Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-40.-3-1 . . . ;~}~S:~:.::-~ ....' ',,,.. ~." . . i.,"""". '~~,","'~. ,. .._~; "~-- /:{:;';"':,\~~ f Oll '. ~'~'1q..~~~ ,'i::,...~--fj'l~;!y;}':.:~':;'~~:t:,:.;,~ . ~~~~~~~Qi~ TOWN OF SOU~HOr.o ~,~&.~~~~~":e-g~~r~ ;':"''; ',., '~\I '*" 'I. ' ,-{)'V . 'f/t "'4 ';\ ,I . ........ ~ i .LY" ~<;;::"':a:rLllJJ.rJ Southold, N.Y. 11971 I!ESRY E. RAYNOR,Jr.. Clwirrrum JAMES WALL DENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. CEORCE RlTelllE LATIIAM, Jr. WILUA.'>l F. MULLEN. Jr. . TELEPHONE 765-1938 July 14, 1983 Mr. David Kapell Kapell Real Estate 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Northwind Village Site Plan Dear Mr. Kapell: The fOllowing action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, July 11, 1983. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan "Northwind Villaqe" dated May 11, 1982, and . certified by the BUilding Inspector June 17, 1983. To date we have not received the appiiction fee of $25. Very truly yours.. HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOlJTIIOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary ._...-__.w.._~_._.,_.._._. -, , ~ --" ..,~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennell Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G . Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 May 3, 1990 Emanuel M. Kontokosta KACE Realty Co. 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 Re: Northwind Village Site Plan SCTM ~ 1000-40-3-1 Dear Mr. Kontokosta: With regard to your correspondence of April 4, 1990, the Planning Board stands by its letter of March 29, 1990. The minutes of the July 11, 1983 meeting state clearly that "...no drainage plans have been placed on the proposed plan and parking relative to the dwellings are not shown..." Further, you stated that you would submit that information when you applied for building permits, which you have not yet done. A copy of the minutes is enclosed for your convenience. A careful reading of the March 29th letter will reveal that it did not rescind the 1983 site plan approval, as you imply in your letter. It simply reminds you that certain conditions, as it were, of that approval have not been met. The drainage information is needed to ensure that stormwater generated on your property after construction is completed, does not flood or erode adjoining property, thereby creating a problem for which the Town, as well as you, would be liable. With regard to your legal action against the Village of Greenport, this Board had no knowledge of said action until you brought it to our attention in your letter. . . The inquiry from the Village of Greenport was made by a consultant to the Village. The inquiry consisted of a telephone call to ask if the site plan was approved and if that approval was still valid. In order to answer the consultant's question, the file was reviewed. During that review,it was determined that the site plan was still valid. But, it was also noticed that the conditions, as it were, of approval that were noted in the meeting minutes remained unaddressed. Since it seemed probable that you were preparing to apply for your building permits in the near future, the decision was made to inform you of the outstanding items now, so that your building permit application would not be denied for lack of compliance. It is unfortunate that this extension of courtesy has been misconstrued. I trust this letter will clear up the misunderstanding. Very Truly Yours, ~~fl.:/ Bennett Orlowski, Jr. I~ Chairman cc: Kenneth E. Gordon, Esq. Greg Blass, Village Attorney, Greenport Scott L. Harris, Supervisor -: e( : r.r>._...-........ ..--.....,..... ./"': .,.,~/ ,:'-;.. ......,.._; .~ r. ~ ,",., '':.. ,/"^"" ""..,.~ / ..:'\.... :,::'_~.'.~7" ~-l'":: 4(. ""-A ~ JL, .,: >:o~-;, :- I tJ _ '~" ,..,,,.' ~, i~ == . \ . .::.~ ~ q }:\.:...-J _I.' ~ _ _" _..- ~. ''<\'0'~' .~. ~., ',""" .'.., .~\ ,%:"...- t" / .-, -.::: -0 ,./" -..--. -, - .:1 ,l ~, "-=b.._" -. ",..' .c Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-18( PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOU'rnOLD March 29, 1990 Emanuel Kontokosta c/o KACE Realty Company 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 Re: Northwind Village Site Plan, S/s CR 48, Greenport SCTM * 1000-40-3-1 Dear Mr. Kontokosta, The Planning Board was contacted by the Greenport Village Utility Company as to the validity of the site plan approval that was granted to the above-referenced site in 1983. This Board wishes to make clear that while it granted site plan approval in 1983, the drainage and grading plans and the parking layout remain unaddressed. To date, these plans have not been submitted to this office for review and approval. Before any building permits could be issued on this project, the following approvals have to be obtained: 1. The drainage and grading plans will have to be reviewed by the Town's engineer for compliance with Article XXV of the Town Code, and accepted by the Planning Board. 2. The parking layout and site plan also would have to be reviewed and approved by this Board. 3. A valid water and sewer contract for the density shown - . on the site plan has to be fufilled to the satisfaction of the Village of Greenport. Written confirmation from the Village of Greenport and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services will be required to be submitted to this office. If there are any questions about the above, please contact this office. Very Truly Yours, . -;1 ~~p-~ Bennett Orlowski, Jr. r.r Chairman cc: Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Village of Greenport, Utility Committee --',," pg. (4) 7/11/83 n Simicich - Mr. Philip O'Frias, Attorn~y for was pent as the Board reviewed Inspectn'r' D'a;,"i; ing access the lots within this the cost for t ecommended improv present landowners requested th ent road specifications the are cost from $4,000 to $1,500. ti responsibility of cost for such im the developer. It was agreed by th Attorney advise the Board who is re action on Inspector John W. Davis' ..... dI I., \1.n lS' rep-vJ:t '~b 10mi te --"', ~Ii~ t").tJ-^n 2garc_ oed -rA.i!.1J. w~ ~ ~ ) the jAk l' r""'" .~~ ;~;~e:_ r 7...t~ .'i cl'C- - 10 (;<Ji!.-1'--.fA. /" Ufi.l~'Y;4oC Ie r 0: ;',',/ rt"./0. f , take /'. t''..- ~, ;+,JI.,.,/;' /lU/1'''kfY'~ I F /A-?14-- *****~ --- Su 'van/Preston Site Plan - An ins! prior he meeting. The Board not in the rear the bUilding and recc tact the Sou tho own Board for pe! access from this par' area. Mr. Preston and they would propose to us ed brick walkway. ,. _~L"" '-'U'-jll ~t-r ~ .~ ,,1' ~ "'~ .-~ :f .j; ,4< -,;~-~ '-.-c - ;:~ ""W "iI': -.,'- , l:i Mr. Sullivan statoc On motion made by Mr. by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning B d refer the site 81an of SUllivan/Preston to the Building Department Vote of the Board: Ayes: * * * * * * * * * * k Noc,"Hio' ViHaoo - Mc. Kooioko",. Woo Pceoooi .c iho 'oocd caviev" certification from the Building Inspector's Office. It was noted that no drainage plans have been placed on the proposed plan and parking relative to the dwellings are not shown. Mr. Kontokosta stated there will be garages for the dwelling units; the size of th0 units encompass the garages. Mr. Kontokosta stated this would bo done when plans are submitted to the BUilding Inspector's Office. Mr. Lessard stated no objection to this and stated no objection to determining adequate drainage for the area with possible assistanc~ from Inspector John Davis. Mr. Raynor advised Mr. Kontokosta that the Suffolk County Planning Commission would have to revie'..: the "r2- posed site plan. ;/ it I Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Orlowskl On motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve tho sito pl~" "Uorthwind Village" dated May 11, 1982, and cert1r1ea uy tne uUlj~- 1ng lnspector June 17, 1983. * * * * * * * * * * ~..=.---. --.;-- pg. (4) 7/11/83 ~. dI J" n Simicich - Mr. Philip O'Frias, Attorn~y for '\tr'..l.s' rep0rt~olomite was pent as the Board reviewed Inspectdr' D'airj;'w ,,- "~1l8 regard_ ing access the lots within this subdivision. ~.l.. u Frias stated the cost for t ecommended improvements would be very costly to the present landowners requested that another contractor sub~it difie_. ent road specifications the area that would reduce the estimated' cost from $4,000 to $1,500. tion was raised as to who has the responsibility of cost for such im ements; the present landowner or the developer. It was agreed by the Bo members that the TOIm Attorney advise the Board who is responsible. The Board did not take action on Inspector John W. Davis' report #308. * * * * * * * * * * Su 'van/Preston Site Plan - An inspection of this property was made prior he meeting. The Board noted there was ample par1:inc (publicl in the rear the bUilding and recommended that the applicants Con- tact the Sou tho own Board for permission for a "walk through" access from this par' area. Mr. Preston and Mr. Sullivan stated they would propose to us ed brick walkway. ~~ ...::.- /~ On motion made by Mr. by Mr. Latham, it was - .~ .! .'~ ~ _M.- ~g :t -j ,.. ;'. ...~ 1'__ -;... ..~.-.; {'~ RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning B d refer the site alan of SUllivan/Preston to the Building Department - certif.l.cc~lcn. Vote of the Board: Ayes: * * * * * * * * * * *' N 0 'Cho iod Vi U "q, - Mr. Koo 'okoo '" wa, prcoe q' "' Che Bo", 'ov'"''C' certification from the Building Inspector's Office. It was noted that no drainage plans have been placed on the proposed plan and parking relative to the dwellings are not shown. Mr. Kontokosta stated there will be garages for the dwelling units; the size of thn units encompass the garages. Mr. Kontokosta stated this would bc done when plans are submitted to the Building Inspector's Office. Mr. Lessard stated no objection to this and stated no objection to determining adequate drainage for the area with possible assistanc~ from Inspector John Davis. Mr. Raynor advised Mr. Kontokosta that the Suffolk County Planning Commission would have to revie".,' tho pre- posed site plan. I 'I Ij I Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Orlowskl On motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site Dl~c "Northwind Village" dated May 11, 1982, and certlLlea uy tno uUlJ~- lng lnspector June 17, 1983. * * * * * * * * * * ",-- . . s{). t';hU; Js Pb ulS 'tf GORDON. GORDON & TEPPER. P.C. 3 PARK A VENUE 28TH FLOOR NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10016 (212) 725-3700 TELECOPIER (21 2) 481-5471 MURRA V A. GORDON 1111>>..... I $U$!5l CABLE ADDRESS uMURAGOR NEWYORI("' KENNETH E. GORDON ARTHUR L.. TEPPER. ARAGAW MEHARI TERI L. SHULMANn STEVEN .1. SAL TIEL". April 10, 1990 "ADMITTED IN NY lit FL "AChlmEO IN NY a CT -ADMITTED IN NY III NJ Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Our firm represents Mr. Emanuel Kontokosta and Kace Realty Co. in connection with their federal court litigation against the Village of Greenport. Mr. Kontokosta has shared with me your letter to him dated March 29, 1990. As is more fully set forth in Mr. Kontokosta's letter to you of April 4, 1990, both the substance and the timing of your letter were very trOUbling. The substance of y,our letter was trOUbling because the site plan for Nortbwind Village was approved by the Planning Board in 1983. The timing of your letter has caused concern because it arrived shortly after my office submitted its papers in support of our motion for summary judgment in the above- men~ioned litigation. Particularly disturbing to us was the possibility that the Village of Greenport may have encouraged your letter of March 29, 1990 in an effort to defeat our motion. It would obviously be inappropriate for the Planning Board to be a party to such an effort, and we hope that that has not occurred. As is explained in ~r. Kontokosta's letter to you of April 4, 1990, it is inappropriate for the Planning Board to reconsider what it already approved in 1983. The site plan approval already acted upon by the Board necessarily included drainage, grading and parking. .__m. _._ . . ..;ORDON, GORDON & TEPPER, P.C. Mr. Bennett Orlowksi, Jr. April 10, 1990 Page Two. To eliminate any confusion, we must request that you rescind your letter of March 29, 1990. Very truly yours, GORDON, GORDON & TEPPER, P.C. 'I - , I~ ///.-: -r . \. ,. ---,~ ,,_. /' I~'''' / / /Kenn';th' E. Gordon KEG: jm ) . KACE HEALTY CO. 43 West 54th Street York City, New York 10019 . S upF/~ P13 Vs New Apt'il 4th, 1990 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr, Chairman. Southold Planl'"lil'"lg Be,ard Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Be.x 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Approved Site Plan-Northwind Village S/s CH 48, Greenport ~~I~_ll_lQQQ=~Q=]=l Dear Mr. Orlowski: I am in receipt of your letter of March 29, 1990 concerning the site plan for Ne.rthwind Village which was Ul'"lcol'"lditionally appt'oved by the Southold Plarwo.iY"lg Board 01'1 July 11, 1983, copy of which I have enclc1sed for your files. In your letter, you state that three additional approvals will have to be obtained before a building permit may be issued. I strongly disagree with at least two of the items mentioned in your letter. First, your letter states that: liThe draiYlage aYld gradirlg plan~;) will have to be reviewed by the Town's Engineer for compliance with Article XXV of the Town Cc,de, aY"ld accepted by the Plarly!irlg Boat"'d. II Contrary to what is suggested in your letter, all the information necessary for a site plan review, including but not limited to drainage and grading was submitted, reviewed and the site plan approved by the Planning Board on July 11, 1983 indicating full compliance with the intent and regulations of all the paragraphs of Article XIII-"Site Plan Approvall' of the Town Code in force at that time. I am enclosing a copy of the approved site plan signed by the then chairman of the planning board Mr. Henry Raynor for your files. To the extent that your letter suggests that these plans had to comply with Article XXV of the Town Code, it is surely mistaken since Article XXV was enacted in 1989 and was not in force at the time the Northwind Village project plans were submitted or at the time the site approval was granted. Your attempt to apply select parBgraphs of Article XXV while completely ig~~ring paragraph 100-255(8) Article XXV is beyond understanding. The subject paragraph states: llAII site plans which have received fiYlal appt"'oval prior to the eYlactrlleYlt of this At"'ticle shu~r-f:rerllairl valid fot'" a peric1d of tht"'ee (3) yeat"'S ft"'Of'l.jl title date ,of such erlactmeYlt. This pet"'iCld will begiY'1 ""hon"'.aff"govet"'ymleYltal t. d II .1', Ii approvals havebeeY'1 I:lb all"le . ';;~';''''' l:1jj. ';-'r\ - J __~ i~'" ~":~''"~''C'~: L-::~'~-~~.