HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-102.-1-33.3 (5)
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
MARTIN H. SIDOR
GEORGE D. SOLOMON
MAIUNG ADDRESS:
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE
Chair
OFFICE WCATION:
Town Hall Annex
54375 State Route 25
(cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.)
Southold, NY
Telephone: 631765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTH OLD
MEMORANDUM
To: Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney
From: Anthony Trezza
Senior Planner
Date: March 11, 2005
Re: Letter Received from Pat Moore in Reference to
The Hamlet at Cutchoque
1000-102-1-33.3
The Planning Board received a letter from Pat Moore in reference to the Yield
and ERSAP requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, which are applicable to
Residential Site Plans. The Planning Board will need to respond to this letter but
we would like to meet with you to discuss it before I put a draft together. I have
attached a copy of Ms. Moore's letter for your review. Please e-mail me, Mark
and Valerie and let us know when you can meet next week. Valerie wont be in
today so just give it some thought and we can coordinate on Monday, if possible.
Atts.
Cc: Kieran Corcoran
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Soulhold, New York 11971
y
'Is
{}]
M7J
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Tel: (631) 765.4330
Fax: (631) 765.4643
FOR SUBJECT PARCEL:
78 School House Road, Cutchogue
SCTM#1000-102-01-33.3
46.16 acres
Zoned Hamlet Density
YIELD PLAN Pursuant to AI06-11 (B)
The entire 46.17 acre parcel is buildable and suitable for
development at 10,000 square feet per unit: the use of the yield
plan for a standard subdivision is wholly inapplicable to a
condominium plan. The applicant is experiencing significant
problems with a subdivision yield plan used in the application of a
mixed use housing development condominium plan in HD zoning. Staff
recommends that these difficulties be discussed with the Board.
The Planning Board has the authority to consider the applicability
of the requirements of a standard subdivision to the proposed
Hamlet Density condominium development plan. Items number i
though iv are ordinary and customary impacts on yield, in this case
they do not affect the subject property, however, items V., vir vii
and viii pose significant problems to the development of a smart
growth plan. The applicant intends to develop this plan with zero
(0) lot lines and amenities in the common areas.
1. No underwater land
ii. No Tidal Wetland or freshwater wetland issues
iii. No bluffs or dunes
!.'i
iv. No beaches or Coastal areas
v. park dedication- This project intends to provide extensive
private recreational areas and private open space- buildings will
be clustered with zero lot lines around private parks and open
space: As a condominium plan all land, not otherwise developed,
will be as common open space. The application of park land to this
plan is misplaced and not applicable. Parks are not planned for
"dedication" as the code states.
vi. areas required for recharge areas is determined by number of
units and material and width of roads: can not be determined at
this time due to application of listed items. Moreover, the
,
.
drainage areas in this development will provide irrigation to the
open space and water conservation methods. Smart growth concepts
encourage adaptation of drainage into the plan.
Vll. areas required for public or private right-of-ways: these
driveways will be private driveway accesses. Smart Growth
development discourages wide roads and loss of community character.
The Planning Board would need to take an active role in smart
growth development which does not conform to standard subdivision
Highway Specifications. The Highway specifications require 50 foot
wide roads with 28 or 24 foot improved area for "dedication of the
roads to the Town". The accesses will be 16 foot improved private
driveways, and not intended for dedication. Sidewalks and utilities
will be in the common areas. The application of 50 foot roads to a
yield plan is not applicable.
viii. Areas for utility easements or public facilities: each
hypothetical residential lot would have a standard sanitary system
with an underground system which can be as close as 10 feet from
other structures or property lines (yield plans do not identify
sanitary systems- an integrated development uses a more
environmentally appropriate system requiring less land and upgraded
standards. The land which is not otherwise used for the subsurface
system is open space. The chromaglass system consolidates the
holding tanks but places a buffer area around the system.
Nevertheless the utilities are all within the common areas. These
buffers provide additional open space.
Ix. No development rights are transferred
x. not applicable
The applicant's project, as originally designed, with smart
growth principals and community character are compromised by the
application of items v. through viii.
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan (ERSAP)
The applicant met with Planning Department staff to discuss
the information to be included on an ERSAP; staff and the applicant
concluded that the information generally required on an ERSAP would
be best illustrated directly on the proposed site plan, Most of
the items listed are not relevant or applicable to this parcel,
therefore, the specific relevant items could be placed on the
preliminary site plan for better planning and site development.
Specific ERSAP information is detailed in narrative format:
In accordance with A106-l1 (6)
FOR SUBJECT PARCEL:
78 School House Road, Cutchogue
SCTM#1000-102-01-33.3
46.16 acres
Zoned Hamlet Density
(a) there are no existing structures on the parcel
(b) Topographic contours will be shown on site plan- 100% of land
is flat (with 0-10% slopes); no slopes equal to or greater than 15%
present on site
(c) Water Resources: i: no wetlands regulated by State or Town
jurisdiction ii: not located over primary, principal or sole source
aquifer and not within mapped aquifer reGharge area
iii: not within Municipal water supply watershed area
(d) Not in Flood-prone area as shown on Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)
(e) no issues of Flood Damage Prevention- will be addressed and
mitigated pursuant to SPEDES Pollution Control Permit plan
(f)No protected lands- abutting parcels are not in preservation
(g) i: Land formerly in agricul ture- secession growth
ii: isolated significant trees with a diameter breast height
(DBH) in excess of 18 inches and canopy line of existing trees will
be identified- parks and open space planned - applicant will make
effort to replant existing native vegetation
(h) Soil series: HaA-Haven Loam, 0-3', P1C- Plymouth Loamy Sand, 8-
15' & RdB-Riverhead Sandy Loam, 3-8', 100% well drained- sanitary
suitability confirmed by Health Department
(i) No Bluffs or areas of Coastal Erosion
(j) scenic view shed and special features- land can not be seen
from the road, it is surrounded by large parcels: to west
subdivision development, to east agricultural parcel which has been
fallow for years. i: Not adjacent to scenic byways ii: parcel is
isolated to the south by a road end (Griffing Street), to west by
residential deve1opment(Highland Estates Major subdivision), to
east by 27 acres (Grattan), to north by other smaller vacant
parcels and the Long Island Railroad.
K) public roads shown on tax map- School House Lane and Griffing
Street are the primary access roads, spur roads off Highland Road
available for emergency vehicles but are not proposed for primary
access in order to preserve privacy of surrounding properties and
provide controlled access to subject property
L. No known Archeological sites- subject to review of LEAF by state
M. No trails- private property
N. no easements of record
O. Agricultural Lands: subject parcel is not in active agricultural
production- adjacent parcel formerly in agriculture, Land not
identified in Southold Town Farmland Inventory
P. Public water availability is pending- water map to be revised as
a result of Hamlet Study, Not in a sewer district- private
chromaglass system proposed and approved by Suffolk County DPW
Q. Subject parcel and contiguous parcels are not listed Critical
Environmental Areas
R. Significant natural areas and features: (i through v) none
S. Recreation: none (proposed development plans to provide
recreational opportunities for residents)
T. Not within 500 feet of i. Boundary of Town or village or ii.
County or state park iii. county or state parkway, thruway etc.
iv. right -of-way for a stream or drainage channel
v. existing or proposed boundary of county or state land on which a
public building or institution is situated
vi. No existing airport, airbase or airstrip- closest airstrip for
private planes is in Mattituck
This narrative response to the ERSAP as well as the SEQRA Long
Environmental Assessment form and prliminary site plan will provide
appropriate site analysis for a thorough review of the property.
Thank you for your courtesies,
Sincere,y, ~,
, ,'/"
..._-'72 "." /
" tr,.~"'... {~
/'.. .,. --
L.':,.... patricia C. Moore
;'~"--"~o/"W",,,...,,,.,,._,,",..,.'.,,-;,c;.;,.,,~.....,,,.,,.,,,,
.
.
-,
;;;v tBr
vs
POp.{'h
NELSON
&
ENGINEERS &. SURVEYORS
VICTOR BERT, P.E. . ROBERT G. NELSON, P.E.. LS. . ARTHUR J KOERBER, P.E
ROBERT G NELSON JR, PI . JOSEPH R. EPIFANIA, P.E.
PAUL M. RACZ, P.L.S. . THOMAS F. LEMBO, P.E
November 1, 2004
Town of Southold
Planning Department
Southold Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogue
N&P Job No. 00026
Dear Sir or Madam:
Attached please find a copy of the Sewer Agency Conceptual Certification application.
Please be advised that the above referenced property (SCTM tax id: 1000-102-01-33.3)
is scheduled for a Sewer Agency hearing on November 15, 2004. The hearing will be
held at Suffolk County Department of Public Works offices located at 335 Yaphank
Avenue in Yaphank.
If you have any questions in regard to this application, or would like to attend please feel
free to contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
~ ~N: ~3U~'~ ~
AKllw
cc:
Southold Town
Planning Boarrf
NELSON & POPE
Ydt~
57'2 WALT WHITMAN ROAD, MELVlLLE, NY 11747-2188
(831J 427---68l35' FAX [831J 427-5El2O'www.nelsarpope.com
,7,,{~
I .
"
.
.
APPLiCATION FOR SEWER AGENCY CONCEPTUAL CERTIFICATION
(Pro;ects which hal'e !!!11. completed SEQRA)
Agency Projcct No. Application Rec'd
l' 2.
3.
4.
Applicant's or contractee's exact name and address 'lift 1I/1/tLtr /t''- C{/Tc.i/t'/fVf,?Lc..
n}'l- b ,No (Jct,4/IJ .fVE HD,~~^ ill 't 1/ 7(,3
I pholle# t.:,JI- 'yo--1-.T73<o
Name of contact person 7F~~,Lt'1 d.-'fL-+;l/lJ
Name of Plat !-tn-!-(<---i[, @ Cu+<-i...'i/J"-
.
Location of Plat 6(L,f'~/-.)li .r r I Ct/,e-H06....i
5, Town 50 <.In-! 0<"])
1\11.
-)(l6. Exact address of ALL owners of the land. If individuals, give home address. If
corporatioll, gil'e corporatioll address, plus Ilame aud office ill tile corporatioll IIeld by
party 11'110 will execute Agreemellt witll Agellcy. In additioll, please ji/rIIisll IIames of
all prillcipals of C0l1JOralioll. THIS IS NOT OPTIONAL. (attach extra sheets, if
necessary)
Mt!'
fr'1( -fC-fft &
7. Name, address and phone number of engineer .
J1JI.r1M2..j t:otl-f;(ft-. ~iW""J fPoPl, 572. t./.thr pltlITl'1;>,J A1 HELI//ur,M-f ('7~7
,!OS. Name, address and phone number ofattorne5' A'~I,,-,Jl
vi () 'y2l ' ,1 b h I n V'
~,--- /
9. Number of acres in plat 4(". {I.
Number ofplots
Number of units
Number of GPD
1///1-
2.0 ...
(, 2- )'03
I
fpj;>
10. Type of Development
( ) a. Subdivision - residential
( ) b. Subdivision - commercial
( ) c. Subdivision - industrial
( ) d. Subdivision - townhouses
(19 e. Subdivision - condominium
( ) f. Garden apartments
( ) g. Shopping center
( ) h. Planned retirement community
( ) i. Combination of above and
- -
( ) j. Other
II. The following must accompany the application:
A. Copy of deed in the name of number 6 above.
R Copy of conceptual site plan.
o C. Check for $550.00 payable to Suffolk County Treasurer
NOTE: It is the applicallt's responsibility to ascertain the meeting at which this
applicatioll will be acted UpOIl. Tile applicant will then be required to furnish proof
tllat tile applicallt lias IIotified, at least two (2) weeks prior to that meetillg date, tile
Towll Plallllillg Dep/ll.tmellt tllat this project is Oil tile Agenda for COllceptual
Certification amltllat the TowII may attelld if they so desire.
DATE II ~cN.
Applicant's Signatufe & Title
[R1 [E (C [E ~~ [E [Q)
OCT 08 2004 ~~
NELSON & POPE
SCSA 4-2003(Rev)
APPLICATIONS NOT COMPLETE WILL NOT BE PROCESSED
.
.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE
Chair
RICHARD CAGGIANO
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
MARTIN H. SIDOR
P.O. Box 1179
Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1938
Fax (631) 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To: Ms. Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk
From: Jerilyn Woodhouse, chairwoman.JrllJ.~
Re: Request for Waiver from Local Law Temporary Moratorium on the
Processing, Review of, and making Decisions on the applications for Major and
Minor Subdivisions, and Special Use Permits and Site Plans containing dwelling
Unites) in the Town of Southold for the site plan of The Hamlet of Cutchogue,
LLC, 78 School House Road, ;:;utchogue, NY. SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3
Date: September 17, 2004/
The proposed action involves the creation of a mixed residential development.
The development would include 137 single-family residential homes and 64
townhouses on 46.16 acres within the Hamlet Density Zoning District.
The Planning Board has reviewed the request for a waiver of the moratorium and
recommends that the Town Board denv the request for a waiver. This decision is
based upon the fc..llowing facts:
Land Use - The project site is located in an area that contains a mix of land
uses: residential to the west and southeast, commercial to the south, institutional
to the southwest and agricultural to the north and northeast. The proposed
application is in keeping with the zoning of the parcel, which provides for a more
intense level of residential development than currently exists nearby. The site is
currently vacant land, with the proposed development resulting in 201 new
dwelling units, a clubhouse, tennis courts, a swimming pool, and neighborhood
open space. The proposed density is equivalent to quarter-acre density, not
including non-residential structures and roads.
Transportation Infrastructure - The proposed action is expected to increase
traffic generation on S.R 25 at its intersection with Griffing Street, and, to a lesser
ctegr<'\e, at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Depot Lane.
(
.
.
Natural Resources - This parcel was farmed at one time, but has been
unplowed for many years, resulting in the presence of mature old field and early
sucessional woodlands.
Water Supply - Sanitary disposal within the proposed subdivision will require an
on-site sewage treatment system. A public water supply would have to be
provided by either an on-site community well or an amendment of the water main
map to allow the extension of public service.
Rural Character - The application reflects the designated zoning, which is
intended to allow more intense residential development than is permitted
elsewhere in Town.
Agricultural Lands - This land has not been farmed for many years.
Open and Recreation Space - The site is comprised of mature old field and
woodland and is not known to be used for any recreational activities.
Conclusions:
It is the Planning Board's finding that while the proposed project is in keeping
with the zoning district in which it is located, the Town has adopted a moratorium
with the intent of addressing and implementing comprehensive planning
initiatives relating to residential projects of this nature.
.
.
.
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
RECEIVED
AUG 1 8 2004
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
Soutltold Town Clerk
August 18, 2004
Honorable Josh Horton, Supervisor, and
Members of the Southold Town Board
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Request Waiver of Moratorium
Premises: Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3
,
!
Dear Supervisor Horton and Members of the Board:
The Hamlet at Cutchogue on behalf of themselves and
the owner of the property Nocro Ltd. respectfully
requests that they be permitted to proceed with the
submission of a Smart Growth housing plan which
incorporates all the goals and objectives of the GElS
adopted in 2003 and the proposed purposes articulated
for the Hamlet Study.
The parcel is located at 78. School House Road,
Cutchogue, Town of Southold. This property has been
historically recognized as being located in the Hamlet
of Cutchogue, on 46.16 acres, zoned "Hamlet Density".
The applicant wishes to construct mixed residential
development which will include 137 single family homes
and 64 townhouse attached units designed around New
England style "village greens" or parks. The
development will enjoy amenities such as a clubhouse
and pool, tennis courts, gazebos and walkways around
parks. The project is a model "smart growth"
development which incorporates housing diversity with
the highest standard of design. Enclosed please find
the following:
~
,
Exhibit A: Site plan rendering of the proposed project
Exhibit B: Site plan application
Exhibit C: SEQRA Long Form EAF
The community plan seamlessly integrates income
diversity by designating a percentage of the units as
affordable: the proposed plan designs 137 clustered
single family homes, 64 townhouse condominium units,28
of the units would be designated as affordable units.
The development will be designed around multiple parks
providing open space, privacy and passive recreation.
There will be no difference in the design or
configuration between affordable and traditional non-
affordable units.
The plan is modeled after a nationally recognized
Nantucket project, which , upon completion, will be a
project of which both the owners and the Town can be
proud. Information regarding the Nantucket project is
set forth in Exhibit D.
The design is paramount to the success of the
project: the units are designed with New England
architecture which emphasizes southold's heritage, The
architecture demands use of natural materials, picket
fences, cobble-stone paths, masonry chimneys and "green
architecture" (emphasizing energy conservation). The
success of this project is jeopardized by the endless
delay of successive moratoria.
This project will produce a positive economic
impact to the Hamlet of Cutchogue. The residential
density adjacent to the commercial centers in the
Ha~lets support existing businesses and foster new
business and services in the hamlet. The condominium
development reduces demand of town services. The cost
of services is less then the demand. The project
maintains a private infrastructure, there is no demand
for highway improvements or maintenance. The design
encourages transportation networks which reduced
traffic impact on town roads. For those who can not
walk, this project intends to provide their own
transportation service to supermarket, shopping,
doctor, dry-cleaners, pharmacy, and regional centers.
,
.
.
HISTORY OF PARCEL
On July 19, 1983 the Town Board granted a change of
zone to 46.16 acres, from A-Residential to Article IV,
M-Light Multiple-Residential District which permitted
Condominium Multiple Dwelling Units. The owner
submitted an application for 201 homes attached in
cluster formation of 4 unit buildings and zero lot
lines.
In 1984 the Town started the SEQRA review, issued a
positive declaration and required the owner to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement- He refused and
proceeded to Court to challenge the SEQRA
determination. Four years later, in 1988, the Court
ruled that the Town was not arbitrary and capricious in
requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement.
Thereafter, A Draft Environmental Impacf Statement
was submitted in September 1989 specific to 'the
development of a multifamily use, and the SEQRA process
continued through 1991 when the Final EIS was being
prepared.
In 1989 the Town Board initiated the preparation of
a master plan and adopted the new Zoning Ordinance, the
development of the parcel for multiple family was
ratified and the parcel was zoned Ha~let Density (100-
40). The Zoning District Purposes states" the purpose
of the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District is to
permit a mix of housing types and level of residential
density appropriate to the areas in and around the
major hamlet centers, particularly Mattituck,
Cutchogue, Southold, Orient and the Village of
Greenport.
In 1994 the Town of Southold commissioned a review
of Hamlet Density zoning in Southold Town. The stated
purpose of this Hamlet Study was to review the status
of each vacant property zoned for Hamlet Density. (The
study became the basis of a re-zoning in Greenport and
subsequent litigation) The subject property was
analyzed and determined to be in keeping with the goals
and objectives of the Town's Comprehensive or Master
Plan. The study further stated in support of the
appropriateness of the zoning that "Due to its location
just north of the hamlet's traditional center, this
parcel, when developed, is likely to strengthen tne
hamlet". The Board ultimately adopted the findings of
the study which concluded that the property was
appropriately zoned Hamlet Density.
After years of studies, this parcel remains the
only HD zoned parcel in the Hamlet of Cutchogue. The
current Hamlet Study duplicates at great expense and
delay to property owners the work done only 10 years
ago. In January 2002 the principles of "the Hamlet at
Cutchogue" entered into contract for the purchase of
the subject property. After initiating development
plans, the Moratorium was adopted and an application
could not be filed.
The zoning of this parcel is appropriate and in
accordance with the of>repeated and adopted land use
goals of the Town. / Therefore, we respectfully request
that the applicant be permitted to proceed with an
application and approval.
WAIVER OF MORATORIUM
This project achieves the comprehensive planning
objectives of the Town of Southold:
1. The Preservation of Natural Resources: The plan
preserves open space through the use of village
greens. As a condominium development the units are
clustered with 0 lot lines, where appropriate, and
common areas.
2. Preservation of Open Space and Recreational space:
the property has been designated and planned for
development since 1983. This project creates Open
Space and Recreational space where none existed.
Both passive recreation and amenities such as a
swimming pool, tennis courts, and walking trails
provide recreational opportunities.
3. Preservation of Rural, Cultural, Commercial and
Historical Character of the Hamlets: This is the
primary objective of "The Hamlet at Cutchogue".
.
.
.
The design will model a planned New England style
village in architectural style and infrastructure.
The project design will emphasizes Southold's
heritage. The architecture demands use of natural
materials, picket fences, cobble-stone paths,
masonry chimneys and green architecture
(emphasizing energy conservation). The goals and
plan is compromised by the delay of moratorium.
4. The preservation of Farmland is not at issue. This
parcel has not been farmed in many years and has
been proposed for multifamily development since the
1980's. The parcel is properly zoned Hamlet
Density.
5 .
The Plan provides a housing type which supports the
Hamlet and does not place excessive demands on the
Community. The affordable units will seamlessly
integrate into the development. As a condominium
development the roads are private, the community is
located adjacent to existing stores, churches and
personal services therefore reducing the need for
vehicle use. The development will maintain a
private transportation service which will mitigate
traffic impact and promote transportation
efficiency. The project will provide for
recreational needs of the owners with a pool and
recreation center with such additional services as
may be desired by the community.
.
I
6. This project is designed and planned with "Smart
Growth" policies which emphasizes density in the
Hamlet which support and sustain continued economic
growth of the hamlet. This project also
voluntarily proposes inclusion of affordable units
among the standard units which provide socio-
economic diversity and balanced development. With
the Town's guidance this project could provide an
immediate need for affordable/work force housing.
7. Every study for the last 20 years has recognized
the concept of concentrating residential and
commercial uses in and around the exiting
traditional hamlet centers. The subject property
has been zoned for multiple family uses since 1983,
and in 1989 the Town on its own initiative as part
of a comprehensive re-zoning of the entire town
designated this property Hamlet Density (multiple
family uses). Moreover in 1994 the zoning was
ratified.
8. In the Town's most recent land use studies, the
Generic Environmental Impact Statement, examined
approximately 43 "land use tools" all of which
recognized the fundamental principle that density
belongs in the Hamlets. Since 1983 this parcel has
been identified as being in the Hamlet.
9 .
The continuation of the Moratorium as it applies to
Hamlet development is no longer reasonable. After
two years of moratoria, the Hamlet Studies have
just now been initiated. There is not a single
proposal being contemplated that would alter the
fundamental appropriateness of the zoning of this
parcel. The Hamlet studies being initiated and the
HALO Zones are merely a refinement of prior
studies; the subject property has undergone
specific study and review in 1994 and the
development of this parcel under its existing
zoning is justified and should not be delayed for
the sake of process.
!
,
10. During the twenty-four months of moratorium this
property has been rendered useless. The HD zone
only permits residential development, no use, other
than ~ single family dwelling on 46 acres could
be developed during the moratorium.
11. The stated rationale for two years of Moratorium
was to achieve the following stated goals: [a] To
preserve land including farmland, open space and
recreational landscapes; [b] To preserve the rural,
cultural and historic character of the hamlets and
surrounding countryside; [c] To preserve the Town's
remaining natural environment; to prevent further
deterioration of the Town's natural resources and
to restore the Town's degraded natural resources
back to their previous quality; [d] To preserve and
promote a range of housing and business
opportunities that support a socio-economically
diverse community; and [e] To increase
transportation efficiency and to create attractive
,
.
.
alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving
the scenic and historic attributes of roadways in
the Town.'
12. It is outrageous to delay review of this project in
order to await recommendations of uResident
Stakeholders", community volunteers, to give input
to the needs of the Hamlets and application of
Smart Growth concepts. Multiple studies prepared
over the last 20 years costing the Town hundreds of
thousands of dollars have already analyzed the
needs of the community and the conclusion that
housing density belongs in the Hamlet. This
project already offers to design using the
principles of uSmart Growth". Several valuable
months would be wasted' while the Town reviews
recommendations that are already obvious and have
been confronting the Town for the last 20 years.
Any recommendations which are not includec. in the
original submission can be added as the 9ialogue
between the Town, the Hamlet Study Grou~3, and the
applicant continues with the anticipated months of
administrative review.
13. The applicant (through their attorney or agent)
hereby respectfully requests to be designated a
uResident Stakeholder" for Cutchogue hamlet as he
is an interested party to the land use decisions
affecting his property. The applicant, through
their attorney-agent has been denied membership to
the group. "Stakeholder/Freeholder" historically in
the history of Southold did not exclude the
landowner directly affected. The applicant will
participate in the Hamlet Studies and accept
reasonable recommendations which improve the
project and benefit the Town. Certainly the
planning office has control over the evolution of
the project. As the Umore senior" members of the
1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Generic
EIS page S-4 (2003)
2 In addition to the two years already wasted while this
parcel, lying in the hamlet of Cutchogue, has been rendered
sterile.
Town Board will recall, the farmers [whether they
owned land or not] were "brought to the table" in
the Blue Ribbon Commission to hear their point of
view. The developer-contract vendee of the only HD
parcel in the hamlet of Cutchogue certainly should
be invited to a seat at the table as well.
Therefore, the applicant respectfully request that
they be permitted to proceed with a "smart growth"
model project consisting of a site plan and special
permit for 137 clustered single family homes, 64
townhouse condominium units of which 28 units will be
designated affordable units situated around multiple
parks.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated
consideration.
!
,
patricia C. Moore
cc: The Hamlet at Cutchogue, LLC
Nocro Ltd.
.
~GBOAItD MEMBERS
BENNET'r ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
.' ~,
,
,
i
'1'
.
P.O. Box'1l79
Town Hall, 58095 State Routa 25
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Tclephone(681) 765-1988
Fax (681) 765-3186
RICHARD CAGGIANO
WltLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
MARTIN H. SIDOR
Date ReceIved
Date Completed
RUng Fee
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
'TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN
~New
_Change Of Use
_Re-use
_extension
_Revision of Approved Site Plan'
Name of Business or Site:
SCTM#:
location:
Address: '
Name of Applicant:
Address of Applicant:
Telephone:
Owner of land:
Agent or Person responsible
for application:
Address:' " :.. ','
.....,
, '
,'. ,',
'. '
.'
Telephone:
Sl~e plans prepared by:
license No.
I\dqress:
Telephone:
-~
The Hamlet at Cutchogue
, . .
1000.102-01-33,3
78 School )louse Road
/ .
Cutchogue", NY
i.
The Hamlet at Cutchogue,LLC c/o Charles Kuehn
3 East Deer Park Road, Suite 201 Dix Hills, NY 11746
"
631-493-0534
Seacroft, 'Ltd.
Patricia C. Moore'Esq.
51020 Main Road, Southold NY 11971
"::',..~
631-765-4330
Charles Kuehn Architect
above
I
The HamIet @ Cutchogue
Environmental Assessment Form
Project Description
The proposed project site is located at 78 School House Road, Cutchogue, Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The site can be more clearly defined as Suffolk
County Tax Map Number 1000-102-01-33.3. The property is currently zoned HD-
Hamlet Density Residential. The property is fallow farmland.
The proposed project involves the construction of a mixed residential development. The
development will include 137 single-family residential homes and 64 townhouses.
Amenities including a clubhouse, tennis courts, gazeboes, walkways, internal roadways
and surface water features are proposed for the development. A sewage treatment plant
is proposed to handle the sanitary wastewater generated by the development. Access to
the site will be provided from the comer of School House Lane and Griffing Road.
/"
/~
.
.
,
/
/
Page 2
Planning Board Site Plan Application
APPUCANT'S AFFIDAVIT
'STATE OF NEW mRK
COUNTY OF SUm>LK
J eU Rimland
does business ~
being duly sworn, deposes and says that hex~l!: at
TI21lj',D, NlllllrthH(Jlil-eailnAveflUl!<;:i;:MA<iIIll'llilaJiiNYl1 1lih16;l SnciIwJd NY llS?'
In the State of New Yorl<, and that he Is the owner of the~ above property, or that he Is the
member
of the
The Hamlet at CutchoKue
(Specify whether Partnership or Corp.l
lTIt1el
which Is hereby maklng application; that there are no existing structures or Improvements on the land
Which are not shown on the Site Plan; that the title to the entire parcel, Including all rights-of-way, has
been dearly established and Is shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan Infringes upon any duly filed
plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he !las examined all rules and
regulations adopted by the Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and w)li comply with same; that t1he
plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed In any manner without the approval of the
Planning Board; and that the actual Physical Improvements will be Installed In strict accordance with the
plans submitted.
Signed
/
;'
.
'.
Signed
Mi7H~~/(.
(Pa
SWorn to me this
/~~
~/r
IN lIel ~
;po ;.I
-
--
. ..~
..",:,-.
.'"...
.~~.~
Nantucket Rentals - Take l\ virhlal tour of the quaint Nantucket village N~haquisset
Page 10f2
~...._..
TO\:lr~
*Wl!1W/lIlt
~iIw.Is
.>,wards
GllIlIi!; Iillmltlents
o~rPIft~
Got a question?
(ontad Us!
,,~_~_'__"'_~"M_'_~____""
~.
Welcome
Each home Is exquisitely landscaped
and well-maintained
Our charming houses and cottages are
among the finest rentals on Nantucket
Click Photl
Relax on your homt
pat
In the heart of Nantucket Island lies the extraordinary village of Nashaquisset, a resort commun
winning summer homes and cottages. Within walking distance of Main Street and only a short I
Surfside Beach, these chanmlng, privately-owned houses are among the finest vacation rentals
Nantucket. With classic island design, light and airy interiors and distinctive furnishings. we stri,
Nashaqulsset rental home the perfect spot for a memorable family vacation.
I
Each house aOl)' cottage Is exquisitely landscaped, including an intimate garden, a private patio
shower. Your gbmfortable and well-maintained home comes fully-equipped - right down to the I
and wine gl<.18885.
As a guest of Nashaquisset, you'll enjoy private tennis courts and a beautiful swimming pool wi
sundeck and changing facilities. Our professional caretakers maintain Nashaquisset's lush grot
secluded gardens. and a full time rental staff is available to help assure you a pleasant stay.
We look forward to having you as our guest!
Enjoy swimming in our beautlful pool
and sunbathing on the deck
http://www.nashaquisset.com/tour/index.html
Exteriors of classic island design,
dramatic airy Interiors
Har-Tru ten
1"*,,~IiE,,~
10/29/03
Nantucket Rentals - Prestigiowwards the Nantucket village Nashaqui. has won
Page 1 ofl
,
~-
TOUr~8t
Awards
WE'lcome.
I\""iews
.. ....wards
Guest (J)mments
Our Pl!I'spect:ive
Thoughtfully designed by a team of talented designers and architects, the houses of Nashaquis
national recognition for the charm and quality of their design. Our prestigious awards include:
Got a que5tioll f
Contact Us!
The Builder's Choice Award (National)
For outstanding design and planning: Merit Awards for Best
Community Design and Best Single Family Home Design. (The
only community in the nation to receive two awards in this
prestigious competition.)
The Best In American Living Award (National)
presented by the National Association of Home Builders.
--------J
~\i.~~.
The Target Award (National)
Grand Award for excellence.
The MIRM Awards (National)
Gold and Silver Awards for outstanding design and furnishing.
!
,
The PRISM Awards (Massachussets)
Grand Award for Project of the Year;
Goid Award for Best Single Family Home.
http://www.nashaquisset.com/tour/awards.html
10/29/03
14-16-2 (2/87)-7c
SEQR
617.21
State Enviro~I;~~ty Review
FULL ENVlRONME AL A"SSESSMENT FORM
P~ose: The full EAF is desi~ed to help a~licants and allencies determine, in an orderly manner,
whether a project or action may-be significant: The question of whether an action may be sijlllificant is
not always e~ to answer. Frequently, there are ~cts of a project that are sulljective 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 atialysis. In addition, many
who pave kl).oV{ledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concern affecting the
questIOn of slgmficance.
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the
~eterminiltion p]"ocess )las been ~rderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of
mformation to III 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 m Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifyjnllthe range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action.
It provides g1}idance as to whelher an impact is likely to lle considered small to moderate or whether it
is a potentially-large impact. The form arso 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 SIGN1FICANCE - TYPE 1 AND UNLISTED ACTIONS
IdentifY the Portions of EAF completed for this project: .1l-Part 1 _Part 2 _Part 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts I and 2 and 3 if approRriate k and ant other
supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of eac impac, it is
reasonably determined oy the lead agency that:
A. The prol ect will not result in any large and important impact( s) and, therefore, is one which
- will no have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will
be prepared.
B. Although the protect could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
- significant effect or this Unlisted Achon because the mitigation measures described in PART 3
have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration wllI be prepared.*
C. The project may result in one or more larlie and imfaortant imllacts that may have a significant
- impact on the environment, therefore a pos tive dec aration will be prepared.
· A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
The Hamlet at Cutchoflue
Name of Action
Town of Southold Planninfl Board
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer
If different from responsible officer)
Date
1
· PART 1- PROJECT INFORMA~N
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. Ariswers to
these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further
verification and public review. Provide any adihtional 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
The Hamlet At Cutchol!ue
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County)
78 Schoolhouse Road. Cutchol!ue. Town of Southold
NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE
Charles Kuehn 631-493-0534
ADDRESS
3 East Deer Park Road. Suite 201
CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE
Dix Hills NY 11746
NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE
Nocro Ltd.
ADDRESS
Main Road
CITY /PO STATE ZIP CODE
Cutchol!ue NY / 11930
!
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION See Attached !
--
nease \.-omplere Eacn ",uestlon - .nWcale i~.A. it nor applicable
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: Urban _Industrial
_Rural (non-farm)
_Other
_Commercial
_Forest
_Residential (Suburban)
----K-Agriculture (Former)
2. Total acreage of project area:
46.16 acres
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural)
Forested
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasiure, etc.)
Wetland (Freshwater or Tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of EeL)
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill)
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces
Other (Indicate type) LandscaDed
PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
46.16 acres 0.0 acres
acres acres
acres acres
acres acres
acres :/:0.59 acres
acres acres
0.0 acres :/:26.07 acres
0.0 acres :/:19.50 acres
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? HaA-Haven Loam. 0-3% sloDe. PlC-Plvmouth
Loamv Sand. 8-15% sloDe & RdB-Riverhead Sandv Loam. 3-8% sloDe
a. Soil drainage:..x..... Well drained.1!lL% of site; _ Moderately well drained _% of site;
Poor drained % of site
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I
through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? :/:15 acres. (See I NYCRR 370).
4. Are there bedrock outcropping on project site? _Yes
X No
2
The Hamlet @ Cutchogue
Environmental Assessment Form
Project Description
The proposed project site is located at 78 School House Road, Cutchogue, Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The site can be more clearly defined as Suffolk
County Tax Map Number 1000-102-01-33.3. The property is currently zoned HD-
Hamlet Density Residential. The property is fallow farmland.
The proposed project involves the construction of a mixed residential development. The
development will include 137 single-family residential homes and 64 townhouses.
Amenities including a clubhouse, tennis courts, gazeboes, walkways, internal roadways
and surface water features are proposed for the development. A sewage treatment plant
is proposed to handle the sanitary wastewater generated by the development. Access to
the site will be provided from the comer of School House Lane and Griffing Road.
/
I
,
~<.. . ..c;
a. What is depth to btlCk? NA (in feet) .
~ Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ...x.. 0-10% 100 %; 10-15%
_15% or greater _ %
6. Is project substantially_contig1!ous tOA or contain a buildi1:1g, site, or district, listed on the State or the
National Registers of Historic Places.! _ Yes -.lI... No
7. Is prgject substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks?
_ Yes ----X.... No
8. What is the depth of the water table? 25-30 (in feet)
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? J... Yes No
lO.Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? _ Yes ..2L No
II.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or
endangered? _ Yes -1L No 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 -.lI... No Describe
13.Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation
area? Yes -X-No If yes, explain
14.Does thy.present site include scenic views known to be important to the community?
_ Yes J... No
i
,
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area NIA
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 . Size (In Acres)
No
17.Is the site served by existing public utilities? Yes -X- No (Utilities in immediate area)
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? _ Yes _ No
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? _ Yes _ No
18.Is the site located in an agticultural district certified.pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article
25-M, Section 303 and 304? _ Yes -1L N"o
19. Is the site located in or substantiallY (:ontigyous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant
to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6117 _ Yes ...L No
20.Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Yes -1L No
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 46.16 acres.
b. Project acreage to be developed %46.16 acres initially; %46.16 acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0.0 acres.
d. Length of project, in miles: NIA (if appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed NIA %
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed 39
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 190* (upon completion of project)?
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: NA 'Saturday Peak Hour Total
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initially 13 7 64
Ultimately 137 64
1. Dimensions (in feet) oflargest proposed structure: 2 Stories height; %114 width; %54 length.
(Clubhouse)
3
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? :1:30 ft. (School House
Lane)
2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site?
Unknown at this time cubic yards.
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ...x..- Yes _ No _ N/A
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ..lL- Yes
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation?..1L Yes
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground
site? :1:46.16 acres.
LiuJdscllDinlllturf
No
No
covers) will be removed from
5. Wil.! any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this
project'1 _Yes .JLNo
6. If sing!~ phase project: Anticipated period of construction 18-24:1: months, (including
demolltion).
7. If multi-phased: NIA
a. Total number of phases anticipated (number).
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I _ month _ year (including demolition).
c. Approximate completion date of final phase _ month _ year.
d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? _ Yes No
8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes.JL No
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction :1:60; after project is complete :1:5
10.Number of jobs eliminated by this projectlL
II. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?
If yes, explain
Yes
.JL No
12.ls surface liquid waste disposal involved? _ Yes .JL No
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13.ls subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? _ Yes ~ No Type
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? _ Yes
If yes, explain:
15.ls project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Yes.JL No
...x.. No
I 6. Will the project generate solid waste? ..-X.. Yes No
a. If yes, what is the amount per month :1:16.64 tons.
(Based on 2.3 Ibslcapita-llSsuming 2.4 occupants per dwelling)
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ...x..- Yes No
c. If yes, give name Town of South old Resource Recoverv FacUitv
location NIS of Middle Countrv Road & WIO Cox Lane
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? _ Yes ...x.. No
e. If yes, explain
17.Willthe project involve the disposal of solid waste? Yes --X- No
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month.
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years.
I 8. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? _ Yes .JL No
19.Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes .JL No
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? _ Yes .JL No
4
. .
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~ Yes No
If yes, indicate type(s) Fossil fuels/electricitv
22.Ifwater supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity
N/A
gallons/minute.
23. Total anticipated water usage per day r60,300gallons/day. (Based on 300GPDlDwelling)
24.Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding?
If yes, explain
25.Approvals Required:
Yes ---K- No
City, Town, Village Board
City, Town, Village Planning Board
Type
Submittal Date
Yes
...x Yes
....x.... No
Subdivision/Site
Plan
Special Exception
Sanitary/Water
August 2004
No
City, Town Zoning Board -K Yes No
City, County Health Department ...x. Yes No
Other Local Agencies Yes No
State Agencies DEC X Yes ...x. No
Other Regional Agencies Yes ~ No
Federal Agencies Yes .lL No
C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION
I. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ---K- Yes /
If yes, indicate decision required: /
_zoning amendment _ zoning variance ---K- special use permit . X subdivision X site plan
_ new/revision of master plan _ resource management plan _ other
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
SPDES
No
2. What is the zoning classification(s) ofthe site? HD-Hamlet Densitv Residential
3. Wh!lt is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present
zomng?
20.000Sfmaximum lot size. 25% maximum lot COVeral!e
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? N/A
5. Wh!lt is the maximum potential development of the site if <leveloped as permitted by the proposed
zonmg? N/A
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans?
....x.... Yes _No
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1/4 mile radius of proposed
action? Commercial} residential, al!riculture: A-C-Al!ricultural Conservation, R-80 & R-40
ResidentIal. LfJJ-Lfam et JJusrness
8. Is to proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/4 mile? J;Yes
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision ofland, how many lots are proposed? N/A
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed?
10. Will proposed action require llIlY authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts?
L Yes _No
II. Will the proposed action create 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? L Yes No
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels?
5
Yes -K..No
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? _ Yes _ No
D. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS
Attach any additional infonnation as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any
adverse impacts l!8.sociated with your proposal, please discuss sucli impacts and the measures which
you propose to mItigate or aVOId them.
E. VERIFICATION
I certify that the infonnation provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name Marissa Da Breo Date 8/13/04
Signature ~B-e= Title EnvironmentalAnalvst
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form
6efore proceeding with this assessment.
6
. .
.
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 64 Dwelling Units of Residential Condominium / Townhouse
July 16, 2004
Average Standard Adjustment Driveway
Rate Deviation Factor Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 6.86 0.00 1.00 439
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.10 0.00 1. 00 6
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.47 0.00 1. 00 30
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.56 0.00 1. 00 36
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.44 0.00 1. 00 28
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.21 0.00 1. 00 14
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.65 0.00 1. 00 42
Saturday 2-Way Volume 10.31 0.00 1. 00 660
Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.52 0.00 1. 00 33
Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.44 0.00 1. 00 28
Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.96 0.00 1. 00 61
I
)
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 137 Dwelling Units of Single Family Detached Housing
August 12, 2004
Average Standard
Rate Deviation
Adjustment
Factor
Driveway
Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 9.57 3.69 1. 00 1311
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.19 0.00 1. 00 26
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.56 0.00 1. 00 77
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.75 0.90 1. 00 103
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.64 0.00 1. 00 88
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.37 0.00 1. 00 51
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 1. 01 1. 05 1. 00 138
Saturday 2-Way Volume 10.10 3.68 1. 00 1384
Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.51 0.00 1. 00 70
Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.43 0.00 1. 00 59
Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.94 0.99 1. 00 129
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: .,Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003.
.
.
.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
,
.
Sll6F
W . --- ~C26
ftl'lJYZr 9- wm
Town Hall, 53095 n Roa~ 'Ilf
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF lNFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To: Supervisor & Southold Town Board Members
Town Attorney Patricia FiImegan
.;fOwn Planner Valerie Scopaz
From: Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville
Re: Request for waiver on Moratorium
Date: August 18, 2004
Transmitted herewith is the request of Hamlet at Cutchogue by Patricia Moore, for a
waiver to the subdivision moratorium on property located at 78 School House Road,
Cutchogue, SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3. Please review and prepare a written report of your
recommendations and findings. Thank you.
0~ ~!
\\';:'~ ~~, J~- " \ :,
\\\),."r, ~ \\..::.
\ J \.\ l'~ /.._._~:\.---'-j
~""
s .' "
,,':,'-,-;;..:;'-
-'~;"--"
. .
PATRICIA C. MOORE RECEIVED
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971 AUG 1 8 2004
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643 Soutbold Town Clerk
August 18, 2004
Honorable Josh Horton, Supervisor, and
Members of the Southold Town Board
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Request Waiver of Moratorium
Premises: Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3
Dear Supervisor Horton and Members of the Board:
The Hamlet at Cutchogue on behalf of themselves and
the owner of the property Nocro Ltd. respectfully
requests that they be permitted to proceed with the
submission of a Smart Growth housing plan which
incorporates all the goals and objectives of the GElS
adopted in 2003 and the proposed purposes articulated
for the Hamlet Study.
The parcel is located at 78. School House Road,
Cutchogue, Town of Southold. This property has been
historically recognized as being located in the Hamlet
of Cutchogue, on 46.16 acres, zoned "Hamlet Density".
The applicant wishes to construct mixed residential
development which will include 137 single family homes
and 64 townhouse attached units designed around New
England style "village greens" or parks. The
development will enjoy amenities such as a clubhouse
and pool, tennis courts, gazebos and walk~ays around
parks. The project is a model "smart growth"
development which incorporates housing diversity with
the highest standard of design. Enclosed please find
the following:
""".
.
.
,
Exhibit A: Site plan rendering of the proposed project
Exhibit B: Site plan application
Exhibit C: SEQRA Long Form EAF
The community plan seamlessly integrates income
diversity by designating a percentage of the units as
affordable: the proposed plan designs 137 clustered
single family homes, 64 townhouse condominium units,28
of the units would be designated as affordable units.
The development will be designed around multiple parks
providing open space, privacy and passive recreation.
There will be no difference in the design or
configuration between affordable and traditional non-
affordable units.
The plan is modeled after a nationally recognized
Nantucket project, which, upon completion, will be a
project of which both the owners and the Town can be
proud. Information regarding the Nantucket project is
set forth in Exhibit D.
The design is paramount to the success of the
project: the units are designed with New England
architecture which emphasizes Southold's heritage, The
architecture demands use of natural materials, picket
fences, cobble-stone paths, masonry chimneys and "green
architecture" (emphasizing energy conservation). The
success of this project is jeopardized by the endless
delay of successive moratoria.
This project will produce a positive economic
impact to the Hamlet of Cutchogue. The residential
density adjacent to the commercial centers in the
Hamlets support existing businesses and foster new
business and services in the hamlet. The condominium
development reduces demand of town services. The cost
of services is less then the demand. The project
maintains a private infrastructure, there is no demand
for highway improvements or maintenance. The design
encourages transportation networks which reduced
traffic impact on town roads. For those who can not
walk, this project intends to provide their own
transportation service to supermarket, shopping,
doctor, dry-cleaners, pharmacy, and regional centers.
.
.
HISTORY OF PARCEL
On July 19, 1983 the Town Board granted a change of
zone to 46.16 acres, from A-Residential to Article IV,
M-Light Multiple-Residential District which permitted
Condominium Multiple Dwelling Units. The owner
submitted an application for 201 homes attached in
cluster formation of 4 unit buildings and zero lot
lines.
In 1984 the Town started the SEQRA review, issued a
positive declaration and required the owner to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement- He refused and
proceeded to Court to challenge the SEQRA
determination. Four years later, in 1988, the Court
ruled that the Town was not arbitrary and capricious in
requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement.
Thereafter, A Draft Environmental Impact Statement
was submitted in September 1989 specific to the
development of a multifamily use, and the SEQRA process
continued through 1991 when the Final EIS was being
prepared.
In 1989 the Town Board initiated the preparation of
a master plan and adopted the new Zoning Ordinance, the
development of the parcel for multiple family was
ratified and the parcel was zoned Hamlet Density (100-
40). The Zoning District Purposes states. the purpose
of the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District is to
permit a mix of housing types and level of residential
density appropriate to the areas in and around the
major hamlet centers, particularly Mattituck,
Cutchogue, Southold, Orient and the Village of
Greenport.
In 1994 the Town of Southold commissioned a review
of Hamlet Density zoning in Southold Town. The stated
purpose of this Hamlet Study was to review the status
of each vacant property zoned for Hamlet Density. (The
study became the basis of a re-zoning in Greenport and
subsequent litigation) The subject property was
analyzed and determined to be in keeping with the goals
and objectives of the Town's Comprehensive or Master
Plan. The study further stated in support of the
.
.
appropriateness of the zoning that "Due to its location
just north of the hamlet's traditional center, this
parcel, when developed, is likely to strengthen tile
hamlet". The Board ultimately adopted the findings of
the study which concluded that the property was
appropriately zoned Hamlet Density.
After years of studies, this parcel remains the
only HD zoned parcel in the Hamlet of Cutchogue. The
current Hamlet Study duplicates at great expense and
delay to property owners the work done only 10 years
ago. In January 2002 the principles of "the Hamlet at
Cutchogue" entered into contract for the purchase of
the subject property. After initiating development
plans, the Moratorium was adopted and an application
could not be filed.
The zoning of this parcel is appropriate and in
accordance with the oft-repeated and adopted land use
goals of the Town. Therefore, we respectfully request
that the applicant be permitted to proceed with an
application and approval.
WAIVER OF MORATORIUM
This project achieves the comprehensive planning
objectives of the Town of Southold:
1. The Preservation of Natural Resources: The plan
preserves open space through the use of village
greens. As a condominium development the units are
clustered with 0 lot lines, where appropriate, and
common areas.
2. Preservation of Open Space and Recreational space:
the property has been designated and planned for
development since 1983. This project creates Open
Space and Recreational space where none existed.
Both passive recreation and amenities such as a
swimming pool, tennis courts, and walking trails
provide recreational opportunities.
3. Preservation of Rural, Cultural, Commercial and
Historical Character of the Hamlets: This is the
primary objective of "The Hamlet at Cutchogue".
~
.
.
The design will model a planned New England style
village in architectural style and infrastructure.
The project design will emphasizes Southold's
heritage. The architecture demands use of natural
materials, picket fences, cobble-stone paths,
masonry chimneys and green architecture
(emphasizing energy conservation). The goals and
plan is compromised by the delay of moratorium.
4. The preservation of Farmland is not at issue. This
parcel has not been farmed in many years and has
been proposed for multifamily development since the
1980's. The parcel is properly zoned Hamlet
Density.
5. The Plan provides a housing type which supports the
Hamlet and does not place excessive demands on the
Community. The affordable units will seamlessly
integrate into the development. As a condominium
development the roads are private, the community is
located adjacent to existing stores, churches and
personal services therefore reducing the need for
vehicle use. The development will maintain a
private transportation service which will mitigate
traffic impact and promote transportation
efficiency. The project will provide for
recreational needs of the owners with a pool and
recreation center with such additional services as
may be desired by the community.
6. This project is designed and planned with "Smart
Growth" policies which emphasizes density in the
Hamlet which support and sustain continued economic
growth of the hamlet. This project also
voluntarily proposes inclusion of affordable units
among the standard units which provide socio-
economic diversity and balanced development. With
the Town's guidance this project could provide an
immediate need for affordable/work force housing.
7. Every study for the last 20 years has recognized
the concept of concentrating residential and
commercial uses in and around the exiting
traditional hamlet centers. The subject property
has been zoned for multiple family uses since 1983,
and in 1989 the Town on its own initiative as part
.
.
of a comprehensive re-zoning of
designated this property Hamlet
family uses) Moreover in 1994
ratified.
the entire town
Density (multiple
the zoning was
8. In the Town's most recent land use studies, the
Generic Environmental Impact Statement, examined
approximately 43 "land use tools" all of which
recognized the fundamental principle that density
belongs in the Hamlets. Since 1983 this parcel has
been identified as being in the Hamlet.
9. The continuation of the Moratorium as it applies to
Hamlet development is no longer reasonable. After
two years of moratoria, the Hamlet Studies have
just now been initiated. There is not a single
proposal being contemplated that would alter the
fundamental appropriateness of the zoning of this
parcel. The Hamlet studies being initiated and the
HALO Zones are merely a refinement of prior
studies; the subject property has undergone
specific study and review in 1994 and the
development of this parcel under its existing
zoning is justified and should not be delayed for
the sake of process.
10. During the twenty-four months of moratorium this
property has been rendered useless. The HD zone
only permits residential development, no use, other
than one single family dwelling on 46 acres could
be developed during the moratorium.
11. The stated rationale for two years of Moratorium
was to achieve the following stated goals: [a] To
preserve land including farmland, open space and
recreational landscapes; [b] To preserve the rural,
cultural and historic character of the hamlets and
surrounding countryside; [c] To preserve the Town's
remaining natural environment; to prevent further
deterioration of the Town's natural resources and
to restore the Town's degraded natural resources
back to their previous quality; Ed] To preserve and
promote a range of housing and business
opportunities that support a socio-economically
diverse community; and [e] To increase
transportation efficiency and to create attractive
.
.
alternatives to automobile travel,
the scenic and historic attributes
the Town.'
while preserving
of roadways in
12. It is outrageous to delay review of this project in
order to await recommendations of "Resident
Stakeholders", community volunteers, to give input
to the needs of the Hamlets and application of
Smart Growth concepts. Multiple studies prepared
over the last 20 years costing the Town hundreds of
thousands of dollars have already analyzed the
needs of the community and the conclusion that
housing density belongs in the Hamlet. This
project already offers to design using the
principles of "Smart Growth". Several valuable
months would be wasted' while the Town reviews
recommendations that are already obvious and have
been confronting the Town for the last 20 years.
Any recommendations which are not included in the
original submission can be added as the dialogue
between the Town, the Hamlet Study Groups, and the
applicant continues with the anticipated months of
administrative review.
13. The applicant (through their attorney or agent)
hereby respectfully requests to be designated a
"Resident Stakeholder" for Cutchogue hamlet as he
is an interested party to the land use decisions
affecting his property. The applicant, through
their attorney-agent has been denied membership to
the group. "Stakeholder/Freeholder" historically in
the history of Southold did not exclude the
landowner directly affected. The applicant will
participate in the Hamlet Studies and accept
reasonable recommendations which improve the
project and benefit the Town. Certainly the
planning office has control over the evolution of
the project. As the "more senior" members of the
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Generic
EIS page S-4 (2003)
In addition to the two years already wasted while this
parcel, lying in the hamlet of Cutchogue, has been rendered
sterile.
.
.
.
Town Board will recall, the farmers [whether they
owned land or not] were "brought to the table" in
the Blue Ribbon Commission to hear their point of
view. The developer-contract vendee of the only HD
parcel in the hamlet of Cutchogue certainly should
be invited to a seat at the table as well.
Therefore, the applicant respectfully request that
they be permitted to proceed with a "smart growth"
model project consisting of a site plan and special
permit for 137 clustered single family homes, 64
townhouse condominium units of which 28 units will be
designated affordable units situated around multiple
parks.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated
consideration.
patricia C. Moore
cc: The Hamlet at Cutchogue, LLC
Nocro Ltd.
l-
'.
,
~GBOARn MEMBERS
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
RICHARD CAGGIANO
WlLLIAMJ. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
MARTIN H. SIDOR
.
P.O. Box 1179
Town HaJJ, 63096 State Route 26
Southold, New York 1L971-0969
Telephone(681)76~1938
Fax (631) 766-3136
Date Received
Date Completed
Rllng Fee
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN
~New
_Change of Use
~Re-use
_Extension
_Revision of Approved Site Plan'
Name of Business or Site:
SCTM#:
location:
Address: '
Name of ,lIppllcant:
Address of Applicant:
Telephone:
Owner of land:
Agent or Person responsible
for application:
Address: " : ',;, ','
. .'. .~,
. ...-'
Telephone:
SI~e plans prepared by:
license No.
Adcjress:
Telephone:
~._.J
The Hamlet at Cutchogue
, . .
1000_102-01-33,3
78 School Jlouse Road
/
Cutchogus", NY
L
The Hamlet at Cutchogue,LLC c/o Charles Kuehn
3 East Deer Park Road, Suite 201 Dix Hills, NY 11746
"
631-493-0534
Seacroft, 'Ltd.
Patricia C. Moore'Esq.
51020 Main Road, Southold NY 11971
e -,~
631-765-4330
Charles Kuehn Architect
above
I
.
.
The Hamlet @ Cutchogue
Environmental Assessment Form
Project Description
The proposed project site is located at 78 School House Road, Cutchogue, Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The site can be more clearly defined as Suffolk
County Tax Map Number 1000-102-01-33.3. The property is currently zoned HD-
Hamlet Density Residential. The property is fallow fannland.
The proposed project involves the construction of a mixed residential development. The
development will include 137 single-family residential homes and 64 townhouses.
