Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-63.-3-15TO: Town of Southold Planning Board FROM: Howard Meinke SUBJECT: The effect of high density septic systems on the North Fork environment Dear Planning Board members, The. _o~thw~old)condo project brings the question of septic pollution to light once again. We hh-v~fffird how flushing effluent through sand cleans it in a short distance. However we never note that while we change our automobile and heating system oil and fuel filters at regular intervals; the sand filter in the ground is never changed. We simply ignore the increasing accumulation of pollutants and the ever increasing distance effluent must flow to clean itself. This was safely ignored in the days when one or two houses were surrounded by open land. Now increased density development, such as Southwold and The Heritage are opening serious threats to our ground water and marine environment. The loss of all sorts of marine life here in our estuary system has been documented in many places. I wrote an article for the Suffolk Times that ran in a January issue that details the important shell fish and fish losses in our creeks and bays from the 30s to now. I see no choice but to immediately investigate the costs / benefits of small, 20 to 50 house capacity sanitary systems, larger town sewage systems and modem de-nitrification septic systems. These necessary pollution remedies must be put in place simultaneously with regulations that preplan and control development density and location. Our Southold is a wonderful place and the open, agricultural, marine, rural and tourist friendly ambiance is fragile. To improve the pollution problems and simultaneously sell out Southold's inherent attraction would be a terrible miscalculation. Sincerely, Howard Meinke 7075 Peconic Bay Blvd. Laurel, .Y. 11948 SHITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER AND YAKABOSKI, LLP Direc~ E-Mail: fisler~sfliy, com Via email (CREAD@AMATOFIRM.COM) & First Class Mail May 6, 2011 Christopher M. Read, Esq. Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road, 9th Floor Garden City, New York 11530 Re: Application for Site Plan Approval of Southwold Manor Dear Mr. Read: Your letter of May 4, 2011 to the Planning Board has been referred to me for response. Based upon the applicant's failure to serve and post the notice of the scheduled public hearing as required by Town Code Chapter 55 and based upon your notification that the applicant will not be participating in the public hearing, the Planning Board has no alternative but to deem the application withdrawn. For the record, the Appellate Division decision only reinstated the dismissed the third cause of action and directed that the Town to amend its answer to respond to it. The Court did not rule on the merits of the cause of action. The Town has characterizations, letter. previously responded to the remaining claims and allegatio/~ contained in V y trul A~y~s, × your cc. ~outhold Planning Board JMartin Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney SblITH, FINKELSTEIN. LUNDBERG, ISLER X~n YAKABOSKI, LLP Direct E-Mail: fislerSsfliy, com May 6, 2011 Via email (CREAD@AMATOFIRM. COM) & First Class Mail Christopher M. Read, Esq. Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road, 9th Floor Garden City, New York 11530 Re: Application for Site Plan Approval of Southwold Manor Dear Mr. Read: Your letter of May 4, 2011 to the Planning Board has been referred to me for response. Based upon the applicant's failure to serve and post the notice of the scheduled public hearing as required by Town Code Chapter 55 and based upon your notification that the applicant will not be participating in the public hearing, the Planning Board has rio alternative but to deem the application withdrawn. For the record, the Appellate Division decision only reinstated the dismissed the third cause of action and directed that the Town to amend its answer to respond to it. The Court did not rule on the merits of the cause of action. The Town has characterizations, ]etter. previously responded to the remaining claims and allegatio~ contained in your cc. Southold Planning Board Martin Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney 405 LEXINGTON AVE CHRYSLER BLDG, 26TH FLR NEW YORK, NY 10174 TEL: (212) 485-6000 FAX: (212) 485-6001 MATO LAW GROUP, COUNSELORS AT LAW 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD 9TH FLOOR GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-6367 402 MAIN ST. SUITE 204 METUCHEN, NJ 08840 TEL: (732) 317-1511 FAX: (732) 317.1513 May 4, 201 I VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAlL Southold Town Planning Board Attention: Chairman Sidor 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 MAY - 6 2011 Re: Application for Site Plan Approval of Southwold Manor (the "Application") by East End Resources, LLC (the "Applicant") for a proposed active adult retirement condominium communiP~ to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York (the "Property"). Dear Chairman Sidor: We received a letter from your office notilS, ing us that the Southold Town Planning Board has scheduled a public hearing on the Application to be held on May 9, 2011. As determined by the unanimous decision of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, Second Department, the Applicant was long ago entitled to a public hearing on the Application. The denial of Applicants' right to a timely public hearing has caused considerable damage to the Applicant in many respects, including, without limitation, certain contractual rights in connection with the Properly. Because of the harm caused by the unlawful and unlbrtunate delay, Applicant is unable to participate in the public hearing at this time. We are assessing the Applicant's options and rights and expect to contact the Planning Department soon regarding th,: Application. Very tru~ 516~27-6367 AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC 17:51:12 05-03-2011 1 12 Facsimile Cover Sheet To: From: Date: Chairman Sidor Southold Town Planning Board Christopher M. Read May 4, 2011 Fax#: (631) 765-3136 Total number of pages including this cover sheet: 2 If you do not receive all the pages indicated above, please call us back as soon as possible nt 516-227-6363 URGENT {3 FOR REVIEW ~1 PLEASE COMMENT D PLEASE REPLY {3 FYI NOTE: Please see correspondence transmitted herewith. This Facsimile aansmission contains confidential and/or lesa]ly privileged information from the law firm Amato Law Group, PLLC intended only for the use of the individual(s) nnmed on the t~ansmission sheet, If you aze not thc intended rccipicnL you are hereby notified that any disciosme, copying dis~bution or 516~27-6367 AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC COUNSm' Oi~ AT LAW ~H FLOOa 17:51:18 May 4, 2011 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Southold Town Planning Board Attention: Chairman Sider 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY ] 1971 Re: Application for Site Plan Approval of Southwold Manor (the "Application") by East End Resources, LLC (the "Applicant") for a proposed active adult retirement condominium community to be looated at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York {the "Property"). Dear Chairman Sider: We received a le~r fi'om your office notifying us that the Southold Town Planning Board has scheduled a public hearing on the Application to be held on May 9, 201 I. As detennined by the unanimous decision of the Appellate Division of the New York Stat~ Supreme Court, Second Department, the Applicant was long ago entitled to a public hearing on the Application. The denial of Applicants' right to e timely public hearing has caused considerable damage to the Applicant in many respects, including, without limitation, certain contractual righls in connection with the Property. Because of the harm caused by the unlawful and unfortunate delay, Applicant is unable to participate in the public hearing at this time. We are assessing the Applicant's options and rights and expect to contact the Planning Deparnnent soon regarding the Application. Staff Note to File - 4/29/11: Re: Communication with applicant regarding Public Hearing notification, Southwold Manor, 63-3-15 Fri., April 15,2011, a.m.: Linda Randolph faxed the resolution setting the hearing to the applicant's office: 516 227-0880, attention of Al Amato (a copy of the letter is in the Southwold file). Wed., April 20, 2011: Linda telephoned the applicant's office, spoke to Mariana, and let her know that the letter was faxed on 4/15; also notification information and the sign to post are ready to be picked up from the Southold Planning Office between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Mon.,April 25, 2011: Carol Kalin contacted the office of Amato and Associates, spoke to Mariana and told her that she was concerned because the info. had not been picked up yet and letters to adjacent property owners had to go out and the sign posted by the end of the week - asked her if she knew when someone was coming and could the office phone and let us know since they were coming from a distance. Wed., April 27,2011: Carol phoned again and spoke to Mariana and told her she didn't want to keep bothering her but did she know when someone was coming - Mariana said she had forwarded the message. Thurs., April 28, 2011, 3:30 p.m.: Carol faxed a letter, dated 4/28, to Amato and Associates (see file for a copy of the letter) regarding the Town Code notification procedures for public hearings. Fri., April 29,2011: Carol phoned Amato and Associates to ask if they planned on sending anyone to pick up the packet and the sign that day. She spoke to Diana at Amato & Assoc. and asked for Mr. Amato or Mr. Read - Diana came back on the phone, said she spoke to Chris Read who told her to tell Carol that they were not coming and we would be hearing from them next week. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III DONALD J. WILCENSKI PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Via Facsimile April 28, 2011 Messrs. Alfred Amato and Christopher Read East End Resources, LLC c/o Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Re: Public Hearing for the Proposed Amended Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor Located at 56655 NYS Route 25, approximately 1,000 ft. east of Boisseau Avenue, Southold, NY SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Business Dear Messrs. Amato and Read: According to Section 55-1 of the Southold Town Code, notification by the applicant or petitioner of a public hearing to the adjacent property owners and posting of a sign(s) on the subject property is required seven (7) days prior to the date of the hearing. As of this date, the sign and packet regarding the project referenced above have not been picked up despite several reminders by phone to your office. In the event that the applicant cannot provide proof of compliance with Section 55-1 prior to or at the public hearing, the Planning Board will adjourn the public hearing so that proper notice is provided as required in the Town Code. Very truly yours, Martin H. Sidor Chairman 10213 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1_!_ week(s), successively, commencing on the 28th day of April, 2011. Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this 2011. NOTARY P ,k_-~IA, OF NEW YORK I'!~ 01-V06105050 r~uc: ,~d !n Suffolk County M~p PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH II1 DONALD J. WILCENSKI PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 7/65-3136 LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Section 276 of the Town Law and Article XXV of the Code of the Town of Southold, a public headng will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York on the 9th day of May, 2011 on the question of the following: 6:00 p.m. Proposed Lot Line Modification of Joseph & Margaret Conway located at 4395 & 6005 Horton Lane, on the w/s/o Horton Lane, at the intersection of Horton Lane & Old North Road, Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Numbers 1000-54-7-21.1 & 21.2 6:02 p.m. Proposed Standard Subdivision James Creek Landing located on the w/s/o Main Road, approximately 280' s/o New Suffolk Avenue in Mattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-122-3-1.4 6:04 p.m. Proposed Amended Site Plan Southwold Manorlocated at 56655 NYS Route 25, approximately 1,000 ft. e/o Boisseau Avenue, Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-63-3-15 Dated: 4/13/11 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Martin H. Sidor Chairman PLEASE PRINT ONCE ON THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2011 AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT TO THIS OFFICE. THANK YOU. COPYSENT TO: The Suffolk Times Page 1 of I Randolph, Linda From: Candice Schott [cschott@timesreview.¢om] Sent: Friday, April 1§, 2011 10:§2 AM To: Randolph, Linda Subject: RE: Ad for 4/28 publication Hi Linda, I have received the notice and we are good to go for the 4~28 issue, Thanks and have a §teat weekend! Candice From: Randolph, Linda [mailto:Linda. Randolph@town.southold.ny.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 3:11 PM To: tr-legals Subject: Ad for 4/28 publication 4/18/2011 PLANNING BOAI~D MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. R/CH III DONALD J. WILCENSK/ 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. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Section 276 of the Town Law and Article XXV of the Code of the Town of Southold, a public hearing will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York on the 9th day of May, 2011 on the question of the following: 6:00 p.m. Proposed Lot Line Modification of Joseph & Margaret Conway located at 4395 & 6005 Horton Lane, on the w/s/o Horton Lane, at the intersection of Horton Lane & Old North Road, Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Numbers 1000-54-7-21.1 & 21.2 6:02 p.m. Proposed Standard Subdivision James Creek Landing located on the w/s/o Main Road, approximately 280' s/o New Suffolk Avenue in Mattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-122-3-1.4 6:04 p.m. Proposed Amended Site Plan Southwold Manor located at 56655 NYS Route 25, approximately 1,000 ft. e/o Boisseau Avenue, Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-63-3-15 Dated: 4/13/11 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Martin H. Sidor Chairman STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) LINDA RANDOLPH, Secretary to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, New York being duly sworn, says that on the 18th day of April, 2011 she affixed a notice of which the annexed pdnted notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 5/09111 Regular Meeting: 6:00 p.m. 6:02 p.m. 6:04 p.m. Public Hearing for the proposed Lot Line Modification of Joseph & Margaret Conway, SCTM#'s 1000-54-7-21.1 & 21.2 Public Headng for the proposed Standard Subdivision of James Creek Landing, SCTrv~1000-122-3-1.4 Public Hearing for the proposed Amended Site Plan of Southwold Manor, SCTM#1000-63-3-15 Secretary, Southold Town Planning Board Sworn to before me this I '~ day of. ~br,' I ,2011. '" P" bllc~~J~ NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 02AN6098246 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires January 12, 20.[--.c~ P.O. Box 1179 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1938 Fax: (631) 765-3136 To: Alfred Amato/Chdstopher Read From,' Heather Lanza F.x.. 516 227-0880 Pages: 3 (including cover) Phone.. 516 227-6363 Dete: April 15, 2011 Re: Southwold Public Headng cc: Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply As Requested Following is the April 11 Planning Board resolution regarding the May 9 Public Hearing for Southwold Manor proposed amended residential site plan. Complete packet with information regarding notification and posting should be picked up in person from our office between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Mon-Fd. PLANNING BOARD ME'RS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III DONALD J. WILCENSKI 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. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 April 14, 2011 Mr. Alfred Amato Mr. Christopher Read East End Resoumes, LLC c/o Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Re: Set Hearing - Proposed Amended Residential Site Plan for Southwoid Manor Located at 56655 NYS Route 25, approximately 1,000 ft. east of Boisseau Avenue, Southold, NY SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Business Dear Messrs. Amato and Read: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, April 11,2011: WHEREAS, this amended residential site plan is for the proposed construction of an age-restricted (55+) condominium community of 27 units, consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling buildings, four buildings with a footprint of 7,573 s.f., and four with a footprint of 7,695 s.f. Each building contains three units ranging in size from 2,700 s.f. to 2,958 s.f. The amended site plan also includes the conversion of an existing single family residence into three (3) affordable housing units, one at 891 s.f., and two at 1,121 s.f., a 370 s.f. detached garage, a two-story, 2,246 s.f. amenities building and a swimming pool and deck area covedng 2,887 s.f. on a 6.75 acre parcel; and WHEREAS, Albert & Rita Cohen are the owners of the property located on the north side of Main Road, approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue, in Southold, SCTM#1000-63-3-15; and WHEREAS, on October 21,2008, the agents, Alfred Amato & Chris Read, Amato & Associates, P.C., representing the applicant, East End Resources LLC, submitted an amended site plan application for approval; and Southwold Manor Pa.qe Two April 14, 2011 WHEREAS, the Appellate Division, Second Department, rendered a Decision and Order dated February 22, 2011, in the applicant's lawsuit pending in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County, which Decision and Order re-instated the applicant's Third Cause of Action seeking mandamus relief; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, May 9, 2011 at 6:04 p.m. for a public hearing, pursuant to §280-137d, on the amended site plan prepared and certified by Gregg J. Schiavone, PE, dated July 20, 2008. Please refer to the enclosed copy of Chapter 55, Notice of Public Hearing, in regard to the Town's notification procedure. The notification form is enclosed for your use. The sign and the post will need to be picked up at the Planning Board Office, Southold Town Annex. Please return the enclosed Affidavit of Posting along with the certified mailin¢l receil3ts AND the signed green return receipt cards before 12:00 noon on Friday, May 6th. The sign and the post must be returned to the Planning Board Office as soon as possible after the public hearin,q. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Martin H. Sidor Chairman Encs. cc: Frank Isler, Esq. Martin Finnegan, Esq. Jennifer Andaloro, Esq. ALBERT & RITA COHEN SOUTHWOLD MANOR AMENDED SITE PLAN 1000-63-3-15 Construction of an age-restricted (55+) condominium community of 27 dwelling units, consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling buildings, four buildings with a footprint of 7~573 s.f., and four with a footprint of 7,695 s.f. Each building contains three units ranging in size from 2,700 s.f. to 2,958 s.f.. The amended site plan also includes the conversion of an existing single family residence into three (3) affordable housing units, one at 891 s.f., and two at 1,121 s.f., a 370 s.f. detached garage, a two-story, 2,246 s.f. amenities building and a swimming pool and deck area covering 2,887 s.f. on a 6.75 acre parcel. MONDAY- MAY 9, 2011 - 6:04 P.M. Southold Town Planning Board Notice to Adjacent Property Ownem You are hereby given notice: 1. That the undersigned has applied to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold for an amended residential site plan; 2. That the property which is the subject of the application is located at 56655 NYS Route 25, adjacent or across the street from your property and is described as follows: SCTM#1000-63-3-15; 3. That the property which is the subject of this application is located in the Hamlet Business Zoning District; 4. That this amended residential site plan is for the proposed construction of an age- restricted (55+) condominium community of 27 dwelling units, consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling buildings, four buildings with a footprint of 7,573 s.f., and four with a footprint of 7,695 s.f. Each building contains three units ranging in size from 2,700 s.f. to 2,958 s.f.. The amended site plan also includes the conversion of an existing single family residence into three (3) affordable housing units, one at 891 s.f., and two at 1,121 s.f., a 370 s.f. detached garage, a two-story, 2,246 s.f. amenities building and a swimming pool and deck area covering 2,887 s.f. on a 6.75 acre parcel located on the north side of Main Road, approximately 1000' east of Boisseau Avenue, in Southold; That the files pertaining to this application are open for your information during normal business days between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. in the Planning Department located in the Town Hall Annex on the corner of Youngs Ave. & NYS Rte. 25, Southold (2nd FI., Capital One Bank). Information can also be obtained via the intemet by sending an e-mail message to Carol. Kalin@town.southold.ny. us. If you have any questions, you can call the Planning Board Office at (631)765-1938; 6. That a public hearing will be held on the matter by the Planning Board on Monday, May 9, 2011 at 6:04 p.m. in the Meeting Hall at $outhold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold; that a notice of such headng will be published at least five days prior to the date of such headng in The Suffolk Times, published in the Town of Southold; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. PetitionedOwner's Name(s): East End Resources, LLC/Southwold Manor Date: 4/12/11 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING This is to serve notice that I personally posted the property known as by placing the Town's official poster notice(s) within 10 feet of the front property line facing the street(s) where it can be easily seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the public hearing on I have sent notices, by certified mail - return receipt, the receipts and green return receipt cards of which are attached, to the owners of record of every property which abuts and every property which is across on Your Name (print) Signature Address Date Notary Public PLEASE RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT, CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS & GREEN RETURN RECEIPT CARDS BY: 12:00 noon~ Fri. 5/6/11 Re: Proposed Amended Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor SCTM#s: 1000-63-3-15 Date of Hearing: Monday, May 9, 2011, 6:04 p.m. NOTICE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Red Property Tax Service SOUTHOLD ~,~,~ .o 1000 SECTION NOTICE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK (~) K~1,o..~,o..~ SOUTHOLD I~,.~'~._~Rea~ Property Tax Service Agency E -,~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ooo SECTION NO O62 PROPERTY MAP January l9,2010 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OFFICE BUILDING 250 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788-5518 www.nysdot.gov Mr. Gregg J. Schiavone, PE RMS Engineering 355 New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Your November 18, 2009 Submissions Southold Manor NY 25, Southold SCTM No. 1000-06300-0300-015000 Our Case No. 07-011P Dear Mr. Schiavone: This is in regard to the site plans for the referenced project which were submitted to us for review. Prior to an approval of the site work and issuance of a New York State Highway Work Permit, the following items must be addressed: 1. Thank you for adding the two (2) new additional street trees, evenly spaced, along the NS~ 25 road frontage as we requested. The species selected, White Oak (Quercus alba), has exhibited a lack of hardiness and it may be more ',appropriate to substitute one of the following species in its place: a. Zelkova serrata- Japanese Zelkova b. Tillia cordata- Little leaf Linden c. Acer rubrum- Red Maple d. Platanus acerifolia- London Plane e. Gleditsia triacanthos inermis- Honey locust Our maintenance Group has indicated a preference for the Zelkova. Please revise the plans accordingly. ; .... _ Site plan approval for highway work permit issuance is contingent upon our receipt of all of the following items within six (6) months of the date of this letter and no further revisions are made to the plans once we approve them. Gregg J. Schiavone January 19, 2010 Page 2 of 2 If the Highway Work Permit will be secured by anyone other than the property owner, i.e. contractor, the applicant must provide a signed letter from the property owner stating the applicant is authorized to act on behalf of the property owner in this matter. The letter must also include the property owner's mailing address and telephone number. Kindly submit three (3) sets of the revised plans, permit fee and surety bond (sample enclosed). It is also mandatory that protective liability insurance be provided by the permittee. This must be accomplished by submitting a completed Perm 17, Certificate of Insurance, in accordance with Option A (form enclosed). Also enclosed is a Highway Work Permit Application to be completed and returned to us. The same party must secure the application, completed Perm 17 and the Surety Bond. All checks issued to the State of New York must show a Federal Identification Number. Permit Fee (Payable to "State of New York"): $900.00 Bond Amount: $30,000.00 Insurance Fee: N/A - Perm 17 required Questions concerning this matter should be directed to Mr. Mark Wolfgang at (631) 952-7973. Please send all correspondence to his attention at the above address. Kindly refer to the subject case number and County tax map number in all correspondence. Thank you for your cooperation concerning this matter. Very truly yours, SHAIK A. SAAD, P.E. Civil Engineer Ill Traffic Engineering and Safety cc: ~. Peter Harris, Superintendent of Highways, Town of Southold vMr. Martin Sidor, Planning Board Chairperson, Town of Southold SAS:MDW:ajf PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND September 4, 2009 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD MA[LING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NYl1971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Mr. Alfred Amato East End Resources, LLC 666 Old Country Road - Suite 901 Garden City, New York 11530 Re: Site Plan Application of Southwold Manor Dear Mr. Amato: We are in receipt of your letter of August 31, 2009. Please be advised that the Planning Board has and continues to stand ready to continue with the processing of the above mentioned site plan application. As you acknowledge, it has been months since the Board requested that the applicant provide additional information so that the Board, as lead agency, can make the necessary SEQRA determination on the project. Your failure to do so has delayed your application, notwithstanding the advice of your litigation counsel. Be assured that your application has been handled consistently with applicable law and we will continue to do so once you provide the requested information. Very truly yours, SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD BY: MARTIN SIDOR, CHAIR EAST END RESOURCES, LLC 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-11880 August 31,2009 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAlL Office of the Southold Town Planning Board Attention: Martin Sidor, Chairperson of the Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application for Site Plan Approval of Southwold Manor (the "Application") by East End Resources, LLC (the "Applicant") to be located at 56655 Mare Road, Southold, NY. Dear Mr. Sidor: With respect to status and as a follow-up to our previous correspondence, as stated, we received your letter, dated April 20, 2009, inquiring about the status of our progress in producing the information that you requested by letter dated March 9, 2009, which included an Environmental Assessment Review prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC, and we received the letter, dated April 1,2009, from Heather Lanza of the Planning Department which included an additional 17 pages of items she asked us to address. As the Application is the subject of an active litigation, we have been advised by our litigation counsel that this matter requires judicial intervention to ensure that a lawful application process will be applied to the Application and that we will not be subjected to costs and requirements which are not imposed on other applicants or supported by applicable law. We look forward to the day when the Application will be processed and approvals granted, but until we receive such judicial direction or the litigation issues are otherwise settled, we cannot continue to participate in a process which we believe has gone far beyond the review and requirement parameters set forth in the Town Code and mandated by New York State law. As always, we look tbrward to moving tbrward with our project and hope to do so shortly. We continue to believe that Southwold Manor will be a terrific project for the Hamlet of Southold and the Town overall. In this respect, I would be remiss ill thiled to mention that we are seeking approval to build a beautiful development of modest size that will provide needed senior housing and considerable economic benefits to the Town and its workers. Scott Russell, Southold To,~n' Supervisor' ' SF? - 2 Sent By: AMATO&ASSOCIATES; 5162270885; Aug-31 3:11PM; EAST END RESOURCES, LLC 666 Old Country Road .quite 901 Garden CIt~, New York 115~30 To: Martin Sidor Of: Town of Southold Tel: (516) 217-6363 ~ Fax: (~16) 227~x567 Facsimile Cover Sheet Fax#: (631) 765-3136 Page 1/2 From: Alfred L. Amato Date: Re: August 31, 2009 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York SCTM: Dist.: 1000, Sect.: 63, Block 3, Lot 15 Total number of pages including this cover sheet: 2 If you do not receive all the pages indicated above, please call us back as soon as possible at 516-227-6363 .... I~11___ III J l Iii__J_ ~11 . Jll~JJ [tllll NOTE: Please see correspondence transmitted herewith. Sent By: AMATO&ASSOCZATES; 5162270885; Aug-31 EAST END RESOURCES, LLC 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite GARDEN CITY, N~W YORK 11530 TEL: (SI6) 2274;~$ 3:11PM; Page 2/2 August 31, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE AND U,S. M3tl. Office of the Southold Town Planning Board Attention: Martin Sider, ChairperSon of tho Planning Board ILO. Box l 179 $outhold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Sider: Application fur Silo Plan Approval of Soathwold Manor (the "Application") by East End Res..__o trees, I.LC (the "Applicon?) to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southo d, NY. With respect to status and as a follow-up to our previona correspondence, as stated wc rece ved your letter, dated April 20, 2009, inquiring about the status of om' progress in producing the intbrmatinn that you requested by letter dated March 9 2009, which ncluded an EnvLromtlental Assessment Review prepared by Nelson, Pope & Vo~rhis, LLC, and we received the letter, dated April 1, 2009, from Heather La. nm ortho PlannMg Deparlment which included an additional 17 pages of items she asked us to address. As the Application is the subject of an active litigation, we have been advised by our litigation counsel that this mutter requires judicial intervention to ensure that a lawful application process will be applied to the Application and that wc will not be subjected to costs and requirements which are not imposed ou other applicanls or supported by applicable law. We look fbrward to the day when the Application will be pro~saed and approvals granted, but until wc receive such judicial direction or the litigation issues are otherwise settled, we cannot continue to participate in a process which we believe has gone far beyond the review and requiremenl parameters set forth in the Town Code and mandated by New York State law. cc: Sott Russell, ,5outhoM Town 5 tperwsor As always, w~ look forward to moving fbrward with our project and hope to do so shortly. We continue to believe that Southwold Manor will be a ten'trio project for the Hamlet of Southold and the Town overall, in this respect, I would be remiss ill failed to mention that we are seeking approval to build a beautiful development of modest size that will provide needed senior housing and considerable economic benefits to the Town and its workers...~..~! i ~ June 16, 2009 Mr. Gregg J. Schiavone, PE RMS Engineering 355 New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OFFICE BUILDING 250 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788-5518 www.nysdot.gov STANLEY GEE Your April 20 & 22, 2009 Submis~i.gns Southold Manor q. NY 25, Southold SCTM No. 1000-06300-0300-015000 Our Case No. 07-011P Dear Mr. Schiavone: This is in regard to the site plans for the referenced project which were submitted to us for review. Prior to an approval of the site work and issuance of a New York State Highway Work Permit, the following items must be addressed: 1. A stop sign should be shown in the site driveway. There are existing mature trees at the entrance to the proposed access drive which appear to be impacted by the new curb cut. Please identify how the root zone will be protected from intrusion while maintaining Department recommended radius guidelines. Please add a note to plans "Trees in the NYS ROW shall be protected during construction so as to prevent damage, injury or destruction. Any damage shall be repaired or replaced at contractor's expense, AOBE or RLA." The existing utility pole next to the tree on the east side of the entrance is indicated to be relocated, but it is not indicated where it will be placed. Ensure that the pole is relocated in such a manner that it does not damage or negatively impact the existing trees, either above or below ~'ound. Please identify and call out the new location on the plans. 5. We recommend adding two new additional street trees, evenly spaced, along the NY25 road frontage. Indicated project Planting Schedule species are acceptable. Mr. Gregg J. Schiavone June 16, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Please add item 10209.11 Temporary Sediment Filter Bag for Drainage Structures for use on drainage grates in the roadway. This is in addition to cleaning the structures at the completion of construction. 7. Please indicate topsoil and seeding of disturbed areas of the ROW. Use Item 613.02 Placing Topsoil-Type A & Item 610.0203 Establishing Turf. NYSDOT sidewalk and curb ramp details and notes must be used for construction work in the NYS ROW. Reference NYSDOT Standard Sheets M608-10, M608-11, M608-12, M608-13. Please revise plans accordingly. Item 10608.0125 is disapproved. Items 608-0105-10 Concrete Sidewalks-Unreinforced (Grading Included) and 608.0106-09 Constructing Concrete Sidewalk Ramps can be used. 10. Please add Item 608.21 Embedded Detectable Warning Units to plan and section details. Please submit four (4) copies of revised site plans. In your response letter, please state how the above comments are addressed, item by item. Review of the subject material is being coordinated by Mr. Mark Wolfgang. He can be contacted at (631) 952-7973 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Please send all correspondence to his attention. Kindly refer to the subject case number and County tax map number in all correspondence. Thank you for your cooperation concerning this matter. Very truly yours, Sn,;;i~ A. Saafi SHAIK A. SAAD, P.E. Civil Engineer III Traffic Engineering and Safety cc: M~. Peter Hams, Superintendent of Highways, Town of Southold VMr. Martin Sidor, Planning Board Chairperson, Town of Southold SAS:MDW:ajf 405 LEXINGTON AVE CHRYSLER BLDG. 26TH FLR NEW YORK, NY 10174 TEL: (212) 485-6000 FAX: (212) 405~6001 A TO & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD 9th Floor GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227~363 FAX: (516) 227-6367 402 MAIN ST. SUITE 204 METUCI~EN, NJ 08840 TEL: (732) 317-1511 FAX: (732} 317-1513 April28,2009 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Office of the Southold Town Planning Board Attention: Martin Sidor, Chairperson of the Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York i 1971 Application for Site Plan Approval of Southwold Manor (the "Application") by East End Resources, LLC (the "Applicant") to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, NY. Dear Mr. Sidor: I received your letter, dated April 20, 2009, inquiring about the status of our progress in providing the Planning Board with requested items and infom~ation for its SEQRA Review. Please note that we have been working diligently to produce the information that you requested by letter dated March 9, 2009, which included an Environmental Assessment Review prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC. In addition, on April 1, 2009, Heather Lanza of the Southold Planning Department sent us an additional 17 pages of correspondence which she asked us to address. It is our intention to reply with a single, complete and comprehensive set of documents, plans and reports rather than providing items piecemeal as they are prepared. In addition, we expect to soon obtain favorable determinations pertaining to our development plans from the Suflblk County Department of Health Services, the New York State Department of Transportation and the Suffolk County Water Authority- we will provide same with our submission to you. The information the Planning Board has requested is voluminous and costly to produce, but we are working to fully accommodate your requests. I will keep you infom~ed of our progress. ey°urs' r M. Read cc: Alfred L. Amato Sent By: AMAT0&ASSOCZATES; 5162270885; ~pn-2 AMATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. COUNgEI.OR$ AT LAW 11:58AM; Page 2/2 snrt~ Apd125,2009 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MML Office of the Southold Town Planning Board Attention: Martin Sider, Chairperson of the Planning goard P.O. Box 1179 Southold, Now York 11971 Application tbr Site Plan Approval of Southwold Manor (the "Application") by East End Resources. LLC (the "Annlicant"l to be located at 56655 Main ROad,, SOo,[b, oJd, NY. De.~ Mr. Sider: I received your letter, dated April 20, 2009, inquiring about the status of our progress in providing the Planning ~eard with requested items and infom~atinn for its SEQRA Review. Please note that we bare been workh~g diligently to produce thc int'om~ation that you requested by letter dated March 9, 2009, which included an Environmental Assessment Review prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC. In addition, on April l, 2009, Iteather Lanza of thc Southold Planning Depamnant sent us an additional 17 pages of correspondence which ~e asked us to address. It is our intention to reply with a single, complete and comprehensive set of documents, plans and reports rather than providing items piecemeal as they ar~ prepared, in addition, we expect to soon obtain favorable determinations pertaining to our development plans from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, the New York State DepaCm~ent of Transportation and the Suffolk County Water Authority- we will provide same with our submission to you. The intbrmafion the Planning Board has requested is voluminoms and costly to produce, but we arc working to fillly accommodate your requests. I will keep yeti infomled of our progress. Alfred L. Amato Sent By: AMATO&ASSOCIATES; 5162270885; Apr-28-09 11:58AM; Page 1/2 AMATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C ATTORNEYS AT LAW 666 Old Country Road 9'~ Floor Garden City, Now York 11530 Tel: {$16) 227=6363 -Fax: (516) :t]7.6367 Facsimile Cover Sheet To: Martin H. Sidor (Chairperson), Joseph L. Townsend, Kenneth L. Edwards, William J. Cremers, and George Solomon, Southold Town Planning Board Fax#: (631) 765-3136 From: Christopher M. Read, Esq. Date: April 28, 2009 Re: Southwold Manor: 56655 Main Road, Southold, New york Total number of pages including this cover sheet: 2 URGENT ~'1 PLEASI O FYI Please see correspondence transmitted herewith. April 22, 2009 Chairman Martin H. Sidor & Members of the Planning Board Town of Southold P.O.Box 1179 Southold, N. Y. 11971 Re: Southwold Manor Dear Mr. Sidor et al: The thought of what havoc will result from the emergence of Southwold Manor has left my mind in a turmoil! PLEASE authorize the preparation of a DEIS for this condominium development. It is frightening to think of the issues that will result from such a development.: sewage, water,traffic. How will the sanitary waste be treated? It will go into Peconic Bay and into the estuary. Traffic along Montauk Highway is already a major problem but with the addtion of condominiium units and the inhabitants they bring as well as the visitors I cannot envision the congestion problems that will result! I urge you to do whatever you can to bring about a 0_ELS. Very sincerely yours, . .,, Mr. and Mrs. Rd~ Ryan 48 Sunset Drive Sag Harbor, N.Y. 11963 - PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L, EDWARDS GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax:' 631 765-3136 April20,2009 Messrs. Alfred Amato and Christopher Read East End Resources, LLC c/o Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Re: SEQR. Southwold Manor: 56644 Main Road, Southold, NY Dear Mr. Amato and Mr. Read: To date, the Planning Board has received no response to its several requests for information needed to complete the SEQRA review. Please advise when this information will be submitted. Sincerely, Martin H. Sidor Chairperson Box 1555 Southold, NY 11971 April 10, 2009 Chairman Martin Sidor, and Members of The Planning Board Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Chairman Sidor and Members of the Board, I am writing concerning the proposed development of that segment of the village of Southold east of Boisseau Avenue, and designated by the name "Southwold Manor." The proposed development is primarily unfortunate because it requires sacrifice of a large portion of the central village which, in its present state, provides both habitat and a refreshing reminder of the open natural spaces once so widespread in our Town. It would be a great mistake to surrender yet another such inherent asset to yet another group of arbitrary condominiums. Additionally, of course, are the other very material and extensive impacts upon groundwater and surface water, as well as the egregious deterioration of daily life which the congestion caused by such a development would necessarily impose on us. I therefore urge you strongly to require a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for this project. Sincerely yours, David Kiremidjian PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 1, 2009 Mr. Douglas Mackey Historic Preservation Program Analyst New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation PO Box 189 Waterford, NY 12188-0189 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Re: 06PR4079. Southwold Manor (Manors at Southold) Archaeological Evaluation Dear Mr. Mackey: Enclosed please find the following correspondence regarding the above application for your information: 1. E-mail from Skip Albertson regarding the Albertson/Cohen house 2. Copy of an Op-Ed piece from an earlier newspaper article by Skip Albertson 3. Photo of the Albertson/Cohen house Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Heather Lanza Planning Director PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND April 1, 2009 Mr. Christopher Read East End Resources, LLC c/o Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Re: Southwold Manor SEQRA. SCTM No. 1000-63-3-15 Dear Mr. Read: Enclosed please find several pieces of correspondence received by the lead agency, including the following: 1. Letter from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation 2. Letter from the Group for the East End. 3. E-mail from Skip Albertson regarding the Albertson/Cohen house 4. Copy of an Op-Ed piece from an earlier newspaper by Skip Albertson 5. Photo of the Albertson/Cohen house 6. Letter from the New York State Department of Transportation dated 10/29/08 and NYS DOT e- mail of 2/3/09 All of the above correspondence address issues contained in the Planning Board's amended SEQRA report that was previously forwarded to you. In addition to providing the information requested in the amended SEQRA report, kindly provide your responses to the issues raised in these letters so that the Planning Board can complete its review of potential impacts from your project and make the requisite determination of significance under SEQRA. Sincerely, Heather Lanza Planning Director From: Hark Wolfgang To: kdsty.winser@town .southold.ny. us Date: 2/3/2009 11:54 AM Subject: NYSDOT CASE 07-011P, Southoid Manor, NY 25, Southold Attachments: 07-011plcopy. DOC Good Morning Kdsty, [n response to your January 21, 2009 plan submission attached is a letter we sent to the pb3n preparer. These plans do not address the comments made in our letter to RMS. The consulting engineering should pro~qde us with the requested number of plans that address our comments. If you have any questions please contact me. Thanks, Mark Hark D. Wolfgang CJvil Engineer ! NYSDOT, Region 10 Tral~c Engineering and Safety 250 Veterans Highway Hauppauge, NY t~.788 Telephone: (631) 952-7973 Mobil: (631) 978-1671 Fax: (63).) 952-4967 E-mail from Skip Albertson on the historic value of the Albertson/Cohen house. ..... Original Message ..... From: Skip Albertson [mailto:alberts~ocean.washington.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:59 AM To: Lanza, Heather Subject: Op Ed piece on Southwold Manor proposal from 7.2007 Dear Heather, I found the digital version of my Op Ed piece from the Suffolk Times conceming the proposed Southwold Manor from 5 July 2007; if you prefer a JPEG of the publication please let me know and I can scan it... I thought this version might be easier for you to access. I am also including a photo of the house from December 30, 1939; proof that it survived the great hurricane of '38. My father, Bill Albertson, lived there with his Mom (Anita Albertson) until the passing of Storrs Lester Albertson. I think it's humbling to think of all this house has survived as it now faces perhaps its greatest challenge. I believe that the owners (the Cohens) and the developers (Amato/Chris R) have expressed a desire to preserve much of the old house. They may not realize that it's the supporting beam of the main house that has the greatest claim to history. It was there when Beethoven composed on the other side of the Atlantic and there are few other elements remaining in town (and certainly nothing out here on the West Coast) that can boast that kind of longevity. Very best regards; Les "Skip" Albertson, Olympia WA 3436 Overhulse Rd. NW Olympia, WA 98502 (360) 867-0139 u.h Article on the history of the Albertson House by a family member. Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 To: Skip Albertson <alberts@ocean.washington.edu> Subject: op ed By Lester (Skip) Albertson The pending site plan before the Town Planning Board at 56655 Main Road for Southwold Manor should be of interest to everyone. It involves the potential loss of another piece of Southold's architectural history. As I understand it, the property's owners were interested in preserving the character of the house that fronts the road on that lot, the house I grew up in, which is commonly known as the Albertson House. According to a shingle found in the house, it has been at that location since 1732. It never was designated a landmark. Now, the developers of Southwold Manor want to turn the house into three apartments to satisfy the town's aflbrdable housing requirements for new subdivisions. How does one convert such an old single-family structure into three dwelling units without sacrificing its essential character? Although I am emotionally attached to the entire house, the front part is truly old and unique (the back kitchen wing was added in the 1800s). Do the developers intend to raze the ancient roof, gut the interior, and leave only a fa0ade (remember the conversion of Porgies Restaurant to Shady Lady)? Southold is losing its historic heritage, house by house. The town has done a tremendous job preserving its outdoor space, but what about its indoor space? There was a time when Main Road in Southold was framed by two rows of stately houses and shaded by graceful elms. The hurricane of 1938 took down many of these majestic trees, Dutch elm disease ravaged the rest, but the houses began to fall mainly due to human (progress) in the 1950s. The Jennie Wells-Albertson House, which is also known as the Case House (the old family names mingle over time) was tom down to build Bohacks, now the IGA. The house just the east, the Tuthill House, was lost for an expanded parking lot. The Peck house went down in 1966 to make way for Security National Bank next to the Presbyterian Church, now Bank of America. The gazebo and village square used to be the Hartranfi house. The homes from the First Presbyterian Church westward are included in a National Historic District, yet some of the most historic homes in Southold actually lie to the east, toward Founder's Landing, where the shipping docks were (our "First Settlers" moniker at high school sports events also alludes to Founder's Landing). The Albertson House saw the American Revolution, when the British shelled the town and came looking for food. William Floyd, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, would have seen and AIbertson House history (coled) known this house when visiting his sister Charity and her husband Ezra L'Hommedieu across the street. These men knew this house as it faced not a 7-Eleven but farmed fields ruhning clear down to the water. The L'Hommedieu residence is now a retail fireplace and lawn furniture shop. Rather than being afraid of landmark status we could embrace it as did Savannah, GA, or Charleston SC. The word fa(;ade has several tneanings, and many of these speak to pretense and outward show. Do we intend to become impression, or do we want to retain the true depth of our cultural character? What, then, is the plan? Mr. Albertson was born and raised in Southold. He now lives in Olympia, Wash. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau ° Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 www. nysparks.com March 20, 2009 Heather Lanza Director of Planning Southold Planning Board PO Box i 179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Lanza, Re: David A. Paterson Governor Carol Ash Commissioner 2009 DEC/SEQRA The Manors at Southold Archaeological Evaluation Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY 06PR4079 Thank your for requesting the comments of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) with regard to the potential for this project to affect significant historical/cultural resources. OPRHP has reviewed the submitted Phase 1 and 2 archaeological reports and we can offer you the following comments. The Phase I report identified the Albertson House Archaeological Site, which has been assigned New York State Inventory Number A10310.001379. identification of this site is not surprising given the presence of the 19th century Albertson House on the property. The Phase 2 investigation consisted of additional shovel testing and the excavation of units covering seven square meters or less than 0.005 percent of the area identified as the site by the report. Based on this investigation the report recommends that the site it not eligible for the Nation. J! Register of Historic Places, however the OPRHP can not concur with that assessment. Specific concerns include: While testing conducted did not identify any intact features~ it did locate an area of what appears to be structural stone, within a few feet of where informants indicate the privy is located. This stone is likely the remnants of the Privy superstructure which was removed in the mid 20th century. While the superstructure may no longer be present, it is likely that the subsurface shaft of the privy is still present and my weli hold important data. The amount of area actually examined is minimal, and given that there appears to be intact subsoil throughout the site, there is a high potential for shaft feature and other foundation remains for various structures to be present in area not examined. c. The area actually examined by the study is minima!, and should not be used to argue that there are no intact fealures present at other locations of the site. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency ~'~ printed on recycled paper The limited work that was completed did identify at least one (and possibly more in the Shovel tests) area of intact sheet midden, a type of feature that has been shown to produced significant data. The site is clearly associated with the still standing Albertson house, and the testing completed so far has not examined areas closer to the structure where it is likely that important deposits are located. Therefore even if OPHRP agreed that there were na intact deposits within the area actually examined, it would be premature to determine the site not eligible, as areas of very high potential have not yet been examined. Finally, the report indicates that although some 18th century material was recovered, it appeared to be horizontally separate and discreet from other deposits. The fact that this material seems to be spatially separate indicates some differentiation of discard patterns that could be significant. The current investigation identifies when the Albertson family occupied the property, but does not address the potential that earlier landowners may have had a residence, either for themselves or servants, on the property that was not recorded on any maps. This would not be surprising as the earliest maps of the area show very little detail and no maps are presented for the period between 1797 and 1858, the very period that may have produced late 18th century material in archaeological deposits. Therefore, the OPRHP would not concur with the findings of the Phase II report at this time. It is likely that the site will be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places if the area around the house itself was examined. However, OPRHP might agree that further investigation of the proposed impact areas of the site will not produce any further significant data if several additional steps were undertaken to address our concerns: The use of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) to verify if any buried shaft features or foundation remains are present within the impact area. The utilization of GPR is becoming more common and it has been used successfully on a number of site to address these types of issues. ii. Further consideration of the differential distribution of 1 8th century material. This should include a map detailing the distribution of material across the site to more clearly illustrate how this material may be differentially distributed and consideration of the potential for earlier, unrecorded occupation of the property. The results of any GPR survey would be helpful in addressing this potential as well. iii. Specific examination of the area identified as containing the privy if that area will be impacted by the proposed construction. I hope that you find these comments useful. Please contact me at extension 3291, or by e-mail at douglas.mackey~oprhp.state.ny.us, if you have any questions regarding these comments. Historic Preservation Program Analyst Archaeology Post Office Box 569 Bridgehamptoo, NY 11932 Tel: 631 5371400 Fax; 631 B3TZZOI President Roberts DeLuca £hairman William S McChesney Jr Vice Chairman Ann Colley Board Members Harris A Barer KatheHne Leahy Birch V~. Marco Birch Wilhehrlus B. Brya~r Mar~ burchill Andlew 6old~teirl GFegory Hoo!lkamp Ronald S iaudeF Sar/dm R MeyeF ChFistopheF Pla Peter Schelb~,~ch John Shea John C /'~addell Mary ,'~alker FOR TH E ~_~AST END March 12, 2009 Chairman Martin Sidor & ...... Members of the Planning Board !'~ TM ' Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: So~thwold Site Plat. Preliminary Hearing Dear Chairman Martin Sidor & Members of the Planning Board, On behalf of Group for the East End I would like to submit the following comments in relation to the proposed Southwold site plan application (SCTM# 1000-63-3-15). Position Statement: Due to the magnitude and intensity of the project and it's potential for significant adverse environmental impacts we recommend that the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, issue a Positive Declaration and require a Draft Environmental Impact Statement {DEIS) pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA}. Summary Assessment: Based on our assessment, we are most concerned by the proposed action's potential impact on groundwater (and the related relationship between groundwater quality and the water quality of the Peconic Bay Estuary), roadway capacity, the protection of natural habitats, and the planning precedent that may be set for the development or redevelopment of other similarly zoned parcels. The magnitude and significance of potential impacts associated with this project strongly support the need for a consideration of alternative designs that could mitigate potential environmental harm. In the absence ora DEIS, there will be no mandatory consideration of alternatives, nor will there be a comparative assessment of potential mitigation measures to substantiate the best possible plan for this parcel. Additionally, we believe the recent SEQRA assessment prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (EnvironmentalAssessment Review, March 2, 2009) offers clear evidence of the proposed action's complexity and significant potential for Post Office Box 1792 Soufhold, NY 11971 Tel: 631765 6450 Fax: 631765 6455 We protect and restore the envlronmerrt of eastern Lonq Island through education citizen action and public advocacy founded in 1972 www.groupfortheeastend.org 1 environmental harm, which supports a Planning Board decision to require a DEIS. The Board will note that the 10-page NPV assessment appropriately reads like a scoping outline for a DEIS. We feel the NPV assessment demonstrates the significant amount of information that will be needed to fully understand the consequences of this proposal. Given the need for extensive information, and the low threshold that is imposed by SEQRA regarding a determination of significance, we ask the Planning Board to consider the improved review that would be provided by having all the requisite information assembled in a single document that would provide both the Board and the public with the most integrated understanding of the overall action as is clearly intended by the SEQRA process. It has long been our experience that the absence of a DE1S on maior projects leads to a piece-meaL and often disjointed review of significant project elements that essentially recreates the very problem SEQRA was intended to solve when it was adopted more than 30 years ago. If the Planning Board needs traffic studies, groundwater models, habitat assessments, stormwater management details, species inventories, extensive landscaping, design and visual details to make a reasonably well informed assessment it is clear that there is the potential for a significant environmental impact associated with this project. As a result, a DEIS should be required. We offer the following specific comments on several areas of environmental concern that should be addressed in a DEIS. Sewage The Suffolk County Department of Health Services recently amended its sewage standards in a document titled, Standards/orApproval o/Plans and Construction /or Sewage Disposal Systems for Other Than Single-Family Residences, dated luly 15, 2008 (corrected 11/20/08). 2 G U P I-OR FH[I..~T FND According to these new standards, the 27 proposed units would generate roughly 3,600 gallons per day over the allowed maximum sewage flow for this parcel.~ We believe that the SCDHS's latest standards should be applied to the application since the application is in the preliminary stages of review and has not received approval from any agency. Regardless of which standards are applied, considerable sanitary waste will be generated by this proposal. As a result, ground and surface water impacts are inevitable as the final repository for the nitrogen in the sewage will most likely be the Peconic Bay. The cumulative impacts of nitrogen loading into the Estuary from projects such as this one raises substantive concerns about nutrient enrichment of the Bay, which is why nutrient reduction is the number one priority of the duly adopted Peconic Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Specifically, reducing nitrogen loads from onsite septic systems is a priority for the Peconic Estuary Program and this project conflicts with this established priority. The Board should be aware that pursuant to SEQRA conflict with a community's duly adopted management plan is one of the grounds for requiring a DEIS [see NYCRR:617.7(c)(1)(iv.)] In addition to the Suffolk County Department of Health Service's review of the proposed project, we believe it is the Planning Board's responsibility as Lead Agency to play role in ensuring the protection of our ground and surface waters by assessing and mitigating the potential environmental impacts of the sanitary waste that will be generated from this project. The Board should be aware that regulations implemented by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services are primarily set to protect human rather than environmental health. The SEQRA process requires that agencies make every reasonable effort to protect the environment in their decisions and such decisions may require additional safeguards not imposed by other involved agencies. ~ SCDHS density for the subject parcel is 4,052 gallons per day. The new standards reflect a 300 g.p.d, load for units larger than 1,200 square feet and 150 g.p.d.for unit sizes between 600 square feet and 1,200 square feet. Therefore, 7,650 g.p.d, are generated (24 units X 300 g.p.d. + 3 units X 150 g.p.d.}. 3 FO R T H E ~...~AS I END We suggest that the results of an examination of the long-term environmental impacts associated with the proposed sanitary system be provided in a DEIS. The DEIS should also include mitigation measures to address any potential nutrient impacts from the septic systems including the consideration of a small sewage treatment plant and ongoing groundwater monitoring. Yield The application states that the standard yield determination for this parcel is 24 lots and a maximum of 48 units are permitted if accessory apartments are applied as an addition to each primary structure. However, we believe that according to Town Code the yield should be calculated using a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet not 10,000 square feet as utilized by the applicant, therefore, the underlying yield would provide for 14 lots.2 In order to utilize the 10,000 square foot minimum to derive the applicant's suggested yield, sewers are required and this parcel is not equipped with sewers. Therefore, the underlying yield has been drastically increased and does not conform to Town Code. We do not believe the Town should allow this exception and the permissible yield should be appropriately amended. Additionally, the application proposes three accessory apartment units. Although Town Code (Section 280 C.2) seemingly permits one accessory apartment unit per permissible lot it is highly unlikely that that the Town Code ever envisioned applicants using the accessory apartment law to double the yield on every available parcel. We question whether the proposed accessory apartments within this site plan application are in fact separate units due to their large size and design. The application describes these three units as the same size and scale as the other units, offering little to no distinction between the accessory and primary units,s We believe this illustrates the applicant's misinterpretation of the Town Code in a way that attempts to increase the allowable density for what are primary building units. 2 Yield Calculation: Total Parcel Size (294,202 sq.ft.)/(20,000 sq.ft.) Density and Minimum Lot Size Schedule for Nonresidential Districts = 14.7 Lots. a Site Information Bulk Table and Yield Plan (October 2008) 4 F IIE L~ST END Currently, it appears that the site plan does not incorporate meaningful open space into its design. All of the "green areas" appear to be managed landscape which will more than likely need to be irrigated and fertilized. This poses potential environmental impacts to groundwater. We also recommend that the Ecological Survey dated June 2002 submitted as part of the Planning Study be updated in order to provide the most accurate assessment of the subject lot's evolving habitat. Size of the Units In a town memo written by the Planning Department dated October 20, 2008 titled, Planning goals for the high-density zoning districts, sizes of other retirement communities' units are discussed. The memo stated that the floor areas in these communities ranged from 1,100 square feet to 1,400 square feet. The units proposed in Southwold include two or three bedrooms and range in size from 2,300 square feet to 2,400 square feet not including garages, decks and basements. We believe that the sizes of the proposed units are excessively large and not consistent with the Town's stated planning goals for high-density zoning districts. This conflict raises the question of whether these units meet the needs and goals of Southold Town in providing a diversity of housing stock and whether these "luxury" units mesh within the community's existing character. This issue should be discussed within the DEIS and alternative site designs including size, scale and number of units should be examined. Traffic The traffic study submitted by Dunn Engineering dated March 28, 2006 is inadequate for the following reasons. First, the study is two years old and should be updated to include any changes that would reflect current traffic conditions in the area. Second, the report utilizes weekday figures only. Weekend traffic counts need to be included. Additionally, this study was completed in March. In order to provide an accurate assessment seasonal counts should be included within the study, including summer weekends. 5 GP( UP ~OR TH F I_~S F Lastly, although the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE}, Trip Generation 7th Edition was utilized to arrive at these figures, simply relying on the conclusive figure that a mere 24 new trips per day would be created by this development is unacceptable. A common sense approach should accompany this finding. For instance, although the development is slated to house residents 55 years of age and older, many individuals in this age bracket continue to work and carry on active lives which may increase the potential number of trips created. The code utilized in the study, "Senior Adult Housing," does not necessarily reflect the description and behavior of potential residents in the proposed community. Therefore, we recommend that ITE figures such as "Luxury Condominium/Townhouse," and "Residential Condominium/Townhouse" also be presented within the updated traffic study to present a range of possible conditions and a more accurate depiction of possible traffic impacts. Alternatives Recently, Group for the East End supported the proposed code amendments regarding open space, site plan design and size of residential units within the Hamlet Density and Hamlet Business Districts. Despite the Town Board's decision to exclude the Hamlet Business District from the amendments we continue to believe that residential site plans within these districts need to incorporate meaningful open space and impose size limits for proposed units in order to protect our water resources, community character and provide for a diversity of housing stock within Southold Town. One alternative to the proposed site plan, which should be considered within the DEIS, would be a design that incorporated an area of dedicated open space and a cap on the size of the units. Essenti~lly, this alternative should reflect the design objectives that would have been required in the recently proposed code amendments that were passed and applied to the Hamlet Density zoning district. Draft Environmental Imoact Statement Given the magnitude of the application accompanied by the numerous issues and questions that demonstrate the potential for adverse impacts to the environment and surrounding community we strongly recommend that a DEIS be required. 6 F( R TIIFI.~AST END A DEIS will provide for a thorough examination of the previously mentioned issues and more by suggesting methods and means to mitigate the environmental impacts. Alternative site designs, size, number and scale of permitted units, wastewater treatment, energy consumption, open space, and community character concerns should all be discussed within the DEIS. Additionally, the DEIS process affords the public the opportunity to comment on such a large project that will impact their community. Thank you for reviewing our comments and recommendations. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I can be reached at (631) 765-6450 ext. 211 or at ihartnagel@eastendenvironment.or~. en~n Hartnagel Environmental Advocate 7 Post Office Box 569 Bridgehampton, NY 11932 Tel: 631.53"(.1400 Fax: 631.537220t President Robert S. DeLuca Chairman William S. McChesney, Jr. Vice Chairman Ann Cotley Board Members Harris A, Beret Katherine Leahy Birch W. Marco Birch Wilhelmus B. Bryan Mark Burchill Andrew Gotdstein Gregory Hoogkamp Ronald S. Lauder Sandra R. Meyer Christopher Pla Peter Scheltbach dohn Shea John C. WaddeII Mary Walker Tel: 631.765.6450 FOR THE ~ Fax:63h765.6455 EAST END ............... .,.~ ...... ::~ March 12, 2008 ' MAR 18 2009 Chairman Mar~n Sidor & Members of the Planning Board To~ of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, ~Y 11971 Re: Southwold Site Plan Preliminary Hearing Dear Chairman Martin Sidor & Members of the Planning Board, On behalf of Group for the East End I would like to submit the following comments in relation to the proposed Southwold site plan application (SCTM# 1000-63-3-15). Position Statement: Due to the magnitude and intensity of the project and it's potential for significant adverse environmental impacts we recommend that the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, issue a Positive Declaration and require a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Summary Assessment: Based on our assessment, we are most concerned by the proposed action's potential impact on groundwater (and the related relationship between groundwater quality and the water quality of the Peconic Bay Estuary), roadway capacity, the protection of natural habitats, and the planning precedent that may be set for the development or redevelopment of other similarly zoned parcels, The magnitude and significance of potential impacts associated with this project strongly support the need for a consideration of alternative designs that could mitigate potential environmental harm. In the absence ora DEIS, there will be no mandatory consideration of alternatives, nor will there be a comparative assessment of potential mitigation measures to substantiate the best possible plan for this parcel. Additionally, we believe the recent SEQRA assessment prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (Environmental Assessment Review, March 2, 2009) offers clear evidence of the proposed action's complexity and significant potential for We protect and restore the environment of eastern Long island through education, citizen action and public advocacy. founded in1972 www.groupfortheeastend.org GR ! UP FOR TH E ~..~ST END environmental harm, which supports a Planning Board decision to require a DEIS. The Board will note that the 10-page NPV assessment appropriately reads like a scoping outline for a DEIS. We feel the NPV assessment demonstrates the significant amount of information that will be needed to fully understand the consequences of this proposal. Given the need for extensive information, and the low threshold that is imposed by SEQRA regarding a determination of significance, we ask the Planning Board to consider the improved review that would be provided by having all the requisite information assembled in a single document that would provide both the Board and the public with the most integrated understanding of the overall action as is clearly intended by the SEQRA process. It has long been our experience that the absence of a DEIS on major projects leads to a piece-meal and often disjointed review of significant project elements that essentially recreates the very problem SEQRA was intended to solve when it was adopted more than 30 years ago. If the Planning Board needs traffic studies, groundwater models, habitat assessments, stormwater management details, species inventories, extensive landscaping, design and visual details to make a reasonably well informed assessment it is clear that there is the potential for a significant environmental impact associated with this project. As a result, a DEIS should be required. We offer the following specific comments on several areas of environmental concern that should be addressed in a DEIS. Sewage The Suffolk County Department of Health Services recently amended its sewage standaFds in a document titled, Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Other Than Single-Family Residences, dated July 15, 2008 (corrected 11/20/08). 50% Post Consumer/50% Bamboo F]bers Pei}U P FOR TH E ~_ST END According to these new standards, the 27 proposed units would generate roughly 3,600 gallons per day over the allowed maximum sewage flow for this parcel.~ We believe that the SCDHS's latest standards should be applied to the application since the application is in the preliminary stages of review and has not received approval from any agency. Regardless of which standards are applied, considerable sanitary waste will be generated by this proposal. As a result, ground and surface water impacts are inevitable as the final repository for the nitrogen in the sewage will most likely be the Peconic Bay. The cumulative impacts of nitrogen loading into the Estuary from projects such as this one raises substantive concerns about nutrient enrichment of the Bay, which is why nutrient reduction is the number one priority of the duly adopted Peconic Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Specifically, reducing nitrogen loads from onsite septic systems is a priority for the Peconic Estuary Program and this project conflicts with this established priority. The Board should be aware that pursuant to SEQRA conflict with a community's duly adopted management plan is one of the grounds for requiring a DEIS [see NYCRR:617.7(c)(1)(iv.)] In addition to the Suffolk County Department of Health Service's review of the proposed project, we believe it is the Planning Board's responsibility as Lead Agency to play role in ensuring the protection of our ground and surface waters by assessing and mitigating the potential environmental impacts of the sanitary waste that will be generated from this project. The Board should be aware that regulations implemented by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services are primarily set to protect human rather than environmental health. The SEQRA process requires that agencies make every reasonable effort to protect the environment in their decisions and such decisions may require additional safeguards not imposed by other involved agencies. ~ SCDHS density for the subject parcel is 4,052 gallons per day. The new standards reflect a 300 g.p.d, load for units larger than 1,200 square feet and 150 g.p.d.for unit sizes between 600 square feet and 1,200 square feet. Therefore, 7,650 g.p.d, are generated (24 units X 300 g.p.d. + 3 units X 150 g.p.d.). 