Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-40.-3-1 (2)Terry, Mark From: Stephen Schott [ss337@cornell.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:20 PM To: Terry, Mark Subject: RE: Vegetation Question Well, If it helps, I believe that I saw one plant species that is on the Exploitably Vulnerable list for NYS. Woodwardia areolata — Netted Chain Fern. There was a violet I saw that I am trying to identify from memory, but I may have to make a stop. and take a picture on my way home. From: Terry, Mark [mailto:mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 .10:40 AM To: Stephen Schott Subject: RE: Vegetation Question Can we make it Wed (without rain) around 10:00am. Mark Terry Principal Planner LWRP Coordinator Town of Southold Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (631) 765-1938 Mark. Terrya-town. southold. ny. us From: Stephen Schott [mailto:ss337@cornell.edu] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:35 AM To: Terry, Mark Subject: RE: Vegetation Question Mark, When do you want to go out for this site visit? Steve From: Terry, Mark [mailto:mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:43 PM To: Stephen Schott Subject: RE: Vegetation Question Steve, Yes, how about Wednesday at 10:00am? Mark Terry Principal Planner LWRP Coordinator Town of Southold Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 5/18/2011 SO 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (631) 765-1938 Mark.Terrya-town. southold. ny. us From: Stephen Schott [mailto:ss337@cornell.edu] Sent: Monday, May 09, 201112:35 PM To: Terry, Mark Subject: RE: Vegetation Question Mark, I am not familiar with the Kace property by name. Is this property in the Greenport "clay -belt" where you can have near -surface clay resulting in small, scattered perched wetlands? I don't know how good of an indicator species jack-in-the-pulpit is being that it is FACW- and I have seen it growing in moist, but not wetland forests before. The soft rush could be ephemeral, taking advantage of the wet spring conditions, only to die back when the soil dries out. It is generally considered non-persistent, but if it, survived over the entire last summer, there should be some evidence of its grow remaining. I'd be willing to take a look if you want. Steve Stephen Schott Marine Botany Educator Cornell Cooperative Extension, Marine Program 3690 Cedar Beach Road Southold, NY 11971 USA Phone: 631-852-8660, x26 Email: ss337(cDcornell.edu From: Terry,, Mark [mailto:mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:58 AM To: Stephen Schott Subject: Vegetation Question Steve, I was out on the Kace property in Greenport to determine accuracy of wetlands. There was a lot of jack in the pulpit and soft rush at higher elevations than I would expect. Are you familiar with the site and this type of habit? Mark Terry Principal Planner LWRP Coordinator Town of Southold Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (631) 765-1938 Mark.Terry@town.southold.ny.us 5/18/2011 -jr , w a ¢ � ��. mak' + _ •. r Y r o ,K k e t P M j z ' r "�E f 3e r o z '•n. � t fi r e � x t � .# Flo * r Af Kace Property Z 72-23-20 W 72-23-10 W 72-23-0 W 72-22-50 W a W AM P* AW Legend Ohio–wet–Scan Z a M 0 C0 o - — - - -- - o Out of range v z N Interstate Major Roads S P Other Road N Interstate PSS1 EWE ;, State highway US highway Digital Roads Southold Cities Ne Y rk a USGS Quad Index 24K Z o Y Lower 48 Wetland Polygons 0 0m Estuarine and Marine Deepwater v Z Estuarine and Marine Wetland �. Freshwater Emergent Wetland ® Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland „j Freshwater Pond Lake ..,.. Other pR Riverme P�,Cq' Dry Lower 48 Available Wetland Data Non -Digital Digital Z ? No Data m-.. ___- ---- ----- --- — 6 Scan zNHD Streams Counties 100K r C3States 100K 0 South America E-i North America 72-23-20 W 72-23-10 W 72-23-0 W 72-22-50 W w Scale: 1:7,764 Map center: 41° 6' 12.9” N, 72° 23' 4.6" W This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. Kace Property .. W 72-23-10 W 72-23-0 W 72-22-50 W m 72-23-20 a cL i c� c Z .�r. pssili P Legend Ohio-wet-scan t - - N 0 Out of range z Interstate Major Roads other Road PSS MIE N Interstate N State highway 4►/E US highway Digital Roads Southold Cities Ne Y rk USGS Quad Index 24K Z C, a Lower 48 Wetland Polygons Eatuarine and Marine Deepwater v l Z ®Estuarine and Marine Wetland -.. Freshwater Emergent Wetland ® Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ® Freshwater Pond Lake ^- Other t / Riverine P Lower 48 Available Wetland Data Non -Digital Digital Z A No Data o __ _ o> Scan z NHD Streams Counties 100K C3 States 100K AiSE E:] South America E-1 North America 72-23-20 W 72-23-10 W 72-23-0 W 72-22-50 W N Scale: 1:7,764 Map center: 41° 6' 12.9" N, 72° 23'4.6" W This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. &-&P IN RG United l Re r"s Ctnetn a on SenAce Plant Fact Sheet Natural 1#esaurc�s' Canseavatcn 5eryice COMMON RUSH Juncus effusus L. Plant Symbol = JUEF Contributed by: USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program Robert H. Mohlenbrock USDA NRCS 1989 Midwestern Wetland Flora n USDA NRCS PLANTS Alternate Names Soft rush Uses The dense stands that soft rush form have deep fibrous root systems, which provide very good shoreline protection, filter suspended solids, up -take nutrients, and facilitate substrate oxidation. With its low pH and metal tolerances, soft rush often survives polluted conditions. The seed and vegetative parts of soft rush are utilized by waterfowl, muskrats, non - game birds, moose and domestic livestock for food or cover. The stems of this grass -like plant have been traditionally used for making floor mats; and chair seats. Status Please consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Department of Natural Resources for this plant's current status (e.g. threatened or endangered species, state noxious status, and wetland indicator values). Description Juncus effusus is a slow spreading, clump forming, grass -like perennial which emerges from a stout branching rootstock. The short, finely divided rhizomes are 6 to 10 inches long, growing from 1/4 to 2 inches beneath the soil surface. The culms are smooth, erect, bright green and hollow, with reduced basal leaves. New shoots emerge and develop in late summer, reaching up to 4 feet tall at maturity the following spring. The flowers are inconspicuous in compact clusters to 4 inches long. The flowers emerge and mature from March to September, peaking in July. Pollination typically occurs by wind, but occasionally it is by insects. A three celled obovoid capsule develops after fertilization, which contains many small (.02 to .025 inch long) straw colored seeds. There are an estimated 18,000,000 seeds per pound. Due to the small size and tacky outer coating, the seed of Juncus effusus can be disseminated by wind, water or animals. After shatter, seeds may remain viable for greater than 60 years if over -topped with sediments. Adaptation and Distribution Soft rush is naturally found throughout the temperate and sub -tropical areas of North America, Europe, and Asia, with the exception of the and and high altitude regions. It inhabits fresh to brackish marshes, swamps, ditches, and moist seasonal wetlands and meadows. Soft rush is tolerant of diverse site conditions, but thrives in direct sun, finely textured soils, salinity less than 14ppt., pH from 4.0 to 6.0, and shallow water (less than 6 inches). Common rush is distributed throughout most of the United States. For a current distribution map, please consult the Plant Profile page for this species on the PLANTS Website. Establishment Juncus effusus can be easily grown from seed or vegetative divisions, but seed dispersal is the primary means of natural reproduction. For germination to occur seed must be in contact with moist soil, receive direct sunlight, and over -winter on the soil surface. As long as moist conditions can be sustained and early competition reduced, seedlings will develop the following spring. Plant Materials <http://plant-materials.nres.usda.gov/> Plant Fact Sheet/Guide Coordination Page <http://plant-materials.nres.usda.gov/intranetlpfs.html> National Plant Data Center <http://npdc.usda.gov> Nursery and greenhouse production are effectively accomplished with seed or vegetative divisions. High seedling emergence can be expected under the controlled environment of the greenhouse. Moist stratification improves germination of soft rush. Stem divisions (bare root and containerized) are reliable when planted on adequate sites before mid- June. Greenhouse produced containerized stock can be ready for field planting 6 weeks after transplanting. Two year old clumps of soft rush will yield an average of 80 planting units. A planting unit should contain 3 to 5 culms. They can be planted by hand or mechanically. Management Soils with low content of organics or fines will have good production if 300 to 500 lbs per acre per year of 10-10-10 commercial fertilizer is applied. Annual draw down periods must be scheduled to maintain vegetative parts and encourage seedling establishment of soft rush. Cultivars, Improved, and Selected Materials (and area of origin) Sumter Germplasm soft rush was released as source identified material by the Jimmy Carter Plant Materials Center (GA) in 2008. It can be used in small constructed wetlands, wetland restoration and riparian buffers. Prepared By & Species Coordinator: USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program Edited: 05Feb2002 JLK; 060801 jsp; 080122 mo & jsp For more information about this and other plants, please contact your local NRCS field office or Conservation District, and visit the PLANTS Web site<htto'//olants.usda.eov> or the Plant Materials Program Web site <httt //Plant -Materials nres usda.eov> The U.S. Department oj'flgricularre (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race. color. national origin, sex. religion, age, disability, political belief.'s, sexual orientation, and war•ilal or family status. (Not all prohibited hales apply to all pr•ogrunrs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative: means for communication of prograni information (Braille, large print. audiotape, etc) should contact t.,1S1L-0's 7:4RGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). l'ok a complaint of discrinrination write USD,4. Director, Office oj'Civil Rights, Room 326-1f', ff'hitten Building, 141h and /odependence lvenue, Sl '. Rashinglon, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice or 7DD). USDA is an equal oppor•lnuily provider and employer. Read aborti Civil Rights at the Vcyural Resoarces C,'onvervatiou Service. [print page] [close window] Please set your printer orientation to "Landscape". Disclaimer:This map was prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation using the most current data available. It is deemed accurate but is not guaranteed. NYS DEC is not responsible for any inaccuracies in the data and does not necessarily endorse any interpretations or products derived from the data. [print page] [close window] Please set your printer orientation to "Landscape". Disclaimer:This map was prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation using the most current data available. It is deemed accurate but is not guaranteed. NYS DEC is not responsible for any inaccuracies in the data and does not necessarily endorse any interpretations or products derived from the data. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III DONALD J. WILCENSKI o'41 so�ryo h O �OIyCOU e� PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 17, 2011 Ms. Sherri Aicher, Environmental Analyst I NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One SUNY @ Stony Brook, 50 Circle. Road Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 Re: Northwind Village Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Aicher: MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631765-1938 Fax: 631765-3136 Upon.review of the referenced Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Town of Southold, as an involved agency, has noted several deficiencies in the document that have not been properly addressed as set forth generally below: 1. The wetlands analysis did not adequately address impacts on Town regulated wetlands, did not include all wetlands on the property, did not include comprehensive soil auger profiles and did not include a comprehensive approach to delineate wetlands, ea, the assessment of (a) hydrophytic vegetation, (b) hydric soils and (c) wetland hydrology; 2. Fails to include a complete visual impact analysis; 3. The EIS does not adequately address how the proposal comports with the Greenport HALO area designation and intent; 4. The consideration of groundwater and surface water protection is inadequate; 5. The EIS fails to properly apply and consider the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program; 6. The EIS does not discuss the impacts on services caused by an increase in residential density; 7.' The. EIS does not adequately address traffic and safety concerns; 8. The alternative reflective of current zoning is inadequate. Ms. Sherri Aicher May 17, 2011 Page 2 The Town will be unable to make and issue a findings statement in light of these deficiencies. As such, it is respectfully requested that the Department of Environmental Conservation consider requiring a supplement to the EIS to address these deficiencies. office. Should you have any questions concerning the foregoing, please contact this Very truly yours, ark T ry Princi al Planner MT/lk cc: Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT RECEIVED PETITON FOR ANNEXATION BY KALE LI LLC VILLAGE OF GREENPORT MAY 18 2011 SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK INVOLVED AGENCY FINDINGS STATEMENT uuthold Town Clea Date: May 12, 2011 This Findings Statement is issued pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA")) and the implementing regulations therefor at 6 NYCRR Part 617. Name of Action: Petition for Annexation of a portion of the unincorporated area of the Town of Southold into the Village of Greenport. Project Location: Southside -of -County Road 48—west of Chapel Lane. Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York Contact Person: Sylvia Pirillo Village Clerk Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, NY 11944 Telephone Number: (631) 477-1243 (ext. 206) SEQRA Status: Type I Description and Background of Action The property owner KACE LI LLC ("KACE" or the ."Applicant") submitted a Petition for the Annexation ("Annexation Petition's of approximately seventeen and four tenths (17.4) acres of unimproved property that is located in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold (the "Town") into the Village of Greenport (the "Village") on July 14,. 2005. The Annexation Petition was accompanied by a proposal by KACE to develop the site into one hundred and twenty-eight units, including sixty-four affordable housing units. The Annexation Petition and the proposal were not accompanied by an environmental impact statement when they were submitted to the Village and the Town. The Town of Southold adopted a resolution on August 16, 2005, in which the Town elected to adopt lead agency status. The Town resolution also preliminarily typed the action as an unlisted action. The Village of Greenport adopted a resolution on August 18, 2005 in which the Village adopted lead agency status. The Town and the Village both subsequently adopted resolutions requesting the New York Sm tate Department of Environental Conservation (the "DEC") to resolve the dispute as to lead agency status pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(5). The Town and the Village conducted a public hearing on the Annexation Petition pursuant to Section 705 of the General Municipal Law on August 23, 2005. The Town adopted a Decision and Order on November 16, 2005 which denied the Annexation Petition. The Town filed the Resolution and Order with the Suffolk County Clerk on November 18, 2005. The Village adopted a Resolution which granted the Petition for Annexation and the Village commenced an action in the Appellate Division of the Second Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on December 16, 2005. The parties to the litigation, the Village of Greenport, the Town of Southold, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, determined after the commencement of the litigation that the litigation should be stayed pending the completion of an environmental impact statement. Summary of the SEORA Process A voluntary DEIS was submitted by the applicant in accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.6(a)(4). ----upon review -of -the -voluntary DEIS the DEC issued a positive declaration with regard to the expected impact of the project. The DEC conducted a public hearing for comments on the DEIS at the Town Hall of the Town of Southold, a location that is about ten miles from the'Village and several miles from the site, on October 28, 2009. The Village of Greenport conducted a public hearing regarding the DEIS on November 12, 2009 at the Greenport Third Street Firehouse in the Village of Greenport. The purpose of the November 12, 2009 hearing was to provide residents of the Village of Greenport with the opportunity to make comments regarding the KACE DEIS and to enable Village residents to hear the comments that were being made about the KACE DEIS by other Village residents. The -Village submitted comments on the DEIS to the DEC on December 9, 2009. The comments included a cover document with direct comments by the Village and several appendices in the form of Exhibits which were provided by various professionals employed or retained by the Village of Greenport to review the DEIS. The Village of Greenport's comments regarding the DEIS consisted of a letter dated December 9, 2009, the transcript of the November 12, 2009 Public Hearing, and the various reports of the employees and professional consultants which were attached to the comment letter as follows: Exhibit A - November 12, 2009, Village of Greenport Public Hearing transcript Exhibit B November 24, 2009 report by Schneider Engineering regarding the impacts of the proposed annexation on traffic, Exhibit C. November 25, 2009 report by Greenman Pederson, Inc. regarding the environmental impacts and zoning issues of the proposed annexation; 2 Exhibit D. December 2, 2009 report from William Frietag, CPA of BST regarding the financial impacts of the proposed annexation on the operations of the Greenport Electric Utility Company, Exhibit E. December 4, 2009 report from Jack Naylor, P.E., Greenport Village Engineer, regarding the cost of the infrastructure that is necessary to service the new electric customers that will be created by the proposed annexation and also the financial impact of the proposed annexation on the Greenport Village sewer system. Exhibit F. December 11, 2009 letter from Thomas Rudebush, Esq. of Duncan Weinberg, et. al, regarding the legal issues involved with the Village of Greenport providing electric utility service to the units that are developed after the proposed annexation Exhibit G. November 23, 2009, Report by the Town of Southold Planning Department. Exhibit H 2005 Testimony of Dr. Charles.Kozora, Former Superintendent of the Greenport Union Free School District at -the first -public -hearing on the Annexation Petition in 2005 (provided under separate cover). The Town of Southold and other agencies and entities also submitted comments to the DEIS as did several individuals. The applicant submitted the FEIS and'it was accepted by the DEC as complete on April 14, 2011. The Village and the Town received a seven day extension to issue comments on the FEIS and then issued comments regarding the FEIS on May 6, 2011. Findings and Mitigation Measures Upon' due consideration and among the reasonable alternatives available, the Village of Greenport has determined that the following paragraphs represent a.synopsis of its findings and the mitigation measures to be incorporated into the decision to ensure that potential significant adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The findings that are contained in this Statement are made with respect to the Annexation Petition. 3 Water Resources, ground or surface water quality or quantity The site that is proposed to be annexed and then developed is located in the freshwater wetlands which are located in the environmentally sensitive watershed of Moore's Drain. Groundwater and run off from the site flow towards the stream system and then southerly towards the Peconic River Estuary. The annexation of the property and subsequent development is indicated to have a significant negative impact on the ground water and the Moore's Drain system thereby affecting the Peconic River Estuary. This negative impact that will result includes but is not limited to chlorine and de-icing salts from the proposed access and project roadway to be. constructed after the annexation The uncertainty of the availability of a municipal sewer connection, and the eventual zoning of the property if the property is annexed increases the Iikelihood of negative impact. No mitigation has been proposed by the applicant, and actions for mitigation including defined landscaping, berms and. other features should be considered and reviewed.. Ecological Resources, vegetation or fauna, wildlife species,: impacts on habitats or other significant adverse impact on natural resources, impairment of a critical envirojament-al-area and; The FEIS indicates that annexation and then development of the property will have the potential for significant harm to vegetation, fauna, wildlife species; habitats and other natural resources and fro the impairment of a critical environmental area. The site has been identified to include habitat for three Species of Special Concern, the eastern box turtle, the Coopers Hawk and the Sharp -skinned Hawk. Coopers Hawks and Sharp -skinned Hawks do not tolerate human presence near their nesting areas and the proposed clearing of the site to or near the wetland setback will introduce a human presence with a negative impact that is likely to preclude nesting opportunities for these species on the site. The project will result in the elimination of 2.0 acres of successional old field habitats and 4.6 acres of successional southern hardwood forest, which will result in the permanent loss of suitable habitat for small mammals, herpetiles and songbirds. The birds to be affected include but are not limited to black and white warblers, yellow -billed cuckoos, great homed owls, Easter wood -peewee, prairie warbler, chipping sparrow, and red -winged blackbird, among many other . species including various wetlands species that are not mentioned in the FEIS such as the great heron, wood duck, red shouldered hawk, solitary sandpiper, rusty blackbird, eastern kingbird, cedar waxwing, indigo bunting, and brown thrasher: The annexation and subsequent development of the site has the potential for a significant negative impact on numerous neotropical migrants which are extremely sensitive. The annexation and subsequent development of the site will result in a significant negative impact on the eastern box turtle, a Species of Special Concern. The proposed development has targeted and will destroy box turtle habitat and nesting areas with no realistic proposed mitigation. The project roadway and landscaping maintenance will reduce box turtles due to mortality. The FEIS also proposes schedules of clearing and development which have the 4 potential to directly conflict with nesting without any realistic mitigation. The FEIS does not show a defined landscaping plan and therefore no mitigation is offered for this harm. Land Use, Zoning, and Community Character The site is presently within -the zoning jurisdiction of the Town, not the Village and is zoned Hamlet Residential. The annexation proposal proposes that if the annexation is completed, the site will then be within the zoning jurisdiction of the Village and -will be zoned Village R-2, which provides for two dwelling units in each building. There is, however, no assurance that the property will be zoned R-2 residential by the Village if the annexation is completed. In the event that the annexation is completed and the site is rezoned R-2 by the Village, each of the buildings that are proposed will require consideration from the Village in the form of a variance in that R-2 zoning limits the number of dwelling units to two units per building and the project proposes multiple units per building. The proposed development of twenty-three buildings with one hundred and twenty eight units is overly ambitious for the size of the property and would be a bad precedent in terms of density for other potential developments and redevelopments in the Village. The calculation of the density of the proposed development is questioned because the site contains significant wetlands and wetland buffer areas. The annexation proposal does not sufficiently review alternative uses for the site given the uncertainty of the factors which must occur in order for the annexation and development to be completed and all appropriate alternatives, such as different zoning and development, some of which may mitigate the identified impacts and concerns have not been satisfactorily investigated. The annexation and development would significantly and irrevocably alter the community character. The Moore's Woods area is a major environmental and aesthetic asset in the community which would be dramatically altered by the clearing and development proposed after the annexation is completed. The uncertainties regarding the zoning and land use if the annexation occurs result in a corresponding. uncertainty with regard to the analysis of the benefits to the Village and the negative impacts to the Town if the site was annexed. The primary benefit to the Village that is identified by the applicant is a projected increase in Village taxes at some point in the future. The benefit from that projected revenue must be questioned because of the uncertainty of the factors that must occur in order for the annexation and projected development to be completed. In most -cases taxes equal services however in this project the services would be provided two miles from the Village and the taxes collected could be expected to equal the cost of the services required to be provided. The change in land use and the'character of the community and the loss in the asset of Moore's Wood that will occur due to the annexation will have a significant negative result to the Village which also must be considered in the analysis of the annexation. 