The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1000-121.-5-4.1 TOWN' CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ,il', New York 516- ?6S-lS0~ N9 2 57 7 Southold, $. Y. 11971~ /<- 1~ ~ Judith T., Terry,. Town Clerk Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 IELEPHONE (516) '/65-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 23, 1989 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Dear Mr. Raynor: RE: Adams Industrial site plan SCTM ~1000-121-5-4.1 Pursuant to your October 6th letter which we received on October 16, 1989 regarding the above-referenced site plan; please be aware that this office hs no record of receiving a revised site plan, filing fee and long environmental assessment form. It is suggested that you recheck your records. Very truly yours, ~ ~ENNETT OIALOWSKI , JR. CHAIRMAN VS/jt JOSEPH P. HURLEY, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS January 3, 1989 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BQ~D CHARLES J. BARTHA, P.E. DEPUTY COMMISSION£R Town of Southold Planning Department 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Valerie Scopaz Re: s/s/o Sound Ave., @ s/o CR 48, Middle Road, ">IICHAEL ADAMS INDUSTRIAL SITE" Gentlemen: We have reviewed the above referenced traffic study. Specifically note that: Since this proposed development is not adjacent to a County maintained road or a road proposed for improvements by the County, no permit will be required from this Department at this time. However, since this proposed development is only a portion of a larger parcel, we ask that the Town advise us of all potential development of the remainder of this site. Since this department concurs with the proposed traffic evaluation report which states that signalization of the CR 48, Middle Road/Sound Avenue intersection, we will require the developer of this entire site to install this traffic signal along with any other improvements that we deem necessary along the County R.O.W. at such time of development which this department determines. The Town of Southold should apprise the developers accordingly. If you have any questions, kindly contact this office at 282-1354. you for your cooperation in this matter. CC: Bob Brown, Sidney Bowne Ass. Richard A. SSrang Very truly yours, C. Roger Meeker ~~~rChief Enginee - B M. Paul Campa~T~o~ Junior Civil Engine~ YAPHANK, NEW yORK Thank P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 October 6, 1989 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Adams Industrial Site Plan 1000-121-5-4.1 Dear Sirs: On August 15, 1989, the/revised site plan, filing fee, site plan application and l~ng environmental assessment form for the above referenced was submitted to your Board. At that time, we requested a presubmission conference. It is our understanding that under Southold Town Code, a presubmission conference is to be scheduled within thirty (30) days of receipt of the above. As more than thirty days have now elapsed, we would expect to be placed on the next agenda for a presubmission conference. Sincerely, HER:ml CC: Adams ~. O. Drawer A amespor~, NY 11947 November 18, 1988 Ms. Elizabeth Fraser 275 Adams Boulevard Farmingdale, NY 11735 Dear Betty: I have concurred today with Melissa Spiro of the Southold Town Planning Department that within one week we will have the final site elements necessary for completion of the site plan on the Mattituck parcel. She has indicated a review of the five acre set off would also be forthcoming shortly. HR:ml CC: Southold Town Planning Boar Steven J. Hyman, P. E. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (S~6) 765-1938 PL~ANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 23, 1988 Henry Raynor P.O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY Dear Mr. Raynor, 11947 RE: Adams Industrial Site Plan SCTM% 1000-121-5-4.1 The Planning Board reviewed the above mentioned site plan at their work session and found that there was insufficient information with which to review this proposal. Please submit the following: 1. Elevations of all four sides of the building. 2. The location of the truck loading bays and the turning radius for the trucks. 3. Street tree location and landscape plan. 4. Justification for the amount of parking and paving area. Parking is required at the rate of 1 space for every 500 square feet of floor area. 5. Lighting information, including catalog photos and mounting height. The Board is concerned with the elevation difference from the northwest to the southeast corner, and suggests that the building be turned to fit with the contours. The Board is also concerned with the amount of pavement that is proposed and requests a justification or a reduction in the amount of pavement. Please see enclosed map, which illustrates these and additional comments. Please contact this office if you have any questions. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN enc. ~. TEST BORING DATE REVISION 4-4-88 MISC. SPOT ELE~ !~4L TERA TION OF THIS OOCUMENI~ EXCEPT BY A ~LICENSEO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, IS ILLEGAL "~ MICHAEL ADAMS INDUSTRIAL PARK SOUTHOLD~ SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YOR~ Stcv~n J. HHmnn A~cl~l~ (516) 737-3378 consulting engineers 3505 Veterans Memorial Hwy., Suite M / Ronkonkoma, IV. Y. 11779 SCALE: PRO J, NO.: I" = 40' 86-49 DATE: t SHEET NOV. 1987' I OF/ INDUSTRIAL SITE SKETCH PLAN 604.65' \ x \ \ \ x ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :::: :: :::::::::::::::~: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: ~:::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::: :i:i:i:i: ~i:i: i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:~?i:i: i: i:i:i:i:i:i:::~:i:i:' ' \ 604. 