Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-121.-5-4.1Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 Mr. Henry Raynor P.O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 March 8, 1988 RE: Adams Industrial Park SCTM # 1000-121-5-p/o4.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, March 7, 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the set off located off Sound Avenue, Mattituck. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. jt Very truly yours, BENNETT ORL©WSKI,JR. ~HAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOW/~ PLANNING BOARD I 5 1991 L. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD Suffolk County, New' York 516- 76S-~a0~ ]~'9 2062(i' Southold, N. Y, 11971-/'L~s-~J l 9 19~__~.. '(.I . Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town or SOVT.O~,O Suffolk County, New York 516- 765-1801 N.0 ' ~ 8 8 Southold, N. Y. 11971~19 Judith T. Ter~, Town Clerk Sash ~ Cheek ~ ~ ~) TOWS CLZa~ 43 371; TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Suffolk County, New York phone 516-765-1801 Southold, New York 11971 Date_ ~ --~___ __ 19 ~ DOF ~'~ ~ ~~~ ' ' Judith T, ~e~, Town Clerk APplication reviewed at work session ApPlicant advised of necessary revisions Revised submission received Sketch plan approval -with conditions Lead Agency Coordination SEQRA determination Sent tom-~,- ' ~i,~ · '"~ ~ommissioner ~ecelpt of firewell location Notification to applicant to include on final map Sent to County Planning Commission ~eceipt of Count~ Report ~,~p~-~ ,~eview of SCPC report ~<Draft Covenants and Restrictions received Draft Covenants and ~estrictions reviewed ~iled Covenants and Restrictions received Receipt of mylars and Paper Health approval prints with Final Public Hearing Approval of set off -with conditions Endorsement of set off · THIS INDENTURE, made the 28th ' day of December , nineteen hundred and eighty two BETWEEN MARY SEPKO a/k/a MARY E. PYLKO, residing at (no number) Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York .000 12.1.00 party of the first part. and MICHAEL ADAMOWICZ and 'MARy, ADAMOWICZ, his wife, both residing at 140 Adams Boulevard, Farmingdale, New York · MICHAEL ADAMOWICZ , III, residing at 1 Pinewood Road, Old Westbury, New York ~. and ELIZABETH MARY FRASER, residing at 188 Parkway Drive, Carls Place, New York R.aS tenants in commoR without right of survivorship party of the second part, that the party of tile first part, in consideration of ten dollars and other vahmble consideration by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the s~:c. ond part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever,. ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and .improvements thereon erected, situate, , lying and being in the at Mattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York being bounded and described as follows: , BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Middle Road - C.g. 27 where the same is intersected by the easterly side of land now or formerly of Gabriel Kousourous; running thence along the southerly side of Middle Road - C.R. 27 and along the 'southerly side of Sound Avenue the following courses and distances: (1) South 89 d'egrees 13 minutes 40 seconds East 39.50 feet; (2) along an arc of a curve .bearing to the right having a radius of 944.93 feet, the chord of which bears South 85 degrees 20 ~ minutes 40 seconds East 128 feet a distance along said curve of 128.10 feet; (3) South 72 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds East 352.10 feet; (4) South 68 degrees (5) South 73 degrees (6) South 80 degrees (7) South 86 degrees land now or formerly Running thence along 40 minutes' 30 seconds East 47 minutes 50 seconds East 28 minutes 20 seconds East 54 minutes 00 seconds East of Sepko; 625.40 feet; 187..60 feet; 149.51 feet; 16%.39 feet to' seconds East 191.23 feet; . . Running thence along said land and lands now or formerly of Overholt, Vino'eot, Laudenbach and Mazzaferro South 86 degrees 54 minutes 00 seconds East 432.84 feet and North 87 degree.s 33 minutes East 75 feet to !and now or ,formerly of Wolgo, TOGETHER with all right title and interest, if any, of the party of the first part in and to any streets ami roads abutt ~e' the above described premises to the center lines thereof: TOGETHI".R with the appurtenancrs ,:isll?'.a.d a, thc e;tate and rights of th~: party of the first part in and t3 said premises; TO HAVE AN.D TO l~,~.~. 3..g~][~HOLD the premises herein granted unto the party of the second part, the he,rs or auccessors and ass,gns of jt~:tl~pany o/~ the second part forever. .:, AND the party of th, e first part covenants that t, he party of the first part has not done or suffered attything ,:. whereby the ~id premise~ have been encumbered m any way whatever, except as aforesaid· ~ ~AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first ~art will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consid- eration a~ a trust fund' tO be applied first for the purpose of pay!nE the cost of the improvement and will apt)ly the same first to the payment of thc cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the same for any other purpose. The word "party" shall be eonstroed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this indent.ute ~o requires. IF/WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has dui3' executed this deed lb,. day and year first above written. IN PRESENCE OF: (Mary Sepko a/k/a Mary E, Pylko) said land Sou~h 16 degrees 20 minutes 30 RIDER ANNEXED TO DEED DATED DECEMBER 28, 1982 MADE BY MARY SEPKO a/k/a MARY E. pYLKO, as Grantor to MICHAEL ADAMOWICZ, MARY ADAMOWICZ, MICHAEL ADAMOWICZ, III and ELIZABETH MARY FRASER, as Grantors Running thence along · East 1307.93 feet to Running thence along (1),South 57 degrees (2)~ South 55 degrees (3) South 55 degrees said land South 22 degrees 28 minutes 10 seconds land ~ow or formerly of Charles Prince; said land the following courses and distanceS: 37 minutes 50 seconds West 179.34 feet; 13 minutes 50 seconds West 141.70 t~eet; 43 minutes 50 seconds'West 130.00 feet; (4) North 80 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds West 408.84 feet; (5) South 88 degrees 31 minutes 10 seconds West 132.00 feet; (6) North 88 degrees 28 minutes 50 seconds West 276.40 feet; (7) North 88 degrees 11 minutes 20 seconds W6st 200.66 feet.;. 8) North 89 degrees 57 minutes 00 seconds West 169.29 feet; 9) North 21 degrees 53 minutes 00 seconds West 249.70 feet; (10) North 19 degrees 44 minutes 10 seconds West 335.64 feet; (1~) South 42 degrees 27 minutes 50 seconds West 124.00 fee~; (12) South 59 degrees 36 minutes 50 seconds West 217.00 fee6 to land now or formerly of H.R. Reeve and Sons, Inc.;. Running thence along said land.and along said land of Gabriel Kousourous North 19 degrees 52 minutes 20 seconds West 1772.43 feet to the southerly side of Middle Road - C.R. 27 at the point or place of BEGINNING. ~. BEING' AND INTENDED'tO be the same premises conveyed to the party of the first part by deed of Paul J. Baisley, Referee dated February 25, 1976 and recorded at the Suffolk County Clerk{s Office on March 1, 1976 in Liber 7995 cp 330. . .EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following:,' . ~. ALL that certain plot~, piece Or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Mattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and Stat6 of New York, bounded and described as follows: , BEGINNING at a concrete monument on' th~ southerly line of Sound Avenue at the northwest corner of the land of ROse Sepko and running thence from said point of beginning South 16 degrees 20 minutes 30 seconds East along the land of Rose Sepko 191.23 feet to a concrete monument at the southwest 6orner of the land of Rose Sepko; Thence westerly and northerly through the. land 'of the party'of the ~" first part the following courses and dist~nces: (1) North 86 degrees 54 minutes 00 seconds West 25.00 feet to a concrete monument; (2) North 16 degrees 20 minutes 30'seconds West 191.23 feet to a concrete monument in the southerly line of sound Avenue; Thence South 86 degrees 54 minutes 00 seconds East along the southerly line of'Sound Avenue 25.00 feet to the point or place of .beginning. . BEING AND INTENDED to be the same premises conveyed to the Rose Sepko by deed of Mary pylko dated August 26, 1981 and recorded at the Suffolk County Clerk's office on.September 23, 1981 in hiber 9074 '~ ep 193. ~ z j"'- .~.~-~ 'ft :;IReal Properly Tax Service Agency[?LE~9~ J 122 GEORGE B. MICHOS, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEER 101 Longfellow Lane Port Jefferson, NY 11777 (516) 928-8237 MICHAEL ADAMS INDUSTRIAL SITE MATTITUCK~ NY Traffic Evaluation Prepared For: Michael Adams Company 275 Adams Boulevard Farmingdale, NY 11735 June 1988 SUMMARY: This report presents an evaluation of the traffic impacts of a proposed 40,000 SF industrial development in Mattituck, NY. The report considers the existing,residential and commercial traffic and the impacts of the traffic generated by the proposed use on the adjacent roadway. The report also considers the addition of traffic from adjacent. residentiaI~ business and industrial ~ones owned by the project developer. The development concept for these additional areas is theoretical since there are no plans to develop these areas at this time. The development of the business area es a shopping center is a worst case situation. Development of this site as an office park would yield traffic flows of 35~ of the shopping center case. The results of this analysis indicate thatc o The traffic generated by the proposed use will not reduce the level of service of the adjacent roadway. o The key intersections providing access to the site can accomodate the added traffic with the existing geometry. Full development of the adjacent property will reduce the LOS at the Sound Ay. CR 48 intersections to an unacceptable level. The County viii have to install traffic signals at these locations to provide a satisfactory LOS. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to examine the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development of a 5.0 acre site in Hattituck, NY into a 40,000 SF industrial facility. Vehicle access to the site is from Sound Av. on the north side of the site. Sound Ay. is a Town of Southold public highway. The major arterial roadways serving the area of the project are CR 48 on the north and SR 25 .6 mi. south of the site. Local Town roads provide access to the residential and commercial areas north and south of the site. This evaluation is based on the following considerations: n Existing traffic counts on the adjacent and area road network. e The effect of the traffic generated by the proposed development on the local street systec. ~ The existing conditions at the key intersections providing access to the site. # The effects of added seasonal traffic during the Bummer months. ! The traffic impacts on the adjacent roads associated with full development of adjacent residential, business and industrial sites. In performing this evaluation we obtained existing traffic data from field traffic counts. We also observed traffic activity at the key intersections along CR 48. Figure ! is a location map showing the project site, and area road network. An Appendix is provided containing traffic engineering terms which are pertinent to this project, worksheets and calculations and traffic count data. FIGURE 1~ PROJECT LOCATION EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS: At the proposed project site, Sound Ay. is a two lane road. The pavement is generally 24 ft. wide and the shoulders are 2-4 ft. wide on both sides of the road. Parking is not prohibited along this road. Traffic controls consist of stop signs on the roads intersecting CR 46-Hlddle Rd. from the north and south. The alignment of Sound Ay. is slightly curved and level east and vest of the project site. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES: To assess the impact of the proposed use on the adjacent roadway network, it is necessary to initially establish existing or baseline conditions. Traffic volumes on CR 48 and Cox Neck Rd./Sound Ay. were calculated from on-site counts during the week of Feb. I-5, 1986. From these sources the following PM peak hour volumes were established as existing conditions: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUIdES - PM PEAK HOUR Higheay Peak Hour Volume vph E Bd. t/. Bd N. Bd. S. Bd CR 48 244 393 Sound Ay. 28 70 Cox Neck Rd. 99 89 GENERATED TRAFFIC: In order to estimate the traffic generated by the proposed site use and predict the routes this traffic would use, the folioeing procedures were used: $. Trip Generation: Generation rates were calculated using the 'Trip Generation Report - Third Edition' of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The proposed 4 0 Z use of the site is industrial and the IT£ report indicates that the PH peak hour is the critical period for this use. The generation rates are .397 trips/lOOOSF inbound and .783 trips/lOOOSF outbound. Industrial Site with 40,000 PH peak hour trips = .397 x 40 = 16 vph inbound .783 x 40 = 31 vph outbound Total PN peak hour trips = 47 vph 2. Traffic Assignment~ CR 48 and Sound Ay. provide access to the project site and all traffic was assigned to these roads. Inbound and outbound splits sere based on the IT£ factors noted above. Traffic splits for the project entrances are based on access road directional splits and location of the parking area entrances. Pigure ~ shows the assignment of traffic to the adjacent roads. All figures are for the PN peak hour, 5-6 PN. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the unsignalized intersections along Sound Ay. at the project entrance and CR 48. The methodology eaployed in the analysis is that published in the 1985 Highway Capacity Nanual (HCM) of the Transportation Research Board. Analyses were done for the average traffic conditions and for summer traffic conditions, 1. Sound Ay. & Entrance: This will be an unsignalized 'T' intersection with stop sign control. Left and right turns share lamas. Unsignalized intersection capacity analysis this location was made using turning movements estimated from the traffic generation data and counts on Sound Ay. The results are shown in Table i below. of S Z 3:: Z o3 o~ L) r~ [-, [*., '-3 2. Sound Ay. Northbound & CR 48t This is an unsignalized 'T' intereection with stop sign control. Left and right turns have seperate lanes. Unsignalized intersection capacity analysis of this location was made usin8 turning movements estimated from the traffic generation data and counts on Sound Ay. The results are shown tn Table ! below. 3. CR 48 & Cox Neck Rd./Sound Ay.: This ie an unsignalized four leg intersection with stop sign control on Cox Neck Rd. The southerly leg of the intersection is one-way southbound. Capacity analyses for this location were done for the existing conditions and adding the project traffic. The results are given in Table I below. Prom the data presented in Table ! it is evident that the proposed project will not reduce the LOS at the project entrance, or at the intersections. TABLE INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING W/PROJECT (LOS) W/SUMMER T Sound Lt Rt Lt CR 46 Lt Rt Lt CR 46 Lt Rt Lt Ay. & Entrance from Entrance from Entrance from Sound Ay & Sound Ay. from Sound Av from Sound Ay from CR 46 A A A A A A A A A & Cox Neck/Sound Ay. from Cox Neck ~l~ from Cox Neck A froe CR 48 A A A A A 6 ADJACENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT The proposed industrial site development is part of a 71.5 Ac. site. The balance of the property surrounds the 5 acre industrial site and is within industrial, business and residential zones. An analysis was made of the potential traffic generation from the three zones, the assignment of such traffic and the potential impacts of the added traffic on the ad{acent roads. 1. Traffic Generation: Based on the existing zoning requirements the following development potential vas assumed: Residential Zone: 19.3 Ac., 15.4 Ac. subdividable, l? lots ~ 40,000 SF each. Industrial Zone: 33.3 Ac. Business Zone: 13.9 Ac., 125,000 SF shopping center based on setback & parking requirements. Traffic generation from these zones would then be: Residential: inbound = .67 x 17 = 1! vph outbound = .34 x 17 = B vph Industrial: inbound = 3.4 x 33.3 = 113 vph outbound = 6.7 x 33.3 = 223 vph Business: inbound = 2.85 x 125 = 356 vph outbound = 3.05 x 125 = 381 vph ~. Traffic Assignment: It w~s also ~ssumed that ~he_ industrial and residential traffic would ali use the proposed entrance road for the industrial site as an access All traffic from these zones was assigned to this new road. F_pr the shopping center it was assumed that there would be ~~x~its directly on ~d~~~ assiEned to driveways on thi~ ~n~d. The assumed traffic assignment is shown on Figure 4. 7 ~. Capacity Analysis: Intersection capacity analyses vere done for the locations described above using the traffic distribution data shown on Fi&ure 4. Analyses were done for both average and summer traffic conditions, and the results are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2: INTERSECTIONS - FULL DEVELOPHENT LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ~XISTING W/PROJECT W/SUHHER T Sound Av. & Entrance Rd. Lt from Entrance - ~1~ ~ Rt from Entrance - A A Lt from Sound Ay - A A CR 48 & Sound Ay. Lt from Sound Av B ~ Rt from Sound Ay A A Lt from CR 48 - A CR 46 & Cox Neck/Sound Ay. Lt from Cox Neck B ~ ~ Rt from Cox Neck A A B Lt from CR 48 A A B From this data it is evident that the traffic from ful I development of the surrounding property will saturate the intersections. ~he shopping center traffic and will have_. 4;he ~reatest effect o~__~_raf, f__i..c_ area. The two CR 48 intersections eith Sound Ay. will need signals~~........to provide a satisfactory LOS durin{ the summer 8 CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the ~he proposed Industrial Site will not significantl~ reduce the level of service of the adjacent roadway. Ths ~signalized intersections at the project entrance and CR 48 will provide a satisfactory level of service for left turn movements. Since the existing roadways and intersections will provide a satisfactory level of service, no improvements are necessary. The proposed site plan access is satisfactory and is recommended for approval as shown. Summer traffic in the area will increase the volumes by approximately ~0%. This additional traffic will not significantly reduce the LOS at the project entrances or at the CR 48 intersection. For the case of full development of the adjacent properties, the LOS at the CR 48 intersections with Sound Ay. will not have an acceptable LOS. Suffolk County will have to install traffic signals at these locations to improve the LOS. APPENDIX: 1. Glosary of Traffic Engineering Terms 2. Traffic Counts 3. Intersection Diagrams and Worksheets 9 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS TMaffic Generation: The initial step intan impact study of this nature is the determination of how much traffic (number of vehicle trips) will be generated by the proposed facility. This generation estimate is the basis of all additional estimation and calculation. ~xistinq Traffic Pattern: This concerns the present use of the highway network involved and it is upon this traffic volupe that the new traffic generated by the proposed development is superimposed. Pro~ected traffic volumes are combination of these two factors; namely, existing traffic volumes and traffic generated by the proposed facility (surcharge traffic). Tri. ~lstribution: The origin and destination of vehicle trips. The proposed development would be one trip end and the employees/visitors origin or destination would be the other trip end. ~Maffic Assiqnment~: After the traffic generation and distribution have been defined, it is necessary to decide which roadway links will be used by vehicles commuting to and from the site. This information is superimposed on existing traffic volumes to pro~ect future traffic on specific roadways. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS ! HOUR, a CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT CORRECTIDN FACTOR: !.00 BITE NO.: CR48-5 E/W CR~8 850F~ COX NECK RD. CL I~F.~K OF NUNI~y AUGUST 28, 1985 FILE= 048-'05 WEEKSO¥ AVERAGE T~SUNY e7 ~DNERDflY 88 T~RSDAY BEGINS E E W 1 3 § 6 7 8 II 3 7 · · · 3 3 · · 3 · * 8 I8 · · 33 34 · * 68 leO · * 177 ~30 ~ ~ 17! 835 ~ * ~ I79 eoa · ~ 870 EtS 875 307 899 334 a74 31! eta 333 I83 e!9 184 · 234 85 ZOO 107 108 77 79 7! I~7 49 61 85 71 38 33 4! 