~ . . To: Mr.B.Orlowski,Jr. Re: Site Plan-Northwind Village Page 2 of 2 Apt'il 4, 1990 Second, YC1ur letter states that thl~ "pal'"'kiFlg layout arid site planll will also have to be reviewed and approved by the Board. Once again, all the information necessary for a site plan review, including but not limited to a parking layout was submitted, reviewed and the site plan approved by the Southold Planning Board on July 11, 1983 indicating full compliance with the intent and regulations of all the paragraphs of At...ticle XIII-IlSite PlaYI Approvc.'\lll of the Tow'n Code i1"l force at that time. Since these plans have already been reviewed and approved, I believe that further consideration would be both superfluous and unfair. Nevertheless, as noted above, a copy of the approved site plan is enclosed for your files. Finally, your letter states that a valid water and sewer contract approved by the Village of Greenport will have to be obtained. As you are no doubt aware, I currently have an action pendinrl in federal court challenging the actions by thu Village of Greenport in failing to approve and/or to act upon my applications for water and sewer services. I am hopeful that such liti~~ation will be completed and that this final barrier will be removed in the near future. Needless to say, your letter obviously came as a great surprise. I find it rather ironic to say the least, that a fJroject that I,as been pending for the past seven years, should, after discussions with the Villa98 of Greenport, receive your concerted attention. I am particularly concerned about the timing of your letter, which arrived during the pendency of my motion for SUMMary judgement in r~y federal court action against the Village of Greenport. I believe it would be inappropriate for the Southold Planning Board to be taking any action to prejudice my litigation by sU90esting that there are additional requirements to what has always been considered a final site plan appt'oval. I must therefore ask that you rescind your letter of March 29, 1990 so that there will be no doubts about the approval already granted to Northwind Village. If indeed the issue of site plan approval has been resurrected solely for the purpose of hindering ~lY litigation, I shall take apprc~l:t"iate lQgal actiol'".. / / Ei~K/ck cc: Mr. Scott L. l~~rris, Sllpervisor T.";IWY"1 .:if S()ui:;h(:lld Erv=- 1. 05Ur"'e: c~eRs~~_~8Ib '--' i--.;--... ---....~L- -~' -'! >., , P~.. ~.:.;,_~_.___.._ J ... ., . ::itA e:E1t.E'" Vs Pb WS "''''If GORDON, GORDON 8: TEPPER. P.C. 3 PARK AVENUE 28TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10016 (212) 725-3700 TELECOPIER (212) 481-5471 MUFtRAY A. GORCON (19...4.1ee!U CABLE ADDRESS nMURAGOR NEWYORK" KENNETH E. GORCON ARTHUR L... TEPPER'" ARAGAW MEHARI TEFlI L.. SHULMAN.... STEVEN J. SAL.TIEL..... April 10, 1990 'ADMITTED IN NY 6: FL. ooADMl'TttD IN NY eo CT "'ADMmED IN NY a NJ Mr. Bennett Orlowski., ,Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Our firm represents Mr. Emanuel Kontokosta and Kace Realty Co. in connection with their federal court litigation against the Village of Greenport. Mr. Kontokosta has shared with me your letter to him dated March 29, 1990. As is more fully set forth in Mr. Kontokosta's letter to you of April 4, 1990, both the substance and the timing of your letter were very troubling. The substance of your letter was troubling because the site plan for Northwind Village was approved by the planning Board in 1983. The timing of your letter has caused concern because it arrived shortly after my office submitted its papers in support of our motion for summary judgment in the above- mentioned litigation. Particularly disturbing to us was the possibility that the village of Greenport may have encouraged your letter of March 29, 1990 in an effort to defeat our motion. It would obviously be inappropriate for the Planning Board to be a party to such an effort, and we hope that that has not occurred. As is explained in Mr. Kontokosta's letter to you of April 4, 1990, it is inappropriate for the planning Board to reconsider what it already approved in 1983. The site plan approval already acted upon by the Board necessarily included drainage, grading and parking. ;1 /\P~? i ? - . GORDON, GORDON Be TEPPER, P.C. Mr. Bennett Orlowksi, Jr. April 10, 1990 Page Two. . To eliminate any confusion, we must request that you rescind your letter of March 29, 1990. KEG ~ jm Very truly yours, GORDON, GORDON & TEPPER, P.C. ,," ~Pfi::;//" ..~ ~(, L-.' .d [l . .. . / enneth E. 'Gordon " . . s U 8P, c...e- P8 Vs KACE REALTY co. 43 West 54th Street New York City, New York 10019 Ap,'il 4th, 1990 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr, Chairman. Southold Planning Board Towr, of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Be.x 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Approved Site Plan-Northwind Village S/s CR 48, Greenport E~I~_!_lQQQ=iQ=~=l Dear Mr. Orlowski: I am in receipt of your letter of March 29, 1990 concerning the site plan for Northwind Village which was unconditionally approved by the Southe.ld Planning Board or, July 11, 1983, c.::opy of which I have encle.sed for your files. In your letter, you state that three additional approvals will have to be obtained before a building permit may be issued. I strongly disagree with at least two of the items mentioned in your letter. First, your letter states that: liThe the Town drainage ar,d g,'ading plar,s will have to be reviewed by Town's Engineer for compliance with Article XXV of the Code, ar,d accepted by the Planr,ir,g B.::oard." Contrary to what is suggested in your letter, all the information necessary fo...'" a. site plaY'1 t"eview, irlcludiYlg but l"lClt limited to dl'''a.inage and grading was submitted, reviewed and the site plan approved by the Planning Board on July 11, 1983 indicating full compliance with the intent and regulations of all the paragraphs of Article XIII-"Site Plan Approvalll of the Town Code in force at that time. I am enclosing a copy of the approved site plan signed by the then chairman of the planning board Mr. Henry Raynor for your files. To the extent that your letter suggests that these plans had to comply with Article XXV of the Town Code, it is surely mistaken since Article XXV was enacted in 1989 and was not in force at the time the Northwind Village project plans were submitted or at the time the site approval was granted. Your attempt to apply select paragraphs of Article XXV while completely ignoring paragraph 100-255 (B) Article XXV is bey.::ond ur,de,'star,dir,g. The subject paragraph states: "All site plans which have received fir,al app,'oval prior te. the er,act,oer,t of this Art icle s~:l.;rrf'iFa~Y',< veal id for a period of three (3) years fr~~\~$' date of such er,actmer,t. This pe,'ie.d will begir, "'~~, ' aYlgovernroental ."rov.', "avo 'een o''''ned.'' \UUj 11', R ,- 5 1990 L. l(;:~T~.;- . . . To: Mr.B.Orlowski,Jr. Re: Site Plan-Northwind Village Page 2 of 2 Apri14,1990 Sece'l'",d, your letter states that the "parkil'",g layout and site plal'"'" wi 11 also have to be reviewed and approved by the Board. Once again, all the information necessary for a site plan review, including but not limited to a parking layout was submitted, reviewed and the site plan approved by the Southold Planning Board on July 11, 1983 indicating full compliance with the intent and regulations of all the paragraphs of Article XIII-"Site Plan Approval" of the Town Code in force at that time. Since these plans have already been reviewed and approved, I believe that further consideration would be both superfluous and unfair. Nevertheless, as noted above, a copy of the approved site plan is enclosed for YC1ur files. Finally, your letter states that a valid water and sewer contract approved by the Village of Greenport will have to be obtained. As you are no doubt aware, I currently have an action pending in federal court challenging the actions by the Village of Greenport in failing to approve and/or to act upon my applications for water and sewer services. I am hopeful that such litigation will be completed and that this final barrier will be removed in the near future. Needless to say, YC1ur lettet"' c1bviously came as a Q..."eat surpr"ise. I fiY"ld it rather ironic to say the least, that a project that has been pending for the past seven years, should, after discussions with the Village of Greenport, receive your concerted attention. I am particularly concerned about the timil'",g e.f your letter, which arrived dut'ing the pendeY'lcy o.f my mc,ticl'('l fo...... summal'"'Y judgemeY'lt irl my fedel'''al cotn"'t actioY'1 against the Village of Greel'",po.'t. I believe it would be inapp.'opriate for the Southold Planning Board to be taking any action to prejudice my litigation by suggesting that there are additional requirements to what has always been considered a final site plan app0~val. I must therefore ask that you rescind your letter of March 29, 1990 so that there will be no doubts about the approval already granted to Northwind Village. If indeed the issue of site plan approval has been resurrected solely for the purpose of hindering my litigation, I shall take appro riate legal action. cc: Mr. Scott L. Harris, Supervisor Town of Southold EnclOSLlt"e: s.Ke8s.e~Lt1816 ;} :'.'; \ , APR - 5 i99J I Ls~")!,,.;. L-il.2:.':I':':~':'_~d .-, .,~-"- . Southold, N.Y. 11971 HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr.. Chairman JAMES WALL DENNHTT ORLOWSKJ, Jr. GEORGE RITCIIlE LATIIAM,Jr. WILUAM F. MULLEN, Jr. - TELEPHONE 765.1938 July 14 r 1983 Mr. David Kapell Kapell Real Estate 400 Front Street Greenportr New York 11944 Re: Northwind Village Site Plan Dear Mr. Kapell: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, July 11, 1983. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan "Northwind Villaqe" dated May 11, 1982, and certified by the Building Inspector June 17, 1983. To date we have not received the appiiction fee of $25. I Very truly yours,. HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOQTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary f"'.~"-""""""'K'--"""'-"~'~'~ _~c..,,__ : ~ " 4PR - .5.1990 " . . Town HaIl, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 29, 1990 Emanuel Kontokosta c/o KACE Realty Company 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 Re: Northwind Village Site Plan, S/s CR 48, Greenport SCTM * 1000-40-3-1 Dear Mr. Kontokosta, The Planning Board was contacted by the Greenport Village Utility Company as to the validity of the site plan approval that was granted to the above-referenced site in 1983. This Board wishes to make clear that while it granted site plan approval in 1983, the drainage and grading plans and the parking layout remain unaddressed. To date, these plans have not been submitted to this office for review and approval. Before any building permits could be issued on this project, the following approvals have to be obtained: 1. The drainage and grading plans will have to be reviewed by the Town's engineer for compliance with Article XXV of the Town Code, and accepted by the Planning Board. 2. The parking layout and site plan also would have to be reviewed and approved by this Board. 3. A valid water and sewer contract for the density shown ~ ) . on the site plan has to be fufilled to the satisfaction of the Village of Greenport. Written confirmation from the Village of Greenport and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services will be required to be submitted to this office. If there are any questions about the above, please contact this office. Very Truly Yours, ~~Ph Bennett Orlowski, Jr. '-f Chairman cc: Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Village of Greenport, Utility Committee . . Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CONFIDENTIAL INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner ~ FROM: DATE: March 12, 1990 Validity of Site Plan for Northwind Village SCTM ~ 1000-40-3-1 RE: The that you proceed. Planning Board has asked me to write you in the hope will be able to provide it with some guidance in how to The Village of Greenport's Utility Company recently inquired about the validity of the above-referenced site plan. Staff was unable to answer the question because a review of the file indicated the following: 1. Although an environmental impact statement was submitted with the application in June of 1983, it was not reviewed. No determination was made by the Planning Board as to the environmental impact this project might be expected to have. 2. Site plan approval was granted by the Planning Board on July 11, 1983. However, the application fee was never paid. This fact was stated in the letter notifying the applicant that approval had been granted. 