that Mr. Cuddy's comment is to the point. T'1e Supervisor, T remember he made a promise. Ms. Sidlausl{us: Yes, Supervisor Harris did mal<e t~at comnent that he would change it. He went to Mr. Arnoff and Mr. Arnoff said it's illegal. it's im-- possible, you can't do that. Now, I t"ink with a little initiative there is a way around it. T mean we're not the first town in the country to Cia this, or the state. Mr. McDonald: Then I would say that the place where that's going to '1ave to happen, must happen, is wit~ the Town Board. Ms. Sidlausl{us: Well. I don't have to tell you Mar'" we've ':>een to t~em time and time and time again and there's one of the Board members ,.,ho told me, ryring me proof, ryring me.. . and I told him, that's not my job, it's your jo1:l to pro-- teet tl1e cl1aracter of this town, not my job. I mean, I do wl1at I can as a citizen, and I l-Jelp anyway I can but I have my limitations and quite fran1cly I have a life and I'm not getting paid for this. I think it's about time the Town starts doing their job. And I don't 'mow where else to go. We nave been to t'1e Town Board numerous times. We've been everY'here, ana notl1ing has ':>een done, everything is stonewalled. And I t~ink if tl1e TOwn Attorneys can't find a way, or do w~at the citizens want in t"is town and the Town Board can't tl1en... I just read about a tmm wl10 fired t'1eir ,hole TOIm. T'1ey hired a con-- sultant and the consultant fired every':lo0y...gone. T'1ey started from scratch. (everyone tal1dng). Mr. Ward: Well, for those ,ho are for it, tnose t~at are opposed to it there's always a frustration level but rest assured that the Planning Board in terms of t1:1e reviews and tl1e loo'dng at the environmental reviews and that, we'll do a thorough joh in our ryest opinion and certainly to mitigate any concerns t'1at are t'1ere in t~e community, at least to address them. So, we are moving al1ead with the applications. ~ey will be reviewed and carefully looked at by the Planning Boara and we march on. . . Sout'1olc1 Tmm Planning BoarCl 27 September 13, 1993 Mr. McDonald: Hm{ long does i.t usually ta1{e for our transcripts to get clone? We're loo~ing at proQaoly a couple of months, aren't we? Is there some way we could synopsize what's heen said and send the comments to the Town Board? I mean, these people want to be heard. TIle best we. can do is let the Town Board '3'101{ t'1at tney' re tal'dng. Ms. Sidlaus~us: Then you've got to get them to read it. Mr. OrI01{s1d: I've been here for 1" years and t-icDonalc1s was number ?; Friendly's was here first and we went through that whole roUnd. And you're right, during this whole thing a comment was made by the SUperVisor that we are going to eliminate it, out the Town Attorney has since said 11e doesn' t ~ow !-low it can be done. I thin', Mr. CUddy's right, t'1is is not the place to do it but you're going to have to ta~e your group and go to t'1e To,>'n Board and ask them as a citizen, you want something done. It has to be done in code committee and that's wr,ere you !-lave to get it to. And once you get it there and they wor1, on it, they've done many things there, many different things, many highly unusual things. I thiw{ this would be very simple for them. But this Board cannot do it. We have to look at wnat's in front of us and act on it and the \>'aY it's written in the code, in a fair way. But you have a good case and I thin" you shoulcJ go to the Town Board and make the noise and get it on the coae committee agenda and go there and work on it. I've sat in many of those, and we've done li~2 I saic1, many different things. Mr. McDonalel: You never thought they coula he aone. Mr. Orlows'd: Never thoug!-lt they could be c1one. And one of them tl-Jat was hashed out over there was site plan. Who ma'{es the determination? It used to be the Planning Board. That's exactly pro':!ar,ly w!-ly we went tl-Jrough some of these things and have some of these proolems because that decision was taken out of our hands. We don't go along with it but we don't have that control anymore. I feel for you, I appreciate it. I've been here for a long time, 15 years and what's going on now is amazing to me sometimes, but you've got to go to t!-le other Board now because t'Jey want to taJ,e over the Planning process on some of tl-Jese issues and some of these things so go see them and let them listen to you. You're a taJCpayer. Ms. Sidlaus~s: Thank you. Mr. Ward: No further comments? Do we make a motion to adjourn? Mr. Orlows'd: So mover:J. Mr. Edwarr:Js: Second. Mr. Ward: All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. . . RIchard G. Ward. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Bennett Orlowsld. Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards "" ,.,., ~:' SCOTIL.H.ARRIS Supervisor PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS '-,:,,~-:;.:;-'- Town Hall. 53095 Main Road p. O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOlITHOLD Fax (516) 765 - 1823 September 14, 1993 Charles R. Cuddy Attorney at Law 180 Old Country Rd. (Rte. 58) P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed site plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Rd., Mattituck SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolution was duly adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, start the coordination process on this unlisted action. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any question~ regarding the above. (;::1') A y",) 41 Richard l. Ward Chairman . . / PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ncnncn Orlowski. Jr.. Chainnan George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward ~lark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOlT L. HARRIS Supe~isor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Tclephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD If Fax (516) 765-1823 //-f 19'3 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. p~ {~t4.,/' U!7 ,e:~ /lR4--/ RoqUO"'07~M#A?9,~:z:il ~'~::fP Project Name: SEQRA Classification: ( ) Type I ( "j.) Unlisted Contact Person: J. P. Kft-.5srIEK (516)-765-19 8 . . The lead agency will determine the mpact statement (EIS) on this project. h,~ date of this letter, please respond ave an interest in being lead agency. need for an environmental Within thirty (30) days of in writing whether or_not you , lanning Board Position: )() This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. ) Other. (See comments below). ( Jmmen ts : Please feel free to contact this office for further 'information. ()i;:)JI.,iY~ f("CIfIl- R.f) G. wIT RJJ c. Board of Appeals ~oard of Trustee~ ~Building'Department Southold Town Board XSuffolk County Dept. of Health Services NYSD~C Stony Drook- NYSDEC - Albany s...c --Ilc.pt......-GE--Pubtic-Workn -U .-5-;--Ar:rny-(:orp--o..f-Engi-neers- ~ N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation * laps are enclosed for your. review :oordinating agencies .".,..