Amenities including a clubhouse, tennis courts, gazeboes, walkways, internal roadways
and surface water features are proposed for the development. A sewage treatment plant
is proposed to handle the sanitary wastewater generated by the development. Access to
the site will be provided from the comer of School House Lane and Griffing Road.
.
.
/
Page 2
Planning Board Site Plan Application
APPUCANrS AffiDAVIT
-STATE OF NEW VORl(
COUNTY OF SUA'OlJ(
Jeff Rimland
does business
being dUly sworn, deposes and says that hexilMi: at
T'i'2lll'!D! Ni5l1rthFllnutJ.{ ,Avellu'l"l,Mjjlllllli'\Ii!(lHNY){ llJ76;l ri"" i he':: d NY J.l{';' ~~
In the State of New Yorl<, and that he Is the owner of the above property, or that he Is the
member
(Title)
of the
The Hamlet at CutchoRue
(Specify whether Partnership or Corp.l
which Is hereby mal<lng application; that there are no existing structures or Improvements on the land
Which are not shown on' the Site Plan; that the title to the entire parcel. InclUding all rl9hts-Of-way, has
been dearly established and Is shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan Infringes upon any duly flied
plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; 'that he has examined all rules and
regulations adopted by the Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that tt1e
plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed In any manner without the approval of the
Planning Board; and that the actual physical Improvements will be Installed In strict accordance With the
plans submitted.
Signed
The Hamlet at Cutchogue, LLC
,/
10,
I
t.
Signed
~,.,;$f'e.
(Pa
SWorn to me this
/r~
./ ./r
(N~IIC)
#,oy
--
. ..~
. ".~\'.
..~if:,'.
,
Nantucket Rentals - Take a vi. tour of the quaint Nantucket village .aquisset
Page I of2
n:~
Tour t'iJ~isset
. Welcome
Reviews
Awardls
Guest Comments
Our Perspective
Got 2 ~.f
(;:')I1I"J)('1. Us!
1,::<
Each home is exquiSitely landscaped
and well-maintained
Our charming houses and cottages are
among the finest rentals on Nantucket
Click Photl
Relax on your homt
pat
In the heart of Nantucket Island lies the extraordinary village of Nashaqulsset, a resort commur
winning summer homes and cottages. Within walking distance of Main Street and only a short I
Surfside Beach. these charming, privately-owned houses are among the finest vacation rentals
Nantucket. With classic island design, light and airy interiors and distinctive furnishings, we Stril
Nashaquisset rental home the perfect spot for a memorable family vacation.
Each house and cottage is exquisitely landscaped, including an intimate garden, a private patio
shower. Your comfortable and well-maintained home comes fully-equipped - right down to the
and wine glasses.
As a guest of Nashaqulsset, you'll enjoy private tennis courts and a beautiful swimming pool wi
sundeck and changing facilities. Our prOfessional caretakers maintain Nashaquisset's lush grm
secluded gardens, and a full time rental staff is available to help assure you a pleasant stay.
We look forward to having you as our guest!
",*\jjj;:: ".~
Enjoy swimming in our beautiful pool
and sunbathing on the deck
http://www.nashaquisset.comltour/index.html
Exteriors of classic Island design,
dramatic airy Jnteriors
Har-Tru ten
L ~K~,~
10/29/03
Nantucket Rentals - Prestigioueards the Nantucket village Nashaqui.has won
Page 1 of 1
Tour~~isset
rd".
'io'Velcome
P.e\liews
"" Awards
Guest Comm",,!,
Ou r P'Enpective
Thoughtfully designed by a team of talented designers and architects. the houses of Nashaqui,
national recognition for the charm and quality of their design. Our prestigious awards include:
Got ,q ?
ContrF:t Us!
The Builder's Choice Award (National)
For outstanding design and planning: Merit Awards for Best
Community Design and Best Single Family Home Design. (The
only community in the nation to receive two awards in this
prestigious competition.)
The Best in American Living Award (National)
presented by the National Association of Home Builders.
L~!~i[\$t~tJ
The Target Award (National)
Grand Award for excellence.
The MIRM Awards (National)
Gold and Silver Awards for outstanding design and furnishing.
The PRISM Awards (Massachussets)
Grand Award for Project of the Year:
Gold Award for Best Single Family Home.
http://www.nashaquisset.comltour/awards.html
10/29/03
14-16-2 (2/87)-7c
.
.
617.21
Appendix A
State Environmental Ouality Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL A-SSESSMENT FORM
SEQR
Purpose: The full EAF is desigped to help apI1licants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner,
whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether aT! action may be s(gnifi~ant is
not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are suojeclive 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 !lave Jo:towledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concern affecting the
questIOn of sIgnIficance.
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the
determination p)"ocess has been prderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of
mformalion to lit 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 m Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action.
It provides gt,lidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it
is a potentia1ly-Iarge impact. The form arso 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 1 AND UNLISTED ACTIONS
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: -X..-Part 1 _Part 2 _Part 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (parts I and 2 and 3 if appropriate k and ani. other
supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of eac impac, it is
reasonably determined by the lead agency that
A. The proiect will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which
- will no have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will
be prepared.
B. Although the proiect could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
- significant effect or this Unlisted Aclion because the mitigation measures described in PART 3
have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.*
_C. J'he project may ~esult in one or more larlle. and imfaorfl!nt imsacts that may have a significant
Impact on the enVIronment, therefore a positive dee aratIon WlI be prepared.
· A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
The Hamlet at Cutchof!ue
Name of Action
Town of Southold Planninf! Board
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer
If different from responsible officer)
Date
.
.
PART 1- PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a
significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A thiough E. Ariswers to
these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further
verification and public review. Provide any adil1tional 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
The11amktAtCureho~ue
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County)
78 Schoolhouse Road. Cutcho~ue. Town of Southold
NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR
Charles Kuehn
ADDRESS
3 East Deer Park Road, Suite 201
C1TYIPO
Dix 11ills
NAME OF OWNER (If different)
Nocro Ltd.
ADDRESS
Main Road
CITYIPO
Cutcho~ue
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION See Attached
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
631-493-0534
STATE
NY
ZIP CODE
11746
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
STATE
NY
ZIP CODE
11930
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: _Urban _Industrial
_Rural (non-farm)
_Other
_Commercial
_Forest
_Residential (Suburban)
~Agriculture (Former)
2. Total acreage of project area:
46.16
acres
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural)
Forested
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.)
Wetland (Freshwater or Tidal as per Articles 24, 25 ofECL)
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill)
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces
Other (Indicate type) Landscaoed
PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
46.16 acres 0.0 acres
acres acres
acres acres
acres acres
acres %0.59 acres
acres acres
0.0 acres %26.07 acres
0.0 acres %19.50 acres
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? 11aA-11rwen Loam. 0-3% slooe. PIC-Plvmouth
Loamv Sand. 8-15% slooe & RdB-Riverhead Santlv Loam. 3-8% slooe
a. Soil drainage: .x.... Well drained 100 % of site; _ Moderately well drained _ % of site;
Poor drained % of site
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I
through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? %15 acres. (See I NYCRR 370).
4. Are there bedrock outcropping on project site? _Yes X No
2
.
.
The Hamlet @ Cutchogue
Environmental Assessment Form
Project Description
The proposed project site is located at 78 School House Road, Cutchogue, Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The site can be more clearly defined as Suffolk
County Tax Map Number 1000-102-01-33.3. The property is currently zoned HD-
Hamlet Density Residential. The property is fallow fannland.
The proposed project involves the construction of a mixed residential development. The
development will include 137 single-family residential homes and 64 townhouses.
Amenities including a clubhouse, tennis courts, gazeboes, walkways, internal roadways
and surface water features are proposed for the development. A sewage treatment plant
is proposed to handle the sanitary wastewater generated by the development. Access to
the site will be provided from the comer of School House Lane and Griffing Road.
.
a. What is depth to bedrock? NA (in feet)
% Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 1 0-10% 100 %;
_ 15% or greater _ %
6. Is project substantially_ contigi!ous tOA or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the
National Registers of Historic Places'! _ Yes ----X No
7. Is pr.9ject substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks?
_ Yes --K.. No
.
10-15%
8. What is the depth of the water table? 25-30 (in feet)
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ---..K Yes No
IO.Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? _ Yes ...lL No
II.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or
endangered? _ Yes -----K.... No 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 ----X No Describe
13.Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation
area? Yes -L No If yes, explain
14.Does thS',present site include scenic views known to be important to the community?
_ Yes ---..K No
15.Streams within or contiguous to project area N/A
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16.Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to proj~ct area:
a. Name . SIze (In Acres)
No
17.Is the site served by existing public utilities? Yes -L No (Utilities in immediate area)
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? _ Yes _ No
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? _ Yes _ No
18.Is the site located in an agricultural district certifiedj)ursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article
25-AA, Section 303 and 304? _ Yes -----K.... N'o
19.Is the site located in or substantial!y'.:.ontigyous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant
to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? _ Yes ...lL.. No
20.Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Yes -----K.... No
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I. Physical dimensions and scale ofproject (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 46.16 acres.
b. Project acreage to be developed %46.16 acres initially; %46.16 acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0.0 acres.
d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed 39
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 190* (upon completion of project)?
h. Ifresidential: Number and type of housing units: NA 'Saturday Peak Hour Total
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initially 137 64
Ultimately 137 64
1. Dimensions (in feet) oflargest proposed structure: 2 Stories height; %114
%
width; %54 length.
(Clubhouse)
3
.
.
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? %30 ft. (SchoolHouse
Lane)
2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site?
Unknown at this time cubic yards.
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? 2L-.. Yes No N/A
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~ Yes
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation?..x.. Yes
4. f!:ow many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground
site? %46.16 acres.
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this
project'! _ Yes -K..No
6. If sing'~ phase project: Anticipated period of construction 18-24:r months, (including
demolitIOn).
LandscaDinl!lturf
No
No
covers) will be removed from
7. If multi-phased: NIA
a. Total number of phases anticipated (number).
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I _ month _ year (including demolition).
c. Approximate completion date of final phase _ month _ year.
d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? _ Yes No
8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes -K.. No
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction %60; after project is complete %5
IO.Number of jobs eliminated by this project..fL.
I I. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?
If yes, explain
Yes
-K.. No
I2.Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? _ Yes -K.. No
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
I3.Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? _ Yes --...X.- No Type
14.Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? _ Yes
If yes, explain:
15.1s project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Yes -K.. No
..x.. No
I 6. Will the project generate solid waste? --..X Yes No
a. If yes, what is the amount per month :r 16.64 tons.
(Based on 2.3 lbs/capita.assuming 2.4 occupants per dwelling)
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? 2L-.. Yes No
c. If yes, give name Town of Southold Resource Recoverv Facilitv
location NIS of Middle Countrv Road & WIO Cox Lane
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? _ Yes ..x.. No
e. If yes, explain
I 7. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? Yes ~No
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month.
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years.
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? _ Yes -K.. No
19.WilI project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes -K.. No
20.Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels?_ Yes -K.. No
4
. .
2 1. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~ Yes No
If yes, indicate type(s) Fossil fuelslelectricitv
22.Ifwater supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity
N/A
gallons/minute.
23.Total anticipated water usage per day :t'60.300gallons/day. (Based on 300GPD/Dwelling)
24.Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding?
If yes, explain
25.Approvals Required:
Yes -----L No
City, Town, Village Board
City, Town, Village Planning Board
Type
Submittal Date
Yes
...x. Yes
---K- No
Subdivision/Site
Plan
Special Exception
Sanitary/Water
August 2004
No
City, Town Zoning Board ----K. Yes No
City, County Health Department l Yes No
Other Local Agencies Yes No
State Agencies DEC .L Yes l No
Other Regional Agencies Yes ...K..- No
Federal Agencies Yes JL No
C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION
I. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? -----L Yes
If yes, indicate decision required:
_zoning amendment _ zoning variance -----L special use permit X subdivision X site plan
_ new/revision of master plan _ resource management plan _ other
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
SPDES
No
2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? HD-Hamlet Densitv Residential
3. Wh~t is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present
zonmg?
20.000Sfmaximum lot size. 25% maximum lot coveral!e
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? N/A
5. Wh~t is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed
zonmg? N/A
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans?
---K- Yes _ No
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1/4 mile radius of proposed
action? Commercial> residential. al!riculture: A-C-Al!ricultural Conservation. R-80 & R-40
Residential. H/J-Ham et /Jusmess
8. Is t~o proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/4 mile? ,xYes
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision ofland, how many lots are proposed? N/A
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed?
10. Will proposed action require allY authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts?
.L Yes _No
II. Will the proposed action create 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? ---K.. Yes No
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels?
5
.
.
Yes ......;L No
a. If 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. If there are or may be any
adverse impacts as.sociated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which
you propose to mItigate or aVOid them.
E. VERIFICATION
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name Marissa Da Breo Date 8/13/04
Signature ~B-e-::. Title EnvironmentaIAnalvst
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form
liefore proceeding with this assessment.
6
. .
SUIlIll\ary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 64 Dwelling Units of Residential Condominium / Townhouse
July 16, 2004
Average Standard Adjustment Driveway
Rate Deviation Factor Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 6.86 0.00 1. 00 439
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.10 0.00 1. 00 6
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.47 0.00 1. 00 30
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.56 0.00 1. 00 36
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.44 0.00 1. 00 28
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.21 0.00 1. 00 14
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.65 0.00 1. 00 42
Saturday 2-Way Volume 10.31 0.00 1. 00 660
Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.52 0.00 1. 00 33
Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.44 0.00 1. 00 28
Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.96 0.00 1. 00 61
. .
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 137 Dwelling Units of Single Family Detached Housing
August 12, 2004
Average
Rate
Standard
Deviation
Adjustment
Factor
Driveway
Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 9.57 3.69 1. 00 1311
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.19 0.00 1. 00 26
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.56 0.00 1. 00 77
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.75 0.90 1. 00 103
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.64 0.00 1. 00 88
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.37 0.00 1. 00 51
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 1. 01 1. 05 1. 00 138
Saturday 2-Way Volume 10.10 3.68 1. 00 1384
Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.51 0.00 1. 00 70
Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.43 0.00 1. 00 59
Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.94 0.99 1. 00 129
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
.
711~ ffln1LEt'T C7Cf-t:k,vE Su/BF
PB
\/5
735
Jeffrey Rimland vL
1721-D North Ocean Avenue
Medford, New York 11763
Tel (631) 207-5730
Fax (631) 207-5974
February 4, 2004
Chairperson Jeri Woodhouse
Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
Re: Request to Appear at Board Meeting
0 ~ F: ~ 5' : ~ ~
r
Southold Town
Plannin! Boar"
Dear Chairperson Woodhouse:
I am the principal shareholder of the entity that owns the large hamlet density parcel in
Cutchogue. I am requesting permission to appear before an upcoming work session of the
Planning Board to propose ajoint study, which I would fund, to be performed by an
independent consultant to seek consensus for a program to develop this parcel in such a
manner that would meet both the Town's comprehensive planning goals and the needs of
the local community.
The contemplated study would include meetings with focus groups to gain preliminary
feedback to be used for the preparation of a 3 dimensional simulation model of the
project and its relationship to downtown Cutchogue. The study would consider and
analyze environmental, demographic, and tax impacts on the Cutchogue community.
I would also like the opportunity to briefly outline our preliminary plan for the parcel that
envisions the creation of a Nantucket type community comprised of residences modeled
after 19th Century historic Southold style homes, complete with brick walkways and
picket fences. Our plan will incorporate smart growth, green construction, next
generation housing, and water conservation concepts as essential elements to the design
and construction of a well-planned community.
Please contact me at your convenience with proposed dates for an appearance at an
upcoming planning board work session.
\
"
.
.
~
~j!)
11)
P.O. BOX 610 . CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935
July 10. 2002
r
Mr. Bennett Orlowski. Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
South Town Hall
PO Box 1178 - 53085 Main Road
South old. NY 11871
JUL 112 2002
<f.~'~r'rl
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
We. the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Chamber of Commerce, urge you to consider cautiously and carefully, the plans to
build a luxury town house development in Cutchogue on the land behind the Catholic Church and Post Office
(believed to be SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3). It appears as though this development is being rushed through by the
developer and his lawyer without any overall consideration as to how 1S8 luxury town houses will affect Cutchogue.
There are major concerns pertaining to how the burden of such a large influx of housing in a village the size of
Cutchogue will affect support services such as: the Fire Department. Post Office, library. and the Schools. There
are also valid concerns on the number of cars these new dwellings would bring into the area thereby adversely
affecting the overall traffic flow, parking. and the use of public areas such as parks and beaches. Also. is there
,mough water to aooommodote 3 large devp.!opment such at this?
Extremely careful consideration must be given as to a realistic number of luxury town houses to be built. whether
or not this is a proper use of this land and how these types of structures would affect the character of the area.
To that end we urge you and the members of the Planning Board to put this project on hold until proper steps are
taken and environmental studies completed that will provide the residents and businesses of Cutchogue with
satisfactory answers to their very valid concerns.
As a Chamber we are not against new homes or town houses in Cutchogue and are in accord with them in
compliance with the Hamlet Density issue. We are. however. concerned about the irresponsibility of putting in a
large number of luxury town houses in an area that is already overburdened and experiencing difficulties in keeping
up with the ever growing number of residents.
~~&;';Ol~':':'~c'~;<;Y;'~";~~',r-r:\;""'}~:F!~~?-",,- ~'1,:?:l;'~)<'lf?'F.j~f::~,7.,tff?'mw;~,""~~'!\'5!l?1JIr,~i'.fi":?{M'..lIrnl<rut';"-;~_,'b"""'''l'l'JI!''~(~<~':~'''',;,,, ~,
.~_""""'""""._,.,.""n,,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,,,,,,",,"~~,^._..
\
-...
.
.
Page 2
If there is some way the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Chamber of Commerce may be of assistance in ensuring that the
proper steps are taken towards reviewing the viability of a luxury town house development in a village the size of
Cutchogue. we would be glad to offer our services.
Sincerely.
Richard Non carrow. President
~,
//~.--' -
~.
- .
{/
Lauren Grant. Vice President
Cutchogue-New Suffolk Chamber of Commerce
.;:.~/.~.
Cc: Southold Town Supervisor Josh Horton and the South old Town Board
,j:;:N"!" ';v: ~\f.;,)Or:l:;
63' 765 4643;
M/4'1. f7.D~ A:50,;
PME
.
.
~
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Allomey at Law
5 ! 020 Main Road
Southold, NY. [1952
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
Margaret Rutkowski
Secretary
May 17, 2002
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman
Southold Town PIBl1Iling Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P .a.Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
(BY FAX)
Re: Hamlcl at Culchogu.e
SCTM#IOOO-I02-01-333
Dear Mr. Qrlowskl:
I represent Mr Rimland and his associates who are the contract vendees for a project mown
as lhe Hamlet at Cutcnogue. In 1991 a Draft Environmemallmpaet Statement was prepared and
acc~'Ptcd by the Town, the applicant at that time was required to complete the Fmal ImpllCl
Statemont. My clientll wish to proceed with the Environmental Review and complete the pr~ject
Please discuss this with Mr. Voorhis and advise me on how you wish to proceed. I would
be pleased to discuss Ihe pW''':;ULUe wilh Mr. Voorhis in order to expeditc the process.
T would ask to be placed on your work session to discuss the proceduxes, the fees and
continuation of the EnvirolUUeIltal review in accordance with SEQR.... .
If you wish to dlSCIlSS this further please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very t~'I!,).:.)I~urs,~
. ~~/'i-
(... . !>atrieia C. Moore
CC' Charles Kuehn, Architect
r" ~~'~~~~~t~~'~~~,
" "J' '.' ~,,*;.-:, .' '.:- ,
I :l~' 'o,~
..1 .,
).,,~~, MAY l'j LUUL'
Southold Town
pfrq'~p",rn(1 "'n;!lrr'
. i...,,~ ~;",.1~ lo..h.J...." .k
.~UG-13-01 MON 11:08 AM
EAST END PROPERTIES
.
FAX NO. 1 212 319 399:
.
/~~
.~
c\. Pro
~~ ~~
~ ~~
CI.l ~
~.
ro ro
~ 0')
FACSIMILE
TRANSMISSION
Eo.tJJ:ndl'."operlio.,LLC . 62SMadiSODAwDue . NewYork,NY10021. Omce(2U) 319-3990 · l<'ax(212)319-3991
Bob Gianos
Recipient: Valerie Scopcz
Fax Number: 631-765-1823
Rush:
yt:S NO
Palle,: 3
Dali1lTime Given:
August 13.2001
Company:
Sender:
Message:
Enclosed, plesase find tho updated sanitary report for the proposed Senior elt;..cn Pl'oject in Cutchogue.
. ,
.AUG-13-01 MON 11:08 AM EAST END PROPERTIES
Rue 13 01 10:40. RaJltBBrbosa
FAX NO. 1 212 319 3991
51G. 5103
P. 02
p.l
d[b Dvlrka
and '
o Bartilucci
COtIIULTlNG \!fIIWIEERS
330 c_ hollllOM. WOod.....,. _ _.11797-2015
S,6-:lIU_. 71'~.)o' . Fu:fi'''~
...,...11: ..~ 4Jtdnel.a.ftlll
-
....... ~......... ,..IIi.
....."~u.
on.-' ..... '.Eo
JildlM,1.........Pf
-..-
~. F....... ,..
Aucust 7,:lOOt
r . -~.........
.... o. ea.-.-
............... Pil.
_It_
~J.~'.l.
~.,.,.....il'.
-
....F.~
.....IU.,.......,'.t.
~..~p...
...... 0 ...... ~..
..... ...-.r.n.
........,..,...E.
0..-,,_1'::1.
Mr. FDIIk. Muzpby
P.O.Baxl4
Mauibll:k, NY 11951
Rc: ParcelIOOO-102-1-33J - Cl*haP
D.tBNo.ITTl
Dear FraDIt:
Tho ~ JXOPedY is 45.6 _ ill die Hami. of CId&:IIDpe. A &ire visit the
pBP:Ol as f'aid)' Je\IeI with DO ,_ tbat ~ ;. rl~' ~ or ~ sil)'. The
property is 1i1llalCCl ill CkoIIadwatcr MaDapaIaJt IV (OWZ) aad lIIIIIIl sul/llll dcvclllpll1CDI
. wilh \he ..-1 Hamlet Density ZIIIIiq. .
M per \be propaul, discu',...f belcIw aN 1be deuity. _1IIpIll)', ad cIiIwlgpm
die propal)'. The To_ CGdalllll AJdda , orlbe SuIfoIk ~ S8I\if8Iy CGdc
lIIIIl dbl;usalau _1I8kI with T_ ad HalIb DepIr\mIIII_-a.
~IY Oolians
The SCDHS'~ for otb<< than siqle r.nuy ~~ Ieqllire!bat a
equivalent be t.acuIaIed for ~ clewlope4 for IIIIIlIipIc lUideatial. Two
used tllllef8\JDlDe \be cqaiwIeBt or pcraaiu.d flow aad die lIJalCr of Ibe two cu
allowable 1111_ pa' cia)'. Tho j''''~ is ill GWZ IV. whk:h permIcs dcYelopm
of ODAillot per 2D,ooo sq. ft.
J. Use 75" of\he gwss land _ ~ 600 pIIK!l!.
45.6_1(.751(600~20.S201Jld
density
can be
used as Ibe
el e dellSity
,,~OF"'LL_ F. COSLllJQtASlClClflm, IIC.
5/l!: 3D'4tcl
sl.S8lracEllll'S 'at
.wo~d 855&8 te-6B-nny
~ ..,
_~UG-13-C: MON 11:08 AM EAST END PROPERTIES
AUG 13 III 10:40.., Ra.al"'bDSa
FAX NO. 1 212 319 3991
51& . 5103
P. 03
p.2
DvIrka and Bllrtilucci
CQHSlJLTlNO ~EEIUl
Mr. Ptu!k Murpby
A~7.2001
P..2
I
2. Pnpare a yield map sbowiDg 20.000 JlI.- feel loll ....1Il roads IIICI cbiDa&c
exdwliaa WdIaads aad __ ~~. Giveo die aalUIe or tIae a grid
subdivision yield map could be prepu'ClI witb cmly 10% lose ill the of lots lIS
fOllow&;
45.6 III:IW1l.21otl11ac:rcxO.10-9.121011 WI 9louIClSCfroma~,90.
Allowa.ble tlaw Ok (90-9) X 300 1IJlIII0I- 24.300 pi.
The mast filvorabIe JlC'P'''.';- equi~1IIl Aaw filc thI JIIOPlIlf1 WII\IIIl be usina be yidd map
, IIICdIod aad for.. ~ of dfi..... al1llllliple tlweIliDs NIicIaI1ia1 pnject ,300 gpd win
be used. This ww1d be dI8 flow a1lowe4 by SCDHS.
Wider SUDDlY 0aIicln
Two IOI11'CCS of __ supply _ be coa~-.cI1br1l!e ...vpaty: a) bavias SC
_ or; b)~" ii'l" IlOIlh"'_--:~"""~'
sew A; ThiI oplioR wouW lOq\IP --' miIec of...... m.a CClaSINll1loa. die pcoputy.
While tbe COlt of this wauId pmbably .,..... the nquiIaII=b or SCDHS (1 so dwdlillg)
UUs opDoa.mlllt Itill be IIIlplcPcl widl!be sew A. At !be 1ime !If lIetwIlapp1ic:eti a -- main
may be closer TO !be me. .
A self caataizwd COIIUI1\IIIity __ system: 1bia optioD ~d be based 011 a per capita
COIISUIlIptioD. raIe plllS file flow ra(UinmeaIs. If fiR weIJs wm pen:ai1led by lbe ire ~ a
smailer water syslml (i.e., laIIODS per JDiIIuIc) could bel pnvIdecL Geaen1ly syltemll
consist of two lIIIISIl c:apICity wells SlId ah~aIic laaIc..
II lest well would be teqUizaI TOpdwt wi1h a __ quality .ysis. So.- pri wells iI. the
subdivisicm -.. of dle lilie bave Ibown _ of .-ucldel sad iroD.. Any CO pt follllli TO
cxcccd . clriIIkiDII Mtcr sllIIIdanI would DIed beltlncnt.
Develo_IOtlliOll
The sile is ~ Hamiet DeasiI7 om) Rroi(l-tl.. Diavic:L The Sou/,,^Id To
Ollll l'amil, tktached UIII two-fllllily 4-0iJIp. By spe;iIl ~ of the
IIl1I1tiple dweIliap, IOWa bouses, _ or ...~bed bIluses, CfC., .. panDiteccl.. A
for HD of 4 1IIIltllaae ia J*IIli.a.d wben _1IlIl17 water .. JCWlISC faci . .
W"dbout thue COIIlIIlUDity fladIitia ouIy 1 units P" .... _ pamitted. All .
number of ci_1IinB Illlits (aMWDiDB a 10"10 .uclicm 1W _s aa4 draiDap)
4 W1itslame is:
Ii ""I: .il!lVd
S.l.Ss..eC91SIOl
IWO~~ tSI68 t.-6.-Dn~
. ~UG-13-0: MON 11: 09 AM
EAST END PROPERTIES
Ra.Bar-bosa
FAX NO. 1--,!2 319 3991
51B. 5103
P. 04
p.3
Ru~ 13 01 10:~la
Cvlrka and Bartlluccl
cQIISULT..G ENGI'IUR5
Mr. FJ'IDk Murpby
AIISust 1,2001
P~4
SIl"n.....al"'V
1. A collllllWlilY W1dCI' syllcm either aelf c..l- or piped to the IIire sew A is
required.
2. To obtaia tbc paWl yMld for tbe l'"~ (4 lIIIilll_) . --. pllUl1
mUSl be plQVided. n.e are DO sail or to_..pbic fcat1nI to . pl8Dt &om
b&iDa~
3. !be IlIDClarclIO!plic IlIIlk, c_spool systIIII could be ..Im-, at the Z acre densily
lCquinlcl oftba T...... Cad& and SCDHS.
1 belillvc Ibe Ibow provicIc.o yo. witlt. the dawl ojIaut hdbu..aoD ~ The SCDHS
sbould be sadsflea wi1h this dcuity. If you IIICllIDlJ ftIrdIa" iD1'omIalioll or _Ill lilc.e to meet
about die iofonuIloa, p1_ call (516) 364-9190.
y yours,
JHBIId
cc:: R.. BllI1lS (DAB)
.17~71",",n....
5/5; :l!)'dd
5,SS1rOl:ans' at
'N~d 9&1&. Ig-68-Qn~
.
.
GREGORY F. YAKABOSKI
TOWN ATTORNEY
MARY C. WILSON
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY
'-CL
. . JEAN W. COCH~' siJW;f 1-
Supervisor '. .,)-<:=,
o U:,,:v'"J,.
Town Hall, 53095 Route 25 ((.1/<'<<;
P.O. Box II 79
Southold, New York II97I-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1889
Fax (631) 765-1823
E-mail: townattorney@southold.org
OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To:
Planning Board
From:
Gregory F. Yakaboski, Esq.
Town Attorney
Date:
December 21,2000
Re:
proposed "Seacroft" project
~--- ~ ,...--......---.....,
~(JL. ..~\J ~~il
DEe 21lUUU ~')J
Southold Town
Plarmlng Board
Attached, for your information, is a copy of letter received by the Town Clerk from
Nancy Endemann regarding "Seacroft", a proposed low-income rental housing project
in Cutchogue. Please keep a record of this in your planning files.
/md
attachment
.
.
/6
~ECEIVEO
DEe 5 2000
~...tnOIO IOWn Clerk
December
2000
Supervisor Jean Cochran
Members of the Southold Town Board
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Proposed "Seacroft" Project
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please note our strong OpposItIOn to the proposal to build the "Seacroft"
low-income rental housing in Cutchogue. To allow a few individuals to profit
handsomely at the expense of an entire community is simply wrong. ,
At a time when most of the taxpayers in Southold do not have and can not be
given access to public water, there is no justification for Town officials to make efforts to
bring public water to a development destined to be occupied by others from outside our
Town. Furthermore, a high-density development of the property like that proposed
would create added traffic our roadways cannot accommodate. For the past few years, it
has been nearly impossible to make a left turn onto Main Road during the weekends, and
the addition of multiple housing units near the center of town would undoubtedly result
in unreasonable congestion and a dangerous traffic situation. Moreover, the creation of
low-income apartments would be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding
residential properties and would be detrimental to the community as a whole. No longer
would Cutchogue be the lovely village described in the National Geographic Guide to
Small Town Escapes as a place where visitors could "[I]eave the traffic jams and
congestion behind." Rather, it would be like so many other communities west of our
Town: suburban, over-developed, congested and just plain ugly.
We strongly urge you to say "NO" to the proposal to build low-income rental
units in Cutchogue.
Sincerely,
[lEe 53D)
(Name) '1.CH ,dl # ,11;-(,./, ,1"'.' ~ ,,~.
/
f) /'
(Address) <j Q r C.-U "vL~l ,--0 !,I: cA.....
L., "~; ;.;
1/_ ,:1 cd ,I 1:" /.
) ~V
/
')C'7 ...., /---
I. ' . --
~
..
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
File
b
FROM:
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
RE:
FEIS for Site Plan for The Hamlet, Cutchogue
SCTM ~ 1000-102-01-33.3
DATE:
June 10, 1991
Present:
Richard Cron, one of the applicants
Jim Gerrihan, of the Greenman Pederson consulting firm
another employee of the Greenman Pederson consulting firm
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
The meeting was called by Mr. Gerrihan. He is taking the
place of the staff member at Greenman Pederson (GP) who was in
charge of writing the FEIS for this site. Mr. Gerrihan wished
the opportunity to introduce himself, as well as to ask some
questions about the Planning Board's recommended changes to the
DEIS.
The questions were as follows:
What degree of detail would be required in the description
of the slope analysis?
(Answer: A careful analysis would be sufficient. It will
not be necessary to do a complete and detailed final
engineering plan for the proposed buildings and roads for
the FEIS. However, at the time of final site plan approval,
the grading and drainage plans would be reviewed for
compliance with the FEIS.)
In response to the comments made by the Planning Board, the
applicant may make some changes in the project. Should each
observation in the Planning Board's resport be responded
to, even though they may not apply to the revised aspects
of the project?
(Answer: Yes. There should be a response to each comment.
If a recommendation no longer applies due to new proposed
revisions to the project, indicate that this is the case
and why. If necessary refer reader to other responses.)
.
.
As a result of preliminary marketing surveys, the applicant
is thinking of making changes in the architectural style,
size and grouping of the buildings. However, no decision
has been made as to the degree and nature of the changes.
Should these changes be noted in the FEIS?
(Answer: It would be to the applicant's advantage to note
the proposed changes in the FEIS at this time because these
changes may mitigate some of the projected environmental
impacts. If the proposed changes are not noted in the FEIS,
but are incorporated into the final site plan, the
Planning Board would be within its rights to ask for a
Supplemental FEIS at that time.)
I emphasized that they should respond to all comments made
by the coordinating agencies, not just the Plannin~: Board's
comments.
Further, application for wastewater treatment and disposal
should be made to the Health Department soon, so that they can
respond to the FEIS in an informed and timely fashion. Also, the
source of water supply will have to be resolved in the FEIS.
Contact should be made with the Suffolk County Water Authority
as to approvals for water supply. I gathered from what was said
at the meeting, that while there have been discussions with
personnel in these two agencies, no one is sure whether there
are active applications for approval before either of these
agencies.
At the close of the meeting, I suggested. that Jim Gerrihan
contact me by phone if further questions arise as to the meaning
of any of the Planning Board's recommended changes. If I cannot
answer his questions, I will contact our consultants at Cramer &
Voorhis for assistance.
.
.
SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
Leon J. Campo, Chairman Administrative offices: Oakdaie, Long Island, N.Y. 11769
Melvin M. Fritz, M.D., Member Area 516-589-5200
Matthew B. Kondenar, Secretary
James T,B. Tripp, Member
Michael E. White, Member December 13,1989
Ms. Val eri e Scopaz
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Dear Ms. Scopaz:
Thank you for your request for comments upon the proposed private
water supply system for the project entitled, "The Hamlet at
Cutchogue".
As you are aware, the Town Board has recently designated the
Suffolk County Water Authority as the-official water purveyor for
the Town. We are, therefore, quite concerned about the possible
introduction of an additional private system into the area.
The Authority's experience with the incorporation of private
systems into its own distribution and supply system has been
varied. We have frequently found that such incorporation involves
extensive reworking of the physical plants, mains, metering
systems, etc., in order for the new additions to be brought up to
the Authority's design and operational standards. As the
designated water purveyor for the Town, the possibility that the
proposed system will eventually become part of the authority
system leads us to voice these experiences.
In particular, we would object to the introduction of any new
water supply system which has been designed without the active
involvement and approval of our engineering and operations staff.
We would encourage the applicant to review the proposed system
with our appropriate departments and would appreciate the Town's
support of this approach for any similar future projects.
I hope these comments are of some
t,y:;'y""~~.
cJJiu
DAVID ROSS
Deputy Executive Director
DR:jc
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
.
DEe 2 2 198':!
, <"";~
PLANNING BARD
December 20,1989
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 530Y5 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3
Dear Benny:
This is to confirm our understanding that the Response to comments on the Draft EIS for
the above referenced project, will be prepared by the applicant.
In addition, it is our understanding that CV A will review the Response to Comments to
determine if it is adequate for the Board to Certify as a complete Final EIS, for an amount
not to exceed $490.00.
Please note that the fee will cover one review of the document, and that subsequent services,
if necessary will be discussed at a later date.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service to the Town of Southold Planning Board.
Very truly yours,
Cl!!.vomh"
cc: Valerie Scopaz
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
"
--...--=0.
"_.,...~~-.,,~
." -"", .~
,.,
~:.,.",~..~.~.~~.,.,......"""'~"
.,',.n.,
~.~
.
!', ",;',~r". 198~
\1'
,', >,. Box
'*;f
- "-.~
1\17!
[)e,) r Ben,n):
;~ h7';"
"',' ','il
f'- I "J\'~' - 'i
'I
,t., ...t.
"" .<>
_"' of r}~;(,C.(cbf;:;r
i".,','':t'!
\'\_~ tnt;'
;h~.
"il
;__~Cdi~:[- ,in': ~,; ~,'"'!
f" \(,)~")"f'\ \Y.{\
,.)\..,.r_;_" ,'_'''' '_~I":'-
't',,:,'l'J"'f" "IS
. '., -" ..' . ~,. ," -',', ';.
t :~b:;: t(\
,
rnir'.i.~
L~ n;;[:
F'
j;~
;
"it 1"\Vl2 ~~,~~(t}"~:~:,;~t~ca
!:,:'; '}/iih th:;
"',e',,,,-.,
'f.ei'
," -j
"
;:'n~t.
',""~{
.; "~'~; ; "!;Ut;; i!~
~ubn;' ;,ti..~d
~\;'_'^'_'!:>:"~.'i,;):~L') t\lf~-~' ~~,vL,.-w of
.,..,.",..,l;" "':/->"'_~_ " 'td,; l./e
~ : il
~- c:
,iv' -.j
"
'l.
, ." "'"
Il ,'....."'~,..,." I
I" ./ ,:/
/',,<'
V 'I'" ['I'U,,.r'{"rr
1 v J ........, :>~,'l"'~,"",:'jo~
~ ,KI
/,/V I
/,.,..- Ilk
1.:.fl'- ."" ,,'J'~" ..,"" '<'l'
,;("{:f'ld,, l..,,,,I~J.;d;"~~ /-\.;- J}
./(_/~
I
\
l
\
\
-"
\.~,
((;
\la:~"ri{
TCJ"kt!
",(i-:.-j"
1'-'
:;.:-""
'.J " H:,~,
;-/ L,,"E''''1
3-:f:J <f_'l' -: 'b~::
l~ !-'j '(
/~~~~~ .
:-;:;0 ~~
CRAMER, VO HI ~ SOCI. ES
ENVIRONMENTAL ~ CONSULTANTS
._--,.---
rr-D-~~' ~ ~ D VB lS
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD ~
Date:
FAX TRANSMITTAL
pc C 1 118i
&NNj (c;! U.J1LEe/L
) 01 U?4 I-(tO<..
<:::- !#t. l/4/1-fClCr(?CTL/kx1. UE !=E IS }2.,c&-,\c
To:
From:
Re:
CAU- IF 71ffRz ~ 4Vy
-' '. .~( &. '-'-('
z:-.C?
1
Number of Pages (including cover):
Comments:
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
,j';;j~i\H::,\~,
CRAMER, Vclt5R .'
ENVIRONMENT~?fi""
~
.
December 8, 1989
m
~@~DW~
B',~.:
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman, Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogue
Review of the Final EIS
SCTM # 1000-102-01-33.3
.
PlASOUTHOLO TOWN ....1
NNING B08RQ
-*..~_.,
Dear Benny:
We are in receipt of the comments on the Draft EIS for the above referenced project,
and have had the opportunity to review them. A discussion of same is provided within our
letter of December 5th.
As stated in our previous letter it is often advisable to have the applicant prepare the
Final EIS, for several reasons: 1) in order to avoid responsibility in time constraints in
preparation of the document, and place this upon the applicant [617.8 (e)(2)]; 2) the
applicant (or consultant) is most able to address comments pertaining to the Draft EIS
which was prepared by the applicants consultant; 3) the applicant is most able to determine
design changes and cause engmeering modifications to be prepared.
The Town then has ultimate responsibility for determining the adequacy of the Final
EIS submission, and completing findings and the decision on the project. As per your
request, CV A is available to review the submission(s) made by the applicant and provide a
recommendation to the Planning Board as to the adequacy of the responses. We estimate
the cost for such services to be approximately $500.00; based upon our hourly rate with the
Town of $70.00 per hour. This estimate is based on our understanding of the current
comments and that the applicant responds to the comments adequately.
It should be noted that this estimate is for the review of information that is submitted
initially. If the ir,f.'lrmation, or a p'ar~ there of, is determined to be inadequa , the review of
subsequent submissions will be bIlled hourly, at the standard rate. Estim ( can be
provided if a re-submission(s) is necessary. /
. Cramer, ASLA
cc: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455
.
.
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
Decemb
o
@rnowrnr;
:>l!
lEe I I" ;:
~ t
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman, Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
SOUTHOLO TOWN
PlANNING BOARD
,
J
Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogue
Review of the Final EIS
SCTM # 1000-102-01-33.3
Dear Benny:
We are in receipt of the comments on the Draft EIS for the above referenced project,
and have had the opportunity to review them. A discussion of same is provided within our
letter of December 5th.
As stated in our previous letter it is often advisable to have the applicant prepare the
Final EIS, for several reasons: 1) in order to avoid responsibility in time constraints in
preparation of the document, and place this upon the applicant [617.8 (e)(2)]; 2) the
applicant (or consultant) is most able to address comments pertaining to the Draft EIS
which was prepared by the applicants consultant; 3) the applicant is most able to determine
design changes and cause engmeering modifications to be prepared.
The Town then has ultimate responsibility for determining the adequacy of the Final
EIS submission, and completing findings and the decision on the project. As per your
request, CV A is available to review the submission(s) made by the applicant and provide a
recommendation to the Planning Board as to the adequacy of the responses. We estimate
the cost for such services to be approximately $500.00; based upon our hourly rate with the
Town of $70.00 per hour. This estimate is based on our understanding of the current
comments and that the applicant responds to the comments adequately.
It should be noted that this estimate is for the review of information that is submitted
initially. If the in~o~matio!l' or a part there of, is determined to be ina~equate;, the review of
subsequent submiSSIOns wIll be billed hourly, at the standard rate. Estlmat-e(s) can be
provided if a re-submission(s) is necessary. _--,
cc: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
. Cramer, ASLA
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
.
.
DelA TES
G CONSULTANTS
December 5, 1989
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman, Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogue
Preparation of the Final EIS
SCTM # 1000-102-01-33.3
ill
DEe , I I9lIl
! ~.... .
U [G
rei .II ,\" ,._
'e 'U \11 J,e
~ l..I U
!!.UTHOlD TOWN
....NNING BOARD
..J
Dear Benny:
We are in receipt of the comments on the Draft EIS for the above referenced
project, and have had the opportunity to review them in detail. As per your request,
this letter is to provide a proposed scope of services and cost estimate for the
preparation of the Final EIS for this project.
The following comments have been reviewed:
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner (letter of November 20, 1989)
Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc. (letter of October 20, 1989)
Suffolk County Department of Health Services (letter of December 4, 1989,
with attachment)
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (letter of
October 25, 1989)
North Fork Environmental Council (letter of November 30, 1989)
There are approximately 28 substantive comments in this documentation.
These comments overlap and therefore can be classified into the following more
generalized categories:
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ecological inventory, impacts and mitigation
Project design considerations (architecture, building grades, building siting,
etc.)
.
.
Slope constraints and slope analysis (alternative design conforming to
topography, as mitigation, etc.)
Water supply, sewage disposal, and groundwater impacts and mitigation
Additional alternatives (involving 40,000 square foot population density
equivalent and clustering)
.
.
Page 10f3
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455
.
.
Hamlet at Cutchogue
Final EIS Proposal
Community services, demography setting and potential impacts
Existing transportation inventory, alternatives and mitigation
Cultural resource inventory and impacts (historic and prehistoric resources)
The substantive questions raise valid concerns with regard to the proposed
project, therefore it is recommended that these issues be addressed in the form of a
Pinal EIS. The Planning Board, as lead agency in review of the project is ultimately
responsible for the content of the Pinal EIS [617.8 (e)]; however, it is not specified in
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, who actually prepares the document.
The law states that, ':..the lead agency shall prepare or cause to be prepared and shall
file a final EIS... ". Accordingly, the Planning Board has the option of preparing the
document or requiring the applicant to prepare the document. Our experience has
been that it is often advisable to have the applicant prepare the Pinal EIS, for several
reasons: 1) in order to avoid responsibility m time constraints in preparation of the
document, and place this upon the applicant [617.8 (e)(2)]; 2) the applicant (or
consultant) is most able to address comments pertainin~ to the Draft BIS which was
prepared by the applicants consultant; 3) the aPl?licant IS most able to determine
deSIgn changes and cause engineering modificatIOns to be rrepared. The Town then
has ultimate responsibility for determining the adequacy 0 the Final EIS submission,
and completing findings and the decision on the project.
.
.
.
It is our understanding in accordance with your letter of December 4, 1989,
that the Board would like a written proposal from CV A for the preparation of the
Final EIS. Accordingly, we propose to address each of the substantive comments
contained in the correspondence as summarized above (with the exception of cultural
resources). 3:lfufee for completion of these services (excluding cultural) is not to
exceed $7,900. . As per our agreement, the Town of Southold will be billed only b?f
those hours expended in completion of the project, based on an hourly rate of $70. .
With regard to cultural resources, please note that the applicant's consultant
identified historic and pre-historic resource sensitivity, and recommended further
subsurface testing. We propose to retain the services of a qualified archaeological
contractor to conduct a systematic subsurface investigation, in order to document the
presence or absence of cultural material on the subject site. Standard archaeological
methods indicate that a grid of test units at a prescribed density must be completed,
with eml?hasis on areas which may yield cultural material (ponds, historic sites, etc.).
The testmg strategy for this site involves a one (1 %) coverage, with emphasis on
sensitive areas, and would be determined in conjunction with the contractor with the
intent of providing adequate documentation to determine the potential impact of the
project upon historic and/or pre-historic resources. Given the size of the property,
and the documented sensitiVIty as outlined in the Draft EIS, this is a difficult, costly
and possibly time consuming task. We propose to have this work completed at direct
cost as per a proposal from a qualified archaeological contractor, plus 20% for
handling and coob~ination. The fee for this portion~ the Final EIS is expected not
to exceed $6,000. , this is in addition to the $7,900. quoted above (or a total fee of
$13,900.00). A proposal from the contractor will be forwarded at a later date. All
invoices from the sub-contractor will be supplied to the Town. We find this to be an
CRAMER, V
ENVIRONMENT
Page 2 of 3
.
.
Hamlet at Cutchogne
Final EIS Proposal
acceptable scope of services which will address the archaeological sensitivity of this
site.
The time frame for completion of these services is most difficult to determine
due to weather constraints for subsurface exploration; however, it is estimated that
this can be completed within 10 weeks of date of authorization to proceed, depending
upon weather. You have requested completion of the document within 45 days of
November 30, 1988. Please note that, 'The last date for preparation and filing of the
final EIS may be extended: (i) where it is determined that additional time is necessary to
prepare the statement adequately; or (ii) where problems with the proposed action
requiring material reconsideration or modification have been identified." We believe
that both these conditions may pertain to this project, the former as regards cultural
resources, and the latter as regards water supply and alternative design issues.
Please also note that this proposal does not contemplate comments of the
Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA), due to the fact that these comments are as
of yet unavailable. We have been informed that the comment period has expired,
therefore we feel that the Town is not under obligation to address these comments in
the Final EIS. Further comments from SCW A or other agencies could be considered
in the findings or decision on this project.
I hope this correspondence provides you with the information requested in
your letter of December 4, 1989. Please call if you have any further questions
regarding this matter.
Charles J. Voorhis
cc: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
CRAMER, V~ ..I-'.sOCIATES
ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS
Page 3 of3
11
.
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
December 7, 1989
Richard Cron
P.O.Box 953
Cutchogue, New York 11935
Re: Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM * 1000-102-1-33.3
Dear Mr. Cron,
The Planning Board requests that you have your consultant
prepare the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Hamlet.
Please incorporate responses to all the comments that were made
with regard to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. These
comments were sent to you under separate cover on December 6,
1989.
When you submit the proposed Final Environmental Impact
Statement, it should be accompanied by a check for $ 490.00 to
cover the initial review of the document. by our environmental
consultant. Enclosed is a copy of the estimate. (Note that this
fee will cover one review of the proposed FEIS. An additional
review fee will be charged if supplemental material has to be
reviewed. )
It is evident that your applications to the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services for water supply and sewage
disposal permits have not received approvals. There appear to
be objections to inconsistancies or inaccuracies within the
applications.
Also, this office does not have any evidence of an
application having been made to the Suffolk County Water
Authority for the provision of water service, as recommended by
the Health Department in their April 4, 1989 letter to your
consultant, Mr. Salerno of Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
--,'-'-,'~'",.~",",
/--""
",.. .\
\
,:".r
T"" ;
LJ ,~J ~~ .~,
To:
t""
(' 1'01['1'
c
,. " o~
'~'} ~tn
"''''','
~~'''''''-~~''',
'4
/' .
.~,
. ,.
-~.. ,"
)\
..... -...
~....,._;.-~-~
I ~(,
'..'.
"c~; .
~/.-'c;':~. .!
~,., "'. ('
j '''''y/\ /
T' /'
';0,__._...,,_.
(:: l'
'V',
.t'
., ~~., [:'l
t ,~.:
/..... ~) /". ..'<
L..'" .. C
"t"',~;,,'~j.i:i;;.,~L;,~~,~,:.;"~:~;.d.~'
..,.....,
,..~._..b.ii.;;'''',y",.i~.....>~ii.;
""~. ,,, '1"' "".~
,.,/"
l'
( /".
....-"
.-.;.
,
'.' .-' ~-'.'
/,'
,\ 1\1
:.1.. "
'\. "
: 1-,:
.',,/.,
'T- _ ,'i>'
-~ .,
,-<,,"":."-..~
I"
"",.,~,
k.
.
~ @ ~ 0
1 'r'r'
/i
,
j.
/' <7"'~~' ",'
1.",,,)
.....+..,.. ....."-..,..,,'.-.....,,..,
/'
./'
f...'....r
/'(~
""'''1'''.
I /.1\ / r"' ;;-." - ~.,
V,A:"''t:~.,J-:',~..... / ~::__
f'VC~'C
~ .J'::"'''''~
(Ille]
l!-'
., _ ."."...."."'_.o.,.~~_'".,,_ ,.,.,. _~>,~_,,,,_"""""""'"'._
.~...W''''
,/
,"' ~',~,~:.;:~"":C~:l;~> ~~~,
din (7
.. >t":1
-'"'}'"_''' " .,... ....1 ,...
l li1.' ,,~~. J!.
~/'t..
/::
'.- n")
. '> .,~~Jf~J- <<3(
'~"_L~'~_":"'~~:::.!..:::~ .
,(:.~.
,'.
'.
,,\.
" l ,-.....
</'"
7
I
(.~ ~) ,c&~.'>
"t .
._~,,, t.-
. "" "7
l ,.(:--' >-.~.
/
1-
>.,
(
~ , ;'.,.j
",: t""'e~'''- t
.1
,.~-'", -ff!
/' ". ....... ....-0
. ,-,,""'" ~
/' 1\..
i ..,p~'
:,.~...'- I J,i<"
',.--"~' (/~
!
!
i
I
I
.
\
\
.i
f.J'{ 11 ;~$t': rl',
,
.j,;
,,,'''-~
"..'
il.j r.;;"d"'i.,...i:il.j.;~";;';"~:~~
1;, .' ~;'"d',d:iib4vjF~h'i.\;t,jh~';' ",;>~"~;~'~~ii(~:j':'i",;~~L;.\,~
'-'"'l"";'c;"L
./
,..
f";'_;;'i '
'1,,-,;L.;1\,~' ,~
.~, ~.-~ !_ ' ~ '1'.~....."
~. . ---'. .-- ~~ -,-><."
."...........io.;~.,..,._.-"
.
~-~
~~"""'.~.
d
!':'
. 'At'
. ...... ~."--~._...""..."._~,,,.._..........,~~ .'...
[I"",'mb"l ~ ,:,"\9
,. ......... -' _.. <..- ,J ~ .
!'.~I.', Hen):1<~-tr O~ khl,';;ld.. J], 00
Ch"i:m,~, ';!':~i'~, :'.'""'" U
T V'i\>r\ Hai'_} "J..'1V:1,) h111dl Rfnh.l
P 0 D' l' "y
'. '. ox J./,
r ,., N. . . v ' .''''''!
:::,,),,:LHJ.":.~i (\\- leTK li,,1_
R\~.: The J-tlrrk'[ ;,+ 'C\ltCh(lg~~
Pn:pantl,;(dJ fif ih~ Finn; E-IS
Sen1 if liJ2-0l.;..L.\
l)ear Benny:
'If" ' """:""1" ,. "''''''~'''"t', ",~ "J 6 D'."! el" f ," ",~ "b"',J. f..f>l'''n' 'ed
\.~.nJe )-::.::,,_t:J.!-,.\).\r,h"\'T\'LIi",;;.~...!1.i.":Lll,h., ,,:,t J..,..) ~_l_.,:H"'" '-"n.... ,;,~ .....t.
I) ",..-.,. ;~,__"i "1"l,,1 ~~ ~I. ..f;> il;.._j /!c, o"'_'""'P ') ..t' I ') ~L.; \h"'_.~" Ij ~\\. j l-, .~ ~'" -~ J' rl,'t"l q ~ \,: +'l-e1~ "OW' j""'{'l"le~+
'1~"';1'<~'" ,:'h.'.. ,;...,1..' ~l"~. \.~"--. ~"'.~,.L,'.';, .<~,-,-:...,.."', .-"C-.h.., ,..14_("" .<'"~" ,.-'" '.. .l.. ~""'. '"'""'
.' .._ , ._ _ .. -- "'. .r..
this h~ttf;r 1S t~'< p.r-O\i'ii~;::: ~1fr)rOP(r:~~'d, scop'~- of S(:(\i;rer and cc~:;t t~;t;,mate fotthe
~." "r.r.t~. 1'- .; "'}'-!.w ~":l~'" .:'t~ f',.. 1'h'~ pl. ')~ '"'t
r..t;.J,~.~a.l,J.~O", b.';" ..J"l.;U ~l,-, ~,...-,..L '~J{;\.'
~e. f" . ... '
:ne O!H,,;,,v;n;~ (./Hnntc..nh, "~v'=
. ....
rev'i,ewed;
.
"~l"""t';~, s<'-f)n~<~'" -T()'J-, r'l 'C'):-""I",":" ;ili~;\"""r 0/- 'JooJ'J'}\.',ro fl'b" !' '1(;' 'jQX\)\)
Y'A'-''-'<~-''''''''''J:''''-'-''t ,....:i..'~..x., _.\~~..~'" . ......,,\0.....- .... j "'w.-
.
C-ri).nler, \- ~':'
.' "-d A...(..;'.t.,., I". (' "'f" "#O.""I)"r ")" 19,np
'~;>_'! _'~'-'<....:~ ."\;-~LI.".:'i .- d\, ..)."..~.olo'WI.. ,).~ \.I'J ,,, ~,.-,.-; ..., """- J
.
r.~-.-Fy( \k' r-'~,",p"""'''''-~''' ':;>0 ~
;.H,h_'--..J.. . ,t_, \-:' .....~; ,_'.1;1:\,
with atta(l'mctl.l)
q ..,'..... .~"..; '". "'..f"'" {.r r), ..,,,',. r 4 1"89
r...eHJ..~j ,)t..t" ,I".'.' l~'~_',l..l;;~ .--,!_ \._, <:t;.l.~',l't.,<"'" p' "-II", t
'.