50% Post Consumer/50% Bamboo Fibers We suggest that the results of an examination of the long-term environmental impacts associated with the proposed sanitary system be provided in a DEIS. The DEIS should also include mitigation measures to address any potential nutrient impacts from the septic systems including the consideration of a small sewage treatment plant and ongoing groundwater monitoring. Yield The application states that the standard yield determination for this parcel is 24 lots and a maximum of 48 units are permitted if accessory apartments are applied as an addition to each primary structure. However, we believe that according to Town Code the yield should be calculated using a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet not 10,000 square feet as utilized by the applicant, therefore, the underlying yield would provide for 14 lots.2 In order to utilize the 10,000 square foot minimum to derive the applicant's suggested yield, sewers are required and this parcel is not equipped with sewers. Therefore, the underlying yield has been drastically increased and does not conform to Town Code. We do not believe the Town should allow this exception and the permissible yield should be appropriately amended. Additionally, the application proposes three accessory apartment units. Although Town Code (Section 280 C.2) seemingly permits one accessory apartment unit per permissible lot it is highly unlikely that that the Town Code ever envisioned applicants using the accessory apartment law to double the yield on every available parcel. We question whether the proposed accessory apartments within this site plan application are in fact separate units due to their large size and design. The application describes these three units as the same size and scale as the other units, offering little to no distinction between the accessory and primary units,s We believe this illustrates the applicant's misinterpretation of the Town Code in a way that attempts to increase the allowable density for what are primary building units. 2 Yield Calculation: Total Parcel Size (294,202 sq.ft.)/(20,000 sq. ff.) Density and Minimum Lot Size Schedule for Nonresidential Districts -- 14.7 Lots. s Site Information Sulk Table and Yield Plan (October 2008) G { UP FOR THE ~_~ST END Open Snace Currently, it appears that the site plan does not incorporate meaningful open space into its design. All of the "green areas" appear to be managed landscape which will more than likely need to be irrigated and fertilized. This poses potential environmental impacts to groundwater. We also recommend that the Ecological Survey dated June 2002 submitted as part of the Planning Study be updated in order to provide the most accurate assessment of the subject lot's evolving habitat. Size of the Units In a town memo written by the Planning Department dated October 20, 2008 titled, Planning goals for the high-density zoning districts, sizes of other retirement communities' units are discussed. The memo stated that the floor areas in these communities ranged from 1,100 square feet to 1,400 square feet. The units proposed in Southwold include two or three bedrooms and range in size from 2,300 square feet to 2,400 square feet not including garages, decks and basements. We believe that the sizes of the proposed units are excessively large and not consistent with the Town's stated planning goals for high-density zoning districts. This conflict raises the question of whether these units meet the needs and goals of Southold Town in providing a diversity of housing stock and whether these "luxury" units mesh within the community's existing character. This issue should be discussed within the DEIS and alternative site designs including size, scale and number of units should be examined. Traffic The traffic study submitted by Dunn Engineering dated March 28, 2006 is inadequate for the following reasons. First, the study is two years old and should be updated to include any changes that would reflect current traffic conditions in the area. Second, the report utilizes weekday figures only. Weekend traffic counts need to be included. Additionally, this study was completed in March. In order to provide an accurate assessment seasonal counts should be included within the study, including summer weekends. G- FOR THE ~EAST END Lastly, although the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation 7th Edition was utilized to arrive at these figures, simply relying on the conclusive figure that a mere 24 new trips per day would be created by this development is unacceptable. A common sense approach should accompany this finding. For instance, although the development is slated to house residents 55 years of age and older, many individuals in this age bracket continue to work and carry on active lives which may increase the potential number of trips created. The code utilized in the study, "Senior Adult Housing," does not necessarily reflect the description and behavior of potential residents in the proposed community. Therefore, we recommend that ITE figures such as "Luxury Condominium/Townhouse," and "Residential Condominium/Townhouse' also be presented within the updated traffic study to present a range of possible conditions and a more accurate depiction of possible traffic impacts. Alternatives. Recently, Group for the East End supported the proposed code amendments regarding open space, site plan design and size of residential units within the Hamlet Density and Hamlet Business Districts. Despite the Town Board's decision to exclude the Hamlet Business District from the amendments we continue to believe that residential site plans within these districts need to incorporate meaningful open space and impose size limits for proposed units in order to protect our water resources, community character and provide for a diversity of housing stock within Southold Town. One alternative to the proposed site plan, which should be considered within the DEIS, would be a design that incorporated an area of dedicated open space and a cap on the size of the units. Essentially, this alternative should reflect the design objectivesthat would have been required in the recently proposed code amendments that were passed and applied to the Hamlet Density zoning district. Draft Environmental Imnact Statement Given the magnitude of the application accompanied by the numerous issues and questions that demonstrate the potential for adverse impacts to the environment and surrounding community we strongly recommend that a DEIS be required. 50% Post Consumer/50% Bamboo Fibers A DE1S will provide for a thorough examination of the previously mentioned issues and more by suggesting methods and means to mitigate the environmental impacts. Alternative site designs, size, number and scale of permitted units, wastewater treatment, energy consumption, open space, and community character concerns should all be discussed within the DEIS. Additionally, the DEIS process affords the public the opportunity to comment on such a large project that will impact their community. Thank you for reviewing our comments and recommendations. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I can be reached at (631} 765-6450 exL 211 or at ihartnagelt~eastendenvironment.org. Sincerely, Jenn Hartnagel Environmental Advocate ? 50% Post Cortsumer/50% Bcrnboo Fibers Barbara McAdam 800 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935-1293 March 10, 2009 Martin Sidor Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: DE1S Needed for Southwold Manor Project Dear Martin Sidor: The proposed Southwold Manor condominium project will permanently transform an undeveloped parcel of land and create impacts to the surrounding community. Given the intensity of this development, and its potential impacts on groundwater quality, traffic, natural habitat and community character, 1 believe that the project must be subjected to a thorough environmental review in the form of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DE1S). Importantly, the DEIS will provide a comprehensive examination of these issues and identit~ all reasonable means to mitigate the potential impacts including the consideration of design alternatives. Additionally, the DEIS provides members of our community with the opportunity to participate in a rigorous review process, which will aide in the creation of the best possible plan for the community and the environment. Thank you for taking the time to review my concerns. Sincerely, Barbara McAdam 6312912491 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILL/AM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND 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. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 March 9, 2009 Mr. Alfred Amato Mr. Christopher Read East End Resources, LLC c/o Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Re: SEQR. Southwold Manor: 56644 Main Road, Southold, New York Dear Mr. Amato and Mr. Read: Enclosed please find an amended Environmental Assessment Review from Nelson, Pope and Voorhis. This review replaces the report hand-delivered to you last Monday. The report was amended to reflect your comments at the preliminary hearing stating that the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has found the site plan to be compliant without the need for sanitary flow credits. The information requested in this report is necessary for the Planning Board to complete its initial SEQRA review. Sincerely, Martin H. Sidor Chairperson Encl. cc: Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Southold Town Attorney COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING THOMAS ISLES, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING March 4, 2009 Town of Southold Planning Board PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Att: Ms. Kristy Winser, Sr. Planner Re: Application of"Southwold Manor" SCTM No.: 1000 06300 0300 015000 SCPC File No.: SD-09-02 Dear Mr. Winser: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A14-14 thru A14-23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on March 4, 2009 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation resolved to Approve said action with the following comments: 1. The NYS DOT shall be contacted for a full traffic mitigation analysis and for the necessity of the provision of a dedication of R.O.W. for future roadwork to NYS Rt. 25. 2. An alternate means of access should be provided to insure access by emergency and service vehicles. 3. The State DOT or Suffolk County DPW Division of transit operations should be contacted for the necessity of a bus stop or turn-off along the State ROW. 4. The subject building should be constructed to conform to Suffolk County Planning Commission guidelines on energy efficiency. 5. The subject site shall be designed to conform to Suffolk County Planning Commission guidelines on public safety. The subject property is in the vicinity of active farmland in a NYS agricultural district. Prospective owners of the proposed dwelling units should be informed by means of an advisory covenant and a note on the development map of the location of the active farmland and that occupants may be subject to noise, dust, odors and spraying applications normally associated with agricultural activities LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR · P.O. BOX 6100 · (631) 853-5191 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER (631) 853-4044 10. Proposed driveways should be aligned at perpendicular angles to the intemal road network. Moreover, the proposed driveways should incorporate a "T" shaped shunt or other turnaround arrangement in order to provide for safe ingress and egress to the internal roadway. In addition it has been the experience of the Suffolk Count Planning Commission that garage space tends to be poor off street parking spaces as, over time, garage space tends to be converted to living space or storage area. The Town should reconsider the availability of off street parking stalls as the right of way, Manor Drive is only 35 feet wide and may not be adequate to handle overflow off street parking. This may create cra-tying capacity and safety issues for the development, particularly for emergency and service vehicles. The Town should consider that the proposed 35 foot fight of way may not be suitable for dedication to the Town highway system in the future, should the need arise. The widening of the Manor Drive right of way to 50 feet should be considered for a number of the above reasons. The proposed use appears incompatible with warehouse and boat storage uses to the west. In addition, a vegetated berm should be located at the northern property line to buffer proposed residences from any adverse activities of the Long Island Rail Road. The Town should revisit landscaping plans for the property boundaries in order to insure adequate vegetative buffering to and from adjacent land uses. As noted above, the subject site is situated along the ROW of the Long Island Railroad. Residential structures that are erected on site should be constructed using materials and techniques that will reduce interior noise levels in accordance with the recommendations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the authority that has promulgated standards for reduction of interior noise. The Suffolk County Planning Commission applauds the reuse of the existing residential dwelling on-site however; the Commission encourages the Town to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission Guidelines on affordable housing particularly with respect to the concentration of affordable units. Very truly yours, Thomas Isles, AICP Chief Planner APF:ds LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEt] DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR · P.O. BOX 6100 (631) 853-5191 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER (631) 853-4044 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR WILLIAM 'J. CREMERS K,E..,N, NE~ L. EDWARDS GEOR(~E l), SOLOMON J()SI~]PH L. TOWNSEND March 3, 2009 Mr. Alfred Amato Mr. Christopher'Read East End Resources, LLC c/o Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Town souTHo .r, MAll.lNG ADDRESS: P,O, Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE I~OCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 Icor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3186 Re: SEQR. Southwold Manor: 56644 Main Road, Southold, New York Dear Mr. Amato and Mr. Read: Enclosed please find the initial Environmental Assessment Review from Nelson, Pope and Voovhis, prepared for the planning Board as part of their review under SEQR. The attached report includes details regarding additional information the Planning Board needs to be able to make a determination of significance for the proposed project. Please provide this information at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Martin H. Sidor Chairperson Encl. cc: Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Southold Town Attorney WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Tuesday, March 3, 2009 4:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. Subdivision Applications Site Plans: ~l~'.r.-.~{ na~¥ ...... __~_~~'~i'~ ............ : ~ SCTM~: [ 1000-63-3-15 -'~ ...................... ~-~'~f M~'~'~app~'~-~t~ ~f B0'~A~''-~ ~ Southold ~-6~ ............ ~'-~6~a'~F~6~i'~-i-~-~6-'p ro po se d active adult condominium communi~ consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling buildings, four buildings with a footprint of 7,573 s.f., ~ and four with a footprint of 7,695 s.f. Each building contains throe units ~ ranging in size from 2,700 s.f..to 2,958 s.f. The site plan also includes the convemion of an existing single family msiden~ into throe (3) affordable i housing units, one at 891 s.f., and ~o at 1,121 s.f., a 370 s.f. detached , garage, a ~o-sto~, 2,246 s.f. amenities building and a swimming pool and deck ama covering 2,887 s.f. on a 6.75 a~e pardi in the Hamlet ~ Business Zonin~ District~ {~ ................ , ~R Review ...... ] ~~ant repo~ on SEQR ~~--~. ] ~~S~QR repoR and Pa~ II ~F P_r_oj~ect n_a_~_e.'_ ....... _~_H_..u_dso_n__Ci_~_Savings Bank Plaza_l SCTM#:. 1000-122-3-17.1 Location: Located approximately 509' east of Bay Avenue, on the south side of I NYS Road 25, in Mattituck. -~-s"~r~3-~? ..... This site plan is for the proposed construction of 2 buildings totaling 13,227 square feet where one proposed two story building is 9,500 square feet of office space and the other proposed one story building is 3,241 square feet for a bank use with 65 proposed parking spaces on a 1.931 acre split-zoned parcel in the General Bus~ness and Residential-40 _~ Zoni.n~ Districts ............................................. St~'{'~-~ ~ "_i"_'~.~'~. _-~]-_ ~'.~_~i_ _n ~-_o.-~-~_~_ t~i_-(~_-~_-~'~__~.i~_~'~_~ bJ! ~..~9~a r i n g. ~9n~ ..................... ?'~,~*~: ~ Schedule for final appr(~_v, al_0n~_9..: ........................................ Pro'ect name' 't' "~'~i~'"~-~-~d~ .......................... [ '§~i~1"~: ~-"~-~)~"~2-'~-~:~':' ~ Location: 600 Laurel Lane, Laurel D Status: , SPU [""~t[~ ......................... ~-~"~-'~-~"~-~-~S~-"~r simian is required or not. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW (Part III Environmental Assessment) SITE PLaN APPLICATION FOR SOUTHWOLD MANOR ~ IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD in Consideration of the Application of East End Resources, LLC NP&V No. 09015 Prepared for: Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York I 1971 Preparedby: Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 Contact: Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP Date: March 2, 2009 1.0 INTRODUCTION Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) has been requested to prepare an environmental review of the above referenced project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA; Part 617) to assist the Southold Planning Board in rendering a Determination of Significance in conformance with the procedures of Part 617.7. The subject site is located on the north side of Main Road, 831 feet east of Boisseau Avenue, in the hamlet of Southold. The site is 6.75 acres in size, is zoned Hamlet Business (HB) and currently contains a 2-story residence and garage. The site is more particularly described as Suffolk County Tax Map Number (SCTM No): 1000-63-03-15. The applicant proposes a residential community for senior citizens (55+ years of age) totaling 27 units. The site plan proposes to retain thc existing residence and divide it into 3 units to be offered as affordable residential units for moderate-income families, and to construct an additional eight (8) buildings, each of which would contain throe (3) units for a total of 24 new units. The eight (8) buildings are described such that four (4) buildings have a footprint of 7,573 square feet (SF) and four (4) buildings have a footprint of 7,695 SF. Each building contains three (3) units ranging in size from 2,889 SF to 2,958 SF. The units to be located in the existing house include one (1) unit at 891 SF, and two (2) units at 1,121 SF. Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor The project includes a 2-story amenities building, pool and picnic area with parking at the north end of the site. Site access is proposed via a 24 foot wide driveway and turnaround, off of which driveways would be provided to the residential buildings and the parking area for the clubhouse and moderate-income family units. The project would utilize on-site sanitary systems and would be connected to public water supply of the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). Documents submitted by the applicant indicate that the allowable sanitary flow for the property is 4,050 gallons per day (gpd), and the project design flow is 4,118 gpd. As a result, according to the applicant the project exceeds density and will appear to require sanitary density credits to accommodate the 68 gpd of additional density in accordance with Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) requirements. The applicant claims they have received comments from the SCDHS indicating that the site plan meets SCDHS daily flow requirements withdut the need for credits, but has not presented any documentation. The site was inspected and contains the existing house, driveway, garage, minor outbuildings and landscaped areas in the south part of the site. North of the house and landscaped areas is an open area that may have been used for gardening in connection with the home. The balance of the site and the majority of the property is early successional woodland dominated by pioneer vegetation such a red cedar and black cherry with herbaceous and wood shrub understory. The site is characteristic of post-agricultural old field/shrubland in the process of succession to successional woodland. Adjoining uses included a boat storagc yard which is zoned HB west of the site, the Long Island Railroad tracks north of the site, a single family home zoned HB to the southeast and 2 single family homes zoned R-80 to the east-central and northeast of the site, with Main Road bounding the south side of the site. The subject site is in the eastern part of the business district of the Southold Hamlet center. This document provides a review of the information submitted by the applicant in connection with this project, and reports on field inspection and review by the consultant. The following information was received and reviewed as part of this submission: · Part I Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) · Planning Study for Site Plan Application for Southwold Manor (with Attachments), Freudenthal & Elkowitz, October 2008 · Responses to the Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan ("ERSAP") (with Attachments), Undated · LWRP Consistency Assessment Form and Attachment, 10/17/08 · Topographical Survey of Property, JM Land Surveying, February 15, 2006, and offers · Site Development Plans for Southwold Manor, RMS Engineering, 7-20-08 with various revision dates · Site Plan aerial overlay with surrounding land use, RMS Engineering, Undated · Revised Traffic Impact Assessment, Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C., Febmary 2, 2009 · Mark Michaels, R.A. Memo, February 23, 2009 · Stage 2 Archeological Report, Institute for Long Island Archaeology, October 2008 Included herein is a review of environmental considerations and planning factors with respect to the proposed project and the information submitted. The proposed action would appear to be an ~ Page 2 of I I Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor Unlisted Action under SEQRA, and the Planning Board has conducted a Coordinated Review to assume Lead Agency status for SEQRA review of the application. Page 3 of t I Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor 2.0 DISCUSSION The applicant voluntarily prepared materials to assist the Town in performing a SEQRA review. The Planning Board has reviewed the submission and requested that NP&V review materials to provide appropriate recommendations regarding significance and/or additional information needed to render a determination. The following subsections provide a review of information submitted, identify omissions and needed information to render a determination and include assessment of environmental and planning factors associated with the project. In addition, Attachment A, includes the Part II EAF prepared as part of this review to assist in identifying potential adverse environmental effects of the project for further consideration in this Part III Environmental Assessment. 2.1 Review of Submitted Materials It is important to have accurate and complete information available to the Planning Board to review prior to issuing a Determination of Significance. Inaccurate and incomplete information do not provide a suitable record on which to evaluate impacts and base a determination. The following points require revisions and/or additional information necessary to reach a determination. Information is requested to be provided by the applicant, and represents information that the Lead Agency reasonably needs to make a Determination of Significance. Responses to the ERSAP Several relevant documents should be addressed as an Addendum to either the Planning Study or the ERSAP document. These include the Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (CIS), the Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan and the Hamlet Study. The CIS is referred to in the Planning Study (page 18) as well as the Town Housing Assessment; however, no further information regarding these reports or the Hamlet study are provided in either document. The visual renderings included as Attachment E of the ERSAP document (View Points 1-2 and 1-3) show evergreen trees and shrub plantings around Building A-l, as well as other landscaping which is not evident on the landscape plan (Sheet SP-7). The landscape plan is inconsistent with vegetation shown in the visual renderings; these sources of information should be reconciled. Visual renderings were made to represent seasons when leaves are on the trees. This does not reflect visual conditions for 6-7 months of the year. Visual renderings of the critical view points should be provided to indicate these conditions. The Natural Heritage letter identifies historical sightings of three Threatened plants that may be present in the site or area, two of which have similar habitat needs to that which is present on the site. Further discussion/evaluation of the potential presence of these species and potential impacts to vegetation should be provided. It is noted that the only documented field inspection occurred in June 2002. Page 4 of I 1 Environmental Assessment Review §outhwold Manor Planning Study 1. The Landscaping subsection under Project Description (page 5) indicates that, "... 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." The feasibility of transplanting these trees, with input from an arborist/specialist is requested, and more details should be provided on the Landscape Plan (Sheet SP-7). 2. Page 7, under Architectural Details indicates that there are 4, A-Type, 3, B-Type and 1, C- Type Buildings; however, the site plan shows 4, A-Type, 1, B-Type and 3, C-Type Buildings. 3. The Land Use and Zoning section (pages I 1-16) discussion is inadequate to support the conclusion that no impacts to land use or zoning will occur. 4. Page 15 of the Planning Study indicates that 48 units are permitted on the 294,185.78 SF site. The allowable yield calculation leading to this conclusion should be explained. 4 The compatibility of the existing uses west of the site with the proposed project should be addressed in terms of potential impacts to new residential units. Boatyard activity could potentially impact residential uses on the site, if the buffer area is not maintained in all areas. The buffer area plantings and dimensions illustrated on the Landscape Plan seem inadequate. Potential impact and land use compatibility between the proposed project and homes to the east of the site should be more thoroughly evaluated. The location of structures adjoining the property should be shown. The buffer area plantings and dimensions illustrated on the Landscape Plan seem inadequate. The outdoor activities, driveway utilization and associated headlights and noise, lighting of residential units, and parking for the residential units in the existing house, are factors that could adversely impact neighboring properties. The relative locations of uses, effectiveness of buffers and design considerations/mitigation should be examined. Land Use Plans should include an assessment of the goals of the Town CIS (excerpts included in Appendix F but not discussed) and the Hamlet Study, with respect to the proposed project. 8. The Community Character section (pages 19-31) identifies the diversity of the business district and prior approvals with respect to buffers and zoning requirements. While informative, this does not obviate the need for site specific consideration of the proposed project with respect to ensuring that the ngw residences on the subject site are protected and existing residents adjoining the subject site are likewise properly buffered through site design and layout, buffers and landscape enhancements. The subject site is unique as it lies on the eastern extreme of the Southold hamlet business district and abuts R-80 zoned land and existing single family residences. Items relevant for further evaluation are noted in comments 1, 5 and 6 above. Page 5 of 11 Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor 9. The section on SEQRA Criteria for Determination of Significance (Page 38) of the Planning Study refers to the Traffic Impact Assessment contained in Appendix G of the Planning Study, and offers this as a basis to conclude that the project will not adversely impact traffic conditions. This study has been reviewed as well as the Traffic Impact Assessment dated February 2, 2009, and the following points should be addressed: a. The assessment applies the trip generation data for the site based upon the ITE Land Use Code 252, Senior Adult Housing, Attached. The size and design of the units as well as observation of similar residential projects on Long Island suggests that Land Use Code 251, Senior Adult Housing, Detached, more accurately reflects the trip generation for senior housing and should be applied. b. Capacity and level of service analysis should be provided to facilitate the review of the site access. The analyses should include weekday and Saturday peak hours and should be seasonally adjusted to the higher traffic volumes experienced during the summer months. The analysis should be supported with sufficient traffic volume data to identify the morning, evening, and Saturday peak hours of the highway. c. New York State's Access Management policies frequently request cross access agreements to abutting sites. Although the cross access does not appear practical at this time, provision should be made for future changes to abutting land uses. Therefore, it is recommended that the assessment be revised, updated and expanded to provide sufficient information on which to base a conclusion and ultimately a Determination of Significance by the Planning Board. 11. One of the Criteria for Determining Significance (page 40) is: the creation of a hazard to human health. Pesticide impact to soils and potential health issues of residential occupancy should be addressed in conformance with guidance documents available from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). The need for soil management should be determined. 12. The statement under Findings and Conclusions (page 44) that the project "... provides a 25- foot vegetated buffer..." is not accurate for the following reasons: a. The Landscape Plan depicts transplanting of vegetation to the 15 foot buffer area, not the 25 foot; and b. There are many areas which encroach into a 25 foot buffer as depicted on the Landscape Plan. 13. The Southold Fire District letter contained in Appendix K of the Planning Study requests that a hydrant be placed 400 feet north of Main Road within the site. The site plan depicts a hydrant to be located 725 feet north of Main Road. This discrepancy should be addressed. LWRP Consistency Assessment Form Page I of the attachment indicates, "With regard to open space, the proposed project has been designed such that the existing 5.474- acres of woodland, which includes brush and undergrowth, would be preserved to the maximum extent practicable." The Site Plan and landscape plan illustrate transplanting of cedar trees into buffer areas; however, additional Page 6 of I I Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor efforts should be made to retain existing vegetation in areas where this can be achieved, in order to avoid establishing excessive areas of fertilizer and irrigation dependent vegetation on the site. Other aspects of the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form pertaining to visual qualities, water quality, lighting and landscaping are addressed in other comments on specific documents included in the submission. Site Development Plans Sheet SP-5; Grading and Drainage Plan: The applicant should comply with recommendations of the Town Engineer with regard to grading and drainage to ensure adequate stormwater containment and compliance with SPDES GP 0-01-008 and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements. 2. Sheet SP-6; Utility Plan: A hydrant about 725 feet north of Main Road. Sheet SP-7; Landscape Plan: The existing street trees at the front entrance will be very close to the alignment of the curb and road. It is expected that root zone impact and compaction will occur in close proximity to these trees. The trees am proposed to remain, and are integral in the visual simulations and analysis of potential visual and aesthetic impacts along the Main Road Scenic Corridor. As a result, review of the plan by an arborist, detailed notes, contingencies and mitigation for these trees should be provided on the landscape plan and any narratives. In addition, the utility pole located east of the proposed driveway entrance is proposed to be moved. However, it's located close to one of the street trees and therefore, any affect this may have on the street tree located in the vicinity should be identified. The Landscape Plan should also depict the fence which is shown on the Alignment Plan so as to ensure that this recommendation of LWRP Policy 3A is provided. The buffer proposed to be planted with transplanting of native trees should be further defined in terms off width, size of trees, spacing and location of trees, species to be transplanted, and evaluation to ensure that the requirements of Article XX Landscaping, Screening and Buffer Regulations, and Section 280-137: Standards for Residential Site Plans per the code are complied with. The Landscape Plan should match the visual simulations in terms of illustrating evergreen trees where shown, foundation plantings, and other plantings within the community. Landscaping should be provided to screen the parking area associated with the moderate- income units and other parking areas. This appears to be present in the visual simulation, but is not on the landscape plan. Section 280; §280-92 D. (General Requirements) of the Town Code indicates that: To the extent possible, existing trees vegetation and unique site features, such as stone walls shall be retained and protected. Existing healthy, mature trees, if properly located, shall be fully credited against the requirements of these regulations." The alignment, grading and utility plans should be reviewed, and existing trees and clusters of trees that can remain, should be retained where possible. It is noted that there is an extensive amount of hydroseed, which is Page 7 of I I Environmental Assessment Review $outhwold Manor expected to require fertilizer and irrigation. The irrigation dependent nature of these hydroseed areas is evident by the irrigation plan (Sheet SP-8) which depicts sprinkler heads throughout these areas. Retained native or indigenous landscape clusters of trees are recommended for internal buffering between buildings, external buffering, site aesthetics and reduction of fertilizer and irrigation dependent vegetation, and in order to address this section of the code. Sheet SP-9; Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: This plan should be titled, "Erosion Control Plan" so as to avoid confusion with a SWPPP document which is a narrative that evaluates conformance with SPDES GP 0-01-008 including water quantity and quality parameters. The Town Engineer should review this plan to ensure that it complies with Town requirements in providing effective erosion control. Sheet SP-15; Photometric Plan: The plan illustrates the photometrics from the light posts along the site access road. Any additional site lighting including walkway/sidewalk lights, bollard lights, building lighting, driveway and garage access lighting, amenities building and pool area lighting, lighting of the parking area for the 3 moderate-income units and other areas should be depicted and assessed. 2.2 Environmental Considerations The applicant prepared documentation to ad&ess the issues that they believed would provide useful supplemental information to the Town to assist in rendering a determination of significance. Very limited information was provided with respect to natural resources. Additional information is requested with respect to ecology and the presence of several Threatened plants identified by the Natural Heritage Program for which there may be suitable habitat on the subject site. Information regarding water resources was not submitted and would be useful in order to determine potential water resource impacts of the project. The project lies within the Peconic Estuary Program groundwater contributing area. The site lies at an elevation of approximately 25-30 feet, and there is adequate depth to groundwater to accommodate subsurface drainage and sanitary systems based on test holes reported in the Site Development Plans package. Groundwater flow is toward the south, and the site is within 1,000 feet of wetlands and tributary waters of Town Creek. The site is in Groundwater Management Zone IV which permits a discharge of 600 gpd/acre of sanitary waste. The project would utilize on-site sanitary systems and would be connected to public water supply of the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). Documents submitted by the applicant indicate that the allowable sanitary flow for the property is 4,050 gallons per day (gpd), and the project design flow is 4,118 gpd. As a result, according to the applicant the project exceeds density and will appear to require sanitary density credits to accommodate the 68 gpd of additional density in SCDHS requirements. The applicant claims they have received comments from the SCDHS indicating that the site plan meets SCDHS daily flow requirements without the need for credits, but has not presented any documentation. Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor The sanitary discharge and fertilizer application on the property directly relate to potential groundwater impacts. It is noted that unit sizes range from 2,889 to nearly 3,000 SF, and units have 4 lavatories/bathrooms and full laundry and kitchen facilities. The occupancy of these units as related to the volume of wastewater should be identified in order to understand potential wastewater discharge volumes. The concentration of nitrogen in recharge should be determined through analysis of wastewater volume and concentration, or population, in addition to the application of nitrogen-containing fertilizer. This information provides a basis to address potential groundwater impacts and nitrogen concentrations in the groundwater contributing area to the Peconic Estuary. Other natural resources on the site are limited as a result of the relatively flat topography, good quality leaching subsoils, non-constrained surface soils and past clearing of the site as well as the presence of some invasive species. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are expected, except as noted below. With respect to soils, the past agricultural use of the property warrants further examination of potential presence of pesticide concentrations that could cause public health concerns in connection with the development. The applicant is directed to SCDHS guidance documents for methodology to address this matter. 2.3 Planning Considerations The Planning Study provides more relevant information with respect to Planning Considerations, including sections to address: Land Use and Zoning, Community Character, Aesthetics and Cultural Resources. These report sections have been reviewed and relevant comments are provided in Section 2.1 above. Supplemental information should be provided to address these comments. The Traffic Impact Assessment should be supplemented to address the comments pertaining to the site access, trip generation, peak hour, cross access, and soundness of the study for the purpose of concluding that there are no potential impacts with respect to traffic. 3.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The applicant voluntarily submitted information for consideration by the Planning Board in rendering a Determination of Significance. This information is useful and has been reviewed through this report. In addition, a Part II EAF has been prepared to determine if the applicant addressed all of the relevant issues that may be identified as small to moderate, or potentially large impacts. Review of the submitted information and the Part II EAF finds that there are a number of issues that are not adequately addressed, and based on the information available at this time, there could be a basis to conclude that one or more potential significant impacts may result from this project. A summary of the key issues for which additional information is requested is provided as follows: Page 9 of 11 Environmental Assessment Review $outhwold Manor 1. Relevant land use plans should be reviewed including the goals of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and the Hamlet Study. 2. Visual renderings should be made to be consistent with an upgraded Landscape Plan. 3. Visual renderings should reflect seasons when the leaves are not on the trees in order to address potential visual impacts to the scenic corridor 4. The Natural Heritage lette~' identifies historical sightings. Further discussion/evaluation of the of three Threatened plants that may be present in the site or area (two of which have similar habitat needs to that which is present on the site) and potential impact to these plants should be provided. 5. The feasibility of transplanting existing md cedar trees, with input from an arborist/specialist is requested, as well as more details to be provided on the Landscape Plan (Sheet SP-7). 6. The allowable yield calculation leading to the conclusion that 48 units are permitted on the site should be explained. 7. The compatibility of the existing uses west of the site with the proposed project should be addressed in terms of potential impacts to new residential units. Boatyard activity could potentially impact residential uses on the site if the buffer area is not maintained in all areas. The buffer area plantings and dimensions illustrated on the Landscape Plan seem inadequate. 8. Potential impact and land use compatibility between the proposed project and homes to the east of the site should be more thoroughly evaluated. The location of structures adjoining the property should be shown. The buffer area plantings and dimensions illustrated on the Landscape Plan seem inadequate. The outdoor activities, driveway utilization and associated headlights and noise, lighting of residential units, and parking for the residential units in the existing house, are factors that could adversely impact neighboring properties. The relative locations of uses, effectiveness of buffers and design considerations/mitigation should be examined. 9. The Traffic Impact Assessment should be supplemented to address the comments pertaining to the site access, trip generation, peak hour, cross access, and soundness of the stud.y for the purpose of concluding that there are no potential impacts with respect to traffic. 10. Pesticide impact to soils and potential health issues of residential occupancy should be addressed in conformance with guidance documents available from the SCDHS. The need for soil management should be determined. 11. The location of the fire hydrant should be reconciled with the Southold Fire District recommendation. 12. Additional efforts should be made to retain existing vegetation in areas where this tan be achieved, in order to avoid establishing excessive areas of fertilizer and irrigation dependent vegetation on the site. 13. The existing street trees at the front entrance will be very close to the alignment of the curb and road. It is expected that root zone impact and compaction will occur in close proximity to these trees. The trees are proposed to remain, and are integral in the visual simulations and analysis of potential visual and aesthetic impacts along the Main Road Scenic Corridor. As a result, review of the plan by an arborist, detailed notes, contingencies and mitigation for these trees should be provided on the landscape plan and any narratives. 14. The Landscape Plan should also depict the fence which is shown on the Alignment Plan so as to ensure that this recommendation of LWRP Policy 3A is provided. 15. The buffer proposed to be planted with transplanting of native trees should be further defined in terms of: width, size of trees, spacing and location of trees, species to be transplanted, and Page lOofll Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor evaluation to ensure that the requirements of Article XX Landscaping, Screening and Buffer Regulations, and Section 280-137: Standards for Residential Site Plans per the code are complied with. 16. The Landscape Plan should match the visual simulations in terms of illustrating evergreen trees where shown, foundation plantings, and other plantings within the community. 17. Landscaping should be provided to screen the parking area associated with the moderate- income units. This appears to be present in the visual simulation, but is not on the landscape plan. 18. Retained native or indigenous landscape clusters of trees are recommended for internal buffering between buildings, external buffering, site aesthetics and reduction of fertilizer and irrigation dependent vegetation, and in order to address this section of the code. The plan should be overlain on a more detailed site inventory of existing vegetation in order to determine where materials should be transplanted from and where existing vegetation can be retained. 19. The Landscape Plan should be evaluated for conformance with Article XX Landscaping, Screening and Buffer Regulations and Section 280-137, Standards for Residential Site Plans, of the Town Code, and amended accordingly. 20. Sheet SP-9; Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan should be titled, "Erosion Control Plan" so as to avoid confusion with a SWPPP document. 21. The Photometric Plan (Sheet SP-15) and/or other appropriate submission documents should be amended to show additional site lighting including walkway/sidewalk lights, bollard lights, bui!ding lighting, driveway and garage access lighting, amenities building and pool area lighting, lighting of the parking area for the 3 moderate-income units and other areas; once identified, potential impacts should be assessed. 22. Potential nitrogen load to groundwater and the Peconic Estuary should be assessed, and measures taken to reduce impacts from wastewater discharge and use of fertilizer dependent vegetation to the maximum extent practicable. 23. Clarification with regards to the daily sanitary flow for the proposed project based on SCDHS requirements should be provided. Information is requested to be provided by the applicant, and represents information that the Lead Agency reasonably needs to make a Determination of Significance. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Environmental Assessment Review. We would be pleased to review any sfipplemental information which may be available in order to conclude the process of ensuring that sufficient information is available on which to render a Determination of Significance. Once all information is available, we would be pleased to provide input toward the issuance of a Determination of Significance. Please do not hesitate to contact Charles J. Voorhis at NP&V should there be any questions. Page I1 ofll LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans SPFile Type: Project Type: Site Plans Status: Application SCTM #: 1000 - 63.-3-15 Project Name: Southwold Manor Address: 56655 NYS Rt. 25 Hamlet: Southold Applicant Name: East End Resources, LLC Owner Name: Albert Cohen Zone 1: HB Approval Date: OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A date indicates that we have received the related information End SP Date: Zone 2: Zone 3: Location: 56655 NYS Route 25, approximately 1,000 ft. east of Boisseau Avenue, Southold, NY SC Filin,q Date: C and R's: Home Assoc: R and M ^,qreement: SCAN Date SCANNED MAR 17 2009 - Records Management ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW ........ ~,*~ (Part III Environmental Assessment) SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR SOUTHWOLD MANOR IN THE TOV~rN OF SOUTHOLD in Consideration of the Application of East End Resources, LLC NP&V No. 09015 Prepared for: Town of Southold Planfling Board Town Hall, 53095 Main R0ad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Preparedby: Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 Contact: Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP Date: March 2, 2009 1.0 INTRODUCTION Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) has been requested to prepare an environmental review of the above referenced project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA; Part 617) to assist the Southold Planning Board in rendering a Determination of Significance in conformance with the procedures of Part 617.7. The subject site is located on the north side of Main Road, 831 feet east of Boisseau Avenue, in the hamlet of Southold. The site is 6.75 acres in size, is zoned Hamlet Business (HB) and currently contains a 2-story residence and garage. The site is more particularly described as Suffolk County Tax Map Number (SCTM No): 1000-63-03-15. The applicant proposes a residential community for senior citizens (55+ years of age) totaling 27 units. The site plan proposes to retain the existing residence and divide it into 3 units to be offered as affordable residential units for moderate-income families, and to construct an additional eight (8) buildings, each of which would contain three (3) units for a total of 24 new units. The eight (8) buildings are described such that four (4) buildings have a footprint of 7,573 square feet (SF) and four (4) buildings have a footprint of 7,695 SF. Each building contains three (3) units ranging in size from 2,889 SF to 2,958 SF. The units to be located in the existing house include one (l) unit at 891 SF, and two (2) units at 1,121 SF. Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor The project includes a 2-st0ry amenities building, pool and picnic area with parking at the north end of the site. Site access is proposed via a 24 foot wide driveway and turnaround, off of which driveways would be provided to the residential buildings and the parking area for the clubhouse and moderate-income family units. The project would utilize on-site sanitary systems and would be connected to public water supply of the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). Documents submitted by the applicant indicate that the allowable sanitary flow for the property is 4,050 gallons per day (gpd), and the project design flow is 4,118 gpd. As a result, according to the applicant ~he project exceeds density and will require sanitary density credits to accommodate the 68 gpd of additional density in accordance with Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) requirements. The site was inspected and contains the existing house, driveway, garage, minor outbuildings and landscaped areas in the south part of the site. North of the house and landscaped areas is an open area that may have been used for gardening in connection with the home. The balance of the site and the majority of the property is early successional woodland dominated by pioneer vegetation such a red cedar and black cherry with herbaceous and wood shrub understory. The site is characteristic of post-agricultural old field/shrubland in the process of succession to successional woodland. Adjoining uses included a boat storage yard which is zoned HB west of the site, the Long Island Railroad tracks north of the site, a single family home zoned HB to the southeast and 2 single family homes zoned R-80 to the east-central and northeast of the site, with Main Road bounding the south side of the site. The subject site is in the eastern part of the business district of the Southold Hamlet center. This document provides a review of the information submitted by the applicant in connection with this project, and reports on field inspection and review by the consultant. The following information was received and reviewed as part of this submission: · Part I Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) · Planning Study for Site Plan Application for Southwold Manor (with Attachments), Freudenthal & Elkowitz, October 2008 · Responses to the Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan ("ERSAP") (with Attachments), Undated · LWRP Consistency Assessment Form and Attachment, 10/17/08 · Topographical Survey of Property, JM Land Surveying, February 15, 2006, and offers · Site Development Plans for Southwold Manor, RMS Engineering, 7-20-08 with various revision dates · Site Plan aerial overlay with surrounding land use, RMS Engineering, Undated · Revised Traffic Impact Assessment, Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C., February 2, 2009 · Mark Michaels, R.A. Memo, February 23, 2009 Stage 2 Archeological Report, Institute for Long Island Archaeology, October 2008 Included herein is a review of environmental considerations and planning factors with respect to the proposed project and the information submitted. The proposed action would appear to be an Unlisted Action under SEQRA, and the Planning Board has conducted a Coordinated Review to assume Lead Agency status for SEQRA review of thc application. ~~ Page 2 of 10 Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor 2.0 DISCUSSION The applicant voluntarily prepared materials to assist the Town in performing a SEQRA review. The Planning Board has reviewed the submission and requested that NP&V review materials to provide appropriate recommendations regarding significance and/or additional information needed to render a determination. The following subsections provide a review of information submitted, identify omissions and needed information to render a determination and include assessment of environmental and planning factors associated with the project. In addition, Attachment A, includes the Part II EAF prepared as part of this review to assist in identifying potential adverse environmental effects of the project for further consideration in this Part III Environmental Assessment.. 2.1 Review of Submitted Materials It is important to have accurate and complete information available to the Planning Board to review prior to issuing a Determination of Significance. Inaccurate and incomplete information do not provide a suitable record on which to evaluate impacts and base a determination. The following points require revisions and/or additional information necessary to reach a determination. Information is requested to be provided by the applicant, and represents information that the Lead Agency reasonably needs to make a Determination of Significance. Responses to the ERSAP Several relevant documents should be addressed as an Addendum to either the Planning Study or the ERSAP document. These include the Town of Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy (CIS), the Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan and the Hamlet Study. The CIS is referred to in the Planning Study (page 18) as well as the Town Housing Assessment; however, no further information regarding these reports or the Hamlet study are provided in either document. The visual renderings included as Attachment E of the ERSAP document (View Points 1-2 and 1-3) show evergreen trees and shrub plantings around Building A-I, as well as other landscaping which is not evident on the landscape plan (Sheet SP-7). The landscape plan is inconsistent with vegetation shown in the visual renderings; these sources of information should be reconciled. Visual renderings were made to represent seasons when leaves are on the trees. This does not reflect visual conditions for 6-7 months of the year. Visual renderings of the critical view points should be provided to indicate these conditions. The Natural Heritage letter identifies historical sightings of three Threatened plants that may be present in the site or area, two of which have similar habitat needs to that which is present on the site. Further discussion/evaluation of the potential presence of these species and potential impacts to vegetation should be provided. It is noted that the only documented field inspection occurred in June 2002. Page 3 of 10 Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor Planning Study 1. The Landscaping subsection under Project Description (page 5) indicates that, "... 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 pamels." The feasibility of transplanting these trees, with input from an arborist/specialist is requested, and more details should be provided on the Landscape Plan (Sheet SP-7). 2. Page 7, under Architectural Details indicates that there are 4, A-Type, 3, B-Type and 1, C- Type Buildings; however, the site plan shows 4, A-Type, 1, B-Type and 3, C-Type Buildings. 3. The Land Use and Zoning section (pages 11-16) discussion is inadequate to support the conclusion that no impacts to land use or zoning will occur. 4. Page 15 of the Planning Study indicates that 48 units are permitted on the 294,185.78 SF site. The allowable yield calculation leading to this conclusion should be explained. 5. The compatibility of the existing uses west of the site with the proposed project should be addressed in terms of potential impacts to new residential units. Boatyard activity could potentially impact residential uses on the site, if the buffer area is not maintained in all areas. The buffer area plantings and dimensions illustrated on the Landscape Plan seem inadequate. 6. Potential impact and land use compatibility between the proposed project and homes to the east of the site should be more thoroughly evaluated. The location of structures adjoining the property should be shown. The buffer area plantings and dimensions illustrated on the Landscape Plan seem inadequate. The outdoor activities, driveway utilization and associated headlights and noise, lighting of residential units, and parking for the residential units in the existing house, are factors that could adversely impact neighboring properties. The relative locations of uses, effectiveness of buffers and design considerations/mitigation should be examined. 7. Land Use Plans should include an assessment of the goals of the Town CIS (excerpts included in Appendix F but not discussed) and the Hamlet Study, with respect to the proposed project. 8. The Community Character section (pages 19-31) identifies the diversity of the business district and prior approvals with respect to buffers and zoning requirements. While informative, this does not obviate the need for site specific consideration of the proposed project with respect to ensuring that the new residences on the subject site are protected and existing residents adjoining the subject site are likewise properly buffered through site design and layout, buffers and landscape enhancements. The subject site is unique as it lies on the eastern extreme of the Southold hamlet business district and abuts R-80 zoned land and existing single family residences. Items relevant for further evaluation am noted in comments I, 5 and 6 above. ~~ Page 4 of 10 Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor 9. The section on SEQRA Criteria for Determination of Significance (Page 38) of the Planning Study refers to the Traffic Impact Assessment contained in Appendix G of the Planning Study, and offers this as a basis to conclude that the project will not adversely impact traffic conditions. This study has been reviewed as well as the Traffic Impact Assessment dated February 2, 2009, and the following points should be addressed: a. The assessment applies the trip generation data for the site based upon the ITE Land Use Code 252, Senior Adult Housing, Attached. The size and design of the units as well as observation of similar residential projects on Long Island suggests that Land Use Code 251, Senior Adult Housing, Detached, more accurately reflects the trip generation for senior housing and should be applied. b. Capacity and level of service analysis should be provided to facilitate the review of the site access. The analyses should include weekday and Saturday peak hours and should be seasonally adjusted to the higher traffic volumes experienced during the summer months. The analysis should be supported with sufficient traffic volume data to identify the moming, evening, and Saturday peak hours of the highway. c. New York State's Access Management policies frequently request cross access agreements to abutting sites. Although the cross access does not appear practical at this time, provision should be made for future changes to abutting land uses. Therefore, it is recommended that the assessment be revised, updated and expanded to provide sufficient information on which to base a conclusion and ultimately a Determination of Significance by the Planning Board. 11. One of the Criteria for Determining Significance (page 40) is: the creation of a hazard to human health. Pesticide impact to soils and potential health issues of residential occupancy should be addressed in conformance with guidance documents available from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). The need for soil management should be determined.. 12. The statement under Findings and Conclusions (page 44) that the project "... provides a 25- foot vegetated buffer..." is not accurate for the following reasons: a. The Landscape Plan depicts transplanting of vegetation to the 15 foot buffer area, not the 25 foot; and b. Them are many areas which encroach into a 25 foot buffer as depicted on the Landscape Plan. 13. The Southold Fire District letter contained in Appendix K of the Planning Study requests that a hydrant be placed 400 feet north of Main Road within the site. The site plan depicts a hydrant to be located 725 feet north of Main Road. This discrepancy should be addressed. LWRP Consistency Assessment Form 1. Page I of the attachment indicates, "With regard to open space, the proposed project has been designed such that the existing 5.474- acres of woodland, which includes brash and undergrowth, would be preserved to the maximum extent practicable." The Site Plan and landscape plan illustrate transplanting of cedar trees into buffer areas; however, additional Page 5 of I 0 Environmental Assessment Review $outhwold Manor efforts should be made to retain existing vegetation in areas where this can be achieved, in order to avoid establishing excessive areas of fertilizer and irrigation dependent vegetation on the site. 2. Other aspects of the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form pertaining to visual qualities, water quality, lighting and landscaping are addressed in other comments on specific documents included in the submission. Site Development Plans Sheet SP-5; Grading and Drainage Plan: The applicant should comply with recommendations of the Town Engineer with regard to grading and drainage to ensure adequate stormwater containment and compliance with SPDES GP 0-01-008 and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements. 2. Sheet SP-6; Utility Plan: A hydrant about 725 feet north of Main Road. Sheet SP-7; Landscape Plan: The existing street trees at the front entrance will be very close to the alignment of the curb and road. It is expected that root zone impact and compaction will occur in close proximity to these trees. The trees are proposed to remain, and are integral in the visual simulations and analysis of potential visual and aesthetic impacts along the Main Road Scenic Corridor. As a result, review of the plan by an arborist, detailed notes, contingencies and mitigation for these trees should be provided on the landscape plan and any narratives. In addition, the utility pole located east of the proposed driveway entrance is proposed to be moved. However, it's located close to one of the street trees and therefore, any affect this may have on the street tree located in the vicinity should be identified. The Landscape Plan should also depict the fence which is shown on the Alignment Plan so as to ensure that this recommendation of LWRP Policy 3A is provided. The buffer proposed to be planted with transplanting of native trees should be further defined in terms off width, size of trees, spacing and location of trees, species to be transplanted, and evaluation to ensure that the requirements of Article XX Landscaping, Screening and Buffer Regulations, and Section 280-137: Standards for Residential Site Plans per the code are complied with. The Landscape Plan should match the visual simulations in terms of illustrating evergreen trees where shown, foundation plantings, and other plantings within the community. Landscaping should be provided to screen the parking ama associated with the moderate- income units and other parking areas. This appears to be present in the visual simulation, but is not on the landscape plan. Section 280; §280-92 D. (General Requirements) of the Town Code indicates that: To the extent possible, existing trees vegetation and unique site features, such as stone walls shall be retained and protected. Existing healthy, mature trees, if properly located, shall be fully credited against the requirements of these regulations." The alignment, grading and utility plans should be reviewed, and existing trees and clusters of trees that can remain, should be retained where possible. It is noted that there is an extensive amount of hydroseed, which is Page 6 of I0 Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor expected to require fertilizer and irrigation. The irrigation dependent nature of these hydroseed areas is evident by the irrigation plan (Sheet SP-8) which depicts sprinkler heads throughout these areas. Retained native or indigenous landscape clusters of trees are recommended for internal buffering between buildings, external buffering, site aesthetics and reduction of fertilizer and irrigation dependent vegetation, and in order to address this section of the code. 4. Sheet SP-9; Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: This plan should be titled, "Erosion Control Plan" so as to avoid confusion with a SWPPP document which is a narrative that evaluates conformance with SPDES GP 0-01-008 including water quantity and quality parameters. The Town Engineer should review this plan to ensure that it complies with Town requirements in providing effective erosion control. 5. Sheet SP-15; Photometric Plan: The plan illustrates the photometrics from the light posts along the site access road. Any additional site lighting including walkway/sidewalk lights, bollard lights, building lighting, driveway and garage access lighting, amenities building and pool area lighting, lighting of the parking area for the 3 moderate-income units and other areas should be depicted and assessed. 2.2 Environmental Considerations The applicant prepared documentation to address the issues that they believed would provide useful supplemental information to the Town to assist in rendering a determination of significance. Very limited information was provided with respect to natural resources. Additional information is requested with respect to ecology and the presence of several Threatened plants identified by the Natural Heritage Program for which there may be suitable habitat on the subject site. Information regarding water resources was not submitted and would be useful in order to determine potential water resoume impacts of the project. The project lies within the Peconic Estuary Program groundwater contributing area. The site lies at an elevation of approximately 25-30 feet, and there is adequate depth to groundwater to accommodate subsurface drainage and sanitary systems based on test holes reported in the Site Development Plans package. Groundwater flow is toward the south, and the site is within 1,000 feet of wetlands and tributary waters of Town Creek. The site is in Groundwater Management Zone IV which permits a discharge of 600 gpd/acre of sanitary waste. The project would utilize on-site sanitary systems and would be colmected to public water supply of the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). Documents submitted by the applicant indicate that the allowable sanitary flow for the property is 4,050 gallons per day (gpd), and the project design flow is 4,118 gpd. As a result, according to the applicant the project exceeds density and will require sanitary density credits to accommodate the 68 gpd of additional density in SCDHS requirements. The sanitary discharge and fertilizer application on the property directly relate to potential groundwater impacts. It is noted that unit sizes range from 2,889 to nearly 3,000 SF, and units have 4 lavatories/bathrooms and full laundry and kitchen facilities. The occupancy of these units Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor as related to the volume of wastewater should be identified in order to understand potential wastewater discharge volumes. The concentration of nitrogen in recharge should be determined through analysis of wastewater volume and concentration, or population, in addition to the application of nitrogen-containing fertilizer. This information provides a basis to address potential groundwater impacts and nitrogen concentrations in the groundwater contributing area to the Peconic Estuary. Other natural resources on the site are limited as a result of the relatively flat topography, good quality leaching subsoils, non-constrained surface soils and past clearing of the site as well as the presence of some invasive species. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are expected, except as noted below. With respect to soils, the past agricultural use of the property warrants further examination of potential presence of pesticide concentrations that could cause public health concerns in connection with the development. The applicant is directed to SCDHS guidance documents for methodology to address this matter. 2.3 Planning Considerations The Planning Study provides more relevant information with respect to Planning Considerations, including sections to address: Land Use and Zoning, Community Character, Aesthetics and Cultural Resources. These report sections have been reviewed and relevant comments are provided in Section 2.1 above. Supplemental information should be provided to address these comments. The Traffic Impact Assessment should be supplemented to address the comments pertaining to the-site access, trip generation, peak hour, cross access, and soundness of the study for the purpose of concluding that there are no potential impacts with respect to traffic. 3.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The applicant voluntarily submitted information for consideration by the Planning Board in rendering a Determination of Significance. This information is useful and has been reviewed through this report. In addition, a Part II EAF has been prepared to determine if the applicant addressed all of the relevant issues that may be identified as small to moderate, or potentially large impacts. Review of the submitted inforn~ation and the Part II EAF finds that there are a number of issues that are not adequately addressed, and based on the information available at this time, there could be a basis to conclude that one or more potential significant impacts may result from this project. A summary of the key issues for which additional information is requested is provided as follows: 1. Relevant land use plans should be reviewed including the goals of the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and the Hamlet Study. Page 8 of 10 Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor 2. Visual renderings should be made to be consistent with an upgraded Landscape Plan. 3. Visual renderings should reflect seasons when the leaves are not on the trees in order to address potential visual impacts to the scenic corridor 4. The Natural Heritage letter identifies historical sightings. Further discussion/evaluation of the of three Threatened plants that may be present in the site or area (two of which have similar habitat needs to that which is present on the site) and potential impact to these plants should be provided. 5. The feasibility of transplanting existing red cedar trees, with input from an arboristispecialist is requested, as well as more details to be provided on the Landscape Plan (Sheet SP-7). 6. The allowable yield calculation leading to the conclusion that 48 units are permitted on the site should be explained. 7. The compatibility of the existing uses west of the site with the proposed project should be addressed in terms of potential impacts to new residential units. Boatyard activity could potentially impact residential uses on the site if the buffer area is not maintained in all areas. The buffer area Plantings and dimensions illustrated on the Landscape Plan seem inadequate. 8. Potential impact and land use compatibility between the proposed project and homes to the east of the site should be more thoroughly evaluated. The location of structures adjoining the property should be shown. The buffer area plantings and dimensions illustrated on the Landscape Plan seem inadequate. The outdoor activities, driveway utilization and associated headlights and noise, lighting of residential units, and parking for the residential units in the existing house, are factors that could adversely impact neighboring properties. The relative locations of uses, effectiveness of buffers and design considerations/mitigation should be examined. 9. The Traffic Impact Assessment should be supplemented to address the comments pertaining to the site access, trip generation, peak hour, cross access, and soundness of thc study for the purpose of concluding that there are no potential impacts with respect to traffic. 10. Pesticide impact to soils and potential health issues of residential occupancy should be addressed in conformance with guidance documents available from the SCDHS. The need for soil management should be determined. 11. The location of the fire hydrant should be reconciled with the Southold Fire District recommendation. 12. Additional efforts should be made to retain existing vegetation in areas where this can be achieved, in order to avoid establishing excessive areas of fertilizer and irrigation dependent vegetation on thc site. 13. The existing street trees at the front entrance will be very close to the alignment of the curb and road. It is expected that root zone impact and compaction will occur in close proximity to these trees. The trees are proposed to remain, and are integral in the visual simulations and analysis of potential visual and aesthetic impacts along the Main Road Scenic Corridor. As a result, review of the plan by an arborist, detailed notes, contingencies and mitigation for these trees should be provided on the landscape plan and any narratives. 14. Thc Landscape Plan should also depict the fence which is shown on the Alignment Plan so as to ensure that this recommendation of LWRP Policy 3A is provided. 15. The buffer proposed to be planted with transplanting of native trees should be further defined in terms of: width, size of trees, spacing and location of trees, species to be transplanted, and evaluation to ensure that the requirements of Article XX Landscaping, Screening and Buffer Regulations, and Section 280-137: Standards for Residential Site Plans per the code are complied with. Page 9 of 10 Environmental Assessment Review Southwold Manor 16. The Landscape Plan should match the visual simulations in terms of illustrating evergreen trees where shown, foundation plantings, and other plantings within the community. 17. Landscaping should be provided to screen the parking area associated with the moderate- income units. This appears to be present in the visual simulation, but is not on the landscape plan. 18. Retained native or indigenous landscape clusters of trees are recommended for internal buffering between buildings, external buffering, site aesthetics and reduction of fertilizer and irrigation dependent vegetation, and in order to address this section .of the code. The plan should be overlain on a more detailed site inventory of existing vegetation in order to determine where materials should be transplanted from and where existing vegetation can be retained. 19. The Landscape Plan should be evaluated for conformance with Article XX Landscaping, Screening and Buffer Regulations and Section 280-137, Standards for Residential Site Plans, of the Town Code, and amended accordingly. 20. Sheet SP-9; Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan should be titled, "Erosion Control Plan" so as to avoid confusion with a SWPPP document. 21. The Photometric Plan (Sheet SP-15) and/or other appropriate submission documents should be amended to show additional site lighting including walkway/sidewalk lights, bollard lights, building lighting, driveway and garage access lighting, amenities building and pool area lighting, lighting of the parking area for the 3 moderate-income units and other areas; once identified, potential impacts should be assessed. 22. Potential nitrogen load to groundwater and the Peconic Estuary should be assessed, and measures taken to reduce impacts from wastewater discharge and use of fertilizer dependent vegetation to the maximum extent practicable. Information is requested to be provided by the applicant, and represents information that the Lead Agency reasonably needs to make a Determination of Significance. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Environmental Assessment Review. We would be pleased to review any supplemental information which may be available in order to conclude the process of ensuring that sufficient information is available on which to render a Determination of Significance. Once all information is available, we would be pleased to provide input toward the issuance ora Determination of Significance. Please do not hesitate to contact Charles J. Voorhis at NP&V should there be any questions. Page 10 of 10 Ohwold Manor, February 2009 PART 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) 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 Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been 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, short term and cumulative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if 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 wiil be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying 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. f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in th~.proj~ct to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that sucti? r~da~;ti~p is not possible. This must be explained in Part 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? .o [] YES [] Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Construction on land where the depth to the water 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. Construction that will continue for more 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 material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] DYes •No [] [] DYes []No Page 11 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can ~mpact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Construction or expansion of a santary landfill [] [] []Yes •No Construction in a designated floodway. [] r~ []Yes ENo Other impacts: [] ~ ~Yes []No Large portion of the site (5.47 Ac of 6.75 Ac site) is currently undeveloped. Construction of the proposed project will alter ~h,e site significantly with only 0.93 Ac to remain natural. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) [].o EyES Specific land forms: [] []Yes ~No Impact on Water Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) [~]NO r']YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Developable area of site contains a protected water body. [] [] [] Yes [] No Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of [] [] []Yes []No a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water [] [] [] Yes [] No body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. [] [] DYes •No Other impacts: [] [] DYes []No Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Examples that would apply to column 2 A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of [] [] r']Yes •No water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface [] [] []Yes []No area. Other impacts: [] [] DYes DNO Page 12 of 21 I 2 3 Small to Potentiai Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? [],O []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 r--I Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. I ] Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ~ have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Proposed Action requires water supply from wel~s with greater ~ than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ~ supply system. Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. U Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which [] presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons [] per day. Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into [] an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or [] 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 require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. Other impacts: [] [] DTM •No [] []Yes •No [] ~.o DYes •No [] []Yes •No [] DTM •No [] []Yes []No [] DYes •No [] ~Yes •No The proposed sanitary discharge, fertilizer and pesticide application on the property directly relate to potential groundwater impacts. The concentration of nitrogen in recharge could cause potential groundwater impacts and nitrogen concentrations in the groundwater contributing area to the Peconic Estuary. Page 13 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? []YES Examples 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 floodway. Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR [] [] ~Yes []No [] [] ~Yes []No [] [] ~Yes ~No [] [] []Yes r~No [] [] []Yes ~No Will Proposed Action affect air quality? []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 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~]Yes []No ~ [] []Yes []No ~ [] []Yes []No [] []Yes [] [] []Yes [] [] r']Yes IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS No Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? I'lYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Reduction 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. [] [] Page 14 of 21 Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Appiication of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change [] [] ~"1 Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No Program. , .............. ....... 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. Other impacts: IMPACT ON AGricuLTURAL LAND REsOURcES 10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? Examples that would apply to column 2 The Proposed Action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) Construction activity wou[d excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes ~No [] [] [] [] [] r-] ~Yes []No ]Yes ~No []Yes []No E3Yes Page 15 of 21 The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain pooHy due to increased runoff). 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change [] [] DTM •No Other impacts: [] [] DYes •No I The subject site was previously used for agricultural purposes, however farming has since ceased and significant post- agricultural old field/shrub overgrowth has begun to occur. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix S.) Examples that would apply to column 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. [] [] [] DYes []No [] DYes •No [] DYes ~.o Project components that wilt result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: [] [] []Yes []No Visual renderings were done for the proposed project, however simulations represent seasons when leaves are on the trees. In addition, renderings show plant materials inconsistent with. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action imPact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? Examples that would app[y to column 2 Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed ~ocated within the project site. Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. [] OYes DH• [] OYes •No [] DYes •No Page 16 of 21 Other impacts: 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change [] [] []Yes []No IA Stage 2 archaeological evaluation of the property concluded that the poor integrity of the site and lack of diversity among ,~arc~aeological material requires no additional investigation. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes •No ~ [] []Yes •No IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)? List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. I Example~ that would apply to column 2 Proposed 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: [] [] []Yes r~No [] [] []Yes ~No [] [] OYes []No [] [] ~Yes •No [] [] []Yes []No Page 17 of 21 I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? []NO []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 AIteratibn of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. [] [] OYes •No 16. Will Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. [] [] ' []Yes [] NO Other impacts: [] [] DYes []No I The peak hours for analysis, trip generation and operation of site access should be evaluated, j IMPACT ON ENERGY Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? []NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form 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. [] [] OYes •No [] [] •Yas •No Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? [] 'iN• []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: Page 18 of 21 [] [] DYes •No [] [] OYes •No [] [] []yes •No [] [] DYes D.o [] [] []yes DH• [] [] OYes ON• 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON PUBUC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? []YES Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset 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 reacti~'e, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids. [] [] DYes •No [] [] DYes •No [] [] []Yes •No [] [] DYes •No 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: [] [] []Yes []No I The concentration of agri-chemicals in soils should be determined based on SCDHS guidance ensure documents to that health impacts are addressed. public IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goats. Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the comnlunity. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) [] [] []Yes •No [] [] DYes •No [] [] []Yes •No [] [] DYes •No [] [] DYes r-INo [] [] DYes r-INo Page 19 of 21 Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. Other impacts: I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change [] [] •Yea ~.o [] [] []yeS []No [] [] DYeS [3.0 this does not reflect visual conditions along Main Road for 6-7 20. IS there, or is there likely to be, public'conlroversy ;;fated to potential adverse environment impacts? r .o []yEs If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Page 20 of 21 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS J(}SEPH L. TOWNSEND February 27, 2009 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD MAll.lNG ADI)R~S: P.O: Box 1179 Southold, NY 1 t97 [ OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex ,~4;~75 State Route 25 (cot, Main Rd. & Youngs Avo.~ Southold, NY Telephone: f131 7fl5-1988 Fax: 681 765-3136 Mr. Douglas Mackey, Program Analyst NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 189 Peebles Island Waterford, NY 12188-0189 Re: Proposed Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor Located at 56655 NYS Route 25, approximately 1,000 ft. east of Boisseau Avenue, Southold, NY SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Bus~ness Dear Mr. Mackey: The Planning Board refers the following to you for your information, comments, and review: · .~Stage I Archeological Survey prepared by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, SUNY Stony Brook, dated August 2008 State 2 Archeological Evaluation of the Albertson House prepared by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, SUNY Stony Brook, dated October 2008 Thank you for your cooperation. Please feel free to call me with any questions or comments regarding the above. Very truly yours, Heather Lanza Director of Planning Encl. & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD 9th Floor GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-6367 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Planning Department, Town of Southold Attn: Carol Kalin 54375 Route 25 Southold, New York 11771 February 26, 2009 402 MAIN ST. SUITE 204 Re: Site Plan application ("Application") by East End Resources, LLC ("East End") to the Town of Southold Planning Department in connection with the proposed planned-retirement community development to be located at 56655 Route 25, Southold, New York 11791, Suftblk County Tax Map designation District 1000, Section 063, Block 03, Lot 15. Dear Carol, In connection with the above-referenced Application by East End, and per your request, enclosed are the following items: · One (1) original Stage I Archaeological survey, prepared by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Stony Brook, dated August 2008; and · One (1) original Stage 2 Archaeological evaluation, prepared by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Stony Brook, dated October 2008. Thank you for your assistance with this Application. Please do not hesitate to contact me, should you have any questions. Encls. Very truly your~y.~7 Laura Curay vlATO & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD 9th Floor GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: ($16} 227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-6367 402 MAIN ST. SUITE 204 METUCHEN, NJ 08840 TEL: (732) 317-1S11 FAX: (732) 317-1513 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Planning Department, Town of Southold Attn: Carol Kalin 54375 Route 25 Southold, New York 11771 February 26, 2009 Re; Site Plan application ("Application") by East End Resources, LLC ("East End") to the Town of Southold Planning Department in connection with the proposed planned-retirement community development to be located at 56655 Route 25, Southold, New York 11791, Suffolk County Tax Map designation District 1000, Section 063, Block 03, Lot 15. Dear Sir/Madam: In connection with the above-referenced Application by East End, enclosed are the following items: · Four (4) return card from the certified mailings (green). Please note that our office received the enclosed return cards after the Affidavit of Posting/Mailing and associated notice materials were submitted to the Planning Department on February 20, 2009. Thank you for your assistance with this Application. Please do not hesitate to contact me, should you have any questions. Encls. Very t/rely yOtirs, · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can ~eturn the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. ArticteAddressedto: B1LAL ALT1NTOPKAK P.O. BOX 1690 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 7008 1300 0000 8430 4471 PS Form 3811, February 2004 S T E P H A3',~E ~Z'OSTOV 1C H P.O. BOX 8~19 MANH~, NY 11030 I 2. /~ticlo Number (Transfer from service 7008 3230 0002 6045 8741 PS Form 3811, February 2004 ..SOUTHLAND CORP. P.O. BOX 711 DALLAS, TX 75221 3. Semlc~ Type 'l~Oe~lmd Mall r'l ~ Mall [] Irmumd Mail [] C.O.D. 4. Re~atcted De~iveqO (~re Fee) I-I~ 2. A~icle Number (Transfer from service 7008 3230 0002 6045 8833 PS Form 381 1, February 2004 ANTHONY ZUSTOVICH P.O. BOX 869 MANHASSET, NY ! 1030 [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. 4. ~ Dellve~ 0Extra Fee) OYes PS Form 3811, February 2004 7008 3230 0002 6045 8758 ~ gk~um ~ Lanza, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Christopher Read [cread@amatofirm.com] Thursday, February 26, 2009 12:13 PM Lanza, Heather RE: Work Session 3/2/09 4:00pm Hi Heather, Thank you for the notice. -Chris From: Lanza, Heather [mailto:heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:08 AM To: Christopher Read Subject: Work Session 3/2/09 4:00pm Chris, The Southwold Manor project is on this Monday's Planning Board work session (March 2, 2009) which begins at 4:00pm. We will be reviewing the SEQR report from our consultant. Heather Lanza, AICP Town Planning Director 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone: (631)765-1938 E-mail: heather.lan za(~?!town.soulhold.ny.us Page 1 of I Kalin, Carol From: Ka~in, Carol Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:36 AM To: 'lcuranaj@amatofirmcom' Subject: Southwold Manor archeological reports Hi Laura, Please send me an original of each of the Stage I and Stage II Archeological Reports. I am requesting the originals in color to send to NYS OPRHP for their review - what I have are black and white. Thanks. Call me if you have any questions. 631/765-1938 - Carol 2/26/2009 P.O. Box 1179 54375 Route 25 - Town Hall Annex Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1938 Fax: (631) 765-3136 To: Laura Curanaj Amato & Associates, PC From: Heather Lanza, Planning Director/CK Fax: 516/227-6367 Pages: 3 - including cover P~--- 516/227-6363 I~ate: 2/25/09 2/24/09 resolution re: Southwold cc: Manor Please Comment Please Reply //~ Req~ Urgent For Review Following, please find the above-reference document, as requested. The hard copy is in the mail. 2009-02-27 13:15 N R BRAS 6317346235 >> SO UTHOLD TRANSPO RTAT! ON COMMISSION [V~,o~ {63 l) 7S.1938 Fi~ $31 765-3135 P 1/1 TO: Heart Lanza ~ of Pli~ FROM: Neboysha R Brashich DATE: February 26, 2009 RE: Southwold Manor Proj~:ct ~6655 Main Road, Southold SCTM #: 1000-63.3-15 Further to your memorandum dated lanu,a~ 27, the Commission ~vicw~d subject project proposal at its February 23 mcciln$, The Conulfission approVes the proposal with two observations and/or comments - namely, the Planning Board should request clarification with respect to a possible turning lane as well as a potential crosswalk aI this location given th~ proximity of lhe 7-Eleven Food store. As you are awarc. State Route 25 is a d~signated NYS scenic byway. Wc request also that the proposed scenic quality of thc site be maintained via appropriate plantings. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Att: Ms. Kristy Winser, Sr. Planner Re: Application of" Southwold Ma~or" Zoning Action: Site Plan SCTM No: 1000-63-03-15 ~,~. Dear Ms. Winser: STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE THOMAS A.~..Ist,ES,4krL C.P .~ ~,~ , ~;... :~;DIRECTOR OF PLANNI,?,.<_ February 24, 2009 SCPC File No: SD-09-02 Please be advised that pursuant to Sections A 14-14 to 24 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the above captioned application which has been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission will be reviewed by the Commission at its regular meeting on March 4, 2009 at the Legislative Auditorium in Hauppauge. The regular meetings of the Suffolk County Planning Commission are open meetings pursuant to the NYS Open Meetings Law, they are not public hearings. Any request to address the Planning Commission on any matter including subdivision or zoning referrals must be submitted prior to the meeting. Each request shall be submitted on a card (distributed before the regular meeting) identifying the person and/or organization and topic. During the public portion of the regular meeting each speaker shall be allotted three (3) minutes. An individual who has requested the opportunity to address the Planning Commission may relinquish his/her time to another speaker. However, no speaker may speak for more than six (6) minutes. In accordance with Suffolk County Planning Commission Policy, any information to be submitted to the Planning Commission will not be accepted at the meeting unless it has been acknowledged by the local referring municipality. The information must be accompanied with a letter from the local referring municipality describing such contents, as well as, instructions for treating previously submitted material. This policy was instituted to avoid confusion as to which information is being reviewed by al! agencies. Should you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact this office. APF:ds cc: East End Resources, LLC c/o Alfred L. Amato LOCATION MAILtNG ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 6100 (631) 853-5191 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER (631) 8534044 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE February24,2009 THOMAS A. ISLES, A.I.C.P DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Att: Ms. Kristy Winser, Senior Planner Rc~ S.C.T.M. No.: S.C.P.C. No.: Dear Ms. Winser: SouthwoldManor 1000-06300-0300-015000 SD-09-02 Your notification for SEQRA Coordination was received~~ 3~' ...... ~ January 26, 2009. Please be advised that our agency, the Suffolk County Planning Commissi'on, has no objection to the Town of Southold assuming Lead Agency status for the above referenced. The Suffolk County Planning Commission reserves the right to comment on this proposed action in the future and wants to be kept informed of all actions taken pursuant to SEQRA and to be provided with copies of all EAF's, DEIS's and FEIS's, etc. Please note that pursuant to NYS General Municipal Law of the Suffolk County Administration Code Section A14-14, prior to final approval, this action should be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for review. Chief Planner APF:ds LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 6100 (631) 853-5191 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER (631) 853-4044 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor, Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold. NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 February 24, 2009 Mr. Alfred Amato Mr. Christopher Read East End Resources, LLC c/o Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road Garde'n City, NY 11530 Re: Proposed Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor Located at 56655 NYS Route 25, approximately 1,000 ft. east of Boisseau Avenue, Southold, NY SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Business Dear Mr. Amato and Mr. Read: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, February 23, 2009: WHEREAS,this residential sit~ptan is for the proposedconstruction oran age- restricted (55+) condominium community of 27 units, consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling buildings, four buildings with a footprint of 7,573 s.f., and four with a footprint of 7,695 s.f. Each building contains three units ranging in size from 2,700 s.f. to 2,958 s.f. The site plan also includes the conversion of an existing single family residence into three (3) affordable housing units, one at 891 s.f., and two at 1,121 s.f., a 370 s.f. detached garage, a two-story, 2,246 s.f. amenities building and a swimming pool and deck area covering 2,887 s.f. on a 6.75 acre pamel; and WHEREAS, Albert & Rita Cohen are the owners of the property located on the north side of Main Road, approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue, in Southold, SCTM#1000-63-3-15; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 2008, the agents, Alfred Amato & Chris Read, Amato & Associates, P.C. representing the applicant, East End Resources LLC, submitted a revised site plan application for approval; and Southwold Manor Page Two February 24, 2009 WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, the Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.6(b)(2) and (3), declared its intention to be.Lead Agency and conduct coordinated rewew of the Site Plan Application as amended; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has notified all involved agencies pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(3) of its intention to act as Lead Agency and that Lead Agency must be agreed upon; and WHEREAS, no involved agency has expressed an interest to act as Lead Agency within the time period provided under 6 NYCRR 617.6(b)(3); be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Planning Board declares itself to be Lead Agency in conducting the review the Site Plan Application, as amended, under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Vice Chair PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) 1 have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Name: _ zJ 0 ,: Address: 1"7~'/) ~' ~'/~/'lC/'TdI4' ' Signature: F~!; 9 ,'~. ~ ,~ Signature: 2~:Z~ ~~ Name: ~ ~ Address: ~.O. ~0~' ..~ "~' ?" Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signatnre: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) 1 am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Address: "'~/~/'~_ ~' ~{552~-~., ~'trC-Jr/ t'{'Jy- Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) 1 am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) 1 believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and ~vilI benefit the Town of Southold. Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) 1 am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: a_ r /r/ ol/ PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) 1 have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) ! approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signatore: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) l approve of and SUl:iport the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) 1 believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Address:( Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) 1 have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a s~vimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road. Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) 1 approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signatare: Address: Signatare: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road. Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Name: Address: Signature: Signature: Signature: ~~ Address: '" Signature: Address: Signature: ¢&~-,~ Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PE'FI'FION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans lbr the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) 1 approve of and suppo~q the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) ~, believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Soutbold. Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Sigoamre: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature iudicates tine following: (a) I have seen the plans lbr tlne active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse commanity known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) I am aware tlmt Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) l believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Nanlo: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) 1 have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community knmvn as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor inclodes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swhnming pool; (c) I approve o£and support the developmenl of South~old Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Address: Signature: Address: Signalure: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans for the active adnlt (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main l~oad, Southold, New York; (b) 1 am aware that Soutbwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pood; (c) 1 approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) l believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Tow'n of Southold. Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: //q ~?/ Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) 1 have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) 1 am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) 1 believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) l am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) l believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 My signature indicates the following: (a) i have seen tile plans for tile active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road. Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) l approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriale, altractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signalure: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: PETITION- FEBRUARY 2009 Name: Address: Signature: My signature indicates the following: (a) I have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; (b) I am aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; (c) I approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and (d) I believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold. Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: Name: Address: Signature: P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall Annex - 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1938 Fax: (631) 765-3136 To: Andrew Freleng From: Heather Lanza/Caml Suffolk County Planning Dept. Fax: 853-4044 Pages: 2 (including cover) Pho.e: 853-5006 ~te: 2/24/09 Re; Southwold Manor, 1000-63-3-15 cc: Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply As Requested Following, please find a copy of the SC Planning report, dated 1/9/07, regarding the above-referenced project. 405 LEXINGTON AVE CHRYSLER BLDG, 26TH FLR NEW YORK, NY 10174 TEL: (212) 4856000 FAX: (212) 485-6001 VlATO & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD 9th Floor GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-6367 VIA HAND DEL1VERY Southold Town Planning Department Attention: Heather Lanza P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 402 MAIN ST. SUITE 204 . , . ~METUCHEN, NJ 0884~ FAX: (722) 317-1513 February ~3~ ~01YJ ' FEB 21, 2009 Application for Site Plan Approval of Southwold Manor (the "Application") by East End Resources, LLC (the "Applicant") for a proposed active adult retirement condominium conmmnit¥ to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York (the "Property"). Dear Ms. Lanza: This letter is provided in response to your e-mail correspondence of February 12, 2009 requesting certain information in connection with the Application. It is our position that our submission of revised Application materials submitted on October 21, 2008 (the "October 08 Plans") was complete and without deficiency. The information that you are requesting is either ascertainable by reviewing our plans and submission materials or simply not required by the Code in connection with a complete application. Nevertheless, we can answer your questions and provide certain information to facilitate your review of the plans and materials we provided. However, in no respect shall our cooperation be deemed to be a waiver of our rights to a timely review, nor shall it serve to reset or extinguish any time-frames or deadlines established by the Town Code, State Law or otherwise. Accordingly, set forth as follows is your list of questions/requests for information followed by our response. Please note that this letter is supplemented with a letter from our architect, Mark Michaels, which is also provided subject to the conditions and parameters set forth in the opening paragraph. Your questions are set forth in italicized font and our response is set forth in boldface regular font. Where are the 80 parking spaces stated as being provided? Please note that the October 08 Plans provide scaled parking designs and garages which accommodate 81 parking spaces. Also note that such plans reflect the Planning Department and Planning Board's previous request that we reduce parking. To assist you with your count, please see the memo and materials provided by Mark Michaels and attached hereto. Livable floor areas for Buildings B & C don't add up to the total livable floor area in the chart - what is the total livable floor area for each unit? Please see memo and materials provided by Mark Michaels and attached hereto. What is included in the livable floor area calculation (which rooms and what are their individual floor areas)? Please see memo and materials provided by Mark Michaels and attached hereto. ANIATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 10. 14/hat is the floor area of all rooms not included in the calculation, and for what reason is the room not being included in livable floor area? Please see memo and materials provided by Mark Michaels and attached hereto. The entrance road encroaches into the 15' buffer/setback requirement at the bend in the road by an unidentified distance - the distance of the sidewalk/road at its closest point to the property line should be identified for the Planning Board's review. Please note that Section 280-94 of the Town Code provides that a 15' foot transition buffer shall be required along the boundary of a nonresidential lot abutting any lot in a residential district. As the proposed use at the Property is residential, and the abutting lots to the west are commercial there is no buffer requirement in this area of the Property under any analysis. Secondly, please note that the buffer we are providing around most of the property is 25 feet, not 15 feet as your statement indicates. With respect the distance between the outer edge of the side walk and the abutting commercial lot to the west, the distance is 5.3 feet as the submitted site plan provides. In addition, please note that the owner of such commercial property has signed a petition in support of the Application. How many trees, shrubs, and plants, and of what type, size, and in what configuration will be planted in the buffer. Please note that the landscaping plans previously submitted comply with the requirements of the code for a complete application. However, if required by the Planning Board, plans with greater landscape design details shall be commissioned and provided to the Board upon the scheduling of a public hearing. How many trees, shrubs, and plants, and of what type, size, and in what configuration will be planted to screen the parking areas? As explained above, the previously-submitted landscaping plans comply with the requirements of the code for a complete application, and if requested by the Planning Board, more detailed landscaping plans will be provided upon the scheduling ora public hearing. Moreover, on October 21, 2008, extensive photo- simulations were provided to the Planning Board, which indicate that the existing and proposed vegetation will satisfactorily screen the proposed development. Where existing trees and shrubs are proposed to be used in buffers, what is their condition? Are they sufficiently full to provide the screening expected in a buffer? As explained above, the previously-submitted landscaping plans comply with the requirements of the code for a complete application, and if requested by the Planning Board, more detailed landscaping plans will be provided upon the scheduling of a public hearing. Moreover, on October 21, 2008, extensive photo-simulations were provided to the Planning Board, which indicate that the existing and proposed vegetation will satisfactorily screen the proposed development. Will existing trees and shrubs be supplemented with other trees if they are not sufficient? If so, by what type and size and in what configuration? Please see the responses to Items 6 through 8, above. What lightingfv:ture types will be used on the walkways, parking lots, pool and buildings, and where will the light shine, and at what intensity? The Applicant intends to use traditional coach lighting fixtures on and around the buildings and Property. Light will be contained on site in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the Town Code. Please note that a photometric plan was previously provided as part of the October 08 Plans. However, 2 AMATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. if required by the Planning Board, plans with more extensive lighting details shall be commissioned and provided to the Board upon the scheduling of a public hearing. 11. What amount of light will shine beyond the property boundaries, where will this occur and at what intensity? Light will be contained on site in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the Town Code. Please note that a photometric plan was previously provided as part of the October 08 Plans. However, if required by the Planning Board, plans with more extensive lighting details shall be commissioned and provided to the Board upon the scheduling of a public hearing. 12. Where are the buildings on properties within 200' of the project located relative the proposed buildings and road? Please note that a survey map indicting the locations of surrounding buildings was previously provided as part of the October 08 Plans. To assist you with your review please see the attached aerial photograph of the Property and the surrounding area. Such aerial was prepared and certified by RMS Engineering and incorporates a scaled version of the site plan over the subject property. 13. Where are the curb cuts, driveways and roads within 200' of the proposed project located relative to the proposed project? Please note that a survey map indicating the locations of surrounding curb cuts, driveways and roadways was previously provided as part of the October 08 Plans. However, a more detailed version of such survey has been prepared in connection with our submission to the DOT. For the purpose of assisting you with your review, a copy of such map is provided herewith. 14. What are the length and depth of all the driveways at their longest and shortest points? Please see memo and materials provided by Mark Michaels and attached hereto. 15. How many cars of average size fit in each driveway? A diagram would be useful. Please see memo and materials provided by Mark Michaels and attached hereto. 16. Where will service trucks (.landscapers, utility trucks, plumbers, deliveries) park? Service vehicles can park in the parking lots which are ample. To the extent that you perceive this to be an issue, please note that the October 08 Plans reflect the Planning Department and Planning Board's previous request that we reduce parking. 17. /t will be helpful to show the changes in the size of the buildings and units that have occurred from the original set offloorplans. The buildings have been reduced in size and the details are provided in the plans submitted. In addition, the memo and materials provided by Mark Michaels (attached hereto) may be helpful for you review. Please note that the buildings, as designed and submitted in November of 2006 and as revised and submitted in October 2008, comply in all respects, including unit count, separation distances, height, size, etc..., with all applicable laws and regulations. Accordingly, please advise which section of the Code your inquiry seeks to address. 18. What percentage of the property will be landscaped with plants requiring irrigation and fertilizer? As explained above, if the Planning Board requests detailed landscaping plans, they will be provided upon the scheduling of a public hearing on this matter. Be advised that the 3 AMATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Applicant intends to install plants that require minimal irrigation and fertilizer as long as such plants will provide the required screening. 19. How many employees will be employed to run the amenities building, and what impact will they have on on-siteparking? We do not anticipate that there will be any employees, other than the possibility of a part-time life guard for the pool in summer months. The amenities building is a small private gathering place with no kitchen facilities and shall be used only by residents who live within steps of the building. Cleaning and maintenance services therefor will be less significant than that which would be required for a single family residence. Accordingly, there will be minimal if any impact on parking. To the extent that you perceive parking to be an issue, please note that the October 08 Plans reflect the Planning Department and Planning Board's previous request that we reduce parking. 20. How many employees will be employed for grounds and building maintenance and what impact will they have on on-siteparking? We do not anticipate that there will be any employees, and that landscaping and maintenance services will be provided by outside service providers who will come and go. Accordingly, there will be minimal if any impact on parking. To the extent that you perceive parking to be an issue, please note that the October 08 Plans reflect the Planning Department and Planning Board's previous request that we reduce parking. We hope that the information provided herewith is helpful. Please be reminded that my previous correspondence dated February 9, 2009 concluded with a request for a conventional Public Hearing to be held in a timely manner in accordance with New York State Town Law, Section 274. CC: OUFS, M.~Read~ Alfred L. Amato Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Chairperson Woodhouse and the Southold Planning Board Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Richard Keenan, Esq. 4 To: CC: From: Date: RE: MARK MICHAELS, ARCHITECT ONE DUNE COURT SETAUKET NEW YORK 11733 TEL: 631-751-1910 Town of Southold Planning Board and Planmng ~e'p~ent East End Resources, LLC; Amato & Associates, P C Mark Michaels, R.A. EEl] 2 4 2009 February 23, 2009 Southwold Manor, a 27 unit active-adult condomini~~y to be located in Southold, New York The following is my response to particular questions, as identified numerically below, contained in the emall from Heather Lanza, Planning Director of the Town of Southold, dated 2/12/09 regarding the above referenced project. There are 81 parking spaces provided as indicated on the attached Parking Plan, each identified on the Plan with a car and corresponding number (representing parking spaces 1-81 ) thereon. Further, there are many additional locations throughout the plan which can accommodate a parked vehicle. For illustration purposes, the attached Parking Plan includes cars located in some of these additional areas, each identified as "EX." There is a typographical error located on the Bulk Table previously provided and pertaining to the tabulated square footage noted for the "Total living space" for Buildings B & C. Such notation erroneously included garage square footage in the calculation of "Total living space." Garage space is not living space. Attached is a revised bulk table with the correct calculations. "Livable floor area" includes the gross square footage for all habitable and occupied spaces and was calculated in accordance with the defined term "Floor Area, Livable" as set forth in the Town Code. All walls and spaces are included except as identified in paragraph 4 below. Areas not included in our calculation of "livable floor area" are those areas which are specifically excluded in accordance with the defmed term "Floor Area, Livable" as set forth in the Town Code. The Town Code defines "Floor Area Livable" as follows: "All spaces within the exterior walls of a dwelling unit exclusive of garages, breezeways, unheated porches, cellars, heater rooms and approved basements having a window area of 14.& 17. less than 10% of the square foot area of the room. Usable floor area shall include all spaces not otherwise excluded above such as principal rooms, bathrooms, all closets and hallways opening directly into any moms within the dwelling unit." For further clarification, attic storage spaces, noted as "storage" on the second floor of Building A are not included as they are areas not suitable as either habitable or occupied space. This "under the eaves"space is similar to space behind knee walls in the second floor of a cape cod style house. Further, spaces identified as "open below" or "cath clg" or "vltd cig" are ceiling volumes from the floor below- there is no "floor" at the second floor level. A vaulted ceiling is similar to that of a cathedral ceiling whereby a cathedral ceiling comes to a point at the top while a vaulted ceiling has a flat section with sloped ends. 15. All driveways can accommodate at least one "car of average size" ( see Parking Plan provided herewith). Please note that we deemed a "car of average size" to be a rather large car of 16 feet in length and 5.5 feet in width. Because some people drive large cars the dimensions of the fictitious cars indicated on the Parking Plan are larger than a 2009 four- door Cadillac STS weighing more than 4,270 lbs. In other words, the cars depicted on the Parking Plan are considerably larger than "average." The footprints of all buildings have been reduced in length by five feet. In addition, porches on end units have been truncated, garages in middle units have been reduced from 2 car to one car garages, three units have been redesigned and converted reduced from three- bedroom/3.5 bath units to two- bedroom/2.5 bath units. Mark Michaels, Architect 2 MARK MICHAELS ARCHITECT ONE DUNE COURT SETAUKET NEW YORK 11733 TEL: 631-751-1910 RESUME Mark Michaels, RA Mr. Michales has been a practicing architect for over 40 years. He graduated from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute with a Bachelor of Science degree in the Building Sciences and a Bachelor of Architecture degree. He is the author of the Master Building Menu, a tool for residential construction and has also published University, a collaborative work on university design. His experience includes institutional, commercial, and residential architecture.. He served as the Assistant County Architect of Suffolk County for thirty years as well as maintaining his own practice. In these capacities, he has been involved with hundreds of millions of dollars of design and construction projects over the years including three community college campuses, medical facilities, office buildings, court facilities, police buildings, schools, historic buildings, park buildings, single and multi-family homes, skilled nursing facilities, health centers and various miscellaneous projects. Mr. Michaels has been the principal architect for Read Custom Homes, Inc., the builder of Southwold Manor, for over three decades. Mr. Michaels is married with two children and lives in Setauket. VlATO & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD ~tla Floor GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: {516) 227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-6367 February 23, 2009( SUIIE 204 To,a Plan Tow 530c. Soar . . . ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~TownT).~Jann'ifi~ Board ~n connection w~th ~ ~ be, ~ n pa~c~l ofprope~y located at 56655 Main / ~,~ * ~ )'~ ~, ~ ilified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as ~ ,]~'~' co~~ ' ~ ti5 (the "Property"). (o~ ~ x = ,~3~ ''' W 23~ 2009 Dear Members of the Planning Board: Enclosed please find the following items in support of East End's Application to the Town Planning Board for the proposed development to be located at the Property: 1. Affidavit of Posting, including copies of all certified return receipts, green return receipts and photograph of sign posted at the Property; 2. Visual Simulation Renderings and statement of methodology, prepared by Michael Berardesco Studios; 3. Petition signed by __ Southold Town residents, indicating support for the Application and affirming the following: a. Signatories have seen the plans for the active adult (ages 55 years and over) townhouse community known as Southwold Manor to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York; b. Signatories are aware that Southwold Manor includes 27 residential units and a clubhouse with a swimming pool; c. Signatories approve of and support the development of Southwold Manor; and AMATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. d. Signatories believe that the proposed use and design is appropriate, attractive and will benefit the Town of Southold Affidavit of Gregg Schiavone, a civil engineer, duly licensed in the State of New York and a principal of the engineering firm of Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, P.C. ("RMS Engineering, P.C"), including the following attachments: a. Site Development Plans, prepared by RMS Engineering, P.C., with a revision date of October 12, 2006, and which were submitted to the Planning Department on November 16, 2006; b. Site Development Plans, prepared by RMS Engineering, P.C , with a revision date of October 17, 2008, and which were submitted to the Planning Department on October 21, 2008; c. Memorandum from Gregg Schiavone of RMS Engineering, P.C. to the Planning Board referencing and responding to the comments of the Planning Board and the Town Engineer; and d. Gregg Schiavone Resume. 5. Affidavit of Theresa Elkowitz, a principal of VHB Engineering, Surveying, and Landscape Architecture, P.C. ("VHB"), including the following attachments: a Theresa ElkowitzResume b. Full Environmental Assessment Form, prepared by VHB, dated November 14, 2006 c. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Assessment Form, prepared by VHB, dated November 14, 2006 d. East End's November 16, 2006 site plan application submission letter to the Town Planning Depart~nent; e. Planning, Zoning and Visual Impact Analysis, dated October 2008, prepared by VHB, including, without limitation, the following appendices; i. Development Plans by RMS Engineering, P.C.; ii. Visual Representations of the Subject Site and Surrounding Area; iii. Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor; iv. Property Research Documents; v. Photographic Simulations by Michael Berardesco Studios, Inc. vi. Stage 1 Archaeological sur~ey by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Stony Brook; vii. Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C., dated March 28, 2006; viii. Ecological Survey of the Subject Site; ix. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Analysis, dated October 17, 2008; x. Utility/Service Availability Letters; and xi. Correspondence from the Southold Town Fire Commissioner f. East End's October 21, 2008 supplemental Application materials submission letter to the Town Planning Department; g. Stage 2 Archaeological evaluation, prepared by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, State University of AM.ATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. New York at Stony Brook; h. Revised Full Environmental Assessment Forms, prepared by VHB, dated October 17, 2008; i. Revised Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Forms, prepared by VHB, dated October 17, 2008; and j. Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan (ERSAP), prepared by VHB. 6. Traffic Impact Assessment, dated February 2, 2009, prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C.,, including the resume of traffic engineer Vincent Corrado; Appraisal Consultation report, dated February 21, 2009, prepared by John Blaney. a New York State certified general real estate appraiser, including the resume of John Blaney; and Letter, dated February 23, 2009, from Christopher M. Read of Amato & Associates, P.C., in response to Planning Board questions and requests delivered by Heather Lanza on February 12, 2009. Such letter is supplemented with the following items, plans and materials: a. Memorandum of Mark Michaels, a New York State licensed architect, dated February 23, 2009, including the following attachments: i. Parking Plan, prepared by RMS Engineering P.C., with a revision date of October 17, 2008 ii. Revised Site Information, Bulk Table & Yield Plan (SP-2), with a ~evision date of February 19. 2008; and iii. Mark Michaels Resume; b. Aerial, prepared and certified by RMS Engineering, P.C., and incorporates a scaled version of the site plau over the subject Property; and c. Topographical Survey of the Property, prepared by JM Land Surveying. We respectfully request that the Planning Board enter the foregoing items, in their entirety, into the Town's record on the Application. Thank you for your time and attention to this Applicalion. Very truly ),ours, ..... Christopher El~closures AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING This is to serve notice that I pemonally posted the property known as 56655 NYS Route 25, Southold, N~ 118717 Known and designated as $uf£olk Comatv Tax I/an: Section 63, Block 3, Lot 15 by placing the Town's official poster notice(s) within 10 feet of the front property line facing the street(s) where it can be easily seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the public hearing on rebr~ 23, 200~ I have sent notices, by certified mail - return receipt, the receipts and green return receipt cards of which are attached, to the owners of record of every property which abuts and every property which is across~n~ ~,- a,y ~li¢ or private street fro~ the subject vrovertv located at 56655 ~ain hd. Southold. /r/ Laura Curanai ~- 666 Oid Country Roa~ Garden City, New York 11530 Address February 19, 2009 Date Notary Public N0ta~ Public, State of New York No. i:,2V~'E~ ~53139 N, mlffi~ ~n Olive,s C0~V ~ommission ~pi~es ~lamh 19, Please note there are 4 remahing green receipts that have not arrived in ~. ~he reaaining receipts vi11 be provided either at the hearing or as soon as they arrive. PLEASE RETURN THIS AFFIDAVlT, CERTIFIED MAI_.L._RECEIPTS & GREEN RETURN RECEIPT CARDS BY: 12:00 noon~ Fri., 2/20/09 Re: Proposed Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor SCTM#s: 1000-63-3-15 Date of Hearing: Monday, February 23~ 2009, 6:00 p.m. OFFiCiAL USE PETER MEYER Ill CHARLES W. WITZKE l sat re PETER MEYER JR. ~i;~;c.-~'t: ~:; ................... F:O:'~OX"fT¥3' ........................... ~iE:~/~,'~;/~,~- .......... " ~ ~5 ..... ~ / .~:~~.~ozEws~ I / L t~ICAI NY 11435 OFFiCiAL p~tage USE SOUTHLAND o "~cr~c~'~'c~:~ ................... 'P:G."~UX"I~90 ........................... ~1 or PO Box No. r,- ............................... wo~.' ~'~-,-~--~-~-~+ Ci~, State, ZIP+4 ~TTc- VALE,.P~.E $COPAZ ~t,'~::~ ................ F.U: B'OX'f~33' .......................... ........ .5(:~ ~.tE~ [ ~; -N-Y-- -1'-}'9-7't' .................... STEPHANIE ZUSTOVICH NKK LLC · Complete items 1,2, end 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the maJlpiece, or on the fton~ if space permits. 1. Article AddreS~d to: 56850 MAIN RD. CORP. 56850 R~UTE 25 SOUTHOJ~Iqy 11971 m · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on t~,,?ont if space permits. 5.til~[,LA MEYER BOX 1115 CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 · ~e Items 1, 2, and 3. Abm complete - Item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or off fl3e front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: JANET RYAN P.O, BOX 286 SOUTHOLD, NY I 1971 · C. omp~{e items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. · Print your name end address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiese, 1. Artide Addressed to: CHARLES W. WlTZKE P.O. BOX 937 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 2. A~tide Number D. Is delive~ If YES, enter deliver/address below: If YES~ ! 7008 130 I-'1 Return R~celpt lot M~c:r, lndl~ n Insumd Mall [] C.O.D. 0000 8430 4486 N..y.A.Lg.7.t ...................... PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Retum Receipt 1~2595-02~V>1540 ~ · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retum the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. A~ticle Addressed to: EUGEN TOMASIC 42 WOODLAND WAY MANHASSET, NY 11030 D. Is dailve~y eddmss diffen~lt f~3~ I~arn ~ If YES, enter detive~ address below: Insured Mail D C.O.D~ 2.~m~ 7008 3230 0002 6045 8819 , PS Fo~m 381 1, February 2004 3. Se~lce 3ype D insured Mall [] C.O.D. N1CHOLE ELLISTON ~25 HORTONS LANE SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 7008 3230 0002 6045 /5789 PS Form 3811, February 2004 PETER MEYER Ill P.O. BOX 1115 CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 & ~m~ Typa [] Insured Mall [] C.O.D. 4, Resblctad Delive~v? ~-.~m Faai PS For · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and addmes on the reverse so that we can tatum the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the f~ont if space permits. LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD Jll~TN: MR. KENNETH RYDZEWS~I JAMAICA ~.AT1ON MAILCODE 3146 JAMAICA,'NY 11435 C. Date of Delivery D. Isdeavefyeddmssdlffemntflomlteml? [] Yes If YES, erffer deliver/address below: [] No [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. Restored D~' (E~a r-ee) E]Yes 2. A~lcle Number 7008 3230 0002 6045 8734 PS Form 3811, February 2004 PETER MEYER .IR. P.O. BOX 1115 I CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 BARBARA LUTZ ~ ~. - 825 HORTONS LANE SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 I I-I Insured Mail [] C.O.D. 14. Res~atctad Delivery? (Ex~a Fae~ nYes [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. 2. A~icte Number 6045 8826 7008 3230 0002 PS Fo~ 3811, February 2{304 Domestic Retum Recai~ 1~59s-02~1~ SIRITII, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER AND YAg A BOSKI, LLP ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW Direct E-Mail: fisle~sfliy.com February 17, 2009 Via email (CREAD@AMATOFIRM.COM) & First Class Mail Christopher M. Read, Esq. Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road, 9th Floor Garden City, New York 11530 East End Resources, LLC v. The Town of Southold Planning Board Index No. 08-41341 Re; 2009 Dear Mr. Read: As you know, we represent the Town of Southold in the above referenced case. We are in receipt of your email dated February 13, 2009, and reject the factual and legal assertions contained therein. The information/clarification requested by the Planning Department in its correspondence of February 12, 2009, is necessary for the further review of your application, as required by SEQRA and Chapters 161 and 280 of the Town Code. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Phil Siegel PS/cd CC: Heather Lanza - by mail Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq. - by mail Lanza, Heather From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachment~: Phil Siegel [PSiegei@sfliy.com] Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:36 PM CREAD@AMATOFIRMCOM Lanza, Heather; Finnegan, Patricia; Frank Isler East End Resources LLC v Southold Letter to Read 2009-02-17.pdf Dear Mr. Read: A copy of our response to your email of February 13, 2009, is attached hereto. Additionally, it is our understanding that the parties will not be meeting tomorrow. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Phil Siegel CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. Lanza, Heather From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Christopher Read [cread@amatofirm.com] Friday, February 13, 2009 4:32 PM Lanza, Heather Frank Isler; Finnegan, Patricia; Al Amato; Rich RE: Information/Soutwold Manor Dear Ms. Lanza, In response to your written notification of alleged deficiencies and requests for additional information and revisions (set forth below), please note that your notification comes 114 days after we submitted c~ur amended application and 84 days after the expiration of your 30 day deadline to deliver such notice (See Town Code §280-131 (2)). In the past when we cooperated with the Town's untimely demands, the Town's litigation attorney of. record, Mr. Jsler ..... sought to use our acts of cooperation against us. In fact, he stated to the Court that our cooperation was an affirmative waiver of our rights to a timely process and he argued that our claims should therefore be dismissed. The unfortunate posture which your litigation counsel has adopted makes cooperation difficult. The merits (or lack thereof) of his argument aside, his stated position requires that we must now proceed with caution and skepticism when we are presented with further untimely demands like the one below. Our goal is to move the Application toward a final determination, but we cannot exchange our right to a lawful process for the hope that the Town will conduct the process lawfully. Our position is that every submission item required by the Code was submitted to you on October 21, 2008. If the Planning Department thinks our application is deficient and lacks items which are required by the Town Code, we would like to provide the required items and information. However, in light of the Town's litigation posture, we cannot respond your untimely demands unless and until you first deliver the followin9 to us: (a) An affirmative statement, signed by the Town Attorney, that our cooperation in responding to Plannin9 Department requests (itemized and attached to such statement) shall not be deemed to be a waiver by Applicant of any of its ri9hts to a timely process, and that such acquiescence and cooperation shall not in any way serve to reset or extinguish any time-frames or deadlines established by the Town Code, State Law or otherwise; and (b) With respect to your list of alleged deficiencies and information requests, as set forth in your e-mail, please provide the specific section and subsection(s) of the Town Code which states that such item(s) is/are required for a complete application. The Town is required to process the Application in a lawful manner. Your notification below is untimely and fails to comply with the law. Accordingly, and considering that in the past the Town missed/ignored processing and hearing deadlines and then sought to use our cooperation to untimely requests against us, we believe that our suggested solution is easy and necessary to move this entire matter forward. Not only is our proposed solution reasonable, it can be performed by the Town with no expenditures of time, money or significant effort. Please provide the requested materials. Sincerely, Christopher Read From: Lanza, Heather [mailto:heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us] ~ent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:24 AH To: Christopher Read Cc: Frank Isler; Finnegan, Patricia Subject: ]Information Chris, Here is the summary of the Department's list of information required by the Code that are missing from the amended submittal and related questions tbat need to be answered in order to assist the Planning Board in conducting its SEQRA and substantive review of the amended application. Please provide the information well in advance oftbe Preliminary Hearing scheduled for 2/23/09. While we have a meeting scheduled for 2/18, it may be more convenient for you to send the answers rather than making the long trip. Let me know. Keep in mind that the list below is of items that must be includcd as part of the site plan application and are needed to complete the submittal. Obviously, the Planning Board and other involved agencies may have comments and questions of their own, however, those comments and questions will come after the Board and agencies have all the requisite information they need to make a decision. 1. Where are the 80 parking spaces stated as being provided? 2. Livable floor areas for Buildings B & C don't add up to the total livable floor area in the chart - what is the total livable floor ama for each unit? 3. What is included in the livable floor area calculation (which roo~ns and what am their individual floor areas)? 4. What is the floor area of all rooms not included in the calculation, and for what reason is the room not being included in livable floor ama. 5. The entrance road encroaches into the 15' buffer/setback requirement at the bend in the road bY an unidentified distance - the distance of the sidewalk/road at its closest point to the property line should be identified for the Planning Board's review. 6. How many trees, shrnbs, and plants, and of what type, size, and in what configuration will be planted in the buffer. 7. How many trees, shrubs, and plauts, and of what type, size, and in what configuration will be planted to screen the parking areas? 8. Where existing trees and shrubs are proposed to be used in buffers, what is their condition? Are they sufficiently full to provide the screening expected in a buffer? 9. Will existing trees and shrubs be supplemented with other trees if they are not sufficient? If so, by what type and size and in what configuration? 10. What lighting fixture types will be used on the walkways, parking lots, pool, and buildings, and where will the light shine, and at what intensit)~? 11. What amount of light will shine beyond the property boundaries, where will this occur and at what intensity? 12. Where are the buildings on properties within 200' of the project located relative the proposed buildings and road? 13. Where are the curb cuts. driveways and roads within 200' of the proposed project located relative to the proposed project? 14. What are the length and depth of all the driveways at their longest and shortest points? 15. How many cars of average size fit in each driveway? A diagram would be useful. 16. Where will service trucks (landscapers, utility trucks, plumbers, deliveries) park? 17. It will be helpful to show the changes in the size of the buildings and units that have occurred from the original set of floor plans. 18. What percentage of the propeKty will be landscaped with plants requiring irrigation and fertilizer? 19. How many employees will be employed to run the amenities building, and what impact will they have on on-site parking? 20. How many employees will be employed for grounds and building lnaintenance and what impact will they have on on-site parking? Heather Lanza, AICP Town Planniug Director 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box I 179 SI~IITIi, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER AND YAKABOSKI, LLP Christopher M. Read, Esq. Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road, 9th Floor Garden City, New York 11530 Re: Direct E-Marl: fisle~sfliy, com February l0,2009 East End Resources, LLC v. The Town of Southold Planning Board Index No. 08-41341 Dear Mr. Read: Your February 9, 2009 letter to the Planning Department of the Town of Southold has been referred to me for response. At its January 20, 2009 meeting, the Planning Board commenced both the SEQRA and substantive review of your client's amended site plan. While the amended application was deemed substantially compliant, several additional items were identified that the applicant will need to produce to enable full review. While you indicate your behef that these items have all been provided "in one form or another" it would be productive for you to let the Planning Department know where the information can be found in the voluminous submittal. These items will be necessary for the Planning Board to complete both the SEQRA and substantive review of the amended application, regardless of whether you regard providing them as "acquiescence". The application has been noticed for the preliminary hearing required under § 280-137 (D). At that time, the Planning Board intends to declare itself lead agency under SEQRA unless other involved agencies seek that status. In addition, the applicant will be asked to make a presentation regarding the proposed site plan and the Planning Board will entertain comments from the public. SMITH, I?INKELSTEIN~ LUNDBERG, ISLER AND YAKABOSKI, LLP Christopher M. Read, Esq. February 10, 2009 Page 2 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. ye~ruly Ya~, FAI/cd cc: Southold Planning Board Southold Planning Department Southold Town Attorney IATO & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD 9th Floor GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Southold Town Planning Department Attention: Heather Lanza P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: ~-- February ;~, 2009 Application for Site Plan Approval of Southwold Manor (thet:'Applicati0n'') by East End Resources, LLC (the "Applicant") for a proposed active aduJ,retir~ement condominium~ .......... communitv to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York (the "Property"). Dear Ms. Lanza: This letter is provided in response to the memo from the Office of the Planning Board, dated January 20, 2009 (the "January 20 Memo") and a telephone call received on February 4, 2009 from Kristy Winser in connection with the Architectural Review Committee. The January 20 Memo states that "... the Planning Board accepted the application for review with revisions." The memo then requests that East End provide additional information or revisions. We submitted our supplemental application materials to the Planning Department on October 21, 2008. Approximately three months elapsed between the date of our submission (October 21, 2008) and the date that the January 20 Memo was delivered. The Town Code provides: "If the Planning Board determines said application to be acceptable but in need of revision, it shall notify the applicant, in writing, wherein said application is deficient within 30 calendar days." (See, {}280-131 B (2) of the Code) However, 90 days elapsed between the date we submitted our supplemental application material and the date that you requested additional information. This material failure to process the Application in a timely manner must be viewed by us in the context of the Town's stated position on the matter. Specifically, the Town's attorney of record has filed a memorandum of law with the New York State Supreme Court seeking a dismissal of our lawsuit based in part on the proposition that we have no right to demand a timely application process because we "intentionally chose to proceed informally with the Planning Board and Planning Department to develop an ultimate site plan concept..." (See Memorandum of Law, by Frank A. Isler, Esq., Dated January 26, 2009). In other words, the Town's stated position before the Court is that our acts of cooperation and acquiescence to untimely requests automatically result in a forfeiture of our rights. Notwithstanding the above, please note that in one form or another every item or bit information referenced in and requested by the January 20 Memo was included in the supplemental application materials provided to the Planning Department on October 21, 2008. On a slightly different note, Ms. Winser called us earlier this week in connection with scheduling a meeting with the Architectural Review Committee on March 19, 2009. Please note that we have already met with the Architectural Review Committee twice and subsequent to such meetings the Planning Board delivered comments to our Application, including comments pertaining to building design. As all AMATO & ASSOCIATES, ?.C. comments have been addressed and incorporated into our latest plans, we are well beyond this stage of the application process. Any further review by the Architectural Review Committee would be redundant, unnecessary and not supported by the application procedures set forth in the Code. The Application, as submitted, is complete and has been accepted by the Planning Board. We are entitled to a public hearing under New York State Town Law, Section 274 and ask that the Planning Board hold a public hearing on the Application and render a decision. Ve~/~ yours, " tL:~ristopher M. Read Alfred L. Amato Supervisor Russell Chairperson Woodhouse and the Southold Planning Bo.ar_d Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Frank A. lsler, Esq. Richard Keenan, Esq. Lanza, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Lanza, Heather Monday, February 09, 2009 10:38 AM 'Chic Voorhis' go ahead on Southwold Chic, Please go ahead with the SEQR on Southwold. Thank you. Heather Lanza, A1CP Town Planning Director 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone: (631)765-1938 E-mail: heather.lanza~town.southold.n¥.us WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Monday, February 9, 2009 4:30 p.m. 4:30 p.m. 4:45 p.m. Review Public Meeting Agenda Site Plans & Subdivisions Subdivisions: Project name: Davidson - Fishers Island ! SCTM#: I 1000-12-2-5.3 Location: Fishers Island Description: Site is 11.85 acres, with a single-family residence Status: ' Open .Action: Determine how to streamlin~ subdivision proCess Or request refund of fees Attachments: none · Site Plans: Project name: Valero Service Station I SCTM#: I 1000-102-5-26 Locat on * ' This site is located-on the'n/w comer of Main Road and Depot Lane, Cutchogue. Descri~pfion: This site plan is for the conversion of an existing automotive repair shop and gasoline service Station (Citgo) to a 7-11 convenience store on an 18,473 sq. ft. lot in the Hamlet Business Zoning District. Status:. New Site Plan Action: Recommend for the Planning Board to accept the application and start the referral proces~ Attachments: Staff Report Project name: Location: Description: Status: Action: ~Southwold Mano[, I SCTM#: I 1000-63-3-15 North side of Main Road, approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue, in Southold This residential site plan is for the proposed construction of a 27-unit active adult condominium community consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling buildings, four buildings with a footprint of 7,573 s.f., and four with a footprint of 7,695 s.f. Each building containS three units ranging in size from 2,700 s.f. to 2,958 s.f. The site plan also includes the conversion of an existing single family residence into three (3) affordable housing units, one at 891 s.f., and two at 1,121 s.f., a 370 s.f. detached garage, a two-story, 2,246 s.f. amenities building and a swimming pool and deck area covering 2,887 s.f. on a 6.75 acre parcel in the Hamlet Business Zoning DiStrict. Application accepted with revisions - waiting for the final few application requirements to be submitted as per January 20, 2009 letter. Review apJ?lication materials. Attachments: None -Sent By: AMATO&ASSOCZATES; 5162270885; Feb-6-( I:OOPM; Page 2/3 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. M~IL Southold Town Planning Department Attention: Heather Lav. za P.O. Box 1179 Soul. hold, New York 11971 February 9, 2009 Application for Site Plan Approval of Southwold Manor (the "Application") by East End Resources, LLC (the "Applicant") for a proposed active ~ult retirement condominium community to be located at 56655 Main Road~3_o.q[h~.0.]d, N.¢w York (the "P_rnl~rtv~. Dear Ms. Lunza; This letter is provided in response to the memo from thc Office of thc Planning Board, dated January 20, 2009 (the "January 20 Memo") and a telephone call received on February 4, 2009 from Kristy Winser in connection with the Architectural Review Commiltee. The January 20 Memo states that "-. the Planning Board accepted the application for review with revisions." The memo then requests that Fast End provide additional information or revisions. We submitted our supplemental appliemion materials to the Planning Department on October 21, 2008. Approximately thr~e months elapsed between thc date of our submission (October 21, 2008} and the date thar the January 20 Mmno was delivered. The Town Code provides: "If the Planning Board determines said application to be acceptable bra in need of revisinn, it shall notify the applicant, in writing, wherein said application is deficient within 30 calendar days," (,gee, §280-131 B (2) of the Code) However, 90 days elapsed b~tween the date we submi~ed our supplemental application material and the date that you requested additional information. This malcrial failure to process the Application in a timely manner must be viewed by us in the context of the Town's stated position on the matter. Specifically, thc Town's attorney of record has filed a memorandum of law with the New York State Supreme Court ~¢king a dismissal of our lawsuit based in pan on the proposition that we have no right to demand a timely application process because we "intentionally chose to proceed informally with the Planning Board and Planning Department to develop an ultimate site plan concept..." (S~ Memorandum of Law, by Frank A. Islor, Esq., Deled January 26, 2009). In other words, the Town's sated position before the Court is that our acts of ccoperation and acquicscenee to untimely requests automatically result in a forfeitom of our rights. Notw thstanding the above, please note that in one form or another every item or bit information referenced in and requested by the January 20 Memo was included in the supplemental application materials provided to the Planning Department on October 21, 2008. On a slightly different nnte, Ms. Wins~r called us earlier this week in connmtion with scheduling a meeting with the Arehit~¢torai Review Committee on March 19, 2009. Please note that we have already met with the Architectural Review Committee twice and subsequent to such meetings the Planning Board delivered comments to our Application, including comments pertaining to building design. As all 'Sent ~y: AMATO&ASSOCZATES; 5162270885; Feb-9- 1:01PM; Page 3/3 AMATO & 8$OCIATE$, P,C. comments have been addressed and inco~oratcd in~o our latest plans, we an= well beyond this stage of the application process. Any further review by the Architectural Review Comminoe would bc redundant, unneccssa~y and not supported by the application procedures set for~h in the Code. The Application, as submitted, is complete and has been accepted by the Planning Board. We are entitled to a public hearing under New York State Town Law, Section 274 and ask that the Planning Board hold a public hearing on thc Application and render a decision. Alt?ed L. Amato Supervisor Russell Chairperson Woodhouse and the Southold Pla~ing Board Patrieia Finnegan, Esq., Frank A. Islet, Esq. Richard Keenan, Esq. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND January 29,2009 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Messrs. Alfred Amato and Christopher Read East End Resources, LLC c/o Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road, Suite 901 Garden City, NY 11530 Re: Southwold Manor: SEQRA Review Dear Messrs. Amato and Read: We are requesting payment of $6,000 at this time to cover the cost of reviewing the application referenced above under SEQRA. The firm of Nelson Pope & Voorhis, LLC will conduct the review, and their estimate for that review is enclosed. Heather Lanza, AICP Planning Director Enc. NEL~)N, F~ ,~ VOOP, HIS, LLO Ms. Heather Lanza Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Heather: January29,2008 ? 2009 Town of Southold, SEQRA Review SCTM No. 1000-63-3-15 Site Plan Review, Southwold Manor Proposal for Services Thank you for contacting NP&V for services in connection with the SEQRA review of the above referenced project. The following services and fees are proposed: 1. Inspect property and area to determine environmental resources and site characteristics. 2. Review the following supporting information in the applicant's submission: a. Site Plan Application b. Full EAF c. LWRP Consistency Assessment Form d. Planning Study for Site Plan Application for Southwold Manor, prepared by Freudenthal & Elkowitz, October 2008 e. Visual Simulation Renderings, prepared by Michael Berardesco Studios f. Topographical Survey of Property, prepared by JM Land Surveying g. Site Development Plans for Southwold Manor, SP-1 through SP-15, prepared by RMS Engineering h. Architectural Plans for Buildings A and B, Dwg. 1 through 10, prepared by Mark Michaels, Architect i. Architectural Plans for Affordable Housing Units, Dwg. I through 4, prepared by Mark Michaels, Architect j. Architectural Plans for Amenities Building, Dwg. I through 4, prepared by Mark Michaels, Architect 3. Review of the Traffic Asssessment included as an attachment to the Planning Study (study prepared by Dunn Engineering will be reviewed by a traffic professional). 