HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-102.-2-24h
'F
TEST t4_Q LE
DEC
?L -"E4 ' 00' _
,.4,
zoo .~,::¢. 4o0
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
I~Jchard G. Ward, Chairman
C~eorge Rltchle Latham, Jr.
Bennett Orlowsld, Jr.
Mark S, McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ScoTr L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town HaH, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax(516] 765- 1823
October 5, 1993
Richard Cron
Cron & Cron
Main Road
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, NY
11935
Re:
Proposed Minor Subdivision
S.H Friemann & Others
SCTM# 1000-102-2-24
Dear Mr. Cron:
The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town
Planning Board on Monday, October 4, 1993:
The final public hearing which was opened on August 9, 1993, was
closed.
The following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Sanford Friemann and Henry Rienecker are the owners of
the property know and designated as SCTM# 1000-102-2-24, located
on the north side of Main Road; 1658.7 feet west of Cox's Lane
in Cutchogue; and
WHEREAS, this minor subdivision is for 3 lots on 19.596 acres
lots in the General Business District and 1 lot in the
Agricultural Conservation District); and
(2
WHEREAS, a decision was rendered on December 13, 1990 by the
Zoning Board of Appeals on the matter of S.H. Friemann and
others granting approval of insufficient frontage (lot width)
along the Main Road of proposed Lot #3 and insufficient lot
depth of proposed Lot #2, and for approval of access according
to New York Town Law, Section 280-A over a private right-of-way
subject to the following condition:
That the access right-of-way be maintained in good
condition to a minimum width of 18 feet (without
obstructions) for the entire length for sufficient
maneuverability by fire and emergency vehicles (pursuant to
the requirements of New York Town Law); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a judgment entered on October 5, 1992 in
the matter of Friemann v. Planning Board, the Southold Town
Planning Board was directed to process the above application as
a minor subdivision and to grant the relief therein requested;
and
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617,
declared itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on
April 22, 1993; and
WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision
application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on October 4,
1993; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of
the Town of Southold have been met; and
be it therefore,
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and
authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated April
15, 1993.
Enclosed please find a copy of the map which was endorsed by the
Chairman. The mylar maps, which were also endorsed by the
Chairman, must be picked up at this office and filed in the
office of the County Clerk. Any plat not so filed or recorded
within sixty (60) days of the date of final approval, shall
become null and void.
Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding
the above.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Ward
Chairman
enc.
CC:
Thomas Fisher, Building Inspector in Charge
Scott A. Russell, Chairman, Board of Assessors
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney
Sanford Friemann, Applicant
PHON£:852-2000
SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE
Edward p. Romaine, COUNTY CLERK
own of Southold Assessor
own of Southold Planning Board
Chief Deputy County Treasurer
To Whom This May Concern:
The Subdivision Map
Was Filed, [' I ~0}~
Filed Number,
A}-stract Number,
Township, Southold
Owner: ~ Fri~nn
Very truly yours,
County Clerk
Map Department
~,'mNo. 49
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
· dfolk County, New York 5lb - 765-1801
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Suffolk County, New York Phone 516-765-1801
Southold, New York 11971
46015
Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
THIS MINOR SUBDIV~SIOI~ IS FOR_~, ~ LOTS ON /~" Y,~C'C~'ES LOCATED ON
SCTM# 1000- /o .~ __ .~_ _ ,~ ~J Ct,*'> ~.~. v MINOR SUBDIVISION (NO ROAD)
Complete application received
Application reviewed at work session
Applicant advised o£ necessary revisions
Revised sub mission received
Sketch plan approval -with conditions
Lead Agency Coordination
SEQRA determination
Sent to Fire Commissioner
Receipt of firewe'll location
Notification to applicant to include on final map
Sent to County Planning Commission
Receipt of County Report
Review of SCPC report
Draft Covenants and Restrictions received
Draft Covenants arid Restrictions reviewed
Filed Covenants and Restrictions received
Receipt of mylars and paper prints with
Health approval .
Final Public Hearing
Approval'of subdivision
-with conditions
Endorsement of subdivision
¢60
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT
To the Planning Board of the Toxvn of Southold:
The undersigned applicant hereby applies for (tentative) (final) app,'oval of a subdivision plat in
accordance with Article 16 of the Tmvn Law and the Rules and Regulations of the Soutbold Town
Planning Board, and represents and states as folloxvs:
1. The applicant is the oxvner of record of the land under application. (If the applicant is not the
owner o£ record of the land under application, the applicant shall state his interest in said
land under application.)
4 '
2. The name of the subdivision is to be , '~'r- ''~,- -~"~' '~'-'~-'/"'~-' '-~' .'~-~. ................... '-
.... A~°.:...~?..w...?.(.~..../...~..e.?..~..-47. ~?.~..,..,~.~. ,../. tg..r..~.. ............................
3. The entire land under application is described in Schedule "A" hereto annexed. (Copy of deed
suggested.)
4. The land is beld by the applicant under deeds recorded in Suffolk Count>' Clerk's office as
follows:
Liber ...~.?..~..O. .............. Page ...~..<7. ............. On ....
Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... ;
Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ' ..
Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... ;
Liber ....................... Page ...................... On ........................ ·
as d~vlsed under tbe Last %Vill and Testament of .......................................
dist ibute
or as r e ..................... .......................
5. The area of the land is .... /~' "~:~ acres.
6. All taxes xvhich are liens on the land at the (late hereo£ bare been' paid except ............
7. The land is encnmbered by ................................................ - ..........
mortgage (s) as follmvs:
(a) Mortgage recorded in Liber ..~....~..~. .... Page ..... .~.~. ......... in original amount
of $../.~. ¢.,~..o.... unpaid amount $ ....... . .':~..0.'.??. .... held by ~...~.'4..~...'~'.~..'f. ~'
.............. address .,.'.~.,IY. ,~-~.. a'-F ./.~.:~....~-~'....~.~...~_9~,././..~.~./. .............
(b) Mortgage recorded in Liber ......... Page ....................... irt original ammmt
of .............. nnpaid amount $ ...................... beld by ......................
.............. address ...............................................................
(c) Mortgage recorded in Liber .............. Page ................ in original amount
of .............. unpaid amount $ ........ .' ............. held by ......................
address '
8. There are no other encumbrances or liens agaiust the land except ........................
The land lies in the following zoning use districts
10. No part of the land lies under water xvbether tide ,vater, stream, pond water or other~vise, ex-
I1. The applicant shall at his expense install all required public improvements.
12. The land (does) ~ lie in a Water District or Water Supply District· Name of Dis-
trict, if within a District, is
-
13. Water mains will be laid by . .........
and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains.
14. Electric lines and standards will be installed by .......... ~./~. ........................
lines. · ............. and (a) (uo) charge ,viii be made for installing said
15. Gas mains ,rill be installed by ....... ~;;.'.
and (a) (no) charge will be made ........................................
· ' ~, said mains.
16. If streets sho,vn ou the plat are claimed by the applicant to be existing public streets in the
Suffolk Couuty Ilighway system, anuex Schedule "B"
hereto, to show same.
17. If streets shown ou the plat are claimed by the applicaut to be existing' public streets in the
Town of Sonthold lIighway system, anuex Schedule "C" hereto to show same.
.18. There are no existing buildings or structures on the land which are uot located aud shoxvu
on the plat.
19.
20.
21.
\Vhere the plat shows in-oposcd streets which are exteusions of streets ou adjoiuing sub-
division maps heretofore filed, there are no reserve strips at the end of the streets on said
~xistiug mal)s at their conjtmctions with the prolmsed streets.
Iu the course of these proceedings, the applicant will offer proof of title as required bv Sec.
335 of the Real Property Law. -
Submit a copy ~f l)roposed deed for lots .qluwing ail restricti,ms, covenants, etc. Annex
Schedule "D".
22. The applicant estimates that the cost of gradiug and required public improvements xvilt be
$- ~ -~./~.. ·. as itemized in Schedule "E" hereto annexed and requests that the maturity of the
/.g
Performance Bond be fixed at . .. ~. .. years. The Performance Bond will be written by
a licensed surety company unless otherwise shown on Schedule "F".
(Name of ~pplicant) . ·
(Signature and Title)
(Address)
STATE OF NE\V YORK, COUNTY OF ...~. '.~..(.F.o?..~. .................... ss:
On the ..... /. £. .......... day of ...... .~.~..~.w..~.. ............... 19.?. ? .... before me personally came
...~.~/~. eq. gq..~.~..../].....~t..~.~ ........ to me known to be the individual described in and who
executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that . .~ .~ ...... executed the same.
N tary Public RICHARD NONCARROW
~tar) N~Y ~6LIC, STATE OF NEW y~ '
No. 2902160 ~
T~m ~ir~ ~ ~? ~
STATE OF NE~V YORK, COUNTY OF ............................ ss: ~-a~ ~
On the ................ day ............ of ............... 19 ....... before me personally came
........................ to me kuown, who being by me duly sworn did de-
pose and say that ............ resides at No .....................................................
................................. that .......................... is the ..........
the corporatiou described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that ............ knows
the sea!, of said c~>rporatlon; that the seal affixed by order of the board of directors of said corpora, tion.
ai:d that ............ signed .............. name thereto by like order.
Notary Public
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED
WITH YOUR APPLICATIONS FORMS TO THE PLANNING BOARD
Please complete, sign and return to the Office of the Planning
Board with your completed applications forms. If your answer~
to any of the following questions is yes, please indicate
these on your guaranteed survey or submit other appropriate
evidence~
1. Are there any wetland grasses on this parcel?
(Attached is a list of the wetland grasses defined
by the Town Code, Chapter 97, for your reference)
Yes
2. Are there any other premises under your ownership
abutting this parcel? Yes
3. Are there any building permits pending on
this parcel?
4. Are there any other applications pending
concerning this property before any other
department or agency?(Town , State, County, etc.)
5. Is there any application pending before
any other agency with regard to a different
project on this parcel?
6. Was this property the subject of any prior
application to the Planning Board?
7. Does this property have a valid certificat~
of occupancy, if yes please submit.a Copy of same
Yes ~
Yes ~
Yes ~
.o
I certify ~hat the above statements are true and will be relied
on by th Planning Boa in considering this application.
S~lg~(turg/of propeU~ty owner or aukhorEzed agenk ~a~e
Attachment to questionnaire for~;the Planning Board
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ss:
On the /~ day of ~ , 19~, before me personally
came_~ /~ FR/~v~ to me known to be the
individual described in-~and who executed the foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged that ~6 executed the same.
· ~ ~BUC, STALE ~ NEW y~
No.
~lifi~ in ~
FORM NO. 4
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Office of the Building Inspector
Town Hall
Southold, N.Y.
No Z17946
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Date APRIL 14,
1989
THIS CERTIFIES that the building
Location of Property 31095 MAIN ROAD
House No.
County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 102
Subdivision
ADDITION
CUTCHOGUE
Street Hamlet
.Block 02 Lot 24
Filed Map No. Lot No..
conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore
filed in this office dated OCT. 7, 1988 pursuant to which
Building Permit No. 17530Z dated OCT. 14~ 1988
was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable
provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is
issued is ADDITION TO COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
The certificate is issued to H. RIENECKER/S. FRIEMANN {H. & S. ASSOC.)
(owner, F~iXMDQ{MOC~XXXXXXX)
of the aforesaid building.
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A
UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. N058894 FEB. 15¢ 1989
PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED N/A
Rev. 1/81
_ . Buildi~g~i~spector-
14-16-2 (2/87)--7c
617.21
Appendix A
State Environmental Quality Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SEQR
Purpose: Th& full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project
or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent-
ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine
significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental
analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting
the question of significance. '
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination
process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action.
Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project
data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides
guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-
large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the
impact is actually important.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this proiect: [] Part 1 [] Part 2 E]Part 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting
information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonabl / determined by the
lead agency that:
A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not
have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
[] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required,
therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.*
[] C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact
on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared.
* A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Name of Action
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Ty~ Responsible ~r in Lead Agency
~ure o~ Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Title ol~ Responsible Officer
Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect
on the environment. Please complete the entire form Parts A through F. Answers to these questions will be considere~
as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further var f cation and pub c review. Prov de any additiom~,
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve
new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County)
NAME OF AP LIOANT/SPONSOR
CITY/PO
NAME OF OWNER (if different)
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
STATE ZIP CODE
AODRESS
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
CITY/PO
DESCRrPTION OF ACTION
STATE ZIP CODE
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: f-lUrban E31ndustrial
DForest ~f'Agriculture
2. Total acreage of project area: /~',~' acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres
Forested acres
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) /'~-7 acres
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres
Water Surface Area
acres
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces //-S'~/~ acres
Other (Indicate type) ~:::~,'~¢,¢~/,¢/- ~ ' acres
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site?
a. Soil drainage: ]~C'Well drained /¢~O % of site
E]Poorly drained . % of site
~ommercial
F3Other
I~Residential (suburban) E]Rural (non-farm)
AFTER COMPLETION
acres
acres
- acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
[-IModerately well drained % of site
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY[._
Lartd Classification System? /~-.~ acres. (See I NYcRR 370). ·
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? [~Yes '1~o
a. What is depth to bedrock? [in feet)
2
Approximate percentage of prop
tsite with slopes: ~-10% [~10-15% %
[15% or greater %
a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National
6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or o~tain
Registers of Historic Places? I-lYes ,J~No
~''. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? i-lyes ,~o
8. What is tl~e depth of the water table? ~1,0 (in feet)
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? f-lyes No
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? I--lYes ~
11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?
~'lyes ~'J'o According to
Identify each species
o 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? {i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations)
[]Yes ,J~o Describe
13. Is the project site,_p~resently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
I--lYes ~qo If yes, explain
14. Does the present, si?i~include scenic views known to be important to the community?
[]-]Yes /~]No
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
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 /~0~..~ b. Size (In acres)
17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ~es I-INo
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~'~es DNo
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ~lYes ~o
18. Is the site located in an a~ricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA,
Section 303 and 304? l~es DNo
19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8
of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 [Yes '[~o a
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes /~o
B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor ~,-..<"~
b. Project acreage to be developed: ~ acres initially;
c. Proj;act acreage to remain undeveloped //~'--~ ~' 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 4,/,//~ ; proposed ~'///~ .
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ~/,~ (upon completion of project)?
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units:
One Family Two Family Multiple Family
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure ~/~ height; width; length.
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? /~- ft.
acres.
acres ultimately.
Condominium
3
,.etc.,will be removed fror~esite.~j~ 0
2. How much natural material
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? rqYes ~lNo
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? I-lYes I-INo
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? I-lyes I-INo
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? (~ acres.
S. Will any matur, e~f, orest (over 100 years old) or other local[y-important vegetation be removed by this project?
I-Wes ~[No
-
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction ~ months, (including demolition).
7. If multi-phased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated (number).
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I month
c. Approximate completion date of final phase month
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? r-lyes
8. Will blasting occur during construction? F'lYes
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction A,?~ ; after project is complete
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? I-lyes ,]~o If yes, explain
tons/cubic yar.ds.
year, (including demolition).
year.
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? E]Yes ,~o
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? I--lYes ~o Type
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal?
Explain
I-lYes ~t~o
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? r-lYes
16. Will the project generate solid waste? I-lyes ~
a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? f-lyes []No
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
I'-lYes I-INo
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? I-lyes
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal?
b. If yes,.what is the anticipated site life? years.
project use herbicides or pesticides? I-lyes ,~o
18.
Will
tons/month.
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? [:]Yes
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local .ambient noise I'evels? []Yes
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? [~Yes
If yes , indicate type(s)
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity ~/~ gallons/minute.
23. Total ~nticipated water usage per day A~/~ gallons/da/y.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? E]Yes
If Yes, explain
4
25. Approvals Required:
City, Town, Village Board ~lYes
City, Town, Village Planning Board ~es ENo
City. Town'Zoning Board I-lYes ~'No
City, County Health Department ]~es (No
Other Local Agencies r-]Yes ,~No
Other Regional Agencies E~Yes J~No
State Agencies r'lYes ~No
Federal Agencies I-lyes l~No
C. Zoning and Planning Information
Submittal
pe Date
1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? .~es ENo
If Yes, indicate decision required:
r-lzoning amendment E3zofiin8 variance ~special use permit ~subdivision []site plan
Clnew/revision of master plan E]resource management plan ~other
2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? ~C.~.~z,,~i~S t~,!, ~_~,~O~T./~e..,~t.. _~__~z~.,~/
r
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning:?
C
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site?
S. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning:?
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ,~s [-]No
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning cla. ssifications within a ¼ mile radius of proposed action?
/
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile:? ~es ~No
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many tots are proposed?
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? /.~:~' ~ ~O~ /
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? I-lYes ~i~o
11. Will the proposed action crea.te.,,~ demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police,
fire protection):? I~Yes ~'No
a. if yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand:? []Yes I-INo
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? E3Yes
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic:? ~lYes I-iNo
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.
E. Verification
I certify that the~formation, provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. '
AppJicant/S ponsor~4~a me"" ~'~ /~//~ ~ S,¢O ¢ ~,~' '7~'J'~ Date ~',/~ I~/~'~ ! '~
Signature ~/~~- ~ ,~ ,,:' Title ~.~/'Z-r,~.,~,~'~,, / '
'wfi:~e~:iaO:~:~mn ;hn~' Coastal Area, and you are. state agency, complete ,he Coastal Assessment Form before
proceeding
5
: Responsibility of Lead Agency
General Information (Read Carefully)
· In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been
reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
· Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant.
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply
asks that it be looked at further.
· The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
· The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
· The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
· In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and 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 answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the
impa.ct. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold
is lower than example, check column 1.
d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.
e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This
must be explained in Part 3.
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will the proposed action resuJt in a physical chan§e to the project site?
,~O r~YES
Examples that would apply to cblumn 2
· Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100
foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed
10%.
· Construction on land where the depth to the water table is Jess than
3 feet.
· Construction of paved parking a~ea for 1,000 or more vehicles.
· Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within
3 feet of existing ground surface.
· Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more
than one phase or stage.
· Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
· Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.
· Construction in a designated floodway.
· Other impacts
2. Will there be an effect t~, ...y uri,que or unusual land f. or.,~ns found on
the site? (i~e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc..~NO []YES
· Specific land forms:
6
I 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []]Yes []No
L--] [] [-[Yes L'-] No
[] [] []Yes []No
fi] [] []Yes []No
[] [] ['-]Yes [-]No
[] [] ~]Yes [-]No
[] ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Fnvironmental Conservation Law, ECL)
[~YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Developable area of site contains a protected water body.
· Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a
protected stream.
· Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body.
· Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
· Other impacts:
4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existin~..~r new body
of water? ~4~]NO r-lyE S
Examples that would apply to column 2
· ^ 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:
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater ~,,/
quality or quantity? ~I~NO I~YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.
· Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not
have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
· Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with ~reater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity.
· Construction or operation c~using any contamination of a water
supply system.
· Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.
· Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
· Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gaJlons per
day.
· Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to natural conditions.
· Propos~d Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons.
· Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water
and/or sewer services.
· Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage
facilities.
· Other impacts:
~_ 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow
or
patte[t~-or
surface
- water runoff? ,~]~ NO [-]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action would change flood water flows.
7
Small to
Moderate
Impact
[]
O
[]
[]
O
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
2
Potential
Large
Impact
O
[]
[]
[]
O
[]
O
[]
[]
O
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
O
3
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
[-]Yes r-'~No
[]Yes I-1No
F1Yes ON•
I--lyes •No
OYes •No
OYes []No
r-lyes F~No
[-lYes []No
OYes I-IN•
OYes []No
OYes E]No
FlYes ON•
[]Yes I--IN•
[]Yes []No
I-lyes ~]No
I-lyes F1No
[~Yes ON•
[]Yes E~]No
OYes FIN•
OYes []No
OYes []No
· Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion.
· Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
· Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will proposed action affect air quality? J~l~o l-lYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given
hour.
· Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than I ton of
refuse per hour.
· Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a
heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
· Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed
to industrial use.
· Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial
development within existing industrial areas.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species? ~NO [3YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal
list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site.
· Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.
· Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other
than for agricultural purposes.
' Other impacts:
Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threaten~ or
non-endangered species? ,~NO J-]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or
migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres
of mature forest {over 100 years of age) or other locally important
vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land reso ces?
Examples that would apply to column 2 ~(~ []YES
]-he proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural
Iand (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
Small to
Moderate
Impact
~pact Be 13 "
Large I Mitigated By I
'mp__act ~ Pr°ject Change/
[] I ¥es r-!No r (
[] []Yes []No
[] []Yes ~'-INo
[] []Yes []No
[] []Yes []No
[] []Yes []No
[] []Yes []No
[] []Yes []No
[] []Yes []No
[] []Yes []No
[] []Yes []No
[] []Yes []No
[] []Yes I--INo
[] []Yes
[] []Yes []No
[] [~]Yes [~]No
[] []Yes [:]No
· Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of
agricultural land.
· The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres
of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more
than 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
· The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural
land management systems {e.g., subsurface drain hnes, outlet ditches,
strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources~ ~'~lO I-lYES
(If necessary, use the Visual I~AF Addendum in Section 617.21,
Appendix B.)
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from
or in sharp contrast to current surrodnding land use patterns, whether
man-made or natural.
· Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their
enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
· Proiect components that will result in the elimination or significant
screening 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 structureof~storic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance~ ,,~NO []YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register
of historic places.
· Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the
project site.
· Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for
archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory.
· Other impacts:_.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13 Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities? . /
Examples that would apply to column 2KO il-lYES
~ The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
· A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
· Other impacts:
2
Small to Potential
Moderate Large
Impact Impact
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
I--lyes F-1No
I'-lyes ~No
E~]Yes I--1No
I'-~Yes [-INo
[-]Yes [-1No
I~Yes I-~No
[Yes [-1No
I~Yes
I'-IYes
[]Yes r-INo
~]Yes J-]No
[]Yes' [-1No
[Yes [No
[~Yes [-INo
r-lyes I--INo
9
IMPACT ON TRAN,
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation s sty, st~ems:~
Examples that would apply to column 2 ~,~NO ~]YES
· Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
· Proposed Action will result in maior traffic problems.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect the community's so f fuel or
energy supply.~ u~,~ O°
Examples that would apply to column 2 I~YE$
· Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of
any form of energy in the municipality.
· Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 sinsle or two family
residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use.
· Other impacts:
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration/as a result
of the Proposed Action~
Examples that would apply to column 2 ~NO []YES
· Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive
facility.
· Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
· Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
· Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise screen.
' Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
7 Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety._~
Examples that would apply to column 2 ~O [YES
Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow level
discharge or emission.
Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous w '
astes n any
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating
infectious, etc.) ·
Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of Jiquified natural
gas or other flammable liquids.
Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
waste.
Other impacts:
10
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact
Mitigated By
Project Change
I~Yes [-[No
~]Yes I~]No
[~Yes I~]No
[:]Yes [::]No
[:]Yes I-]No
~]Yes [-]No
[] [~Yes [::]No
[] [~Yes I-]No
[] ~Yes [:]No
[] [~]Yes [~]No
[] ~Yes ~No
[:]Yes [~No
[~Yes J-]No
[]Yes [~No
[~Yes [~]N0
~Yes [~No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existi~j,~community?
vJ~NO t~YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the
project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%.
· The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services
will increase by more than'5% per year as a result of this project.
· Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.
· Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use.
· Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures
or areas of historic importance to the community.
· Development will create a demand for additional community services
(e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
· Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects.
· Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.
· Other impacts:
I 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] I~Yes []No
[] [] ~lYes [--INo
[] [] [-]Yes I~No
[] [] E~Yes r-[No
[] ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
19 Is there, or is there likely to be, public controv fsi/related to
potential adverse environmental impacts? ~3NO I~YES
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
_L
Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Responsibility of Lead Agency
Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be
mitigated.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2:
1. Briefly describe the impact.
2. Describe(if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s).
3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer the question of importance, consider:
· The probability of the impact occurring
· The duration of the impact
· Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value
· Whether the impact can or will be controlled
· The regional consequence of the impact
· Its potential divergence from local needs and goals
· Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact.
(Continue on attachments)
11
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
Southold, New York 11971
Gentlemen:
Re:
The following statements are offered for your consideration
in the review of the above-mentioned minor subdivision and its
referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission:
(1)
No grading, ~tkar tha~ e~,~q~iticn excavation fcr~a--
prc= .....
