Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-102.-1-33.3 / Y 1 Y�Y r' Town Hall. 53095 Main Road , P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 1 1971 TELEPHONE (516)7 65.19 38 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 6, 1989 Richard Cron P.U. 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. Very Vuly Yours, �f Bennett Orlowski:" C�itaY3 rfi n Enc. , Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 F� 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 emopleted within 45 days of the close of the comment period of November 30th. Enclosed please find a copy of all the comments that were Eioth the Waterved Authority and the Suffolkwithin the comment1County Department fofkHealthyhave 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 questions, please do not hesitate to contact Valerie Scopaz. my You/ys, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. 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. Members of the Planning Board FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner RE: Draft Environmental Impact statement for The Hamlet at Cutchogue. SCTM # 1000-102-01-33 . 3 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 Gfiffing 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 that fire protection in Southold Town with the public water system. shouldhbelocal adheredrto. Thisment'sshouldpbe1addresseduin1thefFire EISWells 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 Regional Planning Board. Island 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. ,t New York State Department of Environmental Conservation _ Region 1 Headquarters SUNY, Building 40, Stony Brook, NY 11794 Thomas C. Jorli Commissioner October 25 , 1989 Mr. Bennett Orlowski , Jr . Chairman , Planning Board P . 0 . Box 1179 Southold , N . y , 11971 Re : Nocro Ltd . / 40 Building Sr . Griffing St/School House Road DEIS Center Dear Mr . Orlowski , Department technical staff have reviewed the DEIS which was submitted September 11 , 1989 for Review. It appears that there are no endangered species concerns on this site . The current site plan providss 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: eg C . C . File Susan Ackerman Senior Environmental Analyst �� �• �► November 30, 198 it - Southold�Zatt►► Planning Board Town Hall , Main Road Southold, NY, 11971 ,''GIB J 0 i��9 att : Bennett Orlowski , chairman Dear Mr . Orlowski : When the Town Board voted to approve a Chang zone for a so-called "retirement community" in Cutchogue, the developers proposed that the age of residents would be limite 55 or older . But after the decision was announced, the developers lowered that age limitation to 45 . This is no long senior citizens ' complex we ' re talking about . These will be people in their prime years , when disposable income is highes 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 upoi the taxes of other town residents who , in effect , will be subsidizing the services needed by the condo residents . Has ti town really explored this difference in tax rates: farmland v- single-family homes vs . condos ? In addition to the services required by 160 a families in the small hamlet of Cutchogue , the sewage treatment/denitrification system proposed for the development 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 plan For all the above reasons , the North Fork Environmental Council asks the Planning Board to reject the Dr NORT,i re.tEinvironmental Impact Statement until these questions have been ENV1RONMENTA�factorily resolved. CCUNCIL Sincerely a#all profll oygem$laion for lbe prv.,( r allon of lalld sea, car and ^ ^• �' ti` 9aalu -of!i/r President , NFEC Howe 15 al/orr I'me 111152 5/6 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY ExccurIVC - SOUTHOLD TOWN DEPARTMENT 07 HEALTH SERVIGE'S PLANNING BOARD DAVID HARRIS, Ft,D,. M.P•H. ` COMMIi SIOhL'q C'CLA VCC • -S FAX 548-3612 TRANSHITTAL FORH FROM: Y i DATE: SU93Er.T: 1 ti , s �4, v PAGES; y 63nr'udinE this ease) I: thin an' t received ir. lts er,tir�ty, 3312. please call (516) 543_ CCJNYY CCN7CA RIY�R nL'AD, N.Y. I IDoi `« COUNTY OF SUrFOLK PAYRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNrf EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 01. HFAL7;9 SERVICES DAVIG HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H. COMMISSIONER Ms . V'a1=::_.� SCopsz, Town Planner December 4, 1989 Southol: :.'own 53095 Ma:.a Road SouthoLi, New York 11791 r_S: T`:e Hamlet at Cutchocue SCT:,,Ii '. 1000-102-1-33. 3 Dear 1Y19 ;topaz : T1te ;::=folk County Department of Health Services (SCrHS) has revievleC --he Draft Dnvirl-nnuintal Impact Statement for the above- reser4z.^.r.el:t project . We find the DEIS deficient, especially with respect to the prop,sed Ccmmunity water aupply syst4m tc, which we are i s cp; :siti en . Our ccmniert3 are .aa fol'l ows : WATER. SLPILY AttaC:-u_d is a correspondence to the encineers for the proposed projact _.r :m Paul J. Ponturo of our Bureau of Drinking Rater dated April 4, 189. This letter states that the creation Of an on-site coxmanitx' dater supply .System by the developer to obtain a higher unit-equivalence yield than 40, 000 square feet per ecuivalent single famiZ. r sS.d�nt dx 1Zing unit appears to contraverc t.2:e intent of Sectic'n 7f:0-H0[ of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. T �Nr^pr_cte E33 of the p=,oposed CC.^.U;11ni' ty water + supply i3 ;,agr., ed b the naru_nai qualit,; ox avai:.able water on_ Site. A:_'�..�OUgh -,Ie "in-oftics" gnalyvjs of test well nitr,Clen ccn:entri.::lon3 ' y 1 nder..;on and BOdw' 1" jndicate a nitrate-nitrogen level r.f :3 . 5 to 5 . 0 mg!l between 33 and Be feet and . . 0 to 5. 5 mg/1 during p": .p tesc '.n'i, New YJrk T yrjZg ?,aL)OratOr - 2eS -E ed.port total nizro_Gn _avS1:3 Of 8 . 7 tC 9. 5 t:P. start andend of pllmp' n';r COUNTY CENTER Yh GU.EA$ N.Y. I I DOI (ter to V. Scopaz ecemnet 4, 1989 Page 2 respecti•:ely. SCDH3 sampling also detected traces of aldicarb and carbo£uran in water sampled during pump testing. The issue of water supply should be addressed fully as part of the DEIS . 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 crater services. NITROGEN MODEL The applicant states that, based on a WALRJ%S 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 WALRt.S model is used to predict nitroger. concentrations, it is the opinion of our agenev that the modal was developed for decision-making on a regional basis . The accuracy and validity of the WALRAS model is reduced as the size of the area to which the project is applied becom:,a sr.aller. The precision of the model is dependent upon the assumptions 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 WALRA3-Nitrogen Simulation t:odel should not ):e considered as absolute values . The applicant' s assertion that "density reduction does net significantly reduce nitrate levels" appears to be based on an analysis of nitrogen recharge which focuses on the difference between 160 and 152 units (page 9-7) 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 "increase in evapotranspiration" which provides less nitrogen dilution at lower housing density s:iculd be carefully evaluated with respect to total nitrogen r_cha�rgc, and not simply nitrogen concentration. In conclusion, we question whether the modelling performed for tho DEIS is suf°icient evidence to support the claim that density reduction does not significantly reduce nitrate levels. Supporting the premise that average nitrogen concentration in recharge does, indeed, decrease with lower housing density are a /Znumber H E4o V. Scop:tz `(1cr 4, 1989 of documents which include the Long Island Comprehensive Treatment Management Plan (LI 208 Study, LIRPB, July, 1978) , uffolk County Comprehensive Water resources Management Plan S, Dvirka and Bartilucci, and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. , January, 1987) , and a Cornell report entitled Protection and Restoration of Ground Water in Southold, New _fork (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/1 while 2 units per acre and 4 units per acre elevate nitrogen levels to approximately 5 . 2 mg/l and 7 . 5 ma/l, respectively, The Cornell report also recommends that the Town keep w housing densities relatively low (one house per acre or less) so that whatever organic chemical contamination does occur is kept at low levels. REDUCED DE2I3ITY DE%7LOPbENT SCENARIO B,sed on the previously-described water supply problems and the findings and recom^�endations of the Cornell groundwater study for. Southold Town, we recommend 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 0:2 the proposed PRC units per 40, 000 square feet . Such a development should be giver. full attention 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 "WATER SUPPLY") . Such density would also be faithful to «eccmmer.•�atiors made in the LT 208 Study, which reeommsnds "minimit [ing) population density by encouraging large lot development (one dwelling unit per one or more acres) where possible. " BUFFERS/'�i.GETATION we support the use cf lox-mainter.anca buffers around the site. We further recom_ nd tkiat i-dig ncus veSetation be used where po33ible in site landscaping. Such -�a tation is well suited to on-site soi: s and can pro vi. a valuable Mitigation in reclaiming disturbed portions of the site. In addition, we recommend that low- maintenance turf be used to minimize £utilizer nitrogen contribution to groundrater. E F' H Ec=. 7 i to ' . Scopaz 4 = The applicant must comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County unitary Code and relevant construction standards for water supply ind sewage disposal. Design and flow specifications, subsur! ice soil conditions, and complete site plan details are essentiil to the review of this project . These considerations are revieweI completely at tk:d time of SCDHS application. SCDHS mdintaits jurisdiction over the final location of sewage disposal and wat :r supply systems . The applicant, therefore, should not undertzce the construction of either system without Health Departz �nt approval . Thank ytu for the opportunity to review this application. If' you have an , questions, please Feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at 548-3060 . sincerely yours, J Walter Dawydiak, Jr. Asst . Public Health Engineer Office of Ecology cc: Vlt � M. _;rei, F.E. Lou .se Harrison Pau . Ponturo, P.E. Ste dlen Costa, P.E. Cha les Lind, SC Planning -- 1'.-: I=: x •: � .?: FIE .: ti x t •"sue.' � ' COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ,f N PATRICK G, HALPIN BUFrOLK COUNTY EXfI;UTIV£ DEPARI'MCNT OF HEALTH S$RWCES QAVIO H;\Airl9, M.U., M.P.Fi, (::IMM13�IQMY.11 April, 41 1999 I S. Pater !:alarno, p.F. CrCCnman-T'eder:te:n, Inc. _ 325 Neat Main Street Biby10n, NY 11702. PZ'- tlaullc•t at Cuzchogue/Seacroft PropcZed ConLrUnaty ?dater Supply Daar Mr. Salerno; This office has reviawed the 1/20/69 rluj>mon oz Mr.Culucci o ' your of,ficH in the referenced m;ttt.er . A review ind:,caLas that the submi.3aio:t is virtually the same a:, th_ origin:al .7cne 1989 subrlisuion for SeaC.reft. ror your inxorration, the APPlication was modified in Auguat 1904- This u,odificstion incoxporatod the Epllowing sicjniPic4nt. re*v_.sions: l- :oriulation was reduced via a change to 160-19�dzoom:adult oonullunity (retire:rent unit) and the a7.iminaticn of water c-7rvic2 to the adjoining commercial parcel. 2- Nell c,-PzcitY was reduced accordingly. 3- C;AC contactors ad,vruate for a 15 minus-3 centac ,for or:u 50 gpm well we ,t Proviciad ,: s s ized , duo t0 antici�atecl p,aide prohlums. :1 tholl ,r'a QitP.2ct.3•+ that ; ott would •t d�,t0 q P the 1 81I rest :,g Ll is zo oppn, -)Vent:, : oz pPtj that ti.ts,� d.ir_t 1t� t-hnt r. I;ake a ooiti on to your Pro,oral, ,as pea:;ent•_d. the Suffolk County wat=r :.uthozity h3a L lv.:ioat'^d wi_lincnesc :,n+ .^.a3 Town Board autrlori-a:.io:t to provide w:ttez _ice, o to this Poxticn Of the Township. We under stand that Some: Hork in watersh,:d m.xna,r_;nent and :3upr y well siring is und: rwey in thin area. T.herafort3, we advise that your clia,it .ruledi�� ly epee. negotiations with the r ,�r ..iaicn cf water service. SSa_or ur.hor:ity 'tor ,:he t�y X Tfr. S;slerno "Pril 9, 198,9 - Page ? At this $taae zlthcuxh the $ we would not adv4 c�iaaci :y would8 op the ineormatio -a: a.dditicral well P�tmA tF aFtfacl'*'y w eCeS.Sitate this asn and the chango el w ,_ sts part of an adequate well- ate ficrtion it zs nocessary to have one Clarific- preliminary This Bureau is award that Pa-ticular ecnsumpgion figurosJin an at* YOU have r�na sew;g` allo;yanca submitted some trtondsr-Is for ono per unit. rk:is is u ij.: to justify a .1 report ;acccmpanyirbed.room retirement unitsilizrd in the sewagtl basis or' three rs Your 1/20 °ubmfssicn outli.-hie, atGo qupPly incon:�i::tency, pe`son.s Per unit. Please exP;,a -,n the pul.ation Finally, the nurc:au wish intdnt of Section 754,808 es to raise the Populat i ;n aensit °f the Count aj.-y. tion as to tho the creation of ayCo,�3ivalen+ thnngta�'y Ccd: to allow a Az lass of c°rnmunit• nmur.ity water eu.,q 0, 000 src:ara feet by to interj to wet°r syst.em contained in -thatThe c±ef7nition by the ae ,y° preclude tH.a croation oP as $kjction aipFars un:t- .r 1°Per �Alely for the purpose °on }�o community supply puroueYtxyal9nce Yield. Should it ultimatell.4,zrlxng the his issue we higher or'FiCe of tk wilJ. re'T:est that it 3 ba nrct:s;,;,ry to 1e County Attorney, be brought b:forc the If thin apc7liCation is ,pursueLcIf oxteraive ccmments, but ut this po r we have the p as it Etaads. ter dato proposal ro osal tin we cannot �=nt.ortain Vo. o,Y Pau Pont edlth %rin}• yln=eY ny water i' CC: P,. F• bchr:n_11. Nun;terson 6 xicd +oll .^chn. r_c}c, NYSDErr ---- �.• �c�oc;l, T:'aat%iu,ltc'L S¢cCion MEMORANDUM TO: File 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 Planning 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. PR PRELIM ! r•1 ,\ APPROVAL ! CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS PLANNING BOARD December 20, 1989 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 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 CVA 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, C-tharles J. Voorhis cc: Valerie Scopaz 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 CRAMER, VO,QRHIS 8 AaSOCIATES ENVIRONIAENT!