4. Review of the Property Research Documents included as an attachment to the Planning Study (documents compiled by Amato & Associates and includes 622 pages of supporting materials identifying prior decisions of the Planning Board). 5. Prepare Part II Environmental Assessment Form. 6. Prepare environmental planning review/analysis based upon potential impacts identified in the Part 11 and provide recommendation for a SEQRA determination of significance or request for additional information necessary to make the determination. Fee: $4,750.00 Southwold Manor Review Proposal Planning Board Environmental Review 5. Meetings with the Planning Board, Planning staff, review of internal/external agency review correspondence and other services as requested. Fee: Time Rates Budget: $1,250.00 (2 meetings and review time) The total fee based on the services noted above is $6,000.00. Thank you for the opportunity to assist on this project. Please feel free to call should you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS, LLC Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP Page 2 P.O. Box 1179 54375 Route 25 - Town Hall Annex Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1938 Fax: (631) 765-3136 Christopher M. Read, Esq. Amato & Associates, PC Fro,.: Heather Lanza, Planning Director/CK Fax: 516/227-6367 Pages: 3 - including cover Phone: 516/227-6363 Date: 1/29/09 Re: Work Session Agenda re: cc: Southwold Manor Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply As Requested Your application, Southwold Manor, is scheduled for review at the next Planning Board Work Session on Monday, February 2, 2009. The Work Session begins at 4:30 p.m. Planning Staff will present the application materials to the Planning Board for the purpose of all becoming very familiar with each aspect of the project. Any material not covered in the 2/2 Work Session will be continued on to the next Work Session on February 9, 2009, beginning at 4:30 p.m., and then on to the next if necessary (we are not having a Work Session on February 17th, so the next Work Session after that will be February 23rd at 4:30 p.m., the day of your Preliminary Public Hearing). WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Monday, February 2, 2009 4:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. Executive Session Frank Isler, Esq., to discuss pending litigation 4:30 p.m. Site Plan and Subdivision Applications Site Plans: iLocation: Located on the s/e/s of NYS Road 25, approximately 469' west of Bay ....................................... .-A_v_e_nu_e_: k_n_o_wn a_s_36660 Mai[!.._R_~._a_d_.,_![!.....C_utc_h_o.g_ue: ................................................. Description: This site plan is for the new construction of three (3) Buildings that total 12,400 sq. ft. of contractor's, retail (shop) & warehouse storage use where the Principal Use Building 1 = 6,000 sq. ft., Principal Use Building 2 = 2,800 sq. ft., Principal Use Building 3 = 3,600 sq. ft. on a 63,338 sq. .................................................... ff_:_!~a_.[c~ !._!n._~.h .e_.L.!..m.! .t_e_~_B.u_sj_n.p~s_(~.~)__Z .o_ ~!j.~.g...[~.)~[!~: Status: Site Plan _Application is incom lete as er Town Code ~ 280-133 Action: .............. i__A. pplic_ant w_o_uld__l_i_k_e_the_..o_ppo_rtunitY_t_o d._'LS...C_~__s_s....t._h...e__s_i_t_e_p_!~a~_!._a~:_o._u.~..- ................... Attachments: ~ Last letter to applicant, dated 1/9/09, indicating that further information is Project name: Joint Industry Board of the Electrical ! SCTM#: 1000-83-2-17.3 ......................................................... !..n_.d._~ ._s.._t ~y_(~.?.~.?.r..~__S_a._.n_.t_0_r..Ln.!_.~.~?.!) .......................... Location: Located on the east side of Duck Pond Road, approximately 450 feet Description: This site plan is for the proposed construction of an 18,000 sq. ft. meeting/conference facility and interior alterations of an existing motel, restaurant, pool and pool house on a conforming 12.3 acre site partially located in the Resort Residential and Agricultural Conservation Zoning .................................. · _D_ i_st_ri_c.~s_: Status: , New Site Plan ,-~i~'~ ...................................... T~ ~ ~; ;~-~'~'~' a'"~'~ F'{i~" ~'"'i~'i ~ '~';~i ~'~"~ ~'~'~ ~i'"i~'~'"~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~"'~"i~ ~-~i~ ~ "~i~ i"~;~"~;'i ~ W"'~'~'~ii ...................................... i.. st_a_~_t__h__e_ S~E_Q R~&_ referrgl_lprocess_.- Attachments' ~ Staff Re ort Project name: Renter's Seven Acre Farm I SCTM#: 1000-45-5-2 {Costello ........................................................... Location: Located at 69700 NYS Route 25, approximately 1,600 ft. west of Pipes · -N-.-e- 9-k--~-° a d--°--n- t h-.~--s-°-.~-t-~-.-.-S.!-d e--°-f-R--0-u-~-~-~-~,- ~ ~-~P ~ ~ ............................................... Description: This proposal is for outdoor storage areas for a contractor's yard having construction equipment, materials and fill with a single-family residence .S_t.a~u.~ , Action: = Schedule site visit. 'Attachments: None 2/2/09 £~_____J~old Town Plannin~ Board Work Page Two Pr..oject name' Southwold Manor SCTM# i 1000-63-3-15 Location: North side of Main Road, approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue, ini Southold Description: This residential site plan is for the proposed construction of a 27-unit active adult condominium community consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling buildings, four buildings with a footprint of 7,573 s.f., and four with a footprint of 7,695 s.f. Each building contains throe units ranging in size from 2,700 s.f. to 2,958 s.f. The site plan also includes the conversion of an existing single family residence into three (3) affordable housing units, one at 891 s.f., and two at 1,121 s.f., a 370 s.f. detached garage, a two-story, 2,246 s.f. amenities building and a swimming pool and deck area covering 2,887 s.f. on a 6.75 acre parcel in the Hamlet .............................................................. +.. ~U §J.n..~.,~_og i_~n.g..P!_s~[i~c_t_. ,_.~_t_a._t.y ~.; .................................. ~ ~_e__v_i__e__w_ ._a_r0._e.n__d.~d_...sj.t__e_p._l__an..._a. pp!!~a..~!Ra._~a.!~[i~!~~ ...................................................................... Action: Consider accepting site plan application with revisions, and beginning thei .............................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................ .c...h___m_.e_n. Ls_.'. .............. Subdivisions: Location: Located at the westerly terminus of a private right-of-way which extends ........................................................... n__.E_a.s_t., d.o..n: Description: This proposal is for a standard subdivision of an 11.4418-acro parcel into', two lots, where Lot 1 equals 3.7362 acres, including 1.4354 acres of open space, and Lot 2 equals 7.6786 acres, including 5.0872 acres of ................................................... , ...o..p_.e.. n__s..p..a.c~..._ status: Sketch Approval Action: Recommend g_r~anting extension of Sketch AI~ .p. roval. L.A_t.t. ac_h_ _m _e n t_s · ~ ................... !~t~.r_f r_o r~_c..h_a_.r.!~_S...~yd_dy._re_.:_. _s_.k _e_t c.h.~e. ~ ~0~.~ [e ~ u~e ~ i Location: Located on the west side of Kerwin Boulevard, approximately 575 feet ) .................................................... ...w_e_.._s.t...9~...._A_yg_Y ~.t L _a_n_._e_ L!_n....._G....[_~_e....n....P._.0...rJ.: ............................................................ Description: This proposal is to subdivide a 7.725-aero parcel into four lots, where Lot 1 equals 29,869 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 29,869 sq. ft., Lot 3 equals 29,869 sq. ft., Lot 4 equals 29,869 sq. ft. and the open space parcel equals 4.1 acros, excluding the aroa of wetlands. This project includes the i transferring of 37,882 sq. ft. of buildabie lands from SCTM#1000-53-4- i 44.3 onto the subject property for the purposes of estab sh n~ v e d Status: i Cond~bonal Sketch Aooroval 'Action: ~ i Discuss SC Planning Commission comments. r .......................................................... f ........................................................... : ............................ -..-.---.-;- i ...A._tt_a_.c_t!me.n__ts:_ ..................... L)~tter from S_ c_p!._a_n~l_n_g__C_0.[n._m__i_s.._s. Lo.n__d_~_t~..!.~./.22./.0.8. j For Discussion: · Hamlet Implementation Panel: 2008 Year End Report (Continued) 2 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southo]d, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Memorandum To: From: Re: Date: Neboysha Brashich, Chairman Southold Town Transportation Commission Heather Lanza, Director of Planning Proposed Site Plans for: Shizen, SCTM#1000-38-7-7.1 Located at 2835 Shipyard Lane, approximately 3,278 ft. south of New York State Road 25 at the south east end of Shipyard Lane, East Marion [S~Utt~,dld Ma-:ir; SCTM#1000-63-3-15 Located at 56655 NYS Route 25, approximately 1,000 ft. east of Boisseau Avenue, Southold January 27, 2009 Attached, for your review, please find Traffic Studies and Alignment Plans regarding the above-referenced proposed site plans. HL:ck Express ...,t 52 3582 4958 Send.r'sFedEx SI:NDER'S FEDEX ACCOUNT NIIMB[I~ ONLY Date Jan.27. 2009 A~c.u~N.,'.ber N.r.. Heather [anza/lr Pbe~,(631 )765-1938 Company Town of Southold Addm~ 54375 Main Road Plannin~ Board c~ Southold mm NY ~P 11971 2 Yomln~lBillin~Rdmmco Southwold OPtiOnaL 3To P~cip~n~, Chic Voorhis m~.(631 ~27-5665 Nelson Popo & Voorhis, LLC 572 Wait ~ttman Road ~ Melville, ~ NY ziP 117~7 L~ En~°pe* ¢,~x L,~* ~. ,,d r~x S~ F,~ Tube I R#ldenllel Delive~ 8lgnature Optiona SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Timothy J. Hopkins General Counsel Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, New York 11769-0901 (631) 563-0236 Fax (631) 563-0370 January 26, 2009 Kristy Winser Department of Planning Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Southwold Manor Site Plan Application, SCTM# 1000-63-3-15 Dear Ms. Winser: Your notification for SEQR Coordination was received and reviewed by our agency. Please be advised that our agency, the Suffolk County Water Authority, has no objection to the Town of Southold's Planning Board assuming Lead Agency status for the project captioned above. In the SCWA's review of this project as submitted, our agency found no appreciable impacts on groundwater quality that would affect our operations. However, in keeping with the SCWA's mission of protecting and conserving the Town of Southold's water supply and to reiterate the findings of the environmental review for the SCWA's Water Supply Plan, the SCWA encourages the proposed project include limits on the amount of fertilizer dependent vegetation maintained on site as well as the need for automatic irrigation systems. Kindly forward all future S EQRA coordination applications, EAF's, DEIS's and FEIS's to my attention at 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769. Thank you. Very truly yours, erly KennedlyJ Assistant to General Counsel PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND January 22,2009 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OFSOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Via e-mail to cvoorhis~nelsonpope.com and standard mail Mr. Charles Voorhis Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, NY 11747 Dear Mr. Voorhis: RE: Southwold Manor Site Plan: SCTM# 1000-63-3-15 By this letter we request an estimate for a SEQR review of the above site plan. This proposed residential site plan is for the construction of an age-restricted (55+) condominium community of 27 units, consisting of eight residential multiple dwelling buildings: four buildings with a footprint of 7,573 sq.ff., and four with a footprint of 7,695 sq.ft. Each building contains three units ranging in size from 2,700 sq.ft, to 2,958 sq.ft. The site plan also includes the conversion of an existing single family residence into three affordable housing units, one at 891 sq.ft., and two at 1,121 sq.ft., a 370 sq.ft, detached garage, a two-story, 2,246 sq.ft, amenities building and a swimming pool and deck area covering 2,887 sq.ft, all on a 6.75-acre parcel located on the north side of Main Road, approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue, in Southold. Attached to this letter are the following for your information: site plan application, alignment ptan and environmental assessment form. A CD of the entire file is being mailed to you. As we are on a short time frame, we will need your estimate as soon as possible, and the review itself by February 17. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Heather Lanza, AICP Planning Director #9180 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for I week(s), successively, commencing on the 12th day of February, 2009. ' Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this I~) dayof ~. 2009. LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN'that pursuant t~ Article XXV of the Code of the Town of Southold, a public hear- will be held b~ the Southold Town Main the 23rtl ~ ~jueslion bi CHRISTINA VOLINSKI NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK NO 01-VO6105050 Qualified In Suffolk Counly ','B Y~ORDER OFTHE SOUCHOLD' PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Article XXV of the Code of the Town of Southold, a public hearing will be held by the $outhold Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York on the 23rd day of February, 2009 on the question of the following: 6:00 p.m. Proposed Residential Site Plan for a 27-unit condominium development known as Southwold Manor located at 56655 NYS Route 25, on the n/s/o NYS Route 25, approximately 829' e/o Boisseau Avenue, Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-63-3-15 Dated: 1/22/09 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Jerilyn B. Woodhouse Chairperson STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) CAROL KALIN, Secretary to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, New York being duly sworn, says that on the 22nd day of January, 2009 she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 2123109 Special Meetinfl: 6:00 p.m. Preliminary Public Hearing for the proposed residential site plan for Southwold Manor, SCTM#1000-63-3-15 Sworn to before me this ~l~'~ day of ~'~,~, 2009. Notary Public · Carol K~n- Secretary, $outhold Town Planning Board MELANIE DOROSKI NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New Yeti{ No. 01B04634870 0ualifled in Suffolk County Commission Expires Septembe~ 30, _7.~.I U PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public HeaFing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Article XXV of the Code of the Town of Southold, a public hearing will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York on the 23rd day of February, 2009 on the question of the following: 6:00 p.m. Proposed Residential Site Plan for a 27-unit condominium development known as Southwold Manor located at 56655 NYS Route 25, on the n/s/o NYS Route 25, approximately 829' e/o Boisseau Avenue, Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-63-3-15 Dated: 1/22/09 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Jerilyn B. Woodhouse Chairperson PLEASE PRINT ONCE ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2009 AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT TO THIS OFFICE. THANK YOU. COPY SENT TO: The Suffolk Times PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southo]d, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 To: MEMORANDUM Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Clerk for Town Board Southold Town Building DePartment Southold Town Engineer Southold Town LWRP Coordinator MTA - Long Island Railroad NYS OPRHP Architectural Review Committee Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission* Suffolk County Water Authority New York State Department of Transportation* From: Kristy Winser, Senior Planner Date: January21, 2009 RE: Site Plan Application Review - Southwold Manor · Request for comments pursuant to General Municipal Law §239 (as a referral) and Southold Town Code §280-131, and LWRP Coastal Consistency Review. · SEQR Lead Agency Request · Coordinated Review under SEQR Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to seek comments fxom your agency, and also to determine lead agency and coordinate review under Article 8 (State Enviromental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617. Please provide the following, as applicable: 1. Comments or requirements the Planning Board should take into consideration while reviewing the proposed project; 2. Issues of concern you believe should be evaluated; 3. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; and 4. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of Lead Agency under SEQR. The Lead Agency will determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being Lead Agency. Southwold Referral & SEQR Coordination Page Two January 21, 2009 The following page contains information pertaining to the project under review. For further information, please feel free to contact this office. Planning Board Position: (x) This agency wishes to assume Lead Agency status for this action. ( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming Lead Agency status for this action. ( ) Other (see comments below) Comments: Proieet Name: Southwold Manor Address: 56655 Main Road, Southold Tax Map #: 1000-63-3-15 Requested Action: This residential site plan is for the proposed construction of a 27-unit age-restricted (55+) condominium community consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling buildings, four buildings with a footprint of 7,573 s.f., and four with a footprint of 7,695 s.f. Each building contains three units ranging in size from 2,700 s.f. to 2,958 s.f. The site plan also includes the conversion of an existing single family residenco into three (3) affordable housing units, one at 891 s.f., and two at 1,121 s.f., a 370 s.f. detached garage, a two-story, 2,246 s.f. amenities bulld'mg and a swimming pool and deck area covering 2,887 s.f. on a 6.75 acre parcel located on the north side of Main Road, approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue, in Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-3-15 SEQRA Classification: ( ) Type I ( ) Type II (X) Unlisted Contact Person: Kristy Winser, Sr. Planner (631) 765-1938 Enclosures: · Environmental Assessment Form · Site Plan Application Form · Site Plan(s) (Site Plans sent only to above agencies indicated by an *.) 2 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hail Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 January 21,2009 Mr. Alfred Amato Mr. Christopher Read East End Resources, LLC c/o Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Re: Proposed Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor Located at 56655 NYS Route 25, approximately 1,000 ft. east of Boisseau Avenue, Southold, NY SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Business Dear Mr. Amato and Mr. Read: The following resolutions were adoPted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Tuesday, January 20, 2009: WHEREAS, this residential site plan is for the proposed construction of an age- restricted (55+) condominium community of 27 units, consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling buildings, four buildings with a footprint of 7,573 s.f., and four with a footprint of 7,695 s.f. Each building contains three units ranging in size from 2,700 s.f. to 2,958 s.f. The site plan also includes the conversion of an existing single family residence into three (3) affordable housing units, one at 891 s.f., and two at 1,121 s.f., a 370 s.f. detached garage, a two-story, 2,246 s.f. amenities building and a swimming pool and deck area covering 2,887 s.f. on a 6.75 acre parcel; and WHEREAS, Albert & Rita Cohen are the owners of the property located on the north side of Main Road, approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue, in Southold, SCTM#1000-63-3-15; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 2008, the agents, Alfred Amato & Chris Read, Amato & Associates, P.C., representing the applicant, East End Resources LLC, submitted an amended site plan application for approval; be it therefore Southwold Manor Page Two Janua~ 20,2009 RESOLVED, that on January 20, 2009, the Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.6(b)(2) and (3), hereby preliminarily classifies this action as Unlisted; declares its intent to be Lead Agency and to conduct coordinated review, and directs the Clerk to transmit Part 1 of the EAF and a copy of the Site Plan Application to all involved agencies together with the notification that a Lead Agency must be agreed upon within 30 days of their receipt of those documents; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, February 23, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. for a preliminary public hearing, pursuant to §280-137d, on the site plan prepared and certified by Gregg J. Schiavone, PE, dated July 20, 2008. Please refer to the enclosed copy of Chapter 55, Notice of Public Hearing, in regard to the Town's notification procedure. The notification form is enclosed for your use. The sign and the post will need to be picked up at the Planning Board Office, Southold Town Annex. Please return the enclosed Affidavit of Posting along with the certified mailing receipts AND the signed green return receipt cards before 12:00 noon on Friday~ February 20th. The sign and the post must be returned to the Planning Board Office as soon as possible after the public hearing. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Chairperson Encls. Southold Town Plannin.q Board Notice to Adiacent Property Owners You are hereby given notice: 1. That the undersigned has applied to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold for a residential site plan; 2. That the property which is the subject of the application is located at 56655 NYS Route 25, adjacent or across the street from your property and is described as follows: SCTM#1000-63-3-15; 3. That the property which is the subject of this application is located in the Hamlet Business Zoning District; 4. That the application is for the proposed construction of an age-restricted (55+) condominium community of 27 units, consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling buildings, four buildings with a footprint of 7,573 s.f., and four with a footprint of 7,695 s.f. Each building contains three units ranging in size from 2,700 s.f. to 2,958 s.f. The site plan also includes the conversion of an existing single family residence into three (3) affordable housing units, one at 891 s.f., and two at 1,121 s.f., a 370 s.f. detached garage, a two-story, 2,246 s.f. amenities building and a swimming pool and deck area covedng 2,887 s.f. on a 6.75 acre parcel located on the north side of Main Road, approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue, in Southold; 5. That the files pertaining to this application are open for your information during normal business days between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. in the Planning Department located in the Town Hall Annex on the corner of Youngs Ave. & NYS Rte. 25, Southold (2nd FI., Capital One Bank). Information can also be obtained via the internet by sending an e-mail message to CaroI.Kalin@town.southold.ny. us. If you have any questions, you can call the Planning Board Office at (631)765-1938; 6. That a preliminary public hearing will be held on the matter by the Planning Board on Monday, February 23, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Meeting Hall at $outhold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold; that a notice of such hearing will be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times, published in the Town of Southold; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Petitioner/Owner's Name(s): East End Resources, LLC/Southwold Manor Date: 1/21/09 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING This is to serve notice that I personally posted the property known as by placing the Town's official poster notice(s) within 10 feet of the front property line facing the street(s) where it can be easily seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the public hearing on I have sent notices, by certified mail - return receipt, the receipts and green return receipt cards of which are attached, to the owners of record of every property which abuts and every property which is across on Your Name (print) Signature Address Date Notary Public PLEASE RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT, CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS & GREEN RETURN RECEIPT CARDS BY: 12:00 noon~ Fri. 2/20/09 Re: Proposed Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor SCTM#s: 1000-63-3-15 Date of Hearing: Monday. February 23, 2009, 6:00 p.m. Town of $outhold PC/Codebook for Windows § 55-1. Providing notice of public hearings. [Amended 6-3-2003 by L.L. No. 12-2003] Whenever the Code calls for a public hearing this section shall apply. Upon determining that an application or petition is complete, the board or commission reviewing the same shall fix a time and place for a public hearing thereon. Notice relating to a public hearing on an application or petition shall be provided as follows: A. Town responsibility for publication of notice. The reviewing board or commission shall cause a notice giving the time, date, place and nature of the hearing to be published in the official newspaper within the period prescribed by law. B. Applicant or petitioner responsibility for posting and mailing notice. An application or petition, initiated, proposed or requested by an applicant or petitioner, other than a Town board or commission, shall also be subject to additional notice requirements set forth below: (1) The applicant or petitioner is required to erect the sign provided by the Town, which shall be prominently displayed on the premises facing each public or private street which the property involved in the application or petition abuts, giving notice of the application or petition, the nature of the approval sought thereby and the time and place of the public hearing thereon. The sign shall be set back not more than 10 feet from the property line. The sign shall be displayed for a period of not less than seven days immediately preceding the date of the public hearing. The applicant, petitioner or his/her agent shall file an affidavit that s/he has complied with this provision prior to commencement of the public hearing. (2) The applicant or petitioner is required to send notice to the owners of record of every property which abuts and every property which is across from any public or private street from the property included in the application or petition. Such notice shall be made by certified mail, return receipt requested, posted at least seven days prior to the date of the initial public hearing on the application or petition and addressed to the owners at the addresses listed for them on the local assessment roll. The notice shall include description of the street location and area of the subject property, nature of relief or approval involved, and date, time and place of hearing. The applicant, petitioner or agent shall file an affidavit that s/he has complied with this provision prior to commencement of the public hearing. NOTICE ~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK (D J !~~..r '~m.~ SOUTHOLD .,,~-~,--,,.~. I,~'~'~.,.?,~,'",~lRed Property Tax Service Aaenc'y PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUS]~ Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND 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. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 January 20, 2009 Mr. Alfxed Amato Mr. Christopher Read East End Resources, LLC c/o Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Re: Southwold Manor: 56644 Main Road, Southold, New York Dear Mr. Amato and Mr. Read: The Planning Department has completed its review of the revised site plan application materials received on October 21, 2008 for completeness and the Planning Board accepted the application for review with revisions. Please make the following additions or revisions to the plan(s) and submit to the Planning Depaxtment at your earliest convenience: 3. 4. 5. As per §280-133 B3 (d) Show the location and use of all buildings and structures, including curb cuts, within 200 feet of the boundary of the subject property. This should be shown on the alignment plan. Demonstrate parking on site for 80 cars. Show depth and width dimensions on all driveways. Show lighting proposed around and on the buildings on the lighting plan. Provide a table of gross floor area for each type of unit, with a breakdown of the floor area of each room, including unfinished rooms that could potentially be finished, and the garage, and a comparison of the original plans' floor areas with the revised plans' floor areas. Page Two These revisions are necessary to make the application complete and assist the Planning Board with their review. Future revisions may be necessary after the Planning Board has thoroughly reviewed the application, and received and considered comments from other agencies. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Heather Lanza Director of Planning cc: Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Southold Town Attorney Kieran Corcoran, Asst. Southold Town Attorney PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 cor. M~in Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Hand-Delivered January 20,2009 Frank A. Isler, Esq. P.O. Box 389 456 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor Located at 56655 NYS Route 25, approximately 1,000 ft. east of Boisseau Avenue, Southold, NY SCTM# 1000-63-3-15 Zone: HB Dear Mr. Isler: Submitted herewith, please find three paper copies of the Planning Board's file regarding the above-referenced project, as requested. Also enclosed are three CDs of the file for your convenience. Please note that there is only one copy of the Planning Study and Visual Impact Analysis. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, Heather Lanza Director of Planning HL:ck encl. CC; Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Southold Town Attorney Kieran Corcomn, Asst. Southold Town Attorney Jerilyn Woodhouse, Planning Board Chairperson P.O. Box 1179 54375 Route 25 - Town Hall Annex Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1938 Fax: (631) 765-3136 To.* Christopher M. Read, Esq. Amato & Associates, PC From: Heather Lanza, Planning Director Fax: 516/227-0880 Pages: ~ ~ including cover Phone:. 516/227-6363 Date: 1/13/09 Re: Special Meeting re: Southwold Manor Urgent or~Re~i~w~ Please Comment Please Reply As Requested Following this cover sheet please find the agenda for a Special Meeting of the Planning Board on Tuesday, January 20, 2009. The purpose of this Special Meeting is to set the schedule for the processing of your application. The Special Meeting begins at 4:30pm. We will also be discussing your application at the Planning Board work session beginning at 4:00pm, prior to the Special Meeting. The purpose of the work session is to determine whether your application is complete and ready for the referral process and other next steps. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING January 20, 2009 4:30 p,m. SETTING OF PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING Board to set Monday, February 23, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the $outhold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, as the time and place for a Special Planning Board Meeting. SITE PLANS Set Preliminary Hearings: Southwold Manor - This residential site plan is for the proposed construction of a 27- unit active adult condominium community consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling buildings, four buildings with a footprint of 7,573 s.f., and four with a footprint of 7,695 s.f. Each building contains three units ranging in size from 2,700 s.f. to 2,958 s.f. The site plan also includes the conversion of an existing single family residence into three (3) affordable housing units, one at 891 s.f., and two at 1,121 s.f., a 370 s.f. detached garage, a two-story, 2,246 s.f. amenities building and a swimming pool and deck area covedng 2,887 s.f. on a 6.75 acre parcel located on the north side of Main Road, approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue, in Southold. SCTM#1000-63-3-15 SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Lead Agency Coordination: Southwold Manor - SCTM#1000-63-3-15. LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans SPFile Type: Project Type: Site Plans Status: Application SCTM #: 1000 - 63.-3-15 Project Name: Southwold Manor Address: 56655 NYS Rt. 25 Hamlet: Southold Applicant Name: East End Resources, Owner Name: Albert Cohen Zone 1: HB Approval Date: LLC OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A date indicates that we have received the related information End SP Date: Zone 2: Location: 56655 NYS Route Avenue, Southold, NY SC Filing Date: C and R's: Home Assoc: R and M Agreement: Zone 3: 25, approximately 1,000 ft. east of Boisseau SCAN Date: SCANNED ' JAN 2 3 2009 Records Management PROJECT SCOPING PLANNING APPLICATIONS Wednesday 05, 2008 2:00pm ~_P[..o_ject name: WOld Manor; [S{tuth .~ ...................... ! SCTM#:t 63-3-15 Location: ! located on the north side of main road approximately 829' east of ........ _[ Boisseau Avenue in Southold Description: This new residential site plan is for the proposed construction of a 24 unit active adult condominium community consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling unit buildings, reconstruct the existing single family residence into a building containing three (3) affordable housing units, an onsite chromoglass wastewater treatment system and various amenities including a 2,460 sq. ft. 2-story clubhouse, 800 sq. ft. swimming pool, 880 sq. ft. tennis court and 474 sq. ft. of deck on a 6.75 acre parcel. SCTM #: 1000-63-3-15. Status: Review submission Project name: Location: Description: Seven Eleven i SCTM# i 142-1-27 994§~Y-S-~0-ute 25, Mattituck .......... ~t~ ~)1~ ~ ~ ~{. ~dditio~ to~xis~-~ :1,~0 s.f. building having a total 2,700 s.f for retail use (convenience store) on a 24, 829 s.f. I parce in the Business Zone. Status: LN_e_ w_S_i_te_j31an SUBIMAL ChAKRABORTI, PE. REGIONAL DIRECTOR October 29, 2008 Mr. Gregg J. Schiavone, PE RMS Engineering 355 New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION TEN 250 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK 11 '788 www.nysdot.gov COMMISSIONER Your September 17, 2008 Submission Southold Manor NY 25, Southold SCTM No. 1000-06300-0300-015000 Our Case No. 07-011P Dear Mr. Schiavone: This is in regard to the site plans for the referenced project which were submitted to us for review. Prior to an approval of the site work and issuance of a New York State Highway Work Permit, the following items must be addressed: In recent years, many states have employed access management as a major technique to address conflicts between through traffic and that generated by developments. The goals of access management are to limit the number of access points, separate conflict points and remove turning traffic from through movements. New York State is utilizing this technique to minimize impacts to State highways. We recommend, therefore, that cross access to this site be obtained from adjacent properties. If this is not presently possible, it should be shown on the plans for implementation as part of future redevelopment. 2. The plans must show all traffic signs, including text, as well as pavement markings, utilities and other appurtenances along the site's State highway frontage. A note shall be added to the plans requiring the contractor to clean existing drainage basins along and immediately adjacent to the NY 25 site frontage at the completion of construction. Mr. Gregg J. Schiavone October 29, 2008 Page 2 of 2 An appropriate Work Zone Traffic Control plan must be provided for work on NY 25. The plan provided with this submission should be tailored to the site; it must comply with the minimum standards of the National MUTCD and NYS Supplement. It shall also provide for a minimum of one (1) lane in each direction at all times. 5. All sidewalk pedestrian ramps should show a detectable warning field. Please revise the plans accordingly. 6. The plan must include the note "Repair existing shoulder, sidewalk and curbing as ordered by State Engineer." 7. Please show and call out the nearest NY 25 mile marker on the plan. 8. We recommend that permanent survey markers be installed at the property limits along the State highway frontage. Any utility work proposed in State Highway right-of-way will require separate application and submission of plans (installation details, restoration details and Maintenance and Protection of Traffic plan - all referenced to NYSDOT specification item numbers and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices) to our Riverhead Maintenance facility. The applicant may contact Mr. Kevin Matthaei at (631) 727-1731 for further directions regarding Utility Highway Work Permit (HWP) applications. The applicant should be made aware that utility HWP issuance is subject to issuance of the HWP required for site work. Please submit four (4) copies of revised site plans. In your response letter please state how the above comments are addressed, item by item. Review of the subject material is being coordinated by Mr. Mark Wolfgang. He can be contacted at (631) 952-7973 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Please send all correspondence to his attention. Kindly refer to the subject case number and County tax map number in all correspondence. Thank you for your cooperation concerning this matter. Very truly yours, Original Signed By Shaik A. Saad SHAIK A. SAAD, P.E. Civil Engineer III Traffic Engineering and Safety cc: ~r. Peter Harris, Superintendent of Highways, Town of Southold b~Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse, Planning Board Chairperson, Town of Southold SAS:MDW:ajf A IATO & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW October 21, 2~)08 VIA HAND DELIVERY Southold Town Planning Department Attention: Heather Lanza Southold, New York 11971 SUITE 204 METUCHEN, NJ 0~40 TEL: (732) 317-1511 FAX: (732) J17-15J3 Re: Southwold Manor, a proposed active adult retirement condominium community't0 b~ located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York and identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 63, Block 3, Lot 15 (the "Property"). Dear Ms. Lanza: In further response to the comments of the Planning Board as set forth in Chairperson Woodhouse's letter dated February 20, 2008 (copy attached as exhibit "A" and referenced herein as the "February 20th Letter"), enclosed herewith are the items which were requested by the Planning Board to further supplement and modify the active site plan application (the "Application") which was initially presented and submitted to the Planning Department on April 11, 2005 and supplemented with a full site plan application submitted on November 16, 2006. In addition to the Application supplemental materials submitted herewith, this letter is further supplemented with the following exhibits and schedules: · Schedule 1: · Schedule 2: · Schedule 3: · Schedule 4: · Schedule 5: · Schedule 6: · ExhibitA: Itemized list of the Application supplemental materials submitted herewith; Abbreviated description of the process required to produce the supplemental Application materials provided herewith; Itemized list of changes, comments and recommendations of the Planning Department/Board which have been incorporated into the Site Plan; Description of screening/visual impact mitigation; Analysis pertaining to the scope and size of the proposed buildings; Annotated version of the February 20th Letter; and Copy of the February 20th Letter. With respect to the supplemental Application materials provided herewith, please note that the revised site plan, building plans, engineering plans, environmental forms and reports, visual aids and other items provided herewith supplement the Application and, together with previously submitted items, represent a full and complete submission. It should be noted that the submission materials submitted herewith address and incorporate each and every comment of the Planning Department and the Planning Board, including, without limitation, those set forth in the February 20th Letter and all nine (9) Planning Board work sessions held to date in connection with the Application. The submission materials are the product of months of hard work and costly and time consuming endeavors performed by the Applicant and its attorneys, building consultants, architect, site engineers, sanitary engineers, environmental consultants, surveyors and computer simulation engineers. In addition, the visual simulations requested by the Planning Board and provided herewith clearly demonstrate that the visual impact of the proposed development on the surrounding community is insignificant. The visual simulations accurately depict that the proposed new buildings of the development are setback far from the Main Road, are significantly screened with existing and proposed vegetation as well as existing buildings, and are sized and scaled to be almost visually imperceptible from Main Road. The amended Application and supplemental visual simulations are the result of an approximately 3.5 year application process (not including the Town imposed moratorium and site plan related zoning code changes of which delayed the initial submission by another 3 years). Accordingly, we fully expect the Application to be processed without further delay and in accordance with the local laws which are in effect today. Alfred L. Amato Al and Rita Cohen Scott Russell, Town Supervisor Very~urs, Jeri Woodhouse, Planning Board Chairperson George Solomon, Planning Board Joseph L. Townsend, Planning Board Kenneth L. Edwards, Planning Board Martin H. Sidor, Planning Board SCHEDULE 1. The supplemental Application materials provided herewith include the following: l. Nine (9) full-set (15 pages each) copies of Site Development Plan (stamped and sealed by NYS Licensed Engineer), each including the following: a. Site Information and Bulk Table; b. Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan (ERSAP); c. Alignment Plan; d. Grading and Drainage Plan (with calculations) e. Utility Plan; f. Landscape Plan; g. Irrigation Plan; h. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; i. Site Plan Construction Details; and j. Photometric Plan. One (1) original and three (3) copies of a memorandum from Gregg Schiavone of RMS Engineering, P.C. to the Planning Board referencing and responding to the comments of the Planning Board and the Town Engineer; 3. Four (4) topographical survey maps (stamped and sealed by NYS Licensed Surveyor); One (1) original and eight (8) sets (19 pages each) of Construction Plans with elevation details and unit floor-plans for each of the following Buildings: a. Shingle Style (gable roof) residential buildings each containing three (3) market-rate units (four (4) such buildings proposed); b. Dutch Colonial Style (gambrel roof) residential building containing three (3) market- rate units (one (1) such building proposed); c. Dutch Colonial Style (gambrel roof) residential building each containing two (2) market-rate units and one (1) accessory apartment (three (3) such buildings proposed); d. Affordable housing building (existing house) renovation and addition to accommodate three (3) affordable housing units; and e. Amenities building providing community gathering and entertainment area and mail box location. Three (3) comprehensive Planning Report including, without limitation, the following appendices; a. Development Plans by RMS Engineering, P.C.; b. Visual Representations of the Subject Site and Surrounding Area; c. Visual Representations of the Main Road Corridor; d. Property Research Documents; e. Photographic Simulations by Michael Berardesco Studios, Inc. fi Stage I Archaeological survey by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology, Department of Anthropologb,, State University of New York at Stony Brook; g. Traffic Impact Assessment by Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C.; h. Ecological Survey of the Subject Site; i. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Analysis; j. Utility/Service Availability Letters; and k. Correspondence from the Southold Town Fire Commissioner. 6. Nine (9) complete and fully executed Full Environmental Assessment Forms; 7. Nine (9) complete and fully executed Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Forms; 8. Nine (9) complete and fully executed Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan (ERSAP);; 9. Nine (9) sets of visual simulation renderings depicting the following: a. THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF SOUTHWOLD MANOR: i. Front view of Building Type A (shingle style/gable roof); ii. Side view of Building Type A (shingle style/gable roof); iii.Rear view of Building Type A (shingle style/gable roof); iv. Front view of Building Type B and C (Dutch colonial style/gambrel roof); v. Side view of Building Type B and C (Dutch colonial style/gambrel roof); and vi. Rear view of Building Type B and C (Dutch colonial style/gambrel roof). b. THE AS-BUILT COMMUNITY OF SOUTHWOLD MANOR- View from within Southwold Manor, as proposed; c. THE PROPERTY from Main Street i. (Existing Conditions) - View facing north, from the south side of Main Road, across from the Property; and ii. (Post-Construction) - View facing north, from the south side of Main Road, across from proposed access drive. d. APPROACHING THE PROPTERY looking east from 450 feet away i. (Existing Conditions) - View facing northeast down Main Road, approximately 450 fi. west of the Property; and ii. (Post-Construction) - View facing northeast down Main Road, approximately 450 fi. west of the Property. e. APPROACHING THE PROPTERY looking east from 250 feet away i. (Existing Conditions) - View facing northeast down Main Road, approximately 250 fl. west of the Property; and ii. (Post-Construction)- View facing northeast down Main Road, approximately 250 fl. west of the Property. f. APPROACHING THE PROPTERY looking west from 375 feet away i. (Existing Conditions) - View facing northwest down Main Road, approximately 375 fl. east of the Property; and ii. (Post-Construction) - View facing northwest down Main Road, approximately 375 fl. east of the Property. g. APPROACHING THE PROPTERY looking west from 275 feet away i. (Existing Conditions) - View facing northwest down Main Road, approximately 275 fi. east of the Property; and ii. (Post-Construction) - View facing northwest down Main Road, approximately 275 fi. east of the Property. h. STREETSCAPE "BOARD A" i. View facing north, from south side of Main Road, located to the west of the Property depicting STREETSCAPE (Existing Conditions) consisting of: 1. Single family residence (56365 Main Road); 2. Blue Duck Bakery (56275 Main Road); 3. The Natural Choice (56215 Main Road); and 4 4. Elements of Nature lnn-Caf6-Spa (56125 Main Road). ii. View facing north, from south side of Main Road located to the west of the Property depicting STREETSCAPE (Post-Construction) consisting of: 1. Single family residence (56365 Main Road); 2. Blue Duck Bakery (56275 Main Road); 3. The Natural Choice (56215 Main Road); and 4. Elements of Nature Inn-Caf6-Spa (56125 Main Road). iii. View facing south, from north side of Main Road located to the east of the Property depicting STREETSCAPE (Existing Conditions) consisting of: 1. Periwinkle Furniture & Patio Shoppe; and 2. Southold Chiropractic Office. STREETSCAPE "BOARD B"- i. View facing north, from south side of Main Road, across the street from the Property depicting STREETSCAPE (Existing Conditions) consisting off 1. Ivy League Flower shop; 2. Salon Dei Capelli Hair Salon; and 3. The Property. ii. View facing north, from south side of Main Road, across the street from the Property depicting STREETSCAPE (Post-Construction) consisting off 1. Ivy League Flower shop; 2. Salon Dei Capelli Hair Salon; and 3. The Property. iii. View facing south, from north side of Main Road directly in front of the Property depicting STREETSCAPE (Existing Conditions) consisting of: 1. 7 -Eleven store; and 2. Colonial Corners. STREETSCAPE "BOARD C"- i. View facing north, from south side of Main Road, located to the east of the Property depicting STREETSCAPE (Existing Conditions) consisting off 1. Single family residence (56755 Main Road); 2. Single family residence (56815 Main Road); and 3. Single family residence (56995 Main Road). ii. View facing north, from south side of Main Road located to the east of the Property depicting STREETSCAPE (Post-Construction) consisting of: 1. Single family residence (56755 Main Road); 2. Single family residence (56815 Main Road); and 3. Single family residence (56995 Main Road). iii. View facing south, from north side of Main Road located to the west of the Property depicting STREETSCAPE (Existing Conditions) consisting off 1. Mullen Motors Car Dealership and associated parking lot to the west. SCHEDULE 2 The process of redesigning the proposed buildings, modifying the Site Plan and supplementing the Application to accommodate the comments and requests of the Planning Board is significant, expensive and time consuming. Most of the tasks which needed to be performed are required to be performed sequentially rather than concurrently. The process is itemized and summarized as follows: (a) Applicant commissioned architect, Mark Michaels, and building consultant, Peter S. Read to redesign all eight (8) market-rate Buildings (exteriors and interior layouts). The redesigned and finalized plans include: i. Construction Plans with elevation details and depictions of roofing and siding materials for each of the proposed building ii. Construction Plans with interior layout designs and details for each of the proposed Buildings', and iii.Color/scaled renditions of proposed Buildings. (b) Once Building plans are finalized, architect, Mark Michaels, and building consultant, Peter S. Read, redesigned the Site Plan to accommodate the new Building designs and footprints and the newly requested buffer. Such new Site Plan would need to be scaled and set forth in considerable detail to determine compliance with the Code as well as functionality/aesthetics of the plans; (c) Once the Site Plan is redesigned, JM Surveying was hired to re-survey and stake the Property to determine the precise locations at the Property where the new Buildings would be situated; (d) Once the surveying has been completed and staked, Applicant commissioned Michael Berardesco Studios to create visual simulations of the Development. The visual simulation engineers photographed the Property and its surroundings. (e) Computer models based on the new Building designs were created by the visual simulation engineer; (f) Computer models based on the new Site Plan design were created by the visual simulation engineer; (g) High definition computer generations (not mere hand sketches) must be built in strict accordance with scale and precise depictions of existing conditions; (h) After the Building plans are finalized, the Site Plan is m-designed, and the Applicant has confirmed that the proposed buildings will have an insignificant visual impact on the surrounding community, the Applicant commissioned RMS Engineering, P.C. to began the process of creating and finalizing site engineering plans which include: i. Bulk Table and Yield Plan; ii. Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan (ERSAP); iii.Alignment Plan; a Grading and Drainage Plan (with calculations); iv. Utility Plan; v. Landscape Plan; vi. Irrigation Plan; 6 vii. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; viii. Site Plan Construction Details; and ix. Photometric Plan. (i) Concurrently with the Site Plan engineering work, as commissioned by the Applicant, Michael Chiarelli, P.C. provided consultation with regard to sanitary engineering plans to be incorporated into the site engineering plans. 0) In addition, the Applicant commissioned David J. Bemstein, Ph.D. of the Institute for Long Island Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Stony Brook to conduct a full and complete Stage I Archaeological Survey of the Property followed by a full and complete Stage 2 Archaeological Survey of the Property. The archaeological surveys were conducted so that Applicant's environmental consultant, Freudenthal and Elkowitz, could prepare an entirely comprehensive planning report. (k) Once all of the above has been performed, Freudenthal and Elkowitz was commissioned to prepare and finalize the following documents, forms and reports: i. An environmental report and analysis of the Property and the Site Plan; ii. Full Environmental Assessment Form based on the Property and the Site Plan; and iii.LWRP Consistency Assessment Form based on the Property and the Site Plan. SCHEDULE 3 Each and every comment of the Planning Board and the Town Engineer as set forth in their memos dated August 2, 2007, July 3 I, 2007 and Februasy 20, 2008 respectively, and all other comments (oral and written) of the Planning Board through nine (9) work sessions, the Planning Department Staff, the Town Fire Marshall and the Town Building Department have been accepted and incorporated into the Site Plan. The Site Plan has been revised as follows: a. Buildings have been redesigned and reduced in size; i. Middle units have been reduced in size; ii. Certain three-bedroom units have been reduced to two-bedroom units; iii.Eight (8) units have been reduced in size to accommodate one-car garages rather than two-car garages; iv. Accessory apartment units (3 such units) have been reduced from three-bedroom units to two-bedroom units; v. The building footprints have been reduced in size; vi. Rather than offering two (2) interior lay-out choices, we are now proposing four (4) interior lay-oul choices. b. The main entranceway has been relocated to the west side of the Property and away from the residential properties on the east side of the Property; c. The existing driveway and curb-cut shall be abandoned and a 25 buffer shall replace same; d. The Cromoglass septic and wastewater system has been removed; e. Southern turning circle has been removed; f. Platform tennis court has been removed; g. Garden areas have replaced a proposed platform tennis court; h. Entrance/security gate has been removed; i. Retaining wall has been removed; Existing grade to remain in accordance with revised engineering plans; k. Parking area located by existing structure/residential neighbors has been significantly reduced; 1. Individual driveways have been reconfigured to prevent parked cars from encroaching on to Manor Drive; m. Driveway system has been redesigned to convert certain individual driveways into shared driveways; n. Amenities building has been redesigned to accommodate mail boxes within; o. Entranceway to community has been reconfigured to preserve existing walnut trees; 8 p. 25' foot buffer has been provided around the perimeter of the Property. Such buffer constitutes approximately 60,085 square feet/1.38 acres (more that 20% of the Property); q. Buildings have been shifted and relocated to accommodate transition buffer; r. Sidewalks, walking paths and paseo have been added; s. Amenity Center dumpster has been relocated and screened; t. Air conditioner condensers have been inconspicuously located (none to be located in front of or on the side of any proposed buildings; u. Garden Trellis and Pergola structures have been added along shared-driveway-turnarounds to further screen driveway areas from neighboring properties; and v. Upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each of the proposed structures on the Site Plan, the existing house on the property shall be voluntarily registered with Landmark Preservation as a historical building. 9 SCHEDULE 4 The Property is located on the Main Road in the commercial and business center of the hamlet of Southold. However, due to a unique shape and location, the vast majority of the Property area is inconspicuously situated and well hidden from the Main Road and surrounding areas. In this regard, please note the following: a. To the north, the Property borders train tracks for the Long Island Rail Road; b. To the west, the Property borders an enormous (dry dock) boat storage facility; c. To the east, the Property borders two (2) large residentially zoned lots and two (2) predominantly commercially zoned lots with residential uses; To the south, the Property borders and runs parallel to the Main Road, but is separated from the Main road by two (2) separate properties which are improved by three (3) multi-story commercial buildings and appurtenant parking facilities. In addition, the existing 2.5 story house on the property shall screen the Main Road from the proposed structures; The proposed new buildings, at the closest point, shall be set back approximately 200' feet from Main Road (all other new buildings shall be set back approximately 365' feet from Main Road; 520' feet from Main Road; 670' feet from Main Road and 820' feet from Main Road. It should be noted that there are four (4) large buildings (all at least 2 stories) which currently stand directly between Main Road (Rt. 25) and the portions of the Property where the proposed buildings shall stand. Such buildings include the existing house on the Property as well as three (3) commercial buildings located on two (2) lots situated between Main Road (Rt. 25) and the Properly; There are approximately 200 cedar trees on the Property which range in height from 20' to 35'. These evergreen trees shall be transplanted along the perimeter of the Property, as set forth on the Landscape Plans submitted in order to provide an instantly dense, mature and evergreen screen which shall reach higher than the tallest of the proposed buildings; and Garden Trellis and Pergola structures with climbing vegetation thereon shall be located along the shared-driveway-tumarounds to provide further screening from neighboring properties. 10 SCHEDULE 5 With respect to the size and scope of the proposed buildings and the development, please note the following: As defined in the Town Code, the proposed buildings have heights that do not exceed 19' feet, 2" inches. The Town Code limits building height to 35" feet.~ Note that the proposed buildings are approximately half of the permitted height. Notwithstanding the definition of height as set forth in the Town Code, the proposed buildings have heights (grade to ridge) of approximately 25' feet (gambrel style) and 28' feet (shingle style) respectively; The proposed buildings are 2 stories rather than prevalent 2.5 sto~y buildings which are located on adjacent lots; The Town Code permits up to 2.5 stories; The Site Plan is entirely compliant with all applicable provisions of the Town Code, including, without limitation, all bulk table restrictions and requirements. In particular, the following should be noted: a. The proposed Buildings comply in all respects with all applicable Code requirements pertaining to building size and scope; b. The Site Plan complies with all Code mandated separation distances; c. The Site Plan complies with all Code mandated set backs; and d. The Site Plan complies with all Code mandated lot coverage restrictions; Within 1,000 yards of the Property there are no less than 60 buildings of similar or greater size and scope than the proposed buildings, including without limitation, the following: i. 2-3 buildings of the boat storage yard abutting the Property); ii. 2-3 buildings of Mullen Motors (across street from Property); iii. IGA supermarket iv. Approximately 5 building which constitute Feather Hill v. Approximately 5 commercial building surrounding Feather Hill vi. Approximately 4 commercial buildings along Main Road vii. Sea Tow Building; viii. Fire house; ix. Town Hall Annex; x. Brick office building behind Town Hall Annex; xi. Approximately 7 warehouse buildings running along train tracks; xii. Approximately 8 buildings of Colonial Village; xiii. Approximately 18 buildings of Founders Village; xiv. Approximately 5 storage buildings boarding on Founders Village. ~ The Code of the Town of Southold provides that the "Height of Building" is determined by measuring the distance from "the average elevation of the existing natural grade.., to the mean height between eaves and ridge...." The Code of the Town of Southold permits a building height of 35' feet. It should be noted that under this applicable definition, the building height of the largesfftallest proposed building on the Site Plan is a mere 19'2". 11 SCHEDULE 6 As referenced in my letter, dated March 10, 2008, the Applicant fundamentally disputes much of the substance of Chairperson Woodhouse s letter dated February 20, 2008 (the February 20 Lette ). The February 20th Letter was delivered to the Applicant after the Applicant notified the Planning Board that it was ready to present visual simulations and other requested items of the Planning Board, but before the Applicant was given the opportunity to present such items. Furthermore, it must be noted that the comments set forth in the February 20th Letter rendered the Applicant's prepared items as useless because the Applicant was asked to redesign the buildings (and the Site Plan) which were depicted on the prepared visual simulations. Perhaps the most efficient way to respond to the February 20th Letter is to reproduce it in its entirety and provide our comments in an annotated fashion. Accordingly, set forth below is the entire February 20th Letter set forth in regular 11 point font, annotated with our comments interspersed and set forth in bold, italicized font: February 20, 2008 Mr. Alfred Amato Mr. Christopher Read East End Resoumes, LLC c/o Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Re: Southwold Manor: 56644 Main Road, Southold, New York Dear Mr. Amato and Mr. Read: [PARAGRAPH 1] At our last Planning Board work session, on January 22, 2008, we discussed the site plan referenced above. At that time, the Planning Board asked for more information, all of which has been requested in the past, but not yet provided. The last sentence of the above paragraph is inaccurate. The same statement was made by the Chairperson during the January 22 work session and rebuffed. In fact, when the Chairperson made this claim at the January 22 work session, 1 specifically asked her when such request was made. The Chairperson responded "many times, ' and when asked if she could specify at least one time site responded by again saying "many times." Note that there is no indication whatsoever in the record of any such request. [PARAGRAPH 2] In your letter dated January 15, 2008, you state that, "with one exception, each and every comment, both spoken and written, of the Planning Board, Planning Staff, Town Engineer, Building Department, Fire Marshall, and the County Planning Commission has been incorporated in all respects into this final version of the Site Plan." Upon reviewing all the comments made, both verbal and written, we have found that they have not been, entirely incorporated into the site plan sketch presented to us on December 18, 2007. In fact, most of the twenty two requested changes and comments were addressed only in a letter stating they would be addressed, however the actual plans showing those changes have not yet 12 been submitted to the Planning Board. The Applicant's sentence in the January 15th letter is accurately quoted by the Chairperson and the Chairperson is correct in that referenced sentence is inaccurate. However, this error is merely a reference to a minor typo. The record is replete with examples of Appllcant's intended statement; namely, that every Town Comment has been accepted, if not incorporated, by the Applican~ The record includes multiple letters which precisely, correctly and redundantly express the Applicant's true intentions, namely that all such comments of the Planning Board have been accepted. These statements on most occasions are followed by Applicant's request that the Planning Board review the proposed Site Plan layout and provide a determination before asking the Applicant to expend considerable time and money engineering such proposed layout. Notwithstanding, we truly regret the typographical error in this one instance. [PARAGRAPH 3] You explained in your letter of December 7, 2007, that you have decided to postpone submitting all the necessary information to the Planning Board with the hope that the Planning Board could provide you with substantial comments on the layout of the buildings proposed in the revised sketch, received by Planning on December 10, 2007. The Applicant did not decide to postpone anything. We merely requested that the Planning Board extend a courtesy similar to that which is extended to applicants by planning boards all over Long Island. Specifically, as noted above, we were simply asking for Planning Board comments or a determination with respect to the proposed layout of the Site Plan, as amended, so that common ground could be established before expending the significant time and resources of preparing fully engineered plans. The Applicant made a simple request which could have been easily accommodated by the Planning Board. Other than to cause delay, there is no logical reason to why the Planning Board would need to see complete water and sanitary construction details and designs prior to giving the Applicant a determination on a proposed transition buffer. The reason such request is reasonable and customary is that once such water and sanitary construction details and designs are finalized, a subsequent Planning Board rejection of the proposed buffer would result in a need to re-engineer the entire site again. [PARAGRAPH 3 Continued] The Planning Board reviewed the revised sketch at their December 18, 2007 work session, and determined that we needed more information from you. This statement is inaccurate. At the end of the December 18, 2007 work session, the Planning Board decided that they needed more time to review the revised Site Plan. In fact, before the matter was tabled, one member of the Planning Board specifically asked the Applicant if it was OK if they took some more time. The question was clearly rhetorical, but it was polite and courteous and the Applicant instantly obliged. No additional information was requested by the Planning Board at the December 18, 2007 work session. [PARAGRAPH 4] The Planning Board requested, and is still waiting for, an illustration of the elevations of the buildings showing the height of the building from the proposed grade to the peak, and also showing how the height of the buildings was calculated for the purpose of meeting the minimum distance requirements between buildings (i.e. illustrate the dimensions used to calculate building height as defined in Town Code). As of February 20, 2008, the Planning Board had been in possession of architecturally- certified, scaled elevations for over a year and a half. Those elevations are part of a set of plans that included a bulk table with all customary bulk table information and scaled full-color elevation rendering. As for calculation methods of Height and Separation Distances, we followed the simple 13 definitions set forth in the Code- as referenced on the plans. [PARAGRAPH 5] Another item requested, but not provided in the past, was an illustration or rendering depicting views of the proposed buildings as they would look from the Main Road, not an unusual request for development along a designated Scenic Corridor. Your latest fax, dated February 12, 2008, explains that you will have something for the Planning Board to view at their next meeting. The portion of the fiflh paragraph pertaining to previously requested items is false for the same reasons and backed by the same evidence set forth in my response to the first paragraph above. Regarding the Planning Board's request for simulated renderings and streetscapes, it should be noted that such renderings are indeed a customary request of many planning boards. However, simulated renderings are customary for Public Hearings, NOT work sessions. For the record, the Applicant prepared the simulations that were requested by the Planning Board, but was not provided with an opportunity to present thetr~ I~Vhen the Planning Board was notified that such renderings were complete, the February 20th Letter was sent, requiring a re-design of the buildings and the Site Plan. In addition, the Applicant was informed that the Application would not be further processed until the Applicant submits an amended site plan application, a new Environmental Assessment Form, and all other site plan application plans and materials to reflect any changes made to the original site plan application. [PARAGRAPH 6] The Planning Board has also expressed some frustration with the monotonous design of the buildings, and that among eight buildings and twenty-four units, there is essentially no variety in the size of the units. Providing some variety in size, perhaps with some units having only a one car garage, and less than three bedrooms and three bathrooms, might better address the town's housing needs, as well as allow for the requested larger buffer. Other than this statement by the Chairperson, the designs have generated only positive feedback and they were "well received" by the ARC. We are offering two distinct designs which are situated at varying angles. Regarding requested changes which "might be better," it is unclear whether this is a comment, suggestion, or demand. Notwithstanding, such comment has been reflected in our revised plans submitted herewith. [PARAGRAPH 7] The comment that you have not accommodated is the request for a buffer wider than fifteen feet along the property borders. This property borders an intense commemial use -- a boat yard, and protecting the interface between commercial and residential uses is of paramount importance to the P1 anning Board. The Planning Board requested a thirty-foot butter last summer. Five months later, at a Planning Board work session on December, 18, 2007, you explained that your clients would not meet a thirty foot buffer around the perimeter. Instead, you provided us with a hand-colored sketch continuing to show a fifteen foot buffer in the exact locations where a thirty-foot buffer would he most desirable where the proposed buildings and garages are closest to the property lines. You did illustrate a partial thirty-foot buffer, but only along a little over half the perimeter (65% according to your last letter). The referenced five (5) month gap is inaccurate. It should be noted that a fully revised site plan was submitted to the Planning Board on December 7, 2007- EXACTLY 3.5 MONTHS after the August 20 work session, the date of which a signed copy of the Town Engineer's letter was provided the Applicant (While such letter is dated July 31, 2007, an executed copy was not delivered to Applicant until August 20, 2007). In addition, the August 20 work session, was also the date that the Planning Board determined that the existing house would be a suitable place for the affordable units. During such 3.$ month period, considerable effort was made by Applicant's architect and site 14 engineer to fully address what turned out to be a Site Plan-destroying request to incorporate a 30'foot buffer around the entire Property. Regarding our "hand-colored sketch," while the maps may be colored by hand ([or your convenience), the underlying site-plan represents more than a mere "sketch." They are precisely calculated and scaled designs prepared by professionals. Significant work must be performed by a number of professionals in order to provide scaled/certified plans which seek to incorporate comments such as a 30'foot buffer. The work is time consuming and expensive. [PARAGRAPH 8] At the work session on January 22, 2008, the Planning Board asked that you consider trying to provide a 25 foot buffer, reducing the size of some of the buildings if necessary, and you agreed to consult with your clients to consider this request, and provide us with the other two requests (illustrating the height of the buildings, and illustrating what the view of the buildings would be from Main Street). It is not clear whether the Planning Board's request that the Applicant "consider trying to provide...."somethingisadirectiveorasuggestion. Notwithstanding, suchcommenthasbeen reflected in our revised plans submitted herewith. [PARAGRAPH 9] Four weeks have now passed since our last meeting, and in your fax dated February 12, you request postponing our next meeting to a time when all five Planning Board members are present. On January 22, 2008 the Planning Board asked the Applicant to design effective methods of driveway screening, visual simulations of the Development, and a revised Site Plan reflecting further changes. 20 days later (NOT 4 FOUR I~VEEKS) the Applicant sent a memo to the Planning Department, dated February 12, 2008, requesting that Application be placed on the agenda of the next work session to be attended by the entire Planning Board. The Applicant's letter stated the following: The Applicant, with its architect, has prepared scaled simulations which demonstrate that the Buildings, as depicted on the Site Plan, will have a de minimis, if any, visual impact on the surrounding community; The Applicant has also prepared a supplemental screening design concept which shall further screen and obscure the Property from surrounding properties, particularly at those locations on the Property which provide less than a 30foot transition buffer; and iii. The Applicant has further revised the Site Plan to incorporate the latest specific comments of the Planning Board and Planning Staff. Such changes pertain to driveways, dumpster location and screening methods. [PARAGRAPH 9 Continued] The next full meeting of the Planning Board is scheduled for March 10, 2008. We will have your application listed on the agenda for the work session that day. The work session begins at 4:30pm. Should you wish to meet sooner, the Planning Board meets every week between now and then, on February 25, and Mamh 3, 2008 at 4:00 pm. [PARAGRAPH 10] Please also note that the proposed changes to the site plan noted in your December 7, 2007 letter require that an amended site plan application be submitted, including a new Environmental Assessment Form, and all other site plan application plans and. materials to reflect any changes made to the original site plan application. The Planning Board is not able to process your application further until these updates are made to the application materials. 15 [PARAGRAPH 1 I] We look forward to seeing you at the March 10 work session. Should you have any questions, or decide to attend an earlier work session, please feel free to contact the Planning Director, I- leather Lanza. The last paragraphs of the February 20ta Letter provide that the Planning Board is looking forward to seeing the Applicant at the March 10, 2008 work session-or sooner. However, the penultimate paragraph states that the Planning Board will not further process the Application until the Applicant submits an amended site plan application~ "... including a new Environmental Assessment Form~ and all other site plan application plans and materials to reflect anv changes made to the original site plan application." To put this in perspective, the Planning Board Chairperson states that the Planning Board looks forward to seeing the Applicant in 19 days, but that they will not process the Application which the Applicant seeks to discuss unless and until the Applicant redesigns the buildings, redesigns the Site Plan and then commissions, completes and submits the following: a fully executed Amended Site Plan Application; an Environmental Assessment Form; a fully executed revised Full EnvironmentalAssessment Form; a fully executed revised L WRP Consistency Assessment Form; nine (9) copies of Site Development Plan (stamped and sealed by NYS Licensed Engineer) including: a revtsed Bulk Table a revised Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan (ERSAP); a revised Alignment Plan; a revised Grading and Drainage Plan (with calculations); a revised Utility Plan; a revtsed Landscape and Irrigation Plan; a revtsed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; and a revised version of the Site Plan Construction Details; Architectural Review Materials including revised townhouse exterior elevations; nine (9) sets of revised Construction Plans; In order to accommodate this enormous request, the following professionals would have to commissioned: (a) site engineer; (b) a sanitary engineer; (c) architect; (d) building consultant; (e) environmental consultant; 09 visual simulation engineer; and (g) surveyor. Accordingly, the Applicant postponed the work session and began to work diligently and efficiently to prepare all of the items requested by the Planning Board. This process took more than eight (8) months to complete and has cost tens of thousands of dollars. With the submission materials finally complete, the Applicant notes that on the date that these supplemental Application materials are submitted to the Planning Board, the Planning Department is officially lobbying the Town Board to change the local law for the purpose of defeutlng the Application. 