(2) No new roads are proposed and no changes will be made in
the grades of the existing roads.
(3) No new drainage structures or alteration of existing
structures are proposed.
CONSULT YOUR LAWY£P ~ORE ',
THIS INDENTURE, made the
BETWEEN WTLLIAN B.
Cutchogue,
/0oo, -
4NG THIS INSTRUMINT - THIS INS? 'ENT ~ 'LD BE USED BY LAWYERS ONLY
June , nineteen hundred andeighty
residing at (no #) Harbor Lane,
1/2 interest.
party of the second part,
W1TI~F. BSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of
......... TEN ...........................
lawful money of the United States,
party of the first part, and Sanford H. Friemann, residing at (no #) Pinewood Road,
Cutchogue, New York and Henry F. Rienecker, residing at (no #) East-
wood Road, Cutchogue, New York, as tenants in common, each as to an undivided
dollars,
paid
by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or
successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever,
ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate,
lying and belng'~K~l~ at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and
State of New York, bounded and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point in the northwesterly side of Ma'in Road and the
southwesterly corner of land of S & E Realty Company;
RUNNING THENCE South 51° 28' 10" West along the northwesterly side of
Main Road 132.0 feet;
THENCE along land of Scott
(1) North 43° 17' 50" West 1,320.0 feet;
(2) North 51° 28' 10" East 132.0 feet;
(3) North 43°~ 17' 50" West.556.0 feet to land of Paul Orlowski;
THENCE North, 47° 11" 10" East along land of Paul Orlowski 544.42
feet;
THENCE South 43° 38' 30" East along land of Imbriano 1,240.19 feet
to land of New York Telephone Company;
THENCE along land of New York Telephone Co. and land of S & El
Realty Company South 47° 06' 20" West 5.51.90 feet;
thence along land of S & E Realty Company South 43° 17' 50" East
635.08 feet to the northwesterly side of Main Road, the point or
place of BEGINNING.
TOGETHER with a right of way 11 feet in width over land of G. T.
Billard Estate and partly along other land of Sterling along the
northeasterly line of the premises extending from the Main Road
northwesterly 770.08 feet;
SUBJECT TO a right of way 11 feet in width adjoining said land of
G. T. Billard Estate along the northeasterly line of said premises
and extending from the Main Road northwesterly ad istance of 635.08
feet and continuing along other land of Sterling 135.0 feet; and con-
tinuing northwesterly at a width of 22 feet a distance of 549.92 feet
and continuing further northwesterly at a width of 11 feet a distance
of 556.0 feet.
SUBJECT TO rights of way of others in 22 foot right of way as shown
on survey of Van Tuyl & Son dated July 6,. 1.971.?,~.,
17thdayof
STERLING,
New York
STA'fF. OF HEW YORK, COUNTY OF
STAT[ OF NEW YORK, COUNIY OF Suffolk ss..
On the 17thday of June 1980 , before me
personally aame William B. Sterling
to me ~own to be the indiMdual d~cfi~d in aud who
cxecmcd the foregoing,instrumem~ and ac~owledg~ ~at
]:re executed the same; ....
~otary Public
N~ARY PUBLIC, State o~ New Yo~
No, S2-~514~11
Term Expires March $0,
SS:
t]~ the day of 19 , before me
personally came
t, ,~e known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and
.~ay that be resides at No.
;
Ibat he is the
, the corporation described
in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he
knows the sea! of said corporation; that the seal affixed
to said instrumeut is such corporate seal; that it was so
affixed by order of the board of directors of said corpora-
tion, and that he signed h name thereto by like order.
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF Suffolk
SS:
On the 17 th day of June 1980 , before me
~earSOrAally 9ame
nzoro H. Friemann and
Henry F. *Rienecke~. ~ -. ....
to me known to be the individuals described in and who
executed the foregoing instrument, and admowledged that
they executed the sa~ _ ~ X..~.~/Z ~ /2
Pub '-
Notary
..... I~"1~ ~ ~. S~A~Fm ....
~RY I~LIC, State-j~f New
i~. ~- No. ,~-,~t4~ ~
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF
5S:
On the day of 19 , before me
personally came
the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with
wbo~n I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly
sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No.
;
that he knows
to be the individual
described in and who executed the foregoing instrument;
that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw
execute the same; and that he, said witness,
at the same tbne subscribed h name as witness thereto.
'ilargain atth ale Deei
WILLIAM B. STERLING
TO
?SbJCF0P-d) F. FRIEMANN and,' ,
'.Uf. NRY H. RIENECKER
.~, ~'/tJ~JlF,~tl FOI~M OF NEW YORK BOARD 9F TITL[ UNDERWRITERS
Recorded By:
II-vl,IFE TITLE INSURANCE
SECTION
BLOCK
LOT
COUNTY OR 'TOWN
Recorded at Request of
Return by Mail to
Richard Cron, Esq.
Main Road
Cutchogue, N. Y. 11935
Zip No.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
George R{tchie Latham, Jr.
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, NewYork 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
October 4, 1993
Present were:
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
Bennett 0rlowski, Jr.
Mark McDonald
G. Ritchie Latham
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Melissa Spiro, Planner
Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
Martha A. Jones, Secretary
Absent:
Kenneth Edwards
Mr. Ward: Good evening. I'd like to call the October 4, 1993 Southold
Town Planning Board meeting to order. The first order of business, the
setting of the next Planning Board meeting. Board to set Monday, October
25, 1993 at 7:30 p.m., Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, as the time
and place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Is there a second?
Mr. Latham: I second that.
Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor?
Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward.
Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried.
Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings:
Mr. Ward: S.H. Friemann and Others -- This minor subdivision is for 3 lots
on 19.596 acres located on the north side of Main Road; 1658.7 feet west of
Cox's Lane in Cutchogue. The subject parcel is located in both the
Agricultural Conservation (A-C) District and the General Business (B)
District. SCTM~ ]000--102-2--24. Is anybody here that would like to address
the Board?
S.3uthold Town Plann~ Board
? Oober 4, 1993
Richard Cron: Richard J. Cron from Cron & Cron for the petitioner Sanford
Friemann. I think the record ought to be corrected as far as this Board
and that is that the Board is treating this particular application as one
consisting of a three lot subdivision. I would refer the Board clearly to
the court's decision in the Article 78 proceeding that w-as here before
brought as well as the judgement that supports that decision. The court is
clear in its decision, that what is in focus in this case is basically a
two lot subdivision on B Business property. There is no subdivision of the
17 acre A-C parcel. Now, the Board is attempting to bring that in for the
purpose of obviously supporting a determination made by the Cutchogue Fire
District to the effect that a firewell ought to be placed on this property
at some time in the future in the event a building, or~hatever, may be
constructed thereon. I submit to the Board that this is not part of a
minor subdivision. The Board does not have any authority or jurisdiction
to require anything with respect to that particular parcel. What this
Board is dealing with, and solely dealing with is a 2 lot ~ubdivision, on a
B Business zone; one of which lots is already improved with a structure.
The court is likewise clear on this determination that no widening is
required of the existing road which has Section 280A approval under the
Town law.
For you to attempt to get the applicant through a covenant and restriction
to agree to that which the court says he does not have to do, places this
Board in a position of being held in contempt. Now, I have warned you
before, not only will I go for contempt but if we go and get criminal
contempt you'll hire your own attorneys and you will defend yourself
because the Town of Southold cannot and will not defend you. That will
lead to damages and I assure you will see you in Federal Court under under
a !993 civil rights property action. Now, I believe the Town Attorney has
written to this Board a letter dealing with it's recormnendation or it's
understanding of what the judgement of the court is. I trust that this
Board will follow the direction of the Town Attorney before it renders any
decisions tonight.
Mr. Ward: Anybody else like to address the Board on this particular
parcel? Any co~nents from the Board? Mr. Latham?
Mr. Latham: I'd like to offer a resolution. Whereas, Sanford Friemann and
Henry Rienecker are the owners of the property known and designated as
SCTM~ ]000--102-~2-24, located on the north side of Main Road; ]658.7 feet
west of Cox's Lane in Cutcho~ue; and
Whereas, this minor subdivision is for 3 lots on 19.596 acres (2 lots in
the General Business District.and ] lot in the Agricultural Conservation
District); and
Whereas, a decision was rendered on December 13, ]990 by the Toning Board
of Appeals on the matter of S.H. Friemann and Others, grantin~ approval of
insufficient frontage (lot width) along the Main Road of proposed T~t ~3
and insufficient lot depth of proposed I~t ~2, and for approval of access
according to New York Town T~w, Section ?80--A over a private right-of--way
subject to the following condition:
Southold Tovrn Plann~ Board
3 Oober 4, 1993
That the access right-of-way be maintained in good condition to a minimum
width of 1.8 feet (without obstructions) for the entire length for
sufficient maneuverability by fire and emergency vehicles (pursuant to the
requirements of New York Town law); and
Whereas, pursuant to a judgement entered on October 5, 1.992 in the matter
of Friemann v. Planning Board, the Southold Town ~lanning Board %~as directed
to process the above application as a minor subdivision and to grant the
relief therein requested; and
Whereas, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself
lead agency and issued a Negative Declaration on April 22, 1993; and
Whereas, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application
at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on October 4, 1993; and
Whereas, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of
Southold have been met; and be it therefore
Resolved, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the
Chairman to endorse the final survey dated April 15, 1993.
Mr. Ward: One thing, before we take a second on this motion, I'd like tO
offer a resolution to close the hearing.
Mr. Orlowski: So moved.
Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor?
Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward.
Mr. Ward: Rich, on your resolution then is there a second?
Mr. Orlowski: Second.
Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. Ail in favor?
Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward.
Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried.
Mr. Ward:~4ill.crest Estates - Section 2 - This major subdivision is for 20
lots on 22.9 a~located in Orient. SCTM~ 1000-13-2--8.5. Ts there
anybody here tonigh%~_~would llke to address the Board on this project?
If not, what's the pleasure?
Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I make a mo~hold the hearing open for
the proposed subdivision of Hillcrest Estates, S~{o~-~wh~le-h~client
continues to pursue approval from the Suffolk County Department of
Health s~r~iees.
Hand Delivered
September 17, 1993
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Proposed Minor Subdivision
S.H. Friemann and others
1000-102-2-24
Dear Sirs:
In accordance with my telephone conversation with Town Attorney Harvey
Arnoff, Esq., on September 13, 1993, it was agreed that the Planning
Board meeting with respect to the above-captioned matter to be held on
September 13, 1993, was to be kept open pending further discussions
with the Town Attorney in an effort to resolve outstanding matters.
Please be advised that the applicant waives any time restraints that
would be imposed upon the Board as a result of the foregoing.
RJC:afw
Very truly yours,
cc: Sanford H. Friemann
Harvey Arnoff, Esq.
SEP I 7 1993
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard O. Ward, Chairman
George Rltchte Latham, Jr.
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCOTt L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Haft, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765 - 1823
September 14, 1993
Richard Cron
Cron & Cron
Main Road
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, NY
11935
Proposed Minor Subdivision
S.H Friemann & Others
SCTM~ 1000-102-2-24
Dear Mr. Cron:
The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town
Planning Board at a meeting held on September 13, 1993:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board hold the
final hearing open since the Board has not received the draft
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions that was requested in
the Board's July 13, 1993 letter.
It is understood that you are scheduled to meet with the Town
Attorney in regard to your letter of July 16, 1993.
The hearing will be continued at the Board's next regularly
scheduled meeting which is October 4, 1993. The draft
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions must be received prior
to that date unless some other determination is made as a result
of your meeting with the Town Attorney.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Ward ~
Chairman
cc: Mr. Friemann
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Eatham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney
Richard G. Ward, Chairman F~d
Proposed Minor subdivision
S.H. Friemann & Others
SCTM# 1000-102-2-24
DATE: August 25, 1993
SCOTt L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York ~ 1971
Fax (516) 765-1823
It is my understanding that a meeting held on Friday, August
20th was attended by Richard Cron, Valerie Scopaz and
yourself in regard to the above mentioned subdivision, and that
you await Mr. Cron's response to the issues discussed at this
meeting.
Upon Mr. Cron's response, please attend a work session to
discuss same with the Planning Board members. Our next work
session is scheduled for Monday, August 30th at 4:30 P.M. It
is hoped that this issue can be resolved prior to September
13th, as the final public hearing which was opened on August
9th is scheduled to be continued on that date.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Richard G. Ward. Chairman
George Ritchle Latham, Jr.
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Mark S, McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Superv/sor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O, Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
F~x {516) 765 - 1823
August 10, 1993
Richard Cron
Cron & Cron
Main Road
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, NY
11935
Re:
Proposed Minor Subdivision
S.H Friemann & Others
SCTM% 1000-102-2-24
Dear Mr. Cron:
The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town
Planning Board at a meeting held on August 9, 1993:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board hold the
final hearing open since the Board has not received the draft
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions that was requested in
the Board's July 13, 1993 letter.
It is understood that upon your return from vacation, you are
scheduled to meet with the Town Attorney in regard to your
letter of July 16, 1993.
The hearing will be continued at the Board's next regularly
scheduled meeting which is September 13, 1993. The draft
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions must be received prior
to that date unless some other determination is made as a result
of your meeting with the Town Attorney.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Ward ~5
Chairman
cc: Mr. Friemann -
C()UN I'Y OF SUFI'
~IAI'IE ¢)F NEW YORK
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice of Public Hearing
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that pursuant to Sec-
tion 276 of the Town Law, a
public hearing will be held by
the Southold Town Planning
Board, at the Town Hall, Main
Road, Southold, New York in
said Town on the 9th day of
August 1993 on thc question
of the following:
?:30 P.M. Final approval of
the minor subdivision for S.H.
Friemann & Others, at Cut-
chogue, in the Town of
Southold, County of Suffolk,
State of New York. Suffolk
County 'Fax Map Number
1000-102-2-24.
The proper~y is borde~d on
the northeast by land now or
formerly of Imbriano; on the
southeast by land now or
formerly of N.Y. Telephone
Co., SE. Realty Co~ and Main
State Road; on the southwest
by land now or formerly of
Scott; and on the northwest by
land now or f6rlh~rly of
Orlowski.
Any person desiring to be
heard on the above matter
should appear at the time and
place specified.
Dated: July 27, 1993
BY ORDER OF THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNIN(3 BOARD
Richard (3. Ward
Chairman
1X-7/29/93
Patrici;~ Wood, being duly sworn, says that she i
~ditor, o(THE LONG ISLAND-FRAVEI_ER-WAI(i!i~
a public newspaper printed at Southokl, in Suffnlk ~
md that the notice o[ which the annexel is,~ p~in!.:
has been published in said I.ong Island I~;wele~-W.~i,iun.~
x~ ........... ~,..
Sworn to before me Il'tis ~'~ ~;' day of
........ ,.A .,M-7.. .........
Notary Public
B^RBARA ~. SCHNEIDER
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Nav~ York
No. 4~,~06346
Qualified in Snfiolk County
Commission E,:pires
i~qtL JUL
iud a O I~
I
$OUTHOLD TOWN
PI. ANNIN~ BOABD
July 16, 1993
73~-
Richard G. Ward, Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Proposed Minor Subdivision
S.H. Friemann & Others
SCTM# 1000-102-2-~4
Dear Sirs:
On July 12, 1993, I appeared at the scheduled meeting of the Planning
Board with my client, Sanford H. Friemann, and requested that I be
heard with respect to the above-captioned application.
The Board was advised that it was a clear violation of the Judgment of
the Court in the Article 78 proceeding to compel the applicant to
comply with the resolution adopted by the Board at its meeting on
March 22, 1993, and as set forth in its letter of March 22, 1993.
It was requested that the resolution be rescinded and that the Board
consult with the Town Attorney in connection with the matter. In the
event that the resolution is not rescinded, the Board was advised the
applicant will seek to hold the individual members of the Board in
contempt of the Judgement of the Court.
The Board's apparent response to the request for rescission was set
forth in its letter of July 13, 1993, which stated that it awaits the
submission of the draft of the covenants and restrictions prior to the
date of the final hearing on the minor subdivision.
In addition to the foregoing, the Board was requested to rescind the
requirement contained in its letter of June 17, 1993, relative to
incorporating in the covenants and restrictions a recommendation of
the Cutchogue Fire District that a fire well be installed in the
applicant's private road in the event the applicant places any
additional building on its 17.693 acres of agricultural zoned and used
land which is neither being subdivided nor a part of the two (2) lot
business minor subdivision referred to in the Judgment of the Court.
Southold Town Planning Board
July 16, 1993
Page Two
In the same vein, you are further advised that the applicant will not
covenant to permit any annual inspection of its agricultural premises
by the Chief of the Cutchogue Fire Department, as required by the
Planning Board in its letter of June 17, 1993.
The Board is further advised that the failure to rescind the
requirement contained in its letter of June 17, 1993, will result in
an Article 78 proceeding to invalidate the unlawful decision of the
Board.
The actions of the Board are a clear indication of an intent to harass
my client and deprive him of his property rights, which can only
result in further legal actions and unwarranted expense to the
taxpayers of the Town of Southold.
We trust that you will carefully review your actions in this case with
the Town Attorney, whose opinions should be considered and followed by
the Board.
Very truly yours,
Cr on..-an~d-~r on ~
RJC:af
cc:
Planning.Board of the Town of Southold:
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney
Sanford H. Friemann
Southold Town Plant Board
3
y 12, 1993
Mr. Ward: OK. Is there anybody here representing the applicant, or the
applicant? OK, we'll hold off on this until the next meeting then.
Preliminary Extensions
Mr. Ward: North Fork Industrial Park - -~ais major subdivision is for 8
lots on 29.]l acres located on the northeast corner of Middle Road and
Depot Lane in the LI0 District in Cutchogue. SCTM~ 1000--96--1--1. What's
the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Orlowski: I make a motion that the Southold Town Planning Board grant
a six month extension of preliminary appro~ral from August ?4, 1993 to
February 24, ]994. The Planning Board has granted this additional
extension due to the fact that this application is currently before the
Health Department Board of Review, and a decision from that Board will not
be made prior to the expiration of the preliminary approval.
Mr. Edwards: Second the motion.
Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. Ail in favor?
Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward.
Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried.
Mr. Ward: Harbor Park Homes -- This major subdivision is for 5 lots on 9.04
acres located on the west side of Harbor Lane; 675 feet south of Main State
Road in Cutchogue. SCTM~ 1000--97--6--17 and 103-1--20.5 & 20.6. What's the
pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the Southold
Town Planning Board grant a six month extension of preliminary approval
from July 13, ]993 to January 13, ]994.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. Ail in favor?
Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward.
Mr. Orlowski: Note that I abstain for reasons previously given.
Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried.
Setting of Final Hearings
Mr. Ward: S.H. Friemann & Others -- This minor subdivision is for 3 lots on
]9.596 acres located on the north side of Main Road; 1658.7 feet west of
Cox's Lane in Cutcho~ue. The subject parcel is located in both the
Agricultural Conservation (A--C) D~strict and the General Business (B)
District. SCTM~ ]000--~02--?--24. What's the pleasure of the Board?
Southold Town Planni~oard 4 12, 1993
Mr. Latham: I make a motion that the Southold Town Planning Board set
Monday, August 9, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps
dated April ]5, !993.
Mr. Edwards: Second the motion.
Mr. Ward: Ail those in favor?
Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward.
Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried.
Richard Cron: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might be heard on this matter?
My name is Richard Cron, from Cron & Cron, and I represent Mr. Friemann on
this particular application. The Board is well aware of the fact that this
matter had ended with the litigation and was successfully resolved on
behalf of the applicant. One of the principal issues of that litigation
was as to whether Mr. Friemann would be required to improve the right of
way that runs across the minor subdivision premises consisting of two lots,
to a parcel in the rear which is an agricultural parcel. The court was
clear in this determination that he did not have to do so. Yet, and not
withstanding that fact, this Board by a resolution has asked that he file
convenants and restrictions with respect to that particular parcel
burdening the two business parcels with a right of way and compelling the
owner of lot number one, whoever it may be, at such time as it's improved,
to improve that right of way to Town specifications if required to do so.
I submit that that's in violation of the court decision, the judgement of
that court, and I would ask this Board to immediately rescind that
resolution. In addition, the Board on the recommendation of the Cutchogue
Fire Dopt., passed another resolution which requires the applicant, Mr.
Friemann, to put in a firewell with respect to lot number one which is that
a~ricultural lot, at a time when the fire department or this Board deems
that necessary. That is not something within the purview of this Board.
If there's to be any firewell, it'll occur when that property is
subsequently approved and improved by the applicant. There is no
subdivision pending with respect to the agricultural lot and this Board and
the fire department has no jurisdiction over that particular parcel. So I
would ask that you rescind that resolution as well.
Mr. Ward: Mr. Cron, in relation to your first comment r~arding the right
of way, how would the property to the back have a proper road iF it was not
able to be improved over the two business lots?
Mr. Cron: There is a proper road. You've got recognition of access under
Section 280A of the Town Law.
Mr. Ward: Access that probably as it is now, not for necessarily eight or
ten houses.
Mr. Cron: That's a matter that's going to have to be resolved, if, as and
when, parcel number one is approved or...
Southold Town Planni
5
]2, ].993
Mr. Ward: You seem to indicate that parcel one would not be the people
that would do the improvements. I think it was our intent or our thinking,
that as, if or when parcel one came in they would have the right to make
the improvements over parcels two and three.
Mr. Cron: Well, that we're not going to do. We're not goin~ to burden
lots two and three, which is the business parcel, with the right to widen
that right of way. The court said we didn't have to do it and we don't
intend to do it.
Mr. Ward: Alright, well we certainly have a difference of opinion on it at
this point.
Mr. Cron: I suggest that you review the matter with Town Counsel because
the Board I'm sure is well aware and will be so advised by counsel that if
you ~ersist in violatin~ the 3udgement of the court, I will move to hold
each of you in contempt.
Extensions:
Mr. Annette gaBohonski - This major subdivision is go~t~2 lots on
5.91 located on Crescent Ave., on Fishers Island. SC:'T~:1000.-6--2-1.
What pleasure of the Board?
/ -.
July 13,
additional
obtain Health
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a moti
Board grant a six month extension o
January 13, 1994. The ?lann:
to allow your client the
approval.
the Southold
approval from
has ~ranted this
time required to
Mr. McDonald:
Mr. Ward: Second to motion. Ail in favor?
Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr.
Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward.
Mr..Ward: Opposed? Motion [ed.
Mr. Ward: Ernest and
on ]3.423 acres loca the
northwest of County 48 in
What's the ~ the Board?
This minor subdivision is for 3 lots
side of Alvah's Lane; 1347.3 feet
SCTM~ ]000--95----]0 & ]01--1--14.3.
Mr. McDonald: Chairman, I make a
Planning Boa] a six month extension
1993 to 13, 1994. The Plannin~ Board
response to your letter of July 2,
Health approval must be submitted prior
on date.
ham: Second the motion.
the Southold Town
approval from July 12,
this additional
Final maps with
expiration of the
'4.
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 SOUTHOLD
SCOTY L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
July 13, 1993
Richard Cron
Cron & Cron
Main Road
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, NY
11935
Re:
Proposed Minor Subdivision
S.H Friemann & Others
SCTM% 1000-102-2-24
Dear Mr. Cron:
The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town
Planning Board at a meeting held on July 12, 1993:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set
Monday, August 9, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. for a final public hearing
on the maps dated April 15, 1993.
The Planning Board awaits the submission of the draft
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. Please submit the
draft prior to the date of the final hearing.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Ward
Chairman
cc: Mr. Friemann
SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER
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 SOUTHOLD
SCOT'F L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
June 17, 1993.
Richard Cron
Cron and Cron
Main Road
.P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, New York
11952
RE:
Proposed Minor Subdivision
S.H. Friemann & Others
SCTM# 1000-102-2-24
Dear Mr. Cron:
On June 10, 1993 the Planning Board received 5 paper copies and
2 mylars of the above mentioned subdivision from Roderick Van
TuYl.
It is unclear whether this submission was intended to be the
final submission. If so, please refer to the Planning Board's
February 8, 1993 resolution of conditional sketch approval for~
additional information that is to be noted on the final map.
Also, if final maps containing Health Department approval will
not be submitted prior to August 8, !993, a request for an
extension of sketch approval is required.