'r."v...,",.,.... f) ~''''-'''''I.'l= "',,~~n.,;,'rl".' ,.t' (' <t' f
_,,,"C\-"" "- \,,1 j';., 0ut,-e, t.,. et'.d. ~..i",q. ,}\ .".n\.~. ~wd;'"~: dl ,,,,01 :-,t;;r.....:llOll )e. .er ().
OctDber 25, 1989)
.
N{I:th r,~_)rk EL,;-1;,,{Hlrn;::.iH:~~1 C(Junc!~ (k~tter of No'.:crnber 30, 1989)
.1"" .. . I .,~. ,,' .. \. , . ..
_ '-let'') '.:1;(' !:1(H"'''1.'i'.;Jt'q3FI. V f;"'~ -;'ilt)1;t:lntwe ('()~)Hn,.'nt(' i~j ~rn.; o)ctn'~,"nt~H'on
i.. .." '~,'" ...... '. 't"j,--.~.,-H""".' ....t ,." -.'-~ ""'-"-.~."" ".' ~ ",."...-;.L~" '" -'.- -';','--1,,. '~.' .
T'!1ec;-~ \",')rnr't'l(,>r;-'-.: (t,~,'.;';j>ijJ ',j"'i,", ~-".i'""~'(" /":;:"n k~ "''1..:::C'~'rl''''ll;l..t:." '11P. Crf11''''\.~'I'''''cr. 111"'f"
_, ".."... . '"." ..' _,,, d'.... . '. ',- . . --'t. .-1. ,. ., vf .-.' ,.,...""., l,t.". '.".,C,~'_"_..n"'\.. ~ .~;,\ ..", \ ,. ~.. 1.\-,,-,.. '.J',. '.'- 't;,. . v .'V
".'I'~r"'I'~?(l ^'ll,,,,~,,')'e"
(,1'" ,,,,,,,,,,l.k,,. '" '\~ ....-e...-f. ,,'I,
.
EcoIi:'Ji~~':;l1
v .
~"t '(1,,':"1 ~l""'" ,.' ~,I. ., ~t'Cl'IA;J'"u'
'... 0..., ,;,~li."""\.h~ ~.l.L\J f,L.l~.~u......,l
.
~, '1' 'd' I I' "ld ""j" ,
''''"ff.,(,(.,,' . .":;'<;.l:>'~-( ,"l' '-,')';1 ,"I",' r'!""i~~ l ~.. r.-' j 11--1.'-,',; 1 I ',"t.. ,11" f '1)<) gf,-."'l{'\{.S f)' lj, .'l",t:t "~1f lOP
~,".-d.<_<. '. "~..__ ,:",......-d ,..~_ .._ -",," ,,__0.. ;,,,,,~__p.,, ..,-~ ."" ........w A.........,;. ....... "'e.J~" ",t
etc.)
.
S'i,"'.r'..-., "",!~,,,-,,,'.,;;ir"'~ .;;t1..-~\ ,,1,""<."
1_J..V,t-'" l"''')~I,'"'.'' ...,.".J!.....:~'.".<. .':;_.....-J:--'''
-f.(')I')()l!t'~!phv ~-;-, l"fl1111~',',,1]t-,lj ...~r,,.,)
."""1'.- .p....... '.,f ~ ."- .. .,.~ ..\~w- ...., -) "" .....
(.j, 1 tf',;"n:c' ... ;, ,~~ {l,-~,,~: ,:'; ", ('I,'r} ("-\1'"1\',; ....,0 Ifi
\'....'--~.......;L'o'''' ..,.""'_i:Jl ~.-.Ik."V. 1'-"1:> ~
.
\V:'-i- rf~.r' -l:-l!-iO. h' "eV.la'.' 0,'1
~,........ .-.... ~'j'- ~..- ~ -. .-' . - 0.....
1 .J ." , .. .
gt i>CUi(i\\,;'l',I.:1 ;;T:PQ(,;:s an!J rC1;~lgat1<)n
.
"-l"'l"'l,.,cl >~...,e'"" ('c,.)',; .. c'~'~C.,(, ",,' ',f' t .. .. I' ,; , "t
.."''\t \_\1.H;':lr~" a~h,~ !.i.;..'~p,~",.* \',()~i.. ,.\'Lr.6 .'u'.~" 'v Y~1'"1<-irc 00. Pi"/pU: d,,1\)rl (.:H~!1~,,! y
'~"'Pi;\-,q')'""'''lf --.lj~d F'll~I>:!(;';.lln(;"! .
...."'i"'" , ~....~ ......,l~.).,_...,'...~.. .It;..
Page 1 of3
~;,'l
."~?;': r:,'}_'\D
r>,j'.CF ~<,( i-:764 ;,616:; :~,::-;",~:i0
''''''-'''..-' ,~'
.,,--~.. < ,i~.-..,-,.!;;;:~.w.","""', ..<i".,
~'",Lw~, <,-,,.} .~~:l,:S1t,;\iti~,;
,;;"'i,,,h~ :i.,,~ ;U."d,';~ i .;.,<r;c;.--~".', ~; '~.iL,,,,,,.i.;;,'d";';ilii.~~:'t;:;; G,~j{:J;;{,it~~~~ij~~,S;~~~~
;"".~,. , . .; "~',,......, ",';;,i...;.{..-,
.,.....~.-"7"'~"=
-~~_.
,~ "-.,' -
'" '.'. ~'.-:'._-~~':':,.",.T"'';''"
~- ..-
.~
~~
"
u
.
"... .." ""
!C:,~
Ham"o;t,t C",Ch..,gllc,
F,;;al Ell:; PNP{.sal
,r.
('Oi'n ({)(J r; ty
.'
~'c,k (If;' ~_i, :i_rn p;1C'.,
'"
E,:1~;,:~1;ng -:t~; (i :p(.l\n
~: _ ::'~ '~:Ld ri-utlg;\ Ilon
.
1",\,1"1n'~.,~ rS,::'\",","-j". :!';"..::li'''!' :\;
..~ '"J.,' t~.~A ......!. - ',," ,\" "_.'" Or' t L \ ,,...... '.: iI
r:-,rtd
Ie andprehis~{}f [' ~'t;S(;iJl<xt5)
,,:1cuns ~,hh regal'd (C',t! . proposed.
. ",'OS"~ .od,lr"s".d"l'l . ,'. foc'~ of"
",1;., ~ ,:;-",_.,.,j '::;'.' ',l\--;' u- .,,., _. " p'. .. ;.. .ro.r .. ~'t, . ..II-
"- ":~'1 e\J1\::,\+'of ...IV" "',rj)l(.(,~:,~, u1t; ~1' o;"l!e 7.....
-"';"1";~ >-!\'~, _,,-'_~,~,.~_l:'"ir~ ~>;,-.;-~, ~;.;~.':.,,~~":y-
. ,,~ '"C)J~' fh}\\",',I:~l. h ~~,d.!; :::.1-)\;'\."d....O J.,\
the' State (~;~ ;.~: :.it)' \\ ho :2tct ,,'j::.!:!l, p('!c:~ar.;'.;' the docu rnt:tlt.
Th" ~ .'t'. -..~.... ~ ,..,. t''t.., .~.." '" 1 '1 ....._-i ""-P --"f__'-"':' ;' (" ...f1' '"'>' ,~ ','-'f '.' ,"\ -, P" ').- , ,. I> fe' }-, rJ ;}~, :.'r;'--""~~":' ,,-''''d t;-/'i'-"
~._,'V ,.:",!;! ~t,il~t;:..:-- L~,;..,_~" ~. :<Orl...... ~,,,l\__.!'-,_t .).~~--4.jJr'(:'{..I._.I. '....) 1;.1.;.~.J..:: ,,<,t-r"'.".l.""'-'~"\":" ~'l'., ,F.UH
f".. f' .., ,,"r" " .'~",...l'_ '.. ;-;. 'f'" ,'w'." 6,vN]"a' t'"" 'I)""'" .f...."l'.,.; 19' ,'/ '"
'ljl; {.'")L!,,,f t...,;,_~.~~, . , ."l-.",__',;",;ulgl,L ';,He "' ..;:~,~:'\'L1~ V'.__-f';<l'!> !"'" .:U~.1 {.;,,,d\.J. r~tl~h of ~!.~
"~:OLl,-~i.j1o:-nt '::ir t'~G'~;"ri.~1~-1 {l1:'plk;,~,h::' to f.re-pare: th__~-:: ~,!l)ctl.fnt;;H: (>~'"\t r;,:~;,-.;,~r1e'ncc h(i$
.' '.. , . 'j ..- , ..... ,-"." ,..' . "
h....."'.<., :--},'-,,:... jl "~.r.r:"'lr-+, ':,i "'';:'_,;''',1", t!~\ .1";.1'1 ';'r;r'!"f"~~", J"1'-';:'l'''';,,~,.,.~ t.""t'!. ~ir','l' ~L'-" l',(\!' ',.t'VCI'al
...,"'\.1'.. '.-,L.-',t,\. 1;1: ,..,_,.p._",.,.', .....'.. f'..,_,.-,A',....,c,...- ..~ ...."'-.... ',tu.'\r,.".. "iVr-......". J..-.. jI, .,.,. ..1;;..~.__, . ......
1, , ,.., T' " .. t..
r-eaS0n$;_ .. ) l'n Otd{l ~:~) ;~\".}td. ri::~r:h):"b:(Hf,!y 1'n Ut:)8 (;Gn~tr{nnts j~': ,prt;,p~r~~ll0n O! '::Je
dOC\.l~11~ntl art.: pl~tG~ up0r~ {to;, \:ip';)licr"rH [617.8 (,)(2)-1: 2) ~'helll.)p1f(c;nt (or
. ~ ,\ ,ol- , I _ '; . ,-~ I . "
cOl~suh;'A:1t) :IS !:>?~t nb)( \:) ,lad :':;~~'ri f,:(.ln:ill('tH~ p,o,:':.lt:~uw~~ irO t~l~ I)fH t E1S \Vil;.(:li ,^,~iJ.S
" ," r-_ 1"" ,J };"th ' .'" ~,.1' .....,.~- t-,~ ,'." ~,., - 1(., p" .'Ii \ I ",,,' '""'~,'I' --."_', '-',t It "1"1"-" ~ ''-'h11'' t" .'J!f't nll' ~e .
fA~:r;~\,e\.l. -J,,~ .:c ~l'')fjk~;hL:,~ <;;.(Hl:.,,:; ;:Ii'~..,;."1j_...;.,t'-.Y,l-:k' l(.~~~;I..,h._t~."\ a..,.. "" U.>..l-.. er ,.LA "
desii?n,chf~l;ges ano (~..u~,(~ er~~h~,ei;;.d:,lg rn\)dificr-tt~ons t~) b>(: orepa.re:d. Th~ To\.vnthe.n
~"'.. 7"'~~~'I""t"";<"~' ':'-,--.,~;':l):l.." ,f...~; --1-"~M'""'r,,: .~ '..; 11,\til a'~'--\'!j" ".' f..r-lh~ F"lat 'C','"S (,.'~h"",-,~.~t:~OI
tl'-',~~~".,.~"i..~H... r>f;~~p~.}~-''''_.._-.i\.J.."..J& l..;t;.:---,,, ,.l:l..n,t.; .......... .u....",j. aeJ ---'.1..'" i.l ~ ,~-d. ..Uu,u._,-,;,'), "it
~",-...'f -'".<'1...,.)~, i,,- rj'n' -) ti.'\..'~, ".,,1. <:.",,::1 t\... '. -')r.t'~ "'t.''>o o~ the' !)"-j":'-'Cl
,.,::i.... -1.1.",. ,}.~_ '.1':; ..~AFo.'.;_"..--,; ',.",1.'"", _J,t._.tl,.."...,\'..,."c.-"__ .'_., p....,,,,.. '
-:i .... .... -. ,. .
Tb0 nil'"
, t. ,. .. .. ,,' . I
erOlt{:t~ t,ilcrf~lore tt :~:~ r,;,:((}!r:r;Je-n(j(~c".:. ci',:~:.t t!'/'.
".,irt~nJ fir, 1';"~f.o 'PhA~'lfl~~"\'2' Bt,.o\,"j-t-;H L~' i~.(":~-
~.,;. -"--',- .'." (':;;; ~J,~:;~~'~f:t -.'"-.< ''', -"..' " En;:
rt .1" our ,,'.,l""<t;",dir'g' "'('COr,i"ICe,,,it;. v<mr lttl"r ,\f ne,c;:rr,I",. 4 1989
. .... '~"B"::J' ,i "v"~'~~~\;'t~'_~:-",-~!.~'j>;<";'\' .~~:<~~'~"~:'f',:~_+J.,r""', <".'~h.~".''':'",~,'-:.~,).r.~, -_:
th,:tt l_h~" ~/;;,r\,i ,ld"1,.., 4 --A';" Hh.-- pn:''-t=,\,.:sa" .jl,1)fr\ "~_"'. A tfJf t:.e pl.t;pai,,3.~J,)n (~l ~.le
;;'\'11 ". ~ pt.~ i'\' "'i~,.-....,.,.1: t".:yJ\: 'illf~' .'-""~"""'i"'''' 0.-. t.--") ,~~"tro.1'~~' 0;,... ..}. Af If." Slll'x"a.t'';;~''''' ,/<'(.'I'....me~ ,r
~ ,."H ,_.. Jt'.l. ~-j,..,.\" j~ WL' ....;.1.. ., 'T', i,.. ~. f ;j,.,'ti.,"~_.)~,- ...\. .\cl\'<<,.I. ~~.,c:,.) t,..""I.,., ,. t"i~ _, I'w- . d:-> l. ._ LL V'-'.'i.< ,';'1. t I~.;l'
. ." ..' l' . d . " , " 1
,~tll\''-t:'lt'l'"''\J: 'f' t.l~~ ,:....i.-"(~.-.:::i:J(lti\.1t'~~...;f' ,f~ -i;,t'i"-r;-fi.,'p-~ze' r:"~'JVA 1\'"."t1~ ':nc ,13XCe1\110U of c'dtt:r~
'"' ".,.,,,.l,,...l...... J___'e. :.'..... '.',""" '~'~;;'" L. -'~;"'''~~ .."" 'r~..'_._'''''.-'';''''':' _ .'f.J'V" ,_... ;).::. '.' ,.,..~. r'~'.- . ~..~ M.
T;trft,t 'i~ornp_\";;Ld~Hr Ihese $1';tv!ce:i. f'8X('jUG~ng ';;Ul.tUntl) 15 not lO
1 ," 'I' ,... " "'f' S I 1 d . ." c ...' I"
,:.,.-.:,/,.," ".-:';.'..;'" .f."' ---'0:; f':c:-t o'-'r -i':o.---::-.t'l')'h"~\i t'le \~,'l,...'rtr't. (--'Ut'O,-f Wliibt: l~"d,e.I'J ('11 b'0or.
~'."'~"""V: ~,,-"""!'~". . ii""--'" ..'... "'~"'--' ~"'""""'. T_ ,'-j. ". ,,' "", ". . ,'~ . ..-'.- '~.-.... '\>C:o. iT)
)";;',,':::1 h,-'\"~!t"'>::, "''>''-'-p' f.r,;".:..r! ~r,(--/\,"'!~rlt"'i i',t' tt.!(, \'"'l'O'-j;;:~;~~' h~),::"",--1 tin ..'-"n 110"'lrl\' I'~-~f'-' u"f'~~f' I'~...-
'""L""" . ,.......11;:.."".0- ...~......'...~. "---" ~".- "'JO: ....,. \.. d..,~".-s,. j~'--';'- ~,-"".,'..."" v....,. ,-\ ". ......,.... ....,. .
'~/itt'~ rCQ_:ard tfj 'cuhU{;:~J T:f;,:~l':j:tH'l~'e~~J ph~~t-.i$':; !h)tC t[l<it, the .ap:::ilkanfs consultant
d ,." ;::<~'j'~,,'.;-!-:-""'~;,., ~~".i,~.,,.+ h'r...",.'. ""'<"--"'r;,,-,,,.;o,,:t~~';!'f f""~_""_'" 1',4..,-' f" ~h
i . e"..ll) iV, .~Z"':'t-.J_._,\. {""\~' t"i;;:.....,__b",,,d\.- ",,,'::>\-'~L......e 'hH,,)"_'~"'.\~ ~,;I.,,; le(Oli::fUC...1.......I..l ur.. er: .,.
"';"''''(.)'f'r-~'I",pl. t" ...'j:".. ...~:~ ",,',/ "-,, ,,~~ ,...i.,'~, ',(~'''A -....r '~!"''''':: ,'); *" '1"3";' ,A 6"'.~""" ,~"",' ~...
.;,..<1.)...-...... ~,;>;;...... ,t:~,--,,'I.i;~,.J~. J.; ~:"I <.~p..h!.. ~tLC ..(. ...:k1.H<.. ~''''\' f....\..1 'I.; j.' (t '-;i.<"" !b!(>~ ...." \,.:(:....COI06tCa.! .
~.",. ,. t,. '.' ,_..,c,'. ,,'" ;c,,, ;", ,'--''-~ .A- 1....,{ c' .' - -~ !}-..::o '1" "'-" t__.." .,.,t.- 1'<.... ! "","'.] ~,,; ,.-,.~. t: ^ ; ",--.,'1 "0'1" t' A ^.~ .t>. t h
t..,]/l.!:;t,,,-t'J," ,',',I ''''-,)l:.'., 1..;..... a ,:y ,__.l.>rnil.t~ SUtl,~, ,_;, " th,... .L" '.' t.;.~ \'_'5a~l\}.ni' . 11 (",-.l.~'t-A t.; \...iu\',urn",n t e
e..o.c..........h.r....f.,,;..r.\..' ..)t\."S h'..".....t. S"" .\. d ..-",. '^~I'
r', <,;, 0:1;;, hCi;; \,H a',-,s~;:; ,~_,i~ :,j {..", 1 ,J.. ~L l U." d_! .\~';':, t..l.'"J\.f..~ J'J (.. 1 ~,;:I,n.l"lr ,tL l,.nat,Q, Ogh."
nH.;"th;:lds ,ir;'~';GHC 3. g:;d Qf tC:-t 'Jrdi~ d! -8, P(;;8Cri:Jf:d de'tEhy rnust 'be "::omplcted)
"..".. - .~_,,.<\f..,'.',_.,,.,. '''r!':_~~'",~"", '_,'J.,t ,..j",,",l' .,,~_._'.-."li."..'.t.-. ".',---. ,".,.'. '. '")
Wltd e.rnp~Jt~);'J ,.n.\ ,j, -.\.IJ.;'..~l .lold} ) !~:'.i.~; ('}.,f\'i,{';;~ 11.1.-t"ci !t4! \'pt:'L'J~'~ i_U',..OL'S:.IlC~ et~. ,
'Th " . '.' . " '~'. 'I h'
e fPi:t1n~' {\h':j} k-' ,;;:'; UjlS 'yrJ;'l\,e5- a :"l.'lt"" i('~)' CO't-i-'\j'':li'(.1( t:'nhl "'mr\ J.a.;;'s 0.1"
.. _ : .:. .:;.~ '-'.,C: ".~ '.," :,-:~:; ".' "" l' j1.., _,1,. ~ ;:. ~:>'-_' ,.; ~::' 'c_ ": . ," .:',~:' "- ,,";- ~.~. ~~,. ~ "'... ~-', ...,~, h . < ~. .
~,ei1.:';hhe ~1i.i{~;t.~, .;',U~" 'Nl-'U,( ...it:, u(:t'-~~l.;;!ile;.;j H~~;O{tlulh.~{,;j..l ,,'I,[(tl L.e COn~,l,:J...:.'tU[ 'NUll ihe
, f . .. ,. .' . . , . . f h
l..~1!enf'(}__ provJ.cmg '.~Dcunv,:" 0 )_i) (.t<;'l:("rn1i,ne ~.r~t~ pot~i'ltt:l! 1i11pZlcr 0 t e
T'<,' '.".,..;.,c't .'l!.-.,-.'--,....~\,.:f.~f"...~'_" ":,--",- ,.,~,C;,- 1I""',c.-" "h--"!'-'~' :tt..""" t
'i.,i,....i,)t1. ,.\_",d, ~;;,)t {'..il ...._,c.,r_,.I,)~\,\_h, It..-~'1t,~Lt"",ll,,, l",;l..'...li. ..Lt,;. ,~L!e O~ IJCi"foper v,
\' ..., ,~., j'." n, \:"1"''' ' . d'ff' 1 "
Vk: -:jGc~.rnenr.'~":(f s;tn~;Hh!Hy a:.\ f)~HHD~';~1 !n -~i-e ~..d',~iL,t ~.); l!Ld is <I.. ! leu t) CC::;tiY
.. I' . , "'.' " , k " ,.
pOSSlL" Y tune (-,(}.OSt';.l-rl'ing ~aSK. v't':; pr-opo~e to nav;e, tn~s \~'Dr ,COih;j;~eh;::(J at \l-:,rect
.~:c<:;t.. .q~:.p,~r.~ ])ro~p\.')~:r~1 ftOF1.a, ~tW,;L!~k'.'d aT"," l',.,_aCl,;"t10[;:;I;al ct.<.uttac.l Ort.,r..lu~20q,0 f(').'1'
'. '" ~ ~""T f .,. \. 'fh . F' I EJ:r" . :l
'(;Jr:.'::;ung arH., 'O(ft\..~,t;aL1un., . ~~.e:(,' ~Ot t;ns t}orH0r~ l-b t .c .lna .;.:s 15 -txpC\;tr::~ not
{";",,,d $6/00. "), is in il05d:lkm, ie rhe'$7,900. J quoted above (or a lotal fee of
9':'\11(0), ,:\ pn)pCS;ll frofn t1'd:: (-i)f1tt~l,:',~r,.)r -v/n'~e fO~t'arded at ,a later date.. An .
, ~~s ftorn the 5th~c,>ntra(,HH \~/~n ~.~jj)t;Jie\j (_0 {ht~ Tow!";. ',,'Ve find this!,) bean
!
,~i;;~l\ 1,(1~\ ,
CP,AI\1Ei'1, V;:"~)HH~. t~,~A~':i':::OG!A Tl:::~
~NV iF:C,f.H-/F ;\~ ;'A~:';>"'i,~'~.t~':~:v";~'~~!~G GON~J l)i fAN r~~
'";__,_,,.,~ >i'.,' \':<\1._,
Pllge2 of;~
ijt..L~i!~,,;;~;t L;;;i"~' :." ~;;;";:;;.i;.~ " ;,. '. "
~~
_ .." , '- ;,,;i:;i!ii..L ' ....:.iOi~i.j~".;;:.j,~.'"'I,'.."'~;;,.,.;;,lli.:.o'"j:;j,<;i~~';i';~,,; .. jFi ';c>
.'... ~i ' '"", ., k.',_.,.:.,. - i ..-:i ." .'j "
. . "",:j:".'-:i~L.';;11f:h,SMI~;:
~;j"-";'i-..t.;,t;ii,;ji~;t;j,.~ .__. "~.-
-'~
. .
-
'.-." - -
"
.
.'
.(j'
.k_,-",
, .
-
;:lWfnlt, nt ('tlkh<>gue
l'" l;'!" .. 1
.'tU:{1 ;...:~ r'topvsa'
n
',.tH (,,;\':-lj';!;:
..,) ~>., ....,., ...
Sl:eo
(; (\~teti
thb ,,';, ''- )'l,;~,"'\.t,
t ," .
"..,,~.tt~r ~:';]PPi.Y Hn;J
!':%:'.'f.~d 'I!Jat
'd' "') 'r I;. v.
"t;." t>~.t::<},{,J~~IQ'.
~ 5- da,'s~\ f .
llin,:.(){lhe
.1eC-,?~~s~1;;!y.tb "
t:t~; :'t~j{;,,;):t/'-~' {lOiDii
J...a; -
bctk:
leE':"Jch t'.JIUlra'
(l"'lil'i':;" ).:;\;;" .
'-""';"b'l '.":'.' I.-.}
P...-e......,~,...;(' ;7lj~J>.'n',..... '- 'Ii ~" ",~ ,-."!r-"~'s ;,()('q:Yi'iH\~"'::,~. i"1-;,r~a~"!'>{'~ Flf!l'!;'.l
~ _ ~ ~.~ _ '. K I ~"',,~ -..,......,.,,,'> ..~, ,\.". ..,{'d.I.'" lc,.;,.J'..".,..\.,.< '-... ,," .';,."
C~rt; ~'hi v;r",~,;, Ad:r";lf :"', {:"",::>"V..6.,\ dlJ\~ 1,(Yi.he. f~:,(;t tl1iif, these ~\r'e 'a~
'nf'-YJ"t \~n~ d:t:h> -;;1. \~, ra~ ~ h "'~p~ it!;r'\J-r,'fed th;,H . (:o;':"!ti-I(~r~Jp(~~j:;.(;d '~";(J;.rre-.il.
,.'~1.'.'.,' 2 ,":',-..'-O',1',i*. ...," - , , .'T" :..';"~~i.;'t." i.'.'; f,-i .... ~l"~r~->.;':":' ~~ t,;~". ,,,,;. /"i\!'i'f";" ';"'ll;i'c' "I'U
.... '.' ,.. ~ ~ .... . . ,.' .,.',.. '''' "".,},,' ~~.,l"",,,,,,, ''''\.'' 1 "..t,;. . ",' .
~)'W':"ll' r:.....;:...r(~','..~ 't.,.:) ;.(.P.;,,-:,.1r........1!
~ <:;;,.'" ".,-,'" 'i" _.IO\.W ..,"'" ....'" '.'...' "'~".''''V
t'-. .,.
. H'w
.. e. . . . . .. ~ ... . . 'l .'" '\' l' . ~ '.. . . .... .."
'1 ""'IJpe i'f,r'1',;",,"Uf"ltt,.;,.-y'''e y.....I.A.,llt-"-;,'yOI1 \I\l'~'i t ..,,~; i;n,;)~~I"tatl'J-tl t"!"q\!\!:st'ea '~'t'~'
""-'if L-<,';'''',~', '''if r. )"~'__"':"7';.:.;.;~t;-,.e.,: > ,...\, :rr,~.:;,",:,::,c:~.~f,f 'Ij'~'}'-r~':': . -':;'.f,;rt-r:'~';:'\',';'~~,~ ~~,.'>" . "'.\
j\,,_~ ",,,...\_1,,,," ..r.v<",,\.Ltr If _ "_"~d,,,,, _',H,,_,_, J',f. __h:ll" anj _~.~.~.Jt~, ~i,,,,,i;.,...L\,,,l1S
regarding nJ, In,aHer. .
(~i::; \.." aledf;~ . S(~'lpB;:!;), Town P1UJlne r
.\
'. . ,{.:::,,\~~., ~(~o/i~~ ....
C""'.A'1<::R ",(-cR.'"!" c...:.' "-'OC.'I"'~r'~.'"
:0_n'b ~ '11""'. .'!i' {-:"'-'.~...("\i.'....1,
EN,nFlO'''MEi'''i'~.~N;.;~ll-::Wlu: ,.JG CON;~,Ul.iilJFS'
IC"--'::.'i?i. ,Vb; ..\;,\,\.
".' .,~ r ~
age ..9.,.".
.
.
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
December 6, 1989
Richard Cron
P.O. BOx 953
Cutchogue, New York 11935
Re: Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM * 1000-102-1-33.3
Dear Mr. Cron,
Enclosed please find copies of the comments that have been
submitted on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Hamlet. In particular, please note the Health Department's
objections and concerns.
A separate letter will be sent you outlining the Planning
Board's decision with regard to the preparation of the final
environmental impact statement.
If there are any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to
contact this office.
~~?Ul~.__~~~r~:/7:(1 /? /
~~~tt.or)OWS~~i .Jr..v-~---"';""'- ,
t~ifrlliin'-"'.' -~.. /( ,
Enc. ,
.
.
.
.
Town HaIL 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
"
December 4, 1989
Charles J. Voorhis "
Cramer, Voorhis & Associates
54 North Country Road
Miller Place, New York 11764
Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM # 1000-102-01-33.3
Dear Mr. Voorhis,
The public comment period for The Hamlet ended on November
30, 1989. The Board is considering having you compile the Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Please submit a written
estimate of what this would cost. The document would have to be
cmopleted within 45 days of the close of the comment period of
November 30th.
Enclosed please find a copy of all the comments that were
received within the comment period. Both the Suffolk County
Water Authority and the Suffolk County Department of Health have
indicated that they will be sending written comments, although
we have not received them to date. Their comments will sent by
facsimile when we receive them.
If at all possible, could'you notify the Planning Board of
-your estimate by December 6th? Do not proceed with any work
other than the estimate until you receive written authorization
from this Board.
,
If there are any questiqns, please do not hesitate to
contact Valerie Scopaz.
K~:q"?~a~e
Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~
1
,
"
.
.
.
.
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P,O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
(I
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
r
TO:
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Members of the Planning Board
FROM:
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Draft Environmental Impact Statement'for The Hamlet
at Cutchogue. SCTM # 1000-102-01-33.3
RE:
DATE:
November 20, 1989
I have reviewed the comments by Cramer, Voorhis &
Associates.
With regard to Comments 2 and 3, I would like to add a
request that a slope analysis be included in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, so that the location of the
severest slopes relative to the proposed regrading can be easily
seen.
The regrading issue should be defined more clearly, and its
impacts mitigated as suggested in Comment 7; perhaps by a shift
in the location of the buildings. Resiting the buildings may be
preferable to filling in existing low areas.
Since the Planning Board has not received any building
elevation sketches, these should be included in the FEIS in
response to Comment 13.
The water supply and disposal issue should be addressed in
-more detail as suggested in Comments 19 and 21.
Also, the traffic mitigation measures should include a look
at connecting the roads in this project with Bridle Lane and
Spur Road to the west. Therp are two subdivisions under
consideration by the Planning Board which will result in the
continuation of both these roads westward to Alvah's Lane. If
the Hamlet connected with these roads, it could alleviate the
ultimate traffic impact on Griffing Street, S.R.25 and Depot
Lane. However, the proposed roads within The Hamlet would have
to be open to the public for this to Work.
The DEIS proposes to allow fire hydrants to be connected
with the public water system. The Suffolk County Water
.
o
.
.
Authority has stated that they are not interested in providing
fire protection in Southold Town with the public water system;
that the local fire department's policy of requiring fire wells,
should be adhered to. This should be addressed in the FEIS. .
Finally, the source of the demographic information in the
Appendix is not indicated. Further, it should be updated to the
extent possible with information from LILCO and the Long Island
Regional Planning Board.
Recommendations:
The Planning Board should wait for comments from the
Suffolk County Water Authority and the Suffolk County Department
of Health Services before proceeding. The Board has two options:
to either appoint Cramer, Voorhis & Assocs. to complete the
FEIS, or let the applicant complete the FEIS.
If the SCWA and the SCDHS have serious objections to the
proposed location of the well site and the proposed system of
handling the sewage, then my recommendation would be to have
Cramer & Voorhis prepare the FEIS, at the applicant's expense.
However, if the applicant is unwilling to reimburse the Town,
then the Board may be forced to let the applicant complete his
own FEIS, and simply bill him, in advance, for its review by
Cramer & Voorhis.
.
.
c
.
.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Region 1 Headquarters
SUNY, Building 40, Stony Brook, NY 11794
..
......
~
Thomas C. Jorllng
Commissioner
October 25, 1989
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman, Planning Board
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, N. Y. 11971
Re: Nocro Ltd. /.4,t 11- ~){ {;fX' \
Griffing St/School House Road ~. . . ~~~~
40 Building Sr. Center
DEIS
Dear Mr. Orlowski,
Department technical staff have reviewed
was submitted September 11, 1989 for Review.
that there are no endangered species concerns
the DEIS which
It appears
on this site.
The current site plan provid9s for no portion of the
property to be left in a natural undisturbed state. A cluster
alternative should be considered which would provide un-
disturbed areas which would be of greater benefit to local
wildlife.
/"
Sincerely,
~vJ_X>."'"\ ~\.~c>~'\
SA: cg
c.c. File
SUSc3.n Ackerma.n
Senior Environmental Analyst
.
.r"
\.
.
.
November 30, 1989
00
&@&aWi~
.....-. ,
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, Main Road
Southold, NY, 11971
1:',.
"0" ') 0 ':::9
I, , V ... I........
att: Bennett Orlowski, chairman
S~;:'-n.l"~~-::--~"""
P; !.;' .
-"'-"--'-
'.
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
When the Town Board voted to approve a change
zone for a so-called "retirement community" in Cutchogue, the
developers proposed that the age of residents would be limited
55 or older.
But after the decision was announced, the
developers lowered that age limitation to 45. This is no longer
senior citizens' complex we're talking about. These will be
people in their prime years, when disposable income is highest
and demands upon community services are greatest.
This alteration immediately changes the
project's impact upon Cutchogue schools, traffic and garbage
disposal. Isn't it illegal to make a substantive change in a
proposal after it has been approved?
Condominiums are taxed at a lower rate than
single-family homes, as a matter of law. This will impact upon
the taxes of other town residents who, in effect, will be
subsidizing the services needed by the condo residents. Has the
town really explored this difference in tax rates: farmland vs.
single-family homes vs. condos? '
In addition to the services required by 160 mo
families in the small hamlet of Cutchogue, the sewage
treatment/denitrification system proposed for the development h
not been approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services. We feel it is not likely to win approval, since the
department has tightened its requirements for sanitary waste
disposal from the time the developers first offered their plans
For all the above reasons, the Nor th Fork
Environmental Council asks the Planning Board to reject the Dra
NORTHFC:ll[~nv~ronment,:,1 Impact Statement until these questions have been
Eu ~Rt)sfactorlly resolved.
...VIRO~WENTAL
CCUNClL Sincerely
a Ilonproflt ()r~~(l1l1Z(lli(J"
for tbe prCS(71'lllUm
oj land. S('ll. mr (Iml
ljllalrll'of 11ft'
~C>~.....'. "-
President,
w~"-
NFEC
ROllte.!; lit J.fJl'('/~I"l'
f'(JIl(ly"'(j4)
-'IUff/fud.', .\T 1116.!
51r, .}',...... ....'88(J
. J.' ,;~ ,"
'; '--4
J ! _'- . ~_.l
. :-1':;;'.
.... ,...::; :-! LO:: ,.... '-.'
,-- . ~":"l
" .'
~
.
~ .
COUNTY OF' SUFFOLK
..
00
rn rn rn OW m,1O'11
~-5:$ W
PATRICK G. HAlPIN
SUFFO~K C;OUN-'V EXECUTIVE
I
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARIl
OEPARTME:NT OF' HE:ALTH SERVICES
CAVIO HARRIS, M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIOr.am
rcql
\-0
C\(\
L;\Cll.\Y1e::\ +- VOO,\\r,;S FAX 548-3612
1d.._6-~C( by 1~ \I \"\-6-;-p
'l'RANSIiI'ITAL FORM
I91.
y~.Q",,-"~, - b'-'"-f()
Q,s.,.,-<.. -;;r; N7~~J_""'---"l.
V
~
PHONE NO.
S'l %"- ~()GO
DATE:
-
1;)~1 ~1:9 <j
I
fU8JECTl.
,1-.\ "-"0- .'<....-'* o..*:. ~-k:r L.?_....._
PAGES,
--;
(inc~udin~ this oage)
If thi3 isn't received in its entir~tYI pl~ase call (516) 548-
3312.
'..
.
CQUIIITY CCI.T(R
AI\lLn...l!AO. "'Y. IIGO'
wft
.'
"
COUNTY OF SUFFOl.K
PA"fFlICK G. HALPIN
SUf"FOL.K COUNTY f!Xr.CUTIVE:
DEPARTM ='- "Ii, \1 ',SERV:CES
O...V'O HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMUSS.ONEA
December 4, 1989
Ms. ~.. t.. :,opaz, TOvln 1'1ann~r
SoU~ '.: () I:
5309: i I: ,\. ,d
Sout " , !!::' York 11791
~ ~
Dear J.
revi :,1.
refe '"
::esP'(
are T
WATE>,
..,1:
proj ,G
AprL
C o,mrrr.; fi
unit- ~:'
fa!'<1i: y
Sect: G:
~ :~ I
Systi ;:\
site,
conc~ nl
levaJ
d'..l;:,ir ~r
r1).'::-:: q,
COU"iTl' Cl!kTt' 1
"t....&I't...E:..."', ,...,
[!" J: ,mlet. at Cutchogue
, :0-102-1-33.3
. C'I 12::
,'.
r, .f:(
: :~ ~
J: : C: ,;;;
:? : [. .
~: . E: i i
::: (>n
! S' ~
:r' t.,.',o~ t
:~ , a ..,.(
H : l <,~1;
'r' f'_f
: \.I",
..''lJ]:
; J 1', ~ ~~
.. : :.~,C- t
:~, l'- r
: ,
.1. . 'J t
, ,~,~:
Lk Co~nty Department of H~alth Services (SeDRS) has
:raf1: En"irc..mental Impact Sl:.atemenc for the above-
'J: :ject. Ne find the DElS deficient, especially with
~ proposed community water supply syst~m ~~ which we
:ion. Our cc~~ents are as fol~ows:
".1.
,S a correspondence to the engineers for the proposed
'au: J. ponturo of our Bureau of Drinking Water dated
This letter states that the creation of an on~site
,r supply system by the developer to obtain a higher
Ice yield than 40,000 square feet per equivalent single
lee O'4;,11ing ul~it appears to contravene t,!:e intent of
)8 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code.
-/~ .'-
~op.ri,:;,ten.~~s 0= the p::.'opos<ed. ccmr.-.unity wa.ter supply
li~i~d by tte margi~al q~ality of available water on-
;h ~~e "in-office" analysis of test wel1 nit=ogen
I by ~~nder.5on and Bodw~ll indicate a nitrace-nltrogen
,~ 5.C mg!l between 33 and 88 feet and 5.0 to 5.5 m;!l
;scing, New Yor~c Te3~ing Laborato~ies repor~ed total
9 of 8.7 to 9.6 mcr!l at the start and end of pumping,
; - ::0:;: ':":'
TUE
1 ~-l
,4 I'" ::;., C )::1 j--J .::::
.
.
F~ I ","EF:.AD
.
P~03
,
Iter to V. S C,1paZ
cccmoer 4, 1989
Page 2
respecti?ely. SeDRS sampling also de~ected traces of aldicarb and
carbofuran in water sampled during pump testing.
The issue of water supply should be addressed fully as part of
the VEIS. Such a discussion should include details regarding the
status of any negotiations between the applicant and the Suffolk
County Water Authority regarding the provision of water services.
NITROGEN MODEL
the applicant states that, based on a WALRAS model analysis,
"it can be concluded that the nit.rate levels in recharge water from
" the proposed project will be within the acceptable limits 'of 10
mg/l, and that density reduction does not significantly reduce
nitrate levels." Although the WALRAS model is used to predict
nitrogen concentrations, it is the opinion of oUr agency that the
~odel was developed fOr deCision-making on a regional basis. The
accuracy and validity of the WALRAS model is reduced as the 3ize of
the area to which the project is applied becomes smaller. The
precision of the model is dependen~ upon the as~urnption$ made by the
model user as to the nitrogen loadings, nitrogen uptake and
leaching, sewage strength and volume of rainwater recharged to the
groundwater table. ~esulting confidence intervals can var~ widely.
Thus, it remains the opinion of our agency that the result~ o~ the
WAL~~S-Nit=ogen Simulation Model should not be considered as'
absolute values.
The applicant'S assertion that "density re<"luction does not
significantly reduce nitrate levels" appears to be based on an
analysis of nitrog~n recharge which focuses on the difference
between 160 and 152 units (page 4~7) and 160 units and 138 units
(page 7-3) . We are concerned that the reduction in the nurrber of
units is not great enough to adequa"t.ely assess the effect of
decreased housing density. In addition, the "increase in
evapotranspiration" ',;hich provides le~s nitrogen dilution at lower
housing density shculd be ca~efully evaluated with respect to tctal
nitrogen recharge, and not simply nitrogen concentration. In
conclusion, we question whether the ~odelling performed for the DEIS
is sufficient evidence to support the claim that density reduction
does not significantly ~educe nitrate levels.
Supportiilg the premise that ~verage nitrogen concentration in
recharge does, indeed, decrease with lower housing density are a
~
/"'"
_ ::.:-: -7,.
TUE
.3
: -l-:=: '3 C: D 1-4 S
F<:IVEF:.AD
P. ';;:14
(I
<<<t
~rtd to V. SC<)P<lZ
ecembcr 4, 1939
P.Ige 3
number of docum~nts which inolude the Long Isl~~d Comprehensive
Waste Treatment Man~gement Plan (LX 208 Study, LIRES, July, 197B),
the Suffolk County Comprehensive Waee~ ~esources Management Plan
(SCDHS, Dvirka and aartilucci, and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., January,
1987), and a Cornell report entitled p~otection and Restoration of
Ground Wate~ in Southold, New York (Preliminary Draft, Trautman,
Porter and Hughes, Center for Environmental Research, April, 1983).
T~e Cornell report estimates that a density of 1 housing unit per
acre results in a nitrogen recharge concentration of approximately
3.5 mg/l while 2 units per acre and 4 units per acre elevate
nitrogen levels to approximately 5.2 mg/l and 7.5 mg/l,
respectively. The Cornell report also recommends that the Town keep
housing densities relatively low (one house per acre or ls~s) eo
that whatever organic chemical contamination does occur is kept at
low levels.
,
p~DaCEO DENSITl DEVELOP~$NT SCENARIO
Based on the previously-described water supply problems and the
findings and recoa~endations of the Cornell groundwater study for.
Southold Town, we reco~~end that the nitrogen analysis be extended
to an assessment of nitrogen loading at a development density of one
ac::e per equivalent single family residence d;lelling unit. This
density is equivalent to two of the proposed PRe units per 40,000
square feet. Such a development should be given full atten~ion a~
an alternative development sCheme. One-acre development in this'
area would be consistent with the intent of Section 760-608 of the
Suffolk County Sanitary Code (See "11ATER SUFl?LY"). Such density
would also be faithful to recommendations made in the LI 208 Study,
which recommend:; "minimiz[ing] populatiC'n density by encouraging
large lot dev~lQPMent (one dwelling unit per one or more acres)
where possible."
BUFFERS/\~GETATION
<:-.
We support the use of low-maintenance buffers ~round the site.
l'1e further recomroend that indigencus veg'etation be used where
possible in site landscaping. Such vegetation is well suited to
on-site soi~s and can previda valuable mitigation in reClai~ing
disturbed porticns of the site. In addition, we recommend that low-
maintenance turf be used to minimize fertilizer nitrogen
contribution to groundwater.
-.
, .
.
.
. : 4 a.' ,", C D H '=' R I '.,' E '", H. D
(.
P.. '-215
. (0 ., SCO["IZ
~l11b~ ,I, 1909
. '1J~~ 4
The ap;: :.i.cant must comply with the ::equirements of the Suffolk
county :ianitary Code and I:elevant construction standards for water
supply and sewage disposal. Design and flow specifications,
subs<:r'ace soil conditions, and complete site plan details are
essent i '11 to the review of this project. TheS9 considerations a:ce
revieH:.1 completely at the time of SCDHS application. SCDHS
.mainta ::1S jurisdiction over the final location of sewage disposal
and wa:. e:!:' supply systems. The applicant, the::-efore, should not
undert:,~e the construction of either system without Health
Depart :,:=nt approval.
Thank :ou for the opportunity to review this application. If'you
have al,~ questions, please fe<!ol free to contact the Office of
Ecolo~:' at 548-3060.
Sincerely yours,
co: V..::O Minei, F.E.
L':',lise Rarrison
P,iLll Ponturo, l?E.
S': !.phen Costa, l? E.
C"arles Lind, SC l?lanning
/:-'.
. .
rUE lei:4-;;' ''::::;C:.DH::;:;
. (e
F'~ I .....EP.AD
.
P.O.;
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PATRICK G. HAL.PIN
SU~roL.K COUNTY EX~<:UTIVE
QE;F'ARTMCNT ()F HEAI.TH :S1!:f1V!Cl:S
PAVID ti..\Rf;19. M.O.. M."-.Ii.
C~)MMI3:"IOHt!:.
April 4, 1989
S. P~ter ~alerno, P.E.
Cn:!cnm;ln-I'ederl,l~n. Inc.
325 West Main Str~et
E;bylon, NY 11702
M; !icllnlct at: Cutchog\le/Seaeroft
~ropos~d Con~unity Water Supply
D~ar Mr. Salerno:
T.rd.s offico h."s r"v.l.tMed tha 1/20/89 Hubrnis~.io.t1 of! Mr.
Colucci oe your of.fie~ in the re';ereno~d m;.,tt.er.
A ':'i:vi<:lw indical:lls that. the subtni.saion i3 vir\:\.lally the S<lll'.~
~$ thG origin~l June 1984 subtnis8ion tor S~acrcft. For your
j.nform.~.ti':>n, thp. !\tplic~~tion. was modi:l!i~d in August. 1904. 1his
Ihodi fic~t i.on ineorporato~ the following si<;;nificGlnt. rc"i.s 1"ns:
1-0 l?opulation was r..duced via a ohanqe to 160~lB"dr()c,:n
..<::i1..:1t '~onul\un.i.ty (retir<.>ment units) lll'ld the eLiminat.ion ()f 'W"-ter
""rv'icu to the adjoining cOmllleroial parc~l.
2.. wo;::ll c'~f>acity Oda3 reduc&d aCCol:dir,gl y.
3.. CAe contdct:.ors adequi\te for a 15 minut~ contac':, sized
l.OL' Ori(l DO <:Ipm 'well 'Wa.~ ,t:>ro-rl.ded., clue to <'nti.cip~~(,d p,~"llcJ.de
,flrobleHl$ .
hJ.though 're expectCld th;;:t YOll \o/'o~\lcl 'Jpdz,~., the 198,1 l;cst
"~J.l l:,form<:ltioo, dvent.:) ",in:::.~ that ti.l:l'~ diet:3-';.. thht -,.,.', t;nke It
r:,o!;ition o:!: oppooition to your pro:ros~l, il~ pl'o:l<:lnt.~o:l.
The Suffolk Coucty Hat.r Authority h33 i~dicat~d n
willinqness ~nd h~3 Town Board authori~atio~ to or~vide w~ttr
rJ"r'~icCI t,:>this portion of tha Town3hip. He unrlerSCatld thaI: som~
:i.ni.t.i.<:l. ."o,,'k in w,,-tersh<>d n\<~n<lge'n"nt and :3Upp:Ly well sH'ing is
\lOd"rwd1 in thi3 area. Ther"fortl, we Ilct'~isi'J t:h.,t :>,o'.lr r: li""lt
;.nu~lcdi:l~l;)ly open negotiu.tions wi'1:h the WatG'r Au~horit:y' for' \;hc
1Jru"/:l,<JiCl1 cf wacer s~rvica.
~.~ """...II.('l c.,",,', [ l!A~.T
.... .\ '., "'" 11ft...
~
'r.
rUE .0: .....'''''-' D..... ,'" R I .....""".AD .
p.. C'
,
1;1;:. S lc:rno
April 4, 198.9
l:>ag~
. ~ tn.is !Stage we would not advise additiotlal well pmnp test.9
~lt.hCl Jh the age of the information and the ch",nga in well
c,'p;.c: ;'.1 Would necessitate this as pare of an adequate
. upplic ,Uon.
H 'wever, i~ is necessary to have one pa~tieular
Clara! cation. 'l'h:i.$ Bureau is ;tW/lX'e tnat YOu have sublnitt.~c:l co",\)
p=elirn nary con.9umption figure~in an attempt to justiry a 100
9Pd sa ~ge allowanc~ per unit. This is utiliz~d in ~.ho sewage
"tenda. ds for onQ bed.room retirement units. The wat... I'II.lpp11'
report dccompanying your 1/20 submis,sicn outlines a population
basis < f three person.'] per unit. Please exp.l.ai./'.i the
inconil;,tcncy.
Fi ,ally, t;h~ Burn au Hi!Jh,",s to raise tha qlle:Jt.ion ""'to tho
int~nt ,r Section ?60~SOa of the County Sanitary Coda to allow a
populaton <:lenai ty equivalent of less than .. 0,000 3ql.la:t'e ["et hy
th~ C;t;'P. don of a. eOl\1111unity water BUpply on-site. The c:k,fi.nition
of COlillll nity water syst.-;m cont:ll.in~d in that code Soctio,~ al;'p~ars
to inte d to preclude the creation of an on~.site community SUpply
by tho . e'J'~loper sQlely for the pUrpose of ohell iroing tll" higher
unit-cgl ivalence yield. Should it: ultilll/.ltGl~, J;.e n~Ct:s!Jary to
purDue t\is i:lsue 1oI'Q will. X"equest that it bo brougl.t b~for~, the
office c ; the County Attorney.
"
If .his application is pursued,at
extenaiv Co~~~nts, but nt this po .t in
the prop sal ...9 it Ilttttlds.
ll:lte:t:' el."t.~, w~ h,llve
timE. we c",nnot eot.el:tain
l'JI'/cb
o,;-P.E.
Public: aa::U.h !::nyi n""~r
Drink'ng Water
cc: 1',. b d''''ll, Hon."ier"on .. 13tj,j,WOll
R. ~. hoeck, NYSOEC
.P.. ",'I ~"C:.l.l, T.!~~t'.iWht("1: Section
-
'.
.
FAX COVER SHEET
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
C~/~,~d/~
~~',~I'/~/~.{
. (C;rj
/
Pages to follow: J S
Additional Comments:
IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED. PLEASE CALL SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL at (516)
765-1800
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
.
Town HaiL 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
"
December 4, 1989
Charles J. Voorhis
Cramer, Voorhis & Associates
54 North Country Road
Miller Place, New York 11764
Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM # 1000-102-01-33.3
Dear Mr. Voorhis,
The public comment period for The Hamlet ended on November
30, 1989. The Board is considering having you compile the Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Please submit a written
estimate of what this would cost. The document would have to be
cmop1eted within 45 days of the close of the comment period of
November 30th.
Enclosed please find a copy of all the comments that were
received within the comment period. Both the Suffolk County
Water Authority and the Suffolk County Department of Health have
indicated that they will be sending written comments, although
we have not received them to date. Their comments will sent by
facsimile when we receive them.
If at all possible, could you notify the Planning Board of
'your estimate by December 6th? Do not proceed with any work
other than the estimate until you receive written authorization
from this Board.
\
If there are any questiqns, please do not hesitate to
contact Valerie Scopaz.
ttLeUIY:;f-~:O/.1? '
" " ",', ' >"",--",-..-4.
...t--:'V.L'~' "., 1.._.... ,.._..,;,." ,. '.'. ,,- ,
Bennet~ or'lowski, Jr. ,j'"
.
.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P,O, Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
"
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Members of the Planning Board
FROM:
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Draft Environmental Impact Statement'for The Hamlet
at Cutchogue. SCTM # 1000-102-01-33.3
RE:
DATE:
November 20, 1989
I have reviewed the comments by Cramer, Voorhis &
Associates.
With regard to Comments 2 and 3, I would like to add a
request that a slope analysis be included in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, so that the location of the
severest slopes relative to the proposed regrading can be easily
seen.
The regrading issue should be defined more clearly, and its
impacts mitigated as suggested in Comment 7; perhaps by a shift
in the location of the buildings. Resiting the buildings may be
preferable to filling in existing low areas.
Since the Planning Board has not received any building
elevation sketches, these should be included in the FEIS in
response to Comment 13.
The water supply and disposal issue should be addressed in
- more detail as suggested in Comments 19 and 21.
Also, the traffic mitigation measures should include a look
at connecting the roads in this project with Bridle Lane and
Spur Road to the west. Ther~ are two subdivisions under
consideration by the Planning Board which will result in the
continuation of both these roads westward to Alvah's Lane. If
the Hamlet connected with these roads, it could alleviate the
ultimate traffic impact on Griffing Street, S.R.25 and Depot
Lane. However, the proposed roads within The Hamlet would have
to be open to the public for this to work.
The DEIS proposes to allow fire hYdrants to be connected
with the public water system. The Suffolk County Water
.
.
Authority has stated that they are not interested in providing
fire protection in Southold Town with the public water system;
that the local fire department's policy of requiring fire wells
should be adhered to. This should be addressed in the FEIS. "
Finally, the source of the demographic information in the
Appendix is not indicated. Further, it should be updated to the
extent possible with information from LILCO and the Long Island
Regional Planning Board.
Recommendations:
The Planning Board should-wait for comments from the
Suffolk County Water Authority and the Suffolk County Department
of Health Services before proceeding. The Board has two options:
to either appoint Cramer, Voorhis & Assocs. to complete the
FEIS, or let the applicant complete the FEIS.
If the SCWA and the SCDHS have serious objections to the
proposed location of the well site and the proposed system of
handling the sewage, then my recommendation would be to have
Cramer & Voorhis prepare the FEIS, at the applicant's expense.
However, if the applicant is unwilling to reimburse the Town,
then the Board may be forced to let the applicant complete his
own FEIS, and simply bill him, in advance, for its review by
Cramer & Voorhis.
.
.
.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Region 1 Headquarters
SUNY, Building 40, Stony Brook, NY 11794
e
~
Thomas C. Jorllng
Commissioner
October 25, 1989
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman, Planning Board
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, N. Y. 11971
Re: Nocro Ltd. /,4,1::'.4. ~fl.A-Wl.~ \
Griffing St/School House Road ~ Js~
40 Building Sr. Center
DE IS
Dear Mr. Orlowski,
Department technical staff have reviewed
was submitted September II, 1989 for Review.
that there are no endangered species concerns
the DEIS which
It appears
on this site.
The current site plan provides for no portion of the
property to be left in a natural undisturbed state. A cluster
alternative should be considered which would provide un-
disturbed areas which would be of greater benefit to local
wildlife.
/'
Sincerely,
~vJ:X'~ ~L(\~~
SA: cg
c.c. File
Susan Ackerman
Senior Environmental Analyst
. ,
.
.
November 30, 1989
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, Main Road
Southold, NY, 11971
ill
'; I
~
&&&OW~
~'O\l ') 0 ':C"9
I, 'i v ... lvd
att: Bennett Orlowski, chairman
'.
Sii: ;TI.lr'~7"" .:-~.-
E).i.;~':.:'._
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
When the Town Board voted to approve a change of
zone for a so-called "retirement community" in Cutchogue, the
developers proposed that the age of residents would be limited to
55 or older.
But after the decision was announced, the
developers lowered that age limitation to 45. This is no longer a
senior citizens' complex we're talking about. These will be
people in their prime years, when disposable income is highest
and demands upon community services are greatest.
This alteration immediately changes the
project's impact upon Cutchogue schools, traffic and garbage
disposal. Isn't it illegal to make a substantive change in a
proposal after it has been approved?