( CONSULTANTS December 8, 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 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 appncant (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 engineering modifications to be prepared. The Towr then has ulthirlate responsibility for determining the ade uacy of the Final EIS submission, and completing findings and the decision on the project. s per your request, CVA is available to review the submissions) made by the applicant and provide a recommendation to the Planning Board -,s 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 information, or a part there of, is determined to be inadequa ,, the review of subseouent submissions will be billed hourly, at the standard rate. Estim, 4(slcan be provided if a re-subrnission(s) is necessary. Very tru urs, T omas . Cramer, ASLA cc: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner 54 NORTH i..O";NTHv ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11754 (51E) 331.1455 ij ' ACRAMER, VOC ' OCIAYES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS P UT OL BOA" N-N� FAX T ANSMITTAL Date: To: Front: Re: OE Number of Wages (including cover): Comments: �rv� 54 NORTH COUNTRY ;GAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 CRAMER, VQQRH1y A':SSOCIATES i NVIRGilMENTr1l NNiNG CONSULTANTS L. :.",1A December 5, 1989 Nfr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. d Chairman, Planning Board I;1 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road 1[L70EC — 'P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogueho Preparation 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 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 ^aer%ices (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, 198)) There are approximately 23 substantive comments in this documentation. These comments overlap and therefore can be classified into the following more generalized categories: Ecologicai inventory, ' t ry, impacts and mitiga,ton ' Project design considerations (architecture, building grades, building siting, etc.) Slope constraints and slope analysis alternative design cr * nv topography, as mitigation etc.) l ( G �nfo_:ni.., to * Water supply, sewage disposal, and groundwater impacts and mitigation Additional alternatives (involving 40,000 square foot population density equivalent and clustering) Page 1 of 3 54 N0R7H CCU, RY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY I17o4 (51$) 33'•1455 Hamlet at Cutchogue Final EIS Proposal Community services, demography setting and potential impacts Existing transportation inventory, alternate✓es 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 i recommended that these issues be addressed in the form of a I Final EIS. L ne Planning Board, as lead Armen,/in review of the project is ultimately responsible for the content of the Final EFS [617.8 (e)]; however, it is r_ot 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 E75,..". Accordingly, the Planning Board has the option of preparing the document or reSuiring the applicant to prepare the document. Our experience has been that it is often advisable to have the applicant prepare the Final EIS, for several reasons; 1) in order to avoid resppomibility in time constraints in preparation of the document, and place this upon the applicant [617.8 (e)(2)1; 2) the applicant (or consultant) is most able to address comments pertatnjng to the Draft EIS which was prepared by the ap licants consultant; 3) the applicant :s most able to determine design changes an cause engineering modifications to be prepared. The Town then has ultimate res onsibility for determining the adequacy of the Final EIS submission, and completing indings and the decision on the project. It is our understanding in accordance with your letter of December 4, 1989, that the Board would iike a written proposal from. CVA 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 . Tl6, fed for completion of these services (excluding cultural) is not to exceed $ ,9=j0. �, .3s per our agr:em lit, the Town of Southold will be billed only r those hours expended in completion of the project, based on an hourly rate of$7 . 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 emphasis or., areas which may yield cultural material (ponds, historic sites, etc.). The testing strategy for this site involves a one (19 ) 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 uaon historic and/or pre-historic resources. Given the size of the property, and the documented sensitivity as outlined in the Draft 1✓1S, 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, pplusp2o% for handling and coo6koination. The fee for this portion66 the Final EIS is expected not to exceed S6,000, , 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 InVoues from the sub-contractor will be supplied to the Town. We find this to be an CRAMER, SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT f,t3�41 G CONSULTANTS Rage 2 Of 3 Hamlet at Cutchogue Final EIS Proposal acceptable scope of services which Gvill 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 ovember 30, 1988. Please note that, 1' e last date�orpreparation and filing of the final EIS may be ertended: (i) where it is deterrnined G:ut additional times necesscuy to prepare the statement a de uately; or III) where problems with the proposed action requiring material reconsideration or modiricawn have been identified." We believe that both these conditions may pertain to this project, the former as regards cultural resources, and the tatter 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 Nye feel that the Town is not under obligation to address these comments in the Final EIS. Further comments from SCtixIA 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. Pease calif you have any further questions regarding this matter. VeryPJ � Charhis cc: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner CRAMER, 4,ScOCIATES ENVIRQNMEN _ �JG CONSULTANTS Page 3 of 3 ,t CRAMER, VOORHIS &ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND,%PLANNING CONSULTANTS .4 October,20, 1989 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. Very truly urs, harles J. Voorhis enc: Review of Draft EIS 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 CRAMER, VOORHIS &.•ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA4AkdP;kAt4►,4#4G CONSULTANTS Wo .... To: Bennett Orlowski,Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board From: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc. Date: October 20, 1989 Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogue SCTM #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 Planning 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. (CVA), 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 CVA. 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 t{:e 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 vegetation on site determined in order to consider a plan which seeks to preserve xstingvegetation, 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 installation 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 f 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 Hamlet @ Cutchogue Draft EIS Review 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. 5. 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. 6. The statement on Page 3-20, that the north fork is historically raptor poor, should be supported by reference. 7. 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 existing 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. 8. 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. 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 5001o. Reduction rates should reflect accepted literature, and references should be provided. 10. The final predicted nitrogen in recharge concentration should be compared to ✓ existing groundwater quality, to determine the significance of the proposed use of the project site in terms of groundwater impact. 11. Page 4-11 (Vegetation and Wildlife), should discuss the impact of loss 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. CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page 2of4 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS 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. 13. The document often refers to a traditional azchitectural 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. 14. 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 testing 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. 15. 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 f discharge in accordance with Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6, regardless of the type of land use. 16. 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. 17. 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 including threatened species and species of special concern (psee comments 4 and 5). 18. 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 J units, assumes that a reduction in profit margin 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. 19. Supplement 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. 20. 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? CRAMER, VOORHIS &:ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Page of Hamlet @ Cutchogue 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 paragraph 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, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Page 4 of 4 fir•���%x� � S� �Go�-/�-..cam-�i� ��r-��rs,�,v,�o� v� o riY I �LSfl— lv sdon, f ��✓2-UI �. �, __ �in-� Sc� CJ! y(,�(t� � CRAMER, VOORHIS 8ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND,Q NING CONSULTANTS 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 Pan 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 Pun 617.10 (d). If you have any questions with regard to this recommendation, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very t y yours, �-d;arles J. Voorhis 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 v �i�x. �Tirxei o40 540 Gam— � -_ ti✓'— P.6 ( ��,�n�� % • • • i • • • • i• • • + � �" V Z J AMM& CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES 4 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS g sl 2� , 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 . Very u Y you , rles Voorhis Enclosure : 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS TO: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board FROM: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc. DATE: May 22 , 1989 RE: Draft EIS Review The Hamlet at Cutchogue SCTM #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 . tinder 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: I. 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 SECR regulations Part 617 . 14 ( f) ( 11 ) . II . DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Background and History Page 2-2 / The history of the project site in terms of agricultural J or other use should be discussed . Location Page 22=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 Sl wvop-o LJ 4 configuration should be presented to clarify the access ?4^jl potential of the site . Design and Layout Page 22=9 The project description should provide sufficient _ x17HS 9 information to understand the nature of the proposed project . S.WA A more complete project description is necessary in order to 14O. Wil ! understand and evaluate the impacts of the action. This discussion should include : total number of units ; on-site IKG�UL� 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 a A, CRAMER, VOORHIS &;ASSOCIATES Page 2 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANN'TG CONSULTANTS ,:.d Hamlet a Cutchogue Draft EIS Review leaching expansion area, monitoring, bonding, etc . Construction and Operation Page 2-10 A phased construction schedule is referred to in the / text . The timing and the number of units per phase should be ✓ outlined. 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 M,,_ provided. y tSrn �� 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 The recreational facilities available in the nearby area should be discussed , in order to determine impact upon community services in subsequent sections. Demographics Page 33=21 l The section on demo ra p•n g y provides only county wide general information. The population growth and trends specific to the Town of Southold should be included . Cultural Resources Page 3-23 The historic/pre-historic resource potential of the site CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page 3 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNIC G CONSULTANTS 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 J 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 C -:I 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 i0 mg/1 . This information is contaified in the work performed by Cornell university, Water Resources Program. Land Use and Zoning Page 4-11 The consistency of the project with the worth 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. uther Issues Not Included The impact of site construction upon air resources , CRAMER, VOORHIS &ASSOCIATES Page 4 of i ENVIRONMENTAL AND PL.ANNIC G CONSULTANTS 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 SCDAS , for use of denitrification systems , are an important mitigation measure in terms of groundwater impacts . Land Use and Zoning Page =4 A `landscaped 'puffer" 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, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page 5 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS .:;i 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 alternativ@ 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 EIS 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 . i 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, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES Page 6 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS d a 9I SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. • ' ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS& LANDUSE PLANNERS MEMORANDUM ) «. SOUTHOLD T04NN ``=` PLANNING 80ARD TO: Southold Town Planning Board FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc. DATE: 04 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 Z (2) Traffic Impact (3) Shopping Center Impact (4) Visual Impact (5) Impact on Cutchogue Community Services II. Specific the DEIS.The following deficiencies are specific to the page in 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"=401 . Fig. 2 & 3 Connection to Schoolhouse Lane not shown. • Page 2-10 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 Are these Condominiums, if so, the Suffolk County • Planning Commission will need to review. Page 3-12 Claim of "no limitation on development" is conclusory based on no supporting data? Page 3-12 What are the "somewhat lower" levels of nitrate? Show complete water analysis. Page 3-12 Document the "14,000 additional households". Page 3-14 No discussion of Town farmland preservation program. Page 3-15 Verification is needed from NYSDEC. Page 3-17 An existing land use map with existing land uses and existing zoning within 500 feet of the property is needed to properly visualize existing land use. Section 3 In view of the "Red Creek" decision in Southampton, historic and archaeologic resources need to be dealt with. Page 4-1 No site plan accompanies this section. This discussion is unsubstantiated. Page 4-2 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. Page 4-3 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. Page 4-5 If this is to be a "retirement community" than covenants and restrictions regarding same need to be incorporated in Section 5-Mitigation Measures, otherwise 110 gpd should be used. No site plan • verifies fertilizer use. Z"I SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. +`'�' 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 200 ' 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 DEIS in writing to substantiate any claims made. Page 5-6 No building elevations substantiate the claims made. III Recommendation . A new DEIS needs to._be prepared and submitted. The October 19A8 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 DEIS better familiarize themselves with the Seacroft proposal of the early 1980 ' 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. C,q' ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS&LANDUSE PLANNERS CRAMER, VOORHIS &ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS December 8, 1989 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. rJA441 Chairman, Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main RoadP.O. Box 1179Southold, New York 11971 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 engineering 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, CVA 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 information, or a part there of, is determined to be inadequate; the review of subsequent submissions will be billed hourly, at the standard rate. Estimate(sy can be provided if a re-submission(s) is necessary. Very t�ru urs, 1 omas . 