6,~ \ \ \ \ , i¢I I ~HA~-& ,4 ~A,VT..P Sidney B Bowne, P.E., L.S. (1922-1959) Chester C Kelsey, P.E., L.S. Alexandre W. Mercil, P E Robert A. Stanton. P.E Roberl W. Brown, L.S. SIDNEY B. BOWNE & SOl 45 Manor Road Smithtown, N.Y. 11787 (516) 724-0611 George A Style, PE Jerry D Almont, P.E. George I Fagan, Jr, PhD., P.E Frank Capobianco, C.E. ThomasR 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 3 Schlotzhauer Stevens Richard B Weber ABC:rp A. BARTON CASS, P.E. MINEOLA · SMITHTOWN · NEW YORK CITY · CLEARWATER P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 Oc~tober 1, 1988 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Adams industrial at Mattituck Dear Mr. Orlowski: It has now been since April 25, 1988 that we referred a traffic report to your Board for review in completion with the following: 1) set off of proposed industrial site 2) site plan approval for industrial site As an extremely long period of time has passed we feel it is encumbent on your Board to process this with as much dispatch as possible. I have vontacted your office on numerous occassions and been told that the review has been forthcoming. Please advise me and my client as to this extraordinary delay on this project. HR:ml cc: Adams Sincerely, ~nry ~. Raynof, Jr. P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 October 1, 1988 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: It has now been since a traffic report following: April to your Board RE: Adams industrial at Mattituck 25, 1988 that we re[erred for review in completion with the 1) set off of proposed industrial site 2) site plan approval for industrial site As an extremely long period of time has passed we feel it is encumbent on your Board to process this with as much dispatch as possible. I have vontacted your office on numerous occassions and been told that the review has been forthcoming. Please advise me and my client as to this extraordinary delay on this project. Sincerely, HR:ml cc: Adams ; K~.GO 2~,TY Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 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, i~rovements or traffic control devices. Enclosures Very ~.r.~ly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 Robert Brown Sidney Bowie & Son 45 Manor Road Smithtown, NY 11787 Dear Mr. Brown: Pursuant to your agreement with the Town of Southold, the Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the following: Application of (Major subdivision, minor subdivision,~i~lan~ Hamlet ¥~%TERIAL SUBMITTED: File Sketch plan Preliminary map Street Profiles Grading Plan Preliminary site plan Final Map Suffolk County Tax Map No. Iooo - Iai- '~- q.I Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLO~SKI, SOUTHOLD TO~N PLAN~I~G GEORGE B. MICHOS, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEER 101 Longfellow Lane Port Jefferson, NY 11777 (516) 928-8237 RECEIVED BY JUL 5 1988_8~ DATE MICHAEL ADAMS INDUSTRIA~ 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. 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 es a shopping center is a worst case situation. Development of this site as an office park would yield traffic flows ef 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. 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 ~8 intersections to an unacceptable level. The County will have to install traffic signals at these locations to provide a satisfactory LOS. 2 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to examine the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development of a 5.O acre site in Mattituck, NY into a 40,000 SF industrial facility. Vehicle access to the site is from Sound Ay. 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 ars UR 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 folloeing 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 # The traffic impacts on the adjacent roads associated with full development of adjacent residential, business and industrial sites. In performing this evaluation ee obtained existing traffic data from field traffic counts. We 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. ~UR~ l: P~O~CT 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 48-Hiddle Rd. from the north and south. The alignment of Sound Aw. is slightly curved and level east and west of the project site. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUNES: 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 Av. were calculated from on-site counts during the week of Feb. 1-5, 1988. From these sources the following PN peak hour volumes were established as existing conditions: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUHES PM PEAK HOUR Highway Peak Hour Volume vph E Bd. t~. Bd N. S. Bd CR 48 244 393 Sound Av. 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 following procedures were used: i. Trip Generation: Generation rates were calculated using the ~Trip Generation Report - Third Edition" of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The proposed 4 FIGURE ~XISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES use of the site is industrial and the ITE 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 SF PH peak hour trips = .397 x 40 = 16 vph inbound .763 x 40 = 31 vph outbound Total PM 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 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 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 lanes. Unsignalized intersection capacity analysis of this location was made using turning movements estimated from the traffic generation data and counts on Sound Av. The results are shown in Table 1 below. 5 ? ? FIGURH 3: PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGN~N~ 2. Sound Ay. Northbound & CR 48c This is an unsignalized 'T' intersection with stop sign control. Left and right turns have seperate lanes. Unsignalized in%ersection capacity analysis of this location vas made using turning movements estimated from the traffic generation data and counts on Sound Ay. The results are shown in Table ! below. 3. CR 48 & Cox Neck Rd./Sound Ay.: This is an unsignalized four leg in%ersection 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.