HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-141.-3-44L~---- SITE PLAN
Presubmission con~'erence
(within 50 days of written request)
Complete application received
(Within 4 months of presub, conference)
Application reviewed at work session
(within 10 days of receipt}
Applicant advised of necessary revisions
(W/thin 30 days of review)'
Revised sub mission received
'~ead Agen%, Coordination
SEQRA determination
REFERRED TO:
f . _ZZZ. / ?7'
Zoning Board of Appeals
(written c.omments Within 60 days of request} '
Board of Trustees
/./~ding Department (certification)
' Suffolk County Department of Planning
Department of Transportation -State
'Department of Transportation - County
~'~'u,~.lk County Dept. of Health
~lqre Corn missioners
RECEIVED: Pq B/_ / ,c //~1¢,,~//~,6~
Draft Covenants and Restrictions
Filed Covenants and Restrictions
t,~andscape plan
/.'~ghting plan
Curb Cut approval
/~.th approval
t.,"Drainage plan
~eviewed by Engineer
Sent:___
Received:___
Approval of site plan ·
-with conditions
Endorsement of site plan
Certificate of Occupancy in};pection
One year review
.9
[--~-~ SITE PL,\N
Presub mission conference
(xvithin 30 days of xvritien request)
Complete application received
(~vithin 4 n]m~ths (ff presub, conference)
Application reviewed at work session
(~ilhin 10 days of receipt)
Applicant advised of necessary revisions
(',vithin 30 days of revie~v)'
· J,,e'ad.Agenc) Coordination~~'~''''''- '''~ ~," .~
{written comment~,:,,~-~ . . / ..... /se I~
. ;7,-,,m~ ou uays o~ request)
~uilding Department (certification)
' Suffolk County Department of Planning
Department of Transportation -State
Department of Transportation - County
/v?folk County Dept. of ]lea~
~ire Corn missioners
Draft Covenants and Restrictions ~
Filed Covemmts and Restrictions
Lighting plan
~rb Cut approval
Sent:_
Received:
PLANNING BOARD MEM~RS
RICHARD G. WARD
Chairman
GEORGE RITCI-IIE LATHAM, JR.
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main k
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, Now York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
Date Received
Date Completed
Filing Fee
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SiTE PLAN
X___New
_Change of Use
__Re-use
_Extension
_Revision of Approved Site Plan
Name of Business or Site:
Location:
Address:
201 Sound Avenue
Mattituck, NY
Martin Rosen
3472 Weidner Avenue, Oceanside~ NY
Ollie Booker, Clarence Booker, et al.
Charles R. Cuddy, Esq.
445 Griffing Avenue
Name of Applicant::
Address of Applicant:
Telephone:
Owner of Land:
Agent or Person responsible
for application:
Address:
Telephone:
Site plans prepared by:
License No.:
Address:
Telephone:
PO Box 1547~ Rivehhead, NY 11901
(516) 369-8200
_Joseph A. Ingeqno
49668
P.O. Box 1931, Riverhead, NY 11901
(516) 727-2090
Southold Town
Planning Board
Page 2
Planning Beard Site Plan Application
APPUCANI~ AFFIDAVIT
~I'A~E OF NEW YORK
COUNIY OF SUFFOLK
MARTIN ROSEN being duly sworn, deposes and says that ne resides at
3472 Weidner Avenue, 0ceanside, NY
in the State of New YorK, and that he is the owner of the above property, or that he is the
contract vendee x~tJ~x
(Title) (Specify whether Partnership or Corp,)
which is hereby making application; that there are no existing structures or improvements on the land
which are not shown on the Site Plan; that the title to thine entire parcel, including all rights-of-way, has
been clearly established and is shown on said Plan; that no part ~ the Plan infringes upon any duly filed
plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and
regulations adopted by the Planning Board ~or the firing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the
plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the
Planning Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance with the
plans submitted.
Signed
(Partner or Corporate Officer and Title)
Page 3
PIannlng 8oard Site Plan Application
Total Land Area of Site (acres or square feet)
LiGht Ind Zoning District Light ~ndu~trial
- Existing Use of Site A~anaone~ house
Proposed Uses on Site. Show all uses proposed and existing. Indicate which building
will have which use. If more than one use is proposed per building, indicate square
f6otage of floor area that will be reserved per use.
__ Wireless rad.i.o, tnwpr
Gross Floor Area of Existing Structure(s)
Gross Floor Area of Proposed Structure(s)
Percent of Lot Coverage by Building(s)
Percent of Lot for ParKing (where applicable)
Percent of Lot for Landscaping (where applicable)
Has applicant been granted a variance and/or special exception by
Pendinq Board of Appeals - Case # & date February 1998
Board of Trustees - Case # & date
NY State Department of Environmental Conservation - Case # & date
Suffolk County Department Health Services - Case # & date
Case Number
Name of Applicant
Date of Decision
,Expiration Date
Other
No
Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be
stored or handled at the site?
If so, have proper permits been obtained?
Name of issuing agency
Number and date of permit issued.
NO ACT/ON/EXCAVATION 0£ CONST£UCT/ON) WAY BE UNDE£TAKEN UNTIL APP£OVAZ OF SITE PLAN BY
PLANNING BOARD. VIOLATO£S A£E SUBJECT TO P£OSECUTION.
617.21
Appendix C
State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
~ART I--PROJECT iNFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
SEQR
1, APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME
Martin Roset3
3. PROJECT LOCATION:
Municipality ~ Matti tuck County SM f folk
4, PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map)
20! Sound Avenue, Nattituck
1000-].4! .00-03.00-044.000
5. IS PROPOSED ACTION:
~] New [] Expansion [] Modificationlalteration
6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY:
Wireless .radio tower
7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED:
Initially . ~ ~ 4 acres Ultimately . 2 ~ 4 acres
8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS?
[] Yes [] No If No, describe briefly
except for set back variance
9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT?
[] Residential [] Industrial [] Commercial [] Agricutture [] Park/Forest/Open space [] Other
Describe:
10. DOES ACTION iNVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL,
STATE OR LOCAL)?
[] Yes [] NO If yes, list agency(s) and permit/approvals
Zoning Board of Appeals
11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? [] Yes [] NO If yes, list agency name and permit/ap;3roval
12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMiT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?
[] Yes [] NO
I CEF~TIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
l If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the I
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
OVER
1
The Town of Southold.s Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts o£
interest on the part Of town officers and employees. The
purpose Of this form is to provide information which can
alert the town of possible conflicts Of interest and allow
it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same.
·ouR NAMZ, Martin Rosen
(Last name, ficst name, middle initial, unless
you are applying in the name of momeone el~e or
NATURE OF APPLICATION: (ChecI¢ atl that apply.)
Tax grievance
Variance ~
Change of zone
Approval of plat
~xemption from plat o~ official map
Other X "
(If "Otter,- name the activity.) site plan approval
ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which
YEs ~ NO X
If you ansvered 'YES," complete the balance of this form and
Name of person employed by the Town of Southold
Title or position of that person
Describe the relationship between yourself (the applicant)
and the town Officer or employee. Either check the
appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space
p~ovided.
The town officer or employee or his or }]er spouse, sibling,
parent or child is (chec~ all that apply): Not applicable
A the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the
corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant
is a corporation);
g the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a
noncorporate entity (when the applicant is not a
corporation);
C) an officer, director, partner, o~ employee of the
applicant; or
D) the actual applicant.
DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSI~Ip
Martin Rosen
PART 1--PROJECT INFOOATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a si~;nificant e
on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questmns will be consh
_4Ls part of the applicatton for approval and may be subiect to further veriiicadon and public review. Provide any addit
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information current ¥ avadable and will not in,
new studies, research or investigation. If information requ ring such ,~dditionai work is unavailable, so indicate and sp
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
Martin Rosen - Site Plan ApprOval
NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR j (516) 369-2200
Martin Rosen A~orne~
3472 Weidner Avenue j STATE i ZmCOr,,
c~.o , NY 11572
0ceanside
~ eUSiNE$S TELEPHONE
NAME OF OWNER (If ditfecent) '
01lie Booker, Clarena Booker, et al. ! ~ ~
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Approval of site plan for business office and radio tower
Ptease Complete Each Question--indicate N.A. ii not applicable
A. Site Description
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: F'lUrban I-~lndustrial I~Commercial ~,P~_esidential (suburban)
FqForest ¢-iAgriculture [~Other Abandone~' R~sid~nce
2. Total acreage of project area: .2~ acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE
Meadow or Brushland (Nomagricuitural)
Forested
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.)
Wetland (Fresi~water or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 pi: ECL)
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or ifil)
Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces
Other (Indicate type) Lawn & brush
.06
.20
~Rurai (no~
PRESENTLY
acres .06
.20
AFTER COMPLET
a
a
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on prolect
a. Soil drainage: FqWell drained __ % of qte (~4~derately well drained
~Poor!v clramud % ~ff
If any a~rlcultura] I,md is mvoived, ho~v many acres of s~)d are ( Mssdit,d w~thin *omi group 1 (brough 4 or t
Land ClassificaUon System/ N/A acres (See 1 NYCRR 370)
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ~Yes
~. What is depth to bedrock? MOp¢ YHa~ ~ (in feet)
2
100 % ='m-15% - -
6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, s~tc, or district, listed on [he State or the Nation
Registers of Historic Piaces? ~Yes [~No
(7.-~s proiect substantially contiguous to a s~te listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ~Yes
$. What is the depth of the water table? _ ~2 ..(in ~eet)
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~Yes ~No
~0. Do hunting, fishin~ or shell ~ishing ooportunities presendv exist m the project area? ~Yes ~No ·
11. 8oes project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endanger<
Accordin~ to
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the pro~ect site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other ~eoio]~cal formatio
~Yes ~No Describe
13. ts the proiect site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation ar
~Yes ~No If yes, exptain __ ,
14. Does the present s~te inciude scenic views known to be important to the community?
~Yes ~'No
None
15. Streams within or contiguous to prolect area:
a. Name pi Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16. Lakes, ponds, wedand areas within or conaguous to proiect area:
b. Size (In acres)
a. Name None
17. Is the site served by existing public utiliUes? ~Yes
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow conneCtion~ ~r~'Yes F-NO
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ~Yes ='~No
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Articte 25
~ection 303 and 3047 ~Yes ~qNo
~9. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Enviromnentai A~ea designated pursuant to ~,rtJc
of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 I'~Yes I~No
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal o~ solid or hazardous wast'~?. ~Yes ~No
B. Project Description
' 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlh:d by project sponsor .~6
b. ProjecLacreage to be developed: .06 acres initMl[v;
c. Project acreage to remain undeve!opcd ._~20 __ acres.
d. Length of proiect, in re!les: N/A (1[ appropriate)
e. II the prolect is an e×pansion, indicate per('~'nt pt ~,×pan~i<m proposed Nolle %;
Inu~a[Jy N/A
C Ultimately
i Dimens*ons (in ieet) of Iarge)t prooo~ud structure 20
j. Linear /eet pi frontage along a public thoroughfare prop]c[ will occupy is'~ 78
3
acre~ ultimately.
ft.
tons/cubic yarO
2. F{ow much natural mad tie.. rock, earfl~, etc} ,.vdl !1~! ~l,i the sm?? o
3. WiIi disturbed areas be reclaimed? ~Yes ENo ~NI,\
a. If yes. for wi~at ~ntend..~ purpose ~s the si~e bein~ reclaimed?
b. witl topsOd be stockpiled lot reclamauon? ~Yes ~No
c. Will uoper subsoil be stockpiled for reciamaUon? ~Yes ~No None acres.
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? ~
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetauon be removed by this project?
GYes [No 3 months, tncluding demolition).
6. If single phase proiect: Anticipated period of construcuon -~
7. ff muld-p?sed:
a. Total number of phases anticipated N/A _(number)
_ year, (including demoliti,
b. Anticipated dtte of commencement phase ~ __ ~ month
c. Approximate completion date of final phase _ ,-- month ~ ~ year.
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ~Yes ~No
8. Will bias?in8 occur during construction? ~Yes ~No
9. Number of ~obs generated: during construction 4 .; after prolect is complete ]
10. Number of lobs eliminated by this 0roiect
~1. will proiect require relocation of any proiects or ~acdities? ~Yes ~No if yes. explain
12. is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes ~No __-
a. if yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount _--
b. Name of water body into which efftuent wdi be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes ~No Type __
'i4 witl suriace area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal?
Exoiain
~Yes ENo
[No
15. ts proiect or any portion of proiect located in a 100 ,fear Mood plato? ~Yes
16 Will the project generate solid waste? ~Yes 1 F~N°
a. if yes. what is the amount per month __ ltl __ tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ~Yes ~No
c. If yes, give name South0]d T0~t~2~%~2; Iocatib~
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfdR
Cutchoque
~Yes
e. If Yes, explain
17. Will the project involve the disposal oi solid waste?
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal?
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? ---
~Yes ~]No
--- tons/month.
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ~Yes
19. will project routinely produce odors (more titan om~ hour per dayV ~Yes
20 Will prolect produce operatint[ noise ~txceedim~ the h)cal ambient no~se
21. Will project result in an incrau~e m ~m,~rRy u',~:~ ~Yes
ff yes , ,ndicatc tvpe(s) ~U~ ~n con~ectJo~ wJ¢h radio
22. If water supply is from w,:ds, mtJic&tl~ Hum~]'n~ cap,,~tv 150
23 Total anticipated waU:r usngu per d,iV 100 _
24 Does protect ~nvolve Local, St,xte or Ft,derat fundinr, t ~Yes ~No
[~.No
__ g j lhmsiCr~t~per son/day
I[ Yes, ,;xplain
4
Submitta
Date
25. ApProVals Required:
City, Town, Vdlage Board ~Yes ~No
City. Town. village planning Board ~Yes FUND
City, Tov,,n Zoning Board ~Yes ~No
City, County Health Department [~Yes ~No
OYes ~No
Other Locai Agencies
~Yes ~No
Other Reglonai Agencies
~Yes
State Agencies
~Yes ~No
Federal Agencies
Type
Town Planning~Board-Site Plan 2/12/9~
C.O~nty Health p~pt~-Slte Plan --
Zoning and Planning lnJormation
ODes proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision!
[])Yes filNo
10. Will
11. Will
fire
If Yes, indicate decision required: - mit ~ bdivisio~ ~sit
f"lzoning amendment [~zoning variance Cspeoal use per s~JOl~p~. ~efiq~ee~A, 0'
management plan ~other '~''~ - ~--'
~newlrews~o of master plan ~resource
What is the zoning ctassification(Slo{ the site~ ~t I~1
what is the maximum potential development of the site i{ developed as permitted by the present zoning~
30~ c0~era~e_~
What is the proposed zoning o~ the site~ ~ght ~al
what is the maximum potential develOOmerit pi the site i~ developed as permitted by the proposed zoning~
30% c0verag% ~Yes
Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local [and use pians~
What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 'A mile radius of proposed
¢~ommercial aBd re ~ide~ial ~Yes
ls the p~oposed action compatible with adioining/surrounding land uses w~thin a % mile?
if the proposed action is [he subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? ~ ~ ~
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? ~Yes
proposed action require any authorization(s) fo~ the formation of'~ef or water districts?
the p~oposed action create a demand for any com~tmitv provided services (recreation, education
protection)? ~Yes ~No ~No
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle proie'cted demand? ~Yes
12. will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ~Yes
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ~Yes ~No
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify you~ ProieCt- If there are ~r may be an'
impacts assooated with your ~ropo~aI, plense discuss sucl~ impaCtS and the measures wt~ich you propose
avoid them.
C
E. Verification
wilh this assessment.
ELIZABE~'I A. NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK RECEIPT 6 8 5 2 5
Town of Southold
Southold, New York 11971 DATE1:;~''°'~- /~ 19
Phone: 516-765-1800
BY:
[] CASH
CK/4
LIZABETH A. NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK
Town of Southold
Southold, New York 11971
Phone: 516-765-1800
RECKED OF' ~
RECEIPT 69284
PLANNING BOARD MEMI~S
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
December 20, 1999
Martin Rosen
3472 Weidner Avenue
Oceanside, NY 11572
RE:
Business Office for
Martin Rosen
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
Dear Mr. Rosen,
The Planning Board has received your revised site plan dated December
7, 1999.
The following changes/additions must be made before the Board can
proceed with its review:
1. Use shown on plan.
Lot, block and section must be shown on the
plan.
Separate key map at a scale of 1" = 100'. Show all owners within
500' of the property.
4. Zone.
5. Elevation drawings showing all four elevations and floor plans
showing all uses. Check sheet included for your use.
6. Parking area and parking calculations. Include properly marked
handicapped space.
7. Any proposed out door lighting showing fixture and wattage.
8. Sign sketch to scale showing dimensions and color.
9. Landscaping details.
10. Reference a land surveyors map or base map.
ll. Drainage calculations.
12. Handicapped ramp with compacted path from handicapped
parking space.
In addition to the above, review by the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services is required.
Please submit a revised Short Environmental Review Form.
If you have any questions, or would like to have a conference before
proceeding, please contact this office.
/~cerely,/
Site Plan Reviewer
Encl.
Charles Cuddy, Attorney
Robert Brown, Garrett Strang, Co-Chairman Architectural
Review Committee
Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER~
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WiLLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICH-A_RD CAGGIANO
Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1938
Fax (631) 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals
Bennett Orlowski, Chairm~
Appl. No. 4882 - LAV-COR AGRICULTURAL 1NC.
(Peconic Bay Winery)
Appl. No. 4864 - Martin Rosen
November 14, 2000
Appl. No. 4882 - LAV - COR AGRICULTURAL INC.
The Planning Board is in favor of the requested width variance.
The original intent of limiting the building width to 60' was to prevent multiple use
buildings such as strip malls in business zoned areas. The purpose of the limitation was to
break up the mass of the multiple use buildings.
Single occupancy wineries, by their nature, require all operations to be under one roof.
Several wineries, located in residential areas near the applicant, exceed the 60' limit.
Appl. No. 4864 ~
The Planning Board is not in favor of reversing the Building Department's Revocation of
Permit.
The Code is clear when it states, "that an accessory use cannot exist without a principle
use."
Submission Without a Cover Letter
SCTM#: 1000-
Comments:
Southold Town
Planning 9oard
PLANNING BOA_RD MEMBE~
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATH.MM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO: Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk
FROM: Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
RE: Proposed Site Plan for Jimbo Realty
Route 48, Southold
SCTM# 1000-59-4-8 & 9
DATE:
Proposed Site Plan for Martin Rosen
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
October 29, 1999
The Planning Board has active applications on the above projects.
Please let the Board know if the uses or zones have changed as a result
of the Town Board's review of the Cramer recommendations.
PLANNING BOARD MEMB$
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
August 25, 1999
Charles R. Cuddy, Attorney at Law
445 Griffing Avenue
Riverhead, NY 11901
RE:
Proposed Office and Radio Tower for Martin Rosen
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
Zoning District Light Industrial (LI)
Dear Mr. Cuddy,
On November 4, 1998, you had requested that the Planning Board hold
off requesting an expanded part III of the Long Environmental
Assessment Form (LEAF).
However, in reviewing the Rosen file and your letter of January 8,
1999, we note your request for the specific variances required for this
project.
The Building Department will be able to tell you of the variances required
as a result of your building permit application.
If you have any questions, or require assistance, please contact the
B~din~, Department or this office.
'
Robert ~. Kassfie~
Site Plan Reviewer
cc: Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman. Board of Appeals
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1802
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
Edward Forrester, Building Department ~/'
DATE:
July 13, 1998
RE:
Martin Rosen, Radio Communications Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
Zoning District, L.I. ( Light Industrial )
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
Please be advised that that above referenced application meets the definition of
a wireless communication facility and wireless communication as adopted in
Local Law 30-1998 adopted by a resolution of the Town Board On February 2,
1999. As such all provisions of Article XVI of the Zoning Code would apply.
Southold Town
Planning Board
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS ~
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Edward Forester, Building Department
Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
Rosen Radio Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
January 15, 1999
The Planning Board has received a letter dated January 8, 1999, from
Charles Cuddy, attorney for the above applicant, (copy enclosed).
In Mr. Cuddy's letter, he states that an amended application has been
filed with both the Building Department and the Zoning Board, indicating
that the tower is an accessory use, and not governed by the Wireless
Communications Facilities Article XVI of the Town Code.
The Board would appreciate your determination on the following:
Is your February 18, 1998, Notice of Disapproval stating that the
tower is a principle use and the rear yard set back for the
tower must be seventy feet (70') still valid?
2. What variances are required from your review of the amended
plan/application.
3. Is the Rosen tower subject to the latest proposed revision of
Article XVI, Wireless Communication Facilities?
Your prompt response to this request would be appreciated.
(~HAJ{LES l~. (~UDDY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
January 8, 1999
Robert G. Kassner
Site Plan Reviewer
Southold Town Planning Board
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Martin Rosen Proposed office and Radio Tower
Dear Mr. Kassner:
I am in receipt of your letter of January 4th and I take exception
to the breadth of Part III of the Long Environmental Assessment
Form, in particular because the Town of Southold has constructed a
tower without the slightest sensitivity to "environmental
concerns". However it does not appear to me that you have
recognized that the amended application in the building department
and before the Zoning Board of Appeals is for a radio tower as an
accessory use and that the tower is not governed by the provisions
of the Wireless Communications Facilities Article of the Town Code.
In addition, I write specifically to address your request for
variances. Please state the variances you think are required from
the Board of Appeals.
CRC:JML
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Cuddy~
PLANNING BOARD MEMBEP~
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
January 4, 1999
Charles R. Cuddy, Attorney at Law
445 Grfffing Avenue
P.O. Box 1547
Riverhead, NY 11901
RE:
Martin Rosen Proposed Office and Radio Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
Zoning District, Light Industrial (LI)
Dear Mr Cuddy,
This is in response to your letter of November 25, 1998, in which you
request additional requirements that must be complied with to further
process the above application.
As previously mentioned, a Part III of the Long Environmental
Assessment Form will be required to provide a basis for determination and
to insure that a hard look is taken at the potential impacts of the
project. The Part III should include discussion of land use, visual and
historic resource impacts, and should describe protection of existing
trees, proposed landscaping, and details on tower height and use.
When this data is received, the Board will continue processing the
application.
Please be advised that before any possible final approval~variances will
he required from the Board of Appeals. In addition, no possible final
approval by this Board can be given during the period of the moratorium.
If you have any questions, or require additional information, please
contact this office.
/
Site Plan Reviewer
cc: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals
Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement
(~HAi~LES R. GUDDY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
November 25, 1998
Planning Board
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1i79
Southold, New York 11971
Attn: Robert Kassner
Re: Martin Rosen - office & Radio Tower
SCTM 1000-141-03-0~.000
Dear Mr. Kassner:
In connection with the site plan and the improvements to be made by
Martin Rosen at Sound Avenue at Mattituck including the renovation
of the existing building and. construction of a radio towe~ ~lease
advise what additional requirements of the Planning Board must be
complied with to further proceed with the application.
Very truly yours,
CRC:ejc
Charles R. Cuddy
SouthoId Town
Planning Board
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER~
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
1998
John A. Keogh, Secretary
Ma[[ituck Fire District
Pike St.
Mattituck, NY 11952
Dear Mr, Keogh:
Enclosed please find one (~) survey dated
r~flr. II/ 19q? , for
SCTM# lO00 lUd-3~h~f
[~//The enclosed site plan is being referred to you for fire access
review and for your recommendations as [o whether any fire-
wells are needed. Please specify whether firewells are shallow
or electric.
The enclosed subdivision is being referred Lo you for your recom-
mendation at Lo whether any firewells are needed, Please specify
whether firewells are shallow or electric.
Please reply by~-Z-Y~ 1998. Thank you for your
cooperation, ~ ¢~ ,
Sincerely,
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
$~thotd 'l'own
I~ir~ Board
eno.
RESOLUTION: REFERRALS OF MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS
FROM SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
DATE: July 12, 1994
UPON A MOTION MADE BY Commissioner George Woodhull AND
SECONDED BY Commissioner Georae Lessard Sr. THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF THE MATTITUCK FIRE DISTRICT VOTED UPON THE
FOLLOWING RESOLUTION :
WHEREAS, the Code of the Town of Southold authorizes the
Southold Town Planning Board to review and approve or deny
applications for the subdivision of real estate and;
WHEREAS, the Town Code includes a provision with respect to
the number and location of fire wells and/or fire hydrants to be
located within subdivisions and that the number and location of any
fire hydrants and/or flrewells shall be determined by the Planning
Board and;
WHEREAS,
determination
the Town Code further provides that in making the
with respect to fire wells and/or hydrants, the
Planning Board of the Town of Southold may seek the recommendation
of the Commissioners of the Fire District in which the proposed
subdivision is located and;
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board has requested
recommendations from the Board of Fire Commissioners of the
Mattituck Fire District with respect to both major subdivisions
consisting of four or more lots and minor subdivisions consisting
of less than four lots of subdivisions located within the Mattituck
Fire District and;
WHEREAS, after due and careful consideration it is determined
that the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Mattituck Fire District
is desireous of offering its recommendations to the Southold Town
Planning Board with respect to applications for major subdivisions
and for applications with respect to non-residential property uses
including minor and major subdivisions and site plan reviews and;
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Mattituck Fire
District is no longer desirous of providing a recommendation to the
Southold Town Planning Board with respect to minor subdivisions of
residential property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Fire
Commissioners of the Mattituck Fire District shall no longer
provide to the Southold Town Planning Board a recommendation with
respect to the number or location of fire wells and/or hydrants on
applications for the approval of minor subivisions of residential
property consisting of less than four lots, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the District Secretary is directed to forward
a copy of this resolution to the Southold Town Plannning Board.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
JOHN M. DIVELLO: YES
WALTER KOSIANOWSKI: YES
THOMAS WOODHULL: YES
JOHN C. HARRISON: YES
GEORGE LESSARD, SR.: YES
RESOLUTION: ADOPTED / DENIED
of F~e Com~issioners
~.M~ttituck Fire DiS~ric%
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
March 17, 1998
Charles R. Cuddy, Esq.
P.O. Box 1547
Riverhead, NY 11901
Re:
Proposed site plan for radio tower for Martin Rosen
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
Dear Mr. Cuddy:
The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a
meeting held on Monday, March 16, 1998:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency
coordination process on this unlisted action.
The Planning Board has determined that this action is an unlisted action
because it is not a Type I action and is excluded from the Type II list under
SEQRA, 617.5; therefore the Planning Board will conduct a coordinated review
and will require a Long Environmental Assessment Form and a consultant
review fee of $400.00.
The SEQRA coordination time frame will start upon receipt of the LEAF and
$400 review fee.
Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above.
Sincerely, // //~/
Chairman
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
November 6, 1998
Matthew E. Paekman
Packman, Paekman & Brown, P.C.
366 Veta~ans Memorial Highway
Commack, NY 11725
RE: FOIL Request for Rosen Radio Tower
Dear Mr. Packman,
The attached resolution is being sent to you as per your FOIL request.
If you have any questions, Please contact this office.
Site Plan Reviewer
PAGHMAN, PAGHMAN ~ BROWN, P.G.