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 December 5, 1989 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. 7,1 Chairman, Planning Board " r[ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road L L P.O. Box 1179 �tC I 11989 Southold, New York 11971 Re: The Hamlet at Cutchogue SOUIHOLD 1owN Preparation of the Final EIS �NNING BOARD 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 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 * Pro'ect design considerations (architecture, building grades, building siting, etc.j * 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 1 of 3 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 Final EIS. The Planning Board, as lead agency in review of the project is ultimately responsible for the content of the Final 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 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 engineering 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. It is our understanding in accordance with your letter of December 4, 1989, that the Board would like a written proposal from CVA 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). ,, ( fee for completion of these services (excluding cultural) is not to exceed $7,900. . Asper our agreement, the Town of Southold will be billed only�$r 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 emphasis on areas which may yield cultural material (ponds, historic sites, etc.). The testing 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 cooWination. The fee for this portion the Final EIS is expected not to exceed $6,000. , this is in addition to the $7,900.8�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, VO'Q H\I\ OCIATES ENVIRONMENTALzt ff,p1J ,JG CONSULTANTS Page 2 of 3 'vi "\ Hamlet at Cutchogue 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(d) 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 SCWA 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. Veryot ur Charles J. Voorhis cc: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner CRAMER, VOOR i\\ / S, $s,A SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND,: CONSULTANTS Page 3 of 3 yr m THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE Southold , New York XECUTIVE SUMMARY � ogue is a 46 . 2 acre proposed 3 north of Schoolhouse Lane in the > � own of Southold , Suffolk County , New aion trends across the central portion L enclosed basin is located in the the gully system which may have held i s t . are evident within the property . access roads during the period that :d . Some are presently overgrown with The .. project area is J► a�' 1@'t � " intensive prehistoric abo1�. The National Register of Historic Place's site at as well as ? several other well documented prehistoric sites are located within a short distance of the subject par"I.. The n osed projeci ..is. wall within th y '. , '' s , an : area where special purpose camps and satellite sites are ;# likely to be found . Insreference to historic places , a number of these , including the Nati t r of Historic Places site known as the ( 1649-1660) , the Old Place ( 1680) , th ., ("MTc _ 00) and others are located within a fraction of a mile of the parcel . In addition , the pre 1800 Hargrave house and several mid-19th century vernacular farm houses are found imm ate yLL, scent to the subject parcel . One of these , the farm is recorded in the Society for the Preservation of gong Island Antiquities as an exceptional and very well preserved example of the type . 4 rf W i s r s *`1i"tt`d. Further research and study in the form of subsurface test �{� aR�i analysis h cted to evaluate the ~C tl' t ''r a l 6 V tY ono, 3 _ ASI 3 louthold. New York _ There is little documentary evidence for the subject ' rarcel before 1797 . However by this date we can document the presence of a number of windmills , a school and a meeting house within a short distance of the subject parcel . No Is structures are indicated within the study area from documentary evidence . Veen originall, Part of the subject parcel may have y part of the Wells lot . The Wells family had so J house on the corner of Depot Lane and Main Street in 1753 . 1836 most of the district had been cleared of woodland and to the plow . We can assume that most or all of the - " b "--ct parcel was cleared land , and part of the Tuthill or ult family farms at this date . Intensive cash crop rminr began soon after the advent of the railroad in 1844 . '!azure lands were converted into crop lands .the Conklin family , Prior to followed by the Aldrich family , rchased land for such farming along Depot Lane . : er of Cutchogue and close to the rail line . near rsthe z+ ect = rl ds at that time part of several properties which may included the Aldrich . Champlin and Conklin farms . By =_ everal other farms had been established in the == ro , Early in the 20th t I735 �','� century some of these were ` by wealthy businessmen from urban areas to the west - - t"_culation or to develop as model farms or as country states • The Dayton Estate west of the Aldrich farm may have ' een in this category . Changes in farming and economics Drought changes to the district . Numbers immigrants sett of Poles and other led in the area between 1900 and 1930 . generally were excellent horsemen and teamsters , were 1:11owleogeable and familiar with crop farms , and were <-'!Id2ble and hard working . They quickly rose from farm - - borers to farm owners . Most of the earlier Aldrich . 5,_ n and Champlin farms were taken over by these 20th 2. e;itury farmers . During this period , changes in the economy ^d in farming management encouraged farmers to dispose of less productive farm plots and concentrate resources on large more productive acreages . As a consequence , a number of lots _ were sold off or left fallow . These a -ailable for a Parcels were to become s t1Fs a< :aV . .t at kp.id?{ jtyl e, con u - s .. Y,A% Y pJ nc ASI 22 F� THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOCUE Southold , New York SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT Prehistoric the subiect parcel is in a general area of intensive ao -izinal activity . Sev ral la e well a �u d d4 a ted sites / r} lilt a r >,.,.; Y s I h e s e hinterland areas were used for hunting , exploitation of natural , m_nera _ . and Plant resources , and siting of special purpose an❑ satellite campsites . Modern archaeological theory uneerscores the importance of these "off site ' activity zones and satellite camps in developing a more realistic , complete , - ing of the culture , settlement '1 _*s ' � --'n patterns , and ea r .r t-._. tx -en� o �'�., ` native Americans . . the presence of an enclosed _ - -. = _-- ^ hch may have held standing water n the t i _ Past . and onmer-tal variations which enhance exploitation of game . and plant resources . ric , _ !t an area intensively used for o i t over three centuries . : uthe -n Portions of the parcel closer to Main Street were rroosbiy cultivated by early settlers who were allotted ^roPerty along Main Street . Nineteen century farmers were -- active west of Depot Lane . e`T' g i c and mound boundaries , a d - ossi le outiving structure sites . RECOMMENDATIONS Further study in the form of subsurface testing should ee conducted to evaluate the potential of this proposal for impact- to both prehistoric and historic cultural evidence . FRO ASI 23 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 Final EIS. The Planning Board, as lead agency in review of the project is ultimately responsible for the content of the Final 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 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 engineering 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. It is our understanding in accordance with your letter of December 4, 1989, that the Board would like a written proposal from CVA 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). Th&fee 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�ar / those hours expended in completion of the project, based on an hourly rate of$70. 0 ose to retain" a services of a qualified archaeological 'EUEUM? o 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 densitV must be com lgte with emphasis on areas which may yield cultural material ;WC. The testing 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 ro' i toric and or re hist rw, the size of the property, this is a difficult, costly and possibly time consuming'as . e propose to have this work completed at direct cost as per a proposal from a qualified archaeological contractor, plus 20% for handling and cooWination. The fee for this portion 8�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 $13,900.00). A proposal from the contractor will be forwarded at a later date. All invoices from the sub-contractor will be supplied to the Town. We find this to be an CRAMER, VO(rRHI 84�' SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAl�_A_ND ? f G CONSULTANTS Page 2 of 3 The Intelligent Rousing Option For Seniors. Wise Living... 9; N.4 C5 'DIF MELROSE INFORMATION CENTIR 587 MAIN YPREL"I' • Roll-ru 9A HARWICH PORT, MA 02 II BUSINESS REPLY MAIL FIRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO. 10 CHATHAM, MA POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE WISE PROPE',RTIE.S P.O. Box 785 CILVI'IIA.NI, MA 02633-9906 aYM ;v; ��\ 4¢ ^h, �A � H 4r fit A ¢r Tti$ r�o-4.ys+zs§?rai4 BULK RATE US POSTAGE PAID PERMIT NO.!5 CHATHAM, MA NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STATES „.u,....„.... 1.... ii.... l'll LOCATFD IN THE CENTER OF PICTURESQUE HARWICH PORT, THE MELROSE offers you the comfort of carefree retirement living with the ambiance of a gracious coastal resort. We're the perfect blend of old-fash- ioned elegance and modern convenience. You can choose your residence from a variety of spacious, two -bedroom apartment homes. Entertain friends on your private deck ... stroll through the landscaped courtyard ... relax with a book in the library ... or share a delicious meal with a friend in the community dining room. At THE MELROSE, youTl enjoy the benefits of home ownership without the concerns of maintenance and upkeep, thanks to the many services we provide. Our service program is designed to accommodate individual lifestyles and prefer- ences. Building repair and maintenance, snow and trash removal, 24-hour staff and emergency call monitoring, are available to all community residents. Evening meals are served in the dining room. Our staff will assist you in arranging any additional services you would like. Yes, I'd like more information about THE MELROSE! PUNN B ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE Please send information to my friend. NAME ADDRESS STATE At THE MELROSE, you can take advantage PHONE of the Cape at its best, including Harwich Port's beaches, shops and restaurants, and the area's many cultural offerings. Explore your future with us... THE MELROSE Call us at (508) 430-8281 THE MELROSE IS A WISE PROPERTIES ZIP THE MELROSE INFORMATION CENTER 587 MAIN STREET • ROOTE 28 HARwICH PORT, MA 02646 (508) 430-8281 WISE 0 PROPERTIES Thank you for taking the time to visit The Melrose Information Center. We hope you like what you saw, and that you will give serious consideration to making your home at this exciting new residence to be constructed in Harwich Port. Our intention in developing The Melrose is to provide the amenities of assisted living in a setting that offers the warmth and charm of a classic home. We aim to fill the need for comfortable, attractive accommodations for seniors who wish to be free of the responsibilities of home maintenance, without giving up their independence. The central location of the project allows our residents to remain a vital part of the community. Easy access to churches, library, village shops and restaurants provides a healthier life style. Another difference between our arrangement and that of a standard condominium is the additional services available to our residents. Our basic maintenance program covers all operating expenses -- including heat, electricity, water, taxes, building and grounds maintenance, trash removal, and management of the overall complex, as well as the services of a resident assistant on a round-the-clock basis. We offer a meals program tailored to your individual schedule, and you pay only for meals that you receive -- one meal a day, or one meal a week, or any other variation. Should health care needs arise, we have cooperating programs in place with local health care providers and nursing homes. We think there are some very real benefits in not locating such services on site. In addition to the savings involved in paying for services only when you need them, a very different "atmosphere" exists in a facility that includes full-time nursing and medical care. We would be pleased to have the opportunity to work with you to make your home at The Melrose. Please feel free to call upon us if we can answer any questions or assist in any way. The telephone number at The Melrose Information Center is 508-430-8281. 