In addition, I have enclosed a copy of the March 22, 1993
recommendation from the Cutchogue Fire District. The Planning
Board is requiring that the restrictions recommended by the
Commissioners be incorporated into the Declaration of Covenants
and Restrictions for the subdivision. Please refer to the
Board's March 23, 1993 correspondence for the other required
covenants and restrictions.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact
this office.
Sincerely,
· Richard G. Ward
Chairman
Encl.
cc: Sanford H. Friemann
SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER
SUBJECT:
SCTM#: 16~.-
COMMENTS
CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT
RE:
DATE:
New Suffolk Road, PO Box 930, Cutchogue, NY 11935
Telephone (516) 734-6907 · Fax (516) 734-7079
Board of Fire Commissioners
Minor Subdivision for S. H. Friemann
SCTM #1000-102-2-24
March 22, 1993
Pursuant to the request of the Chairman of the Board of Fire
Commissioners and the request of the Southold Town Planning
Board, the undersigned has reviewed the above-captioned sub-
division to determine the need for a fire well to provide fire
protection to this property.
The undersigned has inspected the subdivision map as well as
the subject property. Lot 93 on the proposed subdivision map
contains a wood framed building which presently houses an auto
parts store and an attached metal building to the rear of same.
Lot ~2 is vacant. Lot ~3 contains on the southerly portions a
residence and a mobile house trailer in close proximity to this
dwelling. Also close by are a garage and a barn. In the middle
portion of lot ~1 is a large metal building which is used for
storage.
The existing fire well in this area is located on the
northerly side of Main Road State Route 25 in front of the
Telephone Company building. The latest test for this fire well
indicates it is capable of pumping an average of 327 gallons per
minute. The buildings on lot 3 are approximately 500 feet from
this fire well. The middle of lot 2 which is presently vacant is
approximately 930 feet from the fire well. The buildings on the
southerly portion of lot 1 are approximately 1,200 feet from this
fire well and the storage building in the middle of the lot is
approximately 1,800 feet. Considering the existing fire district
apparatus and location of the existing fire well, there should be
no problem of providing adequate fire protection for lots 2 and 3
on the proposed minor subdivision. However, lot 91 is another
matter, due to the fact there are a pre-existing dwelling, house
trailer, barn and garage on the southerly portion, under optimum
conditions adequate fire protection could be provided for these
buildings. However, it is the opinion of the undersigned ade-
quate fire protection could not be provided for the metal storage
building which is in the central portion of this lot. In
reviewing the map and inspecting the property, the undersigned
finds it difficult to understand how the officials of the Town of
Southold have allowed a construction in use of habitable
dwellings and storage buildings on lot 1 without considering ade-
quate fire protection for same.
CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT
March 22, 1993
New Suffolk Road, PO Box 930, Cutchogue, NY 11935
Telephone (516) 734-5~07 · Fax (516) 734-7079
Southold Town Plann/ng Board
Mr. Richard Ward Chaiman
Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
Ref; Friemann subdivision
Dear Mr. Ward,
Enclosed is an explanation and a resolution adopted by the Cutchogue
Board of Fire Co~maissioners on March 22, 1993 concerning the Fire Well
requirements for Sanford Friemann.
This resolution was duly adopted by the Board and copies of which are
forwarded to your office for final disposition. Copy is also being
sent to Mr. Friemaan.
We trust that you will review the document and if you have any
questions, please feel free to contact the Board. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Board of Fire Commissioners,
Matthew J. Martin
Secretary
Encl;
CC; S. Friemann
SOUTHOLD
PLANNING
CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT
New Suffolk Road, PO Box 930, Cutchogue, NY 11935
Telephone (516) 734-61~07 · Fax (516) 734-7079
Board of Fire Commissioners
RE: Minor Subdivision for
S. H. Friemann
March 22, 1993
-2-
Since the buildings are pre-existing, it would be unfair at
this time to require the land owner to bear the costs of the
installation of a new fire well. However, it is recommended that
if any new buildings are constructed on lot ~1 then a fire well
be installed at the expense of the then owner of the property on
the right-of-way approximately 1,300 feet northerly of the Main
Road State Route 25. This fire well would be solely for the pro-
tection of the buildings on lot ~1 as there are no other
buildings in the vicinity that would benefit from same.
Therefore it is recommended that the Board of Fire
Commissioners adopt the following resolution concerning this
property and forward same to the Southold Town Planning Board:
1. It is resolved that the Board of Fire Commissioners at
the present time do not recommend the installation of a fire
well on the property of S. H. Friemann (SCTM ~1000-102-2-24).
However, in the event there is construction of any additional
buildings on lot ~1, then ~efore a building permit is issued
the owner of the lot be required to place a fire well on the
right-of-way approximately 1,300 feet northerly of State
Route 25 in order to provide adequate fire protection for the
buildings to be constructed on this lot.
2. It is further resolved that the owner of lot 1 on this
minor subdivision be required to allow an annual inspection
by the Chief of the Cutchogue Fire Department to determine
the use of the storage and other buildings on lot #1 so that
the fire district will have adequate notice on how to be
prepared to handle an emergency at this project.
3. Be it further resolved that prior to the issuance of site
plan approval that a restrictive covenant be recorded in the
Suffolk County Clerk's Office to r~ect the above resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Doroski,
Fire Well Committee
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 SOUTHOLD
SCOTF L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Richard Cron
Cron and Cron
Main Road
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, New York
11952
March 23, 1993
RE: Proposed Minor Subdivision
S.H. Friemann & Others
SCTM# 1000-102-2-24
Dear Mr. Cron:
The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold
Town Planning Board at a meeting held on March 22, 1993:
Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board,
acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assume
lead agency status, and as lead agency make a determination of
non-significance, and grant a Negative Declaration.
A copy of the Negative Declaration is enclosed for your
records.
Be it further RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning
Board override the March 4, 1993 Suffolk County Planning
Commission report for the following reasons:
e
Pursuant to a judgment entered on October 5, 1992 in
the Matter of Friemann'v. Plannin~ Board, the
Southold Town Planning Board was directed to process
the proposed subdivision as a minor subdivision and to
grant the relief therein requested.
A decision was rendered on December 13, 1990 by the
Zoning Board of Appeals on the matter of S. H.
Friemann and others granting approval of access
according to New York Town Law, Section 280-A over a
private right-of-way subject to the following
condition:
S.H. Friemann & Others
March 23, 1993
Page 2
That the access right-of-way be maintained in good
condition to a minimum width of 18 feet (without
obstructions) for the entire length for sufficient
maneuverability by fire and emergency vehicles
(pursuant to the requirements of New York Town Law).
The Planning Board will be requiring that the
applicant record a Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions allowing the present or future owner(s)
of Lot 1 the provision for a right-of-way over Lot 2
and Lot 3 for Lot 1 to have sufficient access, now,
and in the future, over Lots 2 and 3, and for the
present or future owner(s) of Lot 1 to construct
improvements to Town Specifications within such
right-of-way should such be required for future
development of Lot 1.
The above mentioned covenant and restriction must be
presented in a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions in
proper legal form. A copy of the draft Declaration of Covenants
and Restrictions must be submitted to this office for review by
the Planning Board and the Town Attorney. Once approved, the
document must be filed in the Office of the County Clerk, and
the Liber and page number must be noted on the final map.
Please contact this office if you have any questions
regarding the above.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Ward
Chairman
Encl.
cc: Suffolk County Planning Commission
Zoning Board of Appeals
Sanford H. Friemann
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 SOUTHOLD
scoTr L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
State Environmental Quality Review
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
Date: March 22, 1993
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 Southold 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:
SCTM#:
Location:
S.H. Friemann and Others
1000-102-2-24
North side of Main Road; 1658.7
of Cox's Lane in Cutchogue.
feet west
SEQRA Status:
Type 1 ( )
Unlisted (X)
Cond. Negative
Declaration:
Yes ( )
No (x)
Description of Action:
Proposed three (3) lot subdivision of parcel located
in both Agricultural Conservation District (AC) and
General Business District (B). Proposed Lot ~1 is
17.693 acres located in the AC District. Proposed Lots
2 and 3 are located in the B district and are 40,192
square feet and 42,688 square feet respectively.
SEQR Negative Declaration - Continued
Reasons Supporting This Determination:
An Environmental assessment has been submitted, and
reviewed and it was determined that no significant adverse
effects to the environment were likely to occur should the
project be implemented as planned.
The proposed subdivision in itself is not expected to
change the existing use of the property. Lot 1 is occupied
by existing businesses, and Lot 2 will require a site plan
approval for any future use in accordance with the "B"
Business zoning. The "A~C" portion of the site is occupied
by a migrant labor camp and farm related structures. Any
further use of this portion of the property will require
subdivision approval.
Future site plan and subdivision applications (if filed)
will consider access, drainage, design and layout, density
and water supply, and other factors depending upon proposed
use.
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has
responded to the Planning Board's lead agency coordination.
SCDHS has no objection to the Planning Board's
designation as lead agency. The SCDHS provided comments,
general in nature, representing several of that agencies
most co~on concerns regarding Suffolk County projects. As
stated in the report, the comments are intended primarily
to expedite the procedural requirements of SEQRA
pertaining to the establishment of lead agency.
Correspondence has not been received from the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation in the
allotted time. Therefore, it is assumed that there are no
comments or objections from that agency.
For Further Information:
Contact Person: Melissa Spiro, Planner
Address: Planning Board
Telephone Number: (516) 765-1938
CC:
Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Board
Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services
NYSDEC - Stony Brook
NYSDEC - Albany
N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
C~ONTY OF SUFFOLK
ROBERT J. GAFFNEY
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
ARTHUR H, KUNZ
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
March 4, 1993
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Minor Subdivision - S.H. Yriemann & Others
N/westerly Side of Main State Road, 1658.70 s/west of
Cox's Lane, Cutchogue in the Town of Southold.
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
The Suffolk County Planning Commission at its regular meeting on
March 3, 1993, reviewed the proposed subdivision plat, entitled, "Minor
Subdivision - S.H. Friemann & Others" referred to it pursuant to Section A14-24,
Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code.
The attached Resolution signifies action taken by the Commission relative
to this application.
Very truly yours,
Arthur H. Kurtz
Director of Planning
Frahk Dowling,~r. Planner
Subdivision Review Division
File: S-SD-93-01
FD:mb
Attachment
cc: J. Baler, C.E., SCDHS
C ¢ 0 C
File No. S-SD-93-01
Resolution No. ZSR-93-24 of Suffolk County Planning Commission
Pursuant to Sections A14-24, Article XIV of Suffolk County Administrative Code
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
RESOLVED,
RESOLVED,
pursuant to Sections A14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County
Administrative Code, a referral was received by the Suffolk County
Planning Commission on February 10, 1993, with respect to a proposed
plat entitled, '~inor Subdivision - S.H. Friemann & Others" submitted
by the Town of Southold Planning Board affecting premises located on
the n/westerly side of Main State Road, 1658.70 s/west of Cox's Lane,
Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, New York, and
said referral was considered by the Suffolk County Planning
Commission at its meeting on March 3, 1993, and
the Commission has voted to disapprove said referral, Be It Therefore
That the Suffolk County Planning Commission hereby approves and
adopts the report of its staff as the report of the Co~mission, Be It
Further
That said proposed plat is disapproved for the following reasons:
The proposed subdivision will result in the creation of landlocked
parcels; that is, parcels that do not have frontage on an existing or
proposed public road. The creation of such lots is contrary to good
subdivision layout principles and creates problems as far as access
by emergency and service equipment is concerned. This lack of access
could result in health, safety and welfare problems for the future
users or residents of the landlocked lots, not to mention potential
disputes over the use and maintenance of right-of-ways over adjacent
parcels that may be created for the purpose of access.
Creation of landlocked lots also places the Zoning Board of Appeals
in the awkward position of having to grant a building permit for
lots. Under Section 280-A of the Town Law the future owner(s) of the
landlocked lot cannot be held responsible for the landlocked nature
of their parcel.
The Commission also offers the following comment on the map:
The Commission is aware that once the applicant receives permission
for legal access over the private right-of-way in accordance with
Section 280A of the Town Law, the Planning Board has no choice but to
grant the approval.
Motion by: Commissioner Shepard
Seconded by: Commissioner Stahlman
Commission Vote: 10 Present
- Yeas 9
Nays 0
Abstentions 1 Commissioner McDonald
Dated March 3, 1993
Hauppauge, New York
Suffolk County Planning Commission
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
ROBERT J. GAFFNEY
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
SOUTHOLD iOI,~ i
PLANNING
MARY E. HIBBERD. M.D., M.P.H.
March 8, 1993
Melissa Spiro
Town of Southold
Town Hall - 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
RE: S.H. Friemann and Others
SCTM #: 1000-102-2-24
Dear Ms. Spiro:
21se Suffolk County Depamnent of Health Services (SCDHS) has received your letter dated February 9, i 993,
conceming the above-referenced application, and has no objection to the Town's designation as lead agency,
This correspondence is intended primarily to expedite the procedural requirements of SEQRA pertaining to the
establishment of lead agency. The comments provided below are, therefore, general in natare, representing several of our
most common concerns regarding Suffolk County projects. The department wishes, however, to reserve its fight to
provide more detailed information within the comment period(s) established for this action.
I. Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC)
The SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over the final location of sewage disposal and water supply systems, pursuant to
the authority and requirements of Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the SCSC. Applications must comply with all relevant
density and consU'uction standards for water supply and sewage disposal. Applicants should not undertake the
construction of, or connection to, either system without Health Depa~anent approval.
2. Where applicable, the department regnlatss the storage, handling and discharge of restricted toxic and hazardons
materials pursuant to the requirements of Articles 7 & 12 of the SCSC.
If an application has not yet been submitted to the SCDHS, one should be filed at the earliest date to allow for the
lechni~al review of the proposed action. Project designs submitted to the depa~ment should be fully consistent with
any action currently under review through the SEQRA process.
Design and flow specifications, information regarding subsurface soil conditions, water supply information, and
complete design details are essential to the review of this project, and are evaluated fully at Ihe time of application
review. Should the town require additional environmental information (such as a DEIS), discussion of the compliance
requirements of the SCDHS should be required.
Of particular concern to the department are those areas which because of elevated groundwater conditions, or soils
which are not conducive to the proper functioning of conventional subsurface sanitary sewage disposal systems. Your
agency should be aware that such conditions frequently requite the use of fill or the excavation of subsurface soils to
accommodate subsurface sanitary disposal systems constructed in conformance with the requirements of the SCSC.
~IVI$1ON OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COUNTY CENTER
Letter to Melissa Spiro
March 8, 1993
Page 2
The deparlment is also significantly concerned with areas where access to potable water may be constrained by
unacceptable groundwater quality and the lack of an available public water supply. All private water supply systems
must be constructed in conformance with ~luimments of the SCSC.
H. NATURAL RESOURCES:
The SCDHS fully supports all efforts to maximize protection of natural resources which may be impacted upon by
construction and development activities. It is the position of the department that the SEQRA review process provides
the greatest opportunity for comprehensive consideration of these resources, and that all practicable planning
measures should be employed to help ensure their protection.
Of particular concern to department is the adequate protection of wetlands, surface waters, natural communities,
contiguous natural habitats, and rare, threatened and endangered species. In addition, efforts to protect sensitive
physical resources such groundwaters, dunes, bluffs, shorelines, natural drainage channels, groundwater recharge
areas, and steep slopes are fully supported and encouraged by the SCDHS.
In general, the department encourages the following land use measures be considered (where appropriate) to actions
being reviewed pursuant to SEQRA.
1. Maximum practicable setbacks from all wetlands, surface waters, dunes, and bluffs.
2. Non-disturbance buffers between wetland limits and required structural setbacks.
3. Clustering of subdivision lots to provide for maximum preservation of large contiguous areas of dedicated open
space.
4. Stringent clearing limitations which can reduce potential impacts to wildlife habitats, vegetative communities, and
unconsolidated soils.
5. Maximum practicable confinement of development to areas with slopes of less than 10%.
6. Maximum use of native species for landscaph~g puq0oses.
7. Construction of recharge areas, so as to minimize the amount of disturbance and structural modification to the site.
8. Maximum use of land-banked patting on commercial sites.
9. Minimal use of fertilizer-dependant turf and landscaping.
10. Employment of stormwater runoff control measures necessary to maintain runoff on-site.
The department appreciates the opportunity to participate in the SEQRA review of this proposal. Additional
information may be provided prior to the close of the established comment period. Should you have any questions or
require additional information, please feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at 852-2078.
Sincerely,
Mark $. Reusctde
Environmental Planner
Office of Ecology
MJR/amf
cc: Vito Minei, P.E.
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Review of EAF for Minor Subdivision
S.H. Friemann & Others
SCTM No. 1000-102-2-24
March 6, 1993
SOUIHOL010WN
PLANNING BOARD
Dear Mr. Ward:
Aspe~ the your request, we have completed a preliminary review o.f the above
.referenced p~oject in accordance with your request. Tasks and completed activities are
~dentified as follows:
Review Pan I LEAF
The parcel has been field inspected by CVPh and the LEAF has been reviewed and
amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached.
Prepare Part H LEAF
The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional
information concerning our findings is included below.
Environmental and Planning Considerations
The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site.and
area have been consulted. The site consists of 19.596 acres of land and ~s located on
the north side of Main Road, 1,658.70 feet west of Cox's Lane, Cutchogue. ~It~e
northern 17.693 acres of the site is zoned "A-C" Agricultural-Conservation district,
and the southern 1.903 acres is zoned "B" General Business. The northern "A-C"
Ptortion of the site is occupied by agricultural use, with a metal workshop office, a
s orage barn and a registe-red migrant camp. The southern "B" Business part of the
site is oc.cp, p. ied by an Auto Parts store, wSth additional business space available in a
metal budding attached to the rear of the auto parts store.
...... h "A "
~ne subject apphcat~on ~nvolves a request to subd~wde the land to separate t e -C
zoning from the "B" zoning, with the "B" zoned area to be further subdivided to create
two (2) lots of 40,192 square feet and 42,688 square feet.
The site was inspected, and it was determined not to contain sensitive environmental
resources. The site is extensively used for greenhouse structures and active
agricultural use, as well as commercial business. Portions of the rear of the site
contain successional woodlot and first growth woods, as well as significant areas of
mature ornamental evergreen trees. There is also a dominant row of maple trees
planted along the east side of proposed Lot 2 (northern commercial lot), which
provides a scenic amenity to this portion of the site.
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
Page 1
Frieman Subdivision
Long EAF Review
The site is dominated by Haven loam soil which is a m.o~der.atel~ wel~l drained soil with
moderate natural fertility as compared to other Long xsiana sous. there are no
excessive slopes on the me, which would be ch.aracterized as h. aving flat topography.
The depth to groundwater ranges from approxunately 11 feet ~n the depression ~n the
east hart of the "A-C" site to as much as 3I feet in the higher.elevation areas to the
nortl~west, with an .average of 25 feet in the commerci.al po. rt~ons o.f ~the. site. .
Groundwater flow ~s toward the south. The site is within the north torg water budget
area of Groundwater Management Zone IV. The s. ite is within an area which has
been impaired by both aldicarb and nitrate contanunation as a result of agricultural
use, and public water supply is not available.
In terms of natural resources, soils, groundwater and ecology do not c.onstrain, site use
in accordance with zoning. Existingand proposed uses .wi_'ll have to rely on private
well water. Future site plan and subdivision approval wall require SCDHS approval
of water supply, systems in a. ccordance with ..Ar~. £cle 4 of the .~uffolk County .S. anitary
Code. In additmn, future s~te plan and subdivision plans wall require compliance with
Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code for density limitations to minimize
further nitrogen impacts to water supply aquifers.
Site access is a planning factor which has. been the subject of consideration by the
Zoning Board of Appe. ais and the Planmn. g Board. At present, there is a paved
driveway on the east side of the commercml portion of the site. This driveway
provides access to the metal commercial building behind the Auto Parts store, and
~lso provides access to the "A-C" portion of the site. The driveway varies in useable
widthbetween 18 and 22 feet. The ZBA approved a 280-A access request wi.th a
restriction that a.n 18 foot paved driveway shall b..e maintained in good condition
without obstructions for the entire length for sufficient maneuverability by fire and
emer. gency vehicles. It appears as though the current driveway conforms with this
reqmrement.
The proposed subdivision in itself is not expected to change the existing use of the
property. Lot 1 is occupied by existing businesses, and Lot. 2 will re.quire a site plan
approval for any ~..ture use in accordance with the "B" Business zomng. The "A-C"
portion of the site ~s occupied by a migrant labor camp and farm related structures.
Any further use of this portion of the property will require subdivision approval.
Fu .tpre site plan and subdivision applicat£ons (if filed) will consider access, drainage,
design and layout, density and water supply, and other factors depending up~on
proposed use. The application as proposed is not expected to cause a si~gmficant
~mpact upon natural or human re.sources based on environmental and planning
considerations provided the reqmrements of the ZBA are observed.
In view of the foregoing facts, the proposed project is not expected to cause a
significant environmental impact, and there does not appear to be a need to require the
preparation of a Draft EIS.
CRAMER, V~ &SOCIATES
ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS
Page 2
Frieman Subdivision
Long EAF Review
Therefore, the Planning Board could consider the issua, nce of a Negative Declaration
for this project. If you have any questions or wish any further ~nput with regard to this
matter, please do not hesitate to call.
Very tru~y)yours~
Charles J. V'Gorhis, CEP, AICP
enc: Long EAF Part I
CRAMER, V~ 4~[SOClATES
ENVIRONMENT~G CONSULTANTS
Page 3
,' 14~16-2 {2/87)'7c
' C
· '::~ 617.21 SEQR
Appendix A
State Environmental Quality Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose: 'Th~ full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project
or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent-
i Iy0 there are aspects of a project that are subiective or unmeasureable. It is also Understood that those who determine
significance may have little or'no formal knowledge of the environment oi' may be technically expert in environmental
analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular'area may not be aware of the broader concerns affectin8
the question of significance.
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and a§encies can be assured that the determination
process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action,
· Full EAF Components: The full E^F is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project
data; it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range o'f possible impa~ts that may occur from a project or action. It provides
guidance as to whether an impact is'likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-
large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate Whether Or not the
impact is actually important.
,(
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--TyPe I and Unlisted Actions
Upon review of the information recorc~ed on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting
infor~nation, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the
lead agency that: .
·
A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not
have a significant im.pact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
[] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required,
therefore a CONDI¥1ONED negative declaration will be prepared.*
[-I C. The proiect may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact
on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared.
' A Conditioned NegatiVe D~claration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
~7'-~' Name of Action - -
/~tC/,/_,~.~ ~ C-/'/.4~/'~,~f,,~ Name of Lead Agency
P~~Agency
(~gn'ature of Responsible Officer in~ "" /' ~.~-'"" " L~__~"- Lead AgencY"'
g re of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)
~f 1--PROJECT INFORMS"'
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effe~
on the environment· Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considere
as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additJom
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. '
It is expected that completion of the full EAr will be dependent on information currently available and will not involv
new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate'and specif
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County)
NAME OF AP~,PpLICANT/SPONSOR "
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
STATE I Z'P COOE
NAME OF OWNER (If different) ~ ~/~ ~ BUSINESS~ELEPHONE
ADDRESS ~ ( )
CITY/PO
STATE I ZiP cODE
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. Site Description
Physical setting of o~,erall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: [3Urban f-llndustrial
UIForest l:~'Agriculture
2. Total acreage of project area: /c~._~,~, acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural)
Forested
~gricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.)
Wetland (Fre.shwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECL)
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill)
Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces
Other (Indicate type] ~-'~q'g/~'~cl, f~/-
:~"Commercial
[:]Other
f-IResidential (suburban)
(3Rural (non-farm:
3. What is predominant soil type(s) off project site? ~ ~O~'/
a. Soil drainage: ]~'Well drained . /~'0 % of site []Moderately welJ,,dl'g~ed
[3Poorly dra,ned % of site /./,'"~ )
b. If any agricultural land is involved, !?w many acres of soil are classifiec~.i~i~'~,b,/~,~ group 1
Land Classification System? /'7~,..~(~ acres. (See I NYCRR 370). -.~v
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? I-lYes '~o
a. What is depth to bedrock? ~ 7~:70 ~ (in feet)
PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres C/¢,44r&~c--> a c r es
//~"-~' acres
_ % of site
through 4 of the NY£
2
,~ Approximate percentage of prop ~,- ,j pr,
site with slopes:
6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or co_o_~tain a building, site,
· Registers of Histor c Placesl I--lYes ,.J~No ·
{~"'. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks?
