Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1000-53.-5-12.3
tin,ib02 �/ e, ✓ CA AOL - - za;= gwi�. �1 : �►�-� 4Jt-�z�-�`_�o__Vis$ I1. i ( 4c 2,1 s7- SeVPWG5 or✓ (AAA_ +ny Scoping Session V.5. Barborview Landing Change of Zone .May 26, 1988 Present were David Emilita, Diane Schultze, Lisa Marino and Barbara Szepatowski of Szepatowski Associates, Inc. (SAI) , Jean Celender for the applicant and staff member from her office, the applicant, and MelEissa Spiro, Planner from the Town of Southold Planning Board. The purpose of this meeting was to advise the applicant what would be required in the DEIS for the proposed change of zone. Mr. Emilita advised that the following would need to be included in the DEIS from the scoping checklist: I. Cover Sheet II. Table of Contents and Summary III. Description of ,the Proposed Action A. -Project Purpose, Need and Benefits 1-4 B. -Location Items 1-4./ C. -Design and Layout Items 1-4 ✓ D. -Construction and Operation Items 1-2 ✓ F. -Approvals Items 1-2 It was noted that depending on approvals, construction would be not more than 1 construction season, however, if it were more there would be concern about layover . IV. Environmental Setting A. Geology l • �ubsun��aw 2. Surfa'te items a-e 3. Topography a 2" interval is acceptable SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENIAL CONSULTANTS B. Water Resources 1. Groundwater items a-b ✓ Gyeu�) 2. Surface water items a-d The surface water to be discussed includes the water to the East of the existing access road and the water quality within the Bay. D. Terrestrial a d Aquatic Ecology items 1-3✓ E. Agricultural Resources - are not required to be addressed. Human Resources k A. Transportation 1. Transportation items a-b. Traffic counts are required for Main Road (Rt. 25) and Sage Blvd. , Kerwin and Main Road (Rt. 25) and August Acres road intersection with Kerwin. It was noted that the spur road from the August Acres subdivision road will be the main access into the site and the access from Sage Blvd. to Main Road will be secondary. The traffic for the traffic count should be weekend, seasonal traffic. Consideration of existing traffic conditions from the cottages may also be taken into account. It was noted that the marina continues use over the existing right-of-way which they have and will not be allowed to use the proposed right-of-way. There is no right-of-way passage over the existing right-of-way for the existing cottages since they are only seasonal rental units. / B. Land Use and Zoning ✓ Items 1-3 J It was noted that the wetlands in close proximity to the proposed access road should be flagged, however, it would not be necessary to flag the entire site. A mechanism to preserve the "forever wild" land is to be included. The existing land use, adopted master plan, and proposed zoning should be indicated. A public benefit for the change of zone should also be indicated. The project description should show the layout . Two atoe_. y IC(o( 5kau-lc( doe., S�.�ohu fft� , Community Services 2. Police ProtectionV 3. Fire Protection 8. Public Water Supply 10. Sewage Treatment Facilities SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS E These services should be described to the degree that an impact is anticipated. The above four should be discussed in depth and to a lesser degree the following: education facilities, health care facilities, social services, recreational facilities, utilities and solid waste disposal. I/add•a o. p/akwcvi�a[nvaa wv. 1WZ" "AA.1 -�tM Demography - there should be a general discussion of this. -Pro MavAc',�f-. ( - ova. EDS SPN'UctCo e.�• �./toe•Q.��. ___-CJOY.SI. _-__Cl�P»1Al�- l _ - _ fJ'�•� ""I`.. A'� _ Cultural Resourcet. 1. Visual Resources ✓ items a-c ''''^''�'"� any elevations of the buildings hould be n uded.lP 2. Historic and Archaeological Resources items a-b. The archaeological resources should include a statement from a recognized source. V. Significant Environmental Impacts - The following should ✓ be discussed: - Construction in a flood zone ✓ - Dredging - It was noted that there may be dredging to ✓ deepen the dock area. - Documentation for Suffolk County Department of Health Services and Village of Greenport. It was agreed that there could be a parallel review of the DEIS and Health ✓ Department review. - Rare and endangered species - areas that may be disturbed ✓ should be reviewed and discussed. 6%z� ) VI . Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact should be discussed. (2, f Drwt -n„�.�- be a�duss�(• VII . Aid-a-s"e Environmental Effects should be discussed. VIII . Alternatives 7 clus+kf/ � zaCA4-�j2 Items C-F *n !15;44. This should also include a discussion on the existinproposed zoning, the present application no action, continuing the existing use, and - zoninConstruction staging and time is not an important consideration. <--'� Ca+sati•rz.�oy. I�'It�ca.ttittia-- �G.au.Fd d�..adQs-ca-.-�c( X. r eversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources should be discussed. S41 SSZZEEPATTOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANIS/ " CWN&E -OF BONE SEAR • 14-14.9(2/67}-9c 617.21 17"^l1 _ 26 M Appendix D _J State Environmental Quality Review Scoping Checklist The following checklist of topics is intended B. Name or other descriptive title of the as a starting point for developing a detailed scope project - for a project-specific Draft Environmental Impact C. Location(county and town,village or city) Statement. Typically, no one project will require of the project a discussion of all the topic areas contained in this D. Name and address of the lead agency document. Through the scoping process, the list which required preparation of the state- of topics should be refined to reflectr ssues unique ment and the name and telephone number to the proposed project. Topic areas may be de- of a person at the agency to be contacted leted, added or elaborated upon, to arrive at the for further information final scoping document. E. Name and address of the preparers of any The purpose of the checklist format is to iden• portion of the statement and a contact tify the basic topic areas of the Draft EIS. This is name and telephone number accomplished by reviewing the list and placing a F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS check in the box located to the left of these topics G. In the case of a Draft EIS, the deadline which should be discussed. The model scoping date by which comments are due should checklist can also be used as a worksheet, be indicated including comments, suggestions and identifica- tion of the particular example(s)that are relevant to a detailed discussion of the topic or issue that --if. Table of Contents and Summary has been checked. Conversely,those topics which A table of contents and a brief summary are re- are not checked, are issues not associated with the quired for Draft and Final EIS's. project and may be eliminated from discussion in The summary should include: the Draft EIS. A. Brief description of the action The next step is to expand the list to include B. Significant, beneficial and adverse im- or elaborate on those topics unique to the pro- pacts, (issues of controversy must be posed project. A blank sheet is included at the end specified) of the checklist for such additional information. C. Mitigation measures proposed The scoping process involves several steps in D. Alternatives considered addition to compiling a list of topics.Scoping also E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, includes discussions on the quantity and quality funding) of informaton required and the methods of obtain- ing that data. NOTE: This check list was designed to be I11• Description of the Proposed Action used in conjunction with the section on scoping Place a check in the box to the left of those topics to be included in the draft EIS. contained in SEQR Guideline-Draft and Final • EIS's. It is also important to emphasize that this E) A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND checklist should serve only as a model to assist in BENEFITS the scoping of a Draft EIS. It should not be used 1 .Background and history as a substitute for actively scoping Draft EIS for 2 .Public need for the project, and a specific project. municipality objectives based on ad- opted community developments plans 3.Objectives of the project sponsor 1. Cover Sheet 4.Benefits of the proposed action All EIS's (Draft or Final) shall begin with a a.) social cover sheet that includes: b.) economic 1 A. Whether it is a draft or final statement fR -43 B. LOCATION I .Establish geographic boundaries of a.) composition and thickness of the project (use of regional and local subsurface material scale maps is recommended) examples: 2.Description of access to site —depth to, and nature of, bedrock 3.Description of existing zoning of formations and impermeable layers proposed site —occurrence of an extractive 4.Other: mineral resource C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT —usefulness as construction 1 .Total site area material a.) proposed impervious surface area b.) earthquake potential (roofs, parking lots, roads) 2.Surface b.) amount of land to be cleared a.) List of soil types c.) open space b.) discussion of soil characteristics 2.Structures It examples: a.) gross leaseable area (GLA), if —physical properties (indication applicable of soils hydrological (infiltration) b.) layout of buidings (attached, capabilities) enclosed, separate) —engineering properties (soil c.) site plans and profile view bearing capacity) d.) material storage —agricultural properties (soil e.) drainage plans profile characteristics) when agri- f.) above/underground pipelines cultural land resources are involved g.) staging area for material handling c.) distribution of soil types at project 3.Parking site a.) pavement area d.) suitability for use b.) number of spaces and layout examples: 4.Other: —agriculture —recreation CYD. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION —construction I .Construction —mining a.) total construction period anticipated e.) other: �/ b.) schedule of construction L7 3.Topography c.) future potential development, on a.) description of topography at project site or on adjoining properties site d.) other: examples: 2.Operation —slopes a.) type of operation —prominent or unique features b.) schedule of operation b.) description of topography of sur. c.) other: rounding area eB. WATER RESOURCES (for projects of planned limited life such as I .Groundwater landfills) a.) location and description of aquifers N--'F. APPROVALS and recharge areas 1 .Required changes or variances to the examples: zoning regulations —depth of water table 2.Other permit approval or funding —seasonal variation reguirements —quality —quantity IV. Environmental Setting —flow Place a check in the box to the left of those b.) identification of present uses and topics to be included in the Draft EIS. level of use of groundwater Na examples: ural Resource —location of existing wells A. GEOLOGY —public/private water supply —industrial uses —agricultural uses 2 2.Surface water —species presence and abundance a.) location and decription of surface —age waters located on project site or —size those that may be influenced by the —distribution project —dominance examples: —community types —seasonal variation —unique, rare and endangered —quantity species —classification according to New —value as habitat for wildlife York State Department of Health —productivity b.) identification of uses and level of ❑ 2.Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife use of all surface waters a.) list of fish, shellfish and wildlife examples: species on the project site and —public/private water supply within surrounding area, including —industrial Ms migatory and resident species —agricultural ses b.) discussion of fish, shellfish and —recreational wildlife population characteristics c.) description of existing drainage examples: areas, patterns and channels —species presence and abundance d. discussion of potential for flooding, —distribution siltation, erosion and eutro• —dominance phication of water supply —unique, rare and endangered species ❑ 1 .Climate —productivity a.) discussion of seasonal variations ❑ 3.Wetlands and extremes a.) list wetland areas within or contiguous examples: to the project site —temperature b.) discuss wetland characteristics —humidity examples: —precipitation —acreage —wind —vegetative cover ❑ 2.Air quality —classification a.) description of existing air quality —benefits of wetland such as flood levels and erosion control, recreation examples: —list the National and State Air 1 .Soils Quality Standards for the project a.) list soils by name, slope and soil area and the compliance status for each standard group ranking within NYS Land b.) identification of existing sources Classification System (7 NYCRR 370) or pollutants-fixed y mobile b.) number of acres within each group c.) identification of any sensitive recepters in project area c.) location of site on soil survey map examples: ❑ 2.Agricultural land management —hospitals, schools, nursing system(s) homes, parks a.) inventory of existing erosion d.) description of existing monitoring control and drainage systems program (if applicable) examples: —subsurface drain lines D. TERRESTRAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY —outlet/diversion ditches 1 .Vegetation —strip cropping a.) list vegetation types on the project —diversion terraces site and within the surrounding area b.) relationship of proposed action to b.) discussion of site vegetation existing soil and water conservation characteristics plans (if applicable) examples: ❑ 3.Associated operations c.) description of any affected agri- a.) number and types of farm cultural district or other farmland operations on and adjacent to site retention program boundary in and examples: surrounding the site —dairy ❑ 2.Land use plans —grain a.) description of any land use plans —orchard or master plans which include b.) type and proximity of farm project site and surrounding area related facilities b.) discussion of future development examples: trends or pressures —storage units/barns —sorting/packing houses - ❑ 3.Other; —refrigeration units ❑ C. COMMUNITY SERVICE (for this section —roadside markets include a list of existing facilities and a c.) access to cropland (including discussion of existing levels of usage and detached fields) projected future needs) d.) access for farm equipment to ❑ I.Educational facilities public roads B 2.Police protection Human Resources Ci}' 3.Fire protection ❑ 4.Health care facilities ❑ A. TRANSPORTATION ❑ S.Social services ❑ 1 .Transportation services ❑ 6.Recreational facilities a.) description of the size, capacity and condition of services ❑ 7.Utilities examples: Ca'8.Public water supply —roads, canals, railroads, bridges ❑ 9.Solid waste disposal —parking facilities B" 10.Sewage treatment facilities —traffic control ❑ 11 .Other: —access/egress from site b.) description of current level of use ED. DEMOGRAPHY of services ❑ 1 .Population characteristics examples: a.) discussion of existing population —a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic parameters flow examples: —vehicle mix —distribution —source of existing traffic —density —household size and composition a.) description of the current avail- b.) discussion of projections for popu- ability of service lation growth b.) description of present level of use ❑ 2.Other: i2rE. CULTURAL RESOURCES n • - 1 .Visual resources ❑ B. LAND USE AND ZONING a.) description of the physical char- 1 .Existing land use and zoning acter of the community a.) description of the existing land examples: use of the project site and the —urban vs. rural surrounding area b.) description of natural areas of examples: significant scenic value —commercial c.) identification of structures of —residential � significant architectural design —agricultural V 2.Historic and archaeological resources —business a.) location and description of historic —retail areas or structures listed on State —industrial or National Register or designated —vacant by the community, or included on b.) description of existing zoning of Statewide Inventory site and surrounding area 4 b.) identification of sites having c.) institute a program for monitoring potential significant archaeological water quality in adjacent wells value include results of cultural d.) require secondary or tertiary con- resource survey, if conducted tainment of products/wastes n z moluk e.) contingency plans for accidental a.) identification of existing level of spills noise in the community f.) other: b.) identification of major sources of 2.Surface water noise a.) ensure use of soil erosion control examples techniques during construction and —airports operation to avoid siltation —major highways examples: —industrial/commercial facilities —hay bales ❑ 4.Other: —temporary restoration of vege- tation to disturbed areas Q V. Significant EnvironmentAl impacts —landscaping Identify those aspects of the environmental b.) design adequate stormwater setting in Section IV that may be adversely or control system beneficially affected by the proposed action and c.) construct/modify sewage treatment require discussion. facilities VI. Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environ- d.) restrict use of salt or sand for road and parking area snow removal mental Impact. avoid direct discharges to surface Describe measures to reduce or avoid poten. e,) tial adverse impacts identified in Section V. The water resources f following is a brief listing of typical measures used .) require secondary or ternary for some of the major areas of impact. containment products/wastes g.) contingency plans for accidental Natural Resource spills ❑ A. GEOLOGY h.) other: C 1 .Subsurface ❑ C. AIR RESOURCES a.) use excavated material for land 1 -Air quality reclamation a.) assure proper construction b.) use facility wastes(ash, sludge)for practices land reclamation examples: c.) other: —fugitive dust control 2.Surface —proper operation and mainten- a.) use topsoil stockpiled during ante of construction equipment construction for restoration and b.) design traffic improvements to re- landscaping duce congestion and vehicle delay b.) minimize disturbance of non- c.) install and ensure the proper construction sites operation of emission odor control c.) design and implement soil erosion devices control plan d.) initiate a program for monitoring d.) other: 3of air quality .Topography e.) other: a.) avoid construction on areas of steep slope ❑ D. TERRESTRAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY b.) design adequate soil erosion 1 .Vegetation devices to protect areas of steep a.) restrict clearing to only those areas slope necessary c.) other: b.) preserve part of site as a natural ❑ B. WATER RESOURCES area I Groundwater c.) after construction, landscape site a.) design/modify system of treatment with naturally occurring vegetation for stormwater runoff of wastewater d.) purchase open space at another prior to recharge of groundwater location and dedicate to local b.) maintain permeable areas on the government or conservation site organization 5 2.Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife ❑ B. LAND USE AND ZONING a.) provide adequate habitat (shelter 1 .Existing land use and zoning and food) for remaining wildlife a.) design project to comply with species existing land use plans b.) schedule construction to avoid b.) design functional and visually sensitive periods of fish, shellfish appealing facility to set standard and wildlife cycles and precedent for future surround- c.) other: Ing land use ❑ E. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES c.) other: 1 .Soils ❑ C. COMMUNITY SERVICES a.) select/design project to avoid 1 .Police protection viable agricultural land aJ minimize local police protection b.) reclaim disturbed agricultural soil responsibilities by providing private profiles for agricultural purposes security force c.) schedule activity when crops are off b.) provide security systems, alarms fields and sorb is firm for facility d.) other: c.) provide equipment, funds or ser. 2.Agricultural land management systems vices directly to the community a.) re-establish access drives, fence— d.) other: lines and any disturbed land 2.Fire protection management systems a.) use construction materials that b.) re-establish any disturbed erosion minimize fire hazards control and drainage systems b.) incorporate sprinkler and alarm c.) install soil and water management systems into building design practices to restore or enhance c.) provide equipment, funds or ser. soil drainage and stability vices directly to the community d.) preserve open space for agricultural d.) other: use 3.Utilities e.) develop lease back arrangements to a.) install utility services underground allow continued agricultural use on b.) incorporate water saving fixtures all or portion of site into facility design f.) other: c.) incorporate energy-saving Human Resources measures into facility design ❑ A. TRANSPORTATION d.) other: 1 .Transportation ❑ D. CULTURAL RESOURCES a.) design adequate and safe access 7 .Visual resources to project site to handle projected a.) design exterior of structure to traffic flow physically blend with existing b.) install adequate traffic control surroundings devices b.) minimize visual impact through C.) optimize use of parking areas thoughtful and innovative design d.) encourage car pooling and oper. of lighting and signs (consider: ation of facility during non-peak height, size, intensity, glare and traffic times hours of lighting operation) e.) design special routing and c.) design landscaping to be visually restricted hours for delivery truck pleasing and to serve as a buffer traffic between surrounding land uses, L) other: parking areas, operational equip- 2.Public transportation ment and facilities a.) adjust public transportation routes d.) other: and schedules to service the facility 2.Historic and archaeological resources b.) encourage use of public transpor. a.) Prepare a plan, including measures tation by using incentive programs to mitigate impacts to historic/ for employees or by selling tickets archaeological resources through in facility data recovery, avoidance and/or c.) other: restriction of project activities 6 ' • b.) develop measures to convey cul- ❑. tural information to the community 1 .Limiting factors (e.g. through scientific/popular a.) availability of land reports, displays) b.) suitability of alternative site to c.) preserve architecturally signifi- accomodate design requirements cant structures and make an c.) availability of utilities adequate permanent photographic d.) suitable market area and statistical record of those that e.) compatibility with local zoning and must be destroyed master plan d.) other: f.) compatibility with certified agri• cultural districts - 3.Noise - a.) schedule construction/operation g.) compatibility with regions objectives to occur during "normal business" h. accessibility of site to transporta- hours minimizing noise impact ) tion routes and service population during sensitive tines(early morn•. ing, night) ❑ C. ALTERNATIVE SIZE b.) assure adherence to construction 1 .Increase or decrease project size to noise standards minimize possible impacts c.) design berms and landscaping to 2.Increase or decrease project size to block and absorb noise correspond to market and community d.) other: needs VII. Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot ❑ D. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/ be Avoided if the Project is Implemented OPERATION SCHEDULING Identify those adverse environmental effects 1 .Commence construction at a different in Section V that can be expected to occur regard- time idered in 2.Phase construction/operation less of the mitigation measures cons Section VI. 3.Restrict construction/operation work schedule VIII. Alternatives ❑ E. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE This section contains categories of alterna- 1 .Suitability of site for other uses tives with examples.Discussion of each alternative a.) other types of commercial uses should be at a level sufficient to permit a compara- b.) other types of industry tive assessment of costs, benefits and environmen- C.) different types of housing tal risks for each alternative. It is not acceptable d.) agricultural use to make simple assertions that a particular alter- e.) other: native is or is not feasible.Identify those categories ❑ F NO ACTION of alternatives which should be included in the EIS p 1 .Impacts of no action by placing a check in the box located to the left a.) effect on public need of the topic. b.) effect on private developers' need ❑ A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND c.) beneficial or adverse environmental }- TECHNOLOGiES impacts 1 ,Site layout ❑ G. OTHER: r e.) density and location of structures 't✓�)(� b.) location of access routes, parking IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of and utility routes 2.Orientation Resources {� a.) compatibility with slope and Identify those natural and human resources drainage p.itterns listed in Section IV that will be consumed,convert- b.) site size and set back requirements ed or made unavailable for future use. 2.Technology f applicable) a.) pollution control equipment �f7 b.) innovative vs. proven technologies Describe in this section the potential growth 4.Mix of activities aspects the proposed project may have. Listed on a) addition of businesses which would the next page are examples of topics that are typi- c- affect the operational nature of the tally affected by the growth induced by a project. facility l l r ❑ A. POPULATION c.) efficient layout I Ancreases in business and resident examples: population due to the creation or —orientation of structures In relocation of business relation to summer and winter 2.Increases in resident population due to sunlight the construction of housing —clustering of structures to ❑ B. SUPPORT FACILITIES maximize common walls 1 .business created to serve the increased —shortening of utility runs population —shared insulation and heating 2.Service industries created to supply 2.Indirect energy benefits new facility a.) location and design of facility to accomodate mass transit ❑ C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL b.) use of shuttle buses 1 .Introduction or improvement of infra. c.) location of facility to minimize structure(roads,waste disposal,sewers, travel distance water) to service jproposed project ❑ E.OTHER: 2. Creation of further growth potential by construction of improved infra. structure X11. Assessment of Unavailable Information In certain situations involving major develop- D. OTHER: ments (such as an oil supertanker port, a liquid propane/natural gas storage facility, a resource of recovery facility or a hazarduous waste treatment, Energy Resources (if applicable) storage or disposal facility), information regarding Identify the energy sources to be used, reasonably foreseeable catastrophic impacts to the anticipated levels of consumption and ways to environment may not be available. Such informa- reduce energy consumption. The examples listed tion may be unavailable because the means to ob. below are typical issues to be considered when ad- tain it are unknown or the cost of obtaining it is dressing this topic. exhorbitant,or because there is uncertainty about ❑ A.PROPOSED ENERGY SOURCES AND its validity. If such information is essential to an ALTERNATIVES agency's SEQR finding, the EIS must: A. Identify the nature and relevance of such ❑ B.ANTICIPATED SHORT-TERM/LONG- unavailable or uncertain information;and TERM LEVELS OF ENERGY B. Provide a summary of existing credible CONSUMPTION scientific evidence , if available; and ❑ C.INDIRECT EFFECTS ON ENERGY C. Assess the likelihood of occurrence and CONSUMPTION consequences of the potential impact, 1 .Increased dependence on automobile even if the probability is low, using the. use oretical approaches or research methods 2.Increased levels of traffic due to generally accepted in the scientific proposed project community. D.ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES This assessment should be applied only where 1 reas onably foreseeable catastrophic impacts to the .Design methods to reduce fuel use for environment are possible and it is not intended to heating, cooling and lighting be applied in the review of such actions as shop• a.) conventional technology ping malls, residential subdivisions and commer. examples: cial facilities even though the size and scale of —insulation some such projects may be extensive. —thermopane windows —use of low wattage lights b.) innovative technology XIII. Appendices Following is a list of materials typically used examples: —heat pumps in support of the EIS. —solar panels A. List of underlying tudies, reports and —wind energy information considered and relied on in preparing —use of waste heat from an statement industrial plant B. List all federal, state, regional, or local —use of recycled materials agencies, organizations, consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement C. Technical exhibits(if any)at a legible scale f D. Relevent correspondence regarding the ` projects may be included (required in the Final EIS) Additional Draft EIS Scoping Topics Indicate any additional topics for discussion in the Draft EIS. Attach additional sheets if necessary. 9 Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 24 , 1989 Edward S. Silsbe Frendolph Corporation 750 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788 RF.: Harborview Realty SCTM# 1000-53-5-12 .3 Dear Mr. Silsbe: The Planning Board reviewed the concerns raised in your February 14 , 1989 meeting with Melissa Spiro and had the following comments. As previously requested, the Planning Board would like a yield map for the parcel before any recommendations are made. The yield map must consist of buildable lots conforming to the Density and Minimum Lot Size Schedule of the Town Code, and must also provide appropriate access to all lots. The Planning Board has no problem with clustering the lots on the easterly portion of the parcel, however the density will be reviewed upon submission of an appropriate yield map. For the record, the Planning Board is not in favor of the proposal to set off a parcel adjacent to the current MII zone. Please contact the Planning Board if you have any further questions. /--Very truly yours, 1r �.,�r✓1'(./;v�,�� `r �`i tai`.9`'e..i7Ri ✓ BENNETT ORLOWSKI , JR. CHAIRMAN i - cc: Howard Young l ' I? /111 /�gr6o2 Ureal l`ealry 12.3 a�ry �$q /U�e-� wl td S �Is �e ark t}Ou�arc� rooy\� . ( ` 1rt�eJ� -�o �uc� �csfe win r�Q Qs {v o-FII��rZ LLerr` '\J(neS ��•e�' Lagola wan ` O�er �ar\ �hOs2 as Cec� -av- ',n sccsPi N l- �cMobn up -A�Q -�o . 0-� usi n q nR of acre y rQ (tl w;tC \ I - I"2 acre (4-s n &e"?09 ooi r IAe o� Z 1.e dS are4 s�wZr -t.Y\ co(revor loon,`{- mnqp. . e y are jr, 11.k Trow ss a-C do i^o 7^e y of r,e 1-tlso t r"S-E- or\e� lk doss . o-F sct�}in�� o ars grog ctroon& -vu corravq} /� zwAf ey were `6LL 1 ��`E �t�S u�oo (c\ V iscos5-0r1 �O ct -% \t 1,7 sess(,on) , 1r.2y woul� � ev, cbnN.06,4, PLSI�VI O'A TSi 1 1 33 S g Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 May 16, 1988 Jeffrey D. Forchellie, Esq. D'Amato, Forchelli, Lebert, Schwartz , mineo & Carlino 120 Mineola Boulevard P.O. Box 31 Mineola, NY 11501 Re: Petition for change of zone Harborview Realty Co. SCTM #1000-53-5-12 . 3 Dear Mr. Forchellie: The Planning Board would like to review a yield map for the subject property in accordance with the current two acre zoning. This information is needed so that the Board may determine its recommendation to the Town 'Board on the change of zone petition. Your assistance is appreciated. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. CHAIRMAN jt May 17, 1988 T0: Town Board, Planning Board and Trustees Town of Southold RE: Petition of Harborview Realty Company Suffolk County Tax Map - District 1000, Section 53 Block 5 P/0 lot 123 (known as Sage property) Request by Harborview Realty Company to change the zone of the above referenced property to: M-1 General Multiple Residence District I am a property owner on Island View Lane, adjacent to the Sage property, where a zoning change has been requested. I oppose a rezoning to an M-1 General Multiple Residence District because it will have adverse affects on the neighborhood character and the environment. The nature of the M-1 zone is more appropriate to areas that are expected to have greater densities, such as hamlets or villages, where the infrastructure can support higher densities. Replacing the existing designation of "A" Residential to Multiple Dwelling would challenge the integrity of the zoning, flaunt sound planning principles and threaten the environment. Beyond the negative impact of an increased density would be the equally objectionable building heights and bulk that are inconsistent with the surrounding area and would stand as a wall to the bay. The current zoning allows for an economic development of the property. It is essential and prudent that this proposal be denied and that the existing zoning remain. Sincerly yours, Marilyn Burkhardt Island View Lane Greenport, N.Y. Planning Board Page 18 Aarch 21 , 1988 Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. This proposal is located off County Route 48 in Mattituck. I think the only problems we had with it is the traffic study is being reviewed by Sidney Bowne 's office and there were a few other comments. Which we' ll entertain to send to the applicant. Any other comments on this? Board: No. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: Marina Bay Club- The supplemental DEIS received by David Emilita on March 15, 1988. No comments available from Dave at this time, but he is working on it. ****************************** Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Southold Savings Bank- Board to send this site plan to the Building Department for certification. Mr. Lessard: No. Mr. Orlowski: Sorry, I only read the agenda' s. Board to send over for recommendation for final approval subject to a one year review. I believe there is just one small piece of landscaping missing, but other then that I sure Mr. Lessard will keep a close eye on it. To inform us within this one year if it is complete or not complete. I 'm I right Mr. Lessard? Mr. Lessard: Absolutely. Mr. Orlowski: What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Harborview Realty CompanV- t— Presentation by the applicant for this change of zone petition. C" Mr. Forchelli: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Jeff Forchelli. I am the Attorney for the applicant, which is Harbor View Realty Company. The applicant is the owner of the /2-7 Planning Board • Page 19 *arch 21 , 1988 C property. I see on the calendar you don' t have the Suffolk County Tax Map number. It is District 1000 Section 53 Block 5 part of Lot 12. 