Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-102.-1-33.3 (4) . .. . . .. FR NCIS J. MURPHY SUPERVISOR TELEPHONE 516) 765.1800 TOWN HALL, 53095 MAIN ROAD P.O. BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM DATE REF: Supervisor, Town Board, Planning Board James A.Schondebare, Town Attorney March 29,1988 Seacroft,Ltd., Article 78 date year to r issu Enclosed is court's decision referenced the above case March 21,1988. Someone "sat on" this case for a few In any event, the court upheld the Planning Board's right quire a DEIS on a site plan, even though the Town Board a negative declaration on the change of zone. of t corr In addition, the specific allegations against members e Planning Board individually were held to be "not orated by substantial evidence and are based on surmise". Enc: opy of decision . , . . MEMORANDUM . . " SUPREMB COUBT, surrOLK COUNTY CDISPSJ TRIAL PART XVII - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the atter of the Application of, SEACROF , LTD., a New York Corpora ion, BY DUNN, J. S. C. DATED: March 21, 1988 Petitioner, - against - THE PLAN ING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN RICHARD G. WARD, KENNETH EDWARDS, GEORGE RTCHIE LATHAM, JR., and WILL AM F. MULLEN, JR., as members f the Planning Board of the Town of outhold, Index No. 20302/82 " - - - - - - - - - Respondents. CRON & CON, ESQS. - - - - - - Attorney for Petitioner Main Roa , Box 953 Cutchogue, New York 11935 SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG,~ ISLER & YAKABOSKI, ESQS. Attorneys for Respondent 456 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This is an Article 78 proceeding to set aside a denial of approval by respon ent Planning Board of the Town of Southold, of petitioner's s~te plan for a condominium project, and to compel such approval. Titl to the proposed condominium site which is located in the hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, was taken by petitioner on September 1, 1983. Previously the Town Board had, on July 19, 1983, granted a rezoning application for the site which consisted of 46.16 acres, pI ing it in an "M-Light MUltiple Use Zone". In connection with such ezoning, both a short Environmental Assessment form (EAF) and a long form had been filed. On March 22, 1983, the Town Board, as a lead gency, under Sec. 8-0109 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law (EeL), gave On anuary 7, 1985 respondent adopted a resolution declaring the site pIa application incomplete under SEQRA and denied it. " PAGE notice signif Stat em P site, "B"-Li been h o confer projec plan wo unit bu designe stated mini-sh shoppin it was conjunc Fo respond stateme was fil Building On agency, signific by the B Pet since a been pre responde obtained requireme to suppor ever made such arbi Furt Board is under Art the groun similar a . . . . SEACROFT V. SOUTHOLD INDEX NO. 85-3323 that the project was "unlisted" and would not have a cant effect on the environment. An Environmental Impact nt (EIS) was thus deemed unnecessary. titioner, simultaneously with the purchase of the condominium Iso took title to 7 plus or minus acres of land, zoned ht Business use; the total acreage 53, plus or minus acres had ld as a single parcel by petitioner's predecessor in title. April 9, 1984 petitioner was accorded a pre-submission ce with the Planning Board to discuss the site plan for the Thereat the project designer informed the Board that the ld consist of 160 homes attached in a cluster formation of 4 ldings. The homes would be a retirement community. The presented a sketch map of a proposed shopping area and hat this would consist of specialty shops, and would be a pping center on the same scale as the housing, and that the center would,pe another part of the approval process since n the commercial zone; he presented it as being in ion with the housing plan. " lowing preliminary communications between petitioner and the nt, wherein the latter insisted on an environmental impact t and the former resisted Supplying it, a certified site plan in October of 1984. The plan bore the approval of the Department as to compliance with the zoning ordinance. ovember 5, 1984, the Board formally declared itself lassified the project as Type I, and as such having nt impact on the environment. A draft EIS was then ard, for preparation by petitioner, lead a required tioner argues that such action was arbitrary and capricious horough presentation of the proposed condominium project had ented to the Town Board on the zone change application, and could have partiCipated in such proceeding, haVing now ledge of the lead agency status of the Town and SEQRA ts; that the Planning Board has illegally contrived grounds a SEQRA process and EIS preparation, and that no agency a determination of Significance on the project, establishes rary conduct on respondent's part. er maintains petitioner, the authority of the Planning imited to the Objectives set forth in the Town Ordinance cle XIII, Sec. 100-131 thereof; and raised no Objections on s specified therein; moreover, the Board has approved lications without reqUiring an EIS, and limited its review . . . . " PAGE 3 to th A matte Board "peti with never stage the p absol N in co in fur petiti attemp has be . . . . SEACROFT V. SOUTHOLD INDEX NO. 85-3323 provisions of Sec. 100-131. ain, respondent has acted through malice and bad faith in this , overriding as it does, the prior declaration by the Town of no significant environmental impact and in stating that ioner was building a 160 unit condominium as a phased project shopping plaza" inasmuch as this was totally false. There was and is not now an adjacent shopping plaza and a planned of development. Thus, the description of action set forth in sitive declaration to establish Type I status was and is tely false. t, petitioner claims that the Chairman of the Planninq Board, ert with the Board, seeks to impede, etc. petitioner's project herance of personal motives an~ gain. In support of this, ner cites the chairman's personal monetary involvement in the ed rezoning at another local property to a business use, which n opposed by one of the principals of petitioner. ~ Re pondent asserts that the proposal here is an "action" subject to SEQ A since site plan approval will involve permitting constr ction which will change the use or appearance of a natural resour e, citing ECL Sec. 8-0105.4, 6 NYCRR 617.2. Compliance with SEQRA nd implementation thereof are conditions absolute to the review and final action by a town planning board of a proposed site plan; e "SEQRA review" by the Town Board upon rezoning, does not forecl e SEQRA review by the Planning Board, since examination of impacts from a rezoning involve general long-range planning, while'a specifi site plan's impacts are considerably different, involving direct hysical impacts on the environment. The overall project embraci g the shopping center was not considered by the Town Board which a so did not give notification of lead agency status and determi ation of significance to involved agencies The other agencie which have to approve this project encouraged the Planning Board t act as lead agency and to require preparation of a draft environ ental impact statement, and thus. undp.r 6 NYCRR 617.7(a) each sUbsequ nt involved agency may require an EISi the Board's review encompa ses areas of potential concern that have been identified in' the pos'tive declaration and are within the authority of the Planning Board t take into account; and, lastly, petitioner's charge of improper motives are not only unfounded but are immaterial. The to enabl hand, be but as a DECISION nly consideration before the Town Board was a zoning change the construction of the retirement homes. On the other ore the Planning Board was not only the retirement project conjoined part thereof, the shopping center as well. PAGE 4 revea 1984 folIo bo the ret adjacen The possibl obligati The cided by New York . . . . SEACROFT V. SOUTHOLD INDEX NO. 85-3323 D spite petitioner's protestations to the contrary, the record s this connection between the two projects. Thus, on April 9, t a presubmission conference before the Planning Board, the ing extracts appear in the record of proceedings then taken: "Mr. Richard Cron, Esq. was present for a presub- mission conference before the Board to discuss the site plan of Seacroft, located at Cutchogue. Mr. Orlowski briefly explained that the Town Board had recently granted a change of zone for this proposal from A-residential to mUltiple. Mr. Cron intro- duced the designers of the project who would be making the presentation before the Board. Present were George Matarazzo of Matarazzo Design, Mr. Carrol, Donald Dennis, architect, and Mr. Bill Reese of Henderson and Bogwell, engineers. Mr. Cron ex- plained aga~n that the Town Board had granted a zone change for this parcel of land making it mUltiple residence for the purpose of creating an adult-retirement community. Mr. Cron then turned the presentation over to Mr. Matarazzo. Mr. Matarazzo presented to the Board a booklet ex- plaining his background and the work done by his firm. He then explained to the Board the proposed site plan of cluster homes and explained the land use plan. The plan consists of 160 homes that would be attached in a cluster formation of 4-unit buildings. Those buildings would all have access at grade levels, they would not be high-rise and would be designed in a colonial or traditional look. Mr. Matarazzo presented a sketch map of a proposed shopping area and stated that this would consist of specialty shops, and would be a mini-shopping center on the same scale as the housing. He stated that the shopping center would be another part of the approval process since it is in the commercial zone. However. he presented it at this time as it is in coniunction with the hous- ing plan." (underscoring Supplied). g the sketch maps presented at the time, were those of both rement site and the shopping center, revealing these to be to one another. two, taken in conjunction, calls for a reevaluation of the effect on the environment, and casts upon respondent the n under SEQRA Sec.8-0109 to require a DEIS from petitioner. ase of E.F.S. Ventures Corp. v. Debra Foster, et al., de- the Court of Appeals on February 9, 1988, appearing in the Law Journal in February 16, 1988, involved the power of the . . . . PAG~ 5 SEACROFT V. SOUTHOLD INDEX NO. 85-~323 Eas Hampton Planning Board to re-examine the subject project and impcse substantial new conditions on its development after conftruction had been completed, and the site plans has previously beer approved by the said Planning Board. rhe following is an extract from the Court's opinion: "When a developer takes "action" which could arguably have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency (6 NYCRR ~617.2 [v]), may require an applicant to submit an Environmental Assessment Form'to assist the agency in carrYing out its responsibility to determine whether the proposed action may have a significant effect on xhe environment and thus require the preparation of an En- vironmental,Impact Statement (EIS) (ECL 8- 0109(3);(2). Ideally, the environmental assessment form or forms should be prepared as early" as possible, thereby enabling the agency to make an early determination 'whether an EIS should be prepared (see Matter of Pro rammin & S sterns v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 61 N.Y.2d 738, 739; Matter of Tri-County Taxpayers Assn. v. Town Bd.. 55 N.Y.2d 41, 47, supra). Indeed. if petitioner had been directed by the Planning Board to file an Environmental Assessment Form when it sub- mitted its September 1982 and January 1983 applications for site plan approval, this case would not be before us. We recoanize. however. that for whatever reason. a lead aaency miaht erroneously make a ne ative declaration under SE RA and thus not re uire the filin_ of Environmental Impact Statement before action is taken. Under these circumstances. it is generally true that when the develo er seeks to take further action at the site, the lead agency is ern owered to consider the environ- mental impact of the entire project and is not limited to the consideration of the ef- fects of the specific permit apPlication be- fore it."(underscoring supplied) In t"e present case, the work of the Town Board on the re-zoning applicat on had ceased the year before, and with it, its lead agency status, hich befell the respondent in undertaking i~s review of the site pla (In he EFS case just cited, the order of the Appellate Division sUpportilg the Planning Board was reversed since the developer .'j, PAGE 6 had ta of the the Pl enviro . . . . SEACROFT V. SOUTHOLD INDEX NO. 85-3~23 en prior action, impervious to attack on SEQRA grounds because Statute of Limitations, and the remedial measures required by nning Board reflected no demonstrable connection with the ental impact of the proposed mOdification). In the instant case a far different situation is presented, to wit: a specific site plan and the coupling of it with a shopping center, after the Town Board action. Moreover, no construction had been c enced. . Th"s is not an instance, related in the above-cited EFS case where: The Urban D concept specifi "otherwise stated, the Board cannot use its powers to review the environ~ental impact of the entire project as a pretext for the cor- rection of.~erceived problems which existed and should have been addressed earlier in the environmental review process." ". case of In the Matter of Proqrammina. etc. v. N.Y. State velo ment Cor ., 61 N.Y.2d 738. 472 N.Y.S.2d 913 confirms that an EIS is required upon the actual formulationof a project, thus: the "An environmental impact statement mandated by ECL 8-0109 must be prepared and made available to the pUblic before "any signi- ficant authorization is granted for a spe- cific proposal." (Matter of Tri-Countv Taxpayers Assn. v. Town Bd., 55 N.Y.2d 41, 47, 447 N.Y.S.2d 699,432 N.E.2d 592). While preliminary steps in the planning of the 42nd Street Development Project have been taken, an environmental impact state- ment is not required until a specific pro- ject plan for the development is actually formulated and proposed. At that time. prior to acting on the proposal. the state- ment must be prepared, filed and made avail- able to the public. (ECL 8-0109, subd. 6)." Thi Court does not find the argument to be persuasive that the Plannin Board's review is limited just to those objectives; set forth in the wn Zoning Ordinance. These objectives include traffic, circulat"on and parking, and landscaping and screening. Sec. 100-131 "Objecti es", requires the Board to take into consideration public health, afety and welfare, comfort and convenience of the pUblic in general nd the residents of the immediate neigborhood in particular. PAGE 7 The a substantia of prejudi chairman b rezone ano for busine financial by such re applicatio present ap The r questions there may condominiu Board, and not passin 4IlEACROFT V. SOUTHOLD JlaEX NO. 85-3323 sertions of malice and bad faith are not corroborated by evidence and are based on surmise. Actually, the change e sought to be ascribed by petitioner to the Board his alleged financial interest in an application to her local property, is negated by the fact that rezoning s use was denied in that matter. There is thus no ain to be realized by the chairman or other Board members oning to the disadvantage of petitioner in the immediate for approval, and no reason for them to hinder this lication. maining objection, to wit, that the Board has raised ) of possible improper subdivision of the land; 2) that e a right-of-way in existence that might affect the project, have not been definitively passed upon by the are subject to its future review and thus, this Court is on those issues. From n Re Holmes v. Brookhaven Town Planning Board, A.D.2d, (2nd Dept. February 8, 1988). " "The Environmental Conservation Law mandates that an EIS be prepared where there is to be any proposed action that "1IUUl. have a signifi- cant effect on the environment" (ECL 8-0109[2] (emphasis added). Because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is 'may'. There is a relatively low threshold for im- pact statements" (H.O MRS. v. New York State Urban Dav Corn, 69 A.D.2d 222, 232). . The p otection of the public, environmentally, is the important considerat on, and this should not be lost sight of in technical argument 0 er priority of lead agency. The c arbitraril declaring Article 8 that a ful nclusion here is that respondent board did not act or capriciously and was well within its authority in hat the proposed action is a Type I action as defined by f the ECL and regulations thereunder, and in requiring DEIS be prepared by petitioner. The p tition is dismissed. Settl judgment. Dated: . . , . . ,. . . .. . . . . . .' HOWARD M. FINKELSTEIN PIERRE G. UNDBERO FRANCIS J. AKABOSKI PRANK A. I LER SUSAN POS ROGERS SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER AND YAKABOSKI ATTORNEYS AND CQUNS'ELORS AT LAW 4:56 GRIFFING AVENUE, CORNER OF LINCOLN STREET P. O. BOX 389 RIVERHEAD, N. Y. 11901 (016) 727-4100 REGINALD C. SMITH 1926-1983 March 24, 1988 James A. Schondebare, Esq. Town Attorney Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Seacroft v. Planning Board Dear Jay: Enclosed please find Justice Dunn's decision dismissing the petition in the above mentioned Article 78 proceeding. We will be settling a judgment in the near future. ;;Xfllv NK A. ISLER FAI:knm enclosure . '~ "' , ^' ), f ..\/ ,\ \1 . . . . SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER AND YAKABOSKI ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 4~6 GRIFFING AVENUE, CORNER OF LINCOLN STREET HOWARD M. INKELSTEIN PIERRE G. UNDBERO l"RANCIS J. KABOSKI FRANK A. I ER SUSAN POS ROGERS P. O. BOX 389 RIVERHEAD, N. Y. 11901 (~16) 727-4100 REGINALD C. SMITH 1926-1983 March 24, 1988 Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Southo1d Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southo1d, New York 11971 Re: Seacroft v. Planning Board Dear Ben: Enclosed please find Justice Dunn's decision dismissing the petition in the above mentioned Article 78 proceeding. We will be settling a judgment in the near future. FAI:knm enclosure 'j ) " ...... I' \ ra:JD .' . . MEMORANDUM . . . , CDISPSJ SUPREMB OURT, surrOLK COUNTY TRIAL PART XVII BY DUNN, J. S. C. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - of the Application of, SEACROFT LTD., a New York Corporat on, DATED: March 21, 1988 Petitioner, - against - THE PLAN ING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN RICHARD G. WARD, KENNETH EDWARDS, GEORGE RTCHIE LATHAM, JR., and WILL AM F. MULLEN, JR., as members f the Planning Board of the Town of uthold, Index No. 20302/82 " Respondents. - - - - - - - - - - - SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ~ ISLER & YAKABOSKI, ESQS. Attorneys for Respondent 456 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorneys Main Road Cutchogue for Petitioner Box 953 New York 11935 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This is an Article 78 proceeding to set aside a denial of approval by respon ent Planning Board of the Town of Southold, of petitioner"s s~te plan for a condominium project, and to compel such approval. Title hamlet of September granted a acres, pla with such and a long as a lead Review Act to the proposed condominium site which is located in the utchogue, Town of Southold, was taken by petitioner on ,1983. Previously the Town Board had, on July 19, 1983, ezoning application for the site which consisted of 46.16 ing it in an "M-Light Multiple Use Zone". In connection ezoning, both a short Environmental Assessment form (EAF) form had been filed. On March 22, 1983, the Town Board, gency, under Sec. 8-0109 of the State Environmental Quality (SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), gave rn ~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARO . PAGE 2 notice signifi Stateme Pe site, a "B"-Lig been he On confere project plan wo unit bu designe stated mini-sh shoppin it was i conjunct Fol responde statemen was file Building On agency, signific by the B On site pIa Pet since a been pres responden obtained requireme to suppor ever made such arbi Furt Board is under Art the groun similar a . . SEACROFT V. SOUTHOLD . . INDEX NO. 85-3323 hat the project was "unlisted" and would not have a ant effect on the environment. An Environmental Impact t (EIS) was thus deemed unnecessary. itioner, simultaneously with the purchase of the condominium so took title to 7 plus or minus acres of land, zoned t Business us'e; the total acreage 53, plus or minus acres had d as a single parcel by petitioner's predecessor in title. April 9, 1984 petitioner was accorded a pre-submission ce with the Planning Board to discuss the site plan for the Thereat the project designer informed the Board that the ld consist of 160 homes attached in a cluster formation of 4 ldings. The homes would be a retirement community. The presented a sketch map of a proposed shopping area and at this would consist of specialty shops, and would be a ping center on the same scale as the housing, and that the center would,pe another part of the approval process since the commercial zone; he presented it as being in on with the housing plan. " owing preliminary communications between petitioner and the t, wherein the latter insisted on an environmental impact and the former resisted supplying it, a certified site plan in October of 1984. The plan bore the approval of the Department as to compliance with the zoning ordinance. ovember 5, 1984, the Board formally declared itself lassified the project as Type I, and as such having nt impact on ,the environment. A draft EIS was then ard, for preparation by petitioner. lead a required anuary 7, 1985 respondent adopted a resolution declaring the application incomplete under SEQRA and denied it. tioner argues that such action was arbitrary and capricious orough presentation of the proposed condominium project had nted to the Town Board on the zone change application, and could have participated in such proceeding, having now ledge of the lead agency status of the Town and SEQRA ts; that the Planning Board has illegally contrived grounds a SEQRA p~ocess and EIS preparation, and that no agency a determination of significance on the project, establishes rary conduct on respondent's part. er maintains. petitioner, the authority of the Planning imited to the objectives set forth in the Town Ordinance cle XIII, Sec. 100-131 thereof; and raised no objections on s specified therein; moreover, the Board has approved Plications without requiring an EIS, and limited its review -, . . . . .- PAGE SEACROFT V. SOUTHOLD INDEX NO. 85-3323 to provisions of Sec. 100-131. ain, respondent has acted through malice and bad faith in this , overriding as it does, the prior declaration by the Town f no significant environmental impact and in stating that "peti 'oner was building a 160 unit condominium as a phased project with a shopping plaza" inasmuch as this was totally false. There never as and is not now an adjacent shopping plaza and a planned stage f development. Thus, the description of action set forth in the po itive declaration to establish Type I status was and is absolu ely false. Ne t, petitioner claims that the Chairman of the Planning Board, in con ert with the Board, seeks to impede, etc. petitioner's project in fur herance of personal motives an~ gain. In support of this, petiti ner cites the chairman's personal monetary involvement in the attemp ed rezoning ot another local property to a business use, which has be n opposed by one of the principals _ of petitioner. " Re pondent asserts that the proposal here is an "action" sUbject to SEQ A since site plan approval will involve permitting constr ction which will change the use or appearance of a natural resour e, citing ECL Sec. 8-0105.4, 6 NYCRR 617.2. Compliance with SEQRA d implementation thereof are conditions absolute to the review nd final action by a town planning board of a proposed site plan; t e "SEQRA review" by the Town Board upon rezoning, does not foreclo e SEQRA review by the Planning Board, since examination of impacts from a rezoning involve general long-range planning, while-a specifi site plan's-impacts are considerably different, inVOlving direct hysical impacts on the environment. The overall project embraci g the shopping center was not considered by the Town Board which a so did not give notification of lead agency status and determi ation of significance to involved agencies The other agencie which have to approve this project encouraged the Planning Board t act as lead agency and to require preparation of a draft environ ental impact statement, and thus, und~r 6 NYCRR 617.7(a) each subsequ nt involved agency may require an EISj the Board's review encompa ses areas of potential concern that have been identified in the pos'tive declaration and are within the authority of the Planning Board t take into account; and, lastly, petitioner's charge of imprope motives a~e not only unfounded but are immaterial. DECISION The to enabl hand, be but as a nly conside~ation before the Town Board was a zoning Change the construction of the retirement homes. On the other ore the Planning Board was not only the retirement project conjoined part thereof, the Shopping center as well. ...-. PAGE D revea 1984 folIo Amo the ret adjacen The possibl obligat The cided b New Yor . . . . SEACROFT V. SOUTHOLD INDEX NO. 85-3~23 spite petitioner's protestations to the contrary, the record s this connection between the two projects. Thus, on April 9, t a presubmission conference before the Planning Board, the "ng extracts appear in the record of proceedings then taken: "Mr. Richard Cron, Esq. was present for a presub- mission conference before the Board to discuss the site plan of Seacroft, located at Cutchogue. Mr. Orlowski briefly explained that the Town Board had recently granted a change of zone for this proposal from A-residential to mUltiple. Mr. Cron intro- duced the designers of the project who would be making the presentation before the Board. Present were George Matarazzo of Matarazzo Design, Mr. Carrol, Donald Dennis, architect, and Mr. Bill Reese of Henderson and Bogwell, engineers. Mr. Cron ex- plained aga~n that the Town Board had granted a zone change for this parcel of land making it mUltiple residence for the purpose of creating an adult-retirement community. Mr. Cron then turned the presentation over to Mr. Matarazzo. Mr. Matarazzo presented to the Board a booklet ex- plaining his background and the work done by his firm. He then explained to the Board the proposed site plan of cluster homes and explained the land use plan. The plan consists of 160 homes that would be attached in a cluster formation of 4-unit buildings. Those buildings would all have access at grade levels, they would not be high-rise and would be designed in a colonial or traditional look. Mr. Matarazzo presented a sketch map of a proposed shoppina area and stated that this would consist of specialty shops. and would be a mini-shoppina center on the same scale as the housina. He stated that the shoppina center would be another part of the approval process since it is in the commercial zone. However. he presented it at this time as it is in conjunction with the hous- ina plan." (underscoring supplied). g the sketch maps presented at the time, were those of both rement site and the shopping center, revealing these to be to one another. two, taken in conjunction. calls for a reevaluation of the effect on the environment, and casts upon respondent the on under SEQRA Sec.8-0109 to require a DEIS from petitioner. case of E.F.S. Ventures Corp. v. Debra Foster, et al., de- the Court of Appeals on February 9, 1988, appearing in the Law Journal in February 16, 1988, involved the power of the . , ',-" . . PAGE 5 SEACROFT V. SOUTHOLD INDEX NO. 85-~323 East impo cons been Hampton Planning Board to re-examine the subject project and e substantial new conditions on its development after ruction had been completed. and the site plans has previously pproved by the said Planning Board. fOllowing is an extract from the Court's opinion: "When a developer takes "action" which could arguably have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency (6 NYCRR 5617.2 [v]), may require an applicant to submit an Environmental Assessment Form'to assist the agency in carrying out its responsibility to determine whether the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment and thus require the preparation of an En- vironmental,Impact Statement (EIS) (ECL 8- 0109(3);(2). Ideally, the environmental assessment form or forms should be prepared as early" as Possible, thereby enabling the agency to make an early determination 'whether an EIS should be prepared (see Matter of Pro rammin & S stems v. New York State Urban Dev. CorD., 61 N.Y.2d 738, 739; Matter of Tri-Countv TaxDavers Assn. v. Town Bd.. 55 N.Y.2d 41, 47, supra). Indeed, if petitioner had been directed by the Planning Board to file an Environmental Assessment Form when it sub- mitted its September 1982 and January 1983 applications for site plan approval, this case would not be before us. We recoanize. however. that for whatever reason, a lead aaencv miaht erroneouslv make a neaative declaration under SEORA. and thus not re uire the filin of EnVironmental ImDact Statement before action is taken. Under these circumstances. it is aenerall true that when the develo er seeks to take further action at the site, the lead agenc is em owered to consider the environ- mental imDact of the entire Droiect and is not limited to the consideration of the ef- fects of the sDecific Dermit aDDlication be- fore it."(underscoring supplied) '. In t applicat status, site pIa e present case, the work of the Town Board on the re-zoning on had ceased the year before, and with it, its lead agency hich befell the respondent in undertaking its review of the (In supporti e EFS case just cited. the order of the Appellate Division the Planning Board was reversed since the developer ," '. . - .. PAGE 6 had ta of the the P1 enviro In wit: a center. been co Thi where: The Urban D concept specifi . ~ . . SEACROFT V. SOUTHOLD INDEX NO. 85-3~23 en prior action. impervious to attack on SEQRA grounds because Statute of Limitations, and the remedial measures required by ning Board reflected no demonstrable connection with the ental impact of the proposed modification). he instant case a far different situation is presented. to pecific site plan and the coupling of it with a shopping after the Town Board action. Moreover. no construction had enced. . is not an instance. related in the above-cited EFS case "otherwise stated, the Board cannot use its powers to review the environ~enta1 impact of the entire project as a pretext for the cor- rection of.~erceived problems which existed and should have been addressed earlier in the environmental review process." ". case of In the Matter of Proqrammina. etc. v. N.Y. State velo ment Cor ., 61 N.Y.2d 738. 472 N.Y.S.2d 913 confirms that an EIS is required upon the actual formulationof a project. thus: the "An environmental impact statement mandated by ECL 8-0109 must be prepared and made available to the public before "any signi- ficant authorization is granted for a spe- cific proposal." (Matter of Tri-Countv Taxpavers Assn. v. Town Bd., 55 N.Y.2d 41. 47, 447 N.Y.S.2d 699. 432 N.E.2d 592). While preliminary steps in the planning of the 42nd Street Development Project have been taken. an environmental impact state- ment is not required until a specific pro- ject plan for the development is actually formulated and proposed. At that time. prior to acting on the proposal. the state- ment must be prepared. filed and made avail- able to the public. (ECL 8-0109. subd. 6)." This Court does not find the argument to be persuasive that the P1annin Board's review is limited just to those objectives: set forth in the wn Zoning Ordinance. These objectives include traffic. circulat'on and parking. and landscapina and screening. Sec. 100-131 "Objecti es", requires the Board to take into consideration public health. afety and welfare. comfort and convenience of the public in general nd the residents of the immediate neigborhood in particular. " .. - PAGE 7 Th subs tan of prej chairma rezone for bus financi by such applica present Th questio there m condomi Board, not pas . fA SEACROFT V. SOUTHOLD 85-3323 ttNDE~O . assertions of malice and bad faith are not corroborated by ial evidence and are based on surmise. Actually, the change dice sought to be ascribed by petitioner to the Board by his alleged financial interest in an application to nother local property, is negated by the fact that rezoning ness use was denied in that matter. There is thus no 1 gain to be realized by the chairman or other Board members rezoning to the disadvantage of petitioner in the immediate ion for approval, and no reason for them to hinder this application. remaining objection, to wit, that the Board has raised s 1) of possible improper subdivision of the land; 2) that y be a right-of-way in existence that might affect the ium project, have not been definitively passed upon by the nd are subject to its future review and thus, this Court is ing on those issues. .. Fr m In Re HnlmAA v. Bronkhaven Tnwn Plannin~ Boarrl, A.D.2d, (2nd De t. February 8, 1988). Th cons ide argument The arbitra declarin Article that a f Dated: " "The Environmental Conservation Law mandates that an EIS be prepared where there is to be any proposed action that "JllWt have a signifi- cant effect on the environment" (ECL 8-0109[2] (emphasis added). Because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is 'may'. There is a relatively low threshold for im- pact statements" (H,D M R.S. v. New York State Urhan Dev Corn, 69 A.D.2d 222, 232). . protection of the public, environmentally, tion, and this should not be lost sight of over priority of lead agency. is the important in technical conclusion here is that respondent board did not act ly or capriciously and was well within its authority in that the proposed action is a Type I action as defined by of the EeL and regulations thereunder, and in reqUiring 11 DEIS be prepared by petitioner. The petition is dismissed. Set le judgment. ~ .C. " . . D Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 March 9, 1988 Yakaboski ney at Law , Fink1estein, Lundberg, and Yakaboski riffing Avenue head, NY 11901 RE: Seacraft Dear Frank: . " , I ,) J Thank you for your assistance. Please advise us as to the proper response to this letter. sy.cerely, ~~ Valerie sc~aJ1 Town Planner \ ~ [lelephone 648-1300 Jlrea Coae 31 [l e/ecopier 312-454-158 Mr. Chai Sout Town Sout ~ . . ~~~5~. ADJUSTERS AND SURVEYORS Jltlanta, 'Baltimore, 'Baston, Char/eston, Chicago, 'Dallas, 'Detroit, Houston, Jacksonville, [;os Jlngeles, Miami, New Or/earn, New York, Portlana, Ore., San 'Francisco, Seattle, [lampa, Wilmington, 'Eamonton, Montreal, [loronto . Cablegrams [loplis Chicago [le/ex No. 253047 222 South :Riversiae Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60606 February 29, 1988 ennett Orlowski, Jr. man old Town Planning Board of Southold old, N.Y. 11971 Re: Insured: Claimant: File No. Town of Southold Seacroft, Ltd. 6344-T Dear Mr. Orlowski: Insu abov spon stil on t KLK/ P Toplis and Harding, Inc. has been retained to manage Forum ance Company's public officials liability claim files. The -captioned file has been assigned to my attention. I have reviewed this file and note from your last corre- ence, dated January 21, 1987, that the Article 78 ruling was pending. Please provide me with an updated status report is matter. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Very truly yours, ~~K1~c!f~1 Casualty Adjuster . T . LD Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 January 21, 1987 Mr. Charles F. Brill CIa ms Supervisor Cer ified Management Services 600 Central Avenue Sui e 310 Hig land Park, IL 60035 Re: Seacroft Limited File No. MO 6344 Town of Southold Dea Mr. Brill: In response to your correspondence of January 12, nothing has ccurred whcih would change the status of this matter. The Article 78 ruling is still pending and we would request that you continue to maintain an open file. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our ffice. Very truly yours, ~-tt aJuv,tJU) ()v~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD cc: own Clerk By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary Certifi d Mana ~ment Services . 'JAh ~ 'J 1981 600 CENTRAL A VENUE SUITE 310 HIGHLAND PARK. IL 60035 (312) 433-2460 .Ian 8, 1987 Jr. RE: OUr File No.: Insured : Claimant: m 6344 Town of Southold Seacraft Limited file has cane to my attention and I note that the last we heard you was August 25, 1986. At that tiIre you asked that we continue intain an open file. Has anything occurred which would change tatus of this matter? very truly, 7:~ ~~~ '\\ ~ . . LD Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 August 25, 1986 Mr. J hn E. Pasquini Certi ied Management Services 600 C ntral Avenue Suite 310 Highl nd Park, IL 60035 Re: eacroft Limited ile No. M06344 own of Southold Dear r. Pasquini: I response to your correspondence of August 21,1986, the A ticle 78 ruling is still pending. W request that you continue to maintain an open file on be alf of the Forum Insurance Company. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our 0 fice. Very truly yours, ~'. '. 6C tl /1.{ t+ OrCOUJ/::yt~J ~ Ly .1 )./ ~ f' c:. 1'/.-:;, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTH OLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary cc: T n Clerk . CerUfi d Mana ement 8ervices . Ave 2 5 1985 600 CENTRAL A VENUE SUITE 310 HIGHLAND PARK. IL 60035 (312) 433-2460 Augu t 21, 1986 Mr. Plan Town Main Sout ennett Orlowski, ing Board of Southold Road old, NY 11971 Jr. RE: Insured: Our File No.: Claimant: Town of Southold MO 6344 Seacroft Limited Dear Mr. Orlowski: We 1 st heard from you on May 23, 1986 at which time an Article 78 r ling was pending. s recommended that we continue to maintain an open file on f of Forum Insurance Company. ld appreciate an update on developments since last May. usly, we are particularly interested in whether the Town uthold will be making a demand against Forum's POL Policy. ....