8. What is th'e depth of the water table? ~,o (in feet) //-' ~ / ' /f'l"~?mc~ ~ S-"
.~-10% ~110-15% %
1~15% or greater --
or district, listed on the State or the National
EYes ,~o
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~'Yes .J~o
10. Do hunting,, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? []]Yes
11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is i~,enti~ed as threatened or endangered?
l-lyes '~o According to ~ ~/~,9/;,1¢-. ~, ~' /755 0~ ~/ ~ ~-~+~ ~ '
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations)
I-lYes Ko Describe /V
· 13. Is the project site,_p/resently used'by the Community or heighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
f-lyes ~o If yes. explain '
14. Does the present simile-include scenii: views known to be important to the community?
I-lYes ~No
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: '~//'O,~*~z~ 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
17.
b. Size (In acre~)
Is the site served by existing public utilities? J~es ENo
a) If Yes does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~es []]No
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? []]Yes ]~o
18. Is the site located in an a~ricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA,
Section 303 and 304? 'J2~'es [-'lNo
19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous, to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8
of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 []]Yes '~o
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? I-lyes /~o
B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor /~, -~'~
b. Project acreage to be developed: ~) acres initially;
~. Project acreage to remain undeveloped /~'--¢-'~' ~ acres.
d. Length of project, in miles: ~,//,~- (If appropriate)
e. If t~e project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed /,)//~ %;
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 'z)/,,¢- ; proposed /~'//~ .
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour x..~/~ (upon completion of project)?
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units:
One Family Two Family Multiple Family
UltimatelyA,//~
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure /'~//:/' height; _, width;
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? /~:~' ft.
3
acres,
acres ultimately.
Condominium
length.
2. How much natural material.if r earth, etc.)will
-, e removed from-
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? I-lYes f-INn
a. If yes, for wha~ intendeC purpose is the site being reclaimed?
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? I-Iyes ~lNo
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? i-lYes I-INn
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? (~ acres.
5. Will any matur, e,,~orest (over 100 years'old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
· I-lyes
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of consiruction /t///'~ months, (including demolition).
7. If multi-phased:
a, Total number of phases anticipated (number).
b Anticipated date of commencement phase I month
c. Approximate completion date of final phase month
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? DYes
8. Will blasting occur during construction? I-lYes '(~o
9.
10,
11.
Number of jobs generated: during construction ~,//~
Number of lobs eliminated bv this project ~.2
Wi ' project re(~Lure relocation of any projects or facilities?
Q'~ , tons/cubic yar.ds
year, {including demolition).
year.
; after project ~s comnlete . /~//'~Z
D-lYes ,[~o If yes, exolain
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved' DYes ~o
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? I~Yes ,]~o Type
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal?
Explain
[3Yes ~o
15. Is project or any portion of prolect located in a 100 year flood plain?
16. Will the proJect generate solid waste? E]Yes ,~0
I~Yes
a. If /es, what is the amoun~ per month tons
b. If yes. will an existing solid waste facility be used? D-lYes E3No
c. If yes, give name ; location
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
e, If Y~s, explain
I"lyes I-INo
17.
Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? fi'lYes
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal?
' b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years.
Will project use herbicides or pesticides? l-lYes ~'o
tons/month.
18.
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? E3Yes J~
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? I-lYes
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? DYes ~
If yes , indicate type(s)
22. If Water supply is from wells, indicate pumpin~ capacity J1~]//~ gallons/minute.
23. Total anticipated water usage per day /'~ gallons/day.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? r-lYes ~
If Yes. explain
25. Approvals Required:
· City, Town, Village Board' I-)Yes ~o
City, Town. Village Planning Board ,~es I-INo
City, Town'Zonin8 Board DYes ~'No
City, County Health Department ~"Yes [)No
Other Local Agencies mYes ,~No
Other Regional Agencies []Yes J~No
State Agencies I-)Yes ~No
Federal Agencies []Yes ~No
C. Zoning and Planning Information
,ype
Submittal
Date
I. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? J~'es
If Yes, indicate decision required:
~zoning amendment I-Izoning variance [~special use permit .~subdivision [~site plan
i-lnew(revision of master plan I~resource management nlan r-iother
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site?
5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted bv the proposed zoning?
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in aoooted local land use plans? ,~s I'~No
7 What are the predominate land use(s) and zomng classifications withn a % mile radius of proposed'action?
/
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a % mile~ .~s ~No
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed?
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? /~'~ ~O~ /
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ~Yes
11. Will the proposed action crea~ demand for any community, provided services {recreation, education, police,
fire protection)? ~Yes ~No
a. I~ yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~Yes ~No
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ~Yes
a. I~ yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ~Yes ~No
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project, l¢ there are or may be any adverse
, impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or
avoid them.
E. Verification
I certify that the,informatio~ ~.~ovided above is true to the best of my knowledge. -- ,
,' Responsibility of Lead Agency
General Information (Read.Carefully)
· * In completing the form the reviewer should be guided 'by the question: Have my responses and determinations bee6
reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
· Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant.
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply·
asks that it be looked at further.
· The Examples provided are ~o assist the reviewer by showing·types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in cotumn' 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
· The impacts of each project, on each site in each locality, will var,/ Therefore. the examples are illustrative and
have been offered as guidance. They do not consbtute an exhaustive list of impacts anc~ thresholds to answer each question.
· The number of examples per question does hOC indicate the importance of each ouesuon.
· In identifying impacts, consider long 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 answering Yes to a question ther~ check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potentia~ size of the
impa.ct. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any exampm provided, check column 2. If impact witl occur but threshold
is mower than example, check column 1.
d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentiallv large and proceed to PART 3.
e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the proi~ct to a smal[ to moderate
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates thac such a reduction is not possible. This
must be explained in Part 3.
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will the proposed, action result in a physical change to the prolect site?
.,,~O []YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100
foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed
10%.
· Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than
3 feet.
· Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.
' Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within
3 feet of existing ground surface.
· Construction that will continue for more than I year or invomve more
than one phase or' stage.
· Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
· Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.
· Construction in a designated floodway.
· Other impacts
2. Will there be an effect t(.....y un.que or unusual land !..~ms found on
the site? (i,e, cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc..)J~NO F-lyEs
· Specific land forms:
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] i-lYes [:]No
[] [] [::]Yes [::]No
L-'l [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes E:]No
[] [] []Yes r-]No
[] [] []Yes [:]No
[] [] [~Yes []No
[] [] []Yes I-]No
[] [] [:]Yes i--INo
[] [] [-']Yes [:]No
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL
.~O []YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
IMPACT ON WATER
· 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
· Developable area of site contains a protected water body.
· Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a
protected stream.
· Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body.
· Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland·
· Other impacts:
4. Will proposed action affect any non~protected existin~ 9r new body
of water~
· ~NO i~YES
Examples that would apply to column 2 · '
~ lW 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] [=]Yes i~No '
[] [] []Yes ['-]No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes
[] [] []Ye~ []No
[] E:] []Yes ~o
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
Q ~ ~Y'es ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Y~s ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
· A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water
or more than a 10 acre increase 0r decrease.
· Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area.
· Other impacts:
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater
quality or quantity? ,~C)
[YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action will require a discharge permK.
· 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 welis with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity'.
· Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water
supply system.
· Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.
· Liquid effluent will be conve~..ed off the site to facilities which presently
do not exist or have inadequate capacity,
· Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per
day.
· Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of wa~er to the exte;~,t that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to natural conditions.
· ~ropos(~d Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater.than 1,100 gallons.
· Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water
and/or sewer services.
· Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage
facilities.
· Other impacts:
C 6. Will proposed action alter flow
drainage
or
patte n{,_~or
- water runoff? ,~3NO I-Iy E S
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action would change flood water flows.
7
· Proposed Action may cau~se substantial erosion.
· Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
· Proposed Action wilt allow development in'a designated floodway.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will proposed action affect air quality? [~O I-lYES
Examples that wouJd apply to column 2
· Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more Vehicle trips in any given
hour.
· Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of.
refuse per hour.
· Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed $ lbs. per hour or a
heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
· Proposed action will ah~ow an increase in the amount of land committed
to industrial use.
· Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial
development within existing industrial areas.
· Other impacts:
'IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species? yNO []YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal
list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site.
' Rergoval'of any portion of a Critical or significant wildlife habitat.
' Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other
than for agricultural purposes.
' Other impacts:
Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threaten~l or
non-endangered species? ~NO I/YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or
migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres
of mature forest (over 100 years of age} or other locally important
vegetation. ·
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land reso~_~ces?
Examples that would apply to column. 2 J~NO [YES
The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural
;and (includes crop and, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
Small t~ Potential
Moderate Large
Impact Impact
Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
( (
i--]Yes I--]No
t-]Yes [~]No '
~'-]Yes [~]No
~]Yes I-~No
~]Yes i--]No
~-]Yes
~-lYes I--[No
~ Y.-es I-1No
~]Yes I--]No
E~Yes ~]No
~Yes I-]No
[=]Yes [--]No
[~]Yes [~]No
[=]Yes ~]No
[:]Yes [:]No
~Yes
· Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of
agricultural land.
· The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres
of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more
than 2.$ acres of agricultural land.
· The proposed action.would disrupt or orevent installation of agricultural
land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches.
strip cropping); or create'a need for such measures [e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ~O ~YE5
(If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Sectio~ 617,21.
Appendix B.)
Examples that would apply to colum~ 2
· Proposed land uses, or prolect components obviously different from
or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether
man-made or natural.
· Proposed land uses, or pro!ect components visible to users of
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their
enjoyment of the aesthetic aualities bt that resource.
· Project components that wii result in the eliminatio~ or s~gnificant
screening of scenic views known to be ~mportant to the area.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure pre-
of~istoric.
historic or paleontological importance? ~JNO ~YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantial ,
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register
of historic places.
· Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the
project site.
· Proposed Action .will occur n an area designated as sensmve 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 existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
Examples that would apply to column 2 ,~ r-lyES
' Tile permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
· A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
· Other impacts:
9
I 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[~ [] ~]Yes I~No
[] [] fl'lYes ["']No
[] [] ~]Yes ~I'No
[] [] ~]Yes f-INo
~ ~ ' ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes' ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
IMPACT ON TRAN,Si_JF 3N
1,~. Will there be an effect to exi. sting transportation s sy~,ms?
Examples that would apply to column 2 KO ' E3YES
· Alteration of present patterns of movement of peoole and/or goods.
· Proposed Action will result n maior traffic prob ems.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed actio~ affect the community's sou~s of fuel or
energy supply?
Examples that would apply to column 2 ~I~NO E]YES
· Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of
any form of energy in the municipality.
· Proposed Act on will require the creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family
res.idences or to serve a maior Commercial or industrial use
· Other impacts:
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibrauor~as a result
of the Proposed Action? ~/NO E]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
' Blasting within 1.500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensmve
facility.
· Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour Der day).
· Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local
ambient noise levels for noise outsioe of structures.
· Proposed Action will remove natural barriers thai would act as a
noise screen.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
7. Will Proposed Action affect public, health and safety.~
Examples that would apply to column 2 t~NO ~YES
Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow level
discharge or emission.
Proposed Action may result in the burial ~f "hazardous wastes" in any
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating.
infectious, etc.)
Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural
gas or other flammable liquids.
Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
waste.
Olh,-,r impacts:
10
Small to
Moderate
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
Potential
Large
Impact
[]
r--
[]
Impact
Mitigated By
Project Change
[]Yes ['-]No
[]Yes E]No.
[]Yes [~]No
[]Yes []No
[]Yes E]No
[]Yes []No
[]Yes E~No
[]Yes []No
E~Yes
[]Yes ~]No
[]Yes [~]No
E]Yes E]No
[]Yes E3No
[]Yes
[]Yes
[]Yes
t
L
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
OF COMMU'NITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD.
(~.. 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existi~community?
~.NO E]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
' · The permanent population of the city, town or village in Which the
project is located is likely to grow by more than
· The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services
will increase by more than .5% per year as a result of this project.
· Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.
· Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use.
· Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures
or areas of historic importance to the community.
· Development will create a demand for additional community services
(e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
· ~roposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects.
· Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.
· Other impacts:
I 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large· Mitigated .By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] []. I-lYes I--INo
[] [] J--]Yes []No
[] [] [~Yes I-l'No
[] ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controvers~v/related to
· potential adverse environmental impacts? ~:]NO ~]YES
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
_£
Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Responsibility of Lead Agency
Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be
mitigated.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2:
1. Briefly describe the impact.
2. Describe{if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s).
3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer th'e question of importance, consider:
· The probability of the impact occurring
· The duration of the impact
· Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value
· Whether the impact can or will be controlled
· The regional consequence of the impact
· Its potential divergence from local needs and goals
· Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact.
(Continue on attachments)
11
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
C JNTY OF SUFFOLK
®
ROBERT J. GAFf NEY
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
ARTHUR H. KUNZ
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
March 4, 1993
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Minor Subdivision - S.H. Friemann & Others
N/westerly side of Main State Road, 1658.70 s/west of
Cox's Lane, Cutchogue in the Town of Southold.
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
The Suffolk County Planning Commission at its regular meeting on
March 3, 1993, reviewed the proposed subdivision plat, entitled, "Minor
Subdivision - S.H. Friemann & Others" referred to it pursuant to Section A14-24,
Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code.
The attached Resolution signifies action taken by the Commission relative
to this application.
Very truly yours,
Arthur H. Kunz
Director of Planning
Fr ahk Dowling,~r.
Subdivision Review
Planner
Division
File: S-SD-93-01
FD:mb
Attachment
cc: J. Baier, C.E., SCDRS
H. LEE DENNISON BUILDING · VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY · HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK I 1788 · (516) 853-5192
File No. S-SD-93-01
Resolution No. ZSR-93-24 of Suffolk County Planning Commission
Pursuant to Sections A14-24, Article XIV of Suffolk County Administrative Code
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
RESOLVED,
RESOLVED,
pursuant to Sections A14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County
Administrative Code, a referral was received by the Suffolk County
Planning Commission on February 10, 1993, with respect to a proposed
plat entitled, "Minor Subdivision - S.H. Friemann & Others" submitted
by the Town of Southold Planning Board affecting premises located on
the n/westerly side of Main State Road, 1658.70 s/west of Cox's Lane,
Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, New York, and
said referral was considered by the Suffolk County Planning
Commission at its meeting on March 3, 1993, and
the Commission has voted to disapprove said referral, Be It Therefore
That the Suffolk County Planning Commission hereby approves and
adopts the report of its staff as the report of the Co~xaission, Be It
Further
That said proposed plat is disapproved for the following reasons:
The proposed subdivision will result in the creation of landlocked
parcels; that is, parcels that do not have frontage on an existing or
proposed public road. The creation of such lots is contrary to good
subdivision layout principles and creates problems as far as access
by emergency and service equipment is concerned. This lack of access
could result in health, safety and welfare problems for the future
users or residents of the landlocked lots, not to mention potential
disputes over the use and maintenance of right-of-ways over adjacent
parcels that may be created for the purpose of access.
Creation of landlocked lots also places the Zoning Board of Appeals
in the awkward position of having to grant a building permit for
lots. Under Section 280-A of the Town Law the future owner(s) of the
landlocked lot cannot be held responsible for the landlocked nature
of their parcel.
The Commission also offers the following comment on the map:
The Commission is aware that once the applicant receives permission
for legal access over the private right-of-way in accordance with
Section 280A of the Town Law, the Planning Board has no choice but to
grant the approval.
Motion by: Commissioner Shepard
Seconded by: Com~issioner Stahlman
Commission Vote: 10 Present
Yeas 9
Nays 0
Abstentions 1 Commissioner McDonald
Dated March 3, 1993
Hauppauge, New York
Suffolk County Planning Commission
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 SOUTHOLD
SCOWF L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
February 10, 1993
Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc.
Environmental and Planning Consultants
54 N. Country Road
Miller Place, New York 11764
RE:
Review of EAF
Minor Subdivision
S.H. Friemann & Others
SCTM#1000-102-2-24
Dear Messrs. Cramer and Voorhis:
The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the
Environmental AsSessment Form for the above mentioned
subdivision to your office for review. Also enclosed are:
1. Map dated November 1, 1992;
Planning Board resolution dated February 8, 1993;
granting conditional sketch approval
3. December 13, 1990 decision of Zoning Board of Appeals;
e
Copy of Judgement entered on October 5, 1992 in matter
of Friemann vs. Planning Board.
The Planning Board started the lead agency coordination
process on February 8, 1993. The $400.00 review fee has been
submitted by the applicant. If all is in order, the Board will
'make their SEQRA determination at the March 22, 1993 public
meeting. Please submit your report no later than March 12, 1993
in order for the Board to review it before the meeting date.
The purchase Order will be sent to you under separate cover.
If there are any questions, please contact Planning Staff.
Sincerely,
Richard G.
Chairman
Encls.
:14-16-2 (2/87)~7c
' 617.21 '
Appendix A SEQF
· ' State Environmental Quality Review
~', .. FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM .
Purpose: Th~ full EAF is designed to helo applicants and agencies determine in an orderly manner, whether a project
. ~yr, action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Freauent-
· there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determ ne
· significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental
analysis..In addit on, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting
the question of significance.
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination
process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introc dction of information to fit a project or action.
· Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given proiect and its site. By identifying basic project
data. it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range ot possible impa~ts that may occur from a project or action. It provides
guidance as to whether an impact is 'likely to be considered sma II to moderate or whether it is a potentially-
large ~mpact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be m~tigate~J or reduceo.
Part 3: If any ~m oact in Part 2 ~s identified as potentiallvdarge, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether'or no[ the
impact is actually important·
~ DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions '
Identify the Portions of EAF compleled for this project: [] Part 1 El Part 2 []Part 3
Upon review of the intor~at,on recorded ~n this EA~ (Parts I and 2 and ~ if appr~)prlate), and any other supporting
mformabon, and considering both the mag~tude and ~mportance of each ~mpacL ~t is reasonably determined by the
lead agency that: .
~A. The project will not result in any large and .mportant impact(s) and. therefore· is one which will not
have a s~gnificant ~mpact on the environment, tr~erefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
a B. Although the project could have a Significant effect on the enwron ment, there will not be a significant
effect for this Unlisted Action 0ecause the m~t~gabon measures described in PART 3 have been required.
therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.*
I-I C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact
on the enwronmenl:, therefore a positive declaration will he prepared.
* A Conditioned Negati~;e D~cJaration is only valid for UMisted Actions
Name of Action
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Nan~o~ Responsible Officer in Lead Agency -- ~ T tie of Responsible Officer
(~.~ t~Jgrr~ure of Responsible Officer in Lea~ Agen~ /Slgnatureof Preparer(If different from responsible off cer)
L / /Date
1
' " O ,l" 1--PROJECT I"FORIV~iONtt ,.
· Prepared by Project Sponsor
· NOTICE: This documedt is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may'have a significant effe
on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be consider(
as par~ of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public revibw. Provide any addition
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. · ·
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involx
new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional Work is unavailable, so indicate and specii
each instance. . .
NAME OF ACTION ~--
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) ,~,T, ~ ~ -- ~ -- ~ . .
NAME OF AP LICANT/SPONSOR ~
~ 7 ..~ ,~'5"'O C /~' '~-~j- BUSINESS TELEPHONE
-PO. o . ,,U , ·
NAME OP OWNER (If different)
ADDRESS
CITY/PO
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. Site Description
Physical setting of o~,erall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: DUrban )-IIndustrial ::~"'Commercial [-IResidential [suburban)
I-1Forest J~AgricuJture [~Other
2. Total acreage of project area: . jc~,_~,,~, acres·
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural)
Forested
~gricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.)
Wetland (Fre. shwateror tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL)
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill)
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces
Other (Indicate type) ~"~,~,,~:~,'~/-
What is predominant soil type(s) on project site?
a. Soil drainage: ~Well drained _J~9 % of site
I-IPoorly drained % of site
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site?
a. What is depth to bedrock?
I-1Rural (non-farm)
PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
acres _ acres
acres
acres
acres
//, T-P{.: acres -- ~ _ acres
~ ' acres ~ acres
f-]Moderately well drained __ -- % of site
b. If any agricultural landis involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY
Land Classification System? /Z,..~/~ acres. (See I NYCRR 370). · ~
C]Yes '~o
(Jrt feet)
2
8.
9,
10.
11.
Appr°ximate percentage of Il~ 'J pro~
Is prolect substantially contiguous to. or contain
Registers of Historic Places? I-lyes .,~No
Is project substantia]l ~, contiguous to a s~te listed on the Register of National Natural Lanomarks?
What is tl~e depth of the water table? c~O (in feet)
Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aouifer? EYes J~o
[15 g ~lf~rea ter
a building, site. or district listed on the State or the National
I-lyes
Do hunting,, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? I-lYes ~
Does project site contain any specms of plant or ammal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?
I-lYes ~J~o According to
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the prolect site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations)
I-lYes ~'o Describe
-. 13. Is the project sitex..p~.resently used by the. community or-fleighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
I-lYes ~;~o If yes, explain
14. Does the present, sit. include scenic views known to be important to the community?
I-lYes /[~No '
15. Streams within or contiguous to proiect area: ,~O/u~
a. Name of Stream anc~ name of River to which t ~s tnoutarv
· 16. Lakes. ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to prolect area:
a. Name ,~(~,,,.//~ b. Size (In acres)
17. Is the s~te served by existing public ubht~es? J~es I-1No
a) I~ Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~'~es []No
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow cot nechon? EYes ~"~o
18. Is the site located in ana~[ricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA.
Section 303 and 304? t~es ENo
19. Is the site located ir or substantially contiguous to a Critical
.of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 6177 EYes '~o Environmenta~ Area designated pursuant to Article
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? EYes .,~o
B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total conuguous acreage owned or controlled by project Sponsor ,~, .-~'~7~,
b. Project acreage to be developed: (~) acres initially;
.~. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped /~_C',~ ~ acres. '
d. Length of project, in miles: f~',/'/~- (If appropriate)
e. If the ~roject is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed ./[/'/~ %;
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing . . zJ//f¢ ; proposed
'
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour (upon completion of prolect)?
h. If residential. Number and type of housing units:
One Family Two Family Multiple Family
Initially ~/.,~
C' UltimatelyM//ff
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure _~t//~ height; . width;
j. L/near feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare pro ect will occupy is~ /~:~- ft.
acres ultimately.
Condominium
length.
2. How much natural mated ., roc ea th, etc.) will be removed fr ~e sit
3. Will disturbed areas be recla reed? [:]Yes [:]No ,~A
a. If yes, for wha~ intendec~ purpose is the site being reclaimed?
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation.~ I-lyes ~]No
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation.~ F'lYes . f-INo
4. How many ~cres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site.~
5. Will any matur, e f/orest (over 100 years'old) or other locally-important
I-lyes
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction .
7. If multi-phased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated (number).
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I month
tons/cubl~: yar.ds.
vegetation be removed by this project:~
months, (including demolition).
c. Approximate completion date of final phase month
d. Is phase I fun ctionady dependent on subsequent ph,'~ses? i-lyes J~o
year, (including demolition).
year.
8. Will blasting occur during constr~ction! i-lYes '~o
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 'A///~ ; after project Is complete
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities~ ~Yes ,~o If yes, explain
12. Is surface liquid waste d~sposal involved? [~Yes ~1~o
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid wa)re disposal nvolved? f-lYes ,~o Type
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposab'
Explain
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood I~lain? I-lYes
I-lyes ~o
16.
Will the project generate solid waste~ I~Yes
a. If yes, what is the amou~ per month tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used~ I-'lYes F-INo
c. If yes, give name ; location
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary [andfill;~
e. If Y~s, explain
[E]Yes C3No
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste.~ l-lYes ~o
a, If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal?;' tons/month.