5 Transportation and Traffic The traffic load on County Route 48 has grown significantly in just the past few years. The growth is associated with the development of many popular vineyards and other businesses along Rotate 48 and the community, the use of County Route 48 for access to the two ferries that serve the greater area and also provide access for Connecticut and north east travelers to Long Island and New York. The annexation and traffic generated will have a further significant impact on the Village and the community. The site is in an isolate location with no reliable public transportation and not accessible by foot or bicycle due to the distance of the site from any developed area with services and also due to the extremely dangerous conditions on County Route 48 which would discourage or preclude foot or bicycle traffic from the site. County Route 48 in the vicinity of the site is the location of several completed and planned projects that will also impact traffic and the increase the impact of the annexation and development. The annexation and the proposal for development of the site can be expected to generate two hundred vehicles with several trips per day for -each vehicle. This will have a negative impact on traffic in the community and the safety both of the residents at the site and other traffic on County Route 48.will be negatively impacted due to the increase in traffic and the location of the site and proposed access way at the particular location on County Route 48. The benefit of the annexation is largely stated to be the use of the site by workforce housing, however the lack of transportation and distance from employment and services renders this benefit to also be uncertain. Community Services, Utilities The annexation petition indicates that one of the reasons for the requested annexation is the available connection to the Greenport Village municipal sewer system. Based on the comments that were made regarding the DEIS and the FEIS the applicant acknowledged that the there is no guaranteed access to either the municipal sewer or electric systems, and therefore no corresponding benefit from the annexation. The Village is not mandated to allow a connection to the Village waste water system, and the applicant states that the project would not be built without the connection, but does not address the alternatives and impacts if a connection to the Village sewer service is not provided by the Village. The applicant also does not address that the Village sewer treatment plant has excess capacity in its system however the Village is completing the construction of a new waste water treatment plant and there is a significant cost to the Village of that capacity whether in direct investment or in forgone revenues. Also uncertain is the impact on the Village of an electric connection, which the applicant states is not necessary because of the potential for a connection to LIPA, with no assessment of the impact on the Village and the Town under either option. The cost to the Village of the installation of the infrastructure to provide utility services will be a severe burden on the Village which cannot be recovered. The annexation and project will have a negative impact on other services provided by the community such as education. The Greenport School is currently operating below capacity, however, while there is sufficient room for the influx of students that would result from the annexation and development, there is a significant impact to the community from the costs associated with educating those students and the resulting tax increase to property owners in the Village. The annexation and project do not properly employ the factors that are generally considered to be necessary for a criteria for affordable or workforce housing such as availability of transportation or proximity to employment, resources and services. The relevance of the criteria used for affordable housing to the housing or job markets in Greenport and Southold is unclear, and there have been major economic changes in the economy and pricing of the housing stock in Greenport and Southold that may reduce any benefit from the annexation and project even if the features of affordable or workforce housing were present. The Village's interpretation is that because of the project's location the proposal for development does not meet smart growth criteria or standards. The annexation and proposal for development will have a significant negative impact on the Village due to the burden of the costs that will be incurred by the Village of Greenport in consultant and professional fees, staffing, and administrative and overhead costs, and hearing and meeting costs, may in fact significantly exceed any increase in revenue that will be generated by the annexation and development. Impact of the Protect on Fire and Emergency Services The subject property is presently located in a portion of the unincorporated area of the Town of Southold which is known as the Town of Southold East/West Fire Protection District. The Village of Greenport provides fire and ambulance protection to the East/West Fire Protection District under a contractual arrangement with the Town of Southold. The current agreement between the Village of Greenport Fire Department and the Town of Southold provides that the Village of Greenport and' the- Greenport Village Fire Department would receive a small increase in tax revenues due to the increase in assessment if the project was developed, and a further minor increase is possible if the project generates a significant number of calls The increase in tax revenues however, would be far less than the cost in service and equipment that would be required to meet this responsibility, two miles from the Village, and there would be an increased burden on the Fire Department and the taxpayers of the Village of Greenport because of the additional equipment and other costs that would be required to address the additional calls to the property. The recent history of the Village of Greenport Fire Department has proven that dense development such as that which is proposed in the application greatly increases both the number of calls and the type and intensity of those calls and the response that is required. VA Aesthetic Resources, Noise, Air Duality The annexation and project would eliminate a pristine important natural resource of the community, resulting in a loss of significant aesthetic resources with an increase in negative aesthetic factors such as noise and views. Construction Impacts The annexation and project will have a significant negative impact on the identified habitats and Significance The proposed annexation is a major project which is expected to result in a significant negative impact on the site and surrounding areas as well as on the Village of Greenport. For that reason the Village of Greenport hereby determines that the project should be typed as a Type I project which is expected to result in a significant negative impact on the environment. Certification. The Board of Trustees, as an involved agency, subsequent to the review of the DEIS and the FEIS hereby certifies that it has considered the relevant environmental impacts, facts and -conclusions-disclosed-in the DEIS And the FEIS acid has weighed -and balanced relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other considerations. The Board of Trustees also hereby certifies that consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the other reasonable alternatives available, the proposed annexation and development do not avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, do not address the potential for significant negative impacts to the environment, has not addressed the comments that were made with respect to the environmental impact statement that was done, and does not act to mitigate any of the significant negative impacts that are associated with the annexation and development. The statements also do not distinguish the effects of the annexation from those of the development or address the annexation impacts separately. In accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.11 the Board of Trustees has considered the DEIS and FEIS for the annexation and certifies .that it has met the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617. This Findings Statement contains the facts and conclusions in.the DEIS and FEIS relied upon to support this decision and indicates those factors which'formed the basis of its decision. Board of Trustee of the 3alage of Greenport kv TJ :;;�Wf d kly, e -,,- Signature of Responsi Official Name of Responsible Official Date: MN 12, 2_O (1 Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT RESOLUTIONADOPTING FINDINGS STATEMENT REGARDING ANNEXATION PETITION OF KACE LI LLC WHEREAS the KACE LI LLC (KACE") submitted a Petition for the Annexation of approximately seventeen and four tenths (17.4) acres of unimproved property that is located in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold (the "Town").into the Village of Greenport (the "Village") on July 14, 2005, and; WHEREAS the Town of Southold adopted a resolution on August 16, 2005, in which the Town elected to adopt lead agency status and preliminarily typed the action as an unlisted action, and; WHEREAS -the Village of Greenport adopted a resolution on August -l8, 2005 in which the Village adopted lead agency status, and the Town and the Village both subsequently adopted resolutions requesting the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (the "DEC") to resolve the dispute as to lead agency status pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(5), and then subsequently for the DEC to serve as lead agency in this mater, and; WHEREAS KACE submitted a DEIS and then a FEIS which was accepted as final by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on April 14, 2011, and: WHEREAS the Village of Greenport is an involved agency pursuant to SEQRA and therefore is required to adopt a findings statement pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.11, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport therefore at a Special Public Meeting held on May 12, 2011 for that purpose, duly considered and hereby adopts a Findings Statement, annexed, dated May 12, 2011. A Dated: Village of Greenport May 12, 2011 via "Village of Greenport Suffolk County, New York PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III DONALD J. WILCENSKI MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 7654938 Fax: 631765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Via email: slaicher@gw.dec.state.ny.us May 5, 2011 Ms. Sherri Aicher, Environmental Analyst New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 1 Office SUNY@ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 Re: Comments from the Town of Southold on the Northwind Village FEIS. Dear Ms. Aicher: Please accept for the record the following comments from the Town of Southold regarding the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the "Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport and Development of Northwind Village, Town of Southold, Suffolk County", New York. These comments were written and compiled by Heather Lanza, AICP, Southold Town Planning Director; and Mark Terry,. Southold Town Principal Planner. The comments are as follows (and correspond to the numbering system in the FEIS): Response R-52: This response does not address our concerns regarding the potential for the existence of additional wetlands that fall under the jurisdiction of the Town, but are not regulated by the DEC because they are less than 12 acres (12 "acres is the minimum size that the DEC regulates, and they leave the regulation of smaller wetlands to the Town). We remain concerned that construction is proposed over some poorly drained soils with high groundwater levels, as evidenced by test hole number B3. Town of Southold comments on Northwind Village FEIS. May 5, 2011 R-53. We disagree that irrigation does not have a potential significant adverse environment impact, especially if it's done in conjunction with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. This property is located in a very sensitive area and we would like to note for the record that, although we understand the action is an annexation of the property to the Village, any future review of environmental impacts by the Town on any future actions will need to include these evaluations. R-59. In 2009, we found evidence of wetland areas not accurately shown on the map, and recommend further investigation of the three wetlands characteristics to determine the location of additional wetlands. These should include the submission of comprehensive soil auger profiles identifying if the soils are hydric or not. We remain unconvinced that planting conifers next to the buildings in the ten -foot space between the buildings and the wetland non -disturbance boundary is feasible and/or will provide actual mitigation. The ten foot -construction space remains questionable as adequate to provide enough room for machinery to grade and clear the construction area and remain outside the 100' wetland buffer. R-72. We maintain that the large size of the buildings located so close to the road (30') will impact the community character in an adverse way. A complete visual impact analysis, including but not limited to views of the proposed buildings. from CR48, is needed to determine whether or not this is the case. This particular stretch of CR 48, from just west of this property to Moore's Lane, is wooded on both sides of the road and view buildings are visible. R-73. The yield of the property under the current zoning is something less than 44 units based on the erroneous yield map submitted with this FEIS. The yield map illustrates lots that contain the wetland area as part of the minimum lot area, when the Town Code requires all wetlands to be excluded from the yield and lot area. Regardless, in cases such as this, new developments located on scenic corridors are typically required to provide a much wider buffer/screening than 30' by the Town Planning Board to protect the scenic qualities of this State -recognized scenic corridor. 2 Town of Southold comments on Northwind Village FEIS. May S, 2011 R-74. & R75. A photo inventory of a short stretch of this Scenic Corridor is not a visual impact analysis. We maintain that the required visual impact analysis has not been conducted. The existence of intrusive visual elements nearby does not justify adding to it. R-77 Location is probably the most important aspect of Smart Growth because it addresses so many issues of planning concern including traffic, safety and environment. The private shuttle seems unrealistic. R-79. The current HD zoning district in the Town of Southold is subject to affordable housing requirements pursuant to Town Code which requires that 10% of all units constructed must be made to meet the affordable housing requirements with some option to buy out of this program by contributing a significant amount of money to the town's affordable housing bank. We maintain that the affordability of this housing is not guaranteed if there aren't strict covenants put in place that require affordability in perpetuity. R-80 The response is deficient .in that applicant fails to address how the proposal meets the intent of the Greenport HALO area as adopted by the Town Board in March of 2008. The fact that the parcel was located within the original -Greenport HALO area recommended by a consultant is irrelevant. The Greenport HALO boundaries were established by the Town Board in March 20, 2008following _a comprehensive planning study with extensive public input. The HALO areas were developed to identify where future density would be appropriate. The parcel is separated from the HALO areas by a significant, high-value wetland system known as Moores Drain. The proposal would result in an isolated, high-density development located far outside the Greenport HALO area. The proposed project contradicts the findings of the Hamlet Study and purpose of the HALO areas. R-81 See R-74 & 75 above. See response to comment R-86 below. The validation that the water table is perched and that the parcel is subject to intermittent flooding is troublesome as the applicant does not identify where the flooding takes place. It is recommended that a COE (US Army Corps of Engineers) A , Town of Southold comments on Northwind Village FEIS. May 5, 2011 Comprehensive approach to wetlands identification to determine the presence or absence of hydric soils is required. R-83 The response is inadequate in that it references general concepts without elaborating on details to address the protection of ground and surface waters a minimization of impacts from the proposed action. R-84 The respondent's interpretation of how Policy 6.1 of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) applies to the action is incorrect. The respondent misinterprets the sub -policies and fails to analyze the proposed action to the following sub -policies of the LWRP: 6.1 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of Southold. A. Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by: 1. Physical loss of ecological components Physical loss is often the most obvious natural resource impairment to identify. It usually results from discrete actions, such as filling or excavating a wetland .or clearing an upland forest community prior to development. 2. Degradation of ecological components Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either as a direct loss originating within the resource area or as an indirect loss originating from nearby activities: Degradation usually occurs over a more extended period of time than physical loss and may be indicated by increased siltation, changes in community composition, or evidence of pollution. 3. Functional 'loss of ecological components Functional loss can be indicated by a decrease in abundance offish or wildlife, often resulting from a behavioral or physiological avoidance response. Behavioral avoidance can be due to disruptive uses that do not necessarily result in physical changes, but may be related to introduction of recreational activities or predators. ' Timing of activities can often be critical in determining whether a functional loss is likely to occur. 4 t Town of Southold comments on Northwind Village FEISS, May 5, 2011 Functional loss can also be manifested in physical terms, such as changes in hydrology. B. - Protect and restore ecological quality by adhering to the following measures. 1. Maintain values associated with natural ecological communities. Each natural ecological community has associated values which contribute to the ecological quality of the Town of Southold. These values should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 2. Retain and add indigenous plants to maintain and restore values of natural ecological communities. a. Protect existing indigenous plants from loss or disturbance to the extent practical. b. Include use of suitable indigenous plants in the landscaping plans for new development and in redevelopment projects where loss or disturbance of existing indigenous plants could not be prevented during construction. 3. Avoid fragmentation of ecological communities and maintain corridors to facilitate the free exchange of biological resources within and among communities. a. Each individual resource area should be maintained as a complete contiguous areas to protect the area's natural resource values. Specifically, actions that would fragment the ecological community into separate ecological islands should be avoided. b. Where fragmentation of ecological communities has already occurred, the adverse effects of fragmentation can be mitigated by maintaining or providing connecting corridors to allow exchange of biological resources. 4. Maintain ecological integrity of particular locales by maintaining structural and functional attributes; including normal variability, to provide for self-sustaining systems. 5. Avoid permanent adverse change to ecological processes. C. Reduce adverse impacts on ecological quality due to development. 1. Reduce adverse effects of existing development. 5 Town of Southold comments on Northwind Village FEIS. May 5, 2011 2. Mitigate impacts of new development. R-85 See response to R-86. R-86 In conjunction with the admittance that Chapter 275 wetland indicator species occur adjacent to County Route 48 on the parcel. The 1930 aerial photo corresponds with that acknowledgement (provided below) indicating that during that time standing water occurred almost to County Route 48. Figure 1. 1930 Arial photos showing subject parcel, standing water (black arrow) and filled area (white arrow). Further, the 1990's infrared aerial data set (Figure 2) clearly shows the historic fill pad and grade changes. Wetland hydric soils are expected to occur in the lower elevations in areas in the northeast and west. Town of Southold comments on Northwind Village FEIS. May 5, 2011 Figure 2. 1990's infrared arial data set showing filled area in relation to topographical grade changes. It is recommended that the applicant apply the methodology in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands manual and submit a complete comprehensive delineation method to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. An atypical approach may warrant being considered due to the historic fill placement on the parcel. Soil borings referenced on the map validate the need for further analysis and classification of soils. Additionally site inspection reveals that the wetland flag (white arrow) is located west of the red maple and water stained leaves. The location of the flag is does not demonstrate a clear boundary which acknowledges a change in vegetation. Water stained leaves also occur east of the flag. It is recommended that soils are also analyzed in this location. 7 Town of Southold comments on Northwind Village FEIS. May S, 2011 R-88 See R-80 above. IM The information in the DEIS on the matter of taxes paid by this development providing a net gain to the Town and/or Village does not acknowledge the well-known fact that increasing residential density increases the burden on services by an amount greater than the property tax being paid and leads to increased property taxes in the long run. There are many studies that show this to be true. This remains an adverse impact, especially if developed at the high density proposed. R-97 We remain unconvinced that the project as proposed with only vegetation trimming and a turning lane will provide adequate safety to traffic entering and exiting onto CR48, especially at the large numbers expected from the proposed development and limited line of sight to the west. Refer Town of Southold comments on Northwind Village FEIS. May 5, 2011 back to our original comments on the TIS in the DEIS — in our opinion, these have not been adequately addressed in this response. R-105 The alternative reflecting current zoning remains inaccurate. Theyield of the property under current zoning is determined by a yield map that excludes wetlands from the calculation of minimum lot area. The yield may be less than 44, creating an even wider gap between the potential adverse impacts of current Town zoning versus the propose project. R-109 The 108 -unit plan was approved 27 years ago and is long expired and irrelevant. R-113 The shuttle bus idea is interesting; however, it is not practical mitigation for traffic safety issues. The DEIS states that a Homeowners Association will take over the management of the site, and thus any shuttle bus will likely end up being paid for by this Association. It may prove too costly for the Association to maintain the vehicles and the drivers for the service. 0 FwdEx® USAirbill Traw9 8704 4628 9310 Express Numhar 1 From Prassopridandpresshard Date 11/23/09 SendeintNeilmb r j()b'jF�70y9`-x8%CCOUMT NUMBER ONLY Name Senders Heather Lanza Phone(631 ) 765-1938 Company Town of Southold Planning Dept. Address P.O. Box 1179, 54375 NYS Rt. 25 DeptJnoor/Su'ne/Room Southo State NY ZIP 11971 2 Your Internal Billing Reference OPTIONAL RoA24chamclerawM appearon ervoice. 3 To NP.,e,.S Ms. Sheri Aicher Phone 1631 )444-0403 N__ .Dept. of Environmental HOLDWeekdayd HOLDSaturda� PdmFed&locations dross PdatFediklocamns dresshelmv. Company Conservation ❑ helwaNOfavaleblotm ❑ Avai1ahloONIYforFed&P1;m*5vemight Fed&First1right and fed&20aym selectkxalionc Region 1 Office, SUNY Stony Brook. Address 50 Circle Road We cannot deliver to P.O. boxes or P.O. ZIP codes. Deptlnoor/Suite/Roem Print Fad& location address here if a HOLD option is City Stony Brook state NY zip 11790-3409 Find drop-off locations at fedex.com Simplify your shipping. Manage your account. Access all the tools you need.' , 4a Express Package Service-Temostlocatims Packages up to 150 MS. ❑FedEx PriorityOvemight ❑ FedEx Standard Overnight ❑ FedEx FrstOvernight Naxthus'as.naoming.-rdday Nextbaelomsefmmome . Eediestne#husinessmoming ahipmemsvll be der..4 an Monday Saturday Delivery NOT evalable. darn taaelsctlocafans.- u lessSMRDAYDa-"Y selected. Semrdeyoelivery NOTevailable. edEx2Day ' FedEx ExpressSaver, second husNass deyylThursday ❑Third business day.• hipmemsuvill be delNemd on Mandeyy Saturday0eliveryNOTavailahle. unless SATURDAY Derrvaryis selected. 46 Express Freight Service—Temas<Iaeeimn Packages over150/bs. FedEx IDayFreight CALL t,Stli}.332.013e7 Nedbusmess ayy. Fndayehipmemswill bedeliveredon Mondayunless SATURDAY Fed&1DayFreightBaoHng No. oawry isselecma. FedEx 2Day Fre�ht ❑Secondbusinessday. Thumdayshipmerdsvdllbadelhremd ❑ FedEx3DayrFreight �'• ' on Mondeyualess SATURDAYDerrva is selected. Thirdbusiness ay.-- Saturday Delivery NOT available. ackaging •o.ammdnm.Gmh>;Ao dEx ❑ FedEx Pak.. ❑ FedEx Box ❑ FedEXTUhe ❑ Other Envelope* InCladeaNd&SmaDPak Fed& - Large Pak and Fed&Sturdy Pak 6 Special Handling and Delivery Signature Options ❑ SATURDAY Delivery NUTevailablefor FedEx Standard Overnight, FedEx First Overnight, Fed& Express Saver, or FedEx May Freight Indirect Si�nature ❑No Signature Required DirectSignature anoanaiaavaSeblemrnaipieKa Peckagemarbe 1 -ft -t out ❑ someone etmcipiem"seddmss ❑ addmss,sameone etenaighbodng obtaining a Slgnebnefor delivery. maysignfordefivaryFm�f'cs addressmaayysign forderrvery. For reoden6alderwraso*.roocWr­ Does this shipment contain dangerous goods? One box must he checked. —� Yes Yes D Ice NO , ❑ Aspereaeched [:]Shippeds Declaration ❑ ry Shippeds Declemtiart netmquired Dryme,9,UN1545 —x—kg DanbmeusgaFedds&(m&udingdryipce)oannotboshppedin Fed&packging ordnADmBox El Cargo Aircraft Only 1 'Payment Bina. ,Sender l FsaerFedFx Acct No. or OYetrd Card No. below. Ac2NanSecdon ❑[:]Cred'R Card E]Cash/Check I vdbe hoed Recipient ❑Third Para% Fed&Acct No. Exp, CreditCaid No. Geta Total Packages Total Weight Total Declared Valuer R. S m to. lability is Ladled toSlalunleasyou declares highervahm. See back fardatels ByusingMisAirbMY. 