The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1000-35.-1-24 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennell Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards ..,-.-.:::.>:;....... i,!~~\ifFOCt~~'" "i.~ ~~, ,e f!f 'ill- \, . =::> "" =--1\\ ,. (~. ......" :- .1 ._ . ~"'.'.,.'I.' ~w .,,,' "" 'J ~ " tr1U c> 1'".'1lo.."",,: ...~\\! ~ ,,~--~ . ' \<;;1tO./:'Jr '. 'f-:O<::>;p9;' ~"::,<':....<:<-.z;~l);)f. scon L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 MEMORANDUM PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman RE: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Jem Commons, CR 48, 564' East of Sound Drive, Greenport. DATE: November 22, 1991 The Planning Board has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for this petition to change the zone of 62 acres from two acre zoning to a mix of Hamlet Density and one acre zoning. The twenty acres fronting the Sound would be zoned R-40, and the remainder HD. We find that the FEIS does not answer some key questions that were raised during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully requests of the Town Board that its issuance of a Findings Statement take into consideration the fOllowing information. The project will result in a significant increase in the projected density. The theoretical yield of this property as it is presently zoned (one unit for every two acres) could be about 27 single family lots, which could be clustered onto lots of forty thousand square feet apiece. If public water were available, the lots could be as small as twenty thousand square feet apiece. The petition before you is to increase that density to one unit per acre on the twenty waterfront acres and 3.6 per acre on the remaining forty two acres. This change will add 144 more dwelling units than the current zone allows. This increase in density may result in the need to construct a package sewage treatment plant if access cannot be obtained to the Greenport sewage treatment system. All the comparisons between the County's affordable homes program and the ~own's affordable program that were made in our . -- :5UE!>FI c.e- Fe H5 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 7, 1993: WHEREAS, Jem Realty Co., by petition filed March 1, 1990, applied to the Town Board of the town of Southold for a change of zone on two (2) parcels located on the northerly side of the North Road, Greenport, from: Parcel 1 - the most southerly 42:t acres from existing "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "H-D" Hamlet Density District; Parcel II - the most northerly 20:t acres from "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "R-40" Residential Low Density District (l-acre minimum); and WHEREAS, the said petition was referred to the Southold Town Planning Board and Suffolk County Department of Planning for official recommendations and reports; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, pursuant to due notice, held a public hearing thereon on the 4th day of February, 1992, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that Jem Realty Co. be and hereby is granted the relief demanded in said petition subject to the execution and recording in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office of the following Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, which are hereby made a part of the Town Board's decision: WHEREAS, the Declarant (Jem Realty Co., a partnership with offices at 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York) is the owner in fee simple absolute, of premises located at the north side of Main Road (Route 48) east of Sound Avenue, Greenport, New York, Tax Map No. District 1000, Section 35, Lot 24, more specifically described on Exhibit "A" (to follow this recital) and made a part hereof, (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"), commonly known as Jem Commons; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Town of Southold for a change of zone from Residential R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two- acre minimum)) to Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) as to Parcel I, and R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) as to Parcel II; and . WHEREAS, the Town of Southold has agreed to grant Declarant's application for a change of zone; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed, in consideration of the approval of the Town Board of the Town of Southold to the change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the development and use of Premises which the Town of Southold deems in its best interest as whole to obtain; and 26619 , ~30 . . WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed to place these covenants and r.ostrictions against the Premises. WITNESETH NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Premises, and the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as follows: 1. In the development of the subject Premises, a proposed subdivision shall provide for two access roads from said subdivision to the Main Road (Route 48). 2. Parcel (20-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) shall be developed under the R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) criteria and cluster planning concept as called for in the Code of the Town of Southold. 3. Parcel" (42-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) zoning, shall: A. Be developed at a density equal to one residential unit per one half (1/2) acre. B. Provide that out of the total number of units to be built, (as provided in Subsection 3A) 30% are to be designated "Affordable Housing" units and shall be required to meet the criteria indicated in the" Affordable Housing" Section of the Code of the Town of Southold. C. Provide that all areas designated on the site, as open space, if any, shall be located, if practicable, so it shall be adjacent to the open space areas designated on the parcel of property to the ea st. 4. The covenants and restrictions contained herein shall be enforceable by the Town of Southold against the Declarant or the then owner of the Premises, or by proceeding at law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or attempting to violate any conditions of this Declaration, to restrain violation, in whole or in part. 5. The above-mentioned covenants and restrictions shall be and constitute real covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon the Declarant and any and all subsequent owners of said real property or part thereof, and upon their heirs, executors and administrators (or their successors or assigns), subject, however, to the right of the Town of Southold annul, or repeal any or all of the foregoing covenants and/or restrictions at any time. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (1) North 30. degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the. party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West alcng the land now or formerly of Augustus St,aussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having the following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 2() seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet, (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East -2- . . 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.;l3 feet, thence southerly along the land now or formerly of--Gus Schad the fOllowing . courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 34 minut'%s 40 seconds East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet tu. the point or place of beginning. Parcel II: (southerly parcel): _ Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.e.p. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following courses and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 degrees West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Water Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 634.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of F.e.p. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, (3) South 30 degrees 16 - minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning. * * * pt,~~/ ~~ ~fudiU;T~~~ Southold Town Clerk December 8, 1993 -3- </ . . . " DECLARATXON OF COVENANTS AND RESTRXCTXONS DECEMBER THIS DECLARATION, made and entered into the 2nd day of , 1993, by JEM REALTY CO., a partnership with offices at 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York (hereinafter referred to as the "Declarant"). R E C X TAL S WHEREAS, the Declarant is the owner in fee simple absolute, of premises located at on the north side of Main Road (Route 48) east of Sound Avenue, Greenport, New York, Tax Map No. District 1000, section 35, Lot 24, more specifically described on Exhibit "A" attached'hereto and made a part hereof, (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"), commonly known as JEM COMMONS; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Town of Southold for a change of zone from Residence R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to Residence R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) as to Parcel I and R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) as to Parcel II; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold, has agreed to grant Declarant's application for a change of zone; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed, in consideration of the approval of the Town Board of the Town of Southold to the 1 . . change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the development and use of Premises which the Town of southold deems in its best interest as whole to obtain; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed to place these covenants and restrictions against the Premises. WiT N ESE T H NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as follows: 1. in the development of the subj ect premises, a proposed subdivision shall provide for two access roads from said subdivision to the Main Road. (Route 48) 2. Parcel I (20-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) shall be developed under the R-40 (Residen- tial Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) criteria and cluster planning concept as called for in the Code of the Town of Southold. 3. Parcel II (42-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) zoning, shall: A. Be developed at a density equal to one residential unit per one half (1/2) acre. B. provide that out of the total number of units to be built, (as provided in Subsection 3A) 30% 2 . . al.~e to be designatE:d ItAffcrdable HO'Jsing" units and shall be Lequired to ma~t the cri~eria indicated. in the "Affordable Housing" sectiQn of the code of the Town of Southold. C. Provide that: all areas desig~,ated on t~e site, as open space, if any, shall bl! located, if p.cacticable, sa it shall be adjacent: to the open space areas designated on the parcel of property to the east. <I. Th;:, covenants and restrictions cont,ained herein shall be enforceable by the Town of Southold against the Declarant ()!:" the then owner of the Premises, or by proceeding at law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or attempting to violate any conditions of this Declaration, ,to restrain violation, in whole or in part. 5. The above-ment i oned covenants and restr ict ions shall be and constitute real covenants running ,;,it!':, the land and shall be binding upon the Declarant and any and all sUbsequant owr,ers of the said real property or part: thereof, and upon th,jir heirs, executors and administrators (or their Huccessors 'or assigns), subject,ho.lever, to the right of the TO'tln of southc>ld annul, or repeal any or all of the foreqoir.g covenants and/or restrictions at a~y time. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has hel~eunto set his J . . hand and seal the day and year first above written. JEM R~Y CO/ (a ~rt:.nerShip) ~ I ---;-- - ( "-cV1-'/UQ h-<-L- 'L V~q By: Emanuel KontOkosta, partner I , STATE OF NEW JERSEY) ) ss: COUNTY OF PASSAIC) ~, jJ,): , 11 h On this 0 day of l,.e(~/ll .(, 1.993, before me personally came Emanuel Kontokosta, to me known and known to me to be a partner of JEM REALTY CO. ,and the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument in the partnership name of JEM REALTY COr' and he duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same as and for the act and deed of the said partnership of JEM REALTY CO. Ql/I{A>~ C!![,~:'j~ Notary Public SARINA MATOS A Notary Public: of Ne" Jersey My Commission Expires lO/5I9a 4 " . . EXHBIT "A" - JEM COMMONS I The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (1) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.110 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 110 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.117 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds. West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having the following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet, (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 3112.00 feet, (II) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 311 minutes 110 seconds East 1110.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. Parcel II: (southerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.e.p. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following course;; and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.1111 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 : . continued - Exhibit "A" - JEM COMMONS . degrees West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Walter Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land r.ow or formerly of Harrower; runnin!) thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30. seconds West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 634.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds l'Iest 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of F.e.p. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 05 Minutes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, (3) South 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning. x.. I , . . -pvsr JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hail, 53095 Main ROod P.O. Box 1179 Southo:d, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 REGISTRAR OF VITAL SfA11::'"TICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMEJIIT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD December 15, 1993 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board will be held at 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, December 21, 1993 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. 9:30 A.M. - Work Session 4:00 P.M. - Regular Meeting 4:30 P.M. - Public Hearing on Local Law in Relation to Certificiate of Occupancy Fees. 4:32 P.M. - Public Hearing on Local Law in Relation to Site Plan Approval. ~~--/~ ~ ~~ Southold T~;~ 'dferk Town Board Town Attorney Chief of Police Supt. of Highways All Departments (4) Newspapers WBAZ Radio Station News 12 \ -,I. ') 1~ 1 DEe I 61993 i \ L Ls0li\.'>' Pl1~~~~~::'i~.... .". ,'~~'o'." ...1 L- , \ .-- ",." ,., '" - '-~ '".:"- i . . r';:/f _,/.-<_.{~ .... -t- . ir'PP,CAY)/7G by m 1Z,/7 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS Fe FI t...G" c:./.... o-i 2"". U & DECEMBER THIS DECLARATION, made and entered into the 2nd day of , 1993, by JEM REALTY CO., a partnership with offices at 43 West 54th street, New York, New York (hereinafter referred to as the "Declarant"). R E C I TAL S WHEREAS, the Declarant is the owner in fee simple absolute, of premises located at on the north side of Main Road (Route 48) east of Sound Avenue, Greenport, New York, Tax Map No. District 1000, section 35, Lot 24, more specifically described on .".~--. Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"), commonly known as JEM COMMONS; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Town of Southold for a change of zone from Residence R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to Residence R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) as to Parcel I and R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) as to Parcel II; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold, has agreed to grant Declarant's application for a change of zone; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed, in consideration of the approval of the Town Board of the Town of Southold to the 1 :-!C(~ 0 ,) .' change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the development and use of Premises which the Town of Southold deems in its best interest as whole to obtain; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed to place these covenants and restrictions against the Premises. WIT N ESE T H NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as follows: 1. In the development of the subject Premises, a proposed subdivision shall provide for two access roads from said subdivision to the Main Road. (Route 48) 2. Parcel I (20-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as Residential R-40 (Residential Lo~-Density District (one-acre minimum)) shall be developed under the R-40 (Residen- tial Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) criteria and cluster planning concept as called for in the Code of the Town of Southold. 3. Parcel II (42-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) zoning, shall: A. Be developed at a density equal to one residential unit per one half (1/2) acre. B. Provide that out of the total number of units to be built, (as provided in Subsection 3A) 30% 2 -. . . are to be designated "Affordable Housing" units and shall be required to meet only the sales price and eligibility criteria indicated in the "Affordable Housing" Section of the code of the Town of Southold. c. Provide that all areas designated on the site, as open space, if any, shall be located, if practicable, so it shall be adjacent to the open space areas designated on the parcel of property to the east. 4. The covenants and restrictions contained herein ---- -" shall be enforceable by the Town of Southold against the Declarant or the then owner of the Premises, or by proceeding at '.,"'-- law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or attempting to violate any conditions of this Declaration, to restrain violation, in whole or in part. .5. The above-mentioned covenants and restrictions shall be and constitute real covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon the Declarant and any and all subsequent owners of the said real property or part thereof, a~d upon their heirs, executors and administrators (or their successors or assigns), subject, however, to the right of the Town of Southold annul, or repeal any or all of the foregoing covenants and/or restrictions at any time. IN WIT:mSS WHEREOF, the Declarant has hereunto set his 3 hand and seal the day and year first above written. STATE OF NEW JERSEY) ) ss: COUNTY OF PASSAIC) partner On this ;<;.d' day of Lkcu/Cb.e-r, 1993, before me personally came Emanuel Kontokosta, to me known and known to me to be a partner of JEM REALTY CO. . and the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument in the partnership name of JEM REALTY GO, " and he duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same as and for the act and deed of the sa.id partnership of JEM REALTY CO. -' , ()J;)VI'_O, crf(;!~ Notary Public SARIHA MATOS A Notary Public of He. JeISllY My Commission Eapires 10/5/93 4 -. ---- -- . . EXHBIT "A" - JEM COMMONS .. I The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (1) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees OS minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the :a~d now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound;.a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having the following courses and distances: (j) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet, (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees OS minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. Purcel II: (southerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following course;; and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 continued - Exhibit "A" - JEM COMMONS degrees West 2ll6.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 2ll0.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Walter Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.ll7 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees ll7 minutes 30 seconds West 5ll8.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West ~.~~:-!9_~ running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes llO seconds .West 1373.ll7 feet to said land now or formerly of F.e.p. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.ll0 feet, (3) South 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning. x . . Oil7O,{J{ N~ ,r,u6Pi<..V PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards scon L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott L. Harris, Supervisor and Members of the Town Board FROM: Richard G. Ward, Chairman RE: Change of Zone Petitions for Jem Commons CR 48, 564 feet East of Sound Drive Greenport, New York DATE: March 23, 1993 The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed Covenants and Restrictions that were submitted by Howard Pachman to the Town on behalf of his client, Emanuel Kontokosta, in support of this petition for a change of zone from R-80 to R-40 and Hamlet Density. The proposed Covenants and Restrictions have not changed our position that there is no merit to increasing the density of the Jem Commons property because the proposal runs counter to the goals and objectives of our Master Plan, which is to concentrate increased density within the existing business hamlets. This property is not within or immediately adjacent to the Village of Greenport. The applicant's argument that the Hamlet Density HD classification of the adjacent property to the east (better known as the Brecknock Hall property) justifies the rezoning of his land begs the Town Board to accept the premise that two wrongs make a right. The rezoning of the Brecknock Hall property in 1971 and again in 1983 were serious deviations from sound planning principles. We see no point in compounding that error in judgement. ~ J~fFOl.t;}, l-Sl.....I..".'J...... -.. ~- y~" .',:,',~., -~ ==> . " '"'" Q ;'. ", ~ en . r, ... ~\ V ~ ,1._ ""~ .... '~" ~"" '()J "~ ,~'S ,,~ <ro . . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G, Ward Mark S, McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM FROM: Scott L. Harris, Supervisor Richard G. Ward, Chairma~ TO: RE: Change of Zone Petitions for Jem Commons CR 48, 564 feet East of Sound Drive Greenport, New York 35-1-?-'+ DATE: April 29, 1993 Thank you for your comments regarding the Planning Board's March memorandum on this proposed change of zone petition. In that memo, we noted that the proposed Covenants and Restrictions submitted by Howard pachman did not change our position that there is no merit to increasing the density of the Jem Commons property. You observed that the property lay within a half mile of the Village of Greenport boundary, which the Town Code indicates is an area where Hamlet Density would be appropriate. We acknowledge that one of the goals and objectives of our Master Plan is to concentrate increased density within and immediately adjacent to the existing business hamlets. This parcel does lie within a half mile of the Village boundary, which is the Zoning Code's suggestion for the Hamlet Density district. The southern boundary of the property also lies within a quarter mile of the Village boundary, which is the Zoning Code's suggestion for the Affordable Housing District. However, it is not within or immediately adjacent to the business center of the Village of Greenport. There is no demonstrated need for this increased density since there appears to be a surplus of existing housing stock within the Town. Further, we do not endorse the leap-frogging of higher density development outside of the existing Village. .- . LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD E. PACHMAN. P.G. ATTORNEYS 366 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY P.O. BOX 273 COMMACK. NEW YORK 11725 HOWARD E. PACHMAN MATTHEW E. PAGHMAN KAREN R. BROWN JOSEPH FARNETI. COUNSEL March 11, 1993 Harvey Arnoff, Esq. Town Attorney Town of Southold Town Hall Main street Southold, NY 11971 Re: Jem Commons Dear Mr. Arnoff: . P6 .;S ~'3 fJ~~l 8 -~~~'"\Cf~ :!~;). luuf'~ I 5 ~ [k.) I I SOUTHOLIYlOWlfHONE PlANNINBsOOARl)-2200 fOJ. ~~-"tf~~'ff Uu 2:13 I! [II I ; ~,-./ i I TOWN AT' ')>;::.'':''0 OFFICE TOW!., ur >;UUTHOLD Further to our recent conversations, we have prepared proposed Covenants and Restrictions to be submitted to the Town upon the Town's adoption of the change of zone in the above- captioned matter. These Covenants and Restrictions reflect the latest compromise submitted by my client in an effort to have the zoning change adopted. If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Ver truly yours, HMAN ---- HEP/tag cc: Jem Commons - . . DECLARATXON OF COVENANTS AND RESTRXCTXONS THIS DECLARATION, made and entered into the day of , 1993, by JEM REALTY CO., a partnership with offices at 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York (hereinafter referred to as the "Declarant"). R E C X TAL S WHEREAS, the Declarant is the owner in fee simple absolute, of premises located at on the north side of Main Road (Route 48) east of Sound Avenue, Greenport, New York, Tax Map No. District 1000, section 35, Lot 24, more specifically described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"), commonly known as JEM COMMONS; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Town of Southold for a change of zone from Residence R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to Residence R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) as to Parcel I and R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) as to Parcel II; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold, has agreed to grant Declarant's application for a change of zone; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed, in consideration of the approval of the Town Board of the Town of Southold to the 1 .' . . change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the development and use of Premises which the Town of Southold deems in its best interest as whole to obtain; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed to place these covenants and restrictions against the Premises. WIT N ESE T H NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Premises, and the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as follows: 1. In, the development of the subject Premises, a proposed subdivision shall provide for two access roads from said subdivision to the Main Road. (Route 48) 2. Parcel I (20-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) shall be developed under the R-40 (Residen- tial Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) criteria and cluster planning concept as called for in the Code of the Town of Southold. 3. Parcel II (42-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) zoning, shall: A. Be developed at a density equal to one residential unit per one half (1/2) acre. B. Provide that out of the total number of units to be built, (as provided in Subsection 3A) 30% 2 " .- . . are to be designated "Affordable Housing" units and shall be required to meet only the sales price and eligibility criteria indicated in the "Affordable Housing" section of the code of the Town of Southold. C. Provide that all areas designated on the site, as open space, if any, shall be located, if practicable, so it shall be adjacent to the open space areas designated on the parcel of property to the east. 4. The covenants and restrictions contained herein shall be enforceable by the Town of Southold against the Declarant or the then owner of the Premises, or by proceeding at law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or attempting to violate any conditions of this Declaration, to restrain violation, in whole or in part. S. The above-mentioned covenants and restrictions shall be and constitute real covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon the Declarant and any and all subsequent owners of the said real property or part thereof, and upon their heirs, executors and administrators (or their successors or assigns), subject, however, to the right of the Town of Southold annul, or repeal any or all of the foregoing covenants and/or restrictions at any time. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has hereunto set his 3 .~ . .. ) JUDITH T. TERRY TOW:-O CLERK RUjlSTRAR 01- VITAL STATISTICS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 ~ roC'''. 'i;'\ ;;lif 'I., i'U[l:\.'; ': SEP 3 0 ~''''.....-:';' " .Pi 'I, WORK SESSION Present: Supervisor Scott L. Harris, Justice Raymond W. Edwards, Councilman George L. Penny, IV., Councilman Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman Joseph J. Lizewski, Councilwoman Alice J. Hussie. Also present: Town Attorney Harvey A. Arnoff, Assistant Town Attorney Matthew G. Kiernan, Town Clerk .Judith T. Terry. 9 :40 A.M. - Mr. Ed Siegmann met with the Town Board to bring them statistics he received from the Assessors with regard to his discussion with the Town Board on August 25th about an increase in the senior citizen exemption to $19,800, the amount allowed by the County of Suffolk. 10:00 A.M. - For Discussion Items: (1) Letter from Calocerinos & Spina, the Town's engineers for Elizabeth Field Airport, advising them that Falvey Construction corporation, who is the contractor for airfield lighting, visual aids, and electrical building, is requesting additional monies to cover the increase in labor costs due to the updated prevailing wage rate schedule. C&S advises the Board that the request is not warranted for several reasons, and Town Attorney Arnoff will respond to C&S that the Board concurs with their reasoning for denying Falvey's request. (2) Councilwoman Hussie discussed with the Board her proposal that in an effort to obtain compliance with various ordinances, a notice be placed in the newspaper citing the need for permits for certain key laws. Councilman Wickham suggested a meeting between the enforcement personnel and the Town Board to formulate a plan. Councilman Lizewski said he thinks there should be a complaint log and people should be made to put their complaints in writing be enforcement personnel take action. (3) Councilwoman Hussie brought before the Board the possibility of paying for garbage by the pound, and it was the general consensus that it is worth the Solid Waste Task Force looking into. 10:35 A.M. - Emanuel Kontokosta, and Howard Pachman, his attorney, and Karen Brown, Mr. Pachman's associate, met with the Town Board to alternative proposals for the two parcels he has under consideration by the Town Board for change of zones. On the Jem Realty parcel, Greenport, Mr. Kontokosta offered to the Town Board a'proposal to reduce the 151 1/4 acre parcels and 19 one acre parcels on Long Island Sound to 84 1/2 acre parcels and 19 one acre parcels on the Long Island Sound. On the Southold Commons parcel Mr. Kontokosta offered the Board a proposal to reduce the 105 units to 64 units at 1/2 acres each. In each of the proposals 20% would be affordable, and he would be willing to accept the Town's cost criteria. The Town Board took the matter under advisement. 