Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-103.-1-19.3 ✓ 'A ?� LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF AMENDMENT O �Lt% SOUTHOLD TOWN CODE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 138 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that at a meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County; New York, held on the 13th day of June, 1995, the Town Board enacted the following amendment to the Town Zoning Code, entitled . "Zoning Code of the Town of Southold", together with the Zoning Map forming a part thereof, as follows, to wit: Amendment No. 138 amends the Code of the Town of Southold by changing from Residential Office (RO) District to General Business (B) District the property of Frank Cichanowicz III, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described as follows : BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Main State Road, 287.32 feet westerly from its intersection with the westerly side of Harbor Lane. Said point also being where the northwesterly corner of land now or formerly of Fogarty intersects the southerly side of Main Road; running thence from said point and along land now or formerly of Fogarty South 35 degrees 53 minutes 10 seconds East 117.00 feet to a point and land now or formerly of Coster; running thence from along land now or formerly of Coster South 34 degrees 18 minutes 50 seconds East 216. 18 feet to other land of Cichanowicz; running thence through other land of Cichanowicz South 49 degrees 31 minutes West 417.38 feet to land now or formerly of Blum; running thence along land now or formerly of Blum North 40 degrees 29 minutes West 327.70 feet to the southerly side of Main State Road; running thence along Main Slate Road the following two (2) courses and distances : (1) North 49 degrees 31 minutes East 155. 17 feet; (2) North 48 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 294.83 feet to the point or place of beginning. Dated: October 12, 1995. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON OCTOBER 19, 1995, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, PO BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 . Copies to the following : The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Town Attorney Planning Board Building Department Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. for Frank Cichanowicz III Roderick Van Tuyl PC EPWLANN;ING Town Clerk's Bulletin Board ;3ffi5 N R0 o��S�pFOLK�G S G LAURY L. DOWD =� y� THOMAS H. WICKHAM Town Attorney H ac Supervisor IS 4W Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 T Telephone (516) 765-1889 Fax(516) 765-1823 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING BOARD FROM: TOWN ATTORNEY RE: CONDITIONAL REZONINGS - CICHANOWICZ AND STRONG'S MARINE DATE: AUGUST 25, 1995 The Town Board has recently approved the above two rezonings. However, each rezoning is conditioned on the applicant filing CERs. It has been a month since the Cichanowicz rezoning, and I still haven't gotten CERs. I've called and am told that "they are on the way" but weeks have passed and still nothing. I'm concerned that the conditions will never be met, everyone will forget about the conditions, and the applicant will proceed without them. I spoke to Building and they suggested that the Planning Board be the roadblock to further development. Can you make a note in each of these files that no development should occur unless the conditions of the rezoning are complied with? Can you suggest other roadblocks? IJ AUG Z 5 1995 • �� • Fa(,��oG s JUDITH T.TERRY " _ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK = j P.O. Box 1179 r ^� Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS tiO� �aO J TeleFax phone ) 6)6523 MARRIAGE OFFICER ) RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER J 8 199 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK !U!_ 2 I -- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 25, 1995: WHEREAS, Frank Cichanowicz 111, by petition filed July 29, 1994, applied to the Town board of the Town of Southold for a change of zone on certain property located on the south side of NYS Route 25, west of Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, New York (SCTM#1000-103-01-p/ol9.3), from Residential Office (R-O) District to General Business (B) District; and WHEREAS, said petition was referred to the Southold Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Planning for official recommendations and reports; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, pursuant to due notice, held a public hearing thereof on the 13th day of June, 1995, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds that the proposed microbrewery and affiliated restaurant uses for this site are generally consistent with Southold's Comprehensive Plan, inasmuch as the business uses to the north, east and west are similar in nature; and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds that the proposed microbrewery and affiliated restaurant, with accessory gift shop, are consistent with the agribusiness aspect of the uses in that area; and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds it significant that some of the product ingredients for the microbrewery are to be grown on the southern portion of the subject parcel, and that it is important to maintain the relationship between the proposed business and the supportive agricultural uses on this parcel in particular and in this area generally; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan specifically encourages the preservation of farmland and, towards that end, limits the density of business areas, particularly on the outskirts of the traditional hamlet business centers; and WHEREAS, the execution of the covenants and restrictions called for herein will further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and ensure that the proposed rezoning meets the goals set forth above; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that Frank Cichanowicz III be and hereby is granted a rezoning of the following-described property from Residential Office (R-O) District to General Business (B) District conditioned upon the immediate execution and recordation of covenants and restrictions which shall covenant that the subject premises will be erected, altered, renovated, remodeled, used, occupied and maintained for the following purposes only: agricultural/food related uses with accessory retail gift shop uses, including but not limited to a microbrewery and associated restaurant. The covenant shall provide that a change in these uses and amendment of the covenants will require prior consent of the Town Board. The property shall be described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly side of Main State Road, 287.32 feet westerly from its intersection with the westerly side of Harbor Lane, said point also being where the north- westerly corner of land now or formerly of Fogarty intersects the southerly side of Main State Road; running thence from said point and along land now or formerly of Fogarty South 35 degrees 53 minutes 10 seconds East 117.00 feet to a point and land now or formerly of Coster; running thence from along land now or formerly of Coster South 34 degrees 18 minutes 50 seconds East 216.18 feet to other land of Cichanowicz; running thence through other land of Cichanowicz to other land of Cichanowicz; running thence through other land of Cichanowicz South 49 degrees 31 minutes West 417.38 feet to land now or formerly of Blum; running thence along land now or formerly of Blum North 40 degrees 29 minutes West 327.70 feet to the southerly side of Main State Road; running thence along Main State Road the following two courses and distances: (1) North 49 degrees 31 minutes East 155.17 feet; (2) North 48 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 294.83 feet to the point or place of beginning. Judith T. Teri� Southold Town Clerk July 26, 1995 • 5u8haC �.6 KK f/5 North Fork Environmental Council P.O. Box 799 (a R O ryl R D Mattituck _ NY 11952 ( 516)298-8880 To: Southold Town board AIM From : The North Fork Environmental Council SOl7T1 Subject : Island Ale : Industrial Wastewater & SEQRA Review Reaardless of the size of the microbrewery and the requirements of the sewerage district . wastewaters from breweries have characteristics that can impact the collection system and treatment Plant . -- from ' riicros and Industrial Waster ' by Michael J . Pronoid ( article enclosed for vour reference ) It has come to our attention that nowhere on the Lona Environmental Assessment Form ( LEAP ) submitted by Island Ale is anv indication Given of the Potentially harmful wastewater generated by mlcopreweries . According to the Reaulatory Affairs Office of the NYDEC this Potential environmental impact should have been specifically identified and addressed by the Town Board durina its SEQRA review. At the very least . the DEC felt that a the Town Board ( as lead aaencv ) should have stated in writing something to the effect that . ' anv Potential environmental impact concernina microbrewery wastewater will be mitigated by the aoolicant ' s securing of the recuired State Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstem ( SPDES ) permit . ' The NFEC is also concerned that while Island Ale ' s Potential impact on traffic has been ooeniv discussed as a valid concern by the Town Board since the Negative Declaration was issued--this same traffic; impact was not cited as a sianificant Potential effect in the SEQRA review . The Town Board' s failure to formally recoanlze the traffic impact as Potentially sianificant is particularly alarming given that . " fal municipality should consider the most intensive uses allowable under the Proposed zonina to judge Potential impacts . " fSEQRA Handbook . P . 102 ) . Also worthv of SEQRA consideration In this case was a thorough review of "Growth Inducement . " As defined in the SEQRA Handbook: Some activities will encourage or cause an increase in Population or business activity . This tvoe of secondary impact is called growth inducement . When conductina an environmental assessment , it is important to recoanlze activities which may induce Growth because a consideration of the whole action must examine the Impacts of such growth . . _ . Since the Island Ale zone chance request is oniv the most recent of a number of zone chance reaueste ( from R-(] to Business ) along the same strip of land . Growth Inducement surely should have been recognized as a secondary impact . The NFEC wishes to remind the Town Board that fi ) n making an adeauate determination. the lead aaencv must: ( 1 ) identifv all relevant environmental effects . ( 2 ) thoroughly analyze these potential effects_ and ( 3 ) provide , in writina . its reasoning why the proposed action will not cause or may cause sianificant environmental impacts ( see The reasoning why no significant impacts will be caused is particularly important in justifying a negative declaration_ If the lead aaencv finds one or more significant environmental effects . it must prepare a positive declaration . ( SEQRA Handbook. p. 39 ) . We also reauest that , before anv final action is made on the Island Ale zone chance reauest , you rescind the Neaative Declaration In order to more fullv and adeauately review all the potential environmental effects of the proposed action. cc : Southold Planning Board r � `''R' • • Pu 1 1994 NATIONAL MICROBREWERS CONFERENCE TRANSCRIPT #3 Micros and Wastewater Industrial Michael J. Pronold, Environmental Specialist, Portland, (D-r- , on MICROUREWERY WASTEWATER equipment, additional monitoring and report. Sources and Characteristics generated from brewing land Owning ing rcquircmcurx, ere. and subject the micro- of Wastewater operations may be subject to reguln- b,twe,r it, fires. The impact that a mien.,- The sources of waslewatcr to the r.rnnduc bens of the local ACwefage dIsu;ui by way Ufa brewery has on a sewerage district is site spa- non lit neer generally cone from two doterera Pretreatment Program, cific and depends on the size of the brewery, operanuns. The pwpusc of ouch a program is to cnn- the s;Lc.of the wastewater treatment plant,and I. One source is from pronuQuon ^ crs. trot diachargca of harmful pollutants (foil, in- the proximity of the brewery to the htain,ud ticms wi,icl,mcludcs spent yeast.and •Jia duslrial/commeicial sources that interfere with plant. Reg leu br the size of the micro. of fermenters, conditioners. brew ke .nd the wastewater treatment plant,collcctim,ays- rewery nand the requirements(if the sewerage whirlpools. There are also smell at, d tem and sludgy dkpoml opceafiom. The