5 5 4 agmemdw serrice mndNons ontha hackafthisAirhll and mme cumemFed&Service Guide,mcludingmmss IhetlmitaurhahTiry. Hey Date UGB-P.ntl58281.(DIBW2DD9 Fed&•PRINTED IN U.S.A. SHY Terms And Conditions Definitions On this Airbill, "we," 'our, "'us," and "FedEx" referto Federal Express Corporation, its employees, and agents. "You" and "your" referto the sender, its employees, and agents. Agreement To Terms By giving us your package to deliver, you agree to all the terms on this Airbill and in the current FedEx Service Guide, which is available upon request. You also agree to those terms on behalf of any third partywith an interest in the package. If there is a conflict between the current FedEx Service Guide and this Airbill,the current FedEx Service Guide will control. No is authorized to change the terms of our Agreement. Responsibility For Packaging And Completing Airbill You are responsible for adequately packaging your goods and properly filling out this Airbill. If you omit the number of packages and/or weight per package, our billing will be based on our best estimate of the number of packages we received and/or an estimated "default" weight per package as determined by us. Responsibility For Payment Even if you give us different payment instructions, you will always be primarily responsible for all delivery costs, as well as any cost we incur in either returning your package to you or warehousing it pending disposition. Limitations On Our Liability And Liabilities Not Assumed • Our liability in connection with this shipment is limited to the lesser of your actual damages or $100, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, and document your actual loss in a timely manner. You may pay an additional charge for each additional $100 of declared value. The declared value does nof constitute, nor do we provide, cargo liability insurance. ' • In any event, we will not be liable for any damage, whether direct, incidental, special, or consequential, in excess of the declared value of a shipment, whether or not FedEx had knowledge that such damages might be incurred, including but not limited to loss of income or profits. • We won't be liable: — for your acts or omissions, including but not limited to improperor insufficient packing, securing, marking, or addressing, orthose of the recipient or anyone else with an interest in the package. — Jf you or the recipient violates any of the terms of our Agreement. — for loss of or damage to shipments of prohibited items. — for loss, damage, or delay caused by events we cannot control; including but not limited to acts of God, perils of the air, weather conditions, acts of public enemies, war, strikes, dtvil commotions, or acts of public authorities with actual or apparent authority. Declared Value Limits • The highest declared value allowed for a FedEx Envelope or FedEx Pak shipment is $500. • For other shipments, the highest declared value allowed is $50,000 unless your package contains items of extraordinary value, in which case thehighest declared value allowed is $500. v�ua • Items of extraordinary include shipments containing such items as artwork, jewelry, furs, precious metals, nego- tiable instruments, and other items listed in the current FedEx Service Guide. • You may send more than one package on this Airbill and fill in the total declared value for all packages, notto exceed the $100,$500, or$50,000 per package limit described above. (Example: 5 packages can have a total declared value of up to $250,000.)'In that case, our liability is limited to the actual value of the phckege(s) lost or damaged, but may not exceed the maximum allowable declared value(s) orthe total declared value, whichever is less. You are responsible for proving the actual loss or damage. Filing A Claim YOU MUST MAKE ALL CLAIMS IN WRITING and notify us of your claim within strict time limits set out in the current FedEx Service Guide. You may call our Customer Service department at 1.800.GoFedEx 1.800.463.3339 to report a claim; however, you must still file a timely written claim. We aren't obligated to act on any claim until you have paid all transportation charges, and you may not deduct the amount of your claim from those charges. If the recipient accepts your package without noting any damage on the delivery record, we will assume the package was delivered in good condition. For us to process your claim, you must make the original shipping cartons and packing available for inspection. Right To Inspect We may, at our option, open and inspect your packages before or after you give them to us to deliver. Right Of Rejection We reserve the right to rej-^* shipment when such shipment would be likely to c delay or damage to other shipments, equipment, 5 personnel; or if the shipment is prohibited by law; or if the shipment would violate any terms of our Airbill or the current FedEx Service Guide. I C.O.D. Services C.O.D. SERVICE IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THIS AIRBILL. If C.O.D. Service is required, please use a FedEx C.O.D. Airbill. Air Transportation Tax Included Afederal excise tax when required by the Internal Revenue Code on the air transportation portion of this service, if any, is paid by us. Money -Back Guarantee In the event of untimely delivery, FedEx will, at your request and with some limitations, refund or credit all transportation charges. See the current FedEx Service Guide for more information. Part /158288181 • RQVIA8 i PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND o��OF SOUr�o� �yCOUNTY,� MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631765-1938 Fax: 631765-3136 November 23, 2009 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Ms. Sherri Aicher, Environmental Analyst New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 1 Office SUNY@ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, New York 11790-3409 Re: Comments from the Town of Southold on the Northwind Village DEIS. Dear Ms. Aicher, Please accept for the record the following comments from the Town of Southold regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the "Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport and Development of Northwind Village, Town of Southold, Suffolk County", New York. These comments were written and compiled by Heather Lanza, AICP, Southold Town. Planning Director; and Mark Terry, Southold Town Principal Planner; with the input of the Southold Town Planning Board, the Southold Town Assessor's office, and the input and endorsement of the Southold Town Board. The comments are as follows: 1. Geology, Soils, Tonography Impacts to wetlands by alteration of topography and soils. A significant adverse impact to the wetland system has not been discussed at length or mitigated in the DEIS. The impact is the alteration of the hydrology to the surrounding wetlands caused by grading and development in areas where the. groundwater is close to or at the surface. One soil boring (test hole 133) found groundwater only five feet from the surface (results from test holes dug March 20, 2008), and moist soil at 22 inches and attributed to perched water. The soil maps illustrates the Raynham soil type, the same that yielded high groundwater and moist soil near the surface, stretching in a band across the center of the property and also occupying the northeast corner. It seems likely that high groundwater and perched water occur throughout this soil type, yet that condition is dismissed in the report about soils on page 43 and 48. Specifically page 43 states that "the test holes revealed that in the areas of the proposed buildings, there are quality soil conditions that are well-suited to standard construction procedures" yet the table on the preceding page (Table 4) shows that Raynham soils are "Very Limited" in their suitability for Dwellings with Basements due to their shallow depth to saturation, and Very limited for roadways due to the same reason and also due to frost action (roads will suffer many potholes and need repair often). Further, standing water on the surface is common on the property. Groundwater levels and perched wetlands should be re-evaluated with more comprehensive soil tests done during a wet time of year. Ephemeral wetlands (vernal ponds) are as important as year-round wetlands because they provide habitat for a unique set of animals that can breed no where else (mole salamanders, certain frog species, certain insects). Grading in the area of poorly drained soils (i.e. this band of Raynham soil type) could significantly alter the hydrology of the wetlands. Will the layer of poorly draining soil be pierced by the grading and cause draining of perched wetlands nearby? This potentially significant adverse impact must be fully analyzed before it can be determined that no'significant adverse impact will occur. 2. Water Resources 2.1 Groundwater To reemphasize the above discussion, the alteration of the hydrology to the surrounding wetlands is likely, and will cause a significant adverse impact. No mitigation for this impact has been offered. 2.2 Water usage The DEIS states "no irrigation at this time" yet does not preclude the possibility of irrigation in the future. To assess the impact to water supply, the full potential use of water must be analyzed. There is no landscaping plan submitted to support the idea that no irrigation will be installed at this time, and no guarantee about future irrigation. "Landscaping" is referred to in other places with respect to the proposed action, yet no details are provided. Landscaping in communities such as this are routinely maintained with irrigation, fertilizer and pesticide treatments. The applicant should submit more detail about how they will avoid having to do so. Otherwise the claim that no water will be used for irrigation is questionable. On page 168 the DEIS mentions the use of lawns, pesticides, fertilizers and excess nutrients and on page 15, two and a half acres K of "lawn and landscaping" are proposed as part of this project. Lawns are water -dependent and are typically irrigated in communities such as this which will presumably have a Homeowners' Association own and maintain the grounds. 2.4. Stormwater Runoff Section 4.2.4, Page 159 SWPPP and stormwater runoff discussion From the information submitted in the DEIS, we are not able to determine whether any potential significant adverse impacts from stormwater runoff are going to be mitigated. The DEIS, in paragraph 2 on page 159, states that detailed site plans will be submitted to the Village, including details for grading, drainage, and erosion control, implying that the preliminary plans in the DEIS are not detailed and cannot be used to ensure that local drainage storage requirements are met. The environmental impacts of stormwater runoff cannot be properly evaluated because the plans in the DEIS are so generalized as to not provide accurate information about how runoff will be controlled. The last statement regarding stormwater runoff in the last paragraph of Section 4.2.4 seems unfounded. There is a generalized "Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)" that provides little detail on stormwater pollution prevention. A detailed SWPPP is needed to be able to make a determination on whether there will be any significant adverse impacts to groundwater or surface water during construction. Merely stating it will be controlled is not enough to determine that the adverse impact has been mitigated. Dust The DEIS and Preliminary SWPPP state that dust will be controlled during construction, but does not provide details about how it will be controlled. Depth of drywells Page xii. In the fourth paragraph the groundwater is said to be an average of 20-25' below the surface, and a statement follows later that the drywells will be two feet above the groundwater level. This implies that drywells will be installed 18' below the surface in places. What are the top and bottom elevation of the drywells? How can adverse impacts of stormwater pollution be determined without accurate information about the proposed drainage system? Soils with seasonal high groundwater occur within the development area, yet the drainage plan does not appear to account for that problem. 2.5 Surface Water, Wetlands, Floodplains Impact to surface water and groundwater. r� It cannot be assumed that either hooking up to the Greenport sewer system, or providing a sewer system on-site will have no impact to groundwater or surface water. According to a recent Suffolk County report reviewing sewage treatment plants in the region, many public sewers are operating at substandard levels and failing to adequately treat the sewage before it is discharged. The Greenport sewage treatment outfall pipe empties into the Long Island Sound. The track record and current test results of the effluent of the Greenport Sewer system should be reported in this EIS to effectively evaluate the effect to surface water that another 128 units will have on the Long Island Sound. Impact to wetlands The project will potentially alter the hydrogeology of the area and affect the nearby wetlands by reducing the amount of clean water that enters that area. The cutting and filling will alter the topography. On page 163, the DEIS suggests that hydrogeology will be altered by puncturing the strata of "unsuitable materials" or the soils that are not permeable where the water is perched above. The DEIS downplays the significance of perched water at 5 feet as an isolated anomaly. A thorough analysis of the site during seasonal high groundwater times must be conducted to avoid construction in seasonal wetlands or on areas where groundwater is very close to the surface. This analysis is also necessary to be able to- determine if significant adverse impacts are being mitigated or avoided entirely. If the perched water is part of the hydrology of the .adjacent wetlands, and that perched water is drained out, it could have a significant adverse impact on the adjacent wetlands, and those plant and animal species that depend on those wetlands (there is more on wetlands under Ecology section following). 3. Ecolo2y Existing site conditions The existing site conditions are described very generally and no survey showing existing habitats on site has been provided. Are there any large trees that will need to be removed or trimmed?_ How many trees are being removed, where are they located, and -what size are they? Where are the various habitats located? Wetlands have not been accurately identified on the survey — it has been determined by the Town that wetlands as defined in Chapter 275 of the Southold Town Code are not accurately shown on the plans. Natural resource planning and wildlife habitat The project contradicts good planning for natural resource protection of environmentally sensitive areas by embedding a high density residential development in a nature reserve of forested wetlands. The DEIS asserts that the applicant minimizes the effects of the development on the surrounding sensitive landscape, yet fails to back up the assertions made.. 4 The DEIS fails to mention the effect of pets, especially cats allowed outdoors, on the wildlife population, and how this development will likely introduce this "subsidized predator" into places where cats either don't exist now, or exist in very small numbers. It is a known fact that cats kill birds, snakes, mice, rabbits and any other small animal they can catch and can have a profound negative effect on local wildlife populations. The introduction of a potentially large number of domestic cats into this area will turn a good part of the wildlife habitat that is now a boon to wildlife into an ecological sink, meaning wildlife will continue to attempt to breed in the area, but will not be successful in maintaining their population due to predation by cats. This predation rate and the creation of ecological sinks are well-documented in scientific studies. Minimization of disturbed area of the site The plan shows disturbance to be outside the 100' wetlands buffer, however the DEIS states that "disturbance would be limited to an area within a 100 -foot -wide buffer around the existing wetlands" meaning that there will be disturbance within 100' of the wetlands. Whether or not the 100' foot buffer will be disturbed at any time during construction or after is an important fact that must be clarified to properly evaluate the environmental impact of the construction phase. In the mitigation discussions there is reference to revegetating disturbed areas in the 100' wetlands buffer area, yet no disturbance is shown on any plan. The DEIS states that buffers and perimeter disturbed areas will be revegetated with native materials and tree species to reestablish wooded buffers around the perimeter of the site, and all other areas not built upon will be landscaped with low -maintenance native plant materials. Grass areas are not mentioned (grass cannot be included in the category "low maintenance native plant materials"), yet this project is supposed to include families. Where will children play? It appears from the description that the only open areas will be the streets and the box turtle nesting site. Wetlands Some wetlands have likely not been identified on the map. This was determined via site visits in November, 2009 by Town staff and the Town Board of Trustees, the permitting agency with jurisdiction over wetlands in Southold. The full adverse impact to wetlands cannot be assessed without knowing where all the wetlands are located and having them marked on the plans. Also, wetlands constitute unbuildable lands, and affect the potential yield for the property under current Town zoning, and thus affecting many assumptions being made in the DEIS regarding impacts of development under current zoning in comparison to development under Village zoning. Breeding birds and other wildlife. 5 Significant impact due to intrusion of housing into the habitat — feral cats, invasive species will penetrate the habitat and degrade it. The impact will extend far into the habitat, not just on the outskirts as the DEIS claims. Wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the construction. The DEIS claims that wildlife that lives within the actual construction site will only temporarily be displaced, and will return once construction is over, as if gone on a short vacation. The fact is that some wildlife species have the ability to flee the area of grading and construction before being harmed, and some do not. Box turtles are slow moving and probably will not be able to evade a bulldozer. Displaced box turtles that do manage to stay out of harms way may attempt to cross CR 48 in search of new habitat. The same goes for mole salamanders that breed in the vernal pools nearby and rely on the wooded area to live underground the rest of the year. This entire discussion minimizing the adverse impact of habitat destruction by claiming the wildlife will come back after construction should be discounted as mitigation. While some wildlife will return, it will be limited to the species known as "human commensals", those that benefit from humans in some way (e.g. raccoons that eat cat food left outside). Habitat degradation. Opening up the woodland with a development that protrudes into it will have a greater effect than the DEIS describes. The edge effect and the intrusion of invasive species will occur immediately and will not be mitigated by the planting of evergreens along the perimeter as the DEIS suggests. The evergreens would have to be planted after the construction is complete, and will likely be a small size throwing very little shade. Invasive plants like mugwort, garlic mustard, rosa rugosa and bittersweet will already have had ample opportunity to establish themselves during this time, degrading the native habitat. Incorrect reference to mitigation Merely preserving existing habitat is not mitigation. The 6.6 acres of habitat being lost to development cannot be mitigated by not developing the rest of the property. There is no mitigation possible for lost habitat except to create new habitat to replace it. The DEIS states that mature trees would be preserved in the development area, where.possible, yet no mature trees are identified on the site plans (there is no `existing conditions' plan - identifying mature trees and their size). This statement cannot be considered mitigation. Often trees that matured in the forest cannot survive alone where the effects of wind and storms cause a more severe impact. In addition, the applicant has not provided any supporting evidence that any mature trees exist in places within the development area where they would be able to be left standing. 6 Minimizing impacts to wetlands and Moore's Woods The DEIS states that a row of conifer trees such as white pine or cedar will be planted along the perimeter of the 6.6 acre project area. No landscaping plan has been submitted, and this has not been shown on any of the plans submitted. Will these conifers be planted in the ten feet between the buildings and the 100' buffer area? A small white pine can have a crown diameter of five feet, and, as it matures, it will fill the space between the buildings and the buffer, creating difficulty with access to the buildings. The desired effect of the trees will not occur if they are planted too small. Small trees will not provide enough shade to accomplish the stated mitigation of shading the forest edge and reducing invasive plants into the woods. If they are large enough to do the job of shading, they will leave a very narrow area between the woods and the backs of the buildings. This plan for mitigation to the significant adverse impacts to the wetlands and forest appears to be unrealistic, therefore the impact should not be considered mitigated. Box turtle nesting habitat Box turtle nesting habitat is proposed to be created to mitigate the destruction of a box turtle nesting area elsewhere on the site. This habitat is proposed very close to the buildings. Slow- moving box turtles are easily caught by children and are often kept for pets, and thus removed from the breeding population. Box turtles are very long-lived (100 years) and slow growing — removing one breeding adult from a local population can have profound negative effects on the future population. Box turtle nests are easily dug up by dogs, and cats will likely use the area as a litter box. All of these factors will serve to reduce or entirely destroy the usefulness of the box turtle nesting site being offered as mitigation.. This development will likely have many children, dogs and cats. The provision of a sandy area for box turtle nesting will likely not mitigate the destruction of the existing habitat. 4. Land Use, Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/ Studies Community Character There will be a significant adverse impact on community character with the development of either the 128 unit proposed action or one of the two alternatives. The plans as submitted do little or nothing to mitigate this impact. The DEIS, in Section 4.4.2 on page 180, attempts to minimize this impact to community character by stating that the architecture and design will be similar to the Village of Greenport, however the Village center is over two miles away. The immediate neighborhood consists of nature preserve and single family homes on lots averaging nearly 2 acres (70,000 s.f.) per house. Most of the houses in the neighborhood are set 7 hundreds of feet from the road and are screened from view by vegetation. The proposed project would have four two-story buildings, each 90-100 feet long and 15 feet apart from each other, located only 30 feet from the road. There is no other development that sits that close to the Scenic Corridor except for the older motels/resorts, including Soundview'/2 mile away, the motel across from Town Beach, and the Condo/former motel just to the west of Town Beach over two miles away. The high density developments closest to the subject property are mostly seasonal resort uses associated with accessibility to beaches and the Long Island Sound and are dissimilar to the proposed action for that reason. Further, the buildings at Cliffside, just to the west across the street from the subject property, are set back over 80 —100 feet from the road, and there is some screening by vegetated berms. The Sunset Motel is also nearby, and the buildings are 140 feet from the road. San Simeon, across the street from Cliffside, is set back 80 feet from the road and the building along the front is only one story. Surrounding the subject property on three sides is a nature preserve which stretches out over a large area of preserved land. This project is embedded within, and effectively isolated by this nature preserve. The proposed project's adverse impact to community character is further emphasized by the seven -acre vacant parcel adjacent to the east. The project would be in drastic contrast to the potential development of this neighboring parcel, which is zoned for two acres per residence. Any house on that property would be set back from the road a minimum of 60' and, if subdivided, would be required to cluster the lots and screen the houses from the road with a vegetated buffer. The wetland complex associated with the subject property is shown as continuing onto this property, which might further limit the number of homes that could be sited next door, and thus widening the gap of inconsistency with the community character. The campground to the east is set well back from the road and is not visible. A high density development a mile east (Pheasant Run) is also set well back from the road with a thick natural buffer effectively screening it from sight. Visual Impact The DEIS does not contain enough information to show that the significant adverse impact created by the visual impact will be mitigated. The DEIS contains a visual rendering of the sign and driveway (no buildings), and a separate rendering of a couple of the buildings close-up from the interior, as well as a few photographs of the area. There is nothing iri context to the Scenic Corridor. To adequately assess the visual impact on the Scenic Corridor and the neighborhood, a visual impact analysis is needed to show how the project will look after completed, in year one, and some later year (e.g. year ten) to show maturing landscaping and screening, from several angles across the street looking straight at the proposed development, and at an angle as drivers 8 approach from the east and west, both close up, and from farther away. Otherwise this adverse impact must be considered as remaining a significant adverse impact that has not been mitigated. The Final Scope, in Section 4.6, requires that the DEIS include a visual impact assessment pursuant to procedure contained in the DEC visual Impact guidance document. This property is subject to this requirement due to its location in a State Designated Scenic