11 :50 A.M. - For Discussion Items (continued): (4) Councilman Penny brought to the Board's attention the proposed Jobs for the New, New York Bond Act, which if approved by the voters on November 3rd will authorize the State to raise $800 million through the sale of general obligations bonds to help finance infrastructure improvement projects that will create or retain productive jobs in the private sector. It was agreed that Coordinator of Program Evaluation McMahon, Councilman Wickham, '"d Councilwoman Hussie will work up a schedule of suggested projects for -;deration by the Town Board so a preliminary application can be filed which allow the Town to be eligible for Jobs Bond Act funding. (5) Selection of dates to the Board of Assessment Review was discussed during Executive Page 2 - Town Board 1 wo'session - 9/22/92 . .. Session. (6 & 7) Receipt of two memorandums from the Planning Board. One as the submission of proposed site plan amendments to the Zoning Code, and the other was the Planning Board's opinion on the legislative intent of Article XXV of the Zoning Code. The Town Board, by resolution No. 24, asks the Board of Appeals for an official interpretation with respect to site plan approval and review. 12:40 P.M. - Recess for lunch. 1 :25 P.M. - Mary Ann Fleischman, Youth Board President, met with the Town Board to discuss the recently submitted Needs Assessment as prepared by the Youth Board. 2:02 P.M. - For Discussion Items (continued): (8) Board decided to advertise for a second week the public informational meeting to be held on October 6th concerning the Town's intended acquisition of the North Fork Bank's former Mortgage/Computer Center for a new Human Resource Center (see resolution no. 27). (9) Proposed change order for the Scavenger Waste Treatment Plant Modifications project (see resolution no. 28). (10) Letter from the Planning Board requesting the Town Board to refund the $2,800 subdivision application to Carmine Rufrano who has failed to pursue his application and has asked for a refund. The Board will again ask the Planning Board to provide details of the amount of time spent on this application before considering a refund. (11) Set October 1, 1992, beginning at 3:45 P.M. for interviewing applicants for Board of Appeals position. (12) Authorized payment for secretarial work for Stewardship Task Force July 16th meeting (see resolution no. 29). (13) Proposed resolution petitioning the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to place Robins Island on the National Priorities List for land acquisition (see resolution no. 30). 2:45 P.M. - The Town Board reviewed the resolutions to be voted on at the 4:00 P.M. Regular Meeting. * * * EXECUTIVE SESSION 3:00 P.M. - On motion of Councilwoman Hussie, seconded by Justice Edwards, it was Resolved that the Town Board enter into Executive Session. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Supervisor Harris, Justice Edwards, Councilman Penny, Councilman Wickham, Councilman Lizewski, Councilwoman Hussie.--Discussed contract negotiations concerning the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District, personnel, appointments to the Board of Assessment Review (see resolution no. 31), setting a disciplinary hearing for Pol.ice Officer James Mellas (see resolution no. 32). 3:50 P.M. - Work Session adjourned. * * * . j .. .. FINDINGS STATEMENT State Environmental Quality Review Act Pursuant to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, the Town Board of the Town of Southold as lead agency, makes the following findings. NAME ill: ACfION J em Commons, Greenport DESCRIPTION ill: ACfION The project involves the proposed rezoning of a 62 acre parcel of land as follows: the southern 42 acres fronting C.R. Route 48 from "R-80" zoning district (residential low- density; 2-acre minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District; and the northern 20 acres frontin~ Long Island Sound from "R-80" to "R-40" zoning (residential low density; 1- acre rmnimum). The rezoning is to allow construction of 30 affordably priced homes 122 moderately priced homes and 19 luxury priced homes on the 62 acre site. LOCATION The project is located on the north side of North Road (C.R. Route 48), east of Sound Road, Greenport, New York. The site is more definitively identified as Suffolk Couilty Tax Map Numbers 1000-035-0100-024. LR4.D AGENCY .JURISDICTlON The proposed action involves a change of zonin~. The action is under consideration by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as a petitIon for the zone change. The Town Board has exclusive legislative authority over change of zoning petitions in the Town of Southold, and therefore is the lead agency and only involved agency. Depending upon the outcome of the change of zoning, additional agencies will have jurisdiction regarding physical development of the site. These interested agencies have been acknowledged and mcluded in the EIS process for comprehensive project planning. DATE FINAL EIS FILED November 17, 1989 Page 1 oCI0 frDffi~. ~lLL~ ..C:', IJI] APR'4~.1 ._~ SOUTHOl D Tn!!.,- PlM:~}" .. .. Jem Commons, Green port Statement or Findings FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS IN TIlE EIS RELIED UPON ill SUPPORT TIlE DECISION The proposed change of zone application has been subject to a Draft and Final EIS in accordance with procedures established under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The Town Board after deliberation and review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) issued a Positive Declaration on Jem Commons, on April 24, 1990. Subsequently, at a mutually convenient time, a Scoping Meeting was held with the applicant on June 18, 1990. After submission of a Draft EIS with several necessary revisions, the Draft EIS was accel?ted by the Town Board on July 17, 1991, and circulated for a minimum 30-day comment penod. Within this period, a public hearing on the Draft EIS was held on August 13, 1991. After compiling substantive comments, a letter containing comments and required EIS format was forwarded to the applicant in September, 1991. The content and adequacy of the Final EIS is the responsibility of the lead agency regardless of who prepares it. In the case of Jem Commons, the applicant and the Town mutually agreed to allow the applicant to prepare the Final EIS which would be reviewed for adequacy by the Town. After submission of a Final EIS with several necessary revisions, the Final EIS was accepted by the Town Board on November 12, 1991. The applicant and the Town also mutually agreed to delay the issuance of the Statement of Findin~ until a hearing on the change of zone was held on February 4, 1992, in order to provide a torum for additional public input into the zone change decision process. Following deliberation of the facts and testimony, the Town Board has directed the preparation of this Statement of Findings on the Final EIS for Jem Commons. These findings present the facts and conclusions in the Final EIS documentation, which are considered by the Town Board in connection with a decision on the change of zone petition. Facts and conclusions are identified herein, under the categories consistent with the EIS. The Draft and Final EIS explored a multitude of issues; however, issues presented herein are considered to be the most important ones as regards a decision on the project. The Final EIS contains detailed analysis of all impacts relatmg to the project; however, for the purpose of these findings the following discussion on key issues is provided: GEOLOGY Topography The project site includes an e~~arpment associated with eroding headlands adjacent Long Island Sound. The stability of the bluff depends upon environmental conditions during the time preceding assessment; however, a bluff area is considered to be a highly unstable geologic teature. With regard to land use issues, the top of the escarpment must be protected from improper grading, clearing of vegetatIOn and diversion of stormwater runoff. The portion of the site adjacent the bluff is in excess of 1/2 mile from the boundary of the Village of Greenport, and this is presumed to be the reason why the north 20 acres are proposed to be rezoned to "R-40" instead of "HD". This proposed density increase represents a doubling effect in terms of zoning from "R-80" to "R-46". Page 2 oCID .. . . Jem Commons, Greenport Statement or Findings The Town Board finds that the fragile nature of the bluff area is best served by maintaining a low density for development, in order to promote adequate setbacks and ensure that improper land use does not occur atop the bluff. The applicant has proposed to maintain a 100 foot buffer area between homes and the bluff; however, this does not consider potential adverse imJ?acts associated with: tree clearing for views and yards; grading for lawns, foundations, leaching systetns, etc. and other domestic impacts which have occurred in similar areas. Once land is subdivided and maintained m private ownership, it is difficult to enforce covenanted restrictions or other similar means of trying to maintain protective features of the bluff. Greater than 100 foot setbacks for structures with wide natural areas adjacent to a bluff could be considered as additional mitigation. In addition, land use involving clustering to preserve common open space adjacent the bluff would provide for greater protection of the area, and allow a larger population to enjoy scenic reSOurces. This land use is not reflected in the proposed project or the 171 Unit Alternative "R-40" Cluster design which was intended to explore alternate open space options on the north part of the site. These considerations are appropriate for any land use which may occur adjacent the bluff. WATER RESOURCES Groundwater The project site is located in Groundwater Management Zone N, a local water supply aquifer which has predominantly horizontal flow with discharge to north shore surface waters. There is adequate depth to allow subsurface installation of leaching structures as necessary. Water quality beneath the subject site is not identified as being significantly impacted by nitrate and aldicarb common in other agricultural areas of the Town. The project involves proposed connection to the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. The proposed project is not within the district boundaries of the Greenport STP; however, the applicant speculates that the project will be connected to the plant. The Village of Greenport Superintendent provided a letter of comment on the Draft EIS and indicated that the Village presently has a moratorium on new connections outside the district. Furthermore, the Superintendent indicated "Anticipated more stringent requirements for sewer systetns of greater capacity than our existing system causes concern regarding any expansion of the system capacity outside the Village limits. Consequently, the alternatives to the use by this project of the Greenport Sewer System and the effect of such alternatives should be carefully considered". The connection of the "HD" project east of J em Commons (Breakers at Lands End) to the Village of Greenport STP will apparently be honored by the Village as a commitment prior to the moratorium; however, this does not ensure connection of the proposed project. . Alternatives to STP connection were investigated in the Final EIS. An on-site sewage treatment plant could be constructed which would result in the loss of lots or open space due to Suffolk County Health Department (SCDHS) setback requirements. In addition, the Final EIS indicates that "small capacity sewage treatment plants tend to Page 3 octo .. .. Jem Commons, Greenport Starement or Findings have operating problems due to their size and cost to construct and maintain". Operational problems may result in environmental consequences including water quali~ problems, odors, etc. The Town Board has concern with regard to proper handlIng and disposal of sewage at the subject site. Tie-in to the Greenport STP may not occur and there are concerns with regard to construction of a separate on-site sewage treatment plant. Sewage treatment facilities are not required for several alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS including: Existing Zoning Use; Existing Zoning Cluster Use; and the R-40 Alternative. The Existing Zoning Use and the Existing Zoning cluster are dismissed as economically infeasible; however, the site is zoned "R-80". In addition, the Final EIS notes that "If approval cannot be obtained from Suffolk County Health Department to construct an on-site sewage treatment plant, lot sizes would have to be increased to two units per acre and on-site sanitary systems (Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems) installed". This indicates there is an additional moderate density alternative which would not require construction of an STP. Therefore, the Town Board finds that there are other viable sewage disposal alternatives which would not present as much concern as the proposal advanced by the applicant. Water supply is an additional aspect of water resources which was investigated in the Final EIS for Jem Commons. The project proponent intends to connect to the Village of Greenport water supply system. The al?plicant indicates that water will not be required until 1994-1995, and that the Village Intends to add additional water capacity to the existing distribution system. The Village of Greenport Superintendent of Utilities provided a comment on the Draft EIS regarding water supply, as follows: 'The DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Water District and is presently pending. At this point it is impossible to predict what the Greenport Water District's additional capacity, if any, will be at such time as it may be reqUIred for this proposed project....Presently, the district's water contracts to provide water for new projects excee~ th~ dis~ct's excess capacity". Ba:;ed upon this comment, it is apparent that the dlstnct WIll seek new water sources In order to accommodate additional development in the district. This does not necessary ensure or justify water supply for a high density change of zone project, such as Jem Commons. The Town Board has concern over the ability of existing and proposed utilities to supply water to the subject site, as reflected by the letter from the Village of Greenport. The proposed project would increase water use from 9,600 gallons/day (gpd) under existing zoning to ~1,300 gpd (over a 500% increase). The site is identified in the Draft EIS as lying m the North Fork water budget area Zone IV, which is critical in terms of water supply. Estimates based upon permissive sustained yield as compared to predicted consumptive use in the year 2,000, predict a slight water sUl?ply surplus' however, significant land use density increases could increase consumptIOn and ' reduce the surplus.. Therefore, with regard to water supply, there is concern over ability of existmg and future utilities to serve the project as well as concern for increase in water use. All of the other alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS (except 07 171 Unit Alternate Cl.uster) would ~ignificantly reduce water demand, therefore, It IS apparent that other Viable alternatIves would have less impact on this resource. Page <IorIO , .. .. 1em Commons. Greenport Statement or Findings TERRESTRIAL & ECOLOGY Vegetation & Wildlife The site is documented as containing predominantly old field habitat in a late stage of succession. The field contains herbaceous species and is being pioneered by trees, shrubs and vines since the cessation of farrmng. The site supports larger mammals including red fox and white-tailed deer as well as small mammals which likely attract raptors such as the red-tailed hawk and the northern harrier (NYS Threatened Species). The site provides some suitable habitat for the grasshopper sparrow (NYS Special Concern Species); however, none were observed on site and it was noted that the natural succession of the site habitat would eliminate habitat for this species. The site also provides unique habitat in cavities under the top edge of the bluff for uncommon kingfishers and bank swallows. As mitigation the EIS recommends that people and pets should be kept off the bluff, and stairways should be 50 feet or more from the observed nests. The prooosed project involves the use of a 62 acre parcel, presently zoned "R-SO". "R-SO" zoning IS a low density district which would allow for preservation of wildlife habitat and open space either between dwellings due to large lot size or through clustering for more contiguous open space as noted in the alternative section of the EIS. The project design concept involves full use of the property with 152-1O,000..t square foot lots and 19-40,OOO..t square foot lots. The concept proposes retention of an S5,200 square foot buffer along C.R. Route 4S, or less than 3 percent of the site (average depth of 175 feet). A 171 unit cluster alternative (reconfiguration of proposed "R-40" area to north), would preserve additional open space (total of 610,200 square feet; 22.6 percent of site), however, this would greatly intensify development in proximity to the bluff. It is noted that the adjacent site to the eaSt of the subject application is zoned "lID" district, and an approved development plan provides a significant area of open space in the southwest part of the 132 acre site, adjacent the southern half of Jem Commons. The proposed project does not consider the adjacent land use in terms of coordination of open space for maximum retention of contiguous habitat. The Town Board has concern over the project design concept and the lack of retention of open space and natural habitat area on a parcel demonstrated as being important to local wildlife. Several alternatives have been explored which would provide much greater opportu~ty to pr~serye a?d ali~ conti.gu.ous ope? space tha? what is p,roposed under the rezornng applicatIOn, m~ludmg; Exisl1ng Zonmg Use; EXisting Zornng Cluster Use; and the R-40 Alternative. Efforts should be made to coordinate open space with the parce.l a~jacent.the east property ~oundary,.in order to provide a meaningful open space/wil.dhf~ hablt,at are~. In ad~htlOn, retentIOn of nesting habitat for bank swallows and kingfishers IS consistent With goals of bluff setbacks and stabilization dis'cussed above under Topography. Page 5 ortO .. .. Jem Commons, Greenport Statement of Findings AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Soils The southern 2/3 of the project site is dominated by Haven Loam, which is a prime agricultural soi1. The implementation of the proposed project would permanently foreclose possible future agricultural use of this soil. The Draft EIS indicated that the site has not been farmed in 18 years, and the project sponsor has made attempts to lease the parcel for farming without success. The Draft EIS further notes that "the lack of an adequate farm labor force n. along with the negative economics of farming small farms has permanently precluded the use of this site for a~cultural purposes". The conditions identified in the Draft EIS have lead to the declme of certain farming on the North Fork; however, this decline has resulted in alternative agricultural use including vineyards and orchards, etc. Accordingly, the statement alluding to economics permanently precluding agricultural use of the site is not entirely correct. Low density residential zoning provides the opportunity to consider clustering to preserve extensive contiguous areas of prime agricultural soil to be retained as open space or possibly utilized in the future tor agricultural purposes. The Final EIS explores an R-40 cluster development, and notes the following: "This alternative, however, does reduce water usage and impacts to wildlife due to providing a large area of open space". Similar conclusions with regard to open space retention and water use reduction are reached in consideration of the Existing Zoning cluster, and a reduced density development. The Existing Zoning cluster is dismissed as economically infeasible; however, the site is zoned "R-80". The Town Board fmds that the proposed project would permanently foreclose this possibility of preserving open space and pnme agricultural soils. LAND USE & ZONING Existing Land Use & Zoning The proposed I?roject lies east of an area zoned "R-40" which was predominantly developed at higher densities (1/4+ acre lots) prior to rezonings initiated by the Town Board. There are still larger tracts of subdividable property within the "R-40" zone; however, none are directly adjacent the project site. South, and southeast of the project site are two parcels zoned for "Light Business", and a 132 acre parcel east of the site is zoned "HD", and has an approved site plan for clustered condominiums at a density of 2.6 units per acre. Other zoning in the area includes "R-8D" and "R-4D" south of C.R. 48 and one smaller "Residential/Office" zoned parcel. . T\1e project seeks to rezone the parcel to what the Draft EIS refers to as a more compatible zoning district, consistent with the parcel to the east. The portion of the project site to be rezoned to "HD" exceeds the density of land use to the east by one unit per acre. The Draft EIS addendum indicates that this zoning would more closely reflect th~ goals of th,e Master Plan for expa~ion of ,the Greenport hamlet center. Land use Issues relatmg to the Master Plan Will be discussed below' however strictly in terms of land use, the "R-8D" zoning is compatible with adjacent ~oning and use. East of the site the Breakt:rs at Lands End is a high density residential proposal, Psg- 6 of 10 .. .. Jem Commons, Green port Statement of Findings t. which has been provided with utility connection. The design preserves a significant amount of open space adJacent the subject site and is a lower density per acre than the "HD" portion of the site. Future use of the lem Commons site should provide the ability to allow setbacks from c.R. 48 and adjacent light business zoned parcels, and should coordinate contiguous open space with Breakers at Lands End. These design issues can be more easily accommodated under a less intense residential use. West of the site are residences on lots of 1/4+ acres. This is considered a high density residential use which would be compatible with a similar or lower densitY. use of the subject site. The Town Board has concern with regard to the overintenstfication of use on the lem Commons property. In terms of land use it is concluded that the "HD" proposal is compatible with adjacent uses, as are other lower density alternatives, which may be more sensitive to other more compelling environmental issues as discussed in other sections of these findings. Land Use Plans The proposed lem Commons project was reviewed in the context of land use plans in the Draft EIS addendum. The document notes that the proposal is consistent with the goals and intent of the Master Plan by encouraging affordably priced housing through high density zoning, by expanding the Greenport hamlet center within 1/2 mile of the Village boundary. The fact that a portion of the site is within 1/2 mile of the Village boundary indicates that the subject site is eligible for consideration of Hamlet Density zoning; however, this zoning is not guaranteed through the Zoning Code Chapter 100, Article IV, or the Master Plan. The concept of providing affordable housing is positive. Under the proposed project, 30 homes would be affordably priced as defined under the Suffolk County Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program (less than $100,000). The balance of the homes in the "HD" zone would be offered at prices of $129,000 to $165,000. Nineteen luxury homes in the proposed "R-40" district would be offered at prices above $195,000. The offenng of 30 affordably priced homes is acknowledged as beneficial in terms of increasing the lower priced housing stock for County residents. While the proposed project would offer an additional 30 affordably priced homes to the existing housing stock, it would foreclose the possibility of providing a greater percentage of homes to moderate income families. Based upon this understanding, this increased density provides only 30 units (less than 20% overall) as affordable housing to County-wide residents. The Town Board is considering the fact that there are alternative land use proposals which would be more equitable to the residents of the Town of Southold on both an economic and environmental basis. A Master Plan is continually subject to review and change in response to economic, environmental and social climate, through legislative and planning decisions of implementing boards. Furthermore, although the goals of the Master Plan include Page 7 orIO ~ ~ ~ ~ .. .. Jem Commons, Greenport Statement or Findings promoting affordably priced housing through controlled expansion of hamlet centers where adequate utilities are available, these goals must be balanced against other resource issues. Finally, the existing low density zoning in the area north of Greenport, is a result of the Master Plan, and was presumably recommended and changed for economic, environmental and social reasons. Those areas (within 1/2 mile of the Village, with adequate utilities) could present an opportunity for density increase if justified based upon review and balancmg of overall Master Plan goals. The following goals and policies are noted in the Master Plan with regard to Environment: * Restrict development in wetlands, tidal marshes, bluffs, dunes and beaches. Promote a development pattern that is responsive to sensitive areas exhibiting prime agricultural soils, poor drainage, high water table, high erosion hazard, flood hazard, sensitive coastal features, great scenic quality and woodlands. Protect the Town's water supply from further contamination by encouragin~ the use of techniques that reduce pollution from fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides (agricultural and residential), requiring adequate water supply and septic system conditions for new development, and employing minimum maintenance dredging of streams (to minimize salt water intrusion). Promote development patterns that are at as scale that is commensurate with the available water supply. With regard to the Cultural Environment, the following policy is noted in the Master Plan: * . . Plan for intensity and mix of development of hamlet centers that improve the viability, functioning and aesthetics of hamlet commercial centers WIthout changing the scale of the centers. With regard to Waterfront, the following policy is noted in the Master Plan: . Insure physical and/or visual access to scenic vistas and waterfront areas. In addition, the Master Plan provides specific guidance on the use of the "R-80" zoning district as follows: 'These low densities are particularly applicable to coastal areas to protect the ground and surface waters and environmentally sensitive portions of the Town including wetlands, beaches, bluffs and dunes". 'This low density, combined with creative development techniques such as locating permitted residences on non-environmentally sensitive lands and keeping other lands open (clustering), can serve to achieve both residential and environmental Planning goals." "In northern areas of the Town where there are bluffs, beaches and dunes, mandatory clustering is recommended to assure protection of these features." Therefore in order to be consisten~ with the Master Plan, the legislative board responsible for land use changes must reVIew proposals and reach informed decisions regarding the future of development in Southold Town. . !he Town Boa;d has concern .oyer the consist~ncy of the project with the Master Plan m terms of enVlronmentalyol1cles (bluffs, a~ncultural soils, water availability, sewage disposal), the cultural enVIronment (aesthetics of high density grid subdivision, and Page 8 t>r 10 f *' ~ .. .. Jem Commons, Greenport Statement of Finding.! overintensified use), and waterfront policies (scenic vistas and bluffs). All of the other alternatives evaluated through the EIS process are more sensitive to some or all of these issues. The south 42 acres of the site are not assured of "RD" zoning through the interpretation of the Master Plan as forwarded in the EIS, and there is no compelling justification for density increase on the north 20 acres in either the EIS or the Master Plan. In addition, the Master Plan clearly states that "In order to develop properties for residential uses within this area [Hamlets] at a density of greater than the base densi~, an approved central water supply is required, and a sewage treatment facilIty or connection to a sewer system would be needed". Compliance with these mandates has not been demonstrated as indicated in the Final EIS. COM~TYSERVICES POlice/Fire Services The EIS for J em Commons provides information relative to response of fire and police protection services, indicating that the respective departments can adequately respond to emergency incidents. There is one aspect of emergency protection which should also be considered. The Town of Southold Subdivision ReRUlations (Article 3 Design Standards Section A106-32 Street Layout), state that "A subdivision containing 20 lots or more shall have at least 2 street connections with existing public streets or streets shown on an official map, if such exists, or streets on the recorded final plan." In the case of Jem Commons, only one street connection is provided for 171 lots. There is an emergency access right-of-way depicted on the conceptual plan; This access does not appear to be viable. . The Town Board is concerned with providing adequate access for emergency vehicles, in order to ensure the safety of future residents of the project. Fag. 9 octo .. .. Jem Commons, Green port Statement of Findings Certification of Findings Having considered the Draft and Final EIS, and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.9, this Statement of Findings certifies that: 1. 