3. Further, the Planning Board had not sent the proposed site plan to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for its review. This is stated in the Board's July minutes. However, there is no record of the plans being forwarded to that Commission. In light of the above-noted omissions of procedure, the question remains as to whether this site plan enjoys status as an approved site plan. . . HARVEY A. ARNOFF Town Attorney SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor MATTHEW G. KIERNAN Assistant Town Attorney OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Roal P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 CONFIDENTIAL DATE: March 12, 1990 TO: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner FROM: Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney RE: Validity of Site Plan for Northwind Village SCTM # 1000-40-3-1 In response to your inquiry reference the above. The following response and opinion is being rendered with one impor- tant caveat - that I have no personal knowledge of the status of the project known as Northwind Village. Notwithstanding that, however, the following issues are presented by your inquiry: 1. The failure to refer the matter to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for its review has in some instances been held to void the subsequent action of a Planning Board, although there are decisions which apparently go both ways. That is to say, that the courts have come down on both sides of the issue depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. 2. The failure to comply with the provisions of SEQRA in most instances may void the subsequent determination of a Planning Board. 3. The site plan approval without the above and with- out the payment of an application fee is not an error which is binding upon the Board and is one which can be reversed by them upon specific facts or findings. . . 4. Most important is the determination by YQur body as to whether or not they wish to make this particular project a test case. We can rest assured that the owners of Northwind Village will litigate to the fullest extent possible all issues and it is quite possible notwithstanding the above that the courts may find in their favor. 5. Consequently, if it is the opinion of the Board that the project as presented would in all proba- bility meet all of the requirements above were they imposed upon it, then certainly a prior approval should remain undisturbed. Should you wish to discuss this matter with me or wish for me to meet with the Board to discuss it, I would be pleased to do so. - 2 - lit Southold, N.Y. 11971 HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., Chai,man JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RJTCHlE LATHAM, Jr. WILUAM F. MULLEN, Jr. TELEPHONE 765.1938 July 14, 1983 Mr. David Kapell Kapell Real Estate 400 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Northwind Village Site Plan Dear Mr. Kapell: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, July 11, 1983. RESOLVED that the Southo1d Town Planning Board approve the site plan "Northwind Vil1aqe" dated May 11, 1982, and certified by the Building Inspector June 17, 1983. $25. To date we have not received the app1iction fee of Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary f pg. (4) . ~ 7/11/83 John Simicich - Mr. Philip O'Frias, Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. DOlOmite was present as the Board reviewed Inspector Davis' report #308 regard_ ing access to the lots within this subdivision. Mr. O'Frias stated the cost for the recommended improvements would be very costly to the present landowners and requested that another contractor submit differ_ ent road specifications for the area that would reduce the estimated cost from $4,000 to $1,500. Question was raised as to who has the responsibility of cost for such improvements; the present landowner Or the developer. It was agreed by the Board members that the Town Attorney advise the Board who is responsible. The Board did not take action on Inspector John W. Davis' report #308. * * * * * * * * * * " >- SUllivan/Preston Site Plan - An inspection of this property was made prior to the meeting. The Board noted there was ample parking (publici in the rear of the building and recommended that the applicants con- tact the Southold Town Board for permission for a "walk through" access from this parking area. Mr. Preston and Mr. Sullivan stated they would propose to use red brick walkway. On motion made by Mr. Orlowski, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the site plan of SUllivan/Preston to the Building Department for certification. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Orlowski * * * * * * * * * * i :1 'I II I 'r" Northwind Village - Mr. Kontokosta was present as the Board revielved certification from the Building Inspector's Office. It was noted that no drainage plans have been placed on the proposed plan and parking relative to the dwellings are not shown. Mr. Kontokosta stated there will be garages for the dwelling units; the size of the units encompass the garages. Mr. Kontokosta stated this would be done when plans are submitted to the Building Inspector's Office. Mr. Lessard stated no objection to this and stated no objection to determining adequate drainage for the area with possible assistance from Inspector John Davis. Mr. Raynor advised Mr. Kontokosta that the SuffOlk County Planning-Commission would have to review the pro- posed site plan. On motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site pl~~ "Northwind Village" dated May 11, 1982, and cert~t~ed by the BUllc.:- ~ng Inspector June 17, 1983. ~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Orlowski ~ - ~ * * * * * * * * * * ,~ ~ ~ . . Southold, N.Y. 11971 HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., Chairman JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr. WILUAM F. MULLEN, Jr. .. TELEPHONE 765.1938 June 8, 1983 Mr. Victor Lessard Building Administrator Southold Town Hall SouthOld, New York 11971 Re: Northwind Village Condominium Project Dear Mr. Lessard: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Plan- ning Board, Wednesday, June 1, 1983. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer the site plan "Northwind Village" to the Building Department for certification. Three copies of the above site plan have been attached. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary Attch. cc: David Kapell, agent . . Southold, N.Y. 11971 HENRY E. RAYNOR. Jr., Chizi'lnIJn JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr. WILUAM F. MULLEN, Jr. TELEPHONE 765-1938 June 16, 1983 Mr. David Kapell 400 Front street Greenport New York 11944 Re: Northwind Village Dear Mr. Kapell: On review of the above referenced site plan file, it has come to our attention that the application fee of $25 has not been received. Would you please forward a check, payable to the Southola Town Clerk, as soon as possible. , Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary . . Officers , . IIAYOR QIIClIGB W. HUIIIWlD TJUJmllII W1W.ul D. ALLIIN 1AII\JIlI. KATZ W1u.LU1 /I. UBBL8IN JlQIIIllT T. WIllI 1{iLa.ge 0/ .9reenport ..lICO.NIIATeD ,... lIew ..COII",,47... .p,,~ t. ,... 1t&.'.SOIlN.aT'." ""DI" .,...... .... ... ... '... lITlLITY OFFICE TEL. (516) 477-1748 POWER PLANT TEL. (516) 477.0172 JIlPI'. OF unlSJ'lQ J_ l.lIOlI8llU. ......,. -- JUN 7 REC'O 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 JUQa 6, 1983 Mr. I. M. Kontoko.ta, ~.I. Kontoko.ta ".o~iat.. 43 We.t 54th Street Nev York, New York 10019 Ilea Weter & Sewer Se"i~e 122 ".idential UQit. Dear Mr. KoQtoko.tal .... To ~omplete your requ..t of Janu.ry 10, 1983 to .upply water and .ewer .e"i~e to 60 aue. of land in North Gnenport, we will ued the followiDI iDfo~tioQ aad data. 1.) . plot plau of the .ubdivi.ion .bowiQS 10~atioQ aQd .ize of water aQd .ewer ..iu. 2.) Nuabar of dwelliDI unit.. 3.) Daily .ewala d...nd, peak d--.nd aQd annual d...ad. 4.) Daily watat c;oQ.\llllPtioQ, paa~ d...ad aQd annual de-.nd. When we bave re~eb.d this ido~Uc!Q, we will sive YOllt nqlleat ~r ~diate atteatiCIQ. ;; ""y""'" J.... I. Moasell SuperiQteQdeQt of Publi~ Utili tie. JIMlnr e---t$ '/J, &\1\'l) c.C. - JI!NK! f!AfN~tZ.J $01)"0.10<.0 ""WN nA^,""Nt: l3oA"/J ~ I # KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES · ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS 43 west 54th street / new york city, new york 10019 / 212-582-6100 e.m. kontokosta p.e. gary rogers r.a. ,APR 27 REC'O April 25, 1983 Mr. Henry E. Raynor,Jr, Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Re: Northwind Village 17 Acres, North Road Dear Mr. Raynor: Regarding the Planning Board's concern of water accumulation at the south end of the above captioned parcel, I have enclo- sed herewith a copy of the applicable section of the County Public Works Topo map indicating the property lines, contour lines and some spot elevations. Please note that the property elevations are approximately 30 feet high at the north end and sloping through a gradual grade, down to 10 feet at the extreme south end of the pro- perty. Since your inspection committee was forced to view the site from the south end due to the heavy prevailing vege- tation, it is possible that they were viewing the low areas indicated on the enclosed map, which are outside the para- meters of the subject property. The area I make reference to is indicated by spot elevations of 3 and 3.5 feet and by the stream refered to as Moore's Drain. A personal inspection of some portions of the site revealed that, except for an occasional dip in the topography, the grades were relatively high and the property did not retain any excessive amount of runoff. YO~l ~n~ EMK/ck Enclosure Q.-'\6 'M '-1\'20)23 . . I'~) \l 25 17.5 15.5 '" '''''-"-oJ "".',J' INC. VILL " 'j j'"'-' /' I ( \, 195 "- '\ ( .t) " \ :r'" '. \ 3.0 II- )~f: .' n (: 7:17 . I '., / t /, / !:) \, 1~ \' I \:~ " '. j, : ,----'. X' ') !..~..\14.5 . '. G' / /" ~-,?"" , \ .'.~~ . ~~."\ '~~ \ .... '~'.'.n..' "'_'_n.~ -- "~~--~--"- (-...., _. ~-'--~~":.;.:;::>"""'----- Ir5 i \ " \, i 3.5 ~\' y' \ \ \ '\ \ .~ I \, \ //~'- ,~ '-', i .'}. J ,. : '. 140 14.5 --: '_. -..-4---.---....., '., ;4t! I "'... \ I \ I., ii / ' / ( \ 600 800 FT. t:~:.~-=:._._~=~~-,.~._1 INDEX TO ADJOI!ii~iG SHEETS I'---r-" . I I ,JJ-39 I I J~'4~-l .' ,. , .' ~/ '\,)' , '\. t' ) , , . -..:..-. Jf'- 'I ~ . :-. DAVID E. KAPELL 400 Front Street Green port, New York 11944 516-477-9403 REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES CONSULTING SERVICES MAY 2 REC'O Mr. Henry Raynor, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 April 26, 1983 Dear Henry: Enclosed herewith please find the Long Form Environmental Assessment requested in your letter of April 20, 1983 concerning the application of my client, Emmanuel Kontokosta, for the Northwind Condominium project. The board will also receive correspondence directly from Mr. Kontokosta concerning the issue of any surface water on site. Should the Board require any additional information please don't hesitate to contact me. . ,'6 VV\ ~ sJ,-!(5 . ~..' TO.F SOUTHOLD 1- .t' . - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART I . PROJECT I~70&~TION MAY 2 ,REC'il :iOT:C~; This docusr.ent is designed to a.ssist: in dete~nb9 ',oInether :~eiction ~roposea 'nay ;,ave ! -sfqnificant 9f7~C: In the 2!1vircnment. Pleasa camaleti:! the !ntir! Jau ::::r:e~t. "'nswer~ ~o these ,~ue5tions liin Je consiQ~rl!d .!S :Ian: or ';.'"Ie aoplic.ltion for aporoval ind ,nay be suaj~": to further- 'Jertfic3tion lnd ~ublic r~v;ew. Provide any aadiciortal informacion ~ou believe will ~e needed :0 c:molece ~ART3 Z and J. ~: is i!xceo::ett :~at =omaletion of the ~F '..,ill oe d:epend~~ ~n information cUn"!!'ltl'l availaole !nd 4i11 noc :nlJ?lv~ :"fe"" i:uC1~e$..~e5aar::"I.or investiqation. rf tnfo~~:lon J"'!!JuiMng iuch 3.adl~ional '.:fork -I I ~" tndlca.i:a and soeO:liY ~ac.' Instance.. is.:unava:iilO e, . :iA/.lE .1F PQOJECi": ~A~E ~NO ACCR~SS OF OWNER ([f Oiif~r~nt) MnY't'hM4 n,.{ tH 11 Ag9 ('~'q~~iRiY:lAg ~mm~nup-l Knnrnknar~ UlilJTla 43 West 54 Street ADO~E~S l.iJO ,'IA:~E OF ,1;20':,. t O.NT: (St:!'~e!:; David E. Kapell, as agent {:i.aiT!e~ N.T.C., N.Y. 10019 U.'J.: (Stat.) (Z;p) 3US!MESS ?~OtIE: ?1,?_ ~S2 ftlQ9 uOO W~nnr ~t'Y'AAt' (Screec; Greenport, N.Y. 11944 {o','J.; (St><.) (cipj ryESC~!?i!a~! aF OOOJEO:7: (Sriefly descri'be t,pe of .~rojec-: :1r ac::ion) Project involves constructiDn nf lOR rnnrlnTn-f.,-lu1'n nn-ff-a OR 17 a91'8S Sf laRa zoned M- Light Multiple Residence District (;Jl:.~S.E COMPLEiE' EACH CUE5i'rQ:~ - rndiC:3t; ,'LA. if not Jcclic301~l , ~. 5!,0 ~E5C~IPr!QM (~hY5ic!1 iattir.; of over311 projec:. ~oth develoc~ !nd ~ndeYelcoea Jreas) L Gl!ner!1 c;,arac:al'" of t~e land: G.ene!"'aily unifu1"'!'!"i ileDe..!....-.. ~lIi!!ne!"aily ~evgn and ",i11ng Jr irrso;uiar z. ~!"':!sent !and :Jse: Urban , [naus~rial . CQrmterl:~aI _' A9ricuItu~ _.0Eer Vacant orushland iat31 ac~~age Qf ~roject !rea: ~acr!s. Sucuroan -' ~u:"a 1 . _' ::or!s"t 3. A~proximata !~r~age: ~e~dcw Or 3rusnland ?resentl1 ~ftsr Compl~~~~" ?resent1y After ~cmo'et;on .2!...Jeres -O..-!C~'!s ;'lat!r Surface ':'r~~ _3Cl""~S _3.C~S ::ar~s ~=~ _lC':"!S _!c:-'!s Unve~~tat!1 ~~c~. e'!r':~ or fil1~ .!c:-~s _iCr!S ~~?"-: C:J j ,::.:r! I !cr'!s _!::-es ~oadz, jci!d~~qs :!.~~ -:::-:er :Jav!'::i iur7~ces Landscaped ~t:':.er' (~lldi:.3:~ .::;~eJ ~!:~~S ~:c:-~s -L,eres ~'er.. '..!e,: I :r.c ;: ::~~silwat!r or rfaa! :5 ~er ~r~1~;!5 :~. 