16 · · RMS ENGINEERING · ·· Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC Christopher W. Robinson, PE, President Wayne A. Muller, PE, Vice President Gregg J Schiavone, PE, Vice President October 21, 2008 Town of Southold P.O. Box l 179 Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Jerilyn B. Woodbouse, Chairperson Residential Site Plan for Soutbold. Maner 56655 Main Road, S6uthold SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Hamlet Business (HB) RMS Project No. 2005-195 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: RMS Engineering is in receipt of the Town of Southold comments pertaining to the above captioned matter. The following comment/response letter outlines our revisions and responses to the issues raised. Town of Southold, Planning Board Office letter dated August 2, 2007 Comment L Please provide detailed sign information as per Town Code :~280-80/90. Please be aware all signs must meet Town Code and require review and approval from the Building Department. In addition, all propose sign lighting should also be submitted jbr review. Please provide specific information/documentation regarding the proposed landscape masonry sign along the entrance. Response Ihe above comment has been noted. Sign detail to come under separate cover. Comment 2. Please revise the site plan or include an additional plan detailing neighboring sites, specifically the location of all buildings and curb cuts. Please include all adjacent properties and roadways to the east and west and across NYS 25. Response The additional information requested is currently being located by the surveyor. Once the information is complete, it will be added to the plans. Comment 3. The Planning Board, after consideration of the bt~ffer around the perimeter of the property, is requiring an increase in the buffer.from the required 15 ', as Der 280-94, to 30' to mitigate the 355 New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 · Phone 631-271-0576 · Fax 631-271-0592 · www.rmsengineering.com · · RMS ENGINEERING · ·· Robinson. Muller & Schiavone Engineers, P.C. RE: Residential~e Plan for Southold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Page 2 proposed impact on the adjacent properties. Please revise SP-7, Landscape and Irrigation Plan, accordingly. Response The Town has requested a 25 foot buffer which has been incorporated into the Site Plan. In addition, the proposed buffer includes 15 feet which shall be a non-disturbance buffer. Please refer to the Landscape Plan, sheet SP-7. Comment4. Please revise the site plan to reflect the removal of the proposed chromoglass system. As referenced above, the Planning Board, after review, recommends shifting the proposed clubhouse area and eight (8) proposed buildings to increase the landscape buffer along the outer edge of the property. Response The proposed chromoglass system has been removed and replaced with individual sewage disposal systems. These systems consist of a septic tank and sanitary leaching pools as per the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Standards. Additionally, the building footprints have been reduced in size and shifted to accommodate the proposed buffer areas. Please refer to the Utility Plan, sheet SP-6, and the Alignment Plan, sheet SP-4. Comment 5. The Planning Board is requiring the use of more native landscaping throughout the proposed development. Please find enclosed a copy of the "Recommended Street Trees for Long Island 2000" as a reference. Response The Landscape Plan was revised to include the use of more native species throughout the development. Please refer to sheet SP-7. Comment 6. Please provide more information regarding any proposed dumpster's onsite. In addition, please include screening detail such as fencing or plantings around any proposed dumpsters. Response The proposed dumpster shall be contained in a masonry block refuse enclosure. The enclosure shall match the proposed buildings in color and texture and the gates shall have self closing hinges. Please refer to the Construction Details, sheet SP-11. In addition, please note that the dumpster shall be screened with native vegetation as set forth on the Landscape Plan, sheet SP-7. Comment 7. The Planning Board, after review, is requiring the removal of the six (6) northerly guest parking spaces proposed adjacent to the existing Cohen house. In addition, please revise the proposed plan to eliminate the multiple driveways along Manor Road. The Planning Board is recommending the plan be revised to show the 3 longest driveways for each building are combined and guest parking incorporated. In addition, please revise the plans to increase the driveway length for all units labeled as "3A " and "lB ". III · · RMS ENGINEERING · ·· Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC Residentia~e Plan for Southold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Page 3 The above comment has been noted. Please refer to the Alignment Plan, sheet SP-4. Comment 8. Planning Board policy has required a three (3) year landscape survivability for all proposed landscaping for site plans. Please be aware SP- 7 Note l only guarantees l year. Please revise. Response The requested three (3) year guarantee is not customary. Furthermore, it is standard practice for nurseries to guarantee their stock for a period of one (1) year. Comment 9. Town Code ~280- 78 J (5) states, "Parking areas shall be screened by a substantial wall, fence or thick hedge, approved by the Planning Board. Generally, such screening shall not be less than four feet, no more than eight feet in height." Response The above comment has been noted. The parking has been designed to minimize the visual impact from all off-site areas. Please refer to the Alignment Plan, sheet SP-4. Comment 10, Please ensure or provide further detail showing compliance with Town Code 280-93, Front Landscaped Area. Response The plans have been revised to maintain the existing landscaping in the front landscaped areas. Please refer to the Landscape Plan, sheet SP-7. Comment 11. Please correct the typographical error on SP-2 under "Building Type "B" (Gambrel Roofline). It is the Planning Board's understanding it should read "No. of Units per Type "B" Building ". Response The error has been revised as requested. Please refer to the Site Information, Bulk Table and Yield Plan, sheet SP-2. Comment 12. As discussed, please submit revised architectural drawings and floor plans for the existing Cohen house. These plans should clearly indicate nay proposed construction/additions. If necessary, please adjust the lot coverage accordingly. Response The above comment has been noted. The plans have been submi~ed to the Town for review and approval. Comment 13. As discussed with the Planning Board, please remove the proposed security gate. · · RMS ENGINEERING · ·· Robinson. Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC RE: Residential~e Plan for Southold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Page 4 Response The proposed security gate has been removed as requested. Please refer to the Alignment Plan, sheet SP-4. Comment 14. Please provide further detail/information regarding mail delivery at the proposed site. If a central mailbox is proposed, please indicate its location(s) on the revised plan, including any screening/landscaping. Response The above comment has been noted. Mailboxes are located at the proposed amenities building. Comment 15. All A/C units should be delineated on proposed plan and necessary screening should be provided. In addition, any utility boxes onsite should be identified and screening provided. Response The plans have been revised to illustrate the proposed AC units. LIPA, Cablevision and Verizon shall determine the location of the utility boxes at the site and once the locations are coordinated, we shall add the screen planting to the plans. Comment 16. As requested by the Southold Fire District in their letter dated January 12, 20076, please show all necessary fire hydrants. Response The fire hydrant has been added to the plans at the end of the proposed road. Please refer to the Utility Plan, sheet SP-6. Comment 17. Please provide detail, location and catalog cuts for any proposed site lighting. Response The above comment has been noted. Please refer to the Photometric Plan, sheet SP-15. Comment 18. The Planning Board is encouraging the use of sidewalks throughout the site. Please label and provide details for the proposed sidewalks. Response The plans have been revised to include 5' wide sidewalks throughout the site. Please refer to the Alignment Plan, sheet SP-4. Comment 19. Please provide any correspondence regarding the proposed project with New York State Department of Transportation. Ill · · RMS ENGINEERING · ·· Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC RE: Residential~Re Plan for Southold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Page 5 Response The above comment has been noted. Correspondence with the N¥SDOT shall be provided to the Town. Comment20. Please correct the typographical error on SP-5 labeled "Refer to cross-section A-A on Drawing SP-8 ". This cross section is located on SP-I O and should be corrected. Response Cross-section A-A has been removed. Please refer to the Grading and Drainage Plan, sheet SP-5. Comment 21. Please provide more detail regarding the areas labeled as "Existing vegetation to remain" SP- 7, Lan&cape and Irrigation Plan, including any tree ~72ecimens to remain. on Response The above comment has been noted. Please refer to the Landscape Plan, sheet SP-7. Town of Southold, Office of the Engineer, letter dated July 31, 2007 Comment 1. Please note that the proposed disturbance resulting Jbom construction activities and grading of this site will be greater than one (1) acre in area. Therefore, this project will require coverage from NYS Department of Environmental Protection (DEC) under the Phase II State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES Program. The developer must obtain coverage under General Permit for Storm-water Runoff from Construction Activity (GP-02-O1) prior to the initiation of construction activities. Response A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shah be prepared and the filing of a Notice of Intent will be completed prior to any ground disturbance greater that one (1) acre. Ail erosion control methods shall be designed and installed as per the N¥SDEC standards. Comment 2. Drainage calculations have been provided on drawing SP-5 and are considered satisfactory with one exception. It appears that drainage has not been provided for the Amenities Building which would also include a tennis court and pool patio. These areas should be included in the drainage calculations. Response The drainage calculations have been revised to include all roof, impervious, and landscaped surfaces within the site. All runoff shall be accounted for in the on-site drainage systems. Please refer to the Grading and Drainage Plan, sheet SP-5. · · RMS ENGINEERING · ·· Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC Residential~e Plan for Southold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Page 6 Comment $. Sheet SP-7, the Landscaping & Irrigation Plan notes several areas where existing vegetation will remain. Major portions of these areas will need to be cleared to install the proposed sewage treatment systems and drainage structures. This item should be amended accordingly. Response The plans have been revised as requested. The areas where the existing vegetation is to remain have been coordinated with the proposed improvements. Please refer to the Alignment Plan, sheet SP-4 and the Landscape Plan, sheet SP-7. Comment 4. Keystone Retaining kVall Section Detail AA has been noted to be located on SP-8. [t is actually located on drawing SP-I O and appears to be drawn inconsistent with actual site conditions. The Detail indicates a maximum height of 3 '. Proposed grades on SP-5 along the easterly property line adjacent to SCTM#: 1000-63-03-16 would indicate that the wall would need to be over four (4')feet high. This item should be addressed. Proposed grades also indicate that a majority of the site will be filled. Therefore, the noted property line should be on the low side of the proposed wall or opposite to what has been indicated. Please Note: any grading and/or excavation necessary to construct this wall should be contained within the limits of the project site. Therefore, the face of this wall will need to be slightly set back from the property line. The detail should be amended to reflect this change. Response The keystone retaining wall has been removed from the plans. The site has been re-graded to not require the use of any retaining walls. Please refer to the Grading and Drainage Plan, sheet SP-5. Comment 5. The retaining wall section detail (SP-10) also indicates a six (6') foot high stockade fence. The Site Plan (SP-4) indicates six (6') foot high chain link. The maximum height of fence allowed by Town Code is six (6') feet. Fencing installed on the fill side of the proposed wall would also be restricted to six (6') feet. This item will be measured from the average natural grade prior to fill. Response The keystone retaining wall has been removed from the plans. The site has been re-graded to not require the use of any retaining walls. Please refer to the Grading and Drainage Plan, sheet SP-5. Comment 6. What is the reason or purpose for the installation of perimeter fencing around the entire site? This item should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. Response The perimeter fencing shall remain for the purpose of providing privacy, security and liability protection. · · RMS ENGINEERING · ·· Robinson. Muller & Schiavone Engineers, PC RE: Residentia'l~3~te Plan for Southold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Page 7 Comment Z State Department of Tran~7~ortation Curb Cut Permit will be required. Response The plans shall be distributed to the NYSDOT for review and approval prior to the commencement of construction. Comment 8. In general, driveway access for each pair of buildings has been shown with three curb cuts located within the same general area, It is recommended that where this condition occurs, Curb Cuts shouM be consolidated into one access cut to the proposed Road. Utilizing one cut at each location will also provide additional area for guest parking without increasing the amount of pavement that was originally proposed. Response The plans have been revised as requested. The driveways have been consolidated where possible. Please refer to the Alignment Plan, sheet SP-4. Comment 9. Sidewalks have not been indicated. Due to the confined nature of this Site Plan and the overall short length of proposed road, it would appear that many owners may choose to walk to and from the proposed Amenities Building. Therefore, sidewalks are recommended. Response As requested, the plans have been revised to include 5' wide sidewalks throughout the site. Please refer to the Alignment Plan, sheet SP-4. Comment 10. On sheet SP-9, General note #14 indicated that ownership and maintenance of drainage structures are the Lot Owners' responsibility. Individual lots have not been created and multiple dwelling units may be connected to one or more drainage structures. Therefore, it is recommended that this maintenance be the responsibility of a Homeowners Association, Response The ltomeowners Association shall be responsible for all repair and maintenance of the proposed site improvements (i.e. drainage pools, sanitary leaching pools, septic tanks, etc.) Please refer to the Construction Details, sheet SP-10. Comment 11. On sheet SP-9, General notes numbered 16 through 20 rqference inaccurate information. All notes should be reviewed and modified to reference accurate Zoning, County and Municipal data. Response The notes have been reviewed and revised to be accurate. Please refer to the Construction Details, sheet SP-10. Ill · · RMS ENGINEERING · ·· Robinson, Muller & Schiavone Engineers, P.C Residential"~l~e Plan for Southold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Page 8 Comment 12. Landscaping, as proposed, appears to be adequate and should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. Response The above comment has been noted. Comment 13. Typical road cross section details should be provided. In addition, a section detail of the brick paved road section should also be provided. Response Section details of the road and brick pavers have been added to the plans as requested. Please refer to the "On-Site Concrete Curb and Pavement Detail" and the "Brick Paver Installation Detail" on sheet SP-10. Comment 14. During construction, it is recommended that all utility installations, which have been designed to traverse under the proposed road, be completed prior to the placement qf Asphah Materials. Response The above comment has been noted. All utility installations shall be installed prior to installation of the road sub-base. We believe the revised drawings along with the above information fully address the outstanding comments. If you have any questions please feel free to contact our office. GJS:ms cc: Christopher Read A1 Amato Very truly yours, Greg¢¢vone, PE · ~Sen~ By: AMATO&ASSOCIATES; 5162270885; Mar-10-01 12:23PM; Page 1/2 AMATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~6 Old Couetry Read 9~ l~oor Garden City, New York 11 Tel: (516) 227-6363 ~ Fax: (SI6) 227-6367 Facsimile Cover Sheet To: Fax#: From: Date: Re: Jeri Woodhouse (Chairperson), Joseph L. Townsend, Kenneth L~' Edwards, Martin IL Sider and George Solo ~mon, $outkoid Town Planning Board (631) 765-3136 Christopher 1VL Read, Esq. March 10, 2008 Southwold Manor: 56655 Main Road, soUth01d, New York Total number of pages including this cover sheet: 2 ff you do not receive all the pages indicted above, please call u~ back as soon a~ possible at 516-227-6363 URGENT O FOR ]REVIEW CI PLEASE COMMENT ~ PLEASE REPLY ~ FYI Please see correspondence transmitted herewith. This Facsimilc ~c~mission ~onmles confi(:I~n0~t and/or Ic~l~y pri~klpsd in fun~atkm ~ the law firm .qnato & ~ P.C. intendM on~y ~r thc mc By: AMAT0&ASSOCIATES; 5162270885; Map-10 12:24PM; Pisge 2/2 AMATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11~0 T~L: MEMORANDUM Fram: Christopher M_ Read, ~ Scott Russell, Town Superior, Patncia Finncgan, Esq., Town .4ttorney; FAc-ran Corcoran, ,Esq., .4s$istant Town Jttori~V; Heather Lanza, Head Planner, Mark 'l'en2t and Bruno Semon, ToWn Planning Dept:rtraent; Alfred I. Amato, Ea.~t End R,,murce. v~ LLC Date; Ye: March 10, 2008 Application (the "Application") for Sile Plan Apl~oval for Souihwold Man~ Site Plan (thc "Site Plan") by East Fad Resources, LLC (the "Applicant") for an active adult condominium community located at 56655 Main Road, Southold NY (the "Property") As previously stated to Heather Lenza of the $outhold Planning Deparlment during a telephone conf~,~iice call last week, the Applicant will not be attoading the Planning Bcatd work s~ssion ~cheduled for today, Mamh 10, 2008. The Applicant's decision to withdraw thc Application from ~tay's agenda is made in the absence of any alternatives considering Cba~ Wcodhous~'s clear and ummbiguons statement, as set forth in the letter (the "Letter"), dated February 20, 2008, that the Planning Board will not continue pro~ssing the Application until an amended site plan application is ~ and submitted. To eompty with the Planning Board's requirement that the Applicant submit an amended site plan application, including a new Environmental Assessment Form and "all other sit~ plan application plans and materials to reflect any changes to the original si~e plan application" thc Applicant will commission its architeot, building consultant, site engineer, sanitary engineer, cnvironm~tal consultant and visual simulation engineer so lhat a con, fete (amended) Application may be submiiied lo and processed by the Plamgng Board. The items, plans and renderings required fc~ an amended Application ami the ensuing publio hearings will ~ significant time and effort to prepare. Accordingly, please do not construe anything other than an immediate submission as undue delay on thc part o£th¢ Applicant. Regarding the Letter, and notwithstanding the Applicant's an'am dispute of the considerable inaccuracies and material omissions contained thercin, thc Applicant shall ~_ _.Sdrxss and seek ~o incorporate the Planning Board's comments which pertain to "is 25 foot buffer" and 'keducin$ the si~e of some of buildings." The Applicant anticipates that by fully addressing and incorporating each and every comment of the Planning Board and Planning Department into a revised ,mnfun of the Site Plan, that upon the sulymission of thc amended Application, the Application process will proc~:ed without further delay. Lanza, Heather From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Christopher Read [cread@amatofirm.com] Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:44 PM Lanza, Heather Al Amato RE: dates of public meetings (all five board members present). Thank you. We'll be in touch shortly. -Chris From: Lanza, Heather [mailto:heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:39 PM To: Christopher Read Subject: dates of public meetings (all five board members present). Chris, As requested, the following are the dates of the public meetings (I thought all the dates might come in handy over time) where the fifth Planning Board member attends in the near future (we have work sessions prior to the public meetings that begin at 4:30pm): March 10 April 14 May 12 June 9 July 14 August 11 September 8 October 14 November 17 December 8 I understand from our conversation this afternoon by phone that you are requesting that the Planning Board not discuss your application at the March 10 work session, and that ! should wait to hear from you about which date you wish to appear before the board. The Planning Board also has regular work sessions every week in addition to the dates listed above, should you decide on a sooner date. I look forward to hearing from you. Heather Lanza, A.I.C.P. To~vn Planning Director 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone: (631)765-1938 E-mail: heather.lanza~,_,town.southold.ny.us Lanza, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Lanza, Heather Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:39 PM 'Christopher Read' dates of public meetings (all five board members present). Chris, As requested, the following are the dates of the public meetings (I thought all the dates might come in handy over time) where the fifth Planning Board member attends in the near future (we have work sessions prior to the public meetings that begin at 4:30pm): March 10 April 14 May 12 June 9 July 14 August 11 September 8 October 14 November 17 December 8 I understand from our conversation this afternoon by phone that you are requesting that the Planning Board not discuss your application at the March 10 work session, and that I should wait to hear from you about which date you wish to appear before the board. The Planning Board also has regular work sessions every week in addition to the dates listed above, should you decide on a sooner date. I look forward to hearing from you. Heather Heather Lanza, A.I.C.P. Town Planning Director 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone: (631)765-1938 E-mail: heather, lanza~,_,town.southold.ny.us Lanza, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Lanza, Heather Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:07 AM 'Christopher Read' Monday's work session Chris, Did you receive the letter I sent a couple weeks ago? Also, will you be submitting anything prior to the work session to give the Planning Board a chance to review it ahead of time? If so, I need it by today so I can have it scanned and distributed. I may be able to get it to them in time if you submit the materials early Friday morning. Thank you. Heather Heather Lanza, A.I.C.P. Town Planning Director 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone: (631)765-1938 E-mail: heather.lanza(~_~town.southold.ny.us PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS IvlARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND VIA FAX: 516 227-6367 February 20, 2008 Mr. Alfred Amato Mr. Christopher Read East End Resources, LLC c/o Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Re: Southwold Manor: 56644 Main Road, Southold, New York Dear Mr. Amato and Mr. Read: At our last Planning Board work session, on January 22, 2008, we discussed the site plan referenced above. At that time, the Planning Board asked for more information, all of which has been requested in the past, but not yet provided. In your letter dated January 15, 2008, you state that, "with one exception, each and every comment, both spoken and written, of the Planning Board, Planning Staff; Town Engineer, Building Department, Fire Marshall, and the County Planning Commission has been incorporated in ail respects into this final version of the Site Plan." Upon reviexving all the comtnents made, both verbal and written, we have found that they have not been entirely incorporated into the site plan sketch presented to us on December 18, 2007. In fact, most of the twenty-two requested changes and comments were addressed only in a letter stating they xvould be addressed, however the actual plans showing those changes have not yet been submitted to the Planning Board. You explained in your letter of December 7, 2007, that you have decided to postpone submitting all the necessary information to the Planning Board with the hope that the Planning Board could provide you with substantial comments on the layout of the buildings proposed in the revised sketch, received by Planning on December 10, 2007. The Planning Board reviewed the revised sketch at their December 18, 2007 work session, and determined that we needed more information from you. The Planning Board requested, and is still waiting for, an illustration of the elevations of the buildings showing the height of the building from the proposed grade to the peak, and also showing how the height of the buildings was calculated for the purpose of meeting the minimum distance requirements bet~veen buildings (i.e. illustrate the dimensions used to calculate building height as defined in Town Code). Another item requested, but not provided in the past, was an illustration or rendering depicting views of the proposed buildings as they would look from the Main Road, not an unusual request for development along a designated Scenic Corridor. Your latest fax, dated February 12, 2008, explains that you will have something for the Planning Board to view at their next meeting. The Planning Board has also expressed some frustration with the monotonous design of the buildings, and that among eight buildings and twenty-four units, there is essentially no variety in the size of the units. Providing some variety in size, perhaps with some units having only a one- car garage, and less than three bedrooms and three bathrooms, might better address the town's housing needs, as ~vell as allow for the requested larger buffer. The comment that you have not accommodated is the request for a buffer wider than fifteen feet along the property borders. This property borders an intense commercial use a boat yard, and protecting the interface between commercial and residential uses is of paramount importance to the Planning Board. The Planning Board requested a thirty-foot buffer last summer. Five months later, at a Planning Board work session on December, 18, 2007, you explained that your clients would not meet a thirty foot buffer around the perimeter. Instead, you provided us with a hand- colored sketch continuing to show a fifteen foot buffer in the exact locations where a thirty-foot buffer would be most desirable - where the proposed buildings and garages are closest to the property lines. You did illustrate a partial thirty-foot buffer, but only along a little over half the perimeter (65% according to your last letter). At the work session on January 22, 2008, the Planning Board asked that you consider trying to provide a 25 foot buffer, reducing the size of some of the buildings if necessary, and you agreed to consult with your clients to consider this request, and provide us with the other two requests (illustrating the height of the buildings, and illustrating what the view of the buildings would be from Main Street). Four weeks have now passed since our last meeting, and in your fax dated February 12, you request postponing our next ~neeting to a time when all five Planning Board members are present. The next full meeting of the Planning Board is scheduled for March 10, 2008. We will have your application listed on the agenda for the work session that day. The work session begins at 4:30pm. Should you wish to meet sooner, the Planning Board meets every week between now and then, on February 25, and March 3, 2008 at 4:00pm. Please also note that the proposed changes to the site plan noted in your December 7, 2007 letter require that an amended site plan application be submitted, including a new Environmental Assessment Form, and all other site plan application plans and materials to reflect any changes made to the original site plan application. The Planning Board is not able to process your application further until these updates are made to the application materials. We look forward to seeing you at the March 10 work session. Should you have any questions, or decide to attend an earlier work session, please feel free to contact the Planning Director, Heather Lanza. Sincerely, Chairperson cc: Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Planning Board Members File S~nt B~.' AMATO&ASSOC[ATES; 5162270885 Feb- 12 AMATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C A']'FORNEY~: AT LAW 666 Old Country Road 9~ Floor Garden City, New York 11530 I:05PU; Page 1/3 l~) Tel: (SI6) 227-6363 ~ Fax: (516) 22%636? Facsimile coVer Sheet To: Jerl Woodhouse (Chairperson), JOseph L. Townsend, Kenneth L. Edwards, Martin II. Sidor and George Solomon, Southold Town Planning Board Fax#: (631) 765-3136 From: Christopher M. Read, Esq. Date: February ! 2, 2008 Re: Southwoid Manor: 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York Total number of pages including this cover sheet: 3 If you do not receive 'all the pages indicated above, pl©ase ca[i: us back as soon as possible at 5 t 6-227-6363 0 URGENT ~l FOR REVIEW El PLEASE COMMENT {~ PLEASE REPLY El FYI Please see correspondence transmitted herewith. ,-o ,? S~'nt B~. AMATO&ASSOCIATE6; 5162270885; Feb-12~ 1:05Pa; Page 2/3 AMATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 666 OLD couNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GARDEN CITY, NEW yORK 11530 ~.~: (si6) 2~~ F~X~ (si6) 227~ MEMOI~,'NDuM To: The Southold Town Plarmja~ing Boas'al'') From: Christopher M. Read, Esq(~ CC: Scott Kussoll, Town Supervisor; Patficia Finnegani Esq., Town Attorney; Kieran Corcoran, Esq., Assistant Town Attorney; Heather Lanza, Head Planner; Mark Terry and Bruno Semen, Town Planning Department; Albert and Rila Cohen; Alfred L. Amato East End Resources, LLC Re: February 12, 2008 Applicalion (the"Application") for Site Plan APproval for Southwold Manor Site Plan (the "Site Plan") by East End Resources, LLC (the "Applicant") for an active adult condominium community located at 56655 Main Road, South01d NY (the "Property") During a work session held on Tuesday, January 22, 2008, the Planning Board requested that thc Applicant prepare visual depictions and aids to illustrate the extent to which the proposed buildings, as set tb~nh on the Site Plan, would be visible from the surmur~ding community. The Applicant, with its a~chitec~ has prepe.,~i sealed simulations which demonstrate that the buildings, as depicted on the Site Plan, will have a de minimis, if any, visual impact on the surrounding community. This negligible impacl is due in pan to the following mitigating re,.sons: 1. The proposed new buildings shall bc sot ba~k approximately 200' feet from Main Road (Rt. 25); 2. There arc four (4) large bnildings (ail at least 2 stories) which cun~ntly stand dimcily between Main Road (Rt. 25) and the portions of the Property where the proposed buildings shall stand. Such buildings include thc existing house on the Property as well as three (3) comme~ial buildings located off two (2) lots sitt]ated between Main Road (Rt. 25) and the PropeW]; 3. Thc proposed buildings have heights (grad,,:to ridge)1 of 25' feet (gambrel stylc) and 29' feet (shingle slylc) respectively. The proposal buildings 0xe 2 stories rather than thc more common 2.5 story buildings which are located on adjacent lots; 4. There are aPproximately 200 cedar trees on:the Property which range in height ~om 20' to 35'. These evergreen trees shall be Ixansplanted to the perimeter of the Property, thereby providing an instant mature and evergreen screen which reaches higher than the tallest oftha proposed buildings. I The Code ofthr Town of Southold provides that the "Heig/0.t of Building" is determined by measuring thc distnoce from "the average elevation of the exisdag natural grade.,, to the mean height between eaves and ridge...." The Code of the Town of $outhold permits a buildm~ height of 35' feet. It should be noted dial under this applicable definition, the building height of'he largest/tallest proposed building oa the Site Plan is a mere 18'5". ~ent EP~: AMATO&ASSOCIATES; 5162270885: Page 3/3 Feb-l~ 1:05PM; In addition, and in accotda~ce with the request of the Planning Board, the Applicant has also prepared a supplemental screening design concept which shall Ku'tber screen and obscure the Property from surrounding properties, par~cularly at those localions on the Property which provide less than a 30 foot transition buffer. Lastly, the Applicant has further revi~/the Site plan to incorporate the latest specific comments of the Planning Board and Planning Staff. Such changea pe~ain to driveway,s, dumpstet location and scrm~ing method.~. At this time, each and evexy specific comment of the Planning DeparUnent has been addressed by the Applicant and ineoq~otated in to the Site Plan. la light of the foregoing, this seemingly being the final issue to be addressed prior to SEQRA and public hearings, we hereby respectfully request that the Application be placed on the agenda of the next work session to be arcaded by the entire Planning Board. Additionally, we ask that you kindly give us as much notice as possible, becans~ we would like to make arrangements tot the Applicant's architect to attend the work session and, much like everyone else's, his schedule fills up quickly. We look furward to presenting the visuals that have been prepared and thc Site Plan which haz been revised, and sincerely hope that the Planning Board will determine the Application to be ecceptabl~ ~ that full-scale engineering plans maybe prepared and we may move forwald with the SEQRA process. Thank you. 2 --~ui 09 07 05:42p Albert & Rita Cohen 03(~5 5022 pl July 2, 2007 .}crilyn Wc~sdhou~se, Ch;re'Woman Members of the Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 1197t Proposed Site PLan fo~ Southwold M'anor Senior Community I,ocatcd at 56655 Main Road, Southold, NY SCTM # 1000-63-3-15 Dear Chairman Woodhouse and Members of the Planning Board: I am writing as a neighboring property owner, who,~c property borders the proposed development fi~r ti distlumc of 305 feet along the eastern border. Aftcr reviewing thc Plamm~g Board's fde and the last set of plans submitted by thc contract- vendee £or thc property, Novu'ml~zr 2006. several concerns and/or questions came to n~kn¢l. 'II, ese arc listed below: Thc file does not con -rain documentation validating thc contract vendee's Other than the contract-vendec's memorandnm dated April 20, 2007, and Anthony Ttczza's rcslm}nsc dated May 1,2007, there ks no record of thc Planrmxg Board's official detcrmmat/oa (and justification) of thc yield. a. Item #3 of the conn:act-vcndcc's April 20, 2007 memorandum states that three acccs~,ry apma~cnt, s will hc located ,.viOlin three of thc ¢.'ight proposed new buildings. As per the memo, the accessory apartments will "not be subject to any ownership or transferability ~cstxlcfions". What does dais mean? b. Will thc ap:urUnenes be sold separately from the 21 market rate uxlits? ()r will they be accessory to three condom.[nium unit~? Dii State rebmla6ons regarding condominittrns pcrrmt accessory u~ses within ,some units and not others? What assurances wi.[] thc Plamlmg Board [~Llt into place, to prevent additional acee~o~ apartments ha thc future? 3. The following items are not shown on the proposed site plan: Jul 09 07 Albsd & RitaCohen 5022 pi a. Thc location of thc entrance relative to existing curb-cuts £or thc 7-1 I and thc intersection of'Locust Avenue. across thc street, a.~ well as thc cuarb-cut and parkh~g lot for Ivy ] ~caguc Iqorist/Dci Capelli Salon. i. Thc traffic in this vi¢ini .fy' is significant. Safety issues will need to be addressed. ii. C. urrendy, thc private entry into thc condominium complex hes within thc 15 side yard requi.rement, b. 'l.%e location ofdumpstcrs, and screening for thc dumpsturs, relative to side property Ihlc.s as well as buddings, c. Thc location of sidewalks. d. The location of srxeet and building ligh ts, 4. Thc required side yard around the perimeter of the site is only 15 feet. I Iowcvcr thc proposed site plan shows outside porches and decking :ts well as driveway paving intruding into this area, reduchag die actual distance 0~ctween the bui/dmg and the adjoimng property lines ) to less than 15 feet apiece. a. Section 280-104 P. Deck and/or pado additions to a principal buiMmg wlfich do not connect two structtlrlzs or bu/Idings are permitted if they meet principal btdldim~ sctback,~. (emphasis added) Addifi. onal sections of thc Zoning Code speak to flat sacrosanct nature of the 15 foot buffer x~bere it adjoins residentially zoned neighborhoods, Thc perimeter of thc site is proposed to be enclosed with a six-fi~ot chain link feuce. 'Ibis type of fencing is atypical for thc :trc. and will create an urhanizing element totally out of ch~mtctcr with sum.rending commercial as well :ts residential nclghhorhoods. 6. 'thc proposed rcgrading of thc site ~s sigmficant and will have detnmentM vistml and srormwatcr impacts on ,~lJrro~Jnding properties. 'lqm property currendy slopes downwmrd from northwest to southeast. The hmzdc at thc northwest corner is 32 feet. Thc ha:adc at fl~c southwest corner is about 25 fcet- b. Tile southeastern elevation of thc .~ubjcct property (adjacent to thc northwc'stcrly border uf my lot) is proposed to bc raised from 26.28 feet to 3 ~ &ct. a change i~] grade of nearly $ &et within a horizont:d dist:mcc of less than 20 feet. c, Thc t'list floor c]cvation of thc condominium building (including the portia :md outside decking), is sho~a'l as 32 &ct, which means that thc base of the ftrst floor will be nc:trly six Cecr above my property's existing grade. i. Thc net effect: an 8,000 square foot budding will be located less than 15 feet off the property l/nc, and will be situated 6 above existing grade. d. Most of thc new condominium btdldm.t,~ ,arc proposed to be placed itt similar dL,;tances from thc ea.stcrn and western border,,, of the suJ>jcct pn>perty, with similar shifts in grade adjacent to thc m.,o built residential dwelling Jots north of my properly, Jul 09 07 05:48p Albed & Rita Cohen '05 5022 pl e. The net effect of thc rcgrading will bc ~s create ft~ttt "plateaus" (at elevations nmg/ng from 32.95 to 32 feet) alongside thc cast side yard. which will dx'op a distlulce of about five feet to the lower elevations of the backyards of thc adjuining houses. i. A rctahx[ng wa~ probably would bc necessary at certain points along this property line. which Will create a stormwater runoff channel adjacent to lt~wcr-lying property to thc ca.~t. ii. Most of the subject property had bccn ~am~land up until thc late 1970s and duc to thc slope, stormwater would collect on the northern part oft'ny lot, forming a temporary frog pnnd during wet seasons. Currently there are no flooding p,:oblcn~s on my propcrV/, but this proposed design seems likely to create one. f. The proposed rcgrading will result in each of the eight new structures being elevated to a first floor elcvafi~m t)fbetwccn 32.95 and 32 feet, which is higher than the existing grade at the north to northwestern comer o f thc property. g. The extent of the rears.ding essentially will result in almost all vegetation being str~pped from thc site. i. Thc visual impacts of flxis amount of deforestation (5 acres) will be felt by fl~c cnmmcrcial neighhothood as well as thc residential neighborhood, not to menUon the natural habitat. h. 'linc elevations of the proposed buildings (an estimated two- and-a-half stories in height) should be viewed in conjunction with the raising of thc grade when consid~h~g the potential visual impact of thLs projec~ to the surrounding comrnuni~. 'lq~c scale of thc proposed condomi~tma units does not seem to be in keeping wi.th that of thc surrounding hamlet, both commcrcqal and residential. Each stt'ucturc will exceed g,000 square feet in area. a. By contrast, one of the largest new commetci:d structures to be buil~ witb/n thc hamtct of $outhold, thc trwo-and-a, half story. Sca Tow International building on Boisseau Avenue. sits w/thin a 4,800 square foot footprint. h. Duc a~ thc size of thc project and it~ central location to the ha,nlct, a visual impact analysis would be helpful in deternusmlg the visual impact on the State designated Scenic Byway ~s well as the rest of the surr~unding ct~mmuni~, iftcluding pn,perfies to thc m~rth of the I.IRR track. ]'he design of thc site is ge:trod cowards the usc of thc automobile, which is conu'ary to d~e pedestrian orientation espoused by the hamlet study and scvcrid other planning studies wb. ich recommend pc~dcstri:m :md bike ft4cndly site design in new commuuirics. I las thc Albcrt~on hou.~e been surveyed (architecturally) tn determine thc nature o[its historic significance? Its listing by thc Societ3' for the Presc~afion of Long Island Antiquities suggests an historic significance. worth invc~dgadng. Jul 09 07 05:51p Albert & Rita~en 05 5022 pl a. 2'lac Town's policy, as stated in its Local Waterfront ll. evitalization Program {21104) and its Sccnlc Byx~ays Corridor Management Pm.g:r:~m (2001) notes thc valuc ¢~fhlstorical homes to thc town's over.MI ch:tractor and appu-al. b. According t~a the LWRP. this p~:opc.rty lles w'ithh~ ti. each 6. which contains thc second largest number ~)1" historic dwellings, sec<md only to Orient Village. Within a couple bun&ed feet of thc Albertson house are scveral residences and former ~esidences daring back to the 1700s. In conclusion. 1 wLsh to note that 1 fully unde~tand thc wide range of businc~;s uses to which this ptopcrty could be put. And, 1 also understand (and .,mppurt) thc property owner's deske to place scoJot hou.~ing on this sit,: duc to its close proximity to S~ ut ~old hamlet's tradJrlomd business and civic centers. However, 1 also believe thc Planning Board has :tn obllgatiim to thc suzmunding community to ensure chat this project is designed at' a sc:zlc scnsitlvc to thc historical character oft'he s~roundi:ag homes ,'md businesses, as well as its proud history .as the founding hamlet of thc Town t~£Southold. Thc project as designed does not meet tiffs st:mdard. ~qinccrcly, \'ralctie M. Scopaz P.O. Box 1655 Soud~.old, NY 11.971 To: From: CC: Date: Re: AMATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516} 227-0880 JAN 1 6 2008 MEMORANDUM ', The Southold Town Plaoning Board (the "Planning Board") . , ...... ?,~. .: Christopher M. Read~-'~ Scott Russell, Town Suer; Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney; Kieran Corcoran, Esq., Asxistant Town Attorney; Heather Lanza, Head Planner; Mark Terry and Bruno Semon, Town Planning Department; Michael Verity, ChiqfBuilding Inspector Albert and Rita Cohen; Alfred L. Amato, East End Resources, LLC; Valerie Scopaz, Former Planner for Town of Southold Janoary 15, 2008 Application (the "Application") for Site Plan Approval for Southwold Manor Site Plan (the "Site Plan") by East End Resources, LLC (the "Applicant") for an active adult condominium comnmnity located at 56655 Main Road, Southold NY (tire "Property") As a ibllow-up to the Planning Board work session held on Tuesday, December 18, 2007, at which the Planning Board requested additional time to review the latest version of the Site Plan, I would like to reiterate the Applicant's position with respect to such Site Plan and the status of the Application in general. The Applicant's efforts to obtain approval for the "as of right" Site Plan commenced during the month of May in the year 2002. However, on August 20, 2002 such efforts were halted with the enactment of a Town-wide moratorium on, among other things, site plans. This moratorium continued until February of 2005, however changes and revisions to the Town Code persisted in the months thereafter. Notwithstanding, on April 11, 2005 an application for a pre-submission conference was submitted to the Southold Planning Department and since such time the Site Plan has been under continuous review by the Town. In fact, the design talents, hard work and persistence of the builder, architect, engineers and Applicant have been continuously supplemented with comments and proposed revisions from the Planning Board, Planning Staff, Town Engineer, Building Department, Fire Marshall and the County Planning Commissioner. In addition, the Southold Architectural Review Com~nittee has praised the building designs and the Southold Landmark Preservation Commission has been consulted and, to our knowledge, raised no objections. This extended process of moratorium and review has continued for close to six (6) years, during which time the Property owners, Albert and Rita Cohen, have had their lives pnt on hold.~ The Applicant has now presented the latest version of the Site Plan which provides the design aspects and appeal which the Applicaot seeks/needs to offer potential homeowners in Southwold Manor as I Mr. and Mrs. Cohen are senior citizens and long, time Southold residents who, desire to sell the~ Property and move in to one of the proposed units. well as sound planning which benefits the greater Southold community. It must be noted that, with one exception, each and every comment, both spoken and written, of the Planning Board, Planning Staff, Town Engineer, Building Department, Fire Marshall and the County Planning Commissioner has been incorporated in all respects into this final version of the Site Plan. The one exception is the Planning Board's suggested 30' foot buffer around the perimeter of the Property. However, such comment has been incorporated almost in its entirety. Significant effort has been undertaken to fully incorporate the suggested 30' foot buffer and the project architect exhausted all alternatives before concluding that the buffer presented (approximately 65% of which is 30' foot in width and remaining areas no less than 15' feet) cannot be further expanded without sacrificing the marketability of the project. Section 280-94 of the Town Code provides that a 15' foot transition buffer shall be required along the boundary ora nonresidential lot abutting any lot in a residential district. Since the proposed use at the Property is residential, a strict reading reveals that such provision is not applicable to the Site Plan. However, the Town interprets such provision as relating to zoning district rather than use, but even under the Town's interpretation, only a portion of the eastern boundary line of the Property (that which boarders on lots with a residential zoning designation) would be subject to such 15' foot transition buffer, because all other Property lines border non-residential districts. Note that the lot owned by Valerie Scopaz is located substantially within the Hamlet Business zoning district so no buffer on that portion of the Property would be mandated by the Town Code under any interpretation. Notwithstanding the limited applicability of §280-94, the Applicant has submitted a Site Plan with a transition buffer which surrounds the entire Property, approximately 65% of which is 30' foot in width (remaining areas offer at least a 15' foot buffer). In addition, the portions of the Property which boarder the lot owned by Valerie Scopaz (a commercially zoned property) include a 30' foot transition buffer. The buffer offered by the Applicant far exceeds that which is prescribed by the Town Code. In fact, as proposed, the Site Plan designates approximately 1.3 acres as transitional buffer (approximately 20% of the Property and approximately six times (6 x) greater than that prescribed by the Code using the Town's interpretation). In addition, the screening and privacy the Planning Board seeks to achieve with the suggested 30' foot buffer is not compromised by the proposed buffer because those areas of the Site Plan which offer a 15' foot transition buffer are located away from neighboring houses and in areas least in need of screening (areas which do not line up with residential dwellings- please see Site Plan). Fina!!y, the Applicant would like to respond to a question posed by Chairperson Woodhouse at the last Planning Board work session, specifically: "What are you doing for Valerie Scopaz?" Before listing what the Applicant believes to be the benefits of the Site Plan with respect to one particular community member, there are certain points that should be addressed. For one, Ms. Scopaz, a neighbor of the Property, is the former Head Planner for the Town of Southold and upon information and belief, a continued paid consultant of the Planning Department. Upon information and belief of the Applicant, Ms. Scopaz has submitted a lengthy memo, dated July 2, 2007, to Chairperson Woodhouse (see copy attached) which provides formal and detailed comments to the Site Plan. Many of Ms. Scopaz's comments which pertain to curb cuts, fencing, dumpsters, sidewalks, lighting, property grades, retaining walls and buffers were thereafter reflected in a memo to the Applicant from the Planning Board (signed by Chairperson Woodhouse), dated August 2, 2007 (also attached). We respectfully submit, in response to Chairperson Woodhouse's question, that since many of the comments set forth in Ms. Scopaz's memo were reflected in the memo from the Planning Board to the Applicant, the Applicant has, therefore, addressed and incorporated many of Ms. Scopaz's comments into the Site Plan, as submitted. In addition to the foregoing, the Applicant deems the following aspects of the proposed Site Plan to be specifically beneficial to Ms. Scopaz and her property: Approximately 275' feet of the approximately 310' foot property line separating Ms. Scopaz's property from the Property shall be subject to a 30' foot buffer (remaining 35' feet shall be subject to a 15' foot buffer). Currently, there is no buffer between the properties and the Town Code does not require any transition buffer between these properties. The curb cut and driveway which currently serves the Property shall be moved from its current location (running along the Scopaz property line) to the other side of the Property and away from the Scopaz property. · The existing house on the Property shall be renovated and thereafter preserved as a Historic Building. The use and well-appointed, traditional design features of the proposed retirement residences are far more gentle than the other economically viable uses permitted at the Property such as a shopping center (a greater that 100,000 square foot commercial shopping center on the Property is expressly permitted by the Town Code). While the Applicant cannot and does not speak for the surrounding neighbors of the Property, it is presumed that property owners abutting a business-zoned lot would be pleased to discover a serene residential community bordering their back yards rather than a permitted 100,000 + square foot commercial shopping center which is expressly permitted by the Town Code. The Applicant is proud to present the Site Plan as proposed. While this process has been long, ongoing and (at times) trying, the result appears to represent a successful corroboration of the interests of business, professional and municipal entities, and a site plan which demonstrates a favorable balance between the rights of the property owner and the interests of the surrounding community. In light of the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Planning Board accept the Site Plan, as submitted, and issue a negative declaration under SEQR so that full-scale engineering plans may be prepared and this application can be presented at a public hearing. Thank you. Note to file (from Heather Lanza, Planning Director) January2,2008 A1 Amato and Chris Read called to ask us to postpone their January 7, 2008 meeting with the Planning Board until January 22, 2008. They said they had schedule conflicts and couldn't make it on the 7th. I told them we would put them on the agenda for work session at the Planning Board's January 22, 2008 meeting. (It is at 4pm on Tuesday (Monday holiday). To: From: CC: OMATO & ASSOCIATES; 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 · TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516} 227-0880 MEMORANDUM The Southold Town Planning Board (the "Planning Board") Christopher M. Read, Esq. Scott Russell, Town Supervisor; Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney; Kieran Corcoran, Esq., Assistant Town Attorney; Heather Lanza, Head Planner; Mark Terry and Bruno Semon, Town Planning Department; Michael Verity, ChiqfBuilding Inspector; Albert and Rita Cohen; Alfred L. Amato, East End Resources. LLC. Date: December 7, 2007 Re: Southwold Manor Site Plan (the "Site Plan") for an active adult condominium community located at 56655 Main Road, Southold NY (the "Property") Enclosed herewith is the latest draft of the Site Plan which is the product of months of revisions aimed at incorporating the comments of the Planning Board and the Town Engineer, as set forth in their memos dated August 2, 2007 and July 3 i, 2007 respectively (together, the "Town Comments"). The applicant, with the assistance of its architect and engineers, has determined, with one exception, that all of the Town Comments can be incorporated into the Site Plan without compromising viability. However, before a final set of engineering plans may be fully prepared and submitted (an expensive and time consuming endeavor), we must address the comment of the Planning Board which calls for a 30' foot buffer around the perimeter of the Property (the Code mandates 15' feet along the eastern Property line). After exhausting all alternatives, it is clear that such a requirement would render any version of the prol3osed Site Plan as unworkable. When coupled with other Code requirements and restrictions such as those ? pertaining to building separation distances, road widths and driveway lengths, to name just a few, a 30' foot buffer around the perimeter of this narrow Property crowds the site plan to a profoundly undesirable extent. Therefore, with optimism garnered from a statement of the Planning Board that the 30' foot buffer is merely % starting point... See if you can make it work," we did our best to accommodate the spirit of the comment and feel that the privacy afforded the surrounding properties with the buffer set forth on the enclosed Site Plan represents good planning for the surrounding neighbors as well as for the proposed senior community. Specifically, were are proposing a buffer (colored in dark green on the enclosed plan) which runs along the perimeter of the Property, nearly 70% of which is 30' foot in width (remaining areas are no less than 15' feet). Further, almost 100% of the lot line separating the Property from the lot owned by Valerie Scopaz to the east is buffered by 30' feet. Based on Town Comments, prior work sessions, discussions and/or meetings with the Town Attorney, the Building Inspector, Planning Department, the Fire Marshal, Landmark Preservation and the ARC, it appears that this issue pertaining to buffers is the final issue to be resolved before we commence work on a final, fully engineered revision to the Site Plan and move forward with public hearings. Accordingly, please review the enclosed plan so that we may discuss the buffer issue at the December 17 work session. Thank you. Googl¢ Maps Got IGet Google Maps on your phone Te~ the word "GMAP$" to 466453 ~2007 Ooogle Title Untitled Description Map da~a ~0~7 NAVTEQTM Privacy settings Learn mqr~ Public -- Allow others to find this map in search results and on your profile. Unlisted http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&ic=UTFS&ll=41.066135,.72.424042&son=0.0... 12[18/20fl7 Page Iofl http://maps,!ive~com/print.aspx?mkt--er~*us&z=! ?&s=h&m=3&cv~=41 0653244040~:,f~?s. 19/~ 2/oaa'~ Page 1 of ~ L ye Sea~c~'a Maps http,//mapsA~ve~com/pm~caspx?mkt-ert~as&z=IT&s=h&m=:~&cp=4I~06532469536838~.o~ 12/18/2007 Print - Live Search Maps Page 1 of I Live Search Maps http://maps~ive`c~m/pri~t.aspx?r~kt=en-~s&~=1~&s=h&m=3&~p=41~65324696~75`~, i2/I8/2007 Print - Live Search Maps Page 1 of I Live Search Maps Pfin~ ~ L~¥e Sea~chMap~ Live Search Maps Page 1 of~ REV~[SION 12/5/07 ~'Oi: FS07, [C]i er ~ ::'~' C' /= To: From: CC: Date: Re: i ATO & ASSOCIATES?IJ . C; 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-0880 MEMORANDUM The Southold Town Planning Board (the "Planning Board") Christopher M. Read, Esq. Scott Russell, Town Supervisor; Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney; Kieran Corcoran, Esq., Assistant Town Attorney; Heather Lanza, Head Planner; Mark Terry and Bruno Semon, Town Planning Department; Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector; Albert and Rita Cohen; Alfred L. Amato, East End Resources, LLC. December 7, 2007 Southwold Manor Site Plan (the "Site Plan") for an active adult condominium community located at 56655 Main Road, Southold NY (the "Property") Enclosed herewith is the latest draft of the Site Plan which is the product of months of revisions aimed at incorporating the comments of the Planning Board and the Town Engineer, as set forth in their memos dated August 2, 2007 and July 31, 2007 respectively (together, the "Town Comments"). The applicant, with the assistance of its architect and engineers, has determined, with one exception, that all of the Town Comments can be incorporated into the Site Plan without compromising viability. However, before a final set of engineering plans may be fully prepared and submitted (an expensive and time consuming endeavor), we must address the comment of the Planning Board which calls for a 30' foot buffer around the perimeter of the Property (the Code mandates 15' feet along the eastern Property line). After exhausting all alternatives, it is clear that such a requirement would render any version of the proposed Site Plan as unworkable. When coupled with other Code requirements and restrictions such as those pertaining to building separation distances, road widths and driveway lengths, to name just a few, a 30' foot buffer around the perimeter of this narrow Property crowds the site plan to a profoundly undesirable extent. Therefore, with optimism garnered from a statement of the Planning Board that the 30' foot buffer is merely "a starting point... See if you can make it work," we did our best to accommodate the spirit of the comment and feel that the privacy afforded the surrounding properties with the buffer set forth on the enclosed Site Plan represents good planning for the surrounding neighbors as well as for the proposed senior conununity. Specifically, were are proposing a buffer (colored in dark green on the enclosed plan) which runs along the perimeter of the Property, nearly 70% of which is 30' foot in width (remaining areas are no less than 15' feet). Further, almost 100% of the lot line separating the Property from the lot owned by Valerie Scopaz to the east is buffered by 30' feet. Based on Town Conm~ents, prior work sessions, discussions and/or meetings with the Town Attorney, the Building Inspector, Planning Department, the Fire Marshal, Landmark Preservation and the ARC, it appears that this issue pertaining to buffers is the final issue to be resolved before we commence work on a final, fully engineered revision to the Site Plan and move forward with public hearings. Accordingly, please review the enclosed plan so that we may discuss the buffer issue at the December 17 work session. Thank you. REVISION 12/5/07 L ~ m PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND 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. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave. Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 August 2, 2007 Mr. Alfred L. Amato East End Resources, LLC 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM #: 1000.63-3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Business (HB) Dear Mr. Amato: The Planning Board, after review of the residential ske plan packet (SP- 1 - SP- 12) dated May 4, 2006, has determined the site plan must be revised to include the following kerns: · Please provide detailed sign information as per Town Code $280.80/90. Please be aware all signs must meet Town Code and require review and approval from the Building Department. In addition, all propose sign lighting should also be submitted for review. Please provide specific information/documentation regarding the proposed landscape masonry sign along the entrance. · Please revise the site plan or include an additional plan detailing neighboring sites, specifically the location of all buildings and curb cuts. Please include all adjacent properties and roadways to the east and west and across NYS 25. · The Planning Board, after consideration of the buffer arotmd the perimeter of the property, is requiring an increase in the buffer from the required 15', as per 280-94, to 30' to mitigate the proposed impact on the adjacent properties. Please revise SP-7, Landscape and Irrigation Plan, accordingly. · Please revise the site plan to reflect the removal of the proposed chromoglass system. As referenced above, the Planning Board, after review, recommends shifting the proposed clubhouse area and eight (8) proposed buildings to increase the landscape buffer along the outer edge of the property. · The Planning Board is requiting the use of more native landscaping throughout the proposed developmem. Please find enclosed a copy of the "Recommended Street Trees for Long Island 2000" as a reference. · Please provide more information regarding any proposed dumpsters onsite. In addition, please include screening detail such as fencing or plantings around any proposed dumpsters. Southwold Manor Page Two August 2, 2007 · The Harming Board, after review, is requiting the removal of the six (6) northerly guest parking spaces proposed adjacent to the existing Cohen home. In addition, please revise the proposed plan to eliminate the multiple driveways along Manor Road. The Planning Board is recommending the plan be revised to show the 3 longest driveways for each building be combined and guest parking incorporated. In addition, please revise the plans to increase the driveway length for all units labeled as "3A" and "lB'. · Planning Board policy has required a three (3) year landscape survivability for all proposed landscaping for site plans. Please be aware SP-7 Note 1 only guarantees 1 year. Please revise. · Town Code $280-78 J (5) states, "Parking areas shall be screened bya substantial wall, fence or thick hedge, approved bythe Planning Board. Generally, such screening shall not be less than four feet nor more than eight feet in height.' · Please ensure or provide further detail showing compliance with Town Code 280-93, Front Landscaped Area. · Please correct the typographical error on SP-2 under "Building Type KB" (Gambrel Roofline). It is the Planning Board's understanding it should read "No. of Units per Type "B' Building'. · As discussed, please submit revised architectural drawings and floors plans for the existing Cohen house. These plans should clearlyindicate anyproposed construction/additions. If necessary, please adjust the lot coverage accordingly. · As discussed with the Planning Board, please remove the proposed security gate. · Please provide further detail/information regarding mail delivery at the proposed site. If a central mailbox is proposed, please indicate its location(s) on the revised plan, including any screening/landscaping. · All A/C units should be delineated on proposed plan and necessary screening should be provided. In addition, any utility boxes omite should be identified and screening provided. · AS requested by the Southold Fire District in their letter dated January 12, 2007, please show all necessary fire hydrants. · Please provide detail, location and catalog cuts for any proposed site lighting. · The Planning Board is encouraging the use of sidewalks throughout the site. Please label and provide details for the proposed sidewalks. · Please provide anycorrespondence regarding the proposed project with New York State Department of Transportation. · Please correct the typographical error on SP-5 labeled ~Refer to cross-section A-A on Drawing SP-8'. This cross section is located on SP-10 and should be corrected. · Please provide more detail regarding the areas labeled as "Existing vegetation to remain" on SP-7, Landscape and Irrigation Plan, including anytree specimens to remain. At this time, comments from the Town Engineer are expected and forthcoming. Once these comments have been received and reviewed bythe Planning Board, a copy will be forwarded to you for your review and incorporation into the site plan. The Town Engineer's review may require additional changes/information to the proposed site plan. Once the above items have been addressed, please submit five (5) copies of the revised site plan to this office so that it maybe distributed to all necessary agencies. Please be aware the Planning Board reserves the right to require additional changes pending the receipt of a revised plan and comments various involved agencies. Revised plans will need to be reviewed bythe Building Department for compliance with zoning. Southwold Manor Page Three August 2, 2007 This is to notify you that the Planning Department will need to obtain the following approvals and/or conunents before the Planning Board can approve this site plan: ARC, LWRP, Town Engineer and Southold Town Building Department. You are required to verify agency requirements, submit required agency documents and obtain approvals from New York State Department of Transportation, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Suffolk County Water Authority and NYSDEC SPDES. Please be aware the Planning Board has concerns regarding traffic generation and visual impact of the proposed construction. Further information/detail may be required as part of the SEQRA review. The Planning Board, after review of Town Code [240-253 C, has determined that the proposed private clubhouse and associated amenities will not satisfy the park and recreation requirement and additional fees will be required. These fees, payable prior to final approval, will be determined and your office shall be notified accordingly. Sincerely, Jerilyn B. Woodhouse t--~'-'~ Chairperson Cc: File Building Department Town Engineer Enc: Recommended Street Trees for Long Island 2000 R'ecomme?ded St_reet Trees fo_r L. on_g_I_s_!and 2000 Prepared by: New York ReLeaf - Lon. g Island Region . NYS Department of Enwro.nmental Conservatmn Corner Cooperative Extensmn - Nassau County Cornell Cooperative Extensiou - Suffolk County Long Island Arboriculturai Association Long Island Nursery & Landscape Association Planting Fields Arboretum State Historic Park New York Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) eygpa. E.ergy ReLeaf NOTES: Cornell University's Recommended Urban Trees book should bc consulted for further species-specific information - i.e., growth habit/spread, soil needs, flowers/fruits. Contact Cornell University at 60%255-4556. · This list does not cover all possible site conditions - only treelawn and wires. Other site conditions that should be considered include underground utilities, soil conditions, and local insect and disease problems. Thc recommended tree heights and treelawn widths are for thc benefit of the tree. Trees can be planted outside of these recommendations, but then they may not reach their full potential, and they may cause infrastructure conflicts. · Some of these species may be less available than others - KEEP ASKING FOR THEM. · If you have any comments, suggestions, or questions for this list, contact the NYS-DEC Urban and Community Forester at SUNY-Stony Brook, (516) 444-0285. SMALL TREES: Suitable within 15 feet of 35-foot high electric wires, or in restricted treelawa areas (less than 4 feet wide). TREE HEIGItTS APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET - 40 FEET Scientific Name Acer buergeranum tree form Acer caml)estre .4cer gfimala tree form Acer tataricum tree form Amelanchier cultivars tree form (resistaat cultivars mtly) Carpinus caroliniana tree form Comus kousa tree form Crataegus crus-galli inermis tree form Crataegus punctata inermis tree form Koelreuteria paniculata Maackia amurensis Malus cultivars (resistant cultivars only) Phelodendron amurense Yrunus cultivars (less than 35' tall) ?yrus calle~Tana (not the cultivar 'Bradford') S),ringa reticulata tree £orm Common Name Trident Maple Hedge Maple Amur Maple Tatarian Maple Serviceberry i.e., 'Cumulus' 'Autumn Sunset' 'Robin Hill' American Hornbeam Kousa Dogwood Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn Thornless Ohio Pioneer Hawthorn Goldenraintree Amur Maackia Crabapple Amur Corktree (wide canopy) Flowering Cherry i.e., 'Accolade' 'Okame' (wide canopy) 'Schubert' 'Yoshino' (wide canopy) Callery Pear i.e., 'Aristocrat' 'Chanticleer' 'Cleveland Select' Japanese Tree Lilac i.e., 'Ivory Silk' 'Summer Silk' MEDIUM TREES: Should be set back at least 15 feet from overhead wires and in ireelawns at least 6 feet wide. TREE HEIGHTS APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET - 70 FEET (depending on site conditions) Scientific Name Acerpseudo£latanus [40-60'] Acer x freemanii [45-70'] Carpinus betulus [30-60'] CeItis occidentalis [40-60'] Corylus colurna [50-70'] Eu¢ommia ulmoides [40-60'] Fraxinus pennsylvanica [50-60'] Gleditsia triacanthos inermis (resistant cultivars only) Nyssa sylvatica [40-70'] Ostrya virg#dana [30-50'] Prunus sargentii 'Colurnnari$' Quercus acutis$irna [40-50'] Quercus phellos [40-60'] Quercus robur [50-60'] Sophorajaponica [40-70'] Tilia cordata [40-80'] Ulmus parvifolia [30-50'] Ulmus cultivars [40-50'] (resistant cultivars only) Zelkova serrate [40-80'] [40-100'] [40-50'] Common Name Sycamore Maple Freeman Maple i.e., 'Armstrong' 'Autumn Blaze' European Hornbean Hackberry Turkish Filbert Hardy Rubber Tree Green Ash Thornless Honeylocust Tupelo American Hophombeam Columnar Sargent Cherry Sawtooth Oak Willow Oak English Oak Japanese Pagoda Tree Littleleaf Linden Chinese Elm Elm hybrids i.e., Japanese Zelkova i.e., 'Shademaster' 'Skyline' 'Halka' 'Urban' 'Homestead' 'Pioneer' 'Princeton' ' Sapporo Autumn Gold' LARGE TREES: Should be set back at least 25 feet from overhead ~vires and in treelanvns at least 8 feet wide. TREE ItEIGHTS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET - I00 FEET (depending on site conditions) Scientific Name Gingko biloba (male only) [50-100'] Gymnocladus dioicus (male only) [70-80'] Metasequoia glyptostroboides [70-100'] Platanus x acerifolia [70-100'] Quercus rubra [60-90'] Tilia tomentosa [60-80'] Common Name Gingko Kentucky Coffeetree Dawn Redwood London Planetree Northern Red Oak Silver Linden New York State Department of Environmental Conservation LIPA ENERGY Cornell Coopem. tive Extenmon 51C, 2270885~ JAMATO & ASSOCIATES, &TTORNlgYS Ar L~W ~ ~d Couutry RoaO 9a Floor Gard~a Ci~. New York 11530 Page 1/2 Facsimile Cover Sheet To: Mark Terry, Anthony Trezza, Amy Ford, Bruno Semon $outhold Planning Department Fax#: (631) 765-3136 From: Christopher M. Read, Esq. Date: August 23. 2007 Re: Southwold Manor: 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York Total number of pages including this cover sheet: 2 If you ~o not receive ali the pages md~cated a~ve. please call us back as soon as possible at $16-227-6363 II Ill Illl {~ URGENi g FOR REVIJ~W I~l PLEASE COMMENT O PLEASE REPLY Please see correspondence traasraitted herewith. Aug 2,3 :)7 12: 33P~,~, Page ,~.MATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 666 OLD COIJNTRY ROAD $oite 901 GARDEN CITY, NgW YO~ lIB M]~MO[~ANDUM Ti,,e Sou'dl:Id To,~n ?Jamming Bcard~ iaclu~ng Jcd W~hc~t~ (C~i~et~), J~ph L. Towt~sct~c, ~e~me~h L. E~ Sidor and ~e~rge Solomon P~.a~;;i: Fi;meg,m, E~q, 7bwn .4:ror~ ' : ~;' Da~e: A;g~s~ 23,200'; .. ' ' S,:,u~wo~d Manor Site Pi~:x t~,: "S}~: ~'la~"] ' ' T~k F~ for h~,8 uu~ ap~l~a6~ at ~e c~finu~g P~ Bo~ work ~ions ~d p~eat) aged th;,t thc proFo~ l~ado~l of~ To~-~at~ e~rdablc aM~ ~t~ ~o ~xisfi~ ~u~ on t}~ Property is fJtu p~t~ud kocmiou or.ch ~ts on ~e P~. It is my moll~ti~ ~aldctst~t~ng L~M thc Plaani~g ~d d~M ~at a plan to l~ate ~.'. su~ ~ta M~ ~u~c m prcf~blc to ~ previously ~<~d concur of s~ing s~h aff~hle unJt~ ~ou~t AccoMingl¥, the ~.ppl:cant will revxew ;~e Pi~ing B~ ~s set ~o~ ~ a ~aer da~ Au~ 2, 2'~7 and the notes of the ~own En~no~ ~t fo~h in a leaer ~ July 31, 21~7 ~.~ seok to inco~ such ttot¢~ into a r~,is~ ~$io~ of ~e Si~ Pi~. The revision pm~ wiU ~e throe ~ ~plete, but ~e ~plic:'~t will i~pedmtely begin m work wiEn its ~hit~ ~d ¢n~l~s so ~at a zcvi~d site plan may ~ submitted w/thom ~due de~y Finally, with. r~pect to oOl~ options for zhe affordable uaim that ha~ b~n r*i~d, w~e ~e applbaat will mow fom'~d wi~ a defi~ con.pt which puli the a~dable ~ta wi~M ~e existing ho~ oa ~e Prop~ty, I wo~ld like to reit~ate a~e applic~t'~ smt~ wiriness to ~y ~ ~t~al a~ ~ ~ ~ou~&Old Housing Fu~ ~ lieu o~'con~acling such affo~ble units. Under such a sc~o, ~ a ~n~tioa o f f}rmi rate pl~ up.oval. ~he appfic~t wouM pay ~c reqmr~ s~m ~ ~ecut~ c~ cov~m. S~E ~veaa/:ls would r~qu~e, upon completion o~ ~e ~nst~c~oa p~, flzc ~i~aflon of ~o oxis~ b~ilding a,s a Hist:tic Lm~dmarn tBlh~w~ by a subdivision of the Pm~ wham~' t~ ~i~ bufl~ would ~ mp~t~ f~,m &e a~t~vr ~ttlt condominium commM~ and m~p~d~ly o~M ~ a s~ ~ lot. you, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND 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. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 MEMORANDUM Date: August 7, 2007 To~ From: Re: Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer~__~ Southwold Manor Site Plan Apartment plan review Main Road, Southold Zoning District Hamlet Business (HB), SCTM: 1000-63-3-15 Status: Active Site Plan. Required Return Date: ASAP The Planning Board requested that you review the attached information on the three apartment received by the Planning Department on July 31,2007 for any Building Department issues. Can you please inform the Planning Board if the three affordable apartments as proposed in layout will work in the building? Will the proposed three apartments meet the NYS building code as submitted? We are aware the plans attached appear not to be fully code compliant and at the Building Permit stage the plans will require a revision. Thank you in advance. cc: file Eric.: Fax cover sheet dated July 30, 2007. Letter from East End Resources to Mark Terry dated July 30, 2007 - two pages with attached six pages of the plan OAiM.ATO & ASSOCIATES, ATYORNI¥.~ AT LAW 666 Old Coua~ Roa~ k~&r~g~ Clly, New York 11530 Facsimile Cover Sheer Page 1/2 Jori Woodhoase (Chairperson), JosepA L. Townsend, Kenneth L. Edwards, Martin It. Sidor and George Solomon, Southold Town 765-3136 Christopher M, Read, Esq. Date: August 3, 2007 Re: Southwald Maser: 56655 Main Road, $outhold, New York I'o~ai number c'f pages tncladhlg this cover sheet: 2 URGENT !'] FOR REVIEW' ~ PLEASE COMM~N'r ~ PLEASE REPLY ~ FYI AJ?3 07 5:2&PM; Page ~,~e Pl~ App.~c~tlozl dhe A,4~l,earzon')otEastEndRer, ou~¢es, LLCC~.e~.Alff~licant.,~for Main Koad, Soak, cid NY ~c "S~ Plan"; In c;m~:ecti¢:} ;~ith tae A~pkcarion and [h~ ~opos~ Site Plan, it ~ o~ '~d~stan~ ~t &c Town Mcmd~y, A~ gn:'~ 6, 2vo,L W~ h~ve r~q,~e~T¢~ gn adjou~,ew due to a g~ed'ahng conlligt. Regarding tae above, we betlev~. ;kat Isst;e.~ pestaLqin$ ~ engulfing s~<ifications ~d o~cr items c~go{ ~ ~qzaely addressed uutil the ~ssae p~,mg m the plummet of aflbrd=ble uni~ i5 r~lv~. As ~U ~OW, al< propoi,~ ]~MiOn of t~e~ (3) after.hie ~hs within ~e ~n He.se h~ ~] ~ plasi ~m~sa'ute the t~biitb' ~d ~sitNe a/~bules ofs~mating the ~ (3) afCor~ble unia wi~in ~e Ai~s~ f.l~ug,~ which, !md~ ~mh a ~¢nario, would be ready.ed, r~tored ~d p~eA Plum:J:~ ~cacg letfe~ ~v:~} req~x 5i~ Pl~ f~vlsio~4s ia ~de~ to bo impl~. With ~at ~ ~ we wouJd tike lo ~specifu',ly remind Lh¢ Pt~mmg Bo~ ~at ~e issue ~inlng to pl~ of~ affable U~kq m~l be s&tmsied ~f~e ~iy revisions c~ ~ m~e m ~¢ Si~ PI~. As ~ Mve p~ioasly s~Icd, if site plan woula chmge, Such me.fir, attain would include r~esi~ed buildings, a n~ sim la.nh ~e spc~t ~dr~sia~ ~aues p~t~ng m d~e Site Plan, m it~ cu~nt fo~, may be ~eff~tive. Acco~diagiy, we respectfully request tha: thc iasuc of a!lbr -dable anlt placement be ad&~d at ~e ,~e~; Plan;l n ~o~'d ~ork ~;on ;~u rst 20~ so 'ha 8 , ,- g · .). . t ~ ~ ~mt conduct a ~i~ review of a more ~bli~h~ Site Plan concept, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND 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. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 August 2, 2007 Mr. Alfred L. Amato East End Resources, LLC 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM #: 1000-63-3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Business (HB) Dear Mr. Amato: The Planning Board, after review of the residential site plan packet (SP- 1 - SP- 12) dated May 4, 2006, has determined the site plan must be revised to include the following items: · Please provide detailed sign information as per Town Code ~280-80/90. Please be aware all signs must meet Town Code and require review and approval from the Building Department. In addition, all propose sign lighting should also be submitted for review. Please provide specific information/documentation regarding the proposed landscape masonry sign along the entrance. · Please revise the site plan or include an additional plan detailing neighboring sites, specifically the location of all buildings and curb cuts. Please include all adjacent properties and roadways to the east and west and across NYS 25. · The Planning Board, after consideration of the buffer around the perimeter of the property, is requiring an increase in the buffer from the required 15', as per 280-94, to 30' to mitigate the proposed impact on the adjacent properties. Please revise SP-7, Landscape and Irrigation Plan, accordingly. · Please revise the site plan to reflect the removal of the proposed chromoglass system. As referenced above, the Planning Board, after review, recommends shifting the proposed clubhouse area and eight (8) proposed buildings to increase the landscape buffer along the outer edge of the property. · The Planning Board is requiring the use of more native landscaping throughout the proposed development. Please find enclosed a copyof the "Recommended Street Trees for Long Island 2000" as a reference. · Please provide more information regarding any proposed dumpsters onsite. In addition, please include screening detail such as fencing or plantings around any proposed dumpsters. Southwold Manor Page Two August 2, 2007 · The Planning Board, after review, is requiring the removal of the six (6) northerlyguest parking spaces proposed adjacent to the existing Cohen house. In addition, please revise the proposed plan to eliminate the multiple driveways along Manor Road. The Planning Board is recommending the plan be revised to show the 3 longest driveways for each building be combined and guest parking incorporated. In addition, please revise the plans to increase the driveway length for all units labeled as "3A' and "lB'. · Planning Board policy has required a three (3) year landscape survivability for all proposed landscaping for site plans. Please be aware SP-7 Note 1 only guarantees 1 year. Please revise. · Town Code 2280-78 J (5) states, "Parking areas shall be screened bya substantial wall, fence or thick hedge, approved bythe Planning Board. Generally, such screening shall not be less than four feet nor more than eight feet in height." · Please ensure or provide further detail showing compliance with Town Code 280-93, Front Landscaped Area. · Please correct the typographical error on SP-2 under "Building Type "B" (Gambrel Roofline). It is the Planning Board's understanding it should read "No. of Units per Type "B" Building". · As discussed, please submit revised architectural drawings and floors plans for the existing Cohen house. These plans should clearlyindicate anyproposed constmction/addkions. If necessary, please adjust the lot coverage accordingly. · As discussed with the Planning Board, please remove the proposed security gate. · Please provide further detail/information regarding mail deliveryat the proposed site. If a central mailbox is proposed, please indicate its location(s) on the revised plan, including any screening/landscaping. · All A/C units should be delineated on proposed plan and necessary screening should be provided. In addition, any utility boxes onsite should be identified and screening provided. · As requested by the Southold Fire District in their letter dated January 12, 2007, please show all necessary fire hydrants. · Please provide detail, location and catalog cuts for any proposed site lighting. · The Planning Board is encouraging the use of sidewalks throughout the site. Please hbel and provide details for the proposed sidewalks. · Please provide any correspondence regarding the proposed project with New York State Department of Transportation. · Please correct the typographical error on SP-5 labeled "Refer to cross-section A-A on Drawing SP-8". This cross section is located on SP-10 and should be corrected. · Please provide more detail regarding the areas labeled as "Existing vegetation to remain" on SP-7, Landscape and Irrigation Plan, including any tree specimens to remain. At this time, comments from the Town Engineer are expected and forthcoming. Once these comments have been received and reviewed bythe Planning Board, a copy will be forwarded to you for your review and incorporation into the site plan. The Town Engineer's review may require additional changes/information to the proposed site plan. Once the above items have been addressed, please submit five (5) copies of the revised site plan to this office so that k may be distributed to all necessary agencies. Please be aware the Planning Board reserves the right to reqttire additional changes pending the receipt of a revised plan and comments various involved agencies. Revised plans will need to be reviewed bythe Building Department for compliance with zoning. Southwold Manor Page Three August 2, 2007 This is to notify you that the Planning Department will need to obtain the following approvals and/or comments before the Planning Board can approve this site plan: ARC, LWRP, Town Engineer and Southold Town Building Department. You are required to verify agency requirements, submit required agency documents and obtain approvals from New York State Department of Transportation, Suffolk County Deparmaent of Health Services, Suffolk County Water Authority and NYSDEC SPDES. Please be aware the Planning Board has concerns regarding traffic generation and visual impact of the proposed construction. Further information/detail may be required as part of the SEQ1LA review. The Planning Board, after reviexv of Town Code ~240-253 C, has determined that the proposed private clubhouse and associated amenities will not satisfy the park and recreation requirement and additional fees will be required. These fees, payable prior to final approval, will be determined and your office shall be notified accordingly. Sincerely, Chairperson Cc: File Building Department Town Engineer Enc: Recommended Street Trees for Long Island 2000 Recommended Street Trees for Long Island 2000 Prepared by: New York ReLeaf - Lon. g Island Region . NYS Department of Environmental Conservatton Cornell Cooperative Extension - Nassau County Cornell Cooperative Extension ~ Suffolk County Long Island Arboncultural Assocmtlon Long Island Nursery & Landscape Association Planting Fields Arboretum State Historic Park New York Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) :e Spa. E.ergy ReLeaf NOTES: Cornell University's Recommended Urban Trees book should be consulted for further species-specific information - i.e., growth habit/spread, soil needs, flowers/fruits. Contact Cornell University at 607-255-4586. · This list does not cover all possible site conditions - only trcelawn and wires. Other site conditions that should be considered include underground utilities, soil conditions, and local insect and disease problems. · The recommended tree heights and treelawn widths are for the benefit of the tree. Trees can be planted outside of these recommendations, but then they may not reach their full potential, and they may cause infi'astructure conflicts. · Some of these species may be less available than others - KEEP ASKING FOR THEM. · If you have any comments, suggestions, or questions for this list, contact the NYS-DEC Urban and Community Forester at SUNY-Stony Brook, (516) 444-0285. SMALL TREES: Suitable within 15 feet of 35,foot high electric wires, or in TREE HEIGHTS APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET - d0 FEET restricted treelawn are. as (less than 4 feet wide). Scientific Name Acer buergeranum tree form Acer camfestre Acer ginnala tree form Acer tataricum tree form Amelanchier cultivars tree form (resistaut cultivars ouly) Carpinus caroliniana tree form Cornus kousa tree form Crataegus crus-galli #~ermis tree form Crataegus punctata inermis tree form Koelreuteria paniculata Maackia amurensis Malus cultivars (resistant cultivars oaly) Phelodendron amurense Prunus cultivars (less than 35' tall) ?yrus calletyana (not the cultivar 'Bradford') ~yringa reticulata tree form Comnlon Nanle Trident Maple Hedge Maple Amur Maple Tatarian Maple Serviceberry i.e., 'Cumulus' 'Autumn Sunset' 'Robin Hill' Americm~ Hornbemn Kousa Dogwood Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn Thornless Ohio Pioneer Hawthorn Goldenraintree Amur Maackia Crabapple Amur Corktree (wide canopy) Flowering Cherry i.e., 'Accolade' 'Okame' (wide canopy) 'Schubert' 'Yoshino' (wide canopy) Callery Pear i.e., 'Aristocrat' 'Chanticleer' 'Cleveland Select' Japanese Tree Lilac i.e., 'Ivory Silk' 'Summer Silk' MEDIUM TREES: Should be set back at least 15 feet from overhead wires and in ireelawns at least 6 feet wide. TREE HEIGHTS APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET - 70 FEET (depending on site conditions) 'Scientific Name Acer pseudoplatanus [40-60'] Acer x freemanii [45-70'] Carpinus betulus [30-60'] Celtis occidentalis [40-60'] Corylus column [50-70'] Eucommia ulmoides [40-60'] Fraxinus pennsylvanica [50-60'] Gleditsia triacanthos inermis (resistant eultivars only) Nyssa sylvatica [40-70'] Ostrya virginiana [30-50'] Prunus sargentii 'Columnaris' Quercus acutissima [40-50'] Quercus phellos [40-60'] Quercus robur [50-60'] $ophorajaponica [40-70'] Tilia cordata [40-80'] Ulmus parvifolia [30-50'] Ulmus cultivars [40-50'] (resistant cultivars only) Zelkova serrata [40-80'] [40-100'] [40-50'] Common Name Sycamore Maple Freeman Maple i.e., 'Armstrong' 'Autumn Blaze' European Hornbean Haekberry Turkish Filbert Hardy Rubber Tree Green Ash Thornless Honeyloeust Tupelo American Hophombeam Columnar Sargent Cherry Sawtooth Oak Willow Oak English Oak Japanese Pagoda Tree Littleleaf Linden Chinese Elm Elm hybrids i.e., Japanese Zelkova i.e., 'Shademaster' 'Skyline' 'Halka' 'Urban' 'Homestead' 'Pioneer' 'Princeton' ' Sapporo Autumn Gold' LARGE TREES: Should be set back at least 25 feet from overhead wires and in treelawns at least 8 feet wide. TREE HEIGHTS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET - 100 FEET (depending on site conditions) Scientific Name Gingko biloba (male only) [50-100'] Gymnocladus dioicus (male only) [70-80'] Metasequoia glyptostroboides [70-100'] Platanus x acerifolia [70-100'] Quercus rubra [60-90'] Tilia tomentosa [60-80'] Common Name Gingko Kentucky Coffeetree Dawn Redwood London Planetree Northern Red Oak Silver Linden New York State Department of Environmental Conservation LIPA ENERGY Cornell Coope .mtive Extenmon SCOTT A. RUSSELL SUPERVISOR TOWN HALL - 53095 MAIN ROAD Fax. (631)- 765- 9015 JAMES A. RICHTER, R.A. ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 Tel. (631) - 765 - 1560 JAMIERICHTER~TOWN.SOUTHOLD.NY.US OFFICI c,T. HE ENGINEE TOWN OF Jerilyn B. Woodhouse ~' ))r~-~-~ ....... JU, I~ ~1' 2007 Chairperson - Planning Board ~ ~.~, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road :outhwold Manor, s._ ~ Southold, NewYork 11971 1000-63-03-15 Dear Mrs. Woodhouse: ~ :~: .~_L~ As per a request from your office~l have re%e,~,g~,the, s~te plar~ ~]rawmgs (SP-1 through SP-12) for the above referenced project 'The ~lJ~ns have been prepared by the office of RMS Engineering and were certified by Gregg J. Schiavone, PE, dated 5/11/06. Please consider the following: 1. Please note that the proposed disturbance resulting from construction activities and grading of this site will be greater than one (1) acre in area. Therefore, this project will require coverage from NYS Department of Environmental Protection (DEC) under the Phase II State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Program. The Developer must obtain coverage under General Permit for Storm-water Runoff from Construction Activity (GP-02-01) prior to the initiation of construction activities. 2. Drainage calculations have been provided on drawing SP-5 and are considered satisfactory with one exception. It appears that drainage has not been provided for the Amenities Building which would also include a tennis court and pool patio. These areas should be included in the drainage calculations. 3. Sheet Sp-7, the Landscaping & Irrigation Plan notes several areas where existing vegetation will remain. Major portions of these areas will need to be cleared to install the proposed sewage treatment systems and drainage structures. This item should be amended accordingly. 4. Keystone Retaining Wall Section Detail AA has been noted to be located on SP-8. It is actually located on drawing SP-10 and appears to be drawn inconsistent with actual site conditions. a. The Detail indicates a maximum height of 3'. Proposed grades on SP-5 along the easterly property line adjacent to SCTM #: 1000-63-03-16 would indicate that the wall would need to be over four (4') feet high. This item should be addressed. b. Proposed grades also indicate that a majority of the site will be filled. Therefore, the noted property line should be on the Iow side of the proposed wall or opposite to what has been indicated. Please Note: any grading and/or excavation necessary to construct this wall should be contained within the limits of the project site. Therefore, the face of this wall will need to be slightly set back from the property line. The detail should be amended to reflect this change. Page I of 2 Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson - Planning Board Re: Southwold Manor SCTM #: 1000-63-03-15 July 31, 2007 Page 2 of 2 5. The retaining wall section detail (SP-10) also indicates a six (6') foot high stockade fence. The Site Plan (SP-4) indicates six (6') foot high chain link. The maximum height of fence allowed by Town Code is six (6') feet. Fencing installed on the fill side of the proposed wall would also be restricted to six (6') feet. This item will be measured from the average natural grade prior to fill. 6. What is the reason or purpose for the installation of perimeter fencing around the entire site? This item should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. 7. State Department of Transportation Curb Cup Permits will be required. 8. in general, driveway access for each pair of buildings has been shown with three curb cuts located within the same general area. It is recommended that where this condition occurs, Curb Cuts should be consolidated into one access cut to the proposed Road. Utilizing one cut at each location will also provide additional area for guest parking without increasing the amount of pavement that was originally proposed. 9. Sidewalks have not been indicated. Due to the confined nature of this Site Plan and the overall short length of proposed road, it would appear that many owners may choose to walk to and from the proposed Amenities Building. Therefore, sidewalks are recommended. 10. On sheet SP-9, General note # 14 indicated that ownership and maintenance of drainage structures are the Lot Owners responsibility. Individual lots have not been created and multiple dwelling units may be connected to one or more drainage structures. Therefore, it is recommended that this maintenance be the responsibility of a Homeowners Association. 11. On sheet SP-9, General notes numbered 16 through 20 reference inaccurate information. All notes should be reviewed and modified to reference accurate Zoning, County and Municipal data. 12. Landscaping, as proposed, appears to be adequate and should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. 13. Typical road cross section details should be provided. In addition, a section detail of the brick paved road section should also be provided. 14. During construction, it is recommended that all utility installations, which have been designed to traverse under the proposed road, be completed prior to the placement of Asphalt Materials. If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact my office. CC: Peter Harris (Superintendent of Highways) ,~tmes A. Richter, R.A. ~.AST END RESOURCES, LL~ ~ OLD CO~Y (L-d{DE'~ CITY, NEW YORK 11530 Facsimile Cover Sheet ~: 49pvtj Pa~e I To: Date: R~-: .ler$ Woodhouse (Chairperson), Joseph;L; ToWa~nd, Ke~m~h L, Edwards, Martin H. Sldor and George S Planning Board (631) 765-3136 Cl:rbtoph~r M. Read, Esq. July 30, 2007 ~" 2007 JUL :, i Seathwoki Manor: 56655 Main Ro~id, Southold, New York Total numb¢c af pages including thi~ cover aheet: 8 ~you do hot r¢cei~ ~ ~ll the pages i~dic~ted ~bove, please call us back az soon as possible al 516-227-6363 L'] URGENT ~ FOR REVIEW ~ PLEASE COM~tENT {3 PLI~ASE REPLY ~ FYI Please see correspondence In~n~mitted herewith. JUL 31 ~07 I k EAST END RESOURCES, LLC .~6 OLD COIONTRY ROAD S~il¢ 901 ~ARD~ ~, ~W YO~ 11 S~ MEMO UM JUL 31 2007 Plan Al:pligalioa ithc "Application") of Soutbwoi~t ManoL a 55 &ual oldar, aetiw ~iult ~or<omim'.un comm~,y ce be located a,156655 Main Road, Southold NY (the ~s~. P~sen~ed i~ a desi~ wai.:a w~l Mtow us to ~ a~ p/~e ~e A~ H~ ~ ~ it ~e~s vm~lly unck~g~ wh~, vicw~ ~m ~e ~ go~. ~ a~ifi~ we ~ offe~ng &~ (3) wo~ffgi atf~Oablv um~ wM~ [~o<de mom li~ ~p~ p~r ~il ~ ~at wMgh i~ ~u~ for ~ffo~b~ hous~ ~ ~ maAct rotc dw~ll~gs ~ thc HB Distil. Affo~abl~ a~mca~ m~t bc O~r prcgosal offers mre¢ (3) channing units with livable floor arms of I,I 86 gluar~ f,,et, 1,137 ~q~re feet ~tnd g91 square fee*. c~p~:t:vely. Two of the unit~ have multiple bedrooms and an extra ½ bath, Thc fc<~q~n.qt of thc ofi$c,a! portion of the Aibcrtson Hou~ w~i B~ pcoviding co~mno~ to om s~w plax appli~tion. Km~y sapplmn~t y~ submiision m ~ P~ing Bo~d w{~ ~is l~ttcr ~d ate caalosurc$ plovid~ h~'cwi~ so ~t w¢ ~y ~dt~s ali 5~h i~s ~ ~e next Appiicatio;~: Applkant: Resmm't~s, LLC Road, Soulhold N~w York JUL 31 2007 P ro~'lde~.l h~re*v~th aze sketch desi~n~ (floor plua~ sad c~vationO of our pro.aM "Alber~$on Housed at the prope~'. ' Our pro.sol inctudes a r~toratJoa of the main ~r~on of the Albe~$o~ House ~ that the houAe ma~t~ its iradhional Ioo~ and design, lbe o~lnal portion of t~ Al~rlmn Hum ~aclud~ 2 m~lt* (un~t~ ~ aud B). Both ofth~ ~it, wffi be tw~r~m, bathroom towahouse auit~, la the rear of t~ ho~e where an extension adaed to th~ m ~giaal structure, we ar~ proposing to will replace such elision }~ith a sim~lt ~d~tlon ~Mch ~hall he con*i~tenl wilh the de~ of tho port[o~ of thc ho~ ~r propos~ ext*~ wffi incluSe a t~fl firing u~il with on~ bedr~a snd a full bath. Set forth ~low b basic informafloa pe~ing ] aathrr, oma I ~:~ LI LI)O~ L ~ JUL 3 1 2007 2007 JUL PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOAR~ OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 SENT VIA MAIL AND FACIMILE (516.227.6367) July 26, 2007 Mr. Alfred L. Amato East End Resources, LLC 666 Old Country Road Garden City, New York 11530 Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM #: 1000-63-3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Business (HB) Dear Mr. Amato: The Planning Board is currently drafting a letter to your office requiring additional site plan information. Please allow this letter to serve as notice that this draft letter will be discussed by the Planning Board and staff at the next scheduled work session on Monday, July 30, 2007. It is not necessary that you be present, however, please notifythis office if you plan to attend. Once finalized, a copy of the letter will be sent to your office for your review and incorporation into the residential site plan. Please do not hesitate to contact this office should you have any questions or need anything further. Amy Thiel {' '~ Senior Plaix~-~ Cc: File ~rs. Rita Cohen ~8655 Main Road -~uthold. New York 11971 July 1,200* Southold Town Planning Board Attention: Jeri woodhouse, Joseph L. Townsend, . Kenneth L. Edwards, Martin H. Sidor and George Solomon P.O. Box 1179 - .~-~-~ Southold, New York 11971 Re: Site Plan Application named 'Southwold Manor' to~'~:'d at 56655 Main · Road, Southold, New York 11971 Dear Chairperson Woodhouse and Members of the Planning Board: My husband Albert and I attended a planning Board work session on Monday, June 25, 2007, but were denied an oppo(tunity to speak and sham our thoughts and concerns with the Board. To be honest, as long standing residents, tax payers and owners of the property, we were rather disappointed by the Board's mfusel to hear us in a pubSc forum. Many of our friends who also attended the meeting were similarly surpltsed by the Board's denial. Nevetthelass, at your request I will take the opportunity to express my feelings in writing and tell you my thoughts about our home and the site plan proposed on our property. My husband, Albert, and I have lived in Southold for twon~ five years. When we porchased the old Albefison House it was a little tired and in need of s°me w°rk, but the I°cati°n was wonderful. It was built by a sea captain in 1732 and owned by the Albertson family for nine or so gemaral~ns before we bought it from Bad,am and Biff Alberlaon. Over time, fo the best of our ability, we have lovingly restored it and ~her~hed the time living in and caring for our home. It has been a wonderful home, but as our grandchildren grew older they began to visit Hedges m~ ~,~ ~ ,~ ,,~ --- · ............ . us. He had bash advised by Bedell 1Ninety to sfay at Tba Hedgas. At the time thore were nine B&Bs in the area' . . ....... ..,- uA,,~. That following Christo.t?. we took him uP fo be their second home. The reason I'm sharing ~is brief hlato~ and, hopefully, expressing my fondness for our by the proneedings at the work __.e.,~on where it appeared that the Beard may, in the ond' favor the use of our home for the affordabla unit~ in our opinion the location and the building are pe~ec~ ~itsble aixl mom ~an ~ for such a use- Alter ail, the Iooafion is good enough for our neighb~, ValeHe Sc~ez (fomier Tow~ Planner), her family before hor, usand our family, and for the many famillas that raside in homas on Main Road* We " that the '~-'~ to build three affordable apartments in our home would be far - - in or many of .._______ ou ~ . eatitled or carl ever1 expem w lu,~nw uF-:,,~, other rasldents, it simply doasnl make sens~ Southold is our home, and we and many of our neighbors and fdends have been waiting to downsize, yet remain here in town. We do not want to move to Riverhead or elsewhere as many have been forced to do while waiting for the Town to approve a much needed adult community. In fact, wa have been waiting years and years for the town move ahead and approve East End's plans to build the beautiful senior residences that they are proposing. We cannot believe how long it has taken and are now frustrated by the latest delays based on an inclination to intersperse the affordable homes among the larger attached units of the development. We and many of our friends are upset by the incredibly long process (our lives have been on hold for the five years!), and now, after all this time waiting, this appealing housing option may be at dsk because of an awkward proposal fo put affordable apartments under the same roof as upscala units. A market rata unit which shams an interior wall with a subsidized/'affordable" unit would be very difficult to sell and no one we know is willing to take that kind of dsk. In addition, such a plan raises questions as to who will pay the maintenance faes for the pool, clubhouse, landscaping, etc. It does not seem realistic that someone who qualifies for an affordable home would be able fo afford such maintenance and amenities fees. What person fortunate enough to be the recipient of an affordable home expects fo get free landscaping, free snow removal and the flee use of a club house, swimming pool and peddle tennis court? In addition, condominium residents will be subject to future and often substantial assessments. I certainly doubt that the Town will pay for the affordable units' share of expenses. Are the other owners expected to pay it for them? No way. In fact, no perspective buyer I know would find this to be acceptable. It is another deal breaker for us and our friends who would othenvise be prospective buyers. I can safely say that our many Southold friends who have been anxiously awaiting this long needed development to materialize have similar viewpoints to ours and we believe that using our home for affordable aparlments is an ideal use of the property. Such units would be situated in a lovely home located in the center of Town. We would welcome those living there and having them for neighbors, and it eliminates the problems mentioned above. We believe that if the Town were fo persist with a plan to intersperse the affordable units, it will be a deal breaker for any potential buyers and Southold will be deprived of badly needed senior housing. The result would likely be another shopping center that may not serve the best interests of the vi#age shop keepers or residents of the surrounding commune. We hope the Albertson house does not meet the same fate as the magnificent old house that was demolished at Silversmith comer. We sincerely believe East End's plan that includes preserving the old Albertson House is the best way to develop the property and use our old home. Sincerely CC: Scott Russell, Town Supen/isor Mark Terry, Town Planning Department Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney Alfred L. Amafo, East End Resources, LL C Patdcia Moore, Esq. Address:(linel)~'"P '/J, .... (,~e 2) °f ~'- '- ":" ~'' "",-, Signatu~> ~'~-~-'-~.~. ~ (line2) Name: yA_~i'C~.~j, i~ij~ Address: (line 1) Signature (line 2) Address: (line 1) (line 2) Address: (line 1) "~ 0 '~z~ '"~ ~;~'~'/~'~ ./ Name: Signat~ Address: (line 1) (line 2) Address: (line 1)'~ q~'~ ~'J ~?'I.~ (line2) ~'~, ~ Address: (line 1) (line 2) (line 2) .. ~ ~",~ ~"~ · 5 Name: Sig nature/~/~.~'~ Name: .~-A~ J~ S ignatur'Q,~ ~, Address: (line 1) (line 2) Name: 0ine2) _~<~[2~-.HrT/A9 ~ A/'/ Name: /:~.~t ~/./V~[~ Address: (line 1) Signature ~1~ (line,) Name: ~ ~W/~ Addre.: (line l) Signatur~~~ (line 2) ~ ~ ~ J~ Name: ¢, 1<<~ 4/~ Address: (line l) Signature~ L ' '~'' ~ (line 2) /o s'- r /,~/..f/L--~ ,b'c--c/c/'2~t' iL/c/ / Name: .[)?.,972/~ ~'C ~Z-i~ Address: (line 1) Signature .-'?~//~, .~ ~ ~ .~ ~-.---~:~- (line 2) Name: Address: (line 1) Signature (line 2) We acknowledge reading the above letter and agree with the sentiments expressed therein: Name: [~/~4; , ~/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/~, ~.~ Address:(linel) 1'~6'~..2 ~/,.L.. )'~'~ Signature~.~_~ ~,~ c...., ,-7-.- (line 2) ~'-,,~.~.,'-rT..~_, /_ /\ Name: Signature Name: Address: (line 1) Signature (line 2) Name: Address: (line 1) Signature (line 2) Name: Address: (line 1) Signature (line 2) Name: Address: (line 1) Signature (line 2) Name: Address: (line 1) Signature (line 2) Name: Address: (line 1) Signature (line 2) 3 Name: Signature ~ /~Zf ~.~? (line 2) Name: Signature :/d ~ ,//7~)~ ~, ~j Address: (line 1) ~.~ ~. (line 2) Name: ~ Signature' ~Y ~~~' (line 2) Name: ~i~-~ ,~L~ Addmss:(linel) Signatur~ ~ ~/~ (line 2, Name: Signature : Name: ~ Signature, Address: (line 1) (line 2) Address: (line 1) (line 2) Name: Address: (line 1) Signature (line 2) Name: Address: (line 1) Signature (line 2) Name: Address: (line 1) Signature (line 2) July 2, 2007 Jetilyn Woodhouse, Chairwoman Members of the Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Proposed Site Plan for Southwold Manor Senior Community Located at 56655 Mare Road, Southold, NY SCTM # 1000-63 3-15 Dear Chairman Woodhouse and Members of the Planning Board: I am writing as a neighboring property owner, whose property borders thd' P~0posed development for a distance of 305 feet along the eastern border. After reviewing the Planning Board's file and the last set of plans submitted by the contract vendee for the property, November 2006, several concerns and/or questions came to mind. These are listed below: The file does not contain documentation validating the contract vendee's status. Other than the contract-vendee's memorandum dated April 20, 2007, and Anthony Trezza's response dated May 1, 2007, there is no record of the Planning Board's official determination (and justification) of the yield. a. Item #3 of the contract-vendee's April 20, 2007 memorandum states that three accessory apartments will be located within three of the eight proposed new buildings. As per the memo, the accessory apartments will "not be subject to any ownership or transferability restrictions". What does this mean? b. Will the apartments be sold separately from the 21 market rate units? Or will they be accessory to three condominium units? Do State regulations regarding condominiums permit accessory uses within some units and not others? What assurances w'fll the Planning Board put into place to prevent additional accessory apartments in the future? 3. The following items are not shown on the proposed site plan: a. The location of the entrance relative to existing curb-cuts for the 7-11 and the intersection of Locust Avenue, across the street, as well as the curb-cut and parking lot for Ivy League Florist/Del Capelli Salon. i. The traffic in this vicimty is significant. Safety issues will need to be addressed. ii. Currently, the private entry into the condominium complex lies within the 15 side yard requirement. b. The location of dumpsters, and screening for the dumpsters, relative to side property lines as well as buildings. c. The location of sidewalks. d. The location of street and building lights. The required side yard around the perimeter of the site is only 15 feet. However the proposed site plan shows outside porches and decking as well as driveway paving intruding into this area, redu(mg the actual distance (between the building and the adjoining property lines ) to less than 15 feet apiece. a. Section 280-104 F. Deck and/or patio additions to a principal building which do not connect two structures or buildings are permitted if they meet principal building setbacks. (emphasis added) b. Additional sections of the Zoning Code speak to the sacrosanct nature of the 15 foot buffer where it adjoins residentially zoned neighborhoods. The perimeter of the site is proposed to be enclosed with a six-foot chain link fence. This type of fencing is atypical for the area, and will create an urbanizing element totally out of character with surrounding commerdml as well as residential neighborhoods. The proposed regrading of the site is ~xgnificant and will have detrimental visual and stormwater impacts on surrounding properties. a. The property currently slopes downward from northwest to southeast. The grade at the northwest comer is 32 feet. The grade at the southwest comer is about 25 feet. b. The southeastern elevation of the subject property (adjacent to the northwesterly border of my lot) is proposed to be raised from 26.28 feet to 31 feet, a change in grade of nearly S feet within a horizontal distance of less than 20 feet. c. The first floor elevation of the condominium building (including the porch and outside decking), is shown as 32 feet, which means that the base of the first floor will be nearly six feet above my property's existing grade. i. The net effect: an 8,000 square foot building will be located less than 15 feet off the property line, and will be situated 6 feet above existing grade. d. Most of the new condominium buildings are proposed to be placed at similar distances from the eastern and western borders of the subject property, with similar shifts in grade adjacent to the two built residential dwelling lots north of my property. e. The net effect of the regradmg will be to create four "plateaus" (at elevations ranging from 32.95 to 32 feet) alongside the east side yard, which will drop a distance of about five feet to the lower elevations of the backyards of the adjoining houses. i. A retaining wall probably would be necessary at certam points along this property line, which will create a stormwater runoff channel adjacent to lower-lying property to the east. ii. Most of the subject property had been farmland up until the late 1970s and due to the slope, stormwater would collect on the northern part of my lot, forming a temporary frog pond during wet seasons. Currently there are no flooding problems on my property, but this proposed design seems likely to create one. f. The proposed regrading will result in each of the eight new structures being elevated to a first floor elevation of between 32.95 and 32 feet, which is higher than the existing grade at the north to northwestern comer of the property. g. The extent of the regrading essentially will result in almost all vegetation being stripped from the site. i. The visual impacts of this amount of deforestation (5 acres) will be felt by the commercial neighborhood as well as the residential n(rghborhood, not to mention the natural habitat. h. The elevations of the proposed buildings (an estimated two- and-a-half stories in height) should be viewed in conjunction with the raising of the grade when considering the potential visual impact of this project to the surrounding commumty. The scale of the proposed condominium units does not seem to be in keeping with that of the surrounding hamlet, both commercial and re(ldential. Each structure will exceed 8,000 square feet in area. a. By contrast, one of the largest new commer(ml structures to be built within the hamlet of Southold, the two-and-a-half story Sea Tow International building on Boisseau Avenue, sits within a 4,800 square foot footprint. b. Due to the size of the project and its central location to the hamlet, a visual impact analysis would be helpful in determining the visual impact on the State designated Scenic Byway as well as the rest of the surrounding community, including properties to the north of the LIRR track. The design of the site is geared towards the use of the automobile, which is contrary to the pedestrian orientation espoused by the hamlet study and several other planning studies which recommend pedestrian and bike friendly site de(~gn in new communities. Has the Albertson house been surveyed (architecturally) to determine the nature of its historic significance? Its listing by the Society for the Preservation of Iaong Island Antiquities suggests an historic significance worth investigating. a. The Town's policy, as stated in its Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2004) and its Scenic Byways Comdor Management Program (2001) notes the value of historical homes to the town's overall character and appeal. b. According to the LWRP, this property lies within Reach 6, which contains the second largest number of historic dwellings, second only to Orient Village. Within a couple hundred feet of the Albertson house are several residences and former residences dating back to the 1700s. In conclusion, I wish to note that I fully understand the wide range of business uses to which this property could be put. And, I also understand (and support) the property owner's desire to place senior housing on this site due to its close proximity to Southold hamlet's traditional business and civic centers. However, I also believe the Planning Board has an obligation to the surrounding community to ensure that this project is designed at a scale sensitive to the historical character of the surrounding homes and businesses, as well as its proud history as the founding hamlet of the Town of Southold. The project as designed does not meet this standard. 7~rely, Valerie M. Scopaz P.O. Box 1655 Southold, NY 11971 From: CC: ? TO & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 104 FAX: (732) 317-1513 MEMORANDUM The Southold Town Planning Board, including Jeri Woodhouse (Chairperson), Joseph L. Townsend, Kenneth L. Edwards, Martin H. Sidor and George Solomon d~ Christopher M. Rea Scott Russell, Town Supervisor Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney Mark Terry, Head Planner, Town Planning Department Albert and Rita Cohen Alfred L. Amato, Esq. Date: June 20, 2007 Re: Site Plan Application (the "Application") of Southwold Manor, a{~ ahd oidei:; ~ii~,e adult condominium community to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold NY (the "Property") On June 6, 2007, my client, East End Resources, LLC, sent you a memo (the "June Memo") which, among other things, respectfully requested that you conduct your site visit of the Property. As stated to us at the Planning Board work session on April 30, 2007, a site visit must be conducted before the Planning Board would continue processing the Application. It appeared to us at the time and we, therefore, assumed that a site visit would be conducted without delay. However, almost two (2) months have passed and to our knowledge a site visit has not even been scheduled. In addition, my client has received no response to the June Memo. Please note that the Application was submitted to the Planning Department over seven (7) months ago; a pre application was submitted more than two (2) years ago; and my client has been consistently pressing and pleading with the Town to review this Application for almost five (5) years. We ask that you kindly resume processing the Application and add same to the agenda of an upcoming work session. Further, because several important issues were raised at the April 30th work session, issues that must be resolved without delay (please refer to the June Memo), we ask for at least 5 days prior notice so that we may adequately prepare and adjust our schedules accordingly. Finally, to reiterate our request at the April 30th work session, please call us to schedule the site visit so that we can provide reasonable notice to the current occupants of the Property. Thank you. EAST END RESOURCES, LLC 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-0880 From: CC: Date: Re: MEMORANDUM The Southold Town Planning Board, including Jeri Woodhouse (Chairperson), Joseph L. Townsend, Kenneth L. Edwards, Martin H. Sidor and George Solomon Alfred L. Amato, Esq~ ~ ;~ ~ Scott Russell, Town Supervisor Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney Kieran Corcoran, Esq., Assistant Town Attorney Mark Terry, Head Planner, Town Planning Department Anthony Trezza and Amy Ford, Town Planning Department James Grathwolh and Damon Rallis, Landmark Preservation Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector Albert and Rita Cohen Christopher M. Read, Esq. June 6, 2007 Southwold Manor Site Plan (the "Site Plan") for 55 and older, active adult condominium community located at 56655 Main Road, Southold NY (the "Property") Thank you for hearing our application at the continuing Planning Board work sessions, and most recently on April 30, 2007. Based on the April 30th work session and the memo from the Planning Board Office, dated May 1, 2007 (copy enclosed), it is our understanding that the Planning Board will conduct a site visit before we proceed any further. We were hoping that such site visit would have been conducted by now, and respectfully request that you conduct your visit as soon as possible so that we may move forward with our application, and discuss and resolve a recently raised issue that could broadly impact the Site Plan. Specifically, it was suggested at the April 30th work session that there may be a benefit to sprinkling the affordable units throughout the Property rather than housing all such units in the beautiful home that currently exists at the Property. We believe that such benefit, if any, is far outweighed by the significant and wide array of problems that such a scenario would foster. Before we elaborate on our concerns, please note that we must address this issue now because we are about to revise the Site Plan in accordance with the instructions of the Town Attorney, the Chief Building Inspector and the Planning Department Staff (as referenced in the aforementioned memo). The Town has instructed us to modify the interior layouts of three (3) buildings in order to reflect a site plan consisting of 21 market rate units, three (3) market rate accessory units and three (3) affordable units. These modifications will consist of reducing the square footage of three (3) units, currently designated as primary units, so that they may be re-designated as accessory units. As these modifications will affect neither the building footprints nor the exterior elevations, the reduction of living space in three (3) units will correspondingly increase the living space of three (3) neighboring units. EAST END RESOURCe3, LLC However, we cannot move forward with design modifications without knowing the Town's position regarding affordable unit placement. Clearly, the market-rate units we intend to offer are much larger than the square footage requirements of affordable units, as dictated by the Town Code. As the size, design and layout of the affordable units must bear some relationship to the mandated price ceilings imposed by the Town, affordable units cannot be designated after designs are finalized. Simply put, if three (3) units designed for market-rate sales were thereafter subject to the mandated price ceilings of an affordable unit, such a scenario would likely doom the economic viability of the project and swiftly push the development of the Property towards safer uses such as retail, motel or any of the other many commercial uses which are permitted on the Property. This is a small residential community made up of nine (9) buildings. Accordingly, there is no designation flexibility after the designs are finalized. It should be noted further that the Town has been in possession of our proposed plans for a year. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we strongly believe that the best solution for both the residents of Southwold Manor and the Southold community at large is to locate the affordable units within the existing home. If permitted to serve as the home of three (3) affordable units, the exterior of the existing house could be preserved while the interior is retrofitted to provide three (3) affordable units that anyone could feel proud to call home. We sincerely hope that when you conduct your site visit you agree with our position that the existing house is the only viable option for locating the affordable units. In that regard, we ask that you kindly consider the following: Placing the affordable units in the existing home will allow us to preserve the exterior of the structure. By retrofitting the three (3) affordable units within home (it was once used as a bed and breakfast), we can offer an attractive housing option while maintaining the traditional amhitecture of a wonderful old building. Upon completion of our project we will offer to designate the building as a Historic Landmark so that the surrounding community can be assured that the building will be properly preserved and maintained for generations. Requiring that affordable units be located in any area other than the existing home would necessitate the demolition of the existing home. The house is roughly 3,000 square feet and cannot, therefore, support three (3) units which are bigger than those to be designated as affordable. Further, there is not enough room on the Property to save the existing house and add another building while maintaining compliance with the applicable zoning regulations. We are proposing eight (8) new buildings consisting of 21 market rote units and three (3) market rate accessory units. If three of these units must be relocated in order to accommodate affordable units within such eight (8) new buildings, the existing home would have to be demolished and replaced with a larger building because it simply cannot support the market-rate units that make our project economically feasible. Based upon costs, lot shape, lot size, accessory apartment regulations and other Town Code regulations pertaining to lot coverage, set-backs, separation distances and other bulk table requirements, the location of the aflbrdable units anywhere but in the existing home would necessitate the demolition of the existing home. Placing the affordable units in the existing home will significantly reduce the maintenance fees applicable to the affordable units because the maintenance costs associated with a single building located in a clearly defined area can be allocated to the appropriate units. 2 EAST END RESOURCES, LLC Requiring that affordable units be located in any area other than the existing home will create significant problems with respect to maintenance and amenity fees. Southwold Manor is intended to be a well appointed, up-scale commtmity with extensive gardens, detailed construction and inviting amenities. While our proposal is tasteful and understated, the features and amenities offered will cost money to build and maintain. If the affordable units are located in and around such amenities then one of two problems becomes unavoidable: either (i) affordable units will become subject to high maintenance costs which would be wholly inconsistent with the low pumhase price; or (ii) market rate owners will be forced to pay the maintenance and benefit costs attributable to their affordable-unit-owning neighbors. Frankly, if the affordable unit owners can afford the costs associated with the physical amenities proposed (not to mention the services that will also be offered to residents), it is unlikely that they would qualify for the affordable housing benefit offered by the developer. On the other hand, if one neighbor is forced to pay for the swimming, rocket and clubhouse benefits of another neighbor, such a scenario will foster resentment and disharmony in the small community. We have conducted extensive market research including interviews with more than ten active adult couples from the east~end (North Fork and Shelter Island only) who have expressed great interest in purchasing a unit at Southwold Manor. Every one of our potential buyers has stated unequivocally that if the burden of unit ownership includes paying the maintenance and amenity costs of their neighbors, then they would not purchase such a unit. Over and over we hear that such an arrangement amounts to nothing other than an additional "tax" on some to subsidize the use of amenities by others. Our interested buyers find this mechanism unfair, inappropriate and unacceptable. Southwold Manor is intended to be a lovely community offered to seniors living in the Town today. The demographic that we are targeting are those who currently live in the Town with a comfortable but fixed retirement budget. Those in this demographic who have expressed an interest in Southwold Manor have stated that they do not feel financially or otherwise comfortable paying for the expenses and amenities of their neighbors. To be clear, it is a deal killer for each of those who have so far expressed interest. In our opinion, the proposal to retrofit the existing house for affordable units demonstrates sound planning that will benefit the entire community, and we have confirmed that any alternative suggestion will significantly harm the marketability of the project and necessitate the demolition of a wonderful building. Accordingly, we implore you to help us save the Albertson house by approving the general Site Plan as proposed (including the design changes required by the Planning Staff, the Town Attorney and the Chief Building Inspector). We, in turn, will ensure its future protection by offering to designate same as a Historic Landmark upon completion of the project. We believe that our proposal is a good and gentle use of the Property that provides many benefits to the community. In sum, please note that the project must make economic sense and cannot pose risks that would be absent from the many other commercial uses permitted at the Property. We look forward to discussing this issue at our next work session. Thank you. 3 5182270885; Jun 8-07 7:05PM; Page I EAST END RESOURCES, LLC 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11~30 ?gL~ ($1 &) 237-63413 Facsimile Cover Sheet To: Jeri Woodhous~ (Chairperson)i Joseph L. Towa~ead, Kenneth L. Edwards, Martin FI. Sidor and George Solomon, $outhold Town Planning Board Fax#: (631) 765-3136 From: Alfred L. Amato, Esq. Date: June 6, 2007 Re: Southwold Manor: 56655 Maln Road, Southold, New York Total number of pages including this ~over sheet: 4 ~f you do not reee{'~'¢ all the pages indicated above, please cai] us back as s~oa as possible at 516-227-6363 URGENT O FOR REVIEW 13 PLEASE COMMENT C] PLEASE REPLY NOTE: O FYI Please see correspondence transmitted herewith. By: AMATO&A:3GOO~AT~S; 5~62270885; dan-~-07 7:05PM; Pa3e EAST END RESOURCES, LLC 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GAROEN CITY~ NEW YORK 11531 TEL; (St6~ 2274S6~ To; CC: MEMORANDUM I'he Southold Town Planning Board, including Jeri Woo6hou~e (Chakpemon), lo~ph g 'Iowmend, Keuneth L. Edwards, Martin H. Sider and George Solomon Alfred Scott Ruasell, Town SuPervisor Patricia Fiml~an, Esq., Town A!tonaey Kieran C~or~, Esq., Assi~tam Town Atwrn~ M~k Te~,, Head Planer, ~bwn Plan~mg Depa~em Antony Tre~a ~d ~y Ford, Yom~ Planning De~r~ent S~es Grathwolh ~d D~on Ralli% Landmark Pr~e~twn Michel V~ty, Chief Budding lnspecWr ~e~ and ~ C~en Chri~pher M. Read, Esq. June 6,2007 ,lt*~t - 7 2007 Southwold Manor Site Plan (the "Site Plan") for 55 and older aqive adult community located au 56655 Main Road, Southold NY (t~ "Property") Thank you for hearing our applieaticva at the continuing planning Board work sessions, and most recently on .april 30, 2007. Ba~ed on the April 30a work selden and the memo fi.om the Planning Board Office, dated May I, 2007 {copy muclosad), it is our underatlmding that the Planning Board will oanduot a site visit before we proceed any fu~aer. We were hoping that such ~ita visit would have been conduced by now, and respectfully request that you ¢onCuet your visit as soon as posaiDls ~o that we may move Forward with our appli~tion, and discuss and resolve a recently rai~ad issue that could broadly impact the Site Plan. Specifically, it was suggested at the April 30t~ work session that there may b~ a benefit to sprinkling the affordable units throughout thc Property rather than homing all such units in the beautiful home that currently exism a~ the Property. We believe that such benefit, if any, is tar outweighed by the aigniticant and wide array of problems that such a scenario would foster. Before w~ elaborate on our concerns, please note that we must address this issue now because we am about to revise thc Site Plan ia ac*ordance with the insituctieas of the Town Attorney, the Chief Building thsp~tor and the Planning Depattalent Slaff (.os referenced in the aforementioll~d memo). Thc Tow~ has instracted us to modify the interior layouts of thr~ (3) buildings in order to r~flect a site plali ¢omisting of 21 market rate units, tl~ee (3) market rate aeee~ory ullit$ and tl~ee (3) affordable tmi£q. The*o modifications will c~ns~$1 Of reducLrlg tile sql. lare footase of three (3) units, currently designated as primaD' units, so that they may be re-designated as accessory units. As these modiflcalions will affect neither the building l'~botprints 1101' the ext~iur elc,~atiom, the reduction of living space in three (3) units will correspondtn$1y increase the living space o£ three (3) neighboring units. Gens 6y: A'vlA'~g&A,98oDlrATE~;; 5162270985; EAST END RESOURCES, LLC Jun-~3 07 7:O~PM; Page 3/4 However, we cannot mos~ forward with design modifications without tmowing the Town's position regarding affordable unit placement. Clearly, the market-rate units we intend to offer are much larg~ than Ihs square footage requirements of affordable units, as diffsated by the Town Code. As the size, design and layout of the affordable unil$ must bear some relat/on~h/p to the mandated price ceilings imposed by the Town, affordable units cannot be d.,e~ignated after desig~ ere finalized. Shnply put, if ~hree (3) units designed for m~k~t-ratc sales were thereafter subj~:t to the mandated price ceihng~ of an affordable unit, such a scenario weald likely doom the economic viability of the project and swi/t}y push the development of the Property towards safer uses such as retail, motel or any of the oth~r many coramercial uses which are perm/tted on the Property. This is a small residential community made up of'nine (9) buildings. Accordingly, there i$ no designation flexibility after the designs are Iinal/zed. It ~hould be noted f~rth:f that the Town has been in possession ofeus proposed plans for a Notwithstanding the fattening, we strongly believe that the best solution for both the residents of $outhwold Manor and the Sotlthold cotamtmity at large is to locate the affordable units withi~ the existing home. If permitted to serve as the home of three (3) affordeblc units, the exterior of the existing hous~ ~ould be preserved while the interior is retrofired to provide thr~ (3) affordable units that anyone could feel proud to call home. We sincerely hope that when you conduct your site visit you agree with our position that the existing house i~; the only viable option for locating the affordable units. In that regard, we ask that you kindly consider the following: Placing the affordable units in the existing home will allow ,~s to preserve the cxter/or of the structure. By re,refilling the thr~ (3) affordable uai~ within home (it was once u.~/as a bed and breakfast), we cart offer an aVa-active housing option while maintaining the traditional architecture o£ a wonde.rfill old b~tilding. Upon completion of our project we will offer to desipjia:e the building ~ a Historic Landmark: so that the s~ding c, ommm~ity can be assured that the building will be propea'ly preserved and maintained for generations. Requiting that affordable unlt~ be located in any area other than the existing home would neceisitatc thc demolition of the existing home. The house is toughly 3,,000 ~uar~ feet and ~;atmot, therefore, support three (3) units which are bigger then those to be designated as affordable. Further, there is not enough room on the Propar~y to save th~ existing house and add another building while raaintaiaing compliance with the applicable zoning regulations. We are proposing eight ($) new buildings consisting of 21 market rate units and thrc~ (3) market rate accessory units. If three of tl~$c unit~ mu,st be rcloca/~d in order to accommodate affordable units within ~.~ch eight ($) new buildings, the existing heine would have to be denmlished and replaced with a larger building bacauac it simply cannot support the marketcate !.lni~ that make out project economi'ually feasible. Based upon costa, lot shape, lot size, accessory apartment regulations and oth~r Town Code regulations per'taming to IO~ coverage, set-backs, ~eparation dletance~ and other bulk table requirementa, the location of the affordable units anywhere but in the existing home would necessitate thc demolition of the existing home. Placing the aflbrdable units in the existing home will sil~/ficantly reduce the v~nintenance fc~ applicable to the affordable units because the maintelmnee costs a~sociated with a eingl¢ building localed in a olearly defined ar~a can be allocated to the appropriate lmit$. EAST END RESOU]~ES, LLC JJn 8 07 7:07PM; Page 4/4 Requiring ~hat aitbrduble units be located in any area o~her than the existing home will create significant problems with respect to matntenanec and amenity' fees. Southwold M~mor is intended to be a well appointed, up-scale community with extensive gardens, detailed construction and inviting amenities, While oar propostfl is tasteful and understated, the tbatures and amenities offered will cost money to build and maintain. If the aftbrdable unit~ ~'e located in and around such amenities then one of two problems becomes unavoide, ble: either (i) afi'brd~le units will become subject to high mainlenance costs which would be wholly ineoosistent with the Iow purchase price; or (ii) market rate owners will be forced to pay the maintenance and benefit arms attributable to their affordnble-unLtdwning neighbors. Frankly, if the affordable unit owners can afford the costs associated wi~ the physical amenities proposed (not to mention thc services that will also be offered to residenTS), it is u~likely that the5' would qualify for the affordable housing benefit offered by the d~eleper. On the oth~ han~[ if one neighbor is forced to pay for the swimming, racket and clubhouse benefits of another neighbor, such a scenario will foster resenm~.~t and disb_armuny in the small corem~nity, We have conducted extensive market roses-eh including in~emews with more than ten active adult couples from the east-end t~orth Fork and Shelter Island only) who have exp~d great interest in purchasing e unit at Southwold Manor. Every tree of our potent/al buyers has stated unequivocally that if the burden ofumt ownership includes paying the maintenance and amenity costs of their neighbors, then they would not purchase such a unit. Over ea~d ove~ we hear thai such an arrangement amounts to nothing other ti'an an aflc[itiorml "tax" on some to subsidize the use of amenities by others. Our interested bay.s find this mechani.~n un£ar, inappropriate and unacceptable. $outhwold Manor is intended to M a lovely community offered to senior~ living in the Town today, The demographic that wa ate rargffting are those who currantly llve in the Town with a comfortable lint fixed ~etiremant budget, Those in this demographic who have ezpressed an interest in Southwold Manor have stated that they do not ti~el financially or othemise comfortable paying £or the expen~ and amenities of their neighbors. To be cleex, it is a deal killer for each et'those who have so far expreezed interest In our opinion, the p,'oposai to whorl[ the existing house for affordable units demonstrates sound planning that will benefit the entire community, and we have confirmed that any alte. tmfive suggestion will significantly harm the marketability of the project and nee-ssitat~ the d~molition ora wrmderf~l building. Accordingly, we implore you to help ns save the Albenson house by a~pruving the general Site Plan m tvroposed (including the design choruses required by the Planning Staff, the Town Attorney and the Chief Building inspector), We, in tm, will ensure its future protection by offering to designate same as a Historic Landmark upon vomplet/on of the project. We believe that our proposal is a good ~d Santo use of the Property that provides many benefits to the community. In sum, please note that the project roast m~ke economic sense and ca~mot pose risks that would be absent from the many other ~;ornmevzial uses permitted at thc Property. We look forward te discussing this issue at out next work ,session. Thank you, 3 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND May 1, 2007 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OFSOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Alfred L. Amato, Esq. Amato & Associates, P.C. 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Re: Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM #: 1000-63-3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Business (HB) Dear Mr. Amato: The Planning Board is in receipt of your memorandum dated April 20, 2007 outlining your synopsis of the April 18th meeting with the Town Attorney, Planning Staff and the Chief Building Inspector. The Board is in agreement with the content of your memo with the exception of Item #2 regarding the number and location of the affordable units. The Planning Board has the sole discretion to site the location of the affordable units within the parameters of the Town Code but has not yet made such a determination. The Board will conduct a site inspection and then schedule the application for discussion at a work session. Please do not hesitate to contact this office should you have any questions or need anything further. Senior Planner 5152270885; Apr-20 97 4:32PM; AMATO & ASSOCIATES, COUNBELO~,$ A~ LAW Page 2/3 'Fo: r;rom: CC: MEMORANDUM i;amcia Finaeg~t, Town Attorney Alfred L. Arnato arid Chris op er Scot~ K~sselL Town Supervisor Kieran Coret~an, )J.$istant Town Atmmcy Mark Terry, llead Planner, Town Planning Depaxtment Anthony Trez2a, Senior Planner, Town Planning Depamnent Amy Ford, Senior Planner, Town Planning Depar~eat Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector, Town Building Department Date: April 20, 2007 R c: Site Plem for 55 and older, active adult condominium commtmity located at 56655 Mare Road, Southold .NY (the We sincerely appreciate the t/me and courtesy extend~ by the Town Attoraey'~ Office, Supetv/sor Russell, the entire Pl~ing S~an~ the Chief Building ~spmtor m m~l~g ~ us on W~ne~y, April 18, 2~7 to di~uss ~c Town's position pe~ning Io our pro~scd site pi~ for the Prope~. Based on our discussion ,a the meeting, the Town.'s position with respect to the permitted yield and density at ~e lOroperty is acceptable to us and we have akeady discussed with our architect and sanitery engineer the modifications to the site plan and thc proposed buildings thereon liner will be neCessary to satisfy the Town'~ requirements as s~. lb;th below. Our undcrslanding oCwhat would be deemed acceptable is as follows; 1 Twenty r:mc (21 ) market rate active adult (55 and over) unit~ substantially similar to those depicted in the plans mbmitted with our site Dian applications {submitted and received on November 15, 2006); Three (3) moderale income family dwelling units (MLFDUS) which, consistent with thc age restrictions otlhe entire propos~ development, shall be limited to adults ofa$e 55 and over. Such MIFDUS shal} be located within the existing home at the Property wlxieh shall be ret, orated to ~¢errmxu:late the mree (3) MIFDUS while preserving and maintaining thc cnrrently existing style and architecture ofll~e exterior pt'the building aa clearly visible £mm ~e street; S~r'~'; r~.V: AvtA ,~)~AS~O~i~A~E~ 5162270985; A~r'-20-O7 4:33P'vl; Page ~TO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. In addition to the above listed twenty-four {2.4) urfits (21 market role urdt~ mtd 3 MIFDUS), t.hc~e shall be three (3} accessory apartments located within the new buildings (not alore '.hun one (1) pex building) which shall: (a) have less habitable spare tha~ principal market-rate unils; and (b) not be subject to any ownership or transferability r'~StrigtiOll.'s (other [hall age restrictions); As the proposed development (consisting of thc above-referenced umts and apartments and amenities depicted on the site plan) shall be age r~tricted and, therefore, deemed to gert*rate half of the s~wage flow of an equal number of stamlard single family units, the requirements of a cmmnunity se,,v~r ~ystem wwald b~ deemed satiafied with standard ~ptic a~ cesspool systems approved by the Suffolk County Department of Heath Sen'i~s. A¢ct~ditigly, the eromaglass system pm~o~w,d in connaction with our original site p',ae application submission package shall not be necessa~, Please let u~ know if thct~ are a~}y mcc~sistencies o~ eh'ors with respect to our understanding as ~et forth t~¢vein and the Town's p~a*~tions as e~ressed during our meeting earlier this week. Based on the fi~rngomg, we will generate revised ,itc pi:ma architectural plans and appurtenant douumen~ whic~ ~efl~t our und~smdmg ~ set f~ hewn ~, u~n completion, submit ~ to ~e Planning Depmme~ se t~l ~c may move fo~d with &e apphcati~ p~ess. Th~k yon again for yo~ time. A/ TO & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD 9th Floor GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: ($16) 227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-6367 SUITE 204 Aprilll,2007 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Southold Town Planning Department Attention: Mark Terry and Anthony Trezza P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southwold Manor, a proposed site plan (the "Site Plan") for an active adult retirement community to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York (the "Property"). Dear Mr. Terry and Mr. Trezza: Approximately two weeks ago we sent you a letter, dated March 29, 2007 (copy attached hereto), requesting a meeting with you and the Town Attorney to discuss yield calculation with respect to the Site Plan. We have not received a response and our follow-up telephone calls and messages have not been returned. Please let us know whether the Town Attorney will accommodate our request for a meeting so that we may move forward in the application process. We look forward to hearing from you. CC: Scott Russell, Town Supervisor Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney Albert & Rita Cohen Patricia Moore, Esq. Very truly yours, APR 1 6 2007 Southold Town AMATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. COUNSELORS AT LAW 6~6 OLD COUNTRY ROAD ~h Floor GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227-6363 SUITE 204 METUCHEN, NJ TEL: (7~2) 317-1511 FAX: (732) 317-1513 March 29, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Southold Town Planning Department Attention: Mark Terry and Anthony Trezza P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southwold Manor, a prop~'te plan (the "Site Plan") for an active adult retirement community to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York (the "Property") Dear Mr. Terry and Mr. Trezza: As a follow up to the Planning Board work session we attended this past Monday, it is our understanding that the Planning Board, in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning Department, has deemed the 24-1ot yield map that we submitted on March 16, 2007 to be acceptable, but there has not yet been a determination made with respect to the actual number of units that the Property may yield. If this is the case, we agree with your suggestion that it may be appropriate and productive to meet with you and the Town Attorney to discuss the proper yield calculation method. As we stated at the work session, our position is that the Town Code clearly states that two (2) units are permissible on each conforming lot in the HB District. Section 240~10(B)(2) of the Town Code provides that the permitted number of dwelling units for a property shall not exceed the number of UNITS that would be permitted if the land were subdivided into con formin_~,_LOTS. Sections 280-45(A) and (C) of the Town Code expressly permit single lots within the HB District to be improved with a one-family detached dwelling and an apartment. As the Town Code defines both uses as a "unit," it follows that a single conforming lot in the HB District may have two units on each- namely a house and an apartment. If two (2) units are permitted per lot, the permissible number of units for a conforming 24 lot subdivision in the HB District would be 48 (24 one-family detached dwellings and 24 apartments). We respectfully submit that no other analysis is supported by the Town Code. Notwithstanding the above analysis, we hope that we have made our intentions clear that we are not seeking any density beyond the 24 market-rate units depicted on the Site Plan. In fact, issues pertaining to proper yield calculation methods would be nothing more than academic, but for the fact that the Town is requiring us to also include three (3) affordable units. With that being said, as a condition of final approval for the Site Plan, as proposed (24 market-rate units and three (3) affordable units within the existing structure), we would certainly agree to file a covenant restricting the maximum number of units on the Property to 27. AMATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Please consider our position as outlined above and bear in mind that our proposed use is among the least intense of all the permissible uses on the Property. We hope that the Town Attorney will accommodate our request for a meeting so that we may move forward in the application process without delay. We look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, M. Read CC: Scott Russell, Town Supervisor Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney Albert & Rita Cohen Patricia Moore, Esq. 2 A/ TO & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW ~ OLD COUNTRY ROAD GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 SUITE 204 METUCHEN, NJ 08840 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Southold Town Planning Department Attention: Mark Terry and Anthony Trezza P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: March 29, 2007 Southwold Manor, a proposed site plan (the "Sil PPalf'Tt'0r an active adult retirement community to be located at 56655 Main Road, ~ld,,New-¥ork-(the "lN'615~i't~y~'' Dear Mr. Terry and Mr. Trezza: As a follow up to the Planning Board work session we attended this past Monday, it is our understanding that the Planning Board, in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning Department, has deemed the 24-1ot yield map that we submitted on March 16, 2007 to be acceptable, but there has not yet been a determination made with respect to the actual number of units that the Property may yield. If this is the case, we agree with your suggestion that it may be appropriate and productive to meet with you and the Town Attorney to discuss the proper yield calculation method. As we stated at the work session, our position is that the Town Code clearly states that two (2) units are permissible on each confornfing lot in the HB District. Section 240-10(B)(2) of the Town Code provides that the pemfitted number of dwelling units for a property shall not exceed the number of UNITS that would be permitted if the land were subdivided into conforming LOTS. Sections 280-45(A) and (C) of the Town Code expressly permit single lots within the HB District to be improved with a one-family detached dwelling and an apartment. As the Town Code defines both uses as a "unit," it follows that a single conforming lot in the HB District may have two units on each- namely a house and an apartment. If two (2) units are permitted per lot, the permissible number of units for a conforming 24 lot subdivision in the HB District would be 48 (24 one-family detached dwellings and 24 apartments). We respectfully submit that no other analysis is supported by the Town Code. Notwithstanding the above analysis, we hope that we have made our intentions clear that we are not seeking any density beyond the 24 market-rate units depicted on the Site Plan. In fact, issues pertaining to proper yield calculation methods would be nothing more than academic, but for the fact that the Town is requiring us to also include three (3) affordable units. With that being said, as a condition of final approval for the Site Plan, as proposed (24 market-rate units and three (3) affordable units within the existing structure), we would certainly agree to file a covenant restricting the maximum number of units on the Property to 27. ANIATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Please consider our position as outlined above and bear in mind that our proposed use is among the least intense of all the permissible uses on the Property. We hope that the Town Attorney will accommodate our request for a meeting so that we may move forward in the application process without delay. We look forward to hearing from you. CC: Scott Russell, Town Supervisor Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney Albert & Rita Cohen Patricia Moore, Esq. Very truly yours, Christopher M. Read PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 FACSIMILE To: Alfred Amato (fax 516.227.6367) Christopher Read From: Anthony Trezza, Sr. Planner Date: March 21, 2007 Re: Southxvold Manor The Planning Board is in receipt of your Yield Map for the above-referenced Residential Site Plan and has scheduled your application for the work session on Monday March 26, 2007 at 4:00pm. MAR 1 9 2007 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE Date: Name: Telephone: Mailing Address: SCTM# of site you are inquiring about: ~ Query: (Please be specific about the information you need. Provide supporting documentation - surveys, maps, sketches - where possible.) Planning Staff will attempt to respond as quickly as the workload permits. But, depending on the questions, and the research involved to answer them, please understand that it may be Several days before we can get back to you. For Office Use Only - Routed to: 5162270@@5; Mar-t6 07 5:45PM; Page 1/2 ~)AMATO & ASSOCIATES, P.C~ ATTOR,NEYS AT LAW 666 Old Country Road 9~ Flor Garde# City, New York 11S30 Facsimile Cover Sheet To: Anthony Trezza, $outhold Planning Department Fax#: (631) 765-3136 From: Christopher M. Read, Esq. Date: March 16, 2007 Re: Southwold Manor: 56655 Maia Road, $outhold, New York Total number of pages lacluding thi~ cover shee~: 2 if you do not receive all ~ae pages indicated above, plca~e call us back as ac~n as possible at 516-~27-6363 O URGENT E! FOR REVIEW ~l PLEASE COMMENT O PLEASE REPLY EIFYI NOTE: Please s~ correspondence transtnltted herewith. A TO & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW 9th Floor GARDF~ CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516} 217-6367 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAlL Southoid Town Planning Department Attention: Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Mar~.h 16,:2007 ©07 Re: Southwold Manor, a proposed site plan (the "Site Plan") for an active adult retirement community to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York (the "Property") Dear Mr. Trezza: As a follow up to my conversation with Amy Ford of your office this afternoon and pursuant to the "yield map" for the Property and the accompanying letter which was hand-delivered to the Southold Town Planning Department today, please continue processing the application (the "Application") for the Site Plan submitted by East End Development, LLC. in addition, I would like to reiterate my request that the Application be put on the agenda of the next work session of the Southold Town Planning Board (the "Planning Board"). As the Application is complete and the Applicant has been attempting to obtain Planning Board approval for the Site Plan for nearly five (5) years, I hope you can appreciate my client's desire to move forward without delay. Please call with any questions. I look forward to hearing from you shortly. Very truly yours, bxistopher M. Read CC: Scott Russell, Town Supervisor Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney Albert & Rita Cohen Patficia Moore, Esq. ffkTO & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 204 METUCHEN, NJ 08840 TEL: (731) 317-1511 FAX: (732) 317-1513 VIA HAND DELIVERY Southold Town Planning Department Attention: Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 March 16, 2007 Southwold Manor, a proposed site plan (the "Site Plan") for an active adult retirement community to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York (the "Property") Dear Mr. Trezza: Our client, East End Resources, LLC (the "Applicant"), has received your letter, dated January 16, 2007, which states that "... it has been determined that we cannot accept the yield of 27 units as proposed" and that "...a yield map needs to be prepared and submitted..." We disagree with the analysis and the conclusions drawn by the Planning Department (the "Planning Department") of the Town of Southold (the "Town") and believe that the site plan application (the "Application") submitted by the Applicant on November 16, 2006 is complete and complies, in every respect, with all applicable provisions of the Town Code (the "Code"). In addition, not only did the Applicant submit a "yield plan" as part of the Application (see sheet SP-2 of the plans submitted with the Application), issues pertaining to permissible yield have already been reviewed and determined by the Town Building Inspector (the "Building Inspector") and ratified by the Planning Department. PRE-SUBMISSION CONFERENCE/BUILDING INSPECTOR DETERMINATION To begin with, the issue of whether the number of units offered by the Site Plan exceeds the permissible yield of the Property has been duly contemplated and addressed by Michael Verity who, as the Building Inspector, is the officer with the authority to administer, enfome and determine compliance with the provisions of the Code. In addition, it should be noted that the Building Inspector and the Planning Department have been aware of the proposed density of the Site Plan since August 11, 2005, when, on behalf of the Applicant, Alfred Amato and I attended a pre-submission conference (the "Pre-Submission Conference") at the office of the Town Building Department and presented our proposed Site Plan to Michael Verity, Bruno Semon of the Planning Department and Robert Fisher, the Town Fire Marshall,. Under {}280-13 IA of the Code, the purpose of the Pre-Submission Conference is to discuss the proposed uses and development plan, "... in order for [the] Board to determine conformity with the provisions and intent of [Article XXIV (Site Plan Approval]" AMATO & ASSOCIATL , P.C. At the conclusion of the Pre-Submission Conference we submitted a preliminary site plan, bulk table (with a yield calculation), set of unit floor plans and a topographical survey map to the Planning Department so that a pre-application file could be opened. Based on the comments and recommendations of the Building Department, the Planning Department and the Fire Marshal at the Pre-Submission Conference, none of which pertained to density or yield, the Applicant revised the Site Plan by incorporating each and every comment and recommendations offered. Moreover, at the direction of the Planning Department and the Building Inspector, the Applicant submitted an application to the Town Building Department so that the Building Inspector could conduct an extensive review and issue a comprehensive building permit denial. After a formal review, a building permit denial (the "Building Permit Denial"), dated November 22, 2005, was issued in accordance with the provisions of§280-130A of the Code based solely on the need to obtain site plan approval from the Planning Board. In doing so, the Building Inspector confirmed that (a) the Site Plan complies with the applicable zoning provisions of the Code; and (b) the proposed yield of 27 units is within the yield limits applicable to the Property. In addition, the Code requires that the Planning Department provide its comments to the Building Inspector before a determination is issued. Indeed, {}280-130 of the Code provides that the Building Inspector must submit its written determination to the Planning Department for comment, whereby the Planning Department "must provide written comments on this determination to the Building Inspector within five business days, or be deemed to have waived the opportunity to comment." S(~.