33 Cross Street 1 P.O. Box 785 1 Chatham, MA 02633 1 (508) 945.5291 1 (800) 529.5291 1 Fax (508) 945.0342 AIL MELROSE The Melrose has been designed with the ambiance of a gracious coastal resort, offering all the comforts of a fine retirement community. Features available to all residents include a community dining room and library, each with fireplaces, a fitness studio, a craft and game room, and a solarium. The landscaped garden courtyard at The Melrose has walking paths and areas for sitting. The apartment homes at The Melrose have one or two bedrooms and two baths, plus the following special features: • Full sized kitchen, including stove with self-cleaning oven, dishwasher, frost -free refrigerator with ice -maker, and custom cabinets • Gas heat and hot water • Central air conditioning • Wall-to-wall carpeting • Resilient vinyl floor covering in bathroom and kitchen • Spacious closets and ample storage areas • High performance insulating glass windows • Sound -proofing for privacy • Telephone and cable ready • Fire-resistant construction, with modern smoke detectors and sprinkler systems throughout the entire building • Emergency alert system in every room • Private deck • Elevator access throughout building MELROSE In keeping with the Wise Properties philosophy of accommodating individual preferences, a basic core of services will be provided to all residents, while additional services will be available on an a la carte basis. This insures that you pay only for services you need and want. The following core services are included in the monthly maintenance fee. • 24-hour resident assistant staff • Building security system • Emergency response system • Concierge services • Repair and maintenance of building exteriors and common areas • Snow and trash removal • Landscaping and grounds maintenance • Social and recreational programs The following services are available on an optional basis. • Evening meals served in the dining room • Housekeeping and laundry service • Transportation • Home health care • Nutrition planning PURCHASE PRICES Apartment homes at The Melrose are offered on a condominium basis. After making a $1,000 reservation deposit, a 10% deposit on the apartment of your choice will be due at the time of unit selection. The balance of your purchase price is due with- in 30 days of your residence being ready for occupancy. Condominium ownership ensures your full financial security. MONTHLY FEES Monthly fees cover property taxes, insurance, utilities, exterior building and common area repairs and maintenance, snow and trash removal, grounds maintenance, all common area appliance repair and replacement, emergency response and security systems and 24-hour staff. SUMMER, 1995 PRICE SCHEDULE APARTMENT # PRICE MONTHLY FEE FIRST FLOOR 101 $189,500 $690 102 259,500 690 103 194,500 690 104 244,500 690 105 249,500 690 106 219,500 690 107 214,500 690 108 279,500 690 109 244,500 690 110 194,500 690 111 259,500 690 112 189,500 690 SECOND FLOOR 201 234,500 690 202 219,500 690 203 194,500 690 204 194,500 690 205 194,500 690 206 239,500 690 207 264,500 690 208 159,500 690 209 249,500 690 210 209,500 690 211 219,500 690 212 214,500 690 213 279,500 690 214 274,500 690 215 279,500 690 216 259,500 690 217 234,500 690 Prices and terms are subject to change [MENi E Name 1 Social Security No. Name 2 Social Security No. Address Telephone ( ) City, State, Zip I (We) wish to reserve Unit Number 28) Harwich Port, MA 02646. I (We) are interested in purchasing a garage. at The Melrose located at 587 Main Street (Route Yes _ No I (We) attach hereto a Priority Reservation Deposit of $1,000 by check made payable to 'Wise Properties Escrow Account.,, I (We) hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this Priority Reservation Agreement as shown on the reverse. Signature Signature Date Date RECEIPT FOR DEPOSIT Received from the sum of $ as deposit under the terms and conditions on the reverse, to be held in escrow in Wise Properties Escrow Account. Date WISE PROPEMES, INC. PRIORrrY RESERVATION AGREEMENT Terms and Conditions: 1. In return for payment by Purchaser of the Priority Reservation Deposit, Wise Properties agrees to reserve the selected unit at The Melrose for a period of _ days. 2. Purchaser shall initiate a Purchase Agreement for the unit selected, within the time period specified above, or cancel the Priority Reservation. 3. If Purchaser chooses to initiate a Purchase Agreement, the Priority Reservation Deposit will be credited, with interest, to the Initial Deposit required. 4. If Purchaser chooses to cancel the Priority Reservation, the Priority Reservation Deposit, with interest, will be refunded within 15 days of the cancellation. 5. If an individual Purchaser dies before executing a Purchase Agreement, the Priority Reservation Deposit will be refunded, with interest, to the Purchaser's estate or legal representative, within 15 days of receipt of written request. 6. If two persons have applied jointly, upon the death of one Purchaser, the surviving Purchaser may, (a) request the refund of the Priority Reservation Deposit, (b) amend the Priority Reservation Agreement by selecting a different type of unit, or (c) retain the Priority Reservation Agreement as initially written. If so requested, Wise Properties will refund the Priority Reservation Deposit, with interest, within 15 days of receipt of written request. 7. Except as provided in paragraphs 5 and 6 concerning repayments, Purchaser's rights under this Agreement are personal to him or her, may not be assigned, and shall not pass to his or her heirs or personal representatives. If this Agreement is made by two (2) persons as the Purchasers, both are deemed to be included in the word "Purchaser' as used in this Agreement. 8. Any notice to Purchaser shall be deemed to have been properly given if mailed to Purchaser's address shown on the Priority Reservation Application, or to such address as purchaser may later provide in writing to Wise Properties. 9. This Priority Reservation Agreement shall terminate upon the refund to Purchaser of the Priority Reservation Deposit in accordance with this Agreement, or upon the execution of a Purchase Agreement for the purchase of a unit at The Melrose, whichever shall occur first. Upon termina- tion, all rights and obligations of Purchaser and Wise Properties/The Melrose hereunder shall terminate. LOCATION SATE IPllaAN UNIT M 2 BEDROOMs - 1 1/2 BATHS 1114 S.F. DIMENSIONS &WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY Livin 11Bedroom x 1-0 Room 10-0 X 14-4 Dining Master 7-8 X 13-4 Bedroom 13-0 X 16-8 UNIT III" N 2 BEDROOMS - 1 1/2 BATHS 1052 S.F. DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY UNITS S M & N BRUCE RONAYNE HAMILTON ARCHITECTS INC. UNIT 0 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS 1117 S.F. DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY MELROSE ]UNIT D 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS 1303 S.F. DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY l(JN][T E 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS 1265 S.F. DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY UNITS D & iLa BRUCE RONAYNE HAMILTON ARCHITECTS INC. Immol .. ■ l[JN][T 1F 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS 1219 S.F. DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY UNIT G 2 BEDROOMS - 1 1/2 BATHS 1167 S.F. DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY UNITS F & G BRUCE RONAYNE HAMILTON ARCHITECTS INC. Tf UNIT Q 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS 1567 S.F. DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY 4,16 MELROSE Bedroom 12-0 X 11-3 Den 10-3 x e-0 Dining 10-0 x 15-4 Living Room 13-4 X 13-e Foyer Master Bedroom 12-0 X 16-4 UNIT C 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS 1237 S.F. DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY UNIT C" 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS 1237 S.F. DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY UNITS C & CV BRUCE RONAYNE HAMILTON ARCHITECTS INC. MELROSE ]UNIT A 2 BEDROOMS - 1 1/2 BATHS 1025 S.F. DIMENSIONS &WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY l[JN][T IB 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS 1359 S.F. DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY UNITS A & B BRUCE RONAYNE HAMILTON ARCHITECTS INC. MELROSE UN1['lI K 1 BEDROOM - 1 BATH 1050 S.F. DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY ITNIT L 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS 1403 S.F. DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY UNITS iC7 - ?E BRUCE RONAYNE HAMILTON ARCHITECTS INC. u� u A �l' ll1� CUY. lLe Dining 15-3 x 9-4 Living I Bedroom Room 13-3 x 15-0 12-5 x 12-6 ❑, Master Bedroom 13-5 x 16-5 Nl[T H 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS 1121 S.F. DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY _ UN'IT J 2 BEDROOMS - 2 BATHS 1208 S.F. ■ tE DIMENSIONS & WINDOW LOCATIONS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY lkosEL l lyll � all BRUCE RONAYNE HAMILTON ARCHITECTS INC. 4 FIRST FLOOR PLAIN BRUCE RONAYNE HAMILTON ARCHITECTS INC. 216 217 9m 201 202 UNIT C' UNIT F UNIT F UNIT M 204 UNIT N 214 215 UNIT L UNIT B 203 UNIT A �T Lv E 210 209 UNIT UNITJ 205 .j UNIT P 213 UNIT D 212 211 208 206 207 UNIT G UNIT H UNIT K UNIT Q UNIT R FLOOR PLAN BRUCE RONAYNE HAMILTON ARCHITECTS INC. J� TRUE ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 181 Massachusetts Avenue 9 Boston, Massachusetts 02115 •617-329-5151 TRUE ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT THE OCEAN FRONT 12 STORY CONDOMINIUM, 24 RESIDENCES, JUNO BEACH, FL 181 Massachusetts Avenue • Boston, Massachusetts 02115 • 617-329-5151 TRUE ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT T HE BEA C H F R ON T 12 STORY CONDOMINIUM, 53 RESIDENCES, JUNO BEACH, FL 181 Massachusetts Avenue • Boston, Massachusetts 02115 • 617-329-5151 TRUE ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT W A T E R F R O N T 12 STORY CONDOMINIUM, 60 RESIDENCES, JUNO BEACH, FL 181 Massachusetts Avenue • Boston, Massachusetts 02115 • 617-329-5151 PRINCIPAL 1 PAST PROJECTS 2 PUBLICITY 3 PETER T. TRUE: 35 Forbes Road, Westwood, Massachusetts; married sixteen years with five children; now in his mid -forties. True operates his own real estate develop- ment company known as True Companies (formerly True Associates) located at 181 Massachusetts Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, which he began in 1971. Over the past years, he has been involved in the construction management and ownership of the following apartment developments: 7-story, 132 unit luxury apartment building located at 349 North Pearl Street, Brockton MA. 144 unit apartment complex located on Oakland Street, Mansfield MA. 84 unit apartment complex located on County Road, Taunton, MA. 80 unit townhouse complex located at Clough Road, Dedham, MA. 232 unit apartment complex located in Houston, Texas. 30 unit 5-story condominium complex on Webster Avenue, Somerville, MA. 24 unit townhouse condominium complex on LaGrange Street, Chestnut Hill, MA. 28 unit condominium complex located in Marlbor- ough, MA. True has also been involved in the construction, man- agement and ownership of the following office, indus- trial and commercial developments: 18,000 sq.ft. R & D building at 50 Milk Street, Westborough, MA. 9,000 sq.ft. office building at 511 Washington Street, Norwood, MA. 12,000 sq.ft. medical building at 480 Washington Street, Norwood, MA. 25,000 sq.ft. mini -mall at Broadway and Nahatan Street, Norwood, MA. 12,000 sq.ft. office building at 20 Milton Street, Dedham, MA. 48,000 sq.ft. R & D building at Brigham Street, Marlborough, MA. 8,000 sq.ft. R & D building at Zero Brigham Street, Marlborough, MA. 48,000 sq.ft. R & D building at 56 Pulaski Street, Peabody, MA. . 39,000 sq.ft. R & D building at 124 Turnpike Street, West Bridgewater, MA. Over the years, he has built over fifty single family homes in the towns of Dedham, Braintree, Canton, West- wood, Taunton, Franklin, Norwood, Medfield and Walpole. Presently, True is developing: 1) 6 unit condominium complex, Medfield, MA. 2) 3 house sub -division, Medfield, MA. 3) 6 lot sub -division, Sherborn, MA. 4) 14 lot sub -division, Peabody, MA. 5) 25 lot sub -division, Millis, MA. True also is involved as a limited partner in: 1) 52 lot sub -division, Worcester, MA. 2) 300 lot sub -division, Greenville, SC. 3) 53 unit high-rise condominium complex in Juno Beach, Florida DEC.1988 '$3.00 AMERICNS TASTEST-GROWING TRIVATE TOMPANIES November 17, 1988 Mr. Peter T. True P.T. True & Associates Development Co. 725 Providence Highway Dedham, MA 02026 Dear Mr. True: b-ce THE MAGAZINE FOR GROWING COMPANIES 38 COMMERCIAL WHARF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110-3883 (617)227-4700 TELEX: 710-321-0523 INC MAG BSN Congratulations. It is my pleasure to tell you that Inc. Magazine has named P.T. True & Associates Development Co. to the 1988 Inc. 500. P.T. True & Associates Development Co. ranks #183 on this year's list of America's fastest -growing private companies. We salute your achievement. In recognition of your success in building one of America's fastest -growing private companies, Inc. will host a three-day con- ference in Raleigh, North Carolina beginning on June 1, 1989. The conference, which is an annual event, is a wonderful opportunity for you to meet your peers. You'11 also get a chance to attend seminars and roundtable discussions organized by the editors of Inc. Magazine. A number of social activities are planned and include the third annual Governor's Cup Golf Tournament at the renowned Pinehurst Country Club, a North Carolina barbeque, a con- cert by members of the North Carolina Symphony and a reception hosted by North Carolina Governor James Martin. At the final event of the conference -- a black -tie dinner and reception -- we will be honored to present your award. A more detailed program will be sent to you in January. In the meantime, we hope you'll reserve June 1-3, 1989 on your calendar. Congratulations to you and your employees. We wish you continued success, and look forward to meeting you in Raleigh. Cordially, George Gendron Editor MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS GOVERNOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT STATE HOUSE BOSTON 02133 December 29, 1988 Mr. Peter True, President P.T. True 8 Associates 725 Providence Highway Dedham, MA 02026 Dear Pete: Congratulations on being named to Inc. Magazine's list of America's 500 fastest growing companies. You and your -team have ensured that Massachusetts once again was among the top ten states on the list. Massachusetts takes very special pride in its entrepreneurs. With over 80,000 businesses begun during the past six years, employing over 450,000 people, Massachusetts is indeed a friend of small and mid -size businesses. And