2. The procedural requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 for notice, filing, coordination and Final EIS content have been met as outlined in the introductory discussion, and Consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action ~ llQ1 minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable; including the effects disclosed in the Draft and Final EIS, and Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process will not be minimized or avoided by the incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures which were identified as practicable. Consistent with the applicable policies, this action willllQ1 achieve a balance between the protection of the environment and the need to accommodate social and economic considerations. The lead agency does find that from among the alternatives evaluated in the Draft and Final EIS, all of the alternatives analyzed provide a greater environmental compatibility to varying degrees depending upon design and density when compared to the proposed project. Greater environmental compatibility should be sought through the following measures, for any land use application occurring on site: protect bluff by enlarged setbacks and retention of natural vegetation (preferably throu~h common ownership); preserve a greater percentage of habitat/open space and alIgn contiguous open space with adjacent properties; ensure adequate water supply and sanitary waste treatment; provide adequate emergency access; and, provide a creative housing mix which will be a visual/cultural amenity to the site and area. 3. 4. 5. Town Board of the Town of Southold Name of Agency Judith T. Terry ~~~~ Signature of Responsible Official (Print and Sign) Southold Town Clerk Title of Responsible Official Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 Address of Agency April 7. 1992 Date Page 10 of 10 .. .. .,5tt6Au P8d~ Jem Commons, Greenport Statement of Findings Copies of this Findings Statement Sent to: Commissioner-NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001. Regional Director-NYSDEC, Building 40, The Loop Road, SUNY at Stony Brook, New York 11794. Regional Permit Administrator-NYS Department of Transportation, Hauppauge, New York 11788. NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Southold Town Board, Southold, New York 11971. Southold Town Attorneys, Southold, New York 11971. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Health Services, 225 Rabro Drive East, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Suffolk County Department of Planning, H. Lee Dennison Building, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Village of Greenport, Superintendent of Utilities, Village Hall, Third Street, Greenport, New York 11944. E.M. Kontokosta, Applicant, 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York 10019. Howard E. Pachman, Attorney for the Applicant, P.O. Box 273, Commack, New York 11725. Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc., 54 North Country Road, Miller Place, New York 11764. ~hold Town Planning Board, Southold, New York 11971. Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. rn @ ~^ n 'V~;I'~.'"l II ., :--, ,1'1 ii 00 APR ' :)92 : ',,; ...i J SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING 80ARO " \ . ., . ~t3HU:.. Witl;V ( L-t:tZlc Jrv. nW"'/ I .&vfrZIj ~4~ ~ .~r 2- i 1 FEB 2 5 92 ,~- \ )k.~~ : ~1~1PJ8rR~ I 0- /~ ~/r-M:!~ ~ ~,"?b~ /~ ~..~;'~j /aL ..xi~ ,;k~. ~. aJULL. . .. r#~ kN ~r~. ~~#-4A- ~t1f/~~.. ,J-ud~/ ~ ~ ry t4tL I/-- . ~.. frthCCtl~ ~ ~.. -9~. / Me-/tf /td ~ ~ ..~ ~~ ~~ /}v1$-J ~.~ ~~:7 /~J 3- 4~ /~ LhJA-.e- ~ 0- 1k.-J ~,~.~ ~ ~~. /k~~ ~L.~~ t~~,&~~ ~'~-l ~ dL~~<-e~?f ~.. ~ /~ t2'7./.c:;/ ~ ~- /j'~-u ' ;'~~ /{A;,.e--L (. 1/ L- .- ~p, ~., .~:7/ a'~~" ~ c S 831 ",.J i "- ..----J '-', "-.) ;~ __....~"'b..._.. .. y~'i\ifFlJt;~ .~~ t'~~ ~ '. 'itl-.'~ :;:, . '2 \, :} 9 ~ , '-i ..,,, <: 's Ii, "'" '" ,', ~,(:::)~ "~-~ ....~(' c~'?'*.'01 "::~ _X~~":li Y-.c.-..( ';':;',,:- "1' ,or <-'<?:::::7-~:':"--- .. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman RE: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Jem Commons, CR 48, 564' East of Sound Drive, Greenport. DATE: November 22, 1991 The Planning Board has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for this petition to change the zone of 62 acres from two acre zoning to a mix of Hamlet Density and one acre zoning. The twenty acres fronting the Sound would be zoned R-40, and the remainder HD. We find that the FEIS does not answer some key questions that were raised during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully requests of the Town Board that its issuance of a Findings Statement take into consideration the following information. The project will result in a significant increase in the projected density. The theoretical yield of this property as it is presently zoned (one unit for every two acres) could be about 27 single family lots, which could be clustered onto lots of forty thousand square feet apiece. If public water were available, the lots could be as small as twenty thousand square feet apiece. The petition before you is to increase that density to one unit per acre on the twenty waterfront acres and 3.6 per acre on the remaining forty two acres. This change will add 144 more dwelling units than the current zone allows. This increase in density may result in the need to construct a package sewage treatment plant if access cannot be obtained to the Greenport sewage treatment system. All the comparisons between the County's affordable homes program and the Town's affordable program that were made in our .. .. memorandum on the Southold Commons' petition apply to this project as well. In conclusion, we find that this change of zone petition cannot be supported by sound planning arguments. As with Southold Commons, the argument put forth by the applicant that the Town Board has to approve this chanqe of zone because the Master Plan encourages the concentration of population density within a half-mile of the hamlet business centers is flawed. The applicant fails to consider some broader issues which have clear relevance to the Town. I include them here for the Town Board's consideration. The Town Board has committed itself to improve the implementation of, and, if necessary, update the Master Plan. One of the key issues before us is how to accommodate population growth without destroying the quality of life that we have come to associate with Southold Town. It is clear to this Board that allowing developers to quadruple their density under the guise of fulfilling the assumed intent of the Master Plan is short-sighted. The end result will be wall-to wall development within the hamlets, and unremitting suburban sprawl outside of them. The Town must assess whether to add other tried and proven zoning tools to its Code to encourage a mix of increased residential and commercial development within the existing hamlets while at the same time ensuring the preservation of the . agricultural and open space lands around their perimeter. The granting of either of these change of zone proposals is felt to be counter-productive to the Town Board's intent to refine the implementation of the Master Plan so as to achieve its goals for a better quality of life for Southold Town's residents. Jem Comrons: Page two SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTM#: COMMENTS: . . ~. ~,0a; '/6 V5 SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER /J1.kmlh" ~o~ ~ ~. J e-m COml'nl>71 s / S<l~ Kt1-R-J.. ~ m D,I/ S S-S- - .> - I 7 35- - / -.;I. v' / refS ty,c~1 ~~~. .' . , A' . ;",.0 .. '.'V(-F PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765- 1 938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1 179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765,1823 MF.MORANDUM TO: Scott Harris, Supervisor and Members of the Town Board FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman RE: Comments for the Public Record for the February 4, 1992 public hearing for the Change of Zone Petition of Jem Commons, CR 48, 564' east of Sound Drive, Greenport. DATE: February 3, 1992 The Planning Board has re-reviewed this petition to change the zone of 62 acres from two acre zoning to a mix of Hamlet Density and one acre zoning. Twenty acres fronting on Long Island Sound would be zoned R-40, and the remainder Hamlet Density. We found that the Final Environmental Impact Statement did not answer some key questions that were raised during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully requested of the Town Board that its issuance of a Findings Statement take our concerns into consideration.. At this public hearing on the petition, we wish to reiterate the Planning Board's concerns for the record. The project will result in a significant increase in the projected density. The theoretical yield of this property as it is presently zoned (one unit for every two acres) is estimated take to be about twenty seven (27) single family lots, which could be clustered onto lots of forty thousand square feet apiece. If public water were available, the lots could be as small as twenty thousand square feet apiece. page 2 Jem Commons The petition before you is to increase that density to one unit per acre on the twenty (20) waterfront acres and 3.6 units per acre on the remaining forty two (42) acres. This change will add 144 more dwelling units than the current zone allows. This increase in density may result in the need to construct a package sewage treatment plant if access cannot be obtained to the Greenport sewage treatment system. In fact, the village of Greenport has just notified another potential sewage client, Nicholas Aliano, who wishes to construct a completely affordable apartment complex in Greenport, that there is insufficient capacity to serve his project. A copy of this letter is attached for your information. This Board sees no value in granting change of zone approvals that will tie up future sewage allocations indefinitely. Further, as we reported in a previous memorandum of November 22, 1991, the county's Fast-Tracking program is not the same as the Town's Affordable Housing District. Under the county's program only 20% of the units in a project must be priced significantly below market levels. In striking contrast to the County's program, the Town's program requires that 50% of the proposed units be sold at the affordable rate. In conclusion, we find that this change of zone petition cannot be supported by sound or logical arguments. The argument put forth by the applicant that the Town Board has to approve this change of zone because the Master Plan encourages the concentration of population density within a half-mile of the hamlet business centers is flawed. The applicant fails to consider some broader issues which have clear relevance to the Town. One of the key issues before us is how to accommodate population growth without destroying the quality of life that we have come to associate with southold Town. It is clear to this Board that allowing developers to quadruple their density under the guise of fulfilling the assumed intent of the Master Plan is short-sighted, particularly when we know that there is no way to handle the resultant sewage in the near future. It is unwise to commit land to uses with an uncertain timetable for completion. Encls. ",>,,"--~-"...~..,---_. . -"_....,,.__.-..~. .~ .. / vlJ'un " .. MAYOR WILLIAM R. PELL III 0f~'age 0/ !lreenport (" TRUSTEES WILLIAM D. ALLEN STEPHEN l. CLARKE JOHN A. COSTELLO VICTORA SWENSEN tNCOAPOAATI!O 183S NEW INCOAPOFlATION APAIl..1, '8. AI!.INCOAPOAATION UNDEA OENEFlAL LAW !,IIAY 28. 189. FAX (516)471-1877 VILLAGE CLERK LORNA M. CA rus (516)4n-238S TREASURER MARY E. THORNHILL (516) 477-0248 ~ ">-'" .- ~ ..,.....,.... .\ .. ~. \i . :I. .._,..;,,} w ~.NG.~~o~ i\.' ~::::::: ...... ~ \ # . "'--~ ." ..9......~ ... 236 THIRD STREET ~-.<jREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 January 8, 1992 Mr. Hem:y E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Dear Mr. Raynor, We are in receipt of your letter of Deceut>er 2, 1991 with regards to hooking up to the Village of Greenport' s water and sewer system to supply 40 units of rental apartments on the property located at the south side of Route 25, _at of the Driftwood Cove carplex. , 'lite Board of Trustees met on Deceut>er 12, 'i991 to discuss your request and have concluded that the Village of Greenport, at the present would be able to sUWly water but at the present and imnediate future will not be able to supply the sewer allocation that you require. Unfortunately, _ do not foresee this allocation to be available for sanetime. We regret _ cannot aceu.....ldte you at this time. Sincerely, ~ /J ~~~v~ William R. Fell, rm.= Mayor WRP: lmc 'ill i: .Ia 2 7 1992 Il.:i,,' ~ @ ~ 0 '," i, \~' !C, .' - # , ~ ( ~~ibHU:;: I;!-, ...l (~ ~[::, 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 January 24, 1992 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Property of Nicholas Aliano at south side Main Road, Greenport, New York Dear Sirs: Please find enclosed a copy of the Village of Greenport's letter stating that sewerage would not be available to the above referenced property in the near future. As sewerage is certainly a vital aspect of developing this property into low to moderate income units as previously discussed with your board, we request an appointment with your Board to discuss this project at your earliest possible convenience. ~:~c~;~Pdl~~/Lk . ~nry~~)I~or, Vr. HER:ml Ene. ,..,.. -, rfi1-:f\I \1;'\\ \..1, U --n\i\l d\\',,\ Ij,.; t_..i I ~u ~~&WJ8~~ , I \ . t( .. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 MEMORANDUM PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765- 1823 TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman RE: Corrunents on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Jem Corrunons, CR 48, 564' East of Sound Drive, Greenport. DATE: November 22, 1991 The Planning Board has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for this petition to change the zone of 62 acres from two acre zoning to a mix of Hamlet Density and one acre zoning. The twenty acres fronting the Sound would be zoned R-40, and the remainder HD. We find that the FEIS does not answer some key questions that were raised during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully requests of the Town Board that its issuance of a Findings Statement take into consideration the following information. The project will result in a significant increase in the projected density. The theoretical yield of this property as it is presently zoned (one unit for every two acres) could be about 27 single family lots, which could be clustered onto lots of forty thousand square feet apiece. If public water were available, the lots could be as small as twenty thousand square feet apiece. The petition before you is to increase that density to one unit per acre on the twenty waterfront acres and 3.6 per acre on the remaining forty two acres. This change will add 144 more dwelling units than the current zone allows. This increase in density may result in the need to construct a package sewage treatment plant if access cannot be obtained to the Greenport sewage treatment system. All the comparisons between the County's affordable homes program and the Town's affordable program that were made in our '. ,( { " memorandum on the Southold Commons' petition apply to this project as well. In conclusion, we find that this change of zone petition cannot be supported by sound planning arguments. As with Southold Commons, the argument put forth by the applicant that the Town Board has to approve this chanqe of zone because the Master Plan encourages the concentration of population density within a half-mile of the hamlet business centers is flawed. The applicant fails to consider some broader issues which have clear relevance to the Town. I include them here for the Town Board's consideration. The Town Board has committed itself to improve the implementation of, and, if necessary, update the Master Plan. One of the key issues before us is how to accommodate population growth without destroying the quality of life that we have come to associate with Southold Town. It is clear to this Board that allowing developers to quadruple their density under the guise of fulfilling the assumed intent of the Master Plan is short-sighted. The end result will be wall-to wall development within the hamlets, and unremitting suburban sprawl outside of them. The Town must assess whether to add other tried and proven zoning tools to its Code to encourage a mix of increased residential and commercial development within the existing hamlets while at the same time ensuring the preservation of the , agricultural and open space lands around their perimeter. The granting of either of these change of zone proposals is felt to be counter-productive to the Town Board's intent to refine the implementation of the Master Plan so as to achieve its goals for a better quality of life for Southold Town's residents. Jem Conmons: Page two .. . :.~~ .>;" . t .. Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 SOUl/laId. New York 11971 l\,~ING BOARD MEMBERS .1C1[ Orlowski, Jr., Chainnan G:orge Rirchie Lalham. Jr. Richard G . Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor 'dephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ~/~ Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Change of Zone Petition for Southold Commons Young's and BOisseau Avenues, Southold. FROM: RE: DATE: November 22, 1991 The Planning Board has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS) for this petition to change the Zone of 32 acres of property located between Young'S and Boisseau Avenues in Southold from R-80 (two acre zoning) to HD (quarter acre zoning). The FEIS does not answer some key questions that were raised during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully requests of the Town Board that its issuance of a Findings Statement take into consideration the fOlloWing information. The project will result in a significant increase in the projected density. The theoretical yield of this property as it is presently zoned (one unit for every two acres) could be approximately fourteen single family residences which could be clustered on lots of between twenty to forty thousand square feet in area due to the availability of public water. The petition before you is to increase that density to 3.6 units per acre for a total of one hundred and sixteen (116) units on quarter acre lots. The change of zone will add one hUndred and two more units to the property than the current zone allows. It also will result in the need to construct a package sewage treatment plant which would bc privately owned. The applicant propOses to comply with the Suffolk County Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program (as explained in Appendix M of the DEIS). Under that program, only 23 of these homes -- -- ~ * ~ L , \r.wenty percent of 116) will be offered at "affordable" rates. The remaining 93 homes will be offered at the market rate. The County's Fast-Tracking program is not the same as the Town's Affordable Housing District. Under the County's program at least 20% of the housing units in a project must be priced significantly below market levels. In striking contrast to the county's Fast-Tracking program, the .Town's program requires that half of the proposed units be sold at the affordable rate. Thus, under the Town's program an additional 35 affordable units could be made available for a total of 58 homes. "HouseholdS with incomes approximatelY equal to or less than 120% of the median income for a family of four based on the Department of housing and Urban Development's Section 8 Income Guidelines will be eligible buyers." (Suffolk County Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program. Michael A. LoGrande, Suffolk County Executive. page 4.) In 1991, the maximum allowable income of an eligible home buyer under the County program is $54,500. Under the Town'S program, the maximum allowable income of an eligible buyer in 1991 is $49,614.00; a figure that is in keeping with the fact that the median income in southold Town is lower than that of the County at large. Finally, the County's program requires that the housing be offered to any resident of the county who applies. In contrast, the Town'S program gives Town residents (and people who work in Town) first priority. Finally, a house offered under the County program cannot exceed $100,000 in price, whereas a house offered under the Town program cannot exceed about $95,000 in price. The Town has approved two affordable housing projects to date. with each, the only applicants that were able to obtain mortgage financing to purchase an "affordable" lot were those at the upper end of the maximum allowable income and those who were had sufficient cash reserves (whether through savings or gifts). In fact, one project ended up selling some of the affordable homes to people who did not live and work in Southold Town because no one else on the eligible list could obtain bank financing. What this means is that even the Town'S "affordable" housing program, which is more affordable than the county's, is not affordable enouqh for those who live and work here. -- In comparing the two programs and the intent of the Master Plan, the planning Board finds that it cannot support this change of zone to the Hamlet Density. Southold Commons: Page two -~-",..,.,,-..,. ----,..-- ,. ., ....- ~ . . JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER . . ~ "'-6 1/5 MS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 SouIhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQR NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF DRAFT EIS AND NOTICE OF HEARING 24 Title of Proposed Action: Jem Realty Company (Jem Commons) North Road, Greenport s.C. Tax Map No.: 1000-35-1-24 Lead. Agency: Town Board Town of Southold Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: July 17,1991 This notice is issued pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617 (and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been completed and accepted for the proposed action described below. Comments on the Draft E IS are requested and will be accepted by the contact person until August 2, 1991, or ten (10) days after the close of the public hearing, whichever last occurs. A public hearing on the Draft EIS will be held on August 13, 19111, at 4:30 P.M., at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. The purpose of the hearing is to solicit comments from the public on the Draft EIS and particularly on the Environmental Impact issues identified below. Description of Action: The project involves the proposed rezoning of a 62 acre parcel of land, Parcel I, most southerly, 42 acres, from IR-80" Residential Low-Density District (2-acre Page 1 of 2 . . ,m~, . . . . minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density, and Parcel II, most northerly, 20 acres, from "R- 80" Residential Low-Density District (2-acre minimum) to "R-40" (one-acre minimum) for the purpose of constructing a mix of housing type and level of residential diversity, and provide affordable housing to meet the Suffolk County Affordable Housing Program. The project is located on the northerly side of North Road (NYS Route 25), east of Sound Road, Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Potential Environmental Impacts: * Increase in the intensity of land use above what is currently allowable under existing zoning, with consideration of resulting impacts. * Impact of the proposed project upon existing land use and zoning in the project vicinity, with consideration for land use compatibility. * Public need for the project and the ability of the proposed use to provide necessary alternative housing in the community. * Potential impact upon groundwater resources due to alteration of recharge water quality. * Loss of open space and alteration of existing wildlife habitat and ecological character of existing site. * Potential impact upon cultural resources of the community, particularly visual, historic and pre-historic resources. Copies of the Draft EIS may be obtained from-= Contact Person: Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone No.: 516-765-1801 Copies of this Notice and DEIS Sent to: Commissioner-NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001. Regional Director-NYSDEC, Building 40, The Loop Road, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 11794. Regional Permit Administrator-NYS Department of Transportation, Hauppauge, New York 11788. NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Southold Town Board, Southold, New York 11971. Southold Town Attorneys, Southold, New York 11971. Southold Town Planning Board, Southold, New York 11971.~ Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Health Services, 225 Rabro Drive East, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Suffolk County Department of Planning, H. Lee Dennison Building, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Village of Greenport, Village Hall, Third Street, Greenport, New York 11944. Jem Realty Company, 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York 10019. Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, 54 N. Country Road, Miller Place, New York 11764. Page 2 of 2 " r'\ . . . ~ g"'-'~'~ //f._ . .. ,r,{;y'l:I.'l1 (I/!~' .. CRAMER, VO!\<RHI... {l,j~A ~OCIATES ENVIRONMENTA:~_~~D'r~;t'~l~G CONSULTANTS February 18, 1991 Supervisor Scott Harris and Members of the Town Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Draft EIS Review Jem Commons Stirling, New York Dear Supervisor and Members of the TOYffi Bourd: As per your request, and in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, we have completed a review of the Draft EIS for the above referenced project within the 30 day period required under the regulations [6 NYCRR 617.8(b)(4)]. This review compares the revised document to our letter of November 13, 1990, whtch identified deficiencies in the first submission. Overall, the revision addr.esses most of the commcnts contained in our previous letter. Several specific comments which remain outstanding in the current draft are outlined below. It is our recommendation that these matters be addressed and amended into the main body of the Draft EIS. FEB 2 1 1991 In addition, information contained in the document referencing site environmental resources and sensitivitv sug&est that the Bllard would benefit from the evaluation of two additional alternatives,'botn mvolving a project of reduced magnitude. It is appropriate to consider these alternatives as outlined in Part 617. 14(f)(S). In addition, since the Town Board is the only agency involved in the decision on the zone change itself, the scope of the document can be eXj>anded provided the applicant is notified with a written statement explaining the need for additional analysis (Part 6I7.7(c). This review provides this written explanation. If the Town Board is in agreement with the comments contained herein, it is recommended that the Board resolve to have the applicant revise the document to address the following points: PROJECf DESCRIPTION Ptlhlic ~ fill: Proiect ~ J1I-4 to Pa~e III-S The portion of the last sentence beginning on Page III-S, which reads, "a though Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, acting for the Lead Agency requested it", should be removed from the document. CV A has no authority to request this information, and merely provides recommendations to the Board. ' ENVIRONMENTAL SETI'ING Wildlife ~ !ill1l1 ~ ll:2.Q All wildlife identified in the report includin& Appendix P~SfiOllld be included in the lists on Pa"es II-IS to II-20. In addition, species whtch are designated by New York State as en~angered, threatened, or of special concern should be appropriately identifie.d. Puce 1 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 _"," ii"J;"~ .~-;" -"ll"",__.. .~. ,_ ':'~"";'>~":."'_'~""'" '" :",~~li&i :-'-"";_~.;:;..;.,_~..~,-"..,.;......;.;;.>;",> .;,;,;";,,;,,..,..,. '""',. "-c~..,,,, __:;,;;;;"''',:;'''''>c,;i:i.;.:;:-i:f':::'-''~'';;;;i~li~~",-,':';;;;~;'<';';;:';'~~~:;';'~:iiJ.:"~ , .. 1"'"'\ . . Jem Commons Draft EIS RevIew 2/18/91 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Gro~ndwater Qu.a!lly ~ V-3 .tQ ~ On age III-1S, the Draft EIS indicates that the area of lawn and landscaping is 47.5 acres, yet Page IV-3 identifies an area of 0.77 acres, and Page IV-S indicates an area of 0.76 acres. The document should be amended to be consistent. Terrestrial.ll.!ld. Wildlife Habitat ~ V-8 Review of Appendix P would lead the reader to believe that the proposed site development will result in substantial impacts to wildlife including feeding habitat for endangered species and threatened species and species of special concern, yet this is not reflected in the text of the document. The significance of NYS species desi~nntions should be outlined in the report, as it is our finding th,tt for certain species deSignations, it is obligatory to protect habitat of these species as well as confirmed sites of activity. Further, other Important wildlife utilizing the site, including fox, deer, and locally important avifauna, will be severely impacted by the proposed site development. These species should be identified and an aCKnowledgment of these impactS should be included in the text. La..lliI!ls.e..&. Zfrnin.g (Cumulative ImNcts) ~.Y:2 There shouldbea distinction between the compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding development, and assertions that surrounding development IS not compatible with the R-110 zonio$ of the site. We concur that the surrounding zoning places some pressure on the subject site for a higher density use from strictly a planning viewpoint without consideration of other environmental resources. We do not concur that surrounding development is not compatible with R-SO zoning. For this to be true surrounding development would have to cause some conflict with an R-SO development on the site. Light business use and moderate to high density residential use are continuously located adjacent to low density residential use. If the 31 lot alternative were required, lot sizes would permit setbacks and buffering which would alleviate any potential land use conflicts. Therefore phrases in the Draft EIS which indicate that surrounding use is not compatible with the present site zoning should be eliminated or clarified. These occur on the followinB pages: Page III-12, first paragraph. last sentence; Page V-ll, last sentence; Page VIII-2, first paragraph, fourtn sentence; and Page VlII-ll, first paragraph, fourth sentence. ALTERNATIVES Nitro~en ~ YlIT-4.6.13.15 The lawn and landscaped area coverage figures should be reviewed and amended as appropriate as per previous comments on site quantities. Terrestrial arul Wildlife J-Tabitat ~ VIII.:1 ~ VIII-24 In discussing the difference in wildlife impacts between the 171 unit development, and the 31 unit developments, the statement, "The impact to the terrestrial and wildlife habitat would be approximately the same as the proposed project.", is included. This statement is illogical and unsupported. Significant measures coufd be taken to reduce wildlife impacts at lower densi ties. "* f ~ CRAMER, V ,1f~~ .J'ASOCIATES ENVIRONMENT' ,:,,~VJil'~~G CONSULTANTS PUlIe 2 -~';:"""'I'A.