- C From the data presented in Table I it is evident that the proposed project will not reduce the LOS at the project entrance, or at the intersections. TABLE lc INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) EXISTING V/PROJECT W/SUMMER T Sound Ay. & Entrance Lt from Entrance - A A Rt from Entrance - A A Lt from Sound Ay - A A CH 48 & Sound Ay. Lt from Sound Ay B B E Rt from Sound Ay A A A Lt from CR 48 - CH 48 & 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 6 ADJACENT 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, businese 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 assumed: Residential Zone: 19.3 Ac., 15.4 Ac. subdividable, 17 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 = .B? x 17 = 11 vph outbound = .34 x 17 = 6 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 2. Traffic AssiRnment: 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 Ay. and traffic was assigned to driveways on this road. The assumed traffic assignment is shown on Figure 4. 7 r\ TRAFFIC GENERATION FIGURE 4: FULL. DEVELOPMENT 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 INTERSECTIONS FULL DEVELOPMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) EXISTING W/PROJECT g/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 48 & Cox Neck/Sound Av. 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 mill saturate the intersections. The shopping center generates the most traffic and will have the greatest effect on traffic in the area. The two CR 46 intersections with Sound Ay. will 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 rdadway. The unsignalized 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 30%. 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 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. Projected 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 Assiqnments: After the traffio 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. HOUR MO~¥ 25 SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT. OF"mI~BLZC WOR~ ! HOUR, Z CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT CORRECTION F~TOR= 1.00 SITE NO.= CR48-5 E/W CR4S ESOFW COX NECK ~. Ct WEB( OF MONDAY AUGUST 26, 1985 FILE= 048-05 WEEKDAY AVERAGE TUESDAY 27 WEDNESDAY 28 THURSDAY 29 FRI~qY 30 SATURDAY 31 SUNDAY BEGINS E W E W E W E W E W E W E E W · * 3 6 8 7 5 4 · * · · · 33 34 23 43 35 34 · · · · · 68 1~0 89 113 77 103 · · 177 E30 183 819 17~ IS§ · · · 186 E49 184 838 IS6 24 · * 171 836 188 226 198 189 J * · · * 179 ~08 237 280 * · · · 270 216 310 834 · · · · · 2E5 El8 D49 18~ 284 27 · * * * · 209 225 263 840 265 255 · , · , · 204 879 EES 279 248 319 · * · · · 241 274 254 304 309 310 * * * · · 275 307 899 334 315 316 * · * · · 274 311 ~78 333 291 299 · * * * · 183 Dig 184 234 220 249 · * · · · IS8 130 147 185 163 160 · · · · · B$ 100 107 108 127 144 · * · · 77 79 71 127 105 81 · * · · · 49 61 85 71 98 85 · · · · 38 33 41 38 54 37 · * · * 7 7 * 5 · 8 * 30 37 · 78 112 · 176 811 · ~ 179 E37 * - 184 El7 J 808 214 · 890 * 2§3 209 · 2~8, 296 * - 279 314 · - 196 234 - * 146 158 · 1o6 117 f 77 7~ TOTALS 0 0 1990 246 3363 3784 CONBINED TOTALS 3751 3819 689 760 0 0 0 0 3430 3681 1 3 7 9 · tO · I1 · , 3 , 4. , 7 · B · g , 10 · 11 · * 9 15 9 * · 11 · 18~ 208 180 ~ , 190 · 407 402 359 * · ZSS * 435 422 3~ * , 416 · 407 408 387 · · 401 · 387 457 * * , 428 * 486 5~4 * · · 515 437 436 51! * · , 462 434 503 520 * · · 486 483 547 567 * · * 532 515 558 619 * * · 564 582 633 631 * * * 615 585 605 590 * * · 593 402 418 4Gg · * , 430 258 332 323 * * * 304 156 198 1BE * · * lBO I10 156 183 * * * 149 65 79 91 * * * 78 E4 40 46 * , , 37 TOTALS 0 42~ 7147 7570 1449 7Iii 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 8O 71 78 69 83 73 91 84 99 89 221 301 190 307 213 327 234 383 244 393 Seasonal correction factor 1.08 WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS OF T-INTERSECTIONS LOCATION' HOURLY VOLUMES Major Street: Grade "lAg- V2 Date of Counts: Tu'ne Period: '~-~ Average Running Speed~ PHF' 'q~ Grade Vs _7~ V4 Io 1~ STOP t~, il-/ 12 YIELD Street: HOURLY VOLUMES NAME: VOLUMES IN PCPH -- V2 ~ Ms -- V(~LUMES IN PCPH Major Street: CO. - ,~ ~I~ N Grade /12/g -- V2 o -- v~ ---- :~"~'l' N=I~I Av~ag~ Run~g Speed, Minor S~eet: PHF: Grade O % -- V2 ---_ Vs-- T INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Sound Ay. & Ent Rd. With Projec~ - Average Traffic Volume Adjustments Movement 2 3 4 5 Volume 28 6 10 70 Volo(pcph) 11 Rt. from m~nor street V9 Conflictin9 Flow S1 Critical Gap~ Tc &Cp9 1080 Tc=5.5 Actual Capacity 1080 Lt. from major street V4 Conflicting Flow 34 Crit. Sap, Tc &Cp4 IOBO Tc-~.5 %Cp Used & Imped, factor 0.93 P4= Actual Capacity 10BO Lt. (rom minor streel V7 Conflicting Flow 111 Crit. Bap, Tc &Cp7 BOO Actual Capacity 792 To=&.5 Shared Lane Capacity Csh B75 Movement v(pc~h) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph> CR LOS 7 22 792 792 770 A 9 12 IOBO lOBO I06B A ¢ 11 lOBO IOBO 1069 A T INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Sound Ay. & Entrance Rd. With Project - Summer Traffic Volume Adjustments Movement 2 3 4 5 Volume 43 6 10 1mB Vol.(pcph) I1 Rt. from minor street V9 Conflicting Flow 46 Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 1050 Tc~.5 Actual Capacity 1050 Lt. from major street V4 Conflictin9 Flow 49 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp4 1050 Tc=5.5 %Cp Used & Imped. factor 0.95 P4= Actual Capacity 1050 Lt. from minor street Conflictin9 Flow 164 Crit. 8ap, Tc &Cp7 770 Actual CaPacity 762 Tc=6.5 Shared Lane Capacity Csh 844 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) CR LOS 7 22 762 762 740 A g 12 1050 1050 1038 A 4 11 lOSO 1050 1039 A 7 20 22 7 20 22 5-6 PM 9 !1 12 5-6 PM 9 I1 12 T INTERSECTION ANALYSIS CE 48..~'. E~is~ing ConOitions Volume Adjustments Moveaent S 4 Volume 228 0 0 Vol.(pcpni 0 Rt. from minor street V9 Conflicting Flow 228 Critical Gap, 7c &C~9 850 Tc=5.5 Actual Capacity 250 Lt. from major street V4 Conflicting Flow 228 Crit. Gap, To &Cp4 850 Tc=5.5 %Cp Used & ImFed. factor 0.00 P4= Actual Capacity 850 Lt. ~rom ~lnor streez V7 Conflicting Flow 621 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 400 Tc=6.5 Actual Capacity 400 Shared lane Capacity Csn 400 Movement v(~cphi 7 55 400 400 345 B ~ 0 850 850 850 A 4 0 850 850 850 A 5 7 50 5-6 P~ 0 0 T INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SounO Ay.