Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouthwold Manor Planning Study 10/2008© © PLANNING STUDY FOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR SOUTHWOLD MANOR 56655 MAIN ROAD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Prepared for: Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road, Suite 900 Garden City, New York 11530 For Submission to: Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Prepared by: Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. 1757-24 Veterans Memorial Highway Islandia, New York 11749 (631) 435-4800 October 2008 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 4 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 4 Project Layout ............................................................................................................................. 4 Landscaping ................................................................................................................................ 5 Lighting ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Utilities and Drainage ................................................................................................................. 6 Architectural Details ................................................................................................................... 7 LAND USE AND ZONING ......................................................................................................... 1 ! Land Use ................................................................................................................................... 11 Zoning ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Relevant Town of Southold Plans and Land Use Objectives ................................................... 16 COMMUNITY CHARACTER .................................................................................................... 19 Visual Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 19 Buffers and Landscaping .......................................................................................................... 23 Dimensional Characteristics of Existing Development ............................................................ 25 AESTHETICS AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 32 Aesthetic Resources .................................................................................................................. 32 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 35 SEQRA CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE .................................................... 38 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 44 List of Figures Figure I - Site Location Map ......................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 - Excerpt of the Suffolk County Tax Map ....................................................................... 3 Figure 3 - Rendering of Proposed Type A Building ...................................................................... 8 Figure 4 - Rendering of Proposed Type B Building ...................................................................... 9 Figure 5 - Rendering of Southwold Manor .................................................................................. 10 Figure 6 - Excerpt of Town of Southold Zoning Map ................................................................. 13 Figure 7 Analysis Corridor ........................................................................................................ 20 List of Tables Table 1 - Proposed Lot Coverage ................................................................................................... 5 Table 2 - Consistency of the Proposed Development with the Hamlet Business District Bulk Requirements ..... 14 Table 3 - Consistency of the Proposed Development with Buffer Requirements .......................14 List of Appendices APPENDIX A - Development Plans by RMS Engineering, P.C. APPENDIX B - Visual Representations of the Subject Site and Surrounding Area APPENDIX C - Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor APPENDIX D - Property Research Documents APPENDIX E - Photographic Simulations by Michael Berardesco Studios, Inc. APPENDIX F - Stage I Archaeological Survey by the Institute of Long Island Archaeology APPENDIX G - Traffic Impact Assessment by Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C. APPENDIX H - Ecological Survey of the Southold-Amato Site APPENDIX I - Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Analysis APPENDIX J - Service Availability Letter APPENDIX K - Correspondence from the Southold Fire District INTRODUCTION The proposed action consists of a site plan application to allow the construction of a 24-unit planned retirement community ("PRC") on a 6.75±-acre parcel located at 56655 Main Road (NY 25) in the Town of Southold (the "Town"), Suffolk County, New York. The site is bounded on the north by the Long Island Rail Road ("LIRR"), on the south by Main Road and two (2) commercial properties, on the east by residential properties, and on the west by commercial properties. The property is designated as Suffolk County Tax Map Numbers District 1000 - Section 63 - Block 3 - Lot 15 (hereinafter defined as the "subject property" or the "subject site") (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The subject property is currently developed with a single-family residence and several accessory structures (i.e., detached garage and two sheds). The proposed action would retain the existing single-family residence and detached garage, and the residence would be converted into three affordable residential units for moderate-income families. This planning study was conducted to identify the surrounding land uses and to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed action on land use and zoning, community character, and aesthetics and cultural resources. In addition, this study compares the proposed action to other approved developments in the Town in order to determine whether the current application is being disparately treated. Figure 1 - Site Location Map Hagstrom. Suffolk County Atlas, Seventh Edition. 2004. FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Figure 2 - Excerpt of Suffolk County Tax Map Source: County of Suffolk Real Property Tax Service Agency. Town of Southold, District No. 1000. FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed "Southwold Manor" consists of a 24-unit planned retirement community, and three housing units for moderate-income families. This retirement community would include eight townhouse buildings, an in-ground swimming pool, resident gathering structure, and associated parking and walkways. In addition, the existing residence on the subject property would remain and be convened into three affordable housing units for moderate-income families. The existing garage, situated north of the residence, would also be maintained and used for maintenance and storage for the proposed development. The remaining two small, existing, accessory structures would be removed. Existin~ Conditions The southern portion of the subject property is currently developed with a single-family residence, detached garage, and two small accessory structures, as illustrated on the Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan prepared by RMS Engineering Associates, P.C. ("RMS Engineering") in Appendix A and in Photograph No. 1 in Appendix B. The single-family residence is a two-story structure with landscaping (i.e., maintained vegetation), and site access and parking to the east (see Photograph Nos. 2 and 3 in Appendix B). The remainder of the site is undeveloped (see Photograph Nos. 4 and 5 in Appendix B). Project Layout The proposed action includes the construction of 24 residential units, situated in eight buildings strategically placed along a proposed internal private driveway, as illustrated in the proposed Alignment Plan in Appendix A. Each of the eight proposed buildings would house three residential units, each with a front porch, rear deck, and driveway. In addition, two (2) units in each building will have a two-car garage, and one (1) unit will have a one-car garage. The existing residence would house three residential units for moderate-income families and an associated parking area to the north. The proposed amenities, including the swimming pool, amenities building, and "paseo' (garden walkway), would be situated in the northernmost portion of the subject property. The swimming area and resident gathering structure would be connected by a deck. 4 Ingress to and egress from the subject property is proposed by a private driveway off of Main Road, west of the existing residence. The existing driveway, east of the existing house, will be eliminated and replaced with a 25-foot vegetated buffer. This private driveway ("Manor Drive") would continue north through the subject property, providing internal circulation. A stop sign would be located at the intersection of Manor Drive and Main Road assisting in egress from the subject property. The proposed development includes a total of 80 parking spaces (i.e., 70 spaces tbr the residents and 10 guest spaces), including four accessible spaces. The accessible spaces would be designated by signage and marked pavement. The total proposed building area is 69.096 square feel which represents 23.49 percent of the 294,185.78-square-foot subject site. A breakdown of the proposed building areas follows: Table 1 - Proposed Lot Coverage Proposed Project Components Area Total footprint for proposed residential 61,072 square feet buildings Total footprint for proposed affordable housing 2,730 square feet building Total footprint for amenities area 5,294 square feet (i.e., resident gathering structure, decks and pool) Total 69,096 square feet Landscaping As indicated in the proposed Landscape and irrigation Plan in Appendix A, the landscape design will create a visually-appealing property throughout the year. Furthermore, many of the existing trees on the subject property would be retained under the proposed action, and transplanted along the property lines to provide a buffer (approximately 25 feet) between the subject property and adjacent parcels. Landscaping would be provided along the proposed sidewalks. In addition, the two existing mature trees at the entrance to the community would be retained. The trash receptacle area in the northwestern portion of the subject property would be screened on three sides by native evergreen plant species. Lighting The proposed development would include lighting along the internal roadway, as illustrated on the proposed Photometric Plan in Appendix A. The proposed lighting includes five colonial type post lights with a black finish. In addition, coach lights are proposed on the buildings. All proposed lighting would be directed internally on the subject property, and thus, no fugitive light would be expected on neighboring properties. Utilities and Drainage Water is and would continue to be provided to the subject property by the Suffolk County Water Authority ("SCWA'). According to the project engineer, the proposed development would utilize approximately 4,530~ gallons per day ("gpd") of water. The projected sanitary waste generated by the proposed development, approximately 4,118 gpd, as indicated on the proposed Utility Plan in Appendix A, would be handled on-site through septic tanks and sanitary leaching pools.~ Other utilities required for the proposed development, including natural gas, electricity, and telephone service would be provided by National Gri& Long Island Power Authority, and Verizon, respectively. The proposed stormwater management plan includes leaching pools to handle all stormwater on- site. Drainage storage required for the proposed development is approximately 30~599 cubic feet ("cF') based on a two-inch storm event. The proposed drainage design has a capacity of approximately 33,756 cf. exceeding the required storage by 3,157 cf. ~ The Suffolk County Sanitary Code permits 600 gpd of sanitary discharge per acre within the Hydrogeological Zone lV. As the projected sanitary waste (i.e., 4,118 gpd) exceeds the maximum permitted sanitary flow of the Suffolk County Sanita~. Code (i.e., 4,050 gpd). the applicant will transfer/acquire sanitary density credits to accommodate the 68 gpd of additional density in accordance with Suffolk County Department of Health Services requirements. 6 Architectural Details The proposed development includes three building types (A, B~ and C) situated throughout the subject site, that are consistent with the existing architectural style of the existing residential structure and the surrounding area. Four of the proposed eight buildings would be Building Type A, three buildings would be Building Type B, and one building would be Building Type C. The only difference between Building Types B and C relate to interior layout. In addition, Building Type A would have a gable roof line~ whereas Building Types B and C would have a gambrel roofline. All proposed buildings would have naturally-colored exteriors, as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The proposed buildings have been designed to be visually similar to a single-family residential structure, conforming to the surrounding residential structures in the area (see Figure 5). Each of the proposed buildings would include brick chimneys, covered porches, and landscaping. It is noteworthy that the Town of Southold Architectural Review Committee reviewed the proposed design and in the July 13, 2006 meeting minutes indicated that "exterior layout and design of units [were] well-received." 10 ~i'[g~re 5 - Rendering ~f, Southwolft Manor LAND USE AND ZONING Land Use The subject site currently houses a single-family residential structure, situated in the southern portion of the subject site (see Photograph No. I in Appendix B). Site access from Main Road is currently located east of the residential structure (see Photograph Nos. 2 and 3 in Appendix B). Two sheds and a detached garage are situated to the north of the residential structure. The central portion of the subject site is primarily lawn (see Photograph Nos. 4 and 5 in Appendix B), with the northern and western portions of the subject site containing a mixture of vegetation (see Photograph Nos. 6 and 7 in Appendix B). Surrounding land uses are as follows: No~h The LIRR is directly north abutting the subject site (see Photograph No. 7 in Appendix B). Adjacent to and north of the LIRR is undeveloped land. Single-family residential use is the primary use further north. South Directly south of the subject property at its western extent is Main Road, which is the primary east-west thoroughfare in the area. Directly south of the subject property at its eastern extent are two commercially-zoned lots, one of which is improved with a residential home, and the other houses two separate commercial buildings (i.e., flower shop and hair salon). In addition, to the south and southwest of the subject site, across Main Road, are several commercial uses, including a 7-Eleven convenience store, Mullen Motors car dealership, and the Grateful Deli. East Single-family residential uses are present adjacent to and east of the subject site. A few commercial uses are present east of the subject site however, the primary use is single-family residential. 11 West Properties west of the subject site are primarily used for commercial purposes. The parcel directly west of the subject site houses two commercial facilities in residential structures, one utilized as a flower shop and the other as a hair salon. In addition, there is a second parcel which abuts the subject site to the west, and it is utilized as a boat storage facility. Zoning There are several other commercial facilities proximate and to the west of the subject site, including The Natural Choice (i.e., health food store and yoga studio), the Blue Duck Bakery, and an antique shop. The subject site is situated within the Hamlet Business District, illustrated on Figure 6. Pursuant to §280-45 of the Code of the Town of Southold ("Town Code") permitted uses include, but are not limited to, single and multi-family residential, commercial and retail, and municipal uses. Properties to the south, southeast and west of the subject site are also situated within the Hamlet Business District. Properties to the north and east are situated within the Residential R-80 District, which permits single-family residential and some agricultural operations, pursuant to §280-13 of the Town Code. 12 Figure 6 - Excerpt of the Town of Southold Zoning Map R-80 ? ' - R-80 · ,. R-40 AC 'own of Smmthold Scction Z of 4 Jew Zoning Map Adopted v Southold Town Board n November 3, 2004 as ,ocal Law .Nu. 7,3 o1'2(104 R-40 - R-80 * AC The following tables include the bulk requirements of the ttamlet Business District and the proposed action's consistency therewith. Table 2 - Consistency of the Proposed Development with the Hamlet Business District Bulk Requirements Bulk Requirement Permitted PrOposed Code Compliant Minimum Lot Size (with 294.185.78 square Yes community water and 10,000 square feet feet sewer) Minimum Lot Width 60 feet 415.71 feet Yes Minimum Lot Depth 80 feet 932.78 feet Yes Minimum Front Yard 30 feet 30 feet, 22.5 feet* Yes (pre-existing Setback non-conforming) Yes Minimum Rear Yard 30 feet 30 feet Setback Minimum Side Yard 15 feet 25 feet Yes Setback Yes Minimum Living Floor 850 square feet >2,375 square feet Area per Dwelling Unit Maximum Lot Coverage 25 percent 23.49 percent Yes Maximum Building 35 feet / 2.5 stories <19-feet-2-inches / 2 Yes Height/Stories stories Maximum Building Length 125 feet <113 feet Yes Minimum Distance Yes between Principal and 20 feet 52 feet Accessory Buildings 38 -feet-4-inches Yes (Twice the height Minimum Distance of highest building 38-feet-4-inches between Principal = 19-feet-2-inches Buildings x 2 = 38-feet-4- inches) Pre-existing condition of the existing residence. Table 3 - Consistency of the Proposed Development with Buffer Requirements Buffer Description Required Proposed Code Compliant Minimum Width of Buffer (to be located entirely 15 feet Approximately 25 Yes within the subject feet property) 61,085 square feet Yes Acreage Buffer l&000 square feet (1.40 acre) 14 As indicated in Table 2 above, the proposed action complies with all bulk requirements of the Hamlet Business District. Please note the 22.5-foot front yard setback pertains to the existing residential structure, which is being retained. Therefore, it is code compliant as a pre-existing non-conformity. It is noteworthy that, 48 units are permitted on the 294,185.78-square-foot subject site. The proposed action includes only 27 total units with twenty-four (24) market-rate units and three (3) moderate-income units housed in the existing residential structure. In addition, as indicated in the table above~ the Hamlet Business District permits a lot coverage of 25 percent with a maximum height of 35 feet or 2.5 stories. As such, the subject property has the potential for a development of approximately 183.876 square feet. This potential development could house not only residential use, but also commercial, retail, or municipal uses. Many of these uses have the potential to result in greater impacts to surrounding properties (e.g., traffic, noise, site activity, and lighting). The proposed action has been designed to efficiently utilize the area of the subject site while maintaining as much natural vegetation and buffering as practicable, while conforming with the surrounding area. A mixture of zoning classifications surround the subject site, including the following: No~h Properties north of the subject site are primarily zoned low-density residential (i.e., R-80 District and R-40 District), with several parcels situated within the Affordable Housing District. South South of the subject site, properties are situated within the Hamlet Business District along Main Road. Traveling farther south, parcels are situated within low-density residential districts (i.e., R-40 District and R- 80 District). 15 East The primary zoning district east of the subject site is the Residential Low Density A District (R-80), with several properties situated within the Residential Low Density AA District (R-40). However, one lot, which abuts the subject site to the east, is zoned within the Hamlet Business District. West West of the subject site, properties along Main Road are situated within the Hamlet Business District. However, properties situated northwest of the subject site are situated within the Light Industrial District and the Hamlet Density Residential District. As previously indicated, the subject site, given that it is situated within the Hamlet Business District, has the potential to accommodate a much more intensive development than that proposed, with a greater potential for associated impacts. The proposed residential development of this site, with a retirement community and moderate-income units, would serve as an effective transition between the more intensely used commercial properties to the west and the single- family residential properties to the east. Thus, the proposed development is one of the lowest- impact uses feasible on the subject property. Relevant Town of Southold Plans and Land Use Obiectives In addition to conforming to the required zoning regulations, and providing a use that is consistent with the surrounding land uses, the proposed development is also consistent with several stated land use objectives of the Town of Southold. A Housing Needs Assessment was published by the Town of Southold in May 2003 ("Housing Assessment") "in an effort to define the nature and characteristics of the affordable housing problem within the Town of Southotd." 16 The Housing ,4ssessment provided a summary of economic characteristics of the Town of Southold, in which it was indicated that the Town's median household income (i.e., $49,898) is the second lowest in Suffolk County, and significantly lower than the $65,288 average ~br the County as a whole. Approximately 240 families (4.1 percent) and 1,178 individuals (5.8 percent) of the Town's population lived below the poverty level at the time the Housing Assessment was prepared, compared to 3.9 percent and 6.0 percent, respectively, in Suffolk County. Actual sales data for the Town's real estate market was tracked from 2001 to 2002, which concluded that the average sale price for homes in the Town was $390,493. Of the housing stock, over 90 percent is single-family detached housing. The housing demand discussion in the Housing Assessment states that "all of Southold's demographic and socio-economic indicators point to continued population growth." It was estimated that approximately 6,763 new residential units could be constructed in the Town to reach full build-out, however, it was projected that "the housing demand in Southold will out pace the rate of new home construction until saturation is reached." The Housing Assessment concluded that "there is a lack of sufficient, affordable year-round housing.., that the demand for housing in Southold will only increase . . . [and] the housing problem is complicated by the lack of housing diversity." The Housing Assessment indicates that one-third of the Town's population is aged 55 or older, with the elderly (aged 65 and older) representing 23 percent of the total population. Review of statewide 2000 Census data indicated that approximately 29 percent of the elderly population lived alone. The importance of senior housing is further discussed in a letter from the Town of Southold Supervisor Scott A. Russell to the senior residents of the Town, dated February 15, 2007, indicating that "seniors are a vital and integral component of the Town's social fabric . . . Southold is increasingly becoming a retirement destination addressing the needs of more affluent seniors. It is imperative that the Town retains its seniors and its socioeconomic diversity." 17 Furthermore, the Southotd Itamlet Study discusses the need for diverse housing types and affordable housing as part of the Vision section. In addition, the Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy - Draft Generic EIS ("CIS") also places an emphasis on the need for affordable housing in the Town, indicating that "there is a critical need for (and lack of) affordable housing in nearly every geographic location of the Town." As such, it is evident that affordable housing and housing for the senior population are critical issues in the Town. The proposed action would create 27 new residential units for the area, including three affordable housing units for moderate-income families. Furthermore, the proposed development would offer a housing option for ownership without the typical single-family detached structure, thereby increasing housing diversity in the Town. As such, the proposed action would assist in mitigating some of the housing issues reported in the Housing Assessment. In addition, 24 units would serve a population of age 55 and older, a growing population according to the Housing Assessment. Overall, as the proposed development would comply with the bulk requirements of the prevailing Hamlet Business District (with the exception of the existing residence to be retained), and assists in meeting the stated housing goals of the Town, no significant adverse impacts to land use or zoning would result upon implementation of the proposed action. I8 COMMUNITY CHARACTER The established neighborhood character surrounding the subject site was evaluated based primarily on site and area inspections, review of zoning, and review of property records made available by the Town. The analysis focused on various development characteristics of the properties, such as size of buildings, massing, existing buffers, land use and zoning. The study area, for the purpose of the community character assessment, is defined as Main Road, from Tuckers Lane to A Road, a 1.254--mile east-west corridor, illustrated in Figure 7. Visual Analysis The visual analysis of the study area was conducted through field investigation including photographs and documentation of the use and address of each property. An inventory was created of the properties within the corridor, and each property was visually evaluated (e.g., size, setbacks, and massing). As previously indicated, the land use in the surrounding area of the subject site includes primarily residential, retail, and commercial uses. However, the Main Road corridor also includes municipal and religious uses. Traveling east from Tuckers Lane, the corridor begins with primarily residential and religious uses then changes to primarily commercial, retail, and municipal uses, and then back to primarily residential use closer to A Road. 19 There is a mix of old and new structures throughout the Main Road corridor, with a new, single- family residential subdivision being constructed east of the subject site (see Photograph No. 1 in Appendix C), Feather Hill Shopping Center (see Photograph No. 2 in Appendix C), 7-Eleven Convenience Store (see Photograph No. 3 in Appendix C), and Mullen Motors (see Photograph No. 4 in Appendix C) within the same corridor as structures on the National Register of Historic Places (i.e., Joseph Nelson Hallock House [see Photograph No. 5 in Appendix C], the Samuel Landon House [see Photograph No. 6 in Appendix C], the Henry W. Prince Building [see Photograph No. 7 in Appendix C], and the Southold Historic District). The proposed development would add to this existing character of old and new, as the existing residence would be preserved and renovated, while the new construction would be set back from Main Road. Main Road is also characterized by a diversity of building design and architecture developed over generations. As such, properties of different scale, architecture, building heights, building materials, and uses are commonly found proximate to or side-by-side one another. For example: St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church (52150 Main Road), a structure over three stories, is adjacent to a one-story residential structure (52535 Main Road) (see Photograph Nos. 8 and 9 in Appendix C). Ye Old Party Shoppe (53850 Main Road), a red brick commercial building adjoins a retail store with a tan-stucco fagade (53800 Main Road), which adjoins Compliment the Chef (53740 Main Road), a two-story commercial building with what appears to be white aluminum or vinyl siding (see Photograph No. 11 in Appendix C). Henry W. Prince Building, a 2.5-story historic building abuts Main Street Grill (formerly used as) a one-story restaurant to the west (see Photograph No. 15 in Appendix C). It is situated adjacent to a three-story brick building to the east, which is utilized by the Town Building Department and Planning Board, as well as the one-story flat roof, Capital One Bank building (see Photograph Nos. 7, 15 and 19 in Appendix C). 21 The Grateful Deli (55700 Main Road), a two-story building that resembles a residence, with a pitched roofline, located adjacent to County Works Candy & Gift Shoppe (55750 Main Road), a one-story cinder-block structure that has been painted a salmon color (see Photograph No. 21 in Appendix C). Furthermore, one of the most prevalent characteristics along Main Road is that many residential structures and uses are located adjacent to commercial structures/uses. For example: Pagano's Restaurant and Pizza (53315 Main Road), a two-story commercial structure with a brick faqade, abuts a 2.5-story residential use to the west (see Photograph No. 12 in Appendix C). Wayside Market (55575 Main Road), a three-story structure (grocer/delicatessen), is adjacent to a three-story residential home (55465 Main Road) (see Photograph No. 13 in Appendix C). Bridgehampton Bank (54970 Main Road), a one-story commercial structure, is adjacent to a two-story residential use to the west (see Photograph No. 14 in Appendix C). Periwinkle Furniture and Patio Shoppe (56600 Main Road), is directly south, across Main Road, from the subject site, and two additional residential uses (see Photograph No. 16 in Appendix C). East End Insurance Company (54985 Main Road), a 2.5-story commercial use located adjacent to Colonial Village at Southold (55075 Main Road), a cooperative apartment community (see Photograph No. 25 in Appendix C). Southold Fire Department, a municipal use that is a 2.5-story brick structure, abuts Colonial Village at Southold, a cooperative apartment community (residential use) to the north (see Photograph Nos. 25 and 26 in Appendix C). 22 · The Blue Duck Bakery (56275 Main Road), abuts a residential use to the east (see View Point 1-3 [D and E] in Appendix E). For further photographic examples of this diverse character of Main Road, see Photograph Nos. 15 through 24 in Appendix C. The proposed development has been designed to include aesthetically-pleasing architectural details and exterior materials to enhance the subject site. Furthermore, the proposed residential units on the subject site would serve as an effective transition between the single-family residential properties (to the east) and the commercial properties to the west. Buffers and Landscaping An overarching characteristic of the Main Road corridor is the lack of vegetated buffers. Part of the character of the corridor is created by its walkability, with sidewalks running along Main Road, providing pedestrian-access to the commercial facilities, and the ability for residents and visitors to enjoy the mix of uses and architectural details. The majority of the properties have a small front yard setback and minimal buffers, if any, (see Photograph Nos. 24 through 28 in Appendix C). Many of the properties within the corridor lack buffers along the side property lines, as illustrated in the previously-referenced photographs. Accordingly, the majority of the structures within the corridor are visible from Main Road and surrounding properties (see streetscape Photograph Nos. 29 through 33 in Appendix C and View Point 1-3 [C, F, and I] in Appendix E). For example: 23 Photograph No. Use Buffer/Landscape/Screening 2 Feather Hill Shopping Center Minimal landscaping depicted (commercial) along sidewalk 3 7-Eleven (commercial) Minimal to no screening depicted 4 Mullen Motors (commercial) No landscaping visible except for grass area along side walk 7 Henry W. Prince Building No screening, no landscaping (historic) and no buffering depicted 12 Residential home and No transition buffer depicted Pagano's Restaurant and Pizza along the eastern property line (commercial) of the residential structure and the western property line of Pagano's Restaurant & Pizza 13 Residential homeand No landscaping depicted on Wayside Market (commercial) commercial property; an approximately 6.5-foot fence serves as a separation between the commercial and residential use 24 Residential home No buffer visible to the east; minimal landscaping 25 East End Insurance Co. No transition buffer visible (commercial) and Colonial Village at Southold (residential) 26 Southold Fire Department One row of approximately (municipal) four-foot-tall hedges depicted to the west 27 Antique/Haircutters Minimal landscaping and (commercial) screening depicted, except for a few bushes in front of the structure 28 Blue Duck Bakery No landscaping; paved lot is (commercial) depicted; one row of hedges (approximately four feet high) to the west of the building 24 As illustrated in the above chart, many of the properties within the Main Road corridor have minimal screening and buffering and, as such, are quite visible from Main Road, whereas, the proposed development would be significantly screened by the existing mature trees on the subject site and additional landscaping. Moreover, the proposed new development would be setback (at its closest point) 200 feet from Main Road behind the existing house (see Viewpoints 1-1 and 1-2 in Appendix E). Thus, the visual post-development character of the site would be vastly similar to that of the existing site conditions. This design will help to maintain the character of the area and minimize visibility of the new construction. Dimensional Characteristics of Existing Develooment Properties within the study area were further evaluated through review of property records available by the Town through the Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL"). A FOIL request was submitted to the Town for approximately 93 properties,2 thirty property files (approximately 32 percent of those requested) were provided by the Town (see Appendix D). Property records were reviewed for, among other things, zoning classification, lot size, building dimensions (including height), setbacks, and required landscaping and buffers. While the majority of the properties reviewed are situated within the Hamlet Business District, a few are situated within the General Business District, Business District, and Residential Office District. As such, each of the property features were evaluated for conformance based on the corresponding zoning classification. Review of the property files indicate that many of the properties do not conform to the bulk regulations of the corresponding zoning district, including lot size, setbacks (i.e., front, rear, and side yard) (see Appendix D). Below are the results of the evaluation:3 Beninanti Association (SCTM # 1000-61 - 1-5) · Single-side yard required of 10 feet required; while approximately 8.4 feet is provided; · Minimum lot size required in Hamlet Business zoning district is 20,000 square feet. Actual lot size is 18,001 square feet.4 2 A few properties were included in the evaluation that are not situated within the study area previously described due to similarities with the proposed development. 3 Research conducted by Amato & Associates. 4 Minimum requirement for business, office, industrial, or other nonresidential use. 25 Southold Public Library (SCTM it 1000-61-1-4) · As per §280-46 of the Town Code, a 15-foot transition buffer is required along the easterly property line that abuts a residence. However, no buffer is depicted on the approved site plan, except for six to eight trees/bushes. North Fork Real Estate Agency (SCTM it 1000-61-2-7.2) · As per §280-49 of the Town Code, the minimum lot size required in the General Business District is 30,000 square feet, in this case the actual lot size is 8,500 square feet.s East End Insurance Agency (SCTM it 1000-62-1-5) · As per §280-49 of the Town Code, a single-side yard setback of 25 feet and both-side yard setback of 50 feet are required, and only approximately three feet and 18 feet are provided. Saundra J. Perry Physical Therapy Center (SCTM it 1000-63-4-3) · Minimum lot size required in the Hamlet Business District is 20,000 square feet. Actual lot size is 10,498 square feet.6 7-Eleven (SCTM # 1000-62-3-37) · Minimum lot size required in the General Business District is 30,000 square feet. Actual lot size is 17,954 square feet.7 Colonial Comers (SCTM it 1000-62-3-22.2) · As per §280-49 of the Town Code, a rear yard of 35 feet is required; while the northwest building provides a rear yard setback of 14.5 feet. · Single-side yard of 25 feet and both-side yard setback of 50 feet are required; while approximately less than one foot is provided. · Front yard setback requires structures to be set back at least 100 feet from the right- of-way; while variable front yards between one and 24.4 feet are provided. · Minimum landscape area requirement is 35 percent, as per §280-49 of the Town Code, but only 27 percent (5,816 square feet) is provided. Grateful Deli and Caterers (SCTM # 1000-62-3-7) · As per §280-46 of the Town Code, a front yard of 15 feet is required, but only approximately 1.5-foot front yard is provided. · As per §280-46 of the Town Code, a minimum landscape requirement of 25 percent is required, and only 12 percent is provided. · As per {}280-46 of the Town Code, a minimum lot size in the Hamlet Business District is 20,000 square feet. The actual lot size is 4,012 square feet. Minimum requirement for business, office, industrial, or other nonresidential use. Minimum requirement for business, office, industrial, or other nonresidential use. Minimum requirement for business, office, industrial, or other nonresidential use. 26 Polywoda Beverages (SCTM # 1000-62-3-2) ,, As per §280-49 of the Town Code, a front yard set back of at least 100 feet from the right-of-way is required, however, only an approximately five-foot front yard is provided. · Single-side yard of 25 feet and both-side yard setback of 50 feet are required; however, only an approximately 20-foot side yard is provided. · Minimum lot size required in General Business District is 30,000 square feet. Actual lot size is 10,970 square feet.a Southold Automotive (SCTM # 1000-61-4-23) · As per §280-45 of the Town Code, the minimum lot size required in the Hamlet Business District is 20,000 square feet. Actual lot size is 8,276 square feet? · As per §280-45 of the Town Code, the minimum landscape area required is 25 percent, and only 13 pement is provided. · As per {}280-45 of the Town Code, the minimum rear yard of 25 feet is required, and only eight feet is provided. First Universalist Church of Southold (SCTM # 1000-63-6-6. I) · Front yard set back of 50 feet is required; while approximately 21.3 feet is provided. All of the properties listed above are located directly along Main Road, with three of the properties located within 900 feet of the subject site. While many of the properties within the analysis corridor contain older structures that have been renovated to accommodate the existing commercial uses, these non-conforming parcels support the diversity of the neighborhood character, mixing old with new, residential with commercial, and small structures adjacent to large structures. Furthermore, review of the properties indicates that building coverages range from three percent to 32 percent, with associated diversity in structure size, open space, and paved areas. In addition, many of the site plans available for review show minimal required buffering (see Appendix D). The following properties are specifically noteworthy in the evaluation of the proposed development: Minimum requirement for business, office, industrial, or other nonresidential use. Minimum requirement for business, office, industrial, or other nonresidential use. 27 Information~° Sea Tow Building I Site Location · 700 Humlnel Avenue, Southold · Approximately 900 feet west of the subject property Tax Map Section 63, Block 2, Lot 30.1 Zoning Designation Light-Industrial (LI) District Approved Build · New 19,540-square-foot three-story building (Building #i), · New 2,800-square-foot warehouse (Building #3), · New loading dock of 696 square feet, · Renovate an existing 3,519-square-f'oot warehouse (Building//2) and an existing building with 9,105 square feet of warehouse (Building E), · Located on a 1.7693-acre parcel (74,052 square feet) Surrounding Uses North - across and along Hummel Avenue are numerous single-family residences. South - abuts the LIRR and beyond that is Colonial Village at Southold, a 5.7-acre. multi- ttnit residential development. East - the parcel fronts Hummel Avenue, as well as Boisseau Avenue to the east. West - abuts sizable warehouse/storage buildings, including a boat yard storage facility. Lack of Conformity · The application does not conform with various bulk requirements of the Town with Code Code: · Single-side yard setback of 20 feet required (per {}280-63) · Violated because Building #1 only provides ±five-foot side yard · Violated because Building #3 only provides 4-five-foot side yard · Rear yard setback of 70 feet required (per {}280-63) · Violated because Building #1 only provides ±five-foot rear yard · Violated because Building #2 only provides variable rear yard_between 4- nine and · 12 feet · Violated because Building #3 only provides a variable rear yard between 4-five and ±eight feet · Front yard setback of 100 feet required (per {}280-64[A] and [C]).n · Violated because Building//1 only provides ± 60 feet and ±89 feet front yards · Violated because Building #3 only provides a front yard of:~ 94 feetu · Maximum of two stories permitted (per §280~63) · Violated because building appears to be three (3) stories · No single structure shall have more than 60 linear feet of frontage on one (1) street (per {}280-64[C]) · Violated because Building//1 has 220 feet of linear frontage along Hummel Avenue and ± 80 feet of linear frontage on Boisseau Avenue Visual Renderings or NO Simulations Provided Existence of · Four-foot arborvitae hedge depicted along southerly property line Buffer/Landscaping · Ornamental landscape depicted along northerly property line (i.e. Hummel Avenue) Application Site Plan Application fee paid on 6/30/2003 Submission Date Date of Approved Site 4/13/04 Plan Processing Time Approximately 9 months 14 days ~0 Based upon research conducted by Amato & Associates n Section 280-64(A) and (C) Front Yard Setbacks (A) Structures shall be set back at least 100 feet from the right-of-way (C) The setbacks of multiple structures on a parcel may vary., provided that the average setback of the structures meets the setbacks required above and all buildings are at least 75 feet from the right-of-way ~2 According to the Town Board of Appeals. Findings, Deliberations mad Determinations Meeting, dated September 11. 2003 a~d the Notice of Disapproval, dated February 19. 2003 and amended on April 10. 2003 28 Information Blue Duck Bakery Site Location · 56275 Main Road, Southold · Approximately ± 300 feet west of the subject property · Approximately 567 feet east of Boisseau Avenue Tax Map Section 63~ Block 3, Lot 12 Zoning Designation ttamlet Business (}lB) District Approved Build · Conversion of an existing automotive service building into a bakery, aud allotted · 400 square feet for retail space · 1,680 square feet for storage · 1,080 square feet for food processing · Located on an approximately 10,211.40-square-foot parcel Surrounding Uses North - abuts a large boat storage facility South - abuts Main Road East - abuts residential home West - abut The Natural Choice (health food store and yoga studio) Lack of Conformity · The application does not conform with various bulk requirements of the Town with Code Code: · Single-side yard setback of 10 feet and both-side yard setback of 25 feet required (per §280-46) · Violated because only one-foot-seven-inches single side yard was provided · Both-side yard setback of 25 feet required (per {}280-46) · Violated because both-side yard provided was ±13-foot-three-inches to the east and one-foot-seven-inches to the west are provided · Minimum landscape area of 25 percent required (per §280-46) · Violated because only approximately 12.7 percent (1,296 square feet) of landscaped area was provided · 15-foot transition buffer required along easterly property line (per §280-94) · Violated because only one (1), three-foot-wide row of hedges was provided along the easterly property linet3 Visual Renderings or NO Simulations Provided Existence of · No screening or landscaping provided along westerly~ northerlv~ and southerly Buffer/Landscaping property line · Landscaping on the property consists of only the following: · One (l) row of hedges along the easterly property line; approximately three to four feet wide and six feet high · 58-square-foot store-front garden: and · Approximately 24-foot-by-14-foot grassy area.TM Application Application received on 9/14/2007 Submission Date Date of Approved Site plan approved on 12/10/2007 Processing Time Approximately 2 Months 26 days 13 See Photograph No 28 in Appendix C /4 Confined uithin an area. west of the walkway and north of the sidewalk along Main Road 29 Information North Fork Hardware Site Location · 54795 Main Road, Southold · Approximately ± 1,650 feet west of the subject property · Approximately 769 feet west of Boisseau Avenue Tax Map Section 62, Block 1, Lot 3 Zoning Designation Hamlet Business (HB) District Approved Build · Construct new building with the following: · 3,694 square feet of retail space, · 3.000 square feet of basement storage space, · 2.000 square feet of attic storage space, · 392 square feet accessory office, and · 27 parking spaces. · Located on an approximately 0.46-acre (20,002 square feet) parcel Surrounding Uses North -Abuts Colonial Village at Southold, a 5.7-acre multi-unit residential community South - abuts Main Road East - commercial building West - abuts single-family residence Lack of Conformity · The application does not conform with various bulk requirements of the Town with Code Code: · 15-foot transition buffer required along property line that abuts residential property (per §280-94)15 · Violated because only seven-foot transition buffer of dense evergreen screening along the northern property line was provided · Violated because only four-foot transition buffer along the westerly property line, abutting a single family residence, was provided Existence of · Only a seven-foot buffer along northerly property line and four-foot buffer along Buffer/Landscaping westerly property line · Staggered row of 16 plantings depicted east of the building · Five bushes depicted in front ofdumpster- approximately five feet wide · Planning Board required landscaped area between the sidewalk and the building that includes grass, shrubs, and other plants · Approved site plan states landscape percentage of 26.5 percent Visual Renderings or NO Simulations Provided Application Application received on 9/27/2007 Submission Date Revised Application submitted on 1/16/2008 Date of Approved Site Conditional Approval on 2/11/2008 Plan Site plan approved on 4/15/2008 Processing Time Approximately 6 Months 19 days 15Section 280-94 of the Town Code provides that a buffer axea shall be required along all boundaries of a nonresidential lot abutting any lot In a residential district and provides the minimum width of the buffer area for Hamlet Business District be 15 feet 30 Information Mullen Motors Site Location · Southwest and southeast corners of Route 25 (a/k/a"Main Road") and Cottage Place, Southold · Approximately 279 feet southwest of the subject site TaxMap Section 62, Block 3, Lots 11~ 10.3, 24.1 and 22.5 (previously Lots 19, 20, 22.4)16 Zoning Designation · General Business District Approved Build · New parking lot and enhancement to existing parking lot Surrounding Uses North - all lots abut Main Road and are across the street from a single-family residence South - Lots 11,10.3, 22.5 & 24.1 abut single-family residences East - Lot 22.5 abuts several retail structures; Lot 11 abuts Cottage Place; Lot 10.3 abuts Lot 11~ utilized as a customer parking lot; and Lot 24.1 abuts Locust Avenue West - Lot 22.5 abuts Cottage Place; Lot 10.3 abuts a residential home and commercial property; Lot 11 abuts Lot 10.3, which is also utilized as a customer parking lot; and a portion of Lot 24.1 abuts a residential property, as well as Mullen Motors parking lot. Lack of Conformity · 25-foot transition buffer required along property line that abuts with Code residential lot (per §280-94) · Violated because only ±162 feet (49 percent) of the required 328.46 feet southerly property line provided the adequate 25-foot transition buffering · The remaining 165 feet provided only an approximately four-foot wide transition buffer Visual Renderings or NO Simulations Provided Existence of · No landscaping depicted along northerly property lines of Lot 10.3, 11, and Buffer/Landscaping 22.5 (see Photograph Nos. 4 and 32 in Appendix C) · Inadequate transition buffer of 165 linear feet of arborvitae along portion of the southerly property line · Plantings depicted along southerly property line of Lot 24.1~7 Application Application for new parking lot and revision of approved site plan was received Submission Date on 12/27/2000 Date of Approved Site Site Plan approved on 3/12/2001 Plan Processing Time Approximately 2 Months 22 days Based on the foregoing, it is evident that development in the study area is diverse, and much of the existing development and recently approved (within the last five years) developments do not conform to the Town's zoning code, and provide minimal to no buffers or screening. 16 It appears that Lots 22 5 and 24 I abut one another, bul it is uncertain if they share properP: owners ~? Twenty-four (24) eastern white pine (approx seven feet tall): 20 Coral Beaut), Cotoneaster (approx two gallonL and 13 Korean Little Leaf Boxwood (approx 2 gallon) 31 AESTHETICS AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Aesthetic Resources In order to illustrate the post-development condition of the subject site and provide an accurate analysis of the potential aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed action, photographic simulations were prepared by Michael Berardesco Studios, Inc. (see Appendix E). The creation of the photographic simulations involves placing markers throughout the subject site. in this case balloons were placed at the location of the comers of two of the proposed buildings at a measured height (i.e., the proposed height of 18-feet-5-inches) using a site survey. Photographs taken of the subject site, and a three-dimensional model of the proposed development, a rendered image, are merged in a digital photographic editing program. The three-dimensional model is scaled in actual dimensions and includes the temporary markers. The reference markers are removed from the simulation and proposed landscaping and other site details from the proposed plans are incorporated, thus, providing photographic images of existing and post-development conditions. The simulations depict post-development site conditions from several viewpoints along the south side of Main Road, including one from directly in front of the proposed access drive, and several from both east and west of the subject site. A description of each photographic simulation is provided below. View Point 1, directly in front of proposed access drive: The existing conditions photograph (View Point 1-1 in Appendix E) illustrates the existing lawn and landscaped area west of the existing residential structure. The two mature trees existing along the sidewalk are prominent features from this view point. A small portion of the existing residence is also visible. 32 The photographic simulation (View Point 1-2 in Appendix E) illustrates that the two mature trees would remain prominent features upon implementation of the proposed action. A majority of the existing lawn area in the southwestern portion of the subject site would be replaced with the proposed access drive and sidewalks, however, landscaping is provided adjacent to the proposed paved areas. A portion of the southernmost proposed building is visible I¥om this viewpoint, which is surrounded by landscaping. The western portion of the existing structure would remain visible from this view point under the proposed action. To illustrate the streetscape upon implementation of the proposed action, simulations were created i~¥om this view point and to the right and left~ which include properties to the east and west of the subject site on both the north and south side of Main Road (View Point 1-3 [A through I] in Appendix E). The simulation illustrates that minimal visual changes would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed action. The proposed development has been designed to maintain the existing character of the property. New development associated with the proposed action would be setback a minimum of 200 feet (from the closest building) f¥om Main Road and buffered by existing vegetation, new plantings, the existing house, and two existing commercial buildings on adjoining properties, thereby minimizing the visual impacts. As this viewpoint illustrates, after development, the prominent features of the streetscape would remain as they currently exist. Accordingly, no significant adverse visual impacts would result. View Point 2, approximately 450 feet to the west of the subject site, facing east: In the photograph of the existing conditions (View Point 2-1 in Appendix E), the two mature trees along Main Road are the only visible components of the subject site from this vantage point. This photograph illustrates that conunercial uses to the west of the subject site are much more visible to travelers along Main Road than any aspects of the subject site. The photographic simulation of the post-construction conditions (View Point 2-2 in Appendix E) illustrates that the proposed development would result in an imperceptible change in the visual condition from this view point, as the existing vegetation would be retained and the proposed buildings are set behind existing structures. As such, no significant visual impact would result. 33 View Point 3, approximately 250 feet to the west of the subject site, facing east: The existing conditions (View Point 3-1 in Appendix E) from this view point are primarily of the mature trees along Main Road and the western side of the existing residence. The structures existing on properties to the west of the subject site are also visible from this view point. The photographic simulation of the post-construction conditions from this view point. (View Point 3-2 in Appendix E) demonstrates that the post-development visual condition would be similar to that of the existing condition. Accordingly, the proposed development would result in an imperceptible change in the visual condition f¥om this view point, except a minimal segment of the proposed access drive would be visible. However, overall, the predominant features of the subject site would remain as they currently exist, with the mature trees along Main Street and the western side of the existing residence being the prominent features. Thus, no significant visual impacts would result. View Point 4, approximately 375 feet to the east of the subject site, facing west: From this view point, the subject site (View Point 4-1 in Appendix E) is barely visible. The two mature trees along Main Road are visible, but are visually mixed within several other trees lining Main Road, making it difficult to identify the subject site. The photographic simulation of the proposed development (View Point 4-2 in Appendix E) illustrates that there would be minimal visual impact after construction. A small portion of the proposed access drive is visible, but the predominant features remain the same as the existing, with no significant visual impacts. Thus, the proposed development would result in an imperceptible change in the visual condition from this view point, except for a minimal portion of the access drive. View Point 5, approximately 275 feet to the east of the subject site, facing west: The existing conditions photograph (View Point 5-1 in Appendix E) illustrates that the mature trees adjacent to Main Road are the primary features of the subject site that are visible from this view point. Portions of the existing residence are also visible through mature vegetation. As the mature vegetation adjacent to Main Road would remain under the proposed action, the post-construction conditions would be visually similar to the existing conditions, as indicated in the photographic simulation (View Point 5-2 in Appendix E). 34 A small portion of the proposed access drive is the only component of the proposed development that would be visible from this view point. Thus, the proposed development would result in an imperceptible change in the visual condition from this view point, except for a minimal portion of the access drive. Based on the tbregoing, there would be very limited views of the proposed development from Main Road. Moreover, to travelers along Main Road, the proposed development would be, for the most part, visually imperceptible. The existing conditions photographs and the photographic simulations illustrate that there are treed buffers that help to obscure the views of development on the subject site. Furthermore, the majority of the southem portion of the subject site, which is the most visible to viewers along Main Road, would be maintained as it currently exists (i.e., existing landscaping and existing structures). Accordingly, no significant visual impacts would result from implementation of the proposed action. Moreover, the site has been designed to preserve the existing character of the area. Cultural Resources The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation's ("OPRI-IP") on-line resources identify the subject site as being situated within an archaeologically-sensitive area. As such, a Stage 1 Archaeological Survey ("Stage 1") of the subject site was conducted by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology ("ILIA") in August 2008. The Stage 1, which can be found in Appendix F of this document, included archival research and an archaeological survey with subsurface testing to determine if the proposed development would "impact archaeological remains of prehistoric and/or historic age." The Stage I indicates 11 known prehistoric sites and one historic period archaeological site within one mile of the subject site. Furthermore, the residential structure situated in the southern portion of the subject site, the Albertson House~ has been "determined to be individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places" by OPRMP (# 94PR2574) based on review by the Society of the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities ("SPLIA'). 35 Review of historic maps indicates said residential structure pre-dates 1858 and was occupied by the Albertson family in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. While no development is proposed adjacent to the Albertson House, which would be incorporated into the proposed development, the Stage l concludes that the subject site has a "high sensitivity lbr late eighteenth through early twentieth century Euro-American archaeological sites." However, some portions of the subject site have been disturbed (i.e., cutting, filling, grading, and other earth-moving activities), which have very low potential for the presence of intact archaeological deposits. Surface reconnaissance and subsurface testing were included in the Stage 1 to search for archaeological remains on the subject site. Only recent debris (i.e., less than ten years old) was encountered during the surface survey. The subsurface testing included 114 shovel test pits ("STP"), each with a diameter of approximately 16 inches, dug to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the ground surface. The STPs were excavated on a 49-foot grid, with close intervals (i.e_ 25 tbot) north and west of the Albertson House, throughout the subject site. The Stage l indicates that "no prehistoric artifacts, and no prehistoric or historic period features were encountered during shovel testing. One historic period archaeological site, the Albertson House site, was identified during the survey." Material recovered during the STPs at the Albertson House site includes, but is not limited to, "household refuse.., architectural debris.., personal items." As such, the Stage 1 concludes that "the research potential of the Albertson House site appears to be good and additional archaeological investigation is recommended." As the archaeological site associated with the Albertson House appears to have research potential, ILIA recommended that a Stage 2 archaeological evaluation ("Stage 2") be conducted. The ILIA performed the recommended Stage 2 in October 2008, which will be submitted under a separate cover. 36 A total of 153 STPs and seven one-by-one-meter square units were excavated during the two stages of field investigation (Stage 1 and 2). A moderate quantity of nineteenth and twentieth century artifacts were recovered near the house and elsewhere on the subject property, including typical yard refuse, apparently resulting from the dumping of household and construction debris. No features (i.e_ outbuildings, privies, etc.) were encountered. Testing in the rear of the Albertson House documented twentieth century ground disturbance to depths of 40 to I00 centimeters below the present ground surface. ILIA concluded that the archaeological deposits do not seem to have the potential to provide additional information on past lifeways. The subject property lacks integrity and it is unlikely that any unmapped buried outbuildings remain. Therefore, no further archaeological investigations are recommended.~s Therefore, the proposed development would not adversely impact aesthetic or cultural resources. 18 The standing Alber~son House was not evaluated as par~ of the archaeological investigations. 37 SEQRA CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE The criteria for determining the significance of an action is provided in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c)(1) of the implementing regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). An evaluation of the criteria follows. a substantial adverse change in existing air quality, ground or surface water quality or quantity, traffic or noise levels: a substantial increase in solid waste production; a substantial increase in potential for erosion, flooding, leaching or drainage problems: As the proposed action consists of residential units that will be heated by electricity and/or gas, there will be no significant stationary air emission sources created. A Traffic Impact Assessment ("T1A") was performed by Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C. to evaluate the potential impacts of anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development. The T/A indicated that the proposed development "w/ll have minimal to imperceptible impact on the safety and operation of the roadway facilities" (see Appendix G). With respect to ground and surface water, there are no surface water bodies or wetlands situated on or proximate to the subject site, thus the proposed action will not impact same. With respect to groundwater, the proposed action is expected to generate 4,118 gpd of sanitary waste, as indicated on the proposed Utility Plan in Appendix A, which will be handled via on-site septic tanks and sanitary leaching pools. The applicant will acquire sanitary density credits, and will secure the required approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services ("SCDHS") approval. Finally, stormwater will be collected and recharged via on-site leaching pools, in accordance with prevailing regulations. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that there will be no significant adverse impacts to surface or groundwater. 38 With respect to noise, the proposed residential development would not be a significant noise generator. The proposed amenities area, including the swimming pool and resident gathering structure, would be centrally situated in the northernmost portion of the subject site, farthest away from existing residential uses and Main Road. Furthermore, the subject site is located in the Hamlet Business District, which permits a variety of uses including, but not limited to, retail, commercial, and municipal, all of which would potentially result in greater activity, traffic, and noise than the proposed action. Moreover, the applicant would be required to comply with the noise ordinance of the Town of Southold. Accordingly, no significant adverse noise impacts would be expected. With respect to solid waste generation, while the proposed action would increase the generation of solid waste at the subject site, the solid waste would be removed by a private carter. Thus, the proposed action is not expected to result in significant adverse solid waste impacts. With respect to the potential for erosion, flooding, leaching or drainage problems, the subject site is not situated within a 100-year floodplain. Moreover, the topography of the site is relatively flat. As indicated above, stormwater will be collected and recharged in accordance with prevailing regulations, as indicated on the proposed Grading and Drainage Plan in Appendix A. During construction, proper erosion and sedimentation measures will be employed, as needed, to control the erosion potential (e.g., hay bales, snow fences). Thus, the proposed action will not result in a substantial increase in the potential for erosion, flooding, leaching, or drainage problems. 39 the removal or deslruction qf large quanlities of vegetation or .[buna: substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildl!fe species: impacts on a sign![icant habitat area: substantial adverse impacts on a threatened or endangered ~pecies qf animal or plant, or the habitat of such a .~pecies: or other signi[icant adverse impacts to natural resources: Currently, the 6.75±-acre subject site is occupied with one residential structure, a detached garage, and two sheds. These structures and paved surfaces account for approximately 0.14 acre of the subject site, with 1.14 acres of landscaped area. The remainder of the subject site is composed of meadow/brushland. As previously indicated, a major component of the proposed landscape design is the preservation of as many existing cedar trees as practicable, which would be transplanted along the perimeters of the subject site. In addition, a site inspection was conducted (see Appendix H), and no significant habitat area and no plant or animal species classified as rare, threatened, endangered, or of special concern were identified. Furthermore, review of surrounding properties, as previously indicated, contain minimal vegetation. Thus, the area is not characterized by significant stands of woodlands. The subject site is not situated within a Critical Environmental Area ("CEA") or Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers System Corridor, nor is it situated proximate to any wetland or water bodies. Accordingly, no significant adverse ecological impacts are anticipated. (iii) the impairment qf the environmental characteristics q['a Critical Environmental Area as designated pursuant to subdivision 617.14(g) of this Part; As the subject site is not situated within a CEA, implementation of the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on same. 40 (iv) the creation qf a material coqflict with a community's current plans or goals as qfficially approved or adopted: As previously indicated in the discussion of relevant objectives of the Town of Southold, the proposed action meets several of said objectives, including providing a diverse housing option, affordable housing, and housing for seniors. Furthermore, the proposed new development conforms to all the prevailing bulk regulations of the Hamlet Business District. In addition, the applicant has submitted documentation of the proposed action's consistency with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP') (see Appendix I). Accordingly, implementation of the proposed action will not create a material conflict with current plans, goals, or existing zoning. the impairment qf the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood t:haracler: As indicated earlier in this study and documented in Appendices B through F, implementation of the proposed action will not impair the quality or character of important historical, archaeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources or existing neighborhood character. (vi) a major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy: While the proposed residential development will use electricity and/or gas, the energy use will not represent a significant increase in the region. Moreover, no expansion of LIPA/National Grid facilities would be required to serve the proposed residential units. Furthermore, availability of service was provided by LIPA/National Grid (see Appendix J). 41 (vii) the creation qf a hazard to human health: The proposed residential units will be constructed in accordance with all prevailing building and fire codes. Activities associated with the residential use of the subject site will not create a hazard to human health. Furthermore, a tim hydrant is proposed by the applicant in response to consultations with the Southold Fire District (see Appendix K). In addition, the proposed Manor Drive has been designed to allow for emergency vehicles to move through the proposed community. Based on the foregoing, the proposed project will not create a hazard to human health. (viii) a substantial change in the use, or intensity c~f use, of land including agricultural, open *pace or recreational resources, or in its capacity to support existing uses: The subject site is privately owned, developed with a residential use, and does not support agricultural or recreational resources. Moreover, it is not designated as an "open space" parcel. Furthermore, all of the proposed new development is consistent with the prevailing bulk regulations of the Hamlet Business District (see Table 2 of this study). It is also noteworthy that, as described earlier, there are a number of uses permitted in the Hamlet Business District that would foster greater activity, traffic, and intensity of use. Accordingly, while the proposed action will increase the development on the subject site, the type and intensity of use proposed is consistent with the requirements of the Hamlet Business District, in which it is situated. the encouraging or attracting of a large number of people to a place or places for more than a.f&w days, compared to the number oJ'people who would come to such place absent the action: The proposed action consists of residential use including 27 ownership units. As such, the proposed development would not attract members of the public or a significant number of employees, especially when compared to other permitted uses in the Hamlet Business District, as previously discussed. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed action will not encourage or attract a large number of people to the subject site. 42 (x) the creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one qf the above consequences: The proposed action will not create a material demand for such other actions that would result in one of the above consequences. (xO changes in two or more elements ~f the em,ironment, no one of which has a significant impact on the environment, but when considered together result in a substantial adverse impact on the environment: or Implementation of the proposed action will not cause changes in two or more elements of the environment, no one of which has a significant impact, but when considered together would cause a substantial adverse impact. (xii) two or more related actions undertaken..funded or approved by an agency, none of which has or would have a significant impact on the environment, but when considered cumulatively would meet one or more of the criteria in this subdivision. As only one action is proposed, this criterion is not relevant. Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that implementation of the proposed action will not result in significant adverse impacts to the environment. 43 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analysis presented herein, there would be limited views of the proposed development t¥om Main Road. Moreover, to travelers along Main Road, the proposed development would be, for the most part, visually imperceptible. The existing conditions photographs and the photographic simulations illustrate that there are treed buffers and existing structures that help to obscure the views of development on the subject site. Furthermore, the majority of the southern portion of the subject site, which is the most visible to viewers along Main Road, would be maintained as it currently exists. Accordingly, no significant visual impacts would result from implementation of the proposed action. Moreover, the site has been designed to preserve the existing character of the area. The proposed development would adhere to the bulk regulations of the existing zoning district and enhances the existing community character, serving as an effective transition between primarily commercial uses to the west and single-family residential uses to the east of the subject site. Furthermore, the proposed development has been designed with aesthetically-pleasing residential buildings that are in character with the existing residence to be retained. The review of the proposed development indicates that it (i) complies with all zoning code and bulk requirements; (ii) provides a 25-foot vegetated buffer, which far exceeds the requirements of the Town Code; (iii) will have, for the most part, a visually imperceptible impact; and (iv) meets the stated goals of the Town to provide senior and affordable housing in the Hamlet center. However, the review of other approved developments and the existing character of the area indicates that (i) numerous developments were approved that do not comply with the applicable Town zoning ordinances and bulk requirements; and (ii) the Main Road corridor and other developments, as indicated herein, lack for the most part, vegetated buffers. 