HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-63.-1-29.2 . -• � .. :� fir- .v;(,. .. .. ...-..%!
ppm
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS o-h
THIS DECLARATION, made and entered into the 2nd day of l
DECEMBER , 1993 , by QUAD ENTERPRISES, a partnership, assignee
of Emanuel Kontokosta, with offices at 43 West 54th Street, New
York, New York (hereinafter referred to as the "Declarant") .
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, the Declarant is the owner in fee simple
absolute, of premises located at on the south side of Middle Road
between Young Avenue (also known as Railroad Avenue) and Boisseau
Avenue, Southold, New York, Tax Map No. District 1000, Section
55, Lot 17 , more specifically described on Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and made a part hereof, (hereinafter referred to as the
"Premises") , commonly known as SOUTHOLD COMMONS; and
WHEREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Town
of Southold for a change of zone from Residence R-80 (Residential
Low-Density District (two-acre minimum) ) to HD (Hamlet Density
Residential District) ; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Southold, has agreed to grant
Declarant's application for a change of zone; and
WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed, in consideration of
the approval of the Town Board of the Town of Southold to the
change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the
development and use of Premises which the Town of Southold deems
in its best interest as whole to obtain; and
1
WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed to place these
covenants and restrictions against the Premises.
W I T N E S E T H
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Premises, and
the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as
follows:
1. The Premises (32 acres) to be designated as HD
(Hamlet Density Residential District) zoning, shall:
A. Be developed at a density equal to one
residential unit per one half (1/2) acre (2 units
per acre) .
B. Provide that out of the total number of units
to be built, (as provided in Subsection 2A) 30%
are to be designated "Affordable Housing" units
and shall be required to meet only the sales
price and eligibility criteria indicated in the
"Affordable Housing" Section of the code of the
Town of Southold.
2 . The covenants and restrictions contained herein
shall be enforceable by the Town of Southold against the
Declarant or the then owner of the Premises, or by proceeding at
law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or
attempting to violate any conditions of this Declaration, to
restrain violation, in whole or in part.
2
u 0
3 . The above-mentioned covenants and restrictions
shall be and constitute real covenants running with the land and
shall be binding upon the Declarant and any and all subsequent
owners of the said real property or part thereof, and upon their
heirs, executors and administrators (or their successors or
assigns) , subject, however, to the right of the Town of Southold
annul, or repeal any or all of the foregoing covenants and/or
restrictions at any time.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has hereunto set his
hand and seal the day and year first above written.
QUAD ENTERPRISES (a part r ip)
By: Emanuel Kontokosta, partner
i
STATE OF NEW JERSEY)
ss:
COUNTY OF PASSAIC )
n�
On this day of 1993 , before me
personally came Emanuel Kontokosta, to me known and known to me
to be a partner of Quad Enterprises, and the person described in
and who executed the foregoing instrument in the partnership name
of Quad Enterprises, and he duly acknowledged to me that he
executed the same as and for the act and deed of the said
partnership of Quad Enterprises.
k
otary Public '
SM UKA MATOS
A MOM Pebiic of Nen lm W
My Canmism Expires 16/5/99
3
�U7zp/NG.
S�t6Fr t.t�J
UFFO
OG
a �
0
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ti
T SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman •y� O`er Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott L. Harris, Supervisor and
Members of the Town Board
FROM: Richard G. Ward, Chairman
RE: Change of Zone Petitions for
Southold Commons
Youngs' and Boisseu Avenues, Southold, New York
DATE: March 23 , 1993
The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed Covenants
and Restrictions that were submitted by Howard Pachman to the
Town on behalf of his client, Emanuel Kontokosta, in support of
this petition for a change of zone from R-80 to Hamlet
Density.
While we ordinarily would recommend this parcel for an
increase in density, there is no evidence that the Town needs to
encourage the construction of new moderate income housing at
this time. We note that the developer pledges to sell 30% of
the half acre lots or houses within the sales prices and
eligibility criteria set forth in our Affordable Housing
District program. However, he does not agree to comply with our
condition that such housing remain affordable for seven years.
The net effect of this proposed Covenant and Restriction is
contrary to the AHD district.
The Planning Board recommends that residential density not
be given away until the Town has had a chance to develop a
program whereby density could be shifted away from our
agricultural and open space lands into hamlet areas.
Accordingly, we recommend that you lend your support and
cooperation by declining to accept the proposed Covenants and
Restrictions as a condition of approval of this petition ..
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS C SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman "`ddd �� a; r,._,;' h Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr. >j��. sv��lr'Y
Richard G. Ward 4r Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald " P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Harris, Supervisor and
Members of the Town Board
FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman
Members of the Planning Board
RE: Comments for the Public Record for the March 10,
1992 public hearing for the Change of Zone Petition of
Southold Commons, S/o CR 48, between Boisseau and
Youngs ' Avenues, Southold.