· b. If yes, what ii the anticipated site life? years
18. Will project ~Jse herbicides or pesticides~ I-lYes ,~o
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? I-lYes
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding 'ihe local .ambient noise levels.~ nyes
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use~ F3yes ~
If yes , indicate type(s)
22. If Water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity
23. Total .anticipated water Osage per day /1~//,~ gal[ohs/day, gallons/minute.
24. Does project involve local, State or Federal fund ng.~ I-lYes
If Yes, explain
2.5. Approvals Required: L
· City. Town, Village Board
City, Town~ Village Planning Board
City, Town'Zoning Board
City, County Health Department
Other Local Agencies
Other Regional Agencies
State Agencies
Federal Agencies
[:3Yes I~o
,'~' e s []No
E3Yes ~'No
~'~es [No
I-lyes
~Yes ~No
~Yes ~No
~Yes ~No
(" k 'submittal
,ype Date
C. Zoning and Planning Information
1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ,l~es []No
If Yes, indicate decision required:
[zoning amendment I-lzoning variance I-Isoecial use permit J~subd v s on J~site Dian
I-lnew/revision of master plan [-Iresource management plan [-1other
3. What is the maximum potentia development of the sKe if develooed as permitted by the present zomng?
4. What is the proposed zomng of the site? ,~o-¢;',o~,~;~'' '~ 'z , /~','~'C c,'Z.'-~.-,,~',.~/__
S. What is the maximum ootential development of the sKe if developed as permitted by the orooosea zomng?
/~.-~ ?
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommenaed uses in adootea local land use plans? ,~s I-INo
7. What are the predomin ant land use(s) and
~')(.)~,',,t.).~5-.~ ,I,~// zomng cla_ssificatlons within a % mile radius of prooosed action?
8. Is the proposed 'action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses w~thin a % mile? .~es L--INo
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? _
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? _.J'.~-~-' )~ ~oc~ /
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? I-lyes ,,~o
11, Will the proposed action crea!e~a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police,
fire protection)? [:]Yes ~'No ·
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? r-lYes ENo
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present evels? [:]Yes ,~o
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ~Yes
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify Vour project, if there are or may be any adverse
impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or
avoid them.
E. Verification '
I certify that th.~nformati~_~ provided above is true to the best ol~ my knowledge.
Applicant/$ponsor.~ame ~ ~,,~Z~ 5'.,~'C~ ~: ~,,.~ -~-~--~",i" Date
~' Part 2~'3RO,~L :T IMPACTS AND THEI~IAG/K 'UDE
,' ' Responsibility of Lead Agency~1~' --
General Information (Rea,al.Carefully)
.e In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations be&n
reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant.
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine Significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply
asks that it be looked at further.
· The Examples provided are ko assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But, for any specific project or ~ite other exampJes and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
· The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
· The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
· In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and 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.
¢. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column'1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the
impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided,
is Iov~er than example, check column 1. check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold
d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large a~'d proceed to PART 3.
e.. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by chan§e/s) in the project to a small to moderate
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This
must be explained in Part 3.
IMPACT ON LAND"
1. Will the proposec~ action result in a physical change to the project site?
,J~O [:]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (1.5 foot rise per 100
foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed
10%.
· Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than
3 feet.
· Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.
· Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within
3 feet of existing ground surface.
· Construction that will continue for more than I year or involve more
than one phase o/stage.
· Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
· Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.
· Construction in a designated floodway.
· O{her impacts
2. Will there be an effect t:. ,.,y'uri,que or unusual land (or.j~s found on
the site? (i~e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, ere.llaNO ~]YES
· Specific land forms:
6
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Proiect Change
[] [] l-lYes I-'INo
[] [] ~Yes ~]No
L--] [] i-'lYes I-3N°
[] [] [~Yes J~No
[] ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
IMPACT ON WATER
· 3. Will proposed action affect any water body desisnated as protected?
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)
.~]"~ O [YES
Fxampl~s that would apply to column 2
· Developable area of site contains a protected water body.
· Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a
protected stream.
· Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body.
· Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wet!and.
· Other impacts:
4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing~r new body
of water? ~]NO I-lYES
Examples that would apply to co(umn 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:
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or 8roundwater ~,/
. quality or quantity? ,1~O []YES
Examples that would app yto column 2
· Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.
· Proposed Action requires use of .a' source of water that does not
have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
· Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity.
· Construction or operation c~.using any contamination o~ a water
supply system.
· Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.
· Liquid effluent will be conve,~.ed off the site to facilities Which presently
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
· Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per
day.
· Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to natural conditions.
· I~roposqd Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater.than 1,100 gallons.
· Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water
andJor sewer services·
· Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industria! uses which may
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage
facilities·
· Other impacts:
L 6. Wilt proposed action alter flow
drainage
or
patte~,,~or
surface
- water runoff? ~t-J N O I-lYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action would change flood water flows.
7
Small to Potentia Can ImPact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] r-]Yes []No'
[] [] ~JYes' i-'~No
[] [] []yes []No
[] [] []Yes '[]No
[] ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ Q ' ~Yes ~No
~ ~ gYes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ gYes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ' ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Ves ~No
~ ~ QYes ~No
~ ~ ~tes ~No
· Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion
· Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
· Proposed Action wil allow development in a designated floodway.
· Other Impacts:
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will proposed action affect air qua ity~ [~O [:]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action will induce 1.000 or more vehicle trips ~n any given
hour.
· Proposed Action will result in the incmeratio, of more than I ton of
refuse per hour.
· Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a
heat source oroducing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
· Proposed action will ah~ow an increase in the amount of land committed
to industrial use.
· Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial
development within existing industrial areas
· Other impacts:
'IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatehed or endangered
species? ~/NO []YES
Examples that would appJv to column 2
· Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federa~
list, using the s~te, over or near site or found on the site.
· Re,oval of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.
' Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other
than for al~riculturaJ purposes.
Other impacts:
Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or
nOn'endangered species~ .,,1~ N O [YES
EXamples that would apply to column 2
Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or
migratory fish, shellfish or.wildlife Species,
Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres
of mature forest [over 100 years of age] or other locally important
Va§elation.
iMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
~ Will the Proposed Action ~ffect agricultural land reso[ ces?
EXamples that would apply to column. 2 ~C~ I'~yES
The proposed action would sever, cross Or limit access to agricultural
:and (mc udes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc. J
Small
Moderate
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Potentia,
Large
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
ICan Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
~]Yes F-~, N o
~]Yes FiNo
[-']Yes [:]No'
OYes ONo
I-'lYes FiNo
[~]Yes F]No
I~Yes I--INo
~]Yes ~No
~¥-es O,~o
[~Yes [:]No
[~Yes
I']No
[:]No
[:]Yes ~No
l~Ves ~:~No
[:]Yes [:}No
~Yes
C (
L_
8
Small to Potential Ca~ Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] I--lYes r-lNo
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~'No
; ~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ : ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ QYes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
C ~ ~Yes' ~No
~ ~ ~e~ ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
' Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of
agricultural land.
· The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres
of agricultural land or. if located in an Agdcultutal District. more
than 2.5 acres of agricu[tura land,
· The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of a§ricultura
land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches.
strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources:) J~O E:]YES
(If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 61721
Appendix B.)
Examples that would apl31v to column 2
· Proposed land uses, or prolect components obviousr, different from
or in sharp contrast tc~ current surrounding land use patterns, whether
: man-made or natural.
· Proposed land uses, or proJect components visible to users of
aesthetic resources which wi ehmmate or significandv reduce their
enjoyment of the aesmet]c c Jalities bf that resource.
· Project components that will result in the elimination or significant
screening of scenic views known to be ~mDortant to the area.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure o.f~b{'stor c pre-
historic or paleontologica importance? ,,,~NO ~]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially
contiguous to anv facility or site listed on the State or National Regis[er
ot historic places.
· Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the
project site.
· Proposed Action.wiil 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 quantKy or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportun ties:)
Examples that would apply to column 2 ~NO [=]YES
· The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
· A major reduction of an open space important to the COmmunity.
· Other impacts:
9
IMPACT ON TRANb~TATION
1'~. ~ViJJ there be an effect to ex[sting transportahon
- s stems?
Examples that would apply to column 2 Y~O
* Alteration of'present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
· Proposed Action wil result in malor traffic prob ems
· Ot~er impacts:
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect the community's sou,~'of fuel or
energy supply.~
Examples that would apply to column 2 ~rlNO ~]YES
· Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of
any form of energy in the municipality.
· Proposed Action will require the creatiom or extensidn of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family
residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use.
· Other impacts:
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, no se. or vibradO~,r~as a result
· of the Proposed Act/on?
Examples that would apply to column 2 ,~NO [~YE$
· Blasting within 1,5,00 feet of a hospital, school or other sens~bve
facility.
· Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per davl.
· Proposed Action will produce operating noise exce'~ding the local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
· Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise Screen. '
' Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
7. Will Proposed Action affect public, health and safety.~
Examples that would apply to column 2 /~NO ~]YE$
Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation; etc.) in the event of
accident or' upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow level
discharge or emission.
Proposed Action may result in the burial ~f "hazardous wastes" in any
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc.)
Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of Jiquified natural
gas or other flammable liquids.
Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance
within 2.000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
,vaste.
Other ~mpacts:
10
Small to
Moderate
Impact
[]
[]
[]
Potential
Large
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
Can Impact B,
Mitigated By
Project Change
~]'~es ~]No
[:lYes [:]No
~Yes []No
[]Yes [~]NO
[]Yes •No
[]Yes [~No
[~Yes []No
[~Yes [~No
~Yes ['-]No
[~Yes ~No
~Yes ~/No
[:]Yes
[:]Yes E:]No
~]Yes [~N0
l']No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD,
.18. Will proposed action affect the character of the exlstl~.,Community?
,~NO []YES
I:xamples that would apply to column 2
· The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the
project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%.
· The municipal budget for caoital expenditures or operating services
will· increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project.
· Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted 31ans or goals.
· Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use
· Proposed Action will replace or elimina [e existin8 facilities, structures
or areas of historic importance to the community·
· Development will create a demand for additional community serwces
(e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
· P'roposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects.
· Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.
· Other impacts:_
I 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact impact Project Change
[] [] []Yes ['-[No
[] [] F-)Yes I-]No
[] [] J-)Yes l--)'No
[] [] []Yes I--]No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] t-lYes [~]No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes ~lNo
19. is there, or is there likelv to be puouc controve~rs,,~'related to
potential adverse enwronmental ~mpacts~ ,,~NO ~]YES
If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or
If You Cannot Det'ermine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3
_(_
Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Responsibility of Lead Agency
Part 3 must he prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be
mitigated.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each ~mpact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: .'
1. Briefly describe the impact,
2. Describe (if applicable) how the mpact could be m~tigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s).
3. Based on the information avail able, decide if rt is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer t.h'e question of in' portance, consider:
· The probability of the impact occurring
· The duration of the impact
· Its irreversibility, including permanently Iosi resources ol~ value
· Whether the impact can or will be controlled
· The regional consequence of the impact
· Its poteftial divergence from local needs and goals
· Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact.
(Continue on attachments)
11
APPEAI~ BOARD MEMBERS
Gera~d P. Goehringer. Chairman
Charles Gdgonis. Jr.
Serge Doyen. Jr.
Telephone (516) 765-1809
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
./ lC
· . .SCO1W L. HARRIs
Supervisor
T~wn Hall. 53095 Main Roac
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765q800
Appl. No. 3987
ACTION OF ~E BOARD OF APPEAr. R
Upon Applicatio~ of S.H. FRIEMANN & OTHERS. · Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Sections 100-102 (Bulk
Schedule) for approval of insufficient frontage (lot width) {as
excists} along the Main Road of proposed Lot ~3 and for approval
of insufficient lot depth of Proposed Lot ~2, in this pending
minor subdivision, and for approval of access according to New
York Town Law, Section 280-A over a private right-of-way. Zone
Districts: B'General..Business and Agricultural Conservation.
Location of Property: North Side of Main Road, Cutchogue, NY;.
County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-102-2-24. Total area: 19.596
acres.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 29, 1990,
and all those who desired to be heard were heard and their
testimony recorded; and ...
WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerningthis application; and
WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are ....
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning,
the surrounding areas; and
· ' WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The portion of the subject premises which is under-
jurisdiction in this variance application consists of
approximately 82,880 sq. ft. and is located in the "B" General
Business Zone District. The remaining 17.693 acres is located
· in the "A-C" Agricultural-Conservation Zone District.
and
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3987 ...
Matter of S.H. Friemann & others
Decision. Rendered December 13, 1990
The area of land under consideration in this variance has a
frontage of 132.0 feet along the north side of State Route 25
(a/k/a Main Road) in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold.
The width of the remaining (rear) section {referred to as Lot
~1} is 683.44. feet {inclusive of easements}.
2. The subject premises as exists:
(a) contains a total combined lot area of 19.596
acres;
'(b) are improved with Structures as more particularly.
shown on the plan prepared by Roderick VanT~yl P.C. date~
November 1, 1990. '
3. Article X, Section 100-102, (Bulk Schedule) of the
zoning code regulations (as amended January 9, 1989) requires a
minimum lot depth of 150 feet and minimum width of 150 feet per
lot.
4. The relief sought by this application are variances for
approval of:
(a) proposed southerly lot referred to herein as Lot
93 with a.lot width (frontage) of 132.00 feet, inclusive of
easements or right-of-way (or 117+- feet exclusive);
(b) proposed center lot referred to herein as Lot ~2
with a total lot area of 40,192 Sq. ft., inclusive of right-
of-way or easements; ,
(c) access to Lot ~2 and Lot #1, over a 22 ft. wide
right-of-way, half of which is shown to be located upon premises
of the applicant and the other half upon premises.of S & E
Realty Co. {parcel to the east referred to as 1000-097-5-012}
5. For the record, it is noted that the condition of the
{ight-of~way is excellent without the necessity for further
lmprovements at this time, except, however, that the entire
access road must be maintained at a minimum width of 18 feet
(without obstruction) for sufficient maneuvering and access by
emergency (fire) vehicles.
6. in considering this application, the Board also finds
and determines: (a) the relief as granted is substantial in
relation to the requirements; (b) the evidence submitted and
practical difficulties claimed are sufficient to warrant a
Page 3 - Appl. No. 3987 '''
Matter of S.H. Friemann & others
Decision Rendered December 13, 1990
grant of this variance; i(c) there will be no substantial
change in the character of the neighborhood, and a precedemt
would not be set since the shape and character of this land has
existed since before the enactment of zoning in 1957; (d) the
difficulties cannot be obviated by some method feasible to the
appellant to pursue, other than a variance; (e) that in view
of the manner in which the difficulties arose; and in Con-
sidering all the above factors, the interests of justice will be
served by grantinH the variance, aS.conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by
Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief as requested (and noted in
paragraDh ~4, supra), in the Matter of the Application Of H & S
ASSOCIATES (S.H. FRIEMAN & OTHERS) under Appl. No. 3987, SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That the access right-of-way be maintained in good
condition to a minimum width of 18 feet (without obstructions)
for the entire length'for sufficient manueverability by fire and
emergency vehicles (pursuant to the requirements of New York
Town Law).
Vote of the Board: ~yes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
GrigoniS and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted.
lk
PRESENT: Hon. George F. X.
- - - ' .... F ....... ~ .... X
In the Matter of the Application of
SANFORD H. FRIEMANN and others,
Petitioner,
For a Judgment under Artic{~ 78 cf t~
Civil Practice Law and Rule·s'~ .... ~' - ·
the Decisions of the Planning
-.o...~ of the
Town o~ Southo!d rendered March ~2, 1991
and October 29, 1991,
- against
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN O~
SOUTHOLD, AND iTS MEMBERS, BENNETt?
ORLOWSKI, JR., Chairman, GEORGE ?iTCHIE
L~THAM, JR., RICHARD G~ WARD, MA~iW S.
McDONALD and KENNETH ~. EDWARDS~ .
At a Trlal Term, Part 22, of the
~u~.,.=me Court of the State of New
Yo~k, held in and for the County of
Su~.ol~, at Riverhead, New York, on
thz- ~ 'day of September, 1992.
McIn~ne~-
· -- 3, Justice
JUDGMENT
Index NO. 91-28767
An application having ~ee~:. nade, pursuant to CPLR Article
78, to annul and vacate the iette~ decisions of the Southoid Town
Planning Board dated ~ ~
- M=rc..~ 12, 39~! and October 29, 1991, and
directing said ' Planning Boar~:. to process the pe~itio'ner,s
'application as a set--off of a : :,lng,_~.. ].ot pursuant to Section
.A-106-i3 of the Subdivisiop, of i~.and Regulations of the Southold
Tow~. Code, or in the ~" .....
~.~ ~-e ~ 1] -~ :ive, as a minor subdivision
COnsisting of two .lots in ~b'b '"]~' Ge~-eral Business District, and
the Court, Upon
herein
Friemann
said application havinc been re, ~ .~ar]~ ·heard bv
- ''· ' ~ '= o~ Petition
readinq and fl~..tng
Dacembe~ 5 1991, "'
· and the annexec :~etition of Sanford
and others, verified the 5th day of December, 1991, ·with due
proof of service, and the answ~:L-, ·verified June 25, L992, and ~he
~ffirmation of Harvey A. Arnc;-¢, Esq., affirmed June 25, 1992r.
and the affidavit of Bennett Orlowski, Jr., sworn to June 25,
1992, both in opposition ther.:.to, and the affidavit in reply of
Sanford H. Friemann, sworn to July 7, 1992, in support of the
petit/os, and due deliberation h~vJ. ng been had, and rea~ing and
filing the memorandum decision herein dated August 19, 1992, now
upon mctiDn of Cron and Cron, F.-sqs., it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED tha5 the petition be and the
same hereby ~s granted; and it .LS further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND D~...REED that the determinations of
Respondent, Planning Board of the Town of Southuld, as included
in its letter determinations cf March 12, 1991 and October 29,
1991, are annulled and vacated: and it is further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Respondent, Planninc
Board of the Town of Southc.!d, is directed to process the
Petitioner's application as a :~]inor subdivision and to grant the.
re~.~..r t~ereln requested.
J-S .C.
FILED
O~f 5 I~9~
EDWARD p.
" ~,,LEI~ OF SUFFOLK
LE.m , NOTiFiED
· .5 ~. I .'.~z. MI:: ....... ,.~, SUFFOLK CO'UNTY
D, di~' Ma[~r oi:the Application of',
S,.\NFORD H. FRIBMANN and others,
Petitioner,
For a Judgment under Art~cIe"78 of thc
:. 'wit PnTctice Law m~d Rutes Invalidating
thc Decisions o£ the Planning Board of the
Town of $outhokl rendered M~ch 12, 199i
and Oc[obcr 29, 1991,
-against-
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THES'OWN
OF 5OUTHOLD, AND iTS MEMBERS.
BENNE~ ORLOWSKL SR., Chairman,
GEORGE RITCHiE LATHAM, SR.,
RICHARD G. WARD, MARK S. M~DONALD
and KENNETH L. EDWARDS,
IX!-',Fv'NU.. 9~-zo/6~
Respondents.
,c.:RO.'xI & CRON, ESQS.
,'\:mr:rays fo.r Petitioner
Main Road, P.O. Box 953
C(X~.'.ho§u.--.., N'[ ! 1935
~'~.:.,..v=.~ ,~x.. ARNOFF, ~SqL
..~orney rot Responaents
P.O. Box ] 179
53095 Ma/n Road
Southold, NY 11971
, . . .thto Article 78 proceeding, petkiow::' asks for judgment vacating mhd annulling
t~e ~e:" ":1~'-',,,;,,,,- ~.o vn P.,,mn, g Bc:,:d ~a/ed March 12, 1991 and October 29, I991
tc .......... o of the $oulhold .r, . ,, ,,., ,
,,,~l.:t:,~, 5: Pmni~i,n.~ Board to process thc..:,e:itic, aw's a.~olication
- =,,~ o u..,!eral Buomess Distrmt pursuant to S¢.::tion A-106-I3 of the Subdivision of
reguiado.qs o:' ti~e ,'.-..'outhold .. .
two "B" Town Code, or in ihe at,e,...,.,.., ,as ,. minor s ~bdivis on coax/sting of
{2) tots in the General Businesi Diot. L.. a.h,l :' - ' ., .....
,.-.- Ion 280A Towil .Law approved access ,. ¥v4 a
~ ': t°~-'.e,, ,e,, ngnt-o,-way or street, and that said Pl~..:;ning Board be further directed to r)rocess
,,,~ apph .a~ on ns one ~ wolvmg two (2) . . y .
separate aim distinct subdividexl p.~ceis b vir tie c,f
~ .. '. '- ' '" ' "- - ' ' y' Southold into a "B' General Business parcel. ~d'a "A-C"
The subject property of which · .~.~; i.
,".crcr,. oF which tim , '*. ~, ' ' .-, .- p-,t.o.,.., Frizmann, is a co-owner, ¢ot.~-lp..'qse$ i9 5
nult, ~,,.5 lot is l ~.o-rz- acres, zoi~,..J "A-C' A;~ricultura! Conservation and z. +/-
aCr~5, Si" " ' ; ~ -,-,,, '"
INDI:.,..v~O~ 91-2~,767
The !m~ds are located on Mpin Road tF:out¢ 25), Cutchogue, New York.
In. September, 1.o90, petit oncr "souHQ[ the advice' ' · '
(respondent he.remj as to a proposed subdtvis on n,"~;:~, ~.....: .... of,thc To~.vp Planning Board
.... ~. ,.,u~mc~ ronco p:L.-cel into two. A
commemial building was already situated thereon, h'<~ting on Route 2.5.
The .Board's advice was that the Town Zoning Board of Ap~m~"ds would have to grant
variances since neither of the proposed subdivided pr;],'reis wotfid meet ce~,"fin frontage, width
dcpd~ requirements of the Southold Town Zoning Code. Dedtioner was further advised to file for a
rnlnor subdivision and submit maps wi'rich would nc .;.~e theAgricultural Co,servation parcel on
which a percmhaI tlursery operation is conduc.ted, but which would be tmafl~cted by thc subdivision.
:ninor subdivision). ' x_re *.~.h,.,m.c! tO me ]:lun:u.~g Board and a fee of $2.500.00 paid. (for
ubsuquently, £ollowing application tr, 'he 2;oning Board of Appeals, the ,at,~,.
December !'l 1990 granted ,h~ variances and, as had zdditionaHv been requested, approved ~mcess
x t.r ,.~. "' loot caved right-of:q(.ay running in x nor:~:m'iv (lb'cotton from Main Street to the
· ~ ........ t Conscrvahon parcel.
Among the Zonina Board of Appep. l's :iridings was: "For the r~erd. ;';
the condition 6f .h~ right-of-way is excel!eat, wJthou'. ':
,,m necessky for further improvements at
[hi~ t/me. except, however, that the entire access road ;;mst be m~n[~ned at a minimum of
(without u~istruc~ion) for sufficic ~t maneuverinz and ?.::,;ess by emergency ~' v ' ~-"
~ (,~re)
On re-approach to the Pinning Bo~d. ,:. by latter natal Marc~ 12, 1991 indic~,d
d~a[ before [t would t~(e any act[on, maps had" ....... '
. ~o be s *mtred shox~ nga 30 ~oo[ (wine)
r,gn,-or-wav from Main Street (Rte. 25) to the Agficmmra[ Conse~atmn D~stnct,. and '.
' ti ~ pa~-cmen[
',vidrh within the right-of-way should be 24 r%et, The ~'eason given for the additional road width
tau existing ;~nd future access needs ff t}'c '., . · e~ t~r~ subdivision",
Required-also were "road ~ronLs in ttccordance with the fight-of-way wmenmg; a
bond estimate [o, tog{ improvements; and a P~rk an,:~ Playground f~ of $2,~.0~ ~oll~s for the
residential' " - .
,or, There then followed the statement ~: ad~mon, due [o the hct that
cot~rruction is required, fids application :,rill be proc?'}~e,d as a major subdivision." "
. On September 30. 199i application w'.~ made by netitione ' he nn ' * B
,t, M,~c,) l~tn decmon, but the Board, by letl?r of October I9, 1991, reiterated
previous deter-f-ar~gn, setti ]g forth, in part:
The Plann ng Be~rd has class ]'.- t: ~ sLbd v s.-, -- ~
~mjvr suudv,'mon sue to me i-act '::.~ar the prounsa reel ires
d.e ,-ono,rdctlot, of a new street. .', UI3JCd' subchvision is
deigned Jn the 'I'c,wn Co:J~ as" subdivisions of five ..c~
INDEX ~'~ .~. 91-28767
' or more lots, or any subdivision :':quifing the construction
of a new street or the e.xtension cf municipal ~ '"
The existing business lot has fror:,!:?,e on. Main Road. The
.. proposed lots do not rove access ,..n an existing street, and
therefore .require t?,e'const,x;ctior; of a new street.
