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