2S Jr ;.::.:".: _lcr'!s _~C:-~5 J., '.lha:: is "r'!-:cm1n!n~ SOl1 ~YI)l!(S} ']n ')TOje-:!: :;::!: Sandy loam 3. 01. ,~,.e ::::!!r',,! ::)e(!~c:< ~uc::::""O=oings .:n :J~jec: 3::.:? _~'!S ..!.-..'lo J. ~hat is ~!~t~ :~ :ed~=cX? Hnd,..fin,..r1 {rn 3~~C} ULna . . ',,, ~. . 6. - 7. 8. 9. 10. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0-10: 100:; 10-15: :':; 15:: or - . -- greater -'_. , Is project contiguous to. or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? _Yes ~No What is the dapth to the water table?l~feet ~ hunting or fishing opportunities presant1y exist in the project area? _____yes ~No Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endancered - _____yes ~lo. according to - Identify each species . 11. Are t~ere any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (I.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations -_Yes -.L~o.(Oescribe 12. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - _Yes -1L...:~0. ' 13. Coes the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to ,the communIty? _Yes -X-!'Io 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary N.A. I . ) 15. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name N.A. ; b. Size (in acres) 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mil. radius of the project (e.g~ single family residential, R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. ~ story). Single family residential, nursing home, commercial campground 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 17 acres. b. Project acreage developed: -2 _ acres initially; _~_ acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 12 d. Length of project, in miles: N A (if appropriate) e. If project is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot- age N. A. ; developed acreage f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing o 50 proposed 108 (upon completion of project) g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One 'Family Two Family Mul tiple Family 108condominium Initial 108 108 Ultimate i. If: Orientation Heighbornood-City-Regional Estimated Employment Corrrnerci a I Industrial j. Total height of tallest proposed structure 25 feet. '#. . . 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be re~oved from the site - o o tons - cubic yards. 3. How many acres of Vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site - ~acres. 4. Will any mature foresi (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ______yes ~~o 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? ~Yes ______No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction ~months, (including demolition). . 7. If multi-phased project: a. Total number of phases anticipated _____No. b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 _month ------year (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date final phase IllOnth --year. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? ______yes ______No a. Will blasting occur during construction? _yes --Jt--No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 100: after project is complete 5 . 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project ~'. 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? _yes ~No. If yes. explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? _yes ~NO. b. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial. etc.) c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discherged 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterAays be increased or decreased by proposal? _yes ~No. 14. Is project or any portion C>f project located in the 100 year flood plain? _Yes ~No 15. a. Does proje~t involve disposal of solid waste? _____yes --1l-NO b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? _____yes _NO c. If yes, give name: : locati on d. Will any wastes not go into a sewege disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ~Yes ~No 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? _____yes ~~o 17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? _____yes ~No 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? _yes ~No 19. Will project result in an increase in energy use? --1L-Yes _____No. If yes. indicate type{s) electricity and fuel oil . 20. If water supply is from wells indicate pumping capacity 21. Total anticipat=d water usage _er day _tirDDD qals/day. 22. Zoning: a. What is dcminant 'zoning classification of site? gals/minute. M Light Multiple Residence b. Current s;Jecffic zoning classification of site same c.. Is proposed use co"sistent with present zoning? yes '. d. If no, indicate desired zoning -3- . . . " . . 26. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit reqoired? _____yes ---llJ~0 b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? ______yes ~No c. Local and Regional approvals: . Approval Required (Yes, 110) (Type) City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Soard City, Town, Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies X Site Plan C. INFO~~TIONAL DETAILS Submittal (Date) liB/83 Approva 1 (Date) Attach any additional infonration as ~ay be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the. proposal, pl se discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avo PREPARER'S SI~~ATURE: TITLE: REPRESENTING: !mmanuel Kontokosta . DATE: 4/26/83 . '.~> TO~F SOUTHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II . " .. PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR ~~GNITUDE General !nfor~ation (Read Carefully) - In completing the form the reviewer should be g~ided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is net expected to =~ an e~pert environmental analyst. . Identifying tnat an effect will be potentially large (column Z) does not mean that it sianificant. Any large effect must be evaluated i~ ?ART 3 to determine significance. effect in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. is also necessarily By.identifying an - The Exam~Tes provided are ~o assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever pOSSible the threshold Of magnltuoe that '.ould trigger a response in co1u:," 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But. for any specific project or site other examples andlor lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. - Each project, on each sfte, in each 10cality, will vary. TIlerefore, the examples have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. - The num~er of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIOIIS (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART Z. Ans_er ~ if there will be any effect. b. Maybe answers should be considered as ~ answers. c. If answering Yes to a auestion then check the aporooriate box (column 1 or Z) to indicate the potential size of the imoact. If impact threshold equal s or exceeds any example provided, check colu".., Z. If impact will occur but threshold is 10~er than examoie, check column 1: d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the imoact ~ileo.consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. . -.' . . e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less tnan large magnitude, plac2 a Yes in column 3. A No res~o~se indicates that such a reduction is not possible. 1 a 3 IMPACT ON LAND . . S~~ALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODERATE Lfl.RGE REDUCED BY II~P ACT l1.tpACT PRDJ ECT CHANGE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 110 YES 1. WILL THE~E BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAl C".A~:GE TO €) 0 PROJECT SITE? Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or grsater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10:. Construction on Land where the depth to the water tabla is less than 3 feet. Construction of oaved parking areR for 1 .~G~ or ~c~ ,ehiclss. Censtructicn on land ~hera ~edrock is exposed or ;ene~al1y witnin J feet or !xisting ground surfac2. Constructicn chat ;.{ill continue for more than 1 '/e~r or invoive more than one pnase or stage. ~ Ex~avation for mining ~urposes that would r!~ve ~or~ than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) pe~ Y~3r. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. .5- . . . Construction in a designated floodway. Other illlJ'acts: 2. NO YES WILL THERE SE AN EFFECT TO AllY UNIQUE OR U;,USUAL LANO FORl"1S ~O FOUNll'OIl THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs. dunes, geological forma- \..31 ti<lns. etc.) Specific land forms: lliPACT ON WATER 3. NO YES WILL PROJECr AFFECT ANY WATER BODY DESI~'IATED AS ..........1'"'\ 0 PROTECTED? (Undp.r Articles IS, 24, 25 of the Envir- ~ onw~ntal Conservation Law, E.C.L.) Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: 4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY liON-PROTECTED EXISTIrlG OR NEW NO YES BODY OF t!ATER? ............................................€) 0 Examoles that Would Apply to Column Z A 10~ increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts: 5. WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER OUALITY? NO YES GO Examoles that Would Apply to Column Z Project will require a discharge pennit. Project requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. Project requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute ~umping capacity. Construction or ooerati~n causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Project will adversely "affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exisc or hdve inadequate capacity. Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. ___ Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvi~us visual contrast to natural conditions. S~'^LL TO MJDERA TE H1PACT - . - POIi:.:111AL Lt\P.GE If'r~CT l.,m 1;:i'JU,..1 9~ ~ REDUCI:J,~-( , pqOJECT CHAriGE '- ~" - , . . . .~ " , . Other Impacts: . . 6. \HLL PROJECT ALTEK DRAINAGE FLOII, ?ATTER~IS OR SURF':CE !:.~TER ~iO YES RU:IOFFl .... .... ...... ................. ... ... ....... .... ... QO Examol. that ~ould Aoply to Column 2 Project would imoede flood water flows. ~ , Project ;s likely ~o cause substantial erosion. Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Other impacts: IMPACT ON MR 7. tiO YES WILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY1..............." "...... "0 0 Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Project will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. I Project emission rate of all contaminants will ~xce~d 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million 3TU's per hour. Other impacts: I~PACT ON PLArlTS MID AIW'ALS 8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ~lY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPEC rEST :10 YES ~O Exam~les that Wcu1d Apply to Column Z Reduction of one or Ii10re species l;s~ad on the ;:ew York or Federal list. using the site~ over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wild- life hat,itat. . Ap~lication or Pesticide or ~erbicide over ~o~e than twic~ a y~ar other t~~n for a9ri~~!tural puroc5:s. at:'~r 1r.:pacts: 9. WILL.. ?~C:JECT SU:;Si,~::TrALL'( AFrECT ;!C:I-7HREATE:;iEJ ';R ,1m YES -"c"'r.-'E" -'E"'''' 0 t..,..."..JC,I\:';'::'. \"~:.'::'; .......................................0 Exal7':Jle ~;,at 'i/auld Apply to Colur.m 2 Project fiQuld substantially int~rfer~ with any residant or migratory fish or wildlife s~eci~~. Project r~cuires the re~oval of ~ore than 10 1~~es of mature forest (~ver 10n yedrs in a9~) Or ot~e~ 10C311y i~PQrtJnt vegeca~~on. -7- .1- ,:). ltALL TO PO EIfTIAL CAtI UiPACT S.E IDOERATE LA~GE R.EDUCED GY IMPACT II'PACT PROJ ECT CHA;IGE - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - . . 1. 2.. 3 ' . . . j"ALL TO POTENTIAL CJ\:i Ir!?ACT .aF .OOEllA TE LARGE REDUCED BY . I~PACT lMP~CT PROJ ECT C!{G.r~GS . - - - .... - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . . - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . If'PACT 0;1 VISUAL RESOURCE 10.. 11ILL THE PPOJECT AFFECT VIEflS. VISTAS OPO r~E VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE ;;EIGHBORHOOO OR COM"'JNITY? ....... 00...00 Exam,les that Would Apply to Column 2 NO YES GO An incompatible visual affect caused by the introduction of new materials, colors and/or fonr~ in contrast to the surrounding landscape. A project easily visible. not easily screened,that is obviously different from othars around it. Project will result in the elimination or major screening of scenic views or vistas known to be important to the area. Other impacts: : . I~PACT ON HISTORIC RESOURcES 11. WILL PROJECT I~PACT ANY SIT~.OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, NO YES PRE.HISTORIC OR PALEONTOGICAl. I~PORTANCE? ... 00.00.......00(3) 0 Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Project occurina wholly or partially within or contiguous to anY facility or site listed on the National Register of. historic places. Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Other impacts: I~'PACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATlml 1 Z. \/ILl. THE PROJECT AFFECT THE QUANTITY OR OUALITY OF EXISTING NO YES OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAl. OPPORTU~ITIES?..... ~ 0 Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: I"P~CT nil TRMlS?ORTATIO." 13. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEJ'''S7 . . ... . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Project will rasult in severe traffic problems. NO YES QO Other ir::pacts: -, . :". . 1. . 2. ~ ~:~ NO YES .............(90 S,"ALL TO POTE:HP.L c..... r:~PACT~C;' ,I "" mOER.QE U_~GE ROUCED ay IMPACT li~PACT PROJECT CHMIGE S - - - .' . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - " - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I~PACT ON E~IERGY 14. \/lLL ?RQJECT~FFECT THE CC:.!;.IUNITlES SOURCES OF F'JEL 'JR ENERGY SUPPLY? NO YE ...........................................Q 0 Examoles that ~ould Apply to Column 2 . Project causing greater than 5% incre~se in any form of energy used in municipality. . Projec~ re~uiring the creation or extension of an energy trans~ission or supoly system to serve more than 50 single or t1otO famil y res i dences. Other impacts: I"'P.~CT ml NO [SE 15. WILL THERE BE OSJECTIn!lAGLE ODORS. 'IDISE. GLARE. '1!2<A.TlON NO YES Qr ElECTRICAL OISTURSA:JCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? .. "(9 0 Examol.s that Wculd Apoly to Column 2 Blasting within l,500 feat of a hosoital, school or ather sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Project will oroduc~ oper3ting noise exceedin9 the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of strJc~ures. Project will remove natural barriers that wou1d ac~ as a noise scr~en. Other i~pacts: I"'P~C7 OF! HE.aLTH ; unaRDS 16. ~JLL PROJECT AFFECT PU6Lrc HEALTri AND SAFETY? Examol.s that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substancas (i,9. oil1 pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the ~vent of accident or upset conditions, or tnere will be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Project that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes'. (1.2. toxic, ~oisonous, highly re3ctive. radioac:~ve, irritat~ng. infec~iousl etc., inclu.:iin9 wastes that are solie, sc:.1i..solid. liqUid or contain gas.s.) . Storace facilities for c~e million or more gallons ~f liquified nacural gas or other liquids. Ot!1er imiJc1cts: -?- . I~PACT O~l GR!)~.!rH A~!~ CH,.";lCTI'~ OF Cm::U:llTY OR "ElGI,~~?~t .' . 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CH.ARACTER ~F THE EXISTHlG ~IO YES CO!nmlTY? ...............................-................(3) 0 Examole that Would Apoly to Column 2 The oopulation of the City, Town or Village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5~ or resident human population. The municipal budgets for capital exoenditures or opera- ting services will increase by more than 5: per year as a result of this project. Will involve any oermanent facility of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district or remove prime agricultural lands from cul tivation. The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, strJctures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will induce an influx of a particular age gTOup with special needs. Projec: will set an important precedent for future projects. Project will relocate 15 or more em~loyees in one or more businesses. Other impacts: I 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING rHE PROJECT? NO YES .......Q 0 Examoles that Would Apply to Column Z Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed oppos; tian or reject.;d the project or ~ave not been contacted. Objections to the project from within the community. !:'P;"CT l:~~.l\CT P~OJECT CbH:GE >- , . . - - - - - .-- - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . - - - - . IF r,1lY ACTION IN P!\RT Z !S lOElITlflED AS A POTENTIAL LARGE Il-'PACT OR IF YOU CA:i:iOT OOTERI-1l1IE THE MAG11llUOE OF IliPACT. PROCEED 00 PART 3. PORTIONS OF EAF CQr.1PLITEO FOR THIS PROJECT: DETERMINATION PART I _ PART II _ PART 3 Upon revi~. of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts l, Z and 3) anj con,idering both the magnitude and importance of each impac:, it is reasonably determined that: PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. The oreject will result in no major impacts and, therefore, is one whlch may not cause signiflcant damage to the ~nv;ronmgnt. a. Althcugh the oreject could nave a significant effect on the environment. there will not be a s;g~lficant effect in this case ~ec3usa the ~iticr~ticn mc3sures descrtbeo in ?ART 3 have been inc2uced as part.of the ~rcposed ~rojec:. C. 7he ~r~ject will result in one or ~ore major adver$e imcacts that cannot ~e reduc~d and may cause signlficant damage to the envi rcnment. 4/26/83 - ",- o PREPARE A NE&.TIVE DECLARATION o PR~?J\RE POSITIVE ORATlOa PROCEED lilTn Signature of Rp.sponsible Official in L;d~ Agency Prine or ~ype na~e of responslble officia in Lead Agency . . .- .. . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . . ", I. . .. " ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS INFOR,'"lATIOt: - Part 3 is pre~ared if one or more impact or effect is considergd to be potential1l large. - The amount of writing necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the Question: In briefly '}. & completing the instruct~ons below have r elaced in t:-:;s record sufficient infonnation to indicate the reasonableness of my decisions? INSTRUCTIOIIS Complete the fo11a.ing for each impact or effect identified in 'Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Oescribe (if applicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than large impact by a pro- ject change. 3. Based on the information available. decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is imoortant to the minicipallty (city. town or village) in whic" the project is located. To anSWer the question of importance, consider: - The probability of the Impact or effect occurring - The duration of the impact or effect . Its irreversibility. including permanently los~ resources or val~es - Whether the impact or effect can be controlled The r~gional consequence of the impact or effect - Its potential divergence from local needs and goals - Whether known objections to the project apo1y to this impact or effect. OETER~IIlAT!ON OF SIG!ilFlCAIICE An action is considered to be significant if: One (or ~ore) impact is determined to both ~ and its (their) consequence, based on the review above, is imoor-+:ant. PART III STATE/1E)ITS I (Continue on At:achments, as needed) . - 1/- .. TOJltOF SOUTHOLD , ~, ...,' " ,. .~) " ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART I . , REC'D PROJECT Iti""F ORJ.1AT ION MAY 2 ~OT:CE; ihis document i') desicned ~o assist in dete!"':":':lni:1g '...i't!t~er :::e 1ctioO :;lropose-o 'l'tay i1ave 3. 3'ig:nificant !ff~c: In the !!wircnment. Please comale!.! t~e ~ntire Ja:J. Sr.e~t. ),ns...,@r'5:o ~liesa .~uesti;Jns ...i11 ;;e consia'!f'!d .!s ;:]art or ':,"1e aopIication for !poroval ~nd ,nay be 5uaj-:c": t~ f'Jrtner 'Je!'"tfiCJt~on lnd ;Jublic r!v;ew. Provi~e 1ny d,aC1itiortal inrannacion :IOU Jelieye will lJe neeae'l ::1 ::rr:olece :JARTS 2: anr1 J. . ~~ is ~xcecea :~at ::JmoI"etion of t:'le ~F .,.,ill be depenc~!T"t ~n information current1', available :tr:d .....nl not 'n'/~lv~ 1ew i:uCl~es,.~!saar=:I or invest1qation. rf' fi1fol"':":'!!.tton r~aulMng iuch lQdl:if.lnal '..wor;.. . '1 1 iO] TndlCJta <!nd 50e'=1,,/ ~~c., instance. " ;i..undva~eaC d. ;iAI.1E '~F pqOJECT: ~A~E~~O ACCR~SS DF nWNER trf Qiff~r~nt) tJn,..~h'f.Ji"r1 11i] 1 ~g? C'<narlgmiAiYlRs EmmanllPl J{nnrnknQ~!!:lI (!Iamel 43 West 54 Street AOIJ~E3S .liJO ,'IAr~E OF _'lpDt_!O.NT: (St'!"'~~~: David E. Kapell, as agent N.Y.C., (,J.'J.j N.Y. 10019 (State) (Z:p) (i;dji:e; 3US'!~ESS ?HmIE; ?1? - ~a2 HQQ uOO ~rnn~ ~~"'oa~ (Scra'.:!~; Greenport, N.Y. 11944 (~.'J.j \;)C3caJ l!.l;J) '1ESC~!?i!'J~! tJF OOI)J2':7: (9ri~rlY descrtbe type of ~rojec-: Jr lc:ion) Project involves construction nf lOR rnnnnrn..n;....... ""ih:~ OR 17 aaI'es &f 14fu! zoned M- Light Multiple Residence District (i'L:.~Sr: CO~PLEi~ EACH ~UEST~a~{ - !ndicl1:~ ~~.A. if noe .acclicJcI~l , .1\. SI;~ .:E'5.::~IPrrON (~hysiC!l ic~:~r.; of over]ll proj~c~. bo~h deYel~c~ !nd ~ndevelcced 3r~as) L GlI!nerll c.,arac't.=:!'" ,jf tl1e land: Gene~ai1~1 unif~~ iioce.2L.- ~ane!"'aily uneven and ~i1ing,Jr ir~,;ular ~. ?~sant ~and Jse: Urban . [ncus-:rial I Carrme;'e~'ai _. ~gr;cultur'! _,<i5er Vacant brushland iot!! aC:"Hge of ::roject ir"'2a: -'::"'ac~s. -' $UDUI"'Oan -' ~ural -' 1or~s"t 3. A!Joroximaca lCr2!qe: ?'r"asantly Aft~!'" Comcl<!,=~an ~resent1y Aft~r ~cmcletion ~e~dcw or 3rusnland 17 ~cr" - -D.-!C;'!s ~at~r SurfJc~ ~r~a _.ic:'"~s _lC~S ~o r~:s ::~<:: _lC;'!S _!o::-~s Unv!~~tat~d ~~CX, e-!r:~ 01'" rill; _!c:-~s _icr~s ~qr~C:Ji':~n,l acr~s _!~:-!~ :!er:t !r.C ': :'''~Sil\Olat~!'' or ~f~~i !S ;er ~r~~~!~5 ~e. 2S Jl'" ::. :.:.. ) _!cr~s !'=:"'~s ~oad:3, "Juild.~~IJS =.r.:: ;:~er Jav-e..: .iur-:-1C~S Landscaped ~~::!:'" (~lIcicJ.:.:! -::;':3e; o !c:"'~s --1-!C;'!S ~'cr.. ~lC;'!S J., ',-Ih.!: is "l"'~':cm1n.ln'.: soil ~~/Q,!(S) 'In 'Jr~n-=-c: :i~:~: Sandy loam J. -!. .oJ.r~ :::-:!:"'" jeCMc:< 'Jut:~::oinqs .;n Jr:)jso:: i::!? _~'!3 .!...-'Io J. ~har: is ~~~t~ :~ :edr:cx? lTnrlpf;n,ati (!~ .:!"!'.:} J/t.!i3 , . . . 6. Approxi~ate percenta,e of proposed project site with slopes: 0.10: 100 :; 10-15: -----"~; greater ~~.. . 7. Is project conciguous to, or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? _Yes -X-.No 8. What is the depth to the water table?10-30 feet 9. ~ hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? _____yes ~Io 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endancered - _____yes ~lo. according to - Identify each species . 11. Are ~iere any unique or unusual land forms on tho project site? (I.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - _Yes ~~o. (Describe 12. Is the project site presently u~ed by the comounit, or neighborhood as an' open space orrecreatfon area - _____yes ~~o. . '. . ) 13. Coes the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to .the community? Yes ~Io - -" (0'.. 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary I '.L N.A. "---.; 15. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: . ~ _ ._O(lj~:_ a. Nail''" N.A. ; b. Size (in acres) 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius single family residential, R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story). Single(family residential, nursing h6me, commercial 'campground B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION -. 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) of the project (e.g~ ,,'. c. a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 17 acres. b. Project acreage developed: 2 _ acres initially: -2_ acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 12 d. Length of project, in miles: N A (if appropriate) e. If project is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot- age N,A. ; developed acreage f. rlurnber of off-st,.."t parking spaces existing o 50 ; proposed 108 (upon completion of project) g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One "Family Two Family Multiple Family 10Bcondominium Initi a 1 108 108 Ultimate i. If: Orientation NeighborMood-City-RegionaJ Estimated Employment Come rei a 1 Industria 1 j. Total height of tallest proposed structure 25 feet. L .>. . . -, . ., 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be re~oved from the site - o o tons .. cubic yards. 3. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site - ..!Lacres. 4. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-Important vegetation be removed by this project? _Yes ~~o 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? ~Yes ______No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction ~months, (including demolition). . 7. If multi-phased project: a; Total number of phases anticipated ~No. b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 _month -----year (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date final phase ""nth --year. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? ______yes ______No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? _Yes ~No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 100: after project is complete 5 . 10. NUfl'ber of jobS eliminated by this project ~'. 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? _Yes ~No. If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste di'sposal involved? _Yes ~No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged 13. Will surface are! of existing lakesy ponds, stre:ms, bays or other surface waterdays be increased or decreased by proposal? _Yes -LNo. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? _Yes ~No 15. a. Ooes proje~t involve disposal of solid waste? _Yes --1L-No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? _Yes _No c:. If yes, give name: : location d. Will any wastas not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? -L---.Yes ~~o 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? _Yes ~~o 17. Will project routinely produca cdors (more than one hour per day)? _Yes ~No 18. Will project produca operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? _Yes ~No 19. Will project resul~ in an increase in energy use? --1L-Yes ~~o. If yes, indicate type(s) electricity and fuel oil . 20. If water supply is frem wells indicate pumping capecity 21. Total anticipated water usaga cer day UrOOO gals/day. 22. Zoning: a. :.lhac. is dcminant .zoning classification of site? . ga 1 s/mi nute. M Light Multiple Residence b. Current s~ectfic zoning classification of site Same c.. [s proposad use C~f1Sis..2nt with j'lresent zoning? d. If no, indicate desired loning yes -3- . . . . '"' ~ '- ',' 26. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit req"ired? ______yes ---llJ~0 b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? ______yes ~Ro c. Local and Regional approvals: City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Soard City, Town, Zoning Soard City, County Health Department Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies C. INFO~~TICIlAL DETAILS , Approval Required (Yes, 110) (Type) X Site Plan Submittal Approval (Date) (Date) 1/13/133 Attach any additional infoMr4tion as ~~y be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the' proposal, se discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mi tigate or avo PREPARER'S SI~IATURE: TITLE: REPF:ESC:NTlNG: Emmanuel Kontokosta , DATE: , ',: 4/16/Rl c.'