ATTORNEYS
366 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
GOMMAGK. NEW YORK I 1725
(516) 543-2200
TELEGOPIER (516) 543-2271
November 2, 1998
Planning Department
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
11971
RE: FOIL Request
Dear Sir/Madam:
In accordance with the provisions of the New York Freedom
Information Law, New York Public Officers Law Article 6,
undersigned hereby requests copies of all agency records as
forth in Schedule A attached hereto. We agree to pay
appropriate statutory fees.
of
the
set
any
If any documents responsive to this request are withheld on the
grounds that they are exempt from public disclosure, please provide
a list of the withheld documents stating the basis for the claims
of exemption. Also, please identify the name and the address of
the person or body to whom an appeal of the decision to withhold
said records can be made.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
MEP/blb
attachment
Very truly yours,
Southold Town
Planning Board
SC~RDULE OF PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTED
Copies of any resolution concerning Martin Rosen's radio tower
application at Sound Avenue in Mattituck relating to New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act, including, but not limited to
declaration of lead agency and/or declaration of non-significance,
i.e. negative declaration.
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
George Homing
BOAI~
TOWi~
~old Town Hall
)5 Main Road
). Box 1179
, New York 11971
x (516) 765-9064
~e (516) 765-1809
BOARD OF APPEALS DETERMINATION
MEETING HELD OCTOBER 27, 1998
Appl. No. 4611 - Building Inspector's Request for Town-Wide Interpretation
under Article XV~ of the Southold Town Zoning Cede. Date Building
Inspector's Request Was Received: August 19, 1998.
DATES OF PUBL/C HEARING: September 24, 1998; September 30, 1998;
October 15, 1998.
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
1. Zoning Code Article I, Definitions of "Wireless Communications" and
Telecommunication Tower" read as follows:
WIRELESS COMMUNICA1/ONS. Wireless communicaUons shall mean
any personal wireless services as defined in the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, which includes FCC licensed commercial wireless
telecommunications services including cellular telephone services,
personal communication services, specialized mobile radio, enhanced
specialized mobile radio, paging, and similar services that currently
exist or that may in the future be developed.
TELECOMMUNICA1/ONS TOWER. A telecommunication tower is a type of
wireless communication facility designed and constructed specifically to
support an antenna an-ay, and may include a monopole, self-supporting
tower, guy-wire support, and other similar structures. A wireless
communicaUons facility attached to an existing building or structure shall
be excluded from this definition.
2. Section 100-163 of the Code provides ~Standards' for the above uses and
towers. Sub-section 'B' states that the application must be a 'public utility."
In this application, a "public utility use or tower" is not the issue. Instead, the
appli_ca~t, Building Inspector has requested an int~retaUon with respect to a
tower intended for the private use f~of an owner who
operates a VHF Radio under a Licensed issued to him/her by the FCC for the
purpose of communicating, all as part of his/her business."
~.(!quest fc,~' Ii~t,.'rprelad;m (P
:~:tober 2'~, :i99B ZB& Heetir,~J
te Radio Tower)
3. The Board heard tesUmony, and received a memorandum of law from an
interested party who contends that a private VHF radio transmission tower is
not subject to the Federal Communications Act of 1996 or the telecommu-
nications provisions of Article XV! of the Southold Town Zoning Code because
these laws relate to public utilities and telecommunications commerce.
4. The Board heard testimony by the Town Building !nspector that in his view
a private VHF radio transmission tower is not subject to the telecommu-
nications provisions of the Town Zoning Code because that law relates to
public utilities. The Town Building !nspector also stated that he believed that
there was an application before him which prompted this request for an
interpretation and that that project does not fall under the current
telecommunicaUons laws.
5. The Board received into evidence a statement from the Federal
Communications Commission that VHF radio transmission faciliUes are not
subject to the provisions of the TelecommunicaUons Act of 1996. Article XV!
of the Town Zoning Code states that it is intended to regulate "wire
communication faciiities~ and particularly telecommunications towers."
The definition of "wireless communicaUons" in the Code is tied directly to the
types of communications that are subject to the Telecommunications Act of
1996.
6. This Board heard testimony from an individual Town Board Member that
stated that she was involved with the drafUng of the law and stated that it
was the intention of the writers of ArUcle XV~ of the Zoning Code that all
towers be included, however, there is no written or other evidence to support
her tesUmony.
WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the Wireless CommunicaUon
FaciliUes Law, Article XVI, of the Southold Town Zoning Code, and ail other
provisions of the Zoning Code, and after compleUng this review, on Motion by
Member Dinizio, seconded by Member Collins,
IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED that the Answer to the quesUon in this
applicaUon is: A private radio transmission tower.and communica.tio.n, use
does not fail under the Provisions of Article XVt, Wireless Commumcauons,
when it is intended for the private use of an owner who operates a VHF Radio
under a licensed issued to him/her by the FCC for the purpose of
communicaUon, all as part of his/her business, within the Light !ndustrial (L/)
Zone District."
VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS D!N~O, COLLINS and
HORNING. NAY: CHAIRMAN GOEHR/NGEP- ABSENT: TORTORA. This
Resolution was duly adopted (3-1}.~ ~~ ~/~
A p'l~;O v e d F ~J_in g ~[10/28/98
for"
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS ~]
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
1998
John A. Keogh, Secretary
Mattituck Fire District
Pike
Matti[uck, NY 11952
Dear Mr. Keogh:
Enclosed please find one (1) survey dated
~r'~ri n J~o.~.n
for
BCTM# lO00-
J~The enclosed site plan is being referred to you for fire access
review and for your recommendations as [o whether any fire
wells are needed. Please specify whether firewells are shallow
or electric.
The enclosed subdivision is being referred to you for your recom-
mendation at [o whether any firewells are needed. Please specify
whether firewells are shallow or electric.
Please reply by
cooperation.
Sincerely,
1998. Thank you for your
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
enc.
NEW YORK STATE
Bernadette Castro
Commissioner
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau
Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189
Robert G. Kassner
Site Plan Reviewer
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
August 17, 1998
Southold Town
Planning Board
Re: FCC/SEQRA (98PR1448)
Rosen Property/Radio Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
T/Southold, Suffolk Co
Dear Mr. Kassner:
Thank you for your letter of July 10, 1998, by which you submitted
additional information about the Rosen Property and the surrounding
neighborhood. As the designated State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO),
we have reviewed this material in accordance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and relevant implementing
regulations.
From prior documentation of the hamlet of Mattituck prepared by the
Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities (SPLIA) and others,
it appears that a potential historic district exists in the vicinity of the
L.I.R.R. crossing of Sound Avenue. The existing documentation is,
admittedly, out of date and this opinion is subject to review based on more
current information.
Until further survey is conducted to verify the potential for an
historic district in the vicinity of the Rosen property, we would view this
proposal as having an Adverse Effect on resources in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The applicant should
be encouraged to explore "co-location" of the antenna on an existing
structure, perhaps within the steeple of a nearby church.
I hope to visit the Mattituck area in the near future to verify the
historic integrity of the Sound Avenue area and will contact you with my
impressions. If you have any questions regarding this review, please call
me at (518) 237-8643, extension 283. Please refer to project number 98PR in
any future correspondence.
Si~.~rely, ~ ~/ ~
~istoric Preservation Program Analyst
AnEqualOppo~uni~/Affirm~iveActionAgency
~ printed on ~cycled paper
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1802
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
TOWN O1~ SOUTI-IOLD
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
Edward Forrester, Building Department?~'¢K'~
July 13, 1998 -
Clarification of previous memo re:
Martin Rosen, Radio Communications Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
Zoning District, L.I. ( Light Industrial)
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
In the prior memo I stated that the use was permitted in the LI zone, provided it
meet the criteria in 100-165. This section states that the use is permitted on
conforming lots in that zone, along with other restrictions.
My memo did not state that the subject parcel was non-conforming, nor the
proposed setbacks were not adequate. These site specific items are usually
addressed in site plan certification. My memo simply stated that the "use" was
permitted provided you apply the conditions of 100-165.
JUL 1 3 199(J
Southold Town
Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1802
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO: Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
FROM: Edward Forrester, Building Department
DATE: March 11, 1998
RE: Martin Rosen, Radio Communications Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
Zoning District, L.I. ( Light Industrial )
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
The proposed use is a permitted use in that zone pursuant to Sec 100-162C.3 of
Town Code. Please be advised that the project must conform to the design
standards outlined in Sec 100-165.
PLANNING BOARD 1V[EMBER~
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
K~NNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
July 10, 1998
James Warren
Historic Preservation Program Analyst
NYS Dept. of Parks & HP
Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau
Peebles Island, PO Box 189
Waterford, NY 12188-0189
RE:
Radio Tower for Martin Rosen
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
Dear Mr, Warren,
As requested, enclosed is additional information on the Rosen Radio
Tower.
If you have any further questions, please call me at (516) 765-1938.
Site Plan Reviewer
CHA_-~L~S P~. GUDDY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
June 11, 1998
Planning Beard
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Application - Martin Rosen - Radio Tower
Dear Board Members:
It is my understanding that you will consider the SEQRA report and
possible further proceedings pursuant to SEQRA in connection with
the application of Martin Rosen.
Since this is a radio tower, the only significant effect of which
would be visual, and, since the Town Code provides for mitigation
measures, I would like the opportunity to discuss this matter with
the Board at its next work session prior to the Board taking any
action which may cause the applicant to proceed further under
SEQRA.
Very truly yours,
Charles
CRC:JML
JUN 1 5 1998
Southold Town
Planning Board
NELBON~ POPE & VOORHIB~ LLC
CHARLESJ VOORHIS, C£P, AICP oARTHUR J KOERBER, RE · VINCENTG DONNELLY, BE
· VICTOR BERT, RE. ° JOSEPH R EPIFANIA, PE° ROBERT G.NELSON, JR, PE
· CHRISTOPHER W ROBINSON PE
June 3, 1998
Mr. Bennett Oflowski, Chairman
Southold Planning Board
Town Hail, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Review of Long EAF
Martin Rose Site Plan Review for Radio Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
SCTM No. 1000-141-3-44
N&P No. 98095
JUN 4 1998
Southold Town
Planning Board
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
As per your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project.
Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows:
1. Review Part I LEAF
The parcel has been field inspected by NP&V. The LEAF has been reviewed and minor revisions
were made as necessary. A copy of same is attached.
2. Prepare Part II LF,,IF
The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information
concerning our findings is included below.
3. Environmental and Planning Considerations
The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have
been consulted. The site consists of 0.264 acres of land in the hamlet of Mattituck in the Town of
Southold. The subject site is located between Sound Avenue and the Long Island Railroad
tracks, approximately 259 feet west of their crossing. The parcel is roughly rectangular, with an
existing flame dwelling and garage/shed which are in disrepair.
The proposed action involves site plan application for a proposed radio antenna, as well as
alteration of the existing dwelling for office use. The Town recently passed a new ordinance
governing location of new telecommunication structures within the Town, although the project
sponsor has challenged application of this ordinance to the proposed radio tower. This question
Page 1
572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD, MELVILLE, NY 11747-21BB
Matthew Rosen ~ Mattituck
LEAF Part 1 Review
is currently before the Town Zoning Board, however, conformance to the code will be discussed
herein. If the new code is deemed inapplicable, the proposed project would be regulated as a
permitted use within the district, and would require a rear yard variance for the antenna.
Under the proposed plan, the new radio antenna would be located in the southeastern comer of
the site along the rear property line adjacent to the railroad tracks. The height of the tower is not
indicated on either the site plan or within the Long EAF, Part 1, although a fall zone of 91.7 feet
is shown on the plan. It is assumed that the structure would be less than this height. The structure
would have a triangular base measuring 8 feet on each side. Under the proposed plan, the rear
portion of the house would be removed, and the remaining 590 s.f. portion would be renovated
for use as an office. The submitted documents do not indicate whether the partially collapsed
garage would be removed, but it is not shown on the proposed site plan. The existing overgrown
gravel road, which runs along the western side of the house, would be expanded to form a loop
driveway with parking and a second access point to the east. Conceptual landscaping is illustrated
on the site plan, although a formal landscaping plan has not been submitted.
The property is zoned Light Industrial (LI), although the existing 11,500 s.f. lot is less than the
minimum lot size of 40,000 s.f. within the zoning district. The property also fails to meet the
current requirements for minimum lot width and yard setbacks within the zoning district under
existing conditions. The proposed office and antenna are permitted uses within the district.
Geologic Resources
The project site is relatively fiat, and there are no wetlands or other significant landforms in the
vicinity. In addition, the proposed disturbance of the subsoils on site will be minimal. Thus,
erosion control measures should not be necessary. The soils on site are Cut and Fill Land, gently
sloping, as delineated by the Suffolk County Soil Survey. These soils are characteristic of areas
where the native soils have been altered by past development. An existing cesspool is shown to
the rear of the house on the site plan. It is assumed that the existing sanitary system is functional
and will be utilized, although replacement might be necessa~'. This would result in only minor
excavation. Thus, the geology of the site should not limit the proposed development, and no
significant impacts are expected.
Water Resources
The elevation of groundwater beneath the subject site is approximately 3 feet above mean sea
level (msl) according to the 1997 SCDHS map, and the topographic elevation is approximately 21
feet above msl according to the USGS quadrangle map. Thus, the depth to groundwater is
approximately 18 feet below the surface. This should not present constraints on the proposed
project. The proposed project will result in a minimal sanitary flow which is less than a typical
residence, and thus, the impact on groundwater resources is expected to be negligible. There are
no surface water features in the vicinity of the subject site.
Page 2
OMatthew Rosen ~ Mattituck
LEAF Part 1 Review
Ecological Resources
The project site is an overgrown residential property. The site has been cleared and was originally
turfed, although shrubby vegetation is beginning to invade, particularly in the rear yard. Tall
maples and other trees are present on site and along the adjacent property lines, creating a
shaded, enclosed setting. As there is only a limited area of vegetation under existing conditions,
no significant impacts to ecological resources are expected as a result of the proposed project.
The proposed landscaping will minimize the impact of clearing the brushy portions of the site.
Retention of the larger specimen trees on site should be required where possible, both to provide
wildlife habitat and to minimize visual impacts. Large trees should be identified on the site plan
for final approval, with an indication of which can be preserved.
Land Use
The land use in the vicinity of the site is a mix of vacant land, industrial uses and residential
development. The Long Island Railroad right of way bounds the site to the south, and is
approximately 50 feet in width. Other abutting land uses include small residential lots to the east
and west, and a residentially zoned parcel containing an abandoned vegetable packing house to
the south of the railroad. The properties immediately north of the site across Sound Avenue are
currently vacant. To the northeast is a large lumber yard with little visual screening, and to the
northwest are single family homes on lots of approximately 'A acre. Most of the area further to
the west in characterized single family homes, with the exception of a large Agway agricultural
supplier and a vacant office building near the Walnut Avenue intersection. To the east of the
property along Sound Avenue are a single family dwelling, an old potato packing plant, and an
auto service center. The land use is residential to the southeast, with somewhat larger lot sizes,
and a cemetery is present to the southwest.
The project site is zoned for Light Industrial development (L-I), as is most of the surrounding
area on the north side of the railroad. With time, the non-conforming residential uses and vacant
properties within the LI zoning district would be expected to be replaced with office and/or
industrial uses consistent with zoning. The lands to the northwest of the Sound Avenue/Lipco
Road intersection are zoned Residential-40 (R-40), although most of the existing lots are smaller
than the 40,000 s.f. required within the R-40 district. The properties immediately south of the
railroad are also zoned (R40), with Residential Office (RO) and General Business (B) zoning
further to the south fronting on Main Road.
As was discussed above, the subject pamel is a preexisting lot which is smaller than permitted
under the current LI zoning, as are the abutting properties between the railroad and Sound
Avenue. The industrial development potential of these four lots is likely to be limited unless they
were to be acquired by a single owner and consolidated. The existing dwelling, which will be
renovated, does not meet the required setbacks of 50 and 20 feet for the front and side yards,
respectively. In addition, the radio antenna will be located along the rear property line to
minimize visual impacts along Sound Avenue and provide an adequate fall zone, and thus will not
Page 3
OMatthew Rosen ~ Mattituck
LEAF Part 1 Review
meet the required 70 foot rear yard setback. A variance will be required for the rear yard setback.
Conformance to Town Code will be determined by the building and planning departments during
site plan review.
The proposed project is therefore marginally consistent with the existing zoning of the property,
however, the small size of the lot makes it difficult to provide adequate buffers from the
surrounding area. The land to the north, east and west is zoned for industrial development,
although only scattered industrial uses are currently present. Thus, only minor land use conflicts
are expected in this area. To the south, the property abuts the Long Island Railroad right of way,
with an abandoned packing plant further to the south. This area is zoned for residential
development, and minor land use conflicts could occur in the future if the packing house were
replaced by a residential home. The railroad right of way does act as a buffer, and the existing
vegetation in the area of the site offers partial mitigation of the potential land use impacts.
Visual Resources
The subject property and adjacent residential parcels have tall deciduous trees in excess of 50 feet,
as well as dense edge vegetation along the property lines. The site is enclosed by vegetation
during the summer months, and the existing dwelling is only partially visible from Sound Avenue
and the adjacent residential properties. Most individuals viewing the site will be motorists along
Sound Avenue, although the primary concern is the impact to residential properties to the south.
The height of the proposed tower is not indicated within the submitted documents, although it is
assumed that it will be 91.7 feet in height or less based on the fall zone indicated on the site plan.
The top of the structure is expected to be visible to westbound traffic on Sound Avenue, as there
is little vegetation on the properties near the railroad crossing. During the summer, approximately
30 to 40 feet of the antenna should be visible above the trees, and visibility would be greater
during the winter months. Vegetation is more dense to the west of the site, and thus only
intermittent views are likely to be present to eastbound traffic on Sound Avenue. The properties
immediately north of the site are vacant, but the antenna may be partially visible from the
residential properties to the northwest and the lumberyard to the northeast. Most of the
residential parcels to the south and southwest of the site have trees and other vegetation in the
rear yards, which will help screen views of the proposed antenna. Partial views may be present,
particularly from the residences on Pacific Lane to the east which have more open landscaping.
The top of the antenna may also be visible from portions of the cemetery to the southwest.
Renovation of the existing dilapidated building will improve the visual character of the site from
Sound Avenue, although views of the antenna are of concern. The existing vegetation on the site
and adjacent properties is expected to provide substantial mitigation of visual impacts of the
antenna, although it will be partially visible fi-om some perspectives. Relocating the proposed
antenna to the center of the property might slightly improve views to the south, hut would make
the antenna much more visible from Sound Avenue and would not provide an adequate fall zone.
The existing vegetation should be retained on site, particularly the larger trees at the rear of the
Page 4
OMatthew Rosen ~ Mattituck
LEAF Part 1 Review
parcel, in order to maximize the existing visual buffer. Additional landscaping, including
evergreen species, could be considered to provide more substantial buffering throughout the year.
Historical Resources
There are several historic structures in the area of the site which have been identified by the
Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities (SPLIA) as having potential historical
significance. The eligibility of these structures for inclusion on the state or federal registers has
not been determined, however, they might be considered significant local landmarks. Structures
within the immediate vicinity of the project site include the Penny House and the potato packing
house east of the site. The Penny House, located approximately 150 feet to the northeast,
renmins a residence associated with the adjacent lumber yard. The lumber yard dominates views
of the home, and vegetation on the adjacent property screen views of the structure from the west.
The packing house is located approximately 100 feet east of the site at the Sound Avenue railroad
crossing, and appears to be used for storage. There is little vegetation immediately surrounding
the packing house, permitting clear views from the east and north, although vegetation on the
adjacent parcel limits views from the west.
No direct physical alteration of historic structures is proposed as result of the project, although
the location of an antenna within an historic area might potentially result in an impact to historic
resources. The proposed antenna is expected to be partially visible, particularly during the winter
months, as was discussed above. Only views of the packing house from the west would be
impacted, and the existing dense vegetation and tall trees will offer substantial mitigation to views
from this perspective. The existing lumber yard already detracts from views of the Penny House,
and the antenna would be located on the opposite side of the road. Thus only minor impacts to
the historic resources within the area are expected.
Other Resources
No traffic impacts are expected as a result of the proposed project, as the site is expected to
generate only one trip per hour during the peak period on local roads. There may be slight noise
and traffic impacts during renovation and construction, but this will be short term. Impacts on
community services such as police, fire and school districts should also be minimal. There will be
a negligible tax increase to provide revenue for community services, and no increase in demand
for services is expected. The structure should be fenced to minimize the potential for vandalism
or trespassing, and a six foot chain link fence is proposed.
Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance
The Town Board recently enacted a new ordinance in response to concern over the cumulative
impacts of siting and proliferation of wireless communication towers within the Town of
Southold. As was discussed above, the applicant has challenged the application of this law to a
Page 5
atthew Rosen ~ Mattituck
LEAF Part 1 Review
private radio antenna, and this question is currently before the Town Zoning Board. The primary
intent of the new law is to minimize the environmental impacts of communication facilities by
favoring the location of new facilities within industrially zoned areas or co-location on existing
structures. Therefore, consideration of the guidelines incorporated into the draft ordinance is
useful, whether or not the project falls within the regulated definition.
The proposed antenna will be located in an industrially zoned area, as is recommended in the
ordinance. Height is restricted to 100 feet within the LI zoning district, and a fall zone of at least
100 feet must he provided to the nearest dwelling unit. The height of the proposed antenna is not
indicated in the submitted documents, but the structure will be 91.7 feet from the residence on the
property to the east. The Town might therefore wish to restrict the height of the antenna to less
than 90 feet. The ordinance also requires that the setback and lot size requirements within the
district he met, which will not be possible on the proposed project site. A setback of 300 feet to
a designated historic landmark structure is also required. The Penny house and potato packing
house are both within 300 feet of the site. These structures have been recommended for landmark
status, although no determination has been made and only minimal impacts are expected.
In addition, the draft law includes several design standards regulating color, signage and other
design features. These standards can be considered as mitigation measures for the proposed
project, even though the ordinance may not be directly applicable.
In summary, the primary concerns related to the proposed project are the potential for land use
conflicts with the residential properties to the south, visual impacts, and slight impacts to nearby
historic structures. Impacts to natural resources are expected to be minimal, and the site is zoned
for industrial development, although the lot size and setback requirements within the zone are not
met. The existing vegetation on the site and adjacent properties will offer substantial mitigation of
these impacts, and large trees on the property should be identified for preservation. The board
may wish to have these issues explored in a more detailed Long EAF, Part III to provide a basis
for determination of significance and to ensure that a hard look is taken at the potential impacts
of the project. The Part III should include discussion of land use, visual and historic resource
impacts, and should describe protection of existing trees, proposed landscaping, and details on
tower height an use. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this
matter, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP
Page 6
PART 1--PROJECT INFO~
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determinin§ whether the action proposed mav have a significant el:
on the environment. Please comoiete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be consid~
-as part of the application for appioval and may be subiect to [urther verification and public rewew Provide anyadditic
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
I[: is expected that completion of the full CAF will be dependent on information currendv available and will not invc
new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such JdditionaI work is unavailable, so indicate and spe
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
Martin Rosen - Site P]an ApprOval
NAME OF APPLiCANT/SPONSOR
Martin Rosen
AOORES$
8US)NESSTELEPHONE
(516) 369-8200
A~orney
3472 Weidner Avenue
c,~,.o ! aT*TE I Z'POOOE
0ceanside NY 11572
NAME OF OWNER (Il 0ilferenl) ~USINESS TELEPHONE
01lie Booker, Clarena Booker, et al. ~ ~
AOOREES
OE$CRIPT)ON OF ACTION
Approval of site plan for business office and radio tower
Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not anplicable
A. Site Description
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: I~Urban f-Iindustria[ {~Commercial I~,~..,._esidentia[ (suburban)
r"lForest I-IA~riculture ~Other Aba ndonet:l' Residence
2. Total acreage of project area: .;~§ acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE
Meadow or 8rushland (Non-agricultural)
Forested
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, utc.)
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL)
Water Surface Area
~/ Unvegetated (Rock, earth or ii[I) ('~'"~iz-,,-J~. --~:~_.~-'J~'~:,")
~,,~Roads buildings and other paved surfaces
Other (indicate type} Lawn & brush
PRESENTLY
.20
~Rurai (non-fa
AFTER COMPLET]O~
acres O.o1~, acre
acres ~'~.02,. acre
,~cres .-~O,l'~ acre
What is predominant spit type(s) on prolect site?
a. Soil ( rainage: ~¥Vell clrained % at ~ite [~,M<xteratelV well drained 100 % at ~i{e
~Poorly (Iram(,d % ~,i s~tc
If any agricultural land is h~volve(], how many
Land Classification System/ N/A acre's (See 1 NYC/(R 370)
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project sHe~ ~Yes
~. What is depth to bedrockt NflP~ ~H~ ~0' (in feet)
~ I O~P/
2
.~. ~pproximate percentage oi act ~te wld~ slopes ~O-lC °.6 ~ i()-I
~15% or ~reater
6. Is project substantially cont~uous to, or contain a building, sKe. or dis~r~ct, listed on the State or the Natiom
Registers o~ Historic Places? ~Yes ~No
~ 7.~ls projec~ substantially contiguous to a site lis~ed on ~he Re~ster of National Natural Landmarks? ~Yes
~8. What is the depth of :he wa:er table? ~ I~I (in ~eet)
9. Is si~e located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~Yes
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell [ishing opportuni6es presently exist m the proiect area? ~Yes ~No
~11. Does proiect site contain any species o~ plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangerec
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on ~he prolect site? (ia., cliffs, dunes, o~her geological ~ormation
~Yes ~No Describe
13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area
r-]Yes ~No If yes, explain ~
14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the commumty? eYes ~No
None
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name pi: Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16. Lakes. ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name None
,-~17. Is the s~te served by existing public utilities? j~'Yes ~
(
b. Size (In acres)
a} If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~,~es ~_.'qo ~
b] If Yes. will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ~Yes ~__'No
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and ,~4arkets La,v, Article 25-A,
Section 303 and 304? I~Yes J~No
19. Is Lhe site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article ,'
of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 ~Yes [~No
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal pt solid or hazardous wasL'~?, eyes g~No
C
B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controtl~:d by project sponsor ,~6 acres.
,~b, Project. acreage to be developed: ,,4~.~.(~ acres mitiMIy; ~ acres ultimately.
~c. Project acreage to remain ul~deve~oped ~ ~.O acres. ~ ~
,. __
d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (If appropriate)
e. ff the project is an expansion, indicate per(r.nt pi ~,xpan~n proposed None
~f. Number of off-s[ree~ park~n~ spaces ex,slim,. ~ J propr~ed
N/A
I. Dimen¢~ons (in ioet) pi largest proposed structure ~0 i~eigitt: ~7 '.vi{J~h:
j. Linear ~eet pi ironta~e along a public thoroughfare prolec( will occupy is~ 7e
3
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed~ OYes eno ~N/,\
a. If yes. for what intend..,, purpose is the site beinR reclaimed? _ N/A
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? EYes ENo
-- c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? EYes eno
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vesetation be removed by this project?
~Yes ~]No
3
6. if single phase project: Anticipated period of construction
7. If muiti-p~.ased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated N/A {number)
b. Anticioated date of commencement phase I month
c. Approximate completion date of final phase ,., month
d. [s phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? F-lYes
8. Wil[ blastin8 occur durin8 construction~ I~Yes ~No
9. Number of jobs 8enerated: durin8 construction 4
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this proiect None
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?
tons/cubic ,/arc
months, (including demolition).
[~No
year, (includin8 demolitior
year.
' after prolect is complete
~Yes ~No If yes explain
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal invoived~ I-iYes ~No
a. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewase. industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent wdl be discharged ---
~13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? 'l~b'es ~ Type ~f:~.t'~l~.',~
14 Will surface area of an existin~ water body increa_¢e or decrease by proposal~ ~Yes ~No
Explain
1S.
