The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDraft Environmental Impact Statement, The Hamlet at CutchogueI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC. ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS BABYLON, NY I ! ! I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STA'-Ta(ENT T-~. HAN~.~-T AT cuTCHOGUE CUTCHO~O~, NEW YORK PROJECT LOCATION: APPLICANT: LEAD AGENCY AND CONTACT: PREPARERS: DATE OF PREPARATION: AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: Town of Southold Suffolk County New York Nocro, Ltd. P.O. Box 953 Main Road Cutchogue, New York 11935 Town of Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Bennett 0rlowski, Jr. (Chairman) 765-1938 Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Consulting Engineers 325 West Main Street Babylon, New York 11702 (516) 587-5060 S. Peter Salerno,. P.E.; Director of Development Services Robert Grover; Director of Environ- mental Services John Healey; Project Manager October 1988 Revised June 1989 This document represents a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Copies are available for public review and comment at the office of the Lead Agency. Comments on the Draft EIS should be submitted to the Lead Agency listed above by to be included in the public record. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CO~T~-NTS DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Background and History ............................. Project Need, Benefits and Objectives of Sponsor... Location ......................................... .. Design and Layout .................................. Construction and Operation. Approvals .................. ~~[[[[~[~[~ INVENTORY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Subsurface Geology. Soils .............. Topography.. Agriculture .................... Vegetation and Wildlife ........ Land Use and Zoning ............ Land Use Plans ................. Community Services. D..ographice ....... Visual Resources ............... Cultural Resources ............. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Geology ..... Vegetation and Wildlife ...... Land Use and Zoning .......... Community Services ........... Visual Resources ............. · Cultural Resources ........... MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Soils and Topography. Water R. sourc.e ...... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Land Use and Zoning .................................. Cc~unity Services Cultural ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2-1 2-4 2-8 2-10 2-14 2-19 S-1 3-3 3-7 3-9 3-17 3-19 3-21 3-24 3-28 3-30 3-34 3-35 4-1 4-3 4-11 4-12 4-13 4-18 4-19 5-1 5-2 5-4 5-5 5-6 I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS .............................. ALTERNATIVES Alternative Technology ............................... Alternative Scale .................................... Alternative Design ................................... Alternative Site ..................................... No Action ............................................ IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES... GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS .................................. REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I - Demographic Information - Plant List and Vegetation Report - Water Supply Report - Groundwater/Nitrogen Budget Analysis - Synopsis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance - Traffic Impact Study - Correspondence - Archeological Study - Tax Assessment SUPPLEMENT ~ - Colonial Shopping Plaza A - Property Line Survey B - Grading and Site Plan C - 3 Unit/Acre Alternate Layout PAGE 6-1 7-1 7-3 7-5 7-6 7-7 8-1 9-1 I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CON~S (Continued) FIGURES PAGE Figure i - Location Map .............................. 2-9 Figure 2 - Stages of Construction .................... 2-15 Figure 3 - Soils Map ................................. 3-6 Figure 4 - Topography Map ............................ 3-8 Figure 5 - Suffolk County Groundwater Contour Map .... 3-12 Figure 6 - Private Well Locations .................... 3-13 Figure 7 - Church R.O.W. Map.. 3-22 ~igure ~ - ~nd Use Plan ...... iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 3-27 I SUMMA~___~Y I I I I I I I o Cultural Resources i o Vegetation and Wildlife o Transportation I Following the impact analysis, This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared to provide complete assessment of impacts of construct- ing a townhouse complex, entitled The Hamlet at Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. In addition to providing a detailed description of the proposed project, the DEIS presents a portrait of the existing environmental setting, and a discussion of the following areas of potential impact= o Geology of Site o Groundwater and Water supply o Land Use and Zoning o Community Services a discussion of measures taken to mitigate impacts, and a discussion of alternatives is provided. This DEIS addresses all of the possible environmental impacts that may result from project implementation. As will be described in the sections to follow, there are virtually no sig- I nifioant environmental impacts anticipated from the project. Mitigating measures, however, are incorporated into the project I to reduce or eliminate the minor effects of the Hamlet at Cut- I I I chogue on the conclusion that the development surrounding community. The report leads to the the project location is an optimal setting for of a planned retirement community to serve the Hamlet of Cutchogue and the Town.of Southold. 1-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I September 1, rained 46.16 tional parcel was also purchased BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The subject parcel, situated near the intersection of School House Lane and Grilling Street in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, was purchased from Leisure Greens Associates by Seacroft, Ltd. on 1983. At the time of purchase said parcel con- acres zoned M Light-Multiple Residence. An addi- consisting of 7.1 acres zoned "B" Light Business from Leisure Greens Associates by Seacroft Plaza, Ltd. For the purposes of this report, the possible development of the commercially zoned parcel will be addressed separately and is included as Supplement I at the rear of this report. Prior to the purchase of the site, on February 1, 1983, a petition was filed with,the Town Board requesting a change of zone from A Residential-Agricultural to M Light- Multiple Resid- ence. mental Board under Act Along with this petition, both a long aad short Environ- Assessment form were filed. On March 22, 1983 the Town as lead agency declared that the project was "unlisted" Section 8-0109 of the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law. It was further determined that the impact upo9 the environment Statement was unnecessary. granted on July 19, 1983. project would have no significant and that an Environmental Impact The change of zone request was A preliminary sketch plan for the construction of 160 condo- minium units for senior citizens was submitted in April of 1984, and later a certified set of plans (which bore the approval of the Building Department) and request for site plan approval was 2-1 I submitted on October 17, 1984. Upon review of the plan by the i Planning Board, the Board determined that the action was subject to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation ILaw (SEQRA), expressed the desire to be the lead agency and fur- ther determined that the project constituted a "Type 1" action I requiring the preparation of a full Draft Environmental Impact i Statement. On November 7, 1984 the SEQR Positive Declaration was issued by the Town Planning Board. IOn January 7, 1985 a resolution was adopted declaring the site plan application incomplete under SEQRA, and denied it. I Subsequent to this determination, a petition was filed with I the Supreme Court, State of New York, County of Suffolk by Cron and Cron, Esqs., attorneys for Seacroft Ltd., the development I corporation, protesting the Planning Board Action. On March 21, 1988 the court ruled in favor of the Planning IBoard, declaring that the proposed action a "Type I" as defined by Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and requiring I the preparation of a full DEIS for the project. i AS previously mentioned, on April 9, 1984, the applicant was gl%eh a pre-submission conference with the Planning Board to I discuss the senior citizen development. At that conference a plan was also presented showing the layout of a proposed shop- ping plaza on the 7.1 a=re site. The Town felt that the develop- ment of the business parcel was connected with the development of the senior citizen community. Subsequently, the Town Board declared itself lead agency and required the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. I I I I I 2-2 I I I I The 46.16-acre I stantially void of I I I I I I I I I I In order to conform to the desire of the Planning Board, an analysis of the possible construction of a Colonial Shopping Plaza for this parcel has been evaluated and is depicted in the Supplement st the rear of this report. It should be noted, though, that the applicant does not have any ]m~ediate intention of developing this 7.1 acre parcel. subject parcel is currently vacant and sub- any mature growth. Although no farming or other agricultural uses have taken place on this site since the applicant purchased the property in 1983, it can be assumed that because of its currently cleared state and its relatively flat terrain, this parcel was used at one time for some type of agri$ cultural purpose (i.e., the growing of potatoes, tomatoes, corn and/or cabbage, etc.). With respect to the issue raised by the Planning Board as to whether there has been a subdivision of the subject premises, we would respectfully submit that the issue is moot in the light of the adoption by the Town Board of the Master Plan and the rezon- lng by the Town of the premises into separate and distinctzoned parcels, to wit= the 7± acre parcel into a Hamlet Business Dis- trict and the 46± acre parcel into a Hamlet Density Residential District. The Town Board by its action has set-off the business parcel from the residentialparcel which would render a simiisr action moot. I I 2-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT NEED. BENEFITS AND OBJECTIVES OF SPONSOR As stated in the Master Plan Update prepared by the Planning Consultant town, New Resources sons in Southold decade. than that change in firm of Raymond, Parrish, Pine and Weiner of Tarry- York, and as detailed in a subsequent section (Human - Demographics) the population of retirement age per- eastern Suffolk County in general, and the Town of in particular, has increased greatly in the past The trend is expected to increase at a rate greater of the general population growth. Along with this age structure there has become a need for increased senior citizen housing in the Town. Town of Southold Master Plan overall planning call for,providing hamlets which are: ties and commercial, establish a sphere;"... environment ment, the of' a variety various stages and household ment, of varying types hamlets,,. Construction the goals and predominant recommendations regarding "a community of residential composed of a variety of housing cpportuni- service and cultural activities; serving to sense of place; set in an open or rural atmo- striving for compatibility between the natural and development. In regard to residential develop- Master Plan recommends providing for "the development of housing types to meet the needs of people at of the life cycle, various income and age levels compositions,,, and encourages" housing develop- and densities in and around existing of the proposed project will address many of recommendations stated in the Master Plan. The housing type within the Town of Southold is the 2-4 ! I single family h~me. The proposed "Hamlet at Cutchogue,, will add to the avallabl~ity of multiple residence units and help meet I the goa~ of providing a variety of housing types. The design of Ithe pro]eot groups residential units together leaving large areas of open space thereby helping to preserve an open or rural I atmosphere. The overall placement of the proposed project is within walking distance of the center of the Hamlet ~f Cut- I chogue. This not only eliminates the need for vehicle trips for I shopping but also is in accord with the recommendation to con- struct housing in and around existing hamlets. As stated Iviously, the proposed project willhelp to provide needed senior citizen housing in the town and, through its central location~ I traditional architecture ~nd careful site planning will provide i compatibility with surrounding development and strengthen the overall feeling of "a sense of place". . I Senior citizens currently occupy many of the larger homes in the Town; the upkeep of these homes and the lack of security are I two of seniors' major concerns. The development of this project will enable senior citizens to move to a more desirable dwelling I and also allow younger and larger families to purchase and te- lstore these large houses. As previously stated, the primary social benefit of the I proposed project is to provide adequate senior citizen housing within the Town of Southold while its major economic benefits I include an increase in the town's tax base, without a comparable I I 2-5 I I I I I I increase tion and ance and pleted. in the cost of services, stimulation of the construc- building materials industries and creation of mainten- management opportunities after construction is com- As explained in the Master Plan update s,~mmary for the Town of Southold prepared by Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, Inc. April, 1985, "a statement of what the Town considers to be its long range goals and the desirable types and patterns of develop- ment appropriate to achieve those goals is essential". As part of the master plan update, each of the four major hamlets of the I Southold, including Cutchogue, were examined in depth Town of concerning the existing and future conditions of development, I vacant land, parking and ~raffic patterns, natural and environ- I mental features, and historic areas. Also derived in the Master Plan Update were Hamlet Land Use I Plans that were designed to~ o Maintain the hamlet as a community focal point and an I activity center. i o Strengthen the existing retail and service commercial uses in the hamlet centers. I I I o o Provide adequate parking for commercial and public uses. Provide for a range of housing for younger and older res- idents with a range of income levels within the hamiet areas, with higher densities near the center and lower density in outlying areas. I I I Recognize that transition areas exist between the hamlet business areas and outlyi.ng residential areas. 2-6 o Provide for some auto-oriented, general commercial uses at the outer edge of the hamlet to complement hamlet I center commercial uses. I o Where appropriate, provide areas of sufficient size to establish office parks or light industrial parks to of- I fer opportunities for expanded economic development with- in the Town. o Provide areas for recreation activities as well as open space areas for passive recreation opportunities and for protection of environmental features. o Suggest road improvements where desirable for smoother traffic flow within the hamlet and/or the Town. I I I I I I I I Preserve ist and remained agricultuFal use of land where prime soils ex- a sufficient number of contiguous parcels have in farming activities to maintain the viability of agriculture in relative proximity to the hamlet cen- ter. Protect the quality of ground and surface waters and nat- ural environmental features. 2-7 The proposed senior citizens project is to be situated on approximately 46.16 acres located at the intersection of School House Lane and Griffing Street in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Township of Southold. Specifically, the parcel is referred to on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 102, Block 01, Lot 33.3 (see Figure 1). access Street minor streets. Griffing Street intersects with Main Road, a shown on a survey of the property (see Rear Sleeve A), to the site will be accomplished by using either Griffing or Schoolhouse Lane, both of which are classified as major arterial subject parcel. road, approximately 1,130 feet south of the Schoolhogse Lane intersects with Depot Lane, a 1,000 feet east of the subject collector street approximately parcel. The current zoning of this zoning classification, the site. is Hamlet Density. Under the property can be constructed up to a maximum density of 4 units per acre. 2-8 LOCATION MAP 1935 DISTIST 1000 EAST CUTCHOGUE S.C.T.M. I11 SECTION 102 BLOCK 01 LOT 33.3 .a, DES~NAND ~YOU'I' The overall scenario of development calls for the construc- tion of 160 dwellings (40 4-unit complexes) to be clustered around cul-de-sacs or along two major roads, leaving several sizeable areas as "open space". The two proposed roadways, loop, will be curvilinear in (See Rear Sleeve B.) each of which terminates in a design, in order to conform to existing topography while being aesthetically pleasing. The site plan includes a total of 40 structures, each having a "footprint" of approximately 6,150 square feet and containing 4 dwelling units. In addition to.this, proposed pavement areas (roads and driveways) measure 288,062 SF for a total of 534,062 square feet of imperviou? area. This represents 27% of the total site area of 46.16 acres. The amount of landscaped area for the site measures 331,400 square feet for a total of 16% of the 46.16 acres. On site natural areas total 58,370 square feet for a total of 3% and turf areas measure 1,087,068 square feet or 54% of the total site area. At present, much of the site is cleared field, devoid of any trees with the exception of a small wooded area along the east- erly property line. All runoff will be contained on site and routed by means of swales, catch basins, and ponds. This system has been sized'to handle a 6" rainfall as per Town of Southold requirements. Over- land runoff will be directed by swales and street grading to one of the two natural retention ponds located in the northern sec- tion of the property. 2-10 I Domestic water for this residential plan will be supplied by i an in-situ well. The project will include the construction of a 28 foot diameter, 24 foot high steel storage reservoir to I provide storage for 100,000 gallons of well water that will be I I I I I I I I used during provided as two hundred The design conform to Health Services Environmental peak demand. Treatment of the well water will be required to supply the site with potable water. A foot radius has been established around the well. and construction of the well and reservoir will all regulations of the Suffolk County Department of and the New York State Department of Conservation. As of the writing of this DEIS, the applicant Authority well on appears as the to Appendix C for for this project. has been in contact with the Suffolk County Water concerning the dpdication of the proposed water supply this site. Through conversations, with the SCWA, it that the SCWA is interested in obtaining this dedication property is well located for their needs. Please refer detailed information on the supply of water i The water will be distributed throughout the site via a six inch PVC water main following the roadway. Each building is Isupplied by a 1-1/2 inch service, tapped into the six inch main. There are fire hydrants placed in the development to I supply the fire department with water in the event of a fire. i Sanitary sewage will be disposed of via standard septic tank-leaching pool systems. Due to the ongoing changes in I regulations, the current standards in effect at the time of this 2-11 I I I I I I I report are Systems for regulations, the "1984 Standards for Subsurface Sewage Disposal Other Than Single-Family Residences-. Under these it is stated that the population density equivalent can be calculated using either the Calculation Method or the Yield Map Method. For the purposes of determing the allowable flow for this project, the Yield Map Method was utilized. Under the Yield Method a map depicting a total of eighty-one (81) 20,000 square foot lots was developed including a recharge basin area and two access roads. The allowable flow equates to 300 gpd/lot x 81 lots. Under the regulations, it is stated that for a 2 bedroom Apartment/Condominium unit, the desigR flow is 225 gallons/day, and for a Planned Retirement Apartment/Condominiums I of one bedroom in size,~ the design flow is 100 gallons/day. i Under the 1984 standards, the design sewage flow rate for a Planned Retirement Community with 2 Bedroom Units is not speci- I fically stated. Discussions with theSuffolk County Department of Health Services resulted in a determination of 150 gallon/ I day/unit as a design flow rate. I I I I Determinin~ the A11owaue Sewa=e Flow Allowable Flow - 81 lots x 300 - 24,300 gal/day 24,300 gal/day/150 gal/day/unit - 162 units The sub-surface sewage disposal systems for each building will be large enough to accomodate a 50 percent expansion of the system. 2-12 I I Each building has a i(150 gpd/unit x 4 units). flow (600 gallons/day x Ieight foot in diameter; design sewage flow of 600 gallons/day Septic tanks will provide for 2 days 2 days ~ 1,200 gallons) and will be the effective depth of the ten foot diameter leaching pool will be 12.5 feet. I The site plan provides for two parking spaces per dwelling i unit, one garaged space and one driveway space. Parking spaces will also be provided for guests. The proposed community complex provides several recreational amenities for the residents of the Hamlet at Cutchogue. Planned are two tennis courts, a community center with game room and a swimming pool. These facilities will be for the use of the resi- dents of the development an~ their guests. 2-13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONS%~RUCTION ~ OPERATION I I I I I I The total anticipated two to three years, with three phases Phasing I includes well, storage Construction construction period is approximately construction being accomplished in (see Figure 2). of the project follows a logical progression. Phase construction of the swales and pond, water supply tank and main access road through the site. of Phase I provides key portions of the infrastructure necessary to construct subsequent phases. Phase I calls for the construction of the southeastern sec- tion of the property. Ten (10) buildings, forty (40) units ars scheduled for construction in this phase. I During the construction,of Phase I, the roads and infrastruc- i ture for the entire site will be built. Roadways will be graded to design. Drainage, catch basins and pipes will be installed I throughout the site. The sites for each building will be graded to design and the foundations will be poured. When the foundations are set, fram- I I I I lng and general The construction pattern: construction of the buildings will commence. of each unit will follow the following general Pour foundations I I Water proof foundations Install lolly column footings 2-14 STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION I I I HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE 1'=250' FIGURE 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I First floor decking Install lolly columns Complete frame (outside roof truss) Exterior sheathing Windows Finish roofing Exterior finish Interior work: walls and interior partitions, rough pl~mhing and HVAC tubs and showers electric includes lighting, sheetrock and tape and spackle interior finish As each trade or con~ractor finishes the Job on one build- ing, it will move onto the next building allowing the following step to commence. This will be the general pattern of building construction for each 4-unit building. Phase II fully completes one branch of the roadway system. will already have been graded with Phase I. Therefore, to complete the in Phase II, paving would only be The roadway for Phase II drainage installed during construction of the roads required. Phase II calls ings (60 units) to Phase I. for the construction of fifteen (15) buiid- be built at the same schedule as shown in 2-16 I Phase III completes the southwestern section of the site, i landscaping and other amenities to complete the project. Phase III calls for the construction of the remaining buildings and additional finishing or reparative work in order to the development. The construction of the last 15 buildings (60 units) will follow the same pattern as in the other sections. Phase III also includes the construction of the I for any complete I I I I I I I I I I ! recreational facilities, community center. The following chart illustrates construction for each phase. Phase II Phase III By phasing the construction adverse section to complete the entire project. and other potential nuisances become relptively short lived. including the tennis courts, pool and the approximate length of TIMING SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION Phase ~ 12 months 8 months 10 months of a project in this manner, impacts to neighboring properties are minimized. Each is completed in a shorter period than would be required Noise, duet, erosion-siltation to owners of adjacent parcels This method of construction provides the added benefit of earlier realization of increased tax revenue on occupied dwellings. I I be Once constructed, maintenance of grounds and buildings will performed by private contractors, hired by a Homeowners As- 2-17 ! ! sociation. the following parameters will be included= o Snow removal. o Mowing of all common lawn areas. o Maintaining all common areas. o Maintenance of swimming community center. o Maintenance of all drainage structures. In addition to the above mentioned twenty-four hour security will be provided. Under the management of the Homeowners Association, pool, tennis courts, and parameters, on-site 2-18 I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I APPROV~-~ In addition to approval of the site plan by the Town Plan- ning Board subsequent issuance of a Building Permit, the fol- lowing approvals are also necessary: A) Suffolk County Health Department 1) Water supply system. 2) Sanitary system. B) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 1) DEC well permit. C)Suffolk County Planning Commission 1) Review 2-19 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I SECTION III INVENTORY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS NATURAL RESOURCES SUBSURF~C~ C-EOLO~y i The glacial outwash sands which make up the surface topo- graphy at the project site are one of several layers, or geo- I logic strata, underlying the area. Beginning at the lowest strata, the bedrock I surface. This is Precambrian era I ments deposited is located in excess of 500 feet below the an extremely old formation, dating to the of five hundred million years ago. Ail sedi- on this bedrock formation were eroded until the I I I I I I I I I I sand and gravel accumulations known as the Lloyd sands were depo- sited during the late Cretaceous, about 60 million years ago. In the western part of Suffolk County, this strata contains potable water. However, in the project area, the formation is saline in nature. Abov? the Lloyd sand is the Raritan clay, also of late Cretaceous age, which although lying hundreds of feet below present sea level, contains floral fossils indicative of a dry land deposit. The surface of the Raritan formation underwent a period of erosion, after which the thick Magothy formation was laid down as a series of clay lenses, silts and sands. This layer, also Cretaceous in age, serves as the pri- mary source of potable water for most of Suffolk County, but as with the region. erosion, millions till Lloyd sands, bears only saline water in the project The surface of the Magothy also underwent a period of and no additional' sediment was laid down for many of years until the glaciers brought us the Pleistocene and outwash deposits. This upper glacial formation consti- I I I tutes the sole source of water supply for the area, discussed in detail in other sections. 3-1 as will be I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Water Supply findings of a test report follows: "On April 4, well within to 68 feet. driven to a Report found in Appendix C describes the well dug on site. An excerpt from this 1984, the well driller installed a 2-inch the 4-inch well casing previously installed The 2-inch well with 2 foot well point was depth of 98 feet. Samples were taken at 5 foot intervals from 98 feet to 73 feet again to collect data on nitrate and iron levels present. The wash sand with the 2-inch wells gravel layers.,, from the 4-inch well casing was coarse to fine trace amounts of gravel, and the driving of did not indicate any large clay or 3-2 I SO LS I I I The "Hamlet at Cutchogue" site contains five predominant soil formations, Haven loam 0-2 percent slopes, Haven loam 2-6 percent slopes, Plymouth loamy sand 3-8 percent slopes, Plymouth loamy sand 8-15 percent slopes and Riverhead sandy loam 3-8 percent slopes (see Soils Map, Figure 3). I I I I The characteristics of the soil types found on the site can be summarized in the following forms from the Soil Survey of Suf- folk County proposed by the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. Haven loam. 0-2 percent sloDes (HaA} The Haven series consists of deep, well drained, medium tex- tured soilS. These soils,have high to moderate available mois- i ture capacity with low natural fertility. Internal drainage is good with moderate permeability in the surface layer and subsoil Iand very rapid permeability in the substratum. The hazard of erosion is slight with slopes ranging from 0-2 percent. The I formation comprises approximately 62% of the area of the site. I Haven loam. 2-6 percent slope (HaB~ Characteristics of this formation are similar to HaA above I with the exception of erosion hazard which is slight to moder- ate. Haven loam covers approximately 10% of the site. I Plymouth loamy sand. 3-8 Percent SloDe CP1B~ I A very small portion of the senior citizens residence pro- Ject parcel, about 1%, contains Plymouth loamy sand, The I Plymouth series consists of deep, excessively drained coarse 3-3 textured soils. These soils have iow to available very low mois- ture capacity and low natural fertility. Internal drainage' ~s good and permeability is rapid except in the substratum where is moderate. Hazard of erosion is slight within this formation. Plymouth loamy sa~d. 8-15 percent slopes (PIG) This formation ls similar to P1B above with the following two exceptions. It tends to be more gravelly, particularly -- along the crests of low ridges, and the hazard of erosion tends to be moderate to severe because of the slope and the sandy tex- ture of this soil.. The formation accounts for approximately 8% of the area of the s~te. Riverhead sandy loam. 3-8 percent slopes (RdB) The Riverhead series ~onsists of deep, well drained, moder- ately coarse textured soils over thick layers of coarse sand and gravel. They have moderate to high available moisture capacity and internal drainage is good. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil and very rapid in the substra- tum. The hazard of erosion is moderate to slight within this formation which makes up approximately 19% of the area of the subject parcel. Enaineerina ProDerti~ As viewed on the soils map (Figure 3), nearly 75% of the site is covered by the Haven' Series of soils, HaA or HaB. Th~ee soils, as stated in the US Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Suffolk County, present only slight limitations to their use as homesites, streets, parking lots, sewage disposal fields and 3-4 this are slopes approaching six taken both during and lawns. A "slight limitation, according to the survey means that "the soil has few or no limitations- and that "any limitations that are present can be overcome at little cost". In short, these areas represent good locations, from a soils standpoint, for homesites and related appurtenances. The only exceptions to generalization areas within formation HaB containing percent, where additional care must be after construction to prevent erosion. However, this soil group represents only about 10 percent of the total site and the actual portion of this group having slopes near 6% is even less. .Nearly 70% of the ~ area at the senior citizenm residence, all but 9% of~the total site, is comprised of soils in the Riverhead sandy loam, 3-8% slope formation. This group, as with the Haven soils mentioned previously, poses few limita- tions to its use as a homeeite or sewage disposal field. Again, the only exceptions are areas where the slopes approach 6% or greater. Proper siting of buildings and slope stabilization will overcome any difficulties caused by these steeper slopes. The remainder of the site contains Plymouth loamy sand. This formation' which lies predominantly in the area of the proposed pond, contains deep excessively drained soils with rapid permeability and good internal drainage, providing'an excellent location for this facility. 3-5 I I I F~6unE :, ~? I I ' ! ' ' II / I ~i- I RdB~ I -. ' '~ I HaB I , i I'LAMLLrl' AT CUTCHC)GUE 1"=250' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Unlike has in some somewhat One the northern portion of the Town of Southold which elevations of 160 feet and steep slopes exceeding 50 percent areas, the topography of the residential property is flatter with lower elevations. can generally characterize its topography as rolling, with slopes ranging from approximately 0.5 to 13 percent. The site contains two knolls with elevation above 38 and 36 respec- tively. These lie west of the centerline of the parcel, the first being at the southerly end, and the second 1,000± feet to the north (see Figure 4). A low point of elevation 20± is found near the easterly property line, equidistant from the two knolls. The runoff from ~he southerly two thirds of the parcel would be expected to flow toward this low point while the northerly portion drains to the north and east. 3-7 7~_,~/_?' FIGURE 4 I IL,'.-:.;/'Y .___---- i'/_:/,,'~... ---~-~ ..~,'.~::.' ~ /-" I__ / I I ~ dl / rl~ I ~ I .---~ ~ ~ I ~-/. .//l", ~ ~ 0~ ~ ~ -V~ 4 I ~171 ~.. ~ J I / ~ ~'~, . I ~ '~x ~ I ~;']l ~, I '~ / / ~ .' /II, I/ .~ ..I ', r' ~ ' '.~ I ~ -~ IL ~ " II/ ~/~ ' I II x) J l I TO~GRAPHY MAP /?//~-' ~J ~ HAMLET AT I NJ: ~, CUTCHOGUE ! ! In contrast to the situation in the more western reaches of the County, where the Magothy and LloYd aquifers contain vast quantities of fresh drinkable groundwater, these water bearing formations contain only salt water under the Town of Southold. For this reason, the Upper Glacial aquifer provides the sole source of drinkable water for the area of the proposed project. The "shape" of the groundwater surface follows that of the land surface, but at a somewhat reduced scale. As a result, the gla- cial aquifer can be though~ of as topographically controlled, and consists of several mounds of water located under the higher areas of the town. The North Fork Water Supply Plan (ERM - Northeast/Camp Dresser an~ McKee, 1983) recognized this charac- teristic and established five water supply zones for groundwater management purposes. Zone 3 covers the area from Mattituck Inlet to Arshamamoque Pond, including the project site. The Water Supply Plan also identified Water Budget Areas, which are those areas where there is sufficient depth, or thick- ness, of fresh groundwater to permit development of public water supply wells. The thickness of the groundwater aquifer is a function of the elevation of the water table above sea level, as described by a formula known as the Ghyben-Herzberg relation- ship, which accounts for the density difference between fresh and salt water. Simplified, the formula predicts a depth of fresh groundwater below sea level equal to 40 times the water 3-9 I I I I table elevation above sea level. Although this idealized pic- ture can be modified by local geological conditions, the rela- tionship provides a useful water supply planning tool. The Water Budget Area for the project region has been mapped by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and includes most of the inland portion of Zone 3, including the entire project site. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has also identified and mapped eight groundwater management zones in the County, based on hydrological characteristics and importance in protecting water supplies. The proposed project is in Zone IV, which covers the North Fork and portions of the South Fork. The hydrological characteristics and management implications of the various zones are discusse~ in some detail in the Nassau-Suffolk Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan, known as the 208 Study (Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, May ~988). According to the 208 Study, this zone has unique conditions and requires careful management. Agricultural land use has impacted water quality, as will be discussed below, and saltwater intrusion is a problem near the shore. The plan also indicates amplewater supply to sustain projected development, and calls for proper development and management of supply wells and disposal systems. The Water Resources Division of the Suffolk County Depart- ment of Health Services has installed and periodically monitored a groundwater well several hundred feet west of the subject pro- perty, on Alvah's Lane (Wel! %53327). This well provides ground- water data from 1975 to the present which is useful in describ- 3-10 I I I I I I I I which water 1988) the water table 3.5 during the maximum March, on the i the locations of site. lng conditions in the project vicinity. This well is located at a ground surface elevation of about 25 feet above sea level, is somewhat lower than the subject property. The ground- elevation at this well shows a long term average (197§- of 4.08 feet above sea level. Seasonal fluctuations of at this location generally range from a low of fall to a high of 5.5 during the spring. The recorded groundwater elevation at the well was 6.78 in 1979, and the minimum was 2.20 in September, 1981. Based data presented on the Suffolk County Groundwater Contour Map (SCDHS March 1989, Figure 5), the direction of groundwater flow under the project location is from northwest to southeast. Figure 6 presents a pla~ view of the surrounding area showing private wells in the vicinity of the subject I Additional water supply investigations have also been con- ducted as part of the preliminary engineering for the subject I property. A complete report on this investigation is presented in Appendix C. An exploratory well was installed on the pro- I petty and appropriate data was collected in March, 1984. The Igroundwater elevation of the property was determined to be ap- proximately 7.0 feet above sea level. The higher groundwater I elevation at the subject property, as compared to the Alvah~s I Lane well (which registered 6.2 the same month) is due to the higher ground elevations found on the project site. 3-11 I I - FIGURE 6 I · -. _ ..~ ~.. . ~ i-:--,.~ '__----~.~,~.~---e~ ___~'~_ '- ~ I ~ / '. ~ ~ I I · I ~ I / ; ~ ~ ~" I '0 ~*~" o~ .. w~[ w~ ~ .~ I ' I '~ ~"'~ ' . I~ ~-.~ ,, .~,~,cou.,,~,,.o~,, I I ~ . ~1~ ~-- - , ....... ~-- I , ~. I~~ · I I ~ ~'~ , I-'~ ', ..', X ~ ~ ~-~ .... k~ .... ~ ',~ ...........C ...... : .......... ~ ,' ' HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE I ~ - ~', o--~ ~ __° - ~ t., I ~ .. l,-~ ~l, ..~v~ w~ ~oc~lo.s I I I ! I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I As has been impacted use of fertilizers probably have the one in particular, Aldicarb which Island severe pesticides and to its water plant tissues, indicated in the 208 study, groundwater on the North Fork by agricultural practices, particularly the and pesticides. In this regard, pesticides greatest potential water supply impact, and aldicarb, has generated the most concern. is the generic name for Union Carbide's product, Temik, is used as a killer of leaf eating insects and, on Long 9otato farms, nematodes, which injest roots and cause crop damage. Aldicarb is from the carbamate family of a potent nerve poison. Its effectiveness is due based mobility and ability to be absorbed into forming a systemic (thus "temik") protective barrier. heavy raised the up in well been found In 1977, the USE~A issued permission for exceptionally applications of aldicarb on Long I~land, and further limit in 1979. In 1978, the pestioide began showing water. By 1985, over 2,000 Long Island wells had to exceed the EPA aldicarb drinking water guideline of 10 parts per billion (Health Department standard is 7 ppb). Aldicarb is no longer approved for use on Long Island, and groundwater levels of the chemical have shown signs of drop- ping. It_ is not known how long complete breakdown and ultimate disappearance will take. Fortunately, aldicarb can be removed from well water subject property, water exploration organic chemicals. by installation of a carbon filter. On the tests conducted on samples from the ground well did not reveal contamination by any In addition, the groundwater monitoring well 3-14 on Alvah's Lane has also been tested periodically. In 1982, a I I I temik breakdown product, aldicarb sulfoxide, was detected at a level of one part per billion and, in 1983, this and another byproduct, aldicarb sulfone, were detected at 5 and 4 ppb, respectively. At this time also, two other pesticides, carbofuran (1 ppb) and oxamyl (5 ppb), both, incidently, also I I I I now in 1983, From sibility groundwater Fortunately, alleviate banned on Long Island, were also detected. However, earlier all pesticides were below detectable limits. this data and discussion, it is apparent that the pos- of periodic slugs of low level pesticide contaminated passing under the property must be considered. careful well management and treatment practices can any such problpms, end no limitation on development I I I results from this condition. Although pesticide contamination is a bigger headline grab- ber, fertilizer associated nitrogen loading should not be over- looked as a groundwater problem. Due to the predominant agri- cultural land use on the North Fork, this is a significant pro- I I I blem. The Alvah's Lane monitoring well has consistently hovered around the 10 milligrams per liter drinking water standard. Somewhat lower levels .were found at the subject property, al- though provisions for treatment are being included in the water supply plan for the project. There is, at the present time, no public water supply avail- able in the community. Therefore all development adjacent to I and surrounding the project site is served by individual well 3-15 systems. The North estimated the ability various water supply Fork Water Supply Plan, referenced above, of the available groundwater, within the zones, to sustain existing and future development. Of the zones within Southold town, zone 3, which includes the project site, is in the best position to sustain additional development. It is estimated (Analysis of Water Supply and Implications for Master Plan, RPPW 1983) that in excess of 14,000 additional households can be sustained, a figure which will increase slowly over the next several decades, as agricultural pumpage decreases. Obviously, for this or even a lower level of development, extreme care will have to be exercised to maintain an acceptable level of water quality. ! ! 