3. What we are seeking from the Town Board is a rezoning for a portion of the property. Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Forchelli, can I ask you to project a little bit more, because the microphones are picking up a great deal of static. Mr. Forchelli: Is that better? Ms. Scopaz: Yes, thank you. Mr. Forchelli: The subject premises of the application is the "Sage Property" , which is on both sides of sage Boulevard that comes off Main Road. The area is a total of eighty three plus acres. It is presently zoned A-Residential, Agricultural. It is presently used for thirty one cottages, which are located along the waterfront in this area. What we are seeking is a change of zone on this portion of the property. The easterly portion. This would be the division line. Then this property receiving the rezoning, to the M-1 General Multiple Residents District. Then what we would do is, the balance of the property, fifty eight acres, which is from here over, including the underwater land, out here and around, would be put into a nature preserve and remain forever wild. And invalent to the development with the C exception of this access road which would provide access . This is Sage Boulevard on the subdivision map which is about to be filed and the improvements are in and this street is here. So we pick up the street and provide access to our proposal. And there, by leaving an angle of the property in an existing natural state. Just to give you a brief history of the property. It has been used for many many years, much longer than I 've been around, for the cottages here. That use continues and has continued through last summer and will be continued this summer. That use would be discontinued and the cottages will be demolished and any sanitary systems will be removed and replaced with forty Town House units. They will be located in the approximate location as shown here. The small cove, which is here, would provide boat slips for the owners of the town house. We would provide tennis courts here. An access for a key system, there will probably a manned gate in the summer time. The existing Sage Blvd. , which is here, will not be widen or improved other then repairing the pot holes and pavement were needed to provide suitable access to home owners that are here. Other than that, Sage Blvd. will remain in its present state, present width. A number of years ago there were a various applications that came before this Board and the Zoning Board to develop the property. Those applications did meet with some public opposition, although they were pretty well on their way. At the time we attempted, I was involved in those applications also, we attempted to see what was good planning and what was also good in terms of acceptance by the local community. I think without and question the developement should be up along this water front where the existing developement is. The balance of the property to remain rather wild. With the spirit of cooperation and attempt to prove that end we have had a number Planning Board • Page 20 6karch 21 , 1988 of meetings and we believe we have developed a great deal of trust with the standing community and leaning towards that end. That all culminated in a meeting we had on the 9th of March, which is almost two weeks ago. Whereby we invited everyone that received notice of the application being filed. We had the meeting at the Mill Creek Inn. We presented this to the members of the community, not that they have jurisdiction over it, not to try and circumvent with this Board and the Town Board. The majority feeling we got there was, with little exceptions, was this was a good plan and a good use of the property. The property presently has water on it in the Greenport Water District. It goes through along the existing road way. We realize that we have to deal with Greenport to make sure thier water supply is there. We •have access to a new road, thereby not having to interfere with Sage Blvd. , which is here. In terms of the four homes which are here endure some difficulty with the pot holes and what have you, we have indicated and agreed with them that if this is approved that we would repair the road were needed. We will provide in our Covenants and Restrictions a prospectus for the Homeowners Association for these cottages that it is part of their monthly maintenance charge with the amount set aside to make sure Sage Blvd. is kept in repair so that these people are able to use it. It would also, Sage Blvd. could ride on emergency secondary access. We would be able to provide a pretty well self contained community, in here for the forty home owners. These boat slips here would provide access / for them to have their boating. They would be able to launch (\ their boats here. Thereby, to some degree keep the boating traffic and trailers somewhat off the roads of the town. They would be able to stay right within the property, launch and come out in the Fall and be stored in the garages or what have you in the Winter time. We anticipate only small boats in here. We believe most people who would come here would be Summer residents and they would be sleeping here and not out on boats that they would come here and take off on large boats and go away for the weekend. We would not provide for large boats here, just small bay boats. As I -indicated the oak cottages will be torn down and the sanitary systems which are there would be removed and a new town houses would have all the modern sanitary devices, which will be much more environmentally sound then what is there today. We think it is a good use. We think it is a proper use. We think it has support in the local community for it. As I indicated, the meeting we had was very positive. We have spent a number of years dealing with the neighbors and some of them in particular on the development of the property. I don' t know if any of them are here, but I know one fellow that is here that will speak in respect to this. We have here with us , the architects if there are anything further or any further questions that I might be able to answer. I will be happy to do SO. Mr. Orlowski: Is there any questions from the Board? Mr. Ward: Did we have a yield map originally? Mr. Orlowski: A long, long time ago. I believe there was a yield map, because they ask for a change of zone to accomplish this. % Planning Board • Page 21 *March 21 , 1988 Lv Mr. Ward: What I was looking at was in the spirit of what is l happening is that normally the provision in our code does not allow to cluster to this degree. What we are really doing, and that is essentially what we are doing. In the spirit of what we are doing here I think that the density should be based on what a real yield would be on the property rather than taking the - yield a particular piece under an M-zone. Mr. Forchelli: Well, the reason we came up with this type of plan for it was, when we were going through the approval process last time there was, we have conversations and we actually had a scoping session with Mr. Emilita. Various people at the time including members of the Board, the Town Board, who attended that and stated, and I think in the original proposals by the Planners, it recommended that the development left up in this area. There are at the present time thirty one cottages on the property. We felt that a yield of forty was reasonable in terms of the eighty acres, eighty three acres that we have. That is how we came up with the number. We tried to equate what we felt was reasonable with the economics of the situation and the approvements that had to be done. The deeding of the property and any possible clean up for the environmental preserve of it. That is how we came up with the yield under the change of zone. Mr. Mullen: Those boat slips will be utilized only for the Cpeople that own the property. Mr. Forchelli: Yes, they will not be able to be commercially leased out or any one else ' s slip goes with the unit. No more no less. Mr. Latham: Is Sage Boulevard closed off just at the head of that. Mr. Forchelli: We would put here a crash gate, which would allow emergency vehicles to get through but other than that it would be closed off. There would be no further access onto this because we would have our access to it. Yet both sides of it, here and here, will be part of the socalled nature preserve with restricted covenants. So nobody will get on there but us. Mr. Orlowski: What is the square footage of each unit? Mr. Forchelli: Twenty five hundred square feet. They are two bedroom units. We will have a total of eighty bedrooms. Mr. Edwards: Are these going to be primarily summer residents? Mr. Forchelli: We believe they would be, yes . Mr. Mullen: There will be no possible utilization, and don' t laugh at me, in regard to affordable housing or a affordable house in there. or any possibility of getting some property we might use for that. You can think about it. You don' t have to answer me now. / Planning Board . Page 22 larch 21 , 1988 11P Mr. Forchelli: I don' t think we would have an opposition to that. We did speak with community members about the remainder of( this property being forever invalid. Mr. Mullen: Don' t misunderstand me, we are not looking for a saturation of the property. They will require people to maintain a hamlet situation and the way it is going now I don' t know where you are going to get the help because we don' t have the housing. If you can work on a situation where you figure you would require so many people, say three or whatever, maybe we can work down the line to build in some housing for these people. It' s a thought that' s all. Mr. Forchelli: It' s a good one. Housing is a problem where ever you go on Long Island. It something we will look at. Mr. Mullen: Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz, any questions? Ms. Scopaz: Just one. It is not really related to the change of zone but. . . The road that you would come off of, Sage road, there is about a ten or fifteen foot drop in elevation from the end of that road down to your property. Since you are in a sensitive area right there, can you indicate any problems in construction? Any impact on the wet lands in the area. Mr. Forchelli: Last Wednesday we were out here and prior to coming to Town Hall we walked this. We walk it two weeks ago and we met also. This configuration here may wind up being a little different, but it is very high and dry up here. There is a difference in grade here. I don' t know if it is ten or fifteen feet, but we estimated it about eight. . .the grade in-coming across here. There may have to be a cul-de-sac with a road off it or however you do it. That is all subject to the zone change and the site plan by the Planning Board. we felt it was very easily to come in here with a road. Ms . Scopaz: The proposed area for the boat slips, would you require dredging in that area? Mr. Forchelli: We don' t think it would because there are presently boat slips in there. We show here forty boat slips. We are not sure that that is going to be the number. Probably there will be a one on one boat to town house. There will probably be a few less boat slips here and we do not anticipate any dredging. The way they are now, they are locust post with cat walks that stand in wetland grass in here. There is floating docks and both polls nose in. We believe that would be the. . . We would not have to dredge it, because this is quite deep in the middle here. Ms. Scopaz : Would you be providing a ramp on site to load those tf— boats in? Mr. Forchelli: There is a remains of a ramp here. With a four wheel drive vehicle you can get in and out there, loading it. We Planning Board • Page 23 • March 21 , 1988 CL C would anticipate approval by the Trustees and the DEC to improve the boat launching in and out. Which once again, would be limited strictly to the residents here. Mr. Orlowski: Any other questions? Mr. Lessard: That subdivision that you intend to hook into is a private subdivision at the present time. That would require a legal document for you to use that. Mr. Forchelli: Yes, we realize that. Mr. Lessard: O.K. One other question, the area that you wanted to put the condominiums in, what would that acreage be? Do you know off hand? Mr. Forchelli: 24. 95. Mr. Lessard: I 'm fishing for the yield is what I 'm fishing for as aposed to the over all. Mr. Forchelli: We realize with the 24 . 95 acres under the zoning we could possibly have a greater yield but we are not asking. We are limited to that by covenants or whatever other method. Mr. Lessard: I believe your forty units are alright under the Cformula. Ms. Scopaz: The off site sewer system, I believe you said earlier that it was being handled by individual sanitary system. Mr. Forchelli: Whatever is required by the County Health Department. Whether they would be individual systems or whether they would be. . . whatever the health department requires. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. You said you had a communittie meeting a the Mill Creek and no opposition? Mr. Forchelli: We did not have any vocal opposition. I think we invited everyone to make their thoughts known. We received, very positively, by the surrounding owners and the owners on Sage Blvd. . Mr. Mullen: How many people appeared at the meeting? Approximately. Mr. Forchelli: Thirty or forty. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. The Board would like to just go out and take one more look and review it. Thank you for coming down and presenting it. If there are no more questions. Ms . Scopaz: I have no more questions, but I suggest to the Board that you ask them if you can use all the material and review the plans. If you have any more questions you will get in touch with them and at your next meeting make a recommendation to the Town Board. Planning Board • Page 24 *March 21 , 1988 Mr. Ward: Do we have prints of these. Ms. Scopaz: I don't think we have prints of the other material. We probably have just a site plan. Mr. Forchelli: We have either on this board or we have prints which ever is easier for you to work with. These are a proposal of what units could look like. We realize that if the change of zone was ultimately granted by the Town Board we have to come back to the Planning Board for its approval. At this time, we are flexible on this in terms of height and so on. We would work with anyone who would require us to come up with an acceptable plan. Mr. Orlowski: We will review this and by our next meeting we will make a recommendation to the Town Board. Mr. Forchelli: I think that a neighbor here would like to speak. Mr. Orlowski: Well, this is your submission so, it is not a public hearing, if you would like to have someone else speak we will listen. Mr. Flynn: My name is Flynn from Tarpon Drive, Southold Shores. Which is in the immediatly vicinity of the property. I jotted down some notes to make this relatively succinct. Some of you may be aware that I have had more than a passing interest in the C past as to what happens to the Sage property. I have gone over this plan in great detail and personally discussed with many of my neighbors. Though I am speaking for myself, I am speaking largely as what their reactions would be. My opinion is that this plan as presented represents a fair and equitable solution to what possibly could have been- a contigious and litigious proceeding. I think it is a balanced solution to this problem of the unique nature that this property presents. When I say balanced I think it is balance because there is something in this plan to satisfy the requirements of everyone concerned. Obviously, it satisfies the requirements of the developers, otherwise they would not present this. I think they have built a unique attitude and cooporation and respect for the environment by doing what they have with what there is, obviously, approximately 50 acres of fresh and saltwater wetlands. As far as the neighbors are concerned this proposition would have the merit of eliminating substandard rental housing. And substituting for substantial improvements. Which would have the benefit to adding to the assessment of the community and contributing to the tax burdens that we bear. Particularly with respect to the school district. The experience with all of the condominiums, I have made a study of every condominium in the Town and including the Village of Greenport. They are rarely occupied in the Winter. As a matter of fact it is not a 100°% occupancy in the summer. The rentals of these units is also relatively great. First of all, because the rental requirements of the owners is relatively high. And secondly, the owners in the income bracket who purchase such condominiums usually have them furnished in a manor that they don' t want tenants accompanying them and damaging the contents of the woodwork. So Planning Board Page 25 *arch 21 , 1988 C really, you would look primarily to winter occupancy. The effect of winter occupancy on the tax burden of the Town should be quite apparent. There is also a threshold. When units have a market value of upwards of two hundred thousand dollars, they no longer represent a burden to the Town. The taxes that they pay exceed the expenses that they create for the community. From these standpoints, I think these units will represent a plus. From the standpoint of the Town, I believe that we have, in the Town, an express to acquire as much open space as possible. I believe there is a budget in the Town which is some currently, correct me if I am wrong, within seven hundred thousand dollars to acquire such open space. It is my oppion, based on some years of experience, that what you are being offered as open space here must exceed the value of what could be acquired by the Town with the funds available. So, I say this a balanced presentation. There is something here for everybody and nobody, in my opinion, is hert by this plan. Finally, the impartial recommendation of R.P. . .were almost specifically to this type of development of the property. It is also in accord to every study that has been made in this Town where desirable property should be developed on a cluster basis. And property that constitutes fresh and salt water wetlands should be acquired as open space. That is exactly the proportion that is offered here. Speaking for myself and for my neighbors, we are incoordination with the development of this property as it is presented now. If their arange changes in this presentation we reserve the right to act Caccordingly. Thank you for your reception. Person in Audience: Somebody spoke for, is it possible that somebody could speak against? Mr. Orlowski: I really would not like to make this a public hearing at this time. There will- be that chance at the change of zone. Mr. Forchelli has come to make a presentation. It is his nickel as they say. Ms. Scopaz: May I make a suggestion, that you make your position known to the Town Board. Person from Audience: We have already. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Being no further discussion, thank you for coming and we will move on. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. next I would like to move on to the Griswold-Terry-Glover American Legion Post- Board to discuss previous resolution for this change of zone. Our Town Attorney has told us that we have conditioned the change of zone based on who owns the property. The courts have held that a change of zone can not be for benefit of party, but must be based on a comprehensive plan regardless of who owns it or who will . . . the parcel. So the Town Board is asking us for another recommendation. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I don' t see how we can endorse a commercial zone there forever. It is not in keeping with our ., t�•t 2612167i-9C � Ytn V 617.21 SEOR • Appendix E Slate Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance Project Number 'Petition No. 286 Date April 19, 1988 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. i The SOUL hol el Tnw„ RnarA as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Harborview Realty Change of Zone SEAR Status: Type 1 ❑ Unlisted Description of Action: Proposal is for a change of zone on 24 .959 acres from A-R Aaricultural- Residential District to M-1 General Multiple Residence District, to provide for the development of 40 homes in 10 buildings. i Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipal ityicounty. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.l Proposal is located at Main Road and Sage Boulevard, Greenport; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-53-5-12. 3 and 12 .4 ; See also location map. SEOR Positive Declaration Page 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination: ! A) See Part II and Part III attached, and B) The proposed zone change is requested on 24.959 acres of land and would constitute a Tvve I action if it were proposed for 25 acres of land. This ,is interpreted as contrivance to avoid an automatic Type I classification. For Further Information: Contact Person: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Address:-Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Telephone Number: 516-765-1801 A Copy of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 Appropriate Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Conservation (Stony Brook, NY) Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located. Applicant (if any) Other involved agencies (if any) Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Planning Board Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Jeffrey D. Forchelli, Esq. , for Harborview Realty Co. Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services ;'art rrw4 cl, i j,'4WAL. I -) AINU 117 Min 111rAu141 I '�v� �. 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 be reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 situp asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State a for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriz 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 a have been offered as guidance.They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each questic • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of I impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided,check column 2. If impact will occur but thresh< is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moder. impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. T must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact E Moderate Large Mitigated Sy IMPACT ON LAND Impact Impact Project Chan(, 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ONO EYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 Cl ❑ ❑Yes ❑N foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ® ❑ ®Yes ❑N 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. ❑ ❑ C1 Yes ❑N • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ Cl ❑Yes ❑N 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more 121 ❑ ❑Yes C1 than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ Cl []Yes C3 r, tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. Cl Cl Dyes ❑I` • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ® ®Yes C3 r, • Other impacts ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C3 t' 2. Will there be an effect V. ...cy un,que or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formAiOns, etc.)❑NO OYES • Specific land forms: Wetlands Cl ® ®Yes ❑r 6 1 2 3 IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential Can Impac 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Moderate Large Mitigated Impact Impact Project Cha (Under Articles 15. 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation law, ECL) ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ® ❑Yes C • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a Cl ❑ ❑Yes ❑ protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ Eyes ❑ • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ® ®Yes ❑ • Other impacts: Rnar1 nna+rnn+i nn mi t•1, 79 ❑ 12 (2Yes ❑ feet of freshwater wetland 4. Will proposed action affect any non protected existing or new body of water? ®NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water Cl ❑ C1 Yes ❑ Pr more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Cl ❑ L7_Yes ❑ • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ❑NO ®YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ® ❑Yes ❑ • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ® ❑Yes ❑ have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 Cl ❑ Eyes ❑ gallons per minute pumping capacity • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water Cl ❑ Eyes ❑ supply system. • Proposed action will adverse'\ affect groundwater. ❑ $] F1Yes ❑ • Liquid effluent will be convey,-(!off the site to facilities which presently ® ❑ Eyes ❑ do not exist or have inadequate capacity. (septage) • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑ ❑ Eyes ❑ day. • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an El 13 QYes ❑ existing body of water tc u e. Pxte•,t that there will be an obvious visual contrast -.c natural conditions. Slip construction • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ (--]Yes ❑ products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water [R ❑ Eyes ❑ and/or sewer services. • Propnsed Action locates commercial and/or Industrial uses which may ❑ Cl ❑Yes ❑ require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and'or storage facilities. • Other impacts__ Cl ❑ Eyes 6 Will proposed action alter drainage Cow or patterns, or surface s.arPr runoff? `NO N:1 ES Exp iples teat would appy to column ? • Prc,,rsad Action would change flood w+ter flows 7 • Small to Potential Can Impact S Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Chang • Proposed Action may-cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑Nc • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ® ❑ ❑Yes ON( • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ® ❑ ❑Yes ❑Nc • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON( IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? ONO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON, hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑N refuse per hour. • Ernission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑N heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 0I IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? ONO ']YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑� list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removz' of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑t• • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑l' than for 1igricultural purposes. • Other impacts: Endangered species may possibly ❑ 12 [ Yes ❑f live on the site, a study would be needed. q Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered speciesr ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ® ❑ ❑Yes ❑f migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑f of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 WWII the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? LLNO DYES Examples that %%ould apply to column 2."— • The proposed action x,ould sever, cross or limit access to agricultural C ❑ E:Yes `I land (includes cropland. hay-fields. pasturevineyard, orchard. etc ) • 8 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Moderate Large Mitigated E Impact Impact Project Char • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑t agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres Cl ❑ ❑Yes ❑t of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑r lard 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: ❑ ❑ (--]yes ❑ IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ONO MYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix 8.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ® ❑ ❑Yes ❑ or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑N 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 ® ❑ ❑Yes ❑� screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: Cl ❑ ❑Yes ❑N IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed-Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El 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 ❑ ❑ `'i es ❑N project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for Cl ❑ ❑Yes ❑N archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Eyes CN 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 s%ould apply to column 2 C;N0 ZYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity ❑ ❑ ❑Yes CN, • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑N< • Other impacts Preserve .undevelopable open [ ❑ ❑Yes ❑Nr space. 9 ' 2 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Moderate Large Mitigated E ONO BYES Impact Impact Project Char Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes Or • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. Q ❑ [-]Yes Or • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑r IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of 71 ❑ ❑Yes ❑t any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑t 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: ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑t NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or.vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ®NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ Cl ❑Yes ❑I facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Cl ❑ ❑Yes ❑I • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑ noise screen. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑ substances(i.eoil, pesticides. chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ form (ie. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ gas or other flammable liquids • Proposed action may result in the excavxtkQn or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑Yes Cl within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal or solid or hazardous waste • Othnr impacts: Cl Cl ❑Yes ❑ 10 7 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact B OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Impact Impact Project Chang ONO RYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the Cl ❑ ❑Yes EN project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑Nc will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑Yes [INC • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ® []Yes [INC • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑Nc or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ® ❑Yes [INC (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ® ❑Yes (:]No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ONO OYES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may I mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 Briefly describe the impact. 2 Describe(if applicable)how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change! 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance. consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 PART III HARBORVIEW LANDING SAGE PROPERTY Access road will be constructed within 75 feet of freshwater wetlands quite possibly within wetlands. Proposed buildings will be within a flood zone 40 boat slips are proposed in conjunction with proposal which will have an impact on water quality, drainage and parking. Proposal would need approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for sewage disposal systems as well as for the water hookup. Without documentation, it is difficult to assess if the soil would support subsurface septic tanks and cesspools since the area conatins clay. Approval would also be needed from the Village of Greenport for the water hook-up. 7 As assessment would also be needed to determine the presence of rare, threatened and endangered species on the site and whether there would be any adverse impact. There would be a major reduction in aesthetic resources which are important to the community, although, there will be a preservation of open space, it may not mitigate the impact of the construction, especially the view from the water. There should be some public access provided and the impact of none should be discussed particularly with regard to the LWRP. The roadway access to the site is questionable since it is right-of-way which does not provide adequate width for new L development. The 40 dwelling units proposed is twice the number that the Planning Board would ordinarily allow using a single access of adequate width. There should be a dedication of open space and proof that this will be left in fact "forever wild" i'w y �K�-hoc .moi c� tt 9,71 • _��n�vciwo�3o � U / itu-+.�- iJ o-u�L.oe. / �,L, n �.. � /r�., �r...c�• ri.e^-� , '�o•w�..' �i� Qi(A- Q- I March 23, 1988 Mr. W.J. Schneider 20 Gilbert Place Yonkers, N.Y. 10701 Honorable Bennett Orlowski Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski, Please find enclosed a copy of a statement I sent to Judith Terry on March 3, 1988, dealing with the "Sage" property. Unfortunately, my wife and I could not attend the Planning Board meeting on March 21, 1988 however, we did visit with the developer's representatives on March 9, 1988 (See attached invitation) . It is my understanding that on March 21, 1988, the developer's representa- tives advised the Board that the neighbors ("Sage" neighbors) were not opposed to the Project and were, in fact, supportive of the proposed zone change and the development which would result. This certainly is not the case as far as my wife and I are concerned and as is clearly spelled out in our attached statement. The get-together at Mill Creek was billed as an informational meeting. Neither my wife nor I were solicited for an opinion for or against the project; nor do I believe were other attendees solicited. In any case, our opposition to the proposed zone change is outlined in the attached papers and we would respectfully request that you, and your board, consider our position. Thank You. V Tr g ur , William J. Schneider MAR ? 