~- tfI -. . . su.e. FlLe PB -"?,:r..;b 'NU; ~K ~, ~lLl./'f~ MORTH FORK EMVIROMWEMTAL COUMCIL Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799. Mattituck. NY 11952 516-298-8880 September 13, 1993 Ri hard Ward, So thold Town Southold Town Southold, NY Chairman Planning Hall 11971 , ~ "', , , Board SEP I 4 1993 ~ j i i Ii! 1 I--_____'m__---I' so' ;~:.FIj 0 1f'.:r"'~ ! Board PlP;,iiii(JG 12!:,~g__! Dear Chairman Ward and Members of the Planning On behalf of the North Fork Environmental council (NFEC) I would like to take this opportunity to request once again that a full SEQRA review be initiated on the Burger King application. While we are aware that this is an unlisted action and therefore does not reauire such a review, we believe that the potential impact to our community of a fast food restaurant demands an environmental impact study. As stated in our memo to you dated August 5, 1993, we believe that NYCRR Part 617.11 (a) (1), (5), (8), and (9) all apply to the determination of significance of this action. These criteria include substantial changes in noise and traffic levels, increase in solid waste production, impairment of neighborhood character, and change in intensity of use of land. In addition, the consequential significance of this action needs to be assessed. We are fully aware that the Zoning Board of Appeals has ruled that this is the same application as that of the 1990 application for a McDonald's restaurant on the same site. However, that application was withdrawn before many of the issues raised were addressed by the Planning Board. We do not believe that these applications are the samej in any case, a "hard look" must be taken before any determination on the current application is made. The New York State Legislature has directed that SEQRA be administered to the fullest extent possible. Given the overwhelming community response to the 1990 McDonald's application, a full SEQRA review must be applied to this new proposal, so that the impact to our community may be completely understood. We are concerned about the Dunkin Donuts application which is before you as well. We believe that many of the same issues -- e.g.,traffic impact, storm run-off, etc. -- apply to this proposal. Most important however is the change in intensity of use at this site. The burden of such increased intensity must be a non-profit organization for the preservation of land. sea, air and quality of life pTinted on 100% recycled paper ~ - . . assessed. Regardless of rulings by other agencies within our Town, we believe that the Planning Board must require that impacts on our community and environment be mitigated. Recently we have been made aware that a building is being constructed without site plan approval at the Mattituck Airport. We all know that a used car lot has been allowed to operate, despite the fact that it is not permitted under our zoning Code. Now we have these two applications, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts, to be situated on the already dangerously congested Main Road in Mattituck. These are the types of actions that led to the destruction of the rural character of all of the towns west of Southold. We request that the Southold Planning Board use its legal authority to fully review these two applications. The law (NYCRR Part 617.3(g)) states, "The lead agency shall make every reasonable effort to involve applicants, other agencies, and the public in the SEQR process". Only through a full review can this charge be met. sincerely, ~ Linda Levy Southold Coordinator North Fork Environmental council . ,.~'"7-~ (f4~'_'. '. ,c:L';~"f FOl j, '" ,;C ,~.,,, '1 C!.~ '<~. '/. ~~ "~" . . ~ \I, /,y !,... ..,. )i,' ::i "~) ,.,' ::;::)'f '" 1-\ "j r::,)" " ~ t t,.'"". ,....,..""'.i. ""'~ ';." ~:.t, t;,' !;J t~ (::.? .;~r..' ~" ....~.,., 'W"" e,'2;: ''01. "",'S ~ '.~ "..]I ,. -c_>">~ . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennen Orlowski. Jr.. Chainnan George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1\79 Southold. New York 1197\ Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 - - ---.' - - - 11& / t-/ , 19 "j'J John A. Keogh, Secretary Mattituck Fire District Pike Street Mattituck, New York 11952 Dear Mr. Keogh: will as to whether any firewells are or electric wells 19~. Thank you for your enc. ;;;;t:;;JJs;~~~ w.4R]/ r? I CJf /l-R.D G . . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS .~ ,.'? SCOTIL.HARRlS Supervisor Richard. C. Ward. Cha1nnan George RJtchie Latham. Jr. Bennett Orlowski. Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards ..,.~'~ .'ry '/ 'l Town Hall. 53095 Main Road p. O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765.1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765 - 1823 September 13, 1993 Cramer & Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Request for site plans for proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis: As requested in your fax transmittal of September 10, 1993, enclosed are copies of the Burger King site plan. If there are any questions, please contact me at the planning office. 6iJ1gt~ Site Plan Reviewer Enc1s. ~- E~. CRAMER, V HI OCIATES ENVIRONMENT = G CONSULTANTS . $l.tlJHt€ FAX TRANSMITTAL Fa> NUlll~n ($16) aU-SOH Date: ~~t::n: 10, /'70, 3' , Re: Z,B &SMne Cnc. {AI2/? />h$ 6V120~ J411V- To: From: Number of Pages (including cover): If the tutal transmittal Is not received call Dumber below. j Comments: j2Cft"SE .~ ~ ;4- CtJI' y () (C 7>-n;- :1/1& fJCAAJ r:J2;<. 5Vv2C~ )0M:. T ."" . -'" "", ,'," \, n 'j ~Bjj~,^-- \ ~',,:!? UUI SEP I 3 1993 _ - L_--''C7'..J SOUTHDtD 10\;.;1\1 PLANNING Bt.li.\,}:O .... ._, ._, "-c' .... . .............. "....., I nr\ r"'\ " "- ' --,,,,,,,,,- _ _ _ ._ " t-4 , :';13 ,~ITI."I\~ 0 <":::~ ^ }lI) ~~II~~.Ar;:,=- NV 117hd. {fi1n\ 331.1455 , .-...,....... T ... ,..., .- ,-- I ~ e. ... j1J'- . < ';,\lfFOCt /> . ~)II".'" . V~"'" .ir....' ~", . <1>.. }'~ "" .' .': ~ ',"- ,:'>':. fP t ,,0 If~ ',!:', '.... (.J _1, ...', ." ""'. ~'. W. ''''- ';'/)t .. ..,."S /c ;--:'_~ l'fD-''/ '~:~~-tJ/ . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTfL.HARRlS Supervtsor RIchard G. Ward. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Bennett Orlowski. Jr. Mark 5. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTIlOLD Fax (516) 765 - 1823 September 13, 1993 Charles R. Cuddy Attorney at Law 180 Old country Road (Rte. 58) P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The Planning Board has received a cost estimate of $950.00 from their Environmental Consultant for review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF), and for a review of the Traffic Impact Study. A copy of the estimate is enclosed. The sum of $950.00 must be paid in full by your client before we can authorize our consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made out to the Town of Southold. When the consultants complete their review, the Planning Board will consider their findings in making a determination of whether the project will have a significant environmental impact. ~er ~ard G. Ward Chairman Encl. cc: Thomas Fisher, Building Inspector In Charge Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals .,y." --- '" eMMER. Vafi,~I'ATES ENVIRONMENT\~. . ~ __ ~ G CONSULTANTS . -&uaPi~ I'I? AIt- September 10, 1993 .'.~'-" .,..."",._, Mr. Robert :Kassner Soutbold P!;LIlIl.ing Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 11'79 Southold, NY 11971 "'1: ., .0 -Y : ",,--- . ~'''''''''' Re: Burgl~r King, Mattituck Traffic Impact Study Review Full EAF Part I Re...iew Dear Bob: , ,. . . , . .' '. '--_._......~-~.".~.~..~.....-..-..,._.....- As per your request, this letter provides a proposal for services in connection with the above proJect. We propose to complete a review of the Traffic Impact Study for the Burger King at Mattituck prepared by Dunn Engineering. . Review will include details concerning theadequaq of the study with reasons for conclusions or requests for additional information If necessary. In addition. we propose to review and edit as necessary the Part I Full EAF, and prepare a Part II EM to assist in determining the significance of impacts. A summary letter will be provided in order to outline overall conclusions of the review. The fee for :;ervices is $950.00. We have reviewed prior traffic impact study and EAF revi~ws, and find this fee to be consistent and commensurate with the scope of proposed se/VIces. If you have any questions regarding this letter/proposal, please do not hesitate to call. 54 ~JORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2. MILLER PLACE. NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 - -'""'''- _ _ _ __ _ . 