44 Furthermore. the proposed action would create 27 new residential units for the area, including three affordable housing units lbr moderate-income lhmilies. In addition, the proposed development would offer a housing option for ownership other than a typical single-family detached structure, thereby increasing housing diversity in the Town. As such, the proposed action would assist in addressing some of the housing issues reported in the Housing Assessment. Finally, review of the criteria set forth in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c) indicates that the proposed action would not result in significant adverse impacts to the environment. FSJOBS2005\EED-05-236 56655 Main Road, Southold~Finalized Documentation\Southold Planning_ Report - FINAL 10-.0-08 doc 45 Appendix A FREUDENTHAL & ELKOW1TZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FOR ~ I ~ [ ................ LE~ SITUATED IN O- "' lmm SOUTHWOLD MANOR COVER · · RMS ENGINEERING ,,-.~- ~l~ Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD ...... ~"~ ......... 355 New York Avenue. Huntington. New York 11743 DATE: 0,,,= ~,o~ SP 1 SITE_ NFORMATION AND BULK TABLE BUILDING TYPE "A' (GABLE ROOFLINE) LOT AREA AND COVERAGE I1· SOUTHWOLD MANOR SITE INFORMATION, BULK TABLE & YIELD PLAN · · RMS ENGINEERING ~.T~., lmm Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD ..~Dc~y.o^o.~,~I '"~"*~"°'~ 355 New York Avenue, Huntington, New York 11743 Gfea; J. $chla¥one, PE DATE~ DATE- JOB Ne: 0~1'~') , .: :::~ -~ ~ ~: ~ : * : ........:: .:. :. _ -~--... ANALYSIS PLAN (ERSAP) . m RMS ENGINEERING Ill Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD ~OI~U AV~NU~ SOUTHWOLD MANOR ALIGNMENT PLAN RMS ENGINEERING Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD DRAINA~IE CALCULATION8 BOiSS~U A~NU[ ~l SOUTHWOLD MANOR GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN i i RMS ENGINEERING mil Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD SANITARY CALCULATION8 ~- - ~ffiffi SOUTHWOLO MANOR UTILITY PLAN B RMS ENGINEERING .,~.~. Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD ., ~ ~..o~. ~ ~, ,.,,.~.o,o 355 New York Avenue, Huntington, New York 11743 e~egg ~. sc~i.~o.e. P~ O~T~ ~nT~ ~O..o.: ~_~ SOUTHWOLD MANOR LANDSCAPE PLAN RMS ENGINEERING Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD IRRIGATION SCHEDULE  ~"IGATiON I ~ffiffi SOUTHWOLD MANOR IRRIGATION PLAN a RMS ENGINEERING Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD ..... ., o~.o~,..,~., 355 New York Avenue, Huntington, New York 11743 RiChlrd a. Ignatow, RLA DATE: DAT~ jOB 631--271--0576 Fax 631-271-0592 www.rmsengineering.com .~ s~.~. u....~. 7s7 SCTM: DISTRICT 1000, SECTION 63, BLOCK 3, LOT 15 07.10,08 07.20.08 2006-195 Iffiffi SOUTHWOLD MANOR STORMWATER POLLUTION · · RMS ENGINEERING ~.~.. PREVENT,O.,~ 355 New York Avenue, Huntington, New York 11743 erego J. 8cfliivone. PE OA~E: DATE~ JOB No~ ~=~ Phone 631-271-0576 Fax 631-271-0592 www,rmsengineering.com ,Y s~=,, uc~ ~. 7~e7 SCTM: DISTRICT 1000, SECTION 63, BLOCK 3. LOT 15 o7.1o.o8 o7.20.o8 2006-195 MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC SCHEMES NOTES: ECHO{ MPT NOTES: ~ffiffi SOUTHWOLD MANOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS a B RMS ENGINEERING Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC SCHEMES FOR TWO-LANE, TWO WAY ROADWAY SHO~T DURATION LAN[ CLOSURE .:,.=_ ... .. ~== =~=~/~--~ ~ - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,- PARKING AREA STRIPING AND ALIGNM~T DETAIL III SOUTHWOLD MANOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS I I RMS ENGINEERING III Robinson, Muller I Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD ................................ 355 New York Avenue, Huntington, New York 11743 6~,;g J. 'Ch', ..... PE DATE ...... ~* "* SP-11 ~l~ SOUTHWOLD MANOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS m m RMS ENGINEERING lmm Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD ..~.o~.~, EROSION CONTROL AND LANO$CAPING NOTES lib SOUTHWOLD MANOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS i B RMS ENGINEERING Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD WATER DISTRIBUTION 9Y~TEM NOTE8 ' ,' ............... Dm-201 NOTE8 .'~ - '1 ..... r ~~ /~w, ..... ' ~ ~/' -- ~ ~ I ~t~, 4' ~Tm VAULT DETAIk BBffi SOUTHWOLD MANOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS · i RMS ENGINEERING mmm Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD · , "~ ~iI ~o~'~o'so'w ~ ~ffi~ SOUTHWOLD MANOR PHOTOMETRIC PLAN · i RMS ENGINEERING mmm Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC SOUTHOLD .............................. 355 New York Avenue, Huntington, New York 11743 Appendix B FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Visual Representations of the Subject Site Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 1: Single-family residence on the subject site, facing north from Main Road. Photograph No. 2: Single-family residence and access to the subject site~ facing northwest from Main Road. Visual Representations of the Subject Site Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 3: Access and parking area, facing south from northern eot site. Photograph No. 4: Undeveloped area in central portion of the subject site, facing west from eastern property line. -2- Visual Representations of the Subject Site Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 5: Central portion of the subject site, facing north from north end of access drive. Photo ragL~p~ No. 6: Northern portion of the subject site, facing west from northern property line. Visual Representations of the Subject Site Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 7: Northern property line of the subject site, facing east. Appendix C FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Sou~hwold Manor Photograph No. 1: New residential subdivision southeast of the subject site Photograph No. 2: Feather Hill Shopping Center, west of the subject site on Main Road, facing northeast. Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 3: Commercial uses~ 56480 Main Road, opposite the ect site, southwest. Photogra~ph No. 4: Commercinl use, 55980 Main Road, facing southwest. -2- Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 5: Historic property (Joseph Nelson Hallock House), south side of Main Road, west of the sub south. Photograph No. 6: Historic property (Samuel Landon House), south side of Main Road, west of the subject site, facing south. -3- Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 7: Historic property (Henry W. Prince Building), currently housing Historical Society~ north side of Main Road, west of the iect site. Photo~h No. 8: St. Patrick Church, west of the subject site on Main Road, facing northeast. Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 9: Residential use, 52535 Main Road, adjacent and east of St. Patrick Church. north. Photograph No. 10: Main Road corridor, west of Mechanic Street, facing south. -$- Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photo ragL~p~h No. 11: Commercial use~ south side of Main Road~ west of the sub southwest. Photograph No. 12: Residential use~ 53315 Main Road, adjacent and west of Feather Hill Shopping Center, facing northeast. -6- Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 13: northwest. Main Road corridor~ from Hobart Road, facing Photograph No. 14: Commercial and residential use, 54970 Main Road, facing south. Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 15: Strip of commercial use, 54195 Main Road, facing northeast. Photogr~h No. 16: Commercial use, south side of Main Road, opposite the subject site, facing south. -8- Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 17: Strip of commercial use, 54180 Main Road, facing southwest. Photograph No. 18: Commercial and municipal use along north side of Main Road, west of the subject site~ facing northwest. Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 19: Commercial use, north side of Main Road, west of the sub ect site~ northeast. Photograph No. 20: Commercial use along south side of Main Road, across from the subject site, facing southwest. Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 21: Commercial uses along the south side of Main Road, west ~ southwest. Photograph No. 22: Commercial uses at Main Road and Young Avenue intersection, west of the subject site, faelng west. Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 23: Commercial, residential, and religious uses along the south side of Main Road~ west of the sub [eot site, Photo rg~ph No. 24: Residential use, 57685 Main Road, facing north. -12- Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 25: Commercial and residential use, 54985 and 55675 Main Road. north. PhotogLaph No. 26: Municipal fire department, 55135 Main Road, facing northeast. -13- Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor northeast. Photograph No. 28: Commercial use, 56215 Main Road, west of the subject site, facing north. Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph No. 29: east. Main Road corridor~ from Wells Avenue, facing Photograph No. 30: Main Road corridor, from Library, facing east. -15- Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed $outhwold Manor Photograph No. 31: Main Road corridor, from Locust Avenue, facing west. Sub the north side of Main Road. Photograph No. 32: Main Road corridor, from 55980 Main Road, facing east. -16- Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor Proposed Southwold Manor Photograph 33: Main Road corridor9 facing west towards Young Avenue. Appendix D FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. · Resolution Page 1 of 2 TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQRA RESOLUTION June 3, 2003 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy ACCEPTANCE OF DRAFT GElS WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold (the "Board") has assumed lead agency status in review of the above-referenced action and for the purpose of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Action (SEQRA), as codified in 6 NYCRR Part 617, and WHEREAS, the Board found that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) would be necessary, and issued the appropriate determination (via a Positive Declaration) to require such document for the proposed action, considering that the recommendations may result in potential impacts which may include cumulative and/or generic impacts, and WHEREAS, the Board is familiar with the scoping process as outlined in SEQRA Part 617.8 (Scoping), and WHEREAS, the Board held a public scoping meeting on January 29, 2003 at the Southold Town Hall meeting room, and a period of 10-days were provided following the public scoping meeting to allow for submission of written comments, and WHEREAS, the Board accepted the Final Scope as complete on April 8, 2003, and WHEREAS, the Draft GEIS has been prepared in conformance with the Final Scope, and WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the document and determined that it conforms to the required contents as stated in the Final Scope and is therefore adequate for public review and comment. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby accepts the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement after due deliberation and review of the prepared documentation, for the purpose of public and interested agency/party review, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby directs the Town Clerk to file a Notice of Complete Draft EIS and Notice of Public Hearing in accordance with the Notice and Filing Requirements of SEQRA and circulate the Draft EIS to public, interested agencies and parties of interest (noted below), in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.12, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby sets a hearing date for the Draft GEIS for a special Town Board Public Hearing on June 19, 2003 at the Southold Town Hall hearing room http://southoldtown.north fork.netJDGEIS~DGEIS_Res.htm 7/2/03 Resolution Page 2 of 2 (53095 Main Road, Southold), at which time the heating will start with a public information session on the proposed action and DGEIS document from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m., followed by an o opportunity for the public to comment on the DGEIS beginning at 7:30 p.m. The comment period will remain open and the heating will be continued on June 23, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. and June 24, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.. At least I0 days will be provided for written comment after the close of the public hearing, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby directs the Town Clerk to file Notice of the Public Hearing in at least one (1) local newspaper, at least fifteen (14) days prior to the Public Heating. Town ofSouthold Supervisor's Office Town Clerk of the Town of Southold Town of Southold Planning Board Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Town Trustees Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner, Albany NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Regional Office at Stony Brook NYS Dept. of Transportation NYS Dept. of State US Army Corps of Engineers Inc. Village of Greenport Town of Riverhead Town of Southampton Town of Shelter Island Parties of Interest Officially on Record with the Town Clerk (if applicable) Return to Top DGEIS Main Pa e Web Site Hosted courtesy of North Fork Internet Web Site Designed and Maintained by the Southold Town Data Processing Dqxartment Tais is the official website of the Southold Town Hall http://southoldtown.north fork.net/DGEIS/DGEIS.Res.htm 7/9/fv~ Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION This document is a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) prepared for and accepted by the Southold Town Board as lead agency, to analyze the potential impacts of a set of amendments to the Southold Town Code and various Town regulations, procedures, policies, planning and management initiatives being considered by the Town Board (the "proposed action"). Specifically, the proposed action considers implementation of relevant and important planning and program tools and mechanisms described and recommended in the numerous planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. These studies, plans and recommendations have been reviewed in terms of current needs and Town 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. It should be emphasized that the proposed action involves primarily legislative changes, with no specific physical changes proposed. This DGEIS describes and discusses the existing zoning regulations which govern land use and development within the Town, the proposed recommendations and the potential impacts of their implementation (including the impacts of development conducted in conformance with them). This document also discusses the features of these recommendations that would tend to mitigate those impacts and includes other pertinent sections required in a DGEIS. This document is part of the official record under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process outlined in Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Part 617, with statutory authority and enabling legislation under Article 8 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). It was determined that the Town's proposed action would be appropriate for the preparation of a GEIS. For such a document, SEQRA Part 617.10 (a) states the following: (a) Generic EIS's may be broader, and more general than site or project specific EIS's and should discuss the logic and rationale for the choices advanced. They may also include an assessment of specific impacts if such details are available. They may be based on conceptual information in some cases. They may identify the important elements of the natural resource base as well as the existing and projected cultural features, patterns and character. They may discuss in general terms the constraints and consequences of any narrowing of future options. They may present and analyze in general terms a few hypothetical scenarios that could and are likely to occur. A generic ElS may be used to assess the environmental impacts of: (4) an entire program or plan having wide application or restricting the range of futura alternative policies or projects, including new or significant changes to existing land use plans, development plans, zoning regulations or agency comprehensive resource management plans. SEQRA mandates that a GElS is the correct method of evaluating the significance of these proposed amendments. As noted under Part 617.10 (c), Page 1-1 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS Generic EIS's and their findings should set forth specific conditions or criteria under which future actions will be undertaken or approved, including requirements for any subsequent SEQR compliance. They may include thresliolds and criteria for supplemental EIS's to reflect specific significant impacts, such as site-specific impacts, that were not adequately addressed or analyzed in the generic EIS. With respect to subsequent SEQRA procedures, Part 617.10 (d) states: (d) When a final generic ElS has been filed under this part: (1) No further SEQR compliance is required if a subsequent proposed action will be carried out in conformance with the conditions and thresholds established for such actions in the generic ElS or its findings statement; (2) An amended findings statement must be prepared if the subsequent proposed action was adequately addressed in the generic EIS but was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the findings statement of the generic EIS; (3) A negative declaration must be prepared if a subsequent proposed action was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the generic EIS and the subsequent action will not result in any significant environmental impacts; (4) A supplement to the final generic EIS must be prepared if the subsequent proposed action was not addressed or was not adequately addressed in the generic ElS and the subsequent action may have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, this GEIS will be subject to the full procedures of Part 617, providing a proper and complete forum for interagency review and public comment on the proposed action. Page 1-2 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS 1.1 Background, Need and Benefits of the Proposed Action 1.1.1 Background and History The Town of Southold has long enjoyed an abundance of natural and cultural resources. However, as time has passed and the Town has grown, it has come to the attention of responsible citizens (both within and outside of Town government) that this growth is approaching a point where these natural and cultural resources may soon become stressed beyond their capacity to recover; growth may reach a point where it jeopardizes the very character that makes Southold unique. Such stress upon the Town's natural and cultural resources may not enable the Town to be consistent with its stated goals or maintain its vision. As awareness of these land use problems grew, the Town government, private groups and concerned citizens came together in an effort to address these issues before it became too late to save the Town's natural resources and valuable and unique character. To this end, the Town Board enacted a moratorium on residential subdivisions and multi-family developments requiring site plan approval, so that the Town would have sufficient time to determine the extent of these problems and to develop and implement a plan to protect these resources and qualities. The purpose of the moratorium specifically states that several inter-related planning initiatives should be considered, noted as follows: the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), and concerns in regard to affordable housing availability and public infrastructure usage. 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. During four intensive sessions held during September 2002, the group examined the Town's needs, resources and database. This review indicated a need to translate the various studies, recommendations, Committee input, Commission reports, staff efforts and Town Board initiatives into a cohesive plan (a package of legislation and procedures to implement the Town's vision). The group concluded that the basic goals of the Town remain sound and should be built upon. The inter-relationship of existing and proposed programs should be reinforced so that revised procedures and legislation result in more consistent and better decisions by Town boards and departments. The Town Board was advised of the preliminary Findings and Recommendations of the working group and, as a result, formally authorized the Town Planner, Town Attorney, Land Preservation Coordinator, two planning consultants and two consulting land use attorneys to advance this Implementation Strategy. Team members and support staff paflicipating in this DGEIS and Implementation Strategy are listed on the inside front cover page of this document. The issues to be addressed herein have been categorized by the moratorium team as being primarily either environmental or socio-economic in character. Page 1-3 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS Environmental issues result from the pace and methods by which land is being converted from open or farmland into residential or commercial use. Excessive development has a detrimental impact on the character of the Town, on traffic, and on the Town's natural resources (e.g., groundwater, marine waters, wetlands, farmlands and open space). The moratorium team is finding thai some of the existing Town policies, regulations and procedures (which determine where and how new development may be built) may not adequately protect the Town's character and natural resources. Thc socio-economic issues largely center around the need for affordable housing and a stable tax base, and stem largely from the fact that Southold's economy is primarily a seasonal one based on agriculture, marine industries and tourism/second and retirement homes. Town businesses, including agricultural enterprises, face certain challenges that must be recognized. Also, many people who live and work in Southold on a yeur-round basis cannot compete for housing with seasonal or year-round second homeowners due to the disparity in income levels. As the Town's popularity as a resort area increases, this situation may become a source of friction between long time resident~ and newcomers or visitors to thc community. Further, the Town's demographic composition is a skewed one*with more than a third of its population aged 55 years or older. As this percentage continues to grow, the Town must fred ways to provide services, with a shrinking proportion of the service population. The proposed action considers implementing the planning and pro,am tools and measures recommended in the planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years. These studies, plans and recommendations were reviewed in terms of current Town needs and goals. As noted, 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 following is a list of the plans for which recommendations were reviewed and considered, along with the year in which each Was completed: · Parks, Recreation & Open Space Survey (1982) · Town Master Plan Update (1985) · Fishers Island Growth Plan (1987-1994) · USFtJK Coont~yside Stewardship Exchange Team Report (1991) · Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) · Town Affordable Housing policies and program (1993) · Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study (1994) · Seavicw Trails of the North Fork (1995) · Peconic Estuary Program (1995) · Economic Development Plan, Town of Southold (1997) · Community Preservation Project Plan (1998) · Southold Township: 2000 Planning Initiatives (1999) · County Route 48 Corridor Land Use Study (1999) · Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (2000) · Town Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) · Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) · North Fork Travel Needs Assessment (2002) · Blue Ribbon Commission for a Rural Southold, Final Report (2002) · Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2003) Page 1-4 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Dran Generic EI$ A series of matrices has been prepared to review and understand the recommendations of prior planning studies, document the origin of recommendations, and determine if conflicts exist between plans while recording needed definition updates, implementation mechanisms and areas where application of the Town's Geographic Information System (GIS) and data gathering will be important. Additional background and a brief description of each study are included in Section 2.6.3, Land Use Plans & Recommendations. Appendix A-1 contains a detailed listing of the recommendations of each of the 19 above- referenced studies; these recommendations have been analyzed in relation to the resource goals the Town intends to address by the proposed action. Appendix A-2 refines Appendix A-l, by indicating the conflicts, definitions, implementation tools and GIS needs associated with the recommendations for each of the goals related to each of the 19 studies. Appendix A-3 then collates and summarizes the 19 sets of conflicts, tools, etc. listed in Appendix A-2. Finally, Appendix A-4 combines and collates the recommendations listed in Appendix A-I. The Moratorium Team synthesized a total of forty-three (43) different recommendations from these four (4) tables. These recommendations (consolidated and summarized in Table 1-1) are being considered by the Town Board for implementation, in the form of amendments to the Town Code and in various Town regulations, to modification of Town procedures, and other policy and management initiatives; these changes would be provided to better implement the Town's Comprehensive Plan. As noted previously, the proposed action involves legislative changes, with no specific physical changes within the Town proposed. The Town Board intends to initially consider all currently relevant prior recommendations with an emphasis on those that protect farmland and open space, promote affordable housing, and preserve natural resources. The Board may prioritize, narrow down or select implementation tools that best achieve the goals of the Town. The basic goals of the above-referenced plans and studies include: ,, To preserve land, including farmland, open space and recreational landscapes. · To preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. · To preserve the Town's remaining natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of the Town's natural resources and to restore the Town's degraded natural resources back to their previous quality. · To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that support a socio- economically diverse community. · To increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of roadways in the Town. The Town's objectives in focusing on these goals are 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. The proposed action will provide a means to ensure that these Town goals will be achieved through a comprehensive, well-established and well-considered land use decision-making framework that will be able to be implemented. A full overview and description of the project is provided in Section 1.3. Page i-5 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS By late 2002, the Town Board determined that its formulation of the proposed action had evolved to a point where it was appropriate to initiate formalized public and agency review. Therefore, in consideration of the definition of "action" under SEQRA, [see 6 NYCRR Part 617.2(b)(2), (3) and (4)], the Southold Town Board indicated its determination that this proposed action may have significant impacts, and issued a Positive Declaration on its action, thereby initiating the SEQRA process (see Appendix A-5). As provided for in 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 (b), if scoping is conducted, the project sponsor must submit to the lead agency a draft scope that contains the items identified below. The lead agency must provide a written final scope to the project sponsor, all involved agencies and any individual that has expressed an interest in writing to the lead agency within 60 days of its receipt of a draft scope. If the lead agency fails to provide a final scope within this period, the project sponsor may prepare and submit an EIS based on the draft final scope. The final written scope should include: 1. A brief description of the proposed action; 2. The potentially significant adverse impacts identified both in the positive declaration and as a result of consultation with the other involved agencies and the public, including an identification of those particular aspect(s) of the environmental setting that may be impacted; 3. The extent and quality of information needed for the preparer to adequately address each impact, including an identification of relevant existing information, and required new information, including the required methodology(ies) for obtaining new information; 4. An initial identification of mitigation measures; 5. The reasonable alternatives to be considered; 6. An identification of the information that should be included in an appendix rather than the body of the DEIS; and 7. Those prominent issues that were raised during scoping and determined to be not relevant or not environmentally significant or that have been adequately addressed in a prior environmental review. The draft scope for this GElS was prepared by the project sponsor and submitted consistent with SEQRA procedures. Subsequently, a public scoping meeting was held on January 29, 2003, and written comments were accepted by the lead agency until February 10, 2003. A revised draft scope which addresses the valid comments and issues raised during the entire public comment period (as determined by the lead agency) was prepared, and the lead agency issued its Final Scope on April 8, 2003 (see Appendix A-6). Accordingly, this document has been prepared consistent with this Final Scope. 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives Through a series of varied planning initiatives, the Town of Southold has advanced a broadly defined program aimed at maintaining the character of the community. This effort, which covered the better part of two decades, involved the preparation of numerous planning studies. For various reasons, a good many of these planning studies have never been fully realized due to a failure to implement their recommendations. Page 1-7 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS Development pressures have reached a point where the Town Board found it necessary to take the aggressive step of imposing a moratorium on most development activity. This moratorium provides a pause in the processing and consideration of new development applications, so that the Town Board could consider how best to meet the Town's goals. During this interval it was determined that the most appropriate method available that would allow the Town to re-explore all relevant past planning studies, and advance the best recommendations, was to rely on SEQRA and a GEIS. This process affords a unique venue within which the residents of the community can directly participate in the public dialogue and debate that will drive this process. Upon careful consideration, the need for this process becomes quite clear. First, relying on past studies allows for all of the good ideas previously developed to be reevaluated in the context of current trends and conditions. Second, the process avoids the need to conduct more studies that may not produce any new ideas or results. Perhaps most importantly, this process establishes a direct public participation component that encourages a thorough evaluation of all relevant issues while making the ultimate decision-making process transparent and publicly accountable. The action therefore, fulfills the public need of advancing the goals of the Town in a cooperative, interactive fashion that moves ahead toward implementation without unnecessarily revisiting old ground. The action achieves the objectives of the municipality through creating the vehicle through which the Town's goals, as articulated in 20 years of past planning studies, can be realized. 1.1.3 Benefits of the Proposed Action Implementing the proposed action in a coordinated fashion will assure that the five Town goals are achieved in a way that not only comprehensively moves the Town ahead, but does so without suffering the adverse effects of ill-conceived implementation, disjointed or reactionary planning, or unintended consequences. The DGEIS and the SEQRA process provide the additional substantial benefit of allowing the public to actively participate in the decision making process and, importantly, the exploration of alternatives to the proposed action. Adopting SEQRA "Findings" provides the Town Board with a thorough evaluation and the requisite "hard look" at the potential impacts of implementing a full range of planning tools that, if considered separately, might obscure the true consequences of the action. The comprehensiveness of the proposed action places the Town Board's ultimate decisions on a level playing field where the consequences of these decisions can be fairly and appropriately considered. Implementing the action will set in place a framework that interrelates land use, socio- economics, the environment, the transportation network, infrastructure with the mechanics of a regulatory structure so that the Town's vision for the future can in fact be achieved. Page 1-8 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS 1.2 Location of the Proposed Action In its totality, the proposed action will apply to the entire Town, though individual recommendations may apply to only specific areas or zoning districts. The location of the Town of Southold, in relation to the regional setting and neighboring Long Island Towns is provided in Appendix B, Figures B-1 and B-2. A number of additional districts important within the Town are noted below to provide an overview of the Towns geography. Specific report sections will reference special districts and maps as appropriate as part of Section 2.0, Existing Environmental Conditions. The Town is comprised of a number of hamlets, which are focused on as part of this study. The hamlets are part of the historical growth pattern of the Town and represent much of the community character and charm of the Town of Southold. Figure B-2 illustrates the Town and the location of hamlets within the Town which include: * Laurel * Southold · Mattituck * Greenport · Cutchogue · East Marion · New Suffolk · Orient · Peconic There are six (6) Union Free School Districts (UFSD) within the Town of Southold. These are listed as follows and illustrated in Appendix B; Figure B-3. · Mattimck-Cutchogue UFSD, · Greenport UFSD, · New Suffolk UFSD, · Oysterponds UFSD, and · Southold UFSD, · East Fishers Island UFSD. There are also six (6) Fire Districts within Southold; these are listed as follows and illustrated in Appendix B; Figure B4. · Mattituck Fire District, · Greenport Fire District, · Cutchogue Fire District, · East Marion Fire District, and · Southold Fire District, · Orient Fire District. There are a number of zoning districts in the Town of Southold that are considered under the Comprehensive'Implementation Strategy. The zoning districts of the Town of Southold are illustrated in Appendix B; Figure B-5 and are listed as follows: Residential/Mixed Use Districts Commercial/Industrial and Mixed Districts A-C Agriculture-Conservation LB Limited Business R-40 Residential Low-Density (1 acre) HB Hamlet Business R-80 Residential Low-Density (2 acre) B General Business R-120 Residential Low-Density (3 acre) M-I Marine I R-200 Residential Low-Density (5 acre) M-II Marine Il R-400 Residential Low-Density (10 acre) LIO Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park HD Hamlet Density Residential Ll Light Industrial RR Resort Residential RO Residential Office AHD Affordable Housing District Page I-9 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS 1.3 Description of the Proposed Action 1.3.1 Strategy Overview The proposed project involves a series of actions that implement the comprehensive plan of the Town as it was established over the past 20 years in order to ensure that Southold's growth conforms to established goals. The series of actions has been designed to achieve these goals through legislative means, educational and public awareness, capital improvements and expenditures, direct Town management and inter-agency/quasi-agency initiatives. During the course of the project, the goals and intent were further refined through a series of policy discussions held with the Town Board at public work sessions. These discussions provided dear guidance in terms of factors that the Board would like considered in the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, which is subject to a SEQRA public review process. The Town's goals that will be addressed in this strategy are as follows: · To preserve land including farmland, open space and recreational landscapes · To preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. · To preserve the Town's remaining natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of the Town's natural resources and to restore the Town's degraded natural resources back to their previous quality. · To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that support a soeio- economically diverse corm-nunity. · To increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of roadways in the Town. The following paragraphs state each goal, the general context of each goal, and the ~peciflc strategy proposed to achieve each goal. The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy is outlined as follows: The Goal - To preserve land including farmland, open space and recreational landscapes General Context - This goal reflects the Town's interest in protecting a defining characteristic of the Town's landscape. Open spaces are prized by residents and visitors alike. Land preservation encompasses preserving' working landscapes and open space. Working landscapes include fanned land and recreational land. Open space includes natural, vacant and undeveloped land for primarily passive uses. A balance needs to be achieved between protecting this resource and accommodating population growth. Agriculture is recognized as a fundamental element of the Town's landscape and can include farmland in crops, permanent vegetation (i.e. orchards/vineyards) and other recognized agricultural uses. Farmland can include crop-related structures (i.e. irrigation pumps/equipment, fences, barns, farm equipment and greenhouses, as well as storage Page 1-10 Southold Comprehensive implementation Strateg3, Draft Generic ElS processing and retail sale of farm grown goods. Agricultural has shaped the character and quality of life in the Town, as well as that of its inhabitants. The open, undeveloped nature of much of the Town's working land~cape is a significant component of its highly valued open space character. Future development of a permanent nature that strips soil of its agricultural value will conflict with the immediate goal of preserving land for farming purposes. Specific Strategies - Farmland targeted for preservation refers to unprotected land in the Town's agricultural inventory, primarily but not all within the A-C zoning district; such lands are also generally (though not always) coincident with prime farm soils. Open space is also a significant factor in establishing the rural qualities of the Town. Open space refers to unprotected, undeveloped lands, other than farmland, primarily in the R-80 zoning district. The R-80 zone represents a large amount of acreage in the Town. Parcels in this zone include important open space resources as well as land with environmental constraints. The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy has resulted in the collection of facts and information to assist the Town in reaching appropriate decisions with regard to land preservation and how development in the Town will unfold under various scenarios; A major product is a Build Out analysis, supported by Geographic Information System (GIS) data and maps. The establishment of methodologies, data resources, maps, and relevant facts and figures is a benefit of the program that will have long-term utilization or value to the Town's future planning and implementation efforts. This information has been used to direct efforts toward land use initiatives that implement the Town goals during the planning process. In addition, the GIS system allows for a better understanding of the consequences of land use decision-making in terms of Build Out analysis, tracking of projects and data management, and analysis of the effects of various land use initiatives with respect to farmland, open space and other resoumes. Land preservation will be achieved by a number of techniques that will ensure that farmland, open space, and recreational landscapes will be preserved. Key areas of emphasis include the A-C and R-80 zoning districts due to agricultural use and unique environmental character and sensitivity with respect to open space, wetlands, steep slopes and woodlands. Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) will remain a key program for farmland preservation as landowners can be compensated for the development potential of the land, and maintain the residual land and base value for agricultural use and equity. The Rural Incentive District (RID) can have beneficial results with respect to land preservation. The RID provides the landowner a guarantee that development rights will be pumhased based on a current 80,000 square foot zoning equivalent, in exchange for maintaining the land in agricultural use. The RID also provides the Town with time to pumhase development rights or work with the landowner to structure an equitable compensation package that ensures permanent agricultural use. Thus, the RID in effect "buys time" for the Town to structure methods to finance continued purchase of development rights, and also "buys time" for the property owner who financially is not ready to preserve the land. Page 1-11 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Drnft Generic ElS Public monies are used to prevent farmland from being lost to development. Protected farmland is intended to remain in use as farmland. However, it is understood that the business of farming necessarily requires that some farmland be used for support structures and uses integral to the business. Many past studies and recommendations have called for density reduction as a means to ensure that land resources are not over-burdened and the Town maintains its rural character. Upzoning achieves the goal of density reduction and is considered as part of this Strategy. The RID is intended to ensure that landowners maintain equity while development rights are purchased and conservation subdivision planning is conducted, thereby assisting the Town in achieving its goal of preserving prime farm soil and agricultural resources. Upzoning was conceived to reduce the number of dwellings in concentrated farming and environmentally sensitive areas, and would provide an incentive for farm owners to enter the Rural Incentive District. The RID provides the long-term safeguard necessary for land preservation, offering farm families the opportunity to sell their development rights. The Strategy also recognizes that development pressure could further increase, and not every property owner is interesting in preserving their land. Where land preservation does not take place, it is critical to ensure that compatible land uses are established in those areas adjacent to preserved lands. Many special permit uses currently permitted in the A-C district must be critically reviewed, and modified where they conflict with or prevent Town goals from being realized. Uses such as a life care community are not appropriate in certain zoning districts where protection of farmland, open space and natural resources are a priority. Where residential subdivisions are appropriate, various methods are recommended to assure proper development in cases where subdivision is appropriate. The Conservation Subdivision method would use several techniques to achieve 80% land preservation and in some cases density reduction. This method, together with clearer guidance measures for land use projects, improvements in the cluster provisions, and more concise zoning code and subdivision regulations will achieve this end. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is an appropriate tool for preservation of farmland and open space and envisions shifting density to appropriate areas, thereby providing a means for land protection without the resulting cost of purchasing the development rights. Lands that are not fanned, and land in the R-80 zone (including woodland, wetlands and/or steep slope areas), are primary candidates as sending areas, as are the Community Preservation Project Plan (CPPP) parcels that are not established in agricultural use. Receiving areas can include limited density increases in subdivisions located outside of the A-C and R-80 districts in areas referred to as Hamlet Locus (HALO) zones, mixed use opportunities in hamlet center areas and, where appropriate, diverse housing opportunities on larger parcels with sewage treatment potential. Proper incentives are proposed to ensure that equity is maintained. In addition, the Town's TDR program will be consistent with the Suffolk County TDR policy, which recognizes that groundwater protection needs are served Page 1-12 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS when open space is protected in a sending area, and controlled increase in density is permitted at a receiving site. The County policy has been reviewed and is incorporated into this Strategy. A Planned Development District (PDD) local law is also proposed to provide zoning and land use flexibility for well-designed projects that provide special public benefits such as affordable housing, redemption of transferred development fights and other creative land use benefits. The Town's recreational resources will be enhanced and maintained through expanded waterfront access opportunities in keeping with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP), purchase of key parcels under the CPPP, creation of a park in Mattituck, better recognition and utilization of trails and bikeways, and an update of the park inventory and management plan. The individual tools that address land preservation goals are noted below: Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning Code · Rural Incentive District [proposed] · Agricultural Overlay District/A-C Zoning Review [proposed] · A-C District Use/Dimensional Parameters [existing] · 5-Acre Upzoning [proposed] Review of Zoning Code [existing] · Conservation Subdivision Program [proposed] · Transfer of Development Rights [proposed] · Planned Development District Local Law [proposed] · Tree Preservation Local Law [proposed] · Scenic By-Ways Overlay Development Controls [proposed] Education/Enforcement · Agricultural District Review/Education [existing] · Watershed Protection Zone/SGPA's [existing] Capital Improvements/Expenditures · Improve Waterfront Access [existing] · Prioritize and Supplement CPPP [existing] · Create a Centralized Year-Round Recreational Complex [proposed] Direct Town Management · Park District/School District Boundaries Conformity [existing] · Update Park Inventory and Management Plan [existing] · Create a Parks and Recreation Department [proposed] · Scenic By-Ways Management Program [proposed] · Trail Inventory/Trail Committee/Bikeways [proposed] Page 1-13 $outhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS The Goal - To preserve the rural, cultural and historic character of the hamlets and surrounding countryside. General Context - The Town's Vision fQr itself incorporates the idea of maintaining distinct boundaries between urbanized areas of settlement and open and farmed lands. This Vision calls for minfoming the notion of a small town environment by preventing unrestrained sprawl of residential and commercial development along major roads and strengthening hamlet centers. Maintaining the Town's heritage through historic architectural resources and traditional use opportunities is paramount to this vision. Specific Strategies - The Town is a long, narrow peninsula. Its two major arterials are generally oriented in an east-west direction, parallel to its shoreline, with Main Road (NYS Route 25) on the south part of the Town and Sound Avenue, CR 48 on the north side of the Town. Main Road passes through most of the recognized hamlet areas of the Town, and CR 48 generally provides a north by-pass to the hamlets. The hamlets are anchored by small central business districts with a variety of local businesses and services, as well as community facilities such as churches, libraries, museums, historical societies and other cultural institutions. Hamlets still reflect the early settlement patterns and often include an abundance of historical homes and structures that create charm and character within these communities. Outside of the hamlets, one-acre residential zoning is prevalent, transitioning to Iow-density residential and agricultural land. Surrounding the hamlets along Main Road are areas of limited and mixed business and residential uses, transitioning to residential and open space areas. Along CR 48, a more rural quality is present which includes farmland in the primary agricultural area of the Town, as well as open space and lower density residential lands. This is interspersed with pockets of business and industrial use and some residential communities. The Town has been described as a series of concentric circles with hamlets in the center, transitional residential and mixed use zones in the outer ring, and farmland and open space between the circles in remainder of the Town. This simplified graphic visualization is effective, and the concept of maintaining the character and integrity of the hamlets, transitional areas and surrounding countryside remains an emphasis. The Comprehensive Implementation Strategy has resulted in a better definition of the hamlets and the important function and character that they provide to the Town. Planning parameters have been developed for the hamlet centers and surrounding HALO zones to ensure the long term stability of these areas by providing proper infrastructure, recognition and enhancement of important attributes, and incentives for proper development using land use tools such as PDD and TDR for density location and management with community benefit. Hamlets provide an opportunity for affordable housing and mixed use development, creating a rich cultural environment that is central, pedestrian friendly and intemonnected. Rural, cultural and historic character will be preserved by protecting farmland and open space, inventory and recognition of current attributes, maintaining scenic by-ways, cultural and historic resoume management, historic preservation efforts and incentives architectural and scenic advisory review, tree preservation and land use review. Page 1~14 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS The following lists the tools noted above as well as others that relate to maintaining the character of hamlets and surrounding areas: Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning (2ode Rural Incentive District [proposed] · 5-Acre Upzoning [proposed] · Transfer of Development Rights [proposed] · Planned Development District Local Law [proposed] Tree Preservation Local Law [proposed] · Scenic By-Ways Overlay Development Controls [proposed] Education/Enforcement · Create General Guidance Documents [proposed] · Watershed Protection Zone/SGPA's [existing] · Enforcement [existing] Direct Town Management · Concentrate Development in Hamlets [existing] · Scenic By-Ways Management Program [proposed] · Inventory and Manage Cultural Resources [existing] · Architectural Review Board and Design Parameters [existing] The Goal - To preserve the Town's remaining natural environment; to prevent further deterioration of the Town's natural resources and to restore the Town's degraded natural resources back to their previous quality. General Context - The Town enjoys abundant natural resources that are an inherent part of the community's character and attraction. Current levels of development have already placed these resources in jeopardy. Direct action is required today to ensure that these resources will remain viable and healthy for the enjoyment of future generations. Specific Strategies - The Town's natural environment includes the land based resources that can be addressed and protected through planning review and land use controls. These resources include: · Tidal Wetlands adjacent areas · Freshwater Wetlands adjacent areas · Steep Slope Areas (15%) and slope buffers · Beaches, bluffs and dune areas and buffers · Natural Open Space including Woodlands · High Groundwater Areas (<10 feet to water) · Other unique habitats and natural features Page 1-15 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS The protection of land based resources will protect aquatic resources including the finfish, shellfish and waterfowl resources of the bays and estuaries, as well as ground and surface water quality. A number of beneficial products ha~e resulted from the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy including: a Town wetlands map, and a Town woodlands map, steep slope mapping, and other resource maps important to environmental assessment and planning. These products provide a factual and graphic basis for understanding Towns unique natural environment. Protection of the natural environment will be achieved through appropriate restrictions and review procedures, acquisition and public education. A Critical Environmental Lands local law is proposed that will recognize and control land use that may impact wetlands, steep slopes, beaches, bluffs and dunes, high groundwater areas, and other unique features. There are currently no tree clearing restrictions in the Town, and as a result, Tree Preservation mechanisms have been carefully designed to ensure property owners fights while providing a means to avoid inappropriate clear-cutting and tree removal, thereby protecting habitat as well as the trees. Improved land use review and guidance, and site specific environmental review will provide protection of unique resources during early planning stages. Use of Conservation Subdivisions, clustering, outright acquisition of important natural and recreational parcels under the CPPP, and transfer of development rights from appropriate environmentally sensitive sending areas, will provide further protection measures. The Town's water resources are limited and must be protected. The CIS does not deal directly with water use policies of the Town, but acknowledges past studies, constraints and limitations. For the purpose of planning, it is assumed that potable water supply will be available to existing and future residents of the Town, as it is the SCWA's charter to provide drinking water and the Town's responsibility to provide a safe environment for its residents. The SCWA has issued a GEIS on water supply that addresses water supply options, and ways to provide potable water supply to the Town and its residents. This may promote growth, and as a result, proper planning must be in place. Under this Strategy, the Town proposes to actively work with SCWA to ensure that safe drinking water is available to the Town and it's residents, and that proper planning measures are in place to ensure that the development of the Town is orderly and in keeping with the Town's comprehensive plan. Currently, development densities of greater than half-acre are permitted only when public water and sewage treatment facilities are present. For this reason, most such projects are located within or adjacent to the Village of Greenport, which has an STP. However, recent technological advances point to the packaging of sewage treatment plants, thereby opening the door to these types of projects being located throughout Southold Town. The following lists those tools that assist in implementing this goal: Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning Code · Rural Incentive District [proposed] · 5-Acre Upzoning [proposed] Page 1-16 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic I~IS · Review of Zoning Code [existing] · Review Zoning Map [existing] · Conservation Subdivision Program [proposed] · Transfer of Development Rights [proposed] · Tree Preservation Local Law [proposed] · Critical Environmental Lands Local Law [proposed] Education/Enforcement · Create General Guidance Documents [proposed] · Natural Environmental Education [existing] · Watershed Protection Zone/SGPA's [existing] · Economic Development Plan [proposed] Capital Improvements/Expenditures · Administer Parks of Town-wide Significance [existing] Direct Town Management · Concentrate Development in Hamlets [existing] · Scenic Advisory Board [proposed] Inter-Agency/Quasi-Agency Initiatives · Develop Water Supply Master Plan [proposed] The Goal - To preserve and promote a range of housing and business opportunities that support a socio-economically diverse community. General Context - The topic of affordable housing is a controversial issue in the Town. There is a need to provide a diversity of housing stock for Town residents. The viability and range of business opportunities, and particularly those traditional uses such as fanning, fishing and tourism, need to be enhanced. Agriculture is recognized as a fundamental element of the Town's landscape. It has shaped the character and quality of life in the Town, as well as that of its inhabitants. The working landscape is a significant component of the Town's rural character. The business of agriculture also is one of the Town's prime economic sectors. Specific Strategies - The ability of Town residents to afford housing in their own Town is of critical concern and importance. This Strategy builds on thc 1993 Affordable Housing Policies and Programs of the Town, and provides updated demographic information and needs assessments. The demographic analysis conducted as part of this DGEIS confirms the housing needs identified 10 years ago. It is clear that housing opportunities must be expanded for a variety of income level families, and that affordable housing opportunities must be located geographically throughout the Town. The Town renews its commitment to providing diverse affordable housing opportunities through the Town. Policy considerations have been researched and prepared as part of the CIS and are part of the SEQRA process that will allow for Board acceptance and public review. Housing diversity can be achieved by providing both ownership and rental opportunities. In addition, housing opportunities can be expanded through incentives directed toward private Page 1-17 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS development, as well as greater levels of agency/quasi-agency involvement. Legislatively, ownership and rental opportunities will be expanded by: · Amending current affordable housing requirements and creating new incentives in connection with new subdivisions and changes of zone, · Amending zoning to allow diversified housing stock including small- to moderate-sized units in condominium and apartment styles, · Permitting mixed use development within or adjacent to existing hamlets, · Identifying appropriate parcels where PDD could be used to target public funds and/or TDR credits for the purpose of increasing density for affordable housing purposes, · Enabling PDD uses that provide an array of special public benefits, including affordable housing, and · Consider density bonus for additional units that are provided as affordable housing. In addition to techniques noted above, rental opportunities cnn be provided by simplifying and expanding the potential for accessory apartments, an effort that is currently being contemplated by the Town Board. Measures other than legislation involve housing financial assistance in cooperation with the North Fork Housing Alliance (NFHA) as well as subsidized housing programs. Coordination with the will be expanded, with direct measures such as new housing projects, purchase and re-sale of homes to qualified candidates, and increased rental opportunities, as measures to increase housing diversity. The Town will also seek to work with privately fimded Community Land Trusts, as well as soliciting private development companies specializing in providing affordable housing through the use of tax credits, to explore opportunities in Southold. Other subsidies to be explored include Community Development Block Grants and other private funding sources for publicly sponsored affordable housing initiatives. Resources to subsidize land and/or construction costs such as NYS subsidies through the Division of Housing and Community Renewal and the Affordable Housing Corporation will also be examined. The combination of these efforts provides a potential for increased affordable housing opportunities for a variety of income levels throughout the Town. The Town's business environment is generally stable with tourism and local services dominating the business climate. Businesses will be created or will be expanded as private markets develop, thereby utilizing commercial/industrial zoned lands. That will, in turn increase tax revenue and job opportunities. Housing and supporting services will be necessary to serve new growth. This pattern of development will occur but is expected to be limited due to the Town's geographic location and it's unique environment. However, it is necessary to ensure that proper zoning and controls are in place to accommodate (and shape) development as it occurs. Eeo-tourism, and expanded tourist activity within the Town is expected to increase in significance and volume, as areas outside of Southold continue to be developed. Southold remains an attractive destination due to the farmland, open spaces and natural resources that are appreciated by Town residents and visitors alike. This makes it all the more important to have adequate infrastructure, transportation and appropriate land use controls in place, to ensure adequate protection and sustainability of the Town's resources. Strengthening of the hamlets, preservation of open space and natural resources, coupled with transportation management and an economic development plan, all ensure that a socio- economically diverse community will be sustained within the capacity of the environment. Page 1-18 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Dran Generic Implementation tools that inter-relate with housing and business planning are listed as follows: Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning 'Code · Agricultural Overlay District/A-C Zoning Review [proposed] · A-C District Use/Dimensional Parameters [existing] · Review Special Exception Provisions [existing] · Review of Zoning Code [existing] · Review Zoning Map [existing] · Transfer of Development Rights [proposed] · Planned Development District Local Law [proposed] Education/Enforcement · Agricultural District Review/Education [existing] · Create General Guidance Documents [proposed] · Economic Development Plan [proposed] Direct Town Management · Affordable Housing Policy [proposed] · Concentrate Development in Hamlets [existing] Inter-Agency/Quasi-.4gency Initiatives · Housing Financial Assistance Program [existing] · Social Services Programs [existing] The Goal - To increase transportation efficiency and to create attractive alternatives to automobile travel, while preserving the scenic and historic attributes of roadways in the Town. General Context - Increased development is creating congestion on the Town's roadways, particularly CR 48 and Main Road. This increased congestion is degrading the quality of life in the Town's communities and creating public safety concerns. The Town should encourage intermodal forms of transportation. Specific Strategies - Transportation is a critical issue nearly everywhere and Southold is no different. Southold is fortunate to have alternative road systems that assist in distributing traffic; however, during peak seasons of tourist activity, and in the popular hamlet areas, traffic congestion and delays are apparent. Transportation management includes increasing pedestrian friendly areas, and situating growth toward hamlets where service needs are more likely to be met on foot, thus reducing vehicle trips. Density reduction and growth management are important aspects of land use that are accomplished through zoning. Other site planning techniques to be implemented by the Town include ensuring adequate off street parking for commercial, residential and farmstand sites, and inter-linking parking in downtown areas to maintain vehicle trips off of arterial roads. Page 1-19 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Dran Generic EIS As hamlets evolve, there is a need for traffic calming measures to slow traffic to safe speeds and provide a safe pedestrian environment. Traffic calming in Southold will be accomplished through inter-agency cooperation with the NYS Department of Transportation and the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. Hamlets also provide additional public transportation possibilities since a core ridership exists in a central area. Additional bus routes will result from future riders' needs, and the concept of hubs for public transportation centered within the hamlets will become more feasible. Education and inter-agency coordination are important short-term actions for ensuring that alternative methods of transportation are encouraged with the understanding of community needs and limitations. Southold is participating in the Sustainable East End Development Study (SEEDS) which will examine east end traffic issues and pose solutions that will be supported by the stakeholders or participants including Town, County and State government as well as community and neighborhood members. Therefore, in addition to zoning, there are educational, direct improvements, Town management opportunities and inter-agency cooperative initiatives available. Tools identified as part of this CIS that relate to transportation planning are listed as follows: Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning Code · Review of Zoning Code [existing] · Review Subdivision Regulations [existing] · Review Highway Specifications [existing] · Planning Process & Encourage Committee/Agency Participation [existing] · SEQRA Local Law Review/Revision [existing] Education/Enforcement · Create General Guidance Documents [proposed] · Encourage Use of Public Transportation [existing] · Transportation Management Plan [proposed] Direct Town Management · Concentrate Development in Hamlets [existing] · Scenic By-Ways Management Program [proposed] · Trail Inventory/Trail Committee/Bikeways [proposed] Inter-Agency/Quasi-Agency Initiatives * Emergency Preparedness [existing] 1.3.2 Planning Process, Zoning and Zoning Code Mechanisms 1. A-C District Use/Dimensional Parameters The A-C zoning district, as it is currently configured, is identical in substance (e.g. allowed land uses) to the R-80 district. In addition, a number of separate Special Exception uses are permitted. These include: 1. Two-family dwellings 2. Places of worship Page 1-20 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS 3. Private elementary or high schools, colleges or other educational institutions 4. Nursery schools 5. Philanthropic, eleemosynary or religious institutions, health care, continuing care and life facilities 6. Beach clubs, tennis clubs, country'clubs, golf clubs and annual membership clubs 7. Children's recreational camps 8. Veterinarian's offices and animal hospitals 9. Cemeteries 10. Bed-and-breakfasts 11. Historical society The A-C zone, as originally envisioned, was intended as a distinctly separate zone that would allow for the business of agriculture to take place, while preventing incompatible residential development on prime agricultural soils. These uses are considered inappropriate in an area recognized as unique due to prime agricultural soils and a dominance of active farmland. Maintaining or introducing these uses in the A-C zone could potentially give rise to conflicts or incompatibility with the preferred use of this land as farmland. Implementing this tool calls for returning to the original intent of the A-C zone by removing non- agricultural uses and by cral~ing specific use and dimensional criteria designed exclusively to support agriculture. Larger scale residential development, such as multi-lot subdivision or assisted care facilities, without a clear nexus to agriculture, would be prohibited. Residential use that is clearly supportive of agriculture (e.g. dwellings for farmers and farm workers) would be permitted. Setback, area, height and bulk controls, including those for farm structures, would be revisited to establish appropriate controls that would protect the aesthetic character of the Town while simultaneously allowing for the business of agriculture to proceed unencumbered. 2. Rural Incentive District One of the options under consideration is the creation of a Rural Incentive District (RID) under Section 261-b of the New York Slate Town Law. The RID would provide a mechanism whereby owners of qualified properties could apply for a rezoning of their land. If a rezoning took place, the landowner would agree that his land would remain as farmland or open space for a minimum number of years (at least 10). As an incentive for the public benefit of continued use of the land as farmland or open space, the Town would offer specific zoning incentives or bonuses such as increased density, area, height, or use. The property owner would also maintain the underlying zoning in place at the time of the rezoning. The form of the agreement between the Town and the landowner would be an easement, which would last at least 10 years, but which could be extended in perpetuity. The Town can use the easement period to leverage monies from a variety of sources, and increase its buying capacity for the benefit of all Town residents. While the easement remains in effect, the landowner and the Town could consider a number of conservation tools, either Page 1-21 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS separately or in combination: purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights, and use of a conservation subdivision on all or a portion of the property, or outright acquisition. A landowner may not wish to sell development rights to the Town, or negotiations may be unsuccessful. Under these scenarios, the program would provide the mechanisms for termination of the easement and return of the property to whatever zoning is in place at the time. If the GEIS process recommends the adoption of a RID, a public hearing would be held on the proposed legislation, with opportunity for public comment. 3. Agricultural Overlay District/A-C Zoning Review An Agricultural Overlay District (AOD) can assist in further identifying, protecting, and providing land use guidelines for farmland. The Town of Southold does not currently have an AOD. To date, the A-C district has acted as the primary means of identifying those areas with prime soils for farming. An AOD can provide a geographic delineation of primary blocks of farmland and can be used to provide further guidance for appropriate land use. The AOD was proposed to include all A-C zoned land with evaluation of other prime farm soil areas for inclusion such that it would geographically encimle the prime farm soil and prime farmland areas of the Town. Figure B-6 illustrates the area of the Town most suited for this district designation. An AOD would be a section added to Chapter 100, the Town's Zoning Code. 4. 5-Acre Upzoning The concept of 5-acre upzoning involves increasing the minimum allowable lot size per dwelling unit (for yield purposes) within certain districts or a geographic area of the Town. Based on review of past plans (see Section 2.6.3), the primary purpose of 5-acre upzoning is to reduce the ultimate density of development, in this case single-family residences. The effort would be coupled with mandatory clustering with improved guidance for design and location of limited housing within the rural areas of the Town (see Tool #6). The primary target area involves the rural areas of the Town where agricultural use, farmland, open space and groundwater recharge exist. Lands exhibiting these qualities are found primarily in the Agricultural-Conservation (A- C) and R-80 districts. As the name of the district implies, the A-C district was conceived for agriculture conservation; however, as stated in Chapter 100-30 and 31, permitted and special exception uses are the same as for other low-density residential zones (R-80, R-200 and R-400) and the dimensional requirements are the same as R-80. This seems to conflict with the Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy and the background studies and recommendations of the Town 1985 Master Plan in that it does not recognize the unique nature of agricultural land, and the incompatibility of active farmland with residential land uses. As per past proposals, an effective means of achieving 5-acre density, involves distinguishing the A-C district from other low density residential zones through a more focused legislative intent, appropriate dimensional requirements and different permitted/special exception uses. In order to Page i-22 $outhold Comprehensiye Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS accomplish this, the density requirements in the A-C zone would be changed to a minimum of 5- acres (200,000 square feet). The Cluster Development provisions contained in Chapter 100-181 of the Zoning Code of the Town requires clustering where lots of ten (10) acres or more in the A-C, R-40, R-80, R-120, R- 200 and R-400 residential districts are proposed to be subdivided, subject to certain minimum lot size provisions and subject to a yield map that conforms to all requirements of the Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations. Clustering is recommended to ensure protection of resources, maximization of contiguous farmland and ensuring compatibility between different land uses. The Cluster Development section of the Zoning Code can be designed to provide better guidance in the use of clustering for both farmland and natural resource protection. Other lands that have been identified as appropriate for upzoning include certain lands that are either in active farm use or contain sensitive environmental resources. These lands are identified in B-7, which depicts all R-80 zoned land with an overlay of farmland, steep slopes, prime farm soils and wetlands. 5. Revise Special Exception Provisions The Zoning Code permits an array of uses that are designated as Special Permit Uses. It is important to recognize that these uses are considered permitted, subject to compliance with the applicable special exception standards. A thorough review of the special permit standards to determine if these controls are adequate to protect the character and integrity of the community, while simultaneously facilitating the continued operation of traditional uses was undertaken. Standards that have been singled out as requiring close review are those for life care community, greenhouses, farm stands, and uses that are ancillary to the agricultural industry such as value added food processing. In some cases, such as life care, the uses are not appropriate in certain zoning districts. In others, the criteria under which the use would be permitted are too lax or missing altogether. 