5. D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO 8 JOSEPH F. CARLINO COUN5ELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P. O. BOX 31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK 11501 ARMAND P.D'AMATO JEFFREY D.FORCHELLI (516) 248-1700 TELECOPIER(516)248-1729 JACK L LIBERT DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ PETER R.MINED OF COUNSEL JOSEPH F CARLINO JAMES W.PARES PETER ALPERi WARRENS ARTHUR •meMaea or Y.a..c. nas e ARLEN K.BOLSTAD MARJORIE E.BORNES ANTON J.BOROVINA WILLIAM A.DICONZA March 4, 1988 ROBERTA FOX RICHARD C GOLDBERG* STEVEN LOVE JOSEPH A.MULE THOMAS V.PANTELIS Mr. William J. Schneider 20 Gilbert Street Yonkers, New York 10701 Dear Mr. Schneider: We recently sent you a notice informing you that our client, Harborview Realty Co. , had requested a change of zone on the easterly 25 acres of the "Sage" parcel. Our client wants to construct private residences , in a townhouse style, on the property' s eastern tip, while leaving over two-thirds of the 83+ acre parcel - including that adjacent to Young' s Marina - dedicated to nature and forever wild. However, the zone change requested is necessary for development of the property in this fashion. We have already met with some of your neighbors who have expressed their support for this unique approach. We thought you would also like an opportunity to see our plans and discuss them with us. With that in mind, we ask that you join us at the Mill Creek Inn in Southold, next Wednesday evening, March 9 , 1988 , at 7 : 30 P.M. This will give us an opportunity to show you our plans and answer your questions in an informal setting. Refreshments will be served. The Mill Creek Inn is located on Main Road (Route 25) in Southold. We look forward to seeing you there. Very truly yours , JEFFREY D. FORCHELLI JDF/ka -T N . QC @ Newyork ow a CQ t Telephone A NVNE:Company eIVA (� ��1 wL� c� e � W.J.Schneider (718),30 6100 Town Board, Town of Southold Petition of Harborview Realty Company Suffolk County, Tax Map - District 1000, Section 53, Block 5 P/0 lot 123 (known as "Sage" property) Request by Harborview Realty Company to change the zone of the above refer- enced property to: M-1 General Multiple Residence District (where the existing cottages are located) To the members of the Southold Town Board: My name is William J. Schneider. I and my wife Joan Schneider are the owners of a parcel of land described in the Suffolk County tax map, District 1000, Section 57, Block 2, Lot 11 which borders on the easterly line of the "Sage" property for a distance of 229 feet. We are opposed to the request for a zone change by Harborview Realty Company for the "Sage" property. We support and encourage retention of the existing zoning for the "Sage" property i.e. "A" Residential - Agricultural Zone. Typically, Zoning Codes are developed and applied to parcels of land within a municipality in order to provide enlightened, consistent, intelligent developmet.t of properties, with a specific purpose in mind, so that common good is realized. This of course is Bill Schneider' s definition but I feel it fairly well describes the process and the logic behind it. Key is the phrase, "common good". That, simply put, means the great majority of the peoples' needs and desires are considered. Further, good zoning also provides for an improved quality of life for all the people and good zoning demonstrates a concern for the quality of life of future generations . Appropriate zoning must also consider broad economic concerns. Today's investment against tomorrow' s return; return in terms of public welfare not profit and loss relationships of entrepreneurs. To the point ; that is opposition to the requested zone change. Development of the property in question in accordance with the existing zoning would probably be an ecological hardship let alone increasing the present density by a zone change. Good, fresh water is a scarce resource; not in abundant supply on the North Fork. Development of the "Sage" property, with increased density, would further deplete this finite resource. The quality and availability of fresh water is an all too familiar subject to the North Fork constituency and further attention from me would serve no useful purpose. The bays are strangled by the "Brown Tide". This algae did not exist in the waterways until recent years and common sense says that it, the "Tide", must be connected or related to polluted run off and the increased treated sewage finding its way into the bays. Some studies are being done, some are getting off the ground, studies are talked about, etc. , etc. Yet, everyone knows, with varying degrees of certainty, that overdevelopment and the resultant contamination is the source of pollution in the bays. Increased density results in increased sewage therefore increased pollution. The requested zone change appears, at least to my inexperienced eyes, to be an example of Spot Zoning. It is certainly driven by profit relationships. While investment and profit is what drives our capitalistic society, and I concur and support this approach, the question is how much profit is reasonable? Earlier, I spoke of today's investment weighed against tomorrow's return. Return in terms of the public welfare and quality of life on the North Shore. That is the profit the Town Board must consider when weighing the merits of this request. The entrepreneur, Harborview Realty, is concerned for maximizing financial profit ; that is obvious. Some level of profit could be realized by developing the property under the existing zoning. They, Harborview, would not have purchased the property were this not so. By seeking a zone change, they are attempting to maximize financial return for the principals with no regard to the penalties which will be incurred by future generations of North Shore people. Finally, this whole process of increased development permitted by zone changes and variances would seem to be contrary to the Land Preservation Program and all the logic that supports preservation programs) . Those who bear the heavy responsibility of public office cannot in good conscience support land preservation on one hand and zone changes permitting increased density on the other. The request for a zone change should be denied. R�lspectfu y submitt�, / 1 Willia J. Sq�in ider Planning Board • Page 18 Orch 21 , 1988 Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. This proposal is located off County Route 48 in Mattituck. I think the only problems we had with it is the traffic study is being reviewed by Sidney Bowne's office and there were a few other comments. Which we' ll entertain to send to the applicant. Any other comments on this? Board: No. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: Marina Bay Club- The supplemental DEIS received by David Emilita on March 15, 1988. No comments available from Dave at this time, but he is working on it. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Southold Savings Bank- Board to send this site plan to the Building Department for certification. Mr. Lessard: No. r Mr. Orlowski: Sorry, I only read the agenda' s. Board to send over for recommendation for final approval subject to a one year review. I believe there is just one small piece of landscaping missing, but other then that I sure Mr. Lessard will keep a close eye on it. To inform us within this one year if it is complete or not complete. I 'm I right Mr. Lessard? Mr. Lessard: Absolutely. Mr. Orlowski: What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: _14P - r. ,7e Harborview Realty Company- Presentation jt_�.,.-- "Int for this change of zone petition. Mr. Forchelli: •_;_�_` ', =;an, members of the Board, my name is Jeff Forchelli.' I `am-the Attorney for the applicant, which is Harbor View Realty Company. The applicant is the owner of the Planning Board • Page 19 &ch 21 , 1988 !_2Z C property. I see on the calendar you don't have the Suffolk County Tax Map number. It is District 1000 Section 53 Block 5 part of Lot 12.3 . What we are seeking from the Town Board is a rezoning for a portion of the property. Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Forchelli, can I ask you to project a little bit more, because the microphones are picking up a great deal of static. Mr. Forchelli: Is that better? Ms. Scopaz: Yes, thank you. Mr. Forchelli: The subject premises of the application is the "Sage Property", which is on both sides of sage Boulevard that comes off Main Road. The area is a total of eighty three plus acres. It is presently zoned A-Residential, Agricultural. It is presently used for thirty one cottages, which are located along the waterfront in this area. What we are seeking is a change of zone on this portion of the property. The easterly portion. This would be the division line. Then this property receiving the rezoning, to the M-1 General Multiple Residents District. Then what we would do is, the balance of the property, fifty eight acres, which is from here over, including the underwater land, out here and around, would be put into a nature preserve and remain forever wild. And invalent to the development with the C exception of this access road which would provide access. This is Sage Boulevard on the subdivision map which is about to be filed and the improvements are in and this street is here. So we pick up the street and provide access to our proposal. And there, by leaving an angle of the property in an existing natural state. Just to give you a brief history of the property. It has been used for many many years, much longer than I 've been around, for the cottages here. That use continues and has continued through last summer and will be continued this summer. That use would be discontinued and the cottages will be demolished and any sanitary systems will be removed and replaced with forty Town House units. They will be located in the approximate location as shown here. The small cove, which is here, would provide boat slips for the owners of the town house. We would provide tennis courts here. An access for a key system, there will probably a manned gate in the summer time. The existing Sage Blvd. , which is here, will not be widen or improved other then repairing the pot holes and pavement were needed to provide suitable access to home owners that are here. Other than that, Sage Blvd. will remain in its present state, present width. A number of years ago there were a various applications that came before this Board and the Zoning Board to develop the property. Those applications did meet with some _ public opposition, although they were pretty well on their way. At the time we attempted, I was involved in those applications also, we attempted to see what was good planning- and what was also good in terms of acceptance by the local community. I think without and question the developement should be up along this water front where the existing developement is. The balance of the property to remain rather wild. With the spirit of cooperation and attempt to prove that end we have had a number Planning Board • Page 20 Orch 21, 1988 of meetings and we believe we have developed a great deal of trust with the standing community and leaning towards that end. That all culminated in a meeting we had on the 9th of March, which is almost two weeks ago. Whereby we invited everyone that received notice of the application being filed. We had the meeting at the Mill Creek Inn. We presented this to the members of the community, not that they have jurisdiction over it, not to try and circumvent with this Board and the Town Board. The majority feeling we got there was, with little exceptions, was this was a good plan and a good use of the property. The property presently has water on it in the Greenport Water District. It goes through along the existing road way. We realize that we have to deal with Greenport to make sure thier water supply is there. We -have access to a new road, thereby not having to interfere with Sage Blvd. , which is here. In terms of the four homes which are here endure some difficulty with the pot holes and what have you, we have indicated and agreed with them that if this is approved that we would repair the road were needed. We will provide in our Covenants and Restrictions a prospectus for the Homeowners Association for these cottages that it is part of their monthly maintenance charge with the amount set aside to make sure Sage Blvd. is kept in repair so that these people are able to use it. It would also, Sage Blvd. could ride on emergency secondary access. We would be able to provide a pretty well self contained community, in here for the forty home owners. These boat slips here would provide access for them to have their boating. They would be able to launch their boats here. Thereby, to some degree keep the boating traffic and trailers somewhat off the roads of the town. They would be able to stay right within the property, launch and come out in the Fall and be stored in the garages or what have you in the Winter time. We anticipate only small boats in here. We believe most people who would come here would be Summer residents and they would be sleeping here and not out on boats that they would come here and take off on large boats and go away for the weekend. We would not provide for large boats here, just small bay boats. As I indicated the oak cottages will be torn down and the sanitary systems which are there would be removed and a new town houses would have all the modern sanitary devices, which will be much more environmentally sound then what is there today. We think it is a good use. We think it is a proper use. we think it has support in the local community for it. As I indicated, the meeting we had was very positive. We have spent a number of years dealing with the neighbors and some of them in particular on the development of the property. I don' t know if any of them are here, but I know one fellow that is here that will speak in respect to this. We have here with us, the architects if there are anything further or any further questions that I might be able to answer. I will be happy to do SO. Mr. Orlowski: Is there any questions from the Board? C Mr. Ward: Did we have a yield map originally? - C Mr. Orlowski: A long, long time ago. I believe there was a yield map, because they ask for a change of zone to accomplish this. Planning Board Page 21 9rch 21 , 1988/Z� C Mr. Ward: What I was looking at was in the spirit of what is happening is that normally the provision in our code does not allow to cluster to this degree. What we are really doing, and that is essentially what we are doing. In the spirit of what we are doing here I think that the density should be based on what a real yield would be on the property rather than taking the - yield a particular piece under an M-zone. Mr. Forchelli: Well, the reason we came up with this type of plan for it was, when we were going through the approval process last time there was, we have conversations and we actually had a scoping session with Mr. Emilita. Various people at the time including members of the Board, the Town Board, who attended that and stated, and I think in the original proposals by the Planners, it recommended that the development left up in this area. There are at the present time thirty one cottages on the property. We felt that a yield of forty was reasonable in terms of the eighty acres, eighty three acres that we have. That is how we came up with the number. We tried to equate what we felt was reasonable with the economics of the situation and the approvements that had to be done. The deeding of the property and any possible clean up for the environmental preserve of it. That is how we came up with the yield under the change of zone. Mr. Mullen: Those boat slips will be utilized only for the people that own the property. CMr. Forchelli: Yes, they will not be able to be commercially leased out or any one else ' s slip goes with the unit. No more no less. Mr. Latham: Is Sage Boulevard closed off just at the head of that. Mr. Forchelli: We would put here a crash gate, which would allow emergency vehicles to get through but other than that it would be closed off. There would be no further access onto this because we would have our access to it. Yet both sides of it, here and here, will be part of the socalled nature preserve with restricted covenants. So nobody will get on there but us. Mr. Orlowski: What is the square footage of each unit? Mr. Forchelli: Twenty five hundred square feet. They are two bedroom units. We will have a total of eighty bedrooms. Mr. Edwards: Are these going to be primarily summer residents? Mr. Forchelli: We believe they would be, yes. Mr. Mullen: possible utilization, and don' t laugh at me, ire affordable housing or a affordable house in therg___ --libility of getting some property we might use for t; --:. -_,n_ think about it. You don' t have to answer me now. _ / Planning Board Page 22 Och 21, 1988 1 Mr. Forchelli: I don't think we would have an opposition to that. We did speak with community members about the remainder of( \ this property being forever invalid. Mr. Mullen: Don't misunderstand me, we are not looking for a saturation of the property. They will require people to maintain a hamlet situation and the way it is going now I don' t know where you are going to get the help because we don' t have the housing. If you can work on a situation where you figure you would require so many people, say three or whatever, maybe we can work down the line to build in some housing for these people. It' s a thought that's all. Mr. Forchelli: It' s a good one. Housing is a problem where ever you go on Long Island. It something we will look at. Mr. Mullen: Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz, any questions? Ms. Scopaz : Just one. It is not really related to the change of zone but. . . The road that you would come off of, Sage road, there is about a ten or fifteen foot drop in elevation from the end of that road down to your property. Since you are in a sensitive area right there, can you indicate any problems in construction? Any impact on the wet lands in the area. Mr. Forchelli: Last Wednesday we were out here and prior to C coming to Town Hall we walked this. We walk it two weeks ago and we met also. This configuration here may wind up being a little different, but it is very high and dry up here There is a difference in grade here. I don' t know if it is ten or fifteen feet, but we estimated it about eight. . .the grade in-coming across here. There may have to be a cul-de-sac with a road off it or however you do it. That is all subject to the zone change and the site plan by the Planning Board. We felt it was very easily to come in here with a road. Ms. Scopaz: The proposed area for the boat slips, would you require dredging in that area? Mr. Forchelli: We don' t think it would because there are presently boat slips in there. We show here forty boat slips. We are not sure that that is going to be the number. Probably there will be a one on one boat to town house. There will probably be a few less boat slips here and we do not anticipate any dredging. The way they are now, they are locust post with cat walks that stand in wetland grass in here. There is floating docks and both polls nose in. We believe that would be the. . . We would not have to dredge it, because this is quite deep in the middle here. Ids. Scopaz: Would you be providing a ramp on site to load those boats in? Mr. Forchelli: There is a remains of a ramp here. With a four wheel drive vehicle you can get in and out there, loading it. We 12 Planning Board Page 23 'Parch 21 , 1988 C!! l�ia C would anticipate approval by the Trustees and the DEC to improve the boat launching in and out. Which once again, would be limited strictly to the residents here. Mr. Orlowski: Any other questions? Mr. Lessard: That subdivision that you intend to hook into is a private subdivision at the present time. That would require a legal document for you to use that. Mr. Forchelli: Yes, we realize that. Mr. Lessard: O.K. One other question, the area that you wanted to put the condominiums in, what would that acreage be? Do you know off hand? Mr. Forchelli: 24. 