It may be that the existing ~'~aved ~, ,,-,; ~, c .~. ,,
the existi'ng bu]ldings. H'owever, ~f your client v.'ishc~: to
subdivide his property, a roa~ m.:-;~ oe constn~cted to
provide access to the interio.r but:'..ess iot m~d the ' ·
residential lot,
As per S~tion Ai06-33 A(2] '"' ..... .- :..
. o. d,= l own (.ode, all
s~ree~, in msjor subdivisions shah oe twcmrv-eight ('28)
feet in width. The Planning Boa)5. in its c[iscrctioa, may
reduce line road width to twcnty4<.tlr (24) '
road width, twenty-four (24) ~' ~' '
is requiring for your client's suLCi~io's ,. lhe creation of
tn~ additional business [or along ".'an'ants a iwents,-four
foot pavement width. 1t ere~.>re, the ~o:~d is not: ;..
of any R~Zher rmluction ~' -o a ....
Ol thc l.~/h,
Ia suppo~ of its =osition, resuonde,t ~-.,~- ' .... · ·
· ' ~ - · ..... otnat tmslawsmtistheresuitofa
~[or2ut. regarding the dimensionk of the access road .'
. - n ...... sp~] ~o properly ~d ~fk[y sep..'e the
subjezt subdivision": that it was the Board's of n on trot a 24 foot pax~ roan
a2uq~.,t_l~ se~e ~he a~cess needs ot the prop~ed sub~ivision, and that such judgment should not be
disturbed'by the Coua.
'., .. . . P. cspondent gives as its cason for clas':rvin= tho c,,ha;,,;.; ..... ,..-: ....
me ~:,ct amt his (netiti0n~s~ ~,,~ ...... :-..:- ' i ".~,~_ =. · .............. ~ m~ju~ .as ~ue to
A I06-33 A[2~ o~c C~.75 ,L~'~,~;~? '~2"}5~t'.'e co~[ ,,ructmn of a new street. C~t~ ts See.
the PlannirJ~ ' -~ m~t ~u minor ~rrecto m torpor sub&visions shelf be 28 feet in width but
Bo~d has discretion to reduce the * "'
. . roa~ w,c:th to 24 feet, which i.t has done in this
,-.onha, ny. petitioner obsen'es that l i ~,:et of thc fight-of-way is on an adjacent'
property owner's premises (by permission) an( =~,o,,& ~ , ·
-- . ~ ......... ,,... of thc. roadway in the other direction womd
a'lect ti~e ex/sting ...t.,,~,..rc:,.1 buildings and also ..... .., ~ ....
,, .d .... n,,, pm~ of ~ existing tree line ,~ 'adc
have {o be rcmoved: that the submission of road proti~:~.s, and a ietter of credit or its equivalent
for ,c~a..,nprovements are totally unnecessm7 reqt ire-~ enrs if no road widening is r~uired by the
Cor~rt. As to a I,u.. ahd Playground fee - S ) ~" ,; ~ · - .. · -
, . . of. 2,~0.uu, ,,1~ ~mposztKm or same Is not Wa-r~ted by
thc apvlicatioa sub,rotten. The Planning Board in ,,~ , .=-' · · .,. .
,... - . , . ~t. z.,dng ti e pet~tmner's appm'~tmn to a
,n.,lor sub<hviszon c.o ~.,zd..,ed the 17+ acre -~. Dart, to be a single lot and ~bit~ily assessed
r r .oned parcel ~uom~t~ed lo the
¢ I : ~or P~k mud Recreation purposes, l'f
Such be rhe case, no assessment in lieu of land c~tn bo :'~ade by the Pl~niqg Boazd. Moreover, there
can be uo !and required 'ior Par~ pu~ose.t on the d=,.:,:..., ,- Z, . ' , · ,
· - :... - .... , ....... ~ ct ,~ ousmess p~cel wmcn is in fact the
n,t[~r.2 ~,I dm lmtitloaer's application.
· F[O~ANN v.
h",i D ~:,. ~. NO. -'
91-28 ~67
· . The d~termmation b ' t ~e T ,,' : . ·
and cap:'iciousl¥ rendered ~d [s ~.-,~,,, ..~o~.n P,l.:m2{ a~g BoDd :s considered to have
. · ..... , ~ o~mnht~ tO lt. g S dl,ected tO ~low
Definitions from the Town Code follhw:
MINOR SUBDIViSiON z Any :;'.mdivision zon~itfin~ not more than
four (4) lots fronting on m~ existing street or not
· requirin~ the ·
extension of municfp~ ficilities, and not
adversel~ affecting the development of the remainder of the
parc~l.or adjoinipg propei-ty mnc; act in' Conflict with any
prov~mon or portmn of the'Mastc: Plan, Official Map ~r .
Zoning Ordinance, 'if such exist.:, or these regulations.
MAJOR SUBDIVISION - All st:,w;ivisions 'nOt classified a.s minor
subdivisions, including, but nqt imited to. subdivisions of
five (5) or more 1ors, or any suDdS,'ision requiring the
construction of a new stree[ or tht: extension of mumcip:d
in d',e Court's opinion, the subiect p'a_:'c-g~s fit into ;.he, oo~¢ oer~ leo catego~ of
Minor SubdMsion, not Major. ' ~' ' ~
Respondent'S argument that "due to ~: ~,ct that road cons~cfion is required, "'
,:~,phc,mon will be processed as a Major subdMsion" :;s iloaical since th~ ~.]. mis
t ...... ~ · · . :. ~ ........ j rmson given for
.n~ n.ud of road constmctmn ~s that ~t la a Major subc:v~slon; and it is a Ma~or subdivision
..... ~ ro~ co:utruction is required. %is is fatuity, c.ircuitous logic.
As petitioner points out, there is nO supFort for respondent's 2 foot widening from
22' to 24' because of the addition of one unimproved.business lot, or that ate afety ~d
well-being of the community would thereby be enhan.:,2d.
Petitioner notes that Southold Town C..:.]d '~" ' ' . · ,,
' --! gnway Spemficatmns Sec. Ai08-15.
Cons ruc mn SpecilScations" applicable to all constructed roads after December 1, 1990,
5['.9ce? the zones in which the subject ~arcels are ai ~ . . does not
t,,~ ,uw;; Hoard, ,~s thc sole: legi~lat~,~e 5; ~n~ clusm9 f~om :' '- '
.. tai~ that
requlremcnts for tht~ "B" = ,' - ~ . -, ............... ~,=~ ~ne road width
mlsmeso zone ,ma the "a ~,, ~ . ., _ .
r~-t. t~gmctdtuta[ Conserwat~on zone.
35 [AD2d Dept 1980]): ffHun~n~on, 74. ADSd 872, 426 '
. · NYSzd
I he court will only substitute ~ts ,~ dgmen~ Ibr that of the
planning, board when the bo~d h~;:; :-:bttsed its discretion or
has acre8 arbitrmSly or illegally C Anderson, New York
FRiEMANN V. SOUTH, .LD
INDE,. NO. 91-28767
Zoning Law and P,actme [2d ed.1. §15.09; ,M~;Zter oJ'Ec~,:eL?
v. Murdock, 265 N.Y. 545. 193 ~:,.E. 313: 3la,,c r of Roth
v. Ft~edman, 51 A.D.2d 728, 37,'} N Y2S.2d 78,1)
Herein, such ~bitmriness in the Plmnnh:~l Bond's decision, is found.
The petition is granted, and the determm:ztions o, respondent ~s Jncluded m ~t~
March 12~' 1991 and'October 29, 199I are .... ' ' -,; - /
petitioner the relief requested in his application to iL
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski. Jr., Chairman
iGeorge Ritchie Latham. ,Ir.
Richard G. Ward
MarkS. McDonald
Kermeth L. Edwards
Telephone {516) 765-1938
""-' -'t: L- \'~.~'~.
.-. ,~..., ~_~'~ .,'~. ~
%~, > %'.. ~¥
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Scowr L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Roa~
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Richard Cron
Cron and Cron
Main Road
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, New York 11952
February 9, 1993
RE:
Proposed Minor Subdivision
S.H. Friemann & Others
~CT~4. 1000-102-2-24
Dear Mr. Cron:
The following took place ac a meeting of the Southold
Town Planning Board at a meeting held on February 8, 1993:
It was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board
start the lead agency coordination process on this unlisted
action.
The following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, pursuant to a judgmenr entered on October 5, 1992
in the matter of Friemann v. Planning Board, the Southold
Town Planning Board was directed to process the above
application as a minor subdivision and to grant the relief
therein requested; and
WHEREAS, a decisi6n was rendered on December 13, 1990 by
· 'the Zoning Board of Appeals on the matter of S.H. Friemann and
.. others granting approval of insufficient frontage (lot width)
along the Main Road of proposed Lot ~3 and insufficient lot
depth Of proposed Lot #2, and for approval of access'according
to New York Town Law, Section 280-A Over a private rightZof way
subject to the following condition:
That the access right-of-way be maintained in good
condition to a minimum width of 18 feet (without
obstructions) for the entire length for sufficient
maneuverability by fire and emergency vehicles (pursuant to
the requirements of New York Town Law);
Be it therefore ."
$.H. Friemann and Others
February 9, 1993
Page 2
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant
Sketch approval on the map dated November 1 1990 with the
following condition: '
That the condition of the December 13, 1990 decision of th~
Zoning. Board of Appeals be noted on the final map.
Skench plan approval is conditional upon submission of
final maps within six months of the date of sketch approval, "
unless an extension of time is requested by the applicant, and
granted by the Planning Board. The final maps (5 paper prints
and nwo mylars) must connain a currenn stamp of Health
Departmenn approvai, and must be submitted before a final public
hearing will be se~. '
Please not9 that the Planning Board has referred this
zubdivlsion to the Suffolk County Planning Commission f~r' their
~eview. You will be notified should any covenants and
restrictions be required.
Please connacn .this office if you have any questions
.regarding the above.
cc:
Sanford H. Friemann
Gerard p. Goehringer,
Sincerely,
Rlchard G. Ward
Chairman
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
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 SOUTHOLD
SCOTI' L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
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.
Project Name: S. ~, ~n~ q~ C~r~
SEQ~ Classification: ( ) T~e
( ~ ) Unlisted
Contact Person:
The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental
impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of
the date of this letter, please respond an writing whether or not you
have an interest in being lead agency.
Planning 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).
Comments:
Please feel free
contact this office for further information.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Ward
Chairman
cc: ~Board of Appeals ~card of T .....
Southold Town Board
~Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services
~NYSDEC - Stony Brook NYSDEC - Albany
S.C. Dcpt. of Public Works
.......... = Cer~ cf Enginccr£
~N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation
* Maps are enclosed for your review
Coordinating agencies
~' ~14-16-2 [2/87)--7c
617.21
Appendix A
State Environmental Quality Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SEQR
Purpose: 'Th~ full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner; whether a project
or action may be ~ignificant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent-
'.ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine
significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental
analysis..In addit on, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting
the question of significance.
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination
process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action.
· Full EAF Components: The fuji EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project
data,' it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impa~ts that may occur from a project or action. It provides
guidance as to whether an impact is ·likely to be considered small to moderate or Whether it is a potentially-
large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced,
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate Whether Or not the
impact is actually important.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--TyPe I and Unlisted Actions
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: [] Part I [] Part 2 E]Part 3
Upon. review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts I and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting
information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the
lead agency that:
~i~/' A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not
have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
[] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required,
therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.*
[] C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact
on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared.
* A Conditioned Negative D~claration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Name of Action
Name o~ Lead A~ency
Title of Responsible Officer
Print or Type_.~e~f Responsible ~r in Lead Agency
L. SJgr~ture of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Signature of Preparer (if different from responsible officer)
.. ¢ PA~,I"I--PROJECTI FOR ~ON~ '
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect
on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E, Answers to these questions will be considere~
as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any a~idition,'L
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3, '
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not invol~/e
new studies, research or investigation If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so ndicate and specify
each instance, '
NAME OF ACTION
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County)
NAME OF AP LICANT/SPONSOR
CITY/PO
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
STATE ZIP CODE
NAME OF OWNER (If dilferent)
ADDRESS
CiTY/PO
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
( )
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
STATE ZIP CODE
Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. Site Description
Physical setting of overal project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: i-lUrban Fllnd ustrial
[-IForest ,[~Agric ult ure
2. Total acreage of project area: /~'-S"c~' acres,
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres
Forested
acres
Agricultural {Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) /('~' acres
Wetland (Frqshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECL) acres
Water Surface Area
acres
Unvegetated (Rock. earth or fill) acres
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces //-~'"'~. acres
Other {Indicate type) ~---;D,4,,~4-'?,~:;4;~L ~ acres
3. What is predominant soil type(s} on project site?
a. Soil drainage: ~'Well drained J~'l'.,) % of s~te
r-lPoorly drained % of site
;l~"Commercial
C]Other
E]Residential (suburban} I-1Rural (non-farm)
AFTER COMPLETION
acres
acres
acres
acres'
acres
acres
-- acres
acres
F3Moderately well drained .
% of site
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYE
Land Classification System,~ /c~,_~ acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). '
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? I-lYes
a. What is depth to bedrock? {in feet)
$~.Appr°ximate' . percentage of proC~ -J prop~, site with slopes: 10% '~ ~110~15%
, ~ ~]15% or greater %
6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or co~o~tain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National
-' Registers of Historic Places? f-Wes ,J~No
~" Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? I~Yes
8. What is the depth of the water table? c~-o (in feet)
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? r-lyes .,[~o
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the proiect area? -I-lYes
11. Doe~' project site contain any species of plant 'or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?
I-lYes '~o According to
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations)
[]Yes .,~o Describe
- 13. Is the project sit~ p/resently used :by the ~:ommunity or fleighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
r-lYes I~[qo If yes, explain
14. Does the present, sit/~include scenic views known to be important to the community?
[]:]Yes ,,~No
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
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 ,,~'/d'),,,-//~ b. Size (In acres)
17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ..~es [~No
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity e~(ist to allow connection? ~es I-INo
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? I-iYes
18. Is the site located in ana~ricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA,
Section 303 and 304? 'b~"Yes I-INo
19: Is the site located in or substanf:ialJy contiguous to a
of the FCL~ and 6 NYCRR 6177 OYes '~o Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes /~o
B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor /~' ,-~ acres.
b. Project acreage to be developed: (~ acres initially; ,~//5/ acres ultimately.
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units:
One Family Two Family
Initially
UItimately/~/~
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure ~//~' height;.
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is?
Project acreage to remain undeveloped /~-.3"'.~, ~ acres.
Length of project, in miles: ~f,,,,//~L (If appropriate)
If t~e project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed . /L///~t %;
; proposed
(upon completion of project)?
Multiple Family
Condominium
width;
/ ~:~'- ft.
length.
3
2. How much natural materi. ., rock? earth, etc.) will be removed fr ~e sit . ~)
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? OYes I-INo ~'~A
a. If yes, for What intendeC purpose is the site. being reclaimed?
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? i-lYes ONo
· c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for rec amation~ OYes ONo
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? C~ acres.
.5. Will any .~rest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this p~oject?
mature ·
.. OYes .J~No
·
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction ~ months, (including demolition).
7. If multi-phased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated (number).
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1
c. Approximate completion date of final phase
d. Is phase I functionally dependent on.subsequent ph~ses.~
& Will blasting occur during constr~ction? .. OYes ~o
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this proiect
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?
month
month
OYes
tons/cubic yar.ds.
year, (including demolition).
year.
; after project is complete
If yes, explain
0-1Yes ,~o
12. Is surface liquid Waste disposal involved? [:]Yes ~o
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? I-lyes ,~o Type
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal?
Explain
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? I~Yes
I-lyes ~'o'
16. Will the project generate solid waste? [=]Yes )~
a. If yes, what is?he amoun~ per month tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? F-lyes I-INo
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
[:]Yes I-1No
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? OYes ~o
~. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? . tons/month.
-' b. If yes, what i~ the anticipated site life? . years.
18. Will project use herb c des or pesticides? ['-lYes ,~o
19. Will project routinely produce odors {more than one hour per day)? I-lYes
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local .ambient noise evels?
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~"lYes ~
If yes , indicate type{s)
OYes
22. If Water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity /LJ//~'q gallons/minute.
23, Total anticipated water usage per day AJ/f~ gallons/day.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding.;' ["]Yes
If Yes, explain
4
. . "25. Approvals Required:
.. City, Town, Village Board OYes ~"~o..
~' City, Town, Village Planning Board ~]'~es C]No
City, T(Swn'Zon!ng Board I-lYes ,~'No
City, County Health Department ~]/Yes ~lNo
Other Local Agencies I-lyes ,~o
Other'Regional Agencies I-lYes ,l~No
State Agencies 0-lYes ~No
Federal Agencies E]Yes ~No
C. Zoning and Planning Information
~ Submittal
ype Date
1. Does propo~d action involve a planning or zoning decision.~ ~'~es I']No
If Yes, indicate decision required:
Dzoning amendment E]zoning variance I-Ispecial use permit ,~subdivision [:]site plan
I'-Inew/revision of master plan I-lresource management plan Oother
2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site~ ,
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning~
C
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site?
5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoninE?
6. Is the proposed action consistent ~,ith the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~es r-INo
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zonin8 cla_ssifications within a ¼ mile radius of proposed action?
/
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile? .~'es I'-INo
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many Iot~ are proposed?
· a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? /~.~-~" ~: ~'O~"
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? I-lYes ,~o
11. Will the proposed action creat,~ demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police,
f re protection)? ~lyes ~No
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? f-Wes I~No
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? E]Yes
.. a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? l-lYes i-INo
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.
E. Verification'
I certify that the/jnformati~,~ provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. -- '
Ap,lican, ponso, ',me Il: °ate
Iwiitlhhet~;:i:s~::simn;~. Coastal Area, and you are a state agency complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proeeedin,
5
Part ~)'~RO,:,~ ;T IMPACTS AND THEO'IAG 'UDE
· ' Responsibility of Lead Agency
General Information (R'ead Carefully)
· .e In completing the form the reviewer should be guided ~y the question: Have my responses and determinations been
reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
· Identifying that an impact will be potentially targe (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant.
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance· Identifying an impact in column 2 simply
asks that it be looked at further.
· The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
· The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question·
· The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. .
· In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and 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 answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the
impa.ct. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold
is lower than example, check column 1.
d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.
e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by changers) in the project to a small to moderate
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This
must be explained in Part 3.
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will the proposed, action result in a physical change to the proiect site?
~O E]YES
Examples that would apply to cbJumn 2
· Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100
foot of length}, or where the general slopes in the project area exceed
10%.
· Construction on land where the depth tO the water table is less than
3 feet.
· Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.
· Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within
3 feet oi: existing ground surface.
· Construction that will continue for more than I year or involve more
than one phase of stage.
· Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per '/ear..
· Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.
· Construction in a designated floodway.
· Other impacts
2. Will there be an effect t~...,y"urhque or unusual land f~l:ns found on
the site? (i,e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.J~NO I'-IyEs
· Specific land forms:
I 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Re
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] f-lyes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
L-~ [] []Yes []NO
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] EgYes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes J-]No
[] [] []Yes E]No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes E]No
IMPACT ON WATER
· 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)
.~"~ O [qYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Developable area of site contains a protected water body.
· Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a
protected stream.
· Extension of utility distribution facilities through a prote~:ted water body.
· Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
· Other impacts:
4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing 9r new body
of water;'
· ' ~]NO E]YES
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 erea.
· Other impacts:
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater
quality or quantity? .I~NC~
~YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.
· Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not
have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
· Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity.
· Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water
supply system.
, Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.
· Liquid effluent will be conve,,.ed off the site to facilities which presently
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
· Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per
day.
· Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the exte;~,t that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to naturai conditions.
· f~roposqd Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater.than 1,100 gallons.
· Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water
and/or sewer services.
· Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage
facilities.
· Other impacts:
~_ 6. Will proposed action alter flow
drainage
or
pa t te~,.or
surface
- water runoff? ,,U[rl N O F'IyES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action would change flood water flows.
7
~ 1%- 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] r-lyes []No
[] E] []Yes [-1No
[] [] I--lYes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Ye~ []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes [-]No
[] [] []Yes I-]No
[] [] []Yes I-]No
[] [] []Yes [=]No
[] [] []Yes [-]No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
O
' Proposed Action may ca~se substantial erosion
· Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
· Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will proposed action affect air quality? [~O I--lyES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given
hour.
· Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of.
refuse per hour.
· Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed $ lbs Der hour or a
heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
· Proposed action will ah~bw an increase in the amount of land COmmitted
to industrial use.
· Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial
development within existing industrial areas.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species~ ~'NO E3YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Reduction of one or more species lister on the New York or Federal
list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site·
' Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.
· Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other
than for agricultural purposes.
' Other impacts:
Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threaten~ or
non-endangered species~
Examples that would apply to column 2 ,,,~NO E]¥ES
Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or
migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres
of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important
vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resot ces~
Examples that would apply to column. 2 ~C~ [E]¥ES
[he proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural
,and {inc udes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc. J
SmallO
Moderate
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
~'~Yes [-'?Noc (
[~Yes F-INo
[~Yes [No
I--lYes [--INo
[~Yes r-]No
E]Yes I--~No
ElVes
~Y. es L-]No
[]Yes I--INo
,(
[:3Yes ~No
E~Yes
~]Yes [~No
(:]Yes E]No
[:/Yes [:]No
[:]Yes [::]No ~'~
1 2 3
Small to PotentJa, Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact ImPact Project Change
[] [] r-lYes I']No
[] [] l-lyes l--lNo
[] [] []Yes [~]'No
[] [] [~]Yes '[]No
[] [] []Yes [-]No
[] [] [-]Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes J-]No
[] [] []Yes [~]No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes [~]No
[] [] []Yes' [~No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] [~]Yes I-qNo
[] [] []Yes []No
· Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of
agricultural land.
· The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres
of ag.ricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more
than' 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
· The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural
land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches,
strip cropping]; or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11. Will proposed act[on affect aesthetic resources? ~O ~]YES
(If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21,
Appendix B.)
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from
or in sharp contrast to current surroUndin8 land use patterns, whether
man-made or natural.
· Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their
enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities'of that resource.
· Project components that will result in the elimination or significant
screening 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 pre-
c f~bfstoric,
historic or paleontological importance? ~3NO [:]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action occurring who y or partially within or substantially
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register
of historic places.
· Any.impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the
project site.
· P~oposed Action wi occur in an area designated as sensitive for
archaeological siies on the NYS Site Inventory.
· Other impacts:_.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportun ties?
Examples that would apply'to column 2 ~NO ~IYES
' The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
· A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
· Other impacts:
9
IMPACT ON TRANI RTATION
1,~. Will thi~re be an effect to existing transportation
· s stems?
E~amples that would apply to column 2 ~[~O "[]YES
· Alteration of present patterns of mOVement of people and/or goods.
· Proposed Action will' result in major traffic prob ems.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect the community's sou,~s of fuel or
energy supply? ,,lf3 NO [:]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
' Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of
any form of energy in the municipality.
· Proposed Action will require the creation or extensibn of an energy"
transmission or supply system to serve more than .50 sing'l'e or two family
residences or to serve a major Commercial or industrial use.
· Other impacts:
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration/as a result
of the Proposed Action?
Examples that would apply to column 2 J~NO C1YES
· Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive
facility.
· Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
· Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
· Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise screen.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
7. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety._~'
Examples that would apply to column 2 /,~NO DYES
Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of
accident o?' upset conditiQns, or there may be a chronic Iow level
discharge or emission.
Proposed Action may result in the burial (~f "hazardous wastes" in any
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc.)
Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of Jiquified natural
gas or other flammable liqui'ds.
Proposed action may resuJt in the excavation or other disturbance
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous
waste.
Other impacts:
10
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potentia
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
L-lYes ['-]No
[~}Yes
~]Yes ~]No
{~Yes J-~No
~]Yes
~Yes' ~]No
[~]Yes {~No
[:]Yes [:]No
~]Yes [~]No
[:]Yes [~No
[:]Yes ~]No
~]Yes {~]No
~]Yes ~No
{-1Yes {~]No
~Yes [~N0
[~Yes [~]No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existi,~,.R~community~
~NO ~y~
Examples that would apply to column 2
' · The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the
project is located is likely to grow by more than
· The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services
will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project.
· Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.
· Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use.
· Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures
or areas of historic importance to the community.
· Development will create a demand for additional community services
(e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
· ~roposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects.
· Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.
· Other impacts:
-"~-'~ 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated BY
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] E]Yes I-3No
[] [] [:]Yes ['-]No
[] [] I--lYes []'No.