Condominiums are taxed at a lower rate than
single-family homes, as a matter of law. This will impact upon
the taxes of other town residents who, in effect, will be
subsidizing the services needed by the condo residents. Has the
town really explored this difference in tax rates: farmland vs.
single-family homes vs. condos?
In addition to the services required by 160 more
families in the small hamlet of Cutchogue, the sewage
treatment/denitrification system proposed for the development has
not been approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services. We feel it is not likely to win approval, since the
department has tightened its requirements for sanitary waste
disposal from the time the developers first offered their plans.
For all the above reasons, the North Fork
Environmental Council asks the Planning Board to reject the Draft
NORTHFORj;nv~ronment~1 Impaqt Statement until these questions have been
E"'VIRO ~atlsfactorlly reso~ved.
... MWENTAL
COUNCIL Sincerely
a nonprofit OT'RtllliUII;Oll
for tbe pr('...('T't'ation
oj land, sell. air and
qll{/lif)'ujlij<,
~t:>~~'...
President,
W~""k.
NFEC
Routt' .15 at /.01 '(' l.ant'
PO /lox 7()(}
J/alliluc.;I'. .\T II'Ji.l
j/(j .!(J8HNf((J
.
.
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Members of the Planning Board
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner I~
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for The Hamlet
at Cutchogue. SCTM # 1000-102-01-33.3
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
November 20, 1989
I have reviewed the comments by Cramer, Voorhis &
Associates.
With regard to Comments 2 and 3, I would like to add a
request that a slope analysis be included in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, so that the location of the
severest slopes relative to the proposed regrading can be easily
seen.
The regrading issue should be defined more clearly, and its
impacts mitigated as suggested in Comment 7; perhaps by a shift
in the location of the buildings. Resiting the buildings may be
preferable to filling in existing low areas.
since the Planning Board has not received any building
elevation sketches, these should be included in the FEIS in
response to Comment 13.
The water supply and disposal issue should be addressed in
more detail as suggested in Comments 19 and 21.
Also, the traffic mitigation measures should include a look
at connecting the roads in this project with Bridle Lane and
Spur Road to the west. There are two subdivisions under
consideration by the Planning Board which will result in the
continuation of both these roads westward to Alvah's Lane. If
the Hamlet connected with these roads, it could alleviate the.
ultimate traffic impact on Griffing Street, S.R.25 and Depot
Lane. However, the proposed roads within The Hamlet would have
to be open to the public for this to work.
The DEIS proposes to allow fire hydrants to be connected
with the public water system. The Suffolk County Water
.
.
Authority has stated that they are not interested in providing
fire protection in Southold Town with the public water system;
that the local fire department's policy of requiring fire wells
should be adhered to. This should be addressed in the FEIS.
Finally, the source of the demographic information in the
Appendix is not indicated. Further, it should be updated to the
extent possible with information from LILCO and the Long Island
Regional Planning Board.
Recommendations:
The Planning Board should wait for comments from the
Suffolk County Water Authority and the Suffolk County Department
of Health Services before proceeding. The Board has two options:
to either appoint Cramer, Voorhis & Assocs. to complete the
FEIS, or let the applicant complete the FEIS.
If the SCWA and the SCDHS have serious objections to the
proposed location of the well site and the proposed system of
handling the sewage, then my recommendation would be to have
Cramer & Voorhis prepare the FEIS, at the applicant's expense.
However, if the applicant is unwilling to reimburse the Town,
then the Board may be forced to let the applicant complete his
own FEIS, and simply bill him, in advance, for its review by
Cramer & Voorhis.
DEC- '5-::;-;'::c<
--r ,_, '=
'- "'-_1
:4~. .~.'~rIHS RIVERHEAD
.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
p _ '-:'11
.
.
.,
rn rn@rno\VIrn ill
DEe-58
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PlANNING SOARO
PATRICK G. HA~PJN
SUFFOI.K COUNTY EXECUTIVE
OE;PARTME:NT 01'" HEAL'tH SERVICES
DAYID HA~RIS. M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMIS$IOfMlA
F OL)I \-0 U(4Y1e" \ t-- Voo(h;S FAX 548-3612
C)I\ \d-.-6-~1 by 1~ \1 \"\-6'\p
'l'RANSHITrAL FORM
1Q:. Y"aL~. 1.-"""'fC/
!'!\Qfu. C1..9...-.-A... --:I; N'~~J'
PHONE NO. sl.j t- ::.()~O
~ l~Lq~<j
~UBJECT I H "'-".- ~ o..:k. c.J:::~ 1-'.'j'_-"_
PAGES,
--;
(including this page)
If this isn't received in its entirety, please call (516) 548-
3312.
'..
.
/'
COUNTY CC'.TCA
AIVl;:;RHI!....O, N.Y. t 1 g01
DEPARTMENT Of" HEAI..TH SERVICES
Ms. Val~rie Scopaz, To':
SoulOhold Town
53095 Nain Road
Southold, New York 11"
';~.
.
'HY OF SUFFOLK
PATRICK G. HALPIN
FOLK COUNTY e:XE:.CU'fwE
0...."0 HARRIS. M.O.. M.P,H.
COMMI5SIONE;A
December 4, 1989
1n~r
RE: The Haml~'C at (" ;ue
SCTH*: 1000-l02-1~:!
Dear l>ls. Scopaz:
The Suffolk County
revieHed the Draft Env:i
referenced project. ~'
respec': to the J;>roposec
are in Cpposition. Ou:
.
-
WATER SUPPLY
=
Attached is a corre
proj~ct :rom Pau: J. Pc
April 4, 1989. Th~3 le
community water supply
unit-equivalence yield
family resid~nce dwelli
Section 760-608 of the
The inapr;croprL~ten~',
syste~~ ~s magnified by
site. A~t~ough ~~e l'in.
concentrations by H~nde:
level of 3.5 to 5.C mg/'
d~ring pu~p tescing, Ne;
nit~ogen l~vels of 8.7 I
COU""Yv Cl'!'kTIrR:
~+'YI[R"'e:...,t), N.Y. I Hlel
,ment of Health Services (SCDHS) has
ltal Impact Statement for the ahove-
l the DEIS deficient, especially with
lnity water supply system ~o which we
,nte are as follows:
,nce to the engineers for the proposed
of our Bureau of Drinking Water dated
tates that the creation of an on-site
,\ by the developer to obtain a higher
:0,000 square feet per equivalent single
t appears to contravene the intent of
k County Sanitary Code.
c:he p:r.'oposed -::ommuni ty w;:),ter supply
rginal quality of available water ~n-
en analysis of test well nitrogen
nd Bodwell indicate a nitrate-nitrogen
een 33 and 86 feet and 5.0 to 5.5 ffi;/l
Testing Laborato~ies r~por~ed total
mg/l at the start and end of pumping,
DEe
'-: '-f T '~j S
1. ~":':I : '4,~ '0- ~- J:) ~. _1 '.:.:: f:,' J. '".' E P 1--1 E "4 1:1
. .
F'e03.
,
.Lelter to V. S c,lpaz
D~ce1llber 4, 1989
Page 2
respectively. SCOHS sampling also detected traces of aldicarb and
carbofuran in water sampled during pump testing.
The issue of water supply should be addressed fully as part of
the VEIS. Such a discussion should include details regarding the
status of any negotiations between the applicant and the Suffolk
County Water Authority regarding the provision of water services.
NITROGEN MODEL
1he applicant states that, based on a WALRAS model analysis,
"it can be concluded that the nitrate levels in recharge water from
the proposed project will be within the acceptable limits of 10
mg/l, and that density reduction does not significantly reduce
nitrate levels." Although the WALRAS model is used to predict
nitrogen concentrations, it is the opinion of our agency that the
model was developed for deCision-making on a regional basis. The
accuracy and validity of the WALRAS mOdel is reduced as the 3ize of
the area to which the project is applied becomes smaller. The
precision of the model is dependent upon the aS$umptions made by the
model user as to the nitrogen loadings, nitrogen uptake and
leaching, sewage strength and volume of rainwater recharged to the
groundwater table. Resulting confidence intervals can vary widely.
Thus, it remains the opinion of our agency that the results of the
WAL~~S-Nitrogen Simulation Model should not be considered as
absolute values.
The applicant'S assertion that "density rl?duction does not
significantly reduce nitrate levels" appaars to be based on an
analysis of nitrogen recharge which focuses on the difference
between 160 and 152 units (page 4-7) and 160 units and 138 units
(page 7-3) . We are concerned that the reduction in the number of
units is not great enough to adequately assess the effect of
decreased housing density. In addition, the "inorease in
evapotranspiration" '"hich provides less nitrogen dilution at lower
housing density shculd be carefully evaluated with respect to total
nitrogen recharge, and not simply nitrogen concentr~ticn. In
conclusio:;, ',Ie question >lhether the modelling performed fer the DEIS
is suffioient evidence to support the claim that density reduction
does not signifioantly reduce nitrate levels.
Supporting the premise that average nitrogen concentration in
recharge does, indeed, decrease with lower housing density are a
DEC- __'::::'~"
r '_1 ~
"'- 'J :: -l- ~=: '::::; C: D I-' :::;;
.
F~ I..... E F: H E ...:~ D
.
p. ~1 4
Leller to V. Sc<)p.tz
"December 4, 1989
p,lge 3
number of documents which include the Long I31s~d Comprehensive
W~ste Treatment Management Plan (LX 208 Study, LIRPB, July, 1978),
the Suffolk County Comprehensi~'e Water .!';esources !1anagement Plan
(SCDHS, Dvirka and Sartilucci, and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., January,
1987), and a Cornell report entitled Protect10n and Restoration of
Ground Water in Southold, New York (Preliminary Draft, Trautman,
Porter and Hughes, Center for Environmental Research, April, 1983).
The Cornell report estimates that a density of 1 housing unit per
acre results in a nitrogen recharge concentration of approximately
3.5 mg/l while 2 units per acre and 4 units per acre elevate
nitrogen levels to approximately 5.2 mg/l and 7.5 mg/l,
respectively. The Cornell report also recommends that the Town keep
housing denSities relatively low (one house per acre or less) eo
that whatever organic chemical contamination does occur is kept at
low levels.
P~DUCEO DENSITY DEv~LOP~~NT SCENARIO
Based on the previously-described water supply problems and the
findings and recoa~endations of the Cornell groundwater study for.
Southold Town, we reco~~end that the nitrogen analysis be extended
to an assessment of nitrogen loading at a development density of one
acre per equivalent single family residence dwelling unit. This
density is equivalent to two of the proposed PRC units per 40,000
square feet. Such a development should be given full attencion as
an alternative development scheme. One-acre dzvelopment in this
area would be consistent with the intent of Section 760-608 of the
Suffolk Cou!',ty sanitary Code (See "WATER SUPPLY"). Such density
would also be faithful to r~commendations made in the LI 208 Study,
which recommsnd:> "minimiz[ing] population density by encouraging
large lot development (one dwelling unit per one or more acres)
where possible."
SUFFERS/v~GETATION
We support tl'le use of lo',,-maintenance buffers "round the site.
I'ie further recolr_",end that indigenous veg'etation be used where
possible in site landscaping. Such vegetation is well suited to
on-site soils and can provide valuable mitigacion in reclaiming
discurbed portions of the site. In addition, we recommend that low-
maintenance turf be used to minimize fertilizer nitrogen
contribution to groundwater.
DEe
- --
~. - ;~ .~.
T ;_, E
~:1 ...:;;. :-: -. ,- n ~-! .;:;:
.
r;:~ J. ',..' F.: ;-' H E H D
.
p _ 0 ~5
Letter to V. SCOpllZ
- December 4, 1989
Page 4
The applicant must comply with the requirements of the Suffolk
county Sanitary Code and relevant construction standards for water
supply and sewage disposal. Design and flow specifications,
6ubs~rface soil conditions, and complete site plan details are
essential to the review of this project. These considerations are
reviewed completely at the time of SCDHS application. SeDHS
maintains jurisdiction over t~e final location of sewage disposal
and water supply systems. The applicant, therefore, should not
undertake the construction of either system without Health
Department approval.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. If you
have any questions, please feel free to contact the Office of
Ecology at 548-3060.
Sincerely yours,
~ ~~:>-~G:J~~
Walter Dawyctiak, Jr.
Asst. Public Health Engineer
Office of Ecology
cc: Vito Minei, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Paul Ponturo, F.E.
Stephen Costa, F.E.
Charles Lind, SC Planning
1:) E C.
;:;':''::''
r ,_, E
_I. ~:1
-'-1- -='.' '.::; C:.1) I-j :=:;;
.
PI .....EPI-lEAD
,- -
":'16
.
,
.
PATRie/( G. HA~PIN
suPro~1( COUNTY I;xer.:UTIVl!
OEPAfI'fNlL:NT OF HEAI.TH Sl!FlV!CES
PAVIO "','\SUlIS1 M.D.. M.P..i.
C~)MMIS~IQHfo:lra
Apdl 4( 1989
S. P~ter ~alerno, r.E.
Gt'ccnlll;:ln-I'eders~n, Inc.
325 West Main St~~et
e~l:>yl(Jn, NY 11702
FE: Haml",t at: Cutchoguc/Seaoro:ft
Propos~d Con~uni~y Water Supply
D~ar Mr. Sal€rnOI
Thi.s office h~s reVitM"d the 1/20/89 Hubmis~ion of. Mr.
Colucci of your oifie" in the rete.r..nc~d m;,.tt.er.
A ::''2:vi.:>w indicat<'os that::. the submission is vir\;ually the s.:>.me
~~ the origin~l June 1984 submisGion f~r S",acrcft. For your
).nformll't:.i'jn, thp. r.pplication was mOdi:l!i.;1d in August 1984. This
1110dific'"-t i.on incorporat<><;l. the followin<] ai.;.mificant. rcvi.sivns:
1~ J?ofJulation was rt::duced via. 1.1 ohanqe to 1 iSO~lB",:l%oc,m
<lou1t oonuIlunit){ (retir':1106Ilt units) nnd tho eliminat.ion of 'Wa.ter
S'.:.rvice to th~ adjoining com:\l€lrcial parc~l.
2- well c<.1f'acit:y was reduc..d accol:'dir.gly.
3- (;1\C conl::acl::ors adequate for a 15 minut:~ conta<':': I sized
~o:.. or.c DO ,Ipm '""ell W110 )?:rovlded, d\lo to <)nticipatr..d p0"llc:lde
.>rolllums.
;.lthough ,o{,') ~xpeot,-,d th;>.t .'lOll would tlpd2lt... the 198" 1;.(;$1::
t,''!:J.l lnform"tion, rlvent::! 3ine€! that tim~ diotat... th"t w', i;ake a
j:,ol;ition ot opposit1on to your proposal, ill' pt'(ll:)!1lnt.;:r.!.
Th" Suffolk Cour.ty Nater Authority has ,i,'l<:!;Lc"t,od Il
willingll~'!lS "nd h:.s 'i'own Board authorizatiol' to oX'oV'ide w,:,I; =:t'
~'",rvi<.:o to this p:>rtion of tha Township. \'Ie unde!:st:and thai:. some
:i.n.i.t,i...l WOl:'k in w",tersh(~d nlanagem6t\t and 'Jupp:Ly well si" ing is
Ilnd8rwdY in this a.rea. Ther,..foX'a, we ac;1vis-il t.h''1t j'out:' <:li"Jlt
:,lIUllcdiately open negotiiltions wi1:h the WatG't' Au'::hor:Lt:y' fOY' ':ho
~rQvi~icn of w~ter ~~rvice.
:.:..;~ "'IMjj-O Crl'1~vf' e'''-=-T
'... "\'_'.l. 'J 'f. 111""1
.D[~C-
- .=-~
r '_I E
c., :: '* ':;0 '.:::: C: D H ~""~
F.: I
'..' E: ,.;:: I-I E: ..::. .D
. .
.
.
p _ '-37"
T
.
N,:, Salerno
April 4, 1989
l"age 2
At this #tage we would not ad.vise additiotlal well purnp test~
although the age of the information and the chango in well
c<tp;'city woulcl necessitata this as part: of an adeq;uate
. u}:'plioal~ion.
However, it is necessary to have one partieular
Clarification. This Bureau is awa.r<ll that YOu have sul;>mitt,~c:l OomQ
pr.eliminary con2umption figures in an attemp~ to justify a 100
9Pd sew~ge al1owanc~ per unit. This is utillz~d in the ~ewage
ut,mdards for onl) bed.room retirement units. The water supply
report accompanying your 1/20 submission outlines :a populatio.\'l
basis of theea person,'!! per unit. Please elj:pi.;!lj.1'l the
inconl')i.~toncy .
Fir.ally, the Buroau ~tiahe$ to raise the qnefJtion IlS~o the
intclnt or Section 760~60a of the COunty Sanitary Coda to allow a
population density equivalent of leas t.han 40,000 squax'a f"et by
the Cr';:,1tion of a COl\l1T\unity water aupply Ort-site. The def."i,nition
of COllll1l1mity water system contained in that code S<)ct:l.()\~ appears
to intend to p.l.'eclude the creation of an on.-s:l.te COlnmunity supply
by the developer eolely for the purpose of obtaining the higher
unit~cguivalence yield. Should it ultimatel~, be n<'lCt:$~J,iry to
PUXDue this i:laue WI.) will. t"equeat that il: be brought. b..for€, the
office of the County Attorney.
If this application is pursued
axtenaiv~ comments, but at thi$ po
the proposal as it ctctld.s.
l/it~1:' d..t.), we h.lIve
timE> we cannot entertain
PJP/ch
CC: ~. bod~ell, Hun~~r~on & Bodwoll
R. r,chn~ck, NYSD~C
R. ,'ewell, H;:\;;t'......ht~'... S~c(;ion
"'~"""."""",~ '''i'' ~.. ~ ~..,
..' ~.
'....
" ~
"Ok,
,A
-
,_.~
.,,....-~~
;"'"
<-"4 I_-r--'......,""'~
.
I "
Of''':' SI,JFf~.()t..~-{.
"
~
$;;.....1- ~~.V"::.":.~.,
':'f~7 'Ji'" ,;'1
,. fl'"
. , . ~
...~ ~. t.
'fft -'.~j:;"..'
-
PATRICK G. HAL.P'N
rOb~{ COI.l~,a'f CX(';C\.ifIVC:
t.>t.toA(~~ ,W~~Ni' 0;: HEAi.~IH <:_~>"~v;Ct"$
'"
-'0:T"'"'~-
DJI.:il': H"'~;'i:':. M,n.. M,l"l,H.
\~("i"iI!1JS','~)r'Il,':N
FAX 54B-3612
'l~f;HI'l"I'A~..P~
ro:
y'" Q.,?"~ "., ~~"J.'~,:::"
-'*-...~.'..-" ~--r--CJ _.'~"'.'_~~-~--"-.~,._---_._~.__.,--
rROH~
.-. " Q
( J\...ll".... -;:;;t""""-'~"'" """"(1'
~"""'-~'-__..-J....... ' '''_. _'__<-....__,._.~
!!.i1~I.L~Q~
~S ~ '%'., 3(J(.:', (J
_.~._"'-------....,.._..----_._..._..
DATE:.:.
---"J.:~1~t~:1.___....__. .....______
SUBJEC'r I
~.,,,,.";....._~...._,.
A
. . (l., .. (-. .,__ I' . .
t"l ,1.--.-,.. ..........s...:..:J{" ('::.>...... ....~.-^'-,..1t--..'tQ:1"...._"".
....--Y-~..,h-'_......-.._........~._~--'---<,....._--.......J..cr _"~~_....,.............__
f~~!:~,:,
-"-~:z_____.... .______\ i r:cludj.E.&...l~ l.!J1Ag,,:; 0__
If thin Isn't received in its entiretYI plllse c.11 (516) 54&-
3312.
(:C'UNrl'~'t.R
A;ria::~,,~,( 1'10\'},
",
';~~;::t
1'U';~ ;;:t:Jt,'b"i.!;;:i
'~,~\ '"',. - ~""".'~"il~id;.~JJ-~~'~>;;':"'jl,.;,ij,~i,;":_,,,~~'i;_""",:.;:;.;;
;:,;.'
,'.";L.:..tHi;;i,j";:'~~'~,..,,.~.
,,",t,;.:,;;.o;
.~ '2L"k.~';";;it.."c';';
~'~~''''''F'P'''~J\'f;~:~:i~.~~~n':?',''t''.'''
.
.
, ,<,", - ",..,'''' _t_'~.
-""""",,_ ~. . .. . '.~ . 'T""! '.~.=-
1'""' ~'- 1L:5" ,..:.~ ''''~~''
.
.
CO~.i NTY,OF' SUi'FOLK
p...r~ICK G. HALP'N
S ;!'1'~'OLKCOUNT'y' ~Xf.CtJ"IVE'
DIi:PARTMEN'r Of' HEM.:rrf $f;;RViCES PAVIt) HARR'6. M,D,. M.P.H.
C"OtotMI:5&ONItA
~r.s. Val~2::'ie8(..;op,~~.7., TC1(rn P'l~jt:.ne?;t.
SOwt.-ho ld TO'"w'7ti
53095 M,d.n !>.oad
SDuthold, New York 11791
Oec&~~er 4, 1989
RE; The Haml"':: at cutclv:>gue
SCTM': 10CO-lC2-1-33~J
Dear Ns. SCC1paz:
The Svdfolk. County Department of Health Se:cvicE:s . (SC!:>HS) has
::tevi~wed, the: Ox'aft> Err~li r;::'nrn~~).tal Impact S'catement fort..he abov-e-
referer,ced proje'-~t. fie f':Lnd th", PElS deficient, especially with
re.:.~pect. t.o the ~'rop(:lsed corfc,,;11l1nit:.y wat.er supply $}'stem t.e \.;hich we
are in cpposi t,iC1i 0 Our ccmrri~nt$ are a~fol1ows:
WATEll, SUJ?P!JY
Attached is ill correspond.,,1'iC;; to the et,.;;ineers fo~ the proposed
project: from 1>."l\l.:r l?O!';tur() of Ou,;' Buteau of Dd.r.king Water dated
April 4.. 19$$). This letter s':.at,Bs that the c!:'€citi.orl ()f, an on-sit.e:
ccm:l1mnit.y "'at-u' supply ,$y:$tE;m by the developer to obtain a higher
(.mit.-equivalence ~'iejd tha!''. 40,000 squa%,;; feel per equivalent s:i.n91e
fam.ily re~,i..d';:c1,"v::"Z; d"4\~.11in~ \:i.n.{t appea;c$ to Ct,r:tra'\~en~ t.he inter..t of
Section " 60- 60,S of~he Suf.folk County Stni tary Code.
'Ihe inapprc~priat.ena$s .';if 'cr... p:::opo.sed c0mmurd.ty ~!<Jter supp1~'
syst'w, is rnagrd.f.i,~d by tbe margirlal quality of avai,labli'. w,,-ter :;;n'-
site~ A:thouqh ~~e Ilin-offic~" a~alysis o~ t~st well nitrogen
C,o'"lc..)r~t:.:'atiCir~$ l::J' He1'l.dlt.t'son and Eodw'eJ.l indic-at~ a nitrate:-rLLtrogan
l"vel of 3.5 .to 5.0 J)".g/l. b",tw~""n 33 and. 88 feet I'l"ld'5.0 to 5.5 m;;/l
dl,.:tk~inq pur;-itp testing; New YOrk: T~sting Lab.~:tatoJ:iE;:~ r$;p'':>:t'''~~~d t,,,t.al
nitrogeJ:'l leve-l.;: ,.:= 8.7 to 9.$ mg/l at tb,'!: start and end vf'pumpi.n~,
C:QUN-tl' CIf,Nf'tn
fIIIlVltbiltAb, N," i 1 fIO I
,"_."_~,~~~1l~t;:'~:lC_~,:',,:,..::!i!,.J,,_,,,,,.~,<.'~_ ":'!!'!"'-'H'''''''' _",",J~"':',~.~"1'"'" ,i"'\'~'.''''h_''_~_
-
-
,~ -
"""","/,'~~
"-'-"r'~~~'--_
.
.
.
.
,
L ,,-,
. eft:':r tv;"'. D~,;,:!p('jZ
Dec"n:h~r 4, 1989
Page 2
',,*,,'
respect i -;ely _ SCD"S sampli' 9 also dete,::;ted traces of <",ldicar'b and
carbcfuran in wat~r e~mpl~~ dur.ing pump testing.
Ihs issue c i: water sc;f'pJ y should 1:>e addressed fully as part, of
the DgrS, S>.:ch a discussi, ;', should include ctetld.ls regarding the
stat!';,s of any negotiations ;:,ebreen the applicant and the Suffolk
County ~'ater Authority rega"GHng the provision of 1-later services.
NITROGE:N MODEL
-j,
"" .
The applicant st"tes th..t, based on a WALAAS model' analysis,
"it can be conch,ded that the ,lit.rate levels in recharge '"ater from, ','
the proposed project will be wi.thin the ac:.;eptable limits of 10 .
mq/l, and ~hat density reductio~ does net significantly rectu~~
nitrate level s." Although the WALRP.S m"del is. ",Jsed to predict
nit:t'o9,;on COl1centrat ions, it:. is the opinion of. our agency that the
model was developed for d0cision-making on a regional basis. The
acc\)xacy and '..alidity of the HAiMS mocel is reduced as the size of
the Il.r..a to wh::'ch the proje<:;t;. is applied. become", smaller. 'The
precision of the model is d~pendentupon the as~umptione made by the'
model user as ':.'0 the nitrogen lcading$, nitrogen uptake 3r\d
leaching, sewa;e :1Jtrength ,llnd velu!e" of rainwater recharged 'to the
9roundwl.\ter table. ::<.esu1t.ing confidence irltervals can vary widelY.
thus, it: rem.-d"$ ,;he opinion of C"elr agency that the resu>.-te o,f thlll
WALR..;'S-N:..trogen Si"'ulat i en ('Jode1 Sh':)\l),d not J;.e considered :as '
absol..te values.
The applicant's I'ssertiol', that "densit.", re~.uctiondoe$ not
siqnificantly reduce nit%.'lActt ltlvels" I.\Pl?<liOlUO/il to be base'd on an
analysis of nitroger, recharge which focuses on the difference
between 160 and 152 \;<nit<1 (page ~-7) and 160 units an <:1 138 units
(pa9E1l 7-3) . t';'" are concerned ,that the reduction in the number of
units is not gr~at Iilhough tc adequately ass~ss th, effect of
decre~$ed housin;r density. rn addition, the ,"incre'asE! in
evapotr'ans?ireti::.n" 'Nhich pr-cvice$ less nitrogen dilution at lower
housins density shct::ld ba car*:'ellly evall,ateel with re:>pect to total
nitro9..n ,-;~char9'$, ar.do not simply nitrogen cc,ncentraticn. !n
conclusion, we question >lhethe:r ttl<'. :n"delling perfol::'med for thr.l OEIS
is sufficient evid,mce to support the claim that density r.eduction
does not sigr:.ific,"nt1y reduce r.itratr;o lQvels.
Supporting ,t,he premise that average nitrogen concentr"/Ation in
,
recharge does, inqet"d, ,<:te<::reas", wit!. lower housing density are a
~",~~i~(~~/<:'!"-!F~~<:":,_;;~~~!~~4.I;'",,:,"''''!''''~'_''\~,.,
'-...--
.~ .""'~""""=
....,,--~'~-
P""";:""~"2f"'""""..,~.~.
.
.
.
Lelttr to V. SCOP;\l;
. December 4, i 989
p,lge 3
'.ol),!~
nUll'.ber of d,)e'.lment", ;4hich :t .c11ud".l t.he Long Ia.i~."jd Comp,,~~!llens.ive'
Waste 1'.ceat.-nent Mar;,;,',;ement :''.:.!In (LI, 208 Study, :U:F.P'S, .T,t!.y, 197a),-
t.he Suffolk CC!I)!icy C()[r.pJ:~;h,,;"d. ,'eWat..:r Re.9QUrCes Hanagement Plan
(SCDHS, Dvirka and :Bartill.\c,::., and. Halcolm l?irnie, Inc... January,
1987), and a CorzH,ll re?oJ;.'t cnt.i1:cl'ed p:rctection tlnd R",sl;oraeiono5
Ground ,,"'ater in Sor..;thold, N,N Ycrk (Preliminary 'Draft, Trautman,
Porter and Hughe$, C4nt*r ~vr Environmental Research, April', 1983).
The Cornell report;. estimat..,s that a density of l housing unit per
acre results ir, a r.itrogen recharge conc,,"ntraticn of approld.mately
3.5 n\g/l while :2 >::rd.":.$ .p,1)r ac.re and 4. \,nits per acre l:ileyate
nitrog~n levels to approximately 5.2 mgil and 7.5 mg!l,
respectively. ':Ch'! Cornel: report also recommends tbat the Town keep
houaing densities relatively low (one house per acre or less) eo
that whatever organ;tc cbemical ccntamir:"tion does oocur is kept at
low levels.
REDUCED DENSIT. OE\~LOP~~NT SC~NARIO
.
,
.
eased en tl",e ::':.revi.ousl~'-de$c);:ibeci water supply problems and the
findin<)!i and re<::(l1":c'!\endatior,s ,;.f the Cornell gr'ound:1,aterstudy for
$outhold 'I',owtl, \.'e raco,.,-"nendth,at. the nitx'ogen anaJ.ysis be e,;tended
to an asseS''lmen''.: or nitrogen loe,ding at Ii de'falopmilnt density of one
acre per ecqui'!ale:.t single family residence d;'lel1i.ng unit, This
density is .aquivalent to tHO of t.he proposed PRC:units'per 40,000
square feet.SJch a c.evelopment shoul6 be given f",ll at,tent-ion ail:
an altel'natl.Ve ::ie.....el<~p"'j!;,nt sell.eme. ene-acre d:welbpmer't in thi.s
area would c." COi\.,!!,istent ~.::tth ths ir,tent of Sectiorl '760,-608 of the
Suffolk Coutlty S~nit.ary Cede (See "WATER SUl?J?LY")'. Such density
would also bef.a.ithfult.o ):'"comn:endations made in t.he LX 218 Study,
which recorrJ~snd:; "mirdmiz. [itJgJ pop';la1:i.c.n densitv by enCO\lra"'ina
. ~ - ~ ~
large lot dev.al,)pm..nt (or.e dwelling "i.mit per one or more aCJ:es) -
where poss'.blo;."
.
, .
eUFFERS/\~GETATrON
We support ehe U$<! cf low-mainter;ance buffe~s "'roun<:l t'he site..
We fur.t.:r,er r...;;cmr~<il:X'!d t.hat indigenous vegetation bl!l '-"sed where
poss!.!>l. in sic.elandscaping. Such \-e'3etati-on 'is ~~ellsuitedto
on-site soils ~r,d can previde valuable m~tigation in reclaiming
disturbed porticns of the site. IX'! addition, we reoo~~end that low-'
maintenanoe t~rf be used to minimize fertilizer nitrogen
contrib1.lticn to groundwater.
~,1
.'
;(
~:r
-~~~~~~-~.;...:..:~;;.."""".L.-,<-.'&',"':"'~~~~"..:.:.~';~;_~.~"~.~,,,,~,,,
t,\
, ,f
ii ~';;''':~~~~~~IW..<toi..i.o;;:;i:l .L~i~~-'~':,All~
~r~~~"~B':i1f~!i;:,1i:)1i7':'."~Hf\''''','Wt:f~'''~~'1('''~';~~'7''.;~'~"" "__'___...,,... ~.' ~ ~.".
" .' ~
,. 1'::'; ..... ""~ -.
~'O~~.'!.:<...-'~'~
Leu,"! (0 V S';OP(IZ
'Dee.:ml:k:T 4, 19139
Page 4
.
A.
"I"",
The applicI>.ntn\\lst comPtY' ',h the :::equirenH"nts of ~he Suffolk
County Sani"ta'!::;{ Cod€> ~:(~_~1.:fr~ O;'~-va:nt oonstructicn st~ndd<,.t-d'~ fOt: water
suppl y and sew!!i.;e diSlf""sa: Design and flow $pecif~cat:ion$,
~ubsurface soil conditions, und co~olete site ~~an ~etails ~~e
. .
essential t;:, t.he revi..ew of Ud.3 project. These con~idE;'ratiolls a,(e
revie.."e',j completely at the .t,i.lr.'i! of SCDHS 'applicat.ioi'l. SCOHS
,
maintain~ j~ri$diction over t~e final location of $~wage disposal
and W'ate.::' supply system", The applicant, the:::etore~ shc,ulcl not
undertake the construction 0f either system without H~alth
Department appr~val.
Thank you for the opport'mity to review this application, .If you
have any quesciox\,., p.le!!i~.a feGol frlie to contact the Office of
Ecology at 548-3060,
.,
,~ ~
Sincerely YO\lrs,
~ ~f~&"4~~
walter Oawyctiak, ~r. .
Asst, l?u:bliotlealth Engin~er
Office of Ecology
,.
cc: Vito Minei" P.E.
Louise Harrison
Paul Ponturo, 1'.E,
Stephen Costa, ~.E.
Charles ~~nct, SC ~lanning
,.S~.:"!i':,~~~lli"-,='r':""'-""'1""~"i-
-, ".--,
--,...... . ~.. ~-,. ...."'"-' ....... -'
-'"~'-"'-~----""'-'~--'~~'''''''''~-7'~f!:':''''''''-''''
.
.
~
'..,11
'.....
COUNTY' OF SUFFOl..K
i
I
""tRICK 0, HA..PIN
EI;'Pf.,'L<< COI.iN1"V, f:xtr,:uT'Vli:
.
OIU'"." """"17 OF HE,~'.'rri' ,,;,j;"VICE$
DAVID H,.'..IR. 104,0.. M.P,H.
(.:,,-)MMI3~1QiIf1':" -
April 4, 1989
1.';'
S. P",ter t:al;;,,'(,e, ".E.
G,CC1'm>ln-I'ed:erS€:fl" :l:1'Ic.
325 West Main Stx~et
e ;l',)yl(;l'lr NY 11'70:'::
RE'~ li,aml<.:t. 0 r; cutch01'\lc/Se~v:~::'oft
l?ropcSSld COl'lm,,,,rl:i,,=)' ltat,>,x: Supply
-D~ar Mrft S~l~r~o:
Th~;s o"ff:\.c(} h:l:3 r-ENi"w,,,:t 1:1-1.. 1/:::-:>/80 <!ubmiS,(i!ol'i.C):f.Mr.
Ccl<lcci oot Y,~llr offie,> in to," .l:'~:!'er6(jo<;)d m;'d;.t,ex'"
J;. r.;:vi1'tw indic",b~ll thaI::. j~he SI.'btn:\,::lsio:. ~" vi. rl ""...1 l'v ,the ;$.:>tc'd
~" tbe ol:'i~.i.rd,l. J\;l';'J 1934 ]sl.lbll'.l$llion 'for S~aC'rcfl;..' ~or' your.'
;,nfoX'l1"lti.,(\. t1',.. ttt-p.l.icc~H 6l"l ~;;"'$ medii!",.;! i..n' .A1.l9u:st 1984, :this
ncdific:",,~i<\f) .itH~;():;;pi)r~t.-:.,~_ th.{~ f-(>llow!rt':j ~l9ni.ficG-_nt. l"C'\r-:.S~{in!i:
1- Itopi;,:J..a.'t.icn 'W.:!.$ r":.'d.l~ced 'via. a ,;]hanqe to '1 €O,..iB';<d.r-~>'Hn
"o\:1.t er.;;mlll"t\.H,J( (:t'et:.i.r",:n.,,,,t tmj,!;;,o) artd th" ejil'nillat,:i,en of ",,,,t(~~ "
~41rV'-ice too tbe 4,,::!jcird.nJ (;{)-tt\t;\Qc,t'<11al p~:r~+-~l,
2-. WC~ 1. cat-Ia~;~i'c.y ~"'a3 .r,~d.'t,JCffd accot'dif49l y.
3- C~\C c-c.nt:C-l:;L.o:t's ,1;.It;it;;<r;.J~t.e f()r:. is: .15 minl.l'i:'~ Cv.n1;:':1C~:_I' ~ iz..:,d
:"0.:.-.: or~c ~,o ']r-m ~,11 W:'l,fJ l~A.~O~l-i.dt1d.~ ch.1c to:) f,;intlci?ai:.(.:~1- pr:t1l icl.d.e
probl~Hn$ ,
I
r,lthou,.h '''~ <ilxpectCld th'~t you wOI,!l',:!
;'fell in.for.:'fn;)_tictl, !.uvent'3 3.inCt~ ,that t,irni~
r;,o!Jition of cppoaiition to YO'~t:" prOl'OSlll,
I
l'hd.. Suffolk qO'.\1'.ty l~,~t;;r ,twthority h:u ~;'\~:l-::"'t'"~l <>
w.:i.llit'H~JnEdLt :.~-){'jh~la ~l'ot,."::1 Be'~!lrd a~th()r'i~atio~' to p;-Dvide: W,-:I\>t:%'
M,l('Vl.GO t::> t)'>.is pntiN"l of thO! To\./nship, VI.", unde~I';>Ial)d thaI!. 130m!!:
:i.llti.tial ."ork i1\ w:ttet:!lh,:d l\\<)lnage:~"'n(; ",,,-d '~1.lP..' L:t "ell sir i11g' is
\1tld"'J::w..y 'irl t;hi:o fu:a", , ::',tle<r\itfot'e, ",(6 actvis,,' r,il;,t YO\.lt: <:li..i-Jlt
j..riut\~dia;te,l~ Opi:l;, 1')f'~9j."tizd:lo1.'lS '4ith th~ ~1a.to'l." >~\.t~;h~.t~:lt:l ~o,;. ';,hc
!-,rQv.i."3icti ,!f w.:;u:.e.t. ti'-rviCd.
i
I
I
'.lpda,~.., 'th~ 198"
dt.:t,i,t:o: thi'l't'+t;:,
a~ ];,t'~'\.;lll1:."tj.
't::c-~t
'cake II
"";,, '1AlUO ~.vr I!A~;- ,
- I~~~~'\..:j;~\~.,~,. t~2~~L~h_~,_" ~~i.~>~ ~.~,_,__~~~,,_~"" c,
._"",.................,'"'-~-,;.;;
",..,
~" ~~"....~._(,.-'''._Lo:;;~~,~i,;.,_........,
'-~u.:.o.
,'.~,. >i-j"'d..",~;;;..~~;J
<4"''''''''''_''''''~\''''''''':'''''''''C'~''f:,,"'''' "!'~ ""''':'_''~o", _~ .:-
.
~,
,_._.,~.,~"!":"",,,,~
.
~--=-~-~"'~-'
.
*
~
. .
......
.
,
N.<Ii"'h' :L11~C:::i".nf.:.
~,piil .tj, ,. 08 ')
L'i"'9" .2
I ,', ~.
I .,.
i
. ~';' J;t-fic',,,{",t't1,
, , - . ~
(~t'Ip4t,,?it:1 ,
~\~~plJ.c.~t .t~Ott..
I
"t; ,"j
~"~-j<), ~"> ~ i ~ld
"'..."" ... 1'. ..
'.."; r~"'1: S ~. i.
{lJ iL-\~t .H.ch,::,. (1 ~~~ ~\qd ::i_t:'l"'::'...~_.,)... ~\lffi J
". 'w...,~.~. .... tn'=.,'h "fl.,,, ..,..
;1;, -..),,,- "';.........,1. l';':,"'; -'~'-\!!:."". .. ....... ..:"'~,.._~...~:t1J;.a' "" l-:
n~~' <1:(,$ _F'~~'t:. of.An .si~~.<'l:i:j-.tf;:"
"','
.t, p~l!'l't{~
\i,~,-t.l_ '
.~e;9';,S'
'H.r::n".' * V~ l'" .~ <j<.
C.t cl;!~- 4,.:;:';1.(; :.:h
';''!t}
A-. '~1
,
t{":~~ ;;~.~~:,f
, ~."l:p~t't
~2'::~'-~J
~~;~tj .l;~u:,t'i~.6qla,f':', '. .... , '
tt~~l ,It;;;(~; t .:~,;rt"Y(.7\J' 1;.a:-~~;~. ~ ',.1k:~~;;~ ~~ t!::'d. ~~rth,;'
Jft' i~.t.':;.\~t:Y;;fiL 't~, ,:r~l,'.:~.;'I.'{y r:\ li{U
fr..l..,!!.....*" ,,),' "'-""-"~ '\;""'-.-:_"j' .f,'~',~~",,~ ,~." '..~,_,;..
.. ~,-,;;> :.:.;; .J.......f~..:.,...."""1{ '#,1. "\"",1;,.,, .."'e.~4(~IO::I
Ln"m')ll'.~ ,;,.Iit{". :thil. \<''':t';i:''\'!i'p~y:
J].:~tt:t:f ;:i!L"<~~ O'lAt;:.!t';f;S ,Iii ~t~(H~I.,;iJ.a.t:),..i,)t"J",
l' ,'. ,
t?'l :~Lj.!'te ,t'~':(F;,&J:r\," ~ht;;':
,
',,.f'
,
;^ '"
,~t;r.-tJt~;:"::
<:;.d:':ti>~,'<
;')<-:" 'C.i:~,: q\}f::/~t'i.~~r' .i:'l$.:.:t:~~ ~~').(.:~
;" :'f.:.:.J t~\j<:l ":~?~j!; t 1i Ct_ .J..:1:0~ ,'-'a
':'CdJ _ ~~1l;Y;'U~'~ t, f ~~~.~<~>~l:~'
sit,iJtL,~. ,d!?fi~hit';i',6h
:;,~vd",:-', cs.~~'7-;t,i ':':~1.,;' ,.{\l.lP'f;~~4;.t's
.an ' q.t').~". .~, ;Lt~~.. q()faa1~'j~.htf;.V; at1P)j:<iy':,
~ "~ () l' '.' .,~,.;:~"..~'r-li:~.., r:1,..,:.t.-.' :....,:.-'.',~.'} '.,'"",' ~.'$'.~.'.'.'..'..,::t.:"
If,r~~~)i~ i,\l",.;.H~J::. r.e:.. l'l"""t,:'JI,,..r ie." .
t-t~at ~. ." t.~::,. i:;:;~o~~~.~y-':i?~,f':')xti the
I ' ,
.' -~
,
'-",
,
. '.l_r: r:t; i ..~~.
,',";', ,',-! .
~;~~;~'~\;:~>E D'~:r'I~ t
"
"$-'
"
"'(
~ "'.""~~VI:.:1a: ,at'''''~' i;1ttf'l:" '..ct)j't:~':'~'!'7;f/
...... - ./'. '.!"'>\""""-:~'/r~"~.',_~,,;"'":..;.J,
" ~\ - '"" P:~:..,l1"t ,J,,~,,~ \vtJ ,':.. ".1",,r',,lV~
' \ ,- "".'
/"."'t-_< '
t'.... I. :]-.
. "~<~z
':ia~iJ' l;"mt:~~1~~'S,;.'
, $e,n :::..: P'..:Ar.?~~b1.~A'''!':l,\Yin~''>:
" :au~'f.' '" :1: t J: .i19)~r: ;~a't ~.r '
~~~...:,;:" ,I:,'
l..il;.;" '~'-\>' .
, ", { , ~- , !
,'~~t)t .,:;~t~t~",-n
"" '>
'~, ,
bf
~:'t.:;) :;~"'.4~
.'< "'.
,.
'.'"
,
. , "
r. y,. /'''>-'0 ,"
.......~,."~"fw--:> "
" "
,
;';:~',i
>.(
.n1 . .~~,a~,1.'~/4J~,1'- .<!1;Jc~d,~'~r';:-<fj1
f~;'; :~'1~11r:(~~c.k/,{N~S"~'!:,c. .
;A ,; ,',->:"~j~r;fJ>:L} :t';'a\';.i:~':'4'r~-~<(;:~;,'1.~-
" . .,.'. '
'" < < ~.. .':; ~j,'
'~.:~,1f!W(;f.lJ;
, - '. , .
""
,~~,_c. ~;.;;" " J,
.,.\~I..,,~,j...O,tJ,
',.":((
'.~ .
1.
. ,1.."
I
.
.,
,j-
,an',-,
,
I
'I'
-_.,~,----=LJ
~"".J ",.;;i
. '"'~' J
,"JIo>
~ju......~,^,;~~".
,,:
I'
.~ .
I
'1"
,
'~ ,I ~:.-"",:~';..:.. ',~
. f .
.
I.
-I
',J;-
'-'-", ,.I~""i""-"~':__;,d..".j;
,,'.
, .
;'1
t'~Ji,~~
'." '. ,,;.,, ,:;--'~
.
.
November 30, 1989
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, Main Road
Southold, NY, 11971
~~
& a w ~
NOV30B
att: Bennett Orlowski, chairman
SC:;T'
J'. P:
--"'~
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
When the Town Board voted to approve a change of
zone for a so-called "retirement community" in Cutchogue, the
developers proposed that the age of residents would be limited to
55 or older.
But after the decision was announced, the
developers lowered that age limitation to 45. This is no longer a
senior citizens' complex we're talking about. These will be
people in their prime years, when disposable income is highest
and demands upon community services are greatest.
This alteration immediately changes the
project's impact upon Cutchogue schools, traffic and garbage
disposal. Isn't it illegal to make a substantive change in a
proposal after it has been approved?
Condominiums are taxed at a lower rate than
single-family homes, as a matter of law. This will impact upon
the taxes of other town residents who, in effect, will be
subsidizing the services needed by the condo residents. Has the
town really explored this difference in tax rates: farmland vs.
single-family homes vs. condos?
In addition to the services required by 160 more
families in the small hamlet of Cutchogue, the sewage
treatment/denitrification system proposed for the development has
not been approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services. We feel it is not likely to win approval, since the
department has tightened its requirements for sanitary waste
disposal from the time the developers first offered their plans.
For all the above reasons, the North Fork
Environmental Council asks the Planning Board to reject the Draft
MCMrrH~nvironmental Impact Statement until these questions have been
EMVI~~}:LfactorilY resolved.
~MCJL Sincerely
a nonprofit OTRauizatioll
for the presen 'ation
oj land, sea. air and
qllalit). of life
~Q~""''.''
President,
W CL.... L..-
NFEC
Route 25 at h)/'e hmf!
P()Uox-'(j()
,\lattiflJ/..:k, ,\T 111)-1.:
SI() .!(J,"'.88H()
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice of Public HearlDg
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that pursuant to Section
276 of the Thwn Law, a public
hearing will be held by the
Southold 1bwn Planning Board
at the Thwn Hall, 'Main Road:
Southold, New York in said
Town on the jo(h day of
November, 19890D the question
of the following:
7:30 p.m. Final approval of
the major subdivision of DBM
Affordable Housil1$, located at
the Thwn of Southold, County
of Suffolk and the State of New
York. Suffolk COjIDty Thx Map
Number 1000-55-6-15.1.
The property is bordered on
the north by land now or
formerly of Donald Ththil, by
land now or formerly of Yenne-
coli Park; on the east by land
now or formerly of Richard &
Laureen Wheeler, by land now
or formerly of Francis &
Patricia O'Malley, by land now
or formerly of Edwin Mooney;
on the south by land now or
formerly of Peter Meyer, Jr., by
land )tOW or formerly of Carl &
, . Anthony Codan & another, by
land now or formerly of Walter
& Susan Stype, by land now or
formerly of Rishad & Judith
Owadally; on the west by land
now or formerly of Margaret
Krukowski, by land now or
formerly of William Moffet, Jr.,
by land now or formerly of
John & Henry Smicik, by land
now or formerly of Robert 1llp-
Iin, by land now or formerly of
Chester Finne, by land now or
formerly of Robert Goldsmith
by land now or formerly of
Mary Wheeler.
7:45 p.m. Final approval of
the minor subdivision of Too
Bee Realty, located at the Thwn
of Southold, County of Suffolk
and the State of New York. Suf.
folk County Thx Map Number
1000-50-6-5.
The Property is bordered on
the north by Lighthouse Road;
on the east by land now or
formerly of A. McGunnigle; on
,the South by land now or
formerly of A. Sepenoski; on
the west by land now. or former-
ly of Hanauer & Bagley.
7:50 p.m. Final approval of
the major subdivision of Thorn-
ton Smith, located at the Town
of Southold, County of Suffolk
and the State of New York, Suf-
folk County Thx Map Number
1000-121-1-lp/019.
The Property is bordered on
the north by land now or
formerly of H. Checkla & Schl-
man, by land now or formerly
of Minas & Vassiliki Mihaltses,
by land now or formerly of
Catherine Simicich, by land now
or formerly of James & Florence
Gebbia; on the east by land now
or formerly of Franklin G. &
Arline Boeckman, by land now
or formerly of Joseph & Lee
Pufahl, by land now or former-
1y of Louis & Maureen Buona-
guro; on the South by Sound
Avenue; on the west by Bergen
Avenue.
7:55 p.m. Final approval of
the major subdivision of High-
point at East Marion, Section
Three, Inc., located at the Town
of Southold, County of Suffolk
and the State of New York. Suf-
folk County Thx Map Number
1000-31-3-11.25.
The property is bordered on
the north by land now or
formerly of the subdivision of
Highpoint at East Marion, Sec-
tion II; on the east by land now
or formerly of Steven & Despina
Moraitis; on the south by Main
Road (Rt 25), by land now or
formerly of East Marion Fire
District; on the west by land
now or formerly of Geor8e &
Geatrakis Kortsolakis.
8:00 p.m. Final approval of
the minor subdivision of Alan .
Cardinale at James Creek
located at the Town of
Southold, County of Suffolk
and the State of New York. Suf-
folk County Thx Map Number
1000-122-3-1.1.
The property is bordered on
the north by land now or
formerly of James C. Gray, Sr.
& Peter S. Gray, by land now or
formerly of Devaaka Realty Co.
Inc.; on the east by land now or
formerly of Louise, S. Ehlers &
Louise Stacey & Other, by Arm
of James Creek; on the south by
Canal Known as Jl\fiIes Creek,
on the west by land now or
formerly of John W. Boutcher
& Alice Panteleo, by land now
or formerly of Alfred Steiner &
<;:hristina E. Steiner, by land
now or formerly of Frank
lI(Iilowski, by land now or
formerly of Zozislaw Mikoloj-
Czyk & Stefanie Mikolojczyk, by
land now or formerly of Roy A.
Schelin, by land now or former-
ly of Paul Lucas, by land now
or formerly of Paul & Helen
Lucas, by land now or formerly
of Leonard 1. Llewellyn & Mar-
jory E. Llewellyn, by Maio Road
(RT 25),
8:05 p.m. Public hearing on
the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement with respect to the
Hamlet at Cutchogue, l<X:8ted at
the Thwn of Southold, County
of Suffolk and the State of New
York. Suffolk COijnty Thx Map
Number 1000-102-1-33.3.
SEQR lead a8ency is the
Southold Thwn Planning Board.
Copies of the Environmental
Impact Statement are on file at
the office of the Planning
Board, Thwn Hall, Main Road,
Southold, and may be reviewed
during regular business hours.
8:10 p.m. Final approval of
the minor subdivision of James
CohiU, located at the Thwn of
Southold, County of Suffolk
and the State of New York, Suf-
folk County Thx Map Number
1000-107-1-2.
The property is ?\,rdered on
the north by Mill jl(;ad; on the
east by Grand Avenue; on the
south by Grand A"ehue, by land
now or formerly of Eugene O.
Graf, by land now or formerly
of Henry 1. Paulak, Jr., by land
now or formerly of Smith G.
Pearsall; on the west by land
now or formerly of Elizabeth V.
Fox,
Any person desiring to be
heard on the ,bove matters
should appear at the time and
place specified.
Dated: October 17, 1989
BY ORDER OF
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD
BENNETT ORWWSKI, JR,
CHAIRMAN
1 Y 10/26/89 161
.
.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
ss:
STATE OF NEW YORK
Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the
Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN,
a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County;
and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman
once each week for. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . .. weeks
-of
. I . h ~
successive y, commencing on t e ......................
d\n'""~'~e.~"'19.8"? ..3
~...................:..u.~.....
. dd 7Zf
Sworn to before me this. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. day of
.........o.c;~...... ,19.r/..
................. .~.cJ:.-.~ ~~~.....
Notary Public
BARBARA A. SCHNEI DER
NOTARY PUBLIC, Slale of New Y:: K
No. 4806846
Qualified in Suffolk C~u)llY /.
Commission Expires '7.3" /"Jv
.
.
~
STATE OF NEW YORK)
)ss:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
P~tr;r;~ Hp~npy ofMalliluck,in
said County, being duly sworn, says thai he/she is Principal
Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper,
published al Malliluck, In Ihe Town of Soulhold, County of
Suffolk and Slale of New York, and thallhe NOlice of which
lhe aMexed is a prlnled copy, has been regularly published In
said Newspaper once each week for ~ weeks
succesSively, commencing on Ihe 19th day of
October 19~
C
Sworn (:efore me Ihis /'7
day of ~ ~ T 1~7
/tM. ~~~
/L//~, .... ..
f',',,, " '; ~'< ~li__".:.I, <> _ 'iork
.--,,-,,- P,qill! St;:;k u\ N.~w
:YJi,\tli ;Jd ", ..; 4"49860
Sutffllk County ~~o, rvljlU9C
Tenn Expires ~ebruad- l /C)
Notke.r p;.j,ikii;;:ri"l
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that. pursuant to Section 276 of rho
.Town l.aw, a public hearing will be
f held by the Southold Town Planning
r Board, at the Town Hall M .
RodS . aln
o . outhold, New York in said
Town on the 16th day of October
,1989 on the questioo. of the follow~
1118:
? :30 p.m. Final approval of the
majOr subdivision of DBM Afford-
able Housm8.located allhe Town of
Southald, CounlY of Suffolk and the
Slate of New York. Suffolk Chutly
Tax Map Number J 000.55-6- 15.1.
The propcny is bordered on the
north by land now or formerly of
Donald Tuthill, by land now or for-
merly of Yennecou Park; on the
e~sl by land now or formerly of
RIchard & Laureen Wheeler b
land, ~ow or fannedy of Franci', I.
Pamela O'Malley. by land now or
fprmerly of Edwin Mooney; on the
south by land now or formerly of
Peter Meyer, Jr., by land now or
formerly of Cad & Anthooy Codan
&. anocher, by land now or fonnerly
of Walter &. Susan StyJ>C, by land
now or formerly of Rishad & Judilh
OwadaUy: on the we.st by land now
or formerly of Margaret Krukows.
kl, ~y land now or formerly of
\VilllAlD Moffet. Jr., by land now or
fo~erly of lohn &. Henry Sim-
chick, by land now or formerly of
Robert Taplin, by land now or for-
merly of Chester Finne, by land
no~ or fonnerly of Roben Gold_
sm.ith, by land now or fonnerly of
Mary Wheeler.
