No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile # 1, 3/2005-8/2008PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND August29,2008 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OFSOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OVF~CE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136' Mr. Mark Wolfgang NYS Dept. of Transportation 250 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Dear Mr. Wolfgang: Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue: updated Traffic Study Enclosed is the updated Traffic Study for the Heritage at Cutchogue. It was updated in November 2007 from the original 2006 version which you reviewed. This document is included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Heritage development which has not yet been accepted for public review. We are sending this Traffic Study to you in advance of the complete DEIS to ask for your comments and any other traffic concerns your agency may have regarding the impact of this development on State Road 25. Please contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Town Planning Director Eno, 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 Hail Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 To: From: Date: Subject: Transportation Commission Members Lanza, Planning Director ~ Heather August 29, 2008 The Heritage at Cutchogue: updated Traffic Study Enclosed is the updated Traffic Study for the Heritage at Cutchogue. The study was updated in November, 2007 from the original 2006 version you reviewed. This copy is missing the Appendices. A complete copy of the study with all Appendices can be found in the Transportation Commission mailbox in Town Hall. The study will be on September's Meeting Agenda. Please feel free to call me with any questions or comments regarding the above. Eric. Nelson & Pope Engineers & Surveyors 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 Phon~ 631-427-5665 Fa~: 631-427-5620 TO: Heather Lama, AICP Town c~ Southold Town Planning Director 53095 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Date:. August 29, 2008 Re:. Heritage at Cutchogue N&P Job # 00026 Your Reft We are sendins you F-~ Pick Up F-~ Via [ FEDEX For Your Use As rt*quested Quanlily Drawing Title Sheet Number (s) Revision I rraffic Impact Study (November 2007) CC: NELSON & POPE ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS By: Scott J. Risinser Lanza, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Lanza, Heather Tuesday, August 26, 2008 4:21 PM 'ckuehnjr@aol.com' RE: Heritage numbers Thanks Chuck. From: ckuehnjr@aol.com [mailto:ckuehnjr@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 4:22 PM To.' Lanza, Heather Subject.' Re: Heritage numbers Hi Heather, Sorry for the delay in responding. I was om all day and just got back to my office. I will put together the info your looking for. I just have a few things I have to get done tonight, but will work on the info tomorrow sometime and get it over to you. Thanks, Chuck ..... Original Message ..... From: Lanza, Heather <heather.lanza~town.southold.ny.us> To: ckuehnjr~aol.com Sent: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:26 am Subject: Heritage numbers Charles, As you know I am providing the Planning Board with information each Monday on the original proposed plan for Heritage at Cutchogue to facilitate our SEQR and site plan review process. I could use a few details on each type of unit in the Heritage. Gross floor area (including garages, basements, covered porches)? What is the area of any decks? Height to peak of highest roof on each unit? Footprint with and without decks? Any chance you could tell me these numbers this week? Thanks for any information you can provide. Heather Heather Lanza, AICP Town Planning Director 53095 Rome 25 4:30 p.m. WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Monday, August 25, 2008 4:30 p.m. Site Plans & Subdivisions Site Plans '~J~' na'me ~"~'i~e "H'e'r-ita g"e a t 'C~tc h 0'g Ue ' ScTM~: 1000-102-i-33.3 Status: 5 Plannin~ Board w th the details Subdivisions ocat on Located on the south s de of Avenue B, approximately 520 feet west of Crescent Avenue on F shem Island SCTM#1000-6-2-16 will be merged and, following the reconfiguration, SCTM#1000-6-2-14 will equal 11,786 square feet, SCTM#1000-6-2-15 will equal 11,029 square feet and SCTM#1000-6-2-17.1 will equal 69 428 , i sguare feet Status: ~ Co~i ii~ri'~i"~ ~ '~pro~i Location: ~i~ ~8'~k~; Status: Attachments. Re uest for wa ver of P & P Fee dated ~ 8/19~08 For Discussion: Request for comments from ZBA re: ARTCO Cesspool & Drain Service, SCTM#1000-96-1-1.6 (att: draft memo dated 8/18/08) 4:30 p.m. WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Monday, August 18, 2008 4:30 p.m. Site Plans & Subdivisions Site Plans Project name: j The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM# }"";i~00~'16~:~:3~i~ P arming Board wth the deta s :Attachments: None Subdivisions 'Proj~:t name: Ed~a MCNuity :: .... 1000-145-2-1.5, Location: on fl~e South Side ~f Pe~onic Ba~'~0~ eva~i a~i~l~xi~a"i~i~ ~'~§- ~"~ ' Laurel Lane n Laure 22,151 sq. ff. to 22,936 sq. ft. by adding 784 sq. ft. from SCTM~1000- 145-2-1.5. SCTM~1000-145-2-1.5 will, therefore, be reduced from 20,877 sq. ~. to 20,093 sq. ~. Both lots are non-conforming in an R40 Zoning District. project name: c0~e Beach Estates LEd ' 18.8 Location: on the north side of NYS Route 25, 1000' east of Kayleigh's Court, in = East Marion De~ril:)~io~i ~t-le prep0sed a~tion invoives'fl~ Subdividin~ 0~'a ,10~t"i~ ~:~ parodi int(::) 12 lots for future single family residences ranging in area from 1.65 acres to 9.2 acres. The Peconic Land Trust holds a Conservation Easement on 100.60 acres of the 104.35 acres including Lots 1 through 12 Status: Final Approval issued by PB on June 12, 2004. Requesting partial release of Performance Bond. Recommendations:: Atta~entsi letter and revised B~nd ESi m~te fi-~m ,lame ~i~hte~ ~o~ Eng neet SUF 0LK COUNTY LEGISLA R£ EDWARD P. ROMAINE LEGISLATOR ! ST DISTRICT August 15, 2008 Barbara McAdam 800 Crown Land Lane PO Box 528 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Dear Ms. McAdam: It was a pleasure meeting with you and other concerned citizens regarding the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue development. As I mentioned, according to Article 6 of the Sanitary Code, the allowable sewage for this 45 6-acre parcel is 22,625 gallons per day (gpd) Currentl,~.the project me~tS the2.2~. density requirements, as the total estimated design sewage fl~w:is 21,615 gpd. These calculations are based on the following: 139 PRC units x 150 gpd per PRC unit : 2O,850 gpd + 765 gpd for the clubhouse = 21,615 gpd Thus, the developer can meet the sanitary disposal arequireeme~t ~.~ septic tans and leeching pools. I have asked the Health Department to evaluate the impact of any proposed septic system on existing wells and surrounding waterways. As far as Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) is concerned, this parcel is not currently on the Town of Southold's water availability map, which was adopted by the town and the SCWA and endorsed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 423 GRIFFlNG AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NY 1 190! PHONE (631)852-3200 FAX (631)8152-3203 Barbara McAdam -2- August 15, 2008 The SCWA will not issue a letter of water availability for this project until such time as the Town of Southold's Planning Board has reviewed and approved the site plan for this development in accordance with the town's planning and development requirements and the SCWA's Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold. Furthermore, Steve Jones, CEO of the Suffolk County Water Authority, indicated that before the SCWA would move to extend public water to this site, not only would site plan approval be needed but also the Town Board would have to request by resolution that the SCWA extend public water to this proposed development. Moreover, as I indicated the SCWA charges an additional $3,000 per meter as "key money" to fund treatment and filtering of water in Southold Town. As a result of legislation passed in June by the County Legislature, the development will not be entitled to one meter, but instead will have to meter all 139 proposed units with an additional cost of $3,000 per unit. Finally, in reviewing the proposed site plan, I certainly do not favor the ingress/egress to the proposed development through the existing closed subdivision to the west or Schoolhouse Road. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Edward P. R~o~m~aine st County Legislator, 1 District Steve Jones, CEO, Suffolk County Water Authority Martin Trent, Suffolk County Department of Health Services WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Monday, August 11, 2008 4:30 p.m. 4:30 p.m. Review Public Meeting Agenda 4:45 p.m. Site Plans and Subdivisions Site Plans Location: at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Gr ff ng St n Cutchogue Status: waitin~ for revised DEIS , Plannin~ Board with the details Attachments: , None Location: at the intersection of Bergen Avenue and Sound Avenue, on the north side of Sound Avenue, in Mattituck escn ~on: ~ Th~s s tep an ~s for add~bons & alterabons to an ex~sbng winery on a 5.6 ] acre parcel in the A-C Zone. [.. _S_t.~.t_.u.s ·~0Pllcat~on rewew i the site plan w th rev s OhS. Status' J Waiting for final ,.R~qg~_~.e~d~[jonsL j..~e~.~ te_P..ag~ a~_~y 6 & 7, 2008 s te ~ ~ ~"~{~ ~ A~achments: ~ None Subdivisions ocabon: at the terminus of Kirkgp Lane s/o Sound Avenue n Matt tuck Descnpbon. conservat on subd v s on of a 10 454-acre parce nto three ors Status: [ Conditional Final Approva Attachments: i e-ma ms~!s, dated 7129108 WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Monday, August 4, 2008 4:30 p.m. 4:30 p.m. Site Plans and Subdivisions Site Plans ~.r. oject name: Chase Bank- Southold i SCTM# 1000-61-4-1 'Location: ~ i southeast corner of NYS Route 25 & We s Avenue, Southold : ~ vacant 99 209 s ft 228acre arce )..p_ _ Status: i new s te p~ an Locati~? ...................... i' "~-~-~'"~]'~-"[~:~t~i"'~-r~7~ "~:-~-~--(~--D-~"~-~'i'"~_-~ n-~"-~-~-~-~ v§" ~ ~"~ "~ ~ i in ', Cutchp~Be. offices on a 20,224 28 s ff ~arce n the RO Zonin District Status: new Site Plan Recommendations:; ........ ~ acce~t sltep an and send out referrals ! i~'e~o-rn'rnei~da'ti~)nsi 'r{'b'"~-C~t~'r~'"~'b~"{~l~en-;-*rbvie~t- ,~ite pi~r~'~l~'~'ii~:~tion to re-familiai:i~e ~h~ Pann ng Board wth the deta s Attachments Project.name; ...... Celic Center i SCTM#: 1000-143-3-1 i Location: s~'iCi~" (~ M-a in-'-'R~ad-.-a.~ d k~'a ~:ie-~ ~ · t~n e- U ~ff{U ~ existing building that was conve~ed to conference rooms and office s~ace on a 31 450 square foot Barce n the B Zone Status: under review Recommendations: rewew comments from referrals; consider scheduling for final approval at August 11 ~ub c meet ng AEachments: ~ Staff ReBod Work Session Agenda Page Two August 4, 2008 Proj~ct name: i Peconic Land Trust i SCTM#: I 1000-109-1-13.2 _._L_.o_..s.a.~!?_~L ................................ j. J o c~a~_e~ ._o._.n_ t_h e_ _n?_ ~..h_.._sj ~A .g~ _U_aj n _R_ .o_a_d_ _!n_ _ _C_ .U. t_c_ _h_o_ .g y _e... Description: i This site plan is to legalize an existing 2,400 sf (40 x 60) agricultural on a i 42-acre parcel in the A-C zoning District located on the north side of Main j_ Recommendations: i review comments from referrals; consider scheduling for final approval at j_. Subdivisions Location: ' :~ The parcel is located on the south side of NYS Route 25, east of Wells i Road, in Peconic. It borders Richmond Creek. Description: This is a standard subdivision proposing 3 lots on a 6.55539 acre parcel, with a 3 lot yield in the R-80 Zone. Proposed Lot 1 would be 80,000 sq. ft. (this excludes 52 sq. ft. of wetlands), proposed Lot 2 would be 80,010 sq. ft. (this excludes 26, 235 sq. ft. of wetlands) and proposed Lot 3 would be 82,932 sq. ft. (this excludes16,314 sq. ft. of wetlands). S~aty~: ....................... L.~?eJ i_m_ j ~ ~ ~. !~.! a._~ _A._p~_ r~o?a I ................................................................................................................... Recommendations: '~ Provide aerial with newly marked trees to applicant based upon site ~ inspection done on 7-30 - confirming significant trees which applicant { had marked as well as any others the Planning Board would like to ~ recommend. Recommend keeping newly marked trees intact and in ~ place as well as tree spading others and using as vegetative buffer along Wells Road for privacy, wind screen and most impo~antly to prevent dust~ A~a. cbmffg~; ~.S~a~.R~Pg~ Description: This lot line change will add 2,641 sq ft to 9,325 sq ft residential lot from a 23 acre parcel owned by the Peconic Land Trust (Charnews property) j Status: ' ~'r~'~ndafion-si-~ consider Sketch Approval for Aug.11 public meeting, and set public .l? ~a.ri!~ g..~..d_...~j.~?...a..!. ~p..~.a ! .[o~. s.~p. te.m~.e.~ py~lj~..~.~!~g. 2 WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Monday, July 28, 2008 4:15 p.m. 4:15p.m. Review Special Meeting Agenda 4:30p.m. Special Meeting 4:45 p.m. Site Plans and Subdivisions Site Plans I~e~[!pt. ion; 90._nd o.m !~.!..u_.~ ~.~p.!e~ ~a~u.~; ................. ............................................................................................ Recommendations: i No action to be taken, review site plan application to re-familiarize the i Pla.~n.i~.g .~o~rd w!!~h..the..de~!!s Attachments: ~ None Subdivisions Location: North side of CR 48 Greenport (location of sewer outfall pipe) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ Status: i Pre-submission R~c0mmend~t.ions: '~ .D!sc..~s best ~Y.t9 P r0ceed ~.!h .'d!!~._a pp_!.i.c..a.!i.?. A~tachmffr)t~ i Staff re. pgrt...~#J Discussion: 1. Town Board requests for comments a. Inclusionary Zoning code amendments b. Parking in New Suffolk,E~:..,~,.,w c. Wireless Moratorium /~:. 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, NY11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 July 1, 2008 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue DEIS Review for Adequacy for Public Comment SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The Planning Board, at their June 30, 2008 Work Session, received and accepted the report from KPC Planning Services, Inc., dated June, 2008, which provides a detailed description of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and identifies areas where it is deficient and failed to fulfill the Final Scope. The Planning Board has determined that the DEIS is inadequate with respect to the adopted Final Scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review. Please revise the DEIS and re-submit it to the Planning Board. Enclosed please find the report from KPC Planning Services, Inc. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Jerilyn B. Woodhouse Chairperson Encl. cc: Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Southold Town Clerk, Town Board Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Engineer Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission Suffolk County Water Authority NYSDEC, Commissioner, Albany New York State Department of Transportation NYSDEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook, NY Review of Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement For the Heritage at Cutchogue Planned Adult Active Community To determine whether to accept the draft ElS as adequate with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review. Prepared for Southold Town Planning Board June 2008 Prepared by KPC Planning Services, lnc 108 Mill Road, #3 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 JUN 3 0 008 KPC Planning Services, Inc. has reviewed the revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue project, prepared by Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. dated as revised May 27, 2008. This document was submitted in response to our report dated March 2008, which indicated that the original DEIS was not adequate for public review. The purpose of this analysis is only to determine if the revised DEIS is adequate for public review in terms of scope and content. The content of the DEIS has been compared to the original DEIS as well as the Final Scope, which was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board on September 10, 2007 and provides the specific requirements for completing the DEIS. The SEQRA Handbook is published by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and provides very detailed and user-friendly information as it relates to the entire SEQRA process. The following excerpts are taken directly from the handbook, which the Planning Board should take into consideration as they review the draft ElS: A draft impact statement should describe the action, alternatives to the action and various means of mitigating impacts of the action. It should discuss all significant environmental issues relates to the action, but it is not the document in which all such issues must be resolved. Resolution of issues before acceptance of a draft ElS, in fact, defeats one of the major purposes of the draft ElS; that is, to give the public an opportunity to comment on the various alternatives regarding the action, so that such comments may be part of the final decision making considerations. The lead agency shouM remember that a draft ElS does not need to be perfect. It should contain a discussion of information, including significant impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures requested by the lead agency in a reasonable level of detail. The purpose of the public comment period is to allow all involved agencies and the public to review the draft EIS and comment on its inadequacies. These can usually be corrected in a final EIS. If there is a fundamental disagreement between the lead agency and the preparer of the draft EIS about its acceptability, it is possible to simply disclose that disagreement in the document itself and explain how the parties vary in their opinions. The public will then be able to comment on this as well. Must differences in interpretation between the project sponsor and lead agency experts regarding a technical issue be resolved before determining a draft ElS is complete? No. It is not necessary to resolve these types of disputes before accepting the draft EI$ as complete. In cases where there are valM differences in interpretation of a technical issue, the lead agency should include both interpretations in the draft EIS. Providing both positions allows a reviewer to reach an independent determination regarding the impact. Proiect Location The subject property is a vacant 46.17-acre parcel located on the northwest coreer of Griffing Street and School House Lane, 1,079 feet north of Main Road (NYS Route 25) in Cutchoguc. The property is currently zoned Hamlet Density (HD) and is identified as Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-102-2-33.3. Proiect Description This proposed residential site plan application is for the development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings, 14 of which will be permanently affordable. The affordable units are approximately 1,135 sq. fi each. 46 units will be 2,647 sq.fi, each, 21 units will be 1,930 sq.fi, each, 36 units will be approximately 2,700 sq.fi, each, and 20 units will be 3,1 l0 sq.fi, each. Additional buildings proposed are an 8,840 sq. fi. clubhouse; a 1,160 sq. fi. swimming pool; two 3,200 sq. fi. tennis courts; a 2,400 sq. fi. maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 316 parking spaces, of which 272 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 arc associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 sq. fi. ofmanmade ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements, on a vacant 46.17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on the n/w coreer of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet n/o the Main Road, in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-102-1- 33.3 Review of Revised DEIS We have reviewed the revised DEIS to determine if all of the information requested in our report of March 2008 has been provided and whether the document complies with the requirements of the Final Scope and is adequate for public review. Scope Requirement: Background and History The project description provided in Section l.l of the DEI S has been adequately revised to include a more detailed description of the project, including the number and types of structures proposed, site amenities and accessory structures, the amount of landscaping and open space and a general description of the overall site design and layout. It is noted that the DEIS consistently refers to the property being 45.99 acres when the survey shows it as 46.17 acres. This discrepancy needs to be addressed. Final Scope Requirement: Public Need and Municipality Objectives Section 1.1.2 of the DElS has been adequately revised to include a more detailed discussion of the affordable housing requirements of the Town Code and the manner in which the proposed project complies with the regulations. Final Scope Requirement: Benefits of the Project It was previously indicated that the project is a 'fulfillment of the Town's vision for the subject property as expressed in the Town of SouthoM Comprehensive Plan and zoning code." However, we requested that the applicant provide additional information to support the statement. Section 1.1.4 of the DEIS has been revised to indicate that that the property is zoned Hamlet Density (HD) and is being developed in a manner that is consistent with the zoning, but falls short of providing additional information to support the statement that the property is being developed in accordance with the Town's "vision" for the site. If there are no specific recommendations or "visions" for the subject property as contemplated in a Comprehensive Plan or other planning studies, the DEIS should specify such. It was also previously indicated that the project will generate a substantial amount of tax revenue for the Town but did not provide any numbers. Table 1-2 on page 6 of the DEIS has been revised to show that the total tax revenues expected to be generated is $375,000 per year, of which $264,112.50 represents school taxes. A brief explanation of how these numbers were determined should be provided. Final Scope Requirement: Pro/ect Design and Layout Our initial review of the DEIS indicated there were deficiencies as it relates to a number of items as required by the final scope, specific item #'s 1, 6, 7, 9 and 10 on page five of the final scope. The basis for the site yield in accordance with the requirements of the Town Code has been provided and adequately addresses the issue as it relates to site yield (Section 1.3 of the DEIS). Adequate details have been provided as it relates to the overall site layout, including a detailed description of all of the proposed structures, services, utilities, access points, the road system, drainage and site amenities (Section 1.3 and subsection 1.3.1 of the DEIS). It was previously indicated that the proposed project is a "hamlet design" which provides for "clustered housing." We requested additional information to support these statements, particularly as it relates to specific design elements that have been incorporated into the project. Section 1.3 of the revised DEIS no longer indicates that the project is a "hamlet design" that provides for "clustered housing". Parking calculations are still not adequately addressed and it unclear as to whether or not the parking requirements of the Town Code have been met. The gross floor area of the community center must be included in the calculations. This includes any rooms on the second floor or in the basement. We previously requested additional information regarding the design of the internal road network. Section 1.3.3. of the DEIS has been revised to indicate that the "concept behind the internal road layout was to slow vehicular trafftc by creating meandering roadways rather than linear roadways often prone to speeding. The layout is also intended to make the environment conducive to pedestrian traffic, by providing interest in the curved roadway pattern and by providing sidewalks throughout the site. The proposed roadway was also designed to create an environment that provides a sense of privacy by breaking up the units as opposed to having homes all lining the roadways with full views up and down the neighborhood streets. The design is intended to provide a sense of serenity, which is in keeping with the objectives of an active adult community." While it will be up to the Planning Board to determine whether or not they agree with these statements as it relates to the design of the site, the information has been provided as requested and is adequate for public review and comment. It was previously recommended that a cross-access with the adjacent property to the east, which is a vacant undeveloped farm parcel with the potential for development, be considered. Section 1.3.3 of the DEIS has been revised to indicate that the adjacent property owner is not interested in providing an easement over their property that would provide direct access to Depot Lane. We previously noted that the Town Code requires public water and public sewer to allow a density of 1 unit per 10,000 square feet of land area in the HD Zone. This proposal calls for on-site septic systems, designed as gang systems (multiple unit systems), which is not community/public sewer. However, the DE1S references a letter dated March 27, 2007 from the Town Attorney indicating that if the project meets Suffolk County Health Department approval with regard to the proposed septic systems, the Town will consider their requirement for a public sewer satisfied. Information regarding site lighting still remains inadequate. Section 1.3.5 of the DEIS still only provides limited information regarding the site lighting. As requested in our previous memorandum of March 2008, a detailed lighting plan should be submitted which consists of an illumination plan detailing the footcandle renderings in 5' grids, extending 10' beyond the property line, and includes all exterior luminaires on every building in the site, including wall mounted fixtures, lamps, poles or other supports. In addition, show the isoplots for each luminaire in its place on the site plan. A schedule of on and off times for each light must also be provided. A manufacturer's cut sheet for each luminaire type should be provided. All luminaires should be full-cutoff fixtures that minimize glare. It is noted in the DEIS that the outdoor lighting fixtures will not exceed 14 feet in height as required by the Town Code. However, the street light detail shows that the street lights will be 15' in height, which does not conform to the Town's requirements. The map should be revised accordingly. There is also insufficient information as it relates to the site landscaping. While Section 1.3.5 of the DEIS indicates that a detailed landscaping plans are provided in Appendix C, said information cannot be found in the document. Information regarding the amount of fertilized vegetation and the watering schedule has been provided and is adequate. Final Scope Requirement: Construction Section 1.4.1 of the DEIS has been adequately revised to include a more detailed description of the construction plan, which now specifies a general work schedule, including the proposed construction at each phase of the project. In addition, information regarding which stmctums are going to be built first, the location of model units, equipment staging/storage area and the location trailer/construction field office has been provided. Final Scope Requirement: Operation Our initial review of the DEIS found that item #'s I thru 7 on page 5 of the final scope were not adequately addressed as it relates to the operation of the site, which includes the establishment of a Homeowner's Association. Section 1.4.2 of the DEIS has been adequately revised to provide a more detailed description of the operation of the site, including the specific use of the site's facilities, seasonal operations, special events, the number of anticipated employees, the type of truck traffic that can be expected and the general location of the truck loading to be provided at the community building. Final Scope Requirement: Permits and Approvals Required Section 1.5 of the DEIS had been revised to provide the specific agencies required for utility hookups as identified in Table 1-5 on page 15 of revised DEIS. Final Scope Requirement: Soils Our initial review of the DEIS revealed them was no discussion regarding the loss of agricultural soils as required in item # 1 on page 6 of the final scope (soils). Section 2.1.2 of the revised DEIS includes a statement which indicates that the proposed project will result in a loss of approximately 45 acres of agricultural soils for which no mitigation is offered but indicates that the property is being developed in accordance with the zoning requirements of the Town Code. As it relates to the proposed mitigation relating the contaminated soils, we previously requested that a more detailed soil management plan be provided to mitigate the potential exposure to arsenic and mercury, particularly during and after construction when the soils are disturbed. According to the conclusions of the Pesticide Report prepared by Nelson and Pope dated November 8, 2007, "based on laboratory test results, elevated concentrations of arsenic and mercury were identified As a result, it is recommended that a soil management plan be prepared to mitigate potential exposure to arsenic and mercury." It is stated in Section 2.1.3 of the DEIS that the proposed mitigation will involve "isolation of the soils as part of the grading plan to ensure that either non- impacted subsoils are exposed at the surface, or impacted surface soils are covered with at least one (1) foot of clean soil." The DE1S also references the Suffolk County Department of Health Services soil management guidance to ensure that contaminants aren't ingested or inhaled. This information was already put forth in the original DEIS and does not include the additional information we requested as stated in our memorandum of March 2008, which requested that a more detailed soil management plan is needed to mitigate the potential exposure to arsenic and mercury, particularly during and after construction when the soils are disturbed. Once excavated or collected, contaminated soils must be managed so that they do not constitute a new source of contamination for the environment. The mitigation should include a detailed description of the levels of contamination, the amount of contaminated soil to be removed, preventive measures to protect adjacent property owners from exposure, methods for re- use or relocation of contaminated materials and other remediation that may be necessary. Final Scope Requirement: Water Resources Our initial review of the DEIS indicated that item #'s 2, 3, 4, 6, 10 and 11 of page 6 of the final scope were not adequately addressed as it relates to water resources. Soil boring data with the depth to groundwater has been provided and is adequate. It is noted in the Section 2.1.1 of the DEIS that the depth to groundwater was observed to be 25 feet. It is noted that on the test boring location plan prepared by Nelson and Pope dated last revised May 7, 2007, there were eight (8) test borings dug on this site. Boring # 3 revealed the depth to groundwater to be 25.6 feet and boring # 2 with a depth to groundwater at 17.6 feet. All other borings show the depth to groundwater to be over 25 feet. Section 2.1.1 of the DEIS has been adequately revised to indicate that the direction of groundwater flow is determined using the groundwater contour map published by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, a portion of which is shown in Figure 2-2 in the revised DEIS. Based on this data, the groundwater moves northwest to southeast. The location of the private wells on adjacent properties has been provided as requested and shown on Figure 2-3, preceding page 23 of the revised DEIS. In addition, Section 2.2.2 of the DEIS has been adequately revised to include a discussion about the potential impacts to adjacent private wells servicing the residential lots to the east. Although not discussed in Section 2.2.3 of the revised DEIS, an alternative design for the site which includes an onsite sewage treatment facility is discussed in the alternatives section of the DEIS and therefore has been addressed as required. Final Scope Requirement: Vegetation and Wildlife Our initial review of the DEIS indicated there was inadequate information regarding the impacts on wildlife and vegetation. Specifically, we found that item #'s 1 thru 6 on page six of the final scope as it relates to vegetation and wildlife were not addressed. The plant species found on-site have been identified by Green Shield Ecology Group through an inspection of the site conducted on April 30, 2008. The credentials of the company and the ecologists who preformed the survey have also been included. Ina letter dated May 5, 2008 from Steven N. Handel, Ph.D, a Certified Senior Ecologist with the company, it has been indicated that no rare, endangered or special status species were identified on the property. The original DEIS indicated that "overall, the site's biodiversity will remain at an equivalent or higher level than under existing conditions." Given the proposal to clear the entire property of its natural vegetation, we requested additional information to support this statement. Section 2.3.1 includes a brief discussion regarding the invasive plant species, which, according to the DEIS, "detracts enormously from its overall ecological value." However, as stated earlier in this memo, a detailed landscaping plan 6 was not provided with the revised DEIS and therefore an assessment of the adequacy of the site landscaping cannot be determined. In addition, them is no discussion about the feasibility of preserving some of the existing vegetation to mitigate the potential impacts to wildlife. It is noted that if said opportunities to preserve existing vegetation do not exist, either due to the level of invasive species found on site or for other reasons, Section 2.3.3 of the DEIS should specify such. Final Scope Requirement: Transportation We previously noted that the final scope identified 16 specific items relating to traffic impacts based on staff's review of the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Nelson and Pope dated November 2007. It was not clear whether these items were addressed in the Traffic Study, which, based on our discussions with the Town, had been revised after it was initially reviewed. In a letter dated April 30, 2008 from Nelson and Pope, a copy of which is provided in Appendix H of the DEIS, responses to each of the 16 items of the final scope have been provided and are further explained. Final Scope Requirement: Land Use Zoning and Plans Our initial review of the DEIS indicated that item #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, of page 9 of the final scope were not adequately addressed as it relates to land use zoning and plans. With respect to the existing land use character of the site and surrounding area within 500 feet of the subject property, Section 3.2.1 of the DEIS has been revised to include information as it relates to the surrounding land uses and zoning and is found to be adequate. While Section 3.2.2 of the DEIS has been revised to indicate that there are no impacts on zoning due to the project's conformance with the zoning requirements of the HD Zoning District, there is no discussion regarding the compatibility and consistency of the proposed land use on the surrounding land uses and therefore needs to be addressed as previously requested. As previously requested, the DEIS does not identify and discuss the North Fork Recreation Travel Needs Assessment as required by the final scope for this project. Final Scope Requirement: Community Facilities and Services Our initial review of the DEIS indicated that item #'s 2, 3 and 5 on pages 9 and 10 of the final scope were not adequately addressed as it relates to community facilities and services. Information regarding tax revenues generated by this project has been addressed earlier in this report. As stated earlier, although estimated tax revenues are provided in Table 1-2 on page 6 of the DEIS, an explanation of how these numbers were determined should also be provided. The revised DEIS indicates that each of the service providers have been contacted (police, fire, school district) a second time but responses have not been received to date. Each of the letters indicate that if a response from each of the service providers are not received within two (2) weeks, it will be assumed that they are able to provide services for this project. Copies of these letters are provided in Appendix H and show that responses were requested by May 30, 2008. The project sponsor should indicate if any information came in during the time period between May 27, 2008 (date of the DEIS) and the May 30, 2008 deadline for responses. Section 3.3.3 of the revised DEIS still does not provide information as it relates to the overall site design features that would mitigate potential impacts as it relates to fire and police services. While it remains noted in the DEIS that the "facility will have state of the art fire facilities that will aid in all fighting needs of the local fire departments" specific information has not been provided. In addition, it was previously requested that the DEIS identify, if any, design elements of the site (e.g. security cameras, officers, lights, fencing, building orientation, etc.) that would reduce the demand for police services. Said information has not bee provided. Final Scope Requirement: Aesthetic Resources, Open Space~Community Character and Public Health Our initial review of the DEIS revealed inadequate information with respect to items #'s I thru 8 on page 10 of the final scope as it relates to aesthetic resources, open space/community character and public health. Section 3.4.1 of the DEIS has been revised to provide a more detailed discussion regarding the existing site and community character as it relates to the zoning, land uses and the open space potential of the surrounding properties. However, it still lacks substantive comments as it relates to issues like architecture, massing and scale, connectivity to the nearby business district, and other physical features that define the existing character of the community. Section 3.4.1 of the DEI S has been revised to provide additional information as it relates to the impacts relating to the construction activities. In addition to providing a detailed discussion of the phasing of the development, this section of the DEIS now includes a description of the methods that will be utilized to mitigate the impacts associated with construction activities, such as silt fencing, storm drain inlet protection and haybales, which are widely accepted practices and are often conditions of site plan approval in most municipalities. There is no vegetation proposed to screen the east side of the development from the neighboring property or the scenic viewshed of Depot Lane. As stated earlier in this report, there is a lack of information as it relates the site landscaping, which must be provided to assess the impacts as it relates to aesthetics. Section 3.4.2 of the DEIS states that over an eight year period, the vegetation along the westerly property line will grow to buffer the development from the adjacent residential properties and that ultimately only the roofs of the structures will be visible. The DEIS must specify the height to which each of the plant species is expected to grow and in how 8 many years. The DEIS must also provide a detailed landscaping plan for the Planning Board to make findings as it relates to visual/aesthetic impacts. Section 3.4.3 of the DEIS has been adequately revised to address safety hazard issues relating the site construction. The DEIS indicates that a number of safeguards will be in place, such as fencing, covering of holes, limited hours of operation and proper storage of construction material. The revised DEIS fails to adequately address the visual impacts as requested in our initial review as follows: Overall, the DEIS lacks a discussion of the visual impacts of the proposed project. While there are a number of color renderings provided in Appendix C, it is not clear from what vantage points these are based. The DEIS must provide a detailed visual assessment for this project such as viewpoint panoramas to illustrate existing and potential visual impact from key viewpoints, a written analysis of the magnitude and significance of potential visual impact related to change through time, appropriate mitigation to limit visual impact and demonstration of its effectiveness by computer modeling or color renderings and photomontage based on accurate three dimensional models to illustrate the proposed development. The DEIS should include a discussion of the visual impacts as it relates to the character of the surrounding community, including the degree to which the development would result in buildings that would detract from the existing style or image of the area due to density, height, bulk, setbacks, signage, architectural style, massing or other physical elements. The DEIS should provide an internal visual assessment to get a sense of pedestrian scale and what this project will look like from the inside. Are the proposed structures effectively integrated into the aesthetics of the site, through appropriate design, and have the objectives of creating a traditional streetscape been accomplished though the proposed site design? Will this project connect to the existing community and how will the site design promote or enhance the economic vibrancy of the Cutchogue Hamlet Center? Final Scope Requirement: Use and Conservation of Energy Resources As requested, Section 4.0 of the DEIS has been revised to indicate that the "applicant intends on incorporating Leadership in energy and Environmental Design building guidelines and principles in the proposed construction project." Basic, but sufficient, information regarding the use of energy efficient building materials and mechanical systems has been provided, although there is no discussion as to how the overall design of the site promotes energy reduction/efficiency through such features as building orientation and the use of landscaping. 9 As required in the final scope and identified in our initial review of the DEIS, there needs to be a discussion and evaluation of"dark sky" standards to mitigate the potential impacts as it relates to energy consumption and light pollution. Final Scope Requirement: Cumulative Impacts As stated in our previous review, the DEIS should specify if there are any design elements of this project that would mitigate potential impacts in conjunction with the potential future development of the adjacent residential property to the east or the commercially-zoned properties along Griffing Street. Final Scope Requirement: Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided The issue regarding the potential impacts to endangered floral species has been adequately addressed. At stated earlier in this report, the plant species found on-site have been identified by Green Shield Ecology Group through an inspection of the site conducted on April 30, 2008. The credentials of the company and the ecologists who preformed the survey have also been included. In a letter dated May 5, 2008 from Steven N. Handel, Ph.D., a Certified Senior Ecologist with the company, it has been indicated that no rare, endangered or special status species were identified on the property. Although not discussed in this section of the DEIS, it is noted that we previously requested that alternative sewage treatment systems be evaluated. Section 5.0 of the DEIS discusses the alternatives to the proposed project, including an altemative design for wastewater treatment and therefore has been adequately addressed. With respect to our previous request for an analysis of the potential impacts associated with the multiple septic systems proposed for this site, it is noted that Section 2.2.2 of the DEIS provides a discussion regarding the potential impacts relating to Nitrogen loading of the groundwater. In addition, appendix E provides the BURBS calculations in determining the nitrogen impacts of the project. According to the DEIS, BURBS is the modeling program developed by the Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service at Comell University, which "computes the potential impact of the proposed development on the groundwater within a community due to nitrogen." Accordingly, the DEIS has been adequately revised to address the issue of impacts relating to the septic systems for this site. Section 4.2 of the DEIS has been adequately revised to identify the permanent loss of prime agricultural soils as an impact that cannot be avoided. Final Scope Requirement: Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Section 4.3 of the DEIS has been revised to remove the statement "there will be a minimal removal of vegetation from the site, as only a small amount of vegetation exists at the site" and now adequately represents the actual proposal to remove all of the vegetation of the site. Final Scope Requirement: Alternatives to be Studied The final scope requires the five (5) alternatives be discussed in the DEIS: 10 1. No action alternative. 2. Alternative design including, but not limited to clustering of detached and attached units to create meaningful open space and maximize vegetative butters along the perimeter of the property. 3. Reduce existing number of units. 4. Partial of full preservation of the property. 5. Alternative design for wastewater treatment. Section 5.0 Alternatives of the DEIS is not adequately addressed. This section of the DEIS must provide a discussion of each alternative, sequentially, as they are described in the Final Scope. The Final Scope's Alternative #3 requires that the number of existing units be reduced. The intent of this alternative is to provide a plan that shows less than the 139 units that are existing on the current plan. The DElS does not provide this alternative. Additional Comments/Recommendations 1. Page 3 of the DEIS refers to the Village Zoning Code when it should read Town Zoning Code. Within the zoning discussion on Page 41 of the DEIS, the R-40 Zoning District is described as being Residential Low Density ~IA. This does not appear to be a valid zoning district within the Town. 3. Section 3.2.1 of the DEIS should specify that the property is listed as eligible in the Community Preservation Project Plan. 4. The second paragraph on page 66 of the DEIS should specifically identify the park that is being referred to and its location in relation to the subject property. The DEIS is missing the floor plans and elevations for the community center and each of the five types of units proposed for this site. The DEIS only provides the floor plan and building elevation for one residential building. It is noted that Section 2.3.3 refers to a densely vegetated berm around the perimeter of the project. However, that the easterly property line does not contain a vegetated berm. In addition, and as stated earlier in this report, the berm detail should be clarified to identify the maximum height that the plantings can be expected to reach. Conclusions Based on our review of the DElS as discussed in the above analysis, the information, data, analyses and discussions identified in this report as being deficient are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at the draf~ stage. 11 The Planning Board is advised to review our findings and advise the applicant of the changes that will be required. If you have any questions concerning our comments or wish to discuss them further, we would be pleased to meet with you at work session to discuss. 12 WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Monday, June 30, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. 4:30 p.m. Site Plans & Subdivisions Site Plans: Celic Center SCTM#: 1000-143-3-1 Location: Aldrich Lane in Mattituck Description: basement alterations Action: PB review new site plan application received on 05/01/08. Status: New application pending the PB accepting. Recommendations: PB considers accepting application and waiving site plan elements as indicated in the Staff Report. Request information regarding current status of parking on site. Consider authorizing Staff to start the referral process. San Simeon by the Sound SCTM#: 1000-45-02-002 Location: 61700 Route 48 in Greenport Description: Alterations to existing nursing home facility to include change of room lay-out in existing buildings and additions of stairs, canopy, generator and freezer, and adding two new parking areas for outpatient care area. Action: PB review new site plan application received on 5/14/08. Status: New application pending the PB accepting. Recommendations: Referred out to Board of Trustees for verification of wetlands to the rear of the site. PB considers accepting application. Consider authorizing Staff to start the referral process. The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#: 1000- 102-1-33.3 Location: end of Griffing Street, approximately 1,079' n/o the Main Road, Cutchogue Description: Residential site plan application for a 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings, and other accessory structures. Action: Review revised DEIS (1st revision) for adequacy for public review. Status: Environmental Impact Statement review process. Recommendations: DEIS is missing important information requested in the Final Scope and should be returned for revisions. For Discussion: Farm Stand Code recommendations to Town Board Mailing Address: PO Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY Attorney at Law 445 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 June 23, 2008 Tel: (631) 369-8200 Fax: (631) 369-9080 e-mail: charles.cudd¥~verizon.net Heather Lanza, Planning Director Southold Town Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 Sout,kald, NY 1 i971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Lanza: I would appreciate your advise as to when you anticipate completing the review of the resubmitted draft of the DEIS. As you are aware part 617 of 6 NYCRR requires that the review be completed within 30 days of the receipt of the DEIS. Please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, CRC:ik PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS June 2,2008 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, N~ Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Mr. Kyle P. Collins, AICP KPC Planning Services, Inc. 108 Mill Road Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue: Second Review of DEIS Dear Mr. Collins: Enclosed are a copy of the revised DEIS submission dated May 27, 2008, and the signed proposal agreement for second review. We would appreciate receiving your first draft of this review by June 20, 2008. This letter will confirm your estimated cost for the above service in the amount of $4,000. Prior to any work being done beyond this estimated cost, you must submit a second estimate for the additional work, and wait for our approval in writing before proceeding. Thank you. Sincerely, Heather Lanza Town Planning Director Encs. HERITAGE AT CUTCHO UE 1721-D North Ocean Ave. Medford, N.Y. 11763 Tel .631 207-5730 Fax 631 207-5974 Letter of Transmittal To: TOWN Of SOUTHOLD Planning Deparhnent P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Road 25 Southold, N.Y. 11747 Attention: Heather Lanza Director of Planning Date: May 30, 2008 Project No.: Regarding: HERITAGE at Cutchogue We are sending you X Attached ~1 Under sepm~ate cover Shop drawings Copy of letter Prints Change Order X Plans [] Specifications Samples For Approval X For your use X For you information X As requested For review and Comment I-I Accepted as submitted Copies Date Description 10 5/27/08 rev. Accepted as noted Returned for correction Resubmit__ copies for acceptance Submit __ copies for dislribution Prints returned atter loan to us Draft Environmental hnpact Statement as prepared by Greeman-Pederson [ GPI ] dated 5~27/08 Attached please find 10 complete revised copies of our DEIS submission dated 5/27/08 Thank you Jeffrey Rimland If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. HERITAGE AT CUTCHOOGUE 1721. D NORTH OCEAN AVENUE MEDFORD, NEW YOR]< 11763 Tel: 631 207-5'730 Fax 631 207-5974 Fax Transmitta~ PLEASE DELIVER TO: o,-~..i%~ou: //5/Y- ~/ F.~Number: ~/ - ~ ~ ~G~O Time: ~' ;~f ~ / ~/ (including this cover page) Total Pa~cs: r cc: Project: File: Contractor . R¢ga~ai.~: ~_~_. ~-'7-~ ~r~ ~ ............................. marled are not as noled, kindly noti(y uS at oncc. .December 18, 2007 HEKI. TAGE ~ CUTCHOGUE 1721 D NO OCEAN AVENUE MEDFORD, NY 11763 H%RITAGE ~ CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE ReP ~ T100800721 To whom it may concern This letter of ash:cement is in response to your request for gas and electric Pacitities for the above referenced project Based on your plans to build 139 dwelling units, your planning costs For both the refundabIe and non-refundable portions of the electric facilities are provided in Options 1-4 in the Electric Contribution Summary, The costs for the gas facilities are total}y re£mtdable based on your compliance with Option Aor B under the Gas Contribution Summary For your planning purposes and appro-val, enclosed is a copy o£'*Exhibit A" which represents the route and extent of our proposed eleclric and gas facilities. ELECTRIC CONTRIBUTION SUMMARY KeySpan/LIPA has calculated the contribution associated with yom' project. The calculations haYe been developed to cover your payment options C)Dtion I ,Cnnnection, distribution and se~,ices trenched and installed by KcvSpan/LlPA Option 2 Connection, distribution and sewices within the free allowance trenchcd and installed by KeySpan/LIPA, with Builder trenched and installed eleclric services ..... c~.,, ~e n'~ allowance (B,_d!der m,*,,, install r'h:cWie services in Option Connection trenched and installed by KeySpan/LIPA Distribution and services trenched by Builder and installed by KeySpan/L1PA. Option Connection trenched and installed by KeySpan/LIPA Distribution trenched by Builder and instajled by KeySpan/LIPA Electric services within the free allowance trenched by Builder and installed by LIPA, with services in excess of ll~e frec allowance trenched and installed by Builder. (KeySpan may install gas services in Builder electric service trench.) Page 2 Ref. # T100800721 10% Design Payment 40% MateriaJ Payment 50% Construction Payment TOTAL Refundable .$ Non-Refundnble $ Projected Remaining Trenching Reimbursement $ Service Footage installed by KeySpan/LIPA: ..Ql~tion ] 15,660.99 62,643.99 7g,305.00 156,609.98 121,25080 35,359 18 Option 2 !3,218.06 52,872.26 66,09033 132,!80.65 121 250 80 10,929.85 N/A $ N/A Option 3 $ 13,218.06 $ 52,872.26 $ 66,090.33 $ 132,180.65 121.250.80 10,929.85 $ 58,303 55 _O_9_ tion 4 13,218.06 52,872.26 ~6_6., 090 33 132,180.65 121,25080 10,929.85 $ 80,793.~5 6,255' 4,498' 6,2551 4,498' GAS CONTRIBUTION SUNI/MARY The costs to mn the gas facilities for the project are: I $ 0.00 Non-Refundable charge for facilities in excess oftariffallowances. This cost must be paid to KeySpan prior to the star~ of construction and is not reimbursable- Refundable charge for facilities that are within tariffallowances. See ., ~n ~ 1', below for ¢avment nations for ~he refundable charges_ OptioI~ A Sign the Gas Waiver Agreement (Sec Attachm. ent 2) This agreemeat waives the Option Pax, the refundable charges prior to construction of the gas facilities '?his will be a l~mp sum payment that will be reimbursed on a house by house basis, until the required number of dwellings have been completed. (See Attachment 2) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS This project will qualify for installation when the following items have bern satisfied: I. Pull paymenl has been received by KeySpan/LIPA for all gas and electric facilities. Page 3 Ret. # TI0080072I You have provided a clear, unobstructed easement or right-of-way graded to within six (6) inches of final grade. You have installed curbs and all other proposed underground facilities such as sexvers, drainage~ water mama and water taps KevSp n/LIPA s electric and gas installations are madcjointly with Verizon You should scl~edule roadway pavemen and sidewalks ro follow our installation Proper sequencing of your construct/on and compliance with our requiremests ,,viii aid us in meeting your schcdule When six (6) inches of frost is encountered, additional charges are imposed for the installation of new gas and electric services. Gas and electric installations will cease when float exceeds eighteen (18) inches. In addition, the Builder shall be responsible for all repair and/or replacement costs associated with damaged LIPA underground electric distribution facilities, ie. splice boxes, transformers, cable, etc., which occur during the construction phases of the pro. iect. Th}s also includes the cost of any additional excavation work> resulting from the Builder's excavations or re-grading of the construction site The Builder's Performance Refund shall be deferred, or forfeited, until such time that all identified charges for these LIPA costs are paid. You may elect to perfurm the distribution a~d service trenching necessary for the installation of the facilities in the subject subdivision. The refund per trench foot for service laterals is $5.25 and .$5.20 per trench foot for distribution, provided all work is performed i~ accordance with KevSoar~Ll~P~ ~eciflcations ~md schedules Please contact the representative below for an Please be advised that all computations are based upon our gs.s and electric ratios. A. sy applicable tari~changes shall become pan of this agreement and may affect the fina~ cost of installation KeySpan~PA rese:ves :nc fight to recalculate your contribution in accordaace with any tach changes If you have no comment on "Exhibit A', notify your Business Lead of your selected option and re'it the 10% design payment, along with the Gas Waiver Agreement (if applicable} so we may proceed with the detailed design phase of your project. Please be ad¥ised that any amounts over $1,000.00 musl be paid by ce~ified or cashier's dmck. Page 4 RefS T100800721 For this project, Mr. John Merrill is the assigned Business Lead and can be reached at 758-5157 As your Elec.trical Technical Lead, ] can be reached at 548-7062 to address any questions/concerns Very tm21v yours, Steven Ayl~'~ay4/ Design Supervisor Electric Design & Const~ction EFICIOSU fe SA/am Tom Salxdno John Merrill Page 5 Ref. /~ T10080072I ELECTRIC CONTRIBUTION - ATTACHB'IENT ii In accordance with the Company's filed tariff, we are requesting that per£ormance payments be made for dwelling units when there are no secured sales contracts This policy was instituted to provide LIPA with the assurance that installed facilities will be utilized These performance payments will be equal to 50% of LIPA% undcrg~ronnd free allowance portion of the installation. These performance payments will be refunded on a pro-rata basis with interest compounded annually, as units are cormected to om: electric facilities. Interest ~ates aze set ammally. The refund term will be up to five yes, rs from the date LIPA's facilities are ava]able for service. In order to process these relimds, we will require your Tax ID nmnber. FILED RATES AND INFORMATION CONNECTION DISTRIBUTION SERVICE RUD Charges $23.20/Ft. 19.60/Fi S 12.80/FL Pad mounted above-ground transformers are the Company standa-d installatiom An), requests or municipal requirements for below-grade transformers will be subiect to an additionM payment of $559.00/transformer~ plus sales tax. to our facilities a Statement o~ interest on Customer Deposits to be prcp~rca a=c i7]aliitu, iDec: ©! i:iirc LIPA. The rate will be updated on January I of each year to reflect current market conditions. The 10% design payment s non-refundable if the project is canceled~ otherT¥ise it is applied as part of the developer's total payment. Any requested changes to a completed design will incur a design payment surcharge not applied to the total payment. Page 6 R ~. # T100800721 _O_ptio n 1 The following is a breakdown of your contribution towards the cost for the underground electric facilities for KeySpan&[PA to perform all work including trenching For connection, distribution and services. -REFUNDABLE ELECTRI[C PERFORMANCE PAYMENT CoBBectJol~ Distribution Service 180 Ftx $23.20 x 50% 9222 Ft x S1960 × 505'; 4498 Ftx $1280 x 503.2 2,0880O 9, 37~ 60 28,,8, ~0 SUB-TOTAL $ I21,250.80 B. NON-REFUNDABLE ELECTRIC CHARGES Excess Distribution Excess Service Below Grade Transformer Non-Residential Charge 8 625% Sales Tax (0Ftx$19 60) $ (L00 (1757 Ft x $12.80) $ 22,48960 (18 BG's x $559) $ I0,06;!.00 $ 0.00 $ 2,g0T5g SUB-TOTAL $ 35,35<.; 18 Cc [OTAL ELECTRIC PAYMENT YVITHOUT SALES CONTRACTS TOTAL 56,609.98 D. ELECTRIC PAYMENT SCHEDULE Design Payment !0% of(C) Material Payment 40% of(C) · Construction P?~ m,:'nr 5054 of (C) Performaoce Payment ~or secured sales contracts at this payment] 15,66099 62,643 99 7~ Q~ r,Q FUTURE REFUNDS OF PERFOR~IANCE PAYMENT $ 87~.~1 /DU In no event shall the credit for secured sales contracts, plus future re£nnds, less interest, exceed the total Refundable Performance Payment (A) In order to process these refunds, we ',viii reqtdre),our Tax ID numbelr, Page 7 Re[ # T]00800721 Option 2 The following is a brea kdow'o of'your contribution towards the cost for the uJ~derground electric Facilities for KeySpan/LIPA to perform all work associated with the trenching and installation of connection, distribution and service within the free allowance, with Builder trenched and installed electric services in excess of the free allowance. (Builder may install electric services in KeySpan's gas service trenches) C REFUNDABLE ELECTRI'C PERFORMANCE PAS:r?'~'~ENT Conneotioii Distribution Service iSOFix$23 20x50% 9222 Ft x $19.60 x 50% 4498 Ft x $12 80 x 50% 2,088 00 90,375 60 28,787 2O S UqB-TOTAL $ i2i,250 80 NON-R_EFUNDABLE ELECTRIC CHARGES Excess Distribution Excess Serx, ice Below Grade Transformer Non-Residential Charge 8 625% Sales Tax (0 Ftx $t9.60) :5 000 (N/A Ft x $12.80) $ 000 (18BG'sx$559) $ 10,062.00 $ 0 00 $ 86785 SUB-TOTAL :5 10,929.85 TOTAL ELECTRIC PAYMENT WITHOUT ELECTRIC PAYMENT SCHEDULE Material Payment 40% oF(C) Construction Payment 50% of(C) lA credit o£5872.3I /DU. will apply towards the Performance Payment for secured sales contracts at this payment.~ 13,2!8.06 52,87226 66,090.33 FUTURE REFUNDS OF PERJFOR1VItANCE PAYMENT $ 87 : 1 /DU. In no event shall the credit for secured sales contracts, plus future refunds, lass interest, exceed lhe tote} Refundable Per[brma.nce Payment (A). In order to process these refunds, we will require your Tax [P number. Page Re£ ~'F10080072 Option 3 The following is a breakdown of your contribution towards the cost for the underground e[ectric facilities for KeySpan/LIPA to trench and install all connection, and install alt distribttfion and .services, with Builder providing all distribution and service trenching. REFUNDABLE ELECTRIC PERFORMANCE PAYMENT Service !80 Ftx $23 20 x 50% 9222 Ftx $I 9.60 x 50% 4498 Ft x $12 80 x 50% 2,088 O0 90,375 ~0 28,78720 SUB-TOTAL $ t21,250 80 NON-REFUNDABLE ELECTRIC CHARGES Excess Dismbution Excess Service Excess Footage Charge Reduction Based on Trenching Below' Grade Transformer Non-Residential Charge 8625% Sales Tax (0 Ftx $14.40) $ 000 (1757Ftx$7.55) $ 13,265 35 $ I3,265 35 $ (13,265.35) (18 gG's x $559) $ 10,06200 $ 0 O0 S 867 85 SUB-TOTAL $ I0,929 85 TOTAL ELECTRIC PAYIMENT WITHOUT SALES CONTRACTS TOTAL I32, I80 65 ELECTRIC PAYMENT SCHEDULE Construction Payment 50% of(C) [A credit of $872.31 /D,U will apply towards the Performance Payment for secured sales contracts at this payment] 13,2!8 06 66,090 33 FUTURE REFUNDS OF PERFORIMANCE PAYMENT 87231/D.U. In no event shall the credit for secured sales contracts, plus future refunds, less interest, exceed the total Refundable Performance Payment (A). In order to process these refunds, we will require your Tax ID number. Page 9 Ref # T100g00721 Option 3 (Cont'ci) F. PROJECTED TRENCHING REIMBURSEMENT Upon successful completion olYthc trenching by the Builder for the installatioi~ of both KeySparJLIPA's gas and electric facilities, KeySpan/LIPA will mal-~e the rein'~bursemcnt as £ollaws: Based on 9222 Ft. of'distribution allowance trench, this will equate to 9222 Ft. x 5520 = S47,954 40 cqu3~e to 4498 57 × $5 25 -- $23,6i4.50 TotaI Trenching Al[owe.see Credit Already Applied to Excess Charge Projected Rema}ning Trenching P~eimbursement: 71 568 90 13,26535 58.303.55 Page 10 #T100g00721 Option 4 The following is a breakdown of your contribution/'owa.rds tile cost of underground electric facilities for KeySpan/L.[PA to trench and install all connection Distribution trenched by Builder and installed by KeySpan/LIPA. Electric services within the free allowance trenched by Builder and installed by KeySpan/L1PA, with sen,ices in excess of the flee allowance trenched and installed by Builder, (KeySpan may install gas services in Builder's electric service trench The Builder may be reimbursed for trenching a. specified in Section F below ) A. REFUNDABLE ELECTRIC PERFORMANCE PAYM'ENT Connection 180Ftx$23.20x50% $ 2,088.00 Dist~ibutlo~ 9222Ftx$]9,50x50% $ 90,375,50 Sci-vice 4498Ftx~12.g0x50% ~ 28,78 .~0 SUB-TOTAL $ 121,250.80 B. NON-REFUNDABLE ELECTRIC CHARGES Excess Distribution Excess Service Excess Footage Charge Reduction Based on Trenching Below Grade Transformer Non-Residential Charge 8.625% Sales Tax (0 Ftx $14.40) (N/A Ftx $7.55) (18 BG's × $559) SUB-TOTAL 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,065' 00 0.00 867 85 0,925;. 85 TOTAL ELECTRIC PA}'MENT WITHOUT SALES CONTRACTS TOTAL $ 132,180.65 ELECTRIC PAYMENT SCHEDULE Design Payment 10% of (C) Material Payment 40% of(C) Construction Payment 50% of (C) iA credit of $872.3 ] /D.U. will apply towards the Performance Payment for secured sales contracts at this payment ] 52,872.26 66,09033 FUTURE REFUNDS OF PEI:;~.FORMANCE PAYB'IENT $ 872 31 /DU In no event shall the credit for secured sales contrac.ls, plus future refunds, less interest, exceed the total Refundable Performance Payment (A). In order to process these refunds, we will require your Tax lid number. Page t Re[ fg T10080072 Option 4 (Confd,) F. PROJECTED TRENCHING REIMBURSEMENT Upon successful completion of the trenching by the Builder for the installation of both KeySpan/LIPA*s gas and electric facilities, KeySpan/LIPA wiIl make reimbursement as follows: Based on 9222 [:t ofdistribu[/on allowance trench, this will equate to 9222 Ft x$5.20=S47,95440 Based on 6255 Ft. ofservicerrenchwithinGASallowanee, this Total Trenching Credit Within Allowance: Credit Already Applied ro Excess Charge Proiected Remaining Trenching Reimbursement: $ ~',0,793 15 $ 0 O0 o0~79a.] 5 GAS CONTRIBUTION - AT TACHMENT 2 In connection with thc installation of gas mains, service appurtenant facilities for 139 buildings the following brc calculations of ),our contribution toward the cost for the. lines, sc?,,. ~- ~ , cuto :al<down provides you se facilities: GAS MAIN CHARGE a) Total footage b) ~'_ost per fool c) Total cost GAS SERVICE CHARGE d) Total footage 6.2 ' e) Cost per foot = $ I l. f) Tots} Cost -~ $ 70,056 ;55 20 00 SUM¢_~AT1ON OF GAS CHARGES Gas Moms $ 295,28~ Gas Services $ 70,05~ 8.625% Sales Tax $ 3 Total Cost ~ 396,85' )96 ;40 The calculations quoted herein are in accordance with valid for 30 day's from the date of this proposal KeySpan's currently fih page 13 Ref~ a T100800721 ATTACFIMENT 2 (Cont'd.) GAS CONTRIBUTION pAYlX'IENT OPTIONS ~NON-~REFUNDABLE CHARGES: Thenon-re~ndablecbargest°supPiygas~a~' ~to ~projec, are .FLEFUNDABLE CIiARGES: The re~ndab[e char~es to supp',x. ~ "r'acfl~Ues to vour project are: Gas Waiver A~gr~emen_l KeySpan agrees to waive the requirement for thc gas advance payment of the refundable charges, if the Builder commits to install gas space heating in all of the buildings for this project. Signing for this option commits the Builde. r to install gas space heating in al/ 139 units planned for this project within 5 years ortho date of this agreement. It also commits theBuiIder to reimburse Ke'ySpan (1/139 X $ 396,85540 = $ 2,85507 per unit for each building below that does not install gas space heating Advar~ced Payment with R. eimbursements As the Builder, f commit to paying the re£~ndable charges prior to the starx of construction with reimbursements being applied on a house by hou~;e basis in accordance with the tariff based free footage allowances Ail units must install gas space ],,eating and be complete within 5 years of the date of this agreement Based on this requirement, the Builder wiII be reimbursed at (1/139 x $ 396,85540 - 5 2,855 07 per ur~it, when instaIIed. Accepted By: Date: Ms. Jeri Woodhouse Chairperson, Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 NELSON POPE April30,2008 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue Planning Board Comments Nelson & Pope No. 00026 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: The 16 specific Planning Board concems identified in the Final Scope were addressed in our revised Traffic Impact Study dated November 2007. The following identifies the location of the responses in the updated Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#I: Found on Page 20 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Itemg2: Found on Pages 33 and 35 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#3: Found on Pages 7 and 8 and Appendix of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#4~ Found on Pages 7 and 8 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to ItemgS: The seasonal adjustment factors were updated with the 2007 NYSDOT adjustment factors. The updated factors can be found on Page 8 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Itemg6: A comparison of the most recent accident data (July 2004 through June 2007) analyzed in the updated Traffic Impact study and the accident data (June 1999 through May 2002) analyzed in the original Traffic Impact Study reveals that, the total number accidents in the study area have reduced significantly (a 66% reduction) over the three years period and the new data shows only 1 rear end accident over a period of three (3) years. It should be noted that the study area is not a high accident location since only 1'8 accidents occurred in the study area comprising of several intersections and roadway segments over a period of three years. Therefore no accident countermeasures are required in the study area. Response to Item#7: Found on Page 35 of the Traffic Impact Study. Planning Board Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue April 30, 2008 Page2 of 3 Response to Item#8: Found on Page 35 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#9: Found on Pages 19 and 20 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#10: Found on Page 24 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#Il: ITE data was not utilized in the updated Traffic Impact Study. Data obtained from the Founders Village residential development was used to determine mp generation rates for the proposed residential development. The volumes obtained fi-om the highest weekday AM, PM and Saturday rates were utilized. Response to Item#12: Data obtained at the Founders Village development was used to model vehicle trips and routing. The updated mp generation and distribution can be found on pages 24, 25 and 26 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Item#13: Found on Page 35 of the Traffic Impact Study. Response to Itemgl4: Analyses were conducted al the additional intersections requested by the Planning Board. The updated results are found on Pages 16,. 