& CR With Pro,eot - Average Traffic Volume Adjustments Movement 2 3 ¢ 5 Volume 228 0 0 393 Vol.(pcph) 0 Rt. from minor street V9 Conflicting Flow 228 Oritical Gap, To &Cp9 695 Tc=6.5 Actual Capacity 695 Lt. from major street V4 ConfiictinB Flow 228 Crit. Gap, Tc &~4 775 To:6.0 ~Cp Use~ & I~e~. factor 0.00 P4= Actual Capacity 775 Lt. from minor street V7 Conflicting Flow 621 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 3BO Actual C~acity 580 Tc=8.5 ~ared Lane Capacity Csb ~0 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pc~h) ~ L~ 7 70 3~ ~0 310 B 9 0 695 &95 695 A 4 0 775 775 775 A T INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Sound Ay.& CR 48 With Pro,eot - Summer Traffic Volume Adjustments Movement Volume 35~ Vol. (pcph) Rt. from minor street V9 Conflicting Flow Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 Actual Capacity 7 64 7O 2 ~ 4 5 7 9 0 0 605 91 0 0 100 0 356 590 Tc=6.5 Lt. from ma~or street V4 ConflictinB Flow ~56 Crit. Gap, Tc 1~P4 ~50 Tc=6.0 %Cp Used & Imbed, factor 0.00 P~= Actual Capacity 6~ Tc=8.5 Lt. from minor street V7 Confliotzn9 Flow 961 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 130 Actual C~pacity 130 Shared Lane Capacity Csh 13) Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) CR LOS 7 lO0 130 130 30 E 9 0 590 590 590 A 4 0 660 660 ~0 A 5-6 PM 5-6 PM FOUR-LEG INTERSECTION ANALYSIS CR Neck Rd. Existin~ Conditions VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS MOYENENT t 2 3 4 5 VOL. vph 16 200 28 0 310 VOL. pcph 18 0 RT FROM MINOR STRE ET V9 V12 Conflicting Flows, Vc 214 551.5 Critical Gap, Tc 5.5 5.5 Potential CAR., Cp 875 750 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 6.7 Impedence Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., Cmg, 12 875 750 LT FROM MAJOR STREET V4 V1 Conflicting Flows, Vc 228 395 Critical GaR, Tc 5.5 5.5 Potential Cap., Cp 850 ?00 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 2.~ Impedence Factor, P I .98 Actual Cap., Om4, 1 850 700 TN FROM MINOR STREET V8 VI1 Conflicting Flows, Vc 623 595.5 Critical Gap, Tc 6.5 6.5 Potential Cap., Cp 400 450 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 2.6 Impedence Factor, P 1 Actual CaR., C~8, 11 522 421 LT FRON MINOR STREET V7 ViO Con~lictin~ Flows, Vc 684 595.5 Critical Gap, Tc 6.5 &.5 Petential ~ap., Op 575 425 Actual Cap., ~m 7, lO 546 417 SHARED LANE CAPACITY 2Movements share a lane Movements share a lane VIO & VII 3~9 V7 & V8 ERROR VlO~Vll,V12 555 VT,VO,V9 E~ROR MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8, g Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph)gr=Csh-v LOS 7 0 546 ~46 346 B 8 0 ~72 592 ~92 B 9 0 875 875 875 A MI~R STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,1112 10 51 417 417 586 B 11 12 421 42! 409 A !2 55 750 750 695 A MAJOR ST~ET LEFT TURNS 1,4 1 lB 700 682 A 4 0 850 850 A 6 I Reak 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 0 0 28 11 50 0 0 0 51 12 55 Grade ~) % Y[EU)O ] v,~v,, v,,, [ major road N--~ V~VroVe YIELDO G~e ~ % i'4 -[~ '~0OR-LEB INTERSEETICH ANALYSIS CR 48 &~ Neck RO./Sound Ay. With Project VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS MOVEMENT 1 2 3 4 5 VOL. vph 16 200 54 0 314 VOL. pcph 18 0 0 0 0 55 12 51 RT FROM MINOR STREET V9 Conflic~in9 Flows, Vc 217 Critical Gap, Tc 6.5 Potential Cap., Cp 700 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 I~pedence Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., Cmg, 12 700 VI2 340.5 6.5 58O .97 5BO LT FROM MAJOR STREET V4 ConflictinB Flo~, Vc 254 Critical Gap, Tc 6 Potential Cap., Cp 760 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 Impedence Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., Cm4, 1 760 VI 407 620 620 TH FROM MINOR STREET V8 VII Conflictin9 Flows, Vc 6~0 610.5 Critical Gap, Tc 8 Potential Cap., Cp 280 290 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 Impedence Factor, P 1 .97 Actual ~ap., Cm8, 11 274 28~ LT FROM MINOR STREET V7 VIO Conflictin~ Flo~s~ Vc ~79 610.5 Critical OaR, Tc 8.5 8.5 Potential Cap., Cp 240 255 Actual Cap., Cm 7, 10 221 250 SHARED LANE C~ACITY 2 Movements share a lane Movements share a lane VIO & VI1 VT&V8 VIO,ViI,V12 VT,VB,V~ 270 ERROR ERROR MI~OR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph)Cr=Csh-v LOS 7 0 221 221 221 C 8 0 274 274 274 C 9 0 700 700 700 A MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS i0,1112 10 55 250 250 195 D 11 12 284 ~4 272 C 12 31 580 580 549 A MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 ! 18 620 602 A 4 0 760 7~0 A ~OL~-LEO INTERSECTION AN~YSIS CR 48&"BB~x Neck Rd./Sound Ay. With Project - Su~er ;raffle ~PM VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS MOVEMENT 1 2 $ 4 5 8 7 B ~ I0 Il 12 VOL. Yph 23 285 4& 0 44~ 129 0 0 0 71 15 40 VOL. pcph 25 0 0 0 0 78 17 44 V12 510.5 6.5 480 8.3 .96 480 RT PROM MINOR STREE'[ V9 Conflicting Flows, Vt 308 Critical Gap, Tc &.5 Potential Cap,, Cp 630 Percent of ~ Utilized 0.0 Impedence Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., Cm% 12 630 LT FROM MAJ~ STREET V4 Con~lictin8 Flo~s, Vc 91 Critical Gap, Tc 6 Potential Cap., Cp 675 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 Impedence Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., Cm4, I 6~ V1 575 500 4.6 .97 500 TH FROM MINO~ STREET VB ConflictinB Flows, Vc 906 Critical Gap, Tc B Potential Cap., Cp 165 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 Impedence Pactor, P 1 Actual Cap., CmS, 11 1~ LT FR~ MIN~ STRUT V7 Conflictin8 Flows, Vt %1 C~itical Gap, ~c 8.5 Potential C~., Cp 130 Actual Cap., Cm 7, 10 116 VII ~4.5 B 1~0 7.9 .% 184 VIO 844.5 8.5 155 150 S~iqRED ~ CAPAOI?Y 2 Movements share a lane 3 Movements ~hare a lane VIO & VI1 V7 & VB VIO, VII,V12 VT,VB,V9 158 ERR~ 198 ERROR MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movement v{pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph)Cr-Csh-v LOS 7 0 116 116 116 D B 0 160 140 160 D 9 0 630 630 630 A MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,1112 10 78 150 150 72 E 11 17 184 184 167 O 12 ~ 4~ 480 436 A MAJOR STREE'T LEFT T~ 1,4 1 25 500 475 A 4 0 475 6~ A INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Sound Ay. & Rd. Full Development - Average T?affic 4 5 90 248 Volume Adjustments Movement 2 3 Volume 219 50 Vol.