--.... ----- E. Pasquini tive Vice President "" . . MontgOmer"d Insurance Tower 200 Martingale Road, Schaumburg, Illinois 60194 (312) 490-3000 Montgom Ward Insurance Company _Forum Ins ranee Company R~IVEQ IviAY 2 0 '!S35 Town Clerk Southold MontgomeJY Ward INSURANCE May 15 1985 Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town 0 Southold Main R ad Sou tho d, NY 11971 RE: I sured: Town of Southold C aimant: Seacroft, Ltd. C aim Number: 71CP6344 Dear M . Terry: This w 11 acknowledge our receipt of a Notice of Claim, filed of Sou hold, its Planning Board, and various members thereof. report d under Forum Insurance Company Policy #R84-24962. Would matter, claim, event a immedia Very tr against the Town This Notice was u kindly keep us apprised of all developments, with respect to this as they occur. If the Town has any documentation with regard to this ay we please have copies of any and all pertinent documents. In the lawsuit is filed, would you kindly notify the undersigned ely. ly yours, r~ Ruth Ka n Commerc"al Claims Department Forum I surance Company RK/of D02235 cc: Mc ann Price Agency, Inc. 82 Front St. Gr enport, NY 11944 ~ .. . .' D LD y Southold. N,Y, 11971 (516) 765-1938 May 23, 1985 Rut Kaan Co ercial Claims Department For m Insurance Company Mon gomery Ward Insurance Tower 200 Martingale Road Sch umburg, Illinois 60194 Re: Claim Number 71CP6344 Insured: Town of Southold Claimant: Seacroft Ltd. Dea Ms. Kaan: Your letter of May 15, 1985 to the Town Clerk was referred to he Planning Board Office. Enclosed Boa d's site sui against isa copy of the entire file from the Planning plan file, as well as, a copy of the Article 78 the Planning Board, regarding the above claim. If you need any further information, please don't hesitate to ontact us. very truly yours, ~ Q-Wcu'bk) ~ A ~ . , BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., C~I"~MA~v SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. SEACROFT, LTD., Claimant, - aqainat. - THE PLANNING BOARD OF,THE To~m OF SOUTHOLD .BE1:lliE'l'T ,..., ...n., ,-uaJ.rman, RICHARD G. W}Jm, KENNETH EDWhRD3, GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR., and WILT,IAM F. MULLEN, JR., individually and as Mernbers of the Plan ning Board of the Town of Southold and THE TOWN OF SOUTBOT.D, , . Respondents. . NOTICE OF CLAIM . MAIN ROAD '.,.: RECEIVID AND FILED B THE SOiJTHOLD TOVlH CL2l;~~ DATE~/&'5 EOUR /():<!.5A.N p A;~h/d L2 ~1):.;--utL j -6v!tb k, Town of Southold LAW OF"F"ICES CRON AND CRON P.O. Box 953 CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 (516) 734-5100 C"Y'';--nc. ~72 '... Me-! (""'.~r",,7 ~~~n I A"~ -,;::J;;:,',,/ . . TO HE SUPERVISOR AND TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that SEACROFT, LTD., a New York Cor oration, the Claimant herein, hereby makes the following cIao against the Town of Southold, in the County of Suffolk, New ork State, for damages sustained by it because of the ponsible, arbitrary, capricious, unlawful and illegal ns of BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., RICHARD G. WARD, KENNETH OS, GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. and WILLIAM F. MULLEN, JR., the ndividuals comprising the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUT OLD, in denying Claimant's site plan approval, which has impe ed and prohibited Claimant's lawful use of its real pro- pert , as hereinafter set forth. The Claimant .is a New York Corporation, with its prin ipal place of business at c/o Richard J. Cron, Esq., Main Road P.O. Box 953, Cutchogue, NY 11935; and the filing of this Noti e of Claim has been authorized by action of the Board.of Dire of SEACROFT, LTD. The damages for which this claim is made arose from the ctions of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold taken 7th day of January, 1985, at the Town Hall, Main Road, f Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, and were aused by wrongful and bad faith denial of Claimant's site plan pproval for a proposed one hundred sixty (160) unit ~" ~ . . res dential condominium at Claimant's real property situate at Cut hogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New Yor That BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., RICHARD G. WARD, KENNETH EDW RDS, GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. and WILLIAM F. MULLEN, JR., ind vidually, and as members of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF OUTHOLD, intentionally, illegally and unlawfully overstepped the'r authority and jurisdiction to harass, impede and obstruct, Cla'mant's lawful use of its real property. That the individuals comprising the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD knowingly and intentionally exceeded their aut rity as Planning Board members in declaring their Board Lea Agency after having ample notice, opportunity and the ability ject to the Southold Town Board declaring itself Lead Agency; and ave illegally, unlawfully and maliciously attempted, through the 'ntentional misstatement of fact to compel Claimant to submit to a second SEQRA process with the aforesaid intention of obstructing impe ing and harassing the Claimant. That upon information and belief, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., in c ncert with other individuals and other members of the PLANNING BOAR OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, has intentionally, unlawfully, ille ally and maliciously sought to obstruct Claimant in the use of isreal property and, if possible, to destroy the SEACROFT, LTD. proj ct, as Claimant's President, Richard J. Cron and its Secretary, ., - 2 - . . , have spoken out in opposition to a zone change ich BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., and others acting in concert, had significant and undisclosed financial interest. That BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., in concert with other indi iduals and PLANNING BOARD members, has intentionally over- step ed his authority and misused his office in furtherance of a co spiracy and/or vendetta designed to obstruct Claimant's lawf 1 use of its property. As the result of the illegal, unlawful and malicious acts of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, in denying Clai ant's site plan approval, Claimant has been damaged in that it h s been intentionally and unjustly prevented from constructing one undred sixty (160) residential condominium units, as certi- fied for approval by the Southold Town Building Department. Claimant has also been required to expend time and money for egal services to appeal the illegal and u~lawful actions of the LANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD in denying Claimant's site plan approval. The undersigned, therefore, presents this Claim and dema ds TWENTY-FIVE MILLION and no/IOO ($25,000,000.00) DOLLARS for djustment and payment, and to notify you that unless the - 3 - , ' . . ~ sam is adjusted and paid, it is the intention of the undersigned to ommence an action thereon. Dat d: Cutchogue, New York April 2, 1985 SEACRaFT, LTD. 3/ .- i G" /. BY: " '-)~)5ePA c. /:,./;.., ';:-"'1 JOSEPH E. NOLAN Vice-President/Secretary CRO and CRON, ESQS. By: JAMES J. CRON, ESQ. Att rneys for Claimant, SE CROFT, LTD. Off'ce & P.O. Address Mai Road - P.O. Box 953 Cut hogue, NY 11935 (51 ) 734-5100 ., - 4 - SEACROFT, LTD., Claimant, - aqainst - THE PLAl-iNING BOARD OF, THE .mnrt'Tl\T .1'l_~:L._. ,.."........9.......__ ~ , ~~ .. ~ :.L, "'''., \..ual.rman, RICHARD G. W1>.RD, KEt!NETH EDWhRD3, GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR., and WILT,IAM F. MULLEN, JR., individually and as Mernbers of the Plan ning Board of the Town of Southold and THE TOWN OF SOUTHOT.D, Respondents. NOTICE OF CLAIM LAw OFFICES CRON AND CRON MAIN ROAD P.O. Box 953 CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 (516) 734-5100 ~ . / ;~; . . '~;..' RECEIV1W AND FILED BY THE SOuTEOLD TOVlH CL.G:,~';: DATE'f'YR5 EOUR /():'/.5A.lv1 ~~~/7'Jf LJ ,Y)~-<.!tL /' ~CI k, Town of Southold c'/-'~-&. ~~a",cl "{",~,-~.Wt'. r!{h/ ~",,-4 . "'P ~ ,~ -, . . . . . TO T E SUPERVISOR AND TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that SEACROFT, LTD., a New York ration, the Claimant herein, hereby makes the following against the Town of Southold, in the County of Suffolk, rk State, for damages sustained by it because of the onsible, arbitrary, capricious, unlawful and illegal s of BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., RICHARD G. WARD, KENNETH EDWAR S, GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. and WILLIAM F. MULLEN, JR., the i dividuals comprising the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH LD, in denying Claimant's site plan approval, which has imped d and prohibited Claimant's lawful use of its real pro- perty as hereinafter set forth. The Claimant .is a New York Corporation, with its princ.pal place of business at c/o Richard J. Cron, Esq., Main Road, P.O. Box 953, Cutchogue, NY 11935; and the filing of this Notic of Claim has been authorized by action of the Board.of Direc rs of SEACROFT, LTD. The damages for which this claim is made arose from the ac ions of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold taken on the 7th day of January, 1985, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Town 0 Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, and were c used by wrongful and bad faith denial of Claimant's site plan a proval for a proposed one hundred sixty (160) unit . . . . , Jose have spoken out in opposition to a zone change in w ich BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., and others acting in concert, had significant and undisclosed financial interest. That BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., in concert with other indiv'duals and PLANNING BOARD members, has intentionally over- stepp d his authority and misused his office in furtherance of a con piracy and/or vendetta designed to obstruct Claimant's lawfu use of its property. As the result of the illegal, unlawful and malicious acts f the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, in denying Claim nt's site plan approval, Claimant has been damaged in that it ha been intentionally and unjustly prevented from constructing one h ndred sixty (160) residential condominium units, as certi- fied or approval by the Southold Town Building Department. Claimant has also been required to expend time and money for 1 gal services to appeal the illegal and unlawful actions of the PANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD in denying Claimant's site lan approval. The undersigned, therefore, presents this Claim and deman s TWENTY-FIVE MILLION and no/100 ($25,000,000.00) DOLLARS for a justment and payment, and to notify you that unless the - 3 - , . . . . '. . same is adjusted and paid, it is the intention of the undersigned to c mmence an action thereon. Date CRON By: Atto SEA Offi Main Cutc (516 , Cutchogue, New York April 2, 1985 and CRON, ESQS. AMES J. CRON, ESQ. neys for Claimant, ROFT, LTD. e & P.O. Address Road - P.O. Box 953 ogue, NY 11935 734-5100 SEACROFT, LTD. h/ . BY:~/ '~)5(:?;:~A /' (/">/:.~n JOSEPH E. NOLAN Vice-President/Secretary - 4 - " . . ( . ( D Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 Th's is to certify that I, Diane M. Schultze, Secretary of the thold Town Planning Board, in the said County of Suffolk, e compared the foregoing copy of the Environmental Assessment Part II and Part III pertaining to the Seacroft site plan to the Environmental Assessment Form, Part II and Part III filed in the Office of the Planning Board on November 5, 1984 and that th same is a correct and true copy. Da ed: ltarctJ 8) \q8~ Signature 1}' ~ Yr1 ' Zr Ju1l.T:u- ..' . . .... t" .~ \., ~. \, -f TOl-iN . SEACRrf" E~RONMENt~L. OF S OUTHOLD AT CUTCHOGUE ASSESSMENT PAt II ( .. , . ... , " PROJF.CT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE .' .., .Q .:.. Cloe".l I 'orr.tion (Re.d Carefully) _ In ccr.:;>l tlng the fa"" the revi",er should be goJfde. by the quutlon: Have my deds;ons and' detemln.tlons been re. or..ble? The reviewer Is not ex~.ct.d to ~. an expert environmental an.lyst. . . .- Identif) ng tnat an .ff.ct will be pot.ntlally lar;. (colur.~ 2) does n~t m..n that it slonlfic nt. Any l.rg. effect must b. evaluat.d in ?AR7 3 to dete""Ino sisn1ficance. erfect 1 column 2 sl".jlly uks that It b. look.d at furth.r. ' is also nec.ssarl1y ~y ,id.ntlfying an - _ - Th. E.am l.s provid.d are ~ assist the reviewer by s..owfng types of .ff.cts and wh.rever possible the thresh, Of ....g"' uoe thot would trf~ger a rospons. In col""," 2. Th. e.asr.ples are g.n.r.lly applicable throughout the Stat. an for most sltuatfons. But. for any lcecific proj.ct Or site other e.~ples andlor lower thresholds ..y be . re approprlat. for a Potential Lar.. Iapac: rating. - Each pMl .ct. on each site, in each "locality. will v.ry. Th.r.forl. the .xamples have b..n oU.r.d u guiclan. Th.y do at constitute an e.haustive list of impact3 ancl thr.sholds to answ.r each qu.stion. - Th. nulO r of examples per question cloes not lnclic!:e the illll'ortance of each question. '. IHSTRUCTIO IS (R.ad Carefully) I. Answ r each of the 18 qu.stlons in PAilT 2. Answlr m if there will be any .ffect. b. !!!.l1 ans'I!M' should be consid.red as !!t answe". c. If a swerlng Yes to a ou.stlon th.n ch.ck the !corooriate box (colum~ 1 or 2) to lnclicate the potential size of the Imoact. If Impact thr.shold equals or exc...s any ...~ple prcvided, check coluC-n 2. If impa : will occur but thr.shold is la>:.r than e'!eoil, ch.ck col~~ 1: cI. If r vi....r has doubt abou,t the size of the imp..: ;)1~Q".consider tile Imp.ct as potentially larse and pro eed to PART 3. ' . e. If a pot.ntially I.r~. i~~act or .ff.c: can b. r.~u:.d by a ch.nge in the proj.ct to a l.ss tnan large ma~n tud.. place a Yes In col~n 3. A Ho respcns. indica:.s that such. reduction Is not possible. 1 2. :; 1. WILL THE~o BE All oFF::CT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL Ci'.A~;~E 10 PROJECT Sl P E.a~,l.s t t Would Apply to Column 2 Aay co struc~fon on slop.s of 15: or greater. (15 fo,t rise ~.r 100 fo t of length). or wh.r. the g.neral slopes in the proj.ct arta . ce.d 10:. NO YES 00 . . . 51'ALL TO POTEiiTlAL CAN n~PACT BE HODo?J\TE LARr,E REOUC::O SY I1~PACT (I'P ACT PROJeCT CHAUGE - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X- -1L - - - - - - IMPACT ON LANO . , Canst: ction on Lend ,.h.ro the death to the water tebh is l..s then 3 felt. Cons:r cticn of oaved ,ar~inq are~ ~or 1 .jC~ or ~C~ v~hicles. Censtr c:icn On land ~~er! ~edrock is e~posed or ;!r.e~111y w;:nln J feet or !.xisting grcl.Ond surfac!. Xll Cons:r ct;~n tha: ~fl1 continue for ~~re t~an 1 l~!~ or involve ~re : In c~e ~n3s~ or s:a;e. [.lcJva 10n for mir.inq ,urposes t~at ~/,:,ul~ r!!:':Ove ~:~'! than 1.000 tons 0 natural ~ter1at (i.t. reck or SQil) ~~r 1~!~. Cons:,.- C:10n of In'J new unitJT:t hndffll. -5-, ""-'" . . ( , .' -.. . " Constn c~lon In & designated f:1oodway. Other, ..pact,s: Construction "impact "due ,to sehedule.d com- ple~l n wlthin +2.months of approval of condominium proJe t and addltlonal imnact due to const,uction.of propo ed shopping center.' NO YES Z. WILL TlI ~~ SE AN EFFECT TO AllY UNIQUE OR U:;t1SUAL L!Jm F1l?J~S ~O FOUN~O T"~ SIT~? (I... cliffs. dunes, geological forma- \JSI t'IonS. tc.l .x - Speel f c land fo"",: IMPACT Otl IIATEq NO YES 3. IlILL PR JECi AFF~CT AllY IIAT!R BOOY DESIGllATUl AS ..........~ 0 PROTECT O? (Under Articles 15. 24, 25 of the Envir- ~ OPlr.enta Conservetlon Law, E.C.L.) , En"",l. that ~Iould Apply to Colur..n 2 Ored9i 9 ~re than 100 cubic yards af ~terial fro~ chann of & protected stream. Const ctian in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other mj)act~: 4. 1l1LL P OJ~CT "FFOCi ANY 1l0rl-PROTECT<:O EXISTltIr. OR HE\! NO YES SOOY 0 l!"TER? . .....................................:.....0 0 E..~ol s ~ha~ 1I0uld Apply to Column 2 A 10: Increase or decre.se In the surface aree of any body of Wi er or mor~ than a 10 acre incre!se or decrease. Const uct~on of & body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surla ! area. ". Other In:pacts: - mr YES OCE 5. WILL P OJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROurlOHATER OUALl'iY? Exa~,1 s ~hat Would Apply to Column 2 X Proje t will require & discharge pennit. ~ Proje t requires use of a source of water that dees not have appro a1 to serve proposed project. Proje t requires water suoply fTem wells with greater than 5 Sallons peT minute ~umping capacity. Con5truc~ion or ooer!t1~n causing any cont!m;na~ion of a uoli: water suppty sy.tem. X Proje twill adveroety'affect grour.dw&cor, X - licui !~fluent ~;11 be conv!y~d off the sft~ to facilit~!S wnic~ pr!S2ntl1 do not exis~ or n4ve 1n~~ uate c~~.ctt1. X Proj t r'l!:iuiring a ~.3c~lity that would use wattr' in e.:.s of ZQ.CCO gallonS per day. _ P""je t "ill likely cauH siltation or oth~r dlstil...;e inTo In u.istfnQ body of "'Ite.r' to the t'xt~nt that t~ere . : ~ .. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - !I'"~CT POOJl::.C'" I..",:Ar:GC: '" -2L -.,- - - - , -X- X X -1L X - -1L.. - - - - - .' ..1L X X .1L - X - - ~ , . ..: .' ,( ,~ .." J . . . , .L r "--. l:All TO '.\ ,rENTIAL ',oOEAA iE LAilGE IMPACT II~P,~CT .::l. c:.U lllPACT SE REDUCED ay PR')JECT CHA:IGC: ..- 1n;:r,n;1"Ig ::t,,,,A Que to lawn Othe or f , . e. WILL P~JECT ALTn OAAINAGE FLOI', PATit~1IS OR Sl:"FACE !:ATER ~O YES RU:IOF~ ? .................... ............................... 00 E..~o ~ that ~ould Apply to Column 2 ProJ ct "ould ia:plde flood "ater flQ>ls. , , . . X ProJ ct 15 l1kely to caust substantial erosion. during co struction. ProJ ct is inco~atible with existing drainage patterns. Oth! Impacts: IMPACT Ol/AIR , rill YES 7. WILL ROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALlTY?....~.:...................O 0 E..~, es that Would Apply to Colu~ 2 ProJ ct will induc! 1,000 or mere .ehicle trips in any gi.en hour ProJ ct will result in the incineration of mere than 1 ton. of fuse per hour. ct emission rate of all contaminants will ..ceed 5 per hour or a hoat source producing mere thin 10 n 3TU's per hour. I .x... Othe :ondaniniums and sho f~pacts: ~ust :rai ~pn ri".ring constrlJ~t-;nTlof in additlon thereto, during construction of i Jp.o?"CT C~! Pl~~Ij'S ~~1O ~ln~.~'-s 8. WILL ,OJECT AFFECT NiY THREATENED OP. ~~OA:lGC:"<D SPECIES, E..m,l 5 tha~ ~ould Apply to Colucn 2 Redu ion of one or rooM! species 115tad on the ;:... York or Fe eral list, using the site, o.er or nelr site or found on the site. Re~. 1 of any portion of a critical or significant wild- 1 i fe latli t;,t. ,NO YES <DO . AD?l1 ation of PesticHe or he,t>1cf de over <::O~ than tW1C! ! y!ar ot~e~ t~!n for agrj~~!tural puroc5~s. . Ot.':~r 1r.:t=ac:'s: 9. ",:!..~ ~ .:":ECT SC~Si,~~:Tr~LL Y AFfECT !:C:I- iHRE...U:::iD ~~ ~1O YES -'''''r, 'E' -PE...-' /'7;\ 0 C,;,I,......,l,.. oJ.) I.l:..). .......................................0 [~!~~1 ~~at ~o~l~ ~p~ly to Colu~ Z . Proje t ~Quld s~~stant~al1y int~rl!r~ ~ith inl ,.!si~~nt or "/1: ...~:ory fis.1oj or wnC::life s,eci'l. Prnje t r~cui"es t~e r!~ov!l of ~ore :~~n 10 J:~!S of 1r.a!:J" f~r!St (~'/er 100 jl!clr$ In a9!) 0" ot~e" 1:el11:1 1=;~r 3r.t vt~!t~:~on. .JL - - -2L -L. ...JL - '- -X- - - - - - - -X- . . (; ". ." .-. II'PACT 0:1 VISUAL RESOURCE 10.. WILL Tl4 PPOJECT :'FFEC7' VIEIlS. VISTAS OR Tl4E VISUAL CHAAACT R OF Tl4E i;EIGH8'lR~OOD OR COr'UMITYl .............. ..~,T. th.t Uould Apply to Column 2 Ill) Y 00 An Inco Pltibl. visull Iffect caused by the intro~"ction of new Ite~;lls. colo~s and/o~ fonr~ tn contrlst to the .u~ro~ in; llndscape. ~ A proj t IlsI'y visible. not Ilslly sc~eened.t~at is obvious y dlffe~ent fram otho~ around It. .L '- Proj pc sc~eonl fllpo rt Othe~ will ~esult In the elllllnation o~ ~jo~ 9 of scentc views o~ vistn knOl':n to be t to the a~a. . . a~: - . i I~PACT OM HISTORIC RESOcP~ES 11. WILl. P ECT WPACT AllY SITe; OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC. NO Y PRE-HI ORIC OR PALEOIlTOGICAl. II'J>ORTAMCE? .................€) 0 EJca",1 s that 1I0uld Apply to Column 2 ProSec occu~lnq wholly o~ partially within o~ cor.tiguous to Iny flcility o~ site listed on the National Rogiste~ of, histo~ c placos. - AllY' 1m ~ct to In a~heolog;cal siteo~ .fossllbed located- within the project site. Ot..he~ pacts: 12. IflPACT ON OPEN SPACE & REC,E~ilC'r WILL E PROJECT AFFECT THE QUAnTITY OR OUALITY OF EXISTING HO Y OR FUT RE OPE11 SPACES OR RECREA,TlC/IAL OPPORTU~lilES?...... 0 0 E..~l s that 1I0uld Apply to Column 2 nent foreclosure of a futu~! recreational opportunity. A Ilajo reduction of an open space i~ort3nt to the community. ...x Othe~ Jt;l.cts:, An add~ tional recreational burden of ~sENe hundred senlor citlzens on a hamlet vith fev faciliti a~d i addition thereto, the construction of the shop '. plnB enter will be adjacent to an eXlsting school pI gr~un . and thig factor must be considered. !'''POCT "" TlW'90PTATlC'1 13, WILL I E,E aE ~I EFFECr TO EXIS,ING r~~SPCRiAT:CIl SYSi:;.'? I' "' II' ......1............ ...... ... ..... ....... [x.col S ~~.t ~ould A~ply to Colu~n Z ..l. "'ltera i,n of present p.tterns of II'O'/tr-ent of people .r:d/or ocd~. NO Y 00 x p~oJ.c ,,111 ~tsult In n.ere traffic ~robTen:s, e.t .intersection ~f ~o e 25. Sach p,oblem~ ~ll be caused by the condo ~l project and"n addltlon the,eto@x~efbated by ~ ~ ~d constructlon of the shopplng cen~e . . ~~l lcant lncrease in non-drivlng residents and prox relty f grR~~ar school must be cOQsidered in connectio~ x 1 2. :; ~ " . , . :.I;.:..L TO ~ JTEIITlAL CA:; lI~?ACl ,BE ~OOERA TE LA~GE REOUCED BY 1~?CT IHNCT PR0JECT c~~r~o.~ . ES X . - .JL X - . , . . . X' . X - - - . - - - .. . ..' - '- - . - - - . ES . - - - . . ! - - .- . - - - - - - ES . - - - - - - ra - - - es -X- --L ay - ES - -L- ....- .X X - - - - tl e_ X X - i X X - . wit in cen condominium ~ect and~. addition thereto onjunction with construction of the shopping er. . ~ . . . . . ( ... ~ - .. . . - . ---. I"PAcr ON E~IE~GY 14. WIll P~~JcCT ~~~~C7 THE CCI~1UNITIES SOURCES OF PJ~c ~R ~O YE E.~ER y SUPPLY? .. ., . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . "0 ([) E'Am 1.5 thot ~auld Apply to Column 2 x PrcJ Iner t causIng greAter thon 5: fncreose fn any farm of' used fn municipalIty. . . 1L. Preje trans. or to, ~ re~u;rfn9 the creation or extension of In Ine~y issian or supoly system to serve more than 50 sfngle facily"sidenc!s. . Other I",pacts: I"'P~CT ON NOISt 15. WIll I'ME~E BE 09JECTln:1MlE OOCRS. :lOlSE. GLARE. 'I!~~~.ilON NO YE or n CiillCAL OIS7"?e;':lC~ t\S A RESULT OF THIS PP.CJ~CT? ....00 EXA"'o .5 that Would Apoly to Column 2 Blast ng wfthin 1.500 foet of a hospital. schaal or other sensi fve facilfty. Odors will occ"r routinely (more than one hour per day), Prcje t ~;11 c~duc! o~er!tin9 ncisa exceedin~ the lcc~l ar.~ient noise levels for noise outside of stfJC~Ures. Proje t will r~ve natural barriers that would Ie: !s a nois.;!: s,r~en. X' Other proj of .c be c fr::pacts: Intense construction Ijoise to complete ct in,one year, and in addition construction nois ndominium ~roject and shopping center project mus nsidered w1th respect to the grammar school. lfo'P'r. 0/1 H!,.aLr-l \ >I.a zHrs 16. HIll ROJECT AFFECT PUSlIC HEALrn A~O SAFElY? NO YES .............00 Ex>~o !s th.t Would Apply to Column 2 Prej, subst fn th be 0 t wfll c.use a rfs~ of explosion or rel,aso of hazardous .c~s (f,14 oil, pesticides. che~;cals, radiatton, etc.) event of accfdant or upset conditions. O~ tnere will ronic low level dlsc~arge or e~iss1an. . Proie that will result in the burial of .haz!r~:us wastes- (i.!. oxic. ~oiscnous, highly re!ctfve. radiQac:~ve. frritat~ng. . fnf~e::;ous, etc.. includina ~a5tcs that are 501 jl:, sl:.ti..solid, llqu'd or cont.;" 1'SOS,) . Storac '.0111.f,s for c"e millIon or ",ore gallar.s of lIquified naC~ra sas or otter licujds. . Ot~jer m~,ac:'s: .~- . . 1 2.. ~, S~AlL TO\- POTE!m;'L CA" 1:~?ACT' C~' " I~OtR.ATt LA~GE RDUC!O ay 1fo'?ACT 1!IPACT PRCJ!CT CHA~G;: S X X - - - .... . . -1L - .2L - - - - - - . S '- - - - - - . - - - ." - - - - - - , .' - lL- ...x...- . - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - I~PAC O~I G~)~'!TH A~!i) CHr,.~? OF cn[ .!iV OR ilE!G}'1~,;.u~r'" . !:',');'C7 ~:;:! "e. ~ pO:).;::CT C;-~~::C ., .; .. . . --'17. lilt CO:~ PPOJECT AFFECT THE CH.ARACTEq "F THE EXISTWG /10 YES 'iUn? ...... ......... ................. .............-..0 Q Ie that I!auld Apaly to Calunn 2 . . Exa x The opulation of the City. Town or Village in which the praj ct is located is likely to grew by eore than 5~ or reS; ant hum~n population. L- 2- x The ,~nicipal budgets for capital ex,enditures or opera- tin services will incr~ase by more than 5: per year as a . 'r.es t o,f .tl;i s prqject. (Increased police aInb\llance . serv co. added burden on sanl tal'y .landfi.ll) , Will involve any oermanent facility of a non-agricultural use on an agrieultural district or r!~ove prime agricultural lan from cuI tivatian. The raject will replace or eliminate existing facilities, stn t~res or areas of htstoric importance to the co~unity. -L r- fire .... x NO ., ~r .' .JL- Cev apment will induce an'fnflux of a partfcular age gro with special needs. Proj ct will set an impar".ant precedent for future projects. Proj ct will relocate lS or more employees in one or mor~ bus; ~SS2S. XX lTOth impacts: Impact of:. construction of sh01:roin~ cente ---must be considered in conjunction with construction of X' . X. '- '-x- ..L- Ex' . les that Would ~pply to Calurr:n 2 . NO ' YES .......<::) <;:) ,: 18. IS ERE PUaLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERIiWG TriE PROJECT? ..L Eith r 9overn~ent or c;tiz~ns of adjac~nt co~unities have e;(.press.:d. opposition or reject:d the project or have not een contacted. X Obje tians to the project from within the community. -X- -L x X DETERI1WATlON IF ^NY ACTION IN PART 2 IS IOE~rrIFIEO AS A POTENTIAL LARGE Il'PAC7 OR IF YOU CA:l::OT, D<TERiWIE THE MAGIIl11JOE OF HiPACr. PROCE:u ,a PART 3. PORTlOrlS OF EAF CmlPLITED FOR THIS PROJECT: PART I ~ PART II -L- PART 3 X Upcn revi w of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1. 2 and 3) an considering both the magnitude and importance of eac~ tmpac:. i is reasonably determined tha;.= PREPARE ~ IlEf,A7IVECECLMATlOIl A. ject will result in no major fm?acts and. there(cr~. which ~ay not C3use significant damage to the ~nv;r~n~2nt. o B. Althc gh the project could have a significant effect on the env~ r.ment. ch~re ~ill not be a si9~lfic~nt effect in this C3se ~ec~u e t~e mitio~ticn ~~3s~res descr:b~o in PART J have been fne!;.. ed as par:.oi :l1e ~ro~osed .~!'"ojee:. c. 7he: ~je~: will r~sult in one ~r ~or~ maior adver~a imcac:s that annat ~e reduc2d anc m~y causa s;g~if;e3nt dana~~ t~ t.~e :!. vi rcnrr.ent. c::::::.... 1.. \ t" - ~....)I'J("""~ ~~ PP.ErARE ~ N~r,'T1'1E CEC!.J\RATlCIl o ?P.:~1\RE ?OS~Tl~E ~.~ATlO:1 ;C:E:l I!I ~~;,,"/~2L-<,"~ Signdt"'" of ?p.S;Jans:~leOtfi9al III l Agency of Prep rer lif differ~nc from ~cspon~l~le Officer) '-....j - ;,,- rrlnc o~ ~ype na~e of respon51~le orri. fn Lud Agency r . ..,-.-;. ~ . . . ," . ( 1'OWN OF . SOUTHOLD ( .. ... . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS I~FO~.'IA Tl " _ Part 3 Is pre~ared if one or mare Impact or effect is considered to be potentially large. - The a" unt Of writing necessary to answer Pa~ 3 ~ay ~e determined by answering the ouestion: In briefly co~~le ing the Instruct~ons below have I placed in t~ls record sufficient infermatien to indicate the reasen blaness of ~'decisions? , \ . j . INST?UCTlC IS Complete e folla.ing for lach i~pact or effect identified in 'Column Z of Part Z: 1. Brien describe tile impact. 2. Oescr; e (if applicable) hew the impact mi;ht be mitigated er reduced te a less than iar,e impact by . pro- ject c .ange. 3. Based n the infer.r~tien available, de~ide if it is r..senable to cenclude that this impact is imoertant to the minici~allty (city, town or village) in whic" the project is located. c answer the question of fmport~nce. consider: The pro~ability Of the impact or effect occurring .The duratien of tile impact or effect Its irreversibility, fncluding permanently lost resources or val~es ~hether the impact or effect can be centrolled The r~9icr.al consequence of the f~?act or Iffec: Its ~ot.ntial divergence from local needs and ;eals Whether knel<n objections to tile project a;:oly to this impact or effect. .' OErE?./' I NA Tall OF S Wi! Fl C.\IICE n action is considered to be sfgnificant if: ~e (er more) imea:t is dete~ined to both ~ and its (their) conseeuenc!, based.on the review Ibove. is fmoor--:ant. a PART III 51 TEl~E.'liS ( entin"e on Att.c~ments, as needed) Art .uncoo dinatored and incomplete report. was. presented to the Town at the Zonin Amendment affecting this parcel, leaving significant gaps and . statement made at the presubmission conference in April. the time of unsubstantiated 1. Canst uction Impact Unadd essed in the past, construction will cause a disruptive effect on the neighbor- hood ue to dust, noise, soil erosion, air pollution and alteration of surface drainage A detailed description of construction staging, including design methods to mi imize ~pacts is needed, including phasing of the project. In addition the impaclc of the construction of the shopping center, its disruptive effects on the neigh~orhood and the adjacent school, due to the factors related abo~e, must be cons i ...ered. , . ( . ( 5. Gr undwater Qualit Th number and concentration of dwellings will require an SCDHS permit and ad- va ced wastewater treatment will be necessary to prevent serious impacts on gr undwater. No approved water source or public system exists to serve the development. The qu lity of the groundwater has not been established in the application. An NYSDEC LI Well Permit will be needed because ?umping . will exceed 45 gpm. Th project will adversely affect groundwater due to a) nitrates in sewage un ess advanced wastewater treatment is included, b) nitrates in fertilizer of laonareas, c) household chemicals. Th project will use 32,000 gpd on an average, which could easily double in th dry summer months. The possibility of an adverse effect on surrounding ve Is is possible. This needs further study. In addition, the water system, or proposed vater system, for the shopping center must be considered due to it proximity to the veIl proposed for the condominium project and the over- al usage considered in conjunction with usage of the condominium itself. 10. Vi ual Im act A ense development of 160 multiple family dwellings is visually incompatible vi h the single family hamlet of Cutchogue. It will be difficult to screen vi h less than mature specimens of large scale vegetation. In addition to the vi ual impact of the condominium project, the visual impact of the shopping ce ter adjacent to the school and school grounds is'a factor that must be co sidered. 12. Re reational Demand Th infusion of several hundred senior citizens into a small hamlet will strain ex sting recreational resources. mbe small community center included in the p ject will not mitigate this impact. 13. "Tr ffic Im act An incomplete traffic study vas presented with the zoning change. A study in- cl ding summer traffic is needed to more properly assess the impacts at Route 25 and Griffing Street. The proximity to the Cutchogue School may also present pr blems on Schoolhouse Lane and Depot Road vith development traffic. A large in rease in non-driving senior citizens presents a further demand on the com- m ity's practically non-existent public transportation system. The traffic st dy failed to consider the impact of the shopping center at Route 25 and Gr ffing Street, and failed to consider the traffic impact on the school site an must be revised and made all inclusive. . 17. Im act On Cutcho e Communit At full construction in one-year, a population increase of nearly 15% viII be e erienced by the Cutchogue community. This will include the impacts already .' ' . ( . ( tioned as well as increased ambulance and emergency medical calls,'police rols and emergency police calls, fire service, and elderly medical service. hough there is a need for senior citizen housing in Southold, housing alone esn't begin to provide the services needed by senior citizens. This develop- t proposal doesn't address them. In addition to the impact on the tchogue community due to the dramatic increase in population with attendant creases in demands for community services, the inclusion of a shopping center jacent to the condominium project must be considered, owing to its likely act on the existing community and it probable attraction of additional people the community. 18. Controvers e Planning Board was not contacted during the consideration of environmental act at the time of the Zoning Amendment. Many of the issues presented here uld have been addressed at that time. jections to the proposed development have surfaced in the Cutchogue community, ring the creation of at least one new civic group, the submission of a gthy petition opposing the project and the objection of several abuttors. is the conclusion of Part III that there is a need for a coordinated SEQRA iew of these elements and that the proposed action is a Type 1 action which quires that a positive declaration be made and a full EIS prepared. r-, ( . ( .. " Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 This is to ertify that I, Diane M. Schultze, Secretary of the Southold Town Ranni Board, in the. said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing opies of the Planning Board's resolution pertaining to the Seacroft s' e plan to the copy filed in the Office of the Planning Board on Novembe 7, 1984 and that the same is a correct and true transcript of the ori resolution passed by the Planning Board at the November 5, 1984 meeti g. Dated: ~ \Qe,5 s.:i;gnature'11-,Q UL l1) . ';b~ ...; . . ( ( On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Latham the following action was taken : WHEREA Corporation a prelimina of submitti .160-unit co of land sit conjunction abutting pa Griffing St WHEREA to the Boar units and i XIII of the WHEREAS of the pres received a this projec , on or about April of 1984,SEACROFT, LTD., a New York having an address at Main Road, Cutchogue, New Yo.rk 11935, submitte' y sketch plan and attended a presubmission conference in anticipati' g a application for site plan approval fur the construction of a dominium project to be constructed on approximately 46.12 acres ate off Griffing Street in the Hamlet of cutchogue in with a shopping plaza of approximately 50,000 square feet on an cel to the south which said parcel is bounded on the east by eet; and , as of the 17th day of October, 1984, the applicant has submitted a certified set of plans for the construction of a 160 condominium now requesting site plan approval therefor, prusuant to Article Code of the Town of Southold; and this Board has reviewed the original preliminary sketch, minutes bmission conference and the certified plan submitted and has eport from its planner relating to the environmental impacts of NOW, T EREFORE, BE IT, RESOLV of SEACROFT Artic Ie 8 0 FURTHE respect to The ot Environment and the Suf conferences lead agency hereby decl and it is FURTHE by Article regulations units in ex commencemen Altern 1 action, s significant Environment this projec the propose environment this action FURTHE and it is, D that it is this Board's determination that the application td. for site plan approval is subject to the provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law (SEQRA), and be it . RESOLVED, it is this Board's desire to be the lead agency with his action. er interested agencies are the New York State Department of 1 Conservation, the SuffOlk County Department of Health Services olk County Planning Commission which agencies after informal have indicated their willingness to have this Board act as In the interest of expediting the review process this Board res itself to be the lead agency with respect to this action, RESOLVED that the proposed action is a Type 1 action as defined of the Environmental Conservation Law (SEQRA) and the thereunder, in that it consists of the construction of new resident ess of 50 units which are not proposed to be connected at the of habitation to community or publicly owned utilities. tively, in the event such action were not to be determined a Type ch action would constitute an unlisted action which will have a impact on the environment, which impacts are set forth in the 1 Assessment Form, Part III, on file with this Board. Fu~her and its environmental impacts must be viewed in conjunction with construction of the adjacent shopping plaza and the significant 1 impacts likely to result therefrom. Under either classification, is significant, and it is RESOLVED, therefore, that a full DEIS be prepared, by the applican . ( . ( . FU THER RESOLVED that SEACROFT'S, applicat~on for site plan approval sha I not be deemed complete until a draft EIS has been accepted by this Boar as lead agency as satisfactory with respect to scope, content and adequacy, and be it FURTHER andforward t declaration, the Town of RESOLVED that the Chairman of this Board be directed to prepare the appropriate agencies and departments a notice of positive pursuant to 6 NYCRR part 617,and any appropriate local law of outhold. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Latham,'.Ward . . .( Rooert D. Pike Counselor at Law ~ 155 Sound Avenue Baiting Hollow, NY 11933 516 727-7204 516 727-0491 March 5, 1985 ,~ 151985 Ms. aren Chytalo New ork State Department f Environmental Conservation ing 4" at Stony Brook Brook, New York 11794 ~e.: application of Seacroft, Ltd. by Richard Cron Permits WSA 7482, UPA 1"-84-1"73 Dea Ms. Chytalo: I u erstand that application has been made by the above parties for water supply system. Ple se be advised that the applicant failed to complete its application before the Southold Town Planning Board and for that and ther reasons, the Planning Board has denied the application. Ther is no project pending in the Town of Southold for this applicant of which I am aware. I h ve enclosed a copy of the Resolution denying the application for our records. '-'" Robert Q~ Pike RDP:ls envr enc. cc.: Mr. Bruce Isaacs Ms. Nancy Sawastynowicz Bennett Orlowski, Chairman, Southold Town planning Board ~~..~ t'..... J,/'\ .. . ~ - -",. . , ~! , J SUPRE E COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUN OF SUFFOLK In t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RECEIVED BV SOllJllDLDB TOWN PlANNING BOAll/l .tf 5 -1985 _-. DAIE - . Matter of the Application of SEACROFT, LTD., a New York ration, Petitioner, pursuant to Article 78 Index No. Corp For of t NOTICE OF PETITION THE LANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, BENN TT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN, RICHARD G. WARD, KENNETH EDWARDS, GEORGE RITCHIE LATH , JR. and WILLIAM F. MULLEN, JR., as M mbers of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, - - - - - - - - - - - - - Respondents. - - - - - - - X SIR S : PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed petition of LTD., a New York corporation, verified on the 5th day of 1984, and the annexed affidavit of RICHARD J. CRON, 5th day of February, 1984, an application will be to this Court at a Special Term, Part I thereof, to be at the Suffolk County supreme Courthouse, Griffing Avenue, rhead, NY, on the 5th day of March, 1985, at 9:30 o'clock in he forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for a judgment, pursuant to CPLR Article 78, ann lling, rescinding, and setting aside the determination of the Res ondent Planning Board of the Town of Southold, filed on Jan ary 8, 1985, by which Respondent purported to deny site plan ~ ,e .. ~ - ( , . app oval to the petitioner for a proposed 160 unit residential con ominium situate off Griffing Street, Hamlet of Cutchogue, Suf olk County, New York, for reasons set forth in the Findings of he Board adopted by resolutions at its meeting on January 7, 198 , and granting such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper together with costs imposed in this pro eeding. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that an answer and supporting aff"davits, if any, shall be received at least five (5) days before the aforesaid date of hearing pursuant to CPLR, S7804(c). Dat d: Cutchogue, NY February 5, 1985. Yours, etc. CRON and CRON, ESQS. Attorneys for Petitioner Office & P.O. Address Main Road - P.O. Box 953 "Cutchogue, NY 11935 (516) 734-5100 TO: PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Main Road - Route #25 Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 , . . . , SUPR ME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CO UN Y OF SUFFOLK - - - - - - X In t e Matter of the Application of SEACROFT, LTD., a New York Corp ration, Index No. Petitioner, For Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of t e CPLR, THE BENN WARD LATH as M Town LANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, TT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN, RICHARD G. KENNETH EDWARDS, GEORGE RITCHIE , JR. and WILLIAM F. MULLEN, JR., mbers of the Planning Board of the of Southold, PETITION Respondents. - - - - - - - - - X TO T E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: The Petition of SEACROFT, LTD., by JOSEPH E. NOLAN, its ecretary/Treasurer, respectfully shows: 1. This is a proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78 of t e Civil Practice Law and Rules and ~274-a of the Town Law: {al To review, annul, rescind and set aside the find ngs adopted by the Planning Board of the Town of Southold and iled January 8, 1985 by which the Planning Board purported to d ny approval of Petitioner's site plan, as certified for ap- prov 1 by the Southold Town Building Department, for a proposed one undred sixty (160) unit residential condominium at premises situ te at Cutchogue, New York; (b) Declaring that the Respondent, Southold Town Plan ing Board, may not lawfully and legally declare itself as . . . lea agency under the SEQRA and compel Petitioner to prepare and sub it a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in furtherance of Pet' ioner's application for site plan approval; (c) Compelling the Respondent Planning Board to fort with issue its approval of the petitioner's site plan, as cert'fied for approval by the Southold Town Building Department; and (d) Compelling a hearing to determine the resolu- tion of factual issues which have formed the basis for arbitrary, capr'cious, illegal and unlawful actions of the Respondent Planning Boar, resulting in the denial of approval of Petitioner's site plan. 2. SEACRaFT, LTD. is a New York corporation and is owner of c rtain premises situate off Griffing Street, Cutchogue, New York, cons'sting of 46.16 acres, zoned "M", Light Multiple Residence, for whic site plan approval has been requested of the Southold Town Plan ing Board for a proposed one hundred sixty (160) unit residen- tial condominium. This litigation has been authorized by action of t e Board of Directors of SEACRaFT, LTD. 3. The Planning Board of the Town of Southold is vested with the authority (limited in scope as set forth in ~100-132 of the outhold Town Zoning Ordinance) to approve or deny site plans for tructures proposed in "M", Light Multiple Residence Districts, - 2 - . ( . pur uant to procedures set forth in SlOO-133 of the Southold Town Zon'ng Ordinance. 4. As set forth herein and in the affidavit of RICHARD J. CRO , in support of the Petition, the petitioner has been and will be ubstantially affected by the actions of the Respondent Planning Boa d and in particular, has and will continue to sustain signifi- can economic and financial loss. AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF RESPONDENT PLANNING BOARD ARBITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY, ILLEGALLY AND UNLAWFULLY HAS DETERMINED THAT PETITIONER'S APPLI- CATION FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 8 OF THE ENVIRON- MENTAL CONSERVATION LAW. 5. In or about the 4th day of October , 1982, RICHARD J. CRO made application for a change of zone from "A" Residental- Agr'cultural to "M" Light Multiple Residence, of the premises now own d by petitioner herein, as described in the photocopy of deed ann xed hereto as Exhibit "A". 6. That attached to said Petition, and made a part the eof, was a Short Form Environmental Assessment Form, the com- ple ion and submittal thereof, as requested by the Southold Town Cle k. A copy of said Petition and Short Form EAr is annexed hereto as xhibit "B". 7. That on October 6, 1982, the Southold Town Clerk sent a 1 tter to the Department of Environmental Conservation, Hauppauge, - 3 - . . New York, with copies thereof to Commissioner Flacke and the Sou hold Town Building Department, enclosing the Petition for a c ange of zone and advising all parties, as follows: "This project is unlisted and our initial. determination of non-significance has been made and we wish to coordinate this action to conform our initial determination in our role as lead agency." "May we have your views on this matter. Written comments on this project will be received at this office until October 25, 1982. We shall interpret your lack of re- sponse to mean there is no objection by your agency." Cop of said letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit "C". Pet" ion and requesting the recommendation of the Board. A copy 8. That on October 6, 1982 the Southold Town Clerk sen a letter to the Southold Town Planning Board enclosing the id letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit "0". 9. That on December 6, 1982 the Southold Town Planning wrote to the Southold Town Clerk and requested any informa- she might have regarding the Town Board's declaration of lead y relative to the Jem Realty "Kontokosta" and the RICHARD J. CRON change of zone applications. A copy of said letter is an- nexe as Exhibit "E". 10. That on December 8, 1982 the Southold Town Clerk sent to the Southold Town Planning Board a letter advising that the own Board had declared itself lead agency on the change of - 4 - - . zone application of RICHARD J. CRON, at their meeting of October 5, 1982 enclosing therewith copies of the letter dated October 6 to the epartment of Environmental Conservation (Exhibit "C"), and copy of the Short Form EAF submitted by RICHARD J. CRON with his chan e of zone application; all of these documents herein described bein in the file of the Southold Town Planning Board. A copy of said letter, together with the enclosures is annexed as Exhibit "F". 11. That on or about the 15th day of February, 1983 RICH RD J. CRON was requested to prepare and file a Long Form EAF with the Town Clerk with respect to the change of zone application. 12. That said form was completed and filed with the Town Cler on or about the 22nd day of February ,1983, a copy of same anne ed hereto as Exhibit "G". 13. That on March 23, 1983, pursuant to No.6 NYCRR, Part 617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, notice was give by the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, that said project is u listed and will not have a significant impact on the environ- ment A copy of said notice is annexed hereto as Exhibit "H". 14. That on June 8, 1983 Supervisor william R. Pell, III, of t e Southold Town Board, requested from Henry Raynor, Chairman of t e Southold Town Planning Board, the preparation of a report of a eas to be recommended for "M" zoning districts. A copy of said letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit "I". - 5 - ~ ~ . 15. That on July 19, 1983, after having previously met and discussed with Mr. Henry Raynor of the Southold Town Board, and a representative of the consulting firm of Ray nd, Parrish, Pine & Weiner, and having been advised at a ic meeting of the Town Board that the SEACROFT, LTD. 46.16 site was the ideal location for a "M" zone district, the Board granted to RICHARD J. CRON the zone change requested. 16. The Southold Town Planning Board was fully apprised and 'nformed and had direct knowledge of the SEQRA process em- plo d by the Southold Town Board and the proposed zone change, ant to 6 NYCRR, Part 617.7. 17. That on the basis of the foregoing, it is arbi- capricious, illegal, unlawful and beyond the jurisdiction of Southold Town Planning Board to force upon the Petitioner an tirely new SEQRA process, when in fact said Board had ample noti e, opportunity and.the means to object to the adoption of lead agency by the Southold Town Board on the proposed zone change. 18. That the Resolutions adopted by the Planning Board at i s meeting on November 5, 1984 were and are invalid, illegal and nlawful and as a result thereof Petitioner cannot be com- pell d to submit to a SEQRA process on its application for site plan approval. - 6 - "'. ... . 19. That the SEQRA positive declaration issued by the Pl nning Board on November 7, 1984 is unlawful and invalid and wi hout force and effect in that it contains substantial mis- st tements of fact and seeks to impose a SEQRA process upon the Pe itioner for a site plan approval. AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF. THE APPROVAL OF A "SITE PLAN" IS REGULATORY IN NATURE AND DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE PERMITTED USE OF THE PROPERTY AND THUS, SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED AN "ACTION" PURSUANT TO 6 NYCRR, Part 617.2(b). 20. The rezoning of the parcel is a planning activity c templated as an "action" under 6 NYCRR, Part 617.2(b). 21. The approval of a "site plan" after the rezoning p cess is completed is a regulatory matter and neither a planning nor an acivity for which a permit to construct is required f om the Southold Town Planning Board. 22. The Planning Board has a limited and restricted r 11 in its approval of a "site plan", as set forth in Chapters 1 0-132-133 of the Southold Town Code, to wit: interior parking and 1 ndscaping and lighting considerations. A copy of said Sections of t e Southold Town Code are annexed hereto as Exhibit "J". 23. That the Planning Board, pursuant to ~274-a of the T wn Law, has jursidiction over subdivisions and as such may adopt 1 ad agency and complete a SEQRA process in connection therewith. - 7 - . . 24. While activity of the Planning Board extends to sub ivisions, it does not extend to a condominium, since the lat er is not deemed a subdivision and thus, the Planning Board has no authority or jurisdiction to adopt a lead agency status and make a positive declaration of significance for a condo- min'um site plan approval. AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF. RESPONDENT PLANNING BOARD HAS ACTED THROUGHOUT THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS IN AN IRRESPONSIBLE, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL MANNER WITH EVIDENCE OF BAD FAITH AND MALICE TOWARD PETITIONER. 25. That on April 9, 1984 a pre-submission conference for site plan approval was granted before the Planning Board, onl after the Board and its then Chairman, Henry Raynor, had to be dvised of legal action upon the Board's refusal to grant same. 26. That a review of the Planning Board files clearly ind'cates that other applications for condominium site plan ap- pro al received favorable treatment, with no intentional obstruc- tio , whereas, to the contrary, Petitioner, at every turn, is now and has been met with unequal treatment and intentional obstruc- tio ism. 27. That having received no response from the Planning Boa d, as a result of the pre-submission conference, Petitioner - 8 - . . ca sed a letter to be written to the Planning Board on or about Ma 31, 1984, in which it was requested that information be fu nished on the status of its site plan. A copy of said letter is annexed as Exhibit "K". 28. That in reply to Petitioner's letter of May 31, 19 4, the Respondent Planning Board sent out a letter on June 4, 19 4 detailing all of the data it required prior to review of the pr posed SEACRaFT, LTD. site plan. A copy of said letter is an- ne ed hereto as Exhibit "L". 29. That in the foregoing letter of June 4, 1984, under it "E. - Other Information", the Planning Board requested a Draft En ironmental Impact Statement due to alleged discrepencies in an " submitted with the change of zone application to the Town Board in 983. In this demand the Planning Board was completely in error, in hat firstly, no "EIS" was ever requested or submitted to the Tow Board but rather, at the Town Board's request, a Long Form EAF was completed and submitted to the Town Board and secondly, the Pla ning Board was without jurisdiction on June 4, 1984 to demand a D IS of the applicant. 30. That with respect to paragraph 2 of Item E, the Pla ning Board had no jurisdiction and no authority to demand an upd ted traffic study with respect to the traffic study heretofore - 9 - . . submi ted to the Town Board on the proposed zone change in 1983. 31. That without knowledge of the Petitioner, Respondent Plan ng Board placed the SEACROFT, LTD. application on its agenda of J e 25, 1984 for the purpose of declaring itself lead agency Part 617 of the SEQRA. A copy of that Resolution is attached here as Exhibit "M". 32. That on June 27, 1984 Respondent Planning Board sent letter enclosing therewith Part I of the Long EAF, with the t that same be completed by Petitioner. A copy of said let- ter is annexed hereto as Exhibit "N". 33. That on June 28, 1984 petitioner wrote to the Board demanding a withdrawal of Item "E", numbered 1 and 2 lead lett letter of June 4, 1984, on the ground that the Planning Board legally entitled to same in the performance of its duty to the site plan; and in addition, to rescind its Resolution of adopted at its meeting of June 25, 1984. A copy of said is annexed hereto as Exhibit "0". in is n revi 34. That on July 11, 1984 the Planning Board, at its of July 9, 1984, duly rescinded its Resolution of June 25, 1984, wherein it declared itself lead agency in regard to the SEAC site plan under SEQRA. A copy of said letter is anne as Exhibit "Pll. - 10 - . . . 37. That on August 7, 1984 a letter of said date was hand delivered to the Secretary of the Planning Board formally requ sting that the SEACROFT, LTD. application be placed on the Plan ing Board agenda for August 27, 1984 for final site plan appr val. a Copy of said letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit "R". 38. That on August 8, 1984 a letter was sent to the Plan ing Board confirming an appointment before the Board on Augu t 27, 1984 for site plan approval. A copy of said letter 1S a nexed hereto as Exhibit "S". 39. That on August 9, 1984 a letter was received from the lanning Board cancelling the appointment heretofore given for ugust 27, 1984, the reasons therefor being that said Planning Boar was not furnished with the items requested in their letters of J ne 4, 1984 and June 27, 1984. A copy of said letter is anne. ed as Exhibit liT". - 11 - . . 40. That the Petitioner in requesting a date before the spondent Board was acting in full compliance with 5l00-l33(B) of t southold Town Code in that Petitioner was prepared to submit its plan, in triplicate, at lease fifteen (15) days prior to the upon which approval is requested. 41. That the Respondent Board illegally, abritrarily and apriciously cancelled the Petitioner's appointment for site plan approval scheduled heretofore on August 27, 1984, on August 9, 1984 thereby effectively blocking any need for petitioner to timely subm t his site plan to the Building Department, as required by 5100 133 (B) of the Southold Town €ode. 42. That on August 20, 1984 a reply was sent by letter to t e Planning advising that the action of the Board set forth in t eir letter of August 9, 1984 was illegal, unlawful and invalid and n violation of the procedures set forth for site plan approval, as i dicated in SlOO-133 of the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance; in a dition, the Board was again advised that a SEQRA process is beyo d the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and further that upon the zone change process a Long Form EAF was filed with the Town Board and still further that petitioner be furnished with ans rs to a number of questions raised in their said letter, a cop of same being annexed hereto as Exhibit OUR. 43. That on August 30, 1984 the Planning Board responded by etter outlining the actions taken by the Board to date and fai ing totally to make any response and reference to the letters her to fore sent by Petitioner. A copy of said letter is ann<,xed her to as Exhibit "V". - 17 \-- . . 44. That on or about October 15, 1984, Petitioner sub to Mr. Edward Hindermann, Building Spector, upon in- qui , the person upon whom the duty was placed to review a site pla , in triplicate, a site plan for petitioner's project with the request that compliance be made in accordance with 5100-133(B) for an appearance before the Respondent Planning Board selected for its regular meeting on November 5, 1984. 45. That on October 16, 1984 a letter was sent to Res ondent Planning Board setting forth, among other things, the sub ission of the site plan to the Building Department and re- que ting an appearance before the Board at its meeting on Novem- ber 5, 1984. A copy of said letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit OW". 46. That on October 18, 1984 the Building Department sent a 1 to RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ. advising compliance of the site pla with all zoning requirements, and that compliance will be made wit Article XIII, 5l00-l33(C) & (D) of the Southold Town Code. A c said letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit "X". 47. That on or about the 18th day of October, 1984 the Sou hold Town.Building Department advised the Planning Board that cer ification of the site plan had been r~viewed and granted by the Southold Town Building Department, enclosing two certified cop es of petitioner's site plan, as required by 5100-133 of the Sou hold Town Zoning Ordinance. A copy of said letter is annexed her to as Exhibit "yo. - 13 - ~J. . 49. That at its meeting on November 5, 1984 Respondent Pl'n ing Bo.rd .doPted · .erie. of Re.olu\ion., .. 'ek forkh in ie. 1 Her of 'ov_r 7, 1984, 'nnexed hereko .. Exhibie "M", to wi (a) SEACROFT, LTD. site plan is Subject to Article 8 of the ECL (SEQRA); (b) The Planning Board deSires to be lead agency; (c) That the propOsed site plan is a Type I action or altern ively, an unlisted action alleged to have a significant impact n the environment; (d) That a full DEIS be prepared; Ie) That Petitioner's apPlication not be deemed com- plete un il a DEIS has been accepted by the Board; and (f) That a notice of POsitive declaration be prepared by the C airman of the Planning Board and forwarded to appropriate agencies ursuant to 6 NYCRR, Part 617. A copy of this letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit "BB". 50. That enclosed with said letter of November 7, 1984 was compl ted Parts II and III of Long EAF dated November 5, 1984, Completed y one David Emilita, a planner hired to advise the Planning Bard. Copies of same annexed hereto as Exhibit "CC". 1. That preSumably, said David Emilita utilized Part I of the Lon Form EAF submitted to the TOwn Board on the zone change in 1983 and chose to create issues by his completion of Parts II and III of he Long Form EAF. 48. That on October 26, 1984 the Planning Board advised by ekker kh.t khe Petikiooer'. applio'kion for .ike plan 'pproval vou d be oon'idered by khe Board ak 8.00 O'olook P.M. on Movember 5, 1984 A oopy of ..id leHer i. aooexed hereko .. Exhibie "'''. - 14 - . . 52. That said Planning Board Resolutions of November 5, 1984 SEQRA positive declaration of November 7, 1984 and Long Form EAF, Parts II and III, as completed by.said David Emilita and duly endorsed by Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman of the Planning , contained outright lies intentional distortions and decep- and are clearly indicative of the bad faith and malice ded by the Respondent Planning Board in the approval process SEACRaFT, LTD. site plan. 53. That with respect to the Resolutions of November 5, 1984 it is an outright lie and totally deceptive to indicate that ondominium project for site plan approval was submitted at resubmission conference on April 9, 1984 in conjunction with pping plaza, the land for which was owned by another corpora- was expressly indicated not to be a project for which Board approval was being sought. 54. That it is a further lie and outright deception for lanning Board to state in its Resolution of November 5, 1984 residential units proposed to be constructed are in excess of (50) units which are not proposed to be connected at the co of habitation to community or publicly owned utilities fact the certified plans submitted to the Planning Board indicate a community water system and a sewage system, /, ature and design of which has been preferred and proposed by uffolk County Health Department, both of which systems - 15 - '->0. . , . of t is date, have at least received tacit approval of said Heal h Department. ,(A -transcript, of --the pre-submission hearing befo e the Planning Board, of April 9, 1984 and a copy of the cert'fied site plan should be included in the return.) AS AND FOR A FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF. UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD, IN CONCERT WITH THE BOARD, AND OTHERS, SEEKS TO IMPEDE, HARASS AND OBSTRUCT THE COMPLETION OF THE SEACROFT PRO- JECT IN THE FURTHERANCE OF PERSONAL MOTIVE AND/OR GAIN. 5~. Upon information and belief, Respondent Planning Board from the inception of the proposed zone change, has conspired approval thereof by the Southold Town Board, in rance of the personal motive and/or gain of its present Chai Bennett Orlowski, Jr. 56. The Respondent Planning Board, upon information and belie , while plotting to destroy the application of Petitioner for a zon change to "M", Light Multiple Residence, was at the same time consp ring with said Bennett Orlowski, Jr., then a member of said Board and others, to formulate a change of zone of in excess of 1,200 feet of road frontage on Route #25, of prime residential and agric Itural lands, outside the Hamlet of Cutchogue, to a Business zone se. - 16 - . . 57. That said Bennett Orlowski, Jr. owned a parcel of la d within that strip proposed for a Business zone change, consi ting of approximately 375 feet frontage, with an old resi- denti 1 farmhouse, barn and farm stand. 58. That, upon information and belief, said Bennett Orlow ki, Jr. sold the foregoing parcel of land to one Irwin S. Kruge , by deed dated six days prior to an application for a zone chang , signed by said Irwin S. Kruger and five other property owner in said strip of land proposed for the zone change. 59. That, upon information and belief, said Bennett Orlow ki, Jr. engineered and directed each property owner in said strip of land, including the Dalchet Corporation, an owner of a parce , the stockholders of which are related to said Bennett Orlo ki, Jr., to one attorney who was to and did propose said zone hange for all of the parties. 60. That, upon information and belief, said Bennett Orlo Jr., would experience a substantial financial gain in the vent the Southold Town Board proposed the zone change. 61. That said Respondent Planning Board, while recom- mend ng disapproval of a similar change of zone to Business in the amlet of Cutchogue, having substantially less impact, voted un an mously to recommend approval of the Dalchet Corporation, et al. app1 cation in which said Bennett Orlowski, Jr. wasa former owner. - 17 - - . ~. . . . 62. That on the eve of the public hearing for said zon change, the only disclosure affidavit in the file of the Tow Board was that of Dalchet Corporation, which set forth that the stockholders were related to said Bennett Orlowski, Jr. 63. That, upon information and belief, said Bennett Orl wski, Jr. held a purchase money mortgage on the sale of his pro erty which he failed to disclose to the Town Board upon the app ication for said zone change. 64. That, upon information and belief, said Bennett Orl wSki, Jr. failed to disclose that another person or persons als had an interest in the property sold to said Irwin S. Kruger. 65. That said proposed change of zone, after public hea ing, was disapproved by the Town Board by a five to zero vote~ 66. That your Petitioner's Secretary/Treasurer attended the public hearing on said zone change and spoke in opposition the eto, for the reason that said proposed zone change would not be on the best interests of the existing Hamlet of Cutchogue. 67. Upon information and belief, the actions of Respon- den Board constitute arbitrary, capricious, illegal and unl ful actions, designed to expressly impede, harass, obstruct and, if possible, to destroy the SEACROFT, LTD. project, in fur- of a conspiracy to accomplish same and/or as a personal by the Chairman of the Planning Board. - 18 - . . AS ANO FOR A FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF. THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY RESPONDENT PLANNING BOARD, AT ITS MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 1985, DENYING APPROVAL OF PETITIONER'S SITE PLAN, IS CAPRI- CIOUS, ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT. 68. That onoecember 17, 1984, the Respondent Board advis RICHARD J. CRON that they SEACROFT, LTD. project was on the c lendar for January 7, 1985 to review its status and for possi le Board action. A copy of said letter is annexed as Exhib't "DO". 69.That for all of the reasons and allegations hereto- fore s t forth in the Petition, Respondent Planning Board is not entitl d to commence a new SEQRA process and the refusal of peti- tioner to commence a new SEQRA pro~ess cannot furnish a legal and valid asis for the denial of approval of Petitioner's site plan, which, except for the illegal and arbitrary issues raised in items 2 and of Respondent's findings, as contained in its letter of Januar 8, 1985, has been duly certified and approved by the Buildi g Department. Annexed hereto as Exhibit "E'lil" is a copy of letter dated January 8, 1985 setting forth the action and findings of the Respondent Planning Board on January 7, 1985. 70. That the issue of an improper subdivision is specious and a atent attempt by the Respondent Planning Board to grasp for any st aw in an attempt to impede and obstruct the approval of the certif'ed site plan. 71. The facts as they pertain to this matter are as follow 72. Petitioner's predecessor in title. Leisure Greens Associ tes, owned two differently zoned contiguous parcels of land -- 1 () - . . to it: A 46.16 acre parcel zoned "A, R-sidental/Agricultural, and a 7+ acre parcel of land zoned "B" Business. SEACROFT, LTD., pet'tioner herein, took title to the 46.16 acre parcel after it was rezoned by the Town Board in 1983 to "M" Light Multiple Resi- den e and Seacroft Plaza, Ltd. took title to the 7+ acre "B" Bus'ness zoned parcel. 73. That if there was a subdivision of the land, it wou d have been effected by the action of the Town Board, many yea s ago, when it changed the zone use of the 7+ acre parcel to IIB'I Business use. 74. That no subdivision of land was accomplished or eff cted by virtue of the differently zoned parcels being conveyed to eparate and distinct corporations. 75. That a subdivision of land can only be effected by div ding land of the same zone use. 76. That ~he land owned by Seacroft Plaza, Ltd., con- sis ing of the 7+ acre parcel, is burdened by a right-of-way in fav r of the Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church. Said right-of- way has nothing to do with the land owned by SEACROFT, LTD. and in 0 way affects the SEACROFT, LTD. site plan. 77. That the reference in the Whereas clause to the obj ction of an adjoining land owner, relative to an alleged agr ement, is without merit and legal effect and, since same was not set forth as a finding by the Planning Board, in denying the app oval of the site plan, is not entitled to and will be given no urther consideration other than above stated. - 20 - -, . . 78. That in the light of the foregoing the Court "~ Id determine that the findings made by the Respondent .~.....-~ --- -..' '-' -, . .- ..-- I . "_', _'. '." . ..... __,._ ning - Board - in denying -approval -of. petitioner's site plan- -- without merit, capricious and arbitrary, invalid and gal, and should compel that said Respondent Planning Board for hwith issue an approval of Petitioner's site plan, as duly cer ified by the Southold Town Building Department. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for judgment: (a) Annulling, rescinding and setting aside the findings and determinations of the Respondent Southold Town Planning Board, fil d on January 8, 1985, denying site plan approval to Petitioner for a proposed one hundred sixty (160) unit residential condominium; (b) Declaring that the Respondent Southold Town Planning Boa d may not declare itself as lead agency under the SEQRA and law ully and legally compel Petitioner to prepare and submit a DEI in furtherance of Petitioner's application for site plan ap- pro al; (c) Compelling the Respondent Planning Board to forthwith iss e its approval of the Petitioner's site plan, as certified and app oved by the Southold Town Building Department; (d) Compelling a hearing before the Court to determine the resolution of factual issues which have formed the basis for arb" rary, capricious, illegal and unlawful actions of the Respondent - 21 - . . South ld Town Planning Board and its Chairman, resulting in denia of approval of Petitioner's site plan; and (e) Granting such other and further relief to the Petit oner as to the Court may seem just and proper. SEAC FT, LTD. By: H E. NOLAN etary/Treasurer - 22 - .. . SUPRE E COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNT OF SUFFOLK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X of Matter of the Application SEACROFT, LTD., a New York Corpo ation, Index No. Petitioner, For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of th CPLR, THE P BENNE WARD, LATH as Me Town ANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, T ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN, RICHARD G., KENNETH EDWARDS, GEORGE RITCHIE , JR. and WILLIAM F. MULLEN, JR., bers of the Planning Board of the f Southold, AFFIDAVIT Respondents. _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - X STAT OF NEW YORK ) ) 55.: COUN Y OF SUFFOLK ) RICHARD J. CRON, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. That he is the President of SEACROFT, LTD., and a part er in the law firm of the attorneys for Petitioner and, as such is personally familiar with all of the facts and circum- stan es herein. 2. That this affidavit is submitted in support of the reli f requested in the Petition herein. 3. At the outset, it is important to note that all of the ctions taken by the Respondent Planning Board (a great numb r of which must be considered extreme when compared to actions take with respect to other similar applications, some of which pate tly would have a far greater impact on the community and the . . envi onment) are directed to impeding, substantially delaying and rom appearances, preventing the actual fulfillment' of the peti ioner's project. 4. That the petitioner's project is set in an ideal loca ion for that which is intended, to wit: A one hundred sixty (160 unit residential condominium for residents, one of whom must be at least 55 years of age. The project is immediately ent to the business area in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, a ion which an original Master Plan, and an update thereof, fou to be the most suitable and appropriate for such a project. In dition, immediately prior to the Town Board's action in rez ing the Petitioner's premises for this intended purpose in 1983, the Respondent Planning Board and a representative of the pla ing firm Raymond, Parrish, pine & Weiner, hired by the Town Boa to again form a Master Plan, pointed out to the Town Board tha the Petitioner's site was the proper one for a multiple res'dence area in the Hamlet of Cutchogue. 5. That when one examines the tactics employed to date by he Respondent Planning Board, it becomes absolutely clear that sai Respondent is engaging in a deliberate course of conduct int nded to destroy the project by creating unreasonable and ina propriate issues. The Petitioner's project is not a mammoth pro ect with a great number of problems. It is basically a simple res'dential development which when completed will consist of - 2 - ,e . (40) residential buildings esthetically clustered on 46.1 of land which will be professionally landscaped and main- The providing of utility services, including water and e facilities will not constitute any kind of a problem. vestigation of the potential market would seem to indicate probably fifty (50%) percent of the units (total 160 units) be owned by a widow or widower. The balance by a husband and The total number of residents might be expected not to be bstantially greater than the number one might expect in a for (40) home subdivision in which young people would reside wit families. 6. With this brief description of the project, it bec necessary to examine the actions of the Respondent in two (a) Requirements imposed upon the Petitioner in com to those imposed upon similar projects; and (b) Actions by the Respondent in fulfilling its dut expeditiously approve or deny a site plan. 7. As concerns the former, one need only examine the var ous Exhibits annexed to the Petition to reach a conclusion tha substantially greater requirements were imposed upon Peti- tio er in comparison to other applications before the Board. In thi regard, no other application for a condominium site plan - 3 - val had to produce items listed and detailed in petitioner's it "". For example, the files of the Planning Board indi- an application by Kontokosta Associates, in behalf of ide Heights Co., for site plan approval of twenty (20) condo- m units, known as Gardiners Bay Condominiums, on 3.98 acres the following facts: a) On January 27, 1982 site plan, in triplicate, furn'shed to Henry Raynor, Jr., Chairman of the Planning Board; b) On March 9, 1982 site plan submitted to Southold Town Building Department for certification; c) On April 12, 1982 Building Department reviewed and corom nted on the proposed site plan indicating, among other things, that 19 rather than 20 units were permissible. d) On May 27, 1982 Southold Town Planning Board approved plan. app Exh' the .' . the above correspondence are herewith annexed. 8. Still another example, in the Planning Board file, is of the Breakers at Island End, a 350 unit proposed condo- Greenport, New York, on Long Island Sound: a) On February 22, 1984 a proposed development plan was subm'tted to the Planning Board; b) On April 3, 1984 the Planning Board requested a de- tain d site plan for the proposed models and recreation unit. c) On April 10, 1984 request was made to submit the deve opment to the Building Department for review and certifica- tion. - 4 - . . d) On April 26, 1984 the Planning Board responded to the etter of April 10, 1984. e) On June 11, 1984, the Planning Board wrote to secure addi ional maps to reflect data on the area, curb sections and drai age. f) On June 25, 1984 Henry E. Raynor, Jr., who was form rly Chairman of the Planning Board, withdrew from what appears to b his representation of the applicant for site plan approval. g) On June 26, 1984 the Planning Board wrote and ad- vise of various descrepencies in the site plan, such as no cal- cula ions on drainage, 14 units are set back less than 100 feet from the Sound, no correspondence as to the water and sewage from Gree port Water Company. The Planning Board further stated that: "Due to environmental concerns and the impact of this project (emphasis supplied) the Board requests that you address these concerns; h) On July 11, 1984 the Planning Board indicated a reso-' luti n was passed by the Board on July 11, 1984 sending the site plan to the Building Department for certification. i) On August 21, 1984, the Building Department, by lett r to the Planning Board, certified the site plan. j) On September 13, 1984 the applicant's attorney was requ sted to supply a copy of "Bluff Stabilization Plan" to the Plan ing Board. - 5 - . . k) On September 13, 1984 the Planning Board indicated it pproved the~te plan on September 10, 1984, subject to, among oth r things, "Review of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Cop'es of these documents above listed are attached hereto. 9. In each of the above cases, notwithstanding an impact on he environment equal to or greater than Petitioner's project, the Planning Board did not request or require any form of SEQRA pro ess. With respect to the Breakers project, the Board recog- niz d, due to the nature of the project, substantial environment con erns and impacts. 10. As concerns the remaining area of action by the Pla ning Board, one need only look at the efforts employed by the Board in its preparation of Parts II and III of the Long EAF. The e parts and statements appended thereto are replete with fal e statements, intentionally misleading statements and false con lusions. 11. The Planning Board has been and is well aware that no pplication for approval of a shopping center site has been sub itted or is intended to be submitted. 12. All of the other issues raised are completely without mer t and are indicative of the bad faith and malice of the Planning Boa d. 13. In no instance has the Planning Board exerted the amo nt of effort to create environmental issues (when in fact none exi t) as it has done in the Petitioner's case. - 6 -, . . 14. The Petitioner has incurred substantial damages as a result of the Planning Board and its members. A great loss of time in furtherance of the approval of the site plan has been lost and remendous expenses incurred through the use of experts in fiel s of planning, landscape design and water and sewage design syst ms. 15. The Court need only examine the documents and plans subm'tted by the Petitioner in relation to that submitted by others, nclude as to the thoroughness of the Petitioner's documents. 