our business services and funding mechanisms -- both public and private have helped create more jobs and opportunities for our residents. By making the "Inc. 500,11 your company demonstrated steady and continued growth for several years. And that is a record of accomplishment -- one we are all proud of here in Massachusetts. I wish you and your employees and th6i a'1 ies a y and profitable 1989. // Governor STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR RALEIGH 27603-8001 JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR December 15, 1988 Mr. Peter T. True P.T. True & Associates Development Co. 725 Providence Highway Dedham, MA 02026 Dear Mr. True: As Governor of the "great State of North Carolina", it is my distinct pleasure to invite you to oin us in Raleigh June 1-3, 1989 as we celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit in your honor at the 7t� Annual Inr. 500 Conference, hosted by Inc. Magazine. the State of North Carolina, and the City of Raleigh, with the support of AT&T, Coopers & Lybrand and many North Carolina Sponsors. This dynamic event will afford you the opportunity to exchange ideas, develop new skills and form strong associations with your fellow Inz 500 executives through a variety of educational and social events. An agenda planned for your enjoyment will include golf at Pinehurst National Golf Course, one of the nation's finest courses, a "Taste of Carolina" at the Governor's Reception, a variety of informative seminars, an elegant black tie affair held in your honor, as well as some fabulous getaways! North Carolina has been rated by jam, Magazine as the second best place in the country to "grow a company". Our state motto, "Bsse Quam Videri", means "To Be Rather Than to Seem". This is the heartbeat of North Carolina's entrepreneurial spirit and business activity. We invite you to extend your visit in North Carolina to explore the wealth of opportunities available in busiilcss, education, research and sightseeing. We like calling "North Carolina Home"! You will too! Detailed program and travel information, along with your complimentary Conference re¢istrations, will be mailed to all Inc 500 members shortly after the first of the year. Mark your calendars now and make plans to join us in Raleigh June 1-3, 1989. Congratulations on becoming a member of such an outstanding group. I look forward to meeting you personally. cerely, ames G. Martin ONE BRIGHAM STREET 1VIARLBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS For Lease 48,000 sq. ft. First Class Industrial/R&D Building Sub -dividable to 3,000 sq. ft. "Ew k One Brigham Street is a single story R&D building constructed of attractive masonry and steel with ver- tical smoked glass windows. The building has been well maintained and attractive landscaping complements the site. The building's flexibility allows for a variety of uses including office, R&D, high tech and manufacturing. With ten tailboard loading doors, the building also has excellent use as a warehouse or distribution facility. HUNNEMAN COMMERCIAL COMPANY A Division of Hunneman Real Estate Corporation Located off Maple Street (Route 85), One Brigham Street is just two miles from the Route 20/495 inter- change and Route 90 (the Massachusetts Turnpike) is just four miles from the building. For more information, contact Wayne Spiegel, Senior Vice President of Hunneman Commercial Company at (617) 426-4260. Exclusive Agents: 70 — 80 Lincoln Street Boston. 'Massachusetts 02111 (617)426-4260 SALE OR LEASE FRANK1...iN, Mai CHUON INDUSTRIAL PARK BEAVER STREET UNDER CONSTRUCTION Light Manufacturing—R & D—Distribution Available: Two buildings total of 96,000 square feet Single story divisible to suit from 3,000 square feet is available for lease or sale. Location: Only 1/z mile off Route 495, minutes from Route 140, Route 1 and Route 95. TRUE ASSOCIATES 725 Providence Highway, Dedham, MA 02026 6 17-329-5151 1 - - _ 1,2 � icy h ,9It r.�; t%'q7"c-•1�'`fi� riGtiAj tt��s!! �^t���'- � � ::� � t � � <4IrA �¢(ti`�i�.�'1 ' S � � i•�j `l�^5C+..N �� �� - It .A� ,rr� . .^�i'� � ,,� _ �,�l �r.��l Ili I`�y lt"� ���d��..<1J 4:1 _ ,,• �- 7-7f� 3 An exclusive property offering AVAILABLE: CARLSON COMMERCIAL 48,000 square feet Industrial Condominiums Waters Way Industrial Park 58 Pulaski Street Peabody, Massachusetts Carlson Commercial is pleased to offer newly constructed condominium space for sale or lease in the Waters Way Industrial Park, in Peabody, Massachusetts. The developer, True Associates Development Company of Dedham, MA, is seeking light manufacturing, wholesaling, R&D assembly, and distribution users for the park. The single story building is divisible to suit from 3,000 square feet. Carlson Commercial 76 Lafayette Street Salem, MA 01970 Exclusive Agents: Rick Lowe, Kevin D'Arcy (617) 741.1923 C] For Sale or Lease: 50 MILK STREET Westborough, MA Located on 1.17 acres of land, this one-story brick and concrete block manufacturing, R&D, and office facility contains approximately 18,000 sq. ft. It is 25 years old and has been exceptionally well maintained. The building is fully sprinklered and air conditioned throughout except in the shipping area. Located near downtown Westborough, the prop- erty is on Route 135, and offers excellent visibility and easy access to Routes 9, 495, and the Mass Pike. HUNNEMAN COMMERCIAL COMPANY A Division of Hunneman Real Estate Corporation Exclusive Agents: 70-80 Lincoln Street Boston, Massachusetts 02111 (617)426-4260 .r\ P. T. TRUE and ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY =5 Providence Hiehwav Dedham. Llassachuserts 329-5151 A N N 0 U N C I N G ? R I G H A M I N D U S T R I A L C O\ D O 11 I N I Zero Brigham Street, Marlborough, -Massachusetts GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE: 7,660 s.f. CONSTRUCTION: Single story consisting of block, steel & glass TENANT SPACE: The space is dividable to two (-) bays, each bay with 3,830 s.f. Ceiling Height is 16' with a drive-in overhead door in each bay 10o Office space with air conditioner CONTACT PETER T. TRUE PRE -COMPLETION PRICING: 575.00 per s.f. LEASE TERM: S6.75 S.f.net, net, net OCCUPANCY: Immediate 617-329-5151 P. T. TRUE and ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 725 Providence Highway Dedham, Massachusetts 329-5151 SHREWSBURY, MA Industrial Land For Sale Lease Build to Suit A twenty-four acre parcel of Industrial Zoned land, located on Cherry Street and Route 20, which is 2h miles west of Route 9. The completed project will have a total of six (6) buildings, each with an area of 48,000 square feet. The buildings will be constructed of split faced block and steel which will be subdivided into 3,000 square foot units. Each unit will have 10% office, loading dock, front and rear entrance doors, and will be offered for sale or lease. LAND for SALE at $ 85,000.00 per acre Buildings for Sale at $75.00 per square foot. Buildings for Lease at $5.50 NNN per square foot. CONTACT: PETER T. TRUE 617-329-5151 P. T. TRUE and ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 725 Providence Highway Dedham, Massachusetts 329-5151 LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS a z H W H 9 V D a E H C n x H t9 H z r LOCATION: The property is located in a basically industrial area that includes a mixture of a main corporate headquarters (Wang) and office buildings (Apollo Computers), some light industrial and warehouse facilities. The site has some proximate access to Freeway 495 and Route 3. The area is changing upwardly. LAND AREA: The subject property contains a land area of 205168 sq.ft. (4.71 acres). The land to building ratio is 29 to 1. IMPROVEMENTS: The facility is a single story distrib- ution warehouse with gross available warehouse and office area of 6800 sq.ft. The office contains 2000 sq.ft. The facility contains 20 loading spaces and the lot coverage ratio allows access for all industry standard long and short haul inter -city as well as for pick-up and delivery fleet vehicles. Other enhancing yard features are asphalt paving, fencing, concrete aprons, and a 10,000-gallon fuel tank. The improvements were completed in 1985. PRICE: $1,080,000.00 $10,000.00 SALE PER MONTH net, net, net lease CONTACT: PETER T. TRUE 617-329-5151 alllti __7.."WW ac of, lrl I ` 4 l `• Y III {I ;� _ _ ; r��:,;:s = K r : �rI r _ c- Fv roof,, Eli I IN I lit �' •�,• `�; 4 BUILT & OWNED BY Stivaletta Enterprises 33 CLOUGH ROAD, DEDHAM, MASS. MANAGED BY True Associates 9Ar,RPlYl('_FCT !RT 1flM nPllUAM MACC OAKLAND STREET at SWETT STREET MANSFIELD, MASS. 339-4314.329-SISO.326-S620 mh�� FEE Xf..i .1 TiaraGardens A P A R T H E N T S Luxury Apartment Living Great access to Westwood Mall, Sharpstown Mall, Hwy. 59, S.W. Tennis Center, H.B.U. Close to Metro Line, easy access to 610 Loop & Galleria, Beltway 8 Moments to fine shopping, banks, restaurants, employers and nite life 9290 Woodfair Houston, Texas 77036 713-774-3154 Professionally Managed By Gardens Management Inc. BUILT & MANAGED BY P.T. TRUE & ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT CO. 725 Providence Highway (Rt. 1) Dedham, MA 02026 617-329-5151 OWNED BY WEBSTER COURT JOINT VENTURE 212 Elm Street Somerville, MA 02144 17 7- WE=STER COURT 25 Webster Avenue at Union Square Somerville, MA 617-328-1208 617-329-5151 BUILT & OWNED BY Stivaletta MANAGED BY True Associates, Inc. 823-5720 • 326-1348 • 326-5620 819 COUNTY ROAD • ROUTE 140 TAUNTON, MASS. 00 ►r�.� . •• ..u.�._�. .w� !S/:{�VF B"��L'YwC':w {i'y. K ��. b"• "..�N � ql 9o11ff6 N P. T. TRUE and ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 725 Providcncc Highway Dedham, Massachusetts 329-5151 For Sale SHREWSBURY, MA Industrial Land Lease Build to Suit A twenty-four acre parcel of Industrial Zoned land, located on Cherry Street and Route 20, which is 21j miles west of Route 9 The completed project will have a total of six (6) buildings, each with an area of 48,000 square feet. The buildings will be constructed of split faced block and steel which will be subdivided into 3,000 square foot units. Each unit will have 10% office, loading dock, front and rear entrance doors, and will be offered for sale or lease. Buildings for Sale at $75.00 per square foot. Buildings for Lease at $5.50 NNN per square foot.~ Land for Sale at $135,000.00 per acre. CONTACT: PETER T. TRUE 617-329-5151 TRUE COMPANIES REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS 181 Massachusetts Avenue • Boston, Massachusetts 02115 • 617-329-5151 THE B EACHFRONT AT JUNO Pre -construction prices starting from $285,000 - $675,000 For more information please call 407-694-8301 / 1-800-424-8732 / FAX 407-627-5006 530 Ocean Drive Juno Beach, Florida 33408 tuesday. 2. 1988 Route 495; I Z8 Spotlight pi,<C True Associates of Dedham, MA Announces new name now known as P.T. TRUE AND ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT CO. INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUMS PEABODY, MA S6 Pulaski Street 1 - 6,000 sq. ft. unit $450,000 1 - 3,000 sq. ft. unit $225,000 39,000 sq. ft. sold SALE OR LEASE WESTBORO, MA SO Milk Street 18,000 sq. ft. one story R&D 6,000 sq. ft. office air-conditioned throughout, sale $1,300,000 lease $6.25 psf net net net On the drawing board for P.T. True & Associates are 116 unit town house condominium complex in Hopkinton. 182 unit condominium high-rise in Cambridge 200,000 sq. ft. office building in Lowell 108,000 sq. ft. R&D building in Marlboro ' 210 room hotel in Braintree P.T. True and Associates concentration is industrial properties on Route 495 from Lowell to Taunton. If you would like to discuss any of the above properties or if you have any listings along Route 495, please call Peter T. True at 617-329-5151 or write to: P.T. TRUE & ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT CO. mbp 725 Providence Highway Dedham, MA. 02026 tie sp-t.;:7 Route e95/ 1dg Spotllght tueedeY. lenvary Re. 1989 What areas along Rte. 128/495 corridor do you see as having the greatest development and/or growth potential? John Harris Spaulding & Slye Burlington, Mass. n ithout a doubt the greatest potenual for growth and opportunity for development lies along the Rtee% condor. During the past It. years the overall e% market has more than MPIed in rare, far out. pacing the reteof growth along Igo. Thus growth can s atWbuted to tar major factors: e First, the e% corridor often the bulk of available raw land in Mmumn Second, the e% market often tenants alternatives to the Increao polls ingly congested and expensive His. 121 area. e Third. the s% area offers a growing and varied labor pool made up of execauves, profactlonams, tachml m. and laborers who have either lived in the small awns and cause along the highway forsome timeor have moved to the area in search of affordable housing. v Fourth, the healthy Massachusetts economy, and in particular, the high-tech industry, has allowed companies to significantly expand their operauona and employment. Despite a drop in net aluarpum of space during ISU, the longterm outlook for the e% corridor is bright, with susunual growth in employment and population expected over the next decade. The strongest submarket on e95 is the area clustered around the Mass. Pike interchange. Easy atcete has been a Prime draw to the free. attecimg a diversified tenant base including eaverm major corporate headquarters, insurance Companies, wan�aps, as well as high-tech manufacturing and servtce firms. with the largest indent base and lowest vaancymte, the e%/Mai. Pike market is my "best bet" for development opportunity in suburban Boston's fastest growing arms. Edwina Marcus, CCIM New England Industrial Props. Boxborough, Mass. If we are defining "development opportunity' as a ambmaUM of demand. location. and the financial resources to put it all together. 