16
17.
18.
19.
20
21.
Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 ',,ear flood plato?
Will the proiect generate solid waste? ~Yes 1
a. If yes, what is the amount per month 117 tons
b. If yes, will an existin~ solid waste facility be used? ~Yes ENo
c. If yes, five name ~,outhold Tn~n Tr'an~oP Rtat~nn; Ioca~bn
d. Will any wastes not 8o into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
e. If Yes, explain
EYes ~:No
Cutchoque
EYes
22.
,.,~ 23
24
Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ~Yes
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? ---
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? --- years.
Will project use herbicides or pesticides? EYes []qNo
ICINo
tons/month.
Will prolect routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)/ EYes ~Nu
Will prolect produce operatinR noise exceeding the local ambient ,oise
Will project result in an increase in ,m,~rgy u~e? ~Yes
If yes , indicate type{s) Minimum in connection with radio transmission
CgNo
It water supply is from w,dl,~, red,cart! ptJnli~llH4 capdcity ~
Total anucipated water usagu per d.W ~ 100 ga[h~.qda~
Does prolect involve Local. State or i~'derai [undJm,,l ~Yes
I[ Yes, explam
f~No
4
,C
C
2.5. Appr~)va[S Required:
City. Town, Village Board i-lYes ~No
City, Town, Village PlanninB Board []Yes ~No
City, Town Zonin=~ Board I~iYes
City, County Health Department I~lYes ~No
Other Local ABencies I-lYes
Other Regional AGencies []]Yes Gq'No
State A~encies eYes ~No
Federal ABencies F"]Yes I-iNa
ype
Submitt;
Date
Town Plannin§ Board-Site Plan 2/12~9;
T~own 7onino Board - Interpretation
- ~ yari~Dce
~mmty H~lth n~pt_-~tm vman
C. Zoning and Planning Information
1. Does proposed action involve a plannin~.or zonin~ decision~ [~Yes []]No
If Yes, indicate decision required:
~zonin~ amendment []]zonin~ variance F"Jspecial use permit f-ls.pbd[visio~ _ r-~site ~ian .
F~new/revision of master plan ~]resource management plan
What )s the zonin§ classification(s)o~ the site? Li0ht Industrial
What )s the maximum potential deve(opment of the site )f deve)oped as permitted by the present
30% coveraqe '~,.,4-~-c> ~.~. a>~ LZ-k~>u.s-r'~--
What is the proposed zonin~ of the site? Light Industrial
What is the maximum potential deve)opment o~ the site if deveioped as permitted by the proposed zoning?
30% covera,ge F-~-~_~x)
Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? I~Yes
What are the predominant land use(s) and zomn~ classifications within a V, mile radius oi proposed
£nmmercial and re(sidential
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adioininB/surroundin8 land uses within a ~4 mile? r~Yes
9. if the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/il
a. What is the minimum Jot size proposed?
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation oi~"~e'a, er or water districts? ["lYes
11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education,
fire protection)? ~Yes I"lNo
a. if yes, is existint~ capacity sufficient to handle proi<."cted demand? F-lYes ~No
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? F-lYes
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to hamlle the additional traffic? (]]Yes I-iNa
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional ini~ormation as may b~: needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adw
impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts arid (he measures which you propose to midBat~
avoid them.
E. Verification
Signalure ~f/~ /~ ~ Title
~ 5
Part 2--PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE
Responsibility of Lead Agency
General Information (Read Carefully)
· In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been
reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
· The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
· The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and
have been offered as guidance, They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
· The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
· In identifying impacts, consider tong term, short term and cumlative effects.
Instructions (Read carefully)
a. Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers.
c, If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the
impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but
threshold is lower than example, check column 1.
d. Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that [t is also necessarily significant.
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance, identifying an impact in column 2 simply
asks that it be looked at further.
e. tf reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.
f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This
must be explained in Part 3.
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
~O [Z]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100
foot of lengthl, or where the general slopes in the project area 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 generaJly 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 1,000
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 to any unique or unusual land forms found on
the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)[]NO
· Specific land forms:
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] J~Yes I~No
[] [] CIYes []No
[] [] •Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes [:]No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] E]Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
J~ [] []Yes []No
IMPACT ON WATER
3 Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)
l~ii~N O []]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Developable area of site contains a protected water body.
· Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a
protected stream.
· Extension of utility distribution 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 water? [NO ~IYES
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
quality or quantity? []NO I-lYES
Examples that would apply to column 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 water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity.
· Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water
supply system.
· Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.
· Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
· Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per
day.
· Proposed Action will Iii(ely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent 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? CINO I-lYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action would change flood water flows.
7
I 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] I--lYes I--}No
[] [] ~Yes ~INo
[] [] I-lYes
[] [] []Yes []N(
[] [] ['-]Yes f-INo
[] [] I-lYes I-]No
[] [] []Yes E~No
[] [] I'-~Yes C~No
[] [] E3Yes I-1~o
[] ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ D DYes ~o
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
· 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? [;~NIO E]YES
Examples that would appJy 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 I 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 hour.
· 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 impacts:
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species? ~[j~O E]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or 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 purposes.
· O[her impacts:
9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or
non-endangered species? ~]NO E]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2 ~,,-~_..~ p~;g~,.o~'-~ ~
· Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resment or
migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
· Proposed Action requires the removal of more 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?
I~N O E]YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural
land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
8
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes I'-I No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] [-"]Yes []No
[] [] i-lYes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] ayes E]No
[] [] []Yes []No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~ No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
I
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] I~Yes ~]No
[] [] I-lYes r-]No
[] [] ~-]Yes r-INo
[] [] F'lYes [:]No
[] [] ~[]Yes
[] [] [~Yes I~No
[] [] ~Yes I-1No
[] [] [~Yes ~]No
[] [] [~Yes F-]No
[] [] ~]Yes [-1No
[] [] I-lYes ~No
[] [] ~Yes I--]No
[] [] FqYes FqNo
[] [] [:]Yes ~No
[] [] F-~Yes ~lNo
· Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of
agricultural land.
· The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres
of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more
than 2..5 acres of agricultural land.
· The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural
land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches,
strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? I-]NO
(If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20,
Appendix B.)
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from
or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether
man-made or natural.
· Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of
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 RESOURCES
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance.~ E]NO ~]YES
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 National Register
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; ~'.~-.~.~-~,"~ ~-----------------~-'~'12.~,~..~'~{'2.~5~
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities~
Examples that would apply to column 2 ~4'qO I-1yFs
· The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
· A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
· Other impacts:
9
IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
14 Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique character-
istics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to
subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)? '[g~O ~YES
List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of
the CEA
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action to locate within the CEA?
· Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource?
· Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource?
· Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enloyment of the
resource?
· Other ~mpacts:
I 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] ~ ~Yes E~No
[] ~___ []Yes E~]No
[] ~ ~Yes
~f~ ~ []Yes ~.-~, N o
[] ~ ~Yes []No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
'~NO fi3YE5
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/ror goods
· Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON ENERGY
16 Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or
energy supply? '~O ~YES
Examples 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 maior commercia] or industrial use
· Other impacts:
10
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
17. Will there be obiectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result
of the Proposed Action? ~NO I~YES
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 Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
· Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise screen.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?
I~NO [~YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· 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:
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existin8 community?
E]NO I~YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· The permanent population of the city, town or village 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 5% per year as a result of this project.
· Proposed action will 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 existing facilities, structures
or areas of historic importance to the community.
· Development will create a demand for additional community services
(e.g. 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'~¢,~,~ ~'~-,-~L.4~ t~ -~.~"~'.~.'~'
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] ~lYes r~No
[] [] ~Yes r-]No
[] [] E]Yes E~No
[] [] I"q Yes E]No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~N0
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~es ~No
20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts.~
[]NO l-lYES
If any action In Part 2 Is Identified as a potential large Impact or if you cannot determine the magnitude of Impact, proceed to Part 3
11
6] 7.20 SEQR
Appendix B
State Environmental Quality Review
Visual EAF Addendum
This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part 2 of
the Full IEAF.
(To be completed by Lead Agency)
Distance Between
Visibility Project and Resource (in Miles)
1. Would the project be visible from: 044 1/4-1/2 I/2-3 3-5 5+
· A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available [] [] [] [] []
to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation
of natural or man-made scenic qualities?
· An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public [] [] [] [] []
observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural
or man-made scenic qualities?
· A site or structure listed on the National or State [] [] [] [] []
Registers of Historic Places?
· State Parks?
· The State Forest Preserve?
· National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges.3
· National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding
natural features?
· National Park Service lands?
· Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic
or Recreational?
· Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such [] [] [] [] []
as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak?
* A governmentally established or designated interstate [] [] [] [] []
or inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for
establishment or designation?
· A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as [] [] [] [] []
scenic?
· Municipal park, or designated open space?
· County road?
· State?
· Local road?
[] [] [] [] []
[] [] [] [] []
[] [] [] [] []
2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal2 (i.e., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other
seasons)
~'Yes []Ho
3. Are any of the regources checked in question ] used by the public during the time of year
during which the project will be visible?
~Yes [] No
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT
4. From each item checked in question 1, check those which generally describe the
environment.
surrounding
Within
· i/~ mile '1 mile
Essentially undeveloped [] []
Forested [] []
Agricultural [] [~
Suburban residential [] []
Industrial ~ []
Commercial [] []
Urban [] []
River, Lake, Pond [] []
Cliffs, Overlooks [] []
Designated Open Space [] []
Flat [] []
Hilly [] []
Mountainous [] []
Other [] []
NOTE: add attachments as needed
5. Are there visually similar projects within:
'1/2 mile []Yes ~]No
*1 miles []Yes ['~No
*2 miles [~Yes []No
'3 miles []Yes I~No
* Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate
EXPOSURE
6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is
NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate.
CONTEXT
7. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is
Activity
Travel to and from work
Involved in recreational activities
Routine travel by residents
At a residence
At worksite
Other
FREQUENCY
Holidays/
Daily Weekly Weekends Seasonally
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
2
NELSON~ POPE & VOORHIS~ LLC
CHARLESJVOORHIS, CERAICPoARTHUR J KOERBEF PE, oVINCENTG. OONNELLY. RE
- VICTOR BERT RE,' JOSEPH B EPIFANIA. RE · ROBERT G NELSON. JR. RE
· CHRISTOPHER W ROBINSON RE
June 3, 1998
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Review of Long KAF
Martin Rose Site Plan Review for Radio Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
SCTM No. 1000-141-3-44
N&P No. 98095
Dear Mr. Oflowski:
JUN 4 1998
Southold Town
Planning Board
As per your request, we have completed apreliminary review of the above referenced project.
Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows:
1. Review Part I LF~dF
The parcel has been field inspected by NP&V. The LEAF has been reviewed and minor revisions
were made as necessary. A copy of same is attached.
2. Prepare Part H LF. AF
The Part H LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information
concerning our findings is included below.
3. Environmental and Planning Considerations
The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have
been consulted. The site consists of 0.264 acres of land in the hamlet of Mattituck in the Town of
Southold. The subject site is located between Sound Avenue and the Long Island Railroad
tracks, approximately 259 feet west of their cross'rog. The parcel is roughly rectangular, with an
existing frame dwelling and garage/shed which are in disrepair.
The proposed action involves site plan application for a proposed radio antenna, as well as
alteration of the existing dwelling for office use. The Town recently passed a new ordinance
governing locatioti of new telecommunication structures within the Town, although the project
sponsor has challenged application of this ordinance to the proposed radio tower. This question
Page 1
Matthew Rosen (~ Mattituck
LEAF Part 1 Review
is currently before the Town Zoning Board, however, conformance to the code will be discussed
herein. If the new code is deemed inapplicable, the proposed project would be regulated as a
permitted use within the district, and would require a rear yard variance for the antenna.
Under the proposed plan, the new radio antenna would be located in the southeastern comer of
the site along the rear property line adjacent to the railroad tracks. The height oftbe tower is not
indicated on either the site plan or within the Long EAF, Part 1, although a fall zone of 91.7 feet
is shown on the plan. It is assumed that the structure would be less than this height. The structure
would have a triangular base measuring 8 feet on each side. Under the proposed plan, the rear
portion of the house would be removed, and the remaining 590 s.f. portion would be renovated
for use as an office. The submitted documents do not indicate whether the partially collapsed
garage would be removed, but it is not shown on the proposed site plan. The existing overgrown
gravel road, which runs along the western side of the house, would be expanded to form a loop
driveway with parking and a second access point to the east. Conceptual landscaping is illustrated
on the site plan, although a formal landscaping plan has not been submitted.
The property is zoned Light Industrial (LI), although the existing 11,500 s.f. lot is less than the
minimum lot size of 40,000 s.f. within the zoning district. The property also fails to meet the
current requirements for minimum lot width and yard setbacks within the zoning district under
existing conditions. The proposed office and antenna are permitted uses within the district.
Geologic Resources
The project site is relatively flat, and there are no wetlands or other significant landforms in the
vicinity. In addition, the proposed disturbance of the subsoils on site will be minimal. Thus,
erosion control measures should not be necessary. The soils on site are Cut and Fill Land, gently
sloping, as delineated by the Suffolk County Soil Survey. These soils are characteristic of areas
where the native soils have been altered by past development. An existing cesspool is shown to
the rear of the house on the site plan. It is assumed that the existing sanitary system is functional
and will be utili,ed, although replacement might be necessary. This would result in only minor
excavation. Thus, the geolog~ of the site should not limit the proposed development, and no
significant impacts are expected.
Water Resources
The elevation of groundwater beneath the subject site is approximately 3 feet above mean sea
level (msl) according to the 1997 SCDHS map, and the topographic eievation is approximately 21
feet above msl according to the USGS quadrangle map. Thus, the depth to groundwater is
approximately 18 feet below the surface. This should not present constraints on the proposed
project. The proposed project will result in a minimal sanitary flow which is less than a typical
residence, and thus, the impact on groundwater resources is expected to be negligible. There are
no surface water, features in the vicinity of the subject site.
Page 2
Matthew Rosen ~ Mattituck
LEAF Part I Review
Ecological Resources
The project site is an overgrown residential property. The site has been cleared and was originally
turfed, although shrubby vegetation is beginning to invade, particularly in the rear yard. Tall
maples and other trees are present on site and along the adjacent property lines, creating a
shaded, enclosed setting. As there is only a limited area of vegetation under existing conditions,
no significant impacts to ecological resources are expected as a result of the proposed project.
The proposed landscaping will minimize the impact of clearing the brushy portions of the site.
Retention of the larger specimen trees on site should be required where possible, both to provide
wildlife habitat and to minimize visual impacts. Large trees should be identified on the site plan
for final approval, with an indication of which can be preserved.
Land Use
The land use in the vicinity of the site is a mix of vacant land, industrial uses and residential
development. The Long Island Railroad right of way bounds the site to the south, and is
approximately 50 feet in width. Other abutting land uses include small residential lots to the east
and west, and a residentially zoned parcel containing an abandoned vegetable packing house to
the south of the railroad. The properties immediately north of the site across Sound Avenue are
currently vacant. To the northeast is a large lumber yard with little visual screening, and to the
northwest are single family homes on lots of approximately ½ acre. Most of the area further to
the west in characterized single family homes, with the exception of a large Agway agricultural
supplier and a vacant office building near the Walnut Avenue intersection. To the east of the
property along Sound Avenue are a single family dwelling, an old potato packing plant, and an
auto service center. The land use is residential to the southeast, with somewhat larger lot sizes,
and a cemetery is present to the southwest.
The project site is zoned for Light Industrial development (L-I), as is most of the surrounding
area on the north side of the railroad. With time, the non-conforming residential uses and vacant
properties within the LI zoning district would be expected to he replaced with office and/or
industrial uses consistent with zoning. The lands to the northwest of the Sound Avenue/Lipco
Road intersection are zoned Residential40 (R40), although most of the existing lots are smaller
than the 40,000 s.f. required within the R-40 district. The properties immediately south of the
railroad are also zoned (R-40), with Residential Office (R0) and General Business (B) zoning
further to the south fronting on Main Road.
As was discussed above, the subject parcel is a preexisting lot which is smaller tbam permitted
under the current LI zoning, as are the abutting properties between the railroad and Sound
Avenue. The industrial development potential of these four lots is likely to be limited unless they
were to be acquired by a single owner and consolidated. The existin8 dwelling, which will be
renovated, does not meet the required setbacks of 50 and 20 feet for the front and side yards,
respectively. In addition, the radio antenna will be located along the rear property line to
minimize visual impacts along Sound Avenue and provide an adequate fall zone, and thus will not
Page 3
Matthew Rosen ~ Mattituck
LEAF Part 1 Review
meet the required 70 foot rear yard setback. A variance will be required for the rear yard setback.
Conformance to Town Code will be determined by the building and planning departments during
site plan review.
The proposed project is therefore marginally consistent with the existing zoning of the property,
however, the small size of the lot makes it difficult to provide adequate buffers from the
surrounding area. The land to the north, east and west is zoned for industrial development,
although only scattered industrial uses are currently present. Thus, only minor land use conflicts
are expected in this area. To the south, the property abuts the Long Island Railroad right of way,
with an abandoned packing plant further to the south. This area is zoned for residential
development, and minor land use 'conflicts could occur in the future if the packing house were
replaced by a residential home. The railroad right of way does act as a buffer, and the existing
vegetation in the area oftbe site offers partial mitigation of the potential land use impaets:
Visual Resources
The subject property and adjacent residential parcels have tall deciduous trees in excess of 50 feet,
as well as dense edge vegetation along the property lines. The site is enclosed by vegetation
during the summer months, and the existing dwelling is only partially visible fi'om Sound Avenue
and the adjacent residential properties. Most individuals viewing the site will be motorists along
Sound Avenue, although the primary concern is the impact to residential properties to the south.
The height of the proposed tower is not indicated within the submitted documents, although it is
assumed that it will be 91.7 feet in height or less based on the fall zone indicated on the site plan.
The top of the structure is expected to be visible to westbound traffic on Sound Avenue, as there
is little vegetation on the properties near the railroad crossing. During the summer, approximately
30 to 40 feet of the antenna should be visible above the trees, and visibility would be greater
during the winter months. Vegetation is more dense to the west of the site, and thus only
intermittent views are likely to be present to eastbound traffic on Sound Avenue. The properties
immediately north of the site are vacant, but the antenna may be partially visible, from the
residential properties to the northwest and the lumberyard to the northeast Most of the
residential parcels to the south and southwest of the site have trees and other vegetation in the
rear yards, which will help screen views of the proposed antenna. Partial views may be present,
particularly from the residences on Pacific Lane to the east which have more open landscaping.
The top of the antenna may also be visible from portions of the cemetery to the southwest.
Renovation of the existing dilapidated building will improve the visual character of the site fi'om
Sound Avenue, although views of the antenna are of concern. The existing vegetation on the site
and adjacent properties is expected to provide substantial mitigation of visual impacts of the
antenna, although it will be partially visible from some perspectives. Relocating the proposed
antenna to the center of the property might slightly improve views to the south, but would make
the antenna much more visible fi'om Sound Avenue and would not provide an adequate fall zone.
The existing vegetation should be retained on site, particularly the larger trees at the rear of the
Page 4
Matthew Rosen ~ Mattltuck
LEAF Part 1 Review
parcel, in order to maximize the existing visual buffer. Additional landscaping, including
evergreen species, could be considered to provide more substantial buffering throughout the year.
Historical Resources
There are several historic structures in the area of the site which have been identified by the
Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities (SPLIA) as having potential historical
significance. The eligibility of these structures for inclusion on the state or federal registers has
not been determined, however, they might be considered significant local landmarks. Structures
within the immediate vicinity of the project site include the Penny House and the potato packing
house east of the site. The Penny House, located approximately 150 feet to the northeast,
remains a residence associated with the adjacent lumber yard. The lumber yard dominates views
of the home, and vegetation on the adjacent property screen views of the structure from the west.
The packing house is located approximately 100 feet east of the site at the Sound Avenue railroad
crossing, and appears to be used for storage. There is little vegetation immediately surrounding
the packing house, permitting clear views from the east and north, although vegetation on the
adjacent parcel limits views from the west.
No direct physical alteration of historic structures is proposed as result of the project, although
the location of an antenna within an historic area might potentially result in an impact to historic
resources. The proposed antenna is expected to be partially visible, particularly during the winter
months, as was discussed above. Only views of the packing house fi'om the west :would be
impacted, and the existing dense vegetation and tall trees will offer substantial mitigation to views
from this perspective. The existing lumber yard already detracts from views of the Penny House,
and the antenna would be located on the opposite side of the road. Thus only minor impacts to
the historic resources within the area are expected.
Other Resources
No traffic impacts are expected as a result of the proposed project, as the site is expected to
generate only one trip per hour during the peak period on local roads. There may be slight noise
and traffic impacts during renovation and construction, but this will be short term. Impacts on
community services such as police, fire and school districts should also be minimal. There will be
a negligible tax increase to provide revenue for community services, and no increase in demand
for services is expected. The structure should be fenced to minimize the potential for vandalism
or trespassing, and a six foot chain link fence is proposed.
Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance
The Town Board recently enacted a new ordinance in response to concern over the cumulative
impacts of siting and proliferation of wireless communication towers within the Town of
Southoid. As was discussed above, the applicant has challenged the application of this law to a
Page $
Matthew Rosen ~ Mattituck
LEAF Part 1 Review
private radio antenna, and this question is currently before the Town Zoning Board. The primary
intent of the new law is to minimize the environmental impacts of communication facilities by
favoring the location of new facilities within industrially zoned areas or co-location on existing
structures. Therefore, consideration of the guidelines incorporated into the draft ordinance is
useful, whether or not the project falls within the regulated definition.
The proposed antenna will be located in an industrially zoned area, as is recommended in the
ordinance. Height is restricted to 100 feet within the LI zoning district, and a fall zone of at least
100 feet must be provided to the nearest dwelling unit. The height of the proposed antenna is not
indicated in the submitted documents, but the structure will be 91.7 feet from the residence on the
property to the east. The Town might therefore wish to restrict the height of the antenna to less
than 90 feet. The ordinance also requires that the setback and lot size requirements within the
district be met, which will not be possible on the proposed project site. A setback of 300 feet to
a designated historic landmark structure is also required. The Penny house and potato packing
house are both within 300 feet of the site. These structures have been recommended for landmark
status, although no determination has been made and only minimal impacts are expected.
In addition, the draft law includes several design standards regulating color, siguage and other
design features. These standards can be considered as mitigation measures for the proposed
project, even though the ordinance may not be directly applicable.
In summary, the primary concerns related to the proposed project are the potential for land use
conflicts with the residential properties to the south, visual impacts, and slight impacts to nearby
historic structures. Impacts to natural resources are expected to be minimal, and the site is zoned
for industrial development, although the lot size and setback requirements within the zone are not
met. The existing vegetation on the site and adjacent properties will offer substantial mitigation of
these impacts, and large trees on the property should be identified for preservation. The board
may wish to have these issues explored in a more detailed Long EAF, Part IH to provide a basis
for determination of significance and to ensure that a hard look is taken at the potential impacts
of the project. The Part IH should include discussion of land use, visual and historic resource
impacts, and should describe protection of existing trees, proposed landscaping, and details on
tower height an use. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this
matter, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Charles I. Voorhis, CEP, AICP
Page 6
PART 1--PROJECT INFOK..,ATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant ef
on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A throu~:h E. Answers to these questions will be considE
-as part of the application for approval and may be subject to turther veriilcation and public review. Provide any additic
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3,
It is expected that completion of the lull EAr will be dependent on. information currently available and will not invc
new studies, research or .nvest~gation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and spe
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
Martin Rosen - Site Plan ApprOval
Martin Rosen
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
(516~ 369-8200
A~orney
AOORESS
3472 Weidner Avenue
Oceanside NY 11572
Ollie Booker, Clarena Booker, et al. t ~
Cl~/PO j STATE j ~PCCOE
0~SCmPT~O. O~ACT~O.
Approval of site plan for business office and radio tower
Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. ii not applicable
A. Site Description
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: F'lUrban F'llndustrial I-]Commercial Im~.,.esidential (suburban) ~Rural {non-la
r'lForest ~Agriculture rgOther Aband~ne~' R~sidence
2. Total acreage of project area: .26 acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETIOr
Meadow or Brushland {Non-agricultural) acres acre
Forested acres acre
Agricultural {Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acre
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as pet' Articles 24. 25 pt ECL] acres acre
Water Surface Area . acres acre
~. Unvegetated (Rock, earth ar fill) (T'~iZ..,,.I~_ -'~'E,~-gl~'J~'~ ~.oI acres O.~1~ acre
'~ Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces ,~"o. ~ acres ~*~), 0:2.. acre
Other (indicate type) Lawn & brush .20 acres ~ O' I~ acre
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site?
a. Soil drainage: ~Well drained % of ~ite ~derately well drained 100 ,o of s~te
~Poorl¥ (Iram~,d % ~)~ Slt(~
b If any agricultural land is revolved, how runny a<:rt,s
Land Classification Systemi N/A acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370).
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on pro~ect si(e? ~Yes
~- What is depth to bedrock? M~ [UR~ ~0' (in feet)
2
j. Approx,mate percentage opposed prolect ~te w,~h slopc~ ~lO-l( 100 % '-q II)-15%
~15% or greater
6. Is project substantially contiguous to. or contain a bm[ding, s~te, or district, listed on the State or the Nation
Registers of Historic Places~ ~Yes ~No
~ 7.-ls project substantially contiguous to a stte listed on the Re~ister o~ National Natural Landmarks? ~Yes
~8. What is the depth o~ the water table? ~ I~' {in feet}
9. Is site located over a primal, principal, or sole source aquifer~ ~Yes ~No
10. Po hundng, fishing or shell fishing opportumties presently exist m the proiect area~ ~Yes ~No
~11. Does project site contain any species o[ plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangerec
According to ~b ~ ~t~ [~o~k)~tT~O~
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land fo~ms on the prolect site~ (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological ~ormation
Oescribe
13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation are~
~Yes ~No If yes. explain ,
14. [Does the present site incJude scenic views known to be important to the community?
I-lYes ~No
None
15. Streams within or contiguous to prolect area:
a. Name o~ Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16.
18.
19.
20.
Lakes. ponds, wedand areas within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name Non~ b. Size (tn acres)
Is the site served by existin§ public utilities? J~'Yes
a} ff Yes, does sui:ficient capacity exist to allow connection?
b) if Yes. will improvements be necessary to allow connection? l~]Yes ~.'No
Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Article 2S-A,
Section 303 and 304? l-lYes ~lNo
Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Enviromnental Area designated pursuant to Article
of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 OYes I~No
Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous was~?. I-iYes ~No
C
B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensinns as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlh:d by project sponsor
d.
g.
Proiect. acreage to be developed: ,~.~.~ acres initinlly; "~ acres ultimately.
Project acreage to remain undeve!oped ~ ~.O acres.._/'-/ ~
Length of project, in miles: ~/A (If appropriate)
If the proiect is an exDansio., indicate pef~-ont of ~,xpan~<m proposed ~one
Number of off-street parking space~ ex,stint ~ I ; prop~sed
In,tially
,. Oimenl,ons (in ieet) oi largest propns~d sm~cture 20 . height 27 wahh: ~ length
j. Linear ~eet o~ ~ronta~e along a public thoroughfare prolec~ will occupy ,si 7~ ~t.
. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? OYes GNa
a. If yes, for what intend..., purpose is the site bein~ reclaimed? N/A
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? OYes
· - - c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation,~ OYes ~No
Ions/cubic yarc
year. (including demolitior
year.
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees. shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? None acres.
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this proiect?
EYes
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 3 months, (including demolition).
7. If multi-phased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated N/A (number)
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month
c. Approximate completion date of final phase month
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? OYes I"~No
8. Will blasting occur during construction?
9. Numoer of jobs generated: during construction 4 ; after prolect is complete 1
10. Number of lobs eliminated by this proiect None
11. Will project require relocation of any proiects or facdities~ eYes l~No If yes, explain
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? I~Yes
a. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent wdl be discharged ---
~13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? l~es ~ Type
14, Wile suriace area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? EYes ~]No
Explain
1S. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood piain? OYes ~No
1G. Will the project generate solid waste? ~]Yes 1 F-IN°
a. If yes. what is the amount per month 1~ tons
b. If yes. will an existing solid waste facility be used? ~]Yes
c. If yes. give name ~0uthold Tnwn tran~f~- ~;+atinn: Ioca~'~n
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
e. If Yes, explain
17.
18.
19.
20.
Cutchoque
FqYes ~lNo
22.
...~ 23
24.
Will the project involve the disposal o~ solid waste? ,[.1Yes
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? ---
b. tl~ yes, what is the anticipated site life? --- years.
Will project use herbicides or pesticides? OYes
~]No
tons/month.
Will project routinely produce odors (more than on(~ hour per day)/ OYes
Will project produce operating: noise exceedim; the I,~cal ambient noise htvuls?
Will prolect result in an increase in ~:..rrRy u~? ~Yes
If yes , indicate type(s) Minimum in connection with radio transmission
L~No
Total anticipated wa((:r usage per (ldy '/-' 100 gaUo.s/day
It Yes, explain
g,,llunsi~y
~No
4
C
25. Appr()¥ais Required:
City, Town, Village Board I~Yes ~No
City. Town. Village Planning Board I~Yes ~]No
City, Town Zoning Board (~Yes
City, County Health Department I~lYes C3No
Other Local Agencies [~Yes
Other Regional Agencies I-iYes I-]No
State Agencies F-lYes I-]No
Federal Agencies I~,Yes (~]No
C. Zoning and Planning Information
Type
Submitt;
Date
Town Plannin~ Board-Site Plan 2/12~9;
Town 7onino Board - InternrPtation
- ~ . ~¥ari~oce
~nunty N~alth u~pt.-~t~ vman
1. Does proposed action involve a plannin§ or zonin8 decision? {~Yes ~lNo
If Yes, indicate decision required:
Ozoning amendment I'~zoning variance ~]special use permit [~s~.Jbdjvisiop _ Osite alan .
zo~ e e
~new/revision of master plan ~reso.rce management plan ~Other ~P~a~ ~ ~v~
2. Wha~ is ~he zonin8 classification(s)o~ ~he site¢ LiQht Industrial
What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning~
30~ c0veraqe ~,4~ ~-~- ~ ~~ ~N~
4.What is the proposed zonin~ o~ the site~ Light lndlJ~trin]
~. What is the maximum potential development oi the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zonin~
30~ coverage 6~
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans~ ~Yes ~
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '4 mile radius o~ proposed ~tion~
gnmmPrcial and reisident(al
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoinin~surroundin~ land uses within a '4 mile~ ~Yes ~
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed~ N/a
a. What is the minimum [et size proposed~
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of'~er or water districts~ ~Yes ~
11. Wil] the proposed action create a demand ~or any community provided services (recreation, education, poi
fire protection)~ ~Yes ~No
a. If yes, is existin~ capacity sufficient to handle proi~cted demand~ ~Yes ~No
12. Will the proposed action result in the ~eneration o~ traffic si~nificandy above present levels~ ~Yes ~
a. I~ yes, is the existin~ road network adequate to handle the additional traffic~ ~Yes ~No
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may b(~ needed to c[.trify your proiect. I[ lhere are or may be any adv~
impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and ll~e measures which yo~ propose to midBat(
avoid d~em.
E. Verification
I Certify that the inform,]tion provid(.d ahow' [s truer to th(' [3est o~ my knowled~c..
Ro..n Z/ ee
Signature ~//~(/I/~ ~ Title
wilh Ihls assessment.
Part 2--PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE
Responsibility of Lead Agency
General Information (Read Carefully)
· In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been
reasonable! The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
· The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and
for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate
for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3.
· The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
· The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
· In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects.
Instructions (Read carefully)
a, Answer each of the 20 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 the
.impact, If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but
threshold Is lower than example, check column 1.
d. Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant.
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply
asks that It be looked at further,
e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.
f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate
impact, also check the Yes box in column 3, A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This
must be explained in Part 3.
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change t? the project site?
~NO OYES
Examples 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 area 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 8round 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 1,000
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 to any unique or unusual land forms found on
the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)I-'IN• C1YES
· Specific land forms:
I 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] ~lyes ONo
[] [] []Yes ONo
[] [] OYes ON•
[] [] OYes []]No
[] Fl []Yes J~No
[] [] r-lyes r-lNo
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes []No
[] [] []Yes r-iN•
[] [] J~] Yes []No
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL
DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Developable area of site contains a protected water body.
· Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a
protected stream.
· EXtension of utility distribution 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 water? DNO []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:
$. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater
quality or quantity? [~NO DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.
· Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not
have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
· Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity.
· Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water
supply system.
· Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.
· Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently
do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
· Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per
day.
· Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent 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? ENO I-lyES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action would change flood water flows.
7
1 2 r 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] E~Yes I-]No
[] [] [-']Yes [-~No
[] [] J-lYes ~]No
[] [] I-lYes I-1No
[~ [] ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
D ~ DYes
~ ~ ~Yes
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
· Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion.
· Proposed Action is incompatible with existing draina§e patterns,
· Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will proposed action affect air quality? ~J~lO fi]YES
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 hour.
· Proposed action witl 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 impacts:
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered
species? ~ii~.N O r-lYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal
list, usin§ the site, over or near site or found on the site.
· Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.
· Applica{ion of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other
than for agricultural purposes.
· O(her impacts:,
9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or
non-endangered species~ I-INO I-lYES
Examples that would apply to column 2 ~,,~*~,~ pg:u'~ ~
· Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or
migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
· Proposed Action requires the removal of more 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~
[~[NO r-lYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural
land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
8
I 2 3
Small to Potential i Canlmpact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] EJYes f-lNo
[] [] r-lyes i--INo
[] [] F-lyes i--INo
[] [] i-lYes E~No
[] [] i-lYes [-INo
[] [] [-]Yes I-]No
[] [] E:]Yes E3No
E] [] I-lYes I-]No
[] [] [=]Yes 1-iNo
[] [] ['-lYes I-]No
[] [] i-lyes E]No
[] [] E]Yes [:]No
[] [] i--lYes l-]No
[] [] i-lyes [-]No
~'~[g [] DYes [~No
[] [] i-lyes I-1No
[] [] [-]Yes E~No
I 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] [] E]Yes [~]No
[] [] I-lYes E]No
[] [] I--lYes I-)No
[] [] I-lyes ~]No
[] [] ~Yes f-lNo
[] [] I-lyes ~No
[] [] J-lYes ~No
[] [] E]Yes F-INo
[] [] f-lYes I-)No
[] I'-I i-lyes E]No
[] [] E)Yes E]No
[] [] ~Yes E]No
[] [] I-lyes I'-I N o
[] [] I-lyes I--INo
[] [] I-lyes i'-INo
· Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of
agricultural land.
· The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres
of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more
than 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
· The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural
land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches,
strip cropping); or create a need for such measures {e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? I-INo I~',YES
(If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20,
Appendix B.)
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from
or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether
man-made or natural.
· Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of
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 RESOURCES
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance? I-1NO J~YE$
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 National Register
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 opportunities?
Examples that would apply to column 2 ~J,WO J-lYES
· The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
· A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
· Other impacts:
9
IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
14 Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or umque character-
istics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to
subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(8) ? J~,NO E]YES
List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of
the CEA
Examples that would apply to column 2
· Proposed Action to locate within the CEA?
· Proposed Action will result m a reduction in the quantity of the resource?
· Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource?
· Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the
resource?
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
15 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
I~NO [~YES
Examples 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
16 Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or
energy supply? ~J~f4~l O []YES
Examples 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:
10
I 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
[] ~ []Yes ~]No
[] ? []Yes E~No
[] ~ ~Yes ~No
[] ~ ~Yes ~No
[] ~ ~Yes ~-]No
[] ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~ ~Yes ~No
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
17. Will there be obiectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result
of the Proposed Action? ~NO DYES
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 Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
· Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise screen.
· Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?
~NO [3YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· 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
discharse or emission.
· Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any
form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, hi§hly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc.)
· Stora§e facilities for one million or more 8allons 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 impact~:
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
E]NO I~YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
· The permanent population of the city, town or villase in which the
project is located is likely to 8row by more than 5%.
· The municipal buds[et for capital expenditures or operatin8 services
will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project.
· Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or 8oals.
· Proposed action will cause a chanse in the density of land use.
· Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures
or areas of historic importance to the community.
· Development will create a demand for additional community services
(e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
· Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects.
· Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.
· Other impacts: iB~,l'~l~.
Small to
Moderate
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Potential Can Impact Be
Large Mitigated By
Impact Project Change
[] ['-lYes []No
[] OYes []No
[] []Yes []No
[] []Yes ONo
[] []Yes []No
[] []Yes []No
[] [-']Yes []No
[] E]Yes FINo
[] ~Yes ~N0
~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~Yes
~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~Yes ~o
~ ~Yes ~No
~ ~.s DNo
20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts;~
nNo DYES
If any action In Part 2 is identified as a potential large Impact or il you cannot determine the magnitude of Impact, proceed to Part 3
11
617.20
Appendix B
State Environmental Quality Review
Visual EAF Addendum
SEQR
This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question ] 1 of Part 2 of
the Full EAF.
(To be completed by Lead Agency)
Distance Between
Visibility
Project and Resource (in Miles)
0-Ys ]/~-Y2 Y2-3 3-5 5+
1. Would the project be visible from:
· A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available
to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation
of natural or man-made scenic qualities?
· An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public [] [] [] [] []
observation, enjoyment and appreciation of naturaI
or man-made scenic qualities?
· A site or structure listed on the National or State [] [] [] [] []
Registers of Historic Places?
· State Parks? [] [] [] [] []
· The State Forest Preserve? [] [] [] [] []
· National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges? [] [] [] [] []
· National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding [] [] [] [] []
natural features?
· National Park Service lands? [] [] [] [] []
· Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic [] [] [] [] []
or Recreational?
· Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such [] [] [] [] []
as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak?
· A governmentally established or designated interstate [] [] [] [] []
or inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for
establishment or designation?
· A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as [] [] [] [] []
scenic?
· Municipal park, or designated open space? [] [] [] [] []
· County road? [] [] [] [] []
· State? [] [] [] [] []
· Local road? ~' [] [] [] []
2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (i.e., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other
seasons)
~Yes []No
3. Are any of the resources checked in question ] used by the public during the time of year
during which the project will be visible?
[] No
DESCRIPTION £ ISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT
4. From each item checked in question 1, check those which generally describe the
environment.
surrounding
Within
'1/4 mile '1 mile
Essentially undeveloped [] []
Forested [] []
Agricultural [] ~,
Suburban residential [] []
industrial ~ []
Commercial [] []
Urban [] []
River, Lake, Pond [] []
Cliffs, Overlooks [] []
Designated Open Space [] []
Flat [] []
Hilly [] []
Mountainous [] []
Other [] []
NOTE: add attachments as needed
5, Are there visually similar projects within:
'1/2 mile [-~ Yes []No
miles [~Yes [~]No
miles {~]Yes []No
miles []Yes []No
* Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate
EXPOSURE
6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is
NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate.
CONTEXT
7. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is
Activity
Travel to and from work
Involved in recreational activities
Routine travel by residents
At a residence
At worksite
Other
FREQUENCY
Holidays/
Daily Weekly Weekends Seasonally
Bernadette Castro
Commissioner
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau
Peebles island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189
Attn: R.G. Kassner
May 27, 1998
518-237-8643
JUN 1 1998
Southold Town
PLanning Board
Re: SEQRA
Rosen Renovate SFD/Radio Tower
T/Southold, Suffolk Co.
98PR1448
Dear Mr. Kassner:
The office of Par~s, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPR~P) has
received the documentation you provided on your project. As the state
agency responsible for the coordination of the State's historic preservation
programs, including the encouragement and assistance of local preservation
efforts, we offer the following comments.
We are unable to clearly locate the project from the information
submitted. Please submit the address of the subject property and a USGS
topographical map, or map of similar scale, clearly indicating the project
location.
In addition, please submit original photographs of structures in the
project area or on adjacent parcels that may have been built prior to 1948
so that we may assess the potential impact of this proposal on historic
resources. The site plan shows a radius line at 89' 6" from the tower base;
is this the height of the proposed tower?
Please note that if any state Agency is involved in this undertaking, it
is appropriate for that agency to determine whether consultation should take
place with OPP~{P under Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation Law. In addition, if there is any federal agency
involvement, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations,
"Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" 36 CFR 800 require that
agency to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO).
If you have any questions regarding this review, please call me at (518)
Please refer to project number 98PR1448 in any
237-8643, extension 283.
future correspondence.
~. erely~
Program Analyst
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency
~ printed on recycled paper
PLANNING BOARD M~MBE
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM,
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Gerard P. Goehringer
Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer~--
Request for comments:
T. Petikas
Riverhead Building & Supply
M. Rosen Radio Tower
Nextel Communications
AMAC/ Former Empire Service Station
T. Petikas
· Recommend that Suffolk County Department of Public Works be
notified as we understand that road work is planned for Route
48.
Riverhead Building & Supply
· See attached memo dated April 1, 1998.
Rosen Radio Tower
· Board feels that Town Code Article XVI, 100-160, Wireless
Communication Facilities applies to this use.
Nextel Communications
· Board favors this collocation of antenna.
AMAC/former Empire Service Station
· See attached memo dated March 10, 1998
Attachments
PLANNING BOARD M~MBERS
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCI-IIE LATH,aM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Soutlaold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
May 8, 1998
Charles Voorhis
Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC
572 Walt Whitman Rd.
Melville, NY 11747
Re: Review of EAF for Martin Rosen - ofl~ce and radio tower
SCTM# 1000- 141-3-44
Dear Mr. Voorhis:
The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Environmental Assessment Form for
the above mentioned subdivision to your ofi~ce for review. A~so enclosed are:
Site plan dated March 3. 1998
Planning Board resolution dated March 17, 1998
The Planning Board started the lead agency coordination process on March 16, 1998. The
$400 review fee has been submitted by the applicant, If all is in order, the Board will make
their SEQRA determination at the June 15, 1998 public meeting. Please submit your report
no later than June 5, 1998 in order for the Board to review it before the meeting date.
The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover.
Please contact this orifice if there are any questions regarding the above,
Sincerely,
Bennett Orlowski, Ir.
Chairman
enc.
PLANNING BOARD MEMB~,'I~S
BENNETT ORLOWSK/, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request
Dear Reviewer:
The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental
Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR
Part 617 the following:
1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below;
2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and
3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated.
Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response.
5'~'T,~,C-tooo-/¥J- 3-
Requested Action:
SEQRA Classification: ( ) Type I
{~ Unlisted
Contact Person:
Page 2
Lead Agency Coordination Request
The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (ELS)
on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in
writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency.
Planning Board Position:
(~) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action.
( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency
status for this action.
( ) Other (see comments below)
Comments:
Please feel free to ~nta~ this office for fu~her information.
Sincerely,
Ghai~an
cc: ~Board of Appeals
~. Building Department
Southold Town Board
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
NYSDEC - Stony Brook
NYSDEC - Albany
o u lc Works
.......... , ,~, ~, ,~,,,, v,,,o~= Ad~r, inlstrator-
S~olk County Water Authority_ ,
~ ~Y.~'. oFIc~ ~F P~P~, ~'~C~nT~O~,+ fll~T~/c ?~ ~v~r/°'YL~?~)
~aps are enclosed for your review rev. 4~94
PART 1--PROJECT INFOL ON
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant ef
on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these quesuons will be consid~
-as part of the application for approval and may be subiect to further verification and public revmw. Provide any additi~
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full EAr will be dependent on information currently available and will not inw
new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such .~dditionaI work ,s unavailable, so indicate and spe
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
Martin Rosen - Site Plan Appr0val
NAME OF APPUCANTISPONSOR
Martin Rosen
AODRES$
eUSINESETELEPNONE
(516J 36g-~200
A~orney
3472 Weidner Avenue
STATE t ZIP CODE
OT~tPO Oceanside NY 11572
Ollie Booker, Clarena Booker, et al.
~USIN ESE TELEPHONE
( )
ADDRESS
OESCR(PTION OF AOTION
Approval of site plan for business office and radio tower
Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. il not applicable
A. Site Description
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: I'-IUrban f-Ilndustria[ I-1Commercial
I-IForest []Agriculture F~Other
2. Total acreage of proiect area: .26 acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE
Meadow or Brushland [Non-agricultural)
Forested
Agricultural {Includes orchards, crop(and, pasture, etc.)
Wetland (Fresi~water or tidal as per Articles 24, 2~ o(ECL)
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated {Rock, earth or fill)
Roads. buddinos and other paved surfaces
Other (Indicate type) Lawn & brush
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on pro)ect site?
a. Soil drainage: ~Vell drained % of ~ite
{-~-~Poor(',' (Ira,m,d % (,~ sit(:
I~J~.,_esiden rial [suburban)
Abandone~' Residence
~Rural (non-fo
PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETIOr
· 06 acres .06 acre
.20 acres .20 acre
[~,Moderately well drained 100 % of site
Land Classification System/ ~/A acres (See 1 NYCRR 370)
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on prolect site?
..~. What is depth to bedrock? MOP~ [haft EO' [in feet)
2
5. ,\pproxm~ate percenta~4e o~ :~rolect ~l[e wld~ slope~ ~U-1L J00 % ~'I()-t5% o
~15% or ~reater
6. Is proiect substantially cont~uous ~o. or contain a buildinB, site. or district, listed on the State or ~he Nationa
Re~istefs of Historic Places? ~Yes
~7.-Is project substantially contiauous Lo a site listed on the Re~ster pt National Natural Landmarks? ~Yes
8. What is the depth pi ~he water table~ ]~ (in feet)
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~Yes
10. Do hunting, fishin~ or shell fishin~ opportunities presently exist in the project area? ~Yes ~No ·
11. Opes project site contain any species of plant or animal Ji~e that is identified as threatened or endan~erec
Accotdin~ to
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, other geological formation:
Oescribe
13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area
~Yes ~]No If yes, explain
14. l)oes the present site include scenic views known to be important to the commumt¥?
I-lYes
None
15. Streams within or contiBuous to prolect area:
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16. Lakes. ponds, wetland areas within or contil]uous to project area:
a. Name None b. Size (in acres}
17. Is the site served by existin~ public utilities? ~Yes ~No
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection~ ~,Yes I-No
b) If Yes. will improvements be necessary to allow connection? rYes .~.No
18. Is the site located in an a~ricultural district certified pursuant to ~\ariculture and ,Markets Law, Article
Section 303 and 304? r-lYes
19. Is the site located in or substantially contiauous to a Critical £nvironmentai Area desi§nated pursuant to Article
of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 6177 I-lYes I'~No
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wasZ-"a6?. ~Yes [~No
C
B. Project Description
1, Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total conti~uous acreage owned or controlh~d by proiect sponsor ,26 acres.
b. Proiect acreage to be deve(oped: .06 acres initi;dly; acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeve(oped ~ acres.
d. Length o~ project, in miles: N/A (1(appropriate)
e. ii the project is an expansion, indic3te per(~'nt of ~,xpans.~m prol)osed None eG:
f. Number of o(~-street parkm~ spaces ex~stimt 2 prop()~ed ~
N/A
m. Oimens~ons (;n ieet) pi largest proposed slructure 20 height; ~7 w~dlh: ~ ,. Ic'nRth.
j. Linear ~eet of ironta~e alon~ a public thoroughfare Orolect will occuoy is~ 7~ ~t.
3
3, will disturbed areas be reclaimed? C1Yes
a. I[ yes. for what intend..: purpose is the site bein~ reclaimed? N/A
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? GYes ~No
-- c. will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? EYes ~No
tons/cubic yarc
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from si[e? None acres.
fi. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
I-IYes ~]No
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 3 months, (including demolition).
7. If multi-p~ased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated N/A (number)
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month
c. Approximate completion date of final phase . month
d. is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? (~]Yes
8. Will blasting occur durin8 construction? [Yes I~No
9. Number of lobs generated: durin8 construction 4
10. Number of jobs el'iminated by this oroiect None
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or ~aciiit~es?
[]]No
year, (including demoiitio~
year.
; after prelect is complete 1
EYes (~No if yes explain
12. is surface liquid waste disposal involved? Iq, Yes '~No
a. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which e~fluent will be discharged ---
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? EYes (~No Type
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal?
Explain
EYes
15.
16.
Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plato? []Yes ~]No
Will the project generate solid waste? E'~Yes I GNp
a. If yes, what is the amount per month ITl tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ~Yes f'qNo
c. If yes. give name $outh01d Tn~n Tr'nn~f~r' ~;tn'l"inn; loca~]'bn Cutch0que
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? f~Yes
e. If Yes, explain
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ,~qYes
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? ---
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? --- years.
Will project use herbicides or pesticides? []Yes (~,No
~]No
tons/month.
Will project routinely prdduce odors (more dian one hour Her day)~ []Yes J~No
Will project produce operatim~ noise exceedim; the local ;illlJ)iefl[ iiolse h:v~is? ~Yes
I~ yes . indicate typ~s) ~n~u~ in connecti0n with radio transmission
L~No
22. I[ waler supply i~ from w,dl% mdiC,~tt! pUfllI~lIl~ cap,~clty 150
23 Total anticipated water usagu per (Jay ]00 gailoi*s/day
24 Does ~rolect involve Local. State or I,.de~al [undim~/ ~Yes
If Yes. explain
md hm s/~v~O~p er s o n / d ay
4
City, Town, v,Ilage Board []Yes ~No
City. Town. Village Planning Board P~iYes r-lNg
City, Town Zoning Board I~iYes ENo
City, County Health Department (ii'Yes
Other Local Agencies I-lYes ENo
Other Regional Agencies EYes F-~No
State Agencies ~Yes
Federal Agencies i-]Yes []]No
ype
Submitt~
Date
Town Planninq Board-Site Plan 2/12~9E
Town Zonlno Board - Interpretation 1/?q/qF
- yari~nce
£nunty Hmalth D~pt.-Slte Plan
C. Zoning and Planning Information
I. Does proposed action involve a planning.or zoning decision~ [3Yes ENo
. If Yes. indicate decision required:
I-lzoning amendment ['~zoning variance E]special use permit E]s~bdivisiom _ ~Sitl~mP1_lan .
~o e e 1
Onew/revision of master plan []]resource mana~emem: plan k-'lother ~)&P~a~B~ ~i~ ~q'~ ,~ova
2. YVhat is the zoning ciassification(s)of the site? Light Industrial
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by ;he present zoning?
30% coveraqe
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Light Industrial
5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
30% coverage
C
C
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~Yes
7. What are the predominant [and use(s) and zoning classifications within a 'A mile radius of proposed
£nmm~r~.ial and re i_~id~ntial
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adioining/surroundin~ land uses within a ~A mile? I~Yes
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots a~e proposed? N/a
a. What is the minimum Io1: size proposed?
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of'3e~,er or water districts.~ []]Yes
11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, poi
fire protection)? I--lYes ENo
a. If yes. is existing capacity sufficient to handle proje-cted demand? EYes ~No
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? EYes
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? G-lYes [-INo
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may b(~ needed to cl.~ril'y your project. If there are or may be any adv(
impacts associated with yo(Ir proposal, please discuss such impa(:ts and the measures which you' propose to m~cigat(
avoid d~em.
E. Verification
,\ppl,canb'S[x)~.jN.,me o Mar~i~n Rosen O.~te Z/ .~_
0HARLE$ R. 0UDDY
May 1, 1998
Planning Board
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York
11971
Attn: Robert Kassner
Re: Martin Rosen - Office & Radio Tower
SCTM 1000-141-03-0~.000
Dear Mr. Kassner:
Enclosed is the long environmental assessment form. The applicant
has previously paid a $400 fee and understands the submission of
the LEAF will permit review by the Town's consultant. While we
reiterate our position that further review should not be necessary
we do not wish to further delay a determination in this matter.
Please confirm that the SEQRA process will now move forward.
CRC:ejc
Enc.
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Cudd~/
MAt' 0 4 19~8
Southold Town
Planning Board
Submission Without a Cover Letter
Sender:
Subject:
SCTM#: lO00. 1~1-b-H~t
Date:
Comments: ~t~O0 ~F- ~
APR ~ 4 l~d
Southold Town
Planning Board
Robert G. Kassner,
Page Two
April 3, 1998
Site Plan Reviewer
Radio Tower Building Alteration
Sound Ave., Mattituck, New York
Tax Map ~ 1000-141-03-04~
This application is approved as submitted subject to the
following conditions:
* Maintain residential character of the building°
* Add Corner Boards to the siding.
* Add Frieze Board and Rake Board Detail to the
exterior finish.
* Add 4" casing detail around exterior of all windows
and doors.
Raphael Vineyard
Main Road, Peconic, New York
Tax Map # 1000-85-03-11
The submitted plans and elevation drawings were reviewed in
detail as to their relationship with surrounding residential
and agricultural structures in accordance with Chapter 100
Section 100-257-B of the zoning code. The consensus of the
committee was that the proposed building is markedly
dissimilar in both scale and architectural style for this
site.
It is our recommendation that the project be resubmitted with
an overall design more sympathetic with the surrounding
community. In addition we suggest consideration be given to
the following:
* Reduce the width of the building and increase the
front yard setback or Rotate it 90 degrees to
minimize the impact of the front elevation.
* Substantially reduce the amount of parking in the
front yard possibly relocating it to the side
yards and increase the depth of the landscaped
buffer along the front property line.
Upon receipt of the above, the Committee will re-convene and
respond to the Board with its comments.
Very truly yours,
Garrett A. Strang, Architect
Co-Chairman ARC
GHAttL~ IR. GUDDY
March 19, 1998
Planning Board
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York
11971
Re: Martin Rosen - site plan for radio tower
SCTM 1000-141-03-044.000
Dear Board Members:
For your records I am enclosing a copy of the elevations of the
frame building which is to be renovated by Mr. Rosen. The rear
part of the building is to be demolished and the balance will be
refinished as shown. The building will be appropriately
landscaped. The building will in part be used to store equipment
in connection with the radio tower to be operated at this site and,
also be used as an office in connection with Mr. Rosen's business.
Very truly yours,
Charles R.
CRC:ejc
Enc.
MAR
Southold Town
Planning Board
PLANNING BOARD M~EMBERSe
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
March 17, 1998
Charles R. Cuddy, Esq.
P.O. Box 1547
Riverhead, NY 11901
Re:
Proposed site plan for radio tower for Martin Rosen
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
Dear Mr. Cuddy:
The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a
meeting held on Monday, March 16, 1998:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency
coordination process on this unlisted action.