DATE: March 6, 1992
The Planning Board has reviewed this petition to change the
zone of 32 acres from two acre zoning to Hamlet Density zoning.
At the time that we reviewed the Final Environmental Impact
Statement we found that it did not answer some key questions
that were raised during our review of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. Accordingly, we requested that the Town Board
take these concerns into consideration before issuing a Findings
Statement. Our concerns were noted in our November 22, 1991
memorandum, a copy of which is attached for your convenience.
At this public hearing on the petition, we wish to
reiterate the Planning Board' s position for the record.
The project will result in a significant increase in the
projected density. The theoretical yield of this property as it
is presently zoned ( one unit for every two acres) is estimated
to be about fourteen ( 14) single family lots, which could be
clustered onto lots of between twenty and forty thousand square
feet apiece, provided public water were available from the
Village of Greenport.
page 2
Southold Commons
The petition before you is to increase that density to 3 . 6
units per acre for a total of one hundred and sixteen ( 116)
units on quarter acre lots. This change will add one hundred
and two ( 102) more dwelling units than the current zone allows.
This increase in density will require the provision of
sewage treatment within the hamlet. Either the applicant will be
required to construct a package sewage treatment plant or he
will have to connect with the Greenport sewage treatment system,
which presently does not extend into the hamlet.
By way of background information, permits to construct
package sewage treatment plants must be obtained from both the
County Health Services Department and the County Department of
Public Works. The sewer regulatory division of the Public Works
Department requires that all sewage treatment plants be designed
for one hundred percent ( 100%) expansion. The agency also has a
policy of discouraging the construction of small package
treatment plants by requiring connection with an existing
treatment plant wherever possible. This policy is based on the
fact that the maintenance of private package treatment plants by
homeowners or condominium associations frequently becomes
unmanageable. Plant owners eventually approach the County to
ask that County maintain the plants.
The policy issues raised by the construction of a package
plant (with 100 °% expansion built-in) or connection to the
Greenport system have never been addressed by the Town from a
long-term planning perspective. The Suffolk County Department
of Public Works, which regulates the construction and location
of package sewage treatment plants in the County, has a policy
of not endorsing package plants, but, rather, requiring
connection with existing treatment systems. (This information
was verified with Arthur Kunz, Director, Suffolk County
Department of Planning in a telephone conversation on March 6,
1992. )
We also wish to emphasize that the County' s East-Tracking
program is not the same as the Town' s Affordable Housing
District. Under the County' s program only 20' of t the units in
a project must be priced significantly below markelevels. In
striking contrast to the County' s program, the Town' s program
requires that 50% of the proposed units be sold at the
affordable rate. In real terms, the Town' s program would
result in thirty five ( 35) more affordable units than would the
County' s program.
page 3
Southold Commons
The Town' s program not only provides more units, it is
geared to the lower median income of Southold Town residents
compared to that of County residents as a whole. For example,
in 1991, the maximum allowable income of an eligible home buyer
under the County program was $54,500 . 00. The maximum allowable
income of an eligible home buyer under the Town' s program that
same year was $49,614. 00.
Last, but not least, the Town' s program gives first
preference to Town residents, second to people employed within
the Town. By contrast, the County' s program is open to any
County resident. Given the higher maximum allowable income of
the County' s program, and the fact that the median income in
Southold Town is less that that of the western towns, it is not
unreasonable to assume that Southold residents will have a hard
time competing with residents from the western part of the
County. In fact, the Town' s own experience with two affordable
housing projects in the Town' s program bears this out; some of
the homes went to western Suffolk residents because many of the
otherwise eligible Town residents could not obtain mortgage
committments. This in spite of the fact the Southold Town' s
affordable houses were offered for less money than a house under
the County program.
This Board feels that the Town' s affordable housing program
doesn' t address the local housing need because the allowable
price of a house is still out of reach of a lot of young
families who live and work here. Consequently, we cannot, in
good conscience, endorse a County program that does even less.
In conclusion, we find that this change of zone petition
cannot be supported. The argument that the Town Board has to
approve this change of zone because the Master Plan encourages
the concentration of population density within a half-mile of
the hamlet business centers is flawed because it fails to
include some broader social issues which have clear relevance to
the Town.
Encl.
��UrFat
n
7 iw
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr. I0� -Y _� ;;'
Richard G. Ward _ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald '"` =
P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman
RE: Comments on the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Change of Zone Petition for Southold Commons
Young' s and Boisseau Avenues , Southold.