7:! . .-. .-.... , ..- .,....... ~..... -=- A = ," ,. ,... -' _ -=- _ _ T _ -' "=lI ~ ..-~- ~;~. CRAMER. V -'f SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT ~,~. G CONSULTANTS . "Su13P1t..e ,P~ ~I'- September 10, 1993 Mr. Robert lKassner Soutbold PllLnning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 11'79 Southold, NY 11971 SEP I 0 \993 Re: Burg'~r King, Mattituck Traffic Impact Study Review Full EAF Part I Review Dear Bob: As :per your request, this letter provides a proposal for services in connection with the above proJect. We propose to complete a review of the Traffic Impact Study for the Burger King at Mattituck prepared by Dunn Bngineering. Review will include details concerning the adeg,uacx of the study with reasons for conclusions or requests for additional information If necessary. In addition, we propose to review and (:dit as necessary the Part I Full BAF, and prepare a Part II BAF to assist in determining the significance of impacts. A summary letter will be provided in order to outline overall conclusions of the review. The fee for :;ervices is $950.00. We have reviewed prior traffic impact study and EAF revi~ws, and find this fee to be consistent and commensurate with the scope of proposed sernces. If you have :my questions regarding this letter/proposal, please do not hesitate to call. 54 ~JORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 ::>""e>r.---4 _ . .. ..-...-. '^ " ,.-.......... ...-. ~ A : ...._ T>4.... -:;-e..._,r:IiIOT_.....~-=-....- .. . RIchard G. Ward. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Bennett Orlowski. Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards "';r(<'j',r '3;:) 'f:i")'~'~:;,~ "" . - ~ ,~ ,~ ~ q~ ::;: , . .'...... '~..:..' '.',<:l '....' .. l SCOTfL.HARRIS Supervisor PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Town Hall. 53095 Main Ro..'\d p. O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOtITHOLD Fax (516) 765 - 1823 September 7, 1993 Cramer & Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Environmental Review and Traffic Study for proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTMi 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Long Environmental Form (LEAF) and Traffic Study prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates for Burger King to your office for a cost estimate. When the applicant forwards the required review fee a purchase order will be sent to you. If there are any questions, please contact me at the planning office. ~r'ifi A A / Ck!eafd. Kassne( ~ Site Plan Reviewer Encls. . . :5tU'3>Ff~ 1"6 ~K CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 180 OLD COUNTRY ROAD (RTE. 58) P. O. BOX 1.1547 RxvERHEAD, NY U901 ADJACENT TO MOTOR VElIICLE DEPARTMENT TEL: uue) 369-8200 PAX: (~16) B69-QOBO August 26, 1993 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Cofam Realty Co. Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is a long form Environmental Assessment Form submitted on behalf of Cofam Realty. As previously indicated this is submitted over objection. There is no basis that I am aware of for requiring this particular environmental assessment. Nevertheless, in order to permit the continued review and determination for this project, the EAF is being delivered. I take issue with both the letter - memorandum from Cramer Voorhis & Associates as well as the memorandum delivered by the North Fork Environmental council. However, based on submission of the EAF - making further argument at this time is now a moot point. I respectfully request that you proceed expeditiously with your review of this matter. Very truly yours, CJ-L~ ~/ Charles R. CUddYr.! CRC/ec enc. ..-....,,-.. -.....-.."""'\ r;: 11 \\7 rn l~'\' ,,- I .:1 "'"I ~~;;::"'_'':~-~~._~''-';,: 11 :: j ;,\ . 1'; ~11i:i AUG 3 11993 .' I ", L__._..............J , SDliT:-;UU) 1m\\~ !:.LAN,'m';G BO,"C;.Q=-.J ., Dunn Engineer" Al\ssociates Consulting Engineers '~ 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 516-288-2480 August 25, 1993 Mr; Charles R. Cuuuy, Esq. 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1549 Riverhead, NY 1190 I Re: Pmposed Burger King Route 25, Mattituck Southold, New York Dear Mr; Cuddy: As discussed, we have investigated the impact on traffic conditions in the vicinity of the above project of the Dunkin' Donuts facility as you described it. As a result of this investigation, the .following can be concluded: I. The Dunkin' Donut facility can be expected to attract 38 vehicles during its peak hour of operation, 7:00-8:00 A.M. This is based on the assumption that each vehicle arriving at the facility will carry an average of 1.2 persons, a nationally accepted rate; 2. Some, if not most, of the traftic associated with the Dunkin' Donuts facility can be expected to be already on the road for another purpose, such as traveling to work or to a recreational activity. Analyses pertormed in connection with this investigation have assumed that 50% of the traffic destined for the Dunkin' Donuts facility will be pass-by trips; therefore only 19 new vehicles will be generated by this proposed facility during the A.M. peak hour; 3. The addition of this traffic to the roauway network results in barely perceivable impact, even if all 19 originated in and returned to the west, so as to have the greatest impact on the Burger King site. This is evidenced by the results of unsignalized capacity analyses pertormed with these 19 vehicles added. Since it can be expected that some of the donut shop trallic would originate in the east, this analysis examines a worst case scenl/rio as it relates to the Burger King operat[on. A copy of these analysis is attached; As a result, it can be seen that the traffic generated by the proposed Burger King can be accommodated by the existing roadway network, even with the addition of traffic generated by the Dunkin' Donuts facility. ~~-~:'-,~ I'~ 11 "'I ~ pi , <. ,1 lli n l, .....;:~. ..........-~-~---~_._----,l j I, j i , , ~ ! r. I , ;Ul:: 'oJ 27293 181 L,. SQuTHOLD TOW,. Pl""~NING BOARD .... "'? ~ ~ Mr. Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. August 25, 1993 Page 2 We trust that the forgoing addresses any concern on the part of the Town of South old with regard to this project. If you have any questions or need any further information, please call me. ~~ VINCENT CORRADO Engineer VCllam L930421 P93063 Attachment .",;...;-~-" .,. \ .1 (l )< :r [f 1-' ~; ~ '....'I!--'"' .~ . ~~ f ~ . AIlI1 - . ',~ '-... , . , DUNKIN' DONUTS I "'FRIENDLY'S ~ ROY ROGERS -r PIZZA HUT 7-11 'N' ..<. , "\.'-::?,: :' _ ,\ .';ltj' , , '. >II "...:2ld:. . BURGER KING. , . . . AUG 26 '93 08:43 ! i I I I 1985 'l0l: UNSIGNAL ZE:> INTERSECTIONS page-l **.*.~**..*.*.**.*. ***************...**...****** .***.***A******...* I , IDENT~FYING INFORMA ION -----i------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- i AVERA1E RUNNING SPE D. MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK ~OUR FACTOR... ................. .9 AREA ~PULATION.... ................. 150000 NAME QF THE EAST/WE T STREET......... NY'S ROUTE 2 I , NAME qF THE MORTH/S UTH STREET....... BRAY AVENUE I NAME qF THE ANALYST ................. DUNN ENGINE RING ASSOC. VJD DATE dF TaE ANALYSI (mm/dd/yy)...... 