The Planning Board has determined that this action is an unlisted action
because it is not a Type I action and is excluded from the Type II list under
SEQRA, 617.5; therefore the Planning Board will conduct a coordinated review
and will require a Long Environmental Assessment Form and a consultant
review fee of $400.00.
The SEQRA coordination time frame will start upon receipt of the LEAF and
$400 review fee.
Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above.
Sincerely,
Chairman
(3HAI:LLE$1~. G~T:D:DY
~TTOI~NEY AT LAW
March 16, 1998
HAR 16 1998
Planning Board
Southold Town
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Plalm h-t§ Board
Re: Martin Rosen - Private Radio Tower
Dear Board Members:
I received a message with respect to the application of Martin
Rosen to construct a radio tower on a parcel in Mattituck
indicating that an environmental long form and a check were
required for the Town environmental consultant. This was on the
basis that a further environmental review is required since this is
a sensitive matter.
I am at a loss to understand the "sensitivity" of this project. A
tower is a permitted use in the light industrial zone of the Town
of Southold. The parcel is in the light industrial zone. This
fact has been confirmed by the Building Department. Within the
past two months the Town has enacted legislation permitting towers
up to 100 feet in height. This tower is 85 feet. Undoubtedly, the
Town conducted an environmental evaluation with respect to this new
provision of the Town Code and found it appropriate to continue to
have transmission towers up to 100' in height in this zone.
It is difficult to believe that when SEQRA permits 4,000 square
foot buildings to be exempted, a tower with a base of eight feet
becomes the subject of environmental scrutiny under the site plan
procedure. This is particularly inappropriate based upon the
Planning Board's issuance of negative declarations to significant
projects like the Riverhead Building Supply application to enlarge
a building by 50,000 square feet.
I must suggest to you that the cost and delay occasioned by further
environmental evaluation is not only unfair to this applicant who
seeks approval for a private radio tower, but indicates a prejudice
against the very use now adopted in the Town Code. This
application'concerns a radio tower which has always been permitted
Planning Board
Southold Town
March 16, 1998
Page 2
as an accessory use. Whether the present application is
denominated a radio tower as an accessory to a private business use
or a telecommunications use, there is no apparent reason for
subjecting it to any further environmental scrutiny.
SEQRA requires environmental reviews for towers more than 100' in
height only. The Town has already made the determination with
respect to aesthetics when it permitted towers in industrial areas.
I know of no other objection since the parcel is not contiguous to
tidal wetlands, fresh water wetlands, the shoreline or any other
ecologically sensitive areas.
If this is a determination by the Planning Board then I ask you to
provide reasons for subjecting this application to a review which
appears to have no basis in fact.
Very truly yours,
CRC:JML
Enclosure
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765 - 1800
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box t179
Southold, New York 11971
SOUTHOLD TOWN
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Date: April 14, 1998
To: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Southold Town Landmark Commission/John Greene
Re: Cellular Towers and Historic Properties U'nder Federal and State Law
Please refer to the enclosed Section 106 Rcvicw I'roccss tbr "Undertakings" under
Federal Law. Specifically on page 5 the definition of an "Undertaking" according to
Federal Law means:
"...any project, activity, or program that can resull in changes
in the character of or use of historic properties... The prnject,
activity, or program must be under the direct or indirect jurisdiction
of a Federal agency or licensed or assisted by ~ 17cderal agency."
Furthermore an "Historic Property" means (see page 4 of attachment):
"...any prehistoric or historic digtrict, site, building; structure,
or object included in, or eligible tbr inchlsion in, thc National
Register."
I believe the operative issues with respect to either cclltdar or broadcast towers are that
they are regulated and licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and
therefore fall under the definition of an "undertaking" under Federal Historic Preservation
Law. Similarly, the Federal Law is quite specific about the definition of an "Historic
Property" in specifically stating "eligible."
I believe site review for these types of towers is rCClmrcd by an "Agency Official" as
stated on page 4 of the Section 106 Review lh'occss. I'his is apparently something yott
should suggest to Bell Atlantic before any further ~tc'li(ms: ;lie taken.
Please feel free to contact me with any further qttcsli~m::.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1802
OFFICE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
FROM: Edward Forrester, Building Department ,~
DATE: March 11, 1998
RE: Martin Rosen, Radio Communications Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
Zoning District, L.I. ( Light Industrial )
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
The proposed use is a permitted use in that zone pursuant to Sec 100-162C.3 of
Town Code. Please be advised that the project must conform to the design
standards outlined in Sec 100-165.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, NewYork 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1802
OFFICE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
Edward Forrester, BuiLding Department
DATE:
March 11, 1998
RE:
Martin Rosen, Radio Communications Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
Zoning District, L.I. ( Light Industrial )
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
The proposed use is a permitted use in that zone pursuant to Sec 100-162C.3 of
Town Code. Please be advised that the project must conform to the design
standards outlined in Sec 100-165. /~/kC,
Harvey P. Stark, P.E., P.C.
Consulting Engineers
Civil Design
Structural 535 Bedford Avenue Construction
Architectural Bellmore, New York 11710-3544 Reports
March 9, 1998
Mr. Martin Rosen
3472 Weidner Avenue
Oceanside, New York 11572
(516)785-6053,6084
Fax:(516)785-6163
RE: 11780 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York
BUILDING INSPECTION OF 3/8/98
Dear Mr. Rosen:
On 3/8/98 the undersigned inspected the building at 11780 Sound Avenue, Mattituck,
New York, in your company. Following are our findings, conclusions and recommendations.
FINDINGS
1. Several additions were added to the original structure. It is apparent that this building
was abandoned for a very long time. Miscellaneous debris was found throughout the
entire first and second floors. The debris consisted of broken plaster, broken windows,
old clothing, animal and human feces.
The roof shingles are in fair condition; however, the structural roofing is substantially
deteriorated by dryrot.
3. First and second floors are in poor condition. The floor joists are weak for the most part.
The sidewalls of the house consist of asbestos shingles which are in poor condition.
Many shingles are missing. The majority of the wall areas contain cracked and broken
shingles.
The foundation walls consist of concrete block which is in fair condition. The rear right
corner or the building has settled.
6. The electrical service consists of a 110/220 volt service with 200 amperes available.
11780 Sound Avenue
Mattituck, New York
March 9, 1998
Page 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We have concluded that the two story original structure could be repaired but the
additional structures that were added would not be cost effective to restore. Consequently, we
recommend that the front portion of the existing house (27.2' wide by 21.7' deep) be repaired and
that the rear portion (26.6 wide by 31.8 deep) be removed.
Enclosed herewith are six (6) color photographs which were taken on 3/8/98. The
description under each photograph indicates the direction of the camera facing. Also enclosed is
our site plan drawing number 9811 which is based on the survey marked 97-204A1 and dated
4/11/97, by Joseph A. Ingegno, Land Surveyor. Please note that our "Site Plan" drawing number
9811 was revised on 3/9/98 to show the portion of the house to remain and the portion of the
house to be removed.
We trust this inspection and letter-report satisfies your needs, at this time. Please do not
hesitate to call if you have any questions or require any further assistance.
Very truly yours,
Harvey P. Stark, P.E., P.C.
Consulting Engineers
Civil Design
Structural 535 Bedford Avenue Construction
Architectural Bellmore, New York 11710-3544 Reports
March 9, 1998
Mr. Martin Rosen
3472 Weidner Avenue
Oceanside, New York 11572
(516)785-6053, 6084
Fax: (516)785-6163
RE: 11780 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York
BUILDING INSPECTION OF 3/8/98
Dear Mr. Rosen:
On 3/8/98 the undersigned inspected the building at 11780 Sound Avenue, Mattituck,
New York, in your company. Following are our findings, conclusions and recommendations.
FINDINGS
1. Several additions were added to the original structure. It is apparent that this building
was abandoned for a very long time. Miscellaneous debris was found throughout the
entire first and second floors. The debris consisted of broken plaster, broken windows,
old clothing, animal and human feces.
The roof shingles are in fair condition; however, the structural roofing is substantially
deteriorated by dryrot.
3. First and second floors are in poor condition. The fioor joists are weak for the most part.
The sidewalls of the house consist of asbestos shingles which are in poor condition.
Many shingles are missing. The majority of the wall areas contain cracked and broken
shingles.
The foundation walls consist of concrete block which is in fair condition. The rear right
comer or the building has settled.
6. The electrical service consists of a 110/220 volt service with 200 amperes available.
11780 Sound Avenue March 9, 1998
Mattituck, New York Page 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We have concluded that the two story original structure could be repaired but the
additional structures that were added would not be cost effective to restore. Consequently, we
recommend that the front portion of the existing house (27.2' wide by 21.7' deep) be repaired and
that the rear portion (26.6 wide by 31.8 deep) be removed.
Enclosed herewith are six (6) color photographs which were taken on 3/8/98. The
description under each photograph indicates the direction of the camera facing. Also enclosed is
our site plan drawing number 9811 which is based on the survey marked 97-204A1 and dated
4/11/97, by Joseph A. Ingegno, Land Surveyor. Please note that our "Site Plan" drawing number
9811 was revised on 3/9/98 to show the portion of the house to remain and the portion of the
house to be removed.
We trust this inspection and letter-report satisfies your needs, at this time. Please do not
hesitate to call if you have any questions or require any further assistance.
Very truly yours,
K-T:Rosen
Camera
Camera side)
HISTORIC AND NATURAL DISTRICTS
INVENTORY FORM
DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION
ALBANY, NEW YORK ($18) 474-0479
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
UNIQUE 'SITE NO.
QUAD.
SERIES.
NEG. NO
~YOUR NA~E:TOwn of Southold/SPLIA
Town Hall, Main Rd.
YOUR ADDRESS: Southold~ L.I. ,N.Y.11971
DATE: Fall 1985
TELEPHONE: 516 765-1~92
ORGANIZATION (if any):Southold Town Community ])ev. Office.
1. NAME OF DISTRICT: New Bethan~ Cemete~T/ 7~
2. COUNTY: Suffolk TOWN/CITY: Southold VILLAGE:~
3~ DESC~PTION:
Local cemetery with stone gate posts at entrance and privet
hedge along Main Road. Several family names on headstones
are: Bayer, Cooper, Hamilton, Hallock, Fisk, and Duryea.
It contains five acres.
4. SIGNk~CANCE~--The land was purchased in 1870 by the Mattituck
Cemetery Association and in 1894 it was sold to the~ethany
Cemetery Association. ~:'"'~
This cemetery is still used.
5. MAP:'
HP-2
6. SOURCES:
A Histor~ of Mattituck~ Lon~ Islandt N.Y., Rev.
Charles E. Craven, 1909, p. 159.
7. THREATS TO ,ARE.A:, T
BY ZONING [] BY ROADS [] BY DEVELOPERS []
BY DETERIORATION [] .,. _O. THER
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
--LLH ~?/127 ,?
9. PHOTOS: View from
Form prepared by Dindn L. Harvey, Research Assistant.
facsimile
TRANSMITTAL
Bate: 3--//- ~'~
To: ~H//4£~ c'~/)~/
Pages:
{including
corel~)
Souttmld Town Planning Board
S3095 Main Rd.
P.O. Box tq79
Soul;hold, NY 11971
Pllone: JSq6) 765-1938
Fax#: (S16J 765-$136
ROHN
85± Sell SUpporting 'lbw.~-"~,'
I-~ ~ For: Rowel1, M & R
Si[e: Suffolk Courtly, N.Y,
Non,l, el B~ge Spread: t0.70'
...............................................................................
' D~'SIGN LOAD
BILL OF MATERIALS
Neces~a~ Tower Secllon~
......... ~ncho~ ~lts
P.E. Seal Sla[e of New YoJk_
~ORY FORM
BUILDING-STRUCTURE INV
DIVISION'FOR H IS;FORI~ PRESERVX:FION
NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION
FOR OFFICE US~NLY
UNIQUE SITE NO.-
QUAD-
SERIES
·' ALBANY, NEW YORK {'518 474-0479. NEG. NO.
· '" '~"': o~+v,~-,'l ~ ~-%~--1~ DATE
~qP . ~UR NAME'~'~~
~LLAGE
,ublic rivate ., ~C'. ~.
· '~ ,"~.~, ~DDRESS:_
~:.~.¢- . ~ Presen~ ~ ~i
n{erio~ accessible: Explain
~ g. stucco
oints
~ith.. 'li~ t members~
' : a:~ : .c. mason~ load hca'ring ,
~) ~ d. m~tal {~xplain) ~ .
e. olher_ --
· MK-12
ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCH~A~N ~ THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13,
D The schr "Wm. H~ ~ 198
a si · -. a~-. m°m,,'/egetables on his well_tilled ~
B ffuJ' saC~l:dkli~r'omNe~'obS:inffs°Ikl~ has~, him for
.a, Y ~ ' . ' ~bin land' farrrt~ We are indebted to
sgn~e turnips, 15 of which weigh-
ourPa. t ~:'r~'a ca;g° °f bricks'f~;~e; ~1651bs.
IO0'fi.'arso qo 75 ears j qo, / ears 5-Xqo
J~90 (~ Our ood ' ~ 4r. ;nd Mrs. Flo d
W.W. Griffin , station a g friend, Geor e L. 'bt ' Y
Gree g gent at Penn broke round ~ , ate d their Golden Wed
. n~a, has been ap~inted or a g last. Monday anniversary
tram aispatcher of the Mo ' - ~~
m.... . mau~ use. It will b "Russ" Raker co le~ed ~4
W ...... · .R.R Leander }~r~tr:sent ho ' cent bounty for apossum ail.
probable John u~- ,a j ~c an up-to-date co~aoe, with ~. ~' .. yo-,-~ are ooardmg at
· .~cve, now ex- ~ the modern improvements. - - ,~ass ~atnerme Furev's while
Mr. and Mrs. Floyd Vait
cele.brated their Golden Wedding
"Russ" Baker collected a 25
they are engaged o~ several
press messenger, will re-assume v,, President Peters of the Ion extensive jobs in this neighbor-
his former duties as agent at the Island Rail Road has promised hood.
Greenport station.
delegation from Easthampton Ground was broken this week
/ Boss Edw. Fordham has taken that next season there will be an for a new machinery building on
the con, tract to build Wm.
Sehwenk s house, Br dgehamp- early morning train for the whole the property of the Long Island]
south side. I Produce and Fertilizer Com-
k.,ton. It is to cost about $1400. Anyone Wishing whitewash for ~_p. any's plant in this viii,aRe.I
Messrs. Hall and Hall of hen roosts, etc. can obtain the '10x'enneth Dickerson was awarded
Mattituek have made an addition same of Lester Albertson, super- t.ne COntract to make the excava-
to the scallop fleet by put- intendent of the Southold Light- tion for then~nd hi~
chasing a large boat which they lng Co., free of cost. .
are using in the business.
'l'i~e possibility that atomi~
scientists may help solve cause:
of the disappearance of om
oysters and other shellfish
brought to light this week.
Faced with the apparent failure
of the oyster induslry in Peconic
and Gardiner's Bay and with the
rising unemployment of oyster-
shop workers in this area, Super-
visor Norman Klipp and Mayor
Otis Burt of Greenport recently
conferred with Representative
Stuyvesant Wainwright concern
lng the matter.
Construction of the U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture Animal Disease
Laboratory on Plum Island oppo-
site Orient Point, L.I. will be
continued despite rumors to the
effect that the project would be
closed down pending the inves-
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, New Yo~k 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1802
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
Edward Forrester, Building Department
March 11, 1998
RE:
Martin Rosen, Radio Communications Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
Zoning District, L.I. ( Light Industrial )
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
The proposed use is a permitted use in that zone pursuant to Sec 100-162C.3 of
Town Code. Please be advised that the project must conform to the design
standards outlined in Sec 100-165.
PLANNING BOARD M~EMBERS
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Edward Forester, Building Department
Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
Martin Rosen, Radio Communications Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
Zoning District, Light Industrial (LI)
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
March 10, 1998
The Planning Board has received a site plan application for a radio
communications tower for a Martin Rosen Trucking Company.
Under the pre-certification procedure this Board would Like
certification of this use in this Light Industrial District.
I would be happy to discuss this project in more detail at your
convemence.
OH-~I~ILE$ R. OUDDY
z~TTORNEY AT LAW
February 27, 1998
Planning Board
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York
11971
Re:
Gentlemen:
Martin Rosen - Site Plan Appoval
SCTM 1000-141-03-004~00
In connection with the application of Martin Rosen for a radio
communications tower at an industrial site on Sound Avenue in
Mattituck, we enclose the following:
1. Application for Consideration of A Site Plan
2. Nine (9) copies of site plan and elevation drawings
3. Short Environmental Assessment Form
4. Check in the sum of $152.50
Please advise us when this application will be scheduled for a
hearing.
Y
CRC:ejc
Encs.
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Cuddy;~
HAR 5
SOLltnoid Town
Pianr, ing Board
Harvey P. Stark, P.E., P.C.
Consulting Engineers
Civil Design
Structural 535 Bedford Avenue Construction
Architectural Bellmore, New York 11710-3544 Reports
March 9, 1998
Mr. Martin Rosen
3472 Weidner Avenue
Oceanside, New York 11572
(516)785-6053, 6084
Fax: (516)785-6163
RE: 11780 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, New York
BUILDING INSPECTION OF 3/8/98
Dear Mr. Rosen:
On 3/8/98 the undersigned inspected the building at 11780 Sound Avenue, Mattituck,
New York, in your company. Following are our findings~ conclusions and recommendations.
FINDINGS
1. Several additions were added to the original structure. It is apparent that this building
was abandoned for a very long time. Miscellaneous debris was found throughout the
entire first and second floors. The debris consisted of broken plaster, broken windows,
old clothing, animal and human feces.
The roof shingles are in fair condition; however, the structural roofing is substantially
deteriorated by dryrot.
3. First and second floors are in poor condition. The floor joists are weak for the most part.
The sidewalls of the house consist of asbestos shingles which are in poor condition.
Many shingles are missing. The majority of the wall areas contain cracked and broken
shingles.
The foundation walls consist of concrete block which is in fair condition. The rear right
corner or the building has settled.
6. The electrical service consists ofa 110/220 volt service with 200 amperes available.
11780 Sound Avenue
Mattituck, New York March 9,1998
Page 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We have concluded that the two story original structure could be repaired but the
additional structures that were added would not be cost effective to restore. Consequently, we
recommend that the front portion of the existing house (27.2' wide by 21.7' deep) be repaired and
that the rear portion (26.6 wide by 31.8 deep) be removed.
Enclosed herewith are six (6) color photographs which were taken on 3/8/98. The
description under each photograph indicates the direction of the camera facing. Also enclosed is
our site plan drawing number 9811 which is based on the survey marked 97-204A 1 and dated
4/11/97, by Joseph A. Ingegno, Land Surveyor. Please note that our "Site Plan" drawing number
9811 was revised on 3/9/98 to show the portion of the house to remain and the portion of the
house to be removed.
We trust this inspection and letter-report satisfies your needs, at this time. Please do not
hesitate to call if you have any questions or require any further assistance.
Very truly yours,
~ 40399~
Camera Facing Southwest (front & left side)
Camera Facing Southwest (front & left side)
Camera Facing West (left side)
Camera Facing North (rear)
Camera Facing Southeast (front & right side)
Camera Facing South (right side)
i
P 01
.... t)EsloN LOAD
ced, 1/~" ~dlal lee,
BILL OF MATERIALS
N--eFes 6 mY.~o? or S e_c_ll.o_[!~ .....
Anchm Bolls ....
~lep BO s For CIImbh~g
BUILDING-STRUCTUI~!~INVE,. ,'ORY FO~
~DIVISION FOR H STORIC PRESERVATION
NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREAIION
SERIES
ALBANY NEW YORK (5181 474-047~ ".~ 2 ' ' NEG. NO
¥,,~ YOUR NAME-~ 'n~ 5~n~ ~ /~T.Tfi DATE:
~OWn
Main
Rd
FOR OF!St, SE
.,. ,t~.iQUE SITE NO,
,'QUAD
' ORGANIZATION
old Town Community Dev~ Offices
· BUILDING NAME
~LLAGE:~'i
:~F~T LOCATION? Soundi"Avenue ............. : .....
'OWNE~Snle:!~?~i!:b'ablic ,[TI,.:~;:.h private
O~R~"P'enn~ :F~'ily '
ESSIBILITY ;Exterior ~lsibl~ from pubhc ~oad: Yes ~
Inter o~ access b e:
BUILDING : -~,. c.- and
cobblestone
ma.sonny.
other
PItOTO:Viei
ea~
detedorat6d []
U
HP-1
ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN /'
The schr. "Wm. Henry, Capt. mothflegetables on his well-tilled
D '~,wva'~ ·~I~ D.T. Conklin, New Suffolk, has. far~.~ We are indebted to him for
d W ~ I I 1 just sailed f?f~..0~_Robbins Island" sgme t~roips, 15 of which weigh-
~ ~ ~ ~ (w~th a cargo of backs for Ne ~d6 lbs.
IO0 a qo .. , and M,s. Floyd Vail
[$~B (Our g~d ~iend, G~I celebrated their Golden Wedding
W.W. Griffing, station agent It ~ broke gmundlafl Monday anniversary.
Green~, has been ap~inted ~r a new dwelling for his fa~ "Russ" Baker colle~ed a 25
train dispatcher of the Montauk use ~t ~ill be ~ituatedjust west of cent ~unty for a ~ssum tail.
Division, L.I.R.R. Leander his present house (which he ~ster Moeller, our tree ex-
Wright of Amityville is now in intends to remove later) and will [ peru and his crew are hoarding at
be an up-to-date cortage, with all
the modern improvements. ~
~" President Peters of the Long
Island Rail Road has promised a
delegation from Easthampton
that next season there will be an
early morning train for the whole
south side.
Anyone Wishing whitewash for
hen roosts, etc. can obtain the
same of Lester Albertson, super-
intendent of the Southold Light-
lng Co., free of cost.
Michael Fischer raises mare-
Miss Katherine Furey's while
they are engaged on several
extensive jobs in this neighbor-
hood.
Ground was broken this week
for a new machinery building on
the property of the Long IslandJ
I Produce and Fertilizer Com-~
[_p. any's plant in this village.!
'g.'enneth Dickerson was awarded
me contract to make the ezcava-
tion for the new bu~.~nd~4_h~
part of the work is well under-
way.
II1
charge of Greenport, but it is
probable John Reeve, now ex-
press messenger, will re-assume
his former duties as agent at the
tGreenport station.
Boss Edw. Fordham has taken
he contract to build Wm.
$chwenk's house, Bridgehamp-
~...ton. It is to cost about $1400.
Messrs. Hall and Hall of
Martltuck have made an addition
to the scallop fleet by pur-
chasing a large boat which they
are usin~g in the business.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13,
2S Years Aqo
The possibility that at,
scientists may help solve ca
of the disappearance of
oysters and other shellfish
brought to light this week.
Faced with the apparent fa
of the oyster industry in Pet
and Gardiner's Bay and witl'
rising unemployment of oy
shop workers in this area, Sc
visor Norman Klipp and M
Otis Burr of Greenport rec~
conferred with Represent*
Stuyvesant Wainwright con(
lng the matter.
Construction of the U.S. I~
of Agriculture Animal Dis,
Laboratory on Plum Island oi
site Orient Point, L.L will
continued despite rumors to
effect that the project woul¢
closed down pending the in
tigation of a recent fire
November lSth.
~m'~ (~) COUNTY O~c SUFFOLK
I~.,~,,,~ ] Red ~ty T~ ~vlce 4~yl~l
~) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
Real Prol~e~ty Tax Service Agency
FORM NO. 3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SOUTHOLD, N.Y.
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
DATE: February 18, 1998
445 Grilling Ave.
.give~he~d,.~ev. York...l.190.1 .............
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ..~q~.r~..~Q~ ....... ~9.~ ...
for permit to ~P~9~. P. ~p~p~o~municationa tower
Location of Property 11780 Sound Ave. Mattituck
House No. Street Hamlet
County'Tax Map No. [0OO - Section ]41 BLOCK 3 LOT 44
Subdivisiou ............................... Filed Map No .......... Lot No ........
is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds .~...T~.~.~q~ ............
telecoun~unicatlons tower being located on a non-conforming lot in an LI District is not
O~.~h~.~O~.~.~p~.~ ~y~. ~ .~ ~ard setback of 70 feet pursuant to Article XIV
100-142. 3) The proposed tower is required to be located at least one hundred (100) feet
from the nearest dwellip~ unit pursuant to Article XVI 100-162 C.3. Action required by.
£he. Zouiug. Board. of. App~..
~O~;..$~¢.plop.~pp~py~. re~qired b~ the Plannin~ Board.
RV 1/80
OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ING BOARD OF APPEALS
NNING BOARD
Laury L. Dowd, Town Attorney
January 29, 1998
Cell Towers - Findings on Environmental
Impacts of a Telecommunications Tower
The attached is forwarded for your information.
Southold Town
Planning Board
Cawn of onthamp on
MARIETTA SEAMAN
NOREEN MeCULLEY
Telephone (516) 287-5740
Fax (516) 28S-$606
JAN 2 2'IW6
Judith Terry, Tow~ Clerk
Town of Southo!d
53095 Main Road
Southold NY 11971
January 21, 1998
Dear Ms. Terry:
Please be advised that the Town Board, at a meeting held o~
January 08, 1998, adopted the following Resolution(s):
Resolution ~: 0085
DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION BY ~RTIC~_L BROADC2~ST!NG, I~C. FOR EST~LISH-
MENT AND APPROV~_L OF A QPSUD AND A CH~=~GE OF ZONE
cc: Richard Blowes, Commissioner of General Services
Robert Dully, Land Management Administrator
Thomas Talmage, Town Engineer
Charles j. Bartha, Acting Commissioner
Marietta M. Seaman, Town Clerk
Lisa Kombrink, Town Attorney
Paul Houlihan, Chief Bldg. Inspector
Fred Yardley, Town Clerk
Barbara Grattan, Town Clerk
Rosemarie Cary Winchell, Village Clerk
Kathleen McGinnis, Village Clerk
Janice Hines, Village Clerk
James A. Van Nostrand, Village Clerk
Gerald Newman, Chief Planner
L.I. State Park Commission
Jean B. Harris, Village Clerk
Stanley Allan, Town Clerk
Suffolk County Legislature
Clare Bradley, Acting Commissioner
Kimberly A. Judd, village Clerk
Raymond P. Corwin, Commission Director
James Bagg, Chief Environm~--nta! .~nalyst
Vincent Cannuscio, Supervisor
Roger Evans, SEQR Coordinator
Environmental Business Publications
Attonito & Schoepf!in, Esqs.
John P. Cahi!l, Commissioner
J
Enc.
David Wilcox, Principal Planner
Frederick Eisenbud, Esq.
Vertical Broadcasting, inc.
Marietta M.