1 an tremendous opportunity all along 1495, if developers an willing a do same enlightened sharing. From Our pattion in Mato Wart, developers with foresight have Used UP almost all of the large parcel, along ice%. north to Newbarypon and south W Wareham. in many cuesthey have begun the long Process of permuting and building. but in many cases, arc silting on high vacancy buildings surrounding by vacant land. From the brokerage perspective. we have developers N this painon looking to as In sa bring tnu. We ales have smaller developers and builders alnng with specific lend requirements who have tenants and finning In hard, but need lard. In a market that is overbuilt some of else In plea developer, Dancers can benefit from tha cub infusion as well as the momentum Of action on their site if they will spin off parnte or Iandlleant with covenants. We are working on several transactions of this scenario. and feel that manY man am possible. Sargent Goodchild Leggat McCall/Grubb & Ellis Boston, Mass. Focusing on the words "opli tuxi and "growth." there simply aren't many opportumues left along Rue. 12S between Lynnfeld and Quincy. A broker would be lard. pressetl to find a viable site anywhere along this e0 mile stretch of highway that could 1.) be purchased at an economic Price. [.I be permitted, and 3.) support a building of 150,00) V f. Then is obviously a gnat deal of new construction planned along Rte. In but the sits an controlled by a handful of major developers. The marks net of LYonfield has Changed dramatically in the last five years and can probably be ciasud s a mature market at this point because while Dare are soil oppommun to acquire first -Class sites, they an not available at bargain prices. Than an detest saAa V1 of office construction planned for the north shore market in the Past la months which we feel is aggre,mv, The R&D market. however. is being somewhat ignored and we think there arc opportunities (or medium mud. well located, old and I. story. flea type buildings to these Mrthterm suburtn. Peter True P. T. True & Assoc: Waltham, Mass. it seemuo me the avaumuty of large tram of industrial -mud land in the Rte. Mg aria Nord of Westborough am becoming hard to end If YOU do find some, the can makes it almost impossible to specu- late on. The HI -Tech industries are not u- pending at this time. but then is a lot Of activity With the manufmrs" and distribution ampYdas. They an very cat anrt . ao 1. Personally. Me the South and Southwest raw= along Rio. e% s the pas act fa the most. growth in tha later future. This u coo of the la ad. access to labor and affordable hating. and Alex Dauria Leggat McCall/Grubb & Ellis Boston, Mass. Dne of Use areas that his base largely ignored historically twtth the exception of the Mansfield Industrial Pli has been the sontham OS market. This ward include an aria from 145In Mansfield to Rte. ee in Middleboro in Motheam m Masachaaus. Mat of that larger Pate sear&u Conducted bysigmllism spate u am truly labor driven. The availability of affordable hseustng and the ability a poll from to Providence. Fall River. New Bedford labor markets saWRes te unYewn m ins Mardi ontcria, in eraseof brtndmecl uaborax wan Y Cleriai and AEPPon staff which no In Bad the AWSMMY and aterwrt of Mulheasten Mass. when compantM are expending in suburban Boston. Over the put five yin, well known development companies have Dasdmaed thamtelves with significant owls of land as key I. mterohanges to OPIUM what they hope WiU be continued nugnuon to he tea th. Page sp-Nirysd Route e95/ Ise SmuLght tnlpday. }nusry xe. 19e9 Of 8 Walkup Dr., Westborough Hughes/Neelon; Clone By Peter True, P.T. True &ASSOC. y/ Small businesses turning Codman cobroker sale to industrial condos Neelon .Associates. Inc.. 8ldmam. recently announced Inc idle of s Walkup Drin lcestborough. s Walkup Drive Is a 17.5M sif free-standing, single story brick and glass budding situated on approsi- mately three and onlhalf Crosspa,nl Development Corporation of Natick Purchased the property from Westborough Investors Trust of Boston. Broker Scott Hughes of Nation Apd,,,ates. Inc.. es exclusive agent. redim,,,ted Westborough Investors Trost in the Sete and Mills r Gregory Clancy of Codman Associates. Inc.. Boston. secured Crosspoint Develop. pent Corporation. The sale price for the Property was s1.8w.0m. Industrial condor iar Am becoming a very act, sector of the real ssu market. Introduced in the ear 1970'S. the industn mndomiruum concept is n new. Industrial developnon nave been tolutructed u,ro the ceumry in areas ode the real estate mark,, general is very strong ar whcro a strong market vnx for the product. The present or absence of aompetmt industrial facilities for leas with desirable amenities u mwl riles uu is a cldr,b factor in the location Industrial condominlul projects. Due to to availability of land. almost a prajacts have been located, suburban area. Once the price a land Is up over $100.000 per acre. Ih small buainessman just can an ENHANCE YOUR SURROUNDINGS I M FRAMINGHAM OFFICE PARK. The professional choice. At Framingham Office Pork, the amenities are numerous. For your convenience. the luxurious Sheraton Taro Hotel is right nest door. The hotel features: • 25 conference rooms • complete fitness center, The Toro Club • racquetball, tennis. Jogging courses • casual to elegant dining and reception facilities • limousine service to Logan international Airport Framingham Office park maintains two first class office bulldingg5v feel Worcester EachesubdiWOoble by .000is,000 n.IFramingham aninnor c Pork is locoed along Route 9 and the Mau. Pike with direct access to downtown Boston and major highways. Coll us for more leasing Information at (617) 8e9-Ill8 or(WO) 875-TA5. ---------------------------- or Sam for O If" brochure: The Flosy Campom -iO0 NEREJ Monts, rig Dept Cl brvwa, 50aranhee HIII office Pork em,aree. MA 02W Nana the Addir ry Addfsss CM Stag_ lepna,e W THE FLATLEV COMPANY imm1 afford to nay a couple al rig acres. bulk) a a•v budding of and run ., huxpexs The n avvrgc toy will but nrn v acres, build a .5,040 s1f II building and still afford to run n Ns business. The cost of land u just too high. SueOndh, is there Is the question of e availability. The small I businessman cunt find the land. Field enh - need m r0m:q¢ alki the .a,orvuN ul sutaulc IMu.mil sVaec fur IV;:. anmµnlle. die u0,, sackwg phcen to awn ratncr than lease Ag:nuthe dilcnuml untxintered e. the Lick of suitable spice for sal, in general and the fact that most Industrial bulldmgs on the nuvket are more suitable for a large user. R,Wrts quid a will street Journal article of I viou:mIs. 19a7 indiVal, that Bullun ,s w14dc,Vd amlong the Mg,onx I, her, tvlbteks .Ind the shake,xll n. the IeLl-dalogy inducts hale fortd a lul a xP.C, on to the nurkel. IIt... mr. is in must nuetiWa a, rotas. them Is sllll a IandM wiacuon of mdernefficienl. industn:d fociliuds Of la Iasi srf tar less II is at this poin, that dt,001 cis. rarogn,xing the Pent-up denl:ud. hove begun building ulduxtnal ,unduni.n sums. The eundomimun, tomRa Of Shang land and building aoxtx allow en industrial developer to Vass ulese savings to the user. Developers have barn able to culotallse on the luck of affol suitable,Muslrud leased space and the intangible or psvaplogical mvamc ,onxideral,ons :a00e4,lad Wllh evening one s awn duct. De%-0.1sers nuw are Offering small indusln.d users audem. efhdenl. well located pastoral lacililies. Complete a'ah in ea.ry a,eNmplal,Vn. :Intla'IVall'II aVVraamtlOn. and secum, P.T. True :mld I . i.il,•. Develpnlaall CumlWny hd. ,.rlpk4.0 a aw. "frail ...... �l u,ralump.un.. nI I'culHxh Jill d is now developing-80.000 srf in R'esl Bridgewater. 90.am 'If in Fushoro. and 48,000 sA it Sh,Cusbur, All MJCe's arc being bmtfled br Hunnenunl liral bslaW. Peter Irur b pneOd,1 of P.T. True & AReetlales Ilrl'Idnnmrn, !'n I,rtll.-nit urge in the company s Iman• apply and demand planning ns. emu H. Daley of Walpole is ?rotnoled to take charge of lion of all plants except Pit. id also will be responsible for ,ment of new capacity from violations ports Year state officials con. 28o item pricing inspec. id fined stores a total of with individual fines as high as $1,300. t one inspection out of suited in no fine. The fine is 5211. stores received the maxi. ne: Almacs in Seekonk, 'i's in Melrose, Osco Drug .am Circle in Boston and .upreme in Plymouth. Martin, a spokesman for AY Supreme chain, said, everything we possibly -e conscientious in com. ilh the law ." Martin said mproved its compliance lore than any other chain the most recent survey previous one conducted ig. lesignate an associate or at each store whose job riy Pricing every day," aid. changes, including two involving res. idents south of Boston. Donalc Anastasia of Milton was named as. sistant treasurer and Peter S. Bach man of Walpole was named manager Of commercial organization. All changes officially take effect or Feb. 1. _ r iyMouth ve layoffs of Plvmouth's 325 emnlov. ar_ Th. to ibeprofitable this rmm�anv hoc not yet yr last The Patriot Ledger, Fri., Jan. 27, 1989 21 At of v• n in omps- risions band its. It ever, uunng its first two qua -la • which ended SepL 30, Utlit4h had net income of 569,000 on so of $9.5 million. Hevrony said Plymouth has. the potential to expand into other Product lines on its own, such & - developing other office ;;plus W sell through its rubber band distri. bution network. - P.T. True builds success with industrial By Robert Berner The Patriot Ledger Real estate f r DEDHAM — P.T. True and Associates' two. room office, lucked away in the Dedham Plaza, is so inconspicuous it's hard to find. The development company's revenues may be easier to notice. In December, P.T. True placed 183rd on the 1988 Inc. magazine list of the nation's 500 fastest growing privately owned companies. last year, the company had sales of $2.9 million, a 1.532 percent climb from sales of S179,000 in 1983. President Peter True and -his brother and vice president. John, say the growth is largely the result of the company's specialty — developing industrial condominiums. The housing and office segments of the real estate market ere flat, but, they say, the market for industrial condominiums is strong. "The demand has grown more and more in the last few years," said Peter True. "There is no question that it is a growth area in real estate." The industrial condominium was introduced to the region about rive years ago. The .concept consists of constructing a building shell — usually one-story high — and dividing the space to house a number of light manufacturing companies. The buyers choose the amount of space they iged in moo. overcomes obstacles to go public (000 shares at the end of November. the 450.000 shares for a total of The sale first was delayed when one of $1.687.500. But the expenses related to e brokers who had committed to buy the continued delays brought the net 0.000 shares of the rompanv's stork did nrneerdc to ahnnt 51 99 million • Analysts expect home mortgage interest rates to rise — Pg. 12 • Mortgage chart — pg. 43 need, generally between 3.000 and 10,000 square feet. The developer then finishes the interior of each unit, dividing it into office and light. manufacturing or warehousing space. The types of companies buying the condos vary widely: from photo processing labs. biomedical companies and auto pans distributors to food •wholesalers, plastic companies and box inanufac. hirers. For the buyer, the advantages are simple: The company can build equity while increasing tax deductions. The condos are also a lot cheaper than constructing free-standing buildings. True said industrially zoned land is getting scarce and expensive. If a developer puts up a building that will house a number of companies, the costs of the land, design work and construction can be distributed over more than one unit. Thus, the price per square foot is lower. Please gee CONDOMINIUMS — Page 12 condos. Joan e0hWhe Patriot LeW -;.• Peter True company president Public Service tries to block rate hearings - CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Public Service Company of New Hampshire yesterday asked a federal bankruptcy judge to block state hearings on a possible electricity rate reduc- tion. The request will prompt ■ decision on whether state regulators still have rate -making authority while a utility is under bankruptcv "Public Service has taken a very adversarial Position (against the state) from the start of the bankruptcy proceeding... and there is noteasorr t to expect that they,would change their behavior - now," said Assistant Attomev General tarry Smukler, the sate's chief negotiator. But Smukler welcomed a decision on wheth- er the state still has rate makine aoihnriro 42 The Patriot Ledger. Fri.. Jan. 27, 1989 Real estate Condos are attractive to smaller businesses ■ CONDOMINIUMS Continued from Page 21 For example, True said. it would cost at least a total of $700,000 today to construct a 6,000-square-foot, free-standing building. By compari- son, he said, a company could get the same space in an industrial condo for S•4.50.000. "The buyer saves S250.000 and does not have to go through the agony of finding a piece of land and. more importantly, can put that time into running his business," Ice said. Peter Castner, president of CSI Keyboards, agreed. His company, which manufactures keyboards for the medical and electronic indus. tries, bought one of 12 units in P.T. True's Peabody condominium build- ing. "We had considered building our. selves, but it was too large a pro iect to undertake and run a business.- he said. "It was hard to find locations. And prices were prohibitive." There are just a handful of dcvei. opera in Massachusetts that build the condos, but the number is grow. 