8-23-93 , DUNN Er1GINEERHIG 516 288 1 .. ',-, I 2544 P.2/16 TIME ~ERIOD ANALYZE .. .. .. .. ~ " .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER!INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 INTER~ECTION TYPE 0 CONTROL -----1------------- ----------------------------- INTER ECTION TlIPE: -INTERSECTION BUPGE KING MATTITUCK MAJOR STREET DIRECT ON: EAST/WEST CONTR L TYPE NORTHB UNO: STOP SIGN TRAFF~C VOLUMES ----- ------------- ----------------------------- ----------------~-- EB W NB SB LEFT o 4 28 THRU I RICllT 411 4 2 o 7 o 53 ~~~-~~-~~~---- ----------------------------- ------------.------ EB WB NB SB LANES I 1 1 1 ','.__...- ~ (""\, ;:; G) f? n \'if ;,3 f"i. .1 n !.~-LL,i:..!LL._LL ! Ii i, :.J~: 'J27jif I L .-_h'_~ .~I ~_':JT: J_J .~, .~ PU',) u11lJ b()Al~O ~~ ~ (e AUG 26 '93 08:43 DUNN nlGINEERHIG 516 288 2544 i A,""j.,., ""''' -----l------------- PERCENT GAAOE , ; , EAST~UND 0.00 WESTB1UND 0.00 NORTHjOUND 0.00 SOUTH~OUND ----- ~~~::~_:~~:~~:::~~ P.3/16 ~--~-----~------------------- Page-2 ------------------- RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS 1ft) ACCELERATION LANE ANGLE FOR RIGIIT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS --~......~---~- ---------------- ----------------- 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N ----------------------------- ------------------- :t SU UCKS AND V'S :t COMBINATION VEHICLES -t MOTO CYCLES ------ ---- ------------- EASTB<jUND , WESTeqUND ; NORTHBOUND SOUT/!~U1m , CRITlqAL GAPS -----1------------- I TABU ITa HI NOR I RIGHTS I NB -I MAJOR I LEFTS WB MINOR LEFTS NB ------ -----. o o o o o o ----------------------------- ------------------- VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT If! 10-2) VALUE ADJUST --------- -------. 6.10 6.10 5;30 5.30 7.40 7.40 0.0 FINAL CRITICAL GAP ----------...- 6.10 5.3Q 7.40 IDENT FYING INFORMA ION ;~-~;-;;;-~;;/;; ;-;;;;;;~~~~~~-;~;-;~~;;-;~-- ------------------- NAME Of' THE NORTH/S UTH STREET.... BRAY AVENUE DATE ~D TIME OF TH, .ANALYSIS..... 8-23-93 'WEE AY 8-9 AM OTHER !INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGE KINe lfATTlTUCK ,..".,~.. .~". '.;"..~"" ~ (. AUG 26 '93 08:44 DUNN ENGINEERING 516 288 2544 P.4/16 CAPAC~TY AND LEVEL- -----~------------- I I I I ! . MOVE~NT I , , i MINORISTREET NB ~EP'T I ~IGHT MAJOR/STREET WB rF'l~ , ----------------------------- ------------------- F-SERVICE PIIQll-3 FLOW- RATE V (peph POTEN- ACTUAL TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE CAPACITlI CAPACITY CAPACI Y CAPACITY e (peph) c (peph) e (pCp ) 0- c - V LOS P If 58 R 58 -------- --------- --------- -----------~ ------ 34 110 166 :> :> 308 :> 1 6:> 131:> D > 209 >C 5 6:> 501,. A 65 566 566 29 689 689 6 9 659 A IDENT~FYING INFORMA ION ;~;-~;-;~;-;~;;;;; ;-;;;;;;~~~~~~-;;;-~~~;;-;~-- ------------------- NAME qF THE NORTH/S Urn STREET.... BRAy AVENUE DATE ~D TIME OF TH ANALYSIS..... 8-23-93 ; WEEK All 8-9 AM OTHER/INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGE KING.MATTITUCK .""""",.-~ ~ ce , AUG 26 '93 08:44 DUNN EIIGInEERHIG 516 288 2544 P.5/16 1985 eM: UNSIGNAL ZED INTERSECTIONS Paqe.l ***** ***~********* **~******.***.*.***..**.*.... *.***************** ----------------------------- ------------------- AVER.A~E RUNNING SPE D, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK .9 THE EAST/WE T STREET......... NYS RTE 25 THE NORTH/S UTIl STREET....... FACTORY AVE SlGSBEE ROAD THE ANALyST...... .'........... DUNN ENGINE RING ASSOC. VJD AREA PULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME NAME NAME i DATE iF THE ANALYSI ..TIME lERIOO ANALYZE ................. WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTlTUCK :~:~~~~:::~~_:::~-- ~_:~~:~~~-------------------- ------------------- , , , , INTER~ECTION TYPE: -LEG MAJOR I STREET DIRE~~ ON: EAST/WEST CONTR1L TYPE NORTHB UNO: STOP SICN CONTRiL.TYPE SOUTHB UNO: STOP SICN TR.AFF~C VOLUMES ----- ------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- (mm/dd/yy)...... 8-23-93 EB W NB S5 LEFT 57 1 4 37 TIlRU 430 5 5 2 7 RIGHT 5 9 23 84 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE -----~------------- ----------------------------- -----~--------~---- i ED WB NB SB I ------- ------- ------- ------- LAJ;ES , 1 1 2 2 ,.,.'uJ,......-.4IiCIIk ce AUG 26 '93 08:45 DUNN EI'IGINEERHIG 516 288 2544 , "",,,l..,. '''''''''' -----l------------- , , , , , I PERCENT GIlADE ------- 'Ii SU T AND , , EASTB1UNO WESTB~UNO NORTH OUNO SOUTH OUNn , I. CRL'l"!(iAL GAPS -----~------------- i I , MINOR/nIGHTS NB I sa MAJOR I~FTS EB WD MINOR THROUGHS NB I SB MINOR/LEFTS I HB SB TABU (Ta ----------------------------- RIGHT TURN CURS RADIUS (ft) ANGLE FOR RICHT TURNS ---------- ---------------- 90 20 90 20 90 20 90 20 ----------------------------- (. P.6/16 ------------------~ page-2 ACCELERATION LANE FOR RIGHT TURNS ----------------- N N N N ------------------- UCKS % COMBINATION V's VEHICLES % MOTO CYCLES ------------- -----. ------ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----------------~------------ ------------------- VALUES AlXTUsTED SIGUT IST, FINAL J.e 10-2) VALUE ADJUST ENrl' CRITICAL GAP --------- -------- ------ ------.....----..... 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 5.30 5.30 0.0 5.JO 5.JO 0.0 6.90 6.90 0.0 6.90 6.90 0.0 7.40 7.40 0.0 7.40 7.40 0.0 IDENT~FYING INFORMA ION -----i------------- -____________________________ /lAME QF TilE EAST/WE T STREET...... NYS RTE 25 NAME qF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET.... FACTORY AVE/SI DATE 4ND TIME OF TH ANALySIS..... 8-2J-93 ; WEEK O'l'lJER 'INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILD W;O.D. 1 RIIRGl:R i EASTSorND 0.00 WESTBopND 0.00 NORTH~OUND 0.00 SOUTH~UND 0.00 VEHIC~ COMPOSITION -----,------------- I 5.30 5.30 6.90 6.90 7.40 7.40 ------------------- saXE ROAD AY 8-9 AM KntG MATTITUCK .,.:,..>...,~ (f cf HUG 26 '33 08:4~ DUNN GIGHIEERHIG 516 288 2544 P.7/16 CAPAC' TY AND LEVEL- F-SERVICE PagG-3 -----~------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL i FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE I RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI Y CAPACITY , MOVEME;NT V {pcph c (Pcphl c (pophl 0 (pOp l o - c - V LOS , [J M SH R SH , I --...._-- -------- --------- --------- ------------ HINORISTREET NB :ijEFT 5 103 76 6 71 E rOUGH 2 148 III > 1 3 > 130 > D IanT 28 552 552 > 441 5 2 > 410 524 >A A HINORjSTREET , E SIl I>EFT 45 120 103 1 3 58 'ljHROUGH 9 152 137 ::> 1 7 ::> 129 ::> 0 ~IGHT 103 466 466 > 394 4 6 > 282 363 >0 B MAJOR/STREET EB :4EFT 70 568 568 5 8 498 A WB lfEFT 26 674 674 6 4 649 A : IDENT~FYING INFORMA ION -----,------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- NAMK qF THB ~sT/W~'T S1~ET...... NYS RTE 25 NAME * THE NORTH/S UTH STREET.... FACTORY AVE/51 SBEE ROAD DA'!'E D 1'L1Ili: OF '['If lWALIlSIS..... 8-23-93 I WEEK AY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTITUCR i I I , : ....""'''''".'"-.~ ~ (tt AUG 26 '93 08: 46 DUNN EI'~G ItIEER ING 516 288 2544 P.8/16 1985 HfM: UN8IGNAL ZED INTERSECTIONS Page-l .**.*.~....******~. .********~.*.**************** **.**....**........ , IOENTIFYING INFORHA ION I ------j------------ ----------------------------- AVERAGjE RUNNING SPE D, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HbUR FACTOR... ................. .9 I AREA ~PULATION.... ................. 150000 NANE ~F THE EAST/WE T STREET......... NYS ROUTE 2 j NAME 9f' THE NORTR/S UTH STREET....... T~UREL LAKE DRIVE NAME OF TRE ANALYST ................. DUNN ENGINE .RIONG ASSOC. VJD Dl\.TE 9F THE ANALYSI , TIME ~ERIOO ANALYZE I OTHERJINFORMATION.. INTER BCTION TYPE ----- ------------- (Mm/dd/yy)...... 