3-16 I ! I I I The s~bJ ect Ltd., was used property, prior to its purchase by Seacroft, for agricultural purposes. The parcel has been zoned M Light Multiple-Residence for approximately 5 years until its recent change to Hamlet Density. In November 1960, the Suffolk County Planning Commission, in its report, People and par~a, recommended the preservation of over 30,000 acres of farmland. I In 1972 the Suffolk County Legislature authorized the estab- lishment of a farmlands acquisition program. This program was created for the purpose of acquiring development rights to ap- proximately 15,000 acres of farmland. As of 1984, the develop- I ment rights to over §40~ acres of farmland in the Town of Southold have been purchased. Suffolk County compensates the I farmers to limit their land to farming uses exclusively. The Iassure the preservation of land County, therefore, wes able to they felt had the greatest potential for agriculture in the future. The subject parcel was not included in the County,s Master Plan for farmland preservation. The Town of Southold finds that the acquisition of develop- I I I I I ment rights of within the Town the improvement duction of food lands used in actual agricultural production, limits, will "conserve, protect and encourage of prime agricultural lands for both the p~o- and the preservation of open space", as stated in Chapter 25 of the Town of Southold Code. 3-17 Review of the Town of Southold Code, Chapter 25, Agricul- tural Lands Preservation, indicates that the properties is not on the list of properties to be acquired by the Town. 3-18 VEGETATION ANDWILDLIF~ Vegetation and wildlife on the project site were surveyed in June of 1988, when most of the vegetation would be in evidence and when most of the site's wildlife would be in a breeding, non-migratory phase. . Vegetation on the site consists of typical old field fringed by second growth woods. A complete listing and repor~ on the vegetation is presented in the technical background appendix. None of the plants identified on the site are listed as endan- gered or threatened, nor are any contained on the New York Heritage list. The site is used by a variety of mammals, including gray squirrel, eastern cottontail, opossum, raccoon, chipmunk, meadow mouse, eastern mole, whi~e footed mouse, house mouse, and pos- sibly, red fox. site. Various birds could be expected An eastern box turtle was also observed on the were observed on the property, many of which to be nesting on the site. Below is a table of the common names of the species found on the site. Red-Winged Blackbird BREEDING SEASON BIRDS FOUND.ON PROPERTY Scarlet Tanager Common Flicker European Starling Wood Thrush Rufous-sided Towhee Common Yellowthroat Song Sparrow Yellow Warbler Common Crackle House Finch Chimney Swift Barn Swallow Mourning Dove Gray Catbird Herring Gull (flyover) American Robin Black-Backed Gull (flyover) White-eyed Vireo Ring-necked Pheasant Northern Cardinal Blue Jay Common Bobwhite , American Crow Northern Mockingbird 3-19 ! I None of the inventoried species are on any listing of endangered, threatened, or special concern species for New York I State. . I The woodlands bordering the residential ~roject ~it., to the north, provide better quality woodland habitat, which are pro- I bably used by other species including various woodpeckers, I thrushes, wrens, finches, titmice and nuthatches. Owls may also use these woods, although the north fork is historically raptor I tional flycatcher, warbler4 I poor, except for Orient, where Great Horned Owls are quite n%lmerous. I During spring and fall migration periods, additional species may use the old fields as stopover sites. At this time, addi- finch and blackbird species would be expected. I I I I I I I I I I 3-20 LAND USEANDZON~N~ I Land Use. Existing land use of the subject property is "vacant". As stated in a previous section of this report, a I large portion, perhaps 95% of the parcel, had been cleared for agricultural use prior to its most recent purchase. As with I neighboring parcels, it was used for agriculture purposes at one I time. Land use in the surrounding area varies widely. To the Isouth are a school and commercial properties fronting on Main Road. Along its westerly boundary, the subject parcel is bordered by a residential area of single family homes. To the I I I I I north are properties whose use east lies another vacant,parcel. to the east, is a residential is agricultural, while to the Along Schoolhouse Lane, also area containing single family homes and a trailer park. There is also a machine shop opera- ting in this area. The co~ercial property neighbors the sight intended for the senior citizens residence, and therefore shares in the surroundings with the residential lot. ! ! As shown in Figure 7, the Church ROW Map, access has been provided to the property owned by the Church of the Sacred Heart by establishing a right-of-way easement on the com~ercial par- cel. This right-of-way will allow access to the property by I using either Griffing street or Schoolhouse Lane. As stated'in the License Agreement, dated September 15, 1983, the parcel was I sold to Seacroft Plaza, Ltd. The owner is obligated to assume I the responsibility of providing access to the Church owned 3-21 ~m ~ .b~ PROPOSED HAMLET 3:*0 .04 CUTCHOGUE COMMUNITY '"' ~.. ~ ~ ~.4~! ' s~.~o ~,fi~.oo~.ous~ ~.; _1 ~oo.3o' . . I~I : Zl ~ i~I I ~i. [ . I~I I · ~J. · ~ lei ~ ~1 ~ ~~ /~/ ~ ' ~ ~h .~ - /~/ ~o ~ ~1~ / '~'~~o.w I~ / CHURCH R.O.W. MAP FIGURE 7 MAIN ROAD I parcel. This "proposed extension" is approximately sixty feet i in width and four hundred feet long. It is located on the northern portion of the commercially zoned parcel, at the I intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street. . Zoning. The residential property zs currently zoned Hamlet I Density and has been such since it was rezoned from "A" Residen- tial-Agricultural in July of 1983. Surrounding properties to I the east, west and north are zoned "A" Residential- Agricultural while those to the south are a mix of "B" Light and "B-i" I I I I I I I I I I I I I General Business. 3-23 LAND USE P~S The Town of Southold through the Planning Consultant firm of Ralrmond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, Inc. recently updated the Town's Comprehensive Development Plan. The updating involved three phases. The first deals pri- marilY with the assimilation of information and data and the identification of goals development of the Plan. the the the the Plan. and issues to be considered in the The second phase is the development of Comprehensive Development Plan. This was created through coordinated work of the Consultants, the Planning Board, and Master Plan Workshop Committee. The third phase includes preparation of the essential instruments to implement the This stage includes,the review and revision of the Town's ! ! I or vacant. Approximately land development regulations and also includes revising the zoning ordinance together with the existing zoning map. The background studies for the Master Plan Update indicate that the largest proportion of Town land is in agricultural use 40% of the Town's land is used for agricultural purposes. for the development of facilities._ Residential area) are clustered existing residential A fraction of the Town's land is used residential, commercial and industrial uses (approximately 15% of the land around creeks and inlets. Most of the development averages approximately 2-4 ! ! dwelling units per acre. The largest commercial areas (excluding Greenport) are lo- cated in the hamlets of Mattituck and Southold. Smaller, local 3-24 shopping areas are located in Peconic, East Marion, Orient and Cutchogue. Uses such as churches, schools, cemeteries, post offices and government facilities are generally located in the areas, as State, County and hamlet areas. Recreational such Town parks, golf courses, nature preserves and camps, range in size from neighborhood parks to the 350 acre Orient State Park. In March, 1988, a Draft Generic Environmental Impact State- ment was accepted by the Town Board on the Proposed Local Law of 1987 Amending the Town of Southold Zoning Ordinance. The pro- posed ordinance originated a D~m~er of new districts- designed to implement specific policies included in the Master Plan. The Zoning Ordinance describes the formation of a Hamlet Density (HD) District wh$ch allows 4 dwelling units per acre. The subject parcel has been deemed to be included within the Hamlet Density District. The proposed project has a planned density of less than 3.5 units per acre although current zoning for the site allows for a greater density. As can be seen, project density meets current zoning requirements. The section on existing previously contains supply Plan, public water economically the construction of development. This groundwater conditions presented several references to the North Fork Water Suffolk County, New York. According to this plan, supply systems in the Cutchogue area would not be feasible. However, the proposed project includes a single supply system to serve the entire has been determined by engineering analysis 3-25 to .be the most economically effective means of supplying water to the development. Because this system is to be constructed by the developer at his expense and maintained either by mainten- ance fees from Authority, there Supply Plan. the residents or by the Suffolk County Water is not a conflict with the North Fork Water 3-26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FIGURE 8 LAND USE PLAN 3-27 FIGURE 8 ::::::::::::::::::::::: ":':':':':':':':':' ~ ~ I ,:,;,;,;,:,1.;,1, I I I I I I I I I I I I S.C.T.M. OISTIST 1000 SECTION 102 BLOCK 01 LOT 33.3 Existing police protection for the area is provided by the I Town of Southold Police Department with a force of over 40. ! I Fire protection is provided by the Cutchogue Fire Depart- ment. This is a voluntary force with personnel of over 100. There is no Town sanitation service in the subject area, therefore, the proposed residential community must hire a private refuse collector. I I I I I I I I I I The subject property is located within School District #9 - Mattituck/Cutchogue school district. There are no public water or sewer services present in this area. A well and storage tank will be constructed on site to provide water. Each bu%lding will be connected to a septic tank/leaching pool systemin order to properly dispose of sani- tary wastes. Recreational Facilities According to the "Suffolk County Planning Department's Data Book, 1984", the Hamlet of Cutchogue is provided with eight (8) nearby recreational facilities. New Suffolk Town Beach, located on Jackson Street and Second Street posed launch ramp in size. Goldsmith in New Suffolk, approximately 2 miles south of the pro- development, provides area residents with a beach and a for boaters. The beach is approximately 1.3 ac~es Inlet County Park, located on Inlet Road in Peconic, is approximately 3 miles east of the proposed develop- ! I 3-28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I merit on the Long Island Sound. This County park provides area residents with biking facilities, nature trails and a playground area. The park is approximately 34 acres in size. Peconic Dunes County Park, located on Soundview Avenue in is approximately 4 miles east of the subject property. acre park provides area residents with biking facili- facilities, bridal paths and a Peconic, This 37 ties, nature trails, boating conservation education program. Goldsmith's Inlet is a 2 acre beach subject property. Nassau Point southeast of the Cutchogue, is with a large Beach, located on Inlet Road in Peconic, situated approximately 3 miles east of the Community Beach, located approximately 4 miles propose~ development on Nassau Point Road in a 19.5 acre beach. Area residents are provided beach area, picnic area, playground area and bas- ketball court area. Pequash Avenue Town Park, located on Pequash Avenue in New Suffolk, is situated approximately 2 miles south of the proposed development. This 1-acre park provides area residents with a beach area, picnic area and a playground area. Cedars Golf Club, situated on Cases Avenue in Cutchogue, is a public golf club approximately 1/2 mile south of the proposed development. North Fork Country Club, situated on Main Road in Cutchogue, is a private country club situated approximately 1 mile east of the proposed development. 3-29 Several studies have been performed on the pattern and types of development within the County of Suffolk and the Town of Southold. These reports include the "Analysis of Population and Housing" for the Background Studies, Town of Southold Master Plan Update~ "Focus on the East End", written by the Suffolk County Inter-Agency Coordinating Council~ "Demographic Information., prepared by the Suffolk County Office for the Aging~ and the "1988 Population Survey" prepared by the Long Island Lighting Company. As this proposed development will serve the residents of Suffolk County primarily, a brief synopsis of the demographic information within this region will be given. The Nassau- Suffolk region grew rapidly during the 1950~s and 1950~e. As Nassau County became saturated, Suffolk County saw a great development, both of population and Jobs. Suffolk increase in County's population has been steadily increasing~ this consis- tent growth has been creating development pressures in eastern Suffolk county, including the Town of Southold. From 1970 to 1980, the number of persons age sixty and older During that time span, the increased rom 121,759 to 162,864. percentage of seniors in the population increased from 11% to 13%. By the year 2010, 'the population of seniors will have grown to 277,296 or 17% of the County.s total population.1 Recently, a great influx of retirees have settled in Suffolk the eastern end. This not only adds County, particularly in 1 Demographic Information (see Appendix A) 3-30 I significantly to the year-round population but also shifts the i age structure of the region. Refer to table in Appendix A. The Town of Southold mirrors the effect of this recent Itrend. In 1980 37.3% (more than 1 of every 3 residents) was 55 years or older. I of residents 55 In the Nassau- Suffolk region, the percentage years or greater is 20.6% (1 in every 5 i residents). The changing demographics of Southold have increased the average age of the Town from 36.6 in 1960 to 40.1 years in 1970 According to the 1988 Population Survey distributed by the I and to over 43 years in 1980. Long Island Lighting Company, a I information within the Sguthold i stated in the Population Survey, To~rn of Southold was Ithe population of the which is an increase I period. During the increased from 2,718 I of' approximately 10%. synopsis of the demographic area has been developed. As in 1970 the population of the recorded as 16,804. A~ of January 1988, Town of Southold increased to 21,395, of approximately 21% over an 18 year 18 year period, the Hamlet of Cutchogue in 1970 to 3,016 in 1988, for an increase The estimated average household size for the Town of Southold was recorded as being 2.54 in 1980 and 2.50 in 1988. The number of households in the Town increased from 7,461 in 1980 to 8,480 in 1988, for an increase of 12% over ~he eight year period. According to with the Suffolk information received from various discussions County Planning Board, in the Nassau-Suffolk I I I I 3-31 I I I I I County and and age area, there are 256,041 retired people at the age of 65 up. This information was based on social security records the 1980 census. The number of single retired people at the of 65 and up is 129,629 and the number of retired couples throughout the Nassau-Suffolk area is 63,206. These figures indicate that roughly half of the retired persons aged 65 and up in the Nassau-Suffolk area are single. In addition to the Suf- folk County Planning Board, information was obtained from the I Bureau there I area. of Records in Albany. Based on social security records, are 127,095 persons aged 65 and up in the Suffolk County The number of single retired persons 65 and up in the Suffolk County area is 64,818 and the n,~m~er of retired 65 and I up couples is 31,139. ,Based on these figures, approximately half the n,~mher of retired persons aged 65 in Suffolk County and up are single. The proposed project is limited to people 55 years of age and older. According to the Suffolk County Planning Department, the total n~mher of people 55 and over in the Nassau-Suffolk I I I I I I area is 532,842. Of this total, 27,151 are single, 362,799 are married, 128,870 are widowed and 14,022 are divorced. The above mentioned figures indicate that approximately 68 percent of people aged 55 and over are married and 32% of the people are single. The Bureau of RecOrds in Albany indicated that in %he I I Suffolk County area, there are 60,585 people in the range between 55 and 59. Between the ages of 60 and 64, there are 3-32 47,036 fore, County married and approximately 78,309 and from the age of 65 and up, there are 127,095. There- the total number of persons aged 55 and up in the Suffolk area is 244,716. Of this total, 166,407 (68%) are (32%) are single. 3-33 U SO The proposed development is located within ~1,500' of the downtown business district of the Hamlet of Cutchogue, on the I I I north fork commercial structures of Long Island. The Hamlet is a typical strip development along Route 25 but contains some historic and newly renovated/constructed buildings that give it a district rural town character. There will be no impact on this visual resource from the proposed project. ! ! The surrounding area is mostly rural with many existing farms, vineyards, horse ranches, nurseries and other various open space uses. The above uses are visually appealing and they have evolved as a visual resource for the area. I To the west of the ,projects is an existing single family i development that borders the western property line. These are all fairly new two-story family large dwellings with immature Ilandscaping. The north end of the residential property is bordered by a mature wooded lot, of indigenous oake, maples and I beech. The project site is gently rolling farmed land that has laid I fallow a number of years. Second growth reforestation has I evolved in the southeast corner of the residential site with emergence of weedy trees, i.e. mostly locust and poplars and ! - other weedy plant material' such as briars, blackberries, etc. i Grasses and weeds cover most of the remaining site. I ! 3-34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CULTU~ALRESOU~C~ An archeological property and the of this DEIS. survey was report may be 3-35 performed on the subject found in Appendix H at the rear I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION IV SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS As discussed earlier in the "Inventory of Existing Environmental Conditions',, 75% of the' site consists of Haven Series soils, either HaA or HaB. These soils present only slight limitations to their uses as support for homesites or percolation filters for sanitary and drainage leaching flow. The Haven series consists of deep, well drained, medium textured soils. These soils have high to moderate available moisture capacity with low natural fertility. Internal drainage is good with moderate permeability in the substratum. The hazard of erosion is slight to moderate as most slopes range from 0-8 percent. especially in the northeastern natural slopes in the 20% range. During construction, several Impacts to the subsurfgce geology of the subject parcel will be minor. Because of the nature of the soils on site (medium to coarse textured for draining), it is expected that material excavated for the construction of basements, catch basins and ponds will be suitable for use as a road subbase. As can be seen from the Grading and Site Plan (located in the Rear Sleeve A), most of the existing site is relatively flat with slopes ranging from 0 to 13%. Small portions of the site, section of the property, have duce hay trap measures will be taken to re- the potential of erosion. These include the placement of mulch on steep slopes and the installation of silt fences to any sediment. After construction, all slopes that exceed 4-1 12% will have jute mesh installed that will allow the placement of ground cover and iow lying shrubs. These plants will permanently stabilize the slopes and eliminate' any potential severe erosion problems. Construction of roads, driveways, buildings and ponds will necessitate the removal of topsoil from these areas of the _ site. Ail topsoil which is stripped to facilitate construction will be stockpiled on site to be reused for the development of landscaped areas and to stabilize those slopes which have been disturbed. The proposed roadway profiles have been developed to conform - as closely as possible to the existing terrain. The average proposed cut and fill de~ths on the property range from 0 to 3 feet. The maximum cut is approximately 8 feet at the location of one of the retention ponds. The maximum ~ill is 16 feet at proposed development of a landscaped one location due to the buffer mound off of Hamlet Way to the north of the property. As shown on the plan, the proposed grading of the property retains all rain runoff on site. The only proposed slopes that are greater than 10% are near the community center roadway and on the landscaped screening berms developed to create a feeling of privacy for the residential units. As previously mentioned, all slopes will be adequately stabilized with ground cover'to minimize any erosion. 4-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GROUNDWAT=R Development distinct, areas of the project site will have two, largely of impact~ the first from water supply well pumpage and drainage. order. Preliminary was conducted during development scheme. present proposal, and the second from disposal of sanitary waste and site These two impact areas will be discussed in that engineering for water supply for the site the This is planning for a previously submitted report is applicable, also, to the presented in the appendix. The pro- posed water supply system calls for two wells, with a capacity of 50 gallons per minute (gpm) each. Also included is a 100,000 gallon storage capacity to meet peak hour demands, projected at 225 gpm. The water supply facility will include a protection zone with a 200 foot radius to protect against contamination. Testing of the exploratory well demonstrated, that lowering of the water table at the wells will be minimal, and the resulting cone of influence, or depression, from the well pumping will be entirely contained within the zone of protection. Under these circumstances, there will be no upconing or intrusion of saline water, and the well will not influence adjacent wells or be ef- fected by _adjacent wastewater disposal systems, farm chemicals, or highway deicing salts. The surface concern water quality impact of sanitary waste disposal and runoff is of concern and must be evaluated. The major regarding wastewater disposal is nitrogen loading of the 4-3 groundwater. Nitrate c~ntamination is a serious problem in the Town of South01d, as indicated earlier, due to the extensive agricultural use of fertilizer. With this in mind, a wastewater disposal system has been designed for the project. Due to the importance of precisely deteTining the nitrogen impacts of the project, an extensive analysis, based on a high level of pre- cision, was undertaken for this DEIS. This nitrogen budget ana- lysis .is based on the Cornell University Water and Land Resource Analysis System (WALRAS), which provides a methodology for pre- dicting impacts of land use on nitrate and other runoff/recharge ous sources, and the deriyation of various inputs are'described in detail in the paragraphs below. The complete computer output from the model is included in the appendix. . Nitrogen is an ~mportant factor, du. to h.alth impact, at high concentrations in drinking water, and due to the potential for cultural eutrophication of surface water. The health con- sideration has resulted in the establishment of a 10 mg/1 ni- trate standard for groundwater suitable as a source of potable water supply. The nitrate concentration in recharge water is a function of various inputs, including sewage, pet wastes, and fertilizer, both for agricultural and residential lawns, all'of which is diluted by the water budget consisting of preciPita- tion, domestic water use, and lawn irrigation. The techniques developed for WALRAS have been used to forecast groundwater 4-4 impacts of .development of Long Island Pine Barrens areas. This use is particularly applicable to the proj.ct b~cau,, it focu,.. on the Carver and Plymouth Sands soil assoclation, which has similar hydrological characteristics to the Haven soils found on the si~e. It should be noted that several of the model assumptions will result in conservative (i.e. overestimates) _ predictions of groundwater nitrate concentrations. For the purpose of this analysis, nitrate is assumed to be extremely conservative, that is, its concentration does not diminish once it passes below the root zone. The individual input parameters used in this analysis are presented in the following paragraphs: . ~. The ra%nfall input to groundwater is a func- tion of total precipitation minus evaporative losses. The mean annual temperature and mean annual precipitation for the area are 51'F (10cc) and 45.97 inches (116.76 cm), respectively. Total evapotranspiration, or evaporative loss of water from soil, plant, and other surfaces, and plant tissues, can be I I I estimated in the following manner: Bio-temperature - sum of mean monthly temperatures which are greater than 0°C divided by 12. The bio-temperature on Long Island is about 10°C. Evapotranspiration (mm) - bio-temperature (C°) x 58.93. This means cipitation, is waters in this that 589.3 mm, or 23.2 inches of our annual pre- unavailable for recharge to surface or ground- area. This aaalysis applies only to precipi- 4-5 ration which falls i s~rfaces, including that 90% of total I (WALRAS). on permeable surfaces. For impervious roof and pavement, it has been determined precipitation is recharged to groundwater Domestic Water Usa. Water use in the United States varies I dramatically, with an established range of from 40 to 500 gallons per person per day. For this analysis, a use rate of 150 gallons per dwelling unit per day was used, which is the design sewage flow rate for a planned retirement community as determined by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. ~. Total annual irrigation of 5.5 inches per year contributed to groundwater from landscaped and turfed areas was taken directly from WALRAS. I I I I I I I I I I I I eti~. For fertilizer applied to turfed areas, the total groundwater contribution of 64 pounds per acre annually was also taken from WALRAS. For this analysis, the 33.9 acres of permeable area these acres will vegetation native was used with the assumption that 10.56 of be landscape beds. It is also assumed that to the area, tolerant of arid conditions and acidic soils, including red cedars, rhododendrons, and azelias, which do not need or receive annual fertilizer, will be used. This leaves 22 acres of turf which will contribute fertilizer nitrate. Animals a d Pes. The average of 6.5 pounds per acre annual- ly, also from WALRAS, is used here. It should be noted, how- ever, in accordance with the 208 plan, dog control ordinances 4-6 it is quite likely that the homeowners association would impose such a requirement, and all but eliminate this nitrate source. Sewage. An annual contribution per capita of 10 pounds, of which 15% reaches groundwater after atmospheric release was used for this analysis. The nitrate levels were calculated for three development scenarios: 160, 156 and 152 units. The average density used was 1.33 persons per unit, which is appropriate for a planned retirement community. ~. Using the above inputs and assumptions, the budget analysis results in the following estimates for nitrate concentrations'an recharge groundwater from the project site. 160 6.42 156 6.38 152 6.35 It should be noted that even the minimal nitrogen reduction which would be achieved by density reduction- as somewhat over- estimated by this analysis, because the reduction would open up a greater amount of turf and landscape area, allowing greater evapotransp~ration and requiring additional lawn fertilizer. I I I The model runs for this analysis were not refined this sensi- tively. However, it can be concluded that the nitrate levels in recharge water from the proposed project will be within the ac- ceptable limits of 10 mg/1, and that density reduction does not significantly reduce nitrate levels. 4-7 . The precision, or confidence limits, of any model is a tlon of the cumulative variances of the particular input parame- ters. In the case.of nitrogen budget_ analysis, the input parame- ters characteristically exhibit high variance. For example, in August, our wettest month, precipitation- - at Central Park, New York, has ranged from 10.86 inches, in 195§, dowll to 0.24 inches in 1964. Obviously such input variance can greatly effect the nitrogen concentration. A brief analysis of variance is pre- sented in the WALRAS document, where it indicatee tha~ an aver- age nitrate concentration of 6 mg/1 has a 90% probability of not exceeding the 10 mg/1 standard, which probability increases to 99% at an average level of 3 mg/1. The predicted level for this project, therefore, 6.4 mg~l, would have an approximate 90% pro- bability of not exceeding 10 mg/1. The drainage facilities proposed for this project provide for on site retention of all storm water runoff, including park- ing areas and roofs. The proposed system will allow for the recharge of virtually all of the precipitation falling on the project site to the underlying aquifer system. In this sense, the natural drainag, patt. of pr.cipitation and on sit. recharge with little or no runoff, will- be maintained, although evapotranspiration will allow greater quantities of reduced recharge. - Another area of concern, with respect to groundwater qual- ity, is the possibility of degradation caused by substances carried into the ground with the recharge water. Storm water runoff from pavement surfaces has been found to be contaminated with coliform and other bacteria, nutrients, heavy metals, 4-8 hydrocarbons and pesticides. In fact, stormwater runoff is the major source of bacterial loading to surface waters in Suffolk and Nassau Counties. This tenet was recently reconfirmed by the research performed in conjunction with the Long Island segment of the .National Urban Runoff Program (NURP), which explored alternatives for the disposal of stormwater from urbanized surfaces. It has been further demonstrated, however, that because streets and highways serve as collection systems for urban and suburban land runoff, the total loading of pollutants from a pavement surface often reflects the watershed area char- acteristics rather than the pavement surface. For example, nutrients and pesticides in runoff can be traced to nearby agri- cultural or landscaped area~ where these chemicals are applied. The roof and pavement surfaces on the p~oJect site, unlike highways, will not collect runoff from a wide~ area. This fact greatly reduces the potential stormwater contamination to minor loads of hydrocarbons and rubber products from vehicles, deicing salts and rarely, pet wastes. This relatively small pollutant loading will be carried into the leaching system, where reten- tion will allow partial chemical and biological treatment to occur, while remaining contaminants will leach into the soil. The NURP determined conclusively that the most appropriate storm- water runoff disposal alternative is discharge to a leaching recharge system. The project site contains 50 feet of sand filtering capacity for the recharge water, which will assure 4-9 that the runoff is scrubbed to a drinkable quality prior to entering the groundwater. As such, the project is fully con- sistent with the findings and recommendations of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. 4-10 VEGETATION ANDW??.nLIF~ Vegetation on the property will be altered by direct removal a~d replacement with a more ordered landscape. No endangered, threatened, or New York State Heritage list species will be impacted. The open space areas remaining after construction will be reseeded and replanted, but will be maintained in a shorter, condition by mowing. As the landscaping matures and fills in, most of the species currently using the property will return and resume nesting on the site. Habitat valUe for ground- nestin~ species, such as common Bobwhite and Ring-necked Pheas- ant will be reduced somewhat, but they will continue to be com- mon on the property, making optimal use of fringes and buffers. The introduction of ~esidences such as this are generally a~companied by individuals who maintain feeders throughout the w~nter months. Approximately one in five residents can be ex- pected to enjoy this pasttims. This change in food availability will increase the numbers and species diversity on the project site, resulting in large numbers of overwintering sparrows, blackbirds, titmice, nuthatches and others. The area may then become more attractive to the areas sharp-shinned hawks and kestrels. The commercial site, like the residential area, will dis- place the vegetation and Wildlife currently using the si~e. However, this site will not be providing enough vegetated area to encourage the return of the wildlife. Also, the frequency of traffic to this site will be high enough to discourage the return of nesting wildlife. 4-11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i LAND USEAND ZONING As stated in a previous section, the subject parcel is currently vacant land as is some of the land in the immediate area. An impact of construction of the proposed project will be a lose of open space. This will be addressed in the section on mitigation. The zoning of the residential parcel is "M" Light-Multiple Residence and is not included in any town master plan as a pro- posed open space district. Project design is in compliance with current and proposed future zoning regulations and will feature a traditional archi- tectural style which will not only be in harmony with existing structures within the region, but also serve as a precedent for future projects of this type. 4-12 COMMUNITY SERVICW~ Police Protection - The Town of Southold police department's staff of 43 consists of 36 officers and 7 civilians. This force is augmented by an additional bay constable and four or five part time officers during the tourist season. The station, built in 1971, is centrally located in Peconic and contains offices, two detention cells and houses the communi- cations system. Equipment includes 17 vehicles and several boats for bay constable use. NY State Department of Commerce estimates place the project- ed town population at 23,000 year round residents by the year 1990. From Municipal Police Administration data for cities having population in the 1~,000-25,000 range, an average of 1.68 persons (including uniformed and civilian support staff) are needed per 1,000 population. Using this criterion, a population of 23,000 would require a police force of approximately 39 per- sons. The current staff of 43 appears to be more than adequate to handle the towns current need for police protection and will not be adversely affected by the addition of 213 new persons to the towns population (160 units of housing x 1.33 persons/ unit). tection ment of hiring months If at the when some point in the future, While not overtaxing the current year round police pro- needs, the increased tax revenue derived from develop- the subject property will help to defray the cost'of additional seasonal staff needed during the summer the towns population grows to over 36,000 persons. population increases do require 4-13 I I I the hiring of additional year round police personnel, the cur- rent facilities are sufficient to accommodate some expansion.1 Additionally, the applicant is proposing to retain the services of a security firm to protect the tenants of this development 24 hours a day. 1 I I I I I I ~ - For the purposes of fire protection the Town of Southold is divided into seven fire districts. The Cutchogue fire district has one station, centrally located within the hamlet. Built in the 1920's, renovated and enlarged several times, it houses a 24 hour dispatcher. The district owns 9 vehicles and relies on pumper/tankers, pump trucks of the that and portable town, water many areas do pumps for water supply. As in other areas supply is a major problem2 due to the fact not have public water, and in those areas that do, mains are often old and pressure is inadequate. A substation, east of the current firehouse, is being con- sidered to better serve the Nassau Point area. I The volunteer force of 100 persons appears to be adequate I when one considers that a city of similar size would only require a full time force of only 30. This figure is derived Ifrom Munic~pal Fire Administration data which shows that 1,211 cities throughout the country had a median number of 1.29 full I time fire department personnel per 1,000 population. alysis of Community Services, Raymond, Parish, Pine and i _ Weiner Planning Consultants z Analysis of Community Service RPPW 4-14 I I I I 1 I I I As stated previously, the fire station is centrally located, near to the proposed Hamlet at Cutchogue Project, and has been expanded and renovated several times to house new equipment. According to Victor Lessade of the Cutchogue Fire Department, the construction of 160 senior citizen units will not have an impact on rescue service to the proposed community. According to Mr. department, with from the site. Lessade, "there are over 100 people in the fire ambulance service approximately 1-1/2 blocks If a major fire were to happen, the Cutchogue Fire Department can call for aid to any of the other fire depart- ments in the area." The only potential impact of concern that may be caused by construction of the proppsed project is an increase demand for i water for fire fighting purposes. This will be addressed in the section on mitigating measures. I ~ - In terms of analyzing the impacts upon exist- ing health care facilities in the area, one can use as a general I rule of th~b that one hospital bed is needed for every 200 per- I son increase in population. The size of the proposed "Hamlet at Cutchogue. project, 160 units, will result in a year round popu- I lation incFease of approximately 213 persons. Such an increase will result in a need for 2 additional hospital beds. I The eastern Suffolk area is currently served by three hospi- i tals including Central Suffolk, a 157 bed facility in Riverhead, Eastern Long Island Hospital in Greenport which has 66 beds and i the 194 bed Southampton Hospital on the south fork in Southamp- 4-15 ton tory unit, also rate rates Township. Each of the three facilities has 24 hour ambula- emergency service, an intensive care unit, cardiac care psychiatric unit and radiology. Outpatient facilities are found at Eastern Long.Island Hospital. While the occupancy at Central Suffolk Hospital is high, approximately 94%, the of occupancy at Eastern Long Island and Southampton Hospitals are 66% and 77% respectively, among the lowest for the 37 largest hospitals on Long Island.3 In addition to these facilities, San Simeon-by-the-Sound, a 150 bed, not-for-profit corporation on North Road in the unin- corporated portion of Greenport, provides skilled nursing care and other health related facilities. In the 'Town of Riverhepd, the Riverhead Nursing Home has 121 skilled nursing beds and 60 health related faoility beds. Addi- tionally, Central Suffolk Hospital has received permission to nursing beds and Southampton Hospital plans to add 6O skilled acquire a 62 bed nursing home. Regionally, St. Charles Hospital in Port Jefferson has sub- mitted a proposal to add a 200 bed geriatric facility and the Suffolk County Infirmary in Yaphank has 215 skilled nursing beds and is available to all County residents. In the light of the number of existing and proposed facili- ties in the area and their levels of use, a population increase of 213 senior citizens should not adversely impact the health care system. 1987 Long Island Almanac 4-16 I I Solid Waste D~sposal - It will be the responsibility of the i Hpmeowner~s Association to retain the services of a private carter to collect solid refuse from the residents. The t~o I major carting services in the Town of Southold are Matti~uck Sanitation and Northfork Sanitation. According to discuss~ons I wit~ the Town of Southold, there will be minimal impact on the sanitary landfills with the construction of the proposed develop- I ment._ I Recreation Facilitie~ As stated earlier, the Hamlet of Cutchogue and its surrounding area has several recreational I facilities which are near the proposed development. The resi- dents of this senior citizen development will have on site I amenities such as tennis~courts, a recreational building and a I swimming pool. Due to the number of existing recreational facilities throughout the surrounding Cutchogue area, the ion-site amenities, and the nature of senior citizen recreational activities, it can be concluded that there will be minimal impact upon the existing community recreational facilities. I I I I I I I I 4-17 I I V~S~AL R~SOURCES i Reduced visual quality viewers from the existing I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I will primarily be for the group of subdivision to the west of the pro- posed project site and from the passing motorists that utilize both Schoolhouse Lane and Grilling Street. After the landscaped buffer and the interior landscaping throughout the development is accomplished, there will be mini- mal impact upon viewers from Cutchogue Hamlet. Also, the archi- tectural theme for the project will be designed to reflect the surrounding community as well as establishing a variety of units. 4-18 CULTURAL RESOURCR.~ . Construction of the project will result in the generation of noise which will be audible from adjacent properties. ~ypical- ly, construction of residential subdivisions including site work and building erection can be expected to provide sound levels at the p~operty line of 70 decibels, when measured in terms of L10, or noise level exceeded a maximum of ten percent of the time. It should be noted that this noise is temporary in nature, only occurring during construction periods, and more importantly, will be restricted to the normal daytime working hours. Also of concern is the potential for generation of fugitive dust during the earthwork and grading phases of the project. If it appears that dust is becoming a problem, appropriate measures will be taken, including the application of water and/or calcium chloride to the exposed earth surfaces.' Furthermore, the con- tractor will be expected to stabilize regraded surfaces as quickly as possible with appropriate vegetation. A tax assessment for the project was prepared by the Board of Assessors Department of the Town of Southold. As shown on the chart in Appendix I, it was assumed that the assessment value for each 750 square foot 2-story condo unit is $5,000 and the assessment value for each 1,500 square foot ranch with garage unit is $4,700. Therefore, the total assessment for the units alone was determined to be $776,000. The land surrounding the units was assessed at $800 per unit for a total assessment value of $128,000. The total assessment value, including the 4-19 ! ! land and $904,000. on a tax mined to unit will each ranch per year. In house mately shown units for the entire project is determined to be The total tax generation for the entire project based rate of $503 per $1,000 of assessment value is deter- be $454,?00 for the 1989-90 year. Each 2-story condo generate approximately $3,200 per year in taxes and with garage unit will generate approximately $2,800 conclusion, this 160-unit proposed project, that will people 55 years of age and older, will generate approxi- $454,700 in taxes per year for the Town of Southold. As in previous sections of this DEIS, the construction of this the project and its residents, Southold and the traffic increase in proportion to Town's tax base. senior citizen development will have a minimal impact on community,s existing ,services. Due to the nature of the the population of school children in volumes on local roadways should not the project's contribution to the 4-20 I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION V MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I I SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHV i As mentioned previously, impacts to the topography and sub- surface geology of the residential site will be minor. Proposed Igrading will follow existing terrain closely possible. Shortly after construction is completed on each phase, areas will be replanted with grass or other suitable ground cover to prevent erosion. Steep slope areas, where disturbed, will be regraded at a flatter slope and stabilized with vegetation. It is anticipated from the soil types found on both sites, most of which are granular and free draining, that materials excavated for the construction of footings and foundations can be used as subbase and fill for roads and parking areas. Top- soil, which must be remoyed prior to constructing roads, walks and building foundations, will be stockpile~ on site. It will then be placed in areas where the existing topsoil cover is thin to establish lawns and gardens. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5-1 As discussed previously, will impact upon groundwater development of the project site in two distinct ways~ from water supply well pumpage and from disposal of sanitary waste and storm water runoff. In order to mitigate impacts caused by pumpage, the design includes a 100,000 gallon storage tank. The purpose of this facility is to allow for the use of pumps having a low pumping rate (50 gpm). This helps to reduce the drawdown and cone of influence of the well, which minimizes the possibility of salt water intrusion, degradation of water quality from sanitary systems and road deicing salts and impacts upon neighboring wells. The water storage tank enables the system to meet the peak hour demands estimated at 225 gpm without having to actual- ly withdraw water from the aquifer at this rate.. second factor which helps to mitigate the impacts caused A by pumpage is the limiting of occupancy to senior citizens, a group having a lower water usage than the general public. This decreases water demand, resulting in reduced pumpage and associ- ated impacts. In terms of mitigating impacts from disposal of sanitary and storm water runoff, the following measures have been taken. I 200 foot radius protection zone has been established to assure that effluent from sanitary systems and pollutant contami- nated stormwater runoff do not enter the proposed water supply system. ! ! 5-2 In charged to will allow suring its addition, all runoff will be retained on site and re- the ground by means of natural recharge areas. This the water to pass through §0~ or more of sand, as- quality before reaching the aquifer. As stated earlier, recharge will actually be greater following construc- tion of the proposed project due to the net reduction of vege- tated areas and subsequent reduction in evapotranspiration. A final mitigating measure will be the continuous disinfec- tion of the water supply by chloration. 5-3 USE ~D I I I I I I I I As mentioned in the section regarding impacts to land use and zoning, an impact upon land use as a result of construction of the proposed project will be loss of open space. Several measures have been taken to mitigate this impact. One such measure has been to cluster dwellings together in groups, leaving of development experienced if large open areas between structures. This type gives more of a sense of openness than would be the units were spread out over the entire site, each on its own lot. Another mitigation measure which has been incorporated into the site plan is the inclusion of a landscaped buffer around the property. Using species ~hich are native to the area will fos- ter a natural, undisturbed appearance on site while requiring a minimum of fertilization and water use. This-landscaped buffer I project from neighboring residences, there- will also shield the by creating for each parcel an atmosphere of privacy. The land- I soaped buffer will consist of the following species: Redtwig i dogwood, Evergreen trees, Forsythia, Viburnum Carlesi, Winter- be~ry, Summersweet, Serviceberry and Pussywillow. A detail of I this buffe~, and the arrangement of the different types of species is depicted on the Grading and Site Plan in the rear I sleeve of this report. 5-4 COMMUNITY SERVICES , An impact to community services is found in the area of fire protection or more specifically, water supply for fire fighting purposes. Water mains a~. absent throughout many parts of th. _ Town of Southold. Many of the mains that are present are old and the water pressure in them is inadequate for fire fighting. The construction of a 100,000 gallon water storage tank for the proposed project, in addition to mitigating other impacts addressed earlier, will provide e reliable source of water for fire protection. Because of the location of the proposed pro- ject, near the center of the hamlet, this source of water may not only prove valuable for fire fighting within the proposed complex, but also for fighting fires in the neighboring residen- .~.~h.areas to the west and east and commercial area to the of the project is, in itself, a The centralized location mitigating measure. It allows easy access to shopping, and public transportation reducing the need for reliance upon private transportation. A final mitigating measure to impacts on community services is the inclusion of a recreation center containing a swimming pool, tennis courts and club house. While this complex is not expected, or intended, to meet all of the recreational needs'of the residents of the project, it will help to lessen the impact upon existing town facilities. ! ! 5-5 I I I I I a. The architectural theme for the project will be designed to reflect the historic architecture of the surrounding communities as well as maintaining a variety among the units themselves. b. All graphics and lighting in the senior ¢itizen~s residence project will be low keyed residential type with low impact design. Mounting heights of lights to be limited to 18~, downlights and glare restricted with the use of high pressure sodium fixtures. I c. Visual impacts as identified above for the neighbors to the west will be significantly reduced by a landscape~ I buffer approximate%y 25~ deep around the entire pro I perry. These will be primarily evergreen trees of species indigenous to Long Island and the east end, i.e. I Redtwig Dogwood, Forsythia, Winterberry, Pussywillow, etc. For screening of objectionable views, i.e. around I dumpsters and other mechanical equipment, fast growing evergreen plant material will be proposed, i.e. Japanese pine, spruce, fir and hemlocks. d. There will be e 150~ buffer in the northwest corner of I I I I the lot to reduce This is also the ration is prospering. the visual impact on the neighbors. area where existing indigenous vege- This buffer will remain natural. 5-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION VI UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS UNAVOIDABI~ ADVERSE EFFECTS I I I I I I The subject parcel has few critical impact areas. No rare, threatened or endangered floral or faunal species have been ob- served, and none are anticipated because of the previous agri- cultural use of the property. Existing vegetation consists mostly of grasses and there are no surface bodies of water on or near the site. of historical problems exist. ling for No unsuitable organic soils were found, nothing interest is present, and no noise or air quality The terrain can generally be described as rol- with few steep slope areas. Water supply will be provided through the use of an on site well field and 100,000 gallon storage tank which I aquifer. Sanitary mitigates the impact of pumpage from the waste, will be disposed of using a standard septic tank/leaching system~ As with any type of development, there will necessarily be a loss of open space. Land use plans have been developed for the Town of Southold and the County of Suffolk and both have estab- lished tracts of land within their jurisdiction to be used as i open open I USe · 1 ings ! space. The subject parcel is not included in any proposed space areas and has, in fact, been zoned for residential The site plan for the proposed development arranges dwel- in clusters to preserve as much open space as possible and mitigate this impact. I I I Another gen to the groundwater charge unavoidable adverse impact is the addition of nitro- groundwater. As detailed in a previous section on impacts, the estimated nitrate concentration in re- groundwater for the proposed project is 6.4 mg/liter. 6-1 If the site were used for agricultural purposes, levels as high on the growing of vegetables and potatoes respectively.1 If the site were to be used as a nursery, concentrations as high as 13.20 mg/1 could be expected. Therefore, while use of this site for residential purposes will impact nitrogen concentrations in the groundwater, this impact is less than the impact to be ex- pected if the site were used for agriculture purposes. In addi- tion, use of the site for agricultural purposes would also re- sult in a heavier contribution of pesticides and herbicides to the groundwater than would be expected for a residential site. This project will also require both short-term and long-term expenditures of various kiUds of energy. In the short-term, the energy consumption will becaused by the construction operations directly. This will involve electricity and various fuels for operating tools and machinery either directly or indirectly, i.e.~ fuel consumption of trucks delivering building materials~ I Long term energy consumption will involve primarily the electri I I I I I city and fuel used in the normal occupancy of a residential com- plex. The degign and construction of the buildings will take into consideration all of the latest advances in fuel efficient build- ing technology. Use of such things as superior insulation and double glazed windows will all be maximized to the fullest ex- tent to reduce the amount of energy consumed. 1 Land Use and Groundwater .Quality in the Pine Barrens of I Southampton, Water Resources Program Center for Environ- mental Research, Cornell University. I 6-2 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGy Under the regulations of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, in the absence of a public sewer system, there are three types of subsurface sewage disposal systems in which sewage effluent may be disposed. They are= the Sewage Treat- ment Plant, the Denitrification System, and the Conventional Septic Tank/Leaching Pool System. These three systems will be discussed in order to assess the feasibility of each system and the impact each system has on the environment. Sewaae Treatment Plant. Under the 1984 Standards for Subsur- face Sewage Disposal Systems for Other than Single-Family Resi- dences, which are in effect at the time of this writing, a sew- age treatment plant is r~quired when the allowable flow is ex- ceeded by the actual flow design. As stated previously the design flow, using the Yield Map Method, is equivalent to the not required to install a sewage allowable flow; therefore it is treatment plant for the proposed project. If one were to be installed, several acres will need to be utilized for the construction of a sewage treatment plant. Many of' the sewage plants constructed today are not aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding area, and most release unweloomed odors to the environment. Aside from being expensive to con- struct (approximately $20-$22 per gallon of flow), a sewage treatment plant must also be maintained by an experienced worker in sewage treatment plants. 7-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15,000 gallons residential. design sewage ject exceeds regulations, system. Conventional SePtic current regulations of Denitrification System. Under the current Health Department regulation, if the allowable flow is exceeded, a modified subsur- face sewage disposal system (Denitrification System) may be utilized as an acceptable measure of disposing sewage, providing that the total design flow from the project does not exceed of sewage per day and the property is not zoned As previously stated in an earlier section, the flow rate for this Senior Citizen Community pro- 15,000 gallons, therefore under Health Department it is not acceptable to install a denitrification Tank/Leachina Pool System. Under the t~e Suffolk County Department of Health Services, a conventional septic tank/leaching pool system can be utilized when the design flow for a project is .either equivalent to or below the allowable flow for that project. For this pro- Ject, by using the Yield Map Method for determining the allow- able flow, the design sewage flow is equivalent to the allowable flow thereby allowing a conventional septic tank/leaching pool system to be utilized. The installation of a conventional septic tank/leaching pool system is easier to be maintained versus the previously men- tioned systems. The system is more reliable, cheaper to install and easier to maintain than either a sewage treatment plant or a denitrification system. It is also an acceptable method of sewage disposal under the current Health Department regulations. 7-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE SCaT.R Presently, the current zoning allows for a 4unit per acre density on the subject parcel which would allow for the construc- tion of up to 184 units. An alternative to this density is to decrease the density to 3 units per acre, which yields a total of 138 units versus the proposed 160 units. A comparison be- tween the proposed 160 unit development and a 138 unit develop- ment has been established in a chart as follows: BE F UN S 160 %3S Nitrogen Loading Landscaping Impervious Area Natural Areas Turf Areas Amenities (Pool, Community 6.42 mg/1 7.O acres 12.50 acres 1.11 ~cres 24.95 acres Will be included Center, Tennis Courts) 6.40 mg/1 5.84 acres 9.62 acres 2.20 acres 28.50 acres Will not be included Due buffer would loss noted that the ficant dec~ease marily due to results from in evapotranspiration nitrogen dilution. to a decrease of 22 units from the proposed project, the area along the property line would be increased. There be an increase in open space and natural areas due to the of 22 units. See Site Plan in rear sleeve. It should be reduced scale plan does not result in a signi- in groundwater nitrogen loading. This is pti- the increase in permeable, vegetated areas wh$ch deleting 22 units from the plan. The net increase alters the water budget and provides less 7-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Existing co~unity planned development of be slightly reduced, change the no-build Traffic Impact Study.) Loss size of feted in services are adequate to support a any size and while traffic volumes will this will not occur to a degree which will level of services of nearby streets. (See of space, could be mitigated somewhat by decreasing the the project. A smaller n~ber of units could be clus- such a way that larger open areas will remain thereby retaining more of the rural character of the community. The reduction of project size while providing only minimal benefits creates four additionaladverse effects. By reducing the size of the project, land costs must now be spread among a fewer number of units, ~hereby raising the selling price of each. This is often a critical factor for senior citizens who are living on a fixed income. Additionally, there are fewer units available to help meet the growing need for senior citizen housing in Eastern Suffolk County and in the Town of Southold. Thirdly, a reduction in the size of the project will result in less tax revenue for the Town. This would be an acceptable alternative, and indeed desirable, if such a decrease in project scope would result in significant environmental benefits. Finally, of great significance is the reduction in project size may result in a reduction of total loss of planned ameni- ties due to unacceptable increased cost to the property owners in the areas of construction and carrying expenses.. 7-4 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN I I I I In 1984, the proposed layout of the 160 units (4 units per dwelling) was approved by the Town of Southold Building Department. This layout included a 150 foot setback from the adjacent parcel to the north to allow the retention of existing vegetation distances distances in that area. All setback requirements, including between buildings, distances from property lines and from roadways were adhered to on the plans. After I I discussions with the Town, it was suggested to reduce the amount of impervious area by creating shared driveways. This can be accomplished by relocating each garage and developing T-shaped driveways. Due to the status of this project, the reshaping of I the driveways and other ~inor suggestions by the Town have not i yet been incorporated on the included site plan. These, and all other comments, will be addressed upon formal site plan review. I Increasing the number of units dwelling could provide per the project with more open space. Increasing the number of I units per dwelling though would increase the frontage of each I I I I building to a length greater than 125 feet. Although there would be fewer buildings on the site, the buildings would be larger and therefore more difficult to be placed on the property in order to conform to existing topography. Because it is ex- tremely citizen vacy of undesirable to construct 2nd floor units in a Senior development, 6- or S-unit buildings would lack the pti- the smaller 4-unit buildings and would also create a "garden apartment" atmosphere on the property. I I 7-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AT SI In assessing the following factors in mind. The proposed site area, thereby allowing which shall provide a size. This the possibility of use of an alternative site, regarding the proposed site must be kept lies near the center of a water budget for construction of a water supply well suitable yield for a project of this is an important concern since public water is not readily available in many areas of the Town. The Hamlet areas. made by central areas proposed site of Cutchogue. Additionally, is centrally located with respect to the This allows for easier access to shopping this is in conformance with suggestions the Towns' planning consultant to limit development to thereby leaving open space between hamlets and reinforcing a "sense of place". Additionally, there is no other site in the Hamlet of Cutchogue which fulfills the objectives as delineated in past and present Master Plans of the Town. Lastly, the proposed site is currently zoned Hamlet Density and requires no change of zoning. To be considered, any alternative site must, as a minimum requirement~ meet the criteria listed above and in addition have other significant features which make it a more attractive site for development. 7-6 I I I No development of the site would environmental impact upon the existing I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I obviously not have any wildlife, vegetation, hydrology, surface waters, or traffic. The site would remain in its present undeveloped state. The no development alternative, though, would leave unful- filled the obvious need of senior citizen housing in this area. It would be inconsistent with the intended use of the property and contrary to the findings and recommendations shown in past and present Master Plans. 7-7 I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION VIII IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMI~ITMENT OF RESOURCES I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~IBLE AND IP/~E~T~V~?.~ CO~TMENT OF RESOURCES The proposed project does not involve simply a short-term use of building and can desired. There committed resources. structures can be even be rebuilt Wood, steel, concrete, and glass expected to last 100 years or more on the same site, if necessary or will be minimal removal of vegetation from the site as only a small amount of vegetation existed before construction began. However, to create an aesthetically pleasing site, a substantial amount of planting will be installed in conjunction with the development of this project. Development of this project will irreversibly and irretriev- ably commit the short-teFm use of various resources during the construction period. These include the use of electricity for operating tools and machinery and for lightin~; the use of gas, oil, and diesel fuel for operating construction equipment and for the delivery of building materials; and the human resources of manpower for the construction itself. Long-term commitment of building materials including wood, concrete, steel, glass, an~ others, will also be necessary for the development of this project. The quantity of these materials and energy committed will be in keeping with those used for the development of high quality residences. 8-1 · ~ Construction of the proposed project will re- sult in an approximate increase of 1.6% in the population in the Town of Southold. These projected increases are due in whole ~o the construction of. new housing. There may be an additional smaller population increase brought about as a result of new businesses coming into the area to serve the newly increased pop~la~on. This secondary increase would be .xpected to be inslgn~ficant however, when compared to that cause directly by the oonstruction of new esidenoes. SuDoort Facili~i-- As stated in a previous section regard- ing impacts to community services, the existing police, fire and health care as well as school facilities are adequate to handle the anticipated demands of the proposed development. However, area retail ~tores such as those selling food, clothing, etc. or service oriented businesses such as haircutters, dry cleaners and automotive repair centers might feel a need to expand their businesses, thereby, requiring new personnel. This could indirectly lead, as stated in the previous section, to an additional population increase above that of the 220± new inhabitants of the proposed project. The commercial project will provide a place for local businesses to expand should the need arise or for new business to locate in the area. Development Potential - Construction of the proposed project will not lead to further growth in the area because of improve- ments to the existing infrastructure. Ail improvements are to be on site, with no improvements planned to any existing road or utilities. LIST OF P~FERENCES I I "Master Plan Update". Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, Inc. Tarrytown, New York, April, 1983. ' "Suffolk County Department Sewage Disposal for Other Standards". of Health Services Regulations for Than Single Family Residences, 1984 I I I I I I I I "Soil Survey of Suffolk County". Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. "North Fork Water Supply Plan". and McKee, 1983. ERM - Northeast/Camp Dresser "Suffolk County Groundwater Contour Map". ment of Health Services, March 1989. Suffolk County Depart- "People and Parks". Suffolk County Planning Commission. "Code of the Town of Southold", revised 1989. "Town of Southold Comprehensive Development Plan". Parish, Pine and Weiner, Inc., 1984. "Suffolk County Planning Department,s Data Book". 1984. "1988 Population Survey.. Long Island Lighting Company, "Analysis of Community Services.. Weiner, April 1983. Raymond, 1988. Raymond, Parish, Pine and New York State Codes. Rules. and Regulations, Title 6, Chapter X, Parts 700-705, "Water Quality Regulations, Surface Water and Groundwater Classifications and Standards. Section 703.5. Hughes, Henry and Porter, Keith~ "Land Use and Ground WaterQual- ity on the Pine Barrens of Southampton- Water Resources Program, Cornell University, November 1983. I National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Climate of New York" Climatography of the United States No. 80f National Cli- matic Center, Asheville NC 1978. I Linsley, R., and Iranzini, J., "Water Resources Engineeri~g. McGraw Hill, 1984, Page 425. Regional Planning Board, Nassau-Suf folk Treatment Management" Report component Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York." "208 Areawide Waste titles "Animal Waste, Porter, Keith, et. al., "Nitrogen on Long Island: Sources and Fate" Cornell University 1978. I I I I I I I I SUPPLEMENT I PROPOSED USE OF 7-ACRE BUSINESS PROPERTY COLONIAL SHOPPING PLAZA PREPARED FOR: ~OCRO, LTD. MAIN ROAD CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK PREPARED BY: GREENMAN-PEDERSEN , INC. 325 WEST MAIN STREET BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702 OCTOBER 1988 REVISED JUNE 1989 I i I I I TABLE OF CONT~a~TS PAG~ Introduction ............... t ............................... 1 Location ................................................... 3 Existing Environmental Conditions .......................... 5 Existing Land Use and Zoning ............................... 6 Project Need, Benefits and Objectives ...................... 9 Design and Layout .......................................... 13 Constructio~ Impacts ....... ~ ............................... 16 Traffic Imgacts ................................ ............ 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Location Map .................................... Figure 2 - Progerty Line Map ............................... Figure 3 - Hamlet of Cutchogue Land Use Plan ............... Figure 4 - Conceptual Layout Plan .......................... PAGE 4 8 11 14 I As requested by the Town of Southold in their review of the I proposed development of the Hamlet at Cutchogue senior citizen I prepared for the posslble devel- . community, an analysis has been opment of the 7.1 acre parcel of land adjacent to and south of I the proposed Hamlet of Cutchogue project. Although the I applicant has no i~ediate plans of construction on the parcel, a discussion of a rough concept of development would provide- a I Title to the above mentioned proposed senior citizen useful insight to the Town for the future use of this parcel. - . I community was taken by Seacroft, Ltd. _ on September 1, 1983~ _ Prior to this, on July 19, 1983, the Town Board had granted a I rezoning application fo~ the site which consists of I approximately 46 acres. The land was rezoned to "M-Light Multiple Use Zone". Previously, the Town · Board, as a lead Iagency, under Section 8-0109 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), I stated that the project was "unlisted" and would not have a i significant impact on the environment. Concurrently with the purchase of the senior citizen community site, the applicant I I I I I also took title Business". On April 9, conference to a 7.1 acre piece of property zoned "B-Light 1984, the applicant was given a pre-submission with the Planning Board to discuss the senior citizen development. the layout of The Town felt At that conference a plan was presented showing a proposed shopping plaza on the 7.1 acre site. that the development of the business parcel was I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I quired ment. In order analysis of connected with the development of the senior citizen co.unity. Subsequently, the Town Board declared itself lead agency and re- the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact State- to conform to the desire of the Planning Board, an the possible construction of a Colonial Shopping Plaza for this parcel has been evaluated and is depicted in this report. -2- I I I I The subject parcel is 310,347.5 square feet (7.13 acres) in area and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of School House Road and Griffing Street in the Hamlet of Cutch- ogue. Refer to Location Map (Figure 1). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the Sacred of Main Road Heart. The parcel lies approximately 292 feet north (State Road 25). -3- I The parcel fronts approximately 643 feet of Griffing Street. It also lies adjacent to and south of the proposed senior citizen community, sharing a property line of approximate- ly 162 feet. The site, aside from the previously mentioned pro- perties, is completely surrounded by land owned by the Church of I I PICOHIC I IIEGO! I I I 11935 9 9 11958 0 5 s.c.T.~ i 'DISTIST 1000 SECTION 1~ B~.OCK Gt LOT 33~3 *: - gpi HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE LOCATION MAP 87398 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXISTING ENVIRONNEN~an CONDITIONS Due to its proximity to the proposed "Hamlet at Cutchogue" development, many of the environmental characteristics of the site are similar to that of the proposed senior citizen communi- ty. In summary though: Soils. The site contains two predominant soil types, Haven Loam 0-2 percent slopes and Haven Loam Thick Surface Layer. Both types of soil are described as deep, well drained and medi- um textured. Internal drainage is very good and the hazard of erosion is slight. ~. The site is relatively flat with most slopes generally ranging from 1 to,5%. Please refer to Section 3 (Inventory of Existing Environmen- tal Conditions) of the Hamlet at Cutchogue Draft Environmental Impact Statement for information concerning community services, groundwater, wildlife, etc. -5- EXISTING LANDUSEAND ZONIN~ I I I The subject parcel of land is currently zoned Hamlet Business. As described in Chapter 100 of the current Code of the Town of Southold, the following uses are permitted in a Hamlet Business district: o Banks I I I o Retail Stores o Restaurants o Bakeshops o Personal service stores and shops o Auditorium or meeting hall I I I I I I I o o o o o o Under rain: o Repair shops for households Custom workshops , Bus or train stations Theaters or cinemas Libraries or museums Laundromat bulk, area and parking the following requirements per- The lot area will not be less than 20,000 SF and the lot width not less than sixty (60) feet. At least 25% of the lot area shall be landscaped with grass and plantings. i o The required front yards shall be not less than fifteen (15) feet. The required side yards shall be twenty-five (25) with one not less than ten (10) feet. feet -6- I I I I The required rear yard shall not be less than twenty- five (25) feet. Parking shall be provided in off-street parking areas which shall provide one (1) parking space, three hundred fifty (350) square feet in area, for each one hundred (100) square feet of sales floor area. The total floor area for each retail or service estab- lishment located therein shall not exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet. The property is currently vacant and is being used under agreement by the Church of the Sacred Heart for church purposes and for use as a playground for the Sacred Heart Parochial School located to the south of the subject property. Also in- cluded within the subject property is a proposed extension of School House Road located to the north of the site (see Property Line Map, Figure 2). The extension is 60 feet wide for approxi- mately 300 feet then widens to 80 feet for 100 feet as shown on the map. This extension covers approximately 26,000 square feet (0.60 acre). As described in the license agreement between Leisure Greens, Inc. and the Roman Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart dated the 26th of January, 1982 and adopted by the appli- cant in an assignment of license agreement between Leisure Greens Associates and Seacroft Plaza, Ltd. dated September 15, 1983, the described agreement between the Church of the sacred Heart and the applicant shall continue until it is terminated by the applicant giving the Church 60 days written notice after the applicant has constructed a roadway over the property denoted'as "proposed extension". The applicant, as dictated by the agree- ment, shall also construct a six foot high cyclone fence and install buffer landscaping along the common property lines of the subject site and the Church of the Sacred Heart. -7- ~ ~ I~~ _~, GRIFFING STREET "l- :~ W -- O _O . '~,~u.~, 292.20 N 37° 13'30'W ~ ~ , AREA 7.1246 ACRES ~1 ~.e.,.~. ~l I 20.00' DISTIST 1000 SECTION 102 BLOCK 01 LOT 333 c.u.c, o~ ~,E ~1 ~ " ' ~' CHURCH OF PROJECT NEED. BENEFITS AND OBJECTi~F~.~ As explained in the Master Plan Update Summary for the Town of Southold prepared by Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, Inc. April, 1985, "a statement of what the Town considers to be its long range goals and the desirable types and patterns of develop- ment appropriate to achieve those goals is essential.. As part of the master plan update, each of the four major hamlets of the Town of Southold, including Cutchogue, were examined in depth concerning the existing and future conditions of development, vacant land, parking and traffic patterns, natural and environ- mental features, and historic areas. I I I o ! o I o I I o I Also Plans that were designed to~ o ! I o derived in the Master Plan Update were Hamlet Land Use Maintain the hamlet as a community focal point and an activity center. Strengthen the existing retail and service commercial uses in the hamlet centers. Provide adequate parking for commercial and public uses. Provide for a range of housing for younger and older res- idents with a range of income levels within the hamlet areas, with higher densities near the center and lower density in outlying areas. Recognize that transition areas exist between the hamlet business areas and outlying residential areas. Provide for some auto-oriented, general commercial uses at the outer edge of the hamlet to complement hamlet cen- ter commercial uses. -9- Where establish office fer opportunities in the Town. appropriate, provide areas of sufficient size to parks or light industrial parks to of- for expanded economic development with- Provide areas for recreation activities as well as open space areas for passive recreation opportunities and for protection of environmental features. I o Suggest road improvements where desirable for smoother traffic flow within the hamlet and/or the Town. I I I I I I I I I I Preserve ist and remained agricultural use of land where prime soils ex- a sufficient number of contiguous parcels have in farming activities to maintain the viability of agriculture in,relative proximity to the hamlet cen- ter. o Protect the quality of ground and surface waters and nat- ural environmental features. As shown on the Hamlet of Cutchogue Land Use Plan, Figure 3, the subject property's current zoning is Hamlet Business. As explained in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact State- ment on Proposed Local Law of 1987 Amending the Town of Southold Zoning Ordinance (accepted by the Town Board, March 8, 1988): The purpose of the Hamlet Business CHB) Distric~ is to provide for business development in the hamlet central business areas, including retail, office, and services uses, public and semi-public uses, as well as hotel and motel and Multi-family residential development that will -10- I i I I i I I I I I I ! ! I I S.C.T~M. OlSTIST 1000 SECTION 102 BLOCK 01 LOT 33.3 I I I I I The is not the also come. support and enhance the retail development and provide a focus for the hamlet area. The Hamlet Business (HB~ District is a modified version of the present B-Light Business zone. It allows busi- ness, office, specialty and residential uses at higher densities provided utilities are available in the hamlet centers. construction of this parcel as a commercial retail area only consistent with long standing development plans of Town but, as explained in the Master Plan of the Town, it is essential in the proper growth of Cutchogue for years to -12- DESIGN AND LAYOUT , As explained earlier in this analysis, the applicant has no immediate plane in developing this parcel. But in light of the Town'7 request, the proposed development scenario to be described does mirror the most appealing and realIstic plan for this parcel of property. Under current zoning regulations, the 7.1 acre site could yield a retail store floor area of approximately 30,000 to 33,000 square feet. The decided upon scenario would be to develop a 22,000 SF Colonial Shopping Plaza where customers may walk from store to store (i.e. bank, bakery, arts and crafts and hardware stores), (See Figure 4.) the numbgr of retail spaces will range in size as reasonably dictated by the tenants and will be clustered to the north of the subject site. The architecture of the build- ings will be consistent to that of the proposed Hamlet at Cut- - chogue senior citlzen community adjacent to the north. The conceptual layout will include sitting areas, landscaped areas, and other amenities to create a Colonial Village-like feeling. Realizing the dire need of parking within the Hamlet area, any proposgl would contain provisions to construct at least 325 Parking stalls on the southern portion of the site. Included within these 325 parking Stalls are the required 220 stails needed by the development of the Colonial Shopping Plaza (1 stall per 100 SF of retail) and also 105 stalls that may be used -13- PROPOSED HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE DEVELOPMENT CHURCH OF THE SACRED HEART GR!FFING PRopOSED COLONIAL SHOPPING PLAZA CHURCH OF. STREET PARKING FOR PROPOSED COLONIAL SHOPPING PLAZA AND FOR TOWN SHOPPING A 7-ACRE PARCEL FIGURE 4 ~ CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT I as parking o ! o for other shopping activities within the Hamlet of Cutchogue. A conceptual breakdow~ of the proposed site is as follows: Acres 26,000 SF Roadway Extension 0.6 22,000 SF Colonial Shopping Plaza on 2.0 acres 2.0 i o o 82,800 SF of landscaping (25% required) 325 parking stalls x 350 SF per stall = 113,740 SF 1.9 2.6 7.1 I I I I I I I I This conceptual development will be benefited by and will benefit the proposed adjacent Hamlet at Cutchogue community. It will be a relatively shprt walk (maximum distance: 1/4 mile) for residents of the Hamlet at Cutchogue and also a meeting place for seniors to get a bite to eat, pick up a newspaper, or talk to friends. The layout is also beneficial to the local com- munity as it will give the area a focus and a Village-like feel- ing and also reduce the severe parking problems currently affect- ing Cutchogue. But above all, the Colonial Shopping Plaza is within all plans for community. zoning requirements, is consistent with all land use the Town, and is a seemingly needed resource for the -15- CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS · The construction of the proposed shopping center will take approximately six months to one year to complete. Local roads, namely Main Road and Depot Lane, will probably be utilized f~r . construction traffic. Although these local roads will be utilized during the construction of the shopping center, no traffic detours are necessary. During the construction of the shopping center, a security chain link fence accompanied with a lock will be provided to secure the site from any vandals or young children. This security measure will be helpful in keeping the children of the elementary school of the Church out of the construction area. This security measure will also aide in allowing material such as wood and steel to be stored on site. Also, during construction, fugitive dust will be controlled when appropriate through application, of water and/or calcium chloride, and the stabilization of exposed earth surfaces by pavement and landscaping. It is exl0ected that construction noise will remain within acceptable community noise standards, for example, a maximum L10 noise level of 70 dB(A). This will assure tha~ the impact to the adjacent private elementary school and school yard will be insignificant. Due to the continual growth of the surrounding community, including the proposed senior citizen development, construction of the shopping center will benefit all parties throughout the area. The much needed shopping center will serve both the I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I senior citizen community and the surrounding nearby residences. Additional parking will be made available by the developer to the Town of Southold to hel9 in the relief of on-street 9arking by area shopgers and residents which will create a safer and more efficient flow of traffic on Main Road. -17- i As stated previously, the Town of Southold requested that this study consider the development of a Colonial Shopping Plaza Ion an adjacent parcel. Current zoning would permit a center of 33,000 SF to be built on the site; however, the proposed center I is smaller in size at 22,000 SF. The estimated trips for this Colonial Shopping Plaza (Land Use Code 820) are as follows: I PMPERIOD I I i Retail: Fitted Curve: Ln (T) - 0.52 Ln (X) X - 22.0 KSF T - 284 vehicle trips Directional Distribution: 49% enter, + 4.04 51% exit I I I Retail: Tripe: Entering - 139 Exiting - 145 PE OD Fitted Curve: Ln (T) ~ 0.62 Ln (X) + 3.97 I I I X ~ 22.0 KSF T ~ 360 vehicle trips Directional Distribution: 51% enter, 49% exit Trips: Entering ~ 184 Exiting ~ 176 I I The following table compares the estimated trips generated by each of the two scenarios for both of the peak periods. -18- ~ SATURDAY SCENARIO LAND USE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT I - Proposed Project Resid. - 160 units 62 31 48 41 II - Proposed Project Resid. - 160 units 62 31 48 41 with Colonial Retail - 22,000 SF 139 145 184 17___~6 Shopping Plaza TOTAL= 201 176 232 217 As Colonial No Build the same requested by the Town of Southold, the 1990 Build with Shopping Plaza condition was then compared to the 1990 condition. Again, the levels of service will remain as those of the 1990 No Build condition for the inter- sections of SR 25 at New Suffolk.and SR 25 at Grilling Street. At the intersection of CR 48 and Depot Lane, however, the PM peak period level of service drops from a C to a D, and for Saturday, from impact of the Plaza would Suffolk and would occur. intersection occur. As sta~ed in a Cutchogue community greater. If a D to an E. These result~ indicate that the proposed development with the Colonial Shopping be minor at the intersections of Route 25 at New Grilling Street, as no changes in level of service Some impact will be experienced at the Route 48 with Depot Lane as a one level drop in service will previous section, the proposed Hamlet at will house senior citizens aged 55 and the proposed development was to be a conventional Residential Planned Unit the amount of vehicles Development with no age restriction, within the area would be approximately -19- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I three timen greater than that of a senior citizen development. By proposing a senior citizen development within the subject parcel, the n~m~er of non-driving residents becomes substantial- ly greater, thereby reducing the safety hazard for children at- tending the elementary school at the Church of the Sacred Heart. The location and nature of the community allows resi- dents to walk to the bank, 9ost office and nearby stores, there- by reducing the amount of traffic normally generated by these facilities. -20- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION m..... *' 360,000 350,000 SUFFOLK CO~ $~IOR CITIZ~ m 340,000 330,000 POPI/LATION PROJECTIONS °320,000 300,000 I 290,000 280,000 . · m 270,000 260,000 m 250,000 · · · : ,, 24O,QOO ."'''::.' · .' .' 230,000 I o,ooo 19o,ooo 17o,ooo · 150,000 14o,ooo I ~o.ooo ~ 12o,ooo 11o,ooo lOO,OOO 9o,ooo 8o.ooo ~ 60,000 so,ooo ~ .. · o 40,000 0 ~ 0 O O O 30,000 O 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 O O 0 0 0 1980 1985 1990 I I I 0 0 0 g O- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 ~ 0 1995 2~00 · 2005 2010 I I -prepared by Sherry Brands·ma, Program Manager based on ]980 Census data projections Age 7'~+ lO00 *ge 60+ ;% 'lc ', 'Age 55+ ,*eleeee, It4' SEHIOR CI:TI~-N .HOUSING . A var~.eCy of~ Senior Citizen housinS.~s avai[able ~n. Suf~lk County There.is a pIanned re~ire~nt c~uni~y ~PRC) of conveu~onal~y_co~s~ruc- ~ s~n~e de~ach~ h~es~ a PRC Of ~dular h~es, a~a~ con~n~ apar~men~ .c mp .... Subsidized se~or c~zen ho~s~n~ c~ple~es are a~so available ~h~ou~hou~ ~e county, s~.of vhL~ are publ~caLLy sp~n~or~.a~ o~hers ~h~ch ~re private..~ all tnlCances ~here are loa~ vaLc~u~ l~s~s [or the subsidized $entor C~?ze~ housiuS. . . . ~e.fol~oein5 ILsC lnclude~ ~he na~s of a~ SenLor CLcLzeu C~p~exel [ocat~ ~n Suffolk ~ouut~. ~d~onal ~ufom~ou c~ be fou~ for.e~ co, lex ~n ~he houe~n5 l~sCs by ~yp~ of c~lex (apart~nts,.cov~om~n~ums e~c.) in ~hil housi~ chapter. T?~ler par~ ha~ u~ been ~h~ lil~ ~cause none of the ~ra~er p~rkl ~n Suffolk ~e ~CLUItveLy zor Babylon Pare Cen~er ~ Deer Par~ . P . . __ - Hottday Square Vest Babylon SubsLdxzM 120 Stra~h~re Terrace NZ. Stnat' S~ra~h~re Ca~e S~o~ Brook H~er'o Assoc. 162 Leisure KnoLL Ridge Si~le.H~eo (FRC] 670 ~e Knolls ~ Stony Brook SC~y ~rook Cond~nxum 180 a~dsehaven V[llase a~dge ~UDI~G~ZH ~U.