6. Review of ZoningCode A number of provisions were identified in past studies as possible revisions to the existing Zoning Code to further advance the goals of the Town, provide more streamlined govermnent, clarify requirements, remove discrepancies, and generally improve the Code to reflect current planning policy and practice. These are: Clustering - The concept of mandatory clustering is required under the Zoning Code where the lot to be subdivided is 10 acres or larger. However, the Code does not provide parameters or guidance to the Planning Board as to the goals clustering is to achieve. For instance, a clustered layout designed to conserve land for farming purposes may look very different fi.om a clustered layout designed to provide optimum road design and open space around residential lots. The goals and objectives of a cluster layout have to be determined for the following types of situations: Page 1-23 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strateg3~ Draft Generic EIS · Farm subdivisions · Residential subdivisions where habitat protection is of paramount importance · Industrial subdivisions Concepts for farm subdivisions include the following: · Prime agricultural soils should be conserved by locating the clustered lots on the less productive soils. · Existing drainage swales and watershed land should be maintained instead of altered or eliminated. Habitat protection would be achieved by preservation of woodland, buffers, wooded edge, and other unique habitat features of a site, to be evaluated and incorporated into project design on a ease-by-case basis. Industrial subdivisions may be designed in campus-style, thematic styles and incorporate other techniques to coordinate architecture, landscaping and inter-relationship of buildings. Industrial subdivisions may consider design parameters to achieve full yield, with cluster provisions for coordinated entrances, boulevards, focal points, walking trails, sitting areas, shared parking, parking aesthetics, and other features of creative design. Such parameters may be initially identified in guidance documents to be refined and later codified (see also Implementation Mechanism #19). Recreational Requirements - The Town currently requires payment of cash ($5,000) for every new vacant building lot that is created by a subdivision. This fee is called a Park & Playground Fee. The Town used to accept land in lieu of a fee but this practice resulted in unusable properties for recreational requirements. The Town's standards for recreational open space should be revised to reflect the eco-tourism sector of the Town's economy. The Town's need for recreational land must reflect for both the year-round needs of its residents as well as those of visitors. Situations where land may be desirable, e.g., for greenbelt or trail purposes, should be defined. Sign Ordinance - The Town's Sign Ordinance does not provide specific lighting standards that would prevent light pollution. Light pollution prevents enjoyment of the night sky, is wasteful of expensive electrical energy, and can pose hazards to night drivers and degrade the rural streetscape. Amendments have been suggested to minimize or prohibit lighting of signs in all zoning districts, as well as to limit the size, location, type of mounting and character of signage. Some controls exist and must be enforced and improved, specifically noted as follows: · The installation and/or use of dusk to dawn lighting fixtures, whether located on or off premises and used to illuminate the subject parcel, is not permitted without prior review and approval by the Planning Board, but enforcement is lacking. · While the lighting on the buildings must be shielded and all outdoor lighting must project downward and light sources shall not be visible to adjacent properties or roadways, the Code lacks quantified standards and the Town lacks ways to measure the intensity of light. Page 1-24 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS RO and LB District Review - The Residential Office (RO) and Limited Business (LB) districts provide a transition zone between purely residential and other commercial districts within each hamlet or business center of Southold Town. The hamlet context is extremely important, and past experience shows that if limited commercial use in transitional districts is not sufficiently controlled, sprawl can result along main road con'idors to the detriment of the hamlel business centers. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan and thc Zoning Code was to permit limited commercial uses within these two districts that would be compatible with residential uses particularly with regard to the level of traffic and the physical appearance of the properties. The current Code fails to do this, because it does not establish appropriate parameters to ensure the integrity of the hamlet centers. Further, the concept of the RO district has been undermined by a permissive Home Occupancy law that allows homeowners in residential districts to enjoy many of the benefits of hosting a business in a residential area with less of the restrictions of the RO district. The LB District was intended to provide another form of transition between an intensely developed hamlet and general business area and agricultural land. The uses intended for this district were to be in keeping with a mini character in terms of level of traffic and physical appearance. The current Code fails to do this. Promotion of Water Dependent Uses - The Town has completed a final draft[ LWRP. This is a Coastal Zone Management document in which the Town outlines a program for best uses and practice in the coastal zone, consistent with the applicable policies of the State. Central tenets of the program include promoting water dependent uses, increasing public accessibility of coastal resources, revitalization of coastal zone areas, and protection of coastal zone natural and cultural resources. The LWRP has outlined measures to improve public access to the water and to modify the Town code to promote water dependent uses. The LWRP has received a negative declaration under SEQRA; therefore, this Strategy recognizes the LWRP as a supporting program toward implementation of strategies to improve planning and environmental protection in the Town. Accessory Apartments - The Town of Southold has adopted amendments to portions of the Town Zoning Code to promote the construction of accessory apartments and other housing in the Hamlet Business (HB) and B Zoning Districts. The amendments are described in brief below. The amendments authorize as-of-right the construction of up to three accessory apartments within an existing principal structure as a permitted accessmy use in the HB and B Zoning Districts. Previously, this use required a special exception by the ZBA and site plan approval by the Planning Board. The amendments also relax some of the requirements for accessory apartments. An accessory apartment permit will be required from the Building DeparUnnnt and no site plan approval is necessary unless the foundation of the principal structure increases as a result of the renovation. The amendments to the HB District code also added the following to the list of permitted uses: · one-family detached dwelling not to exceed one dwelling on each lot; · two-family detached dwelling not to exceed one dwelling on each lot (which must be occupied by the owner of thc property); · buildings, structures and uses owned or operated by the Town of Southold school districts, park districts and fire districts; and · multiple dwellings. Page 1-25 Southold Comprehensive Implementation StratelD' Draft Generic Single family and multiple dwellings previously required Special Exception approval by the ZBA. The amendments to the General Business (B) District code also added the following to the list of permitted uses and will not require siteplan approval by the Planning Board for these uses: one-family detached dwelling not to exceed one dwelling on each lot; and, two-family dwelling not to exceed one dwelling on each lot (which must be occupied by the owner of the property). In addition, the density and minimum lot size requirements were amended to require larger minimum lot size for residential use. The code previously required Special Exception approval by the ZBA for one-family detached dwellings and did not explicitly permit two-family dwellings. These code amendments indirectly may also allow the addition of apartments as accessory uses in the RO District, which currently allows apartments over businesses and professional offices by Special Exception. As a result, the legislation would make such apartments a permitted use in the specified zoning districts, presumably providing an incentive for their constmction. Such apartments would still have to meet Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) density requirements for combined commercial and residential uses, which may limit the number of potential units. This measure has been adopted as a part of the Town's overall commitment to addressing affordable housing issues, an important Town goal and part of the Town's comprehensive plan. The adoption of these changes did recognize that improvements can be considered in the future in connection with transfer of development rights trader a regional TDR plan reviewed by the Town under SEQRA (see Tool #12), and possible provisions to ensure that apartments are affordable. AHD District Review - The Affordable Housing District (AHD) does not create a permanent supply of affurdable dwelling units. Rather, it creates a tentative supply of mid-cust housing that can be bought and later sold on the open market for whatever the market will bear. As a result, the Town is constantly faced with the need to fmd developers willing to use funds from Federal, State and other programs to offset the rising cost of new land. Incentives for the rehabilitation of existing housing and the creation of rentals must be provided, as well as for new construction. The target population for AHD must be more carefully defined because currently it does not provide housing for low income residents. Further, the ordinance needs to incorporate alternative approaches such as Community Land Trusts. Finally, the affordability parameters and scale must be amended to reflect changing economic conditions and relate to an appropriate sliding index. Bed-and-Breakfast Establishments - Bed-and-Breakfast's, or B&B's, are popular for overnight accommodations. B&B's typically involve the conversion or construction of up to five bedrooms within a home for guest usage. Homes can be located in any setting, while larger, older homes in historic settings or with unique architectural features have been converted to B&B's. Ia recent years, several new B&B's have been constructed specifically for this purpose. As the name implies, a fee is paid to the proprietor for overnight lodging and breakfast the next morning. Distinctive B&B's provide an attractive small town alternative to larger commercial motels. A B&B can also provide revenue and employment to the homeowner, thus offsetting high housing costs and real estate taxes. However, B&B's increase the level of activity on a site above that ora Page 1-26 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS single-family home. Such activity may include additional cars, parking spaces, number of trips and general use intensity. As a result, care must be taken to ensure that a neighborhood does not experience an inordinate number of B&B conversions that might be to the detriment of a community. Overall, B&B's can be an asset to an area; Southold currently recognizes this, and allows B&B's as a Special Exception use by the ZBA in the Resort Residential 0tR), RO, LB, HB, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 residential districts with site plan approval, and in the B and Hamlet Density (HD) districts without site plan approval. Given parking needs, access points, adjacent uses, landscaping, drainage, and other related issues, the Town should consider also requiring site plan approval for B&B's in the B and HI) zones. In all but the B and lib districts, there are several other required safety conditions and Building Inspector approval is given for a period of one (1) year at a time. Them are currently no standards for the ZBA to use as for guidance for approval of B&B's. Typical standards that should be considered include size of the home, the size of the property, the distance between B&B's, overall density limitations on the number of B&B's, and land use buffers. Review of Home Occupancy Restrictions - The types of home occupations that are permitted allow for a great deal of abuse in that it is difficult to police when a home occupation moths into a small business more appropriately located within a business district. Where an RO district is designed to provide for this type of use, the Home Occupation Law should not permit the range of uses currently allowed. The Home Occupation taw should simply permit the running of a single- person business out of the home where them is no retail, wholesale or customer traffic to and from thc home. As an example, medical office, tradesmen and contractor uses have resulted in complaints. Discouragement of Strip Shopping Centers/Fast Food - Southold has a provision in the zoning code to effectively discourage strip malls by mstricting the building width in commercial zones so that no more than 60 feet of building may mn parallel to the road. Exemptions to this have been granted by the ZBA, mostly for winery operations. The code requires that large buildings be broken up into smaller buildings grouped in complexes rather than one large store. These provisions have been fairly effective and are recognized as important to maintain community character, with no major deficiencies requiring modification other than the addition of criteria to guide the ZBA. Fast food establishments are referred to as take-out or formula restaurants in the Town Code. They are permitted only in the General Business (B) district and a Special Exception from the ZBA is required for such uses, subject to certain conditions. Drive-up windows are not permitted, and controls for traffic, signage, and architectural features are incorporated into these sections. These controls allow the Town to maintain the qualities and character that are important to the community. Flag Lots - Flag lots are currently not defined or recognized in the Town Zoning Code. Flag lots involve providing a narrow "flagpole" access to an existing improved road to access a larger width portion of a developable lot. Flag lots are a common way to reduce impermeable road surface area, thereby, reducing runoff, pavement, and improving overall environmental design and aesthetics. However, flag lots can also cause concern with regard to homesitc construction, particularly with regard to privacy related to house orientation. In addition, unjustified proliferation of flag lots is a potential problem with respect to emergency services (police, fn:e, ambulance) when private driveways are long and not properly maintained. Lot sizes must be adequate, and setback requirements must be appropriate to allow for thc use of this tool, which can be beneficial when used properly. In order to provide adequate access and lot configuration, Page 1-27 Southold Comprehensive Impiementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS a minimum 20-foot frontage width should be provided to an existing road. For smaller, potentially dividable parcels where no new roads are created, use of a flag lot may be appropriate to allow a land division. Some Towns have used a formula where the lot created must be 1.5 times the minimum lot size in the zoning district, excluding the flagpole portion of the lot. The lot is subject to setback requirements of the respective zoning districts. Flag lots can also be incorporated into subdivision design, particularly through clustering, in order to reduce road extensions and provide a quality subdivision design. Use of Common Driveways - Common driveways provide a single curb cut whereby two or more residential properties gain access to a Town road. A common driveway typically will be located on a common property line, extend from the road along the boundary of two lots and branch to each side to access individual dwellings. Typically an easement or right of use agreement is recorded with the deed of each home. A common dhveway can serve more than two (2) lots; however, for much more than two lots such an access would be considered more of a private road and would typically require the establishment of a road right-of-way. Common driveways are a way of reducing the number of curb cuts onto the road system, and of reducing the amount of impervious surface and resulting stormwater. However, they also can be an inconvenience as two or more homeowners must share the responsibilities of maintaining the access, which could potentially be problematic if neighbors are at odds with each other. Common driveways should be encouraged where appropriate. Such circumstances might involve avoidance of steep topography; reduction of curb cuts onto an arterial road; areas of historic, aesthetic or visual importance, and other such unique situations. The Town Code does not include a definition or recognition of common driveways at present. Change of Use Triggers for Site Plan Review - Effective enforcement of this Code involves monitoring of the type of use allowed within a commercial building. The Planning Board approves a site plan with knowledge of a certain use that will occupy the building. Parking requirements, sanitary requirements and intensity of activity on a site are all a function of the type of use. It is common for Zoning Codes to have a provision for the Planning Board to perform a preliminary review of a use change, and based on that review, determine if an amended site plan is needed to revisit such issues as parking, drainage, landscaping, access, circulation or other issues. The Town Code requires such review but does not specify a waiver procedure associated with minor changes that do not raise site plan issues. Country Inns - A Country Inn would involve a limited-size facility that provides overnight accommodations with limited gathering/meeting opportunities in a larger, but characteristically residential-type structure. The Country Inn must gain aesthetic quality and charm from the agricultural land use or open space attributes on the balance of the property. Limitations on maximum number of rooms, other accessory uses, size of the building, setbacks, parking accommodations, and sanitary disposal would keep the impacts of this use in cunfonnance with SCDHS density requirements. The goal is to preserve a significant area of farmland and open space, while providing an economic value to the landowner, in a setting that is harmonious and supportive of continued farm or open space use, all in a manner that does not burden natural or human resources. There are a variety of ways in which to achieve a Country Inn use in connection with an agricultural or open space setting. It is expected that a Country Inn will involve overnight accommodations and amenities, food service, parking, meeting/gathering facilities, outdoor recreation, etc., and therefore is more characteristic of a commercial use than a residential use. For this reason, the yield (possibly expressed as number of rooms per acre), and the size of the Page 1-28 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS Inn must be carefully considered, in order to ensur~ that the scale is consistent with the planning goals of the Town. Conditions could include providing one (1) room per 2-5 acres of land preserved, up to a maximum of 15-20 rooms, as well as a restriction that Country Inns not be permitted within 1-2 miles of an existing Country Inn in order to limit the ultimate number possible. A procedural possibility is'to have a Country Inn use be permitted by either Town Board Special Exception or as a change of zone to a Planned Development District (PDD) with preservation of farmland or open space providing special public benefit. The Country Inn would be allowed on any parcel zoned A-C, R-200 or R-80 District as a presumptively compatible use, provided it conforms to the established standards and conditions. The Country Inn site would be subject to full site plan review, with consideration of the overall acreage for the puq~ose of determining yield, and siting the Country Inn parcel. The Country Inn use would be subject to SEQRA as an Unlisted Action unless it is designated a Type I action pursuant to the SEQRA Type I list. The use of Country Inns provides the Town and its residents the opportunity for a number of benefits including: land preservation; economic value to the landowner; and creation of uses that serve an existing tourist base providing regional economic benefit. The establishment of Country Inns must be monitored to ensure that the overall planning goals of the Town continue to be served by the program. The LWRP also deals with a number aspects of review of the Zoning Code; this Comprehensive Implementation Strategy recognizes that the LWRP has been in preparation for a long period of time, has received preliminary New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) review and has been issued a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Therefore, these initiatives complement the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, and further advance the goals of the Town. 7. Review Zoning Map The Town's zoning map provides the legal structure around which the land use pattern of the community is constructed. Maintaining a viable zoning framework is essential to assuring the future vision of Southold. Past studies have shown that the existing zoning in several areas of the Town may require review and modification. These areas include: Change the business zones along County Route 48 to A-C. · Reduce and consolidate the industrial zones on the Main Road west of Greenport. · Review AHD zones in accordance with a new affordable housing plan. · Review viability, dimensional controls and location of RO district. · Review viability, dimensional controls and location of LB district. · Rezone appropriate parcels along Mattitack Creek to MI or Mil. · Create Watershed Protection Zone (WPZ). · Coordinate existing zoning within hamlets with newly delineated hamlet boundaries. Of all these initiatives, the Town has taken action only on the first. In 1998 and 1999, several business properties on CR 48 were rezoned to a more restrictive business or residential district. 8. Review Subdivision Regulations The subdivision regulations of the Town of Southold require review and update. Subdivision Regulation review is being performed by Town Planning staff and the Town Engineer with Page i-29 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS consulting and other assistance as necessary. The Subdivision Regulation review seeks to codify policy items that are currently implemented as part of the normal subdivision review and approval process. In addition, Subdivision Regulations are being reviewed for definitions that should be consistent with the Zoning Code. The review incorporates appropriate park and recreation requirements, road specifications, access requirements, drainage calculations and road design and other essential items appropriate under municipal subdivision regulations. 9. Review Highway Specifications Highway Specifications determine the type of road that will be constmcted to access new building lots. Road Specifications were revised in 1993 to reinforce subdivision regulations. The Highway Specifications currently include provisions that are more appropriate to Subdivision Regulations. They need to be revised in order to consider the Town's natural environment and rural qualities. This should include minimizing pavement where possible, and reducing structural road improvements while still maintaining safe roads within the Town that can be properly accessed, used and maintained. Drainage designs need to be revised in order to utilize natural topography, maintain existing vegetation and reduce structural drainage improvements where possible, while still ensuring that runoff is controlled so roads will remain safe and accessible. The Town Engineer has prepared a list of Highway Specifications necessary to meet the needs of his Department for review and approval of projects. 10. Conservation Opportunities Planning (COP) Process Conservation Opportunities Planning was first suggested in the Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy, and later echoed in the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations. The COP is a valuable tool for encouraging landowners to participate in conservation planning. It not only provides landowners with a better understanding of their land and their options, it assists the Town in identifying those portions on one's property that should be protected. It is also a valuable tool for potentially leveraging funds through the public-private partnerships. If limited development becomes a component of a conservation plan for a property, the Town should provide an expedited subdivision approval process, especially if the overall density of the property is reduced by 75% or more through the sale or donation of development tights. A component of the COP noted in the Blue Ribbon Commission report includes a 60% density reduction in connection with Conservation Subdivisions, which would be achieved through PDR. Expediting for both the development right acquisition process and the approval process for limited development plans would provide greater incentives to landowners to voluntarily protect significant portions of their land, all of which would enhance the credibility of land protection options. Optimum use of the COP requires use of computer-generated mapping capabilities, which the Town now possesses. In order to make maximum use of this resource; however, the Town should continue to enhance the capabilities of its Geographic Information System through the addition of staff, continued training, updated software and expanded database development. Page 1-30 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS 11. Planning Process The planning process as it pertains to residential subdivisions and residential site plans requires intensive coordination between various leyels of government and the applicant. Applications involving reduced density and a preservation component require additional staff time and effort, particularly where the Town is attempting to leverage its funds with money from other governmental or private entities. In addition, a Pre-Application process that is less formal than the subdivision review process is being considered in order to give an applicant guidance and input before final designs are submitted for review. The Pre-Application process would provide a forum for staff input, Planning Board input, Land Preservation Coordinator input, Town Department input, select/focus Town Committee input, Fire Department and outside agency input, into the initial planning of a project. Town Committees with interest in a focus area (i.e. architecture, trees, trails, land preservation, etc.) would have the ability to comment, as well as the Town Engineer, Fire Marshal, and other entities listed above. This will improve the review process by soliciting comments and referrals early in the process. The process would be mandatory as a precursor to a formal application, but would not require an Environmental Assessment Form or completion of a Determination of Significance, as it is not an approval or a final action of the Board. Planning Staff would receive applications and subdivision plans, determine completeness, circulate to a set list of referrals, schedule a hearing, compile input and prepare a Pre-Application Report for adoption by the Planning Board. The process would be limited in scope, time and cost. The Pre- Application Report would document items to be incorporated into the next step, a subdivision or land preservation process, and would be subject to a time limit. The report provides a forum for initial input to benefit an applicant and save processing expense and time, and familiarizes the Planning Board and staff with an application. Consideration will also be given to shifting the Special Exception review process fi.om the Zoning Board to the Planning Board where site plan approval is required, and providing more guidance within the criteria for Special Exceptions. 12. Transfer of Development Rights Transfer of Development Rights is defined in the New York Town Law as "...the process by which development rights are transferred from one lot, parcel, or area of land in a sending district to another lot, parcel, or area of land in one or more receiving districts." This planning tool is used to protect open spaces, agricultural land or ecologically sensitive areas, and to preserve the aesthetic appeal and natural resources of an area. TDR is a well-established, progressive land use tool that has been utilized nationwide in order to preserve one or more significant environmental characteristics of a property for the benefit of an entire community, while at the same time protecting the value of landowners' property by enabling the development potential of that land to be realized elsewhere in the community, in a location more appropriate for development. Page 1-31 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS TDR must be encouraged by providing an adequate, achievable, attractive incentive package to draw landowner interest. Successful TDR programs generally involve the following components: I. Encouraging TDR Sales - Successful TDR programs encourage TDR sales by reducing the development potential of the sending sites through zoning restrictions, environmental regulations, farmland protection measures, and ordinances that require adequate public facilities before development can occur. Just as sending site owners need to be encouraged to sell their development fights, receiving site developers must be motivated to buy TDRs. Developers will only buy TDRs if they can make a greater profit from a project that uses TDRs. A most important concept is that a seller must be encouraged to sell, and a buyer must be encouraged to buy. 2. Selecting Receiving Sites - The approach proposed by Southold is to designate village or hamlet areas where more concentrated development will be encouraged. TDRs can then be used to obtain the higher densities. 3. Facilitating Use of TDRs - TDR credits must be recorded in a simple program that facilitates their use. Southold will examine administrative recordation, use of TDRs as a commodity, establishing a "TDR bank", and will seek to provide ongoing information to the general public, as well as staff support and instructional materials to assist TDR buyers and sellers. 4. Building Public Support - A successful TDR program will mean more intense development at receiving sites. The community as a whole needs to understand and accept that this will occur. Thus, TDR is an important component of the overall comprehensive implementation strategy, as the concept of hamlets, hamlet transition zones and protection of rural qualities and character have been central to Southold Planning over an extended period of time. An effective TDR program can add optimism to the planning process by offering a way for compensation to be provided affected property owners without the use of tax dollars. This optimism can encourage the public to establish stronger land use protection goals. A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program permits the transfer of density, which would retain landowners' equity in their land. Credits can be marketed to either the Town or private developers. The Town can determine in advance how transferred credits or density may be used. For instance, transferred credits can be targeted for use as affordable units or other uses that may benefit communities and strengthen hamlet areas. In order for a TDR program to work, the Town must identify sending and receiving areas for reduction and corresponding increase in development. The program must be consistent with SCDHS TDR provisions and must provide an overall community benefit to preserve open space, improve groundwater recharge in sending areas, and promote "smart growth" and other community benefit in receiving areas. Sending areas should be those areas the Town wants to protect such as environmentally sensitive parcels, critical woodlands, and groundwater recharge areas. Receiving areas must be identified in zoning districts where a small incremental increase in density may be permitted without serious environmental or other detrimental impacts; these areas might include the Hamlet Locus zones. Other receiving opportunities could involve special land use projects that provide mixed-uses or that otherwise advance planning goals of the Town. A TDR program can be designed to work Page 1-32 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS with incentive zoning provisions through a PDD and can be used to promote affordable housing. In any case, a receiving area must have one or more of the following characteristics: · Proximity to hamlet centers; · Lack of environmental sensitivity;' · Suitable road access; · Available public water; and · Ability to handle sewage or access to a sewage treatment plant (STP). In Southold, a TDR program will have to assume a number of basic parameters to guide the program and provide consistency with the SCDHS TDR policy, specifically as follows: · Transfers should be generally within the same school district, · Transfers must occur within the same Groundwater Management Zone as defined by the SCDHS, · Density must be determined based on underlying single family residential zoning (by accepted yield factors), with the intent that a formula for providing additional density for less-intensive units (multiple family and senior citizen units) will be established as an incentive to shifting and creating appropriate development in receiving locations, · Sending parcels must be appropriately encumbered through dedication to a public or recognized non-profit entity or covenants restricting future development, and should be registered by an appropriate tracking method through the Town, · Receiving parcels should be within areas serviced by public water, · Receiving parcels should not exceed twice the density allowed under the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC) unless an appropriate form of sewage treatment is available, · Receiving parcels should be subject to fertilized area restrictions, clearing restrictions and site plan or subdivision review, · Receiving parcels should be subject to further design standards and/or special exception criteria as may be determined through further review and analysis; such standards may include design parameters, development guidelines, buffering, clearing restrictions, fertilized area restrictions, setbacks, infraslructore installation and measures to improve community compatibility. Because of Southold's unique environmental constraints, a TDR program would have to discourage/eliminate inappropriate development on sensitive and important lands and promote appropriate development on parcels where such development can be sustained. 13. Planned Development District Local Law As noted above, the Town could implement a PDD Local Law consistent with Incentive Zoning as provided for under NYS Town Law §261-b so that, for those hamlet-area properties which are to be developed, a single use or a combination of complementary uses could be located on a single site. The PDD law allows a property to be mapped and designated as a PDD, so that all development within it would be planned, distributed and designed as a single unit, with regulations and standards for setbacks, building heights, etc. specifically designated for this zone. The PDD concept includes a requirement for "special public benefits", which would be provided over and above other requirements that normally apply to the application. Special Public Page 1-33 $outhold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS Benefits could include: use of TDR, provision of affordable housing, community facilities, community infrastructure, or other creative incentives. In this way, development would occur on a well-planned basis with minimal opportunity for adverse impacts on infi'astructure and services, as public benefits would be. accrued to the community and all infrastructure requirements and amenities necessary would be included from the onset of the project. 14. Tree Preservation Local Law Trees, forested, wooded and natural areas, and specimen trees of local and historical importance exist within the Town of Southold. Trees and woodlands are valuable as aesthetic and visual features, wildlife habitat and linkages, wetland buffers, erosion control features and stormwater storage/dissipation features, windbreaks and neighborhood/community features. The Town currently has no restrictions on the removal of trees on residential lands within the Town, and as a result, uncontrolled tree clearing can and has occurred. The Town's Tree Committee has recommended that tree clearing restrictions be enacted. The Town Board is considering adoption of a tree clearing local law, to restrict clearing of trees and vegetation on properties of 1 acre or more in size, unless approval ora tree clearing permit, site plan or subdivision has been received from the Planning Board. Trees and vegetation would be defined as any plant more than two (2) inches in size, diameter at breast height (dbh). 15. Critical Environmental Lands Local Law The Town of Southold has high quality but fragile environmental resources that warrant protection not only for their ecological value, but also for their importance to the local economy and their high aesthetic beauty. At present, the potential negative impacts of development to these resources are evaluated on a case-by-case basis as projects are proposed. Through this review, appropriate mitigation measures are either incorporated into project design, or required through the environmental review process. This process is time consuming and unnecessarily contentious. It has been suggested that the Town adopt a Local Law that specifically recognizes those lands of the Town of Southold that are environmentally sensitive, and provides clear guidelines for developers and landowners. The primary critical environmental lands of the Town include the following: · Freshwater wetlands and adjacent areas · Tidal wetlands and adjacent areas ,, Lands with natural slopes in excess of 15% · Lands with a depth to groundwater less than 10 feet The protection of these wetlands as biofilters, retention areas and recharge zones is important for groundwater protection. Preventing erosion potential and loss of soil on steep slope areas is important for ground and surface water protection as well. Areas with shallow groundwater are susceptible to groundwater degradation due rapid infiltration of contaminants and difficulty in maintaining properly functioning sanitary systems. In order to protect these resources, it is recommended that very limited development occur within these critical environmental lands. For instance, for the purpose of project yield, surface Page 1-34 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic EIS water wetlands and areas with greater than 15% slopes should be subtracted fi.om the gross acreage of the property to determine "developable land". Furthermore, these critical environmental lands should not be permitted to contribute toward the minimum lot size of subdivision lots. Cluster provisions could then be used to ensure expanded buffers and maximum preservation of these resources. This approach would be consistent with the Town's current subdivision review procedures and the definition of buildable land. There may be circumstances where controlled development within 100 feet of wetlands, within areas having slopes of more 15%, or within areas with groundwater depth of less than 10 feet, may be appropriate. The Town may wish to consider empowering the Planning Board to vary these requirements when no other alternative exists and specific and effective mitigation measures can be used and enforced. This provision could be provided for in the Local Law. The Critical Environmental Lands local law would apply to sensitive land within all zoning districts within the Town of Southold. The nature and value of these resources are not related to jurisdictional boundaries and warrant maximum preservation by virtue of theft' occurrence within the Town. 16. SEQRA Local Law Review/Revision In 1978, the Town adopted an Environmental Quality Review Law, now codified as Chapter 44 of the Town Code. This local law used the initial NYS SEQRA law as a model. Since that time, the NYS SEQRA law has been revised and further, the record of case law that shapes the way local environmental quality review laws are implemented has been significantly refined. As a result, the Town's existing Environmental Quality Review Law is in need of updating. The law should be reconstructed to assure that it is fully consistent with current SEQRA regulations as well as with the practical application of the statute. In addition to rectifying the provisions of the law, it has been recommended that the Town adopt a specific Type I list that would identify actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment. Suggested Type I actions include: · Critical Environmental Areas · Actions within Scenic Byways · Projects that remove significant acreage from agriculture use · Conventional subdivisions exceeding a specified number of lots. · Actions involving a minimum threshold percentage of a significant natural feature, such as wetlands, steep slopes, beach, watershed protection areas, woodland, etc. · Actions that generate more than a certain minimum threshold number of vehicle trips. The value to the Town of adopting a Type I list is early notification of applicants and involved agencies of the Town's interest in protection of significant local features, a more intensive review process, and better control over lead agency through local designation of Type I actions. Page 1-35 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS 17. Scenic By-Ways Overlay Development Controls NYS Route 25 and CR 48 were designated "Scenic By-Ways" by the state in 2002. Designating Routes 25 & 48 as scenic by-ways is the logical first step in preserving the visual integrity of the important public corridors in the Town. Designation alone, however, does nothing to assure that the visual and aesthetic characteristics of the corridors are in fact, permanently preserved. It has been recommended that a series of specific development controls be adopted that shape the use, nature and characteristics of the Town's designated scenic by-ways. Specific recommendations include the following: · Reviewing all zoning controls in all districts fronting on the scenic by-ways. If necessary, adjustments should be made to assure consistency in allowable setbacks, height, bulk and density provisions. Consistency also can be achieved via the adoption of an overlay of modified zoning provisions, e.g., a by-ways eon'idor management district. · Develop standards and guidelines that address building siting and architecture, viewsheds, open space, tree preservation and other landscaping. · Develop standards that reduce the number of required curb cuts and encourage shared use of driveways, where appropriate. · Require off-street parking areas to be located behind buildings. · Explore expanding the role of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). · Designate all actions within a scenic by-way as Type I actions under SEQRA. · Implement a roadway beautification or "adopt-a-road" program, whereby civic-minded citizens and businesses can help protect the scenic corridor. · Coordinate agency reviews to assure compliance with scenic by-way goals 1.3.3 Education/Enforcement Mechanisms 18. Agricultural District Review/Education It is a policy of the Town of Southold that agricultural land and the business of farming shall be preserved and encouraged to the maximum extent. To that end, the Town supports the establishment of Agricultural Districts, and the inclusion of farmland within such districts, as provided for under Article 25AA of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. Land within an Agricultural District qualifies for preferential land assessments, which is a method to assist in the preservation of agriculture within the Town. This implementation tool should be highlighted by greater promotion of the benefits of inclusion in Agricultural Districts through more interaction and education with large landowners. This will encourage farmers not currently included within an Agricultural District, to sign up for this program. 19. Create General Guidance Documents Guidance documents are useful as public education and information tools to assist with land use, environmental protection and best management practices. They can be specific enough to assist property owners and contractors in daily decisions about land use, and land management practices. Guidance Documents are needed in the following areas: Page 1-36 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS · Erosion and sediment control, · Stormwater and non-point source management (stormwater detention, landscape techniques, pet waste management), · Tree clearing, · Environmental restoration/enhancement techniques; · Wetlands protection, · Land preservation techniques for purchase of development fights (PDR), TDR, conservation subdivision), · Architectural and historical preservation manuals, · Physical Design and Lighting manuals (for sites and subdivisions), · Land management (clustering, development guidelines), and · Household chemical disposal. 20. Natural Environmental Education An important part of promoting understanding, appreciation and protection of the Town's unique natural, environmental and cultural resources involves education of the public about the value of these resources. Southold's groundwater is a fragile resource that must be protected through water conservation, proper lawn maintenance and proper disposal of household and lawn chemicals. The Town's abundant but threatened coastal resources, including fmfish, shellfish, marine wetlands, embayments and estuaries can be better protected through public education, understanding and appreciation. Freshwater wetlands and natural woodlands are fragile ecosystems in interior areas of the Town, and these areas support wildlife, water recharge areas and contribute to the rural character of the Town. Rural qualities and character, including historical resources, agriculture and farmland, and open space further contribute to the Town's unique quality. There are many avenues for education. These include: · Environmental guidance documents, · Newsletters, · Websites, and · Town offices and departments The Town's LWRP provides for ongoing education, and grants have been sought and one has been received to develop and support continued environmental education about the Town's natural environmental resources. However, these efforts need to be stepped up in response to increased development. 21. Watershed Protection Zone/SGPA's Southold has a significant and legitimate concern regarding its surface and groundwaters, sufficient to warrant their statutory protection. These resources were studied and analyzed in the Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (WSM&WPS, 1999). That plan recommended protecting this critical Town resource: Page 1-37 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS A significant finding of the WSM&WPS is that the central part of the Town of Southold, between Mattituck Creek and the Hamlet of Southold, and the area west of Mattituck Creek in the vicinity of Laurel Lake are significant areas in terms of the following key elements: · The areas are comprised of large lot holdings; · The areas are currently predominantly in agricultural use; · The areas are the largest contiguous block of agricultural use in the Town; The areas lie substantially above the five foot groundwater contour and therefore are significant recharge areas; · The areas contribute significantly to the rural character of the Town; and · The areas coincide with the Southold Special Groundwater Protection Areas (SGPA's) of the Town. These significant blocks of land clearly warrant additional protection measures to ensure that the above-noted features are maintained. First and foremost is the designation of the geographic areas for legislative purposes. It is often difficult to translate key environmental elements to a geographic boundary location. The designation of such areas heightens public awareness and provides a first step for additional planning measures. The primary area for protection is the area above the five-foot groundwater contour. However, the use of such a boundary would bisect private parcels and would not fully address the need to protect and preserve agricultural lands and rural quality. For this reason the designation of WPZ's are expanded to contain within them logical blocks of contiguous predominantly agricultural land. The West WPZ is therefore defined generally coincident with the area above the 5-foot contour within which is the SGPA area, in the vicinity of Laurel Lake between Sound Avenue and Main Road, east of the Town Line to Mattituck. The East WPZ is defined generally as the area extending from Long Island Sound on the north, to Route 25 on the south, between the area immediately east of Mattituck Creek, to the Hamlet of Southold. With the creation of the Southold WPZ's, it is important to establish the legislative goals and intent of the designation of such an area. Also with the creation of such districts it is important to establish development parameters that achieve the goals and objectives as stated by the Town. In order to effectively manage the WPZ's, the Town needs to reduce development density to maintain the existing landscape to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, any development, which does occur, should be greatly restricted. For the purpose of the Southold WPZ's these areas are considered to be Restricted Growth Areas. As such, the standards and guidelines proposed are the minimum management tools to be considered, leaving open the possibility of additional control measures to be considered in a subsequent section of this strategy. A summary list of standards and guidelines is provided below. · Control or reduce development density to limit nitrogen loading; · Eliminate the construction of new sewage treatment plants in the WPZ's; · Restrict the storage and use of toxic and hazardous materials in the WPZ's; · Maximize open space and reduce development density near public water supply sources; · Protect wetlands and adjacent areas; · Provide environmentally compatible stormwater recharge systems; Page 1-38 Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy Draft Generic ElS · Preserve existing vegetation, specimen trees and wooded edges wherever possible; · Align contiguous areas of undeveloped open space and farmland through development design; · Minimize areas established in fertilizer dependent vegetation; · With the exception of agricultural use, revegetate permanent buffer areas with plantings having a low fertilizer and irrigation dependency; Identify and protect species in communities of special concern; · Provide a mechanism for the management/enhancement of Town open space lands; and · Restrict commemial and industrial development to protect quality of groundwater recharge and rural character. Certain guidelines may also be appropriate to apply to development proposals in the resUicted growth areas. These guidelines are considered advisory, and are intended to be used at the discretion of the Town in project review, depending on the significance of the action and the sensitivity of the resource. Recommended guidelines are summarized as follows: · Seek to achieve a concentration of total nitrogen in recharge of 2.5 milligrams per liter (mg/I) or less; · Provide more stringent well head protection for water supply properties based on a scientific understanding of hydrologic resources; · Apply stricter setback requirements from wetlands and surface waters; · Provide creative stormwater detention areas for recharge and storage of stormwater based on natural topography and functional pond creation; · Provide m SITE PLAN h, il[fin 30 days of ~vritlen reques[) Complete application received Applicant advised ~)f necessgry revisions (,,vilhin 30 4ars ~)f reviexv) *Xad Agd:ncy CnorOimllion SE01;!A determination - - REFERRED TO: g Board of Appeals ~ ~ ritten C?lll)lentS within 60 days or request) ~g Department (cert~ication) , Suffolk County Department or Planning D?artme~ t of Transportation -State 12-~roo Fi[ed Covenants and [~e~q.D~tvans g,~and$cape plan ~ight[ng pla~l L/gdJ'rl, Cu[ al,proval ~E ~ ~5 PLALffNING BOA-RD M[EMBt RICI-La.P,D G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCI'EIE L~ATI~4~M, J~ W'[LLiAM J, CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWAPADS PLA~NiNYNG BOA. RD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town I~'alL ~3095 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York Fax (516) 7e$-313~ Telephone (516) 765-1 f)ate ReceJvec; DaCe Comple[e Filing Fee APPUCATION FOR CONStDERA]]ON OF A SITE PlAN New Change of Use ension N2me of Applicon(:: Address Of Telephone: Owner of [and: Agent or Person responsible for alDplication; Adclress: re!el~t~one: Site plans prepared Dy: License No.: Address: Telephone: ,~Puc,~'~s A~DAv~T STATE OF NEW COUNIY OF SUFFOL~ ~n me State of New Yor~, and mat he Js ~he owner of me above property, ar that ne is ~e ~ wne~r Palermo ~r Cor~J whicD *s DereDy macing a~flca~oa; ~a~ mere ara no e~s~ng ~re~ or improv~en~ on me iaaa which are nor shown on me site Plan; ~at ~e ~e ~ ~e entre psrcat, including afl rights-of-way, has Peen dearly es[aDlis~ and is shown on said Plan; ~a[ no pa~ ¢ ~e Plan infringes upcn any duly ¢t8n w~ich ~as not been abandoned ~o~ as ~o Io~ and as ~o toads; ~ac he has examined ~11 rules and regulaOons adopt~ ~y ~e ~anning B~rd ~r ~e Rling ¢ Si[e Plans and will comply wi[~ same; ~a: pians submi~ed, as annoyed, will not be ai~r~ Or c~ang~ in any manner W~ou[ ~e apDrov2t ¢ ~e Planning Board; and ~a~ ~e ac~at p~Vsi~l improve~ will De ins~ll~ in s~i~ accordanc~ wit~ ~e plans suDmi~ed. Sworn to me mis PAT'S/CIA C. MOORE ~°~a~ PuMle., ~te of New York Page ] P!annlng Board Site Plar~ Application _~=~;Otat Land Area of Site (acres or square feet) oning Dlstdct ExisttngUseofSlte J/~.~'~,-~- ~c',/o/~/~//~ ~ ~ P~pose~ Uses on Site. Show all uses prop~e~ and e~ng. Indicate w~ich DuilOing will have which u~. · more ~nan one u~ ~ proposed per building, indicate square foo~ge of floor area ~hat will ~ rose,ed ~r use. -~/~ Gross Fioor Area of Existing SmJcture(s) Gross Floor Area of Proposed Structure(si Percent of Lot Coverage by Building(s} ~'x ~ 'Percent of Lot for Panting (where applicable) } ..~z-/~z ,~ Percent of Lot for Landscaping (where appllcaDle~ p~-~-, Has applicant ~een granted a variance and/or special exception by v/ BoardofAppeats-Case#&date 3)~/.2._ g,/~/~a~ F/--~ Board of Trustees - Case # & date ,./ NY State Department of Environmental Conservation - Case # ~7~Suffolk County Department Health Services - Case # & date ~/o-g'~-¢/oCase Numlaer Name of Applicant ~Date of Decision Expiration Date Other Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk CountY Board of Health, De stored or handled at the site? If so, have proper permits been obtained7 Name of issuing agency Number and date of' permit issued. NO ACITON (EXCAVAITON OR CONST~UCi-ION} WAr BE UNDERTAKEN UND{ APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN BY PLANN/NGBOA/eD. VtOLAfO£~ARESUEJEC??OP£OSECUr/ON. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS CEORG-E ??-TCH:E LATIL~--~;'.~ JR. RICHARD CAGGIANO P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination Non-Significant July 8, 2002 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed site plan for Breezy Sound Corp. SCTM#: 1000-45-1-2.1 Location: 61475 CR 48, Greenport SEQR Status: Type I ( ) Unlisted (X) Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes ( ) No (X) Description of Action: To construct a 68 unit motel in 5 buildings, plus a pool house, office, and manager's apartment on 7.13 acres adjacent to the Long Island Sound in an RR Zone~ Reasons Supporting This Determination: An Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted and reviewed, and it was determined that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. There has not been any correspondence received from the Department of Health Services Office in the allotted time. Therefore, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. SEQR NeC;lative Declaration - Paqe Two There has not been any correspondence received from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the allotted time. Therefore, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. The applicant will have to comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC) and all relevant standards of water supply and sewage disposal systems. Design and flow specification, subsurface soil conditions and site plan details will have to be approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). This impact is not considered significant due to the anticipated project compliance with established requirements of the SCSC and the SCDHS and the required relevant permits. For Further Information: Contact Person: Victor L'Eplattenier AddreSs: Planning Board Telephone Number: (631 )765-1938 CC: Roger Evans, DEC Stony Brook Suffolk County Dept. of Health Suffolk County Planning Commission Suffolk County Water Authority NYS Dept. of Transportation Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Zoning Board of Appeals Building Department Applicant NEL~ON~ POPE & VOORHIB~ LLC January30,2001 Mr. Robert G. Kassner Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re'. Review of Long EAF Breezy Sound Corp. 6147 County Road Route 48, Mattituck SCTM No. 1000-45-1-2.1 N&PV No. 98106 JAN 3 ! 2001 Dear Mr. Kassner: As per your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced action, which is an Unlisted action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The project is currently known as Breezy Shores, although the original application was made under the name of Cliffside. The 7.13 acres subject site is located on the north side of North Road (County Road 48) approximately 200 feet east of Chapel Road in the Town of Southold. The proposed action involves the construction of a 68-unit motel complex with kitchenettes in all units. In addition the applicant proposes a pool house, swimming pool, office, and a manager's apartment. The property would be accessed by a single drive, which would loop to serve the proposed units. Seventy-nine (79) parking spaces are provided, including four (4) handicapped stalls based on one per unit and 10 employee spaces as required by code. The use will be connected to public sewers and public water supply. The property is zoned Resort Residential (RR). The site plan meets the requirements for minimum lot area and yard setbacks within the zone. The livable floor area requirement under the Bulk Schedule for Resort Residential District in the Town Code is 850 SF except one- bedroom or stndio in multiple dwellings may have 600 SF. There is no indication on the Site Plan or within the EAF of the proposed unit size. We understand that floor plans have been submitted and the applicant's attorney indicates units will not exceed 600 SF. The project site is located on a bluff overlooking Long Island Sound, and steep slopes of over 15 percent are present along the bluff as well as in the interior of the site. Under existing conditions, the bluff is vegetated with a variety of maritime shrub species. Much of the remainder of the site Page 1 Breezy Shores ~ Southold LEAF Part 1 Revtew was cleared when construction was initiated in the late 1980's, and grading and filling has altered the original topography of the site. This grading' has created a wet area in the southwestern comer of the site which supports a limited number of wetland plant species. NP&V has reviewed the past SEQRA documents prepared for the subject application, which was originally submitted in the early 1980's. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was submitted in July, 1985, with a final revision in October 1987. A Supplemental Draft ElS was then completed to further address specific concerns, and the documents were accepted as a compete Draft EIS on October 18, 1988. Szepatowski Associates Inc., Environmental Consultants & Planners, prepared the Final EIS in February 1989 responding to separate written comments on the Draft EIS and testimony from a November 14, 1988 heating. No findings statement was adopted by the lead agency, however, the Final EIS contained several reconunendations which were referred to as the "findings" of the lead agency. The "findings" included in the Final EIS were as follows: The Lead Agency would find an alternative that: a) increases the amount of natural buffer to a minimum of thirty feet along Middle Road and on the east and west sides of the property; b) that reduces the unit count to 58 or reduces the individual unit size to 450 s.f at a maximum of 74 units reduces the buildings facing on Middle Country Road to one story, and incorporates the findings on the subjects of traffic, visual impact, water supply and sewage disposal, recharge, and shoreline and erosion control, will minimize environmental impacts to the greatest degree practicable. The latter general statement included the following recommendations from the body of the Final EIS: As sight distance is of concern at a curve immediately west of the site, a reduction in the number and size of the units is suggested to mitigate traffic impacts; Greater set-back of the buildings along GR. 48 is recommended, and a berm with coniferous trees (other than black pines) should be provided to minimize visual impacts. As potable water supplies are limited, a separate well for irrigation, pool use and air conditioning is recommended. Use of drought-resistant vegetation and an automatic sprinkler system activated by sod moisture are also suggested. Page 2 Breezy Shores ~ SouthoId LEAF Part l Review Due to the presence of soils with low permeability on site, redesign of the drainage system to accommodate a six inch design storm with no increase in runoff was requested to minimize erosion of the bluff. A reduction in the itnpervious surfaces on site is suggested to aid in accomplishing this. The proposed concrete walkway to the beach should be replaced by an elevated wooden walkway to minintize disturbance of vegetation and erosion of the bluff Silt fencing must be installed prior to removal of topsoil on site, and/unoff.must not be allowed to pool on site during construction. Runoff should be recharged near C.R. 48 or near the center of the site rather than along the bluff. Reduction of the proposed unit size from 911 s.f and 1042 s.f to 450 s.f is suggested as more reasonable for a motel unit to minimize the likelihood of long-term residency. A final site plan was then approved on December 18, 1989, which incorporated some, but not all, of the recommendations outlined in the Final EIS. Construction was initiated following approval of the site plan, but the work was never completed. The site was cleared and preliminary grading was undertaken, with topsoil stockpiled near the proposed tennis courts. Foundations were poured for the two proposed buildings nearest the bluff, and are still present. A small frame cottage also remains on the property from an earlier use, but the garage has been removed. The applicant now wishes to resume construction of the proposed motel, however, the approval has expired and a new SEQRA determination is necessary. The following text will discuss the existing conditions and potential impacts of the proposed project in more detail. Geologic Resources There is a potential for erosion impacts as a result of the proposed project. The project site is located on a bluff overlooking Long Island Sound, and steep slopes of over 15 pement are present along the bluff as well as in the interior of the site. Alteration of the topography of the property occurred in conjunction with preliminary construction activities, and a low, wet area with steep slopes was created in the southwestern portion of the property. The bluffs along the north shore of Long Island typically experience ongoing erosion due to wind and wave action, and the Town Code requires a 100 toot setback from the top of a bluff for new construction. The Town delineated the edge of the bluff for the original application, and a 100 foot buffer will be maintained from this line to minimize erosion impacts. The height of the bluff is approximately 30 feet, with lower elevation at a slight swale to the northeast. The proposed setback is expected to provide adequate protection of the bluff, although revised grading and drainage plans should be reviewed by the Town Engineer to insure that ~tnoff is contained on site. In addition, the erosion control plan should also be reviewed by the Town Engineer to minimize loss of soils during construction. Page 3 Breezy Shores (~ Southold LEAF Par~ 1 Review The original topography has been altered by grading in preparation for construction. Fill was deposited to raise the elevation of proposed buildings A and D. As extensive disturbance has already occurred, completion of the project is not expected to result in further impacts, as long as sediment and run-off is contained on the upland portion of the site. [f lhe applicant seel~ approval for beach access, a wooden walkway is recommended consistent with the Final EIS. None has been depicted on the site plan. Water Resources The elevation of groundwater beneath the subject site is approximately 0 to 1 foot above mean sea level (msl) according to the 1997 SCDHS map, and the topographic elevation is ranges from 0 to approximately 58 feet above msl in the northeastern portion of the site. Thus, although the depth to groundwater is approximately 0 to 57 feet below the surface, although the minimum depth within the proposed development area is more than 30 feet. This should not present constraints on the proposed project. There are no natural freshwater features on the subject site, although a vernal wet area was created by the grading of the site in conjunction with prior preparation for development (see Ecological Resources Below). Significant impact to Long Island Sound is not expected as a result of the proposed project. The project will be served by the existing water and sexver district,s, and no wastewater discharge to groundwater is anticipated. As was recommended, in the FEIS, an irrigatior~ well is proposed on the revised site plan. This will minimize the impact of the project on the local water district. The applicant may wish to consider an alternate source of water supply for the pool. Water quality tests should be conducted and SCDHS consulted. The applicant shouM advise the Planning Board of the final decision with justification that public health will be protected. Ecological Resources At the time the Draft EIS was prepared, the habitats found on the subject site included successional woodland on the upland portion of the property and maritime shrubland along the bluff: The shrubland along the bluff remains intact, but most of the remainder of the site was cleared and the topsoil stockpiled in preparation for construction. As described in the Draft EIS, this portion of the site originally contained a successional woodland habitat dominated by locusts, cherry and other early successional tree species. The cleared areas are now characterized by early successional herbaceous species and scattered shrubs, and there are barren areas where erosion has not permitted recolonization. Page 4 Breezy Shores ~ Southold LEAF Part 1 Review The landscaping plan as recommended as part of the final review ensures that buffer areas augmented by native plantings create vegetated buffers of 30 and 50feet along the side and rear yards, respectively. As was discussed above, a small wet area was created in the southern portion of the site by grading activities. This area is too small to be.regulated as a wetland by the NYSDEC under Arlicle 24, which only regulates wetlands of less than 12.4 acres if they are deemed of "local significance". As the wet area was recently created, it does not appear to meet the criteria for local significance. In addition, the Southold Town Code regulates only those features included under Article 24. Although this area does have limited value and might develop into a true wetland over time, there are extensive natural wetlands in the area. Revision of the site plan to preserve this area does not appear warranted. However, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has traditionally regulated small wetlands which possess characteristics of wetlands by the three parameter delineation approach (although this authority has been called into question in another ACOE DistricO. Under ACOE Nationwide Permit 39, fil] of such features is allowed up to ~ acre. Therefore the feature should be delineated, mapped and a jurisdiction request sent to ACOE. If it is within a proposed development area and is regulated, a notice of intent should be sent to A COE ifa fiH action is permitted under Nationwide Permit 39. Land Use The proposed use is consistent with Town land use goals as reflected in the zoning map. The land use in the vicinity of the site is a mix of residential uses, motels, vacant land, and a nursing home. The uses immediately abutting the site include a small single family home and an estate with several buildings to the west, and a motel complex to the east. The nursing home is located south of the site across C.R. 48. There are other motel uses along the Sound, as well as a condominium complex further to the west of the site. There are vacant lands in the area, including a large parcel owned by the Village of Greenport which includes a wetland system associated with Moore's Drain. The project site is zoned for Resort Residential development, as is the entire area north of C.R. 48 for approximately '/2 and [4 mile west and east of the site, respectively. To the south of C.R. 48, the zoning is Residential-80 to the west of Chapel Lane, and Hamlet Density to the east, with the exception of the parkland with the Village of Greenport. As was discussed above, the proposed project meets the dimensional requirements within the Code, with the exception of maximum unit size of 600 SF. The floor plans should be reviewed to ensure conformance with the code. Page 5 Breezy Shores ~ Southold LEAF Part I Review Traffic The Board shouM request an updated traffic study or SCDPW approval of this curb cut with consideration of impacts'on the County Road. The traffic study contained with Drat~ EIS indicated that the proposed project was expected to increase traffic generation on C.R. 48 by approximately 10 percent. Existing traffic levels on C.R. 48 have increased since the Draft EIS was completed, therefore the percent increase to be generated by the proposed project would have decreased. However, seasonal traffic and highway capacity may need to be considered. Traffic generation and the resulting impact remain a concern with regard to the project. The subject site is located just east of a sharp curve, which is the location of frequent accidents and limits sight distance to the west. In order to minimize traffic impacts, the site access has been located away from the curve and acceleration/deceleration lines are provided. Visual Resources Preservation of the rural character of Southold is a high priority within the Town, and thus views along C.R. 48 should be retained as much as possible. The Final ElS suggests construction ora berm along C.R. 48 with evergreen vegetation, as well as reduction in the height of the two buildings located at the highest portion of the property near the road. A vegetated berm would partially screen the proposed development from the road, and a reduction in building height would offer additional mitigation consistent with the Final EIS. The proposed project meets the building setbacks required under Town code. Augmentation of the existing edge of vegetation is proposed to maximize screening of the proposed development as recommended within the Final EIS to minimize visual impacts. No berm is shown on plan, however supplemental plantings are noted on the plan for the east and west property lines. A landscaped berm is recommended at the limit of the disturbance area at the southern portion of the site. Other Resources Landscape techniques should be used to minimize visual impacts on CR 48. Impacts on community services such as police, fire and school districts are expected to be minimal. Although a slight increase in demand for services is expected, tax revenues generated by the project should offset this demand. There will be a beneficial impact on local schools, as tax revenues will increase without a corresponding increase in demand for services. In summary, the primary concerns related to the proposed project are the potential for erosion, land use impacts, size of individual units, visual impacts, site access, and traffic impacts as a result of the proposed project. A portion of the vegetation on site has already been cleared, although a small vernal wet area was created by filling on site. Page 6 Breezy. Shores ® Southold LEAF Part 1 Review This review together with the Long EAF Part I, Part II and the information contained within the Final EIS should be sufficient to allow the board to make a determination of significance. The conditions on site and in the vicinity of the project have not substantially changed, and the Final ElS provides a complete record of environmental review, which takes a hard look at the proposed project. In addition, the project was previously approved and construction commenced. At this time site plan improvements can be made so that the final approval conforms as much as possible to the findings statement contained within the Final EIS. lf the applicant wishes to change aspects of the plan frora what was reviewed and concluded in the EIS process a Supplemental EIS would be appropriate under Part 617. 9 (a)(7). The following is a summarized list of mitigation measures included as findings within the Final EIS and identified in this review. The revised grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be reviewed by the Town Engineer prior to approval to ensure that runoff is contained within the upland portion of the site and is not directed toward the bluff to minimize loss of soils during construction, particularly near the bluff. It is recommended that hay bales be used to prevent sediment transport in the area of the "existing structure to be removed". The limit of cleating should be accurately depicted in the southwest part of the site on the revised grading, drainage and erosion Control plan. Beach access, if proposed, should be a wooden walkway on pilings with minimal erosional impact to the bluff. This would require separate approval from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. No walkway is shown on plan. The proposed well installed on site for irrigation, air conditioning and pool use, as was recommended in the Final EIS is provided. This would require separate approval from the SCDHS and the NYSDEC depending on the capacity of the new pump. The applicant should justify the use of this well lbr pool water supply to ensure that public health is protected. The revised landscape plan depicts native plantings to provide the reconunended buffers along the yards. However, no proposed construction of a berm along C.R. 48 with evergreen vegetation is shown to minimize visual impacts. Some small berm with landscaping adjacent to the parking ama at the edge of existing vegetation is recommended for visual mitigation. Page 7 Breezy Shores ~ Southold LEAF Part I Review No indication has been made of the proposed unit size in the application as tbrwarded to our office. However we understand that floor plans have been submitted and the applicant's attorney has indicated a unit size of 600 SF. Prior findings indicated a reduction should occur in which the unit count is 58 or the individual size of the units are 450 SF at a maximum of 74 units. Floor plans should be reviewed to ensure compliance with the Zoning Code and prior findings. If the units size is 600 SF, the Board should determine if a reduction in the number of unit is appropriate as ,,vas previously required in the Final EIS "findings." 6. The Board should request that a traffic study be prepared by the applicant or SCDPW approval of the curb cut with consideration of impacts on this County Road provided. Prior findings recommended a reduction in building height adjacent to CR 48. Building heights should be indicated, and height, architecture and landscape techniques used to ensure conformance with prior findings. We understand building elevations have been submitted to facilitate this review. The wet depression on site should be depicted on the site plan and evaluated to ensure that compliance with the Clean Water Act Part 404 as administered by ACOE is achieved. If these measures are incorporated into the site design through an amendment of the site plan, and if the Board is in agreement with this review, we believe there is an adequate basis on which to issue a Negative Declaration. Please advise this office how these items will be handled. Upon resubmission of information to the Town's satisfaction, we will complete the EAF Part II to support the Boards determination of significance. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Page 8 14-16-2 (9/95)-- 7c 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be'aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions Identily the Portions of EAF completed for this project: C~ Part 1 El Part 2 r-IPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: r-t A. The project will not result in any large and important impact[s) and. therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [3 B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because t~e mitigation measures described In PART 3 have been required. therefore · CONDITIONED ~egatlve dedaraflon will be prepared.* [] C. The project may result In one or more large and Important Impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. ' A Conditioned Negative Declaration Is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lea~l Agency Print o~ Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Date 1 PART 1--PROJECT INFORMAeN prepared by Project Sponsor NOTIC£; This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the enviroqment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers lo these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. If is expected that completion of the full gAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NA.E OE LOCATION OF ACTION ~nclude Strut Address. Mun~lpallly afld Counl~ I AODRESS v BUSINESS TELEPHONE · I BUSINESS( ) TELEPHONE ADDRESS STATE 1 ZiP COOE OESCRI~I'ION OF ACTION t, go~9' -~/o~,~ Ple~e Complete Ea~ Qu~tion-lndi~le N.A, ii not appli~ble A. Site Description Phwical setting of overall projec~ ~ de~lop~ Ind undevelo~d areas. 1. Present land use: ~Orban I-]Forest tqlndustrial ~;~Commerclal ~, CIResidential (suburban) C]Rural (non-farm) ~Agrlculture r-]Other /'/~,)//?~/~/ i~/~-~/-' ~ ~(.~nd~z/~o~.~ 2. Total acreage of project area: 7, /,.~L acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY MeadOw or 8rusllland (Noreagricultural) (~,/-- acres Agricultural (includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) -- ~ - acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as ~r A~icles 24, 25 of ECL) -- O ~ acres Water Surface Area acres Unvegetat~ (R~k. earth or fill) ~-*~ acres goads, buildings and other paved su~aces //% / acres AFTER COMPLETION -*~, ~-' acres ~ . acres ~ ~ acres Other (indicate type! /--~'~"~$/~'z/~,/3-~*~ acres .~ ~'~ acres / / 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? /~ O,~-~,~ a. Soil drainage: DWell drained __ % of site ~/vlOderately well drained/~ % of site ~Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land Is Invo~/~, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? /'~ acres. (See I NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcropplAgs on project site? [::)Yes ,1~No a. What Is depth to bedrockt ~ "~ / (in feet) 2 5 Approximate Percentage of prop~project site wilh slopes O0-10% __.~_~ % [:]10-1 .~ % ~?.,'.~ __ % [~15% o~ greater 6' Is projec~ subslantiaUy contiguous to. or contain a budding, site. or distuct. I~sted on ~he State or the National Registers of Historic P aces~ ~Yes ~o 7 Is proiect substantially conti~uous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landma~ks~ ~Yes ~o 8 What is the depth of the water table? ~ (in feetJ /n ~//~/~ ~, 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer~ ~Yes ~No 10 Do hunting, fishi~8 or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area~ ~Yes ~N~ 11 Ooes project site contain any species of plant o¢ animal Ide that is identified as threatened or endangered¢ ~Yes ~No According to ~/~ /~ ~.~ ~denliiy each species 12. Are there any unique or unosual land forms on the project site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, other 8eolo¢ica~ Iormations) Descdbe ~ Z~ 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? C]Yes [~No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? C]Yes 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: /~//'~ a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name /O/7~.-T.~/,~f~-~u,~,~/-/~Zl/z'~/~t~w'~f b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilitiest' ~YesC~re~N~/~ H a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow ¢onnection[ j~Yes b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? J~Yes 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article Section 303 and 304t' C]Yes 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617i' nyes ~(No ' 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastest' i-lYes ,~No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 7' /~u~.. acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: (z~ acr~s initially; ~ acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped /, "*J~ acres. d. Length of project, in miles: / (if appropriate) e. 'If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed ~/,~',vl~?,~; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing (~) ; proposed '~-'~"~ g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ~'~:~ · (upon' completion of projecU~' h. If residential: Number and type of housln_$ un_iEs: C//-77~/~./'/,,~/~,/~/) One Family two family Multiple Family Condominium Initially _ Ultimately I. Dimensions (In ~eet) of largest ;roposed structure ~ he~ht; -) ~t, ~- ' width; I Z-~ length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy Isf ..,~' 05 fL 3 (~rock, earth, eic} wdl be removed Irom 2 How 3 Will disturbed areas be reclaimed?~ ~;}Ye~sL'4rl~o [3N/A a tf yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? _ b Wdl topsoil be stockpiled for rec amation? ~Yes [~No c Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~i~Yes ONo I~iite? 0 _ lons/cub,c yards 4 How many acres of vegetation (trees shrubs ground covers wiU be removed4r,~m -;.~;' [:]Yes I~o r 6. It single phase project: Anticipated period of construction . /8 months. Cincluding demolition) 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition} c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? [3Yes [~No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? I-lYes ~l~0No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction ~'--~) ; after project is complete., 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project (~. 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? C1Yes ,~No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [3Yes '~No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? C]Yes ~No "/Vb~";~'~gt'~/ 14, Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? [3Yes I-~No Explain ~qC, e,/~,~' 15. Is project or any portion of project Ioc~ed in a 100 year flood plain? [~es I'qNo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~fYes [:]No ~;~' ~z-f/.,~g-' /~0.5~,~/~' /.~,~rz~/~.~ a. If yes, what is the amount per month ~- - ~c,. tons/'~_~ff/~;~ b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility ~ used? J~Yes I-INo c. If yes. give name-'/D~z~z'~,~',~/~'/~//~/,~,~'~_,~,~.~,~/ location d. Will"any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? I-lYes .~o e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? r-lYes a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? rlYes ~No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? '[:]Yes ~No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? [:]Yes 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? )~Yes i-lNo If yes . indicate type(s) C/~C~',~.. f~ 22. If water supply Is from wells, indicate pumping capacity, 23. Total anticipated water usage per day J ~D O. gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? [3Yes If Yes, explain gallons/minute. I~No 25. Approval~ Required: Submittal Type Date C.ty. Town. V,liage Board ~JYes Ci~y, Town, Village Planning Board ~Yes E]No City. Town Zoning Board ~Yes ~lNo City. County Health 0epartrnent ~Yes ~No Othe~ Local Agencies ~Yes Other Regional Agencies ~Yes ~No Slale Agencies ~Yes ~No Federal Agenoes ~Yes ~No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ~Yes [:]No II Yes, indicate decision required: [:]zoning amendment [:3zoning variance Flspecial use permit C]subdivision /~'site plan C]new/revision of master plan [:]resource management plan [:]other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? ,/~ ~.. 3 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? ._~ /"Sd-~',r'~'.,) 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ,,~es {:]No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a T/, mile radius of proposed action? 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ~A mile? /J~Yes C3No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land; how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? [:3Yes ,,~fNo 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police. fire protection)~ ,[~.Ye s /-]No a. If yes. is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ,,~Yes I-INo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generatlon.of traffic significantly above present levels? ~E~Yes a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ~'Yes [:3No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. If the a~i Is In the Coastal Area, and you are a slale agent, complete Ihe Coastal Asse,menl Form before proceedin~ wllh this me~menL 5 PLANNING BOARD MEMBI~ JERIIJYnN B. WOODHOUSE PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: PO. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town tfall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 63I 765-3136 September 27, 2005 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Rez Proposed Site Plan for Breezy Sound Corp., a/Ida Cliffside Resort Located 285' e/o Chapel Lane on the n/s/o CR 48 and known as 61475 CR 48 in Greenport SCTM #1000-45-%2.1 Zone: RR Dear Ms. Moore: The following resolution was adopted at a Special Meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, September 26, 2005: WHEREAS, this proposed site plan for Breezy Sound Motel in Greenport is to construct a new 68-unit motel with a pool house for motel guests and a manager's apartment unit, located on 7.13 acres; and WHEREAS, Breezy Sound Corp. is the owner of the property known and designated as Breezy Sound Motel, a/k/a Cliffside Resor~, CR 48, Greenport. SCTM #1000-45-1-2.1; and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on December 1,2000 and conditional final approval was granted on May 12, 2003; and WHEREAS, the applicant sought to extend the May 12, 2003 conditional final approval and such approval was granted on October 14, 2003; and WHEREAS, the applicant sought to extend the October 14, 2003 conditional final approval and such approval was granted on Apdl 14, 2004; and WHEREAS, the applicant sought to extend the Apd114, 2004 conditional final approval to October 14, 2004 and such approval was granted on December 14, 2004; and WHEREAS, the applicant sought to extend the October 14, 2004 conditional final approval to April 14, 2005, and such approval was granted on December 14, 2004;and Breezy Sound - Page Two - September 27, 2005 WHEREAS, The applicant sought an additional extension of conditional final approval from April 14, 2005 to October 17, 2005, and such approval was granted on May 10, 2005; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2005, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) approved the site plan prepared by Barrett, Bonacci & Van Weele, P.C., and certified by Kevin Walsh, Professional Engineer, dated October 3, 2001,and last revised August 18, 2005 for the SCDHS under reference number C10-02-0015; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the site plan prepared by Barrett, Bonacci & Van Weele, P.C. and certified by Kevin Walsh, Professional Engineer, dated October 3, 2001, and last revised August 18, 2005, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the final site plans subject to a one-year review from the date of issuance of the building permit. Enclosed are two copies of the approved site plan for your records. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, ~dhous~e~ Chairperson EDCS. cc: Building Department Town Engineering Inspector Town Assessor .APPEAIeS BOARD MEMBERS Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman Gerard E Goehringer George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF ,a~PEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2003 Appl. No. 4942 - BREEZY SOUND CORP. Property Location: North Side of C.R, 48, a/Ida North Road (opposite San Simeon Nursing Home), Greenport; Parcel 1000-45-01-2.1. Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road RO. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 htr p://so u thol~anl,aetlMu:>r k.net $.' ¢o,~ -- Southald Town Clerk APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Applicant is requesting a Special Exception under Section 100-61B(4), for permission to establish new 68-unit motel with motel office, pool house for motel guests, and motel-manager's apartment unit as shown on the dimensional plan prepared by Barrett, Bonacci and VanWeele, P.C. dated 10/3/01, revised 8/2/02. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 7.13-acre parcel is unimproved and is located on the north side of C.R. 48, al/da North Road, in Greenport, and ts locateO in tt~e Resort- Residential LRR) Zone DistricL FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on October 17, 2002 and January 16, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: '~'~--~.~CODE PROVISIOI~ Code Section 100-61B(4) provides that the following are permitted ~-'~a~E~',eTfl1~n' approval from the Board of Appeals, subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board: Transient hotels or motels, resort hotels or motels or conference facilities, provided that the following requirements are met: (a) Minimum parcel size shall be five (5) acres. (b) The maximum number of guesl units shall be: ['iI One (1) unit per six thousand (6,000) square feet of land without public water [2] One (1) unit per four thousand (4,000) square feet of land with pubi{c water ~. (c.)./ No music, entertainment or loudspeaker system sha~[ be audible from_..; ~ beyond the property line. ~ ~ (d) the maxirnun~ Size Of a guest unit ~hall be stx hundred {600) square feet. Page 2 - March 20, 200L~ AppL No. 4942 - Breezy Sound Si- )res 1000-45-I-2.1 al Greenport In addition, the Board has reviewed the General Standards governin¢ Special Excephr, uses set forth in Section 100-263 and finds that: A. That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties of properties in adjacent use districts. B. That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or ~egali,~ established uses in the district wherein the requested use is Iocatea or of permitted legally established uses in adjacent use districts. C. That the safety, the health, the welfare, the comfort, the convenience or the orde~ · ~ the town will not be adversely affected by the Resort Motel use and its Iocatior~ D. That the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and irder~ ,' E. That the use will be compatible with its surroundings and w~th the character neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to vi$inllib, and overall appearance. F. That all proposed structures, equipment and material shall be readily accessible r,~ fire and police protection. BOARD CONSIDERATIONS/REASONS: In considering this application, and c~ m, basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the ~3oarr~ has reviewed the code requiremenls set fodh pursuant to Section 100~61Bt4~ and ¢i ~,;: that the applicant complies with the Code requirements, and that 1. The proposed Resort Motel is required to be built on a mimmum ,~.',f five .~,.:',~ Breezy Sound Shores Corp has seven acres located on Coumy .pj:opos~t is bounded on the east by a motel and a condominium a~d , , west by a motel7) The site is located across from the San Simeon Nursi~{i Fl-orhe ~ ;48, and to the north of the site is a bluff overlooking Sound. Breezy Sound Shores Corp. has received a Permit to buita fror~ 'i~(~ !~,';. Trustees amended 1/7/02 The number of guest units is determined by the availability of ware; When both are available, one unit per four thousand square teal ~s ,tli(.,¢vtf.~ ' applicant has permission from the Suffolk County Water Authority :,: public water. Breezy Sound Shores Corp. also has obtainea approvat chromOgl~iss system f~om the Suffolk County Board of Health for seWer disposa~ ,, Page 3 - March 20, 2003 " · , ', Appl. No. 4942 - Breezy Sound Shores 1000-45-1-2.1 at Greenport they are in negotiations with the Village of Greenport for sewer hookup. This would allow construction of 68 units. 3. No music, entertainment or loudspeaker system shall be audible from beyond the property line. 4. The maximum size of a guest unit shall be 600 square feet. The applicant's plans call for a living area, kitchenette, and two bedrooms all within the 600 square feet limit. 5. The definition of a Resort Motel also includes the permission to build a manager's unit with one bedroom and kitchen, and a pool house, pool, office, and beach access. After considering all items under Section 100-61B(4), no evidence has been submitted to snow [ha[ u~e safety, health, wel[are convenience oru~ bi the Town would be adversely affected by this Resort Motel use. This project is subject to a site plan review by the Planning Board. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried, to GRANT the application for a Special Exception, for a Resort Motel, subject to the following Covenants and Restrictions, to be prepared by applicant in recordable form, approved by the Town Attorney's Office, and filed by the owner/applicant with the Suffolk County Clerk's Office: 1. Regardless of the form of ownership of the Resort Motel or the individual motel units, the resort motel will be operated in accordance with the Southold Town Code. In accordance with the Southold Town Code, the Resort Motel shall be "rented on a daily rental basis or for vacationers or other persons on a weekly rental basis." 2. A Management Company, or equivalent, shall be established which will manage the day to day operations of the resort motel and shall monitor that the units are operated as a resort motel. A Board of Managers, or equivalent, will establish the rules and regulations of. the complex. The rules and regulati0ns shall be in conformity with the Southold Town Code. 3. The Operating Agreement of this complex will provide that individual owners of the resort motel units shall be guaranteed no more than two weeks of occupancy of thei'r ~init ~luHng the pdr~e season. The units' areto be placed'in a rental pool and available to the public. In the event that the unit is not rented, the owner of the unit may Page 4 - March 20,200., AppL No. 4942 - Breezy Sound Sh, res 1000-45-1~2.1 at Greenpod then occupy the unit in accordance with the rules and regulations ~;stabhsheo [)v ,, Board of Managers. 4. The Resort Motel will be closed from January 15~' through March 15"' of eacr, year. 5. The units shall not be occupied as a dwelling. 6. The Resort Motel unit shall be rented as a suite with two bedrooms and me bedrooms may not be individually rented. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject proper~y that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such use~, Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chain,roman), Goehringer, Orlando. and Oliva. (Absent was: Member Homing of Fishers Island.) T~.is Res?lu?or~ -¢,,a.'; ~,t,, Lydia/~f'ortora, Chairwoman -Approved fo~ Fiiir. o 4/2¢' /03 PATRIC1A C. MOORE 51020 M~m Boad PA~E ~/4 Tel: (63 [) 7654330 /?ax: (63,1) 7654643 Ma~gax~t Rulkuwski Secretary Pe~z~uary 6, 2001 Garret~ $:ra~g, Co-Cheil'man Robert Brown, Co-Chairma~l (LO their office and Town ~all) Southold '£0~ Architec%ural Review Boaz~ Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O.Box !179 Southold, NY LL971 (BY Fax) Re: ~reezy Sound Re,;ort ~otel project Dear ,na,rman an,d Board: In response to the Town o~ ~outhc!d Arcili:eccural Review Board r~co~mendations tbs fcllowing c~m~ents are subnlicted fgr your consideration: -Recommendation: Break up the parkin~ for the front buildings, relocate some parking ~or :he front b~ildin~e to the interior area between ~he buildings Response: ~he pa:kizlg consists of 24 spaces whick s~rve 24 units in 5he adjacent building. T~e en:rance~ are cn ~he South ~i~e ~f th~ building, relocating ~hese parkin~ spac~u :o zhe opposite sides of the b~ilding3 (n0r:h sLde) will make pa£k~ ve---y ~nconYenient. Th: eiCe plan has been carefully reviewed and prepared w~th complete and detailed en~ineeri~ and drab. nags by Barrett, BgnochL & Van Weele, P.C. at a cost of ~$70,000.00 and e~ght mDnths of work, the relocation of parking would r~q:~ire all new engineering and redesign of the site p~an and drainage, as well a~ the redesign of th9 building entrances. The Planning Board had recommended that we maintain a r~on-distur~ance bu~sr in t~e front as is shown on the plsntin~ plan. The owner is willin~ to construct a low berm along the road with la~dscaDe or add vegetaticn to the natural buffer which will block the view of the parking. A detailed planting plan wa~ submitted with t:he s~ue plan and if you have su~gesL£ons we will make every effort tm ~nc9rp0rate your recommends:ions into the existing plan. Color Of bui!dinas and roofs- ~he applicant agrees wi~h your observations, he does not want black and white color scheme - the softer exterior color contrasted with the roof is proposed as ~ollows: (see samples ak meeting) Building A- 5andpebble siding w/ Rustic Slate roof Building B- Harbor Blue siding- Rustic Virginia Slats roo~ Building C- Driftwood siding- Old English Pewter roof Build~ng D- Clay siding- Old English Pewter roof Building E- Pearl siding- Weathered Wood zeof Office: wh&te sid!~]g Rustic Evergreen roofing The buildings could bea variety of archzteczural]y compatible c~lors as ~isted above or al/ one color scheme all fascia &~~~m~' work and exterior door~ and railings white Applicant accepts ~he ARC's recommendation thst ~he white casfngs around windows be wider: the window unite contain a 3" flange which will appear as a casing(white color). $~ding: 5" wide- 'Amsrfcan Dream Dutch Lap 5" or ~'Amerlcan Dream 5" ~samp~e~ avallable at meeting %he ARC can choose either is acceptable to change Roof pitch for dormers to 5 or 6 .~nconsist~nt with Plannin~ Board recommendation) The P!annin~ Bo~rd had reguested that the buildin~ height be reduced so thz$ was accomplished by lowerin~ the roof pitch and the interior ceilings were reduoed from 1~' tG 9'. Additional ~nformation which you asked to revzew: colcr and material deuails/specifications for the handrails - ~ x 2 cedar spindles a~id 2 x 4 cedar cop railings painted white color and material details entrance doors, details of ~he gla~s p~nelm for terrace doors all doo~s flush f:.ber glass ~aluted white ( grills in front but do not want grills in back) Advi~e of type of heating SySte~ proposed Natural gas and central sir conditioning - no vents required for gas units, any roof vents will have 'cap mas~er" (see catalc~jue colors) Roof v~nt with "Ridge Master Plu~" [catalogue at meeting) Finally, I have made the owner awar~ t}l~t the ba~-hroom for Louse was handLzap accessible but the erltrance doors to the poE,], house bathroom9 must also be handicap accessible width. Because Bob Kassner will be on vacation I will bring the catalogue and color/~.mterial samples t~ the meeting. I have his permission to meet with ¥~u during his vacatlo~ in order to avoid delay. /ke Plarnalng Board will be meeting w~th us March 5, 2001, we hope tc have yo:~r recommendations by that ~ate. Thank }'ou for your ~nti¢ipated coope~-aLio~i in this ma~er. Very truly yours, cc: Breezy Sound Patricia C. Moore SOUTHOLD TOWN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE February 27, 2001 The ARC met at Town Hall at 4:00 p.m.. Members present were: Garrett A. Strang, Co-Chairman Robert I. Brown, Co-Chairman Theodore Carpluk, Southold Herbert Ernst, Southold Howard G. Meinke, Cutchogue Yah Rieger, Odent Sanford Hanauer, Matituck Robert Keith, Mattltuck, Secretary HAR - 1 2001 $outhold Town Plaming Board Also attending were Robert G. Kassner of the Planning Board Staff as well as Patricia C. Moore, Attorney, and Douglas Hen'lin, Architect, for Breezy Sound · Motel. Moved by Garrett A. Streng and seconded by Howard Me nk, e. it was RESOLVED to APPROVE the MINUTES of the meeting of FebrUary 1, 2001. Vote of the Committee: Aye~ All. BREEZY SOUND MOTEL (North Road - Greenport) Discussion with Mrs. Moore and Mr~ Herrtin ~bout the open items from the pre-submission meeting of FebnJary I brought the following conclusions: PARKING - Inasmuch as the location of the parking places cannot be moved, the natural landscaping will be enhanced to fully buffer the visual impact from the road. SIDING - To be Hardy Plank rather than vinyl. COLORS - Fascia, tdm, railings and extedor doors(6 panel) to be white. All buildings, including the office, to be driftwood gray with rustic Virginia slate roof color. CASINGS - Those surrounding both doors and windows to be 3 inches wide. ROOF PITCH - To be 6 in 12, If the reduction in ceiling height from 10 to 9 feet is not sufficient to meet the recommendation of building height by the environmental consultant, ceiling heights could be further reduced to 8 feet or semi-cathedral ceilings could be used on the second floors with an 8 foot plate. ROOF VENTS - To be of a color to match the roof and placed on the north side to the extent possible. SCREEN PLANTINGS - To be used to minimize the visual impact of the air conditioning compressors and the gas heat side wall vents. SLIDING TERRACE DOORS - Grills to be used on those facing south but not to the north. UTILITIES - Although not discussed, the Committee assumes that these will be buried and that rooms in the basements will be used to house the meters. LATER - Signage submission as well as catalogue cuts and location of the exterior lighting. Based on the above, it was MOVED by Garrett Strang and seconded by Howard · Meinke to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the project. Vote of the Committee: Ayes All. Robert W. Keith Secretary DOUGLAS P. HERRLIN Architect , 62NewtownLane, East Hampton, L.l.,NewYork 11937 631-324-6148 26 February 2001 Architectural Review Board Town of Southold Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Breezy Sound/Cliffside County Road 48 Greenport NY 119,~ Dear Board Members: Please be advised of the following revisions to the construction drawings for the subject project: (a) Floor to ceiling heights at first and second floor of all buildings containing living units have been changed from 10 feet to 9 feet, resulting in a two ~'~reduction in building height. Co) In conjunction with the above, all door and window heads have been set at a standard 6'-8" above finish floors. (c) All building trim, soffits, fascias, clapboard siding is to be vinyl of white-c-~l~r with trim to be of a contrasting tone, gable ends of vinyl are to match color of clapboard siding. (d) Exterior entrance doors are to be six panel colonial style painted to match trim. (e) Windows and sliding doors of various sizes are to be vinyl and/or vinyl clad. (0 Roofing is to be asphalt shingle, color to be per sample previously submitted. (g) Roof venting is to be accomplished at soffits and through ridge vents. (h) Venting for plumbing facilities and high efficiency gas burning HVAC units passing through roofs will be on the water side of all buildings wherever possible and such vents will be painted to blend into roofing. It is hoped these actions address all remaining concerns and will make possible approval by the board. c~Very truly yi~!f~rs, Douglas P.JHerrlin Architect [ Your assistance in this matter is appreciated SITE PLAN CLIFFSIDE RESORT SITUATE GREENPORT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW BREEZY SOUND COF~. YORK / SANITARY SEWER PROFILES IM"PROVEMENT FOR CLIFFSIDE SITUATED IN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PREPARED BY HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 20 EXPRESS ST. PLAINVIEW, N.Y.,II803 TEL. No. (516) 935-8870 PLANS SHEET INDEX LOCATION MAP I / I / I / · ! / \ [ HENDE?~ON AND / \ NOTE: THIS SHEET TO BE USED FOR PLANTING ONLYZ HE~ERSON ~NO BODWELL ] ~/~ ................. t~~ I I HEN 0 E ?~ ~~~ ~o~,~ O.~OW E L L I T ~ up I rD DOU~L~ I uP DOoI2 $-~. ×¥~x, s,/4. klOT~ 2T¸ I .2: PLANNING BOAP~D JERILYN B, WOODHOUSE Chair PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box t179 Southold, NY 11971 ~'~ OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hail Annex 54375 State Route 25 (c0r. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave3 ~ $outhold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: S31 765-3138 October 12, 2005 Lee & Marie Beninati P.O. Box 522 Peconic, NY 11958 Re: Proposed Site Plan for The Whitaker House, LLC. Located on the n/e corner of NYS Route 25 & Horton's Lane in Southold SCTM#1000-61-1-5 Zone: HB District Dear Mr. & Mrs. Beninati: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Tuesday, October 11, 2005: WHEREAS, Lee & Marie Beninati for The Whitaker House, LLC, are the owners of the property known as 52875 NYS Route 25 and located on the n/e corner of NYS Route 25 & Horton's Lane in Southold, SCTM#1000-61-1-5; and WHEREAS, the applicants, Lee & Marie Beninati, propose the site plan for alteration of an existing two-story building of 2,177 sq. ff. to an office of 1,373 sq. ft. and two apartments on an 18,001 sq. ft. parcel in the HB Zone; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2005, the Southold Town Planning Board issued conditional final approval to the site plan; and WHEREAS, on October 5, 2005, the applicant submitted to the Southold Town Planning Department a survey with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval dated September 29, 2005 under the reference number C-10-05-0004; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the site plan prepared and certified by John Metzger Land Surveyor, dated December 7, 2004 and Past revised March 21,2005 and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the final site plan subject to a one-year review. Enclosed is one copy of the approved site plan for your records. Whitaker House - Pa.qe Two - 10/12/05 if you have any questions regarding the above, Please contact this office. Very truly yours, Chairperson Enc, cc: Building Department Town Engineering Inspector JERILYN B. WOOI)HOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENN E~I~H L, EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P,O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State ~hmte 25 (cot, Main Rd. & Young~ Aye.) SoQthold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1936 Fax: 631 765-3136 October 25, 2005 Lee & Made Beninati P.O. Box 522 Peconic, NY 11958 Re: Proposed Site Plan for The Whitaker House, LLC. Located on the n/e comer of NYS Route 25 & Horton's Lane in Southold SCTM#1000-61-1-5 Zone: HB District Dear Mr. & Mrs. Beninati: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, October 24, 2005: WHEREAS, Lee & Marie Beninati for The Whitaker House, LLC, are the owners of the property known as 52875 NYS Route 25 and located on the rile corner of NYS Route 25 & Horton's Lane in Southold, SCTM#1000-61-1-5; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2005, the Southold Town Planning Board issued conditional final approval to the site plan; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2005, the Southold Town Planning Board issued final approval to the site plan; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2005, the applicant submitted to the Southold Town Planning Department an as built site plan prepared and certified by John Metzger Land Surveyor, dated September 13, 2005 and last revised October 24, 2005 and the Planning Board accepts this as built site plan and determined that the site plan requirements have been satisfied; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant approval on the ~Js built site plan prepared and certified by John Metzger Land Surveyor, dated September 13, 2005 and last revised October 24, 2005 as applied for. ~¢v'h taker House - Pa,qe Two - 10/25/05 If you have any questi~hs regarding the' above, please contact this' office. Very truly yours, William Cremers Vice Chairman Erlo, cc: Building Department Town of Southold Planning Department Staff Report Site Plans Date: October 7, 2005 To: Planning Board From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Re: Site Inspection of approved site plan was performed on October 6, 2005 1. Application Information ProJect Title: The Whitaker House Site Plan Prepared By: John Metzger Date of Submission: October 5, 2005 Applicant: Lee & Marie Beninnati Tax Map Number: 1000-61-01-10 Pro.ie...ct Location: 52875 NYS 25 Zoning District: I-lB Date of SP: Last Revised March 21, 2005 Agent: Lee & Marie Beninnati Hamlet: Southold Il. Description of Pro,iect This site plan is for alteration of an existing two story building of 2,177 sq. ft. to an off~ce of 1,373 sq. fl. and two apartmenta on an 18,001 sq. ft. parcel in the HB Zone located on the s/e coroer of NYS Road 25 & Horton's Lane in Southold. SCTM# 1000-61 - 1-5 IlL Site Analysis USE: Office use with accessory apartments. FRONT Zoning Required: 15' Zoning Proposed: 26'&=/-51') SEQR Type of Action: Type Il Present Land Use: Vacant residence. Existing Structures: Vacant residence. Number of Lots Proposed: 1 Lot Type of Access Provided: Hortons Lane REAR SIDE LOT COV. LANDSCAPE % 25' 10' Both 25' 40% 35% +/- 72' 8.4' 12% 48% SIGNIFICANT SITE PLAN ISSUES: · Parking configuration as approved is different. The site plan was approved with 16 parking spaces required and the as built conditions will be less. ,, Parking Spaces 9& l0 has been eliminated and replaced with a landscape island, · Parking spaces 14, 15 & 16 have changed. · The ADA space is now in location number 16 and may not meet the requirements of the standard. · The ADA sign is less then the required 60" in section 502.6 of the standard. · No ADA ground markings was observed at the site visit. · Driveway entrance was widened/changed and a 6" diameter tree was removed from Town property. · The gravel topcoat appears to much less then the 2" thick requirement, which was incorporated in the approval. PLANNIN(] BOARD MEMBERS JERI LYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMEt/~ KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDER GEORGE D, SOLOMON ' PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 ~" OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hal] Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave?) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fu.x: 631 765-3136 April 12, 2005 Lee & Marie Beninati P.O. Box 522 Peconic, NY 11958 Re: Proposed Site Plan for The Whitaker House, LLC. Located on the n/e corner of NYS Route 25 & Horton's Lane in Southold SCTM#1000-61-1-5 Zone: HB District Dear Mr. & Mrs. Beninati: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, April 11,2005: The final public hearing was closed. WHEREAS, the applicants, Lee & Marie Beninati, propose the site plan for alteration of an existing two story building of 2,177 sq. ft. to an office of 1,373 sq. ft. and two apartments on an 18,001 sq. ft. parcel in the HB Zone; and WHEREAS, Lee & Made Beninati for The Whitaker House, LLC, are the owners of the property known as 52875 NYS Route 25 and located on the n/e corner of NYS Route 25 & Horton's Lane in Southold, SCTM#1000-61-1-5; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2005, a formal site plan application was submitted for approval; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2005, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services received an application to review and assigned the reference number C-10-05-0004; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2005, the Southold Town Building Inspector reviewed and certified the site plan for "Offices and Accessory Apartments" use; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2005, the Southold Town Engineering Inspector reviewed and approved the proposed drainage with conditions and the Planning Board has accepted his recommendation; and The Whitaker House - Pa.qe Two - 04/12/05 WHEREAS, on Febi~ary 18, 2005, the-Southold Town Planning Board reviewed the applicants' submission which included the revised landscape plan and technical letter dated February 16, 2005; and the Planning Board accepted this as submitted and incorporated the proposed changes into the site plan; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2005, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed and approved the architectural drawings and associated site plan materials with conditions; and the Planning Board has accepted this approval and determined it to be satisfactory; and WHEREAS, on March 9, 2005, the Southold Fire District recommended that fire protection is adequate and the Planning Board has accepted this recommendation; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2005, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR), Part 617.5 made a determination that the proposed action is a Type II and not subject to review; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, the following five items are incorporated and included in the site plan: All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the light source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries. The lighting must meet the Town Code requirements. Prior to installation of all outdoor lighting a catalogue cut must be submitted to the Planning Department for review by the Amhitectural Review Committee and receive Planning Board approval. 3. Ali outside HVAC units must be screened from view. The installation of the gravel parking lot area must consist of a two (2") inch thick blue stone blend top coat and the site shall be graded to maintain all surface water mn-offwithin the parking area. inlet grate elevations should be established to accommodate this requirement. 5. All signs shall meet Southoid Town Zoning Codes and shall be subject to approval of the Southold Town Building Inspector; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore The Whitaker House - Pa,qe Three - 04/12/05 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval of the site plan prepared and certified by John Metzger Land Surveyor, dated December 7, 2004 and last revised March 21, 2005, subject to fulfillment of the following requirement: The applicant must obtain approval from Suffolk County Department of Health Services and submit that approval to the Southold Town Planning Board prior to construction of the proposed building. This requirement must be met within six (6) months of the resolution. Failure to adhere to this requirement within the prescribed time period wilt render this approval null and void. Very truly yours, OUSe Chairperson Enc. cc: Building Department Town Engineering Inspector .er' SITE PLAN FOR TH~' FHIT.~K~R HOUSe, ££C AT SOU~HOLD ~OBrN Off' SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. ~LL/N SITE PLAN POR TNE WHITAK~R HOUSE, LLC AT ~HO~ ~ OF ~UTHOLD SU~ COUNT~ ~ Y. ~0~0 ~N SURVEY FOR THE WHITAIqER HOUSE LLC AT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SO.HOLD SUFFOLK ~T~ ~. ~q o t~, T H 'i 'i -! ./ L-L r,d ~.~ Y,4 TL'~ ,m,4 OFFICe- $ b r r n SCDHS Re£# ¢10~05-0004 %© SITE PLAN FOR THE P{HITAKER HOUSE, LLC A T SOUTHOLD TO~N OF $OUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY. N.Y. $CAL~. .~OUT740LD MALL Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197i PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF .~OUTItO LD April 24, 1989 Thomas C. Samuels Samuels and Steelman, Architects 25235 Main Road Cutchogue, New York 11935 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Southold Library Southold, New York SCTM % 1000-061-1-14 Dear Mr. Samuels, The above-referenced site plan has been reviewed by the Planning Board. The plan is basically complete. information are needed: Three additional items of £ 1. Show parking calculations (one space per 50 square feet of seating area or one space ~er every four seats). If the Library has been granted permission to Use Feather Hill's parking area for overflow parking, please include a written agreement to that effect by the owner of that property. 2. Indicate the first floor elevations of the existing and proposed buildings. 3. Indicate proposed new outside lighting, including type of fixtures and wattage. The Board will proceed with the environmental review at its next meeting on May 1, 1989. However, it appears that you will have to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals to obtain a variance to reduc~h~side ya~d~ f~Om 25 feet ~O r0 and 11,15 feet. It is suggested that you submit the above-noted information as soon as possible so that the Planning Board may send their recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Finally, would it be possible for the curbing in the Library parking lot to be composed of cobblestone to compl~ment that of the adjoining lot at Feather Hill? If there are ~ny questions, do .not hesistate.to contact the Planning staff. The BOard wishes to compliment you on the fine guality and level of detail of the site plan for this project. Very Truly Yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ()'~) Chairman cc: zoning Board of Appeals DETAIL '_ SITE. P'LAN DR:IV~ A,y · . PARKING ~ ( ) PARKING PARKING FEATHER HiLL RETAIL CENTER ADDITION TO THE- SOUTHOLD 'iFREE LIBRARY SOUTHOLD" NEW YORK ~!__~ SAMUELS & STEELMAN ' ARCHITECTS Southold, N.Y. 11971 HENRY E. RAYNOR~ JAMES WALL ~ENNETI' ORLOWSFJ. GEORGE RITCHIE i,ATHAM,.Ir. WILLIAM F. MULLEN. $c June 24, 1983 765-1938 Mr. Robert W. Gillispie, III North Fork Agency North Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Kaplan/Gillispie Minor Subdivision Dear Mr. Gillispie: Please let this confirm our discussion and action on the above captioned application at our meeting of June 20, 1983. Prior to our meeting we made an on site field inspec- tion of this property. Our Board noted three lots existed for many years and have become merged. The two lots you propose are undersized 'of approximately ~having an area of approximately ~Our Board has no objection to the site plans as but do ques- tion the possibility of obtaining additional parking to the east of the property. The following action was taken by the Board: RESOLVED tSat the Southold ToWn ~lanning BOard disapprove the subdivision application of ~Kaplan/Gilti~£e Ds each prom posed lot is UnderSized, h=wever, the Board sees no objection to the site plan as submitted. As. stated by the Board, a copy of this resolution will be forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Confirmation and prodecure for application to the Zoning Board of Appeals with regard to your proposal may be obtained by contacting the Build- ing Department. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Susal cc: Zonina Board of ADDeals :. Long, Secretary Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 October 9, 1984 Paul A. Caminiti Main Street P.O. Box 1045 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan for Caminit et. al. -located at Southold Dear Mr. Caminiti: The following action was taken by the Planning Board, Monday, October 8, 1984. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan of Paul A. Caminiti et. al. for a law office and professional offices in an existing structure located at the corner of Beckwith Avenue and the Main Road, Southold, subject to certification by the Building Department. Plans dated June 1, 1983. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, /cc:Building Department BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.,CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Schultze, ~e~retary · 765-1802 TO~N OF SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 October 10, 1984 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, N.Y. Sub3ect: Site plan Paul A. Caminiti Main Road, Southold, N.Y. Gentlemen: The above premises is located in a B,1 zoned district. The p~opoaed use for professional offices is a permitted uss for this district. On February 6, 1984 the Flanning Board appre~d this parcel ~t under a minor subdivision by Robert W. Gilliapie III, Irwin R. & Ceil Kaplan & Shirley & Paul A. Caminiti. The creation of this parcel established a nOn conforming side yard set back. This set back was approved under a Board of Appeals action #3139 dated Dec. 19, 1983. Under this same appeal approval of insufficient area and width of this lot was granted. Based that the ments. EH:hd on the foregoing, certification is made in proposed site development meet zoning require- Building Inspector P D T D ~ou~hold, N.Y, 11~71 (516) 765-1938 October 15, 1984 Mr. Paul Caminiti Attorney at Law Main Road P.O. Box 1045 Southold, NY 1197~ Re: Site plan for Caminiti. located at Southold Dear Mr. Caminiti: Enclosed herewith is a copy of your approved site nlan endorsed by the Chairman. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. ~,(~k~._ _ __~.r y truly ~l~ne M. Schult~, Southold Town Planning Board enc. ,, AL~i:141 b~.",l ~ - //~ .... 9'7.'79 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN APPLICATION SECTIQNA: Site Plan Name and Location Application Date: / Site Plan Name: JP Morgan Chase Suffolk County Tax Map #1000- 61 Other SCTM #s: - 4 i Street Address: 53530 Main Road (Rte. 25) Hamlet: old ' ' D~ncetoneareaintersection: Southeast corner of Main Roa.d., an~'IIz' Avenue ...... Type of Site Plan: x New Amended Residential If Ameaded, last approval date: 1 / .SECTION B: Owners/Agent Contact Itfform,ation Please list name, mailing address, and phone number for the people below: Property Owner Barkoff Properties, LLC Street 233 East 69th Street City New York State NY Home Telephone 212-564-6200 Other .Zip, ~ ~o21 Apphcant JRS Architect, P.C. S~eet 181 East Jericho Turnpike City i'Ltne ola State Home Telephone 516-294-1666 Applicant's Agent or Representative: New York Zip.. 11501 Oth6r....Fax: 516-294-1669 Contact Pemon(s)* Kenueth Garvin, AIA Skeet 181 East Jericho Turnpike City }ilneola State New York Zip 11501 Office Telephone 516-294-1666 Other Fax: 516-294-1669 *Unless otherwise requested, correspondencc wiH be sent onlytothe contactpcrsonnotedhere. 10/05/05 Page 1 of 2 X 'New Property total acreage or square footage: Modification of Existing Structure Change of use 205~'~ a~/sq, ft. · , ~ l~Ek~l'llJl'~ ,.~: Site Data .Propo. sed construction type: Is there an existing or proposed Sale of Development Rights on the property? Yes __ __Agricultural No X If yes, explain: Property Zoning District(s): lib - ~amlet Bus±ness Building Department Nofice ofDisspproval Date: 03 / 13/ 08 Is an application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals required? Yes If yes, have you submitted an application to the ZBA? Yes No If yes, attach a copy qfthe application packet No x Show all uses proposed and existing. Indicate which building will have which use. If more then one use proposed per building, indicate square footage of floor area per use. List all existing property uses: Vacant lot List all proposed property uses: Bank Other accessoryuses: Drive-through services Existing lot coverage: 0 % Proposed lot coverage: .19.7 Gross floor area of existing slxuctUre(s): 0 Parking Space Dat. a: t# of existing spaces: 0 # of proposed spaces: % sq. ft. Gross floor area of proposed structure(s): 3,780 IS 38 Loading Berth: Yes No X Landscaping Details: Existing landscape coverage: 100 % Proposed landscape coverage: 80,32 % 'Watexfzont Data:. lis this property gnthin 500" of a wetland area? Yes No x Ifyesexplain: I, the undersigned, certify that all the above information is tree. Signature °fPreparer: ~"x//~--~--' g ~C~Pag¢(-) 2 of~ate: 2919'~'] 0 ~ 10105/05 ~ 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full FAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a pro.)ect or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also under-toDd that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically exper in environmental ana~s. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broeder concerns affecting the question of' siglif'~:ance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applioan~ and agencies can be assured that the determination process has be~ orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identif~ basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on idanUfying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is IEely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potanUally4arge impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitred or reduced. fleet 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important, THIS ARQ'FOR ~ USE oNLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - Type I and Unlisted Actions Upon reWew of the infon~ation recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 it' appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonabiy determined by the lead agency that: The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and; the~efure, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a nc-t~;;ve de~leration will be DB. Although the project could have a significant on environmant, not be a signi~cant effect the there for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3~haye bean required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaratkm will be prepared.* ... ~'. r~c. The project may result in one or more large important impacts may have'a, stgrafl~an~[m, pact the and that environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. *A Cond~oned Negative Declaration is oniy valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Act~n " Name of Lead Agency Pdnt or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) website Oete Page 1 of 21 PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist In determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on [ne environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval end may be subject to further vehfication and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of[ne full EAF will be dependent on infolrnation currently available and will not involve r~w studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so Indicate and specify each Instance. Name of Action ~IP Mot§se Chase Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) 53530 Main Road (Rte. 25), Southold, New York 11971 Town of Southold / Suffolk County Name ofApplicant/Sponcor JRS Architect, P.C. Address 181 East Jericho Turnpike City/PO Mincola Stete NewYork ZipCode 11501 Business Telephone 516-294-1666 Name of Owner (if different) BmrkoffPropstties, LLC Address 233 E. 69th Street City / PO New York Business Telephone 212-564-6200 State New York Description of Action: Cons~uct new commercial building 4,200 sq, fl. with drive-through services for JP Morgan Chase Bank. Page 2 of 21 Zip Code I]021 Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present Land Use: E_-] Urben [~] ~ndusthal E~ Commercia~ r~ Forest r~ Residential (suburban) r--lAgriculture ~O~her Vacaetlot [] Rural (non-farm) 2. Total acreage of project area: 2.28 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushlend (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes omhards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Paticles 24.25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetoted (Rock. earth or fill) Roads, buikJings and oth~ paved surfaces Other (Indicate tTpe) PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? a. S~I drainage: rT'~Well drained 100 % of site [] Moderately wel drained % of site. E]Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, bow many acres of soil are classified within soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? acres (see I NYCRR 370}. 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on proJect site? ~ Yes [] No a. What is depth to bedrock (in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: r~1O. lO% 10o% r'-110.15% % E] 15% or greatar % 6. Is project substantiallr~ontiguous t~.~ contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? LJyes L~J No 7. is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks7 [] Yes [~]No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 35 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole .~azce aquifer? E]Yes [] No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? [] Yes [] No Page 3 of 21 11.0nee project s[~e contain any species of plant or animal life that is identJfmd as threatened er endangered? r~Yes [] No Acoordin~, to: ........ 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms On the project site? {i.e., cliffs, dunes, other ~10gieal formatious? DYes []No 13. Is the project site present~ used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? DYes r~No 14. Does the present site include ~cenic views known to be important to the community? Dvea I 1.o 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or conti~lueus to ~roject area: NA b. Size (in ac~es): Page 4of21 17. Is the site sewed by existing public utaities? [] Yes [] No a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [] Yes b. If YES. will improvements be necesse~ to allow connection? []No 18. IS the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agiculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? r~Yea r~No 19. Is the site located in or substantialh~conttguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant ~ Article 8 of the ECL. and 6 NYCRR 6177 r']Yes r~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid o~ hazardous wastes? a. ~ DesedpUon 3: prlyslcal dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). a. T~tiguou ~d or cont~bl ed ~ ~: c, Project acreage to remmn undevdopod: 1.5! acres, d, Length of project, in miles: N^ (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed, __ f. Number of off.strest parking spaces existing ; proposed__ g. Maxlo~um vehicular trips generated per hour: r,=~ yes r~No NA % 43 10 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and tTpe of housing units: One Family Two Family Initially Ultimataiy of largest we: j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 2. How much natural matadal (i.e, reck, earth, etc,) will be removed from the site? __ 3. Wi, disturbed areas be recleimed r~Yes DNo [~] N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?. b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [] Yes [] NO c. Will upper subseil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes DNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, gound covers) will be removed from site? Multiple Family 500 toes/cubic yards. Condominium .77 acres. Page 5 of 21 5, Will any mature Forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this pmject~ []Yes ~No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: 6 months, [including demolition) 7, If multi-phesech a. Total number of phases anticipated -- (number) b. Anticipated cl~te of commencement phase 1: __ month __ year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase: month __ year. d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? [] Yes [] No 8. Will blasting occur dudng construction? ~ Yes [] No 9. Number of.jobs generated: during construction 35; after project is complete __ 10. Number of jabs eliminated by this proJect 5 11. Will Ixoject require i'elocafion of any proJects er facilities? r-J Yes [] No l0 If yes, explain: 12, Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [] Yes a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged Is subsurface liquid waste disposal invoNed? J~j Yes ~ No Type Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? J,'~JYes J~INo 13. 14. if yes, explain: 15. Is project or any portion of Ixoject Iouated in a 300 year flood plain? LJYes lalNo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? [] Yes [] No a. if yes, what is the amoullt per month? .1 $ tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [] Yes [] No c, If yes, give name ]~ocal Carter lB: location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system of into a sanitary landfill? r"Jyea [] No Page 6 of 21 If yes, explain: 17. Will the praject, invoNe the disposal of s~id waste? DYes r~No a. If yes, wh~t is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what; is the anticipated site life? __ years. 18. Will Foject use herbicides or pesticides? DYes ~No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes ~]No 20. Will project produce opa'afing noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? DYes r~No :)1. Will project result in an increase ill energy use? [] Yes [] No if yes, indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute, 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 550 gallons/day. 24, Does project involve Local. State or Federal funding? N Yes [] No If yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 25. Apiwovals Required: City. Town, Village Board [] Yes [] NO Type Submittal Date City. Town, Village Planning Board [~]Yes n'"l No Site Plan Approval Planning Board Approval Suffolk County Department City, Town Zoning Board r'~Yes E~ No city, County Health Department ~yes [] No of Health Al~roval Other Local Agencies [] Yes [] No Architectural Review Committee Approval New York State Depar~ncnt of Tramportation Other Regional Agencies ]Yes [] NO S~teAgencie~ [~Yes r~ No Federal Agencies [] Yes []No DEC Spdes Permit C. Zoning and Platting Infon~ation 1. Does proposed actio~ involve a planning or zoning decision? ~Yes I"~ No If Yes, indicate decision required: [] Zoning amendment [] Zoning variance [] New/revisio~ 6f master plan [] s a.. n sp ,al,,, nResource management plan F--~ Sut~ivision Page 8 of 21 2. ~ is the zoning dassiflcaUon(s) of~he site? HB - H~I~ B~iae~ ~ct 3. W~ is ~ ma~mum ~al ~ent of ~ ~ ff de~ es ~i~ by ~ ~t , What is the maximum potential development,of the ~ if developed as permitted by the I~Oposed zoning? Samc as #3 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? [] Yes [] No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ~ mile radius of proposed action? RB - Hamlet Business district Retail Of fica Shopping ccater assembly 8. Is the proposed action compatible with edjoining/sur~ounding land uses with a ¥4 mile?..' [~Yes [] No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? NA a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? Page 9 of 21 10. Wilt proposed action require any authorization(s) for the fommtion of sewer or water dist]ict5? [] Yes [] No 11. Will tf~ [~oposad action create a demand for any comunit7 provided services (recreation, educatiorl, police, fire protection? DYes I~No [] No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic sig~ificantJy above present levels? [] Yes [] No a. If yes. is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic, r-lYes [] No D. Informational Details Attach any additiena! information as may be needed to clarify your pro~ect, if there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your ~oposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mRigato or avoid them. E, Verification I certify that the info~matien provided above is ~'ue to the best of my knowledge. ApplicantJSponsor Name .[RS Architect, P.C. Date 3/14/08 If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? the action is in the Coastal Area. aed )'on are a state ageacy, core,ate ~he Coastal Assessavent From befere proceeding with this Page 10 of 21 PART 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE ResponoibJIIty of Lead Agency General Infomatlon (Read Ca'efu[ly) In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. The Exereplas provMed am to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude th~,t would tdgger a reap•nas in column 2. The examples ara generally applicable throughout the State anti fur moat situations. But, fur any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential La,ge Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will very. Therefore, the examples ara illualretlve and have bee~ offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. In identifying impacts, consider long term, shod term and cumulative effects. thbtru~torm (Reed carefully) a. Answer esch of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes ff there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box(column 1 or 2)to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. if impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. Identifying that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifyir~g an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3, If a potenUally large impact checked in column 2 can be miUgated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Impact on Land 1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot r~se per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%, Construction on tend where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Constr~ction that will continue for mere than I year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural matedal (i.e., rock or soil) per year. [] [] E] es I-I,o [][] IDY' I--I,e [][] I-lYes r"l.o [][] [] Yes I"1,o [][] DY.. I-l,o []-: [] DY- I-I,o Page 11 of 21 I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Construction or expansion of a santary landfill. [] Construction in a designated floodway. [] Other impacts: [] Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual lend forms found on the site? (i.e, cliffs, dunes, geotngical formations, etc.) D"O E]~s Specific lend forms: [] Impact on Water 3. Wtil Proposed Acticn affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECl.) Examples that would apply to column 2 Developable area or site contains a protected water body. Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or t~lal wetland. Other impact: Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing •mew body of water? E3NO r-lyEs Examplse that would apply to column 2 A 10% increase o~ decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction cf a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts: [] r'-l¥, r'l.o [] []¥as [].o DY- OEo [] E~as nNo [] [] r-lY~ [] [] I-IYse O.o [] [] C)~as D.o [] [] DYes r=INo [] [] C]Yas [] [] [] [] OYes DNo r-l~es Page 12 of 21 5. Will Propose~l Action affect surface or groundwater quality or qua~qNO r'lYES Exam ptea that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that deee not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons par minute pumping ~apacity. Constru~on er oparation causing any contamination of a water supply system, Proposed Action will ed~ersaly affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do no{ exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed Actio~ would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons par day. Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent ~at there will pa an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum er chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may reo, uire new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. Other impacts: I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated I~ Impact Impact Project Change [] [] i-I~- i-l.o [] [] I-I~- O.o [] [] •vse [] [] r-I,,, 0.o [] [] I-iv,, O.o [] [] E>- 0.o Page 13 of 21 '1 2 3 Small te Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Miligated by Impact Impact Project Change 6. V~II Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? I-I.o 'EFE~ Exampioe that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would change flood water flows Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed Action will allow development in a designated r.x~lway. Other' impact, a: IMPAcT ON AIR 7. Will Proposed Action affect air quality? E.~ampla$ that would appl~ to column 2 Propoeed Action will induce 1,000 o~ more vehicle trips in any given hou~. Proposed Action will result in the incineration of mom than I ton of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing Industrial areas. Other impacts: [] [] I-!,. r-l,o [] [] r'l,.. ~.o [] [] I-I,., r'l,o [] [] E3,as I"l.e [] [] [],. I"l,o [] [] E3,e. ~.o [] [] ID,. I"!,o [] [] r-'l,. E3,o [] [] I-I~. [].o IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Will Proposed Action affect any threalened or endangered species? [].o [],E~ Exampio~ that would apply to c~umn 2 Reductio~ of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list. using the site, over or near the site, or found on the site. [] -::- [] I"1,.1"1,o Page 14 of 21 Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: 9. Wilt Proposed Action aubstanfially affect non-threatened or non endangered species? I'-I,o r-lYEs Example~ that would apply to culumn 2 Proposed Action would substantially intedere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Preposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. Other impacts: IMI~AG'T Obi AGI:tiGULllJI~,L LA. ND ~F~ 10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? I-t,o r-lyEs Examplca that would apply to column 2 The Proposed Action would sever, cross er limit access to agricultural land (inciudes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, e~c.) Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. The Proposed Action would irrevemibly convert more then 10 aa'es of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. 1 Small to Moderate Impact [] [] [] [] 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Large Mitigated by Impact Project Change [] r'l~. I-1,o , E], D,- Page 15 of 21 The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricu}tural land management systems (e.g., subsudaca drain lines, outlet d~tchse, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm I~eld to drain poorly due to increased mno~. Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURC~ 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necesseny, use the Visual FAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) [].o ExampflNI that would apply to cclumn 2 Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? ~ml~l~ that would apply to column 2 Proposed Ac'lion oe~.J n'h'~g wholly or partial~¥'~thia ~ sube~aIly contiguous to any taeili~ or site listed on ~he Stat~ or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archseological site or fossil bed located within ~he project site. Proposed Action wlil occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site InventoPj. I 2 Smstl to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 3 Can impact Be Mitigated by Project Change OYes [] No r'lYca [] No r-Iyas i-l.o ~¥as I--l.e IDYes r'l.e DY. Dy- D.o Page 16 of 21 Other impacts: 13. W~I proposed Action affect the quantity or o~ality of existing or future open spacea or recreational opportunities? Examptsa that would apply to column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space knpo~lant to the community. Other impacts: BIPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AF~_.AE 14. V~il Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 817.14(g)? I'-I.o r-lYEs List the environmental characterisUce {hat caused the designation el= the CEA. 1 Small to ModerMe Impact 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Large Mitigated by Impact Project Change [] I-IY~, [].o I [] [] [] [] [] [] []Yes E]No I-IY. I"1.o Examplea that would apply to column 2 P~oposed Action to locate within the CEA? [] Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the [] resource? Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the [] resource? Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the [] resource? Other impacts: [] [] i-iY. [].o [] DY- D.o [] I-Iy. I"1.o [] []Y. [].o [] l"ly. Page 17 of 21 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? [].o Exemplas that would apply to column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of peol~le and/or goods. Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. Other impacts: 16. Will Proposed Action a/fact the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? 12].O []~S Ex~mplas that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use o{' any ~orm of energy in the municipality. Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Other impacts: 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vi•ration as a result of the Proposed Action? D"o D~Es Examples that would apply to column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive Odors will occur routinely (mom then one hour per day). Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed Action wi[l remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts; Page 18 of 21 I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ]Yes []No O~- [~Yse r~No []Yes r'"l No [][] C)~as Cl.• [][] r'l~. [],o [][] DY.. i-l,o []-::' [] DY. ~,o 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Chenge ~ACT Off PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? Proposed A~on may cause s risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (t.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upsa{ conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow level discharge or emission. Proposed Action may result in the burial of 'hazardous wastes' in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reacUva, radioactive, Irdfe~ng, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids. [] [] [] [] [] Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Other impacts: [] [] [] 1,1~. D.o IMPACT ON GROW'I¥1 AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIC4'IBOflHO00 19. Will Prop•sad Action affect the character of the existing community? I-!"o r-l~s Examples that would apply to column 2 The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is IJkety to grow by moro than 5%. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating sen/ices will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Proposed Action will oause a change in the density of land use. Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities. sb'ucturas or areas of historic importenca to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community sen,~cas (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) [] [] OYse D.o [] [] ~. r-i.o Page 19 of 21 Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed Action will create or eiiminate employment, Other impacts: 20. Is there, or is there likely to b®, public controversy related to p0tenfla adverse environment Impacts? O.o r-'l~s I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderato Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change [] [] Dye, r'l.o [] [] C3vse [].o [] [] []Y. O.o i If Any Action in Part 2 la Identified as a Potential Large Im pact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of impact, Proceed to Part 3 Page 20 of 21 Part 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be pmpered if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially 1arge, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. lastn]cth~na (If you need more space, attach additional sheets) Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Desctthe (if applicablo) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s), 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important, TO answer the question of importance, consider. I The probability of the impact occurring I The duration of the impact I Its lrrevemibilJty, including permanently lost resources of value I Whether the impact can or will he controlled ! The regional consequence of [he impact ! Its potential divergence from local needs and goals I Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. Page 21 of 21 ~ CHASE March 24, 2008 Main Road and Wells Avenue Southold, NY Soul:hold -- S,GNA~E OUE I~ILIGENCE WORKSHEET " CHASE 0 Signage Due Diligence Worksheet NWOINDUSTRIES G~n~r~ll Info Buiidln~ ~Jt] J w StGNAGE DUE DILIGENCE WORKSHEET NW ~)INDUSTRIES lOt.her Restricting Factors: I Com',.O soo. ~ou,,d .