8-23-93 .. ~ . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . . WEEKDAY 8-9 AM . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTITUCK o CONTROL ----------------------------- ------------------- INTER~ECTION TYPE: '-INTERSECTION I MAJOR ISTREET DIRECT ON: ElI.ST/WEST CONTRiL TYPE SOUTHB UNO: STOP SIGlf TRAFF~C VOLUMES -----1------------- ----------------------------- "j I I , LEFT I THRU I RIGHT I -----------------~- EB w NB S8 o o 1 445 4 3 o o 1 J NUMBE~ OF LANES -----~~------------ ----------------------------- ------------------- ED WB NS sa -.....--. tAllEB i 1 J. J. ....,,"'. 3...... HUG 26 '93 08:46 (4t, DUNN ENGII1EERIIIG 516 288 2544 ce P.9/16 Arous ENT FACTORS --------...---- ------------------------~---- ------~------------ Paq..-2 I ; EASTBfND WESTaduNO I NORTH~OUND _____ SOUTH OUNn 0.00 VEHIC E COMPOSITION ----- ------------- , PERCENT GRADE 0.00 ---------- ---------------- ----------------- RIGHT TURN CURB WlDIDS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGUT TURNS 0.00 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N ---~------------------------- ------------------- % SU T UCRS AND V'S " COMBINATION VEHICLES t MOTO CYCLES ------ ---- ------------- ------ ------ EASTB~UND WESTS/UNO NORTlliOUND SOUTHllOUND i CRITlqAL GAPS -----i------------- o 0 o 0 , f MINORIRIGHTS I SB MAJOR [LE. FTS I ED MINOR jfLEFTS I S8 7.40 IDENT~FYINC INFORMA ION -----j------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- NAME qF THE EAST/WE T STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME qr THE NORTHIS UTH STREET.... LAUREL LAKE OR VE DATE 4ND TIME OF TH ANALySIS..... 8-23-93 : WEE AY 8-9 AM OTHXR'INFORMATION.... 1994 BUILn W/O.D. 1 BURGER ~ING MATTITUCK o 0 ----------------------------- ------------------- R VALUES 10 10-2) ADJUSTEO VALUE SIGHT ADJUS'J: 1ST. 'f I'IlfAL CRITICAL GAP --------- ------ .....-:.- ------------ 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 S.30 5.30 0.0 5.30 7.40 0.0 7.40 .,.'.~ c"'''''__ 0"'-" AUG 26 '93 . ~, 08:47 DUNN ENGINEERING 516 288 2544 ce P.10/16 :~~:~:_~~-~~:: ::~~~~:~-------------------- , Paqe-J ----------.-------- MOVEM$T . i I MINOR fTREET sa xjEFT JIGIlT i MAJOR iSTREET ES IJEFT , POT!N- ACTUAL FLoW- TIAL MOVEMENT SllAREo llESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI Y CAPACITY v (PCPh C (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcp ) c ~ c - v LOS p M SH R SH --...--- -------- -~-~----- --------- -- -----...-....---- 1 4 159 159 513 > :. 329 > 19> :. 5 J > 324 157 > 0 >B 509 > A 513 o 6JJ 6JJ 6 3 633 A I IOENTJ:rUNG INFORMA ION -----~------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- NAME QF THE EAST/WE T STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME elF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET.... LAUREL LARE DR VE DATE ~lD TIME OF TH ANALySIS..... 6-23-93 ; WEEK AY 6-9 AM OTHER IINFORMATION.. . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER RING MATTlTUCK ! . .- ~ (. RUG 26 '9308:47 DUnn EnGHlEERItIG 516 288 2544 P.11/16 19135 UNSIGNAL ZED INTERSECTIOIIS Page-l *****~*****.******* **********..***************** ******************. . IDENT~FYING INFORMA ION :~:::~-:::::::-::: :~-:::::-::::::~~--::-------- ------------------- PEAK ,*,UR FACTOR... ................. . 9 AREA ~PULATION..." ............. <I .. . .. .. .. 150000 NAME dr THE EAST/WE T STREET......... Nl'S ROUTE 2 NAME + THl': NORTH/S UTH STREET....... EASTERN (EX T) SITE DRIVEWAY NAME ~F THE ANALYST ................. DUNN ENGINE RING ASSOCIATES, VJD , DATE or THE ANALYSI TIME ~RIOD ANALYZE OTHER ~NFORMATION.. INTERS~CTrON TYPE -----~------------- (mm/dd/yy)...... 8-~3-93 WEEKDAY 8-9 AM . 1994 BUILD W/ 0.0. 1 BURG R KING MATTlTUCK o CONTROL , INTERSiECTION TYPE: -INTERSECTION , MAJOR ~TREET DIRECT ON: EAST/WEST CONTR:'L TYPE HORTHB UND: STOP SIGN TRAFF C VOLUMES -----~------------- ----------------------------- I i EB W N8 5B I LEFT I 0 1 8 THRU 485 5 5 0 RIGIIT I 1 0 13 , NUMBEJ OF LANES -----~------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- EB W8 NB S8 LAHES 1 i 2 ,- .,;Ai. RUG 26 '93 08:48 DUNN El'1~N!NG 516 288 2544 (. P. 12/16 I ADJUST~NT FACTORS ------r------------ ----------------------------- I PERCENT RIGHT TO.RN CURB RADIUS 1ft) , GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS page-2 ------------------- I ~______ __________ ________________ ~ASTBOpND 0.00 90 20 WESTBOUNO 0.00 90 20 , ACCELERATION LlINE FOR IlIGHT TUlINB ----~------------ N . i NORTHspUNO 0.00 j SOU'l'HBiUND ~~~::~_:~~~~~:::~~ , N 90 20 N ----------------------------- ----~-------------- t SU VCRS AND V' S % COHBIllATION VEHICLES % MOTO CYCLES ! I::AS'.I.'BOI.lllO I WESTBOUND . NORTHB~UNO I SOUTHBpUND ------ ------ o o o o o Q , CRITICf'L CAPS ------1------------ ---__________________________ ___________________ I I , MINOR IRIGIlTs I NB MAJOR L-FTS r WB MINOR bFTS I NB 7.40 7.40 0.0 7.40 ;~:~::~~-~;;;;; ;~;;;~~;~~~~~~-;~;-;;~;;-;;-- ------------------- NAME F THE NORTHjS UTH STREET.... EASTE.RN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DATB ~D TIMB OF TH' ANALVS1S..... 8-23-93 : WEEX Y 8-9 AM OTHER ,INFORMATION.. . 1994 BUILD Wj 0.0. 1 BURG R KING MATTrTUCK TABU R VAWES (Tn Ie 10-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT IST. AOJUST NT FINAL CRITICAL GAP --------- -------- ---.;. ------...-....-- 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 5.30 5.30 0.0 5.30 ..:;oIl:. ce '93 08: 48 DUr1N EtIGItIEERING 516 288 2544 RUG 26 CAPACI~1t' AND LEVEL- ------r------------ c. P. 13/16 F-SERVICE page-3 ----------------------------- I I HOVEME~T POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RES:E9.VE llATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAFACI Y CAPACITY v (pcph c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcp ) C = C - V LOS P M SH R SH ------ -------- --------- --------- -- ----------.... I MINOR ~TREET I UB I\ElFT RfGHT , MAJOR I'TREET WB iFT i ! IDENTIFYING INFORHA -----,r------------ NAME 0' THE EAST/WE NAME ~F ~'HI:: NOR1.'H/S DATE ~m TIME OF TH OTHER ~NFORMATION.. j 10 16 138 511 137 511 1 7 5 1 128 495 D A 1 631 631 Ii 1 630 A ION ----------------------------- ---------~--------- T STREET...... NYS ROUTE 2S UTH STREET.... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY ANALySIS..... 8-23-93 WEEK All 8-9 AM . 199~ BUILD WI 0.0. 1 BURG R KING MATTITUCK ...., AUG 26 '93 08: 49 DUtlN EN.(1!ING 516 288 2544 ( P. 14/16 1985 nbM: UNSIGNAL ZED INTERSE~rIONS Page-l **.~*.r...****.*.** .~***....**~*..~.**....w...*~ ***.****..........* , IDENTlrYING INFORMA ION ------~------------ ----------------------------- -~----------------- AVERAC~ RUNNING SPE 0, ffilJOR S'l'REET.. 45 , PEAK ll,OUR FACTOR... ................. .9 AREA ~PULATION.... ................. 150000 I NAME 9F THE EAST/WE T STREET......... NYS ROUTE 2 I NAME OF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET....... WESTERN SIT DRIVEWAY (ENTER) , NAME qF THE ANALYST ................. DUNN ENGIN ING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE qF TilE ANALYSt (llIlll/dd/yy)...... B-23-93 TIME ~ERIOD ANALYZE ................. WEBRDAY S- AM , OTHER iINFORMATION.. . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KINC HATTITUCK INTE~ECTION TYPE A D CONTROL ------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- INTER~ECTION TYPE: '-INTERSECTION MAJOR ISTREET DIREC'!' ON: EAST/WEST CONTRqL TYPE NORTH UNO: STOP SIm! , i TRAFF~C VOLUMES -----l---~--------- ------~-----------------_____ , ------------------- EB W lla sa ,- LEFT i THRU I I RIGHT I I I ~~~~-~:_~~~---- o o 1 o 485 5 3 11 o 1 --------------------~-------- ------------------- ED WB NB ss ------... ..