~./ Terry AparC~uC · Pacchogue Sc. JOOeph's V~llise Selden Subo~o~z~ ' H~emCe~ V~I~iSe Cor~ Subm~d~s~ 100 Ave~ VitlaSe E, PaCchosue Suboxdxs~ 300 Pa~u~k VlttaSe Creeul~ SUDStaXS~ I i I I I I I I I I '1 I I I SEHIO~ CITIZKN ~iO~SlH~ (Coot'd) I ~SLIF '~0~ ~OTAL ockers Gordene Oakdele Penotaqult V[llale Boy Shore gobieeon Villele CeoCrol ~eLip I vilLalo a~?rencvood BreuCvood Bayt~ne V~LLaS· Say Shore · Sel~rau~ thc XsL~p John Wesley Villain I T~flq TOTAL SNITHTO~q Villein of St. John under Construction Yolrfleld Villa~o EoeC llverheM Smithto~m Kiel, Perk COI~(UHITY IIVELOP~HT Pan Tech HandleRout Corp. CouC~Ct: Paul Pink 175 V. Hain SC. · B~byLon, N.Y. IL70& · 661-6200 Suffolk ~mmflity Development Corp. 625 NiddLe Country Rd. Corem, N.Y. 698-6201 ViLLelo of Petcholuo Coumunicy Dev. ConCoct: Hr. Frederick ~. Severe~e ~ Beker peach. Sue, N.Y. ~7~-8851 Brookhoven Coemmnlty l~v. Aeoncy Ce.tact: Edword P. Romaine 1717 Sorth Ocean AvL ~edf6rd, N.Y. IL763 65~21~ Huntlnltou Houolnl Authority Contact: ~Eota h£cb 5 Lowude, Ave. ~27-6220 :slip Roueinl Authority 96& Nontauk R~. Oa~dale, N.Y. 589-7100 9~ TTpe ~o. of Un~t~ 758 SubsLdlzed ~00 Subsidized 13a Subsidized 100 Subeldleed 100 Sube£dized ~6 Subsidized 190 Apor~uent (U.C.) 88 Subeldized Il& 1,170 Subeldised 298 SubeLdieed Condominluu 758 tiverhead Town Co~. Dev. AS.. Contact: ~r. Hick H~nley 200 boll avl B~veffAoad, N.Y. 727-3200 SouChanpcou To,m Comm. Dev. AS. HampCon Rd. Southampton, N.Y. 283-6000 Suffolk Houelcl Sorvicee Roupp~ulo CenteR, Roo~ 220 hiChCowu, N.Y. 72~6920 h~h~ G~n~cy Dev. ~ut~C ~ra~ SeiCht~u T~u 99 V. ~in SC. ~chc~, N.Y. L1787 RuntluScon Coum. Dev. 213 Hain SC. Huntlnlton, N.Y. 117&3 ~elip CowmuniCy Dev. txec. Otr. Hovo~d l~ Sbore~ue Bayo~re, H.Y. 11706 m m mm m m m m mm m mm m 140 7,210 i m mm im m m m. 29 28 38 39 57 58 59 I SCHOOL DISTKICTS TAXES (Gone'd) I DISTRICT ,'~IMBEK SOUTHAMPTON TOWN RATE PER $100.00 ASSESSED VALUE I 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1 Hemsenburg£Speonk 12.00' 11.97' 11.70' .l ~esthampton Beach 11.70~ ll.Y&* 11.19' I I Quosue 6.15' f.72' a.88' ~ llverhead Central 13,81' 17.98' 30.39* 5 Hampton Bays 16.78' 18.52' 18,76' 6 Southampton 10.40* 11.09w 10.97' I 9 Bridgahampton 16.53' 17.13' 16.09' lO Sagaponack 6.57* 4.85* $.5l* Il Eaatport 21.32 25.19 27.~2 12 Sa& Harbor (North Haven) l&.8&* 15.91' 15.89' I 13 Tuckahoe Il. It* 12.39' 11.30' 14 Sag Harbor (Noya¢) l&.a&* 15.91' 15.89' 17 ~aat quogue 17.82' 18.10' 18.03' I 18 Riverhaad Central 23.81' 27.98* 30.19' I9 SuB Harbor 14.8&* 15.91' 15.89' 20 ~ainscoCt 7.10 7.50 7.24 4 Fishers IsLami 9.721 9.~86 10.3332 I 5 SouChoLd 12.803, L3.698* 14.8529' 9 ~aCC£cuck - CuCchogua 14.073' 15.838' 16.7846' 10 Greeuport 16.580' 18.227' 21.98~7' L1 Laurel 13.882' 17.531' 12.2594' I Ne, sueeoLk I0.19I* 10.130- 10.1~0. 15 I *Includes local Library tax I I I 128 Thlr4 m m m m m m m mi m 6). Cm:lce~M. um Senior I ~ers ~obile CiC Lzen Subsidized ~s(l) ~(~) ~(3) ~(~) ~(5) 3,5~ 957 0 5~ 378 ~ T~ 8,319 3,~ 1,6~ 0 4,7~ 2,575 ~c ~ T~ 617 1~ 1~ 0 ~ ~mi~ T~ 7,291 1,7~ ~ 722 7~ 1,142 I~[[P T~ ~7 ~ 0 1,371 ll~ 556 ~Iter [s~ T~ 0 0 0 0 0 2 ~[d T~ 7,512 6,150 ~ ~ 21,743 7,71~ 2,1~ 3,6~ I (l) Apartments in apartment complexes, p. See Apartments 8O. (2) condominiums existln8 and under construct'ion. See Condom[nlums p. 86. (3) See condominium Homeowners isso¢iation~ p. 89. tm) ~obiIe Homes in =obile home parks. See Hobile Home Parks, 1983 p. 91. (5) ~umber of uniCs designated for senior citizen use. See Sr. Citizen Housin~ p. 9~. (6) See Pubt£calty Assisted Housi,n& in Suffolk County p. 96. I I I I I I SECONO HOH~S IN SUFFOLK COUN1T BY TONN, 1970 AND 1980 .Sabyton Town ~rookhaven East Hampton Town ~uncin$ton I$1[p Town - liverhead Town .Shelter IsLand Town S~ichtown ~.$outhampton Town SouthoLd To~ SUFFOLE 1970 1980 Total Total Housin8 Housing Number Units Humber Units 818 1.49 510 .81 10,0~3 12.80 6,373 5.27 3,709 46.70 6,418 49.48 793 t.~7 46~ .76 2,505 3.48 2,383 2.65 1,611 20.45 l,ll7 12.20 775 52.91 602 33.11 368 1.32 262 .80 7,993 37.9~ L0,172 3~.73 "Ar'2,660 ~ir'30.~9 ')~"3,185 *)tr2S.62 31,285 9.36 31,487 7.29 71 II Jl TOTAL ~OUS~NG UNITS AND CO~ON'~NTS OF TI'IK HOUSI~ L'*~'VENTO~Y BY TO~I, 1970 A~O 1980 TOWN Year-Round Un/ts Occupied Units Vacant Units 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 Babylon Town 54,279 62,766 Brookhaven Town 71,164 115,501 East Hampton Town 6,231 7,581 Huntington Town ~3,500 61,269 [sllp T~n 70,111 87,632 R£verhead T~m 8,4~3 8,130 Shelter Island Town 1,140 1,516 Sm£thtown Town 27,543 32,614 Southampton Tun 14,468 19,291 ~'Southold Tow~ ~r7,13! ~,3~ SU~O:E COU~ 312,050 ~4,6~ 53,320 61,097 958 1,869 65,989 109,266 5,175 6,235 3,837 5,760 2,394 1,821 52,351 60,142 1,149 1,127 68,370 84,881 1,741 2,751 6,084 7,492 399 638 6~6 887 494 629 27,037 31,986 506 628 *5,819 *7,4el *1,301 *887 95,586 385,719 16,463 18,929 TOWN Seasonal/ Total Un£ts M/~raCory Un/ts Number of Units Change 1970-1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 Number Per cent Babylon Town 643 382 54,922 63,148 8,226 :4.98 ~rookhaven To~m 78143 5,332 78,307 120,833 42,526 54.3l ~ast Hampton Town '[,714 5,390 7,945 12,97! 5,026 63.26 ~unC~n$con Town 458 316 53,958 61,585 7,627 14.14 IsLip Town 2,071 2,200 72,182 89,832 17,650 24.45 R£verhead To~n 1,450 1,028 7,933 9,158 1,225 15.44 Shelter Island Town 343 302 1,483 1',818 335 22.39 Smichtow~ To~m 228 167 27,77! 32,78~ 5,010 18.04 Southampton Town 6,669 9,175 21,137 28,466 7,329 34.67 ~rSouthoLd Tow~ ~rl,609 ~r2,782 ~8,7~ ~,:~ ~2,390 ~27.35 s~o~ coug~ 22,328 27,074 334,378 43~,722 97,3~ 7o VALUE OF OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSfNG UNITS BY TOWN, 1970 AND [980 ~ABYLON TOWN BROOKfIAVEN TOWN EAST I~MPTON TOWN Number of Units Number of Units Number o~ Units 1970 980 970 I 80 980 2,1 o t2s $~0,000-14,999 2,959 1~9 6,~7~ 417 226 20 $[~,000-19,999 lO,~O~ 370 12,484 1,118 434 38 $20,000-24,999 13,173 979 [2,~23 3,004 ~38 67 $25,000-34,999 10,870 7,111 12,883 20,438 643 187 $35,000'49,999 2,108 21,852 4,834 32.824 452 635 $50,000 or over 362 10,071 1,181 :7,833 391 2,800 Total 40,557 40,627 52,590 75,853 2,809 3,765 NIJNTINGTON ISL~P Number of Un£Cs Number of Un£t$ Number of Un£ce VALUE :N DOLLARS 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 ~ese than $10,000 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2:7 $10,000-14,999 1,026 47 4,313 116 447 6! $15,000-19,999 3,789 96 13,976 339 774 92 $20,000-24,999 7,656 320 17,965 1,341 682 204 $25,000-34,999 13,8&1 1,712 13,696 14,512 709 796 S35,000-49,999 10,541 9,~0 3,324 30,847 288 1,328 $50,000 or over 6,795 3~,082 1,144 12,556 95 1,586 Total 43,850 46,728 55,197 59,768 3,212 4,115 SHELTER ~SL~ T. SM~THTOI4N TOI.~I $OLrt'HAHPTON TOI4N Number of Un,cs Number of Un~Ce Number of Un,cs VALUE IN DOLLARS 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 Less =hen $10,000 22 ~ ~ ~ 431 57 $10,000-1&,999 43 I 605 36 946 72 $15,000-19,999 67 6 1,816 66 1,572 $20,000-24,999 83 13 4,189 202 1,697 269 $25,000-34,999 110 36 9,978 :,198 1,785 996 $35,000-49,999 90 77 5,490 8,061 ~,053 2,533 $50,000 or over 94 505 1,10& 16,076 848 6,662 Total ~09 639 23,342 25,66: 8,332 :0,722 .')~LsouTHOLO TO~I SUFFOLK COUNTY J~LNumber of Units Number of Units VALUE IN DOLLARS ~1970 '~.. 1980 1970 1980 Less c~an $10,000 221 la ~ ~ $10,000' 14,999 569 19 17,709 9~8 $15~000-19,999 86& 60 46,281 2,316 $20,000-24,999 821 121 59~327 6,520 $25,000-34,999 935 4~9 65,450 47,435 $35,000-49,999 ~8 1,268 28~666 108,865 $50,000 Or over 280 3,395 12,29A 106,566 To~e~ 4~178 5~330 234,576 273,208 '73 I I I ~l Occupied Unica Ovner Occupied I TO~I Tota.~.~ Number ~ of Total Sabylon To~n ~],320 Brookhaven To~n 65,989 I ~aaC ~ampton Town 3,837 ~untlnlton Tom~ ~2,351 :s~p T~. 68,370 R~vetheaa T~ 5helmet :s~and T~n 6~6 Smicht~ Town 27,037 Southampton T~n 12,123 ~SouChoLd T~ ~,829 SU~OL~ ~UN~ 295~586 ~, 1970 AND 1980 1970 43,240 81.10 54,206 82.14 3,123 81.39 45,514 86.94 56,789 83.06 4,462 73.34 570 88.24 23,873 88.30 9,394 77.49 ~.4,645 ~179.69 245,816 83.16 I AIl Occupied Unlta TOi~1 Total 1980 Renter Occupied I I I Babylon Town 61,097 Srookhaven Tour 109,266 East Nampcon Town 5,760 RuotinStOn To~ 60,142 R£verhead Town 7,492 Shelter Island Town 887 SmlthCovn To~n 31,986 Soucha~ton T~n ~6,747 ~SouthoLd T~ SUFFOLE COU~ 385,719 Number X of Total 10,080 18.90 11,783 17.86 71~ 18.61 6,837 13.06 11,581 16.94 1,622 26.66 76 ll.76 3,16& 11.70 2,729 22.51 · 111,184 ~120.31 49,770 16.84 O~er Oacupied Renter Occupied N~mber % of Total N~ber Z o~ Total 47,126 77.13 13,971 22.87 84,903 77.70 24,363 22.30 4,53& 78.72 1,226 21.28 51,267 85.24 8,875 14.76 67,107 79.06 17,774 20.94 5,719 76.33 1,773 23.67 7~O 83.43 147 16.57 27,903 87.24 4,083 12.76 12,724 75.98 4,023 24.02 5,9s3 so.19 1,478 1 .Sl 308,006 79.85 77,713 20.15 TON VACAgT Y~R-ROUND HOUSIIqO UNITS BY R~ASO~I FOR VACANCY BY TO~I, 1980 VACANT YEAR ROUND TOTAL Total Total Total Unica Total' YEA~- Number Unica Unica For Other ROUND Vacant For For Occasional Vacant UNITS Unica Sale Rent Uae Units Babylon Tore 62,766 1,669 455 431 128 Srookhaven Town 115,501 6,235 1,601 1,274 1,041 East Ra~pcon Toga 7,581 1,821 224 234 1,028 RunCln$ton Town 61,269 1,127 275 242 149 Istlp Town 87,632 2,751 763 642 183 Riverhead Town 8,130 638 143 136 89 Shelter Island To~n 1,516 629 20 24 300 5mlchtown Town 32,614 628 165 128 95 Southampton To~m 19,291 .2,5~A 359 60~ 997 ~SouChotd T~n ~8,348 ~887 ~117 ~l~ ~03 SUFFOLK COU~ ~0&,6~ 18,929 4,~22 3,863 ~,~3 2,319 335 461 .. 1,163 ' 270 285 240 584 6,531 I I I I SIZE OF YEA~-ROUND ~{OUSING UNITS gY TOWN, 1970 ~ i980 SIZE OF UNIT BABYLON TOWN (Number Of Rooms) Number of Units 1970 1980 One Two Three Four Five S£x or more Total BROOKI{AVEN TOWN EAST HA.MPTON TOWN Number of UnLcs Number of Units' 1970 1980 1970 1980 247 375 414 926 20 144 752 1,026 994 1,704 107 209 3,760 5,124 4,139 8,784 431 398 7,175 7,625 10,135 15,152 1,533 1,342 10,074 10,166 13,368 20,620 [,560 1,763 32,270 38,450 42,114 68,315 2,)80 3,725 54,278 62,766 71,164 115,501 6,231 7,581 ! ! ! ! ! m ! SIZE OF UNIT (Number of Roo~a) HUNTINGTON TO~4 ISLIP TOWN RIVERHEAO TOWN Number of Unite Number of Units Number of Units 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 ~ae 290 327 ~88 566 57 82 Two 521 878 1,014 1,316 115 150 Three 2,357 2,729 4,480 6,659 529 550 rout 4,258 4,226 7,466 9,136 1,465 1,853 Five 6,853 6,423 12,560 13,4&1 1,560 1,950 Six or more 39,221 ~ 46,686 44,103 56,514 2,757 3,545 Total 53,500 61,269 70,111 87,632 6,483 8,130 SIZ~ OF UNIT (Number of Rooms) One Two Three Four FLve Six or more Total SHELTER I$LAItl) T. SMITItTO~I TOWN SOU~L~iP~ON TO!~I Number of Units Number of Units Number of Units 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 2 4 131 121 178 437 14 17 247 321 261 404 30 44 1,120 1,657 940 1,144 156 133 1,965 2,114 2,870 3,152 289 277 2,821 2,824 3,587 4,663 649 1,041 21,259 25,577 6,632 9,491 1,140 1,516 27,543 32,614 I4,468 19,291 I size oF UNIT ~SOUT~OU) TOWN (Number of Rooms) ~[Number oe Units i ~ ~198o One ~ I I I I Two 108 85 Three 326 408 Four 1,269 1,132 give 1,632 1,731 Six or more 3,762 4,937 Total 7,131 8,348 SUFFOLK COUNTY Number of Units 1970 1980 1,861 3,037 4,133 6,110 18,112 27,497 38,292 45,865 54,304 63,858 195,347 258,281 312,049 404,6~ 75, I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I i I I I MONTHLY RENT Less than $100 $[00-149 $150-199 $200-249 $250 or more No Cash Rent Total MONT~¥ I~NT Less than $100 $ [00-149 $1~0-199 $200-249 $250 or more No Caah Rent Total WONTI{LY RENT 1970 Less than $100 $100-149 $150-199 9200-249 $250 or more No Cash Rent Total MONTRLY PENT 1970 Less than SL00 $L00-149 $150-199 $200-249 9250 or more No Cash Rent Total MONTMLY CONTRACT BABYLON TOWN Number of Units 1970 1980 1,055 123 3,537 294 3,633 685 958 1,575 271 10,349 555 656 10,009 13,682 h'UNTIN~TON TOWN Number of Units 1970 1980 959 219 2,254 241 1,906 432 559 1,231 430 5,899 598 ~ 645 6,706 8,667 RENTS BY TOWN, 1970 AND 1980 B EOOKHAV E~I TOWN Number of Units 1970 1980 1,929 706 4,219 721 3,639 1,254 631 3,051 307 L6,396 869 1,109 11,594 23,237 [SLZ? TOWN Number of Units 1970 1980 1,376 467 3,210 464 4,884 733 1,202 1,456 225 /3,229 576 887 11,473 17,256 SREL%'~R ISLAt{O T. SMITHTOWN TOWN Number of Units Number of Units 1970 1980 1970 1980 29 t 379 179 15 14 752 t~6 3 26 i,lg0 194 0 22 4L6 393 2 30 L65 2,762 23 37 191 260 72 130 3,093 3,934 ~- $OUTROLD TOWN 607 64 257 136 58 242 15 331 0 374 190 212 1,127 1,359 SUFFO~ COUNTY Number of Units 1970 1980 7,982 1,972 16,031 2,58L 15,961 4,578 3,849 9,491 1,436 51,709 3,6~1 4,620 48,900 74,951 74 EAST RAMPTON TOWN Number of Units 1970 1980 232 23 198 86 81 163 9 256 LO 443 131 197 661 1,168 RIVE RHEAD TOWN Number of Un/ts 1970 1980 516 99 569 I96 262 203 20 331 3 695 1~,3 138 1,513 1,662 $OUTRA~IPTON TOWN Number of Units 1970 1980 900 91 1,020 283 305 626 39 845 23 1,532 365 479 2,632 3,856 NUMBER OF PERSONS BABYLON TOWN SROOKHAV~ TOWN PER ROOM Number of Units Number of Un{Cs 1970 1980 }.970 }.980 AI~ Occupied Units ~9.---9~7~6~6 ~9-L~809862-~50150 ~ 1.00 or le~s , 1.01 co 1.50 3,0~8 1,672 3,199 2,476 [.5[ or ~te 516 327 640 498 Total 53,320 6~,097 65,989 109,266 O~er OccupLed 1.00 or Less 40,73l 45,883 51,586 83,119 L.0l to 1.50 2,212 l,LLL 2,28~ 1,583 ~.51 or ~te 297 132 336 Total 43,240 ~7,I26 54,206 84,~3 ·entet Occupied l.O0 or less 9,025 13,215 10,564 23,~73 :.50 836 561 9~5 893 ~.0X Ko 1.51 or ~re 219 195 304 297 Toca~ i0,080 13,971 11,783 24,363 NU~ER OF PE~ONS :SL:P ~ RIVE~EAD PER ROOM Number of Un,CS Nu~er Of ~970, ~980 ~970 ~980 ~.~0 ot :ess 63,65~ 8~,938 5,693 7,292 1.01 to [.50 3,959 2,462 288 [59 ~.51 or ~re 760 ~ ~03 Total 68,370 84,881 6,08& 7,&92 Owner Occup{ed 1.00 or }.ess 53,250 65,245 4,234 5,615 1.01 to 1.50 3,102 1,625 180 90 1.51 ot ~e ~37 · 237 ~ To:al 56,789 67,107 &,&62 5,719 Reutet Occup[ea 1.00 ot I~sm I0,~01 16,6~3 1,~59 1,677 l.Ol co 1.50 857 837 108 69 1.5~ or ~re 323 2&& 55 27 Total 11,581 17,77~ 1,622 1,773 PER R~ Nu~er o~ Uni:/~Nu~t o~ ~970 1980 ~X970~~980 ~A~L Occup~e~ u~s 1.00 ot Less 1~,53i 16,36~ 1.Ol co 1.50 &78 283 168 77 Il& 103 26 NU~ER OF PERSONS PER ROOM BY TOWN, }.970 A~ID }.980 EAST HA~MPTON TOWN HUNTIN~ON TO~8 Nuu~er of Units Number of Units 1970 1980 1970 1980 3,637 5,645 50,760 59,336 157 89 }.,339 662 43 26 252 144 3,837 5,760 52,351 60,142 2,981 4,471 44,374 50,777 111 53 1,009 442 3I 10 131 48 3,123 4,534 45,514 5}.,267 656 1,174 6,386 8,559 46 36 330 220 12 16 121 96 714 1,226 6,837 8,875 SHELTER ISLAND Number of Units 1970 1980 633 881 12 6 }, 0 646 887 559 736 1L 4 0~ 0 570 740 74 145 1 2 }, 0 76 147 SUFFOLK of Units Number of Units 1970 1980 I I 279,638 375,821 13,373 8,204 2,575 1,694 295,586 385,719 }'.51 or ~ore 41 Total 12,123 16,747 5,829 7,461 1.00 or Less 9,043 12,531 4 I 5 234,513 301,945 1.01 co 1.50 293 159 LO9 9,881 5,360 1.51 or more 58 34 25 6 1,422 701 Total 9,39& 12,724 4,~5 5,83. 245,816 308,006 ~KRenter Occupied 1.00 or less 2,488 3,830 1,109 1,428 45,125 73,876 1.01 to 1.50 185 124 59 30 .' 3,492 2,844 1.51 or more 56 69 16 20 1,153 993 Total 2,729 4,023 1,184 1,478 49,770 77,713 7'6 SH ITRTO~t{ Number of Units 1970. 1980 26,207 311i620 725 318. 105 27,037 31,986 23,244 27,638 570 246 59 19 23,873 27,903 2,963 3,982 155 72 46 29 3,164 4,083 L9 72 ! I I I I I I YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS BY Y~AR STRUCTUR£ BUILT BY TOWN, 1980 Total L979 1975 1970 Year-round to to to Housin~ Units 3/80 1978 1974 Babylon Town 62,797 299 2,069 5,40L BrookhaVen Town 115,600 2,202 14,347 26,671 East ~ampton Town 7,840 302 767 947 Huotinston Town 61,322 744 2,134 4,828 lsLip Town 87,614 742 4,474 12,380 Riverhead Town 8,222 87 535 L,413 shelter Island Town 1,538 33 Sm£thtown Town 32,630 707 1,561 3,239 Southampton Town 19,623 441 1,608 2,705 ~Southold Town ~i S,48Z SU~TOLK ~UN~ 4~5,667 ~,701 28,263 58,637. t960 L950 1940 1939 T~ L969 1959 1949 Earlier Babylon Town Bcookhavan Town East Nampton Town Runtlnston Tow~ Islip Town Riverhaad Town Shelter Island Town Smithtown Town Southampton Town ~f,$outhold SUFFOLK COUNTY 17,016 23,110 6,661 8;241 3b,447 18,931 8,399 L3,603 1,886 1,157 655 2,126 19,212 19,372 5~081 9,951 30,080 24,127 5,486 10,325 2,185 1,415 791 1,796 300 232 98 561 15,482 7,376 1,575 2,690 4,695 3,726 1,496 4,952 123,667 100,936 30,896 57,567 ~OIAN VALU~ O~ SPECIFIED OWlI~R-O¢CUPIED UNITS, 1970 AND 1980 1970 1980 Babylon To~n 22,400 42,900 Brookhavan Town 22,000 39,500 East Hampton Town 26,300 70,000 ~unttngton Town 31,700 66,700 lsLip Town 22,400 40,000 R[verhead Town 21,200 44,400 Shelter £sland Town 28,600 72,300 SmithtownTown 29,900 57,200 Southampton Town 23,600 60,200 ~$outhoLd Town '~22,600 ~59,300 SUFFOLK COUN'~ 24~100 45,600 77 :fy Rd, I mohn I sraJecr' Name s_. .;oUTIC~'~Y TON TOVN wide wide FUBLICALLY ASSISTED HOUSING IN SUFFOLK COUNTY (Cont'd) Program Year Type of Units Contact Asency or Type ~ompleted [emily Sr. Cit. Total Management A~ency Single a.a. 3 0 3 S.C.D.C. Family 625 ~iddle Country Rd. Program lxiscing es of a.a. n.c. 26 5.¢.9.¢ Section 10/82 625 Hiddle Country Rd. 8(Id) Corem, NY T~mwlde Home n.a. 16 0 16 S.C.D.C. Improve- 625 Middle Country ment Corem, NY Program FHI{A n.a. Dept. Agri- 50UTHAi~TON TOkai TOTAL 0 31 31 ~ 19 31 76(a) K i0~I~OLD TO~N ~Sectlon 10/82 8 (id) Improvement (2) 4r..e. cn.a. 4t2 S.C.D.C. 625 Middle Country Rd. Corem, NY 5 .C.D .C. 625 Middle Country Rd. ~20 S.C.D,C. 625 ~iddle Country Rd. Corem, NY ~27(a) SUFFOLK COUNTY TOTAL SUFFOLK COUNTY PROPOSED 1,988 3,070 5,959(a) 60 10& 16~ (a) The type of unit information was hoc available in all instances therefore the total does no~ equal the s~m of its parts. 103 I ~un i I I I I I ~jTHN4:~TON TOWN TOTAL OF sOuTHOLD ~ Sou~hol d wes' Gr eenpo~ S3JTHO. O TOWN TOTAL sUFFOLK COUNTY TOTAL Name Mark-Kal Terrace Coun~'y $~/le Garden Ap, s. Harbour House Ocean Bay Apar,mem~s Wes,hemp,on Beach kp, s. Colonial Vlllage Orl f~ood Cove APARTMENTS (Con+' Address 1-128 Lamplight Circle Non, auk Hwy. Mon+auk Hwy. & Oepot Rd. 325 Non, auk Hwy. ~ Library Ave. Je~sup La. 62 Oak 52965 Main Rd. Main Rd. No. of Units Acreage t 28 8.0 10 1.0 24 2.5 24 2.4 52 4.2 24 2.0 17 1.1 279 21.2 31 2.7 101 7.1 1~2 2t,74~ 2,155.0 BABYLON - Apartm~en~ Complex 85 I I I I I I I I I i 3 SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMIYNITISS: TOTAL HOUSING LrNITS AND PEHCENT OF TOTAL HOUSIN~ UNITS HELD FOH SEASONAL A~O OCCASIONAL USE, 1980 Hans[ns oE HousLn8 of Area Name Un[ts Total(l) Area Name Un[cs Total([) ~~her Hills 451 82.0 Sag Harbor V. 1,786 32.2 ~esconset 3,080 1.0 Salts[re V. 357 94.1 ~issequogue V. 454 4.8 Sayville 3,751 .6 ~orgh Am£tyv[lle 3,956 .1 Se[den 5,108 1,8 ~arch Babylon 5,767 ,0 Setauket-Eaet Betauket 3,066 .8 North Bay Shore 9,S99 North BalLporC 2,080 North Great River 3,127 North Haven V. 459 North Lifldetmhurst 3,494 North PaCchogue 2,475 North Sea 944 Norchport Veterans Hasp. I3 Northport V. 2,770 Norchv[lle 944 .1 Shelter Is. Heights 1,039 39.0 .7 Shelter Island 74,8 23.1 .3 Shinnecock Indian Reset";. 104 .0 27.8 8h£nnecock Rills 2,011 53.4 .1 Shirley 5,632 5.5 2.3 Shoreham 'V. 189 10.5 49.5 Smithtown 8,739 .4 .0 Sound Beach 3,315 16.5 .5 South Huntln$ton 4,607 .4 4.9 Southampton V. 2,342 28.6 37~4 ~{Southold '1{2,871 44'.9 Sprln$s 2,524 ~2.8 .7 S~. James 3,826 I.I 85.4 Stony Brook 5,204 3.4 6.8 Suf~otk Developmental Ctr. 20 .0 ~orchwesC Harbor 1,766 Noyack 2,149 0akdate 2,573 Ocean Beach V. 633 Old Field V. 290 OrLent - East Harlon 1,219 44.2 Pacchogue V. 4,730 1.0 ?etonic 601 30.9 ~il{r[~ Psych. Ctr. 44 2.2 Poospacuck Indian Remedy 59 5.0 ?aquott V. 261 13.7 ?art Jefferson SCa. 4,800 Por~ JeEEerson V. 2,3~5 ~uiogue 39~ 29.1 QuoBue v. 947 ~emsenburg-Speonk 1,046 27.3 ~idse 4,024 4.8 Riverhead 2,612 1.9 Riverside-Piandera 2,443 16.5. Rocky Po[n: 3,726 16.4 Percent o~ Housln$ Uncis held Ear seaeonal SUllY at Stony Brook 71 35.2 Tuckahoe 538 23.2 V[lla$e o~ the Branch ~88 .4 ~adln$ River 2,081 26.8 ~alnsco~: 389 49.3 ~atet~iLL & Sasaponak 884 50.9 Vest Babylon /2,749 Vest Bay Shore 1,581 Vest Hills 1,901 .4 ~elt I$LLp 8,477 .3 ~est Sayv~Lle 2,596 .3 VesthampCo~ 1,438 18.8 Vesthampton Beach Uninc. 514 95.3 ~eethampCon Beach V. 2,026 63~2 ~yandanch 3,672 .3 Yaphank 1,051 4.8 and occasional use. 79 I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Camunl~ Ham,'on Bays Hampton P~ Brookhaven B~ookhaven & Isl 1p Sou+hold Baby ton Sout~ton SoutMmp'~fl COMPIJN I TY F=~OF I L~ S Grove V. Legislative N,Y.S. N.Y.S. U.S. Suffolk 1,~ 2 t ),4 6,9 2 3 7, T9 8 4 2 I4 8 ~ 2 9,10 2 1 2 I 1 6,7 2,3 !,2,J 6,8,~,10 B 2 1 3,5 2,3 ? ,2 ] 2,3 1,2 3,8 9,10 5 ~ 17,18 10 5 ~ 17 5,8 3,4 2 10 Islip $ ) 2 g S~l*h~vn 6 2 ~ 7 Beo~khe~en 7 2 1 5,~ 8rool~even, I$11p & Smlth'mvn 3,6,7 2,3 !,2 6,8, HuntingS'on Broo~lven 1 11 TO 2 2 4 2,16 2 2 1 2 TO 5 2,3 14,1~ 4 T I 4 6 2 1 6 38 BIB mm mB 26 27 232 233 I I 42 $59 ISl. IP TOM4 TOTN. - 9 fg" Bey S~e Hain St. 179 8RO~KHAVE~4 TO~I TOTAL - 14 906 Stony 8roc~K Hain St. 25 Set euket Hain S?. 52 Brl dg~aaKr~on Hom~ a~k H~. Sag H~ Hain St. $UFFQ. K Q~Ut,'TY TOTAL 174 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I APPENDIX B PLANT LIST TABLE I I I I I I I i I I I I i I I I PLANT LIST WITH RELATIVE ABUNDANCE SPECIES Acer pseudoplantanus Agrostis tenuis Andropogon scoparius Apocynum cannabinum Ascleplas syriaca Aster vimineus Baccharis halimifolia Betula populifolia C ichorium intybus Erigeron strigosus Festuca myuros Hieraciu~ pratense Hypericum perforatum Hypochaeris radicata Juncus dichotomus Juniperus virginiana Lactuca serriola Linaria canadensis Lonicera morrowi Lonicera japonica Morus alba Myrica pensylvanica Onoclea sensibilis Panic,.. lanuginosum Parthenocissus quinquefolia Plantago lanceolata Polytrichum sp. Populus tremuloides Prunus serotina Poa compressa Quercus velutina Robinia pseudoacacia Rosa multiflora Rhus copallinum Rhus glabra Rhus radicans Rubus allegheniensis Rumex acetosella - Solidago canadensis Solidago j uncea Solidago nemoralis Solidago rugosa Solidago tenuifolia Trifolium hybridum Verbascum thapsus Vitis labrusca Planetree Maple Bent Grass Little Bluestem Indian Hemp Common Milkweed Small Aster Groundsel Bush Gray Birch Chickory Daisy Fleabane Fescue Field Hawkweed Common St. Johnswort Cat's-Ear Rush Eastern Redcedar Wild Lettuce Old Field Toad Flax Bush Honeysuckle Japanese Honeysuckle White Mullberry ~orthern Bayberry Sensitive Fern Panic Grass Virginia Creeper English Plantain Moss Quaking Aspen Black Cherry Canada Bluegrass Black Oak Black Locust Multiflora Rose Shining Sumac Smooth Sumac Poison Ivy Black Raspberry Red Sorrel Canada Goldenrod Early Goldenrod Gray Goldenrod Rough-stemmed Goldenrod Slender-leaved Goldenrod Alsike Clover Mullein Fox Grape Key: C - Common S - Several F - Few R - Rare Old Field R S S S F S F C F F F S C F F ¥ C C C S F F Marginal S F S F F S S C S F S F F C R S F S C S C F S S S S S F C C C F C S F I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VBGETATION. The vegetation of the subject site was inventoried in June of 1988, at which time the majority of species occupying the parcel were either in flower or ~ruiting. Two distinct associations occur on the site: 1) old field and 2) second-growth woodland. The former occupies all of the parcels agricultural soils where the topography is flattish, the latter occupies the uneven topography on the parcel's extreme south. A more mature forest type---oak-hickory hardwood association---is situated around the periphery of the parcel's northwest boundary. (Table ) Old Field The site's old field vegetation represents an early stage in succession on prime agricultural soils on eastern Long Island once farming has ceased. The particular type seen on the subject parcel is typical of flat farmlands with loamy soils used for row crops on an annual basis. The parcel's soil conditions---regularly nutrified and tilled topsoils---have resulted from. a long history of active 'fa-ming. Succession on Long Island agricultural soils of poor or marginal quality , excessively porosity,~!and/or extreme topography is more often typified by the growth of drought resistant grasses (e.g. little bluestem, sheep fescue), followed by bayberry, sumacs, .I red cedar and other woody plants more adaptable to poor soil conditions, In the present sere the dominant species are the goldenrods (Solidago spp.) and the introduced hawkweed (Hieracium pratense) both of which are robust perennials that perennate by runners or stolons. These offshoots give rise to rosettes of leaves that produce stems and flowers in the next year. Consequently, they are rapid colonizers of land recently left fallow. Additionally, all of the goldenrods and the hawkweed produce fertile seeds (achenes) which have hair-like appendages attached, adapting them for windborn dispersal. The combination of shoots and seeds has resulted in a relatively uniform stand of these species that covers all of the parcel's land that was here-to-fore farmed. The few exceptions are dirt trails (tractor roads) and gulleys where the soils are either too compressed or too worn to be colonized by these species. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VE_GETATION/Penny-2 These last areas are of relatively small size. They are occupied by a sparser, lower vegetation conaisting of grasses (e.g.; Festuca myuros) and various forbs (e.g., alsike clover). All of the common old field herbaceous species with the exception of the sensitive fern and Polytrichum mosses are found flowering and fruiting on the peripheral marginal lands. Inasmuch as these species are opportunistic, i.e.,aggressive and weedy, it would be expected that they would be among the early colonizers, the pioneers, so to speak, comprising the first seral stage. The addition of the fern and the moss would not be unusual as they often colonize old fields and are able to do so by dissemination by way of spores over many miles. Damp soil conditions during the early spring before the onset of active herbaceQus grown would be suitable to their propagation and spread. The second seral stage is already in progress. This sere is repre- sented by the several woody species scattered throughout the goldenrod~- hawkweed field. Ail of those found on the site are known colonizers. The gray birch is a solitary colonizer, while the quaking aspen tends to form dense stands. Multiflor~ rose also tends to form dense stands, inside of which little else grows. Ail three species p~efer loamysoils to sandy ones, with the two trees preferring mesophytic conditions, and they do equally well on hydric soils(as does the sensitive fern). The groundsel bush is most typically found in saltmarshes landward of the saltmarsh hay zone. However, it is a colonizer disseminating its plumose seeds over long distances, and is found sporadically over a wide range of old field soils. It should be noted that none of the aforementioned woodies are more than a few years old and so the second seral stage is very young. Although the deciduous woods to the northwest contains many typical deciduous hadwoods (oaks, sassafras, etc.), it is interesting that none of them are presently colonizing the field. Neither are black cherry and eastern red cedar, found in the periphery, because the two would h~ve a hard time establishing in amongst such a dense stand of vigorously competitive forbs. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VEGETATION/Penny--3 It would be expected that black locusts would eventually begin to establish with the other woody species as the soil nitrogen is exhausted as they are adept nitrogen fixers and already occupy the marginal periphery. At this point in time it is fair to say that a form of"sweepstakes" succession is underway. Any number of woody species may invade the field and temporarily win out over others. However, if left alone it is safe to say that the field will grow up into a second growth forest dominated by an oak-hickory association. Such succession will take at least 50 years. The marginal edge association on the periphery of the old field is richer in species (see Table ), more mature, but, still, decidely second- growth and weedy in composition. The planetree maples and black locusts are just a few of the introduced species that are indicative of this disturbed association,s present status. This area also contains a rich assemblage of second-growth forest types including forbs, shrubs, vines, saplings and semi-mature trees. Between the old field and this marginal forest is an ecotonal area containing ~lements of both associations. As mentioned abo~e this association serves as a jumping off place for colonizing the old field, inasmuch as it is imediately proximate to the old field and contains several species which are typical old field colonizers (erg., multiflora rose). Endansered And Threatened Species A few of the species (e.g., northern bayberry) are on the state's protected list, but none of the species found on the site are on the state or federal endangered and threatened list, nor is anyone of them on the state Heritage list. It is expected that a late simmer-early fall survey would turn up additional herbaceous species, but it is not expected that any endangered or threatened speices will be found because of the disturbed nature of the site. APPENDIX C WATER SUPPLY REPORT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS WATER SUPPLY REPORT SEACROFT AT CUTCHOGUE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK REVISION: 'AUGUST 13, 1984 PAGE OR~NDO, ~LOR,DA ROSEMONT, 'LUNO,S PISCATAWAY, NEW JERSEY I MASON, OHIO Main Office: 120 EXPRESS STREET PLAINVIEW, NEW YORK 11803 I I I CONSULTING ENGINEERS RUSSELL S. BODWELL JOHN J, PRICE STEVEN L. SAMET HALL CLARKE JAMES DELAND ANGUS O. HENDERSON CONSULTANT PAUL H. ULATOWSKI ASSOCIATE HENDERSON AND BODWELL 120 EXPRESS STREET, PLAINVIEW, NEW YORK 11803 August 13~ 1984 516-935-8870 i I Mr. Richard Cron Cron & Cron Main Road P.O. Box 953 Cutchogue, NY 11935-0032 I I I I I I I I I I I Re: Water Supply Report Seacroft at Cutchogue Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York Dear Mr. Cron: Enclosed are copies of the revised report on the above subject dated July 1, 1984. Please mark "superceded" or destroy all previous copies in your possession. The changes made in the report include: 1. Revision of population to reflect the usage of a strictly adult community (2 persons per dwelling unit) 2. Elimination of the demand of the former proposed shopping center, which is no longer proposed 4. Ail RSB/dm Adjustment of the "Table of Water Supply Demands". to reflect the reduced population now anticipated Reduction in the capacity of the two wells proposed from 75 gpm to 50 gpm each (note that one is still a spare) corrections to text will be found on page 1. I Enc. cc: Mr. P. Pontur0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................. 1 Population to be Served ...................................... 1 Water Supply Demands ......................................... 1 Proposed Well Source ......................................... 1 Storage Reservoir ............................................ 2 Service Pumping Equipment .................................... 2 Fire Pump Equipment .......................................... 3 Treatment of the Source of Supply ............................ 3 Distribution System .......................................... 4 Disinfection ................................................. 4 Pumping Station Build~ng ..................................... 4 Site ..................................... .................... 4 Appendix "A": Appendix "B": Appendix "C": Tests of the Water Bearing Strata Summary ..... 5 Memo of Record, April 5, 1984 ................. 6 Memo of Record, April 16, 1984 ................ 9 Water Analysis Results ....................... 10 Analyses by New York Testing Laboratories .... 11 Analyses by Suffolk County ~ealth Services..18A Sketches of Proposed Installations, etc ...... 19 Sketch No. 1 Sketch No. 2 General arrangement and Water Distribution System .......... 20 Well Site, Treatment Plant, and Pump Station Arrangement ..... 21 Sketch No. 3 Pump Station Plan ............ 22 Sketch No. 4 Typical Well Installation .... 23 Sketch No. 5 Selection and Capacity of Pumping Equipment ............ 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL coNSULTING ENGINEERS WATER SUPPLY REPORT SEACROFT AT CUTCHOGUE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK INTRODUCTION The proposed "Seacroft" community is planned as an adult condominium type community, comprising some 160 apartments grouped in about 40 buildings. A recreational area, clubhouse, and swimming pool will be provided. POPULATION TO BE SERVED 160 dwelling units at 2 persons per dwelling unit z 320. WATER SUPPLY DEMANDS (ESTIMATED) Average day 320 x 100 gpd/cap Allow for clubhouse, pool, etc. Total average day demagd 32,000 gpd 2,000 gpd 34,000 gpd, or 24 gpm ~ Maximum day at 4 times average = 136,000 9pd, or 95 gpm ~ Peak hour rate at 9 1/2 times Average = 13,460 gph ~ or 225 gpm ~ PROPOSED WELL SOURCE TO MEET DEMANDS It is proposed to install two wells, each of about 50 gpm capacity, to meet the average day and peak day demands. Peak hour demands would be met from storage. Each well is expected to be about 88 feet deep, constructed of cemented 6 inch diameter steel casing and furnished with 5 foot of stainless steel screen. Each well would be equipped with a deep well turbine pump capable of delivering 50 gpm against a total delivery head of 40 feet. Discharge from each well is to be separately metered, and each will be equipped with its own sampling cock, and blowoff. The wells would discharge into an 100,000 gallon storage tank. A protection zone with a 200 foot radius is to*be provided a protection against contamination, and the land about the wells will be graded so as to protect them from run-off during rainy weather. as I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CON$4JLTING ENGINEERS Information regarding testing of the water bearing strata, and expected quality of the supply as shown by laboratory analysis,'will be found in the appendices. ~TORAGE RESERVOIR A steel storage reservoir 28 feet in diameter and 24 feet high (22 feet working depth) would be installed near the center of the 3 acre well site. This reservoir would provide a storage, when full, of 100,000 gallons. It is planned that this tank be of bolted steel construction with all metal, inside and out, shop coated with oven-baked epoxy. The tank would be supported on a concrete ring footing, and have an epoxied steel bottom. The two well pumps will discharge into this reservoir. Water levels in the reservoir will be used to start and stop the well pumps. SERVICE PUMPING EQUIPMENT Two service pumps, each rated 120 gpm at 140 feet total delivery head, would'be provided to meet normal demands on the system. These pumps would discharge into s 5,000 gallon hydropneumatic tank and would be started and stopped by the pressures in the tank. Both these pumps would be stopped at tank pressure of 75 psi. One pump would start when pressure dropped to 60 psi, and the second pump would start when pressure dropped to 55 psi. Under these conditions, inspection of pump curves discloses that with the water level in the storage tank 10 feet above ground, pump capacity would be available as follows: Capacity Capacity Tank Pressure 1 pump 2 pumps _psi T.D.E. O~erating Operating 75 ! 156 ~ 0 gpm 0 gpm 70 ~ 145 ~ 115 230 65 ~ 134 ~ 145 290 60 ~ 123 ~ 175 350 55 ~ 112 ~ 205 410 50 ~ 100 ~' 230 460 -2- I HENDER$O~ AND BODWELL CON~U~T~.~ ENG,N[[~S FIRE PUMP EQUIPMENT The storage reservoir, two-third full, would be able to furnish a fire flow of 500 gpm for a two hour period. A separate pump, capable of delivering 500 gallons per minute against a total delive, ry head of 160 feet would thus furnish a reasonable water supply for fire use to the community. Examination of the pump curves indicates deliveries would~be available as shown in the following table. (Note that a pressure relief valve would be installed to prevent shocks to the system on quick shut-down of a fire hydrant and that its use will restrict discharge pressure to 75 psi). 2 Service Fire Pump Pumps Total psi T.D.8. Delivery Delivery Flow 75 ! 156 ft. ~ 360 gpm 0 gpm 360 gpm 70 ~ 145 ft. ~ 545 gpm 230 gpm 775 gpm 65 ~ 134 ft. ~ ' 570 gpm 290 gpm 860 gpm 60 ~ 123 ft. ~ 600 gpm 350 gpm 950 gpm 55 ~ 112 ft. ~ 630 gpm 4i0 gpm 1040 gpm 50 ~ 100 ft. ~ 655 gpm 460 gpm 1115 gpm TREATMENT OF THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY Water Analysis data presently available indicates no treatment other than chlorination is likely to be needed. Bowever, as it is possible that over the years trace amounts of fe[tilizer or pesticide residues might be found in the ground water at this site, or nitrate content might increase, provision is being made and space provided in the pumping station building for future installation of granular activated carbon filters and/or ion exchange units, which would remove such substances from the well water prior to its entering the storage reservoir. Two small chemical feed pumps (one is to be a spare) vii1 be provided to provide continuous disinfection of the water pumped to the distribution. Chemical feed will be proportioned to demand. It is expected to use hypochlorite as the disinfecting agent and all requirements of the health authorities will be included in the plans and specifications. -3- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSUJ~TING ENGINEERS A small chemical feed pump is also to be provided to disinfect the well discharge to the reservoir. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM The distribution system would be constructed of PVC pipe~ 6 inches in diameter and meeting the requirements of AWWA C-900. About 10 6 inch gate valves and 9 fire hydrants would be installed. Arrangement is shown on Sketch %3. DISINFECTION Both wells, the storage reservoir, the hydropneumatic tank and the entire distribution system are to be disinfected before being placed in operation, in full conformance with the requirements of the New York State Department of Health. PUMPING STATION BUILDING' All pumping equipment and any treatment equipment needed would be housed in a small attractive brick and concrete block building. See attached Sketch %3, which shows building floor plan, arrangement of equipment, etc. SITE The proposed site york includes grading of the site, access driveway and parking area, landscaping, and fencing around the storage reservoir and wells. The concept is shown on attached Sketch AB/dm -4- I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPE~;DIX "A" Tests of the Water Bearing Strata Investigations at the site are reported in the two field reports dated April 5 and April 16, 1984, attached hereto. Briefly, they indicate that the required source of water supply can be obtained safely and that the chloride and nitrate content of the water will be acceptable and should not require any special treatment process. Lowecing of the water table at the wells will be minimal, and the cone of influence created by the pumping operations will be contained entirely within the limits of the three acre site being reserved for water supply installations. I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL FROM: J. MILLIKEN DATE: April 5, 1984 PAGE: 1 of 2 I I TO= MEMO OF RECORD RE: SEACROFT, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK CC: A. HENDERSON, R. BODWELL, B. RIESS I On March 28, 1984, the well driller (~asola) installed a 4-inch well casing to 68 ft. and a i-inch well with 2 ft. well point to 67 ft. The static water level measured was i 27.5 ft. below grade or at approximately.EL 7.0. Since the county requires 40 ft. of water present In the well, the 67 ft. depth would be the approximate minimum depth of the well; therefore, a pesticide sample was ~aken at this depth. I Samples were also taken at 10 ft. Intervals from 67 ft. to 37 ft. below grade to collect data on nitrate and iron levels present. On April 4, 1984, the well driller installed a 2-inch ell within the 4-inch well basing previously installed to 68 ft. I The 2-inch well with 2 ft. well point wis driven to a depth of 98 ft. Samples were taken at 5 f}. Intervals from 98 ft. to 73 ft. again to collect data on nitrate and iron levels All samples were collected as the 2-inch wells were pulled I back and the well was pumped off for 5 minutes at a rate of l0 gpm + prior to the taking of each sample. The wells were checked 'twice in the field for the chloride I level p~esent at the 67 ft. and 98 ft. depths. These results along with the nitrate and iron results which were tested by Henderson and Bod~ell }n the office are attached. The Ipesticide sample is being analyzed b~ New York Testing. Based on the ~ttached test results, it appears the best depth Ifor the well is between 83 ft. and 88 ft. depths. Additional testing will consist of settino the 4-inch .~.i.. previously Installed to the desired depth and pumping ~t for I 12 hours at a rate of 60 gpm. This.rate is the approximate hotly peak rate of the proposed project. Two 2-inch i observation wells will also 5e installed at 1 ft. and 100 ft. distances from the test well in the direction of the existing homes. The well will be sampled both at the start of pumping I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HENDERSON AND BODWELL and just prior to the termination of the pumping. Both the pump testing procedure and the type of testing to be done on the samples has been discussed and approved by Paul Ponturo of the Suffolk County Health Department. JM/dm -7- I I I I I Sample I 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 Depth 37' 47' 57' 67' 73' 78' 88' 93' 98' SEACROFT CUTCHOGUE TEST WELL Static Water @ Chloride 22.5 32.5 -8- 2'7.5 Nitrate 6.0 4.5 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.5 3.5 5.0 ,.7.0 8.0 Iron 0 0 0 0.25 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0 0.10 HENDERSON AND BODWELL DATE: April 16, 1984 PAGE: 1 of 1 FROM: J. MILLIKEN TO: MEMO OF RECORD RE: SEACROFT CUTCROGUE - TEST WELL CC: A. RENDERSON, R. BODWELL, B. RIESS ;ea;roL TeL .... with a 5 ft. well ~creen and 4-inch submersible pump. -' Additionally, 2 2-inch observation wells were als? installed to a depth of 88 ft. located one foot from the 4-}nch Test Well and 100 ft. from ~he 4-inch Test Well, both in the direction of the existing houses on Sighland Drive. This work was done by the well driller (Ca~ola) under the direction of Benderson and'Bodwell prior to the pumping test. I On Friday, April 13, 1984, the 12 hour pumDino test b~--~ -~ 7:36 a.m. The static water level prior to'pu~ping wa;'~ ~. 1-inch below grade at the observation well one foot away from I the test.well and 26 ft. 3 1/2 in. below grade at the observation well 1~0 feet away from the ~est well. The draw down was measured lmmecFlately after pumping began and the I water level at the one foot observation ~ell dropped to 26 ft. 10 1/2 in. below grade where ~t remained throughout the course of the pumping test. The 100 ft. observation well i experienced no draw down effect and the water level remained at 26 ft. 3 1/2 in. below grade fo~. the entire pumping test. The recovery of the water level at the one foot observation well upon completion of pumping was immediate. It returned I to 26 ft. 1-inch below grade as soon as the pump was shut down. I Samples were taken at 8:00a.m. and 7:17 p.m. by our office, to be tested by New York Testing. Additionally, the Suffolk County Health Department took stamples at 8:30 a.m., 10:30 i a.m., and 6:15 p.m. . The pumping rate was checked several times during the day and twice by the county people and found to be between 57 and 60 gpm. · I I I I The chloride level'was checked periodically and found to be 27.50 p~m throughout the day. The nitrate lewel was.checked in our office and found to be 5.5 ppm at the beginning of pumping and 5.0 ppm just prior to shut down. The iron level was also checked in our office and found to be 0.05 at the beginning of pumping and just prior to shut down. JM/dm I -9- APPE.~;D iX Water Analysis Repo£t The quality of the proposed source appears satisfactory for potable use, needing only disinfection by c.