95. Mr. Lessard: I 'm fishing for the yield is what I 'm fishing for as aposed to the over all. Mr. Forchelli: We realize with the 24. 95 acres under the zoning we could possibly have a greater yield but we are not asking. We are limited to that by covenants or whatever other method. Mr. Lessard: I believe your forty units are alright under the Cformula. Ms. Scopaz: The off site sewer system, I believe you said earlier that it was being handled by individual sanitary system. Mr. Forchelli: Whatever is required by the County Health Department. Whether they would be individual systems or whether they would be. . . whatever the health department requires. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. You said you had a communittie meeting a the Mill Creek and no opposition? Mr. Forchelli: We did not have any vocal opposition. I think we invited everyone to make their thoughts known. We received, very positively, by the surrounding owners and the owners on Sage Blvd. . Mr. Mullen: How many people appeared at the meeting? Approximately. Mr. Forchelli: Thirty or forty. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. The Board would like to just go out and take one more look and review it. Thank you for coming down and presenting it.1f t�_^ ,are no more questions. Ms . Scopaz; h, '` questions, but I suggest to the Board that yyou-ask tt;-=. -- - an use all the material and review the plans.--if-you ha; L re questions you will get in touch with them and at your next meeting make a recommendation to the Town Board. Planning Board Page 24 Orch 21 , 1988 Mr. Ward: Do we have prints of these. Ms. Scopaz: I don' t think we have prints of the other material. We probably have just a site plan. Mr. Forchelli: We have either on this board or we have prints which ever is easier for you to work with. These are a proposal of what units could look like. We realize that if the change of zone was ultimately granted by the Town Board we have to come back to the Planning Board for its approval. At this time, we are flexible on this in terms of height and so on. We would work with anyone who would require us to come up with an acceptable plan. Mr. Orlowski: We will review this and by our next meeting we will make a recommendation to the Town Board. Mr. Forchelli: I think that a neighbor here would like to speak. Mr. Orlowski: Well, this is your submission so, it is not a public hearing, if you would like to have someone else speak we will listen. Mr. Flynn: My name is Flynn from Tarpon Drive, Southold Shores. Which is in the immediatly vicinity of the property. I jotted down some notes to make this relatively succinct. Some of you may be aware that I have had more than a passing interest in the C past as to what happens to the Sage property. I have gone over this plan in great detail and personally discussed with many of my neighbors. Though I am speaking for myself, I am speaking largely as what their reactions would be. My opinion is that this plan as presented represents a fair and equitable solution to what possibly could have been a contigious and litigious proceeding. I think it is a balanced solution to this problem of the unique nature that this property presents. When I say balanced I think it is balance because there is something in this plan to satisfy the requirements of everyone concerned. Obviously, it satisfies the requirements of the developers, otherwise they would not present this. I think they have built a unique attitude and cooporation and respect for the environment by doing what they have with what there is, obviously, approximately 50 acres of fresh and saltwater wetlands. As far as the neighbors are concerned this proposition would have the merit of eliminating substandard rental housing. And substituting for substantial improvements. Which would have the benefit to adding to the assessment of the community and contributing to the tax burdens that we bear. Particularly with respect to the school district. The experience with all of the condominiums, I have made a study of every condominium in the Town and including the Village of Greenport. They are rarely occupied in the winter. As a matter of fact it is not a 100% occupancy in the summer. The rentals of these units is also relatively great. First of all, because the rental requirements of the owners is relatively high. And secondly, the owners i-n the income bracket who purchase such condominiums usually have them furnished in a manor that they don' t want tenants accompanying them and damaging the contents of the woodwork. So �d Planning Board • Page 25 Parch 21 , 1988 C really, you would look primarily to winter occupancy. The effect of winter occupancy on the tax burden of the Town should be quite apparent. There is also a threshold. When units have a market value of upwards of two hundred thousand dollars, they no longer represent a burden to the Town. The taxes that they pay exceed the expenses that they create for the community. From these standpoints, I think these. units will represent a plus. From the standpoint of the Town, I believe that we have, in the Town, an express to acquire as much open space as possible. I believe there is a budget in the Town which is some currently, correct me if I am wrong, within seven hundred thousand dollars to acquire such open space. It is my oppion, based on some years of experience, that what you are being offered as open space here must exceed the value of what could be acquired by the Town with the funds available. So, I say this a balanced presentation. There is something here for everybody and nobody, in my opinion, is hert by this plan. Finally, the impartial recommendation of R.P. . .were almost specifically to this type of development of the property. It is also in accord to every study that has been made in this Town where desirable property should be developed on a cluster basis. And property that constitutes fresh and salt water wetlands should be acquired as open space. That is exactly the proportion that is offered here. Speaking for myself and for my neighbors, we are incoordination with the development of this property as it is presented now. If their arange changes in this presentation we reserve the right to act Caccordingly. Thank you for your reception. Person in Audience: Somebody spoke for, is it possible that somebody could speak against? Mr. Orlowski: I really would not like to make this a public hearing at this time. There will be that chance at the change of zone. Mr. Forchelli has come to make a presentation. It is his nickel as they say. Ms. Scopaz: May I make a suggestion, that you make your position known to the Town Board. Person from Audience: We have already. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Being no further discussion, thank you for coming and we will move on. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. next I would like to move on to the Griswold-Terry-Glover American Legion Post- Board to discuss previous resolution for this change of zone. Our Town Attorney has told us that we have conditioned the change of zone based on who owns the property._ The courts have held that a change of zone can not bc_ffTr.�_ ^.fiat of party, but must be based on a comprehensive plan rp—riless of who owns it or who will . . . the parcel. So the w - js asking us for another recommendation-" - Mr. ecommendation"Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman,` I-don' t see how we can endorse a commercial zone there forever. It is not in keeping with our March 21 , 19 6 To: Town Board, Planning Board and Trustees O 6 1111 Town of Southold 'lll�l Re: Petition of Harborview Realty Company Suffolk County Tax Map ' - District 1000 , Section 53 Block 5 P/O lot 123 (known as Sage property) Request by Harborview Realty Company to change the zone of the above referenced property to: M-1 General Multiple Residence District Our names are Edwin M. and Constance T. Latson. We live year- round in the home we own on Island View Lane Extension, District 1000 , Section 57, Block 2 , Lot 12 , next to Mr. and Mrs. William J. Schneider, who border on the easterly line of the Sage property. ', We are opposed to the request for a zone change, and encourage retention of the existing zoning. Our opposition to the requested zone change includes concern for our water supply, quantity and quality, and concern for the increased pollution of our bays from increased density of population at the water ' s edge. But these are engineering problems which professionals must consider. What we can personally object to is the aesthetics of a wall of condominiums thirty feet high down the western side of Conklin Point. One has only to look at Cleave Point , Stirling Harbor, or nearby Oyster Point to see how these massive structures completely ruin the beauty of each community. The proposed buildings on Conklin Point are just such monstrosities , and the closer they are to the point, the worse they will look. If they have to be built , they should be nearer the commercial area at the northwest end, not at our beautiful residential end of the point where every house is different and few have a second story. We want to preserve the rural character of Conklin Point. Con- dominiums with garages bring a density of population and a suburbia which we live in Southold to escape . We request that the zone change be denied. Respectfully submitted, A 4� Edwin M. Latson Constance T. Latson � L�Lc:`i7/c Cfc Iva-t.6-�-tuJ �i� �?CCa;•z.1C<�li,�'7C7`/C �7/'c�� lt�-e�.oiA�� 2X ., C y ( ham rYcCaZ 2r r� %. 211 ex 0,P) of fav L�72L c" ` 1z -Dz �G es z'e D � h gm 6 �� a PI PP'(UJt5 FT �( � e 5 RIlk— C)k Chu Q Q n 30 Al . V�-z wQ 7'urs- 0-" ra_Q�� Ve-al i C C" sc1 s� RD PLANNING 1 D TOWN OF SOU HOLD SI,rFFOL tY3yTy J Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 March 8 , 1988 Mr. Arlen Bolstad 120 Mineola Ave. Mineola, NY 11501 RE: Harborview Realty Co. SCTM # 1000-53-5-12. 3 Dear Mr. Bolstad: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, March 7 , 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set March 21 , 1988 as the presentation date for this change of zone petition. If you have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, p �C oj".La' ( 1' BENNETT ORLOWSKI ,JR.°CLAIRMAN -- SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD it f Our Town Hall, 53095 Main Road "O O� P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 JUDITH T.TERRY TELEPHONE TOWN CLERK (516) 765-1801 REGISTRAR of VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 29, 1988 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the petition of Harborview Realty Co. request- ing a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to 1IM-1" General Multiple Residence District on certain property located at Sage Boulevard, Greenport, Town of Southold, New York. Please prepare an official report defining the conditions described in said petition and determine the area so affected by your recommendations, and transmit the same to me. Thank you. Very truly yours, Judith T. erry Southold Town Clerk Attachments 617.21 SECIR Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agunries determine., in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentiallvdarge, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: k7 Part 1 ❑ Part 2 ❑Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and iniporl,mco of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ❑ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' ❑ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Harborview Landing j Name of Action Southold Town Planning Board Name or Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title or Responsible Officer ------------ Signature of Responsible Officer in I.ead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible officer) Date 1 PAR( —PROJECT INFORMAriON Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through F. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide anv acid itionaI 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 currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Harborview Landing LOCATION OF ACTION(include Street Address, Municipality and County) Sage Road, Town of Southold, Suffolk County NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE �� Harborview Realty Co. (516 ) 234-3340 ADDRESS 300 Rabro Drive CITY/PO STATE ZIP IP CODE Hauppauge 7 NY I 11787 NAME OF OWNER(If different) BUSINESS .TELEPHONE Harborview Realty Co. X516 )_234_3340 ADDRESS 300 Rabro Drive CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE Hauppauge NY 11787 I DESCRIPTION OF ACTION 'S Subdivision of a portion (24.959acres) of 83.117 acres to provide for townhouse development of 40 homes clustered in 10 buildings. The development would require a rezone to M-1. The remaining 58.157 acres would remain undeveloped and be dedi- cated to the Nature Conservancy or a like organization which would keep the land in trust and forever wild. Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ❑Urban ❑Industrial ❑Commercial IJResidential (suburban) ❑Rural (non-faun) ®Forest ❑Agriculture X]OtherWetlands & 31 exist. substandard residential 2. Total acreage of project area: 83.117 acresincluding 11.551 acres underwater cottages APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) _21.7 acres 21 . 3 _ acres Forested __27___ acres �_6acre:. Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc l � acres �_._ acr:+s Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 2; ..)f F(. I ) _ 12.8 acres _.___12.8 .__ arae, Water Surface Area 4_ acres 4 awes Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) 0 acres -_ 0 acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 6 acres _— 7 . 4 acres Other (Indicate type) Underwater _ _ _11.6 acres 11.6 acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Made land 407, Haven loam 207, Riverhead Sandy loam 187, ane icesilt—loam cut &'-fill 107, --- a. Soil drainage: ❑Well drained _ 38__ % of site ❑Moderately well drained 62 - % of site ❑Poorly drained __ % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 0 _ acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ❑Yes Ct3No a. What is depth to bedrock? NSA (in feet) 2 S.,A'Oproxlmate percentage of proposed {� ct sig,, with slopes- ,70-1py;, 100 „ '11i_1:11 w, 1]1S°/, or greater _ °N, 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the SLate or the National Registers of Historic Places? ❑Yes 5allo Z Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural landmarks? I.]Yes $'No 8. What is the depth of the water table?8e Avg, (in it,,,,, Range 5 to 13-feet (Source: 1985 Test Holes) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? (]Yes x]No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Kyos []NO 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life thatis identified as threatened or endangered? [Dyes ®No According to 1973 Endangered Species Act (Fed) kdEatifye�¢li=spcdes NYS Environmental Conservation Law Section 11-0535 StateJ__ 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) QYes ONO Describe 1.566-acre island to be dedicated forever wild. 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. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ❑Yes ®No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: Wetland Pond Tributary to Southold Bay a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary . 16 Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name Hashamomuck Pond h. Size (In acres) 172 ac. approx. 17. IS the site served by existing public utilities? ]Yes (7No within 1/2 mile a) if Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? x1Yes ❑No b) if Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow r nnnre IioW Ix'Yrs -INo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets I_aw, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? []Yes LONo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 3 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ❑Yes 1x NO 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ❑Yes RNo B. Project Description 1_ Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as ;epprupriate] a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 83.117 acro,. b. Project acreage to be developed. 