------ LAIIES, 1 1 2 .-... AUG 26 '93 08:49 rUIN ENGI(c:IG 516 288 2544 c. P. 15/16 ADJUS ENT FACTORS Paqe-2 ------ ------------ ----------------------------- ------------------- "NORTHBjOUND sourH~UND I VEHI~ COMPOSITION -----,------------- , I i I , EASTBOUND I , WESTBlfND . NOR'I'}f~UND , SOUTH'r>UND CRITIdAL GAPS -----1------------- i I I I MItiOR IRIGHTS NB HINOR I'LEi"L'S NB 7.40 7.40 0.0 7.40 :~~~:~:~:~~_:~:~~ :~~-------------------------- ------------------- NAME ~F THE EAST/WE T STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME ~F THE NORTH/S UTH STREET.... WESTERN SITE D IVEWAll (ENTER) DATE NO TIME OF TH. ANALySIS..... a-23-93 I WEE DAY 8-9 AM OTHER ,INFORMATION.. . 1994 BUILD ~/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTlTUCX EASTOOpND , WESToopND HAJOR LEFTS PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIeHl' TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- 0.00 0.00 90 20 N 90 90 20 20 N 0.00 II ----------------------------- ------------------- t SU '1' AND UCKS t COMBINATION V'S VEHICLES % MOTO CYCLES ------------- ------ ------ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------ -------------------~--------- ------------------- TABU VALUES (Ta 1.. 10-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT ADJUS 1ST. FINAL FoNT CRITICAL GAP ------------ 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 WB 5.30 5.30 0.0 5.30 .- AUG 26 '93 08:50 DUNN EN~I!ItIG 516 288 2544 , ( P. 16/16 I I CAPAC!Y AND LEVEL- P'-SERVICE Pag..-3 --~-- ------------- ---------~------------------- ------------------- I , POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACr 1/' CAPACITY HOVEMf1NT v (pcph c (pCph) c (pCPh) c (pcp ) c = 0 - v LOS . P M SH R Sil ------ ..------- --------- --------- -- ------------ --- MINOR ~TRE.i."l' liS ;1'1' 1 134 133 J. 3 13<: 0 IGHT 1 507 507 5 7 506 A I MAJOR !STREET WB 1EFT 12 622 622 6 2 610 A i I j IDENT~FYING INFORMA ION -----~------------- ----------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WE T STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME dl" THE NORTil/S UTH STREET.... WESTERN SITE D DATE ~D TIME OF TH ANALySIS..... 8-23-93; WEE OTHER IINFORMATION.. . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER I I I I I ------------------- lVEWAY (ENTER) DAY 8-9 AM KING M1l.TTlTUCK ,.~ . t St-{BPU.E:- fb-~ ~-" CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 180 OLD CoUNTRY ROAD (RTE. 58) P. O. BOX 1~47 RrvERHEAn, NY 11901 ADJACENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT TEL: 051€n 369-8200 FAX: 115.16) 36~60 August 18, 1993 Mr. Robert Kassner Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Kassner: Re: Trarric xmpact study ror Proposed Burger King Attached hereto is the traffic impact study for the proposed Burger King at Route 25 in Mattituck. Would you please review this with the Board Members and advise if it satisfies your requirements. . CRC: jme Enclosure Very truly yours, C/,./. .--7~ .." .' ... .. ~. c" c~..- . ...... /.:.-i. , Charles R. cUddy/ ~/~ ~ 00"-.' rn Ji1..Rj~W_.~.,.~l. (III!. i A..U..G...... 2.. O. ...1.99....3. :J I L......._.J '-',:,':i ',J" I'; "::-',: ." '0,-'0 __,c;.._,...._..,..'_'_'_ 4P . s.., b ' J RK AU(~ . 61900 MORTH FORK EMVIROMWEMTAL COUMCIL Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799. Mattituck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 To : From: Date: He: The Southold Town Planning Board The North Fork El""lvit"c'),,'irlleY',tal Cc,uFlcil JoloLF ALt~!U5t 5, 1993 Burger King Corporation Application The North Fork Environmental Council insists that a ful J. ~JEG!RA t"f?view be perfot"med fell.... this apolication. This review should be independent of the information contained in the aoplication dated August 10,1990 submitted by the Mc'Do"'''la Id' s COt"pcrt-.;.:-\t:i. 01",. Pm'sual"t to NYCRR 617.f! (b) (i) <iii) this aoplieatiol" qualifies as an action under Environmental Conservation Law. Further review of Part 617 of NYCRR indicates that this oroposed action would be classified as an unlisted action. NYCRR 617.2 (kk). A draft EIS may be required by the lead agency for an unlisted action. NYCRR 617.3 (f) (2). Furthermore NYCRR Part 617.3 Cg) states: /I The lead agel"'lcy 1?hall fll;ake every r"easo1",able effort to involve applicants, other agencies, dr-lei :thE~?.-9.!...ill..1Jc in the SEQR Pr"Ot:;:~Ss:._ Early consultations initiated by agencies can !:;:.E'r.' ve t 0 ne!:.r:f~_._t~ s Ll f25 ~~.f_.!2.iJJ.r1 i f.ica~~_c!r.!.SLj~..f! i.l,;t~mt:.i..:.EY...~C~.EL~Pf.'H_' c-;!..Ylt.r.::q\(_~_t:.s ~._r:.@..l.Slt i r!.r.Li~..!.Y i -= :r.f~r..ill1.!?X!.t~..L_tgL!:?~~~.?_2.:g.Q_'=.L~..!:::t.n.fL_j..rJ....-:l:1,g}Lt.~i=\ l,.ys .ts .A.!2 "'Xl..._...!;;].!?,.... (Efl1Dhasis adc/ed). Ca!:5~? law also suppor..ts the above cited part._l:!E\tt~l:..-.Q.f 2.b..c.lli.S\_np-'-:!.r.lB......11f;~_l.J.r!~~....€Lir.~.....sl~.!..Y:~..!:!.:;;!..12!!:!..~D;: a 1-8..~2.9 c j, a ..tj,gr-I v. P 1 a '(I n i 1"1 Q. ?.f!t~3.:Ci;;l, .1.57 A. D. 2d 273, i.=276 (1990). Put"suarlt to the above Quoted section the NFEC urgently requests this involvement guaranteed by State law and supported by case law. In determining the significance of an unlisted action NYCRR Pa,-.t 617.11 Ca) (1), (5), (8), ar,d ('3) apply. These criteria indicate a significant eFfect on the environment. 11(1) a substantial adverse change in...existing traffic or noise levels; a substantial increase in solid waste production... (5) the impairment of the character or quality of existing community or neighborhood character; a non-profit organization for the preservation of land, sea, all' and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper , . (8) a substantial change in the use,or intensity of use, of land... (9) the creation of a material demand for other actions which would result in one of the above CCil'-'!.3E~q Uey,cE:!5; " Subsection (5) is relevant to the present aoplication because, if approved, this would be the first major chain fast food restaurant in the Town of Southold. Given the overwhelming opposition to a restaurant of the same type (~cDonalds) because it would impair the character and quality of our existing community, the present application o"f Bur'gei"'" l-\irI9, IYIC. pt"'esey,ts the identical situatioi'"l. Subsection (9) applies because, as is well documented by Exhibit 1, and wE:J.1 kYIO~n"l, YJO tOW)"1 hasJJ.g~.:t oX!.ft f'1dJOt'" chain fast food restaurant. The more restaurants of this type that are present the more likely the other above cited c).'ite).'i", (i. E2., NYCRI'/ P"n't 617.11 (a) (1) (5) a,o,d (/3) ",ould t"'E'SU 1 t n Of equal if not more importance is sub-section (b) of NYCRR Part 517.11. II (b) F.ct).... the pUt"'pc;.se of detet"'rnil""dl"",g whethE,j.... an action will cause one of the foregoing COl""lseqUf?l""ICeS, the lead ar:lf?r-'~~~~~.J....ft~:c. r.:fl...~J:.1Q!l9..pJ_~La ~...~~-LJ..QnJl-t et.:L!h.-.~h c~!::i_:t.~t"'r.!l~:!.f! C~!.!li!.J~..tJ...Y.5~..... e (f e.f.~_~L1_._;L'Q~~~.1.~~1Q..i Y"!.fl-f~.~ttJJ1.:c..__ 5 i rI1H~l.= :tE..r:~~~:~.1!.2._f~.t:~h.&l1LI::}..&..tg'j:.L~.~E.r.!.t._{~_t.~;LQ.r.~!.2~~_.~!..bj:~E.tLH_€U::~~E- J~~h~'H~.~Jj..l!:.€-tJ.X_...t_Q.._..Q.f~_'H.~~!..Od ~?.!.:.:tS'~l~~r.!..._'€~h~_S1.._~t:..f.;ig.!..~ll:t t.t~E'!:..f:?g'f: ~ (Emphasi!; acldf..?d) ~ Sub-sectiol~ (e) of the above Part states: II The !::~i~ll"'lificaYlce of a likely COYIS€:?- quence(. i.e. whether it is material, ~3ub!:;ta)",t.ial, large ~:lt"' irnpclt...tay,t) should be assessed in connection with: s,,,,, f.::xhilJit .1. ( I ) its SE.t./:; i )"10 ( e. r~. l.J.C.q.bl!:!_m~2:t!::.9J~ ( ~:.:: ) i...t.?__12ro b aH~?