16. It is interesting to note that the petitioner's ct may use approximately 32,000 gallons of water per day, whe as the Breakers project will be expected to use 275,000 gal ns per day. The Planning Board sees a need for SEQRA on pet'tioner's needs but not for that of the Breakers project. 17. Numerous other comparisons of unequal and unfair tre tment could be made, as well as a step-by-step objection to eac of the unwarranted conclusions set forth by the Planning Boa d in its completed parts I and II of EAF and Notice of Pos tive Declaration. I believe that the Court will see the ent re picture without, at least at this time, following such an ext nded and burdensome course. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Court to rant the relief requested in the Petition. ---'..--.., // / 5th day of February, 1985. "/ / ~//I' --r---- Ce--c...e //P ~44A~/ \ I Swo n to before me this EPH" M. HOUSTON lOYAllY PUBLIC, SI,to of Now YOll No. 52-463447B Ou.llfled In Suffolk County ~J( tommisslou f.xpil~ MllfCh 30. 1'3..;.. -' - 7 - "IA / "'J-)' C,) j, C! LrVlc.) .' /7.. _. J -I I C F .'. .M 2OM_B.HgJin.llld SJlc 0('1'.1, with Cnn:l1.lIl1 "g'llll'.,tor, Ac,,_I'h'''''"J Of "!'l'or,lIl'" 51 nJJrJN.Y,B.T.U, or 10,9- . . . ~ U/I' LAWiY EFORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUMENT-THIS INS UMENT SHOULD BE USED BY LAWYERS ONLY. /.."'....- COSULTYO . . , .' ~,F' 'I $.:::cH ' : [1,\,94 40Plf;r H{i) INDENnJRE, made the 1st day of September, nineteen hundred and BE LEISURE GREENS ASSOCIATES, a co-partne:ship, o fice at P. O. Box 127, (no #) Main Road, Matt1tuck, eighty-three wi th principal New York 11952, Y. S. :ANSFER :{ STAMPS . ,lOS. 00-/1 , j: par of the first part, and SEACROFT, LTD., a do~estic a d principal place 'of business c/o R1chard R ad, Cutchogue, New York 11935, co~poration with o~fice J. Cron, (no #) Ma1n 988/1 r- RECEIVED o;y~ .. L...L.....nu. ~_..- . HEAL ESTATE OCT I.() 1983 TI~ANSFER TAX SUFFOLK OUNTY of the second part, ESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of TEN t -------------------- ($10.00) ------------dollars, - ----- ------------ law I mODeyaf the United States, and other valuable consideration paid by t e party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or par succ sson and assigns of the party of the second part forever, that certain plot, piece or parcel of land. with the buildings and improvements therel!)n erected, situate, >,.-::.......... and bejngXxK~ at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk an' State of New York, more particularly bounded and described follows: .)i" 102.00 BEGINNING at a point which is located the following four ourses and distances from the corner formed by the intersection f the northerly line of Main Road and the westerly line of riffing Street: (1) North 400Q2,~40~West 73.50 feet; (2) orth 420 Q!P fH),Il. West 218.70 feet; (3) North 420 09' 00" \~est 40.27 feet; (4) North 3So 32' 40" l'iest 642.92 feet; running hence from said point of beginning along other land of Leisure 'ASsoeiateeiSouth520 55' 20" West 162.41 feet to land of The oman Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart at Cutchogue; running hence along said last mentioned land the following two courses nd distances: (1) North 370 13' 30" West 400.00 feet; (2) outh 530 05' 40" West 407.11 feet to land now or formerly of reiner and Pelkovsky; running thence along said last mentioned and North 360 54' 20" West 2009.51 feet to land now or formerly f Zuhoski; running thence along said last mentioned land North 00 18' 10" East 251.03 feet to land now or formerly of Beebe; unning thence along said last mentioned land the following hree courses .and distances: (l) North 560 00' 50" East 145.28 eet; (2) South 370 13' 30" East 221.47 feet; (3j North 390 29' 0" East 563.41 feet to land now or formerly of Kurczewski; unning thence along said last mentioned land South 3So 30' 50" ast 1901.44 fe~t to land now or formerly of Tyler; running hence along sa1d last mentioned land the following two courses nd distances: (1) South 370 3S' 50" Wes~ 210.23 feet. (2) South 70 04' 40" East 273.68 feet to land now or formerly ~f the own of Southold; running thence along said last mentioned land he following two courses and distances: (1) South 520 55' 20" est 170.00 feet; (2) South 370 04' 40" East 95.00 feet to the rtherly side of School House Road; running thence along the rtherly side of School House Road South 520 55' 20" l~est 55.10 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. "~ "t;;, ~~'~-":'i " ".; 1 ~ ~ '\~"" T ,\X "lAP E;;::IGNATION ',t 1000 01. 00 'L(,lp/O 33.001 " " ~) , .. 11;1;, ,or .., A'" ", ',r}]44. 08 . . C TE OF NEW YORK .. ss. : OF SUFFOLK On this 8f~ day of ~ 1983, before me personally c e JOSEPH GRADOWSKI, as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ~OHN,GRADOWSKI t me known to be the person who executed the forego~ng ~nstru- nt, and who, being duly sworn by me, did depose and say that he i a member of the firm of LEISURE GREENS ASSOCIATES, a co- p rtnership, and that he executed the foregoing instrument in ~he f'rm name of LEISURE GREENS ASSOCIATES, and that he had author~ty t sign the same, and he duly acknowledged to me that he executed t e same as the act and deed of said firm for the uses and pur- p ses therein mentioned. BARBARA DIACHUN Notary Public, State of New York No, 52-4635190 Suffolk County ommission Expires March 3D, 19J'J 6J~ L lJJ-4A'j~ Notary Public S ATE OF CALIFORNIA C UNTY OF V~ ss.: On this /a/- day of ~ 1983, before me personally c me MARTIN G. AHEARN , to me known to be the person who e ecuted the foregoing instrument, and who, being duly sworn by m , did depose and say that he is a member of the firm of L ISURE GREENS ASSOCIATES, a co-partnership, and that he exe- c ted the foregoing instrument in the firm name of LEISURE GREENS A SOCIATES, and that he had authority to sign the same, and he d ly acknowledged to me that he executed the same as the act and d ed of said firm for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. OFFICIAL SEAL ANDREA I GOLDMAN NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY My comm. expires MA.Y 22, 1984 a/~~~0bt7~ .J Notary Public OF CALIFORNIA UNTY OF j/~.v On this I d/' day of ~ 1983, before me personally me MARY V. AHEARN , to me known to be the person who ecuted the foregoing instrument, and who, being dUly sworn by , did depose and say that she is a member of the firm of ISURE GREENS ASSOCIATES, a co-partnership, and that she exe- ted the foregoing instrument in the firm name of LEISURE GREENS SOCIATES, and thatshe had authority to sign the same, andshe ly acknowledged to me that she executed the same as. the act and ed of said firm for t e uses and purposes therein mentioned. OFFICIAL'SEAL ANDREA I GOLDMAN NOTARY PUBLIC - CAl1FORN1A LOS ANGELES DOUNTY My comm. "pires MAY 22, 1984 ss. : 4 /J 4/ U"n/k- 0/ ~~~ :; Notary Public . . OF NEW YORK ss. : OF SUFFOLK On this qfr. day of ~,,-k1 1983, before me personally c me STANLEY SLEDJESKI , to me known to be the person who e ecuted the foregoing instrument, and who, being duly sworn by , did depose and say that he is a member of the firm of ISURE GREENS ASSOCIATES, a co-partnership, and that he exe- ted the foregoing instrument in the firm name of LEISURE GREENS SOCIATES, and that he had authority to sign the same, and he ly acknowledged to me that he executed the same as the act and ed of said firm for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. BARBARA Di.~CHUN Y k bl' State of New or otary Pu IC, S If Ik county o 52-4635190 u 0 195'Q mm\sslOn Expires March 30, &k--~--o- fl_jl-l'~ Notary Public -4- OF SUFFOLK On this Iprlt day of SM:PrU1lJ~ 1983, before me personally e IRVING LEVIN , to me known to be, the person who ex cuted the foregoing instrument, and who, be1ng d~ly sworn by me did depose and say that he is a member of the f1rm of LE'SURE GREENS ASSOCIATES, a co-partnership, and that he exe- cu ed the foregoing instrument in the firm name of LEISURE GREENS AS OCIATES, and that he had authority to sign the same, and he du y acknowledged to me that he executed the same.as the,act and de d of said firm for the uses and purposes there1n ment1oned. 09 . . ,,\.,,- 1'":...-",,94, .. NEW YORK : 55. : S NEW YORK tvtvYU~ 131fj Notary Pub' WARRER RElTZIG NOla'7 Public, Stateof N.. l'o.k No, 62.Sbf2llOO, SuttolkCoentr '''''''"",81011 l!:..ite.MlPchIIO 14811 / C NTY OF SUFFOLK On this 1,171- day of SJ;.p~N It- 1983, before me personally e THOMAS EMMA , to me known to be the person who cuted the foregoing instrument, and who, being duly sworn by , did depose and say that he is a member of the firm of ISURE GREENS ASSOCIATES, a co-partnership, and that he exe- c ted the foregoing instrument in the firm name of LEISURE GREENS AS OCIATES, and that he had authority to sign the same, and he d ly acknowledged to me that he executed the same as the act and d ed of said firm for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. ss. : TE OF NEW YORK ~dMfM i3.t1 Notary publi WARREN Ri:ITZIG '1ota'7 hlbhc, State of N... Yo", No, 62.Sbf2llOO, SuttolkCoonty c.mmltlll..&,iteIMa,cll30, I'll1/- ss. : OF SUFFOLK On this /~r# day of 6'~t!J.ER- 1983, before me personally e LEONARD EMMA , to me known to be the person who ex cuted the foregoing instrument, and who, being dUly sworn by me, did depose and say that he is a member of the firm of LE SURE GREENS ASSOCIATES, a co-partnership, and that he exe- cu ed the foregoing instrument in the firm name of LEISURE GREENS AS OCIATES, and that he had authority to sign the same, and he du y acknowledged to me that he executed the same as the act and de d of said firm for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Iv. NotaJ;:Y Pub W AIffiEN R G STAT OF NEW YORK: ss : '1ota'7 hlbhe, Stateof N... YO'k COUN .y OF SUFFOLK: . No, 62.Sbf2llOO, Suffolk County On this /prN day of~/M4. 1983, befo~~'I!I~"~~~'bt<<; HANS KETE SEN to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instru- ment, and who, being duly sworn by me, did depose and say that he is a r of the firm of LEISURE GREENS ASSOCIATES, a co-partnership, and he executed the foregoing instrument in the firm name of LEISURE S ASSOCIATES, and that he had authority to sign the same, and he acknowledged to me that he executed the same as the act and deed of firm for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WARREN REITZIG Nota'7 hlbhc, Stateof N... Yo, No, 62.Sbf2lIOO, Suffolk County omml8sl.. &,itelMa.ch30 I!~t ivw,~ ~$; Notary Publi ., , II ~ 11 /I' .. .. -I T I . , roa T sai .. .a4M)I'~lif , " . . .,.. . ETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the first part In and to any streets .~nd s abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof, ER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of the first part ~n and to premises, T HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the heirs or sue essors and assigns of the party of the second part forever. A D the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anything w ereby the ~id premises have been incumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. D the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of th first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consid- er tion as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply th same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of tbe total of the same for an other purpose. e word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. I WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the day and year first above witten. au. H ns Ketelsen B : "'~oah s.9J,.,rlJ.tkjAA. ~ UJo~eph Gr1a~~ski, Executor ~Of state ~~~~~dowski B Q 'a<t -z:-.~q'A;.y/{/, M t~n~earn ! B ~~.Q~ / Mary V. ~earn / :7?i;E:r.;;:s v". By : t 72/-lAA / . I~rVin Lev n - By: ~~ ~~v/. . Tomas Emma BY:~~ Leonard Emma ~~ \; B -2- tIll :; {' ~ n " "-;.1'o:t)l:. ,,} STAn OP NIW OU. C:OUNTY OP <:.JLJ_,,-~~,,-,-~- u: STAn OF NIW TOU. COUNTY OP On the '7 -a. day of ~ 1983 .. before me On the day of personally , BRUCE G. PERSSON, to me known, personally came to be the erson who executed the foregoing instrument and who, being duly sworn by'rne, toxmc:xla>o1m< ll~cIaalxx~""><ao<k"""'" ~xtt= 'lqJJd~lCIIIIlxllllkaoJd.4"'" xxxxx ~ did depose and say that he is a me erof the firm of LEISURE GREEN ASSOCIATES a co-partnership, and that he executed t e foregoing instrument in the firm name f LEISORE GREENS ASSOCIATES, and that he ha authority to sign the same, and he duly ac nowledged to me that he executed the same a the act and deed of said firm for the us s and purposes therein mentioned. u: 19 . before me to me known to be the individual executed the foregoing instrument, executed the same. described in and who and acknowledged that ~J ~...' . BAllB K n. TYLER flotal'1: Publ . State of New York 4045325 Residing D~lnw:\re C(H1..f~. 0' ~ ~----' :My Commlulo expires March 3\1, l~ r " ss: STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF ss~ TORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK day of ~84 It.. 1983, before me personally e HANS KETELSEN to:me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he ~ideJl"li:& is a member of the fi of LEISU GREENS ASSOCIATES, a co-partner~ Umkxx~XK ~ ship, and that he executed the ~ foregoi g instrument in ~h~ firm name, of LEISURE G ENS ASSOCIATES'~,- .' mtio>>ldes~ illXalllk . DOOlleldxmexkx~~l(XblKXXlltt 1looI'll;X~ Xo.t<lI3llIXIlI)qlII=;Ia~lliD1Xlljflloell ooxltllliXi:tll!<< I!li!I!00000ltlIm~~'", ". 1b:KXllX*Ul!;lI ~:t>1tll' KJ(l(lWtJIXllUt!Oot.' l(J(l(l!;JIkkl!llqlllll* WIil\xaltdx xx1Il!lt.lilOOIl4XXXlWlllt il:Iltl!KlIl'~K and that e had authority to sign same, and he-duly a knowledged to me that he executed the same s the act and deed of said firm for the u es and purposes therein mentioned. On the day of 19 , before me personally came the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly sworn, did.depose and say that he resides at No. that he knows to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; that he. said subscribing witness, was present and saw execute the same; and that he, said witness, at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto. Iv, WARREN REITZlG Notal7 Public, Stateot Ne.. 'lor. No. 02.!642600, Suffolk County CMJmIluI..Es,iteIM.rellao, 1~8'" jliatll in anb 6ale :jgeeb \}v'rrH COVE A T AGAINST GRANTOR'S ACTS TITlE NO. 93 - v- </ J '.[ GREENS ASSOCIATES SECTION BLOCK LOT COUNTY OR TOWN TAX BILLING ADDRESS SEAC Recorded Al Request 01 The Tille Guarantee Company RETUR.N BY MAIL TO: ...y.....o.u ~lM 0 NEW YORK 10ARD OF nTU UNDERWRITEU Reeo ded By' 1.E:IIFE TI LE INSURANCE l~~~ ~! lot New YOtk " ,...a n Street RIver ad N. y Retur fo: RICHARD J. CRON.. ESQ. MAIN ROAD CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935 Zip No. ... ~ u u: ~ o '" z o .. o ~ .. ~ o ~ '" ~ '" o ~ w U . .. '" C) V> ". <'> ..... c: h -., ...... '""1"},", '= :Ti c>," ... r"'"; ,- roO ~. } :;JO:::-r,_ ,"-' C';. "" :D ~ C' 00 -~ r'- c::~" 2211 z :00 . -I % -< . -= ~ ~ J.l. '" . ; . . .. )..~ ~ -c_~~o_ -3~ L '. . . / " ' CASE NO: ........ .............. STAT OF NEW YORK PETITION TOW OF SOUTHOLD IN E MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHANGE, MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDIN- al<' THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. ....................... ..................................................... TO TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: 1. I,.... ...~.~~..~......q.~9~...................... ,residing at ..........N....Iol...~~J~!?J~L.............. (insert name of petitioner) . ona of th~ ozilU.onars . Suffol County, New York, the undersigned, aIn,allo.._ !fIW O' ce am rea property situated at ........~. .~~~.()~~....... ....................... and more particularly bounded and described as follows: (AS PBR ANNEXED SCRBDOLE A DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES) 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of South old to change, modify and amend th~ Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, includi g the Building Zone Maps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: r om -A- Residential-Aqrioultural Diatrict to -M- Liqht Multiple- Reaid nca D1atrict. Iw.N'd,7 "8" . " . . 3. Sue 1 request is made for the following reasons: t<Xi pro' a..-1u (55 "ho Pe~ition.r8 desiro to cr.~te . planned adult r~sid~ntl.1 n1ty oonslst1ft9 of 160 .~Dql. faaily re.idential unLta tiler with . cOl'Mluni~y center for the excla.ive a~~ o:>f rty owners. It ,,,111 be r0quired that at least aae (1) t owner shall have attained a .lniaa a~e of fifty-five yoars and that no chil., llU"y per"4nnntly r(l..i~e in a unit i. und.r the &98 of nineteen (1') years. STATE F NEW YORK, ) ) SS:- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ) , - I " , I ~ . / . >< /// (/// jJ (1.. St~::'Y:~h~~n""""'" RICIlAJtD J. CIlON ..' -......................... -................ , BEING DULY SWORN, deposes and says that he is the )etitioner in the within action; that he has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contel s thereof; that the same is true to his (her) o\Vn knowledge. except as to the matters therein sta cd to be alleged on information and be lief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. Sworn to efore me this .10th clay of ... ~..p~~~......., 19. 8,~ , . ..-..l I,. ~-- / / . ,"; ':' I / -. c' ~ _ . ..' .' . . r-. . . '. . .,J<. ..1..., ~,~ '...,- '. - .. ......,.. .,......... ',- I ,/'Notary Public. 1/ ,1/ JANE FLATLEY NOT RY PUBLIC. Stote of New York No. 52-46654 J 8, Suffolk County . " Com i~sion Expires March 30, 19.J./ / ( . / ./..... ,,/y:y;_///t-/ (L C'),.I>.y': ;;-66tiird' 'J ~. .Ct:'OA.........,. -. . . SCHEDULE ,\ {Dc:scription of P(cmi~cs I :\!! ::1.1 ~nt~:n ripe. i'!t'~\: fir pJrcd of bnJ. with the hllIIJ~llJ;" ;..nd illlpr(wt.."n1CnlS tht.:rcon en:clcd, situate. ["n,adbdngO:!XIle at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk ~nd State of New York, more particularly bounded and described a.s ,allows: BEGINNING at a point which is located the following four ::ow ses and distances from the corner formed by the intersection ~: he southerly line of Main Road and the westerly line of G:-i fing Street: (1) North 400 23' 10" ,-lest 73.50 feet; (2) !'or h 420 29' 30" West 218.70 feet; (3) North 420 09' 00" 1~est HO 27 feet; (4) North 380 32' 40" l-lest 642.92 feet; running thel ce from said point of beginning along other land of Leisure ns, Inc. South 520 55' 20" West 162.41 feet to land of The n Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart at Cutchogue; running ce along said last mentioned land the following two courses "'G distances: (1) North 370 13' 30" "est 400.00 feet; (2) ,"JU h 530 OS' 40" :1est 407.11 feet to land now or formerly of ,~e ner and Pelkovsky; running thence along said last mentioned ; _1r'; clo:-th 3Go 54' 20" '.'lest 2009.51 feet to land now or formerly .uhoski; rUr'ning thence along said last mentioned land North "UD 18' 10" East 251.03 feet to land noW or formerly of Beebe; n;""ing thcr.ce along said last mentioned land the following ch:-!c courses and distances: (1) North 560 00' 50" East 145.28 :c,,"; (2) South 37013' 30" Edst 221.47 feet; (3) North 39029' 10" East 563.41 feet to land now or formerly of Ku~czewski; :~r' .ing thence alor.g said last mentioned land South 380 30' 50" ~2S- 1901.44 feet to land now or formerly of Tyler; running th0 .ce ~long said last mentioned land the following two courses ,r'C: distances: (1) South 370 38' 50" "lest 210.23 feet,: (2) South ,J4' .~J" [cJ:~t 273.68 feet to lane-: nOl,': or fOrMerly of the 'J~ , of Southold; running thence along said last mentioned land the following two courses and distances: (1) South 520 55' 20" 170.00 feet; (2) South 370 04' 40" Cast 95.00 feet to the :;,,:';hc~l,/ side of School House Road; ~unning thence along the ~~r!'.' side of School House Road S()uth 520 55' 20" ~est _ "';C to th.e I)oin~ or place of ~EC;I~'~NIr~G. Gre Rom t.he. ;\;es ". . . TO TH TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: The undersigned, LEISURE GREENS, INC., owner of premises situa e at Cutchogue, New York, more specifically described in the Sched le A Description of Premises annexed to the Petition for chang of zone being submitted by RICHARD J. CRON, an optionee to purch se said pre~ises, does hereby authorize said RICHARD J. CRON, as an optionee, to submit the annexed Petition for change of zone from n "A" Residential-Agricultural District to an "M" Light Multi le-Residence District. This consent and authorization shall remai in full force and effect until revoked in writing by the under igned. DATED: September 10, 1982 LEISURE GREENS, INC. BY'~~; . Pr sident . . . . . . TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: The undersigned, optioneesto purchase the premises ed in Schedule A Description of Premises annexed to the n for change of zone, do hereby authorize RICHARD J. CRON, ptionee to purchase said premises, to petition the Town f the Town of Southold for a change of zone from "A" tial-Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple-Residence Distr'ct. Dated: September 10, 1982 ~7'---7/o-e Joseph Nolan ~Gam~~ . . .. '/ o that the project 0 additiana (b) significa (c) project i (d) PREP/,R"R' ~-. ~. !, " . TOI1N OF SOUTHOLD SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . FORf.i NS: In order to answer the.questians in this short EAF it is assumed reparer will use currently ovailable information concerning the d the likely impacts of the oction. It is not expected that studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. If any question has been answered Yes the project moy be t and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this not significant. . . Environmental Assessment 1. Will project result in.a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more / than 10 acres of land?...~...................___Yes~No 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site?.....;... Yes X No 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on --- --- existing body of water?...................... .Yes X No 4. '\'lill project have a potentially large impact -:- --- on groundwater qyality?......................___Yes~No 5. Will project significantly effect drainage - flow on adjacent sites?c......,..............~Yes-X-No 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species?..........___Yes-X-No 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality?..............................___Yes-X-Na 8. Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? .Yes X No 9. Will project adversely impoct any site or --- structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importonce or any site designated as a critical environmental area by a 10 c ala g e n c y ? . . . . . . . . . . . . '. '. . . '. . . .'. . ."... . . . O. Will project hove a ~ojor effect .on existing or future recreational opportunities?........ Yes X No 1. Will project result in major traffic problems --- or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems?...................... Yes X No 2. Will project regularly couse abj.ectionable --- --- odrrrs, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's operation?....... .... ........ . .......... . ." .. Yes X No 3. Will project hove any impact on public health --- or. safety?..... . . . . .. . . . . . . . ....... . ... . .., . .___Yes-X-No 4. Will project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent population of more thon 5 percent over 0 one year period or have a major negative effect on the charaCter of the community or neighborhood? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " . . . . " . . . . . . . . . Is there public controversy concerning the project? ...... . .... . .. ." . . "..."...... .. .. .___Yes-X-No Yes X No Yes X No 5. SIGNATURELS;/ r I ?: c:\(\ rd J; .,' i :) ~ c:~ L .-\ i ~ . ~ . , "i 1,,',-, ........... ~ State of New Y rk Suffolk Coun Office of the Clerk of the -....... - - -- Ti.wn of South Id (Seal) ~ -e\7 . ss: This is ta certify that I, Judith T. Terry, Tawn Clerk af the Town af Sauthold in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy of Letter.f+Qm the T~ CIeri to David.DeRidd!rR~~K.S D.E C. b~~S~.lfni!?M],~~I~.~~~;.~.f#t?!f~g.-dti~~~/~t~~?~.. with the original new on file in this office, and that the same is a correct J..etter from the Town CIe:;:l<: to and trull transcript of ~uch originaID.a.vid..UeRidde.r.l:.N.X..s~~:D..E~C~:::. transDl.tting the change of zone petition or Richard J: L.TO!l and rAnuestin". their views. on same d th h I th f ret;i;ff~~~~r~Rl;:'~~,2i"h'~~~'h~~~~~;;'~'~~';;;~"h:~d an: a;fi:e: th:r:ai of said Town this .........+.~.t)]................;~~Jm~~9..a4.. Town Clerk of the Town of Southard, ount~ '~f"s~ifo~:"~' - ~-".. '\ ~ -. ~~,; ~.... ~- /r:',~~.::,,:~__ Ii,' - . ,:;: -, I! ' ~ . "'-C. /~;>' '~:. ~<,C>" "'. ..( .\ " f. . __ . . :::: ' \~ k ;....., ",' '; = ..; \:,' i!o_', -. "'" :'"'":.-~ .:: '.. .....:;.....;., "./. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 728 SOlltllOld, New York 11971 TELEPIlONE (516) 765-1801 CDITII T, TERRY TOWN rLF.R~ REGISTRA R OF VITAL ST,,' "ISTICS ;~:/- , " '--... .. -'-,-;:cc:~' ' OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 6, 1982 Mr. Dav'd DeRidder Environ ental Analysis Unit N.Y.S. ept. of Environmental Conservation Buildin 40, SUNY - Room 219 Stony B ok, New York 11794 Dear DeRidder: - , En losed is application of Richard J. Cron for a Change of Zone fr m "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multipl Residence District on certain property located on the north s' de of School House. Road, Cutchogue, New York. Thi project is unlisted and our initial determination of non-s'gnificance has been made and we wish to coordinate this act'on to conform our initial determination in our role as lead gency, May we have your views on this matter. Written comments on this roject will be received at this of'fice until October 25, 1982. We shall interpret your lack of response to mean there is no ob'ection by your agency. Very truly yours, ~~/~~/- Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Enclosur s cc: C~ issioner Flacke Sou hold Town Building Department E-XN'd,r "e" ~ State of New Y rk Suffolk toun Office of th" Clerk of the Town of Sout ld (Seal) . . This is to certify that I, Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk of the Town of Sauthold in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy of Letter fran the Town Clerk to the Planning Board dated 10/6/82 .1~ra~~h~ngrr~i~"'px!J,.~.Ql..<A:Richar.d...l..cron..and... ~Mftt'n~"'orl~nal n~w onJ.fire''Tn- th'f~~e,~~I~~!_!~~a~!..!~Q corr~cL~~ and true transcript of such original ~~~~~..~~~.~~.~..~.~..~~.~:.~..!:?..~.~e planning Board dated 10/6/82 transmitting change of zone petition of Richard J. Cron and r<>fluestinac d th h I th f t:lt!!t1"'orrtt!:tll.l"r~port"e.lr'~';"""::"""""'" ""n e woe erea. In Witness Whereof, I hove hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal af said Town this .....;1.~:tJ:l.................... da of ....Jwm.................... 19.a~.:- . ------ ~ Town Clerk of the Town of Southo ,Count~ ~f ~~I.k~q..... 55: !.~ '. ~ . . "'j' (' ,- .;, -~ ..~.. - ", "\ / ~\ :::'-:'-: \--- " I ~. ~ ~.; /" ..i -/" Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, I'Icw York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765.1801 " /- '. ';.." ::'-' ,-:',)",,: JUOITlI T. T RRY TOWN eu: K REGISTRAR OF VITA STATISTICS ..:::::::':t..!..:;..~ ,-' OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 6, 1982 Sou hold Town Planning Board Sou hold Town Hall Sou hold, New York 11971 Gen lemen: Transmitted herewith is petition req esting a change of zone from "A" Re cul ural District to "M" Light Multiple Re " on ertain property at Cutchogue, New York. You are hereby instructed to prepare an official report def"ning the conditions described in said petition and determine the area so affected with your recommendations. III 0 f V Very truly yours, ~~r- Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Att chment -^-It -~\ il~::G . (}I?J I i) -I' 1~ ,---{ o.ld/ C~"'YY'"Hn' r \ 1/ / y /,7 ~1 . / ~' 0.... (" , ""y I (/i .;' . "^ \"\'1,':)- 1'-";''0 Ie I hllll"rT "2)'" -~-_.._..__._--- \ 1 , State of New ',' Suffolk Coun ,hffice of the Clerk of the \ Town of Sout Id " " (Seal) \ Sf , \ ss: This is to certify that I, Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold in the said caun~ of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy of Letter from Soothel Town PI.annino Board to Southold Town ClerK, Datecf uecem er b, T911L, rerafive to leaa agency status "on"Chan-ge"of"zune"p'-etitiolTS'uf"jem' 'Realty. &.. Rl.ctIard":/';"CrOn with the onginal now on file in this office, and thdt the same is a correct d . f h .. I Letter from Southold Town Plannin 'l3"oa~~e lba~g8~h3IJuf o~r;;gleYer'k"datecr'Decembe'r"'6';"'i'ij8i' 'r'e'liii'j v e J,'?..!!lj!g...,!g!}!')!<y..,~J.'!.~!!t..!?.I;1...~I')!!~g!lCl'?.~..~.t:I')~ and 'the whole thereof. pet'fWWjtRess-wr.e~8r, f)(,a~e 1i~<feJ'n'to sef m/R!;lnd and affixed the seal of said Town this ......2.atn..........,...... day of .se.p~/:.....7. 19..a!l.. ./,,- / ~~ Town Clerk of the Town of South old, C~~~ffOlk, 'N:~~e~- . . ~~ P.EM-i j'; IN (}-.!t9'AlW 11 ~/";r/>!<)O%~ ~ T~~~~~tg~tD <:;:~._~~\ ..."ftJJ. :ja '7- \.> , Southold, N.Y. 119'l1_ HENRY E. RA YI R. Jr.. Chairman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLO GEORGE RITCH! WILUAM F.MU TELEPHONE 765.1938 ~ December 6, 1982 udith Terry lerk Id Town Hall Id, New York 11971 Dear Terry: uld you please supply our board with any information you ave regarding the Town Board's declaration of lead agency matter of the Change of Zone applications for Jem Realty osta) and Richard J. Cron located at Cutchogue. I was the concensus of the Board to request such information for ou files. Tank you. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary ~ EICNltllr .," '.. , . ..-- -..--- ,---~_.- State of New ork Suffolk Coun Office of the Cler of the Town of Sout old This is to certify thot I, Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk of the Town of ss: Southold in the said Coullty..llf Suffolk, hove cOD'lpared the foregai!!Q copy of Letter from Southold' Town Clerk to :southold T9Wl1 Planning Board relative to lead agency' status on petition of Richard J. ..Cron....letter..fn:mT..'fown..Cterk. .tu.t)ee''dated''~ctuber''6':'''191l2, ytjth the .orig[nal new anI file in this offiCI:. and thot thll.fOlJ'lllais 0 correct ::'hort 1:n\71ronmenta Assessmen I-orm dated 9 lU/ll and true transcript of such original1,..~~t~.r...fr.!!!!U?!?~th9.!9...T.!?'!'!.':l...~.I.~r.~ to Southold Town Planning Board relative to lead a~n<:J status 0 etition of Richard J. eron. Letter fro 0 C .i:Ip.......,...\{)......~......./"'....l.?'M....'S~........E.................lI),n~ w,\il Sr. t~t\!..uF. alElu ClO r 0,' 0" rl nVlronmen'la Assessment form In itne~s hereo, I "ave ereunta set my han and attixed the seal dated 9/1 0/a2. of said Town this ............;Ull.l:\............ doy of .........$.~:p~~ml:mr..... I~ll!l... /7 _ ~ J .-----.---:-.- Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, C~j,":;;;:~~ (Seal) I ." . . .J .-~,:~::;:..::":':>." " . . " '~:::.':'J1:.....:r.:>.~;~.\ I",,'l"""'''~ (:.~'-:~i~'~}"i1~-~;S.. ~;~ ,.>~,',,-1:y:::~?J .!:; H '.- -~ '1" :'.~" ..j;' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P,O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 JUDITH T. TER Y TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL S '\TISTJ('S OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 8, 1982 Southo d Town Planning Board: The the app Residen Distric Cutchog own Board declared themselves lead agency in the matter of ication of Richard J. Cron for a change of zone from "A" ial and Agricultural District to "M" Light MUltiple Residence on certain property on the north side of School House Road . , e, at thelr October 5, 1982 meeting. ,.-'~ y.. .../ -<:/-'7-..... <;;:--- Judith T. TMry Southold Town Clerk 6'XNII/I,r -F"'" i;jj' '. ~. ;~ ,~- ...{;""o\rCr)!,. ~~-c. :<~;>_.' '.~' ~<. >. f:.&:: t 1\.,:.... ~ ~_: I , : ..\ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 SOllthold, NeIV York 11971 TELEPIIONE (516) 765.1801 "~L -- , .. " '." '.. -.....-..., JUDlTII T. TERR TOWN ClERK RI:GISTRAR or: VITAL ST. T1STICS Mr. Dav Environ N.Y.S. Buildin Stony B '-.::. '-; --; ~.:::-:~:r.. OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 6, 1982 d DeRidder ental Analysis Unit ept. of Environmental 40, SUNY - Room 219 oOk, New York 11794 Conservation Dear Mr. DeRidder: . , En losed is application of Richard J. Cron for a Change of Zone fr m "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multipl Residence District on certain property located on the north s'de of School House Road, Cutchogue, New York. Thi project is unlisted and our initial determination of non-s'gnificance has been made and we wish to coordinate this act'on to conform our initial determination in our role as lead gency. May on this 25, 1982 is no ob we have your views on this roject will be received at We shall interpret your ection by your agency. matter. Written comments this office until October lack of response to mean there Very truly yours, ~~/~~~ Judith T. Terry Town Clerk cc: Co. issioner Flacke Sout old Town Building Department ~t\ 1~1 ,~ ," "v' '..J '. NS: In order to answer the.questions in this short EAF it is as d reparer will use currently ovailoble information conccrningS~~C d the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected thot 1e studies, research or other investigations will be undertakcn If any question has been answered Yes the project moy be . . t and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is neccssary. If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this not significant. . . Environmental Assessment 1. Will project result in.a large physical change . to the project site or physically alter more ./ than 10 acres of land?... ~.. .... ........ '" .. ._Yes-LNo 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site?.....:... Yes y No 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on - --- existing body of water?...................... ._Y.es X No 4. Will project hove a potentially large impact . ~ on groundwater quality?................. ....._Yes~No 5. Will project significantly effect drainage - flow on adjacent sites?...................... .-=---Yes---x-No 6. 'Will praject affect any threatened ar endangered plant or animal species?.........._Yes---X-No 7. Will project result in 0 major adverse effect on air quality?.............................. Yes v No Will praject hove 0 major effect on visual - --- character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be importcnt to the community? Yes X No \'/ill project cdversely impoct ony site or - structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance or any site designated os 0 critical environmental area X by 0 local agency?..............,............................ Yes No Will project hove 0 mojor effect on existing - or future recreational opportunities?........ Yes X No Will project result in major traffic problems - 'or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems?...................... 1. Will project regularly cause objectionable od~rs, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbanc~ as a result of the project's operation?.... .... '" .. ....... ...... ..... ..... Yes X No Will project have any impact on public health --- or. sa f e t y? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ Yes --L-,N 0 Will project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent population of more than 5 percent over a one year period or have a major negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " '" . .. ... . . .. Is there public controversy concerning the project? .. ..... " .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. . .. .. Yo s-:!-Ilo ::::::::;: ~IGNATURf~~~'/Iom - . ,. .~ . . ".... Ir~STRUCTI a) that the project 0 additiona (b) significa (c) project i (d) " .":J .....:.~ , ~f~ . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SHORT FORI.! 1 1 Yes X No 1 1 1 Y C 5 X no ., . TOIVN OF SOUTHOLD . EAF ENVIRO;IHENTAL ASS~SSHENT PART Project Infonnoition ~OTtCE: Thl~ dOcume~~ ,~ desl~ned t~ assist in determining whether the ection proposed may have a significant ,~ffect c the: e'lvll".:m''''I_O~~. Pluse complete the entire Data Sheet. Answers t\J these Questions wHl be cor.sidered IS cart f the 6Vplitat1on'for apprevl' and may be subject to further vertf1c!~10n and public rtview. Provide anyaddi ;ona1 lnfonnationyou believe will be needed to comoletP. PA.RTS_Z_Il}ct,3.!-u - _"__.__ ____,_~_. ~t is exg ttea t~~t cc~olc~ion of the EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not ,"valve n stud1!s. rese4rc~ cr ;nvest1qation. If information re~uirinQ such addtt;on~l wort is un~Y~i~ble. so tndica t Ind soee;'1 ~ach instance. . SEAC OFT AT CUTCHOGUE NAME ANO ADDRESS OF OWHER (If Oifferent) LEISURE GREENS ASSOCIATES c/o Richard F. Lark, Esq. (Name) Main Road (Street) Cutchogue TP.c.l New York (State) 11935 (Z,p) ;1f..'E OF PROJECT: ""DRESS AND NAME OF APPLICANT: Rich rd J. Cron Road BUS'lN:SS PHONE: (516) 734-6807 ogue New York 11935 DESCRIP IO~ OF PROJECT' (Briefly describe type of project or action) Proposed retirement conununity cons sting of 160 condominium units with occupant thereof being of minimum age 55 ars. (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH ~UESTrntj - Indicate N.A. if not applicable) A. SIT DESCRIPTION (Ph sical setting of over-ail project. both develoned and undevelo~ed areas) slope ~ Generally uneven and rol11n~ or irre~ular 1. neral character of t"e land: r,enerally untfonn z. resent land use: UrbAn . Industrial . Agriculture ~, ryther J. oul acreage of oroject area: ~acres. Comne rc ia 1 Suburban Rura 1 __ Fl)rest oorox;mate acreage: Presently After Completion Presently After ComDletion adow or Brushland. _acres _acres Hater Surface Area _acres _ _ _ac"~s ori cul tura 1 __acres ~_acres acres Unvegetated (rock. eHth or fi 11) _ __acres ___.acres orested -D-acres Roads. buildin~s and other ;')aved surf"ces ....o_lc!"es L~ac'e' If'tland (Fre~h....ater or idal ~s ner Articles 4. :"": n r co. C ,l, ~ acres acres '. r~t 1~ ~~edOml"~~t soii tYD~(si on nr0!ect sjte' 0ther (indicate tyne) Riverhead Loam _acres ._acre~ S. ''-e ~~..rp ~pdrc'c( outcro,)o'nos 0~ .,.....n;pct ~lt<>~ v" /"C 9,'1/;6 '~"d: '<' ~p.:1~h ~c ~ed"'oCL:' __!t2_C?_t- ( 'n '-eet) 4!)lll'tI,r "'<a "" 6. . . /~; 10-1\1 _~, 15: 0' A~proxi~te Dercentage of proposed oroject site with slooes: great"er t. 0-10: ). II P,oJect Places? B. What 15 tn g. 10. 