17, 18, 34 and 35. Response to Item # 15: (A) The Spur Road emergency access scenario will effectively limit the access to emergency vehicles only. Therefore the intersection of Griffin Street and Schoolhouse Road would become the sole access to the site. As shown in the traffic study it is estimated that 20% of the traffic generated by the proposed development would utiliTe the Spur Road access. This 20% (9 trips) would then be reallocated to the Griffin Street/Main Road intersection resulting in an additional five southbound right roms and four eastbound left turn during each peak hour, which is not expected to cause significant adverse impact. (B) The expected results of the two-way traffic scenario on the Spur Road access is demonstrated in the traffic impacts study as not to have significant adverse impacts. Though this two-way access would allow traffic to "cut-through" the site from the adjacent neighborhood and potentially from the Main Road on the occasion when downtown Cutchogue expcriences traffic congestion this equivalent traffic would be by- passing downtown further reducing traffic in the downtown area. It should be noted that "cut-though" traffic is likely to be performed by local traffic familiar with the area. By- passing downtown traffic by way of Highland Road, Spur Road, Schoolhouse Road, and Depot Road is not likely to be used by traffic not local to the area. (C) The expected results of the one-way exiting traffic scenario on the Spur Road access would effectively increase the eastbound left tums .at the Griff'm Street/Main Road intersection by 3-4 vehicles per peak hour, which is not expected to cause any adverse impacts. This would also remove the ability of eastbound local "cut-through" traffic from both the neighborhood and the Main Road.via Highland Road desert-bed previously. Planning Board Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue April 30, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Response to Item#16: The applicant does not own the property to the east; hence it is not practical to provide access to Depot Lane through the property to the east. We trust that this supplemental information in addition to the updated Traffic Impact Study dated November 2007 w/Il assist with your review of the application. Please contact us if you have further questions. Attachments cc: Charles Cuddy, Esq. Jeffrey Rimland, Rimland Equities Sincerely, ~gph ~. Pecora, PI~, PTOE I:[2000100026iTRAFFICI03-37-O8 Planning Board Comments.doc PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND March 17, 2008 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 Chades R. Cuddy, Esq. 445 Griffing Avenue P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue: DEIS Review Dear Mr. Cuddy: Enclosed is a copy of March 10 letter from KPC Planning Services, inc. and their invoice in the amount of $5,775. Their final cost for the review was $775 more than their original estimate. Accordingly, we request the additional payment of $775 to the Town of Southold on behalf of your client, to cover the cost of revisions to the initial review of the DEIS document. As you know, we anticipate receiving a further billing for the second review. As soon as this is received, we will forward a copy to you. Sincerely, Heather Lanza Town Planning Director Enc. cc: File 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 $outhold, NY 11971 OI~'ICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 March 11, 2008 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue Located on the northwest corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road in Cutchogue DEIS Review for Adequacy for Public Comment SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, March 10, 2008: WHEREAS, this proposed residential site plan application is for the development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings, 14 of which will be permanently affordable. The affordable units are approximately 1,135 sq. ft each. 46 units will be 2,647 sq. ft. each, 21 units will be 1,930 sq. ft. each, 36 units will be approximately 2,700 sq. ft. each, and 20 units will be 3,110 sq. ft. each. Additional buildings proposed are an 8,840 sq. ft. clubhouse; a 1,160 sq. ft. swimming pool; two 3,200 sq. ft. tennis courts; a 2,400 sq. ft. maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 sq. ft. of manmade ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements, on a vacant 46.17- acre parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on the northwest corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of the Main Road, in Cutchogue; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board found the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment, and on July 16, 2007, issued a Positive Declaration pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and Chapter 44 of the Town Code of the Town of Southotd; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a Public Scoping Session for the proposed project on August 20, 2007, with written public comments on the scope accepted until September 4, 2007; and The Heritaqe at Cutchoque Paqe Two 3/11/08 WHEREAS, the Planning Board adopted a Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on September 7, 2007; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on December 24, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board requested, by letter to the applicant's agent, Charles Cuddy, Esq., dated January 11, 2008, an extension of time of an additional thirty days beyond the forty- five day requirement to review the DEIS; and WHEREAS, the applicant granted a thirty (30) day extension to the Planning Board in a letter from the applicant's agent, Charles Cuddy, Esq., dated January 29, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board hired a consultant, KPC Planning Services, Inc. to review the document and provide a report analyzing the adequacy of the DEIS with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board, at their March 10, 2008 Work Session, received and accepted the report from KPC Planning Services, Inc., dated March, 2008; the report provides a detailed description of the DEIS, identifies areas where it is deficient and failed to fulfill the Final Scope, and recommends the Planning Board find the DEIS inadequate for public review; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617, of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, hereby determines the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to be inadequate with respect to the adopted Final Scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review. Enclosed please find the report from KPC Planning Services, Inc. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Chairperson Encl. cc: Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Southold Town Clerk, Town Board Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Engineer Southold Town LWRP Coordinator Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission Suffolk County Water Authority NYSDEC, Commissioner, Albany New York State Department of Transportation NYSDEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook, NY Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement For the Heritage at Cutchogue Planned Adult Active Community To determine whether to accept the draft EIS as adequate with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review. Prepared for Southold Town Planning Board March, 2008 AIt I 0 2008 Prepared by KPC Planning Services, Inc 108 Mill Road, #3 Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 KPC Planning Services, Inc. has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue project, prepared by Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. dated December 2007. The purpose of this analysis is to determine if the document is adequate for public review in terms of scope and content. The content of the DEIS has been compared to the Final Scope, which was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board on September 10, 2007 and provides the specific requirements for completing the DEIS. We have also included a detailed outline of the process to assist the Planning Board and staff in reviewing the project within the legal timeframes required by law. Project Location The subject property is a vacant 46.17-acre parcel located on the northwest comer of Griffing Street and School House Lane, 1,079 feet north of Main Road (NYS Route 25) in Cutchogue. The property is currently zoned Hamlet Density (HD) and is identified as Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-102-2-33.3. Project Description This proposed residential site plan application is for the development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings, 14 of which will be permanently affordable. The affordable traits are approximately 1,135 sq. ft each. 46 units will be 2,647 sq.ft, each, 21 units will be 1,930 sq.ft, each, 36 units will be approximately 2,700 sq.ft, each, and 20 units will be 3,110 sq.ft, each. Additional buildings proposed are an 8,840 sq. ft. clubhouse; a 1,160 sq. ft. swimming pool; two 3,200 sq. ft. tennis courts; a 2,400 sq. ft. maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 sq. ft. of manmade ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements, on a vacant 46.17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on the n/w comer of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet n/o the Main Road, in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-102-1- 33.3 Requirements Pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617 State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) In order to be in compliance with the SEQR requirements for this project, it is recommended that the Town Planning Board undertake the following process pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617. Because the Town has already taken action on this project as it relates to the SEQR process, we have outlined the process starting with the preparation of the DEIS. Submission and Review of the DEIS: Pursuant to Section 617.9(a)(2), once the DEIS has been submitted in accordance with the Positive Declaration and Adopted Final Scope, the Planning Board, as lead agency, has 45 days to determine if the documents is adequate for public review. The Planning Board has been granted additional time to review the DEIS from the project sponsor, to be completed no later than by the end of the first week in March 2008. In this case, the Planning Board has opted to hire a consultant to review the DEIS on their behalf. If it is not deemed adequate, the Town must identify in writing the deficiencies and provide this information to the project sponsor. Upon the submission of a revised DEIS, the Town will have 30 days to determine whether to accept the revised DEIS or require further revisions. o Notice of Completion and Public Review of DEIS: Once it has been determined that the DEIS is adequate for public review, the Town will need to prepare, file and publish a Notice of Completion of thc DEIS in accordance with 6NYCRR Part 617.12 and it must state that is has been prepared in accordance with Article 8 of thc Environmental Conservation Law and must contain: thc name and address of thc lead agency, the name, address and telephone number of thc person who can provide additional information; a brief description of the action; the classification; and thc locafion of the action. It must also identify the type of EIS and where copies of the document can be obtained. The minimum comment period on the DEIS is 30 days from the date of filing the Notice of Completion. Public Hearing: The Planning Board will need to decide whether or not to hold a public hearing on the DEIS. Such notice may be filed separately or included within thc Notice of Completion. The public heating cannot start sooner than the 15th day following thc Notice of Public Hearing nor more than 60 days from the filing the Notice of Completion of the DEIS. When a SEQR heating is held, it should be conducted with other public hearings on the proposed action, whenever practicable. Final EIS: A final EIS must be prepared within 45 calendar days after the close of any hearing or within 60 calendar days after the filing if the DEIS, whichever occurs later. The last date for preparation and filing of the FEIS may be extended if it is determined that additional time is necessary to prepare the statement adequately or if problems with the proposed action requiting material reconsideration or modification have been identified. When the FEIS has been completed, the Town will need to prepare, file and publish a Notice of Completion of the FEIS pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617.12 and it must state that it 2 has been prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and must contain: the name and address of the lead agency; the name, address and telephone number of the person who can provide additional information; a brief description of the proposed action; the classification; and the location of the action. It must also identify the type of EIS and where copies of the document can be obtained. In addition, a copy of the FEIS must be sent to the Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Permits, and any other agency who requests a copy. 5. Public Review of Final EIS and Statement of Findings: Prior to the Town's decision on thc action that has been the subject of thc FEIS, it shall afford agencies and the public a reasonable time period (not less than 10 calendar days) in which to consider the FEIS before issuing its written findings statement and decision. The Town must issue its findings (not the final decision) within 30 calendar days after the filing of the FEIS. Other involved agencies may make their findings whenever they make their final decisions. II. Review of DEIS We have reviewed the DEIS in terms of content and accuracy as it relates to the Final Scope that was adopted by the Planning Board for this project on September 10, 2007. It includes an analysis of the general accuracy and/or completeness as it relates to the information stated in the DEIS. Specifically, we found a number of general statements that were made that are not substantiated with sufficient data, in addition to items that simply have not been addressed as required by the Final Scope. This report is generally structured as follows: 1. Identifies the requirements of the Final Scope and the page number where said requirements can be found (in the Final Scope). 2. Identifies the specific items, where applicable, that have not been adequately addressed or that have not been addressed at all (item #'s refer to the item numbers in the Final Scope doeumen0. 3. Provides substantive comments as it relates to the information contained in the DEIS (section numbers refer to the section numbers in the DEIS). The following comments and recommendations are offered for the Board's consideration at this time: 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Final Scope Requirement: Background and HistorF (page 4) Generally, the DEIS provides the information as required in the Final Scope. However, additional information or clarification is needed as follows: Section 1.1.1 Background and History The project description is very limited and does not provide enough details that typically would be included in an introductory section of a DEIS such as this. This section should include a complete, concise and detailed project description similar to the one used by the Town that includes the following information: · The number and types of structures proposed · Description of the accessory structures and site amenities · The amount of landscaping and open space · General description of the overall site design and layout Final Scope Requirement: Public Need and Municipalit~ Objectives (page 4) The DEIS addresses the issues as it relates to public need and municipality objectives. However, additional information is needed to support certain statements that are made as discussed below: Section 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives The DEIS indicates that "the public need for the project is related to the need for affordable senior housing in the Town of Southold. " Proposal calls for 10% of the units to be designated as moderate income family dwelling units as required by the Town Code. 4 However, since the DEIS is referring to a specific "need" that has been identified by the Town, the document should cite any sources used in making this determination, such as the Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment or any other data that may have been available. In addition, there should be some discussion regarding the need for senior housing in general. The Town Code provides a number of options to satisfy the affordable housing requirement. These options should be identified and the DEIS should specify the option proposed by the project sponsor for this application. Final Scope Requirement: Obiectives of the Proiect Sponsor (page 4) The DEIS adequately addresses this issue as required by the Final Scope. Final Scope Requirement: Benefits of the Project (page 5) The description of the benefits of the project contained in the DEIS is inadequate. This is an instance where general statements have been made with no supporting information or data, as described below: Section 1.1.4 Benefits of the Proiect The DEIS indicates that the project is a 'fulfillment of the Town's vision for the subject property as expressed in the Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan and zoning code." Additional information to support this statement is needed. What is the Town's vision for the subject property? Where in the Comprehensive Plan is this property discussed, either specifically or generally? How does this project fulfill the Town's vision? It is stated that this project will generate substantial tax revenues for the Town. The DEIS should provide a more detailed analysis to support this statement and provide estimates of the amount of tax revenues that may be expected to be generated from this project. In addition, Table 1-2 on page 4 of the DEIS indicates that tax generation data is to be determined (TBD). This information needs to be provided in the table. Final Scope Requirement: Location and Site Conditions (page 5) The DEIS adequately addresses this issue as required by the Final Scope. Final Scope Requirement: Pro]ect Design and Layout (page 5) The DEIS does not adequately address all of the following items contained in the Final Scope as it relates to project design and layout: Item # 1: Include a brief description of the site and project layout; describe basis for site yield, proposed structures, services, utilities, access points, road system, drainage, site quantities table. · Item #6: The adequacy of on-site parking will be discussed; required parking as required by a breakdown of parking requirements shall be provided. · Item #7: Dumpster locations will be identified. · Item #9: The DEIS will include a description of water supply, irrigation well water supply and proposed wastewater handling and corresponding use of water supply and sanitary design flow. Item #10 Information on the type, amount and location of landscaping proposed will be provided as well as information on maintenance requirements such as irrigation and fertilization under operation and maintenance. Our specific comments as they relate to the above-described inadequacies are as follows: The Final Scope requires that the basis for the site yield be provided. While the Description of the Proposed Action section of the DEIS provides a history of the project, including a discussion on how the density has been reduced over time, there is no information as it relates to the Town's requirement for determining yield. Section 1.3 Project Design and Layout The DEIS indicates that the proposed site plan is a "hamlet design which provides clustered housing in order to provide common areas within the community.., and provide a desirable and visually appealing site layout." It is unclear what is meant by a "hamlet design." It appears the project sponsor is referring to traditional neighborhood design, which has very clear and defined design elements that are fundamentally different that the standard suburban street design of many similar developments. The DEIS should be revised to clarify what is meant by "hamlet design" and include a more detailed discussion about the key design elements for this project. In addition, it is not clear how this proposal qualifies as "clustered housing." What are the Town's requirements for clustering and how does this project comply with those provisions? Generally, a cluster plan results in compact development, less infrastructure and contiguous areas of open space. Therefore we question whether this proposal qualifies as a cluster plan under the Town's regulations. Section 1.3.3 Access, Road System and Parking The Final Scope requires that "the adequacy of on-site parking will be discussed; required parking as required by a breakdown of the parking requirements shall be provided." Parking calculations have not been provided nor is there a discussion of the adequacy of the parking. It will be useful if a table of parking requirements is provided in this section of the DEIS. The proposed internal road network design and circulation warrants further discussion. While the DEIS does discuss trip generation and traffic impacts as it relates to the proposed development and the larger road network outside of the site, there is no discussion on the internal roadway layout and circulation as required by the Final Scope. A key element of this design that is being considered by the Board is the ability to provide a safe environment with a cohesive design that promotes and protects the pedestrian and helps form a sense of enclosure for vehicles and a sense of place for citizens. Why was the road network designed with circular, interwoven roads, rather than a grid layout? How is this project designed to encourage bicycling and walking for short trips? Is the road network safe for emergency vehicles and ease of property identification? The DEIS indicates that the entrance road will connect to Spur Road on the west side of the property, thereby connecting this development with the adjacent subdivision known 6 as Highland Estates. When the Highland Estates subdivision was approved by the Town, it's clear that Spur Road and Bridle Lane were contemplated to provide access to this property in the event it was developed. The same principle should be considered in this case that provides cross-access with the adjacent property to the east, which is a large undeveloped farm parcel with the potential for residential development. Section 1.3.4 Sanitatw Disposal and Water Supply This project will utilize on-site septic systems, designed as gang systems (multiple unit systems) for the treatment and disposal of sanitary waste. The Town Code requires that a minimum land area of 20,000 square feet per dwelling unit is required (2 per acre), unless public water and public sewer is provided in which case a minimum land area of 10,000 (4 per acre) square feet per dwelling unit is permitted. Although the basis for the yield has not been provided, it appears that this site is being developed at quarter-acre density, thereby requiring public sewer. The Town Code defines public water and pubic sewer as "communal sewerage disposal systems and communal water supply systems as approved by public agencies having jurisdiction thereof." Furthermore, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services defines a community sewerage system as follows: Community Sewerage System - A system utilized for the collection and disposal of sewerage, or other waste of a liquid nature, including the various devices for the treatment of such wastes, serving more than one parcel, or a condominium project. A community sewerage system requires acceptance by the Suffolk County Sewer Agency. On-lot sewerage treatment systems are not community sewerage systems. The Health Department standards go on to say: Community sewerage systems include a sewerage collection system, treatment works, and a sewerage disposal system and require acceptance by the Suffolk County Sewer Agency. Design of these systems is covered in the NYSDEC Standards for Waste Treatment Works and the GLUMRB Recommended Standards for Sewerage Works (Ten States Standards). Facilities shall be capable of producing a discharge of 10mg/1 total nitrogen or less in the effluent stream. Community sewerage systems may accept industrial or other wastes in accordance with applicable permits issued by the authority having jurisdiction. Applicants should consult the department prior to submission of designs of community sewerage systems. The discrepancy between the proposed sanitary design and the definitions as described above should be addressed in the DEIS. Section 1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting The DEIS does not include a complete landscaping plan and only includes the planting plan for the buffer areas. A planting detail for all trees, shrubs, and ground cover used for the entire site shall be provided. A planting, fertilization, and watering schedule for all trees, shrubs and ground cover shall also be provided. 7 The DEIS only provides details for the proposed street lighting. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted which includes a description of all luminaries, including wall mounted fixtures, lamps, poles or other supports, and shielding devices, which may be provided as catalogue cut sheets from the manufacturer and included in the appendix. Photometric data that may be furnished by the manufacturer, showing the angle of the light emissions shall also be provided in addition to average illumination levels (foot candle data) that must be shown on the plan. An analysis of the photometric data shall include the following: · The basic minimum level of illumination. · The maximum average maintained foot-candles. · A uniformity ratio between the minimum level of illumination and average maintained foot-candles. It is noted in the DEIS that the outdoor lighting fixtures will not exceed 14 feet in height as required by the Town Code. However, the street light detail shows that the street lights will be 15' in height, which does not conform to the Town's requirements. This discrepancy should be addressed. Final Scope Requirement: Construction (t~aee 51 While the DEIS generally addresses the issues as they relate to construction, additional information is nccdcd as follows: Section 1.4 Construction and Operation The DEIS provides a general description of the proposed construction plan for this development. A more detailed construction plan should be provided which specifies the general work schedule to ensure that site construction makes sense from an aesthetic, functionality and economic standpoint. Which structures are going to be built first? Can any of the existing vegetation be utilized to provide natural buffers during the construction period? Will there be any model units on display and if so, where? Is there an equipment staging/storage area that will be utilized during construction? Where will trailers be located during construction? Final Scope Requirement: Operation (page 5) While the DEIS provides a brief discussion of the role of the Homeowner's Association in terms of the general maintenance of the site, it does not provide all of the information as required by the Final Scope. Specifically, the following information needs to be included in the DEIS as it relates to the operation of the site as required in the Final Scope: · Item #1: In terms of operation, describe the management and protection of open space; describe organization management and operation; describe road, landscape and open space maintenance practice, describe any special conditions which may apply. · Item # 2: Uses expected of various locations and facilities within the site; seasons of use, intensity of use, whether the site will be open to special events. · Item #3: Projected number of employees required for the various uses for weekdays, weekends and seasonal peak periods. 8 · Item #4: Truck sizes expected for deliveries and delivery routing. · Item #5: Truck unloading areas. · Item #6: Seasons of operation of various components of the facility. · Item #7: Snow removal will be described as related to parking surfaces and operation. Since none of the above items have been addressed, we have no comments or recommendations at this time. Final Scope Requirement: Permits and Approvals Required (page 5) The DEIS indicates that utility hookups are necessary from various agencies (Section 1.5 Permits and Approvals). The specific agencies should be identified. 2.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Final Scope Requirement: Soils (page 6) The DEIS does not adequately address all of the items contained in the Final Scope as it relates to soils as follows: · Item #1: Impact of loss of agricultural soils will be disclosed and mitigation examined where feasible. · Item #4: Testing of existing soils for contaminants. Methodology, results and remediation should be provided. Section 2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts The DEIS does not discuss the loss of prime agricultural soils as required by the Final Scope. The Town, in their Positive Declaration for this project, indicated that the "long term and irreversible" loss of Prime Agricultural Soils is a potentially significant impact that must be addressed in the DEIS. Section 2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation The Pesticide Report prepared by Nelson & Pope, LLP is included as an appendix to the DEIS and recommends that a soil management plan be prepared to mitigate potential exposure to arsenic and mercury. The proposed mitigation offered indicates that the soil management will involve "isolation of the soils as part of the grading plan to ensure that either non-impacted subsoils are exposed at the surface, or impacted surface soils are covered with at least one (1) foot of clean soil." A more detailed soil management plan is needed to mitigate the potential exposure to arsenic and mercury, particularly during and after construction when the soils are disturbed. Once excavated or collected, contaminated soils must be managed so that they do not constitute a new source of contamination for the environment. The mitigation should include a detailed description of the levels of contamination, the amount of contaminated soil to be removed, preventive measures to protect adjacent property owners from exposure, methods for re- use or relocation of contaminated materials and other remediation that may be necessary. 9 Final Scope Requirement: ~Kater Resources (page 6) The DEIS does not adequately address impacts to water resources. The specific items in the Final Scope that need to be addressed are as follows: · Item # 2: The depth to groundwater in key development locations of the site will be determined by use of on-site soil borings. · Item # 3: The expected direction of groundwater flow based on hydrologic interpolation will be identified. · Item g4: Existing groundwater quality analysis from onsite test wells. · Item #6: The location of private and public wells will be determined, with specific reference to the SCWA Evergreen Pump Station. Item # 10: The change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of recharge under existing and future conditions shall be established using appropriate hydrologic analysis methods. Item #11 The DEIS will provide calculations of projected water consumption for each use proposed and, in consultation with the Suffolk County Water Authority, will evaluate the ability to meet this projected water demand. Section 2.2.1 Existing Conditions The Final Scope requires that the location of public and private wells be determined. While there is information relating to the Evergreen Pump Station operated by the SCWA, the location of private wells within the adjacent subdivision to the west have not been provided. With soils already contaminated and the potential for additional contamination with the application of fertilizers and pesticides in the new development, the location of these wells need to be documented and the potential impacts to those wells needs to be addressed. If the wells are identified on a map that is included in the DEIS, it should be referenced. The DEIS fails to provide the calculations of projected water consumption for each proposed use nor does it evaluate the ability of the SCWA to meet the projected water demand. The expected direction of groundwater flow based on hydrologic interpolation has not been identified and analyzed. Although provided in a map, the depth to groundwater in key development locations on the site need to be discussed within the text of the DEIS as required by the Final Scope. The DEIS does not provide a groundwater quality analysis from on-site test wells as required by the Final Scope. 10 Section 2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts The DEIS needs to identify the change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of recharge under existing and furore conditions and provide details about how the proposed development of the site will alter drainage flow patterns, particularly as it relates to the creation of impermeable surfaces and placement of fill. The property is located adjacent to an approved subdivision that has been fully developed with singe-family residences, all of which are utilizing private wells for water supply. The expected impacts on adjacent properties that are on well water have not been identified. Section 2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation The DEIS does not consider alternatives to the multiple septic systems proposed for the site, particularly an on-site sewerage treatment facility. Clearly, impacts to the groundwater due to the high number of individual septic systems may be mitigated through alternative sewerage treatment methods. Final Scope Requirement: Vegetation and WtTdlife (page 6) The DEIS is inadequate as it relates to the impacts on vegetation and wildlife. In general, there is insufficient or inadequate information to make any conclusions regarding these impacts, and therefore all of the following items required in the Final Scope have not been adequately addressed: · Item # 1: Existing upland habitats shall be inventoried through an inspection of the site by a qualified biologist/ecologist to determine the vegetation, wildlife, and general habitat character. An inventory of flora and fauna observed and expected will be provided in this section of the DEIS. · Item # 2: In addition, protected native plants, plant and animal species listed as endangered, threatened, special concern (or with other protective status) and significant habitat areas on or in the vicinity of the project site will be identified. · Item # 3: The NY Natural Heritage Program will be contacted for site file information concerning habitats, plant and animal species. · Item #4: Impact to habitats will be quantified and discussed qualitatively in terms ecological impact to plants and animals. · Item # 5: Cumulative aspects of loss of habitat will be identified. · Item # 6: Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts will be identified and method of implementation determined. Section 2.3.1 Existing Conditions An inventory of the bird and mammal species is provided in Appendix D of the DEIS. Who prepared this list and what was the basis for determining which species are found on site? The DEIS indicates that "there are no federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or special concerns species on the property." It goes on to further state that the New York State Natural Heritage Program has been contacted for the presence of rare or endangered plant or animal species, as indicated by the correspondence provided in appendix G. There is no reference to the Endangered Species Program as administered by the U.S. 11 Fish and Wildlife Service and there is no indication that the NYS Natural Heritage Program has responded to the request for information. Therefore, the determination that there are no endangered or threatened species on the property is speculative and must be further substantiated. The Final Scope specifically requires that existing upland habitats shall be inventoried through an inspection of the site by a qualified biologist/ecologist to determine the vegetation, wildlife, and general habitat character. In addition, the site inventory taken relative to protected native plants, plant and animal species listed as endangered, threatened or special concern and significant habitat areas, should be conducted in the season they are likely to occur. The DEIS must be revised to provide this information, with the name of the individual who conducted the analysis, his/her credentials and the time and dates the inspections occurred. Section 2.3.3 Anticipated Impacts It is stated that "overall, it is expected that the site's biodiversity will remain at an equivalent or higher level than under existing conditions." There is no information to support this statement. The site is proposed to be entirely cleared to allow for the development, with areas to be landscaped with a variety of plant species. A copy of a complete landscaping plan was not included in the DEIS and therefore it is not possible to adequately assess whether this will mitigate the potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife as put forth. However, based on the review of other information contained in the DEIS, including the proposed site plan, it appears that much of the landscaping will be ornamental in nature and is not intended to create a contiguous block of open space. Since none of the proposed landscaped areas make up a larger block of open space, it is not likely that they will provide a habitat that will support large amounts of wildlife. Instead, the open areas of the site are interspersed throughout the development, meandering in between buildings and structures, with no clear definition or boundaries. Section 2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation The DEIS should discuss alternatives, such as preserving some of the exiting vegetation, which provide the best opportunities to protect wildlife in addition to limiting the need to apply fertilizer or pesticides to maintain the site landscaping. 3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Final Scope Requirement: Transportation (pages 7 and 8) The DEIS does not identify or address the 16 specific Planning Board concerns identified in the Final Scope, with the exception of conducting a traffic count of a similar age- restricted residential development in the Town of Southold. Each of the items discussed in the Final Scope need to be addressed in the DEIS. Any supplemental traffic information that has been submitted to the Town for this project should be included and discussed. The requirements of the Scope are based on the Traffic Study that was prepared and submitted prior to the preparation of the DEIS. The Planning Board identified these items after reviewing the traffic study, which need to be addressed in the DEIS: 12 Item #1: The study fails to consider addressing the possibility of development (housing) of the other Hamlet Business zoned parcels in proximity to the parcel in question. · Item # 2: The study fails to qualify what level of impact or substantial degradation in Level of Service (LOS) is the LOS from an F to F at an intersection results. Item # 3: The study fails to qualify the seasonal adjustment factors of 1.14% and 1.19%, the groups uses and how they were established by the NYSDOT. The study is unclear if the seasonal adjustment factors are qualified to real traffic counts and land use representative of the locale. Item # 4: The seasonal adjustment factors differ on a monthly basis, the study applied a 14% factor to the weekdays and a 19% factor to the weekend volumes; the selection of the factors by the NYSDOT is unexplained. It is unclear if the factors are representative of the locale. Item #5: The calculations could not be duplicated at the intersection of Griffing and State Route 25 (using the traffic count data and the seasonal adjustment factor). Item #6: The analysis of Table 3 indicates that "rear-end collisions may be an indication of congested conditions or drive inattention and slippery/wet road conditions." Although the statement is made, no mitigation is proposed, which suggests that the congested conditions are acceptable at pre-build conditions and acceptable after-build conditions. The statement warrants further explanation. Item #7: The study indicates that currently the Main Road and Depot Lane intersection operates at a poor level of service (LOS F) during the PM and Saturday peak hours due to heavy traffic volumes on Main Road. It can be expected that following the build out of 139 units, the LOS would continue to worsen. Appendix D, Capacity Analysis/Level of service Worksheet & Summary Table indicates that the level of service decreases in the Build Analysis 2007. The LOS at the southbound left turn currently operates at an F, following the Build Analysis the level of service again operates at F. The decrease of the LOS is a result of the increased vehicle trips in the area resulting from the proposed site plan. The significance of change relative to impacts from a LOS F to F is unclear and should be further explained. Item # 8: Currently, Main Road and Griffing Street operate at a LOS F and E in the PM and Saturday peak hours. Appendix A indicates that the southbound approach operates at a LOS of F under current conditions and following Build Conditions. Again, the significance of degradation at the intersection/impact is unclear and requires further evaluation and/or mitigation. Item #9: The annual growth factor obtained from the NYSDOT is 1.8%. The Planning Board questions if the growth factor takes into account land use and rate of development indicative of Eastern Long Island or the Town of Southold. \ 13 Item #10: The Planning Board rejects the modeling of trip generation for the proposed action to Elderly Housing (detached) nationwide traffic modeling criteria uses in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Elderly housing (detached) is restricted to senior citizens and may contain special services (medical facilities) on site. Additionally, in a December 11, 2006 letter to the Planning Board, the response to comment #1 indicates that Land Use: 251 Senior Adult Housing-Detached statistical data was used. The two documents conflict. The action is proposed as an "Active Adult Community." The Planning Board is requesting that real data from a comparable use (Active 55 and older condominium community) located on Eastern Long Island be used to base the study trip generation modeling. Item #11: Is the AM peak hour used in the ITE Land Use Code for Elderly Housing (detached) the same time as the AM peak hour used in the actual traffic count performed by Nelson and Pope (the same applies to PM Peak hour and Saturday peak hour)? Would using different hours result in inaccurate data? Item # 12: The 2007 Site Generated Weekday A1 Traffic Volumes indicate that 6 vehicles will exit to Griffing Road and the State Road 25 intersection, 3 vehicles would exit Spur Road and 9 vehicles would exit the site via Schoolhouse Road and continue to the County Road 48 and Depot Lane intersection. The vehicle trips seem low and routing unrealistic. The Planning Board questions the analysis and requests that real data be obtained and uses (where possible) to model the vehicle trips and routing. Item #13: The study proposes mitigation (traffic control at Depot Road and Main Road). Mitigation of expected traffic impacts validates that the action may result in a potentially significant or large impact and needs to be further addressed. As confirmed with the NYSDOT, the proposed above traffic control is not an option to mitigate traffic impacts. Alternative mitigation of traffic impacts must be evaluated and proposed. Item # 14: It is the Planning Board's position that the study fails to analyze the impact of the vehicle trips from Highland/Crown Lane and Schoolhouse using Spru Road (if it is opened) as a means to access downtown Cutchogue and/or pass through to Depot Lane/CR 48 and NYS 25. Item # 15: The traffic impacts if Spur Road is opened/not opened have not been adequately addressed relative to the NYS Route 25 and Griffing Avenue intersection. · Item # 16: Other access alternatives should be considered. Such as, access directly from the proposed site to Depot Lane through the property to the east. Final Scope Requirement: Land Use, Zoning and Plans (page 9) The following items have not been adequately addressed in the DEIS as it relates to the impacts to land use, zoning and plans: 14 · Item gl: The existing land use character of the site and surrounding area within 500 feet will be described and mapped. · Item #2: The zoning which applies to the site and the area within 500 feet will be described and mapped, and a description of zoning regulations for the project site and surrounding area zoning shall be provided. · Item # 3: Land use plans which pertain to the project site will be evaluated with emphasis on those plans adopted after 1994: · Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Report (1994) · Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1994) · Peconic Estuary Program (1995) · Economic Development Plan (1997) · Southold Township Planning Initiatives (1997) · Community Preservation Project Plan (1998) · County Route 48 Corridor, Land Use Study (1999) · Farm and Farmland Preservation Program (1983-2202) · Southold Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (2000) · Water Supply Management & Water Protection Strategy (2000) · Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) · Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold (2002) · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and GElS (2003) · Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2005) · Southold Hamlet Study (2005) · Community Preservation Project Plan (2006 Update) · Long Island North Shore Heritage Area · Town Zoning Maps/Code and Comprehensive Plan. · Town Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (2005) · North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment (2002) · Item # 4: The compatibility of the development with the surrounding area will be assessed. · Item # 5: Once the above information is compiled, the DEIS will assess the impacts of the proposed action on land use and zoning. The impact assessment will concentrate on evaluating the consistency of the proposed action with prevailing land use and zoning. The compatibility of the proposed action with area land use will be assessed. · Item # 6: The conformance of the project with land use plans will be evaluated and discussed. · Item # 7: Measures which may be used to mitigate potential land use, zoning or impacts with respect to land use plans will be provided. Section 3.2.1 Existing Conditions The DEIS does not provide a detailed description of the existing land use character of the site and surrounding area within 500 feet as required, which is needed in order to evaluate the potential impacts and determine if the project is compatible with the surrounding land uses. This information is required to be described and mapped. The DEIS should also include a description of the zoning which applies to this property and the area within 500 feet in addition to a description of the zoning regulations for the 15 project site and surrounding area. This information is required to be described and mapped. The Final Scope adopted by the Planning Board requires that a number of plans and studies be evaluated as it pertains to the development of the subject property. It appears that all of the studies are discussed, in some capacity, with the exception of the North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment. The DEIS must be revised to include this report. While the DEIS does provide a brief summary of each of the studies/adopted plans, more detail needs to be provided as it relates to the relationship of this project to the specific recommendations, if any, in each of the reports. The DEIS should indicate whether or not the subject property is specifically mentioned in each of the studies identified and whether this project conforms to any recommendations that may be pertinent. The DEIS states that "it should be noted that the subject site is presently unused and covered by successional field vegetation; no agricultural activity is present." Earlier in the DEIS, it was acknowledged that the property had been farmed, likely up to the mid 1980's. This combined with the fact the property is relatively large and adjacent to active farmland, the DEIS should specifically indicate whether or not the subject property has been identified for farmland preservation. Section 3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts Since the required information was not provided, it is not possible to identify the potential impacts that may be expected from this development as it relates to the existing zoning and land use patterns in the area. Revisions to the DEIS as it relates to the various land use plans and studies as previously noted, may result in impacts that previously were not identified. This section of the DEIS should be revised based on these changes, if applicable. Section 3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation The DEIS concludes that the "project's conformance to those aspects and/or recommendations of the above-listed land use plans and studies uniformly indicate that no impacts would occur. Therefore, no mitigation (beyond the current site design and project components.) is necessary or proposed." However, this section of the DEIS is also required to include an analysis of the surrounding land uses and zoning, which was not provided. As already stated, given the lack of information, anticipated impacts have not been identified and therefore no mitigation was offered. Final Scope Requirement: Community Facilities and Services (pages 9 and 1 O) The discussion relating to community services and facilities is limited and does not conform to the requirements of Final Scope. Specifically, the DEIS must be revised to include the following required information: · Item #2: The impact analysis contained in the DEIS will include consultations with service providers regarding existing demand for services and capacity such 16 that the DEIS will objectively analyze the impact of the proposed action on community facilities and services. Item #3: Detailed projections of service demand with supporting documentation. Item #5: The existing tax revenue of the site will be established. 3.3.1 Existing Conditions As already discussed in this report, it is stated that this project will generate substantial tax revenues for the Town. The DEIS should provide a more detailed analysis to support this statement and provide estimates of the amount of tax revenues that may be expected to be generated from this project. In addition, Table 1-2 on page 4 of the DEIS indicates that tax generation data is to be determined (TBD). This information needs to be provided in the table. Section 3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts The DEIS indicates that the each of the service providers have been contacted but there have been no responses to date, with the exception of a letter from the Suffolk County Water Authority indicating that they would not issue a letter of water availability until site plan approval has been issued. The analysis of the proposed impacts as it relates to community services and facilities must therefore be revised upon receipt of the any new information. Section 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures Any impacts identified upon the receipt of new information as discussed above would require that the proposed mitigation be amended accordingly. The DEIS indicates that the "facility will have state of the art fire facilities that will aid in all fighting needs of the local volunteer fire departments." Specific details should be provided. Are there any other elements of the overall site design that would mitigate the potential impacts? Does the project include security and/or design features that would reduce the demand for police services (e.g., security cameras, officers, lights, fencing, gates, etc.)? Final Scope Requirement: .4esthetic Resources, Open Space/CommunitF Character and Public Health (page 10) The DEIS does not adequately address all of the issues outlined in the Final Scope as it pertains to aesthetic resources, open space/community character and public health. · Item #1: Existing site and community character will be identified. · Item # 2: The project will result in a change in the aesthetic character of the site due to removal of existing vegetation. Impacts will be disclosed and mitigation identified where feasible. · Item #3: The open space resources of the site and area will be identified. · Item #4: The project will result in the loss of open space due to removal of existing vegetation. Impacts will be disclosed and mitigation identified where feasible. · Item #5: The existing noise environment will be evaluated in terms of ambient noise, sensitive receptors and community character. 17 · Item//6: Construction activities in terms of construction schedule and duration, materials and storage/staging area, water and sewer systems connections, proper handling of construction waste, hours of operation and truck routes will be evaluated. · Item//7: Describe the impacts related to construction noise, dust, erosion and sedimentation, area receptors, applicable nuisance regulations, applicable agency oversight and safeguards, phasing of the project, staging areas, parking areas, operation areas, duration, hours, and related mitigation measures to reduce construction impacts. The potential noise and dust impacts of construction related to cleating, construction activities and traffic will be assessed. · Item #8: Mitigation in terms of design, buffer planting and open space will be examined. Section 3.4.1 Existing Conditions The DEIS does not identify the existing site and community character as required in the Final Scope. What are the land uses surrounding the subject property? Are there areas of open space or protected land adjacent to the subject property? Are there open space opportunities that exist on this property that could be incorporated into the design? Does the project conform to the character of the surrounding community and if so, how? The character of the community shall also be described in an historical context, which identifies key design elements already in place within the community. The DEIS indicates that although the subject property can be considered open space, it has not been slated for preservation by the County. This, of course, does not mean there is no open space value for the neighboring community or the Town as a whole. If this property is not suitable for open space, the DEIS should specify why. In addition, the development of this site does not preclude open space from being included in the design, particularly as it relates to the potential development of the adjacent property to the east, whereby a contiguous block of open space could be created. The discussion about open space should not be limited only as it relates to the subject property. The development of this site will have an influence on and set the stage for the development of the adjacent property to the east. This should be evaluated in the DEIS. Although discussed briefly in section 1 of the DEIS, the Final Scope requires that this section provide details relating to the construction activities in terms of construction schedule and duration, materials and storage/staging area, water and sewer systems connections, proper handling of construction waste, hours of operation and track routes. Section 3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts The Final Scope requires that the DEIS describe the impacts related to all construction activities, including but not limited to, noise, dust and erosion and sedimentation. In addition, the DEIS should identify the expected visual impacts due to the clearing of the site and the storage of construction materials, vehicles and other construction-related machinery. Once the existing character of the community is identified and analyzed in the DEIS, the anticipated impacts can then be identified. The evaluation of the impacts should identify if this project will result in the introduction of contrasting features or development into 18 aesthetically valued areas of this community, which can overpower familiar features, eliminate context or associations with history, or create visual discord where there have been apparent efforts to maintain or promote a thematic or consistent character. The subject property is located adjacent to a fully developed subdivision that likely has a number of families with school-aged children living within the development. The DEIS should identify the potential safety hazards associated with the construction activities of the site and specify the safeguards that will be in place to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the community is protected. Overall, the DEIS lacks a discussion of the visual impacts of the proposed project. While there are a number of color renderings provided in Appendix C, it is not clear from what vantage points these are based. The DEIS must provide a detailed visual assessment for this project such as viewpoint panoramas to illustrate existing and potential visual impact from key viewpoints, a written analysis of the magnitude and significance of potential visual impact related to change through time, appropriate mitigation to limit visual impact and demonstration of its effectiveness by computer modeling or color renderings and photomontage based on accurate three dimensional models to illustrate the proposed development. The DEIS should include a discussion of the visual impacts as it relates to the character of the surrounding community, including the degree to which the development would result in buildings that would detract from the existing style or image of the area due to density, height, bulk, setbacks, siguage, architectural style, massing or other physical elements. The DEIS should provide an internal visual assessment to get a sense of pedestrian scale and what this project will look like from the inside. Are the proposed structures effectively integrated into the aesthetics of the site, through appropriate design, and have the objectives of creating a traditional streetscape been accomplished though the proposed site design? Will this project connect to the existing community and how will the site design promote or enhance the economic vibrancy of the Cutchogue Hamlet Center? Section 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures There is little discussion about the design of the site as it relates to the mitigation of the impacts on aesthetics, open space/community character and public health. Does the project introduce features that positively contribute to the existing valued aesthetic quality of the neighborhood, community, or localized area by avoiding conflicts with important aesthetic elements or the quality of the area (such as theme, style, setbacks, density, massing, etc.) or by being consistent with applicable design guidelines? Final Scope Requirement: Archaeological Resources (page 10) A Phase I Archeological Investigation was prepared for this project given the site's location in an archeological sensitive area within the Hamlet of Cutchogue. The study involved both a Phase IA and IB, resulting in the excavation of 767 shovel tests. Although isolated prehistoric and historic finds were encountered, no further assessment was recommended given that the finds were "few in number and too disconnected to 19 warrant further assessment." We have reviewed the Archaeological Survey prepared by Tracker Archaeological Services, Inc. dated October 2007 and find that the document is accurate and therefore no further archaeological work is needed. 4.0 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS Final Scope Requirement: Use and Conservation of EnergT Resources (page 10) The DEIS does not adequately address the potential impacts as it relates to use and conservation of energy resources as follows: Item # l(page 10): Use and Conservation of Energy Resoumes (The project will increase energy use which could be significant. Mitigation to reduce the impacts to energy consumption could include building homes to Energy Star and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards and/or applying dark sky standards to lessen the impact of energy consumed. These aspects of the project will be examined). Section 4.1.1 Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources The DEIS offers limited mitigation on the potential impacts to energy resoumes and does not discuss the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards as required by the Final Scope. LEED certification is becoming increasingly commonplace among new developments throughout the United States. There are a myriad of energy-efficient design guidelines that should be discussed in the DEIS and considered for this development to mitigate impacts on energy resources, including but not limited to, passive solar design, building orientation, daylight and sun control, insulation and thermal mass, heating and cooling system alternatives, landscaping and minimizing car use. The DEIS also needs to evaluate "dark sky" standards to mitigate the potential impacts as it relates to energy consumption and light pollution. Outdoor lighting can be bright enough to degrade the visibility of the night sky, create glare that threatens driving safety, and consume large amounts of energy.. Final Scope Requirement: Cumulative Impacts (page 10) It is recommended that the Town verify that there is only one additional proposal before the Town in the vicinity of the subject property as stated in the DEIS. Assuming this to be the case, the DEIS should at least provide an overlay map which shows the subject property and proposed development in relation to the site that is contemplated for a commercial subdivision. The DEIS should specify if there are any design elements of this project that would mitigate potential impacts in conjunction with the potential future development of the adjacent residential property to the east or the commercially-zoned properties along Griffing Street. 20 Final Scope Requirement: Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided (t~aee 11) Thc DEIS again states that "no rare, threatened or endangered flora or faunal species have been observed, and none arc anticipated because of the previous agricuitural use of the property." As previously stated in our review of this document, the project sponsor has not contacted the Endangered Species Program administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and no comments have been received from the New York State Natural Heritage Program regarding the existence of endangered species on or in proximity to the site. In addition, the Final Scope requires that the existing upland habitats be inventoried through an inspection of the site by a qualified biologist/ecologist to determine the vegetation, wildlife, and general habitat character. This, too, is not provided in the DEIS. Therefore, any conclusions relating to the impacts on vegetation and wildlife are speculative. The DEIS indicates that the nitrogen loading into the groundwater cannot be mitigated given the need to provide multiple on-site septic systems. As stated previously, the Final Scope requires that alternative sewerage treatment systems be evaluated to mitigate potential impacts to groundwater. Such systems do provide for the denitrification of sewerage, and therefore would provide mitigation as required. The DEIS should identify the potential impacts associated with individual septic systems, a situation that is exacerbated with the installation of so many individual systems, and should be considered in the evaluation of the potential enviromnental impacts. The DEIS should also indicate that the subject property does contain a large amount of prime agricultural soils, all of which will be lost to development. Although the site hasn't been farmed since the 1980's, the site is suitable for farming and the loss of this resource is an important consideration for the Town. The Positive Declaration and the Final Scope each talk about the permanent loss of prime agricultural soils as a potentially significant environmental impact. Final Scope Requirement: Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources (oa~e 11) The statement that "there will be a minimal removal of vegetation from the site, as only a small amount of vegetation exists at the site" seems to be contradictory to previous statements made in thc DEIS, which acknowledges that this property is fully vegetated. Although not a mature forest, thc site is almost entirely covered with successional old field vegetation, all of which is proposed to be removed from the site. Final Scope Requirement: Growth Inducine Aspects (t~a~e 11) The DEIS indicates the potential growth resulting from this development will not have an impact on community services and that the existing services and facilities are adequate to support this growth. However, as already stated in our review of section 3.3 of the DEIS, there is not sufficient information to draw these conclusions. The fact that no improvements are planned off-site does not mean that the proposed project will not lead to further growth or influence development on adjacent properties. This project has to be reviewed in relation to the Hamlet as a whole. Just as preservation 21 of a property may lead to additional preservation in order to create large contiguous blocks of open space, development of a property may influence how other properties are developed. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Final Scope Requirement: Alternatives to be Studied (~a~e 11) The Final Scope adopted by the Town requires five alternatives be discussed, however only two were included in the DEIS, and one of those only partially addressed the altemative as described in the scope. Alternative number one was the "No Action" alternative, and was adequately discussed. Alternative number two, an alternative design, "including but not limited to clustering of detached and attached units to create meaningful open space, and maximize vegetative buffers along the perimeter of the property" was partially provided for in the DEIS, however it did not contemplate true clustering, nor did it create meaningful open space, or change the buffer on the east and north side of the property. The alternatives remaining to be discussed are as follows: Altemative 3. Reduce existing number of units (page 11, Final Scope): Reducing the number of units included in the overall development plan is a valid alternative that needs to be addressed in the DEIS. Consideration of alternative scale or magnitude is reasonable if the impacts can be avoided or reduced by a change in project size, the change in project size does not reduce the project to the point where it will no longer serve its intended function, or the reduction in project size may decrease applicant's objectives but does not make the project infeasible. This alternative should be discussed in the DEIS. Altemative 4. Partial or full preservation of the property (page 11, Final Scope): With respect to partial or full preservation of the property, full preservation is discussed under the No Action alternative, and a type of partial preservation, in the form of the Town pumhasing the 100 foot buffer, is discussed in the second alternative contemplated in the DEIS. A true example of partial preservation, however, would be if the Town pumhased a portion of the actual yield thus reducing the number of units by that method. This alternative should be discussed in the DEIS. Please note, this alternative is not intended to be combined with Alternative 3, and should be contemplated separately. Alternative 5. Alternative design for wastewater treatment (page 11, Final Scope). Given the number of individual septic systems proposed and the potential impacts to nearby wells and groundwater quality, alternative design for wastewater treatment should be addressed. The analysis of the potential impacts of individual septic systems should include the limitations of such systems, maintenance considerations, effectiveness and overall costs, particularly as it relates to the cost of installing individual systems versus a community sewerage treatment facility. This alternative should be discussed in the DEIS. 22 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 1. The Table of Contents should provide a list of all the maps that are provided in the DEIS. 2. The DEIS refers to a 45.99-acre parcel, where the site plan and other maps show the lot area to be 46.17 acres. This discrepancy should be addressed. 3. Some of the pages in the Traffic Study (Appendix B) have been slightly cut-off and should therefore be replaced such that the entire document is legible. CONCLUSIONS Based on our review of the DEIS as discussed in the above analysis, we find that the document is not ready for public review and is deficient in a number of areas. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. The Planning Board is advised to review our findings and advise the applicant of the changes that will be required. If you have any questions concerning our comments or wish to discuss them further, we would be pleased to meet with you at work session to discuss. 23 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND February 27, 2008 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 Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. 445 Griffing Avenue P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue: DEIS Review Dear Mr. Cuddy: Enclosed is a copy of the approved proposal for review from KPC Planning Services, Inc. At this time, we request payment of $5,000 to the Town of Southold on behalf of your client, to cover the cost of the initial review of the DEIS document. Thank you. Sincerely, Heather Lanza Town Planning Director Enc. cc: File PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND Februaw 27,2008 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRE~: 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 Mr. Kyle P. Collins, AICP KPC Planning Services, Inc. 108 Mill Road Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue: DEIS Review Dear Mr. Collins: This letter will confirm your estimated cost for the above service in the amount of $5,000. Prior to any work being done beyond this estimated cost, you must submit a second estimate for the additional work, and wait for our approval in writing before proceeding. Thank you. Sincerely, Heather Lanza Town Planning Director cc: File Mailin~Addr~: RO. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT L AW 445 GRI FF1NG AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK January 29, 2008 TEL: (631)369-8200 FAX: (631) 369-9080 E-mad: charles.¢uddy@,,erizon.net Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson of Southold Planning Board Southold Town P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 1197! Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: In response to your request for an additional time to review the applicant's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), we note that there was an extended period, far beyond that permitted, for the Board to make a positive declaration under SEQRA. Nevertheless, we anticipate that a good faith effort is being made to expeditiously review the DEIS, and, under the circumstances, and without prejudice to the applicant, we consent to the requested extension. We understand that the review will be completed by the end of the first week in March 2008. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC:ik PLANNING SERVICES, INC. Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Town of Southold Jerilyn B. Woodhouse P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 DEIS Review Town of Southold - Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan SCTM#: 1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Jerilyn: Please find enclosed a proposal for the review of the DEIS and preparation of a report for the above referenced project, to assist the Planning Board with their SEQRA review as it relates to the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement. The cost for these services shall be on an hourly rote as specified herein. We estimate that these services will cost approximately $5,000, plus any necessary fees associated with additional outside consultants as may be required. I estimate the process will require four to six weeks from the time we receive the executed proposal and will be completed within the timeframes permitted under SEQRA. We would appreciate your executing this form and returning it to the address below. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (631) 998-3919. K~yle P. Collins, AICP KPC Planning Services, Inc 108 Mill Road, Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 W: 631-998-3919 F: 631-998-3921 E: kpcplanning~loptonline, net Proposal for Professional Services Contractor/Agent/Permittee KPC Planning Services, Inc. 108 Mill Road, Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 Office; (631) 998-3919, Fax; (631) 998-3921, Email; kpeplanning~optonline.net Proiect Description Review of the DEIS and p~arafion of a report for the Town of Southold Planning Board in connection with the SEQRA requirements for the Heritage at Cutehogue Residential Site Plan. Proiect Locations Griffin Street and School House Lane Cutchogue, NY SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 Owner/Client Town of Southold Planning Board Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Proiect Work Schedule Prepare and submit within 4 to 6 weeks al~er receipt of executed proposal. Estimated Cost $5,000.00 (NOTE: Any subsequent work required and requested by the Town of $outhold or any additional outside consultant work, as may be needed, may bring the cast over tke estimated quote of $$,000.) S.~.~.~rd Sc~__~_~!e of Fees for ~4difionai work if necessary and approved: Principal Planner $150 per hr. Clerical fee $65 per hr. Terms of a ment If the account remains overdue for a period greater than 60 days, KPC Planning Services, Inc. reserves the right to charge the Owner/Client a 2% finance charge per month. A $25.00 re- billing charge will be added to any invoice that remains outstanding for more than 90 days. In addition to the payment for the services provided, if any invoice is sent out for collection, due to non payment, the Owner/Client agrees to reimburse KPC Planning Services, Inc. for all costs incurred toward the collection of these invoice(s) due, including legal fees. Items Recruited before Commencement of Proposed Work 1. Signed Proposal Proposal Changes & Alterations Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra time or costs will be executed only upon approval, and will become an extra charge per the Standard Schedule of Fees over and above the quoted estimate. Performance All work is guaranteed to be as specified. KPC Planning Services, Inc. will provide professional services in conscientious, faithful, and diligent manner according to standard practices. KPC Planning Services, Inc. cannot and will not warrant or predict results of final developments. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, torrauto, hurricane, and other necessary insurance. Owner/Client agrees to limit the liability of KPC Planning Services, Inc. and it officers and employees, to the client on the project due to negligent acts, errors or omissions such that the aggregate total liability solely to the total fees rendered for services provided by KPC Planning Services, Inc. for the completion of the project. Acccotance of Pronosal The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. KPC Planning Services, Inc. is authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Owner/Client Signature ~soerilyn~. Woodhouse, Chairperson uthold Town Planning Board Proposal valid for 30 da~s f~om 1/2.~200~ Date: /- 2 J' -~9,9' PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SlDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND January 11, 2008 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 O~'ICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1936 Fax: 631 765-3136 Mr. Robert Grover Director, Environmental & Coastal Sciences Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Engineers, Architects and Engineers 325 West Main Street Babylon, NY 11702 Dear Mr. Grover: Re: Heritaqe at Cutchoque Draft Environmental Impact Statement Due to the holiday break in the Planning Board's December and early January schedule, and given the complexity of the proposed project, we respectfully request an additional thirty days (in addition to the normal 45~day review period) to review the DEIS to determine whether the document is adequate for public review in terms of scope and content. Please let us know by letter whether or not we may have this time extension. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Planning Board Chair cc: Charles Cuddy, Esq. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND Janua~ 11,2008 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 Mr. Kyle Collins KPC Planning Services 108 Mill Road Westhampton Beach, NY 11978 RE: Request for proposals - Review Heritaqe at Cutchoque DEIS Dear Mr. Collins: At your earliest convenience, please submit a proposal to complete the SEQRA review of the enclosed Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Heritage at Cutchogue residential site plan. Also enclosed for your review is a copy of the final scope. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, dhouse, Chairperson Encs. New York'State Departrcll t of Environmental Conser ion Division of Fish, Wildlife & M~l'ine Resources New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-4757 v "hone: (518)402-8935 · FAX: (518)402-8925 .dec.state.ny. us December 24, 2007 Are~ander B. Grannis Commissioner Keith Holley Greenman Pedersen, [nc 325 West Main St Babylon, NY 11702 Dear Mr. Holley: In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage Program database with respect to an Environmental Assessment for the proposed Heritage ~ Cutchogue Development, #2004 334, site as indicated on the map you provided, located in the Town of Cutchogue, Suffolk County. Enclosed is a report of rare or state-listed animals and plants, significant natural communities, and other significant habitats, which our databases indicate occur, or may occur, on your site or in the immediate vicinity of your site. The information contained in this report is considered sensitive and should not be released to the public without permission from the New York Natural Heritage Program. The presence of the plants and animals identified in the enclosed report may result in this project requiring additional review or permit conditions. For further guidance, and for information regarding other permits that may be required under state law fqr regulated areas or activities (e.g., regulated wetlands), please contact the appropriate NYS DEC Regional Office, Division of Environmental Pennits, at the enclosed address. For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted; the enclosed report only includes records from our databases. We cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural commurdties. This information should not be substituted for on-site surveys that may be required for environment impact assessment. Our databases are continually growing as records are added and updated. If this proposed project is still under development one year from now, we recommend that you contact us again so that we may update this response with the most current information. Enos. . ,. cc: Reg. 1, Wildlife Mgr.. Tara Seoane, Information Services New York Natural Heritage Program Natural Heritage Report on Rare Species and Ecological Communities NY Natural Heritage Program, NYS DEC, 625 Broadway, 5th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 HISTORICAL RECORDS The following plants and animals were documented in the vicinity of the project site at one time, but have not been documented ~' there since 1979 or earlier. Tl~ere is no recent information on these plants and animals in the vicinity of the project site and their current status there is unknown. In most cases the precise location of tl~e plant or animal in this vicinity at the time it was last documented is also unknown and therefore location maps are generally not provided. If appropriate habitat for these plants or animals is present in the vicinity of the project site, it is possible that they may still occur there. Natural Heritage Report on Rare Species and Ecological Communities DRAGONFLIES and DAMSELFLIES Nehalennia integricollis Southern Sprite NY Legal Status: Federal Listing: Last Report: County: Town: Location: Directions: General Quality and Habitat: Special Concern 1953 or 19547 New York State Waters, Suffolk Ny State Waters, Southold NYS Rank: S1 - Critically imperiled Global Rank: G5- Demonstrably secure EO Rank: Historical, no recent information Office Use 12596 Mattituck The damselflies were captured in Mattituck and Cutchogue on Long Island. From Riverhead take Route 48 northeast towards Southold. Mattituck is not far across the town boundary into Southhold from Riverhead. From Mattituck, follow Route 25 for approximately 2 mi northeast to Cutchogue.' The damselfly was captured in the vicinity of two different towns on a very large island. VASCULAR PLANTS Helianthemum dumosum Bushy Rockrose NY Legal Status: Threatened Federal Listing: Last Repor[: 1921-09-09 County: Suffolk Town: Southoid Location: Cutchogue Directions: Cutchogue. General Quality and Habitat: NYS. Rani<: S2 - Imperiled Global Rank: G3-Vulnerable EO Rank: Failed to find but search more Office Use 9251 M December 20, 2007 Page 1 9[~ Natural Heritage Report on Rare Species and Ecological Communities ~ Lespedeza stuevei Velvety NY Legal Status: Threatened Federal Listing: Last Report: 1919-09-07 County: .Suffolk Town: Southold Location: Cutchogue Directions: Cutchogue. General Quality D[y woods. and Habitat: NYS Rank: S2 - Imperiled Global Rank: G47 - Apparently secure EO Rank: Historical, no recent information Office Use 548 3 Records Processed More detailed information about many of the rare and listed animals and plants in New York, including biology, identification, habitat, conservation, and management, are available online in Natural Heritage's Conservation Guides at www.acris.nynhp.org, from NatureServe Explorer at http://www.natureserve.orq/exptorer, from NYSDEC at http://www.dec.n¥.qov/animals/7494.html (for animals), and from USDA's Plants Database at http://plants.usda.qov/index.html (for plants). December 20, 2007 Page 2 of: H RITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE 1721-D North Ocean Ave. Medford, N.Y. 11763 Tel .631 207-5730 Fax 631 207-5974 To: Town Of Southold Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Road 25 Southold, New York 11747 Attention: Planning Department Date: December] ~, 2007 Project No.: Regarding: Heritage at Cutchogue DEIS re-submission SCTM# District 1000-Section 102-Block 01-Lot 33.3 We are sending you X Attached rq Under separate cover Shop drawings Copy of letter Prints [] Change Order X Plans [] Specifications Samples X For Approval [] X For your use [] X For you information [] X As requested [] X For review and Comment [] [] Accepted as submitted [] Accepted as noted Returned for correction Resubmit __ copies for acceptance Submit __ copies for distribution Return __ corrected prints Prints returned after loan to us Copies Date Description 10 12/2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement as prepared by Greenman- Pedersen, Inc. [ GPI ] Attached please find 10 complete copies of our DEIS re subm~ Thank you L If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. ERIC J. BRESSLER ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM LYNNE M. GORDON JANET GEASA LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, BRESSLER, GORDON & GEASA, P.C. 13015 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND NEW YORK 11952 631-298-8353 TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565 wwblaw~aol.com WILLIAM WICKHAM (06-02) 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD SUITE 111 MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 631-249-9480 TEI,EFAX NO. 631-249-9484 December 11, 2007 Attn: Mark Terry, Sr. Environmental Planner Southold Town Planning Board Post Office Box 1179; 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Heritage at Cutchogue - SEQRA review Dear Mark: Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I enclose a sketch of the proposed subdivision for William J. Baxter on Griffing Street, Cutchogue, NY. This property is zoned HB, and the project has undergone extensive review by the Planning Board in connection with the prior application. The Board's opinion was that the parking should be located in the rear, that cross easements between the lots be imposed, and that there be two access points to Griffing Street, one near the northeast comer, and one near the southwest comer. Each of the four lots will be improved by buildings suitable for retail and other uses allowed by the HB zone. We are also inquiring of the Health Department as to the possibility of having accessory apartments on the second story of each building. We ask that this information be submitted to your consultants in connection with the SEQRA review. Very truly yours, Abigail A. Wickh~' ~ W/jm ...... End. 30/shdpb4 COUNIY OF SUFFOLK .......... ? "~"~ STEVE LEVY ............ - ..... SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING December 10, 2007 THOMAS ISLES, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Ms. Anthony Trezza, Sr. Planner Town of Southold Planning Bd. 53095 Main Road - P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage ~ Cutchogue (Site Plan) SCTM No. 1000102000100033003 SCPC File No.: LS-G-2046 Dear Mr. Trezza: This office has discovered an error in our prior jurisdictional assessment of the above referenced project. The subject property is within 500 feet of SCTM No. 1000102000100003003. Said parcel is within a Suffolk CountyAgficultural District. Suffolk CountyResolution 1283-2005 amended the County Charter to require local municipalities before taking final action on a matter to refer the matter to the Suffolk County Planning Commission if it is within 500 feet of an agricultural district, as defined by Article 25-AA of the New York Agricultural and Markets Law. Moreover, it is noted that the subject site is within 500 feet of land to the south ownedby the State of New York for governmental use. If the Town Qf Southold has not taken a final action on the subject application, please m-mfer the application to the dffices of the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to NYS GML 239 and the Suffolk County Administrative Code, section A 14-14. The Commission will review the proposed site plan and provide comments in the customary fashion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Should you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Chief Planner APF:cc LOCATION ' MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR · P.O. BOX 6100 · (631) 853-5190 ~00 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER (631) 853-4044 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Ch~Jr 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 F~x: 631 765-3136 MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: November 19, 2007 Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner cio Southold Town g{ahning Board Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer/~ Heritage @ Cutchogue correspondence (Barbara Mc Adam) SCTM # 1000-102-1-33.3 In reference to the site plan above attached is the original letter I received on this site plan. Since you are handling this project I forward this to you for the file record, response to the resident and to be addressed with the Planning Board as required. Please let me know if you need to me to do anything else with this correspondence. Thank you in advance for your time. Cc: File, hi 800 Crown Land Lane Cutehogue, NY 11935 November 13, 2007 Mr. Bruno Siemon -- Southold Town Planning Dept. Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Siemon: Please read this letter into the minutes of your next meeting. During the week of October 22, 2007, a traffic study was conducted in Cutchogue related to the proposed development of The Heritage. Both human and mechanical counters were on our streets. However, for four of the days on which traffic was counted - October 24, 25, 26, and 27 - heavy rain and high winds prevailed. I have included the weather history from The Weather Channel's official site. These inclement weather conditions kept many people - local residents and tourists alike - off the roads, preventing an accurate traffic count for this time of year. Members of both the Planning Board and Town Board vowed at the Town Board work session on Sept. 11, 2007 that they would make The Heritage developer do the Cutchogue traffic study to their satisfaction rather than have the Town pay to do its own traffic study. Since Nelson and Pope and Duun Engineering are in the business of conducting traffic studies and surely have access to long-range weather forecasts, the Town should make them conduct the study again to record more reliable data. The study also needs to reflect the same seasonal amount of traffic that the end of October usually generates here in Cutchogue. I would submit that the end of May would be a comparable and appropriate time to gauge the traffic in Cutchogue in another study. Sincerely, Barbara McAdam 754 ce. Planning Board Members Planning Dept. Members Monthly Weather Forecast for Cutchogue, NY (11935) - weather.eom 2! 22 23 OBSERVED OBSERVED OBSERVED Hi 72°F Hi 71°F Hi 72°F Lo 49°F Lo 51°F Lo 65°F Pre¢ip (in) Pre¢ip (in) Precip Oin. Oin. 28 29 30 24 25 26 ,© 27 OBSERVED OBSERVED OBSERVED OBSERVED Hi69°F Hi 57°F HiSS°F Hi68°F Lo 57°F Lo 520F LO Sl°F Lo 59°F Precip (Jla) Precip 0il) Precip {ill) Prec[p {in)i O.45in. 0.10in. 0.4gin. 0.44in. OBSERVED OBSERVED OBSERVED OBSERVE[) Page 2 of 4 Cutchogue Offers New York Resident? Get your college degree online. Get the facts started now. Lose 55 Lbs In 5 Months Amazing Chinese Weight Loss Secret As See~ NBC & Fox News Save Up To 75% On Cruises Huge selection of discount cruises. All cruise destinations, Rent/Buy/Sell Corrdo Resorts/Timeshares All top locations. Buy, rent, exchange from o less. Hi SS°F Hi 52°F Hi 61°F Hi 63°F Lo 47°F L.o 36°F Lo 42°F Le 4S°F P~ecip (in) P~ecip (in) Plecip (in) Precip (in) Oin. Oil. Oim Oil. FORECAST: Updated Nov 13 06:23 p.m. ET Leisure Travel Index: 1 = Poor Conditions, 10 = Very Good Conditions [ Details 1[ Video IJ Text 1[' Averages FREE Trial: Larger Radar Maps 8~ No Ads - Learn More Today's weather news brought to you by Suit up at the MLB corn Shop! From the Angels to the Yankees - one of the lnternet's la[gest selections of MLB memorabilia and apparel fight at your fingertips Month-to-Date Totals Temperatures Precipitation 82°F Record High Highest so far 81°F ~ ~ 63°F Avg. High Month ~ 48°F Avg. Low to Date 3.17 in, Lowest 36°F ~ ~ Average 3.72 In. Featured Finds Q, Which is nut like the others? 53 76 Ol This Week's Features Interstate Forecast Find driving cot interstate forec Allergies Find out where levels are high( Best MPG Cars These cars with save gas mone Desktop Weather http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/vacationplanner/monthly/119357month=-I 11/13/2007 ,,nth!y Weather Foea.,t rot Cutchoij NV (11935) - weather.eom Make thi~ my home page Local weather in i-click I Put weather on my d~ktop Page I of 4 customize weather,cra Localweather Enter zip or USIIntl city Maps [ Video ! World I Mobile I Alerts Travel Home I Weather News Driving & Traffic I Healthy Living I Home & Family I Sports & Recreation The Weatl~ l'law:h \;:~cati(m ~ ~ ravel PIm~ner > V~cation Planner Fore(a~t > HON~LY WEATHER ~r Cut~ogue~ NY Yesterday 'Today Tomorrow t Radar Map ~ Hour..by-Hour I Weekend [ JO'Day Vacation Weather Planner for Cutchogue, NY (11935) [ English I Hetrk: ] October Weather for your life Vacation & Travel Guide ~:~ Next Month ~ Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 2 3 (~ 4 5 6 C;B~;ER/ED OBSERVED L)R~ERVED OF~ERVED Ot3SERVED OB~q~RVED It! 6SOF Hi 6g*F iii 72~F Hi 75°F Hi 7SOF Hi 74°F Lo 4q*F t.o 49°F LI1 fi4*F LO 64~F I~ 64°F I.o 66°F PFF'cJp (itu PreciF (m) F'r~cip (ir)) F'rC~¢:U} (ii]) ~PI~cJp (Jr1) PleciI) (m) Oin Oin. Oin. Oit~, Oin. Oin. ? $ 9 10 11 $ 12 13 )~qE:RVf:D OBCgER\/~D C)BSI:RV~D (]EtSERVEO OB!~ERVED OIAAEP. VED OB!~E!RVED Iii ?7~F HJ f~l.ll~ iii 73°F Hi 6S°F I~i 66'F iii 62ar Hi 60°F [~ 6~F ! (~ fi2~F Lo 57"F Ll: 57~F L.{~ 60"F ~.c:, 46°F [e 44°F Pr, vip (ml Pleci!? (ir!} P,e(:i~ (el Precip (h!) ~recip (ir:) PrecH) (m) Predp (in) .q.04i~. O.04ie, O.16in. O.20in, O,20in. Oin, Oin. 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 ~ 20 )Ii 65'F !ti fi4"F Hi 67°F Hi 68°F Hi 7OaF 14i 70°F Hi 72OF ] ,~ ~tT~C L.~ 44'F 1~! 47'F I(~ ~;O"F LO 54°F ~o 6fi°F le 53'F ~'lr~ i!, (in) ih'edp (in} I>,'f.'!3 (i ~1 Precip ( ~l Ple(:in ( tl Predp (in) Prec:ip (lin. Oin, Oifl. O.02in. Oin. t.OOin, O.03in. ..... /, .............. ~. ..... l_..d~.l. 1. ..... 11.,.,..H^..l.n.orlmrmthlvll 1 q~ ~;9mnnth=- l J 1/13/2007 SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Stephen M. Jones Chief Executive Officer Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, New York 11769-0901 (631) 563-0219 Fax (631) 563-0370 November 6, 2007 Mr. Keith Holley Environmental Scientist Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. 325 West Main Street Babylon, NY 11703 Re: Heritage ~ Cutchogue - Town of Southold SCTM# 1000-102.00-01.00-033.003 Dear Mr. Holley: NOV - 8 2007 $outhold Town While we had provided prior correspondence on the above proposal, copies of which are attached for reference, we would also like to call your attention to pending legislation now under consideration by the Suffolk County government. I am enclosing a copy of that legislation, introduced by Legislator Losquadro which establishes a uniform standard for water ma'm installation. Currently the developer has the option of installing one large meter on the perimeter of the project and then installing all of the internal piping. Under this scenario, the developers or HOA would need to maintain the system at their cost and expense. As an alternative, we would suggest that the project use internal piping standards that we would use and further that individual services be metered. If this option is chosen, after construction, SCWA would be granted an easement to allow SCWA to own, operate and maintain the entire system at SCWA's cost and expense. While it is the developer's choice to do the internal work privately with a large meter set and mm the system over to an HOA or the like, we believe that making the project part of our system with internal individual metering will insure a high quality system is installed and protect future homeowners from unnecessary maintenance costs and overhead. Again, we say this is NOT currently a requirement of either SCWA or the SCDHS, but based on past history in these situations, an internal public water system with individual meters will promote water conservation, cut down on wasteful practice and eliminate future maintenance charges to the homeowners or their association. 2006 National Source Water Protection Award Winner Page Two November 6, 2007 The Town of Southold may elect, via SEQRA, to make this a mitigating requirement in an effort to promote water conservation and protect furore homeowners from unnecessary expense. We have not quoted any costs to the developers for an internal system built to our standards, only for public water main extensions off site to get to a large meter set at the development entrance. We would be happy to provide such additional cost estimates if requested. Stepfie/]~ ~5nes Chef I/'xecutive Officer SMJ:kk cc: Herman Miller, Deputy CEO, Operations Southold Planning Board Lisa Cetta, CM New Service P. Ponturo, SCDHS Hon. Daniel Losquadro SUFFOLK £?()17.NTY ~¥ATER AUTHORITY O~X~ 15~ 2007 Mr. Dale Grippo, VP Co~ruction Heritage ~t CutchogL~, LLC 172i-D NoKh Ocean Ave Medford NY ]1763 Re: 1t5-4707586 Herit~e at Cutdu~gae Re{ere~ce is made to (mr m~3g on 5e~ember 17, 2007, regarding aYallab~iity of providing water service the existing hon-~e$, as per the BOH requirements on Highland Rd. sou63 trcea ho~se #1~t98 to Hain Rd. East on Ma~n Rd. to Griff~ St. s~opl~ng at last commercial building. Continue east on Main I~ to NoAh 5t 5topping at last ~1 bui~ng. In order to se. we the above streets, a water main extension of apiwoximatety 5,279 feet would be required. pr~eWater ma~n couM be instal~l under the terms of our Constnx:tioa Conb'a~ ptan. At this time, due to a increase for the 2008 coratngiion season, we ~ fisni~ ya~ wilia the ~. We shoutd be able to provide agreements and detalLad costs afl:er December ], 2007. For each existing home (52 total), that signs our SuffoA County Water Authority Public Water Main ~l~nslon Agreement and Service App~cation and furnishes gaeir own ciqeck for payment, bhe equivalent of the 75' allowance can be deducted ~om your ¢ontr-,g:t total. P~ease do not [msita~ to conta~ me directly at 631-~5~5572 if you havre aoy ciuest~ons, Monday thru Fdday 8:00am -- S:O~m Lisa Cc4~a Assatant Hat, gar Ne~ 5e~4ce LC:dH1 cc: Sufl~01k Counl~ I)epaament of 14e~lth Sem~mes 360 Y~pha~k Avenue, Su~lm lC Yaphar~ NY ii980 Attn; Bob Farmer 1006 Natioaal Source Water Proration Award Wiaaer Amy Thiel, Senior Planner Town of Southold Planning Office PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: NIEL. E~ON, F~OF~IE <~, VOO~HIS, IL_C:; ~NVIF~ONMENTAL PLANNING * GONSULTING October 9, 2007 Heritage at Cutchogue Phase I Archeological Investigation NP&V ~00026 Dear Amy: Please find enclosed two (2) copies of the completed Phase I Archaeological Investigation for the Heritage at Cutchogue application pending before the Town Planning Office. The report involved a detailed Phase IA documentary study and a Phase IB field survey of approximately 45 acres (proposed area of disturbance of the overall 46.16 acre site) including excavation of 767 shovel test pits. The Phase I archaeological investigation concluded the following: "The Phase IA had determined that study area had a higher than average potential for the recovery of prehistoric sites. The property had a moderate potential for native American historic sties, but a low potential for European-American sites. The Phase IB resulted in the excavation of 767 ST's. Isolated prehistoric and historic finds were encountered. No further work is therefore recommended." Please forward this report to OPRIIP for review at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your assistance, and please feel free to call should you have any questions. Sincerely, NELSON, POPE & VOORBIS, LLC _ i C 1 Parmer/Division Manager cc: Jeffrey Rimland, Heritage at Cutchogue (with 1 copy) Scott Risinger, N&P Chic Voorhis, NP&V NELSON, POPE &i VOORIHS, LLC F~rmO~L ~ ,CO~SULT~ FAX (~1) 42'/-~2~ Me~, NY 11747 TO:. Amy Thiel, Senior Planner Date: 9-Oct-07 Town of Somhold Plmxuing O~ce P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 ~. The H~"i~e et Cutcho~uc F~r Yom.: Under sel~r~e cov~ ~ & Commmt X F~ y~ar review Plt~ d~ ~ heg~ lo coa~ct me should you have any que~iom or need further assistance. By: Lara Pami x228 Jeffrey l~imls~d, Heritage at Cmchogue (with 1 copy) Scot~ Rising~r, lq&P Chic Voothis, NP&V File ~N, POPE & VOORIHS, LLC SITE CO~E~RAGE: PONDS LANDSCAPING ROAD, PARK~NC~, lC, iD PAVEMENT SIDEWALK, PATIO, AND GAZEBO BUILDING DRIVEWAY 197,045 SF -- 1,162,022 SF -- 57.8~ 246,264 -- 12.24~ 49,178 -- 2.44~ 298,080 = 14.87-~ 58,340 : 2.90~ 100~ DA~E PLAN THE HERITAGE CUTe EN DiVINEY, FRAN¢~S · & MARIE C. NOW/FORuEg~I.Y OF DE~ROS~Y, STANLEY ,,JR. 150' SANITARY RADIUS FROM CEN'[ER OF WA~R WELL. (TYPICAL FOR 6) EXISTING PRIV / WATER WEL ~-- (TYPICAL FOR I ! I I SANITARY FLOW CALCULATIONS: ALLOWABLE S~TE FLOW ~ SF X 75~g X 300 GPD/UNIT = 22,625 GPD 20,000 SF/UNiT PROPOSED FLOW 139 PRC UNITS O 150 GPD/UNiT = 20,850 GPD CLUBHOUSE: POOL AREA 2,000 SF GYM AREA 1,000 SF 0 0.3 GPD MEETING / OFFICE AREA 1,500 SF ~ 0.06 GPD/SF INDOOR AND OUTDOOR POOLS 75 BATHERS · 5 GPD/BATHER TOTAL PROPOSED FLOW :.SEP11C TANKS PERMrrIl[D 300 GPD go GPD 21,615 GPD 1. ALL DRAINAGE PIPE TO BE 15" RCP O 1~ MINIMUM SLOPE UNLESS NOI~D ON PLANS. 2. ALL U~E~IES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE APPROPRIAIE U~IETY COMPANY. Andrew Stype Realty, Inc. 12985 MArN ROAD, P.O. BOX 63, MATTITUCK, NEW YORK 11952 (631) 298-8760 FAX (631) 298-5779 _.,J""v-,._.,~~,., ~ www.stype.com ~-:"'~"'~:"?~"'¢~- t~,.~ ,~lltll .... -.. -" " ...... -- .... :% .... --~'----~ 10/3/07 Mr. Jeffrey Pdrrdand c/o Heritage at Cutchogue 172I-D North Ocean Aveoue Medford, NY 11763 Re:Barbara Grattau property Depot Lane, Cutcho~m~e, NY 11935 SCTM 1000~102-1-9.2 Dear Jeff: In accordance with your request I am preparing a summ~W report of a re~ estate valuation of a portion of the subject property referenced above. The instru,~ions are to indicate current faiz value of a 67' x 635' ( 42,545 sq. ') strip of land located at the nord~ end of Mrs. Grattan's farm located at Depot I_ane, Cutchogue, NY. Ti:re kntended use is to determine the market value of the potential purchase to allow ~[ right of way from Depot Road to property owned by the Heritage at Cutchogue. The valuation is effective the inspection date of 10/2/07. The intended user/client is Jeff Rimland and the Heritage at Cntchogue, This is a hypothetical condition. The right of way is proposed but appears to be a potentially viable, permitted use by the Town Sf Southold. The owner is listed as Barbara Grat~k'm_ The suhiect parcel to be appraised is 67' x 635' Opproximately t acre). The parcel is currently unimproved, open, fallowlands (formerly hrmlands'h Thc topography is gently rolling. The parcel is not in a flood area. The client desires to purchase this parcel to allow ingress of constructiou vehicles for their proposed condominium project on the land adjoining the subject. Once completed the right of way may revert to a secondary ingress and egress of homeowners in the condo project. The subject has three other entrances to their prqiect but mr~y need a alternative entrance. Th.e subject right of way would, not be corBidered buildable except for a paved roadway. Heritage - page 2 The subject parcel is part of a 25.6 acre farm. The loss to the owner appears to be minimal. The farm has development rights intact. The current (before the taking) ma'ximum yield is 13 homesites (80,000 sq.' per homesite) according to R-80 zox~ing. The after taking would allow a maximum yield of 13 homesites. Upon consideration for current market trends and sales data the subject would indicate a current fair market value of: $ 80,000. Subject Market Value ADS:& Thar~k you, please let me know if I can be of f~rther assistance. Heritage - page 3 Market Data Sales Reviewed: The following are rigllt of way type parcels, not considered buJldable for single thmily homes and are located on the North Fork: 1) North Road, Southold, 1000-52-2-37, .75 acre ( 25' x 1,300'), used as a road. sold on 10/21/05 for $ 75,000. 2) Edwards Lane, Orient, 1000-18-3-6.16, 1.8 acres ( 50' x 1,643'), used as a road. sold on 4/4/06 for $ 75,000. 3) Rte. 25A, Wading giver, 600-57-2-6.2, .41 acre ( 41' x 435'), rigl~t of way, sold on 3/23/07 for $ 75,000. Tl~e value indicated for the subject is $ 75,000. I also reviewed the foltowirlg sales of vacant homesites sold in town of &mfl~old th.is year. All lots are considered buildable for single f~unily homes: 4) Hillcrest Drive, Orient. 1000q3-2-8.4, .92 acre, unimproved, sold on 4110/07 for $ 34.5,000. 5) Bridge Lane, Cutclao~e, 1000-85-2-24, .98 acre, unimproved, sold on 4/4/07 for $ 345,000. 6) Leeward Dr., Southold, 1000-79-%43.2, 1.08 acre, unm~proved, sold 6/28/07 for 5; 400,000. The current value of a buildable one acre is home site is approximately $ 350,000. to $ 400,000. The average prices per square foot of each of the sales is $ 8.5. The town of Soutlmld has a development rights program and normally congidered file development rights to be worth approximately 75% of the total value with the remaining 25 % considered as not buildable except for agricultural purposes. The subject would indicate a price per square foot ors 2. ( $ 8.5 x 25% = $ 2.1.3 round offto $ 2.) $ 2. x 42,545 sq.' = $ 85,090. Subject value. The sales indicated a range of $ 75,000. and the price per square foot indicated a value of $ 85,000. Thc value indicated for the subject is $ 80,000. 6r 1193 9 PORT NEW SUFFOLk S 51'13~55" E ¢9 56 35 E 221.~7' ~t~eets98 SCOTT A. RUSSELL SUPERVISOR Town Hall, 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-1823 Telephone (631) 765-1889 OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 2, 2007 Bob Bittner, Postmaster United States Postal Service PO Box 9998 Cutchogue, NY 11935-9998 Dear Mr. Bittner: I am in receipt of your recent letter requesting that the Town of Southold consider supporting your request to the NYS DOT in which you offer suggestions to make the comer of Route 25 and Griffing Street safer. I recall that several years ago there was a tragic accident at that intersection and that the DOT was contacted at that time. Your letter has been forwarded to our Transportation Commission and Highway Superintendent for their information and input. Their response and recommendations will be considered by the Town Board. I look forward to assisting you however possible. Supervisor /rbw Peter Hams, Superintendent of Highways Transportation Commission Postmaster Cutchogue NY 11935-9998 UNITED 5T/rTE5 POSTZIL SERVICE September 20, 2007 SEP 21 2O07 SUP~RgI$OR'S OFFICE Town Board Southold Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to the NYS Department of Transportation regarding a hazardous intersection in Cutchogue. The letter speaks to the issue of safety for our letter carriers and for those customers who utilize the Cutchogue Post Office daily. The Cutchogue Post Office has over one thousand active Post Office Boxes utilized almost daily. Many of these customers are what we have come to call in our society as senior citizens. Safety should be paramount to all branches of government. I hope that you will lend your voice of concern on this subject to the Department of Transportation. If it is within your authority to address any of my suggestions I ask you to please do so. Bob Bittner PO BOX 9998 Cutchogue NY 11935-9998 631-734-6032 FAX: 631-734-4142 Postmaster Cutchogue NY 11935-9998 ~ UNITED ST/JTES September 20, 2007 Dear Mr. Pearson, I am wdting this letter to bring to your attention a hazardous intersection in Cutchogue, New York 11935. It is the intersection of Main Road and Griffing Street in the heart of Cutchogue. The issue is when attempting to make a left turn from Griffing Street unto the Main Road there is limited sight of vision because of parking on the north side of Main Road and to exacerbate the situation the traffic control (light) at the intersection of Main Road and New Suffolk Avenue when red in the east direction remains green in the west direction. Even though the speed limit on this section of Main Road is 25 miles per hour and with the limited sight of vision it produces a sort of roulette when attempting to make a left turn. The Postal Service is concerned because our rural letter carriers must make this turn daily in order to affect delivery. We also are concerned for the many patrons who utilize the Cutchogue Post Office daily. It is not uncommon to wait a considerable length of time before a safe opportunity presents itself in order to make this left turn. When there was discussion of placing a medium on Main Road and the road was cut for the medium and barriers placed the westerly traffic had to slow down and drive a straight line in order to drive through this section of Main Road. This made making the left turn a little safer but still the line of sight presented danger. What happens now is the westerly traffic just violates the yellow markings in the center of Main Road and as such usually travels at speeds exceeding the posted speed limit. I offer these suggestions as a possible solution to this situation. Under emanate domain the state should acquire 3 feet of the sidewalk on the north side of Main Road and for a length sufficient to park 3 cars provide approved parking spaces. This will immensely improve the line of vision looking left from Griffing Street, barring that; the state should move to eliminate parking on the north side of main road. The state should also coordinate the traffic control (light) at the intersection of Main and New Suffolk so that the light remains red in both directions at the same time. By instituting these measures a safer left turn can be made by all. Presently this is a hazardous situation or a ticking time bomb with potential fatal results. Bob Bittner CC: Town Board Southold PO BOX 9998 Cutchogue NY 11935-9998 631-734-6032 FAX:631-734-4142 Submission Without a Cover Sender: ~ ~r ~]~_ Comments: CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT Board of Fire Commissioners 260 New Suffolk Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Telephone (631) 734-6907 · Fax (631) 734-7079 E-mall: cutfd@optonline.net September 14, 2007 Ms. Barbara McAdam 800 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue NY 11935 Dear Ms. McAd~m, Chief Boken has presented the board with a copy of your letter voicing your concern over "crash gates" from the Heritage connecting into Highland Estates. We have had a couple of meetings with the Town Planning board members and have also written letters about fire protection for the Heritage site. As I review those letters, I see no mention of ~crash gates" in any of the text and go on to find that our only reference was to the 8-9 hydrants required for the area and possible a right of access for these hydrants for maintenance. Quite frankly, the board is perplexed as to the origin of the gates and could very well be another's idea. At this time, the Cutchogue Fire District is not calling for ~crash gates" nor has any intent to do so. Should you care to discuss this issue with either the Chief or a Commissioner, please feel free to call the firehouse and make an appointment? Yours in public safety, Board of Fi~[e, Commissioners District Secretary Mailing Address: PO Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY Attorney at Law 445 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 Tel: (631) 369-8200 Fax: (631) 369-9080 e-mail: charles.cudd¥~,verizon.net September 17, 2007 Mr. Anthony Trezza Southold Town Planning Department Southold Town P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Trezza: Enclosed is a copy of the letter from Robert J. Farmer, P.E., Supervisor, Bureau of Drinking Water, Suffolk County Department of Health Services to Barbara McAdam. Please make this part of your file. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC:ik July 24, 2007 Ms. Barbara McAdam 800 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue NY 11935 Subject: Heritage at Cutchogue S.C.T.M. No.: 1000-102-001-033.003 H.D. Ref. No.: C10-06-0013 Dear. Ms. McAdam: W.e have received your letter dated July 17, 2007 expressing your concerns regarding private wells in the area of the proposed development, Heritage at Cutchogue, consisting of 139-PRC (Planned Retirement Community) units and other buildings on a 46.17-acre parcel using on site septic systems with leaching pools for the sewage disposal systems. The Cutchogue area is located in Hydrogeologic Zone IV which allows the equivalent of 300-g.p.d. (gallons per day) of sewage for each 20,000 square feet of developable area for new homes with public water. In general, the developable area is calculated at 75% of the total area unless a yield map is provided that would allocate a higher pementage of yield. In the case of Heritage at Cutchogue the 75% yield was used. Since 1988 the Suffolk County Department of Health Service's (SCDHS's) design sewage flow rate has been 150 g.p.d, per unit for PRC units. Therefore, the 139-PRC units plus other accessory buildings for this project fall within the allowable sewage density calculation for a 46.17- acre site. In developments where a large volume of sewage flow is proposed, such as Heritage at Cutchogue, a separate site review is performed by the S CDHS's Bureau of Drinking Water to evaluate the potential effects on both private and public water supply wells in the areas downgradient from the proposed sewage to be discharged. The developer for this project is proposing to install approximately 10,000 feet of new water main for the Suffolk County Water Authority for this project for areas both inside and outside of the development. The sewage generated from this area will move southeasterly, which is the direction of groundwater flow, towards Wickham Creek and Cutchogue Harbor. Based upon the known direction of groundwater flow and the areas where private wells are located, a review will be undertaken by the Bureau of Drinking Water to identify areas with private wells that may have their water quality impacted from this project. This information will be presented to the project developer. Project approval is contingent upon public water being made available to private well owners that could potentially have their water quality impacted. Additionally, the Town of Southold has issued a positive declaration pursuant to the SEQRA process; whereby, the sewage/water issue along with other criteria may be addressed. The Town of Southold, the lead agency, may also impose conditions on this development through this process. The Town of Southold is responsible for stormwater structures and should address this issue during their planning building departments review process. The Town of Southold and the Suffolk County Water Authority should work together on a public water supply priorities map to ensure water supply continues to be provided to areas deemed appropriate in town planning objectives. As this project moves along it may be appropriate to consider the streets with private wells mentioned in your letter as candidates for public water main extensions. If you have any questions please contact by office at telephone number (631) 852-5779. Sincerely yours, Robert J. Farmer, P.E. Associate Public Health Engineer Supervisor, Bureau of Drinking Water 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 September 11, 2007 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed Residential Site Plan for The Heritage at Cutchogue Located on the n/w corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 ft. n/o Main Road, in Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Zone: Hamlet Density (HD) Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolutions were adopted at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, September 10, 2007: WHEREAS, this proposed residential site plan application is for the development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings of approximately 2,000 sq. ft. each; an 8,840 sq. ft. clubhouse; a 1,160 sq. ft. swimming pool; two 3,200 sq. ft. tennis courts; a 2,400 sq. ft. maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 sq. ft. of man-made ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements, on a vacant 46.17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on the northwest corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road, in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, initiated the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Type I Action; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2007, the Southold Town Planning Board assumed lead agency for this Type I Action pursuant to Part 617.4 (b)(5)(ii); and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2007, the Southold Town Planning Board adopted a Positive Declaration for the proposed action; and Herit~ Pa.qe Two September 11, 2007 WHEREAS, on July 30, 2007, the agent, Charles Cuddy, Esq., submitted a Draft Scope to the Planning Board at their Work Session; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2007, the Southold Town Planning Board held a Public Scoping Session and allowed for written comments until September 4, 2007, pursuant to Article 617.8, Scoping; be it therefore RESOLVED, pursuant to Article 617.13 of 6NYCC Part 617 State Environmental Quality Review, the applicant will be financially responsible for costs incurred for the review and website posting of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements for the Town of Southold; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Article 617.8, adopts the Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Nelson & Pope, PLLC and amended by the Town of Southold Planning Board, dated September 10, 2007 and require that the agent address all issues. Enclosed please find a copy of the Final Scope. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, dhouse Chairperson encl. CC: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Clerk for Town Board Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Engineer Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator Southold Transportation Commission Architectural Review Committee Commissioner, NYS DEC (Albany) New York State Department of State NYSDEC - Stony Brook New York State Department of Transportation New York State Natural Heritage Program Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Department Suffolk County Department of Public Works Southold Town Police Department Cutchogue Fire District USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service File FINAL SCOPE FOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT "THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE" SCTM No. 1000-102-1-33.3 Residential Site Plan Approval in Hamlet Business District Zone Griffing Street/Schoolhouse Lane, Hamlet of Cutchogue Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York Prepared by: Nelson & Pope, PLLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 (631) 427-5665 Contact: Gary Becker, P.E. Amended by: Date: Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Road 25 Southold, New York 1197i (631) 765-1938 September I0, 2007 1.0 Introduction and Location This document is the Final Scope of the issues and analyses to be included in the Draft Environmental hnpact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue project. The proposed project is to be located on a 46.16-acre parcel located at the northwest comer of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road, Cutchogue. The parcel is more specifically identified as SCTM No. 1000-102-1-33.3, located in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, New York. The site is zoned Hamlet Density (HD) zoning district. The analysis of the Heritage at Cutchogue project in a DEIS has been required by the Town of Southold Planning Board, as Lead Agency for administration of the site plan review and as required by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The requirement for a DEIS is contained in a Positive Declaration issued by the Planning Board on July 16, 2007. Subsequently the agent, Charles Cuddy, submitted a Draft Scope at the Planning Board work session on July 30, 2007. Pursuant to SEQR, the Planning Board conducted Scoping and allowed for public participation through a public meeting on August 20, 2007 and allowed for a written comment period until September 4, 2007. Comments from both the Scoping meeting and written comment period were reviewed by the Planning Board and incorporated into the Final Scope. The information prepared in conformance with this scope and the SEQRA process is intended to provide comprehensive input in the decision-making process for use by involved agencies in preparing their own findings and issuing decisions on their respective permits. The document must be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate and consistent. Figures and tables will be presented in support of the discussions and analyses contained in the document. Technical information will be summarized in the body of the DEIS and attached in their entirety in an appendix. Heritage at Cutchogue Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2.0 Brief Description of the Proposed Pro[ect The proposed project involves the residential site plan approval for development of a Planned (55+ years of age) Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached residential dwellings of approximately 2,000 square feet (SF) each; an 8,840 SF clubhouse; 1,160 SF swimming pool; two 3,200 SF tennis courts; a 2,400 SF rnaintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 SF of man-made ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 SF (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements. 3.0 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts The description of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed project has been obtained from the Planning Board's Positive Declaration of July 16, 2007. Additional insight into potential impacts is provided in the Part 3 EAF which was attached to the Positive Declaration. These issues are reflected in this Draft Scope. The Positive Declaration identified the following reasons for the Determination of Significance: This proposed action may cause a potential significant adverse impact on water, impact on plants and animals, agricultural resources, aesthetic resources, archeological resources, transportation and growth and character of community and neighborhood. A co~nprehensive review must be conducted to determine the potential impacts of the proposed action. The potential impacts to existing ground or surface water quality or quantity, noise levels flooding, leaching or site drainage. · The proposed action will allow high density residential use in an area which tnay not have adequate public water and community (public) sewer. The potential impacts due to increase in traffic and trip generations assessed to: real traffic data analysis for the land use category, existing surrounding land uses, traffic volumes and routing patterns and limited ingress and egress points to primary and secondary roads. The potential impact of the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation and fauna; substantial interference with the movement of any resident and migratory fish or wildlife species; substantial adverse impacts on threatened or endangered species of animal or plan (if present), or the habitat of such species; or other significant adverse impacts to natural resoumes. · The proposed action may affect threatened and endangered species. · The proposed action may substantially affect non-threatened and non-endangered species. 4. The potential hazards to human health. The potential impacts of a substantial change in the use, or intensity of use, of land including agricultural (including the per~nanent loss of Type I agricult~lral soils), open space or recreational resources, or its capacity to suppor~ existing uses. The potential impacts to the impairment of the character or quality of important archeological, aesthetic resources or of existing cmnmunity or neighborhood character. · The proposed action may impact a site of prehistoric or historic importance. · Construction will occur over a three year period. 7. The assessment of a no action alternative. Heritage at Cutchogue Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4.0 Organization and Overall Content of the DEIS Document The DEIS must conform with the basic content requirements as contained in 6NYCRR Part 617.9 (b)(3). The outline of the DEIS will include the following sections: 1.0 2.0 COVER SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Project Background, Need, Objectives and Benefits 1.1.1 Background and History 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives 1.1.3 Objectives of the Project Sponsor 1.1.4 Benefits of the Project 1.2 Location and Site Conditions 1.3 Project Design and Layout 1.3.1 Overall Site Layout 1.3.2 Grading and Drainage 1.3.3 Access, Road System and Parking 1.3.4 Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply 1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting 1.3.6 Open Space 1.4 Construction and Operation 1.4.1 Construction 1.4.2 Operation 1.5 Permits and Approvals Required NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 2.1 Soils 2.2 2.3 2.1.1 Existing Conditions 2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts 2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation Water Resources 2.2.1 Existing Conditions 2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts 2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation Vegetation and Wildlife 2.3.1 Existing Conditions 2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts 2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation 3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 3.1 Transportation 3.1. I Existing Conditions 3.1.2 Anticipated Impacts 3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation 3.2 Land Use, Zoning and Plans 3.2.1 Existing Conditions 3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts 3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation Heritage at Cutchogue Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4.0 5.0 3.3 Community Facilities and Services 3.3.1 Existing Conditions 3.3.2 Anticipated hnpacts 3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation 3.4 Aesthetic Resources, Open Space/Community Character and Public Health 3.4.1 Existing Conditions 3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts 3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation 3.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources 3.5.1 Existing Conditions 3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts 3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation OTIIER REQUIRED SECTIONS 4.1 Cumulative Impacts 4.2 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided 4.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4.4 Growth-Inducing Aspects ALTERNATIVES 5.1 No Action Alternative 5.2 Alternative Design 6.0 REFERENCES APPENDICES 5.0 Extent and Quality of Information Existing and Needed As required under SEQRA, the DEIS will include "a statement and evaluation of potential significant adverse impacts at a level of detail that reflects the severity of the impacts and the reasonable likelihood of their occurrence". Included in this evaluation will be reasonably related short-term and long-term impacts, with other required sections identified in the Section 6.0 of this scoping document. This section further describes the level of analysis and the type of analysis expected with respect to the key environmental impacts of the project as outlined in the Positive Declaration. Each major section is followed by a description of the extent and quality of information needed to perform the evaluation of each of the impacted resources. Description of the Proposed Project Background and History 1. There will be a brief description of the site and application history, including zoning. Public Need and Municipality Objectives 1. Include background of proposed project in terms ot Town goals for site. 2. Public need for the project will be discussed. 3. Population served by the project will be identified. Objectives oJ'the Project Sponsor 1. The objectives o£ the project sponsor will be included and discussed. Heritage at Cutchogue Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Benq~ts pf the Project 1. The DEIS will Include a discussion of the community benefits expected to accrue from the proposed project. Location and Site Conditions 1. Using appropriate mapping and/or tables, describe location of site, zoning and service districts. 2. The existing cooditioos of the site in terms of site survey, structures, vegetative cover will be provided as an overall backgrouud of existing site conditions. Project Design and Layout 1. Include a brief description of the site and project layout; describe basis for site yield, proposed structures, services, utilities, access points, road system, drainage, site quantities table. 2. Address breakdown of use areas from a structural standpoint. 3. The grading progrmn and associated areas disturbed will be discussed along with volumes of soil excavated, cut/filled, removed froru site and maximum depths of cut/fill. 4. Site drainage and proposed drainage system and provide capacity and function information will be provided along with a discussion of conformance to NYSDEC SPDES stormwater and erosion control regulations for construction and post-construction conditions. 5. The vehicle access points, internal roadway layout and traffic circulation will be identified. 6. The adequacy of on-site parking will be discussed; required parking as required by a breakdown of parking requiremeuts shall be provided. 7. Dumpster locations will be identified. 8. Proposed project lighting will be identified. 9. The DEIS will lnclude a description of water supply, irrigation ,,yell water supply and proposed wastewater handIing and corresponding use of water supply and sanitary design flow. 10. lnforlnation on the type, alnount and location of landscaping proposed will be provided as well as inforu~ation on maintenance requirements such as irrigation and fertilization under operation and maintenance. Construction The construction and operation/maintenance of the site will be fully discussed. 2. Project phasing (ifappIicable). 3. Method of construction, construction schedule/timetable. 4. Construction management, equipment storage/staging, delivery routes, hours of operation, workers' parking, protection of natural and sensitive areas. 5. Quantity of soil import/export, truck routes, management and mitigation. Operation 1. In teinns of operation, describe thc management and protection of open space; describe Organization management and operation; describe road, iandscape and open space maintenance practice, describe any special conditions which may apply. 2. Uses expected of various locatious and facilities within the site; seasons of use, intensity of use, whether the site will be open to special events; 3. Projected number of employees required for the various uses for weekdays, weekends aud seasonal peak periods; 4. Truck sizes expected for deliveries and delivery routing; 5. Truck uuloading areas; 6. Seasc~ns of operation of various components nfthe facilily; 7. Suow removal will be described as related to parking surfaces and operation; 8. Entity responsible for site operations. Permits and Approvals Required 1. Identify all required permits and reviews 2. Indicate the filing date and status of submissions to the lead and involved agencies. Heritage at Cutchogue Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Natural Environmental Resources Soils 1. The existing soil types will be determined pursuant lo the Suffolk County Soil Survey. 2. Impact to soils will be discussed in terms of soil constraints pursuant to the Suffolk Comity Soil Survey based on the type of land use proposed and the constraints for each soil type. 3. Impact of loss of agricultural soils will be disclosed and mitigation examined where feasible. 4. Testing of existing soil for contaminants. Methodology, results and remediation should be provided. Water Resources 1. The groundwater management zone as classified under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code shall be referenced. 2. The depth to groundwater in key development locations of the site will be determined by use of on- site soil borings. 3. The expected direction of groundwater flow based on hydrologic interpolation will be identified. 4. Existing groundwater quality analysis from onsite test wells. 5. The water supply availability, service provider and capacity of systems will be established through communication with the water disthct. 6. The location of private and public wells will be determined, with specific reference to the SCWA Evergreen Pump Station. 7. The expected impact of the project witb respect to water quality shall be fully examined in terms of sanitary discharge compliance, wastexvater system operation and regulatory requirements an~d expected impacts on adjacent property wells and surface waters. 8. Applicable Suffolk County Depart~nent of Health Services (SCDHS) regulations and requirements will be identified, and the compliance of the action with same will be evaluated. 9. Calculations of projected sanitary ilow and consistency with the Suffolk County Sanitary Code will also be provided. 10. The change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of recharge under existing and future conditions shall be established using appropriate hydrologic analysis metbods. 1 l. The DEIS will provide calculations of projected water consumption fur each use proposed and, ill consultation with the Suffolk County Water Authority, will evaluate the ability to meet this projected water demand. 12. The creation of impermeable surfaces and placement of fill will be evaluated in terms of potential to change drainage patterns in the project area and impact on drainage related to stormwater. 13. Mitigation measures which may reduce potential water quality impacts shall be identified Vegetation and Wildlife 1. Existing upland habitats shall be inventor/ed through an inspection of the site by a qualified biologist/ecologist to determine the vegetation, wildlife, and general habitat character. An inventory of flora and fauna observed and expected will be provided in this section of the DEIS. 2. In addition, protected native plants, plant and animal species listed as endangered, threateneci, special concern (or with other protective status) and significant habitat areas on or in the vicinity of the project site will be identified. The site inventory taken relative to protected native plants, plant and animal species listed as endangered, threatened, special concern (or with other protective status) and significant habitat areas should be conducted in the season they are likely to occur. 3. The NY Natural Heritage Program will be contacted for site file information concerning habitats, plant and animal species. 4. Impact to habitats will be quantified and discussed qualitatively ill terms ecological impact to plants and animals. 5. Cumulative aspects of loss of habitat will be identified. 6. Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts will be identified and method of implementation determined. Human Resources Transportation 1. Provide a thorough analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed development on the area's roadway system. 6 Heritage at Cutchogue Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2. Include analyses of the proposed plan and internal roadway system and a full traffic impact study assessing the proposed developmenl's impact on the surrounding roadways. 3. Accident history data will be obtained as available from municipal agencies and will be evaluated in terms of the proposed project. 4. The Traffic hnpact Study wil[ include: collection of data regarding planned roadway improvements and other developments, field surveys and counts of existing traffic volumes, estimates of future traffic volumes, analyses of existing and future traffic volumes and identification and timing of required roadway improvements and the ctuity rcsponsiblc for initiating those improvements. The methodology is described herein. 5. Thc methodology will consist of a detailed review of existing land-use, roadway and traffic conditions near thc proposed site for the Existing Condition, the No Build Condition (future traffic conditions without the proposed development), and the Build Condition (future traffic conditions with the proposed development). 6. The Existing Condition will bc analyzed utilizing seasonally adjusted traffic volumes to represent the peak month of thc year and ficld geometry collected at the following intersections: · Main Road (NYS Route 25) al Depot Lane · Main Road (NYS Route 25) at G~iffing Street · Middle Road (CR 48) at Depot Lane · Schoolhouse Road at Depot Lane · Main Road (NYS Route 25) at Crown Land Lane · Main Road (NYS Route 25) at ttighlaud · Main Road (NYS Route 25) at North Street 7. The No Build Condition traffic volumes will consist of the existing volumes adjusted by an annual growth factor to account for increases in population as well as proposed developments within the vicinity of thc site. Other prqjects pending in the area will be identified by Town Planning staff and included in the evaluation as appropriate. 8. Traffic volumes geuerated by the proposed project will be deternfined using ITE trip generation and Long Island specific comparable senior citizen project data and then added to the No Build Condition to determine the traffic volumes for the future Build Condition with the proposed development. 9. The study intersections will then be analyzed nsing Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) by applying the existing field geometry, sigoal tintings, and the calculated traffic volumes to determine levels of service (LOS). Any snbstantial degradation in LOS between the No Build and Build intersections will be considered significant traffic impacts generated by the proposed development. 10. The study will take into account the 16 specifically identified Planning Board concerns listed below (including corresponding TIS page numbers), including: future hamlet development; intersections with F Level of Service; seasonal adjustment factors; existing and future intersection traffic volume calculations; congested conditions and accident frequency; significance/impacts of specific intersection LOS; annual growth factors; trip generation data and need for more local data; AM/PM peak hour consistency; traffic volume routing; traffic signal feasibility and need for appropriate/feasible mitigation; potential itnpacts with and without the opening of Spur Road and access to downtown Cutchogue, Depot Lane (both north and south) and Griffiug Street/Route 25; and access alternatives. 1) The study fails to consider addressiug the possibility of development (housing) of the other llamlet Business zoned parcels in proximity to the parcel in question. (Page 4). 2) The study fails to qualify what level of impact or substantial degradation in Level Of Service (LOS) is if the LOS from an F to F at an intersection results. (Page 4) 3) The sindy fails to qualif~v the seasonal adjustment factor~ of ! !4% & / !9%, the groups used and how they were they established by the NYSDOT. The study is unclear if the seasonal adjustment hctors are qualified to real traffic counts and land use representative of the locale. (Page 6) 4) The seasonal adjustmeut factors differ on a monthly basis, the study applied a 14% factor to the weekdays and a 19% factor to the weekend volumes; the selection of the factors by the NYSDOT is unexplaioed. It is unclear if the factors are representative of the locale. (Page 6) 5) The calculations could not be duplicated at the intersection of Griffing and State Route 25 (using the traffic count data and the seasonal adjustment factor). Page 7. (Figure 3) 6) The analysis of Table 3 indicates that "rear-end collisions may be an indication of congested conditious or driver inattention and slippery/wet road conditions." Although the statement is 7 Heritage at Cutchogue Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement made, no mitigation is proposed, which suggests that the congested conditions are acceptable at pre-build conditions and acceptable after-build conditions. The statement warrants further explanation. (Page 8) 7) The study indicates that currently the Main Road and Depot Lane intersection operates at a poor level of service (LOS F) during the PM and Saturday peak hours due to heavy traffic volumes on Main Road. It can be expected that following the build out of 139 units, the LOS would continue to worsen. Appendix D. Capacity Analysis/Level of Service Worksheets & Summary Table indicates that the level of service decreases in the Build Analysis 2007. The LOS at the southbound left turn currently operates at an F, following the Build Analysis the level of service again operates at F. The decrease of the LOS is a result of the increased vehicle trips in the area resulting from the proposed site plan. The significance of change relative to impacts from a LOS F to F is unclear and should be further explained. (Page 14) 8) Currently Main Road and Griffing Street operates at as a LOS F and E in the PM and Saturday Peak Hours. Appendix A indicates that the southbound approach operates at a LOS ofF under current conditions and following Build Conditions. Again, the significance of degradation at the intersection/impact is unclear and requires further evaluation\ and or mitigation. (Page 15) 9) The mmual growth factor obtained from NYSDOT is 1.8%. The Planning Board questions if the growth factor takes into account land use and rate of development indicative of Eastern Long Island or the Town of Southold. (Page 16) 10) The Planning Board rejects the modeling of trip generation for the proposed action to Elderly Housing (detached) nationwide traffic modeling criteria used in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Elderly housing (detached) is restricted to senior citizens and may contain special services (medical facilities) on site. Additionally, in a December 11, 2006 letter to the Planning Board, the response to Comment #1 indicates that Land Use: 251 Senior Adult Housing- Detached statistical data was used. The two documents conflict. The action is proposed as an "Active Adult Community". The Planning Board is requesting that real data from a comparable use (Active 55 and older condominium community) located on Eastera Long Island be used to base the study trip generation modeling. (Page 20) 11) Is the AM peak hour used in the ITE Land Use Code fur Elderly Housing (Detached) the same time as the AM peak hour used in the actual traffic count performed by Nelson & Pope (the same applies to PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour)? Would using different hours result in inaccurate data? (Page 20) 12) The 2007 Site Generated Weekday AM Traffic Vohlmes indicate that 6 vehicles will exit to Griffing Road and the State Road 25 intersection, 3 vehicles would exit Spur Road and 9 vehicles would exit the site via Schoolhouse Road and continue to the County Road 48 and the Depot Laoe intersection. The vehicle trips seem low and routing unrealistic. The Planning Board questions the analysis and requests that real data be obtained and used (where possible) to model the vehicle trips and routing. (Page 22) 13) The study proposes mitigation (traffic control at Depot Road and Main Road). Mitigation of expected traffic impacts validates that the action may result in a potentially significant or large impact and needs to be further addressed. As confirmed with the NYSDOT the proposed above traffic control is not an option to mitigate traffic impacts. Alternative mitigation of traffic impacts must be evaluated and proposed. (Page 31) 14) It is the Planning Board's position that the study fails to analyze the impact of the vehicle trips from Highland/Crown Land and Schoolhouse using Spur Road (if it is opened) as a means to access downtown Cutchogue and/or pass through to Depot Lane/C.R. 48 and NYS 25. 15) The traffic impacts if Spur Road is opened/not opened have not been adequately addressed relative to the NYS Route 25 & Griffing Avenue intersection. 16) Other access alternatives should be considered. Such as, access directly from the proposed site to Depot Lane through the property to the east. 11. Mitigation will be proposed to address any significant degradation in the level of service. An explanation of the feasibility of mitigation 12. Analysis of pedestrian connectivity and movement from site to hamlet center and adjacent developments. 