Town Clerk
THIS RESOLUTION WAS DULY ADOPTED ON January 08, 1998
:RESOLUTION:
:CATEGORY:
:SPONSORED BY:
:TITLE:
0085
QPSUD
VC
DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION BY VERTICAL
BROADCASTING, INC. FOR ESTABLISHMENT AND
APPROVA~ OF A QUASI-PULBIC SERVICE USE
DISTRICT AND A CHANGE OF ZONE INCIDENT T~,RETO
WHEREA~, VERTICAL BROADCASTING, INC. ("VBI") filed an
application with the Town Board of the Town of Southampton
in March, 1993, for the establishment and approval of a
Quasi-Public Service Use District and a change of zone
incident thereto, in order to permit construction of a
360-foot tall multi-use communication tower facility on a
parcel of land owned by the Sandland Corporation located in
Noyac, New York (the "VBI Application"), and
WHEREAS, on August 10, 1993, the Town Board issued a
positive declaration, pursuant to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), which required
VBI to prepare and file a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement ("DEIS"), and
W~P~E3~S, VBI thereafter prepared and filed a DEiS and
Supplement thereto in November, 1994 and February, 1996,
respectively, and
WHERF2%S, by resolution adopted on April 9, 1996, the
Town Board declared the DEIS complete and ordered a public
hearing held on May 31, 1996 on the DEIS and the VBI
application, and
WHEREAS, public hearings on the DEIS and the VBI
application were held on May 31, 1996, June 19, 1996, and
July 25, 1996, and
WHERE~%S, in November, 1996, VBI submitted a document
entitled "Responses to Conunents on the Completed Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Change of Zone
Application from CR-200 to QPSUD", and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 1997, the Town Board adopted a
resolution authorizinq~the Town Clerk to publish a Notice of
Acceptance and Completion of FEIS of Vertical Broadcastinq
Inc., wherein the Town Board stated that it "deems the
'Response to Comments', the DEIS and ali other ccmments
received on the application to be the Final Environmental
impact Statement ('FEIS')", and requested comments on the
FEIS up to January 28, 1997, and
WHEREA~, on January 16, 1997, the Notice of Ccmpletion
was published in the Southampton Press, which Notice said
that an FEIS had been "completed and accepted", but did not
advise that the FEIS was deemed to include the Response tc
Comments and all other comments received on the application.
and
WHEREAS, the SEQRA regulations published by the
Department of Environmental Conservation state that the lead
agency may not make a final decision to undertake, fund,
approve or disapprove an action that has been the subject of
a final EIS without first affording agencies and the public
an opportunity to consider the final EIS, and then preparing
a written finding statement which must "consider the
relevant environmental impacts, facts and conclusions
disclosed in the final EIS," and
WHEREA~, prior to preparation of the required finctinq
statement by the Town Board, ERIC J. FERRARA, a shareholder,
director and President of %'BI, was indicted in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
on three criminal 'counts for offering bribes to Supervisor
Vincent Cannuscio and Councilmen Patrick Heaney and Steven
S. Halsey to influence their votes on the VBI application
("the indictment"), and
WHEP~EAS, subsequent to the indictment of VBI's
President, the attorney for VBI requested that review of the
application be placed on hold so that he could consult with
VBI, and
WHERE,%S, by letter dated March 14, 1997, VBI advised
the Town Board that it desired a determination on the VBI
application, and
WHEI~E/LS, the Town Board retained the law firm of Cahn
Wishod & Lamb, LLP as special counsel to advise the Town
Board on the appropriate procedures to be followed in
determining the VBI application in light of statements by
the Supervisor and Councilmen Heaney and Halsey that they
would recuse themselves from voting on the %fBI application,
and
WHEILEAS, special counsel advised the Town Board that
the recusai of all three Town Board m~mhers who were the
targets of the actions which led to the indictment would
preclude the Town Board from determining the VBI
application, as the necessary legal quorum of three would be
lacking, and
W-HElLE.AS, special counsel further advised the Town
Board that the "Rule of Necessity", as articulated by the
New York Court of A~peals and the Committee on Professional
Ethics of the New York State Bar Association, constrains a
public official, who might otherwise be disqualified on the
ground of bias, to participate in the deliberations of a
public body and to vote on a pending application so as %o
ensure that neither the applicant nor the public is left
withcut a remedy and deprived of a determination provided by
-law, and
WHEREAS, by resolution of the Tow~ Board on August 22,
1997, Councilmen Patrick ~eaney and Steven S. halsey were
excused of further participation in tke deliberations of the
Town Board on the VBI application, but Supervisor Cann~scio,
by reason of the "Rule of Necessity," agreed to participate
in the deliberations of the Town Board on the VBI
applicatio~ and to vote on the application on its merits, and
WHEREAS, the law firm of Cahn Wishod & Lamb, LLP was
directed by the Board to assist with the preparation of the
required finding statement, and
WHEREAS, upon reviewinq the DEiS, Supplemental DEI$,
the minutes of the threepublic hearings, and the exhibits
and correspondence submitted for and against the
application, and the FEIS submitted by the applicant,
special counsel concluded that the FEIS failed to s,~mmarize
all substantive comments on the DEIS and Supplemental DEIS
and the application which the Board might wisk to refer to
in its Finding Statement, and
WHERE~AS, because the Notice of Completion of the FEIS
failed to note that the Town Board determined that t. he FEIS
should consist of the Response to Comments prepared by the
applicant and all other comments received on the
application, it was concluded that the best course of action
before preparing the Finding Statement would be to prepare
and offer for comment a Revised Final Environmental Impact
Statement, and
WHEREAS, a Revised FEIS was prepared by special
counsel which the Town Board, by Resolution 1346 of 1997
adopted on December 9, 1997, deemed to be complete and
accepted for public comment pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and its implementing
regulations, and
WHEREAS, in Resolution 1346 of 1997 the Town Board
directed that public notice of the completion of the Revised
FEIS be published in the Southampton Press (both editions),
and that the public be qiven until December 30, 1997 to
comment on the Revised FEIS, and
WHERF~AS, on December 12, 1997, the notice of
completion of the Revised FEIS was mailed to the applicant's
attorney and to the Environmental Notice Bulletin and to all
persons and interested and involved agencies required to
receive notice thereof by the State Environmental Quali=
Review Act and
WHEP~EAS no comments from the app!ics~t, t_he public or
any involved or interested agency were received cn the
Revised FEIS on or before December 30, 1997, and
WHEREAS, having ~onsidered the VBi application, ~he
DEIS, the Supplemental DEIS, the minutes of the three public
hearings held on the application and on the SEQPd%
implications of the application and the written statements
received at said public hearings, the FEIS and t_he cu~u~ents
on same received by the Town Board, and the Revised FEIS
accepted by the Town Board as complete on Decmmher 9, 1997,
it is hereby
RESOLVED, that the Town Board adopts and app=oves the
following Finding Statement pursuant to SEQRA:
FINDING STATEMENT AND DETERMINATION
Pursuant to Article 8 (State Environmental
Review Act [SEQRA]) of the New York State Environmental
Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapters 30 and 69
of the Town Code of the Town of Southampton, the Southampton
Town Board, Southampton, New York, as lead agency, makes the
following findings.
Name of Applicant:
Vertical Broadcasting, Inc.
Name of Action:
Application of Vertical
Broadcasting Inc. for C/~ange cf
Zone from CR-200 to QPSUD and
Communication Tower situate
Noyack, New York.
Description
Location:
of Action:
Construction and operation of a
360-foot tall multi-user
communication tower facility at
an elevation of 290 feet above
sea level which will be an
unmanned, remote-controlled
operation consisting of a
vertical lattice tower
structure and transmission
building.\ Applicant proposes,
through license agreements, to
house the comm,lnication
equipment and corresponding
antenna attachments of a
variety of municipal, public
and commercial u~ers opera=inq
over a broad frequency spect_~um.
North side of the unimproved
Middle Line Highway,
approximately 2,000 feet eas~
of its intersection with
Millstone Road tn Noyack, Town
5
of Southampton, Suffolk County,
New York. Other communication
towers-in the {m~ediate
vicinity include: AT&T tower
(300' high; 3,009' to the
west); CATV tower (200' high;
4,060' to the east); WLNG tower
(150' high; 3,070' to the west)-
Change of Zone
Agency Jurisdiction:
Draft, Supplemental, Final
and Revised Final Environ-
mental Impact Statements:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"),
dated November 1994, and a Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement ("SDEIS"), dated February, 1996, were
accepted as complete by the Town Board, Town of Southampton,'
Suffolk County, New York on April 9, 1996. Comments made o~
the DEIS were submitted during the designated public comment
period. During this period, three public hearings were
held, on May 31, 1996, June 19, 1996, and July 23, 1996. In
November, 1996, the applicant submitted a document entitled
"Response to Comments on the Completed Draft Environmental
Impact Statement".
On January 10, 1997, the Town Board adopted a
resolution authorizing the Town Clerk to publish a Notice of
Acceptance and Completion of FEIS of Vertical Broadcasting
Inc., wherein the Town Board stated that it "deems the
' Response to Comments', the DEIS and all other comments
received on the application to be the Final Environmental
Impact Statement, and requested comments on the FEIS up to
January 28, 1997. On January 16, 1997, the notice of
Completion was published in the Southampton Press. The
Notice said that an FEIS had been "completed and accepted",
but did not advise that the FEIS was deemed to include the
Response to Comments and all other comments received on the
application.
Following an announcement on January 15, 1997 by the
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York
that the president of ~-BI had been arrested on federal
criminal charges alleging that he attempted to bribe a
member of the Town Board in order to secure a favorable vote
on the application, and the president of VBI's subsequent
indictment on three s~ch counts'in April, 1997 by a federal
grand jury, the Town Board retained the law firm of Cahn
Wishod & Lamb, L?.P as Special Counsel to assist ~he Town
Board, as lead agency under SEQRA, to prepare a findinq
statement, and to otherwise advise the Town Board on the
aDuropriate procedures to be followed in determining the VBI
a~lication in light of the actions by ~BI's president.
Special Counsel advised the Town Board that the
recusal of all three Town Board members who allegedly were
offered bribes would preclude the Town Board from
determining the VBI a~plication as the necessary legal
quorum of three would be lacking. Special Counsel fu-~cher
advised the Town Board that the "Rule of Necessity" as
articulated by the New York Court of Appeals and the
Committee on Professional Ethics of the New York State Bar
Association constrains a public official who might otherwise
be disqualified on the ground of bias to participate in the
deliberations of a public body and to vote on a pending
application so as to ensure that neither the applicant nor
the public is left without a remedy and deprived of a
determination provided by law.
By Resolution adopted by the Town Board on August 22,
1997, it was determined that the Supervisor would continue
to participate in the deliberations on the VBI application,
but that Councilmen Patrick Heaney and Steven S. Halsey
would be excused from further participation in the
deliberations of the Town Board.
Thereafter, upon review of the "Response to Comments'
which was prepared by Applicant and accepted by the Town
Board as the FEIS along with all other comments on the DEISt
Special Counsel determined that the failure of the Notice of
Completion published in the Southampton Press on Janus,- i~
1997 to advise the public that the FEIS which was accepted
included all the comments received on the. application,
whether or not contained in the Response to Comment, s
prepared by Applicant, made the ~EIS defective, and
prevented a proper Finding Statement from being prepared.
Accordingly, upon recommendation of Special Counsel, a
Revised FEIS was prepared.
The Revised FEIS was accepted as complete by the Town
Board on December 9, 1997. The Notice of Completion was
published in the Southampton Press (both editions) on
December 18, 1997. The published Notice of Completion
advised that comments on the FEIS would be accepted up 5o
and including December 30, 1997. No comments on u~e Revised
FEIS were received on or before December 30, 1997.
Facts Disclosed in the Revised FEIS Relied Upon to Support
the Determination of the Town Board:
Following the completion of the DEIS and SDEIS, joint
hearings were held ~o oonsider both the merits of the
application for a change of zone, and, among others, the
following poten=ial environmental impacts deemed relevant to
the application: impacts on public health; impacts on b.~rd
migration; impacts on aesthetic resources; and impacts on
the character of the community.
In the sections that follow, based on relevant
environmental impacts, facts and conclusions disclosed in
the Revised FEIS, the Town Board makes findings of fact with
regard to each of these, environmental issues, and will weigh
and balance the identified environmental impacts with
social, economic and other considerations pertinent to the
determination whether to grant the application for a change
of zone to QPSUD.
A. Impacts on Public Health:
Applicant's expert, Jules Cohen, taking a worst case
scenario ~s to tower load, calculated that exposure to
residents of homes in the vicinity of the proposed tower
would fall well within limits established in the 1992 ANSI
guidelines, and Cohen's calculations were not'challenged by
witnesses in opposition to the application. Cohen testified
that the American National Standards Institute ("ANSI")
standard has been incorporated into the rules of the FCC.
Although experts testifying in opposition to the application
attempted to establish that there still is uncertainty as to
health impacts from long term exposure to low levels of
electromagnetic frequencies ("EMFs"), studies discussed by
Mr. Cohen show that biological effects from radio frequency
("RF") erposure demonstrate thresholds below which no
effects are observed.
On February 8, 1996, the Federal Telecommunications
Act of 1996 became law. In pertinent part, this law states
(47 USC {332(c) (7) (A) and (B) (iv):
(A) . Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this
chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or
local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions
regarding the placement, construction, and modification of
personal wireless service facilities.
(B) (iv) NO State or local government or inst~amentality
thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities On the
basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the
Commission's regulations concerning such emissions..
The Town Board finds that a sufficient showing by
to
Applicant has been mad? preclude the Town Board from
giving further consideration to. alleged public health
impacts from the proposed tower.
B. Impacts on Bird Migration:
Man-made structures invariably will be associated with
bird mortality. Applicant concedes that migratory birds and
native birds fall victim to manmade obje~s such as homes,
8
water tanks, electric lines, vehicles and towers of various
types, but argues that the height of the tower (below
1,000'), the lack of guy wires, and the use of an
intermittent red light' for night ilium{nation, will minimize
bird mortality, and avoid significant bird mortality.
Opponents of the application correctly note that Applicant
did not respond to testimony that the Fire Island
Lighthouse, which is only 170' tall and has nc guy w/2resr
was the cause of 539 birds being killed in one n~ght.
Additionally, the length of time a light rema~
extinguished between flashes appears to be important to the
welfare of nearby birds, but applicant h~ not provided
information on the intervals between red light flashes at
night.
The Town Board finds that the {mpact of the proposed
tower on bird migration can be minimized by rec~4~inq tb~t
the length of time between red light flashes on t/ie tower he
as long as possible consistent with FAA safety req~eme_nts.
C. Impacts on Aesthetic Resources:
(1) Tower Lighting and Painting
When concern was e.~pressed at a public hearing by
Councilperson Rogers as to the visual impact an orange and
white painted tower would have, Eric Ferrara, t_he president
of VBI, told the Town Board that the proposed tower will be
left unpainted, with medium intensity strobe lights for the
daytime, and soft red lights at night. Mr. Ferrara asser~ed
that this was an approved option available to the
applicant. (Hearing Tr. 572 573).
NO written document from the FAA was submitted by Mr.
Ferrara to substantiate his claim that '~BI would be
permitted to have an unpainted tower. In light o£ other
contrary evidence in the record submitted by Applican~ the
Town Board is doubtful that Mr. Ferrara's statement is
correct. Annexed to the DEIS as Append/x C, is the April
22, 1993 Federal Aviation Administration "Acknowledgment of
Notice of Proposed Construction or Alternatives" which
requires that t. he structure "should be obstruction marked
and lighted per FAA Advisory Circular AC 70 7460 1H,
'Obstruction Marking and Lighting'. Chapters 3~ 4, 5 and
13." Applicant does not inform the Board whether these
requirements include having to paint t_he proposed tower. Ln
the May 27, 1993 Planning Board memorandum to the Town Board
at 3, the author advises that Robert Alexander of the FAA
told him in a telephone conversation on May 11, 1993 that
"due to its proximity to the East Hampton All-port, the tower
will be required to be painted orange and white.~' The
Planning Board memorandum observed: "A~ide from increasing
its visibility from approaching aircraft, this type cf
marking will significantly increase its visibility withLa
the overall vista."
Moreover, in Response to Comment 1 under the Aviation
section of the Revised FEIS, which was prepared by the
Applicant, the Applicant states that the FAA, while
approving the proposed communication tower, said that
"certain markings and lighting requirements would be
necessary." similarly, in Response to Comment 2 in the
Aviation section of the Revised FEIS, again, prepared by
applicant, Applicant states: "Although the proposed tower
will be designed and illuminated in such a way as to
minimize its visual impact to the surrounding region,' the
FAA will require that the tower be properly obstruction
marked and lighted in order to make it conspicuous to
pilots." Thus it appears that the proposed tower will ha'%e
to be painted, and that this must be done for aviation
safety reasons in a way that will make it conspicuous.++
One of the concerns raised about the health impact of
the proposed tower was that it would require
maintenance, and this would require removal of old
paint. While lead-free paint will be used, a witness
argued, the Consumer Safety Product Commission
Standard for lead-free paint says no more thmn 600
parts per million. When any maintenance is done on a
bridge, air monitoring is required to see if
neighboring properties are being contaminated.
(Hearing Tr. 364) If particulate matter is less than
10 microns, it will lodge in the human lung and cause
problems. While OSHA has occupational standards,
there is no safe exposure to children or pregnant
women who may be living nearby.
Applicant's response was that the tower would not be
painted. Based on this representation, no addition to
the DEIS was required. If the tower is approved, the
Town Board feels that the issue can be dealt with by
requiring as a condition thereof that, if the tower is
to be painted, that the Applicant'submit a maintenance
.plan that will address how the public will be
protected in the event that old paint must be
removed.++
Applicant's representative advised the Town Board
that a tape by a manufacturer of strobe lights called Flash
Technology comparing from 1,000 feet the intensity of a 40
watt standard incandescent bulb, a medium intensit~ strobe
light and a standard r~d beacon would be offered, but this
video was persuasively criticized by witnesses opposed to
the application. AS noted by Robe~ Grover (W-64),
videotape cannot simulate the reaction of the human eye to
individual points of light against a dark background. This
is because the individual lights in question produce a
construction of the iris which is out of proportion no the
average illumination level. A~ a result, the human eye is
10
blinded to the background to an extent proportional to the
light's intensity. Moreover, as e~lained by Mr. Sulfa
(W-62), videotape cannot accurately capture th9 effect of
strobe lighting. Video sensors, such as those used in video
cameras, lack sufficient dynamic range to record the true
change in intensity that occurs when a strobe light "firesr~
and the electronic circuitry employed in video recorders ~
television receivers seriously distorts the strobe flashea.
The correct way to assess impacts from the white strobe
lights is to provide iso footcandle diagr~m~ which show ~at
illumination levels will be on nearby property. This was
not done.
(2) Visual Impact of the Tower:
The Town Board disagrees with Applicant's assessment
that the existing towers and the proposed tower do not
represent highly visible and visually negative entities c~
the horizon. The Town Board did not find the artistic
renderings in the DEIS and the SDEIS to be a realistic
depiction of the visual impact of the project. As one
witness observed, paintings such as these have an artistic
quality that tends to exaggerate certain features and
distract the observer in an unrealistic way. For example,
the renderings had powerful foregrounds t-hat dominated th~
view. (O-23) And as another wit-ness put it when discussing
a nearby tower: "The tower looks at you and grabs your eye~
it sticks out. This [referring to the artist's rendering]
is far too wispy. It doesn't look like that." (0-16).
Nor did the Town Board find the Applicant's slide
pertaining to the visual impact of the existing towers to be
persuasive. It appeared to the members of the Town Board
that the presentation was done in a manner to intentionally
minimize the impact of the towers shown.
The Town Board did find persuasive, however, the
testimony of James Garrahan, Senior Landscape Architect at
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc., who appeared for the opposition and
presented a computerized terrain model which displayed
photographs on which the proposed tower was precisely
depicted in location and height. Mr. Garr~han conducted a
visual resource assessment of the proposed tower, a
methodology that has been developed to objectively quantify
aesthetic and visual quality issues. This study did not
alter the foreground and background colors in the before and
after pictures -- the only difference was that a computer
generated tower was added to the before scene to create t_he
after scene. This study demonstrated that, although the
closer the view to the tower, the more the topography blocks
it, there are always viewpoints available from where the
tower can be seen. From the vantage point of one's backyard
in the vicinity of the tower, the view will be severely
dominated by the tower. The AT&T tower -was also shown to be
clearly visible from a number of locations, ~et the proposed
VBI tower will be 17% larger and 15% higher than the AT&T
tower. The Board finds that Applicant's claim, that the
tower, though theoretically visible, will in reality not be
because intermingling of limbs and trunks in winter and of
foliage at other times of the year make the tower almost
invisible until you get right to the base of it, is not
supported by the credible evidence presented to the Town
Board.
Rather, the Town Board agrees with the Planning Board,
whose May_.27, 1993 Report to the Town Board found that "The
aesthetic impacts created by the proposed tower are
considered to be substantial and in conflict with the I970
Master Plan recommendations regarding the "Scenic Feat=res
of the Future Community." P. 1. And see pp. 2 - 3:
"The 1970 Town Master Plan outlined areas of the Tow~
considered to be valuable for their scenic beauty-
The Ronkonkoma Moraine was considered to be amonq the
primary scenic features of the community. The Master
Plan spoke to these characteristics in a section
subtitled Scenic Features of the Future Community.
The very form of the land and waterbodies
provides a scenic setting beyond compare for the
Southampton Community. The land form of the
Southampton Community is dominated by three basic
terrain features: the ridge of the Ronkonkoma
Moraine; the streams, estuaries and bays; and the
barrier beach. A~! three olay a significant role
in the character of the c~mmunity.- Without them-,
Southampton would not be Southampton. The ridge
provides panoramic views in almost every
direction and a fine backdrop in contrast to the
outwash plain and beaches ... Views of all
aspects of Southampton's beauty are now possible,
whether on foot, in a vehicle or from a boat.
The continuance of these features for the
enjoyment of the general public, both resident
and visitors, would be Ia] significant factor in
establishing, for all time, the quality of the
community' s appearance."
The Planning Board found, and the Town Board agrees,
that "the aesthetic impacts of the project are unavoidable
and in direct conflict with the recommendations of the
master plan." (5/27/)3 planning Board Report to Town Board
at p. 4.). The Planning Board e.~p!ained'(P· 3):
Although the visual impact from nearby prope~-~ies
and roadways will be somewhat mitigated by
foliage during spring and summer months the !onq
range views will still be seriously Lmpaired-
The const---uction of a tower atop the Ronkonkoma
Moraine, situated midway betwe~-n the two most
12
prominent towers currently located along this
vista, will potentially set up a rhythm of towers
along the hilltops. Few interrupted views of
this import'ant scenic feature will remain for
those who view it from a distance. As ones eyes
follow the moraine, they will likely follow the
rhythm of towers rather than the natural contours
of this scenic land form.
The Town Board further finds that, in the long teznn,
even if existing vegetation in the immediate area of the
proposed tower would obstruct views of the tower, there will
be more and more construction in the area, and with
construction, loss of some of the trees that today may block
the view. The visual Lmpact on the Peconic Woods
Subdivision, located immediately south of the site of the
proposed communication tower, will be severely impacted by
the proposed tower's presence. Additionally, the former
Bridgehampton Race Track to the north and west of the
proposed tower ceased operations in 1996, and, in January,
1997, the Town Board approved the application of "Golf at
the Bridge" to use the former Race Track for a residential
subdivision and golf course. People residing in this
subdivision when developed, or using the golf course when
built, will be impacted by the tower if built. Similarly,
it is anticipated that when the sand mine adjacent to the
Applicant's leased property is mined out, it will be
reclaimed as residential property.
Thus, if approved, the tower's presence will be felt
for many decades, and, as more people seek to .~ive in the
beautiful rural setting which Southampton offers, including
the area in the vicinity of the tower, ever more people ~
feel the impact of the tower if it is approved. Because the
aesthetic impact of the tower cannot be avoided (even if the
FAA indicates that the tower need not be painted), the
burden on the applicant to demonstrate the need for this
project becomes greater.
D. Impacts on the Character of the Community:
(1) Consistency with Master Plan of 1970:
For the reasons stated by the Planning Board in its
memorandum to the Town Board dated May 27, 1993, pertinent
portions of which are set out above in the "Visual Impacts"
section, the aesthetic impacts of this project are
unavoidable and in direct conflict with the recommendations
of the Master Plan of 1970.
(2) Consistency with Existing Zoning:
The application seeks to change the zoning from
to QPSUD. If granted, Applicant will be permitted to have a
commercial use on residentially zoned property.
13
The application proposes to change the zoning on
approximately 4.614 acres. CR-200 is a residential zone
that requires a minimum lot area of 200,000 square feet.
The maximum height of a building or structure allowed in
CR-200 is two stories, or 32 feet. (Town Code {330-11,
Residence Districts Table of Dimensional Regulations).
Permitted uses within the CR-200 zone include:
one-family detached dwellings; any dwelling lawfully
existing prior to adoption of the chapter; a pl~n~ed
residential development; park, playground or recreational
area when authorized or operated by the municipality; fire
station, municipal office or any government building of
similar character; school, elementary or high,, public,
denominational or private, nonprofit, operated or licensed
by the New York State Education Department; agriculture,
excluding animal husbandry; customary accessory structures
and.or uses; home occupation other than home professional
office; home professional office; private garage or private
off-street parking area; private swimming pool; signs;
temporary roadside stands for sale of farm products grown on
the premises; wind energy conversion systems; private
greenhouse; and an accessory apartment pursuant to Article
II-a of the chapter. Town Code {330-10, Residence
Districts, Table of Use Regulations.
The subject property is leased from Sand Land Corp.
and is located in the southeast corner of Sandland's
pre-existing nonconforming sand and gravel mine. The
applicant constructed a 35 foot communication .tower on the
subject property without any approvals from the Town Board,
Zoning Board or Planning Board. Applicant paid a $750 fine
after the Town's zoning inspector filed a complaint in
Justice Court. The existing tower is currently the subject
of a case before the Zoning Board of A~pea!s.
The mining use was last permitted by the Town for
operation on November 26, 1985. The mining plan
accompanying the application mapped a substantial buffer
area to remain naturally vegetated around the perimeter cf
the property. The mining plan accompanying the.current DEC
mining permit continues to include this buffer. The
construction of the existing tower without Town approval has
resulted in the clearing of approximase!y 8,400 square feet
of vegetation which was designated on tke mining plan to
remain natural. Of the 4.6 acre area subject to this
application, less than, 30,000 square feet is permitted for
mining. (May 27, 1993 Planning Board Memorandum to Town
Board re VBI) .
VBI appare~tly has transferred to the owner of the
subject property, Sand Land Cor?oration, !3.9 acres to -~he
west of the mined property in exchange for the lease of =he
proposed tower site. This lease appears to be conditioned
!4
on obtaining approval of the QPSUD application before
Board.++
mile
In the Revised FEIS, in the Response to Comment i
under the "Sand Mining Activity" section, prepared by
Applicant, it is stated that "Sand Land Corporation,
should this application not be granted, would have the
right to mine the majority of the 5-acre parcel
without any further municipal permits or permission.
Even if the Town Board assumes for purposes of this
discussion that Sand Land Corporation would be
permitted to mine the 4.6 acre parcel that is the
subject of its lease with VBI in the event the lease
lapses (and it may be that Sand Land will be found to
have abandoned its non-conforming use as to th{s
property), at best, Sand Land will be able to m~e
less than 30,000 square feet, not "the majority" of
the parcel.'++
There are three other transmission towers within a one
radius of the site.++
The AT&T tower (300' tall) is .570 miles to the wes~r
550 feet above mean sea level ("amsl"); the W!~G tower
(150' tall) .581 miles to the west, north-west, 350~
amsl; and the CATV tower (200' tall) is .769 miles
east of the site, 360' AMSL. (May 27, 1993 Planning
Board Memorandum to Town Board at p. 4; DEIS D. 16 and
Figures 8 and 9).++
The proposed tower would be situated approximately midway
between them, thus increasing the aesthetic impacts on the
moraine.