%lorination. It is possible, though we believe not likely, that nitrates may in the fuzure increase to more than the allowable 10 mg per liter as nitrogen, or that objeotionable amounts of pesticide or fertilizer residues might be found. Space is being provided in the pumping station building for the installation of treatment eq~ipment should the need arise. ! Nzwy,,'oaa TESTING LABORATORIES, L-N'C. REPORT OF TESTS m client -- 84-72334 (B) - Henderson & m Mmteriml - Two (2) ~ater Samples Cliem's Order No. -- P e n d i n g m Identification - As bel ow Submined for -- Chemical Analysis m Bodwell m m m m m m m m Sample Sea Croft, Sea Croft, (Results, see Identification Start of Pumping 4/13/84 End of Pumping . following pages.) Report prepared by: Remo Gigante, Laboratory Director To: Henderson & Bodwell 120.Express Street Plainview, N.Y. 11803 We certify that this report is a true report of results obtained from our tests of this material. Respectfully submitted, NEW YORK TESTING LABORATORIES, G. J~Officer INC. m m Att: gd Mr. d. Milliken m m -ll- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NI:;X¥ 'YORK TESTING Page 2. VOLATILE COMPOUNDS: Sample Number: Sea Croft, Start Sample Size: 1.0 ml. Internal Std. Concs. (total ngs.) LA !:1¢_}!~ ATOR I l:~S, INC. LabNo 84-7233~ of Pumping 4/13/84 Bromoch] orometha ne 6 0 2-Bromo- 1-cht o ropr~pane 6 0 Surrogate Std. Cones. (total ngs.} Oeuterochloroform Deuterobenzene Deuterotoluene 45 47 30 Method Parameter No. Acrolein ,, 624 Acrylonitrile 624 Benzene 624 Bromodichloromethane 624 Brumoform 624 Bromomethane 624 Carbon Tetrachloride 624 Chlorobenzene 624 Chlorodibrommethane 624 Chloroethane 624 2-Chloroethyl vi'nyl ether 624 Chlorofor~ 624 Chloromethane 624 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 624 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 624 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 624 Method Detection CAS Limit No. (ppb)* 107-02-8 lO0 107-13-1 100 71-43-2 l0 75-27-4 lO 75-25-2 l0 74-83-9 l0 56-23-5 l0 108-g0-7 l0 124-48-1 lO 75-00-3 l0 110:75-8 lO 67-66-3 l0 74-87-3 l0 95-50-1 l0 541-73-1 l0 106-46-7 l0 Found (ppb) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND = None Detected < = Less than *EPA published method detection limit -12- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. VOLATILE COMPOUNDS - cont'd. Sample Number: Sea Croft, Start I.Ai ~1 }1{ A'I'ORII~.~_'. INC. Lab No. 84-723 of Pumping 4/13/84 Parameter Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1-2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethylene Trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Methylene Chloride l,l,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachlor~ethylene Toluene 1,1,1-?richloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Tri ch 1 oroethyl ene Trichlorofluoromethane Vinyl ChlOride Method CAS No. No. 624 75-71-8 624 75-34-3 624 107-06-2 624 75-35-4 624 156-60-5 624 78-87-5 624 10061-02-6 624 100-41-4 624 75-09~2 624 79-34-5 624 127-18-4 624 108-88-3 624 71-55-6 624 7g-00-5 624 79-01-6 624 75-69-4 624 75-01-4 Method Detection Limit (ppb)* lO lO lO lO lO lO lO lO lO 10 lO lO lO lO lO lO lO Found ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ~ None Detected = Less than EPA published method detection limit -13- I NI:lX~' 'Y(-)RIi TESTING LAI:iORATORIE~, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 . PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS: Sample Number: Sample Size: Extract Volume Seacroft, Start 600 ml. 1.0 ml Parameter Aldrin a-BHC 8-BHC 6-BHC ~-BHC Chlordane Dieldrin a-Endosulfan B-Endosulfan Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide 4,4' -DDT 4,4' - DDE 4,4' -DOD PCB lO16 PCB 1221 PCB 1232 PCB 1242 PCB 1248 PCB 1254 PCB 1260 Toxaphene Hethod No. 608 625 608, 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608. 625 608~, 625 608, 625 608, 625 608, 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608, 625 608, 625 Lab No. of Pumping 4/13/84 Volume Inj. 5 CAS ~ 309-00-2 31 g-84-6 319-85- 7 319-86-8 58-8g-9 57-74-9 60-57-1 959-98-8 33213-65-g~ lO31-07-08 72-20-8 7421-g3-4 76-44-8 1024-57-3 50 29-3 72-55-9 72-54-8 12674-11-2 11104-28-2 Ill41-16-5 53469-21-9 12672-29-6 11097-69-~ 11096-82-5 8001-35-2 Limit (ppb) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 t.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 84-7?~,~ Found (ppb) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND m 2,4-D 2,4,5-TP 60g,625 608,625 1.0 ND I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NI::'~¥ '~I'(}RI{ TE.RTIN(; LAI1OIIATORIE$, INC. Pa~,¢ 5. L~b No. 84 -7233 VOLATILE COMPOUNDS: Sample Number: Sea Croft, Sample Size: 1.0 ml. Internal Std. Cones. (total rigs.) End of Pumping 4/13/84 Bromochloromethane 60 2- Bromo- 1 - chl oropr~pane bU Surrogate Std. Cones. (total ngs.) DeuterOchloroform Deuterobenzene Deuterotoluen¢ 45 4~ 30 Parameter Acrolein Acrylonitrile Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromofom Bromomethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chlorodibro~methane Chloroethane 2-Chlo~oethyl vinyl 'ether' Chlorofom- Chlorometh&ne 1,2-Dichlo~obenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Method No. 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 Method Detection CAS Limit No. (ppb)* 107-02-8 100 107-13-t 100 71-43-2 10 75-27-4 l0 75-25-2 10 74-83-9 10 56-23-5 10 108-90-7 l0 124-48-1 lO 75-00-3 l0 110-75-8 l0 67-66-3 l0 74-87-3 l0 g5-50-1 l0 541-73-1 l0 106-46-7 l0 Found (ppb) ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND = None Detected < = Less than *EPA published method detection li~it -15- I N1.;%%' ~ ( }!11~. TI';.~'i'I.N'(; i,~,1 I(.)i~ATOI~IIi.;.~.', INC. m Pas¢ 6. Lab h~o 84 -7233. m VOLATILE COMPOUNDS - colltTM. Sample Number: Sea Croft, End of I Pumping 4/13/84 I I ! I I I l ! l l ! Parameter Di chlorodi fl uoromethane 1,1 - Di chl oroethane 1-2-Di ch l oroethane 1,1-Dichl oroethylene Trans-1,2-DJ chl oroethyl ene 1,2-DichlorOpropane 1,3-Dichloropropene Ethyl benzene Methylene Chloride 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethyl ene Toluene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 'Trichloroethylene Tri chl orofl uorometha ne Vinyl Chl~-i de Method Detection Method CAS Limit No. No. (ppb)* 624 75-71-8 l0 624 75-34-3 lO 624 107-06-2 l0 624 75-35-4 l0 624 156-60-5 l0 624 78-87-5 l0 624 10061-02-6 l0 624 100-41-4 10 624 75-09-2 l0 624 79-34-5 10 624 127-18-4 10 624 108-88-3 l0 624 71-55-6 10 624 79-00-5 l0 624 7g-01-6 10 624 75-69-4 l0 624 75-01-4 lO Found (ppb) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND I m m ND = None Detected < = Less than * EPA published method detection limit I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PESTICID£ COMPOUNDS: Sample Number: Sample Size: Extract Volume 'Y()I{I~, TE~TING LABORA'I'ORIES, INC. Lab No. 84-72134 Sea Croft, End of Pumping 4/13/84 800 ml. 1.0 ml Volume Inj. Parameter Aldrin a-BHC B-BHC 6-BHC Y-BHC Chlordane Dieldrin a-Endosulfan ~-Endosulfan Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Neptachlor Meptachlor Epoxide 4,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD PCB lO16 - PCB 1221 PC~ 1 232 PCB 1242 PCB 124G PCB 1254 PCB 1260 Toxaphene Method No. 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 6O8 625 608 625 608, 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608. 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608. 625 608. 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 608 625 Limit CAS # (ppb) 309-00-2 1.0 31 g-84-6 1.0 319-85-7 1.0 319-86-8 1.0 58-89-9 1.0 57-74-9 1.0 60-57-1 1.0 959-98-8 1.0 33213-65-9" 1.0 1 031-07-08., l. 0 72-20-8 l.O 7421-93-4 1.0 76-44-8 1.0 1024-57-3 ! .0 50 29-3 1.0 72-55-9 1.0 72-54-8 1.0 12674-11-2 1.0 11104-28-2 1.0 Ill41-16-5 1.0 53469-21-9 1.0 12672-29-6 1.0 11097-69-) 1.0 11096-82-5 1.0 8001-35-2 1.0 Found (ppb) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND m 608,625 60F,62! t.0 1.G ,, '- ,,. ' C. etect£.d -17- m NEXV ~'¢ ~RK m Page $. TEt'~TING LABOI(ATORIE$, INC. LabNo. 84-72334 I RESULTS cont'd. I I pH ~ 20°C. Color Pt/Co Unit Turbidity (NTU) I Taste Odor (TON) Sample Identification Sea Croft Sea Croft .: 4/13/84 4/13/84 Start of End of Pumping Pumping 6.50 6.07 < 10 < 10 0.3 0.3 Unobjectionable Unobjectionable < I < 1 m Results in mg/l: Nitrate m Ammonia Sulfate Chloride Detergents I as CaC03 Total Hardness Calcium as CaC03 Sodium m Iron Manganese Copper m Zinc Magnesium 8.48 0.22 90 24 0.27 161 99 9 0 < 0 0 0 14 42 078 006 013 158 97 9.29 0.31 85 24 0.29 162 96 10.21 0.052 0.006 0.014 0.043 16.24 m Total Coliform, MPN/IO0 ml < 2 I I < = Less than m m m nitrate ..... .................... chloride sulfate ............... manganese ............. cop~er ................ zinc ................ vinyl chlo~f~ ........ methylene chloride bro.ochloromethane 1 , 1 dichloroethane trane dichloroethylene 1 , 2 dichloroethane 1,1,1 trichloroethane carbon tetrachloride 1 bromo 2 chloroethane 1,2 dichloropropane 1, 1,2 trichloroethyle~e chlorodibromomethane 1,2 dibromoethane 2 bromo 1 chloropropane bromoform ............. tetrachloroethylene cie dichloroethylene 113 ............. freon dibromomethane ....... ~, ~ dichloroethylene ~ro.o~ic~Zoro.et~an. · 2,3 dichloropropene cie dichloropropene trane dichloropropene 1, 1, 2 trichloroethane be n z e n e ............. to~u.~ ............. chlorobenzene ....... ethylbenzene ........ xylenes ............. chlorotoluenes ...... 1' 3' 5 tri~ethylbenzene ~ ~ i~~_ ~ I 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene m,p dichlorobenzene ... _ 0 dichlorobenzene ..... I p diethylbenzene ...... ~__ I '' 1,2,4,5 tetrmethylbenze ~_~_ 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene 1,2,2,3 1,1,1,2 1,2,3 trtchloropropane aldicarb carbofuran carbaryl _lqA_ I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I S< .... ~_o ?rocosed Installi~ions I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I ,! -2! - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX GROUNDWATER/NITROGEN BUDGET ANALYSIS I I I DEVELOPED FROM CORI',IELL WAL. RAS 5[UD'¢ B'~ ~-:,~.E,::.i'~F!-d',I--.F~ZuE~5£-J,t ~:i:t,~. ENvlR[h b. NT~L E'~CIE. NCE.-_--. [,EF;'AFIPIEI,J[ FhtD.JE ~ F:HAMLE]' A1 D~l E: 6-20-89 # UNITS: 1,50 L,.J I L, HL [=UE DAt'A P'ROCES£:E£): REE. LIt 1~ 'ICI FUL.LF~L.,~ 4244 ma /1 = fO; AL 14 J 'FF.,JGEN ,_.,..,,.~,_ r:r.~ ~ i'~Fi t ,l Ui".l PRECIPITATION: in/vr: ~ PERMEABLE ACREF:: 33.9 IMPERtdEABLE mCRES: 12.2~ DOMESTI~ WA1EB. ~Ddu: 150 IRRtGA'[ED ACRES: 5:Z.~ TURF '~CRE:S: 22 DENSITY; PER UNiT~ 1,55 I LII"~ Z 1 ~ UI',~I TS: '152 mo/i= TO'/AL NIfRi.,L*~, COI.~L[:.IItF,..,I Ilff.z DEVELOF'ED FROM CORN~LL WALRAS STUDY BY GREENM~N-PEDERSEN iNC. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES ~E~:~RTMENT PROJECI':HAMLE]' AT CUTCH~GUE i D~TE:dUNE 1~8~ UNITS: lo8 IDA]A PROCESSED: RESULTS TO FOLLOW 6.4018.-']6 mo / 1 = TOTAL N I ] ~xOGEN CO;qC]EN IRA F I ON ***MES~mGE FILE*** i Bl: 2.281942E+07 CI: 1.097066E+07 El: 48~2452 IFl: 14(}8 P: 14.3 TN: 2468.7 ITWM: 1.749159E+08 ]'NM: 1.119783E+09 I***DATA SUMM~R¥*** PRECIF'I]:ATION; in/vr: 46 PERMEABLE ACRES: 56.54 I~P~R~4EmBL. E ACRES: 9.62 DOMESTIC: WATER. opdu: 150 IRR, IG~4]ED ACRES: 32.5~ ITURF ACRES: DENSITY. PER UNIT: 1.33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX E SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE I FRANCIS J, MURPHY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUPERVISOR MAIN ROAD $0UTHOLD, L.I., N.Y, ]!97! SYNOPSIS OFPROPOSED ZONZNG ORD[NANCE for HAMLET MEETINGS JANUARY & FEBRUARY, 1986 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1800 {516) 765-1939 I I I I -2- A-C R-80 List of new districts Agricultural -Conservation District (Two acre minimum) Residential Low Density District (Two acre minimum) I I I I I R-40 R-120 R-200 R-400 RD RR Residential Low Density District Residential Low Density District Residential Low Density District Residential Low Density District (One acre minimum) (Three acre minimum) (Five acre minimum) (Ten acre minimum) Hamlet Density Residential District Resort Residential District I I RO HB Residential Office District Hamlet Business District LB Limited Business District B-1 - General Business District MiRec - Marine Recreation District MB - Marine Business District I I LIO - LI - Light Industrial Park/Office Park District Light Industrial District I I I I ! I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I -3- P_u-r£ose of eoc._h~,i St r i_c._t_ Agricultural-Conservation A-C District Low Density Residential R-80~,.R-120~ R-200~ R-400 Districts Section 100-30. Purpose. The purpose of the Agricultural-Conservation (A-C) District and the Low Density Residential R-S0, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts is to reasonably control, and to the extent possible prevent, the unnecessary loss of those currently open lands within the Town containing large and contiguous areas of prime agricultural soils which are the basis for a significant portion of the Town's economy and those areas with sensitive environmental features including aquifer recharge areas and bluffs. In addition these areas provide the open rural environ- ment so highly valued by year-round residents and those persons who support the Town of Southold's recreation, resort and second home economy. The economic , social and aesthetic benefits which can be obtained for all citizens by limiting loss of such areas~ are well documented, and have inspired a host of governmental programs designed, with varying degrees of success, to achieve this result. For its part, the Town is expending large sums of money to protect ~ existing farm acreage. At, the same time, the Town has an obligation to exercise its authority to reasonably regulate the subdivision and development of this land to further the same purposes, while honoring the legitimate interests of farmers and other farmland owners. Low Density Residential R-40 District Section 100-30A. Purpose. The purpose of the Low Density Residential R-40 District is to provide areas for residential development where existing neighbor- hood characteristics, water supply and environmental conditions permit full development densities of approximately one dwelling per acre and where open space and agricultural preservation are not predominate objectives. section Hamlet Density Residential 100-40. Purpose (RD) Dist r.i. ct The purpose of the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District is to (1) permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers, particularly Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold, Orient and the Village of Greenport and (2) to promote the provision of lower cost housing in these hamlet and village areas, where provision of utilities exists or may be possible and desirable and where public facilities and commercial activities are available. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -4- Resort Residential (RR) District Section 100-50. Purpose. The purpose of the Resort Residential (RR) District is to provide opportunity for waterfront resort development in what are essential low density residential areas at a density and character consistent with surrounding uses. Residential Office (RO) District Section 100-?0. Purpose. To provide a transition area between business areas and low density residential development along major roads which will provide oppor- tunity for limited nonresidential uses in essentially residential areas. Limited Business (LB) District Section 100-80. Purpose. The purpose of the Limited Business District (LB) is to provid~ an opportunity to accomodate limited business activity along high- way corridors, but in areas outside the hamlet central business areas that is consistent ~ith the rural and historic character of surrounding areas and uses. Emphasis will.be placed on review of design features so that existing and future uses will not detract from surrounding uses. The additional uses must generate low amounts of traffic and be designed to protect the residential and rural character of the area. Hamlet Business (HB) District Section 100-90. Purpose. The purpose of the Hamlet Business (HB) District is to provide f.or business development in the hamlet central business area, including retail, office and service uses, public and semi-public uses, as well as hotel and motel and multi-family residential development that will support and enhance the retail development and provide a focus for the hamlet area. General Business (B-i) District Section 100-100. Purpose. The purpose of the General Business/Highway Business (B-l) District is to provide for retail and wholesale commercial development and limited office and industrial development outside of the hamlet central business areas, generally along major highways. It is designated to accomodate uses that benefit from large parcels of land, and that may involve characteristics such as heavy trucking and noise. I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I -5- Marine Recreation (M-Rec) District Section 100-110. Purpose. To permit and encourage water-related recreational uses on waterfront properties that are located on inland waterways or creeks. Marine Business (MB) District Section 100-120. Purpose. To provide a waterfront location for a range of water dependent and water related uses which are those uses which require or benefit from direct access to, or location in marine or tidal waters. Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIO) District Section 100-130. Purpose. The purpose of the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIO) District is to provide opportunity for the location of business and professional offices, research facilities, industrial uses and similar activities in an open, campus-like setting in area~ which are not appropriate for commercial activity or low density residential development. In this area such uses can be established in an attractive environme~lt and serve both as a means of preserving the open qualities of an area and providing an area, adjacent to hamlet areas where such uses can be appropriately developed with suitable protection for ground and water surface waters. All uses must conform to Suffolk County Health-Department standards. ~ight Industrial (LI) District Section 100-140. Purpose. The purpose of the Light Office (LI) District is to provide an opportunity for business and industrial uses on smaller lots than would be appropriate for the LIO Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park District. The pages to follow are copies of the Table entltled~ Summar% of Permitted Uses DA__Z~n_J~A District *aim labor camp SE SE P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P A A SE SE SE ~ SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P SE A A A A A A SE SE P SE SE A A A $£ SE SE SE SE P P &ccessor~ apartment la existing one-family detached dwelling SE SE SE SE SE Agriculture (including accessol~ buildings) P P P P P Airport, Basic UtJllty Stage II SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P P P P P SE SE P P P P SE P P P P SE SE SE SE P P SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P P P P P A A P SE SE P P P P P P P P P P P P SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P A P P SE SE SE SE SE SE $1~ SE k A k A A A A A A A A A SE P P P A A SE SE SE SE SE SE SE $~ SE SE A A A A A A A A A A A SE A SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P SE Si:* S£ & SE SE SE SE SE P P SE SE SE A SE SE SE P P SE Sf~ SE Si; SE SE P P P P P P P P A P P $£ SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE A A A A A A A A A A A A A SE SE SE SE SE SE SE S~ A SE A A A Truck or bus terminal Tva-family detached dvelling SE SE YeLerinarian and/or animal hospital SE ~afeho~ase or storage building ~olesale business, including l~er and ot~r building products, retail and ~holesole ~ats ~olesale/~etall beverage distribution ~olesale/retail nursery ~d/or sale o[ plants ~inerles for the production snd retail sale of ~lne fros 9rapes 9ro~ on premises and/or In P P S£* $£* SE* SE SE SE SE SE SE S£ SE SE SE SE P SE SE SE SE P SE SE SE SE SE $£ SE SE P ££ SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P P I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX F TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ADDENDUM II TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK PREPARED FOR: NOCRO, LTD. MAIN ROAD CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK PREPARED BY: GREEIiiAN-PEDERSEN, INC. 325 WEST MAIN STREET BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702 OCTOBER 1988 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TA~LB OF COIlI~I~S Table of Contents ........................................................ List of Figures .......................................................... List of Tables ........................................................... Pa~ i APPENDIX A - Turning Movement Count Data APPENDIX B - Level of Service Tables and Printouts INTRODUCTION ............................................................. EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................... 3 o Roadways ......................................................... o Land Use ......................................................... o Traffic Voltnnes .................................................. STUDY PROCEDURE ........... o Sight Distance ................................................... 5 STUDY FACTORS ............................................................ 8 o Trip C~neration .................................................. 8' o Trip Distribution and Assigr~ent ................................. 9 CAPACITY ANALYSIS ........................................................ 11 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 18 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................. 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure No. ! 2 3 5 Table No. 1 2 3 LIST OF PI(~RgS · Description Location Map 1990 No Build Traffic Volumes Trip Distribution (PercenCases) 1990 Build Traffic Volumes (without Colonial Shoppin8 Plaza) 1990 Build Traffic Volumes (with Colonial Shoppin8 Plaza) LIST OF. TABLKS Description Definitions of Levels of Service - Unsignalized' Definitions of Levels of Service - Signalized Overall Levels of Service ii Pa~e 2 6 10 15 16 pat~ 12 13 17 I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to investigate the traffic impacts asso- ciated with the proposed construction of a retir-,~nt village to be located on Griffing Street north of School House Lane in Cutchogue. The development will consist of 160 units, and will be situated on a 46.16 acre site west of Depot Lane and south of County Road 48. A location map, Figure 1, is provided for reference, In addition to the proposed development, the Town of Southold requested that the report also consider the construction of a Colonial Shopping Plaza o~ a 7.1 acre site southwest of the retirement village. Therefore, for compari- son purposes only~ this study assesses the impacts of the proposed developmen~ both with and without the construction of the Colonial Shopping Plaza. The site plan specifies a single access driveway with a landscaped land, which would extend to Griffing Street. Our assessment has determined: o The existing traffic conditions at the unsignalized intersections of State Route 25 (~ain Street) at Griffing Street and County Road 48 at Depot Lane, as well as the signalized intersection of State Route 25 at New Suffolk Road. o The impacts on the capacity and level of service of the study inter- sections due to the proposed development. In performing our evaluation, we had available a copy of the site plan dated 1984. In addition, turning movement counts were taken at the intersec- tions of State Route 25 at Griffing Street, CR 48 at Depot Lane and SR 25 at New Suffolk Road. -i- PECONI )REGO~ 9 rl9:55 9 CUTCHOGUE 11958 gpi HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE LOCATION MAP 87398 . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~XISTII~ C~DITIO~ · Roadways State Route 25 (Main Street), south of the project site, is a two-lane roadway with parking lanes provided along both the north and south sides. The actual lane widths vary within the range of 11 to 17 feet. The parking lanes are nine feet wide and exist primarily in the vicinity of the intersection of New Suffolk Road and SR 25. The roadway is curbed and there are existing con- crete sidewalks along the north and south sides. The speed limit on SR 25 is posted at 35 mph in the vicinity of the site. New Suffolk Road, south of the project site, is a 32-foot wide two lane roadway without shoulders. Its inters'action with SR 25 is controlled by a three phase actuated signal, with a turn phase for westbound lefts. The speed limit along New Suffolk Road is posted at 35 mph. Griffing Street, south of the project site, is 55 feet wide, and its intersection with SR 25 is controlled by a stop sign. It has curbs as well as an eight foot wide grass median that extends from the intersection at SI{ 25 to a point 185 feet north. Parking along Griffing Street is co-~on and unre- striated. County Road 48 is located approximately one mile north of the project adcess driveway. It is a four lane roadway with shoulders but no curbs. The lanes are 12 feet wide, while the shoulders range from i0 to 16 feet in width. A 25 foot wide grass median separates the eastbound and westbound traffic. The eastbound and westbound lane geometry on CR 48, approaching, the intersection with Depot lane, includes two thru lanes, a left turn lane and a right turn lane. The speed limit posted along CR 48 is 55 mph. Depot Lane, east of the project site, is a 34 foot wide two lane roadway without shoulders. Its intersection with CR 48 is controlled both by stop signs and a flashing signal. -3- I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I · Land Use Land use in the vicinity of the project site is mixed; however, north, east and west of the project site low density residential and farm lands pre- dominate. A school and Several residences exist along School House Road. South of the project site, along Griffing Street, there are some small shops as well as a US Post Office. Along SR 25, south of the project site, the land usage is primarily commercial with scattered private residences. · Traffic Volumes In order to assess the impacts of the proposed development, manual traf- fic counts were obtained at key intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Previous counts conducted in the area indicated that peak volumes of traffic occur between 11:00 AH-12:00 noon and 4:00 PM-5:00 PM on weekdays, al{d between 11:00 AM-12:00 noon on Saturdays. l~ese peak hours can be attributed to such influences as seasonal residents, rush hour traffic, and local ferry traffic. Based on this information, turning movement counts were performed at the key intersections of SR 25 at New Suffolk Road, SR 25 at Griffing Street and CR 48 at Depot Lane on Friday, July 15, 1988 and Saturday, July 23, 1988 during these peak periods. These turning movement count sheets may be found in Appendix A. Based upon these counts, it was determined that the weekday PM pdak period (4-5 PM) and the Saturday midday period (II-12N)' were the critical intervals for this analysis. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '1 I The proposed development will contain a total of 160 residential units. The site plan calls for a single Cwo-way access driveway, which will extend north from Griffing Street to the project site. The driveway in the vicinity of Grlffing Street will have a large median island separating the Cwo direc- tions of travel, The year 1990 wes selected as the future design year for this analysis. A Cwo and one half percent per year growth race factor was ass,~ed for the project area, This factor was applied to the existing traffic volumes to obtain a 1990 No-Build condition, A no-build condition means the proposed project is not yet constructed. The projected 1990 No-Build volumes are shown in Figure 2. The impact of the proposed development was assessed by superimposing the estimated trips generated by the site onto the projected. 1990 No-Build traffic voltmes for the s~_me_ weekday PM peak and Saturday midday periods. o Sight Distance Sight distance is defined as the distance along a highway for which a' vehicle or ocher object is continuously visible in daylight under normal atmo- spheric conditions, Sight distance is of particular importance at unsignal- ized intersections where restricted or limited visibility can hamper traffic flow and impact traffic safety. Accordin~ly, stop line sight distances were evaluated at the Cwo unsig- nalized study intersections. At the four-way intersection of CR 48 and D~poC Lane, a field check of the existing sight distances revealed excellent visi- bility in all directions, lC wes noted, however, thac in the .future some tree trimming may be necessary in Cha southwest corner of the intersection in order co maintain good visibility for the northbound Depot Lane approach, -5- ROUTE 48 ?:~.%~ HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE ~pi 19~0 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES ' ............ " i)739~IN.T.S.li~l'.'88. FIG. 2 I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I At the intersection of SR 25 and Griffing Street, the latter roadway "T"'s into SR 25. The sight distance from southbound Griffing Street to the west is excellent. To the east, however, the sight distance is approximately 200 feet, which is limited for the posted speed of 35 mph. The sight distance in this direction is restricted by the existin~ on-street parking alon~ the north side of SR 25. Visual observations indicate, however, that most vehi- cles travelling along SR 25 cannot attain the posted speed of 35 mph due to the side friction in the area generated by the parked vehicles, parking maneu- vers and pedestrian activity. In addition, the proximity of the traffic si~- hal at the intersection of SR 25 and'New Suffolk l~oad helps to reduce vehicu- lar speeds in the area. -7- I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I S'£uv~ FACTORS In order to estimate the traffic generated by the proposed development and to predict the routes taken by these vehicles, the following tasks were performed. o Trip Generation The trips generated by the proposed development were estimated based upon data contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (1987). As noted previous- ly, since the weekday midday peak hour is generally not the critical period, the trips were developed for the weekday PM peak and Saturday midday periods only. Based upon the proposed residential use of 160 units (Land Use Code 230), the estimated trips are as follows: PM PERIOD Residential Units: Fitted Curve: Residential Units: Ln (T) - 0.84 Ln (X) + 0.27 X I 160 units T - 93 vehicle trips Directional Distribution: 67% enter, 33% exit Trips: Entering - 62 Exiting - 31 SATURDAY PERIOD Pitted Curve: T ' 0.29 (X) + 43 X = 160 t~its T = 89 vehicle trips Directional Distribution: 54I enter, 46% exit Trips: Entering = 48 Exiting - 41 As stated previously, the Town of Southold requested that this study con- sider the development of a Colonial Shopping Plaza on an adjacent parcel. Current zoning would permit a center of 33,000 SF to be built on the site; however, the proposed center is smaller in size at 22,000 SF. The estimated trips for this Colonial Shopping Plaza (Land Use Code 820) are as follows: --8-- I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I PM PERIOD Retail: Pitted Curve: Ln (T) - 0.52 Ln (X) + 4.04 X - 22.0 KSF T - 284 vehicle trips Directional Distribution: 49% enter, 51I exit Trips: Entering = 139 Exiting - 145 SATURDAY PERIOD Retail: Pitted Curve: Ln (T) = 0.62 Ln (X) + 3.97 X - 22.0 KSF T = 360 vehicle trips Directional Distribution: 511 enter, 491 exit Trips: Entering - 184 Exiting - 176 The followin~ table compares the estimated trips generated by each of the two scenarios for both of the peak periods. WEEKDAY pM SATURDAY SCENARIO LAND USE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT I - Proposed Project [Resid. - 160 units 62 31 48 41 II - Proposed Project iesid. - 160 units 62 31 48 41 with Colonial Retail - 22,000 SP 139 145 184 176 Shopping Plaza TOTAL: 201 176 232 217 ways turning movement counts at the study intersections. The directional trip distribution used was: 43Z utilizinS CR 48 Depot Lane, 271 from the east on SR 25, and 301 from the wast on SR 25. resultinE entering and exiting trip assignment percentages for the project are shown in Figure 3, Trip Distribution (Percentages). Trip Distribution and Asei~nment The assig-ment of the generated traffic volumes amon~ the various road- was baaed upon the existinS trip patterns determined from the manual The proposed -9- ~'""~*~"' HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE gPl ~.,. ~,~.,~u~,o. (PERCENTAGES) '" ........ ' ..... '~" I~T I~ ' ............ " 0~308 .S. .' FiG. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~APA~ll~ AI~LI'~IS Intersection. capacity analysis is an analytical tool which gives an ap- proximation of traffic conditions based on traffic volumes, roadway geometry, and signal phasing. Because of all the variables involved and other field conditions peculiar to a particular intersection, capacity analysis serves as a guide to the ability of an intersection to handle a given volume of traf- fic. Although not a precise science, this empirical method is useful in pre- dicting traffic conditions and quality of operation. Intersection capacity was developed using the 1985 Mighway Capacity Hanual (RCM) Hethod for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. The methodology of the menual addresses two concepts to evaluate the traffic flow conditions at a particular intersection. The first is capacit~, which results in computation of volume, to capacity (V/C) ratios. This ratio relates existing or projected intersection traffic volumes to the volume at capacity. V/C ratios for individual movements and a com~osite V/C ratio (Xc) for the sum of critical movements or lane groups within the intersection are calculated under the manual procedures. The threshold capacity of V/C ratios is 1.0. The second concept is level of service which is based upon the aver- age stopped delay per vehicle for various movements within the intersection. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time and is dependent upon a number of variables. These variables include the quality of signal progression~ cycle lengths, the green/cycle ratio, and the V/C ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Descrip- tions of the various levels of service are presented in Tables I and 2 for uasignalized and signalized intersections, respectively. -11- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLK 1 1985 HCH LEVEL OF SERVXCK FOR UNSXGNALTT-KD INTERSECTIONS The levels of service for an unsignalized intersection are given in terns' of reserve capacity, in vehicles per hour for individual approaches, and general delay criteria. RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE Equal to or A more than 400 300 to 399 B 200 to 299 ' C 100 to 199 D 0 co 99 E Reserve Capacity: EXPECTED DELAY TO NINOR STREET TRAFFIC I, lttle or no delay Short traffic delay Average traffic delaya Lou~ traffic delays Very Ions traffic delayo Reserve or unused capacity of a lane in paeeeu~er cars per hour. :"12- TABLE 2 1985 HO( LEVELS OF S~RVZCE 1~0u SZGNALIZKD Zh'rKRSKCTIONS LEVEL-OF-SERVICE A describes operations with very low delay. i.e., less than 5.0 sec per vehicle. This' occurs vhen prnsres . - sion is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Host vehicles do use stop at ell. Short cycle lenstho nay elco contribute to low delay. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE B describes operations with delay in the range of $,1 to sec per generally occurs 15.0 vehicie. good progression and/or short cycle lengths, lists vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay, LEVEL-OF-SERVICE C describes operations with delay in the range of 15,1 to 25.0 sec. per vehicle. These higher delays my re.u~c from fair prnsre..iou and/or lons.r cycl. 1.nsche. Individual cycle failures nay be~in to appear in thio level. The nmber of vehicles stopping fo significant aC Chis level, I I I I I I 1 I D although mny still pass through the intersection without sC*p- pinS. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ~ describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 co &O.O sec per vehicle. At leVel D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays uny result free suns combination of unfavorable Progression, lens cycle lensthss or high v/c ratios, Homy vehicles atop, and Ch pro- portion of vehicles usc stopping declines, lndtvidusl cycle failures are noCicanble. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE E describes operaCioua with delay in the range of 40.1 Co 60,0 uso per vehicle, This is considered to be the lhnic of acceptable delay. These high delay veluas 8ensrelly indicate poor progression, Ions cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are freqnsnC occurrences. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle. Thio Is considered co he unacceptable to mnsc drivers. This condition often occurs with ovsrusturatiun, la., vhen arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the inter- settles, lC uny also occur aC high v/c ratios below 1.00 with --ny indiVidual cycle failures. Poor progression and Ions cycle lengths uny also be unJor contrihoCins causes Co such delay levels. I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I The three study intersections ~ere analyzed for the weekday PM peak and Saturday midday peak periods for the year 1990 under the following conditions: without the proposed development (1990 No Build), with the proposed develop- ment (1990 Build), and with the proposed development and a Colonial Shopping Plaza (1990 Build with Colonial Shopping Plaza). The 1990 No-Build volumes for the study intersections were shown previously in Figure 2. Fisures 4 and 5 show the 1990 Build and 1990 Build with Colonial Shopping Plaza volumes, respectively. The results of the capacity analyses are presented in Tables B-l, B-2 and B-3 in Appendix B. A summary of the overall level of service for each of the intersections is shown in Table 3 on the following page. It can be seen from the table that the overall levels of service for the study intersections under the 1990 No Build condition are good, except for the intersection of SR 25 at Griffins Street, where the southbound left turn move- ment from Griffins Street will operate at a level of service E during both peak periods. A comparison of the overall levels of service experienced by the study intersections under the 1990 No Build condition and the 1990 Build condition indicates the impact of the proposed development will be min4m~l, with the overall intersection levels of service identical for both conditions; As requested by the Town of Southold, the 1990 Build with Colonial Shop- pinS Plaza condition was then compared to the 1990 No Build condition, Again, tha levels of service will remain the same as those of the 1990 No Build cond- ition for the intersections of SR 25 at New Suffolk Road and SR 25 at GriffinS Street. At the intersection of CR 48 and Depot Lane, however, the PM peak period level of service drops from a C to a D, and for Saturday, from a D to an E. These results indicate that the impact of the proposed development with the Colonial Shopping Plaza ~ould be minor at the intersections of Route 25 at New Suffolk Road and GriffinS Street, as no changes in level of service would occur. Some impact will be experienced at the Route 48 intersection with Depot Lane as a one level drop in service will occur. ROUTE 48 SCHOOL HOUSE LA. .ii ROUTE 25 P.M. P.M~ (SAT.) (SAT.) G,....,,.~ HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE * (WITHOUT COLONIAL SHOPPING PL, .ZA) · ............ " 87398 N.T.$. OCT.'88 FIG. 4 '15- PROJECT ROUTE 48 (~) P.M. (sA~.) SCHOOL HOUSE LA. I G,,,.,.n..,,,~ HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE (WITH COLONIAL SHOPPING PLAZA} · ............ " 87398 .S. .88 FIG. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLK 3 OVERALL I, aV~r-q OF SERVICE THK HAHLET AT CUTC~ GP! JOB NO. 87398 WEEKDAY PM SATURDAY-- INTERSECTION CONDITION LOS Xc LOS Xc State Route 25 at 1990 No-Build B 0,70 C 0,88 New Suffolk Road 1990 Build B 0.70 C 0.88 [1990 Build (with Colonial B 0.70 C 0.88 Shopping Plaza) 'State Route 25 at 1990 No-Build E -- E -- Griffin8 Street [1990 Build R -- E -- 1990 Build (with Colonial g -- E -- Shoppin8 Plaza) County Road 48 at 1990 No-Build C -- D -- Depot Lane ~ 1990 Build C -- D -- 1990 8ulld (with Colonial D -- E -- Shopping Plaza) Key: LOS: Xc: Level of Service - based upon the average stopped delay per vehicle. Volume to capacity ratio of the critical lane group. Note: All "BuildN capacity runs were performed by optiuizin~ the signal tim- ing a~ these locations. -17- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I As illustrated in Table 3, the signalized intersection of SR 25 at New Suffolk Road and the unsisnalized intersection of SR 25 at Griffing Street will not suffer any significant negative impacts under either of the 1990 Build conditions. The remainir~ unsignalized intersection of CR 48 at Depot Lane, however, will experience a reduction in level of service under the 1990 Build with Colonial Shopping Plaza condition. An ex~aination of the levels of service in Table 3 shows that the signal- ized intersection of Sit 25 at New Suffolk Road will experience the same level of service (B) for all three conditions during the PM peak period and a level of service (C) for all three conditions during the Saturday peak period. Similarly, the unsignaltzed intersection of SR 25 at New Suffolk Road experi~ ences the same level of service (E) for all three conditions dm:inS both the PM and Saturday peak periods. In other words, the proposed developeent, both' with and without the Colonial Shopping Plaza, will not .significantly impact the future operation of these intersections. It should be noted that field observations indicate queuing vehicles eastbound on SR 25 at the nearby inter-' section of New Suffolk Road often extend westward beyond the intersection with Grifflng Street. These queuing vehicles frequently create 8aps to allow left tur'ntng vehicles from Griffin8 Street to enter the traffic stream on SR 25. The unst~nalized intersection of CR 48 at Depot Lane will also experience no change in level of service from the 1990 No-Build to the 1990 Build condi- tion. For the 1990 Build with Colonial Shopping Plaza condition, however, the overall intersection level of service during the PM peak period will drop from a C to a D, while during the Saturday peak period the overall intersection level of service drops from a D to an E. -18- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONCLUSXONS The followin~ key statements s,~m~rize this study: o The project site is on a 46.16 acre site extending off of Griffins Street north of SR 25 (Main Street) and west of Depot Lane. The pro- posed site consists of 160 residential units with a single access driveway to Griffins Street. o Turning movement counts were taken at the intersections of SR 25 at Griffins Street, SR 25 at New Suffolk Road, and CR 48 at Depot Lane from 11 AM-12 PM and 4 PM-5 PM on a weekday and from 1! AM-12 PM on a Saturday. The two peak periods selected for analysis were the weekday PM (4-5 PM) and the Saturday midday (11 AM-12 PM) intervals. These volumes were then expanded to the design year of 1990 by the applica- tion of a growth rate factor of two and one half.percent per year. o The vehicle trips were distributed on the roadway network based upon the existing trip patterns from the manual turning movement counts at the study intersections. o Although the existing stop line sight distance to the east at the intersection of SR 25 and Griffins Street is considered to be re- stricted for the posted speed limit of 35 mph, visual observations indicate that vehicles travelling on SR 25 frequently cannot attain the posted speed limit due to the occurrence of on-street parking maneuvers. Since vehicle, speeds are directly related to the sight distance classifications, it is possible that the measured sight dis- tances may not be restrictive for the actual vehicle speeds along SR -19- I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The construction of either the proposed development or the proposed development with the Colonial Shopping Plaza will not significantly affect the future operation of any of the three intersections analyzed in this study. -20- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AJ~I~BIX A TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT DATA I . Gr~nman- Pedersen, Assocmtes, p.