-iJi_tLg_f_.~:;;~~:....~.!::!.r:.r:.~.nc~ ( :3) .:L~ s iL!.lr.:&i c~n .: Lj. ) jj~..f"""~Mj.1:.t.:g~f~r' s i t.2...U.J.:tX ( 5 ) A.t.2.__9.g:!.:~~rrrM~~!2.bLQ._2.f?.fi?.~ ( E.) i.~~._~_.f!I~J]1.:!..t:L!-!f"1~3'_h.Eng_ ( 7' ) :Y.Jlf;:_m\L!J.2.~"~.g f ...J2.!LqBl.f:~? f'f ect ~(~.:.... (Emphasis added). Under ECLB-0109(2) an EIS must be prepared for any action that 'Jmay have a significant effect on the el~vironment." There exists a relatively low threshold for this requil....erileYjt~ The eOUt...t of Appeals held ir-I_.~1Jj.D..e5.~)2J~{j~.f a Y1J:L.J~J.s~!:~' k:..~::tr:.t~flli..!i:2!~~j,.!"tttJM2rL..grL5~h_"----.Y~2li'y"'_Q.f~_~ft~L_YS~!.:c}'..:..'L_ t, 8 , . N.Y.2d 359 (1986) that environmental review can be considered arbitrary and capricious for failure of lead c":qJeYlcies to coy,sid€:?'r whethf.?l""'" the cha-r"'acter of a C'ommurdty woul d be a I t€~Y'E!d by the pr'()~)!:::,sed act iOt",. Th i 5 same cocn"'t also ruled that land development impacts not only on the actual pc\t-.ty ir,volvE'd but oy, the cc,wrouy.,ity iY" genet"'al. ..._JJ.:t~_. at ,367 citiY"lg _~e~~'_Q.!:!}20rf v. Tow)'"1 of New Castle,!.. 38 N.Y.i:::d 10(:~, 11/21 (197~5). Iy., two other cases the cCHn...t has y"'uled that if an aqelrlcy does y,ot take a "har-'d look"~ they, its actiol'"' and detey'mination can be described as arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Such a determination wi 11 not be SUppor...ted. ....~~~.hEi.1a.!:'--y~.sX:~..'t..L 88 A. D. 2d 77., 452 1'1. Y.. S. 2d 539 (1982) L_I.€_h~.r!..._Y:_. SC;.r:i.vani., 79 A. D. 2d 759,458 N. Y. S. E:d 4~)2 (1 ':183). The 1::n"('::;~sE:.:~nt; applica)'"lt would pr"ef"er tel lIse a. pt"iot.. apolicatiol1 as his own. The prior application was that of a di fferent: i:;\opl i caY'lt ~l the:- McDcl}''',alds Ccq'''porat ie,r-I. lYI ~.$it..:t.~l:~"_..9.f I!:i..:.:G.f~~,.Irl.:t..Y_.."T a..?:.Ul~.Y.f.:?r.~_"Bs~~~ i a.:t tfLtL...y-,,_ T ow)'", Bq!~.f.t, 55 N" Y. i~d 4.1, (198E:), w.~2.C;L..Lq 79 A.D.2d 337, (1981), the court ,"uled that the ~lse of a prior decision for the same applicant would clear~ly ~rustrate the objectives of SEQRA. The Legislature has directed that SEQRA be administered to the fulJ.(2st: E:xtel'"it possible" Irl this iYlstaY"lce the situation is mOl....<.~ E~Htf..f?me giverl that thf'.? appl icaY"lts are r.!2..t the same" The same application should not be used three years later for a different applicant. In conclusion, for the foregoi~g reasons based upon both statuatory and decisional law~ The North Fork Environmental Council., comprising 1,100 members., calls for your~ Board to determine that this application meets the c)-".iter....:i.a f()i''' th({'2 Clr:;ISE~St E)l"lvit~onmey",tal SCt"utiY"IY uY"lder" SEQRA" (l '" :r [J 1-' if'RIENDLY'S DUNKIN' DONUTS ~ 7-11 .... ) . ..._.\~ " i . -... ~t.' ' ~' - .,'j, ,~. J . . ~ .-..:.L.l::... . BURGER KING ; .~." , . ., CR~MER,- V~~ AS!ATES ENVIRONMEN;:~~~G CONSULTANTS . s,,\,~. l'B 1<.'1:; August 4, 1993 Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board . Town Hall, 5~,095Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 ill lli ,,~:,; :.- _.' l5 I~ D r--I~I ~UB~.~'Jj ! SlH.JTHDi_ 0 -,,":' . PlAi'm:i~L,;L . --< Re: Preliminary Environmental Review Bur,ger King Restaurant Mam Road, Mattituck SCTM No. 1000-122-7-3.1 .",;., Dear Mr. Ward: The Planning Board has requested Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. leVA) to rcview the environmental review status of the above referenced apRlication. The applicant has submitted a document in lieu of an Environmental Assessment Form, entitled, "Environmental Report for Proposed Burger King" prepared b)' Freudenthal & Elkowitz, environment~.l consultants. As a result of detailed review of this document, the pending application, and SEQRA procedures contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617, CV A feels this . document to be inadequate for application {'rocessing. SEQRA clearly requires submission of an EAF fot an action, and only waives thIS requirement in the event that an Environmental Impact Statement is submitted. The Environmental Report is not an Environment:ll Impact Statement, therefore, we recommend that the Board require such information as may be necessary in order to proceed with the processing of this application. The basis for our recommendatlons are discussed in more detail below. .' .,., . The definition of an "Environmental Assessment Form" contained in SEQRA Part ~;~il1~;;~ 617.2 (01), refers to ''alorm used by an agency to assist it in determining the environmental , '.' "'significance QJ: nonsisndicc/nce (emphasis added) of actions': The SEQR Handbook (NYSDEC, 1982) states that, 'A properly completed EAF shall contain enou~h information to describe the proposed action, the environmental setting, and the potential Impacts on the environment". . : ,~~ The application before the Board attempts to utilize the full EAF prepared on behalf of the McDo"ald's Corporation for a fast food restaurant. There is no questIOn that the pending Burger King application and the former McDonald's application are similar; however, it is recommended that the EAF be used to identify these similarities. Such review will likely only support a conclusion that there is an insignificant difference between projects, and therefow would lend support to a Negative Declaration, if indeed the projects are not significantly different. The subject application has been categorized as an Unlisted Action. SEQR Part 617.5 (c) states the following with regard to unlisted actions: "For Ulllisted actiolls. the short EAF (sce section 617.21. Appendix C. of/his Part) mus/I>e used to detemllllc the sil,"liJicallce of sllch actions that al'e flllle/ed, approved or directly undertakcn!>)' all agellcy. However, Q/I Qgcllcy mQy ill.I'tcad llse the fll/l EAF for Unlisted Qc/iolls if tile sllOl't EAF wOIl/d II0t provide Pl\~e 1 ot3 .,..'"",..;;.".'.h.; 54 NORTH <;OUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2. MillER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 -. . - - . . . - ... .-. .-- - - . ...... . . . . PrelimInary Envlronmenllll Review Burger King Reslllurant Ihc lead agcncy witll sll/ficient in/ollllatioll 011 wlliel. to I>ase its detelll/illation of si8',ificonce. VIC lead agency IIIay reqllire Olher il//omlalionneeessaty to dctcrlllitle signifiea'lce". The proposed Burger King restaurant is therefore an action which requires the preparation of an EAF. SEQRA Part 617.3 (e) indicates that, "An agency may waive the requirement for an EAF if a draft EIS is prepared or submitted". There has been no draft EIS submitted in connection with the action. The agency may require a full or short EAF, and may require further information as necessary. The SEQR Handbook (NYSDEC, 1992) indicates the !Iollowing with regard to a full EAF: ;"~ HIt is expecled thai applicants or projecl sponsors will complele Part I since they are mosl familiar with Ilze proposed action or projeel sile. VIe in/ormation provided in Part 1 will seNe as II basis for IIIe complelioll _ a/Parts 2 and 31>y Ihe lead age/Icy. For 1111's reason ills Importanlllraltlre lead agel/cy carefully elleck tlze In/onl/arion slIl>mittcd ill Port 1. The lClld agency IIII1Y require the applicanllo clarify or expand UpOl1 infollllor/on providcd in Part 1 IInd IIsk for additional ilrforlllallOlI (mllp$ for example) necded for review 0/ Ille projecl." This phase indicates that the applicant or project sponsor will complete the EAF Part 1; however, the EAF now pending before the Board was not completed by the applicant or project sponsor. At present, the Planning Board