In addition to the 50-acre sand mining operation to
the west of the proposed site, the Bridgehampton Race Track,
resting on 500 acres, was located to the north and east of
the site. Applicant urges that the mining operation and
Race Track coupled with relatively sparse existing
population density in the area of the proposed tower make
the site an ideal location. The Town Board disagrees.
The mining operation has a vegetative buffer around it
that muffles the sounds, and eliminates any visual impact.
When mining activity ceases, the area will have to be
reclaimed, and will at,some point be useable for residential
purposes.
The Bridgehampton Race Track ceased operations in
1996, thereby ending the seasonal noise impacts associated
with its use. In January, 1997, the application cf ~Golf ~t
~he Bridge" for a residential subdivision and golf course at
the site of the former race track was approved.
Other areas around the proposed site are being
developed for residential purposes. Immediately south of
the VBI site is the Peconic Woods subdivision. The proposed
tower site is located directly to the north of lot 4 and is
approximately in line with the north/south center line of
Paumanok Road. Access to the subdivision is from Millstone
Road to a section of Old Sag Harbor Road from which lots 6,
7, 8, & 9 are accessed. Lots t through 5 are accessed from
the north end of Paumanok Road. The proposed tower would.be
clearly visible at alt times of the year, day and night, and
dominate the view on the approach from Old Sag Harbor Road,
north on Paumanok Road to lots 1 through 5~ Many properties
in the areas surrounding the site that were originally
slated for purchase under the Eastern GEIS are now being
developed due to the lack of funds for acquisition. As the
Planning Board observed in its Memorandum of May 27, 1993 to
the Town Board, "The rural qualities that have attracted
many people to build their homes in the woods along the
moraine in this area may be significantly effected by the
construction of this tower."
It is the Town Board's goal to preserve the
residential character of the CR-200 zone, and it finds t_kat
the proposed application, which will primarily be a
commercial enterprise, is inconsistent with that goal.
(3)
Import of Approval of a Communication Tower in a
Residentially Zoned Area of the Town as a Precedent
for Other Applications:
The unquestioned need for communication services
raises a red flag with regard to applications for towers in
residential zones. The Town has recognized the need for
communication towers through its enactment of the QPSUD
legislation, and has thereby recognized that, given a
sufficient showing of need, communication towers can be
placed anywhere in the Town, including in residential
areas. Because unavoidable aesthetic concerns associat-~/
with such towers cannot be mitigated, however, and such
concerns are more significant in residential zones'than in
commercial or industrial areas, the task of justifying the
need for the tower in a residential zone is made more
difficult.
The Town Board is concerned that an approval of this
application will set ~ precedent that will make it more
difficult in the future for the Board to deny s(m~lar
applications in residentially zoned areas of the Town. That
this is so is evident from the fact that VB! urges that its
application be approved because of the presence cf three
other communications towers within a mile radius cf the
proposed cite. Accordingly, the Town Board a~amiaed
carefully the justification for this tower L~ ~h~ !ocation~
16
and whether alternatives exist for all or most of the
proposed tenants of the tower.
This point was made'repeatedly to the Board during the
course of the public hearings. One witness made the point
eloquently:
Quality of life can be a subtle thing, but each
negative action has a cumulative effect. One day you
wake up and decide the special place you chose to live
is no longer a special place and you decide to move°
The beepers, pagers, cellular phones, and other
commercial services the tower owners hope will be provided
by access to their tower undoubtedly are conveniences, but
the fundamental question is whether these conv~ences must
be offered to the people of the Town of $out-b~mptoa through
a communication tower placed in a residentially zoned
district.
The June 30, 1994 Planning Board staff report, filed
on a QPSUD application by CSC Acquisition - NY, Inc.f states
in pertinent part (Hearing Exhibit $ 105 at p. 7):
It has been suggested that the Planning Board has
approached the question of project need for existing
towers differently than it did for a certain
application for a new tower structure. The
Board has, in fact, done exactly that, because the
issues involved are not considered to be the s~me '&hen
reviewing existing towers as they are u~cn revi~.inq
proposed new tower plans. The Planning Board, in its
advisory role in the zone change process, must
consider the pertinent land use issues involved in the
proposed zone change including existing use of the
site and uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The
"need" question as it relates to axi~ting towers is
primarily related to the need for the zoning
designation rather than the need for the structure
itself, since the structure is, of course, currently
in existence. The question of need for new towers
clearly relates to whether or not existing towers
serve that need, while the need for allowing existing
towers to supply additional communication services is
based primarily on whether or not they are
specifically suited to do so.
(4) Impact of Allowing a Communication Tower in a
Residentially Zoned Area on Surroun~{-g Residential Property
Values:
Applicant's expert presented a report which concluded
5hat the proposed communication tower would have no adverse
impact on property values. The Town Board disagrees.
Cunningham Real Estate Appraisal Services, .whose principal,
17
M. Timothy Cunningham, is a New York State Certified Real
Estate Appraiser, prepared a paired-analysis study of five
different sales of.properties within a five-tower range
(measured in multiples of tower height) with eight sales
which occurred outside the radius drawn around the towers.
The'paired sales analyses, which compared vacant properties
near and outside of the range of the tower, demonstrate that
existing towers and the proposed tower have a severe
negative impact on property values. The devaluation ranges
from 28% to 35% in the five-tower range;, closer to the
tower, the devaluation ranges from 40% to 60%. (~4ay 28,
1996 Property Value Analysis prepared by John Stewart
Seelye, Cunningham Appraisals, Inc. (Hearing Exhibit ~ I12);
0-25/0-26 [Tr. 407 408, 423 - 424]).
The conclusion reached by the Applicant's real estate
expert, Mr. Wood, that proximity to a communication tower
will not result in any loss of value, was based upon areas
remote from the location of the proposed VBI tower, and his
criticism of the methodology employed by intervenor's
experts, Cunningham and Seelye, was persuasively shown to be
without merit in responses by Cunningham and Seelye. (See
w-57 [Hearing Exhibit ~ 174 (8/26/96 letter to Town Board
from Cunningham and Seelye], and W-63 [1/24/97 letter to
Town Board from C~nningham and Seelye commenting on the
Response to Comments prepared by Applicant]).
Not discussed by the Applicant is the impact grant/~q
the zone from residential to one permitting a for profit
business venture will have on property values in the short
and long term. The Town Board must be concerned with the
impact its present decisions will have on future uses of the
area. Once the non-conforming uses lapse, the sand mining
operation and raceway property should be required to be used
for purposes consistent with surroun6~ng residential
zoning. Indeed, the racetrack use has been discontinued,
and an application to use the property for residential use
with a golf course has been granted. Granting additional
commercial uses now may make it more difficult in the future
to deny other co~ercial applications which may be made. By
previously changing the zoning in the surrounding area to
five-acre residential, the Town Board demonstrated its
commitment to preserving the rural c~aracter of the Town.
If the tower is approved, it will be on the landscape for
decades. The commercial application is inconsistent with
the Town's commitment to keeping the natural beauty of this
part of Long Island. (0-49 [Tr. 244 - 245]); 0-8 [Tr. 271 -
272]); 0-35 [Tr. 505 -~507]).
E. Need for the Proposed Communication Tower:
~ applicant for a QPSUD change of zone must meet Lhe
requirement that the project promote the general welfare,
health and safet~ of the community. Southamptcn Town Code
18
{330-3 and (330-202(A) (2). The Town Board is required to
weigh all public interests involved to evaluate the proposed
project; therefore, in order to promote the general welfare,
health and safety of the community, the Town Board may deny
the proposed change of zone if the need is less than the
public interests involved.
If the public services in the town want better
communications than are presently available, voting receiver
systems are a viable solution to dead zones and, in fact,
more reliable than single-station operation. (W-62; Suffa
Comments on response to Comments, p. 3).
The proposed tower would not eliminate all coverage of
dead spots in the Town of Southampton, and therefore, it
will not satisfy the need to a significantly greater degree
than the existing towers. A more viable solution to the
dead spots problem that the public safety services
complained of,is to study the communication requirement of
these services and then design a system that would provide
the reliability and coverage that are needed. (W-61; letter
from William Suffa, August 23, 1996).
If "dead zones" were a widespread concern for
emergency service organizations throughout the Town, the
Town Board would have expected to have been so-advised by
these organizations. That has not been the Town Board's
general experience.++
Nor has the issue been the subject of articles in the
local press (0-29 [Tr. 482 - 483]).++ When the Town Board
was told of a problem, however, it took action. Only
Emergency Medical Services for the Town and the Southampton
Ambulance had informed the Town Board of dead spots in the
area, Councilperson Rogers noted, and they requested money
from the Town to come up with a solution. The Town had been
working with Volunteer Ambulance for the past year to solve
the problem. Councilperson Halsey said that they had come
up with a system of repeaters and frequency mixers which
should -- but might not -- resolve the problem. (Tr. 265
266) Chief Pete Matson, Chief of Southampton Volunteer
.Ambulance, while testifying in support of the application,
acknowledged that he had gone to the Town Board, and
received $13,000.00 to install a system designed to address
his need for more reliable interdepartmental
communications. Chief Matson testified that he did not know
whether this new system would work to solve their problems,
however. (0-62 [ Tr. 26]).++
At the final hearing on July 23, 1996, the appiica~t,
-._c Ferrara, testified that he had spoken to Chief Ma=son
19
Eric Ferrara, testified that he had spoken to Chief Matson
the night before, and was told that after four or five weeks
of experience, Southampton Town Ambulance still had 40% dead
spots. (0-85 [Tr. 660 - 661]). Chief Matson was not
recalled by the applican~ to confirm this statement.++
A single-site system, such the proposed VBI tower,
would have a single point of communication. Thus, a failure
of the system would eliminate the capability to
communicate. In a well-designed voting system, the
capability to communicate would still exist, albeit at a
degraded level, even if one link or site should fail.
Failure of"a single-site system represents a greater ~hreat
to health and safety.
Furthermore, the moraine itself represents an
impediment to radio coverage from the VBI site. The hills
and vales of the moraine serve to create "shadowed" coverage
areas. These shadowed areas result from the terrain effects
of the moraine on radio signal propagation. These shadowed
areas will exist regardless of the height of the tower.
(W-61; Hearing Ex. 177, letter from Sulfa, August 23, 1996,
pp. 4-5).
The issue of the reliability of emergency service
· communications within the Town is one that should be
addressed by a comprehensive study by the Town if a problem
does indeed exist. Thus far, the Town Board has not been
asked to undertake such a study. The County of Suffolk,
however, has spent a great deal of money to upgrade and
provide an emergency service communication system throughout
the County, including the Town of Southampton.. The Town
Board has not been advised that the County will not be able
to provide such a system without the applicant's proposed
communication tower.++
Vincent Stiles, Director of Police Communications for
the Suffolk County Police, did testify that he concluded
based on a propagation study for communication purposes that
coverage from the proposed tower would be good, and it would
help communications for public safety operations. (0-77
[Tr. 170]). Mr. Stiles did not discuss the County's system,
or address whether the proposed VBI tower was needed for the
County system to be successful within Southampton Town.++
(0-27 [Tr. 462]).
Applicant maintains that the proposed comm,muication
tower will represent a multi-user tower that would minimize
future needs for additional towers. (0-4) While the
Planning Board's staff in a report on an earlier application
for a QPSUD change of zone filed on behalf of an existing
Cablevision tower, relied on by Applicant, did suggest that
shared use of a communication tower be encouraged wherever
2O
possible to minimize the potential proliferation of towers
(Tr. 67 - 68), when placed in context, it is clear tha~ the
Planning Board staff did not intend to provide support to
other applicants who wish to construct ~ew towers. (Tr.
- 138; 0-21 [Tr. 351 - 352]). The June 30, 1994 Planning
Board staff report, filed on a QPSUD application by CSC
Acquisition - NY, Inc., states in pertinent part (Hearing
Exhibit ~ 105 at p. 7):
It has been suggested that the Planning Board has
approached the question of project need for existing
towers differently than it did for a certain
application for a new tower structure. The PI~nn~g
Board has, in fact, done exactly that, because the
issues involved are not considered to be .the same w~en
reviewing existing towers as they are when reviewing
proposed new tower plans. The Planning Board, im its
advisory role in the zone change process, must
consideu the pertinent land use issues involved in the
proposed zone change including existing use of the
site and uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The
"need" question as it relates to existing towers is
primarily related to the need for the zoning
designation rather than the need for the structure
itself, since the structure is, of course, currently
in existence. The question of need for new towers
clearly relates to whether or not existing towers can
serve that need, while the need for allowing e~istinq
towers to supply additional communication services is
based primarily on whether or not they are
specifically suited to do so.
The CSC Acquisition application involved a request to
change the zoning from Light Industrial (LI-40) to QPSUD for
property with an existing 300 foot communications tower.
Before a new commercial communication tower is approved in a
residentially zoned area, as is sought by the VBI applicant,
the need for the tower must be shown. If "need" and other
requirements for a change of zone to QPSUD can be
demonstrated, then shared use should be required.
Applicant asserts that its proposed tower is needed
because there is insufficient capacity on existing nearby
towers to handle the approximately 100 users which Applicant
states will use its tower. AT&T did not respond to the
Board's request for a list of users who have requested space
on their tower and the disposition of each request because
~~T&T has confidentiality~provisions ia the application forms
which preclude AT&T from disclosing the names of their
customers or potential customers. Cabtevision did not supply
such information for the same reason. {W-62; Sulfa Comments
on Response to Comments, p. 4).
There are no documents in the record indicating that
AT&T tower lacks capacity to accommodate the 100 users
21
projected by VBI. Even if a change of zone would be
required before additional commercial users could use the
AT&T tower, such an application would have the advantage of
not adding a new tower to the horizon.
WLNG submitted a letter to the Town Board saying that
space is available and that anyone could use other towers
besides W-LNG to get full coverage without dead spots. If
problems did exist with the WLNG tower, its Vice President
advised the Town Board that repeaters could also solve any
such problem. The towers have been checked in recent years,
and they are all structurally sound and have the capacity to
offer more space to prospective tenants. If the police,
fire and rescue services want to use the WLNG tower to get
rid of dead spots, the WLNG tower would like to'provide free
space to them. (W-38; letter from WLNG's Vice President,
Gary Sapiane, dated June 17, 1996). The attorney for WLNG
testified, however, that no public safety service has ever
asked for space on the~WLNG tower, and that his own inquir~
of the local police in the Town a year before he testified
to ask if they needed tower space resulted in his being told
that "they were fine." WLNG's vice-president confirmed that
no emergency organizations had requested space on its
tower. (0-30 [Tr. 490]; 0-31 [Tr. 686]).
Cablevision will entertain requests from prospective
users. Structural revisions to the Cab!evision tower would
permit additional users to be accommodated, and cablevision
stated that they may require such revisions to be made when
antennas are added- The tower height should be sufficient
to meet user needs. (W-61 [letter from William Sulfa,
January 24, 1997, p. !].
In accord with its franchise agreement, Cab!evision
orovides the Town with free access to its towers- (0-33 [Tr.
%98]). Its current public service tenants include
Southampton Village Ambulance, Southampton Police
Department, and they also have commercial tenants, such as
pager, two-way radio and cellular communication companies.
(W-46 [letter from Glenn Brown, General Manager,.
Cablevision, June 19, 1996; Tr. 498]).
Existing communication towers are not the only
structures that will satisfy public safety needs. A
properly designed public safety radio system will employ
multiple sites for redundancy and clear reception of
portable radios- Such~ a system would employ voting
receivers and other technologies, and could permit reliable
system operation without the need for the ~-BI tower. A
viable alternative ~o the proposed tower or the other
communication towers might include the use of existing
structures, such as Lilco power lines, church steeples, or
water towers. (0-27, 0-45, Tr. 448 450, 529)
"Dead Zones" presently encountered by safety
22
organizations could be overcome by using repeaters thaL
receive radio signals on one frequency and re-transmits the
signals on a different frequency, thus negating the need for
this proposed 360-foot'tower. (0-27) Voting receiver
systems are a viable solution to dead zones, and are, more
reliable than single-station operation. By providing more
equipment and simultaneous receiver operation, the failure
of any single receiver does not result in total syste=
outage. In single-station operation, failure of the
receiver will result in total system outage. Thus,
reliability of the total system is enhanced in a
voting-system operation. Further, by placing additional
receivers near areas of weak reception, far more reT~SLe
coverage can be attained when compared to singte-statio~
operation. While voting-receiver operation is designed for
two-way services, these services are the type used for
public safety operations. The other services proposed for
the tower can operate satisfactorily from other sites ~
existing towers. (W-62; Suffa Comments on Response to
Comments, January 24, 1997, pp. 1-2).
Higher frequency will create more dead spots ts~ iow
frequency; therefore, the wireless system proposed at ~he
VBI tower would underperform. (0-27 [Tr. 678]). Chief
Matson did not testify that the new system installed with
Town funds did not work. The Chief indicated that "it mJ-qht
or might not work" (0-62 [Tr. 26]), which suggested ~b~ the
system had not yet been fully implemented. At the final
hearing on July 23, 1996, however, the applicant, Eric
Ferrara, testified that he had spoken to Chief Mat.eon -_he
night before, and was told that after four or-fi~u w=e~$ of
experience the Southampton Town Police still had 40% dead
spots. (0-85 [Tr. 660 - 661]). Chief Matson was not
recalled by the applicant to confirm this statement.
Applicant stressed that the tower's full height was
required in order for it to service wireless cable, a
technology Applicant felt was needed to provide competition
for Cablevision. The Town Board is not persuaded that ~his
proposed technology will work based on the present~t~on made
to the Board. Thus the claim of need for a wirel~ cable
system that uses an experimental technology (including iar~e
satellite dishes and an additional building) that has not
been proven or accepted by the FCC for this region, suggests
that this may not be a potential use for the proposed tower.
(0-27)
The proposed CelLula=vision technology is a microwave
technology which is a line of sight service subject to rain
and foq attenuation and severe attenuation from foliaqe.
(O-21 I Tr. 440 - 441]). Its existing operation is in New
York City which involves just six mile intervals between the
sites. By contrast, applicant suqqests that
will offer service for the entire Town of Southampton wink
just 5wo tower sites, 5he proposed new location, and
23
applicant's existing tower in Manorville. There was no
discussion by the applicant concerning problems due to
absorption fro~ trees or weather over these larger coverage
areas (0-27; Tr. 6~7), ahd thus additional towers might well
be required in order for the proposed technology to provide
Town-wide coverage.
In addition, in an application to the FCC,
Cellularvision described itself as a development stage
company whose shares offer a high degree of risk. Its
current technology offers 49 stations, which is less than
Cablevision. In order to compete, it will have to develop
its technology to offer more stations. Cellularvision's SEC
prospectus dated February 8, 1993 contains the statement
that it "utilizes a new technology with a limited operating
history whose system architecture remains subject of further
development and refinement". Further the prospectus states
that it is not authorized to provide two-way services, and
"may not be technically prepared to begin offering any of
these services on a commercial basis upon receiving
authorization to do so." (W-44; 0-28 [Tr. 472 - 476]) The
10Q for Celiularvision showed that the company continued to
have a negative cash flow and expected to do so for at least
one year. The 10Q said nothing about its attempt to develop
a two-way wireless television system or to obtain a license
to operate in Suffolk County. (0-21 [Tr. 700]).
Nor does the Board find that the new tower is needed
to assist FM stations that wish to enter the market.
Allocation studies using the current FCC Rule~ ]~di~ate ~kat
no new FM stations could be allocated at t~= prc~.%,sed ~cwer
site. Existing stations presently operate from other sites
in and around Southampton. (0-27 [ Tr. '446]; Ex. 196,
letter from Sulfa, January 24, 1997, p. 2). Because the FCC
sets a maximum range for a Class A station, as height is
increased, power must be cut back so that the station will
not exceed its maximum allowable range. (0-27 [' Tr. 447]).
Therefore, the coverage of an FM station on the VBI tower
would be almost identical to the coverage attained from the
WLNG tower. (W-61; Hearing Ex. ~77~ letter from Sulfa,
August 23, 1996, p. 5).
The need for the tower must also be measured against
its adverse impacts. The tower's adverse impact on
aesthetic values of the Town, and on surrounding property
values, has already been noted.
Determination of the Town Board
WHERF~%S, having considered the application of vertical
Broadcasting, Inc. for a change of zone from CR-200 to
QPSUD, the OEIS, Supplemental DEIS, pubLLc hear~.qs ~d
written comments and exhibits submitted thereat, the FEiS
~nd comments submitted thereon, and the Revised FEiS, and
24
having made the factual findings set out above, it is hereby
RESOLVED, that the application of VBI for a change cf
zone from CR-200 to QPSUD is denied, and it i~ further
RESOL'~ED, the Town Board certifies pursuant to the
requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.9 that:
The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met;
and
o
Consistent with the social, economic and other
esse~ntial considerations from among the reasonable
alternatives thereto, the best means of avoi~4.g the
adverse environmental effects of the proposed tower cn
property values, the aesthetic values of the ~ ........ ~t!
as reflected in the Town's Master Plan, and the
character of the residentially zoned area around t/le
site of the proposed tower, including the effects
disclosed in the DEIS, Supplemental DEIS, FEIS,
Revised FEIS, public hearings and written s~bmissic~ls
received, is to deny the application for change of
zone from CR-200 to QPSUD, and that this actio~ will
minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects to t_he
maximum extent practicable.
2~
NEW YORK STA/-~ DEP. M~TMENT OF STATE
WA.SlaqNGTON AVENUE. ALSA~qY, NY 12231
(Use this form to file a local law with the 5ecr~mry ot'Stal:e~)
Text of law sb. ould be ~ven as amended. Do not inciude matter ~ing cEmiaated and da not use
italica or ~nderlining to indicate new manor.
.~x of $outhold
"~ Town
26 97
Local Law No. __ .... of the year L9
A local law-- in Relation to Wireless Communication Facilities
Town Board of the
Be it enacted by r. he
L~. of, Southold
Town
as follows:
I. Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southotd is
, hereby amended as follows:
1. Section 100-13 (Definitions) is hereby amended as follows:
BUILDING - Any structure having a roof supported by such
things as columns posts, piers, walls or air intended for the
shelter, business, housing or enclosing of persons, animals,
property or other materials; also any combination of materials
forming any construction, except where entirely underground
so as to permit the use of the ground above the same as if
no "building" was 'present. The term "building" shall include
the term "struC:ure' as well as the following:
(1) Signs.
(2) Fences.
(3) Wails.
(4) Radio. television, receive-only satellite dis~ antennas.
emateur radio antennas and wireless communicstion facility
receiving and transmitting antennas, except fcr radio.
television, receive-only satellite dish antennas,
amateur radio antennas installed on the roof of a building
and extending not more than twenty (20) feet above the
highest level of the roof of such building.
(5) Porches, outdoor bins and other similar structures.
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY. A wireless
communication facility is any unstaffed facility for the transmission
and/or reception of wireless telecommunications services usually
consisting of an wireless communication facility array, connection
cables, an equipment facility, and a support structure to obtain the
necessary elevation. The support structure is either a building,
telecommunication tower, or other approved structure.
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS. Wireless communications shall
mean any personal wireless services as defined in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which includes FCC licensed
commercial wireless telecommunications services including cellular
telephone services, personal communication services, specialized
mobile radio, enhanced specialized mobile radio, paging, and
similar services that currently exist or that may in the future be
developed.
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER. A telecommunication tower is a
b/pe of wireless communication facility designed and constructed
specifically to support an antenna array, and may include a
monopole, self-supporting tower, guy-wire support tower and other
similar structures. A wireless communication facility attached to an
existing building or structure shall be excluded from this definition.
2. Article XVI is hereby added and shall be entitled 'WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES. '
3. Section 100-160. Purpose is added as follows:
It is the express purpose of this article to minimize the visual and
environmental impacts of wireless communication facilities while
protecting the health, safety and welfare of Southold's citizens and
allowing wireless service providers to meet their technological and
service objectives. This article allows wireless communication
facilities, and particularly telecommunication towers, to be
reviewed and approved in keeping with the Town's existing zoning
and historic development patterns, including the size and spacing
of structures and open spaces. Furthermore, the standards herein
reflect two preferences: (1) that wireless communication facilities
are preferred in industrial areas and (2) that wireless
communication facilities be located on existing buildings and
towers rather than on newly constructed towers. Any wireless
communication facility must take into account the aesthetic aspects
of the town, including open vistas, scenic byways and historic
districts.
4. Section 100-161. Scope is added as follows:
The regulations of this section shall govern and control the
erection, enlargement, expansion, alteration, operation,
maintenance, relocation and removal of all wireless
communication facilities. The regulations of this section relate to
the location and design of these facilities and shall be in addition to
the provisions of the Southold Building and Zoning Codes and any
other Federal, State or Local Laws or Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) regulations pertaining to such facilities.
5. Section 100-162. Location of Use is hereby added as follows:
No wireless communication facility shall be used, erected or
altered in the Town of Southold except as follows:
A. In Residential and Madne Districts including AC. R80, R40,
R120, R200, R400, AHD, HD, RR, RO, MI, and Mil, a wireless
communication facility is subject to site plan approval and must
meet the following requirements.
(I) Wireless Communication Facility on Buildings - Shall require a
special exception approval pursuant to this article. Wireless
communication facilities on buildings shall be no higher than ten
feet above the average height of buildings (excluding signs,
fences, and walls) within 300 feet of the proposed facility. The
building on which the Wireless Communication Facility is located
must be located at least one hundred feet (100) from the
nearest property line and three hundred feet (300') from any
landmark property or district listed by federal, state or town
agencies.
(2) Wireless communication facilities on Existing
Telecommunications Towers shall require a special exception
approval pursuant to this chapter unless othen~vise allowed ~y
terms of a prior special exception approval.
(3) Wireless Communication Facility on Telecommunications
Towers - Shall require special exception approval pursuant to this
article and shall not project higher than ten (10) feet above the
average height of buildings (excluding signs, fences, and walls
within three hundred (300) feet of the facility or, if there are no
buildings within three hundred (300) feet, these facilities shall not
project higher than ten(10)feet above the average tree canopy
height in that radius measured from ground level, tf there are no
buildings within three hundred (300) feet of the proposed facility
site, all telecommunication towers shall be surrounded by dense
tree growth to screen views of the facility in all directions. The base
of the tower shall be located at least one hundred (100) feet from
the nearest property line and three hundred (300) feet from a
landmark property or district listed by federal, state or town
agencies.
'(4) A wireless communication facility is a permitted use, not
requiring site plan approval, if located on property owned, leased
or otherwise controlled by state, federal or town government,
provided a license or lease authorizing such facility has been
approved by that government. The height of such facility may be
established by the public agency.
(5) A wireless communication facilities is a permitted use, not
requiring site plan approval, if located on property owned, leased
or otherwise controlled by a speciai district, provided a license or
lease authorizing such facility has been approved by the
commissioners of the special district, and provided that it does not
exceed the maximum heights specified above.
B. In Commercial Districts including LB, HB and B a wireless
communication fadlity is subject to site plan approval and must
meet the following requirements.
(1) Wireless communication facilities on Buildings are a Permitted
use. Wiretess communication facilities on buildings shall be no
higher than twenty feet above the average height of buildings
(excluding signs, fences, and walls) within 300 feet of the
proposed facility. Wiretess communication facilities on buildings
must be located at least three hundred feet (300') from any
landmark property or district listed by federal, state or town
agencies.