Corridor/Byway. This assessment was not done. Analysis of the Action's Consistency with Comprehensive Planning Efforts/Studies Undertaken by the Town of Southold. There is likely not one document comprising the Comprehensive Plan of Southold with which this project could be found to be truly consistent. The DEIS contains out -of -context snippets of various town land use plans that might appear to make the project consistent, but a more thorough reading of the land use plans will prove the inconsistencies dominate. Examples of such inconsistencies are set forth in greater detail below. Town of Southold Scenic Corridor Management Plan 2001 This parcel is located within the Town of Southold Scenic Corridor designated by New York State in 2001. This particular stretch of CR 48 provides a respite from the short stretch of intense visible development to the west, which is uncharacteristic of the majority of the CR 48 Scenic Corridor. The scenic characteristics of the corridor include an emphasis on the rural characteristics of the town. The proposed project is not consistent with this plan which calls for new development to be consolidated close to hamlet centers. This project is far (not within easy walking distance) from the center of Greenport Village. The official New York State designation requires that the visual impact analysis be conducted. This significant adverse impact will certainly occur as a result of this proposed action, has not been mitigated in the proposed plans, and must be analyzed in accordance with the Final Scope. Smart growth planning concept. The DEIS makes claims that "Smart Growth" principles are guiding "many aspects" of this proposed action. It should be noted that the location of this proposed action is contrary to the basic tenet of the Smart Growth idea, which would have high density residential development located within walking distance of a village center. Instead, this proposed development is located over two miles -from the village center, with hundreds of acres of preserved natural lands in between. Pedestrianaccess is difficult and dangerous, with CR 48 having a narrow shoulder and the nearest sidewalk located on Moore's Lane almost a mile away. 9 Suffolk County Smart Growth Principles The DEIS states that this proposed development supports Suffolk County's Smart Growth principles, and further goes on to state that many LEED Neighborhood Certification criteria will be met. Section 4.4.1, on page 177 runs through the criteria the project claims to meet; Site location within a quarter mile of community resources. The DEIS states that the site is within walking distance of downtown Greenport, which is false. The site is over two miles away from downtown Greenport (as measured along nearest roads from the proposed site driveway to the post office in Greenport center) The location of this development places the proposed action squarely in opposition to the key tenet of smart growth — locate high density close to village and hamlet centers and transit hubs (within walking distance) - 1/4 to a'/z mile. This is located over two miles from the center of Greenport and its mass transit opportunities and other amenities such as grocery stores, the post office, and other shopping. The Greenport school is located 1.6 miles away. Further, there are no sidewalks on this stretch of County Road 48 (the nearest sidewalk is nearly a mile away with narrow shoulders), making walking from this location to Greenport Village a dangerous and intimidating undertaking with traffic commonly moving very fast (60 mph) on this stretch of road. Affordable Housing and the lack of benefit of an annexation The proposed project is being labeled "workforce housing' and `affordable housing' yet the affordability is not guaranteed into the future if the property is annexed to the Village. The DEIS states the size of the units will assure affordability into the future. The Town of Southold has experience with the notion that the size or location of a housing unit will control the cost and keep it low; it doesn't work. Southold approved a project of affordable housing some years ago, but did not include a restriction on future selling prices. The prices of these modest homes are now out of reach for low to middle income people. In addition to the 64 units of workforce housing that will not be guaranteed affordable into the future, there will be 64 market rate units that will not be providing any public benefit. If the affordable units are not made perpetually affordable, can they truly be counted as affordable into the future? The Town currently ensures that at least twenty percent of the units would be perpetually affordable by limiting the resale values and home improvements. The Town also provides a fair way for potential homeowners to buy affordable homes by first determining their eligibility based on income and other factors, and then holding a lottery among those eligible. Further, the DEIS attempts to use the label "affordable" to justify the location. Southold does need affordable housing, just not in that location at that density. 10 Analysis of the Action's Consistency with the Policies of the Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) On recommendation of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Coordinator, the Town Board disagrees with the claim made in Volume 1 of 2: Text and Appendices A -G, page 220 indicating that the proposed action is consistent with the proposed policy. LWRP Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. The policy is intended to foster a development pattern that provides for beneficial use of the environmental, historical, and cultural coastal resources of the Town of Southold while maintaining and building on its traditional economic base. The primary components of the desired development pattern are: strengthening the hamlets as centers of activity,, maintaining a clear sense of separation between hamlet centers and the countryside (emphasis added), encouraging water -dependent uses to concentrate in existing locations of maritime activity, enhancing stable residential areas, and preserving agriculture, open space and environmentally sensitive coastal resources. Development that does not reinforce the traditional land use pattern of the Town of 'Southold would result in a loss of the community and landscape character of Southold. Further, the Town's "Master Plan Update" encourages residential development to locate in and around existing hamlets "in order to preserve and enhance the historic and cultural centers of the community, to support existing commercial centers, to provide locations for moderately priced housing and to encourage efficient and effective provision of communityfacilities and services" (Town of Southold Planning Board, 1985, p6). The proposed action is not located within the Greenport HALO or Hamlet Center. Further the "isolated" location lacks sufficient connecting infrastructure (sidewalks) to a commercial/service area available to residents without vehicles. Unsafe pedestrian use of the road shoulder poses an unacceptable level of risk, due to high traffic speed, limited line of site, narrow road shoulders and a high occurrence of wetlands that do not allow for space to walk off the pavement (which forces pedestrians closer to travel lanes). Correspondingly, the isolated location also promotes higher vehicle dependency and consequently greater vehicle trips for residents with vehicles. The proposal prompts a sprawl development pattern that conflicts with the principles of smart growth, the stated goals as identified in the Town of Southold Hamlet Study and the Hamlet .Stakeholder recommendations. County Route 48 (a designated New York State Scenic Byway) presently functions as a bypass to the more congested State Route 25, which meanders along the south side of the Town. The issues of concern along CR 48 include the loss of agricultural land and open space to residential development and the intensification of strip commercial development in the business zones that are capable of eroding the scenic qualities important to the community. A scenic viewshed analysis was not completed for the proposed action, therefore the impact to which the development would have on the scenic qualities cannot be adequately assessed. Based upon the above, the proposed action does not strengthen the hamlet as a center of activity to maintain a clear sense of separation between the hamlet center and the countryside. Rather, the proposal conflicts with the Town Comprehensive Plan goals that require high density residential development to be located within the Hamlet Centers. Therefore, the proposed action does not meet the above stated Policy. L WRP Policy 3.1 Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. A. Minimize introduction of structural design components (including utility lines, lighting, signage and fencing) which would be discordant with existing natural scenic components and character. K Protect visual quality associated with agricultural land, open space and natural resources. 1. Maintain or restore original landforms except where altered landforms provide useful screening or contribute to scenic quality. 2. Group or orient structures during site design to preserve open space and provide visual organization. 3. Avoid structures or activities which introduce visual interruptions to natural landscapes including: a. introduction of 'intrusive artificial light sources b. fragmentation of and structural intrusion into open space areas The proposed action is located in Moores Drain, a designated New York State Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area. The natural scenic components (woodland) are largely intact from the County Route 48 viewshed looking south. The location and scale of the proposed action in context of the surrounding area would be discordant with the existing scenic components (woodland). The proposed action is inconsistent with the above stated policies. 12 LWRP Policy 5.4 . Limit the potential for adverse impacts of watershed development on water quality and quantity. A. Protect water quality by ensuring that proposed expansion or intensification of existing watershed development results in: 2. Maintenance of natural characteristics of drainage systems, and B. Limit the individual impacts associated with development to prevent cumulative water quality impacts which would lead to a failure to meet water quality standards. The impact to alteration of the surface and subsurface water quality through the manipulation of drainage patterns and subsurface discharge has not been adequately addressed. The parcel is subject to frequent fluctuating water tables that are evidenced by standing water and wetlands on-site. Correspondingly, aerial photo series analysis indicates that portions of the parcel and surrounding areas are frequently flooded. LWRP Policy 5.5 Protect and conserve the quality and quantity of potable water. A. Prevent contamination of potable waters by limiting discharges of pollutants to maintain water quality according to water quality classification, and limiting, discouraging or prohibiting land use practices that are likely to contribute to contravention of surface and groundwater quality classifications for potable water supplies. B. Prevent. depletion of existing potable water supplies by limiting saltwater intrusion in aquifers and estuaries, through conservation methods or restrictions on water supply use and withdrawals, and by allowing for recharge of potable aquifers. C. Limit cumulative impact of development on groundwater recharge areas to ensure replenishment ofpotable groundwater supplies. It is unclear whether the proposed action is consistent with the policy above due to the lack of clarity in the analysis on the issue of stormwater pollution prevention, drainage, landscaping and irrigation in the DEIS. LWRP Policy 6.1 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of Southold. The proposed action is inconsistent with this policy as discussed. See below. A. Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by: 13 1. Physical loss of ecological components 2. Degradation of ecological components 3. Functional loss of ecological components There will be physical loss of ecological components, and will likely be degradation of adjacent ecological components and possible functional loss of wetlands B. Protect and restore ecological quality by adhering to the following measures. 1. Maintain values associated with natural ecological communities. 3. Avoid fragmentation of ecological communities and maintain corridors to facilitate the free exchange of biological resources within and among communities. 4. Maintain ecological integrity of particular locales by maintaining structural and functional attributes, including normal variability, to provide for self-sustaining systems. 5. Avoid permanent adverse change to ecological processes. C. Reduce adverse impacts on ecological quality due to development. The proposed action is inconsistent with the policies above due to the proposed fragmentation of habitat and may cause permanent adverse change to the wetlands hydrology. This has not been adequately addressed in the DEIS LWRP Policy 6.2 Protect and restore Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. The subject parcel is nearly surrounded by a NYSDOS Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area recognizing the ecological significance of the area. The complete Coastal Fish and Wildlife Assessment Form is attached. This policy has not been sufficiently addressed in the document. The proposed action may be inconsistent with this policy. We cannot be certain until a habitat impairment test has been conducted as described in the LWRP in this section. L WRP Policy6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. This policy has not been adequately addressed within the DEIS and therefore consistency with the LWRP cannot be determined. On October 29, 2009 Planning Board staff conducted a field inspection of SCTM# 40.-3-1 to determine the accuracy of wetlands as depicted on the survey titled Northwind Village, Preliminary Alignment Plan, prepared by Barrett, Bonacci & Van Weele, PC and dated May 13, 14 2009. The field inspection was performed in conjunction with the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Annexation By The Village of Greenport and Development of Northwind Village Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York. The inspection indicates that the wetland delineation lines as shown on the above referenced plat are inaccurate. On November 5, 2009 The Board of Trustees, the jurisdictional body of the Town of Southold Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines, verified that the wetlands are inaccurate. The emergent vegetative species common reed (phragmites spp.) occurs on the northeast area of the parcel. This area is not depicted on the plat. Common Reed is a wetland indicator species for freshwater wetlands pursuant to Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines of the Southold Town Code definition; Wetland (Freshwater). a Dedim.- . 0001ts Figure 1. Kace LI, LLC area of parcel in common reed; close up (white arrow) Note that aerial photograph analysis suggests that this area may be directly connected to a larger hardwood (predominately red maple (Acer rubrum)) wetland system that occurs east, west (along County Route 48) and south. The areas mentioned correlate with the Raynham loam soil series with seasonal high water table 6" to 18" below the surface. Consequently, the capability of the proposed action to meet or further the below listed policies cannot be accurately assessed. It is recommended that the applicant amend the plans to show the correct wetland area and then address the below policies and sub -policies. Wetlands within the Town of Southold are critical natural resources that provide benefits including: open space, habitat for fish and wildlife, water quality enhancement, flooding and erosion protection, scenic value, and opportunities for environmental education. Over the years, many wetland areas have been lost or impaired by degradation or functional loss. Wetlands and their benefits are also dependent upon the condition of adjacent lands which provide buffers between wetlands and surrounding uses. Large areas of adjacent lands that previously provided a buffer for wetlands have been physically lost to development or functionally lost through lE changes in land use, including inappropriate or incompatible landscaping. These losses and impairments to the wetlands and their functions cumulatively have impacted the Town of Southold's ecosystem. The Town recognizes the value of wetlands to its ecosystem, its economy and its aesthetic character. It also recognizes that federal and state regulations concerning wetlands do not fully cover local conditions, and in some cases, are less restrictive than local regulations. The Town Board of Trustees has local expertise in the management of the Town's wetlands and in this capacity espouses a "no net loss" of wetlands policy, as espoused by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. LWRPPolicy 6.4. Protect vulnerable fish, wildlife, and plant species, and rare ecological communities. This policy has not been adequately addressed in the DEIS. General consistency with overall Town Comprehensive Plan As shown above, the action is not consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. 5. Communitv Services and Utilities General comments on the tax base of the Village and the Town. The effect on the tax base is put forth in the DEIS as mitigation for the increase in required services, yet the net increase in property tax received as a result of this development, whether it be developed in the Town or the Village, will be a net loss to the town when the increase in services is added to the equation. It is a well-known fact that residential development does not generate enough in property tax to pay for the services. Further, this development is proposed as condominiums, which can potentially pay drastically less property tax than single family homes. Thus, the adverse impact to .community services must be reexamined, and cannot be assumed to be mitigated by property taxes. 5.1 Public Schools The full potential significant adverse impact to the schools was outlined as to numbers of student, but not analyzed in terms of cost versus taxes, nor mitigated. The DEIS claims minimal impact based on the assumption that most of the children that will attend school from this development are already in the school district. They provide no evidence to support this assumption. A true assessment of the impact to the public school must be conducted to determine whether the adverse impact is significant, and whether it has been mitigated. Further, a comparison of the impact to schools with and without annexations was presented. The analysis is incorrect because it is based on a number of units at a size that would not be allowed 16 under current Southold Town Code. This analysis must be corrected to determine whether the impact to schools would be greater or lesser with annexation. See the discussion under "Alternatives" regarding the development allowed under current Town zoning. 5.2 Fire Protection and Ambulance Service The DEIS states that there will be no impact to the fire department. This is founded on assumptions that are not backed up with facts. The DEIS points out that property taxes will increase, implying that the increased property tax will cover increased demand for services, yet it is common knowledge that residential development results in a net loss to municipal revenue due to the higher demand on services. A true analysis of the cost of the expected future services against the amount of property tax paid into the fire district must be done to assume that no significant adverse impact will occur or has been mitigated. 5.3 Police Protection The DEIS attempts to assert no impact to police based on the fact that their community design will provide "de -facto' security through lighting and location of buildings, and will conform to New York Building and Fire Codes. There is no data to support any of these statements. The claim that lights and neighbors can replace police officers is not supported by any evidence. Also, all buildings must meet New York Building and Fire Codes, not just those wishing to have to call the police less often. 5A Water Supply Claims in the DEIS of "no irrigation at this time" are disingenuous in that they imply that at some other time there may be irrigation. If there is going to be irrigation, it should be reviewed now for impacts to the water supply. If there is not going to be irrigation, the applicant should be offering to place a deed restriction on the property preventing irrigation in the future (and providing a landscape plan consisting entirely of drought -resistant plants). 5.5 Sewage Disposal The DEIS assumes the project, if not annexed, will not be able to hook up to the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant, and bases some assertions on this assumption. Other projects outside the Village have hooked up to the Greenport Sewage Treatement Plant, and pay a fee to do so. This provides a financial bonus to the Village they would not receive if the property were annexed. 5.8 Recreation The DEIS states that the proposed action would provide an on-site recreational area, yet the plans do not support this claim. There is no recreational area identified on the site. Further, there is 17 little available space illustrated on the site alignment plan that could accommodate any significant recreation. This together with the claim that no irrigation is proposed leaves a lot of doubt about what, if any, recreation is being provided. Because little or no recreation has been shown to be provided at the proposed project, there cannot be assumed to be no significant adverse impact to recreational services in the Town. There will be an increase in demand on existing recreational facilities, and no discussion or facts have been presented to be able to determine that significant adverse impacts on recreational services will be mitigated. All together, the DEIS has not sufficiently characterized or quantified the potential significant adverse impacts to community services, thus it cannot be determined whether those impacts have been mitigated. 6. Transportation Traffic Safety The high volume of cars entering and exiting that curve in the road from this site would logically increase the risk of accidents. Traffic routinely travels at 60 miles per hour there, sometimes faster, and there are often long lines of traffic traveling from the ferry westbound, making a left hand turn especially difficult. Add to the equation the large herd of deer that crosses that road often, and the safety problems are obvious. A new large development, Cliffside Resort, which provides transient lodging, was completed to the west of the proposed project, and open for business in mid to late summer, 2008. The traffic study did not consider the effects on transportation from the new development. It will likely have strong seasonal effects on the traffic in the vicinity of the proposed action and must be taken into account when investigating adverse traffic impacts. The sight line to the west was measured and is not adequate for a person pulling out of the development to avoid,a collision. The DEIS suggests that some vegetation clearing would improve the sight distance so that it would be adequate, yet no diagrams or measurements are shown to support this claim. The road curves after rising up a hill near the proposed project, and the drastic increase in the number of cars entering and exiting will be a safety issue. Even if the sight distance of 800 feet can be attained by trimming some vegetation, that sight distance is only long enough to avoid a collision. The sight distance data source cautions that "...in some cases, this may require a major -road vehicle (aka "oncoming traffic") to stop or slow to accommodate the maneuver by a minor -road vehicle (aka "the car pulling out"). This should cause a red flag of alarm — there really isn't a safe sight distance if people cars will have to hit their brakes when people pull out. Traffic calming or road reconfiguration for this now busy comer/hill would likely be better mitigation than a simple turning lane and trimming some vegetation. 18 Traffic generation Another deficiency in the DEIS is the assertion that a development of 128 units versus the development that could happen under current Town zoning will only increase the traffic by 1.7%. It seems a stretch to assume three times the number of units will generate only a tiny fraction of an increase in traffic. Three times the number of units will likely generate three times the amount of traffic. The adverse impacts of traffic from the proposed action versus if it were to be developed under current town zoning are not characterized accurately and cannot be analyzed from the information contained in this document. Thus the claim of no significant ,adverse impact from traffic is not supported in the DEIS. Seasonal factors must be included in any traffic analysis. Parking There is not enough parking provided on site and no other place to park anywhere near the site. The notion that half the units will only have one car seems unrealistic given the tendency of most households to have two cars. The site is not convenient for alternative transportation (no sidewalk connecting to the village center for over a mile on a road with a narrow shoulder and cars and trucks travelling fast (the speed limit is 50mph), and is not near mass transit (the nearest bus stop is almost two miles away), making it very likely that most households will have two cars if there are two people living there. There may be some single person households, however it seems unrealistic to assume that 64 of the units will be single person, and there is no place for guests to park. Alternate Transportation. Section 4.6.9 Alternate Means of Transportation The DEIS suggests mitigation for the increase in traffic will occur when the residents carpool to work. This assumption is not supported with any statistics or studies, and the significant adverse impact of traffic cannot be considered mitigated. The suggestion in the DEIS that people will use bicycles or walk from this site regularly to access the Village is also not based on facts. The only route to the Village is via CR 48 and there are no sidewalks available for over a mile. A pedestrian would be walking along CR 48 in an unlit narrow shoulder with many cars traveling 60 mph speeding past for almost a mile before reaching the nearest sidewalk on Moores Lane. From there it is well over a mile to the Village center. 