38 8 16 81 19 18 7 le 6 · 8 7 5 4 · · 6 8 10 9 · · ~3 43 35 34 · · 89 113 77 !03 · 183 819 174 185 184 238 166 ~4 187. ~ 198 189 * · 310 834 · · · · 309 310 · * J · 315 316 * * , · 163 160 * * 187 144 · J j · 105 81 o e j · · * 9 5 · * 7 7 · * 5 e , 30 37 ~ J 78 · · 178 ; * ~ 179 237 · · ~ 184 ~17 · · ED8 214 · · 290 · * 253 809 · * 268. e96 · ~ 896 319 · * - 279 314 · ~ ' 196 834 - · · 14~ 158 · * 106 117 · · 84 96 · J 77 78 ~ * ~e 36 J · ~J TOTALS 0 0 19~ e846 3363 3784 CUNBINED TOTflI.B 3751 3819 689 760 0 0 0 0 3430 3681 l 3 5 6 7 8 lO 11 18 l 3 6 7 8 I0 Il · * 6 · * 87 · * 407 ~ a 435 a · 407 a · 387 · 437 438 · 434 503 J 483 547 · 515 · 588 633 · 585 805 · 408 ~J8 · ~58 s 185 ~15 · 1~ 198 · 55 79 19 18 J · 14 14 18 J , 14 15 9 * · 11 14 19 · j 19 808 180 J J 190 40~ 359 J * 389 ~8 390 * * 416 408 387 * · 401 457 * j * 488 511 * * · 462 567 * , * 538 E31 * j * El5 590 · , , 593 469 , · * 430 323 * , · 304 186 · , * 160 183 * , * 149 91 * · , 78 48 , , , 37 TOTALS 0 4e36 7147 7570 1449 TRAFFIC COUNTS February 5, 1988 Cox NB Neck Rd. SB CR 48 EB 7-8am 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12n 12-1pm 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 80 71 221 78 69 190 83 73 213 91 84 234 99 89 244 301 307 327 383 393 Seasonal correction factor 1.08 UNSIGNALIZF~D I NTERS~C'rlONS WORKSH~t~'i' FOR ANALYSIS LOCATION: HOURLY VOLUMES Major Street:~ (~ N Date of Counts: Tune Period: . ~-& I~,~ Average Running Speed: N ==['~ ~ Vs .-7_O Grade 'q,4g- V ~ ~[ ~ YIELD S~eet: PHF:.'q~ Grade LOCATION: HOURLY VOLUMES Major Street: Grade .~--% Date of Counts: -.._~,.z._,,~.L~ Tune Period: Average. Running Speed:~ PHF: Grade · -- - ¥4 ~ tv, v,] I STOp ~ ~ ~ YIELD Minor ~ S~eet: OF T-INTERSECTIONS NAME: ~. x, t ',-o'-r ~ o ~. VOLUMES IN PCPH ~ Ms l -- V2 ~_ Vt __ VOLUMES IN PCPH ~ Vs l __v,. ~ V~ V~ T INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Sound Ay. & Entrance Rd. ~ith Pro,ant - Average Traffic Volume AdjusTments Movement 2 J 4 5 Volume 28 6 10 70 Vol.(pcph) 11 Rt. from minor street V9 ConflictinB Flow 31 Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 1080 Tc=5.5 Actual Capacity 1080 Lt. from major street V4 Conflictin9 Flow 34 Crit. Bap, Tc &Cp4 1080 Tc=5.5 %Cp Used & Impel. factor 0.93 Actual Capacity IOBO .99 Lt. from minor street V7 Conflicting Flow 111 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 800 Actual Capacity 792 To--6.5 Shared Lane Capacity Cah 875 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) CR LOS 7 22 792 792 770 A 9 12 1080 IOBO 1048 A ¢ 11 1080 1<80 1069 A 7 20 22 5-6 PM ? 11 12 .T. INTERSECTION ANAi. YSIS Sound Ay. & Entrance Rd. With Project - Summer Traffic Volume Adjustments Movement Volume 43 6 10 108 Vol. (pcph) 11 Rt. from minor street V9 Conflicting Flow Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 1{)50 Tc--5.5 Actual Capacity 1050 Lt. from major street V¢ ConflictinB Flow 49 Crit. Bap, Tc %~.~:4 1050 Tc:5.5 %Cp Used & Imped. factor 0.95 p4~ Actual Capacity 1050 Lt. from minor street V-/ Conflictin9 Flow 164 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 770 Tc=~.5 Actual Capacity 762 Shared Lane Capacity Cch 844 Movement v(pcph) Cm4pcph) Csh{pcph) CR LOS 7 22 762 742 740 A 9 12 1050 10'~0 1038 A 4 11 1050 1050 1039 A 5-6 PM 7 9 20 11 22 12 ~,,,INT£RSECTION ANALYSIS Volume Adjum~mente Movement Vol. ipoph) Rt. from minor street V? Conftictin9 Flow Critical Gap, lc &Cp9 Actual Capmcity C8 48 & S~dnd Ay. North Existing Conditions 0 228 BSO 850 Conflictin9 Flow 228 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp4 850 Tc=5.5 ~Cp Used & lmped, factor 0.00 P4= Actual Capacity 850 Lt. From mmor street V7 Confl~ctin9 Flow 621 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 400 Actual Capacity 400 To=6.5 Shared Lane Capacity Csn 400 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcpn) Csh(pcph) CE LOS 7 55 400 400 345 B 9 0 850 850 850 A 4 0 850 850 850 A 7 50 55 5-6 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Voiume Adjustments Sound AY.& CR 48 With Project - A~erase Traffic Movement 2 3 Volume 228 0 Vol.(pcph) 0 Rt, from minor street V9 Cenflictin9 Flew 228 Critical Gapt Tc &Cp9 69~ Tc=6.5 Actual Capacity 695 4 5 0 393 Lt. from mejor street V4 Conflicting Flow ~78 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp4 775 Tc=6.0 ZCp Used & Imped. factor 0.00 P4= Actual Capacity 775 Lt. from minor street ¥7 Conflicting Flow 621 Crit. Sap, Tc &~p7 5~ Tc=8.5 Actual Capaoity ~0 Shared Lane Capacity Cmh 3~0 ~ovme~nt v(pcph) ~(pcph) Csh(pcph) ~ LOS 7 70 3BO 38{) 310 B 9 0 69§ 695 69§ A 4 0 775 775 775 A 7 ?0 5-6 PM T~IN~R~ECTION ~ALYSI8 Sound Av.~ CR 48 With Project -Summer Traffic Volume Adjustments Movement 2 3 Volume 356 0 Vol. (pcph) Rt. free minor street V9 Conflicting Flow 356 Critical ~ap, Tc &Cp9 590 Actual Capacity 5~0 4 § 7 9 0 605 91 0 0 100 0 Tc=6.5 Lt. from ma}or street V4 Conflicting Flow 3,56 Crit. Gap, Tc ~Cp4 ~ To:6.0 ~p Used & Iaped. factor 0.00 P4= Actual Capacity 660 Lt. from minor street V7 Conflicting Flow 961 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 130 Actual C~acit¥ 1~0 Tc=8.5 Shared Lane Capacity Csh 130 ~veeent v(pcph) C~(pcph) Csh(pcph) CR LDS 7 100 130 130 30 E 9 0 590 590 590 A 4 0 660 ~0 ~0 A ~-6 PM FOUR-LES INTERSECTION ANALYSIS CR 48 & Co): Neck Rd. Existing Conditions VDLU~ AnJL~TMENTS MOVEMENT I 2 3 4 5 VOL. vph 16 2~ 28 0 VDL. pcph 18 0 RT FROM MINOR STRE ET Conflictin9 Flows, Vc 214 351.5 Critical Gap, Tc 5.5 5.5 Potential Cap., Cp 875 750 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 6.7 Impedence Factor, P I Actual Cap., Ce9, 12 875 750 83 PM Peak 7 8 9 I0 11 12 0 0 0 ~ 11 50 0 0 0 31 12 ~ LT FROM MAJOR STREET V4 VI Conflictin9 Flows, Vc 228 393 Critical Gap, Tc 5.5 5.5 Potential Cap., Cp 850 700 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 2.3 l~pedence Factor, P 1 .g8 Actual Cap., Ce4, 1 850 700 lH FROM MINOR STREET U8 Vll Conflictin9 Flows~ Vc 623 595.5 Critical Gap, Tc 6.5 6.5 Potential Cap., Cp 400 430 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 2.6 Iapedence Factor, P 1 Actual Gap., C~S, 11 39~ 421 LT FNOM MINOR STREET U7 VIO Conilictin9 Flows, Vc 684 595.5 Critical Sap, ~c 8.5 8,5 Potential Cap., Cp 375 Actual Cap., ge 7, 10 346 417 YIELDn J Vx, V,, v,o , N ~ V~ ~10 major road N-~ vTv, v, I YIELD[~ Grade (') % N SHAREDLAAECAPACITY 2 MoYee~qts share a lane 3 Movements share a lane VIO ~ VII V7 & VB ERR~ VIO~Vll,VI2 V7,VB,Vg ERROR MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movement vipcph) Cefpcph) Csh(pcph)Cr=Csh-v LDS 7 0 ~46 346 346 B B 0 392 392 392 B 9 0 875 875 875 A MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVE~NTS 10,1112 10 3i 417 417 386 B II 12 421 421 409 A 12 55 750 750 695 A MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 1 lB 700 682 A 4 0 850 850 A INTERSECTION ANALYSIS OR 48 & ~o~ Neck Rd./Sound Ay. With P~o~ect VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS ~OVEMENT i 2 $ 4 § 6 VOL. vph l& 200 54 0 514 ~J VOL. pcph 18 0 RT FROM MINOR STREET Conflicting Flows, Vc 217 ~60.5 Critical Gap, Tc 6.5 6.5 Potential Cap., Cp 700 580 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 4.8 Im~:edense Factor, P 1 .97 Actual Cap., Ceg, 12 700 580 LT FROM MAJOR STREET V4 V1 Conflicting Flows, ¥c 2J4 407 Critical Gap, Tc 6 6 Potential Cap., Cp 760 620 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 2.6 Iape~ence Factor~ P 1 .~ Actual Cap., Ca4, 1 760 620 TH FROM MINOR STREET V8 VII Conflicting Flows, Vc 64~ 610.5 Critical Gap, Tc Potential Cap., Cp 280 290 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 ~.B Iapedence Factor~ p 1 .97 Actual ~., C~ 11 274 2~ LT FROM MINOR STREET V7 VIO Conflicting Flows, Vc 679 610.5 Critical Gap, Tc 8.§ 8.5 Potential Cap.~ Cp 240 255 Actual Cap., Ca 7, 10 221 2~0 SHAREO lANE CAP~ITY 2 Movements share a lane 3 Movements ~hare a lane VIO & VII 270 V7 & ~ ERROR VIO, VII~V12 ~10 VT, VB, V9 ~ MINOR STI~.ET APPRgACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movement v(pcph) Cm(lmcph) Csh(pcph)Cr--Csh-v LOS 7 0 221 221 221 C B 0 274 274 274 C 9 0 700 700 700 A MINOR STREET AP~OAOR MOVEMENTS 10,1112 10 55 250 250 1~ D I1 12 284 284 272 C 12 31 580 580 549 A MAJOR STREET LEFT TORNS 1,4 1 18 620 602 A 4 0 760 760 A 5-6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 0 0 0 50 1I 28 0 0 0 55 12 Jl .FOOR-LES INTERSECTION ANALYSIS CR 48 & Cox Neck Rd./Sound Ay. Nith P~oject - Summer Traffic VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS MOVEMENI 1 2 S 4 5 6 7 VOL. vph 23 285 46 0 44~ 129 0 VOL. pcph 25 0 0 RT FR~I MINOR STREET V9 V12 Co~flicting Flows, Vc 28 510.5 Critical Gap, Tc 6.5 6.5 Potential Cap., Cp 650 480 Percent of Cp Utilize~ 0.0 8.5 Iapedence Factor, P 1 .96 Actual Cap., Cm9, 12 830 480 LT FROM MAJOR STREET V4 V1 Cenflicting Flows, Vc gl 575 Critical 8ap, Tc 6 6 Potential Cap., Cp 675 500 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 4.6 Impm~ence Factor, P 1 .97 Actual Cap., Cm4, 1 675 500 TH FR~ MINOR ETRB:'T V8 Vll Cenflictln~ Flows, Vc 906 8&4.5 Critical Gap, lc 8 8 Potential Cap., Cp 165 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 Iapmdence Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., CmS, 11 160 lB4 LT FROM MIN(]RSTREET V7 VIO Conflicting Flows, Vc 961 864.5 Critical Gap, Tc 8.5 8.5 Potential Cap., Cp 130 155 Actual Cap., Cm 7, 10 116 150 SItqRED LJqNE CAPACITY 2 Movements sha~ a lane Movements sha~ a lane VlO & Vll 158 U7 & VB ERROR VlO,Vll,U12 198 V7,VS,V9 ERROR MINOR STREET APPROACH FE)UI'YlENTS 7,8,9 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) (]sh(pcph)Cr-Csh-v LOS 7 0 116 11(: 116 8 0 160 180 180 9 0 830 630 6.10 A MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,1112 10 78 150 150 72 E 11 17 184 184 167 O 12 44 48O 48O 436 A MAJOR STREET LEFT TUR)~ 1,4 I 25 500 475 A 4 0 675 675 A ~6 PM 8 9 10 I1 12 0 0 71 15 40 0 0 78 17 44 ~, INTERSECTION A~ALYSIS Volume Adjustments Movement 2 3 4 Volume 219 50 90 Rt. from minor street V9 Confliotin9 Flow 244 Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 840 Tc=5.5 Actual Capacity 840 Sound Ay. & Entrance Rd. Full Developeent - Average Traffic 5 7 9 248 166 94 185 105 Lt. from major street V4 Cenflicting Flow 269 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp4 B20 Tc=5.5 7£p Used & Imped. factor 10.98 P4= Actual Capacity 820 Lt. from minor street V7 Conflicting Flow 582 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 440 Actual Capacity 414 Tc=6.5 ShareO Lane Capacity Csh 507 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) C~(pcph) CR LOS 7 18~ 414 414 231 C 9 105 840 840 777 A 4 99 820 820 721 A 5-6 P~ ~ INT~SECTION ANALYSIS Sound A~. & Entrance Rd. Full ~velopmeet - ~uee~r Traffic To=5.5 Volume Adjustments Movement 2 ~ Volume 2~ 50 Vol.(pcph) Rt. from minor street V9 Conflicting Flow 25? Critical Gap, Tc &~ 8~0 Actual Capacity 850 4 5 7 9 ~0 28~ 1~ 94 183 10~ Lt. from major street V4 Conflicting Flow 284 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp4 805 Tc--5.5 %Cp Used & l~ped, factor 11.18 p4= Actual Capacity 805 Lt. from minor street V7 Conflicting Flow Crit. 8ap, Tc &Cp7 405 Actual Capaoit¥ ~81 Tc=6.5 Shared Lane Capacity Csh 475 Mov~ent v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) CR LOS 7 18~ 381 ~81 198 0 9 103 ~0 B~O 727 A 4 99 865 805 706 A 5-6 P~ T INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Volume Adjustments Sound Ay.& CR 48 Full Development - Avera(je Traffic Movement 2 3 4 5 7 Volume 28 0 0 393 2~ Vol. (pcph) 0 329 Rt, from minor street V9 Confliotin9 Flow 22B Critical Gap~ Tc &Cpg 695 Tc:6.5 Actual Capacity 695 Lt. fr~m major strmmet V4 Conflicting Flow 22B Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp4 775 ZCp Umed & Imped. factor 0.00 P4= Actual Capacity Lt. fro~ minor street V7 Conflicting Flow 621 Crit. Oap~ Tc &Cp7 250 Actual Capacity 250 Tc~8.5 SharmO Lane CaPacity Csh 250 ~ovement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) C~h(pcph) CR 7 $2g 250 250 -79 9 0 &~ 695 695 4 0 775 775 775 LOS F A A 5-6 PM .T INTER~ECTIDN ANALYSIS Sound Ay.& CR 4B Full I)evelopment - Summer Tt'affic Volume Adjustmente Movement 2 3 Volume ~ 0 Vol.(pcph) 0 Rt. f~om minor strmet V9 Conflictin9 Flow 356 Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 590 Tc=6.5 Actual Capacity 590 0 605 326 0 3~9 0 Lt. from major street V4 Conflicting Flow ~56 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp4 dO Tc=~.O %Cp U~ & Imced. factor 0.00 p~ Actual Capacity ~0 Lt. from minor street V7 Conflicting Flow 961 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 125 Actual Capacity 125 Tc=8.5 Shared Lane r~l:acity Csh 125 Movement v(pcphJ Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) CR LO~ 7 359 125 125 -234 F 9 0 590 590 590 A ¢ 0 6~0 6&O 660 A 5-& P~. .FOOR-LES INTERS£CTI~ ANALYSIS OR 48 & Cox Neck Rd./Sound Ay. Full Developm~t - Average Traffic VOLU~ ADJUSTMENTS MOVEMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 U(]L. vph 16 200 lBO 0 462 1BO 0 VOL. pcph 18 0 0 RT FROM MINOR STREET V9 Conflictin9 Flow~, Vc 290 552 Critical Gap, Tc 6.5 6.5 Potential Cap., Cp 645 455 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 6.2 Impedence Factor, P I .97 Actual Ca~. ~ Cagy 12 645 455 LT FROM MAJOR STREET V4 Vl Conflicting Flow~, Vc SBO 642 Critical Gap, Tc 6 6 Potential Cap.~ Cp 645 455 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 3.3 Impedence Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., Ca4, 1 645 455 TH FROM MINOR STREET VB Vll Conflicting Flows, Vc 94B 948 Critical Gap, Tc 8 Potential C~p., Cp 150 Percent o~ Cp Utilized 0.0 5~.0 Impedence Factor, P 1 .5 ~t~l ~., CraB, 11 147 LT FROM MINOR STREET V7 VIO Conflicting Flows, Vc 106~ 948 Critical Sap, Tc 8.5 8.5 Potential Cap., Cp 100 130 Actual Cap., C~ 7, 10 48 127 SHAREO LANE CAPACITY 2 ~vements sham a lane 3 Movements share a lane VIO & Vll 134 V7 A V8 ERROR VIO~VI1,V12 158 V7, UB, V9 ERROR MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Move$~nt v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Ceh(pcph)Cr~Csh-v L~ 7 0 48 4B 48 E 8 0 147 147 147 0 g 0 645 645 ~5 A MINOR S~ET APPROA(~H MOVEMENTS 10,1112 10 55 127 127 72 E I1 76 147 147 51 E 12 31 455 455 424 A MAJOR STREET LEFT TORN~ 1.4 1 lB 455 437 A 4 0 645 ~45 A 5-6 PM 8 g tO 11 12 0 0 50 87 28 0 0 5~ 96 31 FOUR-LEG INTERSECTION ANALYSIS VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS MOVEMENT 1 2 S VOL. vph 2,9 285 192 VOL. pcph ~ CR 4B & Cox Neck Rd./Sound Ay, Full Devei~meet - Summmr Traffic 5% PM RT FRONMINOR STREET Con{little9 Flows~ Vc 581 Critical Gap, Tc Potential Cap., Cp 575 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 Impedence Factor, P 1 ActuaI Cap., Cm9, 12 575 V12 702 6.5 11.1 LT FR~HAJ~ STREET V4 Conflicting FIoas, Vc 477 Critical Sap, Tc 6 Petential Cap., Cp 565 Pe~ent of Cp Utilized 0.0 Impedence Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., Cm4, 1 565 V1 810 6.4 .97 TH FRDM MINDR STREET Conflictin9 Flows, Vc 1214 Critical Bap, Tc S Potential Cap., Cp Pe~ent of Cp Utilized 0.0 I~peUence Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., C~, 11 92 VIi 1202 B 95 ~.8 LT FROM MINOR STREET V7 Conflictin9 Flow~, Vc 1345 Critical Bap, Tc 8.5 Potential Cap., Cp 50 Actual Cap., Cm 7, 10 4 VIO 1202 B.5 75 73 SHARED LANE CAPACITY 2 Movementm share a lane 3 Hov~nts share a lane VIO& VII V7 ~V8 VIO, VIi~V12 VT,VB,V9 MINDR STREET APPROACH HOVEHENTS 7,8,9 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph)Cr=Ceh-v L~ 7 0 4 4 4 E 8 0 ~2 92 92 E 9 0 575 575 575 A BO ERROR 97 ERROR MINOR STREET APPROACH MDVEi~ENTS 10~1112 10 7B 73 73 -5 F 11 100 92 92 -B F 12 ~ 360 360 516 B MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 i 25 3&O ~§ B 4 0 565 565 A 4 5 6 7 fl 9 10 11 12 0 594 216 0 0 0 71 91 40 0 0 0 0 78 100 44 P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 October 2, 1987 Mrs. Betty Fraser c/o Mr. Michael Adams 275 Adams Boulevard Farmingdale, NY 11735 Dear Mrs. Fraser: Please find enclosed the set off application for the 5 acres at Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York, Please complete question no. 7, sign and have notarized and return to the above address along with a check in the amount of $250 payable to the Town of Southold for the filing fee. Also, please send a second check payable to the Town of Southold in the amount of $100 which represents the filing fee for the site plan. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at 298-8420. HER:ml Enc. Sincere 1~;., ~\ Henry ~. Raynor, Jr.~ S0UI~0[D 1~,~, ' 'DEC $1987 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE ARTHUR H, KUNZ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING December 5, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision - Michael Adams Southerly side of Middle Road, C.R. 27 opposite Cox Neck Road, Mattituck, New York. Dear Mr. Orlowski: The Suffolk County Planning Commission at its regular meeting on December 4, 1991, reviewed the proposed subdivision plat, entitled, "Minor Subdivision - Michael Adams" referred to it pursuant to Section A14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code. The attached Resolution signifies action taken by the Commission relative to this application. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kurtz Director of Planning b7 A.//X/~-~' / Fra~~ D~wling/ Sr. Planner Subdivision q~eview Division File: S-SD-91-10 FD:mb Attachment cc: J. Baler, C.E., SCDHS J. P. Hurley, Comm., SCDPW SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD.. .... File No. S-SD-91-10 Resolution No. ZSR-91-181 of Suffolk County Planning Commission Pursuant to Sections A14-24, Article XIV of Suffolk County Administrative Code WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, RESOLVED, RESOLVED, pursuant to Sections A14-24, Article ×IV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, a referral was received by the Suffolk County Planning Commission on October 31, 1991, with respect to a proposed plat entitled, "Minor Subdivision - Michael Adams" submitted by the Town of Southold Planning Board affecting premises located on the southerly side of Middle Road, C.R. 27 opposite Cox Neck Road, Mattituck in the Town of Southold, New York, and said referral was considered by the Suffolk County Planning Commission at its meeting on December 4, 1991 and the Commission has voted to disapprove said referral, Be It Therefore That the Suffolk County Planning Commission hereby approves and adopts the report of its staff, as modified, as the report of the Commission, Be It Further That said proposed plat is disapproved for the following reasons: A cul-de-sac street in an industrial or a commercial subdivision is unacceptable. The road system for an industrial or a commercial subdivision must be laid out for efficient movement of traffic, particularly by large trucks and tractor-trailers. Cul-de-sac areas are often blocked by haphazard parking that hinders delivery and pick-up of material and products. Large trucks and tractor-trailers have difficulty in turning around in cul-de-sac areas because of turning radius limitations complicated by haphazard parking. The Commission also offers the following comment on the map: The map could be made acceptable if the end of the cul-de-sac was extended to access the industrial property on the east, providing an additional means of access in the future and to improve traffic circulation within the subdivision. Motion by: Commission Commissioner Capobianco Vote: 10 Present - Seconded by: Commissioner Vahradian Yeas 10 Nays 0 Abstentions 0 Dated December 4, 1991 Hauppauge, New York Suffolk County Planning Commission Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Re: Set off of Michael Adams at Mattituck The following statements are offered for your consideration in the review of the above-mentioned minor subdivision and its referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission; (1) No grading, other than foundation excavation for a residential building is proposed. (2) No new roads are proposed ~nd no changes will be made in the grades of the existing roads. (3) No new drainage structures or alteration of existing structures are proposed. Yours]truly, Henry E. ~aynor,jJr. Agent fo~ Adams PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G, Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth k Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD John A. Keogh, Secretary Mattituck Fire District Pike Street Mattituck, New York 11952 ,% SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 , 1973 ~/.~-~/~)Encl~ed~~J~7~---please/~in~ (2) surveys for ~l~lease notify this office as to whether any firewel needed. Please s ecif~r ~-~A_ . ls are will be needed, p ~ w.=unuz shallow wells or e±ectric wells Please reply by .2 -~3 cooperation. 199~. Thank you for your enc. CHtC,~GO TITLE IN~)RANCE COMPANY ~ovee=e= 9, 1992 11050 w~C~ou~ rlgh~ of ~u~vlvorahlp. ,{ H. W&l~er Vice Preald~nt end S41~ ~an#ger December 23, 1992 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Jr. Re: Adamowicz/Fraser Mattituck Farms Dear Mr. Raynor: In accordance with lout letter of September 9th to Mrs. getty Fraser, my client, I am herewith enclosing a title certification from Chicago TLtle. That certification shows that Mary Adamowicz, Michael Ada:owicz III and Elizabeth Mary Fraser are all the necessary parties to sign the covenants and restrictions relating to the above. I am sending a co~y of this letter to my clients as advice to them to ~×ecute the covenants and restrictions and return them to you via ~epar;~te cover. Thank you for you" courtesy and assistance in this matter. RLA/ja enclosure cc: Mrs. Betty Fraser, ~~~ r~ ROBERT LEE AITKEN et al (S16) ;2~7-4455 F.