~~:;j........._:,_.,..;o,,"'_"'i ;<.....:;%.'~:~4,;~1D'.~....'.."'i;~~.~l~;i1,.;i.;.:..ll.,""::,.:_j,;~..~lloli~~:l.i'.~" ~ ~'i;'.,J~;"';.;.~'~".i '~~~~,ii.",~~,,_,':~~~'::.:;::.~..;L', ~-;:}JJt.i,.iii:.,u, . ,,-., . . ,,-... .- . . J~m Commons Dral'l EIS Review 2/18/91 Economics ~ VlU.9 and VIII-18 . . The 31 unit project would not provide the same economIc revenue that the 171 umt project would provide; however, this discussion ignores the fac~ that the reduc~ion in density would also result in lesser demand for services thereby offsettmg the change In revenue. Further, there is significant documentation which indicates that detached single family housing can cause a burden on school districts due to the cOSt to educate a student as compared tfie revenue per student. The Draft EIS does not contain sufficient economic data or analysis to support the economic conclusions. Additional Alternatives As a result of additional information included in the revised Draft EIS, it is apparent that the property is sensitive with regard to wildlife habitat. Further, there maybe apparent pressure to consIder alternative zoning districts other than the present R-BO zoning, due to moderate to hi$h density residential development and light business zoning adjacent the site. The appl1cant has proposed a 171 unit hi$h density residential development; however this use may not be sutficlently sensitive to Slle environmental resources, including wildlife, open space, visual, land use and zoning, and other parameters. It is permissible to request additional alternatives in accord with 6 NYCRR Part 617.7(c). Accordinglv, we feel that the Town Board would benefit by the exploration of two additional alternatives regarding ma~nitude of development. These include: cluster development in accordance with R-40 -*' zonmg for the overall site, which would be consistent with zoning west of the site and would allow for protection of some wildlife habitat on the site; and a reduced density (perhaps 100 units instead of 152) on the 42 acre portion of the site requested to be rezoned to HD district, which would allow for a more aesthetic design in conjunction with retention of additional open space. In addition, an alternative to the proposed project involving construction of an on-site sewage treatment plant (STP) is mcluded in the Project Description section of the Draft ErS, Page III-14. This aiternative should be discussed in greater detail, with an evaluation of the potential impacts of such an alternative in Ihe Alternative section of the Draft EIS. The applicability of STP sighting setbacks should be discussed, as well as environmental, land use, and aesthetic impacts of such an alternative, as a consequence of a Town decision to authorize a zoning district which mandates the need for sewage treatment. * * * * The above comments pertain to the Scope, content and adequacy of the subject document for public review. A<; indicated it is recommended that the applicant amend the bOdy of the text of the document to address or include the above noted items. All appropriate sections of the Draft EIS should be altered to reflect the above comments. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Southold Town Board with our review of the Draft EIS for SouthoM Commons. Provided the above noted items are satisfactorily addressed in the revision the document can be circulated for a 30 day comment penod in order to consider the accuracy and validity of the document. We will be pleased to conduct further review at ~our request. Please do not hesitate to call if y()u have any questions regarding this reV1ew.~ /. , ..~ .-" V;ry~ YY. rs,_~, '2 /.. /( ff.1< n..., ;/.,. p' cc: Judith Terry, Town Clerk <:,Clfa les J. Voar IS Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney -+ CRAMER, v~~\ JlASOC1ATES ENVIAONMENT \,~~"'~~~G CONSULTAN'TS PIlge3 ..~;.~.._. .".' ~-,-..J!. ~~ ""''' .- -;.~."i;ij':_,i.;C;,' ~'>i"'-;~I:: ,.c~;,..;"_;."",,_, . .''''''';''. ./~''.:';_.:. .j~,;~",;c~~ <.d;~''''i';':';'-'~;''j,:....-,"" '~'''''.i " . . . . ,~+ w .' 'HI<. ' I:,: I ," New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation I ~w Governor Nldsorl A HocK('!\~lIt:t L mplre Slate Plena ^W%'Y iJUlldlflg 1, ^Ibany New York 122380001 iJrlr Il'"'''' I" 1\','11.'11:<;-,'.'1,,[ December 27, 1990 Ms. Catherine Russell, Project Manager Middleton Envirorunental Inc. 66 Cammack Road, suite 103 Commack, New York 11725 Dear Ms. Russell: Re: Infonnation Request Jem Conunons Southold, Suffolk County 90PR2576 The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (Omll') has received the documentation you provided on your project. As the state agency respensible for the coordination of the State I s Historic Preservation Pra;raros, including the encouragement and assistance of Local Preservation Pra;raros, we offer the following conunents. Based on reperted resources, it is the opinion of the Omll' that your project area may contain an archeological site. Therefore, it is our recommendation that unless substantial ground disturbance can be d=umented, an archeological survey is warranted. Attached is a list of qualified archaeologists. Documentation of ground disturbance should include a description, illustration and phota;raphs keyed to the project map. In addition, the project area has not been professionally surveyed for historic buildings or structures. We recommend that all buildings or structures more than 50 years old within or adjacent to the project area be identified by the project spensor and evaluated by this office for historic and/or architectural significance. If you have any questions, please call Tony Opalka of our Project Review Unit at (518) 474-0479. Sincere~y yUc ia S. :fo?r De uty Commissioner for istoric Preservation JSS/IO 7': A Word About Archeological Surveys cc Town of Southold Planning Board ../ .. - 3 19~ Historic Preservalion Field Services Bureau . 518 - 474 -0479 Urban Cultural Parks. 518-473-2375 ,\" f (jj;l: O:):.'v' 'v A" "";l:'','P At:: ,y~ ^t;(\"~'1 . . . 7>f!:> Su 8Rt..E:" ~ JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VlTALSTATlmCS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 10- (2- June 11, 1990 There will be a Seoping Session by Charles Voorhis of Cramer & Voorhis at 10:00 A.M., Monday, June 18, 1990 relative to the Jem Realty Change of Zone Petition and the E.M. Kontokosta Change of Zone Petition/ in the Meeting Hall at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. ~-~:/ ~ ~~~ . Southold T~~~.llerk Town Board Town Attorney Planning Board (II) Newspapers WBAZ Radio Station f _ ___...__._.,.... lill P- /IU f'2 11 "7 f' ._, I D. .- @ l'J l'i.JLLl~,: ~ i ~ i I ~ "HI' 3 ,- ...." f l..! ....j\' . . L___. "'-' '-I' ~--_.~ ...... . · . ~-//l- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK / . ' , ;Lid! (i) j2a-vO :1/; RECEIVED MAY 2 9 1990 ~,..,....e...,I'" T..... "'I_..to. F'ATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 360-5513 ARTHUR H. KUNZ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING May 24, 1990 Mr. Emanuel Kontokosta 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 Re: Application of "Jem Realty Co." (1/299) for changes of zone from "R-80" to "R-40" and "HD" Hamlet Density, Town of South old (SD-90-7) Dear Mr. Kontokosta: In response to your letter of 5/21/90 regarding the above referenced, please be advised that since the Suffolk County Planning Commission did not render an official determination within the prescribed 45 day County Administrative Code notification period commencing 4/2/90, said application is considered as automatically approved as submitted. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz ::~4\.). Gera G. Newman, Chief Planner --.".,. GGN:mb cc: Southold Town Clerk, VETERANS MEMO~IAL HIGHWAY HAU~AUGE. LI.. NEW YORK 11788 (!5' 6J 360.5 t 82 ,'" j; :i'~"\ ' t'~ 1d -' l\ ",.'C ~u \ .~ "2"",",,,.9 \gOO h"\'i~"-";';':' ,\.1'..-'.'" fiu;'; :::/~.- . "- ,..."--, G) -Pft&J~~,tlccZrA . COPY FOR YOUI I.FORMATION - hOUNTY OF SUFFOLK- - ~1t.J::;. Pb I/S ";"';"',",;~ ~'., PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ARTHUR H. KUNZ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING May 3, 1990 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road - P. O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: Re: Application of "Jem Realty Co. (11299) for changes of zone from "R-80" to "R-40' and "RD" Hamlet Density, Town of Southold (SD-90-7). 'S~_I-II../ Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on May 2, 1990 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation considered a motion to approve* it subject to the following: 1. The total number of dwelling units/lots shall not exceed 170, preferably less; 2. The sales price of twenty (20%) percent of the dwelling units/lots shall be in accordance with requirements of the Affordable Housing District; 3. The parcels shall be developed jointly preferably for cluster housing purposes; 4. Emergency vehicular access shall be available to the premises; 5. The project will be constructed in a timely manner consistent with market demands and appraisals of need; and, 6. Approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. *The motion failed to carry. Very truly yours,. Arthur H. Kunz Db~ 0; '.';~:1Y.... .... . - .~ Gerald G. Newman .. Chief Planner MAY 8 ICY GGN:mb VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE. L.I.. NEW YORK 1 1788 (1516) 360.15' 92 . '. ~ -- --- $/./ f::P7 L6 Ph J1.s . .. SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Town Board of the Town of Southold Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: April 24, 1990 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The 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. Title of Action: Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons) Change of Zone Petition 3 ~ - - ! '-I SEQR Status: Unlisted Action, one involved agency Project Description: The project which is the subject of this Long EAF involves proposed change of zoning of a 62 acre parcel, as follows: the southern 42 acres fronting NYS Rt. 25 from R-80 (2 acre density), to HD (Hamlet Density); and, the northern 20 acres fronting Long Island Sound from R-80 to R-40 (1 acre density). Location: North side of North Road (NYS 251.east of Sound Road, Southold, New York ,-- ? iC-::jO Page 1 of 2 , . 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) . , . . Town of Southold SEQR Positive Declaration Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, and the following specific reasons: 1) The project site contains eroding headlands associated with the Harbor Hill terminal moraine, a unique physical feature. The project may result in impairment of groundwater resources. The project will result in a significant increase in water demand, in an area where the Greenport Water District is experiencing difficulty in meeting current and future estimated demand. 2) 3) The proposed action could cause substantial erosion. The project will result in wildlife habitat loss and alteration. The project will irreversibly utilize more than 10 acres of productive agricultural soil. The project may impact cultural resources. The project will impact open space resources. The project will cause an increase in traffic generation. The project is not compatible with land use plans based upon the zoning maps. In addition, the precedent setting nature of the project (cumulative impacts), as well as the need for the project in view of other "HD" zoning in the Town, must be determined. The Planning Board has recommended denial. For Further Information: Contact Person: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall. Main Road, Southold, N. Y. 11971 (516) 765- 1801 Address: Phone No.: Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Applicant-Jem Realty Co. Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs for Long Island Southold Town Planning BoardV- Southold Town Building Department Village of Greenport Page 2 of 2 New York State Department of Transportation - .. .. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 SCOIT L. HARRIS Supervisor Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman"Bd~ Members of the Planning Board rVS RE: Petition for Change of Zone of Emanuel Kontokosta for change from IR-80" to "HD" and from IR-80" to IR-40" on property located north of SR 25, approximately 564' east of Sound Drive, .Greenport. SCTM # 1000-35-1-24 DATE: March 27, 1990 The Planning Board wishes to go on record as opposing this change of zone application. Following is the Planning Board's resolution of March 26, 1990. WHEREAS the Subject property consists of more than 60 acres of residentially zoned land, and WHEREAS the subject property could be developed for residential purposes under the current zoning, and BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board recommends denial of the proposed petition. r .' . I " I : Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 SCOTT L HARRIS Supervisor Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-18OC PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman~vS Members of the Planning Board RE: Petition for Change of Zone of Emanuel Kontokosta for change from "R-80" to "HD" and from "R-80" to "R-40" on property located on the north side of SR 25, approximately 564' E/of Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM # 1000-35-1-24 DATE: March 27, 1990 The Planning Board wishes to go on record as opposing this change of zone application. FOllowing is the Planning Board's resolution of March 26, 1990. WHEREAS the subject property could be developed for residential purposes under the current zoning, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board recommends denial of the proposed petition. . 4 . . Town HaIl, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New Yor!< 11971 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . March 26, 1990 Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Town Hall Southold , New York 11971 Re: Petition for Change of Zone of Emanuel Kontokosta for change from "R-80" to "HD" and from "R-80" to "R-40" on property located on the north side of SR 25, approximately 564' E/ of Sound Drive, Greenport SCTM # 1000-35-1-24 Dear Mrs. Terry, In response to the Town Board's Lead Agency Coordination Request of March 16, 1990, the Planning Board has no objection to the Town Board taking lead agency. However, the Planning Board would like to be a coordinating agency in the review of the environemtna1 impacts of the proposed project. Consequently, if an environmental impact statement is required, please notify this office of the date of the scoping session. Very Truly Yours, ~~'r--M Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman . . . I JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAl. STATISTICS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New Yorls: 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF T1iE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOOTHOLD March 16, 1990 ...., ,- )" - /-:1..lJ.. Lead Agency Coordination Request The purpose of this request is Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: to determine under Article 8 (State of the Environmental Conservation Law 1. your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the application and a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Jem Realty Co., by Emanuel Kontokosta, Partner (Jem Commons) Requested Action: Petition for a change of zone on two (2) parcels located at the North Road, Greenport: Parcell - the most southerly 42:t acres from existing "R- 80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "H-D" Hamlet Density District; Parcel II - the most northerly 20:t acres from "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "R-40" Residential Low Density District (I-acre minimum) . SEQRA Classification: Type I Contact Person: Judith T. To4lrry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold. The lead agency will determine the need for a environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. If you have an interest in being lead agency, please contact this office immediately. I f no response is received from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, it will be assumed that your agency has no interest in being lead agency. '-, ~ i 2 1 r-;- - ' .. . . . . Page 2. Agency Position: [ l This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. [Xl This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. [ l Other. (See comments below) Comments: Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Very truly yours, ~- -/~/ ~-4wt Y~;)-;r Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures Copies of this request and all attachments to the following: Commissioner Jorlin9, NYS-DEC, Albany Robert Greene, NYS-DEC, Stony J3.rook Southold Town Planning Boardv Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Howard E. Pachman, Esq., for Jem Realty Co. (without attachments) Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin BQard (without attachments) Village of Greenport tHD 2 I 109.' . . . JUDITH T. TERRY Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765.1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765.1801 TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR Of VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 20, 1990 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the petition of Jem Realty Co., by Emanuel Kontokosta, Partner (Jem Commons) for a change of zone on certain property located on the northerly side of NYS Route 25, east of Sound Drive, Greenport. Please prepare an official report defining the conditions in said petition and determine the area so affected recommendation, and transmit same to me. Thank you. described by your Very truly yours, ~~. Judith T. TerJ Southold Town Clerk Attachments ;' I "If '. . ,e . RECl:IvED MAR 1 1990 e . . . CASE NO. o? 99 STATE OF NEW' YORK Southold T~'''- ""~.l,. PETITION TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JEM REALTY CO. FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK. '\ .. --------------------------- TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD; 1. I, JEM REALTY CO., by EMANUEL KONTOKOSTA, Partner, by: HOWARD E. PACHMAN, ESQ., as agent, c/o PACHMAN & OSHRIN, P.C., 366 Veterans Memorial Highway, P. O. Box 273, Commack, County of Suffolk, New York 11725, the undersigned, am the owner of certain real property situated at North Road, Route 58, Greenport, Suffolk County, New York, and more particularly bounded and described on Schedule A (metes and bounds description for Parcel I) and Schedule B (metes and bounds description for Parcel II), both of which are annexed hereto, said property being vacant land known on Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 35, Block 1, Lot 24. 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to change, modify and amend the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, including the Building Zone Maps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: To change the zone designation of the property described above, as follows: PARCEL I: The most southerly 42+- acres from existing R80-Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to proposed HD-Hamlet Density. (See Schedule A annexed for description). PARCEL II: The most northerly 20+- acres from existing RaO-Residential Low-Denisty District (2-acre minimum) to proposed R40-Residential Low-Density District (I-acre minimum). (See Schedule B annexed for description. 3. Such request is made for the following reasons: The requested zone change is within the purpose and applicability of the Hamlet Density (HD) Zone Designation as defined in Article IV of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold. The subject property is: (1) contigious to an existing Hamlet Density (HD) parcel located on the easterly boundary of the subject property; (2) within 1/2 mile of the Village of Greenport; (3) contiguous to and part of a high density area with most contiguous lots on Sound Drive measuring less th~n 1/4 acre; (4) contiguous to a parcel designated as Limited Business zone (LB) on the southeasterly boundary;"." ? (5) contiguous to a parcel designated as Limlt~5 h~(ness zone .. .' ,. . . . (LB) on the west; (6) the property on the south east corner of the intersection of Route 48 and Main Street is zoned Residential Office (RO); (7) the parcels on the south side of Route 48 on Bailey Avenue are high density lots; (8) present zone incompatible with uses (9) present zone spot zoning in reverse '. . Residential Low-Density (2-acre minimum in the immediate surrounding area; Residential Low-Density (2-acre minimum considering the adjacent zoning; R-80) is R80) is The proposed zone change will: (a) permit a mix of housing type and level of residential diverstiy appropriate to the area; (b) be in harmony with and will promote the general purpose of the Zoning Code Ordinance; (c) encourage the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties. (d) provide affordable housing to meet Suffolk County Affordable Homes program; (e) and will not adversely affect the safety, health, welfare, comfort and convenience as well as the order of the Town. JEM REALTY CO., petitioner BY EMAN EL KONTOKOSTA, Partner BY: STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) SS.: HOWARD E. PACHMAN, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the agent for 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 own knowledge based upon information contained in his file, 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. Sworn to before me this 28th day of February, 1990 ,4t:f'() / t/ / i '- , NOREEN JOHNSTON Notary Public. St.to of Now York No. 62-4652171 }Uffolk County .......ExpireI IL-/~/ '/"/ . . . . . v " SCHEDULE A PARCEL NO.1-(Northerly Parcel) '. Owner: JEM REALTY CO. Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (N.Y.S, Rte. 25): (1) North 30deg. 16' 30" l,Jest 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76deg. 30' 30" East 376.40 feet, ('" ' ., ,_J) ;\!rJ'rt h 21 deg . 05' 30" West 807.87 feet. and running thence f~om said point of beginning South 62deg. 26' dO" West through ~he land IJf the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27deg. 33' 20" West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having the Following courses and distances: (1) North 60deg. 32' 20" East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58deg. 10' 00. East 386.00 feet, (3) North 66deg. 10' 00" East 342.00 feet, (4) North 79deg. 13' 30" East 357.33 feet thence southerly along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad the following courses and distances: (1) South 21deg. 34' 40. East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21deg. OS' 30" East 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. , v: ~ .e · SCHEDULE B . . ^ .' PARCEL NO.2-(Southerly .Parcel); Owner: JEM REALTY CO. Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following courses and distances: , 1 , SCluth 78deg 09 , 20" West 329 .44 feet , , , , '"' .. -::ou t ~ 75deg. 15 , 00 " West 246 .26 feet to other land now or F(]r-'11I~_}r 1 :' , i~ ~i.~:I.!t,~ ; r:.Jnning thence. alDng said land North 26deg. 56 , 20" West 240.77 f~et to t~e land now or formerly of Walter Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30deg. 58' 00" West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66deg. 00' 30" West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the Following two courses and distances: ( 1 ) Nort h 27deg. 47' 30" West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27deg. 33' 20" West 634.19 feet, running thence F.e.p. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses South 62deg. 26' 40" West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of and distances: side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning. (1) South 21deg. OS' 30" East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76deg. 30' 30" West 376.40 feet, (3) South 30deg. 16' 30" East 1085.53 feet to the northerly .. ~UUU-J~-1-9 Manouvelos, Steve & Wf. ~53 Creseene St., AS4lfria~ lOUO-S5-1-!.tt l Tattenbaum, Rae & Margery Fine 37 Sound Avenue, Greenoort' NY ...... - \\..... 1000-35-1-11 I Verity, joseph D. & Wf. PO Box 126, East Marion NY -, Ul'02 11944 11939 1000-35-1_12 / Skrezec J Jack & Wf. Sound Ave!!ue, Greenport NY 11944 1000-35-1_13 , Webb, Lin"Wood S & Wf. J Greenport NY 11944 1000-35-1-H Bubb, Francis H Greenport NY 11944 LOOO-35-1-15 j =glsh, Gertrude 22 Sound Road, Greenport NY 11944 1000-35-1-16 1JOO-35-1-17 A 1000-35-1-23 FisCher, Da~iel L So Nancy L 20 Sound Road, Greenport NY 11944 Ha:-:-cwer, ~\ljolly 2841 NW 4th Lane, Gainesville, FL 32607 / Sinuta, HarTY B Nerth Read, Greenport NY 11944 :000-35-1-22 I Sledjeski, Walter F Gree::1.port ~JY 1194J. 1000-35-1-25 1000"33-4-78 lOQO-33-4.-i9 1000-33-4-30 1000-33-4-81 1000-33-4-82 / Greencort Develecment Co C/O Goldie Walomlt:, 100 Apt, lC, Great Neck NY /' Town of Southold Main Road, Southold NY Great Neck Rd., 11021 11971 3ecke~J Rober~ J. a Carl Frimann Krebs 202 West 32nd St., New York NY 10024 Brown, Vi~tor A & Wi. ) 222 Bergen St., BrOOklyn NY 11817 Straussner, AugUStus & Wi Greenport NY 11944 / 1fassiliou, Spyros & Wf 147-01 38th Ave, Flushing NY 11354 1000-33-4-83 ) Colaitis, Jerry 109-46 54th Ave, Corona NY 11368 1000-33-4-84 1000-33-4-85 1000-33-4-86 1000-33-4-87 ~ Kase, Robert N & Wi 67-51 210th St, Bayside NY 11364 Owe:arek, Joseph P & Wf 20 West 77th St, NY 10024 Uh1, Otto 9 De rby Road, Port Washington NY Uhl, Otto Jr. 9 Derby Road, Port Washinrrton NY 11050 11D<;D ;-1;16-2 (2/87J--7c .' . . . ...... oJ'r 611.21 Appendix A State environmental Ouality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SE. . ; Purpose: The full EAF i. designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a pro; or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequ< Iy. there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determ significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically e.xpert in environmen analysis. In addition. many who have knowle<!ge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affect the question of significance. J The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assure<! that the determinat process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or acti 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 proj data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and J: Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or actiOn. It provi, guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentia large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. P..t 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not. impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE-Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Porti,,"s oi EAF completed for this project: D Part 1 D Part 2 DPart 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 magltude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: D 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. D B. Althou~h the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation met.sures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' D C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment. therefore <1 positive declaration will be prepared~ . A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions JEM COMMONS Name or Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Re$ponsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of ResponSible Otticer Signature of ResponSible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Date I PART 1-PROJECT INFO.,JlATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may h;'ve a significant ef' on the environment Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be consldc as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additic information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. - It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not inv( new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable. so indicate and spe each instance. NAME OF ACTION JEM C')MMONS - LOCATION OF ACTION~I"CIUde Street AI'1~fess. Mun,ciPal"Ylnd countYh Road to Sound,Greenport, Su orth Roa" East 0 Soun. L.r. NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR Partner cio <t]8USINESSTELEPHONE JEM REALTY CO.. BY: EMANUEL KONTOKOSTA,PACHMAN & OSHR N (516) 543-220 AODRESS 366 veterans M~,mor ial Highway (P.O. Box 273) CITY/PO Commack, I STATE IZ1f NY NAME OF OWNER (If dltferfln\) ~~--~~'~--~""~~~~'~~~-~~-~~-T8USINESS-TEL-E';>iONE- JEM REALTY CO. ( J ADDRESS North Road, P.O. Box 67 - DfATEu ----------- CITY/PO I ZIP C Greenport, NY 1. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Rezoning of 62 acre parcel, as follows: PARCEL I : Most southerly 42+ acres from existing RaO-Residential L Dei'tSity Dist. (2 acre min. ) to Hamlet Density (HD) . PARCEL II: Most northerly 20+ acres from existing RaO Residential L Density District (2 acre min. ) to proposed R40-Residentia. J~-Densi ty Dlf.m-c~ fJ aCife ~n.) . Dist.lOOO,Sec. 35,Blk Vacant Ian nown on Su 0 ou tv ax an as ffol o OD~ 725 ODE L944 ow- ow- l Ple.se Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed 1. Present land use: DUrban Dlndustrial DForest DAgriculture .1,_ Lot 24. and undeveloped areas. DCommercial DResidenll21 (suburban) DOther DRural (non-fo 2. Total acreage of project area: APPROXIMAH ACRFACE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) W'etland (Freshw.ter or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) . Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other [Indicate type) 62 acres. 