(pcph) Rt. from minor street V9 Conflicting Flow 244 Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 840 Actual Capacity 840 Tc=5.5 Lt. from ma~or street V4 Conflictln~ Flow 26~ Crit. Sap, Tc &Cp4 820 To=5.§ %Cp Used & Imped. factor 10.98 P~: Actual Capacity 820 .94 Lt. from minor street V7 ConflictlnB Flow 582 Crit. Sap, Tc &Cp7 440 Actual Capacity 414 Tc=6.5 Shared Lane Capacity Csh 507 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) C~(pcph) CR LOS 7 183 414 414 2S1 C 9 103 840 840 7S7 A ¢ 99 820 820 72i A 7 183 5-5 PI~ 9 103 T INTERSECTIDN ANALYSIS Sound A~. & Entrance Rd. Full Development - Summer Traffic Volume Adjustments Movement 2 3 ¢ 5 7 Volume 2~ 50 90 2B~ ld Vol. (pcphl 99 183 Rt. from minor street Vg Conflicting Flow 259 Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 8.]0 Tc=5.5 Actual Capacity 830 Lt. from major street V4 Conflicting Flow 284 Crit. Gap, Tc &~4 BO5 Tc=5.5 ~Cp Used & Imped. factor 11.18 P~ Actual Capacity 805 .94 Lt. from minor stree~ V7 Conflicting Flow 655 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 405 Tc=6.§ Actual Capacity ~B1 Shared Lane Capacity Csh 473 Movement vipcph) Cm~pcph) Cshipcph) CR LOS 7 183 SB1 3Bi 198 D g 103 8~0 870 727 A 4 99 B~ 805 706 A 103 ~6 PM ~T INTERSECTION AN~YSIS Sound AY.& CR 48 Full Development - A~erage Traffic Volume Adjustments Movement 2 Volume ~8 0 Vol. ipcph) Rt. from minor street Conflicting Flow Critical Gap, Tc &Cp9 695 Tc=6.5 Actual Capacity 695 4 5 7 9 0 393 ~ 0 0 329 0 Lt. f~m mayor street V4 Conflicting Flow 28 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp4 775 Tm=6.0 ~Cp Used & Imped. factor 0.00 P4= Actual Capacity 775 Lt. from minor street V7 Cenflictin9 Flow 621 Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp7 250 Actual Capacity 250 Tc=8.5 Shared Lame Capacity Csh 250 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) CR LOS 7 329 250 ~50 -79 F 9 0 695 695 695 A 4 0 775 775 775 A ~ INTER~ECTION ANALYSIS Sound Av.~ CE 48 Full Development - Summer Traffic 0 0 605 ~26 0 0 ~59 0 ~56 5~0 Tc=6.5 590 Volume Adjustments Movement 2 Volume 356 Vol.(pcph) Rt. from mmor street V9 ConflimtinB Flow Critical Gap, lc &Cp~ Actual Capacity Lt. from ma~or street V4 ConflictinS Flow Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp4 %Cp Used & Imped. factor Actual Capacity ~60 1c=6.0 O. O0 P4~ 660 Lt. from minor street V7 Conflicting Flow Crit. Gap, Tc &Cp? Actual Capacity 961 125 125 Tc=8.5 Shared Lane Capacity Csh 125 Movement v~pcpn; Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) CR 7 35g 1~ 125 -234 F 9 0 590 590 590 A 4 0 6~0 660 ~60 A 5-6 PM 5-& PM ~OUR-LES INTERSECTIO~ ANALYSIS CR 48 &~Neck Rd./Sound Ay. Full gevoio~ment - AveraBe Traffic VOLU~ ADJUSTMENTS NOVERENT 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 ~ 10 11 12 VOL. vph 18 200 1SO 0 462 180 0 0 0 ~ 87 28 VOL. Rcph 18 0 0 0 0 55 96 31 RT FROM MINOR STREET Conflicting Flows, Vc 290 552 Critical Gap, Tc 8.5 6.5 Potential Cap., Cp 845 455 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 Impedence Factor, P I .97 Actual Cap., Cmg, 12 645 455 LT FROM MAJOR STREET V4 V1 Co~flicting Flows, Vc 380 842 Critical SaR, To & 6 Potential Cap., :p 645 455 Pmrcent of CR Utilized 0.0 5.5 Impe~ence Factor, P 1 .gB Actual CAR., Cm4, 1 6;5 455 TH FROM MINOR STREET V8 Vll Conflicting Flows, Vc 948 948 Critical Gap, Tc 8 8 Potential Cap., CB 150 1~ Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 58.0 Impotence Factor, P 1 .5 Actual Cap., CmS, 11 147 147 LT FROM MINOR STREET V7 VIO ConflictinB Flows, Vc 10~ 948 Critical Gap, Tc 8.5 8.5 Potential Cap., Cp I00 130 Actual Cap., Cm 7, 10 48 127 SHARI~ LANE CAPACITY Movements s~are a lane Movements ~hare a la~o VIO& VII 134 V7 & V8 ERROR VIO,VI1,V12 158 V7, VB, V9 ERROR MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Cah(pcph)Cr=Csh-v LOS 7 0 48 48 48 E 8 0 147 147 147 O g 0 845 845 645 A MI~R STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,1112 10 55 127 127 72 E 11 96 147 147 51 E 12 31 455 455 424 A MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 1 18 4~5 437 A 4 0 645 645 A ~F~R-LEG ~NTE~SECTION ANALYSIS CR 4B &t'~'Netk Rd,/Sound Av. Full ~evel~pment - Summer Traffic VOLU~E ADJUSTMENTS MOVEMENT VOL. vph 25 2B5 192 VOL. pcph 25 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 !2 0 594 21& 0 0 0 71 91 40 0 0 0 0 78 100 44 RT FRONMIMOR STREET V9 Confli:tin9 Flows, Vc Critical Sap, Tc 6.5 Potential Cap., Cp 575 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 Impedence Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., Cmg, 12 575 V12 ?02 6.5 ~60 11.1 LT FROM MAJQ~ STREET V4 ~nflictinS Flows, Vc 477 Critical Sap, Tc ~ Potential Cap., Cp 565 Percent of Cp Utilized 0.0 IepeOence Factor, P 1 Actual Cap., Cm4, I 565 VI BI0 ~0 6.4 .97 TH FROM MINOR STREET V8 Conflicting Flows, Vc 1214 Critical Sap~ Tc B Potential Cap., Cp 95 Perconc of Cp Utilized 0.0 Iip~ence Factor~ P 1 Actual Cap., CmS, 11 92 LT FROM MI~eR STREET V7 ConflictinB Flows, Vc 1345 Critical Gap, Tc 8.5 Potential Cap., Cp ~0 Actual ~ap., Cm 7, 10 ; Vll VlO 1202 8 ~.8 .08 1202 8.5 75 SHARED L~E CAPACITY 2 Hovements share a lane Movements snare a lane VIO & VII V7 & V8 VIO,Vll,V12 V7,VB,V9 EPJiOR 97 ERROR MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,B,9 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph)Cr=Csh-v LOS 7 0 4 4 4 E 8 0 ~2 92 92 E 9 0 575 575 575 A MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,1112 10 78 73 73 -5 F 11 100 92 92 -B F 12 44 ~0 360 316 B MAJOR STRE~ LEFT TURNS 1.4 1 25 3bO ~5 B 4 0 565 565 A P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY July 5, 1988 11947 RECE;VED BY' Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Adams Industrial site at Mattituck, New York Dear Mr. Orlowski: Hand carried under separate cover, please find the requested traffic impact studies pursuant to the Board's request. As this completes the Board's request for information I would appreciate this being set for the July 11 meeting so that the set off may be finalized to proceed the finish of the site plan which is already in your office. ncerely,n HR:ml Southold, N,Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 June 30, 1988 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Michael Adams Industrial site SCTM 91000-121-5-p/o4.