DATE: November 22, 1991
The Planning Board has reviewed the Final Environmental
Impact Statement(FEIS) for this petition to change the zone of
32 acres of property located between Young' s and Boisseau
Avenues in Southold from R-SO ( two acre zoning) to HD (quarter
acre zoning) .
The FEIS does not answer some key questions that were
raised during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully
requests of the Town Board that its issuance of a Findings
Statement take into consideration the following information.
The project will result in a significant increase in the
projected density. The theoretical yield of this property as it
is presently zoned (one unit for every two acres) could be
approximately fourteen single family residences which could be
clustered on lots of between twenty to forty thousand square
feet in area due to the availability of public water.
The petition before you is to increase that density to 3 . 6
units per acre for a total of one hundred and sixteen ( 116)
units on quarter acre lots. The change of zone will add one
hundred and two more units to the property than the current zone
allows. It also will result in the need to construct a package
sewage treatment plant which would be privately owned.
The applicant proposes to comply with the Suffolk County
Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program ( as explained in Appendix
M of the DEIS) . Under that program, only 23 of these homes
( twenty percent of 116 ) will be offered at "affordable" rates.
The remaining 93 homes will be offered at the market rate.
The County' s Fast-Tracking program is not the same as the
Town' s Affordable Housing District. Under the County' s program
at least 20% of the housing units in a project must be priced
significantly below market levels. In striking contrast to the
county' s Fast-Tracking program, the Town' s program requires that
half of the proposed units be sold at the affordable rate.
Thus, under the Town' s program an additional 35 affordable units
could be made available for a total of 58 homes.
"Households with incomes approximately equal to or less
than 1200 of the median income for a family of four based on the
Department of housing and Urban Development' s Section 8 Income
Guidelines will be eligible buyers. " (Suffolk County
Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program. Michael A. LoGrande,
Suffolk County Executive. page 4. ) In 1991 , the maximum
allowable income of an eligible home buyer under the County
program is $54, 500 . Under the Town' s program, the maximum
allowable income of an eligible buyer in 1991 is $49 , 614.00 ; a
figure that is in keeping with the fact that the median income
in Southold Town is lower than that of the County at large.
Finally, the County' s program requires that the housing be
offered to any resident of the county who applies. In contrast,
the Town' s program gives Town residents ( and people who work in
Town) first priority. Finally, a house offered under the County
program cannot exceed $100, 000 in price, whereas a house offered
under the Town program cannot exceed about $95,000 in price.
The Town has approved two affordable housing projects to
date. With each, the only applicants that were able to obtain
mortgage financing to purchase an "affordable" lot were those at
the upper end of the maximum allowable income and those who were
had sufficient cash reserves (whether through savings or
gifts) . In fact, one project ended up selling some of the
affordable homes to people who did not live and work in Southold
Town because no one else on the eligible list could obtain bank
financing. What this means is that even the Town' s "affordable"
housing program, which is more affordable than the County' s, is
not affordable enough for those who live and work here.
In comparing the two programs and the intent of the Master
Plan, the Planning Board finds that it cannot support this
change of zone to the Hamlet Density.
Southold Commns: Page two
• r � ♦
�Ur rt7C T '�
C
_act.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ` r1"a�:.,y:►-' Supervisor
George Ritchie Latham, Jr. 1 J1�_(
Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Mark S. McDonald �' O `� P.O. Box 1179
Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman
RE: Comments on the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Change of Zone Petition for Southold Commons
Young' s and Boisseau Avenues, Southold.
DATE: November 22, 1991
The Planning Board has reviewed the Final Environmental
Impact Statement(FEIS) for this petition to change the zone of
32 acres of property located between Young' s and Boisseau
Avenues in Southold from R-80 (two acre zoning) to HD (quarter
acre zoning) .
The FEIS does not answer some key questions that were
raised during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully
requests of the Town Board that its issuance of a Findings
Statement take into consideration the following information.
The project will result in a significant increase in the
projected density. The theoretical yield of this property as it
is presently zoned (one unit for every two acres) could be
approximately fourteen single family residences which could be
clustered on lots of between twenty to forty thousand square
feet in area due to the availability of public water.
The petition before you is to increase that density to 3 . 6
units per acre for a total of one hundred and sixteen ( 116)
units on quarter acre lots. The change of zone will add one
hundred and two more units to the property than the current zone
allows. It also will result in the need to construct a package
sewage treatment plant which would be privately owned.
The applicant proposes to comply with the Suffolk County
Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program (as explained in Appendix
M of the DEIS) . Under that program, only 23 of these homes
( twenty percent of 116) will be offered at "affordable" rates.
The remaining 93 homes will be offered at the market rate.