pro- district, waartwatera from breweries have spilt beer In the binding and kcgg j- gram also p,utecrs wurkcr safety, the publlc charaotCaiaisa that can impact the collection lions. At times there may even be a to end the local environment. ❑rewciy wastcwa• 1.,y%icio unit treatmcnt plant. dispose of a bad batch of neer. I hr,e Ier is a concern because of the pH of the .,wastewater (cleaning solutiois, beta wastes) .,"_and high BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) ' and TSS (total suspended solids) that may in Icicre with the wastewater treatment plant,; I 112 BARREL CYLINDROCONIC.,AL •'- ability to adequately trent wastewater. PermmFERMENTER Ak .mmhrewery mayay b be rcquircd to ob• ,,:.a"<R `L,e,­,,; tain a wastewater discharge permit from the eunbul uudwrily land be subject to the same discharge limitations and permit requirements that regulate all the industries in the sewerage T s?Mpl ;NnUre Controlled district,This may include the following: s ■ Applying for a permit and paying an apoKppriate permit fee. The application gen. Excellent For erally requires providing schematics of all e .sewer lines, sewer connections and floor drains on the silt;water usage; facility layout: Yeast Propagation production records; chemical storage areas; e and general information. ■ Installation of a sampling manhole Test Batches where the control aulhonty has access to ran• domly sample the wastewater from the frtcil- s ity. Another Exclusive Ll -11 ■Monitoring and reporting requtremenis from where the industry must sample the waslewa ter, have the samples analyzed, and repos re• funs tothejonuol authority. ■ Creation of an Acctdenlal Spill fail imimp Awn vennon Plan that must be approved by the control authority. ■ Allowing on-site inspections of the facility by the control authority. viCALL 1 (206) 527-5047 For a quote olaliods of any of the pu,mit teyuiae� rents can place the microbrewery into an en lor"ment pru&ram lhut can include Compli • • Pu'L r i watch from the pruduCtlon proems contain product or by prado:l at some stage in the hrew'mg process. Wastewaters generated from y, , All ibex\ u crations are generally very high in BOL) and 'itis, with a low pH The BUD of beer is approximately 80,000 mg/L, suspcn, 1 i �,' ) ' C I c tl+. f t'r• t° rJ 9 i l •'lJl,sy ,fp, dcd solids can he well over 1000 mg/L (de- pending on the amount of yeast and trub in the heels), and the pH of beer genernlly runs9.5 t ,r around 42. qr .1 I f 2. The other sown c of wastrw;ucr Comics tram cleaning the production equipment. This Mar for I + d7' mplea fdc DH. includes washing tanks, kegs, bottles, and I other items with it c'.1oivc Wo— - -_-- lei geaCratCd from LIC4111n9 is tellcUicC Ur the highly caustic solution used to clean the hrew composites, the ranSo in DUU and TSS is PH ing equipment These wastewaters can he high ver. large. This is rcfiwive of the micro- Coucerus: Tic pH of wastewater is in HOU and TSS. Jepcnding on the amount of hress'eriea conducting dillcrcni upe.ration, on regulated by the ccwciAgc dishiU slid li.o liv. pcoduet in the .,ashIi Tltcy are at,,, high dilfererlt Jap. hlmlitoting ivi pH sbuwits. oral can eery but arc generally in the rani in pH 110.5 to 13.5). This('Jusbc o..lutiun teal• uul) enc vivldliun (4.6) in 30 divoreet of 5,5 to I I.5, YY'astewatei with a pH outside W. reuwd, if cdplwed, uulil We I'll drops lv samples,This is due w the aggressive pH can- this range rnHy be corrosive to the sewage t'o; appwtunalCly loll w10.5 or it hroomrs unus- Irol mcasatc> that die 111crohrewerie,s lave lettiuu system and be it worker hrtdth :m l ahle due to rOglpll1 wal to,, by other orau'iiols. implemented. These particular mlcrobrew. solety cons Cnr 6i fact, ss a>Icwatu ,,th n pH It is then generally discharged to the SC-C,, cries arc.just in the process of implementing u 5.1) is a DrollWired discharge by I-c.Jci.d Acidic saniliter nsed to disinfect cyuiprucut is TSS and DOD reduction measures. II is felt regulations. ololl Na& up of plwsphwic acid 'and ivditscthat these nulllher5 will be reduced to svnlc. Tls: waatcwata Senmdled by dn. ... ca i`hie westeas'atcr i9 low in DOD and TSS :old extent ing proves, and elconblg operst..,n. hath salt has a Insr pH 11 •)) .Acidic clemring solulinns The impacts on the sewagecollection outside. the. 5 5 to I1 5 range if discharfrd b) arc used for bright tanks and area combination t)mcni and wastewater neat RlCn1 planl from Ur(nlsclvcs without pretreatment The poser of phosphonc rind nitric acrdmicrobreweries is the subject of the following hility of thq,c ss'S sic waA,ra bang dischn,ltCd Listed in Table I arc results vl' wa>Iewa- discussion. The discussion will address pll >,paratel,v rs comnlou rn nUc,oh,cwC.ics. ler sampling at several Portland microbrCw- uuucuurs mrd cuuuul uwasutta fiat and Wan Linger urrwerles mdy have cleauiup Jed eries. liven (hough the samples are 24 hour TSS/BOD concerns and control measureii. lr<svinp, operelibns vccutrinc sinluhatl. r 1 41 Meet Co iii .. �.t•. "! s.1 r 6 nyl r, .1sa , r ru ht 1. 1— talar rrf/L pl No, ' . �. s '•b'�. f rLe� � • � prig i a which may dampen the pH range of the waste bets(BMPs)for the control of wastewater pH. collection vessel and adjust the pH if neces. waters. Neverthele[S, It may be necessary IO Controls: One option for the control of sary. The, low PH of beer Hast s, saniluing Install retreatment or hest Italia cnsent PfIX- H is to lolleo till' val'luus wdstrw01cll Into a p g p solutions, and acidic cleaners and the high pM of the caustic cleaner waste may result in a PH that is within the pcnniucd range 'rhe calla: Q tion vcasel %Ovid need 10 be ailed accurdink to the volume of wastewater and this may Bairds' malt y 1e✓� present space contralnts for some facilities 1 (SPucc constraints may necessitate that a facil ity install a continuous collccdonitremmem I ?ruditiunul rEnr fish e.7 Scut tisk Ak 9 aka -yrleII with il son ller capacity). J LI aJditiuu, >uttleumwal pH Cuub ul Tinest PI(Sen �1 y 1e alt may be necessary to adjust the pH to the ac. ceprable range This would require adding an acidifier Isulhuic acid, CO2) or a caustic A Fliff ange of Coloured, Roast all d Spedaftty .%fait (spent cau,lic sulmioll,little prodnst)cithcl by hand In a batch system nr through an auto. :kV iv PH culnrul 9yamul thut cuulinuuusly Aff.14,ft is Produced /rom 7iigfiest yrrade 2 :kViv rDar(ell monitors and adjusts the wastewater PFI This adds costs through operation and maintenance ('On,siStell t (tit alkil andSerT ice 11bu Cart Trust of the system and the cost of chemicals. Also, hazardous materials we now on site and mint by stulud and hundlcd accmdulgly, DetailiI.d Product in}irrrnation .gviiiiWe on I(rquest Another PH conflict mechanism is to con ---- --• ---- not the PH of the wastewater at the source. HUGH_ BAIRD & SONS LTD■ act. caustic (used the noel of hrcwring) un br act. %untie• (tract on lite for cleaning) icon be added to raise the pH to the acceptable range J �/y N Practical experience or bench testing can do $res tlOn .+l•11tCtini.c, `l4!ithnrn, £seX, £. I lL.a� P terminr thea ru nate amount of cnuslir it, TTe(ephone: 0376 5135(,6 7_AV 03 76 518171 add. Cinmol of caustic wastewater can be made coal eneelive fol the brewer) by innlall ing Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) units, These 7 units arc mode up of a rcccpcleaning ob , for the e bo- Onle � ..� 1� � tic suing an used in cleaning IP unit The so. - lotion is pumped w the vessel and used In cleaning and returned N Int CIP writ. The so- lution ctrl be used numerous times until the a, pH falls to below 1 I . The solution then Your .secret recipe is finally perfect, the first batch is brewing and suddenly, the outIt sounds like tl mi hlmare, but accidents like this do happen and needs todistaste of, however, the pit is Power goes , 8 PP now in file aaeptable range. they can cost you a lot of money. . . Care must be liken with combining To guard agaitim wues like dwsc. Goggins a Whalen offers a comprehenarve weslesireams in an eriort to achieve a pH In Insunmee prvgreln specially designed for the micro brewery file allowanle range. If chlorinated caustic ■ Propem. Cleaner, ale used, nruUnlizutg with a sliong acid will liberate tunic t.hlonne gas. If iodine ■ General & liquor liability. solutions(acidic sanitizers)are made too alka- ■ Food and beer spoilage (like the line,the iodine can plate out scaling the tank. ! example above). ■ Loss of income. TSS and BOD s,• Concerns: TSS and 80D may or may ■ More coverages, for every- not he regulated by the sewerage district if thing from your exterior signs the brewery represents a significant amount of to the brew kettles themselves! t the TSS and BOD loading at the wastewater l Give us a Call and find out more about this treatment plant,or poses a threat due to a slug Ili load,the district may put limits on the amount custom•tailcrcd program. While you work on j"y that the brewery can discharge. Whereas the Pursuing your dream. we'll help insure against ✓ -! treatment plant is designed to treat biuloyieal 1, the 'nightmares"... ar' 'ti wastes, it can become overburdened with high•slrcngth wastes Wastewater that is inaJ spadsored by equalely treated may be dtschtugcd resulting 1 For mole information contact. THE nsrtrure in the treatment plant ,ola(ilig its permit. Peter Whalen or Shirt e3'Dean. This concent rises as the wastewater treatment _M- _' d Whalen insurance Agency I facility decreases in sizes and the strength and ! GOGGINS 71 King stret,P U. Box 4178,Northampton,:d! VlUeiu a i amount of b ewcry wastewater tuchm gc aR ILu crcascs in uddhico, If life mlcrobrewcry is l &WHALEN 1.800.235.0355 STUDIES -_ -_. •T. for licit milt (lir IIrJIm, It hlanl, It nldy pme a • Po { w! thrc;n due to sludge loads. Mlcrohrc„-cries Io- v:ne,l lorther lrom the trcalment plant may lia" tilt;, I7,..,., Jlhnkd Loin olbtl lcr In the colleen Oil t\Qeln Will edu:r Ilei In addo ion a) the c' ,,,, of pet nlll viv. '..door, hl the wwe:wwtr v iomem Incihl?', if the faeilih mile nl!ides e; treat high- soenpth ssastes. Phis is due to the increased -1;1.11 that mull he hnndlednlltposed of and , Iii rlC 10::,e nl opel it ng Lila)N, d,hl.nt t'rs that supph o\)pen to the hacrena that feed on the hlph slrrnpth wastes. 011ennmes, the _ m,t rl age oll,lncl „111 feta,rt the>e .rill. Ihmueh higher Iccs and "extra-strength" pro- `;,; 46 — t.rr• Milk e:mns , h � I The tolls aro haled an (he amount nt <('; Ilo,t :Ind the "strcngth" of the ?sasie l mc:r ,,'I 'r n ' I r • Continues ,orad using BOD and TSSI in excess of the ' I " Ir,rl tdortin:us domestic w'1olt,%iocr ThesC OM come c:m he ugoitwam and it the streng(h of grewe the •Write is high enough, local conditions 1 11 - m.n tequire a hrealerx Ip owall pretleallnUllMicro Breweries •rn rile amuci of TSS and Bi)f.?. ('nntrMe: The emurgl of HOD and 'i SS BOP all lie accDn)pnshed through conventional '.•calnlanl andioi source conirel. Corscillional I vealnlenl is smular to a scasleseater treatment plant where biolOgical Ireannenl is used m fe- awe the BOD and TSS. A Sludgc results uhtdh then must he handled and Jisposi:O of in ,anje manner. Ihcsc s"Icris can be s'cp' expensoe to install and opt•rttc ;old erg I'll sen too upon e\cepl in farce hfe'tt'eric, (food hnu<ckccping I, !nc he,' aa, I'ol ilii snit loLit..tn Iii cnnu rl IIOLliTS!, and the av0,lat.:d higher ,:.t,^ hill, Slew ,runt ,,:I Lt klllcd 1 , u41kwN and n:1dh1 10 the _prml, w I-I,it 'n ill,is(t)tten ,I,ell .1'.1 as as teed. Sittiated in the Shadow of Nil? Skyoll7c, l hill me the '.cast b nt'cl'))a'} I!1 lutlinl uin II1C , I heaiih III the ooni;dl ,.au,uutinp the spent rolA— .1 sl d,(e heel !t Ont lctumcd kips can nlnu o , )oked and disposed f in dlc Zrdln. Since . I'. a Iafpe portion of the c.xtru socnglh charge is eenctated from divol,rd ROn. hlterme for n9!• I,.i!of tnlld, I, not a5 tficl iicr Summary R';nle„-cels eeneiatcd from bre•„'ins op. craaons can be II ronceln to the sc,kcragc di>- -r'.! mat rile nl ets el\ is Iocal C(1 in Tile bre,s- cr. max need is he perinlued ;!nd possihl't nnplcmcnt t':rtrols !rn pl!. Hf ID ml^. 'I SS. Thtprrmll rk-gmrtmem4 Wlld:'Oridol TCN,ore,' '.ill, add ,IFnilitook :o.r. Inv the hrc„cry n-n�.nzh Ingher nper:ucm :o".c nmvnr .r,vet Ire, 'rhe,e u,m) ,Il,n.bl he ,ddre!,cd prior I:• I...,nung nr ,tanmY up anv I...n,.np „perm ii by COMIJOulf tilt ,tat r.rgn dlAt,'1�1 that sou will be Imaling in. v H, ,.... . . .. Ile c,..,.._I .