- -. ..... L :\: -, . ~ . TO.OF SOUTHOLD . '... .. , ....... . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Geoeeal rofor~3tion (Read Caeefully) _ In ccmpleting the fo~ the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been re~sonable? The reviewer is not expected to :~ ~n expert anvironmental analyst. , . _ Identifying tnat an effect will be potentially laege (column Z) does not mean that it sianificant. Any large effect must be evaluated in ?AR7 J to determine significance. effect in column 2 simply asks that it be 100ked at 7urther. is also necessarily By.identifying an _ The Exam~les provided are to assist the reviewer by shewing types of effects and wherever possible the threshold of magnltuOe toat would trigger a response in col~n 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any scecific project or site other examples andlor lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impac: rating. _ Each project, on each site, in each 1ocality, will vary. nlerefor~. the examples have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impac~s and thresholdS to answer eacn question. _ The num~er of examples per question does not indicat~ the importance of each question. InSTRUCTIOIIS (Read Carefully) a. Answer eacn of the lB questions in PART Z. Ans~er ~ if there will be any effect. b. ~ ans.../ers. should be considered as ~ answers. c. If answering Yes to a Question then check the a~'ro'riate box (column 1 or zl to Indicate the potential size of the imcact. If impact threshold equal S :Jr exceed,s any example provided. check colult".."'l 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lo~er than exac.oie, chetk column 1: d. If reviawer has doubt about the size of the imp.c: ;jl~o,consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.' , . e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less tnan large magnitude. place a Yes in column 3. A 110 response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. 1. 2.. 3 IMPACT ON LANO NO YES €)O . Sf'ALL TO POTE;~TlAL CAN IMPACT SE MOOE?.ATE L',RGE REOUCEO BY I1~P ACT [I.lPACT PROJ ECT CHANGE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1, WILL THERE SE All EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL Ct'.A::GE TO PROJECT SITE? Exam,les that Would Apply to Column Z Any ccnstruc:ion on slopes or 15: or gr!ater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10:. Const~ction on Land where the depth to the wate~ tabl~ is less than 3 feet. Construction or oaved parkinq 3re~ for 1 ,~G~ or ~c~ ,ehicles. Construction on land ~here ~edrock is exposed or ;:r.erJl1y witnin J feet or existing gro~nd surfac~. Construction chat ~il1 continue for more than 1 l~ar or involve more than o~e ~nase or stage. Excavation for mining ,urposes that ~oulc re~ve ~or~ than llQOO tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per 1~3r. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. .5- . . . S~'^LL TO MJDERA TE TNPACT . Construction in a designated floodway. Other Impactt: 2. NO YES WILL T1iER~ 3E AN EFFECT TO ArlY UNIQUE OR W;USUAL LAND FOPJ-1S r-:::..O FOUNO'Orl THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs. dunes. geological forma- \.2Y ticns. etc.) Specific land forms: - lt1PACT ON IIATER NO YES 3. WILL PROJECr AFFECT ANY WATER BODY DESI~'IATEO AS ..........1"\ 0 PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15. 24. 25 of the Envir- W onmental Conservation Law. ..C.L.) Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: 4. WILL PROJ~CT AFFECT ANY rIOIl-?ROT~CTEO EXISTl1Ir, OR NEW NO YES BODY OF \-!,ATER? ............................................€) 0 Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 A ,o~ increase or decrease in the surfac~ area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts: 5. WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER QUALITY? NO YES GO Examoles that lIould Apply to Column Z Project will require a discharge permit. Project requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. Project requires water suoply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute ~umping capacity. Construc~ion or ooeration causing any ~ontaminat;on of a public water supply system. Project will adve"ely'affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be convey.d off the site to facilities which presently de not exist or have inadequate ca~acity. Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons per day. ___ Project will likely cause siltation or oth.r discnarg. into an e.isti"g body of water to the extent that there will be an o~~i~U5 visual contrast to natural conditions. . - - FOIi:.:lllAL L.~ RGE n-r~CT ' -' !."JoUI l::I'Hl,.j.lI-;)t. 1 REOUCEO.a:t'. pOOJ!CT CHAnG! ' " ,'" - - - .- . - -. . .1. ...:::.. ,:) EXc~~les that Hculd Apply to Colurr.n Z NO YES ([)O <liALL TO POTEIITIAL CAlI UtPACT SE .~OOEAATE LA~GE REDUCEO GY IMPACT U'P.~CT PROJ ECT CHAI1GE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _. - - - - - - - - 0_ ~i Other [",pacts: 6. \HLL PROJECT ALTER DRAINAGE Ft.OIl. PATTOiHlS OR SeRFACE !!.~TER 110 YES RU:IOFF? ................................................... GUO . . Examol. that !':ould A.oply to Column 2 ~ Project would i~~ade flood water flows. . Project is likely ~o cause substantial erosion. Project is inco~oatible ~ith existing drainage patterns. Other impacts: 110 YES 7. WILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALiTY?...........................@ 0 Examoles that l'lould Apply to Col"Tm 2 mPACT ON .AIR Project will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Project will result in the incineration of more t~an 1 ton of refuse per hour. Project emission rate of all contaminants wili exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million 3TU15 per hour~ I Other impacts: r~p'CT all PL'rITS MID MW"LS 8. I/ILL PROJECT AFF~CT ANY THREATE1J::D OR ENDANGER::D SPECIES, Reduction of one or rilO~ species lis~ad on the ;:~W York or Federal list? using the site? over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wild- 1 i f~ halJi tat. . AD~licat~on or Pesticide or ,erbicide over ~o~e than t~lic~ J year other t~3n ror agri~~!tural puroc52S. Ot:1er 1r.:pacts: 9. \>IlL!.. ?R8JECT $I1SSII~~:TrALL'f AFFECT ;:C:I-72REAT:::iEJ !JR ,1m YES -'''''r.-'E' -'E-'--' f'::\ 0 !:..1t,............JC,l". ~::I. L.~:'.;): .......................................0" Exar':Jle ~:'at ~.tould Apply to Colunn 2 Project ~ould su~stantial1y int2rfere with any resid2nt or migratory fish or ,,.,ildlife s;:lech~lj. Project recuires the re~oval of ~ore ~h~n 10 J~~e5 of ~ature forest (~ver 100 yedr~ in age) or at~e~ 1ccllly i=p~r~Jnt veg2c~t~on. -1- . . 1. 2. -, II'PACT 0;1 VISUAL RESOURCE 10.. WILL THE PPCJECT AFFECT VIEI~, VISTAS OR rrlE VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE "EIGHB~RHCCO OR CO~~~UNITY? .."....... u, Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 An incompatible visual aFFect caused by the introduction of new materials, colors and/or Fonr.s in contrast to the surrounding landscape. A project easily visible, not easily screened,that is obviously different From others around it. Project will result in the elimination or major screcnina of scenic views or vista~ knewn to be fmportant to the are~, Other fmpacts: NO YES GO . ;.fAtL TO POTENTIAL C1\:. Ir!?ACT .aF- ~OOERATE LARGE REDUCED BY I~?'.CT IMP.A,CT PROJECT CH.l1.r~c::: . - - - .... . - - - . - - - - '- - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , :; ., '. '- . . . I~PACT ON HISTORIC RESOURcES 11. WILL PROJECT IMPACT ANY SITE/OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, NO YES PRE-HISTORIC OR PALEONTOGICAL IMPORTANCE? u u..... u.. u "(3) 0 Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Project occurinq wholly or partially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed on the National Register of, historic places. Any impact to an archeological site or Fossil bed located within the project site. Other impacts: ! INPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECRE,~TlO~1 12. I/ILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OR OUALITY OF EXISTING NO YES OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES DR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU~ITIES?... -. 00 Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: I~P~CT nN TRMISPORnTlC;r 13. ,/ILL THE?E 3E All EFFECT TO EXISilllG TRANSPCRTATlON SYSi8.IS,? .. .. .......................... .......... ...... . NO YES (JO Examoles that Would Aoply to Column 2 Alteration of present patterns of ~~ve~e"t of people and/or good3. Project will result in severe traFfic problems. Other ir.:cacts: .- . . .-. . ..... I~PACT ON E~!ERGV 14. ~IILL PROJECT .:1.F~::CT THE CCH:.1UNITIES SOURCES OF PJ~L IJ?' ENERGY SUPPLY? ...........................................G) 0 Examoles that ~ould ~~pl1 to Column 2 . Projact causing greater than 5: incre3se in any form of energy used in municipality. . Projec~ requiring the cre3tion or extension of an ~na~gy trans~ission or supoly system to serve more than 50 single or b<lo far.lily residences. Other ir:rpacts: I"'P~Ci ml NOrSE 15. WILL TMERE BE OBJECnmlAGLE OOCRS. :IOISE, GLARE. ~!:;?;nCN ,'10 YES or ELECTRICAL OISTURBAIICE ^S A RESULT OF THIS PROJEG? ....GO Examoles that liould Apo1y to Column 2 Blasting within 1.:00 feet of a hos~;tal. school or ether sensitive facility. Odors l.i11 occur routinely (roore than one hour per cay). Project will oroducs oper~tin9 noise exceedino the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of strJc:Ures. Pruject will re~v2 natural barriers that would ac~ as a nois2 scr~en. Other ir.:pacts: I"'P~C7 Or,! HE,~L TH ; u'Z'PDS NO YES .............(90 16. ~ILL PROJECT AFFECT FUELLC HEALTrl AND SAFETY? EX2m~1~s that Would Apoly to Column Z Project will C3use a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substa~c~s (i.e. ail, pesticides, che~icals, radiaticn, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or tner~ will be a chronic low level discharge or emis5ion. Project that will result in the burial of "hazar-:cus wastes'. (i.e. toxic, ~oisonous, highly reactive. radiocc:1ve. irritat~ngl infeC':~ous, etc., includin9 wast~s that are solie, sa:;!;...solid. liqU1C or contain gas.;.) StoraC2 facili~;es for ~~e million or ~ore gallons ~i liqulfied natural gas or other licuids. Otner imoacts: .~. 1 . 2.. ~ ~O S,"ALL TO POTE:Hr~.L CAi; r:~PACT" c=:' ,~ r~OOER.1. TE U_~GE RE;JUCED av I IMPACT H~PACT PRCJE:CT CHMIG;: - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . . - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YES . . U'PACT l:i~.r\CT PROJECT :";liiGe:i . , . .. I~PACT em G~n'!TH A~!i) C!-f.r.~ACT;:;:: OF cm~~:HTY OR i'IErGP:1:1?!-l~r.r" .' . 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHMACTER ~F THe: EXISTHlG /10 YES CO~nmITY? ................ .......................... ......(:9 0 Examole that I!ould Apoly to Column Z . . The population of the City, Town or Village in which the project is located is likely to grew by more than 5~ or resident hum~n population. The municipal budgets for capital ex~end;tures or opera- ting services will incr~ase by more than 5: per year as a result of this project. r- Will involve any ~ermancnt faci1ity of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district or re~~ve prime agricultural lands from cuI tivation. The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, strJctures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will induce an influx of a particular 2ge group with special needs. .- Project will set an important precedent for future projects. Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or mare buslnesses. Other impacts: I 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING rriE PROJECT? NO YES .......<:i) <::> Examoles that ~ould Apply to Column Z Either govern~ent or citiz~ns of adjac~nt communities have expressed Opposltion or reject~d the project or ~ave not be~n contacted. Objections to the project from within the community. IF t,:~Y ACTIOII IN PART Z IS IOEtlTl,IED AS A POTEiH!.AL LARGe: I:-'PACT OR IF 'fOU CAii:IOT OHERHI1IE THE MAGiiliUOE OF lIiPACi, ?ROCE::D ~O PART 3. PORTIONS OF EAF CmlPLITEO FOR ilHS PROJECT: DETERMINATION PART I _ PART Il _ PART 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, Z and 3) and considering both the maQnitude and imnortance or each impac:, it is reasonably determined that: . PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. The ~roject will result in no major im?acts a.nd, therefcr~, is one which ~ay nat cause significant damage to the ~nviron~gnt. 8. Althcugh the oroject could have a significant effect on the environment. there will not be a sig~lficant effec~ in this casa ~ec~usa the ~;tia~ticn me3sures dascr~bea in PART 3 have been inc1~ced as part'of the ~roposed ~roj~c:. o C. 7he ~r~ject will r~sult in one or ~or~ major adver~e imcac~s that cannot ~e reduced and may causa significant danage ~o the ~nvi r'Cnment. 4/26/83 PREPARE A O'lE OECURATlOrl ?RE?/iRE ?OSIil'lE ORATIOil PROCEEO HITn Signat~re of Rp.s~onsi~le Official in L=d~ Agency Prine o~ ~ype n~~e of responslble cfficia in Lead Agency ;,'\ - . .' . . . . '" TOWN OF SOUTHOLD .;,.... .0 '. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS nlFo;:(~rrOi: - Part 3 is pr~~ared if one or more impact or effect is considered to be potentially large. .. The drr.ount of \'iriting necessary to answer Pal"'t 3 :nay b~ determined by answering the Question: In briefly 1 a co~?leting the instruct~ons below have r elaced in t~is record sufficient information to indicate the reason~bleness of ~y decisions? . INSTRUCTIOIIS Complete the following for e3ch impact or effect identified in .Column Z of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) now tne impact mi,nt be miti,atad or reduced to a less than iarge impact by a pro- ject change. 