62 PRESENTL Y AFTERCc '\PLETIO~ -0- acres __ acre acres acre -0- acres acre -0- acres acre -0- acres acre -0- acres acre -0- acres acre -0- acres acre 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Sand/qravel DModerately well drained % of site a. Soil drainage: :[)Well drained 100 % of ~ite DPoorly drained % of site b. If any agriculturai ,and is involved, how many acres of soil are ciassified within soil group 1 through 4 of the 1 land Classification System? -0- acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on" project site? DYes QlNo a. What is depth to bedrock? N/A (in feet) 2 ,~_"_,,:,..,,",","~~.,,~".,,w, ,_ 5~ A~proximate pe'l'entage Q.osed.ject sire Wlth slopes: 1tJ0-1~ % ' 010-15% ~15% or greater ~ % s~te. or distr~t,. listed on the State or the Nati. Is project substantially contiguous to, or coMa1ii a building, Registers of Historic Placesl DVes :lONo' . . Is project substantiaf[y contiguous to a site listed OInheRegister of National Natural landmarks? What is the depth of the water tablel 30 .'). (in feet) . Is site lOcated over a primaiv, principal, or sole sourl:e aquifer? I2IVes DNo Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities pN"'~ntly exist in the project areal Does project sit.. contain any species' of' plant c;r~*,imal life that is identified as threatened or endange, Dves S3No According to Ider,tify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on 'the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formati< I2IVes DNo Describe 30 feet :t. hi qh bluffs to L. I. Snllncl DVes }C..; DVes lPNo 13. Is the project site preseatly used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation a, DVes KJNo H yes, explain 14 Does the present -sitein'cJude scenic v'iel.4J's:knowntooe important to the community? eVes KJNo 15. Streams Within or contiguous to proiect area: a. I~ame or Stream and name or River to which it is tributary Long Island Sound 16. Lakes, ponds. wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. ,'lame b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site ser/ed' by ~xisti;'g p~blic utilities? ~Yes eNo a} If Yes. does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? b) If Yes, will improvements be 'necessary to allow connection? IDVes DVes ONe :ONo 18. Is the site located in an "agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-, Section 303 and 3041 eYes ~No 19. Is the Site located in or su6:nari'ially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Articl, of the ECl. and 6 ,'JYCRR Qll? CXYes DNo 20. Has the site ever been use8 .for the disposal of soJid or hazardous wastes? DVes ~No B. 1. Project Description ,( Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimerisions as appropriate) a, Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled 'by project sponsor b. Project acreage to be developed: 6 2'acres initially; c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 30 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent 'o'f expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing ;t"'~ ; proposed " 1 7 0 g. ,Yjaximum vehicular trips generated per hour ,7;;;t (upon completion of projectl? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units:"" One Farniiy ~wo ~arlHry 170 62 acres. acres ultimately. %; Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of lilrgest proposed ,tructute, .28 height; 25 j. Linear feet of frontage along ,j pubficffi'oroughi3t8Lproject will occupy is? 3,(),> 'lengtH. width: 576 It. 3 2. How much natur 'ateri~~",e., rock. earth. etc.) will be r~ Ned fr . . 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? JaYes DNo DNIA a. If yes. for what intend"': purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamationl 19Ves .DNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? mes DNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees. shrubs. ground covers) will be removed from site/ 32 acres. S. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DVes 3lNo the site? none to."slcubic yards .l.!andscape ~ ~ 12 6. I f single phase project Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DVes XlNo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 150 Number of iobs eliminated by this project none months. (includin, demolitionl. (number). month month year. (including demolition). year. DVes DNo ; after project is complete 5 10. 11. \VilJ project require relocation of any projects or facilities? DYes XJNo I f yes, expiain 12, is surface liquid waste disposal involved? L]Ves XXNo a. If ves, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial. etc.) and amount b. ,Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. [5 subsurface liquid waste disposal invoived? XlVes DNa Type Sani tarv 14. \-Vill surface area or an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? DVes .eJ:fluent QllNo Explain 15. [5 prolect or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain! glVes DNo 16. \Vill the project generate solid waste? ~Yes :JNo a. If yes. what is the amount per month 10 tons b. If ves, will an eXisting solid waste facility be used! ~Ves DNo c. If yes, give name SOUTHOLD WASTE DISPOSAL location SOUTHOLD d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into asanitary landfill? DVes e. If Yes, explain :DNo 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid wastel a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes. what is the antiCipated site lifel DVes lDNo tons/month. years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticidesl DVes QllNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DVes QllNo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levelsl DVes QllNo 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? XlVes DNo If ves . indicate type(s) Gas fuel for h..I'lt, ; ng' electricity. -0- 22. 23. I f water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity Total antiCipated water usage per day~l...!..OOO _ gallonS/day. Does project involve Local. State or Federal funding? DVes If Yes, explain gallons/minute. 24. lONo 4 .., 25. Approvals Required: . City. Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City. Town Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other Local Agencies Other Regional Agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies . :tJVes DNo ttJVes DNo DVes ~No KJVes DNo DVes XlNo ~Ves .:JNo !8JVes eNo DVes gJNo . . Type Submitt Date ~ezoning.. Site Plan Approval 7/90 12/90 a-tter-,-r, zon~nr Sewaqe treatment Dot-tie in CR 4B Costal Erosion Ha2 Act. C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? I1\lVes DNo If Yes, indicate decision required: :rJzoning amendment Dzoning variance lDspecial use permit Dsubdivision Xlsite plan Dnew/revision of master plan Dresource management plan Dother 2 Wh . h . I 'f' . ()' fR-8 0' 1l.esidential Low-Density District (2 ac.m . at IS t e zoning c assl !catlon 5 or the site?' ." _ 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 31 res~dential units 4. What is the proposed zoninl1}fifi~~ite~: Hamlet J:'ensitv \!"llJpARCEL II: RESIDENTIAL-: LOW-DENSITY DIST.(l ac. S. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 170 residential units 6. 15 the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? :[JVes 7. What are the predominant laQd usefs) aDd zQning,classifications within a V. mile radius of proposed action? (HD) Hamlet Dens~ty L~ght Bu~~ness, Residential Low-De~sity District . (R 48) -4.' :::1""''''''0 mlnlml)! 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjOining/surrounding land uses within a V. mile? :[JVes I 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? 1 7 0 a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 100' x 110' Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? DVes I. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, po fire protection)? ~Ves DNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? iDVes DNo Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? IllIVes 10. 11. 12. XlVes DNo. l~ D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adv, impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigat' avoid them. '-'~." E. Verification I certify that th Applicant/Sponsor Signature If the action is in the Coastal Area. .n~ u with this assessment. Date Feb. /2- Owner 19 Title Partner a state agency. complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceed . 5 . . . Town Hal!. 53095 Main Road P,O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 ."'" PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 8, 1989 Judith Terry Town Clerk Southold, NY 111971 RE: Change of Zone Jem Realty SCTM #1000-35-1-124 Dear Mrs. Terry: The fOllowing action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on June 5, 1989. After a presentation by Marie Ongioni on behalf of Jem Realty Company, it was 'RESOLVED to recommend to the Town Board that the Change of Zone from R80 Residential Low-Density District to ED Hamlet Density Residential District be denied for the following reasons: The Planning Board does not see the need for the change of zone: There is an approved, but not yet developed, three-hundred unit development adjacent to the proposed parcel which currently has problems obtaining water and sewer approvals. There is also a proposal in the vicinity of the parcel in question, for one hundred units of both affordable and non-affordable units. For the above reasons, the Planning Board does not see the current need for the change of zone. +' If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. cc: Marie Ongiona jt ~' ei<:iruly Y'ju7rs /) <7 L . V ~ v.. 'W~":E-fji/f CHAIRMAN v/ r " : ~ r~ rn 0 ~: '~,c"---' i.: .. "118, L=f" . . . . ~ JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR Of VITAL STATISTICS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 15,1989 Lead Agency Coordination Request The purpose of this request is to determine under Article'S (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the application and a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Jem Realty Co. Requested Action: Petition for a change of zone from R-SO Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum) to HD Hamlet Density Residential District on certain property located on the northerly side of North Road (NYS Route 25), east of Sound Drive, Greenport, New York. SEQRA ClassificCltion: Unlisted. Contact Person: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold. The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. I fyou have an interest in being lead agency. please contact this office immediately. I f no response is received from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, it will be assumed that your agency has no interest in being lead agency. " .a Page 2. . . . . Agency Position: [ 1 This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. [Xl This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. [ 1 Other. (See comments below.) Comments: Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Very truly yours. ~y~ Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures Copies of this request and all attachments to the following: Commissioner Jorling. NYS-DEC. Albany Robert Greene. NYS-DEC. Stony Brook Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Copy only to: Marie Ongioni, Attorney. for Jem Realty Co. Town Clerk's Bulletin Board . . . . JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PJLJL ~-l May 12,1989 " 'UU MAY I 6 ~ L____... SOUTHIlLD TOWN PLANt!!J!.9li!:S.L Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the petition of Jem Realty Co. requesting a change of zone from R-80 Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum) to HD Hamlet Density Residential District on certain property located on the northerly side of North Road (NYS Route 25), east of Sound Drive, Greenport, New York. Please prepare an official report defining the conditions described in said petition and determine the area so affected by your recommenda- tion, and transmit same to me. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~ Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Attachments . ~~~ fo) ~ @ ~ 0 WI ~.rm ln1 .u.. I ... j~ SOUTHOLD TOWN PlANNING BOARD SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Town Board of the Town of Southold . Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: July 5, 1989 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The 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. Title of Action: Greenport Commons by Jem Realty Co. SEQR Status: Unlisted Action, one involved agency Project Description: Proposed rezoning of a 62+ acre parcel, from "R-80" residence district to "RD" Residence district, for the purposes of constructing a condominium complex. Page 1 of 3 Town of Southold SEQR Positive Declaration Location: North side of North Road (C.R. 48), east of Sound Road, Southold, New York '!&. I Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, and the following specific reasons: 1) The project site contains eroding headlands associated with the Harbor Hill terminal moraine, a unique physical feature. 2) The project may result in groundwater contamination in the North Fork Water Budget area. . 3) The project will result in a significant increase in water demand, in an area where the Greenport Water District is experiencing difficulty in meeting current demand. 4) The proposed action could cause substantial erosion. 5) The project will result in wildlife habitat loss and alteration. 6) The project will irreversibly utilize more than 10 acres of productive agricultural soil. 7) The project may impact cultural resources. 8) The project will impact open space resources. 9) The project will cause an increase in traffic generation. 10) The project is not compatible with land use plans based upon the zoning maps. In addition, the precedent setting nature of the project (cumulative impacts), as well as the need for the project in view of other "HD" zoning in the Town, must be determined. The Planning Board is opposed to the project. Page 2 of 3 . . T:>wn of Southold SEQR Positive Declaration For Further Information: Contact Person: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold (516 )J65-1801 Address: Phone No.: Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Applicant - Marie Ongioni, Attorney, on behalf of Jem Realty Co. Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning . NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Nee'ds of Long Island Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Page 3 of 3 CRAMER, VO ENVIRONMENTAL OCIATES CONSULTANTS LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PARTS I, " AND III ( GREENP(J)RI COM~~ONS Southold, New York REVIEW AGENCY: Southold Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 JUNE, 1989 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MII:LER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 -, J 14-16-2 (2/87)-7c . . " 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FUll ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (, Purpo;e: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner. whether a or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer, Fr- Iy, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who de; significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environ analysis_ In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns af the question of significance. . The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the de term process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or . Full EAF Componenls: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: ParI 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic f data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. ParI 2: Focuses on identifYing the range of possible impacts thaI may OCcur from a project or action. It pr gUidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a pate' 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 potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or n impact is actually important. . ( DETERMINA nON OF SIGNIFICANCE _ Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Par lions of EAF camp Ie led for this project: ag Part 1 IKl Part 2 oPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other support: information, and considering both the magi tude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by t lead agency that: o A_ The project will not result in any large and important impact(sj and. therefore, is one which will . have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaralion will be prepared, o [J, Although the project could have a Significant effect on the environment, there \ViII not be a significa effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been require therefore a CONDITIONED negalive declaralion' will be prepared.' Xc. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impa on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. . A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions G 72r-~JVPor.>r- ChHH(lJV!: Name of Action SOU7H<1~ I O~N 6>at72.1'l NJlnc of lCcld Agency Print or fypc Name of R~.~ponsjblc Officer in I.cad Acency SignJture of I~espon~iblc Officer in lead Agency , ~ Yc/Nl: 22) Signature of PrCPilrcr(1f different from l 19119 Date 1 . LONG EAF PART I --""',\\\ 't'" -::;?;'.\.- ".., CRAMER, V09RHt~. &/ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT"t~t~tO~~~G CONSULTANTS . . PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION , .,\ Prepared by Project Sponsor . NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significa on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to th~se questions will be cc as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification a~d public,review, Provide any a, information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. . It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be depend.ent on information 'currently 'available and will no new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate an. each instance. NAME OF ACTION ORT COMMONS LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Slleel Address, Municipality and County) EAST FO SOUND ROAD NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR MARIE ONGIONI,ESQ TO L.I.SOUND ADDRESS 218 Front Street Greenport BUSINESS TELEPHONE (516) 477-2048 CITY/PO NAME OF OWNER (If different) E A UEL KONTOKOSTA i ZLPCO' 1194' ADDRESS North Road CITY/PO ZIP cor 1194 ' Green)ort DESCRIPTION OF ACTION RE-ZONING OF 62 ACRE PARCEL FROM R-80 to HAMLET DENSITY (5C.TU# IC>oo- :::S-/-z1 Please Complete Each Question-I~dicale N.A. if nol applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: DUrban Dlndustrial DCommercial DResidential (suburban) DForest DAgriculture DOther acres. KlRural (n. 2. Total acreage of project area: APPROXIMA TE ACREAGE Meadow or l3rushland {Non.agricultural! 62 Foresteu Agricultural (Includes orchards. cropland, pasture. etc) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECl) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) 3. What .s predominant soil type(s) on project site? .1. Soil urJill.Jgc; Jgwcll drained 100 % of s.itc Droorly drained % of site u. If any acriculturalland is invol~1.i]..:. how many acres of soil .lre c1.lSsificd wilhin soill;rollp I through'l of t land Classification System? acres. (5ee 1 NYCRR 370). li-r ME:7~ ~CULrulZA1-- PRESENTl Y /17 .- ,Jcres -0- AFTER CG.'vIPLE- -u- acrcs -u- -u- ,JCfl~S acrcs -u acres -0- -u- .lercs Jeres acres Sand/Gravel PlI3 I ~A O,\loclcr<Jtcly wt..'1I dr .li~cu ~~ or site 4. Are ,here bedrock outcroppings o{JJ'J.oiect sile! a. What is depth to bedrock? DYes :'0lNo (in feet) 2 I) 5. Approximate pe . . .ltage of proposed project site with slopes: XlilO-10% g, J'-l2J15% or greater 5 building. site. or district, listed on % 010:15% % 6. Is prOject substantially contiguous to, or contain a Registers of Historic Placesl DVes tThIo C[ '. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural landmarks? 8. What is the depth of the waler tablel 30 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~Ves DNo 10, Do hunting. fishing or shell fishing Opportunities presently exist in the project area? 11, Does project site contain any species of plan~. or animal life that is identified as DVes IDNo According to Identify each species the State or the Natie DVes ;C DYes xUNo 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? .(i.e,. cliffs, dUfe~ othe~ geological formatio 't2!Ves DNo Describe 30 ft +/- high bluffs to L. . oun threatened or endanger. 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation arc DVes IDNo If yes, explain 14. Doe~e resent site include scenic views known to be important to the communityl es x~No _ . 15. strea s within or contiguous to project area: Long Island Sound a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 17. ( 16. lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name b. Size (In acres) Is the site served by existing public utilitiesl GaVes DNo 6RIr'"'InJI'A1tT tVl'rnN-t ()'s; a) If Yes, d~es sufficient capacity exist to allow connectionl 19Yes ~o IS NAY',,-,- (JIF-F"-Ic.Ul.ry b) If Yes, w,lI,mprovements be necessary to allow connecllon? DYes ;' ~o M"'<rnN' OG'M"t7Uj 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets law, Article 25-A~ Section 303 and 3041 DYes ;ONo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguOUS to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NVCRR 61n ~Yes DNo 20, Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastesl DVes JfJN 0 B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project Sponsor b. Project acreage to be developed: 6 2 a~res initially; 4l:l . c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped acres. d. length or project. in miles: ----- (If appropri.,te) C'. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion propolicd ------ 24l:l f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing ; proposed g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 60 (upon co. mpletion ~r ~ojecll?/'; ~\ h. If residenlial: Numb.'" alld type o( housilll: units: 110 - I"?O 7,e/~ Irh"l. .z:7C/ /~f!J'lJ One Family Two F.lmily lvIuil'ple Fall\lly COlldominium 248 62 acres. acres ultimately. No :r, n::- .i' LhN ~V8/'f /17f!'r) %; l InitiJlly Ultim1llely, i. Dimensions (in reel) o( largest proposed structure 28 height; 75 j. linear feet of (rontage along a public thoroughfare project will OCCUpy is? , . width: 576 40 (t. length. 3 . . 2. How much natural material (Le., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the sitel none 3. to",/cubi~ landscaped 9. 10. 11, 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c, Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases I 8. Will blasting occur during constructionl DYes :tVNo Number of jobs generated: during construction 150 b f 'b I" d.b h' . none Num er 0 )0 s e Immate y t IS proJect. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilitiesl 12 months, (including demolition). (number). month month DYes year, (including demol year. DNo < 5 ; after project is complete DYes ~No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involvedl DYes xe9No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc,) alld amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid wa~te disposal involved? ~Yes DNo Type sani tart effluent 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? DYes JSNo Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plainl Yes DNo 16. WiI' the project generate solid wastel ~es ~No a. If yes, what is the amount per month /~ tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be usedl ~es DNo . c. If yes, give name SOU THf)LO l./t"NhFJU- location SOU 7)-/.0(..0 d. Will any wastes nol go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ~es DNa e. If Ycs, expfain ~fll'1h/~ 17. Will thc projcct involve thc disposal of solid wastcl DYcs )QlNo a. If yes, what is thc anticipated rate of disposal? tons/mollth. b, If ycs, what is the anticipatcd site life? years. 10. Will project use hcrbicidcs or Pcs,ticides? DYcs ~o 1~. Will projcct routincly producc odors (morc than onc hOllr pcr day)? DYcs ENo 20. \Vd' project produce operating noise exceeding the local ~ambient noise levels? 21. \Vi/J project result in an increase in energy use? x~cs DNa If yes, indicatc typds) Gas fuel for heating 22. If Watcr supply is from wells, indicatc pumping capacity -0- 23. Total antlcipatcd watcr usagc per day 3~gallons/day. 24. Docs Prolcct involve Local, State or Fcdcral funding? DYes If Ycs, cxplain DYcs Xe9No -0- !:allons/minutc. #0,000 - S"Z', 000 UNo ~PO 4 c. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? milYes DNo If Yes, indicate decision required: Knoning amendment Dzoning variance xlillspecial use permit Dsubdivision ~ite plan Dnew/revision of master plan Dresource management plan Dother 2. What is the zoning c1asSification(s)of the site? R _ R P 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 31 Residential units What is lhe proposed zoning of the site? HD What is the maximum potential development of lhe site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 248. Res. units 'j 4. 5. ( 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? xUYes What are the predominant land users) and zoning classifications within a V. mile radius of proposed action( Hamlet Densitl::,1Lig~.~siness,R_40 . R-80 " Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V. mile? B','es If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/ A ' a. What is lhe minimum lot size proposed? Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? DYes Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation. education, pc fire protection)l 1QYes DNo IfUST Be- OG7l!!'teHINE"D a. If yes. is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? tT,'es DNo Will the proposed action result in the generation ,?f traffic Significantly above present levels? xCJYes a. If yes. is the existing road nelwork adequale to handle the additional traffic? "ElYes DNo HcJs.r I$~ D~R.MIIV~ ([ 25. Approvals ~uired: City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City, Town Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other local Agencies Other Regional Agencies Slate Agencies Federal Agencies !gYes DNo ~Yes DNa DYes :lgNo ;Q1Yes DNo DYes IDlNo ~YeS_112lNo ~es }QlNo DYes JQ!No Type Subm Da Re-zoninq Site plan approval approx . 4/9( Sewaqe Treatment after re-201 "nt="-IN ~ C.R.48 GD.....TAL {t:;'~Dt:I(#AI ,,~"' 1 RQ /t"(;~ PFAl ~ 12. Xi , r D. Informational Details Att.lch .lny addition,,1 information ,lS m.lY be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adv imp,lets .lS.oeiated with your proposal. pl".15e discu.. such impacts and the me.15l1re. which you propo.e to nutigat avoid lhem. E. Verification '" I cerrlty tli:'t the information provjljed a~ov!, is true to the be.t ot my, knowledge ( Applicant/Sponsor Name Rt'G=" UJ6 01/ flU ~ '- . / SiJ,:nature H 'he! .1Clion is in II wilh this .:usessment. Date ~/cr9 / f Title -??/l,e'r7-I'F.l'c ~ / . lat~ o1~cncy, complele lite C0.1sl.11 Assessment Form before proceed 5 . LONG EAF PART II '~:" IYb, CRAMER, VQQRH1,$ ~lfASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~~~~G CONSULTANTS <, . .... Plrt 2-PROJECT IM.PACTS Aid) THEIR MAGNITUDE ....1IIIIIIIIty of Lu4 AI.., ,fE,-\ Ge...,allnfonnatlon (Read Carefully) · e.l completina the form the reviewer should be auided by the question: Have my responses and A~terminations l:; rea_lIIel The reviewer Is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. · Identifylna that an impact will be potentially lar.. (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily llpi~~ Any larae impact must be evaluated In PART 3 to determine sianificance. ldentifyina an impact in column 2 s~ asks that it be looked at further. · The Example. provided are to assist the reviewer by showina types of impacts and wherever poSSible the threshold maanitude that would triller a response in column~. The exarnples are aenerally applicable tIvouahout the StAte .. for most situations. But. for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds mlY be appropcia for a Potential larae Impact response, thus requlrlna evlluation In Plrt 3. · The Impacts of each project, on each site, in elch locality. will vary. Therefore, the examples Ire illustrative a. have been oHered as auidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to a~ each questic · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. · In identifyina impacts, consider lona term, short term and cumlative effects. IMtructlo. (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 answerina Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of tl impact If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example prOYicled, check column 2. If impact will occur but thresho is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then conside; the impact as potentially larae and proceed to PART e. If I potentially larae impact checked in column 2 cln be mitipted by chanae(s) in the project to a small to modera impact. also chedc the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. Th .. must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical chiD" to the pro~s' DNO ES Examples that would Ipply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or areater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of lenath), or where the aeneral slopes in the project area exceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet · Construction of paved parkina area for 1.000 or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or aenerally within 3 feet of existina around surface. · Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. . Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. . Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a deSignated f100dway. · Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect t.. _.IY unIque or unusual land forms f~n the sitel (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, leoloaical formations. etc.)DNO fiVES . Specific land forms: BLLJ FF"':> e 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impacl ~ Moderate Large Mltlgllted By - \iiiPIiCf linpact P.~~ 0 )( ~s oNo 0 0 Dyes oNo [l 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes ONe 0 0 DYes ONe 0 X ~es ONe r- . IMPACT ON WATER 3 'Nill proposed action affect any water body desianated as protected! (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental conserv~t' n law, Eel) NO DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected water body. · Dredaina more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. · Extension of utility distribution facilities throuah a protected water body. . · Construction in a desianated freshwater or tidal wetland. · Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected eXist~' a r new body of water! 0 DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. . · Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impacts: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or aroundwater ~ quality or quantity!. DNa ES Eumples that would apply ~ column 2 · Proposed Action will require .Ii discharae permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to; serve proposed. (project) action. · Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with areater than 45 aallons per minute pumpina tapacity. · Construction or operation causina any contamination of a water supply system. . · Proposed Action will adversely affect aroundwater. · liquid effluent will be conveye<l off the site to facilities whi.h presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 aallons per day. · Proposed Action will lik"I" ta,,3" siltation or other discharae into an existina body of water tv tI-,,,, "":Icntthat there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. . Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. · Other impacts: ( J' Will proposed action alter drainaae flow or patterns, or ~ce - water runoffr DNa ~ES Eu;nples that would apply to column 2 . Propc.st'd Action would chanae flood water flows. 7 . 1 2 3 Small to PotenUal Can Impact Moderate Large M Itlg.tlel Impact Impact Project CM - 0 0 DVes 0 0 DVes 0 0 Dves 0 0 Dves 0 0 oVes 0 0 DVes 0 0 DVes 0 0 DVes - 0 ~ ~~. 0 . DVes 0 0 DVes 0 0 Dves 0 0 Dves 0 0 DVes 0 X DVes 0 0 DVes L 0 0 DVes I 0 0 Dves I 0 0 DVes L 0 0 DVes I 0 D DVes l o o o o o o o o o o o o L U 9 ~ · Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. · Proposed Action is incompatible with existinl draina.e pattems. · Proposed Action will allow development in a desianated f100dway. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air qualityl ~ DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 r'- · Proposed Action will induce 1.000 or more vehicle trips in any liven hour. · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. · Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 Ibs. per hour or a heat source producinl more than 10 million BTU's per hour. · · Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existinl industrial areas. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS S. Will Proposed Action affect any tlveatened or endanaered speciesl DNa DYES bamples that would apply to column i ' · Reduction of one or more species listed on the N_ Yort 01' Federal list. usin. the site, over or near site or found on the site. · Removal of any portion of a critical or silnificant wildlife habitat · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year. other than for alricultural purposes. · Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially aHect non-threatened or ).t. non-endan.ered speciesl DNa ~ES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or milratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources~ DNa ES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The proposed action would sever. cross or limit access to aancultural land (includes cropland. hayfields. pasture. vineyard. orchard. etc.) 8 ~ 1 2 a Small to Potential Can I"",.et ~ M...te Large Mm..iJjdBy Impact Impact PrGf_.il~; 0 ~ DYes ON-: 0 DYes ON.: 0 0 DYes ON.: 0 0 DYes ON.: 0 0 Dyes ON.: 0 0 DYes ON.: 0 0 DYes ON. 0 0 Dyes ON- 0 0 Dyes ON. 0 0 Dyes . ON. -. " - . .. 0 I 0 Dyes 'ON. 0 0 Dyes ON. 0 0 DYes ON, 0 0 Dyes ON. X 0 DYes ON' 0 0 oVes ON, 0 0 DYes ON, r. . . Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. . The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or. if located in an Agricultutal District. more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. . The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines. outlet ditches. strip croppina); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) . Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES ~ 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources! DNO YE5 (If necessary. use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 17.21., Appendix B.) bamples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed land uses. or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns. whether man-made or natural. .' . Proposed land uses. or project components visible' to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. . Other impacts: . -~~II to 1 Pot:ntlal Moderate large Impact Impact o 0 o ~ 3 Can Impact Be MItigated By ProJect Change DYes ONo )!f..Yes ONo o 0 DYes ONo o 0 DYes ONo 0 )(. )lYes ON;: 0 y{ ~es ONi: 0 0 DYes ON. 0 0 DYes ON< IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of histo~re- historic or paleontological importance! DNO YES Examples'that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially 0 0 DYes ON. 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 0 0 DYes ON. project site. . Proposed Action will occur in an area deSignated as sensitive for 0 0 DYes ON archaeological siteen the NYS Site Inventory. 0 J\ ~es ON · Other impacts: :~~:;; (: ~~ ':f Zf(~ gll~ AntJRU. I . I" I IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existina or future open spaces or recreational opportunities! _ Examples that would apply to column 2 DNO tfES { IThe !)ermanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportun' . 0 0 DYes ON .~. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. 0 ~ DYes ON . Other impacts: 0 DYes Ji(N 7t1~r IJAI I1JAO. /(,'hJ~ _~ouru, VI SI Ru:T F~b/"1 C.1? ~8. -- g' . . IMPACT ON TRAN~RTATlON ~... Will there be an effect to existin. transportation system" ~ . DNO YES bamples that would apply to column 2 . Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or .oods. · Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. · Other impacts: Phl!1:rtrPr ~ . JIhlVA'W..&:L\I A#!:'F'PO'J- i'$Y/~rJN~ 772.~~~A ~"AI .<1i..r~~ IMPACT ON ENIRGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's so~ of fuel or ener.y supplyl ~O DYES bample. that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a .reater than 5% increase in the use of any form of ener.y in the municipality. . Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an eneray transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 sin.le or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. , · Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTI 16. Will there be objectionable odors. noise. or vibra~' as a result of the Proposed ActIonl. . . OYES ~ Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blastin. within 1.500 feet of a hospital. school or other sensitive facility. · Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). . .. -... -- · Proposed Action will produce opera tin. 1I0ise exceedin. the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. · Other impacts: - IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safe'tl.o ~ DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil. pesticides. chemicals. radiation. etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions. or there may be a chronic low level discharle or emission. . Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in,any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous. highly reactive, radioactive. irritatinl, infectious, etc.) . Storale facilities for one million or more lallons of Iiquified natural las or other flammable liquids. . Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2.000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. . Other impacts: 1" ,.____"'"__.__~,__.__.....""___".,._..-u,,__..,.,""'"'~..,~__..,."_ . 1 2 3 Small to Pot"'.... Can IIRI*! Moderat. Laroe MlllO.._. Impact Impact ProjeCt CIIa 0 0 OVes 0 0 0 OVes 0 0 .x OVes 0 0 0 OVes 0 0 0 OVes 0 0 0 OVes 0 .ar.' . 0 0 OVes 0 0 0 OVes 0 - . p 0 OVes 0 0 0 oVes 0 0 0 oVes 0 0 0 OVes C 0 0 oVes c: 0 0 DYes C 0 0 DYes [ 0 0 oVes [ . " , . " IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD . 111 Will proposed action affect the character of the existin, com~1 ONO ~ES Elamples that would apply to column 2 . The permanent population of the city, town or villaae in which the project is located is likely to ,row by more than 5%. . The municipal bud,et for capital expenditures oroperatin, services will increase by more than 5" per year as a result of this project. . Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or ,oals. . Proposed action will cause a chan,e in the density of land use. . Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existin, facilities. structures or areas of historic importance to the community. . Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.,. schools. police and fire. etc.) . Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. . Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. . Other impacts: 19. Is there. or is there likely to be. public potential adverse environmental impactsl . . - -- ----- - - 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impa Moderate Large MItigated Impact Impact Project Ch -- --- - 0 0 DYes 0 0 DYes 0 * DYes 0 DYes 0 0 DYes X 0 DYes 0 ~ DYes 0 DYes 0 0 DYes ct~ It. an- ON 01'1 ~ ON ot J8tt ot ot controversy rela~,to ONO J"l\,ES C' 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 A,ency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially ~r,e. even if the impact(s) ma mltlpted. Instrudions Discuss the followin, for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be miti,ated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project chan 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 occurrina . 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 diver,ence from local needs and goals . Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) - LONG EAF PART III ,'ffi,.\\ I!/I.'.\ ,. Ij,rI CRAMER, VQ()RHl~ ~;ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~ANO..$~~G CONSULTANTS .- . . LEAF Part III Greenport Commons LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PART III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS PROJECT Greenport Commons Located on the north side of North Road (C.R. 48), east of Sound Road, Southold, New York APPLICANT Marie Ongioni, Esq. 218 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 . DATE June 22, 1989 INTRODUCTION The proposed project as well as the environmental character of the project site is described in detail in the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) Part I. The LEAF Part II, evaluates the project impacts and their magnitude. This section of the LEAF is intended to provide additional information on the importance of the impacts of the proposed project on the environment, in order to form the basis for the adoption of a determination of significance. The LEAF Part III is prepared if one or more impacts are considered as being potentially large, as identified in the LEAF Part II. This section will briefly describe the each potentially large impact, available mitigation, and importance. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS * The project will result in a physical change to the project site. /~\\ /If/,li\ CRAMER, VOORHIS, a,i,AS$OCIATES ENVIRONMENT AL'AND, PLANNING CONSULTANTS ,..... vI/II \\~ Page 1 of 6 LEAF Part III Greenport Commons The proposed project involves a 62 acre parcel which stretches between C.R. 48 and Long Island Sound. The north side of the site (bordering Long Island Sound), exhibits extreme slopes and is subject to coastal erosion. The eroding face of the Harbor Hills terminal moraine, is considered a unique and sensitive resource which should be protected in terms of land use. The proposed development of the property, if not properly planned, could create significant erosion, through improper handling of runoff, excavation, bluff destabilization, or other means. In addition, the protection of property and structures proposed to be located on this site is important in terms of setbacks and planning. Due to the proposed density of development, the specific site design, grading, setbacks and clearing limits, must be proposed in order to determine the significance of this impact. Mitigation includes: preservation of ' natural buffers, use of clustering, runoff control, use of berms, and landscape stabilization. * The proposed action will affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity. The proposed action is located in Groundwater Management Zone IV. The site is not located in the water budget area for the North Fork, thereby minimizing the significance of potential groundwater contamination. Site recharge is expected to discharge into the nearshore waters of Long Island Sound. It is recommended that a non-degradation policy for site recharge be utilized, through limiting the anticipated concentration of nitrogen in recharge to less than 6 milligrams/liter. Based upon statistical analysis performed by Cornell University, this will give an adequate safeguard that the drinking water standard of 10 mg/l will not be violated. Nitrogen is a primary water quality concern with regard to residential development, due to sewage treatment plant discharge and fertilizer usage. The proposed project involves a significant increase in density above what is presently permitted by zoning. In addition, the reuse of an agricultural field will require landscaping with fertilizer dependent vegetation. Accordingly, the issue of groundwater quality with respect to site development is a significant potential impact which must be examined in CRAMER. vo~1\ &JA\SOCIATES ENVJRONMENTA~Pi;>\...AJIINING CONSULTANTS '- ,il/l;-'\\\~- Page 2 of 6 . . LEAF Part III Greenport Commons detail. Mitigation includes: density reduction, and limitation on the use of fertilizer dependent vegetation. The quantity of water available for existing and proposed population is also a significant issue. Water supply on the North Fork is limited dUe to the elevation of groundwater above sea level, as a function of the depth of the fresh water lense. Due to the limited nature of the resource, the Greenport Water District as the local purveyor, has had difficulty meeting demand. This issue has had implications with regard to buildout of an approved "HD" complex adjacent the site, due to the inability of the purveyor to provide water supply. The District is currently expanding well fields and conducting studies to determine a means of increasing production by 1 million gallons/day (MGD) , in order to meet present demand and provide servIce to approved projects. Consequently, it is extremely important to provide for orderly growth in order to plan for water supply needs. The proposed project will cause an increase in the demand for water, above what would be allowed under present zoning. Anticipated water needs could range from 40,000 to 50,000 gallons/day, depending upon the bedroom composition of the proposed 128 condominium units. The water supply needs and impacts must be examined in detail in conjunction with this change of zone. Mitigation includes: density reduction, conformance with the North Fork Water Supply Plan, phased development, and water use restrictions. In addition, the North Fork Water Supply Plan recommends that new developments provide self sufficiency in terms of water supply, and add additional supply to local water supply systems. This recommendation has become a policy of land use planning in this water quantity sensitive area, and is recognized as a mitigation measure. * The proposed action will alter drainage flow patterns. The control of runoff on site is extremely important in terms of maintaining stability and setbacks from eroding bluffs. Proposed development could result in alteration of drainage patterns, due to grading and tree clearing, which could in turn exacerbate erosion potential. The design must be considered in detail in order to minimize the impact on erosion. Mitigation ~\\\ /7/1A CRAMER, VOQRHIS, ~;'A'SSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL >AND pi:ANNING CONSULTANTS '~ "vliir--\\&, Page 3 of 6 LEAF Part III Greenport Commons includes: avoid and buffer steep slope areas, provide at least 5 inches of runoff containment, minimize grading and maximize retention of natural vegetation. * The proposed action may affect non-threatened or non-endangered species of wildlife. The proposed action involves the significant alteration of an abandoned agricultural field. The site has had the opportunity to revegetate with pioneer species thereby creating a habitat which is suitable to a variety of species. The wildlife occupying the site must be inventoried, and the design of the project analyzed in order to determine impacts. To date, insufficient information is available to assess impacts. The habitat which the site provides is limited in the area due to the large size of this ihdividual parcel and the stage of succession which the parcel is in. Possible mitigation includes: protection of the more significant areas of the property, aligning contiguous open space, preservation of buffer areas and greenbelts. * The proposed project will affect agricultural land resources. The proposed project involves the use of a former agricultural farm, for the purpose of residential housing. The 32 acre site is partially comprised of Haven Loam soils which has a high soil productivity rating. This use would permanently foreclose the option of future agricultural land use on the site. The impact is potentially large due to the foregoing concerns, and cannot be mitigated by a project change. It is recognized that agricultural use in itself can cause significant impacts upon groundwater. In addition, it is recognized that there are numerous other areas of the Town where agricultural use is occurring, thereby partially minimizing the magnitude of this impact. * The proposed project will affect aesthetic resources. The proposed project will result in a significant change in the existing aesthetic resources of the site. A portion of the site is located on the bluffs overlooking Long Island Sound. This feature makes the ~~'\ /;1/~ CRAMER, VOORHIS, ~~SOCIA TES ENVIRONMENTA~\P,' iNG CONSULTANTS 'III. \\\\\- Page 4 of 6 . . LEAF Part III Greenport Commons site desirable for real estate marketing; however, the site also provides a unique resource which should be considered in planned development. The project site is presently an abandoned agricultural field. This ~etting provides views across the site in keeping with the rural character of the area. The project calls for high density housing, which would significantly alter this character. The site is highly visible as it has 580 feet of frontage on a well travelled County Road. Accordingly, the impact is of great magnitude. Possible mitigation includes the following: architectural and site design considerations, use of clustering, buffering and retention of open space. * Project may adversely affect pr~-historic resources. There is little information regarding the aboriginal resources of the Town. The North Fork is in an area of intensive aboriginal habitation, in terms of archaeological sensitivity, as determined by the Suffolk County Archaeological Association (SCAA, 1979). Consequently, there is a potential for irreversible loss of cultural resources. A Stage lA, archaeological investigation is therefore recommended, in order to further document the sensitivity of the site. Mitigation cannot be determined until the resources are identified, however, it is expected that the magnitude of impacts can be minimized through site design, resource documentation, and other means to be determined. * The project will cause an effect upon existing transportation systems. The project will result in the generation of traffic commensurate with the project density, and type of land use. Added traffic may have an impact in the capacity or level of service of area roadways, and must be quantified and analyzed, particularly with respect to seasonal traffic flow. Degradation of the existing level of service is considered to be a significant impact, which would require mitigation. Potential mitigation could include: reduction of trip generation; addition of turning lanes; signalization; signage; and /!'@.~\ If!~ CRAMER, VOORHIS, &Y,ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA~-AND,'~L~G CONSULTANTS Page 5 of 6 LEAF Part III Greenport Commons intersection improvements, depending upon the magnitude of the impact. * The proposed action will affect the character of the existing community. The proposed project site is presently zoned for low density residential use (R-80), which could potentially yield 31 residential units. The proposal calls for a change of zoning to "HD" Hamlet Density, for a project of 248 units. This is a significant increase in density which is inconsistent with the goals of the community as reflected on the land use map. This density increase will in turn cause a demand for community and recreational services, the magnitude of which must be determined. There is p'resently a 136~ acre "HD" adjacent to and east of th. subject site. Therefore, the appropriateness and need for expansion of the hamlet density zoning in this area is questioned. In addition, the proposal if granted would tend to create a precedent for additional density increases on other properties in the area, resulting in cumulative impacts. The ability of the area to support this growth is of concern. The magnitude of the impact cannot be determined until more detail is available regarding the specific project. Mitigation could include: density limitations, on site amenities, and impact fees. CONCLUSION The proposed action is expected to have a significant impact upon the environment, as discussed above. It is recommended that a Positive Declaration be issued in order to provide the proper public and interagency forum, for critical evaluation of the project and anticipated impacts upon the environment. ,~s~\ !;''& CRAMER, VOORHIS ~~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA~Dj;j J~G CONSULTANTS Page 6 of 6 ,. . . ~PzuL ~ If'To-'re. n \fl ~ ..~. ~ LS~)\SU --'\ U-;.---- :' I ll..' , AI"~ r \. J SOU1110LD 10WM PLANMING BOARD SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Town Board of the Town of Southold t'. Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: July 5, 1989 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617. of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The 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. Title of Action: Southold Commons by Emanual Kontokosta SEQR Status: Unlisted Action, one involved agency Project Description: Proposed rezoning of a 32~ acre parcel, from "R-80" residence district to "HD" Residence district, for the purposes of constructing a condominium complex. Page 1 of 3 Town of Southold SEQR Positive Declaration Location: South of North Road, between Boisse~i ~nd Railroad Avenue, Southold, New York Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, and the following specific reasons: 1) The project may result in groundwater contamination in the North Fork Water Budget area. 2) The project will result in a significant increase in water demand, in an area where the G,eenport Water District is experiencing difficulty tn meeting current demand. 3) The project will result in wildlife habitat loss and alteration. 4) The project will irreversibly utilize more than 10 acres of productive agricultural soil. 5) The project may impact historic and pre-historic resources. 6) The project will impact open space resources. 7) The project will cause an increase in traffic generation. 8) The project is not compatible with land use plans based upon the zoning maps. In addition, the precedent setting nature of the project (cumulative impacts), as well as the need for the project in view of other "HD" zoning in the Town, must be determined. The Planning Board is opposed to the project. For Further Information: Contact Person: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold (516) 765-1801 Address: Phone No.: Page 2 of 3 . . Town of Southold SEQR Positive Declaration Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Boa~d Applicant- Marie Ongioni. Attorney. on behalf of E;manual Kontokosta Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department .. Page 3 of 3 CRAMER, vOaA\,.J~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL ~~CONSULTANTS LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PARTS I, " AND /II . 8([)UTH(~)l[) (()t)MMO)N8 Southold, New York REVIEW AGENCY: South old Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 JUNE, 1989 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MI~LER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 14:16-2 (2/B7)-7c .. ,.(" ~ ',. . . . 32 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental auallly Review (. FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, ", Purpo~e: The full EAF is desig~ed to help applicants and agencies determine. In' an orderly manner, whether a pre or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant Is not always easy to answer. Frequ Iy, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who deterr significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environme analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in on~parUcular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affec the question of significance. ' , The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determina process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature. yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or act . ~\ d ,I. .L.i.;. " s' . Full EAF Componen'ls: The full' EAF I; ~omprised of three parts: ". ., ' " , , Part 1':' Pio~ides objective data and information about a gl~enproject and ilnite. By Identifying basic pr:' - 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 provi guidance as to whether an Impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it Is a potenti.- large impact. The form also identifies whether an ir'npact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 Is identified as potentially-Iarge,.then Part 3 Is used to evaluate whether or not Impact Is actually important. . DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE_ Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Idenlify the Porlions of EAF completed for this project: U Part 1 tl Part 2 oPart 3 Upon review of the information recordeion this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate). and any other supportint information. and conSidering both the magitude and importance of each impact. it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: o A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and. therefore, is one which will no; have a significant impact on th~ environment, thereforE, a negalive declaration will be prepared. o B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will no't be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negalive declaration will be prepared.' 'bt C. The project may result in on~ or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact ~ on the environment, therefore a P05ilive declaration will be prepared. . A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions '. ( 'SOU7H OLLJ Cc~H(JN~ Name of Action S'OU7HOt:t) /O;,;,-v ~d,ofR.D Name of lead Agency . '-, Print or Type Name of flesponsible Officer in Lead Agency " ey"t"W'~.,.) jJy CVA Signature of Pre parer (If different from r , , Signature of flesponsible Officer in Lead Agency VI/Nt: 22 (939 I Date 1 ' LONG EAF PART I ,?~~~ !!jj~ CRAMER, VOG~Sc ~;)\S$OCIA TES ENVIRONMENT ..hNP.tf~~G CONSULTANTS f. . . PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION ';. #'.",. \0 Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: 'This document Is designed to assist In determining whether the action proposed may have a significant on the environment. Please complete' the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be cons as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any ad~i 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 '" new studies. research or investigation. II information requiring such additional work is unavailable. so indicate and s each instance. . I " , " .... NAME OF ACTION SOUTHOLD COMMONS . , " , " , . LOCATION o~ ACTION (Include Sir... Address. Municipality and County) "outh of North Road, Between Boisseau Ave & Railroad Ave. NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR I BUSINg'S TELEPHONE , Marie Ongioni, Esq. , ' , ...... (51 1477-2048 ADDRESS ., 218 Front Street' .' CITY/PO ; . .. <.j. 0, I STATE I ZIP CODE " Greenport, .. NY 11944 , , NAME OF OWNER (If dlfferenl) ". ' J BUSINESS TELEPHONE Emanuel Kontokosta ';" . (516) 477-2323 ADDRESS P.O.Box 67, North Road CITY/PO Greenport, . 1 STATE I ZIP CODE NY 11944 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION .. . . . :se+J./Ji I'Co() ~ 55 -: 5'7/7 ,'Re- Zoning of 32' Acre parcel', " . ~ .' .' . ; , ' ";.-.; .. , - , .. ., .~.! . . \ ~..', . Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Descripllon '" Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. :, . . , ' , 1, Present land use: DUrban Dlmfustrial DCommercial . 'DResid~niial (suburban) DForest DAgriculture ' DOther 32 .-...... ",.,' KJRural (non- 2. Total acreage of project area: acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE:" PRESENTlY Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) 32 acres Forested - 0 - , acres Acricultural (Includes orchards. cropland, pasture. etc,) _ 0 _ acres Wetland (Fresh~ater mtidal.as per Articles 24. is of ECl) -0- acres Water Surface Area . Q_ acres Un vegetated (Rock, earth or fill) , 0 - acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 8 acres Olher (Indicate type) -0-- acres 3. What is predominant soiltype(s) on project sitel Sand/si1 t IhA , "/i?).A a. Soil drainanc: 441Well drained , n n ''0 of s.ite OModcratcly \Veil dr.lined DPoorly draincd % of sitc b. If any agricultural/and is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil croup I throuch.1 of the land Classification System I - 0 - acres. (Sce 1 NYCRR 370), 4, Are Ihere hedrock outcroppings on project sitel DYes elNo a. What is depth to bedrock I N/~ (in feel) AFTER COMPlET/l ac: aCi aCi ac. ac, ac, acr aCr (Co% Ip"6~ % of site 2 .' . 5. 'Approxi.mate pe:ccentage of proposed project site with slopes: Q-l0% 1.00 ' " 015% or greater 6. Is project substantially contiguouS to. or contain a building, site, or district, listed On the State or the Nat Register".of Historic Places I . oVes' lXbIlo' ", " " . ", "'" ..,' ('. Is proje~t substantially conllguous to a site listed on th~ Re~;st~"C?f National Naturallandmarksl 8. What is the depth of the water tablel"'20 "(in'f,e~t) . .". .,,,, ': 9. Is site located over a primary,princlpal, or ~ole ~ource ~quif.erl ..., ~Ves ..,' oNo 10. Do hunllng, fishing or shell fishing Opportunities presently exist in the project areal 11. Does project site contain any Species of plant or animal life \hat Is identified as threatened or endang,- oVes mNo According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project sitel (I.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formati ' , oVes ~No Describe % , 010-15% '% oVes " oVes [ljNo ,"- . 13. Is the ~ject site presently used by the comm, unity or nelllhbo,rhood. as'"an, open space or recreation a Yes ,aNo If yes, explain ()"tnI ft:..~ .r1lJ1'7B...... ,....'.- VJrNt,ur F~M 1&, . .~., 14. Does tl::<.present site include scenic views known to be Importan,t',to.the .c~rnmunityl .'" r.' es 'GNo RWM'&.' 'OPEN' Sh.-ctE .-/"'WS .s- E1r '-~r "1lI:: 15. Stream~;',within or contiguouS to project ~rea: ..............00. . )"'" a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it i~ tributary 16. lakes, ponds, wetland areas ~ithin or contiguoUS to project area: None' . "" ',i.. a. Name b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilitiesl ~Ves" DNa,., ';"~ "';" ,tv~' SV""/Oty ( a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? J;kVes,.)