. 7:45p.m. Final approval of the
mIDor subdivision of Too Bee Real-
ty, local<d at the Town of Southold
County of Suffolk and the State o(
New York. SuffolIc County Tax Ma
Nwnber lOOO-SQ.6..S. p
The property is bordered on the
nonh by Lighthouse Road; on the
east by land now or fonnerly of A
McGunnigle; on the south by land
now or fonnerly of A. Sepenoski; 0:,
~~_ ~st by land now or fonnerly of
Q&OIIuer &. Bagley.
~:50 p.m. Final approval of the
m.~or subdivision of Thornton
Smith, located at Ihe Town of
SourboJd, Cwmy of SuffolIc and the
Sta.. of New Yort. SutfoIlc County
Tax Map Number 1000-121_1_
lp/oI9.
The property is bordered on the
nonb by land now or formerly of H
Oieclda & Schulman, by land no";
or. formerly of Minas & Vassiliki
Miha1ues: by land now or foonerly
of Calhenne Simicich, by land now
or fo~erly of James &. Florence
Gebbia; on the east by land now or
formerly of Fnnklin G. &.: Arline
Boeclunan, by land now or fonnerly
of Joseph &. Lee Pufahl, by land
now or formerly of Louis &.: Mau.
reen Buonaguro; on the soulh by
Sound Avenue: on the West by
Bcqen Avenue.
?:5S p.m. Final approval of th
major subdivision of Highpoinl a~
East Marion, Section Three lot. 10-
ealed at Ihe Town of S~ulh~ld
Counly of Suffolk' and the Stale of
....-.........
. October 19, 1989 . The Suffolk as A33
New York. SuffoIlc County Tax Map
Number 1000-31-3-11.25.
The propeny is bordered on the
north by land now or formerly of the
subdivision of Highpoinl at East
Marion, Section II; on the east by
land now or formerly of Sleven &.
Oespina Moraitis; on the south by
Main Road (RI. 25), by land now or
formerly of Easl Marion Fire Ois.
trict; on the west by land now or for-
merly of George.&; Gealnlkis Kart-
solakis.
8:00 p.m. Final approval of the
minor subdivision of Alan Cardinale
at James C~, located at t.he Town
of Soothold, County of SuffolIc and
Ihe State of New York. Suffolk
Conmy Tax Map Number 1000-122-
3-1.1.
The property is bordered on the
north by land now or formerly of
James C. Gnty, Sr. & Peler S. Gray,
by land now or formerly of Devaab
Realty Co. Ino.; on the ..., by land
now or formerly of Louise S. Ehlers
&; Louise Sla.ccy &. Other, by Ann
of lames Creek; on the soulh by
Canal Known as lames Creek, on
the west by land now or formerly of
JoIm W. Boutcher &. Alice Panlalco,
by land now or Connerly of Alfred
Steiner &. Chrislina E. Sleiner, by
land now or formerly of Frank
Milowski, by land now or fonnerly
of Zozislaw Mikolajczyk &. Slefanie
Mikolojczk, by land now or fonner.
Iy of Roy A. Schelin, by land now,or
fonnerly of Paul Lucas, by land now
or formerly of Paul &, Helen Lucas,
by land now or fonnerly of Leonard
I. Llewellyn &. Marjory E.
Uewellyn, by Main Road (RL 25).
8:05 p.m. Public hearing on the
Draft Environmental Impact Stale-
ment with respect to the Hamlet at
CUlchoguc, localed al the Town of
Southold, County of SuffoIlc and the
Stale of New York. Suffolk County
Tax Map Number 1000-102-1-33.3.
SEQR lead agency is Ihe
SOUlhold Town Planning Board.
Copies of t.he Environmental Impact
Slalem.enl arc on me althe office of
the Planning Board, Town Hall,
Main Road, Southold, and may be
reviewed during regular business
hours.
8:10 p.m. Final approval of the
minor subdivision of James Cohill,
localed at the Town of Southold,
County of Suffolk and the State of
New York. SutfolIc Conmy Tax Map
Number 1000-107-1-2.
The property is bordered on the
noRb by Mill Road; on the eall by
Grand Avenue; on the south by
Grand Avenue, by land now or for-
merly of Eugene O. Graf, by land
now or formerly of Hemy J. Paulak,
Jr., by land now or formerly of
Smith G. Pearsall; on the west by
land now or fonnerly of Elizabeth V.
Fox.
Any person desiring to be heard
on the above plaucrs should appear
.tthe lime and place specified.
Dated: October 17, 1989
. BY ORDER OF
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD
BENNETT ORLOWSKI. JR.
CHAIRMAN
6461-ITOI9
~g~
~Wn- and ~Wn-
.. . ?.J//-5/tJO
~ Sf'~ .5/6'
~/~"""
~/~"",,'
. ~JNU CJ/od and g~ ~
Ller 2 7 1989 ~~
9>> ~_ g.5.J
Sf'~ JfC?!/. //g.J.5-(}(}.J2
October 24, 1989
g~, ~ Ij. ~"."y..
#25/ ':#4"~ ~Jotd
J~, g~ .1.1Y#tJ
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Attention: Jill
Re: Hamlet at Cutchogue
Dear Jill:
This letter will serve to confirm our telephone conversations relative to
the above-captioned matter. In accordance therewith, and in behalf of the
applicant, Nocro, LTD, be advised that both Joseph Nolan and myself do consent
to the adjournment of the public hearing on the SEQRA process to the date of
November 20, 1989 and the subsequent ten-day comment period following same.
We thank you for your courtesies extended in
RJC:vec
,
,
\
e
~
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Region 1 Headquarters
SUNY, Building 40, Stony Brook, NY 11794
Thomas C. Jorllng
Commissioner
October 25, 1989
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman, Planning Board
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, N. Y. 11971
Re: Nocro Ltd. /A.I::'A- ~f( ~ \
Griffing St/School House Road ~.. . A-JC-l Js ~
40 Building Sr. Center
DEIS
Dear Mr. Orlowski,
Department technical staff have reviewed
was submitted September 11, 1989 for Review.
that there are no endangered species concerns
the DEIS which
It appears
on this site.
The current site plan provides for no portion of the
property to be left in a natural undisturbed state. A cluster
alternative should be considered which would provide un-
disturbed areas which would be of greater benefit to local
wildlife.
Sincerely,
~~ ~~~
SA:cg
c.c. File
Susan Ackerman
Senior Environmental Analyst
,}:;:~~\::;\Yi;'
CRAMER,V~R
ENVIRONMENT~, . .,
. '''<:',''':,::'
.
.
OCIA TES
G CONSULTANTS
/"";~~'-':t -'~"i~--~-~:~)-' -!~,~;~_.~"""'::': :..,_~". '_~" _, .. _
'.! q J k k I;:. I! \'" f:J ,_~~,
i. ,J J.!,,} r"'.,""" '._'~--q '-,".-.',~"e':'...-.,~;:~L.,J'; } ;"':_ i
i i U ~' ,
lULl, ocr 2 3 1989
October ~~'i. i
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM #1000-102-01-33.3
Review of the Draft EIS
Dear Benny:
We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above
referenced project. Attached, please find a letter documenting our comments on the report.
Please review this information with the Board, and if you are in agreement, please forward
same to the applicant to be addressed in the Response to Comments, for inclusion in the
Final EIS for this project.
If you have any questions regarding any aspect of this project or our review of the Draft EIS,
please do not hesitate to contact this office.
enc: Review of Draft EIS
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
;;\:;'s\~\:\'~\
CRAMER, VgfR
ENVIRONMENT~\'L,.'
.
.
To:
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc.
From:
Date:
Re:
October 20, 1989
The Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCfM #1000-102-01-33.3
Review of the Draft EIS
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), for the project known as the
Hamlet at Cutchogue, was accepted by the Southold Town Planmng Board on September 29,
Southold Town Planning Board on September 29, 1989. The document has been circulated
to involved agencies and parties of interest, for the purpose of providing comments on the
document for use by the decision making agency in the preparation of a Final EIS, and
ultimately a decision on the project. A copy of the Draft EIS has been submitted to Cramer,
Voorhis and Associates, Inc. (CV A), as consultants to the Planning Board, for review of the
SEQR documentation. This letter constitutes the review of the Draft EIS for the Hamlet at
Cutchogue by CV A. The following comments with regard to content and accuracy of the
document are provided:
1. Page 2-10 (Design and Layout), indicates that the property is .~.. devoid of any trees
with the exception of a small wooded area along the easterly property line'~ Both the
plant list (Appendix B), and the Archaeological Study (Appendix H), identify
numerous areas of the site containing an assortment of vegetation other than cleared
field. This conflict should be addressed, and the areas of existing ve~etation on site
determined in order to consider a plan which seeks to preserve existmg vegetation, as
opposed to extensive re-grading and landscaping.
2. The Design and Layout section, should include additional detail on the design and
intent of the retention/pond areas. Are these features intended to contain water at
all times, necessitating mstallation of liners and import of "make-up"water? If so, will
these features create a nuisance due to mosquito breeding? What landscaping is
proposed adjacent to, and at the edges of the ponds. Impacts such as nuisance and
potential eutrophication should be considered.
3. Areas with slopes in excess of 10% should be more accurately described. Page 3-7
characterizes the site as having slopes in the range of 0.5 to 13 percent. Page 4-1
indicates there are portions of the site having natural slopes in the 20% range.
Sections should be consistent and provide additional detail so that impacts may be
addressed.
4. Page 3-19 indicates that, "None of the plants identified on the site are listed as
endangered or threatened, nor are any contained on the New York Heritage List. "
Page 1 of 4
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
11.
.
.
Hamlet @ Cutchogue
Draft EIS Review
5.
Appendix G contains a letter from the New York Natural Heritage Program, and
refers to a computer printout which shows four rare plants that were historically found
in the vicinity of the project. The computer printout identifying these plants should
be included In the Appendix, and the significance of this information should be
considered in the context of the subject site.
The inventory of site wildlife speculates on mammals using the site, and lists only
those breeding birds found on site. This section should seek to identify the habitat on
site, with a survey (common and scientific names) of species observed, as well as
expected on site. In addition, endangered, threatened or species of special concern
associated with these habitats should be identified.
The statement on Page 3-20, that the north fork is historically raptor poor, should be
supported by reference.
Page 4-2 does not identify the extensive amount of proposed grading, as a potential
impact. It is noted that the construction of Club House Court requires approximately
10 feet of fill, will result in the loss of existing natural vegetation, and is expected to
be a visible component of the developed site. Consideration should be given to
reduction in grading, in favor of preserving some existing site groundcover, trees and
shrubs for more diverse habitat and minimization of development impacts. The
impacts of the proposed use should be accurately discussed. In additIOn, mitigation
such as conforming more closely to natural topography and use of existinl;\
depressions for drainage retentIOn, should be given consideration, either In the context
of the proposed project, or as mitigation which could be imposed by the Planning
Board if it will minimize potential impacts.
Fertilizer application referenced on Page 4-6, requires review and clarification. Does
the annual rate of 64 pounds per acre, refer to nitrogen or total fertilizer? Standard
references (Nonpoint Source Management Handbook; Land Use and Groundwater
Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton), indicate annual residential nitrogen
application to be in the range of 2.3 to 4 pounds per 1000 square feet, or 100 to 174
pounds per acre per year. The potential for underestimating nitrogen application
should be examined.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Page 4-7 indicates that only 15% of the nitrogen contributed from sewage, reaches
groundwater. This implies a removal rate 85%, which appears to exceed more
commonly referenced reduction rates in the range of 50%. Reduction rates should
reflect accepted literature, and references should be provided.
The final predicted nitrogen in recharge concentration should be compared to
exis,ting l;\ro~Indwater quality, to dete;mine the significance of the proposed use of the
project sIte In terms of groundwater Impact.
Page 4-11 (Vegetation and Wildlife), should discuss the impact ofloss or alteration of
habitat on the wildlife species associated with the habitat and the site. The discussion
does not consider impact upon mammals or reptiles identified in the Environmental
Setting section. The discussion also indicates that the common bobwhite and the
ring-necked pheasant will continue to be common on the property; however, these
species are generally less adaptable to development pressures.
10.
SOCIATES
G CONSULTANTS
Page 2 of4
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
.
.
Hamlet @ Cutchogue
Draft EIS Review
12.
Page 4-12 (Land Use and Zoning), indicates that the site is zoned "M" light-Multiple
Residence; however Page 2-8 indicates the site is zoned "HD" Hamlet Density.
The document often refers to a traditional architectural style (Page 2-5, 4-12, 4-18, 5-
6); however, little or no supporting information is provided (elevations, detailed
concept discussion). This appears to be particularly important in view of the historic
resource findings documented in the Archaeological Study.
Page 4-19 does not identify the potential for significant impact to historic and
archaeological resources. The Archaeological Study indicates as follows: "Further
study in the form of subsurface testin~ should be conducted to evaluate the potential of
this proposal for impact to both prehIStoric and historic cultural evidence." Further study
shold be accomplished as soon as possible in order to identify site resources and land
use constraints.
13.
Page 5-2, of the section on mitigation measures, indicates that the occupation of the
site by senior citizens helps to mitigate impacts associated with water usage. It should
be noted that the design flow of the project is equal to the maximum allowable
discharge in accordance with Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6, regardless of
the type of land use.
Page 5-3 indicates that water recharging the site will pass through 50 feet or more of
sand before reaching the aquifer; however, Appendix C, identifies a depth to
groundwater of 27.5 feet.
Page 6-1 (Unavoidable Adverse Impacts) indicates that rare, threatened or
endangered species are not expected on site due to the previous agricultural use of the
property. It should be noted that fallow farm fields may support important species
mcluding threatened species and species of special concern (see comments 4 and 5).
The section on Alternatives refers to four adverse impacts associated with a reduction
in density as compared to the proposed project. The statement that reduction in
density will result in a higher market cost of units, assumes that a reduction in profit
mar~n is not feasible. The report lacks sufficient data and references to state that
this IS an adverse impact. In addition, there is no evidence that a reduction in the
project density from the proposed 3.5 units per acre, to 3.0 units per acre, would
necessitate the elimination of planned amenities.
SUl?plement I provides an Environmental Report for the Colonial Shopping Plaza.
This report should provide some discussion on the anticipated water supply and
sewage disposal methods for the Colonial Plaza site. Appendix C does not consider
the commercial project under the water supply system for the Hamlet at Cutchogue.
Efforts should be made to coordinate utilities for the two projects.
Supplement I, and the Appendix F (Traffic Impact Study), both indicate that the level
of service (LOS) at the intersection of CR 48 and Depot Lane will decrease below
LOS C during peak PM and Saturday periods, as a result of the two projects. LOS
below level C IS generally considered unacceptable and deserving of mitigation. What
measures are available to improve the LOS at this location?
SOCIA TES
G CONSULTANTS
Page 3 or4
.
.
Hamlet @ Cutcbogue
Draft EIS RevIew
21.
Page 5 of Appendix C indicates that the cone of influence for the new well field will
be within the limits of the 3 acre well field site. How was this determined?
22.
The second sentence of the second Earagraph on Page 18 of Appendix F, should refer
to the intersection of SR 25 and Gnffing Street, not SR 25 and New Suffolk Road.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Town of Southold Planning Board with
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Hamlet at Cutchogue.
Please do not hesitate to call if there are any questions concerning this review.
CRAMER,V
ENVIRON MEN
Page 4 or 4
- --
1
.
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
October 20, 1989
Richard Cron
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, NY 11935
RE: Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3
Dear Mr. Cron:
The following actions were taken by the Southold Town
Planning Board on Monday, October 16, 1989.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday,
November 20, 1989 at 8:05 p.m. for a public hearing on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board extend the
public comment period until November 30, 1989.
Please note that the Planning Board has not yet received a
letter confirming the verbal agreement to extend the comment
period.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR.
CHAIRMAN
v
jt
~
.
MEMO TO FILE
From: Jill Thorp, Secretary
Date: October 3, 1989
Re: Clarification of the September 29, 1989 minutes.
A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, dated
October 1989, revised June 1989, and received by the Planning
Board on August 31, 1989, was mailed to Cramer, Voorhis &
Associates, the Suffolk County Health Department, the Suffolk
County Department of Planning and the N.Y.S. Department of
Environmental Conservation on September 5, 1989. On September
15, 1989, 15 additional copies of the document dated October
1989 and revised June 1989, were submitted to the Planning
Board. Copies were forwarded to the Building Department, the
Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board of Trustees and the Town
Clerk.
I was on vacation from September 16, 1989 thru September
29, 1989, during which a special meeting was held for the
determination on the completeness of the document. It was
unclear to the planning staff as to the distribution of the
document, thus the notation at the special meeting which stated
that the comment period would begin upon receipt of 15 copies of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. As clarified above,
the document had been submitted and forwarded to all reviewing
agencies at the appropriate time.
As noted in the October 3, 1989 memorandum which was sent
to all involved agencies, the dates of the public comment period
have been amended from those announced at the September 29, 1989
Planning Board meeting. The corrected dates for the comment
period are September 29, 1989 thru October 29, 1989.
On October 3, 1989, I called John Healey, project manager
and Melissa Spiro called Richard Cron, Attorney, to clarify the
above.
Town HalL 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
.
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
All Involved Agencies
FROM:
Southold Town Planning Board
RE:
The Hamlet at Cutchogue (site plan)
SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3
DATE:
October 3, 1989
The Planning Board held a special meeting on Friday,
September 29, 1989. At this meeting, the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, dated October 1989, revised June 1989, and
received by the Planning Board on August 31, 1989 for the above
mention project, was deemed complete.
The thirty (30) day comment period began on September 29,
1989, and will close on October 29, 1989. Please send your
comments to this office prior to October 29, 1989.
If you have any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz,
Town Planner at 765-1938.
cc: Richard Cron
John Healey
Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Department of Planning
N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, S.B.
Building Department
Zoning Board of Appeals
Board of Trustees
Town Clerk
jt
.
..
Town HaIL 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
September 29, 1989
Richard Cron
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, New York 11935
RE: Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3
Dear Mr. Cron:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town
Planning Board at the September 29, 1989, Special Meeting.
It was RESOLVED to deem the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement dated October 1989, revised June 1989, and received by
the Planning Board on August 31, 1989, complete.
The thirty (30) day public comment period will commence upon
receipt of fifteen (15) copies of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Upon receipt of the fifteen documents, they will be
forwarded to the reviewing agencies for comments.
Please contact this office if you have any questions
regarding the above.
fA
.
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Soulhold. New YOlk 11971
TELEPHONE
(S 16) 765.1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PLANNING BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 29, 1989
The Planning Board held a special meeting at 4:00 p.m. on
September 29, 1989.
PRESENT:
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Ritchie Lathem, Member
Richard Ward, Member
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Melissa Spiro, Planning Staff
Robert Kassner, Planning Staff
The meeting was opened at 4:00 p.m.
The Hamlet at Cutchoque SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 - A motion was
made and seconded, to deem the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, dated October 1988, revised June 1989, and received
by the Planning Board on August 31, 1989, complete.
It was noted that the thirty (30) day public comment period will
commence upon receipt of fifteen (15) copies of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Upon receipt of the fifteen
documents, they will be forwarded to the reviewing agencies for
comments.
A motion was made, and seconded, to set the following public
hearings:
Eliiah's Lane Section III - Final public hearing.
SCTM# 1000- 108-4-7.1
Wolf Pit - Final public hearing.
SCTM# 1000-107-4-2.1
f'A G E :2.
..
John Simicich, Jr. - Final public hearing.
SCTM# 1000-121-1-p/o 1
Bertram Holder- Final public hearing.
SCTM# 1000-57-2-1.1
The meeting was closed at 4:10 p.m.
'918~
'PI-AN}.) ItJ6- "?o~~
S'\'ECII\L.. rneeT\ i
CRAMER,V
ENVIRONMENT
.
.
OCIATES
G CONSULTANTS
SEP I 8 /969
k",
September 13, 1989
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Draft EIS Review
The Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3
Dear Benny:
As 'per your request, we have reviewed the revised DEIS for the above referenced
project, with regard to scope, content and adequacy for public review and comment.
In review of the revisions as compared to our preVIOUS comments, we feel that the
document is acceptable in accordance with SEQR Part 617.8 (b)(1).
Accordingly, if the Board is in agreement with this finding, we recommend that you
contact the applicant and advise them to submit the necessary number of copies for
distribution, at which time a Notice of Complete DEIS can be filed with the
document in accordance with the SEQR Notice and Filing Requirements contained
in Part 617.10 (d).
If you have any questions with regard to this recommendation, please do not hesitate
to contact this office. '
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(S 16) 765-1938
.
.; ,:.' ~,~::,_:~;.~:,:~~;,::~ ~~
'-~",~'....I ~ ~;1," ~
,)"J.~.~\ ,,' "'<,).,.,:~
il ~~...~' ".:' ':,. ~
,i I.: ~ .- :.~,
g~ F.--~g~~
,....... "','-
'~...v~ ~~"~'I'
:::~ "', ",'\,,'
"~,.- ~'lJ ,.:)\';)/
:-:_~~~";/7,~ .,~~~:~~~~7
.
~ - - -
00 rn@rnowrn rn
SEP I 5 1989
BLDG. DEPT.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
September 5, 1989
TO:
All involved agencies
FROM:
Southold Town Planning Board
RE:
The Hamlet at Cutchogue
DATE:
September 7, 1989
Enclosed please find a copy of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statment for the above mentioned project.
Please review this document for completeness and return
your comments, if any, before October 1, 1989.
Very truly yours,
BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR.
CHAIRMAN
enc.
. ~cc: Suffolk County Department of Health Services
""---I- (.,::i"~-~+o"'"' Suffolk County Department of Planning
. ~ .Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation,
uilding Department
Zoning Board of Appeals
Board of Trustees
own Clerk
St.Brk.
/1\= <b~""S
e="~b,", "'_I.
r lo ~ ';:
.
gpl
.
.
GREENMAN · PEDERSEN, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
BABYLON, NY
ALBANY, NY
LAUREL, MO
eOSTON, MA
MARLBOROUGH, MA
EAST HARTFQRCl. CT
NORTH BRANCH. N.J
ORLANDO. FL
September 14, 1989
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
r;::;---,-
II '"I f r; ~~] t;--~~>::~
f 1.17 !~J.J.:.>Jl? f? 1/ :17 {? ~
'I', .t...; ---..~..~--,~.;:.._~.;;;~. ~ JI
' .- -,] .,~ I
tt',!;. !! L j',
r'L~EP I 5 J989,~"-i .r/j;!
'-....1'
Attn: Ms. Jill Thorp
Re: Hamlet at Cutchogue
Draft Bnvironmental Impact Statement
GPI File No. 87398.00
-----------------------------------------------
Dear Ms. Thorp:
As per your request, enclosed
additional copies of the Draft
Statement for the Hamlet at Cutchogue
please find six (6)
Bnvironmental Impact
residential project.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
......,-~.c.
so;;:t Colucci
roject Bngineer
JC:dd
Bnclosure
325 WEST MAIN STREET, BABYLON, NY 11702 [516J 567-5060
Town HalL 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
. ""."~,
_...;3....l.l....',,, C'.""",
.,~,~,,: \'=1111(' ""''''~''
.,'y. .......IJ\ t.... i~. "
A; <".; <.,p~'
~'J~)..'-', '<:".:,
(.I..N'c..r: ,.~
:fg;- ::"'-~':
'..'...=:::J..':<..,'...'.... .-.'
<:~~ 'u', . '<;to f:.: ;..
~ \'z;~'7.~ """:":' :~
~::::., "'s
~J:"'7.:o.:>:.p
~~~;~;;,};;~~~r
.
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
September 5, 1989
Cramer, Voorhis & Associates
54 North Country Road
Miller Place, NY 11764
RE: The Hamlet at Cutchogue.
SCTM *1000-102-1-33.3
Dear Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statment for the above mentioned project.
Please review this document for completeness as soon as
possible.
BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR.
CHAIRMAN
enc.
jt
.
gpl
.
.
GREENMAN · PEDERSEN. INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
BABYLON,NY
ALBANY, NY
LAUREL, MD
BOSTON. MA
MARLBOROUGH, MA
EAST HARTFORD. CT
NORTH BRANCH, N.J
ORLANDO, FL
August 30, 1989
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
AUG
I 1989
Attn:
Ms. Valerie Scopaz
Town Planner
Re:
Hamlet at Cutchogue
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
GPI File No. 87398.00
--------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms. Scopaz:
Please find enclosed herewith five(5) copies of the Draft Envir-
onmental Impact Statement for the Hamlet at Cutchogue residential
project. We would appreciate your expeditious review of this
report.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
JMH:rs
Enclosure
GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC.
Healey ~.
Manager
cc: R. Cron
325 WEST MAIN STREET, BABYLON, NY 11702 [516J 567-5060
~.
.
.
.
.
& ,,;';,,&'));
CRAMER, Vcj'RH"
ENVIRONMENT~~\
',,<:::;.,. "
OCIATES
G CONSULTANTS
May 22, 1989
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Draft EIS Review
The Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3
Dear Benny:
The attached document constitutes our review of the
Draft EIS submission for the Hamlet at Cutchogue. We have
utilized the Long EAF Part II, and the SEQR Draft EIS
requirements as contained in Part 617.14, as a basis for
determining compliance with scope, content and adequacy
requirements.
Based upon our review, we feel that the Draft EIS in
it's present form, is not satisfactory in terms of scope,
content and adequacy. Accordingly, we recommend that the
Board consider this review, and if you are in agreement
please forward same to the applicant in order to have the
Draft EIS revised to a form which will provide the basic
information necessary to begin the inter-agency and public
review of the project. We will be meeting with the
applicant, along with Town staff, on May 24th to discuss the
contents of this review.
If you have any questions with regard to this review or
the anticipated course of the SEQR process, please do not
hesitate to call.
vey~y~~
~/~iS
Enclosure:
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
.
.
CRAMER,V~~~'
ENVIRONMENT~~\
';;:~;:::; ;1,\
TO: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
FROH: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc.
DATE: Hay 22, 1989
RE: Draft EIS Review
The Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTH #1000-102-1-33.3
Introduction
The initial review of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (Draft EIS), is intended to determine if the
document is ",..satisfactory with respect to scope, content
and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review".
[(Part 617.8 (b)(1)]. A Draft EIS has been submitted to the
Town of Southold Planning Board, for the project The Hamlet
at Cutchogue, thereby necessitating a response as to the
adequacy of the document. Under the regulation, the lead
agency shall use the written scope of issues, and the
standards for Draft EIS preparation contained in Part 617.14,
to determine the adequacy of the document.
For the subject application, the consultant to the
Planning Board (at the time of the Positive Declaration) had
completed a Part II Long EAF, which provides a record of some
of the issues of concern to the Town, which resulted in the
Positive Declaration. The review contained herein, provides
input from an independent consultant regarding the scope,
content and adequacy of the document which has been
submitted.
At this time it is our recommendation that the Draft EIS
not be accepted, but rather that it be returned to the
applicant for revision of a number of relevant issues. It is
suggested that the revised submission incorporate the
additional information into the text of the document, not as
an addendum, in order to simplify the inter-agency and public
review process.
Page 1 of 7
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
.
.
Hamlet @ Cutchogue
Draft EIS Review
Draft EIS Review
This review is intended to provide the Town of Southold
Planning Board with a review of only those issues which
should be revised in order to provide an acceptable document
in accordance with the law. The following items should be
addressed in a revised Draft EIS submission:
1.
REFERENCES
Not Included
The source of material used in the preparation of the
Draft EIS, is not included. This is an item required in the
SEQR regulations Part 617.14 (f)(ll).
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Back~round and History
Pa2e 2-2
The history of the project site in terms of agricultural
or other use should be discussed.
Location
Pa~e 2-6
The Suffolk County Tax Map Number should be included in
the Draft EIS. The survey indicates that the subject site
does not have direct frontage on Schoolhouse Lane or Griffins
Street. The Town right-of-way width or tax parcel
configuration should be presented to clarify the access
potential of the site.
Desi~n and Layout
Page 2-9
The project description should provide sufficient
information to understand the nature of the proposed project.
A more complete project description is necessary in order to
understand and evaluate the impacts of the action. This
discussion should include: total number of units; on-site
amenities (community center, recreation, etc.); method of
sanitary disposal, proposed water supply; and site data
quantities such as amount of natural, landscaped and turfed
areas. Initial review of the proposed sanitary system raises
questions regarding the feasibility of the use of a modified
subsurface sewage disposal system (denitrification system).
The use of such systems is limited to no more than 15,000
gallons/day. In addition, the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services (SCDHS) is currently using a new set of
requirements, including but not limited to; increased
CRAMER, V~ AsOCIATES
ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS
Page 2 of 7
.
.
Hamlet @ Cutchogue
Draft EIS Review
leaching expansion area, monitoring,
bonding, etc.
Construction and Operation
Page 2-10
A phased construction schedule
text. The timing and the number of
outlined.
is referred to in the
units per phase should be
The operation and management of the facility upon
completion should be stated (i.e. Homeowners Association,
site maintenance, etc.).
III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Subsurface Geology
Page 3-1
If available, a test hole or characterization of the
subsoils for proper functioning of sanitary systems should be
provided.
Groundwater
Page 3-13
The horizontal direction of groundwater flow, and the
location of the nearest private wells should be stated in
this section, in order to provide baseline information for
impact assessment.
Land Use Plans
Page 3-18
The North Fork Water Supply Plan is a relevant plan with
land use recommendations which should be discussed in the
Land Use Plans section.
Community Services
Page 3-20
The recreational facilities available in the nearby area
should be discussed, in order to determine impact upon
community services in subsequent sections.
Demographics
Page 3-21
The section on demography provides only county wide
general information. The population growth and trends
specific to the Town of Southold should be included.
Page 3-23
Cultural Resources
The historic/pre-historic resource potential of the site
CRAMER,V
ENVIRONMENT
Page 3 of 7
.
.
Hamlet @ Cutchogue
Draft EIS Review
should be determined, utililizing an archival search.
IV. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Geology
Page 4-1
The grading plan submitted with the Draft EIS is
illegible, thereby making it impossible to determine the
impact of grading upon erosion potential and/or site
disturbance. The potential for erosion, and the maximum cut
and fill should be discussed, as was outlined in the Long EAF
Part II.
Groundwater {and Appendix Ql
Page 4-6
The feasibility of the denitrification system must be
determined, as discussed above. A reference should be
provided for the 85% nitrogen removal efficiency of the
denitrification system. The nitrogen loading should be
assessed in terms of the statistical potential for nitrogen
in recharge to exceed the drinking water limitation of 10
mg/l. This information is contained in the work performed by
Cornell University, Water Resources Program.
Land Use and Zoning
Page 4-11
The consistency of the project with the North Fork Water
Supply Plan should be discussed either in this section or the
section on groundwater.
Community Services
Page 4-12
References should be provided for the sections which
discuss community service use and generation factors. The
impact of the project upon ambulatory services, municipal
solid waste, and recreational facilities should be discussed.
This information was requested in the Long EAF Part II.
Cultural Resources
Page 4-16
The potential impacts of site generated noise should be
assessed as was requested in the Part II Long EAF.
Other Issues
Not Included
The impact of site construction upon air
resources,
CRAMER, V~ IAsoCIATES
ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS
Page 4 of 7
.
.
Hamlet @ Cutchogue
Draft EIS Review
particularly fugitive dust, should be discussed as was
requested in the Long EAF Part II.
The fiscal impacts of the project should be included.
Tax generation and distribution is an important economic
consideration, particularly with regard to community
services, which was recognized in the Long EAF Part II.
The impact of the project upon the demography of the
hamlet should be considered.
V. MITIGATION MEASURES
Groundwater
Page 5-3
The current requirements of the SCDHS, for use of
denitrification systems, are an important mitigation measure
in terms of groundwater impacts.
Land Use and Zoning
Page 5-4
A "landscaped buffer" is proposed as a mitigation
measure, however, no details on the type and location is
provided. It is suggested that a proposed species list be
provided, to aid in site plan review. The list should
include plant species that are native and/or near native, are
of landscape value, provide visual screening and are
beneficial as wildlife habitat. The location for the
"landscaped buffers" should also be depicted on the site
plan.
VI.
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
Page 6-2
The comparison of the project to an agricultural use is
not appropriate in this section, nor does it provide useful
information in determining the impacts of the project. The
property is not presently being considered for agricultural
use.
VII. ALTERNATIVES
Page 7-1
The alternative discussion does not provide the level of
detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the
alternatives discussed. In addition, the alternatives should
be more specific, and more reflective of reasonable
alternatives to the action, which are feasible. It is
CRAMER, V~ IAsoCIATES
ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS
Page 5 of 7
.
.
Hamlet @ Cutchogue
Draft EIS Review
requested that the following alternatives be discussed in
sufficient detail to allow for comparison of the relative
change in impacts, as compared to the proposed project.
Alternative Technology
A primary factor in the development of the subject site
is the type of sewage disposal system. In addition, the
type of sewage disposal system has profound influence
upon the groundwater impacts of the project. Therefore,
alternatives which explore the feasibility and impacts
of project construction using; a sewage treatment plant,
a denitrification system in accordance with maximum
daily design flow, and conventional sanitary disposal
systems, would be most informative.
Alternative Scale
Present zoning allows for 4 units/acre. The Draft EIS
submission, compares unspecified reduced size
alternatives. A more specific alternative analysis
comparing a project of 3 units/acre with the proposed
project would be useful. The concept should seek to
increase on site open space for aesthetic and natural
resource enhancement, expand perimeter buffering and
reduce the quantity of fertilizer dependent vegetation
on site.
Alternative Design
The Draft Ers discusses the desirability of providing
open space between building clusters and elsewhere on
the project site. The possibility of increasing the
amount of open space through design (more units per
building, minimum building setbacks, etc.), should be
discussed in terms of site design and impacts. This
concept should also seek to increase perimeter buffering
and reduce the quantity of fertilizer dependent
vegetation on site.
ADDENDUM I - COLONIAL SHOPPING PLAZA
The applicant had been requested to assess the impact of
the proposed residential project in conjunction with a 7.1246
acre parcel zoned for business purposes ("B-Light Business"),
CRAMER, V~ JAsOCIATES
ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS
Page 6 of 7
.
.
Hamlet @ Cutchogue
Draft EIS Review
and lying south of the Hamlet at Cutchogue site. Addendum 1
has been provided by the applicant to assess important
impacts associated with the ultimate development of this
parcel, although there is presently no site development
proposal pending for this site.
Review of the Addendum, in consideration of the Long EAF
Part II which addresses the ultimate construction of the
business project, finds that there are several issues of
concern, which have not been addressed in the Addendum.
These are as follows:
* Construction impacts associated with the shopping
center.
* Fugitive dust impacts associated with shopping center
construction.
* The impact of construction of the shopping center
adjacent to an existing school playground.
* Traffic impacts associated with the shopping center
in conjunction with the residential project. This
was included in the traffic study, but should be
discussed in Addendum 1. In addition, the impact
of the increase in non-driving residents in
proximity to the Grammar School should be
considered.
* Construction noise adjacent to the existing school.
* The impact of the shopping center project on the
growth and character of the community should be
discussed.
As indicated, it is our feeling that the information
requested is important as a baseline from which to begin the
review process of the impacts of the proposed construction of
the Hamlet at Cutchogue project. In addition, in reviewing
the Hamlet at Cutchogue, it is prudent to consider certain
aspects of the ultimate construction of the Colonial Shopping
Plaza, in order to comprehensively plan for the growth of the
area.
CRAMER, V~ IA\sOCIATES
ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS
Page 7 of 7
TRANSMISSION REPORT
RECEIVER:
PAGES SENT:
DURATION:
06
03:48
TRANSMISSION REPORT
RECEIVER:
PAGES SENT:
DURATION:
01
00:40
.
.
MAY 22 '89 16:46
7651823
MAY 22 '89 16:44
7651823 IH3
Town HalL 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
Charles Voorhis
Cramer, Voorhis & Assoc.
54 North Country Road
Miller Place, NY 11764
Dear Mr. Voorhis:
.
.
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 20, 1989
RE: The Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3
As per your conversation with Melissa Spiro, enclosed is
a" copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the
Environmental Assessment Form for the above mentioned subdivision.
-
If yoti have any questions or need any more information, please
do not hesitate contact this office.
jt
\~'ve.r," _/ly yo'll r s'......., /71'2 ~
'.. / ...~? ~)"" # .
:::r" ," - c:::::7;'.._ ~,,/ ,/< - '. / ;;~/ /-:1
\ -,.,'/, - ,f .; . /' .. . _ y
..(. ..., / '.' - ,N"
. B);:~Ef1/t5tt:~K-.l:..JR"':'~'~'_':;' ',;:1- /
CHAIRMAN ? /. .,
!Pi
,.
,
C3REENMAN · PEDERSEN. INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
January 20, 1989
BABYLON, NY
ALBANY, NY
LAUREL, MD
.JAMISON, PA
MARLBOROUGH, MA
WETHERSFIELD, CT
NORTH BRANCH, N.J
DRLANOD, FL
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
r-
~nD I R. (ii) R -n i."l .72-...........11
V; l!9 I! Jj ,I! I,'
Jr '. '. '.' ".
. . ------.~..~-,. ,'~ I
U' '. ';1:
I 'r_ ,,1/1
L .,12.( /989 ;i~1
J 1
SOUTHOLO TWN
PLANNING BOARD
Re: Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3
GPI File No. 87398.00
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
We have reviewed with our clients the comments of Mr. Emilita
with respect to the DEIS submitted and your letter of January
12, 1989, addressed to Richard Cron, received January 19, 1989.
As to the latter, we understand that Mr. Nolan and Mr. Cron, at
the conclusion of the Planning Board meeting on January 9, 1899,
were furnished with a copy of Mr. Emilita's comments and at such
time requested of Mr. Bennett Orlowski and Ms. Valerie Scopacz
an informal meeting to review same. It was suggested that Ms.
Scopacz be contacted the next day to arrange such a meeting.
Attempts were made on Tuesday and Wednesday to set up a meeting
date which were unsuccessful. On Tuesday, Mr. Cron was advised
by telephone that Mr. Emilita wanted to have a formal scoping
session on February 2nd, with all interested agencies and
parties invited to participate. It was indicated this would
have to be reviewed with Mr. Nolan and the SEQRA advisors of
GPI, and that nothing should be done until that was
accomplished.
We are perplexed by your statement that a scoping session is
being arranged. In June, 1988, we contacted Ms. Valerie Scopacz
of your office and asked that a scoping meeting be set up. On
the basis of our request, we met on June 22, 1988 with you, Ms.
Scopacz and Mr. Frank Isler to establish a scope for the DEIS.
A general discussion of requirements ensued, and we were
informed that the positive declaration should be used as the
scope for the DEIS. On this basis, a DEIS was prepared. In
reviewing the correspondence from your environmental consultant,
we do not perceive that any new issues are being raised, but
simply that certain additional information and documentation is
required, which we intend to provide.
325 \NEST MAIN STREET. BABYLON. NY 11702 (518J 587-5080
Town Ha.li, 53095 Main Ro;d
P.O. Box I 179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
.
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
January 12, 1989
Richard Cron
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, NY 11935
RE: Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM ~1000-102-1-33.3
Dear Mr. Cron:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town
Planning Board on Monday, January 9, 1989.
RESOLVED that the Southo1d Town Planning Board deem the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement incomplete.
Please see the enclosed correspondence from David Emilita,
Environmental Consultant, dated January 4, 1989.
Please note at this time a date for the scopping session is
being arranged and you will be contacted as to what dates are
available.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
eKe trUlY. you. rs, .... !l 'u.
/ //) /;1
~_::_~/> _' ~ .....,r ,",..,; ~
"OAAtV'Y '/ .' ,~,._/,&? p1
......,nv. ~' - ..-'~ , ~
,~
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. i/
CHAIRMAN
cc: Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Department of Environmental Conservation
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Judith Terry, Town Clerk
David Emilit~, SAI
.
~.
S41
S41
.
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & LANDUSE PLANNERS
MEMORANDUM
ill
~ (0 J; u:ij r~ rn\1
i,!l\,
:lj!"
JAN - a IS8:l p,,:
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PlANNING BOARD
TO: Southold Town Planning Board
FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc.
DATE: 94 January 1989
RE: The Hamlet at Cutchogue - DEIS
We have examined the DEIS dated October 1988 and find it
insufficient for the purposes of review of the proposed project
for the following general and specific reasons.
I. General
a) Site Plan Missing
b) Scoping Element, LEAF Part II and III dated 5
November 1984 and Positive Declaration dated 7
November 1984 all missing.
c) Lack of attention to LEAF Part III items:
(1) Staged construction
(2) Traffic Impact
(3) Shopping Center Impact
(4) Visual Impact
(5) Impact on Cutchogue Community Services
II. Specific
The following deficiencies are specific to the page in
the DEIS.
Page 2-1
Business Parcel needs to be addressed now and
included in the EIS proper, not as an Appendix.
There is no site plan in the document. This is a
fatal omission. We suggest a scale of 1"=49'.
Fig.2 & 3
Page 2-19
Connection to Schoolhouse Lane not shown.
Construction and Operation plan superficial, more
detail is needed.
23 Narragansett Ave. Jamestown, RI 02835 (401) 423-0430 Office (401) 423-0037 Fax
Page 2-13
Page 3-12
Page 3-12
Page 3-12
Page 3-14
Page 3-15
Page 3-17
Section 3
Page 4-1
Page 4-2
Page 4-3
Page 4-5
.
.
Are these Condominiums, if so, the Suffolk County
Planning Commission will need to review.
Claim of "no limitation on development" is
conclusory based on no supporting data?
What are the "somewhat lower" levels of nitrate?
Show complete water analysis.
Document the "14,999 additional households".
No discussion of Town farmland preservation program.
Verification is needed from NYSDEC.
An existing land use map with existing land uses and
existing zoning within 599 feet of the property is
needed to properly visualize existing land use.
In view of the "Red Creek" decision in Southampton,
historic and archaeologic resources need to be dealt
with.
No site plan accompanies this section. This
discussion is unsubstantiated.
Show calculations to show true recharge zone of
well. Where is back-up well to be located? Show
tests regarding water table elevations and
upconing. Show future water quality in the recharge
zone. Show all wells with overlapping recharge
zones. Verify all statements made in the last
sentence of paragraph one.
Summarize the "details" of the wastewater system.
An increase of 2 mg/L of nitrate equals what level
of nitrate? For what volume of flow? Where is the
outfall of wastewater treatment plan. The text on
4-3 is too general and vague to accept the
conclusions without analysis. There has been no
link established between nitrogen and brown tide and
certainly no brown tide link to agricultural
fertilizers as the text alludes. This should be
dropped as it adds nothing to the discussion. Show
WALRAS calculations. Discussion in the appendix of
the EIS is insufficient.
If this is to be a "retirement community" than
covenants and restrictions regarding same need to be
incorporated in Section 5-Mitigation Measures,
otherwise 119 gpd should be used. No site plan
verifies fertilizer use.
S41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
S41 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & LANDUSE PLANNERS
.
.
Page 4-6 Show the actual calculations yielding the
conclusions reached.
Page 4-7 No site plan verifies drainage.
Section 4 Traffic and circulation impacts are not assessed.
Page 5-1 No site plan verifies the claims made.
Page 5-2 No covenants and restrictions on .senior citizens.
are offered as mitigation against normal water
consumption rates. No calculations show that a 299'
radius is sufficient for a .protection zone..
Page 5-4 No site plan verifies the claims made.
Page 5-5 All local community service agencies need to be
contacted and their responses included in the OBIS
in writing to substantiate any claims made.
Page 5-6 No bUilding elevations substantiate the claims made.
III Recommendation
A new OBIS needs to be prepared and submitted. The October
1988 draft is too simplistic, superficial, conclusory and
prepared with no attempt at coordination with any of the
involved reviewing agencies. Review of the present submission
of this time cannot yield more than many additional questions.
We suggest that the preparers of the OBIS better familiarize
themselves with the Seacroft proposal of the early 1989's, as
the community's sensitivity and sophistication about this
development is far deeper than the treatment present in the
October submission.
S41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
S41 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & lANDUSE PLANNERS
S41
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
.
.
S41
~ ~ n~c~1 ::~ i~
December 19, 1988
SOUTHOlO TOWNO
PLANNING aOAR
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
53095 Main Road
Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogue
DEIS
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
Based upon the review of the above mentioned document and in
consideration of the holiday schedule, please let this confirm our
verbal request for a 3D-day extension for determination of
completeness.
Comments to the Board are forthcoming. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES, INC.
'"
t'-.. ',~._f'" ~ r......
1'\"" "" .r:.-;, i i i
i ,,-':.' ~J ,'"'''' I: '.' L~
!_,)._:.Y~'~\.LJ~1.1i"'"
David J.s'. milita, AICP
Principal Planner
dms
23 Narragansett Ave, Jamestown, RI 02835 (401) 423-0430
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
I
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
December 7. 1988
Richard Cron
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue. NY 11935
Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3
Dear Mr. Cron:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town
Planning Board on Monday, December 5. 1988.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a
thirty (30) day extension for the review of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. from December 10. 1988 to
January 9, 1988.
If you have any questions. please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
~rUIY yours.. /j /)
t/!)~ / /7 /. / /
~~1'~i~~~i;~;:~~-t(
CHAIRMAN
cc: Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Department of Environmental Conservation
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Thomas C. Jorling. NYSDEC
Judith Terry. Town Clerk
David Emilita. SAI
John Healey. Project Manager
----.,.....-
,-....
;
.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765.1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
RE:
All Involved Agencies
Southold Planning Board
Draft Environmental Impact Statement to The Hamlet at
Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3
November 10, 1988
Date:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Draft Environmental
Imapct Statement for The Hamlet at Cutchogue. This document has
just been rec~ived for review by the Planning Board to determine
whether it should be accepted as complete. Comments as to the
completeness of this document must be received by December 10,
1988, which is within thirty (30) days of the date of this
memorandum.
enc.
cc: Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Department of Environmental Conservation, SB
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Thomas C. Jorling, NYSDEC
Judith Terry, Town Clerk
David Emilita, SAI
Planning Board
GREENMAN.PEDERSEN INC. .
Consulting Engineers
325 West Main Street
BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702
[L[uu[OO ~OO~~~[1YX]Duu~[L
(516) 587-5060 ,
TO\ D ~J 1\ c ~ S O'V-t''r\ u \d
--8(11'1'1\ 1',1\(\ 1)\ \J I ~iitl\
\
.,
DATE
t>
WE ARE SENDING YOU ?JAttaChed 0 Under separate cover via
o Shop draWings ~prints 0 Plans
o Copy of letter 0 Change order 0
o Samples
o Specifi cations
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
- ,
is rrrc;:;:{aJ Silc r Lf\;J0
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
o For approval
o For your use
~s requested
/ ~ For review and comment
o Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit_copies for approval
o Approved as noted 0 Submit_copies for distribution
o Returned for corrections 0 Return_corrected prints
o
o FOR BIDS DUE
19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
t6-EL\ >'> A
~
~ \,LGND,d).
,
'~flfB'J (le?O
~ jl
ft\ (;J\~~CCljE
t-l \~ \)
S\lE
COPY TO \j S
\ tJCL\,;\) CD
l~
\~c
\JS\~ 'S
PRODllCT24G-3~nt.~~14n t>
SIGNED:
If e..lo,uno. .,e not .. noted, .ind'y nomy uut once. '--i1t;;\ \1\
~\ '
S.J (~MTI\C'
~,cJ>-o
!Pi
,..
.
BREENMAN · PEDERSEN. INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
-,
rim ~ ~ ~ 0 iYl ~l.~11
3_"/\
NOV - - :-~, I
, !
SOUTHOlO TOWN
PlANNING~!f:Bg,_",
BABYLON, NY
ALBANY,NY
LAUREL, MD
,JAMISON, PA
MARLBOROUGH, MA
WETHERSFIELO. CT
NORTH BRANCH, N.J
ORLANDO. FL
November 3, 1988
Planning Department
Town of Southo1d
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southo1d, NY 11971
Attention: Valerie Scopaz
Town Planner
Re:
Submission of Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
Hamlet at Cutchogue
GPI Job No. 87398.00
-------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms. Scopaz:
As per my discussion with Jill Thorp of your office, please find
enclosed herewith fifteen (15) copies of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (D.E.I.S.) for the proposed "Hamlet at
Cutchogue" project. It is my understanding that your office
will distribute all necessary D.E.I.S.'s to the appropriate
agencies for review.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC.
lBAit
n M. Healey
oject Manager
JMH: jw
Enclosure
cc: R. Cron
J. Nolan
325 \NEST MAIN STREET. BABYLON. NY 11702 [51 SJ 587-50S0
~
.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
October 13, 1988
Richard Cron
Joseph Nolan
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, NY 11935
RE: Proposed site plan for the
Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3
Dear Messeurs Cron and Nolan:
This is to confirm our discussion on September 6th about
"The Hamlet". Specifically,
1. The front yard setbacks between the internal roads
and the buildings shall be 50 feet.
2. The side yards between any two buildings shall be
twice the height of the highest building (Section
100-52.B of the Zoning Code).
3. The proposed density must be supported by public
water and sewerage as required by Section 100-116 of
the Zoning Code.
I trust this answers your questions. If any further
questions should arise, do not hesitate to bring them to my
attention.
Sincerely,
'..~ JC&fo-/n.
Valerie scopaz./(:
Town Planner \t'
I
\"
cc: Planning Board
Building Department
John Healey, Project Manager
jt
.
.
. 7S""~.
MEMORANDUM
TO: .:.FILE
FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
RE: qA!<<~,d>v--ri-d./~ '-w- -p..C#Y,A f' ~
DATE: ~ 1'1, 11~r' .
ci~~~~+~~~A
~ ~?<--.~~~' /k 1'6 T tI~
. ~~~d---dJz?/~/~7-&--~ .'
z;:-,t;;:~~~~~' .
.~/O-'~~~~~ .
~ IY~~~~
, . ,J~~ V~~~
I~rh/P~~" /
,#l~~~~~
~~~, .
1/;1 IP ddLr A--~ ~.~~ ~
. .
~ .; A/Y1'-' ~ d-
~- .
,
<-
- .
--
.
.
,
,
[i 't~....~~..__
):
I,
--~-----'-----jt ------"
- -1'Q~j~a.,~~.J'~au~
------Y#4M1JI-~~,~-~~ . .
'--~_~!'~ __~a~ ~M-' 1'-1-~~~
.__7)gr i ~-j.zAIT'______~_______._
,
~~~~==--~--~ r=--~=~~~~~~~d..-~~~~ ~~~~/M~ 0
"-~'--""""'i~'-~~-~7<'''''L~~A4#~
I ~~ ~)/~~4: _/t-L ~
...____u_. ......~_L_.//~~~_~~~
.. . --..- c;.~qp~~~~~~_",,~ /~_"V'A ./..~
_.n___.___~~~~~-:~~~ .~.._
..... .- ... I' ~~fL-"""~-~~-~
--..._......-'~.n~_~~~_~~___.__.
=--~-= 1~~~.~:;~:: ,n__
-..-..-- !' -~.~-~~~~~.~
-- I ~~~~~~. -~--__
________ I' r h. ~/;".,/'.I'A d~ ~d~ ~ 11.
. I ...n/"M4- -(""'-/L'f"""'~~~-~ -:.- . ~~.:.-.~~-~_._.._____
--------.1 -' ......-~~--A~ '.. .____~
...-------.... ". . . ...1-.~..~. fML~,k--.--.},. trY ---"-
----~---,/e&-~~~-~-~~-,4L.~----.----
----- -ij ~n~~~~I.--.. ----------~..
---- --Ii. .-- . .J;r ~-t~.-~-# ;ft2fik-/lKe#4<.J._____ .
I;~;;I-' '. '.
----- -- 1:1..jJ.....~. ~-f-~~t~~------
_m__,~::;.~~'O#, 7_ _
p./:.l;(~ ~~ . .-_
Ii!
..II. '-" ~. ~.
OFFICE OE, ILDlNG INSPECfOR
. BOX 728
OWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
.
November 18, 1982
Planning Board
Town of Southold
Southold, N.Y. 11971
subject: senior citizens Community
southold, N.Y.
Site plan dated sept. 1982
Gentlemen:
The subject property is located in an M-1 Zoned District
and multiple dwellings are permitted by special Exception by
the Board of Appeals (Art. V, Sec. 100-50 B (3)).
The lot area, lot width and set back of buildings meets
requirements of Bulk & Parking schedule (Art. V, Sec. 100-51).
The plan does not show length or height of buildings.
However, using a scale of 60'=1", buildings scale out to 125-
0'. Assuming building heights are maximum permitted, (35.0'),
the separation of principal buildings is satisfactory. This
meets requirement of Art. V, Sec. 100-52 A & B.
Off_street parking facilities shall be determined by the
planning Board per Art. XI, Sec. 100-112 A.
The proposed 99 unit development is well within the dwelling
unit density using the criteria of 9000 sq. ft. of land per unit
under Art. XI, Sec. 100-116.
This certification of proposed development is submitted in
accordance with Art. XIII, Sec. 100-133 C, relative to zoning
requirements.
,
, ().A-
Edward F. Hindermann
Building & Housing Inspector
EFH:ec
----
.
. ., , ,.".~.'" ~.,---- :.."
t' ~, ".,
n.)\....N IIi\.Ll
SOUTlIOLD, N.Y. \ I'!! I
~~,f~:~.,";Y;::,:I~ ~"":~~'~"'_'~" ~"
"';"-
JlIJl r
. ,,1~'f"'1 .~~,-/.'
,.&.m'}",,~,-"
= -
= =
if' ~
~ .. ~
~l~>f;};cif
.
~ ',-;'''':'')<',-. .'
'~"7' .,., '
. ."'-
I
Febre(_ll~'t' 27, 19
planning Board
Town of southold
Main Road
southold, NY 11971
subject: The Cove at southold, Hit. ~lJ[
Gentlemen:
The subject property is zoned A Pes ,dent.,
Multiple Res idential. The proposed nlul tide "',!.
permitted use in the M-1 portion of site, (,\11
A (11 with reference to Art. IV, Sec. 101-40
The lot area of the M-1 district, without
can not be determined. However, fOl: the prop:""
an area of 297,000 sq. ft. would be required.
a criteria of 9,000 square feet of lJnd per J,
city water and sewage is not provided. (Art.
Dwelling unit density)
Building side yard set backs shall total
Sec. 100-51 Bulk & parking schedule). 'I'he pro
total 40'-0", a variance would be required fOI
side yard set back.
The middle living units of the prcposed b
stories, 24' -0" high. Building minimun. sepaJ:Cl:
to be (2) times the height of the highE.st but 1.,
separation as proposed are 32'-0" and ::6'-0" ,.
buildings. This should be increased to a 48'-
aration to comply with Art. V, Sec. 100-52 [.
. ~ 1 " ',1.
This site plan review can not be ::ertifil'
the provisions of the zoning ordinance, Chapt..
the Town of southold, N.Y.
)':
yo;.rrs' truly,
,
'--7 ".,.,. I,"
~1.JjI./,t/>/,: .(' '/
1(/; " i
E aro . 11~r:1 ,IT:'
Building & He L' i : .