[] [] [:]Yes I~No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] I~Yes i']No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] I']Yes E]No
[] [] []Yes []No
19 Is there, or is there likely to be, public controvers~M/related to
- potential adverse environmental impacts? ,,,~NO []YES
If Any Action in P.art 2 IS Identified as a Potential Large Impact or
If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3
_(_
Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
Responsibility of Lead Agency
Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be polentially large, even if the impact(s) may be
mitigated.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2:
1. Briefly describe the impact.
2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s).
3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer th'e question of importance, consider:
· The probability of the impact occurring
· The duration of the impact
· Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value
· Whether the impact can or will be controlled
· The regional consequence of the impact
· Its potential divergence from local needs and goals
· Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact.
(Continue on attachments)
11
.SENDER:
SUBJECT:
SCTM$:
COMMENTS:
SUBMISSION WITHOU_T COVER LETTER
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 SOUTHOLD
SCOTF L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
Fax (5 6) 765-1823
Richard Cron
Cron and Cron
Main Road
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, New York. 11952
February 9~ 1993
RE:
Proposed Minor Subdivision
S.H. Friemann & Others
SCTM9 1000-102-2-24
Dear Mr. Cron:
The following took place at a meeting of the Southold
Town Planning Board at a meeting held on February 8, 1993:
It was REsoLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board
start the lead agency coordination process on this unlisted
action.
The following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, pursuant to a judgment entered on October 5,
in the matter of Friemann v. Planning Board, the Southold
Town Planning Board was directed to process the above
application as a minor subdivision and to grant the relief
therein requested; and
1992
WHEREAS, a decision was rendered on December 13, 1990 by
the Zoning Board of Appeals on the matter of S.H. Friemann and
others granting approval of insufficient frontage (lot width)
along the Main Road of proposed Lot 93 and insufficient lot
depth of proposed Lot #2, and for approval of access according
to New York Town Law, Section 280-A over a private right-of way
subject to the following condition:
That the access right-of-way be maintained in good
condition to a minimum width of 18 feet {without
obstructions) for the entire length for sufficient
maneuverability by fire and emergency vehicles (pursuant to
the requirements of New York Town Law);
Be it therefore
S.H. Friemann and Others
February 9, 1993
Page 2
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant
sketch approval on the map dated November t, 1990 with the
~ollowing condition:
That the ·condition of the December 13, 1990 decision of the
Zoning Board of Appeals be noted on the final map.
Sketch plan approval is conditional upon Submission of
final maps within six months of the date of sketch approval,
unless an extension of time is requested by the applicant, and
granted by the Planning Board. The final maps (5 paper prints
and two mylars) must·contain a current stamp of Health
Department approval, and must be submitted before a final public
hearing will be set.
Please note that the Planning Board has referred this
~ubdivision to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for their
~eview. You will be notified should any.covenants and
restrictions be required.
Please contact this office if you have any questions
regarding the above.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Ward
Chairman
cc: Sanford H. Friemann
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
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 SOUTHOLD
SCOTF L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O, Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Mathew Martin, Secretary
Cutchogue Fire District
New Suffolk Lane
Cutchogue, New York 11935
Dear Mr. Martin:
Enclosed please find (2) surveys
/4.
Please notify this office as to whether any fire ~ells are
needed. Please specify whether shallow wells or electric wells
will be needed.
Please reply by ~~ ~ 3-
cooperation.
,1993. Thank you for your
Chairman
enc.
PLANN1NG BOARD MEMBERS
Bengett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCO'IT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
South~ll. New York I 1971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Suffolk County Planning Commision
H. Lee Dennison Executive Office Building - 12th Floor
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, New York 11788
Attention:
Gentlemen:
Mr. Frank Dowling, Senior Planner
Subdivision Review Division
Pursuant to Section A14-24, Suffolk County Administrative Code, the
Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the following proposed
subdivision to the Suffolk County Planning Commission:
Map of -
S.C.D.P.W. Topo No.:
S.C. Tax Map No.:
Major Sub.
Minor Sub.
Hamlet/Locality
Zoning A~¢¢~l~r~l
Site Plan Cluster
MATERIAL SUBMITTED:
~ Plat (3 copies),/\ Road Profiles
Drainage Plans (1) Topogroaphical Map (1)
Site Plan (1) Grading Plan (1)
(1)
Other mater.ials (specify and give number of copies)
Waiver of Subdivision Requirements - See attached sheet
CONTINUED
REFERRAL CRITERIA:
SEQRA STATUS:
1. The project is an ~ (Type I) (Type II)Action.
2. A (Negative Declaration) (Positive Declaration)
(Determ. of Non-Significance) has been adopted by
the Planning Board.
3. E.I.S. statement enclosed. (Yes) ~
4. The proposed division has receded approval from the
S.C. Dept of Health. (Yes) ~
Comments:
We request acknowledgement of
receipt of this referral ~ (No)
Referral received 19
by suffolk County Planning Commiss~n
and assigned File NO.
Very truly yours,
Richard G'. Ward
Chairman
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Charles Grigonis, Jr.
' Serge Doyen, Jr.
James l~nizio, Jr.
Telephone (516) 765-1809
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
Appl. No.'3987
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEAr.~
Upon Application of S.H. FRIEMANN & OTHERS. Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Sections 100-102 (Bulk
Schedule) for approval of insufficient frontage (lot width)' {as
excists} along the Main Road of proposed Lot ~3 and for approval
of insufficient lot depth of proposed Lot #2, in this pending
minor subdivision, and for approval of access according to New
York Town Law, Section 280-A over a private right-of-way. Zone
Districts: B'General Business and Agricultural Conservation.
LOcation of Property: North Side of Main Road, Cutchogue, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-102-2-24. Total area: 19.596
acres.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 29, 1990,
and all those 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, Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The portion of the subject premises which is under
jurisdiction in this variance application consists of
approximately 82,880 sq. ft. and is located in the "B" General
Business Zone District. The remaining 17.693 acres is located
in the "A-C" Agricultural-Conservation Zone District.
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3987
Matter of S.H. Friemann & others
Decision Rendered December 13, 1990
The area of land under consideration in this variance has a
frontage of 132.0 feet along the north side of State Route 25
(a/k/a Main Road) in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold.
The width of the remaining (rear) section {referred to as Lot
#1} is 683.44 feet Cinclusive of easements}.
2. The subject premises as exists:
(a) contains a total combined lot area of 19.596
acres;
(b) are improved with structures as more particularly
shown on the plan prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated
November 1, 1990.
3. Article X, Section 100-102, (Bulk Schedule) of th~
zoning code regulations (as amended January 9, 1989) requires a
minimum lot depth of 150 feet and minimum width of 150 feet per
lot.
4. The relief sought by this application are variances for
approval of:
(a) proposed southerly lot referred to herein as Lot
#3 with a lot width (frontage) of 132.00 feet, inclusive of
easements or right-of-way (or 117+- feet exclusive);
(b) proposed center lot referred to herein as Lot #2
with a total lot area of 40,192 sq. ft., inclusive of right-
of-way or easements; ,
(c) access to Lot #2 and Lot #1, over a 22 ft. wide
right-of-way, half of which is shown to be located upon premises
of the applicant and the other half upon premises.of S & E
Realty Co. {parcel to the east referred to as 1000-097-5-012}.
5. For the record, it is noted that the condition of the
right-of-way is excellent without the necessity for further
improvements at this time, except, however, that the entire
access road must be maintained at a minimum width of 18 feet
(without obstruction) for sufficient maneuvering and access by
emergency (fire) vehicles.
6. In considering this application, the Board also finds
and determines: (a) the relief as granted is substantial in
relation to the requirements; (b) the evidence submitted and
practical difficulties claimed are sufficient to warrant a
Page 3 ~ Appl. No. 3987
Matter of S.H. Friemann & others
Decision Rendered December 13, 1990
grant of this variance; (c) there Will be no substantial
change in the character of the neighborhood, and a precedent
would not be set since the shape and character of this land has
existed since before the enactment of zoning in 1957; (d) the
difficulties cannot be obviated by some method feasible to the
appellant to.pursue, other than a variance; (e) that in view
of the manner in which the difficulties arose, and in Con-
sidering all the above factors, the interests of justice will be
served by granting the variance, as conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by
Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief as requested (and noted in
paragraph #4, supra), in the Matter of the Application of H & S
ASSOCIATES (S.H. FRIEMAN & OTHERS) under Appl. No. 3987, S0BJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That the access right-of-way be maintained in good
condition to a minimum width of 18 feet (without obstructions)
for the entire length 'for sufficient manueverability by fire and
emergency vehicles (pursuant to the requirements of New York
Town Law).
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Grigonis and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted.
lk
At a Trial Term, Part 22, of the
Supreme Court of the State of New
Yo~k, held in and for the County of
Suffolk, at Riverhead, New York, on
th~. ~i-~_ day of September, 1992.
PRESENT: Hon. George F. X. McIn2rney, Justice
................ ih__X
'In the Matter of the Application of
SANFORD H. FRIEMANN and others,
Petitioner,
For a Judgment under Article 78 ~.f the
Civil Practice Law and Rules Invalidating
the Decisions of the Planning Bo~d of the
Town of Southo!d rendered March ]2, 1991
and October 29, 1991,
- agains~
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN O~
SOUTHOLD, AND iTS MEMBERS, BENNETT
ORLOWSKI, JR., Chairman, GEORGE ?iTCHIE
LATHAM, JR., RICHARD G. WARD, MARY S.
McDbNALO and KENNETH L. EDWARDS,
JUDGMENT
In~ex No. 91-28767
c,-t ~ ER_D.
AT:/.'
Planning
direcning
.application
A-106-13 of
Town Code,
An application having been.made, pursuant to CPLR Armicle
78, ~o annul and vacame the letter decisions of the Southoid Town
Board daaed March 12, 3991 and October 29, 1991, and
said Planning Boar~ co process the petitioner's
as a sem--off of a ~ingle lot pursuant to Section
the Subdivision of ~ and Regulations of the Southold
or in the alteun-~ ~ive, as at minor subdivision
of two lots in zhe "f~' General Business District, and
consisting
sa id application havinc been re...,~[=r.y neara by the Court~ upon
reading and fili.ng the Notl< r o~ ·Petition herein, dated
December 5, 1991, and ~.b.. anne:<ec :)etition of Sanford B. Friemann
and others, verified the 5th day of December, 1991, With due
proof of service, and the ianswa~L., verified June 25, 1992, and the
affirmation of Harvey A. Arncf:f, Esq., affirmed June 25, 1992,
and the affidavit of Bennett Orlowski, Jr. sworn to June 25,
1992, both in opposition theraao, and the affidavit in reply of
Sanford' H. Friemann, sworn to July 7, 1992, in support of the
petition, and due deliberation having been had~ and reading and
filing the memorandum decision herein dated August 19, 1992, now
upon motion of Cron and Cron, Esqs., it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the
same hereby is granted; and it is further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND D~:CREED that the
~espondent, Pianning Board of the Town of Southold,
in its letter determinations cf March 12, 1991 and
1'991, are annulled and vacated: and it is further
petition be and the
determinations of
as included
October 29,
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Respondent, Planning
Board of the Town of Sou thc.!d, is directed to process the
Petitioner's application as a ~inor subdivision and to grant the
re]i~f therein requested.
.... J.S.C.
.... £z,,.-,,z FILED
OCT 5 19<)2
ED?t/b~D p. P4)MA~E
CLERK OF SUPFOLK CO[/l~
NOTIFIED
~ P '.. ~:E CO,.. ,*. ?, SUFFOLK COUNTY
!lie ,.Matter et' the Application of.
TIUAL TERM
PART 22
SANF'ORD H. FRIEMANN and cth,,,s
Petitioner,
For a Judgment: under Article 78 of thc
(. 'tvil Practice Law ,?.a~d Rules lnv~didati ,: g
tile. Decisions of' the Planning Board of the
Tev.,n of Southolcl rendered Much 12. 199 i
and (,kmber 29, 1991,
,is. MclNERNtEY. J.S.C.
DA'FaD:
THE PLANNING .BOARD OF THE '['OWN
OF SOUTHOLD, AND !TS MEMBERS.
BENNETT ORLOWSKL .IR., Chairm an.
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR..
'RICHARD G. WARD, MARK S. McDONALD
and KENNETH L. EDWARDS,
INDEX N().: 91-28767
MG CASEDISP
Respondents.
CRON & CRON, F~gQS.
Airorneys for Petitioner
blaitt Road; P.O. Box 953
C0tchogue, NY !i935
~AP, VEY A. ARN OFF, ESQ.
Attorney for Respondents
F.O. Box 1179
,53095 Main Road
Southold, NY I1971
Bv this Article 78 proceeding, petition., asks for judgment vacating and annulling
the e~ter dec s:ong of the Southold Town Planning Bc.~,.rd dated March 12. 1991 ~d October 29, 1971,
-, -. uc,.era ~usme~s D~s~nc~ pursuam ,o S~.~:,~on A-106-13 of the Subdivision of L~r,d
,~OU[ ~Olu .OVeB C. odu, or hl" " · :
· me m;e:'~:a&vc, as a minor subdNision cons/sting
two k=) lots m the -
. General Business D~stnzt ,,vlth "-~ '
,.,c~t~on 280A Towil Law approved access over a
,~; j~r.}~. ~pve2, ngnt o~-~ya~ pr street and that sam PIa::nm8 Board be fu~her dir~t~ to
· ~o*u uppllCa[lOll aS one laVOt','i;l~ tWO rob ~to ~..~1 :; ~ l .., L? ' , , , .
. ,= ~..j a~p,~.~t .......,* .*~at. nCt ,,dOOlVJO~l p~cels oy vI~ue
by Town of Souihold ' ', · '
zom. n~ appli~?on the " "A-C"
tree a "B' Geueral Buslnesq p~cel
AgrtcL[tura[ conservation parcel.
The subkct property of which · ~.~; ,,. ·
p..,t..x,., Fri:*mann, is a co-owner, comprises 19.5
acres, of which the northerly iot is 17.~-~-;- acre,s, zo,:,. :, A-,~. Agricultural Conservation "~
a .... also z single lot zoned "B" Business.
F'RIEMANN V S 91w~.?-~ ~'~
INDEX .[4Z 91-28767
.. The !,'rods are located on Main Road J:~.ou e 25), Cutchogue, New York.
In Septerrber i990 .-~,.:,.:- . ,, '; '
, , ~r~r~u~cr ~Otl
(respondent harem) as to a proposed subdivision o~2t? ~dvme of thc Town Planmng Bo~d
,..,:~. ousmess zoned p~cel into two. A
commercial building was alrmdy situated thereon, fi-<;ting on Route 25.
The Bo~d,s advice was that the Tow,: 7oaina Bo~d of Ap~s would have to grant
variances since neither of' the proposed subd v de( parcels wotfid meet corian frontage, width and
depth requirements of the. Southold Town Zoning Code. Pardoner was further advised to file for a
minor subdivision and submit maps 'ad, ich would 'r c, de tl~e "A-C'
: ..... , , , ' '
,,vhJch a percmfial nurse~ ope~tion ~ ~.vm.tuctee, uut ,vmch would be unaffected by t ~e si b~ ivJs~on.
Thc lll~.j~s were r~ r ,' ,'.~ ~
:r, ir~or ~4ub(~iv~s[()~). ,.Id.an..(, tO me Plan,u ,, Board and a fee of $2,5~.00 paid (for ~
Subsequent[y, folJowingr ;~, · - . ·
app,.catio,~ to ,he 2;orang Board of AppmTls, ~he ,¢tt..,, on
December 13, 1990 granted the variances and, as ha~ zddit onaHv been requested, approved
[,it. 22 mot oavcd right-of-way running m a ao~,.: fly (hi'act on from Main Street to thd
· 7kgfic~ltural Conservation parcel.
Amona the Zoning Board 0f Appea['s .indings was: "For the r~ord, k is hotel that
the condition r ~ - .,~
o..h. right-of-way is excel!ertL wiflzoul ~h.. necessky for fu~her improvements at
this time. except, however, that the entire access road must be m~ntaned at a minimum o{ !.8
a.,; ~ -,, viistrucdon) for sufficient maneuvering aad ~:.:,:ess by emergency (fire) '. "
. vehK.!es.
On re-approach to thc Pi~ning ., -~
Bo~d. ,:, by Mter ~atM March 12, 199 i, indicated
t' at before it would t~e any action, maps had to be s~,bmitted showing a 30 f~t (wide)
r,gn,-or-wav from Main Street (Rte. 25) to the Agficui;ural Consolation District,· and thc pavement
,}~o& within the right-of-way should be 24 feet. The reason given for the additional road width
was "Io meet the existing and Futura access needs of thc entire subdivision".
Required ·also were "road srofiles' in ~'..:cordance with the fight-of-way wi~eni[ g; a
bond estimate for road improvements; aha a "Park ~.5 Playground f~ of $2,~.0~ dolI~s for the
residential lot." There then followed the statement ";'~ addition, due to the fact that road
coastructioa Js requh'ed, this application will be proc~,}?d aS a major subdivision.'
Os September 30 199i. ,.p~l.c,.,uo, w::; made by ~tifioner to the Plant, lng Board
revmw ~ts March 14n decisiou, but the Board, by - '
- let~,, of October I9, I991, reiterated its
previous determination, setting forth, in par:
The Planning Board n,.> d,,.~sltt,., t,ls a~bdivision as a
majvr suudn,~mn due to tile !'act !'.}at the proposal· reqmres
, ~c coos,ruer on of., new an:et. '. majo~- subdivision is
defined in the To',vn Cod;~ a~;" subdiv.islons of five (5)
.(
91-28767
or more lots, or any subdivision :'.squiring the const,'uction
of a new street or the extension ~:' munioipal facilities."
The existing business lot ha~ fromafie on Main I¢oad. Tile
proposed lots do not have access ,.:n an existing street, and
therefore .require thc constr-,;ctior: -5£ 'a new street.
It may be that the existing pav¢:.i a-ca is sufficient for
the existifig buildi,gs. However, if your client wishes to
subdivide his property, a road rn:?', be constructed to
provide access to the interior busS.ess io~ and the interior
residential lot.
As per S~tion A106-33 A(2) 05 tl~e Town Code, all minor
streets in m~ior sut-~divisions shak ,be twenty-eight (28)
feet in width. Th?: Planning BoaJ;cL in its discretion, may
reduce lhe road width to twenty.A.m- (24) !:eel. It is this
road width, twenty-fonr (24) feet. that [}:e P1,'mning Board
is requiring for your client's subdivisio,~. The creation of
the additional business lot along '.vain:ants a twenty-four
foot pavement width. Theregle, the Board is no'~ in favor
of any further r~luction of the road specifications,
In support of its position, re'soonde~,t- ~ ~,," .... ~?~ that "this lawsuit is the result of a
¢ispute regarding the dimensions of tile acce'is road n::,:~sm',.ry to properly and safely serve the
subj_.., subdivision"; that it ,.vas the Board's opinion t: at a ~.4 foot paved road is required to
adequately se~e the access needs of the proposed ,, ,{:v' '
. s,,b.., leon, and that such iudgment should not be
disturbed by the Coua. " '
Respondent gives as its reason for Clas:.:Lrying the subdivision as "major" as due to
thg fact that his-- .(petitioner's~~ ,- -°formosa! reoulres '- -.' ' - , ·
ti e co, ,,ruction of a new street. C~tm ~s Sec,
A i06-33 A(2) of t/lo Code that all minor'*'strccts irt m,.' :"~,,, subd~' "",mens' shall be 28 feet ir, width but
the. Planning Boa.rd has discretion, r.o redu,.e'- the road v'~'~jid,h to 24 feet which it has done in this
,_.ear, amy, petitioner obsen'es '-
t',,at 11 :,:et of the right-of-way is on an adjacent
provue.[fy owner's premises (by permission) and e,,:o-.O,- ~', ·
.... ~,..,,... o, the:. roadway in the other direction would
affect tile e:'.isti~,g" -,':, '., ' ;: .-- . ·
,...r.m..rc,,l building., and also a..su;i.,::mmfi pm"t of ~ existing t,e,.~
have to ~2e removed: that the submission of road proti!:os, and a letter of credit or ~ts' eqmvm¢.nt' ' '
for road improvements are totally unnecessary requirements if no road widening is required by the
~ourt. As to a Park and Playground fee of $2,0(10.00: the imposition of same is not warranted by
the application sub,torte2. The Planning Board '.n cony.erring the petitioner's application to a
major subdivision considered the 174- acre "A-C' ""
oar:..: to be a single lot aJld arbit,"ari!y assessed
the $27230,00 Park fee, There is no subdivision ell: :t~ ".A-C' zoned parcel submitted to the
Planning Board. ai}d "' land could be comoeil.~:o .~'lerem '
taus, nc " ' for Park and Recreatmn purposes. If
s,ch be the case, no esso(sine ~t in lieu of land c? nb,- ',ad~- by tie Pl."mnl ,~' 'ae,=~-a
can De t o land reqmred ior Park Dumos,-s on ~ e d:,';~'i '.,~ cf .. '.-..-:- . ,
I" '"-'- - ' , =. : ~ ..... e,., ..... v. ,~ uu~meSs parcel Wlllell IS ii1 IaC~ the
~,- ,. ~ ,ne pct~tio,lur s apphcatK il.
INDEX NO, 91-28767
. . .he deterrnmatton by ', ·
tile Town PIa'ln:!!g Board :¢ '
and capriciously rendered, ~d is hereby vacated. ', ~.. co :s~aerca to have been s~rbitrafily
petitioner's appli~tion, as submitt~ ro it: ~, e Planing Board is directed to ~Iow
Definitions from the Town Cocie foil,m,:
BilNOR SUBDIVISION< Any :;ilbdivision con~ininz not more than
four.{~) lots fkonting on m~ existing street or not -
.mqumng the extension of municip~ ikcilities, and ~}ot
adversely aflkcting the developr?nt of the remainder of the
parcel or adjoining property a~c, ot in conflict w/th any
. provision or portion of the Master Plan, Official Map or
' Zoning Ordinance; if such exist::. :~r these regulations.
MAJOR SUBDIVISION - All a:,.~divisions not classified as minor
subdivisions, including, bur not !~fited to, subdivisions of
five (5) or more lots, or any sub~i{vision requiting the --
.' construction of a new street or th~' extension of municip~
· ' fadlities,
in the CouWs opinion," ~ ' '
Minor Subdivision, not Major. rne o[ ~lecr paine,s fit into the above defined categow of
Respondcnt's argument that "due t0 ~e iact that road cons~cfion is r- '-
application will be processed as a Major · . . , ..... equl~ed, ~bis
, subdmsm ~ :,s idogmal since the only r~son ziven for
the need of road construction is that it is a Major subdivision; nd ~t ~s a Major suvdivis~on
vecaus~ road co ~tructlon is required. ~is is faulty, circuitous logic.
As petitioner points out, there is no support for respondent's 2 foot widening from
2'2' to 24' because of the addition of one unimproved business lot, or that fl~e afety ~d
well-being of the community would thereby be enhanced.
Petitioner notes that Southold Town Cz,4e H~ghway Spec~ficatlons Sec. Ai08-15.
C. onstruct~on Specifications" applicable to all constructed roads after December 1, 1990, does not
e.[~ ?~y ~one[ m wgmh the subject parces are loc::;~ drawin~ ,h~ ~..o~ ¢;.~ ', .. · .
. ~,Ja, o, ,.~ tile sole !eg~s~atl~e authority, ek.z:ea no~ to include the road tni, that
' ' '~ ' "B" ~ A-,. Agricultural Conservation zone,
~e.l., ~ments I~gr the Business zone ~mcl the ' ~ .... w.'d[n
From C'znier ~ ~lanmng Eoa~ff of lb? ~';~ wn ~ Himart~o~h 74 AD2d
35 [AD2d Dept 1980]):
NYS~d
The court will only substitute its ,~ dgmen~ for that of the
p/arming, board when the board hi;,; :-:bused its discretion or
has acted arbitrar/ly or ~llegm~v '
, .. (, Anderson, New York
F?,iE/vl'ANN V. SOUTE": :LD
INDEX NO. 91-28767
Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed..~: §15,09; Matter of Eckels
v. Murdock, 265 N.Y. 5~5. 193 )',.E. 313: Matter of Roth
v. Ftledman, 51 A,D,2d 728, 37:i N.Y,S..~d 784).
Herein, such arbitrariness in the Ptanni~.:o. Board's decision, ia £ound.