~ (516) 727-4~07 TITLE NO.; 9208-05104 COVENANTS & RI {STRiCTIONS SEARCH ~ $~CHED THE ~CO~$ IN T~ SUFFC~K CLERK'S OFFICE FOR ~ PERIOD OF 20 Y~ T~T pA~ FO~ THE ~U~OSES OF DETE~i~:{ING P~TIES ~O MUST CONSENT TO T~ FILING OF CO,RANTS ~tD ~STRICTIONS AFFECTING THE P~MISES DESCRIBED ON $C~DULE A ~NEXED ~TO. ~ASED ON SAID RECO~, THE COmPlY ~a~ DETE~INKD T]~T T~ ONLY P~TIES ~O MUST ~NSENT TO =AID FIL~gG WOULD BE MICHAEL ADAMOWICZ AND MARY ADAJ~OWICZ, HIS WI~E, MICHAEL ADAMOWIC~, III AND ELIZABETH MARY FRASER, AS TENANTS IN COMMON .~CORD FEE OWNER BY DEED IN LIBER 92')2 CP 329 TAX. ~.~D DISTRICT* 1000 SECTIOR~ 121.00 BLOCK: 05.00 LOT: 004.001 $C~EDULE~A: (?P~MISES) S~E ATTACHED THE L~MIT OF LiASIL!TY UNDER THIS CERtIFICATe, FOB ANy R~ASON WHAT$(~VER, WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT OR ~EGLIGEN ~, SHALL NOT EXCEED ~1,000.00, AND SEALL BE CONFINED TO TH~ APPLICA~T TO W}{O~ ~HIS CER?IFICATE IS ADDRESSED. DATED= 11/30/92 BY ~RZE E. PAGE (516) 284-7032 - COVENANTS · RESTRICTIONS - PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 30, 1992 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Minor Subdivision of Michael Adams SCTM#1000-121-5-4.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, June 29, 1992. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, establishes itself as lead agency, and as lead agency makes a determihation of non-significance, and grants a Negative Declaration. Enclosed please find a copy of the Negative Declaration for your records. Very truly yours, Chairman Encl. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S, McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance June 29, 1992 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Minor Subdivision of Michael Adams SCTM#: 1000-121-5-4.1 Location: Southwest corner of Sound Avenue and C.R. 48, Mattituck, N.Y. approximately 1000' west of Factory Avenue. SEQR Status: Type I ( ) Unlisted (X) Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes ( ) No (X) Description of Action: The proposed subdivision of a 71.42 acre parcel into two parcels with areas of 66.08 acres and 5.34 acres apiece. Page 2 Michael Adams SEQR Negative Declaration Con't. Reasons Supporting This Determination: The project involves the proposed subdivision of a 71.42 acre parcel of land into two (2) lots with areas of 66.08 acres and 5.34 acres. The larger 66.08 acre parcel is located in three (3) Zoning Districts. Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LI0), Limited Business (LB) and Low Density Residential (R-80). The smaller parcel of 5.34 acres is located in the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LI0) District. Both parcels meet the area requirements for their respective zones and are thus consistent with zoning. The 5.34 acre parcel is a fallow agricultural field and is currently revegetating in pioneer species. There were no fauna classified as endangered species, threatened species or species of special concern, nor were any rare plants observed. The 66.08 acre parcel contains a variety of resources including fallow farm field, forested areas, and a significant amount of freshwater wetlands. The freshwater wetlands have been flagged in the field and verified by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the Southold Town Trustees, any future use of thi~ portion of the site will require wetland permits and wetland impact consideration for any activity within 100 feet for NYSDEC and 75 feet for Town Trustees. Based upon the above review of environmental resources of the subject land division, with particular attention to the 5.34 acre parcel is was determined that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. Any future use of the site will require further environmental review at the time of site plan application for design and use specific impacts on the 5.34 acre site, and further subdivision review of the balance of the residential / business industrially zoned portions of the site. In addition, any site use will be dependent upon providing satisfactory sanitary disposal in accordance with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC), as well as adequate water supply in accordance with Article 4 of the SCSC. Page 3 Michael Adams Because there has been no correspondence received from the Department of Health Services in the allotted time, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. Because there has been no correspondence received from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the allotted time, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. For Further Information: Contact Person: Robert G. Kassner Address: Planning Board Telephone Number: (516) 765-1938 cc: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Commissioner, NYSDEC Albany Roger Evans, NYSDEC Stony Brook Judith Terry, Town Clerk Building Department ~ Southold Town Trustees New York State Dept. of Transportation Applicant ENVIRONMENT~G CONSULTANTS Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 June 2, 1992 Re: Review of EAF for Minor Subdivision of Michael Adams, Sound Avenue SCTM No. 1000-121-5-4.1 Dear Benny: ~ As per the your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above rexerencerl project in accordance with your correspondence of May 12, 1992. Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows: o Review Part I LEAF The p,arc, el has been field inspected by CVA, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amenoed as necessary. A copy of same is attached. Prepare Part II LEAF The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. Environmental and Planning Considerations The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted. The project involves the proposed subdivision of a 71.42 acre parcel of land into two (2) lots with areas of 66.08 acres and 5.34 acres. The smaller parcel borders Sound Avenue, and the LILCO power line easement, and apparently is being divided from the larger site to provide for land use in accor,d, ance with zoning. The smaller parcel and the east 2/3 + of the,, ove,r,,all site is zoned' LIO" (Light Industry-Office). The western 1/3+ site i~zoned R-80 (Residential). In review of the proposed land division, it is apparent that the small parcel intended for use does not contain any sensitive environmental resources. The parcel is a fallow agricultural field which may have been used for grape vineyards and ~s currently revetgetati_ng in pioneer species. The topography is generally flat and soils on this port]on ot' the site include Plymouth Loamy sand. A test boring indicates sand and gravel, with no groundwater encountered to a depth of 12 feet. The depth to water is m the range of 40 feet; however, perched wetlands are present on the south and west portions of the site as will be described below. There were no fauna classified as endangered species, threatened species or species of special concern, nor were ther~ any rare plants observed. There were no other significant envir noted on the 5.34 acre portion of the land division, i?~!1, . 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 Michael Adams Property Long EAF Review It is noted that the remaining 66.08 acres contain a variety of resources including fallow farm field, forested areas, and a significant amount of freshwater wetlands. The freshwater wetlands have been flagged in the field and verified by the NYSDEC and the Town Trustees, and .may future use of these~portions of the site will require wetland permits and wetland ~mpact consideration for any activity within 100 feet for NYSDEC and 75 feet for Town Trustees. It is noted that the boundary of the nearest wetlands pond is in excess of 185 feet from the boundary of the 5.34 acre site. In addit!on, soils including Muck, some areas with moderate slopes, and valuable habitat associated with wetlands, forest and fields (wooded edge) create habitat diversity which will require consideration at the time of future land use of the balance of the subject property. From a planning perspecti.ve, the subject land divisio, n raises several questions which the Planning Board may w~sh to consider. The division of land will necessitate access to the balance of the site from the east part of the parcels frontage on Sound Avenue. A minimum 50 corridor is provided for this purpose. East of the access corridor, there are existin$ residences, which are in an "R-40" residential zone. Given the fact that the land diwsion will require access to the balance of the industrial property adjacent the nearest home, the Planning Board may wish to consider the suitability of th~s access point. It is also noted that the residential portion of the property does not appear to be adjacent to a public right-of-way. It is expected that the site owner may wish to utilize this land in accordance with residential zoning at some time in the future. Although the parcel is not land-locked due to theprovision of a 50 foot corridor, egress to the residential portion of the site wouldrequire access through the industrial portion of the site. The Planning Board may wish to consider future access schemes in connection with the residential portion of land for future use. Based upon a review of the environmental resources of the subject land division, with particular attention to the 5.34 acre parcel, we believe that the land division will not have ......... a significant environmental impact. It should be noted that any use of this s~te' wm require mrther rewew mclud~n~ SEQR evaluation at the time of siteplan application for design and use specific impacts on the 5.34 acre site, and further subdivision review of the balance of the residential/industrial portion of the site. In addition, any site use will be dependent upon providing satisfactory sanitary disposal in accordance with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC), as well as adequate water supp. ly in accordance with Article 4 (SCSC). If access issues are resolved to t.~e sat~staction of the Planning Board, we believe that a Negative Declaration ~s justified, based upon the reasons outlined above. I hope this letter provides the Board with the information needed to continue review of this project. We would be pleased to provide additional input upon request. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. enc: Part I/II LEAF CRAMER, V~ ~J~,A~e,SOCIATES ENVIRON M ENT~'?~G CONSULTANTS Page 2 6t7.21 [ R Appendix A , 2 7 1992 State Environmental Quality Review I ' FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FO · SOUTHOLD TOWN , J PLANNING BOARD Purpose: The ~uJ; EAF is de~ighed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an ordeny ma',net, whe~h~, ,~ pro,Ct ~ action may be sIgnificant` The que~t~n of whether an action may be significant is not a~wa~s ea~y to answer Frequent- Jy, there are aspects of a project that are subject:va or '.mmeasureab]e. It is also understood that those who determine signmcance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or n~ay be ~echnically expert in environmental analysis in addition, many who have knowledge m one particular area may not be aware of the breeder concern~ affecting the question of significance The full [AF ~s intended to provide a method wherebv applicafl;s and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive m nature, '>et fJexible to allow m:toduction of information to fit a ptoiect or action Pull ~A~ Componenlf: The full ~AF is comprised of three par:s; Part 1: Provides objective data and informabon about a given prolec: and its site· By identifying basic prolect data, it go,isis a reviewer m the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3 Pa~t 2: Focuses on identifying the r~nge of possible impac:~ that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered ~mal! to moderate or whether it is a potentially. large J¢flpact The form also ldendfies whether an ~mpact can be mitigated or reduced Part 3: If any ompa¢~ m Pat: 2 *~ identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 i~ used to eva:uate, whether or not the impact ~s ac:uaJJy important C DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify thc Portions of £AF completed for ~,is project: '~ Part 1 ~ Part 2 i~Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this ~AF (P~rts 1 and 2 and 3 Jf appropriate), and any o~her supporting infor~ation andcons~deringboththemagitud~andimpor:anceo~eachimpac[,~t sreasonac, lydetermmedDythe lead agency that: A The p¢ojec~ will not tesutt m any large and ~mpor[ant impact(s) and. therefore, s one which will have a si~mfic~nt im¢ac~ on the enwror, ment, therefore a ~eg~live de~laralio~ will be pre,areal. B Although d~e ptoiect could h~ve a ~gr'tifi,:ant effect on the environmenL there will not be a significant eHect ~or this Un~;sted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been requ~red, [here¢ore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepare&* C. The ~roject m~y result m one or more la:ge and impmtant impacts ~hat may have a significant impact on the environmenL therefore a po~ilive declaration will be prepared. ' A CondR~oned Negative D~daradon is only valid ~or Unhsted Actions Name of ACtIOll Name of Lead Agency Print or lype Name of ~esponsibl~ Officer m Lead Agency .~ Title of Responsible Off~cer S~gna,*ure of R ~ *spons,b e O,hr¢.r in Le~d Agency ~nature~arer(~ifferent ~m responsibleofflcer) F~F'F' ZE, '92 I0: _::T' h' ~ RT 1--PROJECT INFORMA~ Prepared by Project Sponsor Jr NOTICE TMsdoc'Jmentisdesig~ed toa~si~t in determining whether the action proposed may havea significant effect on the environment Please comple[e the ent;~e form, ParEs A through E, Answer~ to the~e qu~t,ons will oe con~ldered~ as part of the app cat on for appro~a and m~y be ~ubj~ct to further venflcat~on aec p~ b c r~ e~. Prowde aDy add, ona.~ information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected ~hat completion o~ the full EAF will be dependent on mformat~on currently avad~ble and will no[ involve new studies, re~ea~chorinve5t~Eation J~inform~tionrequlrin~such~dditJonMwork*sunavail~bJe, so indicate and specitY each instance NAME OF ACTIO~N So,md .¥'enue. >~ttlt~New Yore ~' e ~ ,s ~ nv - Henry E. Ra~or Jr. ~ent 320 ~ve ~e CITWPO 52.&l 29~.~420 STATE I ZiP COQE NY !.1952 I8U~N]!$$ 'tELEPHONE r', ~ ~ ~cl " O a.ny 27r3 Ada~ Routev~rd set off 5 acres from 71..5 acres ~ /~ro ~o (2) STATE i ZiP CODE ' ~NY I 11735 -T'V~.e pc~f)o~<cl ~,~.bci~:1:)tc-~', o~ L',. -/ I.~Zqcv-¢ PleaCe Complete [ach Question.-lndicate N.^, ii not .~pplicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall prolect, both developed and undeveloped ,~reas. 1 Present land use; OUrban .~lndustriaI QForest QAgriculture 2 To:al acreage of pro;ect area: 7L.5 APPROXIMATE ACRI~AG [: Meadow or gtushland (Hah-agricultural) Forested A~ricuJt~rM (includes orchards, cropland, pasture, otc ) Wetlar,d (Freshwater or tidal as pet Ar/icJe~ 24, 25 of ECL] Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (indicate type) F1Commercia] .~Residential (~uburban) ~Rutat (nomfarm) ~Other T F~dn~t: t-~ ~1 PRESEN'FLY AFTER COMPLETION ~ ~ 65 acres acre~ '~/~, 2 5 acre~ acres ~.q/~ acres acres a, Soil drainage ?xWell drained_ 11313 % of**te ~Moderately well drained ,o of site ~]Pcoriy drained % of site b If any agricukural land is ir, volved, how many acres of soil are classdied w~thiD soil group I through 4 of the Land Classificatmn %,stem? 0 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 3701 4 Are the~e bedrock outcropp~ng~ on prelect site~ ~Yes ~No a What ~s deoth to bedrock? {in feet) 2 .5 Approximate pe, rcentage of ]rolect site v,'~th slopes: :~,~0-1 ~'?10-1 ~% % 6, Is project ~ubstanti~Hy cont~uou~ to, or contain a building, :;itc, or district, listed on the State or the National Resisters of Historic Places? ~Yes ~No 7 Is project substantially contiguous [o a sJ~e I~sted on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ~Yes ~No 8. What is the depth of the wat~.r table? +40 {in feet) 9. ~s si~e ]ocatecl over a primary, principal or sole source aqu~er? 10. Do hunting, flshmg or shell fishing opportunitJes presently exist in the proJeCt area? ~Yes ~No 11. Does project site contain ~ny 'species of plant or anima[ life that is ident[~ie4 ~ ~hreatened, or endangered? Yes ~No According to .~ . 12. A~e there ~ny unique or unusual !and forms on the pro,eot sit~? {i.e cliffs, dunes, o.~her geo~o~ical formations] Describe Is the project ~]te presently used bv the community or neishborhood as an open space or recreation area? If yes, explain Does ~he presen~ ~Jte include scenic view~ Enown (o be important to the communRv? ~Yes ~No S~reams within or Conti~uous to project area: ,. ~./~ _. a Name et Stream and name oF Rivet to which i~ is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a Name N/.~. b Size (In acres) 17 Is the site served by ex.sting public utilities? ;~Yas ~No a) If Yes, does sufficien~ capacity exist to allow connection? t~Yes ~No b) If Yes, wdl improvements be neceseary to allow connection? ~Ye~ ~No ~8 Is the site located in an a~dcul~ur~l d~smct cerdfied pursuant ta A~riculture and Markets L~w, Article 2~-AA, Section 303 and 304? ~Yes 19 ~s the site located m or substantially com~guo;s ~o a Cdtica[ Environmental Area designated pursuant co &rHcle 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 20 Has the site ever been ~sed for the disposal of solid et hazardous wastes? ~Yes ~o B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fiji in dimensions as appropriate] a. Total cc, r;tj~uous acreage owned or COntrolled by project sponsor '71. b. Project acreage to be developed: ~5 ~-~/-~L~-__ acres initially; c. Project acreage to ~'emain undeveloped 0 acres. Z. d. Length of project, in redes. ~n/a __ [If ~ppropr,a~e) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed ~_~ f Number o~ off-street park,n~ spaces existing _ 0 _ ; proposed ~r ordin~ce g. M~mL~m ve~'cu ~t ~rip~ generated pe~ hour n/a (upon completion o~ pro)ecl)? h. If residential Number and type of hous~n8 units: One Family Two Family MuRiple Family Initially Ultimately i O~mensions ~Jn teet) of larges~ proposed structure _~ height; _ width, ~ length. j. LJnea~ feet of fron[a~e a~ong a pubhc horou~hfa,e project will occupy ,, ~'cres ultim~te/y, 3 ). HoW much natural n.a,_.~al earth, otc) will be removed 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed~ ,~Yes IreNe FqN/A a If yes, for what *ntend,,. purpose ~s the site being ~ecla~med? b WfH topsod be stockpiled for reclamation? ~Yes ~No tons/cubic yards t c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ,J~'Yes E]No ~ 4 How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground Covers) will be removed from site? __ ~ _ acres. 5 W~lJ any mature forest (over 100 years old) or ~ther !ocaJly4mpartant vegetation be remowd by this projec~ ~Yes 6. If single phase ~toject' Antlcipgted period of construction . 9 months, finc]uding demohdon). a. Total number of phases anticipated 1 (numberj, b ,Anticipated da~e of commencement pha~e I ~ mo~th c. Approximate completion date of final phase. ,. month d, ~s pbase 1 functionally dependen~ on subsequent phases~ OYes 8. WIll blasting occur dunng constructJon~ ~Yes ~o 9. Number of jobs ~enetated: duringconstructian . 20 ~; after project is complete 30 Number of jobs eliminated by this p~oiect . prol .... cequire relocation ut any projects ut facilities~ ~Yes year, (,nclud ng demolmon) year. yes, expiah-, 12, Is surface liquid was:e disposal invoNed;' EYes '~o a. If yes, indicate type of was,*e (sewage. industrial, etc.] and amount indLl-~trial sewerage b. Name of water body rote which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal mvoi,,ed~ ~tes ~No Type 14. Will surface ar~a of an ex~sdng water body increa~ or decrease by proposal; OYes ~No Explain 15, Is project or any pordon of project located m a 100 year flood p!ainZ ~Yes 16, Will the project generate solid waste? /l~'Yes FINe a If yes. what is the amount per month tons b f yes will an existin8 solid waste ;~acility be used? .~Yes ~,No Will any wastes not go leto a sewage disposal system or rote a sanitary landfill) ~Yes /~No 17. Will the prelect involve the disposal of solid waste? OYe~ /~No a If ye;, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? ~__ ton~/month, b. It yes, what i~ the anticipated Site life? years 18 Will projec~ use herbicides or pesticides? OYes ~J, No 19 Will project routinely produce odors (moru than one hour per day)? ~Yes 20 Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? OYes If ~es, indicate type(~) electricity ~ ~0~ I A'Vg J 22. ~f water supply ~s from well~, ,nd]cate pumpins capacity _~er code 23 To,at ant;cipated water usage per day ~__ gallons/day. 24 Does prelect involve Local, State or Federal fundingZ ~Ye¢ ~No If Yes, explain ~_ [Z[No ,25. Approva!s Required: City, Town, Villat;e Board ,~Yes Gr. No City, Town, Village Planning Board ~-3Yes City, To',vn Zoning Board ~Yos ~No City. County Health Department Other Local A~encies ~Yes ~No Other Regional AsencieS ~Yes ~No State A~encies ~Yes ~No Federal Agencies ~Yes minor subdivision SCPC - subdivision Submittal Date C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action involve a plannin8 or zoning, decision? ~t'lyes L~.No If Yes, indicate decision required: /-]zoning amendment []zoning variance [special use permit ~subdivision []site plan ~new/revision of master plan ~re~ource m~n~g~ment plan ~other , 2, What is tee zonin~ clas~ification[s)of 3 W~at ~s the maximum potential development of the ~Jte ~f de~eioped as permitted by the :aresent zonin~ 4, What is the proposed zoning of the ~ite~ -. 