EFH:ec
Attch.
,In I
c~ -- --- - 1'1< - --
,,^( ~ c!(_ Q(')
,~' c ~t9i~
~~Mc=_~=== . ...734-5100
____~______;+\fJ~ ~~___0~_~__~~
-----i~-- ------- --IA4-VCbQ- ~--~.
i
---------- -1-' ----~~------ - - - - ----- --]5- __n__ --- C - - -
------+ ---- ---~L-~--J3---~OA----- _ (~CS'tU~
I - ---- ------ ----------~-- - - ______n_
,
~ . . - -f22--O--a-
.
~~
_.__._--------_..__.._---,_.._.._~-----------,-----_.-..-._-..._------------. ._~_._---.-._._-
____ . _ _ r ~U 0 ~~__g_Q_~~__ oa~
_n ----____~_____ n ____(QLLP y.- 0-ak5
------t~
- ------r
I
_,RD ~_~_'
- I '
--80 -~------------- -------- - ----- ---------
,tA-
i
---------ric - - -----
I
nl'l-:'.I1_--.!'._/1 ~_fI'"'A .I . rL'" _ 0___ 'l__ (J rJI '""'_ ~
~ ~-~--~-~_. '-r~~"'~
- - --V~---.Q... ___ ___ __ _ n __
-~~~~-=~ Ii -----W~h!L-~~--~-~~{BI5) --
-----..,.-..---, ---.. -----._.~._._ _,.,.._...________~_. "-.0',.___--_._--- .....___..__
-------- --45ft.~--4t--2: CSDp J2L,____ -60 -----
------ !_.1)_ ~-su.J~ --~____ ~_~
----- + ---- ---P-1-~- .---- --------- ---- - -
L,
-- -t - - n~__
,"
Ii
------~--_r- ------ ------- ---------------- ----- - ____n____
- --------.-.~.-.- ~ - --------__.____ ..-.-____. - _________m'"'._ ._______._______ __..____...__ '___ _.______,_ ..._______
"
- -----------1 - - -----~--------- ------------------~------------------- ---
i,1
-_._-----------_.._.._+~---------
I;
- - ---mutt ------
.
.
I
I"".. _ __..J' ,
~;I::!.-~?Jf.A77'7~..r~
-tOliT~_...f~/.. ' '-~ u__.._~_n_n____
f1MfJ.ll:~~ r ~ - _____.n___
tE ;tl~ /(~ /~ S'C77-t-=#/CJ2l2)-/o.;?-OI- 3..'3--3
vA<< I~ ~i' 11fi' ... ~ ~ u_
i,1 ~~~?~~~~____n
;,~~~~. ~~~_n_
:~ ~- ~ ~(_u--
:! ~~~~~~~.- ..--
~r ~~)fi~~V~~Y
,W-~~~, ~~~C~-
.~~ :' ~~~~?CJVCZ/~/r
'~VV~~"
'i ~_
:'1
,
."
,
~
:,1
,.
.'
i'l
, .
d:
. .-t
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
.
. .
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
July 29, 1988
Mr. John M. Healey, Project Manager
Greenman Pederson, Inc.
325 West Main Street
Babylon, New York 11702
Re: Proposed site plan for The
Hamlet at Cutchogue
SCTM #1000-102-1-33.3
GPI Job No. 87398.00
Dear Mr. Healey:
.'
As promised at our July 28, 1988 meeting, I have elaborated
on the Planning Board's comments regarding the above referenced
project. On the enclosed map you will find a listing of the
specific items that should be addressed. The discussion here
confirms more general topics that were discussed at the meeting.
First, it is recommended that all the yard setbacks be in
conformance with the Zoning Code because the Planning board
cannot grant yard variances.
Second, a landscaped perimeter "buffer" around the entire
site is recommended so as to screen the view and provide for
proper grading and landscaping.
Third, drainage onsite should be accomplished through the
use of swales, leaching basins and drywells for roof runoff.
Fifth, traffic safety should be kept in mind. Cul-de-Sac
entrances should resemble standard street entrances, driveways
should be spaced at least 125' apart; T-shaped driveways should
be used to reduce need to back out onto streets; driveway
placement should be such as to avoid conflicts with users of
other nearby driveways. Consideration should also be given to
sightlines on driveways exiting near curves in the road.
COmbining driveway entrances is suggested also, to reduce the
number of curb cuts and overall paving.
Sixth, internal circulation could be improved by providing
a northerly connection between Hedgerow and Hamlet.
- .
.
.
Seventh, prov~s~on should be made for additional internal
parking off the main streets. The use of concrete pavers, which
allows grass to grow, instead of blacktopping the parking areas
is recommended.
Eighth, a site plan for the business zoned portion of the
property must be included with the DEIS. This point was
emphasized at the June 22, 1988 meeting between the Town's
Counsel, Frank Isler, and members of your development team. It
is suggested that in your design of a retail shopping center
layout that you include provisions for 25% landscaping and one
parking space for every 100 square feet of gross floor area.
The traffic impact analysis could then more accurately
incorporate the potential impact of a fUlly developed business
site on the overall traffic pattern.
Finally, we discussed the value of varying roof ridge lines
and designing four or five architecturally compatible but
different building units in order to prevent a monotonous
"Levittown" type look.
One item that was not discussed was the issue of the church
right-of-way. The revised plans should show its location.
When the revised sketch plans and proposed elevations are
completed, please send us four copies so that we may continue
our review of them. If further questions should arise, do not
hesitate to contact me.
.'
Sincerely,
~~
Valerie Scopaz
Town Planner
cc: Planning Board
Frank Isler
VMS:kjw
T ----------~ --- ---
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: ..FILE
FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
RE: -rt.... ;.(..'" t.,.- tfl.+ /'~ .yC.T~-'
f,.u(...., --.. 0__ /0= -/0.;2-1-'33.3
DATE: d U ..If, l"irK IO~ - ,,60 14M .
~: ::.:;::; r' r~'F-#(N'~(),.s ~.J( ~~....~/
~~~~~~~/'O .
. ,~ 1,;J......e. . ..~;~~~-/. ...~ ~
/~/.;_~"I.""-'(j C/ ~/......v~~"-J 7#'L .
~. 9Z-~~ ~~~~~ "cr~~.
~i~ ~ ~.r,(..~~dh.-r~
~~tnv~~~.
~~~~ ~~~"r'.~
a~~~~~r~
fl~a//?~~;(..a" ~ --W~ ~ ~ ;c~
~~.~.~~?~.~
~~~ t-~-r"?~-/_~'
~~
{X.#-W
7'fJitF #7"" M?V7,v~ : (, s-b.a
u PbIC. .MEHOS : /. 0 Ivv-
!Pi
.
.
BREEN MAN · PEDERSEN. INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
BABYLON. NY
RECE!VED tV ALBAN, NY
SOUTliCW".. iC;\~ f,i ":~'i!."":;"~'ROLA L, MD
II ,I 1"/ t~H MISON, PA
,-, ,"-. J <,.., l '~'\...' '
MARLBOROUGH, MA
____.__n___
WETHERSFIELD, CT
uAit
July 11, 1988
NORTH BRANCH, N.J
ORLANDO, FL
Town of Southold
Planning Board
Southold, New York
11971
Attn:
Valerie Scopaz
Re:
Hamlet at Cutchogue
Site Plan
GPI Job No. 87398.00
-----------------------------------------------
Dear Ms. Scopaz:
Enclosed please find ten(lO) copies of the Site Plan Layout
along with the preliminary landscaping layout for the above
mentioned site plan. Also enclosed are the drainage calcu-
lations and the sanitary design calculations for this project.
The enclosed information is for your review prior to our
meeting on July 20, 1988.
If you have any questions prior to our meeting, please feel
free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
JMH:rs
Enclosure
cc: Richard Cron
RECEIVED BY-
SOUIHOLD IG,,,, I u;" "" ,~Ar.n
I)
_ . . _ _ IlAT~ _ _ _
325 WEST MAIN STREET. BABYLON. NY 11702 [516] 5B7-5060
.
(
.
July 5, 1988
Job No. 87398.00
Proposed Sanitary Desian for Hamlet at Cutchoaue as per
Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Standards
Design Flow
150 Gal/Day/Unit x 160 Units = ~~,OOO GPD
Allow~ble Flow
600 Gal/Day/Acre x 46 acres = 27,600 GPD
Septic Tank Desian
Design of one septic tank for each! unit building
150 Gal/Day/Unit x 4 units = 600 Gal/Day
Design for 2 Days Flow
600 G~l/Day x 2 days = 1,200 Gallons
Use 1 tank, 8' diameter x 4' liquid depth for each building
of 4 units.
Leaching Pools
LeaChing rate = 1.5 Ga1/Day/S.F.
for a 10' dia. pool = 47 Gal/Day/Ft. of Height
Flow = 600 Gal/Day
Rate 47 Gal/Day/Ft. of Height
= 12.76 ft.
Use 2 pools at 6.5 ft. of effective depth. 10' dia. per
building.
SUMMARY
For each buildina: (housing 4 units)
1 septic tank at 1,200 gallons/8'dia./4'liquid depth
2 leaChing pools at 6.5 ft. depth each/10' dia.
There is a total of 40 buildings = 160 Units.
, .
.
(
.
Drainaae Calculations
The design of the recharge basin is based on the fOllowing
standards from the Town of Southold.
6" rainfall
1.0 - coefficient for driveways, roofs, and roads
0.2 - coefficient for grass
Recharae Basin
Area in which recharge basin
Top of recharge basin -
Bottom of recharge basin
will cover -
130' X 130'
- 90' X 270'
200' X 380'
= 40,300 SF
= 24,300 SF
64,600 SF
= 76,000 SF
Based on a 10' depth basin.
64,600 SF + 2 = 32,300 SF
Total volume allowable in recharge basin
32,300 SF X 10' depth = 323,000 CF
Desian Calculations
Top of recharge basin - 40,300 SF X .50 X .20 = 4,030 CF
Bottom of recharge basin - 24,300 SF X .50 X 1.0 = 12,150 CF
Driveways - 96,000 SF X .50 X 1.0 = 48,000 CF
Roads - 192,062 SF X .50 X 1.0 = 96,031 CF
Grass - 1,337,698 SF X .50 X .20 = 133,770 CF
Total Volume = 293,981 CF
Roof Drainaae
For each building
6,150 SF X 2"/12 X 1.0 = 1,025 CF
Total effective depth required: 1,025 : 68.42 = 14.98'
Use 2 pools at 7.5' depth each
1Il
.
.
.
-
-%II~
-c/-k"-ejd, /1ff
""~: -- --"-
s ,L/~~-,.L7~2~-6~#~
j~~#-"t?~7"'~/?~-
~ ~/-----_----------
klv~_7' '/?rz-~L___ __
ffid-~+_~__L~_~____________ ""_____
" I, ~~~~~~::.r---------" """
~/MJ ,~~----LL~~__~~_+ "_" /
/ S72/~ /~' 0;C?J//T- pzaf1
-- --- ~~~-,r-- -- ---;__ __ ~~a4-'
_ _ _ _~_C~t..r~ _ I~_#~
________n_____"_____""_" _____ __"""._~"&~
-- --. --- ---, -...--..-~-... ----- -..--------..------... '.______ ......____ 0'_____--- _.._________ _____"'_ .__..._
3. ~~44---~~~~~~/_><.-'2;4:S
" ~"~ ~-,--~?--4-~~<;",--~~~rS
"".A~<-u~"~~,~~_/,~~;~~~_
t".~" -~~~g~~~
~~ ~~~- -------------- "--
-- - --- ..._--~._--_._._--- -------...--------..-------
. ?-21::5 ~__~_"~~#'-~~~
" SC'V:'S ~""__ ___mum_un" m _ "
~ U/' _ un____"_" _
__n_ ____ __._._.~.-.-~_.~__.__._ .'________,___ .. __ ,
~l ~~~ f-~~~~~/1-.e4-~~
5,_ c/~'--'~~~~3--=;~ _~k=--;;;~~~ _ ~
-- - --------..-----..-------,.----- ..-....------.----..-.....-.--.--. -
--m
.
.
.
-
-tl~/?-5,
'" ])71s./U~ra--#~~~7v-__~
~~ 4~ J:c;..aC7's;!:,!V-/:S
~ ' ,
.r~~~.6~~L~~~~_
-_u.~~1l2-n/hC-_2J&'~^
r;
!Pi
C) .
,tfEIVED' .
SOUTH"L.. . ". ,,," BOAlV
1~.~.3_1~~8
GREENMAN · PEDERSEN.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
t>,..i"E:
BABYLON, NY
May 19, 1988
NEW YORK, NY
ALBANY, NY
LAUREL, MO
MARLBOROUGH. MA
NORTH BRANCH. N,J
WETHERSFIELD, CT
ORLANDO, FL
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman
Planning Board
Town of Southold
Southold, New York 11971
RE: Proposed site Plan
Hamlet at Cutchogue
GPI Job No. 87398.00
--------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
In accordance with past discussions and understandings with the
Planning Board of the Town of Southold, we hereby respectfully
request an informal scoping session for the Hamlet at Cutchogue
multiple residence project to facilitate the preparation and
submission of the D.E.I.S. for the project.
For your information, we have enclosed an overall site plan,
which can be used for discussion purposes at the anticipated
scoping meeting.
We thank you in advance for your anticipated assistance in this
matter.
Sincerely,
GREEN~1AN-PEDERSEN, INC.
/ft;--~
S. Peter Salerno, P.E.
Project Director
SPS:rlg
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Richard Cron
325 \NEST MAIN STREET. BABYLON. NY 11702 (518J 587-5080
T
.
D
Southo1d. N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
March 2, 1988
Smith, Finklestein,Lundberg,Isler,
and Yakaboski
456 Griffing Avenue
Riverhead, NY 11901
RE: Seacroft, The Hamlet, Cutchogue
Dear Mr. Yakabaski:
" ,
Enclosed is a copy of my memorandum to the file regarding my meeting
with messeurs Cron and Nolan.
Please keep me posted as to any further developments.
Sincerely,
V~ 2/'n-M,-"
Valerie s~;a-I-~
Town Planner ~
U
.. ..
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: ...FILE
FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
RE: ~/'~~"''l!:;
DATE: ~/I /'1'?i' I:~O/",,-
../~r~~ ~:!~,,~~~~
~/l--l-i~~-.I<~ >....-<-~.v/~~4- '
~;;:::;:L';~~1;~~
~~~>o..(L ?~~~'
-!~~~~#~~^-'~~
~~..#~~~~:A>~~ .-
f - --:- - . (J)"~ '(~'~ l5~M--:- - . (/ ~
. ~~. ~~~ ~y~~/~d- -.
~/~~~~~?~~
,P~~:'-~~~~
/)1w:~ ~~~~~kp-~
~~~~~~~~
~.~~.~.~~~/'
~. ",~~~~
~~~~-~.~ -.
~ s"E7;,e".~,V~d"-</S~'
~~~~'~ ~..cr~~
~ 't' )ury~~~~-'
~~~-~~~. -
~~~'.~~~~
~r~~~/Y~~
, . . . ~ " .'
''1' / ." '- ~ /" _. . /: ~.!. ~ 1.. ~ _ ~,,/' V' Er. -
4f-~~r~~~~~~-L
j4 ~r/:k-~;ZV~~'~ ---
----.-
. r
.
.
MEMORANDUM Continued
~~/V~/ "fJJt!< r~ ~ ~~
~~~~~ya~"V'~
~~~'~~~r
~.
I~~~.~.~~
~~~:F~~~/
~y~~~~~ .
~~~:0~0~ .
~~~'~~7~.-
. ,
~
$-/-F'i!:
t ' ..
.
.
,
MEMORANDUM
TO: ..FILE
FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
R" 7"k-H~ ..r~-'~ ~~/~-"'-)
DATE: ~ /6-/ /'9' /' /:l:':<.s-?-- .
~/)P~ //:..:?o~ ~~~ S".~~...
~/;?~~~~.~~~:/
~/W'O~~~~/~y~ "
~ ~r-' 7Zw.~~~~~~-
~ ~/~~~e-r'-''''e.~~
/71Ly ~. -f7; ~~
?'J;a-<- '1 ~ ~ /~ ~~
,..t<Av-- /"~. ~ ~ ~ ~ &.-~
1-- /r-f ~,ryL- J./{" 15"''7 ~, ..
-I~-~~"'~.-dJ ~ /-~
V~~..y/ky ~r/"7
~ J~~ y~""""-~~
f1#II'pr~~?'" ~~~ ~
ff)v~ 7~~"
. ~~~~~~~
~i~~~~~.~
r.-. I. ~~~'7~~
1~ -' - . .~~
~~ /-<-- r='-:;? ~ .
,r~ ~~
&-e_p~~~~~~
'~~'F.=G-,~'~~
I -
, .",
.~ ----
/. .. ?"---Y~""'r/"""~1
"
~~~~ .i
~
. .
,
:'\.
~~~~~~~~
/p~~~~~..d~-
~~.~~~.~
~~~ . .~~~
ft~~~ .. -9:<-
~~/~. ~~--d'<,<.~~/,~~~
~ --I"~' ~ .~ ~~--hz '<",
~ ~r;:c/~;..~./I/d<l.,/I-C.~
~~~~~.cr~~
oj /t;/< ~.
~~~~~~~'
~:4~~~~~P
~~~~. I/~~
~~~~~~~~
~~~~ "c//,-/<-<!~~;" '.
~-./~~~~~~~
--t ~ "/';tD-L<~;'~~~~~~c..~
~~~~~.ee~-,-./~~ '-
~~~.
< >/a..h.o ~~~~~1Y ~
~~~:~<-r/I'~~~~
~~. .
~ ~~ ~r- ~ ,A--o--w'.~
~~~_~~-,'.J ~r~ .
~~~. , ", .
. ~~~.j~~~27J;6~dh~r:.:-6'
~ ~~'.,.u. ~/~~'(;',,{4-', ~ .
r. XlytM~
t,;
'"
. \
~
~
...
,
,
,
,
r
'"
\
,-
_~ ~ . - ~/,-~ :; - (- 33-.__~__
OWNER
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD
Ij ___
/'1 ~ l-..l
_.----..
--- -- .
STREET
.------.--- -~--- -- ----------~----..
_n _________ ____ _. __no. _~ ______
! VILLAGE
DIST. . SUB.
';'/, I
(/ <- D" S c.' r-
ACR. '
LOT
t---. r r' -\ . I -1 .(
_1_~ ~--'"-.-L-~~__ _ _
FORMER OWNER 5rc _-y~'.f'
G f- , . -f i I;"~ Sf,
N
'C.,i"" ~
.._,1:.
! /
\ ::::::4'p.~
;/ --,; '.,,)
LAND IMP. TOTAL
I] 9 ()j 7960 i
/.J..;o tJ /3 ';-(7<1/: I .
0 \2li) _"'--J~-o:t 11/00
L-~
l:s1~lseE~ul'; SEiK..0..#UO' P-6c'
rib.
oc. 6,ltO -~~ Q:X)
I
[
I
~II= C_ ~~~~?
.
Woodland ~
;
I
L
I
!F;ONTAGE ON WATER I
, FRONTAGE ON ROAD i
DEPTH
.
"
S"o
I
/
Meadowland
House Plot
, BULKHEAD
Total
."-----------------_._--~----_._-----~ -._- -
~
~
/'
I
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD
OWNER
-->-> - \:.:)- -- \ ,- -:::-~":.:2....
STREET
A H" ", ~.t'J
FORMER OWNER
-<"<1, -, ,L:Y-P(.-:>.
C: .(.\ ('.( \.J c. -
N
S~<:[~(":-T L:',"l~
S
'\<,C. C\'-\Ui.2C.1-\
LAND
IMP.
,. \...-:' ';'~". C....c<:'..?::c'-),-_ i:':":-.-.:.cx::..:.
DATE
TOTAL
tv\ - \ :;
VILLAGE
DIST.
SUB.
LOT
"--' . "-. :. ~" --:-
",/:.. ~- ':c..
ACR.
-I. i i,/
E
(; '", . ':r'
W
~
l", C ..'" ,.' c.i \,
CODE
,:-' \ \
DATE OF CONSTRUCTION
REMARKS
,I 1 .1 I, "" '2.(500,- I ,-'I.>t"tG
'/"2-.:;' IPA '1/1 18'~'::;)L,r 7 ~ 1'1 t';" ~EI<;.J?f". t::;o;:-t:'k'C(" <SFAc [..I..Ve" "!..l'.Zi4 Lle.\ "';')_ 0 'I
!"/",,,i.,.-,' L9'70;>.-,S8,9-5:,~-\._~ rr....." -I", L-...'.~ ~~\11-=?2.0
/, ~ u
180.-')
,"<pJ;:",,,-\ 18Oc-,
Tillable
'7. I I 'T
Woodland
Meadowland
House Plot
Total
i~5D
r"7r"?
,
t
,
FRONTAGE ON WATER
FRONTAGE ON ROAD
DEPTH
BULKHEAD
,
'\"j
'0
~.
"I I
/7
J,."
(p' .
Dist.
1000
Sl::':.
102.00
[ilk.
01.00
Lot
033.003
~
1(,
~
1'\
"
\
~
i ~
\ a . :-'C.I01.
", PF 34 (7/7~) Standard N.Y.B.T.U. Form 80~arraJ\ty Deed Wltt1 Full Covenalm'lndlY,"u orporatlon -V -.J_
CONSULT YOUR LAWYER IE FORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUMENT-THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD I. USED DY LAWYERS ONLY.
fftif'- V'FlttJ
lIBlR 9983 PAIit 590
TIIIS INDENTURE. made the 19th day of February, nineteen hUDdred and eighty-six
BE11VEEN SEACROFT, LTD., a domestic corporation with office and principal place
of business c/o Richard J. Cron, (no #) Main Road, Cutchogue, New York 11935,
DISTRICT
m;::;t:I1
~
SECTlOt' BLOCK LOT
OLIJJ rn [J] rn rnb3
12 17 21
. J'" ,.". r.,. . .." .;,~. ." ,"'. _;.. . ,'...... ," ',_.0. .,
rr;":;1
~
28
party of the first part, and
place of business
11935,
NOCRO, LTD., a domestic corporation with
c/o CRON & CRON,ESQS., (no #) Main Road,
office and principal
Cutchogue, New York
r
: $,.ff.fl~ED
) REAd:;STATE
fEa 24 1986
"
r.:
~6.193
P<y of the second part,
WITNESSETH. that the party of the first part, in CIOIIGderation of Ten and 00/100.
1 TRANSFER TAlc
- S,UFFOLK'
COUI~' y
(SlO.OO)-----
<\oIIarI,
lawful money of the United States, and other good and valuable consideration paid
by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the a<<ood part, the ban or
successors and asaigria of the party of the second part f~er.
ALL that certain plot. piece or pared of land, with the building. 1lnd imp""~~ thereoa ended. . aitaale,
Iyingandbein~ at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of
New York, more particularly bounded and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a poi.nt which is located the following four courses and distances
from the corner formed by the intersection of the northerly line of Main Road and
the westerly line of Griffing Street: (1) North 40 degrees 02 minutes 40 seconds
West 73.50 feet; (2) North 4l J~ree3 09 minutes 00 seconds West 218.70 feet; (3)
North 42 degrees 09 minutes 00 seconds West 140.27 feet; (4) North 38 degrees 32
minutes 40 seconds West 642.92 feet; running thence from said point of beginning
along other land of Leisure Greens Associates, South 52 degrees 55 minutes 20
seconds West 162.41 feet to land of the Roman Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart
-at Cutchogue; running thence along said last mentioned land the following two
courses and distances: (1) North 37 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds West 400.00
feet; (2) South 53 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds West 407.11 feet to land now or
formerly of Greiner and pelkovsky; running thence along said last mentioned land
North 36 degrees 54 minutes 20 seconds West 2009.51 feet to land now or formerly
of Zuhoski; running thence along said last mentioned land North 50 degrees 18
minutes 10 seconds East 251.03 feet to land now or formerly of Beebe; running
thence along said last mentioned land the following three courses and distances:
(1) North 56 degrees 00 minutes 50 seconds East 145.28 feet; (2) South 37 degrees
13 minutes 30 seconds East 221.47 feet; (3) North 39 degrees 29 minutes 10
seconds East 563.41 feet to land now or formerly of Kurczewski; running thence
along said last mentioned land South 38 degrees 30 minutes 50 seconds East
1901.44 feet to land now or formerly of Tyler; running thence along said last
mentioned land the following two courses and distances: (1) South 37 degrees 38
minutes 50 seconds West 210.23 feet; (2) South 37 degrees 04 minutes 40 seconds
East 273.68 feet to land now or formerly of the Town of Southold; running thence
along said last mentioned land the following two courses and distances: (1)
South 52 degrees 55 minutes 20 seconds West 170.00 feet; (2) South 37 degreps 04
minutes 40 seconds East 95.00 feet to the northerly side of School House Road;
running thence along the northerly side of School House Road South 52 degrees 55
minutes 20 seconds West 55.10 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING.
This conveyance has been made with the consent of the holders of at least
two-thirds of the outstanding shares of the party of the first part entitled to
vote thereon obtained at a meeting duly called.
~.~ . ~ ~[;P~t{",~_f~'_' ~..l6tI ./A/.~r.:.t'::"..fr'L'..f:.f .J'v 4 t'~:,j,/ 4A1L. ..-7,R,>"~
;: ~! !::ORDED a:~n i.. . JUlIETTE).I{INSELLA
. .' -.... 1!4 1986 ~., ~ II Suff~ c.cnty
",' /
\---/
,/ I.
I .Ii'
. {11
.~ ,---;j'> 1f
.~ ~
'.
Dist.
1000-
S~c.
102.00
~Hk.
01:50
Let
033.002
.;;:."".';
I
.,
'-'
.\
'-";j
,~
\'
)
\
\,~
"
il ,-" r :j~jh:j I,\l,f :)b~ . i,;h.1D
I PF 3:\ \111'2) Stullthnl :'<i.LU.T.V. Form lHHIJ. . 11111)" Bt'I'.1 ",-i1h )"'111 (.u,,'null{.hHli,jdllltlllr (;orpor.SiDGle Sheet)
I CONSULT YOUR LAWYER DEFORE SIGNING THIS INSrRUMENT-THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD II USED IT LAWYIRS ONLY.
Y;r(/! tJ ri t(
THIS INDENTURE, made the 19th day of FECbruary, nineteen hundred and eighty-six
BEnNEEN SEACROFT PLAZA, LTD., a domestic corporation with office and principal
place of business c/o Richard J. Cron, (no #) Main Road l 8fchogue , New York
11935, DISTRICT SECTlml BLOCK _
IT.6EEJ ULJi] W r.TJ] rn rn3 IT: ~
21 ,"0
party of the first ;a~7'i\~iM'6!~r:;TIf.';'''~d)~;'tl~7 ';~~;;;~ti;n with 'office and principal
place of business c/o CRON & CRON, ESQS. ,(no #) Main Road, Cutchogue, New York
11935,
party of the second part,
WITNESSETH. that the party of the first part, in consideration of ten dollars and other valuable consid-
eration 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, wiU, the buildings and improvements thereon erected,
situate, lying and being iIxldulxx at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and
State of tic.... YC1..kl a.c.re fi."li:ti..:~l,::ar:l::f bcunj~d ar~d described as follows:
BEGlNNING at; a point on the westerly side of Griffing Street at the northeast
corner of land of the Roman Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart at Cutchogue,
which point is distant the following two courses and distances from the
i.l1tersection of the westerly side of Griffing Street with the northerly side of
Main State Road: (1) North 40 degrees 02 minutes 40 seconds West 73.50 feet; (2)
North 42 degrees 09 minutes 00 seconds West 218.70 feet; running thence along
sci.,j land of the Roman Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart at Cutchogue the
following five courses and distances: (1) South 51 degrees 22 minutes 50 seconds
West 189.14 feet; (2) South 76 degrees 43 minutes 20 seconds West 225.00 feet;
(3) North 69 degrees 14 minutes. 30 seconds West 67.00 feet; (4) North. 36 degrees
54 minutes 20 seconds West 640.00 feet; (5) North 52 degrees 55 minutes 20
seconds East 237.59 feet to other land of Leisure Greens Associates: thence along
said last mentioned land North 52 degrees 55 minutes 20 seconds East 162.41 feet
to the westerly side of Griffing Street: thence along the westerly side of
Griffing Street the followin4 two course~ and di~tances: (1) South 38 degrees 32
minutes 40 seconds East 642.92 feet: (2) South 42 degrees 09 minutes 00 seconds
East 140.27 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING.
SUBJECT to Agreement in Liber 7371, cp 282.
This conveyance has been made with the consent of the holders of at least
two-thirds of the outstanding shares of the party of the first part entitled to
vote thereon obtained at a meeting duly called.
7Ai:. /~~"f ~EJi'Pt d't3---J .PRr'?/irJ Ij"'l&~ A,...:/ r_ ;",n.~~~j .;~ // .c~U~/T C'/"'''C r/.vh:?'/~/~
TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the first part in and to any streets
and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof: TOGETHER with the
appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises;
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD tbe premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs
or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever.
AND the party of the first part, in compliance witb Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party
of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such
consideration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paving tbe cost of the improvement
and will apply the same first to U,e payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the
total of the same for any other purpose.
AND the .party o,f the first part coven"!'ts as follows: that said p'arty of the first part is seized of the said
pn:mlScs 1ll fee SImple, and has good right to convey the same; that the party of the second part shall
qUIetly enjoy the said premises; that the said premises are free from incumbrances, except as aforesaid;
that ~he party of the first part will execute or procure any further necessary assurance of the title to said
prenllses; and that said party of the first part will forever warrant the title to said premises.
The. word "party" shall be construed as if it read Uparties" whenever the sense of this indenture so .
reqUIres.
IN WITN.ESS WHEREOF. the party of the first part has duly executed U,is deed the day and year first
above wntten. .
nr,""
IN PllESENCZ 01': ~~J..?g!:.;VFD
i~I:Ai:'~.".".'."
- '.~:ii r\ TEt
FrS
24 198()
~6'1~.1?~ .
f I '\IF; :.lED CI:Il j..
, . IL~. (~ ~6.
~ .
.
.
.
.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
----------------------------------------X
In the Matter of the Application of
"
SEA CROFT , LTD., a New York corporation,
Petitioner,
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78
of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
Index No.
85-3323
-against-
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
SOUTHOI,D, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. ,
CHAIRMAN, RICHARD G. WARD, KENNETH
EDWARDS, GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.,
and WILLIAM F. MULLEN, JR. , as members
of the PI ann i ng Boar d of the Town of
Southold,
Respondents.
----------------------------------------x
STATEMENT
This is an Article 78 proceeding brought to review a
resolution of the PLANNING BOARD of the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,
(PLANNING BOARD), dated January 7, 1985, which declared
peti tioner' s application for si te plan approval for a 160-uni t
condominium to be incomplete because petitioner had not complied
i'4'ith Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (SEQRA).l
.
.
By order dated April 24, 1985, (byMcCarthyJ.),
lThe resolution is on page 5 of the Return. Unless
otherwise indicated, all page references are to the return.
--, -- .....-- '--"~'"-'._'-_..-.- --., ~----,--_.. .--.--____,.,__~_.._.,_ _._...__., -on
,
.
.
.
respondents' motion to dismiss was denied and peti tioner was
authorized to renotice the petition on two days notice after
service of the answer. The answer and Return were served on
counsel on May 20, 1985. More than two years later, on July 28,
1987, petitioner has restored the proceeding to the calendar.
The Court is also respectfully referred to respondents'
answer, supplemental answering papers and Return.
FACTS
The PLANNING BOARD's records establish the following
facts.
In the spring of 1984, peti tioner began processing an
application for site plan approval with the PLANNING BOARD. The
plan called for construction of a 160-uni t condominium on some 46
acres and the construction of a shopping center on an adj acent
parcel of some 7 acres. (Map No.1 in Map Portfolio). The
property is located in the center of the hamlet of Cutchogue,
which presently has a population of approximately 2,000. The
proposed housing would increase the hamlet. s population by about
15%. (p.25). As shown on the site plan, proposed access to the
shopping center and condominiums was over Griffing Street, a
narrow road emptying into County Road 25 (Main Road).
On April 9, 1985 a pre-submission conference was held.
The peti tioner' s planner, archi teet, engineer and attorney were
present. (See minutes pp 71-73). The overall development was
discussed, including the shopping center. Mr. Matarazzo, the
pet i ti oner 's pI anner, submi tted render i ngs of the stores, the ir
layout and their elevation. (Maps No.3, 4and2respectively).
2
,
.
.
.
.'
He stated that he was presenting the shopping center plan because
"it is in conjunction with the housing plan". (p.72).
At its June 4, 1984 meeting, the PLANNING BOARD
reviewed the Seacroft application and indicated by letter the
addi tional data, information and studies needed to complete the
submission. Suggestions were also made to improve the plan. (p.
64-66). Among other things. the BOARD indicated that an
environmental impact statement would be necessary.
On June 27, 1984 the PLANNING BOARD sent the applicant
Part I of the long form environmental assessment (EAF) with a
request that it be completed so that the SEQRA process could
continue. (p.56). The BOARD's requestwasrejectedbythe
applicant. whose attorney resolutely took a posi tion that the
applicant need not comply with SEQRA. (See e.g. pp 54; 46-7).
At this time the applicant applied to the Suffolk
County Department of Heal th Services for its approvals of the
si te plan. As a resul t, the Department wrote the PLA!iNING BOARD.
formally requesting coordinated review of the site plan under
SEQRA. The Department indicated that the project was considered
Type I under SEQRA, (most likely requiring preparation of an
impact statement) and requested that the PLANNING BOARD assume
lead agency status. (p.42).
Throughout this period. the PLANNING BOARD consul ted
with Char I es Hamil ton of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and Dr. Koppelman of the Suffolk
County Planning Commission. (The Planning Commission also must
approve this site plan.) Both advised that the project was a
major one which should be fully studied under SEQRA prior to any
:3
.
.
approvals. Both recommended that the PLANNING BOARD act as lead
agency. (See the affidavits of Planning Board Chairman Bennett
Or lowski Jr. , and Dr. Koppelman submi tted herewi th).
The Seacroft proposal also created considerable
community opposition. Letters and petitions raising serious
concerns with the project were received by the PLANNING BOARD
from April, 1984 through the fall. (See Item R-38 of the
Return) .
On October 16, 1984, the applicant filed a certified
si te plan. However, no DEIS was submi tted.
Al though the applicant continued to refuse to comply
with SEQRA (see Planning Board's reminder, p. 49). the PLANNING
BOARD continued processing the site plan in compliance with its
requirements. Its planner, David Emilita, prepared EAF Parts II
and III (pp 17-26). All other interested agencies approved the
PLANNING BOARD's designation as lead agency (see recitation in
the Planning Board's November 5th resolution, p. 12). On
November 5th the PLANNING BOARD formally declared itself lead
agency (pp 11-12) and classified the project as Type 1. Based
upon the EAF Parts II and III, the PLANNING BOARD found that
construction of the 160-uni t condominium could well result in
significant impacts on the environment. As a result, it rendered
a positive declaration under SEQM and required preparation of a
,
,
dr aft environmental impact statement (DEIS). (pp 13-14; 12).
The potential impacts resulting from this major project
included:
1. effects from construction which would
continue over one (l)year, including noise (p.21); air
pollution (p. 19); erosion (p. 24); and disruption (pp
24-25);
4
.
.
2. the location and concentration o~ units which
would require special permi ts ~or waste water treatment
(p.25);
:3. the amount o~ water to be pumped which could
adversely a~fect groundwater quali ty and quanti ty as
well as have an adverse impact on surrounding wells (pp
25; 18-19);
4. visual impacts resulting ~rom dense development in
the center o~ the hamlet o~ Cutchogue (pp 25; 20);
6. strain on existing recreational resources o~
Cutchogue due to substantial increase in population (pp
25; 20);
6. traf~ic problems created by increased population
relying on small road ~or access onto County Road 25,
as well as ef~ects such increased use of Griffing
Street woul d have on the adj acent school si te (pp 25;
20) ;
7. strain on municipal and communi ty services caused
by a sudden increase in population o~ some 15% (pp
25-26) ;
8. substantial public controversy (p. 26).
In addi tion, the PLANNING BOARD found that these
impacts would be compounded by the building of the proposed
shopping center. It concluded that the only meaningful review
would have to address the combined impacts resul ting ~rom the
overall project. (p. 12 and EAF Parts II and III).
A~ter the adoption o~ the November 5th resolution, the
,
PLANNING BOARD learned Seacro~t had agreed wi th the owner of
property adjoining Seacro~t 's on the north , not to develop a
strip o~ 150 ~eet wide along their common boundary (p. 74).
Since the site plan called ~or development within 150 ~eet o~ the
northerly boundary and made no re~erence to this agreement, the
adjoining owner ~iled objections to the site plan. (p.6).
Since November. the BOARD also learned that a portion
o~ the lands slated ~or condominium and shopping center
6
.
.
development are burdened by a right-of-way in favor of the Roman
Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart of Cutchogue, This is not
shown on the site plan (see e.g. map 1) and could well have an
impact on how the affected land could be developed and on future
traffic flow. (p. 5).
Furthermore, the PLANNING BOARD subsequently became
aware of the fact that the two parcels (one planned for
condominiums and the other for a shopping center) may never have
been legally subdivided. (p.5).
The PLANNING BOARD found that these addi tional legal
restrictions on development and their respective impacts would
all have to be addressed in the DEIS.
Nevertheless, the applicant did not file the required
DEIS and gave every indication that one would not be forthcoming.
Thus, the PLANNING BOARD, at its regular meeting of January 7,
1985, adopted a resolution declaring the site plan application
incomplete under SEQRA and denying the application for that
reason. (pp5-6).
The peti tioner then commenced this proceeding to review
the January 7, 1985 resolution apparently claiming that the si te
plan application was not sUbject to SEQRA and that the PLANNING
BOARD's decision to require a DEIS was the resul t of personal
motives, conspiracy and desire for financial gain on the part of
Board members.
,
The latter claims are addressed in respondents'
answering papers. This memorandum will principally respond to
petitioner's claim that SEQRA does not apply to thismajor
project.
6
.
.
POINT I
APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN IS AN
"ACTION" WHICH ISSUBJECT TO SEQRA
.'
This Court has already expressly held that site plan
review by a Planning Board is subject to SEQRA:
"Compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review
Act ("SEQRA"), Environmental Conservation Law and 22
NYCRR Part 617. State Environmental Quality Review. a
statewide regulation framework for SEQRA's
implementation by all State and local agencies... are
condi tions absolute to the review and final action!?"y ~
town planninq board of ~ proposed site~n ... "
(United Artists Communications, Inc. v. Buildinq
Inspector n. o. r., Suffolk County Sup. Ct. Index No.
83-19045. at p. 5, a copy of the decision is annexed
hereto: emphasis added).
This decision is consistent wi th the defini tion of an
"action" subject to SEQRA since site plan approval will involve
permitting construction which will change the use or appearance
of a natural resource. (ECL section 8-0105.4: 6NYCRR 617.2: see
DiVeronica v. Arsenault, 124 AD2d 442 (site plan subject to
SEQRA): Matter of Kirk-Astor Dri ve Neiqhborhood Assoc. v. Town
Board, 106 AD 2d 868, 8692 Matter of ~ Town/Kinq Civic
Assoc. v. Town of Rye, 82 AD 2d 474, app. dism' d 56 NY 2d
985). Under SEQRA if a project is an "action" there must be full
compliance with statute and regulations before any agency
approvals can be given. [ECLsection8-0109.5: 6NYCRR617.3(a):
2
While holding that a rezoning is an "action" triggering
SEQRA, the Court in Kirk-Astor expressly stated that
environmental review may also be required at the time application
is made for specific site plan approvals. (106 AD 2d Supra at
869). In the ~ Town/Kinq Assoc.. the Court found that approval
of what is akin to the site plan approval is subject to SEQRA
"because the environmental impact of a given action cannot
reasonably be evaluated unil the final form of the action has
been determined and approved. (82 AD 2d supra, at 479: see also
Proqramminq and Systems, Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev.
Corp.. 93 AD 2nd 733. aff'd61 NY2d 73~ -
__ "C-"=~'.'::".rr'1"T,",,"
;-",:'.~ l'~"_, ':":r~'~
,', '.",~~_.;, ,.,...::~,~.,...:~,,_."
.
.
Mater of' Sun Beach Real Estate Development Corp. v. Anderson 98
AD 2d 367, af'f" d 62 NY 2d 965].
Based upon the statute, regulations and cases ci ted, it
is beyond cavil that petitioner's site plan application is
subject to SEQRA review. The PLANNING BOARD had no alternative
but to deny the application as incomplete when no DEIS was
submitted.
POINT II
THE "SEQRA REVIEW" BY THE TOWN BOARD WHEN
REZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN 1983 DOES
NOT FORECLOSE SEQRA REVIEW OF THE SPECIFIC
SITE PLAN BY THE PLANNING BOARD
Petitioner claims that the PLANNING BOARD is "without
jurisdiction" to review this site plan application under SEQRA
since the Town Board had rendered a "negative declaration" when
it re-zoned the property to M-1 in 1983. This contention is
directly contrary to the case law.
While the act of' rezoning is an "action" requiring
SEQRA review, the approval of' a specif'ic plan under the zoning
also requires environmental analysis. (Matter of' Kirk-Astor
Drive Neighborhood Assoc. v. Town Board. supra106AD2d
868; Matter of' Rye/King Civic Assn. v. Town of'..B.Y..e, supra. 82 AD
2d 474.479; see also Programming and Systems, Inc. v. New York
State Urban Dev. Corp.. 933 AD2d 733 af'f"d 61 NY2d 738; United
,
.
Artists Communications Inc. v. Building Inspector. supra.)
The reason f'or this rule is obvious. Examination of'
impacts f'rom a rezoning involve general long-range planning.
while a specif'ic site plan's impacts are considerably dif'f'erent.
The latter invol ve direct physical impacts on the environment.
8
.
.
Thus. when the Town Board was considering rezoning the portion of
the applicant's lands tobeusedforcondominiumdevelopment, it
did not consider impacts generated by actual development. It
could not. for example. analyze the visual. layout, access.
3
traffic and construction impacts caused by the specific plan.
Since it was only considering a zoning change. the Town Board was
not concerned with the overall project including the shopping
center .4
It is apparent that the Town Board and PLANNING BOARD
were addressing two distinct "actions" with distinct impacts and,
under the authorities cited above. each was required by law to
review the matter before them. (seealsoECLsection8-0103.9).
3ThiS is evident from the Short Form Environmental
Assessment Form filed by the petitioner with the Town Board.
(part of Exhibi t B of the peti tion). Petitioner answered "no" to
all 15 questions. including question "1" (will the project result
in large physical change... or al ter more than 10 acres of
land). Since the site plan calls for development of over 40
acres. it is clear that petitioner was evaluating "impacts" form
the rezoning and not from any actual development. Nevertheless.
petitioner now takes the untenable position that the Planning
Board cannot review the actual development since the Town Board
rendered a negative declaration based on the petitioner' s
assessment forms. If this claim were accepted. the anamolous
situation would be created whereby the actual. "down-to-earth"
impacts from this major development would never be analyzed under
SEQRA. Clearly that is not the result intended under that law.
(ECL section 8-1013; Martin v. Koppelman. 112 AD 2d 24. 26.
Matter of Rye/Kinq Civic Assoc. v. Town....Q.f..&e. supra 82 AD 2nd
at 479; Proqramminq and Systems Inc. v. New York Urban Dev.
Corp.. 93 AD 2d 733. aff' d 61 NY 2d 738).
4These addi tionalimpacts for the proposed commercial
development must now be considered. The SEQRA regulations
require the lead agency to consider "other simul taneious or
SUbsequent actions which are: (1) included in any long-range
plan of which the action under consideration is a part." (6
NYCRR 617.11). Petitioner's own planner regards the shopping
center as part of the overall project. (see Chinese Staff and
Workers Assoc. v. .Ql!.Y of New York. 68 NY 2d 359, 364).
9
-"'-""7r~_ ,,~t;;..;.::. "lil."'--
-." ';1~''''' '.....'.~~..7..~..-'.~.
.
.
Pet i t i oner . s c I aim is er r oneous for a separ ate.
addi tional reason. In its 1983 "negative declaration, the Town
Board classified the rezoning as an unlisted action. (The
declaration is Exhibi t H to the peti tion). Pursuant to the
regulations. coordinated review of an unlisted action is optional
where a negative declaration is rendered. (6NYCRR 617.7(a).
However, if review is not coordinated, then each agency which
must subsequently grant approval is not bound by an earlier
negative declaration.
"Unless and until written notification of lead agency
status and determination of significance has been given
to all other involved agencies, each subsequent
involved agency shall make its own determination of
significance and may require an EIS." (6 NYCRR
617.7(a).
Here. the PLANNING BOARD, the Suffolk County Planning
Commission and the Suffolk County Department of Heal th Services
were" invol ved agencies" since each had to approve the
development. [6 NYCRR 617.2(p)]. As appears on the face of the
Town Board negative declaration, notification was not given to
these involved agencies and each was free to make its own
determination. This was done on a coordinated basis by the
PLANNING BOARD (pp 13-14).
,
The PLANNING BOARD' s compliance wi th SEQRA was
therefore not only mandated by statute (ECL section 8-0105.4),
and the case law (see' ci tations above), but was proper. in any
event, due to the procedure utilized by the Town Board in 1983.
10
."'~"~""__<"-,e'r"_-;"'"
.
.
POINT III
THE PLANN ING BOARD'S REQUIRE-
MENT OF ADEISWASRATIONAL.
"
Peti tioner only claims that the PLANNING BOARD had "no
jurisdiction" to comply with SEQRA. It does not challenge the
PLANNING BOARD's underlying concl usion that a DEIS is required.
That determination was rational and supported by overwhelming
:facts.
The lead agency's decision to require a DEIS is
discretionary. (Northeast Solite Corp. v. Flacke, 114 M 2d 313).
Since there is a strong State policy in :favor o:f :full study o:f
environmental impacts be:fore agency action, there is a low
threshold :for requiring preparation o:f an impact statement. (See
e.g. Chinese Sta:f:f and Workers Assoc. v. CitY...Q.:f New~, 68 NY
2d 359: Matter o:f Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Plannin~ Board, 96
AD 2d 986; H.O.M.E.S. v. New York State Urban Development Corp.,
69 AD 2d 222; Ononda~a Land:fill Systems, Inc. v. Flacke, 81AD2d
1022) .
Impacts :from tra:f:fic alone are enough to trigger a DEIS
(H.O.M.E.S. v. New York Urban Development Corp., supra). Here
tra:f:fic impacts are just one area o:f concern. All potential
impacts identi:fied by the PLANNING BOARD are properly the subject
matter o:f a DEIS and well within the PLANNING BOARD's authority
as lead agency. While signi:ficant impacts were identi:fied in
"
areas such as tra:f:fic,access, circulation, and landscaping and
screening, the three objectives speci:fied in section 100-131 o:f
the Town Code, that section also authorizes the PLANNING BOARD to
take into consideration
"the public health, sa:fety andwel:fare, the com:fort and
convenience o:f the public in general and the residents
o:f the immediate neighborhood in particular..."
11
. ""..iW; -,- '."........."..~'":,..,~,.."""..~._~."'..,.,
., '."--''''~'~''.''
.-.--'"<"""-- -.,"".-.:-.'--
.
.
Thus, notwi thstanding peti tioner' s claim to the
contrary, the PLANNING BOARD's site plan review properly
encompasses the areas of potential concern that have been
identified in the positive declaration. These potential impacts
are likewise within the review authority of the Suffolk County
Planning Commission, which is coordinating its analysis of this
major development with the PLANNING BOARD. The PLANNING BOARD's
0'
positive declaration was therefore proper in scope.
Since the PLANNING BOARD was required to review the
si te plan under SEQRA, and since there was a more than ample
support in the record for its posi ti ve declaration, peti tioner' s
claims of improper motives on the part of the BOARD, are not only
unfounded, but immaterial as a matter of law. (see e.g. 40 New
York Jur. , Municipal Corporations, section 733).
CONCLUSION
THE PLANNING BOARD PROPERLY DENIED
THE SITE PLAN AS INCOMPLETE UNDER
SEQRA. ITS DECISION SHOULD BE SUS-
TAINEDANDTHEPETITIONDISMISSED.
Dated: Riverhead, New York
July 29, 1987
",
Respectfully submi tted,
SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG,
ISLER AND YAKABOSKI
Attorneys for Respondent
PLANNING BOARD
Office and P.O. Address
456 Griffing Avenue
P.O. Box 389
Riverhead, New York 11901
OF COUNSEL:
FRANK A. ISLER
12
. ."O'UII ...
. "
. .
MEM.ANDUM
INDEX
MOTION
'~J-19045
*9 ,.3 10/13/B 3
SUPREME COURT. SUF"FOLK COUNTY
SPECIAL TERM, PART I
111>ITED ARTISTS COMMUNICATIONS,
II>C., et aI,
BY
DE Ll1C^, J. S. C.
Petitioners,
CATEO OCTOBER 24, 1983
19
ARTHUR DiPIETRO, ESQ.
Attorney for Respondents
130 Ostrander Avenue, P,O,Box 757
Riverhc~d, New York 11901
.
The petitioners have brought this Article 7B proceeding, corr~enced
October 5, 19B3, requesting that this Court direct the Planning BOurd to
grant petitioners' site plan approval and direct the Building Inspector to
grant the petitioners a building permit (First Cause of Proceeding); that
the Court it.self grant the petitioners site plan approv~l on the /1\Crits of
petitioners'application (Second Cause of Proceeding); direct the building
Inspector to issue the petitioners a building permit (Third Cause of Proceed-
ing), for a theater complex containing seven auditoriums,
Although not dispositive of the iSsues presrnted in this ~roccedin9,
the petitioners emphasized on the return dute Octoher 13, 1993 nnd ~lso in the
affidavit of William W. Esseks, sworn to October 20, 1983 submitted in support
of the proceeding, paragraph 10 thereof: "The delay here is due only to public
clamor to quash the project through inaction on the part of the Planning Board
until the Town Board can rezone the property to prohibit this use, which has
'een allowed r~r over 25 years."
.
.
The accelerated answer submitted October 19, 1983 pursuant to the
~irection of this Court on October 13, 1983 includes four Objections in Point
,f Law:
.
-3. That the Petition fails to state a cause of action upon which
relief can be granted.
4. That the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of
this action and cannot grant the Petitioners the relief requested.
5. That there is no justicable controversy at the present time as
to which this Court can grant relief.
6. That at the present time this proceeding does not raise the
pre-requisite Questions set forth in Section 7803 CPLR which is
necessary in order to allow this Court to grant the relief re-
Quested."
RA 1
-."--'
.
..,.", ........,-~."..._-, ,-.., .. .'L.,'" "-q- """"""__...
~~...~ MEM~ANDUM "'OTION 19,453 10/13/83
SUPREME COURT. SUFFOLK COUNTY SPECIAL TERM, tRT I
-..-- -----
JNITEO ARTISTS CO~~UNICATIONS,
INC., et aI,
By
DE LUCA, J. S, C.
vs.
Petitioners,
OATED OCTOBER 24, 1983
19
.UILOING INSPECTOR or THE TOWN or
;OUTHAMPTON, et aI,
. ~espondents.
PAGE - 2 -
.'
The petitioners' position is that the Planning Board's failure to
ct ~ithin 4S days resulted in the loss of jurisdiction over the petitioners'
pplication pursUant to TownCod~ S274-a(3): "The Court at Special Term shall
tself dispose of the cause on the merits, determining all questions which
~y be presented for determination".
The petitioners allege that based upon the failure to act within 45
ays, this Court should limit its review to petitioners' compliance with the
~quirements of Town Code S69-3R. The affidavit of William W. Esseks sworn to
~tober 20, 1983 alleges in paragraph 3:
....3. The undisputed facts are as follows:
,
t:l(
a. Petitioners inquired of the Planning Board and Town Board
and learned that the use was per~itted as a matter of law.
b. Petitioners took title in March, 1983 at a cost of over one-half
Illillion dollars.
c. The application is completely conforming to all zoning rules and
regulations.
.
d. The Suffolk County Depart~ent of Public Works has approved the
application..
e. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has approved
the applica tion.
f. The property is zoned Highway Business and there Illay be a
theater without limitation as to size in said district.
9. The parking requirements are met by the application.
h. Section 69-38 of the Southftmpton Code (copy annexed) sets forth
the "Site ~lan proceeding and standards". Pursuant to said "Site
plan proceeding and standards", petitioners paid the fee, submitted
the plans prepared by a surveyor showing the property lines, parking
areas, topography, drainage, existing and proposed landscaping etc.
all as set forth in said section of the Code. The foregOing are the
only standards that are "standards" for submission of papers, there
sre no subjective standards to which any criteria may be applied.
RA2
.
--_=.~ ...'_"',~n._^ ___,___.~,.~.._ .~
."'L1~^ -- "v~-... .,"'. ~
, TO."'..... MEW:>RANDUM MOTION ..53 10/13/83
SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY SPECIAL TERM, PART I
UNITED ARTISTS COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., et aI,
By
DE LUCA.
J. S. C.
"S.
BUILDING INSPECTOR or THE TOWN OF
SOUTHAMPTON, et aI,
Petitioners,
CATI:O OCTOBER 24, 1983
19
PAGE - 3 -
"
Respondents.
.'
There are no standards for such things as traffic, safety. compati-
bilit/ etc. The only standards are the recited objective standards
such as number of copies, fees and what is to be shown on a site
plan. 'There is no suggestion that the (orm of petitioners site
plan application is not completely conforming.
i. The site pian was timely filed and there is no question that the
Planning Board did not, within 45 days of the application, schedule
a public hearing, hold it.and make a decision. Special Counsel for
the Town, on the third page of his affidavit sworn to on October 18,
1983, states:
.When the site plan application an~ site plan
itself ,.together with the Environmental Assess-
ment Form Part I (hereinafter referred to as
EAr, Par~' I) were finally filed with the Pla~ning
Board on March 24, 1983. the review process of the
Planning Board started.-
The petitioners' alternate position is that if the State Environ-
mental Quality Review Act (SEOR) does extend the mandatory provisions of
Town Law 5274-a, the respondents have failed to address any environmental
concern which could result in a denial or modification of petitioners' site
plan ~pplication and such position is enforced by the various approvals ob-
tained by the petitioners from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works
rei input on trafficl the Suffolk County Department of Health Services re:
issuance of permits for storm-water and sanitary systems; all as reflected
in the petitioners' site plan. The respondent Planning Board as lead agency,
determined the need for submission and review of a draft environmental impact
statement (EIS), 22 NYCRR 6l7.2(m), after respondent'. review of the environ-
mental assessment form (EAF), 22 NYCRR 617.2(1) submitted by the petitioners
with their application for approval of their site plan. The petitioners
clearly recognized the correctness of the Planning Board's action by their
'participation in scoping meetings and their submission of Praft Environmental
Impact Statement dated August 1983, petitioners' Exhibit .C., submitted to the
..respondent Planning Board August 25, 1983 and which Statement incorporates
t~erein petitioners' Traffic Impact Study dated January 1983. which latter
study was submitted with Assessment Form Part I, to the Planning Doard March
23, 1983, together with their application for site plan approval pursuant to
Town Law 5 274-a.