• p 4.1 :nv, lis— Will :•I i4Cn,,.l ;L ' p 4�ucAn ::1 E^vi {n: .r..1. ocion " RK LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, at 5:00 P.M., Tuesday, June 13, 1995, on the proposal of Frank Cichanowicz, 111 to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Map) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on certain property located on the southerly side of NYS Route 25, Cutchogue, New York, by changing the zone from Residential Office (RO) District to General Business (B) District. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, bounded and described as follows: I Beginning at a point on the southerly side of Main State Road, 287.32 feet westerly from its intersection with the westerly side of Harbor Lane. Said point also being where the northwesterly corner of land now or formerly of Fogarty intersects the southerly side of Main Road; running thence from said point and along land now or formerly of Fogarty South 35 degrees 53 minutes 10 seconds East 117.00 feet to a point and land now or formerly of Coster; running thence from along land now or formerly of Coster South 34 degrees 18 minutes 50 seconds East 216. 18 feet to other land of Cichanowicz; running thence through other land of Cichanowicz South 49 degrees 31 minutes West 417.38 feet to land now or formerly of Blum; running thence along land now or formerly of Blum North 40 degrees 29 minutes West 327.70 feet to the southerly side of Main State Road; running thence along Main State Road the following two (2) courses and distances: (1) North 49 degrees 31 minutes East 155.17 feet; (2) North 48 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 294.83 feet to the point or place of beginning. Dated: May 15, 1995. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON MAY 25, 1995, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 . Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Town Board Members I �� Town Attorney Planning Board Building Department CYMA3 Q Board of Appeals Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. for Cichanowicz TOWN Town Clerk's Bulletin Board OARD �VVvgpFFO(,��oGy JUDITH T.TERRY Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK ca Z P.O.Box 1179 W Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICSA. Fax(516)765-1823 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICERMARRIAGE OFFICER -7�.( ��O Telephone(616)765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of NonSipificance Determination of Significance Lead Agency., Town Board Yj of the Town of Southold ' Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road `' MAY 2 2 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: May 15, 1995 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 determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action: Frank Cichanowicz, III Change of Zone Petition from Residential-Office "R-O" District to Business "B" District SEQR Status: Unlisted Action Project Description: The project which is the subject of this Determination, involves a pro osed change of zone of 3.24 acres from Residential Office "R-O" to General Business "B". The project decision is structured to restrict business use In conformance with the following goals: 1) maintain aesthetic quality of rural/historic agricultural use through historically appropriate design and site planning; 2) allow only retail businesses complementary to the rural and historic character of the surrounding area, such as offices, antique, art and craft shops and galleries and other retail sales supplemental to vineyard use; and, 3) allow restaurants, except drive-in restaurants. SCTM Number: District 1000 - Section 103 - Block 01 -p/o Lot 19.3 Location: The site is located on the south side of Main Road, 287.32 feet west of Harbor Lane, in Cutchogue, New York. Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, and the following spec reasons: 1) The project has been evaluated through a Long EAF Part I and U which consider environmental andplanning aspects of the project. 2) The subject parcel does not exhibit environmental sensitivity in the traditional sense. Review of the Long EAF Part I as well as field inspection indicates that the site is suited for controlled development for the following reasons; soils are conducive to leaching, topograby is flat, there are no significant vegetation,wetlands or wildlife habitat on site. 3� The proposed zoning would not generate a significant influx of people or traffic as compared to present zoning, nor would noise, aesthetic or visual resources be significantly adversely impacted. 4) Land use and zoning issues are a local, as opposed to a regional, consideration and measures are available to reduce impact upon the community. 5) The use would be subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board if the zoning is changed in accordance with Chapter 100 of the Southold Town Code. For Further Information: Contact Person: Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Address: Town Hall, Main Road, Southold Phone No.: (576)765-7800 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-De artment of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Rudolph Bruer, Esq. , for Frank Cichanowicz �oSUF of t,��o PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS =�0 Richard G.Ward, Chairman y = Town Hall,53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. 0 ^� P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ifi �� Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald �O! ��� Fax (516) 765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 12, 1995 Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold P.O.Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Change of Zone Petition by Frank Cichanowicz (a.k.a. Island Ale) S/s SR 25; approximately 300' W/o Harbor Lane, Cutchogue SCTM # 1000-103-1-19.3 Dear Mrs. Terry, . The Planning Board reviewed the above-noted change of zone petition and offers the following report. The Cichanowicz petition requests a change of zone from Residential Office ( RO) to General Business (B) for a 3.28 acre parcel located on the south side of SR 25, approximately 300 west of its intersection with Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. The subject parcel lies adjacent to two parcels that recently were rezoned from RO to B. The rezoning essentially will permit the conversion of a large farm house into a restaurant, and the future expansion of a complex which includes an existing winery, associated retail store, office and apartment. (H. Blum, R. Blum & Peconic Bay Winery) . The subject property owner proposes to construct a mix of uses, the principal use of which the Planning Board considers to be the restaurant, along with a microbrewery using hops grown on the remainder of the property which is zoned R-80. The owner intends to sell the micro-brewed beer in the restaurant and for off-premises consumption. A retail gift-shop is also planned for the premises. The surrounding zoning to the west is B; to the east lies RO. The north side of the road directly opposite the subject parcel is zoned B also. The Planning Board recognizes that the proposed uses are similiar to that which was proposed for the Blum properties; and that the Town Board rezoned the Blum properties in order to permit the afore-stated types of uses because it felt that winery-related businesses contributed to the rural and agricultural character of the local economy. The Planning Board supports the concept set forth by the petitioner, which provides for the manufacture and sale of beer made from hops grown on the site. Accordingly, it supports a change of zone to make this project possible. However, the Board wishes to reiterate its concern about permitting additional expansion beyond this subject property for intensive commercial zoning in a strip along the Main Road in order to accomodate various agri-businesses. This concern embraces two issues. One is that the additional expansion of the B zone to the east may eventually drain economic vitality from the traditional hamlet center of Cutchogue at the intersection of New Suffolk Road and Main Road. Second is that the B zone permits a host of intensive uses that go beyond the immediate needs of the current property owner. As with the Blum petitions, the Planning Board again recommends that serious consideration be given to creating a zone or other mechanism which will permit an agri-business related use on road frontage provided the development rights of the working farm are held or set aside in exchange for the life of the agri-business. Sincerely, �2 Richard G. Ward Chairman o��gOFFO(,�Co PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS `yam Gy o ':;4 Richard G. Ward, Chairman y = Town Hall, 53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. 0 ^+ P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ifi `� Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald ��l �a0 Fax(516)765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 11 , 1995 Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold P.O.Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Change of Zone Petition Frank Chicanowicz (a.k.a. Island Ale) S/s SR 25; approximately 300' W/o Harbor Lane, Cutchogue SCTM # 1000-103-1-19.3 Dear Mrs. Terry, The Planning Board has reviewed the comments of the Town's environmental consultant, Charles Voorhis, and that of the New York State Department of Transportation. Based on the evidence presented, the Planning Board recommends the adoption of a Negative Declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Si cerely, RicharQ�ar'd ' �r�S Chairman / �5V�g�FFO(,��oGy K � 2 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road y Fax (516)765-1823 P. O. Box 1179 Grp Telephone(516) 765-1802 Southold, New York 11971 OFFICE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer FROM: Gary J. Fish, Building Inspector SUBJECT: Building Permit #18089-Z - Former Site of Daval Tents & Party Services, Inc . Suff. Co. Tax Map #1000-83-3-4 . 6 DATE : May 10, 1995 The Suffolk County National Bank has requested that we issue the Certificate of Occupancy for the above premises . In light of the recent development concerning the water quality, please let us know what the status of the Site Plan is so that we may issued the CO. GJF:gar r MAY I 1 CRAMER, N MRAIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS May 2, 1995 Ms.Judith T.Terry,Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O.Boz 1179 RECEIVED Southold,New York 11971 Re: Traffic Impact study MAY .j 1995 Island Ale,Proposed Restaurant Cutchogue,New York Southold Town Clerk Dear Ms.Terry: We have reviewed the April 6, 1995 comments from the NYSDOT Regional Traffic Engineer James O.Frein regarding the above referenced project. The comments have been compared with our previous correspondence to the Town Board, and the following status is provided. PreviousoAraww= The study does not address the confluence of turning movements for the four proposed developments, the optimal configuration of driveway alignments nor the provision for turn lanes through this segment of Main Road. Previous CVA ReGgmmauIWiQw It is recommended the study address the items detailed above to ensure the revised analyses do not arrive at significantly different conclusions from the original study. While no major deviatious in the analyses are expected,it a felt that,based on anticipated developments at several nearby sites and based on observations of current traffic operations,some form of traffic control devises)be employed to guarantee acceptable levels of operation and safety for the future. If NYSDOT warrants for a traffic signal are not satisfied,then it is recommended that turn lanes, supplemented with ancillary signage be provided along Main road from Eugene's Road/Cox Lane westerly to the residential properties west of the commercial area,east of Stillwell Lane,where the pavement narrows. Main Road a presently a two-lane roadway separated by a pointed double vellow barrier with adequate shoulders on both sides. Provision of turn lanes through this section would easily be accomplished with little or no widening of the exiting pavement area. Detailed discussions with NYSDOT traffic engineers can determine the optimal layout NYSDOT comments*2 and#7,whsle not requiring dedicated turn lanes,do address the issue of traffic flow and the increase in left tum movements. DOT's request for"shoulder(s)widened and/or strengthened"and posting"no stopping zone(s)"is consistent with our comments although less demanding in terms of implementation and effect Since NYSDOT has not expressed any additional significant concerns with respect to traffic operations, based on the Island Ale Traffic Impact Study, it appears as though the Town should seek full conformance with NYSDOT comments #2 and #7 in order to address n " MAY 1 01995 Page t of 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PC(< NY'11764 (5T6) 331-1455 0 island Ale,Catchope NYSDOT Comment Review movements in the vicinity of the subject site. Other comments involve straightforward submissions to NYSDOT for construction, permitting, eta along a State Road Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this input,and please call if you have any questions. Very4Joor?Z� AICD CRAMER, VR SPage2o[2OCIATES ENVIRONMENTk NG CONSULTANTS EB — 6 - 9S MON 77 � Cr a� merV • p Ju1..E o ..Jr'Fi 1 AMER, IATES C ENVIRONMENT V R S,G CONSULTANTS `- ENVIRONMENT O CONSULTANTS r Ms.Judith T.Terry,Town Clerk February3, 1995 Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RECEIVED Re: Review of Traffic ImpactFEB 2 1 1995 Study , i Frank:Cichanowicz Ill Applicatio i FEB 6 1995 Island Ale Proposed Restaurant ' Cutchogue, New York $OUTHIILD TGSNN j PLANNING BOARD Southold Town Clerk Dear Ms.Terry: As perTown Board authorization,we have completed a review of the Traffic Impact Study as referenced above. The following is an evaluation of the traffic impact study prepared for the proposed "pub brew" type restaurant, Island Ale,in connection with the Cichanowicz zone change application. Traffic Impact Study >mmary The project proposed is to develop a'brew pub"restaurant of 5,643 square feet and gift shop of 1,197 square feet on a site located on the south side of Main Road, NYS Route 25, in the hamlet of Cutchogue, Southold Town The site is currently operating as a wholesale nurser and is flanked by a mix of land uses,primarily cotnmeretal. The traffic impact study examined the existing traffic conditions, protected traffic conditions for 1996 - the anticipated time of project ;pleti0and the condition in 1996 withtheproject generatetricsuperimposed onthe 1996bground tracvolumes. The study was to assess any traffic degradation and whatifanytrc mitigation measures would be needed. The methodology employed in the study utilized recd d transportation planning principles and practices. Volume counts were taken in November 1 94 and ad'usted for the peak seasonal variation for the month of August, an increase of nearly 23%. Pew York State Department of Transportation monthly seasonal factors were employed. Those peak summer volumes were then extrapolated to 1996, the yyear of proposed construction completion, to represent a future"no build condition. A NYMOT annual growth factor for the North Fork of Long Island, 3% per — year, increased the August 1994 volumes to August 1996 levels. Added to these "1996 no build"volumes is the anticipated traffic generated if the project were to be built resulting in a "1996 build" condition. Trip generation rates utilizing empirical data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers 1991 manual, Trip Generation, 5th Edition, for this type of proposed land use, i.e., a "quality restaurant",were used. "Chose rates were compared to a similar facility located in Fort Jefferson and found to be nearly twice those actually experienced in Port Jefferson. The higher rates from the TTI: manual were used as a more conservative approach. Additionally, the study considered the impact of generated traffic from other nearby proposed developments: the Blum property - 11,300 square foot restaurant; the Braun's Oyster Co. - a 2,700 Page 1 ora <<'•->L rA NlnnTu �^,I"rroV Pnan sinTF 9 Milt FP PI ArIc NV 11�re fC. n1 4Acc ' E B - 6 - 9 S M O N 7 island Ale,Cutchoge Trame Impact study Ravtew square•foot storage expamion.and the em' Unit King Kullen shopping center with 3,400 square feet currently vacant. Trip.generation rates form the TTE manual were employed for these potential developments as well. The generated traffic was distributed to the roadway network, superimposed onto the background "1996 no build"traffic, to evaluate the"1996 build"traffic condition. Capacity analyses were performed on existing, "1996 no build"and"1996 build" traffic conditions utilizing the procedures detailed in the 1985 Highway Capaclty Manual (Special Report 209),published by the - Transportation Research Board The resultant calculations determined the Ievels of services for each of the conditions to allow comparison between the"build" and "no build"scenarios. Analyses were performed for the signalized intersection of Main Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane, a four-legged intersection, and the two unsignalized 'T intersections formed by the access driveways for the proposed project and Main Road. In addition, gap studies were conducted to evaluate the sufficiency of gaps in the traffic flows for safe turning movements. Accident patterns for the last three years on this section of Main Road were examined for evidence of existing safety problems. Based on the analyses described above, the study concludes that the segment of Main Road in the vicinit.y of the proposeYr o ect is currently operating at an acceptable level of service and is experiencing no unusua ety deficiencies. The study further concludes that the development of the proposed project is not expected to have any adverse impacts, degrade the level of service, or present any operational or safety hazards. Traffic Impact Study Review While the methodology and conclusions of the study are sound and based on accepted traffic engineering analyses,the following questions or comments should be addressed: • Appendix D arrays site generated fraffrc for the Blum,Braun and Kung Kullen properties(in addition to the proposed project property)but that total traffic is not included in Figure 7,which appears to add only the Island Ale generated traffic to the 01996 no build' volumes depicted in Figure 6. ' Level of service analyses for the signalized intersection at Eugene's Road/Cox L aac and the two unsigaalized intersections at the site access driveways should be recalculated using site generated traffic from a the properties. • The study docs not address the site generated traffic from the 1,197 square foot gift shop on the proposed project site. • The study does not support the 65%/35%(west/cast) trip distribution for generated traffic from the Island Ale and Blum property restaurants nor the 50%/50%distribution for the Braun ad King Kullcn properties. The accident analysis is incomplete with no description of the type or severity of the accidents and, while the number of accidents stems low,whether the accident rate is typical for this type of roadway when compared to statewide rates normalized for volume. ,RAMER, VSOCIATES Par 2of3 NVIRONMENT _ G CONSULTANTS ja g 3 - 9 S F R I 1 6 = I• C r a m e r V o o r h i s • A s s o c - .. Island Ale,Cutchage Trame Impact Study Review • The study should identify the"brew pub*in Port Jefferson and describe why it is comparable to the Proposed Project It is recognized that the study utilized the ITE rates which are nearly two times the Port Jefferson'brew pub•rates;however,the age,size,location,etc.of the Port Jefferson'brew pub' would be useful in comparing trip generation rates • The study concludes the easterly site access intersection will operate at LOS E during the Saturday peak hour. The study should examine whether a traffic signal is warranted at that driveway or'at the westerly site access in conjunction with the King Kullen driveway across from it on the north aide. • The gap study concludes there are adequate gaps in the traffic stream for egressing vchides at the easterly access but that analysis did not allow for site generated traffic from the three other propoccd acL • The study does not address the confluence of turning movements for the four proposed developments, the optimal configuration of driveway alignments,or the provision of turn lanes through this segment of Main Road Recommendations: It is recommended that the study address the items detailed above to ensure the revised analyses do not arrive at significantly different conclusions from the original study. While no major deviations in the analyses are expected, it is felt that,based on anticipated developments at several nearby sites and based on observations of current traffic operations,some form of traffic control device(s)be employed to guarantee acceptable levels of operation and safety for.the future. If NYSDOT warrants for a traffic signal are not satisfied, then it is recommended that turn lanes, supplemented with ancillary signage,be provided along Main Road from Eugene's Road/Coit, Lane westerly to the residential properties west of the commercial area, east of Bridge Lane, where the pavement narrows. Main Road is presently a two-lane roadway separated by a painted double yellow barrier with adequate shoulders on both sides. Provision of turn lanes through this section would be easily accompplished with little or no widening of the existing pavement area. Detailed discussions with NY DOT traffic engineers can determine the optimal layout. In summary, the traffic impact of the proposed Island Ale "brew pub" restaurant, even when evaluated in conjunction with other nearby proposed developments, is not expected to have an adverse effect on local traffic operations if proper design considerations and minor mitigation measures described above are incorporated into the plan. Very�ly yours, arles J. orhis,CP.P,AICD RAMER, VAft OCIATESPage 3 ora NVIRONMEN®R— G CONSULTANTS -%A-r, /1 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788 JAMES A. KUZLOSKI JOHN C. EGAN REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER January 25, 1995 Ms. Judith Terry RECEIM Town of Southold JAN Q 7 1995 Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soufho�d Town Berk Southold, New York 11971 Dear Ms . Terry: Our Case No. 94-229 Cichanowicz Site Route 25 Southold Your January 9 , 1995 Submission The subject material will be reviewed by Mr. Gary Hills of my staff . He can be contacted at (516) 952-6020 if you have any questions . In all future correspondence, kindly refer to the case number indicated above . The plans must indicate the appropriate county tax map number. Thank you for your cooperation concerning this matter. Very truly yours, / JAMES O. FREIN Regional Traffic Engineer JOF:GH:JS JAN 3 0 IM L �J SOIiTHOLO TO'A!iV h�o��gOFFO(�-COGy� .. .JUDITH T.TERRY Town Hall,53095 f ; TOWN CLERK co Z P.O. 1'4,3; ; Southold,New x. REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS 0 AF y `, Fax(516) 765MARRIAGE OFFICER �J RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER Telephone(516) ' FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER j RECE " E® OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JAN 1 21995 N.Y.S.D.O.T. January 9, 195 REGION 10 r ' P.A.B. UNI,. To: Alfre BotnerF NYS-DOT From: Judith Tei=iy, Town Clerk Re: Traffic impact Stud] Enclosed is the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Nelson & Pope for Frank Cichanowicz III with regard to his change of zone petition to the Southold Town Board. Enclosure JAN 12 '35 Regional TralhcEncfr _"_ Office Mgr. Traffic Corttrc� Si naI&Lt Op. Si nal Deai e _ Traffic Control Capital Prdedc Design Re•aev+ Permits Safety Eval. Motor Vehicle InsC.nYuc< �.�;o•vehicle Ir.