5. %'%'h~{t Js the maximum po[en~ia~ developmen~ o~ the site if developed as petrol:ted by the Oroposed zonin~ 6 ~ the proposed ~ction consistent with the re~orumended uses 7. What are the predommaot fond use(s) and zoninE classifications within a t4 mi~e radius of proposed action? indusnrial, agricultural, residential C 8 [s the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surroundin~ land uses within a ¼ n ile~ ~Yes [No 9. If the propo.~ed act. ion is the subdivision of land, ho~v many lots are proposed? a, What is the minimum lot size proposed? 5 aer~ O.~- ~ / + ~. 10 Will proposed action require ~ny authodzauon(sj for the formation of sewer or water districts~ ~Yet ~No 11, Will the proposed ac~on create a demend ~or any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protcction)~ ~Yes ~No a, If YeL is existinE capacity suffioent to handle projected demand~ ~%'es ~No 12 Will the uroDc)~ed action result in the generation of traffic si;ni6candy above present levels? ~Yes a If YeL is the exislin~ road network adequate to handle the additional tt~ffid (~Yes D. I.tormational Details A~tach any addi6onaI ir~folnt~t~on a~ ,~ay be needed lo clarify your projecL If there are or may be any adverse ~mpacts a~oc~ated ewth your proposal, ple;~e discuss such ~mpacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or ~void them. E. Verification 1 certify [hat the intormauon p~ovided above, is true to the best of my knowledge Applicant/£pun~ot Name ---r~---.-.-.-- Hen~ · , i .... ua~e 1992 n the Coastal ~,tea and you are a sta~ a~zencv, Corn let , - with ibis as ssm~nt ~ ~ *, . P ~ the Coasia] ~se~sment form before proceedin~ · Part 2 OJECT IMPACTS AND THE AGNITUDE Req)om~bllity of Le~ Aleq~'y General Information (Re·d Carefully) · In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and ,4-.terminations bee, reasonable! The reviewer is no~ expected to be an expert environmental analv~t. · Identifying that ·n impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is alto necessarily Any large impact must he evaluated in PART ] to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simpl' 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 o magnitude that would Uiuer a response in column 2. 'l'be examples are ~ener·lly applicable throughout the State for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other e~amples and/or lower thresholds may be approf:~at foe a Potential Large Impact response, thus requirin( evaluatioe in Part 3. · The Impac~ of each project, on each site, in each locality, will v·~. Tbemfore, the examples a~e illustrative have be~n offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhausth~ list o~ impact~ ·nd thresholds to answ~' each questio, · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. · In identifying impact~, consider long term. short term and cumlative effects. Imtrudlom (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 I or 2) to indicate the potential size of th impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshol is lower than example, check column 1. _ d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then conside~ I~e impact as potentially large and proceed to PART e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderat impact, alto check the Yes box in column 3. A No respons~ indicates that ~uch · reduction is not poss~l~le. Th . must be explained in Pa~t 3. IMPACT ON LAND ..... 1. Will the proposed actio~ result in · physh=al chanae to ~ project sitc~ /~NO [OYES Example~ that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project ·re· exceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. - Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. · . Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than %000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated floodway. · Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect ti. _,,y umque or unusual land forms found on the site~ (i.e., cliffs, dunes, ~eological formations, etc.}~NO DYES · Specific land forms: 1 Small to Moderate o O [] [] [] [] [] 2 Potential Large impact O 0 O [] [] [] [] [] 3 Can Impact B~ Mitigated By OYes ON• •No I'-lyes ON• I'-Iyes I']No []Yes []No I-}Yes nNo []Yes F]Nc []Yes •Nc []Yes •Nc OYes ON< IMPACT ON WATER 3 Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Enviroemental Conservation Law, ECL) ,~o oyes Examples that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected water body. · Dredgin8 more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. · Extension of utility distdlx,'tkm facilities through a protected water body. · Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. · Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of watery ,~NO [=)YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impacts: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater qu.ality or quanti~ ON• [:3YES that would apply t~ colurrm 2 · Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to: serve proposed. (project)action. · Proposed Action requires ware[ supply from wells with greater than 45 8allo~s per minute pumping Capacity. · Construction o~ operation causing ~ contamination of · water supply system.' · Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities whlch presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will likel'* cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of wate~ Lu the ~.>:~cnt that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas'without water and/or sewer services. · Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. · Other impacts: _~6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface ('- water runoff? ~'NO E3YES Ex:..-nples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would change flood water flows. 7 ~ 1 2 Small to Potential C&n Impac Moderate Large Mitigated Impact Impact Project Ch, O D DYes O D DYes C D D DYes O O DYes C l-] 0 OYes [] O DYes [] E3 DYes [ D [] DYes [] - [] DYes [' [] [] DYes [ [] [] DYes [ [] [] DYes [ [] [] DYes ( [] [] DYes [ [] [] OYes [ [] l-I DYes I [] [] DYes I [] [] DYes D [] DYes f-INc •Nc []Nc [:]Nc []Nc linc ON, liN, []N, ON, ON, •N, []N. []N. I-IN · Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. · Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. · Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality~ ,~NO I'lYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. · Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's.per ho~Jr. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. · Other impact~: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened o~ endaq~/ered speciesi' /~]NO OYES Examples that Would apply to column 2 ' · Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York o~ Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. · Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural puq~oses. · Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threate~r~d or non-endangered species~ /~O I-lYE S Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of morq than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ,/l~O ~3YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, o~cherd, etc.) 8 ~ 2 II toPotentialCan Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] OYes ONo [] [] 1'1Yes ON• 1'1 [] OYes ONo 1'1 [] OYes ON• [] 1'1 DYes DNo [] I-'l []Yes []No [] [] OYes OHo [] [] DYe []No [] D DYes [] [] OYes ON• D I-I []Y~ '[]No 1,1 [] OYes D~o [] [] []Yes []No [] [] DYes [] [] DYes OHo [] [] []Yes •No O C3 OYes I-1No · Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of airicultural land. · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of airicultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal DistricL more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. · The proposed action would disrupt o~ prevent installatkm of agricultural land management systems (e.I., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); o~ create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES . 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources1 /~O OYES {if necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.] ' Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp conb'ast to current surrounding land use patterns, whetS/ man-made or natural. · Proposed land uses, or project components v{'sible't0 users of 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 screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCF~ 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre historic or paleontological importanceS' ,~[,NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or Hational Re~ister of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunitiest' Examples that would apply to column 2 ~O OYES (. )The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. '"('A major reduction of an open space important to the community. · Other impacts: II to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project ~ I-I 0 OYes i--I [-I /'"]Yes I"lNo D I-1 OYes ONo ['i I--I OYes [::] I-t OYes ONo O I-1 OYes OHo O O OYes I-'IHo O I'-1 OYes [::::]No i--I [] []Yes OHo ITl O I-lYes OHo [-] O OYes OHo [:) [] OYes i-IHo 1--1 I-I [::]Yes OHo D O DYes DHo IMPACT ON TRANS .P.ORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems~ /~NO OYES E~samples that would apply to column 2 · Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. · Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY 1S. Will proposed action affect the community's sourc_~s of fuel or energy supply~ ,,~NO OYES Ezamples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. · Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy 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: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Acflon~ ,J~O I"IyES~ Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. · Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day)- · Proposed Ac~ will produce operating ,•isa exceeding ti~--'l'oc~l- ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. · Proposed Action will mm•va natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safe~o Examples that would apply to column 2 OYES Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.) · Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. · Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. · Other impacts: Smell to Potential C~n Impact Moderate Large Mitigated I Impact Impact Project Cha~ I-I [] OYes n O r-i OYes O I-I I-I []Yes 0 [] 0 OYes O O O OYes 0 0 0 []Yes [] [] 0 OYes [] 0 0 OYes [] _0. 0 OYes 0 0 0 OYes [] 0 [] BYes [] [] [] []Yes [] 0 []Yes [] O []Yes F 0 0 OYe~ E IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18 proposed action affect the character of the existing community~ Will /~NO I-lYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The permanent population of the city, town or villale in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than .5%. · The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 596 per year as a result of this project. · Proposed actiofl wilt conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. · Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. · Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existin~ facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. · Development will create a demand for additional community sen/ices (e.8. schools, police and fire, etc.) · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. · Proposed Action will Create or eliminate employment. · Other impacts: 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact I~ Moderate Large Mltlo&ted By Impact Impact Project Change O I-1 OYes . ONo D O [-]Yes [-]No D O OYes ONo D 0 OYes E)~o [-] O OYes ONo [] [] OYes []~o 1'1 O OYes ONo [] I-I OYes O~o [] [] [-]Yes I-1No 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public contrBversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts~' [3NO I-lYES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified aa a Potential Large Impact or It 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 impacl(s) is considered to be potentially larle, even if the impact(s) may b mitipted. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 'l. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project chang~ 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) PLA{qNING BOARD MEMBERS Ben?eft Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr, Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCO'FI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 May 17; 1992 Cramer & Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Review of EAF for Minor Subdivision of Michael Adams, Sound Avenue Mattituck SCTM9 1000-121-5-4.1 Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Environmental Assessment Form for the above mentioned subdivision to your office for review. Also enclosed is a subdivision map. The Planning Board reaffirmed the resolution of October 21,1991, to continue the environmental process started on March 7, 1988. The $400.00 review fee has been submitted by the applicant. If all is in order, the Board will make the SEQRA determination at the June 8, 1992, public meeting. Please submit your report no later than May 29, 1992, in order for the Board to review it before the meeting date. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. If there are any questions, please contact the Planning staff. Encls. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman ADAMS BLVD., CORP. 275 ADAMS BLVD. , FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK 11735 293-7393 AREA CODE 516 249-5161 April 22, 1992 Bennit Orlowski Chairman of Planning Southhold Planning Board 53095 Main Rd. Southhold, NY ].1971 Attn: Bob Castner RE: Mattituck Property SCTM# District 1000, Section 121, Block 5, lot 4.001 Sequa Environmental Assessment Review Dear Mr. Castner: Pursuant to your discussions with Mr. Henry Raynor, enclosed please find our check # 4832, dated April 20, 1992, in the amount of $400.00 representing payment for Sequa Environmental Assessment Review. Should you have any questions, Sin~rely, ~ /.~ Eli a~eth Fraser EF/cg enc. please do not hesitate to call. APR 3 0 i99Z ,i~ SOUTHOLO PLANNING BOA~P,D P. 2 E. RAYt40R -IR. LOVE LANE MAI'TIfUCK, N.Y. 11952 FEB 27, J99,::t FEB 2 7 i992 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD COUNTY OF SUFFOLI ~08E~T J, GAF'FNE:Y U:,'~SlC, N o? E.:~Cv';~ON!V~"l'rr.&L ,QUA,Lfi'Y ,~pr~ 6, 1992 Mr. Thoma~ $, Fil~zola, P.E. 125 Cht~rch S~cC~. MalYeme, New York 11565 t___. Dent Mr. Filnzzola: Bo~'d of R¢~ iew Hear~g - March 26, 1992 Proposed S~bdlvisicn of Michc*el Adai:s ?~opei~.y, Sound Avcn~e, Ma,ituck, Toy, a of $o~lhc, ld t.$C'TM 1000.12 I-~.4. i ) cunc:mh~'g file sobjec~ applicalion provisions iodiCated i~ the detemfination, Fh¢ gr~umng of ti.is waiver does not mil:dy tlti,~ your application ~ill be au:omaficidly ~p~oved. Denqis Moran, PE. Chairman Board of Review DM/Ir cc: Mr. Walter(3. Lindley Roy D~ragotla, E,~q. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD 320 Love Lane Matt]tuck, NY 11952 April 21, 1992 Dear Sincerely, HF.R:ml Encs. SOUTHOLD IOWN PLANNING BOARD I~ART 1--PROJECT INFORMATI~ Prepared by Project Sponsor [?,F ~ !~ be r ~r'~:~'~ '~n ~ A. d ~pplicabl,~ · h Qu~,stion- '~ndk~,'e" ' not Pt~e C,~mj:,lete ~c A. Site Description Other Fndi(:zt~' []Poorly drained ~; et sit* AF'F' }'~, 'a,:' f : qF, P. 2115% or greater ....... % Registers of Historic Places? ~Ye~ ~No What ~$ ~he dep~ :ff the v. at,,r table? __ ~.. fin fe-,t) According to Idenhty ead~ ~pemes ~Yes ~No Describe ~Ye~ ~No Ii ye~, explain ~Ye~ a Name ~/& 0~ the ECL and f , C B. Project Desc[iption L)ltima~elv .............. ........ ton L'cubic yards ~Yes L'~o ~ ¢ protect( m~d~l-pha~ed N~me of w.~,er bod~ ;q~o ~.h~ch r~f~,ent ¢.4l b,' d~schd~ed ~/~ ........ Expl~m Yes, explain ye~ , d .alu type(s) elo(z:trJc~I~v ' Yes, 4 C,. Zoning and Planning Information If Yes indicate dec:~,~c;o :equlred r'r ~] .~ 0 Iq i P' 17 ~:' rrt': ,dm,: r~t r D, Inlormational Details APP ,-~ 'q,? i0:75 F'.£ 617.21 FULL ENV RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FO~ML ' 1 MEMORANDUM TO FILE: DATE: March 18, 1992 At a Planning Board work session on February 5, 1992, the status of this minor subdivision was reviewed. A decision was reached to reaffirm the resolution of October 21, 1991, to continue the environmental process started on March 7, 1988. When the requested LEAF is received from Henry Raynor it will be sent with the coordination letter to all agencies. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Ric. hard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTY L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 December 24, 1991 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE Minor Subdivision of Michael Adams SCTM~ 1000-121-5-4.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Board held on Monday, December 23, 199~. BE IT RESOLVED to override the December 24, 1991 Suffolk County Planning Commission report for the following reason: During the site plan review process the Planning Board will request that the cul-de -sac, shown on the potential site plan, be extended to the industrial property to the east. This change in the plan will provide an additional means of access, and improve traffic circulation within the subdivision. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman enc. cc: Frank Dowling, Suffolk County Planning Dept. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING I~OUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE ARTHUR H. KUNZ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING December 5, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision - Michael Adams Southerly side of Middle Road, C.R. 27 opposite Cox Neck Road, Mattituck, New York. Dear Mr. Orlowski: The Suffolk County Planning Commission at its regular meeting on December 4, 1991, reviewed the proposed subdivision plat, entitled, "Minor Subdivision - Michael Adams" referred to it pursuant to Section A14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code. The attached Resolution signifies action taken by the Commission relative to this application. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz Director of Planning by t Fra~C' D~wli~g'/ Sr. Planner Subdivision ~R'eview Division F~le: S-SD-91-10 FD:mb Attachment cc: J. Baler, C.E., SCDHS J. P. Hurley, Comm., SCDPW VETERANS NEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAIJGE, Ll,, NEW YORK 1 1788 S0OIH0lO PLANNING BOARD File No. S-SD-91-10 Resolution No. ZSR-91-181 of Suffolk County Planning Commission Pursuant to Sections A14-24, Article XIV of Suffolk County Administrative Code WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, RESOLVED, RESOLVED, pursuant to Sections A14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, a referral was received by the Suffolk County Planning Commission on October 31, 1991, with respect to a proposed plat entitled, "Minor Subdivision - Michael Adams" submitted by the Town of Southold Planning Board affecting premises located on the southerly side of Middle Road, C.R. 27 opposite Cox Neck Road, Mattituck in the Town of Southold, New York, and said referral was considered by the Suffolk County Planning Commission at its meeting on December 4, 1991 and the Commission has voted to disapprove said referral, Be It Therefore That the Suffolk County Planning Commission hereby approves and adopts the report of its staff, as modified, as the report of the Commission, Be It Further That said proposed plat is disapproved for the following reasons: A cul-de-sac street in an industrial or a commercial subdivision is unacceptable. The road system for an industrial or a commercial subdivision must be laid out for efficient movement of traffic, particularly by large trucks and tractor-trailers. Cul-de-sac areas are often blocked by haphazard parking that hinders delivery and pick-up of material and products. Large trucks and tractor-trailers have difficulty in turning around in cul-de-sac areas because of turning radius limitations complicated by haphazard parking. The Commission also offers the following comment on the map: The map could be made acceptable if the end of the cul-de-sac was extended to access the industrial property on the east, providing an additional means of access in the future and to improve traffic circulation within the subdivision. Motion by: Commissioner Capobianco Seconded by: Commissioner Vahradian Commission Vote: 10 Present - Yeas 10 Nays 0 Abstentions 0 Dated December 4, 1991 Hauppauge, New York Suffolk County Planning Commission DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING · ,JOUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HAt. PIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE; ARTHUR H. KUNZ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING December 5, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision - Michael Adams Southerly side of Middle Road, C.R. 27 opposite Cox Neck Road, Mattituck, New York. Dear Mr. Orlowski: The Suffolk County Planning Commission at its regular meeting on December 4, 1991, reviewed the proposed subdivision plat, entitled, "Minor Subdivision - Michael Adams" referred to it pursuant to Section A14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code. The attached Resolution signifies action taken by the Commission relative to this application. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kurtz Director of Planning Frahk- D~wling/ Sr. Planner Subdivisionq~eview Division File: S-SD-91-10 FD:mb Attachment cc: J. Baler, C.E., SCDHS J. P. Hurley, Comm., SCDPW DEC - 9 1991 $OUTHOLD TOWN ~M. ANNI NG BOARD File No. S-SD-91-10 Resolution No. ZSR-91-181 of Suffolk County Planning Commission Pursuant to Sections A14-24, Article XIV of Suffolk County Administrative Code WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, RESOLVED, RESOLVED, pursuant to Sections A14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, a referral was received by the Suffolk County Planning Commission on October 31, 1991, with respect to a proposed plat entitled, "Minor Subdivision - Michael Adams" submitted by the Town of Southold Planning Board affecting premises located on the southerly side of Middle Road, C.R. 27 opposite Cox Neck Road, Mattituck in the Town of Southold, New York, and said referral was considered by the Suffolk County Planning Commission at its meeting on December 4, 1991 and the Commission has voted to disapprove said referral, Be It Therefore That the Suffolk County Planning Commission hereby approves and adopts the report of its staff, as modified, as the report of the Commission, Be It Further That said proposed plat is disapproved for the following reasons: A cul-de-sac street in an industrial or a commercial subdivision is unacceptable. The road system for an industrial or a commercial subdivision must be laid out for efficient movement of traffic, particularly by large trucks and tractor-trailers. Cul-de-sac areas are often blocked by haphazard parking that hinders delivery and pick-up of material and products. Large trucks and tractor-trailers have difficulty in turning around in cul-de-sac areas because of turning radius limitations complicated by haphazard parking. The Commission also offers the following comment on the map: The map could be made acceptable if the end of the cul-de-sac was extended to access the industrial property on the east, providing an additional means of access in the future and to improve traffic circulation within the subdivision. Motion by: Commission Commissioner Capobianco Vote: 10 Present - Seconded by: Commissioner Vahradian Yeas 10 Nays 0 Abstentions 0 Dated December 4, 1991 Hauppauge, New York Suffolk County Planning Commission PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ScoTr L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 October 30, 1991 Frank Dowling, Senior Planner Suffolk County Department of Planning Veterans Memorial Highway 'Hauppauge, NY 11788 RE: Minor Subdivision for Michael Adams Sound Ave. Mattituck Zoning District: Light Industrial office (LIO) Dear Mr. Dowling: This is in response to your letter of October 2, 1991, requesting additional information on the above referenced subdivision. The 1. following numbers correspond to your report: Enclosed is a map showing the proposed development of the remainder of the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIO) District. Plans for the Limited Business (LB) and the Residential (R-80) Districts are not available at this time. The Board will address the development restrictions for these parcels when they come in for development. e e 4. The freshwater wetlands which have been flagged by the N.Y.S.D.E.C. and by the Town of Southold Trustees are not on the parcel to be set off. When application is made to subdivide and develop the parcel containing the wetlands, the Board will require a covenant that no structures be placed within seventy five (75) feet of the wetlands. The following note has been placed on the map: "Disturbance to mature woodlands shall be limited to the minimum amount required to accomplish any proposed construction on this property." Health Department approval will be required before the Planning Board will approve this subdivision. Page 2 Michael Adams The coordinated review was started on March 7, 1988, was continued by resolution at the Planning Board meeting of October 21, 1991, subject to receipt of a Long Environmental Assessment Form. This form will be forwarded to you as soon as it is received. If you have any additional questions, or require further information, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. / ~ Chairman Encl. LOCATION KEY MAP LIGHT" II MATTITUCK TITUCK PROPOSED SET OFF FOR MICHAEL ADAMS ~ CO. AT MATTITUCK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. I000 I;:'1 ' O§ P/O 4.1 SCALE I"= I00' ,, ;RECEIVED BY SEPT. 21, 1987 O^TE NIO/ F: CHARLOTTE ! / / / / ! / / / / / / DICKER$ON I / /_o~' /7 I / I / / I \ \ \ \ \ ~30~ 59' - / / I / I N / / , / / / / / / / / / AREA=S9.114 ACRES ZONING DISTRICT ; SCHOOL DISTRICT: FIRE DISTRICT : OWNER: MICHAEL ADAMS ~ 275 ADAMS BOULEVAF FARMINGDALE, N.Y. LI II !IT S. 22° 28'10"E / S' 16°20 30", / PARCEL / / / TO BE sET OFF / Zo'r / ! ' 20" W ' N 28027 ~- \.., 2] Nio/F N/O/F LAND OF KOUSOUROUS ~I~OUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK (~. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ARTHUR H. KUNZ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING October 2, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Preliminary__ Final X Plat Name: Subdivision Map of Property of Michael Adams Location: Southerly side of Middle Road, C.R. 27, opposite Cox Neck Road, C.R. 84, Mattituck, Town of Southold (Tax Map No. 1000-121-5-4.1) Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised that pursuant to Section A14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referral will not be reviewed by the Suffolk County Planning Commission because of noncompliance with requirements for notice and maps as stipulated in Informational Bulletin #9 of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The staff has checked the above referenced referral and find that it is incomplete. Please provide the following: An acceptable plan with maps showing how the orderly development of the overall parcel could be accomplished in conjunction with development restrictions for this area. e Specify the exact measures that will be taken to protect and preserve the freshwater wetlands that exist on the site as well as any proposed conservation easements surrounding the wetlands that may be dedicated to the Town of Southold. Provide information on landscaping, clearance restrictions and fertilized vegetation restrictions as required in this area of Special Groundwater Protection. Health Department approval to insure that the uses will not negatively impact the integrity of the groundwater as well as an acceptable method of sewage treatment or disposal. Page -2- 5. SEQRA status, EAF or E.I.S. if available. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz Director of Planning S/s Frank Dowlin~, Sr. Planner Subdivision Review Division File: S-SD-91-10 FD:mb cc: Arthur H. Kunz, Planning Director NOTE: Please consult Suffolk County Department of Planning Informational Bulletin No. 9 for complete referral requirements. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 MEMORANDUM PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: James Richter, Road Inspector Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairma~F~_ Review of Sidney Bowne Report June 25, 1991 Please review with Ray Jacobs the attached Sidney Bowne report recommending the dedication of a ten foot (10') wide strip of land along Sound Avenue. This recommendation was previously dicussed with Ray in 1988, and his opinion at that time was he didn't want the dedication. Is this still his opnion? If you could respond within the week, it would be appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact Robert Kassner of this office. 'Enc. cc: Raymond Jacobs, Highway Superintendent $1DNitY B. ROWNE & Sou --- -- 45 Manor Road ~ Smithtown, N.Y. 11787 ~ ~OUt (516) 724-0611 ~NNIN~ BOARD George A S~yle. P E. George L Fagan, Jr. PhD, PE Frant~ Capob~anco. C E. Thomas R. Pynchon. L.S. Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Adams Industrial Site, Town of Southold October 7, 1988 (SBB No. 87322) Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have reviewed the Traffic Evaluation Study forwarded to us on July 19, 1988 in connection with the Michael Adams Industrial Site on Sound Avenue. We concur with the analysis and do not believe that road improvements are necessary due to the proposed industrial development. It is our understanding that the County will not require any improvement at the intersection of County Road 48 and Sound Avenue with reference to this parcel. However, we do advise that it would be prudent to request dedication of a 10 ft. wide strip of land along the applicants Sound Avenue frontage. This would provide for future improvement of the road if the necessity arises. If you require further information or analysis pertaining to this site please let us know. Very truly yours, SIDNEY B. BOWNE & SON CONSULTING ENGINEERS A. BARTON CASS'~ P.E. ABC:rp MINEOLA · SMITHTOWN · NEW YORK CITY · CLEARWATER PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765q823 October 22, 1991 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Minor Subdivision of Michael Adams SCTM#1000-121-5-4.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board held on Monday, October 21, 1991. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board continue the environmental process which was started on March 7, 1988. The Planning Board would like to take lead agency on the coordinated review of this Type I action, subject to receipt of a Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF). In taking this action the Board is responding to new information that the area has been designated as a Special Groundwater Protection Area, and a Critical Environmental Area. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town PlanningBoard reaffirm its sketch approval, but on the revised map dated February 7, 1991. Sketch plan approval is conditional upon submission of final maps with six months unless an extension of time is requested by the applicant, and granted by the Planning Board. Please note that five (5) paper prints and two (2) mylars of the final map, containing a current stamp of Health Department approval, must be submitted before a final public hearing will be set. Page 2 Michael Adams Please note that the Planning Board has referred this subdivision to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for their review. You will be notified should any covenants and restrictions be required. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ScoTr L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Dear Mr. Raynor: October 17, 1991 RE: Minor Subdivision for Michael Adams Sound Ave. Mattituck Zoning District: Light Industrial Office (LIO) The above referenced subdivision is located in a special groundwater protection area which has been designated as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA), which must be treated as a Type 1 action. Please submit a long environmental assessment form. The Planning Board has a cost estimate of $400.00 from their environmental consultants for this review. The above mentioned sum must be paid in full by your client before we can authorize our consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made payable to the Town of Southold. When the Long Environmental Assessment Form and the check is received, the consultants will proceed with their review. The Planning Board will consider their findings in making a determination of whether the project will have a significant environmental impact. / / /~V~y truly YQ/~rs, / / / ~ennett Orlows~i, Jr. Chairman 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 October 1, 1991 Southold Town Planning Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Board RE: Adams Industrial Park SCTM - 1000-121-5-p/o4.1 Dear Sirs: Pursuant to your request, I am forwarding correspondence and minutes from the March 1988 Planning Board meeting. Accordingly the Planning Board declared themselves Lead Agency under SEQRA and concurrently approved the set off for the parcel. There have been no physical changes to the proposed parcel; as well as structures thereon. In the interim, we have refined the site plan elements at the request of the Planning Board (i.e. additional buffering, a 15% orientation in the building position, defined stree tree plantings and load area locations). With Mr. Adams passing, time has been lost in processing; and as a result, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has required a retest of the aquifer, which fully meets their standards. I would request the Planning Board close the SEQRA process at this time. We are now preparing the final site plan and haveing the proper stamps affixed to same. Thank you for your consz~erat~on. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 298-8420. Sincerely,~ ~^ enry ~. Rayndr, 3r. HER:MI Encs. ?LANNING BOARD Page 9 MAR~, 1988 Hr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself Lead Agent under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards. ~Ir. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. ~.!r. Orlowski: Next we have Scott Kaufman-Board to take action on ~his sketch plan for 3 lots on 6.889 acres off Eugene's Road, cutchogue. This is an adjoining parcel. What's the pleasure of ~he Board. Ward: Move for sketch approval. Edwards: Second. ~.Ir. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? 2ESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant sketch approval on this 3 lots on 6.889 acres off Eugene's Road, Cutchogue. Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards. ~!r. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. !~oard to take Lead Agency. ~.~r. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself Lead Agent under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. SCTM ~ 1000-97-3-20. Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. !4r. Orlowski: Adams Industrial Park-Board to take action on this ~;et off located off Sound Avenue, Mattituck. Board to determine Lead Agency status under the State Envirc~nmental Quality Review Act. I think we should take Lead Agency. I'll entertain that motion first. Ward: So moved. PLANNING BOARD Page 10 MARCH 7, 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. I seconded it. Any questions on the motion? Ail those in favor? RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the set-off of Adams Industrial Park located off Sound Avenue, Mattituck. Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. In regards to approving the set-off, do you want to do it or wait. Mr. Ward: No, we... Mr. Orlowski: Was that your motion? Then we need another motion. Mr. Edwards: I'll move it. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? /~RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. SCTM # 1000-121-5-p/o 4.1. Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Chardonnay Estates-Board to take Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? RESOLVED %hat the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. SCTM # 1000-51-3-3 Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Field Inspections on Murray/Mohring. Board to discuss field inspection report. This is located in Cutchogue. This has been inspected by the Board. The area on the east side of the road that has been cut into by the road, the road has been stabilized, however on the west side pine trees have been COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ARTHUR H. KUNZ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING October 2, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Preliminary__ Final X Plat Name: Subdivision Map of Property of Michael Adams Location: Southerly side of Middle Road, C.R. 27, opposite Cox Neck Road, C.R. 84, Mattituck, Town of Southold (Tax Map No. 1000-121-5-4.1) Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised that pursuant to Section A14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referral will not be reviewed by the Suffolk County Planning Commission because of noncompliance with requirements for notice and maps as stipulated in Informational Bulletin #9 of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The staff has checked the above referenced referral and find that it is incomplete. Please provide the following: An acceptable plan with maps showing how the orderly development of the overall parcel could be accomplished in conjunction with development restrictions for this area. Specify the exact measures that will be taken to protect and preserve the freshwater wetlands that exist on the site as well as any proposed conservation easements surrounding the wetlands that may be dedicated to the Town of Southold. Provide information on landscaping, clearance restrictions and fertilized vegetation restrictions as required in this area of Special Groundwater Protection. Health Department approval to insure that the uses will not negatively impact the integrity of the groundwater as well as an acceptable method of sewage treatment or disposal. VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE. L.I.. NEW YORK 1178S Page -2- 5. SEQRA status, EAF or E.I.S. if available. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kurtz Director of Planning S/s Frank Dowlin~, Sr. Planner Subdivision Review Division File: S-SD-91-10 FD:mb cc: Arthur H. Kunz, Planning Director NOTE: Please consult Suffolk County Department of Planning Informational Bulletin No. 9 for complete referral requirements. (~JNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ARTHUR H. KUNZ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING October 2, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Preliminary Final X Plat Name: Subdivision Map of Property of Michael Adams Location: Southerly side of Middle Road, C.R. 27, opposite Cox Neck Road, C.R. 84, Mattituck, Town of Southold (Tax Map No. 1000-121-5-4.1) Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised that pursuant to Section A14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referral will not be reviewed by the Suffolk County Planning Commission because of noncompliance with requirements for notice and maps as stipulated in Informational Bulletin #9 of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The staff has checked the above referenced referral and find that it is incomplete. Please provide the following: An acceptable plan with maps showing how the orderly development of the overall parcel could be accomplished in conjunction with development restrictions for this area. Specify the exact measures that will be taken to protect and preserve the freshwater wetlands that exist on the site as well as any proposed conservation easements surrounding the wetlands that may be dedicated to the Town of Southold. Provide information on landscaping, clearance restrictions and fertilized vegetation restrictions as required in this area of Special Groundwater Protection. Health Department approval to insure that the uses will not negatively impact the integrity of the groundwater as well as an acceptable method of sewage treatment or disposal. ............... ________Page -2- ~~-~L-~--E~. if available. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz Director of Planning S/s Frank Dowlin~, Sr. Planner Subdivision Review Division File: S-SD-91-10 FD:mb cc: Arthur H. Kurtz, Planning Director NOTE: Please consult Suffolk County'Department of Planning Informational Bulletin No. 9 for complete referral requirements. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 1, 1991 SCOT1' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Sou3hold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Minor subdivision of Michael Adams SCTM#1000-121-5-4.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board held on Monday, September 30, 1991. The agenda items scheduled for the Planning Board's September 30th meeting (sketch determination and the status of the lead agency process) were held over at your request. As noted at the meeting, the Planning Board will review the status of the application by the next scheduled meeting date (October 21, 1991). Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, _ Bennett Orlowski, Jr / ~.5 Chairman TO . :.,IZISERA, BECKMAN & HY,~I~.N .,ring Engineers & Land Surve~J~ . dox 183 P.O. Bc~470 ,Z5 Church St. 1001 Middle Country Rd. Malverne, NY 11565 Ridge, NY 11961 Tel: (516) 599-3663 Tel: (516) 924-3230 Fax: (516) 59~-8160 Fax: (516) 924-3557 r, ' - ' WE ARE SENDING YOU [] Attached [] Under separate cover via the following items: [] Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Specifications [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] For approval [] Approved as submitted "~For your use ~ Approved as noted ~; As requested(iJ ]~Z~/~'~C2)Returned for corrections [] For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE 19 [] Resubmit [] Submit [] Return__ copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO SIGNED: SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTMg: COMMENTS: SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER T ~'/~'~ '~ OWN OE SOU~HOLD S U FFO, .Lk-_COUNTY 8outhold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 Mr. Henry Raynor P.O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 March 8, 1988 RE: Adams Industrial Park SCTM # 1000-121-5-p/o4.