13. Impact to existing parking infrastructure relative to land use within the hamlet center. 14. Emergency/police response time as a result of expected increase in traffic. 15. If Spur Road is opened traffic analysis of Highland and Main Road (NYS Route 25) and Crown Land and Main Road (NYS Route 25). Heritage at Cutchogue Final Scope for the Draft Environraental Impact Statement Land Use, Zoning and Plans This section of the DE1S will describe existing land use and zoning on the subject site and in the surrounding area. 1. The existing land use character of the site and sm'rounding area within 500 feet will be described and mapped. 2. The zoning xvhich applies to the site and the area within 500 feet will be described and mapped, and a description of zoning regulations for the project site and surrounding area zoning shall be provided. 3. Land use plaus which pertain to the project site will be evaluated with emphasis on those plans adopted after 1994: · Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Report (1994) · Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1994) · Peconic Estuary Program (1995) · Economic Development Plan (1997) · Southold Township Planning Initiatives (1997) · Community Preservation Project Plan (1998) · County Route 48 Corridor, Land Use Study (1999) · Farm and Farmland Preservation Program (I 983-2202) · Southold Fanrt and Farmland Protection Strategy (2000) · Water Supply Management & Water Protection Strategy (2000) · Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) · Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold (2002) · Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and GElS (2003) · Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2005) · Southold Hamlet Study (2005) · Com~nunity Preservation Project Plan (2006 Update) · Long Island North Shore Heritage Area · Town Zoning Maps/Code and Comprehensive Plan · Towu Aflrbrdable Housing Needs Assessment (2005) · North Fork Recreational Travel Needs Assessment (2002) 4. The compatibility of the development with the surrounding area will be assessed. 5. Once the above information is compiled, the DEIS will assess the impacts of the proposed action on land use and zoning. The impact assessment will concentrate on evaluating the consistency of the proposed action with prevailing land use and zoning. The compatibility of the proposed action with area land use will be assessed. 6. The conformance of the project with land use plans will be evaluated and discussed. 7. Measures which may be used to mitigate potential land use, zoning or impacts with respect to land use plans will be provided. CommzlniO; tvac ilities and Se~'vices 1. The existing community services and thc ability of these se~-cices to accommodate the proposed project will be described. The services include: · School District · Police; · Fire and Ambula[~ce Services; · Electrical energy supply; · Water supply. 2. The impact analysis contained in the DEIS will include consultations with service providers regarding existing demand for services and capacity such that the DEIS will objectively analyze the impact of the proposed action on community facilities and services. 3. The DEIS will include detailed projections of service demand with supporting documentation. 4. The existing tax revenue of the site shall be established. Heritage at Cutchogue Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5. The emergency services (ambulance, police and fire) which serve the site will be identified and contacted for input with respect to continued ability to serve the site. 6. Changes associated with the proposed project will be evaluated in terms of emergency service access; a practical approach will be taken to ensure that safe and efficient emergency service vehicle access to the site can be provided to the site. 7. Hydrant installation/location and other development considerations which assist in addressing emergency services will be included. 8. Mitigation for emergency service access to ensure that equipment can ingress/egress the site will be included. Aesthetic Resources, Open Space/Community Character and Public Health 1. Existing site and community character will be identified and impacts to community character will be evaluated. 2. The project will result in a change in the aesthetic character of the site due to removal of existing vegetation. Impacts will be disclosed and mitigation identified where feasible. 3. The open space resources of the site and area will be identified. 4. The project will result in the loss of open space due to removal of existing vegetation. Impacts will be disclosed and mitigation identified where feasible. 5. The existing noise environment will be evaluated in terms of ambient noise, sensitive receptors and community character. 6. Construction activities in terms of construction schedule and duration, materials and storage/staging area, water and sewer systems connections, proper handling of construction waste, hours of operation and truck routes will be evaluated. 7. Describe the impacts related to construction uoise, dust, erosion and sedimentation, area receptors, applicable nuisance regulations, applicable agency oversight and safeguards, phasing of the project, staging areas, parking areas, operation areas, duration, hours, and related mitigation measures to reduce construction impacts. The potential noise and dust impacts of construction related to clearing, construction activities and traffic will be assessed. 8. Mitigation in terms of design, buffer planting and open space will be examined. Archaeological Resources 1. The archeological resources of the site will be addressed through a Stage IA/IB Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA). The site is within an area of archaeological sensitivity and therefore a Stage IA/IB is required, unless significant ground disturbance is docmnented to the satisfaction of the OPRHP. Any mitigation which may be needed will be identified. 6.0 Other Required Sections In addition to the key resources identified in the Positive Declaration, SEQRA identifies other required sections for a complete DEIS as included in 6NYCRR Part 617.9 (b)(3). Mitigation measures will be included with respect to each key impact area as noted in Section 5.0. Alternatives to be studied are identified in Section 7.0. The following Other Required Sections and evaluations will be provided in the DEIS. 1. Use and Conservation of Energy Resources (The project will increase energy use which could be significant. Mitigation to reduce the impacts of energy consumption could include building homes to Energy Star and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards and/or applying dark sky standards to lessen the impact of energy consumed. These aspects of the project will be examined). 2. Cumulative Impacts (Describe other pending projects in vicinity, determine potential for impacts due to implmnentation of proposed project in combination with others and discuss/analyze impacts). 10 7.0 Heritage at Cutchogue Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3. Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided (Provide brief listing of those adverse environmental impacts described/discussed previously which are anticipated to occur, which cannot be completely mitigated). 4. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources (Provide brief discussion of those natural and human resources which will be committed to and/or consumed by the proposed project). 5. Growth-Inducing Aspects (Provide brief discussion of those aspects of the proposed project which will or may trigger or contribute to future growth in the area). Alternatives to be Studied SEQRA requires a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. As noted in SEQRA, "The description and evaluation of each alternative will be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed". The following alternatives and methods of evaluation are anticipated: 1. No Action Alternative (Alternative whereby the site remains in its current condition). 2. Alternative design, including but not limited to clustering of detached and attached units to create meaningful open space and maximize vegetative buffers along the perimeter of the property. 3. Reduce existing nmnber of units. 4. Partial or full preservation of the property. 5. Alternative design for wastewater treatment. Il Submission Without a Cover Letter Sender: SCTM#: 1000 To: Southold Town Planning Board From: Cutchogue Hamlet Stakeholders Jane Minerva Bill Gatz Fred Carcich Gwynn Schroeder Georgeanna Fogarty Paul Romanelli Jack DiPaola John Borzilleri Subject: Cutchogue Hamlet Traffic/Safety Concerns \, Proposal: We seek a fully-funded, independent, professional eva!aat[on of t?affic flow and safety issues in the Cutchogue Hamlet "~ '~" Key Issues/Concerns: 1) Dang~erous Griffing Street/Route 25 intersection x~. Very poor visibility for making left turn (heading eastbound) due to cars parked in legal merchant spots on westbound side of Rte 25 b. High speed traffic through Hamlet makes all tums out of Griffing St potentially dangerous 'q? Situation exacerbated by lack of east/west traffic light synchronization at the Rte 25/New Suffolk Rd intersection and bus stop 2) High,speed traffic through the Hamlet on Route 25 creates safety issues 'M Creates danger for pedestrians and bicycle riders on Rte 25 ~ Heightens safety concerns for cars entering Rte 25 from other roads, especially those without traffic signals - i.e., Depot Lane and Griffing St 3) Bus stop in the Hamlet increases traffic congestion and safety concerns a. Westbound Hampton Jitney buses loading at the intersection of Rte 25 and New Suffolk Rd congest Hamlet traffic and worsen sight lines for both eastbound motorists on Route 25 and motorists exiting Griffing St b. Loading bus creates danger by enticing motorists to weave into oncoming traffic lane in order to pass %/ Lack of traffic light control of bus at Rte 25/New Suffolk intersection creates confusion/safety issues 4) Traffic/safety implications of pending Heritage senior citizen housing project ~. AIl of the above issues could be exacerbated by the addition of approximately 150-250 senior citizens (and their vehicles) into the Hamlet within the next few years ~y~ Traffic density concerns on Griffing St and Schoolhouse Lane with the addition of Heritage are a major concern Potential Solutions Discussed by Stakeholders: 1) Dangerous Griffing Street/Route 25 intersection a. Make Griffing St right turn only (westbound) when exiting onto Rte 25; could allow left turn during non-business hours to decrease inconvenience for residents living cast of the intersection b. Inset parking spaces on westbound side of Rte 25 in order to improve visibility for turns out of Griffing St c. Establish a "No Parking Zone" at the southwest corner of Griffing St and Rte 25 (in front of Karen's Deli) to improve traffic visibility d. Synchronize the east and westbound traffic signals at the Rte 25/New Suffolk Rd intersection e. Make Griffing St one way, north only; require exit via Schoolhouse Lane 2) High speed traffic through the Hamlet on Route 25 a. Install effect signaling around the Hamlet to slow traffic, such as blinking yellow lights, better speed limit warnings b. Potential full traffic light at Depot Lane c. Place several highly visible crosswalks in the Hamlet for pedestrians, especially one at the termination of the Hamlet's southside sidewalk (at the Library/Village Green comer on Case's Lane) d. Install a non-raised "traffic calming" median (brick, for example) on Rte 25 in the center of the Hamlet - if permitted by Fire/Police Depts e. Add bike lanes in Hamlet to improve safety; promote alternative travel 3) Bus stop in the Hamlet a. Move the westbound bus stop off Rte 25 to the west side of Griffing St, across from the Post Office; requires access via Depot Lane and Schoolhouse Lane b. Inset the westbound bus stop on Rte 25 in order to improve traffic flow/visibility - may not be possible with the eastbound bus stop c. Move the bus stop to an alternate site outside of the Hamlet, such as across from King Kullen or in front of the Catholic Church d. Make westbound bus stop at Craft Guild so traffic light governs bus 4) Heritage senior citizen housing project a. Install sidewalks on both sides of Griffing St and connecting to the Heritage development in order to improve walking safety b. As above, make Griffing St one way, north only to avoid excessive traffic from the complex; would require exit from Heritage via Schoolhouse Lane or alternate mute c. As above, make Griffing St right turn only (west) on Rte 25 to limit potential traffic bottlenecks d. Restore the landscaped median on Griffing St to clearly delineate opposing traffic e. Add new farmland road as an additional exit from Heritage ERICJ. BRESSLER ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM LYNNE M. GORDON JANET GEASA LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, BRESSLER, GORDON & GEASA, P.C. 13015 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND NEW YORK 11952 631-298-8353 TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565 wwblaw@aol.com August21,2007 WILLIAM WICKHAM (06-02) 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD SUITE ! I 1 MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 631-249-9480 TELEFAX NO. 631-249-9484 Southold Town Planning Board P.O. 1179 53095 Main Rd Southold, N.Y., 11971 Re: Heritage at Cutchogue SEQRA Scoping Ladies and Gentlemen: Please consider, in your environmental review of this project, the application of William J. Baxter for a four lot subdivision on his HB zoned parcel directly opposite the proposed subdivision, (260 Griffing St., SCTM # 1000-102-5-9.4). The layout of the subdivision was reviewed and approved several years ago by a prior Planning Board and the applicant is now resubmitting the application as previously applied for. We ask that the impact upon traffic and other factors be included in the Heritage scoping. 30/AAW/bax Vep~truly y, ours, Abigail A. Wickham MAP CALE ~ "=600' NORTH STREET LOCATION MAP SCALE 1"=100' NORTH STREET hereby certify that the water supp were designed by me or under my the soil, site end groundwoter condi Oepor[ment of He(~lth Services const THOMAS LAGUARDIA, P.E. CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ~COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS GILBERT ANDERSON~ P.E, COMMISSIONER LOUIS CALDERONE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Town of Southold Planning Board Office P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N. Y. 11971-0957 Attn: Amy Thiel August 16, 2007 Re: Northwest corner of Griffing St. & School House Lane, Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#:1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Thiel: This Department has reviewed the above-referenced site plan and offers the following comments: This Department has no objection to the Town assuming lead agency status for this proposed development. If you have any questions, kindly contact this office at 852-4100. WH:MPC:In Very truly yours, William Hillman, P.E. DMi'reP:tut lr Co;ml/~af~a~ Planning & Permits SUFFOLK COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 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 August 15, 2007 M. Paul Campagnoh Suffolk Cotmty Department of Public Works 335 Yaphank Avenue Yaphank, New York 11980 Heritage @ Cutchogue Tax Map # 1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Campagnola: Enclosed please find a site plan packet (sheets 2 - 15) prepared by Nelson & Pope dated January 17, 2005 for the above reference project. This residential site plan application is for the development of a Phnned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings of approximately 2,000 sq. ft. each; an 8,840 sq. ft. clubhouse; a 1,160 sq. ft. swimming pool; two 3,200 sq. ft. tennis courts; a 2,400 sq. ft. maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility;, 197,043 sq. ft. of manmade ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements, on a 46.17-acre vacant parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on the northwest comer of Grilling Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road in Cutchogue. SCTM~ 1000q02-1-33.3 In addition, please find enclosed the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the applicant by Nelson & Pope dated July 2006 and a review of the TIS completed by Dunn Engineer Associates for Nelson & Pope dated March 30, 2007. The Planning Board issued a positive declaration on July 16, 2007 and the applicant submitted a draft scope on July 30, 2007. Cun'ently the Planning Board has scheduled a scoping meeting for Monday, August 20, 2007 and a written comment period until September 4, 2007. Please find enclosed a copy of the draft scope and scoping meeting notice for your review. The enclosed site plan and subsequent information is being referred to you for your review and recommendations. Heritage at Cutchogue Page Two August 15, 2007 Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Senior Planner Cc: File Enc.: 1 site plan packet (sheets 2 - 15) prepared by Nelson & Pope dated January 17, 2005 Traffic Impact Study prepared for the applicant by Nelson & Pope dated July 2006 A review of the TIS completed byDunn Engineer Associates dated March 30, 2007 Draft Scope prepared by Nelson & Pope, PLLC, dated July 26, 2007 Notice of public scoping meeting dated August 8, 2007 Stephen M. Jones Chief Executive Officer SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NewYork 11769-0901 (631) 563-0219 Fax (631) 563-0370 August 14, 2007 Ms. Jerilyn 13. Woodhouse, Chairperson Planning Board Office Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: SEQRA - The Heritage at Cutchogue, SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: To clear up any misconceptions on "water availability", please be advised that my letter of December 12, 2006 still stands, wherein I clearly state we will no~t issue a water availability letter until after site plan approval. A more recent letter from our New Service Department to the applicant is a cost estimate letter which we occasionally provide to developers. This is not to be confused with a water availability letter which has not been issued. Very t~ SMJ/kk 2006 National Source Water Protection Award Winner Stephen M. Jones Chief Executive Officer SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, New York 11769-0901 (631) 563-0219 Fax (631) 563-0370 December 12, 2006 Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Planning Board Office Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: SEQRA - The Heritage at Cutchogue, SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAF application for the above referenced project. The SCWA offers the following comments as it perta'ms to the proposed application. As you know, the S CWA' s mission is to provide quality drinking water at an affordable price to all ofour residents. Implementing environmentally friendly pesticide practices and conserving our water supplytodayis integral in assuring that we have adequate quality water for generations to come. This particularly holds tree for the Town of Southold where water supply is limited and there is a large impact to shallow aquifers. The SCWA stronelv urges that the Town of Southold impose conditions on this project requking the use of low flow plumbing fixtures in accordance with the latest cedes, permitting the irrigation of only 15% of the area of any single lot (automatic irrigation systems may pose pressure problems in this project area) and also adoptingmethods to reduce the potential of degraded water from recharging to the aquifer. Page Two December 12, 2006 These recommendations are consistent with the SCWA' s Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold and should be conditions memorialized in the form of Covenants and Restrictions recorded with the Suffolk County Clerk. ~The SCW~A will n,~t i ~ ,~ a left. of water availability for this project until such time as the Town of Southold has reviewed and approved this project in accordance with the Town ofSouthold's planning and development requirements and the SCWA's Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold. Additional information on this application may be sent to Kimberly Kennedy at 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769 ~t{Ver~ i ~')urs~ Jones ' Ch :utive Officer SMJ/kk AFFIDAVIT ,OF IOSTING This is to serve notice that I personally Posted the property known as The Heritage at Cutchogue (located on n/w corner of Gr$~finm St. mnH Rrhnnl Nn~se Lane, [posted at Bridle Lane and Spur Road,and. a.t above corner~Cutch°gue' NY) by placing the Town's official poster notice(s) within 10 feet of t}~6 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 A.~.~ ~: ~nn7 I have,~sent.notices, b~ cert. ified ma~- return receip~t, the receipts and green return .'~e~e!p.t cards ofk~vhlch are att~,~hed, to. th.e ov~ers of record of every property ~l;llch abuts an'l:L.every property which is acrbss on Charles R. Cuddy Your Name (print) Signature 445 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, NY 11901 Address August 20, 2007 Date Notary Public IWONA KODYM (06088388 lit Suffolk C0-nt~ Expires March $, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND August14,2007 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OFSOUTHOLD 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 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed Residential Site Plan for The Heritage at Cutchogue Located on the n/w corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 ft. n/o Main Road, in Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Zone: Hamlet Density (HD) Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, August 13, 2007: WHEREAS, this proposed residential site plan application is for the development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings of approximately 2,000 sq. ft. each; an 8,840 sq. ft. clubhouse; a 1,160 sq. ft. swimming pool; two 3,200 sq. ft. tennis courts; a 2,400 sq. ft. maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 sq. ft. of man-made ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements, on a vacant 46.17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on the northwest corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road, in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, initiated the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Type I Action; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2007, the Southold Town Planning Board assumed lead agency for this Type I Action pursuant to Part 617.4 (b)(5)(ii); and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2007, the Southold Town Planning Board adopted a Positive Declaration for the proposed action; and Heritaqe at Cutcho,que PaRe Two AuRust14,2007 WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 617.13 of the 6NYCC Part 617 State Environmental Quality Review Act, the applicant/agent will be financially responsible for costs incurred for the review and posting of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements for the Town of Southold; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2007, the agent, Charles Cuddy, Esq., submitted a draft scope to the Planning Board at their work session; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2007, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Article 617.8, Scoping, scheduled public participation on August 20, 2007 in a Scoping Session beginning at 5:00 p.m. and will allow for comments received in the Planning Department by September 4, 2007; be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Article 617.8 Scoping, will review all information and prepare a Final Scope for distribution as the Lead Agency. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, dhouse Chairperson CC: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Clerk for Town Board Scott Russell, Southoid Town Supervisor Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Engineer Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator Southold Transportation Commission Architectural Review Committee Commissioner, NYS DEC New York State Department of State NYSDEC - Stony Brook New York State Department of Transportation New York State Natural Heritage Program Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Department Suffolk County Department of Public Works Southold Town Police Department Cutchogue Fire District USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service File CERTILM3 BALIN 1393 V£TE~S MEMORIAL HWY., SUITE 301S HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788 PHONE: 631.979,3000 * F~X: 631.979.7070 www.c er t ilmanbalin.com JOHN M. WAGNER PARTNER iwag er(alcer nanba c m BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Application for Site Plan Approval of "T,lae, Heritage at Cutchogue" - Located at Northwest Corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane in Cutchogue, New York Parcel No. 1000-102.00-01.00-033.003 on the Suffolk County Tax Map Dear Chairman Woodhouse and Members of the Planning Board: We have been retained, by the project sponsor, to monitor the review of the above- referenced site plan application by the Town of Southold Planning Board (the "Planning Board"), and, in particular, at this time, to oversee the processing of the subject application under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA" - Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law), the SEQRA implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 130 of the Code of the Town of Southold (the "Town Code"). As the Planning Board should be aware, the SEQRA regulations set forth specific procedures for the review of the potential environmental impacts of proposed actions such as the subject site plan application, and also make clear that such procedures are to be undertaken and completed in an expeditious fashion. In this regard, the SEQRA regulation at 6 NYCRR §617.3(h) specifically provides that: "Agencies must carry out the terms and requirements of this Part with minimum procedural and administrative delay, must avoid unnecessary duplication of reporting and review requirements by providing, where feasible, for combined or consolidated proceedings, and must expedite all SEQR proceedings in the interest of prompt review." (emphasis added) CERTILMAN BAL1N ADLER & HYM~N, LLP NassAu O~cg: EAST MEAIX~W, NY 11554 CER~~L]N Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold August 7, 2007 Page 2 of 3 In spite of the foregoing mandates, we note that there have already been considerable and unwarranted delays in the Planning Board's SEQRA review of the subject application to date. In this regard: 1. Although the subject application was filed, together with a $70,000 application fee, in July, 2005, the Planning Board did not determine itself to be "lead agency," for SEQRA review of the application, until December, 2006. This delay was in contravention of the SEQRA regulation at 6 NYCRR §617.6(b)(3)(i), which provides, in relevant part: "When an agency proposes to directly undertake, fired or approve a Type I or an Unlisted action undergoing coordinated review with other involved agencies, it must, as soon as possible, transmit Part I of the EAF completed by the project sponsor, or a draft EIS and a copy of any application it has received to all involved agencies and notify them that a lead agency must be agreed upon within 30 calendar days of the date the EAF or draft EIS was transmitted to them..." (emphasis added) 2. Although the Planning Board, in January, 2007, retained Bruce Anderson of Suffolk Environmental Consulting to assist it with evaluating the environmental significance of the proposed site plan application, and Mr. Anderson submitted to the Planning Board his environmental analysis (including a "Part 2" environmental assessment form that characterized every potential impact from the proposed action as being "small to moderate") in April, 2007, the Planning Board delayed until July 16, 2007 (i.e., three months after receipt of their own consultant's independent analysis) before issuing a purported "Positive Declaration" that reached numerous conclusions contrary to those of its own consultant. The July 16, 2007 "Positive Declaration" -- apart from being unsupported by the conclusions of the Planning Board's paid consultant, Mr. Anderson -- was improperly delayed several months, in contravention of the SEQRA regulation at 6 NYCRR §617.6(b)(3)(ii), which provides, in relevant part: "The lead agency must determine the significance of the action within 20 calendar days of its establishment as lead agency, or within 20 calendar days of its receipt of all information it may reasonably need to make the determination of significance, whichever occurs later, and must immediately prepare, file and publish the determination in accordance with section 617.12 of this Part." (emphasis added) CE~]BALIN Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold August 7, 2007 Page 3 of 3 In view of the aforesaid "Positive Declaration," which, among other things, directed that "scoping" be conducted for the proposed action, a "Draft Scope for Draft Environmental Impact Statement" was submitted to the Planning Board on Monday, July 30, 2007. Pursuant to the SEQRA regulation at 6 NYCRR §617.8(b), the Planning Board "must provide a copy of the draft scope to all involved agencies, and make it available to any individual or interested agency that has expressed an interest in writing to the lead agency." Moreover, pursuant to the SEQRA regulations at 6 NYCRR §617.8(e) and (f), "[s]coping must include an opportunity for public participation" and "[t]he lead agency must provide a final written scope to the project sponsor, all involved agencies and any individual that has expressed an interest in writing to the lead agency within 60 days of its receipt of a draft scope." (emphasis added) Based on the last-mentioned regulations, the project sponsor anticipates that the Planning Board will obtain public input regarding the aforesaid "Draft Scope" and provide a final written scope to the project sponsor, all involved agencies, and any interested individuals no later than Friday, September 28, 2007, which is 60 days from the date the Planning Board received the "Draft Scope." Please be advised that, in the event that the project sponsor does not receive a final written scope for the proposed action by September 28, 2007, the project sponsor will, in accordance with the SEQRA regulation at 6 NYCRR §617.8(I), prepare and submit a draft environmental impact statement consistent with the "Draft Scope" submitted on July 30, 2007. Very truly yours, John M. Wagner CC: Patricia A. Finncgan, Town Attorney Kieran M. Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. 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, ~ 119'71 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Notice of Public Scoping Meeting Heritage at Cutchogue MEE TING DATE: Monday, August 20, 2007 at 5:00 P.M. LOCATION: Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 The Town of Southold Planning Board, as Lead Agency punuant to Pan 617 of the State regulatiom for Article 8, the State Environmemal QualityReview (SEQP0 Act of the Environmental Conservation Law, has scheduled a public meeting for the purpose of determining the scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to be prepared for the proposed action described in this notice. The Town of Southold Planning Board has determined that the project will have a significant effect on the environm~ent and has issued a SEQR Positive Declaration requiting the applicant to prepare a DEIS. APPLICANT: Heritage at Cutchogue Northwest comer of Grffing Street and School House Lane, Cutchogue SCTM#: 1000-102-1-33.3 STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS/APPROVALS/REVIEWS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT: State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NYSDEQ Excavation and Development Permit (Town of Southold) Building Permits (Town of Southold) Site Plan Approval (Town of Sonthold) Site Soil Monitoring and Management Plan (USDA N-RCS) Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (Town of Sonthold) Suffolk County Planning Department Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Water Authority Cutchogue Fire District New'fork State Natural Heritage Program New York State Department of Transportation Heritage at Cutchogue Page Two August 8, 2007 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Engineer Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator Southold Transportation Commission Architectural Review Committee Commissioner, NYS DEC NewYork State Department of State NYSDEC- Stony Brook New York State Department of Transportation New York State Natural Heritage Program Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Department Suffolk CountyDepartment of Public Works Charles Cuddy, Esq. Southold Town Police Department Cutchogue Fire District USDA- Natural Resources Conservation Service File PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This proposed action requires residential site plan approval for the development of a Planned 55 + Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings. The development is proposing affordable and market rate homes. The market rate homes are approximately 2,000 sq. ft. each and include a two (2) car garage. The project contemplates 278 parking spaces for the residential units; 260 parking spaces are allocated in the garages of the market rate units; 18 off-street parking spaces are allocated for the proposed affordable units. The proposed parcel is a vacant 46.17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on the northwest comer of Grlffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet notch of Main Road in Cntchogue. Adjacent to the subject parcel are single-family residential properties to the west, farm and single- family residential properties to the north, farm property to the east and a mobile trailer park to the south. The proposed action also includes a clubhouse complex containing an 8,840 sq. ft. clubhouse, a 1,160 sq. ft. swimming pool, two 3,200 sq. ft. tennis courts, a 2,400 sq. ft. maintenance garage and gazebo. The clubhouse will consist of a community room with a food preparation area for catered events, game room, exercise room, manager's office, locker room and cabana. The clubhouse complex includes 45 parking spaces, including 2 handicapped parking spaces. Additionally, the proposed clubhouse complex includes a 15' x 45' loading dock and dumpster. A network consisting of 197,043 sq. ft. of manmade ponds and water circulation fountains is proposed to serve as a natural drainage/stormwater collection system. These proposed retention ponds are to be used as water supply for on-site landscape irrigation and water levels are to be maintained through the use of on-site wells. The proposed action consists of 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping, including the required minimum 30' landscape buffer along the property lines to the east and north and a 40' landscape buffer along the western propettyllne. The proposed action includes various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements. The proposed action includes a securityguard booth/gatehouse at the entrance of the community. Currently, the proposed action provides for a single entrance, including a connection of Spur Road to the west with School House Lane and Griffing Street to the south. Additionally, there is a proposed emergency access road that connects to Bridle Lane. The proposed action includes individual and shared sanitary systems. The proposed density and design will be subject to review and approval bythe Suffolk CountyDepartment of Health Services. Additionally, a series of catch basins and wells are proposed throughout the site. Heritage at Cutchogue Page Three August 8, 2007 PROJECT LOCATION: The subject propertylies in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York The subject propertyconsists of a vacant 46.17-acre parcel located on the northwest comer of Grilling Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road, in Cutchogue. The site is currently zoned Hamlet Density (HD). MEETING PURPOSE: The purpose of "scoping" is to focus the DEIS on potentially significant adverse impacts and to eliminate consideration of those impacts that are irrelevant or non-significant. Some environmental impacts to be considered for evaluation in the DEIS are identified in the Department's Positive Declaration and in the project Sponsor's (Charles Cuddy, Esq.) Draft Scoping Document. Scoping will help to ensure that this DEIS is a comprehensive, accurate and complete document, adequate for public review and which properly evaluates the environmental impacts that may occur if the proposed build out was to occur. PUBLIC MEETING: The public scoping session will be held on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 5:00 P.M., at the Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. Statements from local government officials, legislators, interested and involved agencies, and the public will be heard after a Planning Board Chair Statement is read into the record and the applicant gives a brief presentation detailing the proposed project. A stenographic record of the meeting will be prepared. Written statements will also be accepted until September 4, 2007 at the Town of Sonthold Planning Board office address at the end of this notice. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION: The application file maybe reviewed by appointment at the Town of Southold Planning Board Department. In addition, the applicant has provided a Draft Scoping Document containing a summary of the SEQR process, including scoping, the project proposal and some potential environmental impacts. The Town of Southold has not approved the applicant's Draft Scoping Document. It is being presented at this time for public review and comment. Copies of this Draft Scoping Document will be mailed to involved and interested agencies. In addition, the document maybe reviewed at the Town of Southold Planning Board, 54375 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 and Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. Anyr)ne who plans to participate in the scoping meeting bypmviding comment is urged to review a copyof this document prior to the meeting. The scoping meeting location is reasonably accessible to persons with a mobility impairment. Interpreter services will also be made avaihble to deaf persons, at no charge, upon written request to the Contact Person named at the end of this notice, within one week prior to the meeting, pursuant to Section 202(1) of the State Administrative Procedures Act. All persons having an interest in this project are urged to attend or be represented either individually or collectively. NOTICE DATE: August 8, 2007 CONTACT PERSON: Amy Thiel, Senior Planner Town of Southold Planning Board P. O. Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone: 631-765-1938 NOCRO LTD. THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGU 1000-102-1-33.3 Proposed residential site plan for the development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings of approximately 2,000 sq. ft. each; an 8,840 sq. ft. clubhouse; a 1,160 sq. ft. swimming pool; two 3,200 sq. ft. tennis courts; a 2,400 sq. ft. maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 sq. ft. of manmade ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements. MON.- AUGUST 20, 2007 - 5:00 P.M. THOMAS LAGUARDIA, P.E. CHIEF DEPUTY COMMIE$1ONER COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS GILBERT ANDERSON, P.E. LOUIS CALDERONE August 2, 2007 Town of Southold Planning Board Office P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971-0957 Attn: Jerilyn Woodhouse Re: N/W corner of Griffing St. & School House Lane The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: In response to your letter of July 17, 2007, please forward a copy of the proposed site plan and any traffic studies conducted for this development to this Department. If you have any questions, kindly contact this office at 852-4100. WH:MPC:ln Very truly yours, William Hillman, P.E. (,~- C~,,~ef Engineer IVY. ~ahl Ca~mpaguo h~'"~ r""~----~' Director of ~way Pl~g ~ Pe~ts SUFFOLK COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER · YAPHANK, N.Y. 11980 · (631) 852-4010 335 YAPHANK AVENUE FAX (631) 852-4150 #8485 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Dina MacDonald of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/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 2.~week(s), successively, commencing on the 9TM day of Au.qust, 2007. Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this 2007 NOTICE IS ~ GIVEN that. pursuant to 6NYCRR Park 617.8, a Scoping Session will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board, at thc Town Hall, Main Road. Southold, New York on the ~ik d~y of .i,a~,~s~ 2~7 on the questina.of the following: 5 pall. Proposed residential site plan for The Herita~e at Cutchogue located on the n/w co~unr of Otiffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet n/o the Main Road, in Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number I000-102-1-33.3. The Town of Southold Planning Board as Lead Agency pumu~nt to Part 617 of the State Regulations for Article 8, the State Environmental Ouality Re- view (SEOR) Act of the Environmental Conservation Law, has scheduled a pub- lic meeting for the purpose of determin- ing the scope of the Draft Eavironmen- tal Impact Statement (DEIS) to he pre- ?are~ for t~.e proposed action described in this notme. The Town 6f Southo[d Plannin~ Board has detenained that the project wiJJ have a si~cant ef- fect on the envil~a~ent and has issued a SEOR Positive Declaration requiring the applicant to prepare a DEIS, Dated: 8/357 BY ORDER OFTHE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK NO. 01-VO6105050 Qualified In Suffolk County Comm;ssion Expires February 28, ')008 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 TO: FROM: DATE: August 13, 2007 RE: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Anthony Tre~a, Senior Planner Planning Board Jill M. Dohe~y, Vice-President ~ Board of Trustees The Board of Trustees inspected the property in response to your request dated June 21,2007 and in response to the letter from Dr. Stephen T. Tettelbach dated June 18, 2007, regarding a possible wetland area. We determined the following: An initial inspection was conducted on July 11, 2007 at which time a depression area was found which appeared to at one time to possibly be an irrigation pond. The property was then inspected on July 27, 2007 using a hand held GPS, following the stated coordinates provided in Dr. Tettlebach's letter. The coordinates led us to the same depression area. Our observations/conclusions are based upon the vegetation present and the proximity of a very old abandoned shack that appeared to have once been a pump house. The area in question had probably been a man-made irrigation pond or holding area. There did not appear to be any standing water in the area of depression, which was completely overgrown with trees and shrubs. It is the opinion of the Board that in periods of heavy rain, water naturally runs down into this depression area and might sit for a brief period of time, but that during most rains, the water probably percolates immediately into the ground as in other surrounding areas. Therefore, we would not consider this area to be a natural wetland area. If you have any questions or require any further information, please don't hesitate to contact our office. 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 LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Scoping Hearing 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 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to 6NYCRR Park 617.8, a Scoping Session will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York on the 20th day of August, 2007 on the question of the following: 4:30 p.m. Proposed residential site plan for The Heritage at Cutchogue located on the n/w corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet n/o the Main Road, in Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-102-1-33.3 The Town of Southold Planning Board as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the State Regulations for Article 8, the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act of the Environmental Conservation Law, has scheduled a public meeting for the purpose of determining the scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to be prepared for the proposed action described in this notice. The Town of Southold Planning Board has determined that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and has issued a SEQR Positive Declaration requiring the applicant to prepare a DEIS. Dated: 8/3/07 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Jerilyn B. Woodhouse Chairperson PLEASE PRINT ON THURSDAY, August 9, 2007 and THURSDAY, August 16, 2007 AND FORWARD AN AFFIDAVIT TO THIS OFFICE. THANK YOU. COPY SENT TO: The Suffolk Times Page 1 ofl Kalin, Carol From: JOAN ANN [jaweber@timesreview.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 11:21 AM To: Kalin, Carol Subject: Re: Legal Ad for 8/9 and 8/16 editions CAROL RECEIVED FOR PUBLICATION ON THE 9TH AND 16TH JOAN ANN ..... Original Message ..... From: Kalin, Carol To: jaweber@timesreview.com Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:47 AM Subject: Legal Ad for 8/9 and 8/16 editions Joan Ann: Please publish the attached legal ad in the August 9 and 16 editions and send me confirmation of receipt of this message. August 20, 2007: 4:30 p.m. - Scoping Session for The Heritage at Cutchogue 8/3/2007 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 LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Scoping Hearing 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 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to 6NYCRR Park 617.8, a Scoping Session will be held by the Southoid Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York on the 20th day of August, 2007 on the question of the following: 4:30 p.m. Proposed residential site plan for The Heritage at Cutchogue located on the n/w corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet n/o the Main Road, in Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-102-1-33.3 The Town of Southold Planning Board as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the State Regulations for Article 8, the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act of the Environmental Conservation Law, has scheduled a public meeting for the purpose of determining the scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to be prepared for the proposed action described in this notice. The Town of Southoid Planning Board has determined that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and has issued a SEQR Positive Declaration requiring the applicant to prepare a DEIS. Dated: 8/3/07 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Jeriiyn 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 3rd day of August, 2007 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 8/20/07 Public Scopin,q Session: 4:30 p.m. Public Scoping Session for the residential site plan The Heritage at Cutchogue, SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Sworn to before me this Notary ~J~ic ' Carol Kalin Secretary, Southold Town Planning Board MELANIE DOR0$KI Mailing Address: PO Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY Attorney at Law 445 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 Tel: (631) 369-8200 Fax: (631) 369-9080 e-mail: charles.cudd¥~verizon.net July 30, 2007 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Board Members: We are enclosing a Draft Scope for Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It is my understanding that in compliance with SEQRA and our discussion you will have a scoping meeting within the next few weeks. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy / I CRC:ik Draft Sco e for Draft Environmental Impact Statel~ "The Heritage at Cutchogue" SCTM No. 1000-102-1-33.3 Site Plan Approval in Hamlet Business District Griffing StreeffSchoolhouse L~e, Hamlet of Cutchog~e Town of Southold Suffolk CounW, New York Prepared for: Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 (631) 765-1938 Prepared by: Nelson & Pope, PLLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 (631) 427-5665 Contact: Gary Becket, P.E. Date: July 26, 2007 1.0 Introduction and Location This document is the Draft Scope of the issues and analyses to be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Heritage at Cutchogue project. The proposed project is to be located on a 46.16 acre parcel located at the northwest comer of G-rifting Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road, Cutchogue. The parcel is more specifically identified as SCTM No. 1000-102-1- 33.3, located in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, New York. The site is zoned Hamlet Density (HD) zoning district. The analysis of the Heritage at Cutchogue project in a DEIS has been required by the Town of Southold Planning Board, as Lead Agency for administration of the site plan review and as required by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The requirement for a DEIS is contained in a Positive Declaration issued by the Planning Board on July 16, 2007. The information prepared in conformance with this scope and the SEQRA process is intended to provide comprehensive input in the decision-making process for use by involved agencies in preparing their own findings and issuing decisions on their respective permits. The document must be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate and consistent. Figures and tables will be presented in support of the discussions and analyses contained in the document. Technical information will be summarized in the body of the DEIS and attached in their entirety in an appendix. 2.0 Brief Description of the Proposed Proiect The proposed project involves the residential site plan approval for development of a Planned (55+ years of age) Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached residential dwellings of approximately 2,000 square feet (SF) each; an 8,840 SF clubhouse; 1,160 SF swimming pool; two 3,200 SF tennis courts; a 2,400 SF maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 SF of man-made ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 SF (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements. 3.0 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts The description of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed project has been obtained from the Planning Board's Positive Declaration of July 16, 2007. Additional insight into potential impacts is provided in the Part 3 EAF which was attached to the Positive Declaration. These issues are reflected in this Draft Scope. The Positive Declaration identified the following reasons for the Determination of Significance: This proposed action may cause a potential significant adverse impact on water, impact on plants and animals, agricultural resources, aesthetic resources, archeological resources, transportation and growth and character of community and neighborhood. A comprehensive review must be conducted to determine the potential impacts of the proposed action. I. The potential impacts to existing ground or surface water quality or quantity, noise levels flooding, leaching or site drainage. The proposed action will allow high density residential use in an area which may not have adequate public water and community (public) sewer. 2. The potential impacts due to increase in traffic and trip generations assessed to: real traffic data analysis for the land use category, existing surrounding land uses, traffic volumes and routing patterns and limited ingress and egress points to primary and secondary roads. 3. The potential impact of the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation and fauna; substantial interference with the movement of any resident and migratory fish or wildlife species; substantial adverse impacts on threatened or endangered species of animal or plan (if present), or the habitat of such species; or other significant adverse impacts to natural resources. 2 The proposed action may affect threatened and endangered species. 3 The proposed action may substantially affect non-threatened and non-endangered species. 4. The potential hazards to human health. The potential impacts of a substantial change in the use, or intensity of use, of land including agricultural (including the permanent loss of Type I agricultural soils), open space or recreational resoumes, or its capacity to support existing uses. The potential impacts to the impairment of the character or quality of important archeological, aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character. 4 The proposed action may impact a site of prehistoric or historic importance. 5 Construction will occur over a three year period. 7. The assessment of a no action alternative. 4.0 Organization and Overall Content of the DEIS Document The DEIS must conform with the basic content requirements as contained in 6NYCRR Part 617.9 (b)(3). The outline of the DEIS will include the following sections: 1.0 2.0 Cover Sheet Table of Contents Summary Description of the Proposed Action 1.1 Project Background, Need, Objectives and Benefits 1.1.1 Background and History 1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives l.l.3 Objectives of the Project Sponsor 1.1.4 Benefits of the Project 1.2 Location and Site Conditions 1.3 Project Design and Layout 1.3.1 Overall Site Layout 1.3.2 Grading and Drainage 1.3.3 Access, Road System and Parking 1.3.4 Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply 1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting 1.3.6 Open Space 1.4 Construction and Operation 1.4.1 Construction 1.4.2 Operation Permits and Approvals Required 1.5 Natural Environmental Resources 2.1 Soils 2.1.1 Existing Conditions 2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts 2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation 2.2 Water Resources 2.2.1 Existing Conditions 2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts 2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation Vegetation and Wildlife 2.3.1 Existing Conditions 2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts 2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation 2.3 3.0 Human Environmental Resources 3.1 Transportation 3.1.1 Existing Conditions 3.1.2 Anticipated Impacts 3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation 3.2 Land Use, Zoning and Plans 3.2.1 Existing Conditions 3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts 3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation 4.0 5.0 3.3 3.4 Health 3.5 Community Facilities and Services 3.3.1 Existing Conditions 3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts 3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation Aesthetic Resources, Open Space/Community Character and Public 3.4.1 Existing Conditions 3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts 3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation Historic and Archaeological Resources 3.5.1 Existing Conditions 3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts 3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation Other Required Sections 4.1 Cumulative Impacts 4.2 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided 4.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4.4 Growth-Inducing Aspects Alternatives 5.1 No Action Alternative 5.2 Alternative Design 6.0 References Appendices 5.0 Extent and Quality of Information Existing and Needed As required under SEQRA, the DEIS will include "a statement and evaluation of potential significant adverse impacts at a level of detail that reflects the severity of the impacts and the reasonable likelihood of their occurrence". Included in this evaluation will be reasonably related short-term and long-term impacts, with other required sections identified in the Section 6.0 of this scoping document. This section further describes the level of analysis and the type of analysis expected with respect to the key environmental impacts of the project as outlined in the Positive Declaration. Each major section is followed by a description of the extent and quality of information needed to perform the evaluation of each of the impacted resources. Description of the Proposed Project Background and History I There will be a brief description of the site and application history. Public Need and Municipality Objectives 2 Include background of proposed project in terms of Town goals for site. 3 Public need for the project will be discussed. 4 Population served by the project will be identified. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 5 The objectives of the project sponsor will be included and discussed. Benefits of the Project 6 The DEIS will Include a discussion of the community benefits expected to accrue from the proposed project. Location and Site Conditions 7 Using appropriate mapping and/or tables, describe location of site, zoning and service districts. 8 The existing conditions of the site in terms of site survey, structures, vegetative cover will be provided as an overall background of existing site conditions. Project Design and Layout 9 Include a brief description of the site and project layout; describe basis for site yield, proposed structures, services, utilities, access points, road system, drainage, site quantities table. 10 Address breakdown of use areas from a structural standpoint. 11 The grading program and associated areas disturbed will be discussed along with volumes of soil excavated, cut/filled, removed from site and maximum depths of cut/fill. 12 Site drainage and proposed drainage system and provide capacity and function information will be provided along with a discussion of conformance to NYSDEC SPDES stormwater and erosion control regulations for construction and post-construction conditions. 13 The vehicle access points, internal roadway layout and traffic circulation will be identified. 14 The adequacy of on-site parking will be discussed; required parking as required by a breakdown of parking requirements shall be provided. 15 Dumpster locations will be identified. 16 Proposed project lighting will be identified. 17 The DEIS will Include a description of water supply, irrigation well water supply and proposed wastewater handling and corresponding use of water supply and sanitary design flow. 18 Information on the type, amount and location of landscaping proposed will be provided as well as information on maintenance requirements such as irrigation and fertilization under operation and maintenance. Construction 19 The construction and operation/maintenance of the site will be fully discussed. 20 Project phasing (if applicable). 21 Method of construction, construction schedule/timetable. 22 Construction management, equipment storage/staging, delivery routes, hours of operation, workers' parking, protection of natural and sensitive areas. 23 Quantity of soil import~export, track routes, management and mitigation. Operation 24 In terms of operation, describe the management and protection of open space; describe Organization management and operation; describe road, landscape and open space maintenance practice, describe any special conditions which may apply. 25 Uses expected of various locations and facilities within the site; seasons of use, intensity of use, whether the site will be open to special events; 26 Projected number of employees required for the various uses for weekdays, weekends and seasonal peak periods; 27 Truck sizes expected for deliveries and delivery routing; 28 Truck unloading areas; 29 Seasons of operation of various components of the facility; 30 Snow removal will be described as related to parking surfaces and operation; 31 Entity responsible for site operations. Permits and Approvals Required 32 Identify all required permits and reviews 33 Indicate the filing date and status of submissions to the lead and involved agencies. Natural Environmental Resources Soils The existing soil types will be determined pursuant to the Suffolk County Soil Survey. 2 Impact to soils will be discussed in terms of soil constraints pursuant to the Suffolk County Soil Survey based on the type of land use proposed and the constraints for each soil type. 3 Impact of loss of agricultural soils will be disclosed and mitigation examined where feasible. Water Resources The groundwater management zone as classified under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code shall be referenced. 2 The depth to groundwater in key development locations of the site will be determined by use of on-site soil borings. 3 The expected direction of groundwater flow based on hydrologic interpolation will be identified. 4 The existing groundwater quality will be referenced from existing literature. 5 The water supply availability, service provider and capacity of systems will be established through communication with the water district. 6 The location of private and public wells will be determined, with specific reference to the SCWA Evergreen Pump Station. 7 The expected impact of the project with respect to water quality shall be fully examined in terms of sanitary discharge compliance, wastewater system operation and regulatory requirements. 8 Applicable Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) regulations and requirements will be identified, and the compliance of the action with same will be evaluated. 9 Calculations of projected sanitary flow and consistency with the Suffolk County Sanitary Code will also be provided. 10 The change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of recharge under existing and future conditions shall be established using appropriate hydrologic analysis methods. 11 The DEIS will provide calculations of projected water consumption for each use proposed and, in consultation with the Suffolk County Water Authority, will evaluate the ability to meet this projected water demand. 12 The creation of impermeable surfaces and placement of fill will be evaluated in terms of potential to change drainage patterns in the project area and impact on drainage related to stormwater. 13 Mitigation measures which may reduce potential water quality impacts shall be identified Vegetation and Wildlife 4 Existing upland habitats shall be inventoried through an inspection of the site by a qualified biologist/ecologist to determine the vegetation, wildlife, and general habitat character. An inventory of flora and fauna observed and expected will be provided in this section of the DEIS. 5 In addition, protected native plants, plant and animal species listed as endangered, threatened, special concern (or with other protective status) and significant habitat areas on or in the vicinity of the project site will be identified. 6 The NY Natural Heritage Program will be contacted for site file information concerning habitats, plant and animal species. 7 Impact to habitats will be quantified and discussed qualitatively in terms ecological impact to plants and animals. 8 Cumulative aspects of loss of habitat will be identified. 9 Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts will be identified and method of implementation determined. Human Resources Transportation I Provide a thorough analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed development on the area's roadway system. 2 Include analyses of the proposed plan and internal roadway system and a full traffic impact study assessing the proposed development's impact on the surrounding roadways. 3 Accident history data will be obtained as available from municipal agencies and will be evaluated in terms of the proposed project. 4 The Traffic Impact Study will include: collection of data regarding planned roadway improvements and other developments, field surveys and counts of existing traffic volumes, estimates of future traffic volumes, analyses of existing and future traffic volumes and identification and timing of required roadway improvements and the entity responsible for initiating those improvements. The methodology is described herein. 1 The methodology will consist of a detailed review of existing land-use, roadway and traffic conditions near the proposed site for the Existing Condition, the No Build Condition (future traffic conditions without the proposed development), and the Build Condition (future traffic conditions with the proposed development). 2 The Existing Condition will be analyzed utilizing seasonally adjusted traffic volumes to represent the peak month of the year and field geometry collected at the following intersections: 1. Main Road (NYS Route 25) at Depot Lane 2. Main Road (NYS Route 25) at Griffin Street 3. Middle Road (CR 48) at Depot Lane 4. Schoolhouse Road at Depot Lane 3 The No Build Condition traffic volumes will consist of the existing volumes adjusted by an annual growth factor to account for increases in population as well as proposed developments within the vicinity of the site. Other projects pending in the area will be identified by Town Planning staff and included in the evaluation as appropriate. 4 Traffic volumes generated by the proposed project will be determined using ITE trip generation and Long Island specific comparable senior citizen project data and then added to the No Build Condition to determine the traffic volumes for the future Build Condition with the proposed development. 5 The study intersections will then be analyzed using Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) by applying the existing field geometry, signal timings, and the calculated traffic volumes to determine levels of service (LOS). Any substantial degradation in LOS between the No Build and Build intersections will be considered significant traffic impacts generated by the proposed development. 6 The study will take into account the 16 specifically identified Planning Board concems contained in the Part 3 EAF, including: future hamlet development; intersections with F Level of Service; seasonal adjustment factors; existing and future intersection traffic volume calculations; congested conditions and accident frequency; significance/impacts of specific intersection LOS; annual growth factors; trip generation data and need for more local data; AM/PM peak hour consistency; traffic volume routing; traffic signal feasibility and need for appropriate/feasible mitigation; potential impacts with and without the opening of Spur Road and access to downtown Cutchogue, Depot Lane (both north and south) and Griffing Street/Route 25; and access alternatives. 7 Mitigation will be proposed to address any significant degradation in the level of service. An explanation of the feasibility of mitigation Land Use, Zoning and Plans · This section of the DEIS will describe existing land use and zoning on the subject site and in the surrounding area. 1 The existing land use character of the site and surrounding area within 500 feet will be described and mapped. 2 The zoning which applies to the site and the area within 500 feet will be described and mapped, and a description of zoning regulations for the project site and surrounding area zoning shall be provided. 3 Land use plans which pertain to the project site will be evaluated with emphasis on those plans adopted after 1994: 1. Southold Town Stewardship Task Fome Report (1994) 2. Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1994) 3. Peconic Estuary Program (1995) 4. Economic Development Plan (1997) 5. Southold Township Planning Initiatives (1997) 6. Community Preservation Project Plan (1998) 7. County Route 48 Corridor, Land Use Study (1999) 8. Farm and Farmland Preservation Program (1983-2202) 9. Southold Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (2000) I0. Water Supply Management & Water Protection Strategy (2000) 11. Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan (2001) 12. Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold (2002) 13. Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and GEIS (2003) 14. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (2005) 15. Southold Hamlet Study (2005) 16. Community Preservation Project Plan (2006 Update) 17. Long Island North Shore Heritage Area 18. Town Zoning Maps/Code and Comprehensive Plan. 4 The compatibility of the development with the surrounding area will be assessed. 5 Once the above information is compiled, the DEIS will assess the impacts of the proposed action on land use and zoning. The impact assessment will concentrate on evaluating the consistency of the proposed action with prevailing land use and zoning. The compatibility of the proposed action with area land use will be assessed. 6 The conformance of the project with land use plans will be evaluated and discussed. 7 Measures which may be used to mitigate potential land use, zoning or impacts with respect to land use plans will be provided. Community Facilities and Services 1 The existing community services and the ability of these services to accommodate the proposed project will be described. The services include: 2 School District 2 Police; 3 Fire and Ambulance Services; 4 Electrical energy supply; 5 Water supply. · The impact analysis contained in the DEIS will include consultations with service providem regarding existing demand for services and capacity such that the DEIS will objectively analyze the impact of the proposed action on community facilities and services. The DEIS will include detailed projections of service demand with supporting documentation. The existing tax revenue of the site shall be established. The emergency services (ambulance, police and fire) which serve the site will be identified and contacted for input with respect to continued ability to serve the site. Changes associated with the proposed project will be evaluated in terms of emergency service access; a practical approach will be taken to ensure that safe and efficient emergency service vehicle access to the site can be provided to the site. 10 Hydrant installation/location and other development considerations which assist in addressing emergency services will be included. 11 Mitigation for emergency service access to ensure that equipment can ingress/egress the site will be included. Aesthetic Resources, Open Space/Community Character and Public Health 12 Existing site and community character will be identified. 13 The project will result in a change in the aesthetic character of the site due to removal of existing vegetation. Impacts will be disclosed and mitigation identified where feasible. 14 The open space resources of the site and area will be identified. 15 The project will result in the loss of open space due to removal of existing vegetation. Impacts will be disclosed and mitigation identified where feasible. 16 The existing noise environment will be evaluated in terms of ambient noise, sensitive receptors and community character. 17 Construction activities in terms of construction schedule and duration, materials and storage/staging area, water and sewer systems connections, proper handling of construction waste, hours of operation and truck routes will be evaluated. 18 Describe the impacts related to construction noise, dust, erosion and sedimentation, area receptors, applicable nuisance regulations, applicable agency oversight and safeguards, phasing of the project, staging areas, parking areas, operation areas, duration, hours, and related mitigation measures to reduce construction impacts. The potential noise and dust impacts of construction related to clearing, construction activities and traffic will be assessed. 19 Mitigation in terms of design, buffer planting and open space will be examined. Archaeological Resources 20 The archeological resources of the site will be addressed through a Stage IA/IB Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA). The site is within an area of archaeological sensitivity and therefore a Stage IA/IB is required, unless significant ground disturbance is documented to the satisfaction of the OPRHP. Any mitigation which may be needed will be identified. 