'rhe largest is Condyne Inc. of Norwell, which has built seven in Taunton. Stoughton, Avon. Canton and Hingham and hasanotherduc in Brockton this spring. P.T. True is the next largest. It has built industrial condos in Marlboro, Franklin and Peabody, and is just finishing a 40.000-square- foot project in West Bridgewater. True has plans to build six 48.000- square-foot buildings in Shrewsbury and a 45,000-square-foot proiect in Bellingham. It also plans to convert existing buildings to condos in Cam- bridge and Westboro. P.T. True completed its first in- dustrial -condo project in Marlboro in 1984. but the company has been around much longer. Peter True. 42. of Westwood. started the firm in 1971. In the beginning, the company sold and managed apartment buildings. But he quickly moved into the develop. M kry t � ^ Yeti John Bohn/The Painot Ledger Peter True says there is growth in real estate developed its first commercial struc- ture. an office building in Dorches- ter. Since then. It has been invulved a variety of projects including an 180. unit residential condominium on Beacon Street in Brookline. The company has maintained its presence in residential development: it is completing construction of a 30- unit residential condominium in Somerville and a 60-unit apartment building in Peabody. True said industrial condos produce 70 percent of the company's revenues. The company sells most of units it constructs but leases some to pro. duce a steady income stream. He predicted his firm would have reve- nues of between S3 milliun to s5 million this year, but declined to discuss profits. Although it has grown, the cnmpn- ny h1s Only three employees. True, his 33-year-old brother, who joined the firm in 1979. and a bookkeeper. The cnmpnnv hires outside eontrac. tors to put up the buildings. True said he expects the demand for industrial condos to remain strong even if the economy slows. Existing rompames that hnv the condos would still he looking for the savings ownership can provide even though the start-up rate of new firms may decline. Fred O'Neill. Bice president of Condync. said more devclopcn ap. pear to be building industrial condos. This. he said. could sat irate demand. "Every time something good Home mortgagE By Thomas C. Hayes N.Y. Times News Service ATLANTA — With nearly a third of the nation's home mortgage debt now tied to short. term interest rates, the economy is likely to be jolted by cutbacks in consumer spending next year if those rates continue to rise as expected. "You will see consumer pocketbooks hit in ways they have never been hit before," David Junes, an interest rate analyst with Aubrey G. Lanston & Co. in New York, said at a conven. tion of the nation's home builders here recently. He predicted that the Federal Reserve Board. in a move to halt slowly rising inflation, would push rates higher by mid -summer, setting the stage for much higher mortgage expenses for millions of American home owners in 1900. For example, an increase of 2 percentage points, to 13 percent, on a 5100,000 adjustable rate mortgage would raise the monthly payment to $1.106,from $952. Such an increase would require homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages to pay a total of S10 billion more in annual payments. "Ce well Cc The spreau by the which The well. P Richar senttM cuts r interes The poitur budget deduct year, ; vided . brcaki "Th, 1987 t, a me - Comm "Th, like rc To baby boomers, Scripps Howard News Service Just give today's baby boomers a two -tar garage, a two-story house and a couple of skylights. Make it a big house, with a basement — even if it leaks — and a big yard, and don't worry about the commuting distance. Those are some of the preferences of today's increasingly affluent baby -boomer homeown- ers, according to a survey released at the National Association of Hume Builders conven- tion in Accr e B: farther want is e TI buy is preser. • T'. a T! square Check market first beforE By Pamela Reeves Scripps Howard News Service Selling a house can be a frazzling experience even under the best conditions, so it pays to know when you're jumping into a difficult market. If it's bad enough, you may decide not to sell. Divorce, a death in the family or a business transfer may force a quick move, but many people have the luxury of time in deciding when — and even whether — to put their house on the market. Generally. December and January are the slowest months of the year in real estate. Few houses are on the market then, and few buyers are prowling the streets. On the other hand, there are always some buyers and some houses available in major metrnpohl.an areas at any time of year. What you should consider are local market condi- rinns. ly there's of the cot. In a sL, Tuccill spring. %%- says lots idea- sn c In th is choose a - agents ca much mu "When make s. marketu: Realtor. an idea , your nor,. detailed a One fir. better. Clients Lh freshly p. - - —m—t wall.caa puoucauon of Its kind In the nation Iuesday. febmary 2. 198E Projects include six acre industrial park in Peabody P.T. True and Associates Development handles apartments, office and industrial '• nl. ,non I ,.. .d a ll 'nu' ..dr, tlntl drnlupwem' PT 'I,vuyL n,e .• w \awr,.11r. Uv. cloy n,r ,,, CumWme Fulmcrlc known u Tlue :1...,.Ica In, nnl: 'r •.., - - a _. ° 0 . 11 Iii.1d In 1971 The Ono True Associates rl'lll' II:I. INa'II ...�N'l:lll"I drr it tnrnl. uN,"t" '"ll "'ent •1 uflin11P1' of Dedham, MA anl•,. �T' .loll 1n.,lr\ l�),IL11a'nl hll,Ilhna hN-.11.Vl al :49 PvorI S.. Br.NRmn a IH Announces new name now known as P.T. TRUE AND ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT "m dy:u'Inivu, runt Ik m':nal mI Uuklond S, \I.. odd. ,ul NJ umt I., nn1B"' 11111e In id lln CIn" Ito. 'l laI it .toil " "'""',,I 1,4 CO. Idea. rA nn ('Inu gh Itd (lough lid I hvlhanl T,'ur hs alv.1N"'Il,mnhNd AM fut OR LKM palls"T. MA �Or KA,ndurinal ,n In.• r111IM1urlwn .toll m:moecmenl ul 41"1 :mlt il,,Onp mvnl. nlrlullmu .� non .. ••"._ building ut ill RLahnlgli S... \nrw'md: l i2w . I ,nrdu:d nuillhn. A aen 8'.alyng. nn St, \u.v.vNl 25.0911 "r1 Inml mall .1, Bruadwapand \ah:u:u. hi, Smv'.YNI: y 12.999 Wl nl Oor building at 2e \Glom st. NAtLi l: a 4e.0110 ./1 RLI) budding M Bngli:un St Mndbotn bhnw'nl'. ;md a 2s unit a"ndummmm aumpic.l loci• 10 M ,. page sp-uuny-two ROUte 4 . ILO opuulgl• .. Projects include six acre industrial park in Peabody P.T. True and Associates Development handles apartments, office and industrial DEDHAM, MA. -- Peter True operates his own real estate sales, management and development company known as P.T. True and Associates Development Company. Formerly known as True Associates, the firm was formed in 1971. The firm is located at 725 Providence Highway. True has been associated with many apartment developments including: a seven story, 132 unit luxury apartment building located at 349 Pearl St., Brockton; a 144 unit apartment complex located on Oakland St., Mansfield; an 84 unit apartment complex located on County Rd., Taunton; and an 80 unit townhouse complex located on Clough Rd., Dedham. True has also been involved in the construction and management of office and industrial developments including: a 9,000 s/f office building at 511 Washington St., Norwood; a 12,000 s/f medical building at 480 Washington St., Norwood; a 25,000 s/f mini mall at Broadway and Nahatan Sts- Norwood; a 12,000 s/f office building at 20 Milton St., Dedham; a 48,000 s/f R&D building at Brigham St., PRESCRIPTION FOR SUCCESS 562-7637 Hours: By Appointment Hudson Industrial & Develoament Commission Marlboro (shown): and a 28 unit condominium complex located in Marlboro. Over the years, he has built over 50 single famih' homes in the lowns of Dedham Braintree. Canton. %kest wood. Taunton. Franklin. Norwood. %ledlivid and Walpole. Presentl%y True is developing a six acre industrial park in Peabodc with a 48,000 s/f R&D building under construction as phase one with plans for a 24,000 s/f second R&D building in the future. He is also developing a 58.000 s/f R&D building in Franklin as phase one with plans for a 10,000 s/f second R&D building in the future. True has recently finished an 8,000 s/f R&D building on Brigham St., Marlboro which brings the total to date at 76,000 s/f of building with additional 10 acres of land for expansion. Franklin Ind. Park eon). from page sp-26 reflective glass and brick The building is available tnr immediate occupancy —Phi: is an excellent ope(1) )unit% for companies will) region:11 business in Southern Nc%% England." said Cokikkell CA RLSON COMMERCIAL A QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER Industrial Condominiums: Viable concept for the small industrial user Industrial condominiums are becoming a very active sector of the real estate market on Boston's North Shore and in Southern New Hampshire. Within the past nine months eight new industrial condominium projects have been placed on the market ranging in size from 10,000 square feet to 75,000 square feet, with selling prices per square foot from $55.00 to $96.00. Sales volume for all of these projects has exceeded all projections made by the developers. Introduced in the early 1970's, the industrial condominium con- cept is not new. Industrial devel- opments have been constructed across the country in areas where the real estate market in general is very strong and where a strong market exists for the product. The presence or absence of oompetF tive industrial facilities for lease with desirable amenities and rent- al rates is a contributing factor in the location of industrial condo- minium projects. Due to the avail- ability of land, almost all projects have been located in suburban areas. The recent growth in this sector of the industrial market in the North Shore area is directly attrib- utable to the factors described above. The vibrant growth in the last five years of the residential, commercial and high tech R&D MARKET FOCUS REVIEW & TRENDS markets has concentrated devel- opment in these areas often at the expense of the small indus- trial user. It is to this target group that the current efforts of devel- opers of industrial condominium space are aimed. A small user is generally defined as a company which re- quires less than 10,000 square feet. Such users, if now operating in the inner city, are finding that their locations are becoming at- tractive targets for residential and commercial developers who are faced with an overwhelming de- mand for product and a very limited amount of land. Finding themselves eventually "rezoned" out of present locations, the small user is being forced to seek space in suburban areas. These users have found an in- creasing gap in terms of supply and cost, between low -rent ware- house and typical manufacturing space, and the higher rent of office and research and develop- ment buildings with flexible space. As noted in a recent edi- tion of New England Business, although the strongest end of the market is the industrial end, i.e. the single story, industrial manu- facturing space, there has not been much new construction in that market Developers have found that, given the high cost of land, there is no justification for building single story buildings as achievable rents do not support the costs of development and operations. Contributing to the diminishing industrial market is the reuse of existing industrial buildings sitting at prime loca. tions as traditional office space. Faced with a need to relocate SPRING 1987 and the scarcity of suitable indus- trial space for lease, companies are now seeking places to own rather than lease. Again, the dilemma encountered is the lack of suitable space for sale in general and the fact that most industrial buildings on the market are more suitable for a large user. Reports from a Wall Street Journal article of February 18, 1987 indi- cate that Boston is considered among the regions where cut- backs and the shakeout in the technology industry have forced a lot of space onto the market. However, as in most metropolitan areas, there is still a limited selec- tion of modem, efficient, industrial facilities of 10,000 square feet or less. It is at this point that develop- ers, recognizing the pent-up demand, have begun building industrial condominiums. The condominium concept of sharing land and building costs allow an industrial developer to pass these savings to the user. Developers have been able to capitalize on the lack of affordable, suitable industrial leased space and the intangible or psychological in- come considerations associated with owning one's own space. Developers now are offering small industrial users modem, ef- ficient, well located industrial facilities, complete with an equity accumulation, anticipated appre- ciation, security and more Pleasant surroundings. PROJECT PROFILE: Design and Construction: 98% of buildings are new construction Most of the buildings are simple, cement block shells Generally one large building, single story, is subdivided into smaller units An alternative is a cluster of the same number of units into two or three smaller buildings Total Square Footage: • Condominiums in ex- istence or under construe lion range from 30,000 s.f. to 180,000 s.f. • Realtors have noted that larger buildings are less appealing to industrial con- dominium buyers because they lack a sense of owner- ship Unit Size: • 1,500 - 6,000 s.f. modules up to 10,000 s.f. • Unit sizes are determined largely by the target market • Projects oriented to small blue collar industrial users offer unit sizes from 1,500 - 3,000 s.f. • Projects oriented to white collar users start with 3,000 -5,000 s.f. modules • Larger options ranging up to 10,000 - 36,000 s.f. usually consist of an entire building • Ceiling heights range from 16 to 22 feet Percent Office.- * Developers generally pro vide 10 to 15 percent fin- ished office space • 10 percent most common for blue collar industrial user, and 15 percent for the white collar user • The office space is gener- ally in the front of the building, often including loft space because of high ceil- ing heights Selling Price Per Square Foot • Range from $55 to $96 per square foot • Price includes 10 to 15 per- cent office build -out Unit Price: • Units targeted at blue collar industrial users are smaller spaces priced under $200,000 • Units targeted toward white collar industrial users range from $220,000 to over $500,000 Fit Up Provides: • HVAC (Office) • Blowers in warehouse • Sprinklers • Drop ceiling • Carpet • Parking - 2 to 3 spaces per unit plus visitor parking • Restrooms - 1 or 2 Special Features: • Highway access • Rail service • Loading docks • Security fence • Parking spaces • Freight elevators • Ceiling height - 10', 12', 18', 22' clear "A market demand for small industrial space combined with a minimum supply was the catalyst for my firm to enter the industrial condominium marketplace:' - Peter True - True Associates Development Company Land Area: Industrial condominium devel- opments more typically comprise 10 acres or less, a size which reflects the market demand. Since the industrial condominium competes with leased industrial Parks, the market is somewhat fragmented. Any absorption of industrial condominium facilities requires a vast urban area from which to draw. The market de- mand for industrial condomin- iums is much narrower than for leased industrial park develop. ments. Because of the high cost of money, carrying land over time is expensive. The faster the ab• sorption, the shorter the holding period for land. Therefore, the size of industrial condominium developments will be based on demand and the anticipated sellout period. Buyer Profile: Marketing of industrial condo miniums has been targeted to a user who needs less than 10,000 s.f. of space. The orientation has been, therefore, toward small manufacturing firms, distributors, job shops, suppliers, computer Operations, construction related contractors, and other mutually compatible users for whom a fixed amount of space can be forecast. Small users are looking for space at a cost under $200,000. Most are on the border between being a renter and an owner, with most available cash sunk in work- ing capital. Most purchasers, recognizing the inflexibility of pur- chasing a set amount of space, commit to purchase sufficient Square footage to allow for expansion. Larger units are marketed to the more affluent industrial user who wants a prestige location and a name on the building. Fortner location of a condo minium buyer is usually very dose to the new site, due to the necessity of maintaining a cus- tomer base. A majority of the buyers are renting space at the time of purchase. Developers Perspective: According to Peter True, True Associates Development Corr. Perry of Dedham, Massachusetts, "a market demand for small in- dustrial space combined with a minimum supply was the catalyst for his firm to enter the industrial condominium marketplace." The large number of inquiries received from small users in response to marketing large in- dustrial space indicated that there was a market demand not being met. The success of his first in. dustrial condominium project, Waters Way Industrial Park in Peabody, has confirmed his con- clusions as to market demand. With a total of 48,000 square feet in Building One, fifty percent has been sold within a six month marketing effort. Most industrial condominium developers are cautious, with a preference for phasing construct tion and obtaining sell out in one building before starting construo- tion in a second phase. Sell out can be expected twelve to eigh- teen months after the foundation is poured. Experience has shown that the larger the space and more expensive per square foot, the more difficult it is to sell. AS in most real estate transactions, location is the key to a rapid sell out. And, as expected, locating suitable land is one of the most difficult aspects of this kind of development. An industrial condominium project currently on the market vvamm way maustnai Park Building Area: 48,000 s.f., 58 Pulaski Street divisible to suit from 3,000 s.f. Peabody, MA Price p.s.f.: $65 - $75 Selected Carlson Commercial Exclusive Listings Office Saugus Executive Park, Saugus. 