~, {}280-130 of the Code). It follows, therefore, that either the Planning Department has already formally reviewed the Site Plan and accepted the proposed yield or it has waived its rights to comment thereon. APPLICATION ACCEPTED Second, notwithstanding our stated position that the Code does not require site plan applications to include a "yield map" or the assertion that issues pertaining to yield and/or density were addressed and concluded with the issuance of the Building Permit Denial, the recent actions and inactions of the Planning Department have rendered this issue moot. Specifically, the Application was submitted to the Planning Department on November 16, 2006, but the Planning Department did not provide written notice of any alleged Application deficiencies until January 17, 2007 (and only in response to Applicant's written request for a status update). Section 280-131 of the Code states as follows: Within 10 days of receipt of the application, the Planning Board shall determine whether to accept, reject or request revision of the application. If the Planning Board determines said application to be acceptable but in need of revision, it shall notify the applicant, in writing, wherein said application is deficient within 30 calendar days." (See, {}280-131 B (1) and (2) of the Code) AMATO & ASSOCIATE , P.C. The Code provides that site plan applications must be processed in a timely fashion and also requires that an applicant be notified in writing of any deficiencies within 30 days of submission. However, 60 days elapsed before the Applicant received written notice that the Application needed to be supplemented with a "yield map." Further, not only did the Planning Board fail to timely notify Applicant of any deficiencies, the written notification alleging deficiencies was provided only in response to Applicant's written request for a status update which was sent to the Planning Department a month aRer such time period had expired. APPLICATION PROCESSED Notification issues aside, the site plan review procedures required by the Code and followed by the Planning Department confirm that the Application, as submitted, is complete and without deficiency. On January 17, 2007, the Applicant was notified by phone that the Application had been distributed to the Town Architectural Review Committee (the "ARC"), the Fire Commissioner, the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The Applicant was further informed that the matter had been placed on the ARC agenda for the next day's hearing. Section 280-131C of the Code states as follows: When the Planning Board determines said application to be acceptable, it shall, within 10 business days of such determination, distribute said application and documentation to the Town, county and state agencies having jurisdiction, for their comment. Such referral shall include a referral to the Architectural Review Committee. In addition, {}280-131F of the Code provides that "after [emphasis added] the Planning Board has determined that the proposed site plan is suitable for approval, it shall..." among other things, forward the plan to the Fire Conunissioner and submit the proposed site plan to the Suffolk County Planning Commission. In other words, the Code requires that the Planning Board must first determine that an application is suitable for approval before distributing same to such agencies. While the Applicant caimot precisely determine the dates that the Application was distributed to various agencies, it is clear that the Application was distributed to the following agencies, each of whom have responded to the Planning Department by providing their respective comments to the Application: (a) (b) (c) (d) Letter from the Southold Fire District/Board of Fire Commissioners to Planning Department, dated January 12, 2007 and received by the Planning Department on January 16, 2007; Letter from the Suffolk County Planning Commission, dated January 9, 2007 and received by the Planning Department on January 12, 2007; Letter from the Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission, dated January 10, 2007 and received by the Planning Department on January 19, 2007; and Letter from the Suffolk County Water Authority, dated January 29, 2007 and received by the Planning Department on January 31, 2007. _.~vlATO & ASSOCIATE~, P.C. It is noteworthy that three (3) of the above-referenced agencies provided the Planning Department with their comments to the Application before the Planning Department provided Applicant with written notice of the alleged Application deficiencies. The order of events outlined in {}280-131 of the Code is the only logical course of action for an efficient application process, as it would be a waste of time and resources to have various mtmicipal agencies review and comment on a site plan which has not yet been deemed acceptable to the Planning Department. With respect to the Applicant, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to respond to the comments of such agencies without first knowing whether basic issues pertaining to yield and, therefore, site design and layout have been resolved. For the foregoing reasons, from a legal standpoint, the Applicant's position is that the Application is complete, without deficiency and in full compliance with the density and yield requirements and restrictions of the Code. In addition, and notwithstanding such compliance, the Planning Department and the Planning Board have missed and, therefore, waived any opportunity to comment on issues pertaining to permissible density and yield at the Property. Accordingly, we ask that you kindly continue processing the Application. PERMISSIBLE YIELD OF 48 UNITS However, in the alternative, and without waiving any rights or acquiescing to any legal opinion other than as set forth above, for the sake of moving the Application process forward, submitted herewith are nine (9) architect stamped "yield maps" for the Properly. Notwithstanding the analysis set forth above, the enclosed yield maps confirm that the maximum unit yield of the Property far exceeds the number of units proposed by the Application. The enclosed yield maps depict 24 conforming lots and, therefore, establish a total yield of 48 units on the Property. Section 280-137A(5) of the Code provides that the Planning Board's review of the application and plans with respect to residential site plans shall include their compliance with the requirements of the allowable density of dwelling units as calculated using the yield plan criteria for standard subdivisions set forth in {}240-10B(2)of the Code. Section 240-10B(2) of the Code provides as follows: the permitted number of dwelling units shall not exceed the number of units [emphasis added] that, in the Planning Board's judgment, would be permitted if the land were subdivided into lots conforming to the minimum lot size and density requirements of this chapter applicable to the zoning district (or districts) in which such land is situated and conforming to all other requirements of the Town Code. Using such criteria, the enclosed yield maps demonstrate that the Property may be subdivided into 24 lots which conform, in all respects, to the minimum lot size and density requirements of the Hamlet Business ("HB") District, including, without limitation, requirements pertaining to lot size, lot width, lot 4 AMATO & ASSOCIATE{ , P.C. area, right-of-way width, road length and cul-de-sacs) In order to determine the permitted number of dwelling units that may be offered on a site plan of the Property, {}240-10 B(2) of the Code provides that the number of dwelling units shall not exceed the number of units that would be permitted if the land were subdivided into conforming lots. Accordingly, the number of permitted units per lot must be determined in order to calculate permissible yield. Section 280-45A of the Code expressly permits the use of one-family detached dwellings in the HB District and {}280-45C of the Code expressly permits, as an accessory use,2 apartments3 in the HB District. Accordingly, as one-family detached dwellings and apartments are both permissible dwelling units which may co-exist on a single lot in the HB District, the number of units that would be permissible on a 24 lot subdivision in the HB District is 48 units (24 one-family detached dwellings and 24 apartments). Therefore, the proposed 27 unit density of the Site Plan is well below the permissible yield of 48 units on the Property. Please supplement the record with this letter and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. CC: Veers, Christopher M. Read Scott Russell, Town Supervisor ~t./'~fi-~., e I. Patricia Finnegan, Town At~o~mey ,--/o,/-t~,n~ /. Albert & Rita Cohen w-/,,, /:- ~'. ~. Patricia Moore, Esq. &/~-'P 4'~-~ t/. ~ It should be noted that while the Site Plan offers an entrance driveway, identified as "Manor Drive" on the Site Plan, which shall remain a private driveway, the right-of-way depicted on the eric osed yield map compl es w th the 50 foot vad requirements of a dedicated street. Section 280-4 of the Town Code (Definitions), defines accessory use as 'use customarily ~nmdental and subordinate to e main use on a or, whether such accessory use ~s conducted ~n a pnnclpal or accessory bu td g. 3 Section 280-4 of the Town Code (Definitions), defines "apartment" as "an antirely self-contained dwelling unit consisting of a minimum of 450 square feet of living area containing complete housekeeping facilities for only one family, including any domestic servants employed on the premises and having no enclosed space other than vestibules, entrance hallways or porches, or cooking or sanitary facilities in common with any other dwelling unit and/or apartment." A TO & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW 9th Floor VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Southold Town Planning Department Attention: Anthony Trczza, Senior Planner P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York ! 1971 402 MAIN ST. SUITE 204 February 23, 2007 Re: Southwold Manor, a proposed site plan (the "Site Plan') for an active adult retirement community to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New. York... (the. "Proper~b~'.').. Dear Mr. Trezza: With respect to the work session of the Southold Town Planning Board (the "Planning Board") held at Town Hall on Monday, February 5, 2007, and in connection with the proposed site plan (the "Site Plan") of the Property submitted by East End Resources, LLC (the "Applicant"), set forth as follows is the Applicant's formal response to the official comments submitted to the Southold Town Planning Department (the "Planning Department") by the Southold Fire District, the Suffolk County Planning Commission (the "Commission"), The Suffolk County Water Authority (the "SCWA") and the Town Landmark Preservation Commission ("Landmark Preservation"). 1. Town Fire Marshall. With respect to the comments formally submitted to the Planning Department by the Southold Fire District, the applicant finds such comments to be acceptable in all respects. Please note that prior to submitting the site plan application, the applicant met with the Town Fire Marshall, Robert Fisher, and incorporated all of Mr. Fisher's comments into the Site Plan, as proposed. For instance, while the entrance driveway, identified as "Manor Drive" on the Site Plan, shall remain a private driveway, the paved portion complies with the 24' width requirements of a dedicated street. In addition, while the Southold Town Code (the "Code") would require the Site Plan to provide no less than 61 parking spaces, to ensure that such driveway remains unobstructed at all times, the Site Plan offers 94 parking spaces, none of which are located on Manor Drive. Finally, the applicant has no objection to relocating to propose fire hydrant to the location suggested by Southold Fire District. 2. Suffolk County Planning Commission. We are pleased that the Commission correctly considers the application to be a matter for local determination and will respond to each of their comments separately and as follows. a. Use Incompatibility. With respect to issues of compatibility between the proposed use at the Property and the boat storage facility to the west of the Property, we believe that while such uses are dissimilar, both uses are expressly permitted in the Hamlet District by the Town Code and, therefore, it is apparent that such compatibility issues were considered and addressed by the Town when the zoning ordinance was drafted. In addition, the uses to the east of the Property appear to be predominantly residential. Accordingly, we believe that Applicant's proposal is AMATO & ASSOCIATE , P.C. consistent and compatible with the existing uses of the surrounding area. b. Parking and Driveways. With respect to "Manor Drive," it appears that the Commission is presuming that this private driveway is or will be a "street." Their comments reference a 35fi. fight-of-way and future dedication to the Town. However, as Manor Drive will remain a private driveway in perpetuity, a discussion of a fight-of-ways and future dedication is not applicable or appropriate. Section 280-4 of the Town Code, defines "right-of-way lines" as "the boundary lines of land used or intended for use as streets, as shown on deeds, plats or the master plan, and from which yard and other requirements shall be measured." Section 2804 of the Town Code, defines "street" as "a street, improved to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, which is one of the following (1) an existing town, county or state highway or street; (2) a street shown on an approved subdivision final plat; (3) a street shown on a map filed with the County Clerk prior to Planning Board authorization to review subdivisions; and (4) a street shown on the Town Official Map." Under the applicable definitions provided in the Town Code, Manor Drive is not and cannot be construed as being a "street" and it is not bounded by "right. of-way lines." Manor Drive is simply a private driveway which has been designed to meet the safety regulations of the Town Code and address all issues raised by the Town Fire Marshall which is why its width conforms to the requirements applicable to public streets in the Hamlet Business District. In addition, to ensure that such driveway remains unobstructed at all times, the Site Plan offers parking which exceeds the parking requirements of the Town Code by mom than 30 parking spaces, none of which are located on or within Manor Drive. Accordingly, with the guidance of the Fire Marshall, the Commission's comments regarding parking and obstruction have been addressed. c. Affordable Housing. The affordable housing issue has been considered by the Town and addressed in recent amendments to the Town Code. The Site Plan, as proposed, provides three (3) MIFDUS which represent more than 10% of the entire yield and complies in all respects with the affordable housing requirements of the Town Code, subject to buy-out requirements. 3. Suffolk County Water Authority. We are please to have the SCWA confirm that the Site Plan will have "no appreciable impacts on groundwater quality..." 4. Landmark Preservation Commission. Landmark Preservation has indicated a desire to see the existing structure on the Property preserved, and we would like the record to reflect the Applicant's personal desire to see the historic nature of the Town preserved for future generations. Accordingly, the Site Plan has been designed to satisfy a variety of often competing interests while maintaining a viable, yet modest, economic interest for the developer. Specifically, the Site Plan has been designed with the following four goals in mind: (i) to provide much needed housing for the Town's active adults and seniors; (ii) to provide desirable and attractive affordable housing; (iii) to construct new buildings and a small community which reflect the traditional and historic architecture and flavor of the Town; and (iv) to preserve the exterior of a lovely home. However, the margin of error in maintaining the balance between offering such community benefits while preserving the economic viability of the project is thin. Therefore, it is important to note 2 AMATO & ASSOCIATe, P.C. that retrofitting affordable units within the existing structure while preserving the exterior of existing structure is a benefit wrought with additional costs that would far exceed the costs of replacing the existing structure with a new building to house the required affordable units. The Applicant is planning to preserve and gently renovate the exterior of the existing house (other then the rear) in order to provide aesthetically pleasing affordable units within a traditional design. However, any reduction in yield would require cost cutting measures which would significantly compromise the applicant's stated goals. Please supplement the record with this letter and let me know if you have any questions. CC: Scott Russell, Town Supervisor Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney Albert & Rita Cohen Patricia Moore, Esq. Very~ours, A TO & ASSOCIATES, COUNSELORS AT LAW 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD 9~h Floor GARDF~N CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 22%6363 FAX: (516) 227-6367 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Southold Town Planning Department Attention: Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 SUITE 204 METIJCHEN, NJ ~0 F~: (732) 317-1513 :'.~ Febm~23,. 2007 ' ,~ Re: Southwold Manor, a proposed active adult retirement condominium community to_be ..... located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York ¢h6~;~operty'') Dear Mr. Trezza: ~'~'~ ~ As you know a site plan application submitted by East End Resources, LLC was reviewed for the second time by the Southold Town Architectural Review Committee (the "ARC") at a public hearing held last month on Thursday, January 18, 2007. We represent East End Resources, LLC and are submitting this letter to supplement the recommendations and opinions that the ARC may offer in connection with such hearing. The first public ARC hearing was conducted on July 13, 2006 at the request of the applicant so that any ARC comments pertaining to building footprints could be considered and incorporated prior to finalizing the proposed site plan. More than two weeks prior to the first hearing, the ARC was provided with detailed designs and three-dimensional color depictions of the two separate building designs offered in connection with the site plan (a color copy of which was also provided). The hearing was well attended and the applicant was accompanied and represented by its legal counsel, architect, and builder. All questions and comments raised by the ARC were comprehensively addressed while the proposed site plan and building designs were discussed for more than half an hour. The plans and elevations were extremely well received by the ARC. In fact, prior to adjournment, a committeeperson stressed that the designs were "lovely." When asked whether the word "lovely" was an official summation of the entire ARC's position to be set forth in the record, the ARC's answer was a unanimous "yes." In due course, and, most importantly, in reliance on the ARC's unanimous praise of the proposed building designs, the applicant finalized its proposed site plan using such building designs and submitted same to the Southold Town Planning Department (the "Planning Department") on November 16, 2006. Late in the afternoon on Wednesday, JanuaEr 17, 2007, the Planning Department notified us that our application would be reviewed again by the ARC on the following day in accordance with standard application procedures. Due to the extremely short notice, neither the applicant, nor the applicant's architect or builder would be available to attend the hearing. However, because of the comprehensive discussion at the first ARC hearing and the fact that there were no changes to the designs and no holdover issues since the first hearing, I attended the hearing alone, assuming that if any expertise was required that such hearing could be adjourned until such time that applicant's builder and/or architect could appear, as is customarily given by municipal boards and committees throughout Long Island. Before providing a narrative of what transpired at this recent ARC hearing, I would like to stress AN ATO & ASSOCIATE , P.C. that the Code of the Town of Southold (the "Code") is clear with respect to the architectural review standards which guide the ARC. Specifically, the ARC must focus on standards pertaining to (a) diversity of design elements with respect to surrounding structures; (b) visual discord or dissimilarity with respect to surrounding structures; and (c) the visual appearance and qualities of exterior design. (See, {}280-134 of the Code). However, during the JanuaIy 18th public hearing, the ARC acted in a manner inconsistent with and beyond the scope of the architectural review standards set forth in the Code. In fact, much of the hearing was devoted to discussions pertaining to driveway layouts, the benefits of a second traffic circle on the site, the location of several garage doors, and a concern that noise from the amenities area may be audible from the units. It should be noted that all of these issues pertain to site plan design, including the garage door recommendation which was rooted not in exterior aesthetics, but rather driveway functionality. When the ARC was respectfully reminded that such comments were not within the review standards set by the Code, the ARC was not persuaded, however, it did turn its focus to the design of the buildings which, again, remained unchanged since the July 13th ARC hearing. While various members of the ARC commented that the designs, as proposed, were "fine," "consistent with the historic nature of the Town," and "pretty," at one point late in the discussion, a certain committeeperson was struck with the notion to "move" the central unit of each building (approximately 1/3 of each building) so that individual units could be afforded greater separation and privacy, in addition, it was stressed that this new "courtyard" design may allow additional light into the interiors of each unit. When presented with this suggestion to dramatically redesign the footprints of the buildings and, therefore, the site plan, the ARC was reminded that the applicant had merely 24 hours notice of this hearing and an adjournment was requested until such time that applicant's architect and builder could be present to address the suggestion to redesign the buildings. I The adjournment request was denied without a vote and one committeeperson responded that that he "does not need another architect to tell him about good design." With the adjournment request denied, the ARC was respectfully reminded that a recommendation to significantly and structurally redesign a building for the sake of enhancing interior trait privacy or to increase interior light was beyond the review standards set by the Code. The ARC was further reminded that (a) the applicant had already presented such designs to the ARC at the first hearing for the sole purpose of solidifying the basic architectural design of the buildings (footprints) so that applicant's architect, site plan engineers and sanitary engineers could finalize the site plan with established footprints; and (b) the Site Plan was engineered and finalized in reliance on the unanimous praise of the ARC for the proposed building designs at the first hearing. To say the least, it was profoundly disappointing to hear one committeeperson dismiss the importance or relevance of pre-submission hearings as unofficial and mere casual courtesies extended to those who want some free advice from the ARC. It should be noted that such committeeperson was the one who introduced the idea of re-designing the buildings and was, I believe, the only committeeperson not present at the July 13th hearing where a combined 70 years of east end building and design experience was respectfully and professionally exhibited by the applicant's architect and builder, who, since 1970, together have built and designed more than 400 homes on the east end of Long Island and Shelter Island. 1 do not 1 Please note that the applicant's architect is on vacation, but upon his return will provide a written response to the recommendations and opinions offered by the ARC, namely that such redesign recommendations would create a campus-like effect of units and courtyards while virtually abolishing the intended site plan concept of providing condominium units which are discretely nestled within buildings that are designed to appear as single-family traditional East End "Manor-Style" homes. 2 A/VL&TO & ASSOCIATE~, P.C. believe it to be coincidental that such dramatic and off-the-cuff design changes were raised only when the architect of record and the applicant's builder were not present to discuss such suggestions. Further, notwithstanding the ARC's ventures beyond the jurisdiction established by the Code, the January 18th hearing suffered from a stunning lack of order or procedure which culminated when the vote to determine what the ARC would recommend to the Planning Department was held BEFORE the actual recommendation was finalized. Specifically, with respect to the recommendation that 1/3 of the building be significantly repositioned, at the time the vote was taken there was only a vague notion that it may be preferable for purposes of enhancing interior unit privacy and increasing interior light if the middle unit of each building was shifted towards the rear. After the vote was taken and tallied, three committee persons then discussed the extent to which structural changes should be made until they decided that the middle of the building (middle units) should be moved 10 to 12 feet in relation to the end portions (end units) of the buildings. My request for a re-vote based on the final wording of the recommendation was denied (such denial was issued without a vote). In light of the foregoing, we hereby object to the procedures exercised by the ARC, and take particular exception to the ARC's denial of an adjournment request (denial without a vote) and the unorthodox procedure of voting on an issue prior to establishing the substance or the specifics of the particular issue. In addition, we believe that the recommendations offered by the ARC are beyond the scope of the ARC, as established by the amhitectural review standards set forth in {}280-134 of the Code. For these reasons, we believe that any and all recommendations, comments and opinions provided to the Planning Department by the ARC in connection with the January 18th hearing be stricken from the record and disregarded by the Planning Department. CC: Scott Russell, Town Supervisor Patricia Fiunegan, Town Attorney Very truly yours, Alfred L. Amato, Esq., East End Resources, LLC Keith P. Brown, Esq. Richard S. Keenan, Esq. Mark Michaels, Architect Peter S. Read, Read Custom Homes, Inc. Albert & Rita Cohen Patricia Moore, Esq. 3 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L~ EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND February 7, 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. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Mr. Alfred L. Amato East End Resources, LLC 666 Old Country Road Garden City, New York 11530 Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM #: 1000-63-3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Business (HB) DearMr. Amato: As per the work session on Monday, Febmary 5, 2007, the Planning Board is in receipt of comments from Suffolk County Water Authority. Please find a copy enclosed for your information. Please do not hesitate to contact this office should you have any questions or need anything further. Sincerely, Senior Planner Enc: Correspondence from Suffolk County Water Authority dated January 29, 2007 Cc: Planning Board Members (w/o enc.) File Timothy J. Hopkins General Counsel SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769-0901 (631) 563-0236 Fax (631) 563-0370 Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Planning Board Office Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 January29,2007 : 2007 Re: Southwold Manor Site Plan Application, SCTM# 1'000--63'-3~-'1'5 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Site Plan application for the above referenced project. In the SCWA review of this project as submitted, our agency found no appreciable impacts on groundwater quality that would affect our operations. However, in keeping with the SCWA's mission of protecting and conserving the Town of Southold's water supply and to reiterate the findings of the environmental review for the SCWA's Water Supply Plan, the SCWA encourages the proposed project include limits on the amount of fertilizer dependent vegetation maintained on site as well as the need for automatic irrigation systems. Kindly forward all future SEQRA coordination applications, EAF's, DEIS's and FEIS's to my attention at 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769. Thank you. Very truly yours, 'mberly re ed J -1 Assistant to General Counsel PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 February 2, 2007 Mr. Alfred L. Amato East End Resources, LLC 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM #: 1000-63-3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Business (HB) Dear Mr. Amato: The Planning Board is in receipt of you letter dated January 15, 2007 regarding the processing of you site plan apphcation for the above-referenced property. Be advised that the Planning Board sent a letter dated January 16, 2007 indicating that a yield map is needed for this proposal as required pursuant to Section 240- 10B(2) of the Town Code. As a reminder, issues regarding parcel yield were discussed with you on numerous occasions beginning with our pre-submission conference on May 30, 2006. As a courtesy, the Planning Board is continuing to review this application with the expectation that the yield map is forthcoming. Please let us know if you would prefer the Planning Board to suspend its review while you prepare the yield map for submission. Your application xvas referred to all involved agencies on January 2, 2007 and is currently scheduled for the Planning Board's xvork session on February 5, 2007 to discuss the comments we have received to date. A letter was sent to you on January 30, 2007 in this regard. If there are an), questions you can contact us at (631) 765-1938 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 Res.pe~ct fuCk'°ur~, Cc: Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector ;3~r~]: By; A~A D&A,::,80~.A E8~ 5162270865; Feb 1-07 8:32PM; EAST END RESOURCES, LLC 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD SoI~ ~01 GARDEN CITY, lggW YORK 11~30 'I'F..,L; (516) ~37-63~3 Page 2/2 February!, 2007 VIA I:ACIMILE Southold Town Pl~uahag Depaalnmnt Altantion: Amy Thiel, Senior Planner P.O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southwo;d Mane% a site plan (the "Site Plan"), application to the Southold Town {the "Town") Plamdng Depamnem (the "Planning Deparlm~t") for an active adult condominium community located at 56655 Main Road. Southold (the "P~ope~ty") Dear Mrs. Thie{: We r~cived your written notification that our Site Plan application has be~n placed on the agenda of the Town Planning Board (Ole "Plalming Board") work ;ession r, ohedul~,x{ ['or Monday, February 5, 2007, It is our understanding that thc Planning Board will be discussing th~ submitted comments of the Landmark P~eservation Commission, the Town Fire Marahal and tho Suffolk Cottuty Planning Department. Thank you for ptoviding such notification. We plan on attending the work sassion. Regarding issues pertaining to pcnnniS$ible yield and prope~ calculation methods, we will submit oar questions and provide ou~ interpretation and legal analysis in writing, We look forward to s~ing you on Mondsy. CC: Alber~ & Rig Cohen Patricia Moore, E~q. FEB - 2 2007 SouthoJd Town Pl~nnini Board ,~r~ r-.y; A,~,,;-O&AS~J2,[A"E.,~; 5162270@@5; Feb 7-07 8:32F~t; Page 1/2 EAST END RESOURCES, LLC 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GARDEN crrY, NEW YOP. K Facsimile Cover Sheet To: From: Date: Re: Fax#: (631) 765-3136 Amy Thiel Alfred L, Amato FebruatT 1, 2007 Southwold Manor: 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York Total number of pages including this cover sheet: 2 If you do not receive all th~ page~ indicated above, plcas~ carl us back as soon as possible at 516-227-6363 URGENT ~1 FOR REVIEW El PLEASE COMMENT {~ PLEASE REPLY ~FYI NOTE: SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Timothy J. Hopkins General Counsel Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769-0901 (631) 563-0236 Fax (631) 563-0370 Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Planning Board Office Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 January 29, 2007 Re: Southwold Manor Site Plan Application, SCTM# 1'000~63~-3q 5 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Site Plan application for the above referenced project. In the SCWA review of this project as submitted, our agency found no appreciable impacts on groundwater quality that would affect our operations. However, in keeping with the SCWA's mission of protecting and conserving the Town of Southold's water supply and to reiterate the findings of the environmental review for the SCWA's Water Supply Plan, the SCWA encourages the proposed project include limits on the amount of fertilizer dependent vegetation maintained on site as well as the need for automatic irrigation systems. Kindly ferward ah future SEQRA coordination applications, EAF s, ,-,~,IS s and FE,S s to my attention at 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769. Thank you. Very truly yours, I~mberly KennedyJ ~ Assistant to General Counsel TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES JI~,~ 3 ~ ?.OD7 ~ JANUARY 18, 2007 4:00 p.m. Town Hall Meeting Hall Present were: Councilman Tom Wickham, Co-Chairmen Sanford Hanauer and~,Ur~il Talgat, members Herb Ernst, Ran McGreevy, Skip Lee, Ronald McGreevy, Nicholas Planamento, Elizabeth Thompson, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Bruno Semon, Senior Planner Amy Ford, ARC Secretary Linda Randolph, and Southwold Manor project rep attorney Chris Reed. Minutes of the December 14, 2006 meeting were approved with changes noted. New Applications: · Southwold Manor SCTM: 1000-63-3-15 (1) In a typical 3-unit cluster, it was recommended that the center unit be shifted to project 10-12' to the rear to afford more privacy to the two end units. Vote: 5 yes, 2 no. (2) It was recommended that the individual driveways for the south clusters have one common driveway off the main NS interior spine, with individual spurs leading to each unit. All in favor. (3a) It was suggested that the clubhouse, pool and paddle tennis court be rearranged similar to the first submission. (3b) The Committee requested that colors, lighting and exterior materials be shown on the site plan. (3c) Committee requested plans and elevations of the Clubhouse. All in favor. Revisited Applications: · Brecknock Hall/Peconic Landing SCTM: 1000-35-1-25 Committee requests additional items incorporated into site plan: shade trees around parking area, apt. access from parking area, location and type of screening of utilities, generator and dumpster, detail of handicap ramp. Suggestions: overflow parking & parking on north side should be lawn area (not gravel) with some form of definition (e.g. signage) and fresh paint on all trim and woodwork of existing building. Councilman Wickham suggested that the ARC set up a meeting with the Planning Board regarding the Committee's 11/15/06 memo "Winery Recommendations." The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 30, 2007 Mr. Alfred L. Amato East End Resources, LLC 666 Old CountryRoad Garden City, New York 11530 Residential Site Plan for Southwold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM #: 1000-63-3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Business (IDB) Dear Mr. Amato: As per the work session on Monday, January 29, 2007, the Planning Board is in receipt of comments from Southold Fire District, Suffolk County Planning Department and Landmark Preservation Commission. Enclosed please find copies for your information. Please allow this letter to serve as notice that these comments will be discussed bythe Planning Board and staff at the next scheduled work session on Monday, February 5, 2007. Please notify this office if you plan to attend. In addition, as per our conversation yesterday with Kieran Corcomn, please submit, in writing, any questions you have regarding the creation of a yield map so that this Department may assist in resolving your questions and facilitate the completion of this necessary step in the review process. Please do not hesitate to contact this office should you have any questions or need anything further. Senior Planner Enc: Recommendations from Southold Fire District dated January I2, 2007 Comments from Suffolk County Planning Department dated January 9, 2007 Memorandum Landmark Preservation Commission dated January 10, 2007 Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney (w/o enc.) Kieran Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney (w/o enc.) Michael J. Verity, Chief Building Inspector (w/o enc.) Planning Board Members (w/o enc.) File EAST END 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 RESOURCES, J LC TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-0880 January26,2007 VIA FACIMILE and OVERNIGHT COURIER Southold Town Planning Department Attention: Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southwold Manor, a site plan (the "Site Plan") application to the Southold Town (the "Town") Planning Department (the "Planning Department") for an active adult condominium community located at 56655 Main Road, Southold (the "Property") Dear Mr. Trezza: Our office was notified today that our Site Plan application has been placed on the agenda of the Town Planning Board (the "Planning Board") work session on Monday, January 29, 2007. We were informed that the Planning Department would be presenting to the Planning Board the reports, recommendations, comments and suggestions of certain Town and Suffolk County agents and agencies, including Landmark Preservation, the Town Fire Marshal and the Suffolk County Planning Commission. We believe that one (1) business day's notice of a public hearing or work session is unreasonable and allows insufficient time to adequately prepare. While we would prefer to adjourn the meeting in order to consult with our experts and review the reports, recommendations, comments and suggestions to be presented, we were dismayed to hear that our request for such reports, recommendations, comments or suggestions was denied even though such documents are currently in the possession of the Planning Department. In light of the unexpected denial, adjourning the heating will only further delay the application process. Accordingly, we will attend the work session. However, we would also like to remind the Planning Department that this is second time in less than a month that we have been provided with one (1) business day's notice ora public hearing or work session for our Site Plan application. The first instance occurred late in the day on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 when the Planning Department telephoned to tell us that our application would be reviewed on the following day at a heating of the Town Architectural Review Committee. Due to such short notice, neither the applicant, nor the applicant's architect or builder was available to attend such heating. Moving forward, we respectfully request that you provide us with reasonable and sufficient notice so that we may appear with experts and offer a professional presentation in a manner consistent with the seriousness of our proposal and worthy the boards and agencies to which we may be addressing. In addition, when any such hearings or work sessions are the subject of reports, recommendations, comments or suggestions of other agencies or professionals, we hereby request that a copy of such reports, recommendations, comments or suggestions be provided to us prior to such hearing so that we may offer a fully informed presentation. CC: Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney Albert & Rita Cohen Patricia Moore, Esq. Very 51~2270885 EAST ]~A X ', (SI&) VIA FACIMILE So~thold T~wn At~tion: ~any Trez=, ~nior Pla~n~ P.O, Box Soulhold, New Yor.< 11971 Jan-28 07 7:10P~; Pa~e 2/2 )URCES, LLC RY ROAD SOathw, old Manor, a slt¢ pl~ ~ (me Stt~ Plan ) appltcaUon to thc ;SouthoId '1 own (the "Town ') Planning Dep~ 4t (the "P~uming Depafu'ncnt") for an acute adult ,,, ,;ondorninitm~. ¢ommurd~' !~ tted at 5~655~ Main Road, Southold (the Property ) Dear ~Lr. Om t, ffiee was notified tod~y that Town ?!amfing Bc, a~d (t~ "P]~ B~ inf~n~ that the Pla~i~ Dep~t ~ recommcn~tia~, co~en~ and including Land~k P~c~*t ~, the %% ~lieve that one (1) and allows mmffici~t time to adequately t to consult with cur experts and review t~ presenl~, we superiors wa~ denied Depm~'a~t. lc light of~¢ unexpe¢~ a~heation process, koeord~gly, w= will Nowc~,'er, wa wo'dld alao like thaa a month that we have been session ~br UUl Site Plat 2007 when the Pt~n~g Depament tek follo;fiag day at a he~g oft~5 LEe applicant, no~ ~ applicant s ~chi~t Moving forward, wc respectfully r so that we ma) seriousness of our proposM and woctbv th~ addition, when any ~;lch hearings or work or suggestions of other a recommendations gaily inlbrmed prcscmetion. Pa~cia Finne~n, Town Al{~t & Rite Cohen P~tricia Moo~, Esq. CC: Site pl~ ~plication h~ b~'n placed on the ag~a~ of the work $e:~ion on Monday, January 29, 2~7. We w~e ~ M~ md thc Sutlblk Co~ Pt~in$ Cemnfi~sion, f a public h~g or work ~mon ~ u~ea~nable ~of~ lo adjourn ~* ~t~g ~ ord~ eonments ~d su~estions ro ~ ~om, mco~ffi~tions, co~ents or g · ¢ h*~ng will oMy ~er d~lay ~e : ~ssion, Department that thia is a¢concl time in les5 t one (I) ~usine~s day'~ notice of a pubic heating ~ work day ~ W~es~y, J~ 17, t~licafioa would ~ re~ on the ~e to ~eh s~ notice, nettler av~lable ~ ~end ~ch h~ng. ~ rea~nabl~ ~d su~cient notice ~tioa ~ a ~n~er eonsist~t wi~ ~e ~¢ncies to wM~ we may be ~essing. M ~o~n~tin~ r of such ~o us prior to such h~ng so ~at we may off~ u East To: ]~rom: Date: Re: Anthony Trezza, Senior [ Alt?ed L. Arratto January 26, 2007 56655 Main Road SCTM: Dist.: 1000, Sect Total number of pages If you do no! rect.qve al/the page~ []ERGENT El FORREVIEW NOTE: Please see correspondence t Jan-26 07 7;1OPM; Road ,1 York 11530 Sheet Fax#: (631) 765-3136 Lot 15 2 sooa as po$,qible at 516-227-6363 {~ PLEASE REPLY Page 1/2 ~ FY~ EAST END RESOURCES, LC 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-0880 -:'~ January 15, 2007 VIA CERTIFIED MAlL Soutbold Town Planning Department Attention: Mark Terry, Planner P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Dear Mr. Terry: On November 16, 2006 we submitted a complete site plan application to the planning department in connection with our proposed development of the above-referenced Property. Our application was received by the Southold Town Planning Department on such submission date and we were provided with a stamped "Received" copy of the submission cover letter (copy attached hereto). Please note that the Section 280-131 of the Code of the Town of Southold states in relevant part the following: "Within 10 days of receipt of the application, the Planning Board shall determine whether to accept, reject or request revision of the application." (See, {}280-131 B (1) of the Town Code); and "If the Planning Board determines said application to be acceptable but in need of revision, it shall notify the applicant, in writing, wherein said application is deficient within 30 calendar days." (See, {}280-131 B (2) of the Town Code). As 60 days have past since the date of submission without spoken or written word from any Planning Department staff or board member, we assume that there are no deficiencies with our application as submitted. Please let me know when our proposal was submitted to other Town, County and State agencies having jurisdiction over our application so that we may be prepared to cooperate and provide any information that may be requested by such other municipal agencies. We look forward working with you during the next phase of the application process. Enclosures CC: Scott Russell, Town Supervisor (w/out encl) Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney (w/out encl) Albert & Rita Cohen (w/out encl) Patricia Moore, Esq. (w/out encl) Southwold Manor, a proposed active adult retirement condonnifium community to be , ' ........ located at 56655 Main Road Southold, New York and identified on ttte'gi~ffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 63, Block 3, Lot 15 (the ':Property") EAST END RESOURCES, LLC 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516)227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-0880 November 15, 2006 VIA HAND DELIVERY Southold Town Planning Department Attention: Mark Terry, Planner P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Dear Mr. Terry: Southwold Manor, a proposed active adult retirement condominium community to be located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York and identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as Disthct 1000, Section 63, Block 3, Lot 15 (the "Property") Enclosed herewith is a site plan application pertaining to our proposed development of the above- referenced Property. In accordance with the submission requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, the following items are herewith provided: 1. One (1) complete and fully executed Site Plan Application; 2. Application Fee and Calculation Formula, including a check made payable to the Town of Southold in the amount of $12,807.40; 3. One (1) complete and fully executed Applicant's Affidavit; 4. One (1) complete and fully executed Agent Authorization; 5. One (1) complete and fully executed Full Environmental Assessment Form; 6. One (1) complete and fully executed LWRP Consistency Assessment Form; 7. Nine (9) full-set copies of Site Development Plan (stamped and sealed by NYS Licensed Engineer), each including the following: a. Bulk Table and Yield Plan; b. Existing Resoumes and Site Analysis Plan (ERSAP); c. Alignment Plan; d. Grading and Drainage Plan (with calculations) e. Utility Plan; f. Landscape and Imgation Plan; g. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; and h. Site Plan Construction Details. 8. Four (4) topographical survey maps (stamped and sealed by NYS Licensed Surveyor); 9. Architectural Review Materials including the following: a. Nine (9) sets of color renditions of proposed townhouse exterior elevations; b. Nine (9) sets of Construction Plans with elevation details and depictions of roofing and siding materials for each of the proposed townhouse building types; and c. Copy of Agenda of the Town of Southold Architectural Review Committee ("ARC") 1 for the preliminary hearing dated July 13, 2006, at which the ARC unanimously praised our proposed plans and elevations. 10. Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department of the Town of Southold; 11. One Copy of Resolution No. 33-2006 from the Suffolk County Sewer Agency granting "Conceptual Certification" for our proposed on-site sewage treatment plant. 12. One (1) copy of a Utility (gas and electric) Availability Letter pertaining to the Property from Keyspan; 13. One (1) copy of a Water.Availability Letter pertaining to the Property from the Suffolk County Water Authority; and 14. One (1) Copy of professional traffic engineering evaluation prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C. which concludes that our proposed development of the Property will have "minimal to imperceptible impact on the safety and operation of the roadway facilities." Please process the enclosed application and call us if you have any questions or require additional information. We look forward to working with you. Enclosures Very tmly yours, CC: Christopher M. Read Albert & Rita Cohen Patricia Moore, Esq. Receipt with enclosures hereby acknowledged this day of November, 2006 NOV 16 2006 2 G,~.:-,:D~N , r~, NY 11550 PAX(' TO DIE OnDEROF ~c,,.,.~ c,_£S~uLltoid_ J $ *'12,807.40 Town u¢Sotthc h{ F'~T,"' EHD R, ESOUR,C;E$, EL.C, Fi!m,¢ Fee Sou hold Pro:ect J Site !'iai~ App!ivafion Fo,: 1 t/l :;/2006 12,,% 7:}0 Slt~' !'ta:1 ' ' ! i,:1%?,006 ?.43 12 ~';u'/'i0 I AsT END RESOURCES, 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-0880 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Sou'~hold Town P ~ing~epartment A~ention M~k Te~, Pl~er P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southwold M~or, a proposed active adult retirement located at 56655 Main Road, Sou~old, New York ~d Tax Map as Dist~ct 1000, Section 63, Block 3, Lot 15 Dear Mr. Terry: On November 16, 2006 we submitted a complete site plan application to the planning department in connection with our proposed development of the above-referenced Property. Our application was received by the Southold Town Planning Department on such submission date and we were provided with a stamped "Received" copy of the submission cover letter (copy attached hereto). Please note that the Section 280-131 of the Code of the Town of Soutbold states in relevant part the following: "Within 10 days of receipt of the application, the Planning Board shall determine whether to accept, reject or request revision of the application." (See, {}280-131 B (1) of the Town Code); and "If the Planning Board determines said application to be acceptable but in need of revision, it shall notify the applicant, in writing, wherein said application is deficient within 30 calendar days." S(~q., §280-131 B (2) of the Town Code). As 60 days have past since the date of submission without spoken or written word from any Planning Department staff or board member, we assume that there are no deficiencies with our application as submitted. Please let me know when our proposal was submitted to other Town, County and State agencies having jurisdiction over our application so that we may be prepared to cooperate and provide any information that may be requested by such other municipal agencies. We look forward working with you during the next phase of the application process. Enclosures Vex tml.y yours, CC: Scott Russell, Town Supervisor (w/out encl) Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney (w/out encl) Albert & Rita Cohen (w/out encl) Patricia Moore, Esq. (w/out encl) Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold~ New York 11971-0959 Fax (631 ) 765-9502 Telephone (631 ) 765-1802 BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTI-IOLD LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Jerilyn Woodhous¢, Chairperson, Southold Town Planning Board FROM: Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission DATE: January 10, 2007 RE: SCTM#1000-63-3-15; Cohen/Albertson House CC: Members of the Southold Town Planning Board; Members of the Southold Town Architectural Review Committee; Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner; Mark Terry, Principal Planner; Damon Rallis, Permit Examiner; File It has come to the attention of the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) that your department is currently considering an application for the construction of a planned retirement community at 56655 Main Road, Southold. Currently, the property, known locally as the Cohen/Alberetson House, consists of a single family dwelling with a detached garage. The house, although not listed on the Southold Town Register of Historic Landmarks, is a historic structure dating back to the early part of the 18th century. Included in the 1987 inventory of Southold Town landmarks ("SPLIA list"), it is eligible for listing on the Town's Register if the current o;vners wish to give it the special status accorded a Town landmark. This two and a half story, five bay bracketed gable roof Italianate house has had a long and storied past; making it one of the great local houses still standing that was built in the town's earliest years. Many of the building's original and distinctive features survive. Of special interest is the one-story semi-octagonal bay window with paired brackets on the west side of the house. Prior to its purchase by the Cohens, it had remained in the Albertson family for many generations. As you know, the Landmark Preservation Commission's (LPC)jurisdiction is limited to buildings listed on the town's Register of Historic Landmarks. Therefore, the LPC will not be involved in any official review or recommendations regarding this project. We respectfully request, however, that members of the Southold Town Planning Board, as well as members of the Architectural Review Committee, work diligently to preserve the historic and architectural integrity of the existing Cohen/Albertson House.. Should you have any questions about maintaining the character of this historic structure or wish to discuss this matter further, feel free to contact us at any time. As appointed servants of the citizens of Southold Town, our challenge is to manage change so that it doesn't destroy the distinctive character that makes our Town so appealing. We all have an obligation to recognize the unique significance of structures like the Cohen House/Albertson House and do our best to protect them for future generations. Thank you for your consideration. James F. Grathwohl Chairman Southold Town Landmark Preservation Commission PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODttOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southo]d, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 January l6,2007 Alfred L. Amato East End Resources, EEC 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Re: Parcel Yield on the Site Plan for Southwold Manor 56655 Mare Road, Southold SCTM #: 1000-63-3-15 Zoning District: Dear Mr. Amato: Hamlet Business (HB) The Planning Board has begun processing your application for residential site plan approval for the above- referenced property. However, after reviewing the submission materials and consulting with the To~vn Attorney, it has been determined that we cannot accept the yield of 27 traits as proposed. Pursuant to ~ 280-137A(5) of the Town Code, a residential site plan needs to comply with "The requirements of the existing resources and site analysis plan(s) (ERSAP) and the allowable density of dwelling units as calculated using the yield plan criteria for standard subdivisions set forth in ~ 240-10A and B(2) of the Code of the Town of Southold, Subdivision of Land." Accordingly, a yield map needs to be prepared and submitted for review in order to determine the number of units that are permitted on the subject property. If there are any questions you can contact us at (631) 765-1938 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 nntnony ~/yezza Senior Planner Cc: Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector PLANNING BOARD MEMBER~ JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NYl1971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: Alfred Am,am Christopher Read COMPANY: East End Resources, LLC 516.227.6367 Southwold Manor FROVAmy Thiel DATE: 17 January 2007 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 4 As discussed, please find attached a copy of the ARC meeting minutes from July 13, 2006 and a letter from Anthony Trezza regarding the above referenced residential site plan. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southotd, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Januaw16,2007 Alfred L. Amato East End Resources, LLC 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Re: Parcel Yield on the Site Plan for Southwold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM #: 1000-63 3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Business (HB) Dear Mr. Amato: The Planning Board has begun processing your application for residential site plan approval for the above- referenced property. However, after reviewing the submission materials and consulting with the Town Attorney, it has been determined that we cannot accept the yield of 27 units as proposed. Pursuant to .~ 280-137A(5) of the Town Code, a residential site plan needs to comply with "The requirements of the existing resources and site analysis plan(s) (ERSAP) and the allowable density of dwelling units as calculated using the yield plan criteria for standard subdivisions set forth in [[ 240-10A and B(2) of the Code of the Town of Southold, Subdivision of Land." Accordingly, a yield map needs to be prepared and submitted for review in order to determine the number of units that are permitted on the subject property. If there are any questions you can contact us at (631) 765-1938 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 zxntnony 5yezza Senior Planner Cc: Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector 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 ' ~ ~007 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 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Town of Southold Planning Bd. 53095 Main Road - P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Atto: Amy Ford, Sr. Planner STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE January9,2007 THOM.~ ISLES, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Pursuant to Section 239L & M of the General Municipa~[]L.a~,,theffollow~in'g-git~ plan which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is cbnsidered to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Site Plan SCTMNo. Southwold Manor 1000-63-3-15 Comments: · Proposed use appears incompatible with warehouse and boat storage uses to the west. The Town may wish to "revisit" landscaping plans for the western property line in order to ensure adequate buffeting. · It has been the experience of the Suffolk County Planning Commission that garage space tends to be poor off street parking spaces as, over time, garage space tends to be converted to living space or storage area. The Town may wish to reconsider the availability of off street parking stalls as the right- of-way, Manor Drive, is only 35 ft. wide and may not be adequate to handle overflow off street parking. This may create carrYing capacity and safety issues for the development, particularly for emergency and service vehicles. Moreover, a 35 ft. tight-of-way may not be suitable for dedication to the Town highway system in the future, should the need arise. The Town should consider widening the Manor Drive tight-of-way to 50 ft. for the above reasons. · Suffolk County Planning Commission goals for workforce housing units per project are 20%. The Town should consider requiting two (2) additional workforce housing units. NOTE: Does not constitute acceptance of any zoning action(s) associated therewith before any other local regulatory board. Very truly yours, Thomas Isles, AICP Chief Planner APF:cc LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 6100 · (631) 853-5190 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER (631] 853-4044 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND January 5, 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 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Kimberly Kennedy Suffolk County Water Authority 4060 Sunrise I-fighway Oakdale, New York 11769 Southwold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 Dear Ms. Kennedy:. As per our phone conversation today, please find enclosed 1 site plan (sheets SP1 - SP12) prepared by RMS Engineering date received November 17, 2006, Part I of the Envlmnmental Assessment Form and a letter in our file from the Suffolk County Water Authorityto the applicant regarding the above referenced residential ske plan application. Please do not hesitate to contact this office should you have any questions or need anything further. Sincerely, Senior Planner Cc: File ~0,/~ Enc: 1 site plan (sheets SP1 - SP12) prepared by RMS Engineering date received November 17, 2006 Environmental Assessment Form Letter from Suffolk County Water Authority to the applicant dated October 7, 2005 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN ti. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Halt Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Engineer Southold Town LWRP Coordinator MTA - Long Island Railroad From: AmyFord, Senior Plauner.~ Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Date: January2, 2007 Architectural Review Committee Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission Suffolk County Water Authority New York State Department of Transportation* NYSDEC- Stony Brook Suffolk County Department of Public Works Agency referral requests required as per Southold Town Code Article XXV 280-131 Review Procedure Part C, the Planning Board refers this site plan for concerns, comments and jurisdiction requirements, if applicable. Dear Reviewer. The site plan status is a New Active Residential Site Plan. The following is site plan application information pertaining to the listed project: Southwold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold This new residential site plan is for the proposed construction of a 24 unit active adult condominium community consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling unit buildings, reconstmct the existing single family residence into a building containing three (3) affordable housing units, an onsite chromoglass wastewater treatment system and various amenities including a 2,460 sq. ft. 2-story clubhouse, 800 sq. ft. swimming pool, 880 sq. ft. tennis court and 474 sq. ft. of deck on a 6.75 acre parcel in the Hamlet Business district located on the north side of main road approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue in Southold. SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15. Attached is a copy of the site plan application for your review. Thank you in advance. Cc: File Enc.: Site plan application, *1 site plan (sheets SP1 - SP12) prepared byRMS Engineering date received November 17, 2006 is enclosed for your review PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND January 2, 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. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Suffolk County Planning Commission Mr. Andrew P. Freleng, AICP, Chief Planner H-Lee Dennison Building, 4m Floor 100 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788-0099 Planning Commission Comments on the Site Plan for Southwold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM #: 1000-63-3-15 Zoning District: Hamlet Business (HB) DearMr. Freleng, Pursuant to Section 239L & M of the General Municipal Law, the following residential site plan is being referred to you for comments. Attached are the site phn, EAF and site plan application. This new residential site plan is for the proposed construction of a 24 unit active adult condominium communityconsisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling unit buildings, reconstmct the existing single family residence into a building containing three (3) affordable housing units, an onsite chromoglass wastewater treatment system and various amenities including a 2,460 sq. ft. 2-storyclubhouse, 800 sq. ft. swimming pool, 880 sq. ft. tennis court and 474 sq. ft. of deck on a 6.75 acre parcel in the Hamlet Business district located on the north side of main road approximately 829' east of Boissean Avenue in Southold. SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15. If there are any questions you can contact us at (631) 765-1938 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Cc: File Enc. 1 site plan (sheets SP1 - SP12) prepared byRMS Engineering date received November 17, 2006 Site plan application Environmental assessment form PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 2, 2007 Carol Miller Southold Fire District P.O. Box 908 Southold, New York 11971 Southwold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM#: 1000.63-3-15 Dear Mr. Harrison: Enclosed please find a residential site plan application and one (1) site plan (sheets SP1 - SP12) prepared by RMS Engineering date received November 17, 2006 for the above referenced project. This new residential site plan is for the proposed construction of a 24 unit active adult condominium community consisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling unit buildings, reconstruct the existing single family residence into a building containfng three 0) affordable housing units, an onsite chromoglass wastewater treatment system and various amenities including a 2,460 sq. ft. 2-story clubhouse, 800 sq. ft. swimming pool, 880 sq. ft. tennis court and 474 sq. ft. of deck on a 6.75 acre parcel in the Hamlet Business district located on the north side of main road approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue in Southold. SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15. The enclosed site plan is being referred to you for fire access review and for your recommendations. Thank you for your cooperation. Senior Planner Cc: File Enc.: 1 site plan (sheets SP1 - SP12) prepared by RMS Engineering date received November 17, 2006 Site plan application PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND 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. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 From: Date: Michael J. Verity, Chief Building Inspector James Richter, Town Engineer Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator Amy Ford, Senior Planner ~f~ January 2, 2007 Southwold Manor 56655 Main Road, Southold SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15 In reference to the above, attached you will find a residential site plan and application. The site plan reflects the current proposed build out of this site. Please review for comments, concerns and certification. This new residential site plan is for the proposed construction of a 24 unit active adult condominium communityconsisting of eight (8) residential multiple dwelling un_it buildings, reconstruct the existing single family residence into a building containing three (3) affordable housing units, an onsite chromoglass wa.stew~, ter treatment system and various amenities including a 2,460 sq. ft. 2-storyclubhouse, 800 sq. ft. swmmung pool, 880 sq. ft. tennis court and 474 sq. ft. of deck on a 6.75 acre parcel in the Hamlet Business district located on the north side of main mad approximately 829' east of Boisseau Avenue in Southold. SCTM#: 1000-63-3-15. The enclosed site plan is for your review and records and does not need to be returned to the Planning Board. Thank you in advance. Enc.: 1 site plan (sheets SP1 - SP12) prepared byRMS Engineering date received November 17, 2006 Site plan application LWRP Consistency Assessment Form (LWRP Coordinator only) EAST END RESOURCES, LLC 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516) 227-0880 November 15, 2006 VIA HAND DELIVERY Scott Russell Supervisor of the Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 The proposed development of a certain parcel of property located at 56655 Main Road, Southold (the "Town") and identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as No. 1000-63-3-15 (the "Property"). Dear Mr. Russell: As a follow up to our meetings earlier m the year, enclosed herewith for your review is a full copy of the site plan application for our proposed development of a multi-unit, active-adult (55 years and over) community at the Property. The enclosed application was filed with the Planning Department today. Within the coming days, either Chris Read or I will contact you so that we may schedule a meeting with you to discuss our proposal. W~ look forward to working with you. Christopher M. Read Sincerely, EAST END RESOURCES, LLC 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD Suite 901 GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TEL: (516) 227-6363 FAX: (516) 22741880 VIA HAND DELIVERY Southold Town Planning Department Attention: Mark Terry, Planner P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: November 15, 2006 NOV 17 200 Southwold Manor, a proposed active adult retirement located at 56655 Main Road, Southold, New Yorkan Tax Map as District 1000, Section 63, Block 3, Lot 1~ (the '.'P_r.0!aerty.'[) Dear Mr. Terry: Enclosed herewith is a site plan application pertaining to our proposed development of the above- referenced Property. In accordance with the submission requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, the following items are herewith provided: 1. One (1) complete and fully executed Site Plan Application; 2. Application Fee and Cal~a~a~a, including a check made payable to the Town of Southold in the amount~of $12,807.40; 3. One (1) complete and fully, e,~ecut~lt~pplicant s Affidavit; 4. One (1) complete and fully executed Agent Authorization; 5. One (1) complete and fully executed Full Environmental Assessment Form; 6. One (1) complete and fully executed LWRP Consistency Assessment Form; 7. Nine (9) full-set copies of Site Development Plan (stamped and sealed by NYS Licensed Engineer), each including the following: a. Bulk Table and Yield Plan; b. Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan (ERSAP); c. Alignment Plan; d. Grading and Drainage Plan (with calculations) e. Utility Plan; f. Landscape and lmgation Plan; g. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; and h. Site Plan Construction Details. 8. Four (4) topographical survey maps (stamped and sealed by NYS Licensed Surveyor); 9. Architectural Review Materials including the following: a. Nine (9) sets of color renditions of proposed townhouse exterior elevations; b. Nine (9) sets of Construction Plans with elevation details and depictions of roofing and siding materials for each of the proposed townhouse building types; and c. Copy of Agenda of the Town of Southold Architectural Review Committee ("ARC") 1 for the prelinUnary hearing dated July 13, 2006, at which the ARC unanimously praised our proposed plans and elevations. 10. Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department of the Town of Southold; 11. One Copy of Resolution No. 33-2006 from the Suffolk County Sewer Agency granting "Conceptual Certification" for our proposed on-site sewage treatment plant. 12. One (1) copy of a Utility (gas and electric) Availability Letter pertaining to the Property from Keyspan; 13. One (1) copy of a Water Availability Letter pertaining to the Property from the Suffolk County Water Authority; and 14. One (1) Copy of professional traffic engineering evaluation prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C. which concludes that our proposed development of the Property will have "minimal to imperceptible impact on the safety and operation of the roadway facilities." Please process the enclosed application and call us if you have any questions or require additional information. We look forward to working with you. Enclosures Very truly yours, CC: Christopher M. Read Albert & Rita Cohen Patricia Moore, Esq. Receipt with enclosures hereby acknowledged this day of November, 2006 NOV 1 6 2006 2 1954 New York Avenue Huntington Station, NY 11746-2906 Michael P. Chiarelli Engineer, P.C. Phone (631)673-3808 Fax (631)673-3842 E-mail: MPCEnginr(~ aoL eom August 23, 2006 Job #259-001-10 Fax and First Class Mail Town of Southold Department of Planning P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Mark Terry Acting Department Head Re: Southwold Manor Suffolk County Sewer Agency Application for Conceptual Certification SCTM # 100-063 -03 - 15 Dear Mr. Terry: This letter shall serve to inform you that application for Conceptual Certification of the above referenced project has been made to the Suffolk County Sewer Agency (SCSA). The SCSA meeting is scheduled for 11:00 A.M., Monday, September 18, 2006 at the main conference room of Suffolk County Department of Public Works, 335 Yaphank Avenue, Yaphank, New York. You are invited to attend the meeting and comment on the above application for Conceptual Certification of this project. If you have any comments or questions regarding the above, please let us know. Very truly yours, MICHAEL P. CHIARELLI ENGINEER, P.C. Michael P. Chiarelli, P.E. President MPC/ap cc: Robert Carballeira, P.E. - SCDPW Alfred Amato, Esq. - East End Resources, LLC Christopher M. Read, Esq. - East End Resources, LLC 18/04/2806 11:58 16316733 CHIARELLI ENGINEEI PAGE 86/87 SEFFOLKCOUNTY SEWIiR AGENCY R~$OLUTION NO.33 '" 2006, GSAm~C CONCEFrUAL CERTIFICATION FOR AN ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AT SOUTHWOLD MANOR - (SO-1572) WFI£RBA$, Southwold Manor is e p~pos~xi oondominium ~j~ ~nsisling of 27 unils wi~ ~ 1,1~ sq~ ~t community e~tcr md ~ol, in Soulhold, N~ Yo~ si~at*d on W~ ~tifi~ on the Suffolk Co~ Tax Map as Dis~ct I~, S~ion ~3.~, Block 03.~ ~ ~t 01f.~0, i~ ~ ~ b~een th~ L~R ~d M~n Road ~ 831 f~ ~l of Bols~au Avenue, ~ WHEREAS, thc sewage Oow fi.om Southwold Manor is cxpe~l~:l to bc five thousand gallons pt- day ($,000 gpd) when fully developed, and WHEREAS. there is no Suffolk County .Sewer District, or a~y other m~nicipisl scw~ dlsui~-I in thc vionity of with -vailublc ~,-apadty Io sorvc Southwold Manor, and WHEREAS, Southwold Mano~ has applied to this Agency for pvtmiaaion to construct an on-site sewage Izea~m~t plant for Southwold Manor, and WHEREAS, iuawauch ~ the SEQRA pw~e~s for South. wold Manor has nut been completed, this Agency cannot, at this time, approve the said applicalion, a~d WHEREAS, 'l'~c Suffolk County Sanitary. Code docs not permit thc usage of a Cromaglass type of scwuli~ treatment plant wilhout a waive- ti~m thc Board of Rcvlaw of thc Suffolk County C~attmant of Health Servic'c~. and , WHEREAS, in tho inmrost of 8ood plannin& and in ord~ '~o minimizo potential hardship on applicant~, il is thc policy of this Agency, upOn r~view of an application prior to'ho completion of the SEQRA process, to give applicams an indication of whal method of wa~tewater disposal this Agency would Ilks 10 see for s particular projecl, thereby ~ivin$ applicant# an indication of tho action that this Agcncy mighl take if ir wcr~ to pllss upon thc application a~ thc time of such review, and WHEREAS, in fi~herance of such policy, this Agency is desirous of giving $outhwold Manor an indication of the action thal Ibis Agency might rake regarding th,' propose~ s~wag~ Ireatn~nt plant iflh~ SEQRA proccss had bo*n completod and this AlPmcy were to pass upon thc manor at this time, Page I of 2 18/84/2886 11:50 16316733 CHIARELLI ENGINEE~ PAGE 07/07 NOW. THEREFORE, IT IS 1s~ RESOLVED, PENDINO THE RECEIPT OF A WAIVER FOR THE USE OF A CROMAGLASS TYPE TREATMENT PLANT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. that this Agency hereby grants "Conceptual Cci'tin.lion" for an on-siM se, rage treatment plant for Snuthwold Manor in Sou~amptoa, n~ ~di~re~id, nad it is ~rthcr 2~ RESOLVI~D, that the developer shell disclos~ in ~c ~j~e~ Pl~sp~s, in I~age ~ be a~v~ by ~s Ag~c~s staff, thc annul cost of up.lion ~d maJnte~ of the ~pos~ s~age ~t pl~t, ~ oMer to =~um that ~g~ctive p~e~m of the ~omini~ ~ ~pu~ of ~id ~st. %c d=vdop~ s~l inel~e in ~ice lhe ~j~t~ ~unl ~st of op~i~ ~d maintenan~ of ~e propos~ s~nge plmt for the ~uing ye~, ba~ on an inflation fagot, in ord~ to msug t~t all ~rc ow~rs of~e ~minium uMts ~ ap~s~ of said ~st, ~t o~y while t~ plant is pnvalely but alan ifad wh~ th~ ~W, or ~cr m~icip~iW, a~ume~ ow~p of the pl~t. And bo it father 3 ~ RESOLVED, that 1. such conceptual ccmficnlion is nol, md is not to bo OOnstvucd aa, final ~pfoval, which can only be Iffant~d hy thin Ag~y u~er thc SEQ~ p~as fm lhe ~p~ pmjgct ~s bern compl~; 2. the applicant shall remm to this Agency for such final approval; 3. the granting of eoneepluaI ce~fication as am forth herein sM~ll not be binding upon this Agency when final approval is sought; and 4. tho granting of conceptual certification does no~ constltutc u posifio~ by lhis Agcoc, y, fisvorable, or Olhtq'wis¢, with re,~pegt t~ local land u.