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ' ' I I ~fp~ TOTM. TOTAL t~:~-- T4 Z ¢6~ /3 - eO ~4 a7 7~ ~ ~/ ...... I ~lpi :"'1--- I '--'--' TQTM. 4~ · II'm . .,,~- I 13'75 ~,~ $ IZ3 t~ Iw_. -to- 5 17. '1.-I' Zo-IOZ-3- I~'~ 0 ?. 0 ?- ZOO ~,.qc. I la~q I~ 8--- ~ O- I~- Iq.. Io~ t-- I~ I- ?_ 0 3. 2-10 ti,,K . ~- I lzz + ~~ ~.-=-- 0.% l ........... Greenman- Pedersen. As$ociate=. P.C. I CONS U'I. TIN G ENGINEERS ~ I00 west Mere Street, 8eOyl~n. k.I, New York 11702 I I I i I TOTAL TOTAL 7' · .,.,g TOTAL IO II I~' TOTAl. TIME TOTAL 4 5 · ' 4-~-6 ?-e-e ~ ~ Greenman-Pedersen0 As$oc]ateSo' P.C. CONS~bTING ENGINEERS West Mira Street, Babylon, L.I , New York 11702 ~ ~ k~T~?~ TOT~ ,O ,, ,, TOTAL TOTALi. Z_$ 4 . ~ · TOTAL4.5.47 · 2'r'B ~-e-~ 10,4 I-~ / ~3 -- ~ ~ '- ~ ,,, /43!~ t~7 Ia -- /o ~' ~ I Greenman-Pedersen, Associates, P.C. B CONS'ULTIN~ ENGINEERS ~ 100 West Mare Street, Ba=~on. k.I. New York 11702 0~TI B ~.. SUMMARY I I I I I I I I I I I I Greenman- Pod·rs·n, Associates, P.C. CONSUL'TING ENGINEERS 1o0 wesl Ma,n Street, ItO~)ylon-. L.I , New YOrk ] 1702 mmmp,~Ln'v TOTAL TOTAL 4 $ · TOTAL 7 · 0, I0 II iZ TOTAL TOTAL l-2.-3 4...,I-6 ..,, la~' '--'"' "'-" '"-'-17.t -"- -"--lie 2!137 13--~' I1~307 177------'----f3~ 'l'~ldC I ! I TOTAL · S t TOTAl. ? · ) ?OTALI ! I I I i I I I I I i I I I I I I APPEI~I)IX B LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLES AND PRINTOUTS TABLE B-I 1990 HO--~ILD Brl'E~SEt'flO~ LE~'EI~ OF Si~VICK INTERSECTION PEAK NORTHBOUND SOl'TI[BOUND EASTBOUND ~'ESTBOUND OVERALL LgS INTERSECTION CONTROL HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT~ LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT TItRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT (LOS/Xc) State Route 25 1~ C -- C h -- B B B a -- (~/0.70) at Signalized New Suffolk Road SAT D -- . D ........ B B B B -- (C/0.88) State Route 25 I PH ...... E -- A A A .... A A E a t Un signal lzed* Grif ling Street SAT ...... g -- A A A .... A A g CR 48 PM B . B D C C C A A A A A A C at Unsignalized* Depot Lane SAT C C C D D D A A A B B B D The capacity of this unsignalized intersection ~s determined by utilizir~ the 1985 RC~ method for unsignalized locations. The movements typically exemined in these analyses are the left turns from the major road, and the left, thru and right turns from the side street. The thru mov~m~uts on the major road would theoretically operate at LOS A. KEY: LOS: Level of Service - based upon the average stopped delay per vehicle. Xc: Volume to Capacity ratio of the critical lane groups. TABL~ B-2 1990 BUXLn (~XZIlOIfr COLOII~AL SHOPPX#G PLAZA) XttrERsE~r~oM LEVELS OF SERVXCE INTERSECTION PEAK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND ~ESTBOUND OVERALL LOS INTERSECTION CONTROL HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRUjRIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT (LOS/Xc) State Route 25 P~ C -- C .... B B B B -- (B/0.70) at Signalized New Suffolk Road SAT D -- D ........ B B B B -- (C/0o88) Sta£e Route 25 [ m -- E -- A A A .... A A E at Unsignalized*', Grilling Street SAT -- E -- A A A .... A A E at Onsi§nalized* Depot Lane SAT D D D D D D A A A B B B D The capacity of this unsignalized intersection ~as determined by utilizing the 1985 HCH method for unsi§nalized locations. The movements typically examined in these analyses are the left turns from the major road, and the left, thru and right turns from the side street, The thru movements on the major road ~ould theoretically operate at LOS A. KEY: LOS: Level of Service - based upon the average stopped delay per vehicle. Xc: Volume to Capacity ratio of the critical lane groups. 1990 BUIID (~J~TH COLOJD'Ar. SHOFP'[HG pl~LT.S) '[NTKRSKGTI'OH L~vt(LS OF -qKU~C:K INTERSECTION PEAK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND OVERALL LOS INTERSECTION CONTROL HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHTI LEFT THRUI RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGltTi (LOS/Xc) State Route 25 PH C -- C ........ B B B B -- (B/0,70) a t Signalized New Suffolk Road SAT D -- D -- -- B i i B -- (C/0.88) ~ State -- Route 25 PI4 .... E -- A A A .... A A E at Unsignalized*: iGriffing Street SAT ~ E -- A A A .... A A E CR 48 ' 1~ C C C D D D A A A A A A D a t Unsignalized* Depot Lane SAT E E E E E E A A A C C C E The capacity of this uns/gnalized intersection was determ/ned by utilizing the 1985 HCH method for uusignalized locations. The movements typically ez~mined in these analyses are the left turns from the major road~ and the left~ thru and right turns from the side street. The thru movements on the major road ~ould theoretically operate at LOS A. KEY: LOS: Level of Service - based upon the average stopped delay per vehicle. Xc: Vol~mo to Capacity ratio of the critical lane groups. 1985 HeM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION: STATE ROUTE 25 AND NEW SUFFOLK RD. ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FU~RE NO BUILD DATE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 AREA ~PE: CBD MISC.INFO: FILENAME: FNBSUFPM IA) CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE BY LANE GROUP BY APPROACH ************************************************* ************************ V/S X STOPPED STOPPED LANE CRIT. FLOW V/C DELAY DELAY GROUP MVMT. RATIO CAP. RATIO (SEC/VEH) LOS APPROACH (SEC/VEH) LOS TR .47 934 .7 ' 6.5 B EB 6.5 B WB LT * .49 840 .7 6 B' WB 6 B NB LR ~ .15 263 .7 23.4 C NB 23.4 C ! ! INTERSECTION: SUM (V/S) c Xc DELAY LOS .7 8°5 B INPUT VOLUMES MVMT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 0 118 41 0 THRU 555 429 0 0 RIGHT 53 0 130 0 R-O-R 0 0 0 0 R-O-R = RIGHT-ON-RED VOLUMES DO NOT REFLECT GROWTH FACTOR. SEE SECTION F. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1985 HCM= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS GEOMETRY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH I TR 15 LT 11 hR 15 TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS APPROACH: EASTBOUND GRADE (%): 0 PERCENT HV: 2 PARKING: y MANEUVERS (9/HR): 5 BUSES STOPPING (#/HR): 0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .93 CONFLICTING PEDESTRIANS (9/HR): 9 PEDESTRIAN BUTTON: Y MIN. GREEN TIME: 5.9 ANRIVAL TYPE: 3 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 2 2 2 Y N N 5 0 0 0 , 0 ~ 0 .93 .93 ~ .93 6 ~ 4 0 Y : Y N 5.9 14.3 14.3 3 3 3 SIGNAL TIMING AND PHASING INTERVAL EASTBOUND ************ ************* Y+AR GREEN L T R P'~A 0 0 0 X X 0 0 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND L T R P RA h T R P RA L T R P RA X X X X X X SIGNAL TYPE: ACTUATED CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. LOST TIME PER PHASE: 3 SECS. LOST TIME PER CYCLE: 6 SECS. Y+AR w YELLOW + ALL RED GREEN = GREEN TIME RA = RIGHT TURN ARROW P = PEDESTRIAN PHASE 1985 HCM= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ********************************* CORRECTION FACTORS SATURATION FLOW RATE · IDEAL ******************** ADJ. LANE SAT. ~ OF f f f f f f f f SAT. GROUP' FLOW LANES W HV G P BB A RT LT FLOW TR 1800 i 1.1 .99 i .88 i .9 .89 i 1382 WB LT 1800 i .97 .99 i .88 I .9 i .87 1191 iNB LR 1800 I 1.1 .99 I i I .9 .8 .87 1228 I I I I I I I I APPR. MVMT. EB T WB L WB T NB 'L NB T NB R SB L SB T SB R DEMAND VOLUME GROUP MVT. FLOW LANE VOL. PHF RATE GROUP 0 .93 0 555 .93 597 TR 53 .93 57 LANE ADJ. FLOW 9 OF UTILZN GROWTH FLOW RATE LANES FACTOR FACTOR RATE 654 i i I 654 118 .93 127 429 .93 461 0 .93 0 LT 588 I I I 588 41 .93 44 0 .93 0 130 .93 140 184 I I i 184 0 .93 0 0 .93 0 0 .93 0 I I I I I I I I I i I I i I I I 1985 HeM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ********************************* EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP COMPUTED: EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP **************************************** EFFECTIVE LANE CRIT. GREEN GROUP MVMT. TIME(SEC) G/C EB TR 54.08 .68 WB LT * 56.42 .71 NB LR * 17.12 .21 CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. 4 I I I I 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ********************************* POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION: STATE ROUTE 25 AND NEW SUFFOLK RD. ANALYST: JIM ~ME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FUTURE NO BUILD DATE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 AREA TYPE: CBD MISC.INFO: FILENAME: FNBSUFSA 1 A) CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE I BY LANE GROUP BY APPROACH ************************************************* ************************ V/S X STOPPED STOPPED I LANE CRIT. FLOW V/C DELAY DELAY GROUP ~VMT. RATIO CAP. RATIO (SEC/VEH) LOS APPROACH (SEC/VEH) LOS 'EB TR .54 845 .88 '14.9 B EB 14.9 B ! WB LT * .65 885 .88 11.1 B' WB 11.1 B NB LR * .16 217 .8~ 39.1 D NB 39.1 D I SUM INTERSECTION: (V/S) c Xc DELAY LO~ .81 .88 15.9 C B) INPUT VOLUMES MVMT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 0 119 49 0 THRU 637 590 0 0 I RIGHT 40 0 125 0 R-O-R 0 0 0 0 R-O-R = RIGHT-ON-RED VOLUMES DO NOT REFLECT GROWTH FACTOR. SEE SECTION F. 1985 HCM= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS I I I I I I EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH i TR 15 LT 11 hR 1§ TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS APPROACH: EASTBOUND GRADE (~): 0 PERCENT HV: 2 PARKING: y MANEUVERS (~/HR): 5 BUSES STOPPING (#/HR): 0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 CONFLICTING PEDESTRIANS (#/HR): 23 PEDESTRIAN BUTTON: Y MIN. GREEN TIME: 5.9 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 Y N N 5 0 0 0 0 0 .91 .91 .91 7 9 0 Y Y N 5.9 14.3 14.3 3 ARRIVAL TYPE: 3 3 3 I E) SIGNAL TIMING AND PHASING IINTERVAL ASTBOUND W BOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND # Y+AR GREEN L T R P RA h T R P RA h T R P RA L T R P RA i 0 0- - - X X 2 0 0 X X X X X X I 3 0 0 SIGNAL TYPE: ACTUATED Y+AR m YELLOW + ALL RED CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. GREEN.m GREEN TIME I hOST TIME PER PHASE: 3 SECS. RAn RIGHT A~ROW LOST TIME PER CYCLE: 6 SECS. P ' PEDESTRIAN PHASE '1 F) 1985 HCM= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ********************************* CORRECTION FACTORS ~ I IDEAL LANE SAT. 9 OF GROUP FLOW hANES EB TR 1800 i WB LT 1800 I SATURATION FLOW RATE ******************** ADJ. f f f f f f f f SAT. W HV G P BB A RT LT FLOW 1.1 .99 I .88 I .9 .89 i 1382 .97 .99 i .88 i .9 I .87 1191 INB 1800 i 1.1 .99 i i I .9 .8 .86 1214 I I APPR. ~VMT. I EB EB T EB R WB T WB R I NB NB T I NB R I SB .T SB R MVT. FLOW LANE VOL. PHF RATE GROUP 0 .91 0 637 .91 700 TR 40 .91 44 DEMAND VOLUME GROUP LANE ADJ. FLOW # OF UTILZN GROWTH FLOW RATE LANES FACTOR FACTOR RATE 744 I I I 744 119 .91 131 590 .91 648 0 .91 0 LT 779 I I I 779 49 .91 54 0 .91 0 125 .91 137 LR 191 I I I 191 0 .91 0 0 .91 0 0 .91 0 3 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ********************************* EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP COMPUTED: EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP **************************************** EFFECTIVE LANE CRIT. GREEN GROUP HVMT. TIME(SEC) G/C EB TR 48.94 .61 WB' LT * 59.46 .74 NB LR * 14.3 .18 CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. I I I I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION NAME: STATE ROUTE 25 ~ GRIFFING ST ANALYST: JIM · IME OF ANALYSIS: PM FUT~E NO BUILD ~ATE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: FNBGR25P A) I I I I I I I I I I I I I INPUT VOLUMES FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) MOVEMENT WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) LEFT 0 39 42 THRU 479 637 0 RIGHT 42 0 40 GEOMETRY WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) # OF LANES I ~ i 2 ~ GRADE 0 0 0 RT TURN 90 90 90 C ) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUN~ING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .85 (mph): 35 I 1985 HCI~:UNSIGNALiZED INTERSECTIONS I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I '1 E) MINOR SB LT RT MAJOR EB LT LEVEL OF TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES 6.8 0 6.8 5.7 0 5.7 5.1 SERVTCE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME *********************** MINOR SB LT ONLY 54 MINOR SB RT ONLY 52 MAJOR EB LEFT TURN 50 0 5.1 RESULTS MOV'T SHARED RESERVE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY 128 N.A. 74 626 N.A. 574 LOS 703 N.A. 653 A I I I I 1985 HCM= UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION NAME: STATE ROUTE 25 ~ GKIFFING ST ANALYST: JIM · IME OF ANALYSIS: SAT'FUTURE NO BUILD DATE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: FNBGR25S I I I I I c) I I I I I I I I A) INPUT VOLUMES FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vDh) MOVEMENT WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) LEFT 0 35 62 THRU 554 615 0 RIGHT 85 0 37 GEOMETRY WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) # OF LANES I " i 2 ~ GRADE 0 0 0 RT TURN 90 90 90 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .92 (mDb): 35 I I 1985 HC~=UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** D) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE I I I E) I I I I I I I I I I I '1 MINOR SB MAJOR EB LEVEL TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES bT 6.8 0 6.8 RT 5.7 0 5.7 LT 5.1 0 5.1 OF SERVICE RESULTS MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME *********************** MINOR SB LT ONLY 74 MINOR SB RT ONLY 44 MAJOR EB LEFT TURN MOV'T SHARED RESERVE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY ****3*** flfl*~fl**fl 3******* 116 N.A. 42 552 N.A. 508 LOS E~ A~ 617 N.A. 575 A I ! I I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION NA~E: CR 48 e DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF'ANALYSIS: PM FNB DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: NB4822P4 A) INPUT VOLUMES I FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) I MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 9 68 I THRU 0 320 RIGHT 0 B) I I I I I I I I I GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND 13 0 # OF LANES ~ GRADE RT ANGLE SOUTHBOUND 0 § EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 3 3 i 1 0 ," 0 0 0 90 · 90 90 90 ADJUSTMENT VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 55 I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONs *********************************** ID) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE I I I I I I I I I I I I I '1 MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB MAJOR WB LEVEL TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 6 0 6 LT 6 ' 0 OF SERVICE RESULTS MOV ' T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACI'TY CAPACITY LOS MINOR NB SHARED LANE 41 N.A. 353 '" 312 B MIN0R SB SHARED LANE 24 N.A. 446 422 A MAJOR EB LEFTS 11 692 N.A. 681 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 82 1000 N.A. 918 A I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTErSECTIoNS *********************************** P'O LYTE C I-IN I C UNIVERSITY I INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 ~ DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM ITIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FNB D~TE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: NB4822P3 I A) INPUT VOLUMES I FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) I MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 9 68 0 6 THRU 406 0 34 9 I RIGHT 35 0 35 0 I I I I I I I I I I I EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ~ OF LANES 3 3 I 1 ~ GRADE 0 ? 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 90 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 (mph): 55 I 1985 HCM -' UNS IGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** ID ) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE I I I I I I I MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB MAJOR WB TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH $ 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 nT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 6 0 6 LT 6 0 6 OF SERVICE RESULTS LEVEL MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE voLUME *********************** MINOR NB SHARED LANE 83 MOV'T SHARED CAPACITY CAPACITY N.A. 449 RESERVE CAPACITY LOS 366 B MINOR SB SHARED LANE 18 N.A. 258 240 C MAJOR EB LEFTS 11 1000 N.A. 989 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 82 593 N.A. 511 A ! I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTErSECTIONs *********************************** ~OLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 ~ DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FNB D~TE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: NB4822S3 INPUT VOLUMES I I I FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 15 62 0 7 THRU 576 0 61 13 RIGHT 56 0 78 0 I I I I I I I I I I I EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND % OF LANES 3 3 I 1 ~ GRADE 0 ~" 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 90 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .97 (mph): 55 I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ID) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE I I I I I I I I MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 6 0 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS MOV' T SHARED · RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS *********************** ****** ******** **4***** ***4**** *4*** MINOR NB SHARED LANE 157 N.A. 365 208 C MINOR SB SHARED LANE 23 N.A. 150 127 D MAJOR EB LEFTS 17 1000 N.A. 983 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 70 451 N.A. 381 B I I I I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** ~OLYTEC~NIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 · DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FNB ~kTE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: NB4822S4 A) INPUT VOLUMES I I I I I I I I I I I I '1 I FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) *********************** MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 15 62 44 0 THKU 0 348 17 20 RIGHT 0 5 0 11 GEOMETRY 9 OF LANES ~ GRADE RT ANGLE EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 3 3 I 1 0 '% 0 0 0 90 90 90 90 C ) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .97 (mph): 55 I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ID ) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE I I I I I I I I I MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB ~. LT 6 0 6 ~ LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS · MOV'T SHARED~ RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR NB SHARED LANE 69 N.A. 321 252 C MINOR SB SHARED LANE 35 N.A. 455 420 A MAJOR EB LEFTS 17 668 N.A. 651 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 70 1000 N.A. 930 A 1985 HCM= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ********************************* POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION: STATE ROUTE 25 AND NEW SUFFOLK RD. ANALYST: JIM T~ME OF ~ALYSIS: FU~RE BUILD DATE OF ~ALYSIS= 8/16/88 AREA TYPE: CBD MISC.INFO: FILEN~E: FSUFFPM 1 I A) CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE v/s LANE CRIT. FLOW GROUP MVMT. RATIO CAP. iEB BY LANE GROUP ************************************************* X STOPPED V/C DELAY RATIO (SEC/VEH) LOS ~TR .47 937 .7 ' 6.5 B BY APPROACH ************************ STOPPED DELAY APPROACH (SEC/VEH) LOS EB 6.5 B WB LT * .49 840 .7 6 B ' WB 6 B I NB LR * .15 263 ."/ 23.4 C SUM INTERSECTION: (V/S) c Xc .64 .7 NB 23.4 C DELAY LOS 8.5 B IB) INPUT VOLUMES MVMT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 0 118 41 0 THRU 557 429 0 0 RIGHT 53 0 130 0 R-O-R 0 0 0 0 R-O-R ~ RIGHT-ON-RED VOLUMES DO NOT REFLECT GROWTH FACTOR. SEE SECTION F. '! 1985 HeM= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ********************************* GEOMETRY I I I I I I I I I I I EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH I TR 15 LT 11 LR 15 TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY APPROACH: EASTBOUND GRADE (%): 0 PERCENT Hr: 2 PARKING: y MANEUVERS (9/HR): 5 BUSES STOPPING (9/HR): 0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .93 CONFLICTING PEDESTRIANS (#/HR): 9 PEDESTRIAN BUTTON: Y MIN. GREEN TIME: 5.9 ARRIVAL TYPE: 3 SIGNAL TIMING WESTBOUND 0 § 0 .93 CONDITIONS NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 .95 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 6 · 4 Y , Y 5.9 14.3 3 3 AND P HA S I NG INTERVAL EASTBOUND WESTBOUND Y+AR GREEN h T R P RA L T R P RA 0 0 X X 0 0 X X X X 0 0 0 .93 SIGNAL TYPE: CYCLE LENGTH: LOST TIME PER PHASE: LOST TIME PER CYCLE: 0 N 14.3 3 ACTUATED 80 SECS. 3 SECS. $ SECS. NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND L T R P RA L T R P RA X X Y+AR - YELLOW + ALL RED GREEN s GREEN TIME RA - RIGHT TURN ARROW P ~ PEDESTRIAN PHASE 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ********************************* CORRECTION FACTORS SATURATION FLOW RATE ******************** ADJ. ~ OF f f f f f f ff SAT. LANES W HV G P BB A RT LT FLOW 1800 I 1.1 .99 i .88 i .9 .89 i 1382 'IDEAL LANE SAT. GROUP' FLOW EB WB LT 1800 i .97 .99 i .88 i .9 i .87 1191 INB hR 1800 I 1.1 .99 I i I .9 .8 .87 1228 ! ! APPR. MVMT. I EB L EE T EB R I WB h WB T I WB R NB '~. NB T I NB R I SB T DEMAND VOLUME GROUP MVT. FLOW LANE VOL. PHF RATE GROUP 0 .93 0 557 .93 599 TR 53 .93 57 LANE ADJ. FLOW 9 OF UTILZN GROWTH FLOW ~ATE LANES FACTOR FACTOR RATE 656 I 1 i 656 118 .93 127 429 .93 461 0 .93 0 LT 588 i I I 588 41 .93 44 0 .93 0 130 .93 140 LR 184 i I I. 184 0 .93 0 0 .93 0 0 .93 0 '! I I G) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '1 1985 HeM= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ********************************* EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP COMPUTED: EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP EFFECTIVE LANE CRIT. GREEN GROUP MVMT. TIME(SEC) G/C EB TR 54.25 .68 WB LT * 56.42 .71 NB LR * 17.12 .21 CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. I 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS . ********************************* I POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION: STATE ROUTE 25 AND NEW SUFFOLK RD. IANALYST: JIM T!ME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FUTURE BUILD DATE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 iAREA ~PE: CBD MISC.INFO: FILEN~E: FSUFFSAT IA) CAPACITY AND L'EVEL OF SERVICE I BY LANE GROUP BY APPROACH ************************************************* ************************ V/S X STOPPED STOPPED iLANE CRIT. FLOW V/C DELAY DELAY GROUP MVMT. RATIO CAP. RATIO (SEC/VEH) LOS APPROACH (SEC/VEH) LOS EB TR .54 849 .88 14.7 B EB 14.7 B I I I WB LT * .65 885 .88 11.1 B' WB 11.1 B NB LR * .16 217 .8~ 39.1 D NB 39.1 D I I I I I SUM INTERSECTION: (V/S) c .81 B) INPUT VOLUMES Xc DELAY LOS .88 15.8 C MVMT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 0 119 49 0 THRU 640 590 0 0 RIGHT 40 0 125 0 R-O-R 0 0 0 0 R-O-R" RIGHT-ON-RED VOLUMES DO NOT REFLECT GROWTH FACTOR. SEE SECTION F. I ! I I I I I I I I I I I 1985 HCM= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ********************************* GEOMETRY LANE EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND NOV WIDTH NOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH TR 15 LT 11 LR 15 SOUTHBOUND MOV WIDTH TRAFFIC AND I~OADWAY CONDITIONS APPROACH: EASTBOUND GRADE (~): 0 PERCENT HV: 2 PARKING: Y MANEUVERS (#/HR): 5 BUSES STOPPING (#/HR): 0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 CONFLICTING PEDESTRIANS (#/HR): 23 PEDESTRIAN BUTTON: Y MIN. GREEN TIME: 5.9 ARRIVAL TYPE: 3 SIGNAL TIMING WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 2 2 2 Y N N 5 0 0 0 0 .91 .91 7 9 Y ,. Y 5.9 14.3 3 3 AND PHASING 0 .91 0 N 14.3 3 INTERVAL EASTBOUND WESTBOUND Y+AR GREEN h T R P RA h T R P RA 0 0- X X 0 0 X X X X '0 0 SIGNAL TYPE: CYCLE LENGTH: LOST TINE PER PHASE: LOST TIME PER CYCLE: ACTUATED 80 SECS. 3 SECS. 6 SECS. NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND h T R P RA h T R P RA X X Y+AR I YELLOW + ALL RED GREEN I GREEN TINE RAm RIGHT TURN ARROW P m PEDESTRIAN PHASE G OUP' EB TR WB LT i NB LR APPR. MVMT. I EB L EB T EB R 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ********************************* CORRECTION FACTORS SATURATION FLOW RATE IDEAL ******************** ADJ. SAT. # OF f f f f f f f fSAT. FLOW LANES W HV G P BB A RT LT FLOW 1800 i 1.1 .99 i .88 i .9 .89 I 1382 1800 i .97 .99 I .88 I .9 I .87 1191 1800 I 1.1 .99 I I I .9 .8 .86 1214 DEMAND VOLUME GROU~ MVT. FLOW LANE FLOW VOL. PHF RATE GROUP RATE 0 .91 0 640 .91 703 TR 747 40 .91 WB L 119 .91 131 WB T 590 .91 648 LT 779 WB R 0 .91 0 NB 'L 49 .91 54 NB T 0 .91 0 LR 191 NB R 125 .91 137 SB L 0 .91 0 SBT 0 .91 0 SB R 0 .91 0 LANE ADJ. # OF UTILZN GROWTH FLOW LANES FACTOR FACTOR RATE i i i 747 I I i 779 i I i 191 I I I 1985 HeM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ********************************* G) EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMPUTED: EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP **************************************** EFFECTIVE LANE CRIT. GREEN GROUP MVMT. TIME(SEC) G/C EB TR 49.14 .61 WB LT * 59.46 .74 NB LR * 14.3 .18 CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. I I 1985 HCM=UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION NAME: STATE ROUTE 2S · GRIFFING ST I~ALYST: JIM ~IME OF ANALYSIS: PM FU~E BUILD ~TE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 iMISC.INFO: FILENAME: FGRIFPM IA) C) I I I i I I I I INPUT VOLUMES FULL HOU~ VOLUMES (vph) *********************** MOVEMENT WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SE) LEFT 0 58 44 THRU 479 637 0 RIGHT 42 0 49 GEOMETRY WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SE) # OF LANES I ~ i 2 % GRADE 0 0' 0 RT TURN 90 90 90 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .85 {mph): 35 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1985 HCM = UNS IGNALIZEDr, INTERSECTIONS *********************************** D) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE MINOR SB MAJOR EB TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES LT 6.8 0 6.8 RT 5.7 0 5.7 LT 5.1 0 5.1 E ) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME *********************** MINOR SB LT ONLY 57 MINOR SB RT ONLY 63 MAJOR EB LEFT TURN 7~ MOV'T SHARED RESERVE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS ******** ******** ******** ***** 119 N.A. 62 g ~ 626 N.A. 563 A" 703 N.A. 628 A I I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION NAME: STATE ROUTE 25 · GRIFFING ST IANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FUTURE BUILD DATE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 iMISC.INFO: FILENAME: FGRIFSAT A) I I I I I I I I I I I i I INPUT VOLUMES FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) MOVEMENT WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) LEFT 0 49 65 THRU 554 615 0 RIGHT 85 0 49 GEOMETRY WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) # OF LANES I ~ i 2 % GRADE 0 0 0 RT TURN 90 90 90 C ) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph): AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAR HOUR FACTOR: .92 35 1985 HCM--UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS I U CRITICAL ADJUSTMENT TABLE I I I I I I I TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES MINOR SB LT 6.8 0 6.8 RT 5.7 0 5.7 MAJOR EB LT 5.1 0 5.1 E ) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE *********************** MINOR SB LT ONLY MINOK SB RT ONLY MAJOR EB LEFT TURN MOV'T SHARED VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY 78 111 N.A. 59 552 N.A. ~9 617 N.A. RESERVE CAPACITY nOS ******** ***** 33 E ~ 493 A - 558 A I I I I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** ~OLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITy INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 ~ DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FB COND DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: NB4822P7 A) INPUT VOLUMES I I I I I C) I I I I I I I I FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 9 80 THRU 406 0 RIGHT 49 0 GEOMETRY ~ OF LANES ~ GRADE RT ANGLE NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ***6*6**** ********6* 0 6 41 9 42 0 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 6**6***66* *****66666 *****6**** *6******** 3 3 i 1 0 0 0 0 90 . 90 90 ,.. 90 FACTORS ADJUSTMENT VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 (mph): 55 i 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERsEcTIoNs I D) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE I I I I I I I I I I I I I '1 I ~MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH $ 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS MOV' T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR NB SHARED LANE 101 N.A. 429 328 B MINOR SB SHARED LANE 18 N.A. 232 214 C MAJOR EB LEFTS 11 1000 N.A. 989 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 97 583 N.A. 486 A I I I I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 ~ DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FB COND DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: NB4822P8 A ) INPUT VOLUME S I c) I I I I I I I FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vDh) *********************** MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 9 80 28 0 THRU 0 320 13 15 RIGHT 0 5 0 5 GEOMETRY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND % OF LANES 3 3 I 1 ~ GRADE 0 "' 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 . 90 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE' RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph): AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 55 °o I 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONs *********************************** ID) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE I I i I I I I i i MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB MAJOR WB LEVEL TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 6 6 OF SERVICE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE *********************** MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB MAJOR WB 0 6 0 6 ~ RESULTS '~- MOV'T SHARED~ RESERVE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS SHARED LANE 50 N.A. 338 288 C SHARED LANE 24 N.A. 435 411 A LEFTS 11 692 N.A. 681 A LEFTS 97 1000 N.A. 903 A I I I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONs *********************************** I ~OLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION N~E: CR ¢8 ~ DEPOT LANE ~AL¥ST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FB COND UATE OF ~ALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILEN~E: NB4822S8 A) INPUT VOLUMES I FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) *********************** I MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND ******** ********** ********** LEFT 15 72 I THRU 0 348 RIGHT 0 5 B) I i I I I I I I I GEOMETRY # OF LANES % GRADE RT ANGLE NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 56 0 17 20 0 11 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 3 3 I 1 0 ~" 0 0 0 90 90 90 90 ADJUSTMENT VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON M~JOR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .97 (mDh): I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONs ID) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE I I I I I I I I I MINOR NB LT TH RT MINOR SB LT TH RT MAJOR EB LT MAJOR WB LT LEVEL OF TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES 8.5 0 8.§ 8 0 8 6.5 0 6.5 8.5 0 8.5 8 '0 8 6.5 0 6.5 6 0 6 0 SERVICE RESULTS MOVEMENT AND LANE usAGE *********************** SHARED LANE SHARED LANE LEFTS LEFTS MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB MAJOR WB MOV'T SHARED. RESERVE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS 83 N.A. 309 226 C 35 N.A. 445 410 A 17 668 N.A. 651 A 82 1000 N.A. 918 A I I I I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 ~ DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FB COND DATE OF A/~ALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: NB4822S7 A) INPUT VOLUMES I I I I I c) I I I I I I I FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 15 72 THRU 576 0 RIGHT 67 0 GEOMETRY 9 OF LANES % GRADE RT ANGLE NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 0 7 73 13 86 0 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 3 3 i 1 0 '" 0 0 0 90 90 90 90 FACTORS ADJUSTMENT VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .97 (mDb): 55 I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ID) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE I I I I I I I MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB MAJOR WB LEVEL TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 6 LT 6 OF SERVICE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE *********************** MINOR NB SHARED LANE MINOR SB SHARED LANE 0 0 RESULTS MOV'T SHARED. RESERVE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS 181 N.A. 344 163 D 23 N.A. 130 107 D MAJOR EB LEFTS 17 MAJOR WB LEFTS 82 1000 N.A. 983 A 444 N.A. 362 B m ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '1 I · 9S5 HCMm SIGNALI ZED INTERSECTIONS ... POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION: STATE ROUTE 25 AND NEW SUFFOLK RD, ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FB SC 22TSF DATE OP ANALYSIS:. 10/19/88 AREA TYPE: CBD MISO. INFO: FILENAME: NS2522PM A) CAPACITY AND LE'~EL OF SERVICE -~ BY LANE GROUP V/S X STOPPED LANE CRIT. FLOW V/C DELAY GROUP MVMT. RATIO CAP. RATIO (SEC/VEH) LOS EB TR .48 ~55 .7 b.2 B WB LT * .4~ 840 .7 6 B 25.4 C NB LR * .15 2&5 .7 BY APPROACH STOPPED DELAY APPROACH (SEC/VEH> LOS EB ~.2 B WB ~ B NB 2:)~T~$ C INTERSECT I ON: SUM"] (V/S) c Xc DELAY LOS · ~IVMT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 0 118 41 0 THRU 5a7 42~ 0 0 R I GHT 5~ 0 1,50 0 R-O-R 0 0 0 0 R-O-R = RIGHT,ON-RED VOLUMES DO NOT REFLECT GROWTH FACTOR. SEE SECTION F. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1~§ HE::I~iI- ~ :I {~N/:~L I: ZED INTERSECT l: [}I~IS GEOMETRY EASTBOUND WESTBOOND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH 1 TR 15 LT ii LR 15 TRAFFIC AND IROAD~iAY CONDITIONS APPROACH: GRADE (%): PERCENT HV: PARKING: MANEUVERS (#/HR): BUSES STOPPING (#/HR): 0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR: CONFLICTING PEDESTRIANS (#/HR): PEDESTRIAN BUTTON: Y MIN. GREEN TIME: 5.9 ARRIVAL TYPE: EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 2 2 2 Y Y N 5 5 0 S z GNAL T I M I NI~t AND SOUTHBOUND 0 2 N 0 0 0 0 ~ 4 0 Y Y N 5.9 ,, 14.:~ 14.3 INTERVAL EASTBOUND ~ESTBOUND # Y+AR GREEN L T R P RA L T R P RA i 0 0 X X 2 0 0 X X X X · ~ 0 0 SIGNAL TYPE: CYCLE LENGTH: LOST TIME PER PHASE: LOST TIME PEr CYCLE: ACTUATED 80 SECS. ~ SECS. ~ SECS. NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND L T R P RA L T R P RA X X Y+AR = YELLOW + ALL RED GREEN = GREEN TIME RA = RIGHT TURN ARROW P = PEDESTRIAN PHASE I I I I F) LANE . GROUP EB TR 1~8§ HCMm SISNALI ZED INTERSECTIONS CORRECTION FACTORS SATURATION FLOW RATE IDEAL ******************** ADJ. 8AT. # OF ~ f f f ~ f f f SAT. FLOW LANEs W HV 8 P . BB A RT LT FLOW 1800 I 1.1 .99 1 .88 1 .9 .89 1 1582 I WB LT 1800 1 · 97 .99 1 .88 I .9 1 .87 1191 I I NB LR 1800 1 1.1 .99 1 1 1 ,9 .8 .87 1228 I I I APPR. MVT. MVMT. VOL. DEMAND VOLUME ~ · ~ GROUP LANE AD~. FLOW LANE FLOW # OF ,UTILZN GROWTH FLOW PHF RATE GROUP RATE LANES FACTOR FACTOR RATE EB L 0 .95 0 EB T 567 .95 ~10 EB R 55 .95 57 TR &&7 1 I 1 WB L 118 .95 127 WB T 429 .95 4~1 WB R 0 .95 0 LT 588 I I I I I I NB L 41 , ~5 44 NB* T 0 . ~ 0 NB R 1:~0 .9~ 140 SB L 0 · 93 0 SB T 0 . ~5 0 SB ,' R O' · 9~ 0 LR 184 I 1 I 588 184 I l~B5 HCM= ~IBN~LI ZED INTERSECTIONS EFFECTIVE TTMI NB ~Y L~NE ~ROUP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I COMPUTED: EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP **************************************** EFFECTIVE LANE CRIT. GREEN GROUP MVMT. TIME(SEC> G/C EB Tr 55.1& WB LT * 56.42 .71 NB LR * 17.12 .21 CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. I I I I I POLYTECHNIC U~IIVEF4SITy INTERSECTION: STATE rOUTE 25 AND NEW SUFFOLK RD, ANALYST: TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FB SC 22TSF -bATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/19/88 AREA TYPE: CBD MISC. INFO: FILENAME: NS2522SA A ) CAPA{3ITY AND LEVEL OF SERV ICE I I I I I I I I I BY LANE GROUP V/S X LANE CrIT. PLOW V/C GrouP MVMT. RATIO CAP. rATIO EB TR .55 8&4 .88 14.5 B EB STOPPED DELAY (SEC/VEH) LOS BY APPROACH STOPPED DELAY APPROACH (SEC/VEH) LOS 14.~ B LT * .&5 885 .88 11.1 B WB LR * .l& 217 ~8 59.1 D NB 11.1 ~ B ~.1 'D INTERSECTION: SUM DELAY .81 .88 1~5. ~:~ MVM~ EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT ** 0 119 THRU &~2 590 RIGHT 40 0 r-o=r 0 0 r-o-r = rIGHT-ON-RED VOLUMES DO NOT REFLECT GROWTH FACTOR. NORTHBOUND 4~ 0 125 0 SEE SECTION F. SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 0 I 'l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 198~ HCM: 818NALI ZED INTER~ECTIONB GEOMETRY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH 1 TR 1~ LT 11 LR 15 tRAffI~ AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS APPROACH: GRADE (%): PERCENT HV: PARKING: MANEUVERS (#/hr): BUSES STOPPING (#/HR>: PEAK HOUR FACTOR: CONFLICTING PEDESTRIANS (#/HR): PEDESTRIAN BUTTON: MIN. GREEN TIME: ARRIVAL TYPE: EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 Y Y N N 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 · ~1 .~1 .~1 .-:~ .91 Y 5.~ $ I GNAL T I M I N{~ AND 7 9 Y Y 5.9 .,. 14.~ N 14.~ INTERVAL EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND **~******** ************* ************* ************* ************* # ~+AR GREEN L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA 1 0 0 X X 2 0 0 X X X X 5 0 0 SIGNAL TYPE: CYCLE LENGTH: LOST TIME PER PHASE: LOST TIME PER CYCLE: ACTUATED 80 SECS. 5 SECS. b SECS. X X Y+AR = YELLOW + ALL RED GREEN = GREEN TIME RA = RIGHT TURN ARROW P = PEDESTRIAN PHASE I I I F) 198§ HeM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONs CORRECTION FACTORS LANE .'GROUP SATURATION FLOW RATE IDEAL ******************** ADJ, SAT. # OF f f f f f f f f SAT. FLOW LANES W HV G P BB A RT LT FLOW I EB NB I I I I I I I I I I I I TR 1800 1 1,1 .~. 1 ,88 i ,~ ,8~ I 1582 LT 1800 i ,97 ,~ I ,88 I ,~ i ,87 I1~1 LR 1800 I 1,1 .99 1 1 I ,~ ,8 ,8~ 1214 DEMAND VOLUME · GROUP LANE AD~, APPR, MVT, FLOW LANE FLOW # OF _UTILZN GROWTH FLOW MVMT, VOL, PHF RATE GROUP RATE LANES' FACTOR FACTOR RATE EB L 0 ,~1 0 EB T &52 ,91 71~ EB R 40 ,91 44 WB L 11~ ,~1 151 NB T 590 ,~1 &48 WB R 0 ,~1 0 NB L 49 NB T 0 NB R 125 ,91 54 ,~1 0 · 91 157 · ~1 0 · 91 0 · 91 0 SB L ~ SB T 0 SB R 0 TR 760 I 1 i 760 LT 779 I 1 1 77~ LR 1~1 I I I 1~1 I 198~ HeM= SI~NALI ZED INTeRSECTION~ I G) EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '1 .. I COMPUTED: EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP EFFECTIVE LANE CRIT. GREEN GROUP MVMT. TIME(SEC) EB Tr 49.99 WB LT * 5~.48 .74 NB LR * 14.5 .18 CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECG. I I I I I I I HCM: UNBIGNAI_I ZED INTERBECTIONS ~~~~~~~~~· , . · ~ , , POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION NAME: GTATE ROUT~ 25 @ GRIFFING ST ~NALYST: ,~IM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FB SC 22TSF :bATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/1~/88 MISC. INFO: FILENAME: GG2522PM FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph> MOVEMENT WESTBOUND LEFT 0 THRU 47~ RIGHT 42 EASTBOUND MINOR <SB) I00 54 657 0 0 I I I GEOMETRY # OF LANES % GRADE RT TURN WESTBOUND EASTBOUND I ;, ! 0 0 ~0' 90 F'-ACTORB MINOR (SB) 2 0 · 0 · VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MA~OR ROAD (mph): AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .85 m 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS m D) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE MINOR SB MAJOR EB LEVEL TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES LT 6.8 0 6.8 RT 5.7 0 5.7 LT 5.1 0 5.1 OI= !SERVICE RESULTS m m m MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE MINOR SB LT ONLY MINOR SB RT ONLY MAJOR EB LEFT TURN MOV ' T SHARED VOLUME CAPAC I TY CAPAC I TY 70 106 N.A. 120 &2& N.A. 12g 705 N. A. RESERVE CAPACITY LOS 506 A '~ 574 A': m m m m m m m m I I I I I I I 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALI ZED INTERSECTIONS POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION NAME: STATE ROUTE 25 ~ GRIFFING ST ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FB SC 22TSF :~ATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/19/88 MISC. INFO: FILENAME: GS2522SA A) INPL]T VOLUMES FtJLL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) *********************** MOVEMENT WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) LEFT 0 104 77 THRU 554 ~15 0 RIGHT 85 0 102 iB) I I I GEOMETRY WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB> # OF LANES I I 2 % GRADE 0 ~ 0 0 RT TURN 90 90 · 90 .. ADJUSTMENT FACTORS VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MA~OR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: (mph): 55 I I I I 1985 HeM: UNSIRNALI ZED INTERSECTIONS ~~~~~~~~~~... _ D) CRITICAL GAF' ADJUSTMEN-F TABLE I I I MINOR SB MAJOR EB TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES LT 6.8 0 6.8 RT 5.7 0 5.7 LT 5.1 0 5.1 O~ SERVICE RESULTS MOV°T MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY MINOR SB LT ONLY ~2 .~5 MINOR SB RT ONLY 122 552 MAJOR EB LEFT TURN ~4 617 SHARED RESERVE CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS N.A. 5 E N.A. 4.50 ~ .