6.0 Other Required Sections In addition to the key resources identified in the Positive Declaration, SEQRA identifies other required sections for a complete DEIS as included in 6NYCRR Part 617.9 (b)(3). Mitigation measures will be included with respect to each key impact area as noted in Section 5.0. Alternatives to be studied are identified in Section 7.0. The following Other Required Sections and evaluations will be provided in the DEIS. 1 Use and Conservation of Energy Resources (The project will increase energy use which could be significant. Mitigation to reduce the impacts of energy consumption could include building homes to Energy Star and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards and/or applying dark sky standards to lessen the impact of energy consumed. These aspects of the project will be examined). 2 Cumulative Impacts (Describe other pending projects in vicinity, determine potential for impacts due to implementation of proposed project in combination with others and discuss/analyze impacts). 3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided (Provide brief listing of those adverse environmental impacts described/discussed previously which are anticipated to occur, which cannot be completely mitigated). 4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources (Provide brief discussion of those natural and human resources which will be committed to and/or consumed by the proposed project). 5 Growth-Inducing Aspects (Provide brief discussion of those aspects of the proposed project which will or may trigger or contribute to future growth in the area). 7.0 Alternatives to be Studied SEQRA requires a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. As noted in SEQRA, "The description and evaluation of each alternative will be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed". The following alternatives and methods of evaluation are anticipated: 1 No Action Altemative (Altemative whereby the site remains in its current condition). 2 Alternative design (Clustering of single family units into multi family units to create open space maximizing vegetative buffers along the perimeter of the property). This document is intended to fulfill the lead agency requirements for issuance of a Final Scope in accordance with SEQRA Part 617.8. The document assists the lead agency in evaluating the DEIS for content and adequacy for public review and assists the applicant in understanding the extent and quality of information needed to evaluate the proposed project and allow the lead agency and involved agencies to obtain the information necessary to reach an informed decision on the project. N(,) 1[ yr i i () ! ,1 ) '!' !? A N ~! to: M~. Amy Tkic! Senior Plmm~r Neb~ysha R Brashlch Chairman DATE: July 30, 20{)7 (m,Vfing $1t¢~-t & School House SCTM ~!: 2007. We tmdernand t~t ~his w~s a '~s d~c" process and tha~ f:e Plaragng Boned hzxs requested the de',elol:rer tO .qubrlljt s dra~ ~CO[:~c for an en*,ironment~.l impoct ~tatea'nenL The C~nmls..~ion v, oald still like to tr~=erve lh~ :Sght 'to call ii'these cancc,-as arc; not ~eq~tel.v ~ddrm,,sed. Supervisor Scott A, R'~sell Town Board CHARLES R. CUDDY Attorney at Law 445 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 Mailing Address: PO Box1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Tel: (631) 369-8200 Fax: (631) 369-9080 e-mail: charles.cudd¥~,verizon.net Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Board Members: July 23, 2007 Enclosed is a copy of the Southold Water Supply Plan Map dated June 1, 2006, and adopted by the Town Board on July 3, 2007. You will note that this map provides for the extension of public water to this site. I request that this map be included in the file for this matter. Very truly yours, Charles R. C~d~ CRC:ik PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND July 17, 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 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed Residential Site Plan for The Heritage at Cutchogue Located on the n/w corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet n/o Main Road, in Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Zone: Hamlet Density (HD) Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolutions were adopted at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, July 16, 2007: WHEREAS, this proposed residential site plan application is for the development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings of approximately 2,000 sq. ft. each; an 8,840 sq. ft. clubhouse; a 1,160 sq. ft. swimming pool; two 3,200 sq. ft. tennis courts; a 2,400 sq. ft. maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 sq. ft. of manmade ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements, on a vacant 46.17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on the northwest corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road, in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, initiated the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Type I Action; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, establishes itself as lead agency and, as lead agency, has reviewed the project and prepared a Determination of Significance for this Type I Action pursuant to Part 617.4 (b)(5)(ii); and be it further The Herita.qe at Cutcho.que Paqe Two July 10, 2007 RESOLVED, that because the proposed action may have potentially significant impacts on the environment, the Town of Southold Planning Board, as lead agency, hereby adopts 617.20 Appendix A, Part 2 and 3 of the Long Environmental Assessment Form and adopts a Positive Declaration for the proposed action; and be it further RESOLVED, that pursuant to Article 617.8, scoping will be required for the action; and be it further RESOLVED, that pursuant to Article 617.13 of the 6NYCRR, Part 617 State Environmental Quality Review Act, the applicant will be financially responsible for costs incurred for the review and website posting of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements by the Town of Southold. Enclosed is a copy of the Positive Declaration, dated July 16, 2007, for your records. Additionally, as indicated above, scoping shall be required for the action. Please provide a Draft Scope for distribution to all involved agencies. Also enclosed are copies of Part I and II of the Full Environmental Assessment Form for your review. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Chairperson Enc. cc: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Southold Town Board of Trustees Southoid Town Engineer Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator Commissioner, NYS DEC New York State Department of State NYSDEC - Stony Brook New York State Department of Transportation Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Department Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Department of Health Services Army Corps of Engineers Architectural Review Committee Environmental Notice Bulletin File Any person requesting a copy 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 14-12-8 (3/99)-9c State Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance SEQR Project Number: 1000-102-1-33.3 Date: July 16, 2007 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Town of Southold Planning Board as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant impact on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: The Heritage at Cutchogue SEQR Status: Type 1 Unlisted X Scoping: No Yes ~X If yes, indicate how scoping will be conducted: Scoping Sessions will be conducted at the Town of Southold Town Hall located at P.O. Box 1179, 53095 State Road 25, Southold, New York. SEOR Positive Declaration Page 2 Description of Action: The proposed action is to site plan a 46.16 acre parcel into 139 single family detached and attached, age restricted, residential units. Location: The subject property lies in the hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. The subject property consists of a vacant 46.16-acre parcel located on the northwest comer of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road in Cutchogne. The site is currently zoned Hamlet Density (HD). Reasons Supporting This Determination: This proposed action may cause a potential significant adverse impact on water, impact on plants and animals, agricultural resources, aesthetic resources, archeological resources, transportation and growth and character of community and neighborhood. A comprehensive review must be conducted to determine the potential impacts of the proposed action. Relevant areas of concern include: (1) The potential impacts to existing ground or surface water quality or quantity, noise levels, flooding, leaching or site drainage. 1. The proposed action will allow high density residential use in a area which may not have adequate public water and community (public) sewer. (2) The potential impacts due to increase in traffic and trip generations assessed to: real traffic data analysis for the land use category, existing surrounding land uses, traffic volumes and routing patterns and limited ingress and egress points to primary and secondary roads. (3) The potential impact of the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation and fauna; substantial interference with the movement of any resident of migratory fish or wildlife species; substantial adverse impacts on threatened or endangered species of animal or plant (if present), or the habitat of such species; or other significant adverse impacts to natural resources. 1. The proposed action may affect threatened and endangered species. 2. The proposed action may substantially affect non-threatened and non endangered species. (4) The potential hazards to human health. SEOR Positive Declaration Page 3 (5) The potential impacts of a substantial change in the use, or intensity of use, of land including agricultural (including the permanent loss of Type I agricultural soils), open space or recreational resources, or in its capacity to support existing uses. (6) The potential impacts to the impairment of the character or quality of important archeological, aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character. 1. The proposed action may impact a site of prehistoric or historic importance. 2. Construction will continue over a three year period. (7) The assessment of a no action alternative. A detailed narrative outlining these concerns is attached. For Further Information: Contact Person: Mark Terry, Principal Planner Amy Thiel, Senior Planner Address: P.O. Box 1179, 54375 State Road 25, Southold, New York 11971 Telephone Number: 631-765-1938 A copy of this notice must be sent to: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Engineer Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator Commissioner, NYS DEC New York State Department of State NYSDEC - Stony Brook New York State Department of Transportation Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Department Suffolk County Department of Public Works Architectural Review Committee Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Notice Bulletin File Any person requesting a copy 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Puq0ose: 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. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provi?es 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: Part 3: 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. 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 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ~ Part 1 ~ Part 2 ~ Part 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 prepared. ~B. 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 will be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Heritage at Cutchogue Name of Action Towe of Southold Planning Board website Name of Lead Agency Jerilyn Woodhouse Chair Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer JULY 17,200 . Date Page 1 of 21 PART2-~OJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR M~NITUDE 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. Identifying that an Impact will 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. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Impact on Land 1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. [] [] ~Yes DNo Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet, [] []Yes DNo Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. [] [] []Yes []No Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. [] []Yes r"~ No [] ~Yes []No Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. [] [] ~Yes ~No Page 11 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Construction or expansion of a santary landfill. Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts: [] [] ~Yes r"l No [] [] ~Yes ~No [] [] ~Yes ~No I Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) Specific land forms: I Impact on Water DYes •No Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) ~NO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. [] [] []Yes •No [] [] []Yes ~No Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Examples that wou~d apply to column 2 A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. [] [] []Yes •No [] [] []Yes •No [] [] []Yes []No [] []Yes []No Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. [] [] []Yes []No Other impacts: [] [] []Yes ] Tie prTpTsa' invol es thI creation o77 197,043 sq. ft. man ~ade po7d. Page 12 of 21 Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. 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 wells 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. 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 wild be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action wild 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: 1 Small to Moderate Impact [] [] [] 2 Potential Large Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change DYes DNo []Yes DNo DYes BNo DYes E]"o []Yes D"o ~es DNo DYes DNo DYes [] No ~Yes DNo DYes [] No 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? ~NO ~Ye$ 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: [] [] ~Yes ~No [] []Yes ONe [] ~Yes ~No []Yes r~No [] []Yes ~No IThe proposed action involves the installation of approximately 15 acres of impervious surface on the site that is entirely pervious and vegetated. IMPACT ON AIR Proposed Action affect air quality? 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. [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No N ~ []Yes []No Proposed Action wi, allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. OYes []No Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. [] []Yes []No Other impacts: ~ ~ []Yes []No J The proposed action could result in moderate to large air quality impacts (suspended particulates/dust) due to construction activities over a three-year period. IMPACT ON PlaNTS AND ANIMALS Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? Exsmplee 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. [] [] ~Yes []No Page 14 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 poorly due to increased runoff). 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change [] [] I-1 Yes ONo Other impacts: [] [] []Yes [] No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11, Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) £xample$ 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. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES [] [] DYes [] [] []Yes r'=~ No [] [] DYes 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? Examples that would apply 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 located within the project site. Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory, [] [] r"'l Yes •No [] [] r~Yes •No [] [] ~Yes Page 16 of 21 Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: 1 Small to Moderate Impact Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? ENO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratoPj fish, shellfish or wildlife species. 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Large Mitigated by Impact Project Change [] []Yes ONo [] []Yes []No [] []Yes []No [] []Yes []No 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? ~ NO [] YES 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.) ]Yes []No []Yes DNo Construction activity would 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 OYes []No OYes []No 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 poorly due to increased runoff'). Other impacts: 1 Small to Moderate Impact [] 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Large Mitigated by Impact Project Change [] DYes •No [] DYes •No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) 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. [] []Yes F'~No [] []Yes []No [] []Yes •No Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: [] [] []Yes [] No ! IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12, Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? []NO []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action occurrin9 wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or Nationa~ Register of historic places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. [] [] •Yes •No [] [] •Yes •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 On December 30, 2005 the applicant submitted a report titled Cultural Resources Assessment The Hamlet at Cutchogue !!~!Y 1989!1 The report recommends further study. 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. [] []Yes •No [] [] []Yes •No [] [] []Yes []No Otherimpacts: 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. Examples 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: [] [] OYes []No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] OYes []No [] [] ~Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No Page 17 of 21 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? [] NO [] YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? •NO []YES 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. Other impacts: 1 Small to Moderate Impact [] [] 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change [] []Yes ["1 No [] []Yes •No [] DYes ON• [] []Yes •No [] []Yes •No [] DYes •No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? []NO []YES Examples that wou~d 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: I [] ~Yes •No [] DYes •No [] []Yes •No [] []Yes •No [] DYes •No 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? 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 reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids. Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. [] [] ~Yes •No [] [] []Yes •No [] [] []Yes •No [] [] DYes •No Other impacts: [] [] ~Yes •No The proposed action could result in moderate to large public health impacts (suspended particulates/dust, safety impacts) due to construction activities over a three-year period. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. VVill Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? 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 goals. 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 community. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) [] [] []Yes []No [] [] []Yes •No [] []Yes []No [] [] ~Yes DNo [] DYes []No [] [] []Yes [~]No Page 19 of 21 Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change ~ [] OYes []No Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ~ [] ~ Yes [] No Other impacts: [] [] ~Yes []No 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? []NO []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 Part 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions (If you need more space, attach additional sheets) Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1, Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: The probability of the impact occurring The duration of the impact Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value Whether the impact can or will be controlled The regional consequence of the impact Its potential divergence from local needs and goals Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. See A~ached. Page 21 of 21 ~ PART 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Lead Agency: Contact: Address: Town of Southold Planning Board Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 NYS Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Date: July 16, 2007 This notice is issued pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and Chapter 44 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant impact on the environment. This determination provides a description of the proposed project and outlines the considerations of the Board in making this determination: Title of Action: SEQR Status: The Heritage at Cutchogue Cutchogue, New York Type 1 Location: SCTM No.: The subject property lies in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. The subject property consists of a vacant 46.17-acre parcel located on the northwest comer of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road, in Cutchogue. The site is currently zoned Hamlet Density (HD). 1000-102-1-33.3 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application Description of the Proposed Action: This proposed action requires residential site plan approval for the development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings. The development is proposing affordable and market rate homes. The market rate homes are approximately 2,000 sq. ft. each and include a two (2) car garage. The project contemplates 278 parking spaces for the residential units; 260 parking spaces are allocated in the garages of the market rate units; 18 off- street parking spaces are allocated for the proposed affordable units. The proposed parcel is a vacant 46.17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on the northwest comer of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road in Cutchogue. Adjacent to the subject parcel are single-family residential properties to the west, farm and single-family residential properties to the north, farm property to the east and a mobile trailer park to the south. The proposed action also includes a clubhouse complex containing an 8,840 sq. ft. clubhouse, a 1,160 sq. ft. swimming pool, two 3,200 sq. ft. tennis courts, a 2,400 sq. ft. maintenance garage and gazebo. The clubhouse will consist ora community room with a food preparation area for catered events, game room, exercise room, manager's office, locker room and cabana. The clubhouse complex includes 45 parking spaces, including 2 handicapped parking spaces. Additionally, the proposed clubhouse complex includes a 15' x 45' loading dock and dumpster. A network consisting of 197,043 sq. ft. of manmade ponds and water circulation fountains is proposed to serve as a natural drainage/stormwater collection system. These retention ponds are proposed to be used as water supply for on-site landscape irrigation and water levels are to be maintained through the use of on-site wells. The proposed action consists of 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping, including the required minimum 30' landscape buffer along the property lines to the east and north and a 40' landscape buffer along the western property line. The proposed action includes various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements. The proposed action includes a security guard booth/gatehouse at the entrance of the community. Currently, the proposed action provides for a single entrance, including a connection of Spur Road to the west with School House Lane and Griffing Street to the south. Additionally, there is a proposed emergency access road that connects to Bridle Lane. The proposed action includes individual and shared sanitary systems. The proposed density and design will be subject to review and approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Additionally, a series of catch basins and wells are proposed throughout the site. Reasons Supporting This Determination: 1. The site has been evaluated in accordance with the Criteria for Determining Significance as contained in SEQRA 6NYCRR Part 617.7 (c). The proposed action has been evaluated through review of the following materials: Page 2 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application · Site plan, ERSAP, and yield map prepared by Nelson & Pope · Architectural drawings and landscape plans prepared by Charles W. Kuehn, Architect · Part I and II of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) · Site plan application · Traffic Impact Study and supplemental traffic information prepared by Nelson & Pope · Environmental Assessment Review prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. · Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by Robert J. Kalin (Archaeological Services Inc.) · Independent site inspection · Various correspondence from involved agencies · Planning Board deliberation on materials supplied by the Applicant, the Consultant, and Planning Staff and concerns made known to the Planning Board regarding potential impacts. Based upon this thorough review, the Planning Board identified potential significant adverse environmental impacts in connection with the proposed project. Additional supporting findings are provided below. The narrative below correlates with Part 3 Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts Form. 1. Impact on Land: Construction that will continue for more than one year. The proposed action would be constructed over a three-year phase construction schedule. The work will include the removal of vegetation from 46.17 acres. A development in which construction occurs over more than one construction season (usually Spring, Summer and Fall) to complete subjects the natural environment and community to construction-related impacts. The impacts (erosion, pollution, noise, dust, traffic and safety) may be significant. The anticipated construction, including construction schedule and duration, materials and storage/staging area, water and sewer systems connections, proper handling of construction waste, hours of operation and construction vehicle routes should be further evaluated. The term of impacts will be short and are expected to occur over the construction term. 5. Impact on Water: Public water is supplied to the Town of Southold by the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). However, the site itself is not specifically connected to public water. The SCWA has not issued a Letter of Water Availability for the action. The closest water main to the site is located on Depot Lane, northeast of the property. The main is served by the Suffolk County Water Authority's Evergreen Pump Station to the north and the State Route 25 transmission main via Bridge Lane and County Route 48. The applicant proposes to connect public water to the proposed project by extending a distribution line from the Depot Lane transmission main, 780 feet along Depot Lane south, and 1,137 feet west along Schoolhouse Road to the site. The potential long term impacts of this project with regard to water supply (including affects on the Evergreen Pump Station) and water quality must be assessed as the Town is faced with a limited Page 3 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application water supply. In addition the project must be assessed to the Suffolk County's Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold. The proposed project will require a Letter of Water Availability from Suffolk County Water Authority. Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater. Proposed action will use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. In 1978, the Long Island Regional Planning Board published the Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Study). The 208 Study identified eight (8) hydrogeologic zones in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. These zones were distinguished based upon differences in underlying groundwater flow patterns and water quality. The site lies within Groundwater Management Zone IV. The site is not served by public sewer. Sanitary disposal is proposed to be managed by on-site underground sewage leaching systems. The total proposed sanitary flow for the project is 21,615 gallons per day. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) allowable flow is 22,625 gallons per day. Consequently the proposal meets SCDHS Article 6 requirements, however, it is important to note that the properties located to the north and west of the site are served by private wells and impacts to groundwater, including subsurface directional flow must be evaluated. In addition, potential impacts to the shallow aquifer, the Suffolk County Water Authority's Evergreen Pump Station and existing water supply infrastructure must also be evaluated. Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water. The action will result in the creation of impermeable surfaces where none exist. The placement of fill has the potential to change drainage patterns in the project area. 8. Impact on Plants and Animals: The proposed action may substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species. The proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory wildlife species. The proposed project will result in the clearing of±46.17 acres of early successional habitat, causing localized impacts to vegetation and wildlife. Cleating and development impacts to vegetation and wildlife are cumulative and need to be taken into consideration. The loss of vegetation and associated impacts would be long term and irreversible. The proposed action may affect threatened and endangered species. Before a determination can be made about the possibility of impact mitigation, it must be determined if species exist on-site. The applicant has not conducted an endangered and threatened species survey nor has provided a response from the New York State Natural Heritage Program specifying the presence or absence of such species. If species exists on site, the potential impacts to such species could be significant or large and further Page 4 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application evaluation is necessary. If species of concern are found to occur on site, it may be possible to avoid the identified areas through re-design of the project. 10. Impact on Agricultural Land Resources: The parcel is comprised of Haven Loam (HaA) 0 to 2 percent slopes; Haven Loam (HaB) 2 to 6 percent slopes; Riverhead Sandy Loam (RdB) 3 to 8 percent slopes and Plymouth Loam,/Sand (PIC) 8 to 15 percent slopes. Dominant soil groups include Haven Loam and Riverhead Sandy Loam. Both Haven Loam and Riverhead Sandy Loam soils are well suited for crops. Haven Loam is a Type I Agricultural Soil. If the action is approved the, loss of these soils would occur. The loss would be long-term and irreversible. 11. Impact of Aesthetic Resources: Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. The proposed action may result in the permanent loss of aesthetic resources (successional, old field habitat and open space) important to the community. The potential impact is long term and irreversible. Mitigation of impacts could include the clustering of single family units into multi-family units to create open space and maximizing vegetative buffers along the perimeter of the property. 12. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources: Other: The project is located within a district of intensive pre-historic aboriginal habitation. The National Historic Site of Fort Corchaug as well as several other well doctunented prehistoric sites are located within a short distance to the parcel. The proposed action may impact a site of archeological importance. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYS OPRHP) has not evaluated the proposed project to determine if it is within an archeological and historically sensitive area. On December 30, 2005 the applicant submitted a report entitled Cultural Resources Assessment The Hamlet at Cutchogue (July 1989)(Attachment B). The report recommends that "Further study in the form of subsurface testing should be conducted to evaluate the potential....for the impact to both prehistoric and historic cultural evidence". Consequently, the presence or absence of archeological resources on site is unknown and, further assessment is required. If the action will impact archeological/cultural resources, it may be possible to re-design the project to avoid such areas. 13. Impact on Open Space and Recreation: The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. The proposed action would result in 46.17 acres of future recreational opportunity. The loss is potentially significant, long term and irreversible. Further assessment is required. Page 5 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application Mitigation to reduce such impacts could include the redesign of the project and clustering of the single family units into multi-family units to create open space that could be used for public recreational use. Further, the proposed action would result in the permanent, irreversible loss of 46.17 acres of future open space. The loss is potentially significant, long term and irreversible. Further assessment is required. Mitigation to reduce such impacts could include the clustering of the single family units into multi-family units to create open space and maximizing buffer widths along the perimeter of the parcel. 15. Impact on Transportation: Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. The proposed project may result in unsafe pedestrian movement from the subject parcel to nearby public streets due to the lack of existing pedestrian infrastructure and the proximity of the action to the Cutchogue Hamlet Center. Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Other: The applicant submitted a traffic analysis of the proposed action entitled "Traffic Study The heritage of Cutchogue" (July 2006). The mitigation proposed in the report is invalid. The proposed use is expected to increase traffic generation upon full development of the site as compared to existing conditions. Due to the increased traffic volumes and limited ingress and egress points from the site to primary and secondary roadways, an increase in trip generation on the site may have a significant or large impact on the area roadways. The applicant submitted a traffic analysis of the proposed action entitled "Traffic Study The Heritage of Cutchogue" (Jul,/2006) (Attachment A). The applicant hired Dunn Engineering Associates P.C. to perform a peer review of the traffic impact study. The peer review indicates that the study makes several mitigative assumptions to minimize impacts of traffic. Item 3, lines 6 through 9 states that "It should be noted that the results of the capacity analyses results for the intersection of Main Road at Depot Lane and Main Road at Griffing Street indicate that these two intersections are currently operating at less than desirable levels of service. At Depot Lane, the southbound approach to this intersection currently operates poorly, and traffic generated by the project will result in an increase in the delays incurred by vehicles on this approach. The study assumes that a traffic signal is to be installed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) at this location, and that as a result the intersection will operate at improved level of service. As discussed further on this report, the NYSDOT has no plans to install this traffic signal at this location." The review concludes that "...based upon the information that the NYSDOT does not anticipate the installation of this traffic signal, the study's assumption that site traffic and existing traffic will access Main Road via Depot Lane is not valid". Page 6 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application Based upon the above, the mitigation proposed within the report is invalid. Further, because the access to the proposed project is restricted, it is the position of the Planning Board that the proposed project combined with other nearby existing developments may create a cumulative impact on critical intersections and a more detailed traffic impact study is warranted. Further, traffic modeling, based upon comparable communities of the type proposed that have been implemented on Long Island, should also be conducted. In addition, the following concerns have also been identified: 1. Page 4. The study fails to consider addressing the possibility of development (housing) of the other Hamlet Business zoned parcels in proximity to the parcel in question. Page 4. The study fails to qualify what level of impact or substantial degradation in Level Of Service (LOS) is if the LOS from an F to F at an intersection results. Page 6. The study fails to qualify the seasonal adjustment factors of 1.14% & 1.19%, the groups used and how they were they established by the NYSDOT. The study is unclear if the seasonal adjustment factors are qualified to real traffic counts and land use representative of the locale. Page 6. The seasonal adjustment factors differ on a monthly basis, the study applied a 14% factor to the weekdays and a 19% factor to the weekend volumes; the selection of the factors by the NYSDOT is unexplained. It is unclear if the factors are representative of the locale. Page 7. Figure 3. The calculations could not be duplicated at the intersection of Griffing and State Route 25 (using the traffic count data and the seasonal adjustment factor). Page 8. The analysis of Table 3 indicates that "rear-end collisions maybe an indication of congested conditions or driver inattention and slippery/wet road conditions." Although the statement is made, no mitigation is proposed, which suggests that the congested conditions are acceptable at pre-build conditions and acceptable after-build conditions. The statement warrants further explanation. Page 14. The study indicates that currently the Main Road and Depot Lane intersection operates at a poor level of service (LOS F) during the PM and Saturday peak hours due to heavy traffic volumes on Main Road. It can be expected that following the build out of 139 units, the LOS would continue to worsen. Appendix D. Capacity Analysis/Level of Service Worksheets & Summary Table indicates that the level of service decreases in the Build Analysis 2007. The LOS at the southbound left turn currently operates at an F, following the Build Analysis the level of service Page 7 of 12 10. 11. 12. Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application again operates at F. The decrease of the LOS is a result of the increased vehicle trips in the area resulting from the proposed site plan. The significance of change relative to impacts from a LOS F to F is unclear and should be further explained. Page 15. Currently Main Road and Griffing Street operates at as a LOS F and E in the PM and Saturday Peak Hours. Appendix A indicates that the southbound approach operates at a LOS off under current conditions and following Build Conditions. Again, the significance of degradation at the intersection/impact is unclear and requires further evaluation\ and or mitigation. Page 16. The annual growth factor obtained from NYSDOT is 1.8%. The Planning Board questions if the growth factor takes into account land use and rate of development indicative of Eastern Long Island or the Town of Southold. Page 20. The Planning Board rejects the modeling of trip generation for the proposed action to Elderly Housing (detached) nationwide traffic modeling criteria used in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Elderly housing (detached) is restricted to senior citizens and may contain special services (medical facilities) on site. Additionally, in a December 11, 2006 letter to the Planning Board, the response to Comment #1 indicates that Land Use: 251 Senior Adult Housing-Detached statistical data was used. The two documents conflict. The action is proposed as an "Active Adult Community". The Planning Board is requesting that real data from a comparable use (Active 55 and older condominium community) located on Eastern Long Island be used to base the study trip generation modeling. Page 20. Is the AM peak hour used in the ITE Land Use Code for Elderly Housing (Detached) the same time as the AM peak hour used in the actual traffic count performed by Nelson & Pope (the same applies to PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour)? Would using different hours result in inaccurate data? Page 22. The 2007 Site Generated Weekday AM Traffic Volumes indicate that 6 vehicles will exit to Griffing Road and the State Road 25 intersection, 3 vehicles would exit Spur Road and 9 vehicles would exit the site via Schoolhouse Road and continue to the County Road 48 and the Depot Lane intersection. The vehicle trips seem low and routing unrealistic. The Planning Board questions the analysis and requests that real data be obtained and used (where possible) to model the vehicle trips and routing. Page 8 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application 13. 14. 15. Page 31. The study proposes mitigation (traffic control at Depot Road and Main Road). Mitigation of expected traffic impacts validates that the action may result in a potentially significant or large impact and needs to be further addressed. As confirmed with the NYSDOT the proposed above traffic control is not an option to mitigate traffic impacts. Altemative mitigation of traffic impacts must be evaluated and proposed. It is the Planning Board's position that the study fails to analyze the impact of the vehicle trips from Highland/Crown Land and Schoolhouse using Spur Road (if it is opened) as a means to access downtown Cutchogue and/or pass through to Depot Lane/C.R. 48 and NYS 25. The traffic impacts if Spur Road is opened/not opened have not been adequately addressed relative to the NYS Route 25 & Griffing Avenue intersection. 16. Other access alternatives should be considered. Such as, access directly from the proposed site to Depot Lane through the property to the east. Based upon the above, concerns and operations; the impact of increased traffic generation and the ability of area roadways to accommodate such traffic, vehicle access points (including emergency) and circulation and routing must be further evaluated. 16. Impact on Energy: Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or serve a major commercial or industrial use. The proposed project involves an increase in energy use. The increase in energy use could be significant. Impacts to local facilities should be analyzed. Mitigation to reduce thc impacts of energy consumption could include building homes to Energy Star and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDS) standards and/or applying dark sky standards to lessen the impact of energy consumed on-site. 17. Noise and Odor Impact: Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed action would remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. A potential moderate-to-large impact of(noise and dust) resulting from cleating of the parcel and construction activities, traffic and erosive fomes (wind, rain etc...) will occur to the adjacent community during the three-year phased construction schedule. The anticipated constmction, including construction schedule and duration, materials and storage/staging area, water and sewer systems connections, proper handling of construction waste, hours of operation and truck routes should be further evaluated. Page 9 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application Mitigation to lessen noise impacts could include the establishment of start and end times for all construction activity, using altemative construction or operational methods, equipment maintenance, selection of alternative equipment, physical barriers, siting of activities and by establishing greater set backs. Mitigation to lessen dust impacts could include the clustering of the single-family units into multi-family units to create open space, maximizing buffer width and planting of buffers with dense vegetation along the perimeter of the parcel and implementing a phased clearing plan and planting of cover crops (grasses) following the clearing of areas. 18. Impact on Public Health A potential moderate to large, short term impact to the health of adjacent property owners from (noise and dust) could occur due to the clearing of the parcel, construction activities and traffic. Impacts to the surrounding community must be mitigated during the three- year phased construction schedule. Mitigation to reduce noise impacts could include the establishment of start and end times for all constructions activity. Mitigation to reduce dust impacts could include the clustering of the single family units into multi-family units to create open space, maximizing buffer width and planting buffers with dense vegetation along the perimeter of the parcel. 19. Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood: Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. The site is currently vacant, undeveloped land located in an area that contains a mix of residential, agricultural and commercial land uses. The dominant land use in the area is residential with developments located to the north, southeast and west of the site. The Hamlet of Cutchogue Business Center is located directly south of the site. The proposed application is generally consistent with the surrounding land uses. In February 1994, the parcel was part of a review of Hamlet Density Zoning in Southold Town. At that time, the Executive Summary stated "Due to its location just north of the hamlet's traditional center, this parcel, when developed, is likely to strengthen the hamlet." The subject site is zoned Hamlet Density (HD) District. The purpose of the HD Residential District is to permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers, particularly Mattituck, Cutchogue~ Southold, Orient and the Village of Greenport. The district requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq.ft, with community water and 10,000 sq. ft. with community water and sewer. Lot coverage of 25% of the lot area is permitted with a minimum livable floor area of 850 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. Pursuant to Article XI, Cluster Development of the Town of Southold Town Code, there is no clustered open space proposed in the site plan design, however, should the Planning Board consider a cluster site plan with attached housing, a smaller development area would be established resulting in clustered open space and/or preservation of environmentally sensitive features. Page 10 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application Although, significant conflicts with land use or zoning are not expected, the project's compliance with the Town of Southold Town Goals and planning studies undertaken within the Town over the past 20 years must be further evaluated, specifically those adopted after 1994. Applicable planning studies are listed below: (a) Parks and Recreation & Open Space Plan (1982) (b) Master Plan Update, Background Studies (1984) (c) Master Plan Update (1985) (d) Town of Sonthold Comprehensive Plan (1985) (e) US/UK Stewardship Exchange Report (1991) (f) Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) (g) Southold Town Stewardship Task Fome Report (1994) (h) Stewardship Task Force (1994) (i) Seaview Trails of the North Fork (1995) (j) Peconic Estuary Program (1995) (k) Economic Development Plan (1997) (1) Southold Township Planning Initiates (1997) (m) Community Preservation Project Plan (1998) (n) County Route 48 Corridor, Land Use Study (1999) (o) Farm and Farmland Preservation Program: (1983-2002) (p) Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (2000) (q) Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (2000) (r) Scenic Southold Comdor Management Plan (2001) (s) Blue Ribbon Commission for Rural Southold (2002) (t) Town of Southold Generic Environmental Impact Statement (2003) (u) Local Waterfi'ont Revitalization Program (2005) (v) Town of Southold Hamlet Study (2005) (w) Community Preservation Project Plan (2006 Update) (x) The Long Island North Shore Heritage Area etc. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g Schools, Police, Fire etc.) On June 20, 2007, the Planning Board received a letter from the Cutehogne Fire District indicating that the "Board agrees with the placement of the 8 hydrants". However the access to the site has not been resolved and must be further evaluated. No response form the Southold Police Department has been received to date. The ability of the Cutchogne Fire Department to access the site, and the ability of the Southold Police to provide protection and timely response to the proposed development must be further evaluated. The site's unique proximity to the hamlet center, traffic concerns and loss of agricultural land may be affected by the proposed project and insufficient information has been provided in which to accurately assess significant environmental impacts that may be associated with the proposed project. Anticipated adverse impacts do not appear to he minimized or mitigated to the Page 11 of 12 Determination of Significance Heritage at Cutchogue Residential Site Plan Application maximum extent practicable. Alternatives to the proposed action that will reduce potential impacts should be examined. For Further Information Contact: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Town of Southold Planning Board 54375 NYS Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 765-1938 Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT A Dunn Engineering Associates P.C. Letter (March 2007) 0~/05/2007 ~2:~5 Dund Engineering P~E Thc H~ il. 0~,106!20~7 ~2~45 ~313~9'~0~0 84/05 Ttnmk you fa~:~ ~.nity ~ b~ ef ~dce, Ify~u beve my qUeeli~, or nee~ ~my f~t~et ~afen~tloa~ pl~ ~II me. VC:~s L~IZ9 II I'I[HIIIIIBI[[IHIIII III] IIIIII IIII IIII III , III ATTACHMENT B Cultural Resource Assessment The Hamlet at Cutchogue (July 1989) 'HREATS TO .DING: )wn [] f b. zoning .~'! :. tea< ;URROUN ) PF :. garage 'eel al-0'e ns' [] ':THE BU{EDiNG 7: (check more than one if necessat land [~] b.woodland flensely built'u0~ oc;~me~ial [] 'esidential D '~: INTERRELATIONSHIP OF BUILE i SURROUNDINGS: ~dicate If Bu diig'or s iucture s fn afl histori~cdistfic . ~_5~[,-.Part 'of rural stre~eape~Ac'ross from Our Lady of Ostrabrama 3THERNO]AB 5 FEATURES OF BUILD1NG'AND SITE One-and.a_half-~tory,double house;North section o~_.three :baT''and sou,th sectiOnbf:foUr~ s.'Small'~'i~do~s'~nde~ the eaves. ;NIFICANCE ~UILDER': ~.RCHITECTURAL IMPORTANC his building was the second Pc t~was T. Conklin e 'Office in _-- 21 SOURCES Intervie~ ith present owner,Mr. Cha~e}Map~of Sufloll~ County,1858 :~i' '; · 22. [HEME ; ~ ' -' ~o~m CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT (DOCUMENTARY SEARCH AND FIELD INSPECTION ) THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE SOUTHOLD TOWNSHIP SUFFOLK COUNTY, BEC 30 2005 NEW YORK ROBERT J. KALIN JULY 1989 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. BOX 1522. ROCKY POINT, NEW YORK 11778 17 ROSEVILLE AVE. Sr. JAMES, NEW YORK 11870 TEL: 516-744-8047 FAX 516-744-6617 tdhogne '. ":.;, k 290 000 .:, --,--,-L'..~-' ..- , '~t. I ~ ~ ~ '- ~' ' ~ ~'/~ ,~ ~ --'," ,, ." 0 % :% .%. ~. ~¥',. ¢%. ,..~ ~.- ,:,/ '' " ' '~, :,.,., ,..._ , ,.. , . ~ p 20" ~ ~ '~ ~'~ Country Club .~ ) ~?' '.~ '.":~ ~ ~ .~ ,x~ ~. -- ~ . . : ~ ~, ',._. ., , 4 ~ ' 00' ~ ~ 2 420 oo0 FEE 72030 x~ Happed, edited, arid ,C., ~,)¢(' Control by USC&GS ~ Topography from aerial publisned photographs by the G~eo~ogical by Ketsh plotter an, TH~ HA~L~T AT ~]~CHOGU~ ~, Sou~hold, Ne~ V~rk ABSTRACT The Hamlet at Cutchogue ia located north of Schoolhouse Lane in the Village of Cutchogue. The property is of generally low relief with an elongate depression and a small enclosed basin that at times holds standing water, The project area is located within a district of intensive prehistoric aboriginal habitation. The National Register of Historic Places site at Fort Corchaug, the Baxter Site and the Solecki Site are located within a short distance of the subiect parcel. The subject parcel is well within the near- hinterlands of these well documented sites. It is in this surrounding area where special purpose camps and satellite sites are likely to be found. A subsurface testing program should be initiated to evaluate the potential for prehistoric evidence on the parcel. In regard to historic sites, a number of these, including the National Register of Historic Places site known as the Old House of Cutchogue (1660). the Old Place (1680), the Wickham house (1700), and others are located within six- tenths of a mile of the center of the parcel, In addition, the pre-1800 Hargrave house and several mid-19th century vernacular farm houses, including the SPLIA cited and underscored Aldrich house (pre 1873) are located immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. Consequently. The Hamlet at Cutchogue site has potential for recovery of historic evidence related to early settlement and past farming activities. Further study in the form of subsurface testing should be conducted to evaluate the potential of this proposal for impact to both prehistoric and historic cultural evidence. / ASI 1 $ouChold, New ¥o~ coTr.~c~u~ Figure 1. Location map. ASI 2 THE HAMLET AT ~CflOGUE $outhold, New EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Hamlet at Cutchogue is a 46.2 acre proposed development site located north of Schoolhouse Lane in the Village of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. An elongate depression trends across the central portion of the project. A small enclosed basin is located in the southwestern portion of the gully system which may have held standing water in the past. Several farm roads are evident within the property. They probably served as access roads during the period that the parcel was cultivated. Some are presently overgrown with brush. The project area is located within a district of intensive prehistoric aboriginal habitation. The National Register of Historic Places site at Fort Corchaug as well as several other well documented prehistoric sites are located within a short distance of the subject parcel. The proposed project is well within the foraging zones of these sites, an area where special purpose camps and satellite sites are likely to be found. In reference to historic places, a number of these, including the National Register of Historic Places site known as the Old House of Cutchogue (1649-1660), the Old Place (1680), the Wickham house (c 1700) and others are located within a fraction of a mile of the parcel. In addition, the pre 1800 Hargrave house and several mid-19th century vernacular farm houses are found immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. One of these, the Aldrich-Kurczewski farm is recorded in the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities as an exceptional and very well preserved example of the type. The Hamlet at Cutchogue site has potential for recovery of both prehistoric and historic cultural evidence. Further research and study in the form of subsurface testing and analysis should be conducted to evaluate the potential impact of the project on both prehistoric and historic cultural evidence. ASI 3 THE HANLET AT i~TCHOGUE SouChold, Newark CONTENTS SUBJECT PAGE MAP OF SUBJECT AREA (150% enlargement U.S. G. S. Southold Quad, 1956) i ABSTRACT 1 LOCATION MAP 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 PROJECT INFORMATION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 7 ALTERATIONS TO THE PROPERTY 9 DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH 10 HISTORICAL NOTES ON STUDY AREA 14 VISUAL INSPECTION 19 SUMMARY 21 SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 23 RECOMMENDATIONS 23 REFERENCES 24 MAP REFERENCES 27 MAPS FIGURES 31 ADDENDUM 45 ASI 4 THE flA~L~T AT CUTCHOGUE $outhold, New rk PROJECT INFORHATION The Hamlet at Cutchogue is a proposed development site, consisting of 18.7 hectares (46.2 acres) and located north of Schoolhouee Lane in the Village of Cutchogue. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York. The plan calls for the construction of about forty condominiums, a clubhouse. recreation area, and access roads. A an approximately 1.4 acre buffer area is planned for the northwestern corner. ASI 5 $outhold, Ne~e,rk Figure 2. The Hamlet at Cutchogue proposed site ASI 6 THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE $outhold, New ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Topography The Hamlet at Cutchogue is in an area of generally little relief. Elevations range from less than 6 meters (20 feet) to more than 11 meters (36 feet) over the subject parcel. Topographically the parcel is dominated by a (now) dry portion of the distal drainage system of West Greek. An elongate depression trending N 40o W cuts across the central portion of the project area for a distance of about 300 to 500 meters. Slopes in the vicinity of this feature range from 8-10 % (percent grade). To the east the parcel rises to slightly higher ground along Depot Lane, the site of several farms and residences, and to the west, approximating the position of the western property boundary, is the low divide between Downs Creek Drainage and West Creek. A small enclosed basin of less than six meters (20 feet) elevation and about 15 meters in diameter is located in the southwestern portion of the parcel. This may have held standing water at times of high-stand of the water table. Local informants report that at times of heavy rain a pond forms in the depression. In 1954 its immediate surroundings were the only wooded portion on the parcel. Geology The geological history of the subject parcel is closely related to the Wisconsin glaciation of the Southold area. During the Ronkonkoma advance of the Wisconsin ice sheet the subject area was covered by a massive ice sheet. During the warming period between that advance and the advance of the Harbor Hill ice sheet, the Gutchogue area was mantled by extensive outwash deposits of water borne sand and gravel (See also Fuller 1914). Meltwaters cut and filled these deposits into a series of channels that later were inundated by rising sea water during the post glacial period. Those that intersected the shore line were later modified by 'long shore currents, drifting sand, tidal flow , etc. to form present day Little Creek, East Creek, Wickham Creek, West Creek, and Downs Creek. The drainage of West Creek, part of the earlier glacial channel, extends north across Main Street into the subject parcel. Soils The soils of the parcel are a mosaic-like pattern of Riverhead, Plymouth and Haven soils. The Plymouth and Riverhead components are associated within the more steeply sloping portions of the drainage gully of West Creek, while the areas of low relief are mantled in Haven soil. About 38% of the project area is Riverhead B and Plymouth C soils while ASI 7 SouChold, ~ew ¥ Soil Map Soll patterns in vicinity of the subject parcel. Warner, et. al. 1975. (Ha A = Haven A soils, P1C soils, Rd B = Riverhead B soils.) After =Plymouth C ASI 7A TH~ HA~L~T AT CUTCHOGUE Southold, Neff ~k the remaining 62 percent of the parcel is Haven A soil. The Haven soils are well drained medium textured soils, formed in a loamy or silty mantle over stratified sand and gravel. These are some of the most productive soils in the county and their presence helps to explain the historical attraction of early settlers to the district (See Warner et. al. 1975: 71, Sheet 48). The Haven series soils are suitable for many commonly grown crops, Uncultivated areas of this soil type generate a diverse natural vegetation. Prehistoric inhabitants may have been attracted to the area, in part, as a consequence of the soil productivity. Riverhead soils are moderately coarse textured, have moderate available moisture and low natural fertility. Drainage The project area is mostly well drained. However, there is a closed basin in the southwest corner of the parcel that is poorly drained. Vegetatlon The vegetation of the subject parcel, at the time of the field inspection (July 1989), was determined to consist of two botanical communities: former farm field and post agricultural forest. About 10% of the parcel is wooded and the rest (90%) is fallow or abandoned farm field and crop land. The vegetation of the open fields consists of various grasses and forbs common to this area. The wooded zone occupies the gully area and consists of various species common in a post-agricultural woodland. A partial list of species follows. Black Cherry Red Maple Field Cedar Sylva Bayberry Staghorn Sumac Multiflora Rose Shrub or Brush Poison Ivy Dew Berry Virginia Creeper Vines St, Johnswort Golden Rod Forbs ASI 8 I'H~ HA~LHT Al' UUTCHUGUE Southold, New rk Indian Hemp Milk Weed Little Bluestem Grass Timothy ?oxtail The forest zone of Oak-Pine Forest (Kuchler Forest Zone the subject parcel 1970). is: Northeastern Man-made Features Several farm roads are evident within the property. They probably served as access roads during the period that the parcel was cultivated. Some have been unused for several years and are presently overgrown with brush. Alterations Aside from clearing and farming the land and providing access roads to the fields for agricultural purposes, few significant alterations were observed. Previous Surveys None are known to have been conducted. ASI 9 TItE HAMLET AT Cg~CHOGUE Southold, New DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH Site Files and Known Early Historic Sites Prehistoric Gonzales and Rutch (1979) list this area as archaeologically sensitive as a result of its location in a zone of "intensive aboriginal habitation" (Gonzales and Rutch 1979: 13). Parker records a number of sites within this general area. The most well known is the fortified village site, sometimes known as Fort Corchaug (National Register of Historic Places), located on the east side of Fort Neck, and a village site near the shore, east of Cutchogue (Parker i920: 698). These sites are respectively about 2.2 km (1.4 miles) and 2.8 km (1.8 miles) from the center of the project site. The Baxter Site, a prehistoric residence site, (discovered by Ralph Solecki in 1938) is located about 2 km (1.25 miles) south-southwest of the subject parcel (See Ritchie 1965:166). The Solecki Site, a burial or cemetery site of the Orient Culture, was discovered by Ralph Solecki in 1960 east of Downs Creek near the shore, not far from Kimogener Point, about 2.2 km (1.4 miles) south of the proiect area (See Ritchie 1965:174). Other well known sites occur along the west shore of Mud Creek and the east side of Cutchogue Harbor less than 3 km (1.9 miles) southeast of the project site. Historic An early windmill and the Cutchogue Meeting House were located along Main Street just 0.7 km ( 4/10 of a mile) southeast of the project site (See Moore 1797 map). The Old House (Budd and Horton 1649-1660), The Old Place (Wells 1680), the Wickham House (c 1700), Wines-Horton-Slater House (c 1750) and the site of the Wells home (1753) are all located within 1 km (6/10 of a mile) of the center of the subject parcel (See Map of Historic Sites of Southampton Town Prior To 1815, Southold Bicentennial Committee). A pre 1800 frame structure built on a rock foundation, and barn dating to about 1860 (See SPLIA file Cu 105), presently owned by Alexander Hargrave is located on immediately adjacent property northwest of the subject parcel. The Aldrich- Kurczewski house, constructed prior to the last quarter of the 19th century (the earliest known owner was George Aldrich) is located immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities (SPLIA) files indicate it is.,."an exceptionsl example of the mid-19th century farm. The farmhouse and all ASI 10 THE HAMLET AT ~TCHOGUE Southold, New ~rk barns and out buildings appear to be in an almost unaltered state. (See SPLIA Files Southold, Cu 93: 18, also See Addendum), The Conklin-Gorman house is adjacent to the subject parcel on the north. It was the second Post Office in Cutchogue and appears on the Chase 1858 and Beers 1873 maps (See SPLIA file in Addendum). The F. M. Mc Carthy house, another mid 19th century farm house continues to stand to the northwest of the subject parcel, along the east side of Alvahs Lane, within 1 km of the Hamlet at Cutchogue site (See SPLIA Cu 88 and Cu 89). A number of other houses listed in the SPLIA files are within a short distance of the project (See SPLIA Map and Insert in Addendum). MAP REFERENCES 1. Th__e_ ~D~lish Pilot, Fourth Book, 1689, by John Thornton. %his relatively crude map of the area does depict the major features of the north fork, such as: Robins Island, Hog Neck, Little Hog Neck (not named), and with some imagination, Broadwater Cove, East Creek, Wickhams Creek and West Creek. Cutchogue is not indicated. See Map Figure 1. 2. The New England Coastlna Pilot, 1734, Southack. This map indicates the presence of Southold Village and (by house symbols) the location of East Cutchogue to the east of Little }log Neck, near Hog Neck Bay. Further residential symbols occur on the north shore facing the Sound. See Map Figure 2. 3. The William Fadden Map of 1779 is not as accurate as the Southack map and tends to represent the coastline rather fancifully. Its function was apparently not for coastal piloting, but probably for general informational or land advertisement use. It does represent interior features such as roads and village centers in somewhat more detail than the earlier maps which emphasized maritime travel. Southold is noted, as is Hog Neck. Cutchogue, a thriving community by this date, is not noted on the map. See Map Figure 3. 4, Plan of Long Island in New York Government, North America. The scale is 6 miles to an inch. British Map of Long Island, Revolutionary War Period. No Date. No Author noted. On file at SUNY, Stony Brook Historic Map Collection. This map was carefully drawn and the outline of the Island and the main drainage systems are close to modern representations. If the increments figured along the length of the map are in inches, as one suspects, then the map is quite accurate for cartography of its time. It represents the distance from Old Man's (Mount Sinai) to Horn Tavern as about 13 miles, while the actual distance, using contemporary ASI 11 TH~ HA~L~T AT CUTCHOGU~ $outhold, Ne~ k topographic maps, is closer to 10 miles. This map is very similar in certain respects to the Fadden Map. It may have been used as the pattern from which the Fadden Map was drawn, and may predate that map. It correctly represents the major coastline features. No indications of structures or cultural features are indicated in the study area. See Map ~igure 4. 5. The Townships of New York State were mapped in 1797. The 1797 Survey of Southold Township, was prepared under the supervision of Thomas Moore. This map clearly delineates the shoreline and Main Street of late 18th century Southold. Four wind mills, a meeting house, a school house and a residence are indicated along Main Street. No residences or roads are indicated for the subject parcel. See Map Figure 5. 6. ~REL M~.p. p~_ ~.~_ notes the location of Main Street and a cluster of houses on both sides of the road in the vicinity of present-day East Cutchogue. A smaller cluster of buildings was located on the north side of the road in an area just north of Wickhams Creek in what is now considered Cutchogue proper. No residences are noted in the vicinity of the subject parcel. See Map-Figure 6. 7. The area was surveyed by the U. S. Coastal Survey in 1836. /his generally excellent map indicates the location of houses, churches, barns, field systems, vegetation patterns, etc. This map provides information about the location of East Creek and Wickhams Creek which were surrounded by marsh and lightly wooded areas. Most of the rest of the district was cleared land, including the subject parcel. Several houses are noted along the north side of Main Street including a church, probably the present day Presbyterian Church. What appears to be the A. R. Tuthill house is located along New Suffolk Road. Another house is found to the east, just north of Wickhams Creek. No structures are noted in the area north of Main Street in the vicinity of the subject parcel. See Map Figure 7. 8. The Travellers Map of 1852 has generalized information concerning the location of roads and residences. It provides a suggestion of a cluster of houses without indicating the exact location of individual residences. The map figures a cluster west of the intersection of present day Depot Lane and Main Street. The rail line is indicated as well as a house along the west side of Depot lane. This may be the Aldrich house which is more precisely located in later maps. There are no indications of structures in the actual area of the subject parcel. See Map Figure 8. ASI 12 THE fl~£~l' ~1' UVl'~flO~V~ Southold, Ne~ ~[~k 9, The Chase Map of 1858 provides some information on the residents and property owners. This map documents the other surnames other than (J. T.) Gould are noted in the area. The T. Conklin house is noted but not attributed to an owner, while the Aldrich house is not represented. A number of residences and shops are indicated along both sides of Main Street. No structures are noted on the subject parcel See Map-Figure 9. 10. The Beers Comstock and Cline Map of 1873. This map clearly notes the major land holders in the area east of Alvahs Lane and west of Depot Lane, north of Main Street the area within which the subject parcel is sited. G. Aldrich is noted as owner-resident on a parcel in the southeast corner of this area. We can presume that Aldrich T. J. Conklin, and N. Champlin were probable owners of part or ali of the subject parcel at about this period. No structures or residences are noted for the subject parcel. [~ee Map-Figure 10, !I. Bel~hgr ~3d_e Ma~ of. i~Q? indicates the presence of the Aldrich property, house and barn. The property to the south was that of J(as) Wlckham. C. Williamson owned adjoining property to the west. Williamson's and Aldrich's property ad ioined the Dayton Estate to the west. The parcel that <emprises the present Hamlet at Cutchogue probably consists of part of both the G. Aldrich Estate and the C. Williamson prol~ertv. See Map-Figure 11, i2. Atlas of Suffolk County, Dolph and Stewart 1929, indicates little change over the 1909 map. The Aldrich parcel is listed as the Aldrich Estate. We may assume that by this date George Aldrich was deceased. Wickham and Dayton continue to own large portions of adjoining property. 3otable is the increase in Polish and other Slavic surnames in the record, Apparently the period between 1909 and 1929 was one of intensive acquisition of property by relatively recent immigrants to Cutchogue. See Map-Figure 12. 13. U__. S. Army Map Service, Southold Quadrangle, 1947. This map depicts little change for the subject area. It notes the elongate depression that dominates the topography of the subject parcel. The presence of a new school, a new church (Our Lady of Ostrabrama). and a cemetery are all noted in the area immediately surrounding the subject property. No structures are depicted within the subject parcel. See Map- Figure 13, ASI TH~ HA~L~T AT CUTCHOGUE Southold, Ne~ ~k 14, ~_~_ S_~._ ~eological Survey, ~outhold Quadrangle, 1956. In the period after 1947 North Street and Schoolhouse Lane were constructed. This road served several new structures located west of the school. Sometime after 1956 Griffin Street was cut through just west of North Street. This road provides a~-~ss to the subject property, More recently a trailer park and further development for homesites has occurred along School House lane. No structures are noted within the subiect parcel. See Map-Figure 14. HISTORIC NOTES ON THE STUDY AREA EARLY HISTORY OF SOUTHOLD Sometime prior to 1640, a band of Puritan colonists, led by the Reverend John Youngs, set out from New Haven and settled "Yennecock". a place known by the English as Southold. The place included "all that tract of laud situate lying and being the Eastward end of Long Island and bounded with the River called in the English toung the ~<eading Kreek. in the Indian tong Pauquaconsuk, on the west, 'fo and with Plum Island on the East .... with the Sound called the North Sea on the North, and with, a River or arme of the sea on the East...on ye South. together with...all necks of lands meadows. Islands .... rivers Kreeks with timber, woods a!