24.959 acres initially, 24.959 acral ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 58.157 - .0 rr,s (70%) d. Length of project, in miles: 0.85 _ (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A oN,, f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 60 proposed 90 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 22 _ (upon completion of project)? P.M. Weekday h. If residential: Number and type of housing units. Townhouse/ One Family Two Family Multiple Family COnd7fnmlum Initially 40 _ Ultimately 40 i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 33 __ height; 52 ' width; 125' length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? as-is R 3 Access to Route 25 (Main Road) as existing Sage Road 2. How much natural mate, 0 e., r< earth, etc.) will be removed fn.,.n the si 0 tuns/cubic YafrfS 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? lyes 1-1 Nu XIN/A a. If yes, for what intend,.,_ purpose is the site being reclaimed? _ b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? lyoc I-INo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation+ I Iyes ❑No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground ( overs) will he removed from site? _1'4 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ❑Yes ®No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 18 _ months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated NSA (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ❑Yes ❑No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Oyes ix1No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 15 after project is complete 4 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 _ 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? k7Yes ❑No If yes, explain Relocation of water and electric service, relocate private road on development portion 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes Lx]Nu of site. a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount N/A b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Rlyes ❑No Type Sewage 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑Yes ®No Explain _ 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Eyes [:]No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? 13�Yes ❑No a. If yes, what is the amount per month 7.62___ tons Summer months maximum b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? Eyes ❑No c. If yes, give name private sanitation carters ; location Town of Southold Landfill d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a ;,initary landfill? ❑yes kINo e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid wasto? I_lYos rxlNo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? ___RLA—.— tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? NSA___ years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ❑Yes IkNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ❑Yes ®No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ❑Yes k7No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? RYes ❑No If yes , indicate type(s) Domestic electric service (minimal) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity NSA gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 12,000 gallons/day. Summer months maximum 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ❑Yes RNo If Yes, explain 4 25. "Appravals Required: Submittal Type Date r RV, Town, I#age Board klYes i.1No Zoning_ Change __ Pending____ ERp, Town, V#I+a%T Planning Board bd Yes !-lNn Subdivision/Site Plan Approval ERp', Town Zoning Board of Appeals ix1yea I-IN, Eitq, County Health Department �i Yes I.7No Sewage_and water - Other Local Agencies RYes ❑No Greenport Water District_ Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes fxlNo State Agencies DEC I'X:JYes ❑N o Wetlands__ Permit Federal Agencies ❑Yes Ix No Town Trustees ® Yes Wetlands C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? 2d Yes GNo If Yes, indicate decision required: I-Nzoning amendment ❑zoning variance use permit X-subdivision 'Jsite plan ❑new revision of master plan ❑resource management plan ❑other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? Residential A 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 31 units existing 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? M-1 General Multiple - Residence District 5 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 40 units 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? OYes CNo 7 What are the predominant land use(s) and zonini.; rlaNtiih( ahnnc wilhin a V, mile radius of proposed action? Res. A and use is primarily single-family residential on average Lot size of 10,000 sq.ft and commercial marina use 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoiningfsurrouriding land uses within a 1, mile? CNyes ON 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how rnany lots are proposed? 2 sections:58.157 -acres orever'-gild a. What is the minimum lot size 01`0p05ed?24.959 acres for 40 unit townhouse development 10. Will proposed action require any authorizations) for the formation of sewer or water districts ❑Yes KNc, 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any Community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? 5c1Yes ❑No a. If yes, Is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected dernand? trc7Yes ❑No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of tralfic significantly above present levels? Dyes IXNo a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional tratfic? 0-Yes ❑No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to .clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate _a avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided abovo i, rrur iu Ihr best of illy knowledge. Applican Sponso N J P nnin -Uor_for Harborview Realty Co. I. .February- 11, 1988 Signa tureC%� Jean A. Cel oder, Pres ' ent if the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a slate agency, complete the Coastal Assessment 1=orm bel n proceeding - with this assessment. _- JJ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM HARBORVIEW LANDING SUBDIVISION AND CHANGE OF ZONE SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This Environmental Assessment From ( EAF) is submitted for the proposed action to subdivide 24 . 959 acres from a 83 . 117-acre parcel to enable the construction of 40 clustered townhouse units . A change of zone for the subdivided 24 . 959 acres from the current "Residential A" to "M-1 " would be required to permit construction of the attached townhouse units . The remaining 58 . 157 acres , representing 70% of the site , would be preserved and dedicated to the Nature Conservancy or a similar organiza- tion to be held in trust as forever wild. The site , approximately 83 acres , is located east of Main Road (Route 25 ) , north of Tarpon Drive and north of Southold Bay in the Town of Southold . The site is designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as Section 53 , Block 5 , Lots 12 . 3 and 12 . 4 and is owned by Harborview Realty Co . with offices at 300 Rabro Drive in Hauppauge, New York. The property is currently zoned "Residential-A" and contains 31 substandard, non-conforming cottages . The proposed action would remove the cottages and construct a well-designed , upscale, low-density residential development . A rezone to "M-1 " is requested on the development portion of the site ( 24 . 959 acres ) in order• to construct the proposed project . The proposed project would conform , in all areas , with the M-1 Multiple Residence District except for the necessity of a variance for the separation between principal buildings . 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (CONT ' D ) The clustering of the buildings reduces the impacts on the natural features of the site and reduces the amount of imper- vious surfaces necessary for road and walkways . It also allows the new structures to remain in the area currently occupied by the unconforming cottages . This project would consist of 40 townhouse units which would be clustered in 10 buildings ( 4 units per building) along the southern half and the point of the eastern most portion of the property. (See attached site plan. ) This configuration follows , in essence, that of the existing 31 substandard cottages and, therefore , would reduce the impact to the site ' s sensitive natural features . Among the amenities provided for the development would be 40 boat slips , a dock house for storage and 2 tennis courts , all of which would be available for residents only. A total of 90 parking spaces would be provided, 40 of which would be in two 20-car garages . The additional parking would be provided proxi- mate to each townhouse cluster except for 8 spaces, which would be located at the tennis court area . An interior roadway/walkway system would be constructed within the subdivided 24 . 959 acres . This system would be designed as a private road with access controlled at a gate house at the entrance to the development . Access would be maintained to Main Road, through the dedicated portion of the 7 t_ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (CONT ' D. ) property, using the existing roadway . This roadway will remain as-is with only minor repairs necessary for safe use ( such as pothole repair) . In addition to concentrating the development in the area of the property that contains the existing structures , the site plan will maintain the integrity of wetland areas by observing 75-foot setbacks for all components of the development . The existing bulkhead in the eastern portion of the site along Southold Bay (approximately 375 feet ) was severely damaged by Hurricane Gloria ( September 27 , 1985 ) . The bulkhead will be restored with similar materials to original condition under an existing Army Corps of Engineers permit . A permit granted by the Town Trustees of October 21 , 1985 lapsed and a request for its reissuance has been submitted. A previous application for a subdivision entitled "Sage Property, Section 1 , " was determined not to have a significant effect on the environment (Negative Declaration) and was granted approval by the Southold Planning Board on March 4 , 1985 . This application was amended on November 6 , 1985 and included , in brief , the following modifications : 1 . single-phased project 2 . 23 cluster lots as opposed to 31 lots in two sections 3 . removal of non-conforming cottages 4 . removal of docks on east side of lagoon and replacement with a floating 18-slip dock on the west side of the lagoon and a smaller 5-ship dock 5 . Preservation of 32 . 61 acres of open space . 8 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (CONT 'D. ) The current plan represents a further• improvement in design and protection of environmental features with a significant increase in land area which will be undeveloped and kept forever wild. Although there is a slight increase in the number of units , there are benefits to clustered multi-family units when compared to single-family lots . Water district records and Census figures have shown that condominium units have a reduced number of persons per unit and that water use is substantially less compared to single family homes . Attached homes are energy efficient and land held in common is maintained in a more environmentally responsible and professional manner in terms of landscaping and maintenance . The following information is supplied to further clarify responses to the EAF. The numbered notes refer to the item numbers on the EAF. ( Item Al2 ) Unique Land Forms In addition to the 1 . 566+ acre island at Conkling Point , which will be kept forever wild, an additional 56 . 591 acres would remain undeveloped . This acreage includes the 11 . 551 acres of underwater land. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (CONT ' D . ) ( Item B13 ) Sewage The project site is located in Hydrogeologic Zone IV, which is outside of the deep recharge area of Hydrogeologic Zone III as defined in the "208 study. " According to Suffolk County Health Department regula- tions , a conventional sub-surface sewage disposal system may be approved when the equivalent wastewater flow of 600 gallons per day per acre in Zone IV is not exceeded as long as there is a public water supply available and the soils and groundwater condi- tions are conducive to the proper operation of a sub-surface sewage disposal system . At maximum, each cluster of the proposed development would have a design flow requirement of 1 , 200 gallons per. day ( 4 units x 300 gallons per unit ) . For the total 10 clusters , design flow would equal 12 , 000 gallons/day which is well within the 14 , 975 gallon per day equivalent wastewater flow ( 24 . 959 acres x 600 gpd) . 10 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ( CONT 'D . ) Test hole data collected in 1985 indicated that soils on-site are capable of supporting sub-surface septic tanks and cesspools . The proposed action would eliminate the present old sub-surface systems which service the existing cottages . ( Item B23) Water Use Public water by the Greenport Water District is available on-site via an existing water main along Sage Road . New connections will be provided to the water main for each of the new residences . Suffi- cient supply of potable water is available to service this development , which is projected to have an maximum water use of 12 , 000 gallons per day for the summer. months . In accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617 ( State Environmental Quality Review Act Regulations) , the applicant sets forth as indicated by the insignificant effects noted above , that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment and should be issued a Notice of Non-Significance (Negative Declaration) by the Lead Agency . 11 ! ` \ i v ^ Ll L' Ih PROJECT DATA ' _ \ i 1 � ) Total Site Area 87.117 acres \ 1 I \\ \ Project Development Area 24.959 acres (707, of site) Ealance to be left as \ 1K, \ "Forever Wild" 50.157 acres (70% of site) x / I Sou1'7loLD \ BAY \\ \ �o Townhouseunits 0 ClusterBu \ 1ildings (4 units in each) \ \ 90 Parking Spaces Provided (40 garaged) 40 Boat Slips FRENOO SKETCH rc.x MEGaFEn 100\ LPH CORPORATION r\ '\ i Tennis Courts .\ sacE xxorsxrr Roadway/Walkway 6 Care \ ._. . \• / 1 Road House ---- ,__ 1 Dock House (stora e) Roadwa /Walkwa Network (private scale) RARRGRVIEW IAMOING comxam,u x r FREN�O—LIPH CORPORATION 1 � \ I Li I, J lv I \� ", VA A Or- ppI - I' 13 TOWN BOARD, TOWN OFSOUTHOLD In the Mattcr of the Petition of HARBORVIEW REALTY CO. NOTICE to the Town Board of the Town of Southold. TO: y 4 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to request change of zone on the premises hereinafter described 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: Suffolk County tax map district 1000 section 53 block5 p/o lot 12 3 (oottemnly known as the Sage property) Subject parcel is bounded by adiacent parcels as indicated. 4 ST: Howard Zehner (Young's Marina) ; NORTH: Posillico Construction CompLVty; NORTHEAST. Anesthesia Croup P.C. and William J. Schneider; SOLMI: Shelter Island Sound. 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: "A" Residential —_ Agricultural Zoning Use District 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request that the above-described property be placed in the following zone district classification: M-1 General M111tiple Residence District Th,—request is limited to the easterly area where the existing cottages are located. S. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. 6. That before the relief sought may be granted,a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Town Board;that a notice of such hearing must be published at least ten days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Travel er-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to ap- pear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: February 16 1988 Harborview Realty Co.' Petitioner Post Office Address: _3D0_ Rahrn pri ate Hauppauge . New York 11787 PROOF OF NtAILING OF NOTICE ADDRESS NA\IE SEE ATTACHED LIST P 437 901 465 P 412 733 618 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO 11JSNRANdE CItRAGE JROV 0 .,,, J+ L •" jo',UD NOT FOR INTERN41I0NAL MAIL NOTF:N ,AT 14IL Bee Reverser See �'•'T er��1 EsAk�nt�sthesia sia Gr�uPMichael A_Kosctram S. Holder MD 191 Is land View Drive n —ZIP Code p D _inOn. �0Caoc inton Avenue �reen�ort� NY 11944n, NY 1 238 J Pnstaye � of + Germed Fee I-"'ToU Fre �Spe—clzl De—livery F—ee �� S:coaI Deuvery FOe neslndll ed DeR°ery ee qstncrru Uelrvary Fr�� ReRvn Receipt snoI no Fewrrr Necelpt>n...... .0'In Om and Dale lelrvered 10"horn and D.tte COIIVereO N W ReyT RBOeIpl SMo.l lq!a wnOT, m wnOnl i pr Relem He C 110 gnuwinp to Da'e. and Address of Delivery Dale_and Address ut D.'e ery u I e TprnL Postage and Fees � TOT 1L Po=nroe and Foes- I I I oPOsimark or Date '-' m :0 �!'mlmork o• Pete - r n n E v LL � N LL II STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: ss.: Cheryl Godet residingat 1102 Norbav Street, Franklin Square, New York 11010 being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 16th day of February 19 _$$_, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the reverse side hereof, directed to each of the abov .