19 7. Cultural Resources The archeological study contains soil information (soil map) that does not appear to match with the soil analyses done elsewhere in the DEIS. 8. Cumulative Impacts The DEIS states that there will be no impact to surface water, yet completely ignores the fact that the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment plant effluent empties into the Long Island Sound. The track record and current test results of the effluent of the Greenport Sewer system should be reported in this EIS to effectively evaluate the effect to surface water that another 128 units will have on the Long Island Sound. While the loss of forested habitat to the Moores Woods is less than the 17 acres identified in the Scope, the mitigation proposed (not clearing the wetlands and wetland buffer), is not really mitigation for the forest that is being lost. See earlier discussion on this topic. Other general comments on the DEIS and proposed development. EAF. The Environmental Assessment Form is incomplete — the number of acres being cleared, habitat types etc. Alternatives and assessment of impacts with and without annexation. The alternatives were poorly designed for this environmental assessment and are not meaningful for several reasons. First, both development alternatives are very similar to the proposed action in their layout, design, and lot coverage by buildings and pavement. # of units # buildings # parking spaces Proposed action - 128 23 192 Alternative design 108 19 163 Alt. current zoning 50 25 125 Neither alternative would appear to make much of a difference in many of the adverse impacts due to their similarity in impervious surface, location and size of buildings, and numbers of parking spaces. This environmental assessment should analyze alternatives more in keeping with the community character and zoning that surrounds this parcel on all sides. The current zoning is the Village parkland zoning, and the Town's Residential -80 zoning. An alternative demonstrating the 20 difference in impacts if it were developed under an R-80 zoning requirement would be a more rational alternative to explore, especially given Town planning documents that support developing this parcel at that density. Developing the parcel under R-80 would provide greater protection to the sensitive wetland habitat adjacent, and be more in keeping with the immediate neighborhood, as well as providing more habitat protection to the sensitive lands adjacent. Another alternative would be to assess the impacts of a development similar in unit size and design to the proposed development, yet with significantly lower density — 25 50 units. Second, the alternative for current zoning is a valid alternative, but must be corrected and assessed based on an accurate reading of the Town Code to be meaningful. Alternative. 108 units. This alternative, as portrayed in the DEIS, is essentially the same as the 128 unit, and provides no useful comparison of realistic alternative design or density. It likely would have the same impacts as the 128 unit proposal. Alternative: Current Town zoning development This entire section is based on an incorrect and obsolete reading of the Town's code for the Hamlet Density zoning district, and a lack of understanding about how yield is determined for residential site plans in Southold Town. The number of units that would be allowed under current zoning is unknown absent a yield map prepared to Town Code specifications. The wetlands delineation is questionable, and would have to be reaffirmed by the Town's staff person responsible for verifying wetlands delineations. In addition to the question of yield, the proposed alternative of developing the property under current town code does not meet the Town's code for HD zoned property (§ 280-137 A (7)). There is a maximum floor area allowed based on yield and a multiplier. As an example, if the yield. was 50 (again we can't be certain without a yield map that meets Town Code), under the new code the maximum floor area would be 50 units x 1,200 square feet, equaling 60,000 s.f. The DEIS alternative for development under current town zoning proposes 50 units at 2,520 s.f. each, which would exceed the 60,000 s.f. maximum floor area. The code provides the option to build 2,520 s.f. units, only at a lower density. In this example, for the units to be 2,520 square feet each, there could only be 23 of them (60,000 s.f. max floor area - 2,520 s.f per unit = 23 units). Again, this is all based on an assumption of yield that hasn't been demonstrated. Southold Town Code § 280-137 A (6) requires that this proposed development be clustered, with thirty percent of the buildable lands to be kept open (this thirty percent would be calculated using the buildable lands only (excluding the wetlands). The alternative as shown may meet the requirement; however it is not clear from the plan if it does. The plans should clearly state the 21 area of wetlands, the area of buffer, and the area of "open space", as well as the total area of "buildable lands." There also is some confusion in the DEIS over whether this alternative is to be subdivided into lots, or kept as a homeowners association and the units sold as condominiums. The plan submitted shows attached units and the parcel remaining as one lot. This is the .only way that attached housing as proposed could be developed. The proposed alternative would have similar ownership to the proposed action of 128 units. The statements on pg. 277 indicating it will be more difficult to control the ecological impacts because of the ownership pattern is erroneous and should be corrected. All other statements making the assumption that this alternative would involve individual homeowners with no common area should be corrected. The plan incorrectly assumes that 10% of the units would be affordable, where the Town Code requires twenty percent and they must remain affordable forever. The alternative should include the 20% affordable required by the Town Code, or analyze the effects of the partial buyout being suggested on the plan. The buyout value has been set by the Town at $203,600 per affordable unit not built. If this alternative did yield 50 units, and 10 % were built as affordable, the remaining five units would have to be "bought out" by the applicant. This would yield the town's affordable housing fund over a million dollars, and would be used to provide affordable housing opportunities elsewhere in the Town. The proposed site plan shows an unsafe and unrealistic road, and parking scheme. Southold Town Code requires a minimum paved area width for roads of 28 feet. The roads bend at sharp angles and turning radius' may not meet the standards set forth in Town Code (without those radius' shown on the plan, we can't be certain). Parking spaces shown on sharp turns are unsafe. The plan also shows very little open area for yards or outdoor recreation. The alternatives analysis provide no useful comparison to feasible alternate uses of the property, including the current zoning, so no conclusion can be made in the findings about the impacts of those alternatives except that the 108 unit alternative is probably similar to those of the proposed action and the "current town zoning" alternative was not correct and thus does not accurately present the potential impacts. Yield ("as -of -right" The DEIS appears to be based on assumptions that do not take into account what an "as -of -right" development would likely yield if the project were developed under the current zoning. Yield for residential site plans in the HD zoning district in Southold must submit a yield plan showing one unit per 10,000 s.f., including roads and other infrastructure. With no actual yield map in hand, an estimate of the yield should take into account not only wetlands, but also the road area and any other infrastructure that is required and affects the yield. A straight calculation of buildable 22 lands likely will produce a yield that overestimates the number of units that would be allowed. Thus it doesn't seem valid to suggest the traffic from 128 unit development is only 1.7% higher than the traffic generated from a development under current town zoning. 128 units could potentially be. almost three times the number of units in the "as -of -right" development. The case for annexation (public benefit of) 1. Affordable housing appears to be the main claim for benefits, in addition to taxes for the Village. a. The benefit of affordable housing will be fleeting if they are not made "perpetually affordable." b. Tax revenue has not been demonstrated to be greater than the cost of the services to be required. i. Study after study has shown that residential development costs municipalities more than they receive in taxes. Page 19 Inaccuracies. LEED Criteria. The site is not within a quarter mile of community resources, there is no evidence the homes will meet Energy Star for Homes requirements, and the provision of affordable housing is not definitive. Conclusion The DEIS does not address the impacts adequately, nor does it contain proposals for adequate mitigation for the impacts that are acknowledged. The document is missing some important information required in the Final Scope and necessary to determine the impact and possible mitigation, one example being the Visual Impact Analysis. There are inaccuracies in the document that must be corrected to be able to determine the impacts and whether they've been mitigated. Last, the DEIS contains and inaccurate and insufficient analysis of alternatives. Please feel free to contact us at (63 1) 765-1938 with any questions. Sincerely, Hdather Lanza, AICP Town Planning Director Encl. 23 COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM Name of Area: Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain Counties: Suffolk Town(s): Southold 7'/z' Quadrangle(s): Southold, NY, and Greenport, NY Designated: October 15, 2005 Assessment Criteria Score Ecosystem Rarity (ER)—the uniqueness of the plant and animal community in the area and the physical, structural, and chemical features supporting this community. ER assessment: One of the largest saltwater/freshwater wetland complexes on Long Island; rare in the coastal lowlands ecological subregion. 16 Species Vulnerability (SV)—the degree of vulnerability throughout its range in New York State of a species residing in the ecosystem or utilizing the ecosystem for its survival. (E = Endangered, T = Threatened, SC = Special concern) SV assessment: Piping plover (E, T -Fed), least tern (T), and common tern (T) use the Pipes Cove area for foraging and loafing, but extent of use not well documented. 0 Human Use (HU)— the conduct of significant, demonstrable commercial, recreational, or educational wildlife -related human uses, either consumptive or non -consumptive, in the area or directly dependent upon the area. HU assessment: Recreational clamming, kayaking, boating and fishing significant at the county level. 4 Population Level (PL)—the concentration of a species in the area during its normal, , recurring period of occurrence, regardless of the length of that period of occurrence. PL assessment: No unusual concentrations of any species of fish or wildlife in the area. Replaceability (R)—ability to replace the area, either on or off site, with an equivalent replacement for the same fish and wildlife and uses of those same fish and wildlife, for the same users of those fish and wildlife. R assessment: Irreplaceable. 1.2 Habitat Index = (ER + SV + HU + PL] = 20 Significance = HI x R = 24 Page 1 of 6 NEW YORK STATE SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT NARRATIVE Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT: The Pipes Cove Creek and Moores Drain habitat is located on Long Island's North Fork, between Hashamomuck Pond and the Village of Greenport in the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport, Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangles: Southold, NY, and Greenport, NY). The fish and wildlife habitat is approximately 570 acres in size, and is comprised of several habitat types, including a portion of the shallow waters of Pipes Cove, the tidal creeks and marshes associated with Pipes Creek and Pipes Cove Creek, the freshwater swamps of the Arshmonaque wetlands and the Moore's Drain basin, open grasslands, and upland woods. Moore's Woods, which lies north of State Route 25, is protected land owned by the Village of Greenport. The Arshamanaque Wetlands between Chapel Lane and Albertson Lane is under town or county ownership, and is managed as protected open space lands. The habitat is bounded by Middle Road on the north, Albertson Lane and Kerwin Boulevard on the west, Pipes Cove and State Route 25 on the south, and the residential areas of the Village of Greenport to the east. Water depths in the portion of Pipes Cove and associated creeks within the habitat are less than three feet at mean low water. The habitat complex is bordered by light and dense residential development, woodlands, and scattered commercial sites. The Arshamanaque Wetlands and Moore's Woods portions of this habitat both provide habitat for swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla), a species designated as rare in New York State by the New York Natural Heritage Program. FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES: The Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain habitat contains one ofthe largest tidal/freshwater wetland complexes on Long Island, and is unusual within the coastal lowlands subregion. This habitat area, including its diversity ofupland ecological communities, is important to fish and wildlife throughout the year. Suitable nesting habitat for common tern (T) and least tern (T) is available on the maritime beaches along Pipes Cove, but nesting by these species has not been well documented. However, during a survey in 2000, six least terns (T) were observed on the beach, and two common terns (T) were seen feeding in the waters of Pipes Cove. A 1996 record shows that 60 least tern (T) individuals were observed in the vicinity of the beach at Pipes Cove, with no nesting documented. Pipes Cove is a valuable waterfowl wintering area (November -March) on the north shore, providing shallow water habitat for red -breasted merganser, bufflehead, and American black duck, with smaller concentrations of greater and/or lesser scaup, American widgeon, common goldeneye, and long- tailed duck. Waterfowl use of the bay during winter is influenced in part by the extent of ice cover each year. Page 2 of 6 The habitat has long been recognized as a critical environmental area. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (in partnership with The Nature Conservancy) and the Town of Southold recently acquired approximately 140 acres of tidal, brackish, and freshwater wetlands between the Arshamanaque Wetlands and Pipes Cove. Despite the presence of mosquito ditches and other disturbances, tidal wetlands (and the tidal creeks) within the area of acquisition are of a high quality nature. Pipes Cove provides important birdwatching, hiking, nature study, environmental interpretation, kayaking, and boating opportunities for the public. Recent acquisitions of lands within the Pipes Creek Cove and Moore's Drain habitat area may contribute to the importance of the area to recreationists. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Any activity that would substantially degrade the water quality in the Pipes. Cove Creek and Moore's Drain habitat would adversely affect the biological productivity of this area. Degradation of water quality in the creek, or to its water sources, from chemical contamination (including food chain effects), oil spills, excessive turbidity, and waste disposal (including vessel wastes) would adversely affect all fish and wildlife. Efforts should be made to improve water quality, including the control and reduction of discharges from vessels and upland sources. Vegetated upland buffer zones should be protected or established to further reduce water quality impairment from upland sources. Any expansion of fishing, small boat use, and educational activities should be compatible with the preservation of natural habitats. Alteration of tidal patterns in Pipes Cove and associated tidal creeks would have major impacts on the fish and wildlife communities present. Dredging to maintain existing boat channels should be scheduled between September 15 and December 15 to minimize potential impacts on aquatic organisms, and to allow for dredged material placement when wildlife populations are least sensitive to disturbance. Unregulated dredged material placement in this area would be detrimental, but such activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat for certain species of wildlife. Existing and proposed dredging operations in this area should incorporate the use of best management practices to avoid and reduce adverse effects. Construction of shoreline structures, such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments,, in areas not previously disturbed by development, may result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of Pipes Cove Creek and Moore's Drain. Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas, through loss of tidal connection, ditching, excavation, or filling, would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat area. Alternative strategies for the protection of shoreline property should be examined, including innovative, vegetation -based approaches. Control of invasive nuisance plant species, through a variety of means, may improve fish and wildlife species use of the area and enhance overall wetland values. The fish and wildlife resources of the Pipes Creek Cove and Moore's Drain area could be affected by modification of public access to and/or use of the areas. Habitat modifications which substantially change the natural character of the area, such as residential, commercial, or industrial developments could have a significant impact on many wildlife species in the area. Page 3 of 6 Y S Unrestricted use ofmotorized vessels including personal watercraft in the protected, shallow waters of the cove and tidal creeks of this area could have adverse effects on aquatic vegetation and fish and wildlife populations. Use of motorized vessels should be controlled (e.g., no -wake zones, speed zones, zones of exclusion) in and adjacent to shallow waters and vegetated wetlands. Thermal discharges, depending on time of year, may have variable effects on use of the area by marine species and wintering waterfowl. Installation and operation of water intakes could have a significant impact on juvenile (and, in some cases, adult) fish concentrations, through impingement or entrainment. HABITAT IMPAIRMENT TEST: A habitat impairment test must be applied to any activity that is subject to consistency review under federal and State laws, or under applicable local laws contained in an approved local waterfront revitalization program. If the proposed action is subject to consistency review, then the habitat protection policy applies, whether the proposed action is to occur within or outside the designated area. The specific habitat impairment test is as follows: In order to protect and preserve a significant habitat, land and water uses or development shall not be undertaken if such .actions would: • destroy the habitat; or, • significantly impair the viability of a habitat. Habitat destruction is defined as the loss of fish or wildlife use through direct physical alteration, disturbance, or pollution of a designated area or through the indirect effects of these actions on a designated area. Habitat destruction may be indicated by changes in vegetation, substrate, or hydrology, or increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, or pollutants. Significant impairment is defined as reduction in vital resources (e.g., food, shelter, living space) or change in environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, substrate, salinity) beyond the tolerance range of an organism. Indicators of a significantly impaired habitat focus on ecological alterations and may include but are not limited to reduced carrying capacity, changes in community structure (food chain relationships, species diversity), reduced productivity and/or increased incidence of disease and mortality. The tolerance range of an organism is not defined as the physiological range of conditions beyond which a species will not survive at all; but as the ecological range of conditions that supports the species population or has the potential to support a restored population, where practical. Either the loss of individuals through an increase in emigration or an increase in death rate indicates that the tolerance range of an organism has been exceeded. An abrupt increase in death rate may occur as Page 4 of 6 an environmental factor falls beyond a tolerance limit (a range has both upper and lower limits). Many environmental factors, however, do not have a sharply defined tolerance limit, but produce increasing emigration or death rates with increasing departure from conditions that are optimal for the species. The range of parameters which should be considered in applying the habitat impairment test include but are not limited to the following: physical parameters such as living space, circulation, flushing rates, tidal amplitude, turbidity, water temperature, depth (including loss of litforal zone), morphology, substrate type, vegetation, structure, erosion and sedimentation rates; 2. biological parameters such as community structure, food chain relationships, species diversity, predator/prey relationships, population size, mortality rates, reproductive rates, meristic features, behavioral patterns and migratory patterns; and, 3. chemical parameters such as dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, acidity, dissolved solids, nutrients, organics, salinity, and pollutants (heavy metals, toxics and hazardous materials). Although not comprehensive, examples of generic activities and impacts which could destroy or significantly impair the habitat are listed in the Impact Assessment section to assist in applying the habitat impairment test to a proposed activity. Page 5 of 6 KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS: Habitat Unit NYS Department of State Division of Coastal Resources 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231 Phone: (518) 474-6000 NYSDEC—Region 1 State University of New York, Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 Phone: (631) 444-0354 Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1801 Town of Southold Trustees Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1892 Office of Ecology Suffolk County Dept. Of Health Services Bureau of Environmental Management County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Phone: (631) 852-2077 Bureau of Marine Resources NYSDEC 205 N. Belle Meade Road, Suite 1 East Setauket, NY 11733 Phone: (631) 444-0430 New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5" Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 Phone: (518) 402-8935 Paul Stoutenburgh 4015 Skunk Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 Phone: (631) 734-6605 Page 6 of 6 f ,'• � �yi� W P • r •i • ri A F � 1 � gym Significantl. and Wildlife Habitats CoWding Point: Pipes.Coveand Moores Drain 1 t4Cr1 • 1 . rty 1� 2000 f 1 .... , Lanza, Heather From: Sherri Aicher [slaicher@gw.dec. state. ny.us] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 3:22 PM To: Lanza, Heather Subject: Re: Southold comments Northwind Village DEIS Hi Heather, I received your comments, and I'll get back to you on your other questions soon. Sincerely, Sherri Aicher Environmental Analyst NYS DEC Region 1 SUNY@ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, New York 11790-3409 email- slaicller��„ w.dec.state.ny..us phone: 631-444-0403 fax: 631-444-0360 >>> "Lanza, Heather" <heather. lanza@town.southold.ny.us> 11/23/2009 3:11 PM >>> Heather Lanza, AICP Town Planning Director 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone: (631)765-1938 E-mail: heather.lanzantown.southold.ny.us RESOLUTION 2009-910 Item # 5.23 ADOPTED DOC ID: 5431 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO.2009-910 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON NOVEMBER 17,2009: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs the Southold Town Planning Staff to forward comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Northwind Village proposed Annexation and Development to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation on or before November 30, 2009. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman SECONDER:' Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell ... .... r.....m..+,. K•:�'ffH '3'15 �FAGT};�2 I:fT>9 :'i•`:• .:� � •.. .;tiLR.3`.:ay.'."'n�T"�Rhn2tX'2x' Y'^.R'e!t 1^f° " '44 { g NOV 3 0 2009 e WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Monday, November 9, 2009 4:30 p.m. 4:30 p.m. Site Plans Pro,�ect name: Chase Bank -Mattituck SCTM#: 1000-14'3-3-33.2 Location: _ _ ! 10300 NYS Route 25, 133' +/- east of Marlene Lane & NYS Route 25, 1 Mattituck Description: _ This site plan is for the new construction of a 4,200 sq. ft. bank . with two _ j Open drive-through bays on a previously developed 112,647 sq. ft. (2.59 acre). Review newly submitted alternate subdivision layouts. Staff Report parcel in both the B, General Business, and R-40, Residential Zones. The parcel will be subdivided into two parcels, with this site plan located on the commercial parcel on S.R.25, and a residential parcel to the south. Status: New Site Plan Action: Review site plan and reports. Attachments: Staff Report Subdivisions Pro'ect name: Location: James Neumann SCTM#: 1000-407-1-4.1 &1.2 End of Mill Road in Mattituck Description: _ _ Standard Subdivision of 24.9acres into 5 lots bordering: Mattituck Creek in the R-80 Zone. Status: ` _ j Open Action: Attachments: Review newly submitted alternate subdivision layouts. Staff Report Discussion: ➢ Kace LLC (Northwind Village) DEIS review Review Public Meeting Agenda WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Monday, October 26, 2009 4:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. Site Plans and Subdivisions ................................................................................... ........................... PT91ect name: ............. -- ................ I ..... . ......... ...................... ............ I ....................... ........... ..................................................................... I .......... ............................................................. .......... ............................ . ............. ................................................... . .............. . ........................................ ............................ T -Mobile NE SCTM#: 109-2-17.1 .............. ......................................................................................... - ................... ............. . . .................................... . ................... . ..................... . .... . . ....................... ................... . . . .................................. .......................... Location: The Presbvterian Church or Society of Cutcho que, 27245 Main Road . ...................................................................... . ........ .......... . ......... . . ..... ... . . ............. . .. ...... .... Description: ............. ................................... . ......................... I .............. .. .. ....... -- ........................................ . ................. .................... ........... .. ........................................................ ........ ................................ The applicant requests co -location of a public utility wireless .......................... communication facility having interior mounted antennas within an . ................................. . ............... Description: existing church steeple and a related storage equipment area screened from view. As part of the application, the applicant proposes to remove ..................................................................... ............ .................. and replace a portion of an existing church steeple to match the existing Status: ..........................I....................................................... ......... church buildinq on a 0.91 -acre site located in the R-40 Zoninq District. . . ...................... ....... . .............. . .................. . ......................................... . ....... .......................................................... . .......... . ........................................... . -.- . . ............................ ............................ . ............................ I ..................... . ............. Status: ..................................................................................................................... New Site Plan & Special Exception Applications ..... . . .................................................................................................. ............ .... ........... . ................................... . . ......... ........................................... . ... . .................................................... ................................................................... .............. Action: Review estimate from consultant for technical review services, and .... ............ . ........... ................. - ................. ..................... consider authorizing consultant to proceed with the review. ................ ........... . .................................... .............................................. ....................................................... . ........................................... ....................... . . .................................. --, ........................... . .................. ...................................... Attachments: ............................. . ................. 1. ............. I ............................. I . .................... Estimate from RF Consultant . ................. . ................................. .. . ............................................................................................... . ......................... .. . ....... I . ....... . .. . . . . . .. . .................................. ......................... - .... . ........................... " ..................................................................... ................ ...................... ............................... Project name: . .. ................................................................................................................................. ....... .............................................. . . . . .. . .. ..... .. ...................... .... . .... ... ..... .......... . . ................... ... ......... ...... . ......... . ......... . ............ ...... Southview Preserve SCTM#: 1000-87-5-21.4, 21.7, 21.8, 21.9, .................. . ....................................................................................... 21.10 & 21.11 ................................................................................................................................. ............................................................ ........... .......................... . .................................................................................................................. ..................................................... Location: South side of Main Bayview Road, approximately 900' east of Cedar .......................... Drive, in Southold ................ ............ . ................................. . ............... Description: . . .. ..... **"** ...................... .... Subdivide a 14.54 -acre parcel into three lots where Lot 1 equals 44,735 s.f., Lot 2 equals 37,343 s.f. and Lot 3 equals 42,470 s.f., with the ..................................................................... ............ .................. ai inq 11.53 acres of the propertV to be preserved as open 5 dUti. rem n ................ .... ..... . ........................ . ............................................................................................................ ................ a ................... . . . .................................. .......................................... .................................................................... ace ....... Status: ..........................I....................................................... ......... .....Conditional Preliminary Approval................................................... ....... ................................. ..................................... .................. ........................................................ ................................................................................................................................�........................... Action: ............................. I ................... ............................................................... Discuss letter request. ............... ......................................... . ............ . .......................... . ......................................................................................................................... ............................................ . .................................................. .......................................................... Attachments: ............. --- ...................................... . .......... . .................. - Letter from Applicant ............... ............... I .......... . .. . ....................... . ..................... ... . .... . .................................... . ............................ . ................................................. .......... ..... . . . . ....................................................... ............ ........................................... 11 ........................ .............. . Discussion: 1. New Comprehensive Plan 2. Kace LLC (Northwind Village) DEIS review — Review comments done to date 3. Litigation update Transportation Land Development Environmental Services C� VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C. I Affiliated with Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. October 5, 2009 Ref: 27734.00 Heather Lanza, Director of Planning Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Northwind Village DEIS Dear Ms. Lanza: At the request of Sherri Aicher of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, enclosed herewith is a copy of the Northwind Village DEIS on CD. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C. Gail A. Pesner, AICP Senior Project Manager GAP/th .: 0 CT — 6 2009 ` !n P:\27734.00\Correspondence\Final\Lanza DEIS CD Transmittal 10-5-09.dooc 2150 Joshua's Path, Suite 300 Hauppauge, New York 11788 631.234.3444 ■ FAX 631.234.3477 email: info@vhb.com www.vhb.com New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One SUNY @ Stony Brook, 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, New York 11790 Phone: (631) 444-0403 FAX: (631) 444-0360 State Environmental Quality Review Notice of Completion of Draft EIS Notice--d=F Complete Application, and. Notice of SEAR Hearing Lead Agency: New York -State Department of Environmental Conservation Address: Region 1 Headquarters SUNY @ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY, 11790-3409 -Application I.D-. #1-4738-036,3-7/0000--l- Applicant: KACE LI, LLC PO Box 67, 755 Main Road Greenport, NY 11944 9U b� �L Alexander B. Grannis Commissioner bate,'S teJnt er 28, 2009 � L OCT - 2 2009 4 Permits) Applied for: 1- Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands _. z .. ., i This notice is issued pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617 of the im lementing regulations.pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental. Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been completed and accepted for the proposed action described below. Comments on the Draft EIS are requested and will be accepted by the contact person until November. 30, 2009. A public hearing on the Draft EIS will be held on October 28, 2009 from 7:00 to 9:30 p.m. at Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. (Route 25), Southold, NY 11971. Title of Action: Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 17.2 Acres of Land (SCTM #1000-40-03-01) in the Town of Southold and the Subsequent Development and Construction of a Residential Project Known as Northwind Village. Description of Action: The proposed project involves the annexation by the Village of Greenport of a 17.2 acre parcel currently located in the Town of Southold adjacent to the northwest border of the Village. Once annexed, the site is proposed to be developed with a 1 iL 128 -unit mixed -income affordable housing development, consisting of one-, two-, and three bedroom homeownership units, access roadway, driveways, common areas, and landscaping. The proposed project will create 64 affordable units (50%. of the total units) as defined by Suffolk County, which will be subject to price, sale, resale, and ownership controls — collectively known as "affordability" restrictions. Location: The property is located on the south side of Suffolk County Route 48 (North Road), approximately 1,600 feet east of Chapel Lane in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, SCTM #1000-40-03-01. Type of Action: Type 1 Action Potential Environmental Impacts: The action will involve construction and related disturbance in the adjacent area of a regulated freshwater wetland associated with Moores Drain/Pipes Creek and Cove, a large freshwater and marine system which discharges to Peconic Bay, part of a Federally -designated National Estuary. The DEIS examines the potential adverse impacts of the proposed action on these resources. In addition, the DEIS assesses the potential adverse impacts of the action on the ecology of the area, including impacts to threatened and endangered species, geology, soils, topography, water resources, land use and zoning, community character, community services, transportation, cultural resources, the use and conservation of energy and the production,, . disposal of solid waste, and recreation. The consistency of the project with the Town of . Southold's comprehensive planning studies and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs of -both ±he Town of Southold and theVillageof Greenport are also examined in the DEIS. The DEIS discusses potential cumulative impacts of the project such as those which could result to the aquifer and public water supply system of the North Fork, the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Facility, and to the Moore's Wood deep forest habitat. Proposed mitigation measures, the potential impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and unavoidable adverse impacts are also described in the DEIS. Availability of the DEIS: Online: httpJ/www.Xhb.com/northwindvilig a/dela A'hard copy of the Draft EIS .is available for public examination at the offices of the agency contact and at following public libraries: Agency Contact: Sherri Aicher NYSDEC, Division of Environmental Permits SUNY @ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook, NY .11790-3409 (631) 444-0403 slaicher �w dec statL0 2 Floyd Memorial Library Greenport 539 First St. Greenport, NY 11944 631-477-0660 f�dlib.��.ifF®Ik,libyn_y.u� . Southold Free Library P.O. Box 697 -53705 10-ain Road - Southold, NY 11971 (631) 765-2077 sohdlib a0.suffolk.lib.nv.us Copies of this Notice Sent to: Applicant: KACE LI, LLC Department of Environmental Conservation Central Office, Division of Environmental Permits, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-1750 Town of Southold, attention Supervisor, Village of Greenport attention Mayor, Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Planning Commission Peconic Estuary Program North Fork Environmental Council Environmental Notice Bulletin 3 i PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair RICHARD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR 1b �oo�gUFF04coG o y� C* x oy • sic X01 � Sao PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Michael Verity, Principal Building Ijaspector From: Valerie Scopaz, AICP, Director Cc: Jerilyn Woodhouse, Chairperson, Planning Bo Members of the Planning Board Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone(631)765-1938 Fax(631)765-3136 Damon Rallis, Building Plans Examiner Re: Request of E. Kontokosta for Building Permits for Northwind Village, Greenport SCTM # 1000-40-03-1 This memorandum is in response to your memo of February 12, 2004 requesting whether the site plan approval for the above -referenced site, dated July 11, 1983, is still valid. According to the files, Mr. Kontokosta was informed by letters dated March 29, 1990 and May 3, 1990 that the Planning Board had issued site plan approval with the understanding that certain unfulfilled conditions would be met prior to issuance of building permits. The following information is submitted for your use in making the determination whether a building permit can be issued without further site plan action by the Planning Board. • The applicant applied for site plan approval (through his agent) on January 13, 1983. • There is no record of a fee being paid. • There is no record of an environmental determination being made by the Planning Board. • There is no record of a referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission as per regulations. • A resolution of approval was adopted by the Planning Board on July 11, 1983. The minutes of that meeting are attached for your review. • The Building Inspector who certified the plan on June 17, 1983, noted that drainage, grading and parking plans had not been submitted. A copy of the site plan and his certification are available for your review. • As of this date there are no floor plans or fagade drawings in our file. • As of this date there are no complete drainage and grading plans in our file. • As of this date there are no road profiles in our file that have been approved by the Highway Superintendent or the Engineering Inspector. • As of this date there is no record in our file of an approved bond estimate ora — -- -- guarantee of performance for the required improvements. • As of this date there are no curb cut permits in our file for the two access points onto County Road 48. • As of this date there are no permits in our file from the Trustees or the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation for permission to construct near fresh -water wooded wetlands. • As of this date there are no documents in our file indicating whether County Health Department approvals have been obtained for water supply and sewage disposal. All of the above would be required as part of a completed approved site plan. There may be other regulatory permits or review that may apply, such as a State SPDES permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity. The files are available for your review. L � F • pg - (4) • 7/11/83 n Simicich - Mr. Philip O'Frias, Attorney for Mr rs. Dolo was p ent as the Board reviewed Inspector Davi.: mite the acct"s the lots within this subdivision. Mr. v FriasOstatedrd the cost for t ecommended improvements would be very costly to the present landowners requested that another contractor submit differ. 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 0. the developer. It was agreed by the Bo members that the Town Attorney advise the Board who is responsible. he Board did not take action on Inspector John W. Davis' report #308. i Su van/Preston Site Plan - An inspection of this property was prior he meeting. The Board noted there was ample parking made in the rear the building and recommended that the applicants (public) con- tact the Southo own Board for permission for a "walk through" access from this par area. Mr. Preston and Mr. Sullivar stated they would propose to us ed brick walkway. On motion made by Mr. Orlowski, s nded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning B d refer the site clan Of Sullivan/Preston to the Building Department certification. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham,.Mullen, - or:skI / �Northwind Village - Mr. Kontokosta wasrest t as certification from the Building Inspector's Office. thltBwas dnoted e1�`y 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 thr 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 Dir. Kontokosta that the Suffolk County Planning Commission would have to reviek%T the pr ­ 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 nl:: "Northwind Village" dated May 11, 1982, and ceririe y tno uuila- ing lnspec or une 17, 1983. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Raynor, Latham, Mullen, Orlowski * * * * * * * * * * Submission Without a Cover Letter Sender: Subject: SCTM#: 1000- 40— 3 _ / Daae: Comments: > 66 ✓'�C� �C5 i 7 lzc s VS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------X EMANUEL KONTOKOSTA, KACE REALTY CO., and KACE CONSTRUCTION CORP., Plaintiffs, - against - THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT, GEORGE HUBBARD, individually and as Mayor of the Village of Greenport; JEANNE M. COOPER, GAIL F. HORTON, DAVID KAPELL and WILLIAM LEIBLIEN, individually and as Members of the Village of Greenport Board of Trustees, Defendants. ----------------------------------- x • STIPULATION AND ORDER DISCONTINUING ACTION 87 CIV. 3432 (SAS) WHEREAS, plaintiffs are the owners of seventeen (17) acres of land in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, upon which they plan to build a 108 unit development to be known as Northwind Village; and WHEREAS, defendants provide water and sewer services for a territory which includes the Northwind Village development; and WHEREAS, plaintiffs submitted applications for water and sewer services for the Northwind Village development in or about January 1983 and February 1987; and WHEREAS, plaintiffs commenced this action on or about May 20, 1987, and filed an amended complaint on or about March 8, 1988 alleging, inter alfa, that defendants' denial of plaintiffs' applications for water and sewer services for the Northwind Village development and defendants' imposition of "backbone" fees upon the Northwind Village development violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. S 1983 and other applicable provisions of law; and WHEREAS, defendants have denied the allegations in the amended complaint charging them with unlawful treatment of plaintiffs and/or any other wrongdoing; WHEREAS, the decision of the Hon. John Cannella dated September 27, 1991, expressly upheld the imposition of backbone fees as constitutional, and dismissed each of the plaintiffs' causes of action except for its equal protection claim stemming from the 1983 application; and WHEREAS, the parties now seek to resolve the issues raised in this action without further proceedings; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties in the above -captioned action, by their attorneys, as follows: 1. Defendants acknowledge that, as of the date of this Stipulation and order, there is sufficient water capacity to service the 108 unit Northwind Village Development in accordance with the site plan approved by the Town of Southold planning board on July 11, 1983; and in accordance with plaintiffs, 1985 request (made with respect to the 1983 application) for 10,800 gallons per day ("gpd"), annexed hereto as Exhibit "A", and 1987 request for 28,350 gpd, annexed hereto as Exhibit "B." Specifically, it has been represented by plaintiffs that the 108 units will generate 10,800 gpd of average water demand or an estimated 28,350 gpd of average water ck4�mand. However, as set forth below, there is not 2 0 0 sufficient sewer capacity to accommodate either of these requests as of the date of the execution of this stipulation. Accordingly, subject to the terms and conditions of this Stipulation and Order, defendants hereby approve plaintiffs' 1985 and 1987 requests for water services for the Northwind Village Development. It is expressly understood that once sufficient sewer capacity of 8,640 gpd becomes available, the Village hereby agrees to provide 10,800 gpd of water to the Northwind Village Development, if plaintiffs choose to elect to execute water and sewer contracts as set forth in paragraph 5 below and pay "backbone" fees as set forth in paragraph 6 below. The Village will provide the remaining capacity of plaintiffs' 1987 requests for water services if (i) the plaintiffs apply for additional sewer capacity pursuant to paragraph 3 below, and (ii) said application is granted. 2. That the parties acknowledge that (i) there is not sufficient sewer capacity available to service plaintiffs' project due to restrictions placed upon the Village by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) pursuant to the consent order, State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES") permit and related DEC correspondence (hereinafter referred to as "DEC Requirements"), attached hereto as Exhibit "C"; and (ii) the Village must comply with various conditions to attempt to obtain the DEC's approval to accommodate sewer capacity of 8,640 gpd. 3. Defendants agree to comply with the conditions set forth in the DEC Requirements, attached hereto as Exhibit "C." In this 3 0 0 manner, defendants will provide sufficient sewer capacity, subject to the aforesaid DEC Requirements (annexed hereto as Exhibit "C"), and any extension thereof, to satisfy the capacity of 8,640 gpd within four years of the date the stipulation is so ordered by the Court. Plaintiffs need not make any further application for sewer service, as its current application for 8,640 gpd will be deemed approved as of the date sewer capacity is available. It being expressly understood that plaintiff's application for both water and sewer must comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs 3-7 of the December 23, 1987 H2M group report, annexed hereto as Exhibit "D," with respect to engineering details. It also is expressly understood that plaintiff shall have the right to apply for additional sewer capacity up to 14,000 gallons per day, after the Village advises the plaintiffs that there is sufficient sewer capacity to satisfy the 8,640 gpd request. Said application will not affect plaintiffs' prior approval for 8,640 gpd. 4. Defendants agree to apply for, and to use their best efforts to obtain the approvals from the DEC which are required pursuant to the express terms of the aforesaid DEC Requirements so as to connect the Northwind Village Development to the Village of Greenport sewer system, including, but not limited to, approval for this new connection and approval for any increase in allocable sewer capacity as required by the aforesaid DEC Requirements (annexed hereto as Exhibit "C"). Plaintiffs agree to provide any information requested by the DEC, or to otherwise make reasonable 4 0 0 forts to assist the defendants in any manner requested by the DEC. 5. When sufficient water and sewer capacity are available to satisfy the requirements of the Northwind Village development in accordance with paragraph 1, defendants shall notify plaintiffs in writing, by United States certified or registered mail, at 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York 10019. After plaintiffs' receipt of such notice, plaintiffs will then have three (3) years to elect to execute contracts for water and sewer services with the Village of Greenport, by notifying the Office of the Mayor of the Village of Greenport in writing, by United States certified or registered mail. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order shall require plaintiffs to enter into contracts for water and sewer services. Should plaintiffs choose not to execute such contracts, they wih not be obligated to pay the "backbone" fees provided for in paragraph 6 of this Stipulation and Order. If plaintiffs do not elect to enter into contracts for water and sewer services with the Village of Greenport within three (3) years of plaintiffs' receipt of the aforesaid notice, the approvals of plaintiffs' applications for water and sewer services pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 herein shall expire, and defendants will have no obligation to provide plaintiffs with water and sewer pursuant to this Stipulation. 6. When all required approvals from the DEC are obtained, if and,only if -plaintiffs elect to enter into contracts with the i Village of Greenport as provided for in paragraph 5 of this 5 i Stipulation and Order, and subject to all the other terms and conditions set forth herein, plaintiffs shall pay to the Village of Greenport "backbone" fees for the Northwind Village development of $2,570 per dwelling unit for water services and $2,585 per dwelling unit for sewer services for the 108 units at hand at the time of executing contracts for both water and sewer. If plaintiffs do not elect to execute contracts for water and sewer services within three (3) years pursuant to paragraph 5 above, their right to pay the backbone fees at the rates set forth above will also expire. 7. Defendants agree to pay plaintiffs the sum of eighty-five thousand ($85,000) dollars in full and final settlement of any claims that plaintiffs may have in this action against any and all of the defendants. Such payment shall be made within 30 days of the execution of this agreement by both parties, said 30 days to commence running upon the presentation of the stipulation to the Court to be so -ordered, and shall be by check made payable to "Emanuel M. Kontokosta, Kace Realty Co. and Race Construction Corp." and shall be delivered to and received by plaintiffs, attorneys, Gordon & Gordon, P.C., at their offices at 437 Madison Avenue (40th Floor), New York, New York 10022. Upon receipt of said funds, plaintiffs will cause to be immediately filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice with the Court. 