3a Based on the information available, de~ide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is imoortant to the minici~ality (city. town or village) in whiCh the project is located. To answer the question of import~nce, consider: - The probability of the impact or effect occ"rring - The duration of the impact or effact - Its irreversibility, including ~ermdnently los: resources or values - Whether the impact or effect can be controlled The regional consequence of the impact or affect - Its potential divergence from local needs ,nd soals - Whether known abjections to the project apoly to this impact or effect. OETERlnllATiOIl OF SlG!l!FICAlICE An action is considered to be significant if: One (or ~ore) impact ;s determined to both la~e and its (theIr) consequence, based on the review above, is ;moor~ant. PART III STATEHE)ITS I (Contin~e on At:achments, as needed) . - 11- . . Toe . . OF SOUTHOLD ~. ..,..... ! " !. "/I " ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART I ~ .' REC'O PROJECT It-l"'F ORl1AT ION MAY 2 ~OT:::E; ihls 1oc:urr.e!'1t ;5 desianed to !ssi~t in dete~ni,'g ~i1!t:-:!!r -:::e !c::.~on propase~ l'lay itave ! ~fg:nif;cant sri::c': :m the !!'1vircnment. PTeasa c~tt:Cle!:3 t~!! -:nt1:"'l! Jc!:J Sr.e!!c. ;'ns:,.,er'5:o ~tesa ,~uestions ~ln Je C:Jn'iia2,.~d ~s ~ar: or t;.~e ~p 11 C:3.ticn for aool"'Oval !nd ;nay iJe suej ~-: to f'Jrtrter 'Jertfic3t:10n lnd ;lub 1 i c r!vi ew. Provide Jny laaiciortal informacion ~ou oelieve will ~e nee~ed :0 ::molece ~ART3 2 and 3. . ~: is ~xQec:~ :~a.t c:Jmofetion of the e:AF ....ill Je depende!l't ':]n information curr'!!'1eJ'1 available !nd .",,~11 not _'n'J~l...~ :1e.,., itua":eSI.~!S2r!n:::!.ar investiqation. rf 1rrfo~a:'lon r'!outring such lac.i:ional '.lfork . -I I ~" TndlCJt:a and 50e-:1.y :!ac., Instance. :s..unavil:;ac e. ~~':~Ej.NO .~DCR::SS OF n~NE~ tr i Q'f if'!!"!!nt) ~iAf.fE 'IF !'qQJEC-;": N'n,..t-hM;"...1 ,1-1 11 Rg~ rQAQ9H1iAi\laUil ~mm~nIlPl Knn"'nkn~t-~ Ulama 43 West 54 Street AOlJR~3S .liJO :IAr~E :JF M'DI_!O,NT: {Str~~~; David E. Kape11, as agent (ii.air.el N.Y.C., N.Y. 10019 (~,:J.; (State) (Z:p) 3US'!MESS ?HOtIE: ?1? ,ill 8199 uOO ~rnnt- ~t-~~~t- (S cre~!'~; Greenport, N.Y. 11944 (~ .oJ. i t~tat:;J l'-ip,J ~ESC~!?~!O~! OF oOOJE':7: (Sriefly descrtbe t'lpe of ;Jrojec-: Jr ac:ion) Project involves construction of lOR rnnl'1nm;".f...... lm4t-v QR 17 aQree sf larui zoned M- Light Multiple Residence District (;:JlE.~SE CQMPLE'iE' EAC:; GUE37ro:~ - ~ndic3t; ,'~,A. if noe locl iC301~) , .". $1;! .:ESC~rpnaN (~hY5i~t ia!:~n; or over]ll ,rojec:. bath develoc~ !nd ~ndevelcoed lr~as) :. Gene!'!! c:tarac-:.!r 'JT t:,e la.nd: llene!"'aily unif~1"'!':'i ilooe..!.- ~c!'Teraily !.U'Ievsn a.nd rniling,Jr irra,;uiar z. ?~sent ~and :Jse: Urean , [nctustr-:al . CQlT2fte~c:~.al _' A9ricultur~ _'''lJEe1''' Vacant brushland 3. ionl 3.c:"~!qe of ;:rojeo;:t !~a: ~!C~S. SUDuroan -' ~ur.al -' For~s;: ~ooroximaea lCr2aqe: ?rasentlJ ~f~sr Compl~~~~n ~resent1y Aftar ~cmoleticn ~e~dcw Qr 3rusnland ..E...J.cres -'L-~C:"''!S ~aear Sur~aca ~r~~ _3C:"'~S _'ic~S ~or~s ;:a: _lCi~S _~!:~~S Unve~~~ata~ ~~cx, e~r':~ or fill; _!c:"~s _icr~s ~~!"~:::.si '::.;r~J _!Cl"'~S _!!::':!:5 ,ca:s:. jl.:i1d~~gs !r.= ""; ':.:':er Jave~ 3:Jr~'!C~s Landscaped ~t~e~ (~ll~icJ:2 ~l~e) ~!!::"'!s >fe!;! !nc. (="~sil""at!!'" or ~i;:a! !$ :ier ;!,r,,:,:-:;'!s ~~. 2S ~.. ~ .., \ .., -. "',~, , _lcr~s _!,=:"es ~!C:"!S -.2.... ! C :"'! S ~'ees 4. :ihJ.: is ')!"'~":cmin.an~ soli ~'lO.(S) on . . 'JroJ~': .i~:~: Sandy loam 5. o!. :~re :::::!:!"'~ ,ec.~c:< ":lutc:;,:oings .:in :)~j.:!:~ .i:::? _~~S ~'lo J. ~h!~ is d~~t~ :~ :edr=cx? lTnnpf;ntati ': ~~ ~!~'=} JILl ia , . . .... '. ~, . .... . 6. Approximate percenta~e of proposed project site with slopes: 0.10: 100 :; 10-15: --'~; 15: or grea ter ------:~. 7. Is project contiguous to. or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ______yes --x--No 8. What is the dapth to the water table?l~feet 9. Gp hunting or fishing opportunities presantly exist in the project area? _____yes ~Io 10. COes project site contafn any specfes of plant or animal lffe that is identifiad as threatened or endancared - _____yes ~Io. according to - Identi;y each species 11. Are ~iere any unfque or unusual land forms on th~ project site? (f.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - ______yes -1L.:~0. (Describe 1 12. Is the project site presently used by the CQ~unity or neighborhood as area - ______yes ~~o. ' an open space or recreation . I': 13. COes the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to .the community? _Yes -X-!'Io ~. . . 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream and name of river to whfch it is tributary I N.A. . 15. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: . {" _ 0; [,:..' a. Name N.A. ; b. Size (in acres) 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius single family residential, R-2) and tha scale of development (e.g. 2 story). Single'family residential, nursing home, commercial 'campground 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ., l. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) of the project (e.g~ " a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 17 acres. b. Project acreage developed: 2 _ acres initially; _~_ acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 12 d. Length of project, in miles: N A (if appropriate) e. If project is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposad: building square fcot- age N.A. ; deyeloped acreage f. tlUlTter of off-stret parking spaces existing 0 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 50 h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: ; proposed 108 (upon completion of project) One 'Fami ly Two Family Multiple Family 108Condominium Initial 108 108 Ultimate i. If: Orientation Nei~hborhood-City-RegionaJ Estimated Employment Co""a rei a 1 Industrial j. Total height of tallest proposed structure 25 feet. , .,. . .. . . - .. . "' 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site - o o tons .. cubic yards. 3. How many acres of vegetation (trees. shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site - ~acres. 4. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or otoer locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ______yes ~~o 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? ~Yes ______No 6. If single phase project: AntiCipated period of construction ~months, (including demolition). . 7. If multi-phased project: a,- Total number of phases anticipated ~No. b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 ______month -----year (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date final phase GlOnth --year. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phasas? ______yes ______No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ______yes ~No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 100; after project is complete ~. 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project ~'_ 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? _yes ~No. If yes. explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste d{sposal involved? _yes ~No. b. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, stre~s, bays or other surface waterAays be increased or decreased by proposal? _Ves ~No. 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? _Yes --!-No 15. a. Does proje~t involve disposal of solid waste? ______yes --1l-No b. If yes. will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? ______yes ______No c. If yes, give name: ; location d. Will any wastas not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ~Yes ~~o 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ______Ves ~~o 17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ______yes -1l-.-No 18. Will project produce operating noisa exceeding the local ambience noise levels? _Yes ~No 19. Will project resul~ in an increase in energy use? --1L-Yes _No. If yes, indicate type(s) electricity and fuel oil . 20. If water supply is from wells indicate pumping capacity 21. Total anticipatad water usage per day 11,000 gals/day. 21. Zoning: a. What is dcminant 'zoning classifica.tion of site? gals/minute. M Light Multiple Residence b. Curr9nt s~ec1fic zoning classification or site Same c.. rs prcpos~d use cor,slscent with i1re:i~nt zoning? yes "- d. If no, incicate desired loning -3- L . . . " .., ,- 26. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit req.ired? _____yes ~'o b. Does project involve State or Federat funding or financing? ______yes ~No c. Local and Regional approvals: City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Soard City. Town, Zoning Board City. County Health Deoartment Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies C. IIlFOR.'1ATIGNAL OETAILS , Approval Required (Yes, 110) (Type) X Site Plan Submittal (Date) liB/83 Approval (Oate) Attach any additional information as ~4Y be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associatad with the' proposal, pl se discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avo PREPARER'S SI~~ATURE: TITLE: REPRESENTING: Emmanuel Kontokosta , DATE: , ',' 4/26/81 ( ; ~ ,'. -. " .. .,-' . .' ~< : \ .', . ,'. TO. OF SOUTHOLD . . , .. ,. .....i , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR ~AGNITUDE Geoe"al rnfor~ation (Read Ca"efully) _ In ccmpleting the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions 3nd determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to ~e an expert ~nvtronmental analyst. . Identifying tnat an effect will be potentially la"9. (column 2) does not mean that it sianificant. Any large effect must be evaluated i~ ?AR7 3 to determine sisnificance. effect in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. . is also necessarily ~y ,identifying an _ The Exam~Tes provided are ~o assist the reviewer by shewing types of effects and wherever possfble the threshold of rr.agn1t!Joe tr.a.t '..,auld trigger a response in colu.7.:1 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any scecific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Icrpac: rating. _ Each project, on each site. in each ~ocality, will very, TIlerefore. the examples have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. _ The num~er of examples per question does not indica:~ the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIOIIS (Read Carefully) a. Answ~r each or the 18 questions in PART Z. Ans~er Yes if there will be any effect. b. ~ ans<,oler<s - should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a auestion then check the a~~rcoriate box (column 1 or Z) to indicate the potential size of the imaact. If impact threshold eq~als ~r excee1s any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lo~er than exac.ole. che~k column 1: d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the imodc: ~ilel]..consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. ' -,' .. . e. If a potentially large magnitude. place a Yes impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less tnan large in co1r.:r.:n 3. A No respC:'lse indicates that such a reduction is not possible. 1. ~ 3 . . S~~ALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODE?.ATE LARGE REDUCED BY !I~PACT 11,'PACT PROJECT CHArIGE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO YES 1. WILL THE?E 8E Atl Em::CT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL C".~::G;:: TO €) 0 PROJECT SITE? IMPACT ON LAND Ex.~oles that Would Apply to Column 2 Any construction en slopes of 15: or 9reater~ (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length). or where the general slopes in t"e project a~a 9xceed 10:. Ccnst~ction on Land ~here the depth to the wat=~ t~bl~ is l~ss than 3 feet. Construction of oaved parkinq are~ for 1 ,~G~ or ~c~ iehicles. c"nstrtJcticn on land ','ir,er2 !:)edrock is expo'ied or ,;er.e:",~lly witnin J feet of !xisting ground suriac2. Construction that will continue for more than 1 j~~r or involve more than one ~nase or stage. Excavation for mining ,urpases that would re~~ve ~or~ than 1,000 tons of natural mat~r;al (i.e. rock or soil) per 1~~~. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. -5- , . . . Construction in a designated floodway. Other impact>: 2. , NO YES WILL THERE SE AN EFFECT TO AUY UNIQUE OR W;lISUAL LANQ FO?J-IS no FOUND' 011 THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, geological forma- \..31 e,ens, etc.) Specific land forms: nlPACT ON \~ATER 3. NO YES WILL PROJEcr AFFECT ANY WATER BOOY DESIGNATED AS ..........~ 0 PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15. 24, 25 of the Envir- ~ onmental Conservation Law. E.C.L.) Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: 4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY IIOU-PROTECTED EXISTIrIr, OR NEW NO YES BODY OF l'IATER? .. .... .... .... ..... ......... ........ ........€) 0 Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 A 10~ increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts: 5. WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNOWATER nUALl1Y? NO YES QO Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Preject will require a discharge permit. Project requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. Project requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or oceration causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Project will adversely "affect groundwater, Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or hdve inadequate capacity. Project raouiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons per day. ___ Preject will likely cause siltation or other dischar;e into an existing body of water to the extent that toere will be an o~y;~us visual contrast to natural ccndittons. S~'^LL TO ,,)DERATE J}IPACT ." - - POI C:.