4
(2) Wireless communication facilities on Existing
Telecommunications Towers are a permitted use unless otherwise
restricted pursuant to the terms of a pdor special exception
approval.
(3) Wire Communication Facility on Telecommunications Towers
are a Permitted use, but shall not project higher than twenty feet
above the average height of buildings (excluding signs, fences,
and walls) within three hundred (300) feet of the facility or, if there
are no buildings within 300 feet, these facilities shall not project
higher than twenty feet above the average tree canopy height in
that radius measured from ground level. If there are no buildings
within three hundred (300) feet of the proposed facility site, all
telecommunication towers shall be surrounded by dense tree
growth to screen views of the facility in all directions. These trees
may be existing on the subject property or planted on site. The
base of the tower shall be located at teast one hundred feet (100')
from the nearest dwelling unit and three hundred feet (300') from
any landmark property or distdct listed by federal, state or town
agencies.
(4) A wireless communication facility is a permitted use, not
requiring site plan approval, if located on property owned, leased
or otherwise controlled by state, federal or town government,
provided a license or lease authorizing such facility has been
approved by that government.
C. In Industrial Districts including LI and LIO, a wireless
communication facility is subject to site plan approval and must
meet the following requirements.
(1) Wireless communication facilities on buildings are a permitted
use provided the height of the wireless communication facility
does not extend more than one hundred feet (100') above the
existing grade and the wireless communication facility is
located at least one hundred feet (100') from the nearest property
line and three hundred feet (300') from any landmark property or
district listed by federal, state or town agencies.
(2) Wireless communication facilities on Existing
Telecommunications Towers are permitted unless otherwise
restricted pursuant to the terms of a pdor special exception
approval.
5
as follows:
(3) Wireless Communication Facility on Telecommunications
Towers are a permitted use provided the height of the tower above
grade does not exceed one hundred feet (100') above the existing
grade and provided the base of the tower is located at least one
hundred feet (100') from the nearest dwelling unit and three
hundred feet (300') from any landmark property or district listed by
federal, state or town agencies.
(4) A wireless communication facility is a permitted use, not
requiring site plan approval, if located on property owned, leased
or otherwise controlled by state, federal or town government,
provided a license or [ease authorizing such facility has been
approved by that government.
7. Section 100-~63. Special Exception Approval is hereby added
A. Authority. The Zoning 8card of Appeals shall be empowered to
issue a special exception approval for wireless communication
facilities, subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
8. Standards. In addition to the standards in Article XXVI
of this code, no special exception approval shall be granted unless
the Zoning 8card of Appeals specifically finds and determines the
following:
(1) that the applicant is a public utility, and
(2) that construction of the proposed facility or modification of the
existing facility is a public necessity, in that it is required to meet
current or expected demands of the telecommunications
provider and to render adequate sercice to the public, and
(3) that the applicant has made substantial effort to locate or
collocate on existing towers, or failing that, that the applicant has
made substantial effort to locate on federal, state or town land and
facilities, and
(4) that the facility conforms with applicable FCC regulations: and
(5) that there are compelling reasons, economic or other,vise
wnic~ make it more feasible to construct, the proposed facilities
than attematives.
C. Matters to be considered, in addition to the matters
to be considered in Article XXVl of this code, the Zoning Board of
Appeals shall give consideration to the following in issuing a
special approval for wireless communication facilities:
(1) the height of the proposed tower shall be the minimum
necessary to render adequate service, and
(2) the wireless communication facility has been situated to
minimize its proximity and visibility to residential structures,
residential district boundaries and landmarks designated by town,
federal, or state agencies, and
(3) the wireless communication facilities is designed and situated
to be compatible with the nature of uses on adjacent and nearby
property, and
(4) the wireless communication facility has been designed to use
the surrounding topography to minimize its visual impacts, and
(5) the wireless communication facility has been designed to use
the surrounding tree, building or foliage coverage to minimize its
visual impacts; and
(6) the wireless communication facility maximizes design
characteristics to reduce or eliminate visual impacts or
obtrusiveness, and
(7) that other adequate conditions have been placed on the
wireless communication facility which will minimize any adverse
impacts of the facility on adjoining properties.
D. Application Requirements. In order to make the above
described determination, the Zoning Board shall require the
following in addition to the requirements of Article XXVI:
(1) Each application shall include a survey dearly indicating:
(a) the location, type and height of the wireless communication
facilities; (b) whether it is located on an existing structure,
collocated or on a telecommunication tower; (c) on-site land uses
and zoning; (d) adjacent land uses, structures and zoning within
300 feet; (e) distances between all structures; (f') location of
landmark listed by federal, state or town agencies within
300 feet; (g) adjacent roadways and/or pdvate dgr~s of way; (h)
prcposed means of access; (i) setbacks from property lines; (.j)
elevation drawings of the structures; (k) a long environmental
assessment form with visual addendum; (I) and other information
deemed by the Zoning Board to be necessary to assess
compliance with this law.
(2) Each application shall include a written site location alternative
analysis describing the location of other sites considered, the
availability of those sites, the extent to which other sites do or do
not meet the provider's service or engineering needs, and the
reason why the subject site was chosen.
(3) The applicant shall document to the satisfaction of Zoning
Board of Appeals that a good faith effort has been made to locate
or collocate on existing towers or other available and appropriate
buildings and structures, that it is not feasible to collocate on an
existing facility and that the proposed location is necessary to
provide adequate service to the public. The documentation shall
inc!ude a notarized statement by the applicant as to whether
construction of the wireless communication facility will
accommodate collocation of additional antennas for future users.
(4) .--ach application shall include a plan which shall reference
all existing Wireless Communication Facility locations in the
Town of Southotd, any such facilities in the abutting towns which
provide service to areas within the Town of Southold, any changes
prcposed within the following Helve (12) month period, including
appiicant's plans for new locations and the discontinuance or
retccation of existing wireless facilities. Alternatively, at the
beginning of the year the applicant may submit an Annual Wireless
Communication Facility Plan containing the aforementioned
information for the calendar year.
(5) A landscape plan showing specific landscape materials, fencing
and maintenance arrangements.
(6) The Zoning Board of Appeals may retain technical consultants
as it deems necessary to provide assistance in the review of the
needs and site location alternatives analyses and other matters
that :~e Board deems necessary. The applicant shall bear the
resscnable cost associated with suc;'~ consultation, which cost shall
be assessed as an additional application fee. In no case shall the
fee :e more than five percent (5%) of the total project cost as
de~.e,,':m, ined for :uilding permit fee assessment purposes.
8
(7) A copy of the deed or lease agreement establishing applicant's
right to use the parcel on which the wireless communication
facilities is to be located.
(8) An engineering analysis of the radio emissions and a
propagation map for the proposed wireless communication facility.
The analysis shall be prepared and signed by a New York State
licensed professional engineer specializing in electrical
engineering with expertise in radio-communication facilities. The
results from the analysis must clearly show that the power density
levels of the electromagnetic energy generated from the proposed
facility are within the allowable limits established by the FCC which
are in effect at the time of the application. If the wireless
communication facilities would be collocated with an existing
facility, the cumulative effects of them must also be analyzed. The
power density analysis shall be based on the assumption that all
antennas mounted on the proposed facility are simultaneously
transmitting radio energy at a power level equal to the maximum
antenna power rating specified by the mant,¢acturer.
(9) A 'search ring" prepared, signed and sealed by a qualified
radio frequency engineer registered in Ne;*/York and overlaid on
an appropriate background map demonstrating the area within
which the wireless communication facility needs to be located in
order to provide proper signal strength and coverage to the target
cell. The applicant must be prepared to explain to the Zoning
8oard why it selected the proposed site, discuss the availability or
lack thereof of a suitable structure within the search ring for
collocation, and the extend to which the applicant has explored
locating the proposed tower in a more intensive use district.
Correspondence with other telecommunication providers
concerning collocation is part of this requirement.
E. Conditions. The Zoning Board shall consider the following in
establishing conditions on the issuance of the special exception
approval.
(1) In reviewing special exception approval applications required
by this Section the Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider the
Town's policy as stated in this Article. When considering
appropriate height in conjunction with such applications, the
Zoning Board of Appeals shall be more per'missive when a facilib/
is proposed for collocation by more than cr:9 se.,-vice provider, and
less permissive when the facility is proposed for use by a single
provider.
(2) In approving a Special Exception the Zoning Board may waive
or reduce the criteria in this Article, to the extent specified below, if
the Zoning Board concludes that the goals and stated purposes of
this law are better served, and that doing so will have no
dethmental effect on adjacent properties or on the public health,
safety and welfare and thereby:
Increase the height of the proposed tower up to f'~een
feet over the height allowed by this code, with a maximum
total height of no more than sixty feet (60').
ii.
Minimize proximity of the tower to residential structures or
histodc landmarks listed by federal, state or town
agencies;
iii. Modify the planting of surrounding tree coverage and
foliage to account for existing vegetation and land
contours;
iV.
Modify the design of the tower, with particular reference
to design characteristics that reduce or eliminate visual
obtrusiveness;
(3) At the request of the building inspectors, which shall be no
more frequently than annually, the provider shall have each
wireless communication facility inspected at its own expense, and
a copy of the inspection report shall be promptly transmitted to the
building inspector. Radio emission inspections shall be performed
by a New York State licensed professional engineer specializing in
electrical engineering with expertise in radio communication
facilities. The radio emission inspection shall describe the power
density levels of the electromagnetic energy generated from the
facility, including the cumulative effects of collocated antennas. In
the event that the radio emission inspection indicates that the
elec;romagnetic energy generated from the facility are above the
allowable limits stated within the applicable FCC or ANSI
standards or other applicable state or federal guidelines in effect,
the applicant s~all cease all use of the facility until such time as it
proves to the satisfaction of the building inspector that the power
density leveis of the electromagnetic energy :o be generated are
I0
below the applicable standards.
(4) Any special exception approval granted under this Article shall
have a term of five years, commencing from the grant of the special
exception, which may be extended for an additional five year term
upon application to the Zoning Board. On a renewal application,
the applicant shall demonstrate that the wireless communication
facility is in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and
regulations and with all of the conditions of the special exception
approval and site plan, that the facility is necessary to provide
adequate service, and that there is no reasonable alternative
available to the owner which will provide adequate service without
the continuing use of the facility. Subsequent special exception
renewals shall be subject to review by the Zoning Board and
subject to such standards that shall be included in the Town Code
at that point in time.
8. Section 100-164. Historic Buildings and Districts is hereby
added as follows:
No wireless communication facility is allowed on any designated
landmark property or district listed by federal, state or town
agencies, except as specified below:
A. Any wireless communication facility located on
or within an historic structure listed by federal, state or town
agencies shall not alter the character-defining features, distinctive
construction methods, or original matedats of the building.
B. Any alteration made to an histodc structure to
accommodate a wireless communication facility
shall be fully reversible.
C. Wireless communication facilities within an histodc district
listed by federal, state or town agencies shall be concealed within
or behind existing architectural features, so that they are not
visible.
9. Section 100-165. Design Standards is hereby added as follows:
'Fne following design standards shall apply to wireless
communication facilities installed or constru~ed pursuant to the
terms of this chapter.
11
A. Camouflage on Buildings. When a wireless communication
facility extends above the roof height of a building on which it is
mounted, every effort shall be made to conceal the facility within or
behind existing architectural features to limit its visibility from public
ways and residential uses but still permits the facility to perform its
designated function. Facilities mounted on a roof shall be stepped
back from the front facade in order to limit their impact on the
building's silhouette. The wireless communication facilities shall
blend in with the existing building's architecture and, if over five (5)
square feet, shall be painted or shielded with matedal which is
consistent with the design features and materials of the building.
B. The minimum lot size for the siting of a telecommunication tower
shall be in accordance with the following. No tower can be built on
a lot which is nonconforming in size to the requirements set forth
below:
Minimum Lot Area-
Commercial Districts
Minimum Lot Area-
Residential and
Marine Districts
Minimum Lot Area-
Industrial Districts
Per Bulk Schedule per 5 acres
zone
Per Bulk Schedule
per zone
C. Setbacks. Towers and Equipment Facilities shall adhere to the
setbacks for principal uses in the Bulk Schedule applicable to the
zone in which the structure(s) are located.
O. Fencing. The base area of a telecommunication tower and
equipment facilitY shall be enclosed with a black vinyl chain link
fence not less than six feet (6') in height.
E. Signs. Signs shall not be permitted on towers except for signs
displaying contact information and safety instructions. Such signs
shall not exceed five (5) square feet in surface area.
F. Equipment Facility. Equipment accessory to the wireless
:cmmunication facility may be located within an existing building.
In newly constructed buildings and structures an equipment facility
is limited to 500 square feet in floor area. If the newly constructed
~uipment facility is designed for collocation, the facility may be up
:o I000 square feet. The equipment facility shall be constructed
wi~h a finish similar to that of adjacent structures on the property
and integrated into the architectural style. Any newly constructed
equipment facility shall be located in accordance with the minimum
height and yard requirements of the zoning district applicable to
the site and no more than two adjacent off-street parking spaces
shall be provided for service vehicles. Any regrading for
stormwater retention that is required by the Town Engineer shall be
accommodated on-site.
G. Site Lighting. As independent freestanding facilities on separate
sites will not be accessible to the public, the lighting permitted shall
be the minimum required to protect the public welfare. Facilities
sited on existing developed sites shall be incorporated into the
lighting and landscaping plans of those sites.
H. Access. Access to tower or monopole areas shall be from
established site access points whenever possible.
I. Dish Antennas. Dish antennas shall be colored, camouflaged or
screened to the extent that they are as unobtrusive as possible and
in no case shall the diameter of a dish antenna exceed six feet (6').
J. F_!ectric Line Setback. No wireless communication facility shall
be located nearer than a distance equal to its height above the roof
or other permanent structure to which it is attached to any
overhead electric transmission line car'wing more than two hundred
twenty (220) volts.
K. Collocation. Wireless Communication Facilities shall be
designed to provide for collocation by multiple providers; or
designed so that they can be retrofitted to accommodate multiple
providers.
10. Section 100-166. Appearance is hereby added as follows:
A. Scenic Landscapes and Vistas. All telecommunication towers
whict~ are not camouflaged by existing buildings or structures shall
be surrounded by a buffer of dense tree growth. A wireless
communication facility that is located within 300 feet of a scenic
vista, scenic landscape or scenic road, as designated by the town,
shall not exceed the height of vegetation at the proposed location.
If the facility is located farther than 300 feet from the scenic vista,
scenic landscape or scenic road, the height regulations described
elsewhere in this article shall apply.
13
8. Base Landscaping. A screen of evergreen trees shall be
planted outside the fence of the telecommunication tower base
area to provide a visual screen or buffer for adjoining private
properties and the public right-of-way. Required front yard setback
areas shall be landscaped.
C. Color. Towers shall either be blue/gray in color, have a
galvanized finish, or be colored appropriate to the tower's
Iocational context to the extent that the tower is as unobtrusive as
possible, unless otherwise required by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FA,A). If a wireless communication facility is
installed, on a structure other than a tower, the antenna and
supporting electrical and mechanical equipment must be of a
neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the
colors of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and
related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible.
D. Camouflage by Vegetation for Residential Screening.
Where ~he site proposed for a freestanding tower structure is
located within a residential zone or has one or more property lines
abutting or on the opposite side of a street from a residential zone
or use permitted in a residential zone, large trees and/or existing
and proposed buildings on the site shall be used to provide an
angle of occlusion from the property line to the top of the structure
of 50 degrees or less (50 degrees from the hodzon line is the
upper limit of the normal vertical cone of vision). To achieve the
occlusion, a row of mixed deciduous and evergreen trees
shall be preserved and/or planted at 50% of the distance between
the tower and the property line, and a second row at 90% of the
distance between the tower and property line (see illustrations
below). Transplanted trees shall have a minimum caliper of 3
inches, be spaced on 30 foot centers and have a typical height at
maturity of at least 50 feet. A three year bond or other assurances
shall be required to ensure that the plantings survive and are
maintained.
EL_~tAT!C)N VIEW
Ft_-q N VI~N
E. Alternate Screening. The location of a cellular wireless
communication facility on an existing water tower, silo or equivalent
vertical struCure, including an existing cellular, radio or television
tower, is permitted without the need to meet Conditions A, B, C and
D auove, provided that the height of the existing structure is not
increased as a result of the attachment of the cellular structure. A .
decorative disguising structure such as a clock tower may also be
approved as an alternative to Conditions A, B, C and D at the
discretion of the Zoning Board. If the height of the existing
struoture is to be increased by the attachment of the new structure,
all of the conditions herein shall apply as to a new freestanding
structure.
F. Commercial and Industrial Siting. Towers to be sited on
developed commercial or industrial properties shall be located to
ihe rear cf other principal buildings and shall not encroach on
planting buffers, parking areas or otherwise impair the operaucn of
previously approved systems such as s~ormwater drainage basins.
F-x~sdng buildings and structures should be used in the siting cf
freestanding :owers to contribute to the visual screening of the
follows:
towel'.
G. Commercial. Towers to be sited on undeveloped properties in
the commercial districts shall apply the standards of the condition
in §100-165(C) herein to all property lines, including the streetline,
except that a driveway shall be permitted to gain access to the
facility for maintenance personnel and equipment.
H. Airport Regulations. All towers shall comply with applicable
Airport Hazard Regulations and shall be subject to approval from
the Federal Aviation Administration for location, height and lighting
to prevent interference with the operation of an airport or otherwise
threaten the public safety.
11. Section 100-167. Removal is hereby added as follows:
A. Any Wireless communication facility that is not operated for a
continuous pedod of twelve (12) months shall be deemed
abandoned. At that lime the owner of ',he wireless communication
facility shall remove same within ninety days of such deemed
abandonment. In the case of a wireless communication facility
on preexisting structures, this provision shall apply to the wireless
communication facility only. If the wireless communication
facility is not removed with the said ninety (90) days, the building
inspectors may, with the approval of the Town Board, give the
owner notice that unless the removal is accomplished in thirty (30)
days, the town will cause the removal at the owner's expense. The
grant of a special exception approval under this Article shall
include irrevocable permission to the town to acccmplish removal
of the wireless communication facility under this Article. Any cost to
the town for such removal, shall constitute a lien on the tax lot on
which the tower is situated and shall be collected in the same
manner as a town tax upon real property.
12. Section 100-168. Nonconforming Uses is hereby added as
Pre-existing telecommunication towers shall be ailowed to continue
their usage as they presently exist. New constru~ion, other than
maintenance on a pre-existing tower, s,hall comply with the
requirements of this ordinance.
13. Section 100-169. Severability is hereby added as follcws:
16
The various parts, sections and clauses of this local law are hereby
declared to be severable. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section
or clause is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the ordinance shall not be
affected thereby.
14. Section 100-31. Use regulations in A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200
and R-400 Districts is hereby amended as follows:
B. Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of
Appeals. The following uses are permitted as special exception by
the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, and, except for two
family dwellings and the uses set forth in Subsection B(14) hereof,
are subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board:
6) Public utility rights-of-way as well as structures and other
installations necessary to serve areas within the town, except that
wireless communication facilities must obtain approval pursuant to
Article XVI, subject to such conditions as the Board of Appeals may
impose in order to protect and promote the health, safety,
appearance and general welfare of the community and the
character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to
be constructed.
15. Section 100-t 31. Use regulations in the LId District, is hereby
amended as follows:
8. Uses permitted by special exception of the Board of
Appeals. The following uses are permitted as a special, exception
by the Board of Appeals as hereinafter provided, subject to site
plan approval by the Planning Board:
(4) Public utility structures and uses, except that wireless
communication facilities must obtain approval pursuant to Article
XVI.
16. Section 100-230 (D) Exceptions and modifications, is hereby
amended as follows:
O. Heigi~t exceptions. The heigf~t limitations of this chapter shall
not apply to:
(1) Spires, belfries, cupolas and domes not for human occupancy;
-:nC monuments. Transmission towers, exc!uding
State.
telecommunication towers, chimneys, derricks, conveyors,
flagpoles, radio towers, television towers and television aerials,
provided that any television or radio aerial shall not be located
nearer than a distance equal to its height above the roof or other
permanent structure to which it is attached to any overhead electric
transmission line carrying more than two hundred twenty (220)
volts.
(2) Bulkheads, observation towers, monitors, fire towers, hose
towers, cooling towers, water towers, grain elevators or other
structures where a manufacturing process requires greater height
but excluding wireless communication facilities, provided that any
such structures that are located on any roof area that exceed in
height the limits in the particular district shall not in the aggregate
occupy more than twenty percent (20%) of the horizontal area of
the roof and are set back one (1) foot from the edge of the roof for
each additional foot in height greater than the specified height.
(3) All mechanical equipment necessary to operate building
ser,zices, which equipment is located on the roof of a structure,
shall be screened in a manner approved by the Planning Board.
This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of
18
(Complete the certification in the paragraph that applies to the filing of thi.s local law and
stNke out that which is not applicable-)
1. (Final adoption by local legMlarive body only.)
I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, dezi~nated as local law No ...... .2.~ ........................... of 19---9-7--
' ' " ........ Town"5~i"-'-" o/' $ou._t.h..oJ..d. ............................................... ,,vas duly passed by the
ot+~wn~B~a3:~t,~ /t ~ o~q~b-;;$~iber 121997 ,inacaordanceW/ththeaopticabteprov/sionso(la'.v.
2. Ci:~sage by local legislative body with approval, no disapproval or repassage attar disapproval
by the Elective Chief Executive Officer*.)
[ hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, dezignated as local law No ........................... of 19 ....
of the (County)(City)(Town)Cv'~lage) o£ ................................................ was duly passed by tl!e
...................................... ou ............... 19 --, and was (approved)(uot appmved)(repa.~¢d after :
disapproval) by the ..........................................and wa~ deemed duly adopted on .................. 19----,
in accordance w/th thc applicabie provisio~m of law.
3. tTinal adoption by referendum.)
[ ~erebv certify :hat the focal law annexed he,~'o, dash.re'uteri as local law No ................................. o£ 19 ......
of the ('C. oumv'!{ Chv)(T. own)f-v]llao'e)of ............................................................... ,,vas duly passed by ,,he
.... .. apr~rovee [reaassed after
.................................................. on .................. !9 ..... ann was (aooroved)(not , '7' , '
disapprova[) by the ................................................ on ................... !9 .... Such local law was sabmined
;o the people by reason o( a (mandato~)(pe:-m/ssive) referendum, and received :he affirmative vote of a majority of
the oualified ¢i~ctom voting thereon at the (genemt)(speciat)(annual) ciao:ion kcid o- .................i9--- , in
accordanc= with ~he applicable pmvisiorm of law.
..t. (Subject to permi.~sive referendum and final adoption because no valid petition wan ~ed req. ue~ting
referendum.)
[ ",araby certif,,' !hat the local law annexed ~creto. desig:nated a~ local !aw No ............................. of 19 ......
o£ the (~Coumv'){'Citv)(Town)(%iilage) of ................. [ .............................................. was duly passed by the
................ _'._.~._._'.__~ ...................... on .................. i9 ..... and was (approved)(aot approved)(repassed after
,iisapprovai) by the .................................................. on .................. !9 .... Such Iocai law '.,,'as sub?c: to
pe.xnissive re."e:'=ndam and ao valid petition ."=questing suca .~ferendum was filed az of ................ [9---- , in
aczordance witia the applicable Frovisiorm of law.
Chief Execut/ve Officer means or indude~ ~e cPAef ex~a~ve officer of a coun~ e!~:~ ou a cmun~e-
~asi5 or. if ~e~ be non~ ~e ~ou o(~e ~un~ l~siative b~y, ~e mayor ora ~ or vil~ or
supe~tso~ of a ~owu whe~ ~uch o{~cer ~ v~ wi~ ~e power to a~p~ve or veto io~1 laws or ordinance.
Cl.~)
a (City local law conceraing Charter revision proposed by petition.)
I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No ................................. of 3.9 ......
o~' the City o[ ............................................. havin~ been submitted to re[er~ndum pursuant to the provisions of
section (36)(3/0 of the Mumcipal Home Rule Law, and h~ving received the aff'n-mative vote o[a majority of the
qualified electors of such city voting thereon at the (special)(geneml) election held on ................ 19-...,
became operative.
6. (County local law concerning adoption of Charten)
I :aereby cer;ify that the local law annexed, hereto, designated a~ local law No. of 19._.~-
of the County of ....................................... State of New York, having been submitted to the electors
at the General .Election of November ............... 19--, pursuant to subdivisions 5 and 7 of section 33 of the
Manici'pal Home P, nl¢ La'v, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of *.~ qualified e!ectors of the cit-
ies of said county aa a unit a.nd a majority of the qt~Mifled electors of the towns of said comaty considered aa a unit
voting at said general el~'tion, became operative.
(if any other authortz-'d tom of final adoption has been followed, please provide an appropriat-' certification.)
I ~rther certify that I have compa~d the orec:ding local law with the ori_~nal o~ file La tl~ offi~ and that the same
is a correct transc~pt ther~tv~m and of th~ whole of such ofigi~d local iaw, and was [really adopted in the manner in-
Judith I. TArry, Town
November 13, 1997
Date:
(Certification to b~ executed by County Arrorney, Corporation Counsel Tow~ Attorney, W, qage Atrot-aey or
other authorized attorney of locality.)
COI.TI, CrT O~
L thc tmdersio~led, hereby ~rti~y t~t the forgoing 1~t law ~nm~ ~e ~ :e~ and ~t
~u~ ~.Dowd, Town A~o~ey
Southold
November 13, I997
(20)
, II
N.Y.S. Lic. No. 49668
SURVkY'
OF PROPERTY
$ITUA TED A T
MATTITUCK
TO~N OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
S.C. TA~ No. 1000-141-03-44
i', SCALE 1"=20'
, APRIL 11, 1997
DECEMBER 4, 1997 ADDED PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
DECEMBER 18, 1947 REVISED PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
MARCH 3 1998 IREVlSED PROPOSED COMMUN CAT ONS TOWER
~AREA = 11,517,67 sq. ft.
0.264 ac.
CERTIFIED TO:
COMM£
MARTII',
Southold Town
Planning Board
IWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
ROSEN
THE EXISTENCE OF RICHT~ OF WAY
AND/OR EASEMENTS ~F RECORD, IF
ANY, NOT SHOWN ARE NOT GUARANI[ED,
'Joseph A. Ingegno
Land Surveyor
PHbN£ (516)727-2090
lone Union Square
Fox (516)722-5093
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. Box 1951
Rlverheed, New Yor~ 11901
97 204B
15o.55,4O,,E
/7'47' I0" ~/
Southold Town
Planning Board
117'80 SOUND AVENUE
MATTITUCK, NEW YORK
9811
6
F. LEVATIoM
. ..~--~L~; Y'-I'"=
Fod H
I
.1,
A~?~AL'r ~H~HGLEG
/~ LJF--N AL.Ublt klU ivi
LF_APE-,P-~
/
M~,4. v~ki-fL GlomlG
J:::c~d k.l DA,TI,~kJ
HEN A,~T fl-JlH(~Lr__'~
AL.d M i dLI1,4
e,~d LI PATI oli
N 11°41'10" W
$outhold Town
Planning Board
40399
Mart, in ~
11780 f~.~ Av~
/V~,~,~ck, Nm Y~