The County' s Fast-Tracking program is not the same as the
Town' s Affordable Housing District. Under the County' s program
at least 200 of the housing units in a project must be priced
significantly below market levels. In striking contrast to the
county' s Fast-Tracking program, the Town' s program requires that
half of the proposed units be sold at the affordable rate.
Thus, under the Town' s program an additional 35 affordable units
could be made available for a total of 58 homes.
"Households with incomes approximately equal to or less
than 120°% of the median income for a family of four based on the
Department of housing and Urban Development' s Section 8 Income
Guidelines will be eligible buyers. " (Suffolk County
Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program. Michael A. LoGrande,
Suffolk County Executive. page 4. ) In 1991 , the maximum
allowable income of an eligible home buyer under the County
program is $54,500. Under the Town' s program, the maximum
allowable income of an eligible buyer in 1991 is $49 ,614. 00; a
figure that is in keeping with the fact that the median income
in Southold Town is lower than that of the County at large.
Finally, the County' s program requires that the housing be
offered to any resident of the county who applies. In contrast,
the Town' s program gives Town residents (and people who work in
Town) first priority. Finally, a house offered under the County
program cannot exceed $100,000 in price, whereas a house offered
under the Town program cannot exceed about $95,000 in price.
The Town has approved two affordable housing projects to
date. With each, the only applicants that were able to obtain
mortgage financing to purchase an "affordable" lot were those at
the upper end of the maximum allowable income and those who were
had sufficient cash reserves (whether through savings or
gifts) . In fact, one project ended up selling some of the
affordable homes to people who did not live and work in Southold
Town because no one else on the eligible list could obtain bank
financing. What this means is that even the Town' s "affordable"
housing program, which is more affordable than the County' s, is
not affordable enough for those who live and work here. _
In comparing the two programs and the intent of the Master
Plan, the Planning Board finds that it cannot support this
change of zone to the Hamlet Density.
Southold Cormions: Page two
\ dui
CRAMER, V0664_ 8y!A�CIA�S ' P�
ENVIRONMENTA�_AND I�IANNI,�G CONSULTANTS
l�S
February 18, 1991
Supervisor Scott Harris and
Members of the Town Board
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971 FEB
Re: Draft ETS Review Southold Commons
Southold, New York
Dear Supervisor and Members of the Town Board:
As per your request, and in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, we have completed a review of the Draft EIS for the above referenced project within
the 30 day period required under the regulations (6 NYCRR 617.8(b)(4)J This review
compares the revised document to our letter of November 12, 1990, w iich identified
deficiencies in the first submission. Overall, we are disappointed that the revision does not
address critical issues itemized in our review, and much of the additional information which
has been provided is inaccurate. Accordingly, we have little choice but to point out these
deficiencies and further recommend that they be amended into the text of the document.
Our'intention is to provide professional environmental planning consulting services to
the Town of Southold. As such we strive to keep our reviews on a professional level,
providing the benefit of our expertise in administering the State Environmental Quality
1 Review Act (SEOR), and providing technical input into the environmental review and
decision-making process.
The project thinly relies on the affordability concept to justify a 624 percent increase '
in density, without providing a satisfactory basis for a weighing and balancing of socio-
economic issues against environmental, land use and cultural resource impacts. We believe
that a zoning decision based upon this type of analysis would be vulnerable to legal
challenge. Accordingly, we would suggest that significant additional analysis in terms of land
use and zoning (and other concerns) is warranted in order to provide a basis for ultimate
decision on this project. All subsequent analysis should be accurate, substantiated and most
of all objective, in order to provide the lead agency with information necessary to reach a
well-informed decision. To this end, we have itemized the specific areas which require
proper evaluation as follows:
R E L)ES(w TPTION
DESCRIPTION CRIP'T'IO OF TIRE PRO>yOSED ACTION Paae111-2
The proposed project can only be constructed at the requested density, if a Sewage `
Treatment Plant (STP) is built on the site. Therefore the project is functionally dependent
upon an STP, and it is appropriate for the lead agency to review information pertaining to
this aspect of the project,particularly as it relates to density, environmental and land use
impacts of the zoning decision. Standards for sewage treatment plant sighting are locally
Page l
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455
Southold Commons
Draft EIS Review 2/18/91
regulated by the Health Department (SCDHS). Setback requirements are established in
order to protect existing and neighboring uses, eliminate public health hazards associated
with airborne pathogens and to protect water supply facilities. In terms of the subject site,
the most applicable setback requirements pertain to, Distance To Existing Structures and
Distance to Property Lines. Until recently, an enclosed STP building could be setback 100
feet from aproperty line, and 150 feet from a building. These setbacks are presently in
dispute,with the County supporting increased setbacks, and the State DEC increasing
pressure for even greater setback distances than those which are under consideration by the
County. The result is uncertainty regIarding ultimate STP sighting requirements; however,
the following setbacks will most likely be imposed at this time:
" 200 feet to the nearest tenantable structure
* 150 feet to property lines
Appropriate setbacks should be used in locating a hypothetical STP on the
conceptual site plan. This could indicate a significant change to project design or a yield
reduction of approximately 15 - 17 units with the current plan. It is suggested that these or
similar considerations, with im ut from the State and County, be incorporated into the Draft
EIS. STP sighting and density/land use impacts are appropriate to be considered by the
Town Board prior to authorizing a site zoning which would result in the mandatory
construction of an STP.