does not have a required EAF, completed by the applicant, properly identifying the proposed action or the environmental setting. The McDonald's lEAF was prepared for a different project. with different site design quantities, and was submitted to the Planning Board in July 1990, over three years ago. The environmental setting partially includes: site flora. land use issues, demography, community services and transportation, all components of the environmental setting that are constantly in flux. It is reasonable for the Plannin$ Board to seek an EAF specific to the current . Burger King application, with updated mformation pertinent to the pending review. The Planning Boz,rcf may then utilize this information in order to conduct a coordinated review with agencies involved in approving the action, in order to establish lead agency status and issue a Determination of Significance specific to the pending application, and with consideration of current conditions and agency requirements. This is clearly a more suitable method of applications processing than relying on an outdated form for a prior application. The Environmental Report prepared on behalf of the applicant is a useful document . in a%essing the significance ofthe proposed action. Such a re~ort may be submitted in connection with a properly completed full EAF in order to assist the Planning Board in determining the significance of the Jlrojecti however, it is not sufficient in lieu of a full EAF. In addition, review of the report finds the rollowing points which should be noted: 1. The sil,~ was previously characlerized as being devoid of signilieant vegetation, and was being eoloni~cd by herbaceous weeds. The current vegetative condition of the site should be characterized, particularly the presence of woody pioneer species which may now occupy the site. The Er,vironmental Report docs not addre.\s the issue of solid waste disposal. A condition of the 1991 Board "r Appeals decision on the McDonald's application invotved a eovc",,"t not to deposit solid waste in the landfill of the Town of Southold. This issue should be updatcd in the current review, and clarificd on Part 1 of the filII EAF in response to Section B. question 16. The Environmental Report indicates a maximum of 250 vehicular trips per hour; however, the prior Dunn Engineering report specifics a maximum of 471 trips/hour from 12:00.1:00 pm on a Weekday. 2. 3. ~.....~'~/j CRAMER, V R W:' SOCIATE$ ENVIRONMENT,~: ~ : ~~ G CONSULTANTS Page 2 of3 . - - -"- ,. - . .- ......... ~ -.. .. eo .r-- . ...",. t"T~.... __..L....O~... ~~ .' .... . . Preliminary Environmental Review Burger King Restaurant This shCluld be clarified in the revised full EAF Section B.1.g. In addition, Section C.l:!. of the full EAP asks the question, "Willllze proposed aclioll result IlItlze gCllcratlOl! of trafJic sllJl.iflcalll/y Qbove pl'lllellt levell?'; and "l[YCI, Is Ilze e.rlllillgrol1d lIetwork adeql/atc to lIalldlc tlze ailditiolllzltrafJic?". The Dunn Enginet:ring reI'ort was based on turning movement counts collected in 1990, and the intersection capacit). analyses were performed for 1991 'build" and "no-build" conditions. The pending application is two (2) years beyond the projected year for capacity analysis for the McDonald's restaurant. Therefore, the Environmental Report has not accurately portrayed the traClic impacts, and information has not been prcsent"d which would satisfactorily address question C.l2. of the full EAP. In addition, the Conditi,~ned Negative Declaration required certain roadway improvements to NYS Route 2Sj however, the stalllS of these approvals has not been addressed. The Environmental Report provides some useful information to the Planning Board in review of the project; however, there is insufficient basis for the conclusions of that report. Specifically, the Burger King plan has not demonstrated conformance with the conditions or reasons supporting the Conditioned Negative Declaration, for the reasons noted above, and the fact that other agencies have not had the opportunity to review the proposed action. Submission and coordination of a full EAF would facilitate this review. Finally, the conclusion that, ':..the environmental review has been completed in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act and no further environmental study is necessary'; is unfounded fN the reasons noted herein. Thank you for the opportunity to review the information submitted to date, and please do nol: hesitate to call if you have any questions. CRAMER, v~~ JASOCIATES ... ..ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS ~;.~~, ~"".:;0,,,.~.;' ~:it.a>>'..':' --'="~--.'-- Pallt 3 or3 .... . lfl-~ 1&P;';,UfFDl~"C j~~ , ~\ (.~ 1;, ~n ~ ;"'J N ~ ~ <;:>,.~ ~ ~'P. "'" . "~#' '>.In' ';" ''VJ '.to ,\-> ~~;Pjfr . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards scon L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 July 20, 1993 Cramer & Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Environmental Review for proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Environmental Report prepared by Freudenthal & Elkowitz for the above mentioned Site Plan to your office for review. The Planning Board has received the $150.00 review fee from the applicant. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. If there are any questions, please contact Robert Kassner of the planning staff. ff"2J;j~ ~ 4t:oM~ K~~er Site Plan Reviewer Ene!. ..,;", 4P 4t S0b~ ~'" CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 180 OLD COUNTRY ROAD (RTE. 58) P. O. BOX .1547 RlVERHEAD, NY 11901 ADJACENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT TEL: (&16) 369-8200 FAX: (&16) 369-9060 July 15, 1993 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ch<.c.t if) drawu Re: Proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Gentlemen: In accordance with your letter of July 12, 1993, enclosed is a check for $150.00 made payable to the Town of Southold. CRC: jme Enclosure Very truly yours, ef!.--t << 0iv' Charles R. Cuddy 0 r""')' r~ li,',j :-;~ r: \',i i~ I ~ ~ ~;~.l:..~,.~L~L UU~I993 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD ~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUrnOLD . sueEiLV: Pb kK, SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: Curtis Horton, Senior Building Inspector FROM: Richard G. Ward, Chairman 01v f...- SUBJECT: Proposed Site Plan for Burger King Route 25, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (Bl SCTM#1000-122-7-3.1 DATE: June 29, 1993 The site plan for the above referenced property, (attached), shows three signs on the restaurant building. The Board would like your review as to the number of signs allowed by code on the building. Encls. ~: S:O-- en, ~:Jtd2 ~ IOO-f/ dC~)cP) w~ ~ ~ S.#:fUE:.T WIHL 5 j?o<JTff!- '.5--- ~PJ~- .c,. V 1:1 00'0 ~ @ ~ 0 W_~ rn!.n-~l I lilli, U~~~~I SOUTHOLD WWN PLANNING BOPJ\~D -LASER FICHE FORM - Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans SCANNED SPFile Type: Approved APR 2 4 2006 Proiect Type: Site Plans Status: Final Approval Records Management SCTM #: 1000 -122.-7-3.1 Proiect Name: Buraer Kina Address: south side of NYS Rt. 25. east of Bray Ave.. in Mattituck Hamlet: Mattituck Applicant Name: COFAM Realty Company Owner Name: COFAM Realty Co. Zone 1: B Approval Date: 3/28/94 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A date indicates that we have received the related information End SP Date: 3/28/94 Zone 2: Zone 3: Location: south side of NYS Rt. 25. east of Bray Ave.. in Mattituck SC Filina Date: C and R's : Home Assoc: Rand M Aareement: SCAN Date: