Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DEIS 5/27/08
• DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK December 2007 Revision May 27, 2008 • • • •900• GREENMAN-PEDERSEN INC. ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS BABYLON, NEW YORK • • DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE TOWN OF SOUTHHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PROJECT LOCATION: 45.99 Acre located at the north side of the Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane intersection in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBER: District 1000- Section 102- Block 01- Lot 33.3 APPLICANT: The Heritage at Cutchogue, LLC 1721-D North Ocean Avenue Medford, NY 11763 LEAD AGENCY: Town of Southold Planning Board • 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1 179 Southold, NY 11971 PREPARER AND CONTACT: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was Prepared by: Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Engineers, Architects and Engineers 325 West Main Street Babylon, NY 11702 Contact: Robert Grover, Director, Environmental and Coastal Sciences (631) 587-5060 With technical input from: Nelson and Pope Engineers and Surveyors 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville,New York 11747 (631)427-5665 Charles W. Kuehn, Architect P.O. Box 641 Northport,New York 11768 631262-8540 DATE OF PREPARATION: December 2007 Revision May 27, 2008 • AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: This document represents a Draft Environmental Impact Statement("DEIS")prepared in accordance with 6 NYCRR §617.9. Copies are available for public review and comment at the offices of the lead agency. DATE OF ACCEPTANCE: DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS: • ii • TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Sheet TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Project Background, Need, Objectives and Benefits................................1 1.1.1 Background and History....................................................................1 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives .........................................3 1.1.3 Objectives of the Project Sponsor......................................................3 1.1.4 Benefits of the Project........................................................................4 1.2 Location and Site Conditions......................................................................4 1.3 Project Design and Layout..........................................................................4 1.3.1 Overall Site Layout............................................................................5 1.3.2 Grading and Drainage........................................................................7 1.3.3 Access, Road System and Parking.....................................................8 1.3.4 Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply .................................................9 1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting .........................................................11 1.3.6 Open Space ........................................................................................12 1.4 Construction and Operation.......................................................................13 • 1.4.1 Construction ......................................................................................13 1.4.2 Operation............................................................................................15 1.5 Permits and Approvals Required...............................................................15 2.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 2.1 Soils................................................................................................................16 2.1.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................... ......... .......16 2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts ..._......__........._..........._....................................18 2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation.................. ........................................................19 2.2 Water Resources ..........................................................................................20 2.2.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................20 2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts ...........................................................................21 2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation...........................................................................24 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife...............................................................................25 2.3.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................25 2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts ...........................................................................25 2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation..................... ..................... ....................... .......26 3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 3.1 Transportation .............................................................................................27 3.1.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................29 3.1.2 Anticipated Impacts ...........................................................................36 • 3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation...........................................................................41 3.2 Land Use, Zoning and Plans.......................................................................41 3.2.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................41 3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts ...........................................................................45 iii • 3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation...........................................................................48 3.3 Community Facilities and Services............................................................48 3.3.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................48 3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts ...........................................................................49 3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation...........................................................................49 3.4 Aesthetic Resources, Open Space/Community Character and Public Health............................................................................................................50 3.4.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................50 3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts ...........................................................................52 3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation...........................................................................52 3.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources .....................................................53 3.5.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................53 3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts...........................................................................54 3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation...........................................................................55 4.0 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS....................................................................................56 4.1 Cumulative Impacts.....................................................................................56 4.2 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided...............................................57 4.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.......................58 4.4 Growth-Inducing Aspects ...........................................................................58 5.0 ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................................60 5.1 No Action Alternative (public acquisition)................................................61 5.2 Decreased Number of Units........................................................................62 5.3 Alternative Design for Wastewater............................................................75 6.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................79 APPENDICES A. SITE PLAN AND DETAILS B. TRAFFIC STUDY C. ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS D. ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY E. WATER RESOURCES F. CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY G. COMMUNITY SERVICES COORDINATION H. CORRESPONDENCE • 1V • LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Unit Type and Composition...........................................................................5 Table 1-2 Site and Project Characteristics—Existing and Proposed Conditions...........6 Table 1-3 Parking Requirement .....................................................................................9 Table 1-4 Total Wastewater Generation ........................................................................10 Table 1-5 Permits and Approvals...................................................................................15 Table2-1 Site Soils........................................................................................................18 Table 2-2 Estimate of Nitrogen Loading of Groundwater Using BURBS Model.........24 Table 3-1 Intersection Geometry....................................................................................32 Table 3-2 Accident Summary by Geometry...................................................................34 Table 3-3 Existing Conditions Level of Service............................................................35 Table3-4 Trip Generation..............................................................................................38 Table 3-5 Level of Service Summary.............................................................................39 Table 5-1 Comparison of Alternatives...........................................................................61 Table 5-2 Total Wastewater Generation ........................................................................66 • v LIST OF FIGURES Figure1-1 Zoning Map ...................................................................................................4 Figure1-2 Location Map.................................................................................................4 Figure1-3 Alignment Plan ..............................................................................................5 Figure1-4 Water Main Map ...........................................................................................11 Figure2-1 Soils Map.......................................................................................................18 Figure 2-2 Groundwater Contour Map............................................................................22 Figure 2-3 Local Private Wells Map ...............................................................................22 Figure 2-4 Ecological Community Map..........................................................................26 Figure 5-1 Alternative Site Plan......................................................................................63 • • vi • 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Project Background, Need, Objectives and Benefits 1.1.1 Background and History This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared for a site plan application for a 45.99 acre property located in Cutchogue, Town of Southold, New York. The applicant for the project is The Heritage at Cutchogue, LLC ("applicant"). The property is zoned residential HD (Hamlet Density), which permits 1 unit per 10,000 square feet (SF) with community water and sewer. Letter From Town Attorney on Zoning is located in Appendix H. An application for the Heritage at Cutchogue site plan was submitted to the Town of Southold Planning Board ("Planning Board") on July 21, 2006. This application is for development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings, 14 of which will be set aside in perpetuity as affordable. The units, ranging from 11,135 SF to 13,110 SF, are comprised of III single family detached units, 14 attached single family duplex units and 14 attached multifamily units which will be offered as affordable. Access to the site is proposed via the construction of an entrance road from the intersection of School House Lane and Griffing Road to Spur Road, located at the southern portion of the property. The internal project roads are designed as a meandering loop around a central water feature, designed with the intention to provide traffic calming and additional privacy to the individual units within the community. Amenities including a community building with an indoor and outdoor pool, tennis courts, gazebo and gate house are proposed mainly in the southeastern portion of the site. The central water feature will be utilized both as an aesthetic feature and for collection of surface water runoff generated by the development. Public water will be extended to service the proposed project and on site sanitary systems are proposed in accordance with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Health Code. The proposed site design will provide 124 acres of landscaped areas between and along rows of buildings and within the site development, as well as provide a fully vegetated bene of evergreen plantings (a minimum of 3' in height), along the majority of the southwestern property line and a portion of the northwest property line. Site coverages and further details of the project are provided in Section 1.3 below and the proposed site plans (included as Appendix A). Prior to the current application, the property had been farmed, and during the early 1980's, the property was zoned A-Residential-Agricultural. The owner of the site at that time, Leisure Greens Associates filed for a rezoning of the site from A-Residential- Agricultural to M Light-Multiple Residence in February 1983, and the rezoning was granted by the Town Board of the Town of Southold in July 1983. In September 1983, a company by the name of Seacroft, Ltd. purchased the property and agricultural activity was ceased. In April 1984, a preliminary sketch plan for 160 senior condominium units was submitted, followed by a request for site plan approval in October 1984. In review of the project, the Planning Board assumed lead agency and issued a Positive Declaration in November 1984. The site plan was denied in January 1985, as the application was incomplete. The owner filed a petition in New York State Supreme Court in protest of the Planning Board denial, but the Planning Board was upheld in a decision in March I • 1988 finding that a DEIS must be prepared for the project. A subsequent applicant Nocro, Ltd., filed an application for a 160 unit project consisting of 40, 4-unit complexes on the property. A DEIS was accepted in 1989, but the SEQRA process and site plan approval was not completed. The current applicant, the Heritage at Cutchogue, LLC, is in contract with Nocro, Ltd. to purchase the property. The Heritage at Cutchogue started planning the project in 2003 as a 201-unit townhouse development. The property had been rezoned to HD-Hamlet Density residential as a result of Town modifications to the zoning law and official zoning map. The applicant filed with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) and the Suffolk County Sewer Agency (SCSA) for conceptual certification of a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) for the 201-unit project, notifying the Town of Southold in November 2004 of the application. Through review, the project was reduced to 150 units and re-filed with the Town of Southold on June 15, 2005. The review of environmental consequences of an action is regulated by Part 617, Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6NYCRR Part 617), as promulgated under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Under SEQRA, an agency which grants, funds or approves an action must determine the environmental consequences of its decision. In 2006, through discussions with the Planning Board, the project was again downsized to 139 units and age restricted (see correspondence from applicant's attorney in Appendix H. The Planning Board, after completing a coordinated review, assumed lead agency in December 2006. This project most closely resembles the currently proposed project as will be described in subsequent sections. The reduced project size obviated the need for an STP, and as a result, on-site sanitary systems were proposed. After assuming lead agency, the Town of Southold Planning Board consulted Suffolk Environmental to review the application and issue recommendations regarding SEQRA. A copy of this review is included in Appendix A. Subsequently, the Planning Board issued a Positive Declaration on July 16, 2007, requiring the preparation of this DEIS (also included in Appendix A). Subsequent to the issuance of the Positive Declaration, a public scoping process was initiated, which culminated in the Final Scoping document (see Appendix A), on which this document is based. This DEIS addresses those areas of concern expressed by the Lead Agency and the public in regard to the potential impacts of the proposed project to the environmental resources of the site and area. The scope of this DEIS addresses those items specified in the Positive Declaration and has been prepared by the applicant to fully disclose impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed project. Future stages of review of the proposed project include: review and acceptance of the DEIS with respect to scope and adequacy; a public hearing on the DEIS; preparation of a Final EIS, which responds to agency and public comments received during the DEIS review period; preparation and acceptance of the Findings Statement by the Lead Agency, and the Town Planning Board decision on the application, after their review of the Final EIS and in consideration of the Findings Statement. • 2 • 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives As reflected in the Village Zoning Code §280-1, HD zoning was implemented to provide mixed housing uses and higher residential density in appropriate areas. Specifically, the code states the following: "The purpose of the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District is to permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers, particularly Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold, Orient and the Village of Greenport." The proposed project will provide for the development of a permanent, high-quality use on a property consistent with the site's existing Hamlet Density Zoning. The Heritage at Cutchogue project will provide a mix of housing units (one, two and three bedroom attached and detached units ranging from ±1,137 SF to ±3,110 SF) with 10 percent of the units offered as moderate-income family units, pursuant to the §280-137E of the Town Code. Sections 280-137E and §240-1O13(2)(c) of the Town Code require that all residential site plans involving the creation of five or more lots set aside 25 percent of the tot yield as moderate-income family dwelling units (MIFDU). This requirement can be met either by building the required MIFDU units (25 percent of the yield) or by constructing no less than 10 percent of the yield as MIFDU units and paying a sum to the Town of Southold Housing Fund or providing development rights equal to the number of required MIFDU lots not constructed in the project. The applicant has chosen to construct 10 percent of the units and pay the fee to the Town's Housing Fund; therefore the proposed project meets the Town's affordable housing goals pursuant to Sections 280-137E and §240-1013(2)(c) of the Town Code. The applicant also agreed to restrict the community to a senior community for individuals 55 years and older at the suggestion of the Planning Board in order to reduce potential impacts associated with traffic generation and potential impacts to the school district. The project as proposed will increase tax revenue to the school district without increasing the demand for services as will be demonstrated in this DEIS (see Section 3.3.2). Therefore, the proposed residential project will meet the Town's objectives by providing a permanent use of an underutilized property in conformance with Town zoning regulations and provide the benefit of generating significant additional tax revenues without generating a significant increase in the need for services. 1.1.3 Objectives of the Project Sponsor The applicants' objectives are to develop the subject property in accordance with all Town of Southold zoning requirements and objectives, and in accordance with all applicable provisions of the Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan. It is also the objective of the applicant to realize a reasonable return on their investment and to be able to use their property in an appropriate, legal manner. 3 • 1.1.4 Benefits of the Project The benefits of the proposed project are the fulfillment of the Town's vision for the subject property as expressed in the Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. The fulfillment of the Town's visions for this site will be the maintaining of the zoning in place for this site, as is the case of this project. This is shown in the zoning maps Figure 1-1. This project will also be a substantial generation of tax revenues for the Town. Additional benefits, as detailed in sections 2.2 and 2.3, involve the extension of public water to 52 homes and businesses in the Hamlet to the south/southeast of the project site and the elimination of a major regional invasive plant seed bank. 1.2 Location and Site Conditions The proposed site is located at the Northwest Corner of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY (SCTM: 1000- 102-01-33.3). The proposed site is currently a 45.99-acre parcel of fallow farm field and wooded lands. Currently the site is zoned Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District. This zoning meets the minimum standards for 1 family detached dwellings. A location map is provided in Figure 1-2. 1.3 Project Design and Layout The proposed project involves the construction of 139 attached and detached age restricted units on the 45.99 acre property. The property is zoned residential HD (Hamlet Density), which permits 1 unit per 10,000 square feet (SF) with community water and sewer. A Yield Map was prepared for the property (see Appendix A), which demonstrates the property will yield 150 lots (10,000 SF lot minimum) including a sewage treatment plant (STP). The site will be serviced by public water and as documented by correspondence from the Town Attorney (see Appendix H) and detailed in Section 1.3.4 below, construction of the STP is not required pursuant to Health Department requirements because the units will be restricted by Covenants and Restrictions to a senior community (age 55 and older). The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) wastewater design flows for senior age restricted units are half that of single family dwellings; therefore the wastewater generation for the proposed project will not exceed the Population Density Equivalent pursuant to Article 6 and an on site treatment plant is not required. Therefore, the 139 units proposed under the proposed action is a density less than that permitted under the HD zoning. The proposed 139 units, ranging from ±1,135 SF to ±3,110 SF in size, are comprised of 11 l single family detached units, 14 attached single family duplex units and 14 attached multifamily units which will be offered as affordable. A total of 131 buildings are proposed including a proposed community building and maintenance garage in the southeastern portion of the site. The units include a mixture of one to three bedrooms, with garage provided for all but the one bedroom units. Architectural floor plans for the units are provided in Appendix C. Table 1-1 provides a breakdown of the various unit types and sizes. 4 GPI Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. R-80 M R-40 fat R-80 R-40 ly b i�u ` -- AC R-80 i AC ,1 R.40taw `> AREA OF PROPOSED PROJECT 1 � f AC HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE1 1 AC R-40 R-80 C8 R-80 " J •:j1f' r s l.. .1 Gam. �Y B� Ls Ras ` '71 -7 R, F ; ✓. .> : _ �~ R-80 R-80 l — 1 R a0 D 6 ^`� , �"� B�[� AC �`,1v �r 172�DNORTAT X OCEAN AVENUE i1 �^ _�' ,f , 1 MEDFORD,NEW YORK 11763 8 1 C R 80 R sG L„ He P 1 — R.80 R-40 ���"`' s•=..,,-,, Rao ...-� •. R-8 YR r • R-80 R ^AC ,J R 801 L R-40 % Ari ' ` r % R-�D �L —�° / i / a - CG��„ " C HERBAGE CUTCHOGUE RK : � a yJ ,�' '� � CUTCHOGUE,NEW YORK 'TiI`//��OR M1J N'. YR'J'Wtl CAnWVYb• f' / - ' _ ,�../� G.IC kIYd:M LCw bnYq• � �� ` .� P.1]C` RMWiY Iaw CfAelO ` 1 j rt � -1 q.Xk 03y Yr�Lar f13M,:. 41 jy : ro Frvp OIMTy04Cm3f 4 9H 4nOM1�.MY BU VTC .4 Y �' IwIYOB1NYY �` / e P un3ea Bu�+«� N 4sn�l f1C Nyw3Y �re TM: • ZONING MAP Town of Southold Section l of 4 ; New Zoning Map Adopted ° "KA f by Southold Town Board on November 30,2004 as1. 4 Local Law No. 23 of 2004 � R-400 r Scale; 1 inch = 1000 feet FIGURE 1.1 Ilk, ao e a ' x Hog Nt GPI Sound ° • ,qqe¢ , " aaY Greenman-Pedersen,Incl rt � `°�• L•J ♦� • y, l >76 Wr1MYe 9°•N.BeMbn.nV llf°]1 a X �,� °. • •�• ,yam K m°tem)aea_aw° alm.�.u+•n AREA OF PROPOSED i, r HERITAQEPROJECT- Daft a CUT°CHOGUEamt °• M1p! m 00 ,•r 1�1FN St9 ° %•Sacred eart �j '•• '• m••' Cem l7 a _ •� 40 10 .A. ti •a 4 t " Cuuaenuy d'° �F •' ° "S. P t• Z a Beach 10 DislAct Park /yt5 "•^ Iw• G'>• 1 � Bey `+Il. i L A ty m — 1 ERRAGE AT CUTCHO GUE LLC • \• a - - ♦' 1721-D NORTH OCEAN AVENUE MEDFORD,NEW YORK 11783 a '..• 11 G , t�`L1s waftr qr. fl • AJ� Y •f T ••'.• •p•• i o. . •a Y Lf f ! "V� G ° +\ • �� ••. �(2 Cuteitoque HERRAGEATCUTCHOGUE • •• • ` °t ' s CUTCHOGUE,NEW YORK p Harbor °K e Nath FotSlP Hor"Shoe ••� \ zo • Coudtryf° �4 Pt: o w Pit 07 zz q + GutCJiOpue Harbor z e� �� • •� • ' ° •• North Forty K 6 .e a 32 'i• Count Club m w L i m Jr 9r 10 8 u 2li8h Sme I 2s. o ew n it _ � • `I �. SLPt !o ..moo.. a..i..., Law tF F '•F A7. !� J • t _. �'+ � VE IJ 2 LOCATION MAP ro■ Ki7TIOgrrner;, 4 to 4 "AL 72-12-07 KAH iE Meukuck Qp e20 AK6esu J I '+ • BON' <I,•cYW GY 4 ..:e'k:.• e e 1'm 400' BG Ila p 4 57 0 U T r3 H 0 L D 1, �•wmmw PJ IJ 20 ra Marr3tooke ! r rix Point FIGURE 1.2 3 30 30 N O R T H R A C E ��er • TABLE 1-1 Unit Type and Composition A 47 3 +2,647 SF B 19 2 ±1,930 SF C 20 3 +2,717 SF D 18 2 +2,725 SF E 21 2 +3,110 SF Affordable 14 1 +1,135 SF Totals 139 --- Site amenities include four interconnected ponds (utilized both for stormwater retention and as aesthetic features) located in the central portion of the site and in the vicinity of the recreational area, an indoor pool and outdoor pool, tennis courts, a gazebo, and a community center. Additionally, site improvements including access roadways, an on- site drainage system and extensive landscaping are proposed. Details of these features are discussed in the sections below. A reduced size Alignment Plan depicting the locations and details of proposed site layout is provided by Figure 1-3 (full size copies of the proposed site plans are provided in pockets at the end of the text). The roadways and drainage features, open space areas, the community center, the pools, the gazebo, and the • tennis courts will all be operated and maintained by a Homeowner's Association (HOA). The public space and recreational amenities proposed for the Heritage at Cutchogue development are intended for the use and enjoyment of the community's residents and their guests. 1.3.1 Overall Site Layout The site will be accessed via construction of a proposed connection road from the northwest side of Schoolhouse Lane/Griffing Street, running through the southern portion of the subject property and connecting to Spur Road. The main gated site access stems from the central portion of this access road, which then continues north into the property creating a central looped road. The internal project roads are designed as a meandering loop around the central water feature, designed with the intention to provide traffic calming and additional privacy to the individual units within the community. The units are typically located approximately 25 to 70 feet from the street, most with individual driveways, with the exception of a shared driveway proposed for six units, which will be accessed from a shared driveway in the southwest corner of the site. Sidewalks are proposed throughout the community to provide ease of access and promote safe pedestrian activity. Street trees will be provided throughout on site roadways and a fully vegetated berm (a minimum of 3' in height) planted with evergreen vegetation is proposed along the majority of the southwestem property line and a portion of the northwest property line (see Section 1.3.5 below). • Two emergency access points are proposed, one on the northwestern portion of the site at the terminus of Bridle Lane and the second on the southwestern portion of the property opposite Spur Road. Parking is provided both in garages for individual units (2 5 • GPI Greenman-Pedersen, Inca t«:<wn xraoeo seawnea�ty IMrs&& Al4)B'HCAO'8 SIILHO) � 5Hn! 'rEi iT ,i PCHB." 5�'s cuHr•,uw � 1. 411 �K 'CJ � - TING.i RRE.F' I NI �� r'�•/'i 1' f! + F d4 PovC HTI _ RS -9avr ` 5H HO'E RIM) ERRgGEA7 CUTCHOGUE,LLC Y �• \ Ftic// 1NORTH OCEAN AVENUE MED \`�(� - 1 L1-1'h/`T/ MEDFORO,NEW YORK 11783 Cd � I-J p a Jj}, ( "J/�v�.y HERITAGEAT,NEW O RK H a V 7� � CUTCHOGUE.NEW YORK W LLLeee---aaa '-•-J WW a� _ NWAI' � � � �� ��: � !-�r,•R � '"moi" ( � � .:` "' � :�.. i � w:��;� '�. a.e diHAR I � 6 m-v PA919Nz.CJi>:1t ATIDNS• I �p9 au ata wM vlexv vutl Ov rgEpC RI¢tl'rt¢S e.-r ),1 1ATA. uY1f. DAFA• +wuv>' 91F fCY{'RAN: ¢tiro R�:a aw _ tlllt lEthlOt<I-:J] Si.1E I.OILT Y�iy]K�O Ap�IIf. ]#IEYf.A W!,Itp ( dQIN Mi'AO vP®rt yuXw. lu,wo:.w,sn ItWn [llgl MILS fRY�¢fiJ�a rva w6uq 2KK M110.aq�A&IIDff!'• ro.dw nww: /,M*l. va wA,,..,llaa.w.ew>rmm w,nwe m+eean•�'�,wwW ceun®ewww, '.�,: 4'..5��'u.Psl'�r".m n'u w"'�' o w1X rr tivvn.v www.;a !p as W nJ ' wuleyRwbi .m ewer p2 v"� �.wn irW]Ir.A!g-{aawr em mw�`Yp9 pwn-m w.m - MIT mF5 wnMm a Wem�iJ1 iF+NUNs aluaa aw vxkww¢4wo0 w�0p1Q�I Im m+a 'AR ip6 ea11R A� fPY0.PXgR f v a:4RM g .1e y m Blatt �7 .¢Au�w1sR 4WMRyN�Emr ry 0:®:u:J.'nW wlw me w+�(seel s Ye wn."� i.l'�ior/aJ°e -y'yy�pp SITE PLAN a 0 C D l' 4^°,wlvl'a� MIRRIIL i.W�MF R Mk ipalal.ia Y/bFWI Y/WI a,E6105 ��NW.I 6GrtlW11 ® :lHr�±IM 9W QRrr.P.>ul N 1Wr iJMI¢[LN �49 MGY mw a M,�¢Pe/W1.aURIO W: � �NII MNA r'm[mrr��¢gqm,� eb0a l,a 1 - �5-13-18 KAH C{tAPHIC 3CALF V-400' G BG AM (A E41t1 1 Nona QYjT FR IAy�' �xwoWm M xnc u a r:m wA o ���R m lawrw xoc rwtlsa¢1 mm+ FIGURE 1.3 T'-""" IMRR1rNCM. lv Wl 1yT[1-D� TI�TVuIAVEINIE IAD • spaces/unit) and 22 off-street parking spaces adjacent to the one bedroom unit buildings for a total of 272 spaces provided for the residential units. Additionally, 44 parking stalls are provided in proximity of the recreation area. Table 1-2 provides a list of the coverages and physical characteristics of the subject site for both existing and proposed conditions. The existing coverages were determined through site inspections and analysis of aerial photographs; post development conditions are based on the Alignment Plan. TABLE 1-2 SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Existing and Proposed Conditions E tlkitt C9 O,t �v Coverages acres --- --- Roads/Parking/Buildings ±0.0 ±17.35 Recharge Pond ±0.0 ±4.6 Forest/Successional Field ±45.99 ±0.0 Landscaping ±0.0 ±24.04 (±14.56 fertilized) TOTAL ±45.99 ±45.99 • Water Resources: --- --- Sanitary Wastewater(gpd)(1) 0.0 121,615 Landscape Irrigation(gpd)(2) 0.0 ±17,800 Total Water Use(gpd) 0.0 139,415 Nitrogen Concentration (mg/I)(3) 2.0 6.3 Miscellaneous: --- --- Solid Waste Generation (lbs/day)(4) 0.0 +1,711 Residents (capita)(5) 0.0 ±271 School-age Children (capita)o,) 0.0 0 Total Taxes ($/year) 12,378.98 375,000.00 School District Taxes ($/year) 8,719.35 264,112.50 Notes: (1) Assuming SCDHS design Flow rates of 150 gpd/unit plus 0.30 gpd/SF for 1,000 SF gym area, plus 0.06 gpd/SF for 1,500 SF of club house office/meeting area, plus 5 gpd/bather for 75 bathers in indoor & outdoor pool- (2) Assuming 5.5 inches/year for fertilizer dependent areas. Assumes irrigation period of 4 months (mid May to mid September). (3) See Appendix B-3. (4) Assuming 5 lbs/day/capita + I Ib/day per bedroom (US Census), and 0.5 lbs/day/capita for club house and gym(assumes occupancy of 25 people/day)(Salvato, 1982). (5) Assuming 2 capita/unit(2 and 3 bedroom units), 1.5 capita/I bedroom unit(US Census). (6) No school aged children are expected,as the units are age restricted. An on-site drainage system consisting of the interconnected recharge ponds and leaching • pools is proposed. The system has been designed to accommodate in excess of a 6-inch rainfall event as required by Town standards, and will be subject to Town review and approval. On site sanitary systems are also proposed. Solid waste disposal will be provided by private carters for individual household pickup_ However, a dumpster will 6 • be provided at the community center building, which will also be serviced via a private carter. 1.3.2 Grading and Drainage It is anticipated that the proposed development activities will necessitate that the entire site (45.99 acres) be cleared. Grading operations will primarily be necessary for excavations associated with the proposed ponds, as well as to provide adequate area for building footprints and grades for proposed roadways. The ponds will have a maximum depth of 7 feet [elevation of 17 feet above sea level (asl)], with a static water level at elevation 20 feet asl and a high water level at elevation 24 feet asl. Grading is also necessary throughout the site to direct stormwater runoff to drainage inlets and ensure proper functioning of the drainage system. The net quantity of cut necessary for site grading operations (not including excavations associated with basements or crawlspaces for the units and excavations for drainage leaching pools and sanitary systems) is (155,242 cubic yards (CY). This (155,242 CY of cut, plus an additional 19,928 CY of material will be used as fill on site to create level areas for construction of roads and building sites (total fill volume of 1165,170 CY required). Additionally, a berm, approximately 3.5' to 4' in height, is proposed along the majority of the southwestern property line (11285 feet in length) and again along a portion of the northwest property line (1300 feet in length). However, as noted above, additional cut associated with excavations for basements/crawl space, footings, drainage structures and sanitary systems will provide material in excess of the fill volume needed for site grading. Therefore, a net excess in cut material is expected, the quantity of which will ultimately depend upon the number of basements versus crawl spaces constructed pursuant to the final site plan approval. If the excavated material meets applicable standards, it will be sold as fill for use on other sites. if the material is not found to be suitable for use on other sites, it will be carted to an approved landfill. In conformance with the Town requirements, all stormwater runoff generated by impervious surfaces will be retained on-site, to be recharged to groundwater in the proposed drainage system. The system is sized and designed to accommodate a 6-inch rainfall event utilizing a system of interconnecting leaching pools and the on site recharge ponds strategically located throughout the development. The Site Plan — Grading (Appendix A) provides details of the drainage system and drainage calculations, which demonstrates that the proposed system is designed to accommodate a total of 742,935 CF of stormwater storage, thereby exceeding the Town drainage requirements (654,277 CF) by 12%. Water circulation fountains and a waterfall are proposed to provide for proper water circulation and to prevent problems associated with stagnant water. The future Homeowners Association will be responsible for all maintenance of the drainage facilities, internal roadways, and common areas. Additionally, a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit is required from the NYSDEC for the stormwater system and for erosion control measures during construction (see Section 1.5). is 7 • 1.3.3 Access, Road System and Parking As depicted on the site plans, two means of access are proposed to serve the residential development. A proposed access will intersect Schoolhouse Lane directly opposite Griffing Street. This access will be stop-controlled and configured for all movements. The second access is provided via Spur Road, which currently terminates at the western boundary of the site. The main gated site access stems from the central portion of this access road, which then continues north into the property creating a large looped road. The concept behind the internal road layout was to slow vehicular traffic by creating meandering roadways rather than linear roadways often prone to speeding. The layout is also intended to make the environment conducive to pedestrian traffic, by providing interest in the more curved roadway pattern and by providing sidewalks throughout the site. The proposed roadway was also designed to create an environment that provides a sense of privacy by breaking up the units as opposed to having homes all lining the roadways with full views up and down the neighborhood streets. The design is intended to provide a sense of serenity, which is in keeping with the objectives of an active adult development. Two emergency access roads are also proposed, one in the southern portion of the site and one in the northern portion of the site. The southern emergency access is proposed between Spur Road and an internal roadway, at which a crash gate is proposed. The northern emergency access is proposed for connection to Bridle Lane. It is noted that the • applicant has pursued obtaining an easement to allow for future connections to the property adjacent to the north as requested by the Town. The applicant obtained an appraisal of the land area necessary for the easement and has contacted the property owner; however the owner of the property has not indicated any interest in entertaining the easement (see Appendix H). A security guard booth and security gate are proposed at the site's main access and residents will be provided with transmitters for their vehicles to open the gates. All internal road right-of-ways are 25 feet in width; with 20 foot paved roadways planned for the one-way traffic roads. A 4-foot wide sidewalk is planned within the right-of-way abutting one side of the roadway. A truck turning radius map has been prepared to evaluate the proposed internal roadways with respect to safe access to adequacy of turning radius for emergency service vehicles. A copy of the map showing sufficient turning radii is provided in Appendix A. The roadway design will be reviewed by the Town Engineer and will provide ample access to vehicles such as garbage trucks, moving vans, and emergency vehicles. The Home Owner's Association will maintain all internal roadways. All roadways within the development will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association, including the roadway connecting Spur Road to Griffing Road. Pursuant to Town requirements, 315 parking spaces are required for the site. Required parking for residential uses is 271 spaces based on 2 spaces per single family detached and attached dwelling units and 1.5 spaces per unit for affordable units. Additionally, one space per 300 SF of recreational facility uses (community building and pool) and five spaces per tennis court are required pursuant to Town parking requirements for a total of 44 spaces required for accessory recreational areas. One truck loading space is also 8 • required for a community center with a floor area of 5,000 to 25,000 SF. Table 1-3 details the parking requirements for the proposed project and the parking provided. The total parking provided by the proposed project includes 316 spaces and one truck loading space. Parking will mainly be provided via the individual garage spaces provided for all but the one bedroom units. A total of 254 garage parking spaces are proposed, and an additional 18 off-street parking spaces are provided in small parking lots immediately adjacent to the one bedroom unit buildings. The community center, tennis courts, and pool require a total of 44 parking spaces, including two handicapped spaces, which are provided adjacent to the proposed Community center and pool. A loading zone (one berth) will also be provided on the southern side of the community center. In total, 316 parking spaces are proposed, which exceeds Town standards by one space. TABLE 1-3 PARKING REQUIREMENTS 'arameter Required Pt Single Family Detached Units 2/dwelling unit 222 spaces (222 spaces) Single Family Attached Units 2/dwelling unit 28 spaces (28 spaces) 15 spaces per unit Affordable Units 22 spaces (21 spaces) Clubhouse I space per 300 SF 30 spaces (30 spaces) Pool 1 space per 300 SF 4 spaces (4 spaces) Tennis Court 5 spaces per court 10 spaces (10 spaces) 1 berth for community center with floor area of Loading Zone 5,000 to 25,000 SF 1 berth (1 berth) TOTAL 316 spaces 317 spaces 1.3.4 Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply Sanitary wastewater generated as a result of the proposed project will be treated utilizing on-site septic systems, designed as gang systems (multiple unit systems). The.details of the proposed layout and sanitary flow calculations are provided on the Site Plan - Utility Plan (Appendix A). This form of disposal is acceptable, provided the projected wastewater design flow does not exceed standards established by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). Article 6 of the SCSC addresses sewage facility requirements for realty subdivisions, in order to limit the loading of nitrogen to various groundwater management zones as established by the SCDHS. As promulgated under Article 6, a Population Density 9 • Equivalent must be determined for the subject site in order to determine the type of sewage disposal system required for the type and size of project proposed. This equivalent (or total allowable flow) is then compared to the design sewage flow for the project. If the project's design sewage flow exceeds the Population Density Equivalent, a community sewage system or on-lot sewage treatment system is required. If the project's design sewage flow is less than the site's Population Density Equivalent, conventional septic systems may be used, provided individual systems comply with the current design standards and no community sewerage system is available or accessible. The project site is located within Groundwater Management Zone IV as defined by the SCDHS. Based on the requirements of Article 6, no more than 600 gallons of sanitary wastewater may be discharged per acre on a daily basis within this zone, provided public water supply is available. The project will utilize public water supply provided by the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). The acreage used for determining this Population Density Equivalent must not include wetlands, surface waters, or land in flood zones. The subject site is 45.99 acres in size (and does not require exclusion of underwater lands, wetlands or areas within flood zones), thus, the Population Density Equivalent (total allowable flow) on the subject site is calculated as: 45.99 acres x 600 b-pd/acre = 27,594 gallons per day(gpd) Based on SCDHS sanitary design flow factors (see Table 1-3), the anticipated sanitary wastewater generated by the site is as follows: The SCDHS sanitary design flow factors for senior residential units applied by the SCDHS is 150 gpd. Therefore, it is estimated that the 139 proposed residences will generate approximately 20,850 gpd of sewage flow. TABLE 1-4 TOTAL WASTEWATER GENERATION Description(Units/SF) SCDHS Design Flow Factor Total Wastewater 139 senior residences 150 gpd/unit 20,850 gpd 1,000 SF gym (community 0.30 gpd per SF 300 gpd center) 1,500 SF office (community 0.06 gpd per SF 90 gpd center) Pools (75 bathers) 5 gpd/bather 375 gpd Total 21,615 gpd It should be noted that the design effluent volume is intended by the SCDHS to be "conservative" in nature (i.e., higher than actually expected), to ensure that the wastewater system is not overtaxed and design flow can accommodate peak usage. This site generated wastewater total is 5,979 gpd less than allowed by the SCDHS under its current regulations. Therefore, conventional on site sanitary systems may be used for this development in accordance with Article 6 of the SCSC and design flow factors established by SCDHS. Correspondence from the Town Attorney (see Appendix H) 10 • further confirmed that construction of the STP is not required pursuant to Health Department requirements because the units will be restricted by Covenants and Restrictions to a senior community(age 55 and older). No previous connections to SCWA water mains exist on site. The SCWA has been contacted to determine whether the District will be able to supply water to the project (Appendix H); the SCWA has confirmed that it can and will provide such services upon site plan approval by the Town. Irrigation of the fertilized landscape portions of the site (±14.56 acres) will require a conservative annualized daily average of ±17,800 gpd (based on an irrigation rate of 5.5 inches per year applied during summer months — mid May through mid September). The applicant has designed the ponds to use recharge water for irrigation purposes in accordance with smart growth concepts. However, for conservative calculation purposes we have assumed that water to be used for irrigation will be public water. Assuming that all wastewater generated will originate as public water supply, daily water consumption and irrigation is estimated to total ±39,415 gpd. Additionally, water levels within the proposed recharge pond will be maintained during periods of drought through the use of an on-site well. Water added to the pond through the use of the well will be introduced through the proposed waterfall, which is located in the southern portion of the site. At this time, it is expected that the pumpage capacity for the proposed well will be 40 gallons per minute, therefore not requiring a permit from the NYSDEC. It is noted that a permit from the NYSDEC is required for the installation of a well to withdraw water for any purpose when the total capacity of such well (or wells) on any property is in excess of 45 gallons per minute. Pursuant to the request of the SCDHS (see Appendix H), the applicant will also extend public water to 52 homes currently on private wells down gradient (south/southeast) of the proposed project site. The routing and extent of the water main extensions to be completed by the applicant is provided by Figure 1-4. 1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting The site is fallow farm field established in successional vegetation; however, no mature trees exist on the property, which has been fallow for approximately 25 years. As the proposed site plan will utilize nearly the entire site, existing successional vegetation will be removed and replaced with the planned development as depicted in the Site Alignment Plan. The proposed site design will provide approximately ±24 acres of landscaping (or ±52 percent of the site) between and along rows of buildings and within the site development, as well as provide a fully vegetated berm of evergreen plantings and a minimum of 3' in height, along the majority of the southwestern property line (±1285 feet in length) and a portion of the northwest property line (±300 feet in length). Landscape Plans are provided in Appendix C, which detail species selection and location of proposed throughout the community, including typical unit landscaping plans and a landscaping plan for the community center. The landscaping plans utilize a variety of commercially available landscape species complementary to those in the adjacent natural lands, and include the installation of street trees (varieties of sugar maple, sweet gum and aristocrat pear) spaced forty feet on center throughout the community. The landscape design calls for a total of ±14.56 acres (31.6% of the site) as landscaped with Il GPI • Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. m:(ai,)�Nm Fuc aa+).azs.n' - RR11RR��ppGEAT CUTCHOGUE LLC 1MEOFO�RO NEW YORKAYEN E ti- v,\ i 00 \ ' HERRAGEAT CUTCHOGUE CUTCl106UE.NEWYORK tl e ,iC_ .'R„POSEu NATER +MIN ttX?ENS'ON AS PER SCWA 'ETIER PROPOSED W47Ew MAIN SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER "AYU OCTMF3cR 2X7. REGAROINC HERITAUE AT CS:T,_'iiLGLE .--EXtS?INC WATER MAIN NOT A;,T VATEC AUTHORITY-WATER 13CMA RE�0 5-4'07C+586i MATER MAIN EXTENSION, MAIN MAP 12-12-07 Iyti 'NATfF MAiN JCA :ON5 ANU SIZES NHF.R= CB+AIr{Eis >=Ri,W PJB,'St1E0 ScwA :d>TPV ;R1ON 3Y3 �M MAPS iAg 20 REVISED FEBRUARY 2i.. 07 • 1'.900' BG Mnua x,awnpr a va.o•a w: _. __.____. Aootltl am• alY11M®w>o.v a v..M�•mr. MUM aw m><auynm w wo..a c a p�,�„ , . FIGURE 1.4 i nw....w: an�awm • fertilizer/irrigation dependent turf and foundation plantings. Fertilizer usage is estimated at 2.30 pounds of nitrogen-bearing fertilizer per 1,000 SF of area (lbs/1,000 SF), and irrigation is assumed to be 5.5 inches from mid-May to mid-September once plantings are established. The remainder of the open space areas, including the perimeter of the ponds will be established in non-fertilizer dependent vegetation (wood mulched, shrub landscape and/or native planting beds, meadow areas, perimeter tree/shrub planting buffers, and native grasses and plantings surrounding ponds). It is anticipated that the parking areas, internal roadways and building exteriors will be illuminated. Lighting will be provided consistent with the locations, pole heights and specifications of the type and power of fixture typically required by the Town. Specifically, a light lantern and pole manufactured by Magniflood Inc. will be used as illustrated in the Signage and Lighting Plan, included in Appendix A. The pole will consist of the "James Madison `A"' style while the lantern will consist of the "Montauk `Carriage House"' style, with a metal halide 250-Watt bulb. Lighting details for the proposed units has not yet been determined, but will conform to Town standards, which only allows for outdoor lighting that is shielded so it is not visible to adjacent properties or from roadways. Light glare must be contained within the property boundaries, and must be reduced in intensity between the hours of 11:30 P.M. and 4.00 A.M. Also, all outdoor lighting fixtures may not exceed 14' in height, which will be the maximum height of any non-recreational lighting fixture on site. In addition to the requirements outlined in the Town Code, the proposed lighting plan will follow the Guidelines for Good Exterior Lighting Plans prepared by The Dark Sky Society. Recreational lighting will be located around the outdoor pool and the tennis courts. Town code allows for recreational lighting to exceed the 14-foot maximum height, but requires the following two criteria: • All intensive recreational lighting shall be so located on the property with reference to surrounding properties that it shall be reasonably screened from view and compatible with the existing or potential use of neighboring properties. • No outdoor recreational facility, public or private, shall be illuminated after 11:00 p.m. except to conclude a recreational or sporting event or any other similar activity conducted at or in the facility which was in progress under such illumination prior to 11:00 P.M. The proposed lighting for the tennis courts will be turned off at 9:00 P.M. so as to not impact the surrounding properties and to comply with Town code. 1.3.6 Open Space Open space will be provided for residents in the form of landscaped common areas and the network of ponds located throughout the central portion of the site. Additional amenities will include an indoor and outdoor pool, the community center and tennis courts. Open space will be provided only for the residents of the community and their guests as the community will be gated with private access. Additional areas of open space exist via a nearby park, located immediately to the east of the subject parcel, which provides additional open space and recreational opportunities for the residents. 12 • 1.4 Construction and Operation 1.4.1 Construction The applicant is anticipating an approximately 12-18 month approval process, followed by posting of bonds, letting of construction contracts and a construction period of 18-24 months. As a result, the general time frame for staging and completion of the proposed project is in the range of 2 to 3 years. The project will be developed in three phases, as required by the Town. The construction phase is anticipated to progress in a manner typical for a project of the size and type proposed; no unique or unusual construction difficulties are anticipated. Impacts during the construction phase are commonly expected and are identified and discussed herein. As detailed below, these impacts are temporary in nature, and will be variable throughout the construction period. Construction activities will not occur outside weekday daytime hours (7 a.m. to 5 p.m.), and will conform to applicable Town regulations regarding construction noise generation and hours. The first phase of construction will include clearing, grubbing, grading, erosion control and soil management work. This will include building and planting of the proposed berms, which will provide screening of construction activities from the adjacent • residential uses. The entire site will be cleared which will be subject to erosion during the construction phase, and will be the areas from which dust could arise, due to truck and equipment movement and winds. Following completion of clearing activities, survey of road alignment and vertical control will be completed to establish road installation and proper grades. The grading concept will involve use of material excavated elsewhere within the site to raise the grade in limited fill areas. The remainder of the property is relatively flat and foundation excavated material will be used to contour the land for proper drainage around buildings. The boundaries of the construction area will be lined with silt fence and staked haybales, and drainage inlets will be protected by soil traps. It is anticipated that all construction equipment, materials and vehicles will be staged, parked and loaded/unloaded within the site. The intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street will be used for all construction access associated with the proposed project. Due to the proposed net export of material, it is proposed to reuse as much of this material on-site as practicable, in order to minimize the volume of material to be removed from the site (and the number of truck trips necessary to remove it). Generally, the site will be constructed starting on the southeastern portion of the property and progress west. The model homes, community building and approximately 30 homes will be started and completed during this first phase of construction, including the utilities and landscaping for these areas. The model homes will be built on the first loop of the road directly behind the community building. A sales office (trailer) for the project will also be set up at this time and will be located in the community building parking area and then relocating to the model homes once completed. The construction field office will also be located in this same area and relocated into the site as construction progresses to 13 • the west. Similarly, employee parking, staging and equipment storage areas will also be moved periodically as construction progresses into the site. The building materials for each home will be stored at the home site as needed and the pre-cast catch basins and piping will be staged along the roadway and in the area of the leaching fields and pond areas where most of this material will be used. The complete infrastructure will be developed in this phase including all underground utilities and internal roadways completed less the paving portion, which will be installed as sections are completed. The balance of the homes in this phase will commence with excavation for foundations, concrete, framing, interior work and finishes until complete including all utility connections, final street paving and final landscaping. Phase 2 will involve the construction of the units in the central portion of the site, and Phase 3 will complete the remaining units in the western portion of the site using the same sequence for construction activities as described above. Any outstanding/remaining items will be completed in Phase 3 along with any landscaping issues that may arise. All street stormwater basins and silt separators will be checked again and cleaned out as necessary prior to the completion of construction activities. As construction equipment loading/unloading, materials storage, and construction staging areas and construction worker parking will be located within the site, no significant or long-term construction impacts to the surrounding residences are anticipated. Installation • of a construction access/exit at Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street will minimize potential adverse impacts on the residences along Highland Road and Bridle Lane. Erosion control measures will be implemented during construction of the proposed project in order to minimize impacts. In accordance with the NYSDEC Phase II SPDES Program, coverage under the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (NYSDEC Permit No. GP-02-01, General Permit) will be obtained prior to the initiation of construction activities. Prior to tiling for coverage under the General Permit, the NYSDEC requires that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared for the parcel, including a detailed erosion and sediment control plan, to manage stormwater generated on-site during construction activities, and for post-construction stormwater management. An SWPPP will be prepared to ensure compliance with water quality and quantity requirements pursuant to Technical Guidance and GP-02-01 requirements. In addition, an Erosion Control Plan incorporating the NYSDEC Technical Guidance manual, and use of measures such as silt fencing, storm drain inlet protection, bay bales, and good housekeeping procedures will be utilized. The drainage system and revegetation plan will further provide permanent stormwater controls once construction is completed. Development of the property is not anticipated to significantly increase erosion/sedimentation or stormwater impacts, as a result of proper site grading procedures, erosion controls, and drainage system design. The Notice of Intent (NOI) requesting coverage under the General Permit will be filed in accordance with NYSDEC requirements, prior to the initiation of construction activities at the subject property. • 14 1.4.2 Operation A Home Owners Association (HOA) will be established for the Heritage at Cutchogue and this entity will be responsible for the long-term maintenance of the commonly owned grounds, roadway and drainage systems, community facility buildings, pool, and other amenities. Approximately two full time employees will be required to staff the gate house. The HOA will out source maintenance, landscaping, garbage hauling and maintenance service (which will involve weekly attention by approximately 10-15 workers from spring through fall and approximately 5 workers during winter months for snow and garbage removal). The Heritage at Cutchogue will be operated under an HOA agreement generated and filed in accordance with the laws of New York State. Annual fees charged to the residents as required under the HOA agreement will fund the operation. Facilities will be open year round (with the exception of the outdoor pool which is expected to be open from Memorial Day to Labor Day) to residents of the development and their guests. The community building will be available for residents meetings and small gatherings. There will be limited need for large trucks to enter the site. Garbage collection vehicles and box delivery trucks (Fed Ex or similar) will be expected on a weekly basis similar to • surrounding residential areas. A truck loading area is provided at the community building in accordance with Town Code. 1.5 Permits and Approvals Required Several permits must be obtained for the project before the start of construction. A State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for Construction Pennit and a Mining Permit will be required from the New York State Department of Conservation. Site approval and Building Permits are required for the Town of Southold. Suffolk County Department of Health Services issue permits for sanitary discharge. Utility Hookup approvals are necessary from the various agencies. TABLE 1-5 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Permit Needed and Issuing Agency 1 tt _ =, ur State Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit NYSDEC For Construction Site Mining Permit NYSDEC Division of Mined lands Sanitary Discharge Permits Suffolk County Department of Health Services Site Plan Approval Town of Southold Planning Board Building Permits Town of Southold Building Department Utility Ilookups Various Agencies Gas and Electric—Long Island Power Authority Water- Suffolk County Water Authority Cable- Cablevision 15 Phone-Verizon • 2.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 2.1 Soils 2.1.1 Existing Conditions According to the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Suffolk County and also the Web Soil Survey of the National Cooperative Soil Survey this area is comprised of several different soil types. The most prevalent is the Haven loam with a slope of 0 to 2 percent; this makes up approximately 66% of the soils and the Riverhead Sandy loam at 3 to 8 percent, approximately 28%. Also on the site are Haven loams of 2 to 6 Percent slope and Haven loam, thick surface layer, and Plymouth loams from 3 to 8 percent and 8 to 15 percent. The Haven series are comprised of deep well draining soils that formed over stratified sand and coarse gravel. In natural area of haven soils the top layer is comprised of leaf litter and decomposed material. In agricultural areas, as this site is, this top layer has been plowed in with the subsurface and a plow layer of approximately 10 inches thick is present. The subsoil is a dark brown friable loam reaching to about 19 inches below surface. Beyond this is considered the lower part of the soil profile. This reaches to approximately 28 inches below surface and is comprised of a yellowish brown friable gravelly loam. The substratum, which can reach a depth of 55 inches below surface, is yellowish brown to brownish yellow loose sand and gravel. Haven Loam 0-2 percent slopes (HaA) The Haven loam 0-2 % slope soil makes up approximately 65 % of the site. They are characterized by high to moderate moisture capacity with low natural fertility. Internal drainage is good with moderate permeability in the substratum. Erosion hazard is slight. Haven Loam 2-6 percent slopes (HaB) The characteristics of this soil is the same as the 0-2 percent slope above except this soil has a slight to moderate erosion hazard. This type of soil though only comprised approximately I% of the site. Plymouth Loamy Sand, 3-8 percent slopes A very small portion of the project site, the Plymouth loamy sand comprises approximately 1.5 percent of the site. This soil type is characterized by deep well drained course soils. These soils have a low to very low available moisture capacity and low natural fertility. Internal drainage is good and permeability is rapid except in the substratum where it is considered moderate. Hazard of erosion is slight within this formation. Riverhead Sandy Loam 3-8 percent Riverhead Sandy loam comprises approximately 30 % of the remaining soils in this area. These soils consist of deep well drained, moderately coarse soils that is found over thick layers of sand and gravel. It is found in rolling to steep areas on moraines and in level 16 • gently sloping areas on outwash plains. Representative soils are a dark brown sandy loam on the surface the subsoil is a strong brown to a yellowish brown at the lower portions of the subsoil. The substratum is a pale brown and brown loose sand and gravel. Erosion hazard is slight to moderate, with the main concerns being that of erosion and runoff control. As shown on the Soils Map (Figure 2-1), nearly 70% of the site is comprised of the Haven series soils. These soils, as stated by the US Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Suffolk County, presents only slight limitations to their use as homesites, streets, parking lots sewage disposal fields and lawns. A "slight limitation" according to the survey means that "the soil has few or no limitations " and that "any limitations that are present can be overcome at little cost'. In short, these areas represent good locations, from a soils standpoint, for homesites and related appurtenances. The only exceptions to this generalization are areas within formations HaB containing slopes approaching six percent, where additional care must be taken both during and after construction to prevent erosion. However, this soil group represents only about 1 percent of the total site and the actual portion of this group having a slope over 6% is even less_ The remainder of the site is nearly all made up of the Riverhead Sandy Loam with a slope of 3% to 8%. This group, much like the Haven soils, has few limitations to its usage as a homesites or sewage disposal field. As with the Haven soils though, the only exceptions to this are the areas that have a slope greater than 6%. The remainder of the site is comprised of Plymouth Loamy Sand. This type of soil contains deep, excessively drained soils with rapid permeability and good internal drainage. Due to the excessive drainage of this soil type there is a slight chance of groundwater pollution. However, on this site, this soil makes up approximately 2% and placement of the sanitary fields away from these soils will reduce any potential problems. A soils map is presented on figure 2-l. TABLE 2-1 SITE SOILS Haven Loam 0-2 Slight erosion potential Haven Loam 2-6 Moderate to slight erosion potential Plymouth Loamy Sand 3-8 Slight erosion potential Plymouth Loamy Sand 8-15 Moderate to severe erosion potential Riverhead Sandy Loam 3-8 Moderate to slight erosion potential As this site was originally an agricultural site the development of the property as per the proposed plans will create the loss of approximately 45 acres of lost agricultural soils. There is no plan for any mitigation for this loss of soils. Topography Unlike other areas of the town of Southold, which have elevations ranging upward of 160 feet and steep slopes exceeding 50% in some areas, the proposed project site has lower elevations and is much flatter. 17 This site can be generally characterized as rolling with slopes ranging from 0.5 to 13 • percent. The site contains two knolls with elevations above 38 and 36 respectively, the first being at the southerly end of the site and the second found approximately 1000 feet to the north of the first, both are on the west side of the property. The low point of the property, at elevation 20, is located near the eastern property line. The runoff from the southern portion of the property will be expected to flow to this point, while the northern portion of the site drains to the north and east. Pesticides A soil survey was conducted to determine if any contamination of the soils by pesticide related compounds was present on the site (Appendix E). Using guidance from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) and the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) a sampling and analysis protocol was designed to determine the concentrations of pesticides and metals in the soil. A total of 18 samples were collected from 9 locations. Samples were taken at 0-3 inches and 3-6 inches. These samples were analyzed for compounds relating to former pesticide use on the site due to its use for agriculture. Results of the tests on these samples showed that 5 samples at the 0-3 inch depth contained elevated levels of pesticide compounds. These samples though, were not found • to exceed their respective United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) or New York State Department of Enviromnental Conservation (NYSDEC) Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) 4046 recommended soil cleanup objectives. These 5 samples were then tested for the presence of heavy metals. All samples were found to contain elevated levels of several metals. Only arsenic though, was found to exceed its corresponding SCDHS guidance values of 4 mg/kg. In addition, mercury was found to exceed the NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective of 0.1 mg/kg in three of the 9 samples. These samples though did not exceed the USEPA SSL of 610 mg/kg. Of the four samples analyzed only for arsenic all were found to contain elevated levels, which exceeded the SCDHS guidance value. Based on the results of the 0-3 inch interval samples the 3-6 inch samples for each location were also analyzed. Arsenic exceeded SCDHS guidance values in all samples and mercury was found to be above the NYSDEC TAGM 4046 soil cleanup objective in 3 of these samples though it was found to be below the USEPA SSL. 2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts Impacts to the soils and topography of the site and the subsurface geology will be minor. The site plan has been developed to conform closely to the existing terrain. Any regrading of the site for the creation of roads and building sites will be kept to a minimum. Existing steep slopes will be regraded to create a flatter slope and will be planted with ground cover to minimize erosion to slopes. Due to the nature of the soils on the site (medium to coarse sand) it is expected that all materials excavated for the basements will be utilized for the creation of the road sub-base. 18 GPI Greenman-Pedersen, Inc I I !I. i it ! I I,I ' ERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE,LLCI j72 D_I NORTH GOEANA11763 � MEDF�YORK 11763 I. • J HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE ! CUTCHOGUE,NEW YORK I �I i i I SOILS MAP owlk HOA - HAVEN LOAM 0-2% SLOPES HoB - HAVEN LOAM 2-6% SLOPES X12-12.07 KAN RdB - RIVERHEAD SANDY LOAM 3-6% SLOPES 1"=40D' BG • - ,� PIC - PLYMOUTH LOAMY SAND 3-8% SLOPES ...�,,,..,..,,. PIB — PLYMOUTH LOAMY SAND 8-15% SLOPES FIGURE 2.1 u • Construction of the roads, driveways, buildings and pond will require the removal of topsoil. This topsoil will be stockpiled on site and utilized for the creation of the landscaped areas and to stabilize the slopes that have been carved to flatten. All told the major impact to this site will be the loss of approximately 45 acres of agricultural soils with no mitigation proposed. This site will conform to all zoning laws and will be in conformance with the local zoning areas that surround the site. This is shown on figure 1-1. This figure shows that the western neighbors to the site are zoned as R-40 or Residential low density AA, R-80 or Residential low density 80, and HB or Hamlet Business. Use of pesticides on agricultural land is common, particularly on the east end. Residential development can be accommodated provided certain safeguards are observed. SCDHS provides guidance to municipalities in the manuscript entitled, Procedures for municipalities to evaluate the need for soil sampling and soil management at subdivisions or other construction projects with potentially contaminated soils (Draft February 2006). This document outlines sampling procedures and soil management options to ensure that health risks related to re-use of agricultural properties are minimized. Sampling of soils outlined in Section 2.1.1 followed these protocols. Mitigation through soil management is proposed consistent with SCDHS guidance such that no significant adverse impacts are anticipated as related to agricultural soils. 2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation As stated above the impacts from the construction of this site on the soils and geology of the site will be minimal. The proposed grading will follow the existing grading as closely as possible. Any slopes that have been disturbed will be regraded to flatten the slope and planted with groundcover to stabilize the slope and minimize any erosion Most of the soils that will be excavated from the building sites, due to its makeup, will be able to be utilized for the construction of the roads and parking areas. Any topsoil that is removed for the construction will be stockpiled on site and will be utilized for the stabilization of any disturbed areas. The topsoil will also be used for the creation of the lawns and gardens. According to the Nelson &Pope Pesticide report for the proposed site (Appendix E) it is recommended that a soil management plan be prepared to mitigate exposure to arsenic and mercury. SCDHS outlines soil management guidance to ensure that dermal contact, ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soils does not occur. Soil management options include: on-site stockpiling, on-site burial and/or covering of soils with sufficient material to prevent exposure. Soil management will involve isolation of soils as part of the grading plan to ensure that either non-impacted subsoils are exposed at the surface, or impacted surface soils are covered with at least one (1) foot of clean soil. As this site will conform to the current zoning of the site and the zoning of the local area as shown in figure 1-1 there will be no impacts from this project. Therefore there is no need for any mitigation. 19 2.2 Water Resources 2.2.1 Existing Conditions Groundwater In terms of groundwater for drinking purposes the Town of Southold has a unique situation that is in contrast with the more western areas of the County, where the Magothy and Lloyd aquifers contain large quantities of fresh water, the deeper waters below the Town of Southold contain only saltwater. Due to this, the Upper Glacial Aquifer is the only source of fresh drinkable water for the area of the proposed project. The "shape" of the groundwater surface follows that of the land surface, but at a reduced scale. As a result,the glacial aquifer can be thought of as topographically controlled,and consists of several mounds of water located under the higher areas of the town. Due to the nature of the water supply, the North Fork Water Supply Plan (ERM — Northeast/Camp Dresser and Mckee, 1983) was created. This plan established 5 water supply zones for the groundwater management purposes. The proposed project is located in Zone 3, which extends from Mattituck Inlet to Arshamomoque Pond. The water supply plan also identified Water Budget Areas. These are areas of sufficient • depth and thickness, of the groundwater to allow the development of public water supply wells. The thickness of the groundwater aquifer, which is a function of the elevation of the water table above sea level, is determined using the Ghyben-Herzberg relationship. This relationship accounts for the density difference between fresh and salt water. This formula predicts the depth of fresh groundwater below sea level equal to 40 times the water table elevation above sea level. The water budget area for the project area has been mapped by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and includes most of the area of zone 3 and the entire project site. Also mapped by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services are eight groundwater management zones_ This project is located in zone IV, which covers most of the North Fork and some of the South Fork. The hydrologic characteristics and management implications of the different water zones is discussed in the Nassau-Suffolk Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan, or more commonly known as the 208 Study (Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, May 1988). According to this study, Zone IV is very unique and requires careful management. This area has been impacted by the use of the water for farming and saltwater intrusion of the aquifers is the result. However this plan states that there is sufficient water for development with proper development and management of the supply wells and sanitary systems. The Water Resources Division of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has installed and monitors a well near the projected site_ This well, found on Alvah's Lane (well # 53327) provides groundwater data for the area dating from 1975 to the present. • This data is useful in showing conditions of the water supply of the projected site. The well is located at elevation 25, which is much lower than the elevation of the site. The average elevation above sea level of the groundwater is 4.08 feet with seasonal variations 20 • of groundwater depths showing in the fall (3.5 feet above sea level) and the spring (5.5 feet above seal level). The maximum reading at this site was 6.78 feet in 1979 and a minimum recorded level was seen in September of 1981 with an elevation above sea level of 2.20 feet. Groundwater at the site has been shown to be higher than that of Alvah's Lane, which is due to the difference in elevation of the site and the monitoring well. An on-site test well determined the depth to groundwater on the site is 25 feet. Groundwater at this site will be used for the purpose of maintaining the ponds level during drought times. Irrigation water for the landscaped areas, and drinking water for the residences will be supplied by the Suffolk County Water Authority. Groundwater flow direction is determined for the site using the groundwater contour map published by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. A portion of the county groundwater map is shown here in Figure 2-2. Based on this map, groundwater under the adjacent property moves from northwest to southeast. Private wells adjacent to the property are present on the residential property to the west. These are shown on Figure 2-3. All of these wells are hydrologically upgradient from the subject property. Groundwater quality under the site was examined through installation of a test well in 2002. A standard potability test determined that levels of all contaminants, except iron, • were below drinking water standards. With regard to iron, the level was 0.31 mg/l, compared to the standard of 0.30 mg/l. This is an insignificant exceedance, and is typical of groundwater on Long Island. The groundwater analysis results are presented in Appendix E. 2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts The development of the site will have two distinct impacts; first is the disposal of the sanitary waste of the residences and its subsequent leaching into groundwater and the second is the introduction of the stormwater drainage into groundwater through the use of' recharge ponds. It is important to note that the direction of groundwater flow under the property is towards the southeast, away from the residence to the west. The water quality impacts due to the disposal of sanitary waste are a major concern and must be evaluated. The major concern associated with the wastewater disposal is the nitrogen loading of the groundwater. Contamination from nitrates is a serious problem in the Town of Southold due to the extensive use of fertilizers for farming. For the purpose of determining the nitrogen impacts of the project, an extensive analysis, using the BURBS model, a computer simulation program developed by the Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service at Cornell University. This program computes the potential impact of a proposed development on the groundwater within a community due to nitrogen. Cornell University developed this model for use on Long Island. The parameters used include population density, surface land type, fertilizer use, handling of • wastewater and precipitation. These parameters are then used to compute the total concentration of nitrogen leached into groundwater. 21 • Nitrogen is an important factor due to health impacts at high concentrations in drinking water, and due to the potential for eutrophication of surface waters. These concerns have resulted in the establishment of a 10-mg/I nitrate standard for groundwater suitable as a source of potable water supply. The nitrate concentration in recharge water is a function of various inputs, including sewage, and fertilizer, both agricultural and residential types, all of which is diluted by the precipitation, domestic water use and lawn irrigation. The techniques developed for BURBS have been used to forecast groundwater impacts due to the development of properties in the Long Island Pine Barren Region. This use is applicable to this project because it predicts impacts in the Carver and Plymouth Sandy soils, which are similar to the Haven soils of the project site. It should be noted that the BURBS program tends to overestimate predictions of groundwater nitrate concentrations. For the purpose of this analysis many different factors are considered in the assumption of Nitrogen concentrations. These factors are as follow: I. The fraction of land in turf, which refers to the area of the proposed site that will be maintained as lawn. 2. The fraction of land that is impervious. This is the sum of the roof area, driveways, and roads divided by the total area of the site. 3. The average persons per dwelling 4. Housing density or the number of houses per acre. 5. Precipitation rate or the annual average precipitation rate in inches. 6. Water recharged from turf or the amount of water per unit area of turf which drains to groundwater 7. Water recharged from natural land, which is the amount of water per unit area of natural vegetation that drains to groundwater. 8. Evaporation from impervious surface or the fraction of precipitation that falls on impervious surfaces. 9. Runoff from impervious recharged which is the fraction of the runoff that is recharged through recharge basins, ponds, etc. minus any water that storm sewers remove to surface waters. 10. Water use per person 11. The average nitrogen concentration in precipitation. This is obtained from the closest weather station to the proposed site that performs this test. 12. The nitrogen concentration in water used in the homes 13. The turf fertilization rate or the average nitrogen application rate that will be applied to the lawns of the project site. 14. The fraction of nitrogen leached from turf which is the fraction of nitrogen applied from fertilizers, precipitation etc that actually recharges to groundwater 15. The fraction of nitrogen that is lost as gas or the fraction of nitrogen that volatilizes or is converted to gaseous N through denitrification. 16. The fraction of wastewater removed by sewers. In this project this number will be zero since no sewers are present. 17. Nitrogen per person in wastewater, which the average in the U.S. is 10 lbs/person/day. 22 • 0 4• 'o Hog N4 • ;• ° GPI • y y p T ° oe '°pO < ! M BM„ ' -' ° _ P� �.r-" / BaY Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. SounB• °q••{ ? •°0 2t! V .'� w..M.,,9e...=..se,.�.,,,°a a x 101/1 O AREA OF PROPOSED pupa ° syNE o• .0 x ,�''�' a PROJECT- HERITA(q'E •' • ' ' t ••• •';• <• °• 2 CUTCHOGUE ° ° • utchogue �, ° ,j•� ''° •° utchoqus East <+qe,• o° Elem Sch to .o° o° �`'� < � ��' o� ° / , BM:•' ^rte QA� a O .°� d �•" ' Sacred Taft �• C• tp • o Cern 'o i � max` 24• -y ty qp 10 °E y '••• i 4 �N d Causeway °I° 4st, dY '^ BBaCh or 4 °. •°� •' $ ' District Park L T1 3.�. ai ERITAGEAT CUTCHOGUE,LLC T ' H O L D C'u cst f P a h 1721-D NORTH OCEAN AVENUE UtchO PO MEDFORD,NEW YORK 17763 • °° • t % ater C. • Ly '+ $ P Ol .• M32 ♦; � .b 9� eG F/a � S 17 Acho••e tS / e O Cutchogue HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE • p°`�J •' � •4•' �� � ° ® , • f a / 2 +O CUTCHOGUE.NEW YORK ' �o o Q• Harbor a e p • _ s4. o 57 ,zs � orth Fork 'fir ,fit 2 Horeeahoe 2 • _ Marsh Caue 20 ' Country C K ' 4 Pt O a pifP'I.t y. y `.\ \� o• '� s ... tc 2/ • ' o _ Cutchogwe Harbor i North Fork /a • r $ 4 5 •3/ o 32 'i Count Cluh a "" a >. m v ' •Por affituck e x Q — 10 `.*.,_ as Jr Sri o ..� a 6$ IRt High Sc ` 25• Old Cove \� \ a I ' - s ff acht Club 2/ 9` Lake / x 9VF � /2 L-� ! � CH•.MY TYa Lake �rofa ,reyc ' . aur oi4� �e\a a /2 _6• +; VE 6 is GROUNDWATER a • — ••Isol < 2 CONTOUR MAP NEW y k o. ABM�3 ... KiR10':..ner c a a wn: n,..•:.r ! .. P['i€:::�: 05.12-0e KAH Mattauck aur Be rr: • Ma _e Airhase , . 1•=1000, o 2 S2 0 U T " H 0 L D a. . s � 0 2J f.a 2n /a Marratooka FIGURE 2.2 Point o q'o FROM:WATER TABLE CONTOURS AND LOCATIONS OF OBSERVATION WELLS IN SUFFOLK COUNTY,NV MARCH 2002 r r V. n w _ ik y p , ;,i, rl zw fw r 4 s e } v . r y'Vieo 14 s 4 h ff t 18. The nitrogen removal rate of natural land, which is the fraction of • nitrogen that is removed by natural land processes before it, reaches groundwater. All the above components are then used to compute the total concentration of nitrogen leached into groundwater. The calculation sheets for each of the scenarios analyzed are provided in Appendix E. The resulting average concentration of nitrogen in the groundwater recharge from the site under each of the scenarios are presented below: Using the above inputs and assumptions, Table 2-2 shows the estimates of nitrogen concentrations in the recharge groundwater at the project site. TABLE 2-2 ESTIMATE OF NITROGEN LOADING OF GROUNDWATER USING BURBS MODEL SC;ENAR10 NIT�0GII_ . 1 __ Existing Site < 1.0 mg/l Proposed Plan 6.3 mg/l Alternative 91 6.1 mg/l Alternative 43 6.4 mg/I It can be concluded from the above table that nitrogen concentrations from this project will be within the acceptable limits of 10 mg/l. Throughout the proposed site, recharge ponds will handle all of the stormwater recharge for the site, including that of the roofs, driveways, roadways, and parking lots. This will allow for the recharge of most of the stormwater that falls at this site to the groundwater aquifer. As designed, this project will maintain the natural drainage pattern of onsite recharge of the precipitation, and as stated, actually increase the recharge due to the decrease in evapotranspiration. This proposed project is very much like the existing recharge of the site. The existing site recharges most of its water into the groundwater on site through the natural leaching processes associated with the soils of the area. As stated the proposed project will maintain all of the stormwater on site and recharging this water via ponds located on the site. There will be no change to the overall natural drainage patterns that will impact any other properties or change the quantity of water, and in fact it will increase, that will be recharged to the property. One major concern is the degradation of the groundwater caused by substances being carried into the ground with the recharged water. Stormwater runoff from pavement has been found to be contaminated with coliform and other bacteria, nutrients, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and pesticides. Stormwater runoff has been shown to be the leading source of bacterial loading in the surface waters of Suffolk and Nassau Counties. This has been confirmed by studies done by the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP), which explored alternatives to the disposal of stormwater from urbanized surfaces. However, this study showed that the pollutants in the runoff are not an indicator of the 23 • pavement surface but of the watershed area surrounding the site and that reductions in pollutants from the watershed will lead to a reduction of pollutants in the recharge water. As this site is not a major highway, which can collect water not only from its surface runoff but also from the entire watersheds runoff, it will not collect from a wide-ranging area. This will reduce the stormwater contaminants that will enter the drainage system to minor loads from hydrocarbons, and rubber products associated with vehicles and deicing salts. These contaminants will be carried into the recharge system where some chemical and biological treatment will take place further reducing the amount of contaminants to leach into the ground. As this site will have over 30' of sand to scrub the groundwater before it reaches the aquifer, it will be of drinkable quality prior to entering the groundwater. As this site will only utilize the groundwater for the maintenance of the pond levels during low water periods, and pumpage will be maintained at 40 gal/min, there will be no impacts to the groundwater from this project. Another concern is that the proposed project will impact the local wells of the houses that surround the site. As stated above this project will not be impacting the quantity of the recharge water from the site. Also, and any water that is recharged to groundwater and eventually the aquifer system, in which these wells are associated, will have over 30 feet of sand to filter any contaminants that may enter the system due to the runoff of the streets and any fertilizers that may be placed on the lawns and garden areas. Importantly, interpolation of the groundwater contour map (Figure 2.2) demonstrates that groundwater flows towards the southeast, away from private wells. This stated there will be no impact to the water quantity or quality recharged to the groundwater and eventually the aquifer. 2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation Development of the project site will impact the groundwater in several ways, roadway runoff into the recharge ponds to the disposal of sanitary waste. First, all runoff will be retained on site and recharged to the ground by means of ponds throughout the site. This will allow water to pass through 30' or more of sand, assuring its quality before reaching the aquifer. Due to the reduction of the vegetated areas on the site, recharge of stormwater will actually increase at the proposed project. This is due to reduction of evapotranspiration due to the removal of the vegetation. Secondly, the only use of groundwater through pumping will be to maintain the pond levels. All other water will be obtained from the SCWA. This will help to maintain groundwater levels and actually increase them with the introduction of the sanitary waste and stormwater runoff into the groundwater system through the use of sanitary leaching systems and stormwater recharge ponds. Also the design of this project will allow for all required sanitary setbacks from drinking water wells in the vicinity of the site. 24 2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife 2.3.1 Existing Conditions Vegetation and wildlife on the project site were surveyed in June 1988, October 2007 and April 2008. The vegetation communities were mapped by a qualified biologist in October 2007, in accordance with Ecological Communities of New York State (Edinger, et al, 2002) Figure 2-4 presents a habitat map of the property, as mapped in the field. Between 1988 and 2007, there has been a significant change in the vegetational structure, with the successional old field now rapidly transitioning to successional shrubland. In addition, there has been a dramatic invasion of non-native species, particularly Mugwort, Artemisia vulgaris, which was not present in 1988, and Multiflora Rose, Rosa multiflora, and Black Locust, Robinia pseudoacacia, which were present in 1988 to a much lesser extent. In fact, the April 2008 inventory determined that fully half of the plant species found on sides are non-native. Unfortunately, the degree of non-native invasive plant coverage can be expected to increase without intervention. In addition, the property will serve as an invasive plant seed bank, which will facilitate the spread of undesirable species throughout the area. It is important to note the difference between open space and habitat. Although the site provides a large block of open space, the highly degraded nature of the habitat, due to invasive species prevalence, detracts enormously from its overall ecological value. For example, while overall 40 bird species have been identified on the property, this is a relatively small number for an undeveloped property of this size. Normally an old farm field at this step of succession could be expected to support double this degree of avian diversity. If the property were to be left as is, with no intervening ecological stewardship, the existing biodiversity will be expected to further decline. The property is used by a variety of mammals, all of which are regionally common, and which are listed in the Ecological Inventory (Appendix D). The property is also used by a variety of birds, which are all also regionally common. The successional development of the property has attracted some common woodland species, such as Downy Woodpecker. At the same time, it is expected that some of the grassland birds, such as Field Sparrow, are decreasing as their habitat is being lost. Since there are no surface waters or wetlands on the property, reptiles and amphibians are scarce. One species, the Eastern Box Turtle, a far ranging and common species, was observed on the property. There are no Federal or State listed Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species on the property. Correspondence with the New York State Natural Heritage Program can be found in Appendix H. 25 • 2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts Construction of the project will require the replacement of successional field/succesional scrub and northern hardwoods with a complex of cultural features including buildings, pavement, ponds, lawns, and gardens and vegetated berms. This will result in a reduction in the numbers birds and mammals, although it is expected that all existing species will remain and continue to use the landscaped portions of the site. In addition, the introduction of water features on the property will result in attracting a plethora of wildlife to the site, since there is little available water within a 0.25-mile radius. In addition to attracting a variety of songbirds, the projects water features can be expected to attract occasional waterfowl and waders, and herpetological species, such as Fowler Toad, may colonize the site. The project will have a beneficial impact in terms of removal of highly invasive species, such as mugwort and multiflora rose, thus eliminating a regional seed bank for these extremely deleterious species. Overall, it is expected that the site's biodiversity will remain at an equivalent or higher level than under existing conditions. This is due to the fact that invasive species will be controlled, while at the same time additional native and naturalized landscaping will be introduced and managed to facilitate additional habitat. 2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation There are several features designed into the project that will effectively mitigate impacts to vegetation and wildlife. First, the design includes a densely vegetated berm around the perimeter of the project. This will provide habitat for a variety of wildlife. Also, as discussed above, the provision of year-round fresh water will attract myriad wildlife species to the property, many of which are not currently present. All animals require food, cover, and water. Under existing conditions, only food and cover are present. The project will continue to provide food and cover in the berms and other landscaped portions of the site. The addition of water is expected to attract additional wildlife species, resulting in equal or high biodiversity on the property. Finally, invasive vegetation species will be removed from the property. Invasive plant species pose one of the greatest threats to the conservation of biodiversity on Long Island. The New York State Invasive Plant Council has stated that over 30% of the State's flora is non-native in nature. In addition to the benefits to the property from removal of invasive plants, the entire region will benefit as this invasive seed bank is removed. • 26 GPI • I Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. CrvMn;pe„4mineen6 mpcm.� 3'M wen Mnn wen, eey�1gal rm:lmll��a veal -v III I%I I I SUCCESSIONAL OLD FIELD TRANSITIONING TO SUCCESSIONAL SHRUBLAND ERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE,LLC; SUCCESSIONAL NORTHERN ME17 OFORp,NEW YORKA7E763E • HARDWOODS Y r - HERrrAGEATCUTCHOGUE � CUTCHOGUE,NEW YORK i TTl' i ro.wen Re..we„ .w,e. �ro TM� ECOLOGICALCOMMUWMS MAP ri�w 1211W2007 KAH o.c..n �1'=400' EG FIGURE 2-4 • 3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 3.1 Transportation The following discussion of transportation resources presented consists of a summary of the Nelson & Pope Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared November 2007. The entire study report is provided in Appendix B. Correspondence to the Planning Board responding to several comments regarding transportation is included in Appendix H. Study Methodology The methodology used for this investigation consisted of a detailed review of existing land-use, roadway and traffic conditions near the proposed site for the Existing Condition, the No Build Condition (future traffic conditions without the proposed development), and the Build Condition (future traffic conditions with the proposed development). The Existing Condition was analyzed utilizing existing traffic volumes conservatively adjusted to represent the peak month of the year and existing roadway geometry. The following intersections were studied as requested in the Final Scope for the DEIS: • NYS Route 25 (Main Road) at Depot Lane • Main Road at North Street • Main Road at Griffing Street • Main Road at Highland Road • Main Road at Crown Land Road • CR 48 (Middle Road) at Depot Lane • Schoolhouse Lane at Depot Lane The No Build Condition traffic volumes consist of the existing volumes adjusted by an annual growth factor to account for increases in population, proposed developments beyond the vicinity of the site, and a seasonal adjustment factor. The traffic volumes generated by the proposed project were calculated and then added to the No Build Condition to determine the traffic volumes for the future Build Condition with the proposed development. The study intersections were then analyzed using Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) by applying the existing field geometry, signal timings, and the calculated traffic volumes to determine levels of service (LOS). The study assesses the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development and identifies appropriate mitigation, if necessary. In executing the scope of work, the following steps were undertaken. • A detailed field inspection was conducted to obtain an inventory of existing roadway geometry, location/geometry of existing driveways and intersections along with signing, signal timings, phasing and cycle lengths. • Tuming movement volume counts were conducted during the weekday morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM), evening (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM), and Saturday midday (11:00 AM to 2:00 PM) peak periods at the study intersections. 27 • • Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) machines were placed along the following locations to obtain hourly and daily traffic volumes. o Main Road,just west of Depot Road o Depot Lane,just north of Main Road • Hourly traffic volumes were obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) along Main Road and from Suffolk County Department of Public Works (SCDPW) along Middle Road, in the vicinity of the site. Each of these roadways is classified under Factor Group 40 indicating that the highways serve both commuter traffic and seasonal traffic. • For a more conservative analysis, the traffic volume collected in October 2007 was "seasonally adjusted" to account for fluctuations in monthly traffic volumes attributed to the seasons. As indicated by the NYSDOT, roadways classified in Factor Group 40 experience the highest traffic volumes in the month of July. The month of July experiences 22% more traffic volume on the weekdays and 20% more on the weekends compared to the month of October. The existing volumes were"seasonally adjusted" (increased)accordingly. • Accident data for the study intersections and roadways in the vicinity of the site was obtained from NYSDOT and summarized by accident severity and type. • Traffic volumes collected in October 2005 were compared to traffic volumes collected in October 2007. It was found that traffic volumes were higher in October 2005, indicating a reduction in background traffic growth. For the purposes of this study an annual traffic growth factor of 1.8% was obtained from the NYSDOT, based on the Long Island fransportation Plan 2000 study on the Town of Southold. This rate was applied to the existing "seasonally adjusted" traffic volumes to estimate the increase in background traffic that will occur by 2009. • The '['own of Southold Planning Department was contacted to obtain information on other planned/pending developments that might impact traffic flow in the study area to be included in the study. • The traffic data was collected at the age-restricted Founders Villagc residential development on Young's Road in Southold. Trip generation rates were calculated from this data, which were used to project traffic to be generated by the proposed project - • The additional traffic volumes to be generated by the proposed project were calculated and distributed throughout the study intersections, based on current travel patterns. These additional volumes were combined with the No Build condition, which resulted in the 2009 Build Condition. • Capacity analyses were performed at the study intersections using Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) by applying the existing field geometry, signal timings, and calculated traffic volumes to determine levels of service (LOS) for the Existing, No Build and Build Conditions. The results of the analyses for the No Build and Build Conditions were compared to identify any substantial degradation in LOS, which will be considered an impact. • 28 • 3.1.1 Existing Conditions The following descriptions of existing site transportation resources and traffic conditions are taken from the TIS. Existing Conditions Land Use The proposed project is to be located on a 45.99-acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. The currently vacant site is zoned Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District and surrounded by farmland and residential homes. Both Bridle Lane and Spur Road terminate on the western border or the site. Roadway Network The following is a list of roadways surrounding the site. The general descriptions refer only to the sections of the road that exist in the vicinity of the site_ The cross-section of these roads may vary further away. The AADT — Average Annual Daily Traffic is provided for each road, where available from either New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) or the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (SCDPW). Main Road (NYS Route 25) is under the jurisdiction of the NYSDOT and extends east- west across the Town of Southold and Suffolk County. It has one travel lane in each direction, full shoulders, and a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. One traffic signal exists on Main Road in the study area, located at New Suffolk Road with pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian crosswalks exist at Depot Road, which is unsignalized. The average annual daily traffic volume is 11,355 vehicles per day (source: NYSDOT 2002 'Traffic Volume Report). North Street is a local residential road under Town of Southold jurisdiction. It extends from Main Road for a short distance to Schoolhouse Road. It is a low volume roadway with one travel lane in each direction and a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Traffic signals do not exist at either intersection on North Street. Gritjuig Street is a local access road under Town of Southold jurisdiction. It extends north-south for a short distance connecting Main Road with Schoolhouse Lane. Currently, Griffing Street terminates at the south end of the proposed site. It has one travel lane in each direction with a short landscaped median and turning lanes at the intersection with Main Road. Griffing Road provides access to a municipal parking lot servicing the local commercial properties as well as the post office. Traffic signals do not exist at either intersection on Griffing Street. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. Highland Road is a local residential road under Town of Southold jurisdiction extending from Main Road to the residential neighborhood west of the site with no outlets to other neighborhoods. It is a low volume roadway with one travel lane in each direction and a 29 • posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Traffic signals do not exist along Highland Road. Crown Land Road is a local residential road under Town of Southold jurisdiction. Similar to Highland Road, it extends from Main Road to the residential neighborhood west of the site with no outlets to other neighborhoods. It is also a low volume roadway with one travel lane in each direction and a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Traffic signals do not exist along Crown Land Road. Middle Road (CR 48) is under SCDPW jurisdiction and provides a major east-west throughway across the Town of Southold and into the Town of Riverhead where it changes in name to Sound Avenue. Within the study area, the roadway is divided with a landscaped median and two travel lanes in each direction. Exclusive turning lanes are present at the study intersection, which is stop-controlled on Depot Lane in addition to a yellow flashing signal on Middle Road. The average annual daily traffic volume is 14,463 vehicles per day (source' SCDPW 2004) and the posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour. Depot Lane is located east of the site and is under Town of Southold jurisdiction. The roadway extends north-south from Main Road to CR 84(Oregon Road). Depot Lane has one travel lane in each direction and provides a direct connection between Main Road (NYS Route 25) and Middle Road (CR48). Traffic signals do not exist along Depot Road. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. Schoolhouse Lane is under Town of Southold jurisdiction and extends east-west on the south end of the site with its eastern terminus at Depot Lane and its westem terminus at Griffing Street. It has one travel lane in each direction and a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Traffic signals do not exist along Schoolhouse Lane. Spur Road is a local residential road under Town of Southold jurisdiction. It extends east- west for a short distance providing access to Highland Road and Crown Land Lane. Currently, Spur Road terminates at the southwest portion of the proposed site. It is a low volume roadway and has one travel lane in each direction and a posted speed limit o('30 miles per hour. Traffic signals do not exist along Spur Road. Table 3-1 summarizes the lane configurations and traffic controls at the study intersections. • 30 • TABLE 3 INTERSECTIONN GEOMETRY :z v W ' 4 Z NYS Route 25 (Main Road) at WB TR Stop Control at Depot Lane SB LR SB Depot Lane Approach EB LT Stop Control at Main Road at North Street WB TR SB North Street Approach SB LR EB LT Stop Control at Main Road at Griffmg Street WB TR SB LR SB Griffing Street Approach EB LT Stop Control at Main Road at Highland Road WB TR SB LR SB Highland Road Approach EB LT Stop Control at Main Road at Crown Land Road WB TR SB Crown Land Road SB LR Approach EB L-T-T-R Grass Median on Middle WB L-T-T-R Road (CR 48) and Stop CR 48 (Middle Road) at Depot Lane NB LTR Control at SB LTR NB/SB Depot Lane Approaches EB LR Yield at Schoolhouse Lane at Depot Lane NB LT EB Schoolhouse Lane SB TR Approach *1. —Left ern name:T—Through Inn...R—Right nu n lane;LT=Lefl/[hrough lane: TR=A/ough/right lane Traffic Volume Data Turning movement counts were collected at the study intersections on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 during the AM (7:00-9:00 AM), and PM (4:00-6:00) peak periods, and on Saturday, October 27, 2007 during the midday (11:00 AM-2:00 PM) peak period. The peak hour volumes were identified and the peak hour factors were calculated for each intersection For a more conservative analysis the existing traffic volumes were adjusted utilizing seasonal factors for both weekday and weekends. These factors were obtained from data contained in the 2006 NYSDOT Traffic Data Report. These seasonal adjustment factors were developed from NYSDOT continuous data collected for a three-year period. The continuous counter sites are separated into three major factor groups (30, 40, & 60). As defined by the NYSDOT, Factor Group 30 is characteristic of highways carrying heavy commuter traffic with only a small variance of traffic throughout the year; Factor Group 60 is characterized by large seasonal traffic variations; and Factor Group 40 lies between these two extremes. A copy of the section of the 2006 NYSDOT Traffic Data Report that contains the seasonal adjustment factors and the way they were established is included in Appendix A of the TIS. 31 • According to the `Coverage and Special Count Hourly Reports' published by the NYSDOT, included in Appendix A of the TIS, the sections of Main Road (NYS Route 25) and Middle Road (CR48) in the study area are classified as Factor Group 40 roadways. In accordance with the NYSDOT seasonal factor chart (shown in Appendix A of the TIS) roadways classified under Factor Group 40 experience peak traffic volumes in the month of July. When compared to the month of October (weekday factor: 1.004; weekend factor: 0.974), traffic volumes in July higher by a factor of 0.22 on the weekdays (factor 1.226) and 0.20 on weekends (factor 1.167). Therefore, the existing October weekday and Saturday traffic volumes were increased by 22% and 20%, respectively, to represent traffic volumes for the peak month of the year. The resultant existing seasonally adjusted traffic volumes utilized in the analysis are depicted in Figures 3, 4, and 5 in Appendix B and further detailed in Appendix A of the TIS. Accident History The most recent 3 years of available accident data, July 2004 through June 2007, in the vicinity of the site, was obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Table 3-2 summarizes the accident data by location and severity of injury and Table 3 of the TIS, summarizes the type of collision. • • 32 • TABLE ACCIDENT SUMMARY BY SEVERITY 1 yt Depot Lane between Oregon Road and Middle Road(CR 48) Depot Lane at Middle 8 6 14 Road (CR48) Depot Lane between of - - - Middle Road (CR48) and Schoolhouse Lane Depot Lane at - - Schoolhouse Lane Depot Lane between - - 1 I Schoolhouse Lane and Main Road (NYS 25) Depot Lane at Main Road - - 2 2 (NYS 25) Main Road (NYS 25) - - - between Depot Lane and North Street Main Road (NYS 25) at - - - North Street Main Road (NYS 25) - between North Street and Griffing Street Main Road (NYS 25) at - - Griffing Street Main Road (NYS 25) - - - - between Griffing Street and Highland Road Main Road (NYS 25) at - - - - Ilighland Road Main Road(NYS 25) - - - - between Highland Road and Crown Land Road Main Road (NYS 25) at - - - - Crown Land Road Griffing Street between - 1 - I North Street and Main Road (NYS 25) Total 0 9 9 18 0% 50% 50% 100% A total of 18 accidents occurred within the study area during the 3-year analysis period. Half of the accidents involved injuries and half involved property damage. There were 33 • no fatal accidents experienced in the vicinity of the site within the time period studied. The greatest number of accidents occurred at the intersection of CR 48 and Depot Lane (14 accidents). A review of the data indicates that excluding non-reportable cases, the plurality of the accidents (44%) involved right angle collisions. Most of the right angle accidents (7 accidents) occurred at the intersection of CR 48 and Depot Lane, which may be caused by drivers failing to yield right-of-way. Existing Condition Analysis The traffic volumes depicted in Figures 5 through 6 (Appendix B) were used with the intersection geometry and traffic control to determine the existing capacity and LOS of the study intersections. Table 3-3 contains the LOS summary for the Existing Condition calculated through the HCS+ software described previously. The detailed analysis worksheets are in Appendix D of the TIS. TABLE 3-3 EXISTING CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY AM PeaPe kji our *M - saturdy Intton Appitiaclt' 'Mavttak L0- LCIS DeXayt V>C LOS `3elay tr7L S V/� Main Road (NYS 25) FB L A 9.4 0.08 A 9.5 0.05 A 9.4 0.06 at Depot Lane SB LR D 29.0 0.47 F 51.4 0.62 F 50.1 0.70 Main Road (NYS 25) EB IT A 9.2 0.00 A 9.1 0.00 A 9.2 0.00 at North Street SB LR B 13.7 0.00 D 28.7 0.01 C 21.7 0.05 FB LT A 9.3 0.07 A 9.1 0.04 A 9.1 0.04 Main Road (NYS 25) I D 32.5 0 26 D 31.2 0.14 E 37.2 0.37 at Griffing Street SB R B 13.4 0.10 B 13.5 0.08 B 13.7 0.13 Main Road(NYS 25) LB LT A 8.8 QO l A 8.9 0.01 A 8.6 0.00 at Highland Road SB LR C 19.3 0.06 C 19.2 0.05 C 25.0 0.06 Main Road (NYS 25) EB LT A 8.9 0.01 A 8.8 0.01 A 8.8 0.01 at Crown Land Road SB LR C 16.7 0.04 B 14.4 0.03 B 14.2 0.03 EB L A 9.2 0.01 A 9.2 0.02 A 9.0 0.04 WB L A 9.5 0.08 A 9.2 0.04 A 9.1 0.09 Middle Road (CR 48) LT D 30.2 0.37 C 24.5 0.27 D 26.8 0.27 at Depot Lane P R B 11.5 0.12 B 10.9 0.07 B 10.9 0.10 LT- D 25.2 0.11 C 21.4 0.04 C 25.0 0.11 SB R B t0.7 0.02 B 10.8 0.02 B 10.5 0.02 Schoolhouse Lane at NB LT A 7.6 0.00 A 7.5 0.00 A 7.7 0.00 Depot Lane ER LR B 10.2 0.06 A 9.9 0.06 B t0A 0.08 Notes: LOS=Level ofSemce, Delo}'-seconds/vehfde, V/C= Volume/Capnnty Ratio 34 Main Road at Depot Lane As shown in the results contained in the table above, the eastbound left turn movement operates at a LOS A during each of the analyzed peak hours. The southbound approach currently operates at LOS D during the AM peak hour and at LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours. It is not unexpected to see results of LOS D, E or F for traffic at the stop-controlled approach of an unsignalized intersection with a major roadway. The availability of gaps in the traffic on the major roadway determines the level of delay that is assigned to the stop-controlled traffic. Higher volumes along major roadways result in fewer available gaps. It should be noted that the Town of Southold has recognized the poor LOS at the southbound movement for this intersection and has requested the installation of a traffic signal from the NYSDOT. Main Road at North Street The eastbound Main Road approach currently operates at LOS A during each of the analyzed peak hours. The southbound North Street approach currently operates at LOS B, D and C during the weekday AM, weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours respectively. Main Road at Grifftng Street The eastbound Main Road approach currently operates at LOS A during each of the analyzed peak hours. The southbound left-turn movement onto Main Road currently • operates at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours and at LOS B during the Saturday midday peak hour. The southbound right turn movement operates at LOS B during each of the analyzed peak hours. Main Road at Highland Road The eastbound Main Road approach currently operates at LOS A during each of the analyzed peak hours and the southbound Highland Road approach currently operates at LOS B during each of the analyzed peak hours. [Clain Road at Croan Land Road The eastbound Main Road approach currently operates at LOS A during each of the analyzed peak hours. The southbound Crown Land Road approach currently operates at LOS C during the AM peak hour and at LOS B during the PM and Saturday midday peak hours. Middle Road at Depot Lane The eastbound and westbound left-tum movements from Middle Road operate at LOS A during all the analyzed peak hours. The Depot Lane northbound left and through movements operates at LOS D during the AM and Saturday midday peak hours and at LOS C during the PM peak hour. The Depot Lane southbound left and through movements operates at LOS D during the AM peak hour and at LOS C during the-PM and Saturday midday peak hours. The Depot Lane northbound and southbound right turn • movements operate at LOS B during each of the analyzed peak hours. 35 • Schoolhouse Lane at Depot Lane Schoolhouse Lane at Depot Lane is controlled by a yield sign on the eastbound approach, however for analysis purposes the eastbound approach was analyzed as stop-controlled resulting in LOS B or better for all time periods. 3.1.2 Anticipated Impacts The following descriptions and discussions of the anticipated transportation-related characteristics and impacts of the proposed project are taken from the TIS. Proposed Development Site Access As depicted on the site plans prepared by Nelson & Pope, two means of access are proposed to serve the residential development. A proposed access will intersect Schoolhouse Lane directly opposite Griffing Street. This access will be stop-controlled and configured for all movements. The second access is provided via Spur Road, which currently terminates at the western boundary of the site. An emergency access will be provided via a connection to Bridle Lane, which also currently terminates at the western boundary of the site. Trip Generation The Town of Southold Planning Board has rejected the nationally recognized trip generation estimates for an age restricted community provided in the manual, Trip Generation, 7"' Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2003. At the Town of Southold Planning Board's request, Nelson & Pope has conducted traffic counts at a similar age restricted residential development (Founders Village) located on Youngs Road in Southold to develop trip generation rates for the proposed age restricted development. Founders Village contains 92 age-restricted residential condominium units. The data was collected by means of automatic traffic recorders (ATR) placed at the exit and entrance driveways of the Founders Village development for a 7-day period. The site data (shown in Appendix B of the TIS) indicates that 31, 16, and 47 vehicles entered or exited the development during the weekday AM, PM, and Saturday midday time periods, respectively. This translates to a trip/unit rate of 0.34, 0.17 and 0.51 during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively. Based on these calculated rates, the following table summarizes the trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed 139 age-restricted residential condominium units. • 36 • TABLE 3-4 TRIP GENERATION } Trip generation 0.15 0.19 0.34 0.08 0.09 0.17 0.27 0.24 0.51 rates (trips/unit) 139 age-restricted Condominium 21 26 47 11 13 24 38 33 71 units Source: Traffic Counts collected at Founders Village,Southold, NY As shown in Table 7 of the TIS (Table 3-4 above), the proposed residential development is projected to generate 47 trips in the weekday AM peak hour (21 entering, 26 exiting), 24 trips in the weekday PM peak hour (11 entering, 13 exiting), and 71 trips in the Saturday midday peak hour (38 entering, 33 exiting). Trip Distribution and Assignment The site-generated traffic volume was distributed and assigned to each movement at the study intersections based on the existing roadway and travel patterns demonstrated in October 2007. The nature of the proposed land uses and its associated travel patterns were considered as well. Figure 7 (Appendix B) presents the trip distribution for the weekday AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. Figures 8 through 10 (Appendix B) depict the actual site-generated volumes for the respective peak hours. The site-generated volumes were then added to the No Build Condition volumes resulting in the Build Condition volumes shown in Figures 1 I through 1 3 (Appendix B). Traffic Impact Anal As stated previously, the intersection capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses were based on the procedures and guidelines presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (2000), published by the Transportation Research Board. The FHWA Highway Capacity Software Release 5.21 was used to analyze the study intersections and provide a LOS measurement of the intersection operations. The six classes of LOS, ranging from LOS A (excellent) to F (worst), are defined in Appendix C of the TIS. Each study intersection was analyzed for the Existing, No Build, and Build Conditions. Table 3-5 illustrates the LOS summary for the study intersections and the site access at Griffing Street. Detailed capacity analysis worksheets and a detailed LOS summary table can be found in Appendix D of the TIS. • 37 • TABLE 3-5 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Existing EB L A 9.4 0.08 A 9.5 0.05 A 9.4 0.06 Main Road SB LR D 29.0 0.47 F 51.4 0.62 F 50.1 0.70 (NYS 25)at No Build EB L A 9.5 0.08 A 9.6 0.05 A 9.6 0.06 Depot Lane SB LR D 32.1 0.51 F 61.4 0.69 F 61.6 0.77 Build EB L A 9.5 0.09 A 9.6 0.05 A 9.6 0.06 SB LR D 34.9 0.54 F 65.2 0.71 F 68.3 0.81 Existing EB LT A 9.2 0.00 A 9.1 0.00 A 9.2 0.00 Main Road SB LR B 13.7 0.00 D 28.7 0.01 C 21.7 0.05 (NYS 25) at No Build EB LT A 93 0.00 A 9.1 0.00 A 93 0.00 North Street SB LR B 14.0 0.00 D 30.4 0.01 C 22.8 0.06 Build EB LT A 93 0.00 A 9.1 0.00 A 9.4 0.00 SB LR C 24.1 0.02 D 30.7 0.01 D 25.9 0.08 Existing EB LT A 9.3 0.07 A 91.1 0.04 A 9.1 0.04 SB L D 32.5 0.26 D 31.2 0.14 E 3T2 0.37 R B 13.4 0.10 B 13.5 0.08 B 13.7 0.13 ain Road No Build EB 1.1' A 9.4 0.08 A 92 0.04 A 9.2 0.04 NYS 25) at SB L E 35.8 0.29 D 33.7 0.16 E 41.3 0.41 Griffing Street R B t 1 7 0.11 B 139 0.09 B 14.0 0.14 Build EB 1:f A 9.4 0.08 A 93 0.04 A 9.3 0.05 SB L. E 37.4 0.32 D 34.2 0.17 E 443 0,44 R B 13-8 0.13 B 14.9 0.09 B 14.2 0.15 Existing EB L t A 8.8 0.01 A 89 0.01 A 8.6 0.00 Main Road SB LR C 193 0.06 C 19.2 0.05 C 25.0 0.06 (NYS 25) at No Build EB LT A 8.9 0.01 A 90.0 0.01 A 8-6 0-01 Highland Road SB LR C 20.1 0.06 C 20.1 0.05 D 26.4 0.06 Build EB LT A 8.9 0.01 A 9.0 0.01 A 8.7 0.01 SB LR C 19.6 0,07 C 19.7 0-05 C 23-6 0,07 Existing EB LT A 8.9 0.00 A 8.8 0.01 A 8.8 0-Ol Main Road SB LR C 16J 0.04 B 14A 0.03 B 14.7 0.03 (NYS 25) at No Build EB LT A 9.0 0.00 A 8.9 0.01 A 8.9 0.01 Crown Land Road SB LR C 17.3 0.04 B 14.9 0.03 C 15.1 0.04 Build EB LT A 9.0 0.00 A 8.9 0.01 A 9.0 001 SB LR C 16.6 0.05 B 14.8 0.03 B 15.0 0.04 • 38 Existing EB L A 9.2 0.01 A 9.2 0.02 A 9.0 0.04 WB L A 9.5 0.08 A 9.1 0.04 A 9.1 0.09 NB LT D 30.2 0.37 C 24.5 0.27 D 26.8 0.27 R B 11.5 0.12 B 10.9 0.07 B 10.9 0.10 SB LT D 25.2 0.11 C 21.4 0.04 C 25.0 0.11 R B 10.7 0.02 B 10.8 0.02 B 10.5 0.02 No Build EB L A 9.4 0.02 A 9.3 0.02 A 9.1 0.04 WB L A 9.7 0.09 A 9.3 0.05 A 9.2 0.10 Middle Road NB LT E 35.9 0.43 D 26.1 0.29 D 28.7 0.29 (CR 48)at Depot Lane R B 11.9 0.16 B 11.1 0.08 B 10.9 0.11 SB LT D 27.6 0.11 C 22.2 0.04 D 26.4 0.13 R B 11.1 0.02 B 10.9 0.02 B 10.6 0.02 Build EB L A 9.4 0.02 A 9.3 092 A 9.1 0.04 WB L A 9.7 0.09 A 93 0.05 A 9.1 0.10 NB LT E 3T5 0.46 D 263 0.30 D 30.0 033 R B 12.0 0-16 B 11.1 0.08 B 11.0 0.11 SB LT D 279 0.11 C 22.2 0.04 D 26.8 0.13 R B 11.1 0.02 B 10.9 0.02 B 10.6 0.02 Existing NB LT A T6 0.00 A TS 0.00 A 7.7 0.00 EB LR B 102 0.06 A 9.9 0.06 B 10.4 0.08 Schoolhouse Lane No Build N13 LT A 7.6 0-00 A T5 0.00 A 7] 0.00 at Depot Lane Ela LR 13 10.2 0.06 A 9.9 0.06 B 10.4 0.08 Build NB LT A 7.6 0.01 A T5 0.00 A 7.7 0.01 EB LR B 10.4 0.08 A 10.0 0.07 B 10.7 011 Site Access at Build LB L7 A 7.3 0.00 A 7.3 0.00 A 7.3 091 Grifting St, Schoolhouse Lane SB LR A 8.9 0.02 A 8.7 0.01 A 9.0 0.03 Notcr LOS-Li,clof,V.'14(C Del", "'loads%'Cha dc V'C= i'ohrrnc'Capaeitp Ratio Main Road (NYS 25) at Depot Lane The southbound approach currently operates at LOS F in the PM and Saturday midday peak hours. As traffic increases due to background growth and project generated traffic volume the southbound approach will remain at a LOS F during the No Build and Build Conditions. However, as shown in the table, the southbound approach delay will increase by 3.8 seconds and 6.7 seconds during the PM and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively, when comparing the No Build Condition and Build Condition. It is our opinion that, the increase in delay due to the estimated project generated traffic is not a substantial degradation on LOS and therefore should not be considered significant. As shown in the LOS definitions (Appendix C of the TIS), changes in LOS are attributed to average vehicle delays increasing by 10 and 15 seconds, which are more than double the delay increases at the southbound approach. Although a LOS F is considered unacceptable to most drivers, this condition often occurs with over saturation, i.e., when traffic volume exceed the capacity (v/c > 1.0). In both the PM and Saturday Build Condition peak periods the southbound v/c ratios are 0.71 and 0.81, respectively. This indicates that under the Build Condition the southbound approach has the capacity for 39 • traffic volumes to increase by 44% and 24% prior to during the peak PM and Saturday periods, respectively. Main Road (NYS 25) at North Street After the completion of the proposed project, all the approach movements to the intersection of Main Road and North Street will continue to operate at No Build levels of service, with the exception of the southbound approach that changed from LOS B to C during the AM peak hour and from LOS C to D during the Saturday midday peak hour. As shown in the table, the southbound approach delay will increase by 10.1 seconds and 3.1 seconds during the PM and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively, when comparing the No Build Condition and Build Condition. It is our opinion that, the increase in delay due to the estimated additional to 1 and 3 project generated trips in the PM and Saturday periods, respectively, will not generate a substantial change in level of service and therefore should not be considered significant. Main Road(NYS 25) at Grifftng Street The southbound left turn movement currently operates at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours and at LOS E during the Saturday midday peak hour. As traffic increases due to background growth in 2009 this approach will operate at LOS E, LOS D, and LOS E in their respective peak periods and will continue to operate at these levels once the project is constructed. Therefore degradation in LOS at this intersection will not occur due to project generated traffic. Hain Road (NYS 25) at Highland Road The southbound approach currently operates at LOS C during each of the analyzed peak hours and will continue to operate at these LOS once the project is constructed. Therefore, degradation in LOS at this intersection will not occur due to project generated traffic. Main Road (NYS 25) at Crown Land Road The southbound approach currently operates at LOS C or better during the analyzed peak hours and will continue to operate at these LOS once the project is constructed. Therefore, degradation in LOS at this intersection will not occur due to project generated traffic. Middle Road (CR 48) at Depot Lane All movements will operate at the No Build condition levels of service during the Build condition in each peak period. Once the project is constructed this movement will not experience any degradation in LOS during any of the study time periods. Therefore degradation in LOS at this intersection will not occur due to project generated traffic. Schoolhouse Lane at Depot Lane As mentioned previously the eastbound approach is currently controlled by a yield sign but for the purposes of this study it was analyzed as a stop-control. The intersection currently operates at LOS A for the northbound left turn and eastbound turning movements. These movements will continue to operate at LOS A and B in the No Build and Build Conditions. Therefore degradation in LOS at this intersection will not occur due to project generated traffic. 40 • 3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation As shown in the Table 8 3-5 and in the intersection summaries above, substantial degradations in LOS were not found to occur due to project generated traffic when comparing the future No Build and Build scenarios. Therefore, the proposed development will not generate traffic impacts that are considered significant. As a result, mitigation is not required. 3.2 Land Use,Zoning and Plans 3.2.1 Existing Conditions Zoning The existing zoning of the proposed project site is Hamlet Density Residential (HD). The purpose of the HD zoning is to permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density that are appropriate in and around the major hamlet centers of the area. Particularly, this site will bring an increase in the consumers around Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold, Orient and the Village of Greenport. Though this property is bordered by farmland and is a rather large (45.99 acres) it has never been designated for farmland preservation. The surrounding areas of the project vary in the zoning. To the west and the southeast of the project site zoning is R-40, which is Residential Low Density AA with the houses on I-acre plots of land. This zone was set up to allow for development in areas where smaller lots will not change the neighborhood characteristics • and where water supply and environmental conditions will allow such a development. To the north is (AC) Agriculture Conservation and to the East is R-80 Residential Low Density. Both of these zoning districts allow for a 2-acre minimum lot. These zones were set up to try and control the loss of open lands in the town and the try and preserve the open rural feeling of the area. To the south of the property is zoned Hamlet Business. This zoning allows for the creation of business development in the areas around the hamlet central business areas. This zoning allows for retail, office and other types of business as well as hotels, motels and multifamily residential development. Zoning map is provided as figure 1-1 Plans This subsection identifies those previous land use plans, studies and analyses prepared for the Town and/or area encompassing the project site, and therefore may contain recommendations pertinent to the proposed project. Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Report(1994) - This report provides general and specific recommendations to achieve the numerous land use and resource protection goals (including affordable housing) presented in the various prior studies and plans applicable in the Town. Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1994) - This is a Town Transportation Committee/Commission report that identifies primarily bicycle and kayaking trails and routes, in order to identify scenic corridors(including off-road trails)within the Town. • The subject site is presently an inland property occupied by successional field vegetation; no water bodies are present or adjacent,and no footpaths or bicycle trails are present. 41 • Peconic Estuary Program (1995) - This is a plan to improve environmental conditions and water quality within the nationally significant Peconic Estuary. This program includes the following components: environmental resources documentation and analysis, environmental monitoring, watershed analysis, land use/water quality correlation, best management practice recommendations, and land use and water quality improvement recommendations. Economic Development Plan (1997) - This is a plan for Southold's economic health, recognizing agriculture and fishing as important economic stimuli in the Town, as well as hamlet centers, tourism and eco-tourism. The study recognizes the importance of an economic development plan to manage tourism, encourage bed and breakfasts, provide visitor information, and maintain and enhance the unique agricultural, mariculture and commercial fishing aspects of the Town's economy. Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives (1997) - This document represents a step past the Stewardship Task Force Report of 1994, to fill in gaps in the Town's Comprehensive Plan of 1985 and promote sound, long-term planning consistent with the goals of that Plan. This Initiative provides the basic commitment for starting and maintaining the Town's Geographic Information System. Communily Preservation Project Plan (CPPP; 1998) - This plan was prepared in response to the enactment of the Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Act, which authorized the creation of a fund for land acquisition financed by revenues generated by a newly established 2 percent real estate transfer tax. The legislation requires the preparation of a plan (the CPPP) to guide the acquisition of properties with the above-noted funds. The CPPP contains a listing of properties that will be eligible to participate in this program. It indicates which types of properties should be given the highest priority for either preservation or protection. It provides descriptions of the numerous mechanisms by which the Town can preserve or otherwise protect specific parcels in cooperation with the owner. County Route 48 Corridor, Land Use Study (1999) - This study provides recommendations to the Town Board regarding appropriate Land use and zoning in this corridor. This report resulted in upzonings to maintain the integrity of the corridor in the context of Town-wide planning efforts, and removes some of the business-zoned lands that could have promoted sprawl, and/or inappropriate or incompatible development along this multi-use corridor. It should be noted that the project site is not located on CR 48 nor is it located within the CR 48 corridor. Farm and Farmland Preservation Program (1983-2002) and Southold Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (2000) - These documents provide a number of recommendations to preserve and protect both farmland and the business of farming in the Town. The Strategy contains a full inventory of the acreages and types of farm and 42 • crop uses present in the Town around 1999, and remains an important resource for understanding and promoting the Town's agricultural land use base. It should be noted that the subject site is presently unused and covered by successional field vegetation; no agricultural activity is present. Water Supply Management and Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) - This planning report provides the Town with a strategy to ensure the protection of a sufficient quality and quantity of groundwater for present and projected future uses and needs, and to ensure that both the rural character of the Town and its agricultural uses are maintained. The report recognizes that a balance must be struck between maintenance of agricultural use and watershed protection area, and outlines a number of land use techniques and recommended zoning initiatives to achieve water protection goals within the Town. Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) - This is a study prepared for the Town's two highway corridors: County Road 48 and NYS Route 25. The qualities of these corridors are recognized, and measures are outlined to protect the character of these corridors for Townwide benefit. Preservation/protection techniques such as setbacks, scenic easements, signage parameters and other measures are outlined for use and consideration by the Town. It is noted that the subject site is not located along either CR 48 or NYS Route 25, and is not within the CR 48 corridor. In regard to NYS Route 25, the subject site is located an estimated 800 feet from this roadway, and so is not within the corridor along this roadway. As a result, the recommendations of this plan do not apply to the subject site. Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold (2002) - This report provides recommendations designed to preserve farmland, open space and the rural aesthetics associated with agriculture and open space preservation in the Town. The report establishes goals for preservation of 80 percent of the remaining farmland and open space, with a development density reduction of 60 percent. This report outlines the initial provisions for a Rural Incentive District and recognizes conservation subdivision, continuation of Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs as primary land use tools to achieve these goals. Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (CIS) and GEIS (2003) - This action determine, collated, analyzed and considered implementation of planning and program tools and mechanisms described and recommended in the numerous planning studies undertaken within Southold over the previous 20 years. These studies, plans and recommendations (most of which are also included here) were reviewed in terms of Town needs and goals, in order to achieve the Town's vision as articulated in those plans. Review of the plans and studies found that many newer documents reiterated prior recommendations, resulting in much consistency between studies and the goals of the Town over the years. The CIS involved primarily legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. Implementation will be achieved through a set of amendments to the Southold Town Code and various Town regulations, procedures, policies, planning and management initiatives, and will require the approval of the Town Board. 43 • The Town Board formed a working group/moratorium team for the express purpose of determining a legally defensible, cost-effective, efficient and effective implementation strategy to achieve the Town's goals. The group examined the Town's needs, resources and database, which indicated a need to translate the above-noted studies and Town Board initiatives into a cohesive plan, in the form of a package of legislation and procedures. The Moratorium Team synthesized a total of 43 different recommendations. The Town Board initially considered all relevant prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland and open space, promote affordable housing, and preserve natural resources. The Town's objectives in focusing on these goals were twofold: 1) to maintain the unique cultural and historic sense of place found within Southold's communities, and 2) to maintain the high quality of the Town's environmental resources. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2005) - This program document provides planning and environmental information and data that may be utilized to formulate development strategies to encourage and protect the waterfront areas of the Town. It emphasizes the Town-wide importance of coastal zone and traditional maritime uses in terms of the commercial and recreational qualities of the Town. It also recommends waterfront access and water-dependent/water-enhanced uses, and provides a compendium of information relating to coastal and Town-wide resources. Southold Hamlet Study, (2005) - This study was conducted by the Town to determine the land use characteristics, capabilities and needs of the various hamlets in Southold, to then establish a vision for each hamlet, and then to provide recommendations that will achieve that vision. As part of the study, the downtown portion of each hamlet was mapped into a Hamlet Locus (HALO) Zone, within which the vision and associated recommendations will apply. The visions were delineated by examining each HALO Zone's resources and, in consultation with a stakeholder's committee, to identify that zone's strengths and weaknesses in terms of. Quality of Life, Housing, Traffic/Transportation, Business, Services and Location. Long Leland North Shore Heritage Area (2005) - In 1998, the NYS Legislature established the Long Island North Shore Heritage Area (LINSHA), which is comprised of the numerous governmental entities along the North Shore from New York City to Orient Point, and south to the LIE. A Planning Commission was established for this area, for which a Management Plan was prepared and adopted in 2005. The Plan divided the LINSHA into five thematic "neighborhoods", based on common characteristics of land use and landscapes; the entire North Fork constitutes the "Harvest Coast" neighborhood. The Plan articulates five standards: Protection, Connection, Packaging, Promotion and Partnership. The Management Plan sets forth a framework with specific actions and policies for achieving the goals and objectives articulated in the Plan. It is an overall, holistic, and unifying strategy for the threefold mission of preservation, protection of natural resources as part of the process of inevitable development ("sustainable heritage development") and using heritage interpretation and awareness as a source of economic vitality. The Plan is now the official policy of New York State for the area. • Town Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (2005) - The Town prepared this document to assist in its development of a response to the long-term trend toward higher housing 44 • costs, particularly on the north fork. It represents its comprehensive effort to identify the housing needs for the Town to further complement its planning efforts in this matter. In general, there has become a critical need to provide for housing that is affordable to moderate-income households. To provide information necessary in this planning effort, this report obtained and collated information on the Town's existing housing stock housing stock trends, and demographic and socioeconomic information on the community. The data clearly indicates that year-round residents who do not already own homes will have limited abilities to do so without assistance. Community Preservation Project Plan Update (2006) - This document provides updated information on those parcels of land on the Town's List of Eligible parcels, which was developed in 1998 for the overall CPPP. This updated information includes parcels to be added to the List, deletion of parcels developed or obtained under the CPPP, and corrected tax lot numbers on some of the listed parcels. Town Zoning Maps/Code and Comprehensive Plan - The Town of Southold does not have a current, adopted Master or Comprehensive Land Use Plan that specifically articulates the future vision of the community. The most recent Master Plan dates back to 1985, and there have been a number of changes in the regional and Town planning environment that were later addressed in a series of important studies. These studies, together with the zoning law, building zone map and the record of decisions on land use projects by the various Town Boards, constitutes the direction of the Town's thinking in • terms of a comprehensive plan. 32.2 Anticipated Impacts Zonin As the proposed project will conform to the existing zoning of the site there are no impacts anticipated with this project. Plans Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Report (1994) - The proposed project will provide a significant number of affordable residential units, which conforms to the applicable general recommendation of this plan. Therefore, no adverse impact is anticipated with respect to this plan. Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1994) - The proposed residential project does not include walking trails for either site residents or for community use, though sidewalks are proposed along the site's internal roadway for the use and convenience of the site's residents. While the project docs not provide such an amenity (as generally recommended by this plan), its absence is not significant on a Townwide basis, as sufficient amounts of undeveloped land and/or open space remain available on which to locate this feature. In addition, the property is located in close proximity to Cutchogue hamlet, and as a result walking within the hamlet is expected to occur. Peconic Estuary Program (1995) - It is noteworthy that the project site is not located in proximity to the Peconic Estuary, and is separated from the shoreline by multi-lane roadways and developed areas. Nevertheless, it is possible for activities on the subject to 45 • impact water quality within the estuary via surface runoff flow. By such a mechanism, chemical substances and/or eroded soil may be carried from the site southward to the estuary in stormwater runoff. However, it is anticipated that, as the project will be subject to the thorough review and approval processes of the Town and County for the site plan and drainage system, and by conformance to the applicable stormwater handling regulations, the potential for impacts to the Peconic Estuary will be minimized. The project is proposed at a land use density which is less than the maximum allowable flow permitted under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. As a result, no adverse impacts are expected to this resource. Economic Development Plan (1997) - The proposed project is a private residential development for retirement-age households, and has a significant affordable component; it does not include any agricultural, fishing or commercial components or facilities or amenities for use by the public or local community. As a result, the recommendations of this plan do not apply, and no impacts are anticipated. Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives (1997) - The proposed project represents development in conformance with its existing HD (Hamlet Density) zoning, which was applied to this site by the Town Board subsequent to prior review. In this respect, the zoning (and therefore the proposed project) represents the type of use and yield considered appropriate for this particular property, after analysis by the Town Board. Therefore, this project conforms to this plan, and no adverse impacts will occur. Community Preservation Project Plan (CPPP: 1998) - The ownership of the project site has not been contacted by the administration of the CPPP with an offer to purchase the site for preservation, or for the purchase of the site's development rights. Therefore, there are no impacts to or from this plan with respect to the proposed project. County Route 48 Corridor, Land Use Stud�� (1999) - As the subject property is not located on or within the CR 48 corridor, the recommendations of this plan do not apply to the proposed project and. hence, no impacts will occur. Farm and Farmland Preservation Program (1983-2002) and Southold Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (2000) - As noted above, the subject site is presently a naturally-vegetated property, no agricultural activity is presently occurring here, and no such use has been found on this site for some time. As such, the recommendations of these plans will not apply, and therefore no impacts are expected. Water Supply Management and Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) - The proposed project will conform to the amount of sanitary wastewater (and hence, of the volume of water consumed for domestic purposes) allowed by Article 6 of the SCSC. In addition, it Will provide for on-site treatment and recharge of all sanitary wastewater generated, through the use of septic systems. These will be subject to the review and approval of the SCDHS, which has jurisdiction in this regard. In consideration of this, it is anticipated that no significant impact to groundwater resources will occur and hence, no impacts are expected. 46 • Recommendations related to agricultural use or activities do not apply, as no such uses exist or are proposed. Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) - As noted above, the subject site is not located within either of the corridors centered on CR 48 or NYS Route 25. Therefore,the recommendations of this plan do not apply to the proposed project, and no impacts will occur. Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold(2002) - It is acknowledged that the subject site is presently a naturally vegetated open space(occupied by successional field species), and will be considered a prime candidate for preservation or reduced-density residential development. However, the site is zoned HD by the Town, which is a zoning type intended for increased density development due to the presence or proximity of necessary infrastructure and a complementary land use pattern. The project will be developed in conformance with its zoning; no increased density or yield is proposed. It should also be noted that the landowner has been approached with an offer to purchase the site or to obtain its development rights (for either a PDR or TDR action). Letter from Southold Town enclosed in Appendix H. As a result, it is anticipated that no impacts to the recommendations of this plan will occur. • Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy(CIS)and GEIS(2003) -The proposed project has been designed to conform to all applicable Town requirements, as reflected in the Town Zoning Code. As the recommendations of the CIS are to be implemented by revisions and/or amendments to the Town Code and/or other applicable land use policies, it is expected that conformance to these regulations will simultaneously conform to the recommendations of the CIS. As the proposed project conforms to the Town Code, no impacts to the CIS are anticipated. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2005) - The LWRP recognizes the Town zoning map and the hamlet study initiative. Proposed zoning and access recommendations primarily relate to the more immediately coastal zone area. The LWRP did not recommend any changes in the current zoning with respect to the subject property; as a result, no significant adverse impacts are expected with respect to this plan. Southold Hamlet Study(2005) - As the subject site is not located in the Cutchogue HALO Zone, the recommendations of this plan will not apply to the site or to the proposed project,and no impacts are anticipated. Long Island North Shore Heritage Area (2005) - The proposed project will conform to those Preservation Policies that apply to this private development application. Specifically, construction will include use of environmentally-friendly materials and mechanical systems where possible, will conform to applicable design and development requirements, and will employ sound land use and siting principles in its project layout. • In this way, no adverse impacts related to this plan are expected. 47 • Town Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (2005) - The proposed project includes a number of its residences (10%) as affordable units, which will assist in addressing the Town's concerns in this matter. Community Preservation Project Plan Update (2006) - The owner of the subject site has not been contacted in regard to the potential for public purchase of the site or its development rights, as part of the CPPP. Therefore, there remain no potential impacts with respect to this plan for the proposed project. Town Zoning Maps/Code and Comprehensive Plan - As noted above, the Town of Southold does not presently have a current comprehensive or master land use plan. In lieu of such a document, the Town utilizes its Zoning Code and the recommendations of the various land use plans and studies (of which those applicable to the project site are addressed in this section) to provide a framework within which development in the Town is to take place. The proposed project has been designed to conform to the requirements of the HD zone, as well as to the various requirements of the SCSC, particularly Article 6. It is therefore anticipated that conformance to these regulations and requirements will minimize if not eliminate the potential for adverse impacts to the Town's resources (which is the goal and intent of these regulations). 3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation The above discussions of the project's conformance to those aspects and/or recommendations of the above-listed land use plans and studies uniformly indicate that no impacts will occur. Therefore, no further mitigation (beyond the current site design and project components) is necessary or proposed. 3.3 Community Facilities and Services 3.3.1 Existing Conditions Police The proposed site is under the jurisdiction of the town of Southold Police Department. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. sent a letter advising the department of the proposed project and requesting any information regarding the availability of police-related services. We are still waiting on a response from the Southold Police Department on this matter. A second letter has been sent to the police noting that if no response in two weeks we will assume that they are able to provide service for the project Fire The proposed project is located in the Cutchogue Fire District and serviced by the Cutchogue Fire Department. An inquiry letter was sent to the Department in October of 2007, requesting information on the size, response time and any other information on the department. We are still waiting on a response to this inquiry. A second letter has been sent to the fire district noting that if no response to two weeks we will assume that they are able to provide service for the project 48 • School District The subject property is located in the Southold Union Free School District. An inquiry letter was sent to the school for any input into the impact that this project will have on the school. We are awaiting a response from the school on the project. A second letter has been sent to the school districts noting that if no response in two weeks we will assume that they are able to provide service for the project Utilities Letters have been sent to all the utilities of the area regarding their availability in the area. A letter in response to our queries to LIPA/Keyspan is located in Appendix G. SCWA indicated that they could fulfill the needs of the site but could not issue a letter of water availability until site plan approval- This response letter is located in Appendix G. 3.3.2 Anticipated Impact Police It is anticipated that there will be no impact on the police force of the area Fire It is anticipated that the fire department of the area is capable of handling the increase in homes due to this project. Also this site will employ the latest fire fighting technology to aid the local departments if need be. School District Being that this project is the development of a 55+ active adult community and it is unlikely that there will be any negative impact on the school district. However, with the increase in population there will be an increase in school taxes. Utilities It is anticipated that this project will have no negative impact on the utilities of the area. 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures It is anticipated that this site will not impact the community in any negative capacity. As it is a 55 or older adult community it is unlikely that there will be any impact on the school district. Also, the facility will have all state of the art fire facilities that will aid in all fire fighting needs of the local volunteer fire departments. As this is a community of older citizens and a gated community there is not expected to be any need for an increase in the local police force. • 49 • 3.4 Aesthetic Resources, Open Space/Community Character and Public Health 3.4.1 Existing Conditions As stated in Section 1.3.5 this site is a fallow farm field established in successional vegetation; however, no mature trees exist on the property, which has been fallow for approximately 25 years. Though it could be considered Open Space, this site has never been designated by the County as a potential property for purchase. Also this area is zoned residential and the surrounding areas are residential I-acre properties to the west and greater than 2-acre parcels to the north and the east. Due to the zoning of the area to the east (R-80) the farmland/open space that abuts the project property cannot be developed the same as this site. This site therefore, will conform to the general feel of the area with its eclectic collection of residential architecture. According to the pesticide report in Appendix E, this site is contaminated with arsenic and mercury. This means that any project at this site will need to clean up the site and in turn protect the groundwater and the neighboring wells from any further contamination. The applicant is anticipating an approximately 12-18 month approval process, followed by posting of bonds, letting of construction contracts and a construction period of 18-24 months. As a result, the general time frame for staging and completion of the proposed project is in the range of 2 to 3 years. The project will be developed in three phases, as required by the Town. The construction phase is anticipated to progress in a maimer typical for a project of the size and type proposed; no unique or unusual construction difficulties are anticipated. Impacts during the construction phase are commonly expected and are identified and discussed herein. As detailed below, these impacts are temporary in nature, and will be variable throughout the construction period. Construction activities will not occur outside weekday daytime hours (7 a.m. to 5 p.m.), and will conform to applicable Town regulations regarding construction noise generation and hours. The first phase of construction will include clearing, grubbing, grading, erosion control and soil management work. This will include building and planting of the proposed berms, which will provide screening of construction activities from the adjacent residential uses. The entire site will be cleared which will be subject to erosion during the construction phase, and will be the areas from which dust could arise, due to truck and equipment movement and winds. Following completion of clearing activities, survey of road alignment and vertical control will be completed to establish road installation and proper grades. The grading concept will involve use of material excavated elsewhere within the site to raise the grade in limited fill areas. The remainder of the property is relatively flat and foundation excavated material will be used to contour the land for proper drainage around buildings. The boundaries of the construction area will be lined with silt fence and staked haybales, and drainage inlets will be protected by soil traps. It is anticipated that all construction equipment, materials and vehicles will be staged, parked and loaded/unloaded within the site. The intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street will be used for all construction access associated with the proposed project. Due to the proposed net export 50 • of material, it is proposed to reuse as much of this material on-site as practicable, in order to minimize the volume of material to be removed from the site (and the number of truck trips necessary to remove it). Generally, the site will be constructed starting on the southeastern portion of the property and progress west. The model homes, community building and approximately 30 homes will be started and completed during this first phase of construction, including the utilities and landscaping for these areas. The model homes will be built on the first loop of the road directly behind the community building. A sales office (trailer) for the project will also be set up at this time and will be located in the community building parking area and then relocating to the model homes once completed. The construction field office will also be located in this same area and relocated into the site as construction progresses to the west. Similarly, employee parking, staging and equipment storage areas will also be moved periodically as construction progresses into the site. The building materials for each home will be stored at the home site as needed and the pre-cast catch basins and piping will be staged along the roadway and in the area of the leaching fields and pond areas where most of this material will be used. The complete infrastructure will be developed in this phase including all underground utilities and internal roadways completed less the paving portion, which will be installed as sections are completed. The balance of the homes in this phase will commence with excavation for foundations, concrete, framing, interior work and finishes until complete including all utility connections, final street paving and final landscaping. Phase 2 will involve the construction of the units to the central portion of the site, and Phase 3 will complete the remaining units in the western portion of the site using the same sequence for construction activities as described above. Any outstanding/remaining items will be completed in Phase 3 along with any landscaping issues that may arise. All street stonnwater basins and silt separators will be checked again and cleaned out as necessary prior to the completion of construction activities. As construction equipment loading/unloading, materials storage, and construction staging areas and construction worker parking will be located within the site, no significant or long-term construction impacts to the surrounding residences are anticipated. Installation of a construction access/exit at Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street will minimize potential adverse impacts on the residences along Highland Road and Bridle Lane. Erosion control measures will be implemented during construction of the proposed project in order to minimize impacts. In accordance with the NYSDEC Phase 11 SPDES Program, coverage under the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (NYSDEC Permit No. GP-02-01, General Permit) will be obtained prior to the initiation of construction activities. Prior to filing for coverage under the General Permit, the NYSDEC requires that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared for the parcel, including a detailed erosion and sediment control plan, to manage stormwater generated on-site during construction activities, and for post-construction stormwater management. An SWPPP will be prepared to ensure compliance with water quality and quantity requirements pursuant to Technical Guidance and GP-02-01 requirements. In addition, an Erosion Control Plan incorporating the 51 • NYSDEC Technical Guidance manual, and use of measures such as silt fencing, storm drain inlet protection, hay bales, and good housekeeping procedures will be utilized. The drainage system and revegetation plan will further provide permanent stormwater controls once construction is completed. Development of the property is not anticipated to significantly increase erosion/sedimentation or stormwater impacts, as a result of proper site grading procedures, erosion controls, and drainage system design. The Notice of Intent (NOI) requesting coverage under the General Permit will be filed in accordance with NYSDEC requirements,prior to the initiation of construction activities at the subject property. 3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts As shown above this project will have both positive and negative impacts on the Aesthetic resources, Open Space/Community Character and Public Health. As stated this space as it is today could be considered open space. However, the property has not been slated by the County for purchase. This project while decreasing the open space of the area will be in keeping with the current neighborhood, maintaining the zoning and the look of the area. Also, as shown in Appendix C, with the use of plantings the houses will be behind a screen of trees that will diminish the impact of the development on the overall look of the area. Over a period of 8 years the vegetation will grow to hide more and more of the new development. This growth will eventually hide all but the roofs of the new homes. Also, this project will need to remove contaminants from the soils that are leftover from the days of agricultural use at the site. This cleanup will protect the neighbors from continued exposure to these chemicals in their drinking water and in the soils around the site. Due to the construction work in general, there will be some short- term impacts on the area. These will consist of construction noise, dust, excess truck traffic from the delivery of products for construction and the equipment itself. As said, these though will be short term and once construction is finished these will dissipate. 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures The above discussion shows that there will be several impacts to the site due to the project. As shown in the landscape plan the project will utilize plantings to try and soften the effect of a housing community in this area. In terms of open space the project will maintain several areas throughout the site that will be green space or ponds. Finally this project will be utilizing and cleaning up a site that due to past agricultural practices could be a problem to the residents in the area. Cleanup of the site will stop the influx of contaminants into groundwater and into the wells of the neighboring community, thus protecting the neighbors from further exposure. As for the construction impacts, all work will take place in the daylight hours to minimize noise impacts on the neighborhood, dust control measures will be taken in case of excess dust from the site. Also, as with the construction noise, truck traffic will be limited to the normal working hours to minimize any impacts to the local residents. Plantings, as stated above, will create a buffer around the site virtually hiding all but the rooflines of the new houses. This will be a two fold mitigation measure, in that the new planting will not only lower the impact of the new development on the eye of the neighbors but will also be completely constructed of native plantings which will be 52 • stronger and rely on less irrigation and other plant care that a non-native plant will require. Another major concern around a construction site is the safety of the families that are living near the site. As stated all of the truck traffic will be limited to the daylight hours to provide the visibility to both the truckers and the neighbors to avoid any vehicle to vehicle or vehicle pedestrian accidents. The site will be fenced to protect from anyone entering the site and either falling into holes or tripping over any construction debris or equipment. Also, open holes will be fenced to protect against anyone falling into. Lastly, all construction material will be removed or stored properly to protect against anyone injuring himself or herself on construction debris that has been handled improperly. 3.5 Cultural Resources 3.5.1 Existing Conditions The following discussion of cultural resources is excerpted from the Cultural Resource Assessment prepared by TRACKER Archaeology Services, Inc., dated October 2007 (see Appendix F). Introduction Between August 8 and September 20 2007, TRACKER Archaeology Services, Inc. conducted a Phase IA documentary study and Phase IB archaeological survey for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue subdivision in Cutchogue, 'fown of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The purpose of the documentary study was to determine the prehistoric and historic potential of the project area for the recovery of archaeological remains. This was implemented by a review of the original and current environmental data, archaeological site files, other archival literature, maps, documents and informant interviews. A prehistoric and historic site file search was conducted utilizing the resources of the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) in Waterford, New York. Various historic web sites may have been visited to review any pertinent site information. Prehistoric Potential Assessing the known environmental and prehistoric data, we can summarize the following points: • The project area is about 2,900 feet northeast of Downs Creek, 3180 feet north of West Creek, and 3270 feet northwest of Wickham Creek, all tidal inlets flowing south into Peconic Bay • The project area is mainly comprised of level, well-drained topography. • The project parcel is located on a peninsula. Previous archaeological investigations have shown these areas as more desirable for prehistoric occupation. • Prehistoric sites are near the study area. • Indian trails were located in the vicinity. 53 • Therefore in the opinion of TRACKER Archaeology Services, Inc., the study area has higher than average potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. The type of site encountered could be a small processing/procurement site. Historic Potential Assessing the known historical data, the following points can be summarized: • A Contact period wigwam is situated in the vicinity. • No map documented any structures on or adjacent to the project area. A historic Native American site was reported in the vicinity. Therefore in the opinion of TRACKER Archaeology Services, Inc., the study area has a moderate potential for the recovery of historic sites. The type of site encountered might be a Contact Period site. There will be low potential for European-American sites. Field Methods Walkover-Reconnaissance Exposed ground surfaces were walked over at approximately 3 to 5 meter intervals to observe for artifacts. Covered ground terrain was also reconnoitered at 15 meter intervals for any above ground features, such as berms, depressions, or rock configurations which might be evidence of a prehistoric of historic site. Photographs were taken of the study area. Shovel Testing Shovel testing was conducted at 15-meter intervals across the project parcel. Each shovel test pit measured about 30 to 40 cm in diameter and was dug into the underlying B horizon (subsoil) 10 to 20 cm or more when possible. All soils were screened through '/4-inch wire mesh and observed for artifacts. Each shovel test pit was flagged in the field. Positive shovel tests were doubled- flagged. All shovel test pits were mapped on the project area map at this time. Soil stratigraphy was recorded according to texture and color. Soil color was matched against the Munsell color chart for soils. Notes were transcribed on pre-printed field forms and in a notebook. Field Results Field-testing of the project area included the excavation of 767 shovel tests (ST's) across the project area. One prehistoric quartz pint tip and 1 quartz flake were recovered in St's 242 and 171 respectively. Eight radials were excavated at I and 3-meter intervals along the 4 cardinal directions from the positive ST's. Results were negative showing these to be an isolated finds. Scattered eighteenth to nineteenth century artifacts from the plow zone included 1 blue transferprint whiteware from ST 43, 1 blue decorated creamware from ST 121, 1 lead glaze earthenware from ST 131, 2 Jackfield-like ceramic from ST 132, 6 flower pot fragments from ST 172, 1 brown transferprint whiteware from ST 204, and I olive green bottle glass and I undecorated whiteware from ST 230. 3.5.2 Potential Impacts The Phase I Archaeological Investigation prepared for the project made the following conclusions and recommendations (see Appendix F): 54 • The Phase IA had determined the study area had higher than average potential for the recovery of prehistoric sites. The property had a moderate potential for Native American historic sites but a low potential for European-American sites. The Phase IB resulted in the excavation of 767 ST's. Isolated prehistoric and historic finds were encountered. The prehistoric finds were too few in number and too disconnected to warrant further assessment. The historical finds were also few in numbers and were found in the plow zone area, an area that may have been disturbed by agricultural activity. Any agricultural activity will disarrange the original stratigraphy of the area, rendering the chronology inaccurate. No further work is therefore recommended. 3.5.3 Mitigation As no impacts to cultural resources will occur (no such resources are present, as determined by the Phase I Archaeological Investigation prepared for the project site) and no further archaeological investigation is recommended, no mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. • 55 • 4.0 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS 4.1 Cumulative Impacts Impacts of the proposed project, in conjunction with those of other pending or current development applications, were considered for the area. The Town Planning Board was contacted in 2005 to obtain records of other proposed projects in the vicinity, and indicated that no other projects were proposed at that time. The Town has since been contacted in 2007, and identified one project being planned in the immediate area. The project is a 4-lot division of `B' (Business) zoned land into approximately four, 1-acre lots. Access is planned to be from Griffing Street just south of the Post Office and Schoolhouse Lane east of Griffing Street. Details of the future development plan for the four subdivided lots are not known at this time; however, the potential cumulative impacts of the development of the four lots when considered together with those of the proposed project may include: • Increase in the demand upon local community services (e.g., fire and police protection, utilities, and solid waste handling), these services will receive an increase in funds from the tax revenues generated from the developments, which will enable these service providers to continue to have sufficient capability to provide services. • The projects (including the subject site) will change the use and appearance of their sites and there will be a cumulative impact on the visual resources and character of the community. However, since the proposed project will occupy the largest of these sites, the impacts to area visual resources and community character are anticipated to arise primarily from this project, which are analyzed in Section 3.4.1. • On-site sanitary systems conforming to Article 6 of the SCSC are proposed by the Heritage at Cutchogue project. Similarly, any future development of the business zoned lots will be required to conform to the requirements of Article 6 (specifically, no more than 600 gallons of sanitary wastewater may be discharged per acre on a daily basis). Therefore, the potential development of the four additional lots is not expected to cause a significant increase in sanitary flow or elevated levels of nitrogen in recharge above NYS drinking water standards. • An increase in traffic generated by the combined projects will be anticipated; however the No Build Condition traffic volumes consist of the existing volumes adjusted by an annual growth factor is to account for increases in population as well as proposed developments within the vicinity of the site. The proposed project and the potential subdivision for business lots within the Hamlet Center are consistent with the pattern of development recommended by the Hamlet Study. In general, significant impacts are not anticipated from these projects. 4.1.1 Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources An increase in the consumption of energy resources will typically be expected from the intensification of land use on a site. The applicant intends to incorporate a number of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building guidelines and principles in the proposed construction project. Specifically, energy-efficient building materials and mechanical systems will be utilized for units including: all appliances and mechanical systems (e.g., air conditioners, heating systems, heating/ventilation/air conditioning systems, heat pumps, etc.) will be Energy Star rated, low flow fixtures and 56 • low voltage lighting, windows with Low-E coated glass, spray foam insulation (R-21 installation rating) and use of tankless water heaters which significantly reduce energy requirements in residential housing. It is expected that existing public utilities at the site will be more than adequate to meet the expected demand. There will be an increase in energy use during the construction phase of the proposed project. These impacts are expected to be of short duration, and the long-term energy demand is expected to remain stable or decline. The proposed project will utilize energy efficient design standards to minimize energy consumption at the site. The buildings will be constructed in conformance with New York State and Town building codes, which require adequate insulation as well as other design standards that will minimize energy use. Water-saving plumbing fixtures can be specified for the proposed buildings in accordance with current building requirements and practice of the trade. Installation of low-flow toilets, showers, sinks and equipment will reduce unnecessary water loss, which will translate into conservation of the energy resources required to heat this water. In summary, it is not anticipated that the project will result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. 4.2 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided The residential subject parcel has few critical impact areas. No rare, threatened or endangered floral or faunal species have been observed, and none are anticipated because of the previous agricultural use of the property. Existing vegetation consists mostly of grasses and there are no surface bodies of water on or near the site. No unsuitable organic soils were found, nothing of historical interest is present, and no noise or air quality problems exist. The terrain can generally be described as rolling with few steep slopes. Water supply will be provided by the Suffolk County Water Authority and sanitary waste will be disposed of using a standard septic/leaching system. As with any type of development, there will be a loss of open space. Land use plans have been developed for the Town of Southold and the County of Suffolk and both have established tracts of land within their jurisdiction to be used as open space. The subject parcel is not included in any proposed open space areas and has, in fact, been zoned for residential use. This project as stated will create the loss of approximately 46 acres of agricultural soils. However this site has not been farmed in over 20 years and is not slated to be protected under the farmland preservation. Another unavoidable adverse impact is the addition of nitrogen to the groundwater. As detailed in the previous section on groundwater impacts, the estimated nitrate concentration in recharge groundwater for the proposed project is 6.3 mg/l. If the site were used for agricultural purposes, Cornell University in its land use and Groundwater quality in the Pine Barrens, study states that 9.96 mg/1 could be expected. If the site were • used as a nursery, nitrogen numbers upwards of 13.20 mg/I could be expected. Therefore, while use of this site for residential purposes will impact nitrogen concentrations in the groundwater, this impact is less than the impact to be to be expected 57 • if the site were used for agricultural purposes. Also use of the site for agricultural purposes will also contribute pesticides and herbicides to the groundwater in much larger quantities than will be expected from a residential establishment. This project will require both long term and short-term expenditures of various kinds of energy. In the short term, construction activities will require a large consumption of energy. This will include electricity, and various fuels for the operating of tools and machinery (i.e. fuel consumption of heavy equipment for the grading of the site). The long-term energy consumption will be the use of electricity and fuels in the normal use of the homes. The design and construction of the buildings will take into consideration the latest advances in fuel-efficient buildings. Use of high quality insulation and double or triple glazed windows will all help to maximize the reduction in energy consumption. 4.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The proposed project does not involve simply a short-term use of committed resources. Wood, steel, concrete and glass building structures can be expected to last 100 years or more and can even be rebuilt on the same site. All vegetation on the site will be removed during construction. This is a positive impact in that more than half the vegetation on the site is non-native to the Southold area. However, to create an aesthetically pleasing site a substantial amount of planting will be installed in conjunction with the development of the site. Also, these plants will be of native species to the Southold area, creating a landscape that will require less water, fertilization and overall care. Development of this project will irreversibly and irretrievably commit the short-tern use of various resources during the construction process. These include the use of electricity for operating tools and machinery and for lighting; the use of gas, oil and diesel fuels for operating machinery and construction equipment and for the delivery of the construction materials, and the human resources of manpower for the construction itself. Long-tern commitment of building materials including wood, concrete, steel, glass, and others, will be necessary for the development of the project. The quantity of these materials and energy committed will he in keeping with those used for the development of high quality residences. 4.4 Growth Inducing Aspects Population Construction of this project will result in a small percentage growth of the population of Southold. These projected increases are due in whole to the construction of new housing. There could also be a- secondary increase in population due to the result of new businesses coming into the community to service the newly increased population and an increase in older businesses who may need to expand to accommodate the larger population. This secondary increase is expected to be insignificant compared to that of the new constriction. 58 • Support Facilities It is anticipated that the impacts to the community service will be minimum. The existing police, fire and health care as well as the school facilities are adequate to handle the new population. However, area retail stores such as grocery, clothing, or service oriented businesses such as haircutting, dry cleaning and automotive may feel the need to expand and thereby need to hire new personnel. This could indirectly lead to an additional population increase above that of the new community. Development Potential Construction of the proposed project will not lead to further growth in the area as all projects will be on the site and no improvements are planned for the existing roads or utilities in the area. • • 59 • 5.0 ALTERNATIVES SEQRA requires the investigation of reasonable alternatives to a proposed project in order to determine the merits of the project as compared to other possible uses on the subject site, in consideration of the goals and capabilities of the applicant as well as realistic circumstances of the situation. The discussion and analysis of each alternative should be conducted at a level of detail sufficient to allow for the comparison of various impact categories by the decision-making agencies. The following lists the alternatives analyzed in this document: Alternative l: No Action/Public Acquisition (The site remains in its current use and condition.) Alternative 2: Decreased Number of Units (This alternative decreases the number of housing units in order to reduce or eliminate any impacts from the proposed project. Alternative 3: Alternative Design for Wastewater (This alternative discusses the use of a sewage treatment plant in lieu of individual septic systems) It should be noted that the existing natural and human environmental resource conditions are described in detail in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 and these sections can be referred to for current site conditions. Table 5-1 provides a comparison of the coverage and physical characteristics of the subject site for both existing and proposed conditions. TABLE, 5-1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Parameter ProposedProject Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Coverages (acres): --- _ --- --- Roads/Parking/Buildings ±1735 ±0.0 ±16.67 Recharge Pond ±4.6 ±0.0 ±1.77 Forest/Successional Field ±0.0 ±45.99 ±0.0 Landscaping ±24.04 ±0.0 ±27.55 Open Space ±10.56 ±11.46 TOTAL ±45.99 ±45.99 ±45.99 Water Resources: --- --- Sanitary Wastewater(gpd)(i) ±21,615 0.0 ±20,850 Landscape Irrigation (gpd)(2) ±17,800 0.0 117,800 Total Water Use(gpd) 139,415 0.0 138,650 Nitrogen Concentration (mg/1)(3) 6.3 6.4 Miscellaneous: --- --- Solid Waste Generation (lbs/day)(4) ±1,711 00 ±1,711 Residents (capita)(5) ±271 0.0 271 School-age Children (capita)(6) 0 0 0 Total Taxes ($/year) 375,000.00 0 375,000.00 School District Taxes ($/year) 264,112.50 0 264,112.50 60 • Notes: (1) Assuming SCDHS design flow rates of 150 gpd/unit plus 0.30 gpd/SF for 1,000 SF gym area, plus 0.06 gpd/SF for 1,500 SF of community building office/meeting area, plus 5 gpd/bather for 75 bathers in indoor&outdoor pool. (2) Assuming 5.5 inches/year for fertilizer dependent areas. Assumes irrigation period of 4 months (mid May to mid September). (3) See Appendix B-3. (4) Assuming 5 lbs/day/capita + Ilb/day per bedroom (US Census), and 0.5 lbs/day/capita for community building and gym(assumes occupancy of 25 people/day)(Salvato, 1982). (5) Assuming 2 capita/unit(2 and 3 bedroom units), 1.5 capita/1 bedroom unit(US Census). (6) No school aged children are expected as the units are age restricted. 5.1 Alternative 1: No Action/Public Acquisition This alternative assumes that the proposed project is not built; the site remains in its current vacant and undeveloped condition. It is unreasonable to expect that any private entity will continue to own this property, pay property taxes, and leave it as is in perpetuity. Therefore, public acquisition for open space, recreational, or other public purposes is logically implied in the no action alternative. For analysis purposes, it assumed that the public entity that acquires the site will construct no improvements, and leave it as is. It should be noted that the applicant is amenable to having the property acquired, as long as the public agency is willing to purchase the property at fair market price. Under this alternative, the site will have the following environmental resource characteristics: Geology— The existing topography, drainage patterns, soils and subsoils, as described in Section 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 will remain unchanged. The site will retain the existing geologic resources. Water Resources — The site has natural qualities in terns of evapotranspiration and recharge, and currently has a nitrogen concentration in recharge of 2.0 mg/I. These conditions will remain Unchanged. Ecology — The project will remain as habitat, but the existing trend towards noxious species invasion will continue unabated. Ultimately, the site will become an invasive successional hardwood with a canopy of non-native cherries and Black Locust, and an understory of Asiatic Bittersweet, Multiflora Rose and Garlic Mustard. Animal biodiversity will be low due to the non-native nature of the available habitat. Land Use, Zoning and Plans — The project will remain vacant and will not be consistent with the site's Hamlet Density residential zoning, which recognize the site for multiple family development. The site will remain compatible with surrounding uses; however will not provide affordable housing opportunities. Community Character — The existing visual character will remain unchanged; portions of the wooded frontage of the subject site will be visible, with little visual penetration into the site. 61 • Community Services — The site will not generate school aged children, but could be subject to unauthorized activity and vandalism requiring police or fire protection. Other than that, there will be minimal need for public services. No additional energy resources will be required. Transportation — The site will not require driveway access, and no vehicle trips will be generated. Cultural Resources — The site will retain its cultural resource characteristics, which include no historic use, and no significant archaeological site potential given the Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment. The use of the site for a mixed housing community is beneficial in that it provides for needed housing within the hamlet center as envisioned by the Town Planning initiatives and the site's zoning designation. A summary of the benefits which will not be realized should the property remain vacant and underutilized is provided below: • The site will not fulfill a need for mixed-use housing (ownership) and affordable housing within the Town. • The site will not add a variety to housing opportunities that will allow citizens to downsize, seek smaller less-maintenance homes, and develop a sense of community. In comparison to the proposed project, this alternative will not satisfy the goals of the Town, in that an appropriate land use in conformance to zoning will not be provided. 5.2 Alternative 2: Decreased Number of Units This alternative involves the construction of 139 attached and detached age restricted units on the 45.99 acre property. As stated in the proposed project, the property is zoned HD or Hamlet Density, which permits 1 unit per 10,000 square feet with community water and sewer. A map of this alternative is shown in Figure 5-1 and also in Appendix A. This site will be serviced by public water and individual septic system. This alternative will include 139 units of which 125 units will be single family detached units and 4 units will have a total of 14 multifamily dwellings that will be deemed as affordable housing. This site will also include a community center, pool and tennis court. The project will include the creation of landscaped areas, access roadways and a storm drainage system that will culminate in a recharge basin on south side of the project. The site will be accessed off a road constructed at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street. This road will create the center split of the site with loop roads extending off to access the houses. Sidewalks will follow the paths of the roads. Each house is located approximately 20 feet from the roadway. Each house will be serviced by a individual driveway or in the case of the affordable houses common parking areas. 62 • Emergency access points are proposed, one on the northwestern portion of the site and one on the southwestern portion of the site. Table 5-2 below provides a list of coverages for the site compared to that of the proposed project and existing site. An onsite drainage system is proposed for the southeastern portion of the property. This basin will serve as the storm recharge site for the entire project. This basin has been designed to accommodate a 6 inch storm as required by the Town of Southold standards. As stated each home will be serviced by a sanitary system. Solid waste will be removed by private carters and a dumpster will be located at the community center. It is anticipated that this alternative as with the proposed project will require that the entire site be cleared. Grading will need to be necessary for the creation of the recharge basin and the building footprints of the buildings and for the proposed roadways. There will also be the need to grade the site to create swales and drainageways for the creation of the drainage system. It is proposed that the cut for the basements, footings, and drainage structures will cover the amount of fill needed for the grading operations creating, hopefully, an excess amount of fill and no need for any outside sources. In accordance with the town requirements all stormwater runoff from impervious areas will be retained on the site, and recharged into groundwater in the proposed recharge basin. This system is sized to maintain a six inch storm. The homeowners association will be responsible for the maintenance of all the stormwater drainage facilities, the roadways, and the common areas. This project will require a NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for the stormwater system and the erosion control measures during the project. As shown on the alternative plan this site will have only I access for the residence. This will be located on the south side of the project at the intersection of School House Lane and Griffing Street. This access will be stop controlled and configured for all movement. There are two other entrances to the site that will be for emergency use only. These arc at the end of Spur Drive and also at the end of Bridle Lane. These gates will be maintained with the use of crash gates. The main entrance road will enter the site on the south end and create a middle corridor of the site with horseshoe shaped roads extending off of this to access the homes. Sidewalks are proposed, in this alternative, to follow the roadway throughout the entire site. As per the town requirement for this site, 308 parking spaces are required. This altemative plan will provide 311 spots for the use of the community. 272 of these spots will be for the use of the individual homeowners or the parking areas of the affordable housing units, and 39 spots will be provided at the community center. Required parking for residential uses is 272 spaces based on 2 spaces per single family detached and attached dwelling units and 1.5 spaces per unit for affordable units. Additionally, one space per 300 SF of recreational facility uses (community building and pool) and five spaces per tennis court are required pursuant to Town parking requirements for a total of 36 spaces required for accessory recreational areas. One truck loading space is also required for a community center with a Floor area of 5,000 to 25,000 SF. 63 NDwADRME OF ¢TAm0,n I xaw/tdxuLrY © � meal MAdwcXld BmTUA xwczEwsa 1GW.sw' SUEle2D'E(ACRAL) 4 a •W]t g / 4 1�' Sg 0{ 99 IIR { SB S d 39 OR xowAdueur P� 15 � P dnRL[3 J1.sn� A� R 5'3 i KEYMAP 2 3 'b T C F, NOwA .Nrc SCUE .000'9 c MIy n mxN z savnolo 0 ME EawuBT, P9 m Ixx1a `g'S`]' 9& E CPEx EREFUBRACE E wmRLL rECfiAEMM 55.DD, -fEMIUSEP pERNCENI UNpsLWINO EN CMM GRIPPING STREET Ia ]5 y 63 90 IIB aN, "BREAME>! uWN/PWmIWs ..IN O3 ® ; rgnUS¢OEPENMM..0'YWY.!®C p Y WyW F.MEYIEY �® 77 RR I uu 11 S3TIr30'E(DEED) rff © -Al 1'ApY1BLv v � A — ly _ — NCWApIMDM1Y M RM1IW pnlGlc WRdS - IY p SPJFO IIFARi S 1 39 XOWARinn.l V _ OS MO ISIAW WI[YARDS AT WI., • 1{ 3B - r1 .. w P7111 IRs I]p I�1�W N]5N4'MW ]uxrts 1DDB.51' NowAaPMmLv Y NOWAORIvnY a WNIADRMDaY a xwAmuvEr rc 2DDe.T3'(ACRAL) < mCMUHo Rosn WRP. Coll, xowAORNERLr Or NowAORYFRI.r Or BMSW, SxEln. xOw/�gryEsr CF K �J W��x •MCIgING Rr. Z !RNA LL XOWAG M.El,y �R (E y.Y, MW t W11N: I.W.Y.t MZTSA 91ASYgEWCL srW1Er x InWr a IWB'JIIW rc xowAORAWRLY a TYPICAL PLOT LAYOUT J I k YM6 G I I A]M Y R ffi VALE -.CO 0 SITE DATA smM:loon-lax-al-m.] "RE" ..KACF,PBROENn4 vOfw.N11 sl¢nRE!x.00J,v1 xuP.Assew ACR¢ E::FDENTIAL "MAP m AOl 1 11 IJ9 OxcL, LA N REBIT Yx.L BOORIET Y B PARKING CALCULATIONS VILLAGE oN.Ewnr Ma1IRED'' GREEN 9x0.£PNM LY DMANEO ME,AO 3 SPACES PER MEWNo 60a' J00' RO.W' pLE OAIF➢ D�TIL nIHE03rWRa4 SUPKv PUNS BY PECCM'C sVRlEmpy NEORM9LE UW15: ;SPMES P¢UWl ZONING DATAzs uxns R z sP.wER/,Bl .350 mM¢ M{MAY WILOMO x IS-0 x 3 12 SPACES ]uxn WI..v I.5-sx 3. � iCAMN. NAM UT oENsm MOY rmAL PMNwG REouwm FOR UNITS.272AC . Es TYPICAL SECTOR s� MINIMUM REOUIREMEMs MR I RANU DETACHED GWFAMNOs: CWMUNOY CENTER: SPACE PER..Y C(R¢MATpWL FACII]EY SCALE 1'.ID BEDYB[C PRii D: s.FTEs P¢TEAMS mum SITE COVERAGE eBFe �ecEme¢ C..,CENTER EAm SF/.:33 SPAI Lm BOB(SO.R.) 10..0 3..].311.]]Sr.({S.BE9S Ac) PGCt 11100 SF/YO i SPACES BUMWO 363300 s.F. 13]{; Lm BR.i'mr) m 310.51 TMN5 COURT R CWmS x 5/R -]}I 5p(�f$ pi,VNAR LOT OEFM(PEED . RR05.A TOM RE.V'.PMNI.: -b SP.1[¢ RECXNCE AREA ]I'M,S f. J.LM1x MCMI RD((IEEI) 311 11x.0) LAMMING Zd1E' AIREEIY�U.IEPARNIWXSC VAENT CAR RT.GZFAS.a PMl -.0 SUE YARD(EER) IS CpINUNM CEAEO MIN[moR AREA OF Spm m 35A.OF LV.05 N0 Lv BOM SNE YMDB(iEET) 3D YRM 1.R.3BJ E.r. 39.91; N RFM YAM(FEET) 3D roTN snE MGA. x.a03.]11 S.F. I.Wx .MIF "'B"MFA(m.Er/uxlD g50PMANAP M,GNOMES(x) 35 PROYIOEo: &xlgND XFIGM REEF() ]5 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED mIEWXG; 3 SPOLES PER OWEWXG IN OMµ'[ xLMNA OF MOPSS 3 1/3 MTORNNF "AB I S SPµM PER UNIT IN KE STREETPNMINO _ _ GRAPHIC SCALE NON;FRaPOEEn ss MO o\ER ADULr Cwwxm-EN wBUC LATER ¢BWmx05 x 3 sP.cEs/GrRACE -xm SPACES pP/C �$ Av UBIL r%M$FOUR (R){UNrt BULONG x 15.6 SPAL¢x R- 13 SPACES ALTERNATE UTE PLAN W PER TOYM CE saU10 S ENBE ar ME RE AIM TO M ETTIER (3)]uxrt BUMING x S-s SPMES x R- 0 ERACER • M1E0 MARCH 3B. NOR P SMR MOE IR IS N]i REWIP.m MER miX PMKWO PPoXOLO. 3>3 SPµfS Y]lM . x m zaxmc Do.FOR 1D.am s Lm SDE MD.m CouuUHT ExTER THE HERrrAOE AT CaOiOOUE 0" (P'FDDf I }DiµPMHIG OR FIRM IH PMMIX6 Lm.]H SPACES IXCLVaN1G 1 IIWOICM EPAC¢ LOWW$p1E PRWICfp:1 RE'A" Nom! OWNER: APPLICANT' CUiCHOOUE CAN�°'" AP TREY PLWf MEW REMETIIJ CE 9FRNCE ANO ARE THE PROPERTY TO vELSW aPLA[.CxWTNWx[oµIF RAI EOR NOCRO, LTD. xc�o^.ou: ew_eor mw me Mrew 0002 �mmays ro JI[RE Do.uEN1s ME A IngAnCM w Ycnw THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOENU LLC 1+ WR09 OP mE NEW Y6ix STATE EWCAnd LAW.NmmsEM¢m 140 EAST MAIN ST. 1)21_D NORTH OCEAN AVENUE r9.Ew. uYPPosEmmo. RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 MEDFORD. NY 11763 ��NELSON & POPE m EA IR INEERB P BUFiVEYORB IT RMMW wMALL3'RIExr.noa I awn r IkN AOBaO fAA1m 6VGem wnlbppaanlawn FIGURE 5-1 Sanitary wastewater generated as a result of alternative project will be treated utilizing on-site septic systems, designed as gang systems (multiple unit systems). The details of the layout are similar to that of the proposed project plan located in Appendix A. Sanitary calculations are found on the plan sheet for this alternative located in Appendix A. This form of disposal is acceptable, provided the projected wastewater design flow does not exceed standards established by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). Article 6 of the SCSC addresses sewage facility requirements for realty subdivisions, in order to limit the loading of nitrogen in various groundwater management zones as established by the SCDHS. As promulgated under Article 6, a Population Density Equivalent must be determined for the subject site in order to determine the type of sewage disposal system required for the type and size of this alternative. This equivalent (or total allowable flow) is then compared to the design sewage flow for the project. If the project's design sewage flow exceeds the Population Density Equivalent, a community sewage system or on-lot sewage treatment system is required. If the project's design sewage flow is less than the site's Population Density Equivalent, conventional septic systems may be used, provided individual systems comply with the current design standards and no community sewerage system is available or accessible. The project site is located within Groundwater Management Zone IV as defined by the SCDHS. Based on the requirements of Article 6, no more than 600 gallons of sanitary wastewater may be discharged per acre on a daily basis within this zone, provided public water supply is available. The project will utilize public water supply provided by the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). The acreage used for determining this Population Density Equivalent must not include wetlands, surface waters, or land in flood zones. The subject site is 45.99 acres in size (and does not require exclusion of underwater lands, wetlands or areas within flood zones), thus, the Population Density Equivalent (total allowable (low) on the subject site is calculated as: 45.99 acres x 600 gpd/acre = 27,594 gallons per day (gpd) Based on SCDEIS sanitary design flow factors, the anticipated sanitary wastewater generated by the site is as follows: The SCDHS sanitary design flow factors for senior residential units applied by the SCDHS is 150 gpd. Therefore, it is estimated that the 139 proposed residences will generate approximately 20,850 gpd of sewage flow. • 64 TABLE 5-2 • TOTAL WASTEWATER GENERATION Desrrigtion,(Units/SF)_ SCDHS Design.F1ow Faetur Total HastevC-ater 129 senior residences 150 gpd/unit 20,850 gpd 1,000 SF gym (community 0.30 gpd per SF 300 gpd center) 1,500 SF office (community 0.06 gpd per SF 90 gpd center) Pools (75 bathers) 5 gpd/bather 375 gpd Total 21,615 gpd As with the proposed project this alternative will have flows below that that is allowed by the SCDHS for this site. As shown on the alternative plan, SCDHS allows 22,537 gallons of sanitary waste for this site, and the alternative project will produce 20,115 gallons or 2422 gallons less than what is allowed. No previous connections to SCWA water mains exist on site. It is assumed that in this alternative, water to be used for irrigation will be public water. The site is a fallow field with successional vegetation, mostly non-native species, with no mature trees. As with the proposed plan, this alternative will clear the entire site and replace the landscaping with lawn and with native plantings, this will encompass approximately 60 % of the property. This landscaping will involve the planting of the center medians of the roadways and the areas between and along the houses as well as a vegetated buffer area screening the site from that of the neighbors. The plantings for this plan will mimic that of the proposed plan as shown in the Planting Plan in Appendix A. As stated all of the vegetation planted will be that of native species which will require less water and maintenance. The turf and the vegetation wilt require some care which will entail fertilization. This is estimated to be approximately 2.30 pounds of fertilizer per 1000 SF of arca. The irrigation is assumed to be approximately 5.5 inches from May to September. Lighting will be needed for the parking areas, roadways, and the exterior of the buildings. All lighting will be consistent with the town standards. Recreational lighting will be located around the outdoor pool and the tennis courts. Town code allows for recreational lighting to exceed the 14-foot maximum height, but requires the following two criteria: • All intensive recreational lighting shall be so located on the property with reference to surrounding properties that it shall be reasonably screened from view and compatible with the existing or potential use of neighboring properties. • No outdoor recreational facility, public or private, shall be illuminated after 11:00 p.m. except to conclude a recreational or sporting event or any other similar activity conducted at or in the facility, which was in progress under such illumination prior to 11:00 p.m. 65 • The proposed lighting for the tennis courts will be turned off at 9:00 P.M. so as to not impact the surrounding properties and to comply with Town code. Open space is not specifically provided for this alternative, open grass areas are located in the median of the roadways and some areas on the western edge of the property. The residents will be provided a common pool area, community center and tennis courts for recreational purposes and additional open space can be found in a nearby park. This alternative will, like that of the proposed project require approximately a 12-18 month approval process, followed by posting of bonds, letting of construction contracts and a construction period of 18-24 months. As a result, the general time frame for staging and completion of this alternative will be in the range of 2 to 3 years. The project will be developed in three phases, as required by the Town. The construction phase will most likely progress in a manner typical for a project of the size and type proposed; no unique or unusual construction difficulties are anticipated. Impacts during the construction phase are commonly expected and are identified and discussed herein. As detailed below, these impacts are temporary in nature, and will be variable throughout the construction period. Construction activities will not occur outside weekday daytime hours (7 a.m. to 5 p-m.), and will conform to applicable Town regulations regarding construction noise generation and hours. The first phase of construction will include clearing, grubbing, grading, erosion control and soil management work. This will include building and planting of the proposed berms, which will provide screening of construction activities from the adjacent residential uses. The entire site will be cleared which will be subject to erosion during the construction phase, and will be the areas from which dust could arise, due to truck and equipment movement and winds. Following completion of clearing activities, survey of road alignment and vertical control will be completed to establish road installation and proper grades. The grading concept will involve use of material excavated elsewhere within the site to raise the grade in limited fill areas. The remainder of the property is relatively flat and foundation excavated material will be used to contour the land for proper drainage around buildings. The boundaries of the construction area will be lined with silt fence and staked haybales, and drainage inlets will be protected by soil traps. It is anticipated that all construction equipment, materials and vehicles will be staged, parked and loaded/unloaded within the site. The intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street will be used for all construction access associated with the proposed project. Due to the proposed net export of material, it is proposed to reuse as much of this material on-site as practicable, in order to minimize the volume of material to be removed from the site (and the number of truck trips necessary to remove it). Generally, the site will be constructed starting on the southeastern portion of the property and progress west, much the same as the proposed project. The model homes, community building and approximately 30 homes will be started and completed during this first phase of construction, including the utilities and landscaping for these areas. The model homes will be built on the first loop of the road directly behind the community 66 • building. A sales office (trailer) for the project will also be set up at this time and will be located in the community building parking area and then relocating to the model homes once completed. The construction field office will also be located in this same area and relocated into the site as construction progresses to the west. Similarly, employee parking, staging and equipment storage areas will also be moved periodically as construction progresses into the site. The building materials for each home will be stored at the home site as needed and the pre-cast catch basins and piping will be staged along the roadway and in the area of the leaching fields and pond areas where most of this material will be used. The complete infrastructure will be developed in this phase including all underground utilities and internal roadways completed less the paving portion, which will be installed as sections are completed. The balance of the homes in this phase will commence with excavation for foundations, concrete, framing, interior work and finishes until complete including all utility connections, final street paving and final landscaping. Phase 2 will involve the construction of the units in the central portion of the site, and Phase 3 will complete the remaining units in the western portion of the site using the same sequence for construction activities as described above. Any outstanding/remaining items will be completed in Phase 3 along with any landscaping issues that may arise. All street stormwater basins and silt separators will be checked again and cleaned out as necessary prior to the completion of construction activities.A As construction equipment loading/unloading, materials storage, and construction staging areas and construction worker parking will be located within the site, no significant or long-term construction impacts to the surrounding residences are anticipated. Installation of a construction access/exit at Schoolhouse Lane and Griffing Street will minimize potential adverse impacts on the residences along Highland Road and Bridle Lane. Erosion control measures will be implemented during construction of the proposed project in order to minimize impacts. In accordance with the NYSDEC Phase II SPDES Program, coverage under the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (NYSDEC Permit No. GP-02-01, General Permit) will be obtained prior to the initiation of construction activities. Prior to filing for coverage under the General Permit, the NYSDEC requires that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared for the parcel, including a detailed erosion and sediment control plan, to manage stormwater generated on-site during construction activities, and for post-construction stormwater management. An SWPPP will be prepared to ensure compliance with water quality and quantity requirements pursuant to Technical Guidance and GP-02-01 requirements. In addition, an Erosion Control Plan incorporating the NYSDEC Technical Guidance manual, and use of measures such as silt fencing, storm drain inlet protection, hay bales, and good housekeeping procedures will be utilized. The drainage system and revegetation plan will further provide permanent stormwater controls once construction is completed. Development of the property is not anticipated to significantly increase erosion/sedimentation or stormwater impacts, as a result of proper site grading procedures, erosion controls, and drainage system design. The Notice of Intent (NOI) requesting coverage under the General Permit will be filed in accordance 67 • with NYSDEC requirements, prior to the initiation of construction activities at the subject property. There will be limited truck traffic to the site. Garbage collection and the occasional delivery to the residents will be expected, much as the surrounding area sees. A truck loading area will be provided for the deliveries to the community center. 5.2.1 Impacts and mitigation Impacts to Soils and Topography As with the proposed project the impacts of the alternative project on the soils of the site will be minor. The alternative plan does not consist of many changes to the existing terrain and any regarding for the roads and building sites will be kept to a minimum. Due to the nature of the soils on the site, the excavated materials from the creation of the alternative will be reused in areas that required filling. Any topsoil that is removed during the creation of the roads and buildings will be stockpiled and reused in the landscape areas As with the proposed project the major impact to the site is the loss of the 45+ acres of agricultural soils and the fact that there is no mitigation proposed. However this alternative will conform to all of the town zoning laws and local zoning laws. Mitigation of Soils and Topography As stated the impacts to the soils of the site with the construction of this alternative will be minimal. The grading of the site will follow that of the existing site as closely as possible other than the creation of roadways and housing footprints. Also any steep slopes will be cut down to stabilize these and protect from impacts due to erosion. The soils that are excavated during the construction will remain on site and be used for the creation of the vegetated areas and as fill where needed and will also aid in the stabilization of existing slopes_ According to the Nelson &Pope Pesticide report for the proposed site (Appendix E) it is recommended that a soil management plan be prepared to mitigate exposure to arsenic and mercury. SCDHS outlines soil management guidance to ensure that dermal contact, ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soils does not occur. Soil management options include: on-site stockpiling, on-site burial and/or covering of soils with sufficient material to prevent exposure. Soil management will involve isolation of soils as part of the grading plan to ensure that either non-impacted subsoils are exposed at the surface, or impacted surface soils are-covered with at least one (1) foot of clean soil. As this site will conform to the current zoning of the site and the zoning of the local area is as shown in figure 1-1 there will be no impacts from this project. Therefore there is no need for any mitigation. 68 • Impacts to Water Resources This site will create two impacts on the water resources of the area. The proposal of the sanitary waste fields on the site with subsequent leaching into the groundwater and the second will be the introduction of the stormwater into the ground through the recharge basin. As introduced in section 2.2.2 the water quality impacts due to the sanitary waste are a major concern and need to be evaluated. This was done using the BURBS model to show the effect of the leachate on the groundwater in terms of nitrogen. (see section 2.2.2 for explanation of BURBS). Through this model, it is shown that the Nitrogen in the water will be about 6.4 mg/1 which is well below the standard of 10 mg/l. comparisons between the proposed project and this alternative are shown in Table 5-1. The second impact that is discussed in the Proposed Project and also a concern in this alternative is the recharge of stormwater into the groundwater and with it any contaminants that were carried with the stormwater to the recharge sites. Stormwater runoff from pavement has been found to be contaminated with coliform and other bacteria, nutrients, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and pesticides. Stormwater runoff has been shown to be the leading source of bacterial loading in the surface waters of Suffolk and Nassau Counties. This has been confirmed by studies done by the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP), which explored alternatives to the disposal of stormwater from urbanized surfaces. However, this study showed that the pollutants in the runoff are not an indicator of the pavement surface but of the watershed area surrounding the site and that reductions in pollutants from the watershed will lead to a reduction of pollutants in the recharge water. It should be noted however, that this site is not a major roadway and pollution will be to a minimum consisting of rubber from tires and hydrocarbons. As this site has over 30' of sand to scrub the recharge water before it will enter the aquifer, most of the contaminants will be eliminated prior to reaching the water supply. Another concern is that this alternative will, much like the proposed project, impact the local wells of the houses that surround the site. As stated above this project will not be impacting the quantity of the recharge water from the site. Also, and any water that is recharged to groundwater and eventually the aquifer system, in which these wells are associated, will have over 50 feet of sand to filter any contaminants that may enter the system due to the runoff of the streets and any fertilizers that may be placed on the lawns and garden areas. This stated there will be no impact to the water quantity or quality recharged to the groundwater and eventually the aquifer. Mitigation of Impacts to Water Resources Development of this alternative could impact the groundwater in several ways. However due to the nature of the site these impacts will be minimized. All runoff will be maintained on the site. This will be recharged in either leach pools or the recharge basin. As the site has over 30' of sand to filter through before it reaches the aquifer-the water will be of drinking water quality at that time. Also, this alternative will use public water and not well water reducing its impact to the levels of the aquifer in the vicinity of the site. Also the design of this project will allow for all required sanitary setbacks from drinking water wells in the vicinity of the site. 69 • Impacts on the Ecology of the Site As with the proposed project the construction of this alternative will require the removal of the field/successional scrub and hardwoods that have thrived on this site to allow for the building of the complex and the vegetation plantings around the structures and site. Due to this there will be a decrease in the number of birds and mammals that will frequent the site, though the number of species on the site will remain. Also, this alternative, as with the proposed, will remove some highly invasive species of plants. These plants, allowed to flourish on the site will eventually move off the site to other areas creating further problems. Overall, this alternative will have a positive impact on the vegetation of the site. The removal of the invasive species will allow the flourishing of the native species and the creation of new habitats for the wildlife of the area. Mitigation of the Ecology of the Site With the construction of the site under this alternative, mitigation of the impacts to the ecology will be two fold. This project requires the removal of the invasive plant species from the site and the replacement of these plants with native species. Secondly, areas of the site have been selected to be vegetated buffers around the perimeter of the property. These areas will create habitat for the wildlife of the site and may attract other species of the area. Impacts to Land Use and Zoning Zonis As this altenative will conform to the existing zoning ofthe site there are no impacts anticipated. Plans Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Report (1994) — This alternative will provide a significant number of affordable residential units, which conforms to the applicable general recommendation of this plan. Therefore, no adverse impact is anticipated with respect to this plan. Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1994) —This alternative does not include walking trails for either site residents or for community use, though sidewalks are proposed along the site's internal roadway for the use and convenience of the site's residents. While the project does not provide such an amenity (as generally recommended by this plan), its absence is not significant on a Townwide basis, as sufficient amounts of undeveloped land and/or open space remain available on which to locate this feature. In addition, the property is located in close proximity to Cutchogue hamlet, and as a result walking within the hamlet is expected to occur. Peconic Estuary Program (1995) - It is noteworthy that the project site is not located in proximity to the Peconic Estuary, and is separated from the shoreline by multi-lane 70 • roadways and developed areas. Nevertheless, it is possible for activities on the subject to impact water quality within the estuary via surface runoff flow. By such a mechanism, chemical substances and/or eroded soil may be carried from the site southward to the estuary in stormwater runoff. However, it is anticipated that, as the project will be subject to the thorough review and approval processes of the Town and County for the site plan and drainage system, and by conformance to the applicable stormwater handling regulations, the potential for impacts to the Peconic Estuary will be minimized. The alternative is proposed at a land use density which is less than the maximum allowable flow permitted under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. As a result, no adverse impacts are expected to this resource. Economic Development Plan (1997) — This alternative is a private residential development for retirement-age households, and has a significant affordable component; it does not include any agricultural, fishing or commercial components or facilities or amenities for use by the public or local community. As a result, the recommendations of this plan do not apply, and no impacts are anticipated. Southold Township. 2000 Planning Initiatives (1997) — This alternative represents development in conformance with its existing HD (Hamlet Density) zoning, which was applied to this site by the Town Board subsequent to prior review. In this respect, the zoning (and therefore the alternative project) represents the type of use and yield considered appropriate for this particular property, after analysis by the Town Board. Therefore, this project conforms to this plan, and no adverse impacts will occur. Community Preservation Project Plan (CPPP; 1998) - The ownership of the project site has not been contacted by the administration of the CPPP with an offer to purchase the site for preservation, or for the purchase of the site's development rights. Therefore, there arc no impacts to or from this plan with respect to the alternative project. County Route 48 Corridor, Land Use Stud} (1999) - As the subject property is not located on or within the CR 48 con idor, the recommendations of this plan do not apply to this alternative and, hence, no impacts will occur. Farm and Farmland Preservation Program (1983-2002) and Southold Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (2000) - As noted above, the subject site is presently a naturally-vegetated property; no agricultural activity is presently occurring here, and no such use has been found on this site for some time. As such, the recommendations of these plans will not apply, and therefore no impacts are expected. Water Supply Management and Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) — This alternative will conform to the amount of sanitary wastewater (and hence, of the volume of water consumed for domestic purposes) allowed by Article 6 of the SCSC. In addition, it will provide for on-site treatment and recharge of all sanitary wastewater generated, through the use of septic systems. These will be subject to the review and approval of the SCDHS, which has jurisdiction in this regard. In consideration of this, it is anticipated that no significant impact to groundwater resources will occur and hence, no impacts are expected. 71 • Recommendations related to agricultural use or activities do not apply, as no such uses exist or are proposed. Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) - As noted above, the subject site is not located within either of the corridors centered on CR 48 or NYS Route 25. Therefore, the recommendations of this plan do not apply to the alternative project, and no impacts will occur. Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold (2002) - It is acknowledged that the subject site is presently a naturally vegetated open space (occupied by successional field species), and will be considered a prime candidate for preservation or reduced-density residential development. However, the site is zoned HD by the Town, which is a zoning type intended for increased density development due to the presence or proximity of necessary infrastructure and a complementary land use pattern. This alternative will be developed in conformance with its zoning; no increased density or yield is proposed. It should also be noted that the landowner has not been approached with an offer to purchase the site or to obtain its development rights (for either a PDR or TDR action). As a result, it is anticipated that no impacts to the recommendations of this plan will occur. Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (CIS) and GEIS (2003) — This alternative has been designed to conform to all applicable Town requirements, as reflected in the Town Zoning Code. As the recommendations of the CIS are to be implemented by revisions and/or amendments to the Town Code and/or other applicable land use policies, it is expected that conformance to these regulations will simultaneously conform to the recommendations of the CIS. As this alternative conforms to the Town Code, no impacts to the C1S are anticipated. Local 1D'aterfrow Revitalisation Program (2005) - The LWRP recognizes the Town zoning map and the hamlet study initiative. Proposed zoning and access recommendations primarily relate to the more immediately coastal zone area. The LWRP did not recommend any changes in the current zoning with respect to the subject property; as a result, no significant adverse impacts are expected with respect to this plan. Southold Hamlet Studv (2005) - As the subject site is not located in the Cutchogue HALO Zone, the recommendations of this plan will not apply to the site or to this alternative, and no impacts are anticipated. Long Island North ,Shore Heritage Area (2005) — This alternative will conform to those Preservation Policies that apply to this private development application. Specifically, construction will include use of environmentally-friendly materials and mechanical systems where possible, will conform to applicable design and development requirements, and will employ sound land use and siting principles in its project layout. In this way, no adverse impacts related to this alternative are expected. 72 • Town Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (2005) — This alternative includes a number of its residences (11%) as affordable units, which will assist in addressing the Town's concerns in this matter. Community Preservation Project Plan Update (2006) - The owner of the subject site has not been contacted in regard to the potential for public purchase of the site or its development rights, as part of the CPPP. Therefore, there remain no potential impacts with respect to this plan for this alternative. Town Zoning Maps/Code and Comprehensive Plan - As noted above, the Town of Southold does not presently have a current comprehensive or master land use plan. In lieu of such a document, the Town utilizes its Zoning Code and the recommendations of the various land use plans and studies (of which those applicable to the project site are addressed in this section) to provide a framework within which development in the Town is to take place. This alternative has been designed to conform to the requirements of the HD zone, as well as to the various requirements of the SCSC, particularly Article 6. It is therefore anticipated that conformance to these regulations and requirements will minimize if not eliminate the potential for adverse impacts to the Town's resources (which is the goal and intent of these regulations). Mitigation for Land Use and Zoning The above discussions of the alternatives conformance to those aspects and/or recommendations of the above-listed land use plans and studies uniformly indicate that no impacts will occur. Therefore, no further mitigation (beyond this alternates site design and project components) is necessary or proposed. Impacts on Community Facilities and Services As stated with the Proposed Project, letters have been sent to all the local services that could possible be impacted by the construction of this site. Though few response letters have been received (Appendix G) the following is assumed: Police It is anticipated that there will be no impact on the police force of the area Fire It is anticipated that the fire department of the area is capable of handling the increase in homes due to this project. Also this site will employ the latest fire fighting technology to aid the local departments if need be. School District Being that this project is the development of a 55+ active adult community and it is unlikely that there will be any negative impact on the school district. However, with the increase in population there will be an increase in school taxes. 73 • Utilities It is anticipated that this project will have no negative impact on the utilities of the area. Mitigation for the Community Facilities and Services It is anticipated that this site will not impact the community in any negative capacity. As it is a 55 or older adult community it is unlikely that there will be any impact on the school district. Also, the facility will have all state of the art fire facilities that will aid in all fire fighting needs of the local volunteer fire departments. As this is a community of older citizens and a gated community there is not expected to be any need for an increase in the local police force. Impacts to Open Space and Community Character As with the proposed project, this alternative will have both positive and negative impacts on the Open Space and Community Character of the area. As stated this space is considered open space. It though has not been slated by the county for purchase. The creation of this alternative will diminish the open space of the area, however it will be in keeping with the look of the adjacent neighborhood and area. Through the buffer area this alternative will be virtually unseen in the next 10 years other than the roofs of the new buildings. The view of the properly will be the same as that of the proposed project • found in Appendix C. As with the proposed project, this alternative will need to remove contaminants from the soils that come with building on a agricultural site. This will not only protect the new residences but will protect the neighboring properties that arc exposed to these contaminants. As with any construction project, there will be short term impacts such as construction noise, dust and excess trucks on the roads. These though are anticipated to be short term and once construction finishes they will dissipate. Mitigations to Impacts on Open Space and Community Character As indicated above there are several impacts from this alternative on the community character and the open space. Through the use of plantings, like that of the proposed plan, the impact of the site will be minimized. The impacts of open space will be minimized by the use of vegetated buffers and open grassways along the roadways. This alternative unfortunately does not have the ponds as in the proposed project so the open space is considerably less. The third mitigation will be the cleanup of the contaminated soils on the site. This cleanup will help to protect the neighborhood from the influx of contaminants left over from the agricultural days of the site.- The short term impacts of the construction will be mitigated by the use of dust control measures and having all work take place during the daylight hours to minimize the impacts to the neighborhood. To control the noise of the construction trucks as with the construction will be limited to working during the daylight hours. 74 Plantings, as stated above, will create a buffer around the site virtually hiding all but the rooflines of the new houses. This will be a two fold mitigation measure, in that the new planting will not only lower the impact of the new development on the eye of the neighbors but will also be completely constructed of native plantings which will be stronger and rely on less irrigation and other plant care that a non-native plant will require. Another major concern around a construction site is the safety of the families that are living near the site. As stated all of the truck traffic will be limited to the daylight hours to provide the visibility to both the truckers and the neighbors to avoid any vehicle to vehicle or vehicle pedestrian accidents. The site will be fenced to protect from anyone entering the site and either falling into holes or tripping over any construction debris or equipment. Also, open holes will be fenced to protect against anyone falling into. Lastly, all construction material will be removed or stored properly to protect against anyone injuring himself or herself on construction debris that has been handled improperly. Impacts to Cultural Resources The Phase I Archaeological Investigation prepared for the site made the following conclusions and recommendations (see Appendix F): The Phase IA had determined the study area had higher than average potential for the recovery of prehistoric sites. The property had a moderate potential for Native American historic sites but a low potential for European-American sites. The Phase 113 resulted in the excavation of 767 S F s. isolated prehistoric and historic finds were encountered. The prehistoric finds were too tew in number and too disconnected to warrant further assessment. The historical finds were also few in numbers and were found in the plow zone arca, an area that may have been disturbed by agricultural activity. Any agricultural activity will disarrange the original stratigraphy of the area, rendering the chronology inaccurate. No further work is therefore recommended. Mitigation for Cultural Resources Impacts As with the proposed project, the alternative plan will have no impacts to cultural resources. (no such resources are present, as determined by the Phase I Archaeological Investigation prepared for the project site) and no further archaeological investigation is recommended, no mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. 5.3 Alternative 3: Alternative Design for Wastewater Treatment Groundwater protection related to residential development in Suffolk County is provided by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The proposed project is located in Groundwater Management Zone IV, which, under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, permits sanitary flow of 600 gallons per day per acre, provided public water supply is available. Public water will be provided to the subject site. As a result, best groundwater management practice will be provided through compliance with Article 6 of the SCSC. 75 Under Article 6, the allowable flow for the subject site is 27,696 gpd. Based on Suffolk County design flow factors, senior units have a design flow of 150 gpd, for a total flow of 20,850 gpd. As a result, the sanitary flow for the units, plus an allocation of flow for the clubhouse, will be less than the allowable flow for the parcel. Consequently, the project is consistent with SCDHS requirements under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and is consistent with best groundwater management practice. If a project exceeds the allowable flow, a community sewerage treatment system (i.e. STP) is required. For projects which do not exceed the allowable flow, a STP is not required. A STP is expensive and requires land area due to setback requirements. Recent construction costs received by Nelson & Pope, Engineers & Surveyors, for STPs of a similar size and located in central and western Suffolk County are in the range of $1.8 million dollars for construction. Additional costs for annual operation typically range between $30,000 and $40,000 for utilities, sludge hauling and operators. The additional $1.8 million in cost renders the project economically infeasible, and is arbitrary given the fact that an STP is not required pursuant to SC Sanitary Code. If such a facility is not required under SCDHS requirements for best groundwater management practice, it is not economically feasible to construct. Further, Suffolk County policy seeks to limit the proliferation of small STP's, and in a case where one is not required, it is expected that installing such a system may not be approvable by SCDHS. An option that will potentially permit the installation of an STP, will involve an increase in residential density to permit a project that will require an STP. A project of 184 units will exceed the allowable flow, and will require an STP. The additional 45 units will help to offset the high cost of constructing an STP, and may provide for a potentially economically viable project. The applicant is under the impression that increased land use density is not desired by the Town. The proposed project will use individual conventional sanitary systems which include a properly sized septic tank and leaching pools with adequate capacity, all designed, approved and installed in a manner consistent with SCDHS requirements. The potential groundwater impacts of this system are fully analyzed in Section 2.2.2 of this DEIS. The installation will result in less discharge than is allowed under Article 6 of the SCSC, and therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Also of benefit, is the design, which involves dispersing individual systems across a larger part of the site, as compared with a design that uses a communal system (i.e. one or more large for multiple units), that concentrate the effluent discharge in a smaller area. Further, SCDHS requires that all private wells in proximity to a conventional system be mapped, and at least 150 feet of separation provided in order to ensure that private wells are not impacted. The proposed project will result in the extension of public water west from Depot Road to the project site, which will also provide a benefit to those in the area that currently rely on private wells and will now have access to public water. No impact on private wells will occur, as a result of the design requirements and SCDHS review and approval of the project for density and installation. • 76 • In analyzing the potential impacts, considerations such as limitations of such systems, effectiveness, maintenance factors and overall cost of individual systems (versus an STP) should be considered. This analysis is provided below: Limitations — Conventional sanitary systems are limited to sites where the design flow does not exceed the allowable flow. Such systems are utilized for individual homes and can be sized for larger capacities where multiple units connect to a single communal system. These systems are routinely approved by SCDHS based on analysis of design vs. allowable flow, general subsoil conditions and depth to groundwater review, conducted at the Realty Subdivision stage. Prior to installation a permit to construct must be obtained for each system. Conventional sanitary systems are routinely approved by SCDHS for projects such as The Heritage. Effectiveness — Conventional sanitary systems are simple and effective. These systems remove solids in the sealed, baffled septic tank, and after settling, effluent overflows to a leaching system. Leaching pools are installed 3 or more feet above regional high groundwater elevations, in order to allow conversion of ammonia (NH4), to nitrite (NOA to nitrate (NO3). Leaching through unsaturated soils removes bacteria and releases some nitrogen as a gas. Systems installed at acceptable densities which do not exceed the allowable flow for a site are the most appropriate option for sanitary wastewater disposal. Maintenance — Conventional sanitary systems are simple to maintain, and this is a key factor in the effectiveness . of their design. Systems constructed to current requirements, have large capacity septic tanks for settling and removal of solids, baffled chambers for internal stages of settling, a "f' overflow which "decants" effluent from the second stage chamber in order to overflow cleaner wastewater, and leaching with sufficient capacity and potential expansion area if necessary. Systems operate on a maintenance free basis for extended periods of time. Septic tanks recommended to be pumped to remove solids on a periodic basis. Cost Conventional sanitary systems may cost in the range of$7,000 - 59,000 to install on individual lots. Therefore, the cost of installing conventional sanitary systems for The Heritage project may be in the range of$630,000 or about $1,170,000 less than an STP. When installing an STP, the initial construction cost is only one small aspect of the cost. Soft costs are required for engineering design and review, legal costs are required for processing and filing of C&Rs, maintenance and repair; and most significantly, operating costs associated with licensed operators, monitoring, electricity and chemicals ($30,000 to $40,000 annually). STPs are complicated in comparison to conventional systems, and as a result, there is a greater potential for incident. The initial construction is the responsibility of the developer, once constructed, an STP is offered for dedication to the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. Typically, there is a delay in SCDPW taking over operation of a plant, and in many cases, small STPs for private communities remain in private ownership. Once constructed, the STP becomes the responsibility of the community association for operation, maintenance and repair. If dedicated to SCDPW, homeowners pay a fee per gallon of waste treated in order to fund the operation, maintenance and repair of the STP by SCDPW. In both cases (private operation or SCDPW operation), this adds a substantial cost assessment to the individual homeowners in the association, and as a result, increases their living costs. 77 • There is no compelling reason to construct an STP, given that the project does not exceed the allowable flow, and conventional systems are effective, simple to operate, and reduce costs to the homeowners. Based on assessment of system limitations, maintenance factors, effectiveness and cost, as well as an overall assessment of potential impacts, the use of conventional systems for The Heritage project is suggested as the preferred alternative. • 78 • 6.0 REFERENCES Burchell, R. W., D. Listokin, and W. R. Dolphin, 1985. The New Practitioners Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis. Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. Greenman-Pedersen, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, The Hamlet at Cutchogue, revised June 1989 Part 617, Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6NYCRR Part 617) Trip Generation, 7th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2003. Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton, Water Resources Program Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University Salvato, Joseph, 1982, Environmental Engineering and Sanitation, 3`d Edition, A Wiley- Interscience Publication, New York_ SCDHS, 1987-1, Suffolk County Sanitary Code-Article 6 Realty Subdivisions, Development and Other Construction Projects, Amended March 4, 1987, Code of 40 Administrative Regulations, Hauppauge, New York. • 79 Appendix A Site Plan and Details Appendix B Traffic Study Appendix C Architectural Renderings e.. Appendix D Ecological Inventory a.. Appendix E Water and Soil Resources Appendix F Cultural Resources Study F: Appendix G Community Services Coordinator a Appendix H Correspondence NOW/FORMERLY OF NOW/FORMERLY OF BERTHA KURCZEWSKI v FRANK MACHINCHICK 1901.44' (DEED) 1904.80' (ACTUAL) \ . 538'30�SD"E (DEED) — — — N S38'24'20"E (ACTUAL) — — — — >— ❑ W q / e LANDSCAPE BUFFER 'NALK�.NG TRAIL Co 56 70 84 98 112 .pi NOW/FORMERLY OF O 29 42 N.ri iZAHARA, O 0_o p O CHARLES J. & JEAN T. m n s o = KEYMAP O SCALE 1-=4,000' S37'04'40"E _273.68' C Now/FORMERLY OF C m v N TOWN OF SOUTHOLD vON 1n �OU5 ri 1 POOL m O N RECHARGE AREA "'"7 O o Z GREENCIE EIE VILLAGE VILLAGE COMMUNITY co fn GREEN GRA GREEN CENTER >" COMMON VS37'04�40 E NONOPENFERTIUZ R DEPSPACE ENDENTLANDSCAPING AREA 95.00' ID V1 O zID CIE CIE U l ti " U N N GRIFFING STREET Y, U � '�JI � U C 3 (Pii_) E7 (P 35 48 62 76 9D 104 11 B T?, 0 0 x x LAWN / PLANTINGS ElF FERTILIZER DEPENDENT LANDSCAPING NOW/FORMERLY OF ID �E]E1 I WILLIAM M. BEEBE p & WILLIAM F. HEANEY t� �IF G J 36 49 63 77 105 119 7 26 53713'30"E (DEED) 2- - — — S37'04'30"E ACTUAL 221.47' :10 o Now/FORMERLY OF NU„GE 126 N37'13'30"W 400.00' .Dr..v ARTo LTD. :0 ETVILLAGE GREEN VILLAGE 133 W (SEEN GREEN NOW/FORMERLY OF ROMAN CATHOUC N Q - CHURCH OF o -- 136 SACRED HEART a LO 29 z COMMON AREA EEL NOW/FORMERLY OF 41 132 137 _ ONG ISLAND MINEYAROS O - '= INC. m GAZEBO �o ze 20' w� 14 28R -o,+ u1 -NCE Z a 55 69 83 97 111 125 N N 20: rp p OI LANDSCAPE BUFFER ❑ �� - — L`! O ❑ ii WALKING TRAIL �6 - FIPr- - AFIRE a �AT ARATUS - ❑ IgU) APFARATllS CRASH GATE ¢I CRASH GATE CN.TS N36'54'20"W 4 2009.51' (DEED) o 2n NOW/FORMERLY OF NOW/FORMERLY OF 200927 (ACTUAL) Q l'.�'-mac= ceeery O NOW/FORMERLY OF NOW/FORMERLY OFNOW/FORMERLY OF BARSAU, SHELBY, NOW/FORMERLY OF NOW/FORMERLY OF COOK, NOW/FORMERLY OF DEMBROSKY, DFMSROSKY, ALDO & LOUISE PAUL M. & CONCETTA STASIUKIEWICZ, NOW FORMERLY OF HIGHLAND ROAD CORP. W DAVID A. DIMNEY, I STANLEY JR. STANLEY JR. HENRY & DEBORAH QUARTCEW, TYPICAL PLOT LAYOUT & MDHRING RT. Z & DONNA M. FRANCIS J. Q & MARIE C. JOHN & ISABEL SCALE 1'=50' W w m - iiq SITE DATA: - SCTM: 1000-102-01-33.3 _ _`s SIDEWALK ZONED: HAMLET DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HET`-TTI TTA_ SITE AREA: 2,003,311.33SF = 45.9897 ACRES Irl, (.N T NUMBER OF UNITS = 139 (INCL 14 AFFORDABLE) PARKING CALCULATIONS: -LACE CRIVEWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 9 REQUIRED: KE-E SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING: 2 SPACES PER DWELLING E.0^,' �G� i 20 a0' LU-CCI ,I --- AFFORDABLE AFFORDABLE UNITS: 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT METES AND OBTAINED FROM SURVEY PLANS BY PECONIC SURVEYORS, PC DATED APRIL 18, 2007 125 UNITS X 2 SPACES/UNIT = 250 SPACES ZONING DATA: (2) 4 UNIT BUILDING X 1.5 = 6 X 2 = 12 SPACES (2) 3 UNIT BUILDING X 1.5 = 5 X 2 = 10 SPACES TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED FOR UNITS = 272 SPACES TYPICAL SECTION ZONING: HAMLET DENSITY (HD)' MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR 1 FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS: COMMUNITY CENTER: SCALE 1-=10' 1 SPACE PER 300 SF OF RECREATIONAL FACILITY SITECOVERAGE: REQUIRED: PROVIDED: 5 SPACES PER TENNIS COURT AREA PERCENTAGE COMMUNITY CENTER 6,400 SF /300= 22 SPACES POOL 1,160 SF / 300 = 4 SPACES BUILDING 267,200 S.F. 13.34% LOT SIZE (SQ. T) 10,000 2,003,311.33 SF = (45.9897 AC) RECHARGE 88,094 S.F. 4.40% TENNIS COURT 2 COURTS X 5/CT = 10 SPACES LOT WIDTH (FEET) 60 216.51 RECHARGE AREA 77,210 S.F. 3.85% LOT DEPTH (FEET) 80 2205.29 TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING. = 36 SPACES ROADS, PARKING, & PAVEMENT 307,045 S.F. 15.33% MONT YARD (FEET) 30 212.07 LOADING ZONE: SIDEWALK, TENNIS COURT, GAZEBO, & POOL 63,469 S,F. 3.17% SIDE YARD (FEET) 15 COMMUNITY CENTER WITH FLOOR AREA OF 5,000 TO 25,000 SF LANDSCAPING 1,200,293 S.F. 59.91% 4 5107)07 �ns®Foa� NEs BOTH SIDE YARDS (FEET) 30 = 1 BERTH TOTAL SITE AREA: 2,003,311 S.F. 100,00% a Wa 07 raE+n r:p czug np»As�gt4r sn REAR YARD (FEET) 30 UVABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT./UNIT) 850 PROVIDED: 2 2,01w �scnx$ crolae+ls Lou/res LOT COVERAGE (%) 25 >zm.� BUILDING HEIGHT (FEET) 35 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING: 2 SPACES PER DWELLING IN GARAGE 6sva�uva✓r�a� �V�s NUMBER OF STORIES 2 1/2 AFFORDABLE UNITS: 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT IN OFF STREET PARKING oen°/°e nermm*o rowN cc san»xD s1 No. DATE fEVSKKi gy.- NOTE: PROPOSED 55 AND OVER ADULT COMMUNITY WITH PUBLIC WATER 125 BUILDINGS X 2 SPACES/GARAGE = 250 SPACES --- - GRAPHIC SCALE AVAILABLE FROM SCWA. (2) 4 UNIT BUILDING X 1.5 = 6 SPACES X 2 = 12 SPACES 20. - AS PER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD'S OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY'S LETTER (2) 3 UNIT BUILDING X 1.5 = 5 SPACES X 2 = LQ PS ACES ALTERNATE SITE PLAN DWG.BDSGN YY SJR= : LOIG r�—rte EDH29. R SEWER LO SIZES NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE ZONING CODE FOR 10,000 STOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 272 SPACES COMMUNITY CENTER: THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE- 4/2110BE ( IN FEET ) TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED IN PARKING LOT = 39 SPACES INCLUDING 2 HANDICAP SPACES s""�'� nTCHK D LOADING ZONE PROVIDED: 1 BERTH CUTCHOGUE DATE 6Y /0-- DATE I/77/DE NOTE: OWNER: TOWN OF 80UTHOLO, 3UFPOLK COUNTY. NEW YORK DISTRICT 1000, SECTION 102. BLOCK Ol. LOT 33.3 JOB N� 0002E THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF NELSON & POPE. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS OR NOCRO, LTD. TIME HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE, LLC ADDITIONS TO THESE DOCUMENTS ARE A VIOLATON OF SEC TON 140 EAST MAIN ST. 1721 -D NORTH OCEAN AVENUE NELSON Sc POPE_ 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. INFRINGEMENTS RVERHEAD, NY 1 7901 MED FORD, NY 11763 MCARD 00026AP WILL BE PROSECUTED. _- �2 WALIN1E�RSRO�CURVE SURVE=YORS SCALES 1'-10C' (631) 4273665 FAX(WD 427-5620 wwvneleonpope.com SHEET 1 OF STRUCTURE TABLE OUWA UNITS BLDG fi LEACHING 0% DIP. LEACHING 50% EXP. O O NO. INVERT OP T 0 POOL INV.L.P. INV. POOL BOT.L.P. BOT. CLBHSE 29.67 33.55 28.75 26.25 1 28.15 28.03 LPI 17.15 17.03 t 2 28.15 LP2 17.15 ILL. avin�xo GT 29.67 33.87 29.11 28.61 LL W O O ano" (\\ \ O 2 1 30.67 34.70 29.87 28.37 29.27 29.20 17.27 9.27 2 30.17 O O to � I © \\ u� OO 3 { 29.67 35.0 29.67 29.17 20.07 20.83 17.07 16.83 L0 w Li W W Z W Z W Dp 4 6 30.17 34,2 29.79 29.29 28.19 29.79 17.18 17.19 Z W Z W J W J W I a 5 a 30.17 33.90 29.21 28.71 28.61 211.61 16.61 16.51 J W J W = _ YC+ 6 9 30.67 30.17 34.25 29.87 28.37 29.27 29.27 17.27 17.27 NOW/FORMDiLY OF W W NOW/FOflMERLY W Q I,Lt Q W --I -- n $ y� pC 7 12 28.67 30.40 29.79 28.69 LP1 28.58 28.44 LPI 20.59 20.44 ESTAIE OF I BERTHA KIIR@ AI c (1^` 13 lP2 28.59 LP2 20.59 FRANK MACH M W M N 6 1901.44' (DEED) �p'� \\ 14 -- -�_ 190¢•80' (ACTUAL) N ( a 15 30.17 34,75 28.49 28.88 2&89 28.88 18.89 16.89 \ S38'30'50"E (DEED) - - �- �_�• ° �°�I�Sa ' 11 ,9 ze49 Bas B3 16.39 J 9 16 28 67 33 90 29 25 21175 21165 28.62 16 65 16 62 838'24'20"E (ACTUAL) -1 eY Co. ECONIC9AY f0 20 2867 3410 2925 28.75 2065 2865 1665 1665 • , AT P _ •yam �'•°dl'=, KEY MAP 30.9 O, 'yam a 19 moF rasa om. my +y • WATER WELL LOCATION AS PER z 3a.35 28.99 2 . 2 . 91639 w�w w• w r e 2 ppop ps°pA coos m t4 mor 2 "Fa Fsfrae.f @ rru.xeo per, J a �z E7 'r•r�rf /- S.C.D.H.S. OFFICE OF WATER Q SCALE P-05 MILE 21 29.57 y ty� •v`� " s p rear sad E+d r "r' ° yf ^� p rA pr'0 A a A ] m-9"° ms ^m.o Y✓J / RESOURCES, VERIFY IN FIELD J 22 Z W )' w peep roan rR°P 8pp, _ Aap•a lRaP my "mjyq E r"N2n °A^1° 3 "24 4 .o • A Oj O O %10P y CJ7 72 23 31.17 34.30 28.91 29.47 29.37 28.31 17.31 W 19, Ana• 19x nEs I®. iewAs " 'wS eEs las Ip pp3 fx v 6 4 nn f N {D �: plt0! pr's MyA Fl-SAe ): iMA.f p RlN0.a @ t{ fe 2 10 N✓ J 24 �l.. 1a3 o A qq - ' 1" O O xaw yxour a' 13 31.17 34,80 30.71 30.21 30.11 30.11 18.11 18.11 D / °� pRt3••a p A x4 N A a °° ef• �1 �IMMA W 25 0 T l0 1 0•'� 1 21 4 i u xx " " 3 wA BON G yr OeVtl�A e iwd T. N 26 30.17 33.55 29.19 28.69 28.69 28.59 16.59 18.58 04 a /F` o y WF,u •'� p yl¢ r 27 29.67 M `L \ a L, •IM .. " , .4. O To aF s0u91mp tl TNN, wa ' NOW ORMERLY OF 14 ".ov my •"Y"iY° 53-04'40"E 273.68' za zas7 15 33.80 29.55 28.05 28.06 28.95 16.118 76.85 ® ® x rrtAeA pt�I 29 30.77 TH#g0.. F° Amy 3 l9f • Q ,p , =- LP•-yr��wy V 01 16 30 30.67 35.0 30.15 28.66 29.55 28.65 17.65 17.55 O nAt r u • + i a " "Es pR,.eed nNP wnm a r r NNNi6tnxR O O N 31 31.17 y✓ mNAe N•4wr ", A 11 p m .1.•� YN1A ]ef N,2, �'� +es { ° 6MA°E rD0 u1 J J w ANP 114 •w rl A A Rfa. •'P,� Rs. ff4r1''f " r�"j Fi1'"4'" r11 �� 32 30.67 35.30 30.25 29.75 T9.6g 29.66 17.85 17.65 raw n' LIES BW].{ � mar p a RI.pAe •� m^axo �y ! D p N � 17 33 �( A W 37.0 y spy °�, nL4 mar 1'i R t nL4 1"0.m C] I S 34 30.67 /CJ x B E ors E w • r*1 C� 7B 35.67 29.23 20.73 28.63 20.63 16.63 16.63 Imp' " , 11° rap; k lee. C` Pnel' !RM FFln37.o • •0 �O `0.p (n 35 29.67 t1a'� EI �` d o a4 '" m IID . 4V R�x,f FiIw�TlA anu,,,•`'� u6 D" 79 36 30.17 34,20 29.85 28.95 29.35 29.35 17.35 17.35 I0•1 wr p ' FIs s `d537'04'4D'E 20 37 28.67 3J.B0 2&98 2849 28.38 28.39 16.39 18.39 \ a V 22 E \ a Ile ® ""`°" • " ° coop a�nf" ,,``/,.a µ T #1 95.Q ' 21 39 31.17 35.30 30.31 29.81 28.71 28.77 17.71 77.77 field 1a Plly 1p p�q L•" "W di 1 c "my D rNNA ,,,PA � ancon v. 39 30.67 40 30.17 "® a z. 41s- ¢ N GRIPPING STREET 22 33.70 za.zt 2e.n ze.61 2es1 test last m,gea 11 ,• : n� �p ' 2 °o' 41 29.67 ."". r s 0 ® RIn3e 9 my a us ? rrlw N C� 42 28.67 rBap A wma' .q,,. txB It " rrtrxa las i Rf-sae N N 43 28.17 1 � y4pe dr+�� �� Y.FH.� Oe Os � 44 29.17 x.60 2&B1 28.31 28.21 28.21 18.21 16.21 •y _ >t-. 34.70 28.73 28.23 28.13 28.13 16.13 15.13 rs�Sra r, 1 ��q i���' '\-d�' Jt f f 24 qg 30.87 rR-d1, my Y d A WA1EiC a nEs rwP FFL+""ST/.e 2d ` •Y 46 rap,yV RL•no } iF X31.0 I, my.CRY Aima, •[ � .Y 'Y .� �+ 47 29.67 33.20 28.13 28.93 LPI 28.83 28.71 LPI 20.83 20.71 N > wrap,p• '0v°�r OP hila TH 4 (WA P. . D A"' n wv" �f"'tr" 9) :1J 26 48 IP228.B3 LP2 20.1131 O •ivaen ,WAlm anwunox mop rmo) xn ' � ' } L � � 49 WW/FOPMEflLY OF A. ,pA 9 vie rWxMM P 0 N D ' "" - WWM M. B®E /^ \ !11'3° EAf. x�y iaa[ arAlW 50 30.17 33.10 29.65 29.15 29.05 28.00 17,05 17.05 &tNWAM F HEANEY /' O \1 2° ^ °, 0 20.a 1)j p rw / f 26 C to A lullr�" lllor LP + •,. D 4 57 30.17 O3 P Ft� ER d " ' bio,w. wARIInMWNINAna+ Q * $• f m 52 37.17 ✓ r"°P O 4 iV1r� an H Irr rasa u u 1? / / � O NOW/FORMERLY OF PI 27 35.00 29.57 28.07 28.97 28.97 16.97 16.97 p ° •e µ O M39 29.89 537'13'30"E (DEED) ✓ eaeM A 4� W �Am y a M 0 e B ■ E Mo! qa y �- Dv ARroLro. 28 53 3 55 0.77 35.45 827 2&77 2867 2867 7867 867 a�f� ) N37'13'30"W 400.00' � s4 30.67 t 2" vfWP s las f rx Qn'2 AYS �F w e2 29 5B 2B 67 3 17 537'04'30"E ACTU L 221.47 " P " �� � p7 � 4j9, �,,r' 2 Ado AL's'' Aaa• � °� 1" I 1 STRUCTURE TABLE 4ss 4 ,wAA 10r.{a'1 B j A M pp u b 'SY o u•• b 4e" G :�.; NOW/FORMERLY OF oUI1FA BLDG LEACHING OS EXP. LEACHING 505 E%P. 30 57 29.67 34.10 29.29 20.78 28.69 28.88 16.69 16.69 y pry,y, �I w tl a ROMAN CAIHOUO UNITS R e ey1 6 px ors i i" p0 O ® , • / r,_d 4 CHURCH OF N0. INVERT TOP I 'INVER OUT POOL INV.LP. INV. POOL BOT. LP. BOL Be \W rR- ay N a rr1-te r2++,p / } tEpq •4IA SACRED HEART 13 31.1 59 30.67 34.45 30.21 28.71 LPI 29.61 29.61 LPI 21.61 21.61 " • 40 " .b ° 0 AnM e \ RI 34.20 28.85 28.35 29.25 29.25 17..25 17.25 37 LP2 29.51 LP2 21.51 O e a r " ® Vu N / lea 3 pi \ 1� 0 I n0 114 30.17 60 Pyr a 6 c fl 31 ° iB °g h 7r ( Y 175 28.87 61 O Vit" a Ep • mor nv O ,u•1 I 82 34.00 28.01 28.51 28.41 28.29 16.41 16.29 62 31.67 O ' 1�TF1# 2 w A SLA a , q " ® atr 'gu `"C I pl,p,Osy 116 25.87 32 35.30 30.23 28.73 29.63 29.63 17.63 17.83 rp a • m4 ° mor ° �I"fL �,�{.ry le'WAtm 117 29.87 113 30.67 Z a'r0• , 'W nc. ,• rW e B A to I h "rp ., t• w°\r rl l� F13FNrBr 83 118 30.17 7{.75 29.17 20.07 28.57 2&57 16.57 16.57 64 30.17 'd4 R N �A �O' Ori snap AM,p 11 7a aR"Y mar N1' 1M,l I 719 30.67 33 65 29.67 34.15 29.07 28.57 28.47 28.47 16.47 16.47 S14tl 4 M lea. pp 40 J • A"`4, a° • , e Ri„"j.a rpL.�d1.6 pRap •� ,.�"°' ',�• ars 'L.. I 3 N091dE6LY r rMnf \ 7 . Y,NETMO ,S � 64 35.66 J031 2881 2985 2968 1765 178 720 31.87 68 30.17 34 3540 2881 2911 2901 2801 1701 1701 txAs • n • A � , I I e0 B5 121 31.17 3465 3027 2977 2867 2987 1767 1767 B7 31.17 LONG I=D S INC. "h' W1P b•, .. 44 O"AM ud \T1 nn p y • I I I 122 30.67 fie 31.87 res �.� =n., " " ee •r an."", I N fig 123 30.17 34,26 28.85 28.36 28.22 28.22 77.22 77.22 35 3503 3089 3038 3023 3029 18.23 18.29 m"d• 4f '4zS'E -l. ';1 N • '- L"1Yl'�1 d'` ep ' Q, 69 31.9 g Vdid A Ta \� • a*'"`'n w n N B7 125 30.8 34.00 29.23 ' 28J3 29.63 28.63 15.63 16.63 71 30.67 M " 3fi 35.85 29.67 29.17 29.07 29.07 77.07 17.07 I 68 17 34.20 2A75 29.26 28.12 28.88 17.72 16.98 A E pl `•°�• A 16 ` I 41 120 30.87 37 72 30.67 38.35 30.39 29.89 29.79 29.79 17.79 17.79 a •,s n aye` ® / a \ t9> P "oro p- .J k rMn." �•� "g � my ,� 69 127 31.17 34.40 30.81 30.31 30.21 30.21 78.21 78.21 3B 73 30.67 34.10 30.39 29.88 29.78 29.79 77.79 77.79 Z '" \ e , " \ •2 0 �"M. j d �' a fBo to u]a 728 3D.67 74 31.17 ° " W ff map 2/ • 1 7° 34,40 28.91 29.41 29.31 28.31 17.37 17.31 39 35.10 30.88 30.88 30.38 30.27 18.27 1&27 N I u •aT.p ,� a e4 ® pIa \'L gpy O O ors I n,0 A yr .vE \ 128 30.77 75 31.17 Ln 1 " ® � �4 / '�1LC°p m A7 , ®A a Op a \71 / 0'x•40 Pay M Ir 71 730 29.67 J3.80 2B.J8 28.88 28.79 28.67 76.79 16.67 4p 711 30.67 34.50 30.43 29.93 29.83 29.83 17.83 17.83 11 W "A 4a E `� +" rp40p, IR4 mar n Pna! ars "� •A' 131 30.17 34.10 29.73: 29.23 29.13 29.13 17.13 17.13 77 30.67 O tO} O •S: I ee 3 p"m"p - B / tl m-J)d rrui.e 8 rrvda 3°'f \ / 0 \Rraa,e \ / " ' / \ maarrsm �II \ 72 132 30.17 41 711 30.17 36.10 29.86 29.35 28.25 28.25 17.25 17.25 r1t.tAe g Rw7.o ( 00 i°t+r aeASH cA • _ p'e0 73 73-3 30.17 30.05 29.89 29.19 28.09 28.09 17.09 17.09 42 79 29.67 36.00 29.31 28.81 28.71 28.71 16.71 18.71 - __ wAr N - ' 134 30.67 43 80 30.17 34.20 29.57 29.07 25.97 28.97 16.97 18.97 _ FMFAOF YC1 - .- __ •- ''�IIS Awes( 135 30.17 N36'S4'2Q"W I I I I I I 2009.51' (DEED) I 74 3a.25 29.65 29.75 26.05 29.05 17.01 18.01 Bt 30.67 NOW/FORMERLY OF 138 30.87 B2 31.17 \ 4 BAR9AU. NOW/FOflMEALYO 2Q�.22' (ACTUA O 75 137 31.17 35.26 30.87 ill 30.01 30.01 18.01 18.07 44 83 31.67 31.25 37.18 30.68 30.59 30.58 18.58 18.59 ERROEIKY O I 1 ALDO & LOUISE SHELBY. NOW/FORMERLY OF 138 30.17 B4 31.17 NOW/FORMEALY OF O NOW/FORMEALY OF Now OF L PAUL M. &CONCEFTA 78 34.10 29.28 28.79 28.69 28.69 16.68 18.69 45 34.30 29.81 28.37 29.21 28.21 77.21 17.21 STA6IUWEWICT, 139 29.67 05 30.17 COON, NOW/FOftMEALY OF EXISTING PRIVATE I HENRY& DEBORAH I I NOW/FORMERLY OF NOW/FORMERLY OF DAVID A. I I STANLEY JR'. STANLEY JR- HIGHLWO ROAD CORP. I I wQ I &DONNA M. OIWNEY, IST•NG WELL QUARIICEI11 46 80 30.17 SC40 29.99 29.49 29.39 28.25 17.39 17.25 f & MOHRDA RL FRANCIS J. 150' SANITARY RADIUS JOHN &ISABEL 5a 30.67 +&MARIE C. FROM CENTER OF (TYPICAL FOR 11) ee 31.17 WATER WELL (n 47 34.20 30.73 30.23 30.73 30.70 18.13 18.10 O TYPICAL FOR 71 4e 8B 30.67 LLl ( ) 90 30.87 34.20 29.81 29.31 29.13 29.27 17.13 17.21 J { 87 30.17 I FRB DRAINAGE AREA RUNOFF CALCULATIONS REQUIRED a9 9z 30.9 34J0 zs.73 28.23 29.13 29.11 9.13 9.77 DA 18 135,452.14 SF DRAINAGE RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PROVIDED j 93 31.17 MILY PRC UNITS: DA 1 27,200.09 SF DA 10 96,573.96 SF 60 35.40 30.07 28.67 29.47 28.47 17.47 17.47 IN LEACHING POOLS r 94 37.x7 um F MILY MNR9 Pervious 20,381.33 SFX 0.3 - 6,108.40 SF Pervious 44,785.51 SFX 0.3 = 13,438.68 SF Pervious 81.872.24 SFx 0.3 = 18,501.67 5F 98 31.9 Impervious 6,838.78 5FX 1.0 = 6,838.76 SF Impervious 27,317.81 SF x 1.0 = 27,317.91 SF Impervious 63,212.81 SF x 1.0 - 63,212.81 SF DA 1 12,947.16 SFx 0.5' = 6.473.66 CF STORAGE REQUIRED 51 34,20 30.31 29.81 29.71 29.71 17.71 17.71 Total Runoff Area 12,847.16 SF Pond 25.280.08 SFX 1.0 = 25,280.68 SF Gravel 10,577.09 SFX 0.7 - 7,403.96 SF 96 3D.67 SANITARY FLOW CALCULATIONS: 160 GPD/UNIT X 2 UNITS - 300 GPD Gazebo 1,179.78 SFx 1.0 = 1,178.78 SF Total Runoff Area 89.118.45 SF 6,473.58 CF / 700.88 SF/VF 84.17 VF I 97 30.77 5 x 1.58 CI x14' 0. 0 SF/VF OF PROVIDED sz 3aaD 28.41 28,97 28.81 28.81 76.81 16.81 300 GPD % 2 GAYS • BOD GALLONS DA 7A 77,382.90 SF ' Total Runoff Area 67,217.05 SF OA 19 48,801.44 SF USE: (5) 12'1 % 74' ED POOLS 88 29.67 ALLOWABLE SITE FLOW UNIT = 22,625 GPD (USE. 120o GALLON SBpno TANK 8'm % V LD.) Pervious 11,958.65 SFx 0.3 = 3,587.90 SF pp i1 95,341.07 5F Pervious 17,248.45 SFx 0.3 = 5,174.54 SF 53 98 29.17 33.50 2e.4e 27.99 27.09 27.88 15.68 15.88 9 p1,,.7.186 SF % 75$ % 300 GPD/ .0 9,021.15 SF Pervious 47,603.03 SFX 0.3 = 14.280.81 SF Impervious 24.416.52 SFx 1.0 - 24,418.52 SF pp 2 21,657.44 SF x 0,5' = 10,828.72 CF STORAGE REQUIRED ! 100 30.87 g all.1 SF/UNIT 300 GAL/1.5 GAL/SF/DAY = 200 SF OF WALL AREA REQUIRED Imp Total BRunoff4Aroa5 SFx 1.0 = 5,433.25 SF IFRpervioue 20.703.58 SFx 7.0 = 20.703.58 SF Gravel 7.136.47 SF x 0.7 = 4,985,53 SF 54 34.35 29.at 28.41 29.31 29.27 17.31 77.27 810 RING - 25 SF/FT OF HEIGHT Off-Site 4,178.26 SFx 0.3 = 1,253.48 SF Total Runoff Ana 34,686.58 SF 10,82&72 OF / 100.88 SF/VF = 107.34 VF 707 30.17 PROPOSED FLOW 200 SF/25 SF/FF - B V,F. DA 2 46,579.43 SF Total Runoff Area = 36.237.97 SF 7 x 100.68 x14' ED = 11.288.56 DF PROVIDED �'k 102 30.87 (USE 0'm X 12' E.O. LEACHING POOL) USE: (7) S xI X 111' ED POOLS 55 35.15 30.35 29.85 29.75 29.75 17.75 17.75 20,650 GPD Pervious 35,602.84 SFx 0.3 - 10,680.85 SF DA 20 48.278.06 SF 103 31.17 139 PRC UNITS O 150 GPD/UNR = Impervious 10,976.59 SFx 1.=0 - 10,976.59 SF DA 11A 51,007.47 SF Pervious 23,093.77 SFx 0.3 = 6,928.13 SF 104 28.17 CLUBHOUSE POOL AREA 2,000 SF Total Runoff Area 21,667.44 SF pervloue 16,304.41 SF x D.3 - 4,891.32 SF Impervious 22,407.62 SFx 1.0 = 22,407.62 SF DA 3 11,447.84 SFx 0.5' = 5,723.97 CF STORAGE REQUIRED 56 34,10 28.73 28.23 28.11 28.11 76.11 16.17 MULTI FAMILY AFFORDABLE UNITS:' tos 3017 GYM AREA 1.000 SF O 0.3 GPD 300 OP0 5,723.97 OF 100.08 SF = SB.74 VF GYMMEEAR / OFFICE AREA 1.500 SFO 0.08 GPD/SF 90 GPD Impervious 21,483.88 SFx 1.0 = 21,463.86 SF Gravel 2,778.87 SFx 0.7 = 31279.42 SF 5 x 100.88 x 14 ED m O61.B0 OF PROVIDED 67 IDB 31.17 35.20 30.89 30.39 30.29 30.29 18.29 18.29 -H'0 c+'CIF' FOR 4 SUI nING MNIiS DA 3 24,050.47 SF Of-Site 13,239.18 SF x 0.3 = 3,971.75 SF Total Runoff Area = USE: (5) 12'0 X 14' ED POOLS 107 30.17 INDOOR AND OUTDOOR POOLS 75 BATHERS O 5 GPD/BATHER 37K GPO �}--.•+.-'a.--�' Pervious 18,003,62 SFx 0.3 - 5,401.09 SF Total Runoff Ana - 30,326.95 SF DA 21 106,895.58 SF 58 30.00 28.67 2&07 27.97 27.97 15.87 15.87 21,015 GPD 150 GPD/UNR X 4 UNITS - 600 GPD Impervious 6,048.85 SFx 1.0 - 6,046.85 SF Pervious 43,024.00 SFx 0.3 - 12,907.20 SF toe 2917 TOTAL PROPOSED FLOW 800 Opp X 2 DAYS - 1,200 GALLONS Total Runoff Arca - 11,447.84 SF DA 118 19,716.21 SF Impervlaus 50,257.82 SFx 1.0 - 50,257.92 SF OA 4 23,72.30 SFx ioo = 17,672.30 17 STORAGE REQUIRED taB 37.67 r.SEPDO TANKS PERMITTED (USE 1200 GALLON SEPTIC TANK 8'0 X Y L0.) ` Pervious 4.486.41 SF x 0.3 = 1,345.82 SF 11,x 100. 3 / ' ED 12,10 = 1 CFP VF 50 36.20 30.7] 30.27 30.17 30.17 18.17 18.17 Gravel 13,813.66 SF x D.7 = 8,529.56 5F 8 z 100.88 x 15' EO = 12d05,e0 CF PROVIDED 170 37.17 800 841./1,5 CAI./SF/DAY = 400 SF OF WALL MFA REQUIRED DA 4 54,632.46 Impervloue 18 370.29 SF x 1.0 = 18,370.28 SF Total Runoff Area = 72,894.68 SF USE: (8) 12'0 X IV ED POOLS 111 28'87 BO 34.10 29.37 28.87 28.71 28.71 16.77 76.71 LEGEND: 60 RING I. 26 SF/FT of RING Pervious 44,411.24 SFx 0.3 = 13,323.37 SF Total Runoff Area - 18,716.21 SF 112 3ae7 400 SF/78 SF/FT • 111 V.F. Impervious 10,421.22 SFx 1.0 - 10,421.22 SF DA 22 43,827.03 SF DA 11 36,237.97 SF x 0.5' = 15,118.99 OF STORAGE REQUIRED (OSE (2) Bm X r E.O. LEACHING Pools) Total Runoff Area 23,744.59 SF DA 12 361,456.46 SF Pervious 28,533.69 SFx 0.3 - 8,560.11 SF 18,118.99 CF / 100.88 SF/VF - 179.61 VF B C :. • SEPTIC TANK DA 5 154.083.95 SF Pervious 146,285.38 SFX 0.3 = 43,885.81 SF Impervious 3,708.28 SFx 1.0 = 3,708.28 SF 12 x 100.66 x14' ED = 18,158.40 CF PROVIDED A 'O Pervious 63,157.19 SFx 0.3 = 18,947.16 SF Impervious 88,860.82 SFx 1.0 - 55,660.82 SF Pond 11.586.08 SFx 1.0 = 11,6B5.06 SF USE: (12) 12'0 X 15' ED POOLS SCDHS REFERENCE No. C10-06-0013 ,n O• LEACHING POOL �B HOUSE Impervious 75,290.11 SFx 1.0 = 75,290.11 SF Pond 158,520.26 SFx 1.0 - 158,520.26 SF Total Runoff'Area = 23,853.45 SF T 1 ADDITIONAL 12'm x 8' ED EXPANSION LEACHING POOL GYM AREA 1,000 SF O 0.3 GPO '�� 300 GPD Gravel 15.646.65 SFX 0.7 - 10.852.66 SF Total Runoff Area = 259,066,69 SF DA 23 15.178.47 SF TOTAL OF OF STORAGE PROVIDED = 18,985.44 CF 4 06H9/m RE°mPeiecD7lacOM4f3e1a RIES RL•-JI I�����1���.•JJJ117 ® MEERNO / OFFICE AREA 1,500 SFO 0.08 OPD/SF 90 GPD Total Runoff Area = 105,188.92 SF DA 13 12,972.74 SF Pervious 10,757.48 SFx 0.3 - 3,227.24 SF pq 15 20,46435 SF x 0.5' = 10,232.18 OF STORAGE REQUIRED CATCH BASIN INDOOR AND OUNOOR POOLS 75 BATHERS O 5 GiD/A-ER 76375 0 Pervious 673.33 SF x p.3 = 184.00 SF Impervloue 4.419.01 SF m 1.0 = 4.419.01 SF 10,232.18 OF / 100.88 - 101.43 VF ° BBf°71°7 fEAS PER ac°lla colA.lEs1e fes OF DA 8 57.166.68 SF 8 x 100.88 x 13' E0 = 10,491.52 CF PROVIDED 2 oxII6/°7 RB�ABPER flcDxa cDMAEr08 BEER D E {1IYr 1111 ��L1I/ -- DRAINAGE PIPE 766 GPD X 2 DAYS - 1.530 GALLONS Pervious 31,505.15 'SFx 0.3 - 9,451.56 SF Impervious 12,359.41 SFx 1.0 = 12,359.41 SF Totala Area 7,848.25 SF USE: (6) 12'0 X IN ED POOLS (USE 2000 GALLON SEPTIC TANK IWO % V LD.) ImpeMous 22.670.57 SFx 1.0 = 22,670.57 SF Total Runoff Area 12,543.41 SF SANITARY PIPE Gravel 3.012.84 '.SFx 0.7 - 2,109.06 SF 1 1xlMloa Itittem As PER sC➢HB coLe@p9 LOVIREe 765 GPD/1.6 0AL/Sf/DAY = 570 SF OF WALL MtA REQUIRED Total Runoff Area = 34,231.17 SF DA 14 14,878.14 SF DA 24 41.14418 SF DA 23 7,648.25 SFx 0.5' = 3,823.13 OF STORAGE REQUIRED 1 ,9an MULTIFAMILY 8'm RING - 25 SF/FT of RING Pervious 9,682.94 SF x 0.3 = 2,964.88 SF Pervious 32,141.62 SF x 0.3 - 9,642.49 SF 3,823.13 CF / 100.66 SF/VF - 37.80 VF N°. DAre s" AFFORDABLE 706 SF/211 SF/FT = 20.4 VF DA 7 83,007.87 Pond 4,996.20 SF x 1.=0 = 4,996.20 SF Impervious 9,002.54 SF 91.0 = 9,002.54 SF 3 x 100.88 x 13' ED = 4,236.98 CF PROVIDED •� OVERALL SANITARY PLAN OWN.BY. JM (USE (2) 6'o X IV E.O. LEACHING POOLS) Pervious 35,070.88 x 0.3 = 10,523.66 Total Runoff Area 7,881.08 SF Total Runoff Area 18,845.03 SF USE: (3) 12'm X 14' ED POOLS GRAPHIC SCALE Impervious 41,274.34 x 1.0 = 41,274.34 DA 25 49,732.74 SF DA 26 27,477.80 SF x 0.5' - 13,738.90 OF STORAGE REQUIRED / 4 Db IdEpu• w3 DSON.BY, SJF1 Gravel 6,654.85 x 0.7 - 4,658.26 DA 15 50,676.22 SF 73,738.90 CF / 100.88 SF/VF = 136.79 VF Ord-Py B'BFO\9ti� ♦oa Total Runoff Area = 55,456.26 Pervious 43,159.02 SF x 0.3 - 12,947.95 SF Pervious 39,523.50 SFx 0.3 = 11,857.08 SF 8 . 1090 x 76' 0. = 14,526.-2 CF PROVIDED X. pT' 1 P ;A THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE 1/17/0 ImpeMoue 7,518.40 SFx 1.0 = 7,516.40 SF Impervious 10,209.14 SF x 1.0 = 10,208.14 SF USE: (9) 12'0 X 111' -ED POOLS IpruATIED AT ,co o ea 100 200 DA 8 30,336.88 SF Total Runoff Area 20,464.35 SF Total'Runoff Area = 22,066.22 SF PaMcue 76.881.62 SFx 0.3 = 5,064.49 SF CV E CHOGUE cHK'D Sr. SJF DA 26 56,241.66 SF 1 Impervious 18,462.09 SFx 1.0 - 18.45 .52 SF pp 16 52,209.75 SF Y DATE' 7/17/0: Gravel 2,993.17 SFx 0.7 = 209.52 SF Pervious 27,377.37 SFx 0.3 = 8.213.21 SF Pervious 28,135.18 SFx 0.3 = 8,440.55 SF TOWN OF SOUTHOLO. SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK ( IN FET;- ) Total Runoff Area = 23,736.10 SF impervious 21,106.41 SF x 1.0 = 21,106.41 SF Impervloue 14,659.99 SFx 1.0 = 14,659.90 SF NOTES: _yyy JOB Nw 00021 Gravel 3.725.97 SF x 0.7 = 2,608.18 SF Gravel 858.26 SF x 0.7 = 600.78 SF 1. ALL DRAINAGE PIPE TO BE 18" RCP 0 1% I DISTRICT Y000. SECTION 702. BLOCK 01. LOT 33.3 APPLICANT: DA 9 80,527.50 SF Total Runoff Aroa 31,927.80 SF Off-Site 12,588.23 SFx 0.3 = 3,776.47 SF MINIMUM SLOPE UNLESS NOTED ON PLANS. ' f9 RLE Nn: NOTE OWNER: Pervious 29,361.35 SFx 0.3 = 8,808.41 SF Total Runoff Area 27,477.00 SF 2.ALL UTILITIES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE r" NELSON & POPE Impervious 44,099.20 SFx 1.0 - 44,099.20 SF DA 17 142,215.12 SF APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY. pADU 000268 THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHQGUE, LLC Gravel 7,066.95 SFx 0.7 = 4948.87 5F pervloue 60,697.68 SFx 0.3 = 20,579.30 SF Total DA Runoff 1,308,55406 SF ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS PROPERTY OF NELSON k POPE. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS OR Total Runoff Area - 57,854.47 SF Impervious 64837.52 SFx 1.0 = 64,837.52 SF 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD.MELVILLE,N.Y.11747-2188 SCALE 7•-701 ADDITIONS 70 THESE DOCUMENTS ARE A VIOLATION OF SECTION NOCRO, LTD. Gravel Runoff area SF x D 7 - 971 2.77 SF ADDITIONS OF THE NEW YORK STALE EDUCATION LAW. INFRINGEMENTS 140 EAST MAIN ST. 1721-D NORTH OCEAN AVENUE _ 94 SF (638427-5665 FAX(630427-5620 wwNneleanpapacom WILL BE PROSECUTED. RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 MEDFORD. NY 11763 Z NONL0RMSRLY OF NOW/FORMERLY OF FRANK"YAy 0 NIOf I RE COMRC SIO W 1,901.44' S 51413'55" E — — o - --- -------- Fnercx ——— — — ——�——o nEY. FDaF �, 1° 1° e°0°Y RW°°s7A RL.YIaA Ns MN E I Dls DY AaM° 'ELIDE I°a "Yseo IEa A F A A O • IFU�9•D °6 p 0up y • n "' Q C •,p 1°!� AIS RIFa4• AI-a/A7'• Rw7J '44e U 17 la ti —_ O FMF C.1 XFR/Tq•DDLY 6 L.D \ 1 iFI�° ° Y A — " U ® A 1• __ t° D 10 \ • 4 SYS �c_ pMIyYL'J�AjAY L N Ni ��1 ° Y Y ,•m �� a O •IY . nDwA --�\ a POND In S 49'47'45" E Oe 1wC'1 1 A '° / " \/ �,fP 7 I� \ / r ,• R.D /RUDi °ro s\\ / i —_ F•a W M OFDED 273.681 N TNOWI ERLY OF .D YUT FEDF/MacEMyY MAP SCALE f-OS MLP 11 I A ssa° RWFJ // ° A Am FN n.D lMi:6 ./ r 1 A Fa°Y"NarA in p 1 o 1•F' al \ T / 111 Im' 7ROP nloi iMVA _ l / \ + IEE N E A \ / les ell \ \ NA Ysa / /�\\ eoAo. 1°E• F nI ° r S 49'47'45° E 95.00' • 'r I I1°0°!!. 1 /' �eaF E D iP.�]F.• "NI' z zzDY 'n W R'S ° e ■ "PI' GRIFFING STREET POND 1. �a" I A Y i01°17 Ipll ' T YS •a ,INP DSA RW7A Y1DI TALL Y ON �"� � � T ! 3 1 tl NOW/FBRMFALY nF N 1 1 1 +'° •TAYA IItVfA Nlii.D xiDi1FxT • • •in W7 VELD N.B®E 1 FY' " l e �P �Moyq WA701 OTi0Ah11+N t R b Q � / - Y •°4, ° ' mi7D """ D o NAAY xEANEr Ulm WILLIAM F. I I q NP 0 N D V i- MN S 46 / .E R Y OF 221471 4 0 xOwARiRL 400.00' Lu N 4956'351W ° _ _ � 1 \ � / •'1� � 11� M]- —— — — a \ \ Y / '�P \ Y Y• Y O — — "A1a. / wA 'x" NOW/FORMERIY OF ' NI ° IDs b ' rsv, 6 R / '9ke ■ R°MCHURCH NOFun . _sl Y 4 i'� ° \\ \ n �� " „ Y d qty °F°°°`+ n / c SAOPFD.XEART , RLY OF �� z N 1 p ✓ / 1, C\ '1°AYp, A@ ®A E \ �. ` I `Vr ,Dy IDs .o. \ RW>.i A � A � � ,W • � Y A Ip.A • I / a.zas D INC. Oi'7 I R¢O \ 1 1 ■ // N N \ n=itJ " H°' Y °° \\\ �_—, / � maJ 7D — i/ \ \\ � O \ ■ D= W m � IKIADA ' Y �. � n • _ / Y �J FnnD 'a A O A \ 7° M � uj M I I N + 4. n — — Y F+AI °3 — Y °FmF ° FAn •a a n\ b x, d fry M N I M A _— Z_ I IDA — D6 A6 J YLJ iA ryvr. A AY N 493725" W I I 7 I . 1 2,010.62' 1. LIGHT ANTER SIGN LEGEND NOW/FO SUIT OF NOW��FFORAIERLY OF PA N. t CONfiiTA I 1. LIGHT LANTERN AND POLE AS ANUFACTURED BY CODE SYMBOL HIN06:,O ROAD CORP. LJ MAGNIFLOOD INC., AMITYVILLE N ; @OLCK.t 14WANG RT. J I NO OON,MA M,OF NOWDAMO A. !NAME G NOANCIS J. STANII:Y.IR: NO /F B STANLEY Jfl. NOMDDS�YDO(II°E HQtgy kW0 e NOOHN BABEL I 2. LANTERN TO 6E THE MONTAUK "CE� R7-1CW METAL HALIDE 250W (MODEL NAr 3POLE TO BE "JAMES MADISON ' ' Ld l I I I I I I I I TYPE A-1. POLES 15' AND S E LIGHTINCL PN Q LJ FOR LOCATIONS (AS-SHOWN).). R7-8 2 ®12 PARKING CALCULATIONS: METES AND BOUNDS ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION SITE DATA: ZONING DATA: REQUIRED: SITE COVERAGE: OBTAINED FROM PLANS BY HENDERSON & BODWELL CONSULTING 3 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING: 2 SPACES PER DWELLING PONDS 197,043 SF 9.8% ENGINEERS DATED 7-24-1987 SCTM: 7000-102-01-33. 125 UNITS X 2 SPACES/UNIT = 250 SPACES LANDSCAPING 1,100,782 SF = 54.74% ZONED: HAMLET DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING: HAMLET DENSITY (HD) AFFORDABLE UNITS: 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT ROAD, PARKING, AND PAVEMENT 246,264 = 12.24% MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR 1 FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS: 14 UNITS x 1.5 SPACES/ UNITS = 21 SIDEWALK, PATIO, AND GAZEBO 49,178 = 2.44% SITE AREAL 2,010,927.36 SF - 46.17 ACRES TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED FOR UNITS = 271 SPACES BUILDING 359,514 = 17.88% rn REQUIRED: PROVIDED: DRIVEWAY 58.340 = 11S c NUMBER OF UNTTS - 139 LOT SIZE (SQ. FT,) 20,000 2,010,927.38 (46.17 AC) CLUB HOUSE: LOT WIDTH (FEET) 75 217.33 1 SPACE PER 300 SF OF RECREATIONAL FACILITY a NUMBER OF BUILDINGS = 131 (INCULDING CLUBHOUSE AND MAINTANANCE GARAGE) 220529 5 SPACES PER TENNIS COURT LOT DEPTH (FEET) 120 CLUB HOUSE 8,840 SF / 300 - 30 SPACES FROM YARD (FEET) 35 307'11 ' POOL 1,180 SF / 300 = 4 SPACES N SCHOOL DISTRICT # 9 25.0 SIDE YARD (FEET) 25 30.0 TENNIS COURT 2 COURTS X 5/CT = 10 SPACES BOTH SIDE YARDS (FEET) 30 ID qqUNIT GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ZONE IV (600 GAL/ACRE) 35.0 TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING: - 44 SPADESALLOWABLE SANITARY SITE FLOW: 60D GAL/ACRE x 46.16 ACRES = 27,696 OPD REAR YARD (FEET') 35VIABLE FLOOR ME1 (SQ.FT./UNIT)LIVABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT./UNIT) 850 2647 LOADING ZONE: A °1°71°7UNIT A 8350 50 1930 CO1 BERITTHCENTER WITH FLDOR AREA OF 5,000 TO 25,OD0 SF 1 ea/�erUNIT B 2717 C 850 850 s vIRYDa REYE®A•FBISCDFYCOYYBB LOIIAIFA 9 UNIT D 2725 PROVIDED: UNITE 3110 I ts/DD/m RBvamuYourFSlaaF aNr� a AFFORDABLE UNIT 25# 1135 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING: 2 SPACES PER DWELLING, IN GARAGE LAT COVERAGE (%) 17.88 % 127 BUILDINGS X 2 SPACES/GARAGE - 254 SPACES YIZMm SY�O®TOY°xN°PRMRI�'D RN N BUILDING HEIGHT (FEET) 35 SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES FOR UNITS = 18 SPACES N. DATE REVISION eF. o GRAPHIC SCALE NUMBER OF STORIES 2 1/2 SEE ARCHITECTURAL PIANS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED HroR LINITIS = 272 SPACES Q1TC w F��� SFT OWN.Bn JM o', 0 50 w 200 wn CLUB HOUSE: SITE PLAN F ALIWYMEIY 1 32 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED IN PARKING LOT = 44 SPACES INCLUDING 2 FOR DBON.BG BJ8 d ' HANDICAP SPACES THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATr: troiofi LOADING ZONE PROVIDED: 1 BERTH BRUAI®AT ( ) TCHOGUE DAMMDBn SAi IN FEETCU " OWNER: APPLICANT: SUFvo�os NOTE TowN OF BOurHOLp. =FOLK COUNTY. NEW YOFlK C p1E3TF110T 1000. tYEOTON 108. BLOOK lYl. LOT 30.3 '�� Q�?' N ' THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF NELSON & POPE. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS OR NOCRO, LTD. THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE, LLC NELSON 8a POPE ADDITIONS TO THESE DOCUMENTS ARE A VIOLATION OF SECTION 140 EAST MAIN ST. 1721—D NORTH OCEAN AVENUE CaOC DDo266P " 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STALE EDUCATION LAW. INFRINGEMENTS RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 MEDFORD, NY 11763 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 0 WILL BE PROSECUTED. 1"100' A2 WALT FAX HITMAN 427-OAD 620MEL1 G N.Y.10opacci E (BSD 4274,865 FAX(69U 427-5820'wwwn•YDnpDp•.DaD g.�-D 20F 27 n O ' (J 9 "O" �YYA1FI)PY OF 1Gf I NDW O NR L Y �� N D ,,94,.44' _ n4 L \ S 51'1 VW E� \ w _ �. �_ -----'s-• ® - -- / ..,�, � � �- � FM 3ut� ..y ]ea m D \ •\ L'2 A•.-'4++stz {• � iu( + 34.iNs � 46 �¢4 ' ' o �. � at °� °a°,A3� ryh�i' "�a'(i :' v"�ets IICL D 'w,a' Ataro• • t Aa6R o I%100 s"�„N ,Q, �• ri �a�OG .C` f0 N � xDxiraNn � mwsYOr U Q o •� t °°A • • A A u 3 ® „ s ,M„+yae3 3a, r v ( m 'm - IPC1 ` m • e �t tw1 ��/ _a 2 I O�4Y J S 4947j45" E J N ° / \T 27 .68' NOW/FORAIERLY OF aIEAT 14aWIC BAY TOWN aP s°utxan SCCA Br 05lA F e \ _ II la • � a A „ .� v U �° NI `a / A.. / .' a ,•A. �' r•ER� "� � +35A � a���DD•jj�//��,�� • ,W,INN�t I�� �' r '\ � \ i� w �° A'� a DO � \ ° � / / � a A . �n�'ia e6.34�A•� a � AA• .� ,� maAo � p� 1 /%%-�� � ` � r m ° a a ( o .x �•-- r °_ Sze r S 49'47'45" E \ e .I 95.00' GRIFFING STR _ A (y, _ n. nl^3ts 0nwrs '4 tD ��� " >< ® . iia • R e a� l�1 a . Jra ].6 _ .\ � �� \ �r N1IIDrr +ala, t d• � a A naro�e�aGatMl t �.. .r t' �. iFWfA �• �� ,D `t x 'W"rax �� fe6 i� ,Oa � .s J q ;� t.•5•ne \ A0 i I .1. DTATe m.ara �_ M \ NOW/FORMERLY OF WA1N xRalullW �Ny]\ AM Y. a O Z M 1 ND• • 3 rN mo h°A a p•1 O'h'nr (NI nRtrN1 / ' • • •`+ M \Z, r WWAM F. HEANEY ( un WO F •, P 0 N D x / /' I P•1---T- � N `2e1 \ `.•. N w:° r Aet- . axq. E°°5 �3 WARn / I ( � •'\� \ NOw/FO M'-OF \ S 4�j56 35" E ( . x+.°' � O ,,A.�.,4e (rel`-\ , � DA � R � � ARro Lia � ' N N N "e♦ D °�Ne hi l'Nt \w 221.47 A U3 ° � DT N •° a .D "+�x °4� N P N 49'56'35' NOW ENLY OF � �µYflpl aF M� ' S I �•A N _ ( ..a x A "'y1,a ria y5.b ..i r ° Axx e: r 0.n 2 2 rG • O e} � � � • "e rn.aN � A- .N m DA-7 /• N N O °°1 �L• 'rte �. a/ ' 4 aLt TQ `C G• \ � DA 3s.6 D �' t • '�I m AAA ��},� ' \�0' /' \ o N A +,•] ,� �' E t DA'21 '� \ : ` • IxS 1 1d2 � 3A. '° Rt.�aia s7. 'A ' n / � MERLYADns rc WI .° O � if A- 7b . a+h,a+0 N. ~x •°/• . N IN N DA-2O ,; n .r �.�BA'26 AST I .�. • 31A N r ° m.ND 'a L L A �' m s"'_ ` ,n a •° ! N o ' .�--� � . e n Ta N •NM7 N •,y'Y. N N _e N O A N O ' � N N A N �' iMbRp ( mss. ~ / -_ -32, ^ A _ \ �. �3d . 1� c • DA- O A• ^eF� Q +,,,DA'2 / .a a¢y ; m,.a]a " ,Y,.sra .1 ,.6x tux a. .y 1>' • / \ ---30\ 3" T� - - -� -� I za,o.62'��ry , 1 2 N�4�37`25 -IN\ \ J \ I O l NOW/FORMERLY O 6 I RINDW POmLYOF�\��\\ \\ \ \ I PAUL M YCONCETfA y r YOHRINa RL ;i, NOW/Fa eEALY OF NOW/FOe AERLY'OF- NOW/FDIWER.Y W NOW/FgiMERIY of I NOW/,flfO w Y NORAT OF NOW/FWiMEALY OF O coat\ I aeCEY. I STANLEY A. 0STA I s{FAeuNEMtcz aa°0A"w iw L I DAMD A FRANCIS d eTANtEY N. STANLEY M. MLD A'LWISE HENRY A'OEBOHAH J .DONNA M. \ f:MARIE 0. EX WATER WELL m I I I I I (TYPICAL FOR it) 15V SANITARY RADIUS FROM CENTER OF WATER WELL (TYPICAL FOR 11) DRAINAGE AREA RUNOFF CALCULATIONS REQUIRED DRAINAGE AREA RUNOFF CALCULATIONS PROVIDED DRAINAGE AREA DA 1 27,200.09 DA 10 98,573.98 DA 18 135,462.14 DA 1 12,947.16 x O.5' = 6,473.58 OF STORAGE REQUIRED CONTRIBUTING TO POND: 1A, 5-10, 11A, 118, 12-14, 16-22 AND 24-25 Pervious 20.361.33x 0.3 = 6,108.40 Pervious 44,795.61 x 0.3 - 13,438.68 Pervious 81,672.24211.3 = 18,507.67 6,473.58 / 700.68 - 74006 VF 60 TOTAL RUNOFF REQUIRED = 1,099,054.86 SF Impervious 6,838.78 x 1.0 = 6,838.76 Impervious 27,317.91 x 1.0 - 27,317.91 Imprvious 63,21281 x 1.0 - 63,21281 5 x 100.88 x74' ED = 7,061.60 OF PROVIDED Total Runoff Area 12,947.18 Pond 25,280.68x 1.0 = 26,280.88 Gravel 10.577.09 x 0.7 - 7,403.96 USE: (5) 12'0 X 14' ED POOLS POND AREA = 164,296.64 x 4FT = 657,187.36 OF OF STORAGE PROVIDED Gazebo 1,179.78 x 1.0 7,179.78 Total Runoff Area - 89,778,45 DA 2 21,657.44 x 0.5' = 10,82672:CF STORAGE REQUIRED DA to 17,39290 Total Runoff Area = 67,217.05 DA 19 48,801.44 10,828.72 / 100,88 = 107.34 VF 1,099,054686 SF/ 657,787.36 SF = 7.67' OF RAINFALL OR 20' OF RAIN Pervious 11,959.65 x 0.3 = 3,587.90. DA 11 95,341.57 PerNoue 17,248.45 x 0.3 - 5,174.54 7 x 100.88 x14' ED = 11,298.56 OF PROVIDED Impervious 5,433.25x 1.0 = 5,433.25 Pervious 47,603,03x 0.3 = 14,280.91 Imptxviaus 24,416.52x 1.0 - 24.416.52 USE: (7) 12'0 X 16''ED POOLS TOTAL SITE RUNOFF REQUIRED = 1,308,554.05 SF x 0.5 FT OF RAIN FALL = 654,277.03 Total Runoff Area 8,027.15 Impervious 20,703.58x 1.0'- 20,703.58 Gravel 7,136.47 x 0.7 = 4,995.53 DA 2 48.579.43 0(f-Site 4.778.26 x 0.3 1,253.48 Total Runoff Area '= 3'.586.58 DA 3 11,447.24 x 0.5' = 5,723.97 CF STORAGE REQUIRED TOTAL SITE STORAGE PROVIDED = 742,935.36 OF Total Runoff Area 36,237.97 5,723.97 / 100.88 = 66.74 VF Pervious 35,602.84x 0.3 - 10,680.85 DA 20 48,278.06 5 x 100.88 x 14' ED = 7,061.60 OF PROVIDED Impervious 10,976.52x 1.0 - 10,976.59 DA 1fA 51,007.47 Pervious 23,093.77x.0.3 - 6,928.13 USE: (5).12'e.% 14' ED POOLS Total Runoff Area = 21,657.44 Pervious 16,304.41 x 0.3 = 4,891.32 Impervious 22,407.62x 1.0 - 22,407.62 DA 3 24,050.47 Impervious 21.463.88x 1.0 - 21,463.88 Grovel 2,776.67x 0.7 - 1,943.67 DA 4 23,744,59 x 0.5' = 11,87230 OF STORAGE REQUIRED Pervious 18,003.162 x 0.3 = 5,401.09 OH-SRe 13,239.18 x 0.3 = 3,971.75 Total Runoff Area 31,279.42 11,872301 100.88 = 117.69 VF Impervious 6,048.185x Lit - 8,0413.05 Total Runoff Ana 30,326.96 OA 21 108,885.58 8 'x 100.8 x 16' EO = 12,105.60 OF PROVIDED Total Runoff Area = 11.447.94 DA 118 19,716.21 Pervious 43.024.00x 0.3 - 12,907.20 USE: (8) 12Y X 15' ED POOLS Area Pervious 4,486.41 x 0.3 - 1,345.92 Impervious 50,257.92x.1.0 - 50,257.92 rn DA 4 54,832.46 Im ervicue 18370.29x 1.0 = 18,370.29 Gravel 13,613.66 x OJ,= 9,529.56 DA it 36,23ZB7 x 0.5' = 18,718.99 OF STORAGE REQUIRED c Pervious 44.411.24 x 0.3 - 13,323.37 p = Total Runoff'Area = ,72,694.68 16,116.98 1 100.413 E - 179.81 VF Total Runoff Aroa 19,718.21 12 x 100.88 x14' 13 = 78,158.40 OF PROVIDED c Impervious 10,421.22 x 1.0 = 10,421.22 USE: (12) 12'0 X 16 ED POOLS 23. Total Runoff Area = 744,59 DA 22 43,627.03 a• 26,53&69x 0.3 - .8,560.71 + 1 ADDITIONAL 1 x ED m DA 12 361,466.46 Pervious DA 5 154,093.95 Pervious 146,285.3Bx 0.3 - 43,885.61 Impervious 3,70&2Bx 1.0 = 3,708.28 TOTAL OF OFF STORAGE 8'PROVIOEO = 18,965.44 OF c Pervious 63,157.19 x 0.3 = 18,947.16 Impervious 56,660.82x 1.0 - 66,660.82 Pond 17,565.08 x 1.0 = 11,585.06 _ m Impervious 75,290.11 x 1.0 = 76,280.11 Pond 16B,520.2Bx 1.0 = 758,520.28 Total Runoff Area = 23,853.45 DA 75 10,232.18 % 100.88 (0,101.438 Vla STORAGE REQUIRED Gravel 15,646. fix 0.7 - 10,95266 Total Runoff Area = 258,068.69 DA 23 15,176.47 6 x 10x88 x 13"ED '10,491.52 OF PROVIDED Total Runoff Arra 106,189.92 pervious 10,757.46 x 0.3 = 3,227.24 USE: (8) 72'0 X 13' ED POOLSFERMSEDFOR 80 Der DA 13 12,972.74 4 61071ad Rt9 DA 6 67,788.86 Pervious 613.33 x 0.3 - 184.00 Impervious 4.419.01 x 1.0 = 4,419.01646.25 x eAt vCi Pervious 31,505.1Sx 0,3 = 9,451.55 Impervious 12,359.41 x 1.0 = 12,359.41 Total Runoff Area 7,646.25 DA 23'3,823.13 / 100.88 ='837.90 .510RAGE REQUIRED a WIFzlo7 FUdWOUSHa1MEAa Fet CLMr Impervious 22,670.57x 1.0 - 22,670.57 Total Runoff Area 12,54&41 3 x 100.88 x 13'. ED - 4,236.96 OF PROVIDED z WEIRS tEv1®AnFaacLHa aalee311s LavA� Grovel 3,012.94x 0.7 - 2.109.08 DA 24 41,144.16 USE: (3) 12'0'X IV ED POOLS itEue®uraur•a+asrr eRR� a Total Runoff Area - 34,231.17 DA 14 14,879.14 1 W0e/0° rn Pervious 9,682.94x 0.3 = 2,964.88 Pervious 32,141.62 x 0.3'= 9,64249 WzWN eisnT®TOToxNOFeamlun m EtOy DA 7 83.007.87 Pond 4,996.20 x 1.0 - 4,996.20 . Impervious 9,00254x'1.0 = 9,002.54 DA 26. 27,477.60 x 0.5' = 13,738.90 CF STORAGE REQUIRED o Pervious 35,078L88x 0.3 = 10,523.66 Total Runoff Area = 7,961.05 Total Runoff Area = 18,845.03 13,738.90 / 700,88 = 136.19 VF �� REASON en o Impervious 47,274.34 x 1.0 = 41,27&34 9 x 106.88 x�16' ED - 14,526.72 OF PROVIDED Na Grovel 6,854.65x 0.7 = '.666.26 'DA i6 50,878.22 DA 25 49,73274 USE. (9) 12'0 X IV EO POOLS, OWN.BY' n GRAPHIC SCALE Total Runoff Area 56,455.26 Pervious 43,159.82x 0.3 = 12,947.95 Pervious 39,523.60x 0.3 = 11.857.06.. SITE PLAN - GRADING DOM BY, Ne Impervious 7,516.40 x 1.0 - 7,516.40 Impervious 10.209.14'x 1.0 = 10.209.14 r r tm ° 50 taA z°° DA 8 38,336.88 Total Runoff Area = 2&.484.35 Total Runoff Am - 22,066.22 POND DESIGN: THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATFa 1Inlos Pervious 16,881.62 x 0.3 = 5,064.49 Imperviwe 18,462.09x 1.0 - 18,46209 DA 16 52,209.75 DA 26 56,241.66 a1fElAl®AT CFE(D�, 61P Grovel 2.993,17 x 0.7 = 209.52 Pervious 27,377.37x 0.3 = 8,213.21 Pervious 25,135.18 x 0.3 - 6,440.55 THE POND DESIGN WILL MEET COUNTY REQUIREMENTS. CUTCHOGUE IN FEET ) Total Runoff Ana 23,736.10 Impervious 21,106.41 x 1.0 = 21,106.41 Impervious 1'.659.99 x 1.0 - 14;659.99 cA1c Vn/oe F Gravel 3,725.97 x 0.7 = 2,608.18 Grovel 85&26 x 0.7 = 600.76 DA 9 80,527.50 Total Runoff Area - 31,927.80 OR-Sita 12,588.23x 0.3 = 3.776.47 TOWN OF BGx-ETHOLO, BUPF-OLK COUNTY. NEW YORK Pervious 29,361.35 x 0.3 = 8,608.41 - 27,477.80 JOB No. OODZ NOTE' Off-Site Runoff Aroa - OISTFtICT 1000, RECTION 102, BLOCK Ol. LOT 3a•.© ,ra Impervious 44.099.20x 1.0 - 44,099.20 DA 17 142,215.12 _ THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE Gravel 7,066.95x 0.7 = 4,948.87 Pervious 65,597.68x 0.3 - 20,579.30 Total DA Runoff 1,306.554.05 NELSON 8c POPE D, oaa26� w PROPERTY OF NELSON & POPE. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS OR Total Runoff Arra = 57,854.47 Impervious 6'.837.52x 1.0 - 64,537.52 ADDI110NS TO THESE DOCUMENTS ARE A VIOLATION OF SEC110N Gravel %779.92x 0.7 = 6,145.94 ENGINEERS • SURVEYOR c 7200 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. INFRINGEMENTS Total Runoff Aroa 91,562.77' 572 WALTYps7FFANROAD.MI3VLLE,NY.11747 �' T'D" E (6304127fi886 FAX(68U427-5620 WWenOWOOPOPecom O.ffr 3OF27 p WILL BE PROSECUTED. U W /F %loRMa,LY OF W. P NOWESfA`P4lEY I 9DID,A IWRC7EWSIU 1,901.44, I N NUMEcSfMAaxawlac Q _ _ \ S 51'13'55" I -_. e _ DA ' ' f"5ea�1r�� - btiL'�: S. Aa E --0 1-^ � ^ � � � � D D �s a�-to DA-2 7 ■ . .MS... D 2a ,4 ,a I°Et AID°• AIP■■.Y - A T ■a= If1.�.4 .. IEt d/ V (�� \ POND CA °D, `"T. tlEAT fYAR4C■AY O - Al a ` ' ar 4 • a• " " " '0 0 " u ' a wA1D1 oNUJ Nx owffaD (0 S 427 7fi 5" E N°W/FDRMERLY OF �(EY �11�1P c d• ( b I 91 t ' • • ® CN.Y' roWN OF SOUTHau `t DA-' A A / R DA-1 n = _ BOAmr-45 MILE / DD , '►• DA-6 4� °- Sm rts IIlq - ri• 41/ tATI •� -0 wi•r A �w .Dg�, 'F 1N°" r'Acr RWl•.. ALMA In 0 I ,}I,m�P Alba w • o ° • • m'n'k• �,r • nlar ••"' N O III l a ■ rn0r _ -P " ■ e �� 6 ++ �1 • .PAY! a • ➢ ■ • O r " S 49'47'45" E 95.00' IN WN GRIFFING STREET � " i ° / ° 1�I Jet A a7•Is • 1, • �. POND„ 'D ■ .'( ',� A ' ,, P•,. ."i„"+' 4 f ' N 1 • �+�„ ` 1 °, ® a wm C■CAA71o,� '•� ° -•. IDa Jw° C4 rA mA ` - S ' T ftp •O.N a uY�1(�'D• r' f7 NO FaRMEALv aF �•^ ANTI Panty T9Rq�im ° ° 1p1 ' .• �'„�D'n N m e° eE0°e xawc a IncEPONDO N !WMIM F. HEANEY ( \1 cd° ctD" � ° ow axa.. DA- t 7 A I NOW/TORMERLY OF U) Mx _Ifs N"P M••� IOlMfN1 , •IYM S 4$556'35.0 � ; � ,. N � w M e ■ 7'S °avok0 °o-a ' D � • , �` y, .., -. .-40`6:00' I 221.47, w '0 �A ADa ra r "W °y� p / 7 N 49#56'35" W �� AP' AVW rte• �t� ;E STRUCTL W ✓ D A •Y," ° � ~ a / ANP° fes" a a° 1/ Y µ A°M1l� l ¢� YM •1 NOW ug4R AIAIHLOUC 1 ° * '?M¢y� W,JQIM'RFD'XEART STRUCNRE TOP CiU1E Slff f INVERT iFFPTH DEBDTFOM _ M % " IOaP a... .aWa' •' • © d CD DA 06 ,/ ADB - e.• y■ 4 A0■� a e j AD9 G 33.2 2' _ / A011 G 29.0 M 255 - - / AD12 G 29.0 2' 25.5 _ /•• v n g AD13 0'27.0 M 23.5 Z wA A 7 • A s° " `�JA Mor s • T ° A uwy, Y AD14 -6-26.25 2' 21.55 - �^ • ,d aac 1ei n A "� / ACID 025.8 M 2230 - - WON Y° ^� 651 T33.5 r 296 5' '�°�J 'bw f�,�w w w � 24.20 5' LIl A. 41 V Dom` t "`�. -\. ":1 N • " l N DA- iiy1yIi p .,, 157,., A \ .� � r G52 T 33.6 8' 27.81 5' _ Ear of I ® ' '/�.�; W..�, N N ta' ' a , A ,A� 0' J fD A n M Gs4 T 33.2 6' 2476 5' YAfMS INC. I - •,a �� o N N \� , " J Rt�>rJ \` O A Tz N GS6 T 360 6' 24.00 5' _ O O • e rt �\ °° \ N o , j°YA/ ° A A tl T4 DST T 35.7 IPS 5, ur) 'r N •"�'• O '3t/ mNfA I®. • w DST 1 34.2 IF oss T 3LB W 25.25 5' N �p • f7p".�/4 �oY A ',ts, IY \ ,,. / • Go T33.8 6' xs18 6. M I 'Q 9 ...- _ .... .t` ""TVte- aDt -1�- %'•°✓BS \ / + Dp �t N \ - GSIo T 32o W 30.86 C Q Z "•moi IIA. 'BA ) I J AW':A A,rta,A wIA G511 T 320 5' 2629 5' - DA- 4_ _ - - _ _ - - - _ I I '---- -' ' • I 2.010.62' N 4937'25" W �_- -1 �Q I I NDWiFaRLY OF O O yNM \ O ly PAUL N!OC OMA NOW/FaWFALY OF NOW�FgWEALY aF I NOWAMM1EERLM� HIGHUNU ROAD CORP. W N9W/FORMERLY of NOW/FORMFALY OF I NOW/TORNERLY of NOW Ro9NY I HOS/FORMERLY OF I SAASBIYU SIN qty I I !MOHONG By. ' I z I I FRANCS•Q STANLEY JR. STAMEY JL AL00! 1SE HENRYIR !OEOORAX Q w DAVID OptIA M. EXISTING XWATER WELL PRIVATE m l I I I I (TYPICAL FOR 11) I . . 15C SANITARY RADIUS FROM CENTER OF WATER'WELL (TYPICAL FORL 11) DRAINAGE STRUCTURE TABLE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE TABLE DRAT AG STIR INVM TABLE smucluRE TDP GRATE a- r INVERT EF. DEPTx BorraM STRUC1UflE 7OP GRATE 90[E f - INVERT EFF. DEP Ono STRUCTURE TOP ATE aff INVERT . DFP1X BOTTOM S 11.00. N 10,47 + LPI T 36.1. 12 17.36 13" 11.60 IP62 T 35A 12' - FW 2563' 153 CB43 02260 - '1677 - LP2 T 36A 17 17.25 13' 11.80 LP53 T 35.9 ' 12' F W 28.39 14 153 844 0x'80 _ 27.49 _ - LP3 T 35.0 1M 17.36 13' 11.80 LP54 T 35.8 7M W 2553 14' 153 846 0 33.80 _ 26.60 2201 r 10.5 0846 0 33.00' x0.80 - - IP4 T 365 12' 17.26 13' 11.80 LP65' T 28.6 1M 21.80 r 70.6 C847 C 33.00 _ UPS T 361 12' 17.36 iS' 11.80 1P58 T 30.5 12' coo 0 LA0 2556 - UP6 T 35.2 12' 17.20 13' 17.50 LP57 T 32.3 . 12' 21.65 6' 10.5 C049 0 ROD _ 2555 _ - �' LP7 T 369'- TM 17.38 13' 11.60' 1P58 T 220 '12' 1500 e' 106 CB60 0 31.00 - �� 29.30 _ SANITARY FLOL"! CALCULATIONS: SINGLE FAWLY PRC UNITS: IPB T365 1M 1z2a 13" 11.6° 051 03289 - 2539 _ _ 851 G3500 Ipp T 369 12' SW 27.26 14" 157 CB1A 090.6 28.16 0962 0 53,00 26.56 ALLOWABLE SITE S� �W MULM D E118 7 e_INnv FAWIY LoITS IP90 T 34.7 1M N,S 27.01 14' 16.7 082 G 32.80 _ _ - - 2 o7 1.765 SF X 75Z X 300 GPD/UNI = 22.625 GPD �- CB3 G 3262 _ 27•TA - - MALA T 250 4 N 202 .9 23Ah LPII T 364 1M N,SE 2 27.26 14 157 CB4 03262 21,74 M I T 35.8 4' 27..5 20,00o'SF/UNI 90 160 OPD/UNI X 2 UNITS = 300 GPD' {P12 T 36S /Y' E 27.01 14' 16.7 _ - _ - - 300 OPD % 2 DAYS n 800 OA11AN5 ' N x,01 14 16.7 CB6 C 326 26.21 MH1A T 31.55 4' N 20.06.'5 2682 PROPOSED FLOW (USE: 1200 BALLON SEPTIC TANK 6V.X 4' LD.) 1013 T 362 /M CB8 03651 30.06 - - MX2A T 3640 4' S'2LY3, N 2609 - - 139 PRC UNITS O 160 GPD/UNI = 20,850 GPD 300 GAL./1.5 GAL/SF/DAY - 200 5F OF WALL AREA REQUIflED LP14 T 367 12' SIE 762 14' 11.6 _ 80.81 = MH4 T 33A 4' 20.77 = - CWBHOUSE: POOL AREA 2,005 SF 6'f MNG - 25 SF/FT OF HEIGHT LP15 T 361 1M N IS 25.32 14 11.6 CB7 D 5677 - 20.10 _ - MH6 T 33.37 W 26.58 -GYM AREA MFA 1.000 SFO 0.3 GPD 300 GPD 200 SF/Y5 fiF/F1' = 8 V•F• Wt6 T 361 f2' FW 252 14' 11.5 CBB C 3677 _ MHB T 366 ' 4 26.0.1 27.19 MEETING / OFFlCE AREA 1.600 SFO 0.08 GPD/Sf 80 GPD ( ; 8Y X 12' E.D. LFACHINO POOL) LP17 T 361 1M SW YS•32 14' 11.5 CB9 C 3261 - X73 - NXBA T 3F73 4 S 20.35, N 23.B5 _ INDOOR AND OUTDOOR POOLS 75 BATHERS O'S GPD/BATHER :lt`DPD LP16 T 363 12' NX 76.32 14 11.5 CBfO G 3269 _ _ MH7 T 35.5 4 2597 - 21,615 OPD LP19 T 363 d2' W 252 E 2532 14' 11.5 CB11 G 33.09 25 8 - _ MHB T 34,1 4' 24.16 - - TOTAL PROPOSED ROW ""ULTI FA6"ILY AFFORDABLE UNITS• LP2o T 36s fY' N,W 75,2 14 99.5 c812 G 32.67 X77 - - MXBA r iso 4 N 21.25. S 20.73 _ - ASEPRC TANKS PEiM091) SYSTEMGANa LP21 T 33.2 1M ME 26.3 14 11.5 0813 G 5207 - - - FOR 3 BNILING-� 29.37 - - YHSB -T3 3.22 4 2572 _ LP22 T 33.2 1M FW 267' '14' 11.5 0814 0320 77,00 MHOA T SY.00 4 N 21.20, 8 2F03 160 GPD/UNIT % 3 UNITS - 460 GPD' 1P23 313 1M FW 2682, f4' 11.5 CB15 G 3257 - 2 00 - . MH,O T 361 4' 27.81 _ LEGEN D. 450 GRD X 2 DAYS - 900 GALLONS' LP24 T 33.5 1M FW 267 1 r 11.6 CBI6A 03277 2577 - _ MKICA T 300 4' ---W- T 20.25 '3 21.93 -(USE- 1200 7200 OAL.LpN SEPTIC TANK OY X 4' LD.) Lp2S T 33.6 12' W'24,62 14 11.5 0616 G 5277 _ RZOB - - YH11A T 34.0 4' 2202 _ UNIT TYPES: NX 34 R6M _ - .MH11B T 36D' 4' 27.57 _ - • SEPTIC TANK 450 OAL/4.6 ML/SF/OAY - 300 6F OF WALL AREA REQUIRED LP27 7320 1M FW 23.22 iB' 11.7 CB/B 0 3239 - - _ MN12 T 36.7 4' 27.41 - 8'f RING = 25 SF/FI' OF RING 27.52 1 s/D7/Dl SA'10�P°Reo�T a80 O LEACHING POOL 800 SF/25 fiF/FT = 12 V.F. LP28 T 323 12' FW 23.54 16' .11.7 CB19 0'3239 - 27•� - _ MiO3 T 353 4' 2577 _ - (USE F4 BY X 6' E.D. LEACHING POOLS) 1P29 T323 1M FW 23,22 16' 11.7 CB20 0 3239 - R7.80, - _ MHf4' T 73.5 4' N 21.1E S 27.24 - O rolDa1D7 • EXPANSION LEACHING POOL LP30 T324 12' EW 23.34 16' ,11.7 CB21 G3265 8,77 _ _ MN15 T33.9 4' 27.27 - - 2 Lou" IBVB®AB Pai5C0}IB COItBL18 LOV1R® l CAT BASIN 1P31 T 324 12' FW 27.22 15' 11.7 CO22 C 3286 - 2577 = MH17 T 352. 4' 2560 - OR a HIM 111,11,10 UNITS MUIS IP92 7524 1 FW 23.34 16' 11.7 CB23 ' C 32.80 28,77 MH16 T 352 4' 27.37 , *08106 PEVI�LAYgRF61U87F ally DRAINAGE PIPE LP33 T 324 12' W 23.22 tr 11.7 0824 G 3260 27.77 - - MX18A T 3249 - ' 4' 26,31 _ _ m12Nce alBMTI®TOTOMCFBOURCM OR 150 GPD/UNI X 4 UNITS - 800 GPD LP34 T'26.0 12' S,FW 2201 12' 10.6 , C828 0 3290 _ 20.47 - _ M 119 739.14 4 27.05 - - G00 GPD X 2 DAYS = 1.20D GALLONS G 3200 _ _ MH2O T 33.63 '4' 27.27 - Na DAZE FEW" (USE 1200 GALLON SEPTIC TANK 8'4 X 4 LD.) LP36 T 272 1M FW 21.79 72' ,17.5 825 _ 29.fi0 - - =4 YT�� LP35 T 251 12' FW 2201 12' . 106 CB27 G 33.0 MH2OA O 362 4' WE PLAN - UTILITY PLAN OWN.BY: JlL, 600 GAL/1.5 GAL/SF/DAY - 400 SF OF WALL AREA REQUIRED U+37 T 29.1 f7 ES 21.70 1M 105 828 G 33.0 - 20.76 _ - MN21 Y 3M 4 76.76 - GRAPHIC SCALE B'f MNG - 25 SF/FT OF RING LP36 T 257 12' -W.821.77 12' 105 C87A 0 32.0 - 2F'80 - _ MH21A T 33.6 4 27.35 - - FOO DECK BR BJF 400 9F/2G SF/FT - 1¢ V.F. LP39 7'7.0.7 IM W 21.61 / E 21.59 1M '10.5 0930 032.9 - 2588 - _ MH22 7350 4 . 2530 THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE Ui7/0.' SC foo 200 ND (USE: (2)�8'f X 8 E.D. LEACHING FOCUS) 30.00 - _ _ = 100 ° LP40 T'30.7' 12' K%E'2203 1M 10.6 C831 0 33.5 29.66 - MR23 T 332' 4' 27.11 - LPN T 30.1 72 N.W 21.63 7M 10.6 832 Q 33.6 _ - AD2 G 359 Y 36.4 ellnlw»wr 3560 - - CUTCHOGUE ax'D aA SA CI I NSE LP42 T 31.0 1M N,E 21.79 1M 10.5 833 0 33.5 - 29.91 - - ADD C 99.7 M 80.2 _ ( IN FEET ) GYM AREA 1.000 SF O 0.3 GPD 300 CPD IP43 T 357 1M' SW 26.30 16' 13.4 834 _ 27.00 _ = AD4 032.0 ' M DATE 1/D/OR NfiE11NG / OFFICE MFA 1.500 SF 0 0.08 OPD/SF 90 CPD 1,pµ T 36.2 12' N,W 25.52 18' 13.4 836 0 33.0 M7 p �yg M 350 TOWN OF 80tlfHOLO. SUFFOLK COUNTY. NEW YORK INDOOR AND OUTDOOR POOLS 75 BLITHERS O 5 OTD[�THER 32J-020 -F - X`•64 _ - ��2 �2' DOII 765 GPD LP46 T 356 iM FW 25.62 it A CE36 0.33.0 �18TRICT r000. SECTION 102, BLOOK Ol. LOT 33.3 76.74 p FLO NO; NOTE 765 GPD % 2 DAYS - 1.530 GALLONS LP46 T 36.1 12 W.E 2530 1B' 13.4 C937 G 361 26.97 _ _ NELSON Di POPE THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE OUSE'. 2000.GAMLN SEPTIC TANK 10'8 X 4' LD.) IP47 T 36.7 1M W.E 25.30 18' 13.4 837 0361 _ 258 - - 1. ALL DRAINAGE PIPE TO BE 18'CCP O 1S OAS 00026Efi PROPERTY OF NELSON h POPE. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS OR LP45 T 357 tY WS,E 25.62 16' 13.4 830 6 3206 _ _ MINIMUM SLOPE UNLESS'NOTED ON PLANS. ENGINEERS O SURVEYOR$ LPK T 350 12 &W 2562 ,B' 13,4 840 -632.05 21'32 2 ALL UTILITIES ARE'SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE 572 WALT WNRIMN ROAD,MB-V3U.E.NY W47-2M8 SCALE T-IO ADDITIONS TO THESE DOCUMENTS ARE A VIOLATION OF SECTION 776 MIND ND/1.5 GAL/SF/DAYF l 610 SF OF WALL AREA REQUIRED �8 T 356 fM FW 25AD 78'. 114 841 030.74 27'u _ _ APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY.' 7299 OF THE' NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. INFRINGEMENTS 7Wo 85 SF/25 F/Fi/ 20h VFG - 27.01 Lw (6304273885 FA%(630427-5820 wwWn°MDMOP°.Cam BLgO 40F2 WALL BE PROSECUTED. (USE: (2) 6;0 X 11' E.D. LEACHING POOLS) 1 T 35.7 7M S,E 25.52 1r 13.4 CB42 0 30.74 . Z j . NOW/F TE OF OF NOW/FOfIMFALY OF © OOO ES( SFAMA NURCgW9U FRANK NAQ11Npllpf C PAOP A6 IES � IR RZ BNd7A A � Q � ,�} � pl► PIP1 I°°PO "AQ iMXV 0 R1DS I}I60 1E 1f6 ID ■ °�' y QO ► e { FMIE POND NE/ .Y6 N N Y' a ■Am+DI1Du11Bx Naas �r 1 • ► R NOW/FORMEBLY OF BEAT PN:BAC DAY �� ■ • rNP ® 70 OF SOINHOLD y��/ p N ■ A " ■ fiU]e■ KE 1 MFU 1ezA 11 11 INs4a �' O ® A SQlUMr-OSMSF a! A © D� 1 ■ ► C � WWIENNI¢ !ll ■6 R6 A 1� Abs iR!lA■ 01°"1 ■ A A bB.S7A C F{InpA ° IFA' 111 � ■ REL ■ E 1■OP !iN' � y ' AA T A6 P6! Nv �A E 1 DOi A NA EII IES IESA ■ IR4 ■ Y *bl tl� Ily Nis ° u ® ° PAaP ApE'q ,.W ' h1llnl ncou°°i ■ ■ I� 1 � PAa D 116 �" 2 GRIM G STREET TEs e 1 ■ POND ® �, °1NP �°' ■ ■ � � �' ea �a ° ■ 1 0 1 � 110-1a■ '�A ' rlo-�a7d • • O \ P6 p A "°1NINul19'O""°°' ° IfIMYm A ON ■ 1 ,C '16 ifL aJA bTp f1ATA �0 ■ k WUAM F. HEANfl �+ k{c t BHxwllm ION ■ 1 1 R E R■MIAB POND * e O �,® ■ ► Pw— �$ ° HIAo E FYGE IW�lO1 DImN TM ■ N Q ® D PADr `�'0 B ■ .� NOW�roLY OF \ l RT N ■ FA1°AN7d RRO/.0 IND I ,WH1Fq 'QI� p k p N ® ■6 "� ® O q.�M@p }� 6 NOW/FO%V LY Oi p O 'Wj 1�4A '4 ■ CHURCH OF O R" °E Q EI Rb E EI SAORLD HEART i N A Ila°RR ' Q O i � • � ISL�l1d � • a Im A O N ► i . /aRv D YY�A µ �A AEA � E �� � A ■ �_ REL n6 A6 e6A I A6 0 A A n A A µ N6 SRLY Of LYARDS NO • 0 p N N �, _ „ 4 N � R'L.]ED _A lE O I �� NL �A $� .`si*�Vg�JJ a6AT/A 1� / / �A \� \ / / \ P �• \ — — I T O -77 I NOW/FOANEALYOOF ' I Q I ' 0SHOWI • B NOW/FORMFALY OF \ PAUL 1..CONCETM HlliHIAND ROAD CIXHP. ERLY OF 1 I k MOH PoND RT. I z l NO�/T ERIDONNA u OF I NOWhp AIUE OF I NOWeEMBR09(Y, I NOW OF I NOWIFS Y OF I N 5 A�9UN EWCZ I I NOWWAR110ElL1,°F Q OABD A. PRANGS J. STANLEY JR ORM STANIEY JR. ALDO k LWISE HENRY k DEBORAH a. JOHN k ISADFJ. Ld EXISTING PRIVATE WATER WELL (TYPICAL FOR 11) mi_ 15' MOUNTINGHEIGH ,150' SANITARY RADIUS FROM CENTER OF d•+.= WATER WELL (TYPICAL FOR 11) G � O otimoDR STREET LIGHTING DETAIL m c N .0 a v 0 m Q> of n 0 A 5107107 RBVEDFOR SD SET R® N 0 0312W87 H MBEDCLUBHOUSEABPERCI@D BJR 2 VAVUE IEiBEDAB PBi¢oD11ko0NLPO6 LWA1fB1 3 9 ' / N/mlDe neH®u7rurPlelaar ewB�T a m pl&1/OD euam®ro9Owx OFDDunuLO B+ N 0 No. DAre + o GRAPHIC SCALE SITE PLAN - IJGHTING PLAN 100 a 50 100 200 J00 M Ifffff, am w THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DAI fro o . alun�Mwr CHICD BY. &AR ( IN FEET ) CLIEI TCHOGUE DA76 1M/DS m NOTE TOWN'OF SOL 1ItiOLO. WUPF "K COUNTY, NEW TORK G [�163TR1CT '1!000, SECTION '102. BLOCK Ol. LOT L13.3 ,pB N0. QGG2 W THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THEFILEp .E Na= PROPERTY OF NELSON & POPE UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS OR NELSON of POPE CAM OD0269P m ADDITIONS TO THESE DOCUMENTS ARE A WOLAMON OF SECTION yf 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW.' INFRINGEMENTS ENGINEERS • BURVEYORB c WILL BE PROSECUTED. 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAR MLLVLLE,NY 1747-2101 (630427-5665 PAX(039427-5620 wwwn°b°nPaPacaR /� E T1FiEER�i v V W � Z ® 000 NOW/FaiYFRLY 6 --_ I --_ NOWOM��Y OF I BERINA IfURCgW9S , ul D FRANC MMMC IC 1,901.44 7 Q o Waioor" S 51'13'55' E "WWSi "' `5r"sd"s`��s■'°��°sb ff �'"- - O • ° • " ° • " A 7 • v N xaOTVIIwaYs U � "" u n ,x ° +a a s �N au■ur"'+a,uxa N Guy L m N a POND N S 49'47'45" E `' w 4 a a a•u ` WAme arca"noN savoy 273.68' TONNn aOF mEAT P¢me aAr KEY MAP SCALET-DS MILE � 11 '1'W >aA� p , p�ryry.. •• r �_ ""u YIYID11xa N•.O ,, A. 1 p 1 O 'Y■IP V \ L�Ab c A' ■ • + O • IN N ■ e V+♦ Lr l S 49047'45' E " m �\ s�i a ® .a N. .�1+' rt•apw•te, N 95.00' y,v2. iO0 `e �• GRIFFING STREET • e POND -(OD L,A ® " 'YANypµ °. ■ / ,'�' �SF�SF—SF�2'F O D ` ` ry•(`- =i i0 a• "a N mA4a F B � WARN x6aAAm NOW/IM FORMFIa.Y OF A gyp} i5--if4rG�, �5F_��F-3 IOWT"Y +�^ y N I� Q WILLIAM F. HEANEY' 0a m0e NM N EaOE POND �J�i ° . •Ww�.W, L • p y, �' m O N . N „AR•U • N £ N,NN� E EDGE ice_ �ro °"R°F°WOIOL"Mal�"�' i +a S 4956'35" E " O P.wJ4 (n ownRmiroY of 's\ M0 221.47' ° w ® a p ■ .��sF �' a p F w "+� ° Wo * N 49'56'35" W400.00' •" . ✓7 O O aW0 N=RM ° 1 •"w,m ,� a O Y / E b O LN ® / F [ 1, In SACAFD CHURCH OF a Cj ° • a a• Lri a w O a \ n ® o MEALY OF O "� IR...A;, x w °W V A a 4+• \ \\ ICl EYAAD6 INC, O M w A) as et \, a A O A >7 N O • o . - \ w a 1 a pwN 7A 7s N M N N A • A .I 4 / a LI ®A a W \`. p ,t W■■r • Ol VI Z LA ) � !. 2,010.62' N 49'3725" W Now�F�m Y a PAUL N.!COLICETP NOW//FFORMp{Y of I IN EM OF I O I NOWcoORMERLY OF HINILANO ROAD CORP. W NOW/P�Y OF I NOW/FORIIEIILY W I NOW/FORMERLY OF NOW OF HOW/BMWFORMERLY OF SYA9UIOEYiCT. 'HNa ISAB A:.MOHNNO BE Z Fq�WtlS d UWFANIEY a ALDO Al LAUISE XENRY! DEBORAH JOHN !ISAMEL J I •PORNA M.Of O] LEGEND —^F— SILT FENCE CONSTRUCDON FENCE Q PROPOSED INLET PROTECAON PROPOSED STABILIZED CONSTRUCAON ENTRANCE A 5/01107 RE,1BECIF-0N BE,SET RES 'a 00191107 IEYI1B21a CLlB H0111EABFH+Cll31f AIR e 14121106 WAMiDABPMWJMSCMEM LAVAES I tt10W05 IEN6LD UY0UFP91C18if 9UTB6 OW20M 46M71LDlDTOYMOFBa0Fp1.D IA w DATE 51' EROSION CONTROL PLAN DYAL BY' m GRAPHIC SCALE 1XDR DSMSY- SJR a 50 00 260 9aD THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE: 1/9/05 6a AT CFW.'D 9Y., 2 F3 CUTCHOGUE DATE: IM/Dr ( IN FEET ) TowN OF 8�L_[ . SUFFOLK CCUN . NEW V<, 1 OI£iTRICT 1000. SECTION 102. Bl— C Cal. LOT,33.3 xe NO' 0002E NOTE:TE: NE:WA,c LSON c F2F Ncv THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE PAPE PROPERTY OF NELSON k POPE. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS OR CARD: 0002Wi ADDITIONS TO THESE DOCUMENTS ARE A VIOLATION OF SECTION ENGINEERSFICIAD,SURVEYORS 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE'EDUCATION LAW. INFRINGEMENTS 572 WALT WHITMAN 0427- M ,F NY. po W47-2M T' WILL 9EPROSECUlEO. (63U 4273865 FAI((6904273820 wwwiwMwp°pecan SHEER 230�� WOVEN WIRE FENCE (MIN. 14 1/2 2' Ylxluuu LENDTHP2" x4" GAUGE, MAX. 6" MESH SPACING) 36" MIN. FENCE SAND sac OR 0 MAX CEN. TO CEN- POSTS, DRIVEN MIN. CONSTRUCTION FENCE SHALL BE MANUFACTURED OF 2" x 4" WEIR ZALIBMTE WSWAT 18" INTO GROUND POLYETHYLENE OR POLYPROPYLENE WITH A NOMINAL FILTER x" slaty RECTANGULAR MESH OPENING OF NO GREATER THAN CLOTH 1" x Y. FENCE SHALL BE 48" HIGH AND SUPPLE° M , v ROLLS OF AT LEAST'S0' IN LENGTH, COLOR SHALL BE :•Ii•'} . .. 2" x 4" SPACER iii rc z RE MESH '2 ���.•//:ice i Fes' :: I- � "IN7ERNATONAL ORANGE". � •Ai,:3 ''.� W 114. .�.\ �/ � :. x� �Z / i b • � N i . ' MIN. FENCE INLET 72 i 10' MA OSTS, DRIVEN MIN. TO 14FE P 'I 24" INTO GROUNDq. PERSPECTIVE VIEW 4 e"Sm44 WOVEN WIRE FENCE (14 1/2 36' MIN. GA. MIN.. MAX. 6" MESH FENCE POSTS SPACING) WITH FILCL R OR TER Y' X a' ANCHORS PREFABR AlID SILT FENCE /// GEOFAB, ENVIROFENCE OR EROAVATEC AREA & AS REQUIRED) - -I APPROVED EQUAL I---�- o UNDISTURBED PERSPECTIVE VIEW FEW GROUND . 2' sJJJDDDINNI / EMBED FILTER CLOTH / T g MIN. B' INTO GROUND 72 MIN. "I(-- FENCE POSTS - CONSTRUCTION / STANDARD SYMBOL FENCE, ZEXCAVATED O6P1H. 2' MIN P -MAX AVEL - SUPPORTED BY SECTION BELOW IOP W INLET cam+ HOLEa. NAROWMRE CLOTH la ALLOW CLEARED /. � FOR DRAINAGE AND RESIIUCT aEDIYQIT AREA FUNDISTURSED CWTH DEWATERING MOWAIENT . .R AVL" CONSTRUCTION NOTES FOR FABRICATED SILT FENCE 1. WOVEN WIRE FENCE TO BE FASTENED SECURELY POSTS: STEEL EITHER T OR U TO FENCE POSTS WITH WIRE TIES OR STAPLES. TYPE OR 2" HARDWOOD M STANDARD SYMBOL 4 2" x 4" 2. FILTER CLOTH TO BE FASTENED SECURELY TO FENCE WOVEN WIRE, 14 1/2 GA. .. - WOVEN WIRE FENCE WITH TES SPACED6" MAX MESH OPENING EVERY 24" AT TOP AND MID SECTION. CONSTRUCTION FENCE DETAIL .. EXCAVATED DROP INLET PROTECTION 3. WHEN TWO SECTIONS OF FILTER CLOTH FILTER CLOTH: FILTER X, SCALE: NTS ' ADJOIN EACH OTHER THEY SHALL BE OVER- MIRAFl 100X, STABI- 2" z 4' SPACER LAPPED BY SIX INCHES AND FOLDED- UNKA T14ON OR APPROVED NOT TO SCALE EQUAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES FDR PLASTIC �I ORF";�LFNT ORANGE FENCE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 4. MAINTENANCE SHALL BE PERFORMED As PREAB ENVI O UNIT: GEOFAB, OVED WHEN ' 1. CLEAR THE AREA OF ALL DEBRIS THAT WILL HINDER EXCAVAOON. 'BULGES DEVELOPRINLTHEMSILLTT FENCE. QUAL OP' OR APPROVED N07E5 MADE CURB GUTTER INLET PROTECTION STRUCTURE INTEL EBAaI". 1) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE CONSTRUCTION fT1JCE IN LOCATIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE DRAWINGS D, WEEP HOLES SHALL BE PROTECTED BY GRAVEL SILT FENCE DETAIL AND SPECIFICATIONS OR MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES "SCALE: NTS 4. UPON BASIN WTH ST OF CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA, SEAL WEEP HOLES 2) THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION FENCE IS TO CLEARLY DELINEATE A CONSTRUCTION AREA Flu eASIN WITH STABLE SOIL TO FINAL GRADE COMPACT IT PROPERLY OAND PROVIDE SOME R INTENDED TO BE AN MPENETRABLE'BARRIER TO THOSE ISN770T ON ENTERING 'Dili CONSTRUCTION'SITS; IT IS NOT E CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONSAND STOUNDING NATURAL ABNZE MTH, PERMANENT SEEDING. MOTTO SCALE MAXIMUM DRAINAGE AREA 1 ACRE wcTAl H ATION 1. FILTER FABRIC SHALL HAVE AN EGS OF 40-85, 2 WOODEN FRAME SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF 2" X 4" CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED BY WEAVING FENCE POSTS VERTICALLY THROUGH AT LEAST THREE GRADE LUMBER. (3) MESH OPENINGS (TOP, MIDDLE AND BOTTOM OF FENCE) AND DRIVING POSTS WITH A 3LB. HAND DRILLING HAMMER (OR EQUIVALENT) FLUSH V47H THE TOP OF FENCING. POSTS SHALL BE AT AN INTERVAL OF NO 3• MRE MESH ACROSS MINIMUM WIDTH WITH AROAT SHALL BE A CONTINUOUS PIECE 30 INCH LENGTH 4 FEET LONGEIRTHAN THE THROAT. GREATER THAN TEN FEET FENCINGSHALL BE SECURED'FIRMLY TO EACH POST AT THE TOP, BOTTOM AND MID-POINT WITH WERE RE13AR TIES, WHERE LENGTHS P FENCING ARE d01NED, A POSE,SHALL BE WOVEN THROUGH IT SHALL BE SHAPED AND SECURELY NAILED TO A 2" X'4" WOR. TOE-OF-SLOPE 2"x2' WOODEN CUT SLOPE OR NEW BOTH FENCE SECTIONS AT THE JOINT, WITH TIES FASTENING BOTH FENCE SECTIONS TO THE POST FENCING SHALL 4. THE WEIR SHALL Be SECURELY NAILED TO 2" X 4•' SPACERS STAKE OR (IS EMBANKMENT BE STRETCHED AS TAUT AS PRACTICAL BETWEEN FENCE'POS75 WITHOUT INOROINA7ELY DEFLECTING POSTS. G INCHES LONG SPACED NO MORE THAN 6 FEET APART R®AR (SLOPE VARIES) 'TEMPORARY OPENINGS IN CONSTRUCTION FEMCE INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE PTDTIAl1TED FOR.ENTRY P WORK[R5, 5. THE ASSEMBLY SHALL BE PLACED AGAINST THE INLET AND SECURED MAlER1AlS AND EQUIPMENT• SJ0' OPENINGS SHALL BE SECURED AT TME EN9 P EACN WORKDAY IN THE BY 2" x 4" ANCHORS 2 FEET LONG EXTENDING ACROSS THE TP OF THE / EXISTING MANNER AFOREMENTONm FOR JOINING'FENCE SECTIONS II. INLET axo HEIR IN PLACE BY SANDBAGS OR ALTERNATE WEIGHTS- 7 `SEDIMENT c BOUND GROUND POSTS STEEL EITHER T OR U .'w MAXIMUM DRAINAGE AREA I ACRE CONTAINMENT HAY BALE FLOW .--. �(/ TYPE OR 2F` HARDWOOD - AREAE 2"x2" STAKES. / 2-PER BALE DRIVE �_'� r _- 2" x 4" WOOD FRAME STAKES FLUSH z STAKED & BUTTED T` DUST CONTROL NOTES � END B °�END. BOUND MAX PLAN BEDDING DETAIL ON CONTOURS NOT TO SCALE �-� ANGLE FIRST STAKE TOWARD BAQD HAY PREVIOUSLY LAID BALE The control of dust resulting from land-disturbing activities• _ _ 27x2" WOODEN �--_ STAKE OR #5 ' 50' MIN. 1 REBAR To prevent surface and air movement of dust from disturbed soil surfaces that may cause off-site EXIST'G 3' EXISYG - I damage, health hazards, and traffic safety problems- GROUND .•, $ PVM'T 1 V - YIN COIvOIT10NS V"yERE PRACTICE APPLIES s" IN. : `- •. MOUNTABLE BERM On construction roads, access points, Ord other disturbed areas subject to surface duet movement FILTER CLOTH (OPTIONAL) and dust blowing where off-site damage may Occur if duet isPROFILE controlled. pp�LC FABRIC ANCHORING DETAIL ^I:cHAN ORITERIA50' MIN. ffm _I Construction operations should be scheduled to in the amount of area disturbed at ane time- Construction =I - STAKED HAYBALE DETAIL STANDARD SYMBOL measures should be Installed. No.specific design criteria ie given; see construction.atabilization EXIST'G I Buffer areas of vegetation should be left where practical. Temporary or 'permanent ,specifications GROUND I ~ L• O w WjTM I NOT TO SCA below for common math ds of dust control. o :.., -III-III v LE FABRIC _ r`^A'STRUGTION cPEG�FlCATIONS Veaetgtive Cover - For disturbed areas not subject to traffic; vegetation provides the most Practical •/ /; ti;- :yi$'.;;`.ti:': : • .••;::•:::•:;::•::-'•::'•:••:• :-• -. •.a.•;:; i- method of duet control. Temporary seeding Shall be as follows: z PLAN s - a) Rye Grass (Annual or Perennial) at 30 lbs. per acre (0.7 lbs/1000 SF) u = B - �� BUMED FABRIC j b) Certified "Aroostook" Winter Rye'(Csreol Rye) at 190 his. per acre (2.5 Iba/BF) I. STONE SIZE - USE 2" STONE, OR RECLAIMED, OR RECYCLED CONCRETE EQUIVALENT. Use Winter Rye if seeding in October/November. �- _ GATHER EXCESS Mulch (including gravel mulch) - Mulch offers a fast effective means of controlling, duet. 2. LENGTH - NOT LESS THAN 50 FEET AT CORNERS MINT• IMIN 3. THICKNESS - NOT LESS THAN SIX (6) INCHES, -I I -I 1�1 Srrav Adheslvea - Examples of spray adhesives for use on mineral salla are shown in the following _ - - VVV 4 $lmlm BD�T Pm table: 4. WIDTH - TWELVE &121 FOOT MINIMUM, BUT NOT LESS THAN THE FULL WIDTH AT a 0312AR, FO1�CMIBMaBE,VIMCLA B.II water Type _°f Apply POINTS WHERE INGRESS OR EGRESS DOGLR�. FILTER FABRIC ,DROP INLET PROTECTION �� ° "e RM P143i1B ram IlOnax/Acre 2 mzs°s Material 5. FILTER CLOTH - WELL BE PLACED OVER THE ENTIRE AREA PRIOR TO PLACING SCALE NW T Tyos/a IwE's®urourlsH°Lea gels Acrylic Polymer 9:1 Course Spray 500 P STONE. CONSTRUCTION SP-900QATIONS 06124106 gam®T°Tox1+°PeounHa° sa Latex Emulsion 12.5:1 Fine Spray 235 6. SURFACE WATER - ALL SURFACE WATER FLOWING OR DIVERTED TOWARD CON- 1. FIL7ER FABRIC SHALL HAVE AN Eos OF 40-85. BURLAP MAY Nn GATE I*uwloN m' SURFACON ENTRANCES SHALL BE PIPED ACROSS THE ENTRANCE. IF PIPING 15 BE USED FOR SHORT TERM APPLICATIONS. Resin in Water 4:1 Fine Spray 300 IMPRACTICAL. A MOUNTABLE BERM'WITH 5:1.' SLOPES WILL BE'PERMI7TED. 2. CUT FABRIC FRCS A CONTINUOUS ROLL TO ELIMINATE JOINTS. IF EROSION CONTROL DETAILS D"1"'�- JOINTS ARE NEEDED THEY WILL BE OVERLAPPED TO THE NEXT STAKE. 7.� MAINTENANCE - THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE IMAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH FCISOM'W. 8� Water quality should be considered when materials are selected for dasL control. WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. 3. STAKE MATERIALS WILL BE EVENLY WILL BE STANDARD T x 4" WOOD OR EQUIVALENT. THE HERffAGE AT CUTCHOG ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED OR TRACIED ONTO PUBLIC 'RIGHTS- METAL WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 3 FEET. DATE VIE/ Wrinkling - The site may be sprayed until the surfQca Is wet. This is especially.effective an haul OF-WAY MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY, 4. SPACE STAKES EVENLY AROUND INLET 3 FEET APART AND DRIVE A WTUA 1�AT CWD BY.- S B. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED. IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA STABILIZED WITH MINIMUM IS INCHES DEEP. SPANS GREATER THAT 3 FEET MAY BE BRIDGED CUTCHOGUE STONE AND WHICH DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE. WITH THE USE OF WIRE MESH BEHIND THE FILTER FABRIC FOR SUPPORT DATA 1117.jroads and access routes. Stone used for construction roads is ciao effective for duet control. 9FILLED. rowN OF 90IJ-1"HOL�. SUFFOLK COUNTY. NEW YORKJOB No EACH IO INSPECTION AND NEEDED MAINTENANCE SHALL BE FRONDED AFTER 5 BFABRIC ACK FISLLED. IT SHALL BE SECURELY FASTENED TO THE STAKES AND FRAME. OLa3TRIGT 1000. 9155 IO" 102. BLOCK O , LOT 33.3 ��' Barriers - A fence or similar barrier Can control air currents at intervals equal to fifteen times the EACH RAIN. 6, A 2" X 4" WOOD FRAME SHALL BE COMPLETED AROUND THE CREST NOTE FILE No. barrier height. Preserve existing wind barrier'vegetation as much as practical. OF THE FABRIC FOR OVERFLOW STABILITY. THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE NELSON POPE '1 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE MAXIMUM DRAINAGE AREA 1 ACRE PROPERTY OF NELSON & POPE. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS OR CAOD 0002E AAAIN MANCE ADDITIONS TO THESEDOCUMENTSARE A VIOLATION OF SECTIO! ENGINEERS a SURVEYORS 7209 OF THE NEW YARN STATE' EDUCATION 'LAW. INFRINGEMENTS 572 WALTWHiIAANROAD,MELYLLB,NY.IV47-M T`7 NOT TO SCALE WILL BE PROSECUTED. f830 427i6G5 FAX(Ceti 427-582D wNwn6MWIIPaPe'cam Maintain dust control measures through dry weather periods until Oil'disturbed areas are stabilized. T 2GA°F © OHO �Q Holi hE�Y OF JS EOAW A KUBiLROETWNW \ FRANK MACHINCHICN " 1,9 1.44' N i S 51-13'55" E 3 ' � z za � N O � D6AT 1'D21ND eAr c O 3z- 2 hN x0w rrc qU I�G1 MAI- M ` cl OuwasrAlis N 1 SCALET•OS ALE 22 2 S 49'47' 5" E JD ze v 27 .68 0 OF SE OLD � 1 zA .' a 2 1 2 Z6 Z� 26 29 22 2 r N T:H#, 30 �e? S 4947'45" E N " 95.00' 3 ' GRIPPING STIR �--F_ x ul zz O TH 22 N IIl TH#4 � NOW AM M.RLYBM ME ti 3 y M RWAM Y B®E • RLDAM F NEARBY 5 4$656'35" E J0 No DF i 221.47 N ARro Lm w 49'56'35" W 40 00' " 2 NOW/FORHERLr OFCHUR1 ' ROMAN 01OF Lo 1HOuc \ 0) SACRED HEART Ih TH#6 o TH#8 BORING 06 h GRADE BORING #7 GRADE BORING #8 GRADE TH#70.0' TOPSOIL EL 34.4 0.0' TOPSOIL EL 35.0 0.0' roPSOIL EL 32.25 32 _ SILTY LOAM _SILTY LOAM SILTY LOAM, TRACE JmLr LJ - - GRAYISH BROWN SILT' (SM) NMEYARDS INC. COURSE TO FINE BROWN, COURSE TO FINE BROWN N - LIGHT BROWN SAND AND _ LIGHT BROWN SAND AND - Lo COURSE TO FINE BROWN GRAVEL, OCCASIONAL', LIGHT BROWN SAND AND GRAVEL, OCCASIONAL N a6 - �0' rl -5.O LARGE GRAVEL (SW) _rJ O' LARGE GRAVEL (SW) -5.0' GRAVEL (SW) COURSE TO FINE BROWN _ COURSE TO FINE BROWN - z6 P9 r N GRAVELIGHT BROWN SAND H N LAYEROND F _ AND LIGHT BROWN SAND - \ - SILT (SP/SM) - AND GRAVEL (SW). - 493 " z O 3w 2,010.62' 4 - COURSE TO FINE BROWN O O • AND LIGHT BROWN SAND NOW/FONMELY OF O -10.0. n NO!aORMERLY OF v* PAUL Y rtiONCMA o AND GRAVEL (SW) -10.0' -10.0' HIOHUOID ROAD CORP � �y Q NOW/FIXiMERLY OF -15.0' ' MOKRNO RE �'s z NOW/F ERLY OF NON FORM . NOW Y NOW FALY OF NOW/FORMER OF NOWA9UKMIE�1R62. Q JOHN ISABE - -1 5.O' -15.0' OSILY, HENRY k DESDRAH JOHN R ISANY. �s\ Q DAND A FRANCIS A STANLEY JR. STANLEY JIL AWO III OUIEE d' p J DONNA M. A MARIE GEFOR11 OF K J EXISTING PRIVATE WATER WELL 0 (TYPICAL FOR 11) N ED 150' SANITARY RADIUS -20.0' FROMCENTER ELL F -25.0' -20.0' -20.0' WATER11 i (TYPICAL FOR 11) -25.0 -25.0' END BORING 25' END OF BORING 25' 0" END OF BORING 25' 0" NO WATER ENCOUNTERED NO WATER ENCOUNTERED NO WATER ENCOUNTERED TEST BORINGS BY TEST BORINGS BY TEST BORINGS BY SLACKE TEST BORING SLACKE TEST BORING SLACKE TEST BORING 12/5/06 12/5/06 12/5/06 BORING 01 GRADE BORING 12 GRADE BORING #3 GRADE BORING #4GRADE BORING #5 GRADE 0.0' SILTY TOPSOIL EL 34.2 0.0' TOPSOIL EL 34.6 0.0' SILTY TOPSOIL EL 28.5 O.O' SILTY TOPSOIL EL 34.3 0 0 SANDY TOPSOIL EL 23.9 - - _ SILTY LOAM COURSE TO FINE BROWN - SILTY LOAM _ SILTY LOAM - SILTY LOAM - SAND, SOME SILT, SOME _ GRAVEL SM - COURSE TO FINE BROWN COURSE TO FINE BROWN COURSE TO FINE BROWN _ COURSE TO FINE BROWN - COURSE TO FINE .BROWN rn LIGHT BROWN SAND AND - AND LIGHT BROWN SAND - AND LIGHT BROWN SAND LIGHT BROWN SAND AND SAND AND GRAVEL, I GRAVEL, OCCASIONAL , AND GRAVEL (SW) GRAVEL, OCCASIONAL OCCASIONAL LARGE OWNER: APPLICANT: -5.0 LARGE GRAVEL (SW) -5.0' AND GRAVEL (SW) _5 0 -5.O LARGE GRAVEL (SW) GRAVEL (SP/SW) _ _ - NOCRO, LTD. THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE, LLC _ GRAPHIC SCALE AND LIGHT IGHTOBRowN sANo _ _ FINE BROWN 140 EAST MAIN ST. 1721-D NORTH OCEAN AVENUE ,DD o s0 ,DD 200 �°° - - COURSE' TO FINE BROWN _ ANDRLIGHTOBROWN SAND RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 MEDFORD, NY 11763 0 AND GRAVEL SW _ _ - AND LIGHT BROWN SAND _ AND GRAVEL (SW) 4 51010 REVM®FFCRNDRhT RES ( ) _ AND GRAVEL (SW) D 01010 AEN®CiDNFKIIIREANFERfJ.[f1f e.R. ( IN FEET ) -100' -10.0' -10.0' -10.0' z nlsuo6 REJfEDADlBiRCDH8 COIN@LIY LWAES -10.0 . , 1 Lela/u RMSEEDIAMNFERCLENT BID'- -15.0 -15.0' -15.0' -15.0' -15.0 ae1NWaN eam®romWLaFsanHan al Q Nn DATE IEEIAION BY o GROUND WATER -17.6' EL 6.3 - - _ TEST BORING LOCATIONS DWN.Br. JM Deet BY &R THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE: W105 81 Tm AT C -20.0' q qp -20.0' -20.0' -20.0' -20.0, CUTCHOGUE CNCD BK � l -250' -25.0' -25.0' -25.0' -25 TOWN OF 90LATT LOLO. SUFFOLK COLJNTY. NEW YORK NOTE= END OF BORING 25' 0". L DATB GROUND WATER -25.6' EL 8.6 END OF BORING 25' 0" ENID OF BORING 25' 0" oLarFaLCT T000, sECTJON ioz• EaLooLc aE. L- - a 3 flu°' 0002 THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF sFxwcE AND ARE THE = NO WATER ENCOUNTERED NO WATER ENCOUNTERED PROPERTY OF NELSON & POPE. UNAU7HORIZED ALTERATIONS OR NO WATER ENCOUNTERED NELSON & POPE FLE coo Na A0017IONS TO THESE DOCUMENTS ARE A MOLA71ON OF SECTION TEST BORINGS BY TEST BORINGS BY TEST BORINGS BY TEST BORINGS BY cADD 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. INFRINGEMENTS TEST BORINGS BY SLACKE TEST BORING SLACKE TEST BORING SLACKE TEST BORING IMPENCAINEERB • SURVEYORS c WILL BE PROSECUTED. SLACKE TEST BORING SLACKE TEST BORING 12/7/06 12/5/06 12/5/06 I 72�WALTW HITIAM PAX RDS EL�rtY.m IsHEM � � c 12/7/06 12/7/06 a STA. 7+50 SEA. 5+5D i� SO 2O' In GI MY AP URS tAAB ARPROACU SAB BRoxY CNK F 42' XNRI DECBY OWE RMNO WBBED MERE W4 AS �IIEOIm BY OWNER 4 %4" FOR 1810R1i�MR FOR DECK jl`j 4d Gf I-SIXSLOPE RG N RE 11NG RFA PROP. ROADWAY MIRAR FABRIC N 150I I I I ASPHALT ROAD AS RED m iu's FGD1A0 PCAnox"s°i (M roxR d Ea RDAnd1s �— - -wm-- -- -- -- --rt '�l�WO WATER A R ' X3079 a1s R� HOLES IIII .IIIII IIIj iAWI � 81HASH 3OW A — DGRJ° SAGRAY Hill uo xw aAo STAMPED CONCRETE STAMPED C ONC REE RMNG.MLLL YANG WALL PATIRSPEOFlED'BY OWNER I I I I PATTERNS SpRESPED BY OWNER II r I INV 17.0 I I INV 47. LINIR I I 2e I I LINER I I 80 OF POND TOP FOUNDATION —— SHED STONE SECW W V1/ 02 WT40WWA/i SCWE P -S' AS DIORFMM ByOWNEH DECORAIVE R (T1P) EPDXY COATED MELDED MM FABRIC (ASTM A-/55, A-497, LATEST MT10m)- PoR 4P W4 DEP 11LX W4 100 1111-ft 21L0 STA. 7+50 d7A9S •R.C. 'R W� CURB F GRAMRI r CURB % EPDXY COATED AS DIRECTED CTED BY OWNERTIVE °+r 2% a6 B RC Fula )FNB SURFACE 0.50 O Wa= VIRE FABRIC 4^X 4^W4%W4 IOD 9¢R ) FOR 0EIX 5191FM ..N 180 7 r FlRLN7R FAYARIC (7YP) r O L ....a.. L . -.� a" .-...w..a ....... .. a.. ...c"r . .... - I ORATE 6 28.0 9APE p .-.. ..._a.... .du... .. ..r...... . 4/ NE70' HOLES 0'/ WATERMAIN ^�1,' TMoP. A RE' O FF 13^75 1.WlS PROP.ROADWAY RC it as (TTP.) TRV 3x97 ; . �-d 99.0 YGERWR SPWFlOABCH6 MIRAFI N 1W �—WET7. IAED i FILTERSAXO O dUVEI. STAMPED CONCRETE .` + __-________ _ RI. 29.0 — WING WALL i I J PATTERNS SPEOFlED BY OWNQt :,. _ I OAS SHOWN WIN GPEgFlGTPS J 4'/ WEEP X .. ' � 4'/'WFEPX ,, .----- OAS SXOVIV RCP w FL x4.0 g___ GRADED SI Q-k4WA`EL — 0111'-9' as (717.) '."• CONCRETE SOTTOM 23.0 X �' STAMPED w 0 STAMPED ON ro .:; STAMPED CONCRETE WNO WALL R� NTNG WALL MANH-E �'r INV 28.0—/ Y.:'y WNO WALL PATTERNS SPECIFIED BY OWNER MNER PATTERNS SPECIFIED BY OWNER pUIE EL 20.0 .. PATIERNB SPECIFIED OWNER • 200 RTF E20 WATER i EL6 20.0BOTTOM QF----�--------^ E-6 OF t�►GWALL POND ET. no . I � . . , 17.0 7 S INV .: . WHO WALL BOTIOII CUNDATOU ELWAB9 alson M D-D OF MEAD_IAIALL SCALD 1'-5' L AS RIDIREOIFO BYAOTOEAAWNO EPDXY COATED WELDED WIRE FABRIC (AM A-755. A-W.LATEST'SIS � 7 4'%4"'TXFdR%D OIK p.R G BYBIELI J 0' CURB GRASS ' WRB p 1A 7E -, GRASS 2% � 1.0% RC NTIIRE TNG SURFACE •, T f:, -- 5/07/0) IELWEOFORBOSR 4 4 l i d MIRAFI N 15(1 fiYB®C.LBXdIIEABF91CllBNT BIR LIIRAFl N 70.0 : ' _ ._._._� . _ _._. -�_ .__. •_ ._ . ____ - R w/2Va9 BDDTIL WLWBNd M ' 71LTER FBWC(tYP)' --ER FABRIC(TTP) _...__. __ ____._ __ _ _ - - -- STU � OF RI STUMPED CONCRETE „ 70P Oi RETANINO WALL 30.0 1 IHIBEDLAYdRPEiLCL93lf SIR YANG WALL '. 4'/NFFA X 70P OF RETAINING WALL EL 30A '/WAP HOLES `.A�, g01En®'roEASON dmra'D' __________________________ 1. Rp, DATE 24'0 RCP WI]1 GRADED SAND t GRAVEL }. NER T>VBA BK ---------- --- - BOTTOM OF PPD EL 26.0 HEADWALL OGV I IOIW7 Dm�< EL: MxER 'i : Sollow --"--- --------- --- ----------------------------------------------------------------"---- 507-- . . --------- BOTTOM CF POND S- 29A _ ______________________________________________________________________________ THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOG oA,E. ung CWCHOWEDATE IM TOWN OF 801JTHOLO, 81JFFOLK OOUMY, NEW YORK .1CB NOS oO p18TN91CT '1000. 8EG-T90N 102. BLOOK 07. LOT 33.3 SECTION t4DW�Llwl NELSON & POPE FLEND: CARD SCALES As 00024 sum 1' .W ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 572 WALT WHITMAN EROAC,IMELVLLE FI747-2WB aHC ,?¢AOF (580427-5885 FAX(RBD427-5520 WAwnabonpaPe l3F�D 4�FF ,1LVM MLL I sinDH. O �Q NOTr4T EN.Y OF I NOW/fLRMERLY OF - E ATE OF BER A KUROZEWSKI 1901'.44' (DEED), FRANK MACHINCHICK 1964.80' (ACTUAL) S38'30'50"E (DEED) ( W a 538'24'20"E . ACTUAL) — — — vll �• V1 tr r.. W GREAT PECONIC BAY o v' Ow0 too N ► N� 6K EY MAP OL C D ► ► 0 0 xtlAAr DF m (11 ► WA " NxB ', ut tT1ANEt A e.wAX L win r-o ► OF 0 ► S37'04'403'E 279" ' = TO OF OFF SOODUTERLHOLLD GO .4p N n O 0 ► ► ,1 DoT U1 r "$37T]4'4D'E * xDv 95.00' a N N GRIFFING STREET POND ► NN 1 , WAn11FVRWII llMl� ? 1I O ' ♦ ' _L KIA wA sa NOW/FOPMERLY W �P, - 'sTATW H ., tEll pnIAl,Tlox ► ... .7 IWAM M. BE®E /" +• iWNTNN D' 01 V & WILLIAM F. HEANEY T m rol so•tl ► �N' m S �m xui mrt EGA WA POND .* _ �1 C`/1 54 `I'cl`IFOUNo TGHunax ,` 0 53713:30"E (DEED) `� AN: NOW/FORAEALYOF O ► S37'04'30"E CTUA 221.47' I y ARro Lro. � N3T13'30"W' 400.00 A NOWIFORMERLY OF W — WA n ► MD AN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF SACRED HEART a z • ► _ ►I NOW W ► 3 . LONG ISLAND WNEYARDS INC. , e M] P M W o I ° SIGN LEGEND I"i D7 PROPOSES CODE SYMBOL CRASH CAR' — ��csss'RD, � R1-1C Q 91 1 N36'54'20"W T I NOW/FORMERLY OF I 2009.51' (DEED) Q BA& LO MOW OF 2009:22' (ACTUAL) ALOD & LOUISE SHELBI'. NOS%FppMERLY OF NOW ERLY OF NOW/fOR Y OF NOW ERLY OF NOW/FORMENLY OF PAUL M. & CONCEFTA STASIUCERELY DAWD A: NCW/FORMERLY OF EMBRDSKY, DEMBROSKY. HENRY & DEBORAH NOWMERLY OF HIGH D ROAD CORP. W NWNEY. STANLEY JR. STANLEY JR. ARIICEW: D & MOHNNG RT. I ! DONNA M. FRANCIS J. I I I I I m z &MANE C, JOHN & ISABFl 12 R7-8 Q Ld N �4 f W CO CO i I PARKING CALCULATIONS: ZONING DATA REQUIRED: SITE COVER- AGE: METES AND OBTAINED FROM SURVEY PLANS BY PECONIC SURVEYORS, SITE DATA. SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, DWEWNG: 2,SPACES PER DWEWING PC DATED APRIL 18, 2007 SCTM: 1000-702-01-33.3 .. 111 UNITS X 2 SPACES/UNIT - 222 SPACES PONDS 2006,97 BF = 10.09 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING: '2 SPACES PER DWELLING LANDSCAPING 1,04877 SF = 52.269 ZONED: HAMLET' DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING: HAMLET DENSITY (HD)' ROAD,• PARKING AND PAVEMENT 267,877 2.46% MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR 1 FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS: ' 14 UNITS X 2 SPACES/UNIT - 28 SPACES SIDEWALK, PATI), AND GAZEBO 49,178 2.489 SITE AREA: 2,003.341.33SF = 45.9897 ACRES AFFORDABLE UNITS: 1:5 SPACES PER UNIT BUILDING 355,985 17.779. REQUIRED: PROVIDE@, 14 UNITS x 1.5 SPACES/ UNITS - 21 DRNEWAY . . 82,912 - 4.1Rh _ NUMBER OF UNITS = 139 LOT SIZE (SO. FL). 20,000 2.003,311.33SF '= (45.9897 AC) TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED FORUNITS = 271 SPACES 1009 UNIT TYPES NUMBER.OF BUILDINGS ,=. 131 (INCULDING CLUBHOUSE AND MAINTANANCE (GARAGE) LOT WIDTH (FEET) 75 216.51 CLUB HOUSE: LOT DEPTH (FEET) 120 2205.29 1 SPACE PER 300 SF OF RECREATIONAL FACILITY FRONT YARD (FEET) 35 212.07 5 SPACES PER TENNIS COURT SCHOOL DISTRICT # '9 SIDE YARD (FEET) - 25 35'0 CLUB HOUSE 8,840 SF / 300 - 30 SPACES AFFORDABLE700 'BOTH SIDE YARDS (FEET) . T) 30 POOL . 1,160':SF 300 = 4 SPACES, GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ZONE IV (600 GAL/ACRE) REAR YARD (FEET) 35 '0 / "-4—' �J C LJ AFFORDABLE ALLOWABLE SANITARY SITE FLOW: 222,5311.33 SF/ 20,000' SF/ UNIT = 100.Y85 LIVABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT./UNID 850 LIVABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ.FT./UNM TENNIS COURT 2 COURTS % 5/CT = 10 SPACES 100.165 x 757. x 300 GPD/UNIT = 22.537.25 GPD UNIT A 850 2804 TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING: = 44 SPACES" 4 a/mIS7 tBWe®Faq LADaer Res 1930 'J 'S/PSICT RENWEO CLInlxC1RE A9 PSL CLENT WJR UNIT B 850 2717 LOADING ZONE: UNIT C 850 UNIT D2728 COMMUNITY CENTER WITH FLOOR AREA OF 5,000 TO 25,000 SF W IWIPI/WW IEHC®Aa PS1 BCDHfi L'ORf.BIfB LW/REB UNIT E 850 3110 1 BERTH 1 MINIM RBOTe®LArourFela6Nr WIRES - AFFORDABLE UNIT 850 1135 .. LOT COVERAGE (9) 259 17.889 PROVIDED: W/24i W WUEMNEDTOTOWNOPDOUTHOLD WR BUILDING HEIGHT (FEET) 35 SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS - . Ma DATE SP NUMBER OF STORIES 2 1/2 SEE ARCHITECTURAL PIANS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED'DWELUNGi 2 SPACES PER DWELLING IN GARAGE GRAPHIC SCALE I l I UNITS X 2 SPACES/UNTTS = 222 SPACESDWN.BY- JM SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING: 2 SPACES PER DWELLING RITE PLAN F ALIGNMENT SJR ,00 o so loo 200 400 14 UNITS X 2 SPACES/UNIT = . 28 SPACES' OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES FOR UNITS = ' 99 SPDATE,�ACM THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DTE,BOR tA710 - TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED FOR UNITS 272 SPACES /05 BRUATED^AT ^ CLUB HOUSE: CU E TCHOGUE CHK'D BY, ,lq s ( IN FEET ) TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED IN PARKING LOT ,� 44 SPACES INCLUDING 2 DATE 1117/05 NOTEAPPLICANT: LOADING ZONE PHANDICAP SPACE Towry OF 801-FTHOLC. SUFFOLK COUNTY• NEWYOFiK OWNER: ROVIDED: 1 BERTH o1a-rPatoT T000• waecTlol� woz. W3LocK vF, LOT 30.3 JOB No; 0002E THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE NOCRO� LTD. THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE, LLC p PROPERTY OF NELSON & POPE. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS OR NELSON & POPE o. ADDITIONS TO THESE DOCUMENTS ARE A VIOLATION OF SECTION 140 EAST MAIN ST: 1721-D NORTH OCEAN AVENUEENGINEERS • SURVEYORS CADD OOD26SF 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. INFRINGEMENTS .RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 MEDFORD, NY 11763 WILL BE PROSECUTED. 872 WALT WHITMAN(C ROAD,MELVILLE, OW 1047-21aa SCALE` P427 (830 427-5685 PAX(CM)427-5620(690 427-5620 www.tlegonpopW.eom SHEET.- 2 CF 27 y anav O o c GREAT PECONIC 6AY 'NOW/FORMERLY OF NOW/FORMERLY OF ESTATE OF BE KURCZEWSKI FRANK NACHINCHICK I 1901,44 (DEED)' _ KEY MAP 1904,80 (ACTUAL) SCALE T-OS ABLE ----- w S38'30'50"E (DEED) _. .� S38'24'20"E (ACTUAL) _ _ — -- -- or- 00 � z o c0 N 'f .' N✓ OF 6 * # WA 0. RCULAODN Oy�y2ANA T. NOW/FORMERLY OF * * f S37'04,40"E 273 68 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD n �\ * V -.1 (� a Ln WON CA sDD ypN n m LPLC S >1 G t "S37'04'40 -E 03 21x07• x 00' 95.00' * Lq N POND A t * t * NN .(n W WA GNT N PON 01 W 2oA * f r r N� •f1 Tp STA6CwA „ p oT Ill NOW/FORMERLY OF P_ ��. tut WATER 5NTMROUA50N ATm ci�l WIWAM'M. BEEBE /^ Tk ep •'•�' FOUNTAIN P O N D ` j j & WILLIAM F. HEANEYmOE6TAnD WATER pab .;i% �Ow WATER 4" ,^ t ' n M 400.00 N ARTO LTD, F J. 537'13.30' E ',.(PEED) 3 30_W „,, r 637'04' 0" ACTUAL 221.47 ' _ C O OW FORMERLY 0 I r NOW/FORMERLY OF WA P ROMAN CATHOLIC *' CHURCH OF e� .�— SACRED HEART :O CJ O DO # RMERLY OF f VINEYARDS INC. 6 i ^G LoM (n f B f li i O I O 0I . ' WPROPOD CRASH DATE — I ACCESS RD. N36'54'20"W T TII 2009.51' (DEED) NOW(FORMERLY OF I ' I r O & LO, NOW/FORMERLY OF 2009.22 (ACTUAL) ALDp k LOUISE SHELBY, ;NOW/FORMERLY OF NOW/FORMERLY OF - NOW/FORMERLY OF NOW/FORMERLY OF PAUL M. k CONCETTA STASIUKIEWICZ, NOW/FORMERLY OF COOK, NOW/FORMERLY OF 4EMBROSKY, 'DEMBROSKY, HENRY'k DEBORAH I I NOW/FORMERLY OF HIGHLAND.ROAD CORP. DAVID A. gIMNEY, STANLEY JR. I STANLEY JR. OU "CEW, & MOHRING RT, I I h DONNA M. FRANCIS J. &,MARIE C. I JAHN k'.ISABEL 52.22' a 4 6/0]/0 REVERE)FOR BD EtT RE9 n r . � ' 'aUrt107 FEY18®p.15 HDIEL'ABPER CLBTf B.W 2 .WxNae, IEY19E9 AB PHi 6CDH.B.CWALBIiB LOUIRES c t 1x1OelOe RERBEp LAYCUf P91 ClJFM BNIEB 'OO O' Duwae, elenmmTOTOWN aPeamiaD OR .Na DATE FEREION BY, GRAPHIC SCALE 8.00, 25.00' FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS PLAN OWN.BY.' JM V x6 FIRE TRUCK F DSGNBY: SJR 0 6 66 167 THE HERITAGE AT-CUTCHOGUE . DATE: 110G5 66 Width 8.00' Track : 8.00' 19DVATEG AT Lock to Lock Time : 6.00 CUTCHOGUE cHKD en SJR CA CA DATE: 1/7105 IN FRET Steering Angle : 40 ' TOWN OF 30UTHOLO. SUFFOLK COUNTY. NEW YORK O19TFIIV""1' 1000, SECTION '102. BLOCK Ol, LOT 33,3 JOBNw 00026 NOTE pp THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE NELSON & POPE SLE No; PROPERTY OF NELSON h POPE. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS OR CADDY 000268P E ADDITIONS TO THESE DOWMENTS ARE A MOLATION'OF SECTION ENGINEERS SURVEYORE3 ADDI OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. INFRINGEMENTS - 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD,MELMLLE,KY.11747-21AB' SCALE: V-6a WILL BE PROSECUTED. (630 427-5665 FAX(630 4275620 W mslsenpopecam SHEET: 1 OF 1 , , i . I THA KURC NOW/FORMERLY OF `BER ZEWSKI NOW/FORMERLY OF ESTATE*OF ,,FRANK MACHIN HICK I I 44' N '13'55"' E 1,901 Z. ' NOW/FORMERLY OF . & JEAN T. S 57 20 'CHARLES J , ' „ NOW/FORMERLY OF 8 10 rowN TH . , OF SOU . OLD 8AS1 9 47 5 4' $5 I I_ E 273'.6 JI T � 140,. � g { a S 49'4745" E' 1 �0 , — I 30 � i W ' EET— WILLIAM M. BEEBE r 110 1 1 h201 'NOW/FORMERLY OF T z � �--- -J M � 4Q 1. T -�—' I I T �:. N N DRAINAGE I,,. I �' I "7 ,1I I 9'56'35" W 400.00' N TO RVE , . NOW/FORMERLY OF RESE S 4856`35 >E:, 221.47' 0.' OW N 4 `'.I �.. L , : a - 1 k44 -{- -1-- 1-1 � -- i -�- -1- -I-- -- � -�- cV h/ • NO FORME RLY OF W QQ ROMANIzc MTHOLIC . .,' 7'0 !N. :;..: SACRED HEART - w 777 W O 77 oNn '� ,, NOW/FQRMERLY OF W.. ,. Gp t7 -77 LONG 'I$LAND VINEYA,RDS' INC c /5 — , . N 519/ 1 EXISTING 'PRIVATE' `_4.p ., 1. N. DRAINAGE,SERVEi . j� . , WATER` WELL — .. — (TYPICAL 'FQR, 6) .'. N .48'37.'25° Wi 2,0162' O� O ADIU.S, ' RMERLY pF 1'50` SANITARY. R 7� FROM ,CENTER` -OF ] '. , . . R WELL: ,. . ORMERLY OF MOW./FORMERLY OF NOW/FORMERLY OF NOW/FORMERLY OF . NOW/FORMERLY OF NOW/FORMERLY'AF ' NOW/FORMERLY .OF � ` NOW/FD WATE ., NOW/FORMERLY, OF.: NOW/F U (T.YPICAL FOR .6.j I : HIGHLAND' ROA4 CORP. b00K, I DIVINER, I' OEMBROSKY, ) DEMBROSKY,. BARSALI '' I SHELBY, �': STASIUKIEWICZ, K OUARIICELLI DAVID A. FRANCIS J. ' STANLEY JR. STANLEY. JR , : ALDO & LOUISE PALM. dG CONCETTA HENRY:& DEBOR'AH a JOHN &',ISABEL' &'';I I LRT N & DONNA M. & MARIE.C. I I I. i Wit 1>1 i SITE INFORMATION GROUNDWATER MANAG$MENT'ZONE IU7. 600 GAL/ACRE) B SI FLOW:600 GAL/ACRE x 46>16'ACRES 27t696;GPD ALLOWABLE $ANI1'AR TE :FLOW120A . ` ��� , . L NO' ' TPLANT'SHALL ESIGNEDFO R 50,QOO.GPD. I.SEWAa TREATMEN BED p� 2:MINIMUM LOT . IS 10IIII SF. S80,AC 83"67 Na " DAIE RensoN LOT DEPTH'REQUIRED I TU�MINIMUM'IS Q. IDT 3• M S 60 LD MAP . _ YIELD 4,. LOT WIDTH REQUIRED I , 60, ACTU ,MIN IIv1UM'.IS ' , eri iccz ERITAC� AT CUTCHOGUE aucoar . AJK 81fYl�l®A,• �e• . THE H CUTCHOGUE .. .. .. GRAPHIC SC's..,;-'. .. GREAT PECONI,C BAY DA16 � O6 d9 O6 .'r. . A1G FLL.EN. 941=C1Y7 NELSON s POPE 10� ENG�INEBRS s1JRVFTYORS. : .0 4i� 1W. 77 SCDHSlh S . 03 OOpS R � KE' 1.'M�1PE '-672'WALT WHIT�MN ROAD,MELVILLEj NX.11]4]-218 .SCALFr �T n 100' TO .. . . .„ . . ': -1 " E 'L'E.iL COW W7- 860 FAx ceao aastz3i ttSIMI 1 'inoh m 100 1k P. .. &.5/GWA7IJRE, . BeSCTM1k 100 02 0133.3' SCALE Mtt LAS NPSC I PE ]DESIGN PILANS SPECIFICATIONS Nj PROPOSED PLANNED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT z _ G CUT00 A DT CH_ OGU w IED „ � N W � u) m Z L SCHOOL HOUSE LANEz o � c/) U D- o L Z CUTCHOGUE , NEW YORK * TOWN OF SOUTHOLD J � MOOw � Q z (,D toQ _ to v PROJECT I N F'c��t��M A�T I O N,,, . LOCATION , ,M 4 � V OWNER: HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE, LLC PROJECT DESCRIPTION : PLANNED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION CLASSIFICATION : WOOD FRAMED } OCCUPANCY: MULTI -FAMILY FIRE HAZARD: NSA T FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM : N/A 4\R¢ .n 17 INDEX ' TO DRAWIN;G:5, o T-1 TITLE SHEET OO w B 7 Rk 1LANDSCAPE DETAILS & NOTES O5 Drc m LS-2 OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN NyS R OP o LS-3 STREET SIGNAGE AND LIGHTING PLAN LS-4 LANDSCAPE SECTION ONE �y 9 U zo LS-5 LANDSCAPE SECTION TWO Z)LS-6 LANDSCAPE SECTION THREE V CIP ¢ 0 LANDSCAPE SECTION FOUR �� U ¢ o LS-7 3 _ U LS-8 LANDSCAPE SECTION FIVE ro Q = �� I� / a v LS-9 LANDSCAPE SECTION SIX LS-10 LANDSCAPE SECTION SEVEN nucusT 200e LS-11 TYPICAL UNIT LANDSCAPE PLAN — FRONT ENTRY GARAGE scale; LS-12 TYPICAL UNIT LANDSCAPE PLAN — SIDE ENTRY GARAGE ' G C drawn by, LS-13 CLUB HOUSE LANDSCAPE PLAN .e checked by; LS-14 DEVELOPMENT ENTRY & GUARD BOOTH LANDSCAPE PLAN GREAT PEGRNIG BAY C,W,Kuehn project no; 24000 41, . ,, sheet ]drawlrq Tit UF it LELAND CYPRESS 0 W—O" O.C. PROPERTY LINE WHITE PINE 0 W-1)" O.C. PROPERTY LINE — DO HOLLY Ill - ♦ 0' HIGH ILE% BUSH - 4'-0' HIGH HOLLY BUSH - 4'-0' HIGH AZALEA p Y-0' O.C, I I 00 AZALEA 0 4'-0' O.C. HOLUE BUSH - 1'-0' HIGHILEX BUSH - 4'-0' HIGH 1 I 1 HOLLY BUSH - 4'-0' HIGH ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ N I ILE% BUSH - 1'-0' HIGH HOLLY BUSH - 4'-0' XI ♦ ♦ � f �+ LO n W 1' � x 3: x O L1 Q cchiw A I 0] z LL_ cn O O a- oLn LLJ OL. 00 FOUNTAIN GRASSO N zC4 N . J M to r , v BERM PLANVIN PROPERTY LINE WHITE PINE OR LELAND CYPRESS O 6'-011 O.C. — REFER PLAN ABOVE FOR SPACING ALTERNATE ROWS OF FOUNTAIN GRASS — REFER TO AZALEA, HOLLY AND PLAN ABOVE FOR SPACING ILEX — REFER PLAN ABOVE Iw a� PINE NUGGET MULCH 3'-0" MIN. HIGH BERM BERM SCREEN PLANTING � a TYPICAL RAISED BERM -N M 201-011 IN LLJ O � w BERM SECTION " zo N L,J Q O U 1- O O N L H a Z U date, AUGUST 2006 scale, 1/4• = 1'-0" drawn by: C.W.Kuehn checked by; project In 24000 sheet # LS — 2 drawing tine LANDSCAPE PLAN THE HERITAGE AT CU TCH OGU E CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I 4 NOW/FORMERLYESTA OF EOF I I NOWIFORMERLY OF I J FRANK MACHINCHICK BERTHA KUROZEWSKI 1 ,901 .4 w z `. S 51 '13'55" E I w _,. ...---I- — --j .�.�.. p D4 �• '� z LiJ ao I NKI L10 C\ CC A S' PUTTING GREEN U n 1 A A A A E I /� A ^I U BUNIKER ` ^ Y li p NOW/FORMERLY OF A B C SAHARA. O W M O C E i '� CHARLES J. k JEAN T. T O LC ! 1 C C Wx 1 . : -L;r 1�r W N n.,nt.E area for x � x „ P.*tg nos vehloM W Q 1 W W W'W WWW W W " W N S 49'47 45 P^"MG I m z 1 1 II ' W W W W f } BAY NO FORMERLY OF �1 A W W W �W W 273.68 MAGARAGE CE TO OF SOU HO F L / ,3 A B W W `V/rr7lh w/ U o n I A e ( WW WW WW = cc 114 A W W " I ^ 111 B , Pte' — 'Y 9 35' % 60' o > Iy \ cC LANDSCAPED AREA INDICATES q B W " W " W SHEET MEO BERM - REFER TO q E W N o Q L. SHEET LS-2 FOR BERM 1 A II � �. DETAIL W E W _ W W i " W W �cF O 11B E w " .P*"" ' TENNI R75 M 41 C-4)7'4 E }' 12 36' 12 36' 12 00' 1 6F9 W W W i W IV 1 C 9 '1 V WW 'WWWWWWW WW W , 1 W W " W " , " W W " WWW " W " W p I 4 11 E D '+, _SwV o A 1 A WW WiWF� W11FILWWWWWiWWW W „ „9 C E B W " FFIN S ET W V/� q W W W w W W W i i W W W W W W W W W W W W W B ,-r /l p B .Y W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W IL• 1 W W W I C-4 W S' "�� .• kBILQ M. HEN EY 1 A W W W • " W i W W•W W W W i W " W W W W W W W W W W I.WII iIWIW . WOWW W W W W W W i W i •W W W " W W W WWW ^ W W ,W'� L w W " W " Wi W W W, W WWWWW W W�� i W W W '1' W ^— W " •� W W W W W " W W W i W W W W " •W W W W W W W W W W W W W WY W W S 49'56'35" E A 221 .47' B p WWW u, w C B E W W W p w E W N 49'56;35" W 400.00' NVIN/fR�ME�LY OF � N B A E E p A B WW d Wi LC C E D rn I � z D A A o g D A A NOW/FOHO UC OF I a\ ROMAN CAT A A E q CHURCH OF SACRED HEART n ry w A + A — zzil''ll L 0 o I A A I L0 - A p A IIn = o A o x r- C4 p E p C B A N � o F,) I N o v i E g 3 � C - o A E A zL A A — A — B B �r GI � 04 00 a O ssss,s1s' N —49°37'257 �� �I�Ir IWIIFwI�I�� ww. "ss" 7 �2,010�.6�2' HATCHED ME INDICATES HATCHED AREA INDICATES V- 1- O 0: LANDSCAPED BERM - REFER 70 LANDSCAPED BERM - REFER TO I ,rI HATCHD AREA INDICATES SHEETLS-2QBERM SHEET LS-2 FOR BERN LANDSCAPED BERM - REFER TO DEAIL DETAL SHEET LS-2 FOR BERM I DETAIL NOW/FORMERLY OF LL.I NOW/FORMERLY OF I NOW/FORMERLY OF I J. NOW/FORMERLY OF I NOW/FORMERLY OF I I�DW/FORMERLY OF I NOW/FORMERLY OF I NOW/FORMERLY OF NOW/FORMERLY OF 4 date! HIGHLAND flOAD CORP. Z COOK, DINNED DEMBRDBKY, OEMBROSKY, I BARBALI, SHELBY, W/FO MENICZ OUMTICELLI, OCTOBER 2005 I k MOHRING RT, `Q I k DONNA M. kRNMIE C. I STANLEY JR. I STANLEY R. I AGO k LOUIfiE I PAUL M, k CONCETTA I HENRY k DEBONM i W" I JOHN k ISABEL O O '� � scale; � = ao_D I ICODI I I I I I I I Q drawn ba KUEHN �� checked by; ti proicct no; zsoo G�( SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ` # 1 " = 80'-0D Q�c sheet GREAT PECOWC BAY L S - 3 KEY MAP drawing tide SCALE: 1' 0.5 MILE OVERALL AN=SAPE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE — COMMUNITY CENTER z w � DO } c0 _ X 3 JC I mzu- cn a- a a � � r'---------'----------------"-----__-------------'� w - 2- j ------- -------�------- 0--------f}---- ---� j wN ~ I . CN N I I I cc , b VNI I I I TBANQUET ROOM OIk,�T. , KITCHEN i TOILET STORAGE MCOAT o IrC DELIVERY 'a o CONSEAIRS OFFICE DESK r = o LIBRARY LOUNGE 3 w z CARD ROOM OFFICE PICIK-UP STORAGE W N " 2 y+ Q h Q a NOVEMBER 2006 scale; 1/4' = 1._0., drawn by, 6'-6• 12'-01 6'-6' C.W.Kuehn checked by; -- project no; 24000 FIRST FLOOR PLAN she 1 /8" T 1070.# A - 1 drawing tltle FIRST FLOOR HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE — COMMUNITY CENTER l z _ cc LO w � coI I� N — XLJX OW ¢ Im z � d. Do 0- C) V- -��----- w a � �------ -�t-------��-------'�'1'-------Fye J � � I Q ON � z � I �i' rye � I U I , I I I I I , BANQUET ROOM SLOW i CC 00 T a STORAGE READING LOUNGE LOUNGE FIT I 0 c 0 W O r BUSINES CONF. RM. MULTI PURPOSE RM. o L7L3 Z Q w W � C9 N O 1 d date: NOVEMBER 2006 5cie: 1/4' = V-0" drawn 6y 4 C.W,Kuehn checked by,, SECOND FLOOR PLAN project no: 24000 1 �- 011 Sheet # A - 2 drawlNq--t [He FLOOR HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE — COMMUNITY CENTER ccz co cc _ cc w � h N d� O co _ X3iX I MZL. Il opo INDOOR POOL, w U 0- O,v a00 Y T� N BILLIARD / GAME ROOM EXERCISE ROOM I [Ell T O C O ❑ 0 a ❑ W WOMEN S LOCKERS QMENS LOCKERS OILETS / SOWERS TOILETS / SHOWERS Z ❑ 00 ❑ n ❑ ~ o FIRST AID E 3 UTILITY z v INN Q W ill SAUNA SAUNA 2 22 FE� s date; NOVEMBER 2006 5cdel 1/4', = 1'-0" drawn by, C.W.Kuehn checked by; LOWER LEVEL PLAN prOJeLt" 24000 . Sheet # A - 3 draWirq tide LOWER LEVEL' lNi Al _ 00 Lo w � 00 � N (o"o , r _ x3i� I mz � - - cn a , � w I N MIM _ r�7 FRONT ELEVATION 1 /8 of - 11-0' _ T n d N O C y+ O a O N � r - - - - - - ® ® ® ® w 3 2 z T1w date, JANUARY 2007 scale: 1/4' = l._o., drawn by: c.w,Kuehn REAR ELEVATION checked by; project no: sheet # A - 4 drawing tMe ELEVATIONS CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT 171—1 - I 30 YR. ARCH, ROOF SHINGLES 30q ASPHALT ROOF FELT 1/2" COX PYLWOOD SHEATHING - 2"X8" RR 0 16" O.C. 00 (D 6" "AZTEK" FREEZE BOARD W _ � N 2" "AZTEK" RAKE BOARD OVER N 10" "AZTEK" RAKE BOARD f NATURAL CEDAR "PERFECTION CUT" SIDING 15# ASPHALT BUILDING FELT - " 1/2" PLYWD SHEATHING - - --- - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - X 2"X6" WD STUDS ® 16" O.C. - - - - XO W - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I mz cn U oma OVLn ER 8" "D GUTTER & A BOA ® �I �I 'l I I CID a OVER 8" "AZTEK" FASCIA BOARD w �- � r I LF IF � � 10" DIA. "PERMA CAST" TUSCANO CN Z N STYLE FIRBERGLASS COLUMNS W/ CAP & BASE. "ANDERSEN" WINDOWS UNITS M OR EQUIVALENT U 5 I I I I I I I I I "SUPIORWALL" PREFAB FOUNDATION eh L - — - — — — — — - .- - - PANELS - PRE-ENGINEERED - 1I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I — - - - - — .--. _. — - - J7_ - LSI-- � - - = r-�� - - - - - - - - - - - - - � TOP OF CHIMNEY TO BE 2'-0" HIGHER THAN ANY ROOF WITHIN 10'-0" RADIUS OF CHIMNEY FRONT ELEVATION T lU CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT 1 /4" = 1 '- 0" a 0 W Y r z U z Lj � U f O _ STAIR PLATEFORM = NOVEMBER 2006 - o SCalel r1/4' = V-D,. drawn bq; C.W.Kuehn checked W. — — — — — — — — I I L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � project no; -' '_ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2 4 0 D O I I I I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION �"e # - - - - - - - - - - - -�C - - - - - - - — - - - - — — T - - - - � A - 5 1 /4" 1 '- 0" drawing Ae ELEVATIONS i 76'-10' -. . NA 00, i. .' ., .. . ,/ I / �/ V \ \----------------- _ + I I S TRAYECLGOOM I + MSTR BE ROOM I + TRAY,CLG. l� - �I I + .- . . x' % L .. . + Ix - x .,, x xxx , I I r fir. - I % x xx xx I x. x ... 3.Q x x x x ' x x x I x Y, 00 ' p Zt?- I xxxx x It M "';" I 'fix x xxxx% I x x VA LTED° ', m.'�;o� '- Y / n O r"�I x. x' x x I I�_ I x xx I i V J I x x 'IN K . Ir. � I. % x % I x % fl O K x 1 U^ IL a'OJ I _ M' x x I I x x x x I x x t ' 1 ' s + + I I I + r + --------- -- ..� -------------_.._---\\\ _ —_----.--- --- i= I W.I. C I I T I I I C I C I I KITCHEN I CHEN 9 - CLO. HT. "G.HT. I I ED t I �1 r t " MSTR BATH MSTR B I , i tic LAUNDRY.0 P99'_/ GUEST 'RM. DEN / GUEST RM. 0" CLO., HT, O 9'-0" CCG. HT, 1 CAR GARAGE 1 CAR GARAGE " Iih I Y ! : O z ; z W o +� C k N � z a , date,-, 'NOVEMBER 2006 - scale: drawn by i C W Kuehn iB•-o� "' cheiL by proJect,no �: ' 24000:, FIRST FLOOR PLAN -- UNIT F Sher # FLOOR AREA = 1 ,514 S.F. A 6 . . 'ROOF'PLAN".; T D v v m n x' D ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL ANIS PLANNNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE ERITAGE A T CUTCHOGUE SITUATE 75 School House Lane; Cutchogue; Town of Southold, New York SCTM#: 1000-102-1-33.3 PREPARED FOR Southold Town Planning Board Jerilyn Woodhouse, Chairperson Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 PREPARED BY Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Main Street, P.O. Boz 2003, Bridgehampton,New York 11932-2003 (631)537-5160 FAX:(631)537-5291 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to summarize the application known as The Heritage at Cutchogue with respect to environmental and planning considerations to be evaluated in the site plan process undertaken by the Southold Town Planning Board. The Heritage at Cutchogue, LLC has requested site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board to authorize the construction of 139 attached and detached dwellings and related residential appurtenances on a 46.2 acre parcel in the Hamlet of Cutchogue. This report summarizes the proposed project and characterizes the site and surrounding area, summarizes the analysis provided by the application' ncluding water supply and sewage disposal, drainage, and traffic issues. This report examines the proposed project with respect to the Town's Zoning Law and concludes that the project as proposed is a permitted use in the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District in which subject parcel lies. This report is to provide a framework for the Southold Town Planning Board to determine the magnitude and importance of 1 the environmental impacts that can reasonably be expected to occur as a result / of the project as proposed. 2 J PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Heritage at Cutchogue, LLC has requested site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board to authorize the construction of 139 attached and detached dwellings and related residential appurtenances on 46.2 acre parcel in the Hamlet of Cutchogue. The overall property is beingdeveloped as a Planned 55+Active Adult Community. The accessory support facilities include the construction of 8840 square foot clubhouse,.a 160 square foot swimming pool;two 3,200'square'foot tennis courts, a 2,400 square foot maintenance garage, a gazebo, a gatehouse, 322 parking spaces,'of which 278 ire associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreation facility,.197,043 square feet of man made ponds, to serve as natural drainage areas and irrigation, 1,162,022 square feet of landscaping and other improvements consisting of theconstruction of 219,332 ,.square feet of road surface, 34,236 square feet of sidewalk improvements, and parking lot areas consisting of 26,932 square feet.; A total of 53 parking stalls will be.provided, 45 of which are associated with the clubhouse. The individual dwelling.units also feature separate driveways with attached garages. The site plan described above is an amendment of an earlier site plan application which - \ featured planned multi-family townhouse development. The planned multi-family townhouse development was to consist of 150 townhouse units;of which 135 units would be sold at market rates and the remaining 15.units would be sold at affordable rates. The development was to be served by public water and a sewage treatment plant ("Cromaglass Plant'). In the current application, the applicant has selected five typical house plans all of which are of traditional architectural design. The various housing types alternate throughout the development in an effort to avoid a monotonous streetscape. The affordable units are similarly designed and dispersed throughout the development. The applicant has filed Sanitary Plans for the Heritage prepared by Nelson & Pope, Surveyors/Engineers dated January 17, 2005 which plans disclose that the dwelling units will be served by public water and onsite sewage disposal systems. The Sanitary Plan features individual septic systems and gang systems for two, three and fourIsingle family units. The site plan also features a landscape plan prepared by Charles W. Kuehn submitted to the Planning Board on August 24, 2006. The landscape plans feature a perimeter berm surrounding the property that would be vegetated by evergreen trees including Leland Cypress and White Pine and understory shrubbery consisting of azalea, winterberry, holly and fountain grass. The landscape plans also feature the planting of street trees consisting of sugar maple; aristocrat pear, and sweet gum to be planted 40 feet on center. Finally, landscaping is provided around each dwelling. unit, the plants for which consist of 3 winterberry, ornamental grasses, hosta, astilbe, fountain grass, hydrangea, maiden grass and kousa dogwood. By correspondence from Jeffrey Rimland to the Planning Board dated March 22, 2007, the applicant states that the proposed project will be constructed in several phases. "The first phase will involve the basic site development which will include road layout, pond area preparation, construction of approximately six model homes and initial gatehouse and site work: After the model homes are completed we anticipate constructing approximately forty five units per year during the next three years. Work will not commence on a phase'until contracts have been entered into for the homes to be constructed for that particular phase. The first phase will be constructed in the southeastern sector of the property, with the development of the northeast sector in the next year and the remaining western section undertaken during the last year. Each section will be completely landscaped with full roads and amenities before the next phase is undertaken." 4 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION Subject property is a 46.2 acre parcel located at 75 School House Lane in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk. The property is described as SCTM # 1000-102-1-33.3. The property is an abandoned field which was previously farmed. Subject parcel is adjacent to residentially developed property to the north and west, the commercial hamlet center of Cutchogue to the south and an abandoned farm field to the east. The residential developments to the north and west are reasonably screened from the site by existing vegetation. Similarly dense vegetation occurs at the southeaster portion of the site. Adjacent to the southeastern portion of the site is a trailer park. Set forth below is an aerial photograph dated 2007 which shows the property and surrounding area. �1 J ie f • Access and road frontage for subject property include the eastern terminus of Bridle Lane and Spur Road, with additional frontage at the intersection of Griffing Street and School House Lane. As proposed,the primary access to the site is from the intersection of Grilling Street and School House Lane. The secondary access is taken from the eastern terminus of Spur Road. The extension of the > easter terminus of Bridle.Lane (onto the site) will be dedicated for emergency access only. 5 Topography of the site is best described as moderately sloping. The applicant prepared a plan entitled "EXISTING RESOURCES AND SITE ANALYSIS PLAN which plan discloses steep slopes(slopes equal or greater than.15%) to be located at the southeastern portion Of the site. These steeper slopes comprise less than 5% of the site. The remainder of the property is characterized as moderately sloped. The construction activities, including grading are subject to the regulatory process of the New York State department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to Phase II State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Program. Compliance with the Phase II SPDES.Program will require that the Applicant prepare a Storinwater Pollution Prevention.Plan(SWPP) that must be approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and filed with the Planning Board and/or Town Engineer. The SWPP provides for best management practices for erosion control According to the Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York prepared.by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1975) the predominant soil types are Haven Loam (HaA), Plymouth Loamy Sand (PIC) and Riverhead Sandy Loam (Rd B). 'Haven Loam is considered a class 1 agricultural soil`and is distributed along the eastern and western perimeter of the site. Haven loam comprises approximately 1/3 of the property area. Plymouth Loamy Sand and Riverhead Sandy Loam comprise the remaining 2/3 of the property and area concentrated in the center of the property. All soil types are relatively common in +� the immediate Cutchogue area. The erosion potential for all soils found on site is + ., slight to moderate. All soil types area suitable for development of house sites. The site is within an archeological and historically sensitive area based upon data from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. A Cultural Resource Assessment (Documentary Search and Field Inspection) THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE, SOUTHOLD TOWNSHIP, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK prepared by Robert J. Kalin, July 1989 did not reveal any site conditions of significance with respect to archeological or cultural resources. The site is best described as a successional old field. Dominant trees include red cedar, white birch and locust. Dominant shrubs include northern bayberry and raspberry with the herbaceous layer consisting of various weeds and grasses. The site does not contain any ecologically significant resources such as wetlands and woodlands and does not support any threatened or endangered plant and animals. However,.non-threatened plants exist on the site and non- threatened animals are expected to utilize the site. Successional old fields are described as apparently secureinNew York State,as per the-New York-Natural Heritage Program and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Successional old fields are common in the Town of Southold and Eastern Long Island 6 ZONING In February 1983, upon Petition of the then property owner, subject parcel was zoned Light Multiple Residential (M)to permit the construction of a residential, community for senior citizens. In 1989, as part of a general re-zoning pursuant to the Town's adopted comprehensive plan, subject parcel was zoned Hamlet Density. During the 1990's subject parcel and the Hamlet Zones were again reviewed by the Town Board of the Town of Southold,and the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District was re-affirmed for this property. The purpose of the Hamlet Density Residential District is "to permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major Hamlet Centers, particularly, Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold, Orient and the Village of Greenport." The district only applies to properties within '/z mile of a Hamlet Business District of the major Hamlets of the Town specifically including Cutchogue. The proposed project is a permitted use inthe Hamlet Density(HD) Residential District. WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL Subject parcel lies within Groundwater Management Zone IV. Public Water is available to the property. The applicant has submitted a Sanitary Plan for the Heritage at Cutchogue prepared by Nelson and Pope, Engineers and Surveyors dated January 17, 2005 ("Sanitary Plan"). The Sanitary Plan depicts a water main connection at Griffin Street and Spur Road. Generally, a design flow equal to 600 gallons per day per acre is permitted in Groundwater Zone IV for parcels that are served by publicwater. Public water into be utilized for the living needs (i.e. cooking, bathing, and fire protection) for the future occupants of the dwelling units for this project. The applicant is not proposing the utilization of public water for purposes of landscape irrigation. In this application, the applicant utilizes the calculation method set forth in the Suffolk County Sanitary Code for purposes of establishing the permitted density in this Groundwater Management Zone. The calculation method provides for a permitted design flow equal to 22,625 gallons per day. The rated design flow for this project is 21,615 gallons per day. Therefore, this proposed project complies with the density limitations set forth in the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Because public water is provided to the site, adequate capacity to serve the site is presumed. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS -\ The drainage calculations for the project are summarized in the Sanitary Plan. The specifications for the project are divided into two basic categories, pervious areas and impervious areas. The pervious areas include driveway areas and landscape.areas, the total for which is 1,220,362 square feet. The impervious areas include the road area, sidewalk area, building roof area, clubhouse roof 7 I -patio, pool and gazebo area, parking lot and pond area, the total for which 792,725 square feet. inclusion of the pond area as an impervious area is appropriate because the pond area will be created by the installation of an artificial PVC pond liner. The applicant utilizes a runoff coefficient of 0.3 for the pervious areas and a runoff coefficient of 1.0 for the impervious areas. The applicant proposes to install a series of catch basins and leaching pools to provide for the capture and recharge of a portion of the storm water generated from the.proposed project. In addition, the applicant proposes to utilize the pond area for runoff storage. Pond levels will be maintained in part by storm water and by rainfall. By correspondence dated November 8, 2006, from James A. Richter, R.A., Town Engineer, to Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Planning Board in the Town of Southold, the Town Engineer has certified that the drainage calculations provided meet the minimum requirements of the Town Code. The Town Engineer has . requested further details to the overall drainage designs for further review. The Town Engineer has also requested a provision for test holes in the general area of the drainage systems to indicate the depth of soilsandoverall depth to groundwater if encountered. 1 TRAFFIC The Applicant prepared and submitted a Traffic Impact Study: THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, July 2006 prepared by Nelson & Pope, Engineers and Surveyors (`Traffic Study"). The Traffic Study was to evaluate the potential impacts associated with a proposed senior residential development comprised.of 139 condominiums. Existing conditions were analyzed utilizing seasonally adjusted traffic volumes to represent the peak month of the year and field geometry collected at the following intersections: Main Road (NYS Rte 25) at Depot Lane, Main Road (NYS Rte 25) at Griffin Street Middle Road (CR 48) at Depot Lane, and Schoolhouse Road at Depot Lane. The traffic volumes generated by the proposed projects were determined utilizing Highway Capacity Software (HCS). The traffic study went on to compare the existing traffic representing a "no-build alternative" against a"future-build" condition. The data was analyzed to determine Level Of Service (LOS) for the surrounding road network. No changes in LOS were detected in any of the above mentioned intersections with the exception of the intersection of Schoolhouse Road at Depot Lane. -There; LOS changedfromA to B. The LOS change from A to B reflected a bracketing change in delay classification predicted to be experienced by a motorist making a left tum from Schoolhouse Road onto Depot Lane. However, - the actual calculated delay occurring at A.M. peak hour increased insignificantly from 10.0 seconds to 10.2 seconds. In addition, traffic analysis was applied at the proposed.access way onto Spur Road, which analysis revealed site generated trips varying from 3 to 4 occurring during weekday A.M., P.M. and Saturdays, Although, no change in LOS is expected to occur at the intersection 8 of Main Road and Depot Lane as a result of the proposed project, the traffic study re-emphasizes the need for the installation of a traffic signal at that location. ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONCERNS A review of the instant application before the Planning Board in consideration of the surrounding community or district has revealed the following environmental and planning concerns to be addressed in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Form —Part 2: o Impact on Land; o Impact on Plants and Animals; oImpact on Agricultural Land Resources; o Impact on Aesthetic Resources; o Impact on Open Space and Recreation; o Impact on Transportation; and o Impact on the Growth and Character of the Community or Neighborhood. The Environmental Impact Form — Part 2 is to be prepared to determine whether or not the potential environmental impacts are small to moderate or potentially large and whether or not the impact can be mitigated by project change. 9 PART 3 -EVALUATION OF THE IMTORTANCE OF IWACTS THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE SPQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Lead Agency: Town of Southold Planning Board Contact: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Town of Southold Planning Board Address: 54375 NYS Route 25 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Date: July 16, 2007 This notice is issued pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 9 (State Environmental Quality Review — SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Lave and Chapter 44 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold. Thi lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant im*t on the environment. This determination provides a description of the proposed project andloutlines the considerations of the Board in making this determination: Title of Action: The Heritage at Cutchogue Cutchogue,New York SEQR Status: Type 1 Location: The subject property lies in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. The subject property consists of a vacant 46.17-acre.parcel located on the , northwest corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road, in Cutchogue. The site is.currently zoned Hamlet Density(HD). SCTMNo_: 1000-102-1-33.3 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application Description of the Proposed Action: This proposed action requires residential site plan approval for the development of a Planned 55+ . Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings. The development is p.',roposing affordable and market rate homes. The market rate homes are approximately 2;000 sq ift. each and include a two (2) car garage. The project contemplates 278 parking spaces for the residential units; 260 parking spaces are allocated in the garages of the market rate units; 18 off- street parking spaces are allocated for the proposed affordable units. The proposed parcel is a variant 46.17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density(HD) Zoning District located on the northwest corner of Grifting Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet-north of Main Road in Cutchogue. Adjacent to the subject parcel are single-family residential properties to the west, farm and single-family residential properties to the north, farm property to the east and a mobile trailer park to the south. The proposed action also includes a clubhouse complex containing an 8,840 sq.$ clubhouse, a I,160 sq. ft.swimming pool, two 3,200 sq. ft.tennis courts, a 2,400 sq. ft.maintenance garage and gazebo. The clubhouse will consist of a community room with a food preparation area for catered events, game room, exercise room, manager's office,locker room and cabana. The clubhouse complex includes 45 parking spaces, including 2 handicapped parking spaces. Ad&tionally,the proposed clubhouse complex includes a 15' x 45' loading.dock and dumpster. A;network consisting of 197,043 sq. ft. of manmade ponds and water circulation fountains is prdposed to serve as a natural drainage/stormwater collection system. These retention ponds are proposed to be used as water supply for on-site landscape irrigation and water levels are to be maintained-through the use of on-site wells. The proposed action consists of 1,162,022 square feet-(27:676 acres)of landscaping, including the required minimum 30' landscape buffer along the property lines to the east and north and a 40' landscape buffer along the western property line. The proposed action includes various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements. The proposed action includes a security guard booth/gatehouse at the entrance of the community. Currently, the proposed action provides for a single entrance, including a connection of Spur Road to the west with School House Lane and Griffing Street to the south. Additionally,.there is I proposed emergency access road that connects to Bridle Lane. The proposed action includes individual and shared sanitary systems. The proposed density and design will be subject to review and approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Additionally, a series of catch basins and wells are proposed throughout the site. Reasons Supporting This Determination: -� 1 The site has been evaluated in accordance withthe Criteria for Determining Significance as contained in SEQRA 6NYCRR Part 617.7(c). The proposed action has been evaluated through review of the following materials: Page 2 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at.Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application • Site plan,ERSAP, and yield map prepared by Nelson&Pope • Architectural drawings and landscape plans prepared by Charles W. Kuehn,Architect • Part I and ll of the Environmental Assessment Form(EAF) • Site plan application • Traffic Impact Study and supplemental traffic information prepared by Nelson&Pope • Environmental Assessment Review prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting,Inc. • Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by Robert J. Kalin(Archaeological Services Inc.) • Independent site inspection • Various correspondence from involved agencies • Planning Board deliberation on materials supplied by the Applicant, the Consultant,and Planning Staff and concerns made known to the Planning Board regarding potential impacts, Based upon this thorough review, the Planning Board identified potential significant adverse environmental impacts in connection with the proposed project. Additional supporting findings are provided below. The narrative below correlates with Part 3 Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts Form. 1. Impact on Land: Construction that will continue for more than one year. The proposed action would be:constracted over a three-year phase construction schedule. The work will include the removal of vegetation from 46.17 acres. A development in which construction occurs over more than one construction season(usually_Spring, Summer and Fail)to complete subjects the natural environment and community to construction-related impacts. The impacts (erosion,pollution, noise, dust, traffic and safety)may be significant. The anticipated construction, including construction schedule and duration, materials and storage/staging area,water and sewer systems connections, proper handling of construction waste, hours of operation and construction vehicle routes should be further evaluated. The term of impacts will be short and are expected to occur over the construction term. 5. l npact on Water: Public water is supplied to the Town of Southold by the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). However,the site itself is not specifically connected to public water. The SCWA has not issued a Letter of Water Availability for the action. The closest water main to the site:is located on Depot Lane, northeast of the property. The main is served by the Suffolk County Water Authority's Evergreen Pump Station to the north and the State Route 25 transmission main via Bridge Lane and County Route 48. The applicant proposes to connect public water to the proposed project by extending a distribution line from the Depot Lane transmission main, 780 feet along Depot Lane south, and 1,137 feet west along Schoolhouse Road to the site. The potential long term impacts of this project withregard to water supply(including affects on the Evergreen Pump Station)and water quality must be assessed as the Town is faced with a limited Page 3 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchoguo Residential Site Plan Application \! water supply.In addition the project must be assessed to the Suffolk County's Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold. The proposed project will require a Letter of Water Availability from Suffolk County Water Authority. Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater. Proposed action will use water in excess of 20;000 gallons per day. Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. In 1978, the Long Island Regional Planning Board published the Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Study). The 208 Study identified eight(8)hydrogeologic zones in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. These zones were distinguished based upon differences in underlying groundwater flow patterns and water quality. The site lies within Groundwater Management Zone 1V. Thesite is not served by public sewer. Sanitary disposal is proposed tote managed by on-site underground sewage leaching systems. The total proposed sanitary flow for the project is 21,615 gallons per.day.-The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS)allowable flow is 22,625 gallons per day. Consequently the proposal meets SCDHS Article 6 requirements,however, it.is important to note that the properties located to the north and west of the site are served by private wells and impacts to groundwater, including subsurface directional flow must be evaluated. In addition,potential impacts to the shallow aquifer,the Suffolk County Water Authority's Evergreen Pump Station and existing water supply infrastructure must also be evaluated. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns,or surface water. The action will result in the creation of impermeable surfaces where none exist. The placement of fill has the potential to change drainage patterns in the project area. 8. Impacton Plants and Animals: The proposed action may substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species. The proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory wildlife species. The proposed project will result in the clearing of(46.17 acres of early successional ' habitat, causing localized impacts to vegetation and wildlife. Clearing and development impacts to vegetation and wildlife are cumulative and need to be taken into consideration. The loss of vegetation and associated impacts would be long term and irreversible. The proposed action may affect threatened and endangeredspecies. .Before a . determination can be made about the possibility of impact mitigation, it must be determined if species exist on-site. The applicant has not conducted an endangered and. threatened species survey nor has provided a response from the New York State Natural Heritage Program specifying the presence or absence of such species. If species exists on site, the potential impacts to such species could be significant or large and further Page 4 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application evaluation is necessary. If species of concern are found to occur on site, it may be possible to avoid the identified.areas through redesign of the project. 10-.4inpact on Agricultural Land Resources: The parcel is comprised of Haven Loam(HaA) 0 to 2 percent slopes:Haven Loam(HaB) 2 to 6 percent slopes:Riverhead Sandy Loam(RdB) 3 to 8 percent slopes and Plymouth Loamy Sand(PIC) 8 to 15 percent slopes Dominant soil groups include Haven Loam and Riverhead Sandy Loam. Both Haven Loam and Riverhead Sandy Loam soils are well suited for crops.Haven Loam is a.Type I Agricultural Soil If the action isW Droved the, loss of these soils would occur. The loss would be long-term and irreversible 1 Ls Impact of Aesthetic Resources: Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. The proposed action may result in the permanent loss of aesthetic resources (successional, old field habitat and open space) important to the community. The potential impact is long term and irreversible. Mitigation of impacts could include the clustering of single family units into multi-family units to create open space and maximizing vegetative buffers along the perimeter of the property. 12. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources: Other: The project is located within a district of intensive pre-historic aboriginal habitation. The National Historic Site of Fort Corchaug as well as several other well documented prehistoric sites are located within a short distance to the parcel. The proposed action may impact a site of archeological importance. The New York State Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation(NYS OPRHP)has not evaluated the proposed project to determine if it is within an archeological and historically sensitive area. On December 30, 2005 the applicant submitted a report entitled Cultural Resources Assessment The Hamlet at Cutchogue(July 1989)(Attachment B). The report recommends that"Further study in the form of subsurface testing should be conducted to evaluate the potential....for the impact to both prehistoric and historic cultural evidence". Consequently, the presence or absence of archeological resources.on site is unknown and, further assessment is required: If the action will impact archeologicaUculturalresources, it maybe possible to re-design the project to avoid such areas. 13. Impact on Open Space and Recreation: The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A:major reduction of an open space important to.the community. The proposed action would result in 4.6.17 acres of future recreational opportunity. The loss is potentially significant, long term and irreversible. Further assessment is required Page 5 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application Mitigation to reduce such impacts could include the redesign of the project and clustering of the single family units into multi-family units to create open space that could be used for public.recreational use: Further,the proposed action would result in the permanent,irreversible loss of 46.17 acres of future open space. The loss is potentially significant, long term and irreversible. Further assessment is required Mitigation to reduce such impacts could include the clustering of the single family units into multi-family units to create open space and maximizing buffer widths along the perimeter of the parcel. 15.. impact on Transportation: Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or.goods. The proposed project may result in unsafe pedestrian movement from the subject parcel to nearby public streets due to.the lack of existing pedestrian infrastructure and the_ proximity of the action to the Cutchogue Hamlet Center. Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Other: The applicant submitted a traffic analysis of the proposed'action entitled "Traffic Study The heritage of Cutchogue" (July 2006). The mitigation proposed in J the report:is Invalid. The proposed use is expected to increase traffic generation upon full development of the site as compared to existing conditions. Due to the increased traffic volumes and limited . ingress and egress points from the site to primary and secondary roadways, an increase in trip generation on the site may have a significant or large impact on the area roadways. The applicant submitted a traffic analysis of the proposed action entitled"Traffic Studv The Heritage of Cutch6pue"(July 2006) (Attachment Al The applicant hired Dunn Engineering Associates P.C. to perform a peer review of the traffic impact study. The peer review indicates that the study makes several mitigative assumptions to minimize impacts of traffic. Item 3,lines 6 through 9 states that"It should be noted that the results of the capacity analyses results:for the intersection of Main Road at Depot Lane and Main Road at Griffing Street indicate,that these two intersections are currently operating at less than desirable levels of service. At Depot Lane,the southbound approach to this intersection currently operates poorly, and traffic generated by the project will result in an increase in the delays incurred by vehicles on this approach. The study assumes that a traffic signal is to be installed bythe New York State Department of Transportation(NYSDOT)at this location, and that as a result the intersection will operate at improved level of service. As discussed further on this report, the NYSDOT has no plans to install this traffic signal at ,J this location," The review concludes that"...based upon the information that the NYSDOT does not . �-- anticipate the installation of this traffic signal,the study's.assumption that site traffic and existing traffic will access Main Road.via Depot Lane is not valid". Page 6of12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogne —� Residential Site Plan.Application Based upon the above, the mitigation proposed within the report is invalid. Further; because the access to the proposed project is restricted itis the position of the Planning Board that the proposedproject combined with other nearby existing developments may create a cumulative impact on critical intersections and a more detailed traffic impact study is warranted. Further, traffic modeling,based upon comparable communities of the type proposed that have been implemented on Long Island, should also be conducted. In.addition;the following concerns have also been identified: . 1. Page 4. The study fails to consider addressing the possibility of development(housing) of the other Hamlet Business zoned parcels in proximity to the parcel in question. 2. Page 4. The study fails to qualify what level of impact or substantial degradation in Level Of Service(LOS)is if the LOS from an F to F at an intersection results. 3. Page 6.The study fails to qualify the seasonal adjustment factors of 1.14% & 1.19%,the groups used and how they were.they established by the NYSDOT. The study is unclear if the seasonal adjustment factors are qualified to real traffic counts and land use representative of the locale. 4. Page 6. The seasonal adjustment factors differ on a monthly basis,the study applied a 14%factor to the weekdays and a 19% factor to the weekend volumes;the selectionof the factors by the NYSDOT is unexplained. It is unclear if the factors.are representative of the locale. 5. Page 7. Figure3. The calculations could not be duplicated at the intersection of Crriffing and State Route 25 (using the traffic count data and the seasonal adjustment factor). 6. Page 8. The analysis of Table 3 indicates that`Year-end collisions may be an indication of congested conditions or driver inattention and slippery/wet road conditions." Although the statement is made, no mitigation is proposed, which suggests that the congested conditions are acceptable at pre-build conditions and acceptable after-build conditions. The statement warrants further explanation: 7: Page 14. The study indicates that currently the Main Road and Depot Lane intersection-operates at a.poor level of service (LOS F) during the PM and Saturday peak hours due to heavy traffic volumes on Main Road. It can be expected that following the build out of 139 units, the LOS would continue to worsen. Appendix D. Capacity Analysis/Level of Service Worksheets &Summary Table indicates that the level of service decreases in the Build Analysis 2007. The LOS at the southbound left turn currently operates at an F, following the Build.Analysis the level of service Page 7 of 12 Determination of Significance . Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application again operates at F. The decrease of the LOS is a result of the increased vehicle trips in the area resulting from the proposed site plan. The significance of change relative to impacts from a LOS F to F is unclear and should be further explained: 8. Page 15. Currently Main Road and Griffmg Street operates at as a LOS F and E in the PM and Saturday Peak Hours.Appendix A indicates that the southbound approach operates at aLOS of F under current conditions and following Build Conditions. Again,the significance of degradation at the intersection/impact is unclear and requires further evaluation\and or mitigation: 9. Page 16. The annual growth factor obtained from NYSDOT is 1.8%. The Planning Board questions if the growth factor takes into account land use and rate of development indicative of Eastern Long Island or the Town of Southold 10. Page 20. The Planning Board rejects the modeling of trip generation for the proposed action to Elderly Housing(detached)nationwide traffic modeling criteria used in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Elderly housing(detached).is restricted to senior.citizens and may contain special services (medical facilities) on site.Additionally, in a December 11,2006 letter to the Planning Board,the response to Comment#1 indicates that Land Use: 251 Senior Adult Housing-Detached statistical data was used. The two documents conflict. The action is proposed as an "Active Adult Community". the-Planning-Board-is..requesting.that real data from a comparable use(Active 55 and older condominium community) located on Eastern Long Island be used to base the study trip generation modeling. 11. Page 20. Is the AM peak hour used in the ITE Land Use Code for Elderly Housing (Detached)the same time as the AM peak hour used in the actual traffic count performed by Nelson&Pope(the same applies to PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour)? Would using different hours result in inaccurate data? 12. Page 22. The 2007 Site Generated Weekday AM Traffic Volumes indicate that 6 vehicles will exit to Griffing Road and the State Road 25 intersection,3 vehicles would exit Spur Road and 9 vehicles would exit the site via Schoolhouse Road and continue to the County Road 48 and the Depot Lane intersection. The vehicle trips seem low and routing unrealistic. The Planning Board questions the analysis and requests that. " ) real data be obtained and used(where possible).to model the vehicle trips and routing. Page 8 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application J 13. Page 31. The study proposes mitigation(traffic control at Depot Road and Main Road). Mitigation of expected traffic impacts validates that the action may result in a potentially significant or large impact and needs to be further addressed. As confirmed with the NYSDOT the proposed above traffic control is not an option to mitigate traffic impacts. Alternative mitigation of traffic impacts must be evaluated and proposed 14. It is the Planning Board's position that the study fails to analyze the impact of the vehicle trips from Iiighland/Crown Land and Schoolhouse using Spur Road(if it is opened) as a means to access downtown Cutchogae and/or pass through to Depot Lane/C.R. 48 and NYS 25. 15. The traffic impacts if Spur Road is opened/not opened have not been adequately addressed relative to the NYS Route 25 & Griffing Avenue. intersection. 16. Other access alternatives should be considered. Such as, access directly from the proposed site to Depot Lane through the property to the east. Bas€d upon the above, concerns and operations;the impact of increased traffic generation and the'ability of area roadways to accommodate such traffic,vehicle access points (including emergency) and circulation and routing must be further evaluated. 16. Impact on Energy: Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or serve a major commercial or industrial use. The proposed project involves an increase in energy use. The increase in energy use could be significant. Impacts to local facilities should be analyzed. Mitigation.to reduce the impacts of energy consumption could include building homes to Energy Star and Leadership in Energy.and Environmental.Design (LEEDS) standards and/or applying dark sky standards to lessen the impact of energy consumed on-site. 17. Noise and Odor Impact: Proposed action will produce operating noise.exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed action would remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. A potential moderate-to-large impact of(noise and dust) resulting from clearing of the parcel and construction activities,traffic and erosive forces (wind,rain-etc...).will occur to the adjacent community during the three-year phased.construction schedule. The anticipated construction, including construction schedule and duration,materials and storage✓staging area; water and sewer systems connections,proper handling of construction waste,hours of operation and truck routes should be further evaluated. Page.9 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue l ResidentialSite Plan Application i Mitigation to lessen noise impacts could include the establishment of start and end times for all construction activity, using alternative construction or operational methods,. equipment maintenance, selection of alternative equipment,physical barriers, siting of activities'and by establishing greater set backs. Mitigation to lessen dust impacts could include the clustering of the single-family units into multi-family units to create open space,maximizing buffer width and planting of buffers with dense vegetation along the perimeter of the parcel and implementing a phased clearing plan and planting of cover crops (grasses) following the clearing.of areas. 18. `.Impact on Public Health A potential moderate to large, short term impact to the health of adjacent property owners from(noise and dust) could occur due to the clearing of the parcel,construction activities and traffic. Impacts to the surrounding community must be mitigated.during the three- year phased construction schedule. Mitigation to reduce noise impacts could include the establishment of start and end times for all constructions activity. Mitigation to reduce dust impacts could include the clustering of the single family units into multi-family units to create open space, maximizing buffer width and planting buffers with dense vegetation along the perimeter of the parcel. 19.:;Impact on Growth and Character of Community or-Neighborhood: Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. The site is currently vacant, undeveloped land located in an area that contains a mix of residential, agricultural and commercial land uses: The dominant land use in the area is residential with developments located to the north, southeast and west of the site. The Hamlet of Cutchogue Business Center is located directly south of the site.The proposed application is generally consistent with the surrounding land uses. In February 1994, the parcel was part of a review of Hamlet Density Zoning in Southold Town. At that time, the Executive Summary stated"Due to its location just north of the hamlet's traditional center, this parcel,when developed, is likely to strengthen the hamlet." The subject site is zoned Hamlet Density(I[,)District. The purpose of the HD Residential District is to permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major harslet centers,particularly Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold,Orient and the Village of Greenport. The district requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq.ft. with community water and 10,000 sq. ft.with community water and sewer. Lot coverage of 25%of the lot area is permitted with a minimum livable floor area of 850 sq. ft.per dwelling unit. Pursuant to Article XI, Cluster Development of the Town of Southold Town Code,there is no clustered open space.proposed in the site plan design,however, should the Planning Board consider a-cluster site plan with attached housing, a smaller development area would be established resulting in clustered open space and/or preservation of environmentally sensitive features. Page 10 of 12 ' Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Pesidential Site Plan Applleation Although.-sigWcant conflicts with.land use or:zonina.are not erected, the_prrojeofs eomplianoe with the Town of.Southold Town Goals.,and plannine,studies.undertaken withuuthoTown over,the,past 20 years must be further evaluated,specifically those adorned after.1994. Applicable planning studiesare listed below: (a) Parks and Recreation&Open Space Plan(1982) (b) MasterPlan Update, Background Studies(1984) (c) Master Plan Update(1985) (d) Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan(1985) (e) US/UK Stewardship Exchange Report (199 1) (f) Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) (g) Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Report (1994) (h) Stewardship Task Force(1994). (i) Seaview Trails of the North Fork(1995) (j) Peconie Estuary Program(1995) (k) Economic Development Plan(1997) (1) Southold Township Planning Initiates(1997) (m) Community Preservation Project Plan(1998) (n) County Route 48 Corridor,Land Use Study(1999) (o) Farm and Farmland Preservation Program: (1983-2002) (p) Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy(2000) (q) Water Supply Management&Watershed Protection Strategy(2000) (r) Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan(2001) (s) Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold(2002) (t) Town of Southold Generic Environmental Impact Statement(2003) (u) Local Waterfront Revitalization Program(2005) (v) Town of Southold Hamlet Study(2005) (w) Community Preservation Project Plan(2006 Update) (x) The Long Island North Shore Heritage Area etc. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g Schools, Police, Fire etc.) On June 20, 2007, the Planning Board received a letter from the Cutchogue Fire District indicating that the`Board agrees with the placement of the 8 hydrants". However the access to the site has not been resolved and must be further evaluated. No response form.the Southold Police Department has been received to date. The ability of the Cutchogue Fire Department to access the site, and the ability of the Southold Police to provide protection and timely response to the proposed development must be further evaluated. The Site's unique proximity to the hamlet center, traffic concerns and loss of agricultural land maybe affected by the proposed project and insufficient information has been provided in which to accurately assess significant environmental impacts that may be associated with the proposed projict. Anticipated adverse impacts do not appear to be minimized or mitigated to the Page 11 of 12 Determination of Signiflcance Heritage at Cutchegue Residential Site Plan Application ma�Limum extent practicable. Alternatives to the proposed action that will reduce potential in*acts should be examined. FoilFurther Information Contact: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 NYS Route 25 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 765-1938 i Page 12 of 12 09!1212807 13:14 631369SOR13 PAGE 02123 FINAL SCOM FOR SC,"MNO.1OW1(12-1.33.3 Rvaiden�tial Site plan AppmvA in T4am 4e131wness I)tstriet?..Qne i[ing Etre cttS ti olhous:LAM�tlet of Cutchopc T"13 Of SomthQld, Suffolk County,Nvy York 7rsparud by.. Nelson&Pope,pLLC TM Walt wItitman Road Maville,Nesw Yarn 11747 (t3 1) 427-5W5 Contact: Crary Becker lr.,E._ rfineWad by: Town of Southold Plate Board F:Q.Bait 1179 54375 Stake Road 25 Southold,New York i,1971 (631)765-1438 Date.: September 10,2007 "l �.4 Tnta'tt�uata �.rl l.,rtittxi / This dpc�t 1s the Final 3WPO� of the issues abet analyses to be included in the Dmi t LwtaviroYttnental Invact St trent \•/t"EIS) for the ptaposed Heritase at citroha ne project. Fite pre$ased projcat is to be tvoatad on a 46.11-ate parud located at tin northwest cower of CTnftg strW and School HMO bane, apgrerximately 11079 fact north of Main Read, Webog>ae, Thgparadia more spc`cdtcallyids11ti58t as SCTM W 1000-102-1-33:3,located in the 92mlet of Cutchogue,Towo of Southold,Mew stork. Tbe-site is 7AVWd'Hamlet Density(HD) z'o»i�kg distric#. analy ils of the, HeTitRW at Catc}1tkVe project in a DEIS has bow required by cher Town of Sortttlrald Planing Board, as Lead Agtnicy for actin uis'tratian of the site; par ze40w Orr as required by Nelw Yo*State EuviramOntai Quality PCVIew A,ct(SBQP4 The req-ttirrme nt for a DEIS is,vowshM in.a Yersitive DederatioA issued by the Plauaft Bdwd on July 16, 20Q7. SubWuWdY the agent, Chtttdes Cuddy, subtrt tted a Draft Scope at the Plannins Berard work. session un July 30, 2009. Pttrstkat t to MR, the Planning Board conducted Scoping and Owed for l ie'pa ticipatinn throne a VuWc Meeting on August 20, 2007 acid allowed for a written con meat period until Sept=ber 4,2007- .ComnMtS from both the ScopingrAii ting and writttsn conai¢retit period were nwiewed by the Planing Board and.in-mporated into ttta, Final scope. Theinfo tnation ptoparod to cono=mcc with this swpe and the SEQRA ills to imarkd to pravids compmhg Give i1t the dt Won ma&5ng PTOCM fekt use by inwlved ager oss in prgwing theb' Bun d issttttig decals on their re9p pggtytg• pntt be I be case btiE Ui?9h k,.sael] dQuinne nted;at�ttraea and vottdAwt plgtnrc�atsd sab1�will be p ft"d in support of tlj s Md conta€tted in#lire doettr mt. Tedbuirsl i�#iott A01 be s, t3aad in the body of the DEM and at erl in-tbeir cntSidy irk on Vis: 09!1212007 13:14 5313699890 PAGE 03/23 r. tlbrRngt at Catet,ngiie - - pinat 6cnpe rnrtt,e Wart rAwirtmmmtaf lmpbet Statement '^1 Z4 l��eserlutioraotthel't�tripsetgf'r�oj�cet ' The proposed project involves #Ire resid"al4site plan approval for development of a klaliwe,d (55 years raF age) Active Aduft CoMUVUMty 16t95is&S d 139 detached and attached residential dwe}littgs of approximately 2,040 square flet (SP) each; au 8,840 SF clubhouse,, 1,160 SF swimming Pool; two 3,200 SP tennis courts; a 2,440 Sly mailite-Mce garage; a eboa gatelwuse; 322 parking spaces, o£which 27d arc associated with the istdividual dwelling units and 44 am associated with the clubhouse and reemational facility; 197,043 SF of man-made ponds to serve as natural dtaitinge besinsfitrigalion systems; 1,152,//22 SP {27.5'75 acres) of landscaptng, am valour c1hor site itupmements including roald.pavement, patio and sidewalk. l�lprttv�rnert#s. 10 potn#laliv n fitmn#Ativ�rse i e The description of the potential advetse'impacts of rite proposed project has been obtained from -the Plainume Board's Positive Declaration of Jury 16, 2007. .Additional insight xwto Potential impects is provided in the Part 3 W which was attached to the Positive Declaratim Tliese issues are. refleaed in this Draft Scope~ `f`hc Positive Declaration identified the following reasons for the Determination of Significan x-, tltiis XWosed action may cause a potential Significant adverse impact on water. impact ort plants and animals,agnoulturd resources,rieadtaic tcaources,archeologfcal rmmrces,transportation and grant!/and cht+racer�r aYd itnintity srid tuighbtuhatid A cwnprehen ve ievlew tmsst eonduered to dotom*ie the potentialb4nots sof rho proposed action_ / 1. The pofaiaul lwpam to striating ground or surSsce water quality or quantity, noise le-vols tloodiug, leaching or site dminaga. • The proposed action will allose high density residential use in an wra wbicb may mot have adequate public waW and oammtmlty(puUlie)sewer. 2. The 3roteatiai impacts Clue to inomme itt trafgo and trip generations lLssesmdu>; real traffic data analysts for the laud use category,existing surrounding laud uses,u%Tic votumes and routiag pant rns and liruitatl ingress and e9ress paints to primary and accondary roads. 3. The potential impact of tlu rftnoval or destruction of large quantities of Vegetation and fauna; subbtontisl interference with the movement of any resident and migratory fish or wildlife species: sulrstru W adverse impecN cot IbMatev ed or endangered species of animal or plat! (if present),ox the babitat of such species;or tither sip frcant adverse,impacts to natural resources, + ne pmpoaed 10400 MY affect fltreatened and endangemd species. DO t7Moaed action may substantially atmt nonAlasateneci and itoa-endsuVred spvAw, 4. Tice poteirtisi hazara to bre"health. Tho poundal impacts of a substantial Change in the use, or intensity of usox of Iand including agrlcaltseal (iaduditng the liennaaeut loss of Type t agrioulmral soils), open/ VBCC or rmseadooal rewmces,or its capacity to support existing uses. 6. 3.11 poteridW iimpacts to the impairmeat of the dwacier or quality of important archeological, aestltettc resButm or of exle tag community or neaghborhood oblatxtater. � Tina ptrbpaeczi aetitm ufsy hrtpaet a sioo rsfpt�hiattaic orhiat9ric iatportancc. q e+l�L Go�ftiavten�pwillDae�ave`r�s,,,t�f-sr`�ye�p€aiod. .. /. he assasanaent o[�a tori alternative.. 09/12/7897 13:14 6313599830 PAS 04/23 HerHa�iit�uteliogue. Finnt Scope for the Driitt ttitvtrrmmeaw Xnyect Stal me"t 4 0 far at d dlverall otiteg# 'the DLLS Dmunxen# Tete DEJS Must conf'urrn Vdth the basic Content rotltzireMents as cotitaitied in 6NYCRR Part 617.9(b)(3). The outline of'tho DETS will iaslude flu-,following sect,100s: COWRSxi r 7'AEt,�oF�`6N'rttHTS SUMMA.RV DE-SCRIMm4oF3'ASI`ttowl $IMAiCrLON 1.1 Pro eet Batr7c roatnd,i [ i}tTjet e5 and Bouefits I-LI BkcicgrvmdandDistury 1.1.2 liuKIC Need arjd Mvr&ipAlity Obicctives 1.1.3 pblactiveisU€ laroject3ponsor i.1.4 B+�tfits of tlta Yk47:3+rct 1.2 Lecatien and Site C@}tdijt$tYitS 1.3 11"t'rtject DO.Ign and Lsybn t 1.3.1 Overall She Layout I.M Grading aixdDra1bage 1.3.3 rl=eess,FDftd 5ystM and Pa circ 1.3.4 Sanitary Djsposal=dl Water Supply 1.3.5 Site Landscaping and l jxi tlug 1.3.6 Open Space 1.4 Constr€e6on awd Operaaidoit 1.4.1 Constructiou 1.4.2 Operation 1-s omits aM Approvals 3 equired 21 Soils 2.1.1 Existing Conditions 2.11 Andeiixatedimpacts 2.1.3 Proposed Mitigatton 2.7 '15,'aterResourm 2.2.1 Existing Conditintis' 2.2,2 A.ndeipated T31 ?3 2.2.3 Proposed Mifigation 2.3 vagetationandWildl e 23.1 1~i3disti xg Cortd ns 2.3.2 AuttuipatedimWgs 2.3;3 Proposed N.iltigadm 3.0 HUMAN ENVIROM4ENI'/i1.RES01MClr'8i 3.1. TrADsportRAOD 3,1.1 Existing Conditions 3.1.2 Arjficipawd€mpacts 3.13 ,Proposed Mitigation 312 Land Use,Uoing andftm 3.2.1 Existing COmMous 3.2.2 A7xdt3gatcd kupacts 3.2:3 Proposed tttltrri 3 99/13/31107 13:1,4 6313599680 PAGE 85/23 flerito(tt tit cutnague \ t<saal Scope for OrA Oreft Sfivircamrmlat ln.puct statemmr J 3.3 woos►ity Faeilifid9 AVd Services 3-31 Existing 3.3.2 Anticipated 3.3,3 ProposedlJit n 3A Aesthetic Rwourcea,Open SpaeelCommanity Character and Public Javalth 3.4.1 Existing Couditlotls 3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts 3:4.3 Proposed Mitigation 3.5 Mstor c and Archaeological Resources 3,3.1 F-3dstiAgCondidow 3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts 3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation 4.9 OTftm REQUM P 31iCrm's 4.1 Cumulative lt p*cts 4.2 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided 4.3 >rrrt veriNe and TeWe"bla Commitmelt of Itesoutrts s 4.4 GrowtlAilducingAspects 5.0 ALTXRNAr:rvEs 5.1 No Action Altearnstive 5.2 Mort add Design 6 tl Rt; AIiNtiTs9 Al i&NDICx'6 5.0 Extent and Qga—ftv t>£ fgMg t EsisdAy and Needed As MgUirud Witter SrQRA., the DEIS will include "a statement and evaluation of potential significant adverse impacts at a level of detail tftst reflects alae severity of the impacts and the reasonable liketilaaod of their oceutrence"_ Included in this evaluation will be reasonably related short-tom and long-term impacts, Mtn outer required sections identiflled in the Section 6.0 of Us scoping document. This section further desoribes the levet of analysis and the type of analysis expected with respect to the key environmental impacts of the project as audited in the Positive Declaration. Rooh major section is follovmd by a deactip'tion of the extent and quality of informetion heeded to perfotttt the awdumtton of each of the impacted resources. };3 afthtaPrnpoaedPr�'eet Background mrd M;rvy 1. There will be gtb&f deseriptlen of the site and application hiwory,including zoning. i�itbflc Ntted wtd�trnec(patit�r fl7ljeskver 1. Include haftwantt of prod Project in tetam of Totm,Souls for situ. 2. Public need for the ptojftt will be discasecd. 3. t�opulstforasefvertbydaeprajecdrittbaident9ad. 00009(vss00e ¢et.4pvntor Tho objecti"of thoprojerA sponsor will be included and disome 1. 4 99112{2697 13.;24 6313639090 - - PAGE 8ti123 - . ' lit:NtasCuac4vgna f1*21 Sea"Ali the braff 3ttoitatat /� J1eng�lr riftha N+�tect. Tire DE13 Will Include a disci;limn of the cemus entry$errant=expected to acomr.from the proposed projeu- LoraftrandSitu Cmatt w ). ttgappropriatews� *+Ba�uUturatrles, clexxtoaofstte.zgands�r�diatdets. 2 The-te4s ttg conditions of t1teatg is teoes bf sibt#irvn,yr sfta¢ttt[£ry yr etadva e>aVeS will be Svvided - as�irvgrati backg3otatd#f exkitatg sltet;rptdttittkta, - Pivjectt3et gr.and Layout I. lwkDde a brief deseziption of the site and prgiect tayoA dcacribe basis for site yield preipnsed atrar,(4000,sexes,MItias,Menus rials,mad sr-tatti,Aahtagc, Qoaatftivs table 4 AddbX*baemiudawnofuseareas CSR4,*true" a7ptiag 3. 7U oift pootpm and essve stod auris ezc�WMlra along we valarnee of soli e��tfil�6tbd;xastevetl ftp##Yuma+Yi attaxiattmr del�¢e rrfs�t�I, d, Site 8a p* dtytis 3ekin tatd provlrle aparity and fanotitra utfotmetlan wits be Pro ndedatong with a discnssiuts of canfannanaa ttr i T�$AX1C SPl3 staanavater and crosian control rcgulncioiry for cottshnailtw andpast-coriet+ustivn oozittetitms. 3. Yhevaltielceeoes�pclrsre,ititemnlreadwaYispoetaudvaicatslatfonwitlbelskatifwd: G.. The atFcgoasy of nu-site psrki wt7t be d(i4tazgerd;rectttlPrdgatkiitl;ms reclusr by&braaaiaiawn of - parkir+g ceRair�nmttts shmli�Xn.avldEd. y. i7vtGgta lrtcatiotrs w3l€'ite idmntifit. 8. 1"ropea+3dproject tiglt[ir�will its 3deatifiak 9- 'ME DM will 3nadudc m 4waripaw of water may, ivisatiea well waxy supply and proposed waafewater handling and eeneBp6nd6g use ofwater sappiy acid altdtary design,&wr. 10. dtiiwnsdan on $e type, amount and locativa of landscspuag proFrttsed aa'1l be provided as swell as nation an maintenance rsgt mments mch As intention and fartiGaation turner opstad m and >rtaint:�asce. ...�- tvr,atxaer�tn . A. The construction foul 4P oz,f�tats�tmnetuo of the tits will be fully discussed. - 2 t slaffi of Mable)• 3. Matibodof atastruethm,tzw�5dlrasi timJlime�Is1 4. Censtraetimt managnmaat,enuipmeat.steragehiaghM delivery routes, hours of-Operation, workers' paTking,jimotrudon of natural and Nwitivearass. 5, QVMthytAFacflvnportleapmrt,track rrnuss,management and mitigatioa Operate" 1. In terms of operadtm,.deseribe the management and_protection.of spm apace,describe Organizidan WOMMMOOt and OPMociom4 describe zoad, landseape and open spats maintenance pmadce,desenu aw special conditions which tray apply.. 2- uses ogxzted of various locations and facilities within the site; seasoi.> of use, intensity of usm, whether the site will be open to special ovanu; 3. Pro*ted nataber-of employees roigWftd f`i a the various uses for weekdays,weekends and seasonal peak Periods♦: 4- butjl�s Oqm f4*deliveries Aral&,ivwp muting; 5_ Trac emiaez{ingaieaa; . 6. Seasons of operation ofvatiouscomponentsofthe 7: Snow ranaval will be4estzsa d as rrlatrd to guiding sartbem and 9naction; $- t3WityteapOtwibleforsiteopatatfoaa. Permits and dWra is Aepked d. ldwtfify sit regii>t�punttits sad reviews 2 h4cukk the fifiag 40W and status to the lead and firvolved ageacies. 09/12/2087 13.14 - 5318699080 - PAGE 07/23 -titrltagrat Cn[chpgxiq i salt Scope ror tht DrOt 1!'MVtronmmftftI"Act shrentrnt ' } iVatarul trtarcu_n* . �1R�or�ts Soils }; t. The cxisaing soil tylm uu11 be detsnuined tigtsvant to the Suffolk Canty Soil Surveyr 2. IMppct to soils will be dliscamed in termi Of soil OlDistralatr.ptveuaht to t he Suffalk County %it Survey based On the type of laud _e prepow and the coastNajWsr for each soil type. 3. ltrtptret od doss of agric,iltuxtil sat7s 'l tis dknIn A and mitigation examined whte fea able. 4. 'listing e£axtsfttig soil for canted nts. AMethodoloeyr;remelts stir]trmedintion should be provided. �ater:tlwriritces 1. The grourtdWatcr aimagexnml zone as ciasaiflcd unttffiir Article 6 of the Suffolk Ccunty Sanitary Code stiait l�t�l'atencsd; 2. The depth w groundwater in key development locations of the site will be determined by use of sit- sit soff barb*L 3: The, expected direction,ofWouwlwaterfE wbased onhydr urgieinterpotationwill toe ideaditad. 4. 1Wsrtrig.gixyundlwater quality analysis tham onaitntest Wells, 5. The water atglpiy atvailabiti% service pro kider and Capacity of systems will ho Cstal lislxed through comtraux6cation with die water district. 6. The loeatinti of private and public wells w•�11 be determined, with speciate reference to the SCWA Eywvee hump Station, 7. Thu cspcctedimpact of the project with respect to wat€r quality-hart be My=amined in toms 0C sanitary AIMAiatge Complisncc, wastewater system operation and regulatory requiremem pttdi eXp ted itnpetia an adjacent property wells and surf a=wttnga, 8. ,ryppticablo Suf )k (3ounty Department of Health Services (=KS) mgulatidms and requirements will be identified,and the ccomplizAce of the acuter with same wilt be cvslaatcd: 9. Caloolaaons of Pogented aanrtary.flow and consistency with the.Suffolk County Sanitary Gude wit) also be patrviidedl; IC 'The change iii hydrology of the site in ten, of quantity of recirage under existing and fixture 0015&&M M shalt ht established using apprapriate hydrologic analyses nxethOdts. II_ The OW will provide calculations of projected water com mtptim for each use proposed and, in cousultalion with the Suffolk CouugrWater AU1ltotity,will evaivate the ability to enact this ptpjerted wow fid. 12. The tasation of impe eablo surfacas and,placoment of till will be evaluated in terms of potential to e61109$dtr*insgn Patterns in the pmjmt ate&and impact on dttdnage t'Eiatd4 to atorrowator, 13. Wtigatiim mmures which may reduce potential water quality iwpac%shall be identified Vegetation and RWdtlx* I- Existing ttplarul babttats shall be inventoried (tsrough an inspaation of the site by a qualTied biningisticcaltrgist to deter txiatm the vetatien, wildlifC,and gaueral habimE a#xaraca P n inventory of flora and"sena Observed and t stet sell]bg ptvvidled in this section def dxa:l3isf5 2. lit add n toot ed aatirx ylan 'Plant and aaiittt4 species listed as endangered, gxsesusaed,vocial concern t eT width otter protec§vo solus).and aigniFitcaut ttattttat'ate 0n ar #n fife vt uty of tfte ptrajoct sl5c.wilt lay ideutifted ]tie slit in tory ta'hen ralatiuis to gro[txted rtatave p>a x plant and animal met les listed as sattangC[Gd thrcatetred,special eoeoatrt(or with astlur prolective states)and aigpiftcant habitat areas shotdd lie cdatducted in the attttsan they ere hTcely m occur. 3, I held]X+ arta]Heritage program will be contacted Por aite llt0 ixifnrmatiort doncergjng habitats,plant ami t nistat species. 4. impact to habitats vrdlt be quati0ed and discessed climlitatively In tertns acOlogical impact to plants and aititmis.. 5. CUM!Dadvaaspects oftam ofhabitat will In,ideutilie& 6 d ftadit Measures to reduce potential tuVaets will be idt ed attil meant of implemental on linmart RestnuCea 2"r'atxspoi'tatton J t lxruvide a thanw*analysis of ttte traffic impact of ibe pretposad davaluQtStpttt on the area's roadway System, 6 89/12f2W7 13:14 6n3 t&99988 RAGE- OV 23 _ HaKtapc at Casttebogve - T7naiSc�psi'prtlts/YfiaRRavlttinmeritF€�ingassSssictn�nr 2 IndvA6 snatyaes of else propesvd plan Wad ittxtaal tvadway qatQua and a fill daffre impael an* n8litaprapt edrimealap mf°6kapeotouthe .t# rnadwsys, Atxidt®t history dant l ba cfi sa avakbic f€om Municipal aSwicie6 and will bs evaluated m trim of"PCoposet(pstmjW - - 4. nut TvalSc IMpsn$ttidy will inch*-, ontlootion of data regarding plaravtd roadway impmvatoent9 and anter devclopmeu% field survey;gad cooing of-e7duing trAo vohtaes, i degetas at fitmre trlt V611mmes, asslyssa of egzs" and futare'traffic valamtra and janad eeati5n and tit*% of mqdrtd mWimay NWovanem and tAtr eattty mspousibla for Iniaoft those jukVrovaramag. The metdmdology is described herein. 5- The rarsbatfit?ogy'Mils ecittist of a&'rand rsviety of escr tiad Itmdatsc,wattivay and traft omWidons nest the proposed site for the Ez setug ACortmop, the Nb slid Cqnmm(figore qa�i teas ivilhotat tits• propsycetd deveialcmaux and dte Budd f aaadtlaa (€tttorc Wow conations wsth the Proposed it W dopmmtj. F_ T?m Ftclrting condition vr1H be stttityt ed aullxtag Sonmally Austod traffic vo omca to mpmmt the peak rtsttdh of the Yet'and field gawnetrynaluntod m the folloming intstaoctione: li'lm Ritad QM Remte25)at Depot Lane . Main Road ttMPmw2S}atGrang'sfteet WddleRoad fM4S)of Depot Ease ■ 3ch oc€Itause Road at Depot Tmw + Mato Road OM Route 23)at Crown Land Lane Wit Road(1t Its Rmte 25)at fl Aland Main Road(NYS Rona:25)as tlotd)Street 7_ The No t¢uild timid=tc+Wvo volumes Tilt consiat of tine elteft volamea aditassed,bbyant stomal g vw&factor to mocoevt for i ncreeaea is Populating as wall as ptrsvmW develop cou within dors vicinity of the site. Otte prnjcefs pending In the area wall be Identified by Ti wu Plowing staff and ittrloded in Ste evahmtian as appropriate. & Traffic votntnes generated by the.pupos'ed project will be date midod usiug rM WO gemmuden and Long Wand spoon-Ocarpamble aeaivr tdtizrttprqect dm juror n mWod to the WO BuM Condition tO dares H[e frsffiev4tomea fon tlr�€crit+¢$uta tvjtb theptppcged t g. The study.fn4arteCsterviif€diet be 9aaly;cd'using Egg ay sailwato oKcs 'a by a zsg the eaistlag Odd +=b7a Siva tom:gad tots V oulatad Wirm Volumes to deisetaftie:levels of rise )• Aay snbstasrKa)dePkdAdon is LW ba(wem Me No 13ai1d and Build fttmser+lona win be eonaide/vd Xgaitteant ttalfio tmpects Sm=Wd bytheptnpoasd dwMcpm'rnt, 30. The stadP will Wm imlo aexotaet Hie SG Veddigally itleatitiod P')aauing Board ca its listed below Vr4vft eorresnaoft TM yams mmbm)r ivAlitdt W Ameft 5tatlm da-elnptaaeuq Uftowheaw wilb P Le vi l of 3ervscp;sesganol.adpsmM hgWw mtistiag ad fd ore kuuTecqM traffic velerre; ca€tatlatiom ccmgtsted ocadiffous and accident evqmucT. mWficamccAmpacus of sgwit;c snJamect tea L41S;annual growth (Ac mr,trip Serveration data and umJ formote local data;AWPU peak bout cauumeacM traffi'ie volame xoating; b1 m signal ftsibility and aced for a ppmprfindlevaiNc,mitigation; potential itnpacb with. MA without.the optaing of Spur ItM4 and 8=40 to itsivraaDWnCn(rhagtrei Depot 1.aue,QMh north end south)and Geiffiag Stre c VRout: 25;and aacss shmntsdym 1) Ike amity€1ZA4touousideraddirmiugtimPossibility ofdevelopment(honvag)o€the other BserdetHvslt3eas zvved tcstt:els l,a pmrtttplay m thepe(ae1 sat e++ a- (Page 4). 2) Tho study IAHS to Wldlfy kvd oftmpaot or substantial degradation in Level of Service M,S)Is if ma u)S ftmatiF to,Paten to octi®ti it (page 4) 3) 3'M:stodyfills mquslifythe semaW sdlvatta ttt&Omofl_l4%&1.19%,thegewptusedand !mw they acro dtey exmblid edby the NYSDOT. Ilrc rip fi ttxlearif tot ae�or al adlffsrnteut 6vkamam4mditdmtWtraffic mads and had ivcoftltis$ocaje, (Pgp6) 4) Thereagotrdl e4ommom haamdlt&rmsmtudbtY'betl diedadyappliedu14YUdarvo to w�€deys asst s€3i4ita�f wesi�ed valwttes tlt7rialo�Ton aftlte pias 6ptL€PiYSDOx' h mrez<icplakud. It is arieTmz if the�trusaro feagtsaoatsdvs�tla fi>cale.(teagu 5) Tba taualutiam cow not bt4gficatbd at the 110""Gotiom ofOrIfI mg mad State Route 25(aft t118trameourttdamaetlthes¢swaaladjustment t yr}- Rage7. (kc al) 6} Tltrt777aTyoaofllabde3it�e"air-esda9sa�tbesnaut�tsfiwof or tttiver trtast:mdm and shMKYINM Mgdeoxmlitwus' Alttotrh the st4quagnt a 7 09/12/2007 13:14: 6313699080 - PAGE 09/23 Axitage ser Catcaogua ; Final ticape for the Draft Revironmenenl tmPact Statement - - made,no mitiption is proposed,vftuh soggests that,the coogestad conditions am scccptabla at ' pre-build conditions and acceptable 44gr4ruihl conditiobs.TI=statement.warrants faithor explay"afla.(paje 8) U 7) The study indicates that ygt t y dte�faia Road and Dtpvt Leat:intersection opwativ at apoor level of service(LOS F)dm;iag drpFM and Saturday peak hoots due in 1vanvy traffic volumrs o0 Main Road. Tt can be expaatcd dW following elle build out of 139 waits,tho LOS would continue ao'wotsaa. Appendiic D.Cepacity AoalysieR evsl of Service Wer)abmis&Sauaaamy Tablc iodicWes-that the level Of3ervioe daarwsns in the Build Analysis 2007. 'ileo LOS at the weMeand]arra tam coma W opeerntasatan F,foIkrwing the Baild Analysis the level of,ervtce. again operatar at F. Tia dears se:of rite LOS is a reaak of the increased Vehiclo tripe is the area moulft Item the proposed site plan. '[hc siguiftcaDw of orange rotative to impacts 4om a LOS FicFiati+toir�rsad,slttltildl5s£tttitaf pleined (Npl4) 8) Qnreotly Mein Road and Otiffrng SHcct operates at:as a LOS F and E in%a PM and Saturday Peak Name.ApposalmAindicatesfletthe smalbamidapproach vpmal stitaX,08ofFunder c*traN condittoos'and foNawlag�nild Ccaditions, Agafnt,flia$igaificanoo oidcgradationatthc interne*6onlitap■otiaunclearatl9 tegtsiies lhtttiter evaluati*nt sad artniliga6on..(Pegs 15) 0) 'I'beset®8lgraver)t:lietar-obtaitradl'tomNY5A70TSsL_BYa. TheP]asuingBoard guestsoraifthc growth factor takes into account taml_usc and-ate of development indicative of Eastern Lang relandltr (Pap 16) . 10) The Ploaaing Board rajccfs the modeling of trip generation for tire proposed aotien to Mdcrly Housing(detached)midoewide ttafoo modeling cdatria used in the Institute of Transportation FAviaeem01` ). Eldndyhousing(dotaclfed)iss`e Widedtosenior okizmmdmay contain special services(medical facWtics)ou alta Additionally,in a Dcoembcr 11,2606 latkz to tine Ytaruing Hoard.the respouas m Comment 01 indicates that Land[Tse±251 SemorAdult Boozing. Detached atalia&uldaft was used: The two docaraanta eonftict. The action isproposed as on `:Attire Adult Cnmtm rW, ThaPWming Board iS requesting that real data from a comparable use(Active 55 and older condattittiam-community)located on Bastatn Long island be used to base llae study trip patuar on modeft.(page 20)- 11)Is tba AM peak mused is doftE Land Use Cade for Elderly Housing(Detached)the same . time astheAM peak hour used iia the actual traffic count pere med by Nelson&Stupe(the same applies to PM peak hour aad5amfdaypeak hour)? Would using diffexeot hours result iu inaccurate data? (Fag*20) - 12) The 2007.Site Gaperated Weekday Aid Tmillc Volumes indicate gin ti vaWlec will out to - Glriffing Road and the State Road 25 iniersectiaj4 3 vobioles would tont Spur Road sad 9 vehicles would exit the aim via Selmolbouse Road and cot tiime to the County Road 48 and&a Depot.Lane - ln[Cnftcd14n. The vehicle trips seem 1*fx and rotltit!$unrealistic. The Pienain 13oard quceiions ibisa dpisand retpwsts V-W1 1 data beobiaitled aftdused(whom possible)to mode{tba vehicle trips and rou4ag. (Page 22) - 13) The study proposes mitigation(traffic central at Depot Road and Main Road). Mitigation of expected aaft impacts validates that the actiou:may result in apotenfially sign rmord or large iaipactand tiacda m be fmtlfer stir tcsa As confirmed with tore NYSDOT tbcproposed above UW,c control is Dot on option to mitigate tm io impacts. Altea m&e mitigation of tmf5c impacts -mnstbe evaluated and prp,sand. (Page 3I) 14) It is flu Plaoniag Doses position do the study iltils to anaty w the impact of the vehicic trips from H~Czervm Land#rid Schoolhouss using Spar Road(a it is opuned)as a moans to aurae dowmown Calobogue and/erpass t6sough to Depot Lanc/C.R.48 and NYS 25. 15)Tice trafktc impacts if SpuiAW h opened/riot opened have aot been adequately addressed relative to the NYS Route 25&Gdit*Avenue iateraeotioat. 1 S) [litter access altamatives g KndA tic aonaidowL Such as,nodes directly from the proposed site to Depot law duvuahthe property rothe:east; - 11- Mitigation Will be proposed to addtess any aigniffmot degradation in the level of service. An explanation of-dw feasibiliity of mitiptiod 12. Analysis of pedestrian connectivity and movement from site to hsmiet *eater and adjacent tiov*Ioptnwta. 13. Iailmot to mrift paddng infcastm4aat relative to laird use isiiflnin rho hamlet cuter_ 14. Fmncwt pohce respouso time.as a re aft o£e ted increase in trasfe. 15. If Spur F ald is apened taaft analysis ofHighland and plait,Tread(N"Route 25)and Cro"head and Main Road WM Route 35. 1 8 0911212007. 13:14 6al.36990a0 PASZ 10123 ' � _ ttertlagl'At E;.11fCtle¢fiC Innel Scope tlir the Ifrdtt'�`a�"3renmt?ft+l JnItJAi{SrarearCttt F.' Lend(Ave,Zngdngand Pkv This secSiote of the DEIS will describe cciddttg land use and zoning on the subject site and in the 9 _ Surrounding BML 1, The existing land use uharact=of the site and Sum-undfng area wilhbu 50 fret w-rll be des4r f ed t and mapped. 2. The dotting which tippliea to the situ Snd:the ares within 500 ftet will be described and rztappcd, and a description of zonbW r4gulothms for the project afte and sam ondior,am zoning sball be pmv(ded. 3. rand use plans which pertain to the pm*t site will be evaluated with emphasis ort those glans q adopted after 1994. - } _.. + Southold Town stewardship To.%k Fotca Report(1094) • Sc wiew:Trgila 9f the North fork(3994) - } + Peconle.Estuary Progtam(1995) `. • EominicDevelopmeTAMn(t997) e c Southold.Township Plaything Initiatives(1997) • ConwheamrP'r"er•ationProject Plan(to(toll) * Cow"Rom 48Corridor,Land Use Study 0999) Faint and NMI"Ptrscrva6an Program(1993-2202) Southold Pam and Psrnelom4 Protection SEmtegy PMO) - - i Wakes Supgly Mmmg==t.&ViaW kroWetion Strategy(2000) + Secnic Southold Corridor Management Plan(W) Bles Piibbon Commission ler Rural Southold PM) + Southold Comprebensive briplemenfoliurt Strategy and GEIS(2003) • Local Watuxftgnt Recitsiizatioa-Program(2005) + Soutbot t Hamlet Stody(2005) • Cnmmtutity Prezetvat ft Prrlje ct Plan(2W5 Updtito) * tong-lellwdNotth Shore Heritage Area • T'om%Z*nitwtdapslCodaand Compmfteratsiveplan Town Affordable ttoitsittg Needs Avocsfoutord(2005) - Woedt Fodt tiooreational Tta_tel Needs Assassermt(MM T6ecumllual iityaftttcdeuelojfthOMWith 0tsutitafiftArea wMbenssese d, 5. f.)cce the above infa tnaflon it eontldted,the DJO wM146 Q the ficial xs of liMptoposed action onlaaduseentimaring, The impact asiessivart will cobcenthota on evalutttfttg the o mistenay of the proposed soman with prevailing land use and Zordag. The congj tifrflfly of the praloo d aoltri with arta land use will be assessed: - fr, The rnognete of the proicet with hand use plana will tie evatuated and dsscussed.. 7. Mcasitrrs whichinaybe used to mitigate potantiat land ase,Whing or impacts withreopect to land uzeplaw will bcprvvided. Community F4citittes and Services - J. 'MO willing o0ocauvity services and the ability of thus services to accommodate the proposed project will be described. The services include: + school District - • Policx5 Fire and AmInderwe Services; Electi7iaat energy stWI3; Waterauppiy. 2. The impact analysh contained in Eye l3ffi will inchide conatttratims with=rvim providers ragerdins a defing deatapd for awhoas and deity such Aat the DEIS will ahjectively tmaly=the hapset of the ptbposed aloin ort cmMoulty facirdts and servicea. 3, The DIZIS VAU mule&detailed ptujoctioas of service demandwith:auppmting docameete ion, 4. 'Me wrisfathg tax rovence o the rite shall bo established, 9 - 09/12/2007 13.14 . 63'33699080 .PAGE 11123 tletitage u!Cntclrstgue tc Haul Scope for the Draft rm rVaWMttal1mp4ct Statencettt - �,_ _ -5. The ememney services (ambulance, police and fire) which serve the site will be identified end contactoii Fut input with respect IQ soaduaed aldtr`ty to serve the Oita. . 6- Changes associated with&a proposed proiQ will be evaluated in)cams of emergency attvim access; n practical approeeli will betaken to eusum thatsa{e and efficient emsrgeacy ac vice vehlete acres to iY; me sloe�a ba pmvided m the site. 7. }1yr&artt."ixtstepattotJEocadon and other dovdoptnant considetatinns which assist in addressing taatnrgency-services will be included,.R. Udgadan for emergency service acoesa to CmUre that tVipment can ingresslaMss the site tvdl be included: AdribelieAssoure ,OpmSyucelCon pautio,Character andpUbiicHeald) 1. Existing site and Community character will be identified and impacts to community character will be, eveltutted. 2. The project will result in a ehartgc in the aeslhedu Character of the site dua to removal of existing 'vegetattmt: hnpmota will be disclosed and mitigation Wefif M viherefeasibie. - 3. I'm open space resoaresa,of tete site end axes will be fdenti.#ledt x 4. ThapnJest will result in the losO of apeu spaca due to removal of existing vegetation. Impacts will be diOclaa t andmitlotion 9dentifted where feasible, 5. The existing miss eavitor m mt will be avtbated in terms of ambient irof5e, sairsitive receptors and corrnnattiv eltaracw, 6. . Canebnctiert actiftes in lemic of aarietr>icdon schedule and duration,mamriats and storagelskaging. area,water and sewer systeras conneet m proper ltaddling of c*Mtrucdoo waste,hours of operation mrd truck mates will be evaluated. 7. I "Odbe the impacts rotated to construction noise, dust, erosion and sfdi neotat q t,area rccepmra, applicable nuat tee ragvlatious, applicable ageaey oversight and sakeuards,phasing of the project, atAfmil areas, paling areas, gpeietion areas, duration. biours; and rotated mitigation mmurm to reduce construction itrinsc%, The potential noise and dust impacts of construction Mated to cleating, Construction activities and traffic wM be sssessied. S. h6dgstloa in term ofdeeiga,buttr planting and open space will be examincd Atehuacfagical Baiteurces 1. 'aha ITC110190941 t4eaaroes of doe site will ba addressed through a Stage EMB Cultural Researces Askmanteat(CRA). The site is wife on area of atahaeologicai tanaltivity tnld tbamfore, a Stage IA/IR is requhrl unless sipilicsnt ground diguritanrx is documented to the satisfaction of the 1 OBRUP, Anytuitiption which may be netted will bt:identified. 6.l _OtHtar l�ecrtslrcd Seatitas In addition to the key rosources iderrtifted in the Positive Declaration, SEQRA identifies other rer)tlfred sections for a complete DEIS as included in 6NYCRR part 6179 (b)(3). Midgadon measures will be included Arith respect to each key impact area as noted in Section 5.0. Altcmatives to be aMMad are identified in Section 7.0. The following other Required Sections and evaluations will be provided itt the DMS. 1. Use and Conservation of Dsbtargy Resources (171e project will increase energy use which could be Q'O'M' Mitigatiotl tp ''educe the impacts of energy consuv4Aioti could ticlade building homes to Rnetgy Stas and Leadership in Eiiticgy sad BaViromnental Design (LEM) S=dRt& ao&*r applying dark stay Standards to )cesen the iMpact of chew gest. Mese aspects of the project will be examined), 2. C'umule&e Tmpacts(i.3escnbe other pending projects fm vicittity, determine Potential for Impacts due to implementation of proposed project in cotubinatim with others and dint lraslanaiyso impacts). 10 -69l2�1'?9@7 13x14 - fi3136R9B630 _ PAGE 22/23 . � ' i�trittrke at CuteAngax _PI"I Swpxfor the rfraH VIVI ooatedfpj.ttnpnxt stotetexttt 3. Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided (Provide brief.lisung of (host adverse envitonrnctstal impacts demibed/discussed previously which are anticipated to occur. Which cannot beeompletely mitigated). 4. Jrtevorst"ble and ivettievahle Conubitment of Resources (prnviffe brief discussion of those natural and human resour=s which will be committed to andior consumed by the propwtdproject). 5- Ctr{Ywth-Indict ins ASPOcts (Provide brief diseuSaim of those aspects,of the proposed project which will or may truer or contribute t4 future growth in the arca). U Mgm t1yes to b-P—SM(lied UQRA.racpt m a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable Alterrtstives to the action that Are femlle,rim oldeRing the objectiveg and capabilities of the p*jeiit sponsor. As(toted in "SEQRA,"The description and evaluation of MA alternadye will be at a level of detail sufficient to petn2it a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed". The follow7itg alternatives and methods of evaluation are anticipated: I. No Action Alternative(Alternative whereby the site itemains in its ctvreut condition). I Alternative design,including but not linitted to elustetitig of detmbed ad attaeW wAts to create.Meaningful open space attd MRxitnize vegetative buffets along tate pe tear of the property. 3. Reduce cxistriguumborofurtits_ 4. Pard a] or full preservation of thpc proptxty. S. Alternative design for wastewater treatment. ii t. T ___ _.. a X W -00 't NlVi� REE`T ^L4 . NAVE Ni&F JOB" O4020. � � . '' EN4�N.E;Ei3$"59'U 3iVEVOlir4. •. � " .57-Y-WA4LT VvWT AAP4 WoaC7,''f�Y . W,11747-2166•&gill 42745b85 SA>c433'U 4�i-6520-www.r�or pop�.ebrn l IIG IIC1111L1UG'.Hl \..v 1-a:..q.Vbyr. WVC r" NtLSUN 6 POPE TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF REPORT.................... ......................::............................................................ I STUDYMETHODOLOGY.............................................................................:.....................4 EXISTINGCONDITION.................................................................................:..............:......5 LandUse.....................................................................................................................................••.... ...........5 RoadwayNetwork............................................................................................................................................5 TRAFFICVOLUME DATA..................................................................................................7 AccidentIListory...................................................:.........................................................................................12 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION..............................................................................15 EXISTING CONDITION ANALYSIS.................................................................................16 NO BUILD CONDITION..........................................................................:.......................... 19. TrafficGrowth...............................................................................................................................................19 OtherPlanned Projects..................................................................................................................................20 PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT...........................................................................................24 SiteAccess...............................•---...............................................................................---•--.............................24 Trip Distribution and Assignment..................................................•-..............................................................25 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.........................................................................................33 ProposedMitigation.......................................................................................................................................37 CONCLUSION.................................................:...................................................................38 FIGURES Figure1: Area Map..............................................................................................................................2 Figure2: Location Map........................................................................................................................3 Figure 3: 2007 Seasonally Adjusted Weekday AM Traffic Volumes....................................................... 9 Figure 4: 2007 Seasonally Adjusted Weekday PM Traffic Volumes...................................................... 10 Figure 5: 2007 Seasonally Adjusted Midday Saturday Traffic Volumes................................................ 11 Figure 6: 2009 No Build Weekday AM Traffic Volumes......................................................................21 Figure 7: 2009 No Build Weekday PM Traffic Volumes........................................................:..............22 Figure 8: 2009 No Build Midday Saturday Traffic Volumes.....................................I...........................23 Figure 9: 2009 Site Generated Traffic Distribution...............................................................................26 Figure 10: 2009 Site Generated Weekday AM Traffic Volumes............................................................27 Figure 11: 2009 Site Generated Weekday PM Traffic Volumes ............................................................28 Figure 12: 2009 Site Generated Midday Saturday Traffic Volumes.......................................................29 Figure 13: 2009 Build Weekday AM Traffic Volumes.......................................................................... 30 Figure 14:2009 Build Weekday PM Traffic Volumes..........................................................................31 1 THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUI Figure 15:2007 Build Midday Saturday Traffic.Volumes..................................................................... 32 TABLES Table 1: Intersection Geometry................................................................................................... ..........7 Table 2:Accident Summary by Severity-,............................................................................................ 12 Table 3:Accident Summary by Type of Collision................................................................................. 13 Table 4:Existing Condition Level of Service Summary...................................... ........... 16 Table 5 Main Road(eastbound and westbound)west of Depot Lane.................................................... 19 _.. _ . OW 24 Table 8:Level of Service-Summary.................................................................... ...... ..........._33,, , Table 9:Level of Service Summary-Continued. ......... ........ . ......... ........................ ..... 34 Table 10:Proposed Mitigation Level of Service Table.......................................................................... 37 APPENDIX Appendix A. Existing Traffic Volume Appendix B: Trip Generation Appendix C: Level of Service Definitions 1 Appendix D: Capacity AnalysiWIzvel of Service Worsheets&Summary Tables �7 L II 1110 hn.K�lAhL' Al CU1l�tLVliV1•, WW-W- NELSON 6 POPE PURPOSE OF REPORT Nelson & Pope has investigated the potential traffic impacts associated with a proposed senior residential development comprised of 139 condominiums. The site is currently zoned Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District. The 46.16 acre lot site is located on the north side of the Schoolhouse Road and Griffin Road intersection. Figure 1 shows a general map of the area and Figure 2 the location of the site. This report summarizes the results of a detailed investigation of the traffic impacts of the proposed residential development by reviewing the area's existing.roadway characteristics and traffic conditions, estimating the vehicular volume and pattern that the proposed development will generate during peak hours, and analyzing the effect of the additional volume on the surrounding roadway network. G l" THF EMMAGE AT CUTCHOGUE s�Jr rvtt 5�ry a r ur c -. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AREA MAP N I Plum slan i Long Island Sound Gordiners Stock i heI er Islond Island Southol I ndSoaad Gardiners Little Boy Riwrheod Peconic Bay -' G e Eas Hampton Brookhoven eco is Boy J - Sou ompton Shtnnecock Moriches aY ay SITE LOCATION C L 1._ L Figure 1: Area Map L 2 L - l lll:/ L4�1♦lll"1VL'.('11 liV ll':IIVVVG _. S "MLtMUN 6i Hut-= " V 1 A � V • i . s S o a •.• i o 0 0 �8 • a , Vh ° r a i Obi I' BM* \� N moi. • �l . e • d •'• " /Sacred Heart v '• moa 00 �••o" Cem Q . , • �• r a vy�a • CSL • 7 . Lt . m .. •.!• n T M 32 . .' x a '•�', • • utc�o a •,°c9� Q � • • • • _ ` a . . ;•.• North Fork zp Country.G b =4 o JO '[ SOURCE: USGS Southold 1991 II STUDY INTERSECTIONS FYgure 2: Location Map _. 3 THE HER FAGE AT cuI%-Uv%iur. — — -- — STUDY METHODOLOGY The methodology used for this investigation consisted of a detailed review of existing land-use, roadway and traffic conditions near the proposed site for the Existing Condition, the No Build Condition (future traffic conditions without the proposed development), and the Build Condition (future traffic conditions `SW, with the proposed development). The Existing?ndition was analyzed,utilizing seasonally adjusted traffic volumes to represent the peak month of the year and field geometry collected at the following intersections: lsae�w'i�"�:r,,.«:,i�".:a,a;.c..e........»+.+nw+{gpE`kap'wx,,,a«a,..at-...r%A.wfs€.,,�s+�Wa'•,.u,�.".,a::-H.d,�.... _.... ..� .✓e,.._.,,. „ .._... .,�yw,. .�,+ ...- �. .,._:. Twp "iviamitsad(NYS Route 25)at Nortli Street , 1Vlain Raa'd(N'Y$Route at frriifin Street • Main Road(NYS Route 25)at Highland Road • Main Road(NYS Route 25)at Crown Land Road Middle Road(CR 48)at Depot Lane • Schoolhouse Road at Depot Lane The No Build Condition traffic volumes consist of the existing volumes adjusted by an annual growth factor to account for increases in population as well as proposed developments within the vicinity of the site. At the time this report was written, there were no other projects being planned in the immediate area that were identified _ The traffic volumes generated by the proposed project were calculated and then added to the No Build _ Condition to determine the traffic volumes for the f_utuie Build Condition with the proposed development. The study intersections were then analyzed using Highway Capacity Sof ware (HCS+) by applying the existing field geometry, signal timings, and the calculated traffic volumes to determine levels of service _ (LOS). i 4 �[ ua�ay...area vva...aavvva. l�Jt" IVtLSIJN 6 POPE EXISTING CONDITION Land Use The site is a 46.16-acre vacant and wooded parcel zoned Hamlet Density(HD)Residential District situated on the north side of the Schoolhouse Road and Griffin Road intersection approximately 0.75 miles south of the Long Island Rail Road_ The site is surrounded by farmland and residential homes. Roadway Network The following is a list of roads that comprise the roadway network surrounding the site. The general descriptions refer only to the sections of the road that exist in the vicinity of the site. The cross-section of these roads may vary further away. The AADT—Average Annual Daily Traffic is provided for each road, where available from either New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) or the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (SCDPW). Main Road (NYS Route 25)is under the jurisdiction of the NYSDOT and extends east-west across the Town of Southold and Suffolk County. It has one travel lane in each direction, full shoulders, and a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. The average annual daily traffic volume is 11,173 vehicles per day (source:NYSDOT 2004 Traffic Volume Report). North Street is a local residential road under Town of Southold jurisdiction. It extends from NYS Route 25 to School House Road. It has one travel lane in each direction and a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Griffin Street is a local access road under Town of Southold jurisdiction- It extends north-south for a short distance connecting Main Road with Schoolhouse Lane. Currently, Griffin Street terminates at the south end of the proposed site. It has one travel lane in each direction and a short landscaped median and turning lanes at the intersection with Main Road.The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. Highland Road is a local residential road under Town of Southold jurisdiction. It has one travel lane in each direction and a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Crown Land Road is a local residential road under Town of Southold jurisdiction. It extends from NYS Route 25 to Highland Road. It has one travel lane in each direction and a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. w._. 5 THE ELLKLlAUV,Al %-uAa. YH a. ---- Middle Road(CR 48) is under SCDPW jurisdiction and provides a major east west throughway across the Town of Southold and into the Town of Riverhead where it changes to Sound Avenue. Within the `study area, the roadway is divided with a landscaped median and two travel lanes in each direction. Exclusive, turning lanes are present at the study intersection. Middle Road has a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour. The average annual daily traffic volume is 14,463 vehicles per day(source: SCDPW 2004) Depot Lane is located east of the site and is under Town of Southold jurisdiction. The roadway extends north-south from Main Road/NYS Route25 to CR 84/0regon Road. Depot Lane has one travel lane in p.� h ion li;cedand urovjdV9µm ect ection between Main Road (NYS Route 25) and Middle Road 5. �vM x.2e Schoothouse;Roadis.undr-r-To-wg of 59u_tholdjunsd chon_and extends east-west on the south end of the site with its eastern terminus at Depot Lane and its western terminus at Griffin Street.It has one travel lane ' in each direction and a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Spur Road is a local residential road under Town of Southold jurisdiction. It extends east-west for a short distance providing access to Highland Road and Crown Land Lane. Currently, Spur Road terminates at the southwest portion of the proposed site. It has one travel lane in each direction and a posted speed limit of _r 30 miles per hour. Table 1 summarizes the lane configurations and traffic controls at the study intersections. J L. f r— �1 6 law THE JIEtRl'1'AGE AT CUT'Ul1000E '6�lJr NELSON 6 POPEt. Table 1: Intersection Geometry Lane Intersection Approach Designation- Traffic Control l EB 1'T Stop Control at Main Road(NYS Route 25)at Depot Lane WB TR Depot Lane Approach SB LR EB LT Stop Control at Main Road(NYS Route 25) at North Street WB TR North Street Approach SB LR EB LT stop Control at Main Road(NYS Route 25)at Griffin Street WB TR Griffin Street Approach SB LR Main Road(NITS Route 25)at Highland WB TL'TT Stop Control at Road SB LR Highland Road Approach Main Road(NYS Route 25)at Crown Land EB LT Stop Control at - Road SB TR Crown Land Road Approach LR -------- - --- ---- EB IT-T-R Grass Median on Middle Road Middle Road(CR 48)at Depot Lane NNBB LTRT R (CR 48)and Stop Control at SB LTR Depot Lane Approaches EB LR Yield at Schoolhouse Road at Depot Lane NB LT Schoolhouse Road Approach SB TR 'L=Left turn lane;T=Arough lane:R=Right turn/me;LT=Leflhhrough kwe;7R=7hroughlright lane Traffic Volume Data Turning movement volume counts were collected at the study intersections on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 during the AM (7:00-9:00 AM), and PM (4:00'-6:00) peak periods, and on Saturday, October 27, 2007 during the Saturday midday(11:00 AM-2:00 PM) peak period. The peak hour volumes at the study intersections were identified; peak hour factors were calculated for each intersection; and the traffic volumes were adjusted to account for seasonal variations. In order to adjust the traffic volumes to the peak month of the year, seasonal adjustment factors for weekday and weekend were obtained from data contained in the 2006 NYSDOT Traffic Data Report. These seasonal adjustment factors are developed from NYSDOT continuous data collected for a three year period- The continuous counter sites are grouped into three major factor Groups. Factor Group 30 is characteristic of highways carrying heavy commuter traffic with only a small variance of traffic throughout the year. Factor Group 60 is characterized by large seasonal traffic variations and Factor Group 40 Highways lie between these two extremes. A copy of the section of the 2006 NYSDOT Traffic Data 7 THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE Report that contains the seasonal adjustment factors and the way they were established is included in Appendix A of this report. NYSDOT classified the sections of NYS Route 25 and Middle Road(CR48)in Southold as Factor Group 40 roadways. Seasonal adjustment factors of 1.22 (22%) and 1.20 (20%) for the weekday and weekend respectively calculated from adjustment factors for the month of October (month of counts) and month of ' July(month with highest adjustment factor)were applied to the weekday and midday Saturday volumes to ! adjusted the volumes to the peak month of the year. The;seasonally adjusted existing weekday and Saturda k hour trattic volumes "id' � 5 ��'} 3 4;'arids5 aTui#her } detailed in Ar i Jn I L L L I L 8 �./ J HN; MkUl AliZ AJ' UUY'U.UUUUE NELSON & POPE` 1A p e� 8C? vp5,s Q l/ g tea,da VO �ry�i aa�@ N \ or � rR R c s p O �j p p81 66 M�R01D R D O Aa5 a� t/ p� 9 Figure 3: 2007 Seasonally Adjusted Weekday AM Traffic Volomes .., 9 THE HERITAGE AT UUIUtLuuur, s� d' v� x' 6,6 pA� } N { t4m Y O i 1 r JS p� DA m r- g p' Figure 4: 2007 Seasonally Adjusted Weekday PM Traffic Volumes 10 L THE EERITAGE:AT cuTCHRGUE NELSON 6 POPE 4 W"e or a. s � a w,ao� D Q9 5" N � L a� � m �o �c1 abs40aba , fi gd �d Mgure 5: 2007 Seasonally Adjusted Midday Saturday Traffic Volumes THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE Al>f' NELSON C. POPE Accident History The'most recent available accident data, July 2004 through June 2007, in the vicinity of the site, was obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Table 2 summarizes the accident data by location and severity of injury and Table 3 summarizes the type of collision. Table 2: Accident Summary by Severity Accident Severity { Location Fatality Injury Dema e TOTAL * Depot Lane at Middle Road(CR48) - 8 6 14 Depot Lane between of Middle Road(CR48)and School House Road - Depot Lane at School House Road Depot Lane between School House Road and Main Road(NYS 25) 1 1 ^Depot Lane at Main Road(NYS 25) 2 2 Main Road(NYS 25)between Depot Lane and North Street - A Main Road(NYS 25)at North Street Main Road(NYS 25)between North Street and Griffin Street - Main Road(NYS 25)at Griffin Street - Main Road(NYS 25)between Griffin Street and Highland Road Main Road(NYS 25)at Highland Road - —Main (NYS 25)between Highland Road and Crown Land Road Main Road(NYS 25)at Crown Land Road Griffin Street between North Street and Main Road(NYS 25) - 1 - 1 Total 0 9 9 18 0% 50% 50% 1000% 12 111.0.II11111L1vG hl 1.V'X1. WVUG iRllr INELSUIN d t-UPE' Table 3: Accident Summary by Type of Collision Accident Type Right Rear Head Left Right Fixed Ped/ Over- Other/ Location Angle End On Turn TuObject Bicycle Baclang talang AnimalOther/ Total Turn Depot Lane between Oregon Road and lvliddle Road CR48 Depot Lane at 7 1 1 5 14 Middle Road(CR48) Depot Lane between --- — ---- Middle Road(CR48)and School House Road _--..----__--- 1----- --------- - - Depot Lane at School House Road Depot Lane betwear ------------------ v-- ---- -- -- School House Road and 1 1 Main Road(—NYS 25� Depot Lane at - 1 1 -- 2.. - Main Road(NYS 25) Main Road(NYS 25) ------------- ------ ----between Depot Depot Lane and _North Street _ Road(NYS 25) at ,h Street -lPn Road(NYS 25) ----- — -- - r between North Street and - - Griffin Street Main Road(NYS 25)at Griffin Street Main Road(NYS 25) ---- -------- - — -- between Griffin Street and Highland Road Main Road(NYS 25)at Highland Road Main Road(NYS 25) — -- between Highland Road and Crown Land Road -- -- --- ----------- ---------- — - Main Road(NYS 25)at - Crown Land Road Griffin Street between -- ------ ------------- --- — ---- ------- North Street and Main 1 - 1 Road S 25 13 THE HERITAGE Ar cu'rt:ttutsul Accident Type Location Right Rear Head Left night Fixed Pell Barg Over- Animal Other/ Total Angle End On Turn Turn Object Bicycle taking Unknown 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 6 18 Total 44% 6916 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% S% 6% 0% 33% 100°0 ' A total of 18 accidents occurred within the study area during the 3-year analysis period. Half of the accidents involved injuries and half involved property damage.There were no fatal accidents experienced in the vicinity of the site within the time period studied. The greatest number of accidents occurred at the intersection of CR.48 and DepotJ aiuie(14 accidents). A review of Table 3 indicates that excluding non- . . rr�oyta _putt of theacciden ( "!o 1:11:11111:11 tan eco ons os o , .rsF"-x�m_ N. .r -Wiz+--a za _ N ..,rte_. =.. r' t - angle atetdents (� accidents) occurred at the intersection of CR 4� and Depnt Lane, wliich may tie by drivers-failingto yield right-of-way. _ Y 1 .1 J 1F- l_. is 14 V L a^^•nc.naariu�ran. �.0 aa,nvt:uc.. ■MN Jr NELSON 6-POPE LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION Level of service and capacity analyses for the study intersections were performed using Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) Release 5.21, prepared by the Federal Highway Administmdon_ HCS+ is a series of computer programs strictly adhering to the guidelines set forth in Transportation Research Board (TRB). Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 3rd Edition. HCM contains procedures and methodologies for estimating capacity and determining level of service for many transportation facilities and modes including signalized and unsignalized intersections. The 3rd edition of this manual was updated in 2000 as Highway Capacity Manual 2000. An intersection's level of service(LOS) describes its quality of traffic flow. It ranges in grade from LOS "A" (relatively congestion-free) to LOS "F" (very congested). The level of service definition, as well as the threshold values for each level, varies according to whether the intersection is controlled by a signal or a stop sign.A brief description is given here and a more detailed definition is found in Appendix C. The flow at a two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersection is gauged in terms of LOS and capacity. The capacity of a controlled leg is based on the distribution of gaps in the major street traffic, driver judgment in selecting a gap, and the follow-up time required by each driver in a queue. The LOS for a TWSC C _ intersection is determined by the control-delay, and is defined for each movement rather than for the overall intersection. As with signalized intersections, HCS+ quantifies only the average control delay, which is a function of the approach and the degree of saturation for any particular minor movement. The capacity of a signalized intersection is evaluated in terms of the ratio of demand flow rate to capacity (V/C ratio). The capacity for each approach represents the maximum rate of flow (for the subject approach)which may pass through the intersection under prevailing traffic, roadway and signal conditions. The level of service of a signalized intersection is evaluated on the basis of average control-delay measured in seconds per vehicle (sec/veh). The control-delay is calculated using an equation that combines the stopped-delay with the vehicle acceleration/deceleration delay that is caused by the signalized intersection. 15 THE HEJUTAU15Al l;uIl mv%xuL EXISTING CONDITION ANALYSIS The existing traffic volumes depicted in Figures 3 through 5 were used with the intersection geometry and traffic control to determine the existing capacity and IAS of the s turg p ty lady intersections. Table 4 contains the LOS summary for the Existing Condition calculated through the HCS+ software described previously. The detailed analysis worksheets are in Appendix D. Table 4: Existing Condition Level of Service Summary interserkon A roach, Movt AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Depot LaneSB LR D 29.0 0.47 F 51.4 0.62 F 50.1 0.70' Main Road(NYS 25)at PH LT A 9.2 O oo A -91- 0.00 A 9:2 -r 0-00- North Street SB LR B 13.7 0.00 D 28.7 0.01 C 21.7 0.05 EB LT A 9.3 0.07 A 9.1 0.04 A 9.1 0.04 Main Road(NYS 25)at Griffin Street SB L D 32.5 0.26 D 31.2 0.14 E 37.2 0.37 R B 13.4 0.10 B 13.5 0.08 B 13.7 0.13 Main Road(NYS 25)at EB LT A 8.8 0.01 A 8.9 0.01 A 8.6 0.00 I-ighland'Road SB LR C 19.3 0.06 C 19.2 0.05 C 25.0 0.06 Main Road(NYS 25)at EB LT A 8.9 0.01 A 8.8 0.01 A 8.8 0.01 A Crown Land Road SB LR C 16.7 0.04 B 14.4 6.03 B 14.2 0.03 EB L A 9.2 0.01 A 9.2 0.02 A 9.0 0.04 WB L A 9.5 0.08 A 9.2 0.04 A 9.1 0.09 Middle Road(CR 48) at NB LT D 30.2 0.37 C 24.5 0.27 D 26.8 0.27 Depot Lane R B 11.5 0.12 B 10.9 0.07 B 10.9 0.10 SB LT D 25.2 0.11 C 21.4 0.04 C 25.0 0.11 R B 10.7 0.02 B 10.8 0.02 B 10.5 0.02 _ Schoolhouse Road at NB LT A 7.6 0.00 A 7.5 0.00 A 7.7 0.00 Depot Lane EB LR B 10.2 0.06 A 9.9 0.06 B 10.4 0.08 Notes: LOS=Leve!ojService,Delay=seconds/vehicle,VIC=Yal=e/Capadty Ratio Main Road at Depot Lane As shown in the results contained in the table above, the eastbound left tum movement operates at LOS A during each of the analyzed peak hours. The southbound approach currently operates at LOS D during the morning peak hour and at LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours. It is not unexpected to see results of LOS D, E or F for traffic at the stop-controlled approach of an unsignalized intersection with a 16 THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE AC7W NELSON 6 POPE major roadway. The availability of gaps in the traffic on the major roadway determines the level of delay _ that is assigned to the stop-controlled traffic. Higher volumes along major roadways result in fewer available gaps. It should be noted that the Town of Southold has recognized the poor LOS at the southbound movement for this intersection and has requested the installation of a traffic signal from the NYSDOT. Main Road at North Street The eastbound Main Road approach currently operates at LOS A during each of the analyzed peak hours. The southbound North Street approach currently operates at LOS B,D and C during the weekday morning, weekday evening and Saturday midday peak hours respectively. Main Road at Griffin Street The eastbound Main Road approach currently operates at LOS A during each of the analyzed peak hours. The southbound left-tum movement onto Main Road currently operates at LOS D during the morning and evening peak hours and at LOS E during the Saturday midday peak hour. The southbound right tum movement operates at LOS B during each of the analyzed peak hours. Main Road at Highland Road The eastbound Main Road approach currently operates at LOS A during each of the analyzed peak hours and the southbound Highland Road approach currently operates at LOS B during each of the analyzed peak hours. Main Road at Crown Land Road The eastbound Main Road approach currently operates at LOS A during each of the analyzed peak hours. The southbound Crown Land Road approach currently operates at LOS C during the morning peak hour and at LOS B during the evening and Saturday midday peak hours. Middle Road at Depot Lane The eastbound and westbound left-tum movements from Middle Road operate at LOS A during all the analyzed peak hours. The Depot Lane northbound left and through movements operates at LOS D during the morning and Saturday midday peak hours and at LOS C during the evening peak hour_ The Depot Lane southbound left and through movements operates at LOS D during the morning peak hour and at LOS C during the evening and Saturday midday peak hours. The Depot Lane northbound and southbound right turn movements operate at LOS B during each of the analyzed peak hours. 17 THE MMAGE AT CUT HODU-b Schoolhouse Road at Depot Lane Schoolhouse Road at Depot Lane is controlled by a yield sign on the eastbound approach, however for analysis purposes the eastbound approach was analyzed as stop-controlled resulting in LOS B or better for all time periods. i } `A L. 18 "111Pi H KIIAGE AT CUTCHOGUE IAC)r NELSON.6 POPE NO BUILD CONDMON Traffic conditions in the area will change even if the proposed project is not constructed. The future ( condition without the proposed project, Imown as the No Build Condition, is developed by considering traffic associated with the following factors: e Other planned projects, located near the study area, that have the potential to affect traffic patterns at the study intersections in this report. ° Ambient growth that stems from increases in population and from minor developments outside the project area. Traffic Growth The turning movement counts collected on Main Road and Middle Road in October 2005 and October 2007 were compared to determine an annual growth factor in the study area. The following Tables present the growth factors calculated from the counts. Table 5:Main Road(eastbound and westbound)west of Depot Lane Time Period AM(7-9 AM) PM(4-6PM) Saturday(11-2PM) Year of Count 2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007 Volumes 1736 1576 2150 1978 3636 3157 C % increaseldecrease in traffic per year Notes: -=decrease,+=increase Table 6:Middle Road(eastbound and westbound) east of Depot Lane Time Period AM(7-9 An PM(4-6PM) Saturday(11-2PM) Year of Count 2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007 Volumes 2212 2273 2494 2173 2905 2920 % increase/decrease in +1.4% -6.7% +0.3% traffic per year Nates: -=decrease,+=increase A review of Tables 5 and 6 reveal that, the traffic volumes collected on Main Road in 2007 are less than those collected in 2005 during each of the time periods and the traffic volumes collected on Middle Road in 2007 are less than those collected in 2005 by 6.7% during the evening peak hour and are higher than those collected in 2005 by 1.4% during the morning peak hour and by 0.3% during the Saturday midday peak hour. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) calculated an annual growth factor 19 THE BERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE 1W7r NELSON 6 POPE of 1.8%for the North Fork of Long Island utilizing data presented in the Long Island,Transportation Plan 2000 study(LITP2000). The 1.8% annual growth factor is higher than growth factors calculated from the 2005_ and 2007 counts in the study area In other to perform a conservative analysis, the 1.8% growth factor was applied to the seasonally adjusted existing traffic volumes at the study intersections for a period of 2 years in order to develop year 2009 No Build Condition volumes. Other Planned Projects ' "Other Planned Projects is a term that refers to developments located near the project site that are - a@^�.'.K&Y— .'. W?.*neYNR9!Mip✓RMs. V`M�.M1'W�'.`vwF5+uN.+i4 - :: echoomThe P)apns„ , es,T iceratedb theserolects may st cantly ". influence the operations of the study intersections IWZ 14- and would not be represented in the field data co ec At the time of the preparation of thi -report,the'I'own.identified one project being plannedin the immediate area. The project is a 4-lot division of `B' (Business) zoned land into approximately four, 4-acre lots. ' Access is planned to be from Griffin Street just south of-the Post Office and School House Road east of ' Griffin Street. However, it is anticipated that the competition of this planned project will be subsequent to the completion of the proposed project(2009)therefore it was not included in the No Build analysis. a The 2009 No Build Condition volumes for each peak hour are illustrated in Figures 6 through 8. 1 IL: t._ 20 C THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGDE RM7r NELSON 6 POPE (I- 6�5ry�i gaa��a. ,�q�i qa$ Awa N J POS R ��77 h V" SMG L yww s y�o hip M � Nk �i Figure 612009 No Build Weekday AM Traffic Volumes 21 t THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE ■MFVr' NELSON U. rurc dIp Ip 5 4 ,.bo a(? ting sbg� O s � O r �O f '� abpe YW RV' 9 O 7 a� m Figure 7: 2009 No Build Weekday PM Traffic Volumes 22 IH M: l3LMIA%iiL-Al l:U IUJIUliUk eVVR- NELSON 6`POPE. d bks 6�6 �yy�l.pv1@> gLa g�li pvOQ 6�� N \ p,-ID �f g<2 �L J �f F a� � 5 a 695 Figure 8: 2009 No Build Midday Saturday Traffic Volumes 23 THE HERTPAGE AT CUTCHOGUE ■VIJW— NELSUN 6i rurc PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Access As depicted m the site plans prepared by Nelson &Pope, two means of access are proposed to serve the residential development. A proposed access will intersect Schoolhouse Road directly opposite Griffin Street. This access will be stop-controlled and configured for all movements.The second access is provided viat Spur Drive which-cutrently'tetminates at tho western boundary of the site.An emergency access will be provided via a connection to Bridle Lane. +t�cr..w_.•.- x,.,. j _, _ Tnp Generation As-requested by the Town-of-Southold-IM Board;-Ni=1Eon=Bt Pope-has:conducted traffic counts at:an age restricted residential development similar to the proposed development (Founders Village) located on Youngs Road in the Town of Southold. The data was collected by means of automatic traffic recorders r placed an the exit and entrance driveways of the Founders Village development for a period of one week. Founders Village contains 92 age-restricted residential condominium units. The site data indicates rates of 0.33, 0.17 and 0.51 trips per unit during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday midday peak hours of the ' adjacent street respectively. The trip generation estimates for the proposed development were based on the trip generation rates obtained from the counts conducted at Founders Village The following table 1 $1lmmanzPc the trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed 139 age-restricted residential }, condominium units. The data collected at Founders Village is included in Appendix B. Table 7: Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Land Use Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total �., Trip generation rates 015 0.19 0.34 0.08 0.09 0.17 0.27 0.24 0.51 (hips/tout) 139 age-restricted 21 26 47 11 13 24 38 33 71 cmdominium units Source: Traffic Counts collected at Founders Village Southold NY �- As shown in Table 7, the proposed residential development is projected to generate 47 trips in the weekday --. AM peak hour (21 entering, 26 exiting), 24 trips in the weekday PM peak hour (11 entering, 13 exiting), and 71 trips in the Saturday midday peak hour(38 entering, 33 exiting). 24 IRJW.NELSON & POPE Trip Distribution and Assignment The site-generated traffic volume was distributed and assigned to each movement at the study intersections based on the existing roadway and travel patterns. The nature of the proposed land uses and its associated travel patterns were considered as well. Figure 9 presents the trip distribution for the weekday AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. Figures 10 through 12 depict the actual site-generated volumes for the respective peak hours. The site-generated volumes were then added to the No Build Condition volumes resulting in the Build Condition volumes shown in Figures 13 through 15. ` 25 THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE RWUlrw NELSON 6 POPE ^ ,gGI'd lAoas qo _. . .. N a� TOO .o �o w� Nell a a FYgure 9: 2009 Site Generated Traffic Distribution (�a 26 �' I'HE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE7r NELSON 6 POPE Q� � rya N cP� Qo�o Ts s "e Ao O J Nys 2sl Q � A" MW ROW a^ 21 ENTER (26) EXIT 5\ Figure 10: 2009 Site Generated Weekday AM Traffic Volumes ' F 27 THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE tAVr NELSON 6 POPE Q1 T s F f � 9 MPS 0. v � s � 11 ENTER (13) EXIT �e l \A\ p131 Figure 11: 2009 Site Generated Weekday PM Traffic Volumes 28 1-H N: tiL�X.il AIiS A'1'1:U1 Ct1UliUE KWlJ NELSON 6 POPE /a o ` �9lgGJ �6\ 4 N ate° 4^ /JIC�p 4 or` "e M° Ti. s o � � � N c $ a� i 38 ENTER (33) EXIT /i Ai i Figure 12: 2009 Site Generated Midday Saturday Traffic Vohmies if 29 t ' THE 11MUlAlin.At l;u1l:nvk7vr, • 0.� 19 << h r c 4a� 5, o e E Figure 13: 2009 Build Weekday AM Traffic Volumes L r 30 L." THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE AC7r NELSON 6 POPE s v d. 1M1� v ter, si b5�S9 p1 GJ�v ♦ry GJ �2 N O °r p t, 0. 0. R)IJ�I SM � OOw Ts s Orr a2 s� a � sy 9 a , g p Figure 14: 2009 Build Weekday PM Traffic Volumes 31 t THE BERUAGE A1Lutcnvf:uz 9 4 og 5ti�� a y+o q .p. �g �a� kpN w cw°j0 �� � B��26h10h � U . t s 3 L 10 V.a �O l �� > 0 n 45 L_ Figure 15: 2007 Build Midday Saturday Traffic Volumes l 32 TBEJWKr1AGE AT CUTUROGUE CWI:Ar NELSON 6 POPE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSTS As stated previously, the intersection capacity and level-of-service (LOS) analyses were based on the procedures and guidelines presented in the IBghway Capacity Manual (2000), published by the Transportation Research Board. The FHWA Highway Capacity Software Release 5.21 was used to analyze the study intersections and provide a LOS measurement of the intersection operations. The six classesof LOS, ranging from LOS A(excellent)to F (worst), are defined in Appendix C. Each study intersection was analyzed for the Existing, No Build, and Build Conditions. Table 8 illustrates the LOS summary for the study intersections and the site access at Griffin Street. Detailed capacity analysis worksheets and a detailed LOS summary table can be found in Appendix D. Table 8:Level of Service Summary Unsignalized AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Intersections Condition Approach Movt LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Existing EB L A 9.4 0.08 A 9.5 0.05 A 9.4 0.06 Main Road ____.-_SB LR D_ 29.0 0_47 F _51.4 0.62 F 50.1 0.70 (NYS 25) No Build EB L A 9.5 0.08 A 9.6 0.05 A 9.6 0.06 at Depot Lane SB_ LR D _ 32.1 0.51 _ F 61.4 0.69 F_ 61.6 0.77 Build EB L A 9.5 0.09 A 9.6 0.05 A 9.6 0.06 SB LR D 34.9 0.54 F 65.2 0.71 F 68.3 0.81 Existing. EB IT A 9.2 0.00 A 9.1 0.00 A 9.2 0.00 Main Road SB LR B 13.7 0.00 D 28.7 0.01 C 21.7 0.05 (NYS 25) No Build EB LT A 9.3 0.00 A 9.1 0.00 A 9.3 0.00 at North Street SB LR B 14.0 0.00 _ D 30.4 0.01 C 22.8 0.06 Build EB IT A 9.3 0.00 _ A 9.1 0.00 _ A 9.4� 0.00 SB LR C 24.1 0.02 D 30.7 0.01 D 25.9 0.08 Existing EB LT A 9.3 0.07 A 91.1 0.04 A 9.1 0.04 SB L D 32.5 0.26 D 31.2 0.14 E 37.2 0.37 R _B 13.4 _0.10 _ B _ 13.5 0.08 B 13.7 0.13_ Main Road No Build EB LT A 9.4 0.08 A 9.2 0.04 A 9.2 0.04 (NYS 25) SB L E 35.8 0.29 D 33.7 0.16 E 41.3 0.41 at Griffin St. _ _ _ _R_ B 13.7 0.11 B 13.9 0.09 _B__ 14.0 0.14 Build EB LT A 9.4 0.08 A 9.3 0.04 A 9.3 0.05 SB L E 37.4 0.32 D 34.2 0.17 E 44.3 0.44 R B 13.8 0.13 B 14.0 0.09 B 14.2 0.15 33 THE EMMAGE AT CUTCHOGUE ■W Jr NtL�IJIV d rurc . Table 9: Level of Service Summary-Contipned , Existing EB LT A 8.8 0.01 A 8.9 0.01 A 8.6 0.00 Main Road _ SB LR C 19.3 0.66 C 19.2 0.05 C 25.'0 `0.06 (NYS 25) No Build EB LT A 8.9 0.01 A 90.0 0.01 A 8.6 0.01 at 1iighland Road SB LR C 20.1 0.06 C 20.1 0-05 D 26.4 0.06 Build EB LT A 8.9 0.01 A 9.0 0.01 A 8.7 0.01 SB LR C 19.6 0.07 C 19.7 0.05 C 23.6 0.07 E�sting EB LT A 8.9 0.00 A 8.8 0.01 A 8.8 0.01_ Main Road _ SB LR `C 16.7 0.04 B 14.4 0.03 B 14.7 -0:03 5 ., .. N_o Md<,_„ :-__BB LT_.:: Y .,., 2.Q� 0 00 �, .A 8 9 0.01 A 8 9 0.01 - . ,.„..� .,. - . ,"r:;. x*�.+r���hj.�f.:.ryV�Fpiii3{'�" "cS'.^T1 -u•.r.rf-r . S 13 {r J =16 %t-05m, . W '. X14:8 x '(� '= B--,-15k. Existing_ E13_ L __,A 9.2_ 0.01 A 9.2 0.02 A 9.0 0.04 WB L A 9.5 0.08 A 9.1 0.04 A 9.1 0109 NB LT D 30.2 0.37 C 24.5 0.27 D 26.8 0.27 R B 11.5 0.12 B 10.9 0.07 B 10.9 0.10 SB LT D 25.2 0.11 C 21.4 0.04 C 25.0 0.11 R B 10.7 0.02 _B 10.8 _0.02 B 10.5 0.02 No Build EB L A 9.4 0.02 A 9.3 0.02 A 9.1 0.04 WB L A 9.7 0.09 A 9.3 0.05 A 9.2 0.10 Middle Road NB LT E 35.9 0.43 D 26.1 0.29 D 28.7 0.29 (CR48) R B 11.9 0.16 B 11.1 0.08 B 10.9 0.11 at Depot Lane ---- SB LT D 27.6 0.11 C 22.2 0.04 D 26.4 0.13 t __ R _B_ 11.1 _ 0.02_B 10.9 0.02 B 10.6 0.02 Build EB L A 9.4 0.02 A 9.3 0.02 A 9.1 0.04 WB L A 9.7 0.09 A 9.3 0.05 A 9.1 0.10 NB LT E 37.5 0.46 D 26.3 0.30 D 30.0 0.33 R B 12.0 0.16 B 11.1 0.08 B 11.0 0.11 SB LT D 27.9 0.11 C 22.2 0.04 D 26.8 0.13 R B 11.1 0..02 B 10.9 0.02 B 10.6 0.02 i Existing NB LT A 7.6 0.00 A 7.5 0.00 A 7.7 0.00 EB LR B 10.2 0.06 A 9.9 0.06 B 10.4 0.08 Schoolhouse Road No Build NB LT A 7.6 0.00 A 7.5 0.00 A 7.7 0.00 at Depot Lane EB LR B 10.2 0.06 A 9.9 0.06 B 10.4 0.08 Build NB LT A 7.6 0.01 A 7.5 0.00 A 7.7 0.01 EB LR B 10.4 0.08 A 10.0 0.07 B 10.7 0.11 Site Access at Build EB LT A 7-3 0.00 A 7.3 0.00 A 7.3 0.01 -- Griffin SB LR A 8.9 0.02 A 8.7 0.01 A 8.9 0.02 St/Schoolhouse Rd - Notes: LOS Level ofService,Delay=seconds/vehicle,VIC=Volame Capacity Ratio 34 1J]L' r+n,iCilAVL' Al l�ll.l l.IIVIJVL' til:Jt—. Nt�SCJN 6rF'UF�C Main Road(NYS 25) at Depot Lane The southbound approach currently operates at LOS F in the evening and Saturday midday peak hours. As traffic increases due to background growth and project generated traffic volume the southbound approach will remain at a LOSF during the No Build and Build Conditions. However, as shown in the table, the southbound approach delay will increase by 3.8 seconds and 6.7 seconds during the evening and Saturday midday peak hours respectively in the Build Condition when compared to the No Build Condition. It is our opinion that, the increase in delay due to the construction of the project is not significant; however, constructing a traffic signal at this intersection will alleviate the failing Levels of service. As previously stated, the Town of Southold has recognized the existing poor IAS for the southbound movement at this intersection and has requested the installation of a traffic signal from the NYSDOT. We therefore recommend that, NYSDOT consider the installation of a traffic signal at this location. Main Road(NYS 25) at North Street After the completion of the proposed project, all the approach movements to the intersection of Main Road and North Street will continue to operate at No Build LOS except for the southbound North Street approach that changed from LOS B to C during the morning peak hour and from LOS C to D during the Saturday midday peak hours. G, Main Road(NYS 25) at Griffin Street The southbound left tum movement currently operates at LOS D during the morning and evening peak hours and at LOS E during the Saturday midday peak hour. As traffic increases due to background growth in 2009 this approach will operate at LOS E, LOS D, and IAS E in their respective peak periods and will continue to operate at these levels once the project is constructed However, following the installation of a signal at the intersection of Main Road and Depot Lane, site traffic and existing traffic will most likely seek the signalized intersection to tum left and travel westbound on Main Road This should alleviate delays at this intersection. Main Road(NYS 25)at Highland Road The southbound approach currently operates at LOS C during each of the analyzed peak hours and will continue to operate at these LOS once the project is constructed- Main onstructedMain Road(NYS 25) at Crown Land Road The southbound approach currently operates at LOS C or better during the analyzed peak hours and will continue to operate at these LOS once the project is constructed 35 i THE HEKH'AUE At Middle Road(CR 48)at Depot Lane The northbound left turn movement will operate at LOS E, LOS D-and LOS D in the No Build,condition during the mooing, evening and Saturday midday peak hours,respectively.Once the project,is,constructed this movement will not experience any changes in LOS during any of the study time periods. Schoolhouse Road at Depot Lane As mentioned previously the eastbound approach is currently controlled by a yield sign but for the purposes of this study it was analyzed as a stop-control. The intersection currently operates at LOS A for the r : and WALIIo4_%4*moyements: These movements will continue to operate at LOS ti ZI kt �' '. Sk 9 "Yia 36 THE HERITAGE AT.CUTCHOGUE �7r NELSON &'POPE Proposed Mitigation Table 10 illustrates the LOS summary for the proposed mitigation measure at the intersection of Main Road (NYS Route 25) and Depot Lane. The resulting detailed capacity analysis worksheets for this measure can be found in Appendix D. The results show that the signal proposed for the Main Road and Depot Lane intersection will result in an overall LAS B during all three peak hours. This signal will serve traffic to and from the adjacent street network as well as the school located on Depot Lane. Table 10: Proposed Mitigation Level of Service Table Main Road(NYS Route 25)and Depot Lane IntersectionCondition Movt. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Operation LAS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C IAS Delay V/C Unsignalized Build EB-L A 9.5 0.09 A 9.6 0.05 A 9.6 0.06 SB-LR D 34.9 0.54 F 65.2 0.71 F 68.3 0.81 Signalized Build with Overall B 14.5 0.63 B 15.4 0.64 B 15.4 0.66 Mitigation 37 THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE NW.-W— NELSON 6 PUNt= CONCLUSION Nelson & Pope has.investigated the potential=traffic impacts associated.with.a residential development comprised of 139 age restricted condominiums on a 46.16 acre lot zoned Hamlet Density(HD)Residential District situated on the north side of the Schoolhouse Road and Griffin Road intersection in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County. The following is a summary of this investigation and the findings thereof: 1. The following intersections were included in this study: Ivia�Reader , ?vtaurloa (NIutej ata rpt. Main Road(NYS Route 25)at Griffin Street Main Road(NYS Route 25)at Highland Road • Main Road(NYS Route 25)at Crown Land Road • Middle Road(CR 48)at Depot Lane • Schoolhouse Road at Depot Lane 2. Existing peak hour traffic volumes were collected and a seasonal adjustment factor was applied to account for variations in monthly traffic volumes. Future No Build traffic volumes were determined j by applying an annual growth factor to the existing volumes projected to year 2009. The traffic this proposal will generate was estimated and distributed to the study intersections and incorporated into the future Build Condition scenario. 3. The proposed senior housing development is projected to generate 43 trips in the weekday AM peak hour (21 entering, 26 exiting), 24 trips in the weekday PM peak hour (11 entering, 13 exiting), and 71 trips in the Saturday Peak hour peak hour (38 entering, 33 exiting). 4. As depicted on the site plans prepared by Nelson&Pope, two means of access are proposed to serve the residential development. A proposed access will intersect Schoolhouse Road directly opposite Griffin Street. This access will be stop-controlled and configured for all movements. The second access is provided via Spur Drive which currently terminates at the western boundary of the site. An emergency access will be provided via a connection to Bridle Lane. 5. Traffic impacts were created at the intersection of Main Road and Depot Lane. It is proposed to install a signal at Depot Lane and Main Road to mitigate these impacts. 38 C C THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE APPENDIX NOVEMBER 2007 N& P JOB NO. 00026 Appendix A: Existing Traffic Volume Data t x_11 ^iIOVEMHNT DATA _— -- -� � _ _ — �_— —N@ I-� POPE INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) @ CROWN LAND ROAD PROJECT TITLE: HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: BROOKHAVEN 1 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND CUM.START TIME TOTAL U-TURN LEFT TIDIV Rlcxr RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT Txw RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRu RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU PoDlir RTOR To7Al HOURLY 7:00 AM 0 1 67 0 0 68 0 0 99 2 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 - 171 7:15 AM 0 0 66 0 0 66 0 0 120 3 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 D 4 193 7:30 AM 0 2 84 0 0 86 0 0 82 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 170 7:46 AM 0 0 97 0 0 97 0 0 85 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182 716 No ,",", D - IS- 61pv n0, ��.. .. . .. kt , ..,� 0`" .. .' ..,',. . x 720 719 0 q749 S ON, .0 .. ,. ;�z0 F�`'a 7-wv`" -a`^'�U..' i`4"�` >: n - } . PEAK HOUR: 8:00- 0 2 368 0 0 370 0 0 439 1 0 440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 0 9 819 9:00 AM PHF 0.81 CROWN LAND ROAD 1 ? 6 3 { r MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) ? L 1 445 4-- 439 440 2 ., 370 - 368 371 '1 111: N PEAK HOUR: 8:00-9:00 AM 1 i Weekday AMYJS i NELSON 6. POPE TURNING MOVEMENT DATA ,. t INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) Q HIGHLAND ROAD PROJECT TITLE: Vpq ,� F�CHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: B, 0 N N WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TOTAL CUM. START Time EASTBOUND HWRI.Y U•TM LEFT THOU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TUM LEFT TMU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL I)-TUM LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-: THBu RIGHT- RTOR TOTAL+ , 70 AM 0 0 65 0 0 65 0 0 102 1 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 2 0 I 0 3 .671' 7:15 AM 0 0 66 0 0 66 0 0 64 1 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 OIC 1 0 4 0 5 136 662 7.30 AM 0 0 92 0 0 92 0 0 91 1 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 'i 6 0 0 0 6 190 7:45 0 75 0 0 )6 0 0 RB 0 0 58 0 0 0 Or 0 , I 7ta 0 r�r+O, r3a iAr + I rf 165 656 3 SAM "X, "x xto, "P".. Migoiq.+ �+� vI b . .�. � w F. '� 706 I iYil' 759 7 9 Fl PEAK HDuR: 8:00- JO 5 365 0 0 370 0 0 418 9 0 427, 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 0 II EOE 9:00 AM - +' fifi 0:E3 PHF ,t tlt HIGHLAND ROAD t 14 14 14 Ii 4 7 7 MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 9 427 422 1 418 _.:....h ... 370 365 372. +� 1 ;1 o rl. N a PEAR HOUR: 8:00-9:00 AM I� ; {� TC ROVBMLMT DATA i � NS i '. POPE INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 0. GRIFFIN STREET PROJECT TITLE: HERITAGE.AT CUTCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: BROOKHAVEN START.Taff EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TOTAL CUM. U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U•TuRN LEFT THRU RIaNT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR 'TOTAL HOURLY 7:00 AM 0 5 64 0 0 69 0 0 69 9 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 4' - 151 7:15 AM0 6 58 0 0 64 0 0 110 6 0 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 8 0 14 194 WB 2 0 0 74 13 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 9 178 2 0 0 84 9 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 0 10 205 728 7x30 AM 0 280 0 08 will .e.`0, 01 .. ,� :� �. : _ 6a .. y777 7:46 AM 0 4 98 0 0 108.39 797 azE „ 0`.a e a. O0lap's. x7?.Oi w>.rd .�"' 0'n:,., e0 ?.x 0� ±: igil"F;;n i0:.v, �..;.,.x ,e , 0. h- f23 ar ` PEAK HOUR: 8100- 0 46 332 0 0 378 0 0 395 70 0 465 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 34 0 66 909 j 9:00 AM PHF 0.63 i 1 GRIFFIN STREET 66 T 1 116 34 32 L+ MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 1 j L 70 < 1 1--� 429 395 465 46 { '... 378 332 ---, 364 ) N i PEAK HOUR: 8:00-9:00 AM 1 x Weakday WAS TURNING MOVEMENT DATAtt NELSON 6. POPE INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) ! NORTH STREET PROJECT TITLE. 14RITTIC�IgCUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: B OOK N WetTB0UN0 NORTHBOUND .SOUTHBOUND TOTAL CUM. START TIME EASTBOUND HOURLY U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RICHT RTOR TOTAL UrT TNRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL - 7:00 AM 0 0 67 0 0 67 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 10 Qrf 0 0 0 0 167 7:15 AM 0 0 66 0 0 66 0 0 122 1 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 '0 Oil 0 0 0 0 0 189 7:30 AM 0 0 99 0 0 99 0 0 97 3 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 :0 Os{, 0 0 0 0 0 199 �0 _, 0. '0 0 1 0 I 202 757 7:45 AM 0 0 103 0 0 103 0 0 92 } 6 0 98 0 0 0 a" 0 �,,,;,y8, yRy ,;.••�.y Qy r 778 794 .• 818 wl •PlAK HOUR: 8:00- 0 2 + 404 0 0 406 0 0 484 - 6 0 489 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 1 896 9;00 AM !1, 0.80 PHF ,. f3 NORTH STREET 1 I 1 1 7 . 0 )' MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 5 t T 489 H 485 1 484 2 J 406 404 .,«w 404 " Y, F �Ix 1 1 N PEAK HOUR: 8:00-9:00 AM ,;I T, . dOVEMENTDATA N. C"t POPE INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 0 DEPOT LANE PROJECT TITLE: HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: BROOKHAVEN START TIME EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TOTAL CUM. i U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT 'RTOR TOTAL HOURLY 7:00 AM 0 10 44 0 0 54 0 0 68 5 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 9 0 .. 14.. 141 7:16 AM 0 3 53 0 0 56 0 0 98 7 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 0 15 176 7.30 AM 0 7 87 0 0 94 0 0 63 6 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 12 0 13 0 25 208 ! 746 PM 0 12 92 0 0 104 0 0 95 10 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 14 0 24 233 758 i r0 .,, � NMI mu "ml � k� 'a i7" kIQ j 0 '9 ° i00 861 886 `.,, e„- ZI F;: `, 0}"r.,x S 0' L 0 es?i e�131u}x>; _. 66.:>: PEAK HoUR:8:00- 0 48 327 0 0 375 0 0 436 41 0 477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 56 0 87 939 9:00 AM { PHF 0.82 t DEPOT LANE 87 I l 89 56 31 s MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) L 41 492 436 477 48 375 327 358 i i 1 i N PEAK HOUR:8:00-9:07AM Weekday AMade LIP u LTJ 4_ +' NELSON 6 POPE TURNING MOVEMENT DATA INTERSECTION: SCHOOL HOUSE ROAD f DEPOT LANE PROJECT TIT LE: F�ERITAG k7 TCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: BROOKH N �` t ICUM. EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND START TIM! 'ti SOUTHBOU TOTAL HOURLY U-TURN LIFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT TNRV RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIONT RTOR TOTAL WT T TIe1U RIONT. RTOR TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 3 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 +15 Oi} 0 17 3 0 20 .„ 40, 7:15 AM 0 4 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 ON� �..0 II 5 0 16 33 7:30 AM 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 I� 0 0 12 OI,.. 0 25 2 0 27 42 7:46 184 AM 0 7 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 23 ,, 0 , ,0 rye, 24 04= 0 25 �2,A,A q 0 27 60 175 207 PEAR HWR: 8:00- 0 19 0 10 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 79 0 0 8S O 0 91 28 0 119 231 9:00 AM 0.74 PHF rr 1 DEPOT LANE 1 ' 1119 1 `I 98 E T, . t 28 91 4-J SCHOOL HOUSE ROAD 32 .f. �y_. . 29 4-1 rt 4 79 ♦I 4' N I I d i PEAR HouR: 8:00 9:7AM j 83 DEPOT LANE HIw z r Tq OVEMENTDATA - NE �� POPE INTERSECTION: MIDDLE.ROAD (CR 48) @ DEPOT LANE PROJECT TITLE: HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: BROOKHAVEN START TIME EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND ISOUTHBOUND TOTAL CUM. U-TuRN LEFT THRG Rion RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRu RICHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRu RIGHT RTOR TOTAL HOURLY 7:00 AM 0 3 113 9 0 125 0 6 93 0 0 99 0 7 0 II 0 IB 0 1 1 0 0 2 244 f 7:15 AM 0 2 156 12 0 170 0 12 104 1 0 117 0 11 4 5 0 20 0 0 2 2 0 4 311 j 7:30 AM 0 1 156 6 0 163 0 9 130 2 0 141 0 6 1 8 0 15 0 4 4 1 0 9 328 All, �,g q0;.;-.IO. .,s 1 x 2(M' � wlll�. -P a"� 3 ' ,°b%S 9 1264 " �8, 4,ri- r +. 1322 ,fie. .`4xx7.5xf�3"dI49+R$aS`>' W�>.3r ,L% 4,. . Ar..��. 72), 5. ,�> r 7i (d 4" " 5 .,,`;roacSS tC,.O v.c" fa�$4it � 9..w:i 35 �v 0:45 AM 100 14 170 9 116 2 0 127 0 12 4 18 0 34 0 0 5 3 0 B 286 1258 PEAK HOUR: 1:45- 0 10 536 41 0 587 0 53 555 4 0 612 0 35 26 68 0 129 0 1 13 II 0 26 1353 8:45 AM PHF 0.89 DEPOT LANE r 25 1 1 40 11 13 1 +-j 1 L+ MIDDLE ROAD (CR 48) 1 1! 0 — 4 601 555 612 10 r 53 587 536 1 605 i 41 0 P I, Y 35 26 68 S N 107 t 129 PEAK HOUR: 7:45-8:45 AM DEPOT LANE i WeekdeyAMids i TURNING MOVEMENT DATA k(. ' NELSON 6 POPE INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) ! CROWN LAND ROAD PROJECT TITLE: 17�Aj .' CI TCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: 1ROOKMA N I Cum. START Time EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TOTAL HOURLY U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THIN RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL WT ' FT THRY RIGHT RTOR TOTAL 4:00 PM 0 0 108 0 0 108 0 0 117 2 0 119 0 0 0 0 ;D 0 ',F 3' 230 `1 d� 0 �0 4 956 � d,. (1na xrP-�34,� P �` yu3yi3 4�5fu 5:15 PM 0 0 105 0 0 105 0 0 120 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 228 943 5:30 PM 0 2 104 0 0 106 0 0 91 0 0 91 0 0 U 00 0 100 4 0 0 0 I 19� 800 :4 0 0 I 0 0 0 00 O 71 PEAK HOUR: 4:15- 0 10 461 0 0 471 0 0 483 3 0 486 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.$ 0 8 0 10 967 5:15 PM lily 0.96 PHF e<< CROWN LAND ROAD 10 1 1/ 1, 13 B 2 ,..1.. E .a MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 3 F } 486 �-- 491 1 483 10 �! S 471 461 4.63.. _. r1 N s PEAK HOUR: 4:15-5:15 FPM u V ' V I, ry t T( IOVEMENTDATA : NE POPE INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) @ GRIFFIN STREET PROJECT TJTLE: HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: BROOKHAVEN START TIME EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUNDTOTAL CUM. U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT TnRu RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL HOURLY Wpmum�;,51 l .O �,fx o 1Q'. Qm z;a0 x,;12 ` i ''; ai'Ad: 127 .a.Aiv� . i'0„x, t.��.4.. 'as4 b :'k;0. .I@,izOc3” xsArc -a ,S ''� + t 0,-3+ e?P9,5:00 PM 0 8117 0 0 125 0 0 123 4 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 7 0 13 265 1002 { 5:15 PM 0 3 102 0 0 105 0 0 105 4 0 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 6 220 965 . 5:30 PM 0 2 111 0 0 113 0 0 86 5 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 B 212 937 0 3 90 0 0 93 0 0 101 1 0 102 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 6 20 898 { PEAK HOUR-. 4:00- 0 24 451 0 0 475 0 0 469 58 0 507 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 27 0 44 1026 r 5:00 PM ` PHF 0.89 GRIFFIN STREET 44 1 1, 62 27 17 L+ MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 38 �- 496 469 507 24 475 —' 451 468 N PEAK HOUR: 4:00-5:0:Pml � I 1i i Weekday PM.xls F NEL50N 6 POPE TURNING MOVEMENT DATA Jf INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) Q NORTH STREET PROJECT TITLE: HIRITA�SE #1� ITCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: 13ROOKM N E STROU D WESTBOUND - NORTHBOUND •° SOUTHBOU TOTAL CUM. START TIM! HOURLY U-TBRN LEFT TNKiU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT Txlu RIGHTRTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT TMRu RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U• PT TMu RIGHT, RTOR TOTAL, d -ant 77 } er (I Mltl .0 ..s126 0. 0 . .o o .Qwb` .�FO.ire 'aT05 n`. Int=d... 6' ,.wQn 5:00 PM 0 0 116 0 0 116 0 0 135 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 251 1014 5:15 PM 0 0 113 0 0 113 0 0 125 0 0 0.1 .0 0 1 0 1 240 987 5:30 PM 0 1 130 0 0 IN 0 0 109 2 0 UI A 0 0 0 0 ,0 .,..,0'�yi. 4... G 2 0 2 244 972 tLs Pm 0 0 7 0 0 9 0 122 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PEAK HOUR:4:00- 0 I 522 0 0 523 0 0 523 PHF7 0 530 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qa, 1', 0 0 0 I 1054 S: M 0.91 ;I NORTH STREET I r 1 0 1 �--� L+ MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) T- 523 523 1 523 -- 530 523 522 523 �--/ i I�us' � PEAK HDUR:4:00-5:00 PM i r i i TL ^IOVEMENTDATA NE 3-') POPE INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) @ HIGHLAND ROAD PROJECT TITLE: HERITAGE AT CUTCHOG.UE DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: BROOKHAVEN START TIME EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TOTAL Cum. U-TURn LEFT THnI RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT TNRG RIOHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRu RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TDRN_ LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL HOURLY II t� k G 0 n, '� �0. 'k 8'•, a �' „"�> ' fir+ 0 , ,. ' + '` �1 9 ' I 1 `' o1r y.,u ;579°cr- u f225'!..::; v �'4. `:i �1��x ! p�k.'r� 0%z_... .0. r�.6-:u5i,'.4 >+F'.a,.�4...:tis,.,le ka!S &9 �.:?.1n0..-„ gttOY+.J Sv, ikw,t:�, lin ,0.�. . .�J:O'w 5:00 PM 0 0 118 0 0 118 0 0 121 3 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 244 961 5:15 PM 0 4 111 0 0 115 0 0 115 3 0 IIB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 235 947 5:30 PM 0 0 129 0 0 129 0 0 94 1 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 226 930 6:45 PM 0 2 1040 0 106 0 0 91 2 0 93 00 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 205 910 3 PEAR Noun:4:00- 0 4 459 0 0 463 0 0 496 - 10 0 506 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 10 979 } 6:00 PN '., PHF 0.93 @I ' 1 HIGHLAND ROAD 1 - {a. 10 1 1 14 r MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 10 i' 501 1 496 506 4 J 463 459 464 `i j$I 1 ii 1, i PEAK HOUR: 4:00-5:00 PM - i 1 i WeekdayPMAs TURNING MOVEMENT DATA NELSON 6 POPE I; INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 0 DEPOT LANE PROJECT TITLE: HiITpG ;, C CHOGU€ DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: BROOKHA N # SOUTHBOUND cum. EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND °� TOTAL START TIMC HWRLY U-TURN LEFT THOU RIGHT R70R TOTAL U-TURN LEFT TNRV RIBMT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT TxxU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL IhT' TNRu i RIGHT RT TOTAL ' Op'l. e I , d - now 0 .Daa R %sb 4•II}E£av0 :VYkt'"20 �.rvSGkee = 5:00 PM 0 9 103 0: 0 11 .. 2 0 0 124 6 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 `0', x 0 7 0 12 254 1072 5:15 PM 0 14 99 0 0 113 0 0 116 9 0 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 13 251 1041 5:30 PM 0 10 114 0 0 124 0 0 95 13 0 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 OL ;11 0. 16 0 27 259 1037 :4 0 8 0 0 9 0 9 0 01 0 0 0 0 tIf 0 I 0 0 974 PEAK HOUR: 4:00- 0 pq 498 0 0 527 0 0 504 43 0 547 '0 0 0 0 0 '.0 02- . 0 40 0 82 1166 5:00 PM � { 0.86 PHF 1 r DEPOT LANE 82 1 l 72 40 42 a. s MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 43 i 504 547 544 1 na 29 y i 527 498 540 R N #: PEAK HOUR: 4:00-$:OO PM rv4. AW TI ^lOVBMENT DATA \ N6 '""�i POPE ,.,.INTERSECTION: SCHOOL HOUISE..ROAD 0 DEPOT LANE - PROJECT TITLE: HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: BROOKHAVEN START TIME EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TOTAL Cum. U-TuRN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TuRN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT Tmu RIGHT RTOR TOTAL HouRLY pw '. '%;Ekn 0w e,O-.0 .�vw 0�o k aO:krU �' > ,.{�_ ,� k �g�i '..aOt i, ns�! I . .'.i�1+�?eA�%eQx.'14=.�,.k :i'�� �v Ok .k + A 1a 1:.,,.ae.� Uk ., arc .�z..9a x ,Wf`i`.nu-,.�'0. .ros.. r0 h"2-oa.1,�'S� �i-Y•N18 ,IBD Y. 5:00 PH 0 3 0 1 0 4� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 0 0 19 0 0 12 1 0 13 36 154 5:15 PH 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 16 3 0 19 35 136 5:30 PH 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 23 0 0 24 0 0 22 2 0 24 51 153 5:45 PH 0 4 0 z 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 IB 0 0 20 0 0 18 2 0 20 1 46 It168 PEAK HOUR: 4:00- 0 21 0 8 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 67 0 0 69 0 0 - 73 9 0 82 ISO 1 5:00 PH I PHIF 0.73 DEPOT LANE 82 1 1 89 9 73 SCHOOL HOUSE ROAD I 21 29 —, 8 1 j 2 67 N BI F 69 PEAK HOUR: 4:00-5:00 PM - DEPOT LANE W aakday PM.IdR r TURNING MOVEMENT DATA ,. NELSON 6 POPE INTERSECTION: MIDDLE ROAD (CR 48) ! DEPOT LANE PROJECT TITLE: HEIIITACeF,„P I Ci, :HDS+U DATE COLLECTED: 10/24/07 WEDNESDAY JURISDICTION: B I 40OKWA. EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NOR XBOUND SDUTNBOUND TOTAL CUM. START TIME HOURLY U•TURN LEFT TXRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT TNRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT TXRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U• TNRU "RIGHT RTOR TOTAL 4:00 PM 0 5 120 9 0 134 0 13 148 2 0 163 0 12 4 10 0 26 0�,1 fi 1 2 0 3 326 4:15 PM 0� 3 124 6 0 133 0 2.n 130 0 0 132 0 8 2 15 0 25 r O Y I I 1 0 3 29S 1101 lo n „ , . I� 1269 f0 �ti I;}f4No 1275 d' 3a 4# a 5:30 PM 0 6 114 8 0 128 0 7 1070 0 114 0 9 4 V 9 0 22 ` "0,fi 0 0 O 0 264 1257 ;4 0 13 99 2 0 11 8 0 I III PEAR HOUR:4:30- 0 15 543 32 0 590 0 31 571 2 0 604 0 44 11 39 0 94 0 (, 5 II 0 IB 1306 5:30 PM t: 0.97 PHF 0 DEPOT LANE 18 1 l 28 11 5 2 4-1 MIDDLE ROAD (CR 48) J o 2 626 571 604 15 590 543 1 31 .y�. 564 32 0 n. I , 44 II 39 N 69 �s ,. PEAK HOUR:4:30-5:30 PM 94 � DEPOT LANE I iW v � !' T! i . .vIOVRMENT DATA NIA � POPE INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) @ CROWN LAND ROAD PROJECT TITLE: HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/27/07 SATURDAY JURISDICTION: BROOKHAVEN START TIME EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TOTAL Cum. U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL HOURLY 11:00 AM 0 2 84 0 0 86 0 0 117 0 0 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 5 208 11:15 AM 0 0 112 0 0 112 0 0 108 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 222 11:30 AM 0 1 128 0 0 129 0 0 115 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 244 11.45 AM 0 2 110 0 0 112 0 0 118 0 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 232 906 X70£,'.iJ'z'm 0 '1 ¢a� x.. nr,0 e r '!}� �., ya y r +'3 + t+s., wv< .agc„a z.3 §l'la."r°i., � 940 D 5 0 3 vr��sOr °'0�« 4`"p°' .;, 0�� 4 965 0 0 I ,, 0 Ap F ' ,Sw 0^ F956 1),za03+ a�01t'rrSx133,:.. +.xa }N'�k�Q,A;. . 12b:3i'S*m xntiFuwSaO tl'�0 '+ f4°r3Q tai' vO,NVQ..iii.,'`,i0v'�.L+,.SS'... :.. Q,n��'r T, r•'a�;' ,OJ,.� �3:.�..., ..P, F`.a .Zi66 1:00 PM 0 1 120 0 0 121 0 0 101 2 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 226 974 1:15 PM 0 3 134 0 0 137 0 0 79 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 217 944 1:30 PM 0 1 120 0 0 121 0 0 92 1 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 216 925 0 1 116 0 0 117 0 0 121 1 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 243 902 PEAK HOUR: 12:00- 0 4 478 0 0 482 0 0 493 4 0 497 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 11 990 1:00 PM PHF 0.93 CROWN LAND ROAD T 8 { 9 2 L+ MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 4 r 1"' 502 ~ 493 497 4 482 478 480 i. N PEAK HOUR: 12:00-1:00 PM i SBturdayAs C-1 C= C-'7 TURNING MOVEMENT DATA NELSON 6 POPE 11 INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) Q HIGHLAND ROAD PROJECT TITLE: HErRITAGE.. C CHOGUE JURISDICTION: DATE COLLECTED: 10/27/07 SATURDAY B 'OOKWA r START Time EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND 1 SOUTHBOUND TOTAL CUM. U•TuRN LEFT TNRu RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRu RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-T., � THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL HOURLY „8 11:00 AM 0 0 69 0 0 69 0 0 88 2 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 164 11:15 AM 0 5 112 0 0 117 0 0 108 3 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 2 0 1 0 3 231 11:30 AM 0 3 III 0 0 114 0 0 IIB 1 0 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 `-0 `�' . - 0 2 0 6 239 11:45 AM 0 1 103 0 0 104 0 0 109 5 0 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;' 5 0 2 0 7 225 859 12:00 PM 0 2 99 0 0 101 0 0 115 5 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 `D'-'"' 1 0 2 0 3 224 919 12:15 PM 0 4 93 0 0 97 0 0 90 1 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' ..'s 3 0 3 0 6 194 882 12.30PM 0 0 96 0 0 96 0 0 109 7 0 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 216 859 E Py r..aa 4a 896 887 4 90k23 M 5 916 0 0 137 0 0 137 0 0 113 2 0 0 0 PennIH45 PM2 :45- 0 4 503 0 0 507 0 0 401 7 0 408 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1;` 0 0 0 8 923 0.8 PHF HIGHLAND ROAD t tT') 1 � e � 1 II 0 8 MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) L a - 7 § 401 401 i, 408 4 dot 507 503 511; ( [PEAK HOUR: 12:45-1:45 PM 'tf .r: .,IOVEMENT DATA NE. 1POPE INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 0 GRIFFIN STREET PROJECT TITLE: HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/27/07 SATURDAY JURISDICTION: BROOKHAVEN START TIME EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TOTAL CUM. U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TuRN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL HOURLY 11:00 AM 0 6 78 0 0 84 0 0 100 22 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 16 0 29 235 I 11:15 AM 0 10 123 0 0 133 0 0 108 25 0 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 0 30 296 11:30 AM 0 8 117 0 0 125 0 0 105 12 0 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 11 0 25 267 11:45 AM 0 10 99 0 0 109 0 0 120 19 0 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 10 0 23 271 1069 .c m.�. yrmwl6;r<'+ f r- a' d M c . .T an xuES .yro"t a03.rk p f i;9. x ,RDx. ' 'S";f.°u pj�n n 16 rki" ar`k` �hBE}} 1132 ,,rL3 y, d 'S' 0t '.v,119. , bw v D:. ttr122 d." Ov +yyz 149 0�r as 7 ., Q 0 ., 'H5o � }Jllq 4'r+ d '�20�s�a, a 1105 1 0 § �23 049O ' OI�` R,., w { ,,,. Q�r'1) 3 !`}Jg"Oti ;"bY ,. 1126 753 . 0��wd:9^,w ri"108dv.Y'#9 ePi'i'r''0"Fait''xi1S'�:iN ,0,}„�>' rxP.;. :,r� 0,'."5r-. 0:>i sCd !;r 't,,.0.>'�ri* 13R.r.,.r prr�-t 12:.: .D r'0 ve;fr•2.5 s2`/v7.,::. 4 1:00 PM 0 6 123 0 0 129 0 0 89 4 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 6 0 15 237 1071 _ 1:15 PM 0 IB 137 0 0 I55 0 0 82 4 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 0 17 258 1060 1:30 PM 0 4 131 0 0 135 0 0 117 14 0 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 0 12 278 1050 :45 PM 0 5 113 0 0 118 0 0 115 16 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 10 259 1032 PEAK HOUR: 12:00- 0 28 456 0 0 484 0 0 463 84 0 547 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 49 0 101 1132 1:00 PM PHF 0.95 GRIFFIN STREET 101 1 1{ 112 149 52 L4 MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 1 84 �I 512 463 547 28 JJJ 1; ii 484 456 508 n N PEAK HOUR: 12:00-1:00 PM Saturdayxls TURNXNG MOVEMENT DATA 1 NELSON 6 POPE INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) @ NORTH STREET PROJECT TITLE: HERITAGE .r CtFCHOOUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/27/07 SATURDAY JURISDICTION: BROOKHAV ii K EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND 'di SOOTXBOUND TOTAL OURL m. START TIME HOURLY U-TURN LEFT TMRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT TNRU Rlaxr RTOR Tout U•TURX LEFT TNRU Rloxr RTOR Tos7Al L-T, L ti TxaU RIGHT RTOR Toiu 11:00 AM 0 2 91 0 0 93 0 0 132 0 0 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0':`r 0 2 0 2 227 11:15 AM 0 1 128 0 0 129 0 0 127 2 0 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 1 0 1 259 11:30 AM 0 0 134 0 0 134 0 0 119 1 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+ 0 1 0 4 258 II.45 AM 0 I 1124 > 0} 0 125 0 0 133 2 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'1` 0 1 0 r 1 Y 261 1005 PA. ra*' 9Gb,.e `36` E'- •..,..s ,�,a kv .+' p a Ot,: r I,— '. k1 "}p"°,Ni'iilh ir 1035 ty A' '., 1�'^"$vyps�FF, +��i tx ��.�0tu r3"� 'i'= ss$+y � f..frk r°txq � •rt-j4{2i0� �I5�.1}...,�.'a�7,$ h;� tM �s' t* t •' 1033 fiu+; „0 £� 4,r.?,vw�5.:, ,' .p:: O�r f2{ ',5ga�f�! 'A .{. 0 +�,i 0""l.r �„j •,0id'±V� 4x.., iy'ir's`(�i � .r9�Ag ^� z',t y?" .',,.�.��9 '.'�ti,',s OEC ��aOdtJSf �'"0.{,•;s "'; k. f tl -1t9.'�,YO1060 c y8,*" OstiF r:1�6 Fi� 0 {�,Q � 12G ; t '�. 4 ls` A. t " .fia_,{3 �0 -0 <D,;.. _. "ted4i.. •. E'a92Yi sn;.,ts 7 np5: 2. P*'.v15 -� ',0'i. s 156:Fx ,�. x :1a �'.tA'`r ° " °"�Il: b 1.„.,,,{ ,! t x xi r. 1:00 PM 0 1 133 0 0 134 0 0 109 2 0 III 0 0 0 0 0 0 OP: t 11 0 I 0 2 247 1097 1:15 PM 0 3 150 0 0 153 0 0 87 1 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ui,. 0 0 0 0 241 1081 1:30 PH 0 II 135 0 0 146 0 0 135 1 0 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. , 0 1 0 2 284 1080 I 0 0 I 0 123 0 0 0 0 0' .'' 0 00 0 245 1017 1145 PM 0 PEAK HOUR: 12:00- 1i 0 3 529 0 0 $32 0 0 664 1 0 565 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r' 0 6 0 10 1107 1:00 PM PHF ,(y 0.90 El NORTH STREET 10 1 1 4 6 4 MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 1� �— 570 1 564 565 3 J 532 529 553 .0 yl i, PEAK HOUR: 12:00-1:00 PM I.r L .MOVHMENT DATA t � —N 7� POPE INTERSECTION: MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) 0 DEPOT LANE PROJECT TITLE: HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/27/07 SATURDAY JURISDICTION: BROOKHAVEN START TIME EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TOTAL CUM. U-TURN LEFT THNV RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT. TNRu RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT TRRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL HOURLY i 11:00 AM 0 13 90 0 0 103 0 0 125 6 0 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 12 0 is 252 11:15 AM 0 7 III 0 0 118 0 0 140 14 0 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 15 0 22 294 11:30 AM 0 10 120 0 0 138 0 0 121 6 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 0 9 274 11A5 AM 0 8 109 0 0 117 0 0 137 10 0 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 17 0 21 285 1105 ""7:H.� M1 1�,egdvyvd�2S ,��"Q^` Ok'yew."1,3,i"r' °D0 �Bb �OIMP.,45 .: '� O'Y,'ifi': ' $6 ?W'n.Otp7rriOL�,fi.w �{ 9y.OHee1j' Mct r.�q Fd 4y,t X21� w x�7 , s'2d'Wrr`31�'• II70 '.I,. 1 Iat ' U , rot'3'',$I. Y.r ' �` •' 'u0 r4Q,�� Fr'�rci �`�. R 7n tw (f . t s <rtrp0 . 7�9 IIB4 x + -,:fns+ (,0�:' s3 .. r'r4' 1241 n1 - 0 axal$., } 600 PM 0 15 127 0 0 142 0 0 96 7 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0o- X13 0 20 1 �65 �I 25 1:15 PM 0 12 136 0 0 148 0 0 87 6 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 16 257 1174 ( I:SO PM 0 4 69 0 0 73 0 0 77 4 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 0 10 164 1007 I: M 0 6 136 D 0 142 0 0 128 6 0 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 0 17 293 979 PEAK HOUR: 12:00- 0 42 509 0 0 551 0 0 551 45 0 596 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 79 0 130 1277 1:00 PM PHF 0.96 DEPOT LANE 130 1 87 79 51 i /--i L4 MAIN ROAD (NYS 25) L 45 i ' 630 42 551 596 ���111 551 509 560 i ; 1 , N PEAK HOUR: 12:00-1:00 PM i 1 SeturdayAs C_:� E_.; (:� L._i [�7 C� � ±✓7 C� C.� C_7 u '�J t� ` � Lu u Lam., I TG MOVEMENT DATA NELSON A POPE TURNING `7� INTERSECTION: SCHOOL HOUSE ROAD @ DEPOT LANE PROJECT TITLE: HERITAGE' �ct rCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/27/07 SATURDAY JURISDICTION: B OOKHAI>: START Tim EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND .I SOUTHBOUND TOTAL CUM. U-TURN LEFT TIN GRIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRO RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THOU RIGHT RTOR T AL ULT LIFT THIN RIGHT RTOR TOTAL HOURLY 11:00 AM 0 9 0 4 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 15 0 0 it 0 19 5 0 24 53 11:15 AM 0 6 0 7 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 19 11 7it ;;44 14 II 0 25 57 11:30 AM 0 8 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 IS 0 0 -1`6 "6I 7` 6 0 13' - 38 11:45 AM 0 7 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 19 0 q 0 21 .$0 17 6 0 23Cd� S��S 201 p Y 100 $;A ifP1 L } W. . Y y+4 A • t•5 yY B"`� fI l �a 204 ° R} r;P'QUa 4 Pkt A $ V0 s 9P' 4 0 .« tOf a 4 - rs ti WW '7'4 w 207 Lz� f„in^ 4 - u r 53 . } G P�:. ?0> 3d0�':•s I i .O i ,� yc Y'�P 4ROn „l w aa0 .,.. `,•"mow, 2�,dr..:Y6 ,O.a .x'32. i 100 PM 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 26 0 �t 19 5 0 24 54 266 ti# ITIS PM 0 6 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 14 0 17 5 0 22 43 249 1:So PM 0 8 0 4 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IB 0 0 18 0 'r - 17 I 0 IB 48 213 : 5 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 { 2 0 33 7B j PEAK HOUR: 12:00- 0 25 0 16 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 81 0 0 B4 01 rD 116 27 0 143 26B 1:00 PM PHI! 0.80 5 DEPOT LANE 143 1 1 106 27 116 a -- SCHOOL HOUSE ROAD 1"' 30 h 25 41 16 4-1 T �r 3 81 N 132 1 84 � PEAK HOUR: 12:00-1:00 PM DEPOT ,1 T( .—MOVEMENTDATA NE 1� POPE INTERSECTION: MIDDLE ROAD (CR 48) @ DEPOT LANE PROJECT TITLE: HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE DATE COLLECTED: 10/27/07 SATURDAY JURISDICTION: 13ROOKHAVEN START TIME EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TOTAL CUM. I U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL U-TURN LEFT THRU RIGHT RTOR TOTAL HOURLY 11:00 AM 0 2 109 14 0 125 0 13 87 1 0 101 0 9 2 II 0 22 0 0 1 0 0 1 249 11:15 AM 0 4 94 14 0 112 0 12 98 0 0 110 0 9 3 17 0 29 0 1 1 1 0 3 254 11:30 AM 0 3 88 8 0 99 0 12 110 2 0 124 0 10 3 14 0 27 0 0 3 3 0 6 256 11:45 AM 0 3 131 6 0 140 0 7 135 2 0 144 0 2 3 14 0 19 0 0 1 2 0 3 306 1065 p M. ��'" ri 97y... 112� 7rr e�(051 jud.`�16b 5 ' i ry's; x,w ,. 7E;, ..r eh' ?," +�w,;`�O7a�vm�t y ;7x irk'TW�F`S` x^ t�"/,'`L °� c IYlk , 1163 t ,fit '. tOr4_ � 1209 SRI Y�,r� ,�t 4 _ a {"1Is �r,�2s �«rkt4f`` �� $9 ,IN 1253 i:oO PM 0 ,.11, .,-' 261: 13 . «'� 144 ,_p,. 19 k 29 WM 419W, -14"48 #p" x. 919 Bs� ° 10 '�.�.0"1.. W PVXI Owl v�Of 'r,�Z��r a.�'�!„D.. ,.�:7 �.�'"33'p`7 C4'12r5;e}; 73 0 4 323 1254 1:15 PM 0 2 98 7 0 107 0 B 103 2 0 113 0 17 4 12 0 33 0 0 1 1 0 2 255 1209 1:30 PH 0 2 96 5 0 103 0 11 100 1 0 112 0 9 0 IS 0 24 0 1 1 3 0 5 244 1153 1:45 PH 0 0 87 15 0 102 0 3 33 0 0 36 0 4 3 2 0 9 0 0 1 1 0 2 149 971 PEAK HOUR: 12:00- 0 26 467 77 0 570 0 69 506 3 0 578 0 27 21 54 0 102 0 7 12 9 0 28 1278 1:00 PM PHF 0.92 DEPOT LANE 28 r 1. 50 9 12 7 z 1 L4 MIDDLE ROAD (CR 48) o J L 3 542 �"— 506 578 26 69 570 467 i 528 77 � � p 1 r+ 27 21 54 N Ise i { 158 102 PEAK HOUR: 12:00-1:00.PM I 1 ! DEPOT LANE Salurdayxls :1N3W30V1d 001100321 :2110'1S Z lOZl9 :31V01Nf100 6400L0 :NG O'lomnoS'V'1213 O Ol 3MOHOlf1O 3AV H o.4:j� nVV S! N NOW SZ 12! NO SZ 31b'JNIaf10AJ % 4 8 ' - 0803 %L9 Sl9 %V8B S£4 8 86S9Ll a .. t101OVd AVO NnOH IH Ab0 UH IH 031Nf100 031N(100 1Nf100 AVM L lOVV 031VW0.S3 * IVNOSVBS 03tlolOV.4% 03dolovi DAV% DAV SAVO S8H 198013Vd ATPMOSV3S t 9609 Z9 L6 99L VLZ 6££ 96C HE 9L4 48£ 409 w, 94£ MSez OOZ 80L OC 6 L 6 CL 6Z lOV 1496• OLL21013/d) 2inOH AVCX33M DAV (S3101H3A) 03NOj3Vd - 31XV BEE9 S8 ZOL 99G 6 t, ZEZ LBZ 992 9L9 2L4 Oct Z04 EZ9 Lt4 Z9E LCC OOC DLZ fLL LC 6 L 8 9L DE lov (NOONZL 121d nUH1 M9 NOW) 21nOH AVON33M 3Jtl213Atl 09L 96L 94Z 29Z 68L 6ZZ 4CZ LBL ESL On L9 Z£ ZL 4 E 4 C CL z 4 Lz Et 094 CL 8Z BBBb 8L HZ 99 w L6; 99" E8L 8LC set oat LE9 LL4 094 ZN 06t Zile 86Z CLZ 9LL SC EL 9 OL Z E 8L eL OBa sLL9 OR 66L 69L 4}i�; 92Z ZOE LLV Z84 069 Z94 9C9 Let 9L4 99£ L9t ZBZ M m SC 8 9 LL ZZ Lt Z i SZ A Eos ZaZ9 LL LZL LO 9 L• BCZ an 944 849 ZU 864 694 069 t04 LL4 082 ate Z9Z Zu 4S LL OL 9Z 6Z C9 z L aZ Z L EZ BC 009 We U 99L L4 E • 84t BZ4 894 9L9 099 us set BLV Z84 a" Zee E9Z SLL 99 8Z 9L LL 99 89 m 9 LZ CL 099 Uft OU tot V6 '9 's• Z9t 944 969 499 9LS 6L9 884 089 849 609 Oto 84t 40Z LLG LE 8L LL ZZ 99 98 Z 9L L19 84EL VLL LtZ 6Z 98yff, 9LC 904 9C9 LL9 LL9 EZ9 099 908 909 944 4Z9 Zee 94Z Z" L4 LG 6 OL LL t4 z 4 OZ 99 m 4Z sfi� 92Z Zee LE9 LL9 609 Zee 4Z9 BLV 9LS Z92 V M OW NOOH 1Nnoo W101 f Wd IH LH AVO LL LL OL tt' 6i .' 9 L 9 S b E Z L Zl LL OL 8 8 L 9 S b E viv Z 0 0 AO L 01 01 oil 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 OL 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 L 9 S b E Z l ZL LL OL 8 8 L 9 S 4 E Z l ZL :VIVO IVN uWGOV 1Nnoo nni SZ 12l 9M :S31ON L69C :#1VIS3S 2!3 0 21 :21NW 30N 213 r21 1N3W30V1d 213 0 210 0 3'1 SZ U),d0>133M Z lOZl9 31tlO lN(100 a 2138 f1N F119 2138W(1N SWdH 90 SStll0lVN0Il0Nn:i 04 dbV 21010Vd L '2110 1"3(23:1 OlOH1flOS y� 01 01OHl(10S V l 213HOf11 :Ol 3nC)OHoino 3AV MlOzwm N NNOW N011035 �Oddf1S 1(J.Nfl�YO 6 SHN 0664L40 1NIOd3IIW SZ 121 :3WVN OtlOH $Z 31U ON121f101'19 i ltl Od3i1 Alb(lOH 1Nf100 IV103dS ONtl 3`Jtl2L3A00 61P00L0 N011b'1Sl02i o•a re•E NOIStl3A'WDd uopeyodsueLl jo luewyeda0 aLeLg )110), maN New York State Department of Transportation PGM.VERSION 4.0 RCISTATION 070049 COVERAGE AND SPECIAL COUNT HOURLY REPORT i =! ST.TOURING RTE: 25 ROAD NAME: RT 25 MILEPOINT 041.5990 NHS 9 COUNTY: SUFFOLK SECTION FROM: N SUFFOLK AVE CUTCHOGUE To: TUCKER LA SOUTHOLD TOWN: SOUTHOLD FEDERAL DIR. 3 FACTOR GRP 40 FUNCTIONAL CLASS 96 HPMS NUMBER: BIN NUMBER: COUNT DATE: 6120/2 WEEK OF YR 25 RECORDER PLACEMENT: REFERENCE MKR: RECORDER SERIALM 3597 NOTES: EB RT 25 TUBE COUNT ADDITIONAL DATA: 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 10 11 12 1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO ,TO TO TO TO TO TO DY D D 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 DAY HI Hl MO W R AM PM - TOTAL COUNT HOUR 20 4 1 492 647 680 533 519 543 522 436 366 292 270 216 166 75 21 5 1 58 16 6 10 7 59 178 337 482 439 550 631 738 674 483 639 626 626 434 436 355 266 182 137 8368 738 13 22 6 1 94 38 18 10 18 49 161 264 394 486 622 692 684 643 622 737 514 631 481 387 351 309 188 127 8390 737 16 23 7 1 81 41 28 22 12 31 131 157 258 418 530 607 661 579 576 483 460 424 286 240 211 182 115 74 6597 861 13 24 1 1 54 25 9 5 16 55. 179 300 418 418 527 600 627 508 491 488 480 436 383 264 241 196 117 66 6603 827 13 25 2 1 39 17 7 7 12 45 184 325 441 475 531 603 631 565 528 $05 526 462 362 290 261 213 132 61 7211 831 13 26 3 1 36 19 10 10 20 62 183 315 438 457 539 524 584 616 568 610 602 449 485 288 319 273 249 109 7765 616 14 i 27 4 1 58 33 17 16 14 80 314 507 644 738 688 800 860 876. 775 773 847 810 i } AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOUR (MON SAM THRU FRI 12 NOON) ADT 48 21 10 11 13 62 208 357 485 505 655 601 656 620 576 584 595 519 399 284 270 225 166 78 7848 AXLE - FACTORED (VEHICLES) AVG WEEKDAY HOUR (FACTOR USED=0.954) ADT 46 20 10 10 12 59 198 341 463 482 529 573 626 591 550 567 568 495 381 271 258 215 158 74 7487 SEASONALLY FACTORED HRS DAYS AVG %AVG FACTORED %FACTORED SEASONAL ESTIMATED AADT { COUNTED COUNTED HIHR DAY HI HOUR DAY FACTOR 1•WAYCOUNT 176 8 656 8.4% 626 8.4% 1.108 1 6757 ST.TOURING RTE 25 ON RT 25 FROM N SUFFOLK AVE CUTCHOGUE TO TUCKER LA SOUTHOLD STATION: 070049 COUNT DATE: 6120/2 ST.DIR: 1 RECORDER PLACEMENT: C :I r u .J C_; 7 L I u - I " I Ij I I — STATION: 071116 New York State Departmentof Transportation Page s o12 Traffic Count Hourly Report CR 48- 11 EB ROAD 0: 0480 ROAD NAME:CR 48 FROM:DEPOT LANE TO: PE;ONIG, COUNTY: ., Suffolk DIRECTION: Eastbound FACTOR GROUP: 40 REC.SERIAL#.1002 FLING.C.r . 02 TOWN: SOUTHOLD STATE OIR CODE:6 WK OF YR: 30 PLACEMENT: NHS:ya4BIN: DATE OF COUNT:07/23/2004 @ REF MARKER: JURIS:CC;,tllntyr RR CROSSING: NOTES LANE 0' 000000111$30 ADDL DATA: CC Sin: -_ x HPMS SAMPLE: COUNT TYPE:AXLE PAIRS BATCH 113iiD0 '•r10sw$4b COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS:-- - PROCESSED BY: ORO CODE:DOT INITIALS f' 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 L8 9 10 11 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO T4, 'O TO TO TO DAILY DAILY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1- 2 3 4 5 6 7 &. 9 10 11 12 . DAILY HIGH HIGH . . . .... _..._. .. .... . .._. TOTAL COUNT HOUR DATE a I T 2 F 3 S 4 S 5 M 6 T 7 W 8 T 9 F 10 S 11 S 12 M 13 T 14 W 15 T 16 F 17 S 18 S gryat .. 19 M 20 T 7, 21 W 3 22 T 23 F 767 722 726 720 769 826 769r 6 424 3,68 311 164 24 S 59 46 19 16 21 91 274 404. 490 614 634 780 759 743 726 711 629 . 645 46 'r 2 288 237 169 118 9208 780 11 25 S 79 29 26 -8 -18 67 200 256 313 419 662 646 730 691 807 854 589 4911 4 'S 1+41 '205 117 76 80351 854 15 26 M 37 14 10 7 17 72 366 587 614 545 565 634 590 606 603 596 630 6021 462 0 ,264 1205 114 72 8573 634 11 27 T 33 11 14 4 10 .66 344 603 524 539 552 537 647 673 620 610 683 637 467 - 12 295 184 137 62 8354 .683 16 28 W 37 17 11 7 10 60 312 521 591 538 448 539 536 517 670 546 671D 616 614 9 27,3 328 132 78 8117 '670 16 29 T 25 26 11 9 Z7 S5 361 555 661 620 653 627 667 116 660 670 726 694, 549 7 369 258 217 98 9739 726 16 30 F 43 20 15 13 30 77 391 604 6$0 656 724 714 756 721 849 805 849 786, 888 2 473 432 318 220 11404 849 14 31 S 105 46 23 26 25 83 251 511 634 715 791 892 974 j AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS(Axle Factored,Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT 34 18 13 8 19 71 348 567 620 $72 684 628 677 $94 580 598 668 629 407 6 296 216 148 76 8717 AVERAGE WEEKDAY ,. AxleAdj. Season "} a. ESTIMATED DAYS HOURS WEEKDAYS WEEKDAY _. tt.y ..__...__.._..�_i Counted Coonled CCouated ours High Hour %of day Factor r D 9 194 5 103 677 8% 0.987 L• -. _ 7204 — _ . i _. _. . R 0480 ROAONAME. CR 48 PROM:DEPOT 70': PECONICLNE' COUN y4 Suffolk S1 071116 STATE DIR CODE:6 PLAC UA7E O 07/23/2004 0711165 New York StatQ lrfinent of Transportatian — -- — P"2 of Traffic count Hourly Report CR 48- 11 WB ROAD 9: 0480 ROAD NAME: CR 48 FROM:DEPOT LANE TO: PECONIC LANE COUNTY: Suffolk DIRECTION: Westbound FACTOR GROUP: 40 REC.SERIAL*, 1003 FUNC,CLASS:02 TOWN: SOUTHOLD STATE OIR CODE:7 WK OF YR: 30 PLACEMENT: NMS;yes BIN: DATE.OF COUNT:07/2312004 @ REF MARKER: JURIS:County RR CROSSING: NOTES LANE 0:000000111670 ADDL DATA: CC Stn: HPMS SAMPLE: COUNT TYPE:AXLE PAIRS BATCH ID;DOT-r1Osw34b COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE:DOT INITIALS:--- PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: 12 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO DAILY DAILY 1 2 3 4 5 Q 1 .. 2. 3.. g 5_.. 6 7.. _ 8 _ _ 9__. 10 T1__ ., 12„,_ DAILY HIGH HIGH D ,.....-•--- +._�M_ ._. .. .._ __. . PM ......]TOTAL .,COUNT HOUR _ I T 2 F 3 S 4 S 5 M 6 T 7 W 8 T 9 F 10 S 1t S 12 M 13 T 14 W 15 T ii(( 16 P 17 S 18 S 19 M 20 T 21 W 22 T 23 F 674 606 605 672 726 736 643 �0 387 360 266 277 144 24 S 62 39 22 21 21 66 168 285 37$ 666 618 736 715 657 $18 705 561 493 609 370 354 323 272 149 8668 736 11 25 S 01 39 21 21 16 46 89: 172 314 471 809 676 743 774 882 810 751 586 848 619 612 424 319 136 10065 882 f4 26 M 46 8 8 24 62 132 339 480 658 596 630 638 670 608 650 739 749 696 686 380 '346 206 103 73 9364 749 15 27 T 41 16 11 16 28 102 298 $10 626 684 691 $55 611 626 603 582 763 566 474 324 296 162 117 57 8661 763 16 28 W 38 19 7 IS 28 78 279 423 678 566 661 568 871 556 626 625 649 624 488 266 293 166 124 77 8216 649 16 29 T 40 12 18 18 26 122 297 458 839 693 655 534 600 620 669 738 776 645 546 393 432 247 170 108 9252 776 16 r 30 F 41 28 36 24 41 108 300 464 668 803 $97 649 681 628 645 789 756 636 608 417 391 303 230 130 9653 769 15 j 31 S 81 49 39 29 30 70 134 261 405 679 . 629 754 732 AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS(Axle Factored, Mon SAM to Fri Noon) ADT 39 19 18 18 31 101 299 461 606 580 579 695 605 594 629 687 724 600 511 337 338 192 142 76 8783 I DAYS HOURS WEEKDAYS WEEKDAY _.... -_AVFRAOE.WEEKDAY Axle Adj. SeasonallWeekday, ESTIMATED Counted rgamw Counted Mum High Hour %of day Factor Adlustment Factor 9 194 5 103 734 9°h 0.9$7 1.219 AADT _ 7259 .._.....__ ROAD A 0480 ROAD NAME: CR 48 FROM:DEPOT LANE TO: PECONIC LANE COUNTY: Suffolk STATION: 071116 STATE OIR CODE;7 PLACEMENT: DATE OF COUNT: 07/2312004 LLLJ �# 'e r. I � HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES NYS ROUTE 25(MAIN ROAD)WEST OF DEPOT LANE Wednesday,October 24,2007-Tuesday,October 30,2007 Tial& Wedo a Odeber 342007 The,ed Od0ber 353001 Frid Od06a3 2007 Saw Oeroba 373007 Sonde October 283 . Mone Oelober 292009r17 HS IM WB HH TOT WH HH TOT WH 673 TOT WH EH TOT WH EH Til WH HH TOT EH TI 12:00 AM 10 Itl 20 13 8 21 '_215 ]7 34 24 58 Sa 49 '` 1 "i2 8 20q q 7i:W AM 11 10 31 IY 10 24 IS 8 2] lU 14 74 39 i2 D1L 9 6 IS 14 7 0 7 16 9 14 23 18 12 30 If 207�1y2:00 AM to I1 21 I7 2b 43 26 1 2i12 37:00 AM 17 39 16 14 22 76 10 28 78 71 37 fit 72 •! it 59 107 166 101 1 4:00 AM 52 105 157 62 115 177 44 106 150 40 39 7904 68 I "108279 447 720 1 5:00 AM 198 238 436 175 252 427 192 226 418 ]8 108 186 dlJ 774 787 7 6:00 AM 358 400 758 354 4116 760 393 420 803 189 ion 397 152 123 1 761 � 7:00 AM 442 SM 944 440 480 920 471 502 973 279 400 678 244 2$1 4 '•'452 1,. 485 937 405 490 e 8:00 AM 4Y7 456 903 417 439 956 3% 477 873 •121 585 1006 370 388 7 4399 ' 469. 868 361 490 8 9:00 AM 437 149 882 417 464 881 491 477 %8 513 407 1010 411 ISS 414 454 868 405 463 R 10:00AM 431 447 928 429 469 898 483 492 975 552 568 1120 499 517 1 461 465 926 438 461 8 II:OOAM 445 408 943 446 452 998 474 525 999 586 6'_7 1213 bW did 118{ 464 507 971 469 488 9 12:00 PM 141 L^] %8 464 501 965 495 401 986 637 421 1058 570 633 II R. 456 443 899 425 455 94 8 ?81 568 1T,4� 532 489 1020 532 453 9 10 PM 462 465 927 492 481 977 604 515 1119 39d 517 IIII 59.1 1 522 614 IV 550 619 1169 561 2A0 PM 512 566 1078 526 615 1141 .581 705 1286 S3R b% 1034 3100 PM 547 544 1091 578 515 1093 593 $56 1149 $19 486 1005 491 64b 1177 537 558 1093 }92 528 1 1;00 PM 495 45E 957 570 450 980 59l 479 1076 472 425 857 336 521 A59 S 497 457 949 53] d7F 0 I }q8 207 685 373 3.15 S..00 PM 420 740 760 399 349 748 423 357 775 366 367 777 21i? JS9 6',14 6:00 PM 252 229 481 297 264 56i 738 265 603 285 309 594 .'.IP 262 461L5 207 237 534 293 bll 7:00 PM 216 127 743 214 167 381 JUS i93 501 24R 241 492 178 151 ?2,Q 199 IJS 373 I% 121 B;00 PM 210 W 704 207 103 310 2.52 Is' 404 240 221 461 127 100 T41 I7fl 120 298 173 107 9:00 PM 119 56 174 138 63 201 309 108 717 198 134 772 RR 56 1�4 110 64 174 104 54 10:00 PM 63 44 107 Stl ld 92 133 78 211 123 92 215 12 7q 49 JJ 82 46 )8. to7pm- I4 20 19 39 IR 57 5/ 31 85 83 55 138 33 16 r 22 16 38 00 619 677 1J 393 6732 6 684 1J d16 7 577 7 313 1 793 7 6883 13 OS 6079 6 550 —4189 S9 6 671 6 651 1J 28 555 6 7 17 7. 5 ? JYIyvTh ry HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 'I DEPOT LANE NORTH OF NYS ROUTE 25(MAIN ROAD) Wednesday,October 24,2007-Tuesday,October 30,2007 Tum Wedond 0dober U.2007 Thm October 25.3007 Frid October 2007 aetord October 27 2007 So9d8 OUebm 2d 2007 Monde October 29 2007 Touda ,October 70 200 BEGIN 8H NH TOT 8H NH TOT SB NB TOT 8B NB TOT TOT SB NH SB NB TOT an NB T 12:00 AM 3 1 4 1 5 6 3 7 10 6 12 IB 17 21 38 5 4 9 4 1 1:00 AM 2 1 J 1 0 2 3 3 6 5 9 14 26 19 45 1 1 2 5 yyy Y00 AM 3 1 4 3 4 7 0 2 2 7 10 17 7 7 14 1 1 2 0 0 3:00 AM ? 2 5 3 3 4 1 1 3- t 6 9 4 3 7 0 1 3 0 { 4:00 AM 4 5 9 3 3 6 4 5 9 8 10 19 6 .1 5:00 AM 12 10 22 19 12 31 9 14 23 9 11 20 6 7 13 16 10 26 14 9 6:00 AM 41 40 81 51 '2N 79 4360 103 27 76 49 17 YO 47 31 ?8 69 75 71 7:00 AM 96 74 170 73 73 146 91 102 193 51 56 107 43 88 131 92 75 167 88 72 1 8:00 AM 108 100 208 103 81 183 101 112 213 70 Ili 181 114 103 217 101 87 I88 94 78 I 9:00 AM 86 T 158 77 74 151 91 92 183 115 148 163 11 121 202 !83 74 164 77 58 I 10:00 AM 70 50 - 120 110 75 185 82 122 204 121 107 228 104 118 222 'm 52 151 80 62 1 11:00 AM 79 72 151 78 6.5 143 91 108 199 73 98 111 98 88 186 70 52 122 63 58 1 12:00 PM 67 60 127 61 69 121 122 IN.S 307 131 112 243 48. 114 212 97 87 184 77 61 1 1:00 PM 84 68 152 83 68 151 83 125 208 89 9b 185 92 94 186 79 72 151 68 63 1 2:00 PM 96 55 141 89 tib 157 82 114 196 84 87 171 79 87 166 81 $1 132 76 59 1 3:00 PM 96 75 171 71 86 157 104 155 259 80 97. 172 82 88 170 95 80 183 74 94 1 4:00 PM 83 79 162 78 136 214 97 149 246 67 119 186 71 54 125 84 78 162 87 94 1 5:w PM 78 82 160 79 126 205 107 147 254 62 95 157 61 .52 113 71 72 143 89 74 1 6:00 PM 69 59 127 83 121 204 62 196 258 so 74 162 49 39 88 56 60 116 73 66 1 7:00 PM 41 25 66 56 91 147 64 93 147 39 109 148 37 31 68 32 17 69 31 44 8:00 PM 22 17 39 34 39 73 ?N 48 86 39 65 104 16 11 29 35 20 55 27 19 9:00 PM 19 16 35 2.3 35 58 38 51 89 40 46 86 12 11 23 14 IS 29 16 13 10:00 PM 9 12 21 15 27 42 37 49 S6 31 36 67 10 11 21 17 12 29 16 7 I I:00 PM 8 6 14 3 2 5 I4 31 45 10 1 1 61 7 7 14 4 6 5 1 DAILY 7� TOTAL 1169 981 1 50 1196 _.WSJ 477 1,J67 1 61 7 29 1271 1 66 2,b37 1171 1,215 2,346 1,175 991 3166 1104 973 2, f1 4 A i i j i 1 I� i j oer0r4onoMr+a . J Chapter 6 Adjustment Factors 2006 NYSDOT Traffic Data Report Chapter 6 Adjustment-Factors Section 6.1 Seasonal (Monthly) Adjustment Factors Seasonal or monthly adjustment factors convert average daily traffic (ADT) to annual average daily traffic(AADT). The ADT is divided by the seasonal factor to obtain the AADT value. 1 The work week seasonal'factois are developed from NYSDOT continuous counter data collected J for a three year period. The,cantinuops counter,sites are grouped into three major Factor.Groups. Fffifi small- u`> _r vanations. Factor Gro 4 lugliways`lie between ese two extremes. Minor ac or.Groups surround each of themajor groups. The factor values associated withthese minor groups are + and—one standard`devia'lion+sm) of"the majo gr:6up's v'altte.' Monthly average daily traffic (MADT) values based on weekday data are developed for each month in each factor group. The factor values are computed by dividing the week day MADT by the AADT within each factor group. The factoring procedure does account for weekend traffic. _ Other daily (7 day) and weekend seasonal adjustment factors are available from the Traffic ` Monitoring Section by request. J The Full Week MADT is calculated by applying the "hour rule" to continuous count data For inclusion and computations,b the intervals must be complete, the data valid, and include both directions and all lanes. A determination is made whether there are sufficient counts for each interval to calculate an MADT using the"3 hour rule."The"3 hour rule"requires, for the month, L) at least 3 valid counts for each count interval of the 24 hours for each day of week. If there are not sufficient intervals to calculate an MADT using the "3 hour rule," the "2 hour rule ' is used which requires at least 2 valid counts for each count interval of the 24 hours for each day of the 7 week. Each hour interval for the entire month is averaged. The 24 hours is summed to get the Full Week MADT for the associated month. Work Week and Weekend MADTs are calculated in the same fashion except for the days and hourly intervals used. The "hour rule" used is reported to indicate the amount of data present for the particular month that was used in calculations. The total number of traffic monitoring sites in each factor group is adequate to achieve a precision of t10%with 95%confidence when applying these factors to adjust count volume data in accordance with TMG requirements. Refer to Figure 5 for the work week seasonal adjustment factors which are also available via the intemet on the NYSDOT web page specifiedon page 2. To calculate an AADT for a short term or coverage count using a Seasonal Adjustment Factor, refer to section 6.3,"Example of Estimation of AADT'. 39 Chapter 6 Adjustment Factors WORK WEEK (WEEK DAY) SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR 2007 TRAFFIC COUNT PROCESSING ( Based on 2004-2006 Continuous Count Site Data ) FACTOR GROUP JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 31 1.003 1.046 1.068 1.107 1.129 1.174 1.147 1.158 1.124 1.127 1.075 1.060 30 0,935 0.983 1.003 1,052 1.080 1.120 1.105 1.111 1.070 1.067 1.025 1.009 29 0.867 0.920 0.938 0.997 1.031 1.066 1.063 1.064 1.016 1.007 0,975 0.958 STD (4•/-) 0.068 0.063 0.065 0.055 0.049 0.054 0.042 0.047 0.054 0.060 0.050 0.051 41 0.875 0.948 0.949 1.029 1.118 1.193 1,339 1.310 1.138 1.071 0.992 0.967 40 0.797 0,855 0.870 0.945 1.041 1.111 1.226 1.206 1.057 1.004 0.926 0.895 39 0.719 0.762 0.791 0.861 0.954 1.029 1.113 1,102 0.976 0.937 0.860 0.823 $ STD (+/-) 0.078 0.093 0.079 0.084 0,077 0.082 0.113 0.104 0.081 0.067 0.066 0.072 61 0.727 0.772 0.810 0.904 1.066 1.297 1.748 1.658 1.132 0.941 0.847 0.773 60 0.650 0.687 0.713 0.786 0.972 1.177 1.617 1.542 1.065 0.886 0.765 0.706 59 0.573 0.602 0.616 0.668 0,878 1.057 1.486 1.426 0.998 0.831 0.683 0.639 STD (*I-) 0.077 0.085 0.097 0.118 0.094 0.120 0.131 0.116 0.067 0.055 0.082 0.067 0 o Figure 5 g H n d I v t i� 1'$ :F WEEKEND SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR 2007 TRAFFIC COUNT PRO4��SiNG ( Based on 2004-2006 Continuous Count Site Data ) j FACTOR OCT NOV DEC GROUP JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SFQ j, 31 0.858 0.879 0.930 0.949 1.005 1.015 1.007 0.984 O.Q06 0.969 0.930 0.919 30 0.779 0.806 0.863 0.877 0.923 0.938 0.913 0.898 0. 3 0.892 0.856 0.839 29 0.700 0.733 0.796 0.805 0.841 0.857 0.819 0.808 0,8 0 1� 0.815 0.782 0.759 STD (+/.) 0.079 0.073 0.067 0.072 0.082 0.079 0.094 0.088 03 i 0.077 0.074 0,080 41 0.867 0.952 0.956 0.977 1.099 1.151 1.319 1.305 1., 6 1.069 0.994 0.883 40 0.756 0.822 0.863 0.906 1.012 1.075 1.167 1.153 f 3 0.974 0.894 0.806 39 0.645 0.692 0.770 0.839 0.925 0.989 1.015 1.001 0'. f 0 0.879 0.794 0.729 'r TM STD (+/-) 0.111 0.130 0.093 0.069 0.087 0.086 0.152 0.152 0.603 0.095 0.100 0.077 61 0.726 0.805 0.824 0.905 1.198 1.386 1.911 1.824 1+ � 1 1.125 0.884 0.762 60 0.650 0.706 0.744 0.816 1.072 1.240 1.663 1.593 1 1 $ 0.966 0.783 0.681 59 0.574 0.607 0.664 0.727 0.946 1.094 1.415 1.362 1 iG3 1 0.847 0.682 0.600 STD(+/.) 0.076 0,099 0.080 0.089 0.126 0.146 0.248 0.231 0 170 0.139 0.101 0.081 V 4 `. Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 92 Occupied Dwelling Units of Active Adult Community Founder's Village,Town of Southold October 2007 Average Driveway Rate/Unit Volume Weekday Average 8-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.15 13 8-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.19 17 8-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.34 31 4-5 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.08 7 4-5 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.09 6 4-5 PM Peak Hour Total 0.17 13 Saturday 11-12PM Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.27 25 11-12PM Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.24 22 11-12PM Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.51 47 Appendix B: Trip Generation HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOUNDERS VILLAGE DRIVEWAY-ENTER&EXIT Wednesday,October 24,2007-Tuesday,October 30,2007 i; TIME Wed"emisy.October 24.2N7 Tbondn 0ctober25 2007 Fridx October26 2007 S.Nd.y.October 37 2007 8unde Octvber28 2007 MondeY.October 29 2007 Te.dv ,October BEGIN Enter Exit TOT Enter Exit TOT Enter Exit TOT 'Enter anti TOT Enter Exit TOT Enter Exit TOT Enter Enit 12:00 AM 0 0 0 (1 II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 U I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D D n t 2:00 AM D D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 4:00 AM I a 3 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 1 2 I n 1 1 8 4 U - 5:00AM 3 3 6 0 - 2 1 3 4 1 3 4 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 - 6:00 AM 7 11 18 4 18 22 1 6 7 6 7 13 4 5 9 6 8 14 6 12 { 7:00 AM 6 5 II 8 II 19 13 13 26 8 13 21 9 7 16 12 16 26 1 12 F 8:00 AM 13 14 27 5 9 14 13 17 30 8 12 20 10 11 21 14 1.1 27 11 12 9.-OD AM II II 22 18 25 43 1:1 26 39 17 I8 31 11 Io 30 13 IS 28 1.1 21 10d30 AM 20 23 43 13 21 34 21 27 48 14 21 35 16 N 30 15 17 32 18 Is 11:00 AM 9 14 23 15 15 29 25 19 44 25 22 47 20 17 37 I8 19 37 19 10 12:00 PM 20 15 35 13 7 20 21 28 49 21 25 46 I8 14 R 2.1 20 41 22 20 1:00 PM 13 14 27 Y' II 33 29 21 52 21 ❑ 34 In 23 33 20 10 50 25 16 207 PM 15 15 30 8 6 14 20 Is 35 2 Lt 26 15 11 26 29 ._ 51 20 -. 3:110 PM II 9 20 17 14 31 13 12 25 13 12 25 15 1:1 28 24 12 56 20 20 1 4:00 PM 9 7 16 13 15 28 8 13 21 17 o 26 12 12 24 14 12 26 0 7 5:00 PM 3 10 13 n 7 13 8 4 12 8 9 17 8 13 21 10 6 16 11 6:00 PM 6 7 13 4 4 8 4 7 11 6 5 11 8 6 14 7 13 20 3 8 7:0O PM n 1 7 6 2 8 7 2 9 4 2 6 1 3 1 3 4 J 8:00 PM 4 0 4 4 6 10 1 - 3 1 6 7 2 5 7 5 1 6 1 1 9:00 PM 1 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 1 3 2 5 0 I 1 1 11 I I 0 10:00 PM 0 U D _ 0 2 1 0 1 4 U 4 0 0 0 D 0 0 U U II:OOPM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 U 0 1 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 DAILY TOTAL 189 161 321 163 173 336 202 211 423 187 194 381 161 175 727 111 232 413 186 191 i famlxAe v1u.w<1xa»JnwrtOcxnx7xe r C� Appendix C: Level of Service Definitions C LEVEL OF SERVICE: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS C_ Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The levels of service range between level of service A(relatively congestion-free) and level of service F(congested). The delay experienced by.a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometry, traffic, and incidents at.an intersection. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during ideal conditions: in the absence of traffic control, in the absence of geometric delay, in the absence of any incidents, and when there are no other vehicles on the road. The portion of the total delay attributed to the control facility is called the control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Control delay may also be referred to as signal delay for signalized intersections. Level of service criteria for signalized intersections is determined in terms of the average control delay per vehicle. The following average control delays are used to determine approach levels of service: Level of Service A 5 10.0 seconds per vehicle Level of Service B > 10.O and <_ 20.0 seconds per vehicle Level of Service C >20.0 and :5 35.0 seconds per vehicle Lever of Service D >35.0 and <_ 55.0 seconds per vehicle Level of Service E > 55.0 and <_ 80.0 seconds per vehicle Level of Service F > 80.0 seconds per vehicle Level of Service A describes operations with very low control delay. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable; most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short traffic signal cycles may contribute to low delay. Level of Service B generally occurs with good progression and/or short traffic signal cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for level of service A,causing higher average delays. Level of Service C has higher delays than level of service B. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures, where motorists are required to wait through an entire signal cycle, may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping_ Level of Service D At this level, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths or high volume-to- capacity ratios. The proportion of stopping vehicles increases. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of Service E is considered the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths and high volume-to-capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently. Level of Service F is considered unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over saturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may occur at volume to capacity ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. LEVEL OF SERVICE: TWO WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS The quality of traffic service at a two-way stop controlled, or "TWSC," intersection is measured according to the level of service and capacity of individual legs. The level of service ranges from LOS A to LOS F,just as with signalized intersections. The right of way at the TWSC intersection is controlled by stop signs on two opposing legs of an intersection(on one leg of a "T"-type intersection). The capacity of a controlled leg is based on the distribution of gips in the major street traffic flow, driver judgment in selecting a gap through which to execute the desired maneuver and the follow up time required by each driver in a queue. 'Me` eye of servrce TOTa =nec Th dMiry- porion ilia a ttatlY31'P$t`35 aile't fW=et zftber}oi ttMri'4hat-reWe toscontrel geexnetry,: traffic,and incidents Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the _ reference"travel"litfie`that iGbuld'"itiiiFF-6 fiiTdi�harts+with•ideal`geotaetry--and-in-lbt absenei-of incidents, control, and traffic. This program only quantifies that portion of the total delay attributed to traffic control measures, either traffic signals or stop signs. This delay is called control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration. Average control delay for any particular minor movement is a function of the approach and the degree of saturation. The expectation is that TWSC intersections are designed to carry smaller traffic volumes than signalized intersections. Therefore, the delay threshold times are lower for the same LOS grades. The following s average control delays are used to determine approach levels of service: Level of Service A <_ 10 seconds per vehicle Level of Service B > 10 and <_ 15 seconds per vehicle Level of Service C > 15 and <_ 25 seconds per vehicle Level of Service D >25 and <_ 35 seconds.per vehicle Level of Service E >35 and <_ 50 seconds per vehicle -- Level of Service F > 50 seconds per vehicle I ' B Appendix D: Capacity Analysis/Level of Service Worksheets & Summary Tables . Gv iitttiTAG274)1 3IUT6t1a3uUE l., . I !. ,...j l 1 -A t « .. I f i I 1 j !:1 Detailed LOS SummWeekda AM Peak Hour Anal eis i Build Condition with Traftle Signal _ Existing Condition No Build Condition 2007 Build Condition 2007 MiHeatlov - V/C Ratio SDelay LOS V/C Redo SDely LOS V/C Redo SecIveDelay LOS V/C Redo SDelayan/VeLOS IntersectionA roach Movt. EB=TR 9.4 A 0.08 9.5 A 0,09 9.5 A 0.19 6.6 A 0.40 6.6 A Main Road(NYS 25)at Depot Lane WB - - - 0.70 17.3 B SB29.0 D 0.51 32.1 D 0.54 34.9 D 0.40 32.8 C Overall 0.52 14.5 8 EB LT 0.07 9.3 A 0.08 9.4 A 0.08 9.4 A Main Road(NYS 25)at Grim Street SB L 0.26 32.5 D 0.29 35.8 E 0.32 37.4 E - - - R 0.10 13.4 B 0.11 13,7 B 0.13 13.8 B EB L 0.01 9.2 A 0.02 9.4 A 0.02 9.4 A - - WB L 0.08 9.5 A 0.09 9.7 A 0.09 9.7 A - - Middle Road(NYS 48)at Depot Lane NB LT 0.37 30.2 D 0.43 35.9 E 0.46 37.5 E - R 0.12 11.5 B 0.16 11.9 B 0.16 12.0 B SB LT 0.11 25.2 D 0.11 27.6 D 0.11 27,9 D - - R 0.02 10.7 B 0.02 11.1 B 0.02 11.1 B School House Road at Depot Lane LT 0.00 7,6 A 0.00 7.6 A 0.01 7.6 A - EB LR 0.06 10.2 B 0.06 10.2 B 0.08 10.4 B Main Road(NYS 25)at Crown Land Road ED LT 0.00 8.9 A 0.00 9.0 A 0.00 9.0 A - - SE LR 0.04 16.7 C 0.04 17.3 C 0.05 16.6 C Main Road(NYS 2$)et Highland Road EB LT 0.01 8,8 A 0.01 8.9 A 0.01 8.9 A - - - SB LR 0.06 19.3 C 0.06 20.1 C 0.07 19.6 C Mein Road(NYS 25)et North Street EB LT 0.00 9.2 A 0.00 9.3 A 0,00 9.3 A - - - SB LR 0.00 13.7 B 0.00 14.0 B 0.02 24.1 C EB LT N/A N/A 0.00 7.3 A - - Site Driveway at School House Road SB LR 0.02 8.9 A t:,tel....! i4.. �Ft�A�'• YIV 1 V�..-!'�!v� ± ```A'/. d Detailed LOS Summeekday PM Peak Hour Analysis Build Condition with TnRle Signal � Estating Condition No Build Condition 2007 Build Condition 2007 Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS " Delay LOS Ddry LOS Me Ratio See(Veh VIC Ratio SeG(Vah ,... A a i- Mout. .VIC Rutin SeoNeh VIC Redo SacNeh Intersection 0.05 9.6 A 0,05 9.6 A 0.11 6.6 A =;.Bg L 0.05 9.5 A - 0,56 8.8 A T - - - - 0.76 ]9.J B Mein Road(NYS 25)at Depot Lena WB TR - - 0.- 65.2 F 0.36 32.4 C "LR 0.62 51.4 F 0.69 61.4 F DveMB 0,53 15.4 B 0.04 9.2 A 0.04 9.7 A ' ":BB LT 0.04 9.1 A 0.17 '34.2 D ' Main Road(NYS 25)at Griffin Street �, '` Sp L 0.14 31.2 D O.I6 33.7 D 0.09 14.0 B i;'' . *+. R 0.08 17.5 B 0.09 13.9 B - L 0.02 9,2 A 0.02 9.3 A 0.02 9.3 A + L 0.04 9.1 A 0.05 9.3 A 0.05 9.3 A 'NB LT 0.27 24.5 C 0.29 26.1 D 0.30 26.3 D Middle Road(NYS 48)st.Depot LaneR 0.07 10.9 B 0.08 11.1 B 0,08 11.1 B - i 0,04 22.2 C 0.04 22.2 C SB LT 0.04 21.4 C 0,02 10.9 B - R 0.02 10.8 B 0,02 109 B 0.00 7,5 A - - - 1't NB LT 0.00 7.5 A 0.00 7.5 A _ School House Road at Depot Lana 0.06 9.9 A 0.07 10,0- A )'4:SB LR 0.06 9.9 A LT 0,01 8,8 A 0,01 8.9 A 0.01 6,9 A Main Road.(NYS 25)at Crown Land Road t l'; - SB LR 0.03 14.4 B 0.03 14,9 B 0.07 14.8 B Mein Road(NYS 25)at Highland Road " -u, BB LT 0.01 g.9 A 0.01 9A A 0.01 9,0 A SB . LR 0.05 19.2 C 0.05 20.1 C 00 -19.7 C 0.00 9.1 A 0.00 0. A 0.00 9.1 A 0.01 J0.4 D 0.01 30.7 D Main Road(NYS 25)at North Street i SE LR 0.01 23.7 D - 0.00 7.3 A 4 LT NIA N/A O.D1 6.7 A Site Driveway at School House Road ,t SB. LR i r 2 gN TT F .._.! H�...:AGI=- ,) t1TCL_ JE X i r k { z f1r f Detailed LOS Summary-Saturday Peak Hour Anal sis t Existing Condition No Build Condition 2007 Build Condition 2007 Build Condition with Traffic Signal Mitigation Delay LOS Delry LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Intersection Approach Movt. V/C Ratio Sec/Veh V/C Redo SecNeh V/C Ratio Sec/Veh I VIC Ratio Sao/Va11 EB L 0.06 9.4A 0.06 9,6 A 0.06 9.6 A 0.14 6.6 A T - - - 0.53 8.0 A Main Road(NYS 25)at Depot Lane WB TR - - - - - 0.74 18.5 B SB LR 0.70 50,1 F 0.77 61.6 F 0.81 68.3 F 0.47 33.5 C overall 0.55 15.4 B EB LT 0.04 9.1 A 0.04 9.2 A 0.05 9,3 A - - - Main Road(NYS 25)at Griffin Street SB L 0,37 37.2 E 0.41 41.3 E 0.44 44.3 E - R 0.13 13.7 B 0.14 14.0 B 0.15 14.2 B EB L 0.04 9.0 A 0.04 9.1 A 0.04 9.1 A WB L 0.09 9.1 A 0.10 9.2 A 0.10 9.1 A - - - Middle Road(NYS 48)et Depot Cana NB LT 0.27 26.8 D 0.29 28.7 D 0.33 30.0 D R 0.10 10.9 B 0.11 10.9 B 0.11 11.0 B SB LT 0,11 25,0- C 0,13 26.4 D 0,13 26.8 D - R 0.02 10.5 B 0.02 10.6 B 0.02 10.6 B - School House Road at Depot lane NB LT 0.00 7.7 A 0.00 7.7 A 0.01 7.7 A - - Ell LR 0.08 10.4 B 0.04 10.4 B 0.11 10.7 B EB LT 0.01 8.8 A 0.0 8.9 A 0.01 9.0 13 Main Road(NYS 25)at Crown Land Road - - - SB LR 0.03 14.7 B 0,044 I5,1 C 0.04 15.0• B Main Road(NYS 25)at Highland Road EB LT 0.00 8.6 A 0.01 8.6 A 0.01 8.7 A - - SB LR 0.06 25.0- C 0.06 26.4 . D 0.07 23,6 C Main Road(NYS 25)at North Sheet EB LT 0.00 9.2 A 0.00 9,3 A 0.00 9.4 A - - - SB LR 0.05 21.7 C 0.06 22.8 C 0.08 25.9 D Ell LT N/A 0.01 7.3 A SB LR Site Driveway at School House Road N/A 0,03 . 9.0 A t !i Existing Condition lnalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at %gency/Co. Nelson&Pope Crownland )ate Performed 11/12007 Jurisdiction �natysis Time Period Existing AM Peak Hr Analysis Year 2007 � (Adjusted) -r9C Description Main Rd NYS 25 at Crown Land Rd(Ex AM Peak HrAd'usted lest Street Main Road' NYS 25 North/South Street: Crown Land Road Ttersection Orientation: East West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Ba or Street Eastbound I Westbound 4ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R rolume veh/h) 2 449 536 1 leak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 sourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 554 0 0 661 1 veh/h 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 - - 0 - - Aedian Type Undivided ZT Channelized 0 0 _anes 0- 1 0 0 1 0 :onfiguration LT TR J stream Si nal 0 0 Allnor Street Northbound Southbound Aovement 7 1 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R /olume veh/h) 4 7 leak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 -ly -v Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 4 0 8 •- at Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 percent Grade N 0 0 =fared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 -anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 configuration LR PA i Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(veh/h) 2 12 C (m) (veh/h) 927 321 v/c 0.00 0.04 95%queue length 0.01 0.12 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.9 16.7 LOS A C Approach Delay(sNeh) - - 16.7 Approach LOS - - C 1ht 02005 University of Florida,A0 Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/512007 4:26 PM tnalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at kgency/Co. Nelson &Pope Crownland )ate Performed 11/112007 Jurisdiction Existing PM Peak Hr _ Analysis Year 2007 >nalysis Time Period (Adjusted) 'ro ecfbescnption Main Rd(NYS35 at Crown Land Rd KBP P#akWr'A_d'usted- :astlWest Street: Main Road NYS 25 _ North/S6uth Street Crown Land Road ritersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 C Ila `. ala or Street Eastbound Westbound over 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R lolume veh/h 12 5& 589' 4 loLf', CtOr, Pt-IF 0:96 - 0:36'. .96 ;. -�. 0.96_ 0:96 .. D cbrlyHFlow a e12 5 5 0 0 61 t1CHea VeKicles 0jAedia t Type Undivided' IST C hannelized 0 `.vanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 ronfi uration LT TR U stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R vrolume veh/h) 2 10 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 10 eh/h `percent Hea Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 lared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 -anes0 0 0 0 0 0 "onfiuration LR approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR if(veh/h) 12 12 C (m) (veh/h) 963 393 WC 0.01 0.03 5%queue length 0.04 0.09 �LControl Delay(sNeh) 8.8 14.4 L OS A -1 _ 6 pproach Delay(s/veh) – 14.4 Approach LOS – – 8 l7opydght®2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TIA Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 428,Pr E. analyst l%CM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) atCrownland \gency/Co. Nelson&Pope Jurisdiction late Performed 111112007 Analysis Year 2007 a__nalalysis Time Period Existing Sat Peak Hr(Adjust) Description Main Rd NYS 25 at Crown Land Rd Ex at Peak Hr Adjusted) :z lest Street: Main Road NYS 25 North/South Street: Crown Land Road 449e tion Orientation: .East-West IStudy Period (hrs):. 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Aovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R rolume veh/h 5 574 592 5 leak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 burly Flow Rate, HFR 5 617 0 0 636 5 veh/h lercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — Aedian Type Undivided 2T Channelized 0 0 _anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 :onfiguradon LT TR J stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Jlovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R /olume veh/h) 2 11 Deak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 i "v Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 11 i ,1t Hea Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach _ Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 5 13 C (m)(veh/h) 943 384 Vlc 0.01 0.03 95% queue length 0.02 0.10 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 14.7 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 14.7 Approach LOS — — B iht02005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 11/52007 428 PM r lnalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Highland agency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/12007 Analysis Year 2007 anal sis Timeerio Pd Existing AM Peak Hr y (Adjusted) rro ect Descri tion Main Rd SNS 92'5 at H" n`d77d Ex AMPk HrA : ted ast/West Street: Main Road NYS 25 North/Souttt'Street Hi hland Road - ntersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 MINIM��Wffilffilm ftjor Street Eastbound Westbound lAovement 1 2 3 4 1 5 16' L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 6 445 510 11. for;PHF 0:83 0.83 0.83 ",, 0.83 ' 0-83 Q 8 ___ N" A `ftQ aFe 6 p 0 614 13 7,. > ta eles _ r Undivided . -_ - edianp Tye RT Cfi'anneTfied _... -, — 7.77 'anes 0 1 0 0 i 0 'onfiguration LT TR U st-r 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volumeveh/h 9 5 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 0 0 0 10 0 6 eh/h ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 _RT Channelized 0 0 :.anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 1 11 12 r-JLane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 7 16 C(m) (veh/h) 955 268 vlc 0.01 0.06 5% queue length 0.02 0.19 Control Delay (sNeh) 8.8 19.3 OS A C Approach Delay (slveh) - - 19.3 pproach LOS - - C L;opyrighl 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 11/52007 4:30 PI 4nalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Highland 4gency/Co. Nelson& Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2007 analysis Time Period Existing PM Peak Hr (Adjusted) r Description Main Rd NYS 25 at Highland Rd(Ex PM Peak Hr Adjusted) .a lest Street. Main Road(NYS 25) North/South Street: Highland Road me ection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period(hrs): 0.25 Jia or Street Eastbound Westbound Aovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R /olume veh/h) 5 560 605 12 3eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 sourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 602 0 0 650 12 veh/h Dercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — vledian Type Undivided 2T Channelized 0 0 _anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Donfiguration LT TR J stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound \Aovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ✓olume veh/h) 6 6 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 ay Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 6 0 6 1 nt Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(veh/h) 5 12 C (m) (veh/h) 927 265 lc 0.01 0.05 95% queue length 0.02 0.14 Control Delay (sNeh) 8.9 19.2 LOS A C Approach Delay(sNeh) — — 19.2 proach LOS — — C Cp' 'gM 0 2005 University of Florida,AO Rights Reserved HCS+TM version 521 Generated: 11/5/2007 4:30 PM analyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Highland agency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Diate Performed 11/12007 Analysis Year 2007 4nalysis Time Period Existing Sat Peak Hr(Adjust) pro e..ct Descri _'on Main Rd NYS 25 at Hi bland Rd Ex Sat Peak Hr Adjusted :ast(West Street Main Road NYS 25 or(r utfl Veee Hi'fifand Road ntersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs :"0:25 `" ba ar:Street Eastbound Westbound Avivement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L TR L T R Volume veh/h 5, 6 4, 481 8 Peak-HouF Factor, PHF 0.88 0 88 0.88 0:88 0.88' Q88 _ _ _ —__ .. e14R ", e h e_lara_ 'N Undivided 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 - 0 configuration LT TR stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 10 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 ouriy Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 11 0 0 veh/h percent Hea Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 ercent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration,. LR pproach Eastbound Westbound -Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR ky (veh/h) 5 11 C (m) (veh/h) 1015 191 v/c 0.00 0.06 95%queue length 0.01 0.18 ontrol Delay(s/Veh) 8.6 25.0 OS A C Approach Delay (s/veh) - - 25.0 Approach LOS - - C .opyright 02005 UnKwslty of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/5/2007 4:30 Pf L__ ,nalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25)at Griffin St agency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction late Performed 11/112007 Existing.AM Peak Hr Analysis Year 2007 vlalysis Time Period (Adjusted) rd ..Descriptio, Main Road at Griffin Street(Existing AMPeak Ad'usted a ast Street Main Road NYS 25 Nofth/South Street Griffin Street i errection Orientation: East.-West [,5tudy Period hrs : 0.25 la or Street Eastbound Westbound lovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 'olume veh/h) 56 405 482 85 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 lourly Flow Rate, HFR 67 487 0 0 580 102 ieh/h 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 0 — — 7edian Tye Undivided :T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 .onfi uration LT TR I stream Signal 0 0 Ainor Street Northbound Southbound 4ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R folume veh/h) 39 42 leak-Hour Factor PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 i , Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 46 0 50 v it Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 percent Grade (%) 0 0 -tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 2T Channelized 0 0 -anes 0 0 0 1 0 1 :onfiguration L R %pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Oovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 -ane Configuration LT L R i(veh/h) 67 46 50 (m) (veh/h) 911 176 481 i/c 0.07 0.26 0.10 35% queue length 0.24 1.00 0.35 -ontrol Delay(s/veh) 9.3 32.5 13.4 -OS A D B 4pproach Delay (s/veh) — — 22.5 4pproach LOS — — C :o/ - ht 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 11/52007 4:31 PM \nalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Griffin St agency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction gate Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2007 4nalysis Time Period Existing PM Peak Hr (Adjusted) >ro'ect Descri tion Main Road anpow stnibr-tawro PM`Flo2`kAd'oste astlWest Street: Main Road NYS 25 North/South Street Griffin Street ntersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 or Street Eastbound Westbound 'Aovement 1 23 4 5 6 _ . T ' R L T R Volume vettlh 29 550 572 46 R— or. PHF 0:89 0.$9- 0.89 0.89 0.89, 0;$9 y'FI Rate 3 6 0 ..; 0 642 1 _ Vehicles 2- _ 0, _ edian T e' Undivided RTChannefized 0. .......,_,_ 0' _anes - 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfigurabon LT TR upstream Signal 0 0 Mlinor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 21 33 eak-Hour.Factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 H6urly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 23 0 37 veh/h ercent Hea Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 onfiguration L R Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 . ane Configuration LT L R v (veh/h) 32 23 37 C (m)(veh/h) 902 160 458 ,vlc 0.04 0.14 0.08 5%queue length 0.11 0.49 0.26 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.1 31.2 13.5 LOS A D B JlA—pproach Delay (s/veh) — — 20.3 Approach LOS — — C L opydght 02005 UnNer:•,ity of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/512007 4:31 P' L ,nalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Griffin St ,gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction )ate Performed 11/12007 Analysis Year 2007 tnalysisTime Period Existing Sat Peak Hr(Adjust) rr—o�' t.Description, Main Road at Griffin Street(Existing Sat Peak Adjusted) aast Street Main Road NYS 25 North/South Street. Griffin Street it tion Orientation: East-WestIStudy Period hrs : 0.25 la or Street Eastbound Westbound. IQvement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 'olume veh/h) 34 547 556 101 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 lourly Flow Rate, HFR 35 575 0 0 585 106 reh/h 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — ledian Type Undivided :T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 :onfiguration LT TR I stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Aovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Iotume veh/h) 62 59 'eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 iourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 65 0 62 � i nt Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 It Grade (%) 0 0 -tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 2T Channelized 0 0 _anes 0 0 0 1 0 1 :onfiguration L R kpproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 -ane Configuration LT L R r (veh/h) 35 65 62 (m) (veh/h) 904 175 477 I/C 0.04 0.37 0.13 35%queue length. 0.12 1.59 0.44 -ontrol Delay (s/veh) 9.1 37.2 13.7 _OS A E I B 4pproach Delay (s/veh) — — 25.7 4pproach LOS — — D :opyright®2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 11/52007 431 PM C nalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at North St .gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction late Performed 11/12007 Analysis Year 2007 ,nalysis Time Period Existing AM Peak Hr (Adjusted) ro'ect Description Main Rd NYS 25) Elf North St Existiri- AM Pe'`ak`HrAd"uslbbf - -_ ast/West Street Main Road NYS 25 NoiWSouth Street North Street Itersection Orientation:- East-West:; Stud Period hrs� 0,25 Ila or Street Eastbound Westbound 4ovement 1 2 3 4 5' 6 L. T R L T R. folume veh/h' 2 493 - 590 . . ., ..,. .._ F 0.80 0.8'9 0.8� 0:80 O.SD 080 ' -Wow HFR 2, 616 0 Od 737 7 M. 55WWWeavy Vehicles 2 _ 0. - yl -i n T e. Undivided 2T Channelized _apes 0 1 0 0 1 0 ;,onft uration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 1 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 1 iPeak-Hour factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 0 0 0 0 0 1 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 configuration LR iApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration LT LR 2 1 v (veh/h) 417 C (m)(veh/h) 864 V/c 0.00 0.00 _95% queue length 0.01 0.01 _ Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 13.1 LOS A 8 pproach Delay (s/veh) - - 13'7 -Approach LOS - - B :opyright O 2005 university of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM version 5.21 Generated: 11/52007 /4:3311 f'h L. Analyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25)at North St Agency/Co. Nelson&Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/112007 Existing PM Peak Hr Analysis Year 2007 Analysis Time Period (Adjusted) y i Description Main Rd(NYS 25)at North St Existin PM Peak HrAd'usted Jest Street .Main Road NYS 25 North/South Street: North Street htersection Orientation: East-West Stu Period hrs : 0.25 OEM i4a or Street Eastbound Westbound Jlovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R /olume veh/h 1 637 638 9 3eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 sourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 699 0 0 701 9 veh/h percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — Nedian Type Undivided 2T Channelized 0 0 _anes 1 1 0 0 1 0 configuration L T. TR - J stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0. Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 091 'y Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 0 0 nt Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 , Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (veh/h) 1 1 C (m) (veh/h) 889 153 Vic 0.00 0.01 95%queue length 0.00 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.1 28.7 .LOS A D 'Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 28.7 (Approach LOS — — D 'ght®2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+T' Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 4:32 PM r tnalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at North St. kgency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction )ate Performed 11/1/07 Analysis Year 2007 knalysis Time Period Existing Sat Peak Hr(Adjust) 'ro'ect Descrition Main Rd LIyYS 25j at North St(Existing Sat Peak Hr Adjusted) :ast/West Street Main Road NYS 25 tirtfi/Soutt S"6f' 'WrthStieet _-_ -itersection Orientation: East-West JSWAY Period Firs : "0.25 AalorStmt Eastbound Westbound Aovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume vehlh 4 635 67.7 1 � "k-Houffactor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0:90 0.90 000 F ' Rate Hpoll' FR 0_— 752 -.r .v¢ h K. f– Toe Undiwded 0 _ 0 - La nes Lanes 1 1 0 0 . E:onfiguration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 i L T R L T R Volume vehlh 5 7 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 5 0 7 eh hnt Hea Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 ercent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized0 0 _Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound !Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 4 12 C (m) (veh/h) 857 227 v/c 0.00 0.05 95%queue length 0.01 0.17 –(Control Delay(s/veh) 9.2 21.7 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/veh) – – 21.7 ` ApproachLOS – – C f :opyright 02005 University of Florida,PJI Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: /1/52007 4:32 PA L_ L / _� tnalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25)at Depot kgency/Co. Nelson&Pope Ln )ate Performed 11/12007 Jurisdiction lnalysis Time Period Existing AM Peak Hr Analysis Year 2007 (Adjusted) . Description Main Rd NYS 25 at Depot Ln Existing AM Peak HrAd usted 'est Street: Main Road(NYS 25) INorth/South Street Depot Lane itel5ection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 la or Street Eastbound Westbound lovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 . L T R L T R 'olume veh/h) 59 .399 532 50 leak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 louriy Flow Rate, HFR 71 486 0 0 648 60 .,eh/h 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 7 — 0 — — Iledian Type Undivided iT Channelized 0 0 .anes 1 1 0 0 1 0 ;onfiguration LT TR 1 stream Si nal 0 0 Ainor Street Northbound Southbound Aovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R /olume veh/h) 38 68 leak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 i -'V Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 46 0 82 "it Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 'ercent Grade M 0 0 =fared Approach N N Storage 0 0 2T Channelized 0 0 _anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;onfiguration LR %pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound " Uovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 -ane Configuration L LR i(veh/h) 71 128 (m)(veh/h) 891 275 r/c 0.08 0.47 35%queue length 0.26 2.32 ;ontrol Delay (s/veh) 9.4 29.0 LOS A D Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 29.0 Approach LOS — — D ,n 'iht 02005 University of Florida,AO Rights ReservedHCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 4:33 PM 4nalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Depot 4gency/Co. Nelson&Pope Ln Date Performed 11/1/2007 Jurisdiction Analysis Time Period Existing PM Peak Hr Analysis Year 2007 (Adjusted) >r ect'Descrt tion Main Rd NYS 25 at Depot Ln"(Existing PM Peak HrAdjusted)- ast/West Street Main Road NYS 25 North/South Street: De of Lane .ntersection Orientation: East-West $Judy Period hrs : 0.25 Me or Street Eastbound Westbound - 'Aovement 2 3 4 5 6 _ L T R L T R volume vehlh 35 60-8., 615 - 53 HkiPactor,PHF >: 0.06 0.86 0.86 0.66 0.86 rM 40 706 0 0 715 '61 Hea Ve ides 2 - lan Type _ Undvideil _ ... R Channeliz_ed 0 0 - _anes 1 1 0 0 1 0 ^onfiguration L T TR U stream Si nal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound Allovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 51 49 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 .0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 59 0 56 veh/h --?ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 - .-tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 �anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration L LR v (veh/h) 40 115 C(m) (veh/h) 840 186 F c; 0-05 0.62 95%queue length 0.15 3.49 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.5 51.4 LOS A F pproach Delay(s/veh) — — 51.4 [Approach LOS — — F :opyright O 2005 University of Florida,AN Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 4:313K E Main Rd(NYS 25) at Depot nalyst MCM Intersection to agency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction late Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2007 analysis Time Period Existing Sat Peak Hr(Adjust) 2r� Description Main Rd NYS 25 at Depot Ln(Exist in Sat Peak Hr Ad usted a est Street: Main Road NYS 25 North/South Street: De of Lane defl5ection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 MEN Ia or Street Eastbound Westbound lovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 'olume veh/h) 50 611 661 54 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 lourly Flow Rate, HFR 52 636 0 0 688 56 ieh/h 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — ledian Type Undivided :T Channelized 0 0 anes 1 1 0 0 1 0 :onfiguration L T TR I pstream Signal 0 J 0 Ainor Street Northbound Southbound Aovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R folume veh/h) 61 95 'eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 "f Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 63 0 98 it Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 'ercent Grade (%) 0 0 rlared Approach N N Storage 0 0 2T Channelized 0 0 -anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 :onfiguration LR W31 MWON—MM kpproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Aovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 -ane Configuration L LR t (veh/h) 52 161 (m)(veh/h) 864 231 do 1 0.06 0.70 35%queue length 0.19 4.54 'ontrol Delay (s/veh) 9.4 50.1 _OS A F 4pproach Delay (s/veh) — — 50.1 4pproach LOS — — F iht 02005 University of Florida,M Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 4:34 PM tnalyst MCM Intersection School House Rd at Depot kgency/Co. Nelson &Pope Lane )ate Performed 11/1/2007 Jurisdiction kn8lysis Time Period Existing AM Peak Hr Analysis Year 2007 (Ad/'used) 'ro'ect bescription School House Rd at Depot LabeExistin All PedkA 'i ste :ast/West Street School House Road North/South Street De of Lane -itersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ala or Street Northbound Southbound Jlovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R /plume veh/h 5 96 111 34 PHF 0.74 0.7,4 0.74 0.74 0.74 .0.7.4. Adar -Flow. ate K 1 0 0 149 45 FS. ei3t74. e Vei>7cies 2 — — — edian Type Undivided RT'Cbannelized '_anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 :Minor Street Eastbound Westbound ilAovementAHFR 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h23 12 Peak-Hour Facto0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Hourly Flow Rat31 0 16 0 0 0 veh/h ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 .0 0 0 " 0 le2nfi uration LR Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 a 9 .10 11 12 11-ane Configuration LT LR _ v(veh/h) 6 47 C(m)(veh/h) 1 1379 733 v/C 0.00 0.06 .95%queue length 0.01 0.21 Delay (s/veh) 7.6 10.2 S A B pproach Delay (stveh) — — 10.2 Approach LOS — — B opyrighl02005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 11/52007 4:34 Ph \r✓ C >nalyst MGM Intersection School House Rd at DepotT_m lgency/Co. Nelson &Pope Lane )ate Performed 11/12007 Jurisdiction analysis Time Period Existing PM Peak Hr Analysis Year 2007 (Adjused) 'r Description School House Rd at Depot LaneExistin .PM Peak Adjusted `est Street School House Road Nor[h/South Street Depot Lane ite1S'ection Orientation: North-SouthIStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Major Street Northbound Southbound Aovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R /olume veh/h) 2 82 89 11 leak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 sourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 112 0 0 121 15 veh/h 3ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — dedian Type Undivided 2T Channelized 0 0 _anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 -onfigurabon LT TR J stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ✓olume veh/h) 26 10 ?eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 H y Flow Rate, HFR 35 0 13 0 0 0 ` t P it Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(veh/h) 2 48 C(m) (veh/h) 1448 784 Vic 0.00 0.06 95% queue length 0.00 0.20 Control Delay (stveh) 7.5 9.9 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 9.9 Approach LOS — — A `1ht 02005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 11f52007 4:34 PM \nalyst MCM Intersection Laneol House Rd at Depot lgency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction ?ate Performed 11(1/2007 Analysis Year 2007 analysis Time Period Existing Sat Peak Hr(Adjust) --- 'ro ecf Descrition School House-Rd at Depot Lane- Ezistin S-atPeak--Adjusted) ast/West Street School House Road North/South Street Depot Lane ntersection Orientation: North-South IStuoy Period hrs : 0.25 Na or Street Northbound __ -- - .-_ ., Southbound dovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ✓olume vett/h 4 g 13932 9 ut-Owor,PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 _04319r, Y ow a e q> 121 0 0 173 3 (lee Vehicles - 2... aIle iihType _ Undivided RT Chann81ized 0.1 0„ _anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 30 19 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 37 0 23 0 0 0 veh/h ercent Heavv Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 -tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 I—Confiuration LR - ;Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration LT LR v(veh/h) 4 60 C (m) (veh/h) 1358 730 vlc 0.00 0.08 5%queue length 0.01 0.27 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 10.4 _LOS A 8 pproach Delay (s/veh) — — 10.4 B Approach LOS — — :opyrighl 0 2005 University of Florida,Ag Rights Reserved HCS+TM verslm 521 Generated: 11/5/2007 4:35K Pnalyst MCM Intersection Middle Rd (CR 48) @ Depot Agency/Co. Nelson &Pope Lane Date Performed 11/1/2007 Jurisdiction Analysis Time Period Existing AM Peak Hr Analysis Year 2007 (Adjusted) t Description Middle Road(CR 48) at Depot LaneExistin AM Adjusted Vest Street: Middle Road CR 48 North/South Street: Depot Lane ntte section.Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 kla or Street Eastbound Westbound /1ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ✓olume (veh/h) 12 654 50 63 638 4 ?eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 734 56 70 716 4 'veh/h ?ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 - -- 2 -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 1 1 _anes 1 2 1 1 2 1 configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 61 14 65 6 14 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 ly Flow Rate, HFR 68 15 73 6 15 11 y h ;nt Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 4-=lared Approach N N . Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 1 1 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R _(veh/h) 13 70 83 73 21 11 C (m) (veh/h) 880 867 224 630 199 638 v/c 0.01 0.08 0.37 0.12 0.11 0.02 95% queue length 0.04` 0.26 1.62 0.39 0.35 1105 Control Delay (sNeh) 9.2 9.5 30.2 11.5 25.2 10.7 :LOS A A D B D B Approach Delay(s/veh) - - 21.5 20.2 Approach LOS - - C C 'fight 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 435 PM knalyst MCM Intersection Middle Rd (CR 48) @ Depot \gency/Co. Nelson&Pope Lane )ate Performed 11/1/2007 Jurisdiction Existing PM Peak Hr. Analysis Year 2007 analysis Time Period (Adjusted) 'ro'ect Descri tion Middle Road(CR 48) at De otLane istin "PM Ad'us0d) :ast/West Street Middle Road GR 48 North/South Street: DepotLane ntersecon Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Na or street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 T. R L T R �/alume veh/h 18 1 662 39 88` 697 2. figgictor PHF 097 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 F� Ftn Rate f $. 6 2 _ 40 39 718 reita Vehicie5 - 2- - s--- Median Type Raised curb` RT Channelized Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound 'Movement 7 19 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 54 13 48 2 6 13 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF' 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 55 13 49 2 6 13 veh/h 'Percent Hea Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 1 1 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Confi uration LT R LT R pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 - 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v (veh/h) 18 39 68 49 8 13 C (m) (veh/h) 879 907 252 655 227 638 v/c 0.02 10.04 0.27 0.07 0.04 0.02 - 95%queue length 0.06 0.13 1.06 0.24 0.11 0.06 _ Control Delay (sNeh) 9.2 9.1 24.5 10.9 21.4 10.8 LOS A A C B C B pproach Delay (s/veh) - - 18.8 14.8 Approach LOS - - C B Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved HCS+T"' version 521 Generated: 11152007 4:35 PI Middle Rd (CR 48) @ Depot analyst MCM Intersection Lane lgency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction )ate Performed 11/112007 Analysis Year 2007 knalysis Time Period Existing Sat Peak Hr(Adjust) '�•... Description Middle Road(CR 48)at Depot Lane Existin Sat Ad"usted 'est Street Middle Road CR 48 North/South Street: Depot Lane itersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Ila or Street Eastbound Westbound 4ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R rolume veh/h) 31 560 92 83 607 4 leak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 (T92 0.92 lourly Flow Rate, HFR 33 608 99 90 659 4 veh/h) 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 - - 1 2 - - Aedian Type Raised curb ZT Channelized 1 1 .anes 1 2 ;onfigurationL T R L T R J stream Si nal 0 0 Ainor Street I Northbound Southbound Aovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R tolume veh/h) 32 25 65 8 14 11 peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 f Flow Rate, HFR 34 27 70 8 15 11 '_y, .it Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 3ercent Grade (%) 0 0 'fared Approach N N Storage 0 0 2T Channelized 1 1 -anes 0 1 1 0 1 1 ;onfiguration LT R LT R e approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Vlovement 14 7 8 9 10 11 12 _ane Configuration L L LT R LT R ✓ (veh/h) 33 90 61 70 23 11 (m)(veh/h) 925 966 225 692 203 666 ✓lc 1 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.10 0.11 0.02 95% queue length 0.11 0.31 1.06 0.34 0.38 0.05 -ontrol Delay(s/veh) 9.0 9.1 26.8 10.8 25.0 10.5 LOS A A D B C 8 Approach Delay (s/veh) - - 18.3 20.3 Approach LOS - - C C Iht 0 2005 University of Florida,Al Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated_ 11/52007 4:36 PM No Build Condition MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25)at N,nalyst Crownland Agency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/1/2607 Analysis Year 2009 Nnna�alysis Time Period No Build AM Peak Hr ?rd.,_ . Description Main Rd(NYS 25) at Crown Land Rd(No Build) lest Street Main Road(NYS 25) INorth/South Street Crown Land Road ntm�orl Orientation: East-West IStud.yPeriod (hrs): 0.25 Gla or Street Eastbound Westbound IAovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L I T R /olume vehih 2 465 555 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 dourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 574 0 0 685 1 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — Vtedian Type Undivided 2T Channelized 0 0 -anes 0 1 0 0 1 p ,onfiguration LT TR J stream Signal 0 0 Mjnor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 4 7 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 �; ,,,'y Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 4 0 y' . 1 8 nt Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 1 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(veh/h) 2 12 C (m) (veh/h) 908 305 Y/c 0.00 0.04 95%queue length 0.01 0.12 Control Delay(s/veh) 9.0 17.3 .LoS A C Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 17.3 Approach LOS — — C r" `qht®2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11152D07 4:41 PM \nalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Crownland kgency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction late Performed 11/112007 Analysis Year 2009 analysis Time Period No Build PM Peak Hr )ro act t)escri tion Main Rd NYS 25 at Crown Land Rd No By :ast/West Street: Main Road INYS 25 North/South Street Crown Land Road ntersecbgn Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 da or Street Eastbound I Westbound viovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L I T R L T R Jolume veh/h 12 582`.- 610 4. " Hot=, ctor,-PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 _ 35 Hourly ow 12 606 .. 0 0 635 4 "P�Tpent,jHeLavy Vet+lcles _ — edian T e Undivided _ RT Chanri0tzed" - 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 inor Sgve'dh Northbound Southbound ovem7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 'Volume 2 10 eak-Htor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly te, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 10 veh/,hercenVehicles 000 20 2 Percen (%) 0 0 lared h N N Stor0 0 RT Chd 0 0 anes0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration LR /Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 F 9 10 11 12 - Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 12 12 C (m) (veh/h) 945 377 v/c 0.01 0.03 _ `95% queue length 0.04 0.10 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.9 14.9 'LOS A B pproach Delay (s/veh) — — 14.9 --Approach LOS — — B :;opyright O 2005 University of Florida,AD Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/5!2007 4:41 PP L analyst_ MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) atCrownland agency/Co. Nelson&Pope Jurisdiction )ate Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 knalysis Time Period No Build Sat Peak Hr 'r� t Description Main Rd NYS 25 at Crown Land RdNo Build) _e lest Street: Main Road(NYS 25) North/South Street Crown Land Road ite ection Orientation: East-West. IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Aa or Street Eastbound Westbound Aovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R /olume veh/h) 5 595 613 5 3eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 sourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 639 0 0 659 5 veh/h 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — Aedian Type Undivided tT Channelized 0 0 _anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 :onfiguration LT TR J stream Sinal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ✓olume veh/h) 2 11 3eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 ly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 11 i at Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 5 13 C(m) (veh/h) 925 368 v/c 0.01 0.04 95%queue length 0.02 0.11 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.9 15.1 LOS A C 'Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 15.1 Approach LOS — — C 49ht 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 521 Generated: 1115/2DD7 4:42 PM analyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Highland kgency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction )ate Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 >nalysis Time Period No Build AM Peak Hr 'ro"act;Deagt _tior> Maier Rd NYS 25 at Highland Rd No Build :astMtest Street Main Road NYS 25 hT*1South Street. Hi" IfiSd`Raad itersection Orientation: East-West J$tudy Period hrs : 0.25 Aa or-Street Eastbound Westbound Aovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 7otume- vehL „ 6:_ 03.t , __-. 528 11 :I ak Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0,83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 RT-Channelized. ... _. .p. 0 Lanes 1 Configuration 0 TR J pstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound 'Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 9 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 ' ourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 10 0 6 veh/h ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 ercent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 banes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR -,4pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 7 ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 7 16 (m) (veh/h) 937 254 v/C 0.01 0.06 95%queue length 0.02 0.20 ontrol Delay (siveh) 8.9 20.1 -LOS A C 6pproach Delay (stveh) — — 20.1 Approach LOS — — C ,opyrighl Q 2005 University of Florida,AO Rights Reserved HCS+ Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 4:42 PN i_. knalyst ' MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25)at Highland lgency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction )ate Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 \nalysis Time Period No Build PM Peak Hr ,to ct Description Main Rd NYS 25) at Highland Rd No B_wild Jest Street: Main Road:(NYS 25) North/South Street: Highland Road 1' ctionOdentation: East-West - ]Study Period hrs; 0.25 aw Ila or Street Eastbound Westbound 4ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R lolume veh/h) 5 580 627 12 leak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 sourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 623 0 0 674 12 veh/h 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — /ledian Type Undivided tT Channelized 0 0 .anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 :onfiguration LT TR 1 stream Signal 0 0 Alnor Street Northbound Southbound Aovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R /olume veh/h 6 6 leak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 sourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 6 0 6 f3w h nt Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 nt Grade (%) 0 0 =fared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound _ Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 . 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 5 12 C (m) (vehlh) 908 251 Vic 0.01 0.05 95% queue length 0.02 0.15 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.0 20.1 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 20.1 Approach LOS — — C HCS+T^r Version 5 :opyright 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved .21 Generated: /1152007 4:42 PM 4nalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25)at Highland 4gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 1111/2007 Analysis Year 2009 Analysis.Time Period No Build Sat Peak Hr Iro'ect Descri ,tion Main Rd NYS 25 at Hi hland Rd No Build ast/West Street: Main Road LNYS 25f INdi'MobtliS964f F and°Road ntersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs . 0.25 " Ilillaijor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h . -5: 6 6 498 8 . W Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0:88 0.88 5565,... d a iT pe ;P- Undivided a ,Channelized . _.. 0 0 Lanes 0 ' 6 0 1, 0 Configuration LT TR- stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 10 0 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 11 0 0 veh/h '.Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 ercent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,Configuration LR e -, pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 5 11 C (m) (veh/h) 999 179 C) 0.01 0.06 95%queue length 0.02 0.19 Control Delay (sNeh) 8.6 26.4 LOS A D pproach Delay (s/veh) — — 26.4 Approach LOS — — D opyright 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM version 5.21 Generated: 11/5/2007 4:43 Ph C; analyst` MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Gin St agency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Sate Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 analysis Time Period No Build AM Peak Hr 'roject Description Main Road at Gruen Street(No Build) lest Street Main Road NYS 25 North/South Street: Griffin Street n !ction.Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs :. 0.25 Aa or Street Eastbound Westbound Aovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R /olume yeh/h 58 420 499 88 Deak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 sourly Flow Rate, HFR 69 506 0 0 601 106 veh/h 3ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — Oedian Type Undivided 2T Channelized 0 0 -anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 3onfiguration LT TR J stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street " Northbound Southbound \Aovement 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 40 44 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.83 0,83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 48 0 53 v h p .nt Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 nt Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R 119jN4AVxKQ1�Mp99M NIM Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound .Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT L R (veh/h) 69 48 53 C(m) (veh/h) 891 164 467 v/c 0.08 0.29 0.11 '95%queue length 0.25 1.15 0.38 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 35.8 13.7 LOS A E B Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 24.2 Approach LOS — — C I opyright 0 2005 University of Florida,AN Rights Reserved HCS+Tki Version 5.21 Generated: 1115/2007 4:43 PM Analyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Griffin St Agency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 Analysis Time Period No Build PM Peak Hr 'ro ect_Degscri ,tion Main Road at Griffin Street No Build astNVest Street: Main Road NYS 5)" orthlSoutti SfreeC"CernScree ntersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (firs).- 0.25 Ma or.Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R volume vaWh 30, 574 593 48. Pdak Hour Factor,PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0:89 0:89 0.88 R edian yOe :t Undivided Channelized _ 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 r Configuration LT --TR- -- stream Signal 0 10 Minor Street Northbound I Southbound ;Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume Vehth 22 34 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 ourly Flow Rate,HFR 0 0 0 24 0 38 veh/h ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 ,iPercent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration I LL R pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT L R (veh/h) 33 24 38 C (m)(veh/h) 882 149 444 V/c 0.04 1 0.16 0.09 I195%queue length 0.12 0.56 0.28 Control Delay (SJveh) 9.2 '33.7 13.9 LOS A D 8 Approach Delay (stveh) — — 21.6 Approach LOS — — C opyright®2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TiA Version 5.21 Generated: 11/52007 4:43 PI L C tnalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Griffin St agency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction )ate Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 uialysis Time Period No Build Sat Peak Hr �ro .Ft Description Main Road at Gruen Street No Build :arest Street: Main Road NYS 25 North/South Street Griffin Street 1 ction Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Aa or Street Eastbound Westbound 4ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R rolume veh/h) 35 567 576 105 leak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 sourly Flow Rate,HFR 36 596 0 0 606 110 veh/h 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — Aedian Type Undivided ZT Channelized 0 0 .anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 ;onfiguration LT TR J stream.Signal 0 0 Alnor Street Northbound Southbound dlovement 7 8 9 10 1 11 12 L T R L T R /olume vehlh 64 61 -leak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 sourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 67 0 64 v h nt Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 _nt Grade (%) 0 0 =fared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 _anes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 configuration L R e Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT L _ R v(veh/h) 36 67 64 C (m) (veh/h) 885 164 462 Vlc 0.04 0.41 0.14 95% queue length 0.13 1.80 0.48 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 41.3 14.0 LOS A E B Approach Delay (slveh) — — 28.0 Approach LOS — — D 'opyright 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 4.44 PM knalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25)at North St \gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction )ate Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 knalysis Time Period No Build AM Peak Hr 'roect Desch tion _ Main Rd NYS 25 at North St No Build :ast/V11est Street Main Road(NYS 5) Nbith/South Street ' NortTi Strt eef - - itersectionOrientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Aa or Street Eastbound Westbound dovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R /olume veh/h 2 51,1 611 6 , 3eak-Ho4r Factor,PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 .lgtirT.FlrNNRatA,14pR,...,„�, . nretl/h /e des 4 _ Wifidt nType: Undivided PT-.Channelized 0 6 Lanes 0 1 6 0 1 a configuration LT TR- stream Si nal 1 0 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 1 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 tourly Flow Rate,HFR 0 0 0 0 0 1 veh/h _ ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 ercent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 ).anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR V (veh/h) 2 1 (m)(veh/h) 844 403 v/c 0.00 0.00 85% queue length 0.01 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.3 14.0 OS A B Approach Delay (sNeh) — — 14.0 pproach LOS J B - .opyright 0 2005 University of Florida,AN Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 4:44 Ph L� knalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at North St kgency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction )ate Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 knalysis Time Period No Build PM Peak Hr row Description Main Rd NYS 25 at North St No Build a9.— est Street Main Road NYS 25 North/South Street: North Street rt ;tion Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 la or Street Eastbound Westbound lovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R rolume veh/h 1 660 661 9 leak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0-91 0.91 lourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 725 0 0 726 9 veh/h 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — ledian Type Undivided tT Channelized 0 0 .anes i 1 0 0 1 0 ;onfiguration L T TR 1 stream Si nal 0 0 Ainor Street Northbound Southbound Aovement 7 a 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R /olume vehlh 1 0 leak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 sourly Flow Rate,HFR 0 0 0 1 0 0 Fvit envy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 F .It Grade (%) 0 0 =fared Approach N N Storage 0 0 2T Channelized 0 0 -anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 :onfi uration LR approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 1Aovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 _ane Configuration L LR ✓(veh/h) 1 1 (m) (veh/h) 870 143 ✓/c 0.00 0.01 35% queue length 0.00 0.02 -ontrol Delay (stveh) 9.1 30.4 LOS A D Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 30.4 Approach LOS — — I D :opyright 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 117512007 4:45 PM analyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at North St kgencylCo. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction )ate Performed 11/1/07 Analysis Year 2009 knalysis Time Period No Build Sat Peak Hr 'ro'ect,Descri tion Main Rd(NYS 25) at North St No Build :astlWest Street Main Road(NYS 25) North/SoutFi`Straet -North Street` itersection Orientation: East-West J$tudy Period hrs : 0.25 Jla or Street- Eastbound Westbound Aovement 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 L T R L T R Yolame veto)h q*. 658 701 1 peak-HoufiFacfflr, PHF 0.90 6.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 IL .- M titan 'pe . : Undivided _WT-Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 _ . 0._ 1.. 3onfigurafion L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 1 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 5 7 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 5 0 7 veh/h 'percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 ercent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR — pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR ,v (veh/h) 4 12 C (m) (veh/h) 838 214 v/c 0.00 0.06 95%queue length 0.01 0.18 IControl Delay (s/veh) 9.3 228 LOS A C 'Approach Delay (s/veh) - - 22.8 ApproachLOS - - C '':opydght 02005 University or Florida,Ag Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 4:45 Ph I C Main Rd(NYS 25) at Depot 'analyst MCM Intersection Ln4gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/12007 Analysis Year 2009 4nalysis Time Period No Build AM Peak Hr Ir :Desciition Main Rd NYS 25 at Depot Ln No Build Vest Street Main Road(NYS 25 North/South Street: Depot Lane ntaTsection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 IAa'or Street Eastbound Westbound Aovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R /olume veh/h) 61 413 551 52 Deak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 sourly Flow Rate, HFR 74 503 0 0 671 63 veh/h percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — Aedian Tye Undivided IT Channelized 0 0 -anes 1 1 0 0 1 0 ,onfiguration L T TR J stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 39 70 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 H rty Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 47 0 65 t nt Hea Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(veh/h) 74 132 C (m) (vett/h) 871 261 v/c 0.08 0.51 95%queue length 0.28 2.64 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.5 32.1 jLOS A D Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 32.1 Approach LOS — — D "...qm Ight 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 4:45 PM \nalyst MGM Intersection Ln Main Rd(NYS 25) at Depot %gencylCo. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction late Performed 1 f/12007 Analysis Year 2009 4nalysis Time Period No Build PM Peak Hr .,-- >ro'ecf f)escn tion __II;famRd NYS 25 afDeotLn NoBuild '- `- ast/West Street Main Road NYS 2 North/South`Street De (Lane - ritersection Orientation: East-West „,1,5tudy Period hrs : 0.25 Na or Street Easthound Westbound Aoveme it 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ✓olume veh/h 36 630 637 56 ak=Ho r�pctor,PHF 0;86 0:86 0.86 . ' 0.`86 0.86 P�f Nobby owate $1 732 :. � . - _ .a#t>avy Ve#ndes 2. _ Undivided dia '- pe R`f`Chanri-lifted _ Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 „.onfiguration L T TR U stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 53 51 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 61 0 59 veh/h) Percent Hea VehiclesVU0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0RT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration LR sApproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration L LR v(veh/h) 41 120 C(m) (veh/h) 821 175 � Vic 0.05 0.69 _. 50y, queue length 0.16 4.10 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.6 61.4 _..LOS /t F Approach Delay (slveh) — — 61.4 pproach LOS — — F opyright®2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 4:46 PI Main Rd(NYS 25)at Depot tnalyst MCM Intersection- Ln tgency/Co. Nelson& Pope Jurisdiction )ate Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 c--nn-alysis Time Period No Build Sat Peak Hr riL Description Main Rd NYS 25 at Depot Ln No Build s 'est Street Main Road(NYS 25) North/South Street: Depot Lane ite rection Odentation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 la or Street Eastbound Westbound lovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 'olume veh/h) 52 633 685 56 ,eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 lourly Flow Rate, HFR 54 659 0 0 713 58 ieh/h lercent Heavy Vehicles 2 - - 0 - - 9edian Type Undivided tT Channelized 0 0 anes 1 1 0 0 1 0 ;onfiguration L T TR 1 stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 1 11 12 L T R L T R folume veh/h) 63 98 leak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 IFIV Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 65 0 102 v I it Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 percent Grade (%) 0 0 -tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 2T Channelized 0 0 _anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration - LR >pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 -ane Configuration L LR i (veh/h) 54 167 (m) (veh/h) 844 217 do 0.06 0.77 35%queue length 0.20 5.38 .ontrol Delay(s/veh) 9.6 61.6 -OS A F Approach Delay (slveh) - - 61.6 4pproach LOS - - F 7o7^nht 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 1115@007 4:46 PM nalyst MCM Intersection School House Rd at Depot gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Lane late Performed 11/112007 Jurisdiction No Build AM Peak Hr` ' Analysis Year 2009 nalysis Time Period (Adjused) ro ea Desai tion School House Rd at Depot Lane No Build AM Peak Rd usted ast/West Street School House Road North/South-Street: Depot Lane itersection Orientation: ,North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Aa or Street Northbound Southbound 4ovement 1 2 3 4 51 6 L T. .E R L T R 5 86 111 34 -. 0.74 0.74' 0.74 0.74 0.74 Lt a e HFR 149 45 75- _ . 6-1 124 0 Qs. e e" Vo lltes 2 _ — d?4ii Undivided RT Channelized vanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Z:onfiguration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 1 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R .Volume veh/h 23 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 1 0.74 I 0.74 OJ4 OJ4 Houdy Flow Rate,HFR 31 0 16 0 0 0 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfi uration LR d I I Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 -Lane Configuration LT LR 47 6 v (veh/h) 733 ELJ1379 v!c 0.00 0.06 - '95%queue length 0.01 0.21 _ Control Delay (sNeh) 7.6 10.2 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 10.2 Approach LOS Copyright®2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 11/52007 4:47 PI vr, L: School House Rd at School \nalyst MCM Intersection Hous kgency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction )ate Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 knalysis Time Period No Build PM Peak Hr . Description . School House Rd at Depot Lane No Build --Vest Street: School House Road North/South Street: Depot Lane its..zction Orientation: North-South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Aa or Street Northbound Southbound 4ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R /olume veh/h 2 82 89 11 )eak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 iourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 112 0 0 121 15 veh/h 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — Aedian Type Undivided 2T Channelized 0 0 vanes 0. 1 0 0 1 0 :onfigurationLT ITR J stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound dovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ✓olume veh/h 26 10 Deak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 try ply Flow Rate, HFR 35 0 13 0 0 0 ? nt Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 P�went Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N . Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(veh/h) 2 48 C(m) (veh/h) 1448 784 Vlc 0.00 0.06 95%queue length 0.00 0.20 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.5 9.9 LOS A A Approach Delay (slveh) — — 9.9 Approach LOS — — A .�.q�aght 0 2005 university of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/5/2007 4:47 VM 1rlalyst MCM Intersection School House Hd at Depot Lane Nency/Co. Nelson&Pope Jurisdiction Date.Performed 11/112007 Analysis Year 2009 -Analysis Time Period No Build Sat Peak Hr fro ect Description School House Rd at Depot Lane No Build East/West Street School House Road North/South Street: De of Lane tersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Malor street Northbound I Southbound Aovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R _.._ . olume Veh/h 4 97 139" Htii Factor; PHF 0;80 0:80 0.80 0::80 0:80 ou"Y ow Rad4 121 .� �s, ,: 71 3 .Y ;. _. _ice eLfltliea Vehicles 2 — — _. >,•, Aedian T e Undivided ivided RT Channelized 0tI 0., +=anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 -onfi uration LT TR U stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R' L T R Liolume veh/h 30EIN 19 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 37 23 0 0 0 eh/h ercent HeavyVehicles 2 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade (°k) 0 tared Approach N rage 0 RT Channelized0 0 anes 0 0 0 0 0 onfiuration _ {Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration LT LR N4 (veh/h) 4 60 C{m) (veh/h) 1358 730 [w/c 0.00 0.08 5%queue length 0.01 0.27 Control Delay (sNeh) t 7.7 10.4 IROS A 8 Approach Delay (sNeh) — — 10.4 1Approach LOS — — B Popyright 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 4A7 F 'Analyst MCM Intersection Middle Rd (CR 48) @ Depot Agency/Co. Nelson &Pope Lane Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 Analysis Time Period No Build PM Peak Hour ?� L Description Middle Road CR 48 at Depot Lane No Build Vest Street Middle Road(CR 48) INorth/South Street De of Lane nteftection Orientation: East-West I$tudy Period rs): 0.25 Nis or Street Eastbound Westbound 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (ve [h 19 686 40 39 722 2 beak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0:97 0.97 0.97 0.97. Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 19 707 41 40 744 2 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 2 — ,Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 1 1 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 PIq Configuration L, T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 ' it 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 56 14 50 2 6 14 eak+lour ,Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97; H .—ly Flow Rate, HFR 57 14 51 2 6 14 1 ' mt Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%} 0 0 flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 1 1 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R proach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v(veh/h) 19 40 71 51 814 C (m) (veh/h) 859 887 241 642 217 625 v/c 0.02 0.05 0.29 0.08 0.04 0.02 95%queue length 0.07' 0.14 1.19 0.26 0.11 0.07 Control Delay (stveh) 9.3 9.3 26.1 11.1 22.2 10.9 LOS A A D 8 C B Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 19.8 15.0 pproach LOS — — C C "fight 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21- Generated: 11/52007 4:48 PM _ Middle Rd (CR 48) @ Depot analyst MCM Intersection Lane agency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction date Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 4nalysis Time Period No Build Sat Peak Hour )ro'ect Description Middle Road CR 48)atbe of Lane No Build 01 - ast/West Street Middle Road CR 48 North/South Street Depot Lane htersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 _- - Na or Street _Eastbound Westbound Aovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 _. L T. R L T R volume veh/h 32 580 95 86, 629' 4 - ctor,PHF 0:92 0.92 092 ow o.92.- . ,.. ..._082 Hburl Flow Rate '103 v 93 683 4 °3lyi"ecnTHBairy Vehicles 2 - edian T e Raised curb _. R�1`Channeliied _ _� Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 onfiguration L T R L T R U stream—Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound ,Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 33 26 67 8 15 11 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate', HFR 35 28 72 8 16 11 veh/h ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 lared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 1 1 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R (approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 r ;Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v (veh/h) 34 93 63 72 24 11 C (m) (veh/h) 90 1 214 681 192 654 Vic 0.04 0.10 0.29 0.11 0.13 0.02 t_ 95%queue length 0.12 0.33 1.18 0.35 0.42 0.05 Control Delay (sNeh) 9.1 9.2 28.7 10.9 26.4 10.6 LOS A A D B D B Approach Delay (sNeh) - - 19.2 21.4 Approach LOS - - C C Copyright O 2005 University of Florida,AU Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.21 Generated: 11/52007 4:48 Pi Alq%, Build Condition ?aleraiAMr1_vc,�y��iP_�iu�c'a.x Analyst OSB Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25)at Depot Agency or Go. Nelson a Pope Ln Date Performed 11/05/07 Area Type All other areas Time Period Build AM Peak Hr(Mitigated) Jurisdiction 00026 Analysis Year 2009 T .;rade 0= 0 0 t � Grade= 0 Sljl m ltlallv Arrow = T i 1 e = R i I I l r L } - TR Grade= 0 i 1 � = LT I r\ X LR i Grade c LTR EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 'Volume (vph) 61 418 555 54 WI 70 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Actuated (P/A) A P P P A t Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 10.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 1 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Timing 3.2 3.2 3.2 EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 "iming G= 6.0 G= 52.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= 17.0' G= G= G'= Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= 0 Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cvcle Length C= 90.0 f ✓�,� ;�-�' • - .- • i• -• I-•• IPeak Hr Mitigiffay SB RT 70 UiheGr • . Adjusted Flow Proportion of or Of it(� i 9. • 1L6x "inti • •1I •11 .■ 111 -■■■- 11I1 ®.® 111 ®®■®®® .. 111 111 .■ 111 -��. 111 111 111 .■ 111 .�.. 111 111 111 -. 111 ■... 111 111 111 .■ 111 �■■- 111 111 111 .. 111 ■• 111 • 1 IJ 1 S■ 111 �■■S.1 11 -•• •. 1 . I I 11 S■■S.- 111 .�®�■■� ® 111 111 S■ 111 S■■� 111 nalyst OSB Intersection Site Dwy at School House Rd gency/Co. Nelson & Pope Jurisdiction 00026 ate Performed 11/05/07 Analysis Year 2009 F ;is Time Period Build Sat Peak Hour r t Description Site Driveway at School House Road(Build Sat Peak Hour) Jest Street: School House Road lNorthlSouth Street: Site Driveway tersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 �3 Vla'or Street Eastbound I Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R /olume veh/h) 1 11 4632 19 leak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ourly Flow Rate, HFR eh/h) 11 46 0 0 32 19 3ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — -- 0 — — edian Type Undivided T Channelized 0 0 ranes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR Jpstream Signal 1 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h) 16 10 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 16 0 10 e, . nt Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0:::l anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration LR pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 11 26 (m) (veh/h) 1555 933 v/c1 0.01 . 0.03 5% queue length 0.02 0.09 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.3 9.0 OS A A pproach Delay(stveh) — — 9.0 Approach LOS — — A ht 02005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM version 5.21 Generated: 11/92007 9:49 AM �nalyst OSB Intersection Site Dwy at School House Rd gency/Co. Nelson,&Pope Jurisdiction 00026 ate Performed 11/05/07 Analysis Year 2009 halysis Time Period Build PM Peak Hour ro'ect Description Site Drivewayat School House Road Build PM Peak Hour) ast/West Street: School House Road North/South Street Site Drivewa tersection Orientation: East-West - Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 T _ R L T R flume vehlh - . 3 5 12 6 ao 1,00 1 €181 Rate)HRR z,, 3 35 b ,= 0; 12 6 rt. ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — edi`aiiT pe Undivided T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR stream Signal 0 0 IAanes treet Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R veh/h 7 44 ---- I(veh1h) our Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 low Rate, HFR 0 0 0 7 0 Hea Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 t Grade(%) 0 0 Approach N N ge 0 0 nnelized 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiuration LR roach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound -Jvlovement 1 4 7 8 9 10M�R 12 Lane Configuration LT(veh/h) 3(m) (veh/h) 1599_.v/c 0.00 5%queue length 0.01 0.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 8.7 - OS A A pproach Delay(slveh) — — 8.7 Approach LOS — — A opynghl C 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+T/'t Version 521 Generated: 1119/2007 VI �nalyst OSB Intersection Site Dwy at School House Rd gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction 00026 ate Performed 11/05/07 Analysis Year 2009 r4 sis Time Period Build AM Peak Hour r .t Description Site Driveway at School House Road(Build AM Peak Hour) _ Vest Street: School House Road North/South Street: Site Driveway tersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 iAa'or Street Eastbound I Westbound ovement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Mume (veh/h) 6 33 37 11 peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 33 0 0 37 11 eh/h percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — -- 0 -- — edian Type Undivided T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR Jpstream Signal 0 0 inorStreet Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 _12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 13 8 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . y Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 13 0 8 N. `1 ant Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 ercent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration LR proach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 6 21 lC (m) (vehlh) 1559 952 v/c 0.00 0.02 5% queue length 0.01 0.07 Control Delay(slveh) 7.3 8.9 LOS A A ]Approach Delay(s/veh) — — 8.9 Approach LOS — — A tht 0 2005 University of Florida,AN Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 1119/2007 9:45 AM e moo , It 11 nalyst MCM Intersection Middle Rd (CR 48) @ Depot Lane agency/Co. Nelson & Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 alysis Time Period Build Sat Peak Hour ro"ect Description Middle Road (CR 46)at Depot Lane (Build) East/West Street Middle Road CR 48) NorthlSouth Street: Depot Lane rsec'on.Orientation: East-West ]Study Period hrs : 0.25 !I Sli a or Street Eastbound Westbound ovement` 1 .2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Wele /'h 91:: 629 4 Footle, Eup Q92 0;92 0.92 0.92 a^9 A O:S2 h h Flow Rate;HSR '" ` eti-ll34 630 109 98 683 4 rent-Heavy Vehicles 2 - 2 - edian Type Raised curb RT Channelized 1 1 anes 1 2 1 1 2 1 onfiguration L T R L T R 1.113stream Si nal 0 0 -Minor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 38 26 72 8 15 11 L,Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 41 2878 8 16 11 vehlh erceW Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 lared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized J1 1 ones 0 1 1 0 1 1 onfiuration LT R LT R 1. pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration L L LT R LT R (vehlh) 34 98 69 78 24 11 C (m) (vehlh) 906 948 212 681 189 654 lc 0.04 0.10 0.33 0.11 0.13 0.02 5% queue length 0.12 0.34 1.35 0.39 0.43 0.05 Control Delay(s/veh) 9.1 9.2 30.0 11.0 26.8 10.6 OS A A D B D B Approach Delay (s/veh) - - 19.9 21.7 pproach LOS - - C C yright 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 A Sim _ `�= K . B _ ., a.. �I �Q.,:.sic:'-asxu >".V,.. nalyst MCM Intersection Middle Rd (CR 48) @ Depot �gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Lane Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 i4r( >is Time Period Build PM Peak Hour IE t Description Middle Road CR 48 at Depot Lane (Build) asUWest Street: Middle Road(CR 48) INorth/South Street: Depot Lane tersection Orientation: East-West iStudy Period hrs : 0.25 a or Street Eastbound I Westbound ovement 1 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 L T R L I T R dolume veh/h 19 686 42 40 722 2 eak-HourFactor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 19 707 43 41 744 2' 'veh/h ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 - - 2 - Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 1 1 anes 1 2 1 1 2 1 onfiguration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0- inorStreet Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 58 14 52 2 6 14 Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 y Flow Rate, HFR 59 14 53 2 6 l 14 RZent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach _ N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 1 1 anes 0 1 1 0 1 1 onfi uration LT R LT R pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration L L LT R LT R (veh/h) 19 41 73 53 8 14 C (m) (veh/h) 859 887 241 . 642 217 625 lc 0.02 ' 0.05 0.30 0.08 0.04 0.02 5%queue length 0.07 0.15 1.23 0.27 0.11 0.07 Control Delay (stveh) 9.3 9.3 26.3 11.1 22.2 10.9 OS A A D B C B Approach Delay (s/veh) - - 19.9 15.0 roach LOS - - C C ht 0 2005 University of Flodda,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 11/52007 506 PM alyst MCM Intersection Middle Rd (CR 48) @ Depot Lane gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction . Date Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 halysis Time Period Build AM Peak Hour Project Description Middle Road CR 48 at Depot LaneBuild 1 EastlWest Street Middle Road(CR 48 North/South Street: Depot Lane tersecbon Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound ovi=ment 1 .2 13 4 5 1 6 L T R L T R 56 70 701 5 0,89 0.89 0 89 0 89 89 our'ly'FI �ftaCel2 ;. 13 761 62 78 787 eli/Fr rerceat.Heavy Vehicles___ .2 2 - dian Type Raised curb RT Channelized 1 1 -liTanes 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 onfiguration L I T IR L T R U stream Si net 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 89 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 49 33 90 1 17 14 e=Mr, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 55 37 101 1 19 15 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2__J 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 1 1 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 onfi uration LT R LT R pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration L L LT R LT R (veh/h) 13 78 92 101 20 15 C (m)(veh/h) 828 847 200 618 177 605 /c 0.02 0.09 0.46 0.16 0.11 0.02 5%queue length 0.05 0.30 2.20 0.58 0.38 0.08 Controi Delay (sNeh) 9.4 9.7 37.5 12.0 27.9 11.1 OS A A E B D B Approach Dela (s/veh) - - 24.1 20.7 pproach LOS - - C C _ opyright m 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCl Version 5.21 Generated: 11/5/2007 J School House Rd at Depot nalyst MCM Intersection igency/Co. Nelson &Pope Date Performed 1111/2007 Jurisdiction Lane >is Time Period Build Sat Peak Hr Analysis Year 2009 ;t Description School House Rd at Depot Lane (Build) aadWest Street School House Road North/South Street: Depot Lane tersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 MJXMMMMM�w a'or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 8 97 139 43 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0:80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 121 0 0 173 53 veh/h ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — -- 0 — — edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 ones 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R glume veh/h) 40 22 Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0,80 0.80 *ly Flow Rate, HFR 49 0 27 0 0 0 n etcent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 . 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 ones 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfi uration LR proach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 9 76 C(m) (veh/h) 1342 709 lc 0.01 0.11 5% queue length 0.02 0.36 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 10.7 . OS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 10.7 roach LOS I — — B 1 "ght02005 University of Florida,AO Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Geneated: 11/52007 5:05 PM J nalyst MCM Intersection School House Rd at School Hous gency/Co. Nelson & Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/112007 Analysis Year 2009 nalysis Time Period Build PM Peak Hr Project Description School House Rd at Depot Lane(Build) East/West Street: School House Road North/South Street: Depot Lane terse-,tion Orientation: North-South ]Study Period hrs : 0.25 ON a'orStreet Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6. . :. . . L T R L T R _L2_ 89 14 eIJSu,Factor-PHF 0.73 073 073 0.73 73` ou�ly Flow R'aTe, HFR ; 5. 11-2 0 0 121 19 vehlh , eroent.Heavy Vehicles_ 2 — 0 — — edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR U stream Si nal 0 0 inor Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 30 12 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 '0.73 ., Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 41 0 16 0 0 0 veh/h ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration LR proach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9M778 12 ane Configuration LT (veh/h) 5 C (m) (veh/h) 1443/c0.00 5%queue length 0.01 0.24 f rol Delay (sNeh) 7.5 10.0 A A oach Delay (s/veh) — — 10.0 oach LOS — — A ghl0 2005 university of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm version 5.21 Generated: 11/5/20070 V e erg �110 a�tiot?sa �. OR5 � � oma nalyst MCM Intersection School House Rd at Depot gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Lane Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/l/2007 Analysis Year 2009 sis Time Period Build AM Peak Hr tL A Description School House Rd at Depot Lane (Build) East/West Street: School House Road North/South Street: Depot Lane tersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 a'or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 7 96 111 41 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 129 0 0 149 55 veh/h) ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 1 0 0 1 tj onfiguration LT Upstream Signal 0 0 inor Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h) 31 15 -Hour Factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 ly Flow Rate, HFR 41 0 20 0 0 0 h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach NorthboundSouthbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 9 61 C (m)(veh/h) 1368 722 v/c 0.01 0.08 95% queue length 0.02 0.28 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 10.4 LOS A B Approach Delay(s/veh) — — 10.4 aroach LOS — — B fight®2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM version 5.21 Generated: 11/5/2007 5:05 PM natyst MCM Intersection Ln Main Rd (NYS 25) at Depot �4gency/Co. Nelson & Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 nalysis Time Period Build Sat Peak Hr f Project Description Main Rd(NYS 25 at Depot Ln (Build) East/West Street Main Road(NYS 25) North/South Street: Depot Lane ntelseG1a911 Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 or Street Eastbound I Westbound ovemQlit 1 2 3 q 5 6„. . L T R L T R ., 693 60 "PIN96 0.96 0.96 6.96 0 6 otic Few a , HFR ,.,y 0 54 665 0 0 721 `62 yeti/h __._ .. i eFlt}�egiV yVehicles.- 2 - -- 0 - edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 _ .0 anes 1 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration L T TR U stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 1 11 12 L T R L T R olume vehlh 66 98 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 68 O 1 102 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Confi uration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(veh1h) 54 15.82 C(m) (veh/h) 835 V/c 0.06 95%queue length 0.21 Control Delay(stveh) 9.6 LOS A F Approach Delay(s/veh) - - 68.3 Approach LOS - - F opyright®2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 11/5120070r, J nalyst MGM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Depot gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Ln Date Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 r( :is Time Period No Build PM Peak Hr t Description Main Rd(NYS 25) at Depot Ln Build) -ast/West Street: Main Road (NYS 25) North/South Street: Depot Lane tersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hl 0.25 a or Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L I T R L T R ePlume veh/h) 36 632 639 57 ak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.66 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 41 734 0 0 743 66 'veh/h ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 0 _ Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 anes 1 1 0 0 1 0— I'onfiguration I'onfiguration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 T- inor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Blume veh/h) 55 51 P Hour Factor, PHF 0.66 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 63 0 59 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 E 4 0 Gres 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration LR pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vehlh) 41 122 C(m) (veh/h) 817 172 /c 0.05 0.71 95%queue length 0.16 4.33 Control Delay(a✓veh) 9.6 65.2 LOS A F Approach Delay(s/veh) — — 65.2 roach LOS — — F 4 ht 02005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11&2ow 5.:04 PM I MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Depot Vgalyst Ln ency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 nalysis Time Period Build AM Peak Hr roject Description Main Rd(NYS 25) at Depot Ln (Build) _- - astlWest Street Main Road NYS 25 North/South Street. Depot Lane action Orientation: East-West [Study Period hrs : 0.25 a or Street Eastbound Westbound bvement -1 2 L T R L T R a&torPHF 0 82 n,82 0 82 0 82 82 iCFfow Rate, FR 74 509 0 0 676fs5 � `; eh/h rGepuHeavy Vehicles 2 0 edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 anes 1 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration L T TR U stream Si nal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 42 70 eak-Hour Factor, PHF0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 51 0 85 veh/h ercent Hea Vehicles 0 - 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 lared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfi uration LR pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 74 136 C (m)(veh/h) 866 252 /c 0.09 0.54 2.93 5% queue length 0.28 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.5 34.9 LOS A D Approach Delay (siveh) — 34.9 pproach LOS — D — opynght®2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm version 521 Generated: 11/52007 J Main Rd(NYS 25) at North lgnalyst MCM Intersection ency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Rd Date Performed 11/1/07 Analysis Year 2009 sis Time Period Build Sat Peak Hr _ ;,t Description Main Rd(NYS 25) at North St(Build) East/West Street: Main Road(NYS 25) INorth/South Street: North Street teisecbonOrientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 lowa'or Streetb Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 4 661 705 5 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 734 0 0 783 5 l(veh/h ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 0 -- — edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 1 0 0 anes 1 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration L T TR [Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement - 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 8 7 :-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 f ly Flow Rate, HFR h 0 0 0 8 0 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 1 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(veh/h) 4 15 C(m) (veh/h) 831 187 vlc 0.00 0.08 95% queue length 0.01 0.26 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 25.9 JLOS A D Approach Delay(s/veh) — — 25.9 'roach LOS — — D r 7ht 0 2005 University of Florida,Ail Rights Reserved HCS+TM version 521 Generated: 1115@007 5:04 PM rnalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at North St gency/Co. Nelson & Pope Jurisdiction JDate Performed 11/112007 - Analysis Year 2009 Analysis Time Period Build PM Peak Hr ro'ect Description Main Rd(NYS 25) at North St(Build) ast/West Street: Main Road NYS 25 North/South Street: North Street ntersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Maot'Str�et `'` Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T FC .. oJutng vehlh) 1 661 662 10 R FR.Nn 1726- 0 _ 11r - - 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 elan Type... Undivided _ T Channelized 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration L T TR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 0 Peak-Hour_Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 0 veh/h Percent He Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 1 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 _.0 Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(vehfh) 1 2 C(m)(veh/h) 869 142 v/c 0.00 0.01 95%queue length 0.00 0.04 Control Delay (sNeh) 9.1 30.7 LOS A D Approach Delay (stveh) — — 30.7 Approach LOS — — D 1Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HGS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 i I J '� Analyst MCM Intersection Main Rd (NYS 25)at North St Eency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction te Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 r„sls Time Period Build AM Peak Hr .i Description Main Rd(NYS 25) at North St(Build) ✓est Street Main Road(NYS 25) North/South Street: North Street ntersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 a'or Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 2 514 613 8 'eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 642 0 0 766 9 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — 0 -- -- edian Type Undivided T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 2 1 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 yr Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 1 --nt Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 anes- 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration LR %pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 2 3 (m) (veh/h) 841 191 V/c 0.00 0.02 95% queue length 0.01 0.05 Control Delay(s/veh) 9.3 24.1 LOS A C Approach Delay(s/veh) — — 24.1 Approach LOS — — C off, 'ght O 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved NCS+Tm Version 521 Generated: 1115/2007 5:03 PM l n' AIM 4nalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd (NYS 25) at Griffin St gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction ate Performed 111112007 Analysis Year 2009 Malysis Time Period Build Sat Peak Hr ro"ect Descri tion Main Road at Griffin Street Build -ast/West Street Main Road NYS 25 North/South Street: Griffin Street ntersecion Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 -1 lile ,. Maw Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R glume veh/h 42 567 576 109 4 FG'A'e 5_.a S, 0.95 0.95 0.95 -FI ate HFR _ 4 i..._ D 6D6 .. :.. 396 F . 1446—i'cent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — ediafl-Type,_- _._ Undivided T Channelized Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR stream Si na 1 0 0 inor street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 67 68 eak-HoufFactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0:95 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 p 0 veh/h ercent Hea Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 ercent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 0 1 0 1 on uration I I L R pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound IMovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT L R (veh/h) 44 70 71 (m) (veh/h) 882 159 461 v/c 0.05 0.44 0.15 5%queue length 0.16 2.00 0.54 ontrol Delay (s/veh) 9.3 44.3 14.2 LOS A E 8 pproach Delay (s 11 — — 29.2 Approach LOS — D i_Fopyright 0 2005 University or Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/52007 5'-'`P 4nalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Griffin St 4gencylCo. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 4\n(^'•�sis Time Period Build PM Peak Hr ?rd . Description Main Road at Griffin Street (Build) lest Street: Main Road (NYS 25) North/South Street. Griffin Street ntersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Yla'or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R /olume veh/h) 32 570 593 49 'eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 35 640 I 0 0 666 55 'veh/h percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — 0 edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0' _anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR U stream Si nal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 23 37 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 y Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 25 0 41 1 k .nt Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 ercent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 0 1 0 1 o ntion L R Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound t 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 figuration LT L R 35 25 41 C (m)(veh/h) 881 146 443 v/c 0.04 0.17 0.09 95% queue length 0.12 0.59 0.30 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.3 34.2 14.0 LOS A D B Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 21.6 pproach LOS — — C ,gM 02005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM version 5.21 Generated: 11/5/2007 5:02 PM 1114110, M raiai �`€irru r 1 - nalystMCM Intersection Main Rd (NYS 25) at Griffin St gency/Co . Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction 'ate Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 Analysis Time Period Build AM Peak Hr ro'ect Description Main Road at Griffin Street(Build) ast/West Street Main Road(NYS 25) North/South Street: Griffin Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 _ L T R L T R y lume.. ala/h 62 420 499 90 3 �mla w .. 082, 0 83 y "mRate�l l€E;�"'' . ..74 Rercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — ediarrT.ype—..____ . Undivided T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR stream Si nal 0 0 Inor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 43 49 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 51 0 59 'Y' veh/h ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 ercent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 0 1 0 1 onfiguration L R pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT L R (veh/h) 74 51 59 (m) (veh/h) 890 161 466 V/c 0.08 0.32 0.13 5% queue length 0.27 1.27 0.43 Control Delay (sNeh) 9.4 37.4 13.8 - LOS A E B Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 24'8 Approach LOS — — C ' $opyright®2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 11/5/2007 J �nalyst MGM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Highland gency/Co. Nelson & Pope Jurisdiction fate Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 rA -sis Time Period Build Sat Peak Hr 3 Description Main Rd(NYS 25)at Highland Rd(Build) € Vest Street: Main Road(NYS 25) North/South Street: Highland Road Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 a or Street I Eastbound I Westbound ovement 1 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R L T R �/olume (veh/h) 1 9 633 505 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 088 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 719 0 0 573 9 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — 0 edian Type Undivided TChannelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR Upstream Si nal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 10 4 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 'yt Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 11 0 4 _ant Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 ercent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration LR pproach Eastbound WestboundNorthbound Southbound _Movement 1 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h)' 10 15 (m) (veh/h) 992 209 Vic 0.01 0.07 5% queue length 0.03 0.23 ontrol Delay(slveh) 8.7 23.6 OS A C pproach Delay (s/veh) — — 23.6 Ap_proach LOS — — C 'ght O 2005 University of Florida,AO Rights Reserved HCS+TTM Version 521 Generated: 11152007 5:01 PM J 1111111,11 alyst MCM Intersection Main Rd (NYS 25) at Highland pg ncy/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 Analysis Time Period Build PM PeakjHr ro'ect Description Main Rd NYS 25) at Highland Rd(Build) ast/West Street Main Road(NYS 25) jNorthlSouth Street Highland Road ntersection Orientation: East-West [Study Period hrs : 0.25 Ma"or Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R glume 'eh/In -.6 630 12 0793. Wi FaftaFR fi a X26 0 0. °a. : 677 'ercent HeavyVehicles 2 — — 0 — - - -- Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 6 7 Peak-Hour.Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93___]_ 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 6 0 7 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized _ 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound I Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(veh/h) 6 13 C (m) (veh41) 905 258 V/C 0.01 0.05 95%queue length 0.02 0.16 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.0 19.7 LOS A C IApproach Delay (s/veh) Approach LOS — — C lCopyright 0 2005 University of Fiorida,All Rights Rese ed HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 11/512007A��I J J I e �eainFpry , tnalyst MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Highland gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction '' ate Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 Ad sis Time Period Build AM Peak Hr t Description Main Rd(NYS 25)at Highland Rd(Build) West Street: Main Road(NYS 25) INorth/South Street Highland Road Intersection Orientation: East-West 15tudy Period hrs : 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume(veh/h) 8 465 533 11 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h g 560 0 0 642 13 ,Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 – -- 0 – – Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street" Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 9 7 P k-Hour Factor. PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 . 0.83 „ty Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 10 0 8 ti Pi.;ent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 F— RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(veh/h) 9 18 C (m) (veh/h) 932 264 v/c 0.01 0.07 95%queue length 0.03 0.22 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.9 19.6 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/veh) – – 19.6 Approach LOS – – C ..--ight 02005 University of Florida,M Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 111.Wn07 5:00 PM n. MCM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Crown �nalyst Land gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/1/2007 Analysis Year 2009 alysis Time Period Build Sat Peak Hr ro ect Descri tion Main Rd LNYS 25) at Crown Land Rd(Build) East/West Street: Main Road(NYS 25) orth/South Street Crown Land Road tteeb n.Qfjentation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 01111511111 WL!_Street Eastbound Westbound ovemellt 1 .2 3 -:4 5 6 L T R I L T R E�235 D93 01393 093 09 r �cE- kIF~ q M ourly_low ate IFF HFR669 5 efeent Leavy.Vehicles 1 2 — — 0 — A edian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 1 0 0 11 0 onfiguration LT I TR U stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 2 14 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 15 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 1 fared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 t. Confi uration Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR 17 v (veh/h) 1 378 C (m)(veh/h) 917 . v/c 0.01 0.04 95% queue length 0.03 0.14 Control Delay(s/veh) 9.0 15.0 LOS A B pproach Delay (Shl — — 15.0 ,JApproach LOS — — B } Copyrighl®2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+iM version 5.21 Generated: 11/5/2007 1 J alyst MGM Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Crown n gency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Land Date Performed 1111/2007 Analysis Year 2009 is Time Period Build PM Peak Hr t Description Main Rd(NYS 25) at Crown Land Rd(Build) ast/West Street Main Road (NYS 25) INorth/South Street: Crown Land Road fersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 101 I'll,11111'ill 11' 1111 1 1,11,11Iff _f . s ; e ; . n.. . IAa'or Street Eastbound Westbound Jlovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R /olume (veh/h) 13 585 614 4 °eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 609 0 0 639 4 veh/h percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — Aedian Type Undivided 2T Channelized 0 0 -anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Donfiguration LT TR J stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 11 -Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(veh/h) 13 13 C (m) (veh(h) 942 380 We 0.01 0.03 95% queue length 0.04 0.11 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.9 14.8 LOS A B Approach Delay(s/veh) — — 14.8 roach LOS — — B .r M 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 11/5/2007 4S8 PM Main Rd(NYS 25) at Crown alyst MCM Intersection Land g,ency/Co. Nelson &Pope Jurisdiction Date Performed 111112007 Analysis Year 2009 alysis Time Period Build AM Peak Hr .; Project Description Main Rd(NYS 25) at Crown Land Rd(Build) East/West Street: Main Road NYS 25) North/South Street: Crown Land Road tersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 - a'or Street Eastbound Westbound ovement ,_ 1 2 _ 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 562 1. - acFHE . - 0.81 0.81 0.81 1 0.81 0.81 1 d>7rly F ow Ra F '4 581 0 0 693 < - etUti ercent_Reavy Vehicles — _ edian T e Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR U stream Si nal 0 0 [nor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R [ olume veh/h 4 10 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 .M, Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 4 0 12 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade(°k) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 ` RT Cfiannelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 ;M3C25 Lane Configuration LT (veh/h) 4 C (m) (vehlh) 901 v/c 0.00 95% queue length 0.01 Control Delay(sNeh) 9.0 LOS A Approach Delay(sNeh)Approach LOS — — opyrigM®2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 11/51200701 Build with Mitigation Condition i i CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirliilili eject Description Main Rd(NYS 25)at Depot Ln (Build AM Peak Hr Mitigated) 1 EB WB NB SB Lane Group L T TR LR Adjusted Flow Rate 74 510 743 136 4 Satflow Rate 1652 1801 1840 1786 Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.58 0.19 Lane Group Capacity 396 1261 1063 337 We Ratio 0.19 0.40 0.70 0.40 Flow Ratio 0.04 0.28 0.40 0.08 j f Critical Lane Group Y N y Y Sum Flow Ratios 0.52 Lost Time/Cycle 15.00 Critical v/c Ratio 0.63 �J EB WB NB SW ne Group LT TR LR djusted Flow Rate 74 510 743 136 Lane Group Capacity 396 1261 1063 337 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.40 0.70 0.40 Green Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.58 0.19 Uniform Delay d1 6.3 5.6 13.5 32.0 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.2 1.0 3.8 0.8 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 6.6 6.6 17.3 32.8 Lane Group LOS A A B C Approach Delay 6.6 17.3 32.8 Approach LOS A B C Intersection Delay 14.5 Intersection LOS B Copyright O 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/512007 3:00 PP 1 �� �A, Analyst OSB Intersection Main Rd(NYS 25) at Depot Agency,or Co. Nelson & Pope Ln Date Performed. Area Type All;otherareas Time Period Build POPeak Hr(Mitigated) Jurisdiction _OQO S Analysis Year 2009 o aIF Grade= 0 Grade= 0 � �. r _. . , r 1 - _ 1wl _ J = L # =-TR r Grade= 0 LT t � = LR Grade= r = LTR EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH T 4� Volume(vph) 36 632 639 54 55 51 % Heavy Veh 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 1 1 0.86 1 0.8E Actuated(P/A) A P P P 11 A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 1 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 10.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 1 0 0 0 Pedestrian Timing 3.2 32 3.2 JJJ EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 6.0 G = 52.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G= 17.0 G = G = G Y= 5 jY= 5 Y= 0 IY= 0 JY = 5 Y= Y= Y Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C= 90.0 Project Description- Main Rd(NYS 25) at Depot Ln (Build PM Peak Hr Mitigated) 'Adjusted Flow Rate •30W • OWNSAdjusted Flow Rate Proportion of LT or RT �® • �� E e"S Mat _�� •�.- -cs.,,.,..a.`:^.3-> ...:•. L* .�'4.rs.z-+,,."u.• ` _.-o..�.;;�.. `<'�u<,�_.t,�...s,�.:�;' se ' w->`��',=.��.�>e �.'•. •/1 •II •1/ �� •11 Number of Lanes pop WNW e, .1/ II, 11. -■ / I �■ II/ III III III 11101 ,11 • , 111 S I!I S■■S■1 . Secondary fLT 11I !I! ■ III ��� 11I !I. . 11I �■■� ,1I CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET .'-Ma1n.RdfNYS -de t Build PM eak EB WB NB SB - Lane Group L T TR LR Adjusted Flow Rate 42 735 1 806 1 123 Satflow Ram 1652 1801 1843 1811 1. ostTime + 2.0 2:0 2.0 2-0 _. �. o 0 1261 1065 _.. Lane Group Capacity 372 342 .v/c Ratios; 0:11 0.58 0.76 Flow Ratio 0.03 0-41 0.44 0.07 ^� Critical Lane Group Y N Y 1 Sum Flow Ratios 0.53 1 Lost Time/Cycle 15.00 JI Critical v/c Ratio 0.64 EB WB I NB SB Lane Group L T TR I I I I I LR 4� Adjusted Flow Rate 42 1735 1 1806 1 1123 Lane Group Capacity 372 1261 1065 1 342 v/c Ratio 0.1 10.76 1 10.36 Green Ratio Q70 0.70 0.58 1 10.19 7 Uniform Delay d1 6.4 6.8 14.3 131.8 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.50 10.50 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.1 2.0 5.0 0.6 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 6.6 8.8 19.3 32.4 1 Lane Group LOS A A B C J Approach Delay 8.7 19.3 32.4 1 Approach LOS A B C 11 intersection Delay 15.4 Intersection LOS B Copyright®2005 University of Florida,AN Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/5/2007 3:0 00gTaripM nun..ti .. � � Analyst OSB �ction 'Main Rd(NYS 25) at Depot Interse Agency or Co. Nelson &Pope Ln 4 Date Performed 11/05/07 Area Type All other areas Time Period Build Sat Peak Hr(Mitigated) Jurisdiction 00026 Analysis Year 2009 I� .. e- _ tirade= 0 0 0 e i Grade= 0 S'9xft Rorl An= i T R 15 L TR Grade 0 = LT , +1 ly - L R Y Grade= = LTR EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 52 639 693 60 66 86 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Actuated (P/A) A P P P A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 1 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 10.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 Parking(Y or N) N N N N N N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 1 Pedestrian Timing 3.2 3.2 3,2 EB Only EW'Perm 03 04 SB Only. 06 07 08 ming G= 6.0 G= 52.0 G = 0.0 G= 0.0 G= 17.0 G G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs =0.25 cle Length C= 90.0 c l G� 1� 5iR vv' l"k BUR _} �� TH ®® Lane Group Adjusted Flow Rate Proportion of LT or RT ®� ®�■® ® n '3:" •'Ca Y. .3 i S +S' "y. y FIRM J CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET roject Description Main Rd(NYS 25)at Depot Ln (Build Sat Peak Hr Mitigated) EB WB NB SB Lane Group L T TR LR Adjusted Flow Rate 54 666 785 .159 1 Satflow Rate 1652 1801 1843 1796 Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.58 0.19 Lane Group Capacity 380 1261 1065 339 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.53 0.74 0.47 Flow Ratio 0.03 0.37 0.43 0.09 Critical Lane Group Y N Y Y Sum Flow Ratios 0.55 1 Lost Time/Cycle 15.00 ]C Critical v/c Ratio 0.66 a EB WB NB SB ane Group L T TR LR Adjusted Flow Rate 54 666 785 159 Lane Group Capacity 380 1261 1065 339 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.53 0.74 0.47 Green Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.LE 0.19 1 Uniform Delay d1 6.4 6.4 14 32.5 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay d2 0.2 1.6 4.6 1.0 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 6.6 8.0 18.5 33.5 Lane Group LOS A A B C Approach Delay 7.9 . 18.5 33.5 Approach LOS A B C 7 Intersection Delay 15.4 Intersection LOS B 1 Copyright®2005 University of Florida,Ali Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 521 Generated: 11/5/2007 3:15 F j� D v a X n y�y . a� . .� . . .« . . . � w . . �, . » . . .�, .�m« . . <�y«: : « ^ � © ©•��y � : . � _ ���. » < . »x��z © �»� « . . . � . . . vim y . - . <��, � w»«», . . . ����� ` � ` ����\/� . \ � � � � � ��\�\ � \\���� ` ���\ / \���/ ��: ye.. . , w ��2 � � \>« , . . , « <��� � , , / : � «wg , • « � - � v. » . �!» � . . - - � \� � \ � �� � �° _ � .� - . \ . . � » . . \ƒ -> - ». . . : » . ^ �. . » , > _f�• »\ _ . . � - . » » y- .� y �- . � ¥ � � � . . . _ � . � © r . �� - « § � \ �� > . . . . . . . . . ..�/ \ ` ��� � . �\ \��y �d� M = 4 l >ti r}y G 1 A � e 1 , +v res ari- - • I as e . %b/ LAY ?+ Yy� 4 s k.. i b yY it 5 ]ll ))M A 5+ low Y Yhi Y T} Aw, yt y y E, r 4'- F K: ppa z r• �. = T i IIt V iiii +, sw � ` 1 � � .:1•• / 1 �',�'�� tea.+w r.�r 4 _ 'Y ,� D v a x v GREEK[ SHIELD ECOLOGY, INC. 703 CARLENE DRIVE „„.. BRIDGEWATER, NEW JERSEY 08807 STEVEN N.HANDEL,PH.D.,HON.ASLA LANDSCAPE RESTORATION CERTIFIED SENIOR ECOLOGIST (ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA) NJ OFFICE 732-932-4516 PRESIDENT CELL 908-881-0383 FAX 908-526-4550 CA OFFICE 949-733.3061 May 5, 2008 Mr. Robert Grover Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. 325 West Main Street Babylon,NY 11102 Re: Botanical survey, Cutchogue, Suffolk County, NY Dear Mr. Grover, At your request, we surveyed the plant species of this site on April 30, 2008, and then determined the species identity of all living plants on site. Names of these 62 species are enclosed, with general habitat type where the plants grow here. The character of this plant community is typical of local old and abandoned farms. Fully half of the species are not native to North America, but are agricultural weeds brought in by settlers over the past 300 years. There are no species present which are rare or endangered or protected by special environmental statues. The landscape is typical of the regional flora where past land uses have replaced the original,historic vegetation with plant communities associated with human-dominated land. Thank you for asking us to visit this community. I also attach the professional qualifications of my field team and myself. Yours truly, Steven N. Handel, Ph.D. Cert. Senior Ecologist f Flora of Cutchogue, property NW of Schoolhouse Lane Nh 5ieritific..Name Common Narpe , Acer platanoides L. Norway maple wooded margin Acer pseudoplatanus L. sycamore maple wooded margin 'Acer rubrum L. red maple wooded margin Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle tree of heaven wooded margin Alliaria petiolata (Bleb.) Cay. & Grande garlic mustard along gravel path Allium vineale L wild garlic wooded margin j Anthoxanthum odoratum L. sweet vernal grass ',open field Apocynum L. dogbane open field Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. mouse-ear-cress open field Baccharis halimifolia L. eastern baccharis open field i Bar barea vulgaris R. Br. ex Ait garden yellow rocket along gravel path Berberis thunbergii DC. Japanese barberry wooded margin Betula L. birch open field Card amine hirsuta L. hairy bittercress ;open field Celastrus orbiculata Thunb. Oriental bittersweet ;wooded margin iDactylis glomerata L. orchardgrass open field iDaucus carota L. Queen Anne's lace open field/along gravel path Draba verna L. spring draba along gravel path Elaeagnus umbellata Thunb. autumn olive open field Euonymus L spindletree. winter creeper (possibly) Euthamia Nutt. ex Cass. goldentop open field Galium aparine L. stickywilly ,open field Hieracium L hawkweed open field Juncus L. rush open field Juniperus virginiana L. eastern redcedar open field Lamium purpureum L. purple deadnettle along gravel path Lonicera japonica Thunb. Japanese honeysuckle wooded margin/along gravel path "Lonicera morrow_ ii A. Gray Morrow's honeysuckle along gravel path j Malus P. Mill. apple wooded margin/along gravel path Morella pensylvanica (Mirbel) Kartesz northern bayberry open field I Morus alba L white mulberry edge of Populus grove Oenothera biennis L. common evening primrose along gravel path Onoclea sensibilis L. sensitive fern open field Osmunda cinnamomea L. cinnamon fern open field Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. ex DC. Virginia creeper wooded margin Pinus thunbergii Part Japanese black pine open field Plantago lanceolata L. narrow leaf plantain along gravel path i Plantago major L. common plantain along gravel path Poa bulbosa L. bulbous bluegrass along gravel path Populus tremuloides Michx. quaking aspen grove along NW property line Potentilla simplex Michx. common cinquefoil Prunus avium (L.) L. sweet cherry wooded margin Prunus serotina Ehrh. black cherry open field/wooded margin Quercus velutina Lam. black oak -open field Rhus copallinum L. winged sumac open field Robinia pseudo-acacia L. black locust grove along SW of property Rosa multiflora Thunb. ex Murr. multiflora rose along gravel path/open field/wooded ms Rubus allegheniensis Porter ex Bailey sensu tato Allegheny blackberry wooded margin Rubus flagellaris Willd. northern dewberry wooded margin Rumex acetosella L. common sheep sorrel open field/along gravel path 'Rumex crispus L. curly dock along gravel path Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash little bluestem open field Smilax rotundifolia L. roundleaf greenbriar wooded margin t Solidago L. goldenrod open field Symphyotrichum Nees. aster open field Taraxacum officinale Weber ex Wiggers common dandelion !along gravel path Thelypteris Schmid. maiden fern open field Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze poison ivy along gravel path/open field/wooded me Trifolium repens L. white clover along gravel path i Verbascum thapsus L. common mullein !open field/along gravel path Veronica arvensis L. corn speedwell open field/along gravel path i 1 I GREEN SHIELD ECOLOGY, INC. 703 CARLENE DRIVE BRIDGEWATER, NEW JERSEY 08807 STEVEN N.HANDEL,PH.D.,HON.ASLA LANDSCAPE RESTORATION CERTIFIED SENIOR ECOLOGIST (ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA) N.1 OFFICE 732.932-4516 PRESIDENT CELL 908-881-0383 FAX 908-5264550 CA OFFICE 949.733-3061 PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND OF STEVEN N. HANDEL Academic positions: 1996 - present. Professor, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University,New Brunswick, NJ. [Department Chair, 1996-7]. Director, Center for Urban Restoration Ecology. (1999—present) Member, Graduate Program in Ecology & Evolution, and Graduate Program in Plant Biology [Director, 1986-89]. 2007—present. Adjunct Professor, University of California at Irvine, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. 1985 - 1996. Associate Professor of Biology, Rutgers University. 1979-1985. Associate Professor of Biology, Yale University. Director, Yale University Botanical Garden, New Haven, Connecticut. 1976-1979. Assistant Professor of Biology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. Education: B.A. Columbia College, Major in Biological Sciences, 1969. M.S. Cornell University, Field of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, 1974. Ph.D. Cornell University, Field of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, 1976. Additional Appointments: 1983 - present. Certified Senior Ecologist, Ecological Society of America 2004—present. Member, State of New Jersey Invasive Species Council. 1992 - 2004. Associate editor, RESTORATION ECOLOGY. 2002- 2004 Editorial Board, URBAN HABITATS 1997 - 2001. Elected member, Board of Directors, Society for Ecological Restoration. 1998—present, Member,National Council, American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS). 1996 - 2004. Member, Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (U. K.) 2 1996 -present. Member, Board of Directors, Metropolitan New York Forest Ecosystems Council 1995 - 1996. President, Torrey Botanical Society. 1996. Co-chair, Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, held at Rutgers University, June 17-22. 1995 - 1996. Chair, Plant Population Ecology Section, Ecological Society of America. 1991-1994, Member, Board of Professional Certification, Ecological Society of 2007-present America. 1987 - 1990. Associate Editor, EVOLUTION. 1989 - 1993. Visiting Research Scholar, School of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia 1987. Summer faculty, University of Virginia, Mountain Lake Biological Station, Blacksburg, Virginia. (Course on Plant-Animal Interactions.) 1984. Summer faculty, Rocky Mountain Biological Station, Crested Butte, Colorado. (Course on Plant-Animal Interactions.) 1983 - 1985. Chairman, Genetics Section, Botanical Society of America. Member of the Following Professional Societies: Society for Ecological Restoration International Ecological Society of America (Aldo Leopold Leadership Fellow) British Ecological Society Botanical Society of America Torrey Botanical Society Society for the Study of Evolution Society for Conservation Biology Natural Areas Association American Association for the Advancement of Science (Fellow) Australian Institute of Biology (Fellow) American Society of Landscape Architects (Honorary Member) Sasha W. Eisenman - Staff Botanist ACADEMIC BACKGROUND Ph.D. Candidate, Rutgers University- School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Plant Biology Graduate Program, 2004-present B.Sc. in Horticulture, Delaware Valley College, Dept. of Horticulture, 2001 TEACHING EXPERIENCE 2007 - Teaching Assistant, Advanced Plant Systematics and Plant Diversity and Evolution 2006 - Teaching assistant, Advanced Plant Systematics and Taxonomy of Vascular Plants Engineering, Project SUPER summer enrichment program for undergraduate women 2005 - Lecturer, The International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG) Central Asia Program 2005 Training Course in Biodiversity Documentation, Tashkent, Uzbekistan and Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2004-2007 - Collections Manager, Chrysler Herbarium, Rutgers University 2004-2007 - Mentor, federal work study herbarium curatorial assistants 2004-2007 - Webmaster, Chrysler Herbarium, Rutgers University 2004-2007 - Webmaster, International Cooperative Biodiversity Group, Central Asia Program <http://icbg.rutgers.edu> 2002-2004 - Herbarium Curatorial Assistant, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 2001-2002 - Plant Protection Intern, The Morris Arboretum of the University of Pennsylvania ACTIVE BOTANICAL RESEARCH PROJECTS The genetic diversity and phytochemical variation in wild populations of wild tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus L.) Estimating genetic diversity in an ex situ collection of Dawn redwood (Metasequoia glyptostroboides Hu& Cheng) using AFLP The persistence of plant species introduced via 19th century ballast dumps BOOKS S.W. Eisenman, D. Zaurov & L. Struwe (eds.), Medicinal Plants of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Submitted to the Missouri Botanical Garden Press, Sept, 2007. POSTERS AND PUBLISHED ABSTRACTS Jan., 2008 - S.W. Eisenman, A. Poulev, L. Struwe and L Raskin, Genetic and Phytochemical variation in the medicinal plant wild tarragon (Artemisia 1 dracunculus L.) - Presented at the 2008 Northeast Region Annual Meeting of the American Society for Horticultural Science [poster] Jan., 2008 - S.W. Eisenman,A.Novy, R. Raviram, L. Struwe, S. Bonos and J. Grabosky Assessing the Genetic Diversity of an ex situ Germplasm Collection of Dawn Redwoods (Metaseguoia Qlyptostroboides Hu et Cheng) - Presented at the 2008 Northeast Region Annual Meeting of the American Society for Horticultural Science [poster] July, 2007 - L. Struwe, S. Dushenkov, S.W. Eisenman, M. Tadych, & I. Raskin "International Education in Biodiversity and Biodocumentation—Collaborative Approaches" -Presented at the ICBG conference in Tadjikistan July 2006 - S.W. Eisenman, K. Dulatas, H.E. Clennon and L. Struwe"Ballast Dumps from the late 1800's". 2006 annual meeting of the Botanical Society of America. [poster] Oct. 2004 - L. Struwe, M. Tadych and S.W. Eisenman. Poster entitled`Bioprospecting in the Age of Phylogenetic Trees: Influence of Evolutionary Data on Evaluation of Natural Products". 2004 Meeting of the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG). [poster] May 2004 - S.W. Eisenman, J. Macklin and L. McDade. "Lessons in Integrated Pest Management: The Herbarium of The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia". Annual meeting of the Society for Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC). [poster] PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Life member, Philadelphia Botanical Club Member, The Society for Economic Botany Member, Flora of New Jersey Project- Information Technology Committee 2 Steven D. Glenn Senior Research Assistant New York Metropolitan Flora Project, brooklyn Botanic Garden EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Purdue University, 1992 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1994 to present Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Brooklyn, NY - Senior Research Assistant Involved in the New York Metropolitan Flora project for the past 14 years with extensive knowledge of the local flora of the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut tri-state area. - regional floristic work - field specimen collection and identification - herbaria research - database management - species distribution map production - authorship and research of WWW plant information - invasive species analysis 1993 to 1994 Holden Arboretum, Kirtland, OH - Mapping Specialist - computerized mapping, identification and databasing of living plant collections 1990 to 1991 Brookside Gardens, Wheaton, MD - Horticultural Intern - mapping, identification, evaluation and databasing of living plant collections - computerized manufacture of interpretive signage PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS Moore, G. A., S. D. Glenn, & J. Ma. In Press. Distribution of the native Aralia spinosa and non-native Aralia elata (Araliaceae) in the northeastem United States. Rhodora. Glenn, S. D. and K. Barringer. 2004. Cardamine impatiens L. (Brassicaceae) in New Jersey. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 131(3):257-260. Glenn, S. D. 2001. The rediscovery of Ledum groenlandicum Oeder (Ericaceae) in New Jersey. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 128(4):407-408. i HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE WILDLIFE INVENTORY SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK Nest on NCo- Common Name Scientific Name (1) Site Habitat Tropical Migrant Birds Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis P G N Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus P M N Northern Bobwhite Colinus vir inianus P M N Mourning Dove Zenaida asiatica Y E N Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica N M, C Y Downey Woodpecker Picoides pubescensEN L N Northern Flicker Colaptes auratusL, M Y Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebeE Y White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus E Y Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata L N American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos G N Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolorM Y Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica M Y Black-ca ed Chickadee Poecile atricapillusL, E N Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor L N Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis N W N White-breasted Nuthatch Silta carolinensis N W N Brown Creeper Certhia americana N W Y Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Y L, E Y House Wren Troglodytes aedon Y L, E Y _ Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa N L, E Y Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina P L Y American Robin Turdus mi ratorius Y L, E, M Y Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Y E Y Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Y E N European Starling sturnus vulgaris Y C N Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Y E Y Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Y E Y Scarlet Taneger Piranga olivacea N L, E, M Y Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythophtalmus Y E Y Chipping Sparrow S izella passerina Y L, E Y Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Y M N Song Sparrow Melos iza melodia Y M, E N White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis N L, E N Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis N L, E N Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Y E N Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius hoeniceus Y E Y Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscalus Y L, E Y House Finch Car odacus mexicanus Y L N American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Y E N House Sparrow Passar domesticus Y C N Nest on Neo- Common Name Scientific Name (1) Site Habitat Tropical Migrant `- Mammals Virginia Opossum Didelphis vir iniana Y G Eastern Mole Scolapus aquaticus Y M Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus Y C Eastern Cottontail Sylvila us oridanus Y E, M Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus Y E, L Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Y E, L White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leuco is Y E, L, M Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Y E, L, M Raccoon Procyon lotos Y G NOTES: 1) Avian nomenclature is based on the 41" supplement to the American Ornithologist's Union Checklist of North American Birds (1997) HABITAT NOTES: L-Woodland, E-Edges, M-Fields/Meadows, C-Cultural Features, G-Generalist NEST ON SITE NOTES: Y-Yes, N-No, P-Possible/Probable O:\2007\2007340\WILDLIFE INVENTORY.doc yi is, A, '4, i oiaaJ r1 rim f Q T—.a a> r j—Q � s ti�f - 54 ..yr ' pi` 5 ..h 1 '1'S tE ! ) t P f q .bi Z ��,' '4t 4 Er£ p� )S F" ♦ , f! 4J t ��i EF s" tl t i ir t i$1 r +r ♦ 11 ' tY ? F 54 Y "� t F 4. ♦ 5 _A }> s } .t' t� +� !$ k r Z�yY # `Sr 1 r - r���wMIk '3�✓ +f`E L 4 � ;'y "` t. ° �� � `' Y '' �� � x + S 1 3i td ✓ x. !t P{4 s " � so W, 91 _ J r \ - 1 r k `� z y Jf (-•�„ s 3 s a+r„ Jdyty r .y5 r C �' y 3v i T L n'.'� ri !r r a e tl 1 TOMMYt4a lumv.- pool l' � � 1 r r :: r .s_"d+• ....}.,14 � ,S,a 1 iiT t i .x}1 -ir ly ' K '.tlu} f tT• 1 r' t 1 1 t ! Y r S x � n ! 1�(� SL-i S f J` 4 tF 4• i 1S rbb -,U.O�C i al F "�� r ) Ito 4 a} s 9 r 1 t 1" @ a. t L -I ♦.t � r t Ir �f\ t Ove i" & ,�Oa7 .1 -t _ - s F F i A. d -f l Y i S S 5 '1 S S Y h .- C• 1- WK py S \ f S Y 1 Y l C l i. Y np 1 wyn 1 ti � i Town- NELSON 6C POf+E I v1kZ �kE3Yt�jPM��.q�$ St3 ,�b las f J,E y t '=1 ! - a+. y i G r � r �♦w �:,^s fie• 7 r v v t -.y r '_: r1 S; ii x rS r y Ke'�'Y..b �f*�-f tv.4 n{ s En, r3. 2 W{Sl�V�/t.1ffJVI ..RHD 7y�1S91L>€ , NY 1174'x"21QB {6�77427ti�--B-, t„ t �nW. t"'. 1 y � .( nj pYDS F N� .+.kf. � 4.. $.Ck OT I 1 1 Y A 4 if .. v j" Pesticide Report The Heritage @ Cutchogue Cutchogue, New York N&P Job# 00026 November S, 2007 Pesticide Report The Heritage @ Cutchogue Cutchogue,New York Prepared For: Heritage @ Cutchogue,LLC 1721-D North Ocean Avenue Medford,New York 11763 Pre red B . Nelson&Pope Walt Whitman Road Melville,New York 11747 (631)427-5665 i Long Island Analytical Laboratories,Inc. 110 Colin Drive Holbrook,New York 11741 (� Pesticide Report The Heritage @ Cutchogue CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Page 1 of 11 2.0 SOIL SAMPLING PROGRAM Page 3 of 11 2.1 Sample Collection Page 3 of 11 2.2 Sampling Program Rationale Page 3 of 11 3.0 LABORATORY ANALYSIS Page 4 of 11 3.1 Analytical Test Methods Page 4 of 11 /,P.. Page 3.2 Analytical Results Pa g 4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL Page 6 of 11 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Page 8 of 11 6.0 REFERENCES Page 10 of 11 APPENDICES Page 11 of 11 Pesticide Report The Heritage @ Cutchogue 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Nelson & Pope, LLP has been contracted to prepare a Pesticide Report for the subject property. This report is intended to determine the concentration of pesticides and metals in site soils, since these substances were widely used for weed and pest control in Long Island agricultural practice. The subject property consists of a 46.16 acre parcel of fallow farm field and wooded land located e*'of t gaae4'TQM"4S' t approx}mately ,f?7 ' feet no of ain Ro �utc p; is mo Identified as SCTM No. 1000-1 OZ 1-33.3. This document will be used to assist in evaluating the enviroriinental ander public=lielth itnplioations regarding the °current ci�neeatratiens-of agricultural chemicals in on-site soils. The sampling program was designed and completed by N&P. Laboratory analytical data was prepared by Long Island Analytical Laboratories, Inc. The protocol used to direct this investigation was based upon the guidance.offered by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) in a report entitled Procedures for Municipalities to Evaluate the Need for Soil Sampling and. Soil Management at Subdivisions or Other Construction Projects with Potentially Contaminated Soils. This SCDHS document is based on initial guidance from the New York State Department of Health Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment. The following sections detail the subject property and surrounding area characteristics, sampling program, protocol and quality assurance,lab analysis and results. A total of eighteen (18) soil samples were collected from nine (9) sampling locations situated throughout the property. Specifically, soil samples were collected from depths of 0-3 and 3-6 inches at each of the nine (9) sampling locations. Due to the past use of a majority of the property for agricultural purposes, the samples collected from five (5) locations were analyzed for the presence of pesticides and metals and the samples collected from the remaining four (4) locations were analyzed for arsenic which is a common constituent associated with pesticides. _ Initially, only the samples from the 0-3 inch intervals were analyzed. If any detected compounds within each individual sample were found to exceed their respective regulatory guidance values only then was the associated 3-6 inch interval sample analyzed. Review of the analytical results revealed the presence of elevated levels of arsenic and mercury which exceeded there respective regulatory agency guidance values across the subject property. As a result the 3-6 inch interval samples were analyzed for the presence of arsenic and mercury only and the analytical results revealed elevated concentrations of both constituents. In order to identify the depth to which arsenic and mercury were present, soil samples were collected from the three (3) of the previous sampling locations which exhibited the highest concentrations. The following sections of this report outline the sampling measures taken and provides a map illustrating the location of the samples collected. Appropriate recommendations are provided in Section 5.0. V Pmfi6 eRip :, Y, g* `. 0 SAMRLINAND ANALYSIS PROGRAM(SAP1 w + y 2 1 SAMPLE COLLCTI( Pl ° s ` ..,,,� A total _of eighteen (1$) loll samples wets collected�from nme;(9) locations situated throughout a ' the subject property onctobei 24,: 2007. ,.The soil samgles"were'colli cte� from depths cif 4 S and 3 G;inches below grade 169,011cted ftomdve(5)of the locatiorts�v&e analyzed for Elie presence of:pesticides and metals and`the samples col ectad fro>rt ills rema3hmg foot (4� locat}ons v✓ere analyzed for arsenic which is a common constfuent associated vsiith peshc2de The depths of the soil samples wez selected to pzovide a profile;of the soil located ton-the st b act ' propeity Imtihlly, only.the samples from•the 0-3 inch intervals were analyzed,.`If any detected p compouhds. within each individual salu)ile were #p,'.iliid to' a treed their res el regulatory guidag�e values only then was the associated 3 6 use 'interval sample tested Results fronFtbotlt sample intervals revealed the presence 4f elevated eoncentratons,of"tovo�(2) metiais and`as a result it was'eorieluded that further sampling was neeeasary to dent fy the depth fo which these inorganic compounds were present at the`subject pioperty Additional=sampling was c6nducted at the three (3) previous sampling locations wMch'exhibited the highest concentrations and sample's were collected at depths of 0-i inches,'15-18 inches.and 21 24 mcheswbelow ground surface on November.10 2007. The sampling scheme employed was'consistent with guidance ' available from SCDHS as referenced herein: ^' A stainless steel hand auger decoiitammated between uses (see Section 4.0), was used to extract all of the soil samples;from the subject property.. Figure 1 provides a;map thaf identifies"the ' various locations from which the soil samples were collected. The fopography'po the subject property is relatively flat: " 2.2 SAMPLING PROGRAM RATIONALE Soil sarnples were collected in "accordance with the recommendations of-the SCDHS and NYSDOH, noted as follows: samples were collected at depths of 03, 3-6, 9712, 15-18 and 21-24 inches. 'samples were directed toward those areas likely to have accumulated the highest contaminant levels. • samples were analyzed for the presence of pesticides and"metals. Laboratory analysis results are discussed in Section 3.0. Since the proposed property will be used for a residential subdivision,.the concentration of pesticides and metals.is animportant issue. In accordance with^SCDHS and NYSDOH recommendations,the sampling and analysis program was intended to determine: if site activities had caused degradation of soil quality on site; if a soil mariagenienY plan (SMP) is appropriate given the concentration of contaminants and" the intended use of the site The following section provides the laboratory analysis for the site samples, including test methods and analytical results. Page 2 of 11 _ ; r"'t -.✓+� S a A>, �..� � ��'s` t. S+ E y- �" �j`�.� � J n"t�kx � s � r ',� T"e P .•^to 6:. rt J F t, r r�i� e � i 4 �' -,+r Cs" L x k{5.r f R '^ .r-^c �` r.dy�Ove?n.s+ 'ky&"f. Ftw Ava;•p 14?♦ xt-y :. r�%r� r v f T�x�/�s`J .r6`� `-5? `.r v ', '♦A �,,, h C'x LT 'FF"' 'S 'f LL � i"S }l�.{t] 5' 1 3 �P '` i- 'F. +,..i ^. K .. d'Y Y .,� '* '3^� rS?�"t><-�a�3'\+�$:-. Y'`ffz,,..P ��.F?a�" �` T�'� ���°* ? y, '3•. �',,�"r _10"T $�An♦!(yrr'LJv'<'L.z�,4� � �V 01r5'J'y �. \ 't^.'♦v. h� .eX-J pp .y �r y KFY ls±.yQ K+'.�cf. � - Li ltd vF Kv ♦ �_ i j ld rr >.,.. .::r ..y} `ny 5 � �"C'r crH 6'r�� \ yr✓. c '' w r � L� �^ ,p,�y .c ',��' °=�1i y♦Yy " YxX,'",y;` ps rly* d-l `da vJ ;'1 vx 7 Ylsx by 4 ; 3ray+� kx13{ y ?vim,.t^"� WK, ax rY " ,}vim,. �q r^ 3 c �a4+,:'v! + y -. .{ :s' ^, }"`,.,� n z. '- r �" het {, '�. ' y r R s� �^r✓ '"`" .."aff l a .+ ss C _ -i i "' � Thr✓ s+' r<- a `.��tt "� ix 1�"E�.� �` `M.� �. Hyl �-�\ r �F"� A �y - to r S f i .� rf'.-.nam' f."�fr �t:.. yv •, ♦ a ll' � tf �?Y i¢` '�r ry, +.Y y ; 3�s '} St� � �a,,rv�y y r�Fa^rr, i r v j arv x ' x F T. r } r ry S t t w x'r � �'�y7^a7 4 1 ♦"r � r�S f 1 ? ve 3: x '3 .F.f e"'r�vs t � �'I ��k♦ Y` � v ''3 l i. " rH v__ t s' m v �.> ,. �� i,.��.�%ikey L„!: a m" --f y x S r a �q.�. 'fisrr r•<-.s. A' 7. r-'-s,. �W 5 'no +�tt�L ,y 'k t Lx: ,3'' '>'�s a z n c r' r >kx. n z >'i ♦ i-ki t a fx�"Jx } Com+° �� `a-'`.s�'°:a .""R +s"i1"' n ^►S -'s �s+�t.° X 33�,�` $.f�'3 yLyS.v Z� :t' r j � x®� y�x�Y♦ `4 x" "� ��r r ��� ����� i'l�<: �i. ♦ ig1Y3AJ tom, r n Y 4 J 'C" :BG�" it .{rte F l°a •sp4 Jrr ;,r ti v i asr r � r . a :. v_ -4i• ,..N .^� S �> H E �.;5'v x .'"1 iR 9E L�Y� iy Y Fj}! Gk,.�z. f > ! 'ry ��� tT .x s♦tl.,.K' �, �� '.� .,x't -T+. +. .a a z.. x t� ySx' § ,3ncr Yy`�'`d/ .✓ r >. I :_ r � �y y .'Ss£l+4 «A ✓� 'p ,�� - 4 v l � � `�,vy� xt J i.4Y V yy.K,F�F�.,y� Y n.i r 'L WTI t ya e �i <A •_' 4' z„y.eyj''. . -fC.>ea c `� Y- �i "4 i s i ris JI v-.�ah ^� Y '' .X w'��iiF x+ '3'� ? d s- ♦x P 1 '2A s rS r ' d se. f *+-♦r"7�' z< 't s„e.4 -'� -wS ;:' y-� 3�d�.f.e ° � 9 ,.Yxy,,i ?% r �'° � J ':./ � se•x.Ae. r Lr+fr� "�d' '_'� t rt ��.°�` ° ' iywly�, `R. u" 'S ,�.'.'> h'.� s J 3'Aws�. a y'^ t r f„r"�••. �M xi ^"� �:� : ���'"� . �.w\ ' �r isr'd''+Tn" ✓/h\ Jay,.'. � T�h�} l ,yam ? g"r V �'" �`' r k ♦a 5 �.xi '+g 'x'." 'G".+. s y i Cr`l/ x7 -. i. j +rr a ,,"`✓`.%�'.r r ,.:y} z, ri t3a. 7 �xr r �a u. sg ti k.'Nrtr.+ i , _ '+ '+. s�wia`sc �a "-� Y r'° .2 g't"' ,✓' r r. l M `s ., � � �"r°7 '' fi F �" 'yt`°'�--, � � y ♦;x _' .f ISS Si4�. 4fi.a Stf';+ . i l C Yr e 2 �4 . Y f ' f F ht a '. F '\•[' a s r'Y - �t w y,,.ys 2 t h r°+'�`s,^r a"' '3.Hlm .,J ! � .-t ' !st`Sr�+. - . y *" '� '>_�st,�€'�,x��.�,r"��"� i y Y.E � ����x'�'�y�ty� a "`l" yi z E.�`�< ��.t it r �y4.. ♦.,4 � �.3�g %� i..fpv A4x "f'�F' ''d` 'S`K�f F �i yx���♦A� `S 1 � yc^,..+� ���1 lAT/ L f f ` `;,',S.^xY I �( �' b .„ f .n -: ��'is£�, 7' F �' ., rzfi.sd:.t`�� "�' -E�= \ate lG£ ✓- 'a�'Y _ 'r,`s+s � - '.,„ '� s-.^��r >� -- �yiu` '.�,'''x Y«� Y♦'F ar:�'rk''�,.`t`-,.rv :s?�k^+rte`�y__ r � �t.c >:� t. A r.. • i _ Pesticide Report 3.0 LABORATORY ANALYSIS 3.1 ANALYTICAL TEST METHODS The soil samples were transported to a New York State Certified Commercial ELAP Laboratory for analysis. Selection of the analytical. test methods for the soil samples was-based on the NYSDOH and SCDHS., recommended soil sampling parameters for agricultural soils on Long Island. Analysis of the soil samples consisted of pesticides and SCDHS metals for five(5) of the 0-3 inch samples and only arsenic for four(4) of the 0-3 inch samples. Review of the analytical results revealed that the 3-6 inch samples from all of the locations required testing. Specifically, all of the 3-6'inch samplesi were analyzed for arsenic and in addition, three (3) of the 3-6 inch samples were analyzed for mercury as well. Review of the results continued to reveal elevated concentrations of mercury and arsenic. In order to identify the depth to which arsenic and mercury were present, soil samples were collected from the three (3),of the previous sampling locations which exhibited the highest concentrations. A summary of the parameters analyzed for each sample is provided in Table 1.- 3.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS Review of the analytical results for the 0-3 inch interval samples revealed that the five (5) samples selected to be analyzed for pesticides all contained elevated levels of pesticide - compounds. However, none of the pesticide compounds detected were found to exceed there respective United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Soil Screening Levels ` (SSLs) or New York State Department of Environmental Protection (NYSDEC) Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) 4046 recommended soil cleanup objectives. In addition, each of these five (5) samples were also analyzed for the presence of metals. All of the samples were found to contain elevated levels of several metals. Of these metals detected, only arsenic was found to exceed its corresponding SCDHS guidance value of 4 mg/kg in all of the samples analyzed. In addition, mercury was found to exceed its corresponding NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective of 0.1 mg/kg in three (3) of the nine (9) samples analyzed but was detected below its corresponding USEPA SSL of 610 mg/kg. With regard to the four (4) 0-3 inch samples analyzed only for arsenic, all were found to contain elevated levels which exceeded the SCDHS guidance value. Based on the 0-3 inch sample results, the 3-6 interval samples from each of the locations were analyzed as per the parameters summarized in Table 1. Review of the 3-6 inch interval sample results revealed that arsenic exceeded the SCDHS guidance valu6 in all of the samples analyzed. With regard to mercury, it was found to be detected above its NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective in three (3) of the 3-6 inch samples analyzed and was also found to be below its USEPA SSL in each of these samples as well. Page 4 of 11 re UUIUa a Cpm Table 1 Individual__SampleParameters am leildentif'icattou Saui".� e _ .� ;ametet �;` 0-3 Pesticides& SCDH Metals 3-6 Arsenic 9-12 Arsenic &Mercury n 15-18 Arsenic&Mercury 21'-24 Arsenic&Mercury 0.3 =Pesticides&SCDH Metals OAmrs5=*C a 1k, ,:aa 2 77 It= ':.-Itt 3-6 912, ml-calf E& duly , 15-18 Arsenic&Mercury 21-24 Arsenic&Mercury 0-3 Arsenic 3-6 Arsenic 9-12 Arsenic&Mercury 15-18 Arsenic&Mercury f „- 21-24 Arsenic&Mercury 0-3 Pesticides& SCDH Metals a > 3-6 Arsenic&Mercury . ' ty 9-12 Arsenic&Mercury 4 rw 15-18 Arsenic&Mercury / b xx 21-24 Arsenic&Mercury zrs 0-3 Pesticides& SCDH Metals r %- 4 3-6 3-6 Arsenic 4 , r 9-12 Arsenic&Mercury r F ills „' 15-18 Arsenic&Mercury a z` 21-24 Arsenic&Mercury 0-3 Arsenic 3-6 Arsenic ate' 44-12 Arsenic&Mercury 15-18 Arsenic&Mercury 21-24 Arsenic&Mercury Pesticides&SCDH Metals Arsenic&Mercury r 9-12 Arsenic&Mercury 15-18 Arsenic&Mercury T 21-24 Arsenic&Mercury 9t x: x 0-3 Arsenic Arsenic 9-12 Arsenic&Mercury 15-18 Arsenic&Mercury 21-24 Arsenic&Mercury L Pate 5 of 11 Pesticide Report Based on the 3-6 inch sample results samples were collected. from the 9-12 -15-15 and 21-24 inch intervals from the locations of PS-2, PS S.and PS-9 to Ruther evaluate theyertical extent of arsenic and mercury contamination. Review of the analytical results detected the presence of .,. mercury in seven (7) of the nine (9) samples collected but none were found to exceed the USEPA SSL or NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective for mercury. Arsenic was det6cted in six (6) of the nine(9) samples collected and only one (1) exceeded the SCDHS guidance value. A summary of the analytical results is provided in Tables 2A, 2B and 2C. The original laboratory analysis sheets as provided by U' ng Island Analytical:Laboratoriesi Inc. are presented in Appendix A of this document. Page 6 of 11 t 5 TABLE 2A ° 0-3 INCH ANALYTICAL RESULTS NEW xe tw F v 7� 1 4 4'-DDD 9 17.2 NA NA 25.4 12.3 NA 14.6 > 3 0000 2900 4,4'-DDE 141 424 NA NA 399 345 NA 32611' 12000 200 4,4'-DDT 179 307 NA NA 701 441 NA 32S ' 2,000 2,100 Dieldrin ND 7.78 NA NA 16 8.50 NA 11.$; 40 i44 Endosulfan I 7.40 ND NA NA ND ND NA 8.16 3' A 470 000 900 EndosulfanII 25.4 17.3 NA NA ----4O.6 11 NA 19.4„, A fl 470,000 90q'• Endosulfan sulfate 109 144 NA NA 422 94.6 NA 141ker WA NS 1'000 Endrin 6.70 12.1 NA NA ND ND NA N1};.' NA " 23 000 1-00 Heptachlor 8.60 9.30 NA NA ND ND NA NMI I 'IYIA'' 1,000 100 4,4'-yMyyyethox chlor ND ND NA NA 15.7 ND NA 7• A "' NS NS AMM/ hk V s m MOM Chromium 7.08 1301 6.02 NA SNA 8.23 - 4.0 7.S or SB Arsenic* ': tikt1'$" a d 7.58 NA 7 96 STA,= 390 SD Copper 5.98 9.19 NA NA 12.6 8.59 NA 10. ,^ NA - NS 25 or SB Mercury 0.06 af;b:7$t, ' NA NA k: 0.07 NA NA 610 01 Nickel 3.49 2.70 NA NA 3.303.79 NA 3: NA ' 1,600 13'orSB Lead 8.13 9.25 NA NA 17.1 12.1 NA P SIA 400 SB Notes: See Table 2C I x i. Page 5 of 10 CJ10) TheHerits --'7�,utcltogue 1e Report TABLE 2B 3-6 INCH ANALYTICAL RESULTS i 1 1��,ar�a,tGr�,�� '��r(" }N�/ ��yy y�z tl r( r �]zb.� ru `(a .n.���e�e(,r-y �,� �try�.P ° r L. V n � ^emj�ryp �wqY i��Iiitatir 3l `i G w rsnx+yy M^'+. Nkn �ca<ea sy z w,"e9 rat r x+k re•. ; .gr eels ti ti w z r m #ti 1k m f�C " ym Y}k mk�g�a mK ;"�lr n :.P .4 ng[.: rw . Arsenic* yv'at'�°+^.fi Y�f °a l 'K t 1 �✓ E - F 4.0* 1 7.5 OP.SB Mercury NA �l l;, Qa',, NA NAR� ., NA NA NA 610 0.1 Notes: See Table 2C TABLE 2C 9-12, 15-18 and 21-24 INCH ANALYTICAL RESULTS y�r pp n,�''���wad ;']Vlelals"' :;2ks° a�py�rx:gx7r*/"°Y� y T%'a��ri t1,�'FPw.'rw-:r vu, •ain �.m.s? rwmn�l^°io+hlrE./Kw py,•�rywu± i...: l�. A7,.°A�rn /; W. Arsenic* 2.25 1.98 Nf)r 2.31 2.45 2.03 ND ND 4.0* 7t5orSB Mercury 0.036 0.040 0.022 0.087 0.039 1 0:031 0.024 ND. ND 610 0:1 Table Notes: ND Not Detected; NA=Not Analyzed; NS=No Standard; SB=Soil Background; Soil Background Values—Arsenic,-3-1.2mg/kg;Mercury,0.001-2 ug/kg Bold/Shaded indicates the constituent exceeds the USEPA standards; Italics/Shaded:indicates the constituent exceeds the NYSDEC standards; Underlined indicates the constituent exceed the SCDHS guidance value for arsenic. *-SCDHS guidance value for Arsenic is 4 mg/kg. t Page 6 of I1 t 4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/OUAL=CONTROL PROCEDURES (OA/OC) Sampling protocol was conducted in accoi-datnce with USEPA accepted S"' ' ring procedures for hazardous waste streams (Municipal 'k( e° ''taboratory, 1991); 9 $ and Sampling Procedures for Hazardous Material Waste Streams, USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio EPA- 600\280- 018) and ASTM Material. Sampling Procedures. All samples were collected by or under the auspices of USEPA trained personnel having completed the course Sampling of Hazardous Materials,offered by the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Separate QA/QC measures were inaplemenw-for each of the instrumentkpsed in the Sampling and Analysis Program Sampling rostrum ` uded a stainless stg, Jtj auger and sample Prior to arrival on the subjectn ems samfle 1 d"$tiger was decontaminated by washing with a eti�Iftoxyliquinox) b nater solution with distilled water rinse. "All sacertifi € ated containers. Samples were placed into vessels consistent with the analytical parameters. After acquisition, samples were preserved in the field. All containerized samples were refrigerated to 4° C during transport. A sample represents physical evidence, therefore, an essential part of liability reduction is the proper control of gathered evidence. To establish proper control, the following sample identification and chain-of-custody procedures were followed. Sample Identification Sample identification was executed by use of a sample tag, logbook and manifest. Documentation provides the following. 1. Project Code 2. Sample Laboratory Number 3. Sample Preservation 4. Instrument Used for Source Soil Grabs 5, Composite Medium Used for Source Soil Grabs 6. Date Sample was Secured from Source Soil 7. Time Sample was Secured from Source Soil 8. Person Who Secured Sample from Source Soil Chain-of-Custody Procedures Due to the evidential nature of samples,possession was traceable from the time the samples were collected until they were received by the testing laboratory. A sample was considered under custody if, It was in a person's possession, or It was in a person's view,after being in possession,or It was in a person's possession and they were to lock it up, or - It is in a designated secure area. Page 6 of 10 Pesticide Report When transferring custody;the individuals'relinquishing and receiving signed, dated and noted the time of the Chain-of-Custody Form. Laboratory Custodv Procedures A designated sample custodian accepted custody of the shipped samples and verified that the information on the sample tags matched that on the Chain-of-Custody records, .Pertinent information as to shipment, pick-up, courier, etc, was entered in the "remarks" section. The custodian then entered the sample tag data into a bound logbook which was arranged by project code and station number. The laboratory custodian used the sample tag number or assigned an unique laboratory number to each sample tag and assured that all samples were transferred to the proper analyst or stored in the appropriate source area. The custodian distributed samples to the appropriate analysts. Laboratory personnel were responsible for the care and custody of samples from the time they were received until the sample was exhausted or returned to the custodian. All identifying data sheets and laboratory records were retained as part of the permanent site record. Samples received by the laboratory were retained until after analysis and quality assurance checks were completed: I F Page 7 of 11 resumae nepun 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This investigation was completed in order to determine if certain pesticide related compounds were present in the soils of the subject property. A sampling and analysis program (SAP) was designed to determine the concentrations of pesticides and metals in the soil in accordance with guidance offered by SCDHS and NYSDOH. The SAP consisted of collection of discrete soil samples at depths of 0-3 and 3-6 inches on the property. Laboratory analysis of the soil samples was performed using analytical test methods consistent with expected parameters and SCDHS/NYSDOH guidance, The following presents an evaluation of the results of this investigation k 1- rt�rtat of�et�€a_ i8�s® nates fz1AaesPlili1�4# Inw . _ . ....:* }j(,) -and,sfia�Igtgrlsk�ot� ,g ,ky �S�ecFq��1V�, samples were co ected fZom for_compounds related to fob pesteSle agcttan,dui to , g past and present use of fhe property for agricultural purposes. 2. Review of the analytical results for the 0-3 inch interval samples revealed that the five (5) samples selected to be analyzed for pesticides all contained elevated levels of pesticide compounds. However, none of the pesticide compounds detected were found to exceed there respective United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) or New York State Department of Environmental Protection (NYSDEC) Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) 4046 recommended soil cleanup objectives. In addition, each of these five (5) samples were also analyzed for the presence of metals. All of the samples were found to contain elevated levels of several metals. Of these metals detected, only arsenic was found to exceed its corresponding SCDHS guidance value of 4 mg/kg in all of the samples analyzed. In addition, mercury was found to exceed its corresponding NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective of 0.1 mg/kg in three (3) of the nine (9) samples analyzed but was detected below its corresponding USEPA SSL of 610 mg/kg. With regard to the four(4) 0-3 inch samples analyzed only for arsenic, all were found to contain elevated levels which exceeded the SCDHS guidance value. Based on the 0-3 inch sample results, all three(3) the 3-6 interval samples were analyzed for arsenic and three (3) of the samples were analyzed for mercury. Review of the 3-6 inch interval sample results revealed that arsenic exceeded the SCDHS guidance value. With regard to mercury,it was also detected above its NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective in all three (3) of the 3-6 inch samples analyzed but was found to be below its USEPA SSL in each of these samples as well. 3. Based on the 3-6 inch sample results samples were collected from the 9-12, 15-18 and 21-24 inch intervals from the locations of PS-2, PS-5 and PS-9 to further evaluate the vertical extent of arsenic and mercury contamination. Review of the analytical results detected the presence of mercury in seven(7) of the nine (9) samples collected but none were found to exceed the USEPA SSL or NYSDEC TAGM 4046 recommended soil cleanup objective for mercury. Arsenic was detected in six (6) of the nine(9) samples collected and one (1) exceeded the SCDHS guidance value. Page 8 of 11 Pesticide Report In summary, representative soils on the subject property were sampled and analyzed for the presence of pesticides and metals. Based-on the laboratory results, elevated concentrations of arsenic and mercury were identified. As a result,it is recommended that a soil management plan be prepared to mitigate potential exposure to arsenic and mercury. �l-� o Date of Comple 'on4ryr,P.E. NELSO &POPE f Page 9 of 11 Pestiewe Report 6.0: RE�EREh1�ES New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEQ, 1992, Sampling Guidelines and Protocols Technology Background and Ouality ControllOuality Assurance for NYSDEC Spill Response Program,NYSDEC,Albany,New York. NYSDEC, 1994, Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum, HWR-94-4046, -- - Determination of soil_ cleanup objectives and cleanup levels, Division of Hazardous NYSDOH, 1996, letter dated My 151 1996 from Edward Horn, Ph.D., Director Bureau of T6xdc Substance Assessment-to Frank Randall, Chief,Inspection Services Bureau NYSDOH. SCDHS, Procedures for Municipalities to Evaluate the Need for Soil Sampling and Soil Management at Subdivisions or Other Constriction Projects with Potentially Contaminated Soils. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1996, Publication 9355.4-23, Soil Screening Guidance User's Guide, Washington, D.C. Page 10 of 11 sur uruwbr Ver v�u Pesticide Report APPENDICES f: Page 11 of 11 C [- APPENDIX A LONG ISLAND ANALYTICAL [ LABORATORIES, INC. �= LABORATORY DATA SHEETS L NEi.SQJ F'�E 6 V0.A a LLC FlVV%Y�+'MFL.RNI`AG.mI`L.I?Fla wsooK ELAPO 1159(t WNG USEiPAA NYO273 AW CTMENN PH,02U 56 A�l1al l ICU WDEr N NY612 UUMATOM WC. PSDE V 99-2s43 1 of 12 pages October 30, 2007 Nelson &Pope Ed--,Amesen 572 W64 Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 Ro. Heritage a Gertchogo0 Dear Mr, Armen: Enclosed pleiss find the Laboratory Analysis Reports) f©r sample(s) received 00 October 24, 21707: Long Island Analytical Laboratories analyzed,the samples on October 25, 2007 for the following. CLIENT ID ANALY&IS - P8-1 [0"-3D EPA 8085 _PDH Metals PS-2 i7' 3-1 EPA 8087: SGOH Metals PS-3 17"•3" Total Arsenic Anal :,is PS-4 V-3" Total Arsenic Analysis EPA 8081 $GDH Metals PS-6{o-qEPA$.Ef$9 SGOH Meals PS-7 0.7-3r) Total Arsenic Analysis P" 0'-3" _. EPA 8081'SGDH Metals P"-[07-31 0"3" Total Arsenic Analysis Samp!Li s received at 3.4"C. Report revision darted November 9; 2007 Ifyou have .any questions or require further information, please call at your convenlenee. Long Island Analytical Laboratories Inc: is a NELAP accredited laboratory. All reported results meet the requirements of the NELAP standards unless noted above. Report snail not be reproduced except in full, without the written; approval of the laboratory. Long Island Analytical Laboratories would Okra to thank you for the opportunity to to of service to you. Best Regards, ;Fang Island Ari<aiy cal Laboratories, Inc. `10 'Colin Dttve , Holbr>.:rok. New `torr 11741 - - Pin cne 15'31 ; 472-3400 = Fax 4.631; 472-8505 • Ernai!: L€AL@111iaHhc.com 2 of 12 pages _0 hent: Nelson& Pope Client ID: Herbge @ Cutchogue PS-1 C1"-3 Date received: 1011?4107 Laboratory ID: 1147358 Date extmded: 10r2,&M7 Matrix: Soil D' ar b ed: 10f251117 EtAP# I -93 w, POST I-IMIDW, COMPOUND CAS No. MOL RESU04 ug1k9 Ftp Aldrin cc-BHC .._.... . _ t -BHC I314 8�r7 __s u9A . <5 [ &.BHG y 31" 5 u4 9 <5 b -BHC Litadana 58 85 5 <5 } Chlordarre 12768-43.6 15 ug*g <15 I 4,4'-DOD 12 4.8 1 5 uwkg-. 9 4:4'-D 72 5 _ .. 5 k 141 4,4'-DDT 50-29 5 u k 179 Dbeldrin - 86 7-1 5 u k <5 :. (� Endosulfau 1 959-98 8 5 u k 7.40 �.. 1=ndosu#Fan tl. 33252-65-9 5UB k 25.4 `r/l Endosuifan sul6ate - -, 1031-07-8 5 uaiku 1 109 Endnn 72-20-8 1 5 vg.ikg 1 _ 8.70 f=-ndrin aldehyde ? 7421-93,4_. 5 u lk <S heptachlor _ - is 7544-8 1 6 ualkat8611 I He tacfil a zid i 102457-3 5 ugrk <5 4,4'-Meth0X Chlor 1 _ .72-43-5 5 u ` k ''5 { Eq enc 1 8001.35-2 2000 ko -4200 endrin ketone 1 53494-70-5 5 ucVko c$ PA DL p Minimurn Detection Limit. CalCu ated on a wet weight has#& r Michael herald-Laboratory Director LONG ISLAND ANALYTICAL LABORATORESINC- Nev, `roll: 'l 1 _ '7t9illi#3fl�P`i6MAtrT dE..�Y'�T3pti`sF Y' Shona i-iii -7_-'1400 -. ax fE311 4,•?-85 3 of 12 pages Client Nelson &Pope Client 10: Heritage Cutcliogue Elate received: 1W24107 Laburat© ID: 1147358:_ Date analyzed: See Below matrix: $04 METALS ANALYSES PARAMETER MDL DATE RESULTS mq/kg FLAG ANALYZED SILVER.A 1.85 m _ 101251OT , X1.85 ARSENIC, As 1.85 14726107 5.87 BERYLLIUM, Be 1.65mg]kg 1 t}126W <1:65 CADMIUM, Cd 1.00 m 1W251O7 <1.00 CHROMIUM, Cr 1.65 rngfkg 14125107 TO COPPER, Cu 1.65 mg/kg 10/25107 5.98 MERCURY, H9. 4.020 m.ikg I 10125107 ©;0£i NICKEL, Ni 1.65 rngfKg I 10!25107 e 3:49 J , LEAD, Pb _.T. 1.65 mgfkq 1 1O/25107 _-__8.113 1.913L = Minimum Detection Limit calmh-md on a wet we:gbt basis Parfcvrf+9d by EPA Method 6010B *Method: EPA 7471A A Michael Veral€ti-Laboratory DireetaT ii f MAllTICAL. L&BMATOWS IO. 110 Colin Driv - Fi tbmc..'f._ P"lots YoFN 11,7411 %,PjYi WO4W &-.VA 7AL IIMT?£�:,5k$" Pt cno I uV. 47T -?1(1£; • Fox _ R CI ' r:mail` iAf 73hati ,r':yO n-i 4 of 12 pages G er1t: Nelson& Pope Client V. Heritage @ Cutchogue PS-z 0"-3 3 Date ratetved; t0124107 Lahorata ifs; 947359 Date BXtf&CUed: 1 I h17 -Mgtrix, SDIt Dste anA ed: 1'.. 107 -P M 11693 COMPOUND CAS No. RESULTS ugtkg Pa W S©9410-2 319.86-$58-92-9 5 uWk <5 12789.03.6 B5 t� -15 T2-S4-6 i 5 u k 17.2 4 ,4--DDE72.5&0 5 u Ik l 424 50-29-3 Sri" k 347 50657-1 5 u +k 7.78 I - 959-98-$. _EIl 3'3212$5-9t17.3 Endlfate tbS7-t)7-$ 6 -7k 196 72.20$ r _ 12.1 @ndrtn atdeh c+e 7421-23-4 6 u tk `5 He echlor. . _ '7&44-$ 6 g-36 Fleptachloreoxid[ 1024-57-3u F ck 4,9`-MCAMX chiar 72743-5 6 u e5 Toxaphene _ 8661-'36-2 200 u 7 1266 Endrin ketone - 53484-70-5 5-. FKg _ 1 `5 MDL= R9inimum Detection 1 n t Calculated on a wei weighl baAlS Michael Veraldi-Laboratory D irectof LONG MMD ANALYTICAL LABMA1` E'S INC. 1+u Cour. tie Hu or SUN. in rnrr.. !1741 __ f .. -iC3rih�� `W€Atl6tYRGtt St7€lf�Jtflf37.k'r�7- hp:-r? [6811 4. 2 34�3L rA:?r ti '3 2-85Cs �fn.',��- 5 of 12 pages Client: Nelson &Pope Client 10: Heritage @ Gutchogue. PS'2 V_v Bate received: 10@4107 Laboratory 0: 1147359 Date analyzed: See Below Matrix: Sou METALS ANALYSIS PARAMETER MDL DATE RESULTS mglkg FLAG ANALYZED SILVER,N 11,65 TrKjft 10/25107... . <1.65 ARSENIO, As 1.65 Ifi 10125107 _ 12.0. BERYLLIUM}; Be 1.65 N$q 100107 <1.65 CADMIUM, Cd 1.00 Tg 10125107 <1.00 ... —CHROMIUM, Cr 1.65 mg/kg 10125107 6.02 COPPER, Cu_ 1.65 m tk 10125107...... . -._ 9.19 MERCURY,-H , 0,020 mg/kg 10 25107.-- 1 0.16 NICKEL, Ni 1.65 mg/kg /{11251!17 2.70 LF11D. Ph. _ .. 1.60 m lic 1 10125107 - 10101..=Minimum batection/.unit. Calculawd on a we3 weight besis Peffunnic d b)SPA iylethcd 60100 wMethod: SPA 747TA f a Michael `/eraldi-Lai oratory Director 1 v ! LONG ANAk,T +if11 LABMATOWS 060, 110 Colir= ur'ive - HmbS uuv,. New Yom 11741 -raw0u"AfWYT.G SMVrO.LV TNMY' Phonic, (63/1 -1721-3400 - ra). (5-311 Ernuil._IAL91!ialirc-cam 6 of 12 pages Client:Nelson &pow Gllent 1D: leakage Qh?C1 utchogue Date received; 10[24f07 Laboratory ID: 1147362 Date extra+rted: 10f26f07 matrix., So}I Iia a ariai3: fiD7.. _. �TJ 'it 21693 .. a__ . «:... � �,,e I �.i'eM'IIKTA� ![il'��li%LC��.�• :.:. ,. COMPOUND GAS Mo. MDL RESULTS u_gtkg pia ?in 309.06-25:u:.k <5 a- B}IC 399 9f4� 5 uglk c6 -BHC _ 3195.7 54jg+kg `5_ 6-BHC,, 319-86.9 5 u Ik a 9MC ilndane) 58-89=9 5 ugfkg Chlordane 12789-u6-u 15 u k 4,4 DEK) . 72-54-8 5 u �k 25.4 4 4'-tl0E I 72-55.8 . - 5 u + 359 4,4"-F>L7T 50-29-3 } 5 u 743 "I 50"57-4 5 u t9 _ Enda "Ok I 959-9&8rlc k c5 l E-ndosulfan It 33212v-9 } 5 uc4 Endosuffan 5FAute 11637-47-6 5 u 4.22 Endrin 72.2Q-9 15 u 1 I a5 Endrin a6deh sae . _ 7421-33-4 5 u 7k He tadhlor 76-44-85 u '"u Ha tachlor epoxide___ 1[624-57-3 5 e5 4 4'-0tA-4hoxvchi0I Toxaphene 8441-35-7 200 u 11(q c240. Endrin kelione 53494-74-5 5 uqkq I Iv1DL Minimum DetechDn Limit Calcutatad on a wet Weigilt basis . S Ip hAiCt6ael Veraldi-Laboratory ©erector —'i ONG ANALYTICAL LABMATORMS WC, '10 Colin Dim Hclb a:k., New YorR •i3MPX bAtailY,"tG,6:5gtftti?rdSY@fls!-.' FThona 'tr 1 } 472-3-400 • Fax IG311 472-a5U5 - F.iai!. I of 12 pages Client: Nelsari &Pape '- Client ID. Heritage(m Cutchogue f'S-5 fP-3 Date received: 10124107 l aborato . ID: 1147362 Date ana ad:-fie Below Matrix, Sal METALS ANALYSIS PAWMETER MOL DATE RESULTS mglkg FLAG ANALYZED SILVER,A - .. 1.65 mg/kg 10125107 01.65 ARSENIC As 9,65 rnq f 10125107 13.$ BERYLLIUMi Be_ 1.65 m ICJ25107 CADMIUM, Cd . , 1.00 m 10125107 -1:00 CHROMIUM, Cr . 1.65 m10:125107 8.23 COPPER, Cu - 1.65 m . 10125107 12.5 MERCURY, H . 0.02D m 1k 16125107 0.12 NICKEL, Ni 1.65 m Ij 10125107 3.3D I LEAD, Pb _ . 1-65 m lieq 16125107 ... 97.1 rJIDL F M nenurtia Detection 1-mit. Calculated on a wet weight basis. Perfomaed by EPA Method 6utuB .Methods EPA 7471A Michael Veraldi-Laboratory Direcfar -1 LONG l ISLAND ANALYTICAL LABORATCKSS INC. 11G.Cown Drive Haitirgok. Ne%Y Ydil, 11-1-11 _ met z�tnFraaCs:siXUProttY r iY Phciue i631i 372.3400 ^ax :6^a I'.- 472-8505 rncajl tktc�=ia � .cam. 8 of 12 pages Client: Nelson & Pow Client 10: Heritage @ Cutchogue (P&6-K-31) :Da'.te ri iveo: 10124/07 l oWrato 1D�_ 1147363 extr�tQW: 10125107 M&tor Sotlo "d: F P#: 11898 COMPOUND CAS No. MSL R�OLTS u k l la` Aldrin 308 C3D 2 5- u-BHC 319 $4.6 5 vqAto 1 t5 -BIC 819-85-7 S u <5 5- 19 9.86.8 _ ._ _ 5 a09 1 e5 -BHCUnndane 5€t$9 s 5 bJg9t z5 W—Endmwffan 127-80-03-6 19 t15 7254-e 5 Witt] 12..3 72-56-9 5 u - 345 S0 29-3 5 u k 441 fi0 57-7 5 u" $.50 I_ 9&9-9�•9 5 u k S5ti 33212-65-9 1 5 unka11 Endmittan Sulfate _ 1D31-a7-9. 5 Ltgtkgl - ___ 94.5 Endrin 72-2G a 5._ 1k de cg Endrin atdeh 7421-93-4_ 5 1k Heptachlor 76-14-8 5 u Ik tie tachlor a oxide 1024-57-g § e 1k <5 4.4'-Metho hb1 _ 72-43-5 5 291149 <5 _ Fo, hene ,9oD1-3rr2 200 u rk _ <2r36 Endrin ketone 53494-74.5 �a_u Aq 1 C5 N1DL = Minimurn DeMttion Limit Calcuiafed r,n a we weight basis Michael Veraldi--Laboratory Director LONG ISLAND ANALYTICAL LAWRATORIES M. 11D r-ulm vllu-- c,rk It 741 --i/ `y, P6PFOYFa.W.ifYilcAi iEiW"f7r7Ms;IkBd:Y` Phalle X631 ; 472-3d00 Fax j 6 3 1 4 2-850 Emei- L I A t.!?t:ia lin::.Ci:rT': \© S of 12 pages -Client: Nelson&Pooe Client ID. Heritage Cutch6que PS-6 d"-3 Date reWved: 10124/07 Laborato . ID: 1147363 Date ana zed: See Below Matrix: Snot. METALS ANALYSIS PARAMETER MDL DATE RESULTS mgfkg FLAG ANALYZED SILVER, - 1.66 mgfkg 10125/07 <1.65 ARSEN tC As 1.65 mfk 10 X5107 17.4 t3E t`f LILfM, .. 1.85 m fk 10/25107 �; <1.65 CADMIUM, Cd-- :_ 1.00 m .lk 10125107 <1.09 CHROMIUM,Cr._ 1.65 mglkg 10!25107 7.58 - COPPER, Cu 1,6&mglkg 1012$107 __:.. t 5,59_ MERCURY, Ff . U.42€1_rct_lk 10125J07 0.07 __ NICKEL, Ni 1.65 m Ik 10/2,5107 3.79 LEAD, Pb 1.65 m tk 10125/07 12A PA DL = Minimom Detection Limit. C3liculaWd on a wet weight basis Performed by EPA h4¢tttad 6010B .fMe iUhDd: v-PA 7471A Michael Veraidi-Laboratory Dirador 7 j Lot* A:HALYTK AL ,10 r-'ABORATOM WC• 11G Colin fjx7 4.e. - i.41trpl?k, New York 117s1 � •3`tltdC1',*@�il*�tl!t_{xYiit3` E dTISOdiSR iY" ?il.11l E? ( ji ;_ . r3:e;-EfAL6Q 10 at 12 pages Client: Melton & PvpO Client ID, Heritage @ Cutchhogue PS-B Q'°-3 Date reaeiveri 3131241Q Laboratory ID: 1'1473$5 Elate extrmthed. 1012507 Matrix: son [7a € aifitki° d: IDIZ 97 Ci POUND CAS No. MDL RESULTS ugikg Flo n3U8 40-2 5 ti !k 319-$4-6 5 u 1k -OMC 318-•$5-7 5 ra 8-BHC 319-B8-$ 5 u kg �5 4`. 72-54-8 5 u !k 14.8 4,4'-013E 1 72-55.9 b u 326 4.4'-f9Rr SU-29-3 5u 1 323 t Dieldrin _-._ t38 57-1 5 i1. .t- 11.8 Endosuf n I959-IA-8 5 uglkg _ U0 Endasulran 11., _ EndaHseulnfadntihntbi 33212-65,q-9 1{9f554$ 13a-37 40sufa€e 72-20=8 Endin aldeh de 7421-93 7` 445u ! `.- k 1 __... Heptachlor epoxide 11+24-57-3 I 5 uelft 4,4`-Methox clifar_ 123 5 5 u"7k 7-5G _- 7oxe hens 8U41.35-2 200 ug/kq ug/kt Endrin krtrale 53494-70-5 5 u41k ._ OADL r Minimum Datectmn (.unit Calculated on a wet weight basis r Miehadd VereldrLaboratory Director 11 LOO ( ISLAND AtWY71GAL j LAWRATORKS INC. 1 r. Coiny 4e • ;kolarook• NF.w York `1-1'41 . 0 '7E7{ItCMRBIbff�IN+lCYRC.iESfYIzfJPliSr 141` Ptione- (63114712-3400 ax (6311472-8506 - EnkPO LiAL(Plia?;nc.corn r Client. Nelson&Pape Client 10: Merit a @:Cutchogde _ Cate received. 10124107 Laborata ft7: 11473f�5 Cate anal : Sao Emo w Matd)e soil METALS ANALYSIS' PARAMETER MDL `' DAV RESULTS mtglkg FLAG ANAL D SILVER,Ag 10/25101 <1.65 ARSENIC,As 1.65 rrt 1k 11-125107. 10.3 BI=R YLL I LIM;t le 1.65 m !It � 10125107,_..__ .__ 41,65 . CADMIUM, Cd 1.00 in 110126107 41.00 CHROINIUM, Cr 1.65 mp*g 10/25107 7.96 COPPER_ Cu 1.65 m 10129107 10.5_ -MERCURY, lig. t 0.020 m Ik. 10125/07 0.19 NICKEL, Ni_ . 1.65 mc-Flc 10125/07 3.44 LEA , Pb _ .. 'l 65 mwkJ 10125107 111.8 MOL=Minimum be.tWion titrttt CalruFmud on a we;weight basis Performed by EPA Method 6D10$ *Method: EPA 7471A (Michael Veraldi-Labamtory DtreE6f LtS�lt� '`,. L�.+P+,.�151��+.7�� i11� ri9•Iltl �1'Fj Y:? ^ H[3tCJ tr�Ot{. a'f9W '(U:Y. li;f�.� - .. "S i.QER',7YS WFALYtP.,34 EC&ER'lYliiS it#A6°°a RPh-,ne (,�63t% 172-3400 • Far. (631) - 72-5505 - Emafli 1 W «Iialinr,-com 12 of 12 pages Client: talson& PoPe Client ID: Heritage 0(Mcbo ue Date received: 1€1124107 Laboratory ID: See Below Date extracted: 111125!07 Matrix: Soil Date ana eel: 10725JD7 FLAP I: 11693 AL 1,100 to. chaa. :. : Desalts.-fa FI AC* .. 1147361 ; PS-4 0"-3 1.6 to 92.$ 4147364 P5=7 0'=3" 1.65 m 3U.8_ 1147366 PS-9 {D"-3"} 1 1.65 mAg 1 13.3 tiRL=Minimum Reporting Lirnit Calculated on a wet weigsit basis Perfoi med by gW84c Method 64108 Michael Veraldi•Labaratory Orrector LONG .A4D ANALYTICAL LASORATOWS 10 C,0Ir+i brlvf.! N:1G+0 r 1+ is Yprk 1!7,V Y�O t�igpyowstx��yn,almtyr sic�N�^ Rhbnu '.631 : 472-3400 , Fax 1636 472-85-03 Email I IA�,Vlealin :.co-i VStYAA NT0127i ISLAND CTD0H9 PH-0284 ANALYTICAL AIHA*164466 NJDEPO NY012 LAWRATORES INC. PADEPB 68-2943 "TOMOA'ROwsANALY)IcAL smunoms rooAY• 1 of 3 pages {� October 31, 2007 �> . 2 Tl 171r- Nelson & Pope `v NOV ' 4 Eric Arnesen 2007 572 Walt Whitman Roadg qa Melville, New York 11747 -NELSON POPE° Dear Mr. Arnesen: Enclosed please find the Laboratory Analysis Report(s) for sample(s) received on October 30, 2007. Long Island Analytical Laboratories analyzed the samples on October 31, 2007 for the following: CLIENT ID ANALYSIS' PS-1 3"-6" Total Arsenic Analysis - PS-2 (W-6"j Total Arsenic and Mercury Analysis PS-3 3"-6" Total Arsenic Analysis PS4 3"-6" Total Arsenic Analysis PS-5 {3--6"I Total Arsenic and Mercury Analysis PS-6 (3"-6-1 Total Arsenic Analysis PS-7 '-6" Total Arsenic Analysis PS-8 3"-6" Total Arsenic and Mercury Analysis PS-9 Q"-6"j Total Arsenic Analysis Samples received at 3.40C. If you have any questions or require further information, please call at your convenience. Long Island Analytical Laboratories Inc. is a NELAP accredited laboratory. All reported results meet the requirements of the NELAP standards unless noted above. Report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. Long Island Analytical Laboratories would like to thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you. Best Regards, Long is/and Anaiyticai Laboratories, Inc. 11,0 Colin Drive • Holbrook, New York 11741' F Phone (631) 472-3400 Fax (631) 472-8505 • Email: LIAL@?Ija linc.com 2 of 3 pages Client: Nelson & Poe Client ID: Heritage Date received: 10/30/07 Laboratory ID: 1147602-1147610 Date extracted: 10/31/07 Matrix: Soil Date analyzed: 10/31/07 1 ELAP#: 11693 TOTAL ► ANALYSIS .� �Y�4FWawY.Tvfltt yn.. .a(...:. w .....e aa..:... ..,.v..x. .... ..r. .. . .. ... <r.-.-w�. _ . ..r v - --fie-pt .- . l;eb ID Cl1D MRI. Results, m '/k =yA � 6t PS=1. 3",.,<Y 1..65 m 1k . 7.22__ 1147603 PS-2 3"-6" 1.65 mg/kg 17.5 1147604 PS-3 3"-6" 1.65 mg/kg 3.31 1147605 PS-4 3"-6" 1.65 mg/kg 14.0 1147606 PS-5 f3"-6-1 1.65 mg/kg 16.1 1147607 PS-6 3"-6" 1.65 mglkg 17.5 1147608 PS-7 3"-6" 1.65 mg/kg 11.5 1147609 PS-8 3"-6" 1.65 mg/kg 11.4 1147610 PS-9 {3"-6' 1.65 mg/kg 16.4 MRL = Minimum Reporting Limit Calculated on a wet weight basis Performed by SW-846 Method 60106 Michael Veraldi-Laboratory Director - LONG ISLAND ANALYTICAL LABORATORRS INC. 110 Colin Drive • Mt;brook, New York 11741 MUORM AwLy>kpt.s unoNswou- Phone (631) 472-3400 • Fax (631) 472-8505 • Email: LIAL@lialinc.com 3 of 3 pages Client: Nelson & Pope Client ID: Heritage Date received: 10/30/07 Laborato ID: See Below Date extracted: 10/31/07 Matrix: Soil Date analyzed: 10/31/07 ELAP #: 11693 TOTAL MERCURY ANALYSIS Lab ID # Client ID MDL Results m /k FLAG 1147603 PS-2 {3"-6") 0.020 mg/kg 0.14 1147606_ PS75 3"-6" 0.020 mglkg mg/kg0.15 1147609 PS-8 3"-6") %1 0.020 mg/kg 0.12 MDL= Minimum Detection Limit. Calculated on a wet weight basis SW-846 7471A Michael Veraldi-Laboratory Director LONG ISLAND ANALYTICAL LABMATORES INC4 110 Colin Drive • Holbrook, New York 11741 10HORROIKAMOYMUS UWNrronar- Phone (631) 472-3400 • Fax (631) 472-8505 • Email: LIAL@lialinc.com NYGOOK ELApe it Sat wNlo usap&e MY512P,3 ELAM 64454 Y� AarP NYLV12 . tJ,l[tEP,21YYtit2 LAMA 'S M. WEN 58-2w AAilwllL Sa"M town i of 3 pages November 14, 2007 Neeson,Pope&Voorhis Eric Amesen 572 Walt Whitman Road Re: Heritage♦ Cutchogue Dear M.Arneson; Enclosed please find the Laboratory Analysis Repod(s) for samples) received an November 12, 2007. Long Island Analytical Laboratories analyzed the samples on November 13, 2007 for the following: CLIENT ID ANALY51S _.._ I3-2 9-12 1 Total Arsenic& Mercury Analysis /- B-2 15-18 Total Arsenic& Mercury Ana sis l B-221-24 Total Arsenic &Mercu Anal_ is B-5 9-12 Total Arsenic &Mercury Anal is B-5 15-18 Total Arsenic& Mercury Anaivsis B=5 21-24 Total Arsenic&Mercu Anal is &99-12 Total Arsenic&Me ,Ana is B=9 15-98 Total Arsenio& Mercury Ana is B-9 21-24 Total Arsenic& Mercury Analysis Samples received at 2�G. If you have any questions or rewire further information, please call at your convenience. Lona Island Analytical Laboratories Inc. is a NEL.AP accredited laboratory. All reported results meet the requirements of the NELAF standards unless noted above_ Reportshat= not be reproduced except in full, wftut the written approval of the laboratory. Long Island Analytical Laboratories would like to thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you. Best Regards, LonglstandAnaljdicalLaboratafies, Inc. 0 Colin Drive Holbrom.< ,Nra ork 11 71 p?)r?ne i6?12 471--`400 Fax oft 472-18-05 E-mail: LIAI liradnc.cr;n'. 2 of 3 paps Clistt Nr?tson P Client ID: Haftge Cutcttc ue: Data received: IIA2107 ' _ Laboratory,[ E14835�11e48358- Date.extracted: 11113/D7 Matrix Solt Date anal d:.11/13107 FLAP 41: 11693 TOTAL ARSENIC ANALYSIS Lab 10 Ciient ID MRL Results mgikg Fla 1148350 B-2 9-12 1 1.65 m Ik 2.25 1148351 B-2>15=.18 1.55 mgfkg mg/kg9.98 1148352 B-2 21.-24 1.85 mi.gikg. <1-65 1148353 B-5 9-12 1-65mA 10.3 1148354 B-5 1518 1.65 TON' . 2.31 - 1148355 t M 21-24 1.65 mglk 2.45 1148356 B 9 9-12 1.65 m Ik ,: 2.03. 1148357 B-915-18 1 .655 mg/k <1.65 114835E B-9 2.1.24 9:65 mg1k <1.65 . MRL=Minimum Reporting Limit Calculated on a wet weight Wisis Performed by SVV-1346 Method 601GB ....E Michael Veratcli_Laboratory= Director LONG ISLAND AMMYTICAL LAW9ATOWS INC. :14 Galin Drjye • HatbrigQN, Ner, Yorlc *1'41 "fp1;Y¢fi!@(3{{3 dN2tYrf�tt€tXffiPtfX€r#� h31 , 3?2'-3 rl!} • Faz fioli _ 3`+i;5 mit: Ll�t 3$kia�' 7 3 of 3 pages 69rtt: We—%w & Poe Client IIS: Heritage Cutcho me ••�+ date received; 11112107 Labotato Ia: See Below Date extracted: 11113/07 m4trix: Snit Date ano : 11/13147 ELAPI; 11693 MostLate tt3# Client ID MOL Results, mgikg Flo 1198350 B-2 9-12 1 0.020 m -)kg 0.036 1148351 B-2 16-18 _0.020 Mgft 0.040__ . 1148352 B-2 21-24 0,020 m lit 0.022 1148353 B-5 9-12 0.020 mflC 0.087 11483548-5 15-181 0.020 m Ik 0.039 1148355 _ 8-5 21-24 ; 0.020 m ik 0.031 � t 1198356 B-9 9-t2 0.020tn Yk 0.024 1148357 _-8-91S-18 0.020 mg/kg X0.02 1148358 B-921-24 i 0.020 m !k X0.02 mDL = Minimum Detect;on Limit Calculated on a wet weight basis SW-846 7471 A Mlch;D[Veraldi-Laboratory Director ISLMD AMLYTICAL 0 LAK*AYOM INC _ :10 Cohn Onve HWbr�pe N=-vi York 0 `1 �� "TbF.idfi?ORY AflIkrVIIGifii'R11f76N3-R, rdi'- Pliona_. 1631 } 472-:,400 .721151,15 =ma:t IN.L:7x';ia .:.r.. LONG I'c _1_. I10 Win 071ve -Holbrook Now Yoik 11741 Phone 1631) 472-3400 • Fax (631) 472-8505 •Email: LIAL91iOiFa t m _ 1YiGp0}/MNrPplaiPllp./1Rtq' -CHAIN OF C�`6�15'iTV��7lY f REQUEST FOR ANALYSIS DOCUMENT � -`.W�.._....__ CEI€NT.NALIVADORESS CCWACr, :N,qs. .,i: $�'"a�.e�lacr++lroa9rtel ow-ire. rlue eaII alasueo .. w p I I rw! pIII—EV 1 Arthnypydal�Y1S�Fo1rII' GFIAGN fi.�S'V"� i+-�^+b' '7*. '�+' PNONE: ' '�'� 6I 'CLw "F l Rll1 c7:Ju FAX' SamgLeh MN.7l Ct4111kTt tale TWE �.91IEcd CL1NT.WINGAIBj mojECT L©CAnoN SNX-LES FECIA3 P/F TIERMS&CONDIr18NS:Aftnum eea pay9ale in 41R wllldn'Iturly CWV;,tsd51a ding b'4M ar.msxxlAl p ��S r �// /!/ ✓ ! !fr! / !/ / ' ''� /r• some,cI11UQQ5 4 1.5%parmmlh /p L►¢3OF1ATrliIY 1YhNYRIi( , TYPE PASS, pH eea SAiAAL&tl I. ,, ,!f p}A I�NlT5 dNPFM LACATUOfa r` ` ` ! / r+'. r" / / �' f,+ raF Jbrlbmle Ilu .. :' cOWDINEF5 i s, .15 -It r h3. E 44. 'Y MATRIX:3-SOIL;tLxSLUbI3E;L=LJOUYD;MV.DRINIONB WATER; TURN nOUN6 MEOUIRrb. COMMENTS IABTRU0110NE. A-MR;101-AlIPE:I30--PAWF CHIPS;BL6 SULK MATERIAL, Xp�RMAL YJ STJT IDI TYPE' C3alSRAB:C=CC1r1POWEr 99-SPLIT SPC10N } } ' E} PASS, ICE,FICL,HgSO4,RAW NA2820a rit33UUl,}iC01iV f,'3PCiNJC?Ur1C] CIATp 11114r4— RR7hiTEI1 N'M1fiRiE JRRCE�11.I€iY - �Nt}3(1FSI CAT[ PRIPIT[0 NAAiE tIAiE"7UISWp(I BY I' ICLI+YA'RIFY.Ey E PPIINTEDNPiAE By AkiU?C'L'" IST0I�IA�N lT.0.TE:',+- II ! iif31F17'ED N'A1.1E TIHIE °' f 6_.uLs .�,.,,'.o,•"'.- TIME �( CA,NARe- LAB i PINK• SAroIPLE GUST001AN 1 OOLt, FrI- Chir IYSE'PAN NY01273 AIHAM 184.456 CT00H?' � NYSD4H ELAN 118 USE~NY01273 LONG CT00HO PH-0294 KAMAMA$ 10436 NjOr;PY NY62 PADEPM i8 M3 :..iAirYi 'rAldlAA" ........._.__ .. �.: LONG ISLAND ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC_. DATA REPORTING FLAGS For reporting results, the following`Flags' are bsed: t D. MUM to tea c ompeund-€literference irrerturn�anedaf9ttt-tmcad interference F: Ntinimurn detection limit raised due to insufficient sample volume G S€Mple received in incorrect container H: Sample not preserved, corrected upon remot 1: Dilution Water does not meet CIO Criteria J: Estimated concentration, exceeds calibration range K:Target compound found in blank L: Subcontractor ELAP#11398 M: Subconuactor ELAP#10320 N: Subcontractor NVLAP 9102047A O: Subcontractor AIHA.#103005 P: Subcontractor A21,A 2004-01 Q: Subcontractor FLAP#11026 R: SuboontracGor FLAP #,t10155 S: Subcontractor ELAP#11501 T: Subcontractor CTC U: Subcontractor ELAP#11685 V:QC affected by matrix W. Subcontractor ELA.Q#10248 X: QC does not meet acceptance criteria Y: Sample container received with stead space Z- Insufficient sample volume received AA: Preliminary results, cannot be used for regulatory purposes. BB=Spike recovery does not meek CIC criteria due to high target concentration - CC- ©ate reported below the lower limit of quantitation and should be considered to have an €ncreased quantitative uncertainty. Da: Sampling information not supplied andtor sample not taken by qualified technician, therefore ver€5abifity of the report is limited to results only Report cannot be used for regulatory purposes, FE,Sut?contractor ELAP : 411777 FF: Unable to verify that the wipe samples submttted conform to ASTM E1792 or specifications issued by the EPA. 10 Cohn D1rive HoInroa-K Naw 'or'k 1 17 4 Pnone (531 4'2 3400 r ix (631 ; 4?2 ,CS remail: LIA'L Z"kasiric con: �,,►! Robert Grover Project Personnel Director of Environmental Services Gpi - EDUCATION: BS/1972/Environmental Sciences COURSE WORK: 1999 - FHWA Traffic Noise Modeling, Orlando, Florida YEARS WITH THIS FIRM: 38 YEARS WITH OTHER FIRMS: 0 Professional Profile Mr. Grover is an environmental scientist/engineer who bas been with GPI for many years. He provides hazard analysis, environmental designs, recommendations, and support for major projects in both the public and private sectors. He has a comprehensive grasp of legal, social, and political considerations and their environmental ramifications. In addition, Mr. Grover has functioned as the environmental quality review agent for numerous communities. This experience at the local community level is very important in conducting local coordination for large state projects. He has coordinated over 250 environmental regulatory permit proceedings with State and Federal Agencies. Mr. Grover oversees GPIs regulatory compliance with regard to environmental regulations and has been responsible for obtaining over 500 Federal and State environmental permits. He has been responsible for a major portion of GPIs environmental impact statements and has prepared over 100 environmental reports for major highway and bridge projects, parks and recreation facilities, public buildings, solid waste management facilities, and resource management plans. Mr. Grover is a noted authority on coastal environments. Mr. Grover has extensive experience over the last 37 years relating to coastal management studies, wetland projects, environmental impact investigations and erosion studies. Mr. Grover is thoroughly familiar with state-of-the-art methods of environmental analysis requiring specialized services such as ecology and geomorpbology. He is also a member of the South Shore Estuary Council. A well known environmental expert, Mr. Grover serves on numerous organizational boards and committees, and delivers numerous lectures. For many years, he lectured on Environmental Law at Southampton College. He writes environmental articles for periodicals, including a regular conservation column for an Audubon publication. He was the recipient of the 2001 Conservation Award, presented by the Great South Bay Audubon Society. He is also an environmental law lecturer to the Nassau County Bar Association. In 2003, Mr. Grover delivered a lecture at the San Antonio meeting of the International Bridge Tunnel & Turnpike Association titled "Wildlife Considerations in Transportation Infrastructure Planning". Project Experience Mr. Grover is thoroughly familiar with state-of-the-art methods of environmental analysis requiring specialized services such as the following: Field Ecology in a wide array of habitats Wetland and special habitat mitigation. Coastal processes and erosion/sedimentation studies. Hydrogeological and groundwater studies. Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern and Rare Species Robert drover Project Personnel Director of Environmental Services GPI Representative projects on which Mr. Grover has provided these services include: Sebonack Neck Private Golf Course Property, .Southampton, NY; 2001-Present. Director of Environmental Sciences. Work on this project included scope analysis, wetlands, endangered species, Audubon certification assistance, and irrigation analysis and coordination. Mr. Grover prepared complete EIS, habitat inventory, Natural Resources Management Plans, wildlife inventory, native habitat restoration plan and water resources protection plan for 298-acre waterfront property. Client: Private Smith Point County Park, Brookhaven, NY; 2002-Present. Environmental Director. Project involves architectural, structural, civil and MEP for new camp ground entry building, storage shed, fishing pier and a new boardwalk. Beach erosion control and landscape architecture. Prepared coastal processes analysis, ecological assessments and regulatory coordination for various improvements at large oceanfront park community. Client: SCDPW Roosevelt State Park Ecological .Study, NY; 2004. Project Ecologist. Prepared avian species inventory and impact analysis. Client: Rutgers University Dept. of Ecology Port Jefferson Harbor Coastal Energy Impact Program; 1985. Project to inventory marine traffic, navigation needs, and mooring areas. Client: Town of Broo4haven Annapolis Neck Park, MD; 1993. Environmental Scientist. Prepared habitat and wildlife evaluations for use in planning a large park complex on the Chesapeake Bay. Client: City of Annapolis West Point Golf Course, NY; 1995. Environmental Scientist. Conducted detailed habitat evaluations and wildlife studies at United States Military Academy for a golf course rehabilitation project. Client: USACOE Cohoes 'Waterford Arterial, NY; 1987. Environmental Scientist. Directed preparation of complete DEIS including wetland inventories and mitigation. Client: NYSDOT, Reg. I Bride Hill Subdivision, NY; 1996. Environmental Scientist. Conducted habitat fragmentation study and evaluation of impacts on resident and migratory passerine birds, for an 80-acre residential subdivision. Client: Private Davids Island DEIS, NY; 1996. Served as project ornithologist for biological inventory of an island in Long Island Sound being studies for possible development. Client: Private Fire Island Inlet Dredging, NY; 1994- Served as endangered species monitor for Piping Plovers and Least Terns, to prevent impacts from a beach nourishment project. Was responsible for monitoring report required by State environmental officials. Client: Private Norwalk Country Club, CT; 1990. Environmental Scientist. Prepared habitat impact reports as expert testimony regarding proposed construction of a large marina and morning facility on Long Island Sound. Client: Private Robert Grover Project Personnel Director of Environmental Services Gpi Gardiners and Robins Island, NY; 1987. Environmental Scientist. Provided habitat inventories, including a host of endangered and threatened species habitats, for appraisals of New York's two most valuable privately owned islands. Client: County of Suffolk Harbor Links Golf Course, Port Washington, NY; Ongoing. Environmental Scientist. Preparing habitat maps, wetland delineation and impact studies, and restoration ecology studies for development and reclamation of a former sand and gravel mine. Client: Town of North Hempstead Amboy Bridge Wetland Improvement, Staten Island, NY; 1996. Environmental Scientist. As part of this highway improvement project, provided design of wetland mitigation along Amboy Bridge creek. Client: NYCDOT Northern State Parkway, Nassau County, NY; 1987-1995. Environmental Scientist. Prepared complete noise and water quality studies. Noise analysis involved modeling of 18,000 feet of barrier and indoor sound level measurements at schools and churches. water analysis involved both surface and groundwater impact analysis. Client: NYSDOT, Reg. 10 Adirondack Bridges Environmental Assessments; 1988-1993. Environmental Scientist. Prepared noise modeling (STAMINA 2.00 PTMA) for replacement bridges (new alignments) in environmentally sensitive Adirondack Park. Client: NYSDOT, Reg. 1 Caldor Shopping Center DEIS; 1994. Project manager for complete draft and final Environmental Impact Statement for a new shopping center. Noise levels and impacts on surrounding residential property were considered in detail. Client: Rothwood Real Estate Service Ordinance Preparation, Suffolk County, NY; 1985. Environmental Scientist. Mr. Grover has authored numerous local environmental protection ordinances including community noise regulations for Villages of Babylon, Lindenhurst and Valley Stream. He has also trained local code enforcement personnel in noise measurement. Client: Numerous Route 109, Suffolk County, NY; 1991. Environmental Scientist. This project, nearing completion, involved water quality analysis and regulatory coordination for construction of new drainage system and outfall with impact mitigation in the form of detention basins and leaching basins. Client: NYSDOT, Reg. 10 Route 25A, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY; 1992. Environmental Scientist. Prepared detailed water quality analysis for sensitive watershed. Study included consideration of wetland resources, tidal and freshwater systems, and inventories of project area wildlife supported by area wetlands and surface waters. Client: NYSDOT, Reg. 10 SEOR Assistance, Rockville Centre, Nassau County, NY; 1987-1994. Served as lead agency consultant for review of proposal for hospital, parking structure and condominiums. Conducted scoping sessions with applicant, directed extensive DEIS modifications, and prepared Statement of Findings. Client: Rockville Centre Robert Grover Project Personnel Director of Environmental Services GPI - Regulatory Coordination, Gardiners Island, SuffA County, NY; 1990. Environmental Scientist. Currently assisting owners of this private estate in the development of plans for shoreline and navigation channel maintenance, and preparing and coordinating all permit applications and documentation for Federal, State and Town regulatory authorities. Client: Private Expert 'Testimony, Nassau and .Suffollz County, NY; Ongoing. Mr. Grover regularly serves as an expert witness on environmental impacts at public hearings throughout Long Island and at NYSDEC adjudicate and Town regulatory authorities. Mr. Grover also provides this service to various Long Island law firms. Client: Numerous Other Activities Past President: Great South Bay Yacht Racing Association Club Measurer, Protest Committee Chair, and member: Babylon Yacht Club Member: South Bay Cruising Club Professional Affiliations American Association for the Advancement of Science Coastal Education and Research Foundation American Ornithologists Union New York State Ornitholodical Society D v wr a CD a x m BURBS CALCULATION SHEET EXISTING SITE Welcome to BURBS ----------------- A Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet for calculating the impact of residential development on the nitrate concentration in groundwater. «« Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University »» Ithaca, N.Y. 1985 There are 9 pages: A B C D E F G H I J 1 +-----------------------------------------------+ Press the"Alt" I Welcome I Instructions I Definitions key with one I (you are here)l <Alt> 1 1 (3 pages) letter 20 +---------------+---------------+ <Alt> D to switch Parameters I Results sections. <Alt> P I <Alt> R 40 +---------------+---------------+ Calculations Special <Alt> C Commands: 60 +--------_-__--+ +----____-__---+ <Alt> W = results + parameters on split screen I Bibliography <Alt> U = undo split screen <Alt> G = graphs +---<Alt> B----+ DATA- Enter a values for each parameter: 1. Fraction of land in turf 0.00 fraction 2. Fraction of land which is impervious 000 fraction 3. Average persons per dwelling 0.00 people 4. Housing density 000 dwellings/acre �.. 5. Precipitation rate 4400 inches/year 6. Water recharged from turf 22.00 inches/year 7. Water recharged from natural land 22.00 inches/year 8. Evaporation from impervious surface 0 10 fraction 9. Runoff from impervious recharged 000 fraction 10. Home water use per person 000 gallons/day 11. Nitrogen concentration in precip. 0 10 mg/I 12. Nitrogen concentration in water used 0.30 mg/I 13. Turf fertilization rate 000 lbs/1000 sq ft 14. Fraction of nitrogen leached from turf 0 50 fraction 15. Fraction of wastewater N lost as gas 0.50 fraction 16. Wastewater fraction removed by Sewer 0.00 fraction 17. Nitrogen per person in wastewater 100.00 lbs/year 18. Nitrogen removal rate of natural land 0.95 fraction INTERMEDIATE CALCULATIONS Fraction Natural Land 1.00 Population Density 0.00 people/acre Nitrogen addition from precipitation 1.00 lbs/acre/year N content of wastewater incl. water used 100.00 lbs/person/year LABELS FOR GRAPH Overall Turf Nitrate ~ Natural Conc. _ Sewage 0.0 Runoff mg/liter TOTAL MACRO COMMANDS {gotoja 1- (goto)a 1- {gotojd21- (goto)a2l- {goto}a29- {homej(goto)a21- /wwh- {gotojb23- /wwu- {window} {gotoja 1- (goto)d22- {gotojd 1- {window}(goto)b23- {gotoja 1- /wwc- {gotojj 1- {homej- (goto)a1- /gnu {gotojj61- {gotoja 1- (goto)a4l- INSTRUCTIONS ------------ It is assumed that you already know how to use Lotus 1-2-3. This 1-2-3 spreadsheet is set up to calculate the amount of water and nitrogen which will be recharged from a residential development. It calculates loadings from wastewater, turf, natural land and runoff from impervious surfaces. You must enter values for all the parameters on the data page which starts in cell A21. These parameters are defined and discussed on the page to right of this one. -----> If you are uncertain of the appropriate value to use for a parameter, we suggest that you try several values in the range of possible values. The numerical output from this model is only as accurate as the parameters and assumptions and hence should be interpreted carefully. There are several predefined graphs which you can use. This software is free to all owners of Lotus 1-2-3 and carries no guarantee. RESULTS: WATER RECHARGE NITROGEN LEACHED ------------- ---------------- inches/yr r percent nt lbs/acre/yr yr percent -------- - ------- -- --------- -- ------- Turf 0.0 0% 0.0 0% Natural Land 220 100% 0.0 100% Wastewater 00 0% 0.0 0% Impervious Runoff 0.0 0% 0.0 0% TOTAL 22.0 0.0 Nitrogen concentration in recharge 0 0 mg/I Graphs of the data can be accessed by typing <Alt> G. Select a graph, then type "Q" to exit graph menu. Parameter Definitions --------------------- 1. Fraction of land in turf- refers to area maintaned as lawn, must be between 0 and 1. 2. Fraction of land which is impervious -sum of roof area, driveways and roads; must be between 0 and 1. The fraction of land in natural vegetation is computed as 1 minus the sum of fraction in turf and the fraction impervious, thus the sum of these 2 must be less than 1. 3. Average persons per dwelling -the average number of people living in each house or dwelling unit. 4. Housing density-the number of dwelling units per acre. 5. Precipitation rate- the annual average precipitation in inches. 6. Water recharged from turf-the amount of water per unit area of turf which drains to groundwater. This can be computed from a water budget for the root zone. A 1-2-3 spreadsheet is available for this. [1] 7. Water recharged from natural land -the amount of water per unit area of natural of natural vegetation which drains to groundwater. This can be computed from a water budget. 8. Evaporation from impervious surface - the fraction of precipitation falling on impervious surface assumed to evaporate. Try 0.10. [1] 9. Runoff from impervious recharged - The fraction of the runoff which is recharged through recharge basins, ponds etc. Evaporation is subtracted. Use 0 here if storm sewers drain all runoff to surface waters. 10. Water use per person - average in-home use of water. Try 44 gallons per person per day. [2] 11. Nitrogen concentration in precipitation - average concentration, Use data from closest weather station where nitrogen tests were done. 12. Nitrogen concentration in water used - average concentration in water used in homes. 13. Turf fertilization rate - average yearly nitrogen application rate expected for residential turf. 14. Fraction of nitrogen leached from turf- the fraction of nitrogen applied from fertilizer, precipitation etc. which leaches to groundwater. For sandy soil try 0.35 if clippings are removed, or try 0.5 if clippings are left on turf. These values are based on Long Island studies [3],[4]. For tighter soils the fraction leached will probably be less. 15. Fraction of Wastewater N lost as gas -fraction of nitrogen in wastewater which volatilizes or is converted to gaseous N through denitrification. Roughly 0.50 under Long Island, N.Y. conditions.[5] This value is dependent on temperature and soil. Warmer areas will probably have higher fractions volatilized as will areas with tighter soils. Colder areas will probably have lower fractions. Vary this widely in your sensitivity analysis. (Perhaps 0.2 to 0.8) 16. Fraction of wastewater removed by sewer- efficiency of sewer. Try 0.90 which is to assume that 10% exfiltrates from sewers. If no sewers are present use 0. [4] 17. Nitrogen per person in wastewater- the average in the U.S. is 10 lbs/person/day. [2] 18. Nitrogen removal rate of natural land - the fraction of nitrogen in precipitation which is removed by natural land before the water is recharged. Should be at least 90 percent. BIBLIOGRAPHY ------------ [1] Mather, John R. 1979. The Influence of Land-Use Change on Water Resources. Water Resources Center, University of Delaware. Newark, Delaware. [21 Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1978. Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 study). Hauppauge, N.Y. [31 Hughes, Henry B.F. and K.S. Porter. 1983. Land Use and Ground Water Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton. Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. [4] Hughes, Henry B.F., J. Pike and K.S. Porter. 1985. Assessment of Ground-Water Contamination by Nitrogen and Synthetic Organics in Two Water Districts in Nassau County, N.Y. Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. [51 Andreoli, A., R. Reynolds, N. Bartilucci and R. Forgione. 1977. Pilot Plant Study: Nitrogen Removal in a Modified Residential Subsurface Disposal System. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Hauppauge, N.Y. i Nitrogen Leached From an Acre of Residential Land r O 0.0 0.0 0.1 00 { a� 0.0 a N } 0.0 it Ili 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J 0.0 L_ ___ — Turf Natural Sewage Runoff TOTAL Contribution from Components BURBS CALCULATION SHEET PROPOSED PROJECT Welcome to BURBS ----------------- A Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet for calculating the impact of residential development on the nitrate concentration in groundwater. «« Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University»» Ithaca, N.Y. 1985 There are 9 pages: A B C D E F G H I J 1 +----------------- + Press the "Alt" I Welcome I Instructions I Definitions 1 key with one I (you are here)1 <Alt> 1 1 (3 pages) I letter 20 +---------------+---------------+ <Alt> D I to switch Parameters I Results I sections. <Alt> P I <Alt> R I 1 40 +--------------+---------------+ I I Calculations I I I Special <Alt> C Commands: 60 +---------------+ +---------------+ <Alt> W = results + parameters on split screen I Bibliography <Alt> U = undo split screen <Alt> G = graphs +----<Alt> B----+ DATA- Enter a values for each parameter: 1. Fraction of land in turf 032 fraction 2. Fraction of land which is impervious 0.35 fraction 3. Average persons per dwelling 2.00 people 4. Housing density 2.80 dwellings/acre 5 Precipitation rate 44.00 inches/year 6. Water recharged from turf 2200. inches/year T Water recharged from natural land 22.00 inches/year 8. Evaporation from impervious surface 0.10 fraction 9. Runoff from impervious recharged 1.00 fraction 10. Home water use per person 4400 gallons/day 11. Nitrogen concentration in precip. 0.10 mg/I 12. Nitrogen concentration in water used 0 30 mg/1 13. Turf fertilization rate 2 30 lbs/1000 sq ft 14. Fraction of nitrogen leached from turf 0.50 fraction 15. Fraction of wastewater N lost as gas 0.50 fraction 16. Wastewater fraction removed by Sewer 0.00 fraction 17. Nitrogen per person in wastewater 10.00 lbs/year 18. Nitrogen removal rate of natural land 095 fraction INTERMEDIATE CALCULATIONS Fraction Natural Land 0.33 Population Density 5.60 people/acre Nitrogen addition from precipitation 1.00 lbs/acre/year N content of wastewater incl. water used 10.04 lbs/person/year LABELS FOR GRAPH Overall Turf Nitrate Natural Conc. _ Sewage 6.3 Runoff mg/liter TOTAL MACRO COMMANDS {goto)a 1- {goto)a 1- {goto)d21- {goto)a21- {goto)a29- {home){goto)a21- /wwh- {goto)b23- /wwu- (window) {goto)a 1- {goto)d22- {goto)d1- (window){goto)b23- {goto)a 1- /wwc- {goto)j 1- (home)- {goto)al- /gnu (goto)j61- {goto)a 1- {goto)a41- INSTRUCTIONS It is assumed that you already know how to use Lotus 1-2-3. This 1-2-3 spreadsheet is set up to calculate the amount of water and nitrogen which will be recharged from a residential development. It calculates loadings from wastewater, turf, natural land and runoff from impervious surfaces. You must enter values for all the parameters on the data page which starts in cell A21. These parameters are defined and discussed on the page to right of this one. -----> If you are uncertain of the appropriate value to use for a parameter, we suggest that you try several values in the range of possible values. The numerical output from this model is only as accurate as the parameters and assumptions and hence should be interpreted carefully. There are several predefined graphs which you can use. This software is free to all owners of Lotus 1-2-3 and carries no guarantee. RESULTS: WATER RECHARGE NITROGEN LEACHED ------------- ---------------- inches/yr r percent nt lbs/acre/yr yr percent --------- - ------- -- --------- -- ------- Turf 7.0 22% 16.2 36% Natural Land 7.3 23% 0.0 0% Wastewater 3.3 11% 28.1 63% Impervious Runoff 13.9 44% 0.3 1% TOTAL 31.5 44.6 Nitrogen concentration in recharge 6.3 mg/I Graphs of the data can be accessed by typing <Alt> G. Select a graph, then type "Q"to exit graph menu. - Parameter Definitions 1. Fraction of land in turf- refers to area maintaned as lawn, must be between 0 and 1. 2. Fraction of land which is impervious - sum of roof area, driveways and roads, must be between 0 and 1. The fraction of land in natural vegetation is computed as 1 minus the sum of fraction in turf and the fraction impervious, thus the sum of these 2 must be less than 1. 3. Average persons per dwelling -the average number of people living in each house or dwelling unit. 4. Housing density-the number of dwelling units per acre. 5. Precipitation rate - the annual average precipitation in inches. 6. Water recharged from turf-the amount of water per unit area of turf which drains to groundwater. This can be computed from a water budget for the root zone. A 1-2-3 spreadsheet is available for this. [1] 7. Water recharged from natural land -the amount of water per unit area of natural of natural vegetation which drains to groundwater. This can be computed from a water budget. 8. Evaporation from impervious surface - the fraction of precipitation falling on impervious surface assumed to evaporate. Try 0.10. [1] 9. Runoff from impervious recharged - The fraction of the runoff which is recharged through recharge basins, ponds etc. Evaporation is subtracted. Use 0 here if storm sewers drain all runoff to surface waters. 10. Water use per person -average in-home use of water. Try 44 gallons per person per day. [2] 11. Nitrogen concentration in precipitation - average concentration, Use data from closest weather station where nitrogen tests were done. 12. Nitrogen concentration in water used - average concentration in water used in homes. 13. Turf fertilization rate - average yearly nitrogen application rate expected for residential turf. 14. Fraction of nitrogen leached from turf- the fraction of nitrogen applied from fertilizer, precipitation etc. which leaches to groundwater. For sandy soil try 0.35 if clippings are removed, or try 0.5 if clippings are left on turf. These values are based on Long Island studies [3],[4]. For tighter soils the fraction leached will probably be less. 15. Fraction of Wastewater N lost as gas -fraction of nitrogen in wastewater which volatilizes or is converted to gaseous N through denitrification. Roughly 0.50 under Long Island, N.Y. conditions.[51 This value is dependent on temperature and soil. Warmer areas will probably have higher fractions volatilized as will areas with tighter soils. Colder areas will probably have lower fractions. Vary this widely in your sensitivity analysis. (Perhaps 0.2 to 0.8) 16. Fraction of wastewater removed by sewer - efficiency of sewer. Try 0.90 which is to assume that 10% exfiltrates from sewers. If no sewers are present use 0. [4] 17. Nitrogen per person in wastewater- the average in the U.S. is 10 lbs/person/day. [2] 18. Nitrogen removal rate of natural land - the fraction of nitrogen in precipitation which is removed by natural land before the water is �e recharged. Should be at least 90 percent. BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] Mather, John R. 1979. The Influence of Land-Use Change on Water Resources. Water Resources Center, University of Delaware. Newark, Delaware. [2] Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1978. Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 study). Hauppauge, N.Y. [3] Hughes, Henry B.F. and K.S. Porter. 1983. Land Use and Ground Water Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton. Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. [4] Hughes, Henry B.F., J. Pike and K.S. Porter. 1985. Assessment of Ground-Water Contamination by Nitrogen and Synthetic Organics in Two Water Districts in Nassau County, N.Y. Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. [5] Andreoli, A., R. Reynolds, N. Bartilucci and R. Forgione. 1977. Pilot Plant Study: Nitrogen Removal in a Modified Residential Subsurface Disposal System. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Hauppauge, N.Y. f Nitrogen Leached From an Acre of Residential Land 1 50.0 45.0 A � r 40.0 ; 35 0 30.0 28.1 25.0 a N F 20.0 16.2 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 -1 _ - --- --- Turf Natural Sewage Runoff TOTAL Contribution from Components BURBS CALCULATION SHEET ALTERNATIVE PROJECT Welcome to BURBS ----------------- A Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet for calculating the impact of residential development on the nitrate concentration in groundwater. «« Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University»» Ithaca, N.Y. 1985 There are 9 pages: A B C D E F G H I J 1 +-----------------------------------------------+ Press the"Alt" I Welcome I Instructions I Definitions I key with one I (you are here)I <Alt> 1 1 (3 pages) I letter 20 +---------------+---------------+ <Alt> D to switch Parameters I Results I I sections. <Alt> P I <Alt> R I 40 +--------------+--------------+ I I Calculations I Special I <Alt> C Commands: 60 +---------------+ +---------------+ <Alt>W = results + parameters on split screen I Bibliography <Alt> U = undo split screen <Alt> G = graphs +----<Alt> B----+ DATA- Enter a values for each parameter: 1. Fraction of land in turf 0.35 fraction 2. Fraction of land which is impervious 0.36 fraction 3. Average persons per dwelling 2.00 people 4. Housing density 2.80 dwellings/acre 4.. 5. Precipitation rate 4400 inches/year 6. Water recharged from turf 22.00 inches/year 7. Water recharged from natural land 2200 inches/year 8. Evaporation from impervious surface 0.10 fraction 9. Runoff from impervious recharged 1.00 fraction 10. Home water use per person 4400 gallons/day 11. Nitrogen concentration in precip. 0.10 mg/I 12. Nitrogen concentration in water used 0.30 mg/I 13. Turf fertilization rate 2 30 Ibs/1000 sq ft 14. Fraction of nitrogen leached from turf 0.50 fraction 15. Fraction of wastewater N lost as gas 0.50 fraction 16. Wastewater fraction removed by Sewer 0.00 fraction 17. Nitrogen per person in wastewater 10.00 lbs/year 18. Nitrogen removal rate of natural land 0.95 fraction INTERMEDIATE CALCULATIONS Fraction Natural Land 0.29 Population Density 5.60 people/acre Nitrogen addition from precipitation 1.00 lbs/acre/year N content of wastewater incl. water used 10.04 Ibs/person/year LABELS FOR GRAPH Overall Turf Nitrate L Natural Conc. _ Sewage 6.4 Runoff mg /liter TOTAL MACRO COMMANDS {goto}a 1- {goto}a 1- {goto}d21- {goto}a21- {goto}a29- {home}{goto}a21- /wwh- {goto}b23- /wwu- {window} {goto}a 1- {goto}d22- {goto}d1-- {window}{goto}b23- {goto}a 1- /wwc- {goto}j 1- {home}- {goto}a1- /gnu {goto}j 61- {goto}a 1- {goto}a41- INSTRUCTIONS It is assumed that you already know how to use Lotus 1-2-3. This 1-2-3 spreadsheet is set up to calculate the amount of water and nitrogen which will be recharged from a residential development. It calculates loadings from wastewater, turf, natural land and runoff from impervious surfaces. You must enter values for all the parameters on the data page which starts in cell A21. These parameters are defined and discussed on the page to right of this one. -----> If you are uncertain of the appropriate value to use for a parameter, we suggest that you try several values in the range of possible values. The numerical output from this model is only as accurate as the parameters and assumptions and hence should be interpreted carefully. There are several predefined graphs which you can use. This software is free to all owners of Lotus 1-2-3 and carries no guarantee. RESULTS: WATER RECHARGE NITROGEN LEACHED --------------- --------------- inches/yr r percent nt lbs/acre/yr yr percent --------- - ------- -- --------- — ------- Turf 7.7 24% 17.7 38% Natural Land 6.4 20% 0.0 0% Wastewater 3.3 10% 28.1 61% Impervious Runoff 14.3 45% 0.4 1% TOTAL 31.6 46.2 Nitrogen concentration in recharge 6.4 mg/I Graphs of the data can be accessed by typing <Alt> G. Select a graph, then type "Q" to exit graph menu. Nitrogen Leached From an Acre of Residential Land 50.0 .sIN ae- } 46;2' I 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 28:1 � t A 25.0 a N 20.0 17.7 150 100 111_ 5.0 0.0 0.4 Turf Natural Sewage Runoff TOTAL Contribution from Components Parameter Definitions 1. Fraction of land in turf- refers to area maintaned as lawn, must be between 0 and 1. 2. Fraction of land which is impervious -sum of roof area, driveways and roads; must be between 0 and 1. The fraction of land in natural vegetation is computed as 1 minus the sum of fraction in turf and the fraction impervious, thus the sum of these 2 must be less than 1. 3. Average persons per dwelling - the average number of people living in each house or dwelling unit. 4. Housing density-the number of dwelling units per acre. 5. Precipitation rate -the annual average precipitation in inches. 6. Water recharged from turf-the amount of water per unit area of turf which drains to groundwater. This can be computed from a water budget for the root zone. A 1-2-3 spreadsheet is available for this. [1] 7. Water recharged from natural land -the amount of water per unit area of natural of natural vegetation which drains to groundwater. This can be computed from a water budget. 8. Evaporation from impervious surface -the fraction of precipitation falling on impervious surface assumed to evaporate. Try 0.10. [1] 9. Runoff from impervious recharged - The fraction of the runoff which is recharged through recharge basins, ponds etc. Evaporation is subtracted. Use 0 here if storm sewers drain all runoff to surface waters. 10. Water use per person - average in-home use of water. Try 44 gallons per person per day. [2] 11. Nitrogen concentration in precipitation -average concentration, Use data from closest weather station where nitrogen tests were done. 12. Nitrogen concentration in water used - average concentration in water used in homes. 13. Turf fertilization rate - average yearly nitrogen application rate expected for residential turf. 14. Fraction of nitrogen leached from turf - the fraction of nitrogen applied from fertilizer, precipitation etc. which leaches to groundwater. For sandy soil try 0.35 if clippings are removed, or try 0.5 if clippings are left on turf. These values are based on Long Island studies [3],[4]. For tighter soils the fraction leached will probably be less. 15. Fraction of Wastewater N lost as gas -fraction of nitrogen in wastewater which volatilizes or is converted to gaseous N through denitrification. Roughly 0.50 under Long Island, N.Y. conditions.[5] This value is dependent on temperature and soil. Warmer areas will probably have higher fractions volatilized as will areas with tighter soils. Colder areas will probably have lower fractions. Vary this widely in your sensitivity analysis. (Perhaps 0.2 to 0.8) 16. Fraction of wastewater removed by sewer- efficiency of sewer. Try 0.90 which is to assume that 10% exfiltrates from sewers. If no sewers are present use 0. [4] 17. Nitrogen per person in wastewater - the average in the U.S. is 10 lbs/person/day. [2] 18. Nitrogen removal rate of natural land - the fraction of nitrogen in precipitation which is removed by natural land before the water is recharged. Should be at least 90 percent. BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] Mather, John R. 1979. The Influence of Land-Use Change on Water Resources. Water Resources Center, University of Delaware. Newark, Delaware. [2] Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1978. Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 study). Hauppauge, N.Y. [3] Hughes, Henry B.F. and K.S. Porter. 1983. Land Use and Ground Water Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton. Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. [4] Hughes, Henry B.F., J. Pike and K.S. Porter. 1985. Assessment of Ground-Water Contamination by Nitrogen and Synthetic Organics in Two Water Districts in Nassau County, N.Y. Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. [5] Andreoli, A., R. Reynolds, N. Bartilucci and R. Forgione. 1977. Pilot Plant Study: Nitrogen Removal in a Modified Residential Subsurface Disposal System. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Hauppauge, N.Y. I - - CASOLA WELL DRILLERS WELL CERTIFICATE County - Suffolk wm e WPB 5-119696T Comer Charles Kuehn 1^voke►Joba Aeerem 2711-3 3 East Deer Park load Suite 201 LotaUanofwap Dix Nille, NY 11746 c/o Cr`iffiag Street i School House Lene Ln/0$ Main Road CutcAogue a0U or yeeN Sebw gurtass 90' (�tinety) MakWO(thirty) Walm1�I Wolf ohanoelas ptksyll"m 6,0' (Fil feet CASMS MaMrtal Length ��. attlwnlratl•Iron 87 K.Plutier-Rubbor BGNIENl material sminwips!1 eel 40 109b1 DI r n Dop q Top from Calling U YWd NS! Mln(mum 110 LATERAL olameter trNarlal _ Make f"-f%- oR t-:PO tone Prangetpurg Depth of lateral M1nNnuln S4" _ DROP PIPE Dlamew Length Materiel aMvanited PU11iP NiSTAL EO Type Marta :a14ubmerslnle Ste f e-tied.acaet Model Numbs 6tm MotivNa0 Power Capacity at 20 pal siedric Mptlrnfgn"8 TAW INSTALLIP Mahe TYM Sts AND I Cortetard Proms 82 CA Method of Drilling Method of Dfain"rp Cable T6011 Chlerllualon Type of Wet*,Treatmont tilled - 1 DOm k-Tealwelt . _ m _ »m m.mIA. __ SIG-432_4 PA � - - �� �\ ( � 1! k �| §! I r -- � / L . � IL i 03.26/2006 02:26 FAX 0312819349 c"Ols. Ne71 DrUlera 1m ®002 V a19aw+6bP Mr4a NT 1170 aTnslao'6: �roPaae LA>1tORRtOilY 116tlll.Tt_ .• "MY Ot2LMWWXM Tlf71N8 Uk"P. 102038324M saw**611NROOM.. �... WAN Roao Trw : PebbM v#mW `1 MATT1117M W 11062 O1f6M:.Ree Wed A1h1Te : list-2161616 ROOM Pan"10 CawAW:MAN A1YW.L ORILLIMO CdMdmd :302M IMA0AM ft"Nal OIIfPW01AtAXOTC1001R SOUP (WE L RedeM .39397a;a1:WeM Lowim; MRADIPLOW499PIONO"NA CaYrie By :CUPOIER Ce71MT0 ;CLIENT �6wN 11tl41 3191 IWl3X!lllmen <10� pbAbredelaagn1a61y1a <Ob Mq1 5 95022 MM M:7 PM CMaaOMre <00 401 9 E902.2 YMW*27:7IPM VMW"ON <OA 1101 2 9602.2 . 71/119.7;7001., em"w whaM 404 AK 5 7b02.2 1440 6:27:27 PM Chkfee9N11e <0.6 WL 9 6002.2 204M 927:77 PM TmNoo9ese9eAam <0.0 1WL 5 E602 2 344102 0:27:27 PU 1,1.ONM OOV"m 'CA M1L 6 EW2.2 3r.MM 0?.7:"PM M1617N4 chlowo <0.6 1101- 9 E602.2 31342037:27 PM 9MM.1,24MA94690e <0.5 101 5 9501.2 34M 121:7 PM 1,14NddmaMha <0.6 4L 9 6602.2 3.M029:27:7PM cb•1,20c*mm,QM <O.s MPA. 6 E602.2 W24MP:7:27 PM z,z-01cM6�ap/0pa0a <0.6 tp4 3 E602.2 344029:27:7 PM erenseaW0ms0+alr <0A IqR 6 E602.2 714029+27:7 PU CM&OFSe1 <00 M9A. 60 fia02.7 314020:27:7 PM 1,1,14f hares"Aa 40.8 MOA. 6 6602.2 34402}7:77 PM 001000 b9edlpNe <0.6 MA, 0 9502.2 3244 6:27:77 PM �� 1,1-0Id>b0010wM <CA tot 6 E602] 324029:7:7 PU I,b01d110f011M11a <0.a MA. 3 9002.2 324021!27:7PM TAGIp0dhale <0.6 MOA 5 E602.2 324021:27:27 PM 1,2.01c1asePlOpaaa <0.1 t101 5 E002.2 314021:27.7 PM �".'" Delfa116n1a91ana <0.5 1gti a E507.2 214022:77 PM 1lanrl,�ObANNPfOpaM <06 1e1 6 E902.2 W241029.27:7 PM eb•f,5-0lDlewOP s <03 U91L 5 66022 311021;27:7 PM 111.2-TrldflpeNMns <0.6 496, a 9002.2 324021:7:77 PM Te9eehlaradMea 40A MDA. 5 EM2.7 324M PAM Pit I.3OkNolvOIODeM <04 IOML 5 9602.2 314020:27:7 PM celb96aneeu <Q.s POOL 5 E502.2 344026:27:7 PM 1.1,1.2-Tanchb+OMhone <0.8 49/6 5 E301.2 314029:7:7 PM a w Men as <OS 1191 6 E502.2 324029:7:7 PM I.r,2,2•TeOaahNlaeOene 405 MOA. 6 9602.2 31200217:7 PM 1.1.1T421W6prt1Pw <0.5 14)4 9 6602.2 324020:7:7 PM 2�M9Ma0Raa <08 1qA• 5 9602.2 31402 R2T;7 PM 4•Ctdpp2tArotM <0.a M91L 6 [502.0 20402 V'.V:7 PN I 1.2•DlMdal9aalrcane <0.9 1100. 6 6607.2 3441E 0.7:27 PM 1.5 OklYateDl�2A8a <O.s Me6_ 6 9502.2 MUM 0'27,77 PM 1,401p01an00aaaarM <0.6 tq& 6 E502.2 U24002*27P27 PM I.PA-Ttkownserg" 40A M6A. 6 E602.2 37402 9:727 PM <8.6 1413 6 E902.2 324020:27.7 PM 1.2:3-Te4mwd "vOA �en.6..r. <Ob 101 6 .... Ebw...a _ r3rlmw�A*r22r..71 PPMRaw" ', w"!r9Mq6rwM ie 9uOw aMfe7l+dlM.u+w rr. /9L i Dab lb9a1b4: 4102 ?tsb� MMMget iPgetd2 ... .... ....- ----r rrwr �. Huta w• rnwn♦rpvrHUC OJ 03926/100803:23 FAX 80128105/9 Cesole Well Drillers Inc QI003 K% p662�P11�07 PIRLNMPK 1101/ pMOl701D.TA10 B�6a3 M�DiI W 1af111 ` MPW UOLOMAN WATER 7ES11010 Los No. : 1�'�� ►61oPlo M1To/P160An... a"ft" : PWAW WOW MAT11h cK M( 11066 On6o1:RM Wap Awn TO : 41M2164M R01N0O Foomi 03 C66n1ID.: DA80U1 WELL DRUM Ca6otlad :300y0li MAN AM PC"No'. ONNPBIB LAINrCY1C11D0a0 7GIRCii66ELL RoOOMd :3D3103k"m M L6oYNA; 1lAO►PI.OW+M9P�6YRR1L 006poWBy :CU61TJVAM Cap$To :CLJMLT EM M S) 8619111 163Y 111 42318111l1dM A66br6q. sow 1- 469 Myl 0 MM2 Yd402►._27;37 PM Towns <OA M& 6 6002.2 NAW8:2T:27P01 Ew2�lA361ro <01 19ti 9 EOC62 30M PM .. M2+tyYno <0.5 691L - 6 Ewa . ..A4b02 R27:17,PM . "OWN c 0A M9. 5 E002.2 $44"CPS?PM 61y"" c0S OL 8 EM.2 30A02►27:X7 PM ISWW Mo ROA 19L 6 ES02.2 3776104►.27.27 PM Mn,oPyn�laaro <OA M& 0 0002.2 2061026:2t.27 PM f,3.sltLwen2lenar. to% W& 0 0809.2 3/2A02927:27 PM Mww%Mtuw e613r c DA MK 30 EM.2 306102 0:27:27 PM %A4k"MMXW o -0.0 WK 5 0602.2 30071 k2y:27 PM 1,2,441111My91w- 10 <0.6 101E 5 0802.2 30002!27:27 PM tndp0Py0ow•no 4 101L 5 E602.2 306102►2T.27 PM <0.6 MK 5 0902.2 V24M 1:27.27 PM ^�b6 404 SOL 6 E602.2 =4102►2T.27 PM AYk�rb�dlnn� <1.0 190. 0631./ 90310211:17:00 PM AMI0"do6ddl► </.0 P06. EA31.1 3r4w 41:1706 PM Ap"b <1.0 M00. ES11.1 L23102 11:1706 PM Y1 I A15106 e RID h'L: 7 0531.1 3MAM2 11:1700 PM +•*,�) COPPRY <002 1n0i1 1.3 E200.1 Y2M I?3000 AM 1 • iron • 0.31 166ti 0.3 6200.7 3060213:3600 AM %krqarme 001 "OWL 03 6200.7 3d MIO.b30OAM Y3ne 162 rt*& 5 F.200.7 S"0210.3900 M1 Low RID p91L 1S E20e,0 YMM 3.*MPM i Tobi COM N"MOM NOOMHo W223 &Q=11:2W.00 AM Ab",d AMM mm YZM 11.2000AM CMwMn 6.6 rod! 2" E346.2 =WM 11:60:82 M1 i spodkc"*Icwft 131 w"wo1o11 M2S108 Y2m 6:ImoRpm MBA6 c006 ff*% "26.1 2061026:660CAM ww"oo.Monont104 N1 <0.10 n1ok E360.1 307A24.'4MF" "box M R 2,00 1ndL 16 E3S3.2 Y201@ 3:1?,17 PM PN 6.3 PSI LMIM 0160.1 Y2202PftMPM Iff y 11l,�14PL1pdd'1Ab 6 R,eudPllpdMry L3edn/ 16re1t16. _v"__ orgyPAPenA: 611x03 L6O61M0fY MLnnB� P1p2M2 iNrnaAa: Existing well an site. STORAOS TANK: Inside Material VINYL Type of Tank Drain HOSE CONNECTION Pressure Gauge Installed YES Shut-off Valva prior to tank YES Sampling Tap Provided YES Shut off Valve with Bleeder Une YES Installed on outflow of tank Ct*Ck the Town In whlCh the project Is located: Nees"Oauntr 0Hempstead ®North Hempstead ❑Oyster Say ow"alk county' b Bot-ylon Otf+ookhovon OEast Hamoton Cl Huntington IDlsllp CIAlverheed Q Shelter Island ❑Smithtown OBounhempton X]aouthoid Otte Oorhplew DM„ Duller Liean Number 99t nor& a X T R CKER Archaeology Services,Inc REPORTS OF INVESTIGATIONS Phase I Archaeological Investigation for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue subdivision Cutchogue, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York October 2007 Prepared for: Nelson, Pope &Voorhis, LLC, Melville, New York Prepared by: Alfred G. Cammisa, M.A. /RPA Felicia Cammisa, Alexander Padilla / Report#: 529 TRACKER ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICES, INC. MONROE, NY 10950 • (845) 783-4082 y= NORTH BABYLON, NY 11703 . (631)321-1380 �"".. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY . PR : none known Involved agencies: Town of Southold Phase: Phase IA & IB Location: Cutchogue _ Town of Southold Suffolk County Survey Area: - Length: about 2000 feet (610 meters) north-south Width: about 950 feet (290 m) east-west. Acres Surveyed: 45 acres (18.2 hectares) OSGS: Southold, NY - Survey overview: ST no. & interval: 767 ST's at 50-3ft (15-1m) intervals. Size of freshly plowed area: na Surface survey transect interval: na Results: Isolated prehistoric and historic finds Results of Architectural Survey: No. Of buildings/structures/cemeteries in project area: none - No. Of buildings/structures/cemeteries adjacent to project area: 10 No. Of previously determined NR listed or eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: none - No. Of identified eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: none Authors: Alfred G. Cammisa, M.A./RPA - Felicia Cammisa, B.A. Alexander Padilla, B.A. Date of Report: Report completed October, 2007 �- TABLE OF CONTENTS �- Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 Prehistoric Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Historic Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 Field Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Field Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8 Appendix 1: Figures and Plates Appendix 2: Shovel Test Notes Appendix 3: State Site Forms LIST OF FIGURES ( _ Figure 1 Portion of the Southold, New York U.S.G.S. \. Figure 2 Location of shovel tests on the project area. Figure 3 Portion of the 1797 township survey. Figure 4 Portion of the 1836 Colton map. Figure 5 Portion of the .1858 Chace map. Figure 6 Portion of the 1896 Hyde atlas. Figure 7 Portion of the 1904 USGS. Figure 8 Portion of the County Soil Survey. LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1 Looking east from ST 268. Photo 2 Looking north from ST 268. CINTRODUCTION Between August 8 and September 20, 2007, TRACKER-Archaeology Services, Inc. conducted a Phase IA documentary study and a Phase IB archaeological survey for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue subdivision in Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The purpose of the Phase IA documentary study was to determine the prehistoric and historic potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. The Phase IA was implemented by a review of past and current environmental data, archaeological site files, other archival literature, maps, and documents. The prehistoric and historic site file search was conducted utilizing the resources of the New York State Historic Preservation Office in Waterford, New York. Various historic and/or archaeological web sites may have been visited to review any pertinent site information. The purpose of the Phase IB field survey was to provide physical evidence for the presence or absence of prehistoric or historic sites on the property. This was accomplished through subsurface testing and ground surface reconnaissance. The project area consists of the entire property at approximately 45 acres. The property is bordered to the south by School House Lane and town land, to the east by Bridle Lane, Spur Road, and private properties, and to the remaining sides by private properties. The study was conducted by TRACKER-Archaeology Services, Inc. of Monroe, New York. Prehistoric and historic research was conducted by Alfred Cammisa, M.A. C Field investigations were conducted by Jean Cascardi, B.A. and James Gelarden, B.A. Report preparation was by Alfred Cammisa, Felicia Cammisa, B.A., and Alexander Padilla, B.A. The work was performed for Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC, Melville, New York. ENVIRONMENT Geology The project area is located in the southeast portion of New York State in the northeastern part of Suffolk County. This portion of New York lies in the Atlantic Coastal Plains Physiographic Province. The coastal plain slopes gently eastward and is actually a strip of recently emerged sea bottom. The soils in this region consist largely of sand, clay and marl (a mixture of clay, finely fragmented shell and calcite) . This region of Suffolk County, on Long Island's North Fork, lies within a glacial outwash plain south of the Harbor Hill Moraine. A glacial meltwater channel had once separated Orient Point from the rest of the north fork (Schuberth 1968: cover map, 9, 184-186; Van Diver 1985: 70; Sirkin 1995:142, 149-150) . Soils and Topography Soils on the project area consist of: 1 Name Soil Horizon Color Texture Slope Drainage Landform Depth in(cm) % Inclusion Carver 0=1-2in (3- leaves sand 15-35 well side 5cm) slopes & 0=2-1 (5-3) mull moraines A=0-3 (0-8) 10YR4/1 A=3-8 (-20) 10YR6/1 B=8-14 (-36) 7.5YR5/6 Haven A=0-3in(0- 10YR4/2 Lo 0-2 & well outwash 8cm) - 2-6 plains B=3-10 (-26) 7.54/4 and B=10-19 (-48) 7.5YR5/6 moraines Haven, A=0-3in(0- 10YR4/2 Lo 0-3 well outwash thick 8cm) plains surface B=3-10 (-26) 7.54/4 layer B=10-19 (-48) 7.5YR5/6 Plymouth A= 0-4in (0- 10YR3/2 LoSa 3-8 well along 10cm) drainages B= 4-10 (-26) 10Yr5/4 in B= !0-17 (- cultivate 43) - 10Yr5/6 d fields Riverhead Ap 0-12 (0- 10YR4/3 sandy 3-8 well moraines 30) loam & outwash B 12-27 (-69) 1 7.5YR5/6 plains (Warner 1975: map #17, pgs. 67, 71-72, 79, 81-82) . Elevations on the property are approximately 30 feet above mean sea level. The project area is located on the north fork, a peninsula where the distance between the Shelter Island and Long Island Sounds is small. Hydrology The project area is about 2900 feet northeast of Downs Creek, 3180 feet north of West Creek, and 3270 feet northwest of Wickham Creek, all tidal inlets flowing south into Peconic Bay. Vegetation The predominant forest community inhabiting the Coastal Plain in this vicinity (Cape Cod to the Carolinas) was the Northern Pine-Oak Forest. These forests are maintained largely by the effects of frequent fires. Were it not for the fires which the pine species have adapted to, these forests would slowly change to Mesic, dominated by oak, hickory and red maple. Northern. Pine-Oak Forests fall within the larger Xeric Forest category. Xeric forests occur on sandy or otherwise poor soils that are overly dry. All coastal plains of eastern North America are Xeric. They generally have lower species diversity than bottomland forests (Kricher 1988:16-17, 65-66) . The reason the forest soils and surfaces are so dry in this moist region is due to the excessive drainage of overly sandy soils on the Coastal Plain. 2 At the time of the Phase IB archaeological investigations, the project area ® consisted largely of scrub and brush with young trees such as birch, maple, locust, pine, cedar and weeds such as poison ivy, golden rod, and milkweed. PREHISTORIC POTENTIAL. A prehistoric site file search was conducted at the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) . The search included a 1 mile radius around the study area. The following sites were recorded: NYSM Sites NYSHPO Sites Distance from Site Description APE ft(m) 692 3500 (1067) .Solecki Site: Transition, burial 8244 1056+ (322+) Transitional, Burial 4882 5117 (1560) ACP: Village 8245 3200+ (976+) Hall's Creek Site A Paleo Indian point was recovered in this vicinity (Stone nd:map) . In addition, Indian trails were reported in the vicinity of the project area ( connecting the tidal creeks along the southern and northern portions of the north fork, one appearing along, or near, Route 25 and 48. Although the foot trails were reported during early historic times, they undoubtedly existed prehistorically. Assessing the known environmental and prehistoric data, we can summarize the following: -The project area is about 2900 feet northeast of Downs Creek, 3180 feet north of West Creek, and 3270 feet northwest of Wickham Creek, all tidal inlets flowing south into Peconic Bay. -The project area is mainly comprised of level, well drained topography. -The project parcel is located on a peninsula. Previous archaeological investigations have shown these areas as more desirable for prehistoric occupation (Cammisa et al 1999A; Cammisa et al 1999B; Cammisa et al 1995, Cammisa 1996) . -Prehistoric sites are near the study area. -Indian trails were located in the vicinity. In our opinion, the study area has a higher than average potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. The type of site encountered could be a small processing/procurement site, 3 �- HISTORIC POTENTIAL Contact Period (Seventeenth Century) At the time of -European Contact and settlement, the study area was likely occupied by the Corchaug (Cutchogue) . This was probably the main branch or village of the large Corchaug tribe (Stone nd:map; Stone-Levine 1980:161) . The previously mentioned, Indian trails were reported along Routes 25 and 48, connecting tidal creeks along the southern and northern portions of the north fork. A wigwam was also reported in this vicinity along the aforementioned foot trail(Stone nd:map) . It may have been .Town policy to keep the Indians grouped in the western portion of the Town which was considered wilderness at this time. In 1664 it was voted that the Indians could plant in Hogs Neck if they had sufficient fencing (Anonymous 1982:8) . Eighteenth Century As mentioned, a wigwam was recorded in the vicinity. The wigwam was reported in the 1740's by Reverend Horton who probably lived in it while visiting (Stone nd:map; Stone 1980: 170) . The 1797 Town of Southold survey depicts Downs Creek and Route 25. No structures are on or adjacent to the project area. A windmill and school house are depicted along Route 25 (Figure 3) .. Nineteenth Century The 1836 Colton map shows Route 25 in Cutchogue. Schoolhouse Road is not in (Figure 4) . The 1858 Chace map shows Route 25 but no other side streets around the project area and no structures nearby either (Figure 5) . The 1896 Hyde atlas depicts Depot Lane now but not School House Road or the other smaller side streets around the property. No structures are adjacent to the project area either (Figure 6) . Twentieth Century The 1904 USGS shows no structures on or adjacent to the project area (Figure 7) . In the late Nineteenth Century, the Town farming became highly specialized in areas such as potatoes, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, peas, beans, and the like (Bailey 1949:162) . An historic site file search was conducted at the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) . The search included a 1 mile radius around the study area. The following sites were recorded: NYSM Sites NYSHPO SitesDistance from Site Description APE ft(m) 4881 2709+ (826+) ACP: Fort, Village, Stockade Assessing the known environmental and historical. data, we can summarize the E- - 4 following: -The project area is about 2900 feet northeast of Downs Creek, 3180 feet north of West Creek, and 3270 feet northwest of Wickham Creek, all tidal inlets flowing south into Peconic Bay. -The project area is mainly comprised of level, well drained topography. -Indian trails were located in the vicinity. -A Contact Period wigwam is situated in the vicinity. -No map documented structures were on or adjacent to the project area. An historic native American site was reported in the vicinity. In our opinion, the study area has a moderate potential for the recovery of historic sites. The type of site encountered might be a Contact Period site_ There would be a low potential for European-American sites. FIELD METHODS Walkover Exposed ground surfaces were walked over at approximately 3 to 5 meter intervals to observe for artifacts. Covered ground terrain was also reconnoitered at 15 meter intervals for any above ground features, such as berms, depressions, or rock configurations which might be evidence of a prehistoric or historic site. Photographs were taken of the study area. Shovel Tests Shovel tests were to be conducted at 15 meter intervals across the project area. Each shovel test pit measured about 30 to 40 cm. in diameter and was dug intothe underlying B horizon (subsoil) 10 to 20 cm. or more when possible. All soils were screened through 1/4 inch wire mesh and observed for artifacts. Each shovel test was flagged in the field. Positive shovel tests were doubled flagged. All shovel tests and any archaeological finds were mapped on the project area map at this time. Soil stratigraphy was recorded according to texture and color. Soil color was matched against the Munsell color chart for soils. Notes were transcribed on pre- printed field forms and in a notebook. FIELD RESULTS Field testing of the project area included the excavation of 767 shovel tests (ST's) across the project area. One prehistoric quartz point tip and 1 quartz flake were recovered in ST's 242 and 171 respectively. Eight radials were excavated at 1 and 3 meter intervals along the 4 cardinal directions from the positive STs. Results were negative showing these to be an isolated finds. Scattered eighteenth to nineteenth century artifacts from the plow zone included 1 blue transferprint whiteware from ST 43, 1 blue decorated creamware from ST 121, 1 lead glaze earthenware from ST 131, 2 Jackfield-like ceramic from ST 132, F-- .� 5 6 flower pot fragments from ST 172, 1 brown transferprint whiteware from ST 204, �. and 1 olive green bottle glass and 1 undecorated whiteware from ST 230. Stratiaraahv: Stratigraphy across the project area included the following: -O horizon - 2 to 8 cm. thick of forest root mat or sod, leaf litter, and humus. -Ap horizon - 6 to 37 cm. thick of 10YR4/3, brown sandy loam. -B horizon - 10 to 20 cm. dug into of 10YR5/6 yellow brown sandy loam. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Phase IA had determined the study area had a higher than average potential for the recovery of prehistoric sites. The property hada moderate potential for native American historic sites but a low potential for European-American sites. The Phase IB resulted in the excavation of 767 ST's. Isolated prehistoric and historic finds were encountered. No further work is therefore recommended. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bailey, Paul 1949 Long Island: The Story of Two Great Counties, Nassau and Suffolk. Volume 1. Lewis Historical Publishing Company, New York. Bayles, Richard 1962 Historical and Descriptive Sketches of Suffolk County. Empire State Historical Publishing Company XVIII. - Cammisa, Alfred, with William Sandy, Cheryl Claassen and Felicia Burgos 1995 Archaeological Investigations at the Seaford Park Archaeological Site in The Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association, Fall. Cammisa, Alfred G. 1996 Phase IB Archaeological Survey Phase II Intensive Testing of the Pellicano Site for the Proposed Bayview Development Bayview, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York. TRACKER-Archaeology Services. Ms. on file with NYSHPO. Cammisa, Alfred, Felicia B. Cammisa, William Goldsmith, and Justine McKnight 1999A Personal Space Within a Middle Woodland Small Base Camp and a Late Woodland. Procurement Station: The Robinson Sites, Phase III Data Recovery Excavations, North Sea, Suffolk County, New York. TRACKER- Archaeology Services. Ms. On filewithNYSHPO. Cammisa, William Goldsmith, and Felicia Burgos Cammisa 1999B Archaeological Investigations at the McCauley Site, Strong's Neck, Long Island. TRACKER-Archaeology Services. Ms. On file with NYSHPO. Kricher, John C. and Gordon Morison 1988 The Peterson Field Guide Series: Eastern Forests of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 6 Levine, Gaynell, editor 1978 Readings in Long Island Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Volume 2: The Coastal Archaeology Reader. Suffolk County Archaeological Association. Pelletreau, William 1982 Southold, in History of Suffolk County, 1683-1883. Suffolk County Tricentennial Commission. W.W. Munsell and Company. Schuberth, Christopher J. 1968 The Geology of New York City and Environs. New York: Natural History Press. Sirkin, Les 1995 Eastern Long Island Geology with Field Trips. Book and Tackle Shop, RI. Stone-Levine, Gaynell 1980 Language and Lore of the Long Island Indians. Readings in Long island Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Suffolk County Archaeological Association. Stone, Gaynell 1993 Readings in Long Island Archaeology and Ethnohistory: Volume 3, The History and Archaeology of the Montauk. Suffolk County Archaeological Association. Thompson, Benjamin Franklin 1918 History of Long Island. Volume 2. Ira J. Friedman, Inc. , New York. Tooker, William Wallace 1962 The Indian Place Names on Long Island and islands adjacent, with their probable significations. Ira J. Friedman, New York. Van Diver, Bradford B. 1985 Roadside Geology of New York. Missoula Montana: Mountain Press Publishing Company. Warner, John W. ; W. E. Hana; R. J. Landry; J. P. Wulforst; J. A. Neeley; R. L. Holmes; and C. E. Rice 1975 Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation with Cornell Agricultural Experimental Station. Mans Chace, Jay 1858 Map of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York.Philadelphia: John Douglas. Colton, J.H. 1836 Map of Long Island. J.H. Colton. - Hyde and Company 1996 Map of Long Island. Brooklyn, New York: Hyde & Company. Jensen, H.M. and J. Soren 1974 Hydrology of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Stone, Gaynell not dated Map of Native Long Island. Long Island Culture History Lab & Museum- ? / Suffolk County Archaeological Association. United State Geological Survey 1956 Southold, New York quadrangle map, 7.5 minute series. 1904 Shelter island, New York quadrangle map, 7.5 minute series. 1 .. 8 APPENDIX i ZIN 44-CKER .x Sacre� cart •�s`: � ,.; -� ell it � ,• */• �' ® ": �\;• ...,a�h '�' .Gw/"• ,,s ,` . " w +' Project \`\ i+• , area • • CAI >. •; 4Li \ �r 32 20 '"tato h For)2 :. �`,,, ,+ `'`• o{� Figure 1 " xi25 �� r , r Portion of the Southold, NY USGS ' PL 1"-1000' = - Zoe Figure 3 Portion of the 1797 Town survey o � � v Project area %r / f � 1 M �l Yii��! ' Figure 4 Portion f the 1836 Colton map 1 ffCsri4#",- Mat r � r T W 4 it�liiye1 •� ' it/w. li Ils"d ,.; �:9t rtt 1}wwt[hil•( Project area 1 i�, of • � � • r L 1-0 Portion of the 1858 Chace map } w 4 �` e ~ 1. a It t #1 a,4ri ;Y • - ''ks�,r•� •,, Project } - f .JHr••`s '"¢s„�• area I 4- N r r .•• . F . •• We .a Yui _ s • `s ar • Y tsl !. • � a� T � a • s ,.• •} � fes[#'�l�IE�E'�r: 3L lTTI aI TK •t� 4 �` t #rte q ----------- AZ Hooter? M Lz rj- P4 .00 % 0 ro r A71: 3t v- C ProjecE. area �104 co -;Ire "-,Pzr v s CLZI�.L TN e iL it Vt I m C f1t nn L Figure 6 13 Portion of the 1896 Hyde atlas p g 5 f 16: SUlFiFOLK7:- ;F 7 a t C sr 'r . frf� .ej / 'a..`' lre _�j1aw^"ffC�w SYR bar a�` �� z .Rv, _cam .r .x�: jz 1, . ✓ 1 x ` ;.e `Y.y'+t rF z r� �y , i - "``. .{"Y 'f`_ , f -�Y� ! .�r� � /E✓ € f/ 611 �A � ,r -'r.'" f� ! `.-� r l'�ifs�J�� r� �� _ �.'-.'♦< NX jS � ��` ! i '.`' 1if fXsl/Lr��- �/i i� �`� �� 1 �. �� � • _ l C(� s /E 2c9' r � �fi � _ Y s i v f � +•' �� - 2225 f/r D._{x i �"� �r �l���i. /per O�rf •♦ ' - i �.•- RY *,l' �.�-��. {S 3 epi (Kj �tMill , �� { Project �u $� y � 1 F ` Area jfd N ttV� Figure 7 � ���. � � • '� -;� � � Portion of the 1904 USGS J s rf "E���� �^6 �- s ��� �� �; ;��y- �,.3� a< �a$ } 3z€ Ha6 �� .s- 'T •� i r HaA Ha T He_A oq f B ,RdA PIA` c o Rd } ti R Project x Ha8 �{ s v. °r�,.' f� area < x ` s' � �3A 3de � , a HaA x ..s aci /� nG.. 4 a PiB e r HaA"' �- •rs�,' . Ha8' �f�dBa' " � iir) - PI ate'. N K Figure 8N _ N ;.n Portion of the County Soil Survey } •� ar��•• �P `r'fr •49 � "{°y`3 e� 3r •1• f �� �esl_ 1�•yp � � §.t � •` �' 4 y/It-�s�id �,•� - � �S• _ 1�aa,�� 3 _,llat �a�!•���_ < --T,.'ir' -+�'k, l PF" �S�y�PHS S _. 6" �te.,��'^� �" - ; �1• ,� � � c_ r �'T•yi 'fie-,.ra � � � of a-` x��"c t� - • �� . 1•a� ��$ ,��y �nom: � 4..Y'`� s}lam sa ��" r "Y tt' � yl.a X�I�` __ +'F ' F i-��' � '`• irl�� �,� � �'7r'i F•l a"� ��ry�yf�l[`_1 -� y q _ �� �1 �i k�" G..d T9� 4si x ! °` ry"'y�],� '�"`' �7Ja L f" y Yt,,.* ,� .'•� ?ff, r/v'1� r��` - -�T* =,�^a J' r '1, s ,a•' ;fit � .may � �i •�-- ''�'�%� y -� ��- ��`� a�� t-,^ '+" s� ��': 1'" 'd � `4 3E�+ �' at tis�'• � �" 36': .- � • '4� b �,'i��ti��:•n ." ,., ;t .k. +` _.M'}a�� r x-'37i ~� 7 � � ..7 '4�• ��X j''�r� �� .� � f � / l`ri'� •/ 4 i° fl 's;1'�' n..x I -r' -i y r sayrs •. y a �r s 'n s� r . • rl�iw OE Y � ' 1 „wa••1P+-t" .+ t -i,[ +4,,,,� 3.�3,.F• C��.,n 1;\•• resL }l.. 'sem 6 .• ,,.'-/ y-c::.'/ f4F?'Y.f�1' Pn; '�f1R .rd /.r'•1� .,.x"`I r ' r / • i r1. -.t `�Jt �'�`f '£..� G]lr•! a efl t # ��,;pax�V•4,i r • .V fh • s43aro )r •� !4v?��4 ���F<�,�`�c •� �� � a`:_.1A.4 �� �'{4 s �� �\ •� `'t F 4 .. S 3++"iz/s(4 Cy •ilr 1L.,lfiy 2_S;•^Sa �t e4tb+t a{ y.a\\�`' a v., a :! �(•' l+' -��\' l'S'�a.�#id'k+•.,�n a.� 1 ��� C ,�� t ♦ E a - 1�`'. s .. : ss• � i �;' / srsi .. „•'.p le �i�.f���� 4v �$yypJ��'/iZ. ! >� • ♦.3 ,A '• r r � �r a}�� y 5 �:�x,%� ai �\�r -.,P� r�NS 'A M',i4-f��w • y • ®1 q � \. r "I/ _. ( o ` �#Ia. i• L i �1 i I\spa.e 1 •i q � �a�.� a}"'/ �� � j i ���•-sj / ro� : !r �`' 4�L � ��` t}�/�.. (/1�pp yy <q �w�{nt � �• a4 a i1 �/,s�yf� ..�.'+ r ♦/ , i�Y�r ` 9 �e-'la•�'"'.ifiiRpt �� ` i� � � i ��` f',, I .✓ ti+f` r ♦ t�'l l..." i+•�i F -. / 5" ` __ I4. •`♦ to ) ° f 4-0 y � T%'� •(S \'^'.� : , y / ..-� •Jr rt. Ala ;fit,` '�♦�°-E.; t �. r� ♦ '4+ '♦y rt 1'"J 'i w 4 Jl Z f r ay. 5•� t J "f � ,." t: v� � f. _ 1 , .� _ ,r.` ' 4 ♦ 1 .ill � 1 t � ,,. s „! �� � f `! J i .3, < :` i P •\f ♦ ,� r ;''..1 t�.. ` c. S1 � s ,. :'�^" v t..s `� -.cr �♦ f _ w ! y- - t -�4 r•� \ -3t, 4 ! s-. - � 3 x y l r Y•' t ! f r• a ' � { \ t � r l � `w ��L �a ef'.. f _t i"`> y.:• �A Ip "_ fp ;�-,�� L p%a ♦MI \w."wt ',y�J,.j,fe. i1^a\.. .�t..<+e�>`- A — `���_• { SHOVEL TESTS STP LV DEPTH(CM) TEXTURE COLOR HOR COMMENTS 1 1 0=4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-30 Sandy Loam(SaLo) I OYR4/3 Ap - NCM 3 30x40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NGM 2 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-25 'SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 3 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-20 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 20-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 4 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6.34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 5 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6.28, SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo - IOYR5/6 B NCM 6 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26.36 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 7 11 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4.31 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-42 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 8 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-19 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 19-29 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 9 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM - 1_^7 `;l -'s L)aLo r:; L Vi 10 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 11 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26.37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 12 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 13 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM f2 4-23 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 23-33 SaLo 10YR5/6 , B NCM L 14 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM � 1 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 15 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM I 16 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 2840_ SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 17 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM: 2 4-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 18 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-49 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 19 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-25 SaLb 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 20 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-16 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 16-26 SaLO 10YR5/6 B NCM 21 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3546 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 22 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-23 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 23-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 2 3-26 SaLo lOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 24 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 25 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-21 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 21-32 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 26 -1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 Salo 10YR5/6 B NCM 27 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 2740 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 28 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM �.— 2 2-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM +. 3 32-34,roots SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM- 29 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-24 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-34 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 30 I 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-10 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 10-25 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 31 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-21 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 21-31 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 32 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 33 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6.22 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 22-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 34 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM / 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 35. 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 36 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-23 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 23-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 3 21-32 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 38 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-24 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-34 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 39 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-24 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-34 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 40 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-21 SaLo IOYR413 Ap NCM 3 21-34 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 41 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-36 SaLo- IOYR4/3 Ap . NCM 3 36-46 Salo rOYR5/6 B NCM L 42 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM . 43 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM l 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap ceramic 3 34-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 44 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8_38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38=49 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 45 1 04—; . Sod A/O NCtAi 2 2-36 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NO 3 36=48 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 46 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 47 I 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 2949 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 48 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 49 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM �y 2 3-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 50 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 0-6 ark ,i 2 6-33 SaLo i0YR4/3 AP Acivi 3 33-47 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 52 1 0-9 Sod A/O NCM 2 9-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 53 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-rocks. 54 -1 .0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-48 S$Lo 101YR5/6 B NCM 55 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 56 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-27 Salo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 57 1 072 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-46 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 58 1 0-5 Sod NO NCM 2 5-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 59 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 2940 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 60 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-46 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 61 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-45 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 62 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3344 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM u 63 . 1 0-6 ' Sod A/O NCM 2 6-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 64 1 0-3 . Sod A/O NCM 2 3-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 65 0-4 Sod "Tc, 3 20-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 66 1 0-3 Sod NO NCM 2 3-25 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 67 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo. 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 68 -1 0_-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2 -26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SALo IOYR5/6 B NCM 69 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 1 70 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM .2 5-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 71 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 72 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 _ SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 73 1 0-4 '- Sod A/O NCM 2 430_ SaLO 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo: 10YR5/6 B NCM 74 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 75 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 76 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 1 77 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM' 3 25-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 78 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-24 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-34 SaLo I0YR5/6 B NCM 2 3-33 SaLo iOYR4/3 ap N iv; 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 80 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-35 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3546 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 81 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-35,rocks &Lo 10YR5/6 B NCM 82 -1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 83 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-23 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 23-33 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 84 1 44 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-22 SaLo IOYR4/3 . Ap NCM 3 22-32 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 85 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 _ Ap NCM 3 29-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 86 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10'IM4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 87 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 88 1 0-4 Sod- A/O NCM 2 4-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-35,tocks SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 89 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3848 Salo IOYR5/6 B NCM 90 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 91 1 .0.4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-35 SaLo I0YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-47 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 92 1 M Sod A/O NCM 2 6-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B . NCM NUM h/r NCn� 3 36-48 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 94 1 0-3 Sod NO NCM 2 3-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 95 1 '04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 96 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-35 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-46 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 97 1 D-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-38 SaLo . IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-50 SaLo IOYRS/6 B NCM 98 1 0-3, Sod A/O NCM 2 3-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 99 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 .B NCM 100 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 101 1 OA4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 ` Ap 9Ck 3 34-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 102 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 103 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM. 104 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-44 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 44-56 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 105 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM ) 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3447 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 106 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-37 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 37-47 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 2 3-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 108 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 109 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 110 -.1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 111 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM /A 3 3343 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM fir// 112 1 0-8 " Sod A/O NCM .^ 2 8-22- SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM- 3 22-32 SaLO 10YR5/6 B NCM 113 1 04 = Sod A/O NCM 2 4.32 SaLo I0YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-36,rocks SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 114 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-36 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 115 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 116 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 117 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 118 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4.38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM / 3 3848 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 119 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-23 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 23-33 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 120 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3245 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 0-6 6-jo Sajw ,u-,'R4/.i i y ,:ctatnr: 3 3647 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 122 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-24 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-34 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 123 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-21 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 21-31 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 124 -1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4.26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SALO 10YR5/6 B NCM 125 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM L 126 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-26 Salo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 127 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM t 3 31-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 128 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap .NCM I 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 129 1 01- Sod A/O NCM- 2 2-17 SaL6 7 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 17-22,rocks SaLo lOYR5/6 B NCM 130 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-20 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 20-30 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 131 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-20 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap ceramic 3 20-30 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 132 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-22 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap ceramic 3 22-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 133 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM , 2 2-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 134 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-25 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-49 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 136 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM. 137 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 138 -1 074 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-39 SALO IOYR5/6 B NCM 139 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM ��/P 140 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM' 2 4-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM N.— 3 28-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 141 1 0-5 : Sod A/O NCM 2 5-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 142 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 . B NCM 143 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 144 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 145 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 146 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM . 3 38-48 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 147 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3344 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 148 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 3 25-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 150 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 151 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3.18 SaLo- I OYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 18-29 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 152 4 O-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo I0YR4/3 . Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM l 153 1 0-3 Sod A/o NCM 2 3-31 SaLo - 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 154 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-27. SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM r 3 2740 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM I 155 1 0-3 , Sod A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo IOYR4/3' Ap NCM 3 30-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 156 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5r26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM. 3 26-37 SaLO 10YR5/6 B NCM 157 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B . NCM 158 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 159 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-27 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 160 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM Vl 2 3-35 SaLo lOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 161 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-48 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM �. NCM J 2 4-34 SaLo i0YR4/3 �p Nclvi 3 34-47 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 163 1 0-3 Sod A/o NCM 2 3-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-49 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 164 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 165 -1 U73. Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 Salo IOYR5/6 B NCM 166 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-46 SaLO 10YR5/6 B NCM 167 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM ' 3 .36-46 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 168 1 0-7Sad A/O NCM 2 7-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 169 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 170 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3848 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 171 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 172 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap flowerpot frag 3 34-45 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 173 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32. SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM ( 3 32-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM s^' 174 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3343 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 175 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-49 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM ;ia.,o .v t1<di «p Civ 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 177 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3245 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 178 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-35 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-45 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 179 1 0-6' Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3343 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 180 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-24 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 181 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM — 3 36.46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 182 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM- 2 CM 2 3-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 183 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3344 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 184 1 0-3 Sod . A/O NCM 2 345 SaLo 10YR4/3 - Ap NCM- 3 35-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NPM 185 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 186 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-39 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 39-5- SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 187 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 _ Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM �\ l 188 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 189 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-37 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 37-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 2 2-30 SaLo IO R4i3 iAp 3 30-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 191 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 192 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-49 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 193 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-28 SaLo 10YR4/3Ap NCM 3 28-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 194 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 307 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3447 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 308 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3=29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-49 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 309 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 310 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 311 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 312 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-47 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 313 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 314 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 315 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 4-29 3aiu i0YR4i3 Ap N IYi 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 317 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 318 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 319 -1 - 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3343 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 320 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 321 1 0-2 Sod A/d NCM 2 2-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 322 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM t 2 3-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 323 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 324 1 0 .:;: Sod A/O NCM. 2 6-29r SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 325 1 0-3 Sod. A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 326 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM_ 327 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo IOYR413 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 328 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-43 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 329 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-46 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 2 6-31 SaLo lOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-42 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 331 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 332 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 333 _1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-46 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 334 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM �i ' 335 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-48 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 336 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-31 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-42 SaLo IOYR5/6 _ B NCM 337 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-49 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 338 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30=40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 339 I 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 340 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-35 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 341 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo. 10YR4/3 Ap NCM f 3 33-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 342 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 343 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 1-.44 -5 so 3 29-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 345 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-29 SaLO IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 346 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-50 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 347 -1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 348 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM Sod A/O NCM 349 2 4 30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 350 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 351 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32=45 SOLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 352 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM, 2 6-22 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NQM 3 22`--32 SaLo lOYR5/6 B NCM 353 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM. 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 354 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 355 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 356 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCMl 2 3-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 357 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 2 3-31 SaLo iOYK4i� Y :NCM 3 31-42 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 359 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 360 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 361 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-2g SaLo 1oYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 Salo 10YR5/6 B NCM 362 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 363 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM - 2 8-30- SaLo lOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 364 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM' 2 2-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 365 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 BNCM 366 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 367 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3042 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 368 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-23 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 23-rocks. 369 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-35 SaLoF IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3546 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 370 1 0-6. Sod A/O NCM 2 6-16 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3. 16-26 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 371 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3444 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 27� 0-4 Sal np„ 3 31---41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 373 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 374 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-27 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 375 . j 0_-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-40 SoLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 376 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 377 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-28SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM . 3 2840 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 378 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 379 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 380 1 0.3. Sod A/O NqM 2 3=28' Sato 10YR4/3 Ap NOM 3 2540' SaLo 10YR516 B NCM 381 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 382 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-42 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 383 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 384 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 1 2 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 385 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SaLo 10-YR5/6 B NCM 2 2-30 SaLo ii YR4/3 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 387 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-18 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 18-29 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 388 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 389 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 390 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 391 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 392 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 393 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28- SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 394 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 395 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-49 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 39.6 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 397 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM C3 3344 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 398 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 399 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM +-2; Salo 10Yk4i3 AD NCM 3 25-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 401 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo l0.YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo , 10YR5/6 B NCM 402 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 403 1 075 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 404 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 , Ap NCM 3 3849 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM L f 405 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM >> 2 2-36 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 406 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM t 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 407 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3Q--42 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 408 1 NT Sod A/O NCM_ 2 7-27` SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NOM 3 27-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 409 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 '4-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 410 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-21 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 21-31 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 411 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-24 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap flake 3 24-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 412 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM , 2 5-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 413 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 11 2 3-16 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 16-rocks. 415 1 0-7 Sod A/O NCM 2 7-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 416 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 417 -1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SALo I0YR5/6 B NCM 418 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 419 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-27 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 420 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-46 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 421 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-33• SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3345 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM' 422 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 2638 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 423 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-47 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 424 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 31 2949 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 425 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-23 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM f. 3 23-26,rocks SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 426 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 21 3-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3'; 30-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 427 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 42S 0-6 A in Ir.-7v os U 3 33-47 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 429 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 430 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 431 1 074 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 432 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-25 SaLo ._. 10YR4/3_ Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM l 433 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3445 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM ` I 434 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 435 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 436 1 04 _ Sod A/O NCM 2 4-18 ' SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 437 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 438 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3041 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 439 I 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-30 SaLo - 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 440 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-22 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 22-26,r6cks SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 441 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 2 4-29 JaLU 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 443 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 444 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 445 -1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 446 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM r 447 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM `s- 2 2-28 SaLo - 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 2840 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 448 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 &34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3445 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 449 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-16SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 16-rocks. 450 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 451 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 452 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-47 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 453 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM / 3 29-49 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 454 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 455 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 45r. J-29 ii-IIVL 3 29-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 457 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap .NCM 3 33.47 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 458 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-24 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-34 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 459 1 0_-8 Sod A/O NCM 8 2 -26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 460 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM t 2 3-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 461 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 462 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM Il 2 4-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 463 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-27 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap .NCM 3 27-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 464 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo IOYRS/6 • B NCM 465 1 0-7 Sod A/O NCM 2 7-25 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 466 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 467 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3646 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 468 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-35 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-45 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM. 469 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM *.TCA 2 3-32 SaLo lo)7&4i3 Ap N c ivi 3 32-42 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 471 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-18 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 I8-rocks. 472 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 473 I 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-IS SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 15-26 SaLo 10YR5/6 B. NCM 474 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 195 1. 0-3 Sod A/O NCM. 2 3-27 SaLo IOYR4/3. Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 196 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM. 3 33-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 197 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4730 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 198 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 199 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-24 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-34 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 200 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 201 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-34 SaLo 1OYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3444 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 202 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-37 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 37-49 SaLo IOYR516 B NCM 203 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 2 4-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap transerprint 3 38-48 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 205 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 206 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 207 1 0_-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-35 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3545 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 20S 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-39 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 39-50 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM l 209 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3545 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 210 1 04 Sod A/O NCM l 2 4-40 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 40-50 SaLo IOYR516 B NCM 211 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM, 2 3-37 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 1747 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 212 1 0' '; Sod A/O NCNB 2 2431 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCIA 3 3141 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 213 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-49 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 214 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35.454 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 215 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 216 1 0-5 Sod AJO NCM 2 5-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 217 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 2 6-27 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 219 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-48 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 220 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 221 4 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-49 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 222 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM `y/ 223 1 0-13 Sod A/O NCM *" 2 13-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 224 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-42 SaLo 10YR4/3 - - Ap NCM 3 42-53 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 225 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM- 3 33.47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 226 1 0.7 Sod A/O NCM 2 7-29 SaLo 1OYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 227 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-37 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 37-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 228 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 7-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 229 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 230 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap glass,undec ww 3 26-36 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 231 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-48 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM Z 5-33 SaLo lOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 233 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 234 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-35 SaLo 1OYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3545 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 235 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-39 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 39-50 SALo 10YR5/6 B NCM 236 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 237 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 1 3 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 238 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 239 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-38 SaLo IOYR413 Ap NCM 3 38750, Sai o 10YR5/6 B NCM 240 1 0'-- SodA/O NCM 2 3=33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 241 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-37 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 37-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 242 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-49 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 243 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-38 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 244_ 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-39 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 39-50 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 245 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-24 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-34 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM Lob a U-4 Joa 2 4-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap . NCM 3 25-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 247 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-35 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 248 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-36 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-48 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 249 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 425 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 250 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 251 1 0.3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3545 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 252 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 253 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 254 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-21 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 21-31 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 255 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 256 I 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap 'NCM 3 30-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 257 1 0=4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 258 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 259 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 2-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3244 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 261 I 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-25 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 262 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30.40 SaLo I0YRS/6 B NCM 263 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-31 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3142 SpLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 264 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-32 &Lo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 265 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 1 2 6-33 Salvo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-44 SaLo_ 10YR5/6 B NCM 266 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-45 SaLo IOYR516 B NCM 267 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3040 Salo IOYR5/6 B NCM 268 1 0=4 Sod A/O NCM; 2 4-26, SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 269 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 270 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 271 1 0-3 Sod A/O . NCM 2 3-31 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 272 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 273 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 2 5-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCIVI 3 34-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 275 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3446 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 276 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-42 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 277 _.1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-36 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-48 SaLo 10YR516 B NCM 278 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-47 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 279 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM �/— 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-49 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 280 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-25 Salo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 281 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 282 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YRV6 B NCM 283 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-47 SaLo, 10YR5/6 B NCM 284 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 285 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 286 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 287 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 18F fM i-30 3aio iOYR-iiJ AP Nuvl 3 30-43 SaLo 1QYR5/6 B NCM 289 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 290 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 291 1 0-4 Sod NO NCM 2 4_-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-44 Salo IOYR5/6 B NCM 292 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 293 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 294 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3343 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 295 1 0-6` Sod A/O NCM 2 6-36 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 296 1 p T Sod A/O NCM: 2 3-35 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3545 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 297 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-35 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 298 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 299 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 300 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-38 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-49 SaLo IOYRS/6 B NCM 301 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 rip hlCNi 3 28-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 303 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 304 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-31 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3141 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 305 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3444 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 306 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM /A 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM �j 475 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29=39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 476 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28=39SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 477 1 0=5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 2940 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 478 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25=37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 479 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 480 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 481 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM` '482 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 483 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 2940 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM A p-1i J-3u _18L0 lu IK4/3 Ap _ uiv, 3 30-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 485 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 486 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 487 1 074 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-25 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 41-57 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 488 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-24 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24=35 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 489 1 0-4Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM , 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM I 490 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 491 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-25 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 492 1 Sod A/O NCS,, 2 2-20 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NGM 3 20-27,rocks SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 493 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-16 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 16-rocks. 494 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 495 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-16 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 16-rocks. 496 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-45 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 497 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-36 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-46 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM - cV(C NCM. 2 6-25 SaLo iOYR4/3 hp NCivi 3 25-35 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 499 1 0-3 Sod NO NCM 2 3-17 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 17-roots. 500 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-10 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 10-22 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 501 _I 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-15 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 15-27 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 502 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-14 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 14-24 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 503 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 504 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-16 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 16-28 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 505 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 506 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-27 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 507 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 508 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3,:. 29-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 509 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 510 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 t 34-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 511 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-49 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 512 Sod 3 2840 SaLo - IOYR5/6 B NCM 513 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-impeded by rocks. 514 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-15 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 15-roots. 515 _1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 516 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 517 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-24 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-34 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 518 1 0-5- Sod A/O NCM 2 5-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 519 1 0-5, Sod A/O NCM 2 5-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 520 1 0 5, Sod A/O NCM 2 5-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 521 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 522 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 523 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3040 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 524 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM1 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 525 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-30,rocks SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 3 16-rocks. 527 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 528 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 529 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap . NCM 3 28-39 $a-o 10YR5/6 B NCM 530 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3345 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 531 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 532 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM _ 3 28.39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 533 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 534 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 535 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 536 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 537 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 ''; 33-43 SaLo 1 OYR5/6 B NCM 538 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 539 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-47 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM y a u u z x4/ tip VCM 3 29-49 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 541 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 542 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 543 _1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-31 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 544 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6.30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3041 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 545 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-41 SaLo IOYRS/6 B NCM rJ 546 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 547 1 0-5 - Sod A/O NCM 2 5-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 548 1 0-6'= Sod A/O NCM 2 6-29 SaLo IOYR413 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 549 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 550 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 551 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 552 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-35 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 553 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 2 3-32 SaLo IOYR4/� Ap ivGvi 3 32-45 SaLo IOYRS/6 B NCM 555 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-48 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 556 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 557 -1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo,wet 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 558 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3040 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 559 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3I41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 560 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-48 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 561 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 562 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-49 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 563 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 564 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 u 28-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 565 1 0-1 Sod A/O NCM 2 1-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 . 31-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 566 1 ' 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 567 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 2-34 SaLo lOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 569 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 570 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-26 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 571 -1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-39 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 39-49 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 572 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM' 2 3-41 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 41-54 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 573 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-35 SaLo IOYR413 Ap NCM 3 35-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM f 574 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM I 2 6-53 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 53-63 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 575 1 0-7 Sod A/O NCM 2 7-46 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 46-56, SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 576 L 0-&< r` Sod A/O NCM. 2 8_24 Salo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-34 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 577 1 0-7 Sod A/O NCM 2 7-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 578 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 579 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 580 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-39 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 39-50 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 581 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 2 4-29 SaLo ijik4i3 Q( ivi 3 29-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 583 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-35 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3545 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 584 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-45 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 45-53 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 586 A 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-54 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 54-64 SALO 10YR5/6 B NCM 587 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-49 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 49-59 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 588 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM �! 2 3-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM �a.,,.. 3 3844,tocks SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 589 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-41 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 41-51 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM ' 590 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-40 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 40-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 591 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-41 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 41-51 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 592 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM, 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 593 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 594 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 595 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-45 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 45-52 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 596 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-40 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 40-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 6-36 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCIVI 3 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 598 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-43 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 43-53 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 599 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-41 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 41-51 SaLo IOYR516 B NCM 600 -1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-40 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 40-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 601 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM i 2 342 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 42.52 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 1 602 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM , I 3 38-48 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 603 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 641 SaLO IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 41-51 SaLO 10YR5/6 B NCM 604 1 0-6. Sod A/O NCM 2 6-37 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 37,47 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 605 I 0-7-, Sod A/O NCM, 2 7-42 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 642-52 SaLO 10YR5/6 B NCM 606 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 26-36 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 607 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-28 _ SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 608 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3242 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 609 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 610 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-39 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 39-49 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 2 4-28 SaLo luYR41D Ap NCiYI 3 28-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 612 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 613 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-37 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 37-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 614 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3545 SALo 10YR5/6 B NCM 615 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-34 SaLo 1OYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM �1 616 1 0-3Sod A/O NCM . 2 3-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM Ic 3 35-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 617 1 04 Sod A/O NCM: 2 4-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM' 618 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 619 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo IOYRS/6 B NCM 620 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 621 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 622 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 623 1 '`' 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 `_• 2-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3` 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 624 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 4-31 SaLo iOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 626 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-36 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM' 3 36-48 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 627 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 . Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 628 1 0_-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-49 SaLo 10YR5/6 , B NCM 629 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM j 2 3-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 1 630 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM �} l 3 33-43 SaLO IOYR5/6 B NCM 631 1 0-10 Sod A/O NCM 2 10-39 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 39-50 ' SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 632 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap . NCM 3 3347, SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 633 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM, 2 6-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34.44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 634 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-31 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 635 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 636 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM l 637 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-48 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 638 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-42 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 2 5-39 SaLo i0YR4/3 AP NCivb 3 39-52 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 640 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 641 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-17 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 17-38 SaLO IOYR5/6 B NCM 642 _l 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 347 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 17-27 $aLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 643 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-22 SaLO 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 22-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 644 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM w. 3 35-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 645 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 _ 'Ap NCM- 3 36-48 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM• 646 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31- 42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 647 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-38 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-48 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 648 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 649 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-49 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 650 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM (. 3 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 651 .-1 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 652 I 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-39 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM' 3 39-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM J 4-23 SULU iOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 23-27,rocks SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 654 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3549 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 655 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-43 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 43-53 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 656 -1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-38 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 657 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-39 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 39-49 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM L 658 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap. NCM 3 38-48 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM ��JJ 659 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-40 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 40-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 660 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-46> SaLo 10YR5/6 B NQM 661 1 0-6 - Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 662 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 663 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-31 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 664 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 665 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 666 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 2 2-36 SaLo UYK4,'1 :.p vl Y 3 36-48 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 668 1 0-6 Sod A!O NCM 2 6-27 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 669 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 670 1. 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-36 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3646 SALo 10YR5/6 B NCM 671 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3245 SaLo 10'YR5/6 B NCM 672 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM �A 2 6-30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM ,.. 3 3040 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 673 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 674 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-45 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 675 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 676 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-31 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 677 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3242 SaLo IOYR5/6 $ NCM 678 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-53 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM r 3 < 53-63 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 679 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2` 4-26 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 31 26-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 680 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3243 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 4-34 SaLo lOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 682 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-38 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-48 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 683 1 0-8 Sod A/O NCM 2 8-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 684 _1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-36 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-48 S-ALo 10YR5/6 B NCM 685 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-33SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3343 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM L 686 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-49 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 687 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 688 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 Salo 10YR5/6 B NCM 689 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-35 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-46 Sato 10YR5/6 B NCM 690 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-33 SaLo I0YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 691 1 0-5 Sod A/0 NCM 2 5-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 692 1 0-8 Sod A/0 . NCM 2 8-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-41 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 693 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-38 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 694 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-29 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-39 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 2 5-34 SaLo IOYR4i3 ap 3 34-45 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 696 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 697 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 698 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-37 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 37-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 699 1 0-2 Sod A/0 NCM < 2 2-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3646 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM (" 700 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-37 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM .. 3 37-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 701 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 702 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-15 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 15-25 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 703 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-17 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 17-27 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 704 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-35,rocks SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 705 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-24 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-26,rocks SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 706 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 707 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-28 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-39 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 708 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-27 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 2 2-38 SaLo lOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-49 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 710 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-38 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 711 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3446 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 712 J 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SALo 10YR5/6 B NCM 713 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-48 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM t 714 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM f 3 34-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B . NCM i 715 1 0-3 Sod A/0 NCM 2 3-24 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-30 rocks SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 716 1 0-3, Sod A/O NCM 2 3-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 717 1 0-3 Sod A/0 NCM 2 3-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 718 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-15 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 15-rocks. 719 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3040 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 720 1 0-6 Sod A/0 NCM 2 6-39 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 39-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 721 1 0-8 Sod A/0 NCM 2 8-33 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM -moo 3 33-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 722 1 0-5 Sod A/0 NCM 2 5-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 2 6-33 Salo 3 33-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 724 1 0-7 Sod A/O NCM 2 7-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-49 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 725 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 726 -1 0.6 Sod A/0 NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-43 SALO 10YR5/6 B NCM 727 1 0-4 Sod A/0 NCM 2 4-38 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-48 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM �. 728 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-37 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM . _ 3 37-48 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 729 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-45 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 730 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-30 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 731 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-36 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-47 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 732 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-15 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 15-20,rocks SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 733 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-32 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 734 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-36 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 735 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 22-35 - SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-46 SaLo 10-YR5/6 B NCM 736 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-38 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-49 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 2 4-33 SaLo 1OYR4/3 Ap tiCM 3 35-46 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 738 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-28 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 28-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 739 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 740 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-46 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 741 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 .4-27 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 0 742 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-24 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-30,rocks SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 743 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-25 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-35 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 744 . 1 0-3, Sod A/O NCM 2 3-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-44 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 745 1 0-5 ,,. Sod A/O NCM 2 5-25 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 25-rocks. 746 1 0-6 Sod A/0 NCM 2 6.30 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 30-40 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 747 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-29 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 29-40 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 748 1 0-5 Sod A/0 NCM 2 5-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-44 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 749 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-24 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 24-28,rocks SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 750 1 0-6 Sod A/0 NCM 2 6-33 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 33-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM T) NCM 7-21 Salo iO'iR4iJ ay c: 3 27-37 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 752 1 0-2 Sod A/O NCM 2 2-42 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 42-55 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 753 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-38 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 754 1 04 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-38 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 38-51 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 755 1 0-2 Sod A/0 NCM 2 2-37 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 37-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 756 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 757 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-35 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM' 3 35-46 SaLo IOYR5/6 B NCM 758 1 0-6 Sod A/O NCM 2 6-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 759 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-40 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 40-52 SaLo IOYR5/6 . B NCM 760 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-32 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 32-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 761 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-50 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 762 1 0-2 Sod. A/O NCM 2 2-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 763 1 0-3 Sod A/O NCM 2 3-35 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 35-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 764 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 31-42 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 2-36 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 766 1 0-5 Sod A/O NCM 2 5-34 SaLo 10YR4/3 Ap NCM 3 34-45 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 767 1 0-4 Sod A/O NCM 2 4-34 SaLo IOYR4/3 Ap NCM 3 3446 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM t APPENDIX 3 R rEM YOItl:STATE �... 6emaEaEa Capra - - Cammlipenar NEW YORK STATE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM NYS OFFICE OF PARKS,RECREATION&HISTORIC PRESERVATION (518)237-8643 For Office Use Only--Site Identifier Project Identifier Heritage Date 10-2-07 Your Name Alfred Cammisa Phone(845)783-4082 Address 62 Pickerel Rd. Monroe,NY Organization(if any) TRACKER-Archaeology Services 1. SITE IDENTIFIER(S) Heritage Isolates 2.COUNTY Suffolk One of the following:CITY TOWNSHIP Southold INCORPORATED VILLAGE UNINCORPORATED VILLAGE OR HAMLET Cutchogue 3.PRESENT OWNER Address 4. SITE DESCRIPTION(check all appropriate categories): Site x Stray Finds _Cave/Rockshelter _Workshop Pictograph _Quarry _Mound _Burial _Shell Midden _Village _Surface Evidence _Camp _Material in plow zone _Material below plow zone _Buried evidence _Intact Occupation floor _Single component _Evidence of features _Stratified -:Tniticomaon=r Location _ _Under cultivation _Never cultivated x Previously cultivated _Pastureland x Woodland -" _Floodplain _Upland _Sustaining erosion Soil Drainage: excellent x good_ fair_ poor_ Slope: flat_ gentle x moderate_ steep_ Distance to nearest water from site(approm) 2900 Elevation: 30 amsl 5. SITE INVESTIGATION(append additional sheets,if necessary): Surface—date(s) 8-14 to 9-20-07 _Site map(Submit with form)- .Collection Subsurface--date(s) 8-14 to 9-20-07 . L Testing: shovel .x coring_ other unit size 30cra no.of units 767 (Submit plan of units with form) Excavation: unit size no.of units Investigator Alfred Cammisa f Manuscript or published report(s)(reference fully): I Phase I Archaeological Investigation for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue subdivision Cutchogue, Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York Present repository of materials TRACKER „y 6.COMPONENT(S)(cultural affiliation/dates): na 7.LIST OF MATERIAL REMAINS(be specific as possible in identifying Object and material): quartz point tip, and flake If historic materials are evident, check here and fill out historic site form x S.MAp REFERENCES ) `rrr' USGS 7.5 Minute Series Quad. Name Southold NY UTM Coordinates 9.Photography 65/14/2668 13:00 6317655086 SOUI'HOLD UFSD PAGE 01/01 GPIGreenman - Pedersen, Ine. Engineering and Construction Services May 17,200S Southold Union Free School District 420 Oaklawn.Avenue. _ P.O.Box 470 Southold,NY 11971 Re: ProposedDevetopotem of the Heritage tit Cutchogae 46+;- Acro Pares! at Cornet of School House Lane and Griffing Strect Town of Sauthatd, Suffolk Couoty.t<cw YOrk T, w*.Om !!May Concern As stated in letter of October 17,2007,Greenman-Pedersen, lne. is in the process of preparing an envuonmcntai. evaluation of the proposed development of the Hamlet at Cutchogttejlucmcd at the intersection of School House Lane and Griffing Street,Cutchogue,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York. line current property is vacant taxa The proposed project includes the devoiopment Of 1 townhouse complex entitled the Heritage at Cutchogue,designated as a seniors only establishment This establishment will create approximately 139 units in 131 buildings for residents h0 andz mr. No children will bdallowed to live in the complex. it is the intentof this letter to salicityour input regarding this project and its impacts on the school. Please confirm that the project will be will be in your school district,and also please provide any comments or information that you feel arc of importance_ _ Your response will be included in the DEIS. If no response by May;;30 we will assume there are Act objections to the project. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please fee'frfe to call mat at 631-761-7353 with any questions concerning this request. LriYfronrir enta ijtierl'.'s: " THIS PROJECT WILL NOT BE IN THE SOUTHOLD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRCT. DR. CHRISTOPHER GALLAGHER SUPERINTENDENT 0-.R007Q007J40\CoTmpondm"\5o.t1,9ld UF5D due 325 West Main Street,Babylon.NY 11702 Tel (631)587-5060 Fax: (631)422-3479 www.gpmet cam SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 4060 Sunrise Highway, P.O. Box 38, Oakdale, New York 11769 October 15, 2007 Mr. Dale Grippo,VP Construction Heritage at Cutchogue, LLC 1721-D North Ocean, Ave Medford NY 11763 Re: 115-4707586 Heritage at Cutchogue Dear Mr. Grippo: Reference is made to our meeting on September 17, 2007' regarding availability of providing water service to the existing homes, as per the BOH requirements on the following streets. (sketch enclosed) • Highland Rd. south from house#1498 to Main Rd. • East on Main Rd. to Griffing St. stopping at last commercial building. Continue east on Main Rd to North St. stopping at last commercial building. • Depot Ln. to end of School House Ln. In order to serve the above streets, a water main extension of approximately 5,279 feet would be required. The water main could be installed under the terms of our Construction Contract plan. At this time, due to a price increase for the 2008 construction season, we cannot furnish you with the cost. We should be able to provide agreements and detailed costs after December 1, 2007. - _arn exismg �Lif olk Counb/%,later Authority ' uli a`iate f4ai❑ Extension Agreement and Service Application and furnishes their own check for payment, the equivalent of the 75'allowance can be deducted from your contract total. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 631-563-5672 if you have any questions, Monday thru Friday 8:00am—5:00pm Sincerely, Lisa Cetta Assistant Manager New Service LC:drh cc: Suffolk County Department of Health Services 360 Yaphank Avenue, Suite 1C Yaphank, NY 11980 Attn: Bob Farmer 2006 National Source Water Protection Award Winner �f I SUF FOEK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY ones Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway,Oakdale, New York 11769-0901 Chief Executive Officer (631) 563-0219 Fax(631) 563-0370 August 14, 2007 Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Planning Board Office Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: SEQRA -The Heritage at Cutchogue, SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: To clear up any misconceptions on"water availability", please be advised that my letter of December 12, 2006 still stands, wherein I clearly state we will not issue a water availability letter until after site plan approval. A more recent letter from our New Service Department to the applicant is a cost estimate letter which we occasionally provide to developers. This is not to be confused with a water availability letter which has not been issued. Ver*Exe�uve'sofficer StepChie SMJ/kk 2006 National source Water Protection Award Winner !POSIUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Stephen M. Jones Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, New York 11769-0901 Chief Executive Officer (631)563-0219 Fax (631) 563-0370 December 12, 2006 Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Planning Board Office Town of Southold P.O. BOX 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: SEQRA - The Heritage at Cutchogue, SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: Iwould like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAF application for the above referenced project. The SCWA offers the following comments as it pertains to the proposed application. As youknow,the SCWA's missionis to provide qualitydrinking water at an affordableprice to all ofourresidents. Implementing environmentally friendlypesticide practices and conservingour water supplytodayis integral in assuring that we have adequate qualitywater for generations to come. This particularly holds true forthe Town of Southold where watersupplyis limited and there is alarge impact to shallow aquifers. The SCWA strongly urges that the Town of Southold impose conditions on this project requiring the use of low flow plumbing fixtures in accordance with the latest codes,permitting the irrigation of only 15%of the area of any single lot(automatic irrigation systems may pose pressure problems in this project area)and also adopting methods to reduce the potential ofdegraded water from recharging to the aquifer. Page Two j December 12, 2006 These recommendations are consistent withthe SCWA's Water SupplyPlanfor the Town.of Southold and shouldbe conditions memorialized inthe form ofCovenauts andRestrictions recorded with the Suffolk County Clerk. The SCWAwill not issue a letter ofwater availability for this project until such time as the Town of Southold has reviewed and approved this project in accordance with the Town of S outhold's planning and development requirements and the SCWA's Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold. Additional informationon this application maybe sentto KimberlyKennedyat4060 Sunrise Highway,Oakdale,NY 11769 Thank you. f urs, Jones tive Officer SMJ/kk i SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Stephen M.Jones Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, New York 11769-0901 Chief Executive Officer (631) 563-0219 Fax(631) 563-0370 November 6, 2007 Mr. Keith Holley Environmental Scientist Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. 325 West Main Street Babylon, NY 11703 Re: Heritage @ Cutchogue - Town of Southold SCTM# 1000-102.00-01.00-033.003 Dear Mr. Holley: While we had provided prior correspondence on the above proposal,copies of which are attached for reference, we would also like to call your attention to pending legislation now under consideration by the Suffolk County government. I am enclosing a copy of that legislation, introduced by Legislator Losquadro which establishes auniform standard for watermain installation. Currently the developer has the option of installing one large meter on the perimeter of the proj ect and then installing all of the internal piping. Under this scenario,the developers or HOA would need to maintain the system at their cost and expense. As an alternative,we would suggest that the project use internal piping standards that we would use and further that individual services be metered. If this option is chosen, after construction, SCWA would be granted an easement to allow SCWA to own, operate and maintain the entire system at SCWA's cost and expense. While it is the developer's choice to do the internal work privately with a large meter set and turn the system over to an HOA or the like, we believe that making the project part of our system with internal individual metering will insure a high quality system is installed and protect future homeowners from unnecessarymaintenance costs and overhead.Again,we say this is NOT currently a requirement of either SCWA or the SCDHS, but based on past history in these situations, an internal public water system with individual meters will promote water conservation, cut down on wasteful practice and eliminate future maintenance charges to the homeowners or their association. 2006 National Source Water Protection Award Winner Page Two November 6, 2007 The Town of Southold may elect,via SEQRA,to make this a mitigating requirement in an effort to promote water conservation and protect future homeowners from unnecessary expense. We have not quoted any costs to the developers for an internal system built to our standards,only for public water main extensions off site to get to a large meter set at the development entrance.We would be happy to provide such additional cost estimates if requested. Veryye /nes s, Step Cheive Officer SM7:kk cc: Herman Miller, Deputy CEO, Operations Southold Planning Board Lisa Cetta, CM New Service P. Ponturo, SCDHS Hon. Daniel Losquadro Page 1 of 3 UPDATED VERSION AS OF 9/19/2007 Intro. Res. No. 1945-2007 Laid on Table 9/20/2007 Introduced by Legislator Losquadro RESOLUTION NO. -2007, ADOPTING LOCAL LAW NO. - 2007, A LOCAL LAW TO REQUIRE UNIFORM DRINKING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM STANDARDS IN SUFFOLK COUNTY WHEREAS, there was duly presented and introduced to this County Legislature at a meeting held an , 2007, a proposed local law entitled, "A LOCAL LAW TO REQUIRE UNIFORM DRINKING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM STANDARDS IN SUFFOLK COUNTY;" now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that said local law be enacted in form as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. -2007, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK A LOCAL LAW TO REQUIRE UNIFORM DRINKING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM STANDARDS IN SUFFOLK COUNTY follows: BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, as Section 1 Legislative Intent This Legislature hereby finds and determines that there is currently no uniform standard for drinking water distribution systems that extend beyond the public water mains into residential developments or condominium units. This Legislature also finds and determines that by not installing drinking water distribution systems to a uniform standard, residents of residential housing developments or condominiums bear the risk of faulty systems, and must absorb an exorbitant cost if these systems fail in the future. This Legislature also finds that these non-standard drinking water distribution systems are often not up to the same health standards as those required by a public water authority, thereby putting residents at a substantial health risk. This Legislature further finds and determines that in the event that residents of a residential housing development or condominium choose at a later date to have their water supply connected to a public system, whether the Suffolk County Water Authority or another water authority in the County, these residents must pay a heavy cost to have their water distribution systems brought up to the same standards as the public water authority. This Legislature finds that the residents of the County would be best served by requiring the installation of drinking water distribution systems that meet the same standards as those required by public water authorities from the commencement of construction of any residential housing development in Suffolk County. Therefore, the purpose of this law is to require a uniform drinking water distribution standard throughout Suffolk County. Section 2 Requirements. Pursuant to Article 9, § 2(C) 10, of the New York State Constitution, governing protection, health, safety, and well-being of persons, all drinking water distribution systems installed throughout Suffolk County shall conform to the following standards: httpJ/www.co.suffolLny.us/legis/resos2007/i1945-07.htm 11/6/2007 Page 2 of 3 A. All four (4) inch, six (6) inch, eight (8) inch, ten (10) inch, and twelve (12) inch, inside nominal diameter, ductile-iron, cement-lined pipe shall be Class 52 `Tyton" type joint, centrifugal cast pressure pipe for water. Sixteen (16) inch ductile-iron, cement lined pipe and twenty four (24) inch :i ductile-iron, cement lined pipe shall be Ductile Iron Class 51. All such pipe shall be ductile iron pipe centrifugally cast in metal molds or sand lined molds conforming to the latest edition of American National Standards Institute/American Water Works Association (ANSI/AWWA) C 151/A21.51. The interior of the pipe shall be cement mortar lined in accordance with the latest edition of ANSI/AWWA C151/A21.51 double thickness and then seal coated on the exposed surface of the lining with bituminous coating. All such pipe used must be listed as ANSI/NSF 61 approved in regard to coatings and cement linings. Any `Tyton' or "Super Bell-Tite" type joint, ductile-iron pipe may be furnished in either eighteen (18) or twenty (20) foot laying lengths. For any Pressure Class 350 ductile iron pipe, the preceding shall apply, except that said pipe shall be Pressure Class 350 in lieu of Class 52. B. All four (4) inch, six (6) inch, eight (8) inch ten (10) inch, and twelve (12) inch nominal-inside diameter, poly vinyl chloride (PVC) pressure pipe shall be as manufactured by Johns-Mannville, or an equivalent manufacturer, Class 150, and shall have a standard dimension ratio (S.D.R.) of 18 and conform to the latest edition of American Water Works Association (AWWA) C900. The outside diameter of said PVC pipe shall be the same as that of the same nominal size of cast-iron or ductile- iron pipe so that no special adaptation is necessary to connect to cast-iron or ductile-iron valves and fittings. Said PVC pipe shall be only of integral bell and plain end lengths. Each standard and random length of said PVC pipe shall be tested to 600 psi for the minimum dwell of five (5)seconds. All such PVC pipe shall be furnished with mechanical pipe (cast iron) gaskets. Detectable Metallic Underground Tape, a minimum of 2 inches wide, marked for "Water" shall also be installed 1 foot above the top of any such PVC pipe. C. All ductile iron fittings shall be in accordance with the latest edition of American Water Works Association Standard Specifications (AWWA C110)for ductile iron pressure fittings, mechanical joint, short body fittings rated at 250 psi, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A21.10. All such fittings shall be tar coated outside and cement lined inside in accordance with the latest edition of AWWA Specification C104. D. All compact fittings shall be in accordance with the latest edition of American Water Works Association Standard Specifications for ductile iron compact fittings, mechanical joint, rated at 350 psi, AWWA C153/A21.53. All such fittings shall be tar coated outside and cement lined inside in accordance with the latest edition of AWWA Specifications C104. Section 3. Enforcement The provisions of this law shall be enforced by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, which Department may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction for an injunction to prevent the violation, or threatened violation, thereof; or which department shall proceed in any manner authorized by law to secure compliance with the provisions of this law. Section 4 Rules and Regulations The Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services is hereby authorized and empowered to promulgate and issue such rules and regulations as he or she deems necessary to implement and carry out the provisions of this law. Section 5 Apolicability This law shall apply to all actions occurring on or after the effective date of this law. Section 6 Severability. 4 / If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law or the application http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/legis/resos2007/il945-07.htm 11/6/2007 rage-i or s thereof to any person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such order or judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law, or in its application to the person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance directly involved in the controversy in which such order or judgment shall be rendered. Section 7. SEQRA Determination This Legislature, being the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) lead agency, hereby finds and determines that this law constitutes a Type II action pursuant to Section 617.5(c)(20), (21), and/or(27)of Title 6 of the NEW YORK CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS (6 NYCRR)andwithin the meaning of Section 8-0109(2) of the NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW as a promulgation of regulations, rules, policies, procedures, and legislative decisions in connection with continuing agency administration, management and information collection. The Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is hereby directed to circulate any appropriate SEQRA notices of determination of non-applicability or non-significance in accordance with this law. Section 8. Effective Date This law shall take effect on the ninetieth (90th) day immediately subsequent to filing in the Office of the Secretary of State. DATED: APPROVED BY: County Executive of Suffolk County Date: http://Www.co.Suffolk.ny.us/legis/resos2007/il945-07.htm 11/6/2007 410 SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 1 0aQ Sunrise Highway,PO.Box$8.Oakdala. New York October 15,2007 1 Mr.Dale Grippe,vp Construction Heritage at Cutchogue,LLC 1721-D North Ocean Ave Mulford NY 117663 Ke: IIS-4707586 Heritage at Cutdwgue Dear Mr.Grippe: Reference is made to our meeting on September 17,2007,regarding availability of Provwing water service .lo the existing horrors,as per the BOSH requirements on the following streets..(sketch enclosed) • Highland Rd.south fran house x1448 to Main Rd. = Last on Main Rd.to Griffin St. 5 topping at last commercial building. Continue east on Main Rd to North St.stopping at last Qomnien%l building. • Depot Lm to end of School House Ln- In order to serve the above streets,a water main extension of approdmateiy 5,279 feet would be required. The water main cauld be Installed under the terms of Orr Cortsbvdfut Contract pian.At this time,due to a ` Pioe Inaease far the 20M construction season,we cannot furnish you with thie cost We should be able to provide agreements aril detailed cads after December 1,2007. For each Ming home(52 total),that signs ere Suffolk County Wafer Authority Pul)k Water Main 13iterslon Agreement and wire Application and furnWws their awn check for payment,the equivalark of the 75'allowance can be deducted from your contract total. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 631-563-5672 if you have any questions,Mom by duu Friday 8:00am-5:00pm S7ncerely. use Delta Ambient Manager New Service Lr„:drh ca Suffolk County Depaitinerit of Health Services 360YeptalokAwxlue,Suite IC Y1pta nk MY 119W Attn:Bob Famw 2W16 National Source Water Protection Award Wrauer „... LIPA , ! OM10lS P.911):?u.ni:hG.7�7, NY 11 op 1 "e... Inn®Island Power Amhonty .December 18, 2007 HERITAGE @ CUTCHOGUE 1721 D. NO OCEAN AVENUE WDFORD, NY 11763 RL-: HERITAGE @ CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE Ref, ?U T100800721 To whom it may concern: This letter of agreement is in response to your request for gas and electric facilities for the above referenced project Based on your plans to build 139 dwelling units. your planning costs for both the refundable and non-refundable portions of the electric facilities are provided in Options 1-4 in the Electric Contribution Summary. The costs for the gas facilities are totally refundable based on your compliance with Option A or B under the Gas Contribution Summary. For your planning purposes and approval, enclosed is a copy of"Exhibit A” which represents the route and extent of our proposed electric and gas facilities. ELECTRIC CONTRIBUTION SUMMARY KeySpan/LIPA has calculated the contribution associated with your project. The calculations have been developed to cover your payment options. Option I Connection, distribution and services trenched and installed by KcySpan/LIPA Option 2 Connection, distribution and services within the free allowance trenched and installed by KeySpan/LIPA, with Builder trenched and installed electric services in excess of the free allowance (Builder may install electric services in KeySpan's gas service trench.) Option 3. Connection trenched and installed by KeySpan/LIPA Distribution and services trenched by Builder and installed by KeySparVLIPA. Option 4 Connection trenched and installed by KeySpan/LIPA Distribution trenched by Builder and installed by KeySpan/LIPA Electric services within the free allowance trenched by Builder and installed by LIPA, with services in excess of the free allowance trenched and installed by Builder. (KeySpa.n may install gas services in Builder electric service trench.) Page ') Ref. n T]00800721 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 10% Design Payment $ 15,660.99 $ 13,218.06 $ 13,218.06 13,2)8 06 40% Material Payment $ 62,643.99 $ 52,872.26 $ 52,872.26 S 52,872.26 50% Construction Payment $ 78,305.00 $ 66 090.33 $ 66.090.33 .$ 66,090.33 TOTAL S 156,609.98 S 132,180.65 $ 132,180.65 1 132,180.65 Refundable S 121,250.80 $ 121,250.80 S 121,250.80 1 121,250.80 Non-Refundable S 35,35918 $ 10,929.85 S 10,929.85 $ 10,929.85 Projected Remaining Trenching Reimbursement $ N/A $ N/A $ 58,30355 TO 80,793.15 Service Footage Installed by 6,255' 4,498' 6,255' 4,498' KeySpan/LIPA GAS CONTRI13UTION SUMAALRY The costs to run the gas facilities for the project are: 7. $ 0.00 Non-Refundable charge for facilities in excess of tariff allowances. This cost must be paid to KeySpan prior to the start of construction and is not reimbursable_ II $396,855 40 Refundable charge for facilities that are within tariff allowances. See Optiou A and B below for payment options for the refundable charges_ Option A: Sign the Gas Waiver Agreement (Scc Attachment 2). This apreement waives the front of the refundable gas charges based on your commitment to install gas space heating in all of your dwellings. Option B: Pay the refundable charges prior to construction of the gas facilities. This will be a lump sum payment that will be reimbursed on a house by house basis, until the required number of dwellings have been completed. (See Attachment 2) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS This project will qualify for installation when the following items have been satisfied: l. Full payment has been. received by KeySpan/LIPA for all gas and electric facilities. Page 3 Ref # T100SO0721 2. You have provided a clear, unobstructed casement or right-of.-way graded to within six (6) inches of final grade. 3. You have installed curbs and all other proposed underground facilities such as, sewers, drainage, water mains and water taps. KevSpan/LIPA's electric and gas installations are made jointly with Verizon. You should schedule roadway pavement and sidewalks to follow our installation. Proper sequencing of your construction and compliance with our requirements will aid us in meeting your schedule. When six (6) inches of frost is encountered, additional charges are imposed for the installation of new gas and electric services. Gas and electric installations will cease when frost exceeds eighteen (18) inches In addition, the Builder shall be responsible For all repair and/or replacement costs associated with damaged LIPA underground electric distribution Facilities; i e. splice boxes, transformers, cable, etc., which occur during the construction phases of the project. This also includes the cost of any additional excavation work. resulting from the Builder's excavations or re-grading of the construction site. The Builder's Performance Refund shall be deferred, or forfeited, until such time that all identified charges for these LIPA costs are paid. You may elect to perform the distribution and service trenching necessary for the installation of the facilities in the subject subdivision. The refund per trench foot for service laterals is $5.25 and 55.20 per trench foot for distribution, provided all work is performed in accordance with KevSpanJLIPA specifications and schedules. Please contact the representative below for an appointment to discuss this option in further detail. Please be advised that all computations are based upon our gas and electric tariffs Any applicable tariff changes shall become part of this agreement and may affect the final cost of installation. KevSpan/LIPA reserves the right to recalculate your contribution in accordance with any such changes If you have no comment on "Exhibit A", notify your Business Lead of your selected option and remit the 10% design payment, along with the Gas Waiver Agreement (if applicable) so we may proceed with the detailed design phase of your project. Please be advised that any amounts over 51,000.00 must be paid by certified or cashier's check_ Page 4 ReE # T100800721 For this project, Mr. John Merrill is the assigned Business Lead and can be reached at 758-5157 As your Electrical Technical Lead, J can be reached at 548-7062 to address any questions/concerns. Very truly yours, n Steven Aylwayfl Design Supervisor Electric Design & Construction Enclosure S A/am cc Tom Salvino John Merrill Page 5 Ref. # T100300721 ELECTRIC CONTRIBUTION - ATTACHNI;EN'T I. In accordance with the Company's filed tariff; we are requesting that performance payments be made for dwelling units when there are no secured sales contracts. This policy was instituted to provide LIPA with the assurance that installed facilities will be utilized. These performance patirments will be equal to 50% of LIPA's underground free allowance portion of the installation. These performance payments will be refunded on a pro-rata basis -with interest compounded annually, as units are connected to ow electric facilities. Interest rates are set annually. The refund term will be up to five years from the date LIPA's facilities are available for service. In order to process these rcl,uMds, we will require your Tax ID number. FILLED RATES AND INFORMATION CONNECTION DISTRIBUTION SERVICE °r RUD Charges $23.20/Ft. 19.60/Ft. S 12.80/Ft. Pad mounted above-ground transformers are the Company standard installation. Any requests or municipal requirements for below-grade transformers will be subject to an additional payment of$559.00/transformer, plus sales tax. Free allowance - 100 Ft./Dwelling Unit with a secured sales contract or when connected to out facilities LIPA will pay interest on ail refundable monies at the applicable annual rate specified on a Statement of Interest on Customer Deposits to be prepared and maintained on file by LIPA. The rate will be updated on January I of each year to reflect current market conditions. The 10% design payment is non-refundable if the project is canceled, otherwise it is applied as part of the developer's total payment. Any requested changes to a completed design will incur a design payment surcharge not applied to the total payment. Page 6 Ref. P T100800721 Option I The following is a breakdown of your contribution towards the cost for the undeTground electric facilities for KeySpan/jJPA to perform all work including trenching for connection, distribution and services. A_ REFUNDABLE ELECTRTC PERFORMANCE PAYMENT Connection 180 Ft x $23.20 x 50% $ 2,088.00 Distribution 9222 Ft x 519 60 x 5D'xc S 9 0,3 75 60 Service 4498 Ft x $12.80 x 501i10 $ 28,787 20 SUB-TOTAL $ 121,250.80 B. NON-REFUNDABLE ELECTRTC CHARGES Excess Distribution (0 Ft x. .519.60 ) $ (1,00 Excess Service (1757 Ft x 512.80 ) S 22,4851.60 Below Grade Transformer (18 BG's x 5559) S 10,062 00 Non-Residential Charge $ (4.00 w ..., 8 625% Sales Tax $ 2,807.58 SUB-TOTAL $ 35,359.15 C. TOTAL ELECTRIC PAYYIENT WITHOUT SALES CONTRACTS TOTAL $ 156,609.98 D. ELECTRIC PAYMENT SCHEDULE Design Payment 10% of(C) S 15,660.99 Material Payment 40% of(C) S 62164.4.99 Construction Payment 50% of(C) $ 78:30:. 00 (A credit of$572.31 /D U. will apply towards the Performance Payment for secured sales contracts at this payment.] E. FUTURE REFUNDS OF PERFORMANCE PAYMENT $ 872.31 /D U In no event shall the credit for secured sales contracts, plus future refunds, less interest, exceed the total Refundable Performance Payment (A) In order to process these refunds, we will require your Tax TD number . Page 7 Ref. # T100800721 Option. 2 The following is a breakdown of your contribution towards the cost for the underground electric facilities for KeySpan/LIPA to perform all work associated with the trenching and installation of connection, distribution and service within the free allowance, with Builder trenched and installed electric services in excess of the free allowance. (Builder may install electric services in KeySpan's gas service trenches) A- REFUNDABLE CLCCTRTC PERFORMANCE PAYI TENT Connection 180 Ft x 523.20 x 50% $ 2,088 00 Distribution 9222 Ft x $19.60 x 50% $ 90,375 60 Service 4498 Ft x $12.80 x 5M,, $ 28,787 20 SUB-TOTAL S 12 1;250 80 B. NON-REFUNDABLE ELECTRIC CHARGES Excess Distribution (0 Ft x $19.60) $ 0 00 Excess Service (N/A Ft x $12.80) $ 0 00 " Below Grade Transformer (18 BG's x $559) $ 10,062 00 Non-Residential Charge $ 0 00 8 625% Sales Tax S 867.85 SUB-TOTAL S 10,929.85 C. TOTAL ELECTRIC PAYMENT WITHOUT SALES CONTRACTS TOTAL S 132,1 S0.65 D. ELECTRIC PA'04ENT SCHEDULE Design Payment 10% of(C) $ 13,218.06 Material Payment 40% of(C) $ 52,872.26 Construction Payment 50% of(C) $ 66,090.33 [A credit of$872.31 ID.U. will apply towards the Performance Payment for secured sales contracts at this payment.] E_ FUTURE REFUNDS OF PERFORMANCE .PAYMENT $ 872.'1 /D.U. In no event shall the credit for secured sales contracts, plus fitture refunds, less interest, exceed the total Refundable Performance Payment (A). In order to process these refunds, we will require Your Tax [D number. Page 8 Ref a 7100800721 Option 3 The following is a breakdown ofyour contribution towards the cost for the underground electric facilities for KeySpan/LIPA to trench and insta)1 all connection, and install all distribution and services; with Builder providing all distribution and service trenching. A. REFUNDABLE ELECTRIC PERFORMANCE PAYMENT Connection 180 Ft x $2320 x 50% S 2,088 00 Distribution 9222 Ft x 519.60 x 50% 90,375 50 Service 4498 Ft x $12.80 x 50% S '28,787.20 SUB-TOTAL $ 121,250.80 B. NON-REFUNDABLE ELECTRIC CHARGES Excess Distribution (0 Ft x 5)4,40) $ 0.00 Excess Service (1757 Ft x 57.55) 5 13,265 35 Excess Footage Charge $ 13,265 35 Reduction Based on Trenching $ (13,265.95) Below Grade Transformer (18 BG's x $559) S 10,062 00 Non-Residential Charge $ 0.00 8.625% Sales Tax 5 867 85 SUB-TOTAI- $ 10,929 85 Ce TOTAL ELECTRIC PAYMENT WITHOUT SALES CONTRACTS TOTAL $ 132,180 65 D. ELECTRIC PAYMENT SCHEDULE Design Pavmcot 10°o of(C) S 13,218 06 Material Payment 40% of(C) S 52,872 26 Construction Payment 50% of(C) $ 66,090 33 (A credit of$872.31 /D.0 will apply towards the Performance Payment for secured sales contracts at this payment.] E. FUTURE REFUNDS OF PERFORMANCE PAYMENT .S 872.31 1D.U. In no event shal I the credit for secured sales contracts, plus future refunds, less interest, exceed the total Refundable Performance Payment (A). In order to process these refunds, we will require your Tnz ID number. Page 9 Ref # TI00800721 Ootion 3 (Cont'd.) F. PROJECTED TRENCHING RE04BURSEMENT Upon successful completion of the trenching by the Builder for the installation of both KeySparil.LIPA's gas and electric facilities, KeySpan/LIPA will make the reimbursement as follows Based on 9222 rt. of distribution allowance trench, this will equate to 9222 Pt. x 25.20 = ,S47,954.40 .based on 4493 rt. of service allowance trench, this will equate to 4493 Ft x $5 25 = S23,614.50 Total Trenching Allowance: 5 71,568.90 Credit Already Applied to Exccss Charge. S 13,265 35 Projected Remaining Trenching Reimbursement: $ 58.303.55 Page 10 Rcf. 4T100800721. Option-4 The following is a breakdown of your contribution towards the cost of underground aalectric facilities for KeySpan/LIPA to trench and install all connection Distribution trenched by Builder and installed by KeySpan/LIPA. Electric services within the free allowance trenched by Builder and installed by KeySpan/LIPA, with services in excess of the free allowance trenched and installed by Builder. (KeySpan may install gas services in Builder's electric service trench The Builder may be reimbursed for trenching a. specified in Section F below ) A. REFUNDABLE ELECTRIC PERFORMANCE PAYMENT Connection 180 rt x $23.20 x 50`6 S 2,088.00 Distribution 9222 Ft x $19.60 x 50% S 90,375.60 Service 4498 Ft x 312.80 x 5T/a $ 28,78220 SUB-TOTAL S 121,256,80 B. NON-REFUNDABLE ELECTRIC CHARGES Excess Distribution (0 Ft x $14.40) $ 0 00 Excess Service (N/A Ft x $7.55) $ C1.00 Excess Footage Charge S 0.00 Reduction Based on Trenching $ 0.00 Below Grade Transformer (18 BG's x $559) S 10,062.00 Non-Residential Charge S 0.00 8.625% Sales Tax $ 867 85 SUB-TOTAL $ ]0,925%.85 C. TOTAL ELECTRIC PAYMENT WITHOUT _SALES CONTRACTS TOTAL $ 132,180.65 D. ELECTRIC PAYMENT SCHEDULE Design Payment 10% of(C) S 13,218.06 Material Payment 40% of(C) $ 52,87226 Constriction Payment 50% of(C) S 66,090.33 [A credit of$872.31 /D.U. will apply towards the Performance Payment for secured sales contracts at this payment.] T.. FUTURE REFUNDS OF PERFORMANCE PAYi_VIENT $ 872 31 /D U In no event shall the credit for secured sales contracts, plus future refunds, less interest, exceed the total Refundable Performance Payment (A). In order to process these refunds, we will require your Tay. ID number. Page l 1 Ref. i, 7100800721 Omion 4 (Cont'd.) F: PROJECTED TRENCATNG RLI IMBURSEMENT Upon successful completion of the trenching by the Builder for the installation of both KcySpan/LiPA's gas and electric facilities, KeySpan/LIPA will make reimbursement as follows: Based on 9222 Ft of distribution allowance trench, this will equate to 9222 Ft. x 5520 = $47,954.40 Based on 6255 Ft, of service trench lvithin GAS allowance, this -,will eauate to 6255 Ft. x $5.25 = 332,538.75 Total Trenching Credit -�rithin Allowance J 0,793 15 Credit Already Applied to Excess Charge $ 0 00 Projected Remaining Trenching Reimbursement $ &0,793.1 5 GAS CONTRIBUTION - AT TACHMENT 2 in connection v,ith the insta-llation of gas mains, service lines, service connecto appurtenant facilities for 139 buildings the following brc .akdown provides you calculations of your contribution toward the cost for the.. . se facilities: GAS MAIN CHARGE a, I oral footage a,: �= b) Cost per foot = S 32. 02 c) Total cost = $ 295,288. 44 GAS SERVICE CHARGE d) Total footage = 6,2. :55 C) Cost per foot = S 1 1 . 20 O Total Cost — $ 70,056 00 SUNJIMATION OF GAS CHARGES Gas Mains $ 295,288 .44 Utas Services $ 70,05E 00 8.62J% Salcs Tax _ 31,51C ;.96 Total Cost $ 396,85` 40 The calculations quoted herein are in accordance with KeySpan's currently fill valid for 30 days from the date ofthis proposal. Page 13 Ref. 'H'T100800721 ATTACFIMENT 2 (Cont'd.) GAS CONTRMUTION PAYMENT OPTIONS NON REFUNDABLE CHARGES: The non-refundable charges to supply gas facilities to Your project are: S O,00 REFUNDABLE CHARGES: The rc4�ndable charges to supply gas Facilities to your project' are 5396 S55 40 KcvSpan provides the following payment options for these charges, A Gas Waiver Agreement KeySpan agrees to naive the requirement for the gas advance payment of the refundable charges, if the J3uilder commits to install gas space heating in all of the buildings for this project. Signing for this option commits the Builder to install gas space heating in all 139 units planned for this project within 5 years of the date of this agreement. It also commits the Builder to reimburse KeySpan (1/139 X S 3961855.40 = $ 2,855 07 per unit for each building below that does not install gas space hearing. Accepted By:_ Date. B. Advanced Payment vvith Reimbursements As the Builder. I commit to paying the refundable charges prior to the start of construction with reimbursements being applied on a house by house basis in accordance with the tariff based free footage allowances. All units must install gas space heating and be complete within 5 years of the date of this agreement Based on this requirement, the Builder will be reimbursed at (1/139 x g 396,855.40 — S 2,855 07 per unit, when installed. Accepted By. Date:_ FJM LTR HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE 1721, D NORTH OCEAN AVENUE MEDFORD, NEW YORK 11763 Tel: 631207-5730 Fax 631207-5974 Fax Transmittal ........................_.... ....................................................--..............,.........._...................................... PLEASE DELIVER TO: Organization: /Ix Attention: C- r �- O i / ����// MAY 0 2 2008 c FAX Number: ,� — -IQ -7 s Date: 0 �Y 2 , 2w8 $ t% f$- �`s 1_ Time: sf "9 a / Total Pa cs: (including this cover page) From: c— 6 r'Z/ cc: / Project: File:/ Contractor Regarding: / � G�7s G !O!� G,R7o�_ Py.... ...............a........... .................. ............................................ ..... . . • ..._.na_....._oo................. ., ❑ - Hard copy will be mailed lard cop} will not be mailed ............ ......_..................._.. ............... _.........................................................._........................ _.... � �o/�,��__ ��✓A �r 1�s3 S L �P1�--� � 9 'Z �/A�/e� I 1� k/ 5 if crci rures ore not as noted,4:iodly notify us at once. D v 3 a X S GPIGreenman - Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services May 12,2008 Michael C Boken Cutchogue Fire Department 260 New Suffolk Rd. Cutchogue,NY 11935 Re: Proposed Development of the Heritage at Cutchogue 46+/-Acre Parcel at Corner of School House Lane and Griffing Street Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York District 1000 Section 102 Block 01 Lot 33.3 To Whom It May Concern: As previously stated in,letter of October 17, 2007,Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. is in the process of preparing an environmental evaluation of the proposed development of the Hamlet at Cutchogue located at the intersection of School House Lane and Griffing Street, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York. The current property is currently vacant land. The proposed project includes the development of a townhouse complex, entitled the Heritage at Cutchogue,designated as a seniors only establishment. As part of the environmental review, we are seeking information on public services,including fire protection,and I would appreciate your assistance in this regard. Please advise, in writing,on the following: Verification the subject property is within your jurisdiction. Number of active members in the Cutchogue Fire Department Total number of fire and rescue calls responded to in 2006 Average response time for the department Location of the firehouse to the subject property Any information you think would be appropriate for our evaluation. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If we do not receive a response by May 30,2008 we will assume your department can service the proposed project. Please feel free to call me at 631-761-7353 with any questions concerning this request. Very truly yours, G 1R� EN�M�AN-'EDERSEN,INC,__ ll Keith Holley Environmental Scientist 0:\2007\2007340\Correspondence\Cutchogue Fire.doc 325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702 Tel: (631) 587-5060 Fax: (631)422-3479 www.gpinet.com GPIGreenman - Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services May 12,2008 Southold Union Free School District 420 Oaklawn Avenue P.O. Box 470 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Proposed Development of the Heritage at Cutchogue 46 +/-Acre Parcel at Comer of School House Lane and Griffing Street Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York District 1000 Section 102 Block 01 Lot 33.3 To Whom It May Concern: As stated in letter of October 17,2007, Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. is in the process of preparing an environmental evaluation of the proposed development of the Hamlet at Cutchogue located at the intersection of School House Lane and Griffing Street, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York. The current property is vacant land. The proposed project includes the development of a townhouse complex,entitled the Heritage at Cutchogue, designated as a seniors only establishment. This establishment will create approximately 139 units in 131 buildings for residents 60 and over. No children will be allowed to live in the complex. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impacts on the school. Please confirm that the project will be will be in your school district,and also please provide any comments or information that you feel are of importance. Your response will be included in the DEIS. If no response by May 30 we will assume there are not objections to the project. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call mat at 631-761-7353 with any questions concerning this request. Very truly yours, GR ENMAN-PEDERSEN,INC. Keith Holley Environmental Scientist O:\2007\2007340\Correspondence\Southold UFSD.doc 325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702 Tel: (631)587-5060 Fax: (631)422-3479 www.gpinet.com GPIGreenman - Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services May 12, 2008 Carlisle Cocbran- Chief of Police Town of Southold Police Department 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Peconic,NY 11958 Re: Proposed Development of the Heritage at Cutchogue 46 +/- Acre Parcel at Corner of School House Lane and Griffing Street Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York District 1000 Section 102 Block 01 Lot 33.3 To Whom It May Concern: As stated in the previous letter of October 17, 2007, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. is in the process of preparing an environmental evaluation of the proposed development of the Hamlet at Cutchogue located at the intersection of School House Lane and Griffrng Street, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The proposed property is currently vacant land. The proposed project includes the development of a townhouse complex, entitled the Heritage at Cutchogue, designated as a seniors only establishment. This establishment will create 139 units in 131 buildings along with a clubhouse and maintenance garage. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impacts on the department. Please confirm that the project will be serviced by your department and the identity which precinct will provide patrols. Also please provide any comments or information that you feel are of importance. Your response will be included in the DEIS. If no response is received by May 30, 2008 it will be assumed that your department will be able to provide services for this project. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call mat at 631-761-7353 with any questions concerning this request. Very truly yours, GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC. `7 Keith Holley Environmental Scientist .- O:@007\2007340\Correspondence\Southold Police.doc 325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702 Tel: (631) 587-5060 Fax: (631)422-3479 www.gpinet.com GPIGreenman - Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services May 12,2008 Mattituck Cutchogue Union Free School District 385 Depot Rd Cutchogue,NY 11935 Re: Proposed Development of the Heritage at Cutchogue 46 +/-Acre Parcel at Comer of School House Lane and tariffing Street Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York District 1000 Section 102 Block 01 Lot 33.3 To Whom It May Concern: As stated in letter of October 17,2007, Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. is in the process of preparing an environmental evaluation of the proposed development of the Hamlet at Cutchogue located at the intersection of School House Lane and Griffing Street, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York. The current property is vacant land. The proposed project includes the development of a townhouse complex, entitled the Heritage at Cutchogue,designated as a seniors only establishment. This establishment will create approximately 139 units in 131 buildings for residents 60 and over. No children will be allowed to live in the complex. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impacts on the school. Please confirm that the project will be will be in your school district,and also please provide any comments or information that you feel are of importance. Your response will be included in the DEIS. If no response by May 30 we.will assume there are not objections to the project. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call mat at 631-761-7353 with any questions concerning this request. Very truly yours, GR�E+ENMAN-PEDERSEN,INC.— Keith Holley Environmental Scientist 01200712007340\Couespondence\Southold UFSD.doc 325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702 Tel: (631) 587-5060 Fax: (631)422-3479 www.gpinet.com GPI Greenman - Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services October 17,2007 Cutchogue Fire Department 260 New Suffolk Rd. Cutchogue,NY 11935 Re:Proposed Development of the Heritage at Cutchogue 46+/-Acre Parcel at Comer of School House Lane and Griffing Street Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York District 1000 Section 102 Block 01 Lot 33.3 To Whom It May Concern: This firm is in the process of preparing an environmental evaluation of the proposed development of the Hamlet at Cutchogue located at the intersection of School House Lane and Griffing Street,Cutchogue,Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York. The current property is currently vacant land. The proposed project includes the development of a townhouse complex, entitled the Heritage at Cutchogue, designated as a seniors only establishment. As part of the environmental review,we are seeking information on public services,including fire protection,and I would appreciate your assistance in this regard. Please advise, in writing,on the following: Verification the subject property is within your jurisdiction. Number of active members in the Cutchogue Fire Department Total number of fire and rescue calls responded to in 2006 Average response time for the department Location of the firehouse to the subject property Any information you think would be appropriate for our evaluation. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call me at 631-761-7353 with any questions concerning this request. Very truly yours, GREENMAN-PEDERSEN,INC. Keith Holley Environmental Scientist 0:\200M007340\Conespondence\Cutchogue Firc.doc 325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702 Tel: (631) 587-5060 Fax: (631)422-3479 www.gpinet.com GPI Greenman - Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services October 17,2007 KeySpan Energy Ops.2,2"d Floor T&D Project Management 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville,New York 11801 Attn:Mr.John Asaro Re:Proposed Development of the Heritage at Cutchogue 46+/-Acre Parcel at Comer of School House Lane and Griffmg Street Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York District 1000 Section 102 Block 01 Lot 33.3 To Whom It May Concern: This firm is in the process of preparing an environmental evaluation of the proposed development of the Hamlet at Cutchogue located at the intersection of School House Lane and Griffing Street,Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York. The current property is vacant land. The proposed project includes the development of a townhouse complex,entitled .._ i the Heritage at Cutchogue, designated as a seniors only establishment. This establishment will create approximately 139 units in 131 buildings for residents 60 and over. There will also be a Clubhouse and Maintenance facility on the site. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impacts on the utilities in the area. Please provide any comments or information that you feel are of importance. Your response will be included in the DEIS. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call mat at 631-761-7353 with any questions concerning this request. Very truly yours, GRREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC. Keith Holley Environmental Scientist 0:\2007\2007340\Conespondmce\LIPA-KeySpan.doc 325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702 Tel: (631) 587-5060 Fax: (631)422-3479 www.gpinet.com PIGreenman - Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services October 17,2007 Suffolk County Water Authority. 4060 Sunrise Highway Oakdale,New York 11769 Attn: Mr. Steve Burns Re: Proposed Development of the Heritage at Cutchogue 46+/-Acre Parcel at Corner of School House Lane and Griffing Street Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York District 1000 Section 102 Block 01 Lot 33.3 To Whom It May Concem: This firm is in the process of preparing an environmental evaluation of the proposed development of the Hamlet at Cutchogue located at the intersection of School House Lane and Griffmg Street, Cutchogue,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York. The current property is vacant land. The proposed project includes the development of a townhouse complex,entitled the Heritage at Cutchogue, designated as a seniors only establishment. This establishment will create 139 units in 131 buildings along with a clubhouse and maintenance garage. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impacts on the utilities in the area. Please provide any continents or information that you feel are of importance. Your response will be included in the DEIS, Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call mat at 631-761-7353 with any questions concerning this request. Very truly yours, GREENMAN-PEDERSEN,INC. Keith Holley Environmental Scientist 0:\20072007340\Co[respondence\SC WA doc 325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702 Tel: (631)587-5060 Fax: (631)422-3479 www.gpinet.com GPI Greenman - Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services. October 17,2007 Town of Southold Police Department 41405 Route 25 Peconic,NY 11958 Re: Proposed Development of the Heritage at Cutchogue 46+/-Acre Parcel at Corner of School House Lane and Griffing Street Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York District 1000 Section 102 Block 01 Lot 33.3 To Whom It May Concern: This firm is in the process of preparing an environmental evaluation of the proposed development of the Hamlet at Cutchogue located at the intersection of School House Lane and Griffmg Street,Cutchogue,Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York. The current property is currently vacant land. The proposed project includes the development of a townhouse complex, entitled the Heritage at Cutchogue,designated as a seniors only establishment. This establishment will create 139 units in 131 buildings along with a clubhouse and maintenance garage. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impacts on the department. Please confirm that the project will be serviced by your department and the identity which precinct will provide patrols. Also please provide any comments or information that you feel are of importance. Your response will be included in the DEIS. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call mat at 631-761-7353 with any questions concerning this request. Very truly yours, G//REENM��A//N-PEDERSEN,INC. ( Keith Holley Environmental Scientist a,. 0:\2007\2007340,\Comspon4mce\Southold Police.dw 325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702 Tel: (631)587-5060 Fax: (631)422-3479 www.gpinet.com GPI Greenman - Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services October 17,2007 Southold Union Free School District P.O.Box 470 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Proposed Development of the Heritage at Cutchogue 46+/-Acre Parcel at Corner of School House Lane and Griffing Street Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York District 1000 Section 102 Block 01 Lot 33.3 To Whom It May Concern: This firm is in the process of preparing an environmental evaluation of the proposed development of the Hamlet at Cutchogue located at the intersection of School House Lane and Gritting Street, Cutchogue,Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York. The current property is vacant land. The proposed project includes the development of a townhouse complex,entitled the Heritage at Cutchogue, designated as a seniors only establishment. This establishment will create approximately 139 units in 131 buildings for residents 60 and over. No children will be allowed to live in the complex. It is the intent of this letter to solicit your input regarding this project and its impacts on the school. Please confirm that the project will be will be in your school district,and also please provide any comments or information that you feel are of importance. Your response will be included in the DEIS. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call mat at 631-761-7353 with any questions concerning this request. Very truly yours, GREEN�MA 7N-PEDERSEN,INC. Keith Holley l ' Environmental Scientist _ 0:\2007\2007340\Coaespondence\Southold UFSD.doc J 325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702 Tel: (631)587-5060 Fax: (631)422-3479 www.gpinet.com CHARLES R.CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW :.. 445 GRlI-'1 ING AV FNt IE RIV.LI; IF,AT),NEW YORK Mo t nq t1 ¢�eF: TEL: (631).169-8700 P.O.Bax 1,547 FAX: (631)369-90N) Rivethead.NY 1.3.901 E-mail: chult+.cu(Itly(q)veriznn.net July 16,2007 Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairman of Southold Planning Board Southold Town P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: The)Heritage at Cutchogue SCTMl11000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: My client has spent substantial time and resources in connection with the site plan application and SEQRA proceedings.I have been informedthat despite significant mitigation and appropriate studies completed by the applicant,the Board intends to adopt a positive declaration under SEQRA.This ignores significant facts: 1. The applicant,pursuant to discussion with the Town Board,reduced the total number of units at the site by 20%; 2. The applicant, in mitigation of traffic and other concerns, agreed to a 55 and older community; 3. The applicant agreed to individual condominium units; 4.The applicant worked out a price point offering to accommodate concerns of Town officials; 5. While believing it would assist in traffic dispersement,the applicant has agreed to a limited use of the Spur Road connection; 6.The applicant presented a complete traffic analysis by the engineering firm of Nelson&Pope and had this reviewed and endorsedby Dunn Engineering Associates,which clearly evidenced a small impact by the over 55 condominium use; 7. The Environmental Consultant hired by the Planning Board to complete an environmental analysis has determined that in every category under SEQRA there is a small to moderate impact, effectively recommending a negative declaration; The history of this site indicates that it has been zoned for the proposed use for nearly 25 years and that the zoning has been reviewed on a number of occasions by the Town Board and found to be appropriate. The zoning is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan which was subject to a Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Peconic Landing, a project of greater size but similar density and with the same zoning,received a negative declaration from the Planning Board. Jerilyn B.Woodhouse,Chairman of Southold Planning Board July 16,2007 Page 2 I was advised at the Planning Board meeting of July 2,2007,that the basis for a positive declaration included: 1. traffic 2- septic system location 3- archeological 4. habitat These concerns do not stand up to scrutiny.The traffic analysis has not included one study but two. I'm not aware of any study conducted by the Town that is contrary to what was provided. The septic issue is clearly a health department matter,with the applicant having received preliminary approval from that department (not parenthetically the Town Board has adopted a resolution extending public water to School House bane and the residents of Highland Road have public water available to them). The archeological request to further investigate the site is remarkable in that it is an inland site and at least three (3)large sites in Southold Town that I'm personally familiar with, including Fort Corchoug„have not produced any significant archeological findings. As to the habitat,this was examined by your environmental consultant. There is no basis for concluding that any one of the above concerns affects or will result in a substantial adverse change inthe community,the criteria for determining significance under SEQRA as set forth at 6 NYCRR Part 6t7. In each of these instances the Planners are second guessing and the worst second guessing is a rejection of your own environmental consultant's recommendation. I submit that this rejection is improper, improvident and contrary to law. The question must be asked. If the Planners are more qualified then why was the consultant retained.Assuming the consultant was qualified then by what methodology does the department override its own expert? I urge you to revisit this matter and not adopt a positive declaration. Very truly youurss,,,+ 6 " r• Charles R. Cuddy CRC:ik 07/16/2007 10:18 6313699080 PAGE 01/03 CHARLES R. CUDDY Attorney at Law 445 Grifting Avenue Riverhead,New York 11901 Tel No.: (631)369-8200 Fax No.: (631)369-9080 T0: Jeffrey Rimland Fax#: 207-5974 TELECOPIER COVER SHEET Total Number of pages-2— including cover sheet. If transmission is faulty or incomplete,please inform us as soon as possible. Operator: Iwona Date: July 16,2007 Comments: Re: Cutchogue property Please see attached letter. Charles R. Cuddy This fax transmission together with materials foQowing are intended for the person or persons named hereon and are considered confidential information. If you have received this transmission in error,yon are directed to return these materials immediately by regular moil to the sender at the above address Postage incurred for the return will be paid by this fvm. GPI Greenman - Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services e _) December 3, 2007 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Information Services NY Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, Fifth Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 Re: Heritage at Cutchogue, Cutchogue, Suffolk County, NY GPI Project No. 2004334 Dear Sir or Madam:: I am writing to request information about the possible presence of a globally rare ecological community, or the presence of rare or endangered plant or animal species at the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue development site. The area is located at the northwest comer of Griffing Street and Schoolhouse Road \ in the Hamlet of Cutchogue,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,NY. Enclosed find a location map of ) the area with the project limits marked. The information is needed in order to avoid or mitigate ecological impacts as much as possible. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, GREENMAN-PEDERSEN,INC. 7 Keith Holley Environmental Scientist 325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702 Tel: (631) 587-5060 Fax: (6 31)422-3479 www.gpinet.com ` 119 VV a MSD � OREGON G.L. 119 e) GpN P 6'� CUT�HOGUE IM S A. 84 1 RD N v EAST- TTITUCK cE� e � S.F. D V\ o SLpNo ,,, P4f E P.S' LONG nV G f i" CEM. Nf .E Cf?CMpGUE �9 J ERrotE 9 C J Z n� 9 C {m P INN, �fN�' aPPM1 M 9s1 >. eH.S.Y 25 yc�P`Ey Re�� p O e4LK ct a 1 ° OP. v� pkRp i p a 0 n .pias NORTH � -------- vq NEW SUGG R Duk a '�pom a a s.. c >V NEW " � YM wEA PR f ae NORFO K- p U p / n O hxgUSFDs // tuwRN pr� � a y COUNTRY Wrcxs '3..Y p v MATT/TUCK � ,y G4 � 1JP ° r Ctue ro� u AIRPORT °^cq � r "z CAYpryyyppy PPRk 3 FRIO U a "J Marratooka P1 RDS old Cove 4 � R` Ximo�en y Pt. NEW SUFFOLK G R E A T P E C O N I C NOR T R d CE �f= P�T 8 R '�"r New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources Am New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-4757 r'hone: (518)402-8935 • FAX: (518)402-8925 wd.dec.state.ny.us Alexander B.Grannis Commissioner December 24, 2007 Keith Holley Greenman Pedersen, hic 325 West Main St Babylon, NY 11702 Dear Mr. Holley: In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage Program database with respect to an Environmental Assessment for the proposed Heritage @ Cutchogue Development, #2004 334, site as indicated on the map you provided, located in the Town of Cutchogue, Suffolk County. Enclosed is a report of rare or state-listed animals and plants, significant natural communities, and other significant habitats, which our databases indicate occur, or may occur, on your site or in the immediate vicinity of your site. The information contained. in this report is considered sensitive and should not be released to the public without permission from the New York Natural Heritage Program. The presence of the plants and animals identified in the enclosed report may result in this project requiring additional review or permit conditions. For further guidance, and for information regarding other permits that may be required under state law for regulated areas or activities (e.g., regulated wetlands), please contact the appropriate NYS DEC Regional Office, Division of Environmental Permits, at the enclosed address. For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted;the enclosed report only includes records from our databases. We cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural communities. This information should not be substituted for on-site surveys that may be required for environment impact assessment. Our databases are continually growing as records are added and updated. If this proposed project is still under development one year from now, we recommend that you contact us again so that we may update this response with the most current information. S/ ely' Tara Seoane, Information Services New York Natural Heritage Program Encs. - cc: Reg. 1,Wildlife Mgr. . Natural Heritage Report on Rare Species and Ecological Communities NY Natural Heritage Program,NYS DEC,$25 Broadway,5th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518)402-8935 a... HISTORICAL RECORDS The following plants and animals were documented in the vicinity of the project site at one time, but have not been documented there since 1979 or earlier. There is no recent information on these plants and animals in the vicinity of the project site and their current status there is unknown. In most cases the precise location of the plant or animal in this vicinity at the time it was last documented is also unknown and therefore location maps are generally not provided. If appropriate habitat for these plants or animals is present in the vicinity of the project site, it is possible that they may still occur there. Natural Heritage Report on Rare Species and Ecological Communities DRAGONFLIES and DAMSELFLIES ���-��Xll��� Nehalennia integricollis Office Use Southern Sprite NY Legal Status: Special Concern NYS Rank: S1 -Critically imperiled 12596 Federal Listing: Global Rank: G5-Demonstrably secure Last Report: 1953 or 1954? EO Rank: Historical, no recent information County: New York State Waters,Suffolk Town: Ny State Waters,Southold % Location: Mattituck Directions: The damselflies were captured in Mattituck and Cutchogue on Long Island. From Riverhead take Route 48 northeast towards Southold. Mattituck is not far across the town boundary into Southhotd from Riverhead.From Mattituck,follow Route 25 for approximately 2 mi northeast to Cutchogue., General Quality The damselfly was captured in the vicinity of two different towns on a very large island. and Habitat: VASCULAR PLANTS Helianthemum dumosum -' Office Use Bushy Rockrose _NY Legal Status: Threatened NYS Rank: S2-Imperiled, 9251 Federal Listing: Global Rank: G3-Vulnerable Last Report: 1921-09-09 EO Rank: Failed to find but search more County: Suffolk M Town: Southold Location: Cutchogue Directions: Cutchogue. General Quality and Habitat: December 20,2007 Page 1 of.: Natural Heritage Report on Rare Species and Ecological communities Lespedeza stuevei Office Use Velvety NY Legal Status: Threatened NYS Rank: S2-Imperiled 548 ff shclover -' Federal Listing: Global Rank: G4?-Apparently secure Last Report: 1919-09-07 EO Rank: Historical, no recent information County: Suffolk M Town: Southold Location: Cutchogue Directions: Cutchogue. General Quality Drywoods. and Habitat: 3 Records.Processed More detailed information about many of the rare and listed animals and plants in New York, including biology,identification, habitat, conservation, and management, are available online in Natural Heritage's Conservation Guides at www acris.nvnhp.org,from NatureServe Explorer at hftp://www.natureserve.org/explorer,from NYSDEC at httt):/Iwww.dec.ny.gov/animals/7494.htmI (for animals),and from USDA's " Plants Database at http://plants usda govfiindex html (for plants). r r� December 20,2007 Page 2 of: MAR. 30. 2007 9:57AM .1 N0, 412 P. 2 pA TOWN TTQ0 �QF So 4, SCM A-RUSSiU .. p U:!da =9gen(gwwnsouth04np•vs ,�0� yG�Q Supervisor SIffiiAx D2.CORCORAN 41 Town U0 Acnes,54375 Route 25 y, P.O.$vx 1179 ASSiSIANT TOWN ATTOB,NEfX - X Soutbwi&NOW York 11971-0969 )ciecen.mraaasnQeawn-�tt+ctd,nrus - LORI 1UJI&E WorTrEFUSCO �OUNI'1,� Telephone(633)765-1989 ASUMANT TOWN ATTORNL7 Facsimile(681)766-8639 loci.montefuecoQtowc,mtheld.ny w OFFICE OF TSE TOWN ATTORNEY TO'WNQ OF SOUTHOLD March 29, 2007 Mr. Bruce Anderson. M.S., President Suffolk Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. Newman Village, Sulte E 2322 Main Street P.O. Box 2003 Bridgeliampton, NY 11932-2003 RE: The Heritage at Cutchogue Dear Mr.Anderson: Please allow this letter to respond tc your inquiry about the permitted density on the HD zoned parcel in Cutchogue known as"The Heritage". The schedule attached to Chapter 280 of the Town Code(Attachment 1)refers to 1 unit per 90,000 square feet, with community water and sewer, in the HD zone. In this project, an actual sewer system is not required by the Health Department because there will be Covenants and Restrictions filed on the parcel restricting occupancy to those age 55 and over. The aforementioned requirement in the Town Code for sewer will be satisfied by approval of the Suffolk County Health Department that the septic requirements for the project have been met. Please do not hesttate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention. eaawn ty yours, A. Finna PAFAkttorney cc: Charles Cuddy, Esq. Mr. Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector Mr. Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner Andrew Stype Realty, Inc. 12985 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 63, MATTITUCK. NEW YORK 11952 (631) 298-8760 FAX (631) 298-5779 www.stype.com - . 10/3/07 Mr. Jeffrey Riuiland c/o Heritage at Cutchogue 1721-D North Ocean Avenue Medford, NY 11763 Rc:Bazbara Grattan property Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY 11935 SCT.M 1000-102-1.-9.2 Dear Jeff: In accordance with your request I am preparing a summary report of a real estate valuation of a portion of the subject property referenced above. The instructions are to indicate current fair value of a 67' x 635' ( 42,545 sq.') strip of land located at the north end of Mrs. Grattan's farm located at Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY. The intended use is to determine the market value of the potential purchase to allow a right of way from .Depot Road to property owned by the Heritage at Cutchogue. The valuation is effective the inspection date of 10/2/07. The intended user/client is Jeff Rimland and the Heritage at Cutchogue. This is a hypothetical condition. The right of way is proposed but appears to be a potentially viable, peunitted use by die Town 6f Southold. The owner is listed as Barbara Gratrtw. The subject parcel to be appraised is 67' x 635' (approximately 1 acre). 'Ihe parcel is currently unimproved, open. fallowlands (formerly farmlands). The topography is gently rolling. The parcel is not in a flood area. The client desires to purchase this parcel to allow ingress of construction vehicles for their proposed condominium project on the land adjoining the subject. Once completed the right of way may revert to a secondary ingress and egress of homeowners in the condo project. The subject has three other entrances to their project but may need a alternative entrance. The subject right of way would.not be considered buildable cxcept for a paved roadway. Heritage - page 2 The subject parcel is part of a 25.6 acre farm. The loss to the owner appears to be minimal. The farm has development rights intact. The current (before the taking) maximum yield is 13 homesites (80,000 sq.' per bomesite) according to R-80 zoning. The after taking would allow a maximum yield of 13 homesites. Upon consideration for current market trends and sales data the subject would indicate a current fair market value of: $ 80,000. Subject Market Value Thank you, please let me Mow if I can be of further assistance. f ASREAT�S:t1: � # 46000022831 Heritage - page 3 Market Data Sales Reviewed: The following are right of way type parcels, not considered buildable for single family homes and are located on the North Pork: 1) North Road, Southold, 1000-52-2-37, .75 acre ( 25' x 1,300'), used as a road, sold on 10/21/05 for $ 75,000. 2) Edwards Lane, Orient, 1000-18-3-6.16, 1.8 acres ( 50' x 1,643'), used as a road, sold on 414106 for $ 75,000. 3) Rte. 25A, Wading River, 600-57-2-6.2., .41 acre ( 41.' x 435'), right of way, sold on 3/23107 for $ 75,000. The value indicated for the subject is $ 75,000. I also reviewed the following sales of vacant homesites sold in town of Southold this year. All lots are considered buildable for single family bomes: 4) Hillcrest Drive, Orient, 1000-13-2-8.4, .92 acre, unimproved, sold on 4//0/07 for $ 345,000. 5) Bridge Lane, Cutchogue, 1000-85-2-24, .98 acre, unimproved, sold on 4/4/07 for $ 345,000. 6) Leeward Dr., Southold. 1000-79-7-43.2, 1.08 acre, unimproved, sold on 6/28/07 for $ 400,000. The current value of a buildable one acre is home site is approximately $ 350,000. to $ 400,000. The average prices per square foot of each of the sales is $ 8.5. The town of Southold has a development rights program and normally considered the development rights to be worth approximately 75% of the total value with the remaiaine 25 o considered as not buildable except for agricultural purposes. The subject would indicate a price per square foot of$ 2. ( $ 8.5 x 25 0 = $ 2.13 round off to $ 2.) $ 2. x 42,545 sq.' = $ 85,090. Subject value. The sales indicated a range of$ 75,000. and the price per square foot indicated a value of$ 85,000. The value indicated for the subject is $ 80,000. 38 39 Duck Pond Pt U 1VI D W11958 I 6 O N 7 X19 EAST\\ TTITUCK i�\�, F--R' SE�Er✓ "r� \/ \ / A r `� � "%. ! •^mac. \ F r \��Ri \ �"C :p r m ECK 74p- IRV 7P `( I f I1ruCIf__ J wJ _ •, _ _.__ 'hLLU tF' �'cz —J�7 KJ u,z PORT i4 ell AA.BOR Old Cc.•t � ` l Ma 'raioak.aPt A.111n�na., i. i . .Xtmoanlr�r���,�0 p` C• � til+I NEW SUFFOLK I� K 'r� uAld LIE VAIOI SFf J2.b.C5 L5F Wid fpi PCL I& �_ __ ttz SIE SIC.b, 016 Wf01L^ / \ � irr 1411:l�[ SJ/}Hyp / Nlrgl ubA E I { 'VtrY <zi O M1 q, wit �• 4 m • ; < 4 1� o� Ga 9j at p hY t3Ftle ., ti tl' S JC /C + t SS ' l � ' 11 l t 1 4al d LWO r ri 41 • . 'r .•ljy t � 1�. f � .`^ 1 . F' t / \ 1• r4 , i�51• ♦ �' M1 F• C9.T V/,tom'. a r. �•S'T�e • ti O �\ � � Iil S Y/ � S A Y � Z\ fffjjj���y` � � r� a •t � �� •3 x�r.[I .y i )_ 1 \ � \ �`fy1 \ � � c \ �`•C� � I t 1 , T NOWMMEI&Y OF FRANK NACNINCHICK filar- i i S 51'13'55" E STI ms o' Qs.., is R°. tFl 37.5 rMT].6 'ANia S3 C root cPPm 23A T2Q fF1nJRD P� 28 26 20 A.. A ,1 PMP A j FrL—w �p .O Its E \ 'LO 1101 rmw c vane IIIMuw p �0 Pes I OND \��RM o o Ja ` 109 A I.4 RIM N rDurrAN \-_3 � 'FORMERLY OF 1r. 0` � AY M. BEER �xE x I a F ' IAN F. IAF NEY 49'56'35" E O 221.47 Do OEA . rfm;Ail 36 CO2 A MOP Fml b o 2+00 e 40 nnaov ,a J as 82 tse � Hadrymc 1 r / Roekd�nd / orth Lyfnc - -'` es 1 ph/ � �\ ('fir I t . / 4 y, �11 PY � Citai vtlle •,� �. _ t4B _Deep ' 0 "��Hafnbur9,J II - fEt _ ,\ rf f 1 ..� F� p i Goldct1 S�,l p Nor IN5�f9pn ; rop --� nsw at Ic s / 22 rite .'� i I nr{fi t44 vU � -[ r t „ .. do P I."_S0u dnfA U� l It 145 "[Pond Mdado*-\", N�rth rankrd Nut Plain L I 1 Gozctjf��;toe WP:�r\A.,, r South LYrney/__a` t5sI�CgPark .�• I -� ' 1 Glenn Nf.'C1�4'r,,!+�Piyl3filtr �lart(grc{� I ,R Mddi Or � e� ad' L 1313r1U r.lver-'`� CII nJfr fir "6 r, r� NAr I' ici .ul '" r Y�� ,�J>•� r�L xKK{ I} i(U.t N �ed i t r. yY11[�`� r t�'x'VP�, 'n � . yi �•S'u § 111"L'�I°1 � `�.ahls � y v1 n�Ay:`>7 r r.rEf'i�'nTyir{V�m\ �' S f 7' n •,a,G �4�'i a� " A T f 4 a..,%'�r�°M1! M, "°5�rr,,r"�I���Y``,Y.'� "��i�'�[ r Jj InWJ 'n'w J- 1iu`f sl Fd'ir�4 }i fA �VY`Sr: �.�. � a , yWg I -�"' T ia'� •.^-1•I grtF .a3 y7+�,."�YrFr ,'. '�11 r.2 t yy �� A'K?./ 1irl1A3nY3dit '� ''' v'I+'cPrr' 'dY3itY1(, ��`'�'t YV9 �raAIyL18 q'C' d i° •� Jr„F'�'J� �^rll ��InitUr�aJlil�l217��1�11�'ai"�r k i�- �. 47 r I,P I 1 �` g eq , K .*✓. C " '�73!N`;h, t r., 29 \J�� M .!r�li4l`r�- �"'' m r �. {vl$Ids�ofitl- ��{'i1tJu�h� sj. el C�e AYI .. 40 rn, , ;'' a 1 I.AfS"Ftic��andlrg i °P5fk711 j ROW, i � r , u � +14.� ��y PF N� ly V t j 1 K C�VIife tJ .(�rvil1uAy*1�L 1d t + olheS l.brlg•�. yea n{ � �k f f �)A; e aN J�d3RJ �1yW 1x� m Hot 4 "kkh�e`I�'M1Kk "FR"g�r f-� i\ e ' r `J ' �/ T Nylr ,. ^'t i t NnM11'cf'dbbl mm3 �/ , m n Sound Ave e ,, u IAxyu' 7rd ry'� 1 a J ; I Is% t' �--j�M1/ r4 /�a {� �.1 P'�IJ.n x�r I '1`2../ (IP CIa 1. ¢L 1 J VJ 41 ° T �� � �hy� ,e1�. i'a„ +t: � +.��Elndnehnm{rio6� Ivin�y F I� I I -✓A fos ,,c tr„A z.�4Wtlfth 2 n ,r . - I `F L 58 r; Mall `���,i �I� 5cn ound - 1 90 4 1„"'y 1 y C vbr I °Sa rrdt A, 1AI 'FIFs2yt� r'nx�hj'dTT�3t06f-'alk FlandPN'til1�. A I l r(K -; 1rrr 8 fill (jl; r111fa 4 ice^`' 1 Y; 1{7 I r ; I r J ri V� �a Ir - 1 lath i anOf ,....fk 8 IIS �A Vl ''S. 5� 01y�RM ?� 'an yr .I I { v t 104 i`) qUe 4��"r!♦1 3r S''}�ayrgJ Sr a e. I I A II �i,I l F rr= `. �„c, �:;rt 1 �/ 1` i' ✓ � �'tl�' '�r7�3, �MASlIc ��•• F,n— �—y H�Cv�}^l��-'k+��rwily-r'+It1Y"^"'i1�[h rA�i t. 1 ,t I r [ Il i r x' R fR9B til d rr � n .A..+p N l C i•el A '^ t is III I C t r 4 l y i A It '`rk`.�u d '�'�' ala'''' ik •4j1-W`C3V'� r�f�, '; IA,i{e w� n e e S. �C .p '?.,F r(,,n,,h' .i" wj •M1y;fii Ni(`} -;� 1 t{'d(�` r}rc r s f ,,. r 1 ' >< � �, ..i•rWe � '.��'s r 'F• t lftxsai" ' V'°�'Y`li a.}�(naF �'ti�!�'r vl -r 1 " Iii I ^ + - �✓^"'.•EIt�+Z51nh1EM e, � �� •w ^�uti�ar � 7i� FsY�F ?V cl�f� klf r, { - ' 1 ' t _.; 15 Streets98 Gnp�+lghl A^,9PA-tAA?,A,llcmeop CorpeMlnn nn0lor In^aDpllnn.M1II rrPMa roeerved. Plnapn eI51i aln rsh^II5 01 Mittllmap<s;terlle.cmm. Pugn, y c r; / 1•!:••.•r 1.+x.11... , .. • .A.• .r . 41, I •^� •�.. 'h:;i }� 'i Sr. h an .e ..,. . fir 1 + r' •.; ....... 1 ' '.y' it:� ••inti S1�'`:rL^,' •r. .•.1: ..(�75.:•�•.a•. .111: �:ri. a • l �(, f l ' •. t �' 3e1 i�r•`I c"w+^1 I f 1 '[ I 7, v r'.^a:. : r 8 . .��a A iF.r�11.'Iy lT4�J r{4 ../ le �1.:'• �. • e �k R r. . ' s E r e I �r I 1 y• r .;��. y`��!� i Ip .�,1 S r `i.•, I 1 r 11 I Y •\ . ''� q , s. I •,,i �•`' ' c�:a env;'."cl' ',r•• 'd;:' .. .rd' :1 . ,:. • , , ' •1 1i,f.ln• ..I• �'•�r' rr,•,, M�b•r�:iUwM,tl r.t•s ' • I • ' • ri ,�Vii r.r"n..�y5 :�1:4��•.�..y.�t•M'.r�'.I•r r e e • is •e: :Y'. :r." ..I 1•P• •��bd:•ilVfn yr '°uR,� •;'i7° fi mt ��•. )Y r1•�j 'IlJ rifSJ1'.I ,[ h. 1 '+ �'in4 L��4t3� sir.,•�y:iR••�:. � •-. ������l�V. • n:�:'"�� spilt. •l •1 Jit s s Lf'+, e.'• it �; �-- 1_ ;•1'_0= r. a•. •P" r. }9.,'• r~ C.SM 1•• ✓J:M1-•�..r �1 Ip IAP ♦n3 'Ter Il- �.e.. C '�ii�'!t. .•3i � .T• lM1�t•.:� ''•.Y1j'P.'R1tINrro'•� �.a,,nnfppk ,. _ '+�Yi'` cM!liC'o.n• r'IM �.... . .. ":idyy.r.+ 44 Iw<�yY. .. r ..•• '•may. .• "10., .•,� a; fF a dar,•: ',�.•4� :ro � ' :n.: •i•540 "h •1. c . THE SCOPE OF THE LIMITED APPRAISAL r-- This hatted ApPlaisel and Summary APpmnal Report le based on Or,Inspection M the nolghbnmood.sumind pmparly. and the anatySis of Intonation Palhemd 1mm Public or privets records that may hate an Influence On the."alt's of the �- property. DEFRlfrION OF MARKET VALUE: The most orobsble odor which n propory should bring In a compstltl✓n and open maNet under all epnultlonn rsWt lte to n fair spin.the buyer and seller,each acting prudently,knowledgeably and nsauming Uro, pdro Is not affected by undue Stimulus,Implicit In INS defmiUon Is the onneummp4on of a-ale he M a ±oeciffod date and the P?ssing of lots from seller to buyer under condt8pns wb311113y:(I)bLrycr and editor ore tyPioelN motivefed,.(2)both parties dm well WOM"Ad or well naelsed.age each acting In what he considers his own Drat Intemat, (3)a maasOeble time.is olimved for exposure In the open mnr1ret:(4)payment 19 made In terms o1 oath In US dollars or In terms of financial errwlgemontn compambie themto;and(6)M price ropmsents inn normal consideration for lho Property sold unaffected by special or creative imlicing or nates ccrmssalonn gmntod by anyone ASaociplCd with the Sato. STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONOfTIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The npprAlaar's certification that nppeers In III epprN9el report Is subject to ling following cendlitoo. . 1.The appralSer will not be m3pon9ible for matters of a legal Antrim that affect either the properly being apPraland or the title to 11,The Appraiser aeertrraee that the title Is peed Slid marketable.and,therefore_will net render ury opinion.,nbout the. Me.The properly ip appraised on Tho bAela of It bang under mnponalbin ewnership, 2.Any sketch that may be Inoludcd In 140*Pmisal report to niraw apprcdmota dimensions of pro Impmvemenin(and)the sketch Is Included only to Basta+Ilia randertP N3uAII2jng the pmperty and undemianti np the sppmmcr a dolorninstioe of ft size. 3 Thn oppraimr has nxamined the a+Malls flood mops that aro provided by the Fedeml Emergency ldnnagemrnt Agency for Clhar drde noumas)And has noted In 810 OPPml9ni mport wpntber Iha Aublect 11191e Iorebrd in en ldenllMd Spedol Flood Hartrd Area. The nppmisar 1, not n Aurvayor.end be.or she makes no guarantees,nxproaeod or imooed. Mannino thin dohrminmion, 4.The Dopmeerwlll give no testlmorif of appear in court because he or she mato An oppralaai of the pmparty In auoatlen, miff,epecliic snengememe to do so have been made hoforahenn. S.If the cost mpmach Is utilized.IAS value of the lend In catlmMed rat he hioherd orbeatune and Ne Impmvem9nr..at their conhibutory volun.These neperate valuations of the land eel Improvements must not be tined In conjunction with mer' other applairlAJ and are immild If they pro tie used, e.Unless othanvleo noted In tbo apmmisal mport, an Interior And OMPlofe• evtedor Physical Inspnctlon of lbs mfiJect pmparly Nr:not Drop Completed.Only abaorvoble Adverse conditions(such as needed mpsim.dcPmUslleh the presrncr, of hazardous wnnics,toxic Wtsisrcee.oto)noted dudng the.Impe-tion of the su)JAci pmperh•.or Ihet Me opprelser bacame mom dt during Me normal research Involved In petIOMIDg the limited appralnal She contained hemin.Unless Otherwise stated In Ino eppnisal report, the Appraiser hal no knowiedga of any hidden or unapporent conddltion,hat wOf m P MM`O 01 adverse nrr+lronmnntdl crmetions(Inducing the Presance of hazardous wastes•tovtc eubndances..t^J Jr property nam or leen valuable,end ban ndeumAd Ihof them Sm no such conditbne And andkoa an gusrsrls n or✓.lrragtins. cxpmased Cr Implied, regarding the Condition of the property. The oppPlser will not be mspon-lble for nM, such oendlilcnn Ihst do cvlat or for eery nnginecring of te-,ting that might bo foquiral in dUCAvtr whnthnr sueh conditions eynl. eocause me Appraiser Is not An eryerl In the field of environmental haisma,the eppr910s1 report mnat not be conaldnred ai nn em•Imnmeoml n?se9emnnt tit thea propartY. T,The.mpraiom obtained fun information,estimte ,and MAlom that wenaxpms9ad In thn nppmlanl mpoM1 Iron r,,oumee that he or aha considers to on mlleblo and bell9"a9 them to to Inn and correct. The capon, doe± no! esermn: rospensibllly for Ihn accuracy of euch Items Inert w•em turn shed by o1Mr gaol',. 8,TIM nppmiser will not discime the contents o1 the eppralnal report except 99 plwldnd far In the Unhorm Sinndarda cl Pmla9slAal Mpml+al P d1tice. 9. The Appraiser NIA based his or her n. pmlgnj report and valuation conclusion^ for an eppral9el that Io zublOrt to +atia'aciory completion,mpaim,or alienations on the assumption thAl oomoietlon of the Improve.mcntg will be informed In e WArkimJnllke maAAer. 10.Thg appmlaer mw_t provide his or her prior wdttnn con"Tt before the lender/client sp9clficd In the AVVelhel mend con distrilhula th9n,MdI.gnJ report(IncMiing concluyone About the omperty ,91up,the apptaleei'S IdaMBy and pmbseton9 davignallons,and refemnC^.o to OrIf prute;91enal OPPrxl_9l olganlzatlon±err the firm In which Ire nppm1901 In aes'OdIred)to proothan pun bo Towne the m ta e or Inc District of Columblen a coni that the lender/Ulgnt may d15Mbulteelltt professional de ee llon .. omonkf the n any pmpe✓y dsoalptlon Oedlen of the tlppreleal mpoM1 Only to data collection of reporting M.11 must'crilce(s)o without i m.'mg to rs the the appraiser^ prior wdtion consent, The appraiser'I wdttsn conseM Ars epprmnl must also he oMairyfd hefprs Ibn eppmbm report can be cororeyed ty anyone to the public through"&orth;jng.public m.•Ipllorta.Sawn,141e9.or other Malin. "^...._� FHLMC Fom 1129 001953 Page 1 of 2 n _ APPRAISER CERTfFlCATION: The lwpmloer oertHle- And °91069 mal; 1.1 have ronnarched Ing market area and have ouleoMd a minksam of throe recent salon or preaddloo moat slmttir and phaximata to IDO subject properly for consldomllon In the soft_warpedson anetyals and have mode Drryunimento whom approprtnte to reflect the market rnnctlon to tines Boren of 91gnlllcant variation, It a significant Item In a comp- .bbla properly Is sllpntict to,or more favombla than, the subject property. I have made a Imoo tvG InisfOcliu M�nrflto duce he adR[dnd vsWn 01 thr comparable and. It a 3igni iosM Item In a Masporabla properly than the nubjact pmPet. 1 bane mado a poaitNs edjustmont to inereaso the a.'llu3led violin of the campefcble.Union Inoluded ns an edd^_ndum to thin appraisal reporl,the adjuadngnt odd Is dymped In the wontflic of inn nWoMrAf. 2.1 have tdkm Int,consideration the factors that two an Impact An value In Ory development of tho estimate of market too ppmlON report and I value In the appraisal maro true and correctpart. I have not knowingly withhold nrry signiiloent Intoane OT,nom n belinvr, to din best of my knowledge. that sg diaomantn end information In the appro9a1 report 3.1 stood In the rpprejaal report only my,awn personal,mbinaM. and profes3lnnal 8noly3y,.eptnWnn.,and conclualano, which era subject onry to tic contingent and limiting condition npecifind In this farm,. d.I Amin nn nmecnt cr Dm9pnc11`•n interest In the property the 1a tiro subject or this oppmisel mn°rL end I have no present or pmspedNe personal Irtlerost or Mee with rolopot to the perllcipont3 In the tmnaprbcn.I dict net MIN.Other psrtiglly or compietety,my 3nnbs11 end/or tho estlmate of ar d et value In IN, ePpimisal rep^rl cn the Micemlar. m1lglcn. sex. handicap.inmlllal stetus,or notional origin of Affirm the pmapectivn owner,or acclmante of inn nubjert property or of the preaeM ownora or occupants of Inn pmpertleO In the vicinity of the aubjnct pmpnmv. 6.1 have no Promant or eontempmted future interest In the eubjoct pranorty,err nnllhar my nirlrnt or future employment nor my coMerins11on for panormino this apPrxlesl iP aongrignot on tin apprsisrd value of IN bropotiv. 5. I wan not required to repena ptedgfe"Am d valuo or direction In value that favors 0x1 came Of the-tient or in any fa sled Potty,the emoupt of the value es"Arafa,the atlamment of a specifind result.orma occurrence Or a subnequant nvent In order to reaoh'e my comprmotioo end/or employment for performing the appmlnol. I Old net been the aPI)MI' l report on a requested minlmiml valuation.o sprwlflc voluatlon.or the nand to approve a spscific mcreav, loan. T. I po T."ald thin appraisal In conformity with its unt,mi Slnndands of pminaabnel ApnmiaAl Pmcfl^c that wore edopind std pmmuiga eJ by the At",Inal_`Yendards Genrd of the PCPmlnal Foundbro,and that v+ore In It"s 22 Or the effective date of this oppmisal rspod,I acknovdedge that on optimb ao`.nea3ohablo time for exposure In ren noon mnrkef Is 3 WMlllen In IIID deflnftk4 01 market vatun and th[eallmaM I devdepnd le censistentwith the nurext ling tIRM acted In the neighborhood nccdOn Of 11111 iraprotaai report,unless I havo oth0rwlse stafnd in an addendum tp the eppralnnl report. 0.Thn eAent of Ina Ina Oecbon process(gxtnrmr And/or l c';Or)with respect 10 Ne subject of this O0Pni^.21 report Is nctPe on page t of the report and/or In a s<pemla addendum. unles0 othelwile noted In tiro apPralsal mPed or ren e[lechc3 Addendnpn,its npprnlssr hoe In3p0<ted tin a#Or O,et the properties listed as compamble9 In Ihiq eppmisni report.I retro bated ury obeewablc,eppomnt of known odw,"Nin ItIoN In them my el end0bror in,anade the l ble for thane AAlto Or ON NY ofh'I within me immsdlata vldnl�•Of inn Oubjact Property rtY oonahlors In mer enolyafs of the properh•value to the extent that i had mod:rt evIdont,. to nubp0rt them_ i hof,Olen commented about the effect of rho ethers°oonciltione on lin merk51ablllty of the subject prop^-rry. 9.I personally propsmd all cancluslonn and opinion about me feel veY.ile list were act forth In iM opPmif.Ol report.If rtiled on algnlflceat profeeel°n3I dAaintanro from any Indivlaunl(s)In the pertormonc;of the oppmisOl or inn preparation of the appralsol report. I hire named such Indlvldual(e)DM disclosed the snoodIc te3k3 parfnnniod by them In an etlachAd addendum to thin sppr9lsel report. I cerbry that any Individual no retinal Is qualInedA to perform the 1351'^. I we net auihod2nd mryenr to make a chOW to Ory Item In the eppmhol mpo2 lnemtom, nmaadhorized change 13 rondo tt the 7Ppral5d rnport 1 will take no rospon2lblilly for It SUPERVrSORY APPRAISER'S CERTVCATION: It o supe-enry,nporalegr mklnsd the ippmisal mnod.he cr She oertlfion and 3gmca ism•. I dinaclly suPswiso the appmlser No Plapam0 ire eppmldel report,hs10 review"i in..0Pnieml reDOq.ogres w•IIn Ina_,rdemenln and eonolusian of the mg,"to be Preleor,nhound by m<appmlaar z.cedlticalions 3Oom;. and Am laking fullnalblllty for this appraisal report. Add al Prne^t4A n1.df:D"pdt b rns Cueaho(N��1S 11034 (1000-102-1-9.?.1._GcnC=,_ A Sign re.. Dote iigned: of Ccrtlfkation:f;tlY� F.CA q dG0000 ---- Slater ertHlea6on .._—_._.._____- pr Lkenvr w nr Licence d: ------ ----- ----- .__.._ SFetA. State Po_7ozk ---�-- Fspinrtinn Dalen}Certllkntien Or Lkansm 2/09_ Euhwfl Wpooll.t, (]int of and Sdndor Subjort Inspection: Dld Not losperl groper;y alnterlof Pnd 2`AO6,r r Exterior Only F-1 Erna Only r� `"-• Fl¶_ARC Form 1129(70195) Pape 2 of NELSON & POPE ENGINEERS 6 SURVEYOR S VICTOR BERT.RE•JOSEPH P-EPIFANIA,PE• ROBERT G.NELSON JR..P.E. PAUL M.RACZ,RLS.•THOMAS F.LEMBO,RE•GARY S.BECKER,P.E. GREGORY D.PETERMAN,P.L.S.•ERIC J.MLFEBRAN,P.E•THOMAS C.DIXON,PE April 30, 2008 Ms. Jeri Woodhouse Chairperson, Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue Planning Board Comments Nelson &Pope No. 00026 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: The 16 specific Planning Board concerns identified in the Final Scope were addressed in our revised Traffic Impact Study dated November 2007. The following identifies the location of the responses in the updated Traffic Impact Study. r. Response to Itemft Found on Page 20 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#2: Found on Pages 33 and 35 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#3: Found on Pages 7 and 8 and Appendix of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#4: Found on Pages 7 and 8 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#5: The seasonal adjustment factors were updated with the 2007 NYSDOT adjustment factors. The updated factors can be found on Page 8 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to-Item#6: A comparison of the most recent accident data (July 2004 through June 2007) analyzed in the updated Traffic Impact study and the accident data(June 1999 through May 2002) analyzed in the original Traffic Impact Study reveals that, the total number accidents in the study area have reduced significantly (a 66% reduction) over the three years period and the new data shows only 1 rear end accident over a period of three (3) years. It should be noted that the study area is not a high accident location since only 18 accidents occurred in the study area comprising of several intersections and roadway segments over a period of three years. Therefore no accident countermeasures are required in the study area. Response to Item#7: Found on Page 35 of the Traffic Impact Study. , SJ2 WALT WHITMAN ROAD, ME-VI I F, NY' 47-218S (63'D427�i6E5•FAX(S 1)427�•wwvviiel�+xWpe.com Planning Board Re:The Heritage at Cutchogue April 30,2008 ti. Page 2 of 3 Response to Item#8: Found on Page 35 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#9: Found on Pages 19 and 20 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#10: Found on Page 24 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#11: ITE data was not utilized in the updated Traffic Impact- Study. Data obtained from the Founders Village residential development was used to determine trip generation rates for the proposed residential development. The volumes obtained from the highest weekday AM, PM and Saturday rates were utilized. Response to Item#12; Data obtained at the Founders Village development was used to model vehicle trips and routing. The updated trip generation and distribution can be found on pages 24, 25 and 26 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#13: Found on Page 35 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to item#14: Analyses were conducted at the additional intersections requested by the Planning Board. The updated results are found on Pages 16, 17, 18, 34 .,, and 35. �r. Response to Item # 15: (A) The Spur Road emergency access scenario will effectively limit the access to emergency vehicles only. Therefore the intersection of Griffin Street and Schoolhouse Road would become the sole access to the site. As shown in the traffic study it is estimated that 20%of the traffic generated by the proposed development would utilize the Spur Road access. This 20% (9 trips) would then be reallocated to the Griffin Street/Main Road intersection resulting in an additional five southbound right turns and four eastbound left tum during each peak hour, which is not expected to cause significant adverse impact. (B)'The.expected results of the two-way traffic scenario on the Spur Road access is demonstrated in the traffic impacts study as not to have significant adverse impacts. Though this two-way access would allow traffic to "cut-tbrough"-the site from the adjacent neighborhood and potentially from the Main Road on the occasion when downtown Cutchogue experiences traffic congestion this equivalent traffic would be by- passing downtown further reducing traffic in the downtown area. It should be noted that "cut-though" traffic is likely to be performed by local traffic familiar with the area. By- passing downtown traffic by way of Highland Road, Spur Road, Schoolhouse Road, and Depot Road is not likely to,be used by traffic not local to the area (C) The expected results.ofthe one-way exiting traffic scenario on the Spur Road access would effectively increase the eastbound .left turns at the Griffin Street/Main Road intersection by 3-4 vehicles per-peak hour, which is not expected to cause any adverse impacts. This would also remove the ability of eastbound local "cut-tbrough" traffic from both the neighborhood and the Main Road via Highland Road described previously. Planning Board Re:The Heritage at Cutchogue April 30,2008 y_ Page 3 of 3 Response to Item#16: The applicant does not own the property to the east;hence it is not practical to provide access to Depot Lane through the property to the east. We trust that this supplemental information in addition to the updated Traffic Impact Study dated November 2007 will assist with your review of the application. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, ELSON6 POP ce- h . P pecora, P , PT01 7 Attachments cc: Charles Cuddy, Esq. Jeffrey Rimland, Rimland Equities ,N,.. 7:Id0001000267R4FFIC103-37-08 Planning Board Commana.doc OFFICE LOCATION: MELISSA A.SPIRO ��oESO[/jyo Town Hall Annex LAND PRESERVATION COORDINATOR �Q 54375 State Route 25 melissa.spice@town.southold.ny.us (corner of Main Road&Youngs Avenue) N Southold,New York Telephone(631)765-5711 p ' O Facsimile(631)765-6640 i MAILING ADDRESS: OIyCouP.O.Box 11741 Southold,NY 11971-0959 DEPARTMENT OF LAND PRESERVATION TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 8, 2008 Nocro, LTD 140 East Main Street P.O. Box 871 Riverhead, NY 11901 Jeffrey Rimland (Contract Vendee) Managing Member, The Heritage at Cutchogue, LLC 1721-D North Ocean Avenue Medford, NY 11763 RE: SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 . 46 Acre Property in Cutchogue To Landowner and Contract Vendee: Enclosed please find a copy of the Land Preservation Department's application form. Please return the completed form if you would like to explore preservation options for the above-mentioned property. Consent of all parties with ownership rights to this parcel are required to pursue an application. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ij-_" - . 4c,� Melissa Spiro Land Preservation Coordinator enc. II20 gUFFO(�- OFFICE LOCATION: MELISSA A.SP IRO CpGy Town Hall A u cx LAND PRESERVATION COORDINATOR - 54375 State Route 25 meIiss&spiro@town.southold.ny.us (comer of Main Rd&Youngs Ave) N - 'Z Southold,New York Telephone(631)765-5711 Uy Facsimile(631)765-6640 Oyy• O�� MAILING ADDRESS,: X 1179 Southold,,NY11971-0959 DEPARTMENT OF LAND PRESERVATION TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I am the owner of the property described below and I would like to explore preservation of this land under the Town's Land Preservation programs. Name of Owner (Please Print) Names of other owners Mailing Address Phone Number Tax Map No. 1000 -- - -- Acreage offered for preservation Property Location Briefly describe the property (e.g., open space, active farmland, wetland, etc.) and ideas you may have about preservation of your property. You may talk with the Coordinator at 631-765-5711 to discuss questions or to arrange to participate in any of the regular meetings of the Land Preservation Committee. I understand that this application does not commit me, or the Town of Southold, to the sale/purchase of the property or any portion of the rights thereto; rather, it signifies an interest in serious dialog concerning the merit and method of possible preservation of my land. date Please return the completed form to Southold Town Land Preservation Department When you return this completed form, it would be helpful to include an existing survey/sketch and any other readily available information that describes your property.