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The Planning Board reviewed your request to proceed with the above mention site plan. The Planning Board can not proceed with this application until the set-off is completed. The set-off application is waiting for the traffic impact study. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, LOWSKI, JR. CHAIRMAN ~ jt (~IIIIRECSIVED BY P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY June 24, 1988 11947 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Dear Mr. Orlowski: Michael Adams Industrial Site Forwarded to you under separate cover are the final revisions requested by your Board for the one lot site situated at south side Sound Avenue, Mattituck. As all the site elements requested have been fulfilled, I would request the Board to set a presubmission conference and request certification from the Building Inspector. Would you please make arrangements to have this placed on the July 11 agenda. HR:ml CC: Adams Fraser Christensen ~fncerely, ~ Henry ~. Raynd~, Jrt. P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY April 7, 1988 11947 Ms. Valerie Scopaz Southold Town Planning Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Board Dear Ms. Scopaz: Enclosed herewith are the revised site plans per your recommendation add that of the Planning Board on the property of Michael Adams at Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York. As this should complete the site plan elements I would cequest a presubmission conference before the Board at its earliest convenience. HER:ml Encs.. Sincerely, z P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY March 16, k938 11947 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Southold Town Planning Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Chairman Board Dear Mr. Ozlowski: Uade£ separate cover I have delivered three additional building plans for the Adams property at Mattituck, New York. Please note the angle of building rotation so that it does not face fully on any one street. We have set back the building, inclusive of a 75 foot buffered set back to negate any aesthetic problems with the overhead doors. In discussing this question with my client, we are further willing to submit a detailed planting schedule if necessary. As this is the last pending element, I would request a p£esubmission conference at the Planning Board!s next available meeting. HER:ml CC: Betty Fraser Jeanne-Marie Christensen, Steven Hyman, P. E. S~_.nceue].y~ Esq. 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, S~gn 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 ]e at 298-8420. ,.~incerel~, ~ I-lent,, ~.-'-~'" / '~,; ' RECEIVED ~:R: ml z ~ ~aynor, Jr~ DE0 1987 DATE A D. Lanzlsera. RE DE.L- Steven J. H?man, RE. Febrhary 12, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Plann2ng Board 'Office Town of $outhold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Adams Industrial Park, Set-off ~attituck, 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 m~ght need please feel free to contact m~_~t. , .....- -, Sincerely, BARRETT, LANZISERA, BECK.~AN Thomas J. Filazzola,~p.E. & HY?IAN encl. cc: Henry Raynor 125 Church Street, Malverne, NY 11565 I'EL: (5t6)599-3663 t FAX: (516)593 8160 [-] lOOt Middle Country Road. Ridqe, NY 1!981 TEL: (516)924-3230 / FAX: (5~6)924-3557 (516) 766-1938 Mr. Henry Raynor P.O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 March 8, 1988 jt RE: Adams Industrial Park Dear Mr. Raynor: 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 set off lOCated off Sound Avenue, Mattituck. approve the RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself Lead Agency Under the State Act.~ /~ ~ ~ Environmental Quality Review If you have any questions, ~ Our office. please don't hesitate to contact Very truly Yours, BENNETT OR ~owsKI,JR. CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD II TLJq --.,;.L _L SCALE OATE OESCRIFI?ION DATE ON ,¸% ,I¸ 1988 LEFT rING lNG DRAWING NO, 11¸ i1 REV. DATE OE.SCRIPTION IDATE ~RAWING N0~ SCALE ORAWN, BY ~:~1:10 J E CT , , iL M~TAL ~ PtCAL P L U MB lNG 'DI .A GRAM: INGTALL~R l L T ?LAN .SEE F~ 4 COMPL-IAN~E ,WI,T~H THE:N~W,¥OR'K ST/~TE ENERGY CQflGERVAI'ION ~, ~ U VALU~:0F~ E~LOF~ SU&~SYSZ~S:AR~ES~0NN;0N ~HE > . : r ~oSS 'S~ONS ,AND ,DETAiLs' OE,THE PLAN AND DO NOT ' ~.. , '. ~ ~-2, ('sEg~;~oN~,: BOL f~ :~40~;~:',&. ~402'~ ~):, :; , , DATE DEc=c;RiPTIDN 4. DE IGN OE X~T LOSS OR OAIN THROUGH' EACH EXTERIOR , , FAC~At)£ I~ ~s4+DWN ~N F,UN ON THE CROSS SBTI~S AND/OR 5. ' "r" VALUES OF IN~U~AY~N~ ~ATERI~LS ARE INDICATED ON THE CROSS 'SECT)ON~ QR. AS A RECIPROCAU OF THE IND CATED "- "U' VALUE. ~L ~IBING S~LL BE YHDMALLY INSULATED ~ ' INA~CDRBANCE W~TH:TAB~E 4~5. (E40Lg)[ ALL DUCTS, ' ' 'PbENUMS"AND'ENC~OS~ES'~LL BE THER~LLY INSULATED IN ~CQRDANCE WITH E4~3.10,- EXCEPT E~DST DUCTS gITH- ,' ~N HVA~ ~EQPT, OR .W~[~E ~E~GY REQUIREMENTS OF THE L a. SIZES-AND ~YpES OF APPA~TUS, EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEM CONTROLS W~ C~MPLY ~ITH N.Y,S. CODE E40a "BUILDING ~TER H~TING'~ MEC~NKA SYS~EMS"'~,ND E404 "SERVICE ' ~ - , 'b. H I. AND ~LZ S~GNSM T CON IT' h a, ELE,CTRICAL~R., . ~D '~)GHT~ W~LL COMPLY'WITH N Y S ': CODE. ~Oq ~EC~IC&~ ~W~'AND;LtGHTINGL. E~EPT ~OR RESI~E~tAL LI~ING POWE~ BU~S. TABLE W~LL~ U~,~L~ED AS D~tT PO~aENSITY V ISQAL T~SKS ~AND AREAL . . :. 