Llh-1-f,CNeed Lr 2 r 0 i e c t LI
The portion of the last sentence beginning on Page III-5, which reads, "although Cramer,
Voorhis cit Associates, acting for the Lead Agency requested it", should be removed from the
document. CVA has no authority to request this information, and merely provides
recommendations to the Board.
ENVIRONMENTAL .,TTI
Groundwater IV--7 s.Q EW JU
Reference should be provided for the statement that Zone IV is a shallow flow zone and
groundwater flow is to the south. This seems to be contradictory with the apparent fact that
the site is within a water budget area, and straddles the north fork groundwater divide, as
determined from the 1990 Contour Map of the Water Table released by SCDHS. In
addition, references we have consulted indicate that Zone IV is "characterized by unique
groundwater conditions, especially with respect to local quality problems such as high nitrate
levels in farm areas and saltwater upconing where pumpa$e is concentrated." (208 Study).
Accordingly this zone has special management considerations, none of which have been
considered in the Draft EIS, The groundwater section should be amended to address the
comments noted above and the previous recommendation letter dated November 12, 1990.
ENVIRQNMENTALMI PACTS
Groundwater Quality Y-2 to
The Draft EIS does not provide a summary of quantities of natural and landscaped areas,
therefore the 'lawn and landscape areas" quantity of 0.68 acres is unsupported. The Draft
EIS states that roof and driveway area is 139,000 square feet, and roadareais 214,400. A
CRAMER, V SOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTA /l1l pN1��\ G CONSULTANTS Page
Southold Commons
Draft EIS Review 2/18/91
low estimate of the quantity of an average 11,000 square foot lot to be cleared would be in
the range of 6,500 square feet (6,500 x 116 lots = 754,000 square feet), with the balance of
the lot remaining as natural meadow or landscaped in low maintenance species. Therefore
the minimum expected landscaped area would be that portion of each lot not established in
driveway or house footprint, or 615,000 square feet (754,000 - 1:39,000 square feet). This
equals 14.1 acres, which is considerably more than the 0.68 acres indicated in the This
EIS.
Appropriate changes should be reflected in the proposed project site quantity estimates, the
nitrogen budget and the alternative section.
l�,d I M& nin �m 1 iv Imps F-W
Paragraph 2 of this section states that, "Cumulative Impacts or precedent setting nature
should not be an issue for this proposed project". The reason for this statement is totally
unknown and unsupported. The SEAR regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 617.14(f)(3), clearly
state that the body of all Draft EiS's shall contain, "a statement and evaluation of the
environmental impacts of the proposed action, including the reasonably related short- and
long-term effects, cumulative effects and other associated environmental effects." Further,
Part 617.14(f)(8) indicates a Draft EIS must include "a description of any growth-inducingg
aspects of the proposed action, if applicable and significant". These impacts are applicable
as the Board has expressed concern over same through Positive Declaration, the Long EAF
Part III, and through the acceptance of the letter from the planning consultant dated
November 12, 1990. We continue to feel that the Board could great] , benefit from
presentation of information regarding the suitability of the requested'zoning change, in
consideration of other high density zoned parcels in the area, as it translates to need for the
project, hogsing stock, intensity of land use and land use compatibility in an area of generally
rural character. The precedent setting of the action with regard to other large parcels in the
area should be considered, in the context of cumulative impacts and potential growth
inducement. The NYSDEC SEQR Handbook and recent case law continues to support the
obligation of the lead agency to address these impacts.
In addition to the above comment regarding the impacts of this proposed rezoning in
connection with other projects and parcels in the area, the Draft EIS has not addressed or
acknowledged land use compatibility and densitX impacts, specific to the proposed site use.