RA3
---'
:~"..'- ...
.-,'.',-,-.~.,..,...."",.",... ...,:...:.....-""
ME,..RANDUM
SUPREME COURT. SUFFOLK COUNTY
. UUJ TlD ARTISTS COMMUHICATI0IlS,
111':., ~'l aI,
.1'0... ....
~.
.
"'1:/";1\-- ".,,,-;r,u,:.
MOTION '9.453 10/13/83
.
SPECIAL TERM, PART I
8Y
DE LUCio,
J. S. C.
'ertJtlone:r.,
VB.
DAUD OCTOBER 24, 1983
'9
BUlLDWG INSPECTOR OF THE 70....l'J OF
SOUTHAMPTON, et aI,
Respondents.
PAGE - 4 -
The respondents are not required to address in this proceeding, the
,arious elements set forth in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The
.tatute, regulations and Town Code provide for input, public hearing and pos-
.ible additional submission, before the respondent Board as lead agency de-
;ermines such issues. (The requirements of the Code ~f the Town of Southampton
Ire authorized by 22 NYCRR Part 617.) It is premature to expand, in this
>roceeding, the Positive Declaration as set forth in the respondent Board's
resolution adopted at its meeting April 7, 1983. (See respondents' Exhibit
331, including but not limited to the items included in Environmental Assess-
~ent Form Part II prepared by the Planning Board dated April 7, 1983 indicat-
ing objections to the project from within ~he community and adjacent co~~uni-
ties, (Return Exhibit 41). See also, Exhibits 6, 7, 13, 20, 36 and 47.
We now address the principal thrust of petitioners' position: Town
Law 5274-a provides that certain elements, including but not limited to
architectural features and impact of the proposed use on adjacent land uses,
be included in the plans to be submitted for review by the Planning Board,
which then may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove site plans.
Sectlon 274-a specifically notes that approval of plats (subdivision
plats) are subject to review pursuant to authority adopted under 5276, and
.hall not be subject to review under 274-a.
,
.
.
Section 274-a subdivision 2 is set forth in its entirety:
"2. Hearing and decision. The planning board shall fix a
time within forty-five days from the day an application
for site plan approval is made for the hearing of any
matter referred to under this section if a public hearing
on any such matter is required by regulations adopted by
the town board and give public notice thereof by the publi-
cation in the official newspaper of such hearing at least
five days prior to the date thereof and shall decide the
same within forty-five days after .uch hearing, or after
the application i. filed if no hearing has been held,
provided, however, the time within which the planning
board must render its decision may be extended by mutual
consent of the applicant and the planning board. The de-
cision of the planning board shall i~~ediately be filed in
the office of the town clerk and a copy thereof mailed to
the applicant. Nothing herein .hall preclude the holdin9
RA4
. __ l
..
ME~ANDUM
"
SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY
~
INDEX 183-19045
MOTION '9~3 10/13/83
SPECIAL 1'ERM, PART I
. ,,"0_._1.
, UNITED ARTISTS COMMUNICATIONS,
'INC" et 81,
BY
DE LUCA, J. S, C.
Petitioners,
V5.
BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE TOWN OF
SOUTHAMPTON, et 81,
DATEO OCTOBER 24, 1983
19
PAGE - 5 -
Respondents.
.'
of a public hearing on any 8uch matter on which a public
hearing is not 80 required."
Town Law 5276 - approval of 8ubdivision'plats, unlike 5274-a,
specifically provides that in the event a planning board fails to take action
on a preliminary plat within the time prescribed therefor, such plat shall be
deemed granted preliminary approval.5276 subdivision 3. In addition, 5276
subdivision 4 providesl
"In .he event a planning board fails to take action on a
final plat within the time prescribed therefor, the plat
shall be deemed approved and a certificate of the clerk
of the town as to the date of submission and the failure
to take action within such prescribed time shall be issued
on demand and shall be sufficient in lieu of written en-
dorsement or other evidence of ~pproval herein required."
The Court of Appeals emphasized statutory limitations of Town Law
274-a when compared to 276 and 277. Riegert Apartments Corp. v. Planning
Board of the Town of Clarkstown, 57 NY2d 206, in which case the Court de-
termined that a town'8 local site regulation permitting it to impose a con-
dition - that landowner deposit money - in lieu of land, for the purchase and
development of park land in order to gain approval of a site plan, was not
authdTized by Town taw 5274-a whereas such regulation is authorized by Town
taw 276-277 rei plat subdiVisions.
Thil Court holds that the respondent Planning Board has not de-
faulted within the purview of 274-a. Implicit with action taken by the
petitionerl through the date of September 28, 1983, was their consent to an
extension of the time periOds 8pecified in Town Law 5274-a subdivision 2,
lupra, and allo in SEQR and the Code of the Town of Southampton, Chapter 30.
Thil court further holdl that non-consent does not result in automatic default
by the Planning Board. SEQRrequires compliance with its provisions before
lite approval may be considered by the respondent Planning Board.
Compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEOR")
o.nvironrnental Conservation Law and 22 NYCRR Part 617, State Environmental
}uality Review, a Itatewide regulstion framework for SEOR'I implementation by
-II State and local agencies and also the Code of the Town of Southampton,
Chapter 30, Enviro~~ental Quality Review,are conditions absolute to the re-
:iew and final action by a town planning board of a proposed 5ite plan which
'~y be approved, approved with modifications or disapproved, (Town Law 5274-al
RA5
. ..
--'~-~-'----._--_.'-~-'--'--_._-_______'.____.'h
fiI'IN .II'~
'., .
MEMc:6.NDUM
INDE, '83-19045
MOTION '9,453 4IP/13/83
UPREME COURT. SUFFOLK COUNTY
SPECIAL TERM, PART I
JITED ARTISTS COMMUNICATIONS,
'lC., et aI,
BY
DE LUCII,
J. S. C.
VS.
lILDING INSPECTOR OF THE TOWN or
)UTHAMPTON, et aI,
Petitior.ers,
DATED OCTOBER 24, 1983
19
"
PAGE - 6 -
Respondents.
"
lless such lead agency and also the involved agency herein, determines that
. environmental impact statement is not required. 22 NYCRR 617.2(71 (ql (rl.
,
Full compliance with the Code of the Town of Southampton 569-38 _
'ite plan proceeding and standard.- does not .ubstitute for such compliance,
EL!. See Southampton Code 530-2 which requires full compliance with Chapter
before a site plan is approved or building permit may be issued.
This Court further holds that SEQR compliance cannot reasonably be
bject to the time limit under Town Law 5274-a in all cases, even absent con-
nt of the applicant. Cf: 617.8(a),6 NYCRR 617.8(cI, ~17.9(bl.
The time periods set forth in 22 NYCRR Part 617 and also the Code of
e Town of Southampton Chapter 30 for the various steps when the lead agency
termines the need for submission and review of a draft environmental impact
'atement and public hearing, as required in the present case, do not accomo-
'te the maximum time periods permitted by Town Law 5274-a.
Finally, the chronOlogy of events demonstrates that the respondent
a~ning Board has caused no unreasonable delay in processing petitioners'
pers. The formal submission date of petitioners' application and Part I of
e Environmental Assessment Form was March 23, 1983. On April 7, 1983 the
a~ning Board, which does not convene daily, adopted a resolution wherein a
nding of Positive DeclaratIOn was made and never disputed by the petitioners,
ich triggered further compliance with the provisions of SEOR. The petitioners
d not submit the DEIS until August 25, 1983, notwithstanding the lead time...
erein a .coping meeting was conducted on May 4, 1983. Final work on the DEIS
· possible after the May 4, 1983 meeting.
The petitioners submitted the OEIS approximately three (3) months
~ 21 days after their knowledge of the required content.. Thereafter, 25
ys later, by letter dated September 20, 1983 an errata sheet to the OEIS
*hibit 4) with 24 corrections listed therein, was submitted to the Planning
lrd. In addition, the Planning Soard received a letter dated September 20,
,3 from the petitioners' banker (Exhibit 3), recomm~nding favorable con-
~eration of the petitioner.' application. Under the c~rcumstances, this
Jrt deems it unreasonable for the petitioners to now allege the respondent
.nning Board's default in taking action on the site plan in this proceeding
,~enced October 5, 1983.
R.A6
... "'I'
... ..
.. ,
MEMO.NDUM
JI'r .B3-]9045 .
MOTION B, 4 53.0/13/83
SPECIAL TERM, PART I
UPREME COURT. SUFFOLK COUNTY
~1TED ARTISTS COMMUNJCATIONS,
,~C.. et aI,
BY
DE Ll'CA.
J. S. C,
Petitioners,
DATED OCTOBER 24. 1983
19
VS.
~ILDING INSPECTOR OF THE T~~ OF
'UTHAMPTO~, et aI,
Respondents.
PAGE - 7 -
.'
This proceeding does not include any cause of action whcrc this
'urt is requested to give direction to the respondcnt Town Planning Board
, establish a timetable to complete the various steps to comply with the
rovisions of 22 'NYCIUl Part 617 and the Code of the Town of Southampton
lapter 30. The return submitted by the respondents clearly establishes
,at the respondent Town Planning Board has proceeded in a diligcnt and timely
Inncr through the date of the commencemcnt of this procceding.
Based upon the foregoing. .this Court denics respondents' objections
1 Point of Law. This Court dismisscs thc petition b;:\scd upon the implicit
>nsent of the petitioners to extend the time pcriods specified in Town Law
t74-a subdivision 2 for SEQR compliance, and furthcr,SEQR compliance is a
:crequisite to site plan approval, approval with modification or disapproval
ld such condition absolute, supersedes the timc m~ndate of To~n Law S274-a
, this particular case.
Settle judgml"nt.
.
'.
RA7
.
..
.
.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
)
) ss.:
)
"
KAREN M. RAFFEL
, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
~
I am not a party to this action and am over 18 years of age.
I reside at Main Road, Aquebogue, New York 11931
On July 29 , 1987, I served the within
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
upon the following attorney(s) for the party or parties indicated at the
address designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by depositing a
true copy thereof, enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed envelope,
in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the
United States Postal Service ~ithin the State of New York:
Na~e of Attorney(s) Served
CRON AND CRON, ESQS.
Representing
Petitioner
Address
Main Road
Post Office Box 953
Cutchogue, NY 11935
,
Sworn to beforfl~, ~his
. 50 day of IJ~ ' 1987.
. N~(ary Public
1
KAREN M. RAFFEL
f''AtiK A ISLER
flOrAl/V pU,e_~.~,}~;}e, O,f Ne",:"ri\ 1
No. 46581 .~.,.L..;llv;k (\;..:nt, r7
Commlsr;;o;, C',-'il.'; Ae:li 30, 1~~
. ,"
,
. '. ..
,. .. I. I, "
1 . f ',;
I
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
----------------------------------------x
In the Matter of the Application of :
SEACROFT, LTD., a New York corporation, :
Petitioner,
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78
of the civil Practice Law and Rules
.
.
AFFIRMATION
.
.
-against-
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
SOUTHOLD, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.,
CHAIRMAN, RICHARD G. WARD, KENNETH
EDWARDS, GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.,
and WILLIAM F. MULLEN, JR., as members
of the Planning Board of the Town of
Southold,
Index No.
85-3323
.
.
:
.
.
Respondents.
----------------------------------------x
FRANK A. ISLER, pursuant to Rule 2106 of the Civil
Practice Law and Rules, affirms as follows:
1. I am a member of the firm of Smith,
Finkelstein, Lundberg, Crirr~ins and Yakaboski, special
counsel for the PLANNING BOARD of the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I
am fully familiar with the facts herein based upon my review
of the entire Planning Board file, as well as discussions
with Planning Board officials and others.
2. This proceeding purports to seek review of a
decision of the PLANNING BOARD dated January 7, 1985 which
m '~-'","-,_C "'_...,_.~."-".._ ,..... .~.~~_,... _.__..,
.
.
.
.'
.
.
..
.
- -, -----1--
I
t
determined that petitioner's application for site plan
approval was incomplete since no environmental impact
statement had been prepared by petitioner (The determination
is Item R-4 in the Return).
3. The petitioner seems to claim that the
decision should be set aside because the PLANNING BOARD did
not have "jurisdiction to require compliance with Article 8
of the Environmental Conservation Law (SEQRA) and that its
decision to require a draft environmental impact statement
was the result of "conspiracy" among the Planning Board
members. As to the SEQRA claim, the Court is respectfully
referred to respondents' memorandum of law to be submitted
herein which demonstrates that it is without merit.
4. The petitioner's "conspiracy" claims, how-
ever, will be addressed here since they are irresponsibly
made and could well be defamatory.
5. Petitioner's allegations regarding the
PLANNING BOARD's motives in requesting a draft impact
statement are simply untrue and are clearly negated by the
record. For instance, in paragraph 53 of the petition,
petitioner alleges that it was an "outright lie" and
"totally deceptive" for the PLANNING BOARD to find in its
,
November 5, 1984 resolution that the condominium project was
submitted at the Board's pre-submission conference in
conjunction with a shopping plaza.
(The November resolution
2
.
.'
.
'.
e.
o .,
.
is Item R-7). One need only examine the minutes of the
pre-submission conference to see how incredible petitioner's
characterizations of the Board's findings are. The record
unequivocably shows petitioner's planner, Mr. Matarazzo,
discussing the shopping center and condominium as one
overall project.
"Mr. Matarazzo presented a sketch map of a
proposed shopping area and stated that this would
consist of specialty shops, and would be a mini-
shopping center on the same scale as the housing
(the condominium units). He stated that the
shopping center would be another part of the
approval process since it is in the commercial
zone. However, he presented it at this time as it
is in conjunction with the housing plan." (emph,a-
sis added).
Indeed, at that time, Mr. Matarazzo presented several maps
and renderings, including a site plan map showing the
overall condominium/shopping center plan (map #1 in map
portfolio); a site plan just of the shopping center, (Map
#4); planner's renderings of the shops themselves (Map #3);
and a rendering of the shopping center elevation (Xap #2).
There can therefore be no question that the applicant or its
corporate alter-ego, clearly intends to construct a shopping
center as part of the overall project. Under SEQRA, the
PLANNING BOARD is required to analyze the entire project and
thus properly determined that the additional impacts from
the shopping center had to be considered in conjunction with
the housing part of the project. In light of these facts,
3
~
, I
'.
.
.
"
.
.
.
all presented by petitioner, its characterization of the
Boardis finding as an .outright lie" and .totally deceptive"
is remarkable.
6. The petition also contains what is
denominated "A Fourth Claim For Relief" which asserts that
the project is being impeded, harrassed and obstructed by
the Chairman of the PLANNING BOARD, in concert with the
Board and others for "personal motive and/or gain", This
"claim" totally fails to state a cause of action for two
reasons. First, Board members' motives are irrelevant and
second, no facts are alleged to substantiate this
accusation, All petitioner alleges is that Mr. Cron, who is
concedely a principal of the petitioner and the attorney of
record herein, had opposed a totally unrelated zone-change
application to the Town Board that the PLANNING BOARD
Chairman, Mr. Orlowski, had an interest in.
(the Dalchet
Corp. application) Petitioner does not even claim that Mr.
Orlowski had a legal obligation to abstain from consider-
ation of the Seacroft application as a result, nor could any
such claim have any merit.
As part of this attack, petitioner attempts to
create the infe~ence that Mr. Orlowski wrongfully failed to
disclose his interest in the Dalchet application to the Town
Board. Not only is this allegation completely irrelevant to
review of the PLANNING BOARD's determination in the Seacroft
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
, .
.
.
_e
.
..'
case, it is false. Annexed hereto as Exhibit 1 is a copy of
Mr. Orlowski's disclosure affidavit certified as filed with
the Town Board on February 14, 1984, more than two months
before the Town Board acted on the Da1chet rezoning app1ica-
tion. The affidavit clearly sets forth Mr. Orlowski's
interest. Furthermore, the Town Board denied the app1ica-
tion. It is apparent that the allegations in paragraphs
62-64 of the petition are designed to intentionally mislead
the Court and to create false issues.
How Mr. Orlowski and the other members of the
Board would financially gain from requiring an impact
statement for petitioner's major development is not
explained. Furthermore, petitioner's unsubstantiated claim
that Mr. Cron's opposition to the Da1chet application
somehow resulted in the Seacroft positive declaration is
belied by the fact that the Da1chet application was denied,
not because of Mr. Cron, but because the rezoning sought did
not comply with the Town's Master Plan. A copy of the Town
Board's Da1chet decision is annexed hereto as Exhibit 2.
While petitioner asserts that SEQRA compliance was
required here to "obstruct and harrass" it, petitioner
ignores that the PLANNING BOARD's SEQRA decision was made
based upon the expert opinion of David Emilita, a highly
regarded planning consultant, as well as on the advice of
the Department of Environmental Conservation (see Orlowski's
5
.....-...'.-.........,.
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
i
I
.
.
:-
..'
.
affidavit), Suffolk County Planning Commission (see Dr.
Koppelman's affidavit) and the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services, (see letter, Item R-15). In essence,
petitioner is asking this Court to find that all these
professionals, and unrelated governmental agencies are part
of a well concealed, wide~spread conspiracy to obstruct
Seacroft. The only rational conclusion available is that
all the experts and agencies were performing their duties
and complying with the mandate of coordinated review of
potential environmental impacts resulting from the Seacroft
project at the earliest possible time.
7. It is evident that petitioner is confusing
the requirement of an environmental impact statement with a
denial of its application. Perhaps that is why it has made
these wild and unfounded allegations. The converse is the
law, to wit, non-compliance with SEQRA mandates a denial of
the site plan application.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the
proceeding be in all respects denied and the petition
dismissed.
DATED: Riverhead, New York
May J(, 1985
~'
~C
FRANK A.
6
~.,~,;, ":":'- .,-~,.,- ..
.'
"
STATE OF NEW YORK:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK:
.
.
..
. rm:r.iv'D .
FEB 1 6 lS84
:
55. :
Town CI~r1r Soul hold
I, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., being duly sworn, depose and say:
I am a member of the Southold Town Planning Board and make this
disclosure affidavit pursuant to the provisions of the General
Municipal Law of the State of New York.
I have read and am familiar with the Petition of Dalchet
Corporation, James R. Fogarty, Georgeanna Fogarty, John Pung,
Irwin S. Kruger, Reynold F. Blum, William A. Littell and Nancy
Glover Victoria for a change of zone for property located on the
south side of the Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, from a "An
District".
Residential and Agricultural District" to a "B-1 General Business
I have an interest in the aforesaid Petition in that I hold a
A. Kruger.
second mortgage on one of the petitioner's property, to wit: Irwin
I make this affidavit under penalties of perjury and swear to the
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUFFOLK COUNTY
Office of the Town Clerk
)f the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
I.,
(Seal)
"''''''_''''.-':~'_",_" .
This is to certify that I, Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk of the Town of
Southard in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy
of ,a~f)~!lY!~ .~~ .~I~!1.r!i.n.g .1?~~!"9, !I)~~~!". !3.~'1':l\!~~ .Q~I,qYf~!<!,; )r:..
declaring an interest in the petition of Oalchet Corporation,
et .al, . far'A' CoaoCle.ef .Zane' frem' "A" .to JlB-1" .- 'swor". to. on
t-eoruary 1'1, -'~ll'l' .. . , d h h . t d
with the original now on file In this office. an t at t e same IS a correc an
true transcript of such originall!(fJc;llIyH .Q( .~Jil!"l.n,itlg .~Qllr~. ITIE:Il,lQl!r. .
Bennett Orlowski, Jr. declaring an interest in the petition of
Delchet 'Corporation; 'et 'al' for' 8' Change' of'Zone' from' "A" 'tel
'~~:-,1:'. 7'. :>!\'.a.m .t.Q .all .f:~Qr\.lary. .l.ll.. .1.9.8.4..,.. and the whole thereof.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said Town this ..... .1.5.111. . . , day O#f .. . MeyL_.. . 1985"....... .. .
,/rr-; 4;--.-70 {(~/
r L,.;'t....,cL..;(. ............-: .~.A-c';...U".
Town Clerk of the Town of Southold. County of Suffolk, N,Y.
Ex hi b,'f (
,
.
,
..
THE FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
WAS ARRIVED AT BY UNANIMOUS VOTE AT A REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON APRIL 24, 1984:
WHEREAS, a petitian was heretofore filed with the Town Boord of the
Dalchet Cor~ration, James R. Fo~arty,
J~~~:; SOR~";~~r'd F~~Efr~~';~'iiii~~~'1:"di~~n;'~~nd\ja~i~I)'ei~ver
YJquh'ftlil'g a change, modification. and amendment of the Building Zone
Ordinance including the Building Zone Maps made a port thereof by chong-
"A" Residential and
ing from .........AgrIcul1ur.al........... District to ~1.a.7.J.'.'...1,;gh~..a..u~1.~~~.L
District the property described in said petition, and
WHEREAS said petition was duly referred to the Planning Board far its
investigation, recommendation and report, and its report havinQ been filed
with the Town Board, and thereafter, a public hearing in relation. to said
petition having been duly held by the Town Board on the ...J!Uh.......day
of ..........F..~.I?r.!!!!l.t:'y....................., 19.8.~...., and due deliberation having been
had thereon
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the relief demanded in said
petition be, and it hereby is DENIED, for the following reasons:
(1) The requested change of zone is not consistent with
the present Southold Town Master Plan.
(2) It has not been demonstrated to the Town Board that
there is a need for additional "B-1" General Business District
In said location. '
Dated: April 24, 1984.
"j!,l
(
By Order of the Southold Town Board
ft~~~;y-
Judith T. Terry
Southald Town Clerk
[xh~blfd
.
r----
1:
~ ,
I
..
...
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
----------------------------------------x
In the Matter of the Application of
SEACROFT, LTD., a New York corporation,
Petitioner, :
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78
of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
:
AFFIDAVIT
.
.
-against-
.
.
Index No.
85-3323
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
SOUTHOLD, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.,
CHAIRMAN, RICHARD G. WARD, KENNETH
EDWARDS, GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.,
and WILLIAM F. MULLEN, JR., as members
of the Planning Board of the Town of :
Southold,
:
Respondents.
----------------------------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK)
) 55.:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., being duly sworn, deposes
and says:
1. I am a presently the Chairman of the PLANNING
BOARD of the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD.
2. I have read the petition and affidavit of Mr.
Cron served on the PLANNING BOARD seeking review of our
resolution of January 7, 1985 dealing with the Seacroft site
plan application. The resolution fo~nd the application
'.
e.
incomplete because no draft environmental impact statement
had been filed, although requested by our board acting as
lead agency. Upon advice of counsel, the resolution also
denied the application to avoid any claim of default under
the applicable timing requirements, even though no such
claim could be successful.
3. The petitioner's papers seem to focus primarily
on personally attacking me rather than on the merits of the
PLANNING BOARD's actions. Perhaps that is intentional since
the Board's actions were fully justified and in accordance
with State law.
4. To say that I somehow controlled and con-
spired with the other members of the Board to require a
draft environmental impact statement is patently incredible
and simply not true. From as early as June 4, 1984, the
applicant was advised by the Board that the proposed project
would have significant impacts on the hamlet of Cutchogue
and that these impacts would have to be studied in a draft
environmental impact statement (See Items 30 and 31 of the
Return). These preliminary requests were made informally to
save the applicant time, nevertheless, when the applicant
refused to comply with SEQRA, the Board discarded informality
,
and proceeded in strict compliance with SEQRA regulations.
(NO claim is made that the Board failed to follow these
procedures correctly). Thus, after receiving full site plan
2
-
~
'.
..
maps in October, 1984, the Board declared itself lead agency
on November 5, 1984 (Item R-9) and rendered a positive
declaration (R-7, p. 13 of Return).
5. The Board's actions under SEQRA were taken
upon advice of its planner David Emilita, who is highly
regarded in his field and. who is also the Planner for the
Town of Southampton. In addition, when the preliminary site
plan application was received, I had several conversations
with Charles Hamilton of the regional office of the State
Department of Environmental Conservation. He was advised of
the procedures followed by the Town Board in 1982-83 when it
rezoned part of the property involved. Mr. Hamilton told me
that the PLANNING BOARD was required to review the site plan
under SEQRA; that the Town Board's actions in 1983 were not
pertinent since that Board had not coordinated review as
provided under the SEQRA regulations; and, that in any
event, the Town Board's "review" of the rezoning did not
address any specific development plan and thus was a sepa-
rate action. He believed the project was of such magnitude
and impact as to mandate an impact statement. Further, he
felt that the considerable community reaction to the project
also warranted full review.
,
(See petitions, Item R-38) In
urging the PLANNING BOARD to give this project full SEQRA
analysis, Mr. Hamilton said that if any procedural errors
3
.
.
were to be made, they should be on the side of protecting
the environment.
6. The expert opinions of David Emilita and
Charles Hamilton were accepted by the Board after examining
the potential impacts from the proposed project as presented
at the pre-submission conference of April 9, 1984. The
Board was particularly concerned with the access to the
condominiums which, as proposed, was limited to Griffing
Street. That street is quite narrow and empties onto Route
25. This access problem is compounded when the proposed
shopping center is considered. The stores, as proposed,
would also rely on Griffing Street for access (see Map No. 1
on Map Portfolio). Impacts on Route 25 traffic, particularly
in the summer, have to be determined. The close proximity
of schools to the road raises additional concerns. The
Court is respectfully referred to the Board's environmental
reports which it relied on in rendering its positive declara-
tion for the other significant areas of concern created by
this project as found by the Board (Item R-7) .
7. The other agencies which have to approve this
project encouraged the PLANNING BOARD to act as lead agency
and to require preparation of a draft environmental impact
statement. By letter dated August 31, 1984, the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services advised that it regarded
4
.
.
..
the project as a Type I action and requested that the
PLANNING BOARD act as lead agency (Item R-14).
8. Likewise, I had several conversations with
the Suffolk County Planning Commission, which must also
approve this project. The Commission regards the project as
a major development and urged that we act as lead agency and
require preparation of an impact statement (Dr. Koppelman's
affidavit is submitted herewith).
9. It should be apparent that the PLANNING BOARD
was acting properly and upon the advice of the experts and
in coordination with the other approving agencies. The only
"conspiracy" that existed was the one contemplated under
SEQRA which calls for coordinated review to ensure that all
appropriate environmental concerns are addressed before
development.
10. It is my understanding that all applications
for site plan approval submitted to this PLANNING BOARD are
required to and do comply with SEQRA prior to any Board
action. The Board's compliance with SEQRA in this case
should certainly not be set aside on the off-chance that the
Board might not have fully complied when processing some
other application filed over the past seven or so years that
SEQRA has been applicable.
11. I will not dignify petitioner's scurrilous
attacks against me personally with any response. The record
5
"~~.=, ~,",. .,-,.,,,,,,,,,,,> ....".~."".;.-".,_..,.,~ "'-1"""~W."
.
.
.e.
speaks for itself. The PLANNING BOARD performed its duties
properly and in full conformity with the letter and spirit
of the law.
Sworn to before me this
20th day of May, 1985.
......, L I
/./ L~--..s . t9- ~CL.
N .ARY ~BLIC
"'f,p::;r,r:TT J{:\N C'Hf.,P.A
N01ARl' f'USdC, S:?~(, (l! t.;,t'i YQr~
Nt, 52,Lc:'~.:;O
Qutli/led in $:..;Uio. CCi>nt)" <] 7
Commission Exp:r!:~ Maretl 30, 19..:.1'
6
.
Ii
'!
.
.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
- - - - - - - - - -x
In the Matter of the Application of
SEACROFT, LTD., a New York corporation,
INDEX NO.
Petitioner
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article
78 of the Civil Practice Law and
Rules
AFFIDAVIT
-against-
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
SOUTHOLD, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.,
CHAIRMAN, RICHARD G. WARD, KENNETH
EDWARDS, GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM,
JR., and WILLIAM F. MULLEN, JR.,as
members of the Planning Board of
the Town of Southold,
Respondents.
- - - - - - -x
STATE OF NEW YORK)
.
.
55.:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
LEE E. KOPPEL~AN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am the Director of Planning of the Suffolk County
Planning Commission, as well as the Director of the County's
Department of Planning.
Over the past year, I have become familiar with a
proposed site plan application to construct some 160 condo-
,
miniurn units, called "Seacroft", in the hamlet of Cutchogue.
The over-all project also calls for the construction of a
.
..
r
eo
shopping center on adjacent property, within 500 feet of the
I Main Road.
The Suffolk County Planning Commission must approve
Seacroft's plans because under our regulations, this major
condominium project is deemed a major subdivision. In
addition, the Commission has jurisdiction since the proposal
is within 500 feet of Main Road, a State road. The Commis-
sion is, therefore, an "interested" agency as defined under
SEQRA regulations and is participating in coordinated review
with the Southold Planning Board. To facilitate that review
process, we have consented to the Planning Board's
designation as lead agency and await the filing of the
required draft environmental impact statement.
I have consulted with members of the Planning Board
I
I regarding this project and I strongly concur with the
I
I
i
i
I
I
,
i
I
I
I
Southold Planning Board's determination that this major
development requires the preparation of an environmental
impact statement.
The 160 condominium units, alone, will
have a major impact on the hamlet of Cutchogue due to the
resulting large increase in population; the potential
adverse effects on the water quantity and quality; the
disturbance of over 46 acres of open space; and the genera-
tion of substantial traffic loads on the major east-west
arterial road on the North Fork.
I
i
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
4
..
..
r
,
.
These impacts will be intensified further by the
proposed shopping center to be built virtually on the Main
Street and which will utilize the sole and narrow access
road proposed for the condominium. I believe that the
Planning Board must consider the impacts from the proposed
shopping center at this time, since SEQRA contemplates
review of all reasonably foreseeable parts of a project,
even if done in stages.
The close proximity of schools to the project raises
other planning concerns.
The Suffolk County Planning Commission regards this
project as a major development. I believe that the Planning
Board would have been derelict in its duties and in viola-
tion of the mandates of SEQRA if it had not required prepara-
tion of a draft environmental impact statement.
It should also be stated that, although my Commission
is an interested agency, it never received any notice from
the Southold Town Board regarding its .SEQRA review" of a
re-zoning of a portion of the property involved here. As a
result, there was never coordinated review of that change in
zone and under the SEQRA regulations, any action taken in
1982/1983 by th~ Town Board does not foreclose SEQRA review
by my Commission or the Planning Board.
I respectfully request that the Court sustain the
Planning Board's actions thereby ensuring that all pertinent
3
._-~_._._- I
I
. .
'.
..
"
environmental and planning concerns raised by this major
condominium project are properly studied before develop-
ment.
-*-~~~-
LEE E. KOPPELMAN
Sworn to before me this
of May,
.~
l.Itll.U IAlliWo.
...;In "JIl.Ie. ~ ~11tc; fW
lIo.51~5l4a
~..jn $,,",,:1 ~
......- 11."", 1Il:>.c" t p:;.,
4
. -~,=,",'-'---'-'-' . =.~,~"_.,".,-~.,.,,.,,-_.,..__...._--_.---..- .--
.
II
I
.'
..
. .
SUPRE~~ COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
----------------------------------------x
In the Matter of the Application of :
SEACROFT, LTD., a New York corporation, :
Petitioner,
.
.
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78
of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
.
.
AFFIDAVIT
.
.
-against-
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
SOUTHOLD, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.,
CHAI~AN, RICHARD G. WARD, KENNETH
EDWARDS, GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.,
and WILLIAM F. MULLEN, JR., as members
of the Planning Board of the Town of
Southold,
Index No.
85-3323
.
.
.
.
Respondents.
:
----------------------------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK)
) ss.:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
RICHARD WARD, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am a member of the PLANNING BOARD of the
TO~~ OF SOUTHOLD, and have been for about one (1) year. I
am fully familiar with the Seacroft site plan application
and participated in the Board's consideration thereof.
,
2. In addition to my being a member of the
Board, I am by profession, a land planner and consultant. I
am a member of the firm of Ward Associates, P.C. with
Ii
.
.
. .
..
..
offices in Ronkonkoma. I have a Masters degree in community
planning from New York University.
3. Both professionally and as a member of the
Planning Board, I am genuinely astounded to hear anyone
claim that a development of this magnitude, calling for
construction of a 160-unit condominium and a shopping center
on some 50-plus acres in the heart of Cutchogue, would not
be subject to New York's environmental review laws. The
impacts on the hamlet's traffic patterns alone warrant
study, particularly where the development will result in a
15% increase in Cutchogue's population and will attract
substantial commercial traffic at the shopping center. To
compound this problem, the site plan calls for all ingress
and egress from Main Road to both the shopping center and
condominium units over Griffing Street. Griffing is a very
narrow street, with school grounds on the other side. The
Board was also concerned with the claim of the neighbor to
the north that the proposed development violated an
agreement to not build within 150 feet of their mutual
property line. There also appears to be an easement across
the property which was not shown on the site plan and which
could have sign~ficant impact on layout, access and traffic
circulation. There is also a question, not yet resolved, as
to the legality of the subdivision of the two parcels
involved here. All these issues, as well as the others set
2
.
.
. .
.'
.
forth in our positive declaration, must be addressed before
any site plan approval could be contemplated.
4. In my opinion, had the Planning Board
accepted petitioner's claim that the application was not
subject to SEQRA review, the Board would have been acting in
direct violation of SEQRA and would have been grieviously
derelict in its obligation to the community (and all future
generations I to protect as much as possible our limited
resources. Both state law and good planning principles
militated the result reached by the Board.
5. The Board requires all site plan applications
to be subjected to SEQRA review. If prior Boards were
uncertain about SEQRA or lax in its application, that
certainly would not mean that this Board's insistence on
compliance should be disregarded.
6. The Board, and its consultants, took a hard
look at this project and made the appropriate request for an
environmental impact statement. That decision was not part
of any .conspiracy. on the part of the Board. This Board
operates as a board and is not controlled by any individual
member. We acted unanimously here for the simple reason
that SEQRA mandated the result.
7. Had the petitioner complied with the positive
declaration, its application would have been complete and
3
.
~ .
.',
.
.
the approval process would have begun. For some reason,
unknown to me, the petitioner chose not to submit a DEIS.
8. I am certain that when the Court gets past
the vitriolic allegations of petitioner, it will see that
there is no substance to its claims, and that the Board
acted properly and precedently within the spirit and letter
of SEQRA.
~~~
RICHARD WARD
Sworn to before me this
t9'1-<-I- day of May, 1985.
L/'v.. r1 k~' (11l-<'f.t.\)
NOTARY' UBLIC
LmOA J. COOPER
IlOTAIlY PUIIuc. 5t.'" 01 N... YOlk
No. 4822583, Suffolk COUI~,
T.rrT Expires MarCh 30. 19..L.l
4
.___,_~ "___'~'>___.n_._~...~.~..,.._..~=......~._._~.._~ '.
. '.
'.'
..
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
STATE OF NEW YORK
)
) ss.:
)
CO~,TY OF SUFFOLK
, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I Am not a party to this action and am over 18 years of age.
I reside at Main Road, Aquebogue, New.York 11931
KAREN M. RAFFEL
On July 29 ' 19 87, I served the within
, SUP.PLEMENTAL ANSWERING PAPERS. .
upon the fOllowIng attorney(s) ~Dr t~e party or partIes IndIcated at the
address designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by depositing a
true copy thereof, enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed envelope,
in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the
United States Postal Service ~ithin the State of New York:
Ka~e of Attorney's) Served
CRON & CRON, ESQS.
Representing
Petitioner
Address
Main Road
Post Office Box 953
Cutchogue, New York 11935
""orn to beior
NlJ.-da}. of
.. s/
I(oury
>/
f
this
, 1987.
KAREN M. RAFFEL
f'ublic
FRANK A. ISLER -.
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Ne" ~r1
No 4f,58745.!',ufioik eol!1'tr
Ccv"""',';,,~,E;J~;;'P5IJYJ3U, 19 '
.
..11V~-{~K~' r-~r"-"--'
~~ 8,/98'::0 ..
/1,,-/6 Q,m.
( .
'.
Southold. N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
,-
.
January 8, 1985
'."",
" .
Richard Cron
Attorney at Law
. Main Road
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Re: Seacroft
Dear Mr. Cron:
. The following action was taken by. the Southold.Town Planning
Soard, at the regular ~eeting of January 7, 1985.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Seacroft Ltd., submitted, on the .
17th day of October 1984, a certified set of plans for the construction
of one hundred sixty (160) condominium units, and requested site
plan approval therefor; and
WHEREAS, this Board, on th'e 5th day of November, 1984, did adopt
a resolution determining that Seacroft Ltd's application for site
plan approval was subject to the provisions of Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law. and dec~ared itself to be lead agency;
directed that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement be prepared;
and determined that the application of Seacroft Ltd. would not be
complete until the Draft Environmenta~ Impact Statement had been
accepted by this Soard as satisfactory with reppect to scope,
content and adequacy I and
WHEREAS, no Oraft'Enviro~mental Impact Statement has been filed
or accepted by this Board, and
WHEREAS, since the 'rneet1nqof November 5, 1984, this Board has
learned that the premises acquired by Seacroft Ltd. and Seacroft
Plaza Ltd. from Leisure Greens Associates in September of 1983,
~ay have been improperly subdivided, and .
. WHEREAS, it appears that II portion of land owned by Seacroft
td. or Seacroft Plaza Ltd., or both, 1s burdened by II right-of-way
n favor of the Roman Catholic Church of the' Sacred Heart of Cutchogue,
nd
. "R-I-{
..~ .-:......,
:'<5
Mr. Richard Cron (. Page 2 ( J.lary 8, 1985
-----------------------_?_- . ------------------------- -------------
WHEREAS, an adjoining owner has objected to the site plan
contending it violates a written agreement concerning rear yard
spacing' and plantings,which agreement has not been referred to
in the application, and must be considered as part of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
'NOW, THEREFORE, the Board finds as follows:
1. That the application of Seacroft Ltd. having been deemed
incomplete by virtue of the provisions of Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law, this Board is precluded from taking
further action on this application until such time as it is completed;
and
.
.
2'. that the possible subdivision of the former Leisure Greens
premises and the existence of the right-of-way may affect the validity
of the application of Seacroft Ltd. ,and, in any event, must further
be considered from an environmental and planning standpoint; and
3. that, while it is this Board's position that the time period
as provided for in the Town Code for action by this Board has not
commenced to run, nonetheless, the stated time period for Board action
expires on the 5th day of February 1985; and the applicant not having
indicated that it will prepare and file a DEIS, the application of
Seacroft Ltd. for site plan approval is denied.
~trU1Y'(?5V/
L ..e~-F?-Y~ ,.-
Bennett Orlowski, Jr." Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board,
dms
cc: Commissioner, DEC
Daniel Larkin, DEC
Supervisor Francis Murphy
Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services
Suffolk ~ounty Planning Commission
.'
'. R-r.{
10
, ,~.,..-'-~-----._----_.._.
c
. .
(
.
.D
"
Southold, N.Y, 11971
(516) 765-1938
This is to certify .tha~ I, Diane H. Schultze, Secretary of the
Town P lanning' Board, in the sa id County of S.uffolk, have
compared the foregoing copy of the Planning Board'. resolution
pertaining to the Seacroft site plan to the copy filed in the
ffice of the Planning Board on January 5, 1985 at 11:45 a.m.
ndthat the same is a correct and true transcript of the original
esolution passed by the Planning Board at the January 7, 1985
ated:~
~, fI g5
,
Signa ture 7JJdM. Y'Y] . SQ hu Ltll..,
7-.-~
7'-
.c.
<e
~
,tr
/IJ
~ ,.~
y
~.' r/
"0
::x.'r' 0
~. ~cJ:.~~o'
~~~~~
\ f" '?},
l>- \IJ n.... ~
0- v-.0 lV
,
~HDLk ,.
W:4-~/'~~!I~,!.Q~ ~ D
8f.~(l~Jlfu~-< ~
T \\~, \~fI.~~f~~>>LD
SU~fpTY
"'/Qj I) "t-'t:>
Bouthold, N.Y. 11971
'.
(516) 765.1938
November 13, 1984
Oear Frankl
Enclosed 1s a copy of the correspondence our office
received from the Suffolk County Oepartment of Health Services
regarding the Seacroft site plan at Cutchogue.
Southold Town Planning Board
'j)iQ u........
'K -'{p ,
.
'.
.
..'
q
~ov 9 1994
(
( .
PETE" F. CO......L...N
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
"r..ENT Of" HE"'L TH SERVICES
DAVID HAN,.IS. M.D.. M.P.H.
CO""IolISSIONC"
November 8, 1984
To~n of Southold
Planning Board
I'.a inRoad
Sruthold, New York 11971
Att: Diane M. Schultze
Secretary
RE: Seacroft at Cutchogue
Schultze:
Please excuse the late response of your letter of September 13, how-
ever, my secretary took an extended leave to enter into matrimony. The
de,artment does not currently have a model covenant regarding adult
residency, however, in the past, similar applications have been accepted
following H.U.D.S. requirements in that at least one resident be 55 years
of age or more and will not have any minor children under 21 years of age
residing with them.
In the past week, the writer has received revised site plans indicating
sub-surface denitrification of the sewage, nevertheless, under the proposed
cer.sity, the department will still require this restrictive covenant.
This office will be very happy to provide you with a copy when same
has been submitted for review. .
Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the
~..ri ter.
,,:J/ctk
"![ft
..... l'tOI
.\::,..,
Very truly Yours~
~kYA/. ~//
Robert W. Jewel~ P.~.
Public Health Engineer
.Iastewater tlanagement Section
548-3313
~-(o
'.
.
10
;:,;
~.
;~
;.,,-IJd.
l;
il5l'{/~')Xl
Ii /91
(
.
Southold, N.Y, 11971
(516) 765-1938
"
November 7, 1984
.
Richard Cron
Attorney at Law
Main Road
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Re: Seacroft site plan
located at Cutchogue
Dear Mr. Cron:
Please let this confirm the action of the Planning
Board at the regular meeting of November 5, 1984 regarding
the above mentioned site plan.
WHEREAS, on or about April of 1984, SEACROFT, LTD., a
New York Corporation having an address at Main Road, Cutchogue,
New York, 11935, submitted a preliminary sketch plan and attended
a pre-submission conference in anticipation of submitting a
application for site plan approval for the 'c~nstruction of
a 160-unit condominium project to be constructed on approximately
46.12 acres of land situate off Griffing Street in the Hamlet
of Cutchogue in conjunction with a shopping plaza of approximately
50,000 square feet on an abutting parcel to the south which
said parcel is bounded on the east by Griffing Street; and
WHEREAS, as of the 17th day of October, 1984, the
applicant has submitted to the Board a certified set of plans
for the construction of a 160 condominium units and is
now requesting site plan approval therefor, pursuant to
Article XIII of the Code .of the Town of Southold, and
WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed the original preliminary
sketch, minutes of the pre-submission conference and the
certified plan submitted and has received a report from its
planner relating to the environmental impacts of this project,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that it Is this Board's determination that the
application of SEACROFT, Ltd. for site plan approval is subject
to the proviSions of Article 8d the Environmental Conservation
Law (SEDRA), and be it
R - ':f-
.
"
~::_~~:~::~_::~~--~--4ir:~~::_~~_::~~--~------~-~~
FURTHER RESGLVED, it is this Board's desire to be the
lead agency with respect to this action.
The other interested agencies are the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services and the Suffolk County
Flanning Commission which agencies after informal conferences
have indicated their willingness to have this Board act as
lead agency. In the interest of expediting the review process
this Board hereby declares itself to be the lead agency with
respect to this action, and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed action 'is a Type I'
action as defined by Article 8 of the"'tnvironmental
Conservation Law (SEQRA) ,and the regu lations thereunder, in
that it consists of the construction of new residential units
in excess of SO units which are not proposed to be connected
at the commencement of habitation to COmmunity or publicly
,owned utilities.
.,
. .
Alternatively, in the event such action were not to be
determined a Type 1 action, such action.would constitute
an unlisted action which will have a significant impact on :
the environment, which impacts are set forth in the Environmental
. Assessment Form, Part III, on file with this Board. Further,
this project and its environmental impacts must be viewed
in conjunction with the proposed construction of the adjacent.
shopping plaza and the significant environmental impacts
likely to result therefrom. Under either classification, .
this action is significant, and it is .
FURTHER RESOLVED, therefore, that a full PElS be prepared,
by the applicant, and it is,
FURTHER RESOLVED that SEACROFT'S, ~PPlicati6n' for site
plan approval shall not be deemed complete until a draft
EIS has been accepted by this Board as leap agency as
satisfactory with respect to scope, content, and adequacy,
and be it,
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of this Board be
directed to prepare and forward to the 'appropriate agencies
and departments a notice of positive declaration, pursuant
to 6 NYCRR part 617,.~nd any appropriate local law of the
Town of ' South old. '
,
Enclosed, herewith, is a copy of the Assessment Form
Part II and Part III, and positive declaration notice.
Ve;;;trulY y~u?7 ~ ~./
1{C-~"'~JP/ Ug~ ;z:
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CAAIRMAN
SOUTH OLD TOWN PLANNING ~OARP
dms
enc.
R-"T
.
I~
(
"c..~H~U( 1'.
rmANNINC'BOA
~, . '.'(I"'J. i~;~ b
'" . ..:;,~...~..~~;., ..c:. ~
T ,,~.O SOU HOLD
'" ',' - l.,.,.~.:";,rl ~,
Q'.~ . ~J. .".,," u ri
~ __'" .""-:".~., ,-. ... " N
SUF.FOLK~ UNTY
~
Southald. N,Y. 11971
(616) 766.1938
SEQR
POSITIVE DECLA~TION
November 7., 1984
Town of Southold Planning Board, LEAD AGENCY
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Seacroft, Ltd.
SEQR Positive Declaration
( .
'.
GENTLEMEN: .
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the
~mplementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State
Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental
Conservation Law.
The lead agency has determineq that the proposed
action described below may have a significant effect on the
environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
will be prepared. .
. Title of Action:
. .
SEQR StatuSl
Seacroft, Ltd.
./(\
Type,~)
Description of Action:
Location:
~
Construction of 160 unit
condominium' with adjacent shopping
plaza as a planned stage of
development.
Off Griffing Street
Hamlet of Cutchogue
Town of Southold
Suffolk County
New York
B ~1-
'.
.
13
r
(
(.
ce
..
~easons Supporting
this Determination:
See Annexed ~ider
For Further Information
Contact:
Signature
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
(516) 765-1938
pS;~~,~/OLI/ __
/"
"
cc's: Commissioner
Department of Environmental Con~ervation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-0001
Daniel Larkin, Supervisor
Department of Environmental Conservation
~egional Office
Building 40
.SUNY
Stony Brook, New York 11790
Hon. Francis Murphy
Supervisor, Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Center
hiverhead, New York 11901
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, N~w York 11971
Suffolk County Planning Commission
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, New York 11787.
Seacroft, Ltd.
J.:ain Road.
Cutchogue, New York 11925
2
.
Q. ..
."
, '.
t
<
.
.
.
"
'ART III STATP't.'/iS
"r (Ccntln., on Atat~"'entl. as nuded) .
'Art ,U1lcoordinatored and incomplete report. WU . presented to the 'J'OIm at the time of
.
the Zoning ~,endment affecting this parcel, leaving significant gaps and unsubstantiated
· statements made at the presub'nhsion conference in April. ' . " .
1. Construction Impact
Unaddressed in the past, construction will cause a disruptive effect on the neig~~or-
hood due tv dust, noise, aoil erosion, air ~llution and alteration of surface dralnage.
A detailed description of construction staging, including design methods
to minimi~e ~pacts is needed, including phasing of the project. In addition, the
i~pact of the construction of the shopping center, its disruptive effects on the
neighborhood and the adjacent BChool, due to the factors related above, must be
considered.
"
~. Ground~ater Quality
The number and concentration of d~ellings vill require an SCDHS permit and ad-
vanced vastevater treatment vill be necessary to prevent Berious impacts on
ground~ater.
/
No approved vater source or public system exists to serve the development. The
quality of the grour,d~ater has not been established in the application.
An NYSDEC LI Well Permit vUl be needed because ~ur.pinE ' vill exceed 1.5 gpm.
The project will adversely affect ground~ater due to a) nitrates in se~age
unless advanced vastev.ter treatment is included, b) nitrates in fertilizer
of le\r.1 areas , e) household cheIrJ cals.,
The project vill use 32,000 gpd on an average, vhich could easily double 1n
the dry summer months. The possibility of an adverse effect on surrounding
~ells 1e possible. This needs further etudy. In eddition, the vater system,
or proposed vater system, for the shopping center must be considered due to
its proxindty to the vell proposed for the condominium proJect and the over-
all usage considered in conjunction vith usage of the condo~inium itself.
l~. ~ecreational Demand
The infusion of several hundred senior citizens into a small hanJet vill strain
.existing recreational resources. ~e small co~unlty center includ~ in the
project vill not sitigate thil impact.
p..-=r
.
15
.
13. Traffic Irr.pact
( .
.
(.
, '. .
-
1
An incomplete traffic stu~ was presente~ vith the zoning change. A stu~ in-
cluding s~er traffic is nee~e~ to more properly assess the impacts at Route
25 an~ Griffing Street. The proximity to the Cutchogue School may also present
problems on Schoolhouse Lane an~ Depot Roa~ vith develo~ent traffic. A large
increase in non-driving senior citizens presents a further demand on tbe com-
munity's practicallY non-existent public transportation system. The traffic
stu~ faile~ to consi~er the impact of the shopping center at Route 25 an~
Griffing Street, an~ faile~ to consider the traffic impact on the school site
an~ must be revise~ an~ ma~e all inclusive.
"
17. hpaet on Cutcho!';\le Community
At full construction in one-year, a population increase of .nearly 15J vill be
experience~ by the Cutchogue co~un1ty. This vill inclu~e the ~pacts alrea~
mentione~ as vell as increase~ ~bulance an~ emergency medical calls, police
patrols an~ emergency police calla, fire service, and el~erly medical service.
Although there is a nee~ for senior citizen housing in Southold, housing alone
doesn't begin to provide the services neede~ by senior citizens. This develop-
ment proposal doesn't a~dress them. In addition to the impact on the
Cutchogue community due to the dramatic increase in population with attendant
increases in ~emands for co~un1ty services, the inclusion of a Shopping center
adjacent to the concominium project must be consi~ere~, o~ing to its likely
impact on the existing co~unity and it probable attraction of additional people
to the co~unity.
lB. Public Controversy
The Planning Board vas not contacte~ during the consideration of environmental
impact at the time of the Zoning k~en~~ent. y.any of the issues presented here
could have been addressed at that time.
Objections to the propose~ develo~ent have surfaced in the Cutchogue community,
spurring the creation of at least one ne~ civic group, the submission of a
lengthy petition opposing the project and the objection of several abuttors.
Conclusion
It is the conclusion of Part III that there is a need for a coor~jnate~ SEQRA
rev1ev of these elements an~ that the propose~ action is a TYPe 1 action which
re~u1res that a positive declaration be llla~e an~ a full EIS l'repared..
p., - T-
I~
., ..--A
~.. Ii
"
, ...
.
.
Ty.''''J OF SOU'I'HOLD
SEACRt JIt'I' CUTCHOGUE
ENVIRONMENTA~SSESSMENT - PART II
c.
..
.
.. .
- -
(,
PROjECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUVE
"".11 lnfon-ation (Reid Carefy"y)
,.' . ,", ".l.. ,:.. .;
.,'
, .
. In tc~pletlng t~e 'ono the reviewer Ihoyld be g.l~e~ DI the qYIstion, Mlve ~y decisions Ind'dltlnolnltlonl
~ttn rr"or"bh? TIle revl..... Is not e"e:ted to ~I .n .'pert .nvlrenmonul anllyst. .
.. t~.ntlflln9 tn.t In efflct will be potentIally lar,l (col~n Zl dnll not meln that ft fl 1110 nee.s.arlly
Jlontflcent. Any T.rge effect ~ust be evalulted In ~AR7 3 to dlte~inc slgnlffc,nce, 'y fdentlfylng In
effee; In col""," 2 11~.ply Uk. that it be looked It furtner. . '. : .
. . The rUIl',ln provll!ed .re to lS.fat the revl..." by 1'.owln9 typel of .'feeU Ind ~herever poulble the thresh,
0' 11'''5'' tuoo V.,t would trl"er e I"tloOllst In collr,n Z. T~e e.ar:pln Ire generllly Ippllc'ble throughout the
Stlte ,nd 'or most Iltultlonl, lut, for ,ny Icociffc project or lite ot~er e.~ples and/or lower threlholds
~y be core ,pproprl'te 'or. Potentl,l large l~.c: rotlng.
"
;
. r,ch ,rojlct, on uch lIte, In IIch 'IOCltlty, will v.ry. Therefore. the ..amplu hive been offered as suldan'
TIley do not tonstltYte In e.~,ustlve lIlt of Impact. Ind threl~olds to Anlwer lach question. .
. The nu~~er of eumplu per question does not Indlcea the llIIportance of lIeh question. '.
,
,
rNSTRucnOllS (Rud CtreMlyl
t. .bswar tach of the 18 questlonl In PART Z. AnS'''!ll'' there wilt be Iny ef"ct.
II. !!!.::it 'ns"'e~ 'should be tonsldered IS !!llnswers.
C. I' 'ns.orlng res to . ouostlon then check the Iconcor;lte box (colu~n T or 2l to Indlctte the pot,ntl.l
Ihe of t~e fmotct. If '"",act threshold equ!ls or "c.e~s any e.."ple prcvlded, tJo.eck colur::n 2. If
Impact will occur but threshold Is Iv.:er than e..~oie. theck col..."n ':
d. If revl,wer has doubt Ibout the Ilze 0' the Impac: ~le~ consldor the 1"",lct as potentllTly '.r,. .nd
proceed to PART 3. . .
.. If' ,otootlllly llr.o Ilt,lct or effect C.n be ro~u:.d by . Chln;o In the project to . less t~an T.rge
r~.nilude, ,lice. Yes 'n tol~n 3. A Mo res.c's. Indlc!:es th't sue~ I reduction Is not possible,
1 2. 3
- ..
.'
.
51'ALL TO POHNTIAL CAN II':PACI BE
MOOEP....TE LA~r.E REOUC::O BY
tJ~rACT n'PACT PROJECT CHA~I~,
,
- - -
-
"- - -
- - -
- - -
- -X- ..lL.
- - -
.