~on i P~mm*y Ground Sign Awnings Other Gove~'nlng Agencies Variance Process Additional Comments OVERALL SiTE PLAN .................. NW~INDUSTRIES SIGN LEGEND & LOCATION PLAN 6258 1 P-25 F~ykm 6258 2 J~-WBO-36 Chaff Le~ 62~ ~ LIF-WB~24 ~ha~'~ttem 62~ .,,~, LIF-WBO-24 ~nnel Lettem 62~ 5 LIF-WBO-24 ~Chenn~ ~ttem 62~ 6 ~5 Directional ~58 7 [~ Directio~ 62~ ,~, ~5 Dir~ional __ ~ 9 ~5 O[re~io~ Desi~or ~ 12, )~ ~Lane D~i~nator 6258 13 T~-W ~Ctea~nce Si~n ~ 14 T~P-D Handicapp~ sign w/~n 6258 ~5 ~-C Ha~ica~ sign 6258,, 1~ T~P~~ulato~ Si~n 6258 17 T~P-J ~R~ula~ Si~n 0258 18 T~P-H [~ulato~ S~gn -- FLOOR PLAN NW O I NDUSTR, IES -- PYLOH .............. NWOINDUSTRIES Illuminated Pylon - P-25 Scale: 3/8"= NOTES: -- ELEVATIONS , ' ' NW~INDUSTRIES NORTH ELEVATION - NT,~ OCTAGON - SiDE VIEW SCALE: 3/76' = 1' O" ALUM. LETTE~ DACK D ELEVATIONS , NWOINDUSTRIES 14'-0 10'-8 314" WHITE Ti(ANS. ACrYLiC FACES Wt MAITE FINISH 7 2'..7 THERMO-FOEMED1/8'-/ ~ A~ISTECH #6046DLUE i_ WEEP HOLES TI~ANS. ACk~'L~FACES, (AS REQ'D) O CHANNE. L .~..TTERS UF. WBO.24-~. ELEVATION 7 3/4" 1/2~'I:i"~'~"..,~.~.. THERMO-FOI~MED 1tS" 2 1/4' '111 ~' ~ANS. AC~LIC FACES. ~ .0~" ALUM. RE~ENS E~'ERIO~ FINISHED MP-19891 NICKEL GLO55 W/IN~RIO~ FINISHED ~ITE. '~- ~"STAND-OFF (AS ~EEP HOLES (AS OCTAGON - SIDE VIEW SCALE: 1/4 ' = 1' O' i W HITE DIFFUSER FILM. ---..090" ALUM. LETTER DACK FINISHED TO MATCH PM5 300 WI 5EMI-GLOSS FINISH, ' ~ ~2' STAND-OFF (AS REQ'D) ...... WEEP HOLES (AS LETTER - SIDE VIEW SCALE: I/4' = 1'0" NW INDUSTRIES WEST ELEVATION 0 THERMO-FOF-.MEO t/8, A~IBTECH #6:~0445 {~LUE WEEP HQUEB ACk'fL.IC FACES. (AB REQ'O) OCHANNE~L LETTERS LIF-WBO-Z4-~ - ELEVATION SCALE: I/4 = 1'0" OCTAGON - SIDE VIEW SCALE: 1/4 ' = 1' 0" 1/8' AP-,iSTECH #C~04~ BLUE T~A, NS', ACRYLIC KETUKN5 CHEMICALLY ~ONDED TO FACE W/ 2ND 5U~FA~  D~II'E DtFFUSEE FILM, ~' .090" ALUM. L~E~ BACK FINISHED TO MATCH gM5 ~ ~ W/5EMI-GL055 FINtSH. ~- ~" 5lAND-OFF (AS REQ'D) ..... ~EP HOLE5 (~ I,.ETTER - SIDE VIEW SCALE: 114" = 1' O" OCHANNEL Lb'f "ii=RS LIF-WBO.;~-~cELEVATION OCTAGON. SIDE V~ LETTER. SIDE WEW 31" ij~ ATM Drive Uo Lane Oesi~nator-DU-C, NOTES: . J ~act~ed up wit:h whit,~ plax. Sl,~C,.c~.~a~m'ninum Clearance Sign INOTES', I *~ F~n~: l~Jiss Bol~ -- DIRECTIONALS - NWIINDUSTRIES 21" Scale:YZ'= 1'-0" ~ Directiona! , . . ,, Sca*~:~ = 1 0 Directional Scale:~"-- 1'- O" NOTES: -- REGULATORY SIGNS NW INDUSTRIES  Pol~ Re,~utatorv ~i~n - 'rc-?-~ Scale: ~"= I'-0" NOTES: i~ Pole Re~lal~ory Slain Scale: ~ = 1'-0" ~ Pole Requlatory Si01n - TC-?-,J .~cal~ Vi"~ 1'-0" INOTES: ...... , .... THangle eupFo~ finished FM~ 300 blu~. ~Pole Mount. ed Requlatory Siqn- TC-P-H Scale: ~"= NOTES: SURROUNDING BUSINESS PHOTOS NWOtNDUSTR, IES JPMorganChase PROPOSED ONE STORY SLAB ON GRADE BUILDING 53530 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OjPMorganChase -, ,..,._ .__. ,__ ._ 1 . I x ~ I I ~ ~~ -.. . ~,, ', , ~ , ' , ..... ' x . ~,; ,' ~' ~ ~-~'" .-' , " .-- .-' ,: ~ ~' ~i~~ '~.~-[. ,," _ ',. ,,' ~- :' ,-", ,," ,-' ,,' :," ~ ,,' '~~'~--'~"=~'~--~"~ ~------~---~-~--'"--~"~"~ I~RsARCHITECT. P.O.  ~ ', ~11~ . .--~-- . ...... ... ..., ; .. .~-- ~ : ..-' ...- ~,' / :~ ..-. ~.~,~~, ~~ /~~" '" WELLS " AVENUE " -- '"' ~ '~ ~ ~'~'~'~ ~'~ ' ........ ~ ~ C1.01 WELLS AVENUE .... q ~. ~ ~ ~m J~ t ' ''~ --I~.-- ~- ~ ..... ~ ~1 , , _ ~ ~~ / ~,~ ;,*~ ~_.:.~__ , .-,~-- ~ ~i~"" ' ~''~ ~"~~ C~ ..... ='0= .' '~ ,' ~4 ~ ~.~--/~ ..... '~ ~ ~ '.~ B.~.- ~ ~ .T_ . I . ........ .. , . ,_~__ ~ /~" ~- ~ ~ ~-- ~.0~ I I PROPOSED BANK PLANT LISt ~ ~ ~ I,~.~. I~-~,~ I~ I~ I~ I ~,~.1 ~ PLANTIN~ NOTES PLANTIN~ /DETAJL EV'ERCf~EEN Tf~EE PLANTIN~ ~ETAIL SHP4JED PLANTIN~ /DETAIL OjPMorganChase IJRS ARCHITECT, P.C. CATCH BASIN SIDEWALK RAMP DETAILS p^VE~ENT SYMBOL DET,~LS DUMPSTER PAD DETAIL ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYIvIBg[, SIGN ASS[M~LY O~q'AJLS BEt~ BB_BB [] BB~ UU OJPMorganChase J uj_ · I OjPMorgan~hase ARCHITEC] I-~- .lis = I · Jane 12, 1997 Bennett Orlowski, jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Southold Automotive 54360 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 ATT: Mr. Bennett Orlowski We were re~ntly informed by The Planning Board that we needed to inform you of our future plans regarding the Mobil slat/on renovations. We were informed to tell you about future setbacks and plans. Thc @~n~ ~!a~l~l .~A~,,(~B~10sed)~ are our:exsi~ilag setbacks and figures. The plans labeledB'(en¢l°Sed) are ourrfuttirii,~etb~!;.and plans. When looking at the A plaus~ w~ have on the South side 8' existing sctbaeks~ On t?. We~t Slde there are 2Ytl~ ~urreut selbaeks. B-plans, our intenti0nsare to bUild out 13 West to thc rear of the bUilding, this part will be bUilt out to where thc 8* cxsisting setbacks ave currently. The Southwest comer will he a 8~ ~'etback to thc !'ear and to the Westwill ~ 10~'l i":. The Northwest corner ffrout~ wi!lbe 10'4r as per figure B. Please contact us if you have any suggcstious or concerns at 765-5156. We would like to start our project without any problems if possible as soon as possible. . ,~RD Ot~ B~.AL311 ............... 3' SRTS OF PLA~S ............... ~. ~p*~. ~o s~,~l~,, ...~. .......... -~ .....~. .......... ~ .--?-~- .......... L I~ture o~ ~o~k (ch~k ddch el~Hcoble), Jb~ ~ild~ .......... ~l~i~ ................................ ~n 1500 Lakeland Ave Bohem~ ~. ~7~.~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBEO ~~' _a?~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. ~~_~ GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-191~8 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 25, 2000 Edwin & Donald Tonyes Southold Automotive Corp. 54360 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed site plan for Southold Automotive Corp. SCTM# 1000.61-4-23 Dear Mr. Tonyes: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, January 24, 2000. The final public hearing was closed. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, this proposed site plan, to be known as site plan for Southold Automotive Corp. s to expand, en exist ng building by.§20~ square feet to accommodate inspection equipment; and WHEREAS, Ton.yes Realty Corp. is the owner of the Property known and designated as Southold Automobve, Main Road, Southold, SCTM # 1000~6¥;4;23! and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on September 25, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town PLanr~ing B°a[d, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (6NYCRR), Part 617, makes a determF~at on~,th.at th ~ p~0ject s a Type I aCtion and not subject to theprOviSi0ns of the State Envii'bnr'nental Act (SEQRA); and Southold Automotive -proposed amended site plan January 25, 2000 P~e2 WHEREAS, this site plan, last[evised July 2,1999 was ceH~ed bythe Buildinglnspectoron January24,2000;and WHEREAS a s.etback variance was granted by the Board of A. ppeals'6~ Afig~u~t;24, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated July 2, 1999, with Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval stamp, subject to a one year review from date of building permit. Enclosed please find 2 copies of the approved site plan; one for your records and one to be submitted to the Building Department when you apply for your building permit. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman enc. cc: Building Department Tax Assessors PLANNING BOARD M~MBERS RICHARD G, WARD WI~ j. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWA~S PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 Date Received .Da~e Completed Filing Fee APPLICAtiON H~ CONSIDERKIION OF A SI/E PLAN NEW ., Change of Use Re-use ~Extens~on Revision of Approved Site Ran Name of Business or SEe: LocatJOn: Address: Name of Apl~lcant: Address of APplicant: Telephone: Owner of I. and: Agent or Person responsfb{e for al~OllcaUon: Address: Telephone: S~te plans Prepared by; License No,: Address: Telephone: South0i~i Automotive corner of ltain Rd,(SR.25) & Younge Ave. 54360 t~ain Rd.~ Southold~ NY 11971 Tonyee Realty Corp. 54360 Main Rd.~ Southold~ NY (516) 76~-~t$6 Tonyes Realty Corp. 11971 Edwin or Donald Tonyee ~ard Aeaociate$I PfC. Lawrence H. Feeley, R.A. 15589 1500 Lakeland Avenuem Bohemia~ NY 516-563-4800 Page 2 Planning B~rd Site Plan Application ARatlCANPS AI-HUAVIT ~ATE OF NEW YORI( COIJN1Y OF SUFFOLK L~ ~J;"~' ~,' I Ol~'~_~'-!n--~lng duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at In the Sta~e of New YorK, and that he Is the owner of the abo~e..proped3/, or that he Is the which Is hereby making appllcaUon; that there are no exl~ng structures or Improvement~ on the land Which are not shown on [he Site Plan; that the t~ ~o the enUre parcel, Including all rights-of-way, has been dearly established and Is shown on salcI Plan; [hat no part of the Plan Infrfnges upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned bot~ as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulabions adoptad by the Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans subrnlLtad, as approved, will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical Improvement~ will be Insb311ed in sb-lc~ accordance with the (Partner or Corpot:ate Offlcer and Titlel Page 3 P~rmlno Board Site Plan Ap~lcatlon · 19 acre Total Land Area of Site lacres or square feet) Hamlet B.~tne~ Zorllllg District Oa$ol~-~ ~ ~- · ~_~nEXlstlflg Use of Site [qo ehan~ae Proposed Uses on Site. Show all uses proposed and existing. Indicate which building Same uBe. will have wl~lch use. If more than one use Is proposed per bollcllng, Indicate square footage of floor area that will be reserved per use. t,255 =f OrossFIoor^reaofExlstlngStructure(s) 520 s f Gross Floor ~ree of Proposed Structure(s) _2L..f~L___Pe~t of Lot Coverage by Building(s) ~ s ~ ~ Pement of Lot for Parldng (where applicable) ! 3, !Z Pement of lot ~or Landscaping (where applicable) Has applicant been granted a variance and/or special exception by x Board of APpeals - Case ~ & date. 4-509 - 8-3[-98 Board of Trustees - Case # & ~ete NY State Department of Environmental Conservation - Case # & date ._ Suffolk County DepartJ~ent Health Services. Case # & date ,Case Number .Name of APP#cant Date of Decision ExptraUon Date Other Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be stored or handled at the site? ~ ng agency ~o' ~_-Z~Number and date of Peffnlt Issued. NO AC~ON (I~XCAVAI'ION 01~ CON$1'EUCllON/ MAYBE UNDE/~TAKEN UNTI~ APPROVAl OF SEE PI. AN BY PLANNING BOARD. WOD4rO£EA/CESUSJECI' TO P/COSECUT/ON.. BOARD OF ,acPPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD F~NDXNGSf DEI TBERAT][ONS AND DETERMXNAT~ON REGULAR HEETiNG OF AUGUST 24, 1998 PP ...... .~,~ u.,. o,~d rand Youngs AVe)f :~umu,u ~ ----. ..... ~ ~.~ ------ ~ 1997 DA~ OF PUBIC H~N~. ~"~ ' ' ............ ~ 13 1997) (~ again, ~u~ ~ apph~nVs ~ ~ .... ~no PROPI~RTY ~A~:T~Io~:'~ON; The a.bo.ve.-tdentified property is 115+- ft. frontage at.o. ng.~aln~.~w~_u~d=ts of a total size of 8t625 younas Avenue~ SO~tltOKI. ; in p, 'n'~'~ .... T---- - J _~-=-u-- '~leS. square feet. Tile presen~ u~ ,~ ~.--. . --.- ~ Tile Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector Is dated August 13, 1997 and reads as follows= dm~ed to a coMonnmg me. ---- ," .... buikang ~o~ t. the required 10 fr. ~d. ~nd 25 R. r~r Y"~1-" ~ANCE RELTEF REQUESTED PY APpLTCANT; The request made by i nt is to add a 505 sq. fG area to the exiaUng building by adding a appl c? ....... a --uado- off the rear to ~bll~h ~ :Un. if°tm bay at me wes~ sm.e -,,_-. -,~ ~_,. T~a se,cba-cks areP~:ised at a se~ck Of 8 feet along rear wa[, ~.0 feet 4 inches:from tbe westedy (Slde~) Pr°Pe~Y line and8 minimum of . the established feet from the southerly (rear) property line (maintaining rear setback}. REASO~IS FOR BOARD'ACT~ON, DESCRY[BED BELOW; -- _ ..... ~--. o-~.-ted since at i~ast Xg27 as a gasoline Tile suUject preallses na~ uu~. i,~,..0 .............. v_,a. station with a two-hay motor vemcm serwce, ra~.~T; .-uw_L~_- ~-~r vehide inspections have been performe~l at least s~.nc~..~.u/, when a"~-pli~-~a,~took over' operatio?__of _.the busin_~e~s__, a_n_d vea before then. Until 198~, me property waa ,.u.~, ,--,, .... :-. YeS'ness, a zone in which gasoline stations are permitted by ExcepUon. pursuant to Federal clean air laws, New York State has imposed a new automotive emissions inspection system that is being phased in during which vehides will be run at over 50 mph for rasing, a nx other new equipment. Applicant has decided to continu~, ~ ~twte insoectiens, which rc has snowfl are an ecoflomlcaily Imi~r~m:t --.--' .-~L--.._ L _,--.. ,'~-,-~,,Uentiv, applicant will install the element or igs uuam~:,a- ~,,,~--s - - -- ' ..... 'J-lice dynamometer and other required new equipment, ~..s~e..~ a...v.a,m oL,h~e the huildine of a third bay at the west side or its oonmng, wn~n ~v~-I~'~h~-insi~ction equipment and will be enclosed for purposes of safety and the control of noise and emissions, Applic?n.t. ha.s _t~..f~.. that if it cannot build the third bay/.the equipment woum De ii~aGa~ilecl II1 an exLsting hay. Because Ute existing ha.y..w?u.? c.o. ntinDe to. be vehlde repairs, applicant has _t~Kti~en mat .me a?.amo.me? w_uu,.u..ue ,~.~a ~. ~ ~e ouch that cars being tested wonm pmtruae out m me ~" ..... '~ .... · 'fled open hay door end onto the gasoline station apro~ Applicant has ~ that such an arrangement would result In preb. le?s in_dodi.ng .un.~n~,, noise from the dynamomet~, uncontelned emLssmes wom testea venfl3es, and safety hazards related both to the protrusion of cars from the bay and to the risk of unprotm:ted "runaways" on the dynamometer, The Board concludes that applicant's prepusal does not change nor Stato-mandatod equipment necessary for it to sonunue in me ousme~ Inenecti ifless even if riot permltteu i~0 omm um u,.~, ~, . ..... ___on bus case the result, In the Board's view, wouM be a significant demment to community safety and welfare, The Board is also cognizant of the pablic policy interest in accommodating emissions tnspactfon operations as a means to improve air quality. The Board concludes that grapUng of the requeaied va~a!~ce.~,~w!~.l~ not produce an iundesirable: change:in the:cha~'.0f ~gbbod!.-°°~: or a to- pro becau , the continue to Operate asilit* ~s In the past ann me a~mt~on w consistent with the appearance of ~bom~oo~t~ The rear yard setback of 8 feet~ while substantially less than h'm required 25 feet~ is unchanged from the existing rear setbacic. There is no other feasible way · for th~ applicant to'establish an endtm~ inspection facility while aisc nmintainlng the existing capadty of its business te perform repairs. G~.~ting~ ep~pm~ta! conditl~n~': ins~Ucn:facflity's air ~h~ust Is di~:~ the ~rea~;d~re~ ~ble toward Route 25~ where there is~sUb~antia~¥ehl~lar:trafflC~ ~ The Board finds that the grant of the requested variance~ with the condiUons set forth below, Is the minimum necessmy and adequate to enable appilcant to conUnue to perform NY b'Nnte InspecUons~ while Bt the same Ume preserving and protecting the chamct~ of the ne~ghberhood, and tl~ health, sa~,~y, w'~hm of Um community. · On motion by Member Collins, seconded by Member Dinizio, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT n variance permitting applicant to ~quare off the southwest corner of the exisUng building and to build a third bay, as described In Its appllcnUon~ with a minimum se~bacic of 8 feet along the eflUre rear wall and a minimum west side setback of tO feet, subJec~ to the following CONDITIONS: 1. The third bay shall be used to house the equipment mandated by New York State for t~e performance of muter vehicle inspecUons~ including a dynamometer in u fixed InstallaUo~ 2. The exhaust of air from such boy shall be arranged se as to direct such exhaust to the greatest dngree possible toward State Route 25, 3. Personal vehicles of the owners and employees shall not be parked on Ute premises between 8 n.m. and 6 p.m. (business hours), and public parking areas must be utilized. V0t~ OF THE BOARD; AYES; MEMBERS GOEHR~NGEI~ DXNXZXO¢ COLt/NS. AND HOIURNG. (Member To,ora was absent.) soum_ ;.,.,.,:-.,, cm.'*., PLANN'ING BOARD, MEMBE~ RICHARD G. WARD GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. V~ILLIAM J. CRF. MERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 18, 1997 Edwin A. Tonyes Donald H. Tonyes Southold Automotive 54360 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Mobil Station Renovation Main Street, Southold SCTM# 1000-61-4-23 Dear Messrs. Edwin & Donald Tonyes, The Planning Board has received your letter of June 12, 1997, requesting guidance in your plans to expand your Mobil Station. Your property is located in the Hamlet Business zone. A gasoline station is not a permitted use in the Hamlet Business zone (HB), therefore it is preexisting and non-conforming in this zone and oannot by Town Code be enlarged. You could apply to the Building Department for a building permit for your proposed expansion and be guided by their determination. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. Jk~6$el~{ G. Kassner Site Plan Reviewer Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals Edward Forrester, Department Head, Building Department F~OA~ (5. F~. 25) PART PLAN OF EXISTING CONDITIONS KEY MAP APPROVED BY WARD ASSOCIATES ~ANITARY SYSTEM $OUTHOLD AUTOI~OTJ¥1; PLAN~ NOTES ;'~ A.~ COMPUTATIONS 9' ~.C. TAX MAP NO. 1000~1-04~2~ HD,- 1o~1 ~--- WEST ELEVATIO~  FISSI F[O0~ ~k~ ~ .......... ' ~'~' EAST ELEVATION ........................ . ............................................... NORTH ELEVATION ... ~ PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED ADDITION $OUTHOLD AUTOMOTIVE FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATION8 FOUNDATION PLAN SECTION AT WALL ,,7 HAUNCH SLAB DETAIL t~lllL~lllll~ ~ =:lllll--IIIIl-~llt ~lllll FOUNDATION WALL SECTION SECTION AT SLAB PROPOSED AODIT!0N for SOUTHOLD AUTOMOTIVE FOUNDATION PLAN AND SECTIONS ...A_ 1~2 FIRSTFLOOR PLAN (6) NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELE' ATION '' L I WARD ~OCIATES PROPOSED ADDISON $OUTHOLD AUTOMO~VE FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATIONS SECTION DOOR FRAME DETAIL ~,'~'~DOOR ~¥~E E,EVA~ONS DETAIL DETAI~ WARD ASSOCIATES PROPOSED ADDmON for ,~OUTHOLD AUTOMOTIVE BUILDING SECTIONS AND DETAILS L~7~PRoPOSED PLO1 PLAN TREE PLANTING SITE ASPHAJ PAVEMENT PROPOSED ADDITION for SOUTHOLD AUTOMOTIVE SITE PLAN AND DETAILS ~;.C. TAX MAP NO. 1Ooo-6i-o4~2a DOARD OLD { LBEP:T A. SACCO, DONALD J. BROWN A.t:, GORDON K. AHLRS .,.~0! LD: NG - COM PL~?( ' · ' APPROVED BY pLANNING BOARD · ~x:)w~ OF SOUTHOL~ . ~._~/~..~:~ ~- ,~:.,~ . . ~.~ 6 ~ LOCATION SITE ?LAN Planning Board LAND F, OW OR FORMERLY OF: COLONIAL V,LLAGE TENANTS CORPORA~ON 472 2C 5Q~., .190.00' N,,,N i K H G F D ,gl A I 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 ~ I0 II 12 13 14 15 IG 17 LOT "% . . 300'-T0-750' MAIN P-.OAD 25) ( LINE O? ROAD) ALL LANE5 MUDT BE OPEN TO TP-.AffI:IC BEFOP-.]~ lOAM AND APTfiP-. ~g PM. NO LANE CLO~,ING5 ARE PEP-.MITTED %~ ON WEEK.~ND.D OR HOLIDAY~. NIGHTTIME LANE C.]OfilN~fi ~ WILL NOT BE PEP-.MI~-ED WIThlOUT PRIOP~ APPROVAL 'XxFROM Tile .DTATE PERMIT INS?ECTOR. M~LE M^~CR / ~ _/ TRAFFIC CONTP-.OL DIAGRAM DETAIL SECT:ON Di~IVEWAY DETAIL 5ECTION MEETING EXIDT. ADPtflALT PAV'T (~ TURNING RADIU5 FOR LARGE TR.U( J H G F E D A 0709 I 2 $ 4 5 G 7 8 9 I0 It 12 13 14 15 IG 17 N. Y.S. O.O.T. PLAN K J H E~ A 070'3 2 3 4 5 G 7 & 9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 IG 17 DI~AINAGE PLAN 7 2 LANDSCAPE ~,.,~... EXTERIOR, LIGHTING PLAN N J H G F E D A 070~ Town of Southold Planning ~epa~ent Staff Report °n Site Plans DATE: August 16, 2007 TO: Planning Board FROM: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer I. Site Plan Information Site Plan Name: Group for the East End Office Suff61k~ ~un~ Ta~ M~p Number, Street Eb~tk~n. ~sg§ Malt1 F~0ad Hamlet: Southold Type of Slt~Plah~XLNe~ ~ended Residential Properly Owner: I~n & Flora Garsten Appllcant: GrOup for theEa~fEhd Inc. RobeA DeLu~ Agent: John F. Shea, Esq. Site Plan Prepared By: Nathan Taft Co~in III, Land Su~eyor Date of Map: 04/17/07 and last revised 07/30107 Date of Submission: August 10, 2007 II. Description of Site Plan Project Prop. Construction Type: This site plan is for the proposed re-use and alteration of a 3,500 sq.ft, existing building into ~,43~ Sq~,igf offi ~/spa~ and approximately ~ ,722 sqJt of storage 3nd 339 s~ff. o~ m~sce!!a~eous:sp~ce and conversion of an existing accessory garage to storage with a basement of 326 sq. ft. & 1 st fir. of 470 sq.ff, with 15 parking spaces provided and 3 spaces land banked on 23!32OsqJt. ParceHn the H~E0ne located approximately 653' w/o Bosseau Avenue on the n/s/o NYS Road 25 known as 54895 Main Road In Southold. SCTM#(s) 1000-62-1-4 Zoning District: HB Town Code Section: 280-44 ZONING RESEARCH: ACTUAL l REQUi~._E.-~IENTS l,~_. ~.. _l PROPOSED ~_ LOT S~E: .... 20,000 [ 23.~20 FRO~ Y~: 15 Existing No ~ted changes S~E: 10 ~isting No ~ted changes BOTH S~ES: 25 Existing No noted changes ~ Y~: 25 Ex~sting No noted changes LA~SC~E %: 25% 45.4% LOT COV[~O~;~ 40% Not ExistingjB~DlNG TO'[~ AREA: 3,500 USE RESEARCH: AREA SQUARE STORY S.T. CODE FOOT BUILDING FLOOR PERMITTED USE S~C,/PART PROPOSED USE Business, professional SQ,FT, 4,296. 3 and governmental office 280-44 Business off and storage. III. Site Analysis 617.5 Present Land Use: Office, retail and single family dwelling certificate of occupancy IV: Permits and/or Review Required From Other A.qencies The application will require approval from the Suffolk County Planning, LWRP, Office of the Town Engineer, Building Inspector final certification, ARC, NYSDOT, SCDHS, SCWA and the Southold Fire Department. The Planning Office received SCDHS approval on August 13, 2007 noting reference number C10~07-0010 for office use. The application has been submitted to NYSDOT for review and approval. The application went to the ARC on a pre submission review. V: Staff Recommendations The Planning Department makes the following recommendations at this time: ], Planning consider allowing the use of the existing garage for parking of two cars. 2. Application fee submitted that was submitted is $500.00 and the fee needs to be $850.00 based on the 3,500 sq.ft, primary building use. 3. The site plan need to show lighting, lot coverage calculation, dimensions on access ways, directional signage or arrows and revise the parking calculations. 4. The site plan has some mistakes as follows: · Lot coverage notes 20% and zoning dictates 45% · Parking calculations are not correct and do not show the use of the storage space. · Site details 3 parking spaces land banked in the parking calculations and does not note which three it applies to. 5. The application is complete and Planning Board can accept it. as submitted with a request for revisions. Planning Board authorizes staff to start the site plan process, refer out the application, issue letter to agent on site plan edits and missing items. Town of Southold Proposed Site Plan Group for the East End Tax Map # 1000-62-1-4 Date BOARD MEMBERS JERILYlq B. WOODHOIJSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H.~DOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND October 16, 2007 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING/IDDRE~S: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 ~-- OFFICE IX)CATION: Town l~all Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.), Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Mr. Robert DeLuca Group for the East End Office PO Box 569 Bridgehampton, NY 11932 Proposed Site Plan for Group for the East End Office Located approximately 653' w/o Boisseau Avenue, on the n/s/o NYS Road 25, known as 54895 Main Road, in Southold SCTM #: I000-62-1-4 Zoning District: Hamlet Business (HB) Dear Mr. De Luca: The Southold Town Planning Board, at a meeting held on Monday, October 15, 2007, adopted the following resolutions: The final public hearing was closed. WHEREAS, this site plan is for the proposed re-use and alteration ora 4,370 sq. It. existing building intn t,439 ~q. It. of office space and approximai;ely 1,661sq. IL o£storage and 1.270 ft. of miscellaneou:~ ~;pace and conversion of an existing accessory garage tO storage with 15 parking, spaces provided anti 3 spaces !and banked on a 23,320 scI. I~t. parcel in the lib Zone located approximately 653' w/o Boisseau Avenue on the n/s/o NYS Road 25 known as 54895 Main Road in Southold. SCTM#(s) 1000-62-1-4; and WHEREAS, Irwin L. Garsten is the owner of the property located at 54895 Main Road, in Southold; and WHEREAS, on April 6, 2007, the Southold Town Building Department issued a notice of disapproval indicating that the proposed change in use requires site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 2007, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services approved an Office under reference number C10-07-0010 and the Southold Town Planning Board accepts this for approval; and WHEREAS, on A~gu!~t 10.20D7, Ihe agent. John F. Shea, Esq. working for the applicant, Group for the East End, Inc., s~)>m~tied a ~ite plan apphca~ion for approval; and Group for the East End Office Page Two October 16, 2007 WHEREAS, on August 20, 20!)7, Robert De Luca, as the applicant, subm?,ted a revis,?d site plan application indicating a change in the named agent to Robert S. De Luca, president of Group for the East End. Inv. for review and the Southold Town Planning Board accepts this information for file; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2007, the Southold Town P[anning Board held a Work Scss on and accepted the application and requested application revisions from the agent, Robert S. De Luca; and WHEREAS, on~ ; the Amhitectural Review Committee reviewed the associated site plan materials and the ~ ~a~ t~;~. mi ~y? with the following recommendation: fi!~¢~. The parking area lighting fixtures can be modem or traditional and is at the applicant's discretion. ~[tflg ~q)li~ ~tr~. The type of bulb recommended for the lighting fixtures is metal halide" and the Southold Town Planning Board accepted these comments for consideration; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2007, the New York State Department of Transportation issued a letter after review of the site plan materials with 9 noted items required and assigned a ease number 07-299P and the Southold Town Planning Board accepts this for conditional approval; and WHEREAS, on Sl,l?}~[~h~r:! .[i~¢097,, ~he Jill M. Doherty, Vice President of the Southold Town Trustees reviewed the site plan materials and responded with comments that the O~!~ y~gi~5~tt~ol%~¢andj~t~dfiotio~i, imd~i%th~p~eri276 of the Town Wetland Code and Chapter 111 of the Town Code. Therefore, in accordance with the current Wetlands Cede (Chapter 275) and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (Chapter 111) no permit is required and the Southold Town Planning Board accepts the comments for approval; and WHEREAS on ~i?p~en'X*e~;~}! ~0~7, Mark Terry the LWRP Coordinator, issued recommendations in a letter after review of the s te plan materials the Southold Town Planning Board accepts the recommendations for consideration; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 2007, the Southold Fire District responded for the Board of Fire Commissioners, after review of the site plan and "found that them is adequate fire protection for this site plan. The Board would like to reserve the right to review the above site plan if any changes occur to this proper~ or to other property in the immediate area" and the Southold Town Planning Board accepts this response for approval; and WI'tEREAS, on September 18, 2007, the Suffolk County Department of Planning responded, after review, and determined that this matter is for "local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-cmnmunity impact(s)" and the Planning Board accepts this pursuant to 239 L & M General Municipal Law and the Southold Town Planning Board accepts this for approval; and Group for the East End Office Page Three October 16, 2007 WHEREAS, on September 21, 2007, the Planning Department Staffnotified the agent, Robert De Luca by letter that additional application materials are required to process the application and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2007, the Southold Town Building Inspector reviewed and certified the site plan with "Business Offices and Professional Offices are permitted uses in the HB District" and the Southold Town Planning Board accepts this for approval; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2007, the Sonthold Town Planning Board set the final public hearing for October 15, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, on October 3, 2007, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed the site plan materials and responded with the following four comments: ~) Drainage calculations have been provided and gravel pavement areas were designed using a runoff coefficient of 25%. These calculations need to be amended to utilize a runoff coefficient of 0.6 for all Gravel Pavement areas. ~his item will increase the required drainage and the site plan should be amended accordingly. 2) The existing curb cuts, proposed new construction and change of use should be reviewed and approved by the DOT. Please Note, this proposed Site Plan is a renovation of existing conditions and two Curb Cuts already exist at this location. However, the DOT generally reserves the right to review any and/or all changes to a Site Plan when there is an increase in the intensity of its use. Therefore, a DOT Curb Cut or Highway Work Permit should be required. 3) A future cross over access easement has been noted adjacent to the Northerly end of the Westerly Property Line. If the adjacent property is not currently in Planning, it is recommended that this i~m be noted as a flexible location subject to final approval by the Planning Board when the adjacent property is developed. 4) The proposed landscaping appears to be adequate and meets the minimum requirements of Town Code. Final endorsement of the proposed landscaping should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board and the Southold Town Planning Boards accepts the comments for approval; and. WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 55, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, the following items shall be required: · The owner, agent and/or applicant shall comply with all requirements noted in the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for the cross over agreement. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the light source is not visible fi.om adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries. The lighting must meet Town Code requirements. Group for the East End Office Page Four October 16, 2007 · All signs shall meet Southold Town Zoning Codes and shall be subject to approyal of the Southold Tom Building lnspecto[. · As per the Landscape Survivability Guarantee, the applicant agrees to replace any of the landscaping which dies within three (3) years of planting; therefore, be it RESOLVED, on October 15, 2007, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR), Part 617.5 c (2), make a determination that the i~roposed action was a Type l] m~t not subject to review; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board has reviewed the proposed action under the policies of the Tom of Southold Local Waterfront Revitslization Program and has determined that the action is furthermore consistent as noted in the September 11, 2007 report prepared by the LWRP Coordinator; and be it further RESOLVED, that pursuant to Southold Town Code 280-131 Part I, the applicant agrees to incorporate all the requirements, comments, and recommendations of each reviewing agency as referenced above and as indicated on the site plan and corresponding attachments; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town cm the Sit ~e pla/'a~idatcd :~ipri!~( [~ :2(~7 and £a~l: ©ei. ober~9; ~, & 500' Radius Map; dated August 7, 2007; both site plans were prepared by Nathan TaR Corwin III, Land Surveyor, with thc floor plan, dated June 6, 2007, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the site plan with the following conditions: The owner, agent and/or applicant shall agree to execute and file the cross over Covenant and Restriction within thirty days (30) of deeded ownership ~ansfer with the Suffolk County Clerk and upon filing, submit a filed copy to the Planning Department Office for the office file. The owner, agent and/or applicant shall agree to apply to the New York State Deparlment of Transportation agency for approval and this site plan approval is subject to change to conform to any requirement of State Regulations as applied during the process. If applicant/agent/owner fails to adhere to this requirement, this approval shall become null and void. The owner, agent and/or applicant agrees to build out thc site and install all handicap parking stalls, access aisles and signage in compliance with New York State Code and ADA requirements. The owner, agent and/or applicant understands and agrees that thc Southold Town Building Department will review the approved proposed build out under a building permit application and that all construction must meet or exceed the required codes and this site plan approval is subject to change to conform to any requirement of Local & State Regulations as applied during the building permit review. 5. The site plan approval requires that all work proposed on the site plan shall be completed within three (3) years from the date of this resolution. Group for the East End Office Page Five October 16, 2007 Prior to the req~iest for the Certific.4te of Occupancy, the owner el- authorized agent must request, in writing, the said Building Inspector and the Planning Board to perform an on- site inspection to find the site improvements are in conformity with the approved site plan. Prior to the request for an on-site inspection, the applicant/agent/owner must submit a copy of all required approvals from any necessary agencies to the Southold Town Planning Department. Upon inspection, if the as-built site improvements vary from the approved site plan, the Planning Board reserves the right to request a certified as-built site plan detailing all the changes. Any changes fi'om the approved site plan shall require Planning Board approval, and any such changes without Planning Board approval will be subject to referral to the Town Attorney's Office for possible legal action. 10. The Planning Board will issue a firml site plan approval in the form cfa letter following a site inspection and at the time the site improvements am found to be in conformance with the approved site plan. 11. The owner, agent and/or applicant must provide and ensure all necessary safety precautions are implemented before, during and upon completion of any construction at the site for anyone on the site as may be required by all authorities having jurisdiction. One copy of the approved site plan is enclosed for your records. As per the Town Code, one copy each will be distributed to the Building Department and Town Engineer/Highway Department. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Chairperson Encl. cc: Southold Town Building Department/Southold Town Engineer TOWI~ OF SOUTitOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 765-9502 www. northfork, net/Southold/ Examined ,20__ Approved .20 Disapproved Expiration ,20 PERMIT NO. BUILDIN~IT APPLICATION CHECKLIST Do~aave or need the f011owin~, befot~ spplyin~? Board of Health 4 s~t~ of Building Pla~ pl~mnl,g Board approval Survey. Cheek Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Coutact: Mail to: Phone: Building Inspeotor · APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS / ~"/~ / a. T~..j~ application ~-$T'b~pletely filled in by typewriter or in ink and subnfitted to the Building Inspector with 4 sets of plato, accurate.plot plan to ~eale. Fee according to schedule. b, Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or and waterways. c. The work onve~red by this application may not be coa~.;enced before issuance of Building P~rmic d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector Will issue a Building Permit to thc applicant. Such a permit shall b~ kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. · e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any punposc what so ever until the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. f. Every building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced within 12 months aier the date of issuance or has not be~n completed within 1 8 months from such date. If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the . property have been enacted in the interim, thc Building Inspector may authorize, in writlne, the extension of the p~-n-mit for an addition six months. Thereafter, a new permit shall be required. APPLICATION IS I"I~REBY MADE to the Building Department for the is~ h~ing Pennli pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Sonthold, Suffolk Cotmty, New Yorlg and/o~i~'r al:51}i<le ~[~aws, Ordl-a-ces or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions, or alterations or for removal/hr demerit ~ a~ herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, ~ eg~lations, and to admit authorized inspectqra on premises and in building for neeessary inspections. I ~ I /' li~m or name, ifa corporation) Stute whct~ a1~plJcam is owner, lessee, a§em, aro~tect, cogi~cc~, gc~'~l contractor, ¢lc~Mci~, ~qamcofownerofpremises ~ZG-~aim Z, (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer (Name and title of corporate officex) Builders License No. Plumbers License No. Electricians License No. Olher Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: House Number Street Couni~ Tax Map No. 1000 Section 0(oo~ Subdivision,, (~ame) Hamlet Block ~ d.i Filed Map No. ~1~ Lot, 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and in~ended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy b, Intended use and occupancy 4. 5. 6. 7. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building Repair Removal Demolition Estimated Cost 19t/1. If dwelling, number of dwelling units Fee Addition Alteration (Description) ' (To be paid on filing this application) Number of dwelling units on eanh floor If garage, number of cars I - ~ e_~c If business, eomm~mal or m~xed occupancy, spemfy nature und extent of each type of usc. Dim~uslOI~ of exmling ms, if any: Front~eart4aar,~ ff"q fret+ Height ~ Number of Stoffes ~ Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front N ~ Depth ~]t~ Height 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front Height ~!tl 9. Size oflot: Front II/~.(~ ~q' Rear ~ la Number of Stories ~ .,14 Number of Sto~s ~a Nme ofFom~ Om~ ~. ~a~ ~o¢T~E 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated H~i~ [c~ Bo~:n¢~'5 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation? YES NO ~ 13. Will lot be re-graded? YES NO ){ Will excess fill be removed from premises? YES NO 14. Names of Owner of premises ~r.,,.yu0 t.. G~,~.s~,0Address~ 9'~.,.~- S'r, .q~-e~Phone No. 7~4~>5 Name of Architect Address Phone No · Name of Contractor Address Phone No. · 9 15 a. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland. *YES NO X ... * IF YES, $OUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES & D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. ' b. Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? * YES NO ~( * IF YES, D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. 16. Provide survey, to scale, with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17. If elevation at any point on pwperty is at I 0 feet or below, must provide topographical data on survey. STATE OF NtSW YORK) *~.ro ;~. L-, ~'~r$"~'~. being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named, (S)He is the (Contractor, Agem, Corporate Officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have peffonned~d to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are tree to the best of his lm~yCIledge a/~d beli~; and that the work will be performed in the manner s~t forth in the application fil~t therewith. [~ ! Swor~.to before me this -- ~, / ~ 20 ~74" ~ St'~aa~ of Applicant NotaryPublic KEY MAP t SCALE 1"=600' (I) LEACH~N~ POOL TYPICAL- STORMWATER UNIT (~OT TO SCA~) SITE PLAN FOR GROUP FOR THE EAST END SITUATED AT SOUTHOI~D TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-62;-01-04 Nathan Taft Corwin Land Surveyor N 20'50'20" SETBACK W W ~/o/~ 200.00" =~ SURVEY OF PROPERTY $II~UATED AT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK 'COUNTY, NEW ¥OEK S.C. TAX No. 1000-62-01-04 SCALE 1"=20' APRIL 17, 2g07 23,319 94 sq. ff. 0.535 aa. Jo~ L ~ph A. ~r~no and Surveyor TOWN OF omc ov Bm mo ms croa ~EL. 765-1802 May 7, 1979 Planning Board Southold Town Hell Main Rd. Southold, New York 11971 GenTlemen: In reviewing ~he proposed site plan for East End Insurance Company, Main Road, Sou%hold, New York. I find they are providing Just enough for their business. Four cars oen be parked in the rear and three along the driveway leaving ten fee% for traffic. Y°~/S/truly ' ., GEORGE H. FISPD~ Sr. Build/rig Inspeotor I CE: ~ACCO. ~m' ANL~ . _ SQUARE FEEl' LOCATED ON O~ h~ ,, SCrM· 1000- [ SITE PLAN Presubmission conference (within 30 days of written request) Complete application received ? .,~/~ tw!thin 4 months of presub, conference) Application reviewed at work session f~l~'~./? ~'p',~ [] (within I0 days of receipt) ....... [] [] Applicant a~vised of necessary revisions ~ (within ,~0 days of review)' -- Revised submission received Lead Agency Coordination SEQIL~ determination REFERRED TO: Zoning Board of Appeals (writte~n comments within 60 days oi request) Board of Trustees __. [][~='] Building Department {certification) , Suffolk County Department of Plannin · Department of Transi~ortation -State Department of Transportation - County Suffolk County Dept, of Health Fire Corn missioners RECEIVED: Draft Covenants and Restrictions Filed Covenants and Restrictions Landsca~ plan Lighting plan Curb Cut approval Health approval J Drainage plan Reviewed by Engineer Received:~ Approval of site pian -with conditions C. er til'icate of Occupancy inspection One year review 'FO D Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN Date of Applicationl/16/90 Filing Fee Date Rec'd New Use Change of'Use~Re-Use Extension of Existing Use Revision of an Approved Site Plan (Date of Approval Other Specify ****************** ~e of Busines ~roperty of Sit Address of Site~-5415 Main R---6~, Southold, N.Y~ 119/i Name of Applicant Jerry Gambene &Kes Zapkus Address of Applicant 4860 Rocky Point Read, East Marion, N.Y. 11939 Telephone 516-477-13,41/ 212-420-033 Person to be responsible for Construction Jerry Gambone Telephone see above Applicant's interest in site-check one: Owner of Land X Under contract to purchase Owner of. Fee Title to Land Jerry Gambone & Kcs Zapkus Address see above Telephone see above Site Plans Prepared by Regi Weile,Archi~Le~nse No. 11921 Address 211 North Street, Greenport,NY Telephone 515-477-9735 .Ft. Z~ne DiStrict H Use of Proposed Use of Site~ail Gross Floor Area of Existing Structure(s)(~) 1140 _sqft. {~ 4on' sqft" -"~ . Gross Floor Area of Proposed StruCture(s) .sqft. ~sqft. Percent of Lo~ C~V~age by Building{s) ~.~0 - ~q.~7~.?K = 1] .35 % Percent of Lot for ?ark~ng (where applicable)~6-~.57~_~ = ~4~?~ % Percent of LO~ for Lahdsuapi~n~(where applicable~3~nLi Datum( Speci~¥)U ~ S. G. S' Mean ~a Level Other Has applicant been granted a variance and/or special exception by Board of Appeals YES ( see attached "Action of The Board of Appeals" ) Case Number 3896 Name of Applicant Jerry Gambone &Kes Zapkus Date of Decision T-~ )/gU Expiration Date Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be stored or handled at the site? NO If so, have proper permits been obtained? Number and Date of permit issued . .~ ~ NO ACTION (EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION) MAY BE UNDERTAKEN UNTIL APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN. BY THE PLANNING BOARD. Note: (1) Gross Floor Area of EachFloor of PrinCipal 2-Story House = 1140S~ (2) Gross Floor Area Of existing Garage = 400 SF APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK .Jerry Gambone &~Kes Zapkus _ .. being duly sworn, dep0s~s and says that he resides at 4860 Rocky Point Road, East Marion, N.Y.1]gs in the State of New York, and that he -is the.owner of the above property or that he is the of the (Title) {Specify whether Partnership which is hereby making application; that the or Corporation) owner or his heirs, successors or assigns will, at his own expense, install the required site improvements in accordance with Article XIII of the Code of the Town of Southold for the area stated herein and that there are no existing structures or improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that title to the entire parcel, including all rights-of-way, have been clearly established and are shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the- Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance with the plans submitted. Sworn to before me this (Notar~ ~ubli6 ) J~E~ ~HW~ ~/ Signed N~ ~b~ic, ~ ~ N~ Y~ COwner) (Partner or Corporate Officer and Title) I..,:.o.,s? l-o. NUM,. 617.21 Appendix C State Environmental Quality ReWRw SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART P--PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Prolect Sponsori 3~o~ 5 41 Ma n' . ...... ?"=- ,, Mun~lpapRy Southold, N.Y. ! 107[: Counly SuffOlk SEQ On N. side of Main Rd., 1st Building E. of Fire Department, 190' W. of Boisseau Avenue. [] New [:::] EXI~Ifl~E~I [~Mod ! Olth~l/llllerlllOn -- garage s%ruc~ure and Use~ as storage space, accessory to the principal rearyard - in E. WILl. pROPoSED ACTION COMPLY WITH ~(ISTI~ ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ~] Ve~ [] No If No, describe btlelly g. WHAT JS PRESENT LAND USE IN ViCINiTY OF PROJEG~I'? (_ (~e$c,*~e: Other: Southold Historical Society,s Museums and Grounds & Town of Southold Fir~ Department. I0, OOE~ ACTION INVOLVE A PER/~IT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAl. AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? ~Yez []No ]fYe~,~i$1agen~Asian~pe~Ua~ovals Zonin~ Board of Appeals (Southold) Special Exception to permit an Apartment over retail stores or business offices in Hamlet Business District. ~OE$ ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? Yes [] No If ¥~u, Iisi aOe.cy name and permtUapprol~al AS 1 i S t ed a bore ( $10 ) I CERTIFy THAT THE INFORUATION PROVIDED AROVE ~S TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ' ApplJcantlspons~, name: Jerry Gamhone ~ R~; Mmpkt~M Dale: 1/16/90 OVER 1 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Benneti Or{owski, Jr., Chairman G~'o~ge Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards T¢lelX~mc (.516) '/65-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 May 1, 1990 Jerry Gambone 35 Bond Street 2nd Floor New York, New York 10012 RB: Proposed Site Plan for Gambone/Zapkus SCTM# 1000-61-1-12 Dear Mr. Gambone: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, April 30, 1990. WHEREAS, Jerry Gambone and Kes Zapkus are the owners of the property known and designated as SCTM# 1000-61-1-12, located at 55415 Main Road, at Southold; and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on January 16, 1990; and WHEREAS, on the for to have a and WHEREAS, the Southold Town pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Revie~_~ (Article 8), Part 617, declared itself Lead Agency and on WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and Page 2 Gambone/Zapkus be it therefore, victoria Weile and received by the Planning Board and Enclosed please find a copy of the approved map on the above mentioned site plan that was endorsed by the Chairman. Please contact this office if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. cc: Building Department Assessors Office Ill .e TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IUILOIHG DI~AIITMGIT . TOWH a. IRK~ Oi~ICI, SOUTHOU), H. Y. Examined ................................... , 19 ........ Approved ...................... Permit N~ Application No ................................ . ).FmC&TlOfl FOR BUILDING FERMIT ............. .................... a. This appl cation ~ be completel~ filled in by typewrlt~ oe, in ink end del~.., mitred in triplicate to the Bulldlng Impeetor, with 3 ~ of plor~ ac~urato plot plan to ~ale. Fee oceaming to sd~du . b. Plot p an ~owing locution of lot and of buildings an premises, relotJomhip ~ adjoining,, p.~mi~ or. ..1~. I1¢ st.ree.~, os oreas, and giving a detailed delcriptlon of k~ut ofpropedy must be drown an the diagram w~n s port o~ m s app ~cat~n. c. ~ wod~ covered by this opplicoticn may not be commenced before Is~once of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of thl~ a~plicuticn, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit shall be kept on the pr~mlses available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be accupied or used in whale or in par~ for any purpme v/natever until a Certificate of Ocouponcy sh~ll have been granted by the Building Inspectm. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Oep~rtment for the issuance of o Building Permit pursuant lo the Bui d ng Zane O~dinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New Yad~ and other,applicable Law~, Ordi~onces or Regulotinr~, for the cansttuctlon of bulldlogs, addltlorls or oltemtions, or for rem~of or aemol, lrian, a~ be.rein described. T~e applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building c~.ade, housing coae, and regulotice~, and to admit authorized inspectors an preml~e~ and in bullding~ for necessmy inspectme~ ...... .......... Lcq-I I ................. i~ ond title Of corpo~am officer) Builder's Llce~n NQ. .......... ~ ..... Plumber's License No~ ....... ~ ..................................... Other 'rrade's [.Jcm J%in ............................................... 1. Location of land on which Drc~ ~ will be done Map b~o.' '~ Lot No /~ /~LJnIc~lity 3. Nature of work (check which opplico New Building'. ................. Addition Alteration ................. Repay, .................. ee~,o~ .................. Oe~oth~o~ .................... othe, wo,u .................... i6'~';~;ii~ ............. ~. ~,,i~t~ c~ ......~g...%0.ClO.,.~.,~.-°. ............... ~ee ...................................................................................... (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of cJweBing units ............................ Number of dwelling units o~1 each floor ....., ...................... . If garage, number of cars ................................................................................................................. J ........ 6. if business, c0mmerciol at mixed occupancy, spec~ [y nature and extent of each type of use .................... ~ ...... ! th 7. Dimen$1on$of existing structures° t any: Front ....,..~ ........... r-.Rear ....... ~:~.O......~...~-.- Oep .... ~-a~O. ..... Height ~..~. ! ...... Number of Star es .[ .................................... ~v ...................................... ._...; ............. Dimensions of sate structure wit~ alterations or oddidons: ~ront ......~Q ...................... Rear .....~_.~ D,~th ~;q .............. Heght ............................ H,.~*,r o~ S,o,~,~ .................. ~ ............ Dote of Purchase ....... .~...C[..~..~ ........................... r4a ~e of Former OvmeL.;~.~.,'~x.~S ................................... 10. '" ' ! 1. Zone or us~ district in which premises ore situated .......................................................................................... , ..... 12. Does proposed constructk~violate any z~ing law, ordinance or regulati~n: .... .~.~ .....................7 ............... 13. Will lot be regroded ....... ~.[[.~ ........... ~Will~excessfill berernovedfrom_prem_Ts?:( )Yes (~,~No 14. Name of Owner of premises .'.......--~XII..[Je;...~.L-~...(~o~ldress Phone No. Nome of Architect ................................................. ,~ddress ............................. Phone No. Name of Contractor ............................................................ Addre~ ................................ Phone N~ .................... PLOT DIAGRAM Loca~e clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or p?.posed, and indicate all set-back dlrnensl .o?,from q L ~ C.O ( ...... .~ tj STATE OF NEW YORK, I $ COUNTY OF J~.U£.~o.1..k .............. ; S. (Nome of individual signing contract} above named. (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) of said owner or owners and is duly authorized to perfor~ or have performed t~.e soi,d..wo.rk an.d.to make and fil{ that the work will be performed in the m~nner set forth in the opphcohon fded therewdh, Swam to before me this $ gnoture of b~ppl cant) So uthold TELEPHONE (516l 76551809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARI_ES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Application Df JO~N AND JOAN POLYWODA for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 to construct 11'6" x 36' addition (for storage) with an insufficient sideyard setback at the westerly yard area, at premises known as 55560 Main Road and 20 Hobart Road, Sou~hold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-62-3-2. B-1 Zone District. WHE/~EAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on July 14, 1988 in the Matter of the Application of JO~N AND JOAN POL~WODA under Appeal No. 3737; and WHEP~AS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this applioation; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEP~AS, the Board made the following findings of fact= 1. ~y this application, ap~e!lants re~uesta Variance from Article VII, Section 100-?1 of the Zoning Code for permission to construct aD addition to the existing building for the purpose of storing empcy bottles and cans (required under the N.Y.S. Bottle Bill)~ The addition is proposed of a size 11'6" X 36' and is to be set back not closer tha/% 20 feet from the westerly property line as shown on site plan prepared by Peconic Surveyors and Engineers, P.C. dated October 28, 1987. 2. The subject premises contains a total area of apDroxi- mately .25 of an acre, with 71.27 ft. frontage along the south side of the Main Road and 125 ft. frontage along the west side of Hobart Avenue, in the Hamlet and Town of Southold. This property is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 62, Block 3, Lot 2. Page ~ - Appl. No. 3737 Matter of JOHN AND JOAN POLYWODA Decision Rendered July 14, 1988 3. The lot in question is located in the "B-l" General Business Zoning District, and an application is pending as required by Articles VII and XIII of the Zoning Code for site-plan approval before the Town Planning Board. 4. ArtiCle Vii, Section 100-71, B~lk Schedule, of the Zoning Code requires a ~nimum sid~yardsetback to be 25 f~et. The percentage of relief requested by this application is not in the Board's opinion substantial, with a reduction of 4.2 feet from the required setback. 5. It is the position of this Board that: (a) the relief as requested is the minimal necessary and is not substantial in relation to the zoning requirement; (b) the practical difficulties are s~ffi¢ient; (c) the property is unique as to its substandard size and limited front and rear yard areas; (d; there is no alternative available for appellants to pursue; (e) the relief will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town; (f) in considering all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the relief, as applied and further noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Varia~nce from the Provisio~ of ~ticle VI!, SEction 100-71, Bulk SchedUle, of -the ZOning cede for permission to construct addition for storage purposes with an insufficient sidey~tback, in the Matter of the Application of JOHN AND JOAN P~LYWODA, Appl. No. 3737, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIOn: ~. Proper scre~~d~.~ge u/%der Site-plan approval from the Planning ~,~? by Articles VII and X III of the zoning Code. '"?'--~" ~' ~ ~ ~ ;~i Vote of the Board}TM A~es: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. CHAIRMAN Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWH OF SOUTHOLD o9/o2/88 Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law State Environmental Quality Review Act and 6NYCRR Dart 617, Section 617, Section 617.10 and Chapter.44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is hereby given that Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency for the described below has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The Site Plan for John Polywoda, Beverage Distributor, located on the Main Road in Southold. SCTM An environmental assessment has been submitted which indicated that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. The project involves a storage addition to an existing beverage distributor so that returned bottles and cans may be sorted and temporarily stored before being returned to the beverage manufacturers. There does not appear to be an increase in the intensity of the use on the environmental impacts. Further information can be obtained by contacting Jill M. Thorp, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. Copies mailed to the following: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk county Planning Commission -continued- NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Stoney Brook Thomas C. Jorling, DEC Commissioner, Albany Town Board Judith Terry, Town Clerk Building Depax'tment Board of Appeals ' Board of Trustees Applicant Planning Board MAIN ROAD i=..2=~ ARE.~ .10~ 970 SQ. FTC. SCHOOL DISTRICT: SOUTH~LD FIRE DISTRICT: SOUTHOLD SIT. E PLAN FOR dOHN A. POLYWODA AT SOU THOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY,N.Y. 87 - 890 SITE PLAN Presubmissj~'~ncon[~rence (within 30 days of written request} .... ,,,, '~ morons o(presut~:"~bnference) A Pplication revieuzed n l work' session [Willttn ID days or receipt) Applicant a~vised ~E necessary rev}signs (wiU]in ~0 days o[ review) Revised submission received .... [] [] ^.e, ,¢oordi ation [] [] SEQRA determination ~o ~o~/i / REFERRED TO: Zoning 13entel of Appeals . _ (W'ritt~n c.omments w'iUfin 60 days of request) ~Oard or uepartmen, (cer,Eication, ' ' Suffolk County Department or Planning . Depar t~ent of TransporialIon -Slate Department or ]'ransporlation - County ' ~rrolk Coun,y Dept. or UeaR,, Fire Commissioners ~s~ - ReceJved~ RECEIVED: Filed Covenants and Restrictions Landscape plan Light h:,F. plan lYr:dmlUe phm J~evie~ued bF Ellgineer Endorsement of sile'plan ;..'~ ...... Certificate of Occupa.cy iu~pection PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold~ New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-8136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 Date Received Date Completed Filing Fee APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PlAN New -TChange of Use Re-use Extension Revision Of= Approved Site Plan Southotd Town planning Board Name of Applicant: Address of Applicant: Telephone: Owner of L~nd: Agent or Person responsible for application: Address: Telephone: site plans prepared by: Ucense No. Address: Telephone: Page 2 Planning Board SEe Plan Application Sl*A'IE OF NBIIf YOI~ COIIN1Y OF SUFR3U( ~oH LO {~c ~ o being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at tl'~o PA&t~ AUE[. %o~-t~ocP I~.~{ In the S~a~e of New York, and that he Is the owner of ~he above proper[y, or that he is the ..... ~'~-~-~5 · of me fril;le} (Specify Whether partnership or Corp,) whlcfl Is hereby maldng application; that there are no exlsang s~ruc0Jres or Improvements on the land which are not shown on the Sim Plan; that the title to the entire parcel, Including all rlgh~s-of-way, has been cleady established and Is shown on said Plan; that no pert ~ the Plan Infringes upon any duly filed plan which has no~ been abandoned both as to lots and es to roads; that: he has examined all rules and regulations adopl~:l by the Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans subrniti~l, as approved, will n~ be altered or changed In any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the acLUal physical improvements will be lnst~lled In stilc~ accordance with the plans subrnl[ted, (Owner) Signed (Partner or Corpora'~e Officer and Title) Sworn to me this Page 3 Pmnnlng Board sr~e P{an Application ~Total Land Area of Site (acres or square feeL) onlng District Existing Use of Site Proposed Uses on Site. Show all uses proposed and existing. Indicate which building will have which use. If' more then one use Is proposed per building, Indicate square e of floor ama 1 reserved per us~. ___[~Percent of Lot for Landscaping (where applicable) Has applicant been granted a variance and/or special exception by Board of Appeals - Case # & date Board of Trustees - Case # & clare NY State Department of Environmental Conservation - Case # & date Suffolk County Department Health Services - Case # & date Case Number Name of Applicant Date of Decision E,xplratJon Date Other Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be stored or handled at the site? If so, have proper permits been obtained? Name of' Issuing agency Number and date of permit Issued. NO ACi70N (EXCAVANON OR CONSTRUCYION) I~AY BE UNDERTAKEN UIVBI APPROVAl OF SITE PLAN BY PLAIVNINGBOARD, VIOIATO£SAEE.qUEJECTTOPROSECUTION. Notes fi'om 10 June PB Work Session for North Fork Kitchen (62-3-7): -Planning Board is opposed to thc installation of the French doom. There is a great lack of parking for the site as is. The ~ot~ W6a d On y reduce ~be ~u~oe~ Ofpa~king Spaces -No problems with steam table and other minor changes inside. -Traffic will have to be looked at if tho business is high volume (i.e. take out). Since the road adjoining the parking lot is one-way customers would "have" to drive around the neighboring block to park. -Planning board strongly advises the applicant to "stick with what's existing" in terms of use and intensity (that is; a "low" volume restaurant). Significant changes would warrant a new site plan for which there would be many issues to address. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGIANO P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: From: Re: Michael Verity, Principal Building Inspector Scott Hughes, Senior Environmental Planner ~' North Fork Kitchen French doors. Main Road, Southold SCTM: 1000-62-3-7, Date: 12 June 2002 I have discussed the matter with the Town Planning Board. It was agreed that the installation of the French doors to allow more light into the restaurant would be acceptable as long as, per the owners request, they were "fixed shut" by removal of the hinges, installation of a railing, or by some other means. However, if the use of the doors changes from lighting to access, the owner must then come in for site plan approval. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman KENNETH L. EDWARDS ~e- ~ GEOROE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. R~CHARD O. WARD ~~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 November 2, 1999 PLANNII~G BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Roy LoCascio 1170 Park Ave. Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed~3e.~le.d~e plan for Roy LoCascio SCTM0~000~? Dear Mr. LoCasclo: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board held on Monday, November 1, 1999: The final public hearing was closed. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, this proposed amended site plan, to be known as site plan for Roy LoCascio, is to re-open an existing restaurant and bar as a restaurant only; and WHEREAS, Roy LoCascio is the contract vendee of the property known and designated as Roy LoCascio restaurant, Main Road, ~~~~- WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on September 30, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Ag (6NY~), ~art 617, makes a dete.?nation that this project is a E_h~J~o~hta ~Q al WHE.,REAS, this ~~~~f~D~r~,2~t~,99~W~§ :.C~ifie~ by the Building Inspector Page 2 Proposed amended site plan for Roy LoCasclo Nove~ber 2, t99g WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Headng, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore BE IT RESOLVED, .that the Southold T0. wq.~~t~ the ~~.~ the final ~~w"~h Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval stamp, subject to a one year review from date of building permit. Enclosed please find 2 copies of the approved site plan; one for your records and one to be submitted to the Building Department when you apply for your building permit. Please contac{ this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, ow ki. Jr. Chairman enc. cc: Building Dept. Tax Assessors '1 i PLA. NNi'NG ~OARD J ATr &~H ~' 0 PLaN NIL~ HA, W' LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans SPFile Type: Approved Proiect Type: Site Plans Status: Final Approval SCTM #: 1000 - 62-3-38 Proiect Name: Periwinkle Address: NYS Route 25, Southold Hamlet: Southold Applicant Name: Lori Feilen Owner Name: Lori Feilen Zone 1: HB Approval Date: 5/1/2000 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A date indicates that we have received the related information End SP Date: 5/1/2000 Zone 2: Zone 3: Location: southwest corner of NYS Route 25 and Town Harbor Road, Southold SC Filin.q Date: C and R's: Home Assoc: R and M A.qreement: Date: Records Management SCANNED AUG 2 4 2006 Records Management [ SITE PLAN (within 30 days of written request) Complete application received {.witl~in IO days of receipt) Applicant advised nf necessary rev sions (wilhin .30 days nf review) Revised submission received Lead.Agency Coordination SEQRA determination REFERRED TO: Zoning Board of Appeals (written c?mments within 60 days of request) Board of Trustees · Suffolk: County Department oF Planning ...... Department of Transportation -State 'Department of Transportation - County Fire Commissioners ~ Sent:. Receivedu RECEIVED: Draft Covenants and Restrictions [][~ Filed Covenants and Restrictions Landscape plan [~] [~ LightinR plan -__ [][~ Curl) Cnt approval -- I)rain:,ge plan __ Reviewed by/~ngincer Approval Of ~ite plus -with co~ldilions }![ltlorseelent ol* sire'plan Certificate or Occupancy inspection PL .~NING BOARD M~MBE PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hal}, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 Date Received Date Completed Filing Fee APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN New Change of Use Re.use Extens~n Revision of Approved Site Plan Name of Business or Site: SCTM#: lO00- Location: Actress: Name of Applicant: Address of ADptlcant: Telephofle: Owner of Land: il'&5 ' N/ SeA // 7F7 ~ent o~ Person re~pons~l~e Telephone: Site plans prepamcl by: ~n~ T~e: IlAR 8outhold Town Planning Board SI'ATE OF NEW YORK WhiCh is here~ maUng application: that there are no exlstlng st~uctureel~udlng all right,-of-way, I~s wt~h are not shown on the Srm Plan; b~ac the tiUe to the enUm parcel' I~een cma ~tatMshed anti Is shown on salcl p~n: mat no pat o~ the ~a~l~ln_ aes upo~ any cl.uly ~ r~n which ires not t~en amnClOned eet~ as to ~ots anc~ as m r~_ . ~t ..~?. ~_~....,.~ same. ~at me ~l~t~s aclepted by me PlarlrlklO Board for t/le fll~ oF Site Plarls an° wm ('u"'~T "'"' ' plans sut~ as app~ wig not De altered or c~angecl In any manner without Oqe approval of the Fqanrling Boarcl; art~ ~ ~ actual pllysk:af Irl~ents will I:)e installecl In strict ac~nce .wttll t;lle ~wne~ (par trier (x. Conx~ate Offk:er and Tltm) ~S~rl_r~to me this Notmy Puld~ STate of New Yo~ 14o. 4,95,1304 Oua~med I~ Surfak County Commi~im F. xl~e~ MaY 2~ -- 'Proposed uses an ~..._.a.~ secl per --will tlsVe WhiCh U~. ir more than orie Us8 Is p~ footage of t~oor area that wig ~e resenm~ peruse. 8~4e ~ Che~k Lol. block, se~Jon from t,x re,I) li~ s~ .nd ~ '//'~ 5~ b~ ~ a ~le ~ 1 I~ e~ 100 ~et ~e..1 ~ eM ~ . ,,/~ O~n ~ ~ ~a pm~ m~Y~m ~ ,-" ~'-- ~m e~ ~ ~l~ng. ~/~ . . Building N~o~ ~ all ~ ~ ~ ~ g~ ~m, S~ ~ ~ d~p~ ~ ~ ~mge -- t ~ ~ ~ ~un~ ~ R~ ~ ~ Yo~ 8~ ~e~ ~J~ ~) ~ ~r SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL A~ESSMENT FORM ~r UNU~D ~N8 ~ PART I--PROJE~ INF~R~A~ON ~o ~ com~ ~ ApPu~aqt ~ PmJ~t ~p~ SEQR I r:~,,~i, ipy ,tHAT 'pSE IN-- .TI~N ~'~i4DED ABOVE 18 TRUE TO T~G 'EST OF MY ~*~ ~/ o If the action1 Ii h the Coastal ~ and you sro a state agor~J, oomplata the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment Submission Without a Co~er Letter $C~1~1#: 1000- · Date: ~ ) j ~ Commmds: WILLIAM J. CREME t~ KKNNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHA~, RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 P~G BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 22, 2000 Robert Brown Fail-weather Blown Associates, Inc. Box 521 413 Main Street Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Victorian Barn Main Road, Southold SCTM# 1000-62-3-38 Dear Mr. Brown, The Planning Board received a letter and site plan from your client, Lori Feilen, on F~iday March 17, 2000. In Mrs. Feilen's letter she states that the rectuested I5' buffings have been described and noted on the plan. The plan does n ~ the of the Plo~ut no plant~l~~, This buffer was discussed at our plo-submission conference. The previous site plan dated Februar~ 16, 2000 did not show the bathroom addition as indicated on the p~esent plan. It aieo shewed the second floor as storage; the present plan shows this second floor as empty. This building is listed on the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities inventory. The dimensions, architecture and draina~'e for the bathroom addition are not shown on the plan, The elevation drawings and materlala must be reviewed be the Architeetuai Review Committee. The scale for site plans is 1" = 20', The plan submitted is 1" = 30'. As discussed with you at the Board's work session on March 20, 2000, a site plan application will be required in acordanco with Section 100-250 of the Zoning Code showing the above noted information. Site Plan Reviewer cc: Edward Forrester~ Director of Code Enforcement Lorl Feilen Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 119'/1-0959 F~x (681) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 11, 2000 Robert Brown Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 521 413 Main Street Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Lori Feilen/Periwinkle SCTM~1000-62-3-38 Dear Mr. Brown: The following resolut on was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting he d on Monday, April 10, 2000: The final public hearing was closed. The following resolution was adopted:. WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State a ~ Environmental Quality Review Act, (6NYCRR), Part 617, makes ~,~___.~ ..~> that this and not subject to the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and WHEREAS, this proposed site plan, to be kn°wn as site plan for Lori Feilen/Periwinkle, is to convert a residence to a ~mmercial retail store; and WHEREAS, Lori Feilen is the owner of the property known and designated as Lori Feilen/Periwinkle, Main Road Southold, ~; and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on March 28, 20C0i ~,d I~e~vinkle - 4111/00 - pane T~ WHEREAS, this site plan, tast revised ManYn 28, 2000, was carried by the Building Inspector on April 7, 2000; and VVHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town to the subject to a one year rewew from date of building Permit. Enclosed please find 2 copies of the approved site plan; one for your records and one to be submitted to the Building Department when you apply for your building permit, Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Chairman co: Building Department Tax Assessors Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOV~N OF SOUTHOLD April 25, 2000 Amy Martin, Permit Expediter Fairweat he'r- B town P..O. Box 521 413 Main Street Greenport, NY 11944 RE: Periwinkle Outdoor Furniture Store Main Road, Southold SCTM# 1000-62-3-38 Dear Ms. Martin, The Planning Board has received your letter of April 18, 2000, regarding the above project. The Board agrees with the change on the west side of the property from Canadian Hemlocks to a single row of six foot high White Pines planted fifteen feet (15') on center. The Board also agrees with the substitution of a single row of six foot high appropriate evergreens, planted six feet (6*) on center, for the Hemlocks on the south side. These evergreens will be planted in the Fall. This planting will be supplemented with a second row of broad leaf evergreen shrubs to be planted next spring. The Board reiterated its requirement that all merchandise will be placed south of the edge of display line shown on your plan dated April 18, 2000. An amended resolution containing the above changes will be on the Board's May 1, 2000, agenda at its public meeting. If you have any questions, or require assistance, please contact this office. Site Plan Reviewer cc: Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement Chairman WILLIAM J. CKEMER~ KENNETH L, EDWARD$ GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGIAHO PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD · Town Hall, 53095 Sta~e Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 May 2, 2000 Robert Brown Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 521 413 Main Street Greenpo~ New York 11944 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Lod Feilan/Periwinkle sC'rM~1000-62-3-38 Zone - Harolet Business (HB) Dear Mr. Brown: The following aroended res°lution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a roeeting held on Monday, May 1, 2000: WHEREAS, this proposed site plan, to be known as site plan for Lod Feilan/Periwinlde, is to convert a residence to a ceromerclal retail store; and WHEREAS, Loft Fallen is the owner of the property known and designated as Lori Feilan/Pedwinkle, Main Road Southold, SCTM~1000-62-3-38; and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this site plan was submitted on March 28, 2000; and WHEREAS, this amended resolution replaces the resolution approved by the Planning Board on April 10, 2000; and WHEREAS, a single row of si>~ foot high White Pines, planted fifteen feet (15') on center, will replace the single row of Canadian Herolocks, previously approve*~ by the Planning Board on April 10, 2000. These White Pines are to be planted this Spdng in the west side transitional buffer as requested by the applicant; and WHEREAS, a single row of six foot high apprepdata evergreens, planted six feet on cenier, will replace the Canadian Herolocks; previously approved by the Planning Board on Apd110, 2000. These appropriate evergreens are to be planted in the south side transitional buffer as requested by the applicant. These evergreens will be planted in the Fall of 2000. Periwinkle - 512/00 - Paae Two This planting in the south side transitional buffer will be supplemented with a second row of br. oadleaf evergreen shrubs to be planted next spring, 2001; and WHEREAS, all merchandise for sale will be placed south of the edge of the display line shown on the plan last revised on April 18, 2000. The Planning Board approves leaving this merchandise overnight in the ama between the front of the house and the edge of the display line. No for sale merchandise is to be placed in the ama north of the edge of the display line and the Main Road; and WHEREAS, this site plan, dated March 28, 2000, was certified by the Building Inspector on April 7, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey, dated Apd118, 2000, subject to a one year review from date of building permit. Enclosed please find 2 copies of the approved amended site plan; one for your records and one to be submitled to the Building Department when you apply for your building permit, Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the abo~,e. Sincerely, Chairman eric. cc: Building Department Tax Assessors '2 LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans SpFile Type; Approved Prelect Tvce: Amended Site Plans Status: Final ADoroval SCTM #: 1000 - 62.-3-37 Project Name: Seven Eleven Southold. Stora~e A~ress: 56480 SR 25. Southold Hamlet: Southold Applicant Name: Southland CorD. Owner Name: Southland CorD. Zone 1: B Approval Date: 7/29/19{i[i OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION End SP Date: Zone 2: Location: SC Filinq Date: ¢ add R's: Home Assoc: R and M Aqreement: SCAN Date: ROBERT W. TA$ I~R OFFIC~~ORNEY 425 MAIN ST. GREENPORT, L.I., NEW YORK 11944 April 26, 1982 T~ ~HONE (516) 477-1400 Mr. Henry Raynor, St, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southland Corp. Dear Henry: By your letter dated April 21, 1982, you have asked for my opinion as to the code requirements for front and rear yards and the method to be used in measuring such yards. The Southland Corp. premises are located at the southeasterly corner of New York State Route 25 and Laurel Lane at Southold and the premises and lands adjoining the same are in the~-I~' Business District. The Zontn~ Code defines "front yards~* as nan unoccupied ground area opened to the sky between the street line.., and a line drawn parallel thereto. ' The "street line~* is ~the dividing line between a lot and a street". The "rear yard" is ~*an unoccupied ground area fully opened to the sky between the rear lot line and a line drawn parallel thereto. ' A "rear lot line" is defined as "the lot line generally opposite to the street line;n A "corner lot" is defined as "a lot with the junction of and abutting on two or more intersectin~ streets where the interior angle of the intersection does not exceed 135 degrees". In the '*A~' Residential Zone, a special provision is contained in the Zoning Code (100-34) for corner lots. This section provides that front yards are required on both streets and one yard other than the front yard shall be determined to be a rear yard and the other a side yard. There is, however, no such provision in the Zoning Code for corner lots in the 'B-I' General Business Zone. it is st' and the ~t ~ ~ ~ Mr. Henry Raynor, Jr. -2- April 26° 1982 It is also my opinion, since the code defines "rear lot lines" as "the lot line opposite the street line", that there must be There is one aspect of this matter that confuses me. You indicate that the Plannir~ Board is reviewi~ this plan as a site plan pursuant to Article 13 of the Zoning Code. However° the code requires site plan approval only in those cases where the code so specifically provides, in the B-1 General Business Zone, only uses permitted by Section 110-?0B requires site plan approval The use contemplated in this case is a retail store which is a use permitted under Section 100-70A(1)(c) without site plan approval by the Planning Board. It would appear to me° however, that the Planntn~ Board does not have jurisdiction to determine the off-street parking requirements for the proposed use pursuant to Section 100-112 of the code. The off-street parking schedule does not specify the parking requirements for a retail store. Section 100-112 provides that uses that do not fall within the categories listed in the schedule shall be determined by the Planntn~ Board Yours very truly, i~OBERT W. TASKER RWT:aa I:'$SEKS, HEFTER, CUDOY & ANGEL ~ay ZO, 1982 Hr. Henry Raynor, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold, NewYork' Re: Southland Corp. Dear Mr. Raynor: This will conf!m that t~e change 'the parking as sh°wn on the 'existing plan and we ask r/aat the board consider the parking in accordance with Mr. Tasker's letter, as amended, and advise 'if this meets w~th the board's ap- proval. We would appreciate the Planning Board's acting as expeditiously as possible so that the 'build~ng perm~t'may be applied for. Thank you £or your cooperation. Very truly yours, Ch-aries R. Cudd~"J~ CRC/ec TOWN OF ~OUTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING'INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N,Y. 11971 JAil 22198,5 Jan.22,1985 Planning Board Town of Southold Main Rd. Southold,N.Y. 11971 To: From: subject: Planning Board Edward Hindermann Building Inspector The Southland Corp. (7-11 Store) proposed addition, revised site plan dated 11/1/84 Gentlemen: A review has been made of the attached site plan. The pro- posed is in conformity with zoning regulations. There are ~xisting structures shown o~ t~is sit~~.~t do not mee~ ~9~lng reg scales A 5'-0" ~s b ca k is requlree. AISC, the 6'-0" high chain link fence enclosure exceeds the maximum height limitations for a fence in the front yard area which is 4'-0". I have searched our records and can not find where a var- iance has been granted for these non-conf The original approved sit site plan can not be certified. EH:dsm Southold Town Board of Appeals .A,. NOAO - .TAT '"OAO Z. ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal .No. 3374 Application .Dated June 11, 1985 (Publtc Heating July 18, 1985) TO: Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel, Esqs. ~Appellant(s)] e~ Attorneys for 50UTHLAND CORP. 108 East Halo Street~--~.O. 8~ 2~9 Rtverhead, NY 11901 At a Me'ting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on ~ugust 8~ 198~, the abOVe appeal was considered, and the actioa indicated below was taken on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack DE Access to Property New York Town Law, Section 280-a [ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance Article , Section IX]Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article Xl , Section 100-119.1(a) [ ] Request for ' Application of SOUTHLAND CORP. (7-}]) - Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Sectlon iuu-ilg.l(a) for permission to construct fence tn excess of hel~ht limitations In frontyard area at premises ~dentifted as 56480 Ma~n Road, Southo]d, NY: County Tax Map Patce] No. 100Q-62-03-37. (8L1 Bustaess Zontng OlStrict). WHEREAS, a public hearing was he~d and concluded on ~uly 18, 1985, in the Matter of the Application of SOUTHLAND CORP., Appea~ No. 3374; ~NEREAS, the board members have considered all testimony and for the record that there has been no opposition entered concerning th~s appeal application; aad NNEREAS, the board members are personally familiar with the NHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this app]~cat~on,'appellant requests a variance front a six-foot high chainltok fence, with redwood slats through the links, the west side of the principal building. 3. The parcel tn question is lo~d tn~b~r]" ~eneral gusiness Zoning O~strict, contains an , with 150' frontage along the Main (State) Road and 125' frontage along 4. The premfses ts improved with a one-story masonry bu~]d}ng of a size 67' by 35' set back from the northerly front property line (CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO) DATED: August 13, lg85. Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81) CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page 2 - Appea o. 3374 Matter of SOUTHLAND CORP. Decision Rendered August 8, 1985 52 feet and from the westerly front property line 35 feet,and the existing 10' by 1D' fence enclosure in question. 5. The beard members are in agreement with the appellant and find that the height of the subject fence enclosure is necessary for storage of garbage in portable garbage containers, provided that the fence ~nclosure not be roofed, that the contents to be stored not exceed the height of the fence at six feet, and there be no storage of flam- mable or combustible materials. In considering this appeal, the.board nas tound that this proposal should be granted as conditionally noted below since: (1) the relief requested will nat be detrimental to adjoining properties; (2) there will be no substantial change in the characEer of this district; (3) the relief requested will not cause a substantial effect of any increased population density, (4) the circumstances are unique; (5) the difficulty cannot be obviated by some method feasible to appellant to pursue other than variance. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawickt, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, )t was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested for a fence enclosure within the frontyard area at a maximum height of six feet, as applied under Appeal Ho. 3374 in the Matter of the Application of SOUTHLAND CORP., SUBdECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONOIT[ONS: 1. The fence enclosure never be roofed; 2. The fence enclosure be maintained at all times in good condition; . 3. When necessary, redwood slats be replaced. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grtgonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawickt. This resolution was adopted b~ unanimous vote of all the members. ..... lk ~ERARO F. GOEH~XNGER, ~IrRIRM N August 13, 1985 ~v ~oA~O /~0.00' /50.00' MAP OF LAND LOCATED AT MAIN ROAD : ON - SITE: DATA ~T~IA'I'E: OF ON ~sr1'E GUANTITIF~__ MAP OF LAND LOCATED AT SOUIHOLO SOUTHLAND ~ '~?...,*~_ ~,.,~g~ m ~-~-s , N.~.S. R OUTE 25 ...' ..".'i s' : '.b" '.."o.'."."'.."i'' - MAIN r EXISTING ROW OF Pt HE T R E E S R''O A D. LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SOUTHL A ND CORP. ¸BY COMPLETE L ANDS GAPING '. i:.'.: .i '...Plahning BOard Site Plans and Amended S~te plans`* i . , .Print Date:'. 3i26/2004, .' ;Site Plan File'TYPe:'; Approved · SCAN Date,;,,,,,· ·-Pmie'ct Type: :i.'.Site Plati$ . 'Status: , Final Aoomval · .SCTM~ ~' ... 1000 - ' .~,3q .:. Pmiect Nam_e: AlbertsoN. ' ..Address: ,Main'Road Location: .. Main Road Hamlet: S0uthold Apoli._cant Name: Albert Albertson Owner, Name: Albert Albertson File Date: 9/~9/1977 ~OpTiONAL'ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Endorse Site Plan' Date: 9/19/1977 Zone 2: Zone 3: County Filin,q Date: C and R's: Homeowners Association: R and M A,qreement: TOWN OF $OUTttOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECI'OR TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 TEL. 765-1802 May 8, 1979 Planning Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York Gentlemen: On September 19, 1977,the Planning Board approved the site plan known as Colonial Corners at Main Road and Locust Lane, Southold, N.Y. They now wish to add 20 feet on to a one story building. In so doing, they reduce the planting and one parking space. Such change of a site plan should have the Plann- ing Boards approval. Under retail shopping center ( one parking space per 100 sq.ft, of office-retail floor area) their present 23 spaces are below the requirements. Mr. Albertson states that they now own a vacant lot accross the street, Locust Lane, to be used for parking. With 25% of this lot for landscaping, the balance would appear to leage more than enough parking to mee~ code. The parking must have a dustless surface and all rain water returned to the ground within the lot. They would like a building permit now which I cannot issue until I have the Plauning Boards consent. Y~ffruly, GEORGE H. FISHER Sr. Building Inspector MAIN I RO2D (N,Y.S. Rte 25) CO1 N I CORi~ER~c SOUTHOLD PLANNING BDARD DA TA L BUSINE~ 2t,355 --~ 5816 sq. fl./ZI,355 = ~ PARKING = 23 SPACES, INCLUDE ~ HANDICAPPED (EXISTING/ LIGHTING - EXISTING DRAINAGE - EX/STING' ' · .PA VEMEIVT - EXISTING AMENDED Srt'E PLAN $OUTHOI D TOWN OF SOUTHOI. D SUFFOLK COUNTY, N. ~000-62-03-P/0 22. I Sheet 1 of 2 MAIN ROAD 39 c~S (EX~STING) (NY.S. Rte 25 ) PARCEL I TOTAL A~- 90,102 sq. ft. EL. ~1.~ LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans SPFile Type: Approved Proiect Type: Site Plans Status: Final Approval SCTM #: 1000 - 62.-3-11 Project Name: Mullen Motors Address: NYS Route 25, Southold.. Hamlet: Southold Applicant Name: Richard Mullen III, RWM Enterprises, Inc.. Owner Name: RWM Enterprises, Inc. Approval Date: 3/12/2001 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A dam indicates that we have received the re~ated informalion End SP Date: 3/12/2001 Zone 2: iH Zone 3: Location: NYS Route 25, Southold SC Filing Date: C and R's: Home Assoc: R and M Agreement: sCANNED Records Management Date: SITE (W/thin 30 days oF written request) Complete apl)lication received (Within 4 mm]His of presub, conference) APplication reviewed nl work session (wiHfin I0 days of receiptJ ~PPJicant advised u[ neccssaty revJsio is (~hhln ~0 days o[ review) Revised subrnission fete)veal Lead ,Agency Coordination SEORA determination REFERRED TO: Zoning §oard of APpeals (written c?lllnlen[s within 60 days or request'~ DOard o£ Trustees ~gUHding ~epartment (cert~ication) · SufFolk County Department o[ Plann)ng Department o[ Transportation Department of Transportation _ County Suffolk County Dept of IlealtJt Fire Commissioners ' Dr~l Covenan[s aad Covenant~ ~ll~ Restrictions ~Lighting plan by [~llgineer APl]royal of site plau -with conditions Cerllf/ca~e of Occupancy inSPection Sent~ Received.~ + -1 RIOHARD O. wARD PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWlq OF SOUTHOLD ?awn H~I, $g0§$ M~lfl lh~d P.O. B~x il?9 ~outheld, New York 11931 · F~'(516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 Date Rece~ecl Date Completed Filing Fee -. ":.- ,:.. Change of Use ':. :" "*' Re'Use ;.' :'" 'i .;~'Revlsion of Approv~ Site Plan , Name of Business or Site: SCTM#: 1000- Location: ~dress: · ::~ .':' 'Name ~ A~pllcant: ~.::i~, .~ ~..,.-.. · ~.' Te~e: , :,'~. :',~ site p~ns prepared by: .. :~; U~m No. ; APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN .-' "~outhold '¥owJ'~ ~:~.Pl~nnln~r lloa~ ~ Iqmn A~pp Icat,lon ...,:~ ;,~. ~,/~ J~ ~/~ ~nodulvs~n.~l~and~atheresl~at ... . ~,~.,~ ;: ~ ~ ~ ~r~r~' ·.. '~ ~ ~ h~ ~g a~; ~at ~e are no ~s~ng ~s ~ Im~n~ ~ ~ lan~ : ... ' ~ ~ are ~t ~ ~ ~ a~ ~; ~t ~ ~ ~ ~e ~m ~, In~ ~ fl~-~-~y, has ~..~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ a~nd~ ~ ~ ~ ~ an~ as ~ ~; ~t ~ h~ e~ all ~ ~ .:'.. ~ ~. ~ ~. ~ a~, w~l not ~ al~ ~ ~a~ ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~e Slgnecf .~ ~...~?* ~... .-~'~:~: ~::' Zc~n~' OLst~ct . ' · ,~:;' .,. '., .. ·: E,~lstlno Use of Site !.'~.~, ;,~ . · ..... :~ . '~U~Slte.~luffis~ffid~de~. ~dlm~whl~lldlng ~' ' ....~ ~ ~ve ~1~ ~. I[ ~m ~Bn one use Is p~ ~r building, In~ca~ square Gro~ r-lobr Ne~ of Ex~stlng Stmctumis) :":' ,' :' Oro8~ floor ~ of Proposed Structure(si / ,' ~_~.~__Perse~t of Lot Coverage by 8ull~l~g(s) "' .i ~=__.Perceflt of Lot for Pa~dng (where applicable) . "-~_Percent of Lo~ for Landscaping (where ;ppllcal~e) ' Has. al~llcant been granted a valance ancVor special excepUon by ~ , I~0. Board of ~peals. Case ~ & date ~.,': , ~Boart~ of Tmstm~ - Case e & dale. ' · ~. ; __b~NY s~ate Department of Envlronmenta ConservaOon - Case # & rote )' ;' J,4~ SuffolkCountyDepaml~entHealthServlces-Case#&date Case Nl~nber ~ Name of' ~opllcanl~ Oal~ of Decision ExplraUon Date ' · Other Will any to~C or hazards materials, as defined by the Suffol~ County Boar~ of Health. be stored er I~andled at the site? If so, h~ve proper pefTnlts been obtained? N~me of Issuing ;gency Number 8nd date of pennlt Issued. NO RCI'ION (li~C.4V.4IION OR CONSTt~UCI'IOtV) MAY BE UNDERTA. KEN ONlli. *4PP~OVAZ OF SITE Pbe~l BY '?" :"~PLRNNINO EO~D, VIOL4TORS RRE SU~JECT IO PROSECUTION. ~PLANNIN(} BOARD MEMBERS '° BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jl~ Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMEI~S KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD CAGGIANO PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 March 13, 2001 Mr. Richard F. Mullah, III Mullen Motors, Inc. P.O. Box 1408 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed SEe Plan for Mullen Motors SCTM~1000-62-3-11, 19, 22.1 & 24.1 Dear Mr. Mullen: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, .March 12, 2001: The final public hearing was closed. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, this proposed site plan, to be known as site plan for Mullen Motors, is for a new parking lot and enhancements to an existing parking lot; and WHEREAS, Mullan Realty LP is the o~ner of the , known and designated as Mullan Motors, Route 25, and WHEREAS, a formal e ~; of this site plan was on O~em~e~ and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board ha~e~l~i~i~ that this a~tion is Review Act, (Article 8), Part 617; and WHEREAS, this ~iteplan, last revised January 18, 2001, was Certified by the Building Inspector on and Mullen Motors - Paoe Two - 3/13/01 WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has re~ceived affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; al~d VVHEREA8, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED that from date of building permit. to subject to 8 one year review Enclosed please find two copies of the approved site plan; one for your records and one to be submitted to the Building Department when you apply for your building permit. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encls. cc: Building Dept. Tax Assessors AN ~-_~AJ..t~ 1"=:20' I I ADPHALT NOTED: · · fr~ ~vo.~m~ I I LOT 4 tARAIYS F 0 i*"¢AIN' i~OAD ~ITE PATA: KO~N ~OA~ PI_AN ~-.,AL.E 1"=20' i -i PLANT 'LI 5T ARAIYS DESIGN f=L. AN PLANT LIST ~C. AL.I= PLANT[N® ~PEOIF [C,ATION~ / A 5,,'P ,~ L,'T ~ I LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans SPFile Type: Approved Project Type: Site Plans Status: Final Approval SCTM #: 1000 - 62.-3-20 Project Name: Mullen Motors 1983 Address: NYS Route 25, Southold Hamlet: Southold Applicant Name: Mullen Motors Owner Name; Zone 1: B Approval Date: Mullen Motors, Inc. 6/20/1983 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A date indicates that we have received the ~elated Information End SP Date: Zone 2: Zone 3: Location: NYS Route 25, Southold SC Filin.q Date: C and R's: Home Assoc: R and M A.qreement: scANNED Records Management Date: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box I 179 $outhold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE ($16) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 1, 1988 Eric Bressler Wickham, Wickham, & Bressler P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Mullen Motors SCTM #1000-62-3-20 Dear Mr. Bressler: The following actions were taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, October 31, 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the final map dated as amended September 28, 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final map dated as amended September 28, 1988. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact this office. enc. cc: jt Richard Mullen Building Department Assessor's FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLDo N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 765-1802 Examined ................. 19... Application No .................. Approved ....... , .......... 19... Permit No ............ ~aisapprovea a/c ~: .......... t/r:... ~.:.. ff .....~ ....... .&.,L.. (Building lnspeele~ APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS .... a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee aeeo~ing to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings Qn premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli- cation. c. The work covered by tiffs application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. id. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the Building Inspector· APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE lo the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. (Signature of applicant, or name, if a corporation) ...~...&~ ::':.,'~......~..~.. :,,....~ u."~4/¢.. ...... (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. ...,~t..-,g4.'R .~.,~ ................................................................................. Name of owner of premises ... ,/~-~,g~-? .... .~. O-ff'.~?--,4'. ..... ~U.(~, .................................. (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicapt is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and tit e o corporate officer) Builder's License No...'~....../.~..'( .............. Plumber's License No .... Electrician's License No.../J/A ................ Other Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done .................................................. ................. (. ?. 9. ..... . . .(.7::. . w. ............... House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ........ 0~2~ ..... Block ......... ~. ....... Lot....'"f~ ........... Subdivision ..................................... Filed Map No ............... Lot ............... (Nanre) 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: ~ a. Existing use and occupancy .... ~/~x('6'. (- .... ~z~..~. ......... , ........................... b. Intended use and occupancy ....~7.~'~. ..... ~.2../' ./~.. .... 4~. ~)./.'/r. ~-cQ,~ ..................... 3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building .......... Addition .... ~ · · 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Alteration ......... Repair .............. Removal .............. Demolition .............. Other Work ............... (Description) Bstimated Cost . .~..~/. ~ ............................ Fcc ...................................... (to be paid on f'fling this application) If dwelling, number of dwelling units ............... Number of dwelling units on each floor ................ If garage, number of cars ........................................................................ If business, commerc/al or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ...~./~. ~p"',.~.~. · · · Dimensions of eex~sting structures, if any: Front ..... .~..~-. ......Rear -~'..~L~. · · i .... Depth i .~..f .......... Height .... /./~. ........ Number of Stories ..... X'...- ............................................ Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ................. Rear .................. Depth ....... Height ......... ' .......... Number of Stories ..... Dimensions of entire new construction: Front .... ~'. ......... Rear ... ~ .2,. ....... Depth .... ./~.,~ ...... Height ..... /. ~. ....... Number of Stories ...... ./, ................................................ Size of lot: Front ....... /..~.~. ........... Rear ........ .z'.~..O. ......... Depth .... ./~.~...~..r..7/ .... Date of Purchase ............................. Name of Former Owner ............................. Zone or use district in which premises are situated ..................................................... Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: .., ~ ......................... Will lot be regraded ..... /4/,o ................... Will excess fill be removed from premises: Yes Name of Owner of premises .~,(td.{/l~,~ ~ ,~ddress/~'~,'~.. ~:)..,/~6(~g)Phone No ................ Name of Architect ........................... Address ................... Phone No ................ Name of Contractor ..,~.,'f~4. ,J~c,~r",e~,~,t'.~,~' 'z,~/~'. Address ~.g~,.~./.~. ~ ...... Phone No. ~'~d.~?,5',~.~. .... PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicat~ all set-back dimensions from Qt operty lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether efior or coruer lot. STATE OF NEW(~K, .. / COUNTY OF ,~~.. "'" . ............ .~.~.- .~.*-t'..'.~.~e~-./~d./. ................ berg duly sworn, d~poses ~d says t~t be is the applic~I (N~6 of individu~ si~ing contract) above n~ed. H~ is ~e .......... ' ........................................................ (Con~a~or, agent, co~o~te officer, etc,) of ~id owner or owne~, ~d is duly authored to perfo~ or have peffo~ed ~e ~d work ~d to m~e ~d file ~is app~cafion; ~at ~ s~temen~ cont~ned ~ ~h application a~ tree to ~e best of~ ~owledge ~d ~ef; ~d ~at the work will be pedo~ed ~ the m~ner set fo~ ~ ~e application ~ed ~ere~. Sworn to befo~ me ~is ............. /~ ...... day of...~ .......... 19 ~ ~[~c, mt, of a*~ ~ (S~am~ of app~c~t) Z 0 L~ ~AP OF' PROPEIZTY ~U r2VEY F_~') FOk~ , ,ULLEkJ r'lO%.)t4S, INC. ' ~)l:e , - - '- · ~. ~ ~ ~,o. ~ ,.~ ~CALE: 40:, ~o~o,,-,,~"~ , ' O'I~ON PiPE '7~~ ~'"'~~.rE'CO:r~. MAP DATA i~?~-3-:' VAN TU¥'L. PC. ~ SITE PLAN ~TATUS REPORT SCTM#1000- al - f,, AI'?LICANT NAME: ~'?/, _, /¢~' '/~/..,-/Z .... ioa~c'rvmcmlmo~ .. . ] REJ:ERR~D DA_._._~ APPROVAL DATE NOTES OLASER FICHE FORM' '''*i~) Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans Print Date,: 3/12/2004 Site Plan File Type: 'No SP Requir(~d SCAN Date: ~-tt~o/o'-~, Project Type: Amended Site Plans StatuS: :No SitePlan Required SCTM~': 1000-61 Proiect Name: I.G.A. (Southold)south addition Address: 54500 Main Road Location: intersection of Youngs Road and NYS Road 25 on the southeast corner Hamlet: Southold Applicant Name: Southold I.G,A, - Food Basket Properties Owner Name: Southold I.G.A. - Food Basket Prope Zone I: HB File Date: 12/1/2003 ~PTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A date Indicates that we have reoelved the related information Endorse Site Plan Date: 12/1/2003 Zone 2: Zone 3: County Filinq Date: C and R's: Homeowners Association: R and M Agreement: $CANNI'~D Records Maria gement BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman RICHARD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J. CREMEI~ KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. $IDOR P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53096 State Rout~4~5 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 December 1, 2003 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Mr. Larry Tuthill PO Box 162 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Amended Site Plan for IGA Sou(hold (south addition) SCTM# 1000-61.-4-25.1 Zone: FIB, Hamlet Business District Dear Mr. Tuthill, Thank you for the submittal of the amended site plan application referred to above. Per Town Code section 100-254 (A) the Planning Board (P.B.) reviewe~l the site plan application and materials received on November 17, 2003 and the revised submittal of November 21, 2003. The P.B. held a work session on ~ecember 1, 2003 to review the amended site plan application aa a pre-submission eonftrenee. The P.B. agreed no amended site plan is needed f~om the site plan known as Mare Street Market approved on June 22, 1981 with this application and reject the amended site plan application. We are returning the amended site plan application, payment and materials for your records. The decision rendered by the P B. for this application does nat ¢0nd0ne any other cl~'ange's or de~lah0ns li,o~n the 0righ~al site plan apprOval on ~'Une:22 l:981:lbr the Main Street Market. Please refer to Town Code section 100-250 applicability, if other changes of the approved site plan occur. If there are any questions you can contact us at (631) 765-1938 x229 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Sou(hold Town Planning Board Chairman CC:file, pb, Building Department Eric. TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 728 TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL. 765-1802 January 8, 1982 Planning Board Town of Southold Southold, NY 11971 Re: Letter of December 30, 1981, Irwin Thompson Gentlemen: Tho site plan, one of four, and plans for a proposed store at Main Road and Boisseau Avenue shows: I. A new one-story building (60 X 80) with 4396 sq. ft. of office sale floor area 2. A former dwelling with approximately 1150 sq. ft. of office sale area A present !8 X 20 garage to be relocated on the parcel. In B and retail store, A {1)(c). B-1 Zone Districts, no site plan is required for office, or restaurant use, 100-60A and 100-70 Off-street Parking (100-112) states eating places require one parking space per five seats. The office-retail store use shall have reasonable parking determined by the Planning Board. The site plan shows sufficient access (100-112D) located over 50 feet from the street intersection and the minimum parking area (350) per each of the proposed 28 parking spaces (100-112 C). It shows drainage and surfacing (100-112 E). The parking area is not in or adjoining a residential zone district (100-112 K}. An off-street loading (100-113 A & A 3) parking berth will not be required as the total three buildings' floor area (7048) is less than 8000 sq. feet. A parking berth area could use 12' of the north driveway and there still would be the required 2 ten foot lane access (100-112 D). Page 2 Changes of access to the main road need the State Highway approval. Access to Boisseau Avenue, a Town maintained street, is in the Jurlsd'iction of t~e Super'i'ntendent oF'H'ighway. Yours very truly, Osorge H. Fisher Senior Building Inspector GHF:ec LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and Amended site Plans Pdnt Date: 4~26~2004 Site Plan File TyPe: · Approved SCAN Date: ..LT'/¢Z~,)' ~ Proiect Type: Site Plans 'Status: Final ~ Pendinq. nspeCton SCTM #: ~i000 - 63.-2,30.1 Proiect Name': Sea Tow.Corporate Headquartem 'Address: 70OHumme. Avenue Location: located at the intersection of Hummel AvenUe and Boisseau'Avenue on the southeast corner ,Hamlet: Southold Applicant Name: Towhee, LLC Owner Name: Towbee, LLC Zone 1: LI File Date: 41t 3~2004 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Endorse Site Plan Date: 4/1'3/'2004 Zone 2: Zone 3: County Filin,q Date: C and R's: Homeowners Association: R and M Aqreement: 8ITEPLANTYPE: AM~I~-~.,~A~) NEW~' VvTi't~RAWN ;~NCOMPLLrfE LOCATION: )dd ,//~.~,~,- J .*q,~e~f*,- ' HAMLET,: ,£ ,TEL# (.___) - ON ?. ~ _ACKES pARCELIN I DAYS oF WmTTrN m~QUF, ST) 'OR K SBS8ION: PL~J'tNINO BOARD APPROVALS PRIEPP. I~D; ]CONDmOtOq. FINAL: /~ FIN AL:~L~//~/t:~ 'j FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: 'February 19, 2002 AMENI)ED: June 19, 2003 AMENDED: June 18,2003 AMENDED: March 10, 2003 AMENDED: Avr/l 10. 2003 TO: East End DmfSng & Design )dC Tow Bee LLC PO Box 1675 Southold, NY 11971 Please take notice that your application dated January 30, 2002 For permit to construct two new buildin.~g!~_ at Location of property:'700 Itummel Avenue, Southold, NY County Tax MaF NO. 1000 - Secfior~ 63 Block 2_ Lot 30.1 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed consl~ucfion, on this~74,052 square foot lot, with two front yards~,_in the LI Distr/ct, is not permitted...pursuant m Article X1V, Seetiun 100-142, which states, "No building or premises shall be used and no bulling or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the LI Light Industrial District unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking and Loading Schedules inco~orated into this chapter by reference, with_ the same rome and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full." In the l.J Dist~:iet. bulk sche4hile requires minim~m sinele side yard setba~:k 20 feet, a lm~num rear ~d setb~k qf70 ~et mid a m~ m't~ of two stofie& Plates note a std~([-setb21ck hgth pm~ed buil~l gg~.~6-foot te~grd ~baek fbr building ~5 and a ¢ogion~f ~e b~hld[.ng ~otes ~t~irO In add/tion, the proposed'constru~on a property with two front yards, is not l~ermitted pursuant m Article XIV, Section 100-143.A. and Sectio.n t00-143.C.~ which state, "Stmctur~ shah b~ get back at least one hundred (100) feet from the right-of-way," and proiect sh~l be divided into separate structures 60 that no single structure shall have more than six!y {'60) linear feet of front.age 9n one (1) street. The setbacks of multiple structures on a parcel~may var,/, provided that the average setback of the structures m~ets the setback required above and all buildings are at least seventv~fiv~d75) feet from the right-of-way.': _The m__'Oposed eot stn cfion r ores a +/- 60 Foe sctbagk 'building~ ) fi'om the ri,2ht ofwayxLh mine ikvenue~gd notes 22~ f~et o~' linear ~ont~e on lq~nmcl &venue a~d+/-80 o[ii~ ~onta~t Y o~g, Ave ]. c in addition, the avera_~e setb~i!~cJu~l~ng e>:isting stmctares is 90 f~:;, ~his Notice of Disappi'oval Was amended on March 10, 2003, to reflect a new site plan, sabmit~cd. by the applicant. This Notice of Disapproval was amended on April 10, 2003, to reflect ZBA · interpretation g4708, dated July 22, 1999. As a result, references to linear frontage on Boisseau Avenue have been omitted. This Notice of Disapproval was amended on June 18, 2003, to reflect construction drawJ~gs submitted to the building department on June lS, 2OO3. This Notice of Disapproval was amend6d on June 19, 2003~o address.the issue of linear, frontage on Young's Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, following any ZBA~e~thold Town Building Department. Authofi~ed'S~'~e CC: file, Z.B.A. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ruth D. Oliw Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATION~ AND DETERMINATI( MEETING OF SEPTE~.BER l'J, 2003 Appl. No. 5355 - TOWBEE. LLC . Property Location: 700 Hummel Avenue, $outh01d; CTM SE(~RA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of ApPeals has viseed So/athotd Town Hall 53095 Main Road ~"' P.O. Box I179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA F~x (6311 765-9064 Telephone. (631) 765-1809 htt~://southolfltown.northfork.ne~- consfde~ratlon in this application and determines that this reV.ig~.f.~lls ~n~er :the *Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 74,052 Sq.'ft. parcel has frontage along two streets: Hummel Avenue to the north and Boisseau Avenue to the east, In Bouthold. The widest frontage of the property along Bolsseau Avenue is 156.10 feet. and 639.17 feet along Hummel Avenue. The westeHy lot line runs 105.05 feet deep to the Long island Rallroad right-of-way. The property and existing buildings are used for warehousing and storage. The property is zoned LightolndustHal (LI). BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Departraent's FebYuary 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended March 10, 2003, April 10, 2003, June 18, 2003, and June 19, 2003, citing Sections 100-142, 100-t43A and 100-143C, in its denial of a building permit to construct new buildings with interconnected hallways/additions. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals heid public hearings On'this'application On June 19, 2003 and August 7, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all tssflmony, documentaUon, personal Inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: /~.REA VARIANCE RELIEEiORiG.~iq~L REQUEST: The ppplican~;[~.s, orig)~al reques~d ~llef to ~o~struct n~w bui[dihgs ~n ~l~ LI It~d~ial Zone Dl~t~ic~ req'uesfing the following area ~aHance.relief: (a} buildlng aroa (mr. ~) with r~ar~se~a~;be~een feet and eight f~e~ inax[mum from ~e soberly prope~ line ~d;fi~'Jea~t"~;;~o~tfie f~nt ,0~h~f y ~t Hne alon~ Hummel Avenue; (b) building a~a (rof. ~1) setb~cf~ from ~he fro~ Io[ tine along Hummel Avenue, and ~0 ff. of linear fron~ge on Youngs Avenue, and [~1 b.,~d,,,~ a, ea (re,. nl and ~ wlth:~lde yard AMENDED 'ADDITIONAL RELIEF: During 'the June' 19, 2003 public healing, it was determined [hat the applicant had not filed an amended Appeal, based upon the June 19, 2003 amended Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Department relative to the .Building Department's ~evtsw of construction diagrams. On June 23, '2003, the appeal application was amended to reflect the addlfional reason for disapproval by the Building Department, for additional relief with regard to the third floor level with a proposed 2,000 sq. ft. of floor area for storage of files and certsln offica-ralated material, accessible by elevator. The third-floor attic storage plan.was prepared by East End Drafting & Design Page 2 - September ~l. 20~J3 ZBA AppI. No. 5355-TowBee Inc. 1000-63-2-30.t at $ouihold and is dste(~ 5-12-2003. 7UCO, please taler to details shown o'n the g-6-2003 site and drainage plan prepared by East End Drafting & Design regarding proposed additions and removal of existing buildings. -R~.~Iq$'"'FOR BOARD ACTION: On .the basis of'testimony presented, materials submitted and persOnaJ inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the relief requested Will not produce an 'undesirable Change in the'character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. A.*' Setbacks for Build ln;; (Ref. ~1..#2. and #3 and proposed ~lddlflons to Interconnect build]rrna #1 and #3 in the future: The existing setbacks facing Hummel Avenue are substantially nonconforming: (1) the existing warehouse building "E" Is +-32 feet to the northerly front properly line and +-17 feet to the existing fence, and (2) the existing · building, proposed to be removed, is closest to.Hummel Avenue at +.20 feet. New building ;~q Js proposed at 60'3" from the northerly property line and at least 5' from the southerly property line. Building Ref. #2 Is a new 2,546 sq. ft. building, to replace ..the existing 70' x 24' wlde warehouse building. The existing building is shown with variable setbacks from the southerly property line between 12'3" and 9'10"; the new building will maintain or exceed the setbacks of the existing building from the :southerly property llne. Building #3 is proposed at a minimum of 94'9" from the northeHy property line, and with variable rear setbacks between 5' and 8', at its closest points. The existing foundations are not salvageable. Only a small change of footprint of the existing seuthedy building would occur. B. Bulldlna FrOntanes: Building (Ref. #1} Is proposed wltb 80 linear fee~ of building width/frontage facing Bolaseau Avenue. Presently, the entire easterly section of the property facing Boisseau Avenue Is used for outside storage of landscape materials. The applicant Is proposing to e[Imlnats outside storage, and the closest new building to Bolsseau Avenue will be at least 89 feet from the easterly front property line. The additional building 'frontages proposed in the future, by small additions, Intsrconnecting Buildings ~ and ifY3 are also included In this variance, as shown on the site and drainage plan prepared by East End Drafting & Design dated 8-6-2003. C. Third --~ ' ~ ' ~ l' The third floor Is proposed as an attic with elevator, for storage of necessary files and related Items. 2. The benefit sought by the appllcant'.c,~nnot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other thsn*'an area variance. The property is lmproy, ed with existing buildings In nonconforming' locations. At least one of the buildings, which Is 100% in a nonconforr~ing location, wlgbe removed and not be rebuilt. Outside yard areas will not be hasd for open storage, and open parking and landscaped buffer areas will be added to meet the requirements of the Planning Board under the site plan [egulafionc. 3. The relief granted herein is substantial in relation to the code requirementS fei building frontage, and front, rear andJor side yard setbacks. Where the rear yard setback is Page 3 - September '1'1, 2003' ZBA Appl. No. 5355 - TowBee Inc. '1000-$3-2.30.t at $outhold reduced, a front setback increased. Where the' building frontage is greater than 60 feet, existing nonconformities are either removed or reduced. The sizes of the storage buildings are largely necessary to accommodate their boats Indoors, where they can also be properly outfitted and supplied for their purposes of rescue and salvage operations. These responses require Immediate and easy access despite the time of day or night or weather conditions, 4. The difficulty wa~ self.created when the new building construction Was pianned With a design that will not conform to the current Town Code requirements. 5. There Is tlc evidence that the gi'a'nt of the relief will have an'adveree effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, after weighlng the factors which benefit to the applicant as compared to a detriment to the community. The property Is Improved with buildings in poor condition, and foundations of which are not salvageable. There is outside storage of landscape material In several piles on the southeast section of the property. There are storage of trailers and vehicles, registered and unregistered, which give an unsightly appearance. The applicant has assured that the new office building will be state of the art with architectural marvel, even though It is three Stories with occupancy of the first two stories. Buildings ~ and #3 are to be interconnected as one building for easy inside access from Building #1. These buildings are to be located contiguous to the LIRR, on the south side of the property, A new office complex with attached storage buildings and large parking lot to accommodate staff and customers will be a better utilization of this Light Industrlai zoned parcel. 6. Grant of the relief requested is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of new building areas, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RE~OLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the batanclng test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried, to GRANT the variances as requested, shown on the plans prepared by East End Drafting & Design dated 5-12-2003, site plan dated 6-12-2003 prepared by Warren A. Sambach, Jr., and site-drainage map prepared by East End Drafting & Design dated 8.6.2003, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Major rstroflttlng and overhauling of boats shall be done Inside a building. 2. AIl communication systems used by staff shall be done within the buildings, without an outside loud speaker system. 3. Consent be obtained from the owner or authorized authority with regard to emergency fire access on the south side of the property within or along the MRR dght-of-way as needed. 4. That designated parking wlthln the site be used for vehicle purposes and not for any type of storage. Page 4- September 11~ 20u3 ZBA Appl. No. 5355 - TowBee Inc. ~1000-63-2-30.1 at $outhold 5..The three buildings may be connected in the future as shown on the 6-12.2003 site plan prepared by Warren A. Sambach, Sr., P.E., without a supplemental application to the Board of Appeals. This action does not authorize or condoneany current or future use, setbac~ or'other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed In this action, Vote df the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chalnv0man), G0ehrlhger, Orlando, and Oliva. (Absent was Member Homing.) This Resolution was duly~ad~pte~-4-Ot~.~ 'Lydia A."T-j~'tora, .Chain~vo~an -Approved for Filing EAST END DESIGN ASSOCIATES LLC, 5130 Main Bayview Road Southold NY. 11971 i 0-01-03 TO: PLANNING BOARD (Southold Town ) FROM: EAST END DESIGN ASSOCIATES LLC, (Bret't) lIEF: SEA TOW HEADQUARTERS SITE PLAN 700 Hummel Avenue Southol6, NY. 11971 SCTM # 1000-63-2-30-1 Dear Bruno Semon, This letter is to give you the.answers to the questions that is requested by the ARC. Sea Tow Intcrnatidnal building Will be an office bUilding'and warehouse for Fire seperati0n wilt be provided between the new and existing construction Building to be constameted oflusulated Concxete Forms (ICF) Concrete Floors - Concrete to be poured over C-deck Siding - Hardy Plank - with Cabots solid body stain--Colonial Yellow · Windows - Andersen TW double hung or equal - Forest Green Shutters - Raised panel - Forest Green Brick - Nova Brick - 2 tone (Colonial Brown and Colonial Red) Exterior doors - Metal or fiberglass - Forest Green Exter/or trim - fypon or equal - White Balcony Rails - aluminum- White Garage Doors on loading dock - raised panel ins. steel doors - White Garage Doors on warehouse - flush panel ins. steel doors - White Roof- Metal with vertical ribs - Evergreen Lighting - all lightin~ to be considered low landscape lighting with exception of recessed lighting that will be in soffits around perimeter of building. Exterior Signage is to be free standing with built-in lighting to provide low glare not to effect neighboring properties. Heating and Cooling will be provided using hydronlo high efficiency (14 Seer) units Roof penetration - all roof vents are to be located onthe southwest comer of the roof Fence on North, South and West fence lines are to be 6'-0" pre-existing green vinyl coaled chain 1/nk. PLANNING BOARD IVlFAVIBERS BENNETT ORLOWSI~[~ JR. eh~drman RICHARD C&GGIA~O KENI~TH I~ EDWARDS MARTIN H. ~DOR P,O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25- Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD State' Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination Non-Significant December 8, 2003 This notice is issued pursUant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmenta[ Law. ]'he Southold Town Planning Board, as'lead agency, has d{-Aermined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect oyhe environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared... Name of Action: Proposed Site Plat~for Sea Tow Corporate. Headquarters SCTM#: 1000-63-2-30.1 Location: 700 Hummel Avenue, Southold, NY SEQR Status: Type i ( ) Unlisted (X) Conditioned Negative Declaration:' Yes ( ) No (X) Description of Action: This proposed site plan is for Sba Tow Corporate Headquarters and includes a new 19.540 sq, t't. [hree-story office building (Building #1 ). renovation of an existing 3,519 sq. ff. warehouse (Building ~Y2), a new 2,800 sq, ft warehouse (Building #3), a loading dock of 696 sq. ff. and an existing building with 9,105 sq. ft. of warehouse {Building E) on a 1.7693 ac/-e par(~el in th~ El Zone located at the intersection of Hummel Avenue and Boisseau Avenue, on the southeast comer, in Southold. SCTM#1000-63-2-30.1 ReasOns Supporting This Determination: An Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted and reviewed and it was determined that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. j'.'. ; ..'. '~SEQR'Ne~atJve DeClata{ion- Paae'Tw0".'-..:' .'..:': .. '..'" ': i ... '. - ..' .;. . ' ' '" -'i.'.;rhere ha~'n0t bea~ any'coitespondenc~ received from Jhe:¥oWn Of S6u{h0td Bbiiding': '.."' :. · ".. . :' .Departmenf~ Town Highway Department, Town of Southold Trustees, Town of Southold .' ' ' ' ' - '; ' Zoning Board of Appeals, or Southokl Town Board in the allotted time. Therefore, it is. '~' : .' . assumed that them am no comments 6r objections from these agencies. . · ' · -'. Th~-~ has ~0t I~een any correspondence received fr°m:the SuffOlk: County Dep~rtrnent. ' .- ..of Planning In the allotted time. Therefore, it is assumed that there are no comments or :' '- i" Objections from that agency. ..; .. : · ' .: ."..":Th~'C~rmspbr~dehCe received from th~'DePd'~en{ of'Health sen, ices office on :i.. ': ' . .i'.November 21, 2003 stated no objection to the Town of Southold assuming lead agency' ·.. · .'..status, The applicant has made an application to SCDHS, Reference Number ct0-03- · · "' "i. 'i · ;0013 and will require approval from Suffolk County Department of Health Services prior ~ · to final Planning Board approval. Therefore, it is assumed that there objections from that agency. There 'has not ~ear~ ar~y correspondence' ~eceived fTom the Suffolk'County Water · Authority Office in the allotted time. Therefore, it is assumed that there are no comments or obJections from that agency. .... The co'tmspondence recked from the' SUffOlk' County'Department Of Public Works on July 29, 2003 stated thi,..Udepartment has no objection to the Town assuming lead agency status. The applicant will have to comply with the requirements of Suffolk County Department of Publio Works curb cut permit process as required. Thereefore, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from that agency. For Further'InfOrmation: . Contact person: Bruno se'm0n, Senior Site Plan 'Reviewer Address: Southold Town Planning Board Telephone Number: (631)765-1938 (x229) cc: 'SOuthold Town Zoning BOard of Appeals Southold Town Building Department · Southold Town Board Southold Superintendent of Highways ~ Suffolk County Planning Department :Suffolk County Department of Health Services :Suffolk County Water Authority JOSHUA Y. HORTON SUPERVISOR TOV'~! HALL - 53095 MAIN ROAD Fax. (516)- 765 - I366 OFFICE OF THE ENGIrNEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JAMES A. RICHTER, R.A. ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ] 197l Te1.(516)-765- 1560 Jedlyn B. Woodhouse Chairperson - Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Sea Tow International Corporate Headquarters Hummel Avenue & Boisseau Avenue, Southold SCTM #: 1000 - 63 - 02 - 30.1 Dear Mrs. Woodhouse: February 20, 2004 After receipt of my last report regarding the above referenced project, the owner/applicant requested a site visit to review some of his concerns. This meeting was attended by the owner, Mr. Joe Frohnhoefer; Mr. Bruno Simone of the Planning Staff; Mr. Pete Hards the Superintendent of Highways and myself. Mr. Frohnhoefer specifically wanted to discuss the requirement of curbing & sidewalks immediately adjacent to the perimeter of his property along Hummel and Boisseau Avenues. The following concerns were discussed at this meeting. 1. Mr. Frohnhoefer questioned the requirement for the installaUon of sidewalks and cUrbing adjacent to the site. It was explained that if the Planning Board deemed sidewalks to be necessary, then curbing would be required to afford some additional separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. It was also mentioned that if the sidewalk Is to be required by the Planning Board, additional design work and modification of the site plan at the intersection of Hummel and Boisseau would be necessary to provide a turning radius for vehicular traffic and handicapped access to the sidewalk at thfs location. 2, Mr. Hards had concerns regarding the stability of existing road shoulders immediately adjacent to the project site. Mr. Frehnhoefer stated that the proposed use for the site Would not require on street parking and that the proposed landscaping would be enough to protect the shoulder areas in lieu of curbing. Mr. Harris agreed to compromise provided that the road frontage in question will be designated as NO PARKING. Mr. Harris will be forwarding this request to the Town Board for their review and, if approved by the Town Board and sidewalks are not required by the Planning Board, he will refract his request for (he installatfon of curbing. 3. During this site visit, it was also noted that existing Chain link Fencing had barbed wire along the top of fencing. This was discussed with the owner and it was noted that razor wire would not be permitted and barbed wire is not recommended. If the owner feels that this wire is necessary for security, the height of wire will be designated as the top of fencing and aJfowab]e heights should be adjusted accordingly. Page 1~ of 2 Sea Tow International Corporate Headquarters SCTM #: 1000 - 63 - 02 - 30.1 February 20, 2004 Page 2 of 2 I have also received and reviewed a modified site plan that has been revised to address the items listed in my last report. This site plan has a revision date of 01/31/04 and was prepared by East End Design Associates. At this time, with the exception of the items listed above, all of my comments have been addressed in a satisfactory manner. As per Bruno's request, I will be returning the copy of the revised site plan to your office. When the applicant submits additional copies of this revised site plan to the Planning Board, please send one copy to my office for my files. If you have any questions concerning this report or if you have any additional questions concerning this matter, please contact my office. ~Enc: (1) cc: Peter Harris (Superintendent of Highways) A. Richter, R.A. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Rsth D. Otiva, Chairwoman Gerard E Goehringer Lydia A. Tortora Vincent Orlando James D[nizio. Jr. ht tp://southoldtown.northfork.ngt BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF $OUTItOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATIOI MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2004 Appl. No. 5492 - TOWBEE~ LLC Soutttold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. NY 11971-0959 Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 / Property Location: 700 Hummel Avenue, Southold; CTM ~1000.63-2.30.1. ,SEQRA DETERMINATION.; The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and detemtlnee that this review falls under the ~yl~p, ll cat0gory of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment If the project Is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The aEl~ll~ang'~ 7''4,052 ~.q. ft. parcel has frontage along two streets: Hummel Avenue to the nort~ and Bolsseau ~veaBe to the east, in Southold. The widest frontsge of the property along Bolsseau Avenue Is 156.10 feet, and 639.t7 feet along Hummel Avenue. The westeHy lot line runs 105.05 feet deep to the Long Island Railroad right-of-way. The property and existing buildings are used for warehousing and storage. The pr0~er~y i~ zoned Li<.;ht-lndustrl.~!.(LI). BASIS OF APPEICATION: Building Department's January 26, 200,~ Notice of DisapproVal, under Section 100-82A. ~ating that the i~ulk scheduIe~al/oWs one use per 40,000 sq. ft., and the use, as proposed, would constitute a second use. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on this application on February 26, 2004, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon ail testimony, documentation, personal Inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: ~ESTED.: The applicant maintains that the buildihg inspector eh'ed In Citing A~tlcle VIII, Sectio~ 100-82A to deny them a building permit. Section '100-82 A states: "ExcePt as otherwise provided hereon, no bulldlnu or oremises shall be ,,'=-d ~nd nO bulldlno or oart thereof shall be erected or altered ir~ f;he LB Districts unless th~ sam. conforms to the Bulk Schedule end Parklnu and load,lng Schedqles Incorporated Info thi; chal}ter bv re~'erence, with the same force and effect as If such reRulatl0ns were set forth hersln full." The Building Inspector further states that the proposed (multiple light Indusbial) use would constitute a second use. The applicant maintains that this property has had multiple uses continuously since before the inception of zoning In Southold town and therefore qualifies as a pre existing multiple light Industrial use. Page 2 - March 4, 2004 Appeal No. 5492 -TowBee LLC CTM 63-2-30.1 REASOhS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal Inspections, the Board makes the following findings: '/. An urldesI~Able change wi] not~ ~e preduced n ttte,C~CTER.ef the n~ ~ghborhood r ad tnment to nearby propefti~s,.bec, attse,~bFs:~pe~[~$~Ea~J mulfiple light industrial submlff~ by James H. RI~ Jr., ~e subJe~ pm~ ~s hed In ~es of 20 cliff, ant Combinations of uses at va~ng times sth~ 1~, These u~s Include a plumbing cont~or, masonw con~c~r, lumbe~, and la~caping con~r to name Jus[ a few. 2. The benefit sought by ~e applicant (multiple light iedus~lal use) has .existed historically on this pro~ since b~om zoning. 3. ~e =m=u~t ~f re ~f r~q~ested S n0t-suhsf;~l= The pmpe~'has a pPev~o~S ZBA approval to upgrade the buildings to allow for uses that a~ quieter, more a~e, self confined, and conduced inside the buildings, 4. ~h~s request will ~ot ha~e an adverse effect or impabt on the physi~l Qr. environme~tat condltiol~s' In the nelgh~0rh~od or-district "~ecau~e ~e p~o~(~ ~ been used for multlpie I~'~t~t h'~dustrial ~ses for many years and ~e apptiban~ only ~e&ks to cd~finue whaf BO~D RE~OLUTION: Based on the above masons ~e Bca~ finds that ~e basis for the Building [ns~cto~s Nofl~ of Disapproval w~s lucent, NOW, ~erefore, on me,on by Member Dinl~o. S~nd~ by C~l~oman Olive, It RESOLVED, to REVERSE the January 26, 2004 determination of the Building Inspector, finding that the applicant Is not requesting an additional use on this property but merely seeking to continue the multiple light IndustJ'lal uses that have existed for years. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Membere Olive (Chairwoman), Goehrlnger; Tm'tore, Orlando, RUTH D. eL/VA. CHAIRWOMAN 3/5/04' Approved for Filing ERIC J. BRESSLER ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM L~NE M. GORDON JANET GEASA LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, BRESSLER~ GORDON & GEA~ 13015 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 M~I 111 UCK, LONG ISLAND N~W YORK 11932 631-298-8353 TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565 wwblaw~aol.com ' '27 'H L t~ MELVILLE. NEWYOKK 11747 631-249-9480 TELEFAX NO. 631.249-9484 April 5, 2004 Southold ToWn Planning Board Post Office Box 1179 53095 Main Road $outhold, New York 11971 Re: Sea Tow Corporate HQ 1000-63~2-30.1 Ladies/Gentlenien: Please accept this letter as an addendum to the Site Plan Map with respect to the perimeter fence, landscaping and entrances. All fencing and gates will conform to Code height requirements. 1. The 'existing fe:ace alofig Boi~Seau Aven~ie will be replaced with green chain link fence, with a gate at the entrance. 2. The ex.isrmg green elm/m link fence along Huxnmel Avenue, n~imiag t¥om the eaSl comer to the east side of the- concrete block: building t6: bs: ~:em_b/ve~ Mit ;be mmntaiBedbem'0se it has gmv~p-hlt,4 theim_~e~ 'which m:e to_xemoin~ The.b~betkwi~,¢ mP will be removed. The landscaping will include the larger of the existing deciduous trees and additional street side evergreen plantings to provide an effective screening of the property. This will consist either of double the number of arborvitae show:a on thru portion of the site plan, or other similar mixed evergreen plant material to provide compm'abte screening effect. 3. 'i~e'£enee Mong Hui~mael Av~:aue running from the point where the concrete block building is removed westerly to the east comer of the "Bohn" parcel (Building E) will be atlractive new bdkk fencing [0 he, tek shield the' loading dock/storage' and Warehouse area from the road. It will be enhanced with street-side evergreen plantings of arborvitae as shoWn on that portion of the site plan or other (lower light tolerant) screening evergreen plant material to provide comparable screening 6ffect. A prototype of that fencing material is attached. A gate will be provided i:br the-dH~:eway enu'artce on ~[tmutlel Avenue composition to ~often the effect, with the ~ame type of plar~inl!s as in ?~ragteph 3, 5. 'fha two en~ra~e~ on 'Boi~au ~ Hummel, to the 8eatow buildings, will be s£~adelled bY ~6k plltars atxt ga:~t. ' PI~ corzider ~e si~e plan ~neaded in aecor~la~ee wkh lhe above. Verg la,fly Town of Southold Planning Depamnent $~if Report S~ Plans Date: June 30, 2006 To: Pla..;ng Board Frorm Bruno Semon, Senior Ske Plan Reviewer Re: $~tToWEoq~orate:Headquartets Site ,P. lan As ~equested by the Planning Board at the work session on June 19, 2006 a site visit was done on June 19, 2006 by staff and the following are the review notes of the site visit and as-built site plan: The S~eplan'apPrOV'/l~ gramedi°n:April 1'3, 2004 for a ne~ l~$~:sqcft: ~e S~offke h~il~g (b,,,~d ng # 1), renovate an emstmg 3,519 sO. warehouse( building # 2), new 2,800 sq. ft warehome (building # 3), loading d~k of 696 sq.ft .and an existing building with warehouse of 9,105 sq.ft, on'~l~93':i~Sparcel in thei~lSZ~ne located at the located at the intersection of Hummel Avenue and Boisseau Avenue on the southeast comer in Southold. SG'TM~ (s) 1000-63.-2-30.1 The [ollo~Sg ~re ~har/ges=Sh0~ oh ~e :As:Btfili Siti Plan submltt~d jun~ 15, 2~0~ with compafixon t0the APproved si~e phn noted above: Approved site plan East Side 15 North side 26 Site Plan 14 Parking la, ut has changed. 28 parking stalls are shown as straight pull in type. East Entrance 20' width 25' width South Entrance 30' width 25' width Entrance and (hrbing curbing/grass New concrete wall in place of approved Landscape and chain link fence. Sniping Only No grass shown and curbs removed. Building E (West Side) Bohn Contracting Induded Building # 3 Asphalt Building # 2 Fenced / Dumpster Bldg # 2/# 1 Approx. 16'x2.1' Addition Not Shown Removed from as-built site plan. new 22'x65' concrete pad - encroaches on parking spaces Not Shown As-built don't note a dumpster location Approx. 20'x20' Appea~s the addition was changed in size. + 17'x18' B,;ld;ng # 1 Brick Walk West side AC Units 6 shown Sidewalk i0 shown Ghanged in shape and dimension Along the RR Tracks on the south Sea Tow Corporate t-~adq~rs Page Two, South side Approx. 624' of Of property 4' Arborvitae Hedge Approx. 100' June 30, As-built notes the south east side only. Notes: .... Please refer to the attached letter from Mr. J. Fronhoefer dated June 15, 2006 for the site work time line and completion. Addido.~lly, Mr. Fronhoefer requested the Phaming Board issue fl.sl site sign off to allow the certificate of occupam'yto be issued. As Mr. Fronhoefer indicated at the work session the site workls not completed and no timber improvements veil take place on the Butqding E area (Bohn Contracting Building) Summary:. * In general the site build out landscaping, fencing and parking spaces, parking lot design, entrance areas, Bohn Contracthag Buikl;,~g site improvements has changed and the Planning Board needs to review all changes for approvaL ,, The final topcoat and striping of pavement is not installed and presents a safetyhazaM and the ph,~,~;ng Board needs to decide the best coarse of action. · The landscape, fencing and site finishing touches are not complete at this time and the Planning Board needs to decide the best coarse of action. · The Planning Bom'd needs to review all the As-buflt site plau and decide if an amended site plan will be required for the changes as shown. Amched are site photos of the site risk on June 19, 2006 for your review. F;le Mark Terry, Acting Depammnt Head Amy Ford, Senior Planner CONTRACTOR RESPC NSIBILITIES OL YMPIA S.TEEL BUILDINGS DESIGN LOADING SEISMIC DATA : .' Engineering Seol REVISIONS DRAWING INDEX CS-l Drawings Cover Sheet CS--2 Fastener Schedule E1 Anchor Bolt Plan E2 Anchor Bolt Details dc Notes E3 Rigid' Frame Elevation E4 Sidewull Framing E5 Endwo~l Framing E6 Roof Framing E7 Sidewall Sheeting EB Endwoll Sheeting E9 Detail Drawings EIO Detail Drow;ngs E11 Trim Drawings DRAWINGS COVER SHEET SEA TOW SERVICES INTL., INC. SOUTHOLD, NY SUFFOLK COUNTY OLYMPIA STEEL BUILDINGS 400 ISLAND AVENUE McKEES ROCKS, PA SCALE; DATE: IJOB NO: JSHT. NO: NOT TO SCALE 8/21/03 4604 CS-1 INSTALLATION OF THE FIRST ROOF PANEL (UNLESS NOTED ON DRAWINGS) SECTION AT EAVE FASTENER SCHEDULE x, /'30 O.C. AT ~ LApIF ~& SE~r-T~PPiHG ROOF FAS'iTJ~RS 10/8/01 CS-2R c ANCHOR BOLT PLAN J ANCHOR BOLT PLAN J sJd, £1 of II ~ ANCHOR 80LT D[TAIL~ & HOTE5 s~t, E2 of 11 A325 0,625 2.00 ~ GENERAL NOTES: RIGID FRAME ELEVATION SIDEWALL FRAMING: FRAME LINE A GENERAL NOTES: MINOR FIELD ~ OF STRUC'TURA.~ SECONDARY AND PANEL~Ik~ ITEMS MAY BE NECESSARy FO A NORU~'q_ PART OF UETAL Bi, J JNG ~RECllON. WE NLL NOT HONOR BAC~CHARGES FOR UINOR FIEU) WORK. SIDEWALL FRAMING: FRAME LINE D 3 0.025 40'-0' O~T-TO-OUT OF S'~EEL ENDWALL FRAMING: FRAME LINE 1 '1 '! GENERAL NOTES: ENDWALL FRAMING: FRAME LINE CABLE NOTES: ROOF FRAMING PLAN RC ROOF SHEETING GENERAL NOTES: "~INO~ F1SLD %~3RK OF STRUCTURAL. SECONDARY ~JD PANEL/TRIM 1~45 MAY BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE PR~)PER FIT. SUCH WORK JS CONSIDERED A NORMAL PART OF NIETAL BUILD~NC EREC~ON. W~ ~qU. NOT HONOR BACt(CHARGE$ FOR MINOR SIDEWALL SHEE~NG & TRIM: FRAME LINE A GENERAL NOTES; i,~INOR REL0 WORK ~ STRUCTURA_ SE'CONDARY AND P,~,I'tFJ_/~RIM ITEMS MAY BE NECESS~Y ENSURE PROPER F~T. S~J~l~ WORK IS CONStDID~ED SIDEWAL_ SHEETING & TRIM: FRAME LINE D LAp ENDWALL SHEETING &: TRIM: FRAME LINE 1 GENERAL NOTES: MINOR FIELD W(:~RK ~ S'FRUGTURAL. SECONDARY AND PAN[[./~T~iM ITEMS MAY BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE PRbPER RT, SUCH ~N~DRK IS CONSIDERED A NOR~AAL PART OF METAL BUILDING [R£CDON. ENDWALL SHEE1]NG &: IR[M: FRAME LINE DETAIL DEAV/NOS Sbt, £s of ~ EAST / FRONT ELEVATION WEST / REAR ELEVATION NORTH / RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 3 of 11 SOUTH / LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 4 of 1 IF--~F ! fll 1 ofl EAST/~ F__R-0N~ E_LEVATION I BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 80* FIRST FLOOR PLAN ACCOU1CfINO SECOND FLOOR PLAN STORAGE STORAGE 80' THIRD FLOOR PLAN I~T / FRONT I~EVATIOI~ TO WBEE LLC AT SOUTHOLD TO ~b' OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, 1000--6~-0~ 301 SITE PLAN N ~FFE PLAN OF PROPERTY AT sOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK SITE PLAN OPE R T Y ~'~C~}?~ AT souTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK. COUNTY, NEW YORK Now o~ FO~U,~RL¥ SITE PLAN TEST HOLE DATA PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR, Chairman RICHARD CAGGIA.~O WIr.T,I~ j. CREMEHS KENlqETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR MEMORANDUM Date: January 09, 2004 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Rout~5 Southold, New York 11971-09§9 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 To: Mike Vedty, Chief Building inspector Valede Scopaz, Town Planner From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Review~____~ Re: Interoffice communication on Elements of Nature Site Plan 56125 Main Road, Southold, NY Zoning District Hamlet Business (HB), SCTM: 1000-63.-3-10 As you instructed on January 6, 2003 at our meeting, below you will find the information pertaining to the new site plan application. Please refer to the attached letter from the Building Department dated December 16, 2003, which returned a building permit application for disapproval and indicates a change in the use to a tourist home with a restaurant and personal service. Attached you will find a copy of the site plan application and site plan we received subsequently. We are unable to determine from ,th~ attached whether the site plan submission is the same as that reviewed by.~0ur office on D~cember 16, 2003. The Planning Board (PB) is concerned about the propos~d building const'~uction layout and use's meeting the required codes. '- Application Application work session date: January 05, 2004 Application process date: January 08, 2004 Notified revision required: January 08, 2004 SEQRA-review date: January 12, 2004 Action Will be reviewed as ~ ~nli~ted boord~nated type. The PB received a complete site plan application for the above referenced site plan known as Elements of Nature. This proposed site plan is for (inn) with a spa and alteration of three existing accessory buildings as follows: 470 sq. ff. frame shop, 1,188 sq. ft. bern & 381 sq. ff. garage into storage without water or sanitary facilities on a 1.962 acre parcel in the ~ET, o~ I~ted approx~mataly 425' east of Boisseau Avenue, on the north side of State Road 25 (Main Road). An active complete file is in the Planning Boards Office for review. In reference to the above site plan, please review and forward any additional comments or concerns. Thank you in advance. Cc: file, Planning Board Members, VL Application for Consideration of a Site Plan Site Plan New * Nam~ of Business or Site: SCTM#: Loeatiom Name of Applicant: Address of Applicant: Telephone: Owner of Land: Agent or Person responsible for application: Address: Telephone: Site P1An~ pre~rad by: License #: Addn~: Telephone: EnSin~. Address: Telephone: Address: · Telephone: Zoning District Hamlet of SouthoM 56125 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Michael Miller 56125 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 631465-6070 / 516-721-2660 Miehnel M~l~r Jim Fitzgerald Proper-T-Services PO Box 617 Cutehogue, NY 11935 631-734-5500 fax 631-734-7463 Joseph A. Ingegoo Land Surveyor 49668 PO Box 1931 Riverhead, NY 11901 631-727-2090 fax:631-727-1727 Joseph Fbehelli 1725 Hobart Road Somhold, NY 1 i 971 631-765- 2954 Engineer fax: 631-614-3516 Mark Schwartz Acrhitect PO Box 933 Cutchogue, NY 11935 631-734-4185 fax :same Halilet Bisiness 9/t6/2003 9:22 AM EON Main Building Main B~ding Main Building 2~a fl (Accessory bui]di%os) Work Shop Barn Garage pre-Existia~ C of O for all Stxuctures One Family Dwelling (2 story flame house) Kitchen / Dinning rm / Living rm / Sun rm ½ bath/Porch 1,401 sq ft 4 bed rooms / 1 bath 1,014 scl ft No Plumbing or Flow Work shop Horse stalls & hay loft Equipment storage 470 sq fl 1,188 sq fl 381 Main Building 1= fl Main Building 2~ fl (A,~:~ory ~u~ugs) Work Shop · Garage Pre-Existimt C of O for all Structure~ Restauram (Cafe) & Tourist House (/un) Personal Service (Spa) ia- mom service for guests Restaurant (Caf6) 1410sq Caf~ Senfing for 30 persons Commercial Kitchen 2 r~troom.s (one handicap accessible) Tourist House ffum) 1014sq 3 bed rooms / 3 baths Personal Service (Spa) in- room service for guests No Plumbing or Flow Work shop (no change) 470 sq fi Horse stalls & hay loft (no change) 1,188 sq fl Equipment storage (no change) 381 sq fl C-,ross__~F~, ~r Area of. Pm~se~SLxLuctures: no add~io~3ff~ 9/16/2003 9:22 AM EON H~mlet Bmine~ District: A O) Boar~ouses and Tourist Home~. A (7) Rest~m~ants, excluding formula food and take-out restaurants. A (9) Personal service stores and shops, including barbershops, beauty parlors, professioml studios and travel agencies. A0) n~N A(7) CAFE A(9) SPA 100-191 Off-Str~ pnridn. Are.. Boardinghouses ~nd Tourist Homes I - Family Detacl'a:d Dwelling Personal service shop, bmber shop or beauty parlor. Restaurant, except drive-in Tvoe of Use A 0) rNN 3 guest rooms plus residential requirements A (7) C~F~. 30 seats or 920 sq feet A(9) SPA ' In-room service, no service chair Pronosed Parkinp_ Suaces: 15 Required Number ofParld~ Svae~ I space per guest room in addition to residential requirements. 2 spaces per dwelling. 2.5 spaces p~ s~vice chair. I space per 3 seats or I space per 100 square feet of floor space, whichever is greater. Required Number 0fparldno S~O~,'~ 3 spaces 2 spaces 10 spaces 0 spaces Reauired Parkin~ Sn~¢es: 15 9/16/2003 3 9:22 AM EON · Board~_ and Tourist Hom~: A building, other than a hotel, where lodging, with or without meals, for five (5) or more persons is furnished for compensation. any premises other thnn take-out or formula food restaurauts where food is conm~ercially sold for on-premises consumption to patrom seated at t~bles or coumers. Personal service shop; NA Flow allowance: 600 gals per day per acre Site Acres: 1.963 acres Site Flow Albwauce: ! 177 ga/s per day maximum total Restaurant (Cafe) P. esta=ant (c~) 30 gals per seat per day 30 seats x 30 gals = 900 gais per day flow used Tourist Home (Inn) 75 gals per guest room per day Tourist Home (Inn) 3 guest rooms x 75 gals -- 225 gals per day Row used Total Flow Usaae s~er da,/ Site Flow Allowance: 1125 ~ais ~ day 1177 gals per day maximum P e fCov e Total Land Area of Site: Gross Floor Area of Eygsting S~es: Gross Floor Area of Proposed Structures: g5,459.58 sq.iL / 1.963 ac 3,440 sq R no additional structures 20:% Gardem / 60% Lawn & Fields . Edmund & Joan Pressler Charles W. '~azke Long Island Railroad MTA Main Rd NYS Rte. 25 (west side) (east side) (north side) (south side) 9/16/2003 4 9:22 AM PLANNING BOARD ~ERS JERILYJN B. WOODHOUSE Chair RICHARD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J. CHEMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS . MARTIN H. SIDOR P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 530915 State Route Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 76~-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD State Environmental Quality Review Notice ¢ March 8, 2004 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed Site Plan for Elements of Nature SCTM#: 1000~63-3-~0 Location: Approximately 425' east of Boisseau Avenue, on the north side of State Road 25 (Main Road), known as 56125 Main Road, in Southold, NY. SEQR Status: Type I ( ) Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes ( ) No (X) Description of Action: The proposed action involves a site plan for a!teration of an existing 2,~! 5 sq ~ twO,stOry si~gle~fami!~'~weiiihg into ~ 28~seat ~es~ta~ra~t and .three~ L~edroom toUdSt house: w~h pers0~l~:services and alteration of three existing accessory buildings as follows: 470 sq ft~ frameshop 1;.188 sq, ft. ba~ & 381 sq: ff. g~rage i~to storage without water or sanitary facilities on a 1.962 acre parcel in theHBZone. Reasons Supporting This Determination: An Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted and reviewed and it was determined that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. SEQR Neflative Declaration - Pa~e Two There has not been any correspondence received from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, Southold Town Building Department, Southold Town Board, Southold Town Board of Trustees, or the New York State Department of Transportation in the allotted time. Therefore, it is assumed that there are no comments or objections from these agencies. On January 30, 2004, the Suffolk County Watar Authority responded with no objection to the Town of Southold Planning Board assuming lead agency status. On February 9, 2004, the Suffolk County Planning Depar[ment responded with no objection to the Town of Southold Planning Board assuming lead agency status. On February 11, 2004, the Suffolk County Department of Health responded with no objection to the Town of Southold Planning Board assuming lead agency status. For Further Information: Contact Person: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Address: Southold Town Planning Board Telephone Number: (631)765-1938 (x229) cc: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Board Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Engineer Suffolk County Department of Health Services New York State Department of Transportation Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Department SITE PLAN FOR, EON SHEET 1 OF 2 ~TUA TED ~iT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOL-D SUFFOLK COUNTY, NF~W YORK S,C. TAX No. 1000-65-05-10 SCALE 1"=50' MAY 14, 2005 .SCALE GREASE TRAP 2.500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK (5) LEACHING POOLS .. MAIN.,,~R OAD Jossph A. Ingegno Land Surveyor SITE PLAN FOR .... ~ SHEET 2 OF 2 ~ .~SOUTHOLD ~'~'~TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. lAX No. 1000-63-03-10 SEAL[ 1"=20' MAY 14, 2003 AREA = 85,459.5B sq. ff. o~ ~ P ic .. 56125 "AIN ROAD $OUTHOLD, NEW YORK 20 0 . 20 40 60 Scme 1" = 20' ~xrwwA¥ SsC~ON MAIN "ROAD L~ ~ SEPTIC SYSTEM DESIGN SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 1'3~7 '~'~ ~ TEL 631-765-2954 .¢ Joseph A. Ingegno Land Surveyor ~URVEY OF PROPERTY SITUA TED A T $OUTHOLD TOWN OF .SOUTHOLD IFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK .C. TAX No. 1000-6,.3-03-10 SCALE 1"=,30' MAY 14, 2003 AREA = 85,459.58 sq. ft. 1.962 oc. ~.~,../ >t:,/,,,,,. :. :]b,~ Uo'7o . - "? z(:.:z.. ~00 TH[ EXIST[NC[ DY RIGHT 0¢ WAY~ ANO/OR EASEMENTS 06' RECORD, IF Al/Y, NOT SHOWN ARE NO? .GUARANTErD. I ~ .A I~ ( t~ .'roou 3/~o/~ 2 STORY HOUSE ROOF · MAIN 80.92 ROAD~ (N.Y.S. Me. 25) N..Y.S. Lie No 4966g Joseph 'A. Ingegno Land Surveyor DIl¢ Sw~ey~ - Subdi~sio~s - Site Plen~ - Con~m~n Lo~ut PHONE (651)727-2090 Fex (651)727-1727 O~C~ LO~ AT ~G ~ 1~0 ~E A~NUE P,O. Box 1931 R~RH~, Ne~' York 11901 ~vemeo~, New York 11901-~65 Town of Southold .,~.~ , Architectural Review Committe Minut.. October 24, 2007 4=OOp~ Town Hall Conference Roo~ Members Present: Chairman Sanford Hanauer; Joseph Lee; Ronald McGreevy; Howard Meinke; Nicholas Planamento; Ural Talgat; Elizabeth Thompson; Tom Wickham, Town Board Member; Heather Lanza, Planning Director; Amy This1, Planning Board Staff; Bruno Semon, Planning Board Staff; Elizabeth Cantrell, Secretary. The minutes for the September 13, 2007 meeting were approved. New Applications: BLUE DUCK BAKERY SCTM #1000-63-3-12 Kristopher Pilles, Owner, Nancy & Keith Kouris, Applicants presented the application. APPROVED: Pending submission of lighting cuts for the street sign, and a revised rendering with the first floor striped awning on the front of the building to be all one length. The committee would like to recommend the following to the applicants: a g~os.e-neck style fixture for the street sign; the striped awnings be installed on the east side of the building as shown in the original rendering; if central air conditionin§~ is installed, the unit is to be placed in the rear of the building; and any vents/exhaust pipes to be installed be placed on the roof at the rear of the building. MOTION MADE: Howard Meinke; SECOND: Elizabeth Thompson. Ail in favor. NORTH FORK HARDWarE SCTM #1000-62-1-3 Robert Brown, Registered Architect presented the application. APPROVED: The preliminary design concept submission has the Architectural Review Committee's approval subject to a final plan submission. MOTION MADE: Howard Meinke; SECOND: Ural Talgat. Ail in favor. PURITAWINERY SCTM#1000-51-3-4.11 Ural Talgat recused himself so that he can present the application.. APPROVED: Th~'members fully endorse this applicati~n as it is shown today. MOTION MADE: Elizabeth Thompson; SECOND: Nicholas Planamento. All in favor. Revisited Ap~lications~ BREWER YACHT YARD PAVILION SCTM#1000-43-3-2 APPROVED: The committee is making the recommendation that the applicant consider the two center louvers be made of clear glass on all four sides of the pavilion roof. MOTION MADE: Ural Talgat; SECOND: Elizabeth Thompson. All in favor. A motion was made to close the meeting at 6:lSpm. Ail in favor. LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans SPFile Type: Approved Proiect Type: Site Plans Status: Final- Pending Inspection SCTM #: 1000 - 63.:3-12 Proiect Name: Blue Duck Bakery Address: 56275 NYS Route 25, Southold Hamlet: Southold Applicant Name: The Blue Duck Bakery Owner Name; Zone 1: HB Approval Date: Pilles Realty Holdin.q LLC 12/10/2007 SCANNED Records Management OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION End SP Date: 12/11/2007 Zone 2: Zone 3: Location: Located on the n/s/o New York State Road 25, approximately 576' east of Boisseau Avenue, known as 56275 Main Road, in Southold SC Filin.q Date: C and R's: Home Assoc; R and M Agreement: SCAN Date: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chedr KENNETH I~ EDWARDS MARTIN H, SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND December 11,2007 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Maha Hd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone; 61~1 76/~-1938 Fax: 631 765-8186 Mr. Kristopher Pilles c/o McCarthy Real Estate 46275 County Route 48 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Blue Duck Bakery Located at 56275 Main Road, Southold SCTM#1000-63-3-12 Zoning District: Hamlet Business (HB) Dear Mr. Pilles: The Southold Town Planning Board, at a meeting held on Monday, December 10, 2007, adopted the following resolutions: The final public hearing was closed. WHEREAS, the agent, Kristopher Pilles, submitted a formal site plan for approval on September 14, 2007; and WHEREAS, this new site plan is for the proposed conversion of an existing automotive service building to a bakery where 400 sq. f. is for retail, 1,680 sq. tt. is for storage and 1,080 sq. fi. is for food processing where 8 parking spaces are required and 6are provided with use of on street parking on a 10,211.40 sq. ft. parcel in the Hamlet Business Zone located on the n/s/o New York State Road 25, approximately 576' east of Boisseau Avenue, known as 56275 Main Road, in Southold. SCTM#1000-63-3-12; and WHEREAS, Pilles Realty Holding, LLC is the owner of the property located on the n/s/o New York State Road 25, approximately 576' east of Boisseau Avenue, known as 56275' Main Road, in Southold; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2007, the Planning Board accepted this application and issued a letter, dated September 25, 2007, to the applicant requesting reVisions; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2007, Southold Fire District responded after review stating "there is adequate fire protection"; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2007, the Suffolk County Department of Planning responded, after review, and determined this matter is for 'local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s)" and the Planning Board accepts this. pursuant to 239L & M General Municipal Law; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2007, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed the architectural drawings and made recommendations and the Planning Board accepted these recommendations at their Work Session on November 19, 2007 and forwarded them on to the applicant; and WHEREAS, on October 29, 2007, the applicant submitted a Draft Boundary Line Agreement with the neighbor to the west and this was forwarded to the Town Attorney for review and comments; and ' WHEREAS, on November 2, 2007, Planning Department Staff issued another letter to the applicant detailing additional site plal'~ items that ~leed to be addressed; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2007, the Assistant Town Attorney responded, after review of the boundary line agreement, with the following comments and the Planning Board accepted these comments and forwarded them on to the applicant: 1. The agreement does not specify how wide or long the ddveway shall remain, only that it may remain 'as same presently exists". To avoid dispute on this issue, the Planning Board should require that the agreement specify the dimensions of the existing driveway that it finds adequate for the purposes of the site plan. 2. The agreement does not expressly provide an easement to the applicant to allow the applicant, and specifically its customers, to use the driveway in support of the applicant's proposed commercial operation. The agreement should be revised to do so; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2007, the Southold Town Building Inspector reviewed and responded 'The proposed use bakeshop is a permitted use in this HB District and is so certified"; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 2007, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services responded, after review, stating that a formal commercial application should be submitted, building foundations must be at least 10' from all leaching pools and an exterior grease trap is necessary and the Planning Board accepted the comments and forwarded them on to the applicant; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2007, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR), Part 617,5 c, made a determination that the proposed action is a Type I1 Action and not subject to review; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2007, the New York State Department of TranspertatJon responded, after review, stating that the applicant is required to address four (4) ilems and the Planning Board accepts these comments conditionally; and WHEREAS, on November 29, 2007, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed the architectural drawings and approved the project and the Planning Board accepts this recommendation; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2007, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed the site plan materials and replied with comments and the Planning Board accepts these comments conditionally; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2007, the applicant submitted a Revised Boundary Line Agreement, authorized and filed with the Suffolk County Clerk on December 7, 2007 under LIBER # D00012533, Page 016, and the Planning Board accepts this agreement and incorporates [t in the approval; and 2 WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board generally approves of adaptive re-use of existing buildings where appropriate, and that the re-use of this site as a bakery is a desirable and appropriate addition to the Southold hamlet; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board recognized that this site, with its existing building occupying much of the lot, presented a challenge to'meeting the parking requirements, agreed to reduce the parking requirement by a small amount in exchange for adding landscaping to the front of the site, thus improving the aesthetic appearance of the site; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Town Code {}280-131 B (5), approves the installation of landscaping in front of the proposed bakery along NYS Route 25 in lieu of two (2) parking spaces; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Chapter 55, Notice of Public Headng, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, the following items shall be required: All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the light source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries. The lighting must meet Town Code requirements. 2. All signs shall meet Southold Town Zoning Codes and shall be subject to approval of the Southold Town Building Inspector. 3. As per the Landscape Survivability Guarantee, the applicant agrees to replace any of the landscaping which dies within three (3) years of planting; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Town Code {}280-131 B (5)(b), reserves the dght to review the parking requirements again if a change of use is proposed; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board has reviewed the proposed action under the policies of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and has determined that the action is consistent as outlined in the November 19, 2007 memo prepared by the LWRP Coordinator; and be it further RESOLVED, that pursuant to Southold Town Code 280-131 Part I, the applicant agrees to incorporate all the requirements, comments, and recommendations of each reviewing agency as referenced above and as indicated on the site plan and corresponding attachments; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant approval on the site plan sheet and drainage plan prepared and certified by Yousuf H. Tai, Professional Engineer, dated October 7, 2007, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the site plans with the following conditions: 1. The owner, agenl and/or applicant must obtain approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for the approved construction and submit such approval to the Southold Town Planning Department for review. If such approval varies from this approved site plan, the Planning Board reserves the right to review a new site plan. application. A copy of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services approved plan must be submitted to the Southold Town Planning Department within thirty (30) days of 3 receipt. If the applicant/agent/owner fails to adhere to this requirement, this approval shall become null and void. The owner, agent, and/or applicant must obtain approval from the New York State Department of Transportation for the approved construction and submit such approval to the Southold Tdwn Planning Department for review, If such approval varies from this approved site plan, the Planning Board reserves the dght to the review ora new site plan appiicafion. A copy of the New York State Department of Transportation approved plan and pen'nit must be submitted to the Southold Town Planning Department within thirty (30) days of receipt, If the applicant/agent/owner fails to adhere to this requirement, this approval shall become null and void. 3. Keith Kouris, the Vice President of Blue Duck Bakery Cafe, agreed to install a doorbell and sign to incorporate additional accessibility for the handicap persons, 4. The site plan approval requires that all work proposed on the site plan shall be completed within three (3) years from the date of this resolution. Prior to the request for the Certificate of Occupancy, the owner or authorized agent must request, in wdting, the Building Inspector and the Planning Board to perfon-n an on-site inspection to find that the site improvements are in conformity with the approved amended site plan, Prior to the request for an on-site inspection, the applicant/agent/owner must submit a copy of all required approvals from any necessary agencies to the Southold Town Planning Department. If the as-built site improvements vary from the approved site plan, the Planning Board reserves the dght to request a certified as-built site plan detailing all the changes. Any changes from the approved site plan shall require Planning Board approval and any such changes without Planning Board approval will be subject to referral to the Town Attorney's Office for possible legal action. 9. The Planning Board will issue a final site plan approval in the form ora letter following a site inspection and at the time the site improvements are found to be in conformance F.F.~ with the approved site plan. copies of the approved site plan are enclosed for your records. As per the Town Code, one copy each will be distributed to the Building Department and Town Engineer/Highway Departmenl. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Chairperson encl, Southold Town Building Department w/map Southold Town Engineer w/map 4 NYS DOT w/map SCDHS w/map [Search Maps For the be$ possible print results dick the printer icon on the Live Search Maps page. of I http://maps.live.com/?FORM=MSNH&mkt=en_U S&q= 11/19/2007 Maps of I I For the best possible print results, click the pdnter icon on the Live Search Maps page. http://maps.live.com/?FORM=MSNH&mkt=en. US&q= 11/19/2007 Maps [ For the best possible print results, click the printer icon on the Live Search Maps page. of 1 I http://maps.live.com/?FORM=MSNH&mkt=en. US&q= 11/19/2007 . ~Search Maps IFor the beat possible print results, click the printer icon on the Live Search Maps page. of 1 1 http://maps.live.com/?FORM=MSNH&mkt=en-US&q= H/19/2007 Town of Southold - Proposed Site Plan Blue Duck Bakery Tax Map # 1000-63-3-12 pARR~HG RET STORE ocroBER 7,2007 ~.M.[: 1112011 111~2 5e275 ~ 25 IIl!l fl [ ~ L~ P.O. 130~ m pLANTiNGS coNCRETE DAII~ plan sba~l be valid fee the date of approval as p~ KWLET BUSat rm'~a, t~e B~ SHOP ,RIEl. I~.mmllff mm. lllmmlll' alt. ~lllt 1. [lmlff Ill. RImE IIf, m IIIII R ,> ~ S 8758'50' E ~ OCTOEER 7,2007 SP.~LE; 1=~20, REV 2 BIJIE WCK iAiCBIY 56275 ROUTE 25 SOUIH~. NY, 11171 FILLES IIF. N.11' H(X.~I~ LCC P.O. 1309 ~ WY. I1~1 AFN: 1000'-063~-012 PL NNZ a .oA D TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Illllml mm{i~imm~mlF~mt ~ lllllff III ; Ilzell II L~/llff II IlJlm ff ,,._~~ % NIIIlfflll WmllT pLANTINGS i~ DRAIn&GE PL~ ~mmmm~ DEC : N .$¢DH$ RMo # C~ 0-0~-0006 STORAGE 8LDGS SURVEY OF PROPERPY AP SOUPHOLD PO~rN OF SOUPHOLD SUFFOLK COUNPY, N.Y. i000-65-0S-12 SCALE: 1'=20' NOV. I4. 2002 pUBLIC el. ~8.~ ANY ALTERATION OR ADDIlION TO 1HIS SURt,~-Y IS A ~IOLATION OF S~C~ION 72090F' THE NEW YORK STATE E'DUCAlION LA~ EXCEPT AS PER SECTION 7209-SUBDIVISION 2. ALL CER71F1CATION$ FEtE'ON ARK VAUO FOR 7HIS MAP AND COPIE~ THEREO~ ONLY F ~ MAP OR ~ ~ 7H£ IMPRESSED .~_AL OF' 7HE SURVEYOR V, NO~E SI~IATURE APPEARS HEREON. RO,4D £5) (631) ~65 5 ~.o. ~ox ~o~ ~.~ 1230 TRA VELER~ SOUTHOLD, N.Y. SURI~Y Or PROPIB~' · 4~ ~ouTHOI, D PAC~ 04 Southold, N.Y. 11971 HENRY E. RAYNOR, lt.. Chairm~n JAMES WALL BENNETT OR LOWSIO, h. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, .It. WILLIAM F, MULLEN, Jr. T~LI~PHONE 765.19~8 November 28, 1983 Mr. Victor Lessard Building Administrator Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: John Pietrodangelo Site Plan Dear Mr. Lessard: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, November 21, 1983. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board a~prove the site ?lan "John Pietrodangelo", relocation of the exist- ing twe stgry building located on the northeast of the prop- erty for the reconstruction of a new building to be the same size (50 square feet more or less), subject to certification from the Building Department and a one year review by the Planning Board. Three copies of the site plan have been attached. Very truly yours, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Attch. By Susan E. Long, Secretary · · . ..:. · .,:: . . :,..,: .. RECEIVED BY ~fltOIJ} 101~1 PI.,I~INING 88A1~ .~T. PAT~Id, K d, HUt~-.,H At, ~id, Tol,,al o,1' ,Scar, hold J TOPO~PHIC/AL- .DEC -4 ~3 ~uthold Town Boa~ L LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans SPFile Type: Approved Proiect Type: Site Plans Status: Final Approval SCTM #: 1000 - 62.-3-20 Project Name: Mullen Motors 1983 Address: NYS Route 25, Southold Hamlet: Southold Applicant Name: Mullen Motors Owner Name: Mullen Motors, Inc. Zone 1: B Approval Date: 6/20/1983 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION End SP Date: Zone 2:. Zone 3: Location: NYS Route 25, Southold SC Filin,q Date: C and R's: Home Assoc: R and M A.qreement: SCANNED Records Management SCAN Date: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1 ! 79 Southold, New York I 1971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 1, 1988 Eric Bressler Wickham, Wickham, & Bressler P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Mullen Motors SCTM #1000-62-3-20 Dear Mr. Bressler: The following actions were taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, October 31, 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the final map dated as amended September 28, 1988. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman to endorse the final map dated as amended September 28, 1988. If you have any q~estions please do not hesitate to contact this office. ene. CC: Richard Mullen Building Department Assessor's FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD. N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 765-1902, Examined ................. 19 ... Application No .................. Approved .................. 19... Permit No ............ (Building Inspeclc q APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must bo drawn on the diagram which is part of thii appli- cation. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or d~molition, as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. (Signature of applicant, or name, if a corporation) ......... i~l'~l~ id~ress of applicant) ...... State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect., engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. ................................................................................. Name of owner o f premises ... jG/j 12 ~/~Jl~.~? .... .~. ~J-~.{O/~. ......,~./l~.~.. .................................. (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicaj~t is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. .... .... (Name and rifle of corporate o leer) ~/luilder's License No...~....../~./ .............. Plumber's License No .... /(.//,a ................. Electrician's License No.../.-/.t~ ................ Other Trade's License No..AJ/fi ................ 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done .................................................. ............ ..... 9. . . . ' .................. House Nmnber Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ........ 0~2~ ..... Block ......... ~. ....... Lot....'~--~ ........... ,g[lllubdivision ..................................... Filed Map No ............... Lot ............... (Name) 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and iatended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy .... ~,~ ~ Z/. d. .... ~!~..~ .~..~.. .................................... b. Intended use and occupancy ...ff/'¢/&'~.. ..... ~*-/../~. · .... ~-~. ~./."fi--'-'~,~,~ ..................... 10. 11. 12, 13. 14, Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building .......... Addition .... IZ.... Alteration ......... Repair .............. Removal .............. Demolition .............. Other Work ............... (Description) Estimated Cost .. ~..~.~..~. ............................ Fee ...................................... (to be paid on filing this application) If dwelling, number of dwelling units ............... Number of dwelling units on each floor ................ If g~rage, number of cars ........................................................................ If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use . ,, an,:Front .... ...... .,.:a: ................. her of Stories ..... /...- ............ Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ................. Rear .................. Depth ...................... Height ......... '...' .......... Number of Stories ...................... Front ........... Rear ... ~..~ ....... ~F~ ~;~. ·. · Height ....... Number of Stories ...... ./. ................................................ Size of lot: Front .................... .~'..d.~. ........... Rear" ../~..~. ......... Depth .... .~',~.~. ~ ,~,~/ .... Date of Purchase ............................. Name of Former Owner ............................. Zone or use district in which premises arc situated ..................................................... Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: ... ~(/4~ ......................... Will lot be regraded ..... A~Z~ ................... Will excess fill be removed from premises: Yes Name of Owner of premises .~4'~//t~e., ~ ,~F~'..Address ~,~,.. ~t~.. j~l~Phone No ................ Name of Architect ........................... Address ................... Phone. No.: .............. Name of Contractor ~.~. ~,~,~r-~., ,g~,,~'z;~;~. Address ~.~./~. ,,e.~ ...... Phone No. 7~.~/,.f'~,~. PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and disliucfly all buildings, whether existing or pwposed, and. indicate all set-back dimensions from d erty lines. Give steer and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether or or corner lot. STATE OF NEW~O~RK, , COUNTY OF ~... .............'"/~ ~'~ ~ ,,~ .~..~.~...~. ~-.,,~,.2f. ................ being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the appilcant (Name of individual signing contract) above named. He is the .............................................................. (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in thc manncr set forth in the application ~ed therewith. Sworn to before me this ............. /'~'ff.. ...... day of ............... , ~~~l~Y~ ....... (Sigllature of applicant) Z .J UFF. CO. TAX FI,~\P D~"(rA: 0 U /',-IA;N ~OAD INC. VAN TUYL. I:?C. LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans SPFile Type: Approved Project Type: Site Plans Status: Final Approval Project Name: Saundra Perry Physical Therapy Address: 50300 Main Road, Southold Hamlet: Southold Applicant Name: Saundra J. Perry Owner Name: Saundra J. Perry ..Zone 1: HB Approval Date: i/i0/2000 SCANNED Rccor,__~d$ Management OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A dale indicates that we have received the related informaOon End SP Date: 1/10/2000 Zone 2: . Zone 3: Location: s/s/o NYS Rt. 25, 324' e/o Town Harbor Land, Southold SC Filinq Date: C and R's: Home Assoc; R and M A.qreement: CAN Date: L~____~- SITE PLAN Presub mission-eonference (within 30 days of written request) Complete application received {within 4 momhs or presub, conference) ApplicaHon reviewed al work session (Wilhin I 0 days ~r receipt) ~pplicant ~dvised of necessary revisions (wiU~in 30 duys of review) Revised submission received SEORA determination REFERRED TO: Zoning Doard or Appeals (written comments w thin 60 days ;f request'~ ]3oard of t~ Uepmtl,lent (cert~'ic~tion Suffolk County Department of Planning ~epartment or Transportation -State Department of Transportation - County Coven.ms and Restrictions Covenants and Restrictio-- ~ng plan -- ~Cut approval '- -Wllh condilJons Certificate of Occupancy inspection - Appe~dLx C Stale Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART --PROJECT INFORMATION (TO be completed by Applicant or Project spOnSm) 1. APPLICANT/SPONeoR I 2. PROJECT NAME RICItt~ Sk~rt'A r~mRAl. CON'II~CIOR INC I SAIJ'ItDP, t PERRY PI~SICIL ~ S, pROJECT LOCATION: Munlclp,lll~ SO/u~OI~) ~ County ~1 ~'~I.,~ SEQR 50300 NADI ROAD '~UTHOLD ~ 11971 SO~'IIt SIDE OF RT 25 4.50 i(K~.t~ EAST OF ~ HABOR ~ S. IS PROPOSED AGTION: ~ New [] Expansion 6. OE~"RIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: AMOUNT OF ~D FECTEiZ, ~ ~n'~' ,~.~-~. 0.241 8. WILl. PROPOSED ACTION COMPt. Y '~VITN IEXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RE~'TRICTION$? 9. WHAT I$ PRESENT L~NO USE IH VICINITY OF PROJECI? [] Resldefltl&l [] I~dust rill ~i~ CommMclel 10, DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR F~NDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY {FEDERAl., STATE OR ~:) yea E]No If yes, list seen<fy(s) End p~mlU&ppmvais ~O~'II~OLI) 12. AS A RF.~ULT OF pROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MOOIFI~ATION? I CEfl~FY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE lB TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEOGE it the action Is In the Coas~l A~a, and you are I state agency, complete the Colst. I ~sessment Fo~ ~loM p~eding wJ~ this assessment OVER 1 7/6/9 PART II--ENVIRONMENTAL ASSi' ~T (To be completed by Agency) 1~ [] Yes ~ NO ,, ENVIflONMEI~'A/ PART Ill--DETERMINATION OF.SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agent0 · INSTRUCTIONS: F~rd~h~dv~me~e~nt~e~b~ve~dete~n~w~ether~t~s~ub~t~a~arge~mp~rtanter~the~W~ses~gn~fica~t. Each eflect should be i~lessed In connection with its (a) ~tlng [J~e, u~an M mini); ~) probebilJt7 of Occurring; ~C) duration; ~d) [] Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impecte which MAY · occuc ~hen proceed directly to the FULL FAF and/or prepare · positive declaration. ~- C~eck this POX If you have determined, based On the Information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result In any. significant adverse environmectal impa~ts ? /., // /,/// / /,/ g o//- / P ,. 2 SOUTHOLD TOWN ARCHITECTURAL- REVIEW COMMITTEE The ARC met at Town Hall, Members present were: Robert I. Brown, Co-Chairman Garrett A. Streng, Co-Chairman Robert W. Keith, Secretary, Mattituck John B. Greene, Landmark Preservation Committee Southold Town Planning Board Also attending were Robert G. Kassner of the Planning Board staff, Jennifer Capuano, Sandra Perry, Richard Saetta, and Thomas Vulpus, Jr. Moved by John Greene and seconded by Garrett Strang, it was Resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 12, 1999, as submitted. Vote of the Committee: Ayes all SANDRA PERRY PHYSICAL THERAPY OFFICE (Main Road - Southold) (Robert Brown recused himself). Mr. Saetia and Ms. Perry presented a plan showing a mansard roof on the proposed addition and the rear of'the present building inasmuch as a gable root' was impractical, it was agreed that a new drawing would be presented with a railing substituted for the mansard feature. The exterior will be white vinyl clapboard with white-clad Anderson windows. The sign will be the one in use at the present location. Also, a catalogue cut will be submitted for the railing on the fi'ont ramp. MATTITUCK lAUREL LIBRARY (Formal Submission) Mr. Thomas Vulpus, Jr. of the architectural firm of Beatty, Harvey and Associate~ m,t with tbe committee to dis~ss details of the proposed addition. The shutters on the three single windows of the east: elevation will be removed and the air conditioning units will be seR~ned with planting~t. The gable ends cannot be changed as the present vents are active and set in brick. Roof vents will be lead-coated copper. Brick and trim will be matched. Moved by Robert Keith and seconded by John Greene, it was RESOLVED to recommend APPROVAL of the plans to the Planning Board. Vote of the Committee: Ayes all. SHADy LADY (365 North Road, Oreenport - Preliminary submission) Robert Brown presented the plans as they stand awaiting a variance from the New York Code Agency ncces~ar~.~o.r.:~.mixed restaurant and-8 room inn use. Moved by Garrett Stran8 and seconded by ~ Greene, It was RESOLVED to approve the proposal in concept subject to inl~p~a~ tion required on the checklist and exterior venting of the gas fireplaces. Vote of, the Committee: Ayes all. Rol~ W. Keith Secretary SOU~I'HOLD TOWN ' -ARCHITECTU~,AL REVIEW COMMITTEE September 23, I999, 4:30 PM (This meeting was held in substitution of one scheduled for September 16 but cancelled by Hurricane Floyd). The ARC met at Town Hall, Members present were: Robert I. Brown, Co-Chairman Garrett A. Strang, Co-Chairman Robert W. Keith, Secretary, Mattituck John B. Greene, Landmark Preservation Committee Yan Rieger, Orient Howard G. Meinke, Cutchogue SEP ?., a, 1999 Southold Town Planning Board Also attending was Valerie Scopaz of the Planning Board Staff. Moved by John Greene and seconded by Robert Keith, It wes RESOLVED to APPROVE the MINUTES of the meeting of August 31, 1999. Vote of the Committee: Ayes all SANDRA PERRY PHYSICAL THERAPY OFFICE (Main Road - Southold) (Robert Brown recused himself). Moved by Robert Keith and seconded by John Greene, it was RESOLVED to recommend APPROVAL WITIt CONDITIONS that (1) the ramp be located on the west side of the buildin8 turning east to the front door (2) the railing of the ramp match or complement the roof~.'.ing and (3) the siding be white as proposed earlier~ It is sugggsted to the Board that parking space//3 be designated for handicap use as it would be located at the foot ofthe ramp. Vote of the Committee: Ayes all. BROADWATI;RS COVE MARINA (Bay Avenue - Cutchoguc) Because the submission did not include a description of the addition to the Tool Building, the Committee was unable to consider it. As to the Storage Building, it was RESOLVED by Yah Rieger and seconded by Garrett Strang to RECOMMEND to the Planning Board that (1) wooden siding be strongly preferred to complomcnt the house on the prop*ny and others nearby and (2) that a steeper roof pitch be used, also in keeping with. neighboring buildings. The Committee suggests that the Board consider alternate positioning of the building. PLANNING BOARD MEMBFA~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Read P.O. Box 1179 8outhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 29, 1999 Richard Saetta 74355 Main Road, PO Box 2047 Greenport, NY 11958 RE: Proposed site plan for Saundra Perry Main Road, Southold SCTM# 1000-63-4-3 Dear Mr. Saetta, The Planning Board has received the enclosed report dated September 23, 1999, from the Architectural Review Committee and is sending it to you for your attention. You will note that th~ vamp and access to the building is recommended to be placed on the west side of the butldhlg. The existing ramp in front of the building will require a front yard set back variance. In addition, please show dumpster and air condition equipment location on the plan. Note the recommendation that space number three be used for handicapped parking. The proposed gym on the site plan should conform with the floor plan at the south west corner. As ~ou know , no possible conditional final approval can be granted until the State Highway Permit is obtained. Please feel free to contact either of the co-chairman, or myself at this office, if you have ahy questions. Mr. Robert Brown can be reached at 477-9752, and Mr. Garrett Strang at 765-5455. Site Pkm Reviewer Encl. ce: Saundra Perry Robert Brown Garrett Strang PLANNING BOARD M~MB~ BENNETT ORLOWSF~I, JR. PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 October 19, 1999 Saundra J. Perry, P.T.IP.C. P.O. Box 1824 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed site plan for Saundra J. Perry Physical Therapy SCTM~ 1000-63-4-3 Dear Ms. Perry: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, October 18, 1999: The final public hearing, which was held over from September 13, 1999 was closed. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, this site plan, to be known as site plan for Saundra J. Perry, Physical Therapy, is for a 710 square foot building to be used as a physical therapy office; and WHEREAS, Saundra J. Perry is Ihe contract vendee of the p[?perty known and designated as 50300 Main Road, Southold, SCTM~0DO~3~'~; and WHEREAS, a formal application for the approval of this s{te plan was submitted on July 12, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under Ihe State Environmental Quality Review Act, (6NYCRR), Part 617, makes a determination that this project is a Type Il action and not subject to the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (SEQRA); and WHEREAS, this slt6 plan was cer~itied by the Building Inspector on October 7, 1999; and Page 2 Proposed cite plan for Saundra J. Perry ph~lcal Therapy October 19, 1999 WHEREAS, the Southoid Town Planding Board, pursuant to Chapter 58, Notice of Public Hearing, has received affidavits that the applicant has complied with the notification provisions; and WHEREAS, the applicant hereby agrees and understands that if the site plan which receives stamped Health Department approval differs in any way from the proposed conditional site plan on which the Planning Board held a public hearing and voted on, then the Planning Board has the right and option, if the change is material to any of the issues properly before the Planning Board, to hold a public hearing on this "revised' site plan application and review its conditional approval; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 1999, the applicant signed a statement agreeing not to object to a new public hearing and Planning Board review of the revised application; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval on the surveys dated October 1, 1999, and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys subject to fulfillment of the following condition. Alt conditions must be met within six (6) months of the date of this resolution. 1. Curb cut permit by the New Yo~ State Department of Transportation. Review and approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. (// ,~ Chairman cc: Building Department PARKING CRITERIA AREA = 10,498 sq. ft. or '0,24 I Acres LOT COVER~GE = 9~ LAND$~ = APPROVED PLANNING BOARO TOWN OF SOU'TI-tOLD SITE PLAN SAUNDRA PERRY PHYSICAL THERAPY A T SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N. K SANITARY'DESIGN ALI..O~IABL£ ~NITARY FLOW (DEN~TY) EROUNDF/A T£R M4NAE~MENT Z~ lY ~outhold Town Planning B~ird 93 - 216 I:'~'OI, J,T -F__Lr'V,,',TIC, LI _ LASER FICHE FORM Proiect Type: Site Plans ~CTM # 1000 - Name: Fimt Univiversal Church Location :~l~~-d'~' ~ Hamlet: Southold ~Applicant Name: Universalist Church Owner Name: Universalist Church, ~Applicaition ReCeived Date: 811512000 Approval .Date: 812212000 ~;unW Filing Date: ........... ~DDITIO~[ 8HBDI~ISIO~ I~FOR~TiO~ ~C and R's: ~ Homeownem Ass~iation R and M A~reement: Zone 3: SCANNED AUG ! 6 2006 Records Management TOWN OF 80UTHOLD API~LICATION FOR CERTI~CATE OF OCCUPANCY This application taus1 be filled iff by typewriter or ink and submilled to the Building Depamne. nt with the following:,: A: For new building or new use: 1. Final survey of property with aecurale loeallon o f all buildings, property lines, streels, and unusual lmtural or topogmphlc features. 2. Final Approval from Health Depl. of wats- supply and s~werage-disposal (S-9 form). 3. Approval of eleotfical installation from Board of Fk¢ Undea'wdt ars. 4. Sworn statement from plumber certifying that the solder used in system contains less than 2/10 of 1% lead. 5. Conmiercial building, industrial bnilding, multiple residences and similar buildlngs and installations, a ceriifical¢ of Code Compliance from arehitnct or eagineer r~sponsible for the building, 6. Submit Plamfing Board Approval o f completed site plan requiremeats. For existing buildings (prior lo April 9, 1957} uon-eonforndng uses, or buildings and "pre-existing" land uses: I. Accurate survey of property showiug all property lines, ntreets, building and unusual natural or topographic features. 2. A prol)erly eemplclcd applicalion and consent lc, iuspecl signed by tile applicant. Ifa Ccrlificale of Occnpancy [s denied, Ihe Buikling lnspeclor shall s~atc the reasons Iherefor in wriling lo tile applicanl. Swimming pool $25.00, Accessory building $25.00, Addilions Io accessory building $25,00, Businesses $50.00. 2. CerlificateofOccupaney on Pre-existing Building - $100.00 3. Copy of Ceriificate of Occupancy - $.25 4. Updaled Cerlificale of Occupancy- $50.00 5. Temporary Cellificate ofOccepaecy - Resideulial $15.00, Conuuercial $15,00 New Construction: Location of Property: House No. Old or Pre-cxislh~g Building: Sire. el (check one) Hamlet Suffolk County Tax Map No 1000, Section. (~ ~ Block ~ Lot Subdivision No. Health Dq~t. Approval: .~Planning Board Ap~_rov~al: Requesl for: Temporal, Certificate Fee Submitted: Filed Map. Lot: Date ofPem~il.~-- ~O~.. Applicant: Underwriters Approval: Final Cerfifica~ (check one) A~ Signature ~,~ u~-,,,~, ot ~,~i~ m~,,, j~.~l~..~.4...~. ....... ~,~ ..... ~.,..~:,..~, .... 85.'.:~".. o~l~ of ~i~ ~ ~; ~ ................ ~ ...... ~ ......... Si~ ~ l~: ~t .................... ~ ...... ~ ........ ~ ~ ~im ~ol~ ~ ~1~ Ira, ~i~ ~ ~lm: ..... ~.'. ............... ~o~of~ First U. Church -.. 51900 Main Rd ........................... ~i~ .............................. ~ ~ 765-3494 ~ ee~l~t Richard Daley ~l~o Broa~aters Rd Cutc ............... ..................................................................... ~ ~ 734-6644 ~ ~ ~ ................................... ~ ............................... ~ ~ ............... end indicate Richard Daley ................... , .............................. ~1~ ~17 ~, ~ ~ ~m ~t ~ ~1 ~ ~lIm( archi tect (~, ~, ~.L~ o~El~r, etc.) ......... ............. MEE'nNG HALL "Perish Hal/ Existing Are Perish Hall New Are Church Gross Are Basement Existing Ar ~;c.,m,~lt New Ar Basement Ne~Eotal Ar* -- 2064 sq ft = 451 sq ft a= 1786 sq ft a= 1315 sq ft ;a = 4-51 sq ft = 1766 sq ft 'I~iRs? UNIVERSALIST CHURCH SOUTHOLD, NY ] ,~D ~ O~L% ,~-Im~CT | Appendix E FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Photograp~imulations Proposed Southwold Manor View Point 1-1: Existing conditions, from south side of Main Road, across from proposed access drive. Ph otograph~l~mulations Proposed Southwold Manor View Point 1-2: Post-constr~ction conditions, from south side of Main Road, across from proposed access drive. Photo alations Proposed Southwold Manor (A) Sabject site under existing conditions, from the south side of Main Road, facing (B) Subject si{e under post-construction conditions, from south side of Main Road~ facing north. (C) South side of Main Road, from proposed access drive, facing sm~tra. View Point 1-3.: Streetscape under post-construction conditions along Main Road~ proximate to the proposed access drive. 3 Photographl~mnlations Proposed Southwold Manor (D) North side of Main Road, west of the subject site, under existing coraditior*s. (E) North side of Main Road, west of the subject site, under post-construction conditions. (F) South side of Main Road, east of the subject site. View Point 1-3: Streetscape under post-consm~cfion conditions along Main Road. 4 Photograph~imulations Proposed Southwold Manor (G) North side of Mait~ Road, east of the subject site, under existing conditions (H) North side of Mai~ Road, east of the subject site, under post-eonstr~ct~on conditions. (i) South side of Main Road, west of the subject site. View Point 1-3: Streetscape under post-consm~ction conditions along Main Road. Photograp ations Proposed Southwold Manor View Point 2-1: Existing conditions, from south side of Main Road, approximately 450 feet west of the subject site, facing east. 6 Photogra[ alations Proposed Southwold Manor View Point 2-2: Post-construction conditlons~ from south side of Main Road~ approximately 450 feet west of the subject slte~ facing east. 7 Photographi~mulations Proposed Southwold Manor View Point 3-1: Existing conditions, from south side of Main Road, approximately 250 feet west of the subject site, facing east. Photograph ~]~!~mulatlons Proposed Southwold Manor View Point 3-2: Post-construction conditions, from south side of Main Road, approximately 250 feet west of the subject site, facing east. 9 Photograph ~l~mulations Proposed Southwoid Manor View Point 4-1: Existing conditions~ from south side of Main Road, approximately 375 feet east of the subject site, facing west. 10 Photograph~l~mulations Proposed Southwold Manor View Point 4-2: Post-construction conditions, from south side of Main Road, approximately 375 feet east of the subject site~ facing west. 11 Pho~ographi~mu[ations Proposed Southwold Manor View Point 5-1: Existing conditions, from south side of Main Road~ approximately 275 feet east of the subject prope~y, facing west. 12 Photograph ~l~imulation s Proposed Southwolld Manor View Point 5-2: Post-construction conditions, from south side of Main Road, approximately 275 feet east of the subject site, facing west. 13 Appendix F FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. A STAGE 1 ARCI:I~OLOGICAL SURVEY for the Proposed SOUTHWOLD MANOR SOUTHOLD, TOW~N of SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGISTS: David J. Bernstein, Ph.D. Allison J. Manfra The Institute for Long Island Archaeology Department of Anthropology State University of New York at Stony Brook Stony Brook, New York 11794-4364 August 2008 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY SHPO Project Review Number Involved State arid Federal Agencies Phase of Survey Location Survey Area USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle Map Archaeological Survey Overview Results of Arckaeological Survey Report Authors Date of Report N/A N/A Stage 1; reconnaissance survey. Location: #56655 Main Road, Southold, Town of Southold Minor Civil Division: 10310 County: Suffolk Number of Acres Surveyed: approximately 6.75 acres (2.7 hectares) Southold, New York (1956) Number and Interval of Shovel Test Pits: 114 shovel test pits dug at 7.5 meter (25 foot) and 15 meter (49 foot) intervals Number and Size of Units: N/A Width of Plowed Strips: N/A Surface Survey Transect Imerval: N/A Number and Names of Prehistoric Sites Identified: none Number and Names of Historic Sites Identified: one, Alber[son House site Number and Names of Sites Recommended for Phase LUAvoidance: one, Alberrson House site David J. Bernstein, Ph.D. Allison J. Manfra Institute for Long Island Archaeology State University of New York at Stony Brook August 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY LIST OF FIGURES, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND TABLES ............................................. iv INTRODUCTION ARCFLAEOLOGICA~ LITERATURE SEARCH AND SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT .................... 4 Project Description .................................................................. 4 Background Research ........................................................... 4 Environmental Conditions ..................................................... 4 Site File Search Historic Maps ................................................................ 9 Sensitivity Assessment ............................................................. 14 Prehistoric Context ........................................................... 14 Historic Context .......................................................... 14 Disturbance ...................................................................... 15 Testing Recommendations ........................................................... 15 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ................................................ 16 Field Methodology ................................................................... 16 Surface Survey . ................................................................... 16 Subsurface Testing ............................................................ 16 Laboratory Methods ................................................................. 16 Results CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 18 REFERENCES. APPENDICES ......................................................................... 21 Appendix A: Shovel Test Pit Excavation and Artifact Inventory .............................. 21 Appendix B: New York State Archaeological Site Inventory Form ............................. 32 Appendix C: New York State Buildkng-Structure Inventory Form .............................. 35 iii Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Fi~m~re 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Photograph 1. Photograph 2. Photograph 3. Photograph 4. 'Fable 1. Table 2. LIST OF FIGURES, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND TABLES Map of Long Island showing the location of the project area ............................ 1 '1956 USGS topographic map, Southold, New York, 7.5 minute series showing the location of the project area .................................................... 2 Archaeological testing for the proposed Southwold Manor .............................. 3 1975 Suffolk County soil map showing the locatinn of the project area .................... 5 1797 Moore Sur~ey of the Town of Southold ............................. I0 t858 Chace Mat2 of Suffolk County ............................................... 11 1873 Beers Atlas of Long ]sland ................................................. 12 I904 USGS topographic map of Southold, New Fork ................................. 13 Looking north at the Lester Albertson House, a pre-1858 house in the southern portion of the project area ................................................................. 6 Ornamental plantings surround the garage and sheds in the southern portion of the parcel. The gravel driveway ~s shown east of the structures. View is northwest ................... 6 Field crew member excavating shovel test pit in the southern portion of the project area, within the boundaries o£the Albert.sun House historic site .......................... 7 Looking north at excavation of the shovel test pit in overgrown agriculture fields in the northwest portion of the parcel ................................................. 7 Project area soils ............................................................ 5 Known archaeological sites within 1.6 kilometers (one mile) of the project area ............. 8 IhNTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a Stage I archaeological survey for the proposed Southwold Manor in Southold, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York (Minor Civil Division 10310; Figures 1 and 2). The survey was conducted by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in July 2008. All artifacts, field data and photo~aphs generated by this survey are curated at the Institute for Long Island Archaeology. Standing structures were not evaluated as part of this survey. The purpose of this study is to determine if the proposed development will impact archaeological remains of prehistoric and/or historic age. This required archival research and an archaeological survey with subsurface tasting. The study was performed in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collecttons issued by the New York Archaeological Council (1995) and the Phase 1 Archaeological Report Format Requirements issued by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (2005). Figure 1. Map of Long Island showing the location of the project area. Figure 2. 1956 USGS topographic map, Southold, New York, 7.5 minute series (scale 1:24,000) showing the location of the project area. ARCHAEOLOGICAL LITERATURE SEARCH AND SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT Project Descript!on The project area is located at #56655 Main Road in the hamlet of Southold in eastern Suffolk County (Figures 1 and 2). The property is approximately 6~75 acres (2.7 hectares), and includes a pre-1858 house (the Lester Albertson House) with outbuildings (Figures 2 and 3; Photogaphs I-4). Under the proposed work scope, eight residential units, a pool, an mnenities building, a main driveway, parking areas, and associated utilities will be constructed on the property (Figure 3). No development is proposed immediately adjacent to the pre-1858 house, thus this portion of the property was excluded from subsurface testing. The house was not evaluated as part of this survey, but it has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation in 1996 (OPP, J-IT') (94PR2574; Appendix C). Background Research Environmental Setting. The project area is located on the North Fork of eastern Long Island (Figures 1 and 2). It is situated on the glacial outwash plain just south of the roiling Nlls of a recessional moraine, a geological feature created over 15,000 years ago by meltwater runoff from the Wisconsin ice sheet (Sirkin t 995). Topography is gently sloping, with an average elevation of 9 meters (30 feet) above mean sea level. Town Creek~ located roughly 457 meters (1500 feet) to the southwest, is the nearest body of water. Soils in the project area are Haven loam (0-2% slope) (Figure 4). The Haven soil series consists of deep, well-drained, medium textured soils with low natural fertility (Warner et al. 1975:71). In areas where plowing has occurred, the surface and upper subsoil horizons have been mixed, forming a homogeneous layer of medium brown sandy loam called the plow zone. A pre-1858 house (Photograph 1) and outbuildings (Photograph 2) are standing in the southern portion of the property (Figmre 3). Vegetation around these structures consists of ornamental plantings, mature deciduous trees, and lawn (Photo~aphs t-3). In the northern portion of the project area, former agricultural fields are covered with dense volunteer vegetation including young deciduous trees, wild rose, vines (virginia creeper, poison ivy, wild grape, cat briar) and tall grasses (Photo~aph 4). Disturbances appear to be linfited to areas near the standing structures and along Main Road (Photograph 2; Figure 3). 4 Table 1. Project area soils. Havenl°am A0/Al:(0-3in) ]dkgb lm 10-2 [weI1B3:B2:BI: (19-28 (i0-19 (3-10 in)in) in) yb ob dk Un lmlm lm w/gv Figure 4. 1975 Suffolk County soil map showing the location of the project area (Warner et al. 1975:Sheets 9 and 5). Photograph 1. Looking north at the Lester Alberison House, a pre- 18 5 8 house in the southern portion of the project Photoinaph 2. Ornamental plantings surround the garage and sheds in the southern portion of the parcel. Tt}e gravel driveway is shown east of the smicmres. View is northwest. Photograph 3. Field crew member excavatLag shovel test pit in the southern portion of the project area, within the boundaries of the Albertson House historic site. Pboto~aph 4. Looking north at excavation of the shovel test pit in overgrown agriculture fields in the northwest portion of the parcel. Site File Search. The files of the New York State Museum (NYSM), the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRJq~), Suffolk Count), Archaeological Association (SCAA), and the Institute for Long Island Archaeology (ILIA) document 11 known prehistoric sites and one historic period archaeological site within 1.6 kilometers (one mile) of the project area (Table I). The Southold Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (96NR01062), consists orS0 contributing buildings, sites, and objects located on Main Road approximately 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) west of the project area. As mentioned above, the Lester Albertson House, standing in the southern portion of the pro~ect area, has been determined to be individually eligible for listing on the National Register o£Historic Places by OPRHP (94PK2574) (Appendix C). Table 2. Known archaeological sites within 1.6 kilometers (one mile) of the project area. Site Identifier Site Name Age/Cultural Comments Affiliation NYSM 700, Beixedon prehistoric- Late Shell midden with triangular projectile Al0310.000249, Woodland points, pottery, and fire pit with burial. SCAA 727 NYSM 701,702, prehistoric Shell midden sites. and 703 NYSM 4883 ACP SUFK-14 prehistoric Burial with pottery (Parker 1920). NYSM 4884 ACP SUFK-15 prehistoric Village site (Parker 1920). NYSM 7885 prehistoric- Late Projectile points recovered from surface ArchaicfPransitional and plow zone. NYSM 7886 prehistoric Projectile points and burials. NYSM 10880, Grace Lewis Estate prehistoric : Bifaces, debitage, and pottery (Barber A103 ] 0.001293 1999). Al0310.000282 Hippodrome Creek prehistoric Orient £mds. Al0310.000246, Founders Landing prehistoric Burials. SCAA 724 A10310.000009 Southold historic Late seventeenth century meeting house. Meetinghouse Historic Maps. Trends in development and land use pal~ems in Southold can be discerned through a study of late eighteenth through early twentieth century maps (Figures 5-l 0). The 1797 Moore Map of the Town of Southold (Figure 5) depicts the approximate route of Main Road (New York State Route 25) through the Town of Southold, and early settlement is indicated along its path. The historic nucleus of Southold village is shown on Main Road west of the ~outhwold Manor property. No structures are shown within or adjacent to the project area, but it is possible that not every building along Main Road between village centers is illustrated on the 1797 map. An increase in settlement is shown throughout the Town and hamlet of Southold on the 1858 Chace Map of Suffolk County (Figure 6). A linear settlement pattern is shown along Main Road. The project area, north of Main Road, appears to be part of the landholdings of William Albert. son. One structure is depicted in the southern portion of the property along Main Road on the 1858 map. A similar settlement pattern is shown on the 1873 Beers Atlas of Long Island (Figure 7). Here, one structure is present in the southern portion of the property along Main Road. The 1873 inset map of Southold identifies the house as belonging to William Albertson. While the 1904 USGS topographic map (Figure 8) does not indicate land ownership, it does provide information about natural features and general use of the land. This map depicts the project area between Main Road and the Long Island Railroad. The Alberston house is shown in the southern portion of the parce}. By the time of the 1909 Hyde Atlax of Suffolk County (not shown) the house belonged to S. Lester Albertson. In summary, the survey o£historic maps indicates that the extant house at #56655 Main Road pre-dates 1858 and was occupied by the Albertson family in the nineteenth century. A building-structure inventory form for the house, identified as the Lester Alberrson House, is on file with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Prese~wation (94PR2574; Appendix C). 9 Figure 5. 1797 Moore Survey of the Town of Southold. Although the Albertson family settled in the area by the late eighteenth century, no buildings are shown near the project area. 10 Figure 6. 1858 Chace Map of Suffolk County. One structure, owned by Will/am Albertson, is shown in the southern portion of the project area. ]1 Fig'are 7. 1873 Beers Arias of Long Island showing the location of the project area in Southold. 12 FigureS. 1904 USGS topo~raphic map of Shelter lsland, New¥ork(i5minuteseries). The extant AlbetXson house is [Ilustrated within the southern pot[ion of the project area. 13 Little changed in the lifeways of the English colonists of Suffolk County until the American Revolution. Early in the conflict Long lsland am-acted British attention because of the island's proximity to the major port of New York Harbor, and also to Connecticut and Rhode Island. In addition, Long Island was used as a major resource for provisioning British troops, aud the local agrarian economy war disrupted as the British stripped the region of food, timber, and ~erd animals (Luke and Venables I976). hndustry and water-borne trade were interrupted with British occupation of the Town of Southold, but life gradually returned to the earlier pattern after 1781. Following the Revolution and into the mid-nineteenth century, the settlement of the North Fork proceeded slowly and was concentrated along main thoroughfares such as Main Road and Middle Road. The raikoad reached the North Fork in 1844, when the Long Island Rail Road line between Brooklyn and Greenport was completed. During the 1860s, raikoad service was interrupted by financial difficukies and the Civil War, but regular service was resumed in the 1870s (Bayles 1874). The mi[road provided an efficient means of transporting bulk cargoes such as agricultural produce, and thus heralded the demise of coast,al trading and wooden shipbuilding in eastern Long Island. New York City-bound trains originating in the Town of Southotd were loaded daily with crates and burrels of vegetables during harvest season (Ziel and Foster 1965:167). The railroad also carried a stream of summer visitom to the region. The shoreline communities of eastern Suffolk County flourished with seasonal activity, and hotels and boarding houses were established to meet the needs of summer guests~ Despite the influx of summer tums'm, the Town of Southold remained agriculturally based and relatively isolated throughout the nineteenth century. The farmsteads that lined Middle Road produced large quantities of potatoes, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, strawberries, cranberries, dairy products, and eggs. The nature of the local agricultural economy changed in 1980 when the first of a number of vineyards was established. Since then, more vineyards, garden nurseries, orchards, and sod farms have replaced many vegetable farms (Murphy 1990). On the 1858 Chace Map of Suffolk County (Figure 6), the extant house is shown as occupied by William Albertson. Federal census data indicates that the Albertson family settled in Southold by the late eighteenth century, and the house was occupied by the Alberston family into the early twentieth century. Bared on the results of the site file search and the historic map overview, the project area has a high sensihvity for late eighteenth through early twentieth century Euro-American archaeological sites. Disturbance As mentioned above, a few sections of the project area have been disturbed by cutting, filling, grading, and other ear[h~moving activities, especially along Main Road and around the outbuildings north of the Albertson House (Figure 3). Disturbed arear have a very low potential for the presence of intact archaeological deposits. Testing Recommendations It is recommended that nearly the entire project asea be subject to a surface survey and subsurface testing (Figure 3). In general, subsurface testing should consist of the excavation of shovel test pits (STPs) at 15 meter (49 foot) intervals to arcertain if archaeological remains are present beneath the ground surface. Areas of high sensitivity for archaeological remains (north of the pre-1858 Albertson House in the area of the proposed parking lot) should be tested with a 7.5 meter (25 fool) interval. No testing is required for areas imanediately adjacent to (east and west o0 the house, as no development is proposed for this location (Figure 3). 15 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS Field Methodology A two p'4ase survey design was employed to search for archaeological remains in the project area. Similar survey designs, used in other areas of Long Island, have proven successful in detecting prehistoric and historic sites (Bemstein et al. 1999; Lighffunt 1986). The initial phase of the survey involved a surface reconnaissance and inspection intended to locate large and easily visible remains. The second phase entailed subsurface testing. Surface Survey The entke project area was walked over in July 2008, with special attention given to examining exposed soil for artifacts or other surface manifestations of past activity. Vegetation patterns and topographic features which might provide insight into early land use were also noted. Ground surface visibility is poor in most of the project area due to dense vegetation in the overgrown fields, but fair in the grass covered areas to the south. No material other than recent debris (i.e., less than ten years old) was encountered during the surface survey. Subsurface Tasting The second phase of the field survey consisted of the excavation of shovel test pits (STPs) designed to detect the presence o£ archaeological remains buried beneath the ground surface. A mapping datum was established at the northwest comer of the garage (N0/E0), and all of the test units are designated by metric grid coordinates relative to this point (Figure 3; AppendLx A). The project area was tested using a 15 meter (49 foot) grid, while close-interval resting (7.5 meters [25 feet] between shovel test pits) was employed in areas ofpropnsed development north and west of the Albertson House (Figure 3). A total of 114 shovel test pits was excavated. Shovel test pits have a diameter of approximately 40 centimeters (16 inches), and most of the test pits were dug into the B2 subsoil, typically to 60 centimeters (24 inches) below the modere ground surface~ The soil from each test urdt was screened through six mill/meter (1/4 inch) wh-e mesh to ensure the identification and recovery of artifacts. Laboratory Methods In the laboratory, ali recovered materials were cleaned, cataloged, and recorded in a computerized database. All artifacts, field notes, photographs, and other records of the archaeological investigations are curated at the h~stitute for Long Island Archaanlogy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Historic period artifacts were identified and classified using a number of standard manuals (e.g., Noel Hume 1970). Shellfish remains found during the survey are of uncertain age, but are likely relatively recent. Coal, slag, brick, and other non-diagnostic architectural materials were counted in the field, but not collected. Most historic period artifacts were cataloged by material, ware type or color, and where possible, by function. In general, glass artifacts were identified as bottle and/or jar fragments and window glass. The terms curved and flat were used for glass shards where the original function could not be determined. Square cut nails with machine stamped (fiat) heads date from the mid-1810s until they were largely replaced by modem wire nails in the mid-1880s (Nelson 1968). Ceramic food preparation and serving pieces were cataloged by ware type: creamware (1770-1820), pearlware (1780-1840), whiteware (1820-1900+), lead-glazed redware (1800-1910), Jackfield (1740-1780), 16 Whieldon ware (1740-I770), re£med red stoneware (1690q772), salt glazed stoneware/scratch blue (1740-1775), yellow ware (1830-1940), and Rockingham ware (1845-1900) (Turano 19!)4:338-34¢). Utilitarian redwares found at the Albertson House site are typically associated with food preparation (kitchen activities), while the more refined wares (creamware, peartware, whiteware, engine-turned red stoaeware, Jackfield, Whieldon ware, white salt-glazed stoneware, and black basalt) are used for serving and dining. Results. The specific data recorded in the field for each shovel test pit, including information on soil stratigraphy and atlifacts, are presented in Appendix A. The general characteristics of the soils found in the parcel are discussed in the Environmental Setting section, above, and shovel tests exposed sequences consistent with Haven loam. The surface layer found in most of the shovel test pits (referred to in Appendix A as the A0/AI horizon) consists of pa21ially decomposed organic matter and dark brown loam or sandy loam, and extends to an average of three centimeters (1.2 inches) below the ground surface. The majority of shovel tests exposed a plow zone beneath the topsoil. The plow zone is typically medium brown sandy loam, extending to a depth of 31 centimeters (12.3 inches). Artifact-bearing soils in the area north and west of the historic house were identified as topsoil (A horizon), medium brown or light brown sand of varying thickness, to differentiate them from plowed or other disturbances. The B2 subsoil horizon consists of orange brown sand or sandy loam, sometimes with pebbles, gravel, and/or cobbles. The B3 horizon of light yellow brown sand with pebbles was reached in two shovel tests. Soils disturbed by processes other than plowing were exposed in six of the 114 shovel test pits (Appendix A). No prehistoric artifacts, and no prehistoric or historic period features were encountered during shovel testing. One historic period archaeological site, the Albertson House site, was identified during the survey. This site is associated with the National Register eligible Albertsan House. The Albertson House site is located in the southern portion of the project area, adjacent to the extant pre- 1858 house (Figure 3). As discussed in the Historic Maps and Historic Context sections above, the house is illuslrated on maps dating fi-om the mid- to late nineteenth century. Historic maps, Federal Census data, and site file information indicates that the Albertson family settled in Southold by the late eighteenth century, and lived in the extant house in the nineteenth century. It is possible that the Albert. son occupation of the project area extends back into the eighteenth century. The archaeological site associated with the standing Albertson House is located in the southern half of the project area. Approximately 61 shovel test pits were dug in this area. Several shovel tests dug in the vicinity of the house and outbuildings exposed an artifact-rich topsoil layer (A horizon). Material found at the Albertson House site includes household refuse (bottle glass, lamp glass, a glass ink bottle, and ceramics for food preparation and serving [creamware, lead-glazed redware, peaslware, whiteware, Jackfield, Whieldon ware, black basalt, fine red stoneware, ironstone, yellow ware, Rocldngham ware, non-diagnostic earthenware, milk glass, and stoneware]), architectural debris (window glass, brick, mortar, and square cut nails), personal items (an l 818 coronet large cent and clay smoking pipe fragments), and other activities (a horse shoe) (Appendix A). Shovel testing indicats that the site consists of a high density of artifacts in the southernmost portion of the propertT~ (approximately 50 by 50 meters [164 by 164 feet] adjacent to the house and outbuildings) and an area of moderate artifact density (roughly the soutbern half of the at,miculturaI fields, 85 by 100 meters [279 by 328 feet]) (Figure 3). Based on the density and diversity of artifacts associated with the extant historic building, the research potential of the Albertson House site appears to be good and additional archaeological investigation is recorrm~ended. In addition, a light density of Euro-American artifacts was recovered in the plow zone throughout the remainder of the property. This material, which includes household refuse (bottle glass, lamp glass, ceramics for food preparation and serving [creamware, redware, pearlware, whiteware, porcelain, and scratch blue stoneware], and clay smoking pipe fi-agments) and architectural debris (window glass, brick, mortar, and square cut nails), dates to the eighteenth through the late nineteenth centuries, and is likely associated with the Albertson family occupation of the property (Appendix A). 17 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Archival research and archaeological investigation for the proposed Southwold Manor in the Town of Southold indicate that the project area witnessed substantial human activity in the historic period. One archaeological sit~, the Albertson House site, was identified during the archaeological survey. The house was occupied in the nineteenth century by the Albertson family, who settled in Southold by the late eighteenth century. The house was previously determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places by OPRI~ (94PR2574). Based on the results of the archaeological survey, the archaeological site associated with the Albertson House appears to have research potential. A Stage 2 archaeological evaluation is recommended to evaluate the eligibility of the Albertson House archaeological site for the National Register of Historic Places. According to New York State guidelines, the purpose of a Stage 2 evaluation is to obtain information on site integrity (condition and degree of disturbance), boundaries, structure, function, and cultural/historical context sufficient to evaluate its potential for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. Typically, this involves the excavation of a series of closely-spaced shovel tests to precisely de£me the extent and limits of the site, and a number of larger units (usually 1 x 1 meter) to ascertain its contents and integrity. Based on the Stage 1 subsurface testing results the site consists ufa high artifact density area (approximately 50 by 50 meters around the house and outbuildings) and an area of moderate artifact density (the southern half of the former agricultural field, roughly 85 by 100 meters). It is recommended that 10-20 shovel test pits and seven or eight one meter square units be dug mostly in the high-density area to examine the Albertson House site. 18 REFERENCES Bailey, Paul 1949 Long Island: A History of Two Great Counties Nassau and Suffolk. Lewis Historical Publications, New York. Barber, Linda E. 1999 A Cultaral Resources Survey Report, PIN 0041.99.121, Addendum to New York State Route 25 from Highland Road, Cutchogue to Sixth Street, Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Institate for Long Island Archaeology, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Bayles, Richard M. 1874 Historical and Descriptive Sketches of Suffolk County. Published by the author, Port Jefferson, New York. Bemstein, David J., Lynne Harvey-Cantone, Michael J. Lenardi, and Daria Merwin 1996 Prehistoric Use of Wetland Environments: A Case Study from the Interior of Long Island, New York. Northeast Anthropology 51:113-130. Bemstein, David J., Michael J. Lenardi, and Daria Merwin 1999 Stage lB Archaeological Survey of the Kycia Property, Head of the Harbor, Town of Smithtown, Suffolk County, New York. Institute for Long Island Archaeology, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Booth, Antonia 1990 A Brief Account of Southold's History. In $outhold Town 350th Anniversary, 1640-!990, edited by Peggy Murphy. 350th Anniversary Executive Committee, Southold, New York. Lighffoot, Kent G. 1986 Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Implementing Subsurface Testing Programs. American Antiquity 51:484-504. Luke, M It. and R. W. Venables 1976 Long Island in the American Revolution. New York State American Revolution Bicentermial Commission, Albany. Munsell, William W. 1882 History of Suffolk County, New York 1683-1852. W. W. Munsell and Company, New York. Murphy, Peggy 1990 Farming: Southold's Ever Changing Heritage. in $outhold Town 350th Anniversary, 1640-]990, edited by Peggy Murphy. 350th Anniversary Executive Committee, Southold, New York. Nelson, Lee H. 1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. American Association for State and Local History, Technical Leaflet #48, Nashville. NoEl Hume, Ivor 1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Parker, Arthur C. 1920 The Archeological History of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin Numbers 237 and 238. State University of New York, Albany. I9 Salwen, Bert 1978 Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period. In Handbook of 2Vorth American Indian& Volume 15, edited by Brace Trigger, pp. t60-176. Smithsonian Institution, Washin~on D.C. S [rkin, Les 1995 Eastern Long island Geology with Field Tri~s. The Book mad Tackle Shop, Watch Hill, Rhode Island. Thompson, Benjamin F. 1839 A History of Long Island, Containing an Account of the Discovery and Settlement. E. French, New York. Warner, J. W. Jr., W. E. Harma, R. J. Landry, J. P. Wulforst, J. A. Neely, R. L. Holmes and C. E. Rice 1975 SoilSurveyofSuffolkCounly, NewYork. U.S. Deparmaent of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Wast~in~oa, D.C. Ziel, Ran and George H. Foster 1965 Steel Rails to the Sunrise. Hawthorne Books, New York. List of Maps Beers, F. W. 1873 Atlas of Long Island, New York. F. W. Beers, Comstock and Cline, New York. Chace, J. 1858 Map of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. J. Duglass, Philadelphia. Hyde, E. Belcher 1909 Atlas of Suffolk County, Long Island: Sound Shore, Volume 2. Hyde & Co., New York. Moore, T 1797 Survey of the Town of Southold. Copy on rile, Map Library, State University o£New York at Stony Brook. United States Geological Survey 1904 Shelter Island, New York. 15 minute series. United States Geological Survey, Washington, D. C. 1956 Southold, New York. 7.5 minute series. Deparanent of the Interior, Washington, DC. 20 APPENDIX A: SHOVEL TEST PIT EXCAVATION AND ARTIFACT INVENTORY Basic descriptive data from the archaeological investigation for the proposed Southwold Manor, are presented in the following appendix. Excavation, stratigraphic, and artifactual information are included. Excavation information includes shovel test pit (STP) coordinates relative to mapping datum, level number, s~-atigraphic designation (stratum), and sta~.ing (SD) and ending (ED) depths (in centimeters) for each excavated level. An inventory of the artifacts recovered during the project is found in the final column. Unless indicated otherwise, all glass and ceramic fragments are undecorated vessel body portions. The following abbreviations are used in the appendix: A0/Al-surface layer A-topsoil B2-1ower subsoil B3-upper subsoil dist-disturbed pz~plow zone Soils bn-brovm dk-dark cb-cobbles gv-gmvel lin-loam(y) It-light md-medium mo-mottled ob-orange brown pb-pebbles sd-sand(y) yb-yellow brown vy-very Cultural Material frag(s)-fragment(s) unid-unidentified 21 APPENDIX A: SHOVEL TEST PIT EXCAVATION AND ARTIFACT INVENTORY STP SD ED Stratum Soils Cultural Material N195F',Vg0 ' 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn lm 3 32 pz md bn st lm 1 blue bottle glass, I coal 32 61 B2 ob st tm N195/W75 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn Lm 3 29 pz md bn sd tm 29 6I B2 ob sd tm Nt 95/W60 0 2 A0/AI dk bn [tn 2 28 pz md bn st lm 28 60 B2 ob sd Lm NI95/W45 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn lm 3 29 pz md bn sd lm 1 blue printed whiteware 29 60 B2 ob sd Lm NI95/W30 0 2 A0/AI dk bn im 2 33 pz md bn st tm 33 60 B2 ob st lm N180/wg0 0 7 A0/A1 dkbn sd lm 7 29 pz md bn sd tm 29 63 B2 ob sd lm N180/W75 0 7 A0/A1 dk bn sd tm 7 29 pz md bn sd lm I unid nail 29 60 B2 ob sd Em N 180/W60 0 4 A0/A 1 dk bn sd tm 4 33 pz md bn sd lm 33 55 B2 ob sd tm 55 62 B3 yb sd lm N180/W45 0 5 A0/A1 dk bn sd tm 5 24 pz md bn sd tm 24 60 B2 ob sd lm N180/W30 0 4 A0/A1 dk bn lm 4 33 pz md bn sd lm 33 60 B2 ob sd lm N180/W15 0 8 dist mo It bn sd lm 8 32 dist It bn sd hn 32 60 B2 ob sd lm N165/wg0 0 4 A0/AI dkbn sd lm 4 29 pz md bn sd 29 60 B2 ob sd N 165/W75 0 4 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 4 36 pz md bn sd 36 60 B2 ob sd 60 62 B3 yb sd w/pb I pearlware, I unid nail, 1 coal, i slag I aqua curved glass, I green painted creamware 1 redware rim, I plastic, 8 brick, 17 coal 1 aqua curved glass, 2 brick, 3 coal 22 STP SD ED S~-atum Soils Cultural Material N165/W60 0 5 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 5 31 pz md bn sd 2 aqua window glass, 1 redware 31 60 B2 ob sd N165/W45 0 5 A0/AI dk bn sd lm 5 30 pz md bn sd 30 60 B2 ob sd N165/W30 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 3 31 pz md bn sd 31 60 B2 ob sd w/pb N165/Wi5 0 5 A0/A 1 dk bn sd Im 5 36 pz md bn sd 36 60 B2 ob sd w/pb NI65/E0 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn lm 3 32 pz md bn sd [tn 32 60 B2 ob sd Lm NI50/W90 0 4 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 4 33 pz md bn sd lm 3 brick, 2 coal, 1 slag w/pb&gv 33 60 B2 ob sd lin N150/W75 0 4 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 4 28 pz md bn sd lm 1 creamware, 4 coal 28 60 B2 ob sd Im N150/W60 0 4 A0/A1 c[k bn sd lm 4 30 pz md bn sd lm 1 aqua window glass, 6 coal w/pb&gv 30 61 B2 ob sd w/pb N150/W45 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn lm 3 39 pz md bn sd Im 3 coal 39 64 B2 ob sd lm w/pb N150/W30 0 4 A0/A1 dk bn sd kn 4 28 pz md bn sd 28 60 B2 ob sd w/pb N150/W15 0 2 A0/AI dk bn Im 2 31 pz md bn sd lm 31 60 B2 ob sd lm N 150/E0 0 4 A0/A1 dk bn lm 4 32 pz md sd lm 32 60 B2 ob sd lm Nt35/W90 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn Im 3 29 pz md bn sd kn 29 60 B2 ob sd Im I blue printed pearlware, I porcelain 1 aqua cttrved glass, I creamware, 1 unid nail, 14 brick, 2 unid metal, 10 coal I aqua window glass, 1 black glazed redware, 1 redware, 8 coal I aqua window glass, 2 green curved glass, 2 whiteware, 5 brick, 24 coal 1 lead-glazed redware, 2 brick, 4 coal 23 STP SD ED Stratum Soiis Cultural Material N135/W75 0 2 A0/AI dk bn sd lm 2 28 pz md bn sd lm 2 coal 28 60 B2 ob sd lm N135/W60 0 3 A0/A1 dkbn sd lm 3 28 pz md bn sd lm 3 brick, I coal 28 60 B2 ob sd lm N135&,V45 0 4 A0/AI dk bn sd lm 4 48 pz md bn sd 48 60 B2 ob sd N135/W30 0 6 A0/A1 dk bn sd im 6 37 pz md bn sd I aqua window glass 37 60 B2 ob st sd N135/W15 0 4 A0/AI dkbn sd lm 4 36 pz md bn sd 1 lead-glazed redware, 3 brick 36 60 B2 ob sd N135/E0 0 4 A0/AI dk bn sd lm 4 60 dist dk bn st sd 1 clear lamp glass NI20/wg0 0 I0 A0/A] dk bn sd lm 10 29 pz md bn sd Im 1 whiteware, 1 coal 29 60 B2 ob sd lm NI20/W75 0 6 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 6 27 pz md bn sd lm 2 brick 2 coal 27 60 B2 ob sd [m N 120/W60 0 26 pz md bn sd lm 1 aqua window glass, 2 coal 26 60 B2 ob sd lm N120/W45 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn sd tm 3 32 pz md bn sd lm 4 coal 32 60 B2 ob sd lm N120/W30 0 3 dist It bn sd lm 3 6 bur dk bn sd lm A0/A1 6 36 dist It bn sd lm NI20/WI5 N 120rE0 NI05DV90 36 60 B2 ob sd lm 0 2 A0/A 1 dk bn sd lm 2 35 dist It bn sd lm 35 60 B2 ob sd lm 0 1 A0/A 1 dk bn sd lm 1 30 pz md bn sd lm 30 60 B2 ob sd lm 0 I A0/A1 dkbn sd lm 1 28 pz md bn sd lm w/pb&cb 28 60 B2 ob sd Im 2 aqua window glass, I blue printed whiteware, 1 scratch blue stoneware, 6 coal I brick, 4 coal I brick, 5 coal plastic 2 black glazed redware, 1 brick, 5 coal 24 STP SD ED S~'amm Soils Cultural Material N105/W75 0 5 A0/AI dk bn lm 5 30 pz md bn sd lm 2 creamware, 2 coal 30 60 B2 ob sd lm N105/W60 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn lm 3 30 pz md bn sd lm 30 60 B2 ob sd lm N105/W45 0 2 A0/A1 dk bn sd tm 2 32 pz md bn sd ira 4 coal 32 60 B2 ob sd hn N105/W30 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn lm 3 36 pz md bn st lm 36 62 B2 ob st lm N105/W15 0 4 A0/A1 dk bn lm 4 30 pz md bn st Im 30 60 B2 ob st lm N105/E0 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn st lm 3 29 pz md bn st lm 29 60 B2 ob st lm N90/wg0 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn sd im 3 41 dist mo md bn sd lm w/pb&gv 41 60 B2 ob sd lm N90/W75 0 6 A0/A1 dk bn sd tm 6 30 pz md bn sd Im 30 60 B2 ob sd lm Ng0/w60 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn Im 3 28 pz md bn sd hn 28 60 B2 ob sd ira Ng0/W45 0 3 A0/AI dk bn sd lm 3 37 pz md bn sd lm 37 6O Ng0/w30 0 29 29 60 N90/W15 0 27 27 60 Ng0/E0 0 2 2 31 31 62 N75/Wg0 0 3 3 32 B2 pz B2 pz B2 A0/A 1 pz B2 A 0/A 1 dist N75/W75 32 60 B2 0 9 A0/A1 9 30 pz 30 60 B2 ob sd hn md bn sd lm ob sd lm md bn sd lm ob sd lm dkbn lm md bn st lm ob st lm dkbn sdlm mo md bn sd lm w/pb ob sd lm dk bn sd lm md bn sd Ira ob sd lm 1 white salt-glazed stoneware, I brick, 5 coal 1 plastic 1 green edge decorated creamware, 2 brick, 2 coal, plastic I Jackfield, 3 coal 3 coal I aqua bottle glass, 1 green curved glass, 4 brick, 5 coal I aqua window glass, I brick, 4 coal 10 coal 1 clear bottle glass, 1 pearlware plastic 1 blue painted pearlware, 1 brick, 6 coal, plastic 1 brick 25 STP SD ED Stratum Soils Cultural Material N75/W60 0 6 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 6 29 pz md bn sd lm 29 60 B2 ob sd lm w/pb N75/W45 0 5 A0/A1 dk bn Im 5 29 pz md bn st Lm 29 60 B2 ob st sd N75/W30 0 5 A0/A1 dk bn sd Im 5 31 pz md bn sd 31 60 B2 ob sd N75/WI5 0 5 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 5 30 pz md bn sd 30 60 B2 ob sd N75/E0 0 4 A0/AI dk bn sd lm 4 3 t pz md bn sd 31 60 B2 ob sd N60/W90 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 3 40 dist mo it bn sd kn 40 60 B2 ob sd hn N60Fg¢75 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 3 29 pz md bn sd lm w/pb 29 60 B2 ob sd lm N60/W60 0 1 A0/AI dk bn lm 1 30 pz md bn sd Im 30 60 B2 ob sd lm N60/W45 0 2 A0/AI dk bn sd lm 2 29 pz md bn sd lm w/pb 29 60 B2 ob sd lm w/pb N60/W30 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 3 35 pz md bn sd 35 60 B2 ob st sd N60/WI 5 0 24 pz md bn sd lm 24 60 B2 ob sd Em N60/E0 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 3 26 pz md bn sd lm 26 60 B2 ob sd lm N45/W90 0 1 A0/A1 dk bn lm I 28 pz md bn sd lm 28 60 B2 ob sd lm 1 aqua bottle glass, lengine-turned red stoneware rim, I lead-glazed redware 1 aqua window glass, 1 clear curved glass, 1 creamware, 1 whiteware rim, 1 whiteware 3 brick 2 coal, plastic 1 pearlware, 2 brick, 12 coal, styrofoam 3 plastic 1 clear flat glass, I pearlware rim, 1 pearlware handle, 4 brick, 5 coal, 1 shell 1 aqua window glass, 1 pearlware, 6 brick, 10 coal, I shell 1 whiteware 2 aqua bottle glass, 1 slip decorated redware, 5 coal 4 clear bottle glass, 1 flower pot, 1 glazed redware, 4 coal 26 STP SD ED Stratum Soils Cultural Material N45/W75 0 1 A0/A 1 dk bn sd Im 1 28 pz md bn sd lm N45/~V60 N45/W45 28 60 B2 ob sd [tn · 0 2 A0/AI dk bn sd lm 2 26 pz md bn sd lm 26 60 B2 ob sd lm 0 3 AO/A 1 dk bn lm 3 33 pz md bn sd lm 33 60 B2 ob sd lm N45/W30 0 1 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 1 27 pz md bn sd lm 27 60 B2 ob sd lm N45/WI5 0 2 A0/At dx bn im 2 32 pz md bn st kn 32 61 B2 ob st lm N45/E0 0 2 A0/A1 dX bn sd hn 2 29 pz md bn sd kn 29 60 B2 ob sd lm N30/W90 0 1 A0/A 1 dk bn sd Im 1 35 pz md bn sd Im w/pb 35 60 B2 ob sd lm N30/W75 0 2 A0/A 1 dk bn sd lm 2 34 pz md bn sd lm 34 60 B2 ob sd hn N30/W60 0 1 A0/At dk bn sd Im 1 27 pz md bn sd lm 27 60 B2 ob sd lm N30/W45 0 l A0/A 1 dk bn sd lm I 32 pz md bn sd lm 32 60 B2 ob sd lm N30DV30 0 2 A0/A 1 clk bn sd Im 2 25 pz md bn sd lm 25 60 B2 ob sd lm N3033/15 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 3 29 pz md bn sd lm w/pb N30/E0 29 60 B2 ob sd lrn w/pb 0 3 A0/A1 dxbn sd lm 3 36 pz md bn sd lm w/pb 36 64 B2 ob sd lm w/pb 1 green bottle glass, 1 clear window glass, 1 black basalt, 2 coal 1 clear lamp glass, 3 brick, 2 coal 1 clear bottle glass, 2 aqua window glass, I creamware, 1 pearlware, I whiteware, 9 brick, I mild nail, 32 coal 3 brick, 2 coal 1 aqua window glass, 10 coal, styrofoam 6 coal, I aluminum foil, 1 plastic I black glazed redware, 1 whieldon ware, 2 brick, 1 coal 2 creamware, 5 brick, 1 coal 5 brick, 8 coal 1 aqua bottle glass, 2 brick, 3 coal 1 clear bottle glass, 2 aqua w'mdow glass, 1 creamware, 1 milk glass, 12 coal, 1 slag I aqua window glass, 2 clear curved glass, l creamware, I clay pipe stem (4/64), 1 brick, 11 coal 27 STP SD ED Stratum Soils Cultural Material N15/W90 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 3 34 pz md bn sd lm w/pb 34 60 B2 ob sd lm N15/W75 . 0 2 A0/At dk bn Im 2 48 pz md bn sd lm 48 60 B2 ob sd Im N15/W60 0 2 A0/AI dk bn sd lm 2 12 dist mo md bu sd lm w/pb 12 31 pz md bn sd lm w/pb 31 50 B2 ob sd lm w/pb N 15/W45 0 2 A0/A 1 dk bn sd lm 2 26 pz md bn sd lm 26 60 B2 ob sd lm N15/W30 0 3 A0/AI dk bn lm 3 38 pz md bn sd lm 38 60 B2 ob sd lm 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 3 34 pz md bn sd lm w/pb B2 A0/AI pz N15/W15 N15fE0 N0/W30 N0/W15 S7.5/W37.5 S7.5/W30 34 62 ob sd hn w/pb 0 3 dkbn Im 3 32 md bn sd lm 32 60 B2 ob sd lm 0 2 A0/A 1 dk bn lm 2 34 A md bn st Im 34 60 B2 ob st lm 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn lm 3 39 A md bnst lm 39 61 B2 ob st lm 0 6 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 6 38 A md bn st sd 38 60 B2 ob sd 0 2 A0/A1 dkbn sd lm 2 33 A md bn sd lm 33 60 B2 ob sd lm 1 clear flat glass, plastic I pearlware, 5 brick, I unid nail, 30 coal plastic 1 amber curved glass, 4 brick, 3 coal 3 green wine bottle glass, 1 green bottle glass, 1 redware, 16 brick, 42 coal 1 aqua window glass, 1 pearlware rim, 3 brick, 8 coal 6 coal, plastic 3 clear bottle glass, 2 aqua bottle glass, 6 aqua window glass, 1 clear curved glass, 1 cle~ lamp glass, 10 brick, I unid earthenware, 1 stoneware, 1 square cut nail, 12 unid nail, 308 coal, l shell, 5 plastic 1 aqua bottle glass, I unid nail, 2 brick, 2 coal 4 aqua window glass, 1 green curved glass, 1 whiteware, I unid nail, l metal kettle handle 1 aqua window glass, 1 whiteware, 1 burned earthenware, 2 brick, 2 coal 1 porcelain electrical part, 3 brick, 6 coal 28 STP SD ED Stratum Soils Cultural Material S7.5AV272.5 0 3 A0/A1 dk ba Ira 3 33 A md bn sd lm S7.5/W15 S7.5/W7.5 S7.5/E0 S7.5~7.5 33 60 B2 ob sd lm · 0 4 A0/A 1 dk bnlm 4 37 A md bn sd im 37 65 B2 ob sd lm 0 31 A md bn sd Im 31 60 B2 ob sd fin 0 I A0/A1 dk bnlm 1 38 A it bn sd kn 38 60 B2 ob sd lm 0 2 A0/A1 dk bn Im 2 25 A mo It bn sd lm 25 60 B2 ob sd kn S15/W37.5 0 3 A0/A1 dkbn sd lm 3 36 A mo It bn sd kn w/pb 36 62 B2 ob sd lm S15/W30 0 3 A0/A1 dk bnlm 3 4l A md bn st lm 41 60 B2 ob st lm S15/W22.5 0 2 A0/A1 dkbn lm 2 38 A It bn sd lm S15/W15 S15/W7.5 38 60 B2 ob sd lm 0 2 A0/AI dk bn sd lm 2 40 A md bn sd lm 40 60 B2 ob sd Im 0 3 A0/AI dk bn sd Im 3 36 A mo md bn sd lm w/pb&cb 36 61 B2 ob sd lm 2 plastic, l cigarette tilter 2 aqua window glass, 4 green curved glass, 5 brick, 1 unid nail, 34 coal, 1 shell 2 clear bottle glass, 1 glazed redware, 1 unid nail 1 pearlware, 2 yellow ware, 2 square cut nails w/rose head, 6 coal 5 coal I aqua bottle glass, 4 aqua window glass, 2 burned glass, I milk glass, 3 ironstone rim, 33 konstone, I black glazed redware, 2 utility pipe, 11 brick, 7 square cut nails, 2 wire nails, 31 anid nails, 3 sheet metal, 300 coal, 4 slag 10 coal I clear bottle glass, 1 green botlle glass, 1 clear window glass, I clear curved glass, l redware, 2 architectural tile, 10 brick, 7 square cut nails, 18 maid nails, 1 wire nail, I screw, 1 horseshoe, 1 1818 coronet large cent, 500 coal, 1 slag 3 aqua bottle glass, 1 glazed redware, 4 brick, 4 coal, I slag, I shell 2 clear bottle glass, 3 aqua window glass, 2 whiteware, 8 brick, I tmid nail, 44 coal 1 clear glass bottle finish, 1 ctear bottle glass, 1 aqua glass bottle finish, 10 melted aqua bottle glass, 87 melted amber glass, 2 whiteware, 4 clay pipe bowl and stem (6/64), 8 brick, 1 sheI1 1 charcoal 1 clear lamp glass, 1 tack 29 STP SD ED Stratum Soils Cultural Material S22.5/W}7.5 0 3 A0/AI dk bn sd lm 3 46 A md br~ sd 46 60 B2 ob sd S22.5/W30 ' 0 3 A0/A 1 dk bn sd kn 3 33 A md bn sd Im 33 60 B2 ob sd lm S22.5/W22.5 0 2 A0/A1 dk bn sd Im 2 35 A It bn sd lm w/pb 35 60 B2 ob sd lm w/pb S22.5/W15 0 3 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 3 37 A mo md bn sd lm w/pb&cb S22.5/W7.5 37 60 B2 ob sd kn w/pb 0 2 A0/A1 elk bn lm 2 36 A md bn sd Im 36 60 B2 ob sd lm S30/W37.5 0 5 A0/AI dk bn sd lm 5 48 A md bn sd 48 60 B2 ob sd S30/W30 0 3 A0/AI dk bn lm 3 41 A md bn sd lm 41 66 B2 ob sd hn S30/W22.5 0 I A0/A1 dk bn sd Im I 44 A It bn sd lm S30/W15 S37.5/W37.5 S45/W37.5 44 60 B2 ob sd lm 0 I A0/A1 dkbn sd lm I 22 A md bn sd lm 0 4 A0/AI dkbn sd Im 4 62 A mo md bn sd lm 62 65 B2 ob sd im 0 7 A0/A1 dk bn sd lm 7 58 A md bn st sd 58 62 B2 ob sd 1 aqua bottle glass, 1 amber bottle glass, 1 aqua curved glass, 2 brick, 1 unid nail, 4 shell 3 brick, 6 coal I brick, 5 mortar, 6 coal 1 clear bottle glass, 2 aqua window glass, 2 pearlware, 1 yellow ware, 1 unid earthenware, 12 brick, 31 mortar, 125 coal 1 aqua cone ink bottle, 4 aqua curved glass, 3 whiteware, 4 flower pot, I Rockingham base, 2 square cu~ nails, 2 wire nails, 3 metal bottle cap, 12 brick, 10 unid nails, 427 coal I brick, 4 shelI I aqua bottle base, 1 unid nail 2 clear bottle glass, 1 aqua bottle glass, 2 arnber curved glass, 2 yellow ware, 3 brick, 7 unid nails, I2 coal, 6 charcoal 1 rubber fuse base, 1 metal fastener, 3 brick, 2 coal, concrete, 1 plastic I aqua window glass, 3 black glazed redware, 1 maid nail, I mortar, 12 coal, 1 slag 3 whiteware, 1 square cut nail, I wire nail, 1 unid nail 30 STP SD ED Stratum Soils Cultural Material S52.5/W3T5 0 3 A0/AI dk bn sd lm plastic 3 56 A mo mdbn sd Im 4 pearlware, 1 glazed redware, 2 brick, 1 mortar, 8 coal 56 60 B2 ob sd hn 31 APPENDIX B: NEW YORK STATE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM 32 NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM For Office Use Only-Site Identifier Project Identifier former Albertson property Your Name Allison J. Manila . Dept. of Anthropolokq,, SUNY Stony Brook Stony Brook. New York Zip 11794-4364 Date August 2008 Phone (631) 632-7618 Address Organization (if any) Institete for Long Island Archaeology 1. Site Identifier(s) Albertson House site (#56655 Main Road) 2. County Suffolk One of following: City Township Southold (MCD 10310) Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or Haml t 3. Present Owner Albert and Rite Cohen Address 56655 Main Road Southold, NY Zip 11971 Site Description (check all appropriate categories): Structure/site Superstructure: complete X partia] collapsed__ not evident Foundation: above below X (ground level) not evident Structural subdivisions apparent: Only surface traces visible Buried traces detected List construction materials roe as specific as possible): extant house is wood flame and shingled; archaeological remains include window glass, brick, mortar, and square cut nails Grounds: Under cultivation Sustaining erosion Woodland__ Upland~ Never cultivated Previously cultivated X . Floodplain Pastureland Soil Drainage: excellent_ good X falz poor Slope: flat gentle X moderate__ steep Distance to nearest water from site (Approx.) 457 meters (i 500 feet) Elevation: 3 meters (9 feet) Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if necessary): Sur face-date(s). Aueust 2008 Site Map (Submit with form) see report Collection August 2008 Subsurface-date(s) July 2007 Testing: shovel X corings_ other __ unit size 40cm dia.x60cm deep Excavation: unit size no. of umts Investigator Allison J. Manffa no. of units 114 Manuscript or published report(s) (reference fully): DJ Bernstein and AJ Manila (2008): A Stage I Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Southwold Manor, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Institute for Long Island Archaeology, SUNY Stony Brook. Present repository of materials Institute for Long Island Archaeology. SUNY Stony Brook Site inventory: a. date constructed or occupation period late 18t~ and 19'~ centuries b. previous owners, if known Albertson family (1790 or earlier to early 20~ century) c. modifications, if'known: 10. Site documentation (append additional sheets, if necessary): a. Historic maps D Name Wm Albertson Date 1858 Source Chace Map of Suffolk County. NY Present location of original, if known copy on file, Map Library. SUNY Stony Brook 2) Name Wm Albertson Date 1873 Source Beers Atlas of Long Island, New York Present 1.ocation of original, if known copy on file, Map Library. SUNY Stony Brook b. Representation in existing photography 1) Photo date Where located c. Primary and secondary source documentation (reference fully): d~ Persons with memory of site: List of materinl remains other than those used in construction (be as specific as possible in identifying object and mater/al): household refuse (bottle glass, lamp glass, a glass ink bottle, and ceramics for food preparation and serving [creamware, lead-glazed redware, pearlware, whiteware, Jackfield, Whieldon ware, black basalt, f'me red stoneware, ironstone, yellow ware, Rockingham ware, non-diagnostic earthenware, milk glass, and stoneware]), architectural debris (window glass, brick, mortar, and square cut nails), personal items (an 1818 coronet large cent and clay smoking pipe fragraents), and other activities (a horse shoe) If prehistoric materials are evident, check here and fill out prehistoric site form. __ Map References: Map or maps showing exact location and extent of site must accompany this form and must be identified by source and date. USGS 7.5' Minute Series Quad. Name Southold~ New York (1956) For Office Use Only--UTM Coordinates Photography (optional for environmental impact survey): see report APPENDX C: NEW YORK STATE BUILDING-STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM 35 BUILDING-STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION ALBANY, NEW YORK 151gl474-0479 YOUR NAME'rpcswrl c~ff So~t. hold/SP3JIA FOR OFFICE USE ONLY UNIQUE SITE NO. to;~le, QUAD. SERIES. NEG. NO. _ DATE: N ember 1 86 SD-RSM VIII-8 12. PHOTO:From south west Front (south) and west elevation YOUR ADDRESS:_TOWn Hall, Main Road TELEPHONE: (516) 765-1892 Southold, L.I., N.Y.11971 ORGANIZATION (if any): Southold Town Community Development office IDENTIFICATION I. BUILDING NAME(S):~''h'~°'n ho'~ 2. COUNTY: ~'u'f'Fr~lk TOWN/CITY: ~q~tl~hn']d _VILLAGE:S~ 3. STREET LOCATION:I~a'~F1 Res~ds- Rt311~;.~ 2z~. rlOT'~h s-ldo: n~,aw 'Pm, rn lqwebar Rd. 4. OWNERSHIP: a. public [] b. private [] - ~/ 53 545 5. PRESENT OWNER:. ADDRESS:_ 5'} 545 l¥Iail'l Road 6. USE: Original: Residence Present: 7, ACCESSIBILITY :1'O .PUBLIC:- .Exterior visible from public.road: Yes ~ No [] Interior accessible: Explain DESCRIPTION 8. BUILDING a. clapboard [] b. stone [] c. brick [] d. board and batten [] MATERIAL: e. cobblestone [] fi shingles ~] g. stucco [] · other: 9. STRUCTURAL a. wood frame with interlocking joints [] SYSTEM: b. wood frame with light members [] (if knc~vn) c. masonry load bearing walls [] d. metal (explain) e. other 10. CONDITION: a. excellent [~ b. good [] c. fair [] d. deteriorated [] II. INTEGRITY: a. original site [] b. moved [] if so,when? ' c. list mhjor alterations and dates (if known): Frontporch removed. Front stoop and shingles not original. 13. ~AP: N.Y.S. DOT Southold Quad. Er~$~ged. sD 75 NRE 14. THREATS TO BUILDING: a. none known [] b. zoning [] c. roads [] d. developers [] e. deterioration [] f. other: 15. RELATED OUTBUILDINGS AND PROI~ERTY: a. barn[] b. carriage,house [] c. garage [] d. privy [] e. shed [] f, greenhouse [] g. shop [] h. gardens [] i. landscape features: j. other: 16. SURROUNDINGS OF THE BUILDING (check more than one if necessary): a. open land [] b. woodland [] c. scattered buildings [] d, densely built-up [] e. commercial [] f. industrial [] g. residential [] h. other: SD 75 17. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SURROUNDINGS: ....... {l~ti~t~ iF'building'or structure is'in an historic flistrieO Low density area on the approach to historic Southold-~ The Main Road is lined with large trees and .many interesting. old structures and surrounded by lawns and greenery. 18. OTHER NOTABLEFEATURESOF B~LDINGANDSITE (includingintefior~aturesifknown): 2½-story, 5-bay bracketed gable roof Italianate house with 1-story semi-octagonal bay window with paired brackets on we~t. 2/2windows. SIGNIFICANCE 19. DATE OF INITIAL CONSTRUCTION: ARCHITECT: Prior to 1858 BUILDER: 20 HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURALIMPORTANCE: Lester Albertson in 1909 Albertson in 1858 & 1873. This old house contributes to the historic character of the area. Chace. Map of Suffolk County. 1858 21, SOURCES: Beers, O6mstock, Cline. Atlasof Long Island. 1873 E. Belcher-Hyde. Atlas of Suffolk CountyA, L.I. Vol.2s North Side~ Sound Shore~ 1909 22. THEME: ~orm prepared by Rosemary Skye Moritt, research assistant. Appendix G FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C. Consu~nll Engineers 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 631-288-2480 631-288-2544 Fax March 28, 2006 Mr. Christopher M. Read East End Development, LLC 666 Old Country Road Garden City, New York 11530 Re: Traffic Impact Assessment Proposed Residential Development 56655 Main Road Southold, NY Dear Mr. Read: As requested, Duma Engineering Associates PC has completed our professional traffic engineering evaluation in connection with the above project. The project envisions the construction of 24 semi- attached residential condominium units for senior citizens, with associated amenities, and 3 affordable housing units. The senior condominium units v~ill be contained in 8 separate buildings of 3 units each, and the 3 affordable housing units will be contained in a separate building. The 6.75 acre site is located on the north side of Main Road, NYS Route 25, in the hamlet of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The current site plan proposes a single access to Main Road. At p{esent, the site contains a single-family residence. Figure 1 shows the location of the project site and Figure 2 shows the boundaries of the property and the adjacent roadway network. Our examination was performed to evaluate the potential traffic impact of the proposed development, including trip generation, access and safety. During the course of the study, the following specific work tasks were performed: Several personal visits to the site were made to attest to our observations of existing traffic movements at various times of the day and under different conditions. Data regarding traffic flow on Main Road was obtained and analyzed from ihe New York State Department of Transportation. Trip generation estimates were performed, utilizing information contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers report "Trip Generation", 7th Edition, the accepted industry standard for applications of this nature. FIGURE 1 LOCATION PLAN SCALE: 1"=400' FIGURE 2 SITE MAP SCALE: 1"=200' Mr. Christopher Read March 28, 2006 Page 4 4. The proposed access arrangement was evaluated, from the standpoints of location and design. The following sections present the results of our efforts in this regard. Existing Conditions Main Road, NYS Route 25, is a New York State highway facility that provides direct access to the site. Although NYS Route 25 extends the entire length of Long Island, it serves as Main Street for many of the communities along the north fork of Long Island. Near the site of the proposed development, Main Road provides one lane in each direction, flanked by shoulders where parking is permitted. The posted speed limit is 30 mph, but changes to 40 mph just east of the site. The site is located on the eastern end of the commercial center of the hamlet of Southold, and development along Main Road-near the site is primarily commemial, although eastof the site Main Road is residential in nature. According to information provided by New York State Department of Transportation, the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on Main Road in Southold in 2003 was 8453 vehicles per day. AADT is a transportation engineering and planning term defined as thb average traffic volume at a given location on any day of the year, including weekends. NYSDOT has recently completed an improvement project on Main Road near the site. The project included drainage improvements and resurfacing, but no capacity improvements. Therefore, Main Road still provides one lane in each direction flanked by ten-foot shoulders. Future Site Trip Generation The current site plan for the proposed development envisions eight buildings containihg 24 residential condominium units for seniors, and a ninth building providing 3 units of affordable housing. Information contained in the report "Trip Generation", 7th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, was utilized to estimate the number of new trips that can be expected to be generated by the proposed project. Land Use Code 252, Senior Adult Housing - Attached, was utilized to estimate the number of new trips which can be expected to be generatedby the senior housing aspect of the development, and Land Use Code 230, Residential Condominium/Townhouse was utilized for the three units of affordable housing. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1. As can be seen, during the weekday AM peak hour, the site will generate 14 new trips, 5 entering and 9 exiting. Similarly, during the weekday PM peak hour, the development will generate 10 new trips, 6 entering and 4 exiting. This is a relatively small amount of new traffic, and it is not anticipated that this small number of new vehicles.would have a perceptible impact on traffic flow conditions on Main Road. It should be noted that the number of trips shown in Table 1 was calculated based on the highest rate of trip generation at any of the developments studied in the Trip Generation report. This was done because the number of units in the proposed development is very small compared to those studied in the Trip Generation report, and in general, the developments with a smaller number of units tended Mr. Christopher Read March 28, 2006 Page 5 to have the higher rates of trip generation per unit. It should also be noted that the existing single family home on the site currently generates some traffic, but this existing traffic has been ignored for purpose of this report. In this manner, the trip generation analysis provides a conservative estimate of the amount of traffic expected to be generated by the proposed project. Senior Adult Housing - Attached Land Use Code 252 4 5 3 3 24 Units Residential Condominiums (Affordable Units) 1 4 3 1 Land Use Code 230 3 Units Total New Site Generated Traffic 5 9 6 4 Table 1 Site Generated Traffic Access Examination In keeping with good access management practices, the site plan for the project proposes a single driveway on Main Road. The driveway will serve both the senior housing and the affordable housing. The site plan indicates that the driveway will be located at the westerly end of the property, and will provide two lanes, one for entering traffic and one for exiting traffic. Left and fight tums into and out of the site will be permitted at this access driveway. All parking areas provided on the site can be accessed from the driveway. Main Road has both vertical and horizontal curvature near the site. The crest of the vertical curve is just east of the site. The site is also located on the inside of a horizontal curve. Sight distance measurements were performed to ensure that adequate sight distance would be available at the location of the proposed site access driveway to allow for safe operations. The 2001 edition of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publication "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" indicates that for design speeds of 35 mph, 390 feet of sight distance should be available for vehicles entering an intersection to safely do so. In addition, for design speeds of 35 mph, AASHTO recommends that 250 feet of stopping sight distance be available for drivers of vehicles traveling on the main road to see a vehicle entering the Mr. Christopher Read March 28, 2006 Page 6 road and stop safely, and .for design speeds of 45 mph, 360 feet of stopping sight distance be provided. The 45 mph design speed was included because the speed limit on Main Road is 40 mph just east of the site, so westbound vehicles on Main Road approaching the site might be traveling slightly faster than eastbound vehicles, which would have a 30 mph speed limit. Sight distance measurements performed at the location of the proposed driveway indicate that stopping sight distance of 400 feet to the east and over 800 feet to the west is available. Therefore, adequate sight distance is available for safe operation of the proposed driveway. Conclusions Based on thc professional transportation engineering evaluation described above, it is concluded that the proposed 27-unit residential development will result in a small number of new trips added to the surrounding roadway network. The single access point to the proposed development is located to provide adequate sight distance for vehicles to safely enter and exit the site from Main Road. Therefore, the proposed 27-unit residential development will have minimal to imperceptible impact on the safety and operation of the roadway facilities. In light of the foregoing, and based on professional transportation engineering considerations, it is recommended that the proposed project be approved. If you have any questions or need any further information, please call me. Sincerely, 4 Vincent Corrado Senior Engineer / Senior Transportation Planner VC:lam L205336.Rev P25115 Appendix H FREUDENTHAL & ELKOW1TZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. AERIAL PI-~TOGRAPH Agricultural District gricultura Woodland~ ~sidential Vegetatiof Site boundaries are apl~roximate. AN ECOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE SOUTHOLD-AMATO SITE The subject site was inspected on Jm~e 24, 2002 ['or the purpose of conducting an ecological survey. The property fronts on a mixed commercial and residential portion of New York State Route 25, east of the center of Southold, and extends northward to its northern bonndary at the Long Island Railroad right-of-way. The portion of the property abutting Route 25 includes a residence with associated lawn, driveway, shade trees and various plantings. Immediately to the north is an open, mowed area, and to the west of this, a young woodland. Further to the north, and comprising about two-thirds o£the site, is a post-agricultural old field/slm~bland. A total of 72 species of plants were identified at the site, including 30 woody species and 42 herbaceous plants (see Appendix). In addition, the following numbers of animal species were recorded: one mammal, nine birds, 10 butterflies and two odonates (dragonflies and damselflies) (see Appendix). Not included in this study are those ornamental plants, lawn grasses, etc. associated with the residentially-developed portion of the property. The presence of these ornamentals and grasses is not the result of a natural process, and thus, they are of minimal ecological significance to the site. Tl~ree ecolo~cal communities may be discerned, using as a basis the classification scheme of Edinger et al., 2002, which is a second edition in draf~ roma of Carol Resclflce's 1990 "Ecological Communities of New York State." These communities are 1) Successional Old Field, 2) Successional Shrubland, and 3) Successional Southern Hardwoods. Successional Old Field and the next successional community t2~p e, Successional Sl~rubland, to gether form a patchwork in which the main distinction is the density of shrubs--whether or not sin-ubs fom~ 50 percent or more cover (Edinger et al., 2002, p. 81). The vegetation of the entire northern two- thirds of the site is comprised of such a patchwork. Aerial photo graphs (e.g. Warner et al. 1975, map 9) indicate that the land was opma and apparently cultivated as recently as 25 to 30 years ago. Tiffs was substantiated in conversation with the occupants of the on-site residence, who indicated that the northern part o f the area had been organically farmed and that the farming had ceased between 1980 and 1988. The (Did Field component is dominated on-site by Golder~rods (Solidago spp.) and various graminoids (grasses and grass-like plants) among which are Orchard Grass (Dactylis glomerata), Blue Grass (Poa sp.), Sweet Vernal Grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), Broomsedge (Andropogon vir~nicus), Path Rush (duncus tenuis), Bent Grass (Agrostis sp.), Sedge (Carex sect. Ovales), Quack Grass (Elytri~a repens), Canada Blue Grass (Poa compressa), Velvet Grass (Holcus lanatus), Downy Claess (Bromus tectorum), and Timotliy Grass (Phleum jvratense). Many other forbs (broad-leafed herbs) are present in addition to Goldenrods. Some are Queen A~me's Lace (Daucus carota), Daisy Fleabane (Erigeron annuus), Cormnon Milkweed (Asclejvias syriaca), Hawkweed (hrieracium caespitosum), Common St.-Jolm's Wort (~yIpericum Fe~foratum), Yarrow (Achillea millefoIium), Red Clover (Trifolium pratenxe), h~dian Hemp (Alvocynum cannabinum), Bird's-foot Trefoil (Lotus cor~,iculata), English Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgate), Cat's Paw (Hypochoeris radicata), Sheep Sorrel (~umex acetosella), Deptford Pink (Dianthus armeria) and White Clover (Trifolium repens). Shrubs, tree saplings, and woody vines are scattered in the Successional Old Field, and are present in greater density in Successional Sl~rubland, where they effectively out-compete the earlier- established herbaceous species. The dominant woody plants in both successional types are saplings of Black Cherry (?rztnu$ serotina) and Red Cedar (Juniperus vi~i~iana), Bayberry (Myrica pen&vlvamca), Asiatic Bittersweet ( Celastrus orbicuIatus) and Poison Ivy ( Toxicodendron radicans). 2 Less common saplings are Black Walnut (3-uglans nigwa), Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Sycamore Maple (Acerpseudoplatanus), Norway Maple (A. pIatanoides), Pine (?inus sp.), '¢Ddte Mulberry (Morus alba), Gray Birch (£etulapopulifolia), Cottonwood (?opulus deltoides), and Box elder (Acer ~ieg~undo). Additional shrubs include Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora), Dwarf Sumac ( Rhus copallinum), Japanese B arb erry ( Berberis thunberomi), Northern Dewbe~Ty (Rub us flagellaris), .turowwood (Viburnum recognitum), Smooth Smnac (~Rhus glabra), Autmnn Olive (ElaeagT, us umbellata), Privet (Ligustrum sp.), Honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.) and Groundsel Bush (Baccharis halimifolia). Additional woody vines are Grape (Vitis sp.), Virginia Creeper (?arthenocissus sp.) and Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica). To the south of this early-successional patchwork and west of the mowed-grass area is a small area comprising the tlzird type of ecological connnunity on the site: Successional Southern Hardwoods~ Tl~is area had to l~ave developed over a longer period of time than the fields/shrublands farther north to l~ave attained its more advanced successional stage. Trees there include Black Walnut, Black Oak (Quercus velutina), Box elder and Sycamore Maple. Sim_tbs are Multiflora Rose and Privet, while vines include Asiatic Bittersweet, Poison Ivy and Japanese Honeysuckle. The woody gronndcover plant called Periwinlde (IZmca minor) is present, but the dense shade supports only a few herbs: Garlic Mustm'd (Alliaria petiolata) and J2adian Strawberry (Puchesnea indica). Two other vegetation types arepresent--Mowed Lawn andMowed Lawn with Trees. These are both listed by Edinger et al. (2002) among a group of so-called "ten'esttial cultm:al" communities (i.e., commtmities that are created or maintained by human activity). As noted earlier, these are of unnatural establishment and are of little ecolog/cal significance on site. Accordingly, they are not discussed further here. 3 Nine species of birds were noted during the ecolo~cal survey. Five arc regarded as conuuon suburban birds on Long Island (Wade et al., i990):/uncrican Robin, Connnon Graclde, European Starling, Gray Catbird and Nor~hem Cardinal. Two others, the American Goldfinch and Common Yellowthroat, are characterized as "12;pical old field and edge species." The remaming two observed birds species are either cormnonly associated with wetlands (Red-winged Blackbird) or with man- made stmctm'es (Chhnney Swift). The swift appamntlynests elsewhere, but feeds over the site. The red-wag, despite its noted preference for wetlands (there are no wetlands on or near the subj eat site), "also breeds readily in upland grassy fields, often some distance from water" (Andrle (% Can-oll, 1988, p. 468). Other bkds that might be expected in the old field/shrubland part of the site are Brown Th_rasher (Toxostoma rufum), Eastern Towhee (Pijgilo erythrophthalmus), Field Sparrow (S]gizeIla £usilla), and Song Spa-row (Melospiza melodia) (Edinger et al., 2002; Andrle & Carroll, 1988). Additional common suburban birds that may use the residential a~d successional sotuhem hardwoods parts of the site are Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), Northern Flicker (Colaptex auratus), Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Black-capped Ch/ckadee (Poecile arricapillus), Northern Mockingbird (Mimus ?olyglottos) and Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) (Wade et al., 1990; Andrle & Carroll, 1988). White-ta/led Deer were the only marunals actually seen at the site, and these were in the form of two fawns, encomatered separately during the survey. Cormor, in his "The Mammals of Long Island, New York" (1971) stated that "on the highly agricultural north fork of the island, cottontails were very numerous wherever there were trees or bushes," so it is likely that the Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagusfloridanus) is present on the site too. Counor also illustrated a weedy field near Hampton Bays on the south fork (fig. I1) and indicated in the legend that the following mammals were present: Short-tailed Sl~rew (Blarina brevicauda) and Pine Mouse (?itymys ~inetorum), both abundant; Meadow Mouse (Microtux ?ensyIvanicus), uncommon; and Eastern Mole (Scalopus aquaticus), tt is likely ali of these also oac~tr on the subject sire (at least in the northern portion). 4 No species of herpetofatma (reptiles and amphibians) were discovered on the subject site during the survey. According to the New York Stats Department of Enviromnental Conservation New York State Amphibian mhd R_eptil¢ Atlas Project (v~r~v.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwtm'/wildlife/l~erp/, accessed 22 Iuly 2000), 16 herpetofannal species were reported from the area of the Southold Quadrangle during the decade 1990-1999. Subtracting the 12 species that are more-or-less obligately associated with permanent fresh or salt water, leaves the following four: Bufo woodhousii fowleri Heterodon platirl~no s Terrapene c. carolina Thanmophis sirtalis Fowler's Toad Eastern Hognose Snake Eastern Box Turtle Eastern Gm-ter Snake On eastern Long Island, the toad and box turtle are described as cormnon and the garter snake as abundant, but the hognose snake is listed as uncommon (Sabin, 1995). Thus, it is fikely that all except tiffs last species might be expected to occur at the subject site. Ten butterfly species were seen at the subject site. Butterfly flight periods are of short duration, and different species fly at different times. Consequently any single visit captures information only on a limited segment of the indigenous butterfly diversity. A separate survey two weeks earlier in an agricultural area of Calverton some 18 miles to the west tamed up five common species not seen in Southold: Everes comyntas Papilio polyxenes Pholisora catullus Phyciodes tharos Vm~essa vir~niensis Eastern Tailed Blue Black Swallowtail Common Sootywing Pearl Crescent American Lady These five, and undoubtedly several others, also probably occur on the subject site. No endangered, threatened, rare, or special-concern animals, plants, or natural commm~ties--as classified by the New York Natural Heritage Program (NHP), or by NYSDEC, or by the U.S. Department of the interior--were found at the subject site (see ?qft~P, 2001; Young, 2002). & letter has been sent to the New York Natural Heritage Program ('NHP) requesting any ii, formation available in their data bases on rare species or communities at the subject site. A reply is being awaited. One plant species on site is listed by NYSDEC as "exploitably vulnerable." Apparently, Bayben-y (Myrica pensylvanica) is judged to be potentially subject to ha-vesting for co~mnercial or other purposes. In fact, it is the dominant shrub on two-thirds of the site, and in the last 14 years of similar ecological surveys throughout Long Island it has turned up at 54 other sites as well. Further co~ffirmation of its secure status may be found in the recent "New York Metropolitan Flora Woody Plant Workbook" (Clemants, 1999) where a map of its distribution (p. 204) shows Bayberry to be of fi'equent occurrence in the region. 6 LITERATURE CITED Andrle, R.F. and J.R. Cm~'oll, eds. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Comell University Press, Ithaca. Clemants, S. (ed.). 1999. New York Metropolitan Flora Woody Botanic Garden. Plant Workbook. Brooldyn Comnor, P.F. 1971. The mannnals of Long Island, New York. New York State Mus. & Sci. Service Bull. no. 416. Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (eds.). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Depar~nent of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. Jordan, M. 2002. Ecological impacts ofinvasive species. Long Isl. Bot. Soc. 12: 4. Kerlinger, P. and C. Doremus. 1981. The breeding birds of tln-ee pine barrens in New York state. The Kingbird (Surmmer):126-135. New York Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Animal Status List. NY Natural Heritage Program - Biological and Conservation Data System, 18 Jul 2001. Unpublished list. Wade, M.C., N.R. Giffen and J.W. Pavacic. 1990. Town of Brooldtaven, New York 1990 Natural Resources Inventou, Depm~anent of Planning, Enviror~ment and Development, Brook_haYen. Warner, J.W., Jr., W.E. Hanna, R.J. Landry, J.P. Wulforst, J.A. Neely, R.L. Holmes & C.E. R/ce. 1975. Soil Survey of Suffolk Comxty, New York. United States Department of Agriculture and Comell University Agricultural Experm~ent Station. Young, S.M. (ed.). 2002. New York Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Status List. New York Natural Hehtage Program, Lathmn, New York. Ecological Inventory, June 2002 TREES, SHRUBS AND WOODY VINES Acer negundo Acer platanoides Acer pseudopIatanus Ailanthus altissima Baccharis halimifolia Berberis thunbergii Betula populifolia Celastrus orbiculatus Elaeagnus umbellata Juglans nigra Juniperus virginiana Ligustrum sp. Lonicera japonica Lonicera sp. Morus alba Myrica pensylvanica Parthenocissus sp. Pinus sp. Populus deltoides Prunus serotina Quercus velutina Rhus copallinum Rhus glabra Rosa multiflora Rubus alIeghaniensis Rubus flagellaris Toxicodendron radicans Viburnum recognitum Vinca minor Vitis sp. Box elder Norway Maple Sycamore Maple Tree-of-Heaven Groundsel Bush Japanese Barberry Gray Birch Asiatic Bittersweet Autumn Olive Black Walnut Red Cedar Privet Japanese Honeysuckle Honeysuckle White Mulberry Bayberry Virginia Creeper Pine Cottonwood Black Cherry Black Oak Dwarf Sumac Smooth Sumac Multiflora Rose Blackberry Northem Dewberry Poison Ivy Arrowwood Periwinkle Grape HERBACEOUS PLANTS Achillea millef olium Agrostis sp. Alliaria petiolata Ambrosia artemisiifolia Andropogon virginicus Anthoxanthum odoratum Apocynum medium Artemisia vulgaris Asclepias syriaca Bromus tectorum Carex sect. Ovales Centaurea maculosa Centaurea nigra Dactylis glomerata Daucus carota Dianthus armeria Duchesnea indica Elytrigia repens Erigeron annuus Euthamia graminifolia Festuca sp. Hieracium caespitosum Holcus lanatus Hypericum perforatum Hypochoeris radicata Juncus tenuis Leucanthemum vulgare Lotus corniculata Phleum pratense Phytolacca americana PIantago lanceolata Poa compressa Rmnex acetosella Rumex crispus Solidago canadensis Solidago juncea Solidago odora Solidago rugosa Solidago sp. Trifolium agrarium Trifolium pratense Trifolium repens Yarrow Bent Grass Garlic Mustard Common Ragweed Broomsedge Sweet Vernal Grass Indian Hemp Mugwort Common Milkweed Downy Chess Sedge Spotted Knapweed Black Knapweed Orchard Grass Queen Anne's Lace Deptford Pink Indian Strawberry Quack Grass Daisy Fleabane Grass-leafed Goldenrod Fescue Hawkweed Velvet Grass Common St. John's Wort Cat's Ear Path Rush Ox-eye Daisy Bird's-foot Trefoil Timothy Grass Pokeweed English Plantain Canada Blue Grass Sheep Sorrel Curled Dock Canada Goldenrod Early Goldenrod Sweet Goldenrod Rough-stemmed Goldenrod Goldenrod Hop Clover Red Clover White Clover MAMMALS Odocoileus virginanus BIRDS Agelaius phoeniceus Cardinalis cardinalis Carduelis tristis Chaetura pelagica Durnetella carolinensis Geothlypis trichas Quiscalus quiscula Sturnus vulgaris Turdus migratorius BUTTERFLIES Ancyloxypha numitor Cercyonis pegala Colias eurytheme Colias phiIodice Epargyreus clarus L ycaena phlaeas Megisto cymela Pieris rapae Polygonia interrogationis Thymelicus lineola White-tailed Deer Red-winged Blackbird Northern Cardinal American Goldfinch Chimney Swift Gray Catbird Common Yellowthroat Common Grackle European Starling American Robin Least Skipper Common Wood Nymph Orange Sulfur Clouded Sulfur Silver-spotted Skipper American Copper Little Wood Satyr Cabbage White Question Mark European Skipper ODONATA (DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES) Libellula semifasciata Painted Skimmer Tramea lacerata Black Saddlebags Orland J. Blanchard, Jr., Ph.D. Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. 368 Veterans Memorial Highway · Comma&. New York I 1725 Telephone: (631) 499.2222 · Facsimile: (631) 499-5928 PRESENT POSITION: Dr. Blanchard is a Sen/or Environmental Scientist with Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. who specializes in ecology and is a Professor of Biology at Long Island Un/versity, C.W. Post Campus. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Dr. Blanchard is a broadly trained and respected field biologist with an extensive knowledge of the biota of the Northeast and with a range of expertise in wetlands evaluation, botanical and invertebrate inventory and the study of rare and endangered plants and arfimals. Prior to establishing himself on Long Island in 1980, Dr. Blanchard lived and studied in Massachusetts, upstate New York and Indiana. Teaching and field research have taken him throughout the United States and to the West Indies, Mexico, Central America, and East Africa. Dr. Blanchard has been active as a consultant and contractee since 1984, working directly or indirectly for such clients as the City of New York, the State Department of Transportation, the State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy. This work has included freshwater wetlands flagging and classification, botanical inventories, insect inventories, rare insect surveys, tiger salamander searches, and studies of the ecology of the federally endangered sandplain gerardia. Dr. Blanchard has been associated with Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. since 1989, and representative projects for which Dr. Blanchard has performed ecological investigations include: NYSDEC Wetland delineation and ecological assessment for 20+ acre proposed residential subdivision in Brookhaven; Ecological impact assessments as part of environmental impact statements prepared by Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. throughout Long Island; NYSDEC and USACOE wetland delineation and ecological assessment for 23+ acre proposed residential development in IGngs Point; and Orland J. Blanchard, Jr., Ph.D. Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. Page 2 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (Cont'd.) Ecological investigation for proposed 22+ acre commercial center in Stony Brook. Dr. Blanchard is a recognized field biologist on Long Island. Dr. Blanchard is a past President (1988-89) of the Long Island Botanical Society; and has served as member and Chairman of a committee that is preparing an atlas of the plants of Long Island; a past member of the Board of Trustees of The Nature Conservancy in which capacity he served as Chairman of the Board's Stewardship Committee; and member of the Natural History Advisory Board of the Friends of Long Island Heritage. He has been a member and Chairman of the Advisory Committee of the New York Flora Association. At the present time he is collaborating with a fellow botanist on a comparative study of the grasslands of Long Island. In his academic capacities, Dr. Blanchard has taught graduate courses in Ecology, Entomology and Vascular Plants of Long Island, and as Director of the Graduate Environmental Studies Program at C.W. Post he has established numerous contacts in the envLronmental community on the Island. EDUCATION: Ph.D., Botany, Comell University, 1976 (major: Plant Taxonomy; minors: Plant Ecology and Entomology) A.B., Biology, Clark University, 1966 I Appendix I FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town Of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town). If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes" or no" then the proposed action will affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, each answer must be explained in detail listing both supporting and non- suooortine facts. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION ?TM# 063 03 15 PROJECT NAME Site Plan Application for Southwold Manor The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): Town Board [~] Planning Board [~ Building Dept. [--] Board of Trustees [---] I. Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) Permit, approval, license, certification: Nature and extent of action: The proposed action consists of the construction ora 24-unit planned retirement community consisting of eight townhouse buildings, containing three dwelling units within each building. Also proposed are facilities for swimming and resident gatherings. In addition, the existing two-story frame dwelling with detached garage would remain, but would be convened to three moderate-income-family dwelling units. Location of action: 56655 Main Road, Southold Site acreage: 6.75:t: Present land use: Residential Present zoning classification: HB-Hamlet Business District If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Name of applicant: East End Resources, LLC (b) Mailing address: c/o Alfred L. Amato, 666 Old Country Road, Suite 901, Garden City, New York 11530 (c) Telephone number: Area Code ()(516) 227-6363 (d) Application number, if any: Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? NYSDOT Highway Work Permit, NYSDEC Yes ~ No II If yes, which state or federal agency? Notice of Intent C. Evaluate the project to the following policies by analyzing how the project will further support or not support the policies. Provide all proposed Best Management Practices that will further each policy. Incomplete answers will require that the form be returned for completion. DEVELOPED COAST POLICY See Attachment Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. Yes [~ No [~] Not Applicable At-tach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria [~ Yes [--] No [~ Not Applicable additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria [---] Yes [-~ No [~ Not Applicable See Attachment Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria [-~ Yes [~ No [~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria [~ Yes [~ No [~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. ~-] Yes [~ No [--] Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. [~ Yes [~ No [---] Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. [~]Yes [-~ No[--] Not Applicable PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluatior criteria. [~Yes[--] No ~'] Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary WORKING COAST POLICIES P~)licy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section III - Policies- Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria. [~ Yes ~-1 No [~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. [~]Yes [~ No [---] Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. [--] Yes [~ No [--] Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP Section Ill - Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. ~] Yes ~'] No ~] Not Applicable Amended on 811/05 DATE I0/17/08 ATTACHMENT LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ("LWRP") CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR SOUTHWOLD MANOR 56655 MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD Policy I. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of SouthoM that enhances conmntnity character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes' beneficial use of a coastal location, attd minimizes adverse effects ofdevelopme.t. Ibc proposed action has been designed to enhance community character, preserve open space. make efficient use of infrastructure and minimize the potential adverse effects of development. As the site is not located on the coastline, it cannot, and will not, utilize such resource. The subject property, although historically utilized lbr agricultural purposes, is developed with a residential structure, which is proposed to remain as part of the proposed action. Ibis residential structure is the enlryway to the project site. The retention of this structure, a portion of its existing landscaping and portions of the existing woodland, would help maintain the visual cbaracter along Main Road. The proposed project has been designed, from both a layout and an architectural perspective, such that the development would blend with and enhance thc existing character of the area. With regard to open space, the proposed project bas been designed such that existing 5.47± acres of woodland, which includes brush and undergrowth, would be preserved to the maximmn extent practicable. In addition, the applicant intends to preserve the existing cedar trees throughout the site by transplanting same along the perimeter of the property in order to further screen the development from neighboring properties and to preserve existing vegetation. After existing cedar trees are transplanted, there will be approximately 0.93± acre of woodland on the sut2icct site. With respect to the infrastructure, potable water is available al the site and shall be provided by the Suffolk County Water Authority ("SCWA"). Attached hereto is a letter of water availabilit,', issned by the SCWA. On-site septic tanks and sanitary leaching pools would handle sanitary waste to be generated by the proposed development (i.e., 4,118 gallons per day ["gpd"l based un current guidelines of the Suffolk County Department of tlealth Services ["SCI)IIS"I). A review of the New York State Department uf Conservation ("NYSDEC") Ti&d lf'ellam~' (Map Number 716-548) (see Exhibit "A" of this LWRP Consistency Analysis) indicates the sul2iect property is not a coastal property, nor is it identified in the Dm,n qf,S'omhMd ~l'aleq/i'onl Revitalization Program Reach 6 as an "area subject to development pressure" or an "area of special cnncern." The applicant respectfully submits that by designing the project such that the character u, ill be preserved and enhanced, open space will be preserved and inl¥astructure will be efficiently used. the proposed action would minimize adverse effects of development in the Town uf Southold. '1 heretbre, the proposed action comports with this policy. Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of $outhold. According to the website of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Places ("OPRHP"),~ the subject property is situated within an archaeologically-sensitive area. Furthermore, the existing residential structure, the Albertson House, has been identified by the Society of the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities ("SPLIA") as historically significant and is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It is noteworthy that the Albertson House would be retained under the proposed action. Given the substantial ground disturbance caused by previous usage of the site as farmland, correspondence was sent to OPRHP on July 14, 2006 requesting concurrence that historic agricultural use and existing development have disturbed the soils on the subject property such that no such intact archaeological resources would be expected. OPRHP responded to the inquiry in correspondence dated August 3, 2006, and it recommended that a Phase I archeological survey be conducted (see Exhibit "B" of this LWRP Consistency Analysis). Therefore, the applicant retained the Institute of Long Island Archaeology ("ILIA") to conduct an archaeological survey (Stage 1 and 2) of the subject property. A copy of the Stage 1 archaeological survey, which recommended further investigation in specific portions of the subject property, is included in Exhibit "C" of this LWRP Consistency Analysis. The Stage 2, which will be submitted under a separate cover, was completed in October 2008. The ILIA concluded that the archaeological deposits do not seem to have the potential to provide additional information of past lifeways. The site lacks integrity and it is unlikely that any unmapped buried outbuildings remain. Therefore, no further archaeological investigations are recommended.2 Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. Minimize introduction of structural design components (including utility lines, lighting, signage and fencingO which would be discordant with existing natural scenic components and character. While the subject property is not a designated scenic vista, the proposed action has been designed such that the proposed residential development would visually blend with the architecture in the area. As depicted on the proposed UtiliO2 Plan, the proposed utility lines would be underground and would not impact the aesthetics of the area. According to the proposed Landscape and Irrigation Plan, a six-foot, above-grade-level ("agt"), green-color, chain-link fence would be locacted along the perimeter of the subject property. In addition, existing 20-to-25-foot cedar trees situated throughout the site would be transplanted along the perimeter of the property in order to screen the development from neighboring properties and preserve existing vegetation. Further, the proposed Manor Drive would be lined with vegetation. The lighting will be designed to (a) visually blend with the character of the community; and (b) minimize glare and illumination of and as seen from surrounding properties. http://www.oprhp.state.n¥.us/nr/main.asp, accessed June 22, 2006 The standing Albertson House was not evaluated as part of the archaeological investigations. 2 According to the proposed Alignment Plan, signage is proposed at the entrance of the proposed Manor Drive. While the signage has not yet been designed, the signage will be designed to visually conform to the existing character of the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed action complies with this policy. B. Restore deteriorated and remove degraded visual components. The subject property is not designated as a scenic vista, and the existing residence is neither deteriorated nor degraded. Notwithstanding this, it should be understood that the visual perspective from Main Road will be maintained as the existing residence, a portion of the existing landscaped areas and a portion of the existing woodland would remain. Also, as previously indicated, cedar trees on the site will be transplanted to the perimeter of the property to further screen the development. The proposed development has been designed such that the architectural elements would conform to and enhance the existing character. In addition, on July t3, 2006 at a public hearing of the Southold Town Architectural Review Committee ("ARC"), the applicant presented its proposed plans and elevations of the structures to be constructed at the site. According to information provided by the applicant, the proposed plans and elevations were well received by the ARC. Therefore, the proposed action comports with this policy. C. Screen components of development which detract from visual quality. The proposed development has been designed such that it would be aesthetically pleasing. Moreover, the applicant intends to preserve the existing cedar trees throughout the site by transplanting same along the perimeter of the property in order to further screen the development from neighboring properties and preserve existing vegetation. Therefore, the proposed action comports with this policy. D. Use appropriate siting, scales, forms, and materials to ensure that structures are compatible with and add interest to existing scenic components. As previously indicated, the subject property is not designated as a scenic vista. Also, the proposed development has been designed such that there would be a mixture of materials and styles, all of which would be compatible and harmonious with existing development in the surrounding area. As previously stated, the visual character along Main Road would be maintained as the existing residence, a portion of the existing landscaping and a portion of the woodland would be retained. In addition, on July 13, 2006 at a public hearing of the ARC, the applicant presented its proposed plans and elevations of the structures to be constructed at the site. According to information provided by the applicant, the proposed plans and elevations were well received by the ARC. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with this policy. E. Preserve existing vegetation and establish new indigenous vegetation to enhance scenic quality: 1. Preserve existing vegetation which contributes to the scenic quality of the landscape. As indicated on the proposed Landscape and Irrigation Plan, it is proposed that existing vegetation would remain, to the extent possible, in several areas of the overall property. In addition, the applicant intends to preserve the existing cedar trees throughout the site by transplanting same along the perimeter of the property in order screen the development from neighboring properties and preserve existing vegetation. Thus, the proposed development is consistent with this policy. Z Allow for selective clearing of vegetation to provide public views without impairing values associated with the affected vegetation. The only public view of the subject property is from Main Road, which is limited to the existing two-story home, some of the existing landscaping and some of the existing woodland. Moreover, the public views of the property will be maintained as the existing residential building, a portion of the existing landscaped areas and a portion of the existing woodland will be retained. In addition, the applicant intends to preserve the existing cedar trees throughout the site by transplanting same along the perimeter of the property in order to further screen the development from neighboring properties and preserve existing vegetation. Therefore, the proposed development complies with this policy. 3. Reswre historic or important designed landscapes to preserve intended or designed aesthetic values. The subject property was formerly used for agricultural purposes and continues to revegetate. As such, there are no historic or important designed landscapes associated with the subject property. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed development. 4. Restore or add indigenous vegetative cover that presents a natural appearance. The subject property was formerly utilized for agricultural purposes and is revegetating. According to the proposed Landscape and Irrigation Plan, landscaping is being proposed along the perimeter of the subject property; around the residential buildings; in the area of the amenities building and swimming pool; and along Manor Drive. The proposed vegetation would be a mix of native vegetation, which would present a natural appearance, and ornamental vegetation, which would create a garden-like appearance. In addition, the applicant intends to preserve the existing cedar trees throughout the site by transplanting same along the perimeter of the property in order to screen the development from neighboring properties and preserve existing vegetation. Therefore, as indigenous vegetation will be added for the residential development, the proposed action comports with this policy. F. Improve the visual quality associated with hamlet areas. The subject property is situated within the Hamlet Business District in the Town of Southold. As previously indicated, the property was previously used for agricultural purposes and continues to revegetate. The visual quality of the proposed development would be maintained, to the extent practicable, and the architecture would be visually harmonious with the surrounding area. In addition, on July 13, 2006 at a public hearing of the ARC, the applicant presented its proposed plans and elevations of the structures to be constructed at the site. According to information provided by the applicant, the proposed plans and elevations were well received by the ARC. Also, vegetation on the site would be maintained and enhanced. Therefore, visual quality would be enhanced. G. Improve the visual quality of historic maritime areas. The subject site, which is located along Main Road, is not situated in a coastal area or a historic maritime area. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed development. H. Protect the visual interest provided by active water-dependent uses. The subject property is not situated proximate to water or active water-dependent uses. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed action. L Anticipate and prevent impairment of dynamic landscape elements that contribute to ephemeral visual quah'ties. As previously stated, the subject property was formerly utilized for agricultural purposes and is revegetating. There are no dynamic landscape elements. The existing residential building and areas of the existing woodland and existing landscaping would be preserved. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed action. J. Protect visual quality associated with public lands, including public transportation routes, public parks and public trust lands and waters. 1. Limit water surface coverage or intrusion to the minimum amount necessary. The subject site is not public land, and, as previously mentioned, is not a coastal property. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. 2. Limit alteration of shoreline elements which contribute to scenic quality. As previously mentioned, the subject site is not public property and is not a coastal property. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. 5 K. Protect visual quality associated with agricultural land, open space and natural resources. I. Maintain or restore original landforms except where altered landforms provide useful screening or contribute to scenic quality. As previously stated, the site consists of former agricultural land that is revegetating. The current view, from Main Road, of the existing home, a portion of the existing landscaping and a portion of the existing woodland would be maintained. In addition, according to the proposed Landscape and Irrigation Plan, a six-foot-agl, green-color, chain-link fence would be located along the perimeter of the subject property. In addition, the existing 20-to-25-foot cedar trees situated throughout the site would be transplanted along the perimeter of the property in order to screen the development from neighboring properties and preserve existing vegetation. Furthermore, a vegetative buffer will line the entryway to the proposed Manor Drive. Therefore, the proposed project comports with this policy. 2. Group or orient structures during site design to preserve open space and provide visual organization. The orientation of the proposed structures was designed to preserve existing vegetation in several areas of the site (i.e., along Main Road and on the east and west sides of the proposed Manor Drive) and visually organize the buildings so they are oriented toward Manor Drive. Moreover, the buildings have been sited, and the landscape design has been designed, to minimize visual impacts to neighboring properties. In addition, on July 13, 2006 at a public hearing of the ARC, the applicant presented its proposed plans and elevations of the structures to be constructed at the site. According to information provided by the applicant, the proposed plans and elevations were well received by the ARC. Therefore, the proposed development complies with this policy. 3. Avoid structures or activities which introduce visual interruptions to natural landscapes including: a. introduction of intrusive artificial light sources; The lighting will be designed in order to minimize glare and illumination of and as seen from surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with this policy. b. fragmentation of and structural intrusion into open space areas; and As previously stated, the site consists of former agricultural land that is revegetating, and several areas of existing vegetation are being retained. Moreover, the subject property is surrounded on three (3) sides by residential and commercial development and on one (1) side, by railroad tracks used by the Long Island Rail Road ("LIRR"). Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed development. c. changes to the continuity and configuration of natural shorelines and associated vegetation. As stated earlier, the subject site is not a coastal property, and, thus, has no natural shorelines. Therefore, this policy does not apply to the proposed action. Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. Policy 4 is categorized as a "Natural Coast Policy," and is not applicable to the proposed action, as the site is not situated along the coast. As such, the proposed development and structures would be located away from flooding and erosion hazards. Furthermore, the subject property is located in an area determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain (Federal Emergency Management Area Flood Insurance Rate Map 36103C0158G, Panel 158 of 1026, dated May 4, 1998), and implementation of erosion and sediment control measures will be employed to prevent sedimentation off-site. With regard to erosion, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared for compliance with Phase II Stormwater Regulations. All erosion and sediment control measures would conform to the relevant segments of the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. The proposed development would handle all anticipated sanitary waste through on-site septic tanks and sanitary leaching pools. As this is a residential use, there will be no unusual chemical discharges. Furthermore, the proposed development would also be served by SCWA. Thus, the water quality and supply in the Town of Southold would be protected. Therefore, the proposed action complies with this policy. Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. The subject site is not situated within a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Furthermore, there are no wetlands on or adjacent to the subject property. Therefore, this policy is not applicable. Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. No unusual air discharge points are associated with the proposed development, as it will consist of residential uses. In addition, the proposed action will not result in significant traffic delays that could cause significant vehicular emissions from increased idling. Furthermore, as the proposed residential community is situated within walking distance from local shopping, dependency on an automobile may be reduced. Therefore, the proposed action complies with this policy. Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. Solid waste created by the proposed residential development would not be significant, especially given that the majority of the units will be a planned retirement community. In addition, as the proposed action is a residential use, no hazardous substances or wastes would be expected. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with this policy. Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. The subject site is not public land and is not situated on the coast. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed action. Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water- dependent uses in suitable locations. As previously mentioned, the subject site is not a coastal property. In addition, there are no wetlands on or proximate to the site. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. As discussed, the subject site is not a coastal property, and no wetlands were found on or adjacent to the site. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. The subject property was formerly utilized for agricultural purposes and continues to revegetate. Furthermore, a review of the Town of Southold Farmland Protection Strategy map, dated September 1, 1999 (see Exhibit "D" of this LWRP Consistency Analysis), depicts the site as "Land Not In Agricultural Use." Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed action. Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. The proposed action consists of a residential use restricted to adults of age 55 and older that will not create a significant energy demand. Moreover, given the property's location and zoning, it is not suitable for use in the development of energy and mineral resources. Therefore this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. F:\JOBS2005\EED-05-236_56655 Main Road, Southold\Finalized Documenlafion~LWRP Consistency Analysis Attachment - R¢~4-Oct 08 - FINAL.doc 8 Appendix J FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. ~UL-~1-2006 1J:59 RMS EHG}KEERIHG 6~]1 271 05o~ P.02/02 July 21, 2006 RMS Engineering 35:5 New York Avenue Huntington, N.Y. 11743 Attn: Mr. Gregg Schiavone Re: The Manors at Southold $CTM # 1000-063.03-015 Reference RMS # 2005-195 Dear Mr. $chiavone, As requested, please be advised that KeySpan Energy Delivery end LIPA will provide gas and electric service to the above referenced project in accordance with our filed tariff and schedules in effect at the time .~erviee is required. Responsibility for all excavation, extension of services, meter location, and installation of set. vice will be determined by LIPA/KeySpan design personnel at the site after request for service has been submitted. All easements, and cost to supply service will be determined at the time of design. ~ Gas and eleclxic grid maps are not available until design begins. However, for your information, there is currently gas available on Main Ave. and Bolsseau Ave. There ia both a 6 inch gas main on both Main and Boisseau Avenues. Overhead electric i~ also available on both Main and Boisseau Avenues. Please feel free to contact me at (516) 545-3877, if you require further information. Very truly yours, Robert Wong JUL 2 5 ..... RMS ENGINEERING TOTPL P. 02 Appendix K FREUDENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. January 12, 2007 SOUTHOLD FIRE DISTRICT P.O. BOX 908. SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 (631) 765-4305 FAX (631) 765-5076 Ms. Amy Ford, Sr. Planner Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 JAN 'I 6 2007 L._ Re: Southwold Manor SCTM#1000-63-3-15 Dear Ms. Ford: Please be advised that the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Southold Fire District has reviewed the above mentioned site plan and find that one (1) pressurized hydrant would be recommended. The board would recommend that the hydrant be placed approximately 400 feet north of the Main Road (State Route 25), on either side of the street. This letter is valid for one year. If you should have any questions or problems, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Fire District Manager