120,000 s.f. Merrimack Place, Methuen. 30,000 s.f. Chestnut Green, North Andover. 86,000 s.f. Searles Building, Methuen. 30,000 s.f. Hillside Office Park, Concord. 38,000 s.f. Gardner & Kelly Blocks, Haverhill. 42,00o s.f. Retail Marlborough Commons, Marlborough. 62,000 s.f. Brookside Square, Lynn. 30,000 s.f. Middleton Commons, Middleton. 107,000 s.f. Land Residential waterfront, PUD, Revere. Commercial, Westport. 7 acres. Industrial, Georgetown. 35 acres. Investment Retail strip, North Beverly. 22,000 s.f. Retail strip, Route 1, Peabody. 30,000 s.f. Industrial complex, Manchester, New Hampshire. 110,000 s.f. Apartment, 33 units, Revere. 00000� businesses turn' Justrial condos .ibeSLing coat �nd.arcity of land in the region is toreia� cean lacrossing number of small-business men Ni'an alternative virtually "unheard or' several years ago — Industrial condominiums. A. "pocket of demand" for Industrial condomini• ums Is helping to keep the region's Industrial real es. tato market humming along, ac- cording to a broker with one of the cuts's largest real estate firms. The Industrial market in south. uGrn Massachusetts la strong and should .continue growing, a• 'to 9 to .` Pster Beak*, senior myrosidant ; .with Hunneman Commercial Co:; a division of Bos- Soa•bued Hunnaman jital Estate rp Helping to fuel the market is the appearanco of industrial condo. n%Wums, Banks said. L. Jadustrial condos offer a small tcbusinesaman the opportunity to Fown.his own workspace without the•oostly hassles of finding -land, buying it And constructing a build. rs ' ins.:. Generally, the exterior of the �� a`nit- the land and puking is weed In'eommon with others In the project Owners typically pay a retulqq condo fee that coven oper• m Wor1osts, ;ouch as landscaping Lend plowint-iur, •i l--ii:J'YVt ary finding another pocket of demand in the i dustrlal market' and that Is the industrial condo. Ngrtrtinium s_Unheard of a few years back, Tice. type of i..: space Is now being Purchased by the small busi- b :b�ssos who like the Idea of owning their workspace It yet do not need an entire building," Banks said. Sales' have been "excellent" in the Canton and tStaughtob areas,'ho said, with prices ranging from S to $75 per square foot I,*-.'- Deborah Kearney. a spokesman for Hunneman, laid typical owners Include electrical and plumbing b tlrms, .'studios, Print shape, iAblust makers and $710thers who use units for distribution and storage. ,rev:.Dedbam•based P.T. Truce A Associates will break s•gtounit to July for i 30.00Gaquare•foot Industrial condominium complex on Turnpike Street, near the We are finding another pocket of demand in the industrial market and that is the Industrial condominium ... This type of space is now being purchased by the small businesses who like the idea of owning their workspace and yet do not need an entire building. — Munnomen's Peter Bonk@ Brockton line. In Wset Brlds`ewater. The demand la most definitNy the»;' raid Peter True, president of the 16•year•old development firm which completed and sold a 48,000•square-foot Indus- trial condominium complex In Peabody. ' Ths Peabody project, celled Waterswayr Industrial Condominiums, Is a mix of office, warshcatsa' and light manufacturing space selling In the range of S75 to 58S per square foot Some units are u .mall as 2,600 square fooL The West Bridgewater project, ` located on a 3%an» site, will be a singie•story structure and will be similar to the Peabody develop• ment, featuring loading docks, drive-ins and rear entrances. 'Prue said be has a second indua. trial condominium project planned for a separate site now Turnpike Street In West Bridgewater. Two factors drawing businessmen to In. dustrial condos an the rising cost of land and Its scarcity, be said. Market studios by big firm &bow that the greater Brockton area Is rips for industrial condominiums,. he added. "Once the price of land gets up over $100,000 per acre, the &mall businessman just can't afford to buy a couple of acres, build a now building and run a business," True sald. 'wMe avenge guy can't buy two acres, build a 8,0004quare• foot building and still Afford to rum his business. The cost of land Is just too high. Secondly, there Is the question of avail. ability. The small businessman can't find the land.. We're looking everyday and we're havig trouble find.: Ing land." Construction of Brockton Corporate Center, 'a 100,000•squuo.foot Industrial condominium project, Is scheduled to get under way In about two weeks, W cording to Frederick W 074111, a managing director with Norwell -based Condyne Inc. ' The project, locetod on Howard Street near the Tfi- con plant, will feature eight .SAWsquaredoot -units and thew 20,000•square•foot units..: ; rrr: �; ` Condyne Is currently building the My�i t{n __ -0. Corporate Center, a 40,000•equari-foet''lndurtrlal condo project in Taunton's Industrial park, ' • • : In Stoughton, the company has constructed tkie CONDOS/Page D7 24. 1999 Route 495/12e spotlight Peter T. True, President and John G. True, Vice President are Proud to Announce P.T. True and Associates Development Co. 725 Providence Highway. Dedham. MA. 02025 617-329-5151 Has been named by INC. Magazine to the 1988 INC. 500. P.T. True & Associates Development Co. Ranks #183 on this year's list of America's fastest -grousing private companies. Peter T. True, names Wayne Spiegel, Vice President of Hunneman Real Estate Exclusive Agent for the following projects SHREWSBURY,MA SALE OR LEASE 23 acres industrial Park on Cherry St. and Route 20 Bmla to sun up to 300.000 90, itflat awlaing a 48.000 industrial Condominium 0... sahle into 3.000 sq. ft. units. WEST BRIDGEWATER, MA to -- -, SALE OR LEASE 40.000 so It. industrial Condom.num o.mcing d.visaole into 1500 sq. It. units. P.T. True and AssociateC WESTBORO, MA e 50 Milk Street SALE OR LEASE iS,000 sa. h. one very naD 6.000 so. h. Office, mr-conomoned lhroughout, sate 81.200,000 ns leS5.95 bit ne1 n...... Wayne Spelgel VP of Hunneman announces Full Commission to Co-op Brokers on these Properties for Information call Wayne or Charles Evangelakus at 426-4260 s oncentratwn is industrial Properties in Massachusetts. If you here any listings with 2 acres or more. Please call John G. True, Vice President NOW/FORMERLY OF WILLIAM M. BEEBE & WILLIAM F, HEANEY NOW/FORMERLY OF ESTATE_ OF FRANK MACHINCHICK I 10 s --- F-T7 S 51'13'55" E T T NOW/FORMERLY OF BERTHA KURCZEWSM;I 1,901.44' 20' L L L —i h20 -� LIIL LI-IL L III DRAINAGE 1 I RT T T T ESERVE 1-1 T S 49;56`35" E 221.47''T,' W FLn w — - Lo 0- co cr) NOW/FORMERLY OF UI nL LONG ISLAND VINEYARDS INC ^ '\ O O in `J EXISTING PRIVATE WATER WELL z 0 (TYPICAL FOR 6) 150' SANITARY RADIUS FROM CENTER OF WATER WELL (TYPICAL FOR 6) NOW/FORMERLY HIGHLAND of ROAD CORD & MOHRING RT, i 11 1 n I 0 1 �1 � I (P NOW/FORMERLY OF I O ZAHARA, CHARLES J_ & JEAN T. -RECHARGE �40T j� T S 49'4T45" E 273.68' �, /—TOV N/POPE SOUTH(OC --I I 110 ui 60 I I 70 �S01 T T 77 bRP(INAGE 1 XSERVE N 49'37'25" W 2,010.62' Ld z w NOW/FORIe1ERl.Y OF NOW/FORMERLY OF NOW/FORIAFRI.'Y OF NOW/FORMERLY OF C001<, DIVINILY, DEMBROSKY, DEMBROSKY, DAVID A. FRAINCIS J. STANLEY JR. STANLEY JR.. & DONNA M. & MARIE C. h 3 0 I L L _L L L I L_ II�-TT- TI TI I40 9 0 N 19'56' I5" W 400.00' 80 , ,I I NOW/FORMERLY 01 NOW/FORMERLY OF BAROAD, SHELB'i, ALDO & LOUISE PAUL M & CONCETTA SITE INFORMATION GROUNDWATER MA.NACd?M;NT ZONE, IV (601) GAI JACRE) ALLOWABLE SANITARY SITE FLOW: 600 GAL/ACRF, x 46.16 ACRES 27,696 GPD NOTES: I. SEWAGI-, TRE,ATMFN'I' PLANTSI TALL BE' DESIGNED FOR 50,000 6I113. 2. MINIMUM LOT AREA IS 10,000 SF. 3. MINIMUM LOT DEPTI I RLQU11tE1) IS 80', ACTUAL MINIM( IM IS 83,67'. 4. MINIMiJM LOT WIDTH REQUIRED IS 60', ACTUAL MINIMUM IS 60'. GRAPffiC SCALE oe a o0 aoo ( 1N FEET) 1 mch - 100 It SCDI-iS#: 510-03-000` SCTM#: 1000-102-01 133.3 i I I f i o O NOW'/FORMERLY OF STASIUKILWICZ, HENRY & DEBORAH � rn 0 0 3 in r7 N N O V V) 1 I NOW/FORMERLY OF QUARTICELLI, JOHN 8c iSABEL ON i L y F � f Lai !r b3 (' r r rxl GREAT PECOMIC OAY KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = 0.5 MILE NOW/FORMERLY OF ROMAN CATHOLIC CFIURCI I OF SACRED HEART ,I S 49'47'45" E FNG STREEF-- M O N In NOW/FORMERLY OF ARTO L. ID, TAIL — Ifc J190ii --------- ------YIELD MAP ----------------- �� ,.,,-- — f i�P L I THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE:I��� CUTCHOGUE r -- NEL_SON & PO M 1"P.E. SEAL &SIGNATURE i � . � i i 'sr ; ,„ , - S 38' 3o'S0'E /90/. 44 . J I 400,00' NOTE: ALL BUILDINGS HAVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 50 FT. EXCEPT FOR BUILDINGS 7, 25 AND 28. RD 1 1 R.O v S.T. SEPTIC TANK 0 L.P. LEACHING POOL 0 tq R.Di. ROOF DRAIN h h TYPICAL SANITARY AND ROOF DRAINAGE FOR EACH BUILDING N 3!0' S4' 20"W 0 N 6i S/DEWALK - GRIFFINS STREET PLAN -o ROAO/,c/QY '.o' 6 VAR/ES CURB SECTION TYPICAL INTERNAL ROADWAY S/oEDdAL K ROADWAY I irl:VAI& ulmol, TAX MAP NO. 1000-102-01-33.3 TOTAL ACRES 46.16 NUMBER OF UNITS 160 ZONING M-LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENCE RECEIVED BY SOUTNOLO TOWN PLANNING BOARD JUL 12 19$$_—_ DATE S 38030'50"E /901.44' 7 8f �F 13 sd fa 40' 3g 55' i �oy0 �P '\y yy 2141e1 i `p G `Q ►— H. P. yo d Qp yP P �. i � —y, r So, � �� plc VS 20' y0 k0 _�— f 1 Oy Gp 10 M N 6!,0 0 WAY `/ �► yq Ak N MN N 0 NP _ M C.a _� Zk Ge . ISN� i8 Z ry ' 32 40 yy 5370/3'30'E _ _ P2/. 47' 23 �\ 105' Al Hp too 22 Gm. z W Zg r s O GAZEBO �X.v 0 ni V G� � 150 FT. BUFFER AREA N I WATER STORAGE TANK AREA I 35, yo A N I 28 0 so, h 28 46' 36 Greenman -Pedersen HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE LONiULTIXY EMLIXf[X{ gpi SITE PLAN LAYOUT DRAWING NO. SCALE DATE SHEET NO. B,b&m , NY 11702 87398.00 1 "=50' JULY 1988 2 OF 2 V r- q'�""'-"•ryo`-. rr. �,-,A.J.>..;r,-.,,..N•�,.,.."�V`�^h•-•--��L......-r-'%.—.,.r�o�^:�-•-.T.rJ,v:.�: I ��EL(1F'IiCyi,IV� K l.F.}JF'F. �`. +:',J�,� ��IIJ !^F%-t � Tom^ .•I. �JT�°'':�%)� �"-- h�'r7 rKG2 �T. i°k.a'S' �Y -„ ._. ✓ i, .gyp ry'. �. ''.- _'T',l I GGJTf�=1�-1 G� �I � U� r--1•ol- ry S� � ----- ----- rl _ SI(,Il To .-Ic�t w�'� ry Gvr'fl =Y w/ /kLf. �Eu.I�uTlouS '•F� f` j ', �jmTk la �R--(I�.�✓ W ,§ la,�•14a� - TOw� o>: v�;No�n �c.�b. r r d� ICI k Yj+ LU7 % lQr"�o� I rf�- P r�a'r LW&ryq_pf1,1,== 1 NI FIR IL(, W '/34x44r) 6"r'lf=►..41 � x � mil. • L}W17KiWW�17 hUIS(sY-fM�-- 1i�1� t -T►i �a_ ' kIL - - - -- - I_1y�1' - I.lb j .76 %Ai rrry I RE✓/S/ON 7-0¢-87 CNA.</GEIJ ,PRo ✓ECT NfIME To THE HAMLEj AT CUTCNOGUE ' Z •FLY �GI �l �"Kl-r!a 2-I�� t' GA�i�l.l- ifr�i1 Ip CI•lr W) ADO NUj �iTA•PLC/ _-- II ya vFµ 14-ja �i 12" f�lll-G C.u7Et1, oalL —' - �Jvl�1�I�` ��i S-U f}Fa�rH'f ,�Itr.GFI, AM-yal2 t-IArpLE� C.eh�P>'L.�j GI•±Ep�2y — cwap'['z�, t�'.a�Foxn tie, • .. Evrosµ 5'�'r+��+!T Wu77'���eD firms y ++eon 3c'+�Frr 'wwl�r? rsrr�I�,Aurun ou✓� '�S&2P-T.iL., tLIV` rir� r.�aAH�'uy�jKIILC.�d V liwJr(`v Luac, wiUrl�+:°r, 'Iz�ucH�r-�.-v, ALL-�A4r6 • ��r VmAL- H+�awV 4r tiEPTyJI& OO&W&GP ', fo"}4H4 LILq� �j�K�u �yeKKY 3VI3Wzrklrj GhI21 f� 5 Wl �27ELey 3 lh I-(��swY� a i'u55vwl�Lon! ' Gcti.l fnfzTv� r� upuZ� ALL FL�L-tTs S{ecl�lE.;� AU. Agz * uar 12E4146A,Mp Ta fk cps • ALL PLAWi5 i r* 4-151A LL;V T� A-141CA4 Ay,Oc4614Jo QF- 1y:2•`.EC�1''�'-f ��y4+}.L':.�„r fbP, 441l 'V t-44re-Afb, QPIi fLA" owG .,V° /vY2139-o08 Greenman -Pedersen HAMLET AT CUTCHOGiUE CeM6 YLi1MO.a.r..e. LANDSCAPING PLAN-1 100Ww mams0m, DIIAWIN6 NO. SCALE: DATE: SNEETM e.oyinn, NY 1-1702 8 OF 12 r � \ 7�� j r - � � q •_- -_---tom-" -_ _'. __. ._.. __� � (� • . v r i Y j { P )�' � _s ti = --..\� r __ . �/ ,� -i'' \',\\ \\�"`-� '�� •�1��. {'-` / O ,.s Ali f`( : n .• � ,�/ ._„� '• rs . � �t \ � -.--'- - - _ r�_31 l �f�/1� �1 rye, �.' � �, � ,� A �y i fr.J \ .� —'"�� � �/ v i \ N: `"e+ /l __ F.3.3•J� / may. P2090$��__��—,. �� t, - 12 ` /__ \ • I fly ? � \ -"_ ,. 1� �� • _ iii _ __.__ •3� • .'�r / . !� _-�' i 1 � 9� `c' O • YO r r r 'r _t.V.�- G 1 i fl 2 'a l \ G r oAp.FY4/6 23 20jk s ; 3 1or rlwvo ,.i • �• �'M. AIA WELL 1-5 �•.� J ��_. � �:��.:i� ,�' 33rrS/ rPET N/N N/HLL I 36 AA� ' � - � Vet- rr. r 2B . � - •.. ✓• v r_ \.-.-_�1_-hVr'�,y\V-�-,,�'-�-���.��V-��-�'`w---\v--,ram 1—+.✓K.r--w+P--�'�' -wP eu-,.n''tsc �• -=w y,,..�.w.-��--rev.^,--�n�.1.-...-w--�..�r-•-�-•.e nne�._.,u,^_�rW`_-n.ti-;,.r.-�---w: ..�,�,�-��,^�^�- .,•,.:4.•--.,W�'�.n'.....,,.. nr<,,.:r.___ .. -" - _---+.Ati,:- . " �Y---'' _.y 1- -'v K •--s•.-t.',1Z^a••.,a::a.r�_ v'^--"�^"�,r+.ks.: --�,N.,--�nie.:rc--�h-- {•,,n. � ...�-�-' -... __ ,_ ... i - - moron . _ y+ir lT"-� zv�-y+,�=---•r'•^r• .�.�n.r- � - tiury___ .ti: -. _ ..-._ ,�._r. - h, ,:.n� ; �_._� ram,--""-vr,,,_,�.�--� -._ �.r •�.^ � THE HAWe ET AT CUTCyOG UE w S/TUAYEO /.v TONIC / GEC $'DlJY IJOL b SUFFOGK C'OZIAIY$S AAF-AV i b ek 1 7-2%•87 Cf-iliil/6E� P.POJECT NAME 70 r�,'E .. _ _ NYpMG ET HT CU>CNO6 UE � ` - - - - ' � 9-/O "B4- ,2E✓/SEO 4.2.4LYNfj CvWFlTE,2 Y✓E�L �/TB � C/ /lcY :, � r .� I r Woo p pt;4- �n i A e .i "t1la I 3•paW� Mut.ut_ �rw�i b�.►P �M -quo�D 1 z+F�rsTU�Cr'SUf�t�v - tLY fzema l ew -9.4wa — \W Y rlltrla, Qrt�{wHpY1,st� AMM:Gd1�sX. i'f 5•U N U�OYI, G��G�tZN-Y,�t�+p�IW fly ' ✓� �+-IV' kltriT2 PINS. - 61 ,5Ve &-1,1 ti-0 nn4-,4404444 AMPAYW FipaMNG 'WAY W 6 1' Lli,k�, Pu'nYWu.�Dil,W� D�ld�/lt7YJIH �A �p R341 viol�"t-t tea,40 E+Jlw r ] r*• LYM . P-OWOIA& ALA jAgy -yf�ikl•+TN'pt11�IGIZIAr 3D 3-.�" 1fiT�t1T�u-bt`� 5P1W2kt, Z•2'�ti puots�IMt.h r�-�IUS Gar•��l'GI'I}, �IV�GraLls,� (�F�I�[Y It7 t - �, 3�{' J` Kti0�7aDFh'IJ�ONIucZ2+.1�A'y' 4�/�Llp� /////// f� b9444a•5, vrwr ii1th OF- olw ukPCIlYfib2- Y G.«nlDul•PYA�rwl HAI�AL:@T AT CUTCHOGUB ►_ LANDSCAPING DETAILS r DAM 3MIR; IW WLYMain Snnl, OMWDW NO. v�l e. f ,BEU�S/ON: 9-24--dJ CNFN6Eo P,�OI%6GT ti/L%'IETO TyE easyi•n,gy11702 140E yIJMGET .pT GU>CA+06C/E. Ss1EET /Z OF /2