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Boardon Monday, March 7, 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the set off located off Sound Avenue, Mattituck. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. jt Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKi,JR.'~HAiRMiLN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BO~uRD PLANNING BOARD Page 10 MARCH 7, 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Motion male and seconded. I seconded it. Any ~questions on the motion All those in favor~ > REs ' ' OLVED that the Southold Town Plannln Bo set off of Adams ' g ard approve the - Industrial Park located off Sound Avenue, Mattituck. Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. In regards to approving the set-off, do you want to do it or wait. Mr. Ward: No, we... Mr. Orlowski: Was that your motion? Then we need another motion. Mr. Edwards: I'll move it. .' Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? YLRESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board decla · ~ ead Agency under the State Enviro~-+~ .... re itself ~SCTM # 1000-121-5-p/o 4.1. .--. ...... ~ua~l~y Review Act. ~ . o~e of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards ~ Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So'ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Chardonnay Estates-Board to take Lead ;Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Mr. Edwards: So moved. 'Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? RESOLVED %hat the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. SCTM # 1000-51-3-3 Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Field Inspections on Murray/Mohring. Board to discuss field inspection report. This is located in Cutchogue. This has been inspected by the Board. The area on the east side of the road that has been cut into by the road, the road has been stabilized, however on the west side pine trees have been PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, .Ir. Richard G, Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 1, 1991 SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold New York !1971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Minor Subdivision of Michael Adams SCTM#1000-121-5-4.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board held on Monday, September 30, 1991. The agenda items scheduled for the Planning Board's September 30th meeting (sketch determination and the status of the lead agency process) were held over at your request. As noted at the meeting, the Planning Board will review the status of the application by the next scheduled meeting date (October 21, 1991). Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, J Chairman HENRY E. RAYNGR JR. 320 LOVE LANE MATrITUCK, N.Y. 11952 SkPTo 19, 1991 TO: SOU'rHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD FROM: HENRY RAYNOR RE: ADAMS SE I'OFF MAPS 1000-121-5-4.1 ENCLOSED HEREWITH ARE 6 COPIES OF THE MAP REQUESFED iN YOUR LEtTeR OF THE 1St OF AUGUSI-; AMENDING AND ADDING THE R~QUIREM~NT OF -I'H~ PLANNING BOARD. PLEASE FORWARD SAME TO SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL REVIEW, SO WE MAY COMPLETE THEIR REQUIREMENTS. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL ME Al' ~98-8420. THANK YOU, HENRY RAY'OR SOUTHOLD TO'~!N ~ HENRY E. RAYHOR JR. ~2~ LOVE LAHE HATTZ'£UCK, N.Y. 119~2 PAGES 'FO FOLLOW " 0391413 Lab NO, ~iel~ No. _,/~- Date: 3 rime: __~_,~_ col, By: (Name not initials) ~AR 2 '~ 1991 Dale Received in Lab Public Water Private Water Other Date Completed Examined By /J-'" '~ SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY CHEMICAL EXAMINATION OF WATER Name AJA I $ Point el Collection Owner or District Remarks: (1) Results Reported as Micrograms Per Liter 75 73 78 76 80 87 $~ec Cond, mods/cra P arba, t:~ Complele G pH N~lrates (mgti Nt Free Ammonia (m§,'l N) Chlori<~es (rog/; el Sulfales (mgrl 1 O0 iron Img/t Fei 101 Manganese Img/I 105 Sodium (mg/I NaJ t 03 Zinc {m§/i T Al~alm;~ (m91 CBC03) 82 ! T. ~ard~ess ~mg/I CaC03~ Ca Hardness (mg/I Ca¢03) MO Hardness (mg/I Cae03) Arsenic (1) Selen,Jm (1) C~'ldmlvm (11 (11 Chrom,um (1) k4ercu~7 (1) ~21 { 0ar,urn (mg/l Metals Only MBAS Total Hyd P {mg/I1 Fluoride (mg/I F) Nitrites [mg/I N) Director TES~WELL - WATER A~A~Y$IS ~JR~ TO: S~FFOLK CO~N~fDEPA~4EN~ OF H~A~TH SERVICES, Btr~AU OF DRINKING WATER 225 ~RO DRIVe, MAUPPAUG~, N.Y_ 11788 Date Applicant NZune 23* Home Telephone 31~ Well Depth Zip Code 33*Depth to Water 41* Length of Screen 14' District 13' Section 16' Block No. 17' Lot NO. T~ b~P NUMBER Individual LOt Con~-ercial Realty Subdivision or Development _~ WATER CHEMISTRY C~AR2%CT~RIZATION Does water quality ~et standards? Ye~ No Patterers exceeding standards: Aldicarb ~ O~her _ Is there 40 feet of water i~he casing above the well screen? Yes~ NO Remarks 20" Supply Type 46~ Well Dr~le~ 57* Field Tests This section for official use only Priv Noom Co~ C12 pM Electrolysis Check - Amperage 51* Sample Date Sample Tap Pump Hose Other Time 24* GPM 50"54* Resample Tap 7* Township Code TBA TBR TEH THU____ TIS TRI TSI ._ TSM _, TSH__ TSO S~ple~ Collected: BaC'~ 1 - ATTACH TAX MAP & LOCATE WELL ON PARCEL 2 - VERIFY WELL DEPTH & DEPTH TO WATER OR OBTAIN W~LLDRILLER'S CERTIFICATE 3 - NOTE RUN TI~ & GPM Sanitarian PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 July 29, 1991 Dear Mr. Raynor: RE: Minor Subdivision for Michael Adams Sound Ave. Mattituck Zoning District: Light Industrial Office (LIO) Changes must be made to the above referenced subdivision plats before the Board can proceed with the next step, which is to send the plat to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for its review. The plat must be in conformance with the County Clerk's filing requirements. ¸2. The subdivision name must be shown as "Subdivision map of property surveyed for Michael Adams at Southold." The wetland line that was flagged by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town Board of Trustees must be shown on the plat along with the one hundred (100) foot buffer. A note, "No disturbance to mature woodlands" must be placed on the map. The key map should be at a scale of 600' = 1" and should show the distance to the nearest street intersection. Zoning lines, using the current designation for the zoning districts must be shown. A ten (10) foot wide strip of land along Sound Avenue must be shown on the map as "To be dedicated to the Town." Page 2 Michael Adams Additional comments may be received when this subdivision is sent to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for their review. If you have any questions, or require additional assistance, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: John Bredemeyer, President Board of Trustees RAYMOND L. JACOBS SUPERINTENDENT OF HIGHWAYS 765-3140 OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JAMES A.~ICHTER ENGINEER%~G INSPECTOR 765-3070 JUNE 28, 1991 BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN - PLANNING BOARD TOWN HALL, 53095 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 RE: Sidney B. Bowne Report - 10/7/88 Dedication of 10' Wide Strip of Land SCTM # 1000 - 121 - 05 - p/o 4.1 Dear Mr. Orlowski: As per your request, I have reviewed the above referenced report with Mr. Jacobs. The Bowne report advises that the Town should request from the owner the dedication of a 10' wide strip of land along Soundview Ave. which would be used for future improvements to the road. It was Mr. Jacobs recommendation, back in 1988, not to acquire this strip of land. His position on the matter has not changed. Mr. Jacobs and I have discussed this issue and can see no possible net gain on the Towns behalf. If the Planning Board has any specific reasons they wish to discuss, with reguards to persuing this issue, or if you have any questions concerning the above, Please contact my office. cc: Raymond L. Jacobs file James A William ~ Barrett, L S. AD. Lanz¢serar RE, DE.E. Kenneth H Beckman. L S. Steven J Hyman, RE Founded 1927, Howard ~ Teas February 12, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board Office Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Adams Industrial Park, Set-off Mattituck, New York Dear Mr. Orlowski: Pursuant to your conversation with Mr. Henry Raynor and at his request, please find five (5) prints of the "set-off" for the above referenced project. This plan has been revised to include site data and zoning requirements pertinent to this site. I trust this submission is adequate to proceed with the next phase of the application. However, if there is anything else you might need, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, BARRETT, LANZISERA, B~CKMAN encl. cc: Henry Raynor & HYMAN 125 Church Street, Malverne, NY 11565 [] 1001 Middle Country Road1 Ridge, NY 11961 TEL: (516)599-3663 t FAX: (516)593-8160 TEL: (516)924-3230 / FAX: (516)924-3557 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 January 7, 1991 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Adams set off at Mattituck 1000-121-5-4.1 Dear Sirs: As requested, please find enclosed our check in the amount of ~2~0 for the application fee for the above referenced. Sincerely, HER:ml Enc. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. RIDER ANNEXED TO DEED DATED DECEMBER 28, 1982 MADE BY MARY SEPKO a/k/a MARY E. PYLKO, as Grantor to MICHAEL ADAMOWICZt MARY ADAMOWICZ, MICHAEL ADAMOWICZ, III and ELIZABETH MARY FRASER, as Grantors Running thence along said land South 22 degre'es 28 minutes 10 seconds East 1307.93 feet to land now or formerly of Charles Prince; South 2 South 3 South 4 North 5 South 6 North 7 North 8 North Running thence along 57 degrees 55 degrees 55 degrees 80 degrees 88 degrees 88 degrees 88 degrees 89 degrees said land the following courses and distances: 37 minutes 50 seconds West 179.34 feet; 13 minutes 50 seconds West 141.70 feet~ 43 minutes 50 seconds West 130.00 feet; 32 minutes 30 seconds West 408.84 feet; 31 minutes 10 seconds West 132.00 feet; 28 minutes 50 seconds West 276.40 feet; 11 minutes 20 seconds West 200.66 feet; 57 minutes 00 seconds West ]69.29 feet; 9 North 21 degrees 53 minutes 00 seconds West 249.70 feet; 10) North 19 degrees 44 minutes 10 seconds West 335.64 feet; 11) South 42 degrees 27 minutes 50 seconds West 124.00 feet; 12) South 59 degrees 36 minutes 50 seconds West 217.00 feet to now or formerly of H.R. Reeve and Sons, Inc.; land Running thence along said land and along said land of Gabriel Kousourous North ]9 degrees 52 minutes 20 seconds West 1772.43 feet to the southerly side of Middle Road - C.R. 27 at the point or place of BEGINNING. BEIN~ AND INTENDED to be the same premises conveyed to the party of the first part by deed of Paul J. Baisley, Referee dated February 25, 1976 and recorded at the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on March 1, 1976 in Liber 7995 cp 330. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following: ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lyihg and being at Mattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a concrete monument on the southerly line of Sound Avenue at the northwest corner of the land of ROse Sepko and running thence from said point of beginning South 16 degrees 20 minutes 30 seconds East along the land of Rose Sepko 191.23 feet to a concrete monument at the southwest corner of the land of Rose Sepko; Thence westerly and northerly through the. land of the party'of the first part the following courses and distances: (1) North 86 degrees 54 minutes 00 seconds West 25.00 feet to a concrete monument; (2) North 16 degrees 20 minutes 30 seconds West 191.23 feet to a concrete monument in the southerly line of Sound Avenue; Thence South 86 degrees 54 minutes 00 seconds East along the southerly line of Sound Avenue 25.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. BEING AND INTENDED to be the same premises by deed of Mary Pylko dated August 26, 1981 Suffolk County Clerk's Office on September cp 193. conveyed to the Rose Sepko and recorded at the 23, 1981 in Liber 9074 J tl- 9 199 DISTRICT. ~ 1000 ~,~ SECTION ~ 121.00 ' BLOCK :.~ 05.00 'i LOT CONSULT YOUR ~WYER IEFOI! SIGNING THIS INSTRUMINT - ~IS I~STRUMINT SHOULD Ii USED BY ~WYIIS ONLY THIS INDEN~RE made the 28th day of Dece~er , nineteen humked and eighty tw BE~EgN ~RY SEPKO a/k/a ~RY E. PYLKO, residing at (no number) Sound~Avenue, ~tt~tuck, New York party of the first part, and MICHAEL ADAMOWICZ and 'MARy ADAMOWICZ, his wife, both residing at 140 Adams Boulevard, Farmingdale, New York MICHAEL ADAMOWICZ, III, residing at 1 Pinewood Road, Old Westbury, New York and ELIZABETH MARY FRASER, residing at 188 Parkway Drive, Carle Place, New York, as tenants in conanon without right of survivorshi: party of the second part [ NE SETH that the party of t c first part in consideration of ten dollars and other valuable considcratio~ '9~J~ T S ' .... 4_ . ~'~reb" °'rant and rclcase unto the party of thc second part, the heir .,pa d by thc party ot me secnnu part, uuc~ ,,. ,. ~, /"or successors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and .improvemcnts thereon erected, sltuat~ lying and bcing in the at Ma]ti]ack, Town of Sou]hold, County of ; Suffolk and State of New York being bounded and described as f follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Middle Road - C.R. 27 where the same is intersected by the easterly side of land now or formerly of Gabriel Kousourous; running thence along the southerly side of Middle Road - C.R. 27 and along the southerly side of Sound Avenue the following courses and distances: ~ (1) South 89 degrees 13 minutes 40 seconds East 39.50 feet; (2) along an arc of a curve bearing to the right having a radius of 944.93 feet, the chord of which bears South 85 degrees 20 minutes 40 seconds East 128 feet a distance along said curve of 128.!0 feet; (3) South 72 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds. East 352.10 feet; (4) South 68 degrees 40 minutes (5) South 73 degrees 47 minutes (6) South 80 degrees 28 minutes (7) South 86 degrees 54 minutes land now or formerly of Sepkot 30 seconds East 625.40 feet; 50 seconds East 187.60 feet; 20 seconds East 149.51 feet; 00 seconds East 16%.39 feet to Running thence along said land South 16 degrees 20 minutes 30 seconds East 191.23 feet; Running thence along said land and lands now or formerly of Overholt, Vincent, Laudenbach and Mazzaferro South 86 degrees minutes 00 seconds East 432.84 feet and North 87 degree.s 33 minutes East 75 feet to land now or formerly of Wolgo: 54 SEE RIDER ANNEXED ·" · ' a r htt t e and nterest if an)', of thc party of the first part iii and to anv streets TOGEFttER with , g.,' .... : ...... bo center lines th~.;reof' TOGETItl:.I( with thy ai~pnrtenan gt e and ri ~ts of the oarty of the first part m and t~ sam prcm ses t~ re,arr., m.e~L, and all thc es at ~ ' , '-. .u .... .., ,,~ ,~ ~*.cond nar lhe heirs or successors and assigns !fOLD thc prem!srs hereto grantee onto tar .ua-t7 ,, ...... r , the party of the second part forever. AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has not done or suffered anyt} whereby the said prenlises have been encumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the part) thc first part ~'ill receive the consideration for this conveyance and w hold the right to receive such con oration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and w al thc same first to the payment of thc cost of the improvement bct'orc using any part nf th,,' total of the same any other purpose. The word "party" shall be construed as if it read "parties" whenever the sense of this ndentore $o rcqui IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed the (lay and year first at written. IN PRESENCE OF: (Mary Seiko a/k/a Mary E. Pylko) STATI OP #1W YOR~ COUNTY OF Suffolk On the 28th clay ~f December, 1982 . before mc personally came Mary Sepko a/k/a Ymry E. Py lko to me kn,)wn to bc the ~ndivldnal described in and who executed ~he f.regomg inslrument, and acknowledged that she exectHed the STATE OF NEW YORK, GOUNTY OF SS: ()n the day of 19 , before me pcrsoually came I,) .lc known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and sa)' Ihat bt' resides at No, that hc is 'the ; of · the corporation described in and x~hich executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows thc seal of said corporation: that the seal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the board of directors' of said corpora- tion, and that he signed h name thereto by like order. Bargain ate WITH COVENANT AGAINST GRANTOR S ACTS TITLE NO. MARY SEPKO a/k/a MARY E. PYLKO TO MICHAEL ADAMOWICZ, ET AL. ST~NO&RO FORMOF ,NEW YORK BOARO OF TIrL~ UNOERWRITERS D~rstributed by CHICAGO TI~ INSURANCE COMPANY STATI OP NIW YORE, COUNTY OP SSt On the day of 19 , before me personally came to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that executed the same. 14552; STATE OR NiW YORK, COUNTY OP On the SS: day of 19 , before me personally came the subscribing witness to the foregoing instrument, with whom I am personally acquainted, who, being, by me du y sworn, did depose and say that he resides at No. ; that he'knows to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; that he, said subscribing witness, was present and saw execute the same; and that he, said witness, at the same time subscribed h name as witness thereto. SECTION BLOCK LOT COUNTY OR TOWN Re~rded at Requeat M CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY R~um by Mail to Rensse[aer G. Terry~ Jr., Esq. 52665 ~a~n Road Southo[d, ~ew York i197~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 December 17, 1990 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Michael Adams Co. Proposed Set-Off SCTM#1000-121-5-4.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: This letter will confirm your discussion of the above named Set-Off on December 14,1990 with staff member Robert Kassner. Five (5) copies of the proposed Set-Off map with Health Department review, and a check in the amount of $250.00, are required before the Board can proceed.with its review. If you have any questions or require further assistance please contact this office. Very truly yours, enne r~owsKi, Jr. / ~ Chairman ' SERVI JTA , Dec, 6, 1. Oq~ To: Southold Town Planning Board From: ,{_nry Ravmor Re: Mzc ~el_ Adams Setof[ Enclosed her.with coDies reguested for review. Any ~u~stlons Dleas~ ca~.I st once. Thenk you Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 02/08/89 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Michael Adams Co. SCTM #1000-121-5-4.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: Enclosed please find the report from the Department of Planning dated January 24, 1989 on the above mentioned set-off. The Planning Board accepts and request that you comply with this report. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. enc. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE (516) 360-5207 LEE E. KOPPELMAN DIRECTOR OF PLANNING January 24, 1989 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11901 Preliminary__ Final X__ Plat Name: Minor Subdivision - Michael Adams Company, Inc. Location: sly/s Sound Avenue at intersection of Sound Avenue and Middle Road, C.R. 48, Southold, New York. Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised that pursuant to Section A14-24, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above referral will not be reviewed by the Suffolk County Planning Commission because of noncompliance with requirements for notice and maps as stipulated in Informational Bulletin #8 of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The following material is required before referral will be reviewed: Lot or parcel numbers, lot or parcel areas. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz Acting Director of Planning Charles G. Lind, Chief Planner Subdivision Review Division File: 1333-D-89-07 CGL:mb NOTE: Please consult Suffolk County Department of Planning Informational Bulletin No. 8 for complete referral requirements. P.O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY January 9, ~L~.NNING BO~ ,RD 1989 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Deac Mc. Oclowski: We are still awaiting the se~m~maps approved by your Board over two months ago for the Adams property at Mattituck, New York. This is an inordinate amount of time to transpire and is impeding our processing of the final site plan. Sincerely, /~ denry 7' Raynot, Jr. HR:ml CC: Betty Fraser Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE ($16} 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Suffolk County Planning Commission Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Gentlemen: Pursuant to Section 1333, Article XIII of the Suffolk County Charter, the Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the following proposed final plat to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: (Map of) (Minor Subdivision) Hamlet ~ a~i~ ~-~ Tax Parcel Identifier No. M~terial Submitted: Minor Subdivision - Class A(3 copies) Major Subdivision (3 Copies) Class B (2 copies) Preliminary Map (1 copy) '; Topogra4nic Map (1 copy) Darinage Plan (1 copy) ; Street Profiles (1 copy) Grading Plan (1 copy) ; Planning Board Res. (1 copy) Other material (specify and give number of copies) u - d - u 'u ' Waiver of Subdivision Requirements - See attached sheet Comments: Very truly yours, GEORGE B. MICHOS, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEER 101 Longt'cllow Lane Port Jefferson, NY 11777 (516) 928-8237 RECEIVED BY JUL 5 1988~_.. DATE MICHAEl. ADAMS INDUSTRIAL, SITE MATT 1 TUCK, NY Traffic Evaluation Prepared For: Michael Adams Company 275 Adams Boulevard Farmingdale, NY 11735 June 1988 SUMMARY: This report presents an evaluation of the traffic impacts of a proposed 40,000 SF industrial development in Mattituck, NY. The report considers the existing.residential and commercial traffic and the impacts of the traffic generated by the proposed use on the adjacent roadway. The report also considers the addition of traffic from adjacent. residential, business and industrial zones owned by the project developer. The development concept for these additional areas is theoretical since there are no plans to develop these areas at this time. The development of the business area as a shopping center is a worst case situation. Development of this site as an office park would yield traffic flows of 35~ of the shopping center case. The results of this analysis indicate that: o The traffic generated by the proposed use will not reduce the level of service of the adjacent roadway. The key intersections providing access to the site can accomodate the added traffic with the existing geometry. Full development of the adjacent property will reduce the LOS at the Sound Ay. - CR 48 intersections to an unacceptable level. The County will have to install traffic signals at these locations to provide a satisfactory LOS. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to examine the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development of a 5.0 acre site in Hattituck, NY into a 40,000 SF industrial facility. Vehicle access to the site ie from Sound Av. on the north side of the site. Sound Ay. is a Town of Southold public highway. The major arterial roadways serving the area of the project are CR 48 on the north and SR 25 .6 mi. south of the site. Local Town roads provide access to the residential and commercial areas north and south of the site. This evaluation is based on the following considerations: ~ Existing traffic counts on the adjacent and area road network. e The effect of the traffic generated by the proposed development on the local street system. ~ The existing conditions at the key intersections providing access to the site. # The effects of added seasonal traffic during the summer months. s The traffic impacts on the adjacent roads associated with full development of adjacent residential, business and industrial sites. In performing this evaluation we obtained existing traffic data from field traffic counts. Ve also observed traffic activity at the key intersections along CR 48. Figure I is a location map showing the project site, and area road network. An Appendix is provided containing traffic engineering terms which are pertinent to this project, worksheets and calculations and traffic count data. 3 F~URE l: PRO~ECT LOCATION EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS: At the proposed project site, Sound Ay. is a two lane road. The pavement is generally 24 ft. wide and the shoulders are 2-4 ft. wide on both sides of the road. Parking is not prohibited along this road. Traffic controls consist of stop signs on the roads intersecting CR 46-Niddle Rd. from the north and south. The alignment of Sound Ay. is slightly curved and level east and west of the project site. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES: To assess the impact of the proposed use on the adjacent roadeay network, it is necessary to.initially establish existing or baseline conditions. Traffic volumes on CR 48 and Cox Neck Rd./Sound Ay. were calculated from on-site counts during the week of Feb. 1-5, 1966. From these sources the following PM peak hour volumes were established as existing conditions: £XISTING TRAFFIC VOLUH£S - PM PEAK HOUR Highway Peak Hour Volume vph E Bd. W. Bd N. Bd. S. Bd CR 46 244 393 Sound Ay. 26 ?0 Cox Neck Rd. 99 89 GENERATED TRAFFIC: In order to estimate the traffic generated by the proposed site use and predict the routes this traffic would use, the following procedures were used: [. Trip Generation: Generation rates were calculated using the 'Trip Generation Report - Third Edition' of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The proposed 4 o Z use of the site is industrial and the IT£ report indicates that the PM peak hour is the critical period for this uss. The generation rates are .397 trips/iOOOSF inbound and .783 trips/[OOOSF outbound. Industrial Site vith 40,000 SF PM peak hour trips = .397 x 40 = 16 vph inbound .763 x 40 = 31 vph outbound Total PM peak hour trips = 47 vph 2. Traffic AssiRnment: CR 48 and Sound Av. provide access to the project site and all traffic'vas assigned to these roads. Inbound and outbound splits were based on the ITE factors noted above. Traffic splits for the project entrances are based on access road directional splits and location of the parking area entrances. Figure ~ shows the assignment of traffic to the adjacent roads. All figures are for the PM peak hour, 5-6 PM. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the unsignalized intersections along Sound Ay. at the project entrance and CR 48. The methodology employed in the analysis is that published in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) of the Transportation Research Board. Analyses vere done for the average traffic conditions and for summer traffic conditions. 1. Sound Ay. & Entrance: This viii be an unsignalizsd 'T' intersection with stop sign control. Left and right turns share lanes. Unsignalized intersection capacity analysis of this location was made using turning movements estimated from the traffic generation data and counts on Sound Ay. The results are shown in Table 1 below. ,/ 2. Sound Ay. Northbound & CR 48= This is an unsignalized 'T' intersection with stop sign control. Left and right turns have seperate lanes. Unsignalized intersection capacity analysis of this location was made using turning movements estimated from the traffic generation data and counts on Sound Ay. The results are shown in Table ~ below. S. CR 48 & Cox Neck Rd./Sound Ay.: This is an unsignalized four leg intersection with stop sign control on Cox Neck Rd. The southerly leg of the intersection is one-way southbound. Capacity analyses for this location were done for the existing conditions and adding the project traffic. The results are given in Table ! below. , From the data presented in Table ! it is evident that the proposed project will not reduce the LOS at the project entrance, or at the intersections. TABLE l: INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) EXISTING W/PROJECT W/SUMMER T Sound Ay. & Entrance Lt from Entrance - A A Rt from Entrance - A A Lt froe Sound Av - A A CR 48 & Sound Ay. Lt from Sound Av B B E Rt from Sound Av A A A Lt from CR 48 - CR 4B & Cox Neck/Sound Ay. Lt from Cox Neck B C D Rt from Cox Neck A A A Lt from CR 48 A A A ADJAGENT PROPERTY DEVELOPHENT The proposed industrial site development is part of a 71.5 Ac. site. The balance of the property surrounds the 5 acre industrial site and is within industrial, business and residential zones. An analysis was made of the potential traffic generation from the three zones, the assignment of such traffic and the potential impacts of the added traffic on the adjacent roads. 1. Traffic Generation: Based on the existing zoning requirements the following development potential was Residential Zone: Industrial Zone: Business Zone: 19.3 Ac., 15.4 Ac. subdividable, IT lots a 40,~00 SF each. 33.3 Ac. 13.9 Ac., 125,000 SF shopping center based on setback & parking requirements. Traffic generation from these zones would then be: Residential: inbound = .6T x 17 : ~1 vph outbound = .34 x 17 : B vph Industrial: inbound = 3.a x 33.3 = 113 vph outbound = 6.7 x 33.3 = 223 vph Business: inbound = 2.85 x 12S = 356 vph outbound = 3.0S x 125 = 351 vph 2. Traffic Assignment: It was also assumed that the industrial and residential traffic would all use the proposed entrance road for the industrial site as an access. All traffic from these zones was assigned to this new road. For the shopping center it was assumed that there would be entrances and exits directly on Sound Aw. and traffic was assigned to driveways on this road. The assumed traffic assignment is shown on Figure 4. 7 3. Capacity Analysis: Intersection capacity analyses were done for the locations described above using the traffic distribution data shown on Figure 4. Analyses were done for both average and summer traffic conditions, and the results are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2: INTERSECTIONS - FULL DEVELOPMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) EXISTING W/PROJECT W/SUMMER T Sound Ay. & Entrance Rd. Lt from Entrance C D Rt from Entrance A A Lt from Sound Ay A A CR 48 & Sound Ay. Lt from Sound Av B F F Rt from Sound Ay A A A Lt from CR 48 - - CR 46 & Cox Neck/Sound Ay. Lt from Cox Neck B E F Rt from Cox Neck A A B Lt from CR 48 A A B From this data it is evident that the traffic from full development of the surrounding property will saturate the intersections. The shopping center generates the most traffic and will have the greatest effect on traffic in the area. The two CR 48 intersections with Sound Ay. mill need signals to provide a satisfactory LOS during the summer season. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the development of the proposed Industrial Site will not significantly reduce the level of service of the adjacent r6adway. The unsignalized intersections at the project entrance and CR 48 will provide a satisfactory level of service for left turn Since the existing roadways and intersections will provide a satisfactory level of service, no improvements are necessary. The proposed site plan access is satisfactory and is recommended for approval as shown. Summer traffic in the area will increase the volumes by approximately 30%. This additional traffic will not significantly reduce the LOS at the project entrances or the CR 48 intersection. at For the case of full development of the adjacent properties, the LOS at the CR 48 intersections with Sound Av. will not have an acceptable LOS. Suffolk County will have to install traffic signals at these locations to improve the LOS. APPENDIX: 1. Glosary of Traffic Engineering Terms 2. Traffic Counts 3. Intersection Diagrams and Worksheets 9 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIG ENGINEERING TERMS Traffic Generation: The initial step in~an impact study of this nature is the determination of how much traffic (number of vehicle trips) will be generated by the proposed facility. This generation estimate is the basis of all additional estimation and calculation. Existinq Traffic Pattern: This concerns the present use of the highway network involved and it is upon this traffic volume that the new traffic generated by the proposed development is superimposed. Prejected traffic volumes are a combination of these two factors; namely, existing traffic volumes and traffic generated by the proposed facility (surcharge traffic). Trip Distribution: The origin and destination of vehicle trips. The proposed development would be one trip end and the employees/visitors origin or destination would be the other trip end. Traffic Aesiqnments: After the traffic generation and distribution have been defined, it is necessary to decide which roadway links will be used by vehicles commuting to and from the site. This information is superimposed on existing traffic volumes to project future traffic on specific roadways. SUFFDiJ( COUNTY DEPT. DF]{~IC WORK9 I HOUR, 2 CHANNEl. VEHICLE C0UNT CORRECTION F~TOR) l. O0 SITE NO.: CR48 850FW COX NECK RD. CL HEEl( OF KONDAY AU6UST 26, 198§ FILE= 048-105 HOUR I, iONDAY 2G TUESDAY 27 WEDNESDAY 2R THURSDAY 29 FRI~Y 30 SATURDAY 31 SUNNY I WEEKLY AVERAGE BEGINS 3 *' ~ * * 8 16 6 8 10 g * * * * 8 Il 5 ~ ~ · ~ 68 I~O 89 113 77 103 * ~ ~ * 78 112 2 * * 241 274 ~54 304 309 310 * * * * * * 266 296 3 * * 275 307 299 334 315 316 * * * * * * 296 319 7 * · 85 lO0 107 108 127 144 · ) · · · · 106 117 8 · · 77 79 71 127 105 81 * * * · · * 84 96 TOTALS 0 0 i990 2246 3363 3784 3791 38i9 689 760 0 0 0 0 3430 3681 COMBINED TOTALS 3~q'~ ,~.'{ 7 ": 2..q .2~ -' 7.~100 /~AO'T- ,-,-{~ I * · 9 14 18 * · 14 ~ · · 9 15 9 · · 11 3 · · 24 14 19 * * 19 4 * · 67 66 69 · · 67 5 · · 188 202 180 * * 190 6 · · 407 402 359 * · 369 7 * * 435 422 390 * * 416 8 · · 407 408 387 · · 401 10 · · 466 544 * * · 515 11 · 437 438 511 · * · 462 i2 · 434 503 520 * * · 486 I · 483 547 567 * * * 532 2 * 515 558 619 * * * 564 3 · 582 633 631 ~ * · 615 4 * 585 605 590 * · * 593 5 * 402 418 469 · * * 430 6 * 258 332 323 * · · 304 7 * 185 215 271 * * ~ 223 8 · 156 198 i86 * · · 180 9 * 110 156 183 * · * 149 I0 · 69 79 91 . * * 78 11 · 24 40 46 * * · 37 TOTALS 0 4236 7147 7570 1449 0 0 7111 TRAFFIC COUNTS February 5, 1988 Cox Neck Rd. NB SB CR 48 7-Sam 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12n 12-1pm 1-2 2-3 3-4. 4.-5 5-6 80 71 221 78 69 83 73 91 84 99 89 190 213 234 2z~4 301 3O7 327 383 393 Seasonal correction factor 1.08 WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS OF T-INTERSECTIONS LOCATION: ~-~o~,ox'~ ~,~. ~t (~..~o'x'~nnoc~_ HOURLY VOLUMES Major Street:~ (~ N Grade ~- V2 0% & __ VD Date of Counts: Tune Period: ~- Average Running Speed' ~ V~ _7_0 ~V7 ' . __ V, I I ~ s~op ~ IT [] YIELD -- Street: PHF:. 'q~ Grade HOURLY VOLUMES Major Street: Grade .O_% Date of Counts:~ Tune Period: '~-6- P Average. Running Speed: NAME: VOLUMES IN PCPH -- V2 · ,~ Ms -- V{SLUMES IN PCPH -- V2 ~ Ms -- INTERSECTION ANALYSIS 8ound Ay. & Entranc~Rd. With Pro~ent - Average Traffic Volume Adjustments Movement 2 3 4 5 Volume 28 6 10 70 Vol.(pcph~ II Rt. from minor street V9 Conflicting Flow 51 Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 lOgO Tc-~.5 Actual Capacity 1080 Lt. from major street V4 Conflicting Flow 34 Crit. Gap, k &Cpa 1080 Tc-~.5 %Cp Used & Imped. factor Actual Capacity 1080 .99 Lt. from minor street V7 C~flictinB Flow 111 Crit. Gap, Tc &C~7 BO0 Actual Capacity 792 Tc=6.5 Shared Lane Capacity Csh 875 Movement v(pcph) C~l(pcph) Csh(pcph) CR LOS 7 22 792 792 770 A 9 12 lOgO lOgO 1068 A ¢ 11 iOBO lOBO 1069 A INTERSECTION ANAJ.YSIS Volume Adjustments Movement Volume 43 Vol.(pcph) Rt. fromm minor street V9 Conflicting Flow Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 Actual Capacity Sound Ay. & Entrance Rd. With Project - Summer Traffic 7 20 22 !1 12 2 5 4 5 7 9 6 10 108 20 11 11 22 12 .99 1050 Tc=5.5 1050 Lt. from major street V4 Conflicting Flow 49 Crit. 8ap, Tc &Cpa 1050 Tc=5.5 %Cp Used & Imped. factor 0.95 P~ Actual Capacity 1050 Lt. from minor street V7 Conflicting Flow 164 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 770 Tc=&.5 Actual Capacity 762 SMared Lane Capacity Csh 844 5-6 PM Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) C~(pcph) CR LOS 7 22 762 762 740 A 9 12 1050 1050 1058 A 4 11 1050 1~0 1039 A 5-6 PM T INTERSECTION ANALYSIS .CE 4B ~. Sound Existing Conditions Volume Adjustments Movement S 4 Volume 228 0 Vol.(pcph~ Rt. from minor street V9 Confliotin~ Flow 228 Critical Gap, ~c &Cm9 B50 T~:5.5 Actual Capacity 950 Lt. from major street V4 ConfllctinB Flow 228 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp4 850 Tc:5.5 %Cp Used & Imp~d. factor 0.00 P4= Actual Capacity B50 Lt. ~rom minor strme~ V7 Confiictin~ Flow Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 400 Actual Capacity 400 Shared Lane Capacity Cmn 400 Movement v(pcmh) Cm(pcpn) C~(pc~h) CE ? 55 400 400 345 9 0 850 850 850 ~ 0 B5O 850 850 LOS B A A 50 55 5-6 F'~ 0 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS So~d Ay.& CR 48 With Project - Average Traffic Volume Adjustments Movement Volume Vol.(pcph) Rt. from minor street Conflicting Flow Critical Sap, Tc Actual Capacity 2 ~ 4 5 7 g 0 0 393 64 0 0 ?0 0 228 695 Tc=6.5 695 Lt. from ma$or strent V4 Conflicting Flow 228 Crit. Sap, Tc &Cp4 775 To=6.0 %Cp Used & ImpeO. factor 0.00 P4= Actual Capacity 775 Lt. from minor street V7 Conflicting Flow 621 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 380 Actual Capacity ~80 Tc=8.5 Shared Lane Capacity Csh ~80 Movement vIpcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) ~ LOS 7 70 380 SBO 310 8 9 0 695 695 695 A 4 0 775 775 775 A .? INTER~ECTION ANALYSIS Sound Ay.& CR 48 With Pro~ect - Summer Traffic Volume Adjustments Movement 2 ~ Volume 35& 0 Vol. (pcph) 0 Rt. from minor street Vg Conflicting Flow 556 Critical Gap~ Tc &Cpg 5gO Tc=6.5 Actual Capacity 5~0 4 5 0 605 Lt. from ea~or strent V4 Conflicting Flow ~56 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp4 ~0 Tc=6.O %Cp Used & Imped. factor 0.00 PC= Actual Capacity 6~ Lt. from minor street V7 Conflicting Flow 961 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 130 Tc=8.5 Actual Capacity 130 Shared Lane C~acity Csh 130 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) CR LOS 7 100 130 130 30 E g 0 590 5~ 590 A 4 0 6~ 6~0 ~0 A 7 gl 100 5-6 PM 5-6 PM FOUR-LES INTERSECTION ANALYSIS CR 48 Neck Rd. Existing Conditions VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS MOVEMENT I 2 3 4 5 VOL. vph l& 200 28 0 310 VOL. pcph 18 0 RT FROM MINOR STRE ET V? V12 Conflictin~ Flows. Vc 214 551.5 Critical Gap, Tc 5.5 5.5 Potential Cap., C? 875 750 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 ~.7 Impedence Factor, P Actual Cap., Cmg, 12 875 750 LT FROM MAJOR STREET V4 V1 Conflictins Flows, Vc 228 595 Critical GaR, Tc 5.5 5.5 Potential Cap., Cp 850 700 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 2.J Impedence Factor, P i .98 Actual Ca~., Cm4, 1 850 700 TH FROM MINOR STREET V8 VII ConflictinB Flows, Vc 623 595.5 Critical Gap, Tc 6.5 6.5 Potential Cap., Cp 400 450 Pe~ent of Cp Utilized 0.0 2.6 Impedence Factor, P ! .98 Actual Cap., C~8, 11 592 421 LT FROM MINOR STREET V7 VIO ConflictinB Flows, Vc 684 595.5 Critical GaF, Tc b.5 b.5 Potential ~ap., Cp 575 425 Actual Cap., ~m 7, lO 546 417 SHARED LANE CAPACITY 2 Movements share a lane Movements share a lane VIO & VIi 3~ V7 & V8 ERROR VlO, VlI,V12 556 V7,VS,V~ ERROR MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph)Cr=Csh-v LOS 7 0 346 546 346 B 8 0 592 592 5~2 B 9 0 875 875 875 A MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,1112 10 ~1 417 417 586 B 11 12 421 42! 409 A 12 55 750 750 6~5 A MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 1 18 700 682 A 4 O 850 850 A 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 0 0 0 28 11 50 0 0 0 51 12 5~ major road N --[~ V~ V, V~ YIELD 0 · Gra~ (5 FOUR-LEG INTERSECTION ANALYSIS CR 48 & ~eck Rd./Sound Ay. With Pro~ec~ VOLUME ADJUSTM~TS MOVEMENT 1 2 3 4 § ~ 7 8 9 lO 11 VOL. Yph i6 200 54 0 314 93 0 0 0 50 il VOL. pcph 18 0 0 0 0 55 12 RT FR~ MINOR STREET Conflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc Potential Cap., Cp Percent of Cp Utilized Impedenco Factor, P Actual Cap., Cmg, 12 V9 VI2 ~17 360,5 6,5 6.5 700 580 0.0 4.8 1 .97 700 580 12 28 31 LT FROM MAJOR STREET V4 VI ConfliotinB Flows, Vc 234 407 Critical Gap, Tc 6 6 Potential Cap., Cp 760 620 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 2.~ Impedence Factor, P 1 .98 Actual Cap., Cm4, 1 760 620 TH FROM MINOR STREET V8 VIi Conflicting Flows, Vc 640 610.5 Critical Gap, Tc 8 8 Potential Cap., Cp 280 290 Perce~t of Cp Utilized 0.0 3.8 I~edence Factor, P 1 .97 Actual Cap., Cm8, 11 274 284 LT FROM MINOR STREET V7 ViO ConflictinB Flows, Vc 679 610.5 Critical Gap, ~c 8.5 8.5 Potential Cap., Cp 240 255 Actual Cap., Cm 7, 10 221 250 SHARED LANE CAPACITY 2 Movements share a lane Movements share a lane VIO & VI1 270 VT& V8 ERROR VIO, ViI,V12 310 V7,VB,V9 ERROR MINOR STREET APPROACH ~OVEMENT$ 7,8,9 Movem~t v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Ceh(pcph)Cr=Csh-¥ LOS 7 0 221 221 221 C 8 0 274 274 274 C 9 0 700 700 700 A MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEBENTS 10,1112 10 55 250 250 195 O II 12 284 284 272 C 12 31 580 580 549 A MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 1 lB 620 602 A 4 0 760 760 A ?]t~EG INT~SECTION AN~YSIS CR 4B & ~l~eck Rd./Sound Ay. With Project - Summer Fraf~lc VOLU~ ADJUSTMENTS ~ENT 1 2 3 A § 6 7 8 g VOL. vph 23 285 46 0 4~ 129 0 0 0 VOL. pcph 25 0 0 0 0 Rl FROM MIN~ STREET Conflictin9 Flows, Vc 308 Critical Gap, Tc 6.5 Potential Cap., Cp 630 Percent of ~ Utilized 0.0 Impedence Factor~ P Actual Cap., Cmg, 12 630 V12 510.5 6.5 8.3 .96 480 LT FR~ RAJ~ STREET U4 C~nflictin9 Flo~s, Vc ~1 Critical Gap~ Tc & Potential Cap.