00 nun tt ng Ooes proje endanqerli!d ontiguous ~ or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Historic Yes ..i.L- No depth to the water table? ~feet r fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ~NO _Yes site contai." a~ species of pl.nt or ,nimal life that is identified IS threatened or _____yes ~.IQ. according to . Identify elch species 11. Are there a y unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e. c!1ffs, dunes. other geological fannatfo"s _____yes ~No. (Describe 12. Is the proj ct site ~sently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area Yes ~No. 13. Does the pr se t site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? _Yes No Streams wit in or contiguous to project area: 14. a. Na/T'le of str'eam and name of dver to which it is tributuy /1/./7 . a. !lame 15. lakes. Pond ~et1and areas within or contiguous to project area: ; b. Size (in acres) 11, 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single fami y residential. R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story). single family residential-one story; agricultural; commercial-business- B. PROJECT OESCR! TION one story 1. PhYSical di nsions and scale of p'oJect (fl 11 in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total con iguous acreage owned by project sponsor i,Ll..1 , acres. b. Project a reage developed: 7'6./6ac'el initlally:L/C/t ac'el ul timately. c. Project a reage to remain undeveloped ..J::L_. e. d. Length of p,oject, in miles: Ai.A J (if app,opriate) building square foot- If pmjec age is an expansion of existing. indicate percent of expansion proposed: ; developed acreage f. tlurTber of off-strEP.t park.ing spaces existfno D g. Madmum v hicular trios generated per hour ~O h. I f reside. tial: Number and type of hous;nQ uni ts: Inithl Ul t 1mate 1. If: COlTlTlerCla p,oPoled f}, ;;l. 0 (upon completion of project) :)ne Fam; ly Two Filmllv Multiple F'amlly Condominium /60 ./r.o Ori enta t; on 'e i gnbo ...hood-C; ty- Reg; ana 1 Estimated EmclOYMent Industrid j. Total he; ht of till lest ""'orJosed sUucture _l~~. feet. , 2. 3. 4. 5. . HO much natur~l material (i.e. . rock, earth, etc.) ",ill be r~ved fl"'OOl the site o tons -.-f?~cubic yards. Ho ~any acres of veqetation (trees, shrubs. ground covers) ~il1 be r~ved fr~ site . ~acr~s Wi 1 any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally.important vegetation be removed '1 thIS PI'" jett? _____yes ~No A. th~r~ any plans for re-v~getation to reolac! that re~ved during construction? ~es _~'o 6. If single chase proiect: Anticioated oeriOd of construction Lb....monthS. {including demolition'!. 7. If mu1t;-,hased oroject: a. Toul nl.JTlber of phases anticipated _No. b. Anticioated date of co~encement phase _____month ______veal'" (;nc1~d'~j demol i tion l c. Approximate comoletion date final phase rT'Ont~ .--yu". d. Is phase 1 f;nanciall.v dependent on subseouent ol'lases? _Yes _No 8. Wi 1 blasting occur du~ing const~uction? ______yes ~o 9. N be~ of jobs generated: during construction ~~.O' ; after project is complete ~. 10. N er of Jobs eliminated by this project ~. 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? _Yes /NO. If yes, explain: 12. I. b. c. 13. Wtl de 14. I. 15. I. b. c. d. 16. Wi] 17. Wtl 18. wn 19. ~il Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes _____~o. Jf yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial. etc.) .("e......,A&-4l.- If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged () surface area of existing lakes. p~ds. streams. bays or other surface waterways be increased or eased by proposal? _____yes ~No. flood p1a;n? _____yes ~~o roject or any portion of project located ;n the 100 year Does project involve discosal of solid waste? ~ Yes _No /'10 If yes. w;ll an existing solid waste disoosa1 facility be used? _Yes If yes. give name: ; location !/111 any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system ~into a project use herbicides or p~sticides? _Yes ~~o project routinely produce odors (more than one hour oer day)? _____yes ~NO ....-/ No sanitary landfill? _Yes project produce ooerating noise exceeding tl'le local ambience ~o;se levels? Yes ~ No / Yes ~o, If yes. indicate tyoe1s) project result in an increase in energy use? --L,z.I..' I~ VI"-, 20. If Iter suooly is from ....ells indicate oumoing capacity 2.2 0 gals/l'linute. 21. Tot 1 anticinated water usage per da....~--?t-~OO~als/day. 22. Zon"ng: iL Hl'lat is den;nant zoning c1assificatlon Of site? _A-.Rp~inpntinl Aqrirll1tnral b. Current soecific ZO"1"g classifiCdtion of site n__--.S.<illl.e. ... :s oroooseCl use co"'s'sU.,,: ,,,; tr, rresent zoninG? No d. If no. iJ"dicate desired Z('f'lne _'1. Li.<;wLJ1.u~ tipl-'LR",,~..iQence .,. 16. Approval s . a. I s any Federa 1 permi t requi red? Yes Does project invDl~e State or Federal funding or financing? b. c. Local and Regional approvals: 00 . Approva 1 Requ1 red (Ves. No) (Type) City, Town, Village Board ,City, Town, _.Yi11a9~_ P.lanning Board City, Town, Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other local agencies Other regional agencies Sute Agencies Federal "Agencies --;;7'""" V C. INFORKATIONA DETAILS Attach any a cittional infonnation adverse tmpa ts associated with taken to m1t gate or avoid t 5uT.!:.-~:;:L ......AT.c.(. Jtt).....(;~ I Ves /'0 Submi tta 1 Approva 1 (Date) (Date) --. clarify your project. If there are or may be any scuss such impacts and the ~a5ures which can be PREPARER'S S GNATURE: TjTU: REP,'ESENTlNG DATE: Attorney and Applicant SEA CROFT AT CUTCHOGUE February 15. 1983 -,- . EAf ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENt - PART II Project ImpJcts and Their Haqnitude Genero>l In~;,f""1:!1ti,~~ fqil~r! Care~ully) . .. In co been le;lng l~~ fo~ t~t reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations easor.ab~!': The reviewer is not expected to be an exoert environmental analyst. Ident sian; e ec 'ying tOdt ar. effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it iCI:'lt. ~r;y 1~r9~ effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine !);gnificance. In column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. is also "e~e5sarily Ry identlfy;ng an The E amples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possi~1e t~e thresnol of IN "'tU e tnat would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally aool;cable throughout the State and (or Il'!Ost situations. But. for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower t~"es"olcs may ~ more aD~ro~riate for a Potential Large Impact rating. Each roject, en each site, in each locality, will vary. Tnerefore. the examples have been offered as gu~dance They 0 not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each nuestion. The n mber of exampies per question does not indicate the importance of each Question. INSTRUC IONS (Read Carefully) a. A swer each of the 18 questions in PART Z. Answer ~ if there will be ~ effect. b. H be answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. I answering Yes to a Question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or Z) to indicate tne potential 5 ze of the imoact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided 1 check co 1 umn 2. If i pact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. reviewer nas doubt about the size of the imoact ~t)en consider the imoact as ~otential1y large and roceed to PART 3. e. I a ootenthlly large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large m gnitudl:'. clace a ~.es in cO!Ur.'ln 3. A No response indicates' that sucn a reduction is not Dossible. 1. 2.. a. IMPACT ON LAND NO YES @O 1. .ILL TH RE BE A~ ~FFECT AS A RE5UL T OF A PHYSICAL CHAUGE T0 PROJECT SiTE? Examole that Would Aooly to Column Z A. :::cnHru.:t;o~ on sl~pes of 15: or greater, (15 foot rise !,>er l' fao~ of 1engt!'}, cr where tne ge.neral slooes in tne project a a exceed 10:. C struction on L~nd where the denth to tne water table is less t an 3 feet. '-0 structian cf naved narkil'Q are~ f,,1" 1......'" 0" mnl"e vehicles. structiOf"l on 13~-:! where bedrock is ek')osed or l1enerally ~ithin 3 feet of existjng ground su,.face. n5';r~lct.i.:,~ th.", " will continue for more thdn 1 veal" Or" involve pe tha0 0~~ "'~~5e 01" stage. E ,:~v~~;on '01" :r;l"!inq ::>ur"poses that would ~emove l7\ore than 1.000 t n~ eJ r..H~";il M~te"ial (i.e. rock or soil) fler vear. C nstructior of ,1ny ne....' ~dnita!"y landfill. - 5- SHALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODERA TE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT I~PACT PROJECT CHANGE - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - I - - - - - - . Other ill:QlC. s: Construct;o ;n 4 des;~nated floo~,y. . 1. 2. 21. (,!~i\Ll Tf") POTE~T1AL CAN I"PACT BE ""9EItATE L^RGE REDUCED BV '"PArr INPACT P~OJECT CHANGE - - - - - - YES - - - - - - - - - YES 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - YES 0 - - - - - - - - - YES - - - C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. 1l'l "ILL THERE B AN [FFECT TQ ANY UNIOUE ~R UNUSUAL L~.N~ FORNS IC'\r'\ FOUND ON THE SlTE~ (i.e. clfff), dunes. aeolo9fcal fonma. ~ t~OI'I<;' He.} $necific la 0 forms: mPACT ON WATER. 3. NIl WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANV WATEP. BODY DESIGNATED AS ..........~ PROTECTED? ( nder Art;cles 15. 24, 25 of the [nyfr. ~ onrr.!nUl Con ervation law, E.C.L.) Examoles thl ~ould A~ply to Column 2 Dredgina ~ e than 10~ cubic yards of ~terfll from chlnnel of protected stream. Constrvetia in a designated freshwlter or tidal wetland. Other impac s: 4. WILL PROJECT BOOY OF "ATE Examoles tha AFFECT ~NY NON-PR.OTECTED EXISTINr, QR NfH NO ? ............................................(g) Would Apply to Column Z A 10~ incre Sf or decrease in the surface HU of any body of water or more than I 10 acre ;ncrease or decrease. Constructfo of a body of water t~at exceeds 10 acres of surface- are Other imnac s: \. "ILL ,"OJECT AFFECT SURFACF. OR r,ROllNDYATER OIlAUTY? ~ ~ Eumples tha Hould Apply 1:0 ColUfl1!'l 2 Prnject wi 1 ret"lui re a discharge pen1l1 t. Project reQ ires use of a source of water that does not have iooroval to se~ve ,reposed project. Project reQ lres water supply from wells with l)reater t~an ~5 oal ons oer minute ~umpin9 capacity_ Constructio or o~eration causing any conta~ination of a public water supply system. PrOject ....i 1 ~ I q:.. I -::l effl fa c ~ lIt ; e S \1"1~~!:,QUdte adversely affect groundwater. ent w,ll be conveyed off the site to n;ch ~resently do not exist or have 3~d:: It y PrOJect rea lnnq a (dcility that would use wate~ in eJ.::e~s of 2 ,110:') ::allons per day. _ PrOlec~ '.~Ill li~t'l! CdUst siltation 0" other C1schdrqe 111tO V' ex is; 1"I'j t::::=y ')f "'<'Iter to ttle e_tent thd t there wIll (H' an" VIOvS vls,jal cont"dSt to naturJl cenditlons . . 1. 2. ~. "lthf'1" Il'Ioacts' ItALL IC pnTE.~T I^L (All IlIeACT BE <>OERATE LARG~ REDUCE;) Cr j~.,pA,C; f1'P~CT PR')JECT CHArlGE - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6. :IlLL PRnJCCT ALTER ORA!NAr,r FL'l". PATTr'~IS OR SllRFA~E !IATER XO YES Q'JHI)FF! . .... ....... ........................... ...... .....' (:8)0 Eum'lle tt'lat '!ould Jl,"ply to Calum 2 Project wnul~ imnede flood water fl~s. P~ject is lHely to caus!' substantial erosion. Project is 1"co~attble with exfsttnq dratna9t patterns. OthH ;moaets: IMPACT ~N AIR 7. 110 YfS \lILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR OUALITY1...........................~ 0 fxamcles that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will tnduce 1,'YlO or rl'Or""e vehicle trips in Iny given "our. Project will result in the incinerltion of rrore thAn 1 ton rf refuse per hour. Project e~1ssfon rite of all contl~t"ants will excf'erl 5 lbs. Of" hour or a "eat s"urel! l':'roducin9 ",r~ than 1':) m111;on BTU's per hour. Other 1moacts: IMPACT ON PLAHTS AND ANI~ALS 8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OP. EHOAHr,ERED SPECIESl ~ YES (2)0 Exam~les tnat Would A~oly to Column 2 R:~duct;on of one or 1r'Ol"'! s~eciu lhted on tnt '~ew York or Federal list. using the site. over 01'" near site or found on the site. Removal of anv oort10n of I critical or si~nificant wild~ lift jHb\wt. '-0,:,1 icatil'\n of Pesticide or "'lel1)ici de over more th.n b'ic~ 11 ,Veal" other ttun for ~~lC;'J1tur"l pi,lrpori~s. 0~'\4!r ii.',pacts; 9. './lLL PROJECT SUBSTA:lTlALLY AFFECT l~nN.THREAT[:IED OR NO YES EHDANr,ERED SPECIES' .......................................@O Elamol! that ~ould Apply to Colu~n 2 rrOl~ct would substantially interfere with an:' resiMent 0" 1"I1q..ato:l"Y f;'S~ or ....ildlife S;leC\~'S. r"~nect ..eauires !r-.e ''''IT\Ov<!l of ,",ore than 1" 3c..es of ::",,3!ure 'crest ~over 1')11 ...e~rs i" ane) or otner 10call... l~~~~~ant ~eoetatio". .). '. I~, "ILL CJoI"QA . :""f,CT C'; ':!S~'~.l Q~~.::'Q.:E E ~'nJfCT H.EC7 1JIC::I~. "ISlAS ':1 T!lf 1J~~tII\L E~ (If" HI~ ;:F1GliB"R!-lI'V)O I'll! CO.......IO!tTy? ......... Ex,]mnLs ~I'IH ~!oulc! A:lply to CollJ/1\tl Z 4" "in of n~ surra mC'dticle yiSUc11 affect caused by the intro"'uction l'\!teric11s. colors and/or forr.:s in ,,,"trast t('1 the diM landsca,e. A oroj ct easily visi~le. not easily screened, that is ohvio 1." di (ferent frol':'l nth~!'"s ar"ound H. Proje scree imQor .....il1 result in the pH",;nat;on or f'lajor' ""g of scenic views or vistas known to be n t to the a rea. OthH mpacts: 11, WILL PRE-Ill Examol Prt',iec to an hista Anv i withi . 1. 2.. ~. NO YES 00 ~~ALL TI) oCrErHIAL C:'\ ~; H~P"CT BE ~(,~ERA n: lA.RGf REDUCEO ~Y P.lr'lA.Ci !'lro.C' PROJECT o~.A.rJIjE . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 IMP~CT ON HI~TO~IC ~ESOURCES nJECT mPACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC. NO YES Tn'IC op' PALEmITOr.IC~l Wr~p.TANCE? ................ '(8) 0 S that 'Jould Aoolv to Colunn 2 occurino wholly fac; 1 i tv or S i t~ ic :>laces. or nartially within Or contiouous 1 isted on the !lat1onal Renister of act to an HCheological site or fossil b~d located the project 5; te. f)ther lm?dcts: 12. "ILL OR FU Elcamol I"PACT O' OPEN SPACE! RECREATIOII E PROJECT AFFECT THE OUMlTlTY OR OUALlTY Of EXISTItlG NO YF.S RE OPEl: SPACES OR RECRE.~T10~IAL OPPORTU~IlTlES?"".. (X) 0 s that t,lould Aopl.v to Column 2 T~e p nanent foreclosure of 11 future recre,H;on.,l oooortunit.". A mllj rp.duction of IIn ooen sOllce important to the co~unity. Other imOIlCt'S.: 13. l'ILl SYSTE Exar?lol I~P"'CT I'HI TPA~SPOP.TATIO~ ER~ 8E ? A~I EFFECT TO EXISTltlC TRANSPORTATION tnat Would ~~~lv to Colu~n 2 Alterll ion of present ~lItterns of ~veMent of neoole IIneUo goOd<;. ~rO.lec ..111 result in severe traffic ,roble/Tls. Other ~:JdCt> ------~~--_. , . I~PACT ON ENERGY 14. \JILL PR JECT ~FFECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR NO YES :::::~e U::~:?wo~;~'~~~;~'~~'~~'~'~"""""""""""<::>~ Project causing Clreater than SI increase in any fonn of enerqy sed in municipality. Project requiring the creation or extension of an enp.rgy tran5mi sian or supply system to serve more than 50 sinqle or two amily residences. Other i pacts: IMPACT ON NOISE 15. wILL TH RE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION NO YES or ELEC RICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? ....t<J\r'\ Examnle that lioulrl AODly to ColtJllll 2 \f::;IV Blastin within l.50n feet of a hospital, school Dr other sensiti e facility. Odors w 11 occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Project will oraduce oper~tfng noise exceedfnn the local a bient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Project will re~ve natural barri~rs that would act as ^ noise 5 reen. Other i (lacts: 16. I~PACT ON HEALTH & HAZAROS './ILL PR JECT AFFECT PUBLIC ilEAL TH ANO SAFETY? .............00 Examole that I~ould "pply to Column 2 Project w; 11 cause a dsk of ex')losion or release of hazardous substan es (i .e. oil, pesticid~s. chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the vent of accident or upset conditions, or there will he a ch onie 10\'/ level discharge or enission. Proj~ct that 100I111 result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" (i.!. t xic. poisonous. hiahly reactive. radioactive. irritating. infecti us. etc., includinl'l wastp.s that are solid. semi-solid, liquid r contain gases.) Stora~'e facilitips for one million or more ~allons of liauified natural gas or other liouids. f)ther 1 OdCtS: .0. . 1 2.. ~ S'lAL L TO pnTE~TI.~L CAli IMPACT CE tl'JOER~TE LA~GE REOUCnay IMPACT l'IPACT PROJEC CHANGE - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - till YfS . . C N I ... I E REDUCED BY PROJ ECT CHANGE IMPACT Oil GRO N AND CHARACTeR Of COI'ItlNITY OR IIEIGHRORH 17. WILL PROJEC CO~NITY? Ellamolt tha The: copula project is resident h The mun I ct t1n9 servi result of AFfECT THE CHAP^CTER ~f THE EXISTING NO YES ............ ........ ...........................0 ~ Uould Apoly to Column 2 on of the City. Town or Villlge in which the ocated is likely to prow by more than 5% o~ n peoulation. 1 budgets for" clpital expenditures or opera. 50 will increase by more than 5% per year as a is project. u! wn 1 fnvol e any ,ermanent fadl ity of I. non.agricultural use in an ,.,cultural district or remove nrime agricultural lands from cultivation. The Drojec ""ill replace or eliminate existing facilities. structures 01'" areas of historic importance to the CC)lTmunity. OeVl!1 opmen w111 1nducp. an influx of a parttcular age group with spechl needs. Project wi set an important precedent for future pr01ects. Project wi relocate 15 or more etn"Iloyees in one or rore l'lls;nesses Ot."e!'" imol ts: 18. IS THERE P 8LIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PRnJECT? NO YES .......00 Examoles t at Would Apply to Column 2 Either 90V rnment or citizens of adjace~t communities have expre sed oDPosition or rejected the pro1ect or have not been c ntacted. Objections to the oroject from within the cotrYnUnity. If ^NY ACTION IN PART 2 IS IDEtITIFIED AS A P~WlTlAL LARGE IMPACT OR If YOU CANNOT OETERMINE THE MAGNITUDE Of IMPACT. PROCEED TO PART 3. PORTIONS Of EAf COMPLETED fOR THIS PROJECT: PART I L/" PART II v/ P^RT 3 _ DETERMINATION Upon revie-.t of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, 2 and 3) and con iderlnQ both the mac:!Mitude and irnnortance of each impact. it 1s p.lsonably determined that: PREP^RE A "Er.ATIVE DECLARATION A. The orojec '"Ii11 result in no major impacts and. therefore. is one whi h ~ay not cause significant damaoe to thp. environment. o B. Al thou~h t ~nvi r"Onmen because th included a C. The projec that Clnno the env; ate e project could have a significant effect on the . there "Ill' not be a significant p.ffect in this case m;ti~dt;on measures described in PART) have been D^rt of the oroposed oroject. PRE~ARE A NEr,ATlvE OECLARATIO" o PREP^RE POSITIVE DEClARATlOfl PROCEED \.'ITH EIS o one or more major adverse impacts may cause siqnificant damage to ~ature-or R"'SDonsible Official in lead Agenc" Prlnt or tYge na~e of responsible official in lead A~ncv , .t~ I:lrOR~T1011 . . [~r EIIV I ROIlMENTAL ASSESStlENT PART II I [VALVATlO:1 or THE I:1PORTANCE or IMPACTS Part 3 t prepared if one or more impact or effect is considered to be potentially laroe. The lno t of wrHing necessary to answer Part 3 ma.y bp. detennfn'!d by answering the Question: In briefly completi 9 the instructions below have I placed in this record sufficient information to indicate the reasonab eness of ~v decisions? INSTRUCT lOt 1. Sri e f1 Complete t fol1owinq for each impact or effect identified in Column 2 of Part 2: describe the impact. 2. Oesert ject c 3. Rased to the (if apolicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than 1Arge imnact by a nro~ "ge. the infonndtton available. decide H it is reasonal:lle to conclude that tt'lis inflict is jmportant inic;Ollity (city. town or vtl1aqe) tn which the project is located. answer the Question of importance. consider: The probability of the impact or ~ffect occurrinq The duration of the impact or effect Its irreverSibility. includtng penmanently lost resources or values ~hether the impact or effect can be controlled The regional consequence of the im~act or eff~ct Its ootential divergence from local needs and goals ~hether known Objections to the project a~ply to this impact or effect. OETERI'INAT 0N or SIGIII rICA~CE n action is considered to be significant if: ne (or ~re) imoAct is determined to both lame and its (t~eir) conseouence, based on the review bove, is important. PAPT III S ATE~E~TS Continue on ^ttachments. as needed) 'I. .. -N ., '.' - - T'):?\ , I ~ \ l . ' <- ~ .....~- '/.,':_\ ' ..~....., ;'f .'.~/ . "'..- . ~1 :';~ -, " ,.'.. ,:.:.->:,. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O, Box 728 Southold, New York /1971 TELEPHONE (516) 765,1801 ,.. ~',~ :~ "':'::--:~:,,"'~'{7;~:..'.-..;.,.- JUDITII T. TE RY TOWN ClER REGISTRAR OF VITAL "r,\lISTICS State 617.1 is he the a is un OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated: March 23, 1983 ursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law Environmental Quality Review and 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice eby given that the Southold Town Board, as lead agency for tion described below, has determined that the project, which isted will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCR PTION OF ACTION Appli Resid Resid side effec Jud i t Road, ation of Richard J. Cron for a Change of Zone from "A" ntial and Agricultural District to "M" Light Multiple nee District on certain property located on the north f School House Road, Cutchogue, New York. he project has been determined not to have a significant on the environment for the following reasons: n environmental assessment has been submitted which 'ndicated that no significant adverse effects to the nvironment are likely to occur should the project be 'mplemented as planned. ecause there has been no response in the allotted time rom the New York State Department of Environmental onservation, it is assumed that there is no objection or comments by that agency. urther information can be obtained by contacting Mrs, T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Southold Town Hall, Main Southold, New York 11971, Copie to: David DeRidder, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Flacke, DEC, Albany Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Richard J. Cron '."".'7 .-H.' \ . --~ .- WILLIAM R. PELL I I SUPERVISOR . MAIN ROAO SOUTHOLO. L.I.. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (5161765-1800 (516) 765.1939 June 8, 1983 M . Henry Raynor, Chairman S uthold Planning Department S uthold Town Hall M in Road S uthold, New York 11971 Re: Recommended Change of Zones D ar Mr. Raynor: At the Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board on J ne 7, 1983, we discussed the possibility of having a meting with you and the Consulting Firm, R.P.P.& W., to r view the potential sites that will be recommended for II " zoning. The Southold Town Board would like to have this done a quickly as possible. One application, for change of z ne, in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, has a deadline of June 3 ,1983. If at all possible we would like to meet with y u and the firm of R.P.P.&W. prior to the above mentioned d adline date (June 30). If an entire Townwide proposal can not be prepared before is date, then we will settle for an interim report just on e Hamlet of Cutchogue. Thank you for your kind cooperation and prompt attention t this matter. Sincerely yours, ;.--- lJ,De:-flJ, i?.db~ William R. pell III Supervisor Southold Town WR :cjh rw.",.,r '*.1'- .. , ~ '- . { . . 9 100-131 ZONINCi S 100-132 ~ 1011.1:\1. Ohjectives. I n considerjn~ and acting upon site development plan~. the Planning Board shall take into consideration the public heal,h. safety and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the public in general and the residents of the immediate nei in parlIeu aI', an may appropriate conditions and saTeguards as may be required in order that the result of its action may. to the maximum extent possible, further the expressed intent of this chapter and the accomplishment of the following objectives in p::Jrticlllar: A. Traffic access. That all proposed traffic accessways are adequate hut not excessive in number: adequate in width. grad~. alignment and visibility: not locatt!d too near street corners or other places 'of public assembly; and other similar safety considerations. B. Circulation and parking. That adequalt. off-~tr('et parking' and loading spaces are provided Lo pre\'cnt the parking in public streets of vehicles of any persons connected with or visiting the use, and that the interior circulation ~ystel1l i~ adequate to provide safe accessibility to all required off- slreet parking lots. C. Landscaping and screening. That all playground. parkin!, 'and service areas are reasonably screened at all seasons of the year from the view' of adjacent residential lots and streets, and that the general landscaping of the site is in character with that g.' nerally prevailing in the neigh- borhood. Existing trees over eight 181 inches in diametl'r measured three (3) feet above the base of the trunk shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. S 100-1:32. Effect of approval. A. No building permit shall be issued for any structure covered by this Article until an approved site development plan or approved amendment of any such plan has been secured by the applicant from the Planning Board and presented to the Building Inspector. 100'08.1 .!.;, ,.,." ,I.,r It-'" .., . . ' . ~ 1110-1 :l:! SOUTHOUl COllr: ~ 100-1 :l:\ H. .\Jo certificate of occupancy will be issued for any structure or use of land covered by this Article unless the structure is completed or the land is developed or used in accordance with an approved site development plan or approved amendment of any such plan. C. Should any site plan approval involve any matter requiring referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission, then the matter shall be referred, prior to final action by the Planning Board, to the Suffolk County Planning Com- I1l1SSlOn in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. ~ 100-I:l:l. Proc"dure. A. Presubl11i~sion conference. Prior to the submission of a site developllH'lll plan. the applicant or his agent shall meet with L1w J 'Janning Board. The purpose of such conference iCont'd on page 100591 10058.2 -25-75 . . . . S 100-133 ZONING S 100-133 ~ shall be to discuss proposed uses or development in order to determine which of the site development plan elements shall be submitted to the Planning Board in order for said Board to determine conformity with the provisions and intent of this chapter_ B. Within six (6) months following the presubmission con- ference, the site development plan and any related in- formation shall be submitted to the Building Inspector, in triplicate, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which approval is requested. If not submitted within this six (6) months' period, another presubmission conference may be required. C. The Building Inspector shall certify on each site development plan or amendment whether or not the plan meets the requirements of all Zoning Ordinance provisions other than those of this Article regarding site develop- ment plan approval. D. The Building Inspector shall retain one III copy and transmit two (2) copies of the certified site development plan to the Secretary of the Planning Board at least seven (7) days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which approval is requested. E. The Planning Board shall act to approve or disapprove any such site development plan within ninety 1901 days after the meeting at which approval is requested. Failure to act within ninety (90) days shall be deemed approval. Planning Board disapproval shall include written findillg~_upon any site development plan element" Toun-d contrary to the. prOVISIOns or Intent of this chapt~ri'-Vlewlrlg the ap- plication, the Planning Hoard ma,i secure the advice or assistance of one (1) or more expert consultants qualified to. advise as to whether a proposed use will conform to the requirements of this chapter. The assistance of a con- sultant, if sought, must be obtained within ten 1101 days of the receipt of the application. Such consultant shall report within thirty (30) days after receipt of such request as to whether or not the use applied for will be in conformance with the performance standards and, if not. what 10059 . . . . ., <~ . S 100.133 SOUTHOLD CODE !i 100.134 modification in design or operation would be necessary for conformance. A copy of the report of such consultant shall be furnished to the Planning Board, Building Inspector and applicant. F. Amendments to a site development plan shall be acted upon in the same manner as the approval of the original plan. G. The Planning Board may require that site plan approval be periodically reviewed. ~ 100-134. Site development plan elements. . The applicant shall cause a site development. map to be prepared by a civil engineer, a surveyor, land planner, architect or other competent person. Site development plan elements shall include those listed below which are appropriate to the proposed development or use as indicated by the Planning Board in the presubmission conference: A. Legal data. III Lot, block and section number, if any, of the property, taken from the latest tax records. 121 Name and address of the owner of record. 131 Name and address of the person, firm or organization preparing the map. 141 Date, North point and written and graphic scale. (5) Sufficient description or information to precisely define the boundaries of the property. All distances shall be in feet and tenths of a foot. All angles shall be given to the nearest ten (101 seconds or closer. The error of closure shall not exceed one (11 in ten thousand (10,0001. (61 The locations, names and existing widths of adjacent streets and curblines. 171 The location and owners of all adjoining lands, as shown on the latest tax records. 10060 ---( ., T . Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 June 4, 1984 M . Richard Cron A torney at Law M in Road C tchogue, NY 11935 R : Seacroft D ar Mr. Cron: T e following site development plan elements are required t be indicated onthe map for the further review of the Seacroft p oject at Cutchogue as enumerated in Article XIII, Site Plan A proval of the Southold Town Code, as referenced under p ragraph 100-134 site development plan elements. Legal Data 1. Lot, block and section numbers 2. Name and address of the owners of record (full disclosure) 6. Indicate street widths 7. The location and owners of all adjOining lands, as shown on the lateEt tax map records. 8. Indicate emergency entrance-exits 9. A complete outline of existing deed restrictions or covenants applying to the property. 10. Existing zoning. D. Proposed development 2. Show off-street parking for clubhouse and tennis courts 3. Show the location, direction, power, and time of use of any proposed outdoor lighting or !,ublic address systems. 'Jell "',T "'/"" " Mr. Richard.on Page 2 . June 4, 1984 ------~---- -------------------------- ----------------- D. Contillued 4. Location of and plans for any outdoor signs. 5. The location and arrangement of proposed means of access and egress, including sidewalks, driveways, or other paved areas; profiles indicating grading and cross sections showing width of roadway, location and width of sidewalks and location and size of water and sewer lines. 6. Any proposed grading, screening and other landscaping including types and locations of proposed street trees. 7. The location of all proposed waterlines, valves and hydrants and of all sewer lines or alternate means of water supply and sewage disposal and treatment. 8. An outline of any proposed deed restrictions or covenants. 9. Any contemplated public improvements on or adjoining the property. 10. If the site development plan indicates only a first stage, a supplementary plan shall indicate ultimate development. E. Other information 1. Draft Environmental Impact Statement is rp.quested because of various discrepancies found in the initi.al EIS submitted with the change of zone. 2. Traffic study to be updated to indicate summer .peak use, last study done on Monday, January 24,1983. 3. Interior road intersections should be at right angles. 4. Architect's solution of side entrance to garage should be followed with common driveways where applicable. 5. Suggest common walkways along roads and into open space for walking and cycling. 6. Set back from road looks tight in many cases. 7. Provide overall grading and drainage systems design with retention on site. 8. Suggest underground electrical service. .. . M.. Richard ~ Page 3 . June 4, 1984 ------~----,.,------------------------- ----------------- E. Continued 9. Erovide sanitary disposal system design and include location. 10. Landscaping to develop street tree pattern, screening, and foundation plantings, including type and size. 11. Question on maintenance building for equipment and storage for grounds and building maintenance. 12. Well site is indicated, but no support building, storage tank, and access is shown. ~ T e Planning Board will continue the preliminary site plan ..:> r view upon receipt of the above requested information and pans. Thank you for your attention. V;>? truly I~~ i-j{J '/ 175';'V>Jrc!~. . Bennett Orlowski, Jr , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board T . . D Southold, N~ y, 11971 (516) 765-1938 June 27, 1984 Mr Richard Cron At orney at Law Ma 'n Road Cu chogue, NY 11935 Re Seacroft site plan located at Cutchogue De r Mr. Cron: En losed herewith is Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Fo m whi~h the Planning Board requests be filled out and re urned for the Seacroft site plan. Th Planning Board, meanwhil~ is reviewing this site plan an as soon as the Long Environmental Assessment Form, Part I s recieved, the SEQR process can be continued. PI ase, als~ forward six (6) copies of the site plan in or er that we may make the necessary referrals to the state an county agencies under the SEQR review. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact th s office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR., CHAIRMAN ~T~ ~~N PLANNING BOARD Of\..lo~ \ d...rul y Diane M. Schultze, secr~y en . ""~.. '__IIII.,Y ~ i . . sot' ./;:u. //If:r~~ .L:? 0./)f(";L?t-- G/7<C# '/&Wl ,jp,,<u/ G/l n (/fi /)1:"0 .7: {0~ .:Jf/~C urdu G:dck,?(/~. ,A!'?!/ //.9..f'.~,t/t/..J.? -o//_,/'-' .1(:" .........1.92.. .tj1",.." ./'&;..,.""" #(0,- /., ~/...,..../..........L 10";'.- .>#?J?J .1. )1:" /",/'1.( f;..,.1 tf;,~. .n..,~ .f..Q47...Q June 28, 1984 Benn tt Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Sout old Town Planning Board Town Hall - Main Road Sout old, NY 11971 Re: Seacroft at Cutchoque Dear Sir: Your letter of June 4, 1984, in response to my letter to y u of May 31, 1984, is hereby acknowledged. With respect to Item E, numbers 1 and 2, in your letter, I do hereby demand, in the interest of fair play and as a mani- fest tion of good faith in the performance of your duties, that you rnmediately advise the undersigned, in writing, of the with- draw 1 by the Board, of the data requested. It is the opinion of t e undersigned that you are not legally entitled to this info mation in the performance of your duties as a Planning Boar and that said d~ca is unnecessary in your determination of s'te plan approval. I should also bring to your attention that, while I was ot informed prior to the Planning Board Meetipg of June 25, 1984, that Seacroft was on the Agenda of the Planning Board, for a Re olution by the Board to declare itself lead agency under the tate Environmental Quality Review Act, I was present on othe matters when the Board passed such a Resolution. Again, I would point out to the Board that its action sing such a Resolution was illegal, unlawful and contrary provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Act. In the light of the foregoing, I do hereby demand that anning Board forthwith rescind or vacate the Resolution d at its meeting on July 25, 1984, declaring itself lead under the SEQR process. h.NIIIIT "b*. . . ett Orlowski, Jr., hold Town Planning 28, 1984 two Chairman Board I do further demand that,in the event the Board chooses not to vacate the Resolution above adopted, and to withdraw its req est for Item E, numbers 1 and 2, as set forth in its letter of une 4, 1984, it consult with the Town Attorney for the Town of outhold prior to a finalization of such decisions. RJC e cc: Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Robert W. Tasker, Esq., Town Attorney . T . D --- Southald. N.Y. 1191!-- (516) 765-1938 July 11, 1984 . Richard Cron in Road tchogue, NY 11935 : Seacroft ar Mr. Cron: P ease let this confirm the action of the Planning Board a the regular meeting of July 9, 1984. SOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board rescind e resolution of June 25, 1984 declaring themselves the lead agency with regard to the State Environmental ality Review for the Seacroft site plan located Cutchouge. you have any questions, please don't hesitate to c ntact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN ~OUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD ~tt O^ ~l,,-, (/r,<-cCT\Li.J By Diane M. Scnultze, ~cretary "---Hle rr ",0" . . ..~-IF":' ('JDE ~iiG /;,:( r/j':Ol/ f///?'O-?l- "rff~ jiu4r. .}{1.,u'/ .9 tf:! .rJi)p,t; ,tJ5S G"~~~e. ,A(?!/ //.tJS5.tltlS.!' .9P<<.tu./ . , /-/ - "- '.L4..A:: . _..t ~ .'A_ .w_~ #~~ ~ <Yt+PM-f_ud -4-... .,'Ql/t7 .F JI' ?d'd ~ /;'~k.. .S7'..........~ J?/J',7,,!' ~ Hand August 7, 1984 Benn tt Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Sout old Town Planning Board Town Hall - Main Road Sout old, NY 11971 Re: Seacroft Dear Mr. Orlowski: This is to formally request, on behalf of my clients, that the above-referenced project be placed on the August 27, 1984 Planning Board Agenda for final site plan approval. Should you have any questions as concerns the above, plea e notify the undersigned, in writing. Very truly yours, CRON and CRON, ESQS. JJC: ~'GL--- 'XNI.,T '.A '" . . Id,EA C0')E 516 ~~ t7f!:~.. ~~ j~ !La' get fJ8p,r .9S~ ~. ./YW //.9~S.tltl~,f' ~4<O-n- '.Lkv. .r~ ~ 7"' 'T"""'~ -4-.' .f.I'(l(l ./1/11: ?d'd ~ 0'-". .r~ IN?? .. August 8, 1984 Ben ett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Sou hold Town Planning Board Tow Hall - Main Road Sou hold, NY 11971 Att : Diane Re: Seacroft Dea Sirs: This is to confirm our discussion of August 7, 1984 in I was given an appointment for 8:15 P.M. on August 27, before the Planning Board, for final site plan approval e Seacroft project. Your. cooperation and assistance are greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, JJC: CRON and CRON, ESQS. '~~, c~o~ t!'AN,." ., 8' ,. -, It Mr. James Cron, esq. Ma'n Road Cu chogue, NY 11935 Re: Seacroft De r Mr. Cron: , -----,--- f T . D Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 August 9, 1984 ". At this point, we can not accommodate you by putting you on the agenda of August 27, 1984. We refer to our letter of June 4, 1984, and at this point we have not received th site development plan elements requested in that letter an the subsequent letter of June 27, 1984 regarding the Lo g Environmental Assessment Form, Part I. Wh n we receive this information, we will proceed with the pr liminary site plan review. Id s Very truly yours, b--1-_-"-o:k O~~_~"Iu_ fI.., dlY'"l/L-- Bennett Orlowski, Jr.,'~irman Southold Town Planning Board ,.",,#,r ..,... , i!!4<O-;:>Z, . . ".1 }. AI~[ f. C()~E St6 k". r$UJ i!!