~. N.A. 4~5 A I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY I NAME: CR 48 ~ DEPOT LANE INTERSECTION ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FB SC 22 TSF IDATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 .MISC.INFO: FILEN~E: I I A) I I I I I I I INPUT VOLUMES FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 9 108 0 6 THRU 406 0 74 9 RIGHT 81 0 70 0 GEOMETRY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND # OF LANES 3 3 I 1 % GRADE 0 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 ~' 90 90 90 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 (mph): 55 I 1985 HCM=UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS I D) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE I I I I I I I I I I I I I MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB -. LT 6 0 6 ~ LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ~ · MOV ' T SHARED., RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR NB SHARED LANE 174 N.A. 378' 204 C MINOR SB SHARED LANE 18 N.A. 165 147 D MAJOR EB LEFTS 11 1000 N.A. 989 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 131 558 N.A. 427 A '1 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** FOLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 ~ DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FB SC 22 TSF DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: 3 I A) INPUT VOLUMES I FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) *********************** I MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND ******** *******6** 66*6666666 LEFT 9 108 THRU 0 320 I RIGHT 0 5 ,B) I I I I I I I I I GEOMETRY # OF LAMES % GRADE RT ANGLE NORTHBOUND *6666*66** 61 13 0 SOUTHBOUND **6******* 0 § EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 6***6***6* 6********* ********** *66*66666* 3 3 I 1 0 ,~' 0 0 0 90 90 90 90 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 (mph): 55 I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** ID) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE I I I I I I I I I I I I I MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB MAJOR WB TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* *****6** *6**** LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 HT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 6 LT 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE *********************** MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB MAJOR WB SHARED LANE SHARED LANE LEFTS LEFTS 0 6 0 6 } RESUI~TS '~ MOV'T SHARED RESERVE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS 90 N.A. 309 " 219 C 24 N.A. 410 386 B 11 692 N.A. 681 A 131 1000 N.A. 869 A I I I I 1985 HCM=UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 ~ DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FE SC 22TSF DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: 2 A ) INPUT VOLUMES I I I I I I I I I I I I '1 i FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vDh) MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 15 109 0 7 THRU 576 0 110 13 RIGHT 109 0 121 0 GEOMETRy EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOU~ ~ OF LA~ES 3 ,., 3 I 1 % GRADE 0 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 90 ADJUSTMENT VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .97 (mph): 55 I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ID ) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE I MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB MAJOR WB LEVEL TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 6 0 6 LT 6 0 6 OF SERVICE RESULTS MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE *********************** MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB MAJOR WB SHARED LANE SHARED LANE LEFTS LEFTS MOV'T SHARED. RESERVE voLUME CAPACITY CAPAciTY CAPACITY LOS 262 N.A. 278 ' 16 E 23 N.A. 65 42 E 17 1000 N.A. 983 A 124 419 N.A. 295 C I I I I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *********************************** POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY INTERSECTION N~ME: CR 48 $ DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FB SC 22 TSF D~TE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILEN~/~E: 4 A) INPUT VOLUMES I FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) I MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 15 109 I THRU 0 348 RIGHT 0 5 B) I I I I I I I GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 17 20 0 11 # OF LANES % GRADE RT ANGLE EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 3 3 i 1 0 ~" 0 0 0 90 90 90 90 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RULING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mDb): AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .97 I 1985 HCM:UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ID) CRITICAL GAP ADJUSTMENT TABLE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i MINOR NB MINOR SB MAJOR EB TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 8.5 0 8.5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6.5 0 6.5 LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 LEVET. OF SE/~VICE RESULTS MOV'T SHARED. RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS *********************** 6**flflfl *.6.66flfl 6**66*6* MINOR NB SHARED LANE 124 N.A. 274 ' 150 D MINOR SB SHARED LANE 35 N.A. 412 377 B MAJOR EB LEFTS 17 668 N.A. 651 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 124 1000 N.A. 876 A I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX G CORRESPONDENCE I 1 I I I I GREENMAN i, PEDEFIBEN, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS April 7, 1989 Suffolk County Dept. of Parks Recreation and Conservation P.O. Box 144 Montauk Highway West Sayville, NY 11796 Attention: Commissioner I I I I I Re: Hamlet e Cutchogue DEIS Senior Citizens Residence School House Lane, Cutchogue GPI Job No. 87398 Dear Sir: Enclosed please find a location map and preliminary map of a proposed senior citizen residence in Cutchogue. We are currently preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project. The proposed development will include 160 units in 40 buildings (4 units per building) on a 46.16 acre site. The project is expected to attract a'population of 320. Facilities are currently planned to serve the expected residents. I I I It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impact upon area County recreation facilities; indicate type and location of such facilities. Also, if you should feel there are other comments or information of importance, please do not hesitate to include them. Your responses to contact me cooperation. will be included in the DEIS. Please feel free if you have any questions. Thank you for your I I I I RP:jw Enclosure Sincerely, GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, Robert Pedneault Project Engineer INC. 3c~5 WEBT MAIN !3TREET, BABYLON. NY 1170~:) [516] 587-501=t0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GREENMAN ~' I:IECIERBEN, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS April 7, 1989 Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Division of Cultural and Historic Services P.O. Box 144 Montauk Highway West Sayville, New York 11796 Attention: Director of Historic Services Re: Hamlet ~ Cutchogue DEIS Senior Citizens Residence School House Lane, Cutchogue GPI File No. 87398 Dear Sir: Enclosed please find a location map and preliminary map of a proposed senior citizen residence in Cutchogue. We are currently preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project. Th~ proposed development will include 160 units in 40 buildings on a 46.16 acre site. As estimated 29 acres will remain natural or vegetated. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impact upon existing plans for the area. Please indicate how the project affects or is affected by such plans. Also, if there are any other comments or information you feel are of importance, please do not hesitate to include them. Your responses will be included in the DHIS. if you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC. Robert Pedneault Project Engineer RP:jw Enclos ~,,~_ WEST MAIN STREET, BABYLON, NY 11702 [518] 5B7-SOBO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GI:IEENMAN · pErlERBEN~ INC. (2:ONSULTING ESNGINIEEEI::IS April 7, 1989 Suffolk County Pines Barrens Review Commission H. Lee Dennison Building 12th Floor Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Attention: Commissioner Re: Hamlet · Cutchogue DEIS Senior Citizens Residence School House Lane, Cutchogue GPI File No. 87398 Dear Sir: Enclosed please find a location map and preliminary map of a proposed senior citizen residence in Cutchogue. We are currently preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project. T~e proposed development will include 160 units in 40 buildings on a 46.16 acre site. As estimated 29 acres will remain natural or vegetated. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impact upon existing plans for the area. Please indicate how the project affects or is affected by such plans. Also, if there are any other comments or information you feel are of importance, please do not hesitate to include them. Your responses will be included in the DEIS. questions, please contact me. If you have any Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC. Robert Pedneault Project Engineer WEST MAIN STI=:IEET. BABYLON, NY 11702 [~16] SST-~OBO I COUNTY O~F SUFFOLK I I PATRICK (~. HAI.~IN I Richard Hanley Vice ~hairman Ira P. Costell Chairman I I I April 18, 1989 RE: Hamlet @ Cutchogue DEIS - Senior Citizens Residence I I I Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Consulting Engineers 325 West Main Street Babylon, New York 11702 Att.: Robert Pedneault, Dear Mr. Pedneault: Project Eng. I I Pursuant to Article 34 of the Suffolk County Charter and local rules written as such, the above referral will not be reviewed by this Commission for the reason below: o Subject property is not located in the Pine Barrens Zone I I I I I SDW:jaw Thank y6u for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Susan D. Windesheim Pine Barrens Administator I I (516) 360-4099 GREENMAN · PEOEF:IBEN, INC. CONSI Ii_TING ENi~INEERS April 7, 1989 I I Long Island Regional Planning Board H. Lee Dennison Building 12th Floor Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 I I I I I I I Attention: Commissioner Re: Hamlet · Cutchogue DEIS Senior Citizens Residence School House Lane, Cutchogue GPI File No. 87398 Dear Sir: Enclosed please find a location map and preliminary map of a proposed senior citizen residence in Cutchogue. We are currently preparing a Draft Environmental, Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project. The proposed development will include 160 units in 40 Buildings on,a 46.16 acre site. As estimated 29 acres will remain naturaI or vegetated. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impact upon existing plans for the area. Please indicate how the project affects or is affected by such plans. Also, if there are any other comments or information you feel are of importance, please do not hesitate to include them. I I Your responses will be included in the DEIS. questions, please contact me. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, If you have any GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC. I I I Robert Pedneault Project Engineer RP:jw Enclosure GREENMAN · pEr'~EI:ISEN, INC. CONSULTING ~pril 7, ~989 Suffolk County Planning Department H. Lee Dennison Building 12th Floor Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Attention: Commissioner Re: Hamlet · Cutchogue DEIS Senior Citizens Residence School House Lane, Cutchogue GPI File No. 87398 Dear Sir: Enclosed please find a location map and Preliminary map of a proposed senior citizen residence in Cutchogue. We are currently preparing a Draft Environmental' Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project. The proposed development will include 160 units in 40 buildings on'a 46.16 acre site. As estimated 29 acres will remain natural or vegetated. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impact upon existing plans for the area. Please indicate how the project affects or is affected by such plans. Also, if there are any other comments or information you feel are of importance, please do not hesitate to include them. Your responses will be included in the DEIS. questions; please contact me. If you have any Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC. Robert Pedneault · Project Engineer ~P:jw Enclosure $2~ WEST K~AIN STREET, BABYLON. NY 11702 GREENMAN · FIErlERBEN, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS April 7, 1989 I I I I I I I I I New York State Dept .Environmental Conservation Significant Habitat Unit Wildlife Resources Center Delmar, New York 12054-9767 Attention: Director Re: Hamlet · Cutchogue DEIS Senior Citizens Residence School House Lane, Cutchogue GPI File No. 87398 Dear Sir: Enclosed please find a location map and preliminary map of a proposed senior citizen residence in Cutchogue. We are currently preparing a Draft Environmental~ Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project. The proposed development will include 160 units in 40 buildings on.a 46.16 acre site. As estimated 29 acres will remain natural or vegetated. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impact upon existing plans for the area. Please indicate how the project affects or is affected by such plans. Also, if there are any other comments or information you feel are of importance, please do not hesitate to include them. I I I I I I Your responses will be included in the DEIS. If you have any questions7 please contact me. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Robert ?edneault Project Engineer RP:jw EnclDsure I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40--SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794 (516) 751-7900 (ext. 248) April 24, 1989 Thoma~ C. Jo[ting Commissioner Mr. Joseph Colucci GPI, Inc. 325 West Main Street Babylon, New York 11702 RE: Hamlet @ Cutchogue Dear Mr. Colucci: We have reviewed the Significant Habitat Program and the Natural Heritage Program files with respect to your request of February 21, 1989 regarding the above referenced action. We did not identify any potential impacts on endangered, threatened, or special concern wildlife species, rare plant, animal or natural community occurrences, or other significant habitats. ~ The absence of data does not necessarily 'mean th~Jt rare or endangered elements, natural communities or ot~er significant habitats do not exist on or adjacent to the prppose~ site, ~ut rather that our files currently do not contair~any ~formatlon which indicates the presence of these. Our files ar~ continually growing as new habitats and occurrences of rare species and communities are discovered. In most cases, site-specific or comprehensive surveys for plant and animal occurrences have not been conducted. For these reasons, we cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of species, habitats or communities. This information should not be substituted for on-site surveys that may be required for environmental assessment. If this proposed project is still active one year from now we recommend that you contact us again so that we can update this response. If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address and telephone number. Sincerely, Senior Wildlife Biologist MSS:rr I I I I I I I I I]REENMAN ' PEDEREEN. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS April 7, 1989 Suffolk County Police Department Planning and Research Section Yaphank Avenue Yaphank, NY 11980 Attention: Lieutenant Edmund Erickson Commanding Officer Re: Hamlet · Cutchogue DEIS Senior Citizens Residence School House Lane, Cutchogue GPI Job No. 87398 Dear Lieutenant Erickson: I I I I I I I I I I I Enclosed please find a location map and preliminary map of a proposed senior citizen residence in Cutchogue. We are currently preparing a ,Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project. The proposed development will include 160 units in 40 buildings (4 unit per building) on a 46.16 acre site. The project is expected to attract a population of 320. In-house burglar alarms and street-lighting systems are proposed. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impact on your department. Please confirm that the project will be serviced by the Department and identify which precinct will provide patrols. Also, please include any comments or information that you feel are of importance. Your response will be included in the DEIS. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, NMAN-PEDE~ INC. Robert Pedneault Project Engineer RP:jw Enclosure :33::3:3 WE~T MAIN :3TREET, BABYLON. NY 11?DIE [51:3] 587.-50B0 I COUNTY OF SUFFOLK , I PATRICK G. HALPIN COUNTY EXECUTIVE I POLICE DEPARTMENT DANIEL P. GUIDO POLICE COMMISSIONER I I I Mr. Robert Pedneault Greenman Pedersen, Inc. 325 West Main Street Babylon, New York 11702 April 14, 1989 I I I I I I Dear Mr. Pedneault: I am returning your letter of April 7 in which you request information for a draft environmental impact statement for a senior citizen's residence in the hamlet of Cutchogue. The hamlet of Cutchogue is in the Town of Southold and police services are provided by the Town of Southold Police Department. For further information you should contact Police Chief Harold Winters, $outhold Town Police Headquarters, Main Road, Peconic, New York 11958. Yours truly, Edmund M. Eric~ant Commanding Officer Planning and Research Bureau i EME:lg Enclosure I I YAPHANK AVENUE, YAPHANK, NEW YORK 11980 - (516)345-6000 I]I:IEENMAN · pErlEI:II~EN~ INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS April 7, 1989 Long Island State Park and Recreation Commission Belmont Lake State Park P.O. Box 247 Eabylon, NY 11702 Attention: Regional Director Re: Hamlet · Cutchogue DEIS Senior Citizens Residence School House Lane, Cutchogue GPI Job No. 87398 Dear Sir: Enclosed please find a, location map and preliminary map of a proposed senior citizens residence in Cutchogue. We are currently preparing a Draft Environmental impact Statement (DEIS) for this project. The proposed development will include 160 units in 40 buildings (4 units per building) on a 46.16 acres site. On-site recreation facilities are planned to serve the expected population of 320 and guests. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impact upon nearby state recreation facilities. Also, if there are any additional comments or information that you feel are important, please do not hesitate to include them. Your responses will be questions, please feel cooperation. included in the DEIS. If you have any free to contact me. Thank you for your sincerely, Project Engineer RP:jw Enclosure WEST MAIN STREET. BABYLON, NY 11'~'OB [~=;1S] ~S7-~5OSO I I I'~FIEENMAN · PEDEFIEEN~ INC. April 7, 1989 I I LILCO/Eastern Suffolk Division Residential Services New Business Department 600 Doctor's Path, Road %2 Riverhead, NY 11901 I I I I I I I Attention: Division Manager Re: Hamlet · Cutchogue DEIS Senior Citizens Residence School House Lane, Cutchogue GPI Job No. 87398 Dear Sir: Enclosed please find a location map and preliminary map of a proposed senior citizens residence in Cutchogue. We are currently preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project. The proposed development will include 160 units in 40 buildings (4 units per building) on a 46.16 acre site. As heat pumps are, expected for heating and cooling, estimated total annual electric demand is 1800 mwh. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impact upon LILCO. Please confirm that the site will be services by LILCO and the location of the nearest service. Also, if there are any comments or information that you feel are of importance, please feel free to include them. I I I I I I Your response will be included in the DEIS. If you have any questions~ please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, /~ENMAN-PEDF~N, INC. Project Engineer RP:jw Inclosure ;~25WEST MAIN STREET, BABYLON. NY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMP, ZU~Y Direct Dial Number: (516)548-7090 May 5, 1989 Greenman & Pedersen 325 W. Main Street Babylon, NY 11702 Attn: Mr. Robert Pedneault Re: Hamlet @ Cutchogue DEIS Senior Citizens Residence School House Lane, Cutchogue Gentlemen: In response to your letter dated April 7, 1989, LILCO provides the following: * Three phase electric facilities capable of providing service to this project, presently exists on School House Lane and Griffing Ave. We do not anticipate any problems providing electric service for your project at this time. A gas moratorium presently exists eastof the Town of Brookhaven line. In certain areas there exists spot availa- bility. If you desire natural gas service, please contact Mr. Joseph Rosato of our Market Services Department at 582-2900, making a formal application request. Our gas and electric facilities will be extended and service provided in accordance with our filed tariffs and schedules, PSC-4 Gas/PSC-7 Electricity, in effect at the time service is required. In order for us to adequately design our gas and electric distribution facilities to provide service, it is urgent a letter be sent to LILCO incorporating the following: a) Main service equipment size for each building b) Voltage characteristics desired (120/208Y) (277/480Y) (120/240D) c) Service entrance locations (gas and electric) d) Total connected load, broken down into lighting, heating, air conditioning, processing equipment, etc. e) Site plan indicating all subsurface facilities(e.g, water, sewer, etc) f) Construction schedule with anticipated service requirement dates for each building g) Copy of filed map for plotting of utility easements I FC-8689.3-SS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Greenman & Pedersen Page 2 May 5, 1989 Upon receipt of the above requested information, we will be happy to forward specific proposals to provide service and the applicable charges involved, if any. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, Paul J. Walsh Commercial & Industrial Services New Business Department PJW/vn I I I I I GI::IEENNIAN · I~EOERSEN, INC. CONSUL.TING ENGINEERS April 7, 1989 Cutchogue Volunteer Fire Department New Suffolk Lane Box 930 Cutchogue, New York 11935 Attention: Chief Frances McCaffery Re: Hamlet · Cutchogue DEIS Senior Citizens Residence School House Lane, Cutchogue GPI File No. 87398 I I I I I I Dear Chief McCaffery: Enclosed please find a location map and preliminary map of a proposed senior citizens residence in Cutchogue. We are currently preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project, The proposed site will include 160 units in 40 building (4 units per building) on a 46.16 acre site. This development is expected to attract 320 persons. In-house and smoke alarms and an on-site hydrant are planned. The structures are planned to be built utilizing flame retardant materials. It is the intent of this let%er to solicit your input regarding this project and its impact on your department. Please confirm that the site will be serviced by your department. Also, please indicate an estimated response time for AM and PM from the time of county activation to first due apparatus arrival. Also, if there are additional comments and information that you feel are of importance, please do not hesitate to include them. I I I I I I Your responses will be included in this DEIS. If you have any questions~ please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Robert Pedneault Project Engineer RP:jw Enclosure I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (~I:IEmNI¥1AN · I:~mr":I:IAEN~ INC. April 10, 1989 Central Suffolk Hospital 1300 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 Attn: President Re: Hospital Services and Occupancies for the Hamlet at Cutchogue Senior Citizens Center Environmental Impact Statement GPI Job No. 87398.00 Dear Sir: We are currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed 160 unit Senior Citizens Residence in Cutch0gue. The development is within a r~asonable distance to your facility and will be housing approximately 320 persons. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impact on the hospital. Of particular interest is a brief list of the services, the number of beds, and the current and projected occupancy rates. Also, if there are any additional comments or information that you feel are of importance, please feel free to include them. Your responses will be included in the Statement. any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. for your cooperation. If you have Thank you Sincerely, GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC. RP:dd Robert Pedneault Project Engineer :325 WEST MAIN STREET, BABYLON, NY 1170B [SIB] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I:~FIEENMAN * PEDEFleEN~ INC. CON.U/TING E~NGINP:F:~I~ April 10, 1989 Eastern b.I. Hospital Association 201 Manor Place Greenport, New York 11944 Attn: President Re: Hospital Services and Occupancies for the Hamlet and Cutchogue Senior Citizens Residence Environmental Impact Statement GPI Job No. 87398.00 Dear Sir: We are currently preparin~ an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed 160 unit Senior Citizens Residence in Cutchogue. The development is within a reasonable distance to your facility and will be housing approximately 320 persons. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impact on the hospital. Of particular interest is a brief list of the services, the number of beds, and the current and projected occupancy rates. Also, if there are any additional comments or information that you feel are of importance, please feel free to include them. Your responses will be included in the Statement. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC. RP:dd Robert Pedneault Project Engineer WEST MAIN STREET. BABYLON. NY 11701~ ISIS] 5B7--501~0 I? I I I I I I New York State Depa~ment of Environmental Conservation Information Services Wildlife Resources Center · Delmar, New York 12054 April 28, 1989 Robert Pedneault Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. 325 West Main Street Babylon, New York 11702 Dear Mr. Pedneault: We have reviewed the Significant Habitat Program and the Natural Heritage Program files with respect to the proposed Hamlet at Cutchogue residential development in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, N.Y. "l'home~ C. Jot, ling C~mmJ~loner I I I I I I I Enclosed is a computer printout which shows four rare plants that historically were found in the vicinity of the project. We recommend conducting a search to determine presence or absence of these species on the site if suitable habitat still exists. The State protection category is pending final promulgation of regulations. Our files are continuall~ growing as new habitats and occurrences of rare species and comunities are discovered. In most cases, site-specific or comprehensive surveys for plant and en{m~l occurrences have not bean conducted. For these reasons, we can only provide dat&which have been assembled from our files. We cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of species, habitats or natural co~mmnities. This information should not be substituted for on-site surveys that may be re- quired for environmental assessment. This response applies only to known occurrences of rare anim=ts, plants end natural comities and/or significant wildlife habitats. You should contact our regional offices(s), Division of Regulatory Affairs, at the .address(es) enclosed for info~tion regarding any regulated areas or permits that may be required (e.g., regulated wetlands) under State law. If this project is still active one year from now we recommend that you contact us again so that we may update this response. I I I I I Enc. cc: If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us. Senior Wildlife Biologist Significant Habitat Unit Reg. 2 New York Natural Heritage Program is supported in part by ~he Nature Conservancy I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY DOCTORS PATH RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 Direct Dial Number: 548-7090 April 27, 1989 Greenman-Pedersen Inc. 325 W. Main Street Babylon, NY 11702 Attention: Robert Pedneault Re: Hamlet @ Cutchogue DEIS LILCO Ref. #94795-940 Gentlemen: In response to your inquiry dated April 7, 1989, three phase, 13.2 kV overhead electric facilities capable of providing service to this project presently exist along the south side of Griffing Avenue. At this time, we do not anticipate any problem providing electric service to this project from these existing facilities. We shall be pleased to provide electric service in accordance with our filed tariff and schedule in effect at the time service is required. We are enclosing an application for electric service for non-residential customers to be completed by you for each building under construction and returned to this office. Upon receipt of these application forms, we shall prepare and forward to you our plans and costs, if any, applicable to this installation. As soon as a construction schedule is available, kindly forward a written notification to this office, in order to meet your present electric service date. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, Paul J. Walsh Commercial & Industrial Services New Business Department PJW/vn Enc. I FC-8689.3-S5 NewY~rk ~tite Ofl~e of ~ ~eereatk)a ami Witork= Prelervitk)n ~ Long ~and Regkm- Beknor~ Lake Stafle Par~ R(~ Box 247, Babyfl~ NY 11702-0247 ~ Phone: (516) 669 -1000 State Park Police: (516) 669-2500 Orin Lehman, Commlssioner · Royd Unton, NEW YORK STATE Ro~lld E Fo~y, Reg~n~ D~c~r Commisaion (31eJn'nan April 28, 1989 Mr. Robert Pedneault Project Engineer Greenman-P .edersen, Inc. 325 Wast Main Street Babylon, NY 11702 Dear Mr. Pedneault: Re: Hamlet @ Cutchogue DEIS Senior Citizens Residence ~hool House Lane, Cutchogue GPI Job No. 87398 . We have received your corre, spo~dence regarding the above project. It does not appear that the pro3ect would have a direct impact on any of our facilities. Riel'~rd Co Preneh Sr. Administrative Assistant I I I I I I R~:wee An Equal Opportun~y Employer I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX H ARCHEOLOGICAL STUDY CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT (DOCUMENTARY SEARCH AND FIELD INSPECTION ) THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE SOUTHOLD TOWNSHIP SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK ! ! ROBERT J. KALIN JULY 1989 ! ! ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. BOX 1522. ROCKY POINT, NEW YORK 11778 17 ROSEVILLE AVE. ST. JANES, NEW YORK 11870 TEL: 516-744-B047 PAX 516-744-6617 ~ ". , Sacre,.d-~.eart.~,.,,.~' .:,~ · ,' ,% ' ..... L ,7 ~ ;--. , '..'. '~' ',, ~' ~ ".., t 13 E ~Y ~'.,."-.. ..: ', '::, '"~ · : -'.. t',. ', : · ~., ... ~ .. /-~ ,~.,~-',~,',,,CC'~..,, x. _ ...""':.'>,.,.,.,.,.,.,.~t~./.- _ ......~':,,,. ~ /~ ~ :,/.,)/?.t..~ ..' ~ ' ; ,, '-,,~'~.--, \ ,, . -<... ::¢ ' · .. \ ..... \t '~ ~". '-..., '.'...~,,,,,a,,~,.~,~ ~,. '. /' o,~o ', ."., \'"' I~ l '~- ~~,O~:, .~,-.~//' ~< '/ o ',~.-~,.':'.- · ' ~,:" ,~,!\ "~..~ ~~~~"~.b'Y3 .- c _ { ~.. .... .~..,.~ i X~~'..'.~'~ %. il.:-~- ~ 0'' "" ~'" ' "'" ' "' ' , .... ,, : .... .....~.~.~..>__~.~~ ~ .,----...~/ .\ ,, .~,.~, . I , ;"%:,,xx '. c~ ..q'' "'~:/::' ~: - / -----, .~,~/-- . ~_ ' ¥~.".. ',\· .:-.' '"' "-' · o o~i ~-'"~- · ,.-' ,~'-, -~,-, ~,~ ..J~.'" _'~- .......... ~ . "" "/ 1 "X ..')x;' 'N, '-' ~~_o : :7 -: ~-'-~-' ... [ _. ' ~:: .1 I !. ,, . ,~ ~ I' "i;~-,. o !(. ~' --"'-."" L--~'~:" . ~ ~_ p 2o"y~~-.' ~,,,~_~ ':':=5 -- '~l ~~.':: -L" -: ~J .-. ,: - - _ m ;i~. · - .._, / .' :,: · , , · ,, ..' - !,. -- '~.~ , m I ~'.. '.:... '41000, t ~' ' .,,, -. .'' :,,. -'.'~~'.' ,,,? . " : -:.--=.~ '""". I 72°30' , ,~,.. ~ ~11 , 2 420 000 FEET m c,~ Napped, edited, arid publlsned by the Geological~? Control by,USC&gS '' Topography from aerial ~hotogra~hs by Kelsh ri_lo?ret ,nd I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THB HAMLBT AT CUTCHO~UR Southold, New York ABSTRACT The Hamlet at Cutchogue is located north of Schoolhouse Lane in ~he Village of Cutchogue. The property is of generally low relief with an elongate depression and a small enclosed basin that at times holds standing water. The project area is located within a district of intensive prehistoric aboriginal habitation. The National Register of Historic Places site at Port Corchaug, the Baxter Site and the Solecki Site are located within a short distance of the subject parcel. The subject parcel is well within the near- hinterlands of these well documented sites. It is in this surrounding area where special purpose camps and satellite sites are likely to be found. A subsurface testing program ~ should be initiated to evaluate the potential for prehistoric evidence on the parcel. In regard to historic sites, a number of these, including the National Register of Historic Places site known as the Old House of Cutchogue (1660). the Old Place (1680), the Wickham house (1700), and others are located within six- tenths of a mile of the center of the parcel. In addition, the pre-1800 Hargrave house and several mid-19th century vernacular farm houses, including the SPLIA cited and underscored Aldrich house (pre 1873) are located immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. Consequently, The Hamlet at Cutchogue site has potential for recovery of historic evidence related to early settlement and past farming activities. Further study in the form of subsurface testing should be conducted to evaluate the potential of this proposal for impact ~o both prehistoric and historic cultural evidence. ASI 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THg HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE Southold, New York Figure 1. Location map. ASI 2 cUTC~OGUe I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THB HAMLBT AT CUTCHOGUg Southold, New York EXRCUTIVE SUMMARY The Hamlet at Cutchogue is a 46.2 acre proposed development site located north of Schoolhouse Lane in the Village of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. '" An elongate depression trends across the central portion of the project. A small enclosed basin is located in the southwestern portion of the gully system which may have held standing'water in the past. Several farm roads are evident within the property. The~ probably served as access roads durinR the period that the parcel was cultivated. Some are presently overgrown with brush. The project area is located within a district of intensive prehistoric aboriginal habitation. The National Regipter of Historic Places site at Fort Gorchaug as well as several other well documented prehistoric sites are located within a short distance of the subject parcel. The proposed project is well within the foraging zones of these sites, an area where special purpose camps and satellite sites are likely to be found. In'reference to historic places, a number of these, including the National Register of Historic Places site known as the 01d House of Cutchogue (1649-1660), the Old Place (1680), the Wickham house (c 1700) and others are located within a fraction of a mile of the parcel. In addition, the pre 1800 Hargrave house and several mid-19th century vernacular farm houses are found immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. One of these, the Aldrich-Kurczewski farm is recorded in the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities as an exceptional and very well preserved example of the type. The Hamlet at Cutchogue site has potential for recovery of both prehistoric and historic cultural evidence. Further research and study in the form of subsurface testing and analysis should be conducted to evaluate the potential impact of the project on both prehistoric and historic cultural evidence. ASI 3 i I I I I I I I t I I I I I I ! I I THE HAMLBT AT CUTCHOGU~ Southold, New York CONTHNTS SUBJECT PAGE MAP OF SUBJECT AREA (P50% enlargement U.S. G. S. Southold Quad. 1956) i ABSTRACT' 1 LOCATION MAP 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 PROJECT INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 7 ALTERATIONS TO THE PROPERTY 9 DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH 10 HISTORICAL NOTES ON STUDY AREA 14 VISUAL INSPECTION 19 SUMMARY 21 SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 23 RECOMMENDATIONS 23 REFERENCES 24 MAP REFERENCES 27 MAPS FIGURES 31 ADDENDUM 45 ASI 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THg HAMLgT AT CUTCHOGUR Southold, New York PROJECT INPORNATION The Hamlet at Cutchogue is a proposed development site, .consisting of 18.7 hectares (46.2 acres) and located north of Schoolhouse Lane in the Village of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The plan calls for the construction of 160 housing units in 40 multiple unit structures, a clubhouse, recreation area, and access roads. A an approximately 1.4 acre buffer area is planned for the northwestern corner. ASI 5 I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 2. Th~ Hamlet at Cutchogue proposed site ASI 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE $outhold, New York ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Topography The Hamlet at Cutchogue is in an area of generally little relief. Elevations range from less than 6 meters (20 feet) to more than ll meters (36 feet) over the subject parcel. Topographically the parcel is dominated by a (now) dry'portion of the distal drainage system of West Creek. An elongate depression trending N 400 W cuts across the central portion of the project area for a distance of about 300 to 500 meters. Slopes in the vicinity of this feature range from 8-10 % (percent grade). To the east the parcel rises to slightly higher ground along Depot Lane, the site of several farms and residences, and to the west, approximating the position of the western property boundary, is the Iow divide between Downs Creek Drainage and West Creek. A small enclosed basin of less than six meters (20 feet) elevation and about 15 meters in diameter is located in the southwestern portion of the parcel. This may have held standing water at times of high-stand of the water table. Local informants report that at times of heavy rain a pond forms in the depression. In 1954 its immediate surrounding$~ were the only wooded portion on the parcel. Geology The geological history of the subject parcel is closely related to the Wisconsin glaciation of the Southold area. During the Ronkonkoma advance of the Wisconsin ice sheet the subject area was covered by a massive ice sheet. During the warming period between that advance and the advance of the Harbor Hill ice sheet, the Cutchogue area was mantled by extensive outwash deposits of water borne sand and gravel (See also Fuller 1914). Meltwaters cut and filled these deposits into a series of channels that later were inundated by rising sea water during the post glacial period. Those that int~'r~ected the shore line were later modified by 'long shore currents, drifting sand, tidal flow , etc. to form present day Little Creek, East Creek, Wickham Greek, West Creek, a~nd Downs Creek. The drainage of West Creek, part of the earlier glacial channel, extends north across Main Street into the subject parcel. Soils The soils of the parcel are a mosaic-like pattern of Riverhead, Plymouth and Haven soils. The Plymouth and Riverhead components are associated within the more steeply sloping portions of the drainage gully of West Creek, while the areas of low relief are mantled in Haven soil. About 38% of the project area is Riverhead B and Plymouth C soils while ASI 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TB~ HAMLHT AT CUTCHOGU~ $outhold, New York Soil Hap Soil patterns an vicinity of the subject parcel..After Warner, et. al. 1975. (Ha A = Haven A soils, P1C =Plymouth C soils, Rd B = Riverhead B soils.) ASI 7A ~HB HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUB $outhold, New York the remaining 62 percent of the parcel is Haven A soil. The Haven soils are well drained medium textured soils, formed in a loamy or silty mantle over stratified sand and gravel. These are some of the most productive soils in the county and their presence helps to explain the historical attraction of early settlers to the district (See Warner et. al. 1975: 71. Sheet 48). The Haven series soils are suitable for many commonly grown crops. Uncultivated areas of this soil type ~enerate a diverse natural vegetation. Prehistoric inhabitants may have been attracted to the area, in part, as a consequence of the soil productivity. Riverhead soils are moderatel.y coarse textured, have moderate available moisture and low natural fertility. Drainage The project area is mostly well drained. However, there is a closed basin in the southwest corner of the parcel that is poorly drained. Vegetation The vegetation of the subject parcel, at the time of the field inspection (July ~989), was determined to consist of two botanical communities: former farm field and post agricultural forest. About 10% of the parcel is wooded and the rest (90%) is fallow or abandoned farm field and crop land. The vegetation of the open fields consists of various grasses and forbs common to this area. The wooded zone occupies the gully area and consists of various species common in a post-agricultural woodland. A partial list of species follows. Sylva Black Cherry Red Mapla'.,~. Field Cedar Shrub or Brush Bayberry Staghorn Sumac Multiflora Rose Vines Poison Ivy Dew Berry Virginia Creeper Forbs St. Johnswort Golden Rod ASI 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THg HAHL~T AT CUTCHOGU~ Southold, New York Indian'Hemp Milk Weed Little Bluestem Grass Timothy Poxtail '" Forest Zone The forest zone of the subject parcel is: Oak-Pine Forest (Kuchler 1970). Northeastern Man-made Features Several farm roads are evident within the property. They probably served as access roads during the period that the parcel was cultivated.' Some have been unused for several years and are presently overgrown with brush. Alterations Aside from clearing and farming the land and providing access roads to the fields for agricultural purposes, few significant alterations were observed. Previous Surveys None are known to have been conducted. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THB HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUR $outhold, New York DOCUHENTARY RESEARCH Site Piles and Known Early Historic Sites Prehistoric Gonzales and Rutch (1979) list this area as archaeologically sensitive as a result of its location in a zone o~ "intensive aboriginal habitation" (Gonzales and Rutch 1979: 13). Parker records a number of sites within this general area. The most well known is the fortified village site, sometimes known as Port Corchaug (National Register of Historic Places), located on the east side of Fort Neck, and a village site near the shore, east of Cutchogue (Parker 1920: 698). These sites are respectively about 2.2 km (1.4 miles) and 2.8 km (1.8 miles) from the center of tha project site. The Baxter Site, a prehistoric residence site, (discovered by Ralph Solecki in 1938) is located about 2 km (1.25 miles) south-southwest of the subject parcel (See Ritchie 1965:166). The Solecki Site, a burial or cemetery site of the Orient Culture, was discovered by Ralph Solecki in 1960 east of Downs C~reek near the shore, .not far from Kimogener Point, about 2.2 km (1.4 miles) south of the project area (See Ritchie 1965:174). Other well known sites occur along the'west shore of Mud Creek and the east side of Cutchogue Harbor less than 3 km (1.9 miles) southeast of the project site. Historic An early windmill and the Cutchogue Meeting House were located along Main Street just 0.7 km ( 4/10 of a mile) southeas~.,9~ the project site (See Moore 1797 map). The Old House (Bfidd and Horton 1649-1660), The Old Place (Wells 1680). the Wickham House (c 1700), Wines-Horton-Slater House (c 1750) and the site of the Wells home (1753) are all located within 1 km (6/10 of a mile) of the center of the subject parcel (See Map of Historic Sites of Southamoton Tow~ Prior To 1815. Southold Bicentennial Committee). A pre 1800 frame structure built on a rock foundation, and barn dating to about'1860 (See SPLIA file Cu 105), presently owned by Alexander Hargrave is located on immediately adjacent property northwest of the subject parcel. The Aldrich- Kurczewski house, constructed prior to the last quarter of the 19th century (the earliest known owner was George Aldrich) is located immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities (SPLIA) files indicate it is..."an exceptional example of the mid-19th century farm. The farmhouse and all ASI 10 I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUB $outhold, New York barns and out buildings appear to be in an almost unaltered state." (See SPLIA Files Southold, Cu 93: 18, also See Addendum). The Conklin-Gorman house is adjacent to the subject parcel on the north. It was the second Post Office in Cutchogue and appears on the Chase 1858 and Beers 1873 maps (See SPLIA file in Addendum). The P. M. Mc earthy house, another mid 19th century farm house continues to stand to the northwest of the subject parcel, along the east side of-~lvahs Lane, within i km of the Hamlet at Cutchogue site (See SPLIA Cu 88 and Cu 89). A number of other houses listed in the SPLIA files are within a short distance of the project (See SPL~A Map and Insert in Addendum). HAP REPBRENCES 1. !h__e. ~f~l~sh Pilot, Fourth Book, 1689, by John Thornton. This relatively crude map of the area does depict the major features of the north fork, such as: Robins Island, Hog Neck, Little Hog Neck (not named), and with some imagination, Broadwater Cove, East Creek, Wickhams Creek and West Creek. Cutchogue is not indicated. See Map Pigure 1. 2. The New England Co~sting Pilot. 1734, Southack. This map indicates the presence of Southold Village and (by house symbols) the location of East Cutchogue to the east of Little Hog Neck, near Hog Neck Bay. Purther residential symbols occur on the north shore facing the Sound. See Map Figure 2. 3. The William Fadden Map of 1779 is not as accurate as the Southack map and tends to represent the coastline rather fancifully. Its function was apparently not for coastal piloting, but probably for general informational or land advertisement use. It does represent interior features such am road~'a,~d village centers in somewhat more detail than the earlier maps which emphasized maritime travel. Southold is noted, as is Hog Neck. Cutchogue, a thriving community by this date, is not noted on the map. See Map Figure 3. 4. Plan of Lonz Island in New York Government, North America. The scale is 6 miles to an inch. British Map of' Long Island, Revolutionary War Period. No Date. No Author noted. On file at SUNY, Stony Brook Historic Map Collection. This map was carefully drawn and the outline of the Island and the main drainage systems are close to modern representations. If the increments figured along the length of the map are in inches, as one suspects, then the map is quite accurate for cartography of its time. It represents the distance from Old Man's (Mount Sinai) to Horn Tavern as about 13 miles, while the actual distance, using contemporary ASI 11 I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE HAMLBT AT CUTCHOGUB Southold, New York topographic maps, is closer to l0 miles. This map is very similar in certain respects to the Fadden Map. It may have been used as the pattern from which the Fadden Map was drawn, and may predate that map. It correctly represents the major coastline features. No indications of structures or cultural features are indicated in the study area. See Map Pigure 4. 5.