(No' ~IlIcIC~ (J/tfi1'E:b b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connectionl oVes lPNo $C;o"'7r J'>A-I&,..;uJ, 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Allriculture and Markets law, Arllcle 25-1 Section 303 and 304/ oVes GiNo' " . ".' ! ,n." 'dr "....0> ~ . . 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environme')tal Area deslgnaled pursuanllo Article of the ECl, and 6 NVCRR 6171. oVes GiNo "','" , 20. Has lhe site eVer been used for the disposal of solid or haz!,rdous wastesl "\ oVes ,gNo I, B. Project Descripllon 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) '" ..", a. Tolal contiguoUS acreage owned or controlled by project Sponsor .. 32 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 3 2 "~r~s"initiaIIY; f,.' '''~~-..-' acres ultimately. c. Project acreage 10 remain u~developed ? ~ acres. ~? CO#=u.c::ctac....c.~~~ . .." ..-t..>>~ O~,.."'.... ..............., d. length of project, in miles: --',- ' (If appropriate) , . _. e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/ A . %; f. Number of off.street parking spaces existing _ n _ ; proposed 256 . g' Maximum vehicular trips generated pe'r hour -+El-.:!W (upon, c!,mplelion 01 projeclll h. If residenlial: Number and type of housing unils: One Family Two Family :.z.../(!: /98'1 / J::#A GlJNLJtJ$ c Initially Ullimalely i. Dimensions (in feell of largest proposed Slructure 28 ' height; 75 j. linear leet 01 frontage along a public thoroughl are project will occupy isl 3 Mulliple Family Condominium 1 ?~ 40 length. Width; 1134 It. . . 2. How much natural material (I.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the sitel None 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimedl ,QYes DNa ON/A a. If yes, for what Intended purpose Is the site being reclaimedl b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation I liaYes DNa c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation I IUYes DNa 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from sitel 3 2 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project. DYes . iJNo " .... . 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated - ~ - -- b. Anticipated date of COmmencement phase. 1 I c. Approximate compl,etion date of final phase d. .s phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phasesl 8. Will blasting occur during constructlonl . DYes IiiINo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 100; after project is complete , . 10. Number of lobs' eliminated 'by this proje~t. non e 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilitiesl tons/cubiC y: Landscape 12. months, (including demolition). (number). -'-------riionth month 'DYes year, (including demoliti year. DNa 5 . DYes ti<JNo If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved I DYes flNo a. If yes, Indicate type of waste (sewage, Industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved I !i!lYes DNa Type Sani tary Effluent 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposall DYes Explain .. 15. Is project or any portion of project located In a 100 year flood piainl 16. Will the project generate solid wastel ~es IliINo, . a. If yes, what Is the amoun't per rrionih -+. S- tons. . b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be usedl .)(Yes DNa . c. If yes, give name ~tJij'TJU1U" LA-NF-,U,.. . ; location S(JtJ7HtJl.I:J d. Will any wastes nol go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill I ~es e. If Yes, explain :r7rJ~;"WA7r-7Z. - CA-rrAJ eA-r/NS lONo DYes ~o DNa 17. Will the project involve the 'di~posal of solid 'wastel. a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposalf b. If yes, what is the anticipated site Iif~l years. 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides I DYes UNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)/ DYes lONo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local'~mbient noise le~elsl 21. Will project result in an increase in energy usel pYes ,DNa If yes, indicate typc(s) ,>0,. ""pl "or heatinq / FLI::.cr"l~ 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity - - - - - gallons/minute. 23. 'Total anticipated water usage per day 1? ROO gallons/day. Zz, 000 '" 28. 0(;10 6;:>.0 24. Does p;oject involve Local, Slale or Federal fundingl . DYes 19N~ OEP6-7tl.o/Nf/. C/Poll1 .. .' ~tn)~O()H COHPa,nO-", If Yes. explain )Ires ~ No ~ l!'lF' -+etJV$" tons/month. DYes >(lINo 4 c. ZOlllng and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action Involve a planning or zoning decision I lq]!Yes' DNo If Yes, Indicate decision required: ,gzonlng amendment Dzoning variance IKIspecial use permit Dsubdivision !!Jsite plan Dnew/revision of master plan Dresource management plan ',Dother What Is the zoning c1asSification(s)of the sitel R - 8 0 . What Is the maximum potential development of the site If developed as permitted by the present zon/ngl ([ . 2. 3. 4. 5. ( 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, 11, '25. Appr,?vals Re.......red: City. Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City, Town Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other Local Agencies Other Regional Agencies State Agencies , Federal Agencies, 60Yes e9Yes DYes GaYes DYes DYes DYes DYes DNo DNo' lXINo DNo Ii<lNo JiilNo' ~No iii No , . Type Submitt Dale Re-zoninq Site plan approval 4/89 4/90 Sewaqe Treatment 4/90 HD ,~ Da~~~~n~i~l (Jni.ts What Is the proposed zoning of the sitel What Is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as pe~mltted by the proposed zoningl 128 Residential Units Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted iocalland use plans I "i!!l'res ) What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a V. mile radius of proposed action I ;. Bus., Liqht Bus., Hamlet Density, R-40 1i?;.;..et:::::> Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a V. mile! -tiil'r'es ~ If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed I ~'.I' a. What is the minimum lot size proposed I Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the iormation of sewer or 'Yater districts! DYes J< Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, poi fire protection)1 DYes DNo ?'fJ 1/~ /)1!!F1F/l,hfIN6-"""O a, If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand! ,>cIiIYes ~o 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above presentlevelSI DYes 0 . . a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional trafficl fKlYes .ft(No ' 7"0 ';!~ CJ6'7t.rJlM1/yt!"2) D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as' may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adv. impacls associaled with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and Ihe measures which you propose to ",itigat' avoid them, c.. " E. Verification I certIfy that Ihe information prpvided Applicant/Sponsor '1"1< Signature C)~lL Dal0k 7 5 -_.~.~, . LONG EAF PART II CRAMER, V~~~ ~~S.sOCIATES ENVIRONMENT ~A~~~G CONSULTANTS . ,.. ,.' 'r- <6~1''):<'::)~.-:.'''''' ".r12-PROJECT IMPACTS A.. ,J THEIR MAGNITUDE letpOllIIblUty of leM AptICy Cenerallnformatlon (Read Carefully) · In completinl the form the reviewer should be luided by the question: Have my respon5eS and "'!terminations t reAlonablel The reviewer Is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst, · Identifyinl that an impact will be potentially larle (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily s1aniflca. Any larle impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine lilnilicance. Identifyinl an impact in column 2 sim asks that it be looked at further. · The Eumples provided are to assist the reviewer by showinl types of impacts and wherever possible the threshok maanitude that would triller a response in column J. The examples are aenerally applicable throuahout the State for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropri for a Potential Larle Impact response, thus requirinl evaluation In Part 3. · The Impacts of each project, on each site, In each locality. will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative : have been offered as auiclance. They do not constitute an exhaustiYe list of impacts and thresholds to answer each quest: · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. · In identifyina impacts. consider lona term, short term and cumllltive 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 Ves answers. c. If answerlna yes to a question then check the appropriate box (c~lumn 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of impacllf 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 larle and proceed to PARt e. If a potentially larae impact checked in column 2 can be mitipted by chanae(s) in the project to a small to moder impact, also check the Ves 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 Mltlo-tecl B) -JiiipaCf linpact Project Chani 0 0 DVes ON. 0 0 Dves ON, D 0 oVes ON, 0 0 oVes ON, 0 0 DVes ON. 0 0 oVes ON 0 0 oVes ON 0 0 DYes ON 0 0 DVes ON 0 0 Dves ON IMPACT ON LAND/ 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical chanlt to the pro~ silef DNO DYES ./ Examples that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or Ireater. (15 foot rise per 100 foot of lenath), or where the aeneral slopes in the project area exceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feel · Construction of paved parkina area for 1.000 or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or aenerally within 3 feet of existing around surface. · Construction that will co~tinue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or staae. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. . Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated f100dway. . Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect t,. _.IY unIque or unusual land forms found on the site! (i.e., cliffs, dunes, aeoloaical formations, etc.)b~O DVES · Specific land forms: f 6 .. . IMPACT ON WATER 3 Will proposed action affect any water body desianated as protected! (Under Articles 1S, 24, 2S of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECLI ,RNO DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected water body. · Dredaina more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected strum. · Extension of utility distribution facilities throuah a protected water body. · Construction in a desilnated freshwater or tidal wetland. · Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existina o~ new body of water! 'jlNO DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 I . · A 10% increase or decruse in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. 0". · Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impacts: S. Will Proposed Action affect surface or aroundwater quality or quantity!. DNO Eumples that would apply tcr column 2 . Proposed Action will require & discharae permit. . Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to, serve proposed. (project) action. · Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with aruter than 4S lallons per minute pumpinl tapacity. · Construction or operation causina any contamination of a water supply system. . . Proposed Action will adversely affect aroundwater. . Liquid effluent will be conveye<l off the site to facilities whi.h presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. . Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 aallons per day. . Proposed Action will IikE'I" La,,>;.. siltation or other discharae into an existina body of wate. (v tt.", ~':Ient that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. .. Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products areater than 1,100 gallons. . Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. . Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. . Other impacts: b~ES .. I J' Will proposed action alter drainaae flow or patterns.. or surface " water runoffJ 0/'10 DVES I Eu.:nples that would apply to column 2 . Propc.sed Action would chanae flood water flows. '7 . - -- 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can 1m Moderate Large Mltlgat Impact Impact Project 0 0 DVes 0 0 DVes 0 0 Dves 0 0 DVes 0 0 DVes 0 0 DVes 0 0 DVes 0 0 DVes . .~. 0 n' Dves 0 "'0 DVes 0 0 oVes 0 ,0: Dves 0 ~ Dves 0 '0 DYes ~ 0 A DVes , 0 D DVes 0 D DVes / / 0 A Dyes ;' 0 D DVes 0 D DVes D 0 DVes pa.. eel Ch L I I . l' 'I ,.. .. I 1- r , .. . Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. . Proposed Action is incompatible with existinl drainale patterns. . Proposed Action will allow development in a desilnated f1ooc1way. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR ~ p~O DVES 7. Will proposed action affect air qualityf Eumples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any liven hour. . Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. . Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed Sibs. per hour or a heat source producinl more than 10 million BTU's per hour. · . Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. . Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existinl industrial areas. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS II. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endanaered speciesf . .'ONO DVES Eumples tNt would apply to column 2 ' . Reduction of one or more species listed on the New Vork or Federal list, USinl the site, over or near site or found on the site. . Removal of any portion of a critical or silnificant wildlife habitat . Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for alricultural purposes. . Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or ~ nOlH!ndangered speciesf DNO )J'(ES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or rni&ratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. . Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resourcesf , DNO DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 I . . The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to a/lricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard. etc.) 8 ,.,-_.,~,_.~..-"_..,,- .- ---.- 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can ~l Be ModeMt. Larg. MlttoatectlJ Impact Impact Project ~..... 0 0 oVes DNa 0 0 oVes DNa 0 0 oVes DNa 0 0 oVes oNo 0 0 oVes DNa 0 0 oVes 01'10 0 0 oVes oNo 0 0 oVes 01010 0 0 oVes oNo 0 0 oVes ONe -. ....- . .. 0 0 oVes "ON. 0 0 oVes ON. 0 0 oVes ON. 0 0 oVes ON. 0 /tr oVes ON 0 0 oVes ON 0 0 Dves o~- c ".,,,._-,_._,~,...,.,.,~--._..,,._,-;,,_.,.,,,,-,._,,,..., r. . · Construction ,ctivity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural I,nd. · The proposed ,clion would irreversibly convert more than 10 ,cres of agricultu,,1 land or. if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of ,gricultu,,1 land. · The proposed ,ction would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g.. subsurface drain lines. outlet ditches. strip croppinll; or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to d"in poorly due to increa5ed runoff) · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES , 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources! oNO DYES (If necessary. use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21; Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses. or prOject components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns. whether' man-made or natural. · Proposed land uses. or project components visible' to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. . Other impacU: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic. pre- historic or paleontological importance! oNO ..DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. /. , . Other impacts: 1.~I~Tne!r:..:;.ot.lS~;; IV ....'Ud./,<IZ\J.\c.~....T 1 p."...,7r=,^,~"","~ l ~....C t~~~r:x.:It!€v':'.':'7 :--,,""J '~"":, ,"'r.-.:.... IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 1 3. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities! .I ExOlmples that would Olpply to column 2 oNO :aVES { IThe permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. '''t'' A major reduction of an open space important to the community. · Other impacts: -- II . . 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can 1m Moderate Large Mltlgat Impact Impact ProJect 0 .CJ: DVes . 0 ;rf DVes 0 0 DVes 0 0 DVes 0 tf. DVes 0 0 Dves . D Jl DVes 0 0 DVes D D DVes 0 0 DVes D 0 DVes . O' D DVes / ' , 0 D. DVes D U Dves D D Dves . - .-- pact : edB Chan JIt ....( J.lJ..t , D~ D~ ,P~ MI.. ,J-I' . -, b' ,. ~ [j~ Dt Dt Dt pt Dt O~ Dt r IMPACT ON TRAN~RTAnON 14. Will there be an effect to existin, transportation systems I DNO ,; bYES . . bamples that would apply to column 2 · Alteration of present pallerns of movement of people and/or ,oods. · Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. . Other impacts: .~/E-e:D 7.0 QUA>.l"T"1 <;'.' -n~fFl.c:. I).l,."'rl\. IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or ener,y supplyl 'DNO DYES :.. " bamples that would apply to column 2 I" · Proposed Action will cause a ,reater than 5 % increase in the use of any form of ener,y in the municipality.. . Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an eneray transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 sin,le or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. t. · Other impacts: 1 2 3 Small to Potentlll Can ..... Moderat. Large MItttltM !; Impact Impact Pro~.Cbar 0 0 DYes O~ 0 0 OVes O~ > '1 0' 0 OVes .I " ;" 0 0 DYes Ot 0 0 OVes Ot 0 0 DYes Ot .11":' . 0 0 DYes Or 0 0 oVes 01 - P 0 oVes 0, .. 0 0 Dyes 01 0 0 Dyes Or 0 0 oVes 0; 0 0 OVes 0 0 0 oVes 0 0 0 oVes 0 0 0 oVes 0 . NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors. noise. or vibratiorr as a result of the Proposed ActIonl ONO . eVES' . , Examples that would apply to column 2 I · Blastin, within 1.500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. · Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). . .- _... -- · Proposed Action will produce operatin, Iloise exceedina the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safetyl. f-NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals. radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. . Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous. highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) . Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural aas or other flammable liquids. . Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2.000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. . Other impacts: 10 " , , . 1& IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Will proposed ~ction ~ffect the character of the existina community! DNO DYES ( Examples th~t would apply to column 2 · The perm~nent popul~tion of the city, town or villaae in which the project is located is likely to arow by more than 5%. · The municip~1 budaet for c~piul expenditures or oper~tina services will increase by more ~n 5% per ye~r ~s ~ result of this project. . Proposed ~ction will conflict with offici~lIy ~dopted pl~ns or .~Is. · Proposed ~ction will c~use ~ ch~nae in the denSity of I~nd use, · Proposed Action will repl~ce or eliminate existina f~cilities, structures or ~reas of historic import~nce to the community. · Development will cre~te ~ demand for additional community services (e.,. schools, police and fire. etc.) · Proposed Action will set ~n important precedent for future projects. · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. · Other impacts: '9. Is there, or is there likely to be. public potential adverse environmenul impacts! . . - ---- 1 2 3 Small to PotenUal Can Imp Moderate Large MItigate Impact Impact Project 0 0 DYes 0 0 DYes 0 0: DYes 0 <p: DYes 0 ,- DYes 0 ;:( 0 DYes 0 .:c( DYes 0 0 DYes 0 0 DYes -- D~ act dE Cha. o~ ~ ~ D~ )Slt L-2f O~ 0; controversy related,to oNO bYES / ' l. '. 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 Le~d Aaency P~rt 3 must be prep~red If one or more im~ct(s) is considered to be potentj~lIy Iarle, even if the impact(s) rna mltlpted. Instrudions Discuss the followina for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the im~cl 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitiaated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project chan 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 diveraence from local needs and aoals · Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) - LONG EAF PART III -' :?fSi\'~\ /t~ CRAMER, VORRHt$, ~1ASSOCIA TES ENVIRONMENT~~~~G CONSULTANTS . ""....-p--... . . LEAF Part III Southold Commons LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PART III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS PROJECT Southold Commons South of North Road, between Boisseau Avenue and Railroad Avenue, Southold, New York APPLICANT Emanuel Kontokosta P.O. Box 67, North Road Greenport, New York 11944 ," DATE June 22, 1989 INTRODUCTION The proposed project as well as the environmental character of the project site is described in detail in the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) Part I. The LEAF Part II, evaluates the project impacts and their magnitude. This section of the LEAF is intended to provide additional information on the importance of the impacts of the proposed project on the environment, in order to form the basis for the adoption of a determination of significance. The LEAF Part III is prepared if one or more impacts are considered as being potentially large, as identified in the LEAF Part II. This section will briefly describe the each potentially large impact, available mitigation, and importance. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS * The proposed action will affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity. CRAMER, vo~~ i~\SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA[MND PL.ANNING CONSULTANTS " ~ VIM \\\\\ Page 1 of 5 LEAF Part I:::I Southold Commons The proposed action is located in Groundwater Management Zone IV, and is identified as a water budget area for North Fork water supply. As such it is extremely important to maintain water quality in this area in order to provide adequate water supply. Nitrogen is a primary water quality concern with regard to residential development, due to sewage treatment plant discharge and fertilizer usage. The proposed project involves a significant increase in density above what is presently permitted by zoning. In addition, the reuse of an agricultural field will require landscaping with fertilizer dependent vegetation. Accordingly, the issue of groundwater quality with respect to site development is a significant potential impact which must be examined in detail. Mitigation includes: density reduction, and limitation on the use of fertilizer dependent vegetation. . The quantity of water available for existing and proposed population is also a significant issue. Water supply on the North Fork is limited due to the elevation of groundwater above sea level, as a function of the depth of the fresh water lense. Due to the limited nature of the resource, the Greenport Water District as the local purveyor, has had difficulty meeting demand. It is extremely important to provide for orderly growth in order to meet water supply needs. The proposed project will cause an increase in the demand for water, above what would be allowed under present zoning. Anticipated water needs could range from 25,000 to 30,000 gallons/day, depending upon the bedroom composition of the proposed 128 condominium units. The water supply needs and impacts must be examined in detail in conjunction with this change of zone. Mitigation includes: density reduction, conformance with the North Fork Water Supply Plan, phased development, and water use restrictions. * The proposed action may affect non-threatened or non-endangered species of wildlife. The proposed action involves the significant alteration of an abandoned agricultural field. The site has had the opportunity to revegetate with pioneer species thereby creating a habitat which is suitable to a variety of species. The wildlife occupying the site must be inventoried, and the design of the project analyzed in order to determine impacts. To date, ,e@~\ !7~ CRAMER, VOORHIS &:j\SSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA~<~~J\~G CONSULTANTS Page 2 of 5 ,-.......---... . . LEAF Part III Southold Commons insufficient information is available to assess impacts. The habitat which the site provides is limited in the area due to the large size of this individual parcel and the stage of succession which the parcel is in. Possible mitigation includes: protection of the more significant areas of the property, aligning contiguous open space, preservation of buffer areas and greenbelts. * The proposed project will affect agricultural land resources. The proposed project involves the use of a former agricultural farm, for the purpose of residential housing. The 32 acre site is partially comprised of Haven Loam soils which have a high soil productivity rating. This use would permanently foreclose the option of future agricultural land use on t&e site. The impact is potentially large due to the foregoing concerns, and cannot be mitigated by a project change. It is recognized that agricultural use in itself can cause significant impacts upon groundwater. In addition, it is recognized that there are numerous other areas of the Town where agricultural use is occurring, thereby partially minimizing the magnitude of this impact. * The proposed project will affect aesthetic resources. The proposed project will result in a significant change in the existing aesthetic resources of the site. The project site is presently an abandoned agricultural field. This setting provides views across the site in keeping with the rural character of the area. The project calls for high density housing, which would significantly alter this character. The site is highly visible as it lies between two major north-south collector roads, in proximity to the central business district of Southold. Accordingly, the impact is of great magnitude. Possible mitigation includes the following: architectural and site design considerations, buffering and retention of open space. * Project may adversely affect historic resources. The project site is located in an area rich in historic resources. Several structures on the Town's ;%'5\'\ F~~ CRAMER, VOORHIS &.ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA~~PJ:~t~G CONSULTANTS Page 3 of 5 LEAF Part III Southold Commons historic structures inventory are in proximity to the site. The integrity of the historic setting with regard to these resources is of concern, and must be examined. In addition, there is little information regarding the aboriginal"resources of the Town. The North Fork is in an area of intensive aboriginal habitation, in terms of archaeological sensitivity, as determined by the Suffolk County Archaeological Association (SCAA, 1979). Consequently, there is a potential for irreversible loss of cultural resources. A Stage lA, archaeological investigation is therefore recommended, in order to further document the sensitivity of the site. Mitigation cannot be determined until the resources are identified, however, it is expected that the magnitude of impacts can be minimized through site design, resource documentation, and other means to be . . determlned. * The project will cause an effect upon existing transportation systems. The project will result in the generation of traffic commensurate with the project density, and type of land use. Added traffic may have an impact in the capacity or level of service of area roadways, and must be quantified and analyzed, particularly with respect to seasonal traffic flow. Degradation of the existing level of service is considered to be a significant impact, which would require mitigation. Potential mitigation could include: reduction of trip generation; addition of turning lanes; signalization; signage; and intersection improvements, depending upon the magnitude of the impact. * The proposed action will affect the character of the existing community. The proposed project site is presently zoned for low density residential use (R-80), which could potentially yield 16 residential units. The proposal calls for a change of zoning to "HD" Hamlet Density, for a project of 128 units. This is a significant increase in density which is inconsistent with the goals of the community as reflected on the land use map. This density increase will in turn cause a demand for community and recreational services, the magnitude of CRAMER, vo~i\ &f}i:\SOCIATES Page 4 of 5 ENVIRONMENTA~D" p'\JrnNING CONSULTANTS ~ 'W/lr~~-,,\~ ____ ~ "-_"I--,....,"""""~ . . LEAF Part III Southold Commons which must be determined. In addition, the proposal if granted would tend to create a precedent for density increased on other properties in the area, particularly between Youngs and Boisseau Avenue, resulting in cumulative impacts. The ability of the area to support this growth is of concern. The magnitude of the impact cannot be determined until more detail,is available regarding the specific project. Mitigation could include: density limitations, on site amenities, and impact fees. CONCLUSION The proposed action is expected to have a significant impact upon the environment, as discussed above. It is recommended that a Positive Declaration be issued in order to provide the proper public and interagency'forum, for critical evaluation of the project and anticipated impacts upon the environment. ~~\ III/fA CRAMER, VOORHIS &:;ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA4.AND~}AIiI~t~G CONSULTANTS Page 5 of 5 .. . .. .....,~ ' :~~ \l ,> n-_' RfCEIVB) MAY 2 mJ It"\ :' .1"'\ ',' Ii U: r- .. 1,\' Uu l:~~~.~._~9JJ SOJli,~Ub.' :', \"h~ PlM~.!.l!.!~~""~L, . PETITION CASE NO: cR. f.5" SauthoId Town C1erIt STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF: JEM REALTY CO. FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDIN- ANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: 1. I, Jem Realty Co., by Marie ongioni, as attorney, residing at 218 Front street, Greenport, Suffolk county, New York, the undersigned, am the attorney for the owner of certain real property situated at North Road, Route 58, Greenport, New York and more particularly bounded and described as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being near Greenport, Town of Southold, county of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following courses and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds west 329.44 feet; South 75 degrees 15 minutes, 00 seconds West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to land now or formerly of Walter sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet; (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 548.67 feet; (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 1306.59 feet to Long Island Sound; running thence along the same the following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet; (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet; (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 342.00 ~ .. . .... feet: (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet to said land now or formerly of F. C. P. Haneman: running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East 410.00 feet: (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 982.87 feet: (3) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet: ( 4) South 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of BEGINNING and known on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, section 35, Block 1, Lot 24. 