The proposed construction of 116 residential units on 32 acres, on lots ranging from 10,000
to 12,000 square feet, requiring a sewage treatment plant,with no provision for retention of
open space, must be considered in an objective manner for what it is. The inherent land use,
visual, open space impacts, which .such a proposal causes to a generally rural area, may be
justified in view of overriding issues; however, there is insufficient information at present to
permit this type of analysis or conclusion. Accordingly, we feel it is imperative that
significant additional analysis in terms of land use and zoning and other appropriate issues
be included as a basis for ultimate decision on this project.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 5igA (Mngput Y2 -
The statement, "Increasing the lot size could increase the cost of such lots, and could
immediately result in a price increase above the affordable housing maximum cost as set by
Suffolk County criteria" is unsupported. Even the 86 lot alternative involves a density
increase from 03 units acre to 2.68 units/acre. The concept of increasing density is an
acceptable means of providing affordable housing. However, the ultimate density is not as
CRAMER, V R 1SNOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTANN� \1`G CONSULTANTS Page 3
. i r • �
Southold Commons
Draft EIS Review 2/18/91
proposed or identified in Town planning documents or the 4L£folk County Fast—Tracking
f6 for able Homes Proagm. but should take into account the specific site and area
conditions. In general, the affordable component of the project, as proposed and discussed,
is based upon the value of the land as related to current zoning. This alternative proposes
an increase in density of 436 percent from the current zoning. This would significantly
increase the value of the land, thereby allowing this to be translated into the ability of a
project sponsor to offer affordable units. It is not the responsibility of the lead agency to
consider the profitability of business decisions of an applicant in purchasing land with an
established zoning category. It is though the lead agency's responsibility to consider the all
the potential impacts (natural, cultural, local, regional, etc.) of the proposed change of zone.
The 86 unit alternative may indeed reduce certain environmental impacts as would further
decreases in density from what is requested, and should therefore be acknowledged
accordingly. Assertions regarding the effect of density reductions upon the ability to provide
affordable units should be deleted unless concrete economic data, relevant to the lead
agency decision-making role is supply.
Nitrou E= VIII-3
The lawn and landscaped area coverage figure of 0.73 should be reviewed and amended as
appropriate as per previous comments on site quantities.
inn VIII-9
Thidiiscussisionn totally ignores the fact that this alternative is more sensitive to natural and
human environmental resources through the retention of an undisclosed amount of open
space on the north side and within the development. Further the discussion does not
acknowledge that a density of 2.68 units/acre provides greater compatibility with
surrounding land use than the proposed project density of 3.62 units/acre. The Suffolk
County Planning Commission recommendations contained in Appendix K indicates that
"Appropriate developmental restrictions shall be setforth to minimize impacts on
surrounding lands zoned for single family residence purposes", thereby indicating potential
land use compatibility impacts even at this density. 'These impacts and appropriate
mitigation should be discussed.
Economics
The 86 unit project would not provide the same economiiccargevennuuee that the 116 unit project
would provide;however , this dscussion ignores the fact that the reduction in density would
also result in lesser demand for services thereby offsetting the change in revenue. Further,
the, is significant documentation which indicates that detached single family housing can
cause a burden on school districts due to the cost to educate a student as compared the
revenue per student. The Draft EIS does not contain sufficient economic data or analysis to
support the economic conclusions.
Alternative Jan_d T„J,5t W Lini
A4 Pa-0V I
The statement, "In choosing this alternative, it would not be consistent with the immediate
surrounding land use in that the general area surrounding the subject site consists of one
family dwellings on lot sizes resulting in 4 to 5 units/acre.B '1 This statement is inherently
untrue, and is not supported anywhere in the Draft IS. Conversely, Page IV-20 of the Draft
BIS states, "... the immediate surrounding area consists of varying uses and lot sizes from the
largest lot size of greater than three (3) acres to the smallest lot size of 6,000 square feet."
The area contains a mix of land use and zoning as shown in review of the 'rown of Southold
Zoning Map. The statement that this alternative is economically incompatible with other
CRAMER, VqMOE,
SOCIATES Page4
ENVIRONMENT AN � G CONSULTANTS
\
Southold Commons
Draft EIS Review 2/18/91
surrounding sites meaningless and unsupported.
Nitrogen tI-
The lawn and landscaped area coverage figure of 0.62 show d be reviewed and amended as
appropriate as per previous comments on site quantities.
WA ITC.az a EUA NAII-18
There is no supporting evidence to reach the conclusion that this alternative is not
compatible and consistent with the existing land use currently surrounding the subject site.
To the contrary, the character of the area surrounding the site is essentially rural, with
vacant and active farms, and a mit of moderate to low density residential housing
surrounding the site, with a small central business district southwest of the subject site. The
existing land use and alternative compatibility should be accurately disclosed.