-"The Townships of New York State were mapped in 1797. The 1797 Survey of Southold Township, was prepared under the supervision of Thomas Moore. This map clearly delineates the shoreline and Main Street of late 18th century Southold. Four wind mills, a meeting house, a school house and a residence are'indicated along Main Street. No residences or roads are indicated for the subject parcel. See Map Figure 5. 6. ~K~ Ma.9. of 1829 notes the location of Main Street and a cluster of houses on both sides of the road in the vicinity of ~resent-day East Cutchogue. A smaller cluster of buildings was located on the north side of the road in an area .just north of Wickhams Creek in what is now considered Cutchogue proper. No residences are noted in the vicinity of the subject parcel. See Map-Figure 6. % 7. The area was surveyed by the U. S. Coasta~ Survey in 1836. This generally excellent map indicates the location of houses, churches, barns, field systems, vegetation patterns, etc. This map provides information about the location of East Creek and Wickhams Creek which were surrounded by marsh and lightly wooded areas. Most of the rest of the district was cleared land, including the subject parcel. Several houses are noted along the north side of Main Street including a church, probably the present day Presbyterian Church. What appears to be the A. R. Tuthill house is located along New Suffolk Road. Another house is found to the east. j~'~-north of Wickhams Creek. No structures are noted in the area north of Main Street in the vicinity of the subject parcel. See Map Figure 7. 8. The ~. Map of %~52 has generalized information concerning the location of roads and residences. It provides a suggestion of a cluster of houses without indicating the exact location of individual residences. The map figures a cluster west of the intersection of present day Depot Lane and Main Street. The rail line is indicated as well as a house along the west side of Depot lane. This may be the Aldrich house which is more precisely located in later maps. There are no indications of structures in the actual area of the subject parcel. See Map Figure 8. ASI 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TH8 HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE Southold, New York 9. The Chase Map of 1858 provides some information on the residents and property owners. This map documents the dominance of the Tuthill family in early Cutchogue. Few other surnames other than (J. T.) Gould are noted in the area. The T. Conklin house is noted but not attributed to an owner, while the Aldrich house is not represented. A number of residences and shops are indicated along both sides of Main Street. No structures are noted on the subject parcel. See Map-Figure 9. 10. The Beers Comstock and Cline Map of 1873. This map clearly notes the major land holders in the area east of Alvahs Lane and west of Depot Lane, north of Main Street: the area within which the subject parcel is sited. G. Aldrich is noted as owner-resident on a parcel in the southeast corner of this area. We can presume that Aldrich, ~£. J. Conklin, and N. Champlin were probable owners of part or ali of the subject parcel at about this period, No structures or residences are noted for the subject parcel. ~ee Map-Figure 10. 1!. Be~.b~r_ ~_~ ~_ of 1909 indicates the presence of the Aldrich property, house and barn. The property to the south was that of J(as) Wickh~m. C. Williamson owned adjoining DroDerty to the west. Williamson's and Aldrich's property adioined the Dayton Estate to the west. The parcel that comDrises the present Hamlet at Cutchogue probably consists of Dart of both the G. Aldrich Estate and the C. Williamson property. See Map-Figure 11. i2. Atlas of Suffolk County, Dolph and Stewart 1929, indicates little change over the 1909 map. The Aldrich parcel is listed as the Aldrich Estate. We may assume that by this date George Aldrich was deceased. Wickham and Dayton continue__to own large portions of adjoining property. Notable~he increase in Polish and other Slavic surnames in the ~cord. Apparently the period between 1909 and 1929 was one of intensive acquisition of property by relatively recent immigrants to Cutchogue. See Map-Figure 12. 13. U. S. Army Man Service, Southold Ouadranzle. 1947. This map depicts little change for the subject area. It notes the elongate depression that dominates the topography'of the subject parcel. The presence of a new school, a new church (Our Lady of Ostrabrama), and a cemetery are all noted in the area immediately surrQunding the subject property. No structures are depicted within the subject parcel. See Map- Figure ASI 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE Southold, New York 14. ~'S. Geological Survey. Southold Ouadranzle. 1956. In the period after 1947 North Street and Schoolhouse Lane were constructed. This road served several new structures located west of the school. Sometime after 1956 Griffin Street was cut through just west of North Street. This road provides access to the subject property. More recently a trailer park and further development for homesites has occurred along School House lane. No structures are noted within the subiect parcel. See Map-Figure 14. HISTORIC NOTES ON THE STUDY AREA EARLY HISTORY OF SOUTHOLD Sometime prior to 1640, a band of Puritan colonists, led by the Reverend 3ohn Youngs. set out from New Haven and settled 'Yennecock", a pla~e known by the English as Southold. The place included "all that tract of land situate lying and being the Eastward end of Long Island and bounded with the River called in the English toung the Weading Kreek. in the Indian tong Pauquaconsuk. on the west. To and with Plum Island on the East .... with the Sound called the North Sea on the North, and with. a River or arme of the sea on the East...on ye South. together with...all necks of lands meadows. Islands.~ ...rivers Kreeks with timber, woods and woodlands, fishing fouling, hunting ...... (Quoted from Indian Deed of 1665 where-in forty-three Indians confirmed the Town's right to the several tracts involved which had been "previously purchased procured and paid for of the schaems and Indians our ancestors" (Craven 1906:14). In his "History of Southold". Rev. Epher Whitaker, notes that "the settlement here was so old in the Autumn of 1640 that Richard Jackson. who had cultivated his land and built his house and other improvements here, desired at that time to sell. and did sell his dwelling house, and all his other improvements, as well as his land within the Town, only four days after the date of ~'~.organization of the First Church of Southold (Whitake~ 1881: 41). One wonders if the Reverend Whitaker had not confused a deed from James Farter to Richard Jackson dated August 15, 1640 in which a parcel of about 150 acres of land was deeded to Richard Jackson by the Earl of SterlinE's Deputy (James Parrett) for a certain some of money to me hand paid ..... (and)..a pep. of corne every yeare for the fifty acres; and also .... a penny an acre for all the hundred acres before mentioned." The description of the land does indicate that some of it may have been improved land and thus had been occupied earlier than August 1640. Thus, this- supports the contention of Whitaker that Southold and (not Southampton) is the oldest town on Long Island. ASI 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TH~ HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUH $outhold, New York THH DI¥IDHNDS At a Town Meeting held November 20, 1661. it was decided that all common lands at Oysterponds (Orient), Corchaug (Cutchogue), Mattatuck (Mattituck) and Occabauck (Aquebogue-- lands west of Mattituck to the Brookhaven Line) be divided into lots so as to encourage development of outlying lands and at the same time providing that the common land should continue to be used as common pasturage. It seemed convenient to make three great divisions of land. One of these, east of the settlement and extending to Orient was known as Oysterponds. A much larger "Dividend" lying to the west of ~his was known as the Corchaug Dividend. which extends to Canoe Place at Mattituck. The Occabauck Dividend was divided into three areas, one in the east known as the First Division in Occabauck and the Second and Third Dividends to the west, all the way to Wading River (Craven q · 1,06. 28~29). At the time of the great division there were according to Craven (op. cit.:29), about 51 heads of households in Southold. There were 38 Lots in Occabauck and nineteen owners. The Lots were large, extending from Sound t9 Bay. forty rods wide (660 feet) and each containing two- hundred and fifty acres or more. Those settlers allotted lots in Occabauck were : William Wells (3 lots). John Budd (4 lots). John Swazey (4 lots), Joseph Horton (4 lots), William Halliock (Hallock) was listed as being allotted 2 lots. /he Corchaug Lots did not extend from Sound to Bay but were divided by the King's Highway. Those north of the Highway ( in the ~rea of the Hamlet at Cutchogue) were about 30 rods wide (495 feet) and tapered to the Sound and about 100 to 120 acres each. South of the highway, the land of the Corchaug Dividend lies in six large "necks" which were separated by creeks opening from the Bay: the most easterly is Poole's Neck, and toward the west-- Robin's Island Neck. Corchaug Neck, Fort Neck. Pessapunk Neck and Reeve's Neck. The Corchaug and Fort Necks were the home ground of the local Indians~'Q~.Corchaug Neck was the site of their village and on the other--appropriately called Fort Neck--they built a stockade or fort where they would retire with the women and children, in time of conflict. A hollow in the ground, some three or four rods (50 feet) across, surrounded by traces of an embankment still marks the site of the fort on the east side of the neck, near the creek that separates it from Robin's Island Neck (See Craven 1906). The settlers found the necks --for the most part-- already cleared land. Since the land was level and tillable and needed only plowing, while surrounding wooded land had to be cleared---a very laborious process-, the land on the Necks was very valuable and it quickly became cut up into small twenty acre lots. For many years a twenty acre lot in this ASI 15 I I I I TH~ HANLET,AT CUTCHOGUE Southold, New York "Old I~dian Field" or Corchaug Broad Field. as it was called. was more valuable than hundreds of acres of woodland (See Craven 1906). CUTCHOGUE The name Corchau~ refers to both the prehistoric native American residents and to the tract of land on which they lived. According to Tooker the term means the "principal place or home ground" (Tooker 1961: 58). This was the name (Corchaug') they gave to the neck that lies just to the south of the present village of Cutchogue. To the west, on an ~dioining neck of land (now known as Fort Neck) they built a r, alisaded enclosure to which they retired with their women and children when they were threatened by enemies. On Corchau~ Neck were also located other sites and a burial ~lace. Port Corchaug was well known during the contact period and early historic times and many of the early ¢,~,ionists must have visited the place. Cutchogue was the first of Southold's colonies, it havin~ been settled in 1660. The Old House in Cutchogue. built in 1649 by John Budd (in Southold). was moved -- probably by ox cart--to, Cutchogue in 1660. The house was owned by the Horton Family and later, during the Revolutionary War. it was the home of the Tory Supervisor, Parker Wickham. In 1680 the son of William Wells built a house just south of Main Street which survives to this day as "Ihe Old Place" (See Map of the Historic Sites of Southold Town Prior to 1815. Southold Bicentennial Committee. Southold. New York). The settlers used Little Hog Neck as common grazing ground. Early in the village history they concentrated their agricultural activities on the necks of land that were fertile, well watered, and less heavily wooded (or non-wooded) than the lots in the interior. Thus the earliest homes appear to have been concentrated close to the Kin~'s H~g~way (Main Street) between Moores Lane and New Suffolk Road. just a short distance south of the subject parcel. EARLY HIGHWAYS Very soon after 1640. a highway was laid out from Southold Village westward to Cutchogue and beyond to the head of Peconlc Bay, to meet a highway from Southampton. This road was known as the King's Highway. Since it was the main traffic corridor along the interior, it was the site of most of the early construction of houses and shops in the Cutchogue area. In time, it cut across the entire length of ~he island. In some places on the island (such as in Brooklyn) it is still called'Kings Highway. In 1655, the ASI 16 TH~ HA~L~T A~ CU~CHOGU~ $outhold, New York I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Brookhaven settlement, which adjoined Southold on the west at Setauket (there was no Riverhead until after the Revolutionary War) was established and a "Setacut Road" was built through the woods soon after that date, to that settlement. This latter road was to become the North Road. A record of its pathway is preserved in Liber A, p.142. Suffolk County Deeds... an "Act of the Govern't Councill and Representatives of the Colony of N Yorke made in ye second Yeare of reign of our sovergn Lady Anne" (1703) .... for ye laying out Regulating clearing and preserving publick common hw~h ways throughout ye sd Colony". ..... "The high way from ye towne of Southold to ye westward farms on ye north side to be ve us~yal road to Mattatuck and soe on ye northside of ye Pond in ye way lately marked out to ye usual road leading to Richard ]lowel'!s and from thence in ye usual road to ye beach and so on ge beach to ye fresh pond and to ye place called wadinR river" Thus we can assume that by the early part of the 18th Century the land that was to become the Hamlet at Cutchogue ~as Dart of a thriving settlement with several homes, and was well served by public roads and by sheltered waterways. ~HE ALDRICH FAMILY from several sources, we know that the Aldrich family, ~robable first settlers and early owners of, much of the subiect parcel, were early residents of the Town. The first mention of the Haldrich (Aldrich) name occurs in a 1683 rate list for the Town. In it Peter Haldrich (Aldrich) is listed. ["A rate list for 1683 lists the ~ollowing names: William Reeves. Thomas Tuston, Theophilus Cure, in, Thomas Mapps, James Reeves, Thomas Terril, Peter ~laldriaK (Aldrich), Thomas Osman, Willlam Haliock, Thomas Hatiock~'Jfihn Swazey, Joseph Swazey"(Craven 1906:68-69).] Peter may have arrived from the New Haven Colony or from England sometime after 1662. By 1683 he was a tax-paying member ~of the colony. Sometime prior to 1683 he had married one of the daughters of John Swazey and taken up residence, ~robably on a parcel originally allotted to 3chh Swazey and noted as the second or double lot of John Swazey in the first dividends. We know that John Swazey did not live on that lot--he resided on a lot further west--and his will, drawn in 1~92 does not list this lot ---thus we may assume that sometime prior to 1692 he had sold or given this parcel to his son-in-law, Peter Aldrich. It is likely that Peter was the first to clear and build a home there. Peter Aldrich died soon after Swazey's death in 1692. The Aldrich family continued to reside in the western end of Southold, west of Howards Creek in Mattituck. ,In time, members of the Aldrich ASI 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE HA~L~T AT CUTCHOGUE $outhold, New Yor~ clan became scattered throughout Southold. George Aldrich, a scion of the family, moved east to Cutchogue to purchase land sometime in the mid-19th century. Sometime after 1858 and before 1873 (probably about 1866) Aldrich bought a parcel of land west of Depot Lane in Cutchogue where he established a general farm. HISTORY OP SUBJECT PARCEL The Wells family may have been the earliest owners of the parts of the subject parcel. William Wells was an early resident'of the Town: his son built the Old Place in 1680 on th~ south side of Mains Street. Another Wells owned a house at the corner of present-day Depot Lane and Main Street (now Jemolished). We know that the original lots north of the !li~hwav were about 495 feet (about 150 meters) wide and tamered to the Sound. If Wells held more than one lot as is likely, this area. measured west from the site of the Wells house at the corner of Depot Lane and Main Street would have included part of the subject parcel. Thus it is possible ~n~r the Hamlet at Cutcho~ue Parcel was first owned by the ~el!s family. We can assume that the 1753 Wells residents !and their neighbors to the west) probably cleared and farmed the land north of Main Street. There is unfortunately little firm evidence for events of this period, and we can only assume that there was a'good deal of buying, selling and trading of land in that early period. About 85 years later (1838) we can confirm, through documentary evidence, that the ~rea both north and south of the highway was cleared land. By about 1844 the Long Island Rail Road began service to ~he district. Access to the rail road opened vast markets in the urbanized western portions of the island to local farmers and far ranging adjustments in the local economy to the new agricultural opportunities. No longer was it necessary to emphasize subsistence-type farming, and safely stored agricultural products such as wool, flax and mrains. ,W~%h the rail line near-by perishable crops such as vegetables, root crops, eggs and meats could be grown and quickly shipped to the urban areas with good profit. Thus lands suitable for such agriculture -- intensive cash crop farming, particularly north of Main Street near the rail line. were Durchased by this new breed of cash crop amriculturist. One of the earliest families to settle in the area along Depot Lane, north of Main Street, was the ¢onklins. who may have purchased land from earlier Wells or Iuthill proprietors in the district. Conklin's farm house is i.~cated northeast of the sub%ect parcel. Sometime between 1860-1870, Georme Aldrich. a scion of one of the first settlers of the Township. purchased land along Depot Lane south of the T. J. Conklin farm. He farmed the level productive soils along Depot lane for nearly five decades. We know that the farm continued in operation under George ASI 18 I I I I I i I I I I i I I I I I I I I TH~ HA~L~T AT CUTCHOGUH $outhold, Ne~ York Aldrich's management until et least the first decade of the 20ch century. By the third decade of this century the property was listed as part of the George Aldrich Estate (See Map-Figure 12). The estate was divided up among heirs, and the farm as well as a substantial amount of the land was inherited by George Young. Portions of the original farm may have been sold at this time by other heirs. We presume tha~ the western part of the Aldrich farm became a significant portion of the present Hamlet at Cutchogue property. Other e!~ents may have come from the Willamson and Dayton estates. Mr. , Kurczewski. a Polish immigrant, first settled in Philadelphia and later moved to Cutcho~ue where he met his wife. married, and found employment as a farm laborer on the i~leet Estate. Later. he worked for Mr. George Aldrich as a field hand and teamster on the Aldrich farm. during the early ~.art of the century. He continued on after the death of Mr. A!drich. while it was managed by Mr. Young. Kurczewski's ,Jaumhter. Bertha. remembers the place as a child, where her father worked and where she sometimes accompanied him on his ch,~rei. Accordina to her. it was managed as a general farm. Her father worked the fields with horse-drawn machinery. Milt: cows were raised, as well as field crops grown, such as r, otatoes and cabbages. Young. who had other lands and wished to sell the Aldrich property, encouraged Kurczews~i to buy the farm. According to, Bertha. his daughter. Kurczewski, though he loved the place, could not afford it at that time. kventually, the farm was sold to the Sinuta family who had another farm in Orient where they resided. According to Bertha Kurczewski, they did not live on it or work it. but conninued to live in East Marion. A number of families rented the farm house from the Sinutas over a period of Years. At one time a Mr. Baxter lived there and later it was used as the residence and office of a physician -- Dr. Linowitz. Kurczewski continued to work on the farm end lease some of the farm land over this period. Around 1940, at the urain~s of the Sinuta family, who were eager to sell. Mr Kurczewski purchased the property which has been in his family sihee that time. At the present. Miss Bertha Kurczewski is the owner. She proudly claims that she maintains the house and buildings, as well as a substantial marden and parts of the surrounding proper'ty by her own iabor. (B. Kurczewski. pets. comm. 3uly .1989). VISUAL INSPEGTION A visual inspection was conducted in July 1989. At that time a videotaped record of the inspection was produced. lhis is available from Archaeological Services Incorporated. Most of the study area is crop land or former crop land. A brushy gully extends through much of the central portion of the subject parcel. The vegetation in this area suggests ASI 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE $outhold, New York that at times it may hold standins water, The slopes near this feature are relatively steep and the soil here is ~ravelly. Several farm access roads and former road traces were noted. No standins structures were observed. Dense brush and thickets of Bittersweet and Poison Ivy prevented closer inspection of deeper portions of the sully. A$I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THB HAMLBT AT CUTCHO~UB $outhold, New York SUMMARY The Hamlet at Cutchogue proposed development site, is an 18.7 hectares (46.2 acres) parcel located north of Schoolhouse Lane in the Village of Cucchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The subject property is of generally low relief. An el~hgate depression trending N 400 W cuts across the central portion of the project area for a distance of about 300 to 500 meters. A small enclosed basin of less than six meters (20 feet) elevation and about 15 meters in diameter is located in the southwestern portion of the parcel. This may hold standing~ water at times. The soils of the parcel are a mosaic-like pattern of Riverhead. Pl.ymouth and Haven soils. About 38% of the pro.iect area is Riverhead B and Plymouth C soils while the remaining 62 percent of the parcel is Haven A soil. The project area is mostly well drained. However, there is a closed basin in the southwest corner of the parcel that is poorly drained. The vegetation, at the time of the field inspection (3uly 1989), was detern%ined to consist of two botanical communities: former farm field and post agricultural forest. About 10% of the parcel ia wooded and the rest'(90%) is fallow or abandoned farm field and crop land. The vegetation of the open fields consists of various grasses and forbs common to this area. The wooded zone occupies the gully area and consists of maple and cherry and other species common in a post-agricultural woodland. Several farm roads are evident within the property. They probably served as access roads during the period that the parcel was cultivated. Some are presently overgrown with brush. The project area is located within a district of intensive aboriginal habitation. The National Register of Historic Places site at Fort Corchaug as well as several other well documented prehistoric sites are located within a short distance of the subject parcel. In terms of historic sites, a number of these, including the National Register of Historic Places site known as the Old House of Cutchogue, and several others of near contemporary age are located within a kilometer of the parcel. In addition, a pre 1800 house and several mid-19th century vernacular farm houses are located immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. One of these, the Aldrich-Kurczewski farm is recorded in the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities as an exceptional and very well preserved example of the mid-19th century farm. 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I $outhold, tlew York There is little documentary evidence for the subject marcel before 1797, However by this date we can document the presence of a number of windmills, a school and a meeting house within a short distance of the subject parcel. No structures are indicated within the study area from d,>cumentary evidence. Part of the subject parcel may have been originally part of the Wells lot. The Wells family had a house on the corner of Depot Lane and Main Street in 1753. By !836 most of the district had been cleared of woodland and ~:.u~' to the mlow. We can assume that most or all of the ~ub~ect parcel was cleared land. and part of the Tuthill or ?,:,u~d family farms at this date. Intensive cash crop ~rmin~ ~egan soon after the advent of the railroad in 1844. ~'as~ure lands were converted into crop lands. Prior to i~. the Conklin family, followed by the Aldrich family. ~-urchased land for such farmin~ along Depot Lane. near the ,:e!~ter of Cutchogue and close to the rail line. The subiect ~rcel was at that time mart of several properties which may mr~-e included the Aldrich. Champlin and Conklin farms. By z~7~, ~everal other farms had been established in the vzcinitv. Early in the 20th century some of these were :'.urchased'bv. wealthy businessmen from urban areas to the west -.-,~' s~.eculstion or to develom as model farms or as country cs~ates. The Dayton Estate west of the Aldrich farm may have :,een in this catemory. Chanmes in farming and economics vroumht changes to the district. Numbers of Poles and other ~iavic immigrants settl%d in the area between 1900 and 1930. Andy ~eneraily were excellent horsemen .and teamsters, were k~wleo~eable and familiar with crop farms, and were -~.~.~..,ble and hard working. They quickly rose from farm laborers to farm owners. Most of the earlier Aldrich. -..~..~zn and Champlin farms were taken over by these 20th ,:el~turv farmers. During this period, changes in the economy a~z,J in farming management encouraged farmers to dispose of ~ess ~,roductive farm plots and concentrate resources on large more productive acreages. As a consequence, a number of lots were sold off or left fallow. These parcels were to become 9v~iiabie for development later in the century. No structure sites ar~'.~.ocumented within the subject parcel. ASI 22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE $outhold, New York S~NSITIVIT¥ ASSESSMENT Frehistoric The subieet parcel ia in a general area of intensive abori~ina! activity. Several large, well documented sites are found within a half-hour walk of the subject parcel, Thus according to present archaeological models, it is located ~¢e~'! within the normal activity zone (or near hinterland) of more than one prehistoric residence site. These hinterland areas ]{ere used for hunting, exploitation of natural. minera!. 'and plant resources, and sitinm of special purpose aha satellite campsites. Modern archaeological theory underscores the importance of these "off site" activity zones and satellite camps in developing a more realistic, complete. understanding of the culture, settlement patterns, and ~daptations of prehistoric native Americans. The Hamlet at :[utch,:,aue parcel has potential for recovery of prehistoric cultural evidence due to its proximity to prehistoric coastal an,~ estuarine residence bases, the presence of an enclosed k, asin ~¢hich may have held standing water in the past. and enrironmenta! variations which enhance exploitation of game. mJnera! and plant resources. Historic !'houmh no structures were documented for the parcel, it is in an area intensively used for over three centuries. 5,~u~hern portions of the parcel closer to Main Street were probably cultivated by earl~ settlers who were allotted ~ropertv alon~ Main Street. Nineteenth century farmers were active west of Depot Lane. The parcel has potential for recovery of historic evidence related to past farmin~ activities, such as field lines, ditch and mound boundaries, and ~ossible outlying structure sites. REGOMMENDATIONS Put thor study in the form of subsurface testing should ~,e conducted to evaluate the potential of this proposal for impact to both prehistoric and historic cultural evidence. ASI 23 I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE $outhold, Hew York REFERENCES Bavles. Richard M. Historical and Descriptive Sketches of Suffolk Coun_t_]f_= W. A. Overton, Port Jefferson, New York Craxen Charles E. (Rev.) i9'-~'.· A History of Published by Mattituck, Long Island, New York the author. Mattituck, New York Pleistocene geoloay of New York: Amer. 376 eastern Long Island. Scj_._ Vol 262. pp 355- Fiin~. Richard Foster 1957 Glacial ~nd '~e~stq.~.e_~. G.eolo~v Son~. New York John Wiley ~:.~iler. Myron ' The Geolpg¥ of L.o~ ~s~.~.n~, New Yp~.k. United States Geol, Survey Prof. Pa~er 0 82. U. S. ~o~.. Printinm Office. Wash. D. C, ~:onza!es. 511ice B and Ed S, Rutsch !978 Suffolk County C~.~t.ural. R~s~UF. ce~ !Dyen%orv. Suffolk County Arch. Assoc.. 'Drawer AR. Stony Brook. New York Jorgensen. Riel !978 ~ ~i~ Clu~ N__a__tura~,i~.~'s. Guide_ to Southern ~9~. ~B~i_~D~ Sierra Club Books. San Francisco Ca. Ka!in· Robert Archaeology of Glacial Kettle Holes in North Central Suffolk County. New York. ~e. Bull, ~__d Q~Ez ~_ A_~r!~_~ for New York State. No'. 86 pp 31-36. New York State Arch. Assoc.. Rochester. Ka!in. Robert ,lin Press) J. and Kent Lightfoot The Remsen Hill Site, Mount Sinai, New York :A Preliminary Excavation. ~h_e._ .~.u~~ ~nd ~ur._ o.f ArQh~ ~o~. ~9~. york Statg., New York State Arch. Assoc.. Rochester. kalin. Robert O.. Kent Lightf,oot and James Moore ASI 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I $outhold, New York !989 Soil Patterns and Prehistoric Sites on Long Island, New York. Sub to Man in the ~r%.h_e_e!!!~ Albany, New York Kuchler. A. L,-,r c z ewski. iiahtfoot. Atlas of the United States, U, S, Department of the Interior, Washington, D, C, pp, 89-91. Bertha Personal Communication, Cutcho~ue, Lives on Depot Lane Kent: Robert Kalin, Owen Lindauer and Linda Wicks Coastal New York Settlement Patterns. ~ .~n. North.pA.!t. No. 30 pp 59-82. k~ther. Fredrick G. The Rpfugees of. 1776 from Long !.~.~9~d t.o Connecticut . J. B. Lyon Co,, Albany, New York. ~rancis Discoverin~ sites unseen. In: $~q.h.~l~.gix~l Metb~3 ~g~ ~bePrJ~. ed: Michael Schiffer. pp 223-229. Vol, 7, Academic Press, New York, :isn.:e. Jack !9~3 Regional sampling in archaeological survey: The statistical perspective, In: Advanci~ in ~L~baeoloEical Method a_8__d %be_o. ry~ Ed: Michael Schiller, pp 289-386, Vol, 6, Academic Press, New York, !'aimer. E."Lawrence ~.iXJd.~9.o_k 9~ ~atura~ Histor~ Whittlesey. House. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York 664 pp. rarker. Arthur !920 2, New York State Museum Bulletin Nos, 237, 238, Univ, of the State of New York, N, Y, State Museum, Albany, New York, reattie. Donald Culross A Nat_~_r_al H. is_tp_ry, o.f_ T.ree.s. Second Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston. Mass. ASI 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HAMLET A~ CUTCHOGUH $outhold. New York Pelletreau, W. S. 1897 ~.!.l ~P~g. ~l__a_~. Will%. Publisher. New York F. P. Harper, ! 9 0 3 A. H.i.P_t..p_rM Of. ~op.g !A.l_~..n._d.~. Vol.I and II. Lewis Publishing Co.. New York City. N. Y. Nathaniel S, A History of Long I.s~a~.. In Two Parts. Robert Carter Publishers. 58 Canal Street. New York. and 56 Market Street. Pittsburg. Pa. Rit,:hie. William A. Museum of Natural History. Natural Press. Garden City. N. Y. American History . :..::-:.~v for the ['reservation o~ Long Island Antiquities General Files of Cutchogue Area, Thompson House. ¢$etauket. New York '-":uthold Bicentennial Committee _,97,:, ~a.P. q{..H_.~.s__tqr_i..c. S__i_t_e_~s _o_f _S_o_u__thamJ~t_9~n .T_g_w_q. ?.ri...q¥_ ~..o. _1.8_!.5 Town Hall, Southold, New York ihompson. Benjamin F. His~.rj. q~. %_Ong %sl~n~., II Edition, Vol I. II, III. French and Company. New York; Re- published 1962, Ira Friedman. Port Washington. New York. Hi$%orI of Lo_~_K !.s_l~_n_d...,, &~ Ap count of the D[scoy~v ~ S~l.~m.~!~. with other ~.e.~K Ti~ E. French and Co.. New York 1839 £c. oke r , William. W. !ndia~ P%.~.~. ~.~e_~_ 9.~. ~9~g_ !%~.aD~=_ Reprinted 1962. Ira Friedman, Port Washington, New York i:'75 John. et. al. %oi. 1 $~rveM 9~ Su.f{0~k ~9unt3 N.ew Y~.k, u.s. Dept. Agricul.. Soil Conserv. Serv., Wash. D. C.. 20250 ASI 26 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I TH~ HA~L~T AT CUTCHOGU~ $outhold, New York Whittaker, 18~1 Epher (Rev.) Printed for the Author. Southold. New York. i977 Ronald The Archaic on Lonz Island. ¥~r.k Acade~ of Scien.[e~ 288: 400-410. "':776-1780 ~ndre' John z797 5eauchamps. MAPS ~.!.a.n of ~ong I~.aDO i.R New ~qLk Opv__e..r~e_~. North America. British Revolutionary War Era Ma~. No date, no author. Scale Six miles to the inch. $_~.¢Yg.Y 9~. %9D~ba.~p~p~. ~.o~w.D~. Southampton. New York. On File: SUNY. Stony Brook, Hia'torical Map Coil%trion. W~lliam M. Abo.~_~.~i.~.§ p~ ~W ~,~.. ~rca 1600; Univ. of State of New York, Wm. M. Beauchamps: 1899 Deers. F. W. 1873 &~.I.A.s..o~. k~n~. !~k~m~.,_ Y.W. Co. Brooklyn. N. Y. Beers Publishin~ Belcher ~n~. Hyde 1909 At.iA~. ~f S~fol% C~u.n~ Lgn~ I..s~a__n_~,. ~o__u_D~. ~hpr~,. B.e_~.~h. er ~y~.¢~, Vol 2. 1909. New York. 1916 Duff. David H. &_t~.~.% ~f Oc9a.u.S.bo_r_e Qf~ Suff_o_l,k g_o_un__t~. Eastern Section. Belcher Hyde, Ne~ York Atl_as 95 M.e.w Y0_rk .aMaZe.. Stone and Clark, New York. M~R qr..~hA Co~.a%y q~ ~u.~fo.l~,. Published by the Surveyor General. Albany. New York ASI 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE $outhold. New York Chase i538 Ch~se. J. jr. lt. 59 ,£olcon, Atlas of Suffolk County. (Stony Brook Map Library. SUNY. Stony Brook) Atlas of Suffolk Count¥~ LonK Island. Chase and Co.. New York ~. ~f ~.~_~.~. (Colton 1836 Surveyed by Smith. Sheet Map Library) Map of Long Island, 4. (SUNY. Stony Brook T~aygll__e~A ~ of Lon~ ~sland. Jan 3. 1918. Library of Congress Register No.---. On File: Historical Map Library, SUNY. Stony Brook. :~,:.iron Ohman £ ? tj i and Co. (Publishers) Ma~ 0~. Lgn~ Island. Colton and 0hman. Geographicm! Publishers. New York <.:,!ion. 3. !!. Publisher) ~.rave139r~. ~!p of LoDK I%lgnd. Published by Colton and Co. tn the Suffolk County Collection. Suffolk County Community ColleRe. Selden. New York. <.:.nra,J. Tobias Lotter MaD of New York and Connecticut. Auasber~ 1776. (Nassau Museum Reference Library. Hofstra University. 1986) Dewit. --- £' :.l mh and ' 920 ~D 9~. ~9ng %s!~.~ (no other information available), SUNY, Map Library, Stony Brook New York. Stewart New York City. N. Y. Dolph and Stewart. !:'29 Atlas of Suffolk County, Dolph and Stewart, New York City. N. Y. i779 William ~. 9~ ~e~w_ X~ an__d_ ~_~ Island. Published at Charin~ Cross. England. January of 1779 ASI 28 ! HAMLET AT CUTCHOGU~ $outhold, New York ~aisev: 1924 Huise ~ 7~? William Donaldson Reconstruction Maps of Watermill to Wainscott 1650-1850. Maps drawn by Godfrey H. Baldwin. In: Sketches of Local History, Re-published: The Yankee Book Peddler, Southampton, New York, 1966. Available at the Suffolk Historical Society, Riverhead. Isaac ~p o~ ~op. kh~.Y~ T__o.~3~.p= Suffolk Lon~ Island. County. l~vde. Belcher Atlas. o~ Su.~.f3~. ~_~un~.M. New York. E. Belcher HYde, Inc.. New York Belcher Atlas 9f SO~k Qpunty.. Part of Riverhead and Southold. New York. E, Belcher Hyde. Inc.. New York. _:,I. 7 Atlas of the North ~hor~. o.f SUffolk. ~gU.~%Y, Western Section. 1917 (E. Belcher Hyde 1917~. Jei~ervs . Thomas ~ MD.ps. 9~ t~_e. ~prth A~9~aD ~okp~.9~, Published bY Thomas 3efferys. London, England 3:arher. W.W. survey by J. Calvin Smith. TopoRraphic Montresor. John 1776-1780) ~..~ 9~. Coastal New York, Drafted during the Revolutionary War. No exact date. (Stony Brook Map Library. SUNY, Stony Brook) Romans. Bernard 1777 Map p~_ Connecticu~ and. A~acent Lands. Amsterdam. 1777. Reprinted by Covens and Mortimer from a 1780 original. (Stony Brook Map Library. SUNY. Stony Brook) :;m~'~h. J. Calvin -'~;6. - c_.~9.91__ofl.~_c_' ~a_.p. _o~ ........ Lon/; !.~_!l_a_nd. J. H. Company. New York Colton and ASI 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE $outhold. New York Southack. 1734 T_h. 9. ~ ~n_~.ka__n~_ ~oasting Pilot. London. England. !kernton. !689 John ~he En.t!i~h ~!ot.,. Fourth Book, 1689. John Thornton. On file: Map Library SUNY, Stony Brook. Army Ma~ Service ~d.i~g ~y~r Q~d.La_n.gl~.~ Army Map Service. S. Army. Washington D.C. 1944. scale 1: 25.000 '.:::~ed 5tares Coastal Survey U. S. G.oas%al Mam 1: 10.000. !¥91 Survey Map. Photozraphic Copy. U., S. Coastal S. pry~M ~ap, E~s~ ~.n.4. o.f. SOut. ham. p~on TowD. Town Pond to Airfield Pond,, Surveyed by C. I. Iardella Asst. Lnited States Geo!ogicaM Survey Squthold Opadrang!~. Suffolk Co. N. ¥. (Scale 1:62.500) Surveyed 1903. Printed 1909. Army MaD Service Southold Quadrangle, Suffolk Co. 7.5 min series. (Scale 1:25.000) N. Y. 194 Unated 1956 States Geological Survey Southold Ouadran~e_,_ Suffolk Co. 7.5 min series. (Scale 1:24.OO0) N. Y. 1956 ASI 30 '% / i/' \ / 31 Fourth Book, 1689, -~ / \ t \' / / I 1. The English Pilot, by John Thornton. Plan of Lone Island in New York Government, North America. Scale 6 miles to an inch. British Nap o[ Long Island during or just prior to the Revolutionary War. I. I I I I I I I I 6. 7. U__t= S. Coastal Survey 37 in 1836. I I I I I I I I I I I I 36 I 6. Burr Map of 1829 · MANOFI H ILLS PROJECT ARE DI N 4 ! I I I I I I I I 11. Belcher Hyde 1909 41 I I I ~, $/'l/ec~ 42 12. Dolph and Stewart 1929 m ~ Wickam Creek 4¸3 13. U. S. Army M__a_p_Service Southold Ouadran~le. 1947 Marsh Pt mi0~ ~ 29'00" )[ 28'00" FEET , 41"OO' '~ " 72"30' ,J, CoUntry Club; '-"") ~' '.....'~.... i/~,!! "'-":---': ~ 7~ 2 420 000 ~EETI NF.,W SUFFOLK 0.7 Nil. Mapped, edited, arid publisned by the G.q~geological Survey Control by USC&GS --'-~-"' Topography from aerial photographs by Kelsh plotter and by' ...... planetable surveys 1956, Aerial photographs taken.~19_5,4 ......... - Hydrography compiled from USC&GE chart 363 (1956) Polyconic projection. 1927 North American datum 1956 14. U. S. Geolozical Survey, SoutholdSaz Ouadranzle. __ 231 MILS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE HAMLBT AT CUTCHOGUB $outhold, New York ADDEND~ ASI I SPLIA Pile master 46 map of Cutchosue U T ',H 0 L D {.RACE ..tO NORTH 31,0 I I I' I I SPLIA 33.5 47 Pile part of .Key Map of Cutchosue "-~!i '~',' BUI~DIN'G-STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM : DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION · ~.~.:'.': NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION · - ALIIANY. NEW YORK (SI 8I 474.0479 ' ' ~OR OFFICE USE ONLY UNIQUE SITE NO. ' ..... ' , . ' QUAD '.-'. - .:~ - i.';-' ':~- . SERIES YOUR N~ME: ~'~ ' '~ hO DAT : '~:~.[~ ~.~ ORGANIZATION(if any):,: Sou~hold. . ~own Oo~munl~ ~v, Office~ " "~'" IDE~TIFICATION b''* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ' ' ~ I. BUll,DING NAME(S):. :- '- - "'_ i _~ ;. =. ~_ [ ' "'" '""':' '" 2, COUNTY:_ 1. STREET LOC~IIO~: :~ ~LL~G~' ' .... '~.~:'; " - ,..-. 4. OWNERSHIP: - a. public ~ .. b private ~ ' ' , I s. PRESENT OWNER:' MiSS 'Bertha Ku[~z~u~RESS. ~pot ~n*': ""~;' ' ";~':~ '. · '~ '.,,'..'.??'.'~:-.. ~. ACCESSIBILITY 'tO ~UBLiS: :.. ~n::;[~;r;isible from pubic road Yes ~ - No ~..' ~ DESCRIPT~ON , .- '" ' ' ' ''ccessible: Explain hv aoootntmen~ . 8. BUILDING '2 , ,, .~'L' , . .. . ,[..-}. .;. ~ ~ ,.',' · '...',.f?' MAT :R AL' :. ~a[~ ~ b. slane ~ c brick ~ '~ bo:a;~'-a;~:::(:~.: ~,. - · · ~ stone ~ f shi-~-- m ~ · u oa~ten ~ ." . ...~.; -,,. 9. STRUCTURAL~,ve.r~:. :?a.b, ~oodW°°~l' fi:amc with in lerlocki~g jo nfs []. ..,`: .' .=...' .....' ~'. "~..s..: .. :*... '. v-.c'...:.... kmxvn) -----. c. masonry ]oad bearing walls [] . " ' ..... ............ metal ,exp.a.n/ ' ~ , _ . . .. ...~, . . II0. CONDITION: a. excellent ~:] b. good [] ....... ,'._.,- . c. fair [] ' d. deteriorated [] - . II. INTEGRITY: a. original site [] :,·b mo"ed [-] if so,when? '.,~.~; .,, -'..'.-',:.r ~'-.,-. :....."/'.' ',-+'."~'.-~,"..,,~ r~--,;.:~.~.'.*~.,:' £A.: ~,.' .' .~,'..', ;..''*'HOll ,-B' '.-,~'e,, ~n ~; ' .- .:, 12. PHOTO: .:.~.~_1"01~ .~OWI;b ]~ [; ,'..,:~.'.%., I SPLIA Pile Aldrich-Kurczewski house ' '..,- . '..' . .' d deve opers ~ e deterioration ~ .... ~ . . 17. INT[RRE~TIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SHRRO~DINGS... ...... .... .... features m '.:,/s;~a-~.'~- This t~enty six acre ~orLlnl farm,provides an ~xceptio~l m~ '~:*~-'-:~-~'~-wxnmple or tbs aid 19th century farm. The farnhouae and all ..' ~'Z barns and out buildinia,appear to be in an alnost.unaltered I ~.,. SOURCES: 'Intervte..l~'~tss lurcze.s~y 3/7[86 · . by John E. Remsen ' . ' . . _. . ~eers ~o~stoc[ l~las of Lon~ Island lflT~ . .- Fora prepared bY ~obn.~. Eemaen 2nd,~sea~cb laalata~ ~.,...'; cu 9~ Aldrich farmstead Original barns and out buildinEs From South East Roll B Nog 12 From North Roll B Neg 15 Aldrich farmstead OriRinal barns and From South East out buildings Roll B Neg 12 Cu 9~ From Nerth Roll B Neg 13 10~'FOR HISTORIC AND RECREATION: ~', NEW' YORK (518i 474-0479 )UR NAME:' )UR -~ Sou'thold, L. I ."; N.Y. ~-.11971, )RGANIZATION (irony): $oRthold To~n 'Co'mmunity"Development Offict [LDING NAMI~ House- 3ffiee · ; , ?-Su "'?~' ~';'"' T~3WN/cITY. OU O · ),EE3:- LOC~-'~!ON:' .~ i dye : J~ pO'~--~------~ E:::]iOriginali J,L~ 1lOSt Office 'PUB£1C BUILDING ;~: MAT cobblestone' ]"stucc0 [~ ,.,':' frame with i :)cking joi'nts ~-']' ,SYSTEM: wood'frame with'light '~mbers L~ , - ..... r '-' ;:"" .:-(if kmart) ' ' ~; Id~d bearing Wails [] '-' : ' :d. metal (explain) --. ,, .'.,'e other . CONDITION: : a ~xcellent ~ b. gooff ~ .' c. fair I; ~TEGRITY:~ ~'~:-'original silc"~ :b,-m~ved '~ ' if so.when? :x~, "~ c. list major alterations and ' known): -- ' ~ "-" Po~c6 added ........... 9~.;' :-'. :' :,, Aoll ~,~eg15 PHOTO: x ~<~':'.~' ...... . I SPLIA 54 file Conklin-Gorman house Cu eho · ':-:..:.;~2 ' Chalet'MaP of Suffolk Couoty,1858 . ,.~.,'" . .. - . . .. ~ .;.~..,.~:",~ · ~ . ...~, ~.,....,,~. - ~,~ 22. , THEME' ' -, 2~k. ' ,',,'~. ' . ....... ~.J,¥' ,~',~ ..,;~. . .. , · . ,.,~,~...,~. ~, , .-:.-:.,.. · .. ~:.,.,~ -'% -- _' :~?:',~: ' '~-Form prepared ~y. Jobn E.'.Bem~en 2nd,Resea~cl . . . <- ~.,~{,: .. ... . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX I TAX ASSESSMENT I Telephone $16 -765-1937 I I ~uly 24, ~989 I Mr. Riohazd Main Road Cutohogue, NY 11935 I Dear Dick, REs Suffolk Cry Map ~ 102-1-33.3 I Approximate Assesamt Total Asaessmt 80 2 Story-Condo 750 sq.£t. ~ $,000 $ 440,000 I 80 ~ Ranch 1200 sq. ft. 4,700 376,000 and i Garage ,300 sq.ft. Land (approx. 800 ea. ) $ 128,000 I ?oral Assessment ..... ~ 944,000 I i 89-90 Tax Rata J $503, per '-' $4?4,800, - Tax ~$oeasment ~ota.1 i '' Condo tax ...... 6300 3200 5500 2800 Sincerely, Charles C. ~atts, Chairman Board Ot AlSaSaOrl I CCW:ts TABLE OF QUAN~TITIES IMPERVIOUS AREA NATURAL AREA LANDSCAPED AREA TURF AREA QUANTITY 419,175 SF 95,547 SF 254,450 SF 1,241,558 SF 5 ~9° 5~'$$"E ~ 221.d7' r..ml I50 ' 7 6 27 5 26 2 12 11 N 4 24 3 15 If;O I. 4~ ' 23 32 22 18 35 ~S49°47'45"E ~7~. COO ' J N4~© 5do'35" 40 O. 0 0 ~ 61~IFFING JT,qEET ,,~C~q L. E- : HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE 3 UNIT./ACRE ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT D.^W.NG NO S~[CE: OAT~: 87398.00 1'=100" JUNE 1989 GREENMAN-PEDERSEN. INC. ¢ON'.~ULTING ENGINEERS BAIIYLON. NEW YORK PLY ft~EIIVFORCED f~US,¢EP OA~O~IV D'O,.S~. (VVEVM ) OOU~ LE ,STP.,~iI\ID ~ iZ~ ~E/WOVE F'l~o 1~4 TOP FIN. PLANT LI.3T 5)"MSOL TYPE ,31ZE ,..~PECIE,~ CHOICE,3 NO'rES '~HAOETCEE3 7-(~'HEIGHT Iv~APLEiAGH/LIAID~-Ni~.~yC/qMOI~E/OAi< MAPLe-z CPASAPPLE/ FL O m/ER flVG C~ U~p TPEE~ REUI,~IOIV:I-I~-d5 ~EVfdED G~AO IklO A ~0 UNIT ~ 'TYPICAL HEDGEROW PLANTING DETAIL: ~'~ ' ~" r : GRADING AND SITE 5 ~/NTEPSER~Y 3uU'MMIE~5HIEET j T ~DRAWING NQ[SCALE~E: ISLET NO. BAGYLONNY I)702 3 OF 12 /. CO/VT-I:?ACTOf~ TO UT-ILIZE ,qLL- PLANTJ, ,SPECIFIEO. -" · ALL /-It~EA5 NOT OELINEATEO TO / AL_L PLANT~,~ TO ~E IIVJTAZ_LEO TO AA/iEI~ICAWV AGSO(CI,~TIOIV OF IVUI~JER'y'IV~AN · FOR IfV~llZ I~LDG L_,qlVO3CAP& OEE TYPICAL U/VI'l- OOGFVOOD LAN,DJCApE PLA IV GREENMAN-PEDERSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERE 325 W. MAIN ST. BABYLON N.Y. It702 HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE NQ SCALE: SHEET NO. Or 12 1. ~ .,,,.7