'b, ALL A~SOV~R SOO~.F,,.kILL ~VE SPLIT LIG~ , c, LLE~TR]CAL DI'S~I~O~,SYSY~ M~ST .C~PL~ WIT~' ~Ot[: BUKDER; iS' 'AO~,lStO~O ~ONf~CT THE ~EW YORK STATE "' [~[RB~ J0FFJCE (8~ ~ 31~)~ F~R SEC[~L "' .... D~E :~, .?i ~ ~ ~LE ,DRAWINB~ :XIST IN~ NATER, ~>F~ P~H' F~ I :"~ - ~ETE ~OB ~N ALL ' ALL' TS'F'oR~Ry , ,;," ,, : E~ ~N ADD%TI~N,, ,,~TO~, NAR I 5 1988 DRAWING I'ITLE :D:ETA!E$ DATE SCALE DRAWN BY' DRAWING NO. / / / / x \\ x \ \ \ \ \ \ ?A ~EMENT , / S~6~34' WI I I \ \ \ \ \ \ AI/F A~/CH.4EL /D,4AW~ ZONING DATA FWONT YARD ~M Y~o 5o' 180' 80T~ ~IO~YAR~ ~0' I75' NOTES ~ SITE DATA 1. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY MICHAEL ADAMS. 2. THIS SITE IS THE FIRST PARCEL ON THE SKETCH pLAN OF THE "MICHAEL ADAMS INDUSTRIAL PARK", DATED DEC. 1986, REVISED FEB. 9, 1987 BY STEVEN J. HyMAN, P.E.- CONSULTING ENGINEERS. 3. THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 5.00 ACRES AND IS ZONED "C-LIGHT". 4. ALL SURVEY DATA WAS PROVIDED BY RODERICK VAN TUYL, P.C. 5. ON-SITE RUNOFF SHALL BE SELF CONTAINED IN DRYWELLS CAPABLE OF STORING TWO (2) INCHES OF STORMWATER. 6. A MINIMUM OF 25 % OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA SHALL BE LANDSCAPED. 7. PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOW~ OF SOUTHOLD. 8. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. 9. ALL CONSTRUCTION IN THE LILCO EASEMENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT. ~.0 t~PJO ~odrJp LOCATION MAP TEST BORING · DATE REVISION ~ ~ MICHAFL ADAMS INDUSTRIAL PARK ~/~,~o~ ~'/'~] / []-~ 3505VeteransMemonalH~.,SuiteM/Ronkonkoma, A~' 11779 ~; ~ / I lSCALE: IPROJ. NO.: ]DATE: J SHE~ ,,~t~R~rto~oFr~sooou~cEPrey~J I INDUSTRIAL SITE SKETCH PLAN I (AGRICULTURAL) ~LANDSCAPED AREA IN BAY (TYPICAL) '' Co. lNG' EXISTIN6 LILCO LANDSCAPED AREA SEE SHEET 4. ~ H HAND/CAP RAMP H TYPICAL -- HAND/CAP -- (9~/~) S 66' $4' 00" W TYPicAL ASPHALT PAVEMENT cONCRETE RETAINING WALL (TYP~ FOR DETA~ SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS BY OTHER~ CONC CONC RAMP RAMP CONC RAMP DOCK LEVELERS FOR DETAILS, SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS BY OTHER~- CONC RAMP (rYP) SEE DETAIL, SHEET ,7 50' (TYP} ASPHALT PAVEMENT CONCRETE CURB 60' 160' SDEW,~LK (TYP} 60, PLAN r': 40' LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OFFICE {LlO) Z06 MINIMUMSALLOWED REQUIRED LOT AREA 120000 SF LOT WIDTH 200 FT LOT DEPTH $00 FT FRONT YARD 75 FT REAR YARD 75 FT ONE SIDE YARD 30 FT S~DEYARDS COMBINED 60 FT LANDSCAPED AREA 35 % MA×~MUMS ALLOWED R=2~ L=,Tg.2T 98' NG DATA 50UNo 15LANO bONo PROPOSED 232610 SF 285 FT 592 FT 130 FT 164 FT 92 FT 207 FT 37 ~ RES NIF S, SEPKO (RESIDENCE) 'I TE LOCATION LOCA T/ON MAP SCALE., I" = ~0007 E PROPOSED STANDARD ROADWAY SEE TYPICAL SECTION SHEET 07, GENERAL NOTES 1. THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT IS MICHAEL ADAMOWICZ & OTHERS- 275 ADAMS BLVD., FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK ]1735. 2. THE SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBER IS ~000-121-05-P/O 4.1. 3. THIS PARCEL CONSISTS OF 5.34 ACRES. 4. ALL SURVEY DATA BAS BEEN PROVIDED BY BOHN AND BONACCI - COMMERCE DRIVE, 6UITE L, BAUPEAUGE, NEW YORK 11788. 5. ALL SURVEY DATA IS IN THE U.S.C. & G.$. DATUM. 6. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. 7. THE CONTRACTOR S~ALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO ALL CONSTRUCTION. 175A GROSS FLOOR SPACE SQ. FT. STALLS REQUIRED (40000 SF / 500 SF/STALL) ............... STALL6 TOTAL STALLS PROVIDED .................................. STALLS HANDICAP STALLS PROVIDED ............................... STALLS PARKING CALCULATIONS ................................... 40000 8O S0 4 LOT COVERAGE 20 % 17 BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FT 25 FT NUMBER OF STORIES 2 1 DA TE REVISION ADAMS INDUSTRIAL.SITE MATT/TUCK. TOWN OF SOUTHOLfl, NEW YO SCALE: AS SHOWN consulting engineers 3505 Veterans Memorial Hwy., Suite M / Ronkonkoma, N. ~ 1177 PROJ NO.: I DATE; SHE~ 8649 ~ JULY/989 I OF4 DIMENS/ONAL SITE PLAN GW EL. = APPROXIMATE GROUND ELEVATION = 23.0 TEST HOLE FF~EL. -- 3RO0 % \ DW-2 SLAB, TYPICAL, SEE il i :1 LEGEND EXISTING ELEVATION CONTOUR ...................... SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION ............. CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCRETE CURB ...................... m m-- CONCRETE PAVEMENT .................. ASPHALT PAVEMENT ......... ' .......... /z .~' RETAINING WALL ..................... SANITARY DRAINAGE DRAINAGE DRAINAGE DRYWELL / CONE. COVER ..... EDGE OF WOODS ...................... UTILITY POLE ....................... STRUCTURE ................. DRYWELL / INLET ........... DRYWELL / COMB. INLET ..... PROPOSED (® ® 0 CONCRETE CUR~, TYPICAL, SEE DETA/~.) "STING PA rN (TYP) ,! RES STRAIGHT LINE IN EX/STING PAVEMEN?~ PROPOSED PAVEMENT SHALL MEET EXISTING PAVEMENT FLUSH. '-- SYSTEM NO. OW - 1 DW - lA DW - 2 OW - 2A DW - 3 DW - 3A DW - 38 DW - 4 DW - 4A RES DW - 5 DW - 5A DW - 58 OW - 6 DW - 7 DW - 8 OW- 8A DW - 88 OW - 9 DW - 9A DW - 9B DW - 10 DW - ICA DW - 108 DW - 1OC DW 11A OW - Ri DW - R2 DW - R3 OW - R4 DW - R5 DW - R6 DW - R7 ABBREVIATIONSL R = RIM G ' GROUND TC - TOP OF CURB DRAINAGE TOP ELEV. R 34.75 G 36.00 R 34.75 G 36.00 TC 36.50 G 36.25 G 36.75 TC 36.50 G 36.50 TC 35.00 G 35.00 G 85.00 R 34.75 R 34.75 TC 35,00 G 35.00 G 86.00 TC 37.00. G 36.90 G 86,85 TC 37.50 G 38.30 TC 37.00 G 39.10 R 20.75 G 22.50 R 38.80 G 38,50 G 38.70 G 38.65 G 38.15 38.25 G 38.55 STRUCTURE SCHEDU[F DEPTH OF RINGS INVERT ELEV. 13 FEET E 30.25 (15") 12 FEET W 30,16 (15') 13 FEET E 30.~5 (15') 12 FEET W 30,t6 (15') 12 FEET E,W 31,50 12 FEET E ' 31.40 (15') 12 FEET W 31.40 (15'! 