~, zoning and;or sub~ivlsion requirements. (Suffolk County $~wer Agmacy meeting 09/18/06) Page2 of 2 JUL-SI-~006 1J:59 R~ENGINEERING 631 271 0592 P.02/02 ROBERT WONG REGIONAL DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT July 21, 2006 RMS Engineering 355 New York Avenue Huntington, N.Y. 11743 Attn: Mr, Ch'egg Schiavone Re: The Manors at Southoid SCTM # 1000-063-03-015 Reference RMS # 2005-195 Dear Mr. $chiavone, As requested, please be advised that KeySpan Energy Delivery and 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 service is required. Responsibility for all excavation, extension of services, meter locatiou, and installation of service 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 desigu. Gas and electric grid maps are not available until design begins. However, for your information, there is curreutly gas available on Main Ave. and Boisseau Ave. There is both a 6 inch gas main on both Main and Boisseau Avenues. Overhead electric is also available on both Main and Bo sseat 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 TOTRL P. 132 Town of Southold Architectural Review Committee Agenda 4:00 p.m., July 13, 2006 Meeting Hall at Southold Town Hall New Applications: Peconic Recycling & Transfer SCTM: 1000-95-2-7 Project This site plan is for New coustmction of a building that includes 32,000 sq. ft. of Description: warehouse space and 2,210 sq. ft. office space for recycling center use on 154,601 sq. ft. parcel m the LIO Zone located approximately 1,083' n/o Corporate Road on n/e/s/o Commerce Drive in Cutchogue. Warex Project 2006 Project Description: SCTM: 1000-142-1-27 This ske phn is for the proposed re-construction of a gas station in order to remove the existing automotive service station, expand the existing convenience store, rec0nstmct the existing gas pump canopy and add a car wash, with a total build out of 3,168 sq. ft. including a change in parking from 5 existing parking spaces to 12 parking spaces, on .55 acres in the General Business Zone located on the n/s/o New York State Road 25, on the n/e comer of NYS Road 25 and Factory'Avenue known as 9945 Main Road in Mattituclc SCTM #: 1000.142-1-27. East End Development SCTM: 1000-63-3-15 Project This proposal is for a residential site plan to develop a 6.75-acre parcel with 27 Description: town-house units, a swimming pool, tennis court, and associated parking. Revisited Applications: Mullen Motors Project Description: SCTM: 1000-62-3-11, 22.5 & 24.1 This amended site plan is for a proposed alteration of 14,227 sq. ft. on SCIM0 1000-62-03-22.5 to be used as an automotive dealership on a 44,152 sq. ft. parcel in the B &R-40 Zones located at the s/wintenection of NYS Road 25 (Main Road) and Cottage Place in Southold. Romanelli Brothers SCTM: 1000-60-2-7.1 Project This site plan is for conversion of an existing single family residence with accessory Description: garages to a first floor business office, second floor aparmaent and accessory garages on 26,081 sq. ft. parcel in the RO Zone located at 51750 Main Road in Southold. SCTM~ (s) 1000-63-6-4 Montauk Bus Service Project Description: SCTM: 1000-96-1-1.2 This site plan proposes comtmction of a new 3,180 sq. ft bus terminal building with ske build out that includes 19 employee parking spaces and 16 bus parking spaces on a vacant 1.083 acre parcel m the LI Zone located approximately 417' s/o Corporate Drive on the w/s/o Commerce Drive known as 115 Commerce Drive in Cutchogue. Engineering Associates,~.C. Consulting 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, Dunn 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 will 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 present, 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 the 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 commercial, although east of 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 the 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 containing 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 generated by 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. ; Site Generated ~mffic DevelOpment Weekday AMi We~k-day P:M, Enter EXi~ 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 turns 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 the 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 fi.om 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, Vincent Corrado Senior Engineer / Senior Transportation Planner VC:lam L205336.Rev P25115 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES July 13, 2006 4:00 p.m. Town Hall Meeting Hall Present were: Chairman Sanford Hanauer, members Herbert Ernest, Howard Meinke, Ural Talgat, Joseph "Skip" Lee, Elizabeth Thompson, Planning Board Chair Jerilyn Woodhouse, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Bruno Semen, Senior Planner Amy Ford, ARC Secretary Linda Randolph, and project representatives. The minutes of the June 1, 2006 meeting were accepted. Elizabeth Thompson requested a copy of the "Retail Building Design Req's" which were distributed at the June meeting. Linda will get a copy from Mark Terry. Revisited Applications: Mullen Motors SCTM: 1000-62-3-11, 22.5 & 24.1 Application approved as submitted with two provisions: (1) Submission of catalog cuts for fixtures (assume white aluminum window frames); (2) If additional lighting/signage is required by another agency, ARC will revisit. · RomaneiliBrothers SCTM: 1000-60-2-7.1 Accept with screening of a/c condensers from north side and Main Road with evergreens. LaPanache Hair Design SCTM: 1000-18-5-13.8 N/A: Applicant did not submit or represent at meeting. Mentauk Bus Service SCTM: 1000-96-1-1.2 Conditionally approved, based on architect's sketch at meeting: eliminated small dormer over porch, added 2 large reverse dormers in front and rear increasing fascia to 8"; changed windows to quads. Drawing to be resubmitted for the file. M & R Developing SCTM: 1000-96-1-1.8 Same comments as Montauk Bus Service above. Signage to be submitted at a later date. ARC Meeting Minutes Page Two July 13, 2006 New Applications: Peconic Recycling & Transfer SCTM: 1000-95-2-7 Committee recommends resubmission with additions to break down scale and give natural light (e.g. windows, ornamentation) and add deciduous trees. Warex Project 2006 SCTM: 1000-142-1-27 Design tabled. Committee requests resubmission using softer colors (gray, beige). Submit materials and light fixture cuts. East End Development (Preliminary) SCTM: 1000-63-3-15 Exterior layout and design of units well-received. Comments: minimize hard surface, add gardening area, consider one car garage instead of two, check driveway turnaround area on east and west sides of properly, submit materials, colors, light cuts, possible handicap adaptability). The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Linda Randolph ARC Secretary SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 2045 Route 112, Suite 1, Coram, New York 11727-3085 (631) 698-9500 FAX (631) 698-9851 October 7, 2005 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed Site Plan of East End Development, LLC SCTM# 1000-63-3-15 File# 4344587 Gentlemen: The Suffolk County Water Authority has received the above referenced application for water service from East End Development, LLC. The parcel is designated in the SCWA's Five Year Water Supply Plan for the North Fork as eligible to receive public water service. Accordingly, this Letter of Water Availability is issued. There is an existing main located on Main Road which can serve this parcel. This Letter of Water Availability is not to be considered an action by SCWA as defined by the New York Environmental Quality Review Act or a determination that the parcel is approved for building. The developer is responsible for obtaining any other permits or approvals that are required for the proposed project. SCWA shall not be required to provide water for the parcel until all of the other approvals have been obtained. SCWA will provide water service to the parcel upon payment of the applicable fees. The fees include a tapping fee, a key money charge and if applicable, a water main surcharge. Tapping fees start at $950.00 for a 1" service. Keymoney fees start at $3,000.00 for a 1" service. Surcharge amounts vary depending on the location of the proposed service. The tapping fees and the surcharge may be financed for existing residential customers. The SCWA respectfully reiterates the findings of the environmental review for the SCWA's Water Supply Plan. These findings focused, in part, on opportunities for reducing demand for water in the Town of Southold. Opportunities include: II1. Permitting the irrigation of only 15% of the area of any single lot. Requiring the use of low flow plumbing fixtures in accordance with the latest codes. Adopting methods to reduce the potential of degraded water from recharging to the aquifer. This could include limits on the amount of fertilizer dependent vegetation maintained on a lot. Consistent with its Findings Statement, SCWA encourages the Town to impose appropriate conditi6ns on the project to reduce the potential impact this project will have on the water resources of the Town of Southold. These conditions could be memorialized in the form of Covenants and Restrictions on the project that are recorded with the Suffolk County Clerk. Please contact our New Construction Department during our normal business hours at (631) 698- 9500, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for more information regarding the fees and other conditions of service. Very truly yours, Grace Sandezer Asssitant Manager GS:as CC: East End Development, LLC Southold Town Clerk Town of Southold - Proposed Residential SitePlan Southwold Manor Tax Map # 1000-63-3-15 Town of Southold Southwold Manor 1000-63-3-15 Ao 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- supporting, 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 (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Offi~ libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# 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): (al Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) iCl Permit, approval, license, certification: Nature and extent of action: The proposed action consists of the construction of a 24-unit planned retirement community consisting of eight townhouse buildings, containing three dwelling units within each building. Also proposed are facilities for swimming, platform4ennis and resident gatherings. In addition, the existing two-story frame dwelling with detached garage would remain, but would be converted to three moderate income family dwelling units. A cromaglass wastewatar treatment system is proposed to treat the sanitary waste generated by the proposed development. Location of action: 56655 Main Road, Southold Site acreage: 6.75± 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 Amato L. Ammo, 666 Old Counlry 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? Yes [~ No[--] If yes, which state or federal agency?NYSDOTHighway Work Permit. NYSDEC SWPPP 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 Attach 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 Attach 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 evaluation criteria. ~]Yes~] No ~] Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary WORKING COAST POLICIES P$1icy 10. Protect Southold's willf~r-dependent uses and promote siti~fnew water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP S~on III - Policies- Pages 47 through~t~ for evaluation criteria. [--] Yes [~ 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 III - Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. [-~ Yes [~ No [~ Not Applicable PREPARED B /ITLE President/'' Theresa Elkowitz / ~/~ ' Amended on 8/1/05 DATE 11/14/06 ATTACHMENT LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ("LWRP") CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR SOUTHWOLD MANOR 56655 MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. The 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 for agricultural purposes, is developed with a residential structure, which is proposed to remain as part of the proposed action. This residential structure is the entryway 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 character 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 the existing character of the area. With regard to open space, the proposed project has been designed such that existing woodland would be preserved in the northwestern area of the site, and on the east and west sides of the proposed Manor Drive. 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. Not including applicants intention to transplant existing vegetation, a total of 0.20+ acre of existing woodland would be maintained. With respect to the infrastructure, potable water is available at the site and shall be provided by the Suffolk County Water Authority (the "SCWA"). Attached hereto is a letter of water availability presented by the SCWA.) In addition, an on-site cromaglass sewage treatment plant will be located underground in the northwestern comer of the site. (On September 28, 2006, the Suffolk County Sewer Agency granted "Conceptual Certification" for such cromaglass sewage treatment plant). A review of the New York State Department of Conservation ("NYSDEC") Tidal Wetlands Map (Map Number 716-548) (see Exhibit "A" of this LWRP Consistency Analysis) indicates the subject property is not a coastal property, nor is it identified in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Reach 6 as an "area subject to development pressure" or an "area of special concern." The applicant respectfully submits that by designing the project such that the character will be preserved and enhanced, open space will be preserved and infrastructure will be efficiently used, the proposed action would minimize adverse effects of development in the Town of Southold. Therefore, the proposed action comports with this policy. Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. According to the website of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Places ("OPRHP"),~ there are no historically-significant sites, or structures of national, state or local significance on the tract or on any abutting tract (see the OPRHP map in Exhibit "B" of this LWRP Consistency Analysis). There are also no structures present on the site that are listed on the Town Register of Landmark Structures. The site is identified on the OPRHP's website as a potentially archaeologically-sensitive area. As such, and 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 1 archeological survey be conducted (see Exhibit "B" of this LWRP Consistency Analysis). When the results of the Phase 1 archeological survey are available, they will be transmitted to the Town of Southold. If any archaeological resources are identified, the applicant will comply with the requirements of OPRHP with regard to such resources. Thus, to the extent this policy may be relevant, the project would conform to same. Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of $outhold. Minimize introduction of structural design components (including utility lines, lighting, signage and fencing) 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 Utility Plan, the proposed utility lines would be underground and would not impact the aesthetics of the area. According to the Landscape and Irrigation Plan, a six-foot, above-grade-level ("agl"), green-color, chain-link fence and a six-foot-agl evergreen vegetative buffer would be situated along the perimeter of the subject 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. Further, the proposed Manor Drive would be lined with vegetation. ~ http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/nr/main.asp, accessed June 22, 2006 2 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. According to the Alignment Plan, signage is proposed at the entrance of the proposed Manor Drive and near the entrance gate, which is setback 624+ feet from the entrance of the proposed Manor Drive. While the signage has not yet been designed, the applicant intends that same should be discrete and designed to visually conform with 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. In addition, 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. Furthermore, the proposed development has been designed such that the architectural elements would conform to and enhance the existing character. In addition, on July 13, 2006 at a public heating 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 unanimously 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. 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. 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 heating 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 unanimously 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 Landscape and Irrigation Plan, it is proposed that existing vegetation would remain, to the extent possible, in several areas of the overall property (specifically, along Main Road, in the vicinity of the sewage treatment plant [the northwestern area] and on the east and west sides of the proposed Manor Drive). 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. 2. 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. As indicated earlier, the Landscape and Irrigation Plan depicts the areas where existing vegetation will remain (i.e., along Main Road, in the northwestern area of the site and on the east and west sides of Manor Drive). As indicated earlier, 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 screen the development from neighboring properties and preserve existing vegetation. Therefore, the proposed development complies with this policy. 3. Restore 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 4. Restore or add indigenous vegetative cover that presents a natural appearanc~ The subject property was formerly utilized for agricultural purposes and is revegetating. According to the 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 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 ama. 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 unanimously 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 historlc 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. I. Anticipate and prevent impairment of dynamic landscape elements that contribute to ephemeral visual qualities. 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. 5 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. K. Protect visual quality associated with agricultural land, open space and natural resources. 1. Maintain or restore original landforms except where altered landforms provide useful screening or contribute to scenic quality. 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 Landscape and Irrigation Plan, a six-foot-agl, green-color, chain-link fence and a six-foot-agl evergreen vegetative buffer is being proposed along the perimeter of the subject property, which will screen the new development from adjacent properties. 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. Furthermore, a vegetative buffer will line the entryway to the proposed Manor Drive, and will screen the new roadway frqm public views. 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, in the northwestern area, 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 unanimously well received by the ARC. Therefore, the proposed development complies with this policy. 6 3. Avoid structures or activities which introduce visual interruptions to natural landscapes including: 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 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. 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. Discharge from the proposed cromaglass sewage treatment plant will be well within the New York State drinking water standards. Moreover, there would be less nitrogen contribution to the groundwater than that associated with single-family homes with on-site sanitary systems. In addition, 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 by the proposed development. 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 SouthoM 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 and 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 June 15, 2006 (see Exhibit "C" of this LWRP Consistency Analysis), depicts the site as "Land Not In Agricultural Use." Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed action. 8 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. 9 [SITE PLAN TYPE:~~ AMENDED NEW WITHDRAWN INCOMI~LETE [ PROJECT NAME:~L~ t.O~ (c] ~d'q~'/ ZONEI?~_ ZONE2: ZONE,: LOCATION: HAMLET: ~ ~o.~.~4.t.~ { c:J SCTM#1000-{og - ~ I~ APPLICANT NAME: ~-~_~' 4 G~,3,::I, ,l~.~£ox-o'-c.,-- 'rEt.# (a.~) z:Z'4- (_,,x & ~ AGENTNAME: ,~/[')~:~ A~,~O.4~/C~r:X ~a,.(l TEL#(__) PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~.XIST1NG USE: PROPOSED USE: BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE: S~P REQUIRED Y OR N ZBA APPEAL REQUIRED Y OR N ?RE-SUBMISSION CONFERENCE (WITHIN 30 DAYS OF WRITTEN REQUEST) 51OTES: INFORMAL REQUEST FOR REVISIONS: aPPLICATION RECEIVED DATE:~/a~_/~, APPLICATION PROCESS DATE: PAYMENT RECEIVED: AMOUNT RECEIVED:$ gEW SP: $500./ACRE &.10/SF, AMENDED SP: $250. + .10/SF, AGRiC SP: FLAT $500 FEE AMOUNT: ($ .00 X =$ )+($.10 X SF=$ ) =$ 'NEW APPLICATION WORK SESSION (WITHIN 10 DAYS OF RECEIPT), PB ACCEPTED Y OR N APPLICANT ADVISED OF NECESSARY REVISIONS (WITHIN 30 DAYS OF REVIEW) BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEEETING 100-254B3 (WITHIN 30 DAYS) NOTES: REVISED SUBMISSION RECEIVED: NOTES: DATE REFERRED AGENCEES: (WITH MAPS=W/P) ' ..% ~ ~ ",c "' STZBA/',STBD~STCFfB~, JN~, STBT~,STE '~,SCDHS~NYSDEC ~ ,USACOPJPS__,NYSDOT~ SCWA , SCPD~, SCDPW__, LWRP~ NOTES: ACTION TYPE: COORDINATED: UNCOORDINATED:__ (TYPE1: TYPE2: UNLISTED: ) REFERRED TO: STZBA ,STED__,STC/TB__, dH__, STET__, STE__,SCDHS__,NYSDEC ,USACORPS__,NYSDOT__, SCWA__, SGPD__, SCDPW__ SEQRA DETERMINATION :NEG DEC Y OR N, APPROVALS REQUIRED: REFERRED DATE NOTES APPROVAL DATE NOTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: ~ /~ '/O"{ / /-- tt*~ {~'~' LWRP COORDINATOR: ~ / 7~ /O 74- / / BUILDING DEPARTMENT CERTIFICATION: ~ / ~-' /(o ~ / /-- E,R~ COMM,BS,ONERB: ~_, z, o__._~ _L,d~O2_q I Agdrarrt-~eed~2[ TOWN ENGINEERAPPROVAL: I / ~/O~- / /__ '$14~1{~. , DEP,OF TRANSPORTATION: DOT~--~, DPW__, TOS I / Z- / O ~r / /-- SUFFOLKCOUNTYDEPARTMENTOFPLANNING: I / 7- /O :l~ ~L~/~_/~r [.Oc' ~ ~K.J~X~,ka_~ek_l~)~ SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT OF HEALTH: PERMIT #: / / OPTIONAL APPROVALS: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: APPEAL#: / / / /- BOARD OF TRUSTEE'S: / / / / NYS DEC WETLANDS/TIDAL/SPDES / / / / 172T'ONA --NDORSEMENT OF SITE PLAN: :IELD INSPECTION FOR C/O: NOTES / / / DISTRIBUTE APPROVED SITE PLANS TO: BUILDING DEPT / / TOWN ENG / / I GENERAL NOTES: 10/4/2005 ~. The.Suffolk Times - March 29, 2007 Apartments don't count? I~ R~moa Paolm~ Southwold Manor yield map, with 24 to 48 dwelling units on the property, "There are a whole bunch of issues ~ Should accessory apartments be considered yield? And if not, can they fulfill the requirement for affordable housing? These PLANNING questions were raised by the agents for Southwold BOARD Manor, a 55 and older NOTES community proposed for Southold that would have 24 or 27 dwelling units, depending on how you define them, three of which have to be affordable. Alfred Amato and Chris Reed, agents for the .applicant, discussed the lots, and their letter to the Planning Board, which said they can have up to 48 dwelling units, with the board Mor~- day afternoon. Before town code was changed it looked like they would have 29 lots and make three of them affordable-housing units. After code changes, the yield went down to 24 but still re- quired thre~ affordable units. Howev- er, accessory apartments are allowed in this zone, so the agents algued, in their lettei:, that they could have up Planning... m-From page 26 Mr. Amato said they were willing to make 'a covenant that they will build no more accessory apartments if they are allowed three that will bring it up to 27 units and that they were open to have the additional three affordable units as rentals or units available for purchase. The applicants and Planning Board, via Jeri Woodhouse, the board's chair- woman, agreed to meet with the town attorney about how to best proceed to clarify how 24 market-value units and three affordable ones may work with the code. ¸lie rather than one per lot, because acces- sory apartments are dwelling units. Accessory apartments aren't usually indicated on yield maps or calculated in yield. They are just understOOd as some- thing that can be created on a primary dwelling. Mr. Amato pointed out that the code doesn't specify that the dwell- ing units reflected in the yield are pti- mary dwellings and that apartments are dwelling units, according to town code definitions. Planning department staff had consulted with the town attorney's office to see if accessory apartments should be considered part of the yield and the answer was no. JoeTownsend,a member of the board, brought up that there would be issues of ownership if accessory apartments were considered part of the yield. Typi- cally, accessory apartments are owned by the primary dwelling ownem South- wold Manor is proposed as a group of eight buildings with three single-fam- ily dwellings in each; there was some debate as to whether added accessory apartments to the buildings could be sold separately, like the other units in the building, or would have to be sold with another unit and then rented. There is also the issue of whether aq- counting for accessory apartments in yield would change the requked num- ber of affordable units; "One would assume 25 percent of 48 units would be set aside for afford- able housing," said Anthony Trezza, senior planner for Southold Town. that go into this." In the course of discussion, it became clear that both the applicants and the board knew a yield of 48 units would never go through: neither the health de partment nor the Planning Board would allow it. But the applicant brought the issue up to show that their request for 27 units was not an unreasonable one. "With all due respect, the map is make-believe land. None of it is being done, and I can tell you we have fol- lowed the letter of the code," said Mr. Amato. He also said that members of the Plarming Board said the condominiums are expensive, which, recent meetings between Supervisor Scott Russell and seniors Lndicate, may make them inac- cessible to local seniors. "That's not our intention," said Mr. Amato, "but when it keeps getting shnmken -- the expenses don't go down with 24 units as opposed to 27." Mark Terry, head of the planning de- partment, and the agents pointed om that the proposed use for the property is less intense than is permissible in the zone. "I think the ultimate concern of the Planning Board is how the property is used and the imp.act it has in the corn munlty," said Mx. Townsend 'My con cern is that we get caught with a prec edent-setting decision based on acces sory apartments." See Planning, page 35 ZONING 280 Attachment 2 Town of Southold Density and Minimum Lot Size Schedule for Nonresidential Districts~ [Added 1-10-1989 by L L No. 1-1989; amended 8-1-1989 by L.L. No, 14-1989; 5-6-2003 by L.L. No. 9-2003] District Minimum lot size (square feet): Business, office, industrial or other nonresidential use LB Limited Business Hamlet General M-1 M-Il Business Bualness Marine I Marine II LIO Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park Light Industrial Use with or without utilities 80,000 I 20,000 I ,0,000I 40,000 I 80,000 I 120.000 I 40,000 1-family detached dwelling Residential unit without utilities 80,000 (iii) I 20,000 (vii) [ 40,000 Residential unit with community water NA 20,000 (vii) I 40,000 Residential unit with community water and Sewer NA 10,000 (xi) 40,000 2~family detached dwelling 2-family dwelling without utilities 2-family dwelling with community water NA 2-family dwelling with community water and sewer NA 40,000 40,000 (vii) NA NA 20,000 20,000 (vii) NA NA 10,000 10,000 (xi) NA NA 160,000 (xii) 40,000 (ii) 40,000 NA NA 40,000 (mi) 40,000 NA 20,000 (vii) 40,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Multiple dwelling unit or townhouse: Multiple dwelling or townhouse without utilities NA 20,000 40,000 NA NA Multiple dwelling or to~mlhouse with community water NA 20,000 40,000 NA NA Multiple dwelling or townhouse with community water and NA I0,000 40,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Motel, hotel or conference center guest unit: Guest unit without utilihes NA 6,000 6,000 NA 6,000 6,000 Guest unit with community water NA 6,000 6,000 NA 6,000 6,000 Guest unit with community water and sewer NA KEy: NA = Not applicable. NOTES: NA 4,000 4,000 NA 6,000 6,000 4,000 6.000 4.000 Roman numerals refer to the app cab e column in the Residential Bulk Schedule. For mul ~ple dwe ing, hotel, motel and/or conference uses (where permitted), this table refers to minimum lot size per unit. Refer to the Residential Bulk Schedu e for otaI lot size yard and setback dimensions for the applicable d/strict, unless more-restrictive requirements are indicated in the text of the chapter. 280 Attachment 2:1 os- ol - 2006 TOWN SOUTHOLD PLANNING{I OARD SITE PLAN APPLICATION SECTION A: Site Plan Name an~l Location - 03 - 15 Application Date: // / /~'"'/ 2006 Site Plan Name: Southwold blanor Suffolk County Tax Map #1000- 063 Other SCTM #s: ~/A Street Address: 56655 Main Road (Route 25) Hamlet: Southold Distance to nearest intersection: Approximately 1,000 feet east of Boisseau Avenue Type of Site Plan: x New __Amended If Amended, last approval date: /__/ Residential SECTION B: Owners/Agent Contact Information Please list name, mailing address, and £hone number for the peo?le below: Property Owner Albert and Rita Cohen 56655 Main koaa State New York Other _Zip Street City Southold Home Telephone Applicant East End Resources, LLC Street c/o Alfred Amato, 666 01d Country Road, Suite 901 City Garden City Stale New York Home Telephone 516-227-6363 Other Zip. xx53o Applicant's Agent or Representative: Contact Person(s)* Alfred Lo Amato Street 666 01d Country Roads Suite 901 City Garden City State New York _Zip_ zx530 Office Telephone 516-227-6363 Other *Unless otherwise requested, correspondence will be sent only to the contact person noted here. Page 1 of 2 10/05/05 SECTION C: Site Data Proposed construction type: x New Property total acreage or square footage: x Modification of Existing Structure Change of use 6.75/294~202 ac./sq, ft. Site Plan build-out acreage or square footage:see attachedaC./sq, ft. site plans and bulk table Agricultural Is there an existing or proposed Sale of Development Rights on the property? Yes If yes, explain: No x Property Zoning District(s): Hamlet Business (HB) Building Department Notice of Disapproval Date: n / 22 / 2005 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 of the application packet. No x Show all uses proposed and existing. Indicate which building will have which use. If more then one use is proposed per building, indicate square footage of floor area per use. List all existing propei~y uses: single foanzly residential use 8 multiple dwolling buildings consisting of 24 active adult condominium units List all proposed property uses: (55 and older only) and one (1) multiple dwelling building consisting of 3 MIFDUs Other accessory uses: Accessory uses shall include swimming pool, racquet sports, club house and maintenance building. Existing lot coverage: See % Proposed lot coverage: see °/o attached site attached site plans plans and bulk table and bulk table Gross floor area of existing structure(s): see _sq. ft. Gross floor area of proposed structure(s): see attached attached site site plans and plans and hnlk t~hle bulk Ymhl~ Parking Space Data: # of existing spaces: see attached # of proposed spaces:see attached Loading Berth: Yes No ~ and s~ and -- bulk table bulk table Landscaping Details: Existing landscape coverage: see % Proposed landscape coverage: attached site pla-s and bulk tabl~ See attached site and bulk tableplans Waterfront Data: Is this property within 500" ofawetlandarea? Yes __ No x Ifyesexplain: I, the undersigned, certify that all the above information is true. Signature of Preparer~ Date://~~ O-t ,r Page 2 of 2 10/05/05 Site Plan Application Fee Calculation § 280-138 (A) Fee schedule for site plan applications. The fee for new site plan applications, including without limitation applications relating to vacant sites or sites with no previously approved site plan, shall be a flat fee of $500 plus an additional $500 for each acre (or fraction thereof) in excess of the first acre, plus $0.10 for each gross square foot of proposed construction. Initial fee of $500.00 $500.00 per additional acre (or fraction) (6.75 acres total) $0.10 for each square foot of new construction (Includes living space, garages, decks, pools and platform tennis.): Gable Roof (Building Type A) Unit 1 w/living, garage, deck: Unit 2 w/living, garage, deck: Unit 3 w/living, garage, deck: Total for each building: Total for 4 buildings: Square Feet 3,531 3,852 3,531 10,914 43,656 NOV ]7 200 Gambrel Roof (Building Type A) Unit 1 w/living, garage, deck: Unit 2 w/living, garage, deck: Unit 3 w/living, garage, deck: Total for each building: Total for 4 buildings: Square Feet 3,633 3,890 3,633 11,156 44,624 Amenities Building/Area Living Space (1st & 2ad floor): Platform tennis: Swimming pool: Decks: Total: Square Feet 2,460 880 800 474 4,614 Cromaglass lab building: Total: Square Feet 180 Total Sq. footage of New Construction: 93,074 Initial Fee: Additional acreage Fee: Construction Fee ($0.10 per square foot) $500.00 $3,000.00 $9~307.40 Total Site Plan Application Fee: $12,807.40 APPLICANTS AFFIDAVIT Si'ATE OF NEW YORK coUNIY OF SUFFOLK Alfred L. Amato being duly sworn deposes and says that he resides at 666 Old Country Road~_Suite 901~ Garden CE in the State of New York, and that ~~ he is the Managing Member cc the Limited Liability Company ~ltle) (Speclf,/wh~therParthemhlp or Corp.) which is hereby making application; that there are no existing structures or Improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that the titJe to the entire parcel, including all rights-of-way, has been clearly established and is shown on said Plan; that no part cC 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. /~ Signed Sworn to me this ~ /'~"~day cC_/~'¢~'Z~" NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 02RE6134361 Qualified in Nassau County Commission Expires Sept. 26, 2009 AUTHORIZATION LETTER We, Rita Costello Cohen and Albert Cohen, the owners of the property known as 56655 Main Road and identified as SCTM# 100-63-030-15 in Southold, New York, hereby authorize East End Resources, LLC to apply for a site plan approval with respect to our property and hire any agents necessary to complete the work involved in the site plan approval process with the Southold Planning Board. Rita Costello Cohen Albert Cohen STATE OF /L/~JA-/"/Otm''''~ ) cot TV L Onthe ]~dayof ~ *~ in the ye~ of2006 before me, the~d~si~ed, aNo~blicin~df~r said State of New York, personally appe~ed, Rita Costello Cohen ~d Alb~ Cohen, pe~onally~om to me or proved to me on the basis of satishcto~ ehdence to be the indihduals whose names are subschbed to ~e within ins~ment and ac~owledged to me that they executed the same in their capaciti~, ~d that by their silages on the ins~ment, the indihduals executed the ins~ment. ~ NOTARY PUBLIC, S~a~e of New York No 01 TO5078120 Not~ Public Qualified in Suffolk Coun~ Commission Expires May ~ Receipt For Fee for Fee for Sign rq Flood Development Pmt. ~1 Cash ---, ~ oC~ 1~ Check $..__~.~.,_.~. .................... '. ......... TOWN~ SOUTHOLD OFFICE OF I~ILDING INSPECTOR Town Hall Soulhold, New York 11971 /100 DoJlars Permit Fee for Certificate Iq of Occupancy Building Department EAST END DEVELOPMENT, LLC Town of Southold Copies / 10/10/2005 1043 35.00 Citibank-Checking 35.00 FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: November 22, 2005 TO: East End Development 666 Old Country Road, 9th Floor Garden City, NY 11530 Please take notice that your application dated November 3, 2005 For permit to construct multiple dwelling units at Location of property: 56655 Main Road, Southold, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 63 Block3 Lot 15 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed construction reauires site Dl ..... uthold Town Planning Board. A~thoriz~d~x~ature Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. )WN OF SCUTHOLD ~IILDING DEPARTMENT JWN HALL )UTHOLD, NY 11971 gL: (631) 765-1802 kX: (631) 765-9502 vw,. northfork.net/Southold/ PERMIT NO. :amined ,20 ~proved ,20__ Mail to: sapproved a/c Phone: BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST , ; ~.' Do you ha~. need the following, before applying? · ' Board of Health · - 4 sets of Building Plans Planning Board approval Surve~ Check Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Contact: cpiration ,20__ Building Inspector · ' ~)" ',,~ PPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT !~'~' ~ S 9t~or :',;;? [ Date October ,:' ~ N ~ ':~:i INSTRUCTIONS :ts of ~, ac(~rate p~ale. Fee according to schedule. . ..... b. Plot plan showing locati0h of lot and of buildings on premises, relationsmp to aajommg premises or public streets or reas, and wale~ays, c. The wo'rk covered by this app[ication may not be~menced before issu~ce of Building Pemit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building ~r will issue a Building Pe~it to the applicant. Such a pe~it hall be kept on the presses available for inspection t~oug~ork, c. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in ~y pu¢ose what so ever until the Building ~spector ssues a Cemficate of Occup~cy. * ~ f. Eveu bmlding pemit shall expire if the work authorized has ~enced within 12 monks a~er the date of ssuance or has not been completed within 18 months ~om such date. If ~ing amen~ents or o~er regulations affecting the )rope~y have been enacted in the inte~, the Building hspector may authorize, in writing, ~e extension of~e pe~it for an ~ddition six months. ThereaRer, a new pemit shall be requked. ~PLICATION IS HE.BY M~E to the Build~g Depa~ment for the issuance of a Building Pe~it pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Sou~old, Suffolk County, New York, ~d other applicable Laws, Ordin~ces or Re~lations, for the cons~ction of b~Idings, additions, or alterations or for removal or demolition as here~ described. The applicant a~ees to comply wit¢~ applicable laws, ordin~ces, buil~g code, housing code, ~d re~latlons, ~d to a~it authorized ~~ ~ild~g for necess~ inspections. - , _.. ~ ~ :,',~ (Silage of applicant or nme, if a co~oration) [ ~ '~'J,*: ,'--, ~ J (Mailing ad.ess ofapplic~t) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, ~chitect, engineer, general con.actor, electfici~, plmber or builder ~ntr~t Vendee Nai~ne of owner of premises lilb~rt and Rtta (~hen (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer Alfred L. ~mato, ~nnElng lle~ber Builders License No. Plumbers License No. Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. 1, Location of land on which proposed work will be done: 56655 ~ain Road ( Pa~ute 2_5 ) 8outhold House Number Street County 'Fax Map No. i000 Subdivision (Name) Section 063 Hamlet ' Block o3 'Lot ox~.ooo Filed Map No. Lot ~. .,,.~tc ex,sung use and occupancy of premises and intended use and oc~ancy of proposed construct%n: a. Existing use and occ~cy on~ ti ~ .~,~t,~.2~]y r--~a~-ce ~ det~-.aed ~a~a~e. _ b. Intended use and occupancy and three (3) ~oderate ince~e family d~ellinll units. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building(s) x Repair Removal Demolition Estimated Cost ~/~ If dwelling, number of dwelling units Planned lle..tire~ent go=~un/ty consisting 2~. Nnltiple l)~ell/ng (see Rider attached hereto) Addition Alteration__x Other Work (Description) Fee (To be paid on filing tiais application) 27 Number of dwelling units on each floor if garage, number of cars see ~lans atta~,,a h~ret-O 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. Depth Rear Height, Number of Stories see plans attached Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth. Height. Number of Stories see ~n~ Dimensions of entire new construction: Front Rear Depth Height Number of Stories ~ee ~1~.~ .t~,-~ Size of lot: Front a~,-~x 1~] m Re~;~l.t~Depth ee plan~ attched hereto) I 0. Date of Purchase 611111985 Name of Fenner Owner Will/a~ G & ~arbara l!~z-tson 11. Zone or use disthct in which premises ~e situated ~ night {~rt~on of ~ ~11 ~ a~t~a ~ ~ ~i~tr 12. Does proposed construction violate ~y zoning law, ordin~ce or repletion? YES NO x 13. Will lot be re-~aded? YES x NO Will excess fill be removed ~om premises? YES NO x ' 666 Old ~t~ ~ 9~ ~ 14. N~es of Owner of premises cio Al~ed ~. ~to Address ~d~ ci~, ~ m~ Phone No. (516) 227-6363 Name of Architect ~j~ ~tella, ~ait~t Address " Phone No (516) 227-6363 Name of Contractor ~[ ~ ~e~nt, ~ Address " Phone No. 15 a. Is this prope~y within 100 feet of a tidal wetl~d or a ~eshwater wetl~d? *YES NO x * IF YES, SOUTHOLD TO~ TRUSTEES & D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE ~QUIRED. b. Is this prope~y wi~in 300 feet ora tidal wetl~d? * YES ~ NO x * IF YES, D.E.C. PE~ITS MAY BE REQUIRED. 16. Provide survey, to scale, with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17. If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below, must provide topographical data on survey. STATE OF NrEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF_. ) Alfred L. *~-o being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named, iS)He is the l~-~,,,.ing.lle~ber of East End Develol~aent:, LLC ~ Contract (Contractor, Agent, Corporate Officer, etc.) >f said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; hat all statements contained in this application are tree to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be >erformed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Li~IP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMEN"~R]~, 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 South01d Town). B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# 063 03 15 PROJECT NAME Site Plan Application for Southwold Manor The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): Town Board If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes" or no" then the proposed action will affect the achievement of the LVv2>,_P policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus~ each answer must be explained in detail listing both supporting and non- suooortint 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 followtng places~~ onhne ~ff'tti~'T0wn of Southoldks:web~ite (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees offi~el the PI_arming D~elS~t~nl~nt~¢ll'~lO~at~ hbrarles and the Town Clerk s office. \ ~ ~ , ~ - --- , [---] Planning Board [~ Building Dept. [~ Board of Trustees 1. 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) (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: Nature and extent of action: The proposed action consists of the construction of a 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 converted to three moderate-income-family dwelling units. Location of action: 56655 Ix ~ Road, Southold .~ Site acreage: 6.75± 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 [/'q No [ I 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 Attach 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 Attach 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 fi.om 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 HI - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluatior criteria. ['-~Yes~-~ No ~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary WORKING COAST POLICIES P6licy 10. Protect Southold'~lllater-dependent uses and promote s~li~g of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWR~l~ction III - Policies- Pages 47 thro~56 for evaluation criteria. ~] Yes [--] 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 III - Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. ~] Yes ~] No [--] Not Applicable PREPARED B~r~,~~~TITLE President Amended on 8/1/05 ~ ~ DATE 10/17/08 ATTACHMENT LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATIONPROGRAM("LWRP") CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR SOUTHWOLD MANOR 56655 MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of SouthoM that enhances community character, preserves open space, maizes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. The 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 sul/ject property, although historically utilized for agricultural purposes, is developed with a residential structure, which is proposed to remain as part of the proposed action. This residential structure is the entryway 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 character 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 the existing character of the area. With regard to open space, the proposed project has been designed such that existing 5.47± acres of woodland, which includes brush and undergrowth, would be preserved to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the applicant intends to preserve the existing cedar trees throughout thc 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 subject site. With respect to the infrastructure, potable water is available at the site and shall be provided by the Suffolk County Water Authority ("SCWA"). Attached hereto is a letter of water availability issued 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"] based on current guidelines of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services ["SCDHS"]). A review of the New York State Department of Conservation ("NYSDEC") Tidal Wetlands' Map (Map Number 716-548) (see Exhibit "A" of this LWRP Consistency Analysis) indicates the subject property is not a coastal property, nor is it identified in the Town of Southold Local Watetfron! Revitalization Program Reach 6 as an "area subject to development pressure" or an "area of special concern." The applicant respectfully submits that by designing the project such that the character will be preserved and enhanced, open space will be preserved and infrastructure will be efficiently used, the proposed action would minimize adverse effects of development in the Town of Southold. Therefore, the proposed action comports with this policy. Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. According to the website of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Places ("OPRHP"),I 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 fencing) 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 Utility 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 ("agl"), 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.ny.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'~oposed Alignment Plan, signage is pr'~osed 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 13, 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. 2. 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 thatpresents 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. I. Anticipate and prevent impairment of dynamic landscape elements that contribute to ephemeral visual qualities. 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. K. Protect visual q~ity associated with agricultural lan~, open space and natural 1. 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 visuM interruptions to natural landscapes including: 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. 6 c. changes t~the continuity and configuration associated vegetation. natural shorelines and 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 itnprove 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 Southolt~ 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. 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 Documentation~LWRP Consistency Analysis Attachment - Rev4-Oct 08 - FINAL.doc 8 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM 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. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable, tt 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 I: 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. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify ttm Portions of FAF completed for this project: I t Part1 ~ ~ Part2 ~ [Part3 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: 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, Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* 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 wUl be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Site Plan Application for Southwold Manor Name of Action Name or Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency website Date Page 1 of 21 Title of Responsible Officer Signature o~ Prep~a~r~ (IF(fiffer~ent f~-~' ;~p~ible officer) 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 the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to 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. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and wil~ not involve new studies. research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action Site Plan Application for Southwold Manor Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York Name of Applicant/Sponsor East End Resources, LLC Address c/o Alfred L. Amato 666 Old Country Road, Suite 901 City / POGarden City StateNew York Zip Code t 1530 Business Telephone 516-227-6363 Name of Owner (if different) Albert & Rita Cohen Address 56655 Main Road Cb / POS°uth°ld Business Telephone 631-765-5022 State New York Zip Code 11971 Description of Action: The proposed action consists of the construction of a 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 converted to three moderate-income-family dwelling units. Sanitary waste associated with the proposed action would be handled on-site via septic tanks and sanitary leaching pools. Page 2 of 21 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: [] Urban [] Industrial ~ Commercial D Forest D Agriculture D Other r~ Residential (suburban) ~ Rural (non-farm) Total acreage of project area: 6.75+ acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate hype) Landscaping PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION 5.47: acres 0.93± acres 0 . acres __0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 . acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 0 acres acres 0.14± acres 3.11± acres 1.14± 2.71± acres acres What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Haven loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (HaA) a. Soil drainage: ~Well drained 100 % of site ~ Moderately well drained __ D Poorly drained __% of site % of site. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 6.75±** acres (see 1 NYCRR 370). *"The subject proper~ was formerly utilized for agricultural purposes. However, such agricultoral use has not been active for decades according to the applicant 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? "'"1 ] Yes [] No a. What is depth to bedrock725±-735+ {in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 100 % ~10- 15% % ~ 15% or greater 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a Historic Places? [] Yes [] No Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? [~No 8. 9. [~ Yes 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? % building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of ~ Yes ~No ~Yes r~No *It should be noted that the applicant intends, to the extent possible, to relocate existing cedar trees from their existing locations to the perimeter of the property, Page 3 of 21 What is the depth of the water table? 25±-30± (in feet) Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer?. 1 1, Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? DYes ~ No Accordin[i to: I Site in~.,P,.,ecti~n' Identif~ each species: 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? DYes []No Describe: 13, Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? DYes ~'X~No If ~tes, explain: 14. Does the p~esent site include scenic views known to be important to the community? DYes 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: INone ...................... a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributa~j 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project ama: b. Size (in acres): Page 4 of 21 17, Is the site served by existing public utilities? ~ Yes [] No a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? r~Yes b. If YES, will improvements be oecessary to allow connection? 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture 304? DYes ~No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Fnvironmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 DYes [~No *Please see attached water availability D No letter fromSCWA [] Yes ~No on-site improvements and Markets Law, Article 2S-AA, Section 303 and 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? B. 1. Project Description Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). 6.75± a. Total conti§uous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: b. Project acreage to be developed: 5.82± acres initially; 5.82± c. Project aereaoe to remain undeveloped: 0.93 acres. d. length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. N/A f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 3-5± ; proposed 80 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: 14 h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family l(existing) 0 Initially 0 0 Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: 19.2± height; 59.6± j. Linear feet of frontage alon9 a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? ]9] How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site?0.0 Will disturbed areas be reclaimed DYes DNo ~N/A r~Yes r~ No acres. acres ultimately. *Please see atlached traffic study prepared (upon completion of project)? by Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C. Multiple Family Condominium 0 0 27 0 width; 113.0± ft. length. a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? I b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [] Yes [] No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [] Yes ~ No How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 4.54± acres. Page 5 of 21 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes ~ No If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: If multi-phased: b, d. Will blasting occur during construction? [] Yes [] No Number of jobs generated: during construction 200± ...... *Phasing to be determined based on months, (including aemo.~.~on) the timing of the permit/approval process. Total number or phases anticipated ~ (number) Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: ~ month Approximate completion date of final phase: ~ month ~ year. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ~ Yes ~ No year, (including demolition) 10. Number ofjobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? nYes ; after project is complete --* *Per applicant, information is not available at this time. ~No if yes, explain: 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [] Yes ~ 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? [] Yes ~ No Type Sanitar7 sewage *Sewage disposal via on-site septic tanks and sanitary leaching pools. ~ ~ 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? U Yes ~ No If yes, explain: 15, Is proJect or any portion of project located in a 1 oo year flood plain? [] Yes [~ No 16, Will the proJect generate solid waste? ~ Yes [] No a. If yes, what is the amount per month? 3.4± tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ~ Yes ~ No c, If yes, give n. ame Cutchogue Transfer Station ; location Route 48, Cutchogue d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? DYes Page 6 of 21 e. If yes, explain: 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ~Yes ~'lNo 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? []Yes N No Routine landscaping maL~tcnanc¢. 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 [~No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? []Yes [] No If yes. indicate type(s) Electricity, fuel oil or natural gas 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipat~-~d water usage per day 4~$30+ gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? [] Yes ~ No If yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 25. Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board ~Yes [] No Type LWlLPConsistenc7 Submittal Date City, Town, Village Planning Board [] Yes D No Site Plan Approval City, Town Zoning Board Yes [] No City, County Health Department [] Yes Sanitary Disposal, Density and Water Supply Other Local Agencies Yes [] No Suffolk County Water Authority - Water Supply Other Regional Agencies OYes ~ No State Agencies [] Yes N No New York State Department of Transportation - Highway Work New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Federal Agencies N Yes ~ NO C, Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? []Yes [] No If Yes, indicate decision required: [] Zoning amendment [] Zoning variance [] New/revision of master plan ~ Site plan [] Special use permit [] Resource management plan ]Subdivision ~ Other Page 8 of 21 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? 3, What is the maximum potential development oi: the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Iohe Hamlet Business zoning designation pemfits a wide range of uses and thus presents vmying development potentials. According to the applicant, with spect to residential use, the maximum potential development for the entire 294,202-square-foot site would either be a subdivision consisting of 24 lots of less than 10,000square feet, or asite plan consistingof48 residenfialunits. With respectto the broad rangeofpermiaedeommercial uses atthe site, the ~!e[ Bu~!n~ ~ing_ d~)gnatio~.wp~!fi p~rmit th~ eon~truction 0 f an approximate!~ ~ ~ ~,000-squa~e-fo~t c~o, ~e[~!~! bu!!d~ng ~!~ ~pp~rte~an~ p~k!ng. 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? 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? [] Yes [] No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zonino classifications within a !a mile radius of proposed action7 The predominant land uses are residential and commercial. The predominant zoning classifications are HB-Hamlet Business, R-40 Residential Low Density AA, R-80 Residential Low Density A, B - General Business and LI-Light Industrial. 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a ¥~ mile? 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? Page 9 of 21 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the forma:ion of sewer or water districts? [] Yes ~ No 1 1. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? ~Yes ~No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~ ~ Yes ~ No I . 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of t~affic significantly above present levels? [] Yes [] No a. If yes, is the existing road nebNork adequate to handle the additional traffic. DYes [] No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clari~J 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. East End Resources, LL~.~y Applicant/Sponsor Name Freudenthal & EIk~itz Consulting Gro,~ Inc. Date October 17, 2008 Title Principal If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this *Please see attached traffic study prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C. Page 10 of 21 F:EED4)5-236~NYSEAF Oct 2008 617.20 ~ !, State Environmental Quality Revie.W,,~ ~_l l~5l 1!111 ~r~se: The furl ~F is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an ordeal m mner.~whe~er a p~ct_or acti~ ma) be significant. The question ofwhe~er an action may be signi~cant is not a~ways eas~ ~o a~ swer. Fr~u~U~x~re asp~ o a proj~t that am subjective or unmeasurable. ~t is also understood ~at those who det~mine ~ [qnificanc~ ~E~ ~ no fora knowledge of the environment or ma~ nm be technicafly expe~ in envimnmen~l analys~s. ~ additioa, ~nS_ ~h~ b.~ ~, _ in one pa~cular area may not ~ aware of the broad~ concerns afl, ting ~e question ~:-'~,~ ....... ~ ......... ~ The full fAF is intended to provide a meth~ whereb~ applicants and agencies can be ass~-determination pr~es~ has been ~derl~, comprehensive iff nature, yet flexible enough to allow in~oduc~on of information to fit a project or action. Full fAF Com~nents: The full fAF is comprised of throe pa~s: Pa~ 1: Provides objective data and informafion about a given project and its s~[e. By identifying basic project data, it assists a review~ in ~e analysis that takes place in Pa~s 2 and 3. Pa~ 2: F~uses on identifying ~e range of'possible impacts that ma~ occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to wheth~ an ~mpact is likel~ to be considered small to m~era[e ~ whe~er it is a potential¥1arge impact. The form also identifies whe~er an impact can be mitigat~ 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. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of fAF completed for this project: I I Part l [ ~ Part2 I 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: 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 ~'epared, Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have bean required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared. * mC. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may a significant impact on have Lhe environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Site Plan Application for Southwold Manor Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print 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 Date 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 the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answem to 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. It is expected that completion of the full EAF 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, Name of Action Site Plan Application for Southwold Manor Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) 56655 Main Road, Southold, New York Name of Applicant/Sponsor East End Resources, LLC Address c/o Alfi'ed L. Amato 666 Old Country Road, Suite 901 City / POGarden City StateNew York Zip Code 11530 Business Telephono 516-227-6363 Name of Owner (if different) Albert & Rita Cohen Address 56655 Main Road City / POS°uth°ld Business Telephone 631-765-5022 State New York Zip Code 11971 Description of Action: qq~e proposed action consists of the construction of a 24-unit planned retirement community consisting of eight towrLhouse buildings, containing three dwelling units within each building. Also proposed are facilities for swimming, platform-tennis and resident gatherings. In addition, the existing two-story frame dwelling with detached garage would remain, but would be converted to three moderate income family dwelling units. A cromaglass wastewater treatment system is proposed treat the sanitary waste generated by the proposed development. Page 2 of 21 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: [] Urban [] Industrial [] Commercial D Forest D Agriculture N Other [~] Residential (suburban) [] Rural (non-farm) 2. Total acreage of project area: 6.75± acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (indicate type) Landscaping PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION 5.47± acres 0.20± acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 . acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0.14± acres 2.98± acres ].14± 3.57± acres acres What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Haven loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (HaA) a. Soil drainage: DWell drained 100 % of site [] Moderately well drained __ D Poorly drained __% of site % of site. b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 6.75±* * acres (see 1 NYCRR 370). **The subject propcri7 was formerly utilized fcc ag~cul~ral purposes. However, such Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? L~ Yes ~ No a. What is depth to bedrock725±-735± (in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed proJect site with slopes: [~0-10% 100 % DIO- 15% % ~ 15% or greater % 6. Is project substantiall~..~ontiguous to, or contain a building, site, er district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? U Yes [] No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? [] Yes [r~No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 25±-30± ,(in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? r~Yes N No 1 o. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? [] Yes [] No Page 3 of 21 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? DYes [] No Accordin~l to: I Pre!imin~ ~i~¢~SP~Stign- Identif~ each species: I N/A 12. Are there any unique or unusual lan(J f:o~m~ ~n t~ project ~ite? (i.e~,' ~liffs, dunes, other geological formations? DYes Describe: 13, Is the project site presently used by the community or neJ§hborhood as an open space or recreation area*. DYes []No If ;/es, explain: 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community?. DYes r~No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: INone a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary  /A 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: None b. Size (in acres): Page 4 of 21 17. is the site served by existing public utilities? [] Yes N No a. If YES, dons sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [] Yes b, If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? *Please see attached water availability D No letter fi.om SCWA [] Yes ~No on-site improvements 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? []Yes I~No 19. Is the site located in or substantiall3Lcontiguous to a Cdtical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? [] Yes [] No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? B. Project DescdpUon 1, Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate), 6.75± a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: b. Project acreage to be developed: 6.55± acres initially; 6.55± c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. N/A f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 3-5± ; proposed 86 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: 14 h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: Initially ]Yes [] No Ultimately acres. acres ultimately. *Please see attached traffic study prepared (upon completion of project)? by Duma Engineering Associates, P.C. One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 i. Dimensions {in feet) of largest proposed structure: 18.5± height; 55± width; 120± length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 191 ± ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e, rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site?20,441,6± 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed DYes DNo ~N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? I i b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes [] No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [] Yes [] No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 5.2?:: acres. Page 5 of 21 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes ~No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated per,ed of construction: 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? ~ Yes [] No 8. Will blasting occur dudng construction? N Yes [] No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 200+ ; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ~ Yes ~ No If yes, explain: 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [] Yes []No a. If yes, indicate t~pe 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? [] Yes [] No Type Sanitary sewal~e *Sewage disposal via proposed on-site cromaglass wastewater treatment syste~ '14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? L I Yes ~ No If yes, explain: 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? [] Yes r~No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? [] Yes [] No a. If yes, what is the amount per month? 3.4-- tens b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [] Yes [] No c. If yes, give n. ame Cutchogue Transfer Station ; location Route 48, Cutchogue d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfilr? DYes [] No months, (including demolition) *Phasing to be determined based on - the timing of the permiffapproval process. *Per applicant, information is not available at this time. Page 6 of 21 e. If yes, explain: 17. Will the pro~ect involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes [~No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? __ b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? ~ 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ~Yes tons/month. years. N No Routine landscaping maintenance 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes []No 20, Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? DYes 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? [] Yes [] No If )'es, indicate type(s) Electricity, fuel oil or natural gas 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 5~000 §allons/day. 24. Does pro~ect involve Local, State or Federal funding? [] Yes [] No If yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 25. Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board ~Yes [] No Type LWRP Consistency Submittal Date City, Town, Village Planning Board [] Yes Site Plan Approval of Health Services Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Deparanent of Public City, Town Zoning Board ~Yes [] No City, County Health Department [] Yes No Other Local Agencies []Yes [] No Works, Suffolk County Sewer Agency Other Regional Agencies DYes [] No State Agencies []Yes [] No New York State Department of Transportation New York State Department of Environmental Federal Agencies [] Yes [] No Zoning and Planning Information Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ~:~Yes [] No if Yes, indicate decision required: [] Zoning amendment [] Zoning variance N New/revision of' master plan ~ Site plan [] Special use permit [] Resource management plan D Subdivision D Other Page 8 of 21 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? IdB-Hamlet Business What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? The Hamlet Business zoning designation permits a wide range of uses and thus presents varying development potentials. According to the applicant, with respect to residential use, the maximum potential development for the entire 294,202 square foot site would either be a subdivision consisting of 29 lots of 10,000 square feet, or a site plan consisting of 29 residential units. With respect to the broad range of permitted commercial uses at the site, the Hamlet Business z? ~ n_g_d ~ ~ ! g ~ ?.~_o~ d_pe nn!! th? co~_c~on (fi_an ~ pmxi_m~? y_l_!~,00? ~q_uar~ foo~ co~e,,r.c!~?i!~!ng with ~P~nant parking., ...... What is the proposed zoning of the site? What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? [] Yes [] No What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 34 mile radius of proposed action? The predominant land uses are residential and commercial. The predominant zoning classifications are HB-Hamlet Business, R-40 Residential Low Density AA, R-80 Residential Low Density A, B - General Business and LI-Light Industrial Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a ~4 mile? If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? Page 9 of 21 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ~ Yes ~ No 1 1. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? DNo a, If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand?. [] Yes 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? a. If yes, is the existing road ne~vork adequate to handle the additional traffic. DYes D No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If them 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. East End Resources, LLC by Applicant/Sponsor Name Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Graup~ Inc. $ignatum ~/~A~ ~,,, //~' ~ 'I'itle Principal Date November 14, 2006 If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you am a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this *Please see attached traffic study prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C. Page 10 of 21 ( 1 `m4 ✓ Vcudor No. CL Town of Southold, New York - Payment Voucher ,\ Y d v(:roL,r T:,x 11)tJumhcr nr St+ctal Sceurir•!Numh.••r Vendor Addtr..ec 1/- 3 3_6_3 ,O .•may f 1; t R g ('•1 \•Uri;n'I,t:In10 S Q0 ow V60 rr11 \-rude, Yelrphone Nuntb_r - `�• , ' "=•r.6:. 631 - Ya 7- ;ZZ5 C :cndor Coolacl Invoice Invoice Ne( Purchase Order Iq:'MCcyn Numhe, Uate TutaI Discount Amount Claimed Numbtr Description ol'Goods or$ervices i '`�'_ "��•. cD L•:o r,. NO-11 g Q1'. : .1 INS,M •t`� ` 'lri .. ,'Vw ,G•',iYi.`�•oYi;;a I � .x• ^%�r-c• ���,.tai `f'.�,.��L ,M��*a�i` LL - - � : ,,-tom' •4;+,.�,>'4t .t .;�' T;s i, _ ^ fir• 4 �n:!f 19s,: A A'•: •� ��. .yy tay. +F t �' i .r�r• MSi-,; rS �Afr , r.,wh ih' L I }iia•.�.7K.1f1t• •L'IfS�� .{'r s1;: Y� �P L•,(L J a Pa\'ee Certiftcatinn Deparuoeot Cert(riealion nre unde itp W(C'lbtmant)(Acting on behall'or the above named claimant) I hereby cerify that OK materials abn,•c rpeciAcd have bora rmcived by rex .Inc, certify that the I'uregoing claim is true and comect,thst no put has in good condition%ithout substitution,the st:Mces pn..ptrly ~ hc.:u paid., xvi)l as(herein stutrxl,that the balance therein stated is actually peTformed and that the quantities Ihcmur have been L cri lied With the e.,crnt•^lts G dac and o••,inA,and thus taxes from„hick tht'rov n is exeuq,t;oro eseluded. or discrepancies noted,and payment i.,al,pro,•cd O n U') c _-• ride Sre_ t"u / .. S ✓Dale_ Title G C1: V_ Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC Property: 09015 Project: VA02794 X72 Walt Whitman Road Pt 631427-5665 Melville NY 11747 Fa 31 Southwold Manor Property Manager: Voorhis,Charles Invoice To: Town of Southold Invoice#: 6589 Town Hall,53095 State Rte 25 Invoice Date: April 27,2009 P.O.Box 1179 Southhold NY 11971-0959 Attention:Heather Lanza,Director MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO NELSON POPE&VOORHIS Invoice Amount $200.00 Professional Services Bill Hours Bill Rate charge Municipal -Meeting preparation(3/6/09). -Emails to Heather Lanza and F.Isler(3/26/09). Managing Partner Municipal SEQR Review 1.00 200.00 200.00 Municipal Total: 1.00 $200.00 Professional Services Totals $200.00 *** Total Project Invoice Amount $200.00 All invoices are due net 30 days A late charge of]%per month will be added to any unpaid balance after 30 days Please make all checks payable to NELSON POPE&VOORIIIS Please include invoice number on check NELSON POPE&VOORHIS NOW ACCEPTS CREDIT CARDS VISA - MASTERCARD - AMERICAN EXPRESS r• U h APR 3 0 2009 Date: 12/19/06 Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Receipt~: 1243 Transaction(s): 1 1 Application Fees Reference Subtotal 63-3-15 $12,807.40 Check#:1243 Total Paid: $12,807.40 Name: Southwold, Manor RSP Cio East End Resources 666 Cold Country Rd, Ste 901 Garden City, NY 11530 LINDAC Clerk ID: Internal ID: 63-3-15 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (car. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 To: Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk From: Planning Department Date: December 18, 2006 Re: Checks Enclosed herewith are 7 checks listed below. Please return receipts to us. Thank you. Project Name & Type Tax Map # Amount Date of Check Sullivan Subdiv. 122-2-24.1 $500 app 11/2/06 Tall Pines ~ Paradise Pt. 81-2-5 $1,000 app 11/17/06 Cottages at Mattituck 83-2-17.1 $§00 app fee 12/7/06 Cottages at Mattituck 83-2-17.1 $17,~9.50 12/7/06 odmin fee Pawluczyk Subdiv. 84-~-4 $5~ opp fee 12/14/06 Powmuczyk 5ubdiv. 84-b-4 $~,~ P&P 12/14/06 Southwold Manor RSP 63-3-15 $12,807.40 opp 11/1~/06