~ .~.~ .ge fjJpa; ~.5.Y ~~. .A(.V]/ //~.Y.5-tJtJ.Y.? .~G::..... /..- / .~ ~4 " 'W,..,,"'<"""'-,./ ,....~.. ,>#17& .//:11.' ?d'1lI e.__I' ~~./.. '~~~..4 .f~q?..? '.L.k.//(;' . ........~ fJ1#, August 20, 1984 Benn tt Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Sout old Town Planning Board Town Hall - Main Road Sout old, NY 11971 Dear Sir: Re: Seacroft at Cutchoque I acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 9, 1984, wher in you refuse the applicant a place on the Planning Board of August 27, 1984, for site development plan approval, hstanding a firm date and time for such purpose had been ed with the Board on August 7, 1984, confirmed by my let- August 8, 1984. the d 10, 1 of Sl cant lette is in all d Richa withd in yo withd the 1 that chang tiona Town You are hereby advised that the action set forth and mands in your letter of August 9, 1984, 'received on August 84, are invalid and illegal in that they are in violation 0-133 of the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance. The appli- as prepared to fully comply with SlOO-133 at the time your of August 9, 1984 was received. In the light of same, it ended that you shall be held fully accountable for any and mages sustained as a result thereof. You are hereby further advised that in the letter of d J. Cron, Esq., dated June 28, 1984, demand was made for awal, in writing, of your request for Item E, Nos. 1 & 2, r letter of June 27, 1984; it is also demanded that you aw, in writing, your request for completion of Part I of ng Environmental Assessment Form in the SEQR process in aid process was completed on the application for the zone before the Town Board of the Town of Southold. That addi- SEQR process is beyond the jurisdiction of the Southold lanning Board. ~,tI,r .ofl- . .' . Benne South Augus Page . . t Orlowski, Jr., ld Town Planning 20, 1984 wo Chairman Board In the light of the foregoing, I do hereby demand, in writi g, within ten (10) days from the date hereof, answers to the f llowing questions:~--- 1. Does the Southold Town Planning Board refuse to permit the applicant to proceed to a meeting of the Board at one of its regularly scheduled meeting dates, selected by the applicant, for the purpose of. seeking approval of the appli- cant's site development plan pursuant to 5100- 133 of the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance? 2. Where is it stated in 5100-133 that the appli- cant is required to submit to the Planning Board a11 of the development plan elements requested in the letter of the Planning Board of June 4, 1984, and Part I, Environmental Assessment Form, requested in letter of June 27, 1984, prior to being placed on a Planning Board agenda? 3. Does the Southold Town Planning Board refuse to permit the applicant to seek site develop- ment plan approval at one of its regularly scheduled meetings, selected by the applicant, until the applicant prior thereto submits the request set forth in Item E, Nos. 1 & 2 of the Planning Board's letter of June 4, 1984 and Part I of the long Environmental Assessment Form requested in the Planning Board's letter of June 27, 1984? If so, demand is made that same be set forth in a written resolution of the Board, the original or certified copy thereof filed in the Town Clerk's Office with a copy thereof to the undersigned, together with the date of filing. 4. Where is it stated in 5100-133 of the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance that the applicant be subjected to a preliminary site plan review? I rust that response shall be made to the undersigned, in writi g, within ten (10) days from the date hereof. JJC:e Very truly yours, /"\,,-w c. ~ / ( James J. Cron T . . '( D Southold. N,Y, 11971 (516) 765-1938 August 30, 1984 r. James Cron ttorney at Law ain Road utchogue, NY 11935 Site Plan Seacroft Located at Cutchogue ar Mr. Cron: " In order to put this whole matter in perspective, the Planning ard outlines below the actions taken with respect to this tter to date. On April 9, 1984, a presubmission conference was held at ich meeting a map dated March 26, 1984 entitled, "Preliminary Site Plan Seacroft, Cutchogue, New York" was submitted. Drawings illustrating typical clusters were also submitted at such c nference. ,Thereafter, on June 4, 1984, the Planning Board sent Richard Con, esq. _ a letter setting forth the information required for i to proceed and consider the approval of this site plan. On June 27, 1984, the Planning Board sent Richard Cron, e q. Part One of the Long Environmental Assessment Form, with a request that the same be filled out and returned. On J.uly 11, 1984, Richard Cron, esq. was advised that the anning Board on July 9, 1984 adopted a resolution rescinging ad agency. By letter dated August 7, 1984, hand delivered to the Secretary the Board, you formally requested that the matter of the proval of the Seacroft site plan be placed on the August 27, 84 agenda of the Board. On August 8 ~984, a letter was sent by you to the Planning Bard confirming a discussion of August 7, 1984 ,.,."II,r -11- ~ . Mr. cJarnes cron. Page 2 . 8/28/84 -- - ----~----~ -------------------------- -------- . you claim to have been given an appointment August 27, 1984 before the Planning Board for al site plan approval of Seacroft. On August 9, 1984, you were advised by the Planning rd that they could not accomodate this matter of the site n approval of Seacrof~t the August 27, 1984 meeting. were again reminded, in said letter, that the Planning rd had not received the information requested in its ter of June 4, 1984 to you. The last communication that the Planning Board has had you is your letter of August 20, 1984 wherein you se the Planning Board of refusal to place the matter the site plan ~pproval of Seacroft on its agenda. To , the Board has not received the proposed site plan lying with its previous requirements. Also, to , the Planning Board has not received the Environmental ssment Form, as previously requested. Accordingly, the Planning Board, at this point, has no ing before it upon which it can take any action. Also, as you are aware, the Planning Board must co ly with the provisions of SEQRA. As you are, also, aw e the first step in the SEQRA procedure is the co letion and filing of an Environmental Assessment Form. Suc requirement has not been met in this matter. V/7 truly rons;. I!;( 16~&~" . Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board RWT dms .' . . jj.; Sl(JO AREA CODE SlG .. -c/NHZ- .~ .9P<XLd 96 fJJLM; ,g.J~ -G'~. ./!('?!/ //,g~.J-tltl~~ y~,,,,, "If".u 'J' 'Y/"""'--<' ..t}. .,-1'&& All: Nd e......t .r'ck. .7~ .7.!'O?.! October 16, 1984 Bennet Southo Town H Sou tho Orlowski, Jr" d Town Planning 11 - Main Road d, NY 11971 Chairman Board Re: Seacroft Dear M . Orlowski: Pursuant to Article XIII, SlOO-133, I have submitted to the So thold Town Building Inspector, in triplicate, the site develo ment plan relative to the above captioned. of sit your r In the light thereof, I would request that the matter plan approval be placed on the Planning Board Agenda at gular meeting of November 5, 1984. corpor addres NY 119 As you heretofGre requested, Seacroft, Ltd., a New York tion, is the owner of record of the subject premises. The of the corporation is Main Road, P.O. Box 953, Cutchogue, 5. affect nants of New howeve There are no existing deed restrictions or covenants ng the premises. Any future deed restrictions or cove- ill be as requested by the Attorney General of the State York for a condominium filing. Each home or residence, , will be legally bound by the following rule: "Occupancy of the Homes shall be restricted to Residential Occupancy in accordance with the applicable zoning regulations of the community and may only be occupied by per- sons over the age of 55 years, with the following exceptions: (a) A husband or wife under the age of 55 years may reside with his or her spouse, provided that spouse is of the age of 55 years or over; and '~N'.,r "'w,. , , . . Benne South Octob Page t Orlowski, Jr., Id Town Planning r 16, 1984 o Chairman Board "(b) A child or children may reside with their parent or parehts if said child or children is or are over the age of 19 years, provided that one of said parents with whom the child or children is residing is 55 years of age or over." In submitting all documents for site plan approval, I am not u indful of your letters of June 4, 1984, June 27, 1984, July 1, 1984 and August 9, 1984. In reviewing your demands for a SEQ process, particularly where one has already been completed by th Town Board, as lead agency, I find it difficult to over- look he discrepencies in your demands. Firstly, your letter of June , 1984 requests a DEIS and updated traffic study, neither of wh.ch you were legally entitled to demand for the purpose of site Ian review. Secondly, on June 25,1984, by Resolution of your ard, you improperly declared lead agency status with re- gard the Seacroft site plan, which status you promptly re- scind on July 9, 1984. Thirdly, on June 27, 1984, again im- prope ly, you advised that Part I of the long form EAF had to be compl ted for site plan purposes, when in fact a Part I EAF form had b n completed for the Town Board as lead agency, a certified copy f which I enclose herewith, as found in the file of the Town Board. Finally, prematurely and incorrectly, you advised on Augus 9, 1984 that Seacroft was removed from its previously arran d appointment on the Planning Board Agenda for August 27, 1984, for alleged non-compliance with your letters of June 4, 1984 d June 27, 1984. The Seacroft project has sustained irreparable harm and damag s due to incorrect and improper demands made by you and the Plann. g Board and, in particular, with demands for a SEQR process that s already been fully completed by the Town Board as lead agenc. The demands made by you have not been made on other con- domini projects which have been before your Board for site plan revie. Are there other reasons and motives for these actions? The correspondence and demands from your Board do not compliance with the basic SEQR process. In the light , I consider same to be illegal and unwarranted and ob- designed to impede and delay the successful completion of croft project. you sp which a SEQR In the light of the foregoing, I do hereby demand that cifically advise me in writing the applicable law(s) upon ou base the demands you have made for the institution of process by your Board and, in particular, the completion ..- v Benn Sout Octo Pag~ of a form and . tt Orlowski, Jr., old Town Planning er 16, 1984 three Chairman Board . letter of June 4, 1984, and a long in your letters of June 27, 1984 In reply to the foregoing, kindly advise of a time to appe r for site plan approval at your regular meeting of Novem- ber , 1984. DEIS as set forth in your Part I, EAF, as set forth ugust 9, 1984. RJC: Encl sure Very truly yours, Richard J. Cron . . TEL. 765-1802 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECfOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 Oct. 18,1984 Richard J.Cron Esq. Main Rd. Cutchogue,N.Y. 11935 Re: Seacroft at Cutchogue, Site Plan Dear Mr. Cron, This will acknowledge receipt of three sets of plans you delivered to me earlier this week for certification. I have made a review of the site develope- ment proposed and find that it meets all zoning requirements. I will foward two sets of site plans with a letter to the Planning Board which will certify site developement plan as required under Art XIII See 100-133 C & D. 1i~ Edward Hindermann Building Inspector EFH/dsm ,.",t/fI,T '" Jt ,. . . TEL. 765-1802 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 Oct. 18,1984 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Rd. Southold,N.Y. 11971 Subject: Seacroft at Cutchogue Site Plan. Gentlemen: Attached are two sets of site plans for the above proposed developement. I have made a review of this plan and can certify that all zoning requirements have been meet for this M Zoned District. Yours Truly Edward Hindermann Building Inspector Copy sent to: Richard J. Cron Esq. EFH/dsm ~H,Q'T "y'. T . . . D Southold, N. Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 October 26, 1984 M . Richard Cron A torney at Law M in Road C tchogue, NY 11935 D ar Mr. Cron: Please be advised that the matter of Seacroft is s heduled for 8:00 p.m. on Novenmer 5, 1984 for Planning Bard consideration of your request for site plan approval. v/? truly yo~~, ?~'; frS~,,1A'~/;"~ (. ~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR~CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD / ms ,.".", e ,T "'2'. T . .. .... . . D LD y -~ Southold. N.Y..11971 ~ ~___. ~__ ____.> (516) 765-1938 November 7, 1984 Ri hard Cron At orney at Law Ma'n Road Cu chogue, NY 11935 Re Seacroft site plan located at Cutchogue De r Mr. Cron: Please let this confirm the action of the Planning Bo rd at the regular meeting of November 5, 1984 regarding th above mentioned site plan. / WHEREAS, on or about April of 1984, SEACROFT, LTD., a Ne York Corporation having an address at Main Road, Cutchogue, Ne York, 11935, submitted a preliminary sketch plan and attended a re-submission conference in anticipation of submitting a ap lication for site plan approval for the construction of a 60-unit condominium project to be constructed on approximately 46.12 acres of land situate off Griffing Street in the Hamlet of Cutchogue in conjunction with a shopping plaza of approximately 50,000 square feet on an abutting parcel to the south which sa' parcel is bounded on the east by Griffing Street; and WHEREAS, as of the 17th day of October, 1984, the ap licant has submitted to the Board a certified set of plans fo the construction of a 160 condominium units and is no requesting site plan approval therefor, pursuant to Art'cle XIII of the Code of the Town of Southold; and WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed the original preliminary ske ch, minutes of the pre-submission conference and the cer ified plan submitted and has received a report from its pIa ner relating to the environmental impacts of this project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that it is this Board's determination that the app ication of SEACROFT, Ltd. for site plan approval is subject to he provisions of Article 8 cr the Environmental Conservation Law (SEQRA), and be it ''''''',T "',. JIt'. . ,. , , Nr. H.LChdrd.Oll November 7, 1984. PdqC 2 ----------- ------------------------- ------------- , i , . FURTHER RESOLVED, it is this Board's desire to be the lead agency with respect to this action. The other interested agencies are the New York State epartment of Environmental Conservation, the Suffolk ounty Department of Health Services and the Suffolk County lanning Commission which agencies after informal conferences ave indicated their willingness to have this Board act as ead agency._ In the interest of expediting the review process his Board hereby declares itself to be the lead agency with espect to this action, and it is FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed action is a Type I ction as defined by Article 8 of the'"'Environmental onservation Law (SEQRA). and the regulations thereunder, in hat it consists of the construction of new residential units n excess of 50 units which are not proposed to be connected t the commencement of habitation to community or publicly wned utilities. . Alternatively, in the event such action were not to be etermined a Type I action, such action.would constitute n unlisted action which will have a significant impact on he environment, which impacts are set forth in the Environmental ssessment Form, Part III, on file with this Board. Further, his project and its environmental impacts must be viewed on conjunction with the proposed construction of the adjacent hopping plaza and the significant environmental impacts ikely to result therefrom. Under either classification, his action is significant, and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, therefore, that a full DEIS be prepared, b the applicant, and it is, FURTHER RESOLVED .that SEACROFT'S, application for site p an approval shall not be deemed complete until a draft E S has been accepted by this Board as lea9 agency as s tis factory with respect to scope, content, and adequacy, a d be it FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of this Board be d'rected to prepare and forward to the appropriate agencies a departments a notice of positive declaration, pursuant t 6 NYCRR part 617,'and any appropriate local law of the T n of Southold. Enclosed, herewith, is a copy of the Assessment Form Pa t II and Part III, and positive declaration notice. ve~-;JtrUlY y~u?'7 / J? / Jt<'j'v,..<.-i!P/cC~..J.;"<,U<O--"'- ;::; BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., .c(flAIRNAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD dm en . , . ~rfQLr /> PJ>i).~ ~~P-BQ~1t 0 !j t-:: "liIl ,,,,k;!j' t., ,-<( ~ To.w.u~9f;/~,QlJ &QLD ~ ~ ..~ ""'f.W:' ,.l/ sU{f$f~~.;c;:o~ UN#,TY ~ . Southold, N, Y, 11971 (516) 765-1938 SEQR POSITIVE DECLA~TION November 7 , 1984 Town of Southold Planning Board, LEAD AGENCY Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Seacroft, Ltd. SEQR Positive Declaration GENTLEMEN: This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determineq that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Title of Action: Seacroft, Ltd. SEQR Status: Type 1 Description of Action: Construction of 160 unit condominium' with adjacent shopping plaza as a planned stage of development. Location: Off Griffing Street Hamlet of Cutchogue Town of Southold Suffolk County New York " "-""/#,T ../11"'''' t. . . Reasons Supporting this Determination: See Annexed Rider For Further Information Contact: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1938 ignature PJ;~u,~OLI/ . 1'-/ I cc's: Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-0001 Daniel Larkin, Supervisor Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office Building 40 . SUNY Stony Brook, New York 11790 Hon. Francis Murphy Supervisor, Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Center Riverhead, New York 11901 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Suffolk County Planning Commission Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 / Seacroft, Ltd. Main Road Cutchogue, New York 11925 2 PART III STATE11 ITS . . . (Cont i "e on ,\ t~J'~"'en ts, IS needed) An .uncoordin tored and incomplete report. was. presented to the Town at the time of the Zoning Am ndment affecting this parcel, leaving significant gaps and unsubstantiated . statements ma e at the presubmission conference in April. 1. Construct Unaddress hood due to minimi impact 0 neighbor considere on 1m act d in the past, construction will cause a disruptive effect on the neighbor- o dust, noise, soil erosion, air pollution and alteration of surface drainage, A detailed description of construction staging, including design methods e ~pacts is needed, including phasing of the project. In addition the the construction of the shopping center, its disruptive effects on the od and the adjacent school, due to the factors related above, must be 5. Ground ater Then vanced ground ber and concentration of d~ellings ~ill require an SCDHS permit and ad- ~aste~ater treatment ~ill be necessary to prevent serious impacts on ater. No app oved ~ater source or public system exists to serve the development. The qualit of the grour.d~ater has not been established in the application. EC LI Well Permit ~ill be needed because pumping . ~ill exceed 45 gpm. ject ~ill adversely affect ground~ater due to a) nitrates in se~age advanced ~aste~ater treatment is included, b) nitrates in fertilizer areas, c) household chemicals. An NYS The pr unless of la The pr the d ~ells or pro its pr all us ject will use 32,000 gpd on an averag~, ~hich could easily double in summer months. The possibility of an adverse effect on surrounding s possible. This needs further study. In addition, the ~ater system, osed ~ater system, for the shopping center must be considered due to ximity to the ~ell proposed for the condominium project and the over- ge considered in conjunction ~ith usage of the condominium itself. 10. Visual Im act A dens ~ith t wi th 1 visual center consid development of 160 multiple family d~ellings is visually incompatible e single family hamlet of Cutchogue. It ~ill be difficult to screen ss than mature specimens of large scale vegetation. In addition to the impact of the condominium project, the visual impact of the shopping adjacent to the school and school grounds is a factor that must be red. 12. Recrea ional Demand The in existi projec usion of several hundred senior citizens into a small hamlet will strain g recreational resources. mbe small community center included in the ~ill not mitigate this impact. , . ,. . 13. Traffi 1m act . . An inc cludin 25 and proble increa munity study Griffi and mu mplete traffic study vas presented vith the zoning change. A study in- summer traffic is needed to more properly assess the impacts at Route Griffing Street. The proximity to the Cutchogue School may also present s on Schoolhouse Lane and Depot Road vith development traffic. A large e in non-driving senior citizens presents a further demand on the corn- s practically non-existent public transportation system. The traffic ailed to consider the impact of the shopping center at Route 25 and g Street, and failed to consider the traffic impact on the school site t be revised and made all inclusive. 17. 1m act on Cutcho e Communit At ful experi menti patro Altho doesn' ment Cutch 18. Concl It is revie requi construction in one-year, a population increase of nearly 15% vill be need by the Cutchogue community. This vill include the impacts already ed as veIl as increased ambulance and emergency medical calls, police and emergency police calls, fire service, and elderly medical service. h there is a need for senior citizen housing in Southold, housing alone begin to provide the services needed by senior citizens. This develop- oposal doesn't address them. In addition to the impact on the e community due to the dramatic increase in population vith attendant ses in demands for community services, the inclusion of a shopping center t to the condominium project must be considered, oving to its likely on the existing community and it probable attraction of additional people community. ning Board vas not contacted during at the time of the Zoning Amendment. been addressed at that time. the consideration of environmental Many of the issues presented here ions to the proposed development have surfaced in the Cutchogue community, g the creation of at least one nev civic group, the submission of a petition opposing the project and the objection 'of several abuttors. he conclusion of Part III that there is a need for a coordinated SEQRA of these elements and that the proposed action is a Type 1 action vhich s that a positive declaration be made and a full EIS prepared. " ~i.r.('i\ur l' id' Cl./~'i...:1vu0E ENV~MENTAL ASSESSMENT PAR~ ~ PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Gl.o,al InfoM .tlon (Road C.refully) . In ccmpltti 9 the fa"" the r.vl.....r should be 9'.ldo~ by the question: Have my decisions Ind. dotelT.lfnatfons been rf!SOr. bl!? The rlviewer is not expected to ~t .n expert tnvtronm!nteJ analyst. ,- .... . . .- Id.ntlfylng slontfieant eifec: in e tn.t In .ffeet will b. potentially lar;! (col~n Z) doos nut mean that It ~ny l!rg. ,fffct must be evaluated In ?ART 3 to dete""ine slgntflcance. lurnn Z sl~~ly asks that It be looked at further. is also noc,"sarlly ~y .idontlfylng an ~. - Tho E.amnle provided are :0 Isslst the r.vl....er by s~owfng types of .ffects and ~herever possible the thresh, of lI'''gnltuo tt..t ~ould trigger a respo"se In cohrn Z, The e.amples ar. gen..al1y applicable throughout the State and f r most situations. But, for any scecfffc preject or sit. oth.r ..~pl.s and/er lower thresholds ..y b. ~r. approprlat. for. Petentlal Large l~ac: rating. - Each projec , on eath site, In each 10callty, ..nl vtry. Therefo.., the examples have bun offered as guldan, They do no: Fenstltute an .xhaustlv. list of impacts and thresholds te answ.r each qu.stion. - The nuwo.r ~ e.amples per qu.stion does not Indica:. tho Importance of each qu.stion. INSTRUCTIONS ( .ad Clrefully) .. Answ.r e ch ef the lB qutltfons in PA~T Z. Ans~.r ill. 1 f ther. ..ill be any effect. b. !:!!rE!. an .......' should be considered as ill ans..ars. c. If answe Ing Yes to I ouestlon then check the tc.rooria:e box (celu~n I or Z) to indicate the potential slz. of he Imelct. If Impact threshold equals or uc..ds Iny ..ample prcvided, cJ\eck celur.:n Z. If Impact.. 11 occur but threshold is loo:er than e.!Coio, check column I: d. If revie er has doubt about the size of the IlIl;llC: ;;l~e".censider tile Imp.ct as potentially large Ind proceed to PART 3.. . . .. If a pot "tlal1y lar;e lm~act er effect can be r.~~:!~ by a chang! In th. projoct te a less tnan .1ar;e N;nitud . place a Yes In column 3. A 110 respc"sa indi..:es that such a reduction Is not possible. 1 ~ 3 1. WILL THE~!: aE '/ EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAl Ci'A~:~, iO PROJECT 51TH E.a",oles that' uld Apply to Column Z Aay const ction on slopes of 15: or greater, (15 'cot rise ~er 100 feat (~ length), or where the general slopes in the project area ..cee 10:. NO YES 00 . S~ALL TO POTE~TlAL CAN IXP ACT aE MOD!:?.ATE LARr.E RECUC::O BY ll-!PACT If,'PACT PROJECT C!J.A:j(jE: - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...lL -L - - - - - - IMPACT ON LAND Const~cti n on L.nd wh... the dePth to the ..at!' tabla is 1.ss than 3 fee . Cons~ructf n of oaved ~ar~lnq !~~ ~or 1 ,~C~ or ~c~ vehicles. Construc:; n on land ~here ~edrock is e~posed or ;fr.e~!11y wit"l" J f et of existing ~ro~nd surfac!. X2l Construct; " that ~fl1 ccntinue 'or ~~re t~an 1 /~~~ or fnvolve more :~In ~e ~nJS~ or sta;e. E',l.cavat1on fer miroinq ,u"poses t."!t ~/'ul~ r~r.::;ve -~!",! than 1.000 tons of na ural :nat!r;al (i.t. reck or s~n) =~,. 'j!!f". CCnstr~c~i n of 1n1 new sanitJr1 llnd~il1. .5- l!'W "'4"" '''ee fir Construct! n In a d~Sfgnat.~oa~a7' Other. flllpa t.s: Construction impact due to scheduled com- pletlon ~lth1n 12 months of approval of condominium project and ad~i tional 1mnact due to constructio~ of. propo'se shopplng center.' ' YtS WILL TIlER~ E AN EFF~CT TO AllY UHIQUE OR U:IUSUAL LAtm F1lPJ1S 1':'\0 FaUNO'Orl Til" SITE? (f.e. cliffs, dunes. geological forma- \lV ~ns. etc.) _ SpecIfic l~nd forms: 'JL , 2. IMPACT ON WATE~ ~ NO YES 3. WILL PROJE AFFECT ANY WATER BOOY DESiGlIATED AS ..........~ 0 PROjECjED? (Undor Articles 15. 24. 25 of the Envlr- ~ on~~nta1 C nserv.tfon Law. E.C.L.) Ex.mol.s t .t Would Apply to Colu.n 2 Oredglng ore than 100 cubic yards of ~aterlal fro~ channel 0 I pro:et:ed str!~. Construct on in a designated freshwatar or tidal wetland. Othar imp cts: 4. WILL PROJ~ T ~FF<cr ANY 1101l-PROiECTED EXISjlflr. OR HEll NO YES BOOr OF \!A ER? .............................................00 Ex.~ol.s t at Would Apply to Column 2 A 10: fnc easa or decre.s. in the surfac. area of any body of wate~ r ~r~ than I 10 a~re increase or decrease. Construct on of a body of water that exceeds 10 acr.s of surflc! a ea. Other IIl:p cts: lilJ YES 08 5. WILL PROJE T AFFECT SURFAC~ OR GROUllO!-iATER OUALliY? Exomol.s t at Would Apply to Column 2 X Project w II require a discharge pennlt. -X. Project r quires use of a source of water that dees not have approval 0 ser,e proposed project. Project r ~u;res ~at!r suaply from welTs with gre~ter than 45 9 lions per minute ~umoin9 capacity. Construc~ on or aoeratf~n causing any contamin!~1an of a publ : water supply sy~tem. X Project w 11 adversely "affect grcur.dwau:r. X lfcuid ~~ luent will be convey~d off the sft~ to faciliti! wnjc~ pr!s~ntl1 do net exist or nave ~na~e~uat t!~.city. X Project ~ o.uldng a ~3C~1ity that ...ould use water tn e.:.,s of ZO,OOO gollo", per day. _ ProJ.ct ,,; 1 likely cau" ~fltatlon or other disco...;. info 31'1 It... s:.1nQ body of \I.te.r to the lxt!nt t:'lat t~!re . -1L -1L - , - - -X... ,~1L X X X X - - J- .1L x x - - . . ------.... --/--.-------.----- POTu'fTI';L CAli Illp"'Cr i~ ' LA;lG~ ~EUuC<:u aT : WPACT p~OJ ECT C~~'IG< ' . L TO .~Tt L~?ACT r' -- .JL ',,~n;'r'Ig :t.nn Que to lawn -L r al) 8. WILL p~OJ T ALiE~ OAAINAGE FI.mI. PATr.P.~IS OR SI;~F~CE !:ATER:'lO YES RU:IOFt? ........................ ........................... 00 Exa~l. t t ~ould Apply to Coluon Z Project uld h:o.~e nood ..ater nows. X Project i likely to cluse substantial eroslon. during const uction. Project i Inco~atible with exIsting drsinlge patterns. Oth!r imp cts: r 0 . - ..L.- o ...lL - - IMPACT 011 AIR . 113 YES WILL PI<OJE T AFFECi AIR QUALlTY1.....~.:...................0 0 Ex.~,le' t at Would Apply to C01uan Z 7. ProJect.. 11 in~uc. 1,000 or mere yehlcle trips In Iny giyen hour. Project w 11 r..ult in the Incineration of ""'re than I ton of "fuse per hour. Pro!ect e ission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 1bs. per our or a ~oat sourc. producing "",re thin 10 .il110n a U's ~e~ hour. I ..x... . Ot~.r i",p ldaniniums and in 8... 0 i cts.: Qust :rn; ~pn nl~T";ng constrll~t-i"nof ddltlon thereto, durlng construction of -1L -X- r,..?.1CT O~: PL~'ljS ,"~IO ilfH~.~'-S NO YES €)O 8. WILL PF-OJE i AFFECT A;iT TIlREAWlm OR E.~CA::G<~Q Sp!"IEsr Exa."les t a~ ~cuTd Apply to ColUhon Z R.~"c:ion of one or mo" species lht.d on the ;:ew York or Fe~era list, using the site, over or ne.r site or fcund on h. ,it.. Removal 0 any portion of a criticll or significant wi1d- 11 f. :Ia~i at. AOPllcat; n of Pesticide or ~.,Mcf de oy.r ""re t~an t\liC! J Y ar ot!1er tilln for a~ri",.,! tural pur"csu. - Ot."l!r 1r.:~ c:s: ~ SC~S;,~~:i!~LLT AFrECT ~:O:I-;H~E,.\TE:;D ~~ '10 YES .?E----' I'Y\ 0 .) ~1:'). .......................................0 t :/oul~ ~pply :0 ColuM Z 9. W!L~ i'~~':E E~t;.;:Gc:~E:J Ex<!,..,le ::, Proj!ct ~ td 1~t5ta"t~atty inter~er! ~ith !ny r!s\~!nt or :nigra: y fish or wll~life s;:tecl!s. Prnject r. uire5 t~e re~ov!J of ~ort :~&n 11 J:~!5 of If.at:Jn~ f" st (.-:'/er 100 Jellrs In -'9!) Or at:":e" 10C111)' i~~?r~Jr.t e~~t~:~on. ----.--- . ---.--.-- . . a TO POTEnTIAL CA:. 1'?Act .al E<l.l.H LA~GE RE~UCEO BY l~?_CT IMP_CT PR~JECT C~~I;GE It'PACT 011 VISUAL REseCRCE 10.. WILL THE POJECT ~ffECT VIEWS, VISTAS 01. THE VISUAL III YES Cl!AAACTE~ OF THE r:EI!;ii8llR~OOO OR CO~HITYl .............. 00 [xam,lts hat Would Apply to Column 2 ..L An Incomp tlbll vIsual affect caused by the Int~~"ction .:1L -1L of new _a e~ials, calo~s Iftd/a~ 'onr~ in contrast to thl lur~U'ldl iI hndsclpe. . , . X A project lasily visible, not Ilslly screen.d.t~lt Is X- X - - obviously di ffarent ,,,,., othars around It. - Projoct " 11 ~sult In thl Illmlnatlon a~ ~ja~ - screaning of scenic views o~ vlstu kn",:n to be Importlnt to the area. . Other I"i' cu: - '- l~PACT ON HISTORIC RESOCR~ES 11. l/llL. PROJ CT mPACT ANY snr; OR STRCCTURE OF HISTORIC, NO . YES PRE-HISTO IC OR PALEOUTOGICAL If;ORTANCE? .................~ <:::> u.",.les at 1I0uld Apply to Column 2 Project oc urinq wholly a~ partially "ithin or contiguous to any fac lit)' o~ site listed on the National R.gistl~ of. historic ~ &cu. Any Impact to In archeological site or fossil bed .Toc.ted within the proj~t site. Other Imp. ts: {1-lPACT ON OPEN .SPACE & RECREATlO" .' 12. WIll THE P .OJECT AFFECT THE CUAlITlTY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING HO YES OR F1JTURE PEII SPACES OR RECREA.TlOIIAL OPPORi1I~lTlES?..... <:::> 0 E..~les t .t 1I0uld Apply to Column 2 The pennan nt foreclosurl of a future ~Crt.tlonll opportunity. A major rt uction of In open space I"i'ort.nt to the community. ...x. Othe~ 10000a ts:. An add~ tional recree,Uonal burden of _s~ver hundred e~~?r cit~zens on a hamlet Yith fe~ facilitie aQd in a d~t~9n thereto the construction of the shop- , p~nB cen er ~~ll be adj~cent to ah eXlsting school pla grllund" Llld thia factor must be cons1dered. I~P'CT nlf TRAIf~PORTlTIC~ 13. ~ILL THE?E aE A:/ EFFEC. TO EXIS.1NG .~Nspc~rl.:CN SYSj~AS? ....... ....... ............. ...... ..... ............. 110 YES 00 E..nol., t. t ~ould A~ply to CoI""'n Z -2l Alteration f present ~.tte",s 0' mo.,.....nt 0' people Ind/or goce x Projoct wll rasult In se.ere troffic probl....s. ...tintersection of Route 25. Such p~oblems will be caused by the condo- m"ni urn p oject and .n addition thereto @x e cated b .l{;o~se.d construction of the shopping cen~'f.' y t ~gnlflc nt lncrease in non-driVIng residents and proxi mlty of rammar school must be co~sidered in connecti.on (See Rider, next pace) x -, - - - - ...L- -lL -L- ..x.- .X X - - X X X X ',,' 1 tjj in co cente :UrlUO)',l rli_u::-: In'~ct and in CidJi t~,ior; 1-:-Jel'eto junction withWnstruction of the shopping . . . .' . - .' " I- ~ ~LL TO PCH~lT Pol C~ " r:'PACT' C~' , ^" O~~"jC: LA~~E RE;;UC~O av 1~?ACT HIPACT PRCJ~CT C~A,~G:: S J.... - x - .... J- . - ....lL- - - - - - - S '- - - - - - . - - - .' - - - - - - : - lL- -1L- S . - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - I~PACT ON E~E~GY 14. WILL p~C ECT VF:CT Tl-!!: CCI,~-tUNITlES SOURCES OF F'J:;. ~R .'10 YE ;:::::e: ::.~:?~O~;;.;~~;~.:~ .~~;:. ~....... ..........'....0 <D x P~jo,t luslng gr,"ter th,n 5: Incr.~se In In1 fo"" of' energy u ,d In OUn!cfpll1ty. X Proj.ct Ie~uirlng tho crutfon or extonsion Of In In."y . _.- trlns::lis ion or supoly systtlll to lerve r.or. thon 50 single or t><o f.,ily rlsidenclS. . Other Ir.Ip cts: I,",P,ACT ON NOISE 15. WILL THER BE 09J!:CTlOU.'.9LE OOCRS. :IOISE. GLAR!:, ~!:>.AnON NO YE or ElECi~ CAL OIS7u?eAIIC;:,\S A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? ....00 Ex'moles hIt Would Apoly to Column Z Blasting Ithln 1,500 fut of I hes~it.l. school or other sensftive facility. Odors will Occ"r ~utir.ely (IIIlre than ene hour ~.r dAY). Project ~i 1 ~~duc! o~erJtin9 noise exCe!dfn~ the local .r.~i nt noise levels for noise autside of st~Jc~ur.s. Project wi 1 r~ve natural ~arriers that would ~C: !S I noise scr! n. X' Other Ir:pa project of .condo be consi ts: Intense construction lloise to complete n_one year, and in addition construction Dais inium ~roject and shopping center project mus ered wlth respect to the grammar school. r"'PACT 01: Mo.'Cr.; ~ un,p.rs 16. HILL PROJE T AFi'ECi PUaLlC HEALrrl A:IO SAi'EiY? Ex.~ol!. t .t Would Apply to Column Z NO YE .............00 Project wil subs tl.~C!S in the even be I chr-oni clu'e a risk ef explosfon or release ef hazardous i.e. oi', pesticides, che~;cals, ~adi~t1on. etc.) of accident or upset condition., or tner. .111 low level disc~arge or emission. Projeet tha will result in the burial 0' .haz!r~:us wastes. Ci.!. toxic ~Qisonous, highly reactive, radioac~1ve, irritat~"9. . fnf!C':ious, etc., inc1u~fnQ ~a5tls that are so1i~1 se~i"sol1d, liquid or c nt.in 7"'.") , Storac! fac 1f~ies for e:'!e 1l0He" or r.:cre gallor;s of Hquifftd n~cural gas or other licuids. Ot~er im.,ac s: ..~- -". - , . . I~PACT (':, .~)~.~TH 4~~iJ C!-l!.~),:t.F Cn::;-';:HiY OR tlc.rC;l':1.~=,L!~r'" . - . I . - --17. WILL PP.Q ECT AFFECT TliE CHMACTEq 'IF THE EXISTl1IG /10 YES CO:~!\mI ?............... ..... ...........................0 G) Ex.mole hat Y.ould Apoly to Coluan Z - . x .L- The oopu ation or the City, Town or VIlla;e In which the project s loc.tad is likely to grew by eare th.n 5~ or resident hum~n population. 2- x -L The muni ipal budgets for capltat .xcendltures or ooera- tlng ser ices will incr.ase by more than 5: per year as a - r!SILl t 0, .this pr'liect. (Increased POll' ce e.mb\llance fire servlce_ added burden on sanl~ary andfl~IJ . Will inv lve any oer.n.nant racillty of a non-agrIcultural use in a agricultural distrfct or remove prime agricul~ural lands r m cuI t,vation. The proj ct will reolace or elIminate existing facilities, strJctur s or areas of htstoric importance to the community. NO -- x ..:L. Dev.lopm nt will induce an influx or a particular age group wi special needs. Project ill set an important precedent for future projects. X- -x -- Proj ect business ill relocate 15 or more employees in one or more ~HOther i must be ct.: Impact of- construction of shoDDing cente onsidered in conjunction with construction of , -"-- x 18. . NO . YES .......00 IS TliERE USllC CONTROVERSY CONCERIiWG rnE PROJECT? Ex~oles h.t ~ould Apply to Col~T.n Z x Either go ~rn~ent or citizens of adjacent co~unities have e,-pr ss~c! oppos; ticn or rejected the project or have not be~n ontacted. -X- '-A x x x Objection to the project from within the community. IF t~IY ACTION IN PART 2 IS IOErrrIFIEO AS A OOTENnAL LARGE Il'!PACT OR IF YOU CA::::OT.OOTERNI1IE TliE I'IAGlIlTUOE OF HiPACT. PROC;::D 00 PART 3. OORTIONS OF EAF C011PLITEO FOR THIS PROJECT: OETER/iI.'lATlON PART I..lL- PART II -L- PART 3 X Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts I, Z and 3) and con idering both the magnitude and Importance of .ac; fmpac:, it fs easonably determined tha;3 A. The ,rejec will result in no major Impacts and, thererer., is one ~hi h cay not cause significant damage to the !nvir~n~~nt. PREPARE A IlEr,A il'lE DECLARATION o B. Altheugh t . orOject could have a significant effect on the env~ror.~~n . there ~il1 not be a si9~lfic:nt effec~ !n this C3se ~ec!use tH mi~io~ticn ~!s~res descr~b~Q in ~ARr ) have ~een fnc!;,;ced a pa":~of :he .J,.o~osed .J!"ojec~. OECtAAA TIOr: PREPARE A O'/E c. 7ne ~,.~jec. will "~sult in one ~r ~a"! major adver~~ imcac:s thlt canna ~e r!duc!d !ne may taus s;g~if;c!nt d!nag~ ~o the o:!nviren .ent. PR:?,\RE ?OSiTIV: ~,':LA_<ATlO:: PROC:,,:J \!l7: 7/ /;,'(-;/~//,. Signat'.lre of ~p.:S;fons~~le Offic-lal in Lac: Agency differ~nc from ~espo"~l~lc Jfficer) ?rlnt O~ :ype nar.e of responslble offlc' in Lel!d Agency . - .,,- ,. " -" .. '. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . ., .0 , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III I:lFO~~TlC;1 - '"rt 3 Is re~lred ff one Or lOre IMp.ct or efflct Is considered to bl potentl.lly 10rgl, . The u:oun of writfng '.ClSUry to InS"lr 'o:-t 3 "ay ~. detl""fne<! by answedng the ouestlon: In brfefly co~~letln9 t~e Instruct!ons below hIve I ol.ced In t~ls record sufficient info"".tfon to Indfclte the reasoMble e51 of "'Y'declslons! '. EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS \ . ; . INST?UCTlOIIS COmplete the olla_Ing for lach Impact or effect Identified In 'COlumn 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly d scribe the Impact. 