^.p IVH:+r�Anhilil• _ (� Fu c PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G.Ward, Chairman Town Hall, 53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. q P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald Fax(516) 765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards s Telephone (516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Thomas Wickham, Town Supervisor n FROM: Richard G. Ward, Chairman Y/1 SUBJECT: Frank Cichanwicz Brew Pub Request for zone change SCTM# 1000-103-1-19.2 DATE: January 12, 1995 This is in response to your memorandum of December 22, 1994, requesting the Board's advice on a code change for the above referenced project. The Board feels that the major activity at the site will be a restaurant, and that the brew pub is a marketing promotion. Therefore, the Board feels that a code change is not necessary. A restaurant is a permitted use in the requested zone change to General Business (B) . gUFFO(�- R`r Town Hall,53095 Main Road JJ THOMAS H WICKHAM P. o.Box 1179 H Z Southold,New York 11971 SUPERVISOR Fax (516)765-1823 O y • �� Telephone(516)765-1889 To: Chairman D. Ward, Planning Bd Chairman G. Goehringer, ZBA ✓ J. Townsend, Planning & Zoning chair✓ From: Thomas Wickham P Date: December 22 , 1994 The attached letter from Rudolph Bruer makes it clear that granting a change of zone for the Cichanowicz property will not be enough; we will apparently, also have to revise the Town Code. I would like your advice before we proceed with this . cc . V. Scopaz-Senior Planner DEC 2 7 1991Q lJ� PLANNING BO RD • Edson and Bruer • ATTORNEYS AT LAW MAIN ROAD-P.O.BOX 1466 SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK 11971 LEFFERTS P.EDSON (1912-1989) (516)765-1222 (516)765 2500 RUDOLPH H.BRUER FAX:(5I6)765-2753 December 20, 1994 Mr. Thomas Wickham, Supervisor P.O. Box 938 Cutchogue, New York 11935 Re: Frank Cichanowicz Brew Pub (Change of Zone Application) Dear Mr. Wickham: I represent Frank Cichanowicz who is applying for a change of zone of part of his property on Main Road, Cutchogue from RO to B. As you are aware Mr. Cichanowicz is requesting this zone change for the purpose of building a family owned and operated "Brew Pub". The pub will manufacture beer on the premises for the purpose of selling it in the pub's restaurant. The brewing of the beer and the restaurant are an intricate part of each other. Beer will also be offered for sale off the premises. There will also be a gift shop on the premises. The application was submitted to the Town Board on July 29, 1994. The Town Board is the lead agency for SEQUA purposes. We are hopefully awaiting a negative declaration. Cramer, Voorhis & Associates have reported their findings with respect to this matter to the Town Board. The present delay, I understand, is that the Town Board is awaiting the results of the Traffic Study prepared by Nelson and Pope. That report has been filed with the Town Clerk. The purpose of this letter is to again point out to the Town Board that the Town Code makes no provision for a "Brew Pub". This is probably due to the fact that no one has ever applied for such a use. In fact this is a new use of the property to Long Island. When we first made the application for the change of zone, no such "Brew Pub" operated on Long Island to our knowledge. (We had hoped to be the first.) Since that time a number of "Brew Pub's" have opened on Long Island and more are forthcoming. We request that the Town Board modify the Town Code to specifically define a "Brew Pub" indicating that it may be operated in a Business Zone such as the one we are applying for subject only to site plan approval of the Town Planning Board. December 20, 1994 This is a unique opportunity for the board. Our proposal can be used as a model for other "Brew Pub's" that may want to be established in the town. i.e. Lot size (our lot is 3.202 + acres) Road frontage (our lot is 295±) Location ( ours is in the Hamlet) etc. Our proposal meets the recommendations of the U.K. Study and the Town's Stewardship Task Force Study. We are anticipating that our change of zone will be acceptable to the Town Board and site plan acceptable to the Planning Board. We respectively request that the Town Board add to the classification of uses in a B Zone "Brew Pub". For economic reasoning we would like to be operating this business by the Spring of 1995. This business conforms to the type of business suggested in the UK Study. It will employ local people and attract tourists . We expect to attract similar Clientele as those who visit and frequent local Wineries. If you have any questions or would like to meet with me or my clients please call. Sincerely, Rudolph . Bruer RHB/me cc: Dr. Joseph Lizewski Mr. Joseph Townsend, Jr. Mrs. Ruth Oliva Mrs. Alice Husse Justice Louisa P. Evans 2 Edson and Bruer ATTORNr:Ys AT LAW MAIN ROAD-P.O.BOX 1466,SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK 11971 ��SUFFO(�-�o PQ JUDITH T.TERRY Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK r�/a Z P.O. Box 1179 ^� Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS � !� Fax(516)765-1823 MARRIAGE RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER Telephone(516)765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 11, 1994 Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. P.O. Box 1466 t � OCT 2 Ia9A i Southold, New York 11971 J_,_� t , S"O 1TH lD TOVJN Dear Mr. Bruer: pLANNINGBOPRD On October 4, 1994 the Town Board reviewed the EAF submitted by you on behalf of Frank Cichanowicz, III for the proposed rezoning of his property on the Main Road, Cutchogue. The Town Board has decided that it needs further information from you in the form of a Traffic Survey to address the possible cumulative impacts from nearby projects currently proposed or being built. The Town Board is not requiring an EIS at this time, simply further information. The Traffic Study should detail the existing road conditions at peak periods, detail the increase of traffic resulting from the proposed and neighboring projects, and should analyze how that traffic will affect the carrying capacity of the road under maximum traffic conditions. In addition to your project, the survey should consider the impacts of: -the adjacent Peconic Bay Winery, farm stand, and a proposed change of the house to a restaurant; -the expansion of the nearby Braun Oyster Company warehouse; -the King Kullen Shopping Center. The Town will complete the SEQRA review after it receives the Traffic Survey. They would be willing to accept a traffic survey done jointly with another applicant if you prefer to do this. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Page 2 cc: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Department of Transportation Southold Town Planning Boarcl z — Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island tob FOR DISCUSSION - POSSIBLE RESOLUTION /QK OCTOBER 4, 1994 DOES THE TOWN BOARD WISH TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE SEQR PORTION OF THE FRANK CICHANOWICZ III PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE? (See attached recommendation from Cramer & Voorhis.) As soon as we receive the Planning Board's recommendation we will be ready to set the public hearing. Af r?f SEP 2 7 g F 0 CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS September 16, 1994 Ms.Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk p=r41VFD Town of Southold 53095 Main Road cr nr,h P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (nh :1 f'I. ♦ TCwn CIPTK Re: SEQRA EAF Review Frank Cichanowicz, III Change of Zone Petition from Residential Office "R-O" to Business "B" District Main Road, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-103-1-P/0 19.3 Dear Judith: We have completed a review of the above referenced change of zone petition. In order to conduct this review,we carried out a field inspection, reviewed and corrected the Part I, completed Part II, consulted the zoning code and Master Plan update, and with these tools, prepared a SEQR Determination of Significance. As always, these documents are submitted in Draft form for the Board's review and consideration. It is suggested that the Board review these documents, and if there are further considerations, we would be pleased to amend the documents or consult with the Board as necessary. Inspection of the subject parcel finds that the largest portion of the site is agricultural in nature. More specifically, young trees are being grown for landscaping purposes. A small building, apparently a residence, occupies the northeastern corner of the lot. There are no sensitive environmental resources on the subject site. The site would be categorized as having flat topography and surface soils are classified as Bridgehampton loam which does not present restrictions for the type of activity Proposed. The depth to groundwater is approximately twenty two (22) feet. The site is not within the north fork water budget area, but is located in Groundwater Management Zone IV. In terms of natural resources, soils, groundwater and ecology, the site is not constrained with regard to use. In terms of land use and plannin&, the site is currently used for agriculturally related purposes. The site is zoned Residence-Office "R-O"which is intended to "...provide a transition area between business areas and low-density residential development along major roads which will provide opportunity for limited nonresidential uses in essentially residential areas." Land use in the area is as follows: North: Realtor, antique store, gas station, two residences with nursery behind. Northeast: Lawyer/CPA offices and vacant medical center 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 1 • Northwest: King Kullen shopping center, bank, auto parts store West: Winery, farmstand and residence. East: Residence, funeral home and old burial ground Southeast: Residential The applicant wishes to re-zone a portion of his property to General"B" for the purpose of building a facility which would offer beer for sale (on and off premises) brewed locally and on site. The proposed use could be considered as a compliment to the vineyards in the area. The vineyards have been shown to be an important part of the tourist industry and have contributed to the economic stability of the North Fork. However, the re-zoning to General Business "B"would permit an abundance of uses, including strip retail centers, wholesale businesses etc., many which do not consider the land-use in the area or the recommendations of the Master Plan Update. These uses are a concern because of the increased traffic and water use that are associated with some of these General Business uses. For this reason, it would be important to consider a restriction on the proposed rezoning which would allow the applicant to achieve the uses outlined in the zone change petition, and protect the community from uses which may not be as desirable at the subject location in view of present land use and zoning in the area. This could be achieved either through a covenant placed on the land as a requirement of the zone change approval. The covenant would restrict any use of the site without further approvals to achieve the following goals and uses: • maintain aesthetic quality of rural/historic agricultural use through historically appropriate design and site planning. allow only retail businesses complementary to the rural and historic character of the surrounding area,such as offices,antique,art and craft shops and galleries and other retail sales supplemental to vineyard use. allow restaurants,except drive-in restaurants As another alternative the Board could consider a different zoning district. It is noted that the Limited Business "LB" District achieves some of these goals through its purpose and permitted uses. the "LB" District is intended to "...accomodate limited business activity along highway corridors, but in areas outside the hamlet central business areas, that is consistent with the rural and historic character of surrounding areas and uses. Emphasis will be placed on review of design features so that existing and future use will not detract from surrounding uses. The additional uses must generate low amounts of traffic and be designed to protect the residential and rural character of the area". The use regulations of the "LB" district are also more consistent with the goals of the Master Plan Update, and permit a wider range of uses which may be appropriate on the site as an alternate use to the proposed use in the future. CRAMER, VR \ Aq OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS • In view of the foregoing facts, the proposed project is not expected to cause a significant environmental impact provided certain measures are taken to ensure that unrestricted business use does not occur. Therefor, the Town Board could consider the issuance of a Negative Declaration for this project incorporating appropriate restrictions into the zone change decision either through covenant or by approval of a change of zone to the Limited Business"LB" District. Attached is a draft Determination of Significance for your consideration. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very Truly Yours, omas W. Cramer,�-ASLA enc. Long EAF Parts I and II Determination of Significance CRAMER, V� OCIATES ENVIRONMENT {JG CONSULTANTS SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Town Board of the Town of Southold Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: 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 determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action: Frank Cichanowicz, III Change of Zone Petition from Residential-Office "R-O" District to Business "B" District SEQR Status: Unlisted Action Project Description: The project which is the subject of this Determination, involves a proposed change of zone of 3.24 acres from Residential Office "R-O"to General Business 'B". The project decision is structured to restrict business use in conformance with the following goals: 1) maintain aesthetic quality of rural/historic agricultural use through historically appropriate design and site planning; 2) allow only retail businesses complementary to the rural and historic character of the surrounding area, such as offices, antique, art and craft shops and galleries and other retail sales supplemental to vineyard use; and, 3) allow restaurants, except drive-in restaurants. SCTM Number: District 1000 - Section 103 - Block 01 -p/o Lot 19.3 Page 1 or 2 Frank Cichanowicz,III SEQR Determination Location: The site is located on the south side of Main Road, 287.32 feet west of Harbor Lane, in Cutchogue, New York. Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, and the following specific reasons: 1) The project has been evaluated through a Lon*EAF Part I and II which consider environmental and planning aspects of the project. 2) The subject parcel does not exhibit environmental sensitivity in the traditional sense. Review of the Long EAF Part I as well as field inspection indicates that the site is suited for controlled development for the following reasons; soils are conducive to leaching, topogra by is flat, there are no significant vegetation,wetland3 or wildlife habitat on site. 3� The proposed zoning would not generate a significant influx of people or traffic as compared to present zoning, nor would noise, aesthetic or visual resources be significantly adversely impacted. 4) Land use and zoning issues are a local, as opposed to a regional, consideration and measures are available to reduce impact upon the community. 5) The use would be subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board if the zoning is changed in accordance with Chapter 100 of the Southold Town Code. For Further Information: Contact Person: Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Address: Town Hall, Main Road, Southold Phone No.: (516)765-1800 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Rudolph Bruer, Esq. , for Frank Cichanowicz Page 2 of 2 14-13-2 (2/87)-2c 617.21 S EQ R Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- 'y, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine ;ignificance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting :he question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination )rocess has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. ull EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project pr action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or wht ther it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: Part 1 Part 2 ❑Part 3 Upon review of the information /A\ recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ❑ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ D. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' ❑ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Frank Cichanowicz, III Name of Action Southold Town Board Name of Lead Agency Printor Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible officer) 7/26/94 Date ` Approximate percentage of proposed site with slopes: M-10% �no % 010-15% 015% or greater 90 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? Dyes ®No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register,of National Natural Landmarks? ❑Yes CKNo 8. What is the depth of the water table? (in feet) 22' 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? 09No Yes C 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Dyes NNo 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? Dyes 9No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) Dyes 9No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open spa�„e or recreation area? ❑Yes QNo If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? Dyes WNo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: None a. Name of Stream and name of. River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name 0 b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ®Yes ❑No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? OYes ONo b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? Dyes ®No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? Dyes (RNo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ❑Yes 9No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Dyes ®No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 27 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 3. 282 acres initially; same acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 23 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing ; proposed as per code NwItAotA IS �70( g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour to (upon completion of project)? �i 0P_DNJ _\ PAr2_ S ° r h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: (\NrvvICl'1 115 1117,1 One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium // Initially N/A Ultimately N/A i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 23 height; width; SIT 8 .�� 124- Iength�Q� � j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? f'50 ft. VGRtFICAT IOtJ .�. Approvals Required: . $ubntillal Type Dale City, Town, Village Board Oyes ❑No City, Town, Village Planning Board C*'i Yes ❑No City, Town Zoning Board ©Yes ❑No City, County Health Department -KYes ❑No Other Local Agencies ❑Yes ®'No Other Regional Agencies ©Yes ❑No Suffolk County Planning State Agencies Dyes ®No Federal Agencies ❑Yes ©No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ©Yes ❑No If Yes, indicate decision required: ®zoning amendment ❑zoning variance ❑special use permit ❑subdivision: ❑site plan ❑new/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan ❑other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? "R/0" Residential/Office 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Appartment over offices/Governmental uses/Fraternal Organization/School 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Business "B" 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Restaurants, wineries and vineyards (AtsD STiL10 Nf}LLSi QEVERAGE CFf�Tf� WttU6ESGtht 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? &Yes ❑No G ) 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a I/ mile radius of proposed action? 90% Business 107 Residential and Residential/office 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a Y mile? QYes ❑No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10- Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? OYes ®No 11 . Will the proposed actign create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? eso a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ®Yes ❑No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? []Yes IZINo a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? Dyes ❑No - D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I ,certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Spons -r m Date - Z/Z 6/g Lt- Signature _�� z��`� Title �ti If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you . e a slate agency, complete the Coastal Assessment form before proceeding with this assessment. S Part 2—PRC•CT IMPACTS AND THEIR MACOTUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question. Have me responses and 6eterminations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply. asks that it be looked at further • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to RA-RT 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3 A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By IMPACT ON LAND Impact Impact Project Change 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to`th� project site? NO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 0 N than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 11 1:1 ❑Yes -)No tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts ❑ ❑ 11 Yes 0 N 2 . Will there be an effect h. _.,y ur:.que or unusual landfo ms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc. O DYES • Specific land forms' _ ❑ ❑ El Yes El No s , 2 3 IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By 3 Will proposed action affect am water body designated as protected? Impact Impact Project Change (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservat n Law, ECL) NO ❑1'ES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ O ❑Yes ❑No 4 Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? 7�v0 DYES Examples that would apph to column 2 / ` • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ Eyes ❑No or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. r: • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No 5 Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater` / quality or quantity? NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑Yes El No have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ Dyes 0 N gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No supply system. • Proposed Action will advers-•ly affect groundwater, ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Liquid effluent will be convevec: off the site to facilities wh.,h presently ❑ ❑ l es ❑No do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑ Eyes No day. • Proposed Action will likel , ._ -e siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ III Yes ❑No i existing body of wa:,: ,,: m- —it,.:t that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No and/or sewer services • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: _ ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑No 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patte�`rn__))-, or surface water runoff? gQN0 DYES Ex:.-..nples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ C ❑Yes ❑No • 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No IMPACT ON AIR ��\/// Will proposed action affect air quality? �(NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 ! ` Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No hour. Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No refuse per hour. r: Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No to industrial use. Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ ❑Yes DNo development within existing industrial areas. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endaQg red species? gQNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 / ` Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threaten d or non-endangered species? NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES O. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land r s rtes? O OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc l 8 • 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No agricultural land. The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) Other impacts. C ❑ Dyes ❑No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCE 1 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? NO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in ection 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: pnS51(3LF IM T ►F MOf; IIJTff751UE ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ u'i es ❑Nn project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13, Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 NO DYES The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational o portunity. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 9 1 2 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact Be 14 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systms? Moderate Large Mitigated By m DYES Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ENO • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ Dyes ONO • Other impacts: IF M09'rn IOTP-K]SIVe USE 1 .5 ❑ ❑ El Yes ONO TRAFFICPP-0ALEMS Mh`? RESULT . IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's SOL of of fuel or energy supply? )ZN0 DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑,,, Dyes ❑No transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibratii as a result of the Proposed Action? 0.QN0 DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 11 No facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Proposed Action wi!I produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO noise screen. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? �NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO substances(i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ L1 ❑Yes []No form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural E) ❑ Dyes ONO gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance El Dyes ❑NO within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste [-]Yes Other impacts- ❑ ❑ [-]Yes Ll No ,n Alf— 1 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact Be OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By 18 Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Impact Impact Project Change NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ❑ [-]Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. El E30Yes ❑No 1' • Other impacts: o 1 LOTlat_ 1 MPACTS Il" 040iU- ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 1IQTf'I,)6IV6 i15e IS hPPL—ZNKD1 19 Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? XNO DYES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 . Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe(if applicable)how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G.Ward, Chairman Town Hall, 53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham, Jr. 7 P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. �- Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald Fax(516)765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD U: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk FROM: Richard G. Ward, Chairman ti RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request Change of Zone Application for Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road, Cutchogue Zoning District: Residential Office (RO) SCTM# 1000-103-1-19 . 3 DATE: September 22 , 1994 This is in response to your Lead agency Coordination Request of August 10, 1994 . The Planning Board would like to be coordinating agency. A site plan application has been made, however it is incomplete. The Board has notified the applicant of the information needed to enable it to proceed with the review. A copy of that correspondence is attached for the Town Board' s convenience. When the requested information is supplied to the Planning Board, we will be able to start the environmental review of the site plan for coordination purposes. Meanwhile, there are cumulative traffic concerns on State Route 25 which we anticipate may require the applicant to fill out a Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form. In order to expedite the environmental review, we suggest the applicant be directed to apply for all necessary permits from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the New York State Department of Transportation. If you have need of additional information on this project please contact Bob Kassner at this office. Attachment: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS � ' y Richard G.Ward, Chairman + ; Town Hall, 53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. ,� ' _ � = Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald t Fax(516)765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk FROM: Richard G. Ward, Chairman A', RE: Request for report on change of zone application for Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road, Cutchogue Zoning District: Residential Office (RO) SCTM# 1000-103-1-19 .3 DATE: August 31, 1994 This is in response to your August 10, 1994, request for comments on the above referenced project. The Board will respond with a report after the SEQRA review is complete. i • PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS J Richard G.Ward, Chairman "(' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. 1 j ` P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. ,;, Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald '' Fax(516)765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk FROM: Richard G. Ward, Chairman )KI; RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request Change of Zone application for Frank Cichanowicz iII Main Road, Cutchogue Zoning District: Residential Office (RO) SCTM# 1000-103-1-19. 3 DATE: August 31, 1994 This is in response to your Lead Agency Coordination Request of August 10, 1994. This Board does not have a complete site plan application. We recommend that you hold the proceeding open until we get a complete application. We have no problem with The Town Board assuming Lead Agency, but would like to be a involved coordinating agency so that the environmental review for the change of zone and the site plan can be conducted simultaneously and expeditiously. As soon as we receive a complete application we will respond to your request. Attached please find a copy of the letter whereby we have notified the applicant of the information needed to complete his site plan application. P jJ • ��gUfFO(,��o • F ,ND1TH T TERRY o�O Gyt Town Hall,53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK CA Z P.O.Box 1179 .r Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS �,y �� Fax(516)765-1823 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER MARRIAGE OFFICER �0 y a0 Telephone(516)765-1500 1 T �' FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD r _ �l� 1 6 19August 10, 1994 S011i � NNI Lead Agency Coordination Request The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1 . your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the application and a complete Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Frank Cichanowicz, III Requested Action: Petition for a change of zone from Residential-Office (R-O) District to General Business (B) District on certain property located on the southerly side of NYS Route 25, Cutchogue, New York. SEQRA Classification: Type I Contact Person: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold. The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. If you have an interest in being lead agency, please contact this office immediately. If no response is received from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, it will be assumed that your agency has no interest in being lead agency. Fuge 2 • Agency Position: [ ] This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status on this action. [ X ] This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. [ ] Other. (See comments below.) Comments Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Very, truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Attachments Copies of this request and all attachments to the following: Commissioner Marsh, NYS-DEC, Albany Robert Greene, NYS-DEC, Stony Brook Southold Town Planning Boards/ Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. for Frank Cichanowicz, III (without attachments) Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board (without attachments) RECEIVED n, JU� 2, ' 13,, cnsr rao: .....190Y... STATE OF NEW YORK PETITION TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF FOR A CHANGE, I%IODIFICATION OR AI`IEivD,IIENT OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDII A - ANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLIL COUNTY, NEW YORK. FRANK CICHANOWICZ, III .......... ...................................................... TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: 1. 1 .... Frank Cichanowicz ..................................................... residin; atNY 11` (insert name of petitioner) Suffolk County, New York, the undersigned, am the owner of certain real property situated at S/S Main_Road, Cutchoue NY and more particularly bounded and described as follows: SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to change, modify and amend the Building Zone Ordinance of. the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, including the Building Zone ➢laps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: I Change of Zone from "R/O" Residential/Office to "B" Business on part of property located on the South side of Main Road, Route 25, Cutchogue N.Y. as per the atta- ched map accompanying this application. RIDER TO PETITION OF FRANCK CICHANOWICZ, III FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. DESCRIPTION: ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Main State Road, 287.32 feet westerly from its intersection with the westerly side of Harbor Lane. Said point also being where the North westerly corner of land now or formery of Fogarty intersects the southerly side of Main State Road, RUNNING THENCE from said point and along land now or formerly of Fogarty South 35 degrees 53 minutes 10 seconds East 117.00 feet to a point and land now or formerly of Coster. RUNNING THENCE from along land now or formerly of Coster South 34 degrees 18 minutes 50 seconds East 216.18 feet to other land of Cichanowicz. RUNNING THENCE through other land of Cichanowicz South 49 degrees 31 minutes West 417.38 feet to land now or formery of Blum. RUNNING THENCE along land now or formerly of Bblum North 40 degrees 29 minutes West 327.70 feet to the southerly side of Main State Road, RUNNING THENCE along Main State Road the following 2 courses and distances: 1. North 49 degrees 31 minutes East 155.17 feet; 2. North 48 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 294.83 feet to the point or place OF BEGINNING. 3. Such request is made for the following reasons: "see rider attached" (L. S.) . . `�, , STATE OF NEW YORK, ) ) SS:— COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ) FRANK CICHA. . ... , III $EI\G DULY SWORN, deposes and says that he is the petitioner in the within action; that he has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his (her) own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. (L. S.) .. ... .. Sworn to before me this . ..2 day of . ...44Y. . .. . . .... . . .. .. 19.94. .. . ... . .. Notary Public. RUDOLPH H. BRUER Notary Public, State of New York No, 52 0465530, Suffolk County :i-;n Exo!res Marcb 30, 7Q q RIDER TO PETITION OF FRANCK CICHANOWICZ, III FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. 3. Such request is made for the following reasons: The property would be better served by it being used as a restaurant (brew pub). The restaurant (brew pub) is to be an establishment wherein various varieties of local beers are to be brewed from crops grown on the premises and elsewhere. The brew will be offered for sale for on and off-premises consumption much like the local wineries. Pub fare be an integral part of the pub for local customers and tourists who have come to the North Fork. The present zoning of "Residential Office" is out of place in this already commercial area. Changing the zoning to "Business" will conform with the adjacent properties on both sides of the street. The restaurant (brew pub) will conform to the concept of business being located in the hamlet, the use is that of an attraction for tourists coming to Southold. The ability to have on-premises consumption of a product partially grown on the premises will add to Cutchogue, being a more touristic center. The neighboring property to the West is a Vineyard with business zoning on Route 25. This change of zoning was granted last year for the same reasons being proposed with this application. This use will be consistent with the uses in the area. 1a I5-z (2/97)-7c • 617.21 SEAR Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature,yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a projector action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 1 Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ❑ Part 1 ❑ Part 2 ❑Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF(Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ❑ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* ❑ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Frank Cichanowicz, III Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(if different from responsible officer) 7/26/94 Date 1 PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAT will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Frank Cichanowicz, III LOCATION OF ACTION (include Street Address, Municipality and County) S/S Main Road, Cutcho ue New York NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE Frank Cichanowicz, I11 ( 516 ) 765 1220_ ADDRESS 255 Lu en Drive CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE Cutchogue, NY 11935 NAME OF OWNER(I1 different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE r ADDRESS —� CITY/PO STATE j ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Zone change from "R/0" Residential/Office to "B" Business Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ❑Urban ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑Residential (suburban) ❑Rural (non-farm) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture 43Other Residential Office (R/0) Zone 2. Total acreage of project area: 3.24 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) none acres �_ __ acres Forested none acres _� acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) 3 acres _' acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) 0 acres _Q__. _._ acres Water Surface Area 0 __— acres __ acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) 0 acres 0 —_ acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces .25 acres __1 .25 acres Other (Indicate type) acres _ acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Bridgehamoton Loam .