%d woodlands, fishing fouling, hunting ...... (Quoted from Indian Deed of 1665 where-in forty-three Indians confirmed the Town's right to the several tracts involved which had bee~ "previously purchased procured and paid for of the schaems and Indians our ancestors" (Craven 1906:14). In his "History of Southold", Rev. Epher Whitaker, notes that "the settlement here was so old in the Autumn of 1640 that Richard Jackson. who had cultivated his land and built his house and other improvements here, desired at that time to sell, and did sell his dwelling house, and all his other improvements, as well as his land within the Town, only four days after the date of the organization of the First Church of Southold (Whitaker 1881: 41). One wonders if the Reverend Whitaker had not confused a deed from James Ferret to Richard Jackson dated August 15, 1640 in which a parcel of about 150 acres of land was deeded to Richard Jackson by the Earl of Sterling's Deputy (James Farrett) for a certain some of money to me hand paid ..... (and)..a pep. of corne every yeare for the fifty acres: and also .... a penny an acre for all the hundred acres before mentioned. The description of the land does indicate that some of it may have been improved land and thus nad been occupied earlier than August 1640. Thus, this supports the contention of Whitaker that Southold and (not Southampton) is the oldest town on Long Island. ASI 14 Southold, ~ew rk THE DIVIDENDS At a Town Meeting held November 20, 1661. it was decided that all common lands at Oysterponds (Orient), Corchaug (Cutchogue), Mattatuck (Mattituck) and Occabauck (Aquebogue-- lands west of Mattituck to the Brookhaven Line) be divided into lots so as to encourage development of outlying lands and at the same time providing that the common land should continue to be used as common pasturage. It seemed convenient to make three great divisions of land. One of these, east of the settlement and extending to Orient was known as Oysterponds. A much larger "Dividend" lying to the west of this was known as the Corchaug Dividend, which extends to Canoe Place at Mattituck. The Occabauck Dividend was divided into three areas, one in the east known as the First Division in Occabauck and the Second and Third Dividends to the west, all the way to Wading River (Craven 1906: 28-29). At the time of the great division there were according to Craven (op. clt,:29), about 51 heads of households in Southold. There were 38 Lots in Occabauck and nineteen owners. The Lots were large, extending from Sound to Bay, forty rods wide (660 feet) and each containing two- hundred and fifty acres or more. Those settlers allotted lots in Occabauck were : William Wells (3 lots), John Budd (4 lots). John Swazey (4 lots), Joseph Horton (4 lots). William Halliock (Hallock) was listed as being allotted 2 lots. Ihe Corchaug Lots did not extend from Sound to Bay but were divided by the King's Highway. Those north of the Hi~hwal~ ( in the area of the Hamlet at Cutchogue) were about 30 rods wide (495 feet) and tapered to the Sound and about 100 to 120 acres each. South of the highway, the land of the Corchaug Dividend lies in six large "necks" which were separated by creeks opening from the Bay: the most easterly is Poole's Neck, and toward the west-- Robin's Island Neck, Corchaug Neck, Fort Neck, Pessapunk Neck and Reeve's Neck. The Corchaug and Fort Necks were the home ground of the local Indians. On Corchaug Neck was the site of their village and on the other--appropriately called Fort Neck--they built a stockade or fort where they would retire with the women and children, in time of conflict. A hollow in the ground, some three or four rods (50 feet) across, surrounded by traces of an embankment still marks the site of the fort on the east side of the neck, near the creek that separates it from Robin's Island Neck (See Craven 1906). The settlers found the necks --for the most part-- already cleared land. Since the land was level and tillable and needed only plowing, while surrounding wooded land had to be cleared---a very laborious process-, the land on the Necks was very valuable and it quickly became cut up into small twenty acre lots. For many years a twenty acre lot in this ASI 15 THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE $outhold, Ne~ "Old Indian Field" or Corchaug Broad Field. was more valuable than hundreds of acres of Craven 1906). as it was called, woodland (See CUTCHOGUE The name Corchaug refers to both the prehistoric native American residents and to the tract of land on which they lived. According to Tooker the term means the "principal place or home ground" (Tooker 1961: 58). This was the name (Corchaug) they gave to the neck that lies just to the south of the present village of Cutchogue. To the west, on an ad%oining neck of land (now known as Fort Neck) they built a ~,~iisaded enclosure to which they retired with their women and children when they were threatened by enemies. On Corchaug Neck were also located other sites and a burial ~,!ace. Fort Corchaug was well known during the contact period and early historic times and many of the early cc, ionists must have visited the place. Cutchogue was the first of Southold's colonies, it having been settled in 1660. The Old House in Cutchogue. built in 1649 by John Budd (in Southold). was moved -- probably by ox cart--to Cutchogue in 1660. The house was owned by the Horton Family and later, during the Revolutionary War. it was the home of the Tory Supervisor. Parker Wickham. In 1680 the son of William Wells built a house just south of Main Street which survives to this day as '/he Old Place" (See Map of the Historic Sites of Southold Town Prior to 1815. Southold Bicentennial Committee. Southold. New York). The settlers used Little Hog Neck as common grazing ground. Early in the village history they concentrated their agricultural activities on the necks of land that were fertile, well watered, and less heavily wooded (or non-wooded) than the lots in the interior. Thus the earliest homes appear to have been concentrated close to the King's Highway (Main Street) between Moores Lane and New Suffolk Road. just a short distance south of the subject parcel. EARLY HIGHWAYS Very soon after 1640. a highway was laid out from Southold Village westward to Cutchogue and beyond to the head of Peconic Bay, to meet a highway from Southampton. This road was known as the King's Highway. Since it was the main trmffic corridor along the interior, it was the site of most of the early construction of houses and shops in the ~utchogue area. In time. it cut across the entire length of the island. In some places on the island (such as in Brooklyn) it is still called Kings Highway. In 1655, the ASI 16 THE HA~L~T Al' Southold, Ne~ Brookhaven settlement, which adjoined Southold on the west at Setauket (there was no Riverhead until after the Revolutionary War) was established and a "Setacut Road" was built through the woods soon after that date, to that settlement. This latter road was to become the North Road. A record of its pathway is preserved in Liber A, p.142, Suffolk County Deeds... an "Act of the Govern't Councill and Representatives of the Colony of N Yorke made in ye second veare of reign of our sovergn Lady Anne" (1703) .... for ye laying out Regulating clearing and preserving publick common hv~h ways throughout ye sd Colony". ..... " The high way from ye towne of Southold to ye westward farms on ye north side to 5e Ye usuval road to Mattatuck and soe on ye northside of ye ~-,ond in ye way lately marked out to ye usual road leading to Richard Howells and from thence in ye usual road to ye beach snd se on Ye beach to ye fresh pond and to ye place called wadina river" Thus we can assume that by the early part of the 18th t~nt =tv the land that was to become the Hamlet at Cutchogue ~as part of a thriving settlement w~th several homes, and was weii served by public roads and by sheltered waterways. THE ALDRICH FAMILY ~rom several sources, we know that the Aldrich family, probable first settlers and early owners of much of the sub iect parcel, were early residents of the Town. The first mention of the Haldrich (Aldrich) name occurs in a 1683 rate list for the Town. In it Peter Haldrich (Aldrich) is listed. ["A rate llst for 1683 lists the following names: William Reeves. Thomas Tuston, Theophilus Curwin, Thomas Mapps, James Reeves, Thomas Terr~l, Peter Haldriag (Aldrich), Thomas Osman, W~lllam Haliock. Thomas }!aiiock. John Swazey, Joseph Swazey"(Craven 1906:68-69).] Peter maw have arrived from the New Haven Colony or from 5ngland sometime after 1662. By 1683 he was a tax-paying member of the colony. Sometime prior to 1683 he had married ~ne of the daughters of 3ohn Swazey and taken up residence, probably on a parcel originally allotted to 3ohn Swazey and noted as the second or double lot of John Swazey in the first dividends, We know that 3ohn Swazey did not llve on that let--he resided on a lot further west--and his will, drawn in 1092 does not list this lot ---thus we may assume that sometime prior to 1692 he had sold or given this parcel to nfs son-in-taw, Peter Aldrich. It is likely that Peter was the first to clear and build a home there. Peter Aldrich dzed soon after Swazey's death in 1692. The Aldrich family continued to reside in the western end of Southold, west of Howards Creek in Mattituck. In time, members of the Aldrich ASI 17 $outhold, New rk clan became scattered throughout Southold. George Aldrich, a scion of the family, moved east to Cutchogue to purchase land sometime in the mid-19th century. Sometime after 1858 and before i873 (probably about 1866) Aldrich bought a parcel of land west of Depot Lane in Cutchogue where he established a ~enerat farm. HISTORY OF SUBJECT PARCEL The Wells family maw have been the earliest owners of the parts of the subiect parcel. William Wells was an early resident of the Town: his son built the 01d Place in 1680 on the south side of Mains Street. Another Wells owned a house at the corner of present-day Depot Lane and Main Street (now Jemoiished). We know that the original lots north of the ~li~hwa~' were about 495 feet (about 150 meters) wide and ~anered to the Sound. If Wells held more than one lot as is likely, this area, measured west from the site of the Wells ~oule at the corner of Depot Lane and Main Street would have included part of the subject parcel. Thus it is possible ::n~ ti~e Hamlet at Cutchogue parcel was first owned by the ~e±!s family. We can assume that the 1753 Wells residents !~nd their neighbors to the west) probably cleared and farmed the land north of Main Street. There is unfortunately little fir~ ~vidence for events of this period, and we can only assume that there was a good deal of buying, selling and trading of land in that early period. About 85 years later (1838) we can confirm, through documentary evidence, that the ~rea both north and south of the highway was cleared land. By about 1844 the Long Island Rail Road began service to the district. Access to the rail road opened vast markets in ~he urbanized western portions of the island to local farmers and far ranging adjustments in the local economy to the new agricultural opportunities. No longer was it necessary to emphasize subsistence-type farming, and sa~el¥ stored agricultural products such as wool, flax and ~rains. With the rail llne near-by perishable crops such as vegetables, root crops, eggs and meats could be grown and quickly shipped to the urban areas with good profit. Thus lands suitable for such agriculture -- intensive cash crop farmiug, particularly north of Main Street near the rail line. were purchased by this new breed o~ cash crop aericutturist. One of the earliest families to settle in the area along Depot Lane, north of Main Street, was the ionklins, who may have purchased land from earlier Wells or luthill proprietors in the district. Conklin's farm house is -ocated northeast of the subject parcel. Sometime between z860-1870. George Aldrich, a scion of one of the first set~lers of the %ownship. purchased land along Depot Lane ~ uth of the T. J. Conklin ~arm. He farmed the level productive soils atoag Depot lane for nearly five decades. ~'ie know that the farm continued ~n operation under George ASI 18 $outhold, Ne~ rk Aldrich's management until at least the first decade of the 20th century. By the third decade of this century the property was listed as part of the George Aldrich Estate (See Map-~igure 12). The estate was divided up among heirs, and the farm as well as a substantial amount of the land was inherited by George Young, Portions of the original farm may nave been sold at this time by other heirs. We presume that the western part of the Aldrich farm became a significant ~,ortion of the present Hamlet at Cutchogue property. Other elements may have come from the Willamson and Dayton estates. Mr. Kurczewski, a Polish immigrant, first settled in chi!adelmhia and later moved to Cutchozue where he met his wzfe, married, and found empJoyment as a farm laborer on the iieet Estate. Later, he worked for Mr. George Aldrich as a field ha!~d and teamster on the Aldrich farm, during the early ~,arr of the century, He continued on after the death of Mr. Aldrich, while it was managed by Mr. Young, Kurczewski's fiau~hzer. Bertha, remembers the place as a child, where her rzther worked and where she sometimes accompanied h~m on his imore£. Accordin~ to her, it was managed as a general farm. :!er father worked the fields with horse-drawn machinery. i!zik cews were raised, as well as field crops grown, such as ~ozatoes and cabbages. Young, who had other lands and wished to sell the Aldrich property, encouraged Kurczewski to buy !ne farm. According to Bertha, his daughter, Kurczewski, t~ough he loved the place, could not afford it at that time. Lventually. the farm was sold to the Sinuta family who had anothe~ farm in Orient where they resided. According to Bertha Kurczewskl, they did not live on it or work it, but continued to live in East Marion. A number of families ~ented the farm house from the Sinutas over a period of years. At one time a Mr. Baxter lived there and later it was used as the residence and office of a physician -- Dr, Linowitz. Kurczewski continued to work on the farm and lease some of the farm land over this period. Around 1940, at the urgings of the Sinuta family, who were eager to sell, Mr Kurczewski purchased the property which has been in his family since that time. At the present. Miss Bertha Kurczewski is the owner. She proudly claims that she mazntains the house and buildings, as well as a substantial ~a~den and parts of the surrounding property by her own iabor. (B. Kurczewski, pets, comm. July 1989), VISUAL INSPECTION A visual inspection was conducted in July 1989. At shat time a videotaped record of the inspection was produced i~zs Js available from Archaeological Services Incorporated Most of the study area is crop land or A brushy gully extends through much of the the subject parcel. The vegetation in this former crop land central portion of area suggests ASI 19 $outhold, 8e~ 7k that at times it may hold standing water. The slopes near this feature are relatively steep and the soil here is gravelly. Several farm access roads and former road traces were noted. No standing structures were observed. Dense brush and thickets of Bittersweet and Poison Ivy prevented closer inspection of deeper portions of the gully. ASI 20 THE HA~L~T AT~TCHOGUE Southold, New~[~rk SUMMARY The Hamlet at Cutchogue proposed development site, is an 18.7 hectares (46.2 acres) parcel located north of Schoolhouse Lane in the Village of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The subject property is of generally low relief. An elongate depression trending N 400 W cuts across the central portion of the project area for a distance of about 300 to 500 meters. A small enclosed basin of less than six meters (20 feet) elevation and about 15 meters in diameter is located in the southwestern portion of the parcel. This may hold standing water at times. The soils of the parcel are a mosaic-like pattern of Riverhead. Plymouth and Haven soils. About 38% of the project area is Riverhead B and Plymouth C soils while the remaining 62 percent of the parcel is Haven A soil. The project area is mostly well drained. However, there is a closed basin in the southwest corner of the parcel that is poorly drained. The vegetation, at the time of the field inspection (July 1989), was determined to consist of two botanical communities: former farm field and post agricultural forest. About 10% of the parcel is wooded and the rest (90%) is fallow or abandoned farm field and crop land. The vegetation of the open fields consists of various grasses and forbs common to this area. The wooded zone occupies the gully area and consists of maple and cherry and other species common in a post-agricultural woodland. Several farm roads are evident within the property. They probably served as access roads during the period that the parcel was cultivated. Some are presently overgrown with brush. The project area is located within a district of intensive aboriginal habitation. The National Register of Historic Places site at Port Corchaug as well as several other well documented prehistoric sites are located within a short distance of the subject parcel. In terms of historic sites, a number of these, including the National Register of Historic Places site known as the Old House of Cutchogue, and several others of near contemporary age are located within a kilometer of the parcel. In addition, a pre 1800 house and several mid-19th century vernacular farm houses are located immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. One of these, the Aldrich-Kurczewski farm is recorded in the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities as an exceptional and very well preserved example of the mid-19th century farm. ASI 21 TIlE tlAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE Southold, New ~k There is little documentary evidence for the subject parcel before 1797. However by this date we can document the presence of a number of windmills, a school and a meeting house within a short distance of the subject parcel. No structures are indicated within the study area from cocumentary evidence. Part of the subject parcel may have ~en originally part of the Wells lot. The Wells family had ~% house on the corner of Depot Lane and Main Street in 1753. ~ !836 most of the district had been cleared of woodland and ~>ut to the plow. We can assume that most or all of the ~ub]ect parcel was cleared land, and part of the Tuthill or ::ou!d family farms at this date. Intensive cash crop _:~ming began soon after the advent of the railroad in 1844. !'a~zure lands were converted into crop lands. Prior to i$50. the Conklin family, followed by the Aldrich family, ~urchased laud for such farming along Depot Lane. near the cen~er of Cutcho~ue and close to the rail line. 'fhe subiect :,~rcel was at that time part of several properties which may n:.'-e included the Aldrich, Champlin and Conklin farms. By ~57., £everal other farms had been established in the ,,±cinitv. Early in the 20th century some of these were --urchased by wealthy businessmen from orban areas to the west for £?eculation or to develop as model farms or as country e£tates. Ihe Dayton Estate west of the Aldrich farm may have zeen in this category. Changes in farming and economics Drought changes to the district. Numbers of Poles and other 5!a~'ic immigrants settled in the area between 19OO and 1930. !ney ~eneraily were excellent horsemen and teamsters, were knowledgeable and familiar with crop farms, and were dependzb!e and hard working. The)' quickly rose from farm labc, rers to farm owners. Most of the earlier Aldrich. ~'~.~-~-i ,.,.~ .... n and Champlin farms were taken over by these 20th ~enturv farmers. Durin~ this period, chan~es in the economy and in farming management encouraged farmers to dispose of !ese ~,roductive farm plots and concentrate resources on large more 17, roductive acreages. As a consequence, a number of lots were sold off or left fallow. These parcels were to become ~,~ailab!e for development later in the century. No structure sites are documented within the subject parcel. ASI 22 Southold, New rk SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT Prehistoric The subject parcel is in a general area of intensive aboriaina! activity, Several large, well documented sites are found within a half-hour walk of the subject parcel, Thus according to present archaeological models, it is located well within the normal activity zone (or near hinterland) of more than one prehistoric residence site. These hinterland areas were used for hunting, exploitation of natural. mineral, and plant resources, and sitin~ of special purpose an~ satellite campsites, Modern archaeological theory underscores the importance of these "off site" activity zones and satellite camps in developing a more realistic, complete, t!naers~anding of the culture, settlement patterns, and ~daPtations of prehistoric native Americans. The Hamlet at :i'atciic, aue marcel has potential for recovery of prehistoric cultural evidense due to its proximity to prehistoric coastal 5ii,J es~li,~rille residence bases, the presence of an enclosed b==~,'. which may have held standing water in the past. and en~-ironmenta! variations which enhance exploitation of game miner.n! 5ed plant resources. !'houah no structures were documented for the parcel, it is in an area intensively used for over three centuries, ~,_ulhern portions of the parcel closer to Main Street were r, robabiv cultivated by early settlers who were allotted r. ropertv alon~ Main Street. Nineteenth century farmers were active west o~ Depot Lane. The parcel has potential for receverv of historic evidence related to past farming activities, such as field lines, ditch and mound boundaries, mhd possible outlying structure sites, RBGOMMBNDATIONS Purther study in the form of subsurface testing should [.e conducted to evaluate the potential of this proposal for impact to both prehistoric and historic cultural evidence, ASI 23 ~u~bo~d, ~e. Y~k REFERENCES Bavles, Richard M, 107z, Histo~.jcak ~nd Descriptive Sketches of Coun.ly_~ W. A. Overton, Port Jefferson, York Suffolk New ~harles i. (Rev.) A History of Mattituck. Long Island, New York Published bY the author. ?iattituck, New York Pleistocene geology of eastern Long Island, New York: Amer. Jpqf. ~¢j.~. Vol 262, pp 355- ~76 [lint. P./chard foster i,)_=7 Glacial and Pieis~q~.9_n9 G.eglogy. Son~_ . New Yc. rk John Wiley ~he G.eologv of L.ong %s.~.a~_d. New ¥9~k United States Geol. Survey Prof. Paper # 82. U. S. G~v. Printina Office. Wash. D. C. ~-onza!es. £1iice B and Ed S. Rutsch i978 Su.{fo~k County ~9.~%ural. R%squrces ~yen%orv. Suffolk County Arch. Assoc.. Drawer AR. Stony Brook. New York ! 97 8 Niet A $i~a~ Club .N_e!~ 5_~glaD_d_. Sierra Glub Books. San Francisco Ca. Ka!in. Robert Archaeolomy of Glacial Kettle Holes in North Central Suffolk County. New York. %be ~_~I__._ ~_~¢ S~z 9{. A--r~-~ for ~l ~ork Stat~ No. 86 pp 31-36. New York State Arch. Assoc.. Rochester. Ka!iu. Robert , !n Press ) J. and Kent Lightfoot The Remsen Hill Site, Mount Sinai, New York :A Preliminary Excavation. ~h_e_ .~.~. of Arch= ~O~ ~9~. ~or~k_ Sta~D.. New York State Arch. Assoc.. Rochester. l,.alin. Robert J., Kent Lightfoot and James Moore ASI 24 Southold, Ne~ i98'.') Soil Patterns and Prehistoric Island, New York, Sub to Man ~9.rt_h~_~ Albany, New York Sites on Long in the !970 !<urczewski , L ±;~,ht foot . Atlas of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior. Washington. D. C. pp. 89-91. Bertha Personal Communication, Cutchogue, Lives on Depot Lane Kent; Robert Kalin. Owen Lindauer and Linda Wicks Coastal New York Settlement Patterns. Northeast No. 30 pp 59-82. )..~ther. Fredrick G. The Refugees of 1776 from Long Isl~kd ko Con!~ec~cut,_ J. B. Lyon Co,. Albany. New York. Francis Discoverinm sites unseen, In: 3dv.~!LcX~_ in 4Ec~ha_ep.l_qj~j_ca_t Meth_o_~ a_nd_ %h~ecly~ ed: Michael Schlffer. pp 223-2'29. Vol. 7. Academic Press. New York. Jack Regional sampling in archaeological survey: The statistical perspective, In: Advanq~ Schiffer, pp 289-386. Vol. 6. Academic Press. New York. !9'!9 ~i_~j~p.9_~. 9~ ~atul!~ History.= Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York 664 pp. iarker, Arthur 1920 2. New York State Museum Bulletin Nos, 237, 238, Univ, of the State of New York, ~, Y, State Museum, Albany, New York, !cattle. i96t, Donald Culross A Na~D~r_~l Hi~_tpFy 0f Tiee~s, Second Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass, ASI 25 Tfl~ HA~L~T AT C~CHOGU~ $outhold, New Pelletreau. W. S. Publisher , New York A H.i~Lorz qf Lon.g %Ai~0~.. Vol.I and II, Lewis Publishing Co., New York City N. 2(athaniel A liisto~y O! Long I.~ia~.. In Two Parts. Robert Carter Publishers, 58 Canal Street. New York. and 56 Market Street. PittsburR. Pa. Ftit.zhie. William A. Yh~ Ar.chaeo!.pgy o.f. ~ Y9~ ~l.~t~_ Museum of Natural History. Natural Press, Garden City. N. Y, American History Preservation of Long Island Antiquities General Piles of Cutchogue Area. Ihompson House. Setauket. New York Bicentennial Committee ~p of_ _H_~_s_t~or_io_. S__i_t_e__s..o__f. _Sou__t_ham_p_t_o__n T_o__w~ ~ri_.O¥_ T_.o. _1~_8_1__~. %own Hall, Southold, New York lhompso[%, Benjamin F. ~%~.9~J. ~% 49~E Is~o_d., II Edition, Vol I. II, III, Prench and Company, New York: Re- published 1962, Ira Priedman, Port Washington, New York, !~B9 Discov~lv ~nd S~%;i~m_~D~,. with other Impor~R~% a~d~ !n~e.l~tinR ~at~e~ tp ~he P~es~!~ Ti~e~. E. French and Co.. New York T~B tlA~L~T AT CUTCHOGU~ $outhold, Ne~ 'k ¥~hit taker. Ephor (Rev.) H_ist~J gA. ~9~bo_~.~_ k..I..,, i~ ~i~.%~ Printed for the Author, Southold, New York, watt. Ron@ld z977 The Archaic on Long Island. AnDD~ 9~. ~.h~ ~&.W. 2eauchamps, MAPS Xorth America, British Revolutionary War Era Map, No date, no author, Scale Six miles to ~he inch, S~.ry~ g~. $.9~b~P!g~_ ~.g~.B~ Southampton, New kork, On File: SUNY, Stony Brook, Historical Map Collection. William M. ~ap p.~ t.be %e~ri~p~_~.~.~_ ~_~.i.%ipp.~ 9~. ~h~_ AboLigi.B~ 9.~ ~ Y~(.~.. ~rca. I~Q0; Univ. of State o~ New York. Wm. M. Beauchamps: 1899 Deers. F. !87~ Delcher and lq09 A~l~s ~. ~q~!g !A%~B~.,_ P,W. Beers Publishing Co, Brooklyn, N, Y, Hyde Att~.s of S~ffol~ CPu~.ty, Lgng Is~, ~.~d ~hore~ Bg.!.qher Hy~.~. Vol 2, 1909, New York, !916 ~urr. D. I1. ~82fl Eastern Section, Belcher Hyde, New York Atl_as of New yo_rk ~t._ate York, Stone and Clark, New Map. qf th? C9~%.~' pf ~uifq.~,_ Published by the Surveyor General, Albany, New York ASI 27 Southold. New rk Chase i838 ch~se , &~.!a.~_ 9~_ $~--f..~R}~ County, (Stony Brook Map Library. SUNY. Stony Brook) and Co,, New York ~. ~ !q_~.~. (Colton 1836 Rap of Long Island. Surveyed by Smith. Sheet 4. (SUNY. Stony Brook Map Library) T__r_ax:9_l._l_er_'._s M..a.J! o_~_ Lg.~n~ Island, Jan 3. 1918, Library of Congress Register No.---, On File: Historical Map Library, SUNY. Stony Brook. :.,:.lt,z,n 0hman and Co. (Publishers) Yah of Lon~ Island Colton and Ohman. Geographical Publishers, New York ~_c, nrad. Tobias Publisher) T.ravel}gr~ ~p of LoDg Island. Published by Colton and Co. In the Suffolk County Collection. Suffolk County Community College. Selden. New York. Lotter MaE, of New York and Conn.e.cticu~. Au~sberR 1776. (Nassau Museum Reference Library. Hofstra University. 1986) MaP 9~_ ~q~g %S~a_R~ (no other information available). SUNY. Map Library. Stony Brook New York. and Stewart New York City N. Y. Dolph and Stewart. i',29 k~a.$ o__f_ ~g~l__k. County, Dolph and Stewart, New York City. N. Y. William ~.~P 9~ ~e~__i ~ a~..~QD~ Island. Published Charin~ Cross. England. January of 1779 at ASI 28 Southold, Ne~ ck Eaisey. William 1924 Donaldson Reconstruction ~aps. of Watermill to Wainscott 1650-1850. Maps drawn by Godfrey H. Baldwin. In: Sketches of Local History. Re-published: The Yankee Book Peddler, Southampton, New York, 1966. Available at the Suffolk Historical Society. Riverhead. Hulse. Isaac i797 Map o~ ~99kb.%ygn %~w~ip.._ Suffolk County, Long Island. !'!vde. i. Belcher 'a')6 Atlas of Suffolk CountM New York E. Belcher Hyde, Inc.. New York i~-ae. I. Belcher !709 Atla~ 9f $~.~k Qountv Part of Riverhead and Southold. New York. E. Belcher Hyde. Inc.. New York. Atlas of the North ~hore of ~uffolk County Western Section. 1917 (E. Belcher Hyde 1917), Jeffervs. Thomas Published by Thomas Jefferys. London. England 3. azher. W.W. !8'!2 survey by J. Calvin Smith. Topographic Montresor. John 1776-1780) ~.P 9~. ~.9~_~.~D.%. ~_9~ Yor__k~_ Drafted during the Revolutionary War. No exact date. (Stony Brook Map Library, SUNY. Stony Brook) 1777 Bernard ~a~2..p~ ~p~n~3~ctic~ an~d.. A~iace~! Lands. Amsterdam. 1777. Reprinted by Covens and Mortimer from a 1780 original. (Stony Brook Map Library. SUNY. Stony Brook) Calvin ~_,olpjR~_c Ma~ of Long Company, New York J, H. Colton and A$I 29 $outhold, Southack, 1734 New York I~.~.~ ~n_Kka_n_~.Qpa__s_~in~ ~ilot. London, England. !689 ~he gnx~i~.h ~i~q~_ Fourth Book, 1689. John Thornton. On file: Map Library SUNY, Stony Brook. L'. $. Army Map Service ~d.ig_g g~yKr QA~d.r~.R.gle,. Army Map Service. S. Army. Washington D.C, 1944. scale 1: 25.000 · .i':i~ed States Coastal Survey U. S, G.oas~.al Survey Map. Photographic Copy. Map 1: 10.000. U., S. Co$~1 s. ury~M ~.~p, ggst ~d. o.f. ~outham.p~oR T.own. Town Pond to Airfield Pond. Surveyed by C. t. Iardella Asst. tnited States Geo!o~ical Survey S~utho.ld Q~adrang!~. Suffolk Co. N. ¥. (Scale 1:62.500) Surveyed 1903. Printed 1909. Army Xap Service S__o.~.h~lA 9_9~_~r~n~!9_~. Suffolk Co 7.5 min series. (Scale 1:25.OOO United 1956 N. Y. 1956 States Geological Survey ~9~.h__o~ Ouadrangl~ Suffolk Co 7.5 min series. (Scale 1:24,000 ASI 30 ' /i 31 1. The gnKlish Pilot, Fourth Book \ / / \ t \ / / 1689, by John Thornton. ?: /ir .~ X Coastal Survey in 37 1836 . MANOR Iq ILLS )JECT ARE ~ror~.y sr~ r e~" D N I,I, AGE I I ~ 2~k~no~lr/ Czelat~o Robert Lind$a ~.~il/ec~ ~tepmo~J~/ ~ U ~1~ vet Ze~eski~ C gHlord )4//~kham l '~rerr)l A?eddeo 12, Dolph and Stewart 1929 Cutchogue 13. U. S_...~_, Arm~/ :~_p_p_ Service Wickam .) 43 $ou_t. hjl~ u drg_~ 1947 29'00" Marsh Pt 28'00" 30" 4~44 290 000 FEET 41 ° 00' 72°30' Gutt~no B~ 32 gue 711 2 420 000 FEET~ ~NEW SUFFOLK~ 0.7 1,41. Happed, edited, add publisned by the G~eological Survey 0ontro] by US0&GS Topography from aerial photographs by Kelsh plotter and by' ..... planetable surveys 1956. Aerial photographs takep~1954 ..... - Hydrography compiled from USC&GS chart 363 (:1956) Polyconic projection. 1927 North American datum 44 14, U, S, Geological Survey, SoutholdSaA Quadrangle, 13° 231 NH 1956 TH~ HA~L~T AT Ctlfl~CHOGU~ Southold, Neff~}k ADDENI ~M ASI 45 ]-, %OCU 6~, - Ye 3)ub ~EE U Jo NO R TH T ,~H 0 L RACE 46 SPLIA File master map o~ Cutchogue 37,0 41.0 57~5 39.5 59.( / / / 56 .Ox 25.5 335 47 SPLIA File part of Key Map o[ Cutchogue BuILDING-STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION ALBANY, NEW YORK 151g) 474-0479 FOR OFFICE USE ON LY UNIQUE SITE NO. QUAD, SERIES NEG. NO. Cu '93 YOUR ADDRESS: Town Hall,Main Rd, S°utb°ld,L.I., N.Y. 11971 ORGANIZATION(if any):.. 'qoLlt~lold Towt~ 0OlJlfflllnll;~ IDEN'TIFICATIbN . . I. BUIEDINGNAME(S): C-~orj~e ~,].drff_oh ]~arffl~'tead TELEPHONE:. 516-76 5-1 892 Dev. Offices 2, COUNTY: S~ffol~ TOWN/CITY:~VILLAGE: Outcho~;~. 3. STREET LOCAl' ON We$~ BI. de ]~_DO~ ~ne. Nor~b of Sehoo~ 4 OWNERSHIP. a public ~ .,-, h private ~. 5 PRESENT OWNER.' MIB$ Bertha KurozeW~RESS: ' 6. USE Original:~[~ene~ -farm 7- . . ~po~ ~ne' ' "- 7..ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLI~ ;. Exterior visible from public road: Yes ~ ' No'~ ~ESCRIPT O~ Interior accessiE[e: Explain b~ ~Ppo~¢m~H¢ onZ~ 8. BUILDING a. clapb6ard ~ b. stone ~ c brick ~ d board and batten ~ MATI~RIAL e. cobblestone ~ f. shingles ~ g. stucco ~ other: 9. STRLCTURAL 'a. woo~'frame ' ~ . .. ' - with interlocking jom/s ~ '" SYSTEM b. wood frame with li~t members ~ ""$:~' (if knt~n } c. mason~ load bearing walls ~ ~ r-~ ~ d. melaJ (explain)_ ' '" -~'"-~: e. olher 0 CONDITION a. excellem ~ b. good ~ c. fair ~ d. de/ermrated ~ - II INTEGRITY a. original site ~ b. mo~ed ~ if so.when? ...... - ' . ,_ . ' c, list major alterations and dates (if known): ;'- .-'4r~. ,..- '~'.. -7~ >¢-..-,,.,-/.~:~.,..~· ~- ~ :"~ '- ~"~':~:: .. -..- :,~,7::'L.~;'-RoZ~ ' . . .. ....... , .....  n -,,.~ " _ k '~( ~ '~' z ,,'.~..', .. . :..../. -...,., _, , Cu~h '' ' ' SPLIA File Aldrich-Kurczewski house J Gu 95 14. 'I ttREATS TO BUILDING: a. none known [] b. zoningr'nL.jr~¢' re'ads ~ d. developers [] e. detedoration, ~-a , . [5 RELATED OUTBUILDINGS AND PROPERTY:<-';" a oe~nC~ b. carriage house [] . c: garage [] d, privy [] ' e. shed [~ -, f.'greenhou~e [] .: t~iclcet i landscs pe features 16. ~URROUNDINGS OF THE BUILDING (check more than one if necessa~): ' ".:' ~ E induslrial ~ g. residential ~ ........... ' ..... h. other: ot~na~ t~aee and poa~n a~ troa~ ot ~ 17. IN~ERREL-ATIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SURRO~DINGS: . ~...~,~. {Indica[e if building or struclure is m an historic district) .... '~ 18. OTHER NOTABLE FEATURES OF. BUILDING AND SITE (including interior features if known): . v.:?.~-.~,::,; ..- .... T~o and one half story,three bay,side entrance plao,~able r~of house. One and a half story wing o~ south,with centered",~ entrance door. Semi ~rap arround porch. Original chimeys. ...,~. ~o over two windows. ~. , -..~ ' : ,.: SIGNIFICANCE ' ' ..... ' " ", ' ~, .,-.:-~'...; " '~'~g ~HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE; ' 'z--'-'~r ~-'~::j"~Thls t~enty six acre ~or~ln~ farm,provides an exgepttonal '~' ', ~J-:~SL,.~:---~xample of the mid loth centur2 farm.~he farnhouss and all - - barns and out buildings,appear to be tn an almost unaltered 21. SOURCES: Interview with Miss KurczewsXy 5/7/86 by John E. Remsen Beers Comstoc~ Atlas of Lon~ Island 187D 0u 9 Aldrich farmstead From South East Roll B Ne~ 12 Prom North Roll B Neg 13 Aldrich farmstead From South East Roll B Neg 1 2 From North Roll B Neg 13 ;IoN'FoR H ST~LIC PRESER . ('ORK STATE tKS' AND RECREATION , NEW'YORL~(518) 474-047~ i~ ~UR )Ug ADDR[ ORGANIZatION 'QUAD entOffic~ ;ATION ,rllla n Hou se - Of f lc · EET ' LOC~,TION; -~ /OWN[. ~SIBILITY' TO 'PUBE C: boa 'd a 8. f LDING 7- I cobblestone' · - ' frame wi ~ints [] SYSTEM' 7.-) '~:?:'-~- wo~d'(rame Wi~,'li ~ " ' ~t members , .;~. _~ ' <:~.~'~.'~c~.;' mason~ load bearing walls ~ .;/~g:~t4~' '~": "'~%' d mea (expam) . '" ........ ' ~"~:" ~ '- '~ ~ c hit ~NDITION' : a.~xcellent ~ "~. goou ~... . -~ ''"? ' ' ' ~te ~ 'b. moved ~ ... ffso,whe~. I~TEGRITY:..x.a: original s~ . . ,:, . % · :~, -" c. major alterations and ate~if know~): ' '- 'J cch added in )50 s ~-~,:"-~, CutcbORUe 54 SPLIA file Conklin-Gorman house Cut~hc CHARLES R. CUDDY Mailing Address: RO. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRIFlING AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK TEL: (631) 369-82O0 FAX: (631) 369-9O8O E*maih charles.cuddy@veri~o~._ne~ July 16, 2007 · Jenlyn B. Woodhouse, Chairman of Southold mlannin~ Board Sou~old To~ ~ Sou~old, NY, 1971 ~(~ .. Re: The Heritage at Cutcho~e SCTM~1000-102-1-33.3 De~ Ms. Woodhouse: My client h~ spent subst~fial time ~d reso~ces in co~ecfion M~{e Pl~ application ~d SEQ~ procee~ngs. I have been ~omed ~at despite si~fic~t mitigation ~d approprime studies completed by ~e applic~t, ~e Bo~d intends to adopt a positive decimation ~der SEQ,. This ignores sig~fic~t facts: 1. The applicant, pursuant to discussion with the Town Board, reduced the total number of units at the site by 20%; 2. The applicant, in mitigation of traffic and other concerns, agreed to a 55 and older community; 3. The applicant agreed to individual condominium units; 4. The applicant worked out a price point offering to accommodate concerns of Town officials; 5. While believing it would assist in traffic dispersement, the applicant has agreed to a limited use of the Spur Road connection; 6. The applicant presented a complete traffic analysis by the engineering firm of Nelson & Pope and h. ad this reviewed and endorsed by Dunn Engineering Associates, which clearly evidenced a small ~mpact by the over 55 condominium use; 7. The Environmental Consultant hired by the Planning Board to complete an environmental analysis has determined that in every category under SEQRA there is a small to moderate impact, effectively recommending a negative declaration; The history of this site indicates that it has been zoned for the proposed use for nearly 25 years and that the zoning has been reviewed on a number of occasions by the Town Board and found to be appropriate. The zoning is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan which was subject to a Generic Environmental Impact Statement· Peconic Landing, a project of greater size but similar density and with the same zoning, received a negative declaration from the Planning Board. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairman of Southold Planning Board July 16, 2007 Page 2 I was advised at the Planning Board meeting of July 2, 2007, that the basis for a positive declaration included: 1. traffic 2. septic system location 3. archeological 4. habitat These concerns do not stand up to scrutiny. The traffic analysis has not included one study but two. I'm not aware of any study conducted by the Town that is contrary to what was provided. The septic issue is clearly a health department matter, with the applicant having received preliminary approval from that department (not parenthetically the Town Board has adopted a resolution extending public water to School House Lane and the residents of Highland Road have public water available to them). The archeological request to further investigate the site is remarkable in that it is an inland site and at least three (3)large sites in Southold Town that I'm personally familiar with, including Fort Corchoug,, have not produced any significant archeological findings. As to the habitat, this was examined by your environmental consultant. There is no basis for concluding that any one of the above concerns affects or will result in a substantial adverse change in the community, the criteria for determining significance under SEQRA as set forth at 6 NYCRR Part 617. In each of these instances the Planners are second guessing and the worst second guessing is a rejection of your own environmental consultant's recommendation. I submit that this rejection is improper, improvident and contrary to law. The question must be asked. If the Planners are more qualified then why was the consultant retained. Assuming the consultant was qualified then by what methodology does the department override its own expert? I urge you to revisit this matter and not adopt a positive declaration. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC:ik Purchase Order # Date 'OWN OF SOUTHOLI '16810 Tax Exempt # A163554 IDeliver and send billing to: Address VENDOR Return this copy and Town of Southold voucher itemized and signed for payment" ITEM QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT COST TOTAL THIS PURCHASE ORDER IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURES OF THE DEPT, HEAD AND THE SUPERVISOR I CERTIFY THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE VENDOR COPY PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY patricia.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us KIERAN M. CORCORAN ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY kieran~corcoran@town.southold.ny.us LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.monte fusco@town.southold.ny, us SCOTT A. RUSSELL Supervisor Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 13, 2007 VIA FA CSIMILE and FIRST CLASS MAIl Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. 445 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: The Heritage at Cutchogue Dear Mr. Cuddy: Please allow this letter to respond to your letter to Jerilyn B. Woodhouse dated June 26, 2007, concerning the above-referenced project. Mark Terry, the Town's Principal Planner and acting Department Head of the Planning Department, is indeed reviewing the documents submitted to the Planning Board as part of the SEQRA review process. Mr. Terry has kept the Planning Board apprised of the status of the review. The Planning Board rejects the assertions set forth in your letter, and Mr. Terry will continue to conduct his objective review of the application. For your information, the "private meeting" you refer to at Town Hall was open to the public, and you were aware of same. Mr. Terry attended at the request of the Town Supervisor and answered general questions about SEQRA process. Lastly, in response to your letter dated July 13, 2007, the resolution to which you refer is still being drafted and will be made available when completed. Very truly yours, Patricia A. Finne~n Town Attorney '!t,' PAF/Ik ~ cc: Members of the Planning Board ll:SGm Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 FAX: (631) 537-5291 FAX COVER Date: Pages: To: Company: Fax#: From: Re~ 7/9/2007 11 Mr. Anthony Trezza ~ Southold Town Planning l~partm (631) 765-3136 Diane K. Wassick The Heritage at Cutchogue Dear Mr Trazza, Attached please find Invoice No. 3642, dated June 5, 2007, showing a balance due of $5,343.30 and th~ recent updated Invoic~ No. 3844, dat~l July 9, 2007, showing a total balance due of $5,803.65. Please forward th~se Invoioes to the appropriate department for r~mitlanc,~. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Diane K. Wassick Su blk Environmental Consulting, inc. P.O. Box 2003, Brdgemnpton, NY 11932 (631)537-5160 Fax: (516) 537-5291 J::)ATE 615/2007 invoiice INVOIC. E # J 3642 BiLL TO Jerilyn Woodhouse, Pla~ming Board Southold PlarmJng Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, 'NY 11971 RE: The Heritage at Cutchogue 75 School House Lane Cutchogue; $outhold Town SCTM~ 1000-102-1-33.3 DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 2/28/2007 Meet w/Plamaing Department, re: FOIR copies, research. 2 270.00 3/5/2007 1 Site inspection w/delinnatien of wetland boundary 2.5 337.50 3/13/2007 i SEQRA. review;, draft report 6 810.00 3/14/2007 j SEQtL4, review;, continue preparation of drm°c report. 3 405.00 3/20/2007 ~FOIR previous plan; meet vdMr, Tre~za, Planner 0.75 101.25 3/21/2007 iEnvironmental .analysis 2 270.00 3/22/2007 Preparation of Environmental Review Report; site inspection w/photo i6 810.00 documentation, 3/23/2007 Preparation of Environmental Assessment. I 135.00 3/27/2007 Meet w/Mr. Trezza; meet w/Mr. Terry. 0.75 101.25 3/30/2007 Amend report; revise and prepare for final edit, 2 270.00 4/16/2007 Representation at Planning Board meeting. 1.33 179.55 14/23/2007 Repl~esentafion at Planning Board Hearing 2 270.00, j 5/4/2007 Review traffic analysis supplement. 1.5 202,50 15/7/2007 Preparation and representation for Planning Board. 135.00 ~,5/9/2007 Commence preparation of EAF Part I. 1.5 202.50 ! 5/10/2007 Final preparation of EAF Part II; correspondence to Mr. Trezza, w/encl. 4 540.00 5/11/2007 Meet w/Planner. 0,75 101.25 i 5/14/2007 Representation at Planning Board Meeting, 1.5 202.50 Kate per hem: ~ 135.00 Thank you For using Soffblk £nvironmental Consuiting, lnc BALANCE DUE $5,34:t.30 Ptease pay by: 6/19/2007 Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, NY ! 1932 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (516) 537-5291 Invoice DATE I INVOICE# 7/9/2007 3~;;44 BILLTO 5erilyn Woodhouse, Planning Board Southold Plann:ng Board P.O. Box i179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: The Heritage at Cutchogue 75 School House Laue Cutchogue; Southold Toma SCIM# 1000-102-1-33.3 J DATE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 6/5/2007 Previous Balance on Invoice 3642 5.343.30 6/8/2007 Meet w/Planning Department and Town Attorney. 1.08 145.80 6/26/2007 Meet w/Mr. Trezza, Planner;, Mr. Terry, re: project. 2 270.00 7/3/2007 Correspondence to Mr. Trezza. Planner, w/encl. 0.33 44.55 , Rate per hour: $135,00 [ stag ouzTolk Env ronmental Consutting. Inc. BALANCE DUE $5,803.65 iT hank you for ' Please pay by; 7/23,'2007 SOUTHOLD TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Town Hall P. O. Box 11. 79 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11.971-0959 Phone (631.) 765-1.938 Fax (631) 765-3136 TO: Ms. Amy Thiel Senior Planner FROM: Neboysha R Brashich (~ July 6, 2007 DATE: RE: Heritage ~ Cutchogue Griffing Street & School House Lane SCTM #: 1000-102-1-33.3 An initial review of subject project was held on June 25, 2007. The Commission tabled its comments and will review the project once again at its July 23 meeting. Our comments will be submitted shortly thereafter. In the meantime, it should be noted that the Town never requested a light on Depot Lane and State Route 25 JUL Mailing Address: EO. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 4 CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRI FFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK June 26, 2007 Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairman of Southold Planning Board Southold Town P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: TEL: (631) 369-8200 FAX: (631) 369-9080 E-mad: charles.cuddy(~)verizon.net Weeks, months have passed since Part II of the SEQRA review was completed by the Town's Environmental Consultant. Ostensibly members of the Planning Department, under the direction of Mark Terry, have been reviewing the work and conclusions of the Town's Consultant and the supplemental reports prepared and submitted by the applicant's consultants. The passage of time and recent events have made it clear that at this stage, an impartial review is not taking place. Repeatedly Mr. Terry has stated that he cannot advise when the SEQRA review will be completed. It is apparent that the Planning Department's decision and recommendation is wholly within the purview of Mr. Terry. The extraordinary length of time to review the work of the Town's consultant and reports prepared by the applicant's consultants, coupled with significant external influences produces an inescapable conclusion; an objective, detached review is not taking place. Exposing Mr. Terry to those vehemently objecting to the application in a private meeting in the l'own Hall, all apparently without the knowledge of the Board, has further tainted the process. Under the circumstances, there can no longer be any doubt that SEQRA is being used as a weapon to delay the Heritage application. To return the process to a modicum of impartiality, Mark Terry should be recused from further SEQRA review of this application. We request that this action be promptly undertaken. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC:ik cc: Patricia A. Finnegan, Town Attorney PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDW.MqDS MARTIN H. $IDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND HAND DELIVERED 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 June 22, 2007 Neboysha Brashich Southold Transportation Committee 175 Emory Road Cutchogue, New York 11935 Heritage @ Cutchogue Located on the northwest comer of Gfiffing Street & School House Lane Tax Map # 1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Brashich: Enclosed please find a site plan application and one (1) site plan packet (sheets 2 - 15) prepared byNelson & Pope dated January 17, 2005 for the above reference project. This residential site plan application is for the development of a Planned 55 + Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings of approximately 2,000 sq. ft. each; an 8,840 sq. ft. clubhouse; a 1,160 sq. ft. swimming pool; two 3,200 sq. ft. tennis courts; a 2,400 sq. ft. maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility;, 197,043 sq. ft. of manmade ponds to serve as natural drainage basim/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other s~te unprovements mcludlng road pavement, pauo and s~dewalk improvements, on a 46.17-acre vacant parcel in the Hamlet Density g-iD) Zoning District located on the northwest comer of Grilling Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road in Cutchogue. SCI2~ 1000-102-1-33.3 In addition, please find enclosed the following documents to better assist you in your review:. · Traffic Impact Study prepared for the applicant by Nelson & Pope dated July 2006 · Various correspondence from Nelson & Pope dated December 11, 2006 & May 1, 2007 · Various correspondence from NYSDOT dated October 16, 2006, November 16, 2006 & February 2, 2007 · Comments from the Town Engineer dated November 8, 2006 · A review of the TIS completed by Dunn Engineer Associates for Nelson & Pope dated March 30, 2007. · Environmental Assessment Review prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the Southold Town Planning Board. · One (1) aerial of the proposed site Heritage @ Cutchogue Page Two June 22, 2007 Please be aware the Environmental Assessment Review prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting is still under review bythe Planning Board. At this time, the Planning Board has not accepted this report. Currently the Planning Board is completing their review of this project under SEQRA and hopes to make a detemaination of significance once their review is complete. The enclosed site plan and subsequent information is being referred to you for your review and recommendations. We respectfully request this be added to the June 25, 2007 agenda of the Southold Transportation Committee. If possible, please remm the site plan (sheets 2 - 15) to either myself or Bruno at the meeting on Monday. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ 'Since-relY' ~ Senior Planner Cc: File Planning Board Eric.: 1 site plan packet (sheets 2 - 15) prepared byNelson &Pope dated January 17, 2005 Site plan application Various documents (listed above) 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 To: Southold Town Trustees From: Anthony Trezza, Sr. Planne~__~ Date: June 21, 2007 Re: Residential Site Plan- The Heritage at Cutchogue 1000-102-1-33.3 The Planning Board is currently processing a residential site plan application for a 55 and over community consisting of 139 units and associated site amenities, located on a 46+ acre site on the northwest comer of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road in Cutchogue. We are in a receipt of a letter dated June 18, 2007 from an adjacent property owner (copy attached) indicating that there may he wetlands on the property. We are referring this matter to your office for a determination. In addition to the letter, I have enclosed one (1) copy of the survey and one (1) aerial photograph for your use. Please advise the Planning Board as to whether or not area in question contains a wetland. Because we are in the SEQRA process, your timely response will be greatly appreciated. Mr. Anthony Trezza Planning Board Southold Town Hall P. O, Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 - 0959 Dear Hr. Trezza: - ~ 18 .,lune 2007 I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed 'Heritage at Cutchogue' development, particularly as they relate to the SEQRA review. I have obtained a copy of the site development plans through FOIL and there are several issues to which I would like to draw your attention concerning the property. First, there is an area of the property where standing water exists on a seasonal basis. Water (~,20' x 20') was evident here on 21 Apdl 2007 and while standing surface water was not present on 16 June 2007 the ground was clearly moist. Said area lies somewhat to the North and East of the midpoint of the property at N 41° 00.869' W 72° 29.478'. This area of water is clearly used by wildlife as a watering hole: there are many deer and perhaps other animal tracks here. As a professional biologist (I am a Professor of Biology at Long Island University and have a Ph.D. in Ecology) I believe that this body of water and adjacent areas may potentially represent seasonal weUands. The fact that this body of water is NOT shown on the site development plans is a serious omission. Other features of the property of ecological interest include a fair amount of vertical relief, including what looks like a shallow 'valley' that runs much of the length of the property towards the Eastern (i.e. Depot Lane) side and what appear to be a vadety of ecological habitats. The latter is reflected by the vadety of vegetation including bayberry, wild grape, grassland plants, ferns, wildflowers, and many species of treas. As such, the potential certainly exists that this property represents ecologically sensitive habitat and/or contains plant and animal species of ecological significance. I urge the Planning Board to make a thorough effort to examine the diversity of ecological habitats (including potential seasonal wetlands) as well as the resident species of plants and animals that exist on said property in order to determine if this area represents ecologically sensitive habitat or contains species of special significance. I would like to formally request that this letter be read before the Planning Board and the Town Board at the next (i.e. at the 18 June 2007) public meeting and that my letter be included in the official record. Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. Stephen T. Tettelbach, Ph.D. 1530 Crown Land Lane Cutchogue, NY 11935 631-734-2337 June 20, 2007 CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT 260 New Suffolk Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 ~J Telephone {631) 734-6907 o Fax (631) 734-7079 E-mail: cutfd@optonline.net Planning Board Office Southold Town PO Box 1179 $outhold, NY 11971 Ref: Heritage Property, Cutchogue Dear Mr. Trezza, On July 11th the Board of Fire Commissioners met with Mr. Semon to discuss the fire water protection for the Heritage Property. Mr. Semon displayed a revised map of the property indicating the placement of fire hydrants and the two drafting devices for use of the ponds water. The Board is in agreement with the location of the 8 hydrants but want to bring to your attention that the drafting stand pipe are not recognized by the NFPA for fire protection and as long as hydrants nearby and working we would not use them for any initial attack. The installation of these would be at the discretion of the owners. Also discussed was that this will be a gated community with private access to the roads. If the Cutchogue Fire Department is to respond to any type of emergency we would need unlimited access to the roads at all times. Our attorney has suggested a permanent easement to the property and would be willing to work with your office on this or similar suggestions. Thank you for bringing these matters to the board and we look forward toward your replies and solutions to the problems, we remain, Very truly yours, ard of Fire issio~ers Matthew J. Martin District Secretary NELSON December 11, 2006 Shaik A. Saad, PE Traffic Engineering and Safety State of New York Department of Tr_an.,~s~i~ ~ 250 Veterans Memonal Highway , ?, ,i!t~'~ ,, ~, Hauppauge, ~1 ~'~' ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ' Attn: Mark Wolfgan ~ ':;~, ~ ~:¢ ~he Heritage at Cutchogue ~ , ~ dB~ ~ ~SDOTCaseNo.:06-357P , ~: ~¢ ~ ~ ~Nelson & Pope No. 00026 Dear Mr. Woltgan~..**~''' Enclosed are 2 c~i~the Traffic Impact Study and 4 sets of revised site plans for the above referenced project as requested per your letter dated November 16, 2006. In addition, we have reviewed the comments included in the letter and offer the following responses: Comment #1: Response: The volumes are confusing, (a) the site generated counts see~n low and (b) the absence of pages 18 and 19from the Traffic Impact Stud), (TIS) fitrther the confusion. (a) As stated in the TIS, the site generated volumes were based upon statistical data provided in the manual, Trip Generation, 7th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2003 for Land Use: 251 Senior Adult Housing-Detached. In accordance with the ITE manual, senior adult housing consists of detached independent living developments, including retirement communities, age-restricted housing, and active adult communities all of which are consistent with the proposed residential development. These types of developments typically generate low trip totals because compared with single family home developments, they tend to have fewer residents, fewer vehicles per unit and a higher portion of the residents do not work, or work part-time. Nelson & Pope has performed site counts at age-restricted developments on Long Island. A count performed at a development known as Woodcrest Estates in Port Jefferson shows data that corresponds with the ITE trip generation rates. For example, ITE provides rates of 0.20 and 0.26 trips per unit for AM and PM street peak hours respectively. The site data indicates rates of.19 and .27 for the same time periods. More importantly, the site data shows the peak trips occur during the midday at noon with a rate of 0.36. Shaik A. Saad, PE Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue December 11, 2006 Page 2 of 2 Similarly, ITE cites a peak generator rate of 0.35/0.36. The data is attached. The traffic study used the trip generation rates for the peak of the site and applied those trips to the counts taken during the peak of the adjacent intersections. Therefore, the analysis was conservative. In addition, Griffin Street, south of the site, contains a number of services that residents would typically patronize, such as a Post Office, bank, library and a municipal parking lot. Developments, such as this, that are located near central business districts (CBD), tend to generate fewer trips on the main roads than other residential land uses that are located farther away from trip attractors. For these reasons, we believe the trip generation estimate to be appropriate and somewhat conservative. (b) The copies of the TIS, in its entirety, are included in this submission. Comment #2: The TIS states there will be two (2) means of access to the site. The plans only show one. Response: As shown on the revised site plans, included in this submission, the two means of access referred to in the traffic study are the intersections of the proposed site roadway with Schoolhouse Road/Griffin Street and with Spur Drive. Spur Drive currently terminates at the western boundary of the site. An emergency access will be provided via a connection to Bridle Lane. We trust that this supplemental information will assist with your review of the application. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, NELSON ~ POPE Kerri M. Collins, PE Attachments cc: Charles Cuddy, Esq. Jeffrey Rimland, Rimland Equities bt2000 O00261I'RAFFIC: G,.IB ktr 12_05_06 DOT ResTJonse. doc · · '...06/07/20;37 P~GE '~1/02 T~I #631-369-8200 Fax ~631-369-9050 ~ i{~_,RI'rAGE A'f CL"I'ciIOGUFo ~ PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Sit" A¢ce~ NeBon &- pope., two means of ~¢~s are proposed to s~rv~ ?~,~ ~.~ .~- ~fip Gene~ttoa . publish*d by lhe Imti~e of ~portmton ~8inaea (~t in 2003. The ~i~~ Da~e.h~d Homing w~ ua*d to estim~* the ~ml m~ g,n~rat~ ~ps pre'tad m ~ r PMPe~ ~r ~ Pe~ Ho~r ITE Lt~d AM P~Hoa ~ . As shown in Table 6, the propoS~ r~$]denfial ~elopment is projected to gCa~C 43 ~p$ J~ the waa~y AM ~ hoar (12 e~terin~ ~1 exKin~. 49 Wi~ iB th~ w~kday PM ~ hour (~ ~n~ 20 ~xiting), ~d a ~1 of 38 ~ps i~ the S~ay P~ h~ ~ ho~ (I 9 ~n~ 19 ~xitng). Trip I)istrlbuiion and Assignment The sit¢-genereted traffic volume was distributed md ~signed to e~.h movemem al the stud} intersections based on the existing re~dway and travel patterns, The nature of the p~pose, d land uses ks a,,~oeiated :ravel patterns were ¢omiclered as well, FiK~m: 9 preaet~ the trip dislribue, on for the weekday AM, PNL and Saturday peak hours. Figures I0 through 12 depict the aelual $ite-gmeraml ;,olume,* for the re*pe~tive peak hour~. The site-generated voltanes Were thell added to the NO Build Condition volum=s resulting in the Build Condition mimes shown in Fig~e$13 ~ CMARLES R. CUDDY Attorney at Law 445 Griffing Avenue Biverhead, New York 11901 PAGE TO: Anthony Trezza Fax #: 765-3196 .m~ ~6-~1-369-$200 Fax #631-369-9080 Total n~rlber of pages including cover sheet: 6 If transmission is faulty ~r incomplete, pleas~ inform us as soon as possible. Opera%or: lwon& Date: Junu 5, 2007 Comments: P~: The Heritaqu at Cutcho~ue Pursuant to your request please see attached letter from Dunn Engineering Associa%e~ ~nd page 18 and 19 of the traffic study. charlme R, Cuddy PAGE ~2/0F:, ~ted to ~at~u, thc 1~ PASE 06/05!2D'~7 i2:45 of~ic~, a~ ~m uo~ q, pan. ~, be ,wwrame~t ~ ,ou ~'ee~itm~ e~ ,-~es n~b L2OTIZO 0Gt05/28~7 12:~5 B313~'~90B0 P~E TI{E ]tERI'I'AGE AT CL~rCHOGUE Flgur~ 7:2007 No Build W~kda:y PM Truffle Volum~ 05/~5f~0~q ~d9 531~5B9~0 P~C~ ~5t05 Tl~ ]~E]KITAGE AT CUTCI~IOGUE ~3gtrt 8:2007 .No B~ild Midday Saturdsy Trnffic Volu~ SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 4060 Sunrise Highway, PO Box 38, Oakdale, New York 11769 May 22, 2007 Mr Dale R Grippo, VP Construction Heritage at Cutchogue, LLC 1721-N Ocean Ave Medford NY 11763 Re: Heritage at Cutchogue 11-07-120-C Dear Mr. Grippo: Reference is made to your request for information regarding availability of public water service to the above captioned property. In order to bring public water service to your property on School House Lane opposite Griffing Street, a water main extension from Main Road of approximately 780 feet on Depot Lane and approximately 1, 137 feet on School House Lane would be required at a cost of $103,518.00. This is exclusive of any and all additional costs for water service within your property. If you have any further questions please contact me directly at 631-563-5672. Sincerely, Lisa Cetta Assistant Manager New Construction lc CC: Anthony Trezza, Town of Southold Planning Department~ }( 2006 National Source Water Protection Award Winner CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRI FFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK Mailing Address: EO. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 May 3, 2007 Mr. Anthony P. Trezza, Senior Planner Southold Planning Departmem P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 TEL: (631) 369-82¢0 FAX: (631) 369-9080 E-mail: char!es,~u~l, ~:venzon .net Re: The Heritage at Cutehogue SCTM#I000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Trezza: Enclosed are six (6) copies of the Nelson & pope response to the traffic questions posted by the Planning Board. This is to confirm that the traffic experts will again be available at the Planning Board work session on Monday, May 7, 2007, to discuss any further traffic concerns that the Board may have. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cudd CRC:ik Enclosures Response: N L)= [3 N & 'P 0 P E - May .1, 2007 - Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue - - - Planning B'om'd Comments Nelson.& Pope No. 00026 ,;' As .reques'[ed at thelTown Plannlng B0ard meeting oh April23,2007 Nelson &' Pope hhs :" ' . ... i'~gieWed'.tlie TOwn s c0nUai/~nts and 0fief the following resp0n~esi ' 'Oti.nent #1: Tllg Town. reque~ted Nelson &. Pope ~o'. review tlm ~Town 'of 'So'ut:h~ld . . - Cdtv'idor'Study ', prepared by Sehneider'Engbzeering~ PLLC Submitted On ' FebritaoL 13, 200.7. In gddition, compare the sea~o~tql vaHatio(vi. }raffic deten~;ined i'n the con'idm: ~tudV to the s~asonai mriatioJix' accounted f°'r ?: in the Trr~c hapact Stuc~.dmteloped"for The He~iiage at' Cutchogue application, prepared by Nelson' & 'P6pe, ~ubmitted, in JztlJi :2006, ~' applicable. : After a~review' of ~e Town of S0ut~old Condor g~dy R W~ reve~ed ' : · at So.eider Bfl~ee~g foc~ed 0~ the'.CR ,48 .~ ~ .25 eo~id0rs ~oughout '~c. Tom of. Southold: Traffic. data.w~ collated' off: ~o' sepmate weel~ d~g flae 2006 July(Au~s~ smmer period, on~. week d~ ~the ~y 4th HoHday week ~nd ~h¢ other.on ~'n0mho~day W~6k h ~ order .iO Calculate se~bnal adjm~ent hctorg, ~c c0~ts need,to be ' conducted on a seasonal basis. Since flae Sc~eider:.SmdY only colteeted "' .. ' 'da~a d~ng tim Summer p~fio~,.a,10mpafison of sm~a~ mffic yersus :' nonrsummcr R~c e~ not be perfo~ed. Therefore'~out ~e'ab~W t0 · . . eomp~e th~ ~fferences, Seas~n~ adjusmaem faetom W~re n6t e~tab~hed ~ _ . in ~e Sc~eider repoa nor c~ flaey be cfle~ated ~om~e published data - in that smdy. - - - ,.--.. ' .- , ,.. .' '. ]t is recommended by Nelsdn & Pop~ ~at ~e se-~onfl adjus~aent h~to?s ' u~zed in ee'~c [~pact study prepmed :for'me pmpos~d[projec~; wMch are based0n ~e 2005 .Ne~ Y6rk 'State DOT.con~uous co~t ' pr0~m .traffic volmes be accepted ~' 'a conse~at[ve pr0jecti0n"6f . sm~aert~ae ~affic eonditiom x~thin the stud~ area. Pl~g Board r~e:.The Heritage at CUt~130gue ': -- - · · ' - ',April 26, 2007 ~ . ~': _: page2of4 " :':'--- ' "' "In addition,: the ae~es( volUmes collected in the Corridor Study Were loeateif approximately four nfilbs east of the proPOSed project, aiong Ma~i .- :., . : - ROad(Ny 25) ri, ear. Tucker Lane..These volUmed .were compare!l J0 ti'afdc,. _. y01um~s collocted for the Pr0b~osed :]~rojeet off Mah~ Road at 'DepOt Lane . which were sehs0nally adjUSted based 6n the 2005 :Newyork S/a~e DOT . .: .: rates. In order to display a true comparison these.traffic, v01umes.('~011ected - in2005) :Were adjusted, to 2006 (the Con-ido~ StudY year) by, applying' ' ' -'- . 1:8% hnntial gr~Wtl~ fact0r, ~vhieh. projects the mubi~n{ growth factor'fo~'. the North Fork obtained' from NYSDOT, The VolUme 'comparison is ,' ' ". ' " shown in the tabie bel0~,. '"' '- · :, : . ~:"' . . - . . - Main Road ~ 25) Traffic Vol/t~ie Comparison '": ";i':'. ".'..'" :" :''' ""' - Town 0f-Soa~hold . i Heritage at Ct~tchogne ~ "' ' "" _ ,, >: Peak Hour C~rfidor Study "' ' Tr~c:Imphct Study /% DifferenCe -, -~ ; :' ' - -- - ' , - bet;.veen"" ' "- '' ~ '"" Date JubgAugu~t 200~ ,- A~]guxt 2006* Actual & Erojected . :.. Actual Projebted ~'. '" ~ :- ./kM - 941 1099 1~% ( ,- . . ~ .... -- ., '%<' . .) ". .._ :: - PM 1159, 1323 14%' suture!ay mn 1247 ' 1443 ~6% * projeetf, d using a 1.8% ann~nl background growth rate . - · ,- As shown in the table above the seasonally' adjusted AUgUst 2006A~affic " Volumes calculated USlng.the equivalent methodology demonstrated in: the .... Heritage at.. Cuteh0hmei'.traffic .impact ..study are higher than 'th~ 'detual :: .... "' · . traffic 'volUmes collected 'm' July/August 2006. ;Therefore the Heritage at _ - :Cutchogue traffic study projected higher than actual traffic volUmes ~Lud as · v ·: , ', '. · · a'result Nig shown to be a conservative ana!}~S!s. ~.' i '. ' ' - .- · Comment #2: Th~ ,Tbwn reque,yt~d that N~lson & pope discuss the projected :.', ,.'~ ',? . _ ' ,,,', . assodiated i4~ith th6 constntction' ofthepfOPoxedproje~t. - ' : Resp0hse: :The deeelopmen, t will be C0nsttucted during three phases. 'It i's anticipated .... ' thai 'e~/ela plaase' will have 12-iU0nths duraiionTiDuring ~a~h'.~lmse - - approximately 45 homes will be consixucte,d.' However, 0nly five homes will be under construction at any given time. On-site construction woflc is expected to :be performed by th~ local Workforce aud to oicur between 7:00 A:M. to 4:00 P.M. These workers - Would typically arrive before the A.M. comn~ute/~ peak' period aud mo~t ' iea{;~.beifore tie P.M..pea]~ l~efidd' b~ins, Iris anti~ipat~d thhi:an of 35 workers would be present off-site for daily construction aotivities md a maximum of 53 workers'wofild be.required during peak construction ' ,-Planning Board - ' Re:,The Heri~ge at.~utd~ogUe ' : :/Pa§e3o[4 .... pe.no~:S0me.aon~!ru~0n;w, o!'!~ .rs:wilJ asseml~le ~ffzsite at. s~b~on~actor "; - .... - fae.~fie~.'~d~,'.~'~ a .ere~s ,~d..:som~ ~i.'~bL ~g ,~ be " ' . ' n°t"~fieipated mhf.~e 6n/siie'~ad~g~'~d-~eavafi0n.~ll b6 ~or~ed':.t6 ~d '~om ~ ~ii~. '~mf~e"the "h~iv~ te~61~g/~C~ ... ,.., . ,,,.... ' ) ',, ~,- .'We .esthete* ~ ~e~cle ~c~up~ey,tate. o~..g.8.~erson~vel~le~ res~Jttng 5.. :. :. ': 6on~efi6n '~ek: '~l :.' g~ate', fewer -:~ps &m.' the ;.:pmposed '/-'./ ': .:::deqelbpment':~d}~e fl~e ~rop~-dev'~lOpment~ it is hot ~i~}p~ted' t6 ... - ". '" : -~use~si~ficmt adve=~ ~pficton..&~i6~l:)o~d~ays.. -" ~ ~ : -' · Comment ~; .Dtxcuss [traffi ~ . ., C .qnpact~. assoetated, wit Ur imder the following ~"-~- ..:;: ~esP~ns,: ~ (A)%~ ~p~::R0aa. t;~fgena~ ~c.qess sq~n~g '" ' t'': ~ ":: :' ~C~ess' to,.e~rgehcy'9~c!es :0nly:' '~er~fore.~e'.~t~f~ti6n of '"-~. : ' t'" :: ':. i · 'S~e~t md,S'aiioo~0a~ ~oad ~0~became~(.sale.ac~ess'io :the :,' :.' :': ( iby ~e pr6~0'sed d~Veto~m~nt~ohldt-dfi~e'~e S~0ad accesS.- Tliid' .:: :? ...t: i fl~ee, ~astbo~d left ~ d~g ~ach ~;~ ho~; wlfioh.fs n6~'expeeted to :' ¢)~ ~:e eXPeCted res.dm Of ~e ~0,way ~ sceva6o[~n the"Sp~.Raad . access is":'dem0~ted ~ ~e ~affie i~pacts .~mdy as not 't0.~ave - Si~ific~t adVers6 impac~...'..Though, fl~s ~b:~aY access.:~ould ~ow ' - ' · ~affic t0' "cut2fl~'U~j~ ~ '.sit~] ~0m'lflae-. agj'~S&t:'.ha~bom00a '-: 'p0~,~a~y :-~om me'.Ma~ :'Xoaa '0h:-m;'.'&'~l~'-'W~ ' Cuteho~e expeh~q~"~e'~ongesfiofi t~s eqffigale~t ~affic wo~d . bYrPa~s~g fl6mtO~a ~m;r'.redUc~g k~c'~'fim-'do~tom.'~em ."It ; :[~h0~ld be n0tgd a~t :,cut_~6h~, .,~e ig l~ely:i0.be'pdffomed by locai ~c.f~h~.wi~.~e aea..By-p~$~g do~nt0~'~ffic' by'~ay .Highland R6ad, Spur .Road; Schoolhoiise'.Road, and. Depot Rd.ad is not -(C) The expected i[.0su!ts'-gf ~he.one:way ~xiting .traffic sc~nari6 On-the Spur Rofid aCc~s'S Wo~id effeCS~iy i~r~ase ~e ~fbotmd ieff"tUfl~S'at Griffir/ Sl~eet/Main Road.intemecfi0n 'b9 3.4 vehiCles:per, peak.hour, ch is not expected to caus& any adyer~e, hnpaets.. Ap. ri1 2007 - _ '.. '-.'neighbqrhood md '~: :Ma~:"Road ~a ~g~d'.,R6~ described - .-.. ~. " Attacl/menrs 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 SouthoId, 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 To: Jamie Richter, Town Engineer From: Amy Thiel, Senior Planner ~ Date: 4 April 2007 The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#: 1000-102-1-33.3 Please find enclosed a copyof the transmittal from Dale IL Grippo and Test Boring Plan prepared by Nelson & Pope dated January 17, 2005 and last revised March 7, 2007 for your Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything further. I TAGE CUTCHOG E 1721-D North Ocean Ave. Medford, N.Y. 11763 Tel .631 207-5730 Fax 631 207-5974 Letter of Transmittal Town Of Southold 54375 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 Attn. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT To: Address: Attention: Mr. James Richter Date: April 2, 2007 Project No.: Regarding: Heritage at Cutchogue Project We are sending you X Attached [] Under separate cover Shop drawings Copy of letter Prints Change Order Plans Specifications Samples For Approval [] Accepted as noted X For your use [] Returned for correction X For you information [] Resubmit __ copies for acceptance X As requested [] Submit __ copies for distribution X For review and Comment Fl Return __ corrected prints [] Accepted as submitted [] Prints returned at, er loan to us Copies Date Description 1 3/7/07 rev 3 Dwg. 7 of 10 Test Boring locations Mr. Richter, As requested please find the boring log drawing you requested. Drawing 7 of 10 dated 3/7/07 revision #3//~/ o=ation p,ease contact me v ~ If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Suite E, 2322 Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-5291 Bruce Anderson, M.S., President March 30, 2007 Ms. Jeri Woodhouse; Chairperson Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Town of Southotd, New York SCTM#: 1000 - 102 - 1 - 33.3 Dear Ms. Woodhouse, Please find the following enclosed herewith as it relates to the above referenced project. Environmental Assessment Review: Environmental and Planning Considerations fvr The Heritage at Cutchogue (seven [7] copies). Kindly review the enclosed items and add them to your records. I believe that it would be appropriate to discuss this report and collect any comments and concerns you might have regarding this project during your regular afternoon meeting of April 9m, 2007. Please have you staff confirm your acceptance of that date as appropriate. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Bruce A. Anderson End. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE HERITA GE A T CUTCHOGUE SITUATE 75 School House Lane; Cutchogue; Town of Southold, Ne~v York SCTM#: 'i000-102-%33.3 P~PARED FOR Southold Town Planning Board Jerilyn Woocthouse, Chairperson Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 PREPAI~ED BY Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Brictgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (63I) 537-5160 FAX: (631) 537-5291 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to summarize the application known as The Heritage at Cutchogue with respect to environmental and planning considerations to be evaluated in the site plan process undertaken by the Southold Town Planning Board. The Heritage at Cutchogue, LLC has requested site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board to authorize the construction of 139 attached and detached dwellings and related residential appurtenances on a 46.2 acre parcel in the Hamlet of Cutchogue. This report summarizes the proposed project and characterizes the site and surrounding area, summarizes the analysis provided by the application including water supply and sewage disposal, drainage, and traffic issues. This report examines the proposed project with respect to the Town's Zoning Law and concludes that the project as proposed is a permitted use in the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District in which subject parcel lies. This report is to provide a framework for the Southold Town Planning Board to determine the magnitude and importance of the environmental impacts that can reasonably be expected to occur as a result of the project as proposed. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Heritage at Cutchogue, LLC has requested site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board to authorize the construction of 139 attached and detached dwellings and related residential appurtenances on a 46.2 acre parcel in the Hamlet of Cutchogue. The overall property is being developed as a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community. The accessory support facilities include the construction of 8840 square foot clubhouse, a 160 square foot swimming pool, two 3,200 square foot tennis courts, a 2,400 square foot maintenance garage, a gazebo, a gatehouse, 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreation facility, 197,043 square feet of man made ponds, to serve as natural drainage areas and irrigation, 1,162,022 square feet of landscaping and other improvements consisting of the construction of 219,332 square feet of road surface, 34,236 square feet of sidewalk improvements, and parking lot areas consisting of 26,932 square feet. A total of 53 parking stalls will be provided, 45 of which are associated with the clubhouse. The individual dwelling units also feature separate driveways with attached garages. The site plan described above is an amendment of an earlier site plan application which featured planned multi-family townhouse development. The planned multi-family townhouse development was to consist of 150 townhouse units, of which 135 units would be sold at market rates and the remaining 15 units would be sold at affordable rates. The development was to be served by public water and a sewage treatment plant ("Cromaglass Plant"). In the current application, the applicant has selected five typical house plans all of which are of traditional architectural design. The various housing types alternate throughout the development in an effort to avoid a monotonous streetscape. The affordable units are similarly designed and dispersed throughout the development. The applicant has filed Sanitary Plans for the Heritage prepared by Nelson & Pope, Surveyors/Engineers dated January 17, 2005 which plans disclose that the dwelling units will be served by public water and on site sewage disposal systems. The Sanitary Plan features individual septic systems and gang systems for two, three and four single family units. The site plan also features a landscape plan prepared by Charles W. Kuehn submitted to the Planning Board on August 24, 2006. The landscape plans feature a perimeter berm surrounding the property that would be vegetated by evergreen trees including Leland Cypress and White Pine and understory shrubbery consisting of azalea, winterberry, holly and fountain grass. The landscape plans also feature the planting of street trees consisting of sugar maple, aristocrat pear, and sweet gum to be planted 40 feet on center. Finally, landscaping is provided around each dwelling unit, the plants for which consist of winterberry, ornamental grasses, hosta, astilbe, fountain grass, hydrangea, maiden grass and kousa dogwood. By correspondence from Jeffrey Rimland to the Planning Board dated March 22, 2007, the applicant states that the proposed project will be constructed in several phases. "The first phase will involve the basic site development which will include road layout, pond area preparation, construction of approximately six model homes and initial gatehouse and site work. After the model homes are completed we anticipate constructing approximately forty five units per year during the next three years. Work will not commence on a phase until contracts have been entered into for the homes to be constructed for that particular phase. The first phase will be constructed in the southeastern sector of the property, with the development of the northeast sector in the next year and the remaining western section undertaken during the last year. Each section will be completely landscaped with full roads and amenities before the next phase is undertaken." LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION Subject property is a 46.2 acre parcel located at 75 School House Lane in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk. The property is described as SCTM # 1000-102-1-33.3. The property is an abandoned field which was previously farmed. Subject parcel is adjacent to residentially developed property to the north and west, the commercial hamlet center of Cutchogue to the south and an abandoned farm field to the east. The residential developments to the north and west are reasonably screened from the site by existing vegetation. Similarly dense vegetation occurs at the southeastern portion of the site. Adjacent to the southeastern portion of the site is a trailer park. Set forth below is an aerial photograph dated 2007 which shows the property and surrounding area. Access and road frontage for subject property include the eastern terminus of Bridle Lane and Spur Road, with additional frontage at the intersection of Griffing Street and School House Lane. As proposed, the primary access to the site is from the intersection of Griffing Street and School House Lane. The secondary access is taken from the eastern terminus of Spur Road. The extension of the eastern terminus of Bridle Lane (onto the site) will be dedicated for emergency access only. Topography of the site is best described as moderately sloping. The applicant prepared a plan entitled "EXISTING RESOURCES AND SITE ANALYSIS PLAN" which plan discloses steep slopes (slopes equal or greater than 15%) to be located at the southeastern portion of the site. These steeper slopes comprise less than 5% of the site. The remainder of the property is characterized as moderately sloped. The construction activities, including grading are subject to the regulatory process of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to Phase II State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Program. Compliance with the Phase II SPDES Program will require that the Applicant prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) that must be approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and filed with the Planning Board and/or Town Engineer. The SWPP provides for best management practices for erosion control. According to the Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1975)the predominant soil types are Haven Loam (HaA), Plymouth Loamy Sand (PIC) and Riverhead Sandy Loam (RdB). Haven Loam is considered a class 1 agricultural soil and is distributed along the eastern and western perimeter of the site. Haven loam comprises approximately 1/3 of the property area. Plymouth Loamy Sand and Riverhead Sandy Loam comprise the remaining 2/3 of the property and area concentrated in the center of the property. All soil types are relatively common in the immediate Cutchogue area. The erosion potential for all soils found on site is slight to moderate. All soil types area suitable for development of house sites. The site is within an archeological and historically sensitive area based upon / data from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. A Cultural Resource Assessment (Documentary Search and Field Inspection) THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE, SOUTHOLD TOWNSHIP, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK prepared by Robert J. Kalin, July 1989 did not reveal any site conditions of significance with respect to archeological or cultural resources. The site is best described as a successional old field. Dominant trees include red cedar, white birch and locust. Dominant shrubs include northern bayberry and raspberry with the herbaceous layer consisting of various weeds and grasses. The site does not contain any ecologically significant resources such as wetlands and woodlands and does not support any threatened or endangered plant and animals. However, non-threatened plants exist on the site and non- threatened animals are expected to utilize the site. Successional old fields are described as apparently secure in New York State as per the New York Natural Heritage Program and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Successional old fields are common in the Town of Southold and Eastern Long Island. ZONING In February 1983, upon Petition of the then property owner, subject parcel was zoned Light Multiple Residential (M) to permit the construction of a residential community for senior citizens. In 1989, as part of a general re-zoning pursuant to the Town's adopted comprehensive plan, subject parcel was zoned Hamlet Density. During the 1990's subject parcel and the Hamlet Zones were again reviewed by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, and the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District was re-affirmed for this property. The purpose of the Hamlet Density Residential District is "to permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major Hamlet Centers, particularly, Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold, Orient and the Village of Greenport.' The district only applies to properties within ~ mile of a Hamlet Business District of the major Hamlets of the Town specifically including Cutchogue. The proposed project is a permitted use in the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District. WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL ? Subject parcel lies within Groundwater Management Zone IV. ~Public Water is available to the property./ The applicant has submitted a Sanitary Plan for the Heritage at Cutchogue prepared· by Nelson and Pope, Engineers and Surveyors dated January 17, 2005 ("Sanitary Plan"). The Sanitary Plan depicts a water main connection at Griffing Street and Spur Road. Generally, a design flow equal to 600 gallons per day per acre is permitted in Groundwater Zone IV for parcels that are served by public water. Public water is to be utilized for the living needs (i.e. cooking, bathing, and fire protection) for the future occupants of the dwelling units for this project. The applicant is not proposing the utilization of public water for purposes of landscape irrigation. In this application, the applicant utilizes the calculation method set forth in the Suffolk County Sanitary Code for purposes of establishing the permitted density in this Groundwater Management Zone. The calculation method provides for a permitted design flow equal to 22,625 gallons per day. The rated design flow for this project is 21,615 gallons per day. Therefore, this proposed project complies with the density limitations set forth in the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Because public water is provided to the site, adequate capacity to serve the site is presumed. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS The drainage calculations for the project are summarized in the Sanitary Plan. The specifications for the project are divided into two basic c~a~e~-f~rvious ',/ areas and impervious areas. The pervious areas includ~eway ar~a~ and landscape areas, the total for which is 1,220,362 squa feet.fe..~j~mpervious ~) areas include the road area, sidewalk area, building roof area, clubhouse roof, 7 patio, pool and gazebo area, parking lot and pond area, the total for which 792,725 square feet. Inclusion of the pond area as an impervious area is appropriate because the pond area will be created by the installation of an artificial PVC pond liner. The applicant utilizes a runoff coefficient of 0.3 for the pervious areas and a runoff coefficient of 1.0 for the impervious areas. The applicant proposes to install a series of catch basins and leaching pools to provide for the capture and recharge of a portion of the storm water generated from the proposed project. In addition, the applicant proposes to utilize the pond area for runoff storage. Pond levels will be maintained in part by storm water and by rainfall. By correspondence dated November 8, 2006, from James A. Richter, R.A., Town Engineer, to Jerilyn B. VVoodhouse, Chairperson - Planning Board in the Town of Southold, the Town Engineer has certified that the drainage calculations provided meet the. minimum requirements of the Town Code. The Town Engineer has requested further details to the overall drainage designs for further review. The Town Engineer has also requested a provision for test holes in the general area of the drainage systems to indicate the depth of soils and overall depth to groundwater if encountered. TRAFFIC The Applicant prepared and submitted a Traffic Impact Study: THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, July 2006 prepared by Nelson & Pope, Engineers and Surveyors ('Traffic Study"). The Traffic Study was to evaluate the potential impacts associated with a proposed senior residential development comprised of 139 condominiums. Existing conditions were analyzed utilizin~ seasonally adjusted traffic volumes to represent the peak month of the year and fi~lCl geometry co,ectecl at the following intersections: Main Road (NYS Rte 25) at Depot Lane, Main Road (NYS Rte 25) at Griffing Street, Middle Road (CR 48) at Depot Lane, and Schoolhouse Road at Depot Lane. The~jr.a~..,¢ ve!ume-_ Ce,~er~t~rt hy the proposed projects were determined utilizin i~y Capacity Software (H~S~ The tra~,c study went on to com,,pare the existing ra ' ' ' Iternative against a "future-build condition. The data was analyzed to determine Level Of Service (LOS) for the surrounding road network. NhO changes in LOS were detected in any of the above mentioned intersections"~ ith the exception of the intersection of Schoolhouse Road at Depot Lan,e,. ere, LOS changed from A to B. The L~OS change from ^ to [~' reflected a racketing change in delay classification predicted to be experienced by a motorist making a left turn from Schoolhouse Road onto Depot Lane. However, the actual calculated delay occurring at A.M. peak hour increased insignificantly from 10.0 seconds to 10.2 seconds. In addition, traffic analysis was applied at the proposed access way onto Spur Road, which analysis revealed site generated trips varying from 3 to 4 occurring during weekday A.M., P.M. and Saturdays. Although, no change in LOS is expected to occur at the intersection of Main Road and Depot Lane as a result of the proposed project, the traffic study re-emphasizes the need for the installation of a traffic signal at that location. ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONCERNS A review of the instant application before the Planning Board in consideration of the surrounding community or district has revealed the following environmental and planning concerns to be addressed in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Form - Part 2: o Im o Im o Im o lm o Im o Im o Im )act on Land; }act on Plants and Animals; }act on Agricultural Land Resources; )act on Aesthetic Resources; )act on Open Space and Recreation; )act on Transportation; and )act on the Growth and Character of the Community or Neighborhood. The Environmental Impact Form - Part 2 is to be prepared to determine whether or not the potential environmental impacts are small to moderate or potentially large and whether or not the impact can be mitigated by project change. 9 PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY patricia.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us KIERAI~ M. CORCORAN ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY kieran.corcoran@town.southold, ny.us LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.montefusco@town.southold.ny.us Supervisor Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE T~I:~EY~'":~--'::~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ,~ March 29, 2007 Mr. Bruce Anderson, M.S., President Suffolk Environmental Consulting Services, [nc.~_.~.; ..;~ ..... Newman Village, Suite E 2322 Main Street P.O. Box 2003 Bridgehampton, NY 11932-2003 RE: The Heritage at Cutchogue Dear Mr. Anderson: Please allow this letter to respond to your inquiry about the permitted density on the HD zoned parcel in Cutchogue known as "The Heritage". The schedule attached to Chapter 280 of the Town Code (Attachment 1) refers to I unit per 10,000 square feet, with community water and sewer, in the HD zone. In this project, an actual sewer system is not required by the Health Department because there will be Covenants and Restrictions filed on the parcel restricting occupancy to those age 55 and over. The aforementioned requirement in the Town Code for sewer will be satisfied by approval of the Suffolk County Health Department that the septic requirements for the project have been met. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention. V~ry/t'qruly ~oatwrinCi~tt~rnFie?eoar '~ PAF/Ik cc: Charles Cuddy, Esq. Mr. Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector Mr. Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner / Submission Without a Cover Letter Sender: Subject: Date: Comments: CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT Board of Flre Commissioners 260 New Suffolk Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Telephone (631) 734-6907 - Fax (631) 734-7079 E-mail: cutfd r~optonllne.net February 3, 2007 Mr. Bruno Semon Planning Board Office PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Ref: The Heritage Subdivision Plan of Cutchogue Dear Mr. Semon, The Board of Fire Commissioners have reviewed the above subdivision plan and find that it will be necessary to install 9 Fire Hydrants for the site. Attached please find a copy of your plan showing the locations of the 9 Hydrants. The Hydrants are to be of the Suffolk County Water Authority and Cutchogue Fire District specifications and to produce a minimum of 500 gallons per minute of water. Thank you for your correspondence and please feel free to contact us at any time. Very truly yours, Board of Fire Commissioners District Secretary 49'56'35~ E 221 ~47' SUBIMAL CHAKRABORTI, F~E. REGIONAL DIRECTOR February 2, 2007 Ms. Kerri M. Collins, P.E. Nelson & Pope Engineers & Surveyors 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, NY 11747-2188 Dear Ms. Collins: STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION TEN 250 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY H a U P Pa u g .~i.~I~~ 1 ~.S 8. -~-~'~ ~ Y~ur December 11, 2006 Submission The Heritage at Cutchogue Site Plans Dated 1/17/06 Traffic Impact Study Dated July, 2006 Route 25, Cutchogue SCTM 1000-102-1-33.3 Our Case No. 06-357P 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: An eastbound left turn lane should be installed on Route 25 at Griffin Street. Plans should be developed to implement comment number 1. The existing shoulders should be evaluated to ensure they are capable of supporting traffic loads since it appears likely that the shoulder sections will be used as a portion of the travel lanes to accommodate the installation of an eastbound left turn lane. In order to take shoulder corns a highway work permit shall be secured from us. 3. All re-submitted plans shall show all work and material details referenced to NYSDOT specification item numbers. Please submit four (4) sets of revised plans. 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 Mr. Kern M. Collins February 2, 2007 Page 2 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 I~y Si~aik A. Saad SHAIK A. SAAD, P.E. Civil Engineer III Traffic Engineering and Safety cc: Mr. Peter Harris, Superintendent of Highways, Town of Southold Ks. Jerilyn Woodhouse, Planning Board Chairperson, Town of Southold Mr. Anthony Trezza, Senior Site Planner, Town of Southold SAS:MDW:JMN PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN II. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPII 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 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 To: Brace Anderson, President From: Anthony Trezza, Sr. Planner Date: February 7, 2007 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue 1000-102-1-33.3 The Planning Board agreed to retain your company to provide environmemal services in connection with the above-referenced residential site plan application. A copy of the signed proposal is attached for your review. The original has been mailed to your office. We look forward to working with you on this project. 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 7, 2007 Bruce Anderson, President Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 2003 Bridgehampton, NY 11932-2003 Re~ Residential Site Plan-The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Anderson: Enclosed, please find the signed proposal for environmental services your firm is providing in connection with the above-referenced residential site plan application. It is our understanding that upon receipt of the signed agreement, the environmental services will commence. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact this office. Anthony P. Trezza Senior Planner Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Newman Village, Main Street, P.O. Box 2003, Bridgehampton, New York 11932-2003 (631) 537-5160 Fax: (631) 537-3137, · Bruce Anderson, M.S., President ff?D '-~ -- ~ ~D._q \ Via Telecopier and Requ ar Mail Jedlyn B. Woodhouse, Chair Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 January 22, 1007 Attn: Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner Re: Residential site Plan - The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM # 1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Woodhouse, The following proposal is submitted in connection with correspondence received from Mr. Trezza of the Town's Planning Department dated January 16, 2007 concerning the project referenced above. I understand that the Southold Planning Board has received a site plan application for residential housing units to be constructed in this property. The proposed development is a Type 1 action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and the Planning Board has coordinated the action among other involved agencies. The Planning Board will be requesting that it assume lead agency thereby directing the overall environmental review of the project. This Firm is prepared to represent the Southold Planning Board in complying with the applicable procedures required in SEQRA. Environmental services include field inspection, review off all submitted documents from the applicant, preparation of an environmental report to the Planning Board, consultation with the Planning Board and its staff, preparation of an Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF') Part 2 and FAF Part 3 (if needed) along with the required Declaration of Significance. We would also monitor the required public hearing to determine whether substantive issues are raised which were not considered in the environmental review of the project. Please be advised that our fees are assessed at a rate of $135.00 per hour for services that are rendered to the point where the Planning Board adopts a Declaration of Significance. In the event that the Planning Board adopts a Negative Declaration, environmental services shall include the monitoring of the required public hearing. We do not anticipate that our fees will exceed $5000.00 under this scenario. In the event that your Board adopts a positive declaration, this proposal will be replaced by a second proposal which will include environmental services rendered in connection with the regulatory processing of a full environmental impact statement. In no event shall environmental services rendered in connection with this matter preclude this Firm from the processing of any applications before any Town Agency or Board. Environmental services shall commence upon receipt of this proposal with your signature affixed. Thank you for using Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sincerely, Bruce ^. Anderson Acceptedby~ Date: ,~/~? PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND January l6,2007 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, NY 11971 O~'F~CE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Mr. Brace A. Anderson, President Suffolk Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 2003 Bridgehampton, NY 11932 Re: Residential Site Plan-The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Anderson: The Planning Board would like to retain your firm to conduct the Environmental Review for the above-referenced project. We have initiated the Lead Agency Coordination for this project and the Board expects to designate itself as the Lead Agency in the near future. As discussed, I am enclosing the following materials for your review. Please provide this office with a cost estimate for your services: completed apphcation · completed Full Environmental Assessment Form · project description · Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Nelson and Pope Engineers and Surveyors dated July 2006. · full set of site plan drawings prepared by Nelson and Pope Engineers and Surveyors dated January 17, 2005 · full set of landscaping plans prepared by Charles W. Kuehn, R.A. dated August 2006 Upon review of the enclosed information, please call our office to discuss the scope of services to be provided. We look forward to working with you on this project. Senior Planner S:\Planning\2OO7\Subdlvisions \Lett ers \anderson 1.16.07.doc ,COUNTY OF SUFFOLKI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Town of Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attn: Anthony P. Trezza, Sr. Planner STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE THOMAS ISLES, AICP 2..'~" ': 2007 ~'~: January 4, The ~eritage ~ Cutchog~ SCTM No. 100~102~313 Re: Dear Sir: Your notification for SEQR Coordination was received by our agency on December 18, 2006. Please be advised that our agency, the Suffolk County Planning Commission has no objection to the Town of Southold assuming Lead Agency stares 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 prior to final approval, this action should be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for review. 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 117884)099 TELECOPIER (631} 853-4044 Submission }Yithout a Cover Letter Sender: Subject: SCTM#: 1000- Date: Comments: ARC Minutes December ~ 4, 2006 PaRe Two Revisited Applications: · Heritage at Cutchogue Residential SP SCTM: 1000-102-1-33.3 TABLED, Recommendations to Planning Board: (1) integrate affordable units with other units; (2) significantly vary roof lines(planes & heights) of ranches using same elements and materials, but add new styles of architecture (shape and size; e.g, modern) vs. homogenized buildings. The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Linda Randolph~~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES December 14, 2006 4:00 p.m. Town Hall Meeting Hall Present were: Councilman Tom Wickham, Co-Chairman Ural Talgat, members Herb Ernst, Skip Lee, Ronald McGreevy, Howard Meinke, Nicholas Planamento, Elizabeth Thompson, Senior Planner Anthony Trezza, ARC Secretary Linda Randolph, and project reps. Minutes of the November 2, 2006 meeting and proposed 2007 meeting dates were approved. John Henry, Suffolk Times contributor:, and a photographer were present for the purpose of writing a feature story about the ARC. Councilman Wickham addressed the Committee regarding its role in the site plan process and requested suggestions to take to the Planning Board which would improve the "seam" between the ARC and the Planning Board. Councilman Wickham requested and was given a copy of the ARC's 11/15/06 Winery Recommendations memo and said he will respond at or before the next ARC meeting, which is scheduled for January 18, 2007. New Applications: · Cutchogue Business Center 11-06 SCTM: 1000-83-3-4.6 TABLED: Pending receipt of the following: photos of the building from both roads, revised landscape plan, concept and parking layouts, aerial photos and any future buildings. Recommendation: consider addition of a cupola. · Pindar Vineyards Storage Bldg. 11/06 SCTM: 1000-85-2-14 TABLED: Pending receipt of photos from street. Suggestion: plant deciduous and evergreen trees along the eastern portion of the building and evergreen mix along western side, and show on plan. No rep present. Note to Planning Board re "as built" Committee discussed building without approval. · E. Marion FD Telecom Project Committee approved light blue flagpole. SCTM: 1000-31-3-11.31 Held Open Applications: · 13235 Main Road (King) SCTM: 1000-140-3-37 Conditionally approved pending plan to show outdoor lighting of building facade, fencing of a/c units, screened dumpster location. Recommended: longer shutters on 6 windows with panels. Motion: Elizabeth; Second: Nick. 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 Southald, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southald, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 December 12, 2006 Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. issues of concern you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Residential Site Plan -The Heritage at Cutchogue 75 Schoolhouse Road in Cutchogue SCTM #: 1000-102-1-33.3 Zoning District: Hamlet Density (HD) Requested Action: This application is for residential site plan approval for the development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings of approximately 2,000 sq.f.t each; an 8,840 sq.ft, clubhouse; a 1,160 sq.ft, swimming pool; two 3,200 sq.ft, tennis courts; a 2,400 sq.ft, maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 sq.ft, of manmade ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including read pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements, on a 46.17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on the northwest corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 Heritage at Cutchogue Page Two December 12, 2006 SEQRA Classification: (x) Type I ( ) Type II ( ) Unlisted Contact Person: Anthony P. Trezza, Senior Planner (631) 765-1938 The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (ELS) 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. 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: Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Very truly yours, house Chairperson CC: Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Zoning Board of Appeals Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector Board of Trustees Jamie Richter, Town Engineer Peter Harris, Superintendent of Highways Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYSDEC - Stony Brook New York State Department of Transportation Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Department Stephen M. Jones Chief Executive Officer SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, New York 11769-0901 (631) 563-0219 Fax (631) 563-0370 Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Planning Board Office Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 December 12, 2006 SEQRA - The Heritage at Cutchogue, SCTM# 1000-102-~-3&~ ~ Dear Ms. Woodhouse: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAF application for the above referenced project. The SCWA offers the following comments as it pertains to the proposed application. As you know, the S CWA's mission is to provide quality drinking water at an affordable price to all of our residents. Implementing environmentally friendly pesticide practices and conserving our water supply today is integral in assuring that we have adequate quality water for generations to come. This particularly holds tree for the Town of Southold where water supply is limited and there is a large impact to shallow aquifers. The SCWA strongly urges that the Town of Southold impose conditions on this project L requiring the use of low flow plumbing fixtures in accordance with the latest codes, permitting the irrigation of only 15% of the area of any single lot (automatic irrigation systems may pose pressure problems in this project area) and also adopting methods to reduce the potential of degraded water fi'omi recharging to the aquifer. / Page Two December 12, 2006 These recommendations are consistent with the SCWA's Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold and should be conditions memorialized in the form of Covenants and Restrictions recorded with the Suffolk County Clerk. The SCWA will not issue a letter of water availability for this project until such time as the Town of Southold has reviewed and approved this proj ecl in accordance with the Town ofSouthold's planning and development requirements and the SCWA's Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold. Additional information on this application may be sent to Kimberly Kennedy at 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769 Thank you. SMJ/kk PLANNING BOARD MEMBER~ JERILYN B. WOODIIOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN II. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPII L. TOVCNSEND 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 December 12, 2006 Charles Cuddy, Esq. PO Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed Residential Site Plan for the Heritage at Cutchogue Located on the n/w corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane; approximately 1,079 feet n/o Main Road in Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 Zone: Hamlet Density (HD) Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, December 11,2006: WHEREAS, this application is for residential site plan approval for the development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings of approximately 2,000 sq.f.t each; an 8,840 sq.ft, clubhouse; a 1,160 sq.ft, swimming pool; two 3,200 sq.ft, tennis courts; a 2,400 sq.ft, maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 sq.ft, of manmade ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements, on a 46.17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on the n/w corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet n/o Main Road in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, initiates the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Type I action pursuant to Part 617.4 (b) (6) (i). The Heritage at Cutchogue Page Two December 12, 2006 Attached is a copy of the Full Environmental Assessment Form for your review. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Jerilyn B. Woodhouse Chairperson CC: Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Zoning Board of Appeals Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector Board of Trustees Jamie Richter, Town Engineer Peter Harris, Superintendent of Highways Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYSDEC - Stony Brook New York State Department of Transportation Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Department Shaik A. Saad, PE Traffic Engineering and Safety State of New York Departmem of Transportation 250 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Attn: Mark Wolfgang Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue NYSDOT Case No.: 06-357P Nelson & Pope No. 00026 Dear Mr. Wolfgang: Enclosed are 2 copies of the Traffic Impact Study and 4 sets of revised site plans for the above referenced project as requested per your letter dated November 16, 2006. In addition, we 'have reviewed the comments included in the letter and offer the following responses: Comment #1: Response: The'volumes are confusing, (a) the site generated counts seem low and the absence of page~ 18 and J9 from the Traffic ~mpact Study (TIS)further the confusion. (a) As stated in the TIS, the site generated volumes were based upon statistical data provided in the manual, Trip Generation, 7th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2003 for Land Use: 251 Senior Adult Housing-Detached. 'In accordance with the ITE manual, senior adult housing consists of detached independent living developments, including retirement communities, age-restricted housing, and active adult communities all of which are consistent with the proposed residential development. These types of developmems typically generate low trip totals because compared with single family home developments, they tend to have fewer residents, fewer vehicles per unit and a higher portion of the residents do not work, or 'work part-time. Nelson & Pope has performed site counts at age-restricted developments on Long Island. A count performed at a development'known as Woodcrest Estates in Port Jefferson shows data that-corresponds with the ITE trip generation rates. For example, ITE provides rates.of 0.20 and 0.26 ~ps per unff for AM and PM street peak hours respectively. The site data indicates rates of .19 and .27 for the same time periods. More impor[antly, the.site data shows the peak naps occur during the midday at noon with a rate of 0.36. Shaik A, Saad, PE Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue December 1~., 2006 Page 2 of 2 Similarly, ITE cites a peak generator rate of 0.35/0.36. The data is attached. The traffic study used the trip generation rates for the peak of the sire and applied those trips to the coums taken during the peak of the adjacent intersections. Therefore, the analysis was conservative. Ln addition, Griffin Street, south of the site, contains a number of services that residents would, typically patronize, such as a Post Office, bank, library and a municipal parking lot. Developmems, such as .this, that are located near central business districts (CBD), tend to generate fewer la4ps on the main roads than other residential land uses that are located farther away from trip attractors. For these reasons, we believe the trip g~neration estimate to be appropriate and somewhat conservative. Co) The copies of the TIS, in its entirety, are inclucled in this submission. Comment #2: Response: We trust that this supplemental information will assist with your application. Please contact us if you have further questions: The TIS states there will be two (2) means of access to the site. The plans only show one. As shown on the revised site plans, included in this submission, the two means of access referred to in the traffic study are the intersections of the proposed site roadway with Schoolhouse Road/Griffin Street and with Spur Drive. Spur Drive currently termmates at the western boundary of the site, An emergency access will be provided via a connection to Bridle Lane. review of the Sincerely, NELSON ~ POPE Ken'i M. Collins, PE Attachments cc: Charles Cuddy, Esq. Jeffrey Rimland, Rimland Equities [:12000100026 TRAFFIC1GAB L r 12_05_06 DOT R~ponse. doc POPE Site Counts - Woodcrest Estates at Port Jefferson NYS Route 347 & Woodcrest Drive (Site Access) 256 Units - Age Restricted Development w/Community Building Trip Generation Rate Calculation Site Trips Rates (Trips per Unit) START TIME Weekday Average Weekday Average TOTAL TOTAL Entering Exiting Entering Exiting 12:00 AM 1.75 2.5 4.25 0.01 0.01 0.02 1:00 AM 1.25 2.75 4 0.00 0.01 0.02 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3:00 AM 0.75 1.5 2.25 0.00 0.01 0.01 4:00 AM 1.25 2.25 . 3.5 0.00 0.01 0.01 5:00 AM 5.25 8.75 14 0.02 0.03 0.05 6:00 AM 6.25 14.25 20.5 0.02 0.06 0.08 7:00 AM 10.5 25.25 35.75 0.04 0.10 0.14 8:00 AM 20.5 29 49.5 0.08 0.11 0.19 9:00 AM 23.25 29 52.25 0.09 0.11 0.20 10:00 AM 32.25 34.25 66.5 0.13 0.13 0.26 1 I:00 AM 31.25 30.25 61.5 0.12 0.12 0.24 12:00 PM 49 43.25 92.25 0.19 0.17 0.36I 1:00 PM 42.75 38.25 81 0.17 0.15 0.32 2:00 PM 52.25 31.25 83.5 0.20 0.12 0.33 3:00 PM 48.25 27.5 75.75 0.19 0.11 0.30 4:00 PM 43.25 26 69.25 0.17 0.10 0.27 5:00 PM 42.5 27 69.5 0.17 0.11 0.27 6:00 PM 32.25 23.75 56 0.13 0.09 0.22 7:00 PM 32.5 27 59.5 0.13 0.11 0.23 8:00 PM 27.75 16.75 44.5 0. I 1 0.07 0.17 9:00 PM 16.5 9.25 25.75 0.06 0.04 0.10 10:00 PM 12.25 8.25 20.5 0.05 0.03 0.08 11:00 PM 4.25 5.5 9.75 0.02 0.02 0.04 DAILY 537.75 463.5 1001.25 2.10 1.81 3.91 TOTALS tdpgenCal¢.xls Site Counts - Woodcrest Estates at Port Jefferson NYS Route 347 & Woodcrest Drive (Site Aeeess) 256 Units - Age Restricted Development w/Community Building June 4, 2001 May 29,2001 May 30~ 2001 May 31, 2001 START Monday Tuesday Wednessday Thursday Weekday Average TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TIME Entering Exiting Entering Exiting TOTAL Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Entering Exiting 12:00 AM I 3 4 3 3 6 2 2 4 ] 2 3 1.75 2.5 4.25 I:00 AM 0 3 3 4 4 8 0 2 2 1 2 3 1.25 2.75 4 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 9 0.75 1.5 2.25 4:00 AM 1 1 2 2 3 5 0 2 2 2 3 5 1.25 2.25 3.5 5:00 AM 6 8 14 5 9 14 5 8 13 5 10 15 5.25 8.75 14 6:00 AM 6 15 21 6 13 19 7 15 22 6 14 20 6.25 14.25 20.5 7:00 AM 11 25 36 I 1 27 38 12 22 34 8 27 35 10.5 25.25 35.75 8:00 AM 21 27 48 19 34 53 22 29 51 20 26 46 20.5 29 49.5 9:00 AM 15 23 38 28 27 55 27 37 64 23 29 52 23.25 29 52.25 10:00 AM 34 37 71 31 35 66 35 33 68 29 32 61 32.25 34.25 66.5 11:00 AM 36 28 64 27 25 52 35 39 74 27 29 56 31.25 30.25 61.5 12:00 PM 47 46 93 40 40 80 54 47 101 55 40 95 49 43.25 92.25 1:00 PM 48 33 gl 41 41 82 40 43 83 42 36 78 42.75 38.25 81 2:00 PM 62 32 94 54 31 85 41 38 79 52 24 76 52.25 31.25 83.5 3:00 PM 43 32 75 57 18 75 54 33 87 39 27 66 48.25 27.5 75.75 4:00 PM 36 28 64 35 27 62 62 26 88 40 23 63 43.25 26 69.25 5:00 PM 39 30 69 38 16 54 47 34 81 46 28 74 42.5 27 69.5 6:00 PM 28 31 59 29 18 47 30 28 58 42 18 60 32.25 23.75 56 7:00 PM 31 25 56 26 23 49 32 19 51 41 41 82 32.5 27 59.5 8:00 PM 28 12 40 31 2[ 52 27 16 43 25 18 43 27.75 16.75 44.5 9:00 PM 20 7 27 14 10 24 17 11 28 15 9 24 16.5 9.25 25.75 10:00 PM 9 7 16 12 9 21 12 9 21 16 8 24 12.25 8.25 20.5 I 1:00 PM 3 4 7 3 9 12 9 6 15 2 3 5 4.25 5.5 9.75 DAILY 525 457 982 516 443 959 570 499 1,069 540 455 995 538 464 1,001 TOTALS The build-or-buy bugaboo By Erica Jackson 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 November 27, 2006 Kimberly Kennedy, Assistant to General Counsel Suffolk County Water Authority 4060 Sunrise Highway Oakdale, NY 11769 Re: Residential Site Plan-The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms Kennedy Enclosed, please find one (1) copy of the map depicting the fire hydrant locations as proposed by the applicant for the above-referenced residential site plan application. Please review and provide the Planning Board with additional comments and/or recommendations. This information has been sent to the Cutchogue Fire District for their review. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact this office. Senior Planner PLANNING BOARD 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 MEMORANDUM To: Jamie Richter, Town Engineer From: Anthony Trezza, Sr. Planner ~ Date: November 27, 2006 Re.' The Heritage at Cutchogue 1000-102-1-33.3 As a follow-up to your recent reviexv of the above-referenced residential site plan application, enclosed please fred one (1) copy of the fire hydrant locations, as proposed by the applicant. Please review and provide the Planning Board with additional comments and/or recommendations. The plan has been referred to the Cutchogue Fire District for their review. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me knoxv. PLANNING BOARD MEMBE9 JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Cha/r 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 MEMORANDUM To: Michael Verity, Chief Building Ins~ector From: Anthony Trezza, Sr. Planner ~ Date: November 27, 2006 Re: Cutchogue-The Heritage at Cutchogue 1000-102-1-33.3 In reference to the above, attached you will find a site plan and application. The site plan reflects the current proposed build out of this site. Please review for comments, concerns and certification. This application is for residential site plan approval for the development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings of approximately 2,000 sq.f.t each; an 8,840 sq.ft, clubhouse; a 1,160 sq.ft, swimming pool; two 3,200 sq.ft, tennis courts; a 2,400 sq.fi, maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 sq.ft, of manmade ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements, on a 46.17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on the northwest comer of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3. The enclosed site plan is for your review and records and does not need to be returned to the Planning Board. PLANNING BOARD MEMB~ JERILY~ 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 November 27, 2006 Matthew Martin Cutchogue Fire District New Suffolk Road Cutchogue, New York 11935 Rc: Cutchogue-The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Martin: Enclosed please fred one (I) copy of the proposed fire hydrant locations and one (1) site plan prepared by Arthur J. Koerber, P.E. of Nelson and Pope dated January 17, 2005 for the above referenced project. This application is for residential site plan approval for the development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consis6ng of 139 detached and attached dwellings of approximately 2,000 sq.f.t each; an 8,840 sq.ft, clubhouse; a 1,160 sq.ft, swimming pool; two 3,200 sq.ft, tennis courts; a 2,400 sq.ft, maintenance garage; a gazebo; a gatehouse; 322 parking spaces, of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility; 197,043 sq. ft. of manmade ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems; 1,162,022 square feet (27.676 acres) of landscaping; and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements, on a 46.17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District located on the northwest corner of Grilling Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet north of Main Road in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 The enclosed site plan is being referred to you for fnce access reviexv and for your recommendations. Senior Planner 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 November 27, 2006 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Residential Site Plan-The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: Enclosed, please find one (1) copy of the Town Engineer's report dated November 8, 2006 and one (1) copy of the letter from the New York State Department of Transportation dated November 16, 2006. Please review these correspondences and address the issues accordingly. Upon receipt of your written response, the Planning Board will schedule the matter for a work session. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact this office. Sin.c, erelv.v.v.v~ Anthony,'P. Trezza Senior Planner TO Charles W Kueh-n A R C HiT E Q"I 3 E. Deer P~rk Road, Suite 2'01 Dix Hills, New York 11746 (631) 493-0534 WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached [] Under separate cover via ! D Shop drawings [] Prints ~/Plans [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] fL.. - the following items: [] Samples [] Specifica'.~ions COPIES DATE NO. FHESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: For approval For your use ~ As requested F2 For review and comment FOR BIDS DUE ~ Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted ~ Returned for corrections [] Resubmit E] Submit [] Return copies for approval copies for distribulion corrected prints ~9 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS__ COPY TO % % THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUF' t H~I)I~NT I I STREET HYDRANT (il~l POND TAPPED HYDRANT CHAREE8 W. KUEHN. iRA ~ E. Deer Pa¢,~ i~ed suite ~1 DIx Hills, N.~ Yorlt 11748 Pax No. (~,1~) ~ NO. OF PAGE8 (including th~ page) "~, To:63i 765 136 PLEA. SE NOTIFY THIS OFRCE IMM1EDLa, TELY IF NOT PI~C~GRLY RECEIVED. PLEASI~ CALL (aal) Southo;d To,~n , THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHO(;UE tll I I I I I I I{t I I I I I I J Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRIFFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK November 21, 2006 TEL: (631) 369-8200 FAX: (631) 369-9080 E-mad: charles.cuddy~ venzon.net Mr. Anthony P. Trezza, Senior Planner Southold Planning Deparlment P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Trezza: Enclosed please find an Authorization letter from The Hamlet at Cutchogue, LLC, authorizing me to appear on its behalf. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC:ik Enclosures NOV 2 2 2006 SUBIMAL CHAKRABORTI, PE. REG]ONAL DIRECTOR November 16, 2006 STATE OF NEW YORk DEPARTMENt Of TRANSPORTATION REGION TEN 250 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY Hauppauge, new YORk 11788 www. dot.state.ny, us ~&. Anthony Trezza, Senior Site Planner Town of Southold Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11791 Dear Mr. Trezza: Your October 6, 2(~06 THOMAS J. MADISON, JR. COM MISS)ONER [ The Heritage at C~[clib tl~~ ......... Site Plans Dated 1/17/06 Traffic Impact Study Dated July, 2006 Route 25, Cutchogue SCTM 1000-102-1-33.3 Our Case No. 06-357P 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. The volumes are confusing, the site generated counts seem low and the absence of pages 18 and 19 from the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) further the confusion. 2. The TIS states there will be two (2) means of access to the site. The plans only show one. Please have the applicant submit four (4) sets of revised plans and two (2) copies of a TIS that have all pages included in order to avoid confusion. 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. Mr. Anthony Trezza November 16, 2006 Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation concerning this matter. Shaik A. Saad SHAIK A. SAAD, P.E. Civil Engineer IH Traffic Engineering and Safety cc: Mr. Peter Harris, Superintendent of Highways, Town of Southold ( Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse, Planning Board Chairperson, Town of Southold SAS:MDW:SME 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 November 16, 2006 Kimberly Kennedy, Assistant to General Counsel Suffolk County Water Authority 4060 Sunrise Highway Oakdale, NY 11769-0901 Rc: Residential Site Plan- The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Kennedy: As requested in your letter dated November 2, 2006, I have enclosed a copy of the site plan for the above-referenced project, which includes detailed water usage data. The Planning Board looks forward to receiving your comments for this project. Please feel free to contact this office if you need additional information or have any questions. Senior Planner 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 FACSIMILE MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hail Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 To: Charles Cuddy, Esq. (fax 631-369-9080) From: Anthony Trezza, Sr. Pla~~----~~ Date: November 16, 2006 Re: Residential Site Plan-The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 As a follow-up to the work session on November 13, 2006, attached please find one (1) copy of the Engineer's report for this project, which was accepted by the Planning Board. With respect to Jamie Richter's recommendation that the mad that connects Spur Road and Griffing Street be improved to Town highway specifications and subsequently dedicated to the Town, the Board has not yet made a decision whether or not they will accept this recommendation. In addition, it has come to my attention that we do not have an authorization letter on file for this project. Please fax one to the Planning Board as soon as possible so that you are officially recognized as the agent for the applicant. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. 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 JAMIE.RICHTER~TOWN.SOUTHOLD.NY.US Jerilyn B. Woodhouse Chairperson - Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, NewYork 11971 Re; Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM #: 1000-102-01-33.3 OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Dear Mrs. Woodhouse: ...,~_.,...~,,.,~:~.,~,~,. ~.. ..... .~.,,~"~='""*' ~ As per a request from your office, I have reviewed the site plans for the above referenced project. This project has been designed by the office of Nelson & Pope which have been stamped received by the Planning Board on August 25, 2006. 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. 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 the General Permit for Storm-water Runoff from Construction Activity (GP-02-01) pdor to the initiation of construction activities. 2. Drainage Calculations have been provided and meet the minimum requirements of Town Code. Drainage details, as provided, are adequate but they should also indicate the following: a. h. Cross Sections and Details of the proposed leaching pools should be indicated on the plans. Cross Sections and Details of the proposed Culverts that will be installed under the roadway should be indicated on the plans. The type and size of drainage piping should be indicated on the plans. Cross Sections and Details of the proposed Headwalls and/or Pipe End Sections should be indicated on the plans. Test Holes should be provided in the general area of the drainage systems to indicate the depth of soil types and the overall depth to Ground Water where and if encountered. 3. The proposed roadway between the end of Spur Road and the end of Griffing Street should be provided with a separate or individually described Right-of-Way (ROW) to make it possible for dedication to the Town. It is recommended that this dedication be made as a condition of the Site Plan Approval process. This ROW area should be a minimum of fifty (50') feet wide and all road construction should meet the Minimum Standards found in the Towns Highway Specifications. In addition, the pamel for dedication may also include the open areas where drainage has been proposed on the southerly side of the roadway or as you may deem appropriate. Easements will also be required to allow road run-off from this road to enter the pond drainage system that will be coming from Catch Basin # 37 & 38. Page 1 of 2 Jedlyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson - Planning Board Re: Hedtage at Cutchogue SCTM #: 1000-102-01-33.3 November 8, 2006 Page 2 of 2 4. Belgian Block curbing has been indicated for the residential roads within the development. This item is no longer approved by the Highway Specifications. However, because this section of the read will not be dedicated to the Town, the Highway Superintendent has made an exception to this Specification and has approved the use of Belgian Block. 5. The proposed construction of an emergency access to the site from Bridal Lane has been approved by the Highway Superintendent with the following stipulation. All work associated with the required improvements to facilitate this access shall be the responsibility of the Developer. All new work within the existing Town ROW will require final approvals from the Highway Superintendent. 6. The plans indicate a typical rear yard setback of thirty (30') feet around the perimeter of the site. For those building envelopes and/or footprints that do not back up on this setback, will there be a maximum depth established for the footprint? What buffers or landscaping will be required between the existing residential properties where there is only a thirty (30') foot rear yard setback proposed? It is recommended that actual dimension or overall area of ail Building envelopes be provided to ensure consistency with approved plans. 7. Will the Planning Board require the installation of Street Lighting throughout the project? 8. Will the Planning Board require a landscaping plan for the project? It is recommended that the items noted here be incorporated into the Planning Board Site Plan approval process. It is also recommended that Mark Terry be requested to review the proposed project for consistency with the Towns LWRP. If any of the items listed herein have already been addressed to the Planning Boards satisfaction please disregards my comments. If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact my office. CC: Peter Harris (Superintendent of Highways) SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Timothy J. Hopkins General Counsel Ms. Jeril.vn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Planning Board Office Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769-0901 (631) 563-0236 Fax (631) 563-0370 November 2, 2006 "~ NOV -3 2006 I " Re: SEQRA - The Heritage at Cutchogue, SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAF application for the above referenced project. The SCWA would like to reserve its comments on this application until such time we receive a site plan for the project as well as detailed water usage data, particularly as it pertains to the imgation of turf and landscaping. Kindly forward this information or any impact statements to my attention at 4060 Sunrise Hwy, Oakdale, NY 11769. Thank you. Very truly yours, mberly Kenrledy' t Assistant to General Counsel DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ®. STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE October 20, 2006 THOMAS ISLES, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Town of Southold 53095 Main Road - P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attn: Anthony Trezza, Sr. Planner Dear Sir: Re: "The Heritage ~ Cutchogue" SCTM No.: 100-102-1-33.3 SCPC File No.: SD-06-NJ Pursuant to Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrati~i~e-ab-o¢e referenced application is not within the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Very truly yours, Thomas Isles 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 I 1788-0099 TELECOPIER 631) 853-4044 STATe OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION REGION TEN 250 VETEraNS MEMORIAL HigHWaY HaUppAuge, NEW YORk 11788 www. dot.state.ny, us SUBIMAL CHAKRABORTI, f~E. REGIONAL DIRECTOR THOMAS J. MADISON, JR. COMMISSIONEr October 16, 2006 Mr. Anthony Trezza, Senior Site Planner Town of Southold ....... Town ~allj2~ P. O. Box 1179 , _~--~ ' ',, ~'~ .i)~ ' Your October 6, 2006 Submission \'~,7 ,3 ',~Heritageat Cutchogue ?, ( '~" ~ ~oute 25 Cutchogue ~ ... ~ ~m 1000-102-1-33 3 ~ [ "- ' ~[-~~~aseNo. 06-357P De~ Mr. Trez~a: This is to a~owledge receipt of your preh~n~y sub~ssion on the above pemt application. We ~e in the process of reviewing your sub~ssion. When our conceptuM review is complete, we will notify you by letter and provide you with f~er &ection in the Highway Work Pe~t application process. This permit application should be sensitive to the unique visual and historic setting of the Long Island North Shore Heritage Area, which runs from the Queens/Nassau County line to Orient Point, and from Route 25 or 1-495, (whichever is farther south), to Long Island Sound in the north. 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 at the above address. In all future correspondence, please refer to the subject case number and the County tax map number. Thank you for your cooperation concerning this matter. Very truly yours, /7 SHAIK A. SAAD, P.E. Civil Engineer III Traffic Engineering and Safety Mr. Peter Harris, Superintendent of Highways, Town of Southold Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse, Planning Board Chairperson, Town of Southold Ms. Wendy Brodsky, Long Island North Shore Heritage Area Planning Commission SAS:MT:SME 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 MEMORANDOM MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OyylCE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Date: October 6, 2006 To: Distribution From: Anthony Trezza, Senior Plann,~~'~~- Re: Aqency Referral request required under Southold Town Code Article XXIV 280-131 Review Procedure Part C. The Planning Board refers the enclosed site plan for your concerns, comments and jurisdiction requirements, if applicable. Please respond with your agency's position. Thank you in advance. Project Name: Location: The Heritage at Cutchogue n/w corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet n/o Main Road in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3 This application is for residential site plan approval for the development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings of approximately 2,000 sq.ft, each, an 8,840 sq.ft, club house, a 1,160 sq.ft, swimming pool, two 3,200 sq.ft, tennis courts, a 2,400 sq.ft. maintenance garage, a gazebo, a gatehouse, 322 parking spaces of which 278 are associated with the individual dwelling units and 44 are associated with the clubhouse and recreational facility, 197,043 sq.ft, of manmade ponds to serve as natural drainage basins/irrigation systems, 1,162,022 sq.ft. (27.676 acres) of landscaping, and various other site improvements including road pavement, patio and sidewalk improvements, all on a 46.17-acre parcel in the Hamlet Density (HD) Zoning District. Encs. Distribution: Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Zoning Board of Appeals Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector* Board of Trustees Jamie Richter, Town Engineer Peter Harris, Superintendent of Highways * Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYSDEC ~ Stony Brook New York State Department of Transportation* Suffolk County Water Authority Suffolk County Planning Department *Maps enclosed for your review ~ai!ing Address: P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRI FFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK August 29, 2006 TEL: (631)369-8200 FAX: (631) 369-9080 E-mail: charles.cuddy@verlzon.net Mr. Anthony P. Trezza, Senior Planner Southold Planning Department P.O. Box ! 179 Southold: NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1~33.3 Dear Mr. Trezza: This is to confirm that the applicant has delivered to you the following: 1. five (5) bound copies of the traffic study and one (1) loose copy 2~ two (2) sets of a site plan 3. four (4) revised site plan applications Please advise when you have reviewed the plans with the Town's Engineer and the Building Inspector. CRC:ik Enclosures Very truly yours, (631) 427-fl66S FAX (631) 427-562O NI gON & POPE ENGINEERS & SUIt VEYORS Town of Southold Planning Department 54375 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 S72 Walt Wblmm. Road Mdvllle, NY 11747 Date: 24-Au~-06 Re: Heritage at Cutch%,ue Ref: Nelson & Pope Job 000026 Attn: Anthony Trtn~% Senior Planner Wea~ sending you PiekUp For Your Under separate cover X Herewith X By Messenger (fed-ex) Review & Comment Approval As requested X For your use Bid Submission X Site Plan Submission Quantity I Drawin~ Title __ ~.,~_.~h,.o*_ No. IRev. No. Remarks: To accompany application previously submitted by JeffRimland. cc: C. Kuehn J. Rimland SR Sincerely, NELSON & POPE By: Arthur J. Koetber, P.E. Submission Without a Cover Letter Sender: Subject: SCTM#: 1000- /OZ -/- ~). ~ Comments: (631) 427-5665 FAX (631) 427-5620 NEI~ON & POPE ENGINEERS/IND SURVEYORS 572 Want ~Vhit man Road Melville, NY 11747 TO: Town of Southold 53095 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Date: July 21,2006 Re: The Heritage at Cutcho~e N&PJob# 00026 Your Ref: Pick Up ~ Via [ Messenger For Your Review & Comment Submission to Town Quantit~ Drawing Title Sheet No. Rev. No. 4 Cover Sheet 1 of 13 4 Alignment Plan 2 of 13 4 Partial Alignment Plan 3 of 13 4 Partial AHgnment Pian 4of13 4 Partial Alignment Plan 5 of 13 4 Partial Grading Plan 6 of 13 4 Partial Grading Plan 7 of 13 4 Partial Grading Plan 8 of 13 4 Partial Utility Plan 9 of 13 4 Partial Utility Plan I 0 of 13 4 Partian Utility Plan Ilof13 4 Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan 12 of 13 4 Site Details 13 of 13 Very truly yours, NELSON & POPE By: Scott J. Risin~er L TO WE ARE Charles W Kueh ARCHtTEC!" 3 E. Deer Park Road, Suita 201 Dix Hills, New York 11746 (631) 493-Q534 1 $[NDING YOU [] Attached [] Under separate cover via~the following items: D Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Samples E] Specifica!ions [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] DATE NO. THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: For approval For your use AS requested For review and comment Approved as submitted Approved as noted Returned for corrections DESCRIPTION FOR BIDS DUE 19 [] Res~ [] Submit [] Return. ~ ~es-f6r approval copies for distribution correct~ prints [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO FAIRWAY FARMS ASSOCIATION, INC. P.O. Box 351 Cutchogue, New York 11935 February 7, 2006 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Sirs: I am writing on behalf of the Fairway Farms Association, which encompasses thirty- three (33) homes on forty-five (45) acres south 'of the Main Road and Cases Lane and west of New Suffolk Road in Cutchogue. I am writing with regard to the proposed development by Manzi Builders of property off New Suffolk Road and Cases Lane in Cutchogue. At this time it is our understanding that the proposal calls for four (4) homes to be developed on this property. Fairway Farms Association has no objections to this proposal but would object to any proposal for high density or attached housing on this property. We would appreciate being advised if this should become the case. We would also like to take this opportunity to request any information you may have regarding the proposed development, "The Heritage at Cutchogue" by Jeffrey Rimland (developer) and Charles Kuhen (architect) of the land northwest of the Cutchogue Post Office. It is our understanding the proposal calls for one hundred sixty (160) attached, Hamlet Zoned houses, which would include twenty-five percent "low income" units. The Fairway Farms Association would like to be kept informed of any meetings with regard to this proposed development. Our concerns with such a large development in the Hamlet area include traffic congestion, school population issues and water and sewage issues. Thank you for any information you can provide with regard to these two matters. Sincerely, Susan Trentatange Co-President Fairway Farms Association cc: Southold Town Building Department TO Charles W Kueh.a. ARCHITECT 3 E. Deer P~rk Road, Suite 2U1 Dix Hills, New York 11746 (631) 493-0534 WE ARE SENDING YOU ~/Attached [] Under separate cover via -- ~f~~_the following items: [] Shop drawings [] Prints CPtans [] Samples [] Specifica~,ions [] Copy of letter E] Change order [] _ COPIES I DATE NO. ~ DESCRIPTION I DEC U 2005 THESE ARE TRANSMIT]'ED as Checked below: ~ For approval [] For your use ~/~ r r~eqv~ Swt e;n d comment m FOE BIDS DUE ~ Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections ~9 [] 'R~bmi~ ' :, T: ~?pies for ap rova ~._,~,~t~, :~013~ for d,str,~uhon [] ,Return corrected pri~s _. [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO"'~.%, $.GNgD: ~ The Heritage at Cutchoflue Pmjeet Description The Heritage at Cutchogue is a Planned Multi-Family Townhouse Development designed to integrate scamlessly into the Cutchogue community. The project will transform approximately 46 acres that have been inactive for over 30 years, into a Traditional North Shore Vineyard Community. The property is zoned "Hamlet Density Residential" (HDR) which will allow this project to be developed with no variances needed. Predominantly fiat, the property has some gentle slope toward the south and east areas. No ponds, streams or wetland areas exist on the site, with vegetation consisting of mostly scrub brush with a few mature trees at the perimeter of the site and toward the southeast comer. Single-family residential properties to the west, farm and single-family residential properties to the north, farm property to the east, and a mobile trailer park to the south border the site. Road frontage to the property is on School House Lane to the south. The proposed development will consist of 150 Townhonse units, of which 135 units will be approximately 2,800 s.f. to 3,500 s.f., three bedroom dwellings priced at market rote and 15 units of "affordable" status units consisting of approximately 650 s.f. to 1,000 s.f. of living space. Market rate townhouse units will have a two-car garage with driveway parking for an additional two cars, thus providing four off-slxeet parking spaces for each unit. The "affordable" units will have two off-street parking spaces per unit. A 20,000+ s.f. Clubhouse with an "all weather sports court" will be an integral part of the planned development. A security guard booth located on the property off of School House Lane will provide entry to the community. The Clubhouse will feature a community room with a food preparation area for catered events, game room, exercise room, manager's office, locker room and cabana and an outdoor pool with a sun deck. The "all weather sports court" will house two tennis courts and half court basketball court. Two outdoor tennis courts will also be provided. Seventy-five off-street parking spaces will be available for the clubhouse with an additional twenty-five spaces "land banked" for future expansion, if necessary. Utilities for the development will be provided. Water service will be made available by a public water main on School House Lane, which will provide both the domestic water supply and fire hydrant supply to the project. Electric and gas will be delivered from School House Lane. Sewers will be delivered to an on-site sewer treatment plant, which will be constructed for the project at the southeast comer of the property. Storm water collection will be handled by a series of on-site retention ponds and sub- surface leach basins. Retention ponds will be arranged to create a "natural" environment for the development while also serving as water supply for the landscape irrigation throughout the site. The pond water levels will be maintained during periods of drought by on-site wells. Landscaping of the community will be begun during the first phases of construction and continued throughout all phases of the project. It is currently planned that all streets will be lined with deciduous trees while evergreen, holly bushes and perennial plantings will be planted around the dwelling units, clubhouse and guard booth areas. Street lighting will be designed with low, decorative lamps to provide "subtle" illumination, with no light flooding to adjacent properties. The Architecture of the development will be "North Shore Traditional" emphasizing the local "Vineyard" motif. Several exterior designs will be incorporated in a diverse pattern to prevent a monotone sterile environment. A quaint community neighborhood setting should be present throughout the development. Cedar shingle, clapboard and stone veneer will be used in combination for the exterior siding. Architectural asphalt roof shingles and traditional double-hung windows with 6 over 6 and 9 over 9 grill patterns and wide trim will be present in all s~mctures. Front porches will be designed with "Tuscan" style columns, wood slat mils and slate or stone porch decks. About 50% of the townhouse units will offer a walkout cellar with views overlooking the ponds with lower patios and wood decks above. Units without walkout cellars will feature patios off of the main level. The Clubhouse, guard booth and sewer treatment building will use the same materials as the dwelling units. Entry into the development will be offof School House Lane. Entry will be through a security guard booth. The entryway will resemble a "vineyard" setting. From School house Lane, a view of a vineyard and quaint guard booth will be the only sight one will see giving a feeling of a typical North Shore vineyard. No view of the townhouses will be seen from School House Lane or Griffing Street. A modest ground level "Welcome to" sign will be at the entrance. The Heritage at Cutchogue will be a significant asset to Cutchogne and Town of Southold. The community will offer a strong tax revenue base with minimal burden on the local school system. The "affordable" housing units will provide the Town of Southold with housing for the "next generation"; a sought after development not seen in many years. The project is strongly supported by local business and Chamber of Commerce members. During coustmction of the townhouse project, which will be completed in three phases over a four-year period, approximately $75 million dollars in local construction employment and material purchases will be spent in the community. Clustered development delivers much needed housing to the Town of Southold while preserving open space which single-family development absorbs. Sensitivity to traditional architectural design and detail to preserve charm and character to the "North Shore Vineyard Community" are the spirit of the project. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 FACSIMILE To: Charles Cuddy, Esq. From: Anthony Trezza, Sr. Planner Date: October 13, 2005 Re: The Herita.qe at Cutcho.que 1000-102-1-33.3 The Planning Board discussed the above-referenced residential site plan application at their work session on Oct. ober 3, 2005. Specifically, the Planning Board reviewed the two alternative layouts for the affordable units. In addition, the Planning Board has accepted the application and will route it to the appropriate agencies at this time. However, the Board cannot move forward with the SEQRA review until the following information is submitted to this office: 1, Revise the site development plan to depict the affordable units as shown on the sketch provided by the applicant. Of the two alternatives, the Planning Board prefers the one where the affordable units are shown in two different locations. 2. Identify the primary and secondary conservation areas on the ERSAP. 3. Submit a preliminary landscaping plan. 4. Submit preliminary road and drainage plans. 5. Submit architectural drawings and information which includes constructions plans with elevation details, lighting details, samp'les of material, colors, type of roofing and siding. When making the submission to this office, please be sure to include seven (7) sets of the plans with the exception of the architectural plans, which you may submit two (2) sets of. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact this office. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRI FFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK September 21, 2005 TEL: (631)369-8200 FAX: (631) 369-0080 E-mail: charles.cuddy@verizon.net Mr. Anthony P. Trezza, Senior Planner Southold Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Trezza: Please advise when you will have the Planning Board adopted a SEQRA declaration for this plan. CRC:ik Enclosures Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy SEP-!4-21~)5 01:49 From: CHARLES W. KUEHN, RA ~ E. Deer Perk Road Suite ~0t Db( HIi~, ~ Yorb: 1174~ ~a~ Ho. (~) 49a-o~4 COVER SHEET · :). Ol: PA~ (In~udin~ thi~ p~e) _ "~, PLEASE NOTIFY THI~ OFFICE IMMEDIATE~.Y IF NOT PROPER/.Y RECEIVED. PLEA.SI; CALL (6~ FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY SITE PLAN USE DETERMINATION !nitial Determination Date: -~ / /,~ / ~ Date Sent:_~_.~/~ / ~ Project Name:~ e, Project Address'_~/r-.,~-/n/,4' ~ ~/'~.~/,~.f~_x-/)~, Suffolk County Tax Map No.:1000- Request: ,~¢'~'~/~, '/¢ ~.~/ (Note: Copy of Building Permit Application and supporting documentation as to proposed use or uses should be submitted.) '3z~'~/''~'~lnitial De. termination.~,~, ""~'~-~"~"'as to wh~ether use is permitted: Initial Determination as to whether site plan is required:_~/J~ Signature of Building Inspector Planning Department (P.D.) Referral: P.D. Date Received: -7 / ;24, / o5" Date of Comment: ~ / Comments: /0'~ Final Determination ~tUr~nr~'g Dep~. gtaff Reviewer Date: / / Decision: Signature of Building Inspector TYPICAL UNIT I:::~OT PLAN Mailing Address: RO. Bo× 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRI FFING AVE NUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK July 8, 2005 TEL: (631)369-8200 FAX: (631) 369-9080 E-mai[: charles.cuddy@verizon.net Mr. Anthony P. Trezza, Senior Planner Southold Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Trezza: Enclosed is a check in the sum of $70,050.00, submitted on behalf of The Heritage at Cutchogue, which is the application fee for the revised plan. You should also be in receipt of the LWRP Coastal Consistency Revieu/Form. I anticipate the notice of disapproval has been forwarded from the Building Department. Please confirm you are reviewing the plans. CRC:ms Enclosure Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy JUL 11 2005 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON June 30,2005 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OFSOUTHOLD M~ILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OI~'I~ICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Arthur J. Koerber, P.E. Nelson and Pope 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, NY 11747-2188 Re: The Heritaqe at Cutchoque SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Koerber: The Planning Department is in receipt of the revised plans and EAF for the above- referenced residential site plan application. The Planning Board cannot process the application until the following items have been provided: 1. Submission of the Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department for the new proposal. 2. Submission of the application fees in accordance with the new fee schedule (enclosed). 3. Submission of the LWRP Coastal Consistency Review Form (enclosed). If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact this office. Cc: Charles Cuddy, Esq. Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON June 21,2005 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAIl.lNG ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFP'ICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: The HeritaRe at Cutchoque SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The Planning Department is in receipt of your letter dated June 9, 2005 and check in the amount of $37,375. The Planning Board cannot accept and process this application because a Notice of Disapproval has not been issued by the Building Department for the proposed project. Therefore, we are again returning your check as well as the entire application. Upon issuance of the Notice of Disapproval, an application can be submitted to the Planning Board and the site plan review process can commence pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 250 of the Town Code. Please note that the fees required for all future submissions will be based on the new fee schedule. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact this office. Senior Planner Cc: Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer THE HAMLET AT CUTHOGUE 4250 V~TERANS HIGHWAY SU IT£ 300B HOLBROOK, NY 11 1050 NELEDN ~ POPE June 16, 2005 Town of Southold Planning Board Planning Board Office Southold, New York 11971 Re: Residential Site Plan Application Heritage ~ Cutchogue (N&P #0026) JUN 2 0 2005 Dear Members of the Planning Board: Enclosed please find revised plans and EAF, based on a yield of 150 units on the 46 acre hamlet density property located in Cutchogue. The following are attached: - Long Environmental Assessment Form - 5 copies of the Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan - 5 copies of the Yield Plan - 12 copies of the Residential Site Plan with the Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas delineated Please contact this office, or the applicant, Mr. Jeffrey Rimland if you have any questions regarding the accompanying enclosures. Very truly yours, gnc. Cc: Jeffrey Rimland Charles Kuehn NELSON& POPE Arthur J. Koer~, P.E. Ma~l;ng Address: P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRI FFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK June 9, 2005 TEL: (631)369-8200 FAX: (631) 369-9080 E-mail: charles.cuddy@verizon.net Mr. Anthony P. Trezza, Senior Planner Southold Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Trezza: The applicant here was required to modify the site plan which had been reviewed by the Planning Department. The applicant submitted the plan and the check in good faith. We are returning the check since the applicant proceeded based upon the mutual understanding of the requirements set forth in the Town Code. We submit that the applicant is entitled to have the fees calculated as of the March submission of this check and plan to the Town of Southold. CRC:ik Enclosures Very truly yours, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMEES KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON May23,2005 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 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: The Heritage at Cutcho.que SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The Planning Department is in receipt of your letter date May 4, 2005 and check in the amount of $37,375. We are again returning your check because the application cannot be processed by the Planning Board until a Notice of Disapproval has been issued by the Building Inspector. In response to your inquiry as to whether or not Section 100-252 of the Town Code is applicable to your proposal, all site plans are subject to the site plan and zoning requirements of Chapter 100 of the Town Code. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Anthony P. Trezza Senior Planner Cc: Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector PLANI~G BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WiLLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON May 23, 2005 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD M31LING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 O~'ICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: The Heritage at Cutcho,que SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The Planning Department is in receipt of your letter dated May 4, 2005 and check in the amount of $37,375. We are again returning your check because the Planning Board cannot process the application until the Building Inspector has issued a Notice of Disapproval for the proposed project. In response to your inquiry as to whether or not Section 100-252 of the Town Code is applicable to your proposal, all site plans are subject to the site plan and zoning requirements of' Chapter 100 of the Town Code. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact this office. Cc: Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer THE HAMLET AT CUTHOGUE 4250 YET£RANS HIGHWAY SUITE 300B HOLBROOK, NY 1174~ PAY TO THE ORDER 1050 50-791/214 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRI FFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK May 4, 2005 TEL: (631) 369-8200 FAX: (631) 369-9080 E-mad: charles.cuddy@verizon.net Mr. Anthony P. Trezza, Senior Planner Southold Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Trezza: We are returning to you the check in the sum of 37,375.00 in connection with the site plan application. It is not clear fi.om the Town Code whether the initial application for a site plan involving multiple building permits should be submitted to the Planning Department or Building Department. It is my understanding that after a conference with the Planning Department the applicant was requested to delay submission to permit the Planning Department to consider the review process. Then, after an interval the application was filed with your Department. Under the circumstances I submit that a conference be held between the site plan reviewer and the building department as to whether the application complies with zoning regulations. It is not apparent that Section 100-152 is applicable to this situation involving many dwellings at one site. Under the circumstance, the applicant resubmits the check and asks that the procedure set forth in Section 100-154 (B) (3) be followed. The applicant should not be penalized or prejudiced by the procedure suggested to it. CRC:ik Enclosures Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy PLANNING BOARD M~MB~,,I~ JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L, EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON April 27, 2005 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Oe~'ICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: The Heritaqe at Cutcho.que SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The Planning Department received an application for the above-captioned residential site plan on March 28, 2005. The Planning Board cannot process the application at this time. You need to obtain a Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department to initiate the site plan review process. The fee you submitted with the application is being returned and can be resubmitted at a later date. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Anthony P. Trezza Senior Planner Cc: Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector THE HAMLET AT CUTHOGUE 4250 VETERANS HIGHWAY SUITE 300B HOLBROOK, NY 11741 1050 50-791/214 NORTH FORK BANK ~ 04/]3/2005 ~0:00 63L3699090 PAGE 0Z/01 CHARLEIS R. CUDI)Y ATTORNEY ,iT LAW ~ GRI F'~NG AV~NU E RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK April I:~ 2005 TEL: FAX: (631 SENT VIA FACSIMILE 76~-9502 Michael Verity Southold Town Building Inspector Main Road $outhold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue DearMr. Vefity: I represent the applicant for the condominium complex, al Cutchogue, identilied as Thc Heritage at Cutohogue. Apparently, a question has ~risen whether the condominium units must be attached? There is no requirement ~at condominium or cooperative units be attached. In $outhold, ] 11 separate units were approved for Peconio Landing cooperative. In Rlverhead, the recently approved Waging Rive~ Woods condominium includ~ 27 separate, detaohed units. In Brookhaven, there are a number of daanh~l units in sections of Leisure Village, as well u oth~r sites. A condominium is a form of ownership, it is not restricted to attached units. I urge you to promptly confirm that you will proceeg with review of the site plan based upon individual condominium units. VcD~ truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC:ms cc: Southoki Town Attorney, via facsimile (765-6639) Southold Town P[aninng l~-,partment, via facsimile (765-3136) Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner, via fazsimile (765-3136) Sender: Subject: Submission Without a Cover Letter SCTM#: 1000- Date: /-'~' -7-0~-'''~ Comments: THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE, LLC. 1721-D North Ocean Avenue Medford, NY 11763 (631) 207-5730 March 28,2005 By Hand Town of Southold Planning Board Planning Board Office Southold, New York 11971 Re: Residential Site Plan Application SCTM# 1000-102-01-33.3 Dear Members of the Planning Board: We hereby submit our site plan application for the 46+ acre hamlet density property located in Cutchogue together with a check in the amount of $37,375.00. In addition, we are enclosing the requested Long Environmental Assessment Form, 5 copies of the Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan, 5 copies of the Yield Plan and 12 copies of the Residential Site Plan with the Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas delineated. I also enclose a notarized Applicant's Affidavit. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding the accompanying application and enclosures. Respectfully, Jeffi:ej.i Rimland, ~anaging Member PATRICIA C. MOORE Auorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan (ERSAP) The applicant met with Planning Department staff to discuss the information to be included on an ERSAP; staff and the applicant concluded that the information generally required on an ERSAP would be best illustrated directly on the proposed site plan. Most of the items listed are not relevant or applicable to this parcel, therefore, the specific relevant items could be placed on the preliminary site plan for better planning and site development. Specific ERSAP information is detailed in narrative format: In accordance with Al06-11 (6) FOR SUBJECT PARCEL: 78 School House Road, Cutchoffue SCTM#1000-102-01-33.3 46.16 acres Zoned Hamlet Density (a) there are no existing structures on the parcel (b) Topographic contours will be shown on site plan- 100% of land is flat (with 0-10% slopes); no slopes equal to or greater than 15% present on site (c) Water Resources: i: no wetlands regulated by State or Town jurisdiction ii: not located over primary, principal or sole source aquifer and not within mapped aquifer recharge area iii: not within Municipal water supply watershed area (d) Not in Flood-prone area as shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (e) no issues of Flood Damage Prevention- will be addressed and mitigated pursuant to SPEDES Pollution Control Permit plan (f)No protected lands- abutting parcels are not in preservation (g) i: Land formerly in agriculture- secession growth ii: isolated significant trees with a diameter breast height (DBH) in excess of 18 inches and canopy line of existing trees will be identified- parks and open space planned - applicant will make effort to replant existing native vegetation (h) Soil series: HaA-Haven Loam, 0-3', P1C- Plymouth Loamy Sand, 8- 15' & RdB-Riverhead Sandy Loam, 3-8' 100% well drained- sanitary suitability confirmed by Health Department (i) No Bluffs or areas of Coastal Erosion (j) scenic view shed and special features- land can not be seen from the road, it is surrounded by large parcels: to west subdivision development, to east agricultural parcel which has been fallow for years, i: Not adjacent to scenic byways ii: parcel is isolated to the south by a road end (Griffing Street), to west by residential development(Highland Estates Major subdivision), to east by 27 acres (Grattan), to north by other smaller vacant parcels and the Long Island Railroad. K) public roads shown on tax map- School House Lane and Griffing Street are the primary access roads, spur roads off Highland Road available for emergency vehicles but are not proposed for primary access in order to preserve privacy of surrounding properties and provide controlled access to subject property L. No known Archeological sites- subject to review of LEAF by state M. No trails- private property N. no easements of record O. Agricultural Lands: subject parcel is not in active agricultural production- adjacent parcel formerly in agriculture, Land not identified in Southold Town Farmland Inventory Public water availability is pending- water map to be revised as result of Hamlet Study, Not in a sewer district- private chromaglass system proposed and approved by Suffolk County DPW Q. Subject parcel and contiguous parcels are not listed Critical Environmental Areas R. Significant natural areas and features: (i through v) none S. Recreation: none (proposed development plans to provide recreational opportunities for residents) T. Not within 500 feet of i. Boundary of Town or village or ii. County or state park iii. county or state parkway, thruway etc. iv. right -of-way for a stream or drainage channel v. existing or proposed boundary of county or state land on which a public building or institution is situated vi. No existing airport, airbase or airstrip- closest airstrip for private planes is in Mattituck This narrative response to the ERSAP as well as the SEQRA Long Environmental Assessment form and prliminary site plan will provide appropriate site analysis for a thorough review of the property. Thank you for your courtesies, Sincerely, _. L~ Patricia C. Moore Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRI FFING AVENUE RIVERLIEAD, NEW YORK September 21, 2005 TEL: (631)369-8200 FAX: (631) 369-9080 E-mail: charles.cuddy@verizon.net Mr. Anthony P. Trezza, Senior Planner Southold Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Trezza: Please advise when you will have the Planning Board adopted a SEQRA declaration for this plan. CRC:ik Enclosures Vet)' truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy $EP-!4-~$ 0!:49 Fr~m: To:6~! 765 J1J6 C:~A~ER SHEET PROM: NO. OF PAGES (tno4uding th~ P~ge) .,,,,,, ,,~ id i PL, EAGG NOTIFY THI~ OFFICE IMMEDIATElbY IF NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED. c~u. (e~) 4M,,0834, / ,,.,- ~ ! FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY~1~ SITE PLAN USE DETERMINATION Initial Determination Date: y / //¢/ ~ Date Sent:__,~_~./_~ /~' Project Name:~~~~$~l~~ e. Project Address'_,~,~/,~,,.~,4/,g ~ ~/7~_,/~,,~',,~_.~.~'~.~ Suffolk County Tax Map No.:1000- /Oo.~- / -~'.~ZoningDistrict: /L.._._._._._._._/~ Request:~"~/~Z~~-~ ~'~?/~ ,,'~,'/~.,~.-.- '"~.,,,'? (Note: Copy of Building Permit Application and supporting documentation as to proposed use or uses should be submitted.) Initial De. termination as to wh. ether use' ' · ' '3z~'~-/''~J .~,~,,._,~,.,~.~/.~ ,S perm,~ed.~ Signature of Building Inspector Planning Department (P.D.) Referral: P.D. Date Received: '7 / 24, / o5" Date of Comment: ~ / Comments: ~(.J~ '~.~¢¢ 0 d/~//([ / oo - ~ ~ ~' Final Determination Date: / / Decision: Signature of Building Inspector U~T il3 ',) 5'--0' $~OEWALK TTPICAL UNIT PLOT PLAN Mailing Addr_e~ss: P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRI FFI NG AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK July 8, 2005 TEL: (631)369-8200 FAX: (631) 369-9080 E-mad: charles.c,~ddy@verizon.net Mr. Anthony P. Trezza, Senior Planner Southold Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Trezza: Enclosed is a check in the sum of $70,050.00, submitted on behalf of The Heritage at Cutchogue, which is the application fee for the revised plan. You should also be in receipt of the LWRP Coastal Consistency Review Form. 1 anticipate the notice of disapproval has been forwarded from the Building Department. Please confirm you are reviewing the plans. CRC:ms Enclosure Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy JUL 1 1 2005 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON June 30,2005 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OFSOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. M~dn Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Arthur J. Koerber, P.E. Nelson and Pope 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, NY 11747-2188 Re: The Hedtaqe at Cutcho.que SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Koerber: The Planning Department is in receipt of the revised plans and EAF for the above- referenced residential site plan application. The Planning Board cannot process the application until the following items have been provided: 1. Submission of the Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department for the new proposal. 2. Submission of the application fees in accordance with the new fee schedule (enclosed). 3. Submission of the LWRP Coastal Consistency Review Form (enclosed). If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact this office. Cc.' Charles Cuddy, Esq. Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON June 21,2005 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 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: The Herita.qe at Cutcho.que SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The Planning Department is in receipt of your letter dated June 9, 2005 and check in the amount of $37,375. The Planning Board cannot accept and process this application because a Notice of Disapproval has not been issued by the Building Department for the proposed project. Therefore, we are again retuming your check as well as the entire application. Upon issuance of the Notice of Disapproval, an application can be submitted to the Planning Board and the site plan review process can commence pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 250 of the Town Code. Please note that the fees required for all future submissions will be based on the new fee schedule. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please this office. Senior Planner feel free to contact Cc: Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector Bruno Semen, Senior Site Plan Reviewer THE HAMLET AT CUTHOGUE 4Z50 VETERANS HIGHWAY SUITE 300B HOLBROOK, NY 11741 PAY .,-.-.-- ORDER OF . . 1050 50-791/214 ~qDOLLARS NELEON & POPE June 16, 2005 Town of Southold Planning Board Planning Board Office Southold, New York 11971 Re: Residential Site Plan Application Heritage ~ Cutchogue (N&P #0026) JUN 2 0 2005 Dear Members of the Planning Board: Enclosed please find revised plans and EAF, based on a yield of 150 units on the 46 acre hamlet density property located in Cutchogue. The following are attached: - Long Environmental Assessment Form - 5 copies of the Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan - 5 copies of the Yield Plan - 12 copies of the Residential Site Plan with the Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas delineated Please contact this office, or the applicant, Mr. Jeffrey Rimland if you have any questions regarding the accompanying enclosures. Very truly yours, Eric. Cc: Jeffrey Rimland Charles Kuehn NELSON& POPE Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRI FFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK June 9, 2005 TEL: (631)369-8200 FAX: (631)369-9080 E-mail: charles.cuddy@verlzon.net Mr. Anthony P. Trezz~ Senior Planner Southold Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NYl1971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Trezza: The applicant here was required to modify the site plan which had been reviewed by the Planning Department. The applicant submitted the plan and the check in good faith. We are returning the check since the applicant proceeded based upon the mutual understanding of the requirements set forth in the Town Code. We submit that the applicant is entitled to have the fees calculated as of the March submission of this check and plan to the Town of Southold. CRC:ik Enclosures Very truly yours, JUN 15 2005 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON May 23, 2005 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 F~x: 631 765-3136 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: The Heritage at Cutchoque SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The Planning Department is in receipt of your letter date May 4, 2005 and check in the amount of $37,375. We are again returning your check because the application cannot be processed by the Planning Board until a Notice of Disapproval has been issued by the Building Inspector. In response to your inquiry as to whether or not Section 100-252 of the Town Code is applicable to your proposal, all site plans are subject to the site plan and zoning requirements of Chapter 100 of the Town Code. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Anthony P. Trezza Senior Planner Cc: Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON May 23, 2005 PLANNING BOARI) OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD M~ILING 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 Charles Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: The Heritaqe at Cutcho,que SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The Planning Department is in receipt of your letter dated May 4, 2005 and check in the amount of $37,375. We are again returning your check because the Planning Board cannot process the application until the Building Inspector has issued a Notice of Disapproval for the proposed project. In response to your inquiry as to whether or not Section 100-252 of the Town Code is applicable to your proposal, all site plans are subject to the site plan and zoning requirements of Chapter 100 of the Town Code. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact this office. Cc; Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer THE HAMLET AT CUTHOGUE 4250 VETERANS HIGHWAY SUJTE 300B HOLBROOK. NY H74! PAY ~ ~ ORDER OF NOR'~H FORK BANK~,q~- 1050 50-791/214 ,:,.,,',E/f~-Xr// ~ Mailing Address: RO. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRIFFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK May 4, 2005 TEL: (631) 369-8200 FAX: (631) 369-9080 E-mail: charles.cuddy@verizon.net Mr. Anthony P. Trezza, Senior Planner Southold Planning Department P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Trezza: We are returning to you the check in the sum of 37,375.00 in connection with the site plan application. It is not clear from the Town Code whether the initial application for a site plan involving multiple building permits should be submitted to the Planning Department or Building Department. It is my understanding that after a conference with the Planning Department the applicant was requested to delay submission to permit the Planning Department to consider the review process. Then, after an interval the application was filed with your Department. Under the circumstances I submit that a conference be held between the site plan reviewer and the building department as to whether the application complies with zoning regulations. It is not apparent that Section 100-152 is applicable to this situation involving many dwellings at one site. Under the circumstance, the applicant resubmits the check and asks that the procedure set forth in Section 100-154 (B) (3) be followed. The applicant should not be penalized or prejudiced by the procedure suggested to it. CRC:ik Enclosures Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy PLANNING BOARD MEMBE~ JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON April 27, 2005 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFrlCE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Chades Cuddy, Esq. P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re; The Her ta.qe at Cutcho.que SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The Planning Department received an application for the above-captioned residential site plan on March 28, 2005. The Planning Board cannot process the application at this time. You need to obtain a Notice of Disapprovalfrom the Building Department to initiate the site plan review process. The fee you submitted with the application is being returned and can be resubmitted at a later date. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, I /'"~ Anthony P Trezza Cc: Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector THE HAMLET AT CUTHOGUE 4250 VETERANS HIGHWAY SUITE 300B HOLBROOK, NY 11741 PAY ~ ~ TO T.E / ~, ,~,~ ~/.~,~ ORDER OF NORTH FORK BANK -~k 1050 04/13/2085 18:00 63136998S8 PA~ 81/81 190I April 13,200~ TEL: (631) 369.~00 EA.~.: (631 _SENT VIA FACSIB'IILE 76~-9~02 Michael Verity Scuthold Tow~ Build/ut hsp~or ~n Road Sout~l~ ~ 11971 Re: The Heritage at Cutchogue De~ Mr. V~ty: I represent the applicant for the condominium complex, at Cutchogue, identified as The Heritage at Cutohoffue. Apparently, a question has arisen whether the condominium units must be attached? There is no requirement that condominium or cooperative units be attached. In 5outhold, l 11 separate units were approved for Peconic Landing cooperative. In Rfverhead, the recently approved WMing River Woods condominium includm 27 separate, detaohed units, In Brookhaven, ~here are a number of'detached units in sections of Leisure Village, as well as other sites. A condominium is a form of ownership, it is not restricted to attached units. I urge you to promptly oonflrm that you will proceed with review of the site plan based upon individual condominium units, Vmy trul) yours, Charles R, Cuddy CRC:ms cc: South~ld Town Attorney, via facsimile (765-6639) Southold Town Planning Department, via facsimile (765-3 ! 36) Anthony Trezz~ Senior Plenner, via la, mile (76%3136) Sender: Subject: Submission Without a Cover Letter SCTM#: 1000- Date: Z_~ Comments: THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE, LLC. 1721-D North Ocean Avenue Medford, NY 11763 (631) 207-5730 March 28, 2005 By Hand Town of Southold Planning Board Planning Board Office Southold, New York 11971 Re~ Residential Site Plan Application SCTM# 1000-102-01-33.3 Dear Members of the Planning Board: We hereby submit our site plan application for the 46+ acre hamlet density property located in Cutchogue together with a check in the amount of $37,375.00. In addition, we are enclosing the requested Long Environmental Assessment Form, 5 copies of the Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan, 5 copies of the Yield Plan and 12 copies of the Residential Site Plan with the Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas delineated. I also enclose a notarized Applicant's Affidavit. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding the accompanying application and enclosures. Respe'~tfully, Jeffrey~ Rimland, l~anaging Member PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Existing Resources and Site Analysis Plan (ERSAP) The applicant met with Planning Department staff to discuss the information to be included on an ERSAP; staff and the applicant concluded that the information generally required on an ERSAP would be best illustrated directly on the proposed site plan. Most of the items listed are not relevant or applicable to this parcel, therefore, the specific relevant items could be placed on the preliminary site plan for better planning and site development. Specific ERSAP information is detailed in narrative format: In accordance with Al06-11 (6) FOR SUBJECT PARCEL: 78 School House Road, SCTM#1000-102-01-33.3 46.16 acres Zoned Hamlet Density Cutchogue (a) there are no existing structures on the parcel (b) Topographic contours will be shown on site plan- 100% of land is flat (with 0-10% slopes); no slopes equal to or greater than 15% present on site (c) Water Resources: i: no wetlands regulated by State or Town jurisdiction ii: not located over primary, principal or sole source aquifer and not within mapped aquifer recharge area iii: not within Municipal water supply watershed area (d) Not in Flood-prone area as shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (e) no issues of Flood Damage Prevention- will be addressed and mitigated pursuant to SPEDES Pollution Control Permit plan (f)No protected lands- abutting parcels are not in preservation (g) i: Land formerly in agriculture- secession growth ii: isolated significant trees with a diameter breast height (DBH) in excess of 18 inches and canopy line of existing trees will be identified- parks and open space planned - applicant will make effort to replant existing native vegetation (h) Soil series: HaA-Haven Loam, 0-3', P1C- Plymouth Loamy Sand, 8- 15' & RdB-Riverhead Sandy Loam, 3-8' 100% well drained- sanitary suitability confirmed by Health Department (i) No Bluffs or areas of Coastal Erosion (j) scenic view shed and special features- land can not be seen from the road, it is surrounded by large parcels: to west subdivision development, to east agricultural parcel which has been fallow for years, i: Not adjacent to scenic byways ii: parcel is isolated to the south by a road end (Griffing Street), to west by residential development(Highland Estates Major subdivision), to east by 27 acres (Grattan), to north by other smaller vacant parcels and the Long Island Railroad. K) public roads shown on tax map- School House Lane and Griffing Street are the primary access roads, spur roads off Highland Road available for emergency vehicles but are not proposed for primary access in order to preserve privacy of surrounding properties and provide controlled access to subject property L. No known Archeological sites- subject to review of LEAF by state M. No trails- private property N. no easements of record O. Agricultural Lands: subject parcel is not in active agricultural production- adjacent parcel formerly in agriculture, Land not identified in Southold Town Farmland Inventory P. Public water availability is pending- water map to be revised as a result of Hamlet Study, Not in a sewer district- private chromaglass system proposed and approved by Suffolk County DPW Q. Subject parcel and contiguous parcels are not listed Critical Environmental Areas R. Significant natural areas and features: (i through v) none S. Recreation: none (proposed development plans to provide recreational opportunities for residents) T. Not within 500 feet of i. Boundary of Town or village or ii. County or state park iii. county or state parkway, thruway etc. iv. right -of-way for a stream or drainage channel v. existing or proposed boundary of county or state land on which a public building or institution is situated vi. No existing airport, airbase or airstrip- closest airstrip for private planes is in Mattituck This narrative response to the ERSAP as well as the SEQRA Long Environmental Assessment form and prliminary site plan will provide appropriate site analysis for a thorough review of the property. Thank you for your courtesies, Sincerely, Patricia C. Moore THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE I I I_ H~T --F'--T--T--7----I -T -I- -- I]1 I I I I I I Iii I I I I I I S"JREET HYDRANT ~1 POHD TAPPED HYDRANT PROJECT NAME ceO-- zom~: zoo2: zorn3: LOCATION: HAMLET: ]PROJECT USE: ~e~t ~ ~, [ SCTM# 1000 - ~7_- OWNER NAME: APPLICANT AGENT NAMEF_~jJ~ ~4. ~Ak~x " TEL# PROJECT DESCRIPTION [THIS SITE PLAN IS FOR IThm ZONE LOCA~-ED AT lIN. 2 SCTM# 1000- 102,__ ON ACRES PARCEL IN { -3 3, ~( SEE ABOVE). ~j 17'- ~,~ B. ,,Ifi~DING DEPARTIvIENT NOTICE: S/P REQUIRED y OR N ZBA APPEAL REQUIRED y OR N PRE-SUBMISSION WRITTEN REQUEST: PRE-SUBMISSION CONFERENCE (WIIHIN 30 DAYS OF WP.21 ~-~ ,N REQUEST) iNOTES: -- __ DATE [N-FORMAL REQUEST FOR REVISIONS: PRE-WORK SESSION: APPLICATION RECEIVED DATE:~/~/3~ APPLICATION PROCESS DATE: PAYMENT RECEIVED: AMOUNT RECEIVED:$ FEE AMOUNT: ($300.X =$ )+($.05 X SF=$ ) =$ N!EW APPLICATION WORK SESSION (WITHIN 10 DAYS OF RECEIPT), PB ACCEPTED Y OR N ~PLICANT ADVISED OF NECESSARY REVISIONS (WITHIN 30 DAYS OF REVIEW) REVISED SUBMISSION RECE1VED: i ! ACTION TYPE: COORDINA~'ED:__ UNCOORDINATED: __ (TYPE1:__ TYPE2: UNLISTED: } APPROVALS REQUIRED: REFERRED DATE NOTES APPROVAL DATE NOTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: / / / / -- BUILDING DEPARTMENT CERTI.FICA_TI~N: ~ · ._~/_.~ / ~ / / -- TOWN EN(31NEERAPPROVAL: ~1~_/~_. /~)~' /~.../~_ /d'~' DEP.OFTRANSPORTATION: DOT~.~, DPW__, TOSs,~ ~'~/~' /~' / / /O//C,/O~ ~ 7~4 (~dr'"'~./~',~,~,~,~//~,,.. / SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING: ~/~ SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT OF HEALTH: PERMIT ~ / / ' ~,PTiONAL APPROVALS: -~ONING BOARD OF APPEALS: APPEAL~ / / / / 5OARD OF TRU$1 ~'~: j ~ ___/. / ~IYS DEC WETLANDS/TrDAUSPDES / / / PLANNING BOARD DECISIONS: IDEN ED: ~ APPROVED: ENDORSEMENT OF SITE PLAN: CONDITIONAL FINAL: FINAL: · ! ! FIELD INSPECTION FOR C/O: / DISTRIBUTE APPROVED SITE PLANS TO: BUILDING DEPT / / TOWN ENG NOTES GENERAL NOTES: 8/25/2004 Town of Southold Planning Department Staff Report August 4, 2008 Project: Heritage at Cutchogue Preparer: Heather Lanza, Town Planning Director I. Site Plan Information This proposed residential site plan application is for the development of a Planned 5S+ Active Adult Community consisting of 139 detached and attached dwellings, 14 of which will be permanently affordable. Location: n/w comer of Griffing Street and School House Lane, approximately 1,079 feet n/o the Main Road, in Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-102-1-33.3 II. Review of Application Site Layout. 1. Buffer: 35' buffer around exterior (except by amenities and entrance) = 4 acres (5,092' perimeter) 2. Roads: 25' wide paved area 02' ROW if sidewalks included) a. 50' ROW w/28' paved area required in Highway Specs. 3. Sidewalks provided on one side of road only - intermittent in front of houses - ~,c,,-~-~u ~-.~ a. Sidewalk does go to amenities/recreation center b. Sidewalk does not connect to hamlet center - School House Lane or Griffing Street 4. Lot coverages a. Buildings 17.88% b. Ponds 9.8 c. Landscaping 54.7 d. Roads,parking 12.2 e. Driveways 2.9 f. Sidewalks, patio 2.4 g. Impervious surface total Gatehouse shown at entrance Missing site plan information b. d. 45% (20 acres +/-) Elevations and dimension information specifics (height, footprint, etc) on all buildings Complete set of landscape plans Lighting plan, illumination summary for all buildings and site Visual impact renderings (what the site looks like from Depot Lane, Griffing Street/Schoolhouse Lane, neighbors, and what it looks Kke standing on a typical street within the development, and in front of the clubhouse, etc.) More dimensions on the site plan alignments - distances between units, to property line, width of sidewalk, xvidth of R.O.W., width of pavement TOWN ii* SOUTHOLD PLANNI~BOARD ~TE PLAN APPLICATIOn' SECTION A: Site Plan Name and Location Application Date: Site ]Plan Nallre: Suffolk Coun'Ly Tax Map #1000 Other SCTi~I #s: Distance to nearest intersection: Type of Site Plan: New Amended ~ Residential If Amended, last approval date: / / SECTION B: Owners/Agent Contact Information Please list ;mme, mailing address, and phone number for the joeople below: Property Owner Street /*//~ City Agl ,,/~X htfA ~ State p,f}r Home Telephone Other City ~} fi* J } State ~ ~ Zip /I 7~ ~ Applicant's Agent or Representative: Contact Person(s)* Street 1'7~'t- ~ City /~ ffet~ ~ 0flice Telephone State /dy Zip 11~{¢3 *Unless otherwise requested, correspondence will be sent only to the contact person noted here. Page 1 of 2 10/05/05 S:ECT, ION C: Site Data Proposed constrnction type: _ Modification .Change of use Property total acreage or square footage: _ 5/~. / Site Plan build..out acreage or square footage: ~/~, tructure __Agricultm-al lis there an existing or proposed Sale of Development Rights on tlJe~r.~perty? Yes If yes, explain: No 3,< Property Zoning District(s): fi/,40'/- { 7' ~t2d S/ 'Fy Building DeparUnent Notice of Disapproval Date: __/ / 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 Show all uses proposed and existing. Indicate which building will have which use. If more then one use is proposed per building, indicate sqnare footage of floor area per use. List all existing property uses: List all proposed property uses: Other accessory uses: Existinglot coverage: D % Proposed lot coverage: % Gross floor area of existing stmcture(~): o sq. ft. Gross floor area of proposed structure(s): Parking Space Data: # of existing spaces: # of proposed spaces: ~ ~'~e" Loading Berth: Yes}{ No Landscaping Details: Existing landscape coverage: Proposed landscape coverage: v"'7 % Waterfront Data: Is this property within 500" ora wetland area? Yes No ~ If yes explain: I, the undersi1Ned, certify t[a~ll tl~ef~e, inf,~rmation is tree. .!q&o_s/_o_s ' ' Signature of Preparer: ph,~(j ~"-~/pag6 g o~ate:- The HeritaRe at Cutcho.que Proiect Description The Heritage at Cutchogue is a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community of 139 attached and detached dwellings, of which 125 will be two or three bedroom units of approximately 2,000 sq ft with two car garages priced at market rate and 14 "affordable" status units with one car garage and one off-street parking space per dwelling. Construction of the project is expected to be completed in three phases over a four year period. Amenities including a clubhouse with indoor pool, tennis courts, gazeboes, walkways, paths, internal roadways and ponds with water features are proposed for the development. A security guard booth will provide entry to the community. The Clubhouse will feature a community room with a food prep area for catered events, game room, exercise room, manager's office, locker room and cabana and an outdoor pool with a sun deck. The residences and clubhouse will be designed to be energy efficient and will use solar power and geothermal heating/cooling wherever possible. Street lighting will be designed with low, decorative solar powered lamps to provide "subtle" illumination, with no light flooding to adjacent properties. Storm water collection will be handled by a series of on-site retention ponds and sub-surface leach basins. Retention ponds will be arranged to create a "natural" environment for the development while also serving as water supply for the landscape irrigation throughout the site. The pond water levels will be maintained during periods of drought by on-site wells. The Architecture of the development will follow the traditions of the North Fork. Several exterior designs will be incorporated in a diverse pattern to prevent a monotone sterile environment. A quaint community neighborhood setting should be present throughout the development. Cedar shingle, clapboard and stone veneer will be used in combination for the exterior siding. Architectural asphalt roof shingles and traditional double-hung windows with appropriate grill patterns and wide trim will be present in all structures. The clubhouse, security guard booth and maintenance building will use the same materials as the dwelling units. All the residential units will be designed to meet the needs of the +55 generation and will adhere to ADA guidelines as required. March 22, 2007 Planning Board Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 · The Heritage at Cutchogue, LLC~.,~, 1721-D North Ocean Avenue Medford, New York 11763 Tel (631)207-5730 Fax (631) 207-5974 Ro~ Proposed Residential Site Plan - Development Phases Located on the n/w comer of Griffing Street and School House Lane SCTM# 1000-100-1-33.3 Dear Members: Please be advised that once approved, we plan to develop the 46.17 acre parcel over a period of three to five years in four separate phases. The first phase will involve the basic site development which will include road layout, pond area preparation, construction of approximately six model homes and initial gatehouse and clubhouse site work. After the model homes are completed we anticipate constructing approximately forty five units per year during the next three years. Work will not commence on a phase until contracts have been entered into for the homes to be constructed for that particular phase. The first phase will be constructed in the southeast sector of the property, with the development of the northeast sector in the next year and the remaining western section undertaken during the last year. Each section will be completely landscaped with full roads and amenities before the next phase is undertaken. I would be most pleased to discuss the development scheduling with you. Jeffr~ Rimfa d Manning Me nber The Hamlet at Cutchogue, LLC c/o Mr. Jeffrey Rimland North Ocean Development 1721 -D North Ocean Avenue Medford, NY 11763 I, Jeffrey Rimland, Member of The Hamlet at Cutchogue, LLC, a contract vendee of the property identified as SCTM# 1000-102-1-33.3, located in Cutchogue, New York, hereby authorize Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. to act as its agem and handle all necessary work involved in the site plan process with the Southold ~[,xown Planning Board. Sworn to before me thiso~/S~ay of ffOO~P, am~l'' ,2006. Notary Public / lWONA KODYM Nota~ Public, State of NewYork No. 01KO6088388 Qualified In Suffolk County ommlaalon Expires March a, FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: August 2, 2005 TO: Charles Cuddy A/C The Heritage at Cutchogue 445 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 Please take notice that your application dated July 1, 2005 For permit to construct townhouses at Location of property 75 Schoolhouse Road, Cutchogue County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 102 Blockl Lot 33.3 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed construction requires special exception approval from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, as well as site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board. You may apply to these agencies directly. Authori~/0d S~gn~13~ CC: file, Z.B.A. Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application may require additional review from the Southold Town Building Department. 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 &whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there am aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particurar area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action, Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3, Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action, It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually impor[ant. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ~ Part 1 ~ Part 2 [] Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this FAF (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 impoct(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 will be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Heritage at Cutchogue Name of Action Town of Southold Planning Board website Name of Lead Agency Jerilyn Woodhouse Chair Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Date Page 1 of 21 SEQR 14-16-2 (2/87)-7c 617.21 · AppendixA . State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL A3SESSMENT FORM Purpose: The. full EAF. is desig.ned .to .h,.elp aplEl, icants ~.nd ag,enc, ie?,determin~.e, in an ~o[d~r~i~accann~ef~ whether a project or action may De slgnlrlcant, l'i~e quesuon pi whether an. action may ut ~%,, . not always easy to answer. Frequently., there are aspects of a project that are suoject~ve or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who deterrhine significance may haye little o.r po formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concern affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination pyocess has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to lit a project or action· Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts. Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given, project[ and, its s,i~. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that tat~es place in t'arts z aha ~. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of p. ossible impacts th.at may occur from ,a project o[a.c, tion.. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely tope considered small to m.o~. erate or wnemer, it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - TYPE 1 AND UNLISTED ACTIONS Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: X Partl Part2 Part3 Upon review of the information reqord.ed on this .EAF (Paris 1, and 2~ .and 3 if approl~riate1, and any other supporting information, and considering both tt~e magmtuue aha importance ox each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: A. The proiect will not result in any large and i.mportant i ~mpact(s) and, therefore, is on.e which -- will nol have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a -- significant effdct for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 h~ve been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* ~_C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration wffi be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions The Heritage at Cutchogue Name of Action Town of Southold Planning Board Name of Lead Agency Je-"iz c../ J "g. Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency nature ~ Responsible Officer in Lead Age y Signature of Preparer z'~/~ /~) 7 If different from responsible officer) 'lDate i ': ~; (('; '; fi , , .... , ~ i : PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMAT~N 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 tl~ough E. A~sw. ers. to tlaese~ questions will be considered as part o! the application for approval and may be subiect to turtlaer verit:cation and public review. Provide any ad~htional 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 The Heritage At Cutchogue LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) 78 Schoolhouse Road, Cutchogue, Town of Southold NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE Charles Kuehn 631-493-0534 ADDRESS 3 East Deer Park Road, Suite 201 CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE Dix Hills NY 11746 NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE Nocro Ltd. ADDRESS Main Road CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE Cutchogue NY 11930 The proposed project site is located at 78 School House Road, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The site can be more clearly defined as Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-102-01-33.3. The property is currently zoned HD-Hamlet Density Residential. The property is fallow farmland. The proposed project involves the construction of 150 attached condominium units. Amenities including a clubhouse, tennis courts, internal roadways and surface water features are proposed for the development. A sewage treatment plant is proposed to handle the sanitary wastewater generated by the development. Access to the site will be provided from the corner of School House Lane and Griffing Road. Please Complete Eacl~ Question - ln~licate N.A. il' not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: Urban Industrial Commercial __Residential (Suburban) Rural (non-farm) Forest X Agriculture (Former) Other 2. Total acreage of project area: APPROXIMATE ACREAGE 46.16 acres AFTER COMPLETION* Meadow or Bmshland (Non-agricultural) 46.16 acres 0.0 acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or Tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres ._+3.31 acres Unvegetated (Rock. earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 0.0 acres ._+13.58 acres Other (Indicate type) Landscaped 0.0 acres ._+29.27 acres PRESENTLY Other (Indicate type) Landscaped 0.0 acres :e29.27 acres * Estimate only; Based on conceptualplan 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? HaA-Haven Loam, 0-3% slope, PlC-Plymouth Loamy Sand, 8-15% slope & RdB-Riverhead SandF Loam, 3-8% slope a. Soil drainage: X Well drained 100 % of site; __ Moderately well drained % of site; Poor drained % 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? -+15 4. Are there bedrock outcropping on project site? Yes a. What is depth to bedrock? N)i (in feet) -- 5.... Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: % acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). X No X 0-10% 100 % __ 15% or greater % 10-15% 6. Is project substantiallvcontiguous ?4 or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places. Yes X' No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? xes X 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? X Yes No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes X No 11.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? Yes X No According to. Identify each species 12.Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) __ Yes X No Describe 13.Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? Yes X No If yes, explain 14.Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? Yes X No 15.Streams within or contiguous to project area N/A a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16.Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name . ~ize (In Acres). No 17.Is the site served by existing public utilities? __ Yes X No (Utilities in immediate area) a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? __ Yes No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? __ Yes No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? Yes X N'o 19.Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 Yes X No 20.Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Yes X No B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 46.16 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed .,+46.16 acres initially; .-+46.16 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0.0 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 % 3 f. Number of off-stree~-parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed""377 (includin~ 1 st~ace t~er ~araee) g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 78* (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: NA *Weekday Peak Hour Total One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially 150 Ultimately 150 i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: 2 Stories height; -+114 width; -+-+54 length. (Clubhouse) j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? -+30 ft. (SchoolHouse Lane) 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? Unknown at this time cubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? X Yes No __ N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? Landscaping/turf b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? X Yes No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? X Yes No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? -+-+46.16 *acres. * Esti~tnate only; Based on conceptualplan 5. Wil.1 atngy mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project. Yes X No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 18-24-+ months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: N/A a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 __ month __ c. Approximate completion date of final phase __ month __ d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 10.Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0__. year (including demolition). year. Yes No Yes X No -+60 ; after project is complete -+5 11.Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? If yes, explain Yes X No 12.Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes X 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 X No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? If yes, explain: Yes X No 15.Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Yes X No 16.Will the project generate solid waste? X Yes No a. If yes, what is the amount per month -+11 tons. (Based on 2.3 lbs~capita-assuming 2.4 occupants per dwelling) b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? X Yes No c. If yes, give name Town of Southold Resource Recovery Facilit~ location N/S of Middle Country Road & W/O Cox Lane d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If yes, explain Yes X No 4 17.Will the project tnvo vet e disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? Yes~ X No tons/month. years. 18.Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes X No 19.Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X No 20.Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Yes X No 21.Will project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes __ No If yes, indicate type(s) Fossil fuels/electricity / 22.If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23.Total anticipated water usage per day ~allons/day. (Based on 300GPD/Dwelling, 0.3gpd for the clubhouse; 5 gp bather, 77 bather max; lOOgpd/tennis court ) 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If yes, explain Yes X No 25.Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City, Town Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other Local Agencies State Agencies DEC Other Regional Agencies Federal Agencies Type Submittal Date Yes X No X Yes Subdivision/Site June 2005 No Plan X Yes No S£ecialExcet~tion Pending X Yes No Sanitary/Water Pending Yes No Pending X Yes __ No SPDES Pending Yes X No Yes X No C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? X Yes No If yes, indicate decision required: zoning amendment __ zoning variance X special use permit X subdivision ~ site plan new/revision of master plan resource management plan other 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? HD-Hamlet Densit~ Residential 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoningjo, ooOSf maximumo lot sige, 25% maximum lot coverage What is the proposed zoning of the site? N/A What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? N/A 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? X_ Yes No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1/4 mile radi~us~o~f p,[rop,qosqd~ action? , Cotnmercialt residential~ agriculture; A-C-Agricultural Conservation, t~-o~t Residen-ttat~ Hit-Hamlet itustness 8. Is th~,re~proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/4 mile? X_._Yes 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? 11.Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)?. X Yes No a. Ifyes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? X Yes No 12.Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? Yes X No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? Yes No D. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid t'hem. E. VERIFICATION I certify that the information provided above is~s~e to tJl/e best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Marissa Da Breo ( ~.~ )xOtlD~2~ Date 6/15/05 Signature Title EnvironmentalAnalyst l~fefothe action is in the .Co.as. tal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form re proceeding witlt tltis assessment. 6 Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 150 Dwelling Units of Residential Condominium / Townhouse June 16, 2005 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total AM Pk Hr, Generator AM Pk Hr, Generator AM Pk Hr, Generator PM Pk Hr, Generator PM Pk Hr, Generator PM Pk Hr, Generator Saturday 2-Way Volume Saturday Peak Hour Enter Saturday Peak Hour Exit Saturday Peak Hour Total Sunday 2-Way Volume Sunday Peak Hour Enter Sunday Peak Hour Exit Sunday Peak Hour Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 5.86 3.09 1.00 879 0.07 0.00 1.00 11 0.37 0.00 1.00 56 0.44 0.69 1.00 66 0.35 0.00 1.00 53 0.17 0.00 1.00 26 0.52 0.75 1.00 78 0.08 0.00 1.00 12 0.36 0.00 1.00 54 0.44 0.68 1.00 66 0.33 0.00 1.00 50 0.19 0.00 1.00 29 0.52 0.75 1.00 78 5.67 3.10 1.00 851 0.25 0.00 1.00 38 0.22 0.00 1.00 33 0.47 0.71 1.00 71 4.84 2.71 1.00 726 0.22 0.00 1.00 33 0.23 0.00 1.00 35 0.45 0.70 1.00 68 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Town of Southold INSTRUCTIONS 1. LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FOR~I , All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Sonthold Ware.fir. ~?j~. ~eview Law~ -This assessment is intended t~ supplement other information used making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other mini~terial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer o£ this form should review the exemp~ 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 ~s answered yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. B. SCrM# A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's webeite (southoldtown.northfork.neO, the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office, DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION 1000 . 102-01 33,3 The Application has been submitted m (check appropriate response): TownBoard [~ Planning Dept. [] BufldingDept. [] BoardofTrustees 1. Category of Town of Sou,hold agency action (ehe~k appropriate response): (a) Aciion undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital conslxuction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) (¢) Permit, approval, license, certification: Nature and extent of action: _Prc,~:~:l single family ~ondomlnlum unite, t39 pmpo~ '~ _ .,Y~I and detached unite, ~ and okler, age dwellings including ~4 single family affordable units. The proposed proJe~ aisc* includes eaeogleted site amenrdes; e.g. clubhouse, tennis courts, roadways and ponds ~ waler Faat;~re~. Location of action: 78 ~.hool House Road, Cutchogue, Town of $outhold Site acreage: 46.17 acres ~PX'CSC~Lt land. use: Fallow farm lancI Present zoning classification: HD - Hamlet Densit~ ResiCelll~al If an application for the proposed action has been filed with ~he Town of Southold agency, thc following information shall be provided: (a) Name of applicant: The Harifage at Cutct~ogue, LLC Co) Mailing address: 1721-D North Ocesa Avei~ue, Msdford, NY 1176~1 (c) Telephone number: Area Code ( ) 631-207-5730 (d) Application number, if any: Will the action be directly undertaken, require fimding, or approval by a state or federal agency?. Yes [] No [] If yes, which state or federal agency? DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern ofdevelopment in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes effficient.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. DYes [] No ~ Not.Applicable A proposed proem is located wilhin a Iow densi[y residential area t~t ia ~in ~lkin~ di~ of~e ~mlet ~ C~h~oo burns ~gr. N~ I~d in an a~ z~ ~r ~m~ dens~ residential devilment, ~ ~i~es ~ ~e T~'s mawr p~n ~ enhan~ng ~b~ msidenQel ames, pm~ng ag~um, epen s~ and environmen~l~ sensiU~ ~u~. Affach additional sheets if nece, zsaO' Policy 2. Protect smd preserve historic and archa~lo~ieal resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section HI- Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation crlteri~ [] Yes [] No [] Not Applicable NO historical or archaeologica resources are known to exist on or adjacent to the project site. The sits was pmviouNy used as Attach additional sheets if neosssary Policy 3. Epbnnce visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Seetioa HI - Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluatioa criteria [] Yes [] No [] Not Applicable The site is currengy f~llow fs~lmnd with no existing s~u~ums. The proposed residential units would be se~bsck i~ofi~ the ro~d and oriented so aa to preserve the steep slopes end original land forms near School House Lane, Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST EOLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of llfe, m'uctures, and ~mtural r~ourc~ from floomn~ and erosion. See LWRP Section IH - Policies Pa~es 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria [] Yes [] No [] Not Applicable The site is not loc, amd along a ah~mlifle no~ In a floocl prone zone. Attach additional sheets if neccssa~ Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Soathold. See LWRP Section IH - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria [] Yes [~ No ~N0t Applicable Tho proposed project will protect the water quality of the underlying sol soume aquihgr through the sound use of fertilizer in 26.67 acres of fertil[~,ec:l landscape areaS. The mtentio~ of stormwater runoff gesemted on-site and the treatment of site generated sewage to an acceptable discharge load of less than 10 mg/L of total n~ogen as determined by the Suffolk Couot~ Department of Health Setvk~s and 10 state standers by typical se~c tank sewage disposal systems. Attach additional sheets if ncc~ssapy Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosys~ns Including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section IH - Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evnlunfion criteria. [] Yes [--]No [] Not Applicable No weUands or rare ecological communitie~ exist ~'~-site. Addlttooally, no rare plant species a;e 8ntiGipaled to exist on-Site. Attach additional ~heets if necessa~ Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of SouthoM. See LWI~ Section III - Policies Pages -~2 through 34 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [~NoD NotApplieable The project will not result in any signfflcant contribution of {~oIlu~artt$ to tbs air from vdhirJos or other typicat residential ab-'tiviltss. Attach additional sheets ifncc~ss8~ Policy 8. Minimize environmental degraa~oa 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 The propoead develoDmsnt will adhere to the Town's garage disposal and recycling system. The project will ,~tl~ the Town's 8olid wt~e ~ranefer facility. Additionally, the development would limit the use of ~sticldes to tar0et aot~ml peat populations and minimize expeaum to. people and wildlife. No toxic or hazardous substances em exoectad other than commOn household cleaners. PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide f~r public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of 0,~ Town of Southold, See LWRP Section HI- Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. [] Y~] No [] Not Applicable No c~astal or public lands or publio ~ourcos exist on the subject paR. Attae, h additional, sheets if n~w, essary WOI~K~NG COAST POLIC[~; Policy 10. ~ot~ Sou~old's w~r~nd~t ~ ~d p~m~e s~g of ~w water~ndent ~ ~ silk ~o~. ~ L~ ~on III - Pollci~; Pag~ 47 through S6 for ~luaflou cflte~a. Y" ~ NO ~ Not Appli~bl. No tidal or freshwater wetlands exist m or adjacent to the propm'ty. At'rash additional sheets if necessa~ Policy 11. Promote sust*i-nble use of living marine resources in Long Xsland Sound, the Peconlc Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section IH - Policies; Pages ~? through 62 for evaluation criteria. DYes [] No~] Not Applicable No marine raseuroes are located on or acljaoent to the properly. Attach additional shee~ ffnesessar~ Policy 12. Protest agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III- Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. r~Yes [] No[~] NotApplicablc The aim Is zoned to acoommodate residsntlal use and development. A 35' minimum buffer Is pm~?ea between the proposed reside.~el units and neighboring properties to the no*theast and nolthwesL These neighboring probeffies em d~,l!~-eted as agricultural conse~ation !and and will not be impacted due to the proposed buffer. The proposed rosident~al use is consistent with the other surrounding uses and s~ll provides a 35' minimum buffer. Alt,,~h addilional ah~'t.l ifneee~s~y Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and ,-In~ral resources. See LWRP Section HI- Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [] No [] Not Appficable The proposed projset promotes the conservation of energy resources by being situated within a walkable distance to the hamlet center and, there[om, eg~ourages pedestrian ~ransport to local business and COmmunity faoilltles. Created on 5/'25/05 11:20 AM TOTAL P.~E, MEMORANDUM From: Date: Subject: Accounting Planning January 20, 2009 Environmental Review check from applicant Attached is a $2,000 check from an applicant meant to reimburse the Planning Department's Environmental Consultant line (B8020-4-500-300) for review of an application before the Planning Board, as allowed for under SEQR. Please deposit to deferred account. Thank you. Enc. TOWN 04 · .E.E.,~oI~~ ~%%O~E. u.c '~ 2 0 3 9 DATE INVOICE NO. DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT DEDUCTION BALANCE 1-15-09 1/15/09 DEIS Review 2000.00 .00 2000.00 c.~c~,,~ ~ c.~o~,,~ I s> ~ . 1--15-09 NUMBEm,. 2039 TOTAL 2000.0 .0( 2000.00 THE HERITAGE AT CUTCHOGUE, LLC 1721~D NORTH OCEAN AVE. MEDFORD, NY 11763 .2039 Pa:y: **************************************************** dollars and no cents Town of Southold DA~ CHECK NO. AMOU~ 1-15~2009 2039 $******2,000.00 PAY TO 134E ORDER OF Town Of Southold P,O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Date: 10/17/05 * * * RECEIPT * * * ReceiptS: 1054 Transaction(s): 1 1 Application Fees Reference Subtotal 102-1-3 $70,050.00 Check#:1054 Total Paid: $70,050.00 Name: Heritage, At Cutchogue The Hamlet At Cutchogue 4250 Veterals Hwy, Ste 300b Holbrook, NY 11741 LINDAC Clerk ID: Internal ID: 102-1-33.3 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN II. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 O~'vICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 To: From: Date: Re: MEMORANDUM Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Planning Department October 17, 2005 Check(s) RECEIVED OCT I 7 2005 $o"'~,~'~d Town Clerk Enclosed herewith is/are the check(s) listed below. Please return a receipt to us. Thank you. Project Name Project Type SCTM # Amount Check # The Heritage at Cutchogue Site Plan 102-1-33.3 $70,050.00 1054 AppI. Fee enc(s). PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Re: Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Planning Department October 17, 2005 Check(s) Enclosed herewith is/are the check(s) listed below. Please return a receipt to us. Thank you. Project Name Project Type SCTM # Amount Check # The Heritage at Cutchogue Site Plan 102-1-33.3 $70,050.00 1054 AppI. Fee THE HAMLET AT CUTHOGUE 4250 VETERANS HIGHWAY SUITE 300B HOLSROOK, NY 11741 PAY 3RDER OF . - NnRTH O^TE t'f 50~791/214 7 DOLLARS