Economics Ea9f,YM
-
This discussion iSnores the fact that the reduction in density would also result in lesser
demand for services thereby offsetting the change in revenue. The Draft EIS does not
contain sufficient economic data or analysis to support the economic conclusions. The
statement that this alternative is economically incompatible with other surrounding sites
meaningless and unsupported.
iinit. (CUsterl E= Vill-10
The statement, "In choosing this alternative, it would not be consistent with the immediate
surrounding land use in that the general area surrounding the subject site consists of one
family dwellings on lot sizes resulting in 4 to 5 units/acre." This statement is inherently
untrue, and is not supported anywhere in the Draft ETS. Conversely, Page IV-20 of the Draft
EIS states, "... the immediate surrounding area consists of varying uses and lot sizes from the
largest lot size of greater than three (3) acres to the smallest lot size of 6,000 square feet."
The area contains a mix of land use and zoning as shown in review of the Town of Southold
Zoning Map. The statement that this alternative is economically incompatible with other
surrounding sites meaningless and unsupported.
i r II-23
The lawn and landscaped area coverage figure of 0.46 show d be reviewed and amended as
appropriate as per previous comments on site quantities.
&n 1� in Pigg VIII-26
There is no supporting evidence to reach the conclusion that this alternative is not
compatible and consistent with the existing land use currently surrounding the subject site.
The existing land use and alternative compatibility should be accurately disclosed.
&onomics EM VI I.2
The Draft EIS does not contain sufficient economic data or analysis to support the economic
conclusions. The statement that this alternative is economically incompatible with other
surrounding sites meaningless and unsupported.
The above comments pertain to the scope, content and adequacy of the subject
document for public review. As indicated it is recommended that the applicantamend the
R, V R SOCIATES
CRAME
ENVIRONMENT '�� `'� /N�l��G CONSULTANTS Page S
Southold Commons
Draft EIS Review 2/18/91
body of the text of the document to address or include the above noted items. All
appropriate sections of the Draft EIS should be altered to reflect the above comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Southold Town Board with our review
of the Draft EIS for Southold Commons. Provided the above noted items are satisfactorily
addressed in the revision the document can be circulated for a 30 day comment period in
order to consider the accuracy and validity of the document. We will be pleased to conduct
further review at your request. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions
regarding this review.
Zso
is
cc: Judith Terry, Town Clerk
Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney
CRAMER, V4�� I SOCIATES
ENVIRONMENT �� G CONSULTANTS Page 6
- ,.ixx.�nk, m--. a.wv..:-a.. .. :«�..•a+NdaJtewer.++6..we.,.n 0.G:: u' r�..,�w zE.. ••• Yu.:
P6
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation MS
I lie Governor Nelson A ftockeflollor F mplre, State Plaza
Aoorcy Building 1, Albany, Now York 122380001
December 27, 1990
Ms. Catherine Russell, Project Manager
Middleton Environmental Inc.
66 Commack Road, Suite 103
Commack, New York 11725
Dear Ms. Russell:
Re: Information Request
Southold Commons
Southold, Suffolk County
90PR2577
The office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has
received the documentation you provided on your project. As the state
agency responsible for the coordination of the Staters Historic Preservation
Programs, including the encouragement and assistance of Local Preservation
Programs, we offer the following comments.
Based on reported resources, it is the opinion of the OPPEP that your
project area may contain an archeological site. Therefore, it is our
recommendation that unless substantial ground disturbance can be documented,
an archeological survey is warranted. Attached is a list of qualified
archaeologists. Documentation of ground disturbance should include a
description, illustration and photographs keyed to the project map.
In addition, the project area has not been professionally surveyed for
historic buildings or structures. We recommend that all buildings or
structures more than 50 years old within or adjacent to the project area be
identified by the project sponsor and evaluated by this office for historic
and/or architectural significance.
If you have any questions, please call Tony Opalka of our Project Review
Unit at (518) 474-0479.
Sincerely yours
a S. Stokes
P y Commissioner for
toric Preservation
JSS/M
er}c: A Word About Archeological Surveys Ir /
cc Town of Southold Planning Board
JO - 3 19c,
Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau • 518-474-0479
Urban Cultural Parks • 518-4732375
A--F 1l .i Ooa o,r r y A" A - i A,, ,
SuBFrLC'
ooc�xFFO�;
�y ✓ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
JUDITH T.TERRY �1 sr`-: Southold, New York 11971
Town CLERK FAX(516)765-1823
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS TELEPHONE(516) 765-1801
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK ,
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
June 11, 1990
There will be a Scoping Session by Charles Voorhis of Cramer E Voorhis
at 10:00 A.M., Monday, June 18 1990 relative to the Jem Realty Change of
Zone Petition and the E.M. Kontokosta Change of Zone Petition, in the
Meeting Hall at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York.