2. Oescrlb. If applicable) how the Impact ml,ht be mitigated or reduced to a llss than iar,e Impact by I pro- Ject c~on e. 3. Based on ~e Infor.r~tlon ayaflable, detlde If It Is rl.sonable to conclude that this Impoct fs Im,ortant to the ml, 'ci~alfty (city, town or village) In whlc;, tha project is located. To I swer the question of fmport3nce, consfde~: , e probabllf ty of the Impact or effect occ""lng . T e duratfon of the Impact or effect l:os Irreyersiblllty, Including pe""anently lost rlSources or Yal~!S ~ et~er ~~e Impact or effect can be controlled - T e re~jcr.al consequence of the fm?ict or <<ffee: - I s ~ot!ntial d1vergence from loel1 needs !nd ;oaTs - W ther known Objections to the project a~oly to this Impact or effect, OHl::?.1"INAnON 0 SIG;nFI~IICl:: An ac Ion Is considered to be sfgnlflcant If: One ( r ~~re) Imoact Is detenolne<l to both ~ ond Its (their) consequence, based.on the review Ibove is fmoor~ant. PART III STATEl! 'liS I (Cont rue on Att3chments, as needed) Art .uncoordin tored and incomplete report. was. presented to the Town at the time of the Zoning Am ndment affecting this parcel, leaving significant gaps and unsubstantiated . statements ma e at the presubmission conference in April. 1. Construct on Imoact Unaddress d in the past, construction will cause a disruptive effect on the neighbor- hood due 0 dust, noise, soil erosion, air pollution and alteration of surface drainage. A detailed description of construction staging. inClUding design methods to minimi e ~pacts is needed, inClUding phasing of the project. In addition the impact of the construction of the shopping center, its disruptive effects o~ the neighborh od and the adjacent school, due to the factors related abo~e, must be considere ---.- .. . . . 5. Gro The vane gro umber and concentration of dvellings viII require an SCDHS permit and ad- treatment viII be necessary to prevent serious impacts on No a proved vater source or public system exists to serve the development. The qual"ty of the groundvater has not been established in the application. DEC LI Well Permit will be needed because pumping. viII exceed 45 gpm. oject viII adversely affect groundvater due to a) nitrates in sevage advanced vastevater treatment is included, b) nitrates in fertilizer areas, c) household chemicals. The the veIls or pr its p all u oject viII use 32,000 gpd on an average, vhich could easily double in summer months. The possibility of an adverse effect on surrounding is possible. This needs further study. In addition, the vater system, posed vater system, for the shopping center must be considered due to oximity to the veIl proposed for the condOminium project and the over- age considered in conjunction vith usage of the condominium itself. 10. Visua 1m act A den vith vith visua cente consi e development of 160 multiple family dvellings is visually incompatible he single family hamlet of Cutchogue. It viII be difficult to screen ess than mature specimens of large scale vegetation. In addition to the impact of the condominium project, the visual impact of the shopping adjacent to the school and school grounds is a factor that must be ered. 12. Recre tional Demand The i fusion of several hundred senior citizens into a small hamlet viII strain exist ng recreational resources. ~e small community center included in the proje t viII not mitigate this impact. 13. Traff"c 1m act An in cl udi 25 an proble increa munity study Griffi and mu mplete traffic study vas presented vith the zoning change. A study in- summer traffic is needed to more properly assess the impacts at Route Griffing Street. The proximity to the Cutchogue School may also present s on Schoolhouse Lane and Depot Road vith development traffic. A large e in non-driving senior citizens presents a further demand on the com- s practically non-existent public transportation system. The traffic ailed to consider the impact of the shopping center at Route 25 and g Street, and failed to consider the traffic impact on the school site t be revised and made all inclusive. 17. 1m act On Cutcho e Communit At ful construction in one-year, a population increase of nearly 15% viII be experi nced by the Cutchogue community. This viII include the impacts already . .. . ment oned as well as increased ambulance and emergency medical calls, police patr ls and emergency police calls, fire service, and elderly medical service. Alth ugh there is a need for senior citizen housing in Southold, housing alone does 't begin to provide the services needed by senior citizens. This develop- ment proposal doesn't address them. In addition to the impact on the Cutc ogue community due to the dramatic increase in population with attendant incr ases in demands for community servicp.s, the incl~sion of a shopping center adja ent to the condominium project must be considered, owing to its likely impa t on the existing community and it probable attraction of additional people to t e community. 18. Publ"c Controvers The impa coul anning Board was not contacted during the consideration of environmental at the time of the Zoning Amendment. Many of the issues presented here have been addressed at that time. Obje ions to the proposed development have surfaced in the Cutchogue community, spur 'ng the creation of at least one new civic group, the submission of a lengt opposing the project and the objection of several abuttors. Concl sion It is revie requi the conclusion of Part III that there is a need for a coordinated SEQRA of these elements and that the proposed action is a Type 1 action which es that a positive declaration be made and a full EIS prepared. . . . .. p . TO D Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 December 17, 1984 ard Cron at Law d e, NY 11935 Re: Se croft Dear Mr Cron: PI on the 8:00 p. and for ase be advised that the matter of Seacroft will appear oard's calender for the meeting of January 7, 1985 at . for the purpose of reviewing the status of this matter possible Board action thereon. ;~:;/2?L~r Bennett Orlowski, Jr., ~irman Southold Town Planning Board FY:dms eKHI.,r .OD*' Richa Attor Main Cutch Re: Dear 17th of on plan a res plan Envir direc and d comple accept conten or W learne Plaza may ha W Ltd. 0 in f av and -- --~~..- . , . . .. T D . p Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 January 8, 1985 d Cron ey at Law oad gue, NY 11 935 eacroft r. Cron: he following action was taken by the Southold. Town Planning at the regular meeting of January 7, 1985. HEREAS, the applicant, Seacroft Ltd., submitted, on the ay of October 1984, a certified set of plans for the construction hundred sixty (160) condominium units, and requested site pproval therefor, and HEREAS, this Board, on the 5th day of Novembe~ 1984, did adopt lution determining that Seacroft Ltd's application for site proval was subject to the provisions of Article 8 of the mental Conservation Law and declared itself to be lead agency; d that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement be prepared; ermined that the application of Seacroft Ltd. would not be e until the Draft Environmental Impact Statement had been d by 1:;hi:s' Board 'as satisfactory with respect to scope, and adequacy; and EREAS, no Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been filed pted by this Board; and EREAS, since the meeting of November 5, 1984, this Board has that the premises acquired by Seacroft Ltd. and Seacroft td. from Leisure Greens Associates in September of 1983, e been improperly subdivided; and EREAS, it appears that a portion of land owned by Seacraft Seacroft Plaza Ltd., or both, is burdened by a right-of-way r of the Roman Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart of Cutchogue, ""H .4,r ''iF,,'" . ~1 . \.' LAW OFFICES WlLLI.....M WICKM M ERIC J. BRESSL R ABIGAIL A.WICK AM WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.C. MAIN ROAD, P. O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK LONG ISLAND NEW YORK 11952 JAN 171985 516 - 298-5353 FRANKLYN A. FA RIS January 16, 1985 So thold Town Planning Board To Hall Ma'n Road So thold, NY 11971 Re: Seacroft Development tlemen: As attorneys for Long Island Vineyards, Inc" adjoining er to the proposed Seacroft Development, we would appreciate r notifying us of any future meetings or actions of the rd with respect to the site plan or any further submissions. Very truly yours, ~~ Abigail A. Wickham (;.. ~!. - ,.; "1.\.": /1\\;;';' l. '..... /l I..._.~--'("""',~, . . 1._..... -.-J ., L ". Mr. R"Cha~dc~on.1 · Fage 2 . January 8, 1985 ----- -----------~-----______________________l________________________ , conte spaci in th Draft incom Envir furth and premi of th be co as pr comme expir indic Seacr HEREAS, an adjoining owner has objected to the site plan ding it violates a written agreement concerning rear yard g and planting~which agreement has not been referred to application, and must be considered as part of the Environmental Impact Statement, OW, THEREFORE, the Board finds as follows: That the application of Seacroft Ltd. having been deemed lete by virtue of the provisions of Article 8 of the nmental Conservation Law, this Board is precluded from taking r action on this application until such time as it is completed; that the possible subdivision of the former Leisure Greens es and the existence of the right-of-way may affect the validity application of Seacroft Ltd. and, in any event, must further sidered from an environmental and planning standpoint; and that, while it is this Board's position that the time period vided for in the Town Code for action by this Board has not ced to run, nonetheless, the stated time period for Board action s on the 5th day of February 1985; and the applicant not having ted that it will prepare and file a DEIS, the application of ft Ltd. for site plan approval is denied. t ) /J ~~~:/7?;t: ~/~ Bennett. Or lowski, Jr.;; Chairman Southold Town Planning Board dms cc: ommissioner, DEC anlel Larkin, DEC pervisor Francis Murphy ffolk County Dept. of Health Services ffolk County Planning Commission l' . ---k~__I; Index No. Year 19 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME ',\F COURT ." COUNl'Y OF . SUFFOL1~ For a Judgment pursuant to - against - the Application of LTD., a New York Corporation, petitioner, Article 78 of the CPLR, In thp Mat.ter of SEACROFT, THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN, RICHARD G. WARD, KENNETH EDWARDS, GEROGE RITCHIE LATHk~, JR. and WILLIAM F.MULLEN, JR., as Members of the Planninq Board of the Town of Southold, Respondents. NOTICE OF PETITION, PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT CRON AND CRON Attorneys for Petitioner Office and Post Office Address Main Road P.O. Box 953 CUTCHOGUE, N.Y. 11935 1516) 734-5100 To: .\ttorney(s) for Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted Dated: Attorney(s) for .. PLEASE TAKE NOnCE ~l ! . it 0 i:- NOTICE OF ..;- E~TRY ... ~ 0 ~ :-'OTlCE OF " SETTLE\1.E\T that the within is a (certified) true copy of a entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on 19 that an Order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the Hon. one of the judges of the within named Court, at on 19 , at M. : \ \ \ \ Dated: CRON AND CRON Attorney(s) for Attorneys for Office and Post Office Address Main Road P.O. Box 953 CUTCHOGUE, N.Y. 11935 (516) 734-5100 To ~ .. , ( ,_l_". ,- \ STATE OF NEW y,()RK, CoUNTY OF 5S: If the undersigned, am an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New Yark State, and o certify that the annexed Anomey'. has been compared by me with the original and found to be a true and complete copy thereof. t Certifica<;OQ ~ ! . o say that: I am the attorney of record, or of counsel with the attorney(s) of record, for . I have read the annexed know the conteDts thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon the following: . . u Attorney'. Verification b, Affirmation The reason I make this aBirmation instead of is I affirm that the foregoing statementS are true under penalties of perjury. Dated: (Print signer's name below signature) J STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SS! JOSEPH E. NOLAN, b.4hg sworn say" I am in the action hereinl I have read rhe annexed >>lUiX~lnSK Individual know the contents mereofand the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be V~rilicatio" alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. ~ theSecretary/Treas. of SEACROFT, LTD., Cnrpour~ a corporation, one of the parties to the action; I have read the annexed Pet i t ion Verilication know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. My belief, as to those matters therein DOt stated upon knowledge, is based upon the following: SftEXftXXX~X~XftXXHXftXX o ~ 0. ~ , . u '-ll I ~ Conversations and documents maintained .. ~ 21 fg of the attorneys for the lilj! ?7befOremeon February 5, 1II:~.! / 'IE")t STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF I age and reside at in the files corporation. , 1985 SI (Print silE.ers name below sigoature) Joseph E. Nolan SSI being sworn says: I am not a party to the action, am over 18 years of On J 0 . S..vic~ ~ By Mail l 0 . d P~rlonal S.rvic. , I served a true copy of the annexed in the following manner: by mailing the same in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid thereon, in a post.office or official depository of the U.S. Postal Service within the State of New York, addressed to the last known address of the addressee(s) as indicated below: ,19 by delivering the same personally to the persons and at the addresses indicated below: Sworn to before me on ,19 (Print signers I1aIl)e below signature) t ( er Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 This is to certify that I, Diane M. Schultze, Secretary of the Sout old Town Planning Board, in the said County of Suffolk, have comp red the foregoing copy of the Planning Board's resolution pert ining to the Seacroft site plan to the copy filed in the Offi e of the Planning Board on January 8, 1985 at 11:45 a.m. and hat the same is a correct and true transcript of the original reso ution passed by the Planning Board at the January 7, 1985 meet ng. Date ~ ~,f1 go , Signature~Q.A.Q.1'rJ .:>RJU.( L~ , :Ud cr., A~&oJtot ~'~L '. V( UCl~ 8/198":) 1/:<1-6 Q,m, . ( Southold. N,Y, 11971 (516) 765-1938 '., January 8, 1985 .~-' '. .:..':.- " ._;".. -':"- ~ '.' .". .:' , - 0- " ~. _~';:;;f_-~ ::?:1':J,.~> "'Ric Att , Mai Cut ard Cron rney at Law Road hogue, NY 11935 ,',' ,'.. Re: Seacroft Dea Mr. Cron: The following action was taken bY,the Southold, Town Planning Boa d, at the regular meeting of January 7, 1985. ..~ /" . . l7t of pIa WHEREAS, the apPlicant, Seacroft Ltd., submitted, on the , day of October 1984, a certified set of plans for the construction ne hundred sixty (160) condominium units, and requested site approval therefor; and WHEREAS, this Board, on the 5th day of November, 1984, did adopt olution determining that Seacroft Ltd's application for site approval was subject to the provisions of Article 8 of the onmental Conservation Law and declared itself to be lead agency; ted that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement be 'prepared; etermined that the application of Seacroft Ltd. would not be ete until the Draft Environmental Impact Statement had been ted by this Board as satisfactory with respect to scope, nt and adequacy; and lear Plaz may WHEREAS, no Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been filed or a cepted by this Board; and WHEREAS, since the meeting of November 5, 1984, this Board has ed that the premises acquired by Seacroft Ltd. and Seacroft Ltd. from Leisure Greens Associates in September of 1983, ave been improperly subdivided; and Ltd. in f and ,WHEREAS, it appears that a portion of land owned by Seacroft or Seacroft Plaza Ltd., or both, is burdened by a right-of-way vor of the Roman Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart of Cutchogue, - ":"'...-'- - --'':~. Mr. Richard cron'" c Page 2 . ( January 8, 1985 ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS, an adjoining owner has objected to the site plan con ending it violates a written agreement concerning rear yard spa ing and plantings, which agreement has not been referred to in he application, and must be considered as part of the Dra t Environmental Impact Statement, NOW, THEREFORE, the Board finds as follows: 1. That the application of Seacroft Ltd. having been deemed plete by virtue of the provisions of Article 8 of the Env'ronmental Conservation Law, this Board is precluded from taking er action on this application until such time as it is completed; 2. that the possible subdivision of the former Leisure Greens ises and the existence of the right-of-way may affect the validity e application of Seacroft Ltd. and, in any event, must further nsidered from an environmental and planning standpoint; and 3. that, while it is this Board's position that the time period ovided for in the Town Code for action by this Board has not nced to run, nonetheless, the stated time period for Board action es on the 5th day of February 1985; and the applicant not having ated that it will prepare and file a DEIS, the application of oft Ltd. for site plan approval is denied. ve?'7. truly Y?7s:/ /? / 'F\_JL~-F&l-~ rr' Bennett Orlowski, Jr./, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board dms cc: Commissioner, DEC Daniel Larkin, DEC Supervisor Francis Murphy Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission . , . !1 Southold. N. Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 December 17, 1984 Mr. R'chard Cron Attor ey at Law Main oad Cutch gue, NY 11935 Re: Dear on th 8:00 and f lease be advised that the matter of Seacroft will appear Board's calender for the meeting of January 7, 1985 at .m. for the purpose of reviewing the status of this matter r possible Board action thereon. ~?l~;;~~ Bennett Orlowski, Jr., ~irman Southold Town Planning Board FY:dm NOV 9 _4 ( . COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ( PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMEN OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H. COMMISSIO....ER November 8, 1984 Town of Southo1d P1an ing Board Main Road Sout 1d, New York 11971 Att: Diane M. Schu1tze Secretary E: Seacroft at Cutchoque Dear rs. Schu1tze: 1ease excuse the 1ate response of your 1etter of September 13, how- ever, my secretary took an extended 1eave to enter into matrimony. The depar ment does not current1y have a mode1 covenant regarding adu1t resid ncy, however, in the past, simi1ar app1ications have been accepted fo11o ing H.U.D.S. requirements in that at 1east one resident be 55 years of ag or more and wi11 not have any minor chi1dren under 21 years of age residi g with them. I sub-su dens it the past week, the writer has received revised site p1ans indicating face denitrification of the sewage, neverthe1ess, under the proposed , the department wi11 sti11 require this restrictive covenant. T is office wi11 be very happy to provide you with a copy when same has be n submitted for review. S ou1d you have any further questions, p1ease fee1 free to contact the writer RWJ/ctk Very tru1y yours, ~ ;;:2/J~~ A./Z-<e// Robert W. JeWe1~-;~E~- Pub1ic Hea1th Engineer Wastewater Management Section COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD.N.Y.11901 548-3313 2.~"", \I1c:.\c,1 I. ' \..u:t . t Southald. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765..1938 November 7, 1984 ichard Cron ttorney at Law ain Road utchogue, NY 11935 e: Seacroft site plan located at Cutchogue Mr. Cron: Please let this confirm the action of the Planning oard at the regular meeting of November 5, 1984 regarding he above mentioned site plan. WHEREAS, on or about April of 1984, SEACROFT, LTD., a York Corporation having an address at Main Road, Cutchogue, w York, 11935, submitted a preliminary sketch plan and attended pre-submission conference in anticipation of submitting a plication for site plan approval for the construction of 160-unit condominium project to be constructed on approximately .12 acres of land situate off Griffing Street in the Hamlet Cutchogue in conjunction with a shopping plaza of approximately ,000 square feet on an abutting parcel to the south which id parcel is bounded on the east by Griffing Street; and WHEREAS, as of the 17th day of October, 1984, the plicant has submitted to the Board a certified set of plans r the construction of a 160 condominium units and is w requesting site plan approval therefor, pursuant to tic Ie XIII of the Code of the Town of SouthOld; and WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed the original preliminary s etch, minutes of the pre-submission conference and the c rtified plan submitted and has received a report from its p anner relating to the environmental impacts of this project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that it is this Board's determination that the a plication of SEACROFT, Ltd. for site plan approval is subject t the provisions of Article 8a the Environmental Conservation L w (SEQRA), and be it Mr. Richararon ( November 7, 1984 . ...... ~ a.ge 2 ----------------------------------------------------- FURTHER RESOLVED, it is this Board's desire to be the lead agency with respect to this action. The other interested agencies are the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the Suffolk County Planning Commission which agencies after informal conferences have indicated their willingness to have this Board act as lead agency. In the interest of expediting the review process this Board hereby declares itself to be the lead agency with respect to this action, and it is , FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed action is a Type 1 action as defined by Article 8 of the"'Environmental Conservation Law (SEQRA) and the regulations thereunder, in that it consists of the construction of new residential units 'in excess of 50 units which are not proposed to be connected at the commencement of habitation to community or publicly owned utilities. , . Alternatively, in the event such action were not to be determined a Type 1 action, such action ,would constitute an unlisted action which will have a significant impact on the environment, which impacts are set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form, Part III, on file with this Board. Further, this project and its environmental impacts must be viewed in conjunction with the proposed construction of the adjacent shopping plaza and the significant environmental impacts likely to result therefrom. Under either classification, this action is significant, and it is , FURTHER RESOLVED, therefore, that a full DEIS be prepared, by the applicant, and it is, FURTHER 'RESOLVED thatSEACROFT'S, ~pplicati6n' for site plan approval shall not be deemed complete until a draft IS has been accepted by this Board as lea~ agency as atisfactory with respect to scope, content, and adequacy, nd be it FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of this Board be irected to prepare and forward to the appropriate agencies nd departments a notice of positive declaration, pursuant o 6 NYCRR part 617,'and any appropriate local law of the own of Southold. Enclosed, herewith, is a copy of the Assessment Form art II and Part III, and positive declaration notice. ve~:JrUlY y~un. / J! / /{~j..."..JpL'c!~-"_"<-L/'<--'G ~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., ~aAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD ms nc. - , , . ( . 'f~lD . T~~~"gJl..C.2JV~~LD sD'F.voLK~~tfflTY ~ ( " Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 SEQR POSITIVE DECLA~TION November 7 , 1984 Town of Southold Planning Board, LEAD AGENCY Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Seacroft, Ltd. SEQR Positive Declaration GENTLEMEN: This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determineq that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. ~ Title of Action: Seacroft, Ltd. SEQR Status: Type 1 Description of Action: Construction of 160 unit condominium' with adjacent shopping plaza as a planned stage of development. Locatiqfi.: Off Griffing Street Hamlet of Cutchogue Town of Southold Suffolk County New York " . ( . \ Reasons Supporting this Determination: See Annexed Rider For Further Information Contact: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1938 Signature .~~~,a/aLI/ / ee'S: Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-0001 Daniel Larkin, Supervisor Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office Building 40 . SUNY Stony Brook, New York 11790 Hon. Francis Murphy Supervisor, Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Center Riverhead, New York 11901 jsouthold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Suffolk County Planning Commission Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Seacroft, Ltd. Main Road Cutchogue, New York 11925 2 - -. . ( . \ , PART III STAT ,E:liS in". on At:3c~m.nts. IS n.eded) atored and incomplete report.. was. presented to the Town at endment affecting this parcel, leaving significant gaps and de at the presubmission conference in April. the time of unsubstantiated . (Con AI\. .Wlcoord' . the Zoning . statements m 1. Construc ion lm act Unaddres eo in the past, construction will cause a disruptive effect on the neighbor- hood due to dust, noise, soil erosion, air pollution and alteration of surface drainage. A detailed description of construction staging, including design methods to minim ze ~pacts is needed, including phasing of the project. In addition the impact f the construction of the shopping center, its disruptive effects 06 the neighbo hood and the adjacent school, due to the factors related above, must be cons ide ed. 5. Gro The vane gro ber and concentration of dwellings will require an SCDHS permit and ad- treatment will be necessary to prevent serious impacts on No a roved water source or public system exists to serve the development. The quali.y of the grour.dwater has not been established in the application. DEC LI Well Permit will be needed because pumping. will exceed 45 gpm. oject will adversely affect groundwater due to a) nitrates in sewage advanced wastewater treatment is included, b) nitrates in fertilizer areas, c) household chemicals. The the wells or pr its p all u use 32,000 gpd on an average, which could easily double in summer months. The possibility of an adverse effect on surrounding is possible. This needs further study. In addition, the water system, posed water system, for the shopping center must be considered due to oximity to the well proposed for the condo~inium project and the over- age considered in conjunction with usage of the condominium itself. 10. Visua Im act A den with with visua cente consi e development of 160 multiple family dwellings is visually incompatible he single family hamlet of Cutchogue. It will be difficult to screen ess than mature specimens of large scale vegetation. In addition to the impact of the condominium project, the visual impact of the shopping adjacent to the school and school grounds is a factor that must be ered. 12. Recre tional Demand The i fusion of several hundred senior citizens into a small hamlet will strain exist ng recreational resources. mhe small community center included in the proje t will not mitigate this impact. '. . . ( . ~ 13. Traf ic 1m act An i complete traffic study was presented with the zoning change. A study in- clud ng summer traffic is needed to more properly assess the impacts at Route 25 a d Griffing Street. The proximity to the Cutchogue School may also present prob ems on Schoolhouse Lane and Depot Road with development traffic. A large incr ase in non-driving senior citizens presents a further demand on the com- muni y's practically non-existent public transportation system. The traffic stu failed to consider the impact of the shopping center at Route 25 and Grif ing Street, and failed to consider the traffic impact on the school site and ust be revised and made all inclusive. 11. 1m e Communit At 1 construction in one-year, a population increase of nearly 15% will be expe ienced by the Cutchogue community. This will include the impacts already ment oned as well as increased ambulance and emergency medical calls, police patr ls and emergency police calls, fire service, and elderly medical service. Alth ugh there is a need for senior citizen housing in Southold, housing alone does 't begin to provide the services needed by senior citizens. This develop- ment proposal doesn't address them. In addition to the impact on the Cute ogue community due to the dramatic increase in population with attendant incr ases in demands for community services, the inclusion of a shopping center adja ent to the condominium project must be considered, owing to its likely impa t on the existing community and it probable attraction of additional people to t e community. 18. Publ c Controvers The impa coul lanning Board was not contacted during t at the time of the Zoning Amendment. have been addressed at that time. the consideration of environmental Many of the issues presented here Obje spur len tions to the proposed development have surfaced in the Cutchogue community, ing the creation of at least one new civic group, the submission of a hy petition opposing the project and the objection of several abuttors. Cone usion It i the conclusion of Part III that there is a need for a coordinated SEQRA revi w of these elements and that the proposed action is a Type 1 action which req res that a positive declaration be made and a full EIS prepared. . '. . . .,1.-.' . . (..'OWN OF SOUTHOLD . ( .0 . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS INFO~AA not: - Plrt 3 I pre.lred If on. or OOre tmplCt or .ff.ct Is consld.red to b. pot.ntlally larg.. - TIl. lJI\Ou t of writing n.clSsary to lns....r P,rt 3 ..ay ~. det.....lned by lnsw.rlng the ou.stlon: In brl.flv co~pletl the Instruct~ons b.low hlV' I plac.d tn t~;s r.cord sufflcl.nt info",atlon to Indlcat. the r.asonabl n.ss af ~'d.clslons? , \ . , . INST?UCTlOIIS COmpl.te the foll~.lng for each Impact or .ff.ct Id.ntlfled In 'COlumn 2 of Plrt 2, 1. Brl.fly IScrlb. the Impact. Z. O.scrlbe (If appllcabl.) how the Impact might be mitigated or r.duced to a l.ss than ;lr9' Impact by I pro- ject c~a g.. 3. Bas.d on the Infor.r~tlon avallabl.. d.cld. If It Is reasonable to conclud. that this Impact Is Imoort.nt to the m nlclpaltty (city, town or vll1ag.) In whlc" the proj.ct is located. To ans...er the question of Importsnc., consld.r: The probability of the Impact or .ffect occ~rr;ng - The duration of the Impact Or effect . Its Irreversibility, Including perman.ntly lost r.sources or val~es Whether the Impact or .ff.ct can b. controll.d ~h. regional consequence of the Impact or .ffect ts potential dlvergenc. from local needs and ;oals hether known objections to the project a.,ly to this Impact or effect. " OEOE?.I'[NATiON OF SIG:nFlc;.NCE An ctlon Is conslder.d to b. significant If: On. (or ~4r.) Imoact Is dete....lned to both ~ and Its (th.ir) cons.quenca, based on the r.view .bo e. fs 1mcor~ant. PART II I STAT ~E.'liS I (Co tin". on Attachm.nts. IS n.ed.d) Art .\mcoord lnatored and incomplete report.., WaS, presented to the Town at the time of the Zoning ~endment affecting this parcel, leaving significant gaps and unsubstantiated . statements I ade at the presubmission conference in April. 1. Constru tion Imoact Unaddre, sed in the past, construction will cause a disruptive effect on the neighbor- hood dUI to dust, noise, soil erosion, air pollution and alteration of surface drainage. A detailed description of construction staging, including design methods to minu~ze impacts is needed, including phasing of the project. In addition the impact f the construction of the shopping center, its disruptive effects on the neighbo hood and the adjacent school, due to the factors related above, must be conside ed. . ( . ( 5. Gro dwater Qualit The number and concentration of dwellings will require an SCDHS permit and ad- van ed wastewater treatment will be necessary to prevent serious impacts on gro dwater. No pproved water source or public system exists to serve the development. The qua ity of the groundwater has not been established in the application. An SDEC LI Well Permit will be needed because pumping. will exceed 45 gpm. The project will adversely affect groundwater due to a) nitrates in sewage unl ss advanced wastewater treatment is included, b) nitrates in fertilizer of awnareas, c) household chemicals. The project will use 32,000 gpd on an average, which could easily double in the dry summer months. The possibility of an adverse effect on surrounding wel s is possible. This needs further study. In addition, the water system, or roposed water system, for the shopping center must be considered due to its proximity to the well proposed for the condominium project and the over- all usage considered in conjunction with usage of the condominium itself. 10. Vis al 1m act A d nse development of 160 multiple family dwellings is visually incompatible wit the single family hamlet of Cutchogue. It will be difficult to screen wit less than mature specimens of large scale vegetation. In addition to the vis al impact of the condominium project, the visual impact of the shopping cen er adjacent to the school and school grounds is a factor that must be con idered. 12. Rec eational Demand The infusion of several hundred senior citizens into a small hamlet will strain exi ing recreational resources. mhe small community center included in the pro ect will not mitigate this impact. 13. Tra ic 1m act 17. An i complete traffic study was presented with the zoning change. A study in- clu 'ng summer traffic is needed to more properly assess the impacts at Route d Griffing Street. The proximity to the Cutchogue School may also present ems on Schoolhouse Lane and Depot Road with development traffic. A large ase in non-driving senior citizens presents a further demand on the com- y's practically non-existent public transportation system. The traffic failed to consider the impact of the shopping center at Route 25 and ing Street, and failed to consider the traffic impact on the school site ust be revised and made all inclusive. t On Cutcho e Communit 1 construction in one-year, a population increase of nearly 15% will be ienced by the Cutchogue community. This will include the impacts already , . ( . ( me tioned as well as increased ambulance and emergency medical calls, police pa rols and emergency police calls, fire service, and elderly medical service. Al hough there is a need for senior citizen housing in Southold, housing alone do sn't begin to provide the services needed by senior citizens. This develop- me t proposal doesn't address them. In addition to the impact on the Cu chogue community due to the dramatic increase in population with attendant in reas~~ in de~ands for community services, the incluRion of a shopping center adj cent to the condominium project must be considered, owing to its likely im ct on the existing community and it probable attraction of additional people to he community. Controvers 18. Pu Th Planning Board was not contacted during the consideration of environmental im ct at the time of the Zoning Amendment. Many of the issues presented here co d have been addressed at that time. ctions to the proposed development have surfaced in the Cutchogue community, ring the creation of at least one new civic group, the submission of a thy petition opposing the project and the objection of several abuttors. Con lusion It s the conclusion of Part III that there is a need for a coordinated SEQRA rev ew of these elements and that the proposed action is a Type 1 action which req ores that a positive declaration be made and a full EIS prepared. ~ t . . T Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 SEQR POSITIVE DECLA~TION November 7 , 1984 Town of Southo1d Planning Board, LEAD AGENCY Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 . Re: Seacroft, Ltd. SEQR Positive Declaration GENTLEMEN: This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determineq that the proposed action described below may have a.significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Title of Action: Seacroft, Ltd. SEQR Status: Type 1 escription of Action: Construction of 160 unit condominium' with adjacent shopping plaza as a planned stage of development. ocation: Off Griffing Street Hamlet of Cutchogue Town of Southold Suffolk County New York r , . . . . f Reasons Supporting this Determination: See Annexed Rider For Further Information Contact: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1938 ~-) "rJ /-,// ~/f / ignature ~) b, ,,4~L-L . // r-/ cc's: Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-0001 Daniel Larkin, Supervisor Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office Building 40 SUNY Stony Brook, New York 11790 Hon. Francis Murphy Supervisor, Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Center Riverhead, New York 11901 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 1.1971 Suffolk County Planning Commission Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Seacroft, Ltd. Main Road Cutchogue, New York 11925 2 . PART III 51 ATE/1 liS . . . (Conti "e on At:ac~ments. ,5 n.eded) . . Art .uncoordin tored and incomplete report. wos . presented to the Town at the time of the Zoning Am ndment affecting this parcel, leaving significant gaps and unsubstantiated . statements ma e at the presubmission conference in April. 1. Construct Unaddress hood due to minimi impact 0 neighbor considere on 1m act d in the past, construction will cause a disruptive effect on the neighbor- dust, noise, soil erosion, air pollution and alteration of surface drainage. A detailed description of construction staging, including design methods e ~pacts is needed, including phasing of the project. In addition the the construction of the shopping center, its disruptive effects o~ the od and the adjacent school, due to the factors related above, must be 5. Ground ater Then vanced ground ber and concentration of dwellings will require an SCDHS permit and ad- wastewater treatment will be necessary to prevent serious impacts On ater. No app oved water source or public system exists to serve the development. The qualit of the groundwater has not been established in the application. EC LI Well Permit will be needed because pumping. will exceed 45 gpm. ject will adversely affect groundwater due to a) nitrates in sewage advanced wastewater treatment is included, b) nitrates in fertilizer areas, c) household chemicals. An NYS The pr unless of la The pr the wells or pro its pr all us use 32,000 gpd on an average, which could easily double in summer months. The possibility of an adverse effect on surrounding s possible. This needs further study. In addition, the water system, osed water system, for the shopping cent~r must be considered due to ximity to the well proposed for the condominium project and the over- ge considered in conjunction with usage of the condominium itself. 