~1I lAL L.~ RGf lI'r~CT , l,.}UI l;:I'Hl,..1 '.~c. 1 REDUCE~ ,,g'( '. P~OJECT CHAOiGo " ,,~ -" , '. . . ~ . . ~. . Other Impacts: 6. \HLL PROJECT ALTEil O:<AINAGE FLail, ?ATTER~IS OR Sl;il~':CE i!.~TER ~iO YES RU:IOFF? ......... ............. .......................... .,. QO . . Examol. that ~'!ould A,oply to Column 2 ~ Project would ;moede flood '.ater flows. . Project is likelY ~o cause substantial erosion. Project is inco~patible with existing drainage patt:rns. Other impacts: mp,~CT ON M R 7. NO WILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALiTY?..........................0 Examoles that Hould Apply to Column 2 Project will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Project will re~ult in the incineration of more t~an 1 ten of refuse per hour. Proiect emission rate of all contaminants wili exce=d 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million 3TU's per hour. I Other impacts: r~p,1CT m! Pl!lfITS .d.~1D ~1~HlA'-5 8. \lILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENOANGERED SPECIES! EXclil~les ~hat Wculd Apply to Colwwn 2 Reducticn of one or rilOre species 1is~ad on the ;':~w York or Federal list? using the site? over or near site or found on the site. Removal or any portion of a critical or si9niflc~nt wild- 1 i re ;Ialli tat. . Ap~lication or Pesticide or ~erbicjde over ~o~e than t'rlic~ .a year ~ther' tt!~n for agrll",J!!:ural puroc52S. Ot~~r 1~;::acts: . 1.. e.G. .::l <nALL TO POTElmAL CArl [lIPACT gE ~OOERATE LA;lGE REDUCED GY [~PACT I/'P.\CT PROJ ECT CHAIIGE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - YES o ~IO YES Q)O 9.. 'N!!...~ i'~GJECT SL::;Si';~::TIALL'f AFFECT ::C:1-7:-!REAr~:jEJ 0R. ~m YES -"''''r.-'E" "E'--" f"::\ 0 l:."LiM.".JC.I'\~::l. '-l:..;);.........................................~ EXdr':Jle ,:;,at :,zould Apply to Column 2 Project ~ould suostant~a1ly intcrfer~ with dny r~sidcnt or migratory fish or wildlife siJeci'?s. Project r~cuires the rerr.oval of ~ore t~~n 10 J~~es of rr.atllre forest (;::'/er iOO j'edrs in age) or ot~e!'" 10c3.11y i~p~rtJnt vegeca~~on. -1- " . . 1. 2 :; .. 13. ~IIlL TH!::?E aE A:I EFFECT TO EXISTING TRANSPCRTAilON SYSTu.fS? ........0..0.. .0... ............................. NO YES QO . i.fALL TO POTENTIAL eM. Ir!PACT .a~ .ODERA TE LARGE REDUCED BY I~?..CT H1P.4.CT PROJECT CH.G,r~G:: . - - - .' . - - - - - - - '- - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , . . H'PACT 0:1 VISUAL REseURCE 10.. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT VIEI~. VISTAS OR rrlE VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE t:EIGHSORHOOO OR CO~~JN!TY? .............. Exam,les that UQuld Apply to Column 2 NO YES GO An incompatible visual affect caused by the introduction of new materials, colors and/or fonTos in contrast to the surrounding landscape. A project easily visible. not easily screened,that is Qbviously different from Qthers around it. Project will result in the elimination Qr majQr screcnina of scenic views or yista~ knewn to be important to the area. Other impacts: . IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOUR~ES 11. WILL PROJECT mPACT ANY SIT!;; OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, NO YES PRo.HISTORIC OR PALEDrITOGlCAL IP-PORTANCE? .................(3) 0 Examoles that Would Apply tQ CQlumn 2 Project occurinq wholly or partially within or conticuous tQ anY facility or site listed on the National Register of. histQric places. Any impact to an archeQlogical site Qr fossil bed located within the project site. Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECP.:.dTlOlI 12. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE eUANTITY OR OUALITY OF EXISTING NO YES OR FUTURE OPE:: SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU~ITlES?...... @ 0 Examo1es that 1I0uld Apply to CQlumn 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space impQrtant to the community. Other impacts: I~PdCT ml TltdIlS?ORT~TTO:1 Examoles that WQuld Aoply to CQlumn 2 Alteration of present ~atterns of ~".e"'ent of peQple and/Qr gQod.. Project will rosult in severe traffic ~roblems. Other lr::aacts: ,. , . . '. . . . . . I~PACT ON E~IERGV 14. \IlLL PROJECT .~FF~CT THE CO:.!;.IUNITlES SOURCES OF PJ~L 'JR E.~ERGY SUPPLY? ~O VE ............................ ...............Q 0 Exam~l~s that ~auld ~pply to Column 2 Proj~~t caus ing greater than 5: incre:1se in any form of energy used in municipality. Project requ;ring the creation or extension of an anargy transwission or supoly system to se~/e more than 50 single Or t.'tO far.1l1y resider.css. Other impacts: I"'P~CT ON NOrSE 15. WILL rrlERE BE OBJECTlmMLE OOORS. ~IOISE. GL~RE. 'II2?ATlON'IO YES or ELECTRICAL OISTU.RSA:IC~ ^S A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? ....GO Examoles that lieuld Apoly to Calu"", 2 Blasting within 1 ,500 reet of a hos:Jital t school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Project will croduc~ Qpar~ting noise excaedina the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of strJc~ures. Project will re~va natural barriers that would ac: as a noise scr~en. Other ir.:pacts: I~P~r. Oi! HE.~LTH ; un~PQS NO YES .. .. .. .. . .. "(9 0 16. HILL PROJECT AFFECT PuaLIC HEALrrt ANO SAFETY? Examol.s that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will cause a risk of explosion or releasa of hazardous substa~c~s (i.e. oil, p~sticides. chemicals, radiation, etc.) in tne event of accident or upset conditions, or tnere wtll be a chronic low l~vel discharge or emission. ProJect that ,....ill result in the burial af "haz=r-:cus wastes" (; .e. toxic. poisonous, highly reactive. radioac:"ive. irritating, infec:~ous, etc., inc1udin~ wast2s that are solie, se~i"'solid. liquld or cent.in Jas.5.) Starace facilities Tor cne mill~on or ~ore gallar.s ~f liquified natural gas or other licuids. Ot!'\er im<Jdcts: ..?.. . 1 2. ::, S,".ALL TO PC!'E:-;TI.~.L CAii r:~PACT"C~'" r:OOER.HE Lfl.~GE REOUC!:O av I If~?ACT H:PACT PRCJECT CHANGE S - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - o' - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . I~PACT o~, GR!)I;!TH A~!D CH.r,~;lt:T;:~ OF Cm~~:l!TY OR nEIGI!;l~?,~~r,'" .' . ---- 17_ WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHMACTEq ~F THE EXISTWG NO YES CO:~!UNITY? ,-....... ..... -. .......... -.....................(30 Examole that \!ould Apoly to Column 2 . . The population of the City, Town or Village in which the project is locatad is likely to grow by more than 5~ or resident human population. The municipal budgets for capital exoanditures or opera- ting services will incr:ase by more than S~ per year as a result of this project. Will involve dny ~ermancnt Facility or a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district or remove prime agricultural lands from cuI tivation. The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, strJct~res or areas of historic importance to the cow.munity. Development will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. Projec~ will set an important precedent for future projects. Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Other impacts: / 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNUJG ToE PROJECT? NO YES .......<:i) <::> Ex~oles that ~ould Apply to Column 2 Either government or citizens of adjacent co~unities have expressed opposition or rejected the project or :-zave not been contacted. Objections to the project from within the community. U'P;'CT l:~:->,t\CT pqO.] ECT C~;~;lGG . , . , - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - . - .- - - - - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - . - - - IF r,::y ACTION IN P.~RT 2 IS IDE!iTIi'iEO AS A POTENTIAL LARGE r1o'p.~CT OR IF YOU CA:,::OT DHERJ.1I11E THE MAG:IITUDE OF I1iPACT. PROCEED TO PART 3. PORTIONS OF EAF COHPLITEO FOR THIS PROJECT: OETERMINATION PART I _ PART II _ PART 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, Z and 3) and considering both the magnitude and importance of aach imp,,:, it is reasonably determined that: PREPARE A NEGATIVE OECLARATIOll A. The Jroject will result in no major impacts and, therefore, is one which ~ay not cause significant damage to the environment. 8. Althcugh the oroject could have a significant effect on the en"~l""Or.mant. th.==re '/IIill not be a sig:'llficant effec: in this case ~ec!usa the mitiaacicn ~3sures descr~b~a in PART 3 have been inc!:.iced as part:~of the ~roposed ,J!'"oiec:. c. 7he ~r,ject will r~sult in one or ~ore major adYer~e imcdc:S that cannot ~e reduced and may cause significant darnaae ~~ the environment. 4/26/83 - Oat ,,'\ - o PREPARE A OVE OECLARATIOrl PREP,iRE POSITIVE ORATIO:I pqOCEED HITH Signat~re of Rp.s;Jonsi!:lle Official "io U~d':; Agency Prine O~ :ype na~e of responslble officia in L..d Agency ", . . : . . . .J . " TOWN OF SOUTHOLD .;..., .. 'I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS INFORMTIm: - Part 3 is prepared if one or more impact or eff2ct is considered to be potentially large. ... The aIOOunt of \...riting necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the Question: In briefly 1 & completing the instructions below have I alaced in t~;s record sufficient information to indicate the reasonableness of ~y decisions? , INSHUCTlOrlS Complete the following for each impact or effect identified in 'Column Z of Part Z: 1. Briefly describe the impact, Z, Cescribe (if applicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than large impact by a pro- ject c"ange, 3. Based on the information available, de~;de if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is imoortant to the minici~alfty (city. town or village) in whic~ the project is located. To answer the question of importJnce, consider: The probability of the impact or effect occ"rring - The duration of the impact or effect Its irreversibility. including permanently los~ resources or values - Whether the impact Or effect can be ccntroiled The regional consequence of the impact Or affect - Its potential divergence from local needs and goals - Whether known objections to the project apo1y to this impact or effect, OUERI'[IIATICII OF SIG;nFICAIICE An action is considered to be significant if: One (or ~are) impact is dete~ined to both l~~e and its (their) consequence. based on the review above. is imoor+:ant. PART III STATEl1E:liS . (Continue on At~ac~ments. as needed) . - ,,- . . DAVID E. KAPELL 400 Front Street Green port, New York 11944 516-477-9403 REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES CONSULTING SERVICES January 13, 1983 Mr. Henry Raynor, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Henry: Enclosed please find three (3) copies of the proposed site plan for condominium development of a property owned by my client, Emanuel Kontokosta, to be known as Northwind Village. The parcel is located on the south side of the North Road in Greenport adjacent to san Simeon Nursing Home. Would you please process this plan for approval and advise me of its progress? t regards, CL\.)~ JK . Kapell , DEK/a Enclosures . . Southold, N.Y. 11971 HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr. , CluzirTfll1n JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RJTCHlE LATHAM, Jr. WILUAM F. MULLEN, Jr. TELEPHONE 765-1938 April 20r 1983 Mr. David Kapell 443 Main Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Northwind Village Condominium Project Dear Mr. Kapell: The above captioned proposal was discussed at our regular meeting, Monday, April 18, 1983. The Board noted that the area was very difficult to inspect because of the heavy brush. The Board noted an area of standing water and questioned the perculation of drainage. It was the concensus of the Board that a Long Environmen- tal Assessment Form be completed and submitted to the Board for review. A copy has been enclosed. Please contact our office if you have any questions. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary . . ~ KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES · ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS J,) ,) 43 west 54th street / new york city, new york 10019 / 212-582-6100 e.m. kontokosta p.e. gary rogers r.a. 4/2 1/ /:783 --r;;-, -;::::>/ P ~ ;<r/'1 N 1 H '/. I"~! ,412 P 125; / 7 ;k/2E'~ / ;-6/277-1 B)40 )Iolc-?/"W tv IN D /?c:cJ PFe77E 5 L.Oc.A 17t' H tf),F'" V/Z/t'Gto/'1 y 5 . (ljES~/2/.-.Y MC'-IV'FlJr7,/- 4?//<i'c..Jx Luc.l'J-ndl'Y IT r TEG. /~L.i:~ '# L/Lj / M;:t /2 kE D V-J / 77-1 tv';-I / rz,::- PI4/1'I T 0/'/ !3LAc;t< 7r-'P R;YP O/Y cc/Y'c .eC:-iF pm/E'MEH, (i) ~57E/2/-Y ''])iCiVFt.vt9y- #;::'/',0.))< !oCA77&/Y /2 /-r 6/45( CJ I::' / ~t.., !?Lt';; #- L/-38 )L1;Cf/2i<i;;"D L.th 7Y uh//7'C ?;4//Y'7 tf)/>" QLI4C./<..."/ZJ/-'> !4/Y,!:.> cf)/Y C":;/Yc/c?&n~ ?/It/'c=rv1E=/V /- . @ ? cj~ E~ r~ ~ r S~'L, 116 ~".\!> -'J Q. ,v ',y \ " '.11. . . , ~ KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES · ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS J) ./ 43 west 54th street / new york city, new york 10019 / 212-582-6100 e.m. kontokosta p.e. gary rogers r.a. 17r/? /; /.38,3 --r;, ~ / /- 14,")'/'1 IN ~ Ic2, 4/2 )..J ICE; / 7 ;k /2FC, / ;--J,1,,2)7/ &'4 {:/ )10/,,'7/7;1 lv IN D )7:::,) PF,c77C::S LOCA t7t' H cop V;Zll'G-C,',q Y 5. (UE:;, ;-F/2J.- '/ MZh/F lv/) '/ - H;:;plc!c' Y Luc ~m)d A-;- TEe" /~CE #" L/L/ / Ivl;::i/2kE/~ {AJ1777" uNlllT P/t/NT C:"iN I3L-Ac:1< 77'P R iYP 0/'/ cc/'/c .<:"'F7F p/7l./FMEHF ~ .l=-?rs7EI2i- '/ '~~It/Ft'-' 1)'1' - #F/-'I6.> y /uC'.417{i/Y /2/::::I 6145r ()/~ / ~L, f;:L6 #- ~3 8 jL1f112k6;:;? tV/ Tr/ wd/7C '7'l4///7 GJ/:/ DL- !4c/<.. TZU':> ;4;)1' D C)/y' Cc9/YC/C'&7"E r;4t/'~6='Y /- , (i) ?:- , ~ c,,"D \c) ~\\