~ Cp 675 Pe~ent of Cp Utilized 0.0 I~p~den~e Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., Cm4, I 675 VI 575 5OO 4.6 .97 500 TH FRDM MIN~ STREET UB Vll Conflictln9 Flows, Vc ~6 ~4.5 Critical 6ap, Tc ~ Potentlal Cap., Cp 165 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 7.9 I~ence Factor, P 1 ~tual Cap., C~ 11 160 LT FR~ MIN~ STRUT V7 VlO Con(lictin9 Flows, V~ %1 864.5 C~iticai Gap, Tc 8.5 8.5 Poten~ial Cap., Cp 1~0 155 Actual Cap., C~ 7, 10 116 150 S(tqRED ~ CAPACITY 2 Movements sharo a lane 3 ~velents sha~ a lane VIO ~ Vll V7 & VB VIO,VI1,V12 V7,VB,V9 158 ERRO~ 198 ERROR MINOR ST~ET APPROACH ~V~ENTS 7~8,9 Move~t v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph)Cr~sh-v L~ 7 0 116 116 116 ~ B 0 160 1~ 1~ D 9 0 630 630 ~ A MINDR S~F_ET APPROACH ~fOVEMENTS 10,1112 10 78 150 150 72 E 11 17 184 184 167 0 12 ~4 480 480 456 A MAJOR STRE~ LEFT T~ 1.4 1 25 500 475 A 4 0 6~ 675 A 10 71 7B 11 15 17 12 40 44 INTERSECTION ~NALYSIS Sound Ay. & Full Development - Average Traffic 99 Tc=5.5 Volume Adjustments Movement 2 3 Volume 219 50 Vol.(pcph) Rt. from minor street V9 Conflicting Flow 244 Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 B40 Actual Capacity 840 4 5 7 9 90 248 166 94 183 103 Lt. from major street V4 Conflicting Flow 269 Crit. 8ap, Tc &Cp4 820 Tc=5.5 %Cp Used & Imped. factor 10.98 P~ Actual Capaczty 820 · 94 Lt. fr~ minor street V7 Conflicting Flow 582 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 440 Actual Capacity 414 Shared Lane Capacity Csh 507 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) CR LOS 7 183 414 414 231 C 9 103 840 840 737 A 4 99 820 820 721 A 5-6 PM T INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Sound A~. & Entrance Rd. Full Oevelopmeot- Summer Traffic Tc=5.5 Volume Adjustments Movement 2 3 Volume 2~4 50 Vol.(pcph) Rt. from minor street V9 Cowflictin9 Flow 259 Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 B~O Actual Capacity 830 4 ~ 7 9 90 ~ 1~ 94 18~ 10~ Lt. from ma~or street V4 Conflictin9 Flow ~84 Crit. Bop, Tc &Cp4 BO5 Tc:5.5 %~P Used & Imped. factor 11.18 P4= Actual Capacity 805 .94 Lt. from minor street V7 Conflictin9 Flow ~35 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 405 Actual Capacity 381 ~c=6.5 Shared Lane Capacity Csh 473 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) CR LOS 7 183 381 381 198 O 9 103 830 8~0 727 A 4 99 805 805 706 A 5-6 PM T INTERSECTION ANALYSIS So~lnd Ay.& CR 48 Full Development - Average Traffic Volume Adjustments Movement 2 5 4 5 7 Volume 228 0 0 595 2~ Vml.(pcph> 0 529 Rt. from minor street V9 Cenflictin~ Flow 228 Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 695 Tc=6.5 Actual CaFaclt¥ 695 Lt. from ma~or street V4 Conflicting Flow 22B Crit. G~, Tc &C~4 775 ~C~ ~sed & Imped. factor 0.00 P4= Actual Capacity Lt. from minor street V7 Conflictin~ Flow 621 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 250 Actual Capacity 250 Tc=S.5 Shared Lame Capacity Cs~ 250 Movement vipcph) ~m(pcph) Dsh~pcph) C~ LOS 7 ]29 250 250 -79 F 9 0 ~95 6~5 695 A ~ 0 775 775 775 A ) INTE~ECTIDN ANALYSIS Sound Ay.& CE 4B Full Development-- Summer Traffic 5 7 9 605 ~26 0 ~59 0 356 590 Tc=6.5 Volume Adjustments Movement 2 Volume 356 Vol. Ipcph) Rt. from minor etreet V9 ConflictinB Flow Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 Actual Capacity Lt. from me,or street V4 Conflictin9 Flow ~6 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp4 8&O lc=6.0 %Cp Used & Imped. factor 0.00 P~ Actual Capacity 660 Lt. ~rom minor street V7 Cenflictin9 Flow Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 Actual Capacity 961 125 Tc=8.5 125 Shared Lane Capacity Csh 125 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Dshipcph) CR LOS 7 359 125 125 -234 F 9 0 590 590 590 A 4 0 660 6&O 860 A 5-6 PM 5-& PM ~0OR-LEG INTERSECTI~ ANALYSIS CR 4B & Co,~eck 8d../Sound Ay. Full Oeveio~men~ - Average Traffic VOLU~ ADJUSTMENTS MOVEM. ENT 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 VOL. vph 16 ~ lO0 0 462 1BO 0 0 0 50 B7 2S VOL. pcph 18 0 0 0 0 55 96 31 RT FROM MINOR STREET V9 V12 Conflictin9 Flo~, Vc 290 552 Critical Gap, Tc b.5 6°5 Potential Cap., Cp 645 455 Percent of ~ Utilized 0.0 6.2 Impeoence Factor~ P I .97 Actual Cap., C~, 12 b45 ~55 LT FROM MAJOR STREET V4 V1 ~flictin9 Flo~, Vc 3BO ~42 Critical Gap, Tc ~ ~ Potential Cap.~ ~p ~45 ~55 Percent of Cp Otilized 0.0 3.5 ImFedence Factor, P 1 .98 Actual Cap., Cm4, 1 645 455 TH FROM MINOR STREET V8 Vll Conflictin~ Flows, Vc 9~8 ~48 C~itical Gap, Tc 8 8 Potentlml Cap., Cp 150 150 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 5~.0 Impedence Factor, P 1 .5 Actual Cap., Cm8, 11 147 147 LT FROM MINOR STREET V7 VIO ConflictinB Flows, Vc lOf3 948 Critical Gap, Tc 8.5 8.5 Potential Cap.~ Cp 100 130 Actual Cap., Cm 7, 10 48 127 SHARED LANE CAPACITY 2 Movements share a lane Movements share a lane VIO& VII 134 V7 &VB ERROR ViO,Vll,V12 158 V7, VB,V9 ERROR MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Ceh(pcph)Cr=Csh-v LOS 7 0 48 48 48 E 8 0 147 147 147 O 9 0 645 645 64~ A MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,1112 10 55 127 127 72 E ii % 147 147 51 E 12 51 455 455 424 A MAJOR STREET LEFT T~NS [.4 1 lB 455 437 A 4 0 645 &45 A fOUR-LEG INTERSECTIO~ ANALYSIS CR 48 & Rd./Sound Ay. Full ~'avelopsemt - Summer Traffic VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS MOVEMENT 1 2 5 VOL. vph 23 285 192 VOL. pcph 25 4 5 & 7 8 9 I0 11 12 0 594 216 0 0 0 71 91 40 0 0 0 0 78 100 RT FROM MINOR STREET Oon{licting Fle,s, Vc 381 Critical Gap, Tc Potential Cap., Cp 575 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 Impedence Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., CmS, 12 575 V12 702 6.5 360 11.1 LT FROM MAJOR STREET V4 Conflicting Flows, Vc 477 Critical Gap, Tc 6 Potential Cap., £p 565 Pe~ent of Cp Utilized 0.0 Impedance Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., Ca4, I 565 VI 810 ~0 6.4 .97 TN PROM MINOR STREET V8 Cunflictin~ Flows, Vc 1214 Critical 8ap, Tc Potential Cap., Cp ~5 Percent of Cp Utilized Impe~ence Factor, P I Actual Cap., Cm8, 11 VII 1202 8 95.8 · 08 92 LT PROM MINOR STREET V7 Conflictin9 Flo~s, Vc 1~45 Critical Gap, ~c 8.5 Potential Cap., Cp 50 Actual Cap., Cs 7, I0 4 ViO 1202 8.5 75 73 SHARED L~E CAPACITY 2 Movements share a lane Movements sha~ a lane VIO& VII V7 VIO,VIi,V12 V7,VS~V9 80 EREOR 97 ERROR MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph)Cr=Csh-v LOS 7 0 4 4 4 E 8 0 ~ 92 92 E 9 0 575 575 575 A MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEi'IENTS 10~1112 10 78 73 73 -5 F I1 100 92 92 -8 F 12 44 360 360 316 B MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1.4 1 25 360 ~5 B 4 0 565 565 A ey B Bowne. P.E, LS (1922-1959) stet C Kelsey, P.E., kS. andre W Mercil. P E err A. Stanton, PE. err W. Brown, L.$. 3iel A. Blackman, P.E.. L.S. SIDNEY B. BOWNE 45 Manor Road Smithtown, N.Y. 11787 (516) 724'0611 rge A Style, P E rge L. Fagan. Jr, Ph D., P E ,k Capobianco, C E mas R Pynchon, L.S Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 October 7, 1988 Re: Adams Industrial Site, Town of Southold (SBB No. 87322) Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have reviewed the-Traffic Evaluation Study forwarded to us on July 19, 1988 in connection with the Michael Adams Industrial Site on Sound Avenue. We concur with the analysis and do not believe that road improvements are necessary due to the proposed industrial development. It is our understanding that the County will not require any improvement at the intersection of County Road 48 and Sound Avenue with reference to this parcel. However, we do advise that it would be prudent to request dedication of a 10 ft. wide strip of land along the applicants Sound Avenue frontage. This would provide for future improvement of the road if the necessity arises. If you require further information or analysis pertaining to this site please let us know. Very truly yours, SIDNEY B. BOWNE & SON CONSULTING ENGINEERS ABC:rp A. BARTON CASS, P.E. MINEOLA · SMITHTOWN · NEW YORK CITY · CLEARWATER An EQual Op~ortunlty Employer M/F/H PL Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1988 July 21, 1988 Southold Town Highway Department Peconic Lane Peconic, N.Y. 11958 Southold Town Police Department Route 25 Peconic, N.Y. 11958 Suffolk County Dept. Yaphank Avenue Yaphank, N.Y. 11980 of Public Works Re: Michael Adams Industrial Site, Mattituck, N.Y. SCTM # 1000-121-5-4.1 Dear Sirs: Enclosed please find a Traffic Evaluation done for the above mentioned site plan for your review. We would appreciate comments on your review particulary as to whether the applicant will need to install any road. Thank you for your assistance, ~rovements or traffic control devices. Very ly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Enclosures HENRY P. SrvlITH JOHN 1~I. BREDEr~EYER, III, President John Bednoski, Jr. ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York ! 1971 March 22, 1988 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Michael Adams, Sound Avenue, Mattituck Dear Mr. Orlowski: Pursuant to your request for comments regarding the above captioned matter please be advised that the Trustees recommend the following: 1. No disturbance to mature woodlands. 2. New York State D.E.C./Trustee flagged wetland line with a 100' buffer. 3. No construction on slopes greater than 15% to protect the pond. Very truly yours, John M. Bredemeyer, III President Board of Town Trustees JMB:ip CC: file ~OARD 8outhold, N.Y. 11071 (516) 765-1938 March 8, 1988 Environmental Analysis Unit DEC, Building 40, Room 219 SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11794 Gentlemen: Enclosed find a completed Short Environmental Assessment Form and a copy of the map of the subdivision of Michael Adams. This project is unlisted and an initial determination of nonsignificance has been made. We wish to coordinate this action to confirm our initial determination. May we have your views on this matter. Written comments on this project will be received at this office until April 6, 1988. shall interpret lack of response to mean there is no objection by your agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and our agency will assume the status of lead agency. We Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIP~MAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD enc, cc: Department of Health Services Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 March 8, 1988 Mr. Henry Raynor P.O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 Dear Mr. Raynor: RE: Adams Industrial Park SCTM ~ 1000-121-5-p/o4.1 The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, March 7, 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the set off located off Sound Avenue, Mattituck. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. ~HAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD jt PARTI CO~NSERVATIONDIvISION OF REG ~[~'I~Ry AFFAIRS State Envlronmenlal Quallly Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1. AppBcant~spon$or j 2. Project Name Michael Adams i set off of 5 acres 3. Prolect location: Nlun;ciDality Mattituck, Town of Southold Coun~ Suffolk [] New [] Expansion [] Modification/alteration Set off 5.03 acres from 71.5 acres at Sound A.venue, Mattituck, New York Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York Ini,iatlv 5 . 05 acres Ultimately 71 * 5 acres [] Yes [] No If No, describe briefly ~ Yes [] No If yes, list agency(s) and permlUapprovals Suffolk County Department of Health Services I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Henry E. Raynor, Jr. - Agent Date: / if the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER P. O. D£awe~ A Jamespoct, NY 11947 January L8, 3.988 Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Set off of Michael Adams at Sound Avenue, Dear Mr. Orlowski: Would you please advise me of the status of the above captioned matter. This proposed subdivision has been in you£ office since October 8, 1987. As considerable time has already passed, I would appreciate this matter being placed on the next available agenda. If you require any futher information, please don't hesitate to contact ms. HER:ml CC: Michael Adams Betty Fraser Jeanne-Marie Christensen, Sincerely, Esq. P Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 October 15, 1987 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. P.O. Box Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 Re: Proposed set-off of Michael Adams, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-121-5-4.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: W~th regard to the above-referenced application, the enclosed materials are not complete in as much as the subdivision map does not include the entire 71.5 acres under SCTM# 1000-121-5-4.1. Please resubmit the enclosed material with corrected maps. Sincerely, Valerie Scop~ Town Planner P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 October 8, 1987 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Sirs: Please find enclosed the following in regard to the set off application of Michael Adams at Mattituck, 1. Twelve prints of set off plan 2. Application for Approval of Plat 3. Letter Regarding roads and drainage 4. Short Environmental 5. Filing fee of $250 6. Questionnaire 7. Legal description Assessment form HER:ml Encs. CC: Michael Adams New York. APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT To the Planning Board of the Town of Soutbold: The undersigned applicant hereby applies for (tentative) (final) approval attcordance with Article 16 of the Town Laxv and the Rules and Regulations of the Southold Town Planning Board, and represents and states as follows: 1, The applicant is the owner of record of the land under application. (If the applicant is not the owner of record of the land under application, the applicant shall state his interest in said land under application.) 2. The name of the subdivision is to be . .. ~e~.o. ff..o~. ~cha.e}..&d.a¢~ ............. 3. J'he entire land under application is described in Schedule "A" hereto annexed. (Copy of deed ~u~gcsted.) 4. The land is held by the applicant under deeds recorded in Suffolk County Clerk's office as Liber ..~.~9.~ ................ Page }.49 .................. On 12/30/82 . [ :her ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... ; Liber ........................ Page ....................... On ....................... ; I.iber ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... ; :~ devised under the Last Will and Testament of ....................................... or as dlstributee ........................................................................ 5. Tbe area of the land is ... Y.~ ............ acres. 6. Ail taxes which are liens on the land at the dato hereo~ have been pa~d ~x ............ 7. The land is encumbered by .... ~J.~.~. ~ .............................................. mortgage (s) as follows: (a) Mortgage recorded in Liber .2~.~.. Page...~.~.~ ....... in original amoq~t (b) Mortgage recorded in Liber ......... Page ....................... in original amonnt of .............. nnpaid amonnt $ ...................... held by ...................... .............. address ............................................................... (c) Mortgage recorded in Liber .............. Page ................ in original amount of .............. unpaid amount $ ...................... held by ...................... ...................... address ......................................................... 8. There are no other encumbrances or liens against the land ~:lttt~x ........................ 9. The land lies in the following zoning use districts Industrial part of tho land lies under water whether tide water, stream, pond water or otherxvise, ex- cept ~]/~A. ............................................................................... 1 !. The applicant shall at his expense install all required public improvements. 12. 'l't'.e land (0~ex~ (does not) lie in a \Vater District or Water Snpply District. Name of Dis- trier, if within a District, is ............................................................. 12 \Vater mains will be laid by . ..... .bJ/.~. ................................................. and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. I4. Electric lines and standards will be installed by L.I.L.C.O. ..................................... and (a) (no) charge xvill be made for installing said lines. N/A 15. Gas mains will be installed by . ........................................................... and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 16. If streets shown on the plat are claimed by the at. rh,.,,n, to he ex~stmg public streets in tile Suffolk County Ilighway system, annex Schedule "B" hereto, to show same. 17 If streets shown on tile plat are claimed by tile applicant to be existing public streets in tile Toun oiS(mtlmld llighwa_v system, annex Schednle "C" hereto to show same. I~. There are no cxistinff buildings or structnres on tile land which are not located and shown on tile plat. 19. \Vhere the plat shows proposed streets which are extensions ~,f streets on adjoining snb- division amps heretafore filed, there are no reserve strips at the end of the streets on said existing maps at their conjunctions with the proposed streets. 20. In the coarse of these proceedings, tile al)plicant will offer proof of title as required by Sec. 335 of the P, eal Property Law. 21. Submit a copy of proposed deed for lots showing all restrictions, covenants, etc. Annex Schedule "D". 22. The applicant estimates that the cost of grading and required public improvements will he $ .......... as itemized in Schedule "E" hereto annexed and requests that the maturity of the Performance Bond be fixed at .............. years. The Performance Bond will be written by a licensed surety company unless otherwise shown on Schedule "F". D^TE .............................. ~9. 77~ ..... . . . . . ....... ' (Name of~pplicant) (Signature and Title) · (Address) ST^TE OF NE'V YORK. COUNT,' OF ...... ~.~ ................. ss: On the ........ '~.~ .... day of ............. ~ .......... 19..~.~, before me persoually came ~.. ~ ~ ............... to me known to be the individual described in and who executed~the foregoing instrument, and ackno?ledged that ............ ~/~ executed the same. LtND~ ~0 :, :~'~'"~ ~4~;;) ~ '"' ........ STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ............................ ss: On the ................ day ............ of ............... 19 ....... befnre me personally came ..................... to me known, who being by me duly sworn did de- pose and say that ............ resides at No .................................................... ............................... that ......................... is the .......... the corporation descrihed in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that ............ knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed hy order of the board of directors of said corporation. and that ............ signed .............. name thereto by like order. Notary Public N/O/F LAND OF KOUSOUROUS EUGENE K JORDAN N/O/ F /.- 01' CHAR LOTTE N. 28°27'20'"~ w \", ? / I ,/ i / / I / // / i // / \ \ / \ / ,/// I///// I/t t - / / // / . k / - ---z:° ~/l~./ ~ ~ /~ ~ a~ / t / . II / 4o- / , / ~x X ~ ~456.9l / AREA=S9.114 ACRES / / / / / / / / I zoINING DISTRICT ; "C -- LIGHT" SCHOOL DISTRICT: 9 ~i II MA'n'ITUCK FIRE DISTRICT M ATTITLICK OWNER: MICHAEL ADAMS 8~ CO. 275 ADAMS BOULEVARD FARMINGDALE, N.Y. 11'7'55 (J SITE LOCATION KEY MAP PROPOSED SET OFF FOR MICHAEL ADAMS & CO. AT MATTITUCK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY , I000 121 - 05 P/O SCALE I"= I00' MAY 22 , 19 87 ,JUNE 2.6, 19 87 SEPT· 21, 1987 N.Y. 4.1 EECEIVED BY SOUTIIOLD lO?IN PIANNING OOT 1 198'7 DATE N Y S LIC NO 49668 SURVEYORS I~ ENGINEERS ~ P C 6) 765 - 5020 P 0 BOX 909 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, N Y 11971 TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FROM 87 - 432 - TOPOGRAPHIC MAP FIVE EASTERN TOWNS I / / \ / ', \ I / \ / 1 / / \ / \ / / / / IIA/DL/.~ T,~ 1,4 I/I .,~ ,,_ /_/~/.../T// / / / / / / £1L~O DATE REVISION LOCATION MAP SITE DATA 1. THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY MICHAEL ADAMS. 2. THE ENTIRE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 71.5 ACRES. 3. THE INFORMATION SHOWN HAS BEEN COMPILED IN PART FROM SURVEYS PREPARED BY RODERICK VAN TUYL AND PECONIC SURVEYORS. 4. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN CODE. MICHAEL ADAMS COMPANY/NC, SOUTHOLD~ SUFFOLK COUNTY~ NEW YORK  8l~v~, j. }l!p,,./l$~[:i,/.~ (516)737-3378 consulting engineers 3505 Veterans Memorial Hwy., Suite M / Ronkonkoma, N. ~< 11779 I" I00' PROJ. NO. 86- 49 DATE~IoI( /9,97 SHEET /OF I ,gET OFF N/F KOU$ouffi OU$ SONS \ EDGE OF FRESHWATER N. KS.D.E,C. AND BY THE TRUSTEEsTOWN OF ~OUTHOLD DICKERSON ~TEST WELL CESSPOOL LOCATION HAMLET .' MAT77TUCK L OCA T/ON MA P SCALE: f": $00' NOTE: BOUNDARY AND SURVEY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY TOTAL AREA OFPARCEL = 7/. 42 ACRES REVISIONS 1125 Church Street Malverne, NY 11565 TEL (516)599-3663 FAX.(516)593-8160 D1001Middle CounlwRoad Ridge, NY 11961 TEL(516)924-3230 FAX(516)924-3557 SUBDI VISION MA P OF PROPERTY OF MICHAEL ADAMS $OUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY MAP DESIGNATION : P/O LOT 4.1 SECT. 121, BLOCK 5 DIST. 1000 SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP NOTE: DISTURBANCE TO MATURE WOODLANDS SHALL BE L/M/TED TO THE M/N/MUM AMOUNT REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH ANY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON THIS PROPERTK  E~ ~ 2 AREA 66.08 ACRES ~ES.D. EC. ANDBYTHE ¢ /~ -xx TOWN OF ZOUTHOLD ~ ~/ ~