The petition is granted, and tile determip~:tions of respondent as included in its
l~tLe, sot Ma~ch 121' 1991 and'October 29, 1991, are ;,;Tmiied and vatted. Respondent sha/[ accord
to petitioner the relief requested in his application to i~.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
iGcorge Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark.S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCOTI' L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. Sew York 1971
Fax 1516) 765-1823
Richard Cron
Cron and Cron
Main Road
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, New York
11952
February 9, 1993
RE:
Proposed Minor Subdivision
$.H. Friemann & Others
SCTM~ 1000-102-2-24
Dear Mr. Cron:
The following took place at a meeting of the Southcld
Town Planning Board at a meeting held on February 8, 1993:
It was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board
start the lead agency coordination process on this unlisted
action.
The following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, pursuant to a judgment entered on October 5, 1992
in the matter of Friemann v. Planning Board, the Southold
Town Planning Board was directed to process the above
application as a minor subdivision and to grant the relief
therein requested; and
WHEREAS, a decision was rendered on December 13, 1990 by
· the Zoning Board of Appeals on the matter of S.H. Friemann and
others granting approval of insufficient frontage (lot width)
along the Main Road of proposed Lot 03 and insufficient lot
depth of proposed Lot #2, and for approval of access according
to New York Town Law, Section 280-A over a private right-of way
subject to the following condition:
That the access right-of-way be maintained in good
condition to a minimum width of 18 feet (without
obstructions) for the entire length for sufficient
maneuverability by fire and emergency vehicles (pursuant to
the requirements of New York Town Law);
Be it therefore
$.H. Friemann and Others
February 9, 1993
Page 2
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant
· sketch approval on the map dated November 1, 1990 with the
following condition:
That the condition of the December 13, 1990 decision of the
Zoning Board of Appeals be noted on the final map.
Sketch plan approval is conditional upon submission of
final maps within six months of the date of sketch approval,
unless an extension of ti~e is requested by the applicant, and
granted by the Planning Board. The final maps (5 paper prints
and two mylars) must contain a current stamp of Health
Department approval, and must be submitted before a final public
hearing will be set.
Please note that the Planning Board has referred this
~ubdivision to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for their
~eview. You will be notified should any covenants and
restrictions be required.
Please contact ·this office if you have any questions
regarding the abovel
Sincerely,
Richard G. Ward ~
Chairman
cc: Sanford H. Friemann
Gerard p. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
Southold, New York 11971
Gentlemen:
Re:
The following statements are offered for your consideration
in the review of the above-mentioned minor subdivision and its
referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission:
(1)
No grading,
un~ ...... c x c ay a t i o n-~r--~..
(2)
No new roads are proposed and no changes will
the grades of the existing roads.
be made in
(3)
No new drainage structures or alteration of existing
structures are proposed.
Your~y,
.SENDER:
SUBJECT:
SCTM~:
COMMENTs:
SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LE~ER
RAYMOND L. JACOBS
SUPERINTENDENT OF
HIGHWAYS
765-3140
OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
JAMES A. RICR~ER
ENGII~.~.~,ING
INSPECTOR
765-3070
APRIL 10, 1992
MATTHEW G. KIERNAN
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY
TOWN HALL, 53095 MAIN ROAD
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK [1971
RE:
PROPOSED MAJOR SUBDIVISION
S.H. FRIEMANN & OTHERS
RTE. 0K CUTCHOGUE
SCTM % I000 - 102 - 02
Dear Mr. Kiernen:
AS per
referenced subdivi sior~
site. As I under stan~
24
PLANNING BO.~RD
I have reviewed the files for the above
! have conducted an inspection of the
the situation, the Planning Board is
requiring new road construction that will conform to Major
Subdivision Specifications. The owner feels that the existing
road width & right of way should be considered adequate for the
proposed action. The owner also contends that the development
should be considered a "Minor Subdivision".
The iefiniiions in the Town lode Ai06-13 indicate that the
,~nclserea a Major ~'~-'' ~ {
propose~ ,~eve~opment snou?~ E,e ~r' ~' ' ' .
Section A i08-42 "Mogifications tD Specifica%iDns ci, u!d be used
to r eauc e' r,~a~_ consti uct ion I' ="~; -~ ~,I e~.~ ~ . ~ ,~ .... if theIe is ~ c
likelihood ~ streets ~"'~: _ .
_.. o.,vl,~nG more than 4 lots The AC zonei
parcel to tn. north of the proposed set off ~s 17.693 Acres.
This. part of the site could easily be subdivided again, excegding
the 4 iot limitation. Legal guaranties that would prevent
further subdivision of the parcel should be established prior to
approvals of any reduced road construction requirements.
Town CoSe Section A 106-33 indicates that the 'minimum Right
of Way for a minor road should be 50' wide. The minimum pavement
width is specified to be 28' wide. This dimension can be reduced
to 24' at the Planning Boards discretionf Section A 108-15.1 was
added to the Code in November of 1990. This section allows for
reduced pavement widths in residential zones servicing between 1
& 5 lots. General Business zones were not included in this
table. It should have been listed with the industrial zone or
the R-80 zone. This would again require a minimum pavement width
of 24'.
MATTHEW G. ~,IERNAN
PROPOSE5 MAJOR SUBDIVISION
S. H. FREiMANN & OTHERS
APRIL 10, 1992
5xisting contritions at the site show a 22' wide Right of Way
that is fully paved. Half of this R.O.W. is on the adjacent
parcel to the East. The width of the R.O.W. is substandard.
· n~ R.O.W. shou!.~ De t,D ensure
w~e~e~ that any future
subdivision of the northern section will have adequate access.
Due to '~ ~ ·
ex~.L**~g s~he conditions it may not be possible to obtain
the full 50' ~ ',' ~
~.q~r.~, but a reasonable alternative sho~id be
discussed. The condition of the - '~ ~ '
ex~.n~ roa~ surzace is fair.
Several pot hctes have recently been repaired. I wo~l,~ recommend
however, that the roa~ be resurfaced w~th a 2' lift of asphalt.
If this is not acceptable to the owner, a series of cores could
be taken to v.rlfv the atruct~]ral integrity of ~he existing road
construction. ~om~ curbin~ does exist and I would recommend that
any final design ~'~ ' ~-~ ~' -~
s,~u~.~ lnc.~e ad:~lon¢~ curbing aion~ any
property line or right of way that is adjacent to neighboring
property. A '.~-:-. = '
-v.~ .... to l%andie surface water runoff
should also be included in ,the pr,pposed road improvements.
If you have an}' questions concerning this report or if you
require any additional information, please contact my office.
// .~ames K. R~.n~er, R.A.
CO:
Bennett Oriowski, Jr./
Chairman - Planning Boar]
Raymond L. Jacobs
Superintendent of Highways
file
PLANNING BOARD
25 SE
30, 1991
Operations, this Board will address this during the
environmental review of all proposed commercial and industrial
projects.
OTHER
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Cron is here with Mr. Friemann tonight
and would like to discuss Mr. Friemann's application.
Mr. Richard Cron: I'm here tonight to address the Board with
respect to it's letter of March 12th, 1991, addressed to S. H.
Frieman and others, with respect to an application made to the
Board for a minor subdivision.
The results set forth in your letter to Mr. Friemann was
to the effect that basically you had converted his application
from a minor subdivision to a major subdivision. The basis for
that being that there was road construction going to be required
by the Board. In turn you enlarged the width of the existing
road or street from twenty-two feet to thirty feet, and
requiring at the same time a twenty four foot pavement width.
The street that is in existence is twenty-two feet in width and
is paved to the same extent, and has been in that local for as
long as one can remember.
The street had the Zoning Board of Approval in terms of
Section 280A of the Town Law. If one looks at what this
application is all about, there is little or no change with
respect to this application even as to the proposed minor
subdivision.
What you have is two parcels of land, one of which fronts on
Main Street, 132 feet in width, which is currently improved as a
business parcel. The application went before the Zoning B~ard
of Appeals basically to get a variance with respect to the
parcel, and an adjacent piece to the rear likewide zoned
B-business. That is an unimproved parcel. The larger parcel to
the rear is in an AC zone which would require clustering in
terms of any residential development, and consists of somewhere
in the vicinity of seventeen plus acres.
The extent of the minor subdivision is basically getting
the approval of the unimproved business lot. There is no
subdivision pending with respect to the seventeen acres in the
rear which houses a perennial nursery operation. There is no
contemplated change to that operation. There is no contemplated
improvement to the vacant business parcel on the Main Road. I
do not believe that this Board has the power, where there is an
existing street, Zoning Board of Appeals approved, under Section
280A of the Town Hall, to require a substantial improvement in
terms of the construction of that street to a width greater than
exists. Not for the purpose of this minor subdivision. If you
read your own statute, the construction that is talked about in
PLANNING BOARD
26
30, 1991
subdivision regulations is with respect to a major subdivision.
I think the Board itself recognize you could not require such
construction certainly with respect to a minor subdivision.
Moreover, the construction that the statute speaks of is with
respect to a new street. A new road in a major subdivision, not
an existing road. What you want this application to do, on the
basis of a minor subdivision to this Board, is to substantially
improve, at great hardship, and cost to this applicant, an
existing street which is already approved. I do not believe
this Board has the power to compel that. In the light of that,
'I would respectfully request that you reconsider the
requirements set forth in you letter of March 12, 1991, and
after viewing it, in the light of what I have indicated, make a
new determination that the applicant may proceed with his minor
subdivision on the basis of the existing road, which is already
paved, and has been found by the Zoning Board of Appeals to be
in excellent condition, such as to warrant Section 280A Town
approval. That's basically my pitch to the Board this evening.
I think it is an unjust determination by the Board that places
this particular application in a major subdivision area. I
believe the purpose of it is to compel the construction of a
street which needs no construction, not for these three lots.
Mr. Orlowski: Does the Board have any comments?
Board: No comments.
Mr. Orlowski: O.K., we'll look into that.
Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Mr. Baxter.
Mr. Baxter: I could probably save a lot of time by just saying
ditto.
Mr. Orlowski: Do you want to do that?
Mr. Baxter: I won't take much time. As the map indicates there
is an existing house on the property. We own a strange horse
.shoe shaped piece of property over on the sound and Gallagher
has been living in between the horse shoe for, my guess is,
thirty years. It could be thirty-five or forty years and he has
had this access road rightr of- way that is drawn on the map
that he uses to go back and forth driveway, as a driveway or
what ever you want to call it, an unapproved road and that is
what he has been using for forty years to go back and forth to
his house. We weren't aware that this was two lots. It was
treated as one lot, we thought it was two lots and Bill Wickham
discovered a couple of years ago that it is really treated as
one lot so we started to process it by subdividing it and then
came up with the proposal from the Board to improve the road.
Pave it with catch basins and trees etc. Mostly everything that
Dick Cron said applies here. I could really stop there if you
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 SOUTHOLD
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Richard Cron
Cron and Cron
Main Road
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, New York
11952
October 29, 1991
RE:
Proposed Major Subdivision
S.H. Friemann & Others
$CTM# 1000-102-2-24
Dear Mr. Cron:
The Planning Board has reviewed the questions you raised at
the Planning Board's September 30, 1991, meeting regarding the
above mentioned subdivision.
The Planning Board has classified this subdivision as a
major subdivision due to the fact that the proposal requires the
construction of a new street. A major subdivision is defined in
the Town Code as "...subdivisions of five (5) or more lots, or
any subdivision requiring the construction of a new street or
the extension of municipal facilities." The existing business
lot has frontage on Main Road. The proposed lots do not have
access on an existing street, and therefore require the
construction of a new street.
It may be that the existing paved area is sufficient for
the existing buildings. However, if'your client wishes to
subdivide his property, a road must be constructed to provide
access to the interior business lot and the interior residential
lot.
As per Section A106-33 A(2) of the Town Code, all minor
streets in major subdivisions shall be twenty-eight (28) feet in
width. The Planning Board, in its discretion, may reduce the road
width to twenty-four (24) feet. It is this road width,
twenty-four (24) feet, that the Planning Board is requiring for
your client's subdivision. The creation of the additional
business lot alone warrants a twenty-four foot pavement width.
Therefore, the Board is not in favor of any further reduction of
the road specifications.
The Planning Board awaits your client's submission of
revised maps prior to proceeding with the review of this
subdivision.
Please contact this office if you have any questions
regarding the above.
Very truly yours,,
Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~:
Chairman
cc: Sanford H. Friemann
September 17, 1991
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Proposed Major Subdivision
S.H. Friemann & Others
1000-102-2-24
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
This office has been retained to represent the applicant, Sanford H.
Friemann, with respect to the above-captioned. In reviewing your
letter of March 12, 1991, to Mr. Friemann, we find that a number of
questions are raised which require review with your Board. In the
light thereof, and in order to complete Mr. Friemann's application, I
should like to request that an early meeting be scheduled at the
Board's convenience.
Thanking you for the favor of a prompt reply.
Very truly yours,
RJC:af
cc: Sanford H. Friemann
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 SOUTHOLD
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Sanford H. Friemann
Pinewocd
Main Road
Cutchogue, New York
Dear Mr. Friemann:
11935
March 12, 1991
RE: Proposed Major Subdivision
S.H. Friemann & Others
SCTM# 1000-102-2-24
Prior to the Planning Board taking any action on the sketch
plan for the above mentioned application, you must submit maps
showing the following:
e
A 30 foot right-of-way from Main Street (State Road
25) to the portion of the property located in the
Agricultural Conservation District.
A pavement width within the right-of-way of
twenty-four (24) feet in accordance with the Town's
Road Specifications.
It is within the Planning Board's jurisdiction to require
the construction of roads, and the bonding for such within the
boundaries of the applicant's property.
The Zoning Board of Appeals, in their December 13, 1990
decision, set forth a minimum road width of 18 feet. The
Planning Board is requiring additional road width to meet the
existing and future access needs of the entire subdivision.
When the Board has received maps revised as per above, the
State Environmental Quality Review (SEQRA) process will be
initiated. The Long Environmental Assessment Form, which you
have already submitted, will be reviewed by the Board's
Environmental Consultant prior to the Board making a
determination under SEQRA. You will be responsible for the
$400 review fee. This fee must be submitted before the Board
can authorize the consultant to proceed with the review.
Page 2
S. H. Friemann & Others
It should be noted that the following information will also
be required. However, it is not necessary to submit the items
listed below at this time.
Road profiles in accordance with 1 and 2 from above.
A bond estimate for the road improvements. Upon
approval of the estimate, a Letter of Credit, or its
equivalent, must be submitted befOre the Planning
Board will authorize any endorsement of the final maps.
A Park and Playground fee of $2,000 dollars for the
residential lot.
In addition, due to the fact that road construction is
required, this application will be processed as a major
subdivision.
Please contact this office if you have any questions
regarding the above.
Very truly yours,
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.' '
Chairman ~
cc: Gerard p. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
PINEWOOD
Main Road
Cutchogue, New York 11935
~ 2 ? 1991
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Charles Grigonis, Jr.
Serge Doyen, Jr.
James Dinizio, Jr.
Telephone (516) 765-1809
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCO~T L. HARRIS
~pervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. I~ox 1179
Southoid, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
Appl. No. 3987
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL~
Upon Application of S.H. FRIEMANN & OTHERS. Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Sections 100-102 (Bulk
Schedule) for approval of insufficient frontage (lot width) {as
excists} along the Main Road of proposed Lot #3 and for approval
of insufficient lot depth of proposed Lot #2, in this pending
minor subdivision, and for approval of access according to New
York Town Law, Section 280-A over a private right-of-way. Zone
Districts: B-General Business and Agricultural Conservation.
Location of Property: North Side of Main Road, Cutchogue, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-102-2-24. Total area: 19.596
acres.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 29, 1990,
and all those 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, Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The portion of the subject premises which is under
jurisdiction in this variance application consists of
approximately 82,880 sq. ft. and is located in the "B" General
Business Zone District. The remaining 17.693 acres is located
in the "A-C" Agricultural-Conservation Zone District.
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3987
Matter of S.H. Friemann & others
Decision Rendered December 13, 1990
The area of land under consideration in this variance has a
frontage of 132.0 feet along the north side of State Route 25
(a/k/a Main Road) in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold.
The width of the remaining (rear) section {referred to as Lot
#1} is 683.44 feet {inclusive of easements}.
2. The subject premises as exists:
(a) contains a total combined lot area of 19.596
acres;
(b) are improved with structures as more particularly
shown on the plan prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated
November 1, 1990.
3. Article X, Section 100-102, (Bulk Schedule) of the
zoning code regulations (as amended January 9, 1989) requires a
minimum lot depth of 150 feet and minimum width of 150 feet per
lot.
4. The relief sought by this application are variances for
approval of:
(a) proposed southerly lot referred to herein as Lot
#3 with a lot width (frontage) of 132.00 feet, inclusive of
easements or right-of-way (or 117+- feet exclusive);
(b) proposed center lot referred to herein as Lot
with a total lot area of 40,192 sq. ft., inclusive of right-
of-way or easements; ~
#2
(c) access to Lot #2 and Lot #1, over a 22 ft. wide
right-of-way, half of which is shown to be located upon premises
of the applicant and the other half upon premises of S & E
Realty Co. {parcel to the east referred to as 1000-097-5-012}.
5. For the record, it is noted that the condition of the
right-of-way is excellent without the necessity for further
improvements at this time, except, however, that the entire
access road must be maintained at a minimum width of 18 feet
(without obstruction) for sufficient maneuvering and access by
emergency (fire) vehicles.
6. In considering this application, the Board also finds
and determines: (a) the relief as granted is substantial in
relation to the requirements; (b) the evidence submitted and
practical difficulties claimed are sufficient to warrant a
Page 3 - Appl. No. 3987
Matter of S.H. Friemann & others
Decision Rendered December 13, 1990
grant of this variance; (c) there will be no substantial
change in the character of the neighborhood, and a precedent
would not be set since the shape and character of this land has
existed since before the enactment of zoning in 1957; (d) the
difficulties cannot be obviated by some method feasible to the
appellant to pursue, other than a variance; (e) that in view
of the manner in which the difficulties arose, and in con-
sidering all the above factors, the interests of justice will be
served by granting the variance, as conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by
Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief as requested (and noted in
paragraph #4, supra), in the Matter of the Application of H & S
ASSOCIATES (S.H. FRIF~ & O%~{ERS) under Appl. No. 3987, SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That the access right-of-way be maintained in good
condition to a minimum width of 18 feet (without obstructions)
for the entire length for sufficient manueverability by fire and
emergency vehicles (pursuant to the requirements of New York
Town Law).
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Grigon±s and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted.
lk
GE ~Rk~RD p. GOEHRI~GER,~ip~
SENDER:
SUBJECT:
SCTMg:
COMMENTS:
SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER
PINEWO&
Main Road
Cutchogue, New York 11935
734-6912 Or 734-6911
PINEWOOD
Main Road
Cutchogue, New York 11935
,~'~ ~ ~-"- 734-6911
734-6912
September 18, 1990
Planning Board
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Gentlemen,
PROJECT NAME H&S Associates minor subdivision, Suffolk
County Tax Map Number 102-2-24.
The reason for above project is to seperate Business Zone
Property f~mthe Agricultural Residential Zone.
would like to end up with two "B" Business Lots,
ultural Residential Lot.
The business hours telephone number is 734-6911 or
Please feel
Ultimately we
and one Agric-
734-6912.
free to contact Sandy Friemann or Hank Rienecker any-
time'you feel necessary.
ly,
H. Friemann
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Charles Grigonis, Jr.
Serge Doyen, Jr.
James Dinizio, Jr.
Telephone (516) 765-1809
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCOTI' L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
Appl. No. 3987
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Upon Application of S.H. FRIEMANN & OTHERS. Variance to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Sections 100-102 (Bulk
Schedule) for approval of insufficient frontage (lot width) {as
excists} along the Main Road of proposed Lot #3 and for approval
of insufficient lot depth of proposed Lot #2, in this pending
minor subdivision, and for approval of access according to New
York Town Law, Section 280-A over a private right-of-way. Zone
Districts: B-General Business and Agricultural Conservation.
Location of Property: North Side of Main Road, Cutchogue, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-102-2-24. Total area: 19.596
acres.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 29, 1990,
and all those 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, Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The portion of the subject premises which is under
jurisdiction in this variance application consists of
approximately 82,880 sq. ft. and is located in the "B" General
Business Zone District. The remaining 17.693 acres is located
in the "A-C" Agricultural-Conservation Zone District.
i
Page 2 - Appl. No. 3987
Matter of S.H. Friemann & others
Decision Rendered December 13, 1990
The area of land under consideration in this variance has a
frontage of 132.0 feet along the north side of State Route 25
(a/k/a Main Road) in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold.
The width of the remaining (rear) section {referred to as Lot
#1} is 683.44 feet {inclusive of easements}.
2. The subject premises as exists:
(a) contains a total combined lot area of 19.596
acres;
(b) are improved with structures as more particularly
shown on the plan prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated
November l, 1990.
3. Article X, Section 100-102, (Bulk Schedule) of the
zoning code regulations (as amended January 9, 1989) requires a
minimum lot depth of 150 feet and minimum width of 150 feet per
lot.
4. The relief sought by this application are variances for
approval of:
(a) proposed southerly lot referred to herein as Lot
#3 with a lot width (frontage) of 132.00 feet, inclusive of
easements or right-of-way (or 117+- feet exclusive);
(b) proposed center lot referred to herein as Lot #2
with a total lot area of 40,192 sq. ft., inclusive of right-
of-way or easements;
(c) access to Lot #2 and Lot #1, over a 22 ft. wide
right-of-way, half of which is shown to be located upon premises
of the applicant and the other half upon premises.of S & E
Realty Co. {parcel to the east referred to as 1000-097-5-012}.
5. For the record, it is noted that the condition of the
right-of-way is excellent without the necessity for further
improvements at this time, except, however, that the entire
access road must be maintained at a minimum width of 18 feet
(without obstruction) for sufficient maneuvering and access by
emergency (fire) vehicles.
6. In considering this application, the Board also finds
and determines: (a) the relief as granted is substantial in
relation to the requirements; (b) the evidence submitted and
practical difficulties claimed are sufficient to warrant a
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
($16) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTItO LD
November 1, 1988
Sanford H. Friemann
Main Road
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Dear Mr.
Friemann:
RE:
Rienecker and Friemann
SCTM ~1000-102-2-24
The following action was taken by the Southold Town
Planning Board on October 31, 1988.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize
the Chairman to endorse the final map dated as amended September
12, 1988.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
Very truly yours,
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
CHAIRMAN
eBc.
cc: Building Department
Assessor's
jt
Page 3 - Appl. No. 3987
Matter of S.H. Friemann & others
Decision Rendered December 13, 1990
grant of this variance; (c) there will be no substantial
change in the character of the neighborhood, and a precedent
would not be set since the shape and character of this land has
existed since before the enactment of zoning in 1957; (d) the
difficulties cannot be obviated by some method feasible to the
appellant to pursue, other than a variance; (e) that in view
of the manner in which the difficulties arose, and in con-
sidering all the above factors, the interests of justice will be
served by granting the variance, as conditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by
Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief as requested (and noted in
paragraph #4, supra), in the Matter of the Application of H & S
ASSOCIATES (S.H. FRIEMAN & OTHERS) under Appl. No. 3987, SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
That the access right-of-way be maintained in good
condition to a minimum width of 18 feet (without obstructions)
for the entire length for sufficient manueverability by fire and
emergency vehicles (pursuant to the requirements of New York
Town Law).
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Grigonis and Dinizio. This resolution was duly adopted.
lk
OLASER FICHE FORM
SUBDIVISIONS
Project Type: Minor
Status: Final Approval
SCTM #: 1000 - 102.-2-24
Project Name: Friemann, Sanford/H & S Assoc.
Location: north side of SR 25, 1658.7' west of Cox's Lane, Cutcho,quo
Hamlet: Cutcho,que
Applicant Name: Sanford Friemann
Owner Name: H & S Associate,~
Zone1: ~qC v '~
Approval Date: 10/4/1993
PLAT Si,qned Date:
OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A date indicates that we have received the related information
Zone 3:
Zone 2:
C and R's:
Homeowners Association:
R and M A,qreement:
Address: north side of SR 25, 1658.7' west of Cox's Lane, Cutcho,qun
County Filing Date: 11/30/1993
SCANNED
' anagement
SCAN Date:
t
J
td
8
.?