10. Visual Im act A dens with t wi th 1 visual center conside development of 160 multiple family dwellings is visually incompatible single family hamlet of Cutchogue. It will be difficult to screen s than mature specimens of large scale vegetation. In addition to the mpact of the condominium project, the visual impact of the shopping djacent to the school and school grounds is a factor that must be ed. 12. Recreat onal Demand The inf existin project sion of several hundred senior citizens into a small hamlet will strain recreational resources. IDee small community center included in the will not mitigate this impact. . . . . ~ '13. Traff c 1m act An in cludi 25 an probl incre munit study Griff andm omplete traffic study was presented with the zoning change. A study in- g summer traffic is needed to more properly assess the impacts at Route Griffing Street. The proximity to the Cutchogue School may also present ms on Schoolhouse Lane and Depot Road with development traffic. A large se in non-driving senior citizens presents a further demand on the com- 's practically non-existent public transportation system. The traffic failed to consider the impact of the shopping center at Rcute 25 and ng Street, and failed to consider the traffic impact on the school site st be revised and made all inclusive. 11. 1m ac on Cutcho e Communit At construction in one-year, a population increase of nearly 15% will be experi nced by the Cutchogue community. This will include the impacts already menti ned as well as increased ambulance and emergency medical calls, police patro s and emergency police calls, fire service, and elderly medical service. Altho h there is a need for senior citizen housing in Southold, housing alone doesn t begin to provide the services needed by senior citizens. This develop- ment roposal doesn't address them. In addition to the impact on the Cutch gue community due to the dramatic increase in population with attendant incre Ses in demands for community services, the inclusion of a shopping center adjac nt to the condominium project must be considered, owing to its likely impac on the existing community and it probable attraction of additional people to th community. 18. Publi Controvers The P impac could Objec spurr lengt Concl It is review re'luir anning Board was not contacted during at the time of the Zoning Amendment. ave been addressed at that time. . the consideration of environmental Many of the issues presented here to the proposed development have surfaced in the Cutchogue community, g the creation of at least one new civic group, the submission of a petition opposing the proj~ct and the objection of several abuttors. ion he conclusion of Part III that there is a need for a coordinated SEQRA of these elements and that the proposed action is a Type 1 action which s that a positive declaration be made and a full EIS prepared. eI . r ) Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 October 26, 1984 Mr. Richard Cron Attorney at Law Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Dear Mr. Cron: Please be advised that the matter of Seacroft is scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on November 5, 1984 for Planning Board consideration of your request for site plan approval. ~~~} BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR~AIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BO~RD Idms TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 (E(76S-1802 OC1 is \984 . ( . Oct. 18,1984 Planning Board Town of Southo1d Main Rd. Southo1d,N.Y. 11971 Subject: Seacroft at Cutchogue Site Plan. Gentlemen: Attached are two sets of site plans for the above proposed deve1opement. I have made a review of this plan and can certify that all zoning requirements have been meet for this M Zoned District. Yours Truly Edward Hindermann Building Inspector Copy sent to: Richard J. Cron Esq. EFH/dsm ~~~\'\J\ '-' '\\ \0\ . ( . eEL. 765-1802 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 Oct. 18,1984 Richard J.Cron Esq. Main Rd. Cutchogue,N.Y. 11935 Re: Seacroft at Cutchogue, Site Plan Dear Mr. Cron, This will acknowledge receipt of three sets of plans you delivered to me earlier this week for certification. I have made a review of the site develope- ment proposed and find that it meets all zoning requirements. I will foward two sets of site plans with a letter to the Planning Board which will certify site developement plan as required under Art XIII See 100-133 C & D. 1 TrUlY, Edward Hindermann Building Inspector EFH/dsm ..~. ".' .J, 0 \..._\ -. / ,'") \' G '"' "~J <r' >- \}"", -.:loA. , , . <, ") ~J: '1 ~.~ -" I, , . ~ - i " , . ( .. OCT r71984 RECEl\/(~i TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FEB ,'" '".' " J,~ .J I.;..J j EAF EHVIRO;IHEHTAL ASS~SSHENT - PART I lown Clerk Soulhold Project Infonmation HOTlC : effec as 01 any a t is e pectee tn~t cc~olct;on of the EAF w!ll be dependent on infonmation current1y avaflable involv7 ~ew studle5,.resedrc~_cr investiQatlon. If information re~uirin~ such additional work so 1ndl te and speclfy each lnstance. ThiS documen~ i~ des'~ned to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have_ a significant on the ellvl"':~i~nt. Pieas! complete the entire Data Sheet. AnsweN to these ~uestions will be considered of the avplication for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide ftiona1 1nformation you believe will be needed to comoletp. PARTS Z and 3. and will not is unavailable, :lANE PROJECT: NAME ANO AODRESS OF OWHER (If Different) LEISURE GREENS ASSOCIATES c/o Richard F. Lark, Esq. (Name) Main Road (Street) Cutchogue 'l'P.Cl 11935 (Zip) SEA ROFT AT CUTCHOGUE ""ORE AHD NAME OF APPLICAHT: Ric ard J. Cron INa... Mai Road ISt""eFJ Cut hogue New York (State) BU51 Ness PHONE: (516) 734-6807 le.u. New York ptate) 11935 (Zip) DESCRI TIO~ OF PROJECT, (Briefly describe type of project or action) Proposed retirement community con isting of 160 condominium units with occupant thereof being of minimum age 55 ears. (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - Indicate N.A. if not applicable) A. SI E DESCRIPTION (P ys1cal setting of overail project, both develoned and undeveloced areas) 1. General character of the land: Generally unifonn slope V Generally uneven and rnll1ng or irrelJular 2. J. Present land use: UrDo\n , Industrial _, A.griculture JL:.,. Other iotal acreage of oroject area: t.Lacres. , Conmercial _I Suburban ._.' Rural --' Forest Aoprox1mate acreage: Meadow or Brushland Presently After Completion Presently After Completion __acres I-later Surface Area Unvegetated (roc~. enth or fi 11) ___acres _acres _acres acres ___ac"~s Forested ______acres AQr"lcultural auacres 'JfI't14nd (Fre3hwater or Tidal ~s oer Articles ~4. :-~ or C'.C.L.) __acres aCres ---'2-acres Roads, buildin~s and other paved surfo'l.ces -1:J_acres L~ac".s _acres Other (indicate ty~e) Riverhead Loam __acres acres 4, '~ra!: 15 '"'''edomjn~nt soil type(s) on I1roject site? s. ../~C ~~e :nerp JPdrOC( outcro?oinos on ~rnipct s;t~? . YP.S t, ........at is dP';Jth tc bedrock? ...:.;;..._I.~_C!__-r::_. ._. {'n ":eet} 9:1::5 ( . ( . '~/.-:l-.. _I ~.r~ l> ; J,l \.. fI 6. A.,proxir. te percentage of proposed Droject site with sloaes: greater 1-1. Is proje t contiguous ~ or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? _Yes ~No 8. What is he depth to the water table? ~feet 0-10~ ~~; In-l~~ _____l; IS~ or 7. 9. 10. Do hunt; 9 or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? _____yes v""NO Does pro ect site contai~ a~ species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endan~er d 6 ______yes ~~O. according to . Identify each species 11. Are ther any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? {i.e. c11ffs. dunes. other geological formatio s - _____yes ~No. (Describe 12. Is the p oject Si~sentlY used by the community or neighborhood as area - _ f--Yes No. Does the resent site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to _____yes ~No 14. Streams thin or contiguous to project area: an open space or recreation 13. be important to the community? a. Name f stream and name of river to which it is tributary II/,/} . 15. lakes. Po ds, Hetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Uame .tv. II> ; b. Size (in acres) 16. What;s t single fa singl B. PROJECT OESC e dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. ily residential. R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story). family residential-one story; agricultural; IPTlON commercial-business- one story 1. PhYSical imensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total c ntiguous acreage owned by project sponsor i.#.J /, acres. b. Project acreage developed: "6'/6acres initially;L/{/o acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped --'2-______. d. Length f project, in miles: 1/:.,4 I (if appropriate) e. If proj ct is an expansion of existing. indicate percent of expansion proposed: bUilding square foot- age _ ; deve loped acreage f. ~lurYDe,. f off-strEP.t parking spaces existin(J 0 proposed fA ~ 0 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour X>l7 (upon completion of project) h. If resi ~ntial: Number and type of housing units: :)ne Famlly Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial /60 Ultimat " /(,0 i. If: Orientation :!ei ghbo rhood-C i ty- Reg i ana 1 Corrmerc a 1 . 'j J Estimated Emoloyment Industri 1 j. Total h ight of tallest r'lranosed structure _~$_.feet. . -2- ~ v' FJ~" r ~'. . ., ( ...., removed from the ( site - 2. How mucn natur~l material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be o o tons cubfc yards. J. ow many acres of veqetation (trees. shrubs. ground covers) will be r~ved fr~ site ~acr~s. 4. 111 any mature forest (over lQO years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by thlS roject? _Yes -lLNo 5. re thprr. any plans for re.vagetation to replace that removed during construction? ~es ~jo 6. f single ohase project: Anticioated period of construction ~month5. (including demolition). 7. f multi.~hased oroject: a. Total number of phases anticipated _____No. b. Anticioated date of commencement phase ~ _____month ~vear (includ;~g de."lition) c. Approximate completion date final phase month .-----year. d. Is phase 1 financiall.v dependent on subseouent phases? _Yes _No 8. ill blasting occur during construction? ______yes ~o 9. umber of jobs generated: during construction ~ ; after project is complete ~. 10. umber of jobs eliminated by this project ~. 11. 111 project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ______yes /NO. If yes. exclain: / 12. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes ______No. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage. industrial, etc.) .('ewAC4..- If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged l5 13. ill surface area of existing lakes. p~ds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased ar eereased by proposal? _____yes ~No. s project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? _____yes ~NO Does project involve disposal of solid waste? ~ Yes _____No 14. 15. If yes, will an existing solid waste disoosal facility be used? _____yes /NO If yes, give name: : location 16. !Jill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system c:/into ill project use herbicides or pp.sticides? _____yes ~NO a sanitary landfill? _____yes ~NO 17. ill project routinely produce odors (more than one hour Der day)? _____yes ~NO 18. 19. loc~ ambience noise levels? _____yes ~No Lves ----,NO. If yes, indicate type(s) ill project produce operating noise exceeding the ill project result in an increase in energy use? v,c.."",- 20. f water sUDoly is from wells indicate pumoing capacity ;:<20 gals/minute. 21. otal anticioated water usage per daY~~~""9als/day. 22. oning: a. \-/hat is dOMinant zoning classification of site? _A-Rp~i c1pnt-i rll-Agri ~111 t-l1ral b. Current specific zoning classification of site ____-5~ c. !s orooosed use co"sisten: l<l'ith nresent zonlnq? No d. If no, indicate desired zon'n9 ____ .~f1.Li.<lll~t.ip.LE<_Re.sidence .J- 26. (' . Appro a1s: a. Is any Federal permit required? ( _Y-es ~o .J .), .. " " ,\ <'. b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? ____yes c. local and Regional approvals: ~NO City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City, Town, Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies C. INFORMATI NAl DETAilS Attach an additional information adverse t acts associated with taken to itigate or avoid t Approval ReqUired (Ves, No) (Type) l7"" -.:;;;r ...:u-r... ~::!.... ""'AT.c...(...kt...."C..- / Submittal Approval (Date) (Date) to clarify your project. If there are or may be any scuss such impacts and the measures which can be PREPARER' TITLE: REPRESENT NG: DATE: SEACROFT AT CUTCHOGUE February 15. 1983 .4- roo,' "~ l}. ,J. .;~, I .' . ( .T17G4 734-5100 AREA CODE 516 -e~ ~N -e~ ~~ .9 e ~-.c .9.5"..1 -G'~. JY'?!/ //.9..1.5"-tJtJ..1.! .9Pd84'd' . ~ ~.~. .~.. .?~ .....6~.:J1_ .r~ #'a .., ~~~., ,j"4(J(J .A/JI: ?d'd ~ fJ~, .r~ J.?O'?.? October 16, 1984 Ben Sou Tow Sou ett Orlowski, Jr., hold Town Planning Hall - Main Road hold, NY 11971 Chairman Board Re: Seacroft Dea Mr. Orlowski: Pursuant to Article XIII, SlOO-133, I have submitted to the Southold Town Building Inspector, in triplicate, the site dev lopment plan relative to the above captioned. In the light thereof, I would request that the matter of ite plan approval be placed on the Planning Board Agenda at you regular meeting of November 5, 1984. As you heretofore requested, Seacroft, Ltd., a New York cor ration, is the owner of record of the subject premises. The add ess of the corporation is Main Road, P.O. Box 953, Cutchogue, NY 1935. There are no existing deed restrictions or covenants aff ting the premises. Any future deed restrictions or cove- nan s will be as requested by the Attorney General of the State of w York for a condominium filing. Each home or residence, howe er, will be legally bound by the following rule: "Occupancy of the Homes shall be restricted to Residential Occupancy in accordance with the applicable zoning regulations of the community and may only be occupied by per- sons over the age of 55 years, with the following exceptions: (a) A husband or wife under the age of 55 years may reside with his or her spouse, provided that spouse is of the age of 55 years or over; and c::i1Qrv\ ,:> I ') !~ Il/-t", , . :> I.. i ". (~ " not Jul a S by 100 Jun of sit you gar sci pro com had cop Boa Aug arr 198 198 dam PIa tha age dom. revi you whic a SE . ( ( . Ben Sou Oct pag ett Orlowski, Jr., hold Town Planning ber 16, 1984 two Chairman Board "(b) A child or children may reside with their parent or parents if said child or children is or are over the age of 19 years, provided that one of said parents with whom the child or children is residing is 55 years of age or over." In submitting all documents for site plan approval, I am unmindful of your letters of June 4, 1984, June 27, 1984, 11, 1984 and August 9, 1984. In reviewing your demands for QR process, particularly where one has already been completed he Town Board, as lead agency, I find it difficult to over- the discrepencies in your demands. Firstly, your letter of 4, 1984 requests a DEIS and updated traffic study, neither hich you were legally entitled to demand for the purpose of plan review. Secondly, on June 25, 1984, by Resolution of Board, you improperly declared lead agency status with re- to the Seacroft site plan, which status you promptly re- ded on July 9, 1984. Thirdly, on June 27, 1984, again im- erly, you advised that Part I of the long form EAF had to be leted for site plan purposes, when in fact a Part I EAF form been completed for the Town Board as lead agency, a certified of which I enclose herewith, as found in the file of the Town d. Finally, prematurely and incorrectly, you advised on st 9, 1984 that Seacroft was removed from its previously nged appointment on the Planning Board Agenda for August 27, , for alleged non-compliance with your letters of June 4, and June 27, 1984. The Seacroft project has sustained irreparable harm and ges due to incorrect and improper demands made by you and the ing Board and, in particular, with demands for a SEQR process has already been fully completed by the Town Board as lead y. The demands made by you have not been made on other con- ium projects which have been before your Board for site plan w. Are there other reasons and motives for these actions? The correspondence and demands from your Board do not ate compliance with the basic SEQR process. In the light of, I consider same to be illegal and unwarranted and ob- ly designed to impede and delay the successful completion of eacroft project. In the light of the foregoing, I do hereby demand that pecifically advise me in writing the applicable law(s) upon you base the demands you have made for the institution of R process by your Board and, in particular, the completion ., ,', S \0.' ,. I . , Ben Sou Oet Pag of for and . ett Orlowski, Jr., hold Town Planning ber 16, 1984 three ( . ( Chairman Board DEIS as set forth in your Part I, EAF, as set forth August 9, 1984. RJC e Ene osure letter of June 4, 1984, and a long in your letters of June 27, 1984 In reply to the foregoing, kindly advise of a time to app ar for site plan approval at your regular meeting of Novem- ber 5, 1984. . . ,.~;..' - ., t) State of N ew York Suffolk Cau ty Office of the Cle k of the Town of So hold '.. (Seal) /. , ' . ss: This is to certify that I, Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk of .the Town of Southold in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy of Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form from the file of Richard.J... Cron.,.. change.. oi.. zelle.,.. AIreo.c:lroont.l\Ta...1J.6............... ...... with the original new on file in this office, and that the same is a correct Aart I of the En1irorupfintti and true transcript of such original .....!?!?~!?~!).;t;..J:'!?:rm....:mm..t.!?....~+.~..of Amendment No. 116 J;U.c.tl?J:SL.J.,...<J::9.nAl<hlmg!'l..R;!;..,;S)!!!'l.l.................. and the whole thereof. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Town this ........:1..UJ:A............... day of .......Q\<J;QOO);'........... 19..~.~.. J.~~.-i&~ Town Clerk of the Town of South old, ~ of Suffolk, N. Y. . . . - ~." ..;;J1. '~ ' I AM OPPOSED TO CURRENT PLANS FOR THE 160 UNIT SEACROFT "':' ,"- CONDOMINIUM IN CUTCHOGUE, PLEASE REGISTER MY OBJECTIONS WITH ALL GO E NMENTAL AUTHORITIES WITH CON~L 0 ER THE PR?JECT, '7.' !tv. "-~,\:;, lv,/, SIGNA TURf If 1 "\. 51 f Ir nJRE ~2 . IJ . r-f.( of (p.,-dl:: I )I'L I-,.v t. L ," <.:L NAME (PRINT) NAME jPRINTl f.D'~,{-:;-7C {"tJ..O)l'l' ')'\10 (~l<l~ ADDRESS . ~ ~ '\. <1:J ~ C.) ZIP "I To S.O.S. -t I AM OPPOSED TO CURRENT PLANS FOR THE 160 UNIT SEACROFT CONDOMINIUM IN CUTCHOGUE. PLEASE REGISTER MY OBJECTIONS WITH ( ALL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES WITH CPNTR OVER THE PROJECT. --,,/} .....~-',..- J ,[ ,'" " ,// c' n.v _'-I l / . .-'1.-1'-'-''__./ . . '- ~ - -,'" / / SIGNATURE "'I I/;;tv' ,." ,(-;/.-~/!'": J' NAME IPRINT).-, /. '- .' //rl,-~/~/)7i) :,/:/-,(~: I'Z~) 7- T:' :r:.( ( C Ifl!.!)!.' ADDRESS." _ ' _ ".~ \ \_, ',:J^t.-=/() ,/-of/.F. 7;6;.:;- ?t/~....r-J.'lfj6T7)..<.,,//1./ '",I' .', :..'1,,0) NATURf'2 'UJI. TE/!.f.-;"Y.'C: NAME IPRINl1 // ZIP f"l. I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE TOWN BOARD REZONING THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO RECEIVING NOTICE FROM S,O.S. To S.O.S. -~',' lr' I AM OPPOSED TO CURRENT PLANS FOR THE 160 UNIT SEACROFT CONDOMINIUM IN CUTCHOGUE, PLEASE REGISTE MY OBJECTION~ITH A G ER NT UTHORITIES WITH CO R L OVER THE P J CT. ~~ L::- SIGNATURE ~~ I ~"C, 1!1/18EL IV1SANFIV NAME (P INn NAME (PRINl'l A::~ ~ 1- PM X' It:} J - Ik;'/f 77'1 roc,{:- .IV /10-' 9' .5;( ./ ADDRESS / ' ,.. ZIP ~OT KNOW ABOUT THE TOWN BOARD REZONING TH~ PROPERTY PRIOR TO RECEIVING NOTICE FROM S,O.S. o ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND MY CONTRIBUTION TO S.O.S. o $50 0 $25 . SEP'6 1984 I:~~:~;TPCANS eDR nUOUN" "ACROFT -t CONDOMINIUM IN CUTCHOGUE. PLEASE REGISTER MY OBJECTIONS WITH A OV R ME~AL AUTHORITIES WITH CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT. I~ - L,---",~L-O SIGNA111RE "I SIGNATURE "2 JdJcleJe. (l uS/. , in ~o NAME fPRINl1 _pee, it1 ~.., "'. dUly Il'i~ ADDRESS ~ M: I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE TOWN BOARD REZONING THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO RECEIVING NOTICE FROM S.O.S. ; t j NAME (PRINT) ZIP : ~~ :~.: PlAN"OR TH' 100 UNIT SCACRO" -t CONDOM,U,ll/tJM IN CUTCHOGUE. PLEASE REGISTER MY OBJECTIONS WITH A~R ENTAJ., UTHORITIES WITH CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT. . / -L ""\ ,,"-. 1\ n c -..-::< .v ^^ -- "i \ -. L\.l.~ . l SIGNATURE " "l NUIitf'f'Nl1PAUl Ir~M'pmNf",Ul Box 734 W. Cove Rd. i!QX 714 W r.nVf~ Rti CU1~~fi~~~. Y. 11935 Culchogue. IV. Y. II~J~ ZIP d I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE TOWN BOARD REZONING THE PROPERTY 1\ PRIOR TO RECEIVING NOTICE FROM S.O.S. I:: ~~:~.: "'""OR TH' 100 UNIT SCACRO" -f CONDOMINIUM IN CUTCHOGUE. PLEASE REGISTER MY OBJECTIONS WITH ALL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES WITH CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT. /}7, <? //;!.". _ L . ~/" --">;'~a:i:;~l . SIGNATURE" !c.Ut(i ~;/en '0 "J.1C> r:z,c.uJ~C ! NAME (PRINT) - Pd. tk. / z.J' ,{c;'.ll,e! ...?c/ ADDRESS .' ~ DID NOT KNOW ABOUT T~~ ~6~N BOARD REZONING THE PROPER'::: PRIOR TO RECEIVING NOTICE FROM S.O.S. o ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND MY CONTRIBUTION TO S 0 S 0$500$25 '" NAME (PRIN1) .TO s.o.s. . ~ .~~. SEP 2 R 1984 I AM OPPOSED TO CURRENT PLANS FOR THE 160 UNIT SEACROFf CONDOMINIUM IN CUTCHOGUE. PLEASE REGISTER MY OBJECTIONS WITH ALL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORIT)ES WITH CONTROL, OVER TI::IE PR9'JECT.. . -" ~'r.l /./1/ ..< "/ . , II.fL/-.. I,-,~~,/::?-,-", '/:c:/ V/C:;U;','d,. SIGNATURE "'1 - ;' ,,'..J./Vt<L I /c , NAME (PRINl) __ r~-.9CoIA ,'( , L. ,..L / ../" ADDRESS . . ;; 1,< " . I ~ ~ [;Y,I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE TOWN BOARD PRIOR TO RECEIVING NOTICE FROM S.O.S. !'" PETER WALSH' !:tILL. ROAD r-ECON I ,-' L NEW ,- .". . I. Y .'RI.. 11 9~.~ . '~.'-; -, .- To S.O.S. -t I AM OPPOSED TO CURRENT PLANS FOR THE 160 UNIT SEACROFf CONDOMINIUM IN CUTCHOGUE. PLEASE REGISTER MY OBJECTIONS WITH ALL G VE. NMEI'}fA~ AUTHORITIES WITH CO ROL OVER THE PROJECT. / p;;;;g IJ I1l1J SIG A RE.t2 ft 0 tJ Co c., i'11\,C L '~.,J p: m k- g. NAME (PRINn t2 . NAME ( RI~ R tr.~ 1-0\' QI R.c i-f L..Cl N~ CUT(I GlUt N'1 ADDRESS 1/4 'l.,/ liP ) ~ I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE TOWN BOARD REZONING THE ~~ERTY . tt I . PRIOR TO RECEIVING NOTICE FROM S.O.S. \ I. I.. . ('0..+-'1' "I To S.O.S. -t I AM OPPOSED TO CURRENT PLANS FOR THE 160 UNIT SEACROFf CONDOMINIUM IN CUTCHOGUE. PLEASE REGISTER MY OBJECTIONS WITH A GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES WITH CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT. L:.." . . a...v" J d NAMEIlJI RINT) LM:h- .J-M''(~ g . ~ 1/ '7:l..J-- . I ZIP ~ I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE TOWN BOARD REZONING THE PROPERTY - --- ---. """'\Tlr"C i=UOM .~.O.S. A ~iD SIGNATURE "'2 ,::~~:~;, -~ CONDOMINIUM IN CUTCHOGG~A~C FOR THE 160 UNIT SEACROFf~' A VERNMENTAL AU, Rl'rIEl~7JHR~GISTER MY OBJECTIONS WITH . ~ 'L ONTROL OVER THE PROJECT. . 1:1 I("'[,t. /, L SIGNATURE '2 c:.r o I ZIP DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE TO PRIOR TO RECEIVING NOTICE FR'(;!:: BOARD REZONING THE PROPERTY o ENCL S.O.S, o $5~SW ~~~ASE FIND MY CONTRIBUTION TO 8.0,<; . ( . ( - I Soulhold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 September 13, 1984 The Board wished to be the lead agency with regard this application, however, we have not as yet received e Long Environmental Assessment Form from the applicant, i order to start the SEQRA process. When this has b en done, we shall notify your office. . Robert W. Jewell, P.E. blic Health Engineer stewater Management Section ffolk County Department of Health Services C unty Center R'~erhead, NY 11901 : Seacroft at Cutchogue Mr. Jewell: The Planning Board is in receipt of you~ August 31, correspondence regarding the above mentioned project. Would you please supply our Board with a copy of the c venants and restrictions which you are requesting regarding t e adult residency. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN ~UTHOLD TOWN PLANNIN~ ~~RD ~~"Lt OA lE1D<:{kJj 'QLcL~ By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary . ( ./ . ( SI:.P 7 1~84 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTME OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H. COMMISSIONER August 31, 1984 T wn of Southo1d Panning Board M in Road S utho1d, New York 11971 RE: Sea croft at Cutchogue Please be advised this office is in receipt of a formal application the above referenced site. The application consists of 160 2 bedroom adult residential units. Thos application under SEQRA is considered a Type 1 action. In accord- an e, coordinated review is requested. The site plan depicts a 46.16 acre parcel situate the end of Griffing St eet with multi family buildings throughout the site. A modified sub- su face sewage disposal system utilizing denitrification is proposed. Ad itiona11y, the developer will be creating a public water supply. Since the deSign criteria alludes to an adult residence, this office wi 1 require restrictive covenants within that vein. Since the requirements of this department can be met, it is requested th t the Town of Southo1d assume lead agency. We will await your reply. Very truly yours~ ,A,:~';~j a~c/f ./ Robert W. Jewell, P.E. Public Health Engineer Wastewater Management Section COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD. N.Y. 11 1 RW /ctk cc: Paul Ponturo Henderson and Bodwell 548-3313 ~~"'I"\/' -'".---\'i0A I""n c.\l." \ . ( . '~~ ~f~~.".r...;M...:...I.;. r:f,.~........o..;..?~. ,'\,0 TO~]~l-~!J,oLD SUFFOLK~OUN:fy ~ (7?; Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 August 30, 1984 Mr. James Cron Attorney at Law Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Site Plan Seacroft Located at Cutchogue Dear Mr. Cron: In order to put this whole matter in perspective, the Planning Board outlines below the actions taken with respect to this . matter to date. '" On April 9, 1984, a presubmission conference was held at which meeting a map dated March 26, 1984 entitled, "Preliminary Site Plan Seacroft, Cutchogue, New York" was submitted. Drawings illustrating typical clusters were also submitted at such conference. . Thereafter, on June 4, 1984, the Planning Board sent Richard' Cron, esq. - a letter setting forth the information required for 1t to proceed and consider the approval of this site plan. On June 27, 1984, the Planning Board sent Richard Cron, esq. Part One of the Long Environmental Assessment Form, with a request that the same be filled out and returned. On July 11, 1984, Richard Cron, esq. was advised that the lanning Board on July 9, 1984 adopted a resolution rescinging lead agency. By letter dated August 7, 1984, hand delivered to the Secretary o the Board, you formally requested that the matter of the pproval of the Seacroft site plan be placed on the August 27, 984 agenda of the Board. On August 8,1984, a letter was sent by you to the Planning oard confirming a discussion of August 7, 1984 r. Ja~' croe Page ( . 8/28/84 --_._-~ .-------------------------------------------- herein you claim to have been given an appointment or August 27, 1984 before the Planning Board for inal site plan approval of Seacroft. On August 9, 1984, you were advised by the Planning oard that they could not accomodate this matter of the site Ian approval of Seacroft at the August 27, 1984 meeting. u were again reminded, in said letter, that the Planning ard had not received the information requested in its tter of June 4, 1984 to you. The last communication that the Planning Board has had f om you is your letter of August 20, 1984 wherein you a cuse the Planning Board of refusal to place the matter o the site plan ~pproval of Seacroft on its agenda. To d te, the Board has not received the proposed site plan c mplying with its previous requirements. Also, to d te, the Planning Board has not received the Environmental A sessment Form, as previously requested. Accordingly, the Planning Board, at this point, has n thing before it upon which it can take any action. Also, as you are aware, the Planning Board must c mply with the provisions of SEQRA. As you are, also, a are the first step in the SEQRA procedure is the c mpletion and filing of an Environmental Assessment Form. S ch requirement has not been met in this matter. , 1t::;Ll22-J!. ! Bennett Orlowski, Jr.~~hairman Southold Town Planning Board RW /dms . ( . c c:'Sf f DU( <C. ^ ,.' ,,~~ PD'J\-NNWLC:BO'^RD !:t~.{..""'I.."':'i..~", -~ \:'I ~ I--.;::.,,>~ 6i:~' ~~- TOW}\! m;~SOU unLD ~~ <~~i~'" ~'fj SU FqLk~(mN y ".'{J/ :,to ''-'0'' 'l. "'-r I' Southold. N,Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 August 22, 1984 Mr. Robert W. Tasker Town Attorney 425 Main Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Seacroft site plan located at Cutchogue ear Mr. Tasker: nclosed is a copy of the correspondence received from r. James Cron, esq. regarding the above mentioned site Ian. he Planning Board would like you to meet with them n Friday, August 24, 1984 at 4:00 p.m. to review this atter, in the Planning Board Office, Town Hall. hank you for your assistance. iJy truly you~ ~, ..-.... . I '~-YV\.~u<-. Dane M . Schultze, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board nc. ... , . ( f RE6VED BY( ,SQUrnOlD .1 ru,llNlNG BlIARD _ AUG 22 1984 DATe ~ ~ .9 tfJ. (jJ~ ,p.j"S -{j'~, JYW //,pS.j".tltlSP 734-5100 AREA CODE 516 ". ,e~ -c~n- -c~ ~.~ /__ . -t'.......' '.Ld..., .'~ -..f.9%..~_ '~#atf;-~"""'-4.' #tJtJ A:1f: 7<Yd ~ ed... .n~ .J.?tf'7.? August 20, 1984 Be ett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman So hold Town Planning Board To Hall - Main Road So hold, NY 11971 Re: Seacroft at Cutchogue Dea Sir: I acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 9, 1984, whe ein you refuse the applicant a place on the Planning Board age da of August 27, 1984, for site development plan approval, not ithstanding a firm date and time for such purpose had been arr nged with the Board on August 7, 1984, confirmed by my let- ter of August 8, 1984. You are hereby advised that the action set forth and the demands in your letter of August 9, 1984, received on August 10, 1984, are invalid and illegal in that they are in violation of 100-133 of the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance. The appli- can was prepared to fully comply with ~100-133 at the time your let er of August 9, 1984 was received. In the light of same, it is ntended that you shall be held fully accountable for any and all damages sustained as a result thereof. You are hereby further advised that in the letter of Ric ard J. Cron, Esq., dated June 28, 1984, demand was made for wit drawal, in writing, of your request for Item E, Nos. 1 & 2, in our letter of June 27, 1984; it is also demanded that you wit draw, in writing, your request for completion of Part I of the long Environmental Assessment Form in the SEQR process in tha said process was completed on the application for the zone cha ge before the Town Board of the Town of Southold. That addi- tio alSEQR process is beyond the jurisdiction of the Southold Tow Planning Board. C~1Jl. ":S \7-2 \:s,- . . . ( . ( Be nett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman So thold Town Planning Board Au ust 20, 1984 Pa e two In the light of the foregoing, I do hereby demand, in wr'ting, within ten (10) days from the date hereof, answers to th following questions: 1. Does the Southold Town Planning Board refuse to permit the applicant to proceed to a meeting of the Board at one of its regularly scheduled meeting dates, selected by the applicant, for the purpose of seeking approval of the appli- cant's site development plan pursuant to ~lOO- 133 of the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance? 2. Where is it stated in ~100-133 that the appli- cant is required to submit to the Planninq Board all of the development plan elements requested in the letter of the Planning Board of June 4, 1984, and Part I, Environmental Assessment Form, requested in letter of June 27, 1984, prior to being placed on a Planninq Board agenda? 3. Does the Southold Town Planning Board refuse to permit the applicant to seek site develop- ment plan approval at one of its regularly scheduled meetings, selected by the applicant, until the applicant prior thereto submits the request set forth in Item E, Nos. 1 & 2 of the Planning Board's letter of June 4, 1984 and Part I of the long Environmental Assessment Form requested in the Planning Board's letter of June 27, 1984? If so, demand is made that same be set forth in a written resolution of the Board, the original or certified copy thereof filed in the Town Clerk's Office with a copy thereof to the undersigned, together with the date of filing. 4. ~lhere is it stated in ~100-133 of the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance that the applicant be subjected to a preliminary site plan review? trust that response shall be made to the undersigned, in wri ing, within ten (10) days from the date hereof. Very truly yours, JJC e ~~~~~~~-- ~~~J.~~ (" . c . FRANCIS J. MURP Y SUPERVISOR MAIN ROAO SOUTHOLO. L.I.. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1800 (516) 765-1939 August 14, 1984 Mr. & Mrs. Alfred Marston P.O Box III Ind an Neck Lane Pec nic, NY 11958 Dea Mr. and Mrs. Marston: I am in receipt of you letter regarding the Seacroft Dev lopment. Your concerns will certainly be taken into con ideration. Your letter has been sent to the Southold Town Planning Boa d and the Consulting Firm of Raymond, Parish, pine and Wei er. I thank you for taking the time to write and express you feeling towards this project. Murphy FJM: 'mr cc: lanning Board .~ -'- .~-...-- . ( . ( ~B If/ , ;l/ki~ ~ ;C.S). ~ f, /9fL( ~. ~4 /~ 8~ i_II 14~; o ti~{ /II} 119 7/ L. r ? l0~ 0k/ h, ~ ~ ~~ t . ~ k-~ ~. ~- tn--.( ---- ~ u<< ~ cP /4. -1/~~ ~ ~~ fr~ --- , Lb) . . 01 evw-h, ~~ -- -- 'd. '\ V' '.:/ ,cr:-Sl \,0 \ "-~ t~\ , ,"-. " - . ( . A~~ ,1.y.......l I n,~ PJ/ANNING:'BOARD 1j.~:;1{""-~.. -~ ~ . T()t\~1:9~tfo.,:{~. ~LD ~ ~' fr'...Q! ;,t'-;_<;__~... ~_:'" N SU FOLK:iCOUN.TY --.lJJ .'!c '';i'O~i,Y "'",~ ;IifJY ( Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 August 9, 1984 r. James Cron, esq. ain Road utchogue, NY 11935 e: Seacraft ar Mr. Cron: this point, we can not accommodate you by putting you- the agenda of August 27, 1984. We refer to our letter June 4, 1984, and at this point we have not received e site development plan elements requested in that letter d the subsequent letter of June 27, 1984 regarding the ng Environmental Assessment Form, Part I. W en we receive this information, we will proceed with the p eliminary site plan review. Very truly yours, ~lOc:~/t~ Southold Town Planning Board / ms ~ " . c . .~~~ P,ti~ffN'!~f~~O.~~_ if t:3 ,.!l;:ii,i'~,r -<. ~ TO,,~~.g,Il'\.~;gJl.( !J.P..!.- D ~ ~ '. r~.._~~,:~~ - -,:-0 if S u FOLK:iCO~.N y -..tJ.I.' ';XOV ..{ .JlI I .... ( ( Southold. N. Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 August 9, 1984 r. James Cron, esq. ain Road utchogue, NY 11935 e: Seacroft this point, we can not accommodate you by putting you the agenda of August 27, 1984. We refer to our letter June 4, 1984, and at this point we have not received e site development plan elements requested in that letter d the subsequent letter of June 27, 1984 regarding the ng Environmental Assessment Form, Part I. W en we receive this information, we will proceed with the p eliminary site plan review. Very truly yours, ~g~,~~ Southold Town Planning Board / ms +- . ( . ( Alln 1 0 19e.4 734-5100 AREA CODe 516 -c~ ~ -C~ ~ .9kd gqel fJ8<= .9.5~ -G'~, fry //.9~.5-tltl~p .9'~ ~e ., "1'1''''*''''''''"'--(,' J'4t7t7 .A/lf: Nt,( ~ 0'-'. .9'~ ~.!t1'?.! August 8, 1984 Be nett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman So thold Town Planning Board To n Hall - Main Road So thold, NY 11971 At n: Diane Re: Seacroft De r Sirs:- This is to confirm our discussion of August 7, 1984 wh rein I was given an appointment for 8:15 P.M. on August 27, 19 4 before the Planning Board, for final site plan approval on the Seacroft project. Your cooperation and assistance are greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, JJ :e CRON and CRON, ESQS. (,~,~~. ~ gES J\jON A1~~~~~ , \' , ;1. " ~. . .. . ( AU'1019~ 734-5100 AREA CODe 516 tf~ ~ tf~ ~~ 9 e! !18<"d/ .pss {f'~, J/('!!/ //.psS.tltls"! .~.~ /- .~""",,' '.Lk../ .;Y.' .....r.9%,. ~_ .9'kd. ~"~~., S//cc A:lI: ?<I'd ~ e~. .9'kd. .7,?,f'?,? August 8, 1984 Be nett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman So thold Town Planning Board To n Hall - Main Road So thold, NY 11971 At n: Diane Re: Seacroft Sirs: This is to confirm our discussion of August 7, 1984 wh rein I was given an appointment for 8:15 P.M. on August 27, 1984 before the Planning Board, for final site plan approval on the Seacroft project. Your cooperation and assistance are greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, JJC:e CRON and CRON, ESQS, (""\~~. ~ \dES ~ON ~:{J' /\\~~ "'Il\ \ .'1'" . tf~ ~.~ /..-,/ C"."..' '.Lk../ :Y'......9'k 91_ Ben Sou Tow Sou ett Orlowski, Jr., hold Town Planning Hall - Main Road hold, NY 11971 Dea Mr. Orlowski: ( AUG 7 14 ( 734-5100 AREA CODE 516 ~~ 9(3 ~fr.1/ ,g5.Y ~~. JYW //,g.Y5.tltl.YP .9'hd. ~. 7 ~....... -4-., $4?'?' .f/YI/ Nd &-c ad... .9'hd. J.?O'?.? ~ Hand August 7, 1984 Chairman Board Re: Seacroft This is to formally request, on behalf of my clients, tha the above-referenced project be placed on the August 27, 198 Planning Board Agenda for final site plan approval. JJC: 1,,-'l' ., ). :.'. (1 \ f-,..\ . ~\ '., '. ' Should you have any questions as concerns the above, notify the undersigned, in writing. Very truly yours, CRON and CRON, ESQS. CJH'G~ -e4'C'-~ .~ /~ . ~.c... -e~ .~ ~' '.L4../ :Y........ ~ /i1". Ben Sou Tow Sou ett Orlowski, Jr., hold Town Planning Hall - Main Road hold, NY 11971 Dea Mr. Orlowski: ( AUG 7 14 ( 734-5100 AREA CODE 516 ~~ .9! e fJ8pa; .P.5..! -e~, JYW //.P..!.5-tJtJ..!P .r~ #<<. 7 ~""""-G-. .>4t?t? ./1///: ?<I'd ~ f'fd.. .r~ .7?O?? ~ Hand August 7, 1984 Chairman Board Re: Seacroft This is to formally request, on behalf of my clients, tha the above-referenced project be placed on the August 27, 198 Planning Board Agenda for final site plan approval. Should you have any questions as concerns the above, pIe se notify the undersigned, in writing; JJC: " . ;;r)~ r' \ C~\ <;. ..... Very truly yours, CRON and CRON, ESQS. . l ft8. ~ ~/.Ld J,Chuc ~'v-79 ~ ~ )7Yc( ty;; ~ St/U P?V/3~ r 4/1P7//t1l1 Lfk~ ~-- ~~~~hhe ~ - ~ ~;s ?vzr~/ ~r'7/ lU~~ ~. ~ -:;>v? /h.-- /Z --h/: /d. j ;1 O ~ f? I7f' n~gr::' m ~L';; \"'" l,i, d \ '/ /:;';'1.'1 ,"'" 8 J~'B4 '/ U iWl:l - :;; \ I . I' " " ,j; ~, TOWN OF SOUT::"i.j - ~~a-U~~~ ft ~~ ~ fiu- ~ ~ 7 /7--- ~- ~r- - A &- }-ndA-~ :#(~ C-:..-~qY;,;;:" ?J?'~