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to change, modify and amend the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk county, New York, including the Building Zone Maps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: To change the zone designation of the property described above to Hamlet Density pursuant to Article IV of the Town Zoning Code. Attached hereto is a drawing prepared by Kontokosta Associates of 43 West 54th street, New York, New York 10019 showing the subject parcel and all contiguous parcels. 3. Such request is made for the following reasons: The requested zone change is within the purpose and applicability of the Hamlet Density (HD) Zone Designation as defined in Article IV of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold. The subject property is: (a) contiguous to an existing Hamlet Density (HD) parcel located on the easterly boundary of the subject property, (b) within 1/2 mile of the Village of Greenport, (c) contiguous to and part of a high density area with most contiguous lots on Sound Drive measuring less than 1/4 acre, (d) contiguous to a parcel designated as Limited Business zone (LB) on the southeasterly boundary. (e) contiguous to a parcel designated as Limited Business zone (LB) on the west. (f) The property on the south east corner of the intersection of Route 48 and Main Street is zoned Residential Office (RO). (g) the parcels on the south side of Route 48 on Bailey Avenue are high density lots. r .. . .. The proposed zone change will: (a) permit a mix of housing type and level of residential diversity appropriate to the area, (b) be in harmony with and will promote the general purpose of the zoning Code Ordinance, (c) encourage the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties, Finally, the safety, health, welfare, comfort and convenience as well as the order of the town will not be adversely affected by proposed uses, (L.S.)~tJr STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK MARIE ONGIONI, BEING DULY SWORN, deposes and says that she is the petitioner in the within action; that she has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to her own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters she believes it to be true. (L.S.~~ MARIE ONGI I Sworn to before me this day of April, 1989 Notary Public fu.4f~/1try ~~ I &r ~ D. , " . ' .. 1'4-16-2 (2[87)-7c .. . .... I.' " 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR (. Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies 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 potentially-large, 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: ag Part 1 III Part 2 OPart 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 importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: o 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. o 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." o 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 Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type ~Mnc of Rt:.~ponsibJe Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer , . Signatur~ of ResponSible Officer in lead Agency Signature of Preparer(lf different from responsible officer) ,.. Date 1 PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant e on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be consid as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public, review. Provide any additi 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 inv new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and sp' each instance. NAME OF ACTION nR '1' COMMONS LoeA liON OF ACTION (Include Slreel Address, Municipality and County) EAST FO SOUND ROAD TO L.I SOUND NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR I BUSINESS TELEPHONE MARIE ONGIONI,ESQ (516,477-2048 ADDRESS 218 Front Street CITY/PO Greenport I STATE Ill" 9c2~E NY NAME OF OWNER (If different) I BUSINESS TELEPHONE EMANUEL KONTOKOSTA (51 6) 477- 232 3 ADDRESS North Road CITYIPO I STATE , . ZIP CODe GreenDort NY 11944 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION RE-ZONING OF 62 ACRE PARCEL FROM R-80 to HAMLET DENSITY 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: DUrban Dlndustrial DCommercial DResidential (suburban) DForest DAgriculture DOther 62 acres. EJRural (non-far 2. Total acreage of project area: APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture. etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? a. Soil drainage: JQMtel/ drained 100 % of site OPoorly drained % of site b. If .Joy agricultural land is jnvol~pcf.:. how many acres of S~il <lre classified within soil group '1 land Classification System? acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings oJQ!'.z\.oject site? DYes xQ9No a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) PRESENTl Y 62 -0- AFTER COMPLETION acres acres acres acres acres acres -u- -u- acres acres -u- o -0- -u- acres acres acres acres acres deres ,1cres acres Sand/Gravel OModerately well drained % at site through .j of the NY 2 _~I"'_. '5., :A~prox:m~te percentage of proed pat site with slopes: xIXl0-10%~%' 5 Y'015% or greater building, site, or district, listed on . 010-1.% % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a Registers of Historic Places? DYes ~o ( '. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural landmarks? 8. What is the depth of the water table? _ 30 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? JOYes DNo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? DYes IDNo According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? li.e., cliffs, dunes.... othe~ geological formations) 30 ft ~/ high bluffs to L I.~ound 't2lYes DNo Describe ',- % the State or the National DYes ;aNo DYes X~o " . 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation areal DYes (gNo If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes xl!INo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: Long Island Sound 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 17. ( Is the site served by existing public utilities? GaYes DNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? 19Yes DNo b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? DYes ~o Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Section 303 and 3041 DYes :tmo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECl, and 6 NYCRR 6171 I!IYes DNo b. Size (In acres) 18. Markets law, Article 25-AA. 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes XlNo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguouS acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 62 b. Project acreage to be developed: 62 a~res initially' . 4ts' c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped acres. d. length of project, in miles: ----- (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion propoc;ed :i4B f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing ------ ; proposed g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 60 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number (lod type of housing units: On~' Family Two Family acres. acres ultimately, %; L Initially Ultimately. i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 28 height; 75 j. linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? , , Multiple Family Condominium 248 40 length. width; 576 ft. 3 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site! none 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed! '9Yes DNa ON/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed! b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation! !!lYes DNa c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation! ~es DNa 50 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs. ground covers) will be removed from site/" acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project! DYes J8No tons/cubi~ yards . . landscaped 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases! 8. Will blasting occur during construction! DYes .uNo 9. Numbe,r of jobs generated: during construction 150 Number of jobs eliminated by this project . none Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities! 12 months, (including demolition). (number). month month DYes year, (including demolition). year. DNa ; after project is complete 5 10. 11. DYes 'i2JNo If yes. explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved! DYes xe9No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial. etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid wa~te disposal involved! 'i2JYes DNa Type sani tart effluent 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal! DYes lBNo Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain! DYes DNa 16. Will the project generate solid waste! DYes 'i2JNo a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used! DYes DNa c. If yes. give name location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill! DYes DNa e. If Yes, explain 19. 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste! a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal! b. If yes. what is the anticipated site life! years. lB. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? DYes ~o Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes :eNo Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local .ambient noise levels? Will project result in an increase in energy use? x'8'<e~ DNa Gas fuel for heatlng DYes ~No tons/month. 20. DYes xe9No 21. 22. 23. 24. If yes, indicate type(s) If water supply is from wells. indicate pumping capacity Total anticipated water usage per day 24,800 gallons/day. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding! DYes If Yes. explain -0- -0- gallons/minute. BNo 4 .2S, Applo',:als Required: . . . . Type City, Town, Village Board JQ!:Yes DNo Re-zoning ( City, Town, Village Planning Board ~Yes DNo Site plan approval City, Town Zoning Board DYes 1QJNo City, County Health Department ;<XYes DNo Se1iaQe Treatment Other local Agencies DYes mINo Other Regional Agencies DYes 1QJNo State Agencies DYes JQ!:No Federal Agencies DYes 1tilNo 3. 4. S. ( 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. l Submittal Dale approx 4/89 ---- 4/90 after . .I.'fr-Zilllln~n C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? J4)ilYes DNo If Yes, indicate decision required: fkoning amendment Dzoning variance xfDspecial use permit Osubdivision Dnew/revision of master plan Dresource management plan Dother 2. What is the zoning c1assification(s)of the site? R R n What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 31 Residential units llliite plan What is the proposed zoning of the site? HD What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 248. Res. uni ts Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? xllYes ONe What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1A mile radius of proposed action? Hamlet DensitY.Ligh~~siness.R-40 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a Y. mile? If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, fire protection)? 2gYes DNa a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ?BYes DNa 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation ?f traffic significantly above present levels? a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? >t2fYes ffies ONe N/A DYes XfjNo education, police, Xl<, LJYes DNa DNa 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 disclIss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. of my knowledge. , l,Cit. wr- Date d:;1cf1 I Signature Title f?A.e~12. .. - I . ate agency, complete Ihe Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding If tile action is in t with tl1is assessment. 5 General Information (Read Carefully) . In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses. and determinations be reasonablel 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 als\> necessarily significan Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Iden\ifying an' impact in column 2 sim~ asks that it be looked at further. . The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the thresh.old 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 appropria 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 ar have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each questio . 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. Ins!ructio/lS (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Ves if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Ves answers. c. If answering Ves to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of If impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will OCcur but threshol is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then 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 modera. impact, also check the Ves box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. Th must be explained in Part 3. Pa.. 2-PROJECT IMPACTS AND Th-clR MAGNITUDE' Responsibility of Lead Agency 6 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change fi 0 OVes ONo f'f 0 OVes ONo B 0 OVes ONo 0 0 OVes ONo 19' 0 OVes ONo 0 0 OVes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0< 0 OVes ONo IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project sitel oNO :aVES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. . Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. . Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. . Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. . Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. . Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. . Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. . Construction in a designated (Ioadway. . Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect t'. ....y un,que or unusual land forms found on the Site? (i e.. cliffs. dunes, geological formations, etc.loNO I19VES . SpeCifiC land forms: Bl uffs to L. I. Sound .. " ( IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) :fibtO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected water body. . Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. . Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. . Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. . Other impacts: . 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? :tJt.lO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. . Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. . Other impacts: ( 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ~O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. . Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. . Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. . Construction or operation czusing any contamination of a water supply system. . Proposed Action will adve""ly affect groundwater. . Liquid effluent will be conve\.ed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. . Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. . Proposed Action will likelv cau:,:\? siltation or other discharge into an existing body of waier to the exte.il that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natur,:j conditions. . Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. . Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water andlor sewer services. . Proposed Action locates commercial andlor industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. . Other impa.cts: >" r 6. \Vifl proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface ~ water runoffl Xf'9NO DYES ExJmples that would apply to column 2 . Propo-sed Action would change flood water flows. 7 . - 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo , 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo I 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 nYes DNo It.-, ~. 0 [J DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo .:.. -~ 0 0 DYes DNo 8 r--1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large MItigated By Impact Impact Project Change " 0 0 , DYes oNo 0 '" 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo :>eg 0 DYes oNo :>eg 0 DYes oNo ~ 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 oVes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 oVes oNo 0 0 oVes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo ( . Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. . Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. . Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? DNO >GIVES Examples that would apply to column 2 .. Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. . Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. . Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 Ibs. per hour or a heat SOurce producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. . Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. . Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS a. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? xe9NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, Over or near site or found on the site. . Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. . Other impacts: C( Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non.endangered species? XI1!lNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature torest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation, ~ IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES , Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? xe9NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 fhe proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) LC-- -.-.,~",,-,.><.~_...,.~, .. ( o Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. o The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. o The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) o Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? )([1gNO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 o Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man.made or natural. o Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. ( . Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. o Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of histqric, pre. historic or paleontological importance? ~NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. o Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed loc,ated within the project site. . Proposed Action will Occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. . Other impacts: _ l IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 Will Proposed Action .affect the quantity or quality of existing or future ope~ spaces or recreational opportunities? . Examples thbt' would apply to column 2 )([1gNO DYES . The permanent iorcclosurc of a future recreational opportunity. . A major reduction of an open space important to the community. . Other impacts: 9 . . ' 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo , , 0 0 DYes ONo " 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes, DNo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes' ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 10 1 2 '3 .. . Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change ..- ; "- xU 0 .' oVes oNo U ,.. 0 oVes oNo 0 0 oVes oNo , . . B 0 oVes oNo U 0 oVes oNo .. 0 0 OVes ONo 0 0 oVes oNo II' 0 0 oVes DNa 1'-. 0 0 oVes DNa 0 0 oVes DNa 0 0 oVes DNa 0 0 OVes DNa <.. -~ 0 0 oVes DNa 0 0 oVes DNa 0 ~ .~ 0 OVes oNO '-- 0 0 oVes oNo ( 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? DNO JOYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. . Proposed ActiOn will result in major traffic problems. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action aftect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? DNO Jg'(ES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. . Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. . Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposel! Action? ~NO DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive faCility. . Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). . Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. t Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 7. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ~NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions. or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one mil/ion or more ~allons of Jiquifjed natural gas or other fI,lmmable liquids, Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance IV,thin 2.000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous Waste. OlhN impacts: ',. r l. , , ! I I L l~ I '. .. '. (.16 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? DNO XImYES Examples that would apply to column 2 o The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than S%. o The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than' 5% per year as a result of this project. o Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. o Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. o Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. . Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) . Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. . Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. . Other impacts: . .. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change ~ D DYes DNo xIRJ D DYes DNo XEJ D DYes DNo xJgJ D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo Yi9 D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo xrn D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo 19. Is there. or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? X~NO DYES ( 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 impaet(s) is considered to be potentially large, even' if the impaet(s) may be miligated. 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(s). 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: o The probability of the impact occurring o The duration of the impact . Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value . Whether the imnact can or will be controlled . The regional consequence of the imp.:lct . Its pote"tial cl,ivergence from local needs and goals . Wbethdr know~ objections to the project relate to this imp.:lct. (Continue on a'.t(achme~ts) _ l 11 ( ~ ( .l 617.21 Appendix B State Environmental Quality Review Visual EAF Addendum 14.14-11 C;:'87)-9c .. (To be completed by Lead Agency) . .. D D D D D D o D o o o o o o o D o SEQR This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part 2 of the Full EAF. 1 Distance Between Project and Resource (In Miles) 0.'14 'I4.'/z '/z.3 3.5 5+ D 0 ODD o o D o o o o o o .~ .. D o .' Visibility 1. Would the project be visible from: . A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available to the public for the use. enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man.made scenic qualities? . An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public observation. enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? . A site or structure listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places? . State Parks? . The State Forest Preserve? . National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges? . National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding natural features? . National Park Service lands? . Rivers designated as National or State Wild. Scenic or Recreational? . Any transportation ~orridor of high exposure, such as part of the Interstate System. or Amtrak? . A governmentally established or designated interstate or inter-county foot trail. or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? . A site, area. lake, reservoir or highway designated as scenic? . Municipal park, or designated open space? . County road? . State? . Local road? o o o o o o o o o D o o D D o o D o o D o o o o o o o o o o o o o D D o D o o o o o o o o o ..,:.-~ o 2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (i.e., screen'ed by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) " DYes -., DNo t I., 3. Are 'any of the resources checked in question ] used by the public during the time of year dUring which the project will be visible? DYes DNo I" DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 4. From each item checked in question I, check those which generally describe the surrounding environment. Essentially undeveloped Forested Agricultural Suburban residential Industrial Commercial Urban River, Lake, Pond Cliffs, Overlooks Designated Open Space Flat Hilly Mountainous Other NOTE: add attachments as needed , Within ~1/4 mile i * 1 mile <" 0 ~ .J o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o '0 o o o o o o 5. Are there visually similar projects within: *J/2 mile DYes ONo *1 miles DYes ONo "2 miles DYes ONo "3 miles 'DYes ONo " Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate, EXPOSURE 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown. use'hest estimate. CONTEXT 7, The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is Activity Travel to and from work Involved in recreational activities Routine travel by residents At a residence At worksite Other Daily o o o o o o Weekly o o o o o o ';.. I', 2 FREQUENCY Holidays! Weekends o o '0 o o o Seasonally o o tt o o o ..;-.-:" .. .. TOWN BOARD, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Petition of JEM REALTY CO. NOTICE to the Town Board of the Town of Southold TO: Mr. and Mrs. Augustos Straussner, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Town of Southold, 16 South Street, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Mr. and Mrs. Frank Toledo, 66 Sound Road, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Mr. and Mrs. Victor Brown, 222 Bergen st., Brooklyn, N. Y. 11817 Mr. and Mrs. Spyros Vassiliou, 147 04 38th st., Flushing N.Y. Mr. Jerry COlaitis, 109 46 54th Avenue, Corona, N. Y. 11368 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Kase, 6751 210th st., Bayside, N. Y. 11364 Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Owczarek, 20 W. 77th st., New York, N. Y. Mr. otto Uhl, 9 Derby Road, Port WaShington, N. Y. 11050 Mr. otto Uhl Jr., 9 Derby Road, Port Washington, N. Y. 11050 Mr. Steve Manouvelos, 30 53 Crescent St., Astoria, N. Y. Rae Tattenbaum & Margery Fine, 259 W. 15th st., N. Y., N. Y. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Verity, 220 Fifth Avenue, Greenport, N. Y. Mr. Jack Skrezec, 350 Main Street, Huntington, N. Y. 11743 Mr. and Mrs. Linwood Webb, 630 Sound Road, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Mr. Francis H. BUbb, 24 Sound Road, Gr~enport, N. Y. 11944 Mr. and Mrs. George Egish, 325 Hortons Lane, Southold, N. Y. 11971 Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Fischer, 20 Sound Road, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Ms. Molly Harrower, 806 Lakeshore Towers, Gainesville, Fla. 32601 Mr. Walter F. Sledjeski, North Road, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Greenport Development Co., 53 Glen Cove Rd., Greenvale, N. Y. 11548 Mr. Paul Sinuto, 535 North Road, Greenport, New York 11944 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 a zone change from R-80 to Hamlet Density (HD). 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: 62 acres, of vacant land known on the SUffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 35, Block 1, Lot 24. ~ .. . ...- , 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: R-80 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request that the above described property be placed in the following zone district classification: Hamlet Density (HD) s. Petition Southold you may hours. That within five days from the date of mailing, a written requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and then and there examine the same during regular office 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 Traveler-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 appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: March 15, 1989 MARIE ONGIONI ESQ., for JEM REALTY CO. PETITIONER Post Office Address: 218 Front Street P. O. Box 562 Greenport, New York 11944 (516) 477-2048 .t . .. PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE NAME ADDRESS Mr. and Mrs. Augustos Straussner, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Town of Southold, 16 South Street, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Mr. and Mrs. Frank Toledo, 66 Sound Road, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Mr. and Mrs. Victor Brown, 222 Bergen st., Brooklyn, N. Y. 11817 Mr. and Mrs. Spyros Vassiliou, 147 04 38th st., Flushing N.Y. Mr. Jerry Colaitis, 109 46 54th Avenue, Corona, N. Y. 11368 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Kase, 6751 210th st., Bayside, N. Y. 11364 Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Owczarek, 20 W. 77th st., New York, N. Y. Mr. otto Uhl, 9 Derby Road, Port Washington, N. Y. 11050 Mr. otto Uhl Jr., 9 Derby Road, Port Washington, N. Y. 11050 Mr. Steve Manouvelos, 30 53 Crescent st., Astoria, N. Y. Rae Tattenbaum & Margery Fine, 259 W. 15th st., N. Y., N. Y. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Verity, 220 Fifth Avenue, Greenport, N. Y. Mr. Jack Skrezec, 350 Main Street, Huntington, N. Y. 11743 Mr. and Mrs. Linwood Webb, 630 Sound Road, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Mr. Francis H. Bubb, 24 Sound Road, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Mr. and Mrs. George Egish, 325 Hortons Lane, Southold, N. Y. 11971 Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Fischer, 20 Sound Road, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Ms. Molly Harrower, 806 Lakeshore Towers, Gainesville, Fla. 32601 Mr. Walter F. Sledjeski, North Road, Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Greenport Development Co., 53 Glen Cove Rd., Greenvale, N. Y. 11548 Mr. Paul Sinuto, 535 North Road, Greenport, New York 11944 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK JANET BOYLE, residing at Greenport, New York, bein';J duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 2nd day of May, 1989, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the reverse side hereof, directed to each of the above 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 current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United states Post Office at Greenport; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by certified mail. ~~~-r(l-l_ JAN BOYLE Sworn to me this 2nd day 0: May #]1989 ' _ 4!/U1A./ U tq/~U1____ Mo ary Public "'A~r~ ON{;IONI NOfARY PUBLIC, St.'e of New York Nd. 24.4765191 Quollfled In king. C06~ Commlulon E:o.plr.. ttUf)V' 1990