- - -
r~PACT ON L).ND
110 YES
00
t \lILl T~E~E BE ~I UTtCT AS A RCSULT or A PHYSICAL Ci'.:';~E TO
PP.O,)ECT SITE?
r..molos th't WoyTd A,ply to eolymn Z
Aoy constryc~lon on ,Topes 0' 15: or irealer, (15 'oot rise per
100 foot of len9th), or where the 5ener.1 ,lopes In the proJ.ct
IrI. tzcled 10:.
".
Const~ctlon on Lind ~here the depth to the ..ater tabl, Is '.sl
thin 3 fut.
xx.
. ,
ConUNctlon of "v.d plrklnq lre~ ~or l,~O' or :-.cre v.hlcl...
Con,truct!cn on hnd wher. be~rock Is upond cr ,tr.e.llly
wltn,n ~ '.et 0' 'Alstlng ,round Iyr',ce.
Con'lryctlon thlt will centlnue for t.ore thin 1 lelr or Involve
~re th,n cne rn~se or Ill,e.
r.Ctvltlon for mfr.ln9 purpo,.S th't w:yl~ r.":ve .cr. thin T,OOO
tonl of nlturel ....t,,1Il (I.., reck or lolllper lur.
Conl:r"C:fon Of Any n." IInlUry landfill.
'-
-
.,,...~-
....."":.1""..._~._..._..,..,.;._~"
.s.
".,.2:'h~_'~"':'=t: -......,-. ..........',...'~ ~ ,.,.... ,...... _"........y~.,...,.__j 1-
.. . ."
"
.' t .',
...~. '
. '
I..~ "'-... . " ....-. .
...."u~
. '"
\
. .
- -
- x -L
-
- - -
-
, (
"Conltructlon fn a ~'IIQn'l.d (1006<':1' .
Cl~'r f"l'.ct,r: Construction jnpact due to scheduled com-
~let10n wlthjn 12 months of approval of condom1n1um
project and addiHonel imnect due to construct'j Cliio of
}roposea shoppi ng c~nter .' US
IIILL 'nI[q~ IE AN UfECT TO AllY ~NIQUE OR U~;i!S~AL LlJm r.;P~IS 1":"\0
rOUHt/ 011 T~E SlTL? (f... cltrr., dUM", ,.010;lcll 'onr.a- W
tkn., etc.)
Sp.dflc hnd r,l"I!l.S:
-
-0:-',
-
c
.x
-
'Z.
-
-
-
-
"
. .
It'PACT O!I WATER
" .
NO .,rs
J. WILl. PROJECTMf~CT AllY \/ATtR 100Y DESjlO';AT<D AS .........0 0
PRO,ECiED? (Und..r Articl.. 15. 21j 25 0' t~e [nvlr- '
on,...nlll ConurvHlon Llw, [.C.L. '
r..~l.s t~:t Would Apply to Col~~ 2
Or.d;In; !'lOre th.n 100 cubIc yards 0' ~ater!l' fro'"
chanr..' of a ,rotocad atrUJIl.
ConstructIon In a d.si.nal.d freshwater or tidal w.tllnd.
OtJ,er IO;i'tct~:
.,'
.
"
,-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
.. WILL PROJ~Ci "'FrCT AliY IIC!I-PROTECnO [):ISi 1IIr. OR NEH NO YES
!~'DT OF t!Ai~R? ......................................:.....00
[.lrol.. thlt Would Apply to Column 2
.'
- A 10: Incr.... or d.cr..., In th, turf.c, Ir., of Iny body - -
0' ...ter or Irore th.n " 10 Icr. Incrou. or (.crust.
Con.truct!on of " body of ...t.r th.t ..c..ds "
10 IntS 0' - -
s",rflce Ire.. .
. .
Other In:plcts: -
/10 YES -
I. IIILL 'ROJECT AH.CT SURf~CE OR '1<OU!iOliATU IlUALITT? 08
r.,""O'" that I/ould Ap,ly to Co'~ 2
X lroj.ct ..111 requlr. ',dlschlTie p.""It. - -L
....x. ProJtct requIres us. of I sourc. of wat.r thlt dets not ~.v. - X
approvll to Sf TV! 'proposed project. , -
, . X
-It 'rejICt r,qulros watrr suopl, 'rom w.l,. wfth sro~Ur
thin ~5 S~lIons per ..inut. pump!lI; ca,ICft,. - -
- ~nlt~c~Ion or oo.rltlon Clusln; any contl",Inltlon - -
of I 'publl, ..ater supply SYSUIII.
X 'roJ.ct ~111 Id..rul,."f.ct ercur.dwlttr. ..L
- -
lfcvld t'fTu.nt "Ill be con.,y.d off tho tftt to
f.cjllt~.s ..nlc~ prls.nel)' do not ..1st or h,ve - -
1nl'.eu.te cl,.clty.
X 'ro}.tt rlgu!rln; a 1lc!lity thaI would USI "Itlr 1ft X
- e'Cfll 0' Z~.CCD Sl.'on. plr d.y. - ~
_ 'roJttt will tlltl, caun siltation or other clhc""it - -
tnlO In ..h:!ne bod, 0' ,.attr to t~r ,.Unt t~1t t~tr.
. ".,...
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
-
x
-
-
.L-
-
X
-
-
A~T
.
18
.. :..:.J ._,
I
.(
.
~
.
p-
.
.. .
.-
r
,
Other r",ptCu: LOCll112et'l nitrlltp 'n~~~"9 .,,~
- ~~~~~ifz~~~t~~D~~",~gil~~ lllwn
.. IIILL 'P.?JECT Al.fU DAAI~~GE Mil, 'AT..P.~IS DR SL~~~CE IlATER:olO ,
IlU~I~F~' ................................................... 00
fU':lol. thlt !lould .oply to Col..... I ,
.
&
'roJect ..ould Ir.?e~1 nood wlt.r nOwS.
, .
-
.
x
-
'roJ.ct fa lIbly to CIUst lubsUnthl .1"01~On. dur ing
construction.
'roJICt II IncoC?ltlbl. wIth ..Iltln; dr.lnl;1 plttlrns.
Othlr lmplCU:
.
.'
JIlI'ACT ',m .rR
. 1/0 YC
7. IIlll "~~JECT AFFtCf AIR OU.LlTY1.....:.:...................0 0
~>!~o1tl thH lIould I.ppl}' to tolu"" 2 '__'H .
'roJlct ..Ill In~uce 1,000 or lIlOr: vlhlcl. trlpl In Iny given
llour. .
1
w
. .
'roJect ..1" ,..'ult In tile Incfnlrulon of r:cre thin 1 ton,
flf "'un ,Ir hour.
'ro'l,t t~IS5IQn rate of." contL."lntnts will .',nd 5
1bl: per hour or ~ holt IOurCt ,rod,,:inSl tJlr. V.,n 10
..ill1on aru'l per hour.
.x.. Ot~lr f"'Flcts: ~ust 'ra i ,;pd dllY" "9 construct" n" of
dnilZllS and in addi t on thereto, during construction 01'
snoT"!:d nr ("'pnt P"r .
''''~'\CT CI: PLI,riS "10 A~,!,".1t ~
.. WILL '~,OJ<CT .FHer ~iT THRE./.nU,O OR [.'ICA.'IG,;n:;:I SP,CIEST
f..",olts thH Would Apply to Colur.:nZ .
I!;~"c:lon or ont or roo.... sPlcl.. 11stld on thl r.t>< Tort
or '.'Ir.l lht. 1I.ln; till litt. OVlr or nur lite Or
found on th. lIt..
I!I~v.1 of .ny portion of. crltlc.l or Slinfflclnt ..Ild-
llf_ !1.~1:~t. ." .
,NO YES
€)O
-
.
-- - - -.._~_....__..
. Ap;>ll'.t~on of .utltldl or ~t!t>lc' dl evtr eDl"t thin
t"IC'1 fur et~.r ti!ln for 'Slrl~"'tur.' purpoul. .
. Ct..~lr ft:r'C:I:
-,
..
t. IIn~ '~=JECf !C,S;.\~lil.ll.lT AritCT~;C:I.';"t!~UH:;D ~~ 'lID TES
[~C~:~t"t, S?ECiES1 .........................~.............~ c:::>
r,,'or. t~1t Il0uU ,1:p~ly to Colu,," Z. .
'roJIC: wou16 1.~I:.ntf.lly fnc.r'lr, ~Ith .n1 'elj~e"t
or ":;,,:or, fh~ or wfl~IHt &pref.l.
'r"jett rICul.u V.. rl~ovll 0' ".or. t~l" " .:'11 0'
ltlt.'. '~'uc (tv.. Ion 114'1 In 19t) or ot.... lotltl)'
.~;~r:)r.t ~t,ttl:~on. .
-
-
,
~"T
-.
.....
v
.
I:.eLL TO < .1~L c,o.fl Ii !PACT ,H I
~O[AAiE A[ Otlero D1"
I~?ACT l/:P'CT PROJECT CM~"Gt I
-L -L .
-
- - -
ES
- - -
.
- ...L -L
.
- - -
,"
- - - "
.
.
S ' , -
- - -
.
- - -
- - '-
.
- -X- ..L-
. .
- - -
- - -
.
- - -
..
- - -
- - -
-. - -
-- --
- - -
.
- - -
.
.
.
/
,q
f.a~~I~1 t~at V~ul~ Apply to Colwnn Z
.
Aller.tion of 'rtltnt ~.tte",a of IClvcrent of pt~pl.
,na/or loeGs.
'roJttt will rUIl1t 1/1 Ie 'Crt t.."., ~rotlelf.S, at 'int.enect1on
Of foute 25. S~ch problems \rill be cause~ by the con~o
~ n urn proJect and ~n ad~1t1on thereto.x~bat.ed bv t
JJ'"oposP~ ronEtrucHon bf 'the thol'Ph,g c<en'l.er. . ,
oisnif1can'l. l~crease 1n ~on-~rj~~ng resi~entt en~ prox
~ity of gr~ar school must. be cODs1dete~ in ronnpct1on
(0""..... $;'("__" ...",Y"'t ....c.,..,
. -- -'--~ -- . --.~~ :::r.,.. '---;;.:-.-.,>~ --....'..;.~. .~~...._,.......- .-::~ .... ~ ., ,~.,...;:_~ ~.,~,...::,;":'... ~""'."t"'_"~' ,~.",_"""_.\,_;"""""_.:~.__,,,.,,, "
"'.
r.
.
.-
.'
r
I"PACT O~I VISUAL .ESC~RCt
10.. WILL 'tIl[ PPOJtCT JoFFE.. ViruS, YJST~S OP. T1it USUAL 110
CliAAAC1!R OF .Tlft r.t1~4~R~OOD OR tc":"UNITYl .............. 00
r..~".. that Uould '~pl, to Column I
.L
An '/lc~mpatlbl. vlluel ,'fect clused b1 t~. fnt~~"ctlon
of /lew Maleri.l., color. .nG/or fOMr~ f/l contrl.t Co the
'IIr~II'\Gln; hndstlp"
A preJect .Isll, Vlllbl., /lot "sl'l .cree"ed,t~lt f.
obvlou.ly tlif'erent from ot.hCTlI~unG ft.
'~JfCt will rllult 'n the .Htllnltlon or "'.lor
.crecnln, of .cenlc vIew. or vf.tI. tn~,~ to b.
''';>oftlnt to the lre~. .
Other fr:r'cu:
x
-
'-
.
.
11.
I~PACT O~ HISTO~IC Rrso~p~rl
WILL PROJECT II:PACT AAY SIle; OR SHi.'CTU~[ OF HISTORIC, 110 . '\'
PRE.HISTORIC OR PJHO'ITOGICAI. I~"'O.TAI<tn .................00
t.!~:T.. th.t WouT~ App'y to Column Z
'I":)jtct octurlnQ wholTy or ,artftll, withIn or ~..tf;uoul
to .nl f"illtr or .Ite listed ~ the Natl~"al Re;ister of.
hl.t~rlc pT.ees.
Ar.1 f~Plct to .n .rcheolo;lcal .fte or 'ossll ~e~ located
...ithln the project site. '
-
Ot.'.er f",pacts:
.
I'IP~CT ON OPEN SPAC! I R!~!,AnC'1 .'
WILL 'tilt ppnJECT AFFECT fl([ CUM/TlTY O~ OUALlTY or EllSTlNG flO '\'
OR FUTu~t OPW SPACES OR AECRLA.TICfIAL OPPORi1J2IilES7...... 00
t'I~1.s th~t Would App'y to Column Z
The peMrol.nent 'or,,'olur. of. future "crettfonl' OPPoftunft,)'.
-
A ~.jor reductfon 0' &II open space f~~rtlnt to the communlt,)'.
-
-X Ilthu ',,"actsl An additional J:ecreational 'burden of ..s~e
bunatea senior citizens on a banJet ~tb ~ew ~ac1l1ti
a~~b~n .~~1t10tlt~eretQ. the con~tructioo of the ~hop-
'. p nO. center "1 0' .~Jllcent 1.0 ah exUt1ng schOOl pla
BrQun~. 6n~ th. actor ~ust. be consj~ere~.
, . - !folPICT"PI n"'~PDp.uT'r~
12.
1'. WILL TH!~t It A:I ['FECT to lXlSTING T~NSPCR7Ai:CN
110 'I'[
00
SYSiC'S? ...............................................
-!
x
-
II
t.
L,
.;~ .-~
.
:Ita 10 '.iAL ,^,'; II"ACl.BE
C'!P).T[ _E~UCEO IY,
1~'ICT I!'INCT 'P'JECT C~,"~~:
.
YES
X .
- 'X X
- -
.
.
. , .
. X' . X
- - -
.
- - -
.
" .
-
- '- -
.
- - -
. .
.
ES
. ,
- - -
. .
!
- - -
.
- - -
.
- - -
ES
" .
- - -
'.
- - -
ra - - . -
0'
~l - ..L- -L
.
S
- -L- ..x.-
.X X
- - -
-
"" X X
- -
iL ':t. )C
-
"
~
I"P.CT ON E'IE~~V
WIll P~~JECT l~F.Ci ~E ccr~lUNITIES SOURCES Of ~J!~ eR Me
t:'it:R:iY SUPPLY! .. ....t .......t.t .t.. ...........~... .......0 €)
[x,~ol.. tt..t ~euld I~ply te Celumn !
'reJ.~t crusfng gruttr tt.tn S: fntre~se fn 'ny 'e,.., 0"
.nergy u.ed fn ~unftfpllfty.
pl'QJec: r.=ulrlng t~e trutfen or ..unslen 0' ,n .n'''Vl
trln.~lsslen Dr .u..11 .ystem to ,.rv. 'cr. t~.n 50 ,fngl.
or tAe 'I~fly resldenc,..
aV..r f"plcts:
.' .-- '(
~ .. " ~
. . .
- .
.-.
/
I
u.
x
.
L
.
-
.
15.
,"NCT ON NO 1St
WILt 'IllERE IE OSJEmn:IMlE OOCRS. llOISE. GURE. v:....:nON NC T
or nEc;~I""l !lIS7~P'!~~jC! AS A RESulT.oF THIS PPCJECn ....00
rl.~ol.s thlt Would A~ely to Cel~ !
Ilutlng "lthln l,!OC 'ut 0' . "cspltll, schcel Dr oth.r
S.n.ltlv. 'Iclllty.
Odors "Ill occur routfr..ly (mor. thin en. "our per d!y).
pl'QJect ..III oroduc! c..rltfng ncfs. .xc..dlne the
tccll .r.~fent neise levels 'cr ncfst outsIde of st.-"tur...
pl'QJ.ct "tll r~"Cve nlturl' blrrl,rs thlt ..euld IC: .s .
Itche screen.
-
x.
Ot~,.r I""acts: .Intense construction 110ise to complete
FroJect 1n,one year, end in addition construction noi
Df ~ondol!lin1Ul!l project and shopping center project rnu
be considered with respect to the grammar school.
I"P'~ e/! N"lT'_ I '10 zHrs
16. WIll PROJECT AFFECT 1U~lIC HEAl'-" A~O SAFriY7
rl.~:l.s thzt Would A.,11 to Coluon !
/(() T
............00
-
'PI'QJ,tt "ill C3Ust , risk of explosion or relulI ef h'lZlr~eus
'ubstt"ces (f... otl, p,stlcfd.s. ch.~ltlls. rl~ftt:=n. ttc.)
in che Iv,nt of .ccld.nt or upset c=ndftfons. or tn.., .fll
'e . chronIc tow I.vel dfsth.rit or .~fssfon.
--. ..-
Pre!e,t thlt "fll resvlt tn the burl.t 0' .h,zlr~:us ",stes.
- Ct... to.fe. ~olsonous. f>lghl1 ructhe. rldfolct~... frrftlt~ng,
. fnrtC~~o~s. ttc., Intlu~fno "lItU 'chlt ,r. .ohe, 'I'II.sohd.
'fqufd or eontlln 2's,s., .
_ Stcrlce 'Icfllcf" 'or C"I ~!1lfon or C'.l;r.g.ltor.s of Jlquffftd
/l1t,rll,1I or och,r lIcutds.. .
_ 'Ot~.lr flJ\j.cts:
.
I
.,.
'R-1-
1
2.
. :
T6- ~,
S")Ll iTI':.L t,J.;, I:~~ACT' t::'.
I:)Da~H ~~, .r-:;~C::D av
1"~Ac; I!IPACT PPCJECT C~A~",
TES
X
X X
- --,- -
.-
. .
J.. . :
- .JL I
- - -
- - -
. .
.
ES
. -.
'- - -
- - -
.
- - -
.'
- - -
- - -
~: .. .
- .L- ..x-
ES
.
- - -
.' .
.
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
~I
c
/
",
".~,lth c0T,dor.Jnlw, project ~nd( ...ddlUon thereto
, in conjill,ctlon ~lth conEtructi~f the shopping
center.
,P/t
(e
I.
'.
.
~~
- .2L-
-L -
fire ....
X
-
r
I~PACT (i~1 r:~)',!TH A-!Cl CH1.j:')CT~;': OF Cf')i'::~:
O~ ;:E!~1'1~~1-'~r'"
... .
--"17.
WIll PP.~J[CT AFFECT lifE CH~PACTEq ~F THE U!STlT/C 110 YES
CO.'\.'!U~~In? .......0.. ...... ... ............. '0...... 0... ....0 Q
[..~olo that liould A,oly to Colunn 2 ' ,
The po,ulatlon of the Cfty. Town or VIlla;e In which the
project is located Is likely to ~rew by ~ore than S~ of
resident human pepuletlon.
.
(
x
x
The ~unfeipal bud;ets for caplt.l e.oendltures or operl-
tlng services will fncre.se by more then 5: per year 15 I
, ' res"lt 0.' tMls p"Oject. (Increased pOlice IJ.lJlb"lance
, serVlce, added Durden on sam t;ary anafU11 '
Will fnvolve Iny ,e..",anent 'lcillty of I non.agrlculturll
use In In Igricultural district or re~~ye prime egrleultural
lends rrom cultlyation.
The project will re,Tace or eliminate existing reciTltles.
Itr~ctures or ereas of historic importance to the co~unlty.
..L Deyelopment wilT induce en influx of I particular ege
~roup with specfll needs.
"
Project will set In Impor'.!nt precedent for future projects.
Project will relocate 15 or ~ore emnToyees in one Or more
buslous...
~~.."Other impacts: Irnpact of construction of ~honnjnl' cente
must be considered in conjunction with construction of
,...........;1"'....:,.:;.;..... TT~~Eet.
:
,:'
,
'!
, NO ' YES
IS THERE PUSlIC CONTROWlSY CO~CER/il:lC TnE PROJECT? .......0 G)
rx~o'es that Would Apply to Col~T.n 2 '
Elt~er 90yern~ent Or citizens of edjecent co~unitles
heye e.pressed opposition or rejected the project or ~aye
not ~.en contacted,
X Cbjectlons to the project from within the eomnunity.
- ~ --... ~i-','H'Wl..
, "
..",
. .
.
, .'
.L-
r--
..!l2..-
-
-
-
X'
'-
. X,
-
-
-
-
-
-
'-x-
L-
J--
.~
x
X
-
IF f.:IY ACTIO:I I~ P~RT 2 IS IOE~iTIFlEO AS A
POTE;lT!All.ARGE lI"PACi OR IF YOU C~::::OI, OlTER:IIIIE
'!liE MAG:ilTUDE OF !n?~CT. PROCEE~ ~O PART 3,
PORIIOUS OF tAF CO:IPLETro FOR iHlS PROJECT:
CETER.~IIlATlON
......
PART I oX.- PART 1I...::L- PART 3 X-
PREMRE A t;Er"T1'IE DECLARATIOn
o
PRE?"~E POS~T:E 6):AT; PRO~~;;
'.~<~"",~?~--i:'.//
ffin.-tutt of P")~on'lole OttlClIl .n L.
A.ency r
Upcn review of tMe info";'.tfon ncorded on this EAr (Parts 1,.% ,--------
end 3) Ind considering both the ~egn;tude end importence of Ilch
imp.c:, it is reasonably determined thet:
, ~
A. The oroject will rtluli in no major Im,lcts Ind. therefor"
ts one which ~ey not ceuse significant dlm~g. to the tnylron~ent.
I. ~lthcu;h the project could have I sl.nlflcant .ffect on the
enY~ro^rn.nt. there ~ll1 not be I signIficant .ffect In this case
tec,use t~e mftigatlcn me.s.res (_scrlbeo in PART 3 have been
fncl.ced IS part o( the ~roFosed p.oj,cc.
c.
. .
"
.
(Ietr)
.
1\.':T -.
..,..... ."., ~_.
......--- ..,..-,.,.- --.'
PREPARE A IIEr-ATlVE DECl,~RATlOII
r'
o
Print or t~Pt n.~t of re,ponllblc citl'
tn tOld 'A._ncy ,'_"_ _"_' ;;)3
. --. "
.' r ,
.... .. .
,
.. . ,
( T4If' OF SOUTHOLD
(:
.
.. ,
E~~IRO~~~NTAL ASSESS~~NT - PART III
/
EVALUATION OF THE I~PORTANCE OF IMPACTS
I~F~~,'I.l.TlCt:
. 'art 3 .. prt,ared 'f Dne Dr ~re '"",oct Dr effect II consIdered to be potentiall)' It'le.
.
. ftle ar=unt of ..rlt'nv nHUII")' to answer 'a~ 3 1/:1)' ~e d.te.....'ned by answerln; tht Ouullon: In brIefly
co~".tfno t~e Instruet!ons below hive I pllc.d 'n t~il r.cord sufffcfent lnfo~.t'on to 'ndleatt the
reascn.~leness of ~~'d.tlsfcnsf '
, "
, a
,
.
.
,
INSnVCTlOtlS
Complete the folla.ln; for ~Ith f~plct or effect fd.ntlfled 'n 'Column 2 of 'art I:
1. 'rlen)' destrlbe the f"'i'act.
I. '.scrlbe (If applIcable' how the f"",att ~I,ht be ~f~I'tted or r.duced to . 1esl than iar,e I~plct by. pro-
Ject c~an;e.
- - -- --.--- ----- - ---.--.---.-------- - -- -., - - -~--_._-_.~ .._--_.-._..~---_.
3. e.sed On the Info~~tlon Ivalllble, dtclde If It 'I rl!lcn,ble to Ctnclude th.t thil I"ple~ f. Ircorttnt
to the ~;nfclplllty (city. to.n or vlI1"e) In ..hft' tht project II loclttd.
To ans.er the question of f~port~nce, consIder:
. The pl"Q~.blllty of the ''''PlCt or effect OCturrln;
. 'The duratIon of the I..p.ct or .ffect
. rU Irreversibility, fncludfn; pt,,",nentl)' los; rtlOUrctS or .Il~u
. Whtt~er the '..p.ct or .ffet~ eln be controlled
The re;fcr.I' co~srQ~t"'t of the f~?act or .ffec:
. Its potenti.l diver,tnte frem 10cIl ne.ds Ind ;cIl.
.
.
. Whether 1no,," objectIons to the pr:>ject Ipll to this ''''pact or effect.
.
"
D[,[,.I'I/lATiON DF SIG:;JFIc;.IICE
An attlon II consIdered to be li,n'flc,nt 'f: ~
One (or ...or.' '''c.ct fa dtten::fntd to bcth.!!!::..t Ind Its (thefr' conlequtnCl, b.ud ,on the review
'bo~t, fs 1mocr~lnt. .. .
'ARr III STArOI[.'ITS
! (Contfn"e on At:~'~~e"ts, II nttdcd)
Art .\11lcoord1natored and 1ncomFl~te report- ".i . presented to the '.I'own at the time of
,
the Zoning Amendment affecting thi_ ~arcel, leaving significant gaFs and unsubstantiated
· statements J""de at the presubmhsion conference in "Frll. . ,...
.
1. Construction Impact
Vnaddreued in the put, construction ",111 cause a t5hruFtive effect on the neighbor-
hood t5ue to t5ust, noise, soil erosion, air pollution and alteration of surface drainage,
. A t5etailed t5escriFtion of construction staging, including t5esign ~ethods
to ~intmize ~Facts 1_ needed, including Fhasing of the project. In addition, the
iu.pact of the construction of the shoppins center, its disruptive effects on the
neighborhood and the adjacent school, due to the factors related above, must be
considered.
'J:!""':...';.-;.R.:;z;z~
"R-1-
-~.
.
~L{
5. Groun~~ater Qual1ty
(.
(.
. .
~
The number and concentration of d~ellings will require an SCDHS permit 6n~ 6~-
vance~ waste~ater treatment will be necessary to prevent serious i~pacts on
e;roun~~ater.
No approved water source or pub11c system exists to serve the development. The
quality of the sroun~~ater has not been establishe~ in the application.
An NYSDEC LI ~ell Fermit will be nee~ed because ~urnpin~ . will excee~ L5 gpm. '.
The project will a~versely affect sround~ater ~ue to a) nitrates 1n se~age
unless advance~ waste~ater treatment is include~, b) nitrates in fertilizer
of la~areas, c) household chemicals.
The project will use 32,000 gpd on an average, which could easily double in
the dry summer months. The possibility of an a~verse effect on surroun~ing
wells is poss1ble. This nee~s further study. In addition, the water system,
or proposed wster system, for the shopping center ~ust be considere~ due to
its proximity to the well propose~ for the con~ominium project an~ the over-
all usage considered in conjunction with usage of the con~ominium 1tself.
10. V1sual Irr.pact
A dense develo~ent of 160 multiple family dwellings is visually 1nco~patible
with the single family h~~et of Cutchogue. It w111 be difficult to screen
with less than mature specimens of large scale vegetation. In addition to the
visual impact of the condominium project, the visual impact of the shopping
center adjacent to the school and school srounds is a factor that must be
considered.
12. Recreational Demand
The 1nfusion of several hundred senior citizens into a small harrJet will strain
existing recreational resources. IDbe small co~~unity center included in the
project will not mitigate this impact.
13. Traffic Impact
An 1ncomplete traffic study was presented w1th the zoning change. A study in-
cluding summer traffic is nee~ed to more properly assess the impacts at Route
25 and Griff1ng Street. The proximity to the Cutchogue School may also present
problems on Schoolhouse Lane and Depot Roa~ v1th development traffic. A large
increase in non-driving senior citizens presents a further deman~ on the com-
munity's practically non-existent public transportstion system. The traffic
study failed to consider the 1m~act of the shopping center at Route 25 and
Griffing Street, and failed to consider the traffic impact on the school site
and must be revised and made all inclusive.
17, Impact on Cutchogue Community
At full construction in one-year, a population increase of nearly 15~ vill be
experienced by the Cutchogue community. This viII inclu~e the impacts already
....
p..-"t
;)6
:--.';!...............---
(.
(.
~entioned as well as increased ambulance and emergency medical calls, police
patrols and emergency police calls, fire service, and elderly medical service.
Although there is a need for senior citizen housing in Southold, housing alone
doesn't begin to provide the services needed by senior citizens. This develop-
~ent proposal doesn't address them. In addition to the impact on the
Cutchogue community due to the dramatic increase in population with attendant
increases in demands for community services, the inclusion of a Shopping center
adjacent to the condominium project ~ust be considered, owing to its likely "
impact on the existing community and it probable attraction of additional people
to the community.
18. Public Controversy
The Planning Board was not contacted during the consideration of environmental
impact at the time of the Zoning Amendment. ~any of the issues presented here
could have been addressed at that time.
Objections to the proposed development have surfaced in the Cutchogue community,
spurring the creation of at least one new civic group, the submission of a
lengthy petition opposing the project and the objection of several abut tors.
Conclusion
It is the conclusion of Part III that there is a need for a coordinated SEQRA
review of these elements and that the proposed action is a Type I action which
requires that a positive declaration be made and a full EIS prepared.
~.~
~~
~~
R-o-w ~
II~~
, ?
~'
~
/;cJV -/1J ~2aJ d
~ fvM,
1pl~1
~.
-_.~ - -- ---- ----------...---- -----..--...-... --..._-
,
.
-~~~
~
{;sz>~~
f1J"17O-W~_1 ~3.3. ~
*i~AI~ '-roo
.~t~.~?
'1 ~!?'.:. 4" (;.,..<u .l:, ~ ... ,
(, . , ?
'I'.(~-7 ~
:J3. c:2.
.2/t";~(, ~ ~.
~/~./oh
f'iJ'/f3 ~ 7.117<e<.
,;f..1 ~ ~~.#;('.
=- 1tMuO -Iv f = . h/
;U:~ ~~nr~
~
-
.~
.
Southold. N. Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
September 9, 1987
S. Peter Salerno, P.E.
Project Director
Greenman - Pederson, Inc.
325 West Main Street
Babylon, New York 11702
Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogue
Pre-submission Conference
Dear Mr. Salerno:
We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of September 4, 1987.
Please let this confirm your telephone conversation of this date with
our office during which we scheduled a mutually convenient date of Wednesday
September 16, 1987 at 11:00 a.m. to discuss your client's proposed
development plans.
Sincerely,
~d;~'
Valerie Sc~p~[ U
Town Planner
cc: Richard Cron, Esq.
Bennett Orlowski, Chairman
gpi
.
.
GREENMAN. PEDERSEN. INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
September 4, 1987
Mr. Bennett Orlowski
Planning Board
Town of SouthoJ,d
Southhold, New York 11971
BABYLON. NY
NEW YORK, NY
ALBANY, NY
LAUREL, MD
MARLBOROUGH, MA
NORTH BRANCH, N.J
ORLANDO, FL
Re: Proposed Site Plan
The Hamlet at Cutchogue
GPI Job No. 87398.00
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
The letter of 8/26/87 from Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner,
comes as a surprise in that we had been advised by a telephone call
form the Planning Board office that a pre-submission conference for
the Hamlet at Cutchogue had been previously confirmed for September 3,
1987, at 3:00 P.M.
It would appear that a misunderstanding has arisen relative
to submission of a site plan. There was no agreement that a con-
ference date could be arranged only upon receipt of a site plan.
The reason for such is that we have no authorization from our clients
to incur such an expense prior to apre-submission conference.
A reading of the Southold Town Zoninq Ordinance, Art. XIII,
Sec. 100-133(A & B) sets forth the procedure to be followed with
the Planning Board. In this instance, the provision sets forth
that the applicants' agent, prior to thesubmission of a site devel-
opment plan, shall meet with the Planning Board to discuss proposed
uses or development in order to determine which of the site devel-
opment plan elements shall be submitted to the Planning Board. It
appears that the procedure provides that the applicant need not go
through the expense in preparation of documents until his proposal
is first discussed with the Board at a pre-submission conference.
In the light of the foregoing, and with a desire to be as
cooperative as possible with the Planning Board, without being un-
fair to our clients, we would again request that you reschedule
the pre-submission conference to another date as early in September
as possible.
cc: Richard Cron, Esq.
SPS: ch
;lc~~
S. Peter Salerno, P. E. RECEIVED BY
Project Director SOUlHOUlIOWN Pll\i~'lJN~ EL..
SEP 8 I~b~
DATE
325 WE5T MAIN 5TREET, BABYLON, NY 11702 (51 8J 587-5080
S. Peter Salerno
Project Director
Greenman - Pederson, Inc.
325 W. Main Street
Babylon, New York 11702
Re: Proposed site plan for
The Hamlet at Cutchogue
Dear Mr. Salerno:
.
.
T
Southold. N. Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
August 26, 1987
This is to continue to. follow-up your letter dated August 3, 1987 in
which you requested a presubmission conference date. During this office's
subsequent telephone conversation with you on August 7th, you indicated
that while the plans had not been completed, they would be sent out within
a week or two. It was agreed that the conference date would be arranged
upon receipt of the plans.
To date, we have not yet received these plans. As soon as we do,
we will be happy to schedule a conference.
cc: Richard Cron, Esq.
Sincerely,
~cP4/r
Valerie Scopaz
Town Planner
.
.
T
D
LD
y
Southold. N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
August 26, 1987
S. Peter Salerno
Project Director
Greenman - Pederson, Inc.
325 W. Main Street
Babylon, New York 11702
Re: Proposed site plan for
The Hamlet at Cutchogue
Dear Mr. Salerno:
This is to continue to. follow-up your letter dated August 3, 1987 in
which you requested a presubmission conference date. During this office's
subsequent telephone conversation with you on August 7th, you indicated
that while the plans had not been completed, they would be sent out within
a week or two. It was agreed that the conference date would be arranged
upon receipt of the plans.
To date, we have not yet received these plans. As soon as we do,
we will be happy to schedule a conference.
Sincerely,
~d~~
Valerie Scopaz
Town Planner
cc: Richard Cron, Esq.
.
,
'.
gpl
~ ,
GREENMAN. PEDERSEN, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
August 3, 1987
BABYLON,NY
NEW YORK, NY
ALBANY, NY
LAUREL, MD
MARLBOROUGH. MA
NORTH BRANCH, NJ
ORLANDO. FL
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, J.r., Chairman
Planning Board
Town of Southold
Town Hall
Southold, New York 11971
Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogue
GPI File No. 87398
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir:
We have been retained by the Law Offices of Cron and Cron to assist
them in design and submissions to your Board for the proposed
Hamlet at Cutchogue.
We hereby request that you schedule a presubmission conference for
this proposal on your earliest possible Planning Board agenda.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
'.~7:Z~~
S. Peter Salerno / p e..
Project Director
SPS:ch
cc: Richard Cron, Esq.
Main Road
P.O. Box 953
Cutchogue, New York 11935
'REce:VED BY
snUlHOLD TGVlIl HAiiiiliiG BOARD
325 WEST MAIN STREET, BABYLON, NY 11702 (5161587.5060
, (-:
J
f: :1 I ,
.1;
:)]
";l(
:[
1 [' '.
", J
) t. ,
~ !:
1 ) ,
; .I
- "
r ~ I I I . , .
1] i ,
.
, 1 , .'
. .
r: I'!
a , '. ~ ..
J! ,[ j .
J] J"
I.e
?I ., .,
; , '- C
'I
I'
'(,h
, .st'."
1:;":;',:"" ;1'
.47'
i)
r?
I,
I I
Ii
~ I
I~ (,
"~d it )1:
ar: :~: 1 I JV
:3 :~ j" )d l
.0 th'.t
O1n ,,1
:: I
r (: :: dl 'E~l:.C.
: f ,~].fl
: ~:; pa:3l. t'
::~ : ,S 'J ft.
"~I :en I'
"-:!I] \'I':LJ
'n] .t:,t
I.' t , , .. t , i: 1 t
"
J f d . P . ) ; a L
, I , ii' , I: s I.
. .,. .. "
lt ,"-0 . l ,:: ) f I'
" , p:, ") I 1 'yr.::!. ~~
lr : '~(~ 'I: 1 I.. (€~ it
..
n: ::i ::1 C'J't'
.. :lI1E~ ,I l ::1 " I:
,~ .
)) j)O .E: 1 , :; a,3
'..
1: .:l.. :c:!nl:
f'l 1 till :!
2'h'~"_l(:-llnlet at Cu .~ch:J,( .~
C:rl:~C';Hnan & Pedel::;cn I ,......
1>; a, Jy,LC)D ~J'i" 1170.'
.If'~ I: L IE ;:1, " ,.:
'i
"
"
I J[TS
.1 I 3ED FOR CUTCHOGUE.
.:' ,
.I: .J
.t" 1 r I.
I. ct..
:i I ~ , , t-
::: I>J"o ::) )
C J! I' '. ':~ i:'
\, I ;1 rl~::;i ,':
pro.Ju:'
'If St,,(>I: :.
".he cor")
bank, ,:j):1
tL:{ no J:(:;:, '"
I. ]" fro,'I'"
'I
:ial conununi ty for
'or the Cutchogue Main
The re"idences will hE,
. '.ence of walking to cllc;.:::!
rublic transportaticn.
lence wi 11 be at a distl'l
heart of the village.
1',1
:il
~~ , , .0
,
I: e'
) :f ,
,,' , " , ,I ;
, I. ;' t , ~ , lJ
\1 h JJ ;E~
C , i r' '~l ri L~:
,
I:\'ll rf:'(JlH; _ ;.ng a Ilpre-su,bmission
" for S :.Ie: >lan approval, A. Pete.r
uf Grl"':m:l\ & Pederson Inc.
the pLLtlI"" I residences would "1lel= I:.
,,,,E: of 0::..1:., lens in the community "':1:
\,ith y.", d, leni ties and conveni =nc,,';
:c: livinq, " lr. Salerno's experienc~
,'u; I:-dore 1tI,,'I'. town boards. in seeking
II' ", found I:lllt cooperation with '"oa:':l
J'IC~ neE t sa.-:j.;;~' lctory results. He
'iU:. t,e t:h(, ::t.;e in dealing with t::le
1 "1..n1;:" be" at c.
. "
I"
:;1
;:1
:;.: ;rn
t
: cd
:; :JJ~l
:n::dS:::( s a LJ6-ac:::'E' ;)"l.ot north of Rt. 25,
L'j(J :;'!:'I: i!t. At: p.:":c':ent Griffing Street
" V.:,..:. '1.:,"' ];:ost [,["i:e. Residences will mal:"
I~ i::()":,cli ~L',:reacrE?" '[l::'L"~ remainder will be be
:a I; (lrId I:T<:.reatiotJ ,;',1:" ~a. The number of unitf:
.".)f,nd:)!: "eed n:EI".,ted in the community feu'
r In[~nt ll'::l: =::ing.
C.':I=h~)qu::~lI lS a rr;:.\,....~l:::.
Ir. I qh t: l:(, I :' I: e the 'I C1'.')
',iE> HE ~ J.1.. t':~ ce i vE~d by'
IW C()\IJI'::j', and st,]":..c
d'l'ljo'c'<l ".:'lIoorar iJ.:t
on and re-presentat:Lon
in 1983. Although ill
the com'1luni ty and earn",,(
regular'Jry agencies, it!
" Cul =:11::11)'-"" has bt"cUlnc one of the North Fork'~'
IU1:'.l;j:,,,, ',Ii I:h the addition of several new
.s. "'I'll,:, H l.nlet a.t Cut.chogue" is seen by its
.r,::'.':,:I ir',; f':' r Cutcho~llH' the kind of senior
I y :l"'I'""j (',x,; for t]',,~ other areas of Southold.
END
.
.
~~
fjl" "" /I /" J 8 J
3/1/91
I /
j/ f: lS e~;I,., r"<-~" (/7.0 /....~.~..H.-
( e. 'r:
,t.,; &. f ,.f ,,/,~ ,1;, f,. ,;.f .tt..",..,~
TO:
FROM:
- ,Jru.-fJA/ AJ
,
DATE:
3
Pages to follow:
Additional comments:
If all pages are not received. please call (516) 765-1800
.
-- ,
~ ?~/b
l-kvYll2-+ {jJ L()k~cETU2:'
cc,,-l\~ ).Oh(\ t-k:~\y
+0 ~<?\L:- \-\CY1"i h,(1\ ~b ~
$:--",--:~ L.)Q Cc"<"~ L</~~-i {'1
~tL C~. Seop'~ 0cuc~ t)
\-\. c \5 LkL, .\- ~ '\ J +-0 h<2-\'<::..
'""cy d.C) (Ie f- UC.lLfl+ +0
C,,- J',' (\C{' ~~~.
CJ.-:'O \' \ ..~ '-'-'" '" J ,6 vI. '
\h<?..-y G)C)ucd \~ <f-.e M me:..~ w~ ~
d ,S Cuc:,s C29-. ~ ?,O blerrj ~ d- fh:-",+~
~\o \Y\ h,::) \'CD pie ,
~ Q cJL.\CJ \ (V'Q I
Y::X:-z tla rI-
'1-
\ '
. 1. b IcL ~ ' fV\ T- LeY, I \
+ ~: S d- L,JheY\ ;-lD ~Y\.
T'CO P ~€ LA..JC-0f/\ t- ~jZ... e--v,' [I
COil! bQ...tiC
\'< Nlcs CJ u +-
-d- ..J-<;? \ f
L)ivce-f-
~\:YVJ
V\. > -5
('..-Cz 1/
C>
u':) .
I
i
- - L O N G 1 S L A N D
e
N 5 0 U N D
x x x x x x
I �o
RECHARGE BASIN
SIVEw '
x x x ,X x x e
1
LLI
S37 0440E27__08
eY W
I
z n
IC
p n ,r, c fly Icuj� x",.m.+."ai � .:�'•ow 'i�"�.
MH 3
O
2 y CLUB HOUSE I N V KEY MAP
OIG IN N
� GrO+LtN(Er✓!�;
35 M. 1. / X I, SC.12c SKeu�f� /"=70
h TENNIS COURT ASkA 5395�.orlO4o E 1 a+ a PB cn w It n l awes a o ti 7, �,�
h' O 4�- ONE WAY
�h HP. 55, GRIFFINS STREET � "° �`"`y`
,► `�
s 5 ADI'
�.G _ 1A' �.B iG GATEHOISE IN %�.
AY — 10
0 �• cd /41 .C�red .�c7eo
�n N
11A �� ��� ,v)
��I .. �
�\ M.N. \_� G P. 37 Gt.tata�w�i1 /nct.�-Y-O+e�¢.r�ewo( U
-
O
o AlN 37'/3 '30„{ / — — —too. Oo ' ;N �' &ex Ae.
cvia2aa. Q. r�-�u-v�
-”-NOTE: ALL BUILDINGS HAVE A FRONT YARD SEBACK OF 50 FT. � S/oEWALK
EXCEPT FOR BUILDINGS 7, . C
q, 25 AND 28 >O �&D/ Lx'�.Gt�LuJ
m V .
+ " + �/ � �/
v J
F(OADWAY
PLAN iilt�e^R=a-reoe.oC�Y-fit lzs/fie i
41
TAX MAP NO. 1000-102-01-33.3
TOTAL ACRES 46.16
1 NUMBER OF UNITS 160
ZONING M-LIGHT S MULTIPLE RESIDENCE yLy�p�
�DOj a 'It
5o
be KOAO(F/AY
/O ivl/N /O'M/N.
O
X41 S.T. SEPTIC TANK h CURB I ? I� Y" a r�eeary Q J eQ� �2 Y l Bove
L.P. LEACHING POOL a , i4, v— d
Er
VVt R.D. ROOF DRAIN �
S/DEWALK
y
TYPICAL SANITARY I,ND ROOF SECTION REk IV D 84ypp
DRAINAGE FOR EACH BUILDING TYPICAL INTERNAL ROADWAY #001D THAN PIANNING BOARD
N3lo'S4'20"W 2009. 5/1 .�.UL 12 1988
u. DATE
Greenman.Pedersen HAMLET AIT CUTCH00
COeteLTlkG LMGIN.nl.
gpi SITE PLAN LAYOU'
DMWING NO. 5 ALE:
' e.,nvian.rvvinos 67398.00 �. 1"=5iD' JULY 1988
538° 30 '50"E - -
I �
7
�y 87' !� 13
6'
38
a yo h 0a�el �
0 y l / /
m Gi SG, \ 36'
1 G V.G.
10
I
1 0 0
as yo 9 Fr M �
N M.N
N
PO 6
h
N � 50
"1�1 4� 18 ryp N
Z
'sow 2a{Pl \
32
�0 so. 40
5' 37'/3 '30'E 22/, 47' 2$
/to
t _F
wY 4s 2
2
40 #
O
O o so, Q
{P� J 24 _i CrrP GAZEBO
h �L
m �FROw
150 FT. BUFFER AREA r
WATER STORAGE TANK AREA /
K U
�
yo \ 'o q 5 A
E
i
Z6 ry°j v�
D
28 62 S
2 I36
— — —ae
Nilo°54 '20"W 2009. 5/ ' - - - -
Greenman-Pedersen HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE
C°NiYLTIX° EX41XliNi
g SITE PLAN LAYOUT
DRAWING No. SCALE: DATE: SHEET NO.
Babylon NT 11702 87398.00 V=50' JULY 1988 2 OF 2
f.
i /� ;,,•��`� ` (� iJ'J,/Y^.�.J", Lei.+rte ' � � J /V i
4 .r+ �fTf✓Z+c�,a�in(o2A>-ID �'�Itv I
- - - \� t „0 `.'1 'i��"1'� r'rGo `1 . .. i'�25•.�„YY -.'- ' v �'P�_ i i•- Y,.� �I-fF 1w4-,IiifP1i�-M�l GL' s-�•
I'J::I-"S� l._Y _
t 1 � b r� h ArPLr✓
tk
�`l. �j ti ' ,n .1 d. `/� , � �Jt'__%T'.C'IHi�VV 1/r•F,r 1 iUV"n �'�I/��%QY� 'r[jy1 \ `
W�_-�P1w�ITvr� I{I 1 I yzf.Z-E¢w_ I=1II II /A
A1070 t L u
t -
�. ¢h � - _ y- _ _ I — HSfA Fes' F'f+�1-L..
fii'''a=- Pa•�TI vE K v 9r p�u, a rta l -=�E� AkJ r very l 4 11
' - � , •' -� r•- ' I '1 �' �
t114
.. if•� _�.•. ``�-- " _ 4�',e \ y .I I I `�— �•IIV �• S - 1�'TL1 .i17 r`a(jwlz 'b
7 ZIP"' _ I � .4h ��✓!'t��V7
v 'y
K
/t� Hizdt> { fes Y ✓ I Tj
see
w �, - // �, 3 r , I I �A ° `�,y. ` �� �F �,. /: ���• '• ti �� 71J'•2AI-�'i �i 101--1 L(Y/�f1D1-�
1r r _ to l
\ a_ /' 2 __- ,��` T . _$ vo.s_' - — '�Yn"`/' • � 1f + a-"GI'{i:/j^EL'1 \ \ f L.<�I�� ISI J� - - _ ___-. _. \ _
_ -, % - � _ � � ,• � , , • �yl'tt�C�L TY1'P/ �-,12P� `7(�GI� Gr`�iG�S NG�1�E5
° !.•• =`,' ._ ,.. �,.,_ � ''''� •`'' •* h J :� `'k•1AV0, TZF-P4 7-S' I-f�ir.H1 WLFi,P6N U UYJ" �,,Yc,At10grt, nal<
s-u I+E1�tHf -eiZ(iH, A+ IIZ 1 (ArP6.B (,4h*t r__ G4 sep-y
_ r ,� � � � �• '^".�' cwap•pz� t"�uFoxn tie.
�• a �� o F&4 5-a 40&44-- W WT�1K¢D F'ttF,
pWV I i lc4a? C SYf� 11},GLIT4r'I OLI✓p fi Jk TtiL pz,,>w
p / sir•,., 35a `\
�.
... P � ,ntpf g,
� rf'
� %p >�w �tvuc's
i «z • \ G44plp�i 1- �Evr� OV 19 vvst v-reef+ L
N ;' _ 6 h � •1 �� ff
tp
;� I v 4r �EDTV l L OOGVl/�71� i'otz�4�FN + TAG �- J�YG�u F�SEKKY
wl�r �erzv '' rlr(��swrf '- 3 t'uv�vwl�o
r
A � U
G6Gi-I-iPcs "OT
iF15j.tNF./+Tt:J TO M GIzA'li L L
5 1--- T-- --- -- --' I ✓ ttiI[!�( Kip 14i? 1 QF' hyl }��f a+t % fir
y, I ft,21Nlry t�'L7v efPTYJ[/LUk I .A1-11X-44Y CLAW
� Lal � • ,, 7 �-;�� T
- 3
R ' Ti ,�y�J�..ai`.-,-.vy�A•-,..-,X,�,,.A .- -,i�....- ^-.�.'-...,.vL,r„�--�,•,-,_Y,,,l:v�,.,•l,�n,n .r,„�...,�,�d`+-3` �_- t._ ,
516X_1 TO '.1GEj ! TU 64far1t�_y w/ A"_
__ ; t' ' .... 1 Fv�Tk �a Pc�"�I(.I.G✓ \� �' Ida• ga� - Towel o� v�;++o�� �.�o ,
' I
HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE
Greenman-Pedersen
r COetULT1N° r.°,.r... LANDSCAPING
PLAN- 1
1' t E✓/S/O,V -7-E4-87 /-ANGEO 4Ro,/ECT NfIME TO ioo 111111 m.��s::0•: DRAWING NO. SCAIF: DATE. SHIFT NO.
12
.
R
/JWG ./✓� n/Y239-oa8 esevl�� mr 11.70211.7028 Q
THE HAMLET AT CUTCNOGUE '
f r
i . , �� r /, /.- \ \.F�- � • a,:/4 'Q ..` it lC
� h ..-`a..��-.• Gx a, 'FF ' si�y ,q .l %� .., , ,e , '\ �'], � �(- � t �� r / �� � ^G ` , /; fr
, ` .- „/-- - � 7 a� \ _ 'R \ 'li.moi • - -_- 3P , �: '� i _-_ - i� 1 . 'S, -c.. '
jr
Ile
o- ci
'n c rFy / I .xa N _ _ - ► =_�� ` \� '\,� .____ _ (� , • • , Z'` ` 1 �3 - `\ �� \,(g1
ty
22Sj-
0.0
J `�Y � .r'i^� •- � :r � � ///S/TOR i � ' � - - ' Y ` y -. ..
go ;
fl �.
• / y r�
a 44 r
of rano
,eA/ go., T/E
y
✓ N W P'01
I 3e
'-"�¢}i l3�_rr.n.---„m . - 'f .. - tiros`.�-.nM.�yy.-.�y,��VY' .,,.-`_ nn.r.---��nti.� �vw��y+�—M:....,t�Nin_.'v0,c:-...,r.--v�;-w,,,,:_�.>=-` v--:-'i4n�c-�M'•.- ,--s,'t�..-V.as�.'n�N^'--�r,�k'anAw---,.w' .-.,.—�����_ .�; �,..� _ ' ` -- -- .._— ...�- ' -.,. -- -�- - .. �
—NM _^'\rJN. .—_M T t ` -'W 1"'i' �M°^��/Ld`�' M''` eA. -- r/ — ,w Il �✓�
, --�M -�.'.'-il---=•* "�I�--rV---'wu--'\v--� ti..^--�,wt'=�,-.'--:. �:,,.1�� �� -„n. Y�.._.r�i �.r-.--;v. � - r�,`.rv.,- -_�.-rf..n ,i.�.,. ,�r, _�� `� '
�-,-.I�--,.rv+`_—^M� -a�-_—gra✓\ --r, '/�'_. � _ ',-"_._ .w-""- ,�-- �W'-� ^-t--r--,w.c�-.,-w-•'�a�. ,�-rr__--�•{7r--"��n���^^s��'yky--•-=r"-�,r� �,,�..a�.c--^�--/'�-�c-7��.---_-��"'_"\f�zw"'"�v` '\0-__^..--�...,.rw --� --r�rw+--_Y�l,_ �v-_ �y
l�-�' LA.C/�9C'�lP/•tea PL�ly
THE HAML ET AT CUTC.yDG UE
S/TUAYEO /,v
s�
7-OWA.1 S'OUYUOGb� SUFFOLK �CXJ�/Yy� W
{
7-2'�'-d�J CH/Jn/6E0 P.POr/ECT NAiYIE TO TfiE _ _ _ - -
N.9MGET FJT Cl/TCNO6(/E `
9-/o'B4- .eE✓/SEo Q.PAGv.Vcj C✓WATE,P W6,zz
i l i l lVOT amu- _
V
- ovE V49L. 4' j-
-�
• 6"t111A
�-1i�-1� IIS � �!✓,
A4scsq n� \doGv COE.&e \ '['rte_t�ct?AP:r4P ifxlrvl�__ -
FrCI Ila tl-w" h7 Lev
HU
4 EqG n RI4--
pp
Hca,. 12LIADr�r�:-.
' -flu, w( V3 X112 1 � lye nla -
y3�I�iQIL, V,Ir 014 _
-_
r
.:. > ire
I
5D ®` J .>r( i 3P ;; aP ,.. • , b -' ,
). G tl
--
34 1 , a q� �p qCJ �?� - - -
� I elf 5 �'y 1wYI�Lk,wtu-Hpr e, Ad iM dGb►Fr.IL
fit= M q 1 �� �b i� �. 1 r'I 6-
Lj
6' y 9AGwo01o, Glul6G lGbil�121e-y� W'►?Flils� Ysoq'�
AV
6 Sv —I 6 ,5w1� o �' h-4' 4w� P�a +w+ p�emrwlrr
51SeYou
-hvs1�I �✓ !-_f O l��y� � Ib �P�P 1 4D r i 1 ,vGG wrAGK li' SjrNN/lilG '
Cv w i\A,Y 1 gyp L^1 § L--�
�� Iv "j� W 6-l' I,IVk�,Pu�Yw1U�p,�, P-i�1tUV. DOrar✓GbtA ��f'rH•1�,
Vl
Fr'�--n•-�``'"`-� � �}f� 1: 1. 6K 4D I____ all, 9Ult.l• t-A sa, F�Jf=v'rB/�I-� rtJO11Yr-IG{�. J
G17 4 PVkW�2i'.ErI� =P1y�G, IQLMm4IA1-r
' 1Yj
i " • , v
ED"� (� Z•y'li p. b11�11-ILh k��IUS GOM1�PGli , Cd,V{<GGdGIs.� (�Ad��Y
y'�, � y� v, *, i 5 � Iv I--�D� -- ..m..r.�, - , 1 � - '��/ •'`�" 1'(1 I'�s•2' (LI Mme' 1-� '�ih1LM5fGY�`{ ,' r d -
I� O 10 S'{' /` �r1Dvo0F.1 VJ�A l'Rc7R�.(�i��
i
r 4°
( 6rmnmen-P,d,rmn HAMLIET AT CUTCHODUE
C648ULTu.uaumems
�= u� LANDSCAPING DETAILS
'W'...mnu
nsoi. ' DRAWING NO. sc" DATE SNOT ND.
.2EU/5/ON : 9-2¢-87 CNgN6E0 P,�O.T6GT /AME >o TyE Babylon.NY 11702 12 OF 12
//AMGET .fT GUTCH06llE.