8. Plaintiffs, by entering into this Stipulation, accept the benefits provided herein in full and complete satisfaction of any and all injurigs and/, or damages of any kind or description relating to any of the Matters or claims alleged in the complaint herein. G 0 9. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be deemed an admission by defendants of any wrongdoing. 10. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be deemed to constitute a regular practice or procedure by defendants, or shall apply to any project or development other than Northwind Village. 11. This Stipulation shall inure to the benefit and detriment of the parties hereto and their respective successors, executors, administrators and assigns to the extent that these successors seek to construct the Northwind Village development. 12. If the Village sells its water and sewer franchise to an entity which does not require backbone fees before such fees are due and owing to the Village, plaintiffs shall be relieved of the duty to pay backbone 'fees pursuant to paragraph 6 of this stipulation. 13. This Stipulation shall not be used by any of the parties for any purpose whatsoever other than in an action or proceeding to enforce its terms. 14. Any party to this action may submit this Stipulation to this Court to have this Stipulation "SO ORDERED" upon its execution by the parties' counsel. This Stipulation will take effect only upon being so -ordered by the Court. 7 Dated: New York, New York February 5, 1996 GORDON & GORDON, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 437 Madison Avenue - 40th F1 New York, New York 10022 (212) //3//55-32�J00.�` nn By:. /�11T1 STEVEN J. SALTIEL (SSs8907) r v • THURM & HELLER Attorneys for Defendants 261 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 (2122)) 6682-77000 By: V " `ui' MICHAEL A. MIRANDA (MM:6413) 2/ic/ 1. 4O REG1EST FOR INFORMATIOIOR ASSISTANCE Date: Name: Telephone: Mailing Address: SCTM# of site you are Inquiring about: Query: (Please be specific about the information you need. Provide supporting documentation - surveys, maps, sketcnes - where possible.) q T� i" For Office Use Only: Routed to: 0 6 Page 1 of 1 Semon, Bruno From: Scopaz, Valerie Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 11:29 AM To: Semon, Bruno Subject: RE: Kace/ Northwoind Site Plan 40-3-1 Bruno, Jeri and I met with legal counsel and were advised to wait until research could be completed. The PB needs to be informed of the issues. Kieran will be doing this. Until then, we will wait. Valerie -----Original Message ----- From: Semon, Bruno Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 8:15 AM To: Scopaz, Valerie Cc: Rudder, Barbara Subject: RE: Kace/ Northwoind Site Plan 40-3-1 Hi Val, I telephone Mr. Kontokosta today and indicated that you are consulting with legal counsel on this matter and will get back to him. As indicated in the past the file is on top the shelf above my desk. Please let me know if I can do anything else with respect to the applicants question. Thanks Bruno -----Original Message ----- From: Rudder, Barbara Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 12:34 PM To: Semon, Bruno Subject: Manny Konkonska stopped in and wanted to know the status of a letter you were sending him 477-0600 3/8/2004 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair RICHARD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR MEMORANDUM Date: March 4, 2004 i h�o��gUFFOIKCp� o s� ti z PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: Damon Rallis, Building Permits Examiner From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer/4- Re: Kace Realty / Northwind Village Site Plan SCTM #: 1000-40-3-1 P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax(631)765-3136 This memo is in response to your memo dated February 12, 2003. At this time Valerie Scopaz is researching this issue on the above referenced site. If you have questions please contact her. The site plan folder is available for review at the Planning Boards Office. Thank you in advance. Cc: file, pb, vs Enc.: Copy of correspondence. o�o o�y� V Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Fax (631) 765-9502 P.O. Box 1179 ��, • ��'� Telephone (631) 765-1802 Southold, New York 11971-0959 �%1 r �a BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1u111u[/]:7_VI711UT TO: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer, Planning Department FROM: Damon Rallis, Permit Examiner, Building Department DATE: February 12, 2004 INFORMATION REQUESTED Project: Kace LLC, Location: 62600 Route 48, Greenport SCTM# 100 — Section 40 - Block 3— Lot 1 Please advise as to whether the above referenced project, with a site plan dated July 11, 1983, is still a valid site plan approval. Thank you for your time and consideration. � r Damon Rallis A P 4. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Horning Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando •. � 1 '111119 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 5l 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2002 Appl. No. 4927 — KACE LI, INC. Property Location: South Side of C.R. 48 (North Road), Greenport 1000-40.-3-1 Date of Public Hearing(s): 9/20/01; 10/4/01, 11/15/01; 1/24/02; 2/28/02. In the Matter of KACE L.I. LLC to reverse the Building Inspector's determination rendered in the August 13, 2001 Notice of Disapproval and for an interpretation of the Code of the Town of Southold, Ch. 100, Article IV, Section 100-42 A.2, pertaining to "Use Regulations" in the Hamlet Density District. FINDINGS OF FACT BASIS OF APPEAL: Appellant Kace LI, Inc. is appealing the Building Inspector's August 13, 2001, Notice of Disapproval, which denied an application for a building permit to construct "Multiple, two-family dwellings." The August 13, 2001 Disapproval recites the following: Proposed dwellings not permitted pursuant to Article IV Section 100-42A.2 which states, In the HD District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any use except the following: A. Permitted uses. (2) Two-family dwelling. Proposed project indicates several (exact amount unknown) two-family dwellings on a single parcel. Code allows only one such structure per lot as a permitted use. RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant maintains that the building inspector erred in interpreting 100-42A.2 to limit the number of two-family dwellings to one per lot. Applicant maintains that 100-42A does not limit the number of two-family dwellings to one per lot, and requests the Board of Appeals to reverse the inspectors determination based on this interpretation. WHEREAS, The Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on this application on 9/20/01; 10/4/01, 11/15/01; 1/24/02; 2/28/02, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a 17 acre parcel located on the south side of North Road CR. 48, approximately 500 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport. SCTM o W • � BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 5l 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2002 Appl. No. 4927 — KACE LI, INC. Property Location: South Side of C.R. 48 (North Road), Greenport 1000-40.-3-1 Date of Public Hearing(s): 9/20/01; 10/4/01, 11/15/01; 1/24/02; 2/28/02. In the Matter of KACE L.I. LLC to reverse the Building Inspector's determination rendered in the August 13, 2001 Notice of Disapproval and for an interpretation of the Code of the Town of Southold, Ch. 100, Article IV, Section 100-42 A.2, pertaining to "Use Regulations" in the Hamlet Density District. FINDINGS OF FACT BASIS OF APPEAL: Appellant Kace LI, Inc. is appealing the Building Inspector's August 13, 2001, Notice of Disapproval, which denied an application for a building permit to construct "Multiple, two-family dwellings." The August 13, 2001 Disapproval recites the following: Proposed dwellings not permitted pursuant to Article IV Section 100-42A.2 which states, In the HD District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any use except the following: A. Permitted uses. (2) Two-family dwelling. Proposed project indicates several (exact amount unknown) two-family dwellings on a single parcel. Code allows only one such structure per lot as a permitted use. RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant maintains that the building inspector erred in interpreting 100-42A.2 to limit the number of two-family dwellings to one per lot. Applicant maintains that 100-42A does not limit the number of two-family dwellings to one per lot, and requests the Board of Appeals to reverse the inspectors determination based on this interpretation. WHEREAS, The Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on this application on 9/20/01; 10/4/01, 11/15/01; 1/24/02; 2/28/02, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a 17 acre parcel located on the south side of North Road CR. 48, approximately 500 feet east of Chapel Lane, Greenport. SCTM Page 2 — June 6, 2002 Appl No. 4927 - Kace LI Inc. 40.-3-1 at Greenport 1000-40-3-1, now or formerly referred to as "Northwind Village" site. The property is zoned Hamlet Density (HD). WHEREAS, the following sections of the code are pertinent to this request: 1. Article IV Section 100-42A. In the HD District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any use except the following: A. Permitted uses. (1) One -family detached dwelling (2) Two-family dwelling (3) Continuing care facility and life care community 2. Bulk Schedule - Density and Minimum Lot Size for Residential Districts Minimum lot size 2 -family dwelling with community water and sewer ........Hamlet Density 20,000 sq. ft. 3. Section 100-13 Definitions of the Zoning Code: Dwelling, Two-family - A detached building containing two (2) dwelling units only. WHEREAS, the board has further carefully considered the following evidence and testimony 1. In the case in question the applicant has a 17 -acre lot. The applicant wants to construct more than one "two-family dwelling" on the 17 -acre lot. The property has access to both community water and sewer. The minimum lot size for one two-family dwelling in the HD zoning district is 20,000 square feet with both community water and sewer. 2. The question presented to the board is under this fact pattern, can the applicant construct more than one "two-family dwelling" on the 17 -acre lot in the HD District pursuant to section 100-42A 2. The applicant maintains the answer is yes. 3. The applicant's reasons are set forth in both oral and written argument in the record. The applicant's basic argument is one of "area" versus "lot." Applicant maintains that the Town Code's bulk schedule states that a two-family dwelling with community water and sewer requires 20,000 square feet. Since 20,000 can be divided many times into a 17 -acre lot, applicant contends that there is more than enough "area" to construct more than one two- family dwelling. Page 3 — June 6, 2002 • • Appl No. 4927 - Kace LI Inc. 40.-3-1 at Greenport 4. Applicant further contends that in the Town Code's other residential districts, there is limiting language which states, "one -family dwelling, not to exceed one dwelling per lot." In contrast, applicant argues that there is no such limiting language in the 100-42A.2 of the Hamlet Density District that restricts the number of two-family dwellings that can be built on one lot. 5. The board disagrees. The fatal flaw in the applicant's "area" argument is that the Bulk Schedule speaks of a minimum lot size. not of a minimum area. It is undisputed that the 17 - acre lot satisfies the minimum lot size for a two-family dwelling under the bulk schedule. But in order to construct more than one two-family dwelling on this land, the applicant would first have to subdivide the 17 -acre lot into many lots, each lot with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and then obtain site plan approval pursuant to section 100-250 for each lot in order to place a two-family dwelling on each of the newly created lot. 6. The board also discounts the applicant's argument that 100-42A.2 contains no limiting language as to the number of two-family dwellings per lot. The board notes that one of the other permitted uses in the HD Zoning District under 100-42A.1 is "one -family detached dwelling." Assuming the applicant's argument of substituting the word "area" for lot and "no limiting language", many one -family dwellings could be built on the 17 area lot. This is simply not the law or the long standing practice pursuant to the Southold Town Code. More than one - family dwelling per lot is not permitted. Again, to build many one -family dwellings on the 17 - acre lot, the applicant would first have to subdivide the land into smaller lots. Once the subdivision has been completed the applicant could then build a one -family dwelling on each one of the newly created lots pursuant to section 100-42A.1. Based on the above clear language of the Town Code sections, the board finds that the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval was properly issued. NOW, on motion by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Orlando, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Appeal Interprets Article IV, Section 100-42A(2) to mean that only one two-family dwelling is permitted per lot; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to Deny the applicant's request to reverse the Building Department's determination, which is hereby upheld and confirmed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Go � ger (Chairm n), ora, a, and Orlando. (Member Horning of Fishers Island was sent.) This Re utio was duly e4-0). FN OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Memorandum To: Benny Orlowski, Planning Board Chairman Planning Board Members Valerie Scopaz, Principal Planner From: Gregory F. Yakaboski, Esq. Town Attorney Date: November 14, 2001 Re: Northwind Village SCTM #1000-40-03-01 Enclosed please find copies of letters that I received from Andrew P. Freleng, Principal Planner for the Suffolk County Department of Planning in regard to Northwind Village that may be of interest to you. /md encs. • " OS�FFO��C JEAN W. COCHRAN GREGORY F. YAKABOSKI ��ON �Gy Supervisor TOWN ATTORNEY o= Town Hall, 53095 Route 25 y Z P.O. Box 1179 MARY C. WILSON O • `F yV11 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1889 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY a4S 't Fax (631) 765-1823 E-mail: greg.yakaboski@town.southold.ny.us mary.wilson@town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Memorandum To: Benny Orlowski, Planning Board Chairman Planning Board Members Valerie Scopaz, Principal Planner From: Gregory F. Yakaboski, Esq. Town Attorney Date: November 14, 2001 Re: Northwind Village SCTM #1000-40-03-01 Enclosed please find copies of letters that I received from Andrew P. Freleng, Principal Planner for the Suffolk County Department of Planning in regard to Northwind Village that may be of interest to you. /md encs. 1 0 • ANTHONY B. TOHILL, P.G. ��;� ATTORNEYS AT LAW r )ita �.` 12 FIRST STREET �I BOX 1330ANTHONY B.TOHILI P.O. TELEPHONE: _ (831) 727.8383 MICHAEL T. CLIFFORD (�^ : 1;I{TERHEAD, NEw YORK 11901-0903 W OFCNe fl NI October 19, 2001 Andrew P. Frelang, AICP Department of Planning P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Dear Andy: I am interested in knowing whether the Planning Commission approved a 108 unit multi -family complex known as Northwind Village located at a 17 -acre parcel (SCTM 1000-40-3-1) on North Road (County Route 48) at Southold, immediately west of the Village of Greenport prior to July 11, 1983. The developer was Kace Realty or Kontokosta. The Planning Board issued site plan approval on July 11, 1983, but there is no record in the Town files showing Planning Commission approval. Please let me know in writing at your earliest opportunity. Than `you . Very truly yours, Anthony B. Tohill ABT/lm bcc: Joseph Berardino • COUNTY OF SUFFOLK • ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNT' EXECUTNE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING October 26, 2001 Anthony B. Tohill, Esq. P.O. Box 1330 Riverhead, NY 11901-0903 Re: Northwind Village SCTM #1000-40-03-01 Dear Mr. Tohill: THOMAS ISLES, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING We are in receipt of your written request of October 19, 2001 to this office regarding the above. A review of our records indicates no file with that name and no activity on that tax map lot for either municipal zoning actions or subdivision activity. We trust this information is helpful. APF:cc be: Town Attorney G \CCHORNY\SUBDMMISC\TOHILL OCT LOCATION H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY Sincerely, Andrew P. Freleng, AICP Principal Planner NOV MAILING ADDRESS • P. O. BOX 6100 • (51 6) 853-5190 HAUPPAUGE, NY 1 1 788-0099 TELECOPIER (5 1 6) 853-4044 TO Kace L.T. LLC C/o Kontokosta 43 W. 54`- Street New York N.Y. 10019 FAX N7. : • Aug. 17 2001 03:23PM P1 FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 13UILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. AMENDED NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL. DATE; August 13, 2001 Please take notice that your amended application dated August 10, 2001 For permit for Multiple, two family dwellings at Location of property North Road (CR48) Greenport County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 40 Subdivision Filed Map # Block 3 Lot I Lot # Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds Proposed dwellings not permitted Pursuant to Article IV Section 100-42A.2 which states - In the HD District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged intended or designed to be used in whole or in part for any use except the following: A. Permitted uses. (2) Two-family dwelling Proposed Proiect indicates several ( exact amount unknown ) two family dwellings on a single parcel Code allows only one such structure per lot as a Permitted use Authoriz ignature PLAN NG',B ; RU TOWN OF SOUT (OLD SL'I-FOLK CO NTY Southold, N.Y. 11971 HENRY E. RAYNOR. Jr.. Chairman LAMES WALL SENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr GEORGE RITCHIE LATHA I. Jr. WILLIAM R .MULLEN, Jr. 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 aporove the site plan "Northwind Village" dated May 11, 1982, and certified by the Building Inspector June 17, 1983. $25. To date we have not received the appliction fee of Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR. CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLAN?LING BOARD 3y Susan E. Long, Secretary PAGHMAN & PAGHMAN• P.G. ATTORNEYS 366 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY GOMMAGK. NEW YORK 1 1725 (63 1 ) 543-2200 TELEGOPIER (631) 543-2271 HOWARD E. PAGHMAN MATTHEW E. PAGHMAN August 17, 2001 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Zoning Appeals Town of Southold, Town Hall 53095 Main Street P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Kace LI, LLC Request for Interpretation Dear Mr. Goehringer: COUNSEL HARVEY B. BESUNDER The following is in response to your letter dated August 13, 2001, wherein you request a description of the above -referenced application. I enclose a letter from the Town of Southold Building Department, dated August 13, 2001, to Kace LI, LLC (Kace), stating that its application for a building permit was denied because of a purported conflict with Southold Town Code Section 100-42A. As you are aware, the Planning Board approved the site plan on July 11, 1983. You will recall that Southold Town Code §100-255(B) states: All site plans which have received final approval prior to the enactment of this Article shall remain valid for a period of three years from the date of such enactment. This period will begin when all governmental approvals have been obtained (emphasis supplied) Since the Suffolk County Water Authority has not yet issued its approval, this period has not yet commenced. Thus, the applicant believes that the building official's denial must be reversed given the existence of the valid site plan. 0 Page 2 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman August 17, 2001 I trust the foregoing is responsive to your inquiry. Very truly yours, MATTHEW E. PACHMAN MEP\jlw enclosures cc: Kace LI, LLC w/out encs. F\D.G\CLIENTSUKONTOKOSWc \C: pond n \Ooehr ge It3.wpd 0 Appeal Application, Continued NO Aff ) idab le, BOARD OF APPEALS: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK:STATE OF NEW YORK .................................................... x 4pplicatlonof ........................................ PropertyID #........................................ -------------------------- ------ .x Appeal Application (Continued) REASONS FOR USE VARIANCE Continuation of Appeal Application for a Use Variance (when applicable): For Each and Every Permitted Use under the Zoning Regulations for the Particular District Where the Protect is Located (please consult your attorney before completing): (1) The applicant CANNOT realize a REASONABLE RETURN because: (2) The HARDSHIP relates to the property and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood because: (3) The relief requested will not alter the essential CHARACTER of the neighborhood because: (4) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( ) Yes, or ( ) No. (5) This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time will preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community because: (6) The spirit of the zoning ordinance will be observed. (7) The public safety and welfare will be secured and substantial Justice done. (Signature of Appellant or Authorized Agent) FOP, FIL UESTIONNAIRE LNG WITH YO(JR Z.B.A. APPLICATION A• Please disclose the names of the owner(s) and any other individuals.(and entities) having a financial interest in the subject premises and a description of (Sep ate sheet may I- attached.) their interests; z Z 111(4. vn/�T6�Iy�,r — l�i..-[n n rs the subject premises listed on the real estate sale or being shown to prospective buyers? { }Yes market for { } NO. (If Yes, please attach copy of "conditions" of sale.) C Are there anyProposals yes NO to change or alter land coatours? {} { } D. 1. Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? Z• Are the wetland areas shown on the map s'Ibm.itted with 3 - is the Propertul. eade y bd between the wetlands area ' the upland building area? and 4. If your property contains wetlands or Pd You contacted the Office of the Town Trustees fo have determination of jurtsdiction? e_ for its E. Is there a, depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? (If not applicable, state "N.A.") F. Are there any Patios, concrete barrie_*s, bulkheads or fences which exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? If none exist " Please state none."_ ou have any concerning our re construction taking Place at this time Do' your building Premises? I£ yes, Please submit a copy Department. g PIf nermit and map as approved by'the Building Please state. Parcel? or any co-owner also o other land close to this of deeds, yes, please explain where or submit copies I• Please dist present use or erations o Parcel K e � T iy!> p conducted at this�. Proposed use �� and 3/87, 101901k APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS • Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning h�o�suFFoc/r�o C* x 1 • 74 dap! BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 22, 2001 Matthew E. Pachman, Esq. Pachman & Pachman 366 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 Re: Appl. No. 4927 — Request for Interpretation Dear Mr. Pachman: • Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 This will confirm that the Board took the following Action at its meeting of August 16, 2001: RESOLVED, to confirm Appl. No. 4927 in the Matter of Kace L.I. Inc. (for relief as multiple -family uses on vacant land) is withdrawn without oreiudice. This Resolution was duly adopted by all of the members present (4-0). Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Board Secretary C i aUG I p pil j }, M 11 PACHMAN & PACHMAN, P.G. ATTORNEYS 366 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY COMMACK. NEW YORK 11725 (631) 543-2200 TELEGOPIER (631) 543-2271 HOWARD E. PACHMAN MATTHEW E. PACHMAN August 8, 2001 Ed Forrester, Building Inspector Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Kace LI, LLC SCTM #1000-40-3-1 Dear Mr. Forrester: COUNSEL HARVEY B. HESUNDER As you may be aware, my firm represents Kace LI, LLC with respect to the above -noted matter. As you will recall, by notice dated December 6, 2000, (a copy of which is attached for easy reference), you denied the building permit application with respect to the above -referenced site. You, thereafter, filed an amended Notice of Disapproval, dated July 30, 2001(a copy of which is also enclosed for easy reference). It is my understanding that both reasons for your disapproval related to the issue of multiple dwellings, pursuant to Southold Town Code Section 100-42(B)(1). I assume you, through inadvertence, overlooked the approved site plan signed by Henry E. Raynor Jr., as Chairman of the Southold Planning Department, on July 11, 1983, which provided for such multiple dwellings. Not withstanding this approved site plan, please be advised that, in an attempt to bring this long -overdue project to fruition, Kace has agreed, without prejudice, to build the structures, pursuant to this approved site plan, as two family dwellings, and not as multiple dwellings. Kindly process and issue the building permit at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, MATTHEW E. PACHMAN MEP/jlw enclosures cc: Kace LI, LLC F:\Da1nnIDnS\KONTOKOSK a\Co .wmdmca\F.n ,.lvl.wpd For Office Use Only: Fee $ ,2A0 23/d // yoA„ .. W Assigned No. 5Q03 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR rlSi / , g©D DATE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION APPEALED:..... :..11.. TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: I (We).. .�� LZ-. 1.l C J (Appellant) of... # HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED..PV�-.mb.ee.k.71vP FOR: (4 Permit to Build ( ) Permit for Occupancy ( ) Permit to Use ( ) Permit for As -Built ( ) Other. 1. Lobation of Property......../�0.Zone c...iH_ .�P ..... ........................... -,� District 1000 Section...' 9 ... Bloc k.A.Lot(s) ..... ! ..................Current Owner..K C` '..l�-,..444 2. Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragraph of Zoning Ordnance by numbers. Do not quote the law.) Article ........ Section 100- ..........Sub -Section ............. to 9 ues fians 3. Type of Appal. Appeal is made herewith for: °��`F )ee. attacA/n"f ( ) A:Variance to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A Variance due to lack of access as required by New York Town Law Chap. 62, Cons. Laws Art. 16, Section 280-A. ( ) Interpretation of Article .......... Section 100- .................. ( ) Reversal or Other: ................................................................................................ 4. Previous Appeal. A previous appeal has has not been made with respect to this property or with respect to this decision of the Bulldlriy inspector (Appeal ArfWYeara?MI ). REASONS FOR APPEAL (Additional sheets may be used with applicant's signature): AREA VARIANCE REASONS: N�A (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, If granted, because: (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: (5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( ) Yes, or ( ) No. This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ( ) Check this box if USE VARIANCE STANDARDS are eted nd Sworn to before a this .Z3�cr' (Signature of App I Authorized Agent) �dav of 200. (Agent must submit Authorization from Owner) ZBA App 08/00 Notary aUalified in Commission Expires 0 0 Attachment to KACE a LLC's application The Southold Town Planning Board approved the site plan on July 11, 1983 (a copy of a letter from Planning Board Chairman Henry Raynor, dated July 14, 1983, confirming this is enclosed for easy reference). Southold Town Code §100-255(B) states: All site plans which have received final approval prior to the enactment of this Article shall remain valid for a period of three years from the date of such enactment. This period will begin when all governmental approvals have been obtained. (Emphasis supplied) Since the Suffolk County Water Authority has not yet issued its approval, this period has not yet commenced. F1DaGHQ MNTMONIOKWYW-Wara"ukn-\Wphcetioa—,Wd °ed eonstrisedon: tete OXfgtfng113e and occupancy oi' and intended use and occupancy tli'�os . a. Eaistinguse and oocarpancy ✓ �� r LA rlD b. intended use and occupancy /�v� ri �o�ssr/r�� •t r�� y /✓�./�u /t✓S S ature of wo& (check which applicable): New Building Addition Alteration epair Roval Demolition Other Work sti mted'6st. /2�" ooJ�lJ. // r Fee (to be paid on filing ffiis�pliration) 'dwelling, number of dwelling units of"Irr Number of dwelling units on each floor Z garage, number of cars 2 'business, commercial. or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of uuse. J ►uncurious of existing structures, if any: Frorrt R� D — leigtrt Nurrtber of Stories Amensions of same structure with alteration or additions: Front Rear >apth Height Number of Stories h=aua ions of entire new construction. Front Rear Depth lelght 2 .S5 Number of Stories � ;ize of lot Front 7 _ Rear Depth �' �G fif ft ,17&r ZRN >ate, of Purchase Name of Fomier Owner :one or use district in which premises are situated >ow proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: �5,gFC— � OJ S17F ',�O d ` / Vill lot be r&graded i � Will excess fill be removed from premises: NO ' . ¢3 liJ�3 r S�Sf Tames of owner of prmnises 4C45 LLC r1 Ye, Too i9 Phone No. 2l 2 5 B2 6o /do lame of Archutect, A;(-5),rraKos gra Address /w/- ��F S Phone No �! z= 592 6/0 Tame of Comractor Address N y'c,, /vo /y Phone No. s this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland? *YES NO IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES PERMITS MA REQUIRED rovide survey, to scale, with accurate foundation plan and distances to property limes.$� P elevation at anypoint on property is.st 10 fed or below, must provide topographical data on snrvcy. t5i re /4109/l/ rE OF NEW YORK SS. tgTY OF - of being duly sworn; deposes and says that (s)he is the applicant Nage of individual sr=m contract) above armed, � is the . . •• , -� . . •• -+n .., . m . . a .... . .. . 7. , n... UMTT.V, •• u.. .n .. um . M , l- u, .n . WIN . EMILY HAMILL Notary Public. State of Now *4 No. 01HAS059984 Cluslified in Suffolk Cou Commission Expires May 06 =224 Signature of Aaftgff ►►1� Vr V V V iJ1VLU QILDING DEPARTAH4 'KOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TEL: 765.1802 l 1 �I veil DUMwwUI%j r=UYut Nw"L � • Do you have orzwdthe following, befaro gq PEPIMT NO. �Mi-`lYDc'D �90LlCi��pt� Board ofHoahh $ •eta ofBuH&&Phma fuvoy C hwk 3eptio Farm NY.S.D.B.C. Tra•teee Mail to: APPLICATION FOR ]BUMMING PERMIT, Date. Avg /D ,21 sets aplans, acc=ft plot plan to so" Fee woonung to schedule, b. • • HIshowinglooation • • 11 • • le v: onprazoises, relationship to : q . 0i • tin .'. orpublic and c, The u., coverod.... • «. may before_ of BoddiAg d. • u• of the • • •wM issw a Buodingul S1 & shaU be kept on the prewlses avaflable for bspoction throgghout••. is issoed bythe BuildingInspector, APPLICATIONIS :I:1':I: .e D: to the •iA ep u. w• 1 :n•_. n nn N.u1 .1.w an u • u . • • • • . • ' IGu 1 u •.. • u • •I n . 1 • • ... 1 • «• • • • 1 • • v: • • u «.: • 1 • :.. 1 : • • • • .�n • •31 • n .. u • b �n 1 _„u • �, «”. � 1 - u :_i _ •• •.. :I • •u: •u< •.• . ..1 •a.. • :nun• cell -_LL :0 /-:�o1vTtlKoSI MM State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, arclutect, engineer, Several contractor, eloctacian, plumber or burls Name of owner of premises If applicant is a L. tax roll or (Name and title of corporate Builders License No. Plumbers License No. Electricians License No. ' Other Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be P County Tax Map No. 1000 sal"r'1� BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGIANO ��o�OgUFFO(,t�o� o y� ce at PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 To: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals From: Valerie Scopaz, AICP, Southold Town Planner 15140 Date: May 11, 2001 Subject: Request for Input on Application No. 4927, Kace, Ll, Inc. On behalf of the Planning Board, I have been researching the office files as they relate to the site plan for the above -referenced property and your Board's request for information. In the course of this research, a question came up regarding the actual interpretation request before the Zoning Board of Appeals. In discussing this question with Linda Kowalski, she indicated that your Board had similar questions of the applicant and that a written request for clarification would be made. I am in receipt of correspondence, dated May 9, 2001, from yourself to Mr. Pachman, the applicant's attorney, regarding this issue. As a result, the Planning Board has decided to wait for the applicant to clarify his interpretation request to the Zoning Board. VS:ck APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS 0 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning o �A By Fax and Regular Mail e C* C42 I$ k BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Matthew E. Pachman, Esq. Pachman & Pachman 366 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 9 L -A Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 May 9, 2001 I" �a 2001 Re: Appl. No. 4927 — Kace LI, Inc. Request for Interpretation Dear Mr. Pachman: Southold Town Planning Board This will confirm that the public hearing, advertised by our office for April 5, 2001 was canceled as requested in your April 2, 2001 letter. The Board Members are requesting that you please furnish a description outlining the details and purpose of the Interpretation Request for use when processing, advertising and noticing the application. The Board will be reviewing the calendars in June, and if the above is submitted by June 6, 2001, it is expected that the hearing will be advertised for June 28 1h. (The alternative would be to submit the information before May 21"', the deadline for advertising of the June 7, 2001 hearings.) We will await the above before advertising the application. Thank you. :22 Chairman M f APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS • Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning MEMO BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 TO: Planning Board FROM: Zoning Board of Appeals DATE: March 16, 2001 SUBJ: ZBA Appl. No. 4927 — Kace LI, Inc. (40-3-1 Northwind Village) The Zoning Board of Appeals has an application requesting an Interpretation of Section 100-42B.1, with the attached Planning Board resolution letter dated July 14, 1983 indicating approval of the site plan "Northwind Village." The Board is requesting copies and description of the approvals issued by the Planning/ Board for this appeal application. Also, please furnish an opinion from the Planning Board/-wx indicating the zoning since the inception of the 1989 Master Plan and information relative to the 1983 and other information as it pertains to this project. For your convenience we attach copies of the request for the Interpretation with attached letter, and a copy of the Building Department's December 6, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. Thank you. Enclosures • • ///'_/0 .31,--1 For Office Use Only: Fee S X00, _ ' Assigned No. �7aZj TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N W YORK~ APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR DATE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION APPEALED .......eCe�rr %e2 �pr,a�o�.......... TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: 11We) ..! ..L LLC .... Iz. SB2- 6�o0 r_ -lo A414TT l�f�Cf�ti1�N sa (Appellan rem,*' K��y /IfJ'2S of..............36cl, ✓�T�i� u nt S l�lcri A w?�y................. (Tel # ) ...... �C2nIh"' o20co HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED ........................ WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATEDN.P.VPr.0!?Re .AV FOR: (>0 Permit to Build ( ) Permit for Occupancy ( ) Permit to Use _ ( ) Permit for As -Built ( ) Other. 1. Location of Property...... �,�s..........2�..�.'�..,....'fone ...lff� District 1000 Section..f.9...Block..S..Lot(s).....(..................Current 0wner.-l%!`lC9.. ..(:(,C 2. Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragraph of Zoning Ordnance by numbers. Do not quote the law.) n - Article ........ Section 100- ..........Sub -Section .............. J� Zoo 9 ueS ions 3. Type of Appal. Appeal is made herewith for: a�—'{ See atta,:A/n ent ( ) ^ Narlcrce }o the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map f ( ) A Variance due to lack of access as required by New York Town Law !Z',�� Chap. 62, Cons. Laws Art. 16, Section 280-A. (� Interpretation of Article .......... Section 100- . �. !P�/.... ( ) Reversal or Other: ................................................................................................ 4. Previous Appeal. A previous appeal (has)has not been made with respect to this property or with respect to this decision of the Buil ng Inspector (Appeal #...... Year .......), REASONS FOR APPEAL (Additional sheets may be used with applicant's sianature): AREA VARIANCE REASONS: NIA (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if granted, because: (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: (5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( ) Yes, or ( ) No. I This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ( )Chock this box if USE VARIANCE STANDARDS are(C`on ;(0fd Sworn to befor re me this (Signatuof App la orized Agent) �� day of Opt. (Agent must submit Authorization from Owner) 5 Notary MARY ANN CYBULSKI ZBA App 08/00 Notary Public, State of New York Residing in Suffolk County No. 52-5895900 Commission Expires April 30. A:!�0.12- PLA" Southold, N.Y. 11971 HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., Chairman IAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHA.M, Jr. WILLIAM F. MULLEN. Jr. TELEPHONE 7ti5 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 clan "Northwind Village" dated May 11, 1982, and . certified by the Building Inspector June 17, 1983. $25. To date we have not received the appiiction , fee of Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE; December 6, 2000 TO Kace L.I. LLC C/o Kontokosta 43 W. 54`h Street New York N.Y. 10019 Please take notice that your application dated November 16, 2000 For permit for Multiple dwellings at Location of property North Road (CR48) Greenport County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 40 Block 3 Lot 1 Subdivision Filed Map # Lot # Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds proposed multiple dwellings not Permitted pursuant to Article IV Section 100-42B I which states: Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals The following uses are permitted as a special exception by the Board of Appeals as hereinafter provided and subiect to site plan approval by the Planning Board: (1) ' Multiple dwellings townhouses row or attached houses Proposed proiect does not have valid Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals. ------------------- -- --- - ----- Authorize ature # APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horning o�oSUFFot,��� o� Gyp N x le-xtyer%— Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 F Telephone k6al) 765-? R09 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMO MAR 1$ zoo ,-�outhold Tows, TO: Planning Board r' annir Rnairf' FROM: Zoning Board of Appeals DATE: March 16, 2001 SUBJ: ZBA Appl. No. 4927 — Kace LI, Inc. (40-3-1 Northwind Village) The Zoning Board of Appeals has an application requesting an Interpretation of Section 100-42B.1, with the attached Planning Board resolution letter dated July 14, 1983 indicating approval of the site plan "Northwind Village." The Board is requesting copies and description of the approvals issued by the Planning Board for this appeal application. Also, please furnish an opinion from the Planning Board/" indicating the zoning since the inception of the 1989 Master Plan and information relative to the 1983 and other information as it pertains to this project. For your convenience we attach copies of the request for the Interpretation with attached letter, and a copy of the Building Department's December 6, 2000 Notice of Disapproval. Thank you. Enclosures For Office Use Only: fee $ X00, Assigned No. _7 7 TOWN �SQUTH�OLD,W YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR DATE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION APPEALED: ......�Ce�n,......I , p', o�0,,,,,,,,,, TO THE ONING BOARD OF APPEALS: I Iwe) . K AcG L ....................................... (c 2 �S 6�ob f of....�...... 66 k2 T2=rLa-1�J l c.H �f%gw�ayAppellan.... el #� � �y 110',94' .2 oino HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DiXTED ........................ WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATEDYNP Pr..!b..?, !1�&"PFOR: (k) Permit to Build ( ) Permit for Occupancy _ ( ) Permit to Use ( ) Permit for As -Built ( ) Other. 1. Location of Property...... 1 .. ................. . .'�..¢..5.�:0...�ST ..done ...lf�f� District 1000 Section...5 ... Block.. Lot(s)... . .................... Current Owner..K4C9..44:,X44 2. Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragraph of Zoning Ordnance by numbers. Do not quote the law.) n - Article ........ Section 100- ..........Sub -Section .............. 3. Type of Appal. Appeal is made,herewith for: ( ) A Varlencei to th- ?oning Ordinance or Toning Map ( ) A Variance due to lack of access as required by New York Town Law Chap. 62, Cons. Laws Art; 16, Section 280-A. ()o Interpretation of Article .......... Section 100, . �. �/... R 1 ^4`6 t UeS7<ion4 a -•f See attucA/nent C'n� -f Z. ( ) eversa or er................................................................................................ 4. Previous Appeal. A previous appeal (has)has not been made with respect to this property or with respect to this decision of the Buil Ing Inspector (Appeal #...... Year .......). REASONS FOR APPEAL (Additional sheets may be used with applicant's sianature)• AREA VARIANCE REASONS: IIIA (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment'to nearby properties, If granted, because: (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: (5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( ) Yes, or ( ) No. I This is the M(MIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ( ) Check this box if USE VARIANCE STANDARDS are co e Sworn to beforX me this (Signature of App to orized Agent) 17x' day of (Agent must submit Authorization from Owner) Notary Public MARY ANN CYBULSKI ZBA App 08100 Notary Public, State of New York Residing in Suffolk County No. 52.5895900 T Southold, N.Y. 11971 HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., Chairman TELEPHONE JAMES WALL 7o5 1938 SENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAN, Jr. WILLIAM F. MULLEN, Jr. 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 Dian "Northwind Village" dated May 11, 1982, and certified by the Building Inspector June 17, 1983. $25. To date we have not received the appiiction fee of Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susan E. Long, Secretary FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE; December 6, 2000 TO Kace L.I. LLC C/o Kontokosta 43 W. 54`h Street New York N.Y. 10019 Please take notice that your application dated November 16, 2000 For permit for Multiple dwellings at Location of property North Road (CR48) Greenport County Tax Map No. 1000 -Section 40 Block 3 Lot 1 Subdivision Filed Map # Lot # Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds proposed multiple dwellings not permitted pursuant to Article IV Section 100-42B i which states; Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals The following uses are permitted as a special exception by the Board of Appeals as hereinafter provided and subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board: (1) Multiple dwellings, townhouses row or attached houses Proposed project does not have valid Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals. ---------- --- ----- ----- - Authorize azure 0 0 Uneudwnzetlto thIS aitp, ,,c, o, aamdm 11 Seetlon 7cpt)yef th4New n o gtyy Etlucaaon Law. Coples the lend sud thiq survey map not bassos rveyor's inketl aeal w to beav bemoftW SW copy.the mnefdered Gu entoas tad {lemon ahaa run ontY b me parson forwhom the survey b Prepared. and on his behalf tome �e �npang gcvemmentvl agency and i to the a a',-`:, n 2eted hereon and b me arsi;;,::; , of w- lending Ins& hD ad.Eua.=and i�..y.4;ii1.'c, ban3lereble owners. Subsequent y Subsequent Ar �;l?ESNAC?27, N. y fort orzc�P:15Gv C�-iAAJ66- or Zor„fG FTrE 4D ro C 8G t1°%k co+/r+ty rdx Par�a/: loch7-<a-�c-s-� -P :=. A4'Ei1/7.188 4c1ZL-mss rotdhred April ;z, 1994 PdOB�IC� 1�AN ruYG, G G. L..ctnasd Gerd Suivt�rors GPSGd�lort, irl. Y. 2937-z L- V Z _. _.- - - - - - ! . . o\ h 1 U ` �--- - -1 —T ------- - 1 114LI• -* cta ema, /Y f �. *r \ ! rt22 / y0 i 1 I , 141 I � , 11 I of I II N '`\v. I I I 1 �3yDb, ak - FiN.1!7tIiL EGE'V.+InI _ ft�V- m ME ,K 1 uv.q vT 4- It aY 1851 �N,1 T Isco + el�v + I q / DAj Y Sg \ T" o\ M\ Z r 0 Nu R.. +1U•r- LJ \ o ® \ \ +INV, 11 15CPGG. \ I 916x, + q,L - IU 18 i V [LLrLET Ohl P O PL'r Al- !g\ ZONIN(a ANAL -I iu?>'�IZ.LNG� = ZOnIIIJt� GHIAYTY-fL Io0 P'li/�I\TI•+�•IUp�O� ,uF TavN op' � ^rNGC.D - SI re', ZaIV15� /n, LJL-441TvLIft r,-K.;1r-;i---NCC91jT- Ivf4, An�A: 17166AGP%'4 r/I�-"74P,70q 0 coma✓e5tA�:Ta,:A(LA/AL�i:2�YPAr[Kltil��t�nl«GN q, A5 AA\9N5Pr0 s/9,���s LAY I. l • N�. 3- 75 nYGC)r��k r 'L"I iov./cLA, sL,G e,, 7 1 o 5, 0o0 I# q Lo✓�rIAA�E : 108,oao I?�./r"U�INLol�t�ll'iAU.O+✓AG(,�: foSGb �1 LofAIZ�A �9 3�Oq IIs 0JPr2 GSaD nYlo'otiLd: lOr3 TVFt�I.��N1T<IN V1 :5Uu2rNL46 13 LGf9. 1.�1�1?rN / 1- A111 '/Ma . LT 0, FI S�PAI9ATioN (/,�tVlrl.r;n: 'LO'01(- 2>< f�� U�IbI-Y( 51,) 100,13 III SLOP p (1LUF7 //\EAI\I HF7bH'( Y`rlf , I'5'AJJ5 Al\II'-) 9A Q-5 -ror r.uF:H nArir- g5; r�rlc�.iT a� ISI PI'LC.�{°0 'G� : 'ISI •I : HI`l0N'r-' r3e���� 5�y : 50; Io�T 13�^f r�Ll�� •���� , I�IVArrI.�' Iz��\IN.,au.v+✓t;v: gso � %e�. PlCs71�Jr/-L'�'17 ; IoIXJ C�4 �%(/UNIT ( ILEI'" loo q -I Y�ALI<W(l a rG1;�kLJIP7.V�: I98CAYlh - I�.i'LL.,�IT6 ptZOI'G6LD L-)BeA L5 �CCNrf AI�O: I�/1CVIILp,.'p ; 5a� �t�i�G<aPYJ � 50' c*1� 51pL' N(A I7X� � Chi =till IZ SIJ � 15 r pY101'P6�iG' � IS' ew, I• -I Srtp4 hwrlcg5erp < 35' I�,gr-`7Artp-So' PYIG1'x Eli : c� , 6LW �1�1.T=�YGEa= PAY clk-'JO4C!ULK P�ANNtN� ,c`�op,eD APPGeo✓A� ��qu/,eED \ In 11.4a>1 u�/ IUa-lrzJ c�a ,sti< ,aay i hV ,,.9.. o00 -mal'( ulv{-I?TNll: OtI WAl. t./A(u1T-IT2 ON 0CH-FIV5 HtIMAIvT - Revisio as KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES' ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS � t 43 WEST 54TH STREET NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 1,0019Date �I f1k..%:NF•.?G-, ,.,. ,,,rE i{-alAi'IId f I Job No. Title ".Dav_� g,*'o ss f� 1 k • I cu a n f I 5 r 1 \ \ \ \ l 1 1 1 1 � I 916x, + q,L - IU 18 i V [LLrLET Ohl P O PL'r Al- !g\ ZONIN(a ANAL -I iu?>'�IZ.LNG� = ZOnIIIJt� GHIAYTY-fL Io0 P'li/�I\TI•+�•IUp�O� ,uF TavN op' � ^rNGC.D - SI re', ZaIV15� /n, LJL-441TvLIft r,-K.;1r-;i---NCC91jT- Ivf4, An�A: 17166AGP%'4 r/I�-"74P,70q 0 coma✓e5tA�:Ta,:A(LA/AL�i:2�YPAr[Kltil��t�nl«GN q, A5 AA\9N5Pr0 s/9,���s LAY I. l • N�. 3- 75 nYGC)r��k r 'L"I iov./cLA, sL,G e,, 7 1 o 5, 0o0 I# q Lo✓�rIAA�E : 108,oao I?�./r"U�INLol�t�ll'iAU.O+✓AG(,�: foSGb �1 LofAIZ�A �9 3�Oq IIs 0JPr2 GSaD nYlo'otiLd: lOr3 TVFt�I.��N1T<IN V1 :5Uu2rNL46 13 LGf9. 1.�1�1?rN / 1- A111 '/Ma . LT 0, FI S�PAI9ATioN (/,�tVlrl.r;n: 'LO'01(- 2>< f�� U�IbI-Y( 51,) 100,13 III SLOP p (1LUF7 //\EAI\I HF7bH'( Y`rlf , I'5'AJJ5 Al\II'-) 9A Q-5 -ror r.uF:H nArir- g5; r�rlc�.iT a� ISI PI'LC.�{°0 'G� : 'ISI •I : HI`l0N'r-' r3e���� 5�y : 50; Io�T 13�^f r�Ll�� •���� , I�IVArrI.�' Iz��\IN.,au.v+✓t;v: gso � %e�. PlCs71�Jr/-L'�'17 ; IoIXJ C�4 �%(/UNIT ( ILEI'" loo q -I Y�ALI<W(l a rG1;�kLJIP7.V�: I98CAYlh - I�.i'LL.,�IT6 ptZOI'G6LD L-)BeA L5 �CCNrf AI�O: I�/1CVIILp,.'p ; 5a� �t�i�G<aPYJ � 50' c*1� 51pL' N(A I7X� � Chi =till IZ SIJ � 15 r pY101'P6�iG' � IS' ew, I• -I Srtp4 hwrlcg5erp < 35' I�,gr-`7Artp-So' PYIG1'x Eli : c� , 6LW �1�1.T=�YGEa= PAY clk-'JO4C!ULK P�ANNtN� ,c`�op,eD APPGeo✓A� ��qu/,eED \ In 11.4a>1 u�/ IUa-lrzJ c�a ,sti< ,aay i hV ,,.9.. o00 -mal'( ulv{-I?TNll: OtI WAl. t./A(u1T-IT2 ON 0CH-FIV5 HtIMAIvT - Revisio as KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES' ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS � t 43 WEST 54TH STREET NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 1,0019Date �I f1k..%:NF•.?G-, ,.,. ,,,rE i{-alAi'IId f I Job No. Title ".Dav_� g,*'o ss f� 1 k • I cu a n f I 5 M LM: DIM VIEW: DIM MENNEWOMMO M:\ X07\A070659\dwg\A070659SP1_128UNITS.dwg, 5/13/2009 9:05:40 AM, Adobe PDF El LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF / SAMIR ATTIA do JILA SHARIF / r SANITARY PUMP STA TON / 427.38'__ —� S 1'23'30_E 34'07" E----------'--t�--- T'-- -- 106.00' 7PROPOSED EMEM2ENCY Vt ACCESS £N1R.4M,E at,. ,. � S UNI r \ R�. \ \ — ate ale atc ate -, Gam-! ♦ ? \ —24 N � 10 C� G2�, + ALA4AL''e ♦ LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF I ♦ VILLAGE OF GREENPORT . .. •.: ata zv z> z> , C \ 100' WETLAND BUFFER AND LIMIT OF CLEARANCE / 11 \ \ CONSTRUCTION f CLEARANCE (IN ADDI IONTO 2 12 G THE 100' WETLAND BUFFER) / / / ,� \ �S OS. y 7Nb / i v U�/T UNB B U t\\ ..� UNIT 4 \\ <Z B ..........::....:.: 24. UNIT UNIT moo. k zv 4'-i21 ONISry J� .... ate o\ oUNIT N ON (2 p- / ata ata ata ASL AL ate zv uNt1 22 o ` 7 7 za 41 ti AL ata a4 ata ala ate ata AL a4. 20' C `� y >, I ata ata A, ... C ... .::.:.: ':.... D :..... a4 alr. a4 ata ala ata ata �!� Z> D UNIT UMO . _i . ...::::•. NIT O ONIt NC V ata ala � ONUNo ata AL ALL a4 ata AL J 1 N ON N / \ \ \ D 1 al UNIT / UN/T a ata ata AL U / / / 100' WETLAND BUFFER AND D UNIT 5 / / LIMIT OF CLEARANCE \ 9 \ UNIT / 11 ® / loo., / 10' CONSTRUCTION \ _ _ 'e ate ar` /CLEARANCE (IN ADDITION TO W / THE 100' WETLAND BUFFER) ` \ / : \ \ \ ' ��ry• WUNIT ` � ate ata ata ata AL tK AIL LANDWARD LIMIT OF FRE;HWA R WETLANDS AS DELINEATED , 7/28/05 BY C.W. BOWMA — L ND USE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. AND CONFIRMED BY ROBERT MARSH, NYS DEC REGION 1, tD gip' I NOV. 9. 2005 \ �1 MON. 0.7'J 1 AL ars. aL AL AL Alk _.>_k _ AI. A4 A _ J4 -- ----- N22"(8'00"W--------- 564.52 MON 0.9'N 1 ' ` ' 1 / ` N` i-% � a, alla AL AL 3 343 *4b AL a>ic tN J •ww � LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF VILLAGE OF GREENPORT i SITE DATA SITE" AREA ........................................ 748,697 SF (17.19 AC) TAX MAP DES/GNA AON .................... DIST. 1000, SEC. 910, BLK 3, LOT 1 PROPOSED ZONING* ......................... R2 — ONE AND THV FAMILY RESIDENCE DIS TRIC r EXISTING USE ................................... VACANT PROPOSED USE ................................ 128 RE VDLW AAL UNITS IN 2.3 BUILDINGS *'PROPOSED ZONING BASED ON ANNEXA AON INTO 1HE NLLAGE OF GREENPORT (FROM THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD) AND CLASSIRED AS R2—MUUTFAMIL Y RESIDENCE: REQUIRED UNDER 'R2' ZON/NG LOT AREA ........................................ 7,500 SF FRONT YARD SETBACK ................... 30' REAR YARD SETBACK ..................... 30' SIDE YARD SETBACK ....................... 25' LOT COVERAGE ................................ 35X HEIGHT OF BUILDING ...................... 2.5 STORIES/35' LIVABLE FLOOR AREA ...................... PER NYS CODE SLAT LEGEND A uwr I 6x AFMWA&E UNIr 38 PROPOSED EB UN/T 2 A4 AFFMANX UN/r (1185 SJ-) 20 PROPOSED C UN/T 3 Q4 AFFORDABLE UNIT (1350 SF) 6 PROPOSED LJ D UNIT 3 614 MARKET UN/r (1530 SF) 64 PROP= 128 UN/7S PROPOSED N/A N/A f0.9X 2 S70RIES 850 SF MIN UNIT rmr AREA OVAN77TY PERQEIVT or TOTAL UN/7S PD?wvr or HOUSYNG TYPE 1 BE%9" AfFORDA6VE 850 SF' 38 207X 5aOX APFCRDABLE 2 BEDROOM AFFVRDABtE 1,195 SF 20 1.%6X 3 BEDROOM AFrORDA&r 11350 SF' C A 7 3 5MROOM MARKET 1,5M S- $4 SQOx 5QOX MARKET 70rAL UN/TS = 128 NOTES 1. TOTAL AREA — 17.1891 ACRES 2. BOUNDARY SURVEY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PECONIC SURVEYORS, P.C., 1230 TRAVELER STREET, SOUTHOLD. N.Y. 11971 DATED AUG. 5, 2005. 3. ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON ARE TAKEN FROM THE "TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF FIVE EASTERN TOWNS" PREPARED FOR THE SCDPW AND BASED ON NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 (N.G.V.D.). PARKM CALCULATIONS PARKING REQUIRED: 1.5 STALLS PER UNIT 1.5 STALLS/UNIT x 128 UNITS — 192 STALLS PARKING PROVIDED: 192 STANDARD STALLS (10'x20') MONUMENT REBAR POST O WETLAND FLAG 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 25 50 100 200 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 50 ft. r Date By Revision Designed by: Drafted by: Checked by: D Ba rrett 0 0 Bonacci & Van Weele, PC Civil Engineers 175A Commerce Dr. Surveyors Hauppauge, NY 11788 T 631.435.1111 Planners F 631.435.1022 www.6bvpc.com Tax Map No.: DIST. 1000 SECT. 40 BLK. 3 LOT 1 ALTERATION Or THIS DOCUMENT. EXCEPT BY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN ACCOEDACCE SECTION 72N OF NYS fOUCACG! LAP, IS kilrll NORTHWIND VILLAGE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT PLAN Date MAY 13, 2009 Scale 111=50` Project No. A070659 S eet No. 1 CST 4 r