__.. a. Soil drainage: BRWell drained 100 % of site ❑Moderately well drained % of site ❑Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS .Land Classification System? acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ❑Yes ONO a. What is depth -to bedrock? (in feet) 2 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: EX0-10% % 010-15% 015% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? Dyes DgNo 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Registerof National Natural Landmarks? Dyes XNo 8. What is the depth of the water table? 15 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? OYes ISNo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Dyes IRNo 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? Dyes 9No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) Dyes &No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? Dyes ZNo If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? Dyes WNo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: None a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name 0 b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ®Yes ❑No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ®Yes ONo b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? Dyes ®No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? OYes ®No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ❑Yes ®No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Dyes ®No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 27 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 3.2.92 acres initially; same acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 23 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing ; proposed as per code - g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 10 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially N/A Ultimately N/A i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 23 height; 6_ width; 12- F length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? Lr50 ft. 3 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? None _ tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ❑Yes []No ®N/A a. If yes, for what intend_;: purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Dyes ONO -- --c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Dyes ❑No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? None _ acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Dyes lklNo 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 3 to 5 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated 1 (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 October month 1994 year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase March month 1995 year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? []Yes ONO 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ❑Yes (ENO 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 20 after project is complete 15-20 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Dyes IgNo If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes ®No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes ®No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Dyes KNo Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Dyes ®No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? gYes(minmal)qNo i a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? Dyes 919N0 c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Dyes ®No e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ®Yes ONo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ❑Yes MNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ❑Yes ®No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ❑Yes ®No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? :UYes CNo If yes , indicate type(s) Electrical 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 20 gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 450 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ❑Yes ONO If Yes, explain 4 •25. Approvals Required: Submittal Type Date City, Town, Village Board ®Yes ❑No City, Town, Village Planning Board ©Yes ❑No City, Town Zoning Board ®Yes ❑No City, County Health Department $]Yes ❑No Other Local Agencies Dyes (kTNo Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes ❑No Suffolk County Planning State Agencies ❑Yes ®No Federal Agencies ❑Yes ®No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, indicate decision required: (zoning amendment ❑zoning variance ❑special use permit ❑subdivision ❑site plan ❑new/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan ❑other 2. What is the zoning class ification(s)of the site? "R/0" Residential/Office 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Appartment over offices/Governmental uses/Fraternal Organization/School 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Business "B" 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Restaurants, wineries and vineyards 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? .®Yes ❑No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/4 mile radius of proposed action? 90% Business 10% Residential and Residential/office 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/ mile? RlYes ❑No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? Dyes ®No 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ❑Yes NNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ®Yes ❑No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? Dyes ®No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ❑Yes ❑No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I ,certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Spons r m Date 7/6z 9 4- Signature Title If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you e a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 V's �oS�EFOLKCOGy� �lK JUDITH T. TERRY Town Hall, 53095 Main Road am P.O. Box 1179 TOWN CLERK Southold, New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS <. Fax (516) 765-1823 MARRIAGE OFFICER ., � _`a� Telephone (516) 765-1801 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER T FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 10, 1994 A—11j Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the petition of Frank Cichanowicz III for a change of zone on certain property located on the southerly side of NYS route 25, Cutchogue. Please prepare an official report defining the conditions described in said petition and determine the area so affected by your recommendation, and transmit same to me. Thank you. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terre Southold Town Clerk Attachments cc: Rudolph Bruer, Esq. RECEIVED cnsE NO: ....3Q. .. Tcwn STATE CF NEW YORK PETITION TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THEMATTER OF THE PETITION OF FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDIN- ANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. FRANK CICHANOWICZaIII .. .......... ................. ................................... TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: 1. 1 .... Frank Cichanowicz . ....................................................... . residing at .2..5.5..ZaAeez1..A.xi.xs.....Gutshague. NY 11` (insert name of petitioner) Suffolk County, New York, the undersigned, am the owner of certain real property situated at S/S Main Road, Cutcho�ue NY and more particularly bounded and described as follows: SEE ATTACHED RIDER (description) 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to change, modify and amend the Building Zone Ordinance of. the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, including the Building Zone Maps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: Change of Zone from "R/0" Residential/Office to "B" Business on part of property located on the South side of Main Road, Route 25, Cutchogue N.Y. as per the atta- ched map accompanying this application. RIDER TO PETITION OF FRANCK CICHANOWICZ, III FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. DESCRIPTION: ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Main State Road, 287.32 feet westerly from its intersection with the westerly side of Harbor Lane. Said point also being where the North westerly corner of land now or formery of Fogarty intersects the southerly side of Main State Road. RUNNING THENCE from said point and along land now or formerly of Fogarty South 35 degrees 53 minutes 10 seconds East 117.00 feet to a point and land now or formerly of Coster. RUNNING THENCE from along land now or formerly of Coster South 34 degrees 18 minutes 50 seconds East 216.18 feet to other land of Cichanowicz. RUNNING THENCE through other land of Cichanowicz South 49 degrees 31 minutes West 417.38 feet to land now or formery of Blum. RUNNING THENCE along land now or formerly of Bblum North 40 degrees 29 minutes West 327.70 feet to the southerly side of Main State Road. RUNNING THENCE along Main State Road the following 2 courses and distances: 1. North 49 degrees 31 minutes East 155.17 feet; 2. North 48 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 294.83 feet to the point or place OF BEGINNING. 3. Such request is made for the following reasons: See Rider attached (L. S.) +S' STATE OF NEW YORK, ) ) SS:— COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ) FRANK CICHANG.ICZII ... , I , BEING DULY SWORN', deposes and says that ....HA .. he is the petitioner in the within action; that lie has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his (her) own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. (L. S.) CS1-.. Sworn to before me this . ,2 day of . . ..j14Y. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. 19. 94 Notary Public. i't'di7C?L��H H. 6RUER Notary Rubl+c, State of New York No. 52-0465530, Suffolk County Commission Expires March 30, 7961 S RIDER TO PETITION OF FRANCK CICHANOWICZ, III FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. 3. Such request is made for the following reasons: The property would be better served by it being used as a restaurant (brew pub). The restaurant (brew pub) is to be an establishment wherein various varieties of local beers are to be brewed from crops grown on the premises and elsewhere. The brew will be offered for sale for on and off-premises consumption much like the local wineries. Pub fare be an integral part of the pub for local customers and tourists who have come to the North Fork. The present zoning of "Residential Office" is out of place in this already commercial area. Changing the zoning to "Business" will conform with the adjacent properties on both sides of the street. The restaurant (brew pub) will conform to the concept of business being located in the hamlet, the use is that of an attraction for tourists coming to Southold. The ability to have on-premises consumption of a product partially grown on the premises will add to Cutchogue, being a more touristic center. The neighboring property to the West is a Vineyard with business zoning on Route 25. This change of zoning was granted last year for the same reasons being proposed with this application. This use will be consistent with the uses in the area. ,h'e� � � uun ." 4M1'Yr �✓ rM1nt.^.::L•��L '1 P ,r it ip! ua• i, r41in n o"e' ir 'I .....o. `" `rJ J �'�,`I i .o ' .L • 1;� yt'., .••f�, , x"Pd /j„Mn l Y g ,,4,� •I I • d9an �, � -� " • .1 '1 [ °0 Neal i e a' � •� , dn�� .a •" `•^'s`4 ,• . +?r , er r ��i •h�ata t �.. � l a IJ\t"Ps• +' ,.ma O rirx'h + Tih^n r l \.ur1 mull +oa.Pn.l r ♦ , O O / _ E+� 1.� �'rp°. •�" ✓".r+"'t / .. L.l P"' p..na~` 1 1' _ )R '"-; '' It t y�.m,... ry .- i axP F� �rJ 1jaR_ �\ ," A`nw'. o' t ' ..] .- „u) ignr N'.Y .ff.2 er•, Y1u .1.... 2 IL to � e rFy a f[c xo o �I ••f. W1 ,rt xo — � L Tun t '�4 �. •w, ... xf' Fe, ,,4, •nye - ...e{ ., _n.. .11 i _ „a •r°'c, ,� , r �� r. _ .\,.� � In v.. ix" _ = r+ EVE noI -� 1'- Wdx,$W 1plvwlx Rp 1J _ _ b�4 •, . aae ... xe in l`\ a v.N I` Ii � � �l �lniy40j "Wiex kfs o h rWq• •� �. assn • 1 a ! © COUNTY OF SUFFOLN _ • soUTHOLO _°_ ' Rool PrapenY Toa Serviw AeonaY •_ _ . _ - 1[03 l+arm w, MAP TO ACCOMPAtJY APPUCAT_ION FOR CHAIJGE OF ZOh1E A,-C, ZONE FROM "RO"m l FO R FRAMV C(CHANOW ICZ III / S.t E. REALTY CO. AT — QJT'CHOGUt r w !M8R!ANO 0' TOWN OF_SOUTHOLD , N.Y. < / F B ZONE S. — S curCv+co QEALTY r S — J �G l I � � isrw_ 18 a a - I ��.�i.�-��• L--- row � �w �m MAIN (STATE) N S. E. 28232 --se- 155.17 _ -- I N. 31 E. N. 20 E. se— r. 155.17 637 � -B, ZONE rO ZITS R N '^ I feu:��_..i m F, ro� o�.�.,._,_.�✓suSnwyer] / �?'F c vwr\'�: 2. BWM % "a.v o c N N SLUM I �Y W I I O n J.�_— I-�Q 3.qq W. 417.38 i m z°°- . - - -� SCALE I' mus !N Af2EA t 3.2 8 2 AC. OU/NE(J 4QGfdE�== - — — S.SAHU < / 3 MAIN-2C:AD � - CCH ANCY/ICZ ftp- ZONE r DALCHET COIrP r 1 O=RESIDENCE L=GARAGE a!- )(CCESSC2Y BLDG. Eg BU5!NES5 MAPPED JUN.!C 1994, 20DERICK VAP TUYL RC. - '✓ 7- " LLV —At M ? � rJ0 ImG- IJ'� l 3 —_— � _IC LAND SU Ry cY^Q�, ��2:E!v"' LT UY.