-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the cur- rent assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered) mail � CHERYL GODET Sworn to me this 1 6�h ` day of Fphrnary , 19 RR_. Notary Publ' REGINA NURNBERGER NOTARY PUBLIC,State of New yak Qualified iin4Nan 7 -11Y c C� Commission Expirae October 31,19_1 I �• ro LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS Lynn F. Sciora, 407 River Avenue, Beaver, PA 15009 Raymond Ciacia, Greenport, NY 11944 John E. Rempe, 4310 Bayshore Road, Greenport, NY 11944 George L. Penny, Inc. , c/o George L. Penny IV, Main Road, Greenport, NY 11944 Bros. Corazzini, 56240 Main Road, Greenport, NY 11944 Theresa Casamisina, 14 Julia Lane, East Northport, NY 11731 Charles Krepp, 205-01 34th Avenue, Bayside, NY 11361 Frank Carlucci, 157-48 24th Avenue, Whitestone, NY 11357 Michael A. Koscis, 14 Island View Lane, Greenport, NY 11944 Donald F. Jones , 97 Noble Street, Brooklyn, NY 11222 Ethel Dudley, P.O. Box 636 , Greenport, NY 11944 Richard Burkhardt, 321 West 24th Street, New York, NY 10011 Edwin M. Latson, 1425 Island View Lane, Greenport, NY 11944 William J. Schneider, 20 Gilbert Street, Yonkers, NY 10701 John H. Mulholland, 71 Old Zoar Road, Monroe, Conn. 06468 Derek Morcombe, 725 Island View Lane, Greenport, NY 11944 Madeline Keufner & Katherine Jarres, 64-71 74th Avenue, Glendale, NY 11385 Murray & Selma Jacobs, 5 Diamond Drive, Plainview, NY 11803 Joseph W. Suda, P.O. Box 65, Greenport, NY 11944 Joseph Knizak, 5 Perigee Drive, Stony Brook, NY 11790 William F. Killan, P.O. Box 186, Greenport, NY 11944 Harold Reese, 855 Sunrise Highway, Lynbrook, NY 11563 Thomas F. & Joan F. Gleason, 5 Furwood Drive, East Northport, NY 11731 Seymour & Adelaide Brittman, 14 Leland Street, East Northport, NY 11731 Willard H. & Claire A. Barry, 166 Roxbury Road, Garden City, NY 11530 Robert & Linda Bracken, 32 Linchfield Road, Port Washington, NY 11050 Frank A. Santamaria, 220 Colonial Road, North Babylon, NY 11703 Frank M. & Ingeborg L. Flynn, P.O. Box 144 , Southold, NY 11971 Charlotte Weisman, Tarpon Drive, Southold, NY 11971 Robert H. Chilton, Beachwood Lane, Southold, NY 11971 Southold Shores Assoc. , Inc. , P.O. Box 263, Southold, NY 11971 Andrew F. & Carole Cassidy & Others, 1815 Albertson Lane, Greenport, NY 11944 James Melrose, 41 Robinson Road, Greenport, NY 11944 James Posillico, 31 Tennyson Avenue, Westbury, NY 11590 Posillico Construction Company, Inc. , 31 Tennyson Avenue, Westbury, NY 11590 Mary Barsczewski, c/o Stanley Bladzinski, Southold, NY 11971 Anesthesia Group P.C. , c/o Bertram S. Holder M.D. , 356 Clinton Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11238 Joseph A. LaColla, c/o Mill Creek Liquors , Southold, NY 11971 Howard Zehner, P.O. Box 250, Greenport, NY 11944 DIVED FEB 1 c3 1987 CASE. NO: .....12.E-6..... STATE CF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PETITION IN THE HATTER OF THE. PETITION OF HARBORVIEW REALTY CO. FOR A C1IANCE, 1fODIFICATION OR AIIENDIIENT OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDIN- ANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. ....................... ...................................................... TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: Harborview Realty Co: siding at 3,00„Rabrq... r Xg.', ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1. 1( .... ........................................ �...�. re_ (insert name of petitioner) Hauppauge, NY 11787 Suffolk County, New York, the undersigned, am the owner of certain real property situated at Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York ""..•••••••.......•.. •.-........................•......... and more particularly bounded and described as follows: SEE ATTACHED 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to change, modify and amend tht Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, including the Building Zone \laps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: Change of zoning designation of the above described parcel from "A” Residential-Agricultural Zoning Use District to M-1 General Multiple Residence District. 3. Such request is made for the following reasons: The zoning change sought is limited to 24 . 95± acres of an 83. 00 ± acre parcel owned by the applicant. The application, accordingly, is limited to the easterly end of the parcel which is presently improved with 31 existing cottages . The remaining 58± acres are proposed for dedication to nature, forever wild. The action proposed would constitute good planning & zoning in the best in- terest of the Town of Southold and its residents . RRVO jZW---R-BA 0 (L. S.) .... BY iffor 'R udolph, General Partner STATE OF NEW YORIi, ) SS:— COUNTY S:COU TY OF SUFFOLK, a Genera�l4 arE eOrLPH ri'Hai7�o.. BEING L: Y SV,ORN' deposes and says that ty Co. Ile is/the petitioner in the within action; that he has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his (her) own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. (L. S. . ......... ....... Sworn to before me this day of . . .. February. .. .. ., 19. $$ � . . . .. . .. . Notary Public. PAUL H. MCDANIEL NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 30-4519646 Qualified i.^ Nassx, C Unty - COMMI391on Expires %rch 30, 19c, BEGINNING at a point in the southwesterly line of the land now or formerly of Posillico Construction Co. , Inc. , which point is the following courses and distances from point of intersection of the southeasterly line of the land of the Long Island Rail Road with the southwesterly line of the land of James Posillico: 1 . S. 450 21 ' 46" E. 205.42 feet to a point in the south- westerly line of the land of James Posillico, 2. S. 550 49' 26" E. 1875.99 feet along the southwesterly lines of the lands of James Pisillico and of Posillico Construction Co. , Inc. , and running thence from said point of beginning S. 550 49' 26" E. along the southwesterly line of the land of Posillico Construction Co. , Inc. 859.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Anesthesia Group; thence S. 390 35' 10" E. along the southwesterly lines of the lands of now or formerly of Anesthesia Group and of now of formerly of William:J. xhneider 1559.41 feet to a point in the approximate mean high water mark. of Shelter Island Sound; thence generally westerly, northeasterly, northwesterly, southwesterly andagain northwesterly along approximate high water marks and along a wooden bulkhead of Shelter Island Sound and of a "basin" off Shelter Island Sound to a point in the easterly line of land now or formerly of Howard and Dorothy Zehner, said point being the following courses and distances as measured along aforesaid approximate high water mark and along a bulkhead the following courses and distances: I. S. 810 29' 38" W. 21.81 feet, 2. N. 740 33' 18" W. 51 .30 feet, 3. N. 660 24' 48" W. 47.68 feet, 4. N. 700 42' 04" W. 96. 13 feet, 5. S. 890 20' 28" W. 70.96 feet, 6. S. 310 18' 45" W. 11.31 feet, 7. N. 640 40' 01" W. 197.34 feet, 8. N. 640 37' 42" W. 380.06 feet, 9. N. 640 32' 31 " W. 289.24 feet, 10. S. 760 09' 50" W. 43.85 feet, 11. N. 640 27' 27" W. 220.43 feet, 12. N. 170 10' 37" W. 36.68 feet, 13. N. 680 17' 05" W. 308.25 feet, 14. N. 350 02' 49" E. •:43.24.'feet 15. N. 690 08' 00" E. 37.16 feet 16. N. 830 44' 07" E. 22.45 feet, 17. N. 450 28' 13" E. 22.99 feet, 18. N. 10 13' 46" E. 54.52 feet, 19. N. 180 28' 55" W. 178.54 feet, 20. N. 310 30' 56" W. 40. 19 feet, 21 . N. 670 19' 26" W. 36.31 feet, 22. S. 700 40' 38" W. 37.59 feet, 23. S. 270 53' 33" W. 29.58 feet, 24. S. 00 16' 23" W. 73.63 feet, 25. S. 40 51 ' 27" W. 146.85 feet, 26. S. 30 07' 36" W. 168.58 feet, 27. S. 360 26' 28" E. 25.57 feet, 28. S. 70 04' 51" W. 109.75 feet, 29. N. 490 17' 24" W. 40.93 feet, 30. N. 20 15' 32" E. 31 .60 feet, 31 . N. 480 14' 49" W. 61 .23 feet, 32. N. 570 36' 28" W. 32.07 feet; thence N. 40 11 ' 12" E. along the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Howard and Dorothy Zehner 771 .06 feet to the land of Harbor- view Landing Realty Co. ; thence N. 40 11 ' 12" E. through the land of Harborview Landing Realty Co. 361 .44 feet to the point or place of beginning, containing an area of 25.0 acres, more or less. . r 1 . _ u.ea civc u.o ,�V Pa •• �� �\. \� _ H•�:m vino "..,. SOUTNOLa BAY j r SITE PLAN r j -mi oavimm �O m 6r 01 0O O p O � 00 00 00 ° A O N N A m OZ OZ / q2� 6q ppb • N p\ XJ CONG AND RAII.R0 p Nx XN0i J / ?4' m /s xm O Om m Xm xA m xN m / o m � xm xW •`� j +� //� XW �� I I N x o X II O // oaaa2� 00 11 o , X 1 m o \ Ico 21 1 xo o N 11 ? On O A m o 1 G p \xo m i J \ [n \ m cn 1 1 o I I a \ z LO x m x m \\ wCD 2 N U \ \ \ Z I N mX PD XN - 2') L / j J m I m 0 W i s / Z m �M N \\ I O II S3¢/ xI mo o I II I 1� J I II PJ XO f I m, N I II X? x I J x00 9 J N o / m 006 x 03 J 3 _ 2 ox n 2 n o � m _ xJ m I J NI"p2 XO 0 ' N � - 'c LONG 2•^ �x Cy xm 2� N Q)a I 6qq 'SIANO x0 / XA POP° q91 i MPIN 1 Om X 1 \ MO /X I • w NO 2 PD o I, q. 2N y❑ C1 / I l Gr I 1+ IP o 0 112 15 ° X . m O m H N I m 195 N1,0 u�y n ' ejGyy v o 3 p009ga2 D - v O m v V �xm O m © o N m Wv I Ny J, Q®P®D I\O u" rPArK--moi h 1 TTT 22ZZC4CA tnmftA 2 > �� x � mNa oNuaw I O/ / W pN � O ni \ � A \wNW � ON° ON N ' � N ,Q 4 U � l\ p \ Iv W Wp\r lONN W 'A I AD N X*ue) aIii Xm1Lo4 UU N m n fQ) o n w r a ° N) Wm u n v rtj m / 005 m m N rn � o - _ X x0m 1 A m QXO N No z -4< �� I "1'Y_l xJ � � • m v m ' •U I� F mz vm Dmzm foo .. 00000 Z Dy9y \ m v " rm W m I D n z c - J mvmi O NAo m 3 m • O m m A A _ m n '^ Z 1 "x-I O O o O O Z z rr x 0 Q F Om D O v m A mmz (J h T D 00 K K m z z m o 0 S r Onv n 6 mmz I - m ? m O 0 o z -1 0 m O ' cd m mom m m z n - r m ➢ O 2 -1 - 0 m mLl o �1 xin r O_ AX L 01 z m w D0 N- O 0 x m ( 21 m� Opo yq pyo IN I � o • al l � " - - �°a dQ m ° m SESt. � m / %W W \ ° O m � v m 2 Q A m I N z ti z pA UI l z � A m o °`°' Yr 11 �' �� ND �IfW p m n �^ m �_ R. n , m - �Q� v I° C\ m is �/4 F ✓1 D 0 m 1 , U D En ,(�0 m �'�/�' yqq Ln `P I 0) . m --- Oor, m t - o I r �p n 90 ria 1 � N/ o II, 49 a > a M x . O n / m \ 0 _ V frl O A - n m z c r m 3 n z c z D a m P a < n ITI 2 m i o z r r z r r z z -� 0 r n m c z v m i m —{ o n v o n m c m D o F n n c n o o n -o < A n v t; U) O 1 w N - 0 m n Z m n Ul m m o r < 0 3 n m x �° m ^I m m A W N - -� -1 'J, n m o o a 0 z O 0 m 2 31 m N m O D �m ' O m c O A m n Or K U r C, O m r 0 m 0 D 00 1� m Cn r m !n O O ➢ m O D D n m D A O m a r Z ITI < a O m < o O o m m r o O N 1 o z 0, D o -n "U m .D Z D -1 m x D m m D o a 3 a p ,mv m m O T -(n x -I p D -i m ti O 7C W O z n m r m m o y z 6 m N O O m m n z N m z 'i m z x n 0 c: T _ _ _ _ m C-I m O ("1 ouo 30 oo Nwm m - v ^I z G) K x N m 2 minor o mm o mo -ON m o D . fTl n z m z y 3 0 v 3 m 000000 008 000 0 q Z m i -° n o x �aclo m n '� v n m Z z K K Z MATCH LINE � m r � m y IO-1Vmn c A A n m m CO I = o z m K m a m m myA�'�P O y.., p ILWJJ o z n m m AO y ro '° I O ILJI x J C m z I II J r �/ Z o mmv min alo D { o °t 00 rP Z AQ o i e D - D o m 0m 0 0 m 0 0 0 D 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m0 x D K 0r � Dm , 1 z0 m2. K OOC a ° p O ii n `-i3r• A cz � r m / c ' ter= - - _- - o m i MATCH LINE A ymz D ,PO Gay _ Sz r !nm z P , u z mo m W N A m 0 a 4 6 s sO O O 00 O O O O GENERAL NOTES IMAP PREPARED BY LOCKWODO,KESSLER 5 BARTLETT, INC ' TY PHOTOGRAMMETRIC METHODS DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY MARCH 10, 1984 2 SRID SHOWN HEREON IS IN THE NEW YORK STATE 'LANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (LONG ISLAND ZONE) li3 VERTICAL DATUM IS THE NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL I A D 0 J 1„ (ATOM OF 19"t91MEAN SEA LEVEL, 5 N Y H 0 N,N. .) 100 0 100 200 300 LEGEND SCALE I' = 100 CONTOUR INTERVAL 21 PAVED ROAD UJPAVED ROAD TRAILS - - - - -- I1 BUILDING - ! I WOODED AREA INDIVIDUAL TREE Q WATERLINE — • - CULVERT E---- NAR SH FNCE —K LIGHT POLE O � UTILITY POLEd",,{r PDL E D MANHOLE OMH - kh TAING WALL -�-v-- � , BJL KHEAD 1 ,� J P 14%Z 12.1 PIER OR DOCK RAILROAD TRACKS -�--�- CJNTOU RS zp - POT ELEVATION x 69 NATER ELEVATION EVATION WE 5 2 58 l X 125 '� Me.W PjUI L1911JQ x 10 7 i� z rvown4l opal U 59 r 7 ID,e \ - r \ l j � T 5.4 58 s °3 1 95 4 / A 103 ¢ i I P Y. Z a I ,N'l l i +1- 83 1 X 4 1 i 1 /AZO � x 1 x w x -- -- — 100 \ LJ X 3 AV ^` X74 1 1 / / 199 z /g s. 81 D i h I SAND 30 34 - 1. 566 `- Acre - - 1i 0 U � z I � \ 1 i a -I194 Ei 1.4- 409w�' �1 - I -f t + r C1 �T I J 1 D vI -•r°�' � � , - 1 �., �-�' I I I II x �- NLIiA4+.15111J4RT GoNIGLINO P7; L __- - 0 , I �— � T l ` _ / 8.3 � � 1 --� '-1� f l I I —/ � I ,�7 WJE Fi�IGEI/E.2 \l.11 LAJ _- i u J I x J r L L__ / I e8 ^ J pp.OJF T �M i i ' 8� kl �To Al. iITEh2EA A r. I MEJJY"'.P�A .'4. ,�G�At. 2oJEcr a�rewP ' p - AtxANG6 'Ya 6r'i'r'A 3 , c' . 1 � ' 0 4.�MF �K7 1 4o OuPI/ex H�%ILJGI U1,11 ��� Ir.t I�� �uluC:�G 4n PAI<.'.w1uG -�P.ocrr�i PR.r�,,`Ivut� . R,qa, aAF.✓��u',,i i r 1 Jr"I .AG v' r71 M G I dU<3f» 7 I / m GA'I'L. Hdt1Gi� s wA1.KwA hd� , / I it 1 I BAY S HO L D OU T , t i I SAGE PROPERTY I, AT GREENPORT, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY,N.Y. r { ORVIEW LANDING 1=L�i� Tl IOW J ' NOTE I TOTAL AREA - 3 IIS _ ACRES ���StcaED aR�y7� SOU y Uss NAY. ��G. I II = I� I 0 Pio C. H qty �S FAENDOLPH CORPORATFON � I 7 OEGIONEgS - GENERAL CON 1 RACY OgB- PLAIUN6g9 n 0119 M6 � 1 BOO VETERANS HIGHWAY N3 A 500 N�\AID HAUPPAUGE , N.Y. 516 724 - 2500 N / I / A %• J O *0 2pD wo / 1 O IN SEE 0010 SCA�E; 1"C 00' 'ian•' CONTOUR INTERVAL; 2' -- —10) a 1 10 / 5 COVE f� I � lo � __ / � A � .I x 6,6 / _ I95 j _ 1 --- - LOCATION MAP ` RALK. 4.9 fl� 205 y2 E'` Ip � ""- �: _ - �W r •V . — _ x x 29 62 L� O I I 5. 56• 26„ E _ x -. 1 i 7 12 - - O: y0 \ 65 x =" _ - �_- / - 142 .5v A % O I y ,Y► - `"`�- _ _ x 12 I 54 m 61 x x130 x 13 jj 55 O; NO i i I /� \ 2.61 � �'/ //II(/� �\` � `-\. � i \ ISI ' / � \ � i' i�✓r tlY' I ' 67 / ,• ' ` / /J/ .I� % 99 25 % la `` TO r 9.9 \ 103 1 ` 1 fl _ __ _ _„ _ _ __ �__ _. • ii � \_ i/ -� 1W-• �k{� 1�}'i�J � �� �I � -'-� `�`/ � ( WE 24 \ V ,_.i rr• _ � B _ ._ ___—-`-\-•-_ti"�"�!/ � � � .i'.� , x\\ \�, \ �' \ `\ � 66 �63'' I iI _ iii —� '—� T� 15 , 5 5 "w 107 ` 16'5 �\ ' \ \ \ `, - J l -;.- "_ -`s. ✓' 7� 56 ; _ ��` xe7so % 15 I T. x I!a L-'."L Leh LJIwIIJIZ\/Lti C L ��II� i �� IAv ��� v \�\\ \ t \ � _� �j.. � -- - "-t'or! -'._ �v�♦ .. - WILD 1 P AA- 4V SII x �l x7v64 Z 65 1 4% __ _�. X11' B 3 p�� \ e o 50v 4 v z � s.� z \ { 44 / i p 1 79 29 T � _ 310 / I x 6 5 76 % _ 70x � ZX x \ 46 1` i \�� 54 117r4c. I \ I 4 \ - / 10 y �K - � 1 V 1. 5 5 Io v % � FEB 2 9 o �ll I t x 117 _ - ` 1 x so MANNI��p I X TY oa/i' I— %%� v r �'� AT GREEN T,, OF SUUTHOLO, SUFFOLK CO NTY,KX I' I c AaeoIT T_rl�f\J' i \ `) 73 \�- - % °� ,/ S HOLOp L.I. N.Y.- 1X6 \ I ( x J \ , S.EERED ARCy� - r. ... 0. lFp - % ����"9 * FRENDQLPH CORPORATION .� %�.. f \ i t DESIGNERS - GENERAL CONTRACTORS, PLANNERS 600 VETERANS HIGHWAY Iw �vyov00 � HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 518 724 - 5500 I I N M - m C; m N z a 1 J 2 q )g U z J <pn _ e OmN �2A •x W W J ooL _ - ,_ goy PP w NI w z r � axn xurw � _ 3 .sp `+ � z z z OOOY DoH 0z ¢ z w ¢ fi o 03 N O o 0 0 0 0 p J 0 rax Q O O N O 0 0 q..._ K m T o m o M GQ G u i LD p a r LO o00 CZL J o zrmm to Z r f LL m J F, N _ 0 b o o o x ri UY _ J F 1 W W O J a z z o I W I 3 U O mmmmm m o a o o I I W mmmmm m a > J w z U- C; O z Z a J 3NIl N91tlW S O O > O N Z YY r D 2aa N ozY ~ = J Z oW o 0 0 0 80 0 00 0 000 -" J 4Zowzo-»-1 o o N0 Om0 0 00 O NO OmN0 00 x RE 30 a Om w U O a LL, 1- N La U V a 2 N F Q W y z Q m ~ WO LU LL O W N m x N- W Z 0 F i o N a w W a v r a > a w �- O Q O z LL' ¢ ply ❑ o J w J J a¢ maY ¢ 3R J W a Oa m JI- c❑m° 3 Fw WW O Z a . 3 ❑ ❑ OO W F' zrJ � W z am aw Q D 0 oO Z o I1CD p O1..� 0 QQ , W > 0 _ WJ - N M a N N n m m o - N M W ¢ 0 Z O Z > 7 a O a O m ] W - W > Q Z Z u 0�e n�Z 3 Mal% to 0' I W_ a / w �.. w m u.. 0LLJ U ¢ a Z J F- z ���I : MX 2�,�boP �ydq > F, � Eli EZ m w Zp'VV %\ y 2 11 l/h\ 11 11 W a m b0 M31<l pN ��. 511• ' iu�u� � F b�Sl I x i v �Il�fll U y w O z w of ay"l N M. •p � m awna � O w� sz _ Fjo m — u -_ \ m Q LL , m o o b lC) YY 5.Zaa� �p N Np Oa Q 11 w m 11 > N a o $ z W N O - w O p `Q — _ Nor w o O J z a a m LL a a O m _ z o a m O 2 w w Y O 0 0 Qy O m N - 6 W = C `I' G X r N O O z U N m F- O o J LL z U W W W W N- �rl J U Y p i J m LL e a Q 4 ? 0 N R N' F 0 ¢ zw 309095 V a LL o M y O c -- a�ns� z "� o o r mX N a 1 Q - O,XQ ox _ �� r N (11 r % -o V �V I e � I` O w Nx > � m N N N �N \ w8 '57..N Q n n DN wX �m +� m I os /--- \\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ WVl W o Nf- - .F ZZ w • - �: p U -x r 7 F N W " ? ,5� .' 'lu > � W ? . � hhN � � N 'N N'%w � N N ND o q � tim � m01tl 'mn � NO � N � ;l m \�SmN `�' � X "' o U mx� �\ � � U a O pX n11' a y' ye N 2aa Z ^ ry2r 5 3 1 fig. w - w . x �yl� m 00 51'Z y — / a J n ug 5 41 pL of - OJ u n m ZO N � II N I O 8 N m \ toX H LL N r 2 1c a m F N O /U5�8p. W O J N Cll N 6 w c I _ _ \ 6 NX. X N% 41 g I x/ NItlW N m yNb OtlON yX I NX O i p' X • Lb y9 _ / i o N EZ aaS - Wy pyyp' �. h m` o E \ 0 o r — o m /L / M / �W Q a,l 0 O ' U / X fo 3 � x ron a ! O U O % o1 00 M1 X II ox II I��1`1I N / I X � N ' x M% II N Z oID 1p �c m x 'IA \ r X _:ll\ b � X •� ` Q - - I x LU W L O N OIn 1 ' I N \ X \ X N m I \\ XN N m e o x Li \ W J o N m \ \ 1 O m N r I1 x Q '\ I 1 M I I o J \ 1 i _ \ 1Z ox \ 1 O Ic \ 6- m / I � . 11 a E ' \ II a o N x N r � \ \ \ 11 s II w M c I mx O 1 1 x O N rG2 r I xm I �. _N "6 �' I o / I X N I r O i III I / Nx I x /// Nx OPO O - m 1 a II x / x s o - -lx 4i _ rD I h' x — x Ir \ _ mx - - ---- - - - - - / -x X r. N x O / x N Q / b 0 I I b I ❑ �NONb�S/ SNO 2° \p ox m -,X N� ` 0 I n \ ° O E 2 � 2 \0 y I O 00 00 p O S°° 1p y9 Oi s c 2 / 0 o a 0 '+� 2 21 I F I � a 2 fi 2 2 E