e,/rte
u Terry
Southold Town lerk
Town Board
Town Attorney � j 1, Il5
Planning Board J'
(4) Newspapers
WBAZ Radio Station
PS
VS
LAW OFFICES OF
HOWARD E. PACHMAN. PQ
ATTORNEYS i
366 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGH I�`
1
P.O. BOX 273 r }
COMMACK. NEW YORK 11725 Ll I 5
u P
HOWARD E. PACHMAN
MATTHEW E. PACHMAN R"_--_ . _
TELEPHONE
MQ
KAREN R. BROWN -�-.....,,mo i 316 543-2200
JOSEPH FARNETT. TELECOPIER
COUNSEL 516 543-2271
March 11, 1993
'�dAR 12 (S9;i
Harvey Arnoff, Esq.
Town Attorney ITOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Town of Southold WNOFSOUTHOLD
Town Hall
Main Street
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Southold Commons
Dear Mr. Arnoff:
Further to our recent conversations, we have prepared
proposed Covenants and Restrictions to be submitted to the Town
upon the Town's adoption of the change of zone in the above-
captioned matter. These Covenants and Restrictions reflect the
latest compromise submitted by my client in an effort to have
zoning change adopted. the
Please note that Quad Enterprises is a partnership and is
the assignee of Emanuel Kontokosta, who is a member of the partner-
ship.
If we can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
HOW RD E. PA�MAN
HEP/tag
cc: Quad Enterprises
0
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS
THIS DECLARATION, made and entered into the day of
' 1993 , by QUAD ENTERPRISES, a partnership, assignee
of Emanuel Kontokosta, with offices at 43 West 54th Street, New
York, New York (hereinafter referred to as the "Declarant"
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, the Declarant is the owner in fee simple
absolute, Of premises located at on the south side of Middle Road
between Young Avenue (also known as Railroad Avenue) and Boisseau
Avenue, Southold, New York, Tax Map No. District 1000, Section
55, Lot 17, more specifically described on Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and made a part hereof, (hereinafter referred to as the
"Premises") , commonly known as SOUTHOLD COMMONS; and
WHEREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Town
Of Southold for a change of zone from Residence R-80 (Residential
Low-Density District (two-acre minimum) ) to HD (Hamlet Density
Residential District) ; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Southold, has agreed to grant
Declarant's application for a change of zone; and
WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed, in consideration of
the approval of the Town Board of the Town of Southold to the
change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the
development and use of Premises which the Town of Southold deems
in its best interest as whole to obtain; and
1
0
WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed to place these
covenants and restrictions against the Premises.
W I T N E S E T H
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Premises, and
the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as
follows:
1. The Premises (32 acres) to be designated as HD
(Hamlet Density Residential District) zoning, shall:
A. Be developed at a density equal to one
residential unit per one half (1/2) acre (2 units
per acre) .
B. Provide that out of the total number of units
to be built, (as provided in Subsection 2A) 30%
are to be designated "Affordable Housing" units
and shall be required to meet only the sales
price and eligibility criteria indicated in the
"Affordable Housing" Section of the code of the
Town of Southold.
2 . The covenants and restrictions contained herein
shall be enforceable by the Town of Southold against the
Declarant or the then owner of the Premises, or by proceeding at
law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or
attempting to violate any conditions of this Declaration, to
restrain violation, in whole or in part.
2
3 . The above-mentioned covenants and restrictions
shall be and constitute real covenants running with the land and
shall be binding upon the Declarant and any and all subsequent
owners of the said real property or part thereof, and upon their
heirs, executors and administrators (or their successors or
assigns) , subject, however, to the right of the Town of Southold
annul, or repeal any or all of the foregoing covenants and/or
restrictions at any time.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has hereunto set his
hand and seal the day and year first above written.
QUAD ENTERPRISES (a partnership)
By: Emanuel Kontokosta, partner
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
On this day of 1993 , before me
personally came Emanuel Kontokosta, to me known and known to me
to be a partner of Quad Enterprises, and the person described in
and who executed the foregoing instrument in the partnership name
of Quad Enterprises, and he duly acknowledged to me that he
executed the same as and for the act and deed of the said
partnership of Quad Enterprises.
Notary Public
3
S
_ - ' op
ON
�i
ayPdC1"¢�Fa1� ' Z
*� T
I yde,1c o
rwao,
Q 61 '
Ar
jj
L7
ata rr,�
�.d1' r1o .
KO,NTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES
ENGIN,E,ERS &' ARCHIT�ICTS, ;
43 WEST 54TH STREET
NEW YORK : CITY, NEW YORK 10019