12 FEET E 31.50 12 FEET W 31.40 (18') 12 FEET N.S 30.00 11 FEET S 29.90 12 FEET N 29.90 5 FEET 5 FEET 12 FEET N.S 30,00 (16")' 12 FEET S 29.90 (15') 12 FEET N 29.90 (15') 15 FEET E,W 32.00 (15') 15 FEET E 31.90 (15') 14 FEET W 31.90 (15#) 14 FEET E,W 3t.90 (15') 14 FEET E 31.80 (15') 14 FEET E,W 32,00 13 FEET W 31.90 (15') 8 FEET N 16.25 (15'), 7 FEET 5 16.15 (15'),' 14 FEET ALL 14 FEET E 14 FEEl' W 14 FEET ALL 14 FEET E 14 FEET' S 14 FEET W 35.10 8') 34.80 8#) 35.00 8') 34.96 8') 34.45 8') 34,55 34.85 SEE STANDARD ROADWAY DETAIL. SHEET $. ~RAINAGE CALCULATIONS ASSUME: A) PROVIDE STORAGE FOR A TWO iNCH RAINFALL B) DRYWELL5 SHALL 6E TEN (10) FT. DIA. C) RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS: PAVED - 1~O0 / SYSTEM ROOF PAVED UNPAVED NUMBER AREA AREA AREA 1 0 9695 SF 2725 SF 2 0 9774 SF 1010 SF 3 0 13888 SF 3072 SF 4 0 9840 SF 0 5 0 13880 SF 1020 SF 5 O 1840 SF 0 7 0 1820 SF 0 8 0 14240 5F 1120 SE 9 0 16616 SF 6144 SF 10 0 17840 SF 22160 SF 11 0 0 30664 SF R 40000 5F 0 0 (88.37 CF/VF) UNPAVED - 0.20 STORAGE EFFECTIVE REQUIRED DEPTH REQ'D, 1690,0 CF 24.7 VF 1662.7 CF 24.3 VF 2417.1 CF 35.4 VP 1540.O CF 24.0 VF 2347,3 CF 34.S VP 306.7 CF 4.6 VF 303.3 CF 4.4 VF 2410,7 CF 35,3 VF 2974.2 CF 4~.5 VF 3712.0 CF 54,3 VF 1022.1 CF 15.0 VF 6666.7 CF 97,5 VF (" LIMIT OF ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION SANITARY SEWER DESIG TOTAL ~J~LOWABLE FLOW FOR 3ITE = 5.34 ACRES TOTAL PROPOSED FLOW FOE SITE: 40000 8F x 0.04 GPD/SF = 1600 GPD 300 GPDPA = 1602 GeD. SEPTIC TANK: 1600 GPD X 2 DAY8 = 3200 GeD USE 12' DIA TANK, 5' LIQUID DEPTH (3750 GALLON CAPACITY) LEACHING POOL: 1600 GPD/ 1.5 GPD/SF = 1067 6F OF SIDEWALL REQUIRED 1067 SF / 31.4 SF/VF = 34.0 VF OF 10' DIA POOL USE 3 - 10' DIA POOLS ~ 12' EFFECTIVE DEPTH r DATE REVISION ADAMS INDUSTRIAL SITE kfATTITUCK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORR consulting engineers 3505 Veterans Memon l Hwy. Suite M / Ronkonkoma, 11779 SCALE; /" = ~0' PROJ NO,: 8~ DATE; JULY/~89 SHE~ GRADING, DRAINAGE 8 SANITARY SEWER PLAN 2 OF 4 NOTE; ALTERNATE SLAB WITH 24" DIA CUTOUT FOR ROOF DRAINAGE SYSTEM SLAB PLAN A 4" CONC. COVER - WHERE PLAN FOR ARPLICABLE. SEE PLAN- AppROPRIATE CASTING (IW" CL~ IV RDP ~$OLID WALL RING/ IL o5 . ~ STORM DRAIN RING "p.~ MORTAR ; · G" EACH WAY ¥ 8 STRUCTURE FOR MORE INFO· ~F DRAIN O~pHALT ROOFING FELT I'-0" BEYOND GRAVEL COLLAR, "WIDE SAND 8 GRAVEL COLLAR ALL AROUND. NOTE' 2' MIN. TO GROUNDWATER SECT/ON DRYWELL W/TH TRAFFIC SLAB ADAMS BLVD. CONCRETE CURB DETAIL NOTES: 1. THE WELL MUST BE CAPABLE OF pROVIDING A CONTINUOUB YIELD OF FIVE (5) GALLONS PER MINUTE PLUS ANY ADDITIONAL YIELD REQUIRED FOB IRRIGATION OR PROCESSING pURPOSES. 2. THE WELL SCREEN MUST BE SET AT LEAST FORTY (40) FEET BELOW THE GROUNDWATER TABLE. 3. THE APPLICANT SHALL ARRANGE FOR TESTING AND SAMPLING WITH THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES FOR QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF THE WATER SUPPLY. 4. THE MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATION BETWEEN THE PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY WELL AMD ANY LEACHING POOL SHALL BE 150 FEET. 5. IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATIONS MUST BE MAINTAINED (EDGE TO EDGE) FROM THE WELL TO; a) PROPERTY LINE ................................ 1 ft. b) SANITARY SEWER LINE .......................... 50 ft. c) SEPTIC TANK .................................. 75 ft. d) WASHING MACHINE DRY!AELL ...................... 100 it. e) STORM DRAIN, CATCH BASIN, DRAINAGE DITCH ..... 50 it. f) RECHARGE BASIN ............................... 50 ft. 6. ALL PROVISIONS OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES PUBLICATION ENTITLED "STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR PRIVATE WATER SYSTEMS", LATEST REVISIONS, SHALL BE ADHERED TO. TANK, MIN.) nD BE CLEARE~ RAKED AND SEEDED I0' MIR FROM FOUNDATION $' M/N, F~M ROOF OVERHANG ~4" MIN %. ~ ";. WATER' NOTE' ALL CONCRETE SHALL HAVE AN AVERAGE COMPRESSIVE STRENGT,~I ,OF, 4000 pd IN 2~ DAYS 8 SHALL WE AIR ENTRAINED. EXPANSION JOINTS OF '~ SHALL BE INSTALLED · 20' O.C, AND AT ALL DROP CUR~ AND POINTS OF CURVATURE. 114 /~ If/. ON-SITE SIDEWALK- CURB-PAVEMENT DETAIL NES. R,aW GRADE COURSE~NYSDOT TYPE G) ? COURSE(NYSDOT TYPES) 4"COMPACTED BASE COURSE 3/4" STONE BLEND OR CRUSHED CONCRETE CURB ADAMS BLVD. STANDARD ROADWAY 9.,~4" TOPSOIL WATER sUPPLY WELL ADEOUATE WEIGHT, WATERTIGHT NT,~, SAHITARY SEWER GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL SA IITARY S~"~ER PIPE SHALL BE PVC SDR 35 UNLESS OTHERWIS~ NOTED ON THE PIJ%NS. ALL PIPING EXITING BUILDINGS SHALL BE XH CAST IRON PIPE'IFOR A DISTANCE OF FIVE (5) FEET. WITNESSED'iBY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN THE STATE OF !~EW YORK. THE ENGINEER WILL BE REQUIRED TO CERTIFY TO T~E SUFFOLE C(~UNTY DEPA!RTPuENT OF BEALTN SERVICES (S.C.D.H.S) THAT THE SANIT~RY ~YSTEM HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED ]~LANS. 3. CAST IRON COVERS SHALL BE SET APPROXIMATELY TWO (2) INCHES HIGHER THJ~N THE GP~ES ESTABLISHED OR THESE PLANS ~ ALLOW FO~ SETTLEMEN?, IN ACCORDANCE WITH S.C.D.E.S. REQUIRE~ENTS. ONTRACT/ON JOINT VERY 4'- ~EE DETAIL PLAN EVERY ~O'- SEE DETAIL "~" POURED CONCRETE GRANULAR MATER/AL SEC T/ON ?XPA" ~ $~ "FREMOULDED NC/ON JOINT DETAIL "B'" ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE AIR ENTRAINED, 4000 psi CONCRETE SIDEWA t K N.T.& POURED CONCRETE BUILDING DOCK LEVELERS -TTAIN/NG WALL (SEE ARDHITE£TURAL PLANS BY OTHERS} .+ .... *Oaoo) / i"" CURB RIM EL 34.?W ~0% SEE GRADING PLAN SHEET 2 J I0' J JOINT SIDEWALK ,!' !.A~PHALT PAVEMENT~ PLAN 4"DIA. PVC {SDR 35~ · I/8" PER F? -- SECT/ON CONCRETE SLAB AT LOADING )OCK DATE REVISION :LL]~L 5 E CTION 12'0~: Eachway MONOLITHIC POUR 37~0 GALLON SEPTIC TANK NTS BRICK 8 MORTAR SHIM MIN.., /2" MAX. SOLID PRECAST TRAFFIC DOME I0' DIAMETER ? PRECAST 'DUMMY"RINGS AB REOU/RED UNDER MANHOLE COVER v' WALLS SANITARY DRAIN RINGS ROOFING FELT EXTENDING BEYOND SAND COLLAR 3 FE MIN GROUNDWATER SANITARY LEACHING POOL NT~ ADAMS INDUSTRIAL SITE J MATT/TUCt( TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK consulting engineers 3505 Veterans Memorial Hwy,, Suite M / Ronkonkoma, N,'4 11779 SCALE: PROJ. NO.: ~ DATE: SHEET AS SHOWN 8649 JULY 1989 3 OF4 D F TM[..$ NASSAU SUFFOLK BLUEPRINTING :/ h ! (TYPICAL.) SEE DETAIL 4 TD~. /o q /0 PLANT LIST T/q/V/ I-IA T?/£L 0 PLANTING NOTES ~1 Knockout Holes ~2 Through Holes ITT LUMINA/RE LUMINA/RE SHALL BE ITT ~//DELITE, CATALOG No. 181-1.224 75 WATT MERCURY VAPO